CHAPTER 5 INVESTMENT PLAN

Transcription

1 CHAPTER 5 INVESTMENT PLAN

2 This chapter of the 2014 RTP/SCS plan illustrates the transportation investments for the Stanislaus region. Funding for transportation improvements is limited and has generally not kept pace with needs. This is especially true in Stanislaus County. StanCOG recognizes this fact and uses fiscal constraint as an overarching concept to focus available funding resources on the region s priority needs to maximize the benefit of each dollar spent. INVESTMENT PLAN

3 INTRODUCTION The investment plan provides details on the available revenues assumptions used to identify proposed transportation projects and transportation management strategies to support the region s long-term growth. The Plan emphasizes rehabilitation and operational improvements, as well as transit and active modes of transportation to a greater degree than past plans to ensure the transportation network supports the region s growing and changing needs. Additionally, particular attention is paid to the movement of goods so that the region can continue to grow and diversify its economic vitality. Improvement Program (FTIP), providing a more focused and detailed funding plan. With the economic recession and its effects still reverberating through the region, developing an accurate projection of future revenues is paramount to developing a fiscally-constrained plan; one that can be implemented. By collaborating with the local agencies within the region, Stan- COG has developed revenue projections based on both local and regional estimates of anticipated funding. Ultimately, projects utilizing Federal funding or requiring Federal action to proceed will be incorporated into the Federal Transportation Figure 5.1 Revenue Forecast by Fund Source $1,031,743,121 $1,609,920,338 $518,722,834 Local State Federal Transit Federal Highway $1,298,038, Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy 73

4 Funding from local sources contributes approximately 40 percent of the Plan s revenues, a considerably lower amount than regions with a transportation sales tax. GAUGING OUR FINANCIAL RESOURCES The investment strategy is based on an estimate of available funding through the year 2040 with funding from federal, state and local revenue sources. Overall, anticipated revenues are expected to match revenues from the 2011 RTP. However, because the 2014 RTP/SCS has a duration four years longer than the previous plan annual expected revenues are lower in comparison. In total, the 2014 RTP/SCS Plan anticipates just under $4.5 billion in transportation related revenues to support the transportation system. The revenues as well as the transportation project and programs costs are identified in future (or Year of Expenditure) dollars to provide an accurate estimate of the true costs of improving the system. These revenues were developed in coordination with the local agencies and incorporate state and federal input to ensure they are reasonable. Approach StanCOG has developed a thorough planning approach for transportation improvements. Available funding for each local agency is developed prior to being incorporated into the overall regional revenue plan. Local agencies provide revenue estimates in five-year ranges over the life of the 2014 RTP/SCS. In addition, each agency provides sufficient financial information to demonstrate that projects can be funded. This information from each local agency provides a more detailed revenue projection for the Plan. This approach has led to a reasonable, regional revenue forecast. This process ensures a fiscally-constrained plan at the regional/countywide level, and provides each local jurisdiction a limit by which to develop their project lists. This process allowed the project list to be prioritized within a financially constrained environment, with projects selected based on funding availability at both the local and regional level. Assumptions In accordance with StanCOG s emphasis on fiscal constraint, assumptions about the availability of future funding from identified and new sources were made based on the premise: reasonable to assume. The following assumptions have been made as part of the projection process: A specified level of state and federal discretionary funding will be available for RTP improvements based on historical levels. These programs include the State Transportation Improvement Plan (STIP), Surface Transportation Program (STP), and Local Transportation Funds (LTF). The appropriate match requirements for each program will be available from local funds. State and federal revenues were estimated using prior year(s) programming from the 2012 STIP, 2013 FTIP, Caltrans programming estimates, and StanCOG records. Extensive local funds, consistent with commitments made in local facility fees and capital improvement programs, will continue and are identified for incorporation into the Plan. These include Community Facilities Fees (CFF), Public Facilities Fees (PFF), and system development charges. 74 Chapter 5: Investment Plan

5 All revenues, unless specifically noted, use an escalation rate of 3% per year a commonly accepted rate. Revenue Summary Local Revenues Funding from local sources contributes approximately 40 percent of the Plan s revenues, a considerably lower amount than regions with a transportation sales tax. The bulk of local funding is comprised from the following three sources: Development Impact Fees (AB 1600) fees collected as part of new development to assess their fair share of future infrastructure needs; Gas Tax Subvention Funds (Section 2104 and Section 2105) these funds are derived from locally generated fuel sales; and General Funds funding generated through property taxes and other local assessments. These funds represent approximately 50% of the total local revenue. The other major component of local revenue is local transportation funds (LTF), accounting for approximately 41% of these revenues. Transit fares, which have historically been very low, make up a larger share of this revenue projection due to improvements made to the transit system, as well as assumptions of increased efficiency due to a more compact land pattern. State Revenues State funds comprise the smallest share at just over 26% of the total transportation budget. The MAP-21 Transportation Alternatives The federal transportation authorization Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century (MAP-21) established the Transportation Alternatives Program (TAP) to provide funding for programs and projects defined as transportation alternatives, including on- and off-road pedestrian and bicycle facilities, infrastructure projects for improving non-driver access to public transportation and enhanced mobility, community improvement activities, and environmental mitigation; recreational trail program projects; safe routes to school projects; and projects for planning, designing, or constructing boulevards and other roadways largely in the right-of-way of former Interstate System routes or other divided highways. The TAP consolidates previous programs including Transportation Enhancements, Recreational Trails, Safe Routes to School, into a single program. On September 26, 2013, legislation was signed by the Governor of California creating the Active Transportation Program (ATP) in the Department of Transportation (Senate Bill 99, Chapter 359 and Assembly Bill 101, Chapter 354). The ATP reconstitutes various federal and State transportation programs, including Transportation Alternatives Program (TAP), the Bicycle Transportation Account (BTA), and State Safe Routes to School Program (SR2S) into a single program. The California Active Transportation Program (ATP) was created to encourage increased use of active modes of transportation, such as biking and walking, as well as to ensure compliance with the federal transportation authorization MAP-21. The ATP is funded from Federal Transportation Alternative Programs, Federal Highway Safety Improvement Program and State Highway Account Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy 75

6 bulk of funds come from the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) and State Highway Operations and Protection Program (SHOPP). State funding cycles through the STIP and SHOPP have historically been inconsistent, and these funds are based on fuel prices and consumption, therefore there is a greater degree of uncertainty due to declining consumption rates. The first four years of the State funding estimate are consistent with the four-year STIP fund estimate. Federal Revenues Federal revenues comprise approximately 33% of the total projected revenue. Of federal funding, about a third comes from the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) and two-thirds comes from the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). FTA funds are typically used to support transit capital and operating needs. FHWA funds, including Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) and Regional Surface Transportation Program (RSTP) funding, are dedicated for varying purposes including roadway improvements, enhancements, and projects that contribute to air quality improvements. Total Revenues In total, StanCOG anticipates approximately $4.46 billion dollars in transportation related funds over the life of the Plan from the three major funding categories detailed above. Table 5.1 presents more detailed information on the major revenue sources for the region. The full revenue projection spreadsheet showing Table 5.1 Major Revenue Sources for the RTP/SCS Revenue Sources Total Local Funding Gas Tax, Development Impact Fees, General Fund $733,476,977 LOCAL Transit Fares $187,153,965 Local Transportation Funds (LTF) $668,054,136 Local Transportation Funds (LTF Non-Motorized) $21,235,259 LOCAL TOTAL $1,609,920,338 State Highway Operations and Protection Program (SHOPP) $587,834,733 State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) $192,627,671 Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP) $222,680,470 Regional Transportation Improvement Program (TE) $15,121,475 STATE Public Transit Account $10,026,298 State Transit Assistance (STA) $201,712,399 Highway Maintenance (HM) $33,137,836 Safe Route to School (SR2S) $10,331,279 State and/or Federal Aviation $24,565,932 STATE TOTAL $1,298,038, Chapter 5: Investment Plan

7 Table 5.1 Major Revenue Sources for the RTP/SCS (continued) Revenue Sources Total Federal Transit Formula - Urbanized Area Formula Program (5307) $459,368,408 - Non-urbanized Area Formula Program (5311) $15,254,195 FEDERAL TRANSIT Enhanced Mobility of Seniors and Individuals with Disabilities (5310) Federal Transit Non-Formula (5309a, 5309b, 5309c) Under MAP-21 a portion of 5309 will become 5339 Jobs Access and Reverse Commute (JARC) (5316) Under MAP-21 a portion of 5316 will be incorporated into 5307, 5311 New Freedom (5317) Under MAP-21 all of 5317 will be incorporated into 5310 $8,392,866 $16,507,816 $11,905,749 $7,293,801 Federal Transit Total $518,722,834 Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) $293,650,005 Regional Surface Transportation Program (RSTP) $245,791,679 High Risk Rural Road (HRRR) $13,445,504 FEDERAL HIGHWAY Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) $12,234,027 Highway Bridge Program (HBP) $439,772,211 Safe Route to Schools (SRTS) $3,882,252 Transportation Alternatives $9,265,805 Rail/Highway Grade Crossing Protection (USC Section 130) $13,701,638 Federal Highway Total $1,031,743,121 FEDERAL TOTAL $1,550,465,955 TOTAL REVENUE $4,458,424, Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy 77

8 Projects have been categorized to define their purpose and need including: System Preservation, Capacity Enhancement, Safety, and Multimodal Enhancement Investment Plan and Scenario Link In an effort to allow the public and decisionmakers to truly compare and analyze the various scenarios, and to make a sound and informed decision on their preference, each scenario was constrained to the revenue projection detailed above; meaning the project lists for each scenario was developed using the anticipated $4.46 billion dollars. However, the transportation investment strategy (and priorities) were altered for each scenario to match and complement the land use pattern. This meant that each scenario has a unique transportation investment strategy (project list) associated with its land use pattern. Due to the emphasis on infill and compact, mixed-use development within the preferred scenario (Scenario 3, Moderate Change), a greater percentage of the transportation funding is directed towards transit and active modes of transportation to provide more transportation choices and improve accessibility for all. Transit investments are increased by over 20% from the 2011 RTP and bicycle and pedestrian funding is also increased considerably. forecasts for each revenue source can be found in Appendix I, along with technical documentation of the revenue projection process and revenue sources. PROJECT PURPOSE AND NEED The Plan is required to provide a clearly defined justification for its transportation projects and programs. This requirement is often referred to as the Purpose and Need. Caltrans describes a project s Need as an identified transportation deficiency or problem, and its Purpose as the set of objectives that will be met to address the transportation deficiency. StanCOG has incorporated this information into the project list by adding columns for four categories that show the purpose/need of each project. The following definitions are used in this document and included on all project lists. System Preservation This category of improvement indicates a project that serves to maintain the integrity of the existing system. Capacity Enhancement Capacity enhancement indicates a project that serves to increase traffic flows and to help alleviate congestion and improve the level of service (LOS). Safety Projects Safety improvements are intended to reduce the chance of conflicts between modes, prevent injury to users of the transportation system, and 78 Chapter 5: Investment Plan

9 to ensure that users can travel to their destination in a timely manner. Multimodal Enhancement Multimodal enhancements focus on alternative modes of travel such as bicycling, walking, and transit. Projects that are designated as multimodal are designed to enhance travel by one or more of these modes, provide for better connectivity between modes, improve non-auto access to major destinations and activity centers, develop Complete Streets that provide access and mobility for all modes of transportation, and/or improve air quality. PROJECT SELECTION CRITERIA In addition to the general system considerations for purpose and need stated above, RTP projects in the Stanislaus region are selected taking the following criteria into consideration. Local agency acceptance and priority Cost effectiveness Operational efficiency/safety Congestion relief and improvement, per the Congestion Management Process StanCOG and/or Caltrans District 10 air quality improvement priority (see RTIP discussion below) Pavement conditions (utilizing pavement management systems) Goods movement circulation importance Principal arterial and high emphasis route designations Regional significance These criteria are then evaluated in regard to existing funding constraints to determine final project prioritization and selection. Tier I and Tier II Projects Per RTP guidelines, StanCOG develops a Tier I, fiscally constrained, project list as well as a Tier II project list. Tier I projects represent the projects that are expected to have full funding over the life of the Plan. Tier II represents projects that will not have full funding during the life of the Plan. However, these projects do represent desired long-term projects for the region and are therefore included as unfunded projects. See Appendix K for the list and maps of Tier I and Tier II projects for the 2014 RTP/SCS. INVESTMENT PLAN As with revenue projections, transportation project costs have been impacted by the region s economic conditions, therefore the recent recession did not substantially widen the gap between project costs and anticipated revenues. However, the Stanislaus region is continuing to see a widening gap between revenues and needs due to the lack of a transportation sales tax measure and the associated inability to leverage additional available state and federal funds Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy 79

10 The 2014 RTP/SCS Plan emphasizes a balanced, multimodal transportation system to a greater degree than past plans. Of the nearly $4.5 billion in investments, a much greater share is dedicated to transit and active transportation modes. In addition, of the roadway investments more emphasis is placed on rehabilitation projects and operational improvements to preserve and maintain the existing transportation system to the greatest degree possible. Short-term construction costs and long-term maintenance costs are a continual and increasing burden to local and state governments. Therefore, it is imperative to find alternative approaches to accommodating additional traffic. An overview of the investment strategy is provided in Table 5.2. CONCLUSION As a region without a transportation sales tax measure, StanCOG has put a greater emphasis on fiscal constraint, which is evident in the revenue projection and project selection processes undertaken with the local agencies. It is also shrewd planning and fiscally prudent as a government agency to maximize the benefit of each dollar spent. It is StanCOG s intent that limited funds are dedicated to the greatest needs. With revenues anticipated to be lower than the previous RTP on a per year basis, the region is forced to meet its growing and changing needs with less. This investment strategy represents a balanced approach to transportation funding emphasizing a multimodal system with greater access to daily needs as well as an emphasis on efficiently moving people and good within and through the region to help improve and diversify the economy. Table 5.2 Summary of RTP/SCS Investments 2014 Plan 2011 Plan Change Roadways $2,713,501,300 $3,683,937,100-26% Transit $1,464,834,119 $464,187, % Bicycle and Pedestrian $224,618,300 $196,993,700 14% $53,512,800 $39,398,600 36% Aviation 80 Chapter 5: Investment Plan