TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE -...

Wednesday, May 1, 2013 9:00 AM

Agenda

Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority

TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE

Gateway Conference Room

FY 2014 Budget Workshop Information 30 min (Frank Shapiro)

1. Call to Order/Roll Call Action (Fanny Pan, Matthew Abbott)

2. Agenda Reports by Standing Committees Information Bus Operations (Joyce Rooney) Local Transit Systems (Ryan Thompson) Streets and Freeways (Nancy Villasenor) TDM/Air Quality (Mark Yamarone) Attachment 1: Subcommittee Agendas Attachment 2: Subcommittee Actions 5 min

3. Chairperson’s Report Information

April Board Recap (handout) (Fanny Pan) 2013 Call for Projects Deobligation TAC

Appeals List (handout) 4. Consent Calendar Action

Approval of Minutes Attachment 3: Draft April 3, 2013 Minutes

5. Union Station Master Plan Information

30 min (Jenna Hornstock)

6. Call for Projects Signage Information 10 min (Lynda Bybee/Fanny Pan)

7. 2013 Call for Projects Information/Possible Action Attachment 4: April Board Report (Rena Lum) 15 min

Revised

8. Short Range Transportation Plan Information 5 min (Rena Lum)

9. LACMTA Green Construction Policy Information

10 min (Cris Liban)

10. Congestion Mitigation Fee Information 5 min (Robert Calix)

11. FY 10-12 Triennial Performance Review Information 15 min (Armineh Saint/Jim Moore & Associates)

12. Legislative Update Information

Federal (Michael Turner/Marisa Yeager) State 15 min

13. Countywide Safe Routes To School Strategic Plan Information

20 min (Tham Nguyen)

14. Other Business

15. Adjournment

TAC Minutes and Agendas can be accessed at: http://www.metro.net/about/tac/ Please call Matthew Abbott at (213) 922-3071 or e-mail [email protected] with questions regarding the agenda or meeting. The next meeting will be on June 5, 2013 at 9:30 a.m. in the William Mulholland Conference Room.

Attachment 1

Subcommittee Agendas – May 2013

Bus Operations April 16, 2013

Local Transit Systems Did not meet in April

Streets and Freeways April 18, 2013

TDM/Air Quality Did not meet in April

3

Tuesday, April 16, 2013

Agenda


BUS OPERATIONS SUBCOMMITTEE Mulholland Conference Room-15th Floor 9:30 am

1. Call to Order (1 minute)

Action Joyce Rooney

2. Approval of March 19, 2013 Minutes (1 minute)

Action BOS

3. Chair’s Report (5 minutes)

Information Joyce Rooney

4. FTA Updates (10 minutes)

Information Jonathan Klein/Charlene Lee Lorenzo

5. Legislative Report (10 minutes)

Information Raffi Hamparian/Marisa Yeager Michael Turner

6. Metro Call for Projects Signage (10 minutes)

Information Fanny Pan/Lynda Bybee

7. FY 2010-2012 Triennial Performance Review (10 minutes)

Information Armineh Saint

8. BOS Vice Chair and TAC Representative Nomination (10 minutes)

Action Joyce Rooney

4

9. FY14 FTA 5307 15% Discretionary Capital

& 1% ATI Funds Application (40 minutes)

Action Lois Smith

10. New Business

Information All

11. Adjournment Information Items: 90-day Rolling Agenda Summary of Invoices FY 2012 Summary of EZ Pass Invoices Subsidy Matrix FY11-12 TDA-STA Capital Claims TDA-STA Claims Regional Pass Sales

BOS Agenda Packages can be accessed online at: http://www.metro.net/about_us

Please call ANNELLE ALBARRAN at 213-922-4025 or ILDA LICON at 213-922-2805 if you have questions regarding the agenda or meeting. The next BOS meeting will be held on April 16, 2013 at 9:30 am in the Mulholland Conference Room, 15th Floor of the Gateway Building.

5

http://www.metro.net/about_us

Thursday, April 18, 2013 9:30 a.m.

Agenda


Streets and Freeways Subcommittee

Mulholland Conference Room, 15th Floor

1. Call to Order Action (Bahman Janka) 1 min 2. Approval of Minutes Action (Subcommittee) Attachment 1: Draft March 21, 2013 Minutes Attachment 2: Sign in Sheet/Attendance Sheet Attachment 3: 90-Day Rolling Agenda 1 min 3. Chair Report Information (Bahman Janka) 5 min 4. Metro Report Information (Ben Jong) 5 min

5. State and Federal Legislative Update Information (Raffi Hamparian/

10 min Marisa Yeager/Michael Turner) 6. Caltrans Report Information (David Sosa) 10 min 7. CTC Update Information (Patricia Chen) 10 min 8. Short Range Transportation Plan Information (Rena Lum) 5 min 9. 2013 Call for Projects Information (Rena Lum) 10 min

6

10. Call for Projects Signage Information (Fanny Pan/ 10 min Lynda Babee) 11. Congestion Mitigation Fee Information (Robert Calix) 10 min 12. Bicycle Data Clearinghouse Project Information (Tony Jusay) 10 min 13. LACMTA Green Construction Policy and Cap & Trade Information (Cris Liban) 30 min 14. New Business Discussion (Subcommittee) 5 min 15. Adjournment Action (Subcommittee) 1 min The next meeting of the Streets and Freeways Subcommittee will be held on May 16, 2013 at 9:30 a.m. on the 15th Floor, William Mulholland Conference Room. Please contact Benkin Jong at (213) 922-3053 should you have any questions or comments regarding this or future agendas. Agendas can be accessed online at: http://www.metro.net/about/sfs/

7

http://www.metro.net/about/sfs/

Attachment 2

Subcommittee Actions

8

Disposition of April 2013 Subcommittee Actions

Bus Operations Subcommittee:

Approved minutes for March 19, 2013 Approved Paula Faust to replace Ian Dailey as new BOS Vice Chair. Effective in

June. Voted on the distribution of the FY14 FTA 5307 15% Discretionary Capital and

1% ATI Funds

Local Transit Systems Subcommittee:

Did not meet in April Voted by email and approved Prop A 5% of 40% Incentive Subregional

Paratransit funding marks.

Streets and Freeways Subcommittee:

Approved minutes for March 21, 2013

TDM/Air Quality Subcommittee:

Did not meet in April

9

Attachment 3

April 3, 2013 TAC Minutes

April 3, 2013 Sign-In Sheets

TAC Member Attendance

10

TAC Minutes, April 3, 2013 1

Wednesday, April 3, 2013 9:30 A.M.

Meeting Minutes

Los Angeles CountyMetropolitan Transportation Authority

TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE

1. Call to Order/Roll CallMatthew Abbott (Alternate Chair) called the meeting to order at 9:33 a.m., took roll anddeclared a quorum was present.

2. Agenda Reports by Standing CommitteesBus Operations Subcommittee (BOS) (Joyce Rooney)

Last meet on March 19, 2013

Received updates on:o MAP-21 fundingo FTA 5307 funding allocation

Discussed the FY 14 FTA 5307 15% discretionary capital and 1% Associated TransitImprovement funds application process

Received FY 14 Formula Allocation Process draft funding marks

A motion was passed to approve distribution of Prop 1B bridge funding over a 2 yearperiod rather than a 4 year period

Next meeting will be held on April 16, 2013Local Transit Systems Subcommittee (LTSS) (Ryan Thompson)

Did not meet in March.

Voted by email on the 3rd review of Proposition A 5% of 40% Incentive SubregionalParatransit funding marks.

Next meeting is scheduled for April 25, 2013Streets & Freeways (Nancy Villasenor)

Last met on March 21, 2013

Received updates on:o Measure R Project Finance Acceleration Plano Round 3 of TOD grant programo I-710 South projecto Gateway Cities Goods Movement Technology Plan

11


A new Vice Chair will be elected in April to replace Steve Forster (City of Lamirada).Charlie Honeycutt (City of Signal Hill) will now represent the Gateway Cities as theprimary representative. Ben Jong will staff the meetings while Fulgene Asuncion is onfamily leave.

In order to improve communication between the subcommittees and TAC, thequarterly meeting will resume between the TAC Chairperson and SubcommitteeChairpersons and a summary of TAC meeting be provided as part of the Metro staffreport at the Subcommittee meetings.

Next meeting is scheduled for April 18, 2013TDM/Air Quality (Phil Aker)

Did not meet in March.

Next meeting is TBD.

3. Chairperson’s Report (Fanny Pan, MTA)A handout of the March 28th Board recap was distributed in lieu of an oral report. Withregards to the 2013 Recertification and Deobligation process, Ms. Pan reported that the list ofprojects that are required to appeal at the June TAC meeting will be available by the May 1st

TAC meeting. Ms. Pan reminded TAC members to expect a longer meeting on June 5th due tothe TAC Deobligation appeal hearing.

Ms. Pan reported that:

Staff met with the Green Construction Policy (GCP) Technical Working Group inMarch to discuss elements of the GCP Board Box Update. In addition, staff iscontinuing to organize training sessions with the Air Resources Board (ARB). The nextclass will most likely be early Summer 2013.

MTA has issued 134,187 FasTrak transponders and account openings are on anupward trend. Performance data on the 110 ExpressLanes show that peak periodtravel speeds have been above 45 MPH 100% of the time which exceeds the FederalHighway Administration (FHWA) requirements. Average weekday trips increased 23%from 39,820 at opening to 49,017, which is 96% of the “before” volume of 50,000. Ofthese trips, 60% have been HOV 2+ (toll free) and 40% single-occupancy vehicle (tollpaying). Data on the I-10 ExpressLanes will continue to be collected over the next fewmonths.

Julian Burke, former MTA CEO from 1997-2001, passed away on Saturday, March 29th.

The California Transportation Commission (CTC) appointed Andre Boutros asExecutive Director on March 25th.

Governor Jerry Brown appointed Katherine Perez-Estolano to the California HighSpeed Rail Board on March 28th.

4. Consent CalendarA motion to approve the March 6, 2013 minutes was made by Mohammad Mostahkami(League of Cities – Gateway Cities COG) and seconded by Paul Maselbas (County of LosAngeles). Robert Newman (League of Cities – San Fernando Valley COG) abstained. Theminutes were approved with no objections.

12


5. Park and Ride Demonstration Project (Robin Blair, MTA)Mr. Blair reported that MTA has property which is not currently designated for a particularuse, such as joint development or potential transit projects. The Park and RideDemonstration Project is looking at methods for developing these facilities as temporarilypark and ride lots. The Board approved staff to look into installing temporary materials thatwould allow 5-10 years of use with minimal expenses. The North Hollywood Station will bethe first study area.

Mr. Blair reminded the TAC that MTA’s 2013 Parking Forum is on April 11th from 7:45 am to3:00 pm in the William Mulholland Room on the 15th floor.

5. 2013 Call for Projects (Rena Lum, MTA)Ms. Lum reported that the Call for Projects (CFP) application evaluations are underway.Some applications have been switched to different modal categories due to ineligible projectcomponents. For future CFPs, Ms. Lum strongly encouraged project sponsors to contactMTA modal leads before submitting applications in order to verify that each projectcomponent is eligible within the modal category.

There is approximately $200 million available in the 2013 CFP. Of that amount, $150 millionis programmed for the 2013 cycle with approximately $50 million additional funds frompreviously deobligated projects.

Ms. Lum reported that Board approval of the preliminary modal funding marks is scheduledin April. The board report will address the February Board approved motion (Item 18)regarding the enhancement of active transportation planning and implementation. In June,the preliminary project funding recommendations (Rainbow Report) will be presented to theBoard and will be released in July. MTA staff will be reviewing the Rainbow Report with theTAC subcommittees during the week of July 15th. A special TAC meeting will be scheduledduring the week of July 22nd to review the Rainbow Report (As result of email votes by TACmembers, the special TAC meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, July 24th). The TAC appealsare scheduled for July 30 and 31, 2013. Staff will seek final Board adoption of the 2013 CFP inSeptember.

6. Short Range Transportation Plan (SRTP) (Rena Lum, MTA)Ms. Lum reported that MTA is continuing the technical process. She reminded the TAC thatrecommendations will reflect the Board adopted priorities and sequencing of projectsconsistent with the 2009 Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP). A draft SRTP is anticipatedto be available Spring 2014. MTA will be conducting outreach after the draft SRTP is released.

Mr. Mostahkami asked if the SRTP is updated every 3 years? Ms. Lum replied no. The SRTPis updated when the Board recommends it. The last SRTP update was done in 2003.

7. Bicycle Data Clearinghouse Project (Anthony Jusay, MTA)Mr. Jusay reported that the Bicycle Data Clearinghouse Project will establish standards forcollecting bicycle data on roadways and develop an accessible online clearinghouse to storethe data. This project will help identify areas with high bicycle activity in order to better

13


prioritize projects. The project is in partnership with the Southern California Association ofGovernments (SCAG). Funding for the project is administered by Caltrans and funded by theFederal Highway Administration (FHWA) through a partnership planning grant.

Eric Bruins (Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition) provided a presentation on the BicycleData Clearinghouse Project. The Clearinghouse aims to provide a better understanding ofbicycle ridership dynamics so that future bicycle investments can achieve the most costeffectiveness. Mr. Bruins reported that there is a lack of consistency in data collection on theeffectiveness of bicycle infrastructure. This effort creates standardization for collecting bicycleand pedestrian count data so that stronger conclusions between infrastructure and usage canbe drawn. Mr. Bruins reported that the online Clearinghouse will take all of the standardizedbicycle and pedestrian count data across Los Angeles County and compile it in a single place.

Mr. Bruins reported that a SCAG workshop will be held on June 25th to go over how to use thecount manual and how to upload the data onto the clearinghouse website. For moreinformation, contact Eric Bruins at [email protected].

Nancy Villasenor (City of Long Beach) asked what is being done to encourage cities to useand contribute to the database? Mr. Bruins replied that participation in the clearinghouse iscurrently voluntary. Mr. Jusay added that before and after counts are currently required aspart of funded CFP projects in the bicycle mode since 2009. In the future, participation couldpotentially be made mandatory in all CFP applications.

Larry Stevens (League of Cities – San Gabriel Valley COG) asked how many of the citiesalready have bicycle count data? Mr. Bruins responded approximately 10 cities.

Ellen Blackman (American Disabilities Act Representative) asked how wheelchair users arecounted? Mr. Bruins clarified that wheelchair users are counted as pedestrians, but specifiesthem as wheelchair users.

Mr. Mostahkami asked what is the goal of the count manual and how would agencies benefitfrom it? Mr. Bruins responded that the goal is to establish a standardized way to collectbicycle data so that comparisons can be made when predicting travel models during projectplanning. Mr. Bruins explained that as data is collected more frequently and consistently, astronger understanding is formed on how bicycle infrastructure affects ridership.

Mr. Mostahkami asked how often the Clearinghouse website would be updated? Mr. Bruinsresponded that the website will be updated and maintained by SCAG. Alan Thompson(SCAG), the SCAG project manager, responded that the project is creating a central repositoryof data so that each city and their neighboring cities can access it. Jurisdictions will be able toupdate their own data and reference neighboring city counts to see what types of projects aremost cost effective. Mr. Thompson explained that as each city collects data and updates theclearinghouse, the more it benefits the county as a whole. Mr. Thompson noted that theTransportation Research Board is using the Bicycle Data Clearinghouse Project as a model fora program that will be proposed nationwide in the future.

14


Mr. Mostahkami asked if the data includes collision data? Mr. Bruins clarified that theclearinghouse data does not include collision data, however that data is available throughother sources.

Marianne Kim (Automobile Club of California) asked where the initial bicycle count data camefrom? Mr. Bruins responded from the 2009 National Household Travel Survey as well as theCity of Los Angeles Bike counts. Ms. Kim asked how the data differentiates betweencommuter trips and recreational trips? Mr. Bruins responded that the counts were takenduring weekday morning and evening peak hours, and weekend midday. The trips during theweekday morning and evening peak hours are assumed to be mostly commuter trips.

Jessica Meaney (Safe Routes to School National Partnership) asked how the project fits inwith the Item 18 motion from Planning and Programming about enhancing activetransportation planning and implementation if the clearinghouse project only details bicyclecounts and not pedestrians? Mr. Thompson responded that further funding is needed inorder to start a phase 2 of the project that will address more detailed pedestrian countstandards.

The Bicycle Data Clearinghouse Project presentation can be found athttp://www.metro.net/about_us/committees/images/tac_presentation_apr_2013_bike.pdf.

8. Measure R Project Finance Acceleration Plan (David Yale, MTA)Mr. Yale reported that the Measure R Project Finance Acceleration Plan is a way for MTA toadvance “Funds Available Beginning” dates for transit and highway projects shown in theMeasure R Expenditure Plan. A notice to all cities in the county is required for a Measure Rproject acceleration amendment. Staff will go to the Board for approval to release the noticeof amendment in April. Staff will return to the Board for plan adoption in June.

The LRTP is being updated to reflect the current sales tax forecast. Sales tax revenue forecastshave dropped approximately 10% since Fiscal Year (FY) 2009. Mr. Yale reported that staff hasstarted a comprehensive State of Good Repair study in order to recommend acceleratedspending. State of Good Repair funding is needed sooner than expected and will beaddressed in the LRTP update.

Mr. Yale reported that accelerating Measure R transit and highway projects will create jobs,reduce vehicle miles traveled, increase transit boardings, and relieve congestion countywide.

The plan proposes to borrow a total of $10.2 billion in Measure R Senior Bonds,Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (TIFIA) funds, America FastForward funds, and taxable Measure R Funds to accelerate projects. Overall, the weightedaverage is 30 years to pay back the borrowed funds. After Measure R expires in 2040, the plancalls for the use of Prop A and C dollars to pay the remaining Measure R debt service.

Mr. Stevens asked what action is expected from the jurisdictions when the notice ofamendment is released? Mr. Yale replied that no action is required. MTA staff will bepresenting the amendment plan directly to the COGs in order to provide more information.

15


Mr. Bruins asked if bus operations will also be increased in order to accommodate the newtransit projects? Mr. Yale replied that the plan assumes that existing bus service would berestructured to serve the new transit projects. Other than what is included in the LRTP, thenew costs for bus services are not included.

Alberto Angelini (Caltrans) asks how Public-Private Partnership (PPP) projects fit into theMeasure R Project Finance Acceleration Plan? Mr. Yale replied that projects that do notreceive Measure R funding will not be accelerated by the amendment, regardless of whether itis a PPP. Mr. Yale noted that projects that are relying on PPP, such as the 710 CorridorProject and the Sepulveda Pass Transit Corridor, would still need to explore PPPs on theirown.

Karen Sakado (Southern California Regional Rail Authority) asked if Metrolink is included inthe State of Good Repair estimates? Mr. Yale replied that Metrolink only receives a smallportion of Measure R funds which is assumed to go primarily to State of Good RepairMetrolink capital needs. Mr. Yale reported that MTA has not worked with Metrolink onaccelerated funding, but is willing to discuss Metrolink acceleration needs.

Mr. Stevens asked if the Measure R amendment is taking money from projects that may needfunding in the future? Mr. Yale replied yes for projects that require funding after 2040.Projects that require funding before 2040 will not be affected. Mr. Stevens asked if theamendment affects Prop A and C Local Return Guidelines? Mr. Yale replied no.

The Measure R Project Finance Acceleration Plan presentation can be found athttp://www.metro.net/about_us/committees/images/tac_presentation_apr_2013_measure_r.pdf.

9. Metro’s Public-Private Partnership Program (Kathleen Sanchez, MTA)Ms. Sanchez reported that MTA is looking at potential Public-Private Partnerships as a way toaccelerate projects. In relation to the Measure R Finance Acceleration Plan where Federal andState money is borrowed to accelerate projects, a PPP program uses mostly private funds toaccelerate the projects and has a private company maintaining and operating the project for aperiod of time.

Ms. Sanchez reported that staff is looking at the Accelerated Regional TransportationImprovements (ARTI) Program as a potential PPP. ARTI is a collection of six distinct highwayprojects including the I-5 North capacity and pavement enhancement, the SR-71 gap projectsfrom the I-10 to Mission Blvd. and from Mission Blvd. to Rio Rancho Rd., and two soundwallprojects. ARTI is mostly fully environmentally cleared and funded. These six projects wereprogrammed over a period of 30 years and would not be completed until 2040. If a PPP isused, the projects could be completed in 2019.

Staff is also analyzing the Sepulveda Pass Transit Corridor as a potential PPP. If the project isdone as a PPP, it would be a tunnel through the pass containing a privately operated transitsystem and a privately operated toll highway system. Ms. Sanchez reported the East SanFernando Transit Corridor and the Airport Metro Connector are also being studied as relatedtransit projects to the Sepulveda Pass Transit Corridor. Staff will be starting preliminary cost

16


estimations, traffic studies, and revenue projections for these potential PPPs. Industryoutreach regarding the Sepulveda Pass Transit Corridor will begin in May. Recommendationsto the Board will be made by the end of 2013.

Ms. Sanchez reported that the High Desert Corridor and the 710 Freeway projects are alsobeing considered as potential PPPs.

10. Congestion Mitigation Fee (Robert Calix, MTA)Mr. Calix distributed copies of the Congestion Mitigation Fee (CMF) Pilot Nexus Studies tothe TAC members.

He reported that eight pilot nexus studies were completed at the request of the subregions.The Congestion Mitigation Fee Nexus Study looked at whether there is a reasonable linkbetween a mitigation fee, transportation projects, and congestion reduction. The completedstudy determined that local projects benefit subregional congestion reduction. Mr. Calixreported that 14 other counties in California have a type of Congestion Mitigation Feeprogram already established. Within Los Angeles County, 22 jurisdictions have a fee programalready established.

The CMF is a one-time fee collected at each jurisdiction’s planning office for all newdevelopment. The fee goes to fund transportation projects at a local level. The mitigation feecan vary by jurisdiction depending on estimated growth, projected trip generation rate, andcost per trip.

Staff will recommend to the Board in late Spring 2013 as to whether to adopt the CMFProgram, to establish a minimum level of compliance cost-per-trip amount, and designate animplementation period.

Mr. Mostahkami asked what the conclusions of the pilot nexus studies were? Mr. Calixresponded that each pilot nexus study located in the handout makes a technicalrecommendation at the end of the report. It has not been determined whether the CMF isgoing to be a countywide fee or vary by subregion.

Mr. Bruins asked if the trip generation amount for land use takes into account TransportationDemand Management (TDM) efforts? Mr. Calix responded that in the CMF Pilot NexusReport, each subregion has a different series of project categories that affects the CMF. Inthis way, projects with links to transit and bicycle infrastructure will use a different model todetermine the CMF. Mr. Calix reported that at this time, a model is being developed toquantify the benefits of bicycle infrastructure.

Mr. Stevens suggested that MTA examine how it addresses the CMF for projects that arerequired to do improvements through California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)mitigation. Mr. Calix replied that staff will work with jurisdictions individually in order to workout the best way to address issues.

17


11. Legislative Update (Michael Turner & Raffi Hamparian, MTA)StateDue to the new term limits, Mr. Turner reported that additional time is being taken to developBills and a higher number of Spot Bills are being submitted. The deadline to pass proposedBills through the Policy Committee is May 3rd, which is resulting in a lot of amendments. Staffwill present the amendments to the Board in April.

Mr. Turner noted a few highlights where new legislation is being proposed such as alternativefunding ideas using Infrastructure Financing Districts, CEQA reform, and a bill on charging avehicle license fee surcharge that could fund local transportation improvements.

Mr. Turner reported that the State budget situation has improved with the passage ofProposition 30. MTA took a set of principles to the Board in March advising that Cap andTrade Revenues be invested in transportation. The California Air Resources Board isconducting public hearings to form the Cap and Trade expenditure plan. A draft expenditureplan will be released with the May revise of the Governor’s Budget.

Mr. Turner reported that Secretary LaHood discussed the need to have a stable, long-termfunding plan within the State and recently began to convene stakeholders to discuss what canbe done.

FederalMr. Hamparian reported that the Federal budget will be released April 10th. No officialstatement has been made regarding Secretary LaHood’s replacement.

He reported that Congress passed a six month extension for Federal spending for the balanceof Federal FY 2013. The extension sets transportation funding levels consistent with MAP-21.This will permit the continuation of programs such as Transportation Infrastructure Financeand Innovation Act (TIFIA) and Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery(TIGER) Grants.

Mr. Hamparian reported that the final stages of negotiations began for the New Starts FullFunding Agreements with the U.S. Department of Transportation for the Westside SubwayExtension and the Regional Connector Transit Corridor. Total Federal transportation fundingfor Metro will be available Fall 2013.

12. AdjournmentMs. Pan reported that the next regularly scheduled TAC meeting is May 1, 2013 in theGateway Conference Room, on the 3rd floor. If you have questions regarding the next meeting,please contact Matthew Abbott at (213)922-3071 or email [email protected].

18

TE

CH

NIC

AL

AD

VIS

OR

YC

OM

MIT

TE

E(T

AC

)

Att

en

dan

ce

Reco

rd

ME

MB

ER

SA

ND

AL

TE

RN

AT

ES

AG

EN

CY

Se

pt

Oc

tN

ov

Ja

nF

eb

Ma

rA

pr

Ma

yJ

un

eJ

uly

Au

gS

ep

tO

ct

No

vJ

an

Fe

bM

ar

Ap

r

(Nam

e)

20

11

20

11

20

11

20

12

20

12

20

12

20

12

20

12

20

12

20

12

20

12

20

12

20

12

20

12

20

13

20

13

20

13

20

13

Ma

ria

nn

eK

im/S

tep

he

nF

inn

eg

an

(A)

AU

TO

CL

UB

XX

XX

XX

XX

XX

XX

Joyc

eR

oo

ne

y/S

usa

nL

ipm

an

(A)

BO

SS

UB

CO

MM

ITT

EE

XX

XX

XX

XX

XX

XX

XX

XX

XX

Ian

Da

iley/

Jan

eL

eo

pa

rd(A

)B

OS

SU

BC

OM

MIT

TE

EX

XX

XX

XX

XX

XX

XX

X

Sg

t.C

ind

yP

on

tes/

Ofc

.C

hrist

ian

Cra

cra

ft(A

)C

HP

XX

XX

XX

XX

XX

XX

XX

XX

X

Alb

ert

oA

ng

elin

i/Jim

my

Sh

ih(A

)C

AL

TR

AN

SX

XX

XX

XX

XX

XX

XX

Da

vid

So

sa/V

ijay

Ko

pp

ara

m(A

)C

AL

TR

AN

SX

XX

XX

XX

X

Elle

nB

lack

ma

n/J

oh

nW

hitb

rea

d(A

)C

ITIZ

EN

RE

PO

NA

DA

XX

XX

XX

XX

XX

XX

XX

XX

X

Na

ncy

Vill

ase

no

r/M

ark

Ch

rist

offe

ls(A

)L

ON

GB

EA

CH

XX

XX

XX

XX

XX

XX

XX

XX

Jam

es

Le

fto

n/C

orin

ne

Ra

lph

(A)

CIT

YO

FL

OS

AN

GE

LE

SX

XX

XX

XX

XX

XX

XX

XX

X

Za

kiM

ust

afa

/Ke

nH

ust

ing

(A)

CIT

YO

FL

OS

AN

GE

LE

SX

XX

XX

XX

XX

XX

XX

XX

XX

X

Fe

rdy

Ch

an

/Sh

irle

yL

au

(A)

CIT

YO

FL

OS

AN

GE

LE

SX

XX

XX

XX

XX

XX

XX

XX

XX

Le

on

Fre

em

an

/Tro

yE

va

ng

elh

o(A

)C

OU

NT

YO

FL

OS

AN

GE

LE

SX

XX

XX

XX

XX

XX

XX

XX

Joh

nW

alk

er/

Alla

nA

bra

mso

n(A

)C

OU

NT

YO

FL

OS

AN

GE

LE

SX

XX

XX

XX

XX

XX

XX

XX

X

Pa

tric

kD

eC

he

llis/

Pa

ulM

ase

lba

s(A

)C

OU

NT

YO

FL

OS

AN

GE

LE

SX

XX

XX

XX

XX

XX

X

Da

vid

Krisk

e/D

en

nis

Wo

od

s(A

)A

RR

OY

OV

ER

DU

GO

CIT

IES

XX

XX

XX

XX

XX

XX

XX

XX

Mo

ha

mm

ad

Mo

sta

hka

mi/L

isa

Ra

pp

(A)

GA

TE

WA

YC

ITIE

SC

OG

XX

XX

XX

XX

XX

XX

XX

XX

X

Ro

be

rtB

rag

er/

Ra

miro

Ad

eva

(A)

LA

SV

IRG

EN

ES

MA

LIB

UC

OG

XX

XX

XX

XX

XX

XX

XX

XX

X

Mik

eB

eh

en

/Nic

ole

Riz

zo(A

)N

OR

TH

L.A

.C

OU

NT

YX

XX

XX

XX

XX

XX

XX

XX

XX

La

rry

Ste

ve

ns/

Cra

igB

rad

sha

w(A

)S

AN

GA

BR

IEL

VA

LL

EY

CO

GX

XX

XX

XX

XX

XX

XX

XX

XX

X

Ro

be

rtN

ew

ma

n/V

aca

nt(A

)S

AN

FE

RN

AN

DO

VA

LL

EY

CO

GX

XX

XX

Ro

be

rtB

est

e/T

ed

Se

ma

an

(A)

SO

UT

HB

AY

CIT

IES

CO

GX

XX

XX

XX

XX

XX

XX

XX

X

Da

vid

Fe

inb

erg

/Sh

aro

nP

erlst

ein

(A)

WE

ST

SID

EC

ITIE

SX

XX

XX

XX

XX

XX

XX

XX

XX

Rya

nT

ho

mp

son

/Ka

thry

nE

ng

el(

A)

LT

SS

XX

XX

XX

XX

XX

XX

XX

Ale

xG

on

zale

z/Jo

eB

arr

ios

(A)

LT

SS

XX

XX

XX

XX

XX

XX

XX

Fa

nn

yP

an

/Ma

tth

ew

Ab

bo

tt(A

)M

ET

RO

XX

XX

XX

XX

XX

XX

XX

XX

XX

Joh

nD

rayt

on

/Ch

rist

op

he

rG

alla

ne

s(A

)M

ET

RO

An

ne

Lo

uis

eR

ice

/Ka

ren

Sa

kod

a(A

)S

CR

RA

XX

XX

XX

X

Eyv

on

ne

Dru

mm

on

ds/

Ka

thry

nH

igg

ins

(A)

SC

AQ

MD

XX

XX

XX

X

Wa

rre

nW

hite

ake

r/A

nn

ieN

am

(A)

SC

AG

XX

Lu

pe

Va

lde

z/L

aD

on

na

DiC

am

illo

(A)

GO

OD

SM

OV

EM

EN

TR

EP

XX

XX

XX

Ma

rkY

am

aro

ne

/Ph

ilA

ker

(A)

TD

M/A

QS

UB

CO

MM

ITT

EE

XX

XX

XX

XX

XX

XX

Ma

rkH

un

ter/

Bro

oke

Ge

er

Pe

rso

n(A

)T

DM

/AQ

SU

BC

OM

MIT

TE

EX

XX

XX

XX

XX

XX

XX

X

23

Attachment 4

April Board Report

2013 Call For Projects

24

Los Angeles CountyMetropolitan Transportation Authority

Metro

One Gateway Plaza zi3.gzs.z000 TelLos Angeles, CA 9oo~z-z95i metro.net

REVISED

PLANNING AND PROGRAMMING COMMITTEEAPRIL 17, 2013

SUBJECT: 2013 CALL FOR PROJECTS

ACTION: APPROVE PRELIMINARY FUNDING MARKS/FUND ESTIMATE

RECOMMENDATION

Approve the following actions for the 2013 Countywide Call for Projects:

A. Preliminary Transportation Modal Category Funding Marks and PreliminaryFund Estimate of $150 million;

B. Reprogram $49.3 million from the 2012 Countywide Call for Projects (Call)Deobligations to the 2013 Call; and

C. Receive and file report on the response to the February 20, 2013 Board motionregarding active transportation.

ISSUE

To allocate transportation funds now available for regionally significant projects thatpublic agencies may implement, we initiated the 2013 Call for Projects. To proceedwith project funding recommendations, the Board needs to approve the preliminarytransportation modal category marks and the preliminary fund estimate shown inAttachments A and B, respectively, so that the amount of funds per modal category canbe determined. We are recommending that the Board reprogram funds from the 2012Countywide Call for Projects Deobligations to the 2013 Call for Projects.

DISCUSSION

The preliminary modal category funding marks (Attachment A) are based on theregional program direction provided in the adopted 2009 Long Range TransportationPlan (LRTP). The fund estimate of $150 million (Attachment B) is based on the 2011funding availability and priorities as adopted by the Board. The regional significanceand demonstrated mobility benefit of the specific projects that eligible sponsors haveproposed will be used to select the projects to be funded. The preliminary fundestimate is based on federal, state, and local funds forecasts used in the adopted 2009

25

LRTP (as updated in November 2011 and approved by the Board) plus the funds fromdeobligated projects.

Background

Federal statute (Title 23 U.S.C. 134 (g) & (h)) and state statute (P.U.C. 130303) requireus to prepare a Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) for Los Angeles County.The TIP allocates revenues across all surface transportation modes based on theplanning requirements of the federal Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21St Century Act(MAP-21).

We accomplish these mandates, in part, by programming transportation revenuesthrough the Call for Projects process wherein Los Angeles County jurisdictions andtransit agencies may apply for funding for regionally significant projects. Theseregionally significant projects are often beyond the fiscal capabilities of local sponsors,and the Call for Projects process provides an opportunity for these projects to befunded to meet the County's transportation needs. The Call for Projects implementsour multi-modal programming responsibilities for Los Angeles County and the Board-adopted 2009 LRTP.

Funding Marks

The preliminary fund estimate is based on the Board-adopted 2009 LRTP assumptions,as updated in November 2011 and approved by the Board, and includes federal, state,and local funds. Forecasts for the local fund sources in Attachment B are consistentwith the LRTP update and our debt policy. Federal funding forecasts are based onhistorical trends, but are adjusted to reflect federal Highway Trust Fund growth ratesand possible downside risks (e.g., possible reductions in amounts of CongestionMitigation and Air Quality Improvement [CMAQ] Program funds). In accordance withMAP-21, we are working with the Southern California Association of Governments(SCAG), the Regional SCAG CEO Committee, and other County TransportationCommissions to address how the federal Transportation Alternatives (TA) Programfunding source impacts the 2013 Call for Projects as well as the projects funded in priorCalls. We are assuming future federal reauthorizations will fund the TransportationEnhancement Activities (TEA) program at levels similar to its historic level and thatprogramming authority for this program will return from SCAG to MTA. State fundforecasts also are based on historical trends, but do not reflect growth assuming higherpriority needs such as state highway safety, maintenance, and operating costs. Thespecific funding sources chosen for the 2013 Call for Projects are subject to changebased upon the projects finally selected and other factors, including eligibility andavailability.

The modal category funding marks are provided as preliminary minimums (percentagefor each mode) and are based on the relative modal shares from the Board-adopted2009 LRTP, combined with the Board-approved motion on September 16, 2010 withregard to increasing the bicycle modal funding percentage from 7 to 15 percent. The

2013 Call For Projects Page 2

26

Board will need to determine the final funding levels for each category based on theregional significance and demonstrated mobility benefit of the specific projects that theeligible sponsors submitted in the 2013 Call for Projects process.

Per the September 2009 motion, the Board directed that afive- to ten-percent reservebe established for all future Calls for meritorious projects that were denied funding.Staff initially created aten-percent reserve fund for the 2013 Call for Projects. Inaccordance with the September 2010 Board motion, staff has shifted a portion of thereserve to increase the bicycle improvements funding mark from $11.1 million to $22.5million, leaving a $4.2 million (2.8%) reserve balance.

Reprogramming of Funding from 2012 Deobli aty ions

Through the 2012 Call for Projects Deobligation process, a total of $49.3 million infunding was approved for deobligation. Staff is preliminarily proposing that the Boardapprove the reprogramming of funds from the 2012 Countywide Call for ProjectsDeobligations to the 2013 Call for Projects in the modal categories from where theyoriginated, pending the merit review of each application.

Response to Board Motion

Attachment C is both the February 20, 2013 Board motion by Directors Wilson, Huizar,DuBois, and Fasana regarding enhancing active transportation and the receive and filereport in response.

DETERMINATION OF SAFETY IMPACT

The 2013 Call will not have any adverse safety impacts on our employees and patrons.

FINANCIAL IMPACT

The 2013 Call does not have an impact in the FY13 or FY14 budget. We will includefuture-year local funding in our annual budget process.

Impact to Budget

The sources of funds for these activities are from Proposition C 10%, Proposition C25%, State Repayment of Capital Projects Loan (LTF), Congestion Mitigation and AirQuality (CMAQ), Regional Improvement Program (RIP), Regional SurtaceTransportation Program (RSTP) and State Transportation Improvement Program —Transportation Enhancements (STIP-TE). The Proposition C 10%, Proposition C 25%and STIP-TE funds are not eligible for Metro bus and rail operating and capitalexpenditures.


27

While CMAQ funds are eligible for operating purposes or transit capital, there are noadditional operating expenses eligible under CMAQ funding. CMAQ funds could beused for transit capital purposes.

We have RSTP funds which could be used for our transit capital needs. While thesefunds cannot be used directly for our bus or rail operating needs, they could free-upother such operating eligible funds by exchanging the funds used for our paratransitprovider, Access Services Incorporated. Since these RSTP funds originate in theHighway portion (Title 23) of MAP-21, they are among the most flexible funds availableto us. We do not recommend this action.

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED

The Board could adjust the preliminary fund estimate or the modal category fundingmarks, or defer the 2013 Call for Projects entirely. Adjusting the funding marks is notrecommended because they are consistent with the adopted 2009 LRTP and Boarddirection. Deferring the 2013 Call for Projects also is not recommended because fundsare expected to be available and some allocation process is necessary, so that we mayfulfill our statutory transportation programming responsibilities. For example, we wouldnot be positioned to submit the statutorily required 2014 Regional TransportationImprovement Program (TIP) for Los Angeles County to SCAG and the CaliforniaTransportation Commission (CTC) by the required December 2013 deadline. LosAngeles County's State TIP funding priorities will be set for the six-year period ending in

FY 2018-19 and the Call for Projects is our established process for that purpose.

NEXT STEPS

With Board adoption of the recommended 2013 Call for Projects transportation modalcategory funding marks and the preliminary fund estimate, we will continue to evaluateprojects and present preliminary funding recommendations to the Board in June 2013.

The Board will have an opportunity to review and comment on the preliminary fundingrecommendations as part of the June Planning and Programming Committee meeting.

Preliminary funding recommendations will be released to the public in early July.Applicants will be given an opportunity to appeal their project scores to our TechnicalAdvisory Committee in late July 2013. The Board is scheduled to formally adopt the2013 Countywide Call for Projects at its September meeting.


28

ATTACHMENTS

A. 2013 Countywide Call For Projects Preliminary Transportation Modal CategoryFunding Marks

B. 2013 Countywide Call For Projects Preliminary Fund EstimateC. February 20, 2013 Active Transportation Board Motion by Directors Wilson, Huizar,

DuBois, and Fasana and Response to Board Motion

Prepared by: Brad McAllester, Executive Officer, (213) 922-2814David Yale, Executive Officer, (213) 922-2469Renee Berlin, Executive Officer, (213) 922-3035


29

Martha Welborne, FAIAExecutive Director Countywide Planning

n

Arthur T. LeahyChief Executive Officer


ATTACHMENT A

2013 Countywide Call for ProjectsPreliminary Modal Category Funding Marks

($ in thousands)

Modal CategoryModalMark /o

ModalMark

Regional Surface Transportation Improvements 19.4% $29,100Goods Movement Improvements 17.5% $26,250

Transit Capital 10.1% $15,150

Transportation Enhancement Activities * 1.8% $2,700

Signal Synchronization &Bus Speed Improvements 22.1% $33,150

Bicycle Improvements * 15.1 % $22,650

Pedestrian Improvements * 7.5% $11,250

Transportation Demand Management 3.7% $5,550

Reserve ** 2.8% $4,200

SUBTOTAL 100% $150,000

Approved Deobligations **" $49,300

TOTAL FUNDING MARK $199,300

Federal, state and regional MAP-21 related legislation and policies may requirethe transfer of a portion of these modal funds to Caltrans and SCAG

'`* Reserve reflects a reduction from 10% to 2.8% to allow for the 15% bicycleimprovements modal mark

*** Modal allocation to remain in modal categories where funds originated, pendingcompletion of new project review

2013 Call for Projects Page A-1

31

ATTACHMENT B

2013 Countywide Cail for ProjectsPreliminary Fund Estimate

($ in thousands)

Program Fiscal Years *TOTAL

FY14-15 FY15-16 FY16-17 FY17-18 FY18-19LOCAL PROPOSITION C:Transit-Related Streets/HighwayIm rv. Pro C 25%

$5,000 $6,000 $12,000 $20,000 $43,000

Commuter Rail, Park and RidePro C 10%

$2,000 $8,000 $4,600 $14,600

State Repayment of CapitalPro'ects Loan ~TF

$5,000 $3,500 $5,000 $10,500 $24,000

STATE:

2014 State TransportationIm rovement Pro ram STIPTransportation Alternatives (TA) ** $14,200 $14,400 $28,600

MAP-21 and Bevond:Congestion Mitigation Air QualityPro CMAQ

$15,300 $15,300

Regional Surface TransportationPro ram (RSTP

$4,500 $20,000 $24,500

SUBTOTAL $150,000

2012 Deobligation

Deobligated Funds $15,000 $20,000 $14,300 $49,300

TOTAL $15,000 $30,000 $25,800 $59,000 $69,500 $199,300

Individual FY total amounts are estimated and are subject to revisions withoutchanging overall programming totals as approved.

** Federal, state and regional MAP-21 related legislation and policies may require thetransfer of these funds to Caltrans and SCAG. There are no uncommitted alternativefunding sources should this occur. We assume future federal reauthorizations willcontinue a similar level of funding as the historic TEA program and that programmingauthority for this program will return from SCAG to MTA.

2013 Call for Projects Page B-1

32

ATTACHMENT C - REVISED

Motion by directors Wilson, Huizar, DeBois, and FasanaEnhancing Active Transportation Planning and Implementation

AMENDMENT that the MTA Board direct the CEO to approve the followingand report back no later than the April 2013 Board cycle:

1. Report back on the quality of active transportation projects submittedin the 2013 Call, with a recommendation for funding marks based ondetermined quality for the 2013 funding cycle.

2. Prepare a report on the current state of all Call for Projects fundingcycles, including a measure of effectiveness of each modal categoryand levels of funding, and work with stakeholders to makerecommendations for what should be adjusted for the 2015 Call forProject cycle.

3. Consider including a "complete streets" modal category in the 2015Call for Projects cycle, or adjusting scoring criteria to give greaterweight to projects that integrate all modes of transportation andfoster complete streets.

4. Report back on how each MTA transit corridor project currently indesign or under construction is working with cities to incorporaterobust bicycle and pedestrian improvements to facilitate first mile /last mile transit access.

5. Report back on MTA's existing project initiation checklist for majorcapital projects and analyze best practices to include any additionalactive transportation elements.

6. Evaluate and propose changes to MTA's current design criteria tomake it easier to incorporate stair channels or ramps so thatbicyclists can wheel their bikes safely up and down staircases.

7. Work with cities across Los Angeles County to collect modesplit,economic, safety, and other relevant data to further justify the needfor active transportation projects and demonstrate before and afterresults.

8. Look at reductions in station area parking to fund activetransportation linkages and infrastructure around MTA stations.

2013 Call for Projects Page C-1

33


Response to Motion

Enhancing Active Transportation Planning and Implementation

1. Report back on the quality of active transportation projects submitted in the 2013Call, with a recommendation for funding marks based on determined quality for the2013 funding cycles.

On January 18, 2013 a total of 207 applications were submitted. The preliminarytransportation modal category breakdown is as follows:

Regional Surface Transportation Improvements 32

Goods Movement Improvements 11

Signal Synchronization &Bus Speed Improvements 23

Transportation Demand Management 6

Bicycle Improvements 46

Pedestrian Improvements 35

Transit Capital 32

Transportation Enhancement Activities 22

Total 207

Active Transportation projects are often funded in various modal categories includingBicycle Improvements, Pedestrian Improvements, Transportation EnhancementActivities, and Regional SurFace Transportation Improvements (e.g., complete streetprojects).

For the FY 13 Call for Projects, we are currently reviewing the 207 applications. Theapplications are being evaluated using the pertormance criteria approved by the Boardin October 2012. We are scheduled to present our preliminary scoring and modalfunding recommendations to the Board in June 2013, prior to releasing to the public. Atthat time, we will be able to advise the Board on both the quality of the activetransportation applications submitted, as well as the percent of the Call beingrecommended for active transportation projects in all modes.

2. Prepare a report on the current state of all Call for Projects funding cycles, including ameasure of effectiveness of each modal category and levels of funding, and work withstakeholders to make recommendations for what should be adjusted in the 2015 Call forProjects.

We have reviewed our records for past Call for Projects funding cycles since theprocess was formalized in 1995 to respond to the need to program flexible fundsprovided by new federal, state, and local funding sources in the early 1990s. The Call


34


for Projects process has been conducted every two years, with the exception of the2003 and 2005 Calls, which were suspended due to state fund shortfall considerations.For each modal category, a modal application requests the applicant to provideperformance data regarding the project's mobility benefits which are considered inproject scoring. The amount of funding allocated for a Call in each category is directedby the Board through modal funding amounts identified in the current adopted LongRange Transportation Plan (LRTP), and most recently, as updated and approved by ourBoard in November 2011. After the completion of each Call for Projects process, wesurvey cities and work with our Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) through a "lessonslearned" process to determine changes that would be beneficial in the next Call cycletwo years hence.

Exhibit A to this Attachment contains a chart of past Call for Projects funding cycles andrespective levels of funding since 1995. Exhibit B to this Attachment depicts how overthe history of the Call for Projects, funding for the active transportation modes hassubstantially increased in proportion to each new Call total fund estimate. In the 2011Call, almost 50 percent of the Call was dedicated to Non-Motorized modes, including25% to Active Transportation modes for Bike and Pedestrian improvements, and"complete streets" represented 7% of the RSTI modal category.

Exhibit C contains the Call Evaluation Criteria and their respective definitions. Eachproject competes within a modal category and is evaluated against other projects in thatmodal category. Each modal category also has multi-modal components, and encourages"complete streets" elements and has specific questions with points assigned to eachevaluation criteria.

As with all Call for Projects processes, we actively work with our TAC and itsSubcommittees in developing each Call for Projects process, schedule and applicationrequirements. We also conduct extensive outreach to cities and Subregional Councilsof Governments (COGs). For the 2013 Call for Projects, we met approximately 10times with the 2013 Call for Projects Working Group, comprised of members of theStreets &Freeways Subcommittee, Bus Operations Subcommittee, Local TransitSystems Subcommittee and Transportation Demand ManagemenUAir QualitySubcommittee, to consider potential technical changes for incorporation into the 2013Call for Projects Draft Application Package.

3. Consider including a "complete streets" modal category in the 2015 Call for Projectscycle or adiustinq scoring criteria to give greater weight to projects that integrate allmodes of transportation and foster complete streets.

Since the 2011 cycle, the Call for Projects application requires all applicants to completethe Impact Checklist as part of the application submittal. The Impact Checklist isintended to document how the needs of pedestrians and bicyclists were considered inthe process of planning and/or designing the proposed project. In addition, theRegional Surface Transportation Improvements (RSTI) modal category currentlyincludes "complete streets" and encourages multimodal projects to improve multimodal


35


connections and provide improved access for all users, including pedestrians, bicyclists,and transit riders. Additional points are awarded for projects that include multimodalelements.

After completion of the 2013 Call for Projects cycle, we will meet with our TAC to seektheir input for any potential enhancements to future Call applications, if needed.

As part of Metro's Countywide Sustainability Planning Policy, staff is developinga complete streets policy which upon Board adoption will better integrate activetransportation into Metro's programs and proiects.

4. Report back on how each MTA transit corridor project currently in design or underconstruction is working with cities to incorporate robust bicycle and pedestrianimprovements to facilitate the first mile/last mile transit access.

Transit stations are designed as interface points for rail, bus, bicycles and pedestrians.As part of our transit corridor project development efforts, MTA implements a widevariety of strategies and initiatives to support bicycle and pedestrian access.

To support bicycle infrastructure, MTA design criteria specifies requirements for bicycleparking at new rail stations. These can be configured with bike racks, lockers, and bikerooms. MTA also funds bike paths where right-of-ways exists, such as the new bikepath along the Exposition Light Rail Transit (LRT) project and the Metro Orange LineBike Path. MTA, however, does not operate or maintain a bicycle facility, which is theresponsibility of the project sponsor awarded funds through the Call for Projects. MTAfunds bicycle and pedestrian improvements that integrate the station into thesurrounding communities through the Call for Projects. In the 2013 Call for Projects,MTA strengthened the pedestrian and bicycle criteria to encourage local jurisdictions toapply for project funding that would enhance the pedestrian and bicycle environment forthe first and last mile travel.

To support pedestrian access, improvements to sidewalks and crosswalks in the stationareas are included in each project's construction program. Typically, improvementshave been extended up to 500 feet from the station entrances. These improvementsare designed to be consistent with local plans, handle transfer movements, and providesafe access for each mode. MTA actively works with local jurisdictions and otherproject stakeholders to integrate the station into the surrounding community.

Metro, in collaboration with SCAG, is conducting the First/Last Mile Stratectic Planwhich is slated for completion in June 2013. A Technical Advisory Committeehas been established which includes public and private stakeholders, advocacycroups and Metro staff. As part of this effort, 12 prototypical rail stations &busstops have been selected for analysis in an effort to develop guidelines forincreasing multimodal access to stations.


36

ATTACHMENT C -REVISED

5. Report on MTA's existing project initiation checklist for major capital projects andanalyze best practices to include any additional active transportation elements.

In developing our major capital corridor projects, MTA follows NEPA and CEQArequirements and guidelines as well as State regulations (SB 375) and MTA policiesaddressing sustainability. Stations are designed as interface points for rail, bus, bicycleand pedestrians. The alignments are designed to accommodate bicycle facilities wherethey can be safely implemented. Additionally, the construction mitigation andmonitoring program is approved by our Board as part of the environmental certificationprocess. This document as appropriate would address concerns or issues with regardto pedestrian and bicycle access during the construction phase of the project and mustbe followed by the Transit Service Delivery Department.

6. Evaluate and propose changes to MTA's current design criteria to make it easier toincorporate stair channels or ramps so that bicyclists can wheel their bikes safely upand down staircases.

We have been attempting to incorporate stair channels in the MTA Design Criteria for allnew station designs since the September 2010 Bicycle Board Directives. The first toreceive stair channel treatment was the EI Monte Transit Center which opened in latesummer 2012. MTA staff is preparing a study evaluating the stair channels at EIMonte to be completed in summer 2013.

The Metro Design Criteria initially required stair channels currently included at severalstations of the Expo 2 LRT. The National/Palms Expo 2 LRT station will include stairchannels while Colorado/4t" St Station will have ramps. Two more Expo stations areunder assessment to assure stations are wide enough to accommodate stair channelsand still meet the egress code requirements.

More recently, the stair channel requirement was removed from the design criteria andwill not be included in the Westside, Crenshaw, and Regional Connector projects. PerTransit Project Delivery's estimates, there is a $1 to $2 million cost per station to includestair channels in all new subway/elevated stations. Acost-benefit analysis is needed todetermine if there are operational and safety benefits to adding stair channels in light ofgrowing ridership and demand for station access.

In order to retrofit existing stations, a feasibility study and cost analysis would beneeded to evaluate the width of existing stairs to determine if they could accommodatestair channels and meet the egress code requirements.

7. Work with cities across Los Angeles County to collect mode-split, economic, safety,and other relevant data to further justify the need for active transportation projects anddemonstrate before and after results.

The collection of data can be an expensive endeavor for local jurisdictions who haveresponsibility for this effort. This can cost in the millions of dollars. Additionally, we


37


would expect that given widespread city staff reductions and limited city financialresources, cities across Los Angeles County will have very limited ability to extensivelyparticipate in active transportation data collection efforts, unless carefully crafted. Thisis particularly true of economic data related to active transportation. Given theseconstraints, we recommend focusing our efforts on a variety of activities currentlyunden~vay, as described below:

California Household Travel Survey. In conjunction with the 2010 nationalcensus, Caltrans is conducting a statewide household travel survey. The surveyasks household members to record their travel in 24-hour trip diaries. SCAG haspartnered with Caltrans to augment the sample size for Southern California; thiseffort will provide roughly 10,000 samples for Los Angeles County. It will include triporigin-destination, purpose and mode choice for all modes including walk andbicycle. We are coordinating with SCAG in reviewing the results, and anticipate finalresults by the end of the year.

MTA Bicycle Model Development. Pursuant to Board direction we are developingstate-of-the-art Bicycle Model capabilities (and possible pedestrian modelingcapabilities). Part of this work is reaching out to local jurisdictions to obtain streetlevel information as it pertains to auto lane widths, traffic volumes and speeds,smoothness, flat or incline degrees, condition of roadways and sidewalks. Thiseffort will help us calibrate the Model to determine bicycle route choices, bicyclemode split choices, and a viable roadway network available for an extensivecountywide efficient and safe bicycle network. Also included will be special surveysto determine bicycle travel behavior data, mode choice for bicycle travel, and choiceof routes for bicycle travel in the Los Angeles area. Those surveyed will be cyclistsfrom the Bicycle Coalition representatives from around Los Angeles County, transitriders, auto drivers. At the conclusion of the model development, we will ask ourconsultant team to recommend a bicycle data collection program that will enhancethe use of the bicycle model.

Bicycle Data Clearinghouse. MTA has been partnering with SCAG over the lastyear in the development of a bicycle data clearinghouse. SCAG is in the process ofcollecting bicycle counts from available local sources, as well as developing amethodology for conducting future bicycle counts. Bicycle count informationcollected by cities, COGs, MTA or through the MTA Call for Projects applications arepotential data sources for the Bicycle Data Clearinghouse.

• Bicycle Performance/Data Collection. As part of Metro's CountywideSustainability Planning Policy, staff will be reportinct on a series ofCountywide performance metrics including trends in active transportationtrips to evaluate the region's progress in implementing

sustainability measures.

In FY 14, Countywide Planning staff will contract for bicycle and pedestriancounts at key locations within Los Angeles County. The intent is to use this


38


data to better inform our active transportation programs and projects as wellas provide more current and complete data for the MTA bicyclemodel under development. Staff has also discussed the possibility ofinciudinct a rectuirerr~ent for automatic bike and pedestrian counters, asappropriate, for all future Call projects in these modal categories.

MTA Performance Measure Study. We are looking at existing and potential newmeasures of effectiveness for systemwide plans such as the LRTP as well asprogram measures that could be used in future Calls for Projects. We are reviewingthe state-of-the art of performance measures conducted by leading transportationplanning agencies across the nation, and reviewing the direction that performancemeasures are taking through MAP-21 and anticipated for future federal re-authorizations. We anticipate that these measures will augment existing measures.Active transportation modes are clearly a consideration in the development ofperformance measures and such measures will assist in recommending modalfunding levels in future plans and programs. This work effort is currently underwayand expected to be complete by the summer of 2013. Further work is proposed forthe FY 14 budget for performance measure implementation, assisting in integratingnew performance measures into our Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP)process.

2013 Call for Projects — Lessons Learned. At the conclusion of the 2013 Call forProjects selection process, we will work with our TAC and survey cities regarding"lessons learned" in order to determine improvements that we can make in preparingfor the 2015 Call for Projects process. This will provide us an opportunity to look atperformance measures, local data, and other aspects of the Call application toenhance the applications for each mode. We have found this process to beparticularly useful in the past, in considering changes for future Call for Projects andproviding an opportunity for cities to assist in the continual refinement of the Callprocess. This will be an invaluable opportunity to update and enhance the Callapplication for active transportation considerations, and through a collaborativeprocess with cities.

8. Look at reductions in station area parking to fund active transportation linkages andinfrastructure around MTA stations.

The cost of providing parking at Metro transit stations can be a significant amount of aproject's budget. However, removing parking to fund other types of station areaamenities may not always be the best solution to increase ridership and serve ourtransit users. Stations such as North Hollywood, Universal City (Metro Red Line),Willow (Metro Blue Line) and Sierra Madre Villa (Metro Gold Line) attract large numbersof auto commuters who leave their cars in the park and ride garages and parking lots.Other stations are designed with no parking since they serve primarily transit users whoarrive at the station by bus, bike and walking.


39

ATTACHMENT C -REVISED

MTA utilizes a multimodal approach to evaluate and implement the best balance ofaccess to stations on fixed guideway (rail and BRT) corridors. At some stations, thelevel of development and the urban form already suggest that pedestrian and transitaccess should be emphasized. In these cases automobile parking may, in order toavoid impacts to the existing urban form, be limited or eliminated altogether. Otherstations have high demand for automobile access. These are often located near theends of rail lines or in areas with lower land use densities or which are not as easilyserved by transit, pedestrian and bike facilities.


40

Report on Call fo

r Pr

ojec

tsFu

ndin

g Marks by Mode

($ in millions)

1995 Call

1997 Call (4 yrs)

1999 Call (5 yrs)

2000 "Abbreviated" Call

2001 Call (6 yrs

)

MODES

Requ

este

dAvailable

Requested

Available

Requ

este

dAvailable

Requ

este

dAv

aila

ble

Requ

este

dAv

aila

ble

Free

way

$26

4.8$

192.5$

600.

0$

260.9$

328.

7$

189.5$

445.

9$

48.2$

639.

1$

4312

RSTI

$45

9.4$

119.

9$

679.6$

277.2$

464.0$

150.

9$

359.

9$

65.9$

634.

0$

195.

7

;GMI

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

Signal Synch

$274.2$

144.0$

135.4$

61.1$

131.1$

71.2$

56.8$

22.4$

81.0$

62.0

TDM

$43.2$

15.0$

49.5$

20.9$

20.0$

28.4

$-$

14.2$

33.8

Bikes

$83.7$

9.7$

61.9$

19.9$

90.0$

14.4$

23.8$

7.3$

44.2$

21.6

Peds*

$-

$-

$18.7$

29.8$

8.5$

62.0$

21.4

Transit Ca

pita

l$

50.2$

9.8$

107.

4$

26.1$

103.5$

40.7$

78.4$

23.8$

177.3$

66.4

'TEAS

$14.5

$-$

43.4$

9.9

$-$

__.

53.5$

19.1

Tran

sit Se

curi

ty$

1.0

Totals

$1,

175.

5$

506.

4$

1,63

3.8$

666.

1$

1,180.7$

523.

7$

994.

6$

176.

1$

1,705.3$

851.3

APPLICATIONS

1995 Call

1997 Call

1999 Call

2000 "Abbreviated" Call

2001 Call

'.Re

ceiv

ed

Recommended

426

153

414

160

436

206

243

55

359

201

*These modes are

funded with Tra

nspo

rtai

on Enh

ance

ment

Acti

viti

es (TA) fu

nding

No ce

s:Final Funding Marks, as ado

pted

by Metro Board.

Transit S

ecur

ity wa

s on

ly Funded in FY 1995-1996.

TEA was no

t identified as a se

para

te mode until th

e 79

99 Ca

ll.

Pedestrian Improvements wa

s no

t identified as a separate mode until th

e 20

00 Ca

ll.

_ _.

The Freeway mode was

rem

oved

in the

200

3 CFP.

. ._

_ ...

Goods Movement Improvement mode int

rodu

ced in the

201

1 CFP.

Requ

este

d and Av

ailable Fu

nds are in

flat

ed.

_ _..

m S O'

': D

2073 Call for Pr

ojec

ts

Page C-9

41

MODES

Free

way

RSTI

GMI

Sign

al Syn

ch

TDM

Bikes

Peds~

Tran

sit Capital

TEA'*

Tran

sit Securit

:Totals

2007 Call

2009 Ca

ll

Repo

rt on Cal

l fo

r Projects

Fund

ing Marks by Mode

($ in millions)

2011 Call

Requ

este

dAvailable

Requ

este

dAv

aila

ble

Requ

este

dAv

aila

ble

F

$

6,009.7$

218.6$

1,91

2.7$

141.

0$

88.3

$31.4

$

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

$48

.8$

173

$

$

179.7$

83.9

$95.2

$713

$54.9

$22

.5$

$

19.5

$7.1$

31.3

$14.5

$7.7$

3.8$

$

92.4

$34

.9$

65.7

$26

.3$

43.5

$17.3

$

$

135.6$

40.6

$104.0$

36.4

$52.8

$12

.8$

$

230.6$

48.4

$174.5$

37.5

$49.0

$15.7

$

$

74.1

$12

.8$

73.8

$10.5

$45.1

$2.7$

$

6,74

1.6

~ $

446.4 ($

2,45

7.2

~ $

337.

5 ~ $

390.1

~ $

123.5

~ $

2013 Call

este

d I

Available

-...

......

......

...$

-

130.

3$

29.1

59.0

......

.....

$.

26.3

47.9

$33

.2

4.5$

5.G

89.8

$22.7

58.7

$11

.3

77.6

_. $15

.2

31.5

$2.

7

499.3 $

146.1

$

4.2~*

APPLICATIONS

2007 Call

2009 Ca

ll20

11 Call

._ .

2013 Cal

l

Received

Recommended

407

170

303

130

180

72

207

TBD

These modes are

fun

ded with Transportaion Enh

ance

ment

Acti

viti

es (TA) fu

nding.

** Res

erve

Note

s:Final F

undi

ng Marks, as

ado

pted

by Me

tro Bo

ard.

Tran

sit S

ecurity was only funded in

FY 1995-79

96.

TEA was not id

entified as a sep

arat

e mode unt

il the

1999 Ca

ll.'

_.Pe

dest

rian

Improvements was not id

entified as a separate mode unt

il the

2000 Cal

l.

The Freewaymode was removed in the 2003 CFP.

Goods Movement Improvement mode int

rodu

ced in

the

2017 CFP.

Requ

este

d and Ava

ilab

le funds are

inflated.

':

m S Q'

2013 Call fo

r Pr

ojec

ts

Page C-10

42

Cafl for

Pro

tect

s5u

sfia

inab

le Mades

($ in

m'rllians)

_ _

__ _

__

~i i

MODS %

~

°%

~

%

5

°/n

~

i'

S

~

°f

$

MODES

---

___ _

- ---i-

y -- ---_ _

-

--

^

l RSTI*

1~~~

$8.8~;:I~S1'1-

~

TDit1

~.0%

$7.5

.0

i.l~

o ~G

U.J

5.4`~I

~,?~~_+

4.0"

io

`33.8

1.6%

~7.1

4.3%

$14.

5 I"

~~~

$3.8 TDM

T3ikes

1:9%

$9.7

3.

0°,!0

$19.9

2.7 01

X14.

4 2.5°

~0

$21.6

7.f'i%

$34:

9 7:8%

'26:

3 1~r.v" o'

377:3

Bikes

1'ed

s 3.

6°6

$18.7

2.5%

$21.4

9.1%

~1~`

.~

1.0.8%

$36.4

10.4%

$12.~ Peds

%lra

nsit

t;ap

ital

1J%

$9.8

3.9°p

$26.1

7:8%0

$4~.7

7.8%

$66.4

1Q9%

~i,a~.,

11'.1%

$37.

5 12:7%

$1.5

:7 TC

TEA

~.~"

::

=̀7-a

. , ""

X0.0

1.

9°~'~

i ~~_q

2.2%

X19.

' 2.9%

~LL.~S

3.1%

$10.

5 ?.Z °6

$2.7 TEA

-, --

-

-

~l~otal~,

9.7% ~

~4y.0

1~.0%

~~6.9-

21.4

,i~~

$112.1 ..19.1% ~1

b1~.

4 32.2% $143.9

3.7.1% $125.2

1~~.4"% $61.1 Totals

*Since rlr

e ZOXI Cal! Fo

~~ projects cycle, the

Cal

l Fo

r Pr

ojec

ts app

lica

tion

req

uire

s al

l app

lica

nts eo

com

plet

e di

e Impact Che

ckli

st as pa

z•t of the ap

plic

atio

n suGniittal The Impact

~ Gl~

eckl

ist

.s intended ro dacum~ntl~ow Il

se nee

ds ofpedestrians and bic

ycli

sts ~s

~ere

con

side

rc~l

in tl7

e pro

cess

ofp

lann

ing and /or

designing the

propased,~~roject. In addition, the

~ Regional Surface Trartsportaeion fi

~spr

ovem

ents

(RSTIJ modal cat

egor

y cuzr~entFtr includes corrJplete streets" and encouzages rnuleimodal p

roje

cts to zmpxove mul

rirr

zada

!

;connections and provide unp

rove

d access for all

users including pe

dest

rian

s, bic

ycli

sts,

and k-a

nsit

riders. A

ddit

rona

l points are awarded for pr

ojects that include mtd

timo

dal

`___~

_ _..

....._

_

_.

__

_ _

....

... _.

_...__

__.

_ _._

i m

°''~

fn the 2021 Cal

l, ~ p~n

ject

s ire RSTI con

tain

ed a cor

nple

re stz

-eet

s"co

nspo

ner~

t Of tfie

rot

a! recamrnen. ded Fun

ding

of~

21,8

97,3

70 far the 8 pr

ojects, 4()% sea

s id

enci

fred

as

~ s ';

Bein

g at

trif

ictt

aGle

to a °ca

napl

etN st

reet

s"co~npoil~rlt; i.

e., $S

: SM (7

.1 fo of the total .

S'173. 5M au~ardf

>tl~.

-°.

~ ~

_ ~

_I

Q7

. 1

,. -

'.

2013 Cali fo

r Projects

Page C

-11

43

PROJECT EVALUATION PROCESSEach project will compete within a modal category andprojects in that modal category. Each modal category haassigned to each evaluation criteria.

EVALUATION CRITERIA WEIGHTS BY MODE

Exhibit C

will be evaluated against others specific questions with points

Signal TransitCRITERIA RSTI GMI Synch

TDM BIKES PEDS CapitalT~

Regional Significance &35 35 30 30 30 30 30 30

Intermodai Integration

Project Need &Benefit to30 30 35 35 35 35 35 35

Transportation System

Local Match 5 5 S 5 5 5 5 5

Cost Effectiveness 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10

Land Use & Sustainability 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20Policies/Principles

Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

MTA staff has reviewed the application requirements and evaluation criteria with TAC

and the appropriate TAC 5uUcommittee. The application and evaluation criteria for eachmodal category have Ueen tailored to enhance the evaluation process. (See ModalApplication for additional information about each evaluation criterion and weights.)

In general, each project will Ue evaluated based on the following types of evaluationcriteria:

1) Re iog nal Significance & Intermodal Integration:• The degree to which the project supports the recommendations and goals for each

transportation mode as stated in MTA's adopted LRTP.• The degree to which the project is part of a regional program to address mobility

and reduce traffic congestion.• The project's connectivity with and aUility to complement nearby transit projects.• The degree to which the project provides access to regional trip generators,

regional activity centers, fixed guideway, and Metrolink, and improves accessUetween jurisdictional or community plan area Uoundaries.


44

Exhibit C

The degree to which the project promotes improvements among modes andtransportation services by different agencies.

2) Project Need &Benefit to Transportation System:• The degree to which the project creates moUility Uenefits for the region, including

improved access for the transit-dependent population.• The project's contribution to a Valanced and integrated transportation system for

the movement of people and goods.• The potential for the project to increase transit use, and to improve the transit

system.• The extent to which the project eliminates or corrects deficiencies in the

transportation system, such as existing gaps, Uottlenecks, or points ofcongestion/ overcrowding.

• The importance of the project to the effective operation and management ofexisting transit facilities and systems.

• The extent to which the project fizrthers previous actions supporting the project orarea services such as completing partially funded project segments.

3) Local Match Requirement:• Twenty percent (20%) of monetary Local Match (non-MTA funds), except for

Transit Capital. For Transit Capital, the 20% Local Match can be cash and/or land.• For RSTI and GMI, the required Local Match is 35%, the mi_n?mum 20% must be

monetary, and the remaining 15 % can consist of "in-kind" Local Matchcontributions.

4) Cost Effectiveness:• The project's cost effectiveness in relationship to the total project cost.• The applicant's demonstrated commitment to covering life-cycle operational and

maintenance e~rpenses.

5) Land Use and Sustainability Policies/Principles:• The project's aUility to advance the goals and priorities of the adopted Regional

Transportation Plan/SustainaUle Communities Strategy (RTP/SC5).• The jurisdiction/agency demonstrates that the project is complemented by

programs or activities that will implement the RTP/SCS, while also increasing theeffectiveness of the project.


45

TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE -...

Documents

Transcript of TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE -...