MEETING NOTICE AND AGENDA

Transcription

1 MEETING NOTICE AND AGENDA CITIES/COUNTY TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE (CTAC) SPECIAL MEETING The CTAC may take action on any item appearing on this agenda. Thursday, March 1, :30 to 11:30 a.m. SANDAG, 7 th Floor Conference Room 401 B Street, Suite 800 San Diego, CA Chair: Vice Chair: Staff Contact: Greg Humora, City of La Mesa Richard Leja, City of San Diego Richard Chavez (619) ; (619) fax; rch@sandag.org AGENDA HIGHLIGHT 2007 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN INITIAL REVENUE CONSTRAINED AND REASONABLY EXPECTED SCENARIOS SANDAG offices are accessible by public transit. Phone COMMUTE or see for route information. In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), SANDAG will accommodate persons who require assistance in order to participate in SANDAG meetings. If such assistance is required, please contact SANDAG at (619) at least 72 hours in advance of the meeting. To request this document or related reports in an alternative format, please call (619) , (619) (TTY), or fax (619)

2 CITIES/COUNTY TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE (CTAC) SPECIAL MEETING Thursday, March 1, 2007 ITEM # ACTION 1. INTRODUCTIONS 2. PUBLIC COMMENTS REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN INITIAL REVENUE CONSTRAINED AND REASONABLY EXPECTED SCENARIOS (Mike Hix) DISCUSSION SANDAG staff has developed an initial draft network for the Revenue Constrained scenario, based on future revenue projections of $40.6 billion by the year They also have laid out options for the Reasonably Expected scenario, a more aggressive scenario that includes new potential funding sources. Reasonably Expected options include different levels of funding, the distribution of funds between systems, and approaches to adding projects to the plan. Individual projects have been ranked by staff, using objective evaluation criteria that were approved by the SANDAG Board of Directors in September CTAC is asked to comment on the proposals, which will be discussed with the Transportation Committee and Board of Directors on March 16 and 23, respectively. The Transportation Committee report is attached; the lists of ranked projects will be distributed as soon as possible before the meeting. + next to an agenda item indicates an attachment. 2

3 San Diego Association of Governments TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE March 16, 2007 CTAC Agenda Item #3 March 1, 2007 AGENDA ITEM NO.: 7 Action Requested: DISCUSSION/POSSIBLE ACTION 2007 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN: INITIAL REVENUE CONSTRAINED AND REASONABLY EXPECTED REVENUE SCENARIOS File Number Introduction Recommendation In developing the 2007 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP), staff prepared the Unconstrained Network, which represents the region s vision for reasonable transit, highway and arterial improvements, and operations to meet travel demand in This was reviewed by the The Transportation Committee is asked to discuss the draft scenarios outlined in this report and provide direction to staff. Transportation Committee on January 19, Recognizing that transportation funds are limited, the Unconstrained Network establishes the baseline for identifying two funding scenarios that will build and operate as much of the network as possible, given revenue availability, flexibility, and project commitments. The two funding scenarios are Revenue Constrained, limited to traditional funding sources, and Reasonably Expected, a more aggressive scenario that includes new potential funding sources. The MOBILITY 2030 RTP, adopted in 2003, was based on a Reasonably Expected revenue scenario. The updated forecast for the Revenue Constrained scenario is $40.6 billion, including projected revenues from the State Infrastructure Bond. Minor revisions are suggested to the previous Revenue Constrained list of projects (last adopted in February 2006), based on priorities, cost estimates, and project commitments. Overall, the proposed Revenue Constrained scenario remains intact from the previous RTP and includes the TransNet Early Action Program (EAP). Several options for a new Reasonably Expected scenario have been prepared, assuming new funding sources that would generate an additional $4.2 billion to $10.7 billion for regional transportation. These are the sources that were supported for further consideration by the SANDAG Board of Directors in October 2006, at the 2007 SANDAG Board retreat, and in a public opinion poll conducted in December While not yet as well-defined as the Revenue Constrained scenario, options for the Reasonably Expected scenario would be based on the premise of finishing projects in the region s priority corridors while also addressing bottlenecks in other corridors. Project priorities come from the application of transportation project evaluation criteria approved by the Board in September At different levels of funding, Reasonably Expected scenario options include a balanced approach between highway and transit. The initial options for Revenue Constrained and Reasonably Expected scenarios have been created by staff from SANDAG, Caltrans, and the transit operators, providing stakeholders and policy makers with varying approaches to future network plans. During the month of March, SANDAG staff will discuss these scenario options with stakeholder groups, the Transportation Committee, and the Board. Staff will take input and direction to bring back specific Revenue Constrained and Reasonably Expected networks to the Transportation Committee and Board in April. Board-accepted scenarios in April would keep the RTP on schedule for a draft document in June 2007 and a final RTP in November

4 Discussion A preliminary analysis indicated that without modifying the previous Revenue Constrained scenario, future revenues appeared to be $2 billion short to complete all of the projects. However, while the initial 2007 Revenue Constrained scenario discussed below does include phased or reduced improvements in several corridors, it would allow the overall project list to remain intact, even adding in a few smaller but key projects. The philosophy for creating both the Revenue Constrained and Reasonably Expected scenarios was to focus on the priority corridors, finishing improvements in those corridors, and incorporating other high-ranking improvements around the region. Individual project priorities were determined using objective evaluation criteria to rank each category of RTP improvements: transit, highways, High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV)/Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) connectors, direct freeway connectors, and goods movement. Priority corridors reflect the overall ranking of the improvements in that corridor. Revenue Constrained Scenario While the more aggressively-funded Reasonably Expected scenario is the primary planning scenario for the region, the Revenue Constrained scenario is a fiscally conservative and federally required scenario that must be analyzed and included in any regional transportation plan. It only assumes traditional sources of revenues through the year The estimated revenues for the 2007 Revenue Constrained scenario are $40.6 billion in constant 2006 dollars. This is compared to $3.7 billion in the 2006 Revenue Constrained scenario. One key factor in creating the Revenue Constrained scenario is the fact that only projects in this plan can be programmed into the Regional Transportation Improvement Plan (RTIP). The RTIP is a rolling five-year document that incrementally implements the latest update to the RTP. Since the RTP is updated at least every four years, it is important that any projects completing an environmental document, or needing funding in that timeframe, be in the Revenue Constrained scenario. Projects in the later years of the RTP are not as crucial for programming purposes since specific project level work has not begun. One year ago, in February 2006, the Board of Directors approved an updated 2006 Revenue Constrained Plan. Given revenue availability, updated cost estimates, and project commitments, the initial Revenue Constrained scenario for the 2007 RTP is fairly consistent with that plan. Attachment 1 lists the Major Capital Improvements suggested for the 2007 Revenue Constrained Plan, and compares projects and costs with the previous 2006 Revenue Constrained Plan. With limited revenues in this scenario and the rising costs for construction and right-of-way, the highway network completes the Interstate 1 (I-1) Managed Lanes, but includes reduced project scopes in the I- and I-80 corridors. Several sections of I-80 would initially provide two HOV lanes versus the ultimate four Managed Lanes, and no HOV lanes south of Palomar Street. The reduced scope reflects efforts by Caltrans and SANDAG to identify a project that can proceed at this time within the known constraints in the corridor. For the I- corridor, four Managed Lanes would be added from La Jolla Village Drive north to Vandegrift Boulevard, without many of the enhancements (Direct Access Ramps, auxiliary lanes, local interchange improvements, aesthetic treatments), but still at a much higher cost than previously estimated ($2.4 billion versus $962 million). It is assumed that State Route (SR) 11 could be built as a toll road for $300 million through a public/private partnership, with a $0 million contribution from the region. This would 4

5 allow the other $20 million allocated in the previous RTP for this project to go toward other regional projects. In addition, it should be noted that the SR 241 toll road proposed by Transportation Corridor Agencies in Orange County, which the Transportation Committee discussed at its December 8, 2006 meeting, is included in the draft Revenue Constrained scenario. Attachment 2 is a map of the proposed 2007 Revenue Constrained highway network. On the transit side, staff has met with Metropolitan Transit System (MTS), North County Transit District (NCTD), and Caltrans to review network and funding proposals. The 2007 Revenue Constrained network is heavily influenced by the TransNet EAP. TransNet EAP transit routes are Super Loop, BRT services on I-1 and I-80, MidCoast Light Rail Transit project, and Blue Line light rail capital improvements. Two additional routes also are added to the 2006 network; the Route 470 BRT service from Escondido to Sorrento Mesa, and Route 680 BRT service from Otay Mesa to Sorrento Mesa. As was the case with the 2006 update, investments are made in both new rail corridors (e.g., MidCoast) and existing light rail and commuter rail corridors. Attachment 3 is a map of the proposed transit improvements, and Attachment 4 lists the proposed transit network of routes and proposed frequencies. The proposed revenue constrained transit network totals $13.2 billion in improvements (Attachment ). Major capital infrastructure includes doubletracking along the coast and a tunnel in the Del Mar area for the benefit of the COASTER, Amtrak, and freight movements, Other improvements are doubletracking for the SPRINTER, infrastructure improvements and rehabilitation to the existing bus and rail network, and needed arterial improvements, vehicles, transit centers, and parking structures for existing rail, and new BRT/arterial rapid transit services. Parking structures had been included in the previous Revenue Constrained scenario under the New/Improved Transit Centers line item. Also included in the budget are funds for Transit Priority Measures to be needed in the future for both existing and new arterial services: $ million annually for transit signal priority, queue jumpers, and other spot treatments that can improve trip reliability and reduce travel time for bus services. Funds also are set aside for San Diego Trolley, SPRINTER, or COASTER Rail Grade Separations, which would be allocated in the future using criteria approved by the Board. The overall breakdown of major expenditures by project categories is shown in Attachment 6. Additional Funding Overview The MOBILITY 2030 RTP, adopted in 2003, assumed the extension of TransNet and additional state and federal gas taxes as new sources of funding for the Reasonably Expected scenario. Approved by the voters, the TransNet dollars can now be included as part of the 2007 Revenue Constrained scenario. But in the years since the last RTP, the local TransNet funding gain has been negated by rising project cost estimates and lower-than-expected revenues from the state and federal government. Plus the revenues from the last four years are not included in this RTP, which is four years closer to the same 2030 horizon year. In a continuing effort to aggressively pursue ways to fund more projects in the region, numerous new sources of local transportation funding for an expanded list of RTP projects were discussed over the last six months as to their revenue potential and their level of support. This is in addition to an assumption of more state and federal gas taxes to our region. At a special Board Policy meeting in October 2006, an interactive polling session was conducted to measure Board support of various

6 funding sources for regional transportation projects. A public opinion survey in December 2006 asked similar questions of 1,000 households around the region. And a wider range of elected officials and public officials participated in another interactive polling exercise at the annual SANDAG Board retreat on February 1, Not surprisingly, only some of the potential sources of new transportation revenue enjoyed majority support. The sources that did fare well for transportation were another quarter cent sales tax, a nonresidential development impact fee, parking assessment districts, an increase in the vehicle license fee, and a fee for shipping containers at the seaports and border crossings. Revenues generated by potential goods movement user fees would go toward goods movement projects, vehicle license fees toward Transportation Demand Management programs, and parking assessment for transit improvements. The table below summarizes additional funding sources and two options for incorporating them into a Reasonably Expected scenario. Option A would generate $4.2 billion from additional state and federal gas taxes, an assumption also used in MOBILITY Option B would add another $6. billion, mostly from the additional quarter cent sale tax, for a total increase of $10.7 billion. The Reasonably Expected scenario could reach $1.3 billion, as compared to $42 billion in the Reasonably Expected scenario in MOBILITY Discussion of the funding options by the Transportation Committee and the Board will shape the staff recommendations for the Reasonably Expected scenario. Table 1 Additional Funding for Reasonably Expected Scenarios ($ millions) Revenues Expenditures Option A Option A State Future Gas Tax or Equivalent $1,883 Transit Projects $2,078 Additional State Misc./Carryover $390 Highway Projects $2,078 Federal Future Gas Tax or Equivalent $1,883 Total Additional Funding $4,16 $4,16 Option B Option B State Future Gas Tax or Equivalent $1,883 Transit Projects $,043 Additional State Misc./Carryover $390 Highway Projects $4,768 Federal Future Gas Tax or Equivalent $1,883 TDM $70 Additional ¼ cent Sales Tax Cash $1,24 Goods Movement $860 Additional ¼ cent Sales Tax Bond Proceeds $3,46 $10,741 Developer Impact Fees (Nonresidential) $80 Parking Assessment District $27 APCD VLF $70 Goods Movement User Fees $860 Total Additional Funding $10,741 6

7 Reasonably Expected Scenarios Limited resources in the Revenue Constrained scenario do not provide all of the planned improvements in the region s priority corridors. If additional funding were available for a mid-range Reasonably Expected scenario, finishing planned improvements in the priority corridors should be the first application of any highway allocation. This general approach is supported by the results of the project evaluation process, where the region would concentrate its additional resources to build the highest-ranking project or group of projects. An example would be finishing the four planned Managed Lanes on all of I-80 (plus $1.4 billion) and the enhancements for I- North (plus $0.6 billion). These projects would use the $2.1 billion of additional highway revenue from increased gas taxes as shown above in Table 1, Option A. Initial rankings for projects in both of these corridors appear very high. With the additional $2.7 billion for highways as shown in Table 1, Option B, the next highest ranking corridor appears to be I- from La Jolla Village Boulevard to SR 90, then potentially the SR 78 HOV lanes and HOV connectors at I-1. Necessary freeway connectors and HOV/BRT connectors would be coordinated with transit improvements and grouped with adjacent freeway improvements. Expenditures on goods movement projects would be derived from the San Diego Regional Goods Movement Action Plan, approved by the Board in September Some additional facilities could be included in the Reasonably Expected scenario if they were financed with toll revenues. As demand outgrows the eight general purpose lanes in these corridors, the extension of the managed lanes on I- and I-1 to the Orange County and Riverside County lines could be added to this scenario if built as toll facilities. Final project rankings will be available later in March, as updated information is forthcoming for several criteria such as accident data. This information will be provided to the Transportation Committee prior to selecting the specific Revenue Constrained and Reasonably Expected scenarios for the draft 2007 RTP. SANDAG, MTS, and NCTD staffs have discussed some initial ideas for the reasonably expected transit network and propose the following priority funding scenario. First, the proposal will build upon the Revenue Constrained network and would increase service levels on those routes shown in Attachment 3. Second, additional funds would be set aside for increases to the existing transit network, such as local bus services and shuttles. Finally, additional capital improvements would be funded, such as the Downtown-Kearny Mesa and Sorrento Mesa Guideways 1, SPRINTER extension from the Escondido Transit Center to South Escondido/North County Fair, and the University City rail tunnel. New BRT and arterial rapid transit services will be chosen based on a prioritized list of 43 routes from the Unconstrained Transit Network. Rankings are the result of applying the transit project evaluation criteria approved by the Board in September These guideways are part of the Unconstrained Transit Network and are grade-separated transitways that could be used by bus and rail services. An initial project description has been developed but further analysis will be needed to refine the alignment, cost, and other details. 7

8 A possible alternative strategy to developing the Reasonably Expected transit network would be to concentrate more investment in new BRT and arterial rapid services rather than on a combination of additional investments in the existing system and new services. Staff does not recommend this strategy but rather one that makes investments in both the existing system and adds a reasonable set of new BRT/Rapid Bus services. Next Steps In addition to the Transportation Committee, the initial Revenue Constrained and Reasonably Expected scenario options will be discussed with various advisory groups during March, then with the Board on March 23. Staff will come back to the Transportation Committee on April 6 with specific network recommendations for the draft 2007 RTP, including the prioritized list of projects in each RTP category. In order to release the draft 2007 RTP in June 2007, a draft revenue constrained network needs to be defined by the April 13 Board Policy meeting. This schedule will allow time to perform the necessary air quality conformity analysis for the draft RTP. BOB LEITER Director of Land Use and Transportation Planning Attachments: 1. Draft Major Capital Improvements, 2006 vs Revenue Constrained Scenario - Revised March 6, Draft 2007 Revenue Constrained Highway Network, March Draft 2007 Revenue Constrained Transit Network, March Draft Phased Transit Services Revenue Constrained Scenario, Revised March 6, Draft Major Transit Expenditures Revenue Constrained Scenario, Revised March 6, Draft Major Expenditures 2007 Revenue Constrained Scenario, Revised March 6, 2007 Key Staff Contact: Michael Hix, (619) , mhi@sandag.org Funds are budgeted in Work Element #

9 Attachment 1 Major Capital Improvements 2006 vs Revenue Constrained Scenario ($ Millions) (revised March 6, 2007) Differences between the 2006 and 2007 Revenue Constrained Scenario are in strikeout and shaded. Transit Facilities SPRINTER Rail $484 $38 Mid-Coast Light Rail $1,008 $940 Transit Parking Structures $693 SPRINTER Rail Double Tracking and North County Fair Extension $199 $80 Coastal Rail Double Tracking and Other Improvements* $1,30 $703 Coastal Rail Tunnel (Del Mar only)* $47 $70 Regional Rail Grade Separations $363 $122 Improved/New Major Transit Stations and Centers $19 $930 Direct Access Ramps to Managed/HOV Lanes $0 $94 Transit First Priority Measures/Enhancements Funding $100 $97 Vehicles for New Services $280 $778 Arterial BRT Transit Priority Improvements $481 $3 Subtotal $,92 $6,234 HOV and Managed Lane Facilities Freeway From To Existing Improvements I- La Jolla Village Drive Vandegrift Blvd. /14F /14F + 4ML $2,400 $962 I-1 SR 94 SR 163 6F/ + 2HOV $26 $247 I-1 SR 163 SR 6 + 2ML (R) 10F + 4ML/MB $428 $342 I-1 SR 6 Centre City Pkwy. 10F + 4ML/MB $427 $422 I-1 Centre City Pkwy. SR ML $21 $183 SR 2 I-80 SR 12 4F/6F 6F + 2HOV/2ML(R) $330 $241 SR 4/SR 12 I-80 SR 94 6F/4F+2HOV 6F + 2HOV $119 $111 SR 94 I- I-1 I HOV $200 $99 I-80 SR 90 Palomar St. SR ML $884 $469 I-80 SR 4 94 I-8 SR 2 + 4ML 2HOV $631 $ I-80 Mission Valley Viaduct + 4ML $308 I-80 SR 2 La Jolla Village Dr. Carroll Cyn Rd. + 4ML $203 I-80 I-8 Carroll Cyn Rd. I- + 4ML 2HOV $218 $469 Subtotal $6,320 $4,408 $3,687 $6,770 HOV and BRT Connectors Freeway Intersecting Freeway Movement I- I-80 North to North & South to South $170 $222 I-1 SR 94 South to West & East to North $140 $18 I-1 I-80 North to North & South to South $66 I-80 SR 2 West to North & South to East $190 I-80 SR 94 North to West & East to South $9 Subtotal $661 $407 9

10 Highway System Completion Freeway From To Existing Improvements I-/I-80 Port of Entry Mexico --- Inspection Facility $30 $2 SR 11** SR 90 Mexico --- 4F 4T $300 $234 SR 2 SR 12 SR F $471 $446 SR 12*** SR 90 San Miguel Rd T $640 $63 SR 12 San Miguel Rd. SR F $160 $140 SR 90 I-80 Mexico --- 6F $ $423 Subtotal $2,16 $1,903 Highway Widening, Arterials, and Freeway Interchanges Routes From To Existing Improvements I- J Street Sea World Dr. Access Improvements $22 $210 I- I-80 SR 6 10F 14F $186 $180 SR 6 I- I-1 4F 6F $3 $49 SR 7/SR 6C + 2TU (Preliminary Glorietta Blvd. Alameda Blvd. 6C 282**** Engineering only) $20 SR 76 Melrose Dr. I-1 2C 4C $400 $382 SR 12*** Telegraph Cyn. San Miguel Rd. 4T 8T $130 $37 SR 12 San Miguel Rd. SR 4 4F $40 $37 SR 241*** Orange County I T/6T $36 $00 Regional Arterials and Local Access Freeway Interchanges $914 $420 Subtotal $2,04 $1,83 Freeway Connectors Freeway Intersecting Freeway Movement I- SR 6 West to North & South to East $18 $173 I- SR 78 West to South & South to East $200 $18 SR 94 SR 12 West to North & South to East $10 $136 Subtotal $3 $494 Total $18,128 $1,281 KEY: C = Conventional Highway Lanes F = Freeway Lanes I = Interstate HOV = High Occupancy Vehicle Lanes MB = Movable Barrier ML = Managed Lanes (HOV & Value Pricing) ML(R) = Managed Lanes (Reversible) SR = State Route T = Toll Lanes TU = Tunnel * funding from state/federal discretionary transportation funding sources ** public/private partnership *** privately funded **** funding from federal discretionary defense funding sources 10

11 San Diego Region Orange County 241 Riverside County Northern Extent San Diego Camp County Pendleton 4T/6T 4C 1 2C MAP AREA MILES Camp Pendleton 4E Oceanside Vista 78 San Marcos 6F Carlsbad Escondido +4ML +4ML 78 2C 2C 78 Encinitas +4ML 10F+4ML/MB 2C P A C I F I C P A C I F I C O C E A N Solana Beach Del Mar 6F 6 Poway 2C 67 County of San Diego DRAFT 2007 REVENUE CONSTRAINED HIGHWAY NETWORK March F+4ML 80 4F 2 +2HOV +4ML 6F+2HOV F+4ML/MB 6F+2ML (Reversible) 2 Santee 4F 67 4F 8 Managed/HOV Lanes General Purpose Lanes Access Improvements Freeway Connectors HOV/BRT Connectors C = Conventional Highway E = Expressway F = Freeway HOV = High Occupancy Vehicle MB = Movable Barrier ML = Managed Lanes T = Toll Road +2HOV 282 Coronado San +2HOV Diego 80 4F National City 7 6F 10F 8 +2HOV 94 +2HOV +4ML F+2HOV 12 La Mesa Lemon Grove 12 6F+2HOV +4ML 12 El Cajon 8T 94 2C MILES KILOMETERS Imperial Beach Chula Vista 4F 90 6F 4T 11 4T UNITED STATES MEXICO 1-D Tijuana, B.C. 11

12 San Diego Region MAP AREA Camp Pendleton Oceanside Vista 78 San Marcos Carlsbad Escondido Encinitas P A C I I F F I C Solana Beach Poway 67 Del Mar 6 County of San Diego O C E A N Santee DRAFT 2007 REVENUE CONSTRAINED TRANSIT NETWORK March 2007 Light Rail/ Commuter Rail San Diego La Mesa Lemon Grove El Cajon 94 Bus Rapid Transit Rapid Bus Coronado National City MILES KILOMETERS 80 Chula Vista Imperial Beach UNITED STATES MEXICO 1-D Tijuana, B.C. 12

13 Attachment 4 Phased Transit Services 2007 Revenue Constrained Scenario (revised March 6, 2007) YEAR ¹ ROUTE DESCRIPTION PEAK HEADWAY (MINUTES) OFF-PEAK HEADWAY (MINUTES) University California San Diego/University Towne Centre Super Loop Escondido Rapid Bus Increase in Blue Line Service (current headways 7½/1) Escondido to Centre City via Interstate 1 (I-1)/ State Route (SR) Escondido to Sorrento Mesa via Mira Mesa Boulevard El Cajon Boulevard to Centre City Otay Mesa to Sorrento Mesa via I-80/SR 2/I Otay Mesa to Centre City via SR 94/I Increase in COASTER Service (current headways 36/120)* Increase in SPRINTER Rail (opening headways 30/30) Mid-Coast Light Rail Transit Increase in Blue Line Trolley Service Increase in Orange Line Trolley Service (current headways 1/1) Increase in Green Line Trolley Service (current headways 1/1) Increase in Escondido to Centre City via I-1/SR Increase in Escondido to Sorrento Mesa via Mira Mesa Boulevard Increase in Otay Mesa to Centre City via SR 94/I Increase in Otay Mesa to Sorrento Mesa via I-80/SR 2/I Increase in SPRINTER Rail 1 1 ¹ These projects are included in the 2009, 2010, 2014, 2020, and 2030 analysis years for air quality assessment. * Average headways 13

14 Attachment Major Transit Expenditures 2007 Revenue Constrained Scenario ¹ ($ Millions) (revised March 6, 2007) PROJECT CATEGORIES FY 200 to FY 2010 FY 2011 to FY 2020 FY 2021 to FY 2030 TOTAL Major New Capital Facilities $82 $3,24 $1,76 $,92 SPRINTER Rail $484 $0 $0 $484 Mid-Coast Light Rail $0 $1,008 $0 $1,008 Transit Parking Structures $10 $420 $168 $693 SPRINTER Rail Double Tracking $0 $199 $0 $199 Coastal Rail Double Tracking & Other Improvements* $130 $610 $610 $1,30 Coastal Rail Tunnel (Del Mar only)* $0 $0 $47 $47 Regional Rail Grade Separations $0 $17 $16 $363 Improved/New Major Transit Stations and Centers $7 $466 $46 $19 Transit Priority Measures/Enhancements $20 $40 $40 $100 Vehicles for New Services $19 $21 $46 $280 Arterial BRT Transit Priority Improvements $37 $409 $3 $481 Operating Subsidies $886 $2,102 $2,41 $,403 Existing Service $874 $1,77 $1,77 $4,388 New/Improved Service $12 $34 $68 $1,016 Rehab./Replacement/Miscellaneous Capital $278 $1,038 $03 $1,819 TOTAL $2,016 $6,664 $4,494 $13,174 ¹ These projects are included in the 2009, 2010, 2014, 2020, and 2030 analysis years for air quality assessment * Assuming Historical Levels of State/Federal Funds (7 percent of total). 14

15 Attachment 6 Major Expenditures 2007 Revenue Constrained Scenario ($ Millions) (revised March, 6, 2007) Project Categories Systems Development and Operations FY 2006 to FY 2010 FY 2011 to FY 2020 FY 2021 to FY 2030 FY 2006 to FY 2030 Transit Major New Facilities $82 $3,24 $1,76 $,92 Miscellaneous Capital/Rehabilitation/Replacement $278 $1,038 $03 $1,819 Operating Subsidies $886 $2,102 $2,41 $,403 Subtotal $2,016 $6,664 $4,494 $13,174 Highways Managed/High Occupancy Vehicle Lane Facilities $427 $4,444 $2,110 $6,91 System Completion/Widening Projects $2,448 $1,238 $9 $4,281 Operations $4 $100 $114 $28 Maintenance $281 $622 $711 $1,614 Rehabilitation $286 $96 $766 $2,017 Subtotal $3,406 $7,368 $4,66 $1,10 Local Streets and Roads New Facility Construction $1,072 $1,961 $1,840 $4,873 Regionally Significant Arterials $124 $47 $333 $914 Operations/Maintenance/Rehabilitation $1,00 $2,00 $2,030 $,130 Subtotal $2,246 $4,468 $4,203 $10,917 Land Use/Systems Management/Demand Management Smart Growth Incentive Program $28 $79 $99 $207 Bicycle/Pedestrian Improvements $26 $112 $146 $284 Transportation Systems Management $96 $198 $212 $06 Transportation Demand Management $29 $60 $66 $1 Subtotal $179 $40 $23 $1,12 Grand Total Cost $7,763 $18,992 $13,828 $40,393 1