MEETING NOTICE AND AGENDA

Transcription

1 MEETING NOTICE AND AGENDA INTERAGENCY TECHNICAL WORKING GROUP ON TRIBAL TRANSPORTATION ISSUES The Working Group may take action on any item appearing on this agenda. Thursday, September 30, :30 a.m. 2:00 p.m. (Lunch hosted by Viejas Tribal Council) Viejas Tribal Hall Viejas Indian Reservation One Viejas Grade Road Alpine, CA Staff Contact: Jane Clough-Riquelme, Tribal Liaison (619) AGENDA HIGHLIGHTS 2050 RTP INITIAL REVENUE CONSTRAINED/SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITIES STRATEGY SCENARIOS 2050 RTP: TRIBAL TRANSPORTATION PLANS FOR INCLUSION IN 2050 RTP CONSULTATION WITH CALTRANS CALIFORNIA INTERREGIONAL BLUEPRINT The purpose of the Interagency Technical Working Group on Tribal Transportation Issues (Working Group) is to serve as a forum for tribal governments in the region to discuss and coordinate transportation issues of mutual concern with the various public planning agencies in the region, including SANDAG, Caltrans, the County of San Diego, and the transit operators. In partnership with the Reservation Transportation Authority (RTA), the Working Group will monitor and provide input on the implementation of the strategies and planning activities related to transportation mutually developed through the San Diego Regional Tribal Summit.

2 DIRECTIONS TO MEETING LOCATION 2

3 INTERAGENCY TECHNICAL WORKING GROUP ON TRIBAL TRANSPORTATION ISSUES Thursday, September 30, 2010 ITEM # 1. WELCOME FROM VIEJAS TRIBAL COUNCIL AND SELF INTRODUCTIONS RECOMMENDATION INFORMATION Estimated time: 11:30 11:35 a.m. 2. PUBLIC/MEMBER COMMENTS AND COMMUNICATION INFORMATION Members of the public will have the opportunity to address the Working Group on any issue within the jurisdiction of the Working Group that is not on this agenda. Speakers are limited to three minutes each and shall reserve time by completing a Request to Speak form and giving it to the staff prior to speaking. +3. APPROVAL OF THE MEETING SUMMARIES FOR MARCH 17, AND JULY 7, 2010, MEETINGS The Working Group is asked to approve the meeting summaries: 3a. March 17, b. July 7, 2010 Estimated time: 11:35 11:40 a.m. APPROVE Estimated time: 11:40 11:45 a.m. CONSENT ITEM (4) +4. DRAFT COORDINATED PLAN (Dan Levy, SANDAG) INFORMATION The Regional Short Range Transit Plan and Coordinated Plan provide a blueprint for the development of transit and human services transportation in San Diego for the next five years. This is the fourth year that it has been combined with the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) federal requirement for a Coordinated Public Transit and Human Services Transportation Plan and the first year that the rural areas of the region have been specifically incorporated into the plan. The findings of the rural needs assessment component were presented to the Southern California Tribal Chairmen s Association (SCTCA) at its July 21, 2010, meeting. The Coordinated Plan is currently out for public review and comment. Attached is a CD with the Coordinated Plan. It was also distributed by mail to all tribal offices in the County. Comment will be received until October 14,

4 ITEM # RECOMMENDATION REPORT ITEMS (5 through 11) 5. REPORT FROM CALTRANS NATIVE AMERICAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE (NAAC) QUARTERLY MEETING (Viejas Councilmember Timothy Bactad, Southern California Representative) Viejas Councilmember Tim Bactad, one of the representatives from Southern California Tribal Nations on the Caltrans NAAC, will brief the working group on statewide tribal transportation issues that the NAAC discussed at their last quarterly meeting on July 14, in Anaheim, California. 6. REPORT FROM THE SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA TRIBAL CHAIRMEN S ASSOCIATION (SCTCA) REPRESENTATIVE TO SANDAG TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE (Boxie Phoenix, SCTCA) The SCTCA has representatives on the SANDAG Board and Policy Advisory Committees, including the Transportation Committee. Currently, Boxie Phoenix (Barona) represents the SCTCA on that committee. As a feedback mechanism, Mr. Phoenix will brief the Working Group on discussions held at the Transportation Committee of interest to the Working Group REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN (2050 RTP): INITIAL REVENUE CONSTRAINED/SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITIES STRATEGY SCENARIOS (Heather Werdick and Coleen Clementson, SANDAG) Various Revenue Constrained transportation scenarios for the 2050 RTP have been developed using prioritized project lists and other factors. The Revenue Constrained transportation scenarios will attempt to build and operate as much of the Unconstrained Network as possible, given revenue availability and flexibility and project priorities. Staff will present the initial Revenue Constrained networks and Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) scenarios. The performance of these initial scenarios also will be presented. The Working Group is asked to discuss and provide feedback on the initial Revenue Constrained/SCS scenarios. INFORMATION Estimated time: 11:45 11:55 a.m. INFORMATION Estimated time: 11:55 a.m. 12:00 p.m. DISCUSSION Estimated time: 12:00 12:20 p.m. LUNCH SERVED 4

5 ITEM # +8. STATE ROUTE 76 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR PUBLIC COMMENT (Ann Fox, Caltrans) The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), as assigned by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), has prepared this Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement (Draft EIR/EIS), which examines the potential environmental impacts of the alternatives being considered for the proposed State Route 76 South Mission Road to just east of the Interstate 15 Interchange project located in unincorporated northern San Diego County, California. The document includes information on why the project is needed and what alternatives are being considered for the project. The document also includes information on project impacts and the proposed avoidance, minimization, and/or mitigation measures. Caltrans staff will provide a brief overview of the project and the alternative alignments being considered as part of this report. All comments must be received by Caltrans by November 2, RTP: TRIBAL TRANSPORTATION PLANS FOR INCLUSION IN 2050 RTP (Dave Toler, Working Group Co-Chair; Lonora Graves, Caltrans; and Jane Clough-Riquelme, SANDAG) One of the tribal transportation strategies agreed upon by the Boards of both SANDAG and the SCTCA was the inclusion of Tribal Transportation Plans (TTPs) in the 2050 RTP. Staff from Caltrans and SANDAG will discuss the role of the TTPs in the federal, state, and regional transportation planning process and have provided the attached information guidelines from the FHWA on the steps to develop one. The Working Group is asked to discuss the possibility of completed TTPs being included in the 2050 RTP and a work plan for their inclusion. RECOMMENDATION INFORMATION Estimated time: 12:35 12:55 p.m. DISCUSSION/ POSSIBLE ACTION Estimated time: 12:55 1:25 p.m. 5

6 ITEM # +10. CONSULTATION WITH CALTRANS - CALIFORNIA INTERREGIONAL BLUEPRINT (Laurie Waters, Caltrans Office of State Planning; and Lonora Graves, Native American Branch) Caltrans is beginning the process of developing the California Interregional Blueprint (CIB). The CIB will articulate the State's vision for an integrated, multimodal interregional transportation system that complements regional transportation plans and land use visions. The CIB when fully developed will become the foundation of the 2040 update to the State's long-range transportation plan, the California Transportation Plan (CTP). Caltrans staff would like to consult with tribal nations in the region regarding what they would like to see covered in the CIB with relation to tribal involvement. This will be the first of several consultations using existing tribal forums on transportation. 11. POSSIBLE TOPICS, ADJOURNMENT, AND NEXT MEETING (Dave Toler, Working Group Co-Chair) The Working Group is asked to suggest possible topics for the next quarterly meeting, which should be held in November 2010, in order to ensure Tribe input on the preferred scenario. RECOMMENDATION DISCUSSION Estimated time: 1:25 1:55 p.m. DISCUSSION Estimated time: 1:55 2:00 p.m. + next to an item indicates an attachment 6

7 San Diego Association of Governments INTERAGENCY TECHNICAL WORKING GROUP ON TRIBAL TRANSPORTATION ISSUES September 30, 2010 AGENDA ITEM NO.: 3a Action Requested: APPROVE APPROVAL OF MEETING SUMMARY FOR MARCH 17, 2010 File Number WELCOME BY BARONA TRIBAL COUNCIL AND SELF-INTRODUCTIONS Co-Chair Boxie Phoenix (Barona) called the meeting to order at 10:03 a.m. Chair Thorpe Romero (Barona) provided a welcome and explained the importance of this particular meeting to prepare for the 2010 Regional Tribal Summit. Co-Chair Phoenix introduced Ben Magante Sr., Tribal Elder from Pauma and Chair of the RTA, and Tony Largo, Executive Director of the RTA. 2. PUBLIC COMMENTS AND COMMUNICATIONS There were no public comments or communications. 3. APPROVAL OF THE DECEMBER 2, 2009, MEETING SUMMARY There was a motion by Dave Toler (San Pasqual) and second by Chair Romero; the meeting summary was approved. CONSENT ITEMS SAN DIEGO REGIONAL TRIBAL SUMMIT The SANDAG Borders Committee and the SCTCA formed a joint task force to develop a collaborative agenda for the upcoming Tribal Summit. Attached is the final agenda approved by both boards for the summit to be held on April 9, 2010, from 10 a.m. to 3:30 p.m., hosted by the Rincon Band of Luiseño Indians. Co-Chair Phoenix reminded all of the upcoming Regional Tribal Summit and the importance of tribal participation. 7

8 5. SOCIAL SERVICE TRANSPORTATION GRANTS At its February 16, 2010, meeting, the SCTCA board requested evaluation criteria and guidelines for the social service transportation grant programs outlined in the Coordinated Plan. Attached are the evaluation criteria and guidelines applicable to tribal governments and rural areas for statewide grant funding opportunities through the JARC and New Freedom programs and local grant funding opportunities through the Senior Transportation Mini-Grant program. Co-Chair Phoenix noted that the requested documents for the grant program were attached. REPORTS 6. CHAIR S REPORT Co-Chair Phoenix introduced the RTA s new chair, Mr. Magante, and the RTA s executive director, Mr. Largo. 7. REPORT FROM CALTRANS NAAC QUARTERLY MEETING Bo Mazzetti, Southern California Representative to NAAC, provided an update on several items including: The California Attorney General s opinion on the Tribal Employment Rights Ordinance and taxation The status of BIA requirements and fees for encroachment permits on tribal land Right-of-Way resolution with the County of San Diego The IRR Inventory and coordination with the BIA The Working Group members discussed the importance of these issues. 8. WORKING GROUP ELECTIONS Chair Romero nominated Mr. Toler. The nomination was seconded by Chair Devers. The nomination was unanimously approved by the Working Group. Mr. Toler will take over as tribal co-chair of the Working Group beginning with the next meeting. 9. UPDATE FROM THE RTA Mr. Largo provided an update on several new tribal transportation planning grants, including a $192,000 Caltrans planning grant for Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Phase II, which will focus on RTA tribal member enterprises in Riverside. This is the second part of a project designed to develop the RTA s capacity as a TDM Coordinator for the Tribal Nations in the region. RTA also received $1.2 million from the FTA for the Tribal Transit Program for 8

9 capital improvements as part of the federal ARRA funding. Mr. Largo discussed some of the issues and challenges in working on transit projects for which the Working Group directed the RTA to apply REGIONAL ARTERIAL SYSTEM MAP At its December 2, 2009, meeting, the Working Group requested that a map be prepared on the base of the tribal lands map of the region to demonstrate the 2030 Regional Arterial System in order to determine which roads serve the reservations. Staff will present the map and answer any questions the Working Group may have. Heather Werdick (SANDAG) presented the map and listing of roads included in the agenda packet. There were questions about the reservation names on the map for Pala and Pauma. It also was requested that more detail on what would be included in the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) be added to the map for future discussion RTP: PROPOSED TRANSPORTATION PROJECT EVALUATION CRITERIA AND EVALUATION RATINGS SANDAG staff provided a report on the proposed evaluation criteria. This will include refinements that have been made by the Transportation Project Evaluation Criteria Ad Hoc Working Group. Working Group members were asked to discuss and provide feedback on the proposed draft evaluation criteria. Elisa Arias (SANDAG) reviewed the overarching themes of the RTP and how they relate to the project evaluation criteria. She explained how the criteria will be used to rank specific transportation projects by transportation type (highway, transit, etc.). Action Recommendation Working Group members proposed added criteria to give higher ranking to transportation projects that benefit tribal reservations. Chair Devers made a motion that project evaluation criteria incorporate rankings for projects that serve tribal reservations. The motion was seconded by Chair Romero. The motion passed unanimously. 12. DRAFT 2050 RTP TRIBAL TRANSPORTATION WHITE PAPER The Working Group has been developing a Tribal Transportation White Paper over the last several meetings, including a discussion of milestones achieved from the 2006 summit and a discussion of a set of strategies for consideration for the 2050 RTP. SANDAG staff presented the final draft report for the Working Group's review and comment. 9

10 Jane Clough-Riquelme (SANDAG) reviewed the draft white paper and requested input from the Working Group members. She explained that the purpose of the white paper is to provide background to tribal and local elected leaders in preparation for the 2010 Tribal Summit. Content includes background on Tribal Nations in the San Diego region, the policy and technical framework for government-to-government relations, milestones in collaborative tribal transportation planning, and the 2050 RTP process. It was requested that the document be provided to the Working Group members in Microsoft Word for editing. It also was requested that the reference to the RTA include Santa Barbara. Accept With Requested Edits The Working Group took action to accept the white paper subject to any edits that are sent to SANDAG prior to finalization. 13. RURAL COORDINATED PLAN EFFORTS SANDAG is currently updating its five-year Public Transit and Human Services Transportation Plan (Coordinated Plan) and received a Caltrans grant to conduct a more in-depth analysis of the transportation demands in the rural areas of San Diego County. The first step includes a survey outreach effort throughout the rural areas to assess transportation needs and available resources. Staff is asking the Working Group to participate in the survey and provide liaison information for participating tribes. Phil Trom (SANDAG) provided an overview of the rural Coordinated Plan efforts. 14. UPDATE ON THE BIA, INDIAN RESERVATION ROADS INVENTORY ISSUE Caltrans received a federal grant to assist tribal governments in the state to update their IRR Inventories. According to the current transportation bill (Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users), tribal governments can include on their inventories state routes and city or county roads that are critical to their reservation transportation system. The Working Group has been working together to ensure that all tribes in the San Diego region who want to update their inventory to increase their transportation planning funding have the support to do so. Caltrans' consultant, Winzler and Kelly, completed the inventories; however, there has been limited follow-through on the second portion of the process for completion of the IRR submittal packets. Each tribe is responsible for submitting a Tribal Transportation Plan, a resolution indicating the road segments to be considered in their inventory, and letters of acknowledgement from the owners of the nontribal road segments to be included. On February 1, tribes, Caltrans, and the BIA met via teleconference to go over the obstacles to finalizing the IRR Inventories and were told that many tribes had not completed these forms. It was decided that this item was covered in earlier discussion on Item 7. 10

11 15. POSSIBLE TOPICS AND NEXT MEETING The next meeting was scheduled for Wednesday, June 23, 2010, from 10 a.m. to 12 noon at San Pasqual. Possible topics mentioned include follow-up from the 2010 Tribal Summit and discussion of the Americans With Disabilities Act services law. The meeting was adjourned at 12:19 p.m. Key Staff Contact: Jane Clough-Riquelme, (619) , 11

12 San Diego Association of Governments INTERAGENCY TECHNICAL WORKING GROUP ON TRIBAL TRANSPORTATION ISSUES September 30, 2010 AGENDA ITEM NO.: 3b Action Requested: APPROVE APPROVAL OF MEETING SUMMARY FOR JULY 7, 2010 File Number WELCOME AND INTRODUCTIONS Tribal Working Group Co-Chair Dave Toler called the meeting to order at 10:18 a.m. Chairman Allan Lawson of San Pasqual led the blessing. Self introductions. 2. PUBLIC COMMENT Tom Bumgardner, member of the public, discussed the building of a Senior Center in Escondido, with the Chamber of Commerce and the Parks and Recreation Department. He anticipates this to be a five year project. Mark Bobotis, Caltrans District 11 Native American Liaison, stated that Caltrans is beginning a major initiative which forms part of the statewide transportation planning process known as the California Interregional Blueprint (CIB). The state planners are interested in how the tribes would like to be involved in the process and would like to consult with the tribes in the San Diego region. Mr. Bobotis suggested that the Working Group would be an excellent venue. Tribal involvement at the state level is critical to improve plans and prioritize projects. On behalf of Caltrans he asked that the Working Group consider including an item at the next quarterly meeting for consultation. Eric Eidlin, FTA Community Planner and Tribal Liaison for Region 9, announced the existence of grant programs for Sustainable Communities. The FTA is looking for potential pilot projects with interested tribal nations. Chairman Bo Mazzetti, Rincon, commented that California tribal transportation projects that were submitted to the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) are getting stuck in the bureaucracy. Projects are not being implemented properly. There are a number of issues that have to be dealt with. Chairman Mazzetti interacts with the BIA at the federal level as he sits on a federal advisory committee but the problems are regional. Chairman Mazzetti stated that the BIA doesn t do there job, so the tribal projects don t get onto the Regional Transportation Improvement Plan (RTIP) and thus are not eligible for funding. SANDAG has never funded a tribal transportation project. This is the fault of the BIA for not doing their job. 12

13 Chairman Thorpe Romero, Barona, asked SANDAG staff if the list of tribal projects from the BIA had been submitted to SANDAG. Jane Clough-Riquelme, SANDAG Tribal Liaison, responded that a list was submitted last week upon repeated requests from SANDAG but it was a control sheet with insufficient information for programming purposes. The BIA staff told SANDAG staff that the full list with the correct information for RTIP programming should be provided to SANDAG through Caltrans. Caltrans staff with whom SANDAG staff discussed this said they were not aware of this responsibility. There seems to be a significant mismatch in terms of who is responsible for ensuring that BIA approved tribal transportation project get into the RTIP. Chairman Mazzetti added that the federal office of the BIA is aware there are problems in California and that there will be a consultation this summer to address this issue. Chairman Thorpe Romero, Barona, added that tribes are losing significant opportunities for matching funding for important projects when they cannot get the issue with the BIA resolved. 3. APPROVAL OF MEETING SUMMARY FROM MARCH 17, 2010 Item tabled for lack of quorum. ITEMS #4 and #5 CONSENT 6. REPORT OUT FROM NAAC MEETING Councilmember Timothy Bactad, Viejas, updated the Working Group on the last meeting of the Caltrans statewide Native American Advisory Group. 7. REPORT OUT FROM SANDAG TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE Tribal Working Group Co-Chair Dave Toler reported out on the SANDAG Transportation Committee. He indicated that it was critical to begin discussing how to incorporate tribal transportation plans in the RTP. He emphasized the unique relationship that the tribes in the region have with SANDAG. It is important to work together and figure out how to integrate tribal transportation needs into the overall plan. 8. UPDATE FROM THE RESERVATION TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY RTA Executive Director, Tony Largo, briefed the Working Group on current grants the RTA is administering that originated with the Working Group. Mr. Largo stated that there is a long process the RTA needs to go to to qualify for a grant. The TDM project with tribes in Riverside is now under way. The RTA also has an FTA Tribal Transit grant. They have just recently amended their Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with North County Transit District to continue the enhanced service of the 388/389 route. NCTD is actually operating at a loss because of some contract negotiations when they outsourced their bus drivers. It affected the agreement, but was an oversight on the part of NCTD and they have absorbed the cost. They will need to continue discussing ways to resolve the issue. The RTA will submit to the FTA program for the coming cycle. Some of the 13

14 reporting requirements are complicated and RTA staff has to be trained on the TEAM program that the FTA uses. RTA is short-staffed and trying to meet all of its obligations. In terms of outreach, the RTA has a Web site that they are using to keep their members informed. He added that the RTA is working with the BIA on a number of projects, but there is insufficient funding and it is difficult. What often happens is that the funding comes for the environmental piece, but before the construction funding is made available the EIR is already out of date. This is a serious conundrum for the agency and the RTA is open for discussing ways to get around this. Discussion Chairman Thorpe Romero, Barona, asked about the various funding sources/projects that the RTA has currently. Are they all going to be implemented on time? Are there funds that will expire and have to be returned if they are not utilized? Mr. Largo responded that they are handling this process. Chairman Bo Mazzetti, Rincon, explained that for the BIA projects, tribes pool their funding together and prioritize projects so they can get them done. Otherwise each tribe gets a small portion of what they need and nothing gets built. The RTA was successful in completing a number of projects by pooling their funds. Jane Clough-Riquelme, SANDAG Tribal Liaison, asked about the status of the FTA ARRA funding that the RTA received for constructing bus stops. Have they received their notice to proceed? Mr. Largo responded that as they turned everything electronic a lot of paperwork has been lost. Working Group Co-Chair (and member of RTA Board) suggested that perhaps at the next RTA board meeting they should discuss bringing on a full time planner to administer the grant projects that are not related to roads. 9. REPORT ON SAN DIEGO REGIONAL TRIBAL SUMMIT AND NEXT STEPS Chairman Thorpe Romero, Barona, discussed the Tribal Summit and next steps on behalf of Chairman Devers. There were over 100 participants representing 13 tribes and 13 cities, as well as the County of San Diego and other public agencies. Chairman Romero summarized what was discussed at the meeting. Working Group Co-Chair Renée Wasmund went over the tribal transportation strategies discussion that was held at the Summit. Through an interactive polling exercise five priority strategies were selected. These will form the basis for the collaborative action agenda, as well as provide direction for the 2050 RTP. Chairman Romero added that one issue discussed between the two boards was how often to hold the Summits. The possibility of having them every two years was discussed. Dave Toler agreed that holding Summits more frequently would facilitate more involvement of tribes in the planning process. 14

15 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN (RTP): DRAFT PLAN PERFORMANCE MEASURES TRAVEL TIME IN KEY CORRIDORS/COMMUNITIES SANDAG staff provided an update on the development of the 2050 RTP performance measures and sought input from the Southern California Tribal Chairmen s Association (SCTCA) at its May 18, 2010, meeting held in Escondido. At its June 18, 2010, meeting, the Transportation Committee recommended that the Board of Directors approve the 2050 RTP performance measures at a future meeting. Staff proposes that the 2050 RTP performance measures incorporate two tribal corridors within the travel time in key travel corridors/communities indicator. Staff requested that the Tribal TWG provide input to facilitate the selection of the two tribal corridors. Discussion Staff commented that Option B will be addressed with other corridors. There are a total of approximately 8-10 travel corridors that will be analyzed. SANDAG staff is asking the tribal nations which corridors are of particular concern to them. Staff is seeking input. The focus is on travel times and should be in corridors where there is going to be significant improvements between now and Elisa Arias, SANDAG, stated that it focuses on travel times and how those corridors would benefit from other modes of transportation. Chairman Bo Mazzetti, Rincon, suggested Wild Cat Canyon Road and State Route 76. Elisa Arias clarified that that the RTP deals with Regional Arterials rather than local roads. Chairman Thorpe Romero, Barona, commented that it is important to take into consideration the urban areas in the eastern part of the County that come through tribal lands. They are in need of improvement too even though they are not in the urban core. Chairman Bo Mazzetti noted a need for better representation at SANDAG. Chairman Romero responded that he has observed at the SANDAG Board of Directors there is clearly an interest in incorporating tribes into the planning process, but that there is a learning curve on both sides. He commented that things were going in the right direction. Mark Bobotis, Caltrans, noted that one of the key components of the California Interregional Blueprint is the trips that start at one point and end at another. This could be a good starting point for a dialogue between the tribes and the state on just this issue. Chairman Thorpe Romero suggested that Dave Toler take this issue to the next SCTCA meeting for their direction. 11. DEVELOPMENT OF THE INITIAL UNCONSTRAINED TRANSPORTATION NETWORK Based on feedback received from SANDAG working groups and the public, policy advisory committees, and the Board of Directors, staff has assembled initial recommendations for a preferred 2050 transit network based on the initial three alternatives evaluated as part of the Urban Area Transit Strategy. This transit network, combined with highway improvements, and other management strategies form the basis for the initial 15

16 2050 Unconstrained Transportation Network. Working Group members are asked to discuss and provide feedback on the draft Unconstrained Transportation Network. Discussion Staff noted that there were several highway improvements of interest to tribal nations in the Unconstrained Network including: improvements to Interstate 8 to Alpine; Improvements on SR 94 to Jamul; Operational Improvements to the SR 76; and widening of SR 67 north of Interstate SOCIAL SERVICE TRANSPORTATION GRANTS SANDAG staff updated the Working Group on Coordinated Plan outreach efforts and schedules for the upcoming rural and urban competitive grant processes. Staff also provided the evaluation criteria, guidelines, and available dollars for statewide grant funding opportunities applicable to tribal governments and rural areas through the Job Access and Reverse Commute (JARC) and New Freedom programs and local grant funding opportunities through the TransNet Senior Transportation Mini-Grant program. Staff noted that they would be bringing the findings of the rural needs study to the SCTCA at its July 21 meeting and that Rincon Tribal Council had agreed to host an outreach workshop at their tribal hall in early July. 13. POSSIBLE TOPICS, ADJOURNMENT, AND NEXT MEETING Consultation with statewide planning staff on California Interregional Blueprint An update soon from the Tribal Technical Assistance Program (NIJC) Invite the new Caltrans Native American liaison, Lonora Graves, from headquarters? The BIA should be invited to participate Tribal Transportation Plans and their inclusion in the 2050 RTP Chairman Thorpe Romero suggested that Dave Toler make a report on the Tribal Working Group to the SCTCA Board so they are informed of the issues coming to the Working Group. Councilmember Tim Bactad, Viejas, offered to host the next meeting at Viejas in September. Staffs were directed to work out the details. Meeting adjourned at 12:38 p.m. Attachment: 1. Attendance Sheet from July 7, 2010, Tribal Working Group Meeting Key Staff Contact: Jane Clough-Riquelme, (619) , jcl@sandag.org 16

17 17 Attachment 1

18 San Diego Association of Governments INTERAGENCY TECHNICAL WORKING GROUP ON TRIBAL TRANSPORTATION ISSUES September 30, 2010 AGENDA ITEM NO.: 7 Action Requested: DISCUSSION 2050 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN (2050 RTP): INITIAL REVENUE File Number CONSTRAINED/SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITIES STRATEGY SCENARIOS Introduction During the past few months, staff presented the draft 2050 RTP Unconstrained Highway and Transit Networks to the Board of Directors, Policy Advisory Committees (PACs), various SANDAG working groups, and at other public meetings for input. The basis of the draft 2050 Unconstrained Transportation Network presented in this report includes the hybrid transit scenario from the Urban Area Transit Strategy, highway improvements to serve both people and goods, local streets and roads improvements, bicycle projects within the regional network, rail grade separations, and other management strategies. At its July 23, 2010, meeting the Board accepted the draft Unconstrained Transportation Network for use in the development of the draft 2050 RTP. Based on revenue projections through 2050, various initial Revenue Constrained transportation scenarios have been developed using prioritized project lists and other factors. The Revenue Constrained transportation scenarios will attempt to build and operate as much of the Unconstrained Network as possible, given revenue availability and flexibility, and project priorities. Staff will provide an overview of the initial Revenue Constrained scenarios. Tribal TWG members are asked to discuss and provide feedback on the initial Revenue Constrained Scenarios. Attachment: 1. September 24, 2010, Board of Directors Agenda Item No. 20 Key Staff Contact: Heather Werdick, (619) , hwe@sandag.org 18

19 Attachment 1 BOARD OF DIRECTORS AGENDA ITEM NO SEPTEMBER 24, 2010 ACTION REQUESTED DISCUSSION 2050 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN: File Number INITIAL REVENUE CONSTRAINED NETWORK/SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITIES STRATEGY SCENARIOS Introduction During the past few months, staff has presented the draft 2050 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) Unconstrained Highway and Transit Networks to the Board of Directors, Policy Advisory Committees (PACs), various SANDAG working groups, and at other public meetings for input. The basis of the draft 2050 Unconstrained Transportation Network includes the hybrid transit scenario from the Urban Area Transit Strategy, highway improvements to serve both people and goods, local streets and roads improvements, bicycle projects within the regional network, rail grade separations, and other management strategies. At its July 23, 2010, meeting the Board accepted the draft Unconstrained Transportation Network for use in the development of the draft 2050 RTP. Based on revenue projections through 2050, various initial Revenue Constrained Network Scenarios have been developed using prioritized project lists and other factors. The Revenue Constrained Network Scenarios will attempt to build and operate as much of the Unconstrained Transportation Network as possible, given revenue availability and flexibility, and project priorities. The Board of Directors is asked to discuss and provide feedback on the initial 2050 Revenue Constrained Network Scenarios. The Transportation Committee will be discussing these scenarios at its September 17, 2010, meeting, and staff will present any comments received at the September 24 Board meeting. Discussion Draft Unconstrained Transportation Network In developing the 2050 RTP, the Unconstrained Transportation Network represents the region s vision for transit, highway, and arterial improvements and operations to meet travel demand in Defining the Unconstrained Transportation Network is an important step in developing an updated RTP because it establishes the broadest multimodal network from which Revenue Constrained Network Scenarios will be developed. The 2050 Unconstrained Transit and Highway Networks are included as Attachments 1 and 2, respectively. The estimated cost of the draft Unconstrained Transportation Network totals approximately $135 billion to $140 billion through Costs will continue to be refined during the development of the 2050 RTP. 19

20 Revenue Projections, Flexible Funding, and Board Policy An important step in preparing the 2050 RTP is to determine the likely revenues that will be available to develop Revenue Constrained Network Scenarios. Initial revenue estimates indicate that approximately $100 billion to $110 billion would be available through The revenue forecasts include projections of anticipated federal, state, local, and private funds from existing and reasonably available future sources. These revenues range from the locally generated TransNet half-cent sales tax to state and federal formula funds derived from fuel taxes. These revenue projections are based on current sources and levels of funding, with growth assumptions supported by historical trends. The allowable uses for these funds are governed by a variety of mechanisms, including federal and state statutes, the TransNet ordinance, Board policy, or by other agencies including Caltrans and local agencies. In order to develop the different Revenue Constrained Network Scenarios for evaluation, staff proposes as an exercise to evaluate those funds that are governed at the discretion of the SANDAG Board and only require a simple majority of the Board to program. This assumption would allow for approximately $3 billion to $3.5 billion in flexible funding through 2050 (or about 3 percent of the total projected revenues that range between $100 billion and $110 billion). It should be noted, however, that the current use of these funds is primarily to support the implementation of the TransNet program of projects beyond the 50 percent matching funds goal included in the TransNet Extension Ordinance. Additional revenues would need to be identified over the course of the implementation of the TransNet program in order to complete the projects in the Ordinance. Initial Revenue Constrained Network Scenarios During the last month, staff prioritized the future projects in all modes included in the Unconstrained Transportation Network using the Board-approved transportation project evaluation criteria. Based on revenue projections to 2050, staff developed initial Revenue Constrained Network Scenarios with a range of modal emphases based on possible flexible funding using this prioritized project list and other factors. Before the Board is asked to select the preferred Revenue Constrained Network Scenario, staff will analyze the initial Revenue Constrained Network Scenarios for consistency with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, as part of the overall evaluation that will be conducted using the Board-approved performance measures. Staff developed four initial 2050 Revenue Constrained Network Scenarios. Staff proposes that various mixes and levels of Transportation Demand Management (TDM)/Transportation System Management (TSM) programs and projects, Smart Growth Incentive Program funding, and Regional Bicycle Plan improvements be implemented in each of the scenarios. Additionally, local street and road improvements are included in each scenario. 1. Transit Emphasis Scenario This scenario would focus on expansion of the regional transit system, given flexible funding availability. 2. Rail/Freight Scenario This scenario would focus on expansion of the regional transit system with an emphasis on rail projects and also highway improvements to support freight, given flexible funding availability. 2 20

21 3. Highway Emphasis Scenario This scenario would focus on expansion of highway system improvements that provide systemwide congestion relief for people and freight, given flexible funding availability. 4. Fusion Scenario This scenario would focus on implementing projects and programs considering the preferred choices identified in the recent public opinion telephone survey. These include: new public transit services (rail and bus), highway improvements (bottleneck relief and new lanes), and increased frequencies to existing transit routes. The City of San Marcos has proposed to fund a streetcar serving its downtown, Palomar College, and California State University, San Marcos (both capital and operations). This route has been included in the initial Revenue Constrained Network Scenarios. Attachments 3 through 10 illustrate the highway and transit projects included in each of the initial scenarios. The draft project rankings are included as Attachments 11 to 16. Projects that are included in each of the scenarios, but were not ranked, are included in Attachment 17. Sustainable Communities Strategy The Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) will be an integral part of the 2050 RTP. It will demonstrate how development patterns and the transportation network, policies, and programs can work together to achieve greenhouse gas (GHG) emission reduction targets for cars and light trucks, if there is a feasible way to do so. The SCS will be based upon the four building blocks that have served as the underpinning for transportation planning in the San Diego region for many years. Work has already been completed or is underway on each of the four building blocks as indicated below. A land use pattern that accommodates the region s future employment and housing needs and protects sensitive habitat and resource areas The 2050 Regional Growth Forecast and San Diego Regional Multiple Species/Habitat Conservation Plans will serve as the basis for the land use pattern. The Regional Housing Needs Assessment also will be an important part of the land use inputs. A transportation network of public transit, highways, local streets, bikeways, and sidewalks. The transportation network is currently being developed as described in the discussion of Revenue Constrained Network Scenarios above. Transportation Demand Management such as carpool and telecommute programs Different mixes and levels of TDM strategies also are being developed with the Revenue Constrained Network Scenarios. Transportation System Management programs such as congestion pricing strategies and freeway ramp metering Different mixes and levels of TSM strategies also are being developed with the Revenue Constrained Network Scenarios. Scenario Performance In the coming months, SANDAG will be evaluating the various Revenue Constrained Network Scenarios based upon Board-approved plan performance measures, including GHG emissions. 3 21

22 Next Steps Based on feedback from Working Groups, PACs, and the Board of Directors, staff will refine the Revenue Constrained Network Scenarios and continue to evaluate their performance. Revised Revenue Constrained Network Scenarios and initial performance of these scenarios will be presented to Working Groups, PACs, and the Board of Directors in October. GARY L. GALLEGOS Executive Director Attachments: RTP Draft Unconstrained Transit Network RTP Draft Unconstrained Highway Network 3. Draft 2050 RTP Transit Emphasis Transit Network 4. Draft 2050 RTP Transit Emphasis Highway Network 5. Draft 2050 RTP Rail/Freight Emphasis Transit Network 6. Draft 2050 RTP Rail/Freight Emphasis Highway Network 7. Draft 2050 RTP Highway Emphasis Transit Network 8. Draft 2050 RTP Highway Emphasis Highway Network 9. Draft 2050 RTP Fusion Transit Network 10. Draft 2050 RTP Fusion Highway Network 11. Draft Highway Project Rankings 12. Draft Transit Services Rankings 13. Draft Freeway Connector Rankings 14. Draft High Occupancy Vehicle Connector Rankings 15. Draft Goods Movement Project Rankings 16. Draft Rail Grade Separation Rankings RTP: Projects Exempt from Project Rankings Key Staff Contact: Heather Werdick, (619) , Funds are budgeted in Work Element #

23 Attachment 1 Camp Pendleton Oceanside ˆ Riverside County Vista San Marcos Carlsbad Escondido Encinitas Solana Beach Poway Del Mar Carmel Valley Sorrento Mesa Mira Mesa UTC La Jolla Pacific Beach Kearny Mesa Santee Mission Valley Ocean Beach Point Loma Old Town Mid City La Mesa El Cajon Downtown Lemon Grove Draft 2050 Unconstrained Transit Network Coronado National City Legend High Speed and Commuter Rail COASTER Rail Chula Vista Otay Ranch Light Rail Transit Express Light Rail Transit Bus Rapid Transit Imperial Beach Peak Bus Rapid Transit Rapid Bus Streetcar/Shuttle-Circulator San Ysidro Otay Mesa High Frequency Local Bus Services 523 7/23/2010

24 Camp Pendleton 8F+4T Attachment 2 MAP AREA 2C 4C 8F+4T 4C San Diego Region 6C E 76 8F+4T 2C Oceanside 8F+4ML 78 10F+4ML 6F+2HOV Vista San Marcos Carlsbad Escondido County of San Diego 10F+4ML 10F+4ML 78 2C 2C 78 Encinitas Solana Beach 5 10F+4ML 10F+4ML/MB Poway 67 2C Draft 2050 Unconstrained Highway Network September 2010 Del Mar 14F+4ML 56 6F+2HOV 8F+4ML 15 10F+4ML/MB 4C Managed/HOV Lanes General Purpose Lanes Toll Lanes Operational Improvements Freeway Connectors HOV Connectors Freeway & HOV Connectors C = Conventional Highway E = Expressway F = Freeway HOV = High Occupancy Vehicle MB = Movable Barrier ML = Managed Lanes T = Toll Road TU = Tunnel MILES KILOMETERS 5 8F/10F + 2HOV 6F 8F/10F +4ML 282 6C+2TU San Diego 8F Coronado 8F 6F+2HOV F 10F+2HOV National City 75 Imperial Beach 8F+2HOV 15 10F+2HOV 8F+ 2HOV 10F F+3ML/MB 52 6F+2HOV La Mesa F+4ML 54 Chula Vista 8F 8F 8F+2HOV 805 8F+4ML Santee 67 6F 6F 6F Lemon Grove 125 8F+2HOV F+4ML San Diego 8F 6F 8F El Cajon F+2HOV 8F 11 6F 4C 4T 6F 2C F UNITED STATES MEXICO 1-D Tijuana, B.C. 624

25 Attachment 3 Camp Pendleton Oceanside ˆ Riverside County Vista San Marcos Carlsbad Escondido Encinitas Solana Beach Poway Del Mar UTC Carmel Valley Sorrento Mesa Mira Mesa La Jolla Pacific Beach Kearny Mesa Santee Mission Valley Ocean Beach Point Loma Old Town Mid City La Mesa El Cajon Downtown Lemon Grove Draft 2050 RTP Transit Emphasis Transit Network Legend Coronado National City High Speed and Commuter Rail COASTER Rail Chula Vista Otay Ranch Light Rail Transit Express Light Rail Transit Bus Rapid Transit Imperial Beach Peak Bus Rapid Transit Rapid Bus Streetcar/Shuttle-Circulator San Ysidro Otay Mesa High Frequency Local Bus Services 725 9/10/2010

26 Camp Pendleton Attachment 4 MAP AREA 4C San Diego Region Oceanside 8F+4ML Vista 78 6F+2HOV San Marcos Carlsbad 8F+4ML 8F+4ML Escondido County of San Diego Encinitas 10F+4ML/MB Solana Beach 8F+4ML 67 5 Poway Draft 2050 RTP Transit Emphasis Highway Network September 2010 Managed/HOV Lanes General Purpose Lanes Toll Lanes Operational Improvements Freeway Connectors HOV Connectors Freeway & HOV Connectors C = Conventional Highway E = Expressway F = Freeway HOV = High Occupancy Vehicle MB = Movable Barrier ML = Managed Lanes OPS = Operational Improvements T = Toll Road MILES KILOMETERS Del Mar 8F/14F + 4ML 5 8F/10F + 2HOV 6F 6F 8F/10F +2HOV San Diego Coronado 8F+2HOV 8F+OPS 8F+OPS F/10F+4ML 6F+2HOV F+2HOV National City 75 Imperial Beach 8F + 10F+4ML/MB 8F+2HOV 15 8F+ 2HOV 8F/10F+OPS F+2ML(R) F+2HOV 94 8F+4ML Chula Vista 125 6F+2HOV La Mesa 6F+2HOV F+4ML Santee 67 Lemon Grove 125 6F+2HOV 905 8F San Diego 6F 4C 6F/8F+OPS El Cajon 125 8F+2HOV 8F 6C 11 4T 6F 2C 8 94 UNITED STATES MEXICO 1-D Tijuana, B.C. 826

27 Attachment 5 Camp Pendleton Oceanside ˆ Riverside County Vista San Marcos Escondido Carlsbad Encinitas Solana Beach Poway Del Mar Carmel Valley Sorrento Mesa Mira Mesa UTC La Jolla Pacific Beach Kearny Mesa Santee Mission Valley Ocean Beach Point Loma Old Town Mid City La Mesa El Cajon Draft 2050 RTP Rail/Freight Emphasis Transit Network Coronado Downtown National City Lemon Grove Legend High Speed and Commuter Rail COASTER Rail Chula Vista Otay Ranch Light Rail Transit Express Light Rail Transit Bus Rapid Transit Imperial Beach Peak Bus Rapid Transit Rapid Bus Streetcar/Shuttle-Circulator San Ysidro Otay Mesa High Frequency Local Bus Services 927 9/10/2010

28 Camp Pendleton Attachment 6 MAP AREA 4C 2C San Diego Region Oceanside 8F+4ML Vista 78 6F+2HOV San Marcos Carlsbad 8F+4ML 8F+4ML Escondido County of San Diego Encinitas 10F+4ML/MB Solana Beach 8F+4ML 67 5 Poway Draft 2050 RTP Rail/Freight Emphasis Highway Network September 2010 Del Mar 8F/14F + 4ML 6F 56 8F+4ML 15 10F+4ML/MB 4C Managed/HOV Lanes General Purpose Lanes Toll Lanes Operational Improvements Freeway Connectors HOV Connectors Freeway & HOV Connectors C = Conventional Highway E = Expressway F = Freeway HOV = High Occupancy Vehicle MB = Movable Barrier ML = Managed Lanes OPS = Operational Improvements T = Toll Road 5 8F/10F + 2HOV 6F 8F/10F +4ML San Diego 8F+OPS 282 Coronado F HOV 8F+2HOV National City 75 8F+2HOV 6F+2ML(R) 8F+2HOV F+4ML 125 6F+2HOV La Mesa 54 6F+2HOV 8F+4ML Santee 67 6F Lemon Grove 125 6F+2HOV 8F 6F/8F 6F/8F+OPS El Cajon 125 8F+2HOV 6C 4C 6F 8 94 MILES KILOMETERS Imperial Beach 8F+ 2HOV 5 Chula Vista 8F F+4ML San Diego 8F 8F 11 4T UNITED STATES MEXICO 1-D Tijuana, B.C

29 Attachment 7 Camp Pendleton Oceanside ˆ Riverside County Vista San Marcos Carlsbad Escondido Encinitas Solana Beach Poway Del Mar Carmel Valley Sorrento Mesa Mira Mesa UTC La Jolla Pacific Beach Kearny Mesa Santee Mission Valley Ocean Beach Point Loma Old Town Mid City La Mesa El Cajon Downtown Lemon Grove Draft 2050 RTP Highway Emphasis Transit Network Legend Coronado National City High Speed and Commuter Rail COASTER Rail Chula Vista Otay Ranch Light Rail Transit Express Light Rail Transit Bus Rapid Transit Imperial Beach Peak Bus Rapid Transit Rapid Bus Streetcar/Shuttle-Circulator San Ysidro Otay Mesa High Frequency Local Bus Services /10/2010

30 Camp Pendleton 8F+4T Attachment 8 MAP AREA 4C 4C+OPS 8F+4T 4C San Diego Region 6C E 76 8F+4T Oceanside 10F+4ML 78 10F+4ML 6F+2HOV Vista San Marcos Carlsbad 8F+4ML Escondido County of San Diego 10F+4ML 78 2C 78 Encinitas 10F+4ML/MB Solana Beach 10F+4ML 67 5 Poway Draft 2050 RTP Highway Emphasis Highway Network Del Mar 56 6F+2HOV 10F+4ML/MB 4C September F+4ML 15 Managed/HOV Lanes General Purpose Lanes Toll Lanes Operational Improvements Freeway Connectors HOV Connectors Freeway & HOV Connectors C = Conventional Highway E = Expressway F = Freeway HOV = High Occupancy Vehicle MB = Movable Barrier ML = Managed Lanes OPS = Operational Improvements T = Toll Road MILES KILOMETERS 8F/14F+4ML 5 8F/10F + 2HOV 6F 8F/10F +4ML San Diego 8F+OPS 282 Coronado 6F+2HOV F+4ML 10F+2HOV National City Imperial Beach 8F +2 HOV F + 8F+2HOV 6F+3ML/MB 8F+2HOV 15 10F+2HOV 8F+ 2HOV 8F/10F+OPS F+4ML Chula Vista 8F 125 6F+2HOV La Mesa 6F/8F+2HOV 8F F+4ML Santee 67 6F 6F Lemon Grove 125 8F+2HOV 905 8F 8F+4ML San Diego 8F 6F/8F 6F/8F+OPS El Cajon F+2HOV 8F 6C 11 6F 4C 4T 6F 2C F UNITED STATES MEXICO 1-D Tijuana, B.C

31 Attachment 9 Camp Pendleton Oceanside ˆ Riverside County Vista San Marcos Carlsbad Escondido Encinitas Solana Beach Poway Del Mar Carmel Valley Sorrento Mesa Mira Mesa UTC La Jolla Pacific Beach Kearny Mesa Santee Mission Valley Ocean Beach Point Loma Old Town Mid City La Mesa El Cajon Downtown Lemon Grove Draft 2050 RTP Fusion Transit Network Legend Coronado National City High Speed and Commuter Rail COASTER Rail Chula Vista Otay Ranch Light Rail Transit Express Light Rail Transit Bus Rapid Transit Imperial Beach Peak Bus Rapid Transit Rapid Bus Streetcar/Shuttle-Circulator San Ysidro Otay Mesa High Frequency Local Bus Services /10/2010

32 Camp Pendleton Attachment 10 MAP AREA 4C 4C+OPS 4C San Diego Region Oceanside 8F+4ML Vista 78 6F+2HOV San Marcos Carlsbad 8F+4ML 8F+4ML Escondido County of San Diego Encinitas 10F+4ML/MB Solana Beach 8F+4ML 67 5 Poway Draft 2050 RTP Fusion Highway Network September 2010 Del Mar 8F/14F + 4ML 6F 56 8F+2HOV 8F/10F+4ML 15 10F+4ML/MB 4C Managed/HOV Lanes General Purpose Lanes Toll Lanes Operational Improvements Freeway Connectors HOV Connectors Freeway & HOV Connectors C = Conventional Highway E = Expressway F = Freeway HOV = High Occupancy Vehicle MB = Movable Barrier ML = Managed Lanes OPS = Operational Improvements T = Toll Road 5 8F/10F + 2HOV 6F 8F/10F +2HOV San Diego 8F+OPS 8F+OPS 282 Coronado 6F+2HOV F + 10F+2HOV National City 75 8F+2HOV 8F/10F+OPS 6F+2ML(R) 8F+2HOV 15 10F+2HOV F+4ML 6F La Mesa 54 6F+2HOV 8F+4ML 125 Santee 67 6F Lemon Grove 125 6F+2HOV 8F 6F/8F+OPS El Cajon F+2HOV 6C 6F 2C 8 94 MILES KILOMETERS Imperial Beach 8F+ 2HOV 5 Chula Vista 8F 8F San Diego 6F 8F 11 4T UNITED STATES MEXICO 1-D Tijuana, B.C

33 Attachment Regional Transportation Plan Draft Highway Corridor Evaluation Ranking (Ranked Order) Project ID TransNet, EAP Freeway From To Existing Improvements Capital Cost Est. (mil) 43 EAP (Transit) I-805 I-8 La Jolla Village Dr 8F/10F 8F/10F+4ML $ SR 125 SR 94 I-8 8F 10F+2HOV $ EAP (Transit) I-15 I-8 SR 163 8F 8F+2HOV $ EAP (Env) I-5 SR 56 Palomar Airport Rd 8F 10F+4ML $2, TransNet SR 78 I-5 I-15 6F 6F+2HOV $ TransNet I-5 I-8 La Jolla Village Dr 8F/10F 8F/10F+2HOV $ EAP (Env) I-805 La Jolla Village Dr I-5 (north) 8F 8F+4ML $ TransNet SR 67 Mapleview St Dye Rd 2C/4C 4C $ EAP (Transit) I-805 SR 54 I-8 8F 8F+4ML $1, EAP (Transit) I-805 Mission Valley Viaduct 8F 8F+4ML $ SR 52 I-15 SR 125 4F 6F+3ML/MB $ I-805 SR 905 Telegraph Canyon Rd. 8F 8F+4ML $ I-8 SR 125 2nd Street 6F/8F 6F/8F+Operational $ TransNet I-5 SR 54 I-15 8F 10F+2HOV $ TransNet I-5 SR 905 SR 54 8F 8F+2HOV $ TransNet SR 125 SR 54 SR 94 6F 8F+2HOV $ TransNet I-5 I-15 I-8 8F 8F+Operational $1, EAP (Env) I-805 Telegraph Canyon Rd. SR 54 8F 8F+4ML $ EAP (Transit) I-15 SR 94 I-8 8F 8F+2HOV $ SR 76 Melrose Drive Mission Rd 4C 6C $ SR 905 I-805 Mexico 6F 8F $ EAP (Transit) SR 94 I-5 I-805 8F 8F+2HOV $ I-15 I-5 SR 94 6F 8F+2HOV $ TransNet SR 94 Jamacha Rd Melody Rd 2C 4C $ EAP (Env) I-5 Palomar Airport Rd Vandegrift Boulevard 8F 10F+4ML $1, SR 76 I-15 Couser Canyon 2C 4C/6C $ TransNet SR 94 I-805 College Ave 8F 10F+2HOV $ TransNet I-5 La Jolla Village Dr I-5/I-805 Merge 8F/14F 8F/14F+4ML $ SR 67 I-8 Mapleview St 4F/6F 6F/8F $ SR 52 I-805 I-15 6F 6F+2HOV $ SR 52 I-5 I-805 4F 6F $ EAP (Env) I-5 I-5/I-805 Merge SR 56 8F/14F 8F/14F+4ML $ I-8 I-5 I-15 8F 8F+Operational $ TransNet SR 94 SR 125 Avocado Blvd 4F 6F $ SR 163 I-805 I-15 8F 8F+2HOV $ SR 52 SR 125 SR 67 4F 6F $ TransNet SR 54 I-5 SR 125 6F 6F/8F+2HOV $ SR 125 I-8 SR 52 6F 6F+2HOV $ SR 76 I-5 Melrose Drive 4E 6E $ I-8 I-15 SR 125 8F/10F 8F/10F+Operational $ TransNet I-8 2nd Street Dunbar Rd. 4F/6F 6F $ EAP (Transit) I-15 Viaduct 8F 8F+2HOV $ SR 905 I-5 I-805 4F 8F $ TransNet SR 94 College Ave SR 125 8F 8F+2HOV $ TransNet SR 94 Avocado Blvd Jamacha Rd 4C/6C 6C $ TransNet SR 56 I-5 I-15 4F 6F+2HOV $ Total Score 2050 RTP Project Rank 15 9/16/

34 Attachment 12 Draft Transit Evaluation Ranking (Ranked Order) Operating Subsidy Est. (mil) Project ID TransNet Route Mode Description Capital Cost Est. (mil) Total Cost Est. (mil) Total Score LRT Blue Line UTC to San Ysidro via Downtown San Diego $540 $424 $ LRT Green Line Santee to 12th/Imperial $0 $367 $ Peak BRT Temecula/Escondido to Downtown via I-15, Kearny Mesa Guideway $920 $310 $1, Express LRT Blue Line UTC to San Ysidro via Downtown San Diego $316 $229 $ Express LRT Otay (EUC) to UTC via Mid-City, Kearny Mesa $227 $219 $ Express LRT Orange Line El Cajon to Downtown San Diego via Euclid $160 $145 $ Peak BRT El Cajon to UTC via Santee, SR 52, Kearny Mesa $7 $17 $ CR High Speed Rail - Commuter Rail Service from Riverside to Int'l Border $3,753 $912 $4, Pacific Beach to El Cajon via Kearny Mesa, Mission Valley, SDSU LRT $1,051 $272 $1, TransNet 398 CR COASTER with Del Mar and University Town Center (UTC) Tunnels, Permanent Station at Del Mar Fairgrounds, and New Station at Convention Center in Downtown San Diego $4,630 $825 $5, LRT Orange Line with Extension to Airport and Downtown Tunnel $540 $330 $ Rapid Kearny Mesa to Downtown via Sharp Hospital, Mission Valley, Hillcrest $917 $57 $ LRT SDSU to Downtown via El Cajon Blvd/Mid-City $1,025 $171 $1, LRT UTC to Chula Vista via Kearny Mesa, Mission Valley, Mid-City, National City $1,612 $269 $1, Rapid La Mesa to Ocean Beach via Mid-City, Hillcrest, Old Town $71 $124 $ BRT Downtown to UTC via Hillcrest, Mission Valley, via Kearny Mesa Guideway $950 $74 $1, BRT Oceanside to Escondido via SR 78 HOV Lanes $196 $57 $ Rapid Coronado to Downtown via Coronado Bridge $21 $55 $ Rapid Oceanside to UTC via Hwy 101 Coastal Communities, Carmel Valley $106 $165 $ SDSU to San Ysidro via East San Diego, SE San Diego, National City LRT $1,388 $286 $1, Partial TransNet 399 LRT SPRINTER Oceanside to Escondido (with Branch Extensions to North County Fair and East Escondido) $609 $341 $ BRT El Cajon to Otay Mesa via Spring Valley, SR 125, Millenia $6 $82 $ SPRINTER - Stops at Oceanside, Vista, Escondido Transit Centers Express LRT $197 $118 $ Rapid Old Town to Sorrento Mesa via Pacific Beach, La Jolla, UTC $81 $161 $ Peak BRT Otay Ranch/Chula Vista to Palomar Airport Road Business Park via I- 805/I-5 $67 $28 $ Rapid Spring Valley to SDSU via SE San Diego, Downtown, Hillcrest, Mid- City $92 $150 $ RTP Project Rank 16 09/17/

35 Attachment 12 Draft Transit Evaluation Ranking (Ranked Order) Project ID TransNet Route Mode Description Capital Cost Est. (mil) Operating Subsidy Est. (mil) Total Cost Est. (mil) Rapid Point Loma to Kearny Mesa via Old Town, Linda Vista $40 $76 $ LRT UTC to Mira Mesa via Sorrento Mesa $1,173 $131 $1, Streetcar 30th St. to downtown San Diego via North Park/Golden Hill $207 $164 $ Streetcar San Diego Downtown - Little Italy to East Village $113 $81 $ Streetcar Hillcrest/Balboa Park/Downtown San Diego Loop $231 $160 $ LRT Otay Mesa to Chula Vista via Otay Ranch/Millenia $668 $186 $ Peak BRT SE San Diego/Mid-City to Palomar Airport Road Business Park via I- $10 $30 $ Rapid Old Town to UTC via Linda Vista, Clairemont $45 $64 $ Rapid 30th Ave to Downtown San Diego via North Park $32 $68 $ Peak BRT Oceanside to Sorrento Mesa via I-5, Carlsbad, Encinitas $36 $14 $ H St Trolley to Millenia via H St Corridor, Southwestern College Rapid $30 $55 $ SDSU to Spring Valley via East San Diego, Lemon Grove, Skyline Rapid $32 $55 $ Peak BRT El Cajon to Sorrento Mesa via Santee, SR 52 $10 $23 $ Rapid Carlsbad to San Marcos via Palomar Airport Road Corridor $42 $57 $ Rapid Millenia to Palomar Trolley via Main St Corridor $45 $70 $ Streetcar Chula Vista Downtown $112 $89 $ Rapid North Park to 32nd St Trolley via Golden Hill, SE San Diego $26 $46 $ Streetcar El Cajon Downtown $133 $98 $ Streetcar Escondido Downtown $42 $33 $ Rapid Oceanside to Vista via Mission Ave/Santa Fe Road Corridor $41 $76 $ Rapid Downtown Escondido to East Escondido $26 $32 $ Rapid San Ysidro to Otay Mesa via Otay, SR 905 Corridor $44 $67 $ Streetcar National City Downtown $33 $48 $ Streetcar Mission Beach to La Jolla via Pacific Beach $199 $154 $ Otay to North Island via Imperial Beach, Silver Strand, Coronado Rapid $44 $65 $ Streetcar Oceanside Downtown $37 $25 $ Rapid Camp Pendleton to Carlsbad Village via College Blvd, Plaza Camino Real $65 $92 $ * Streetcar San Marcos Downtown to Palomar College to CSUSM $60 $179 $ Total Score 2050 RTP Project Rank * This project was ranked as a streetcar. The City of San Marcos has proposed to fund this service (capital and operations) as a shuttle/circulator /17/

36 Attachment Regional Transportation Plan Draft Freeway Connector Evaluation Ranking Project ID TransNet, EAP Freeway Intersecting Freeway Movement Capital Cost Est. (mil) Total Score 2050 RTP Project Rank 9 TransNet SR 94 SR 125 West to North $ TransNet I-5 SR 78 South to East $ I-5 I-8 South to West $ TransNet I-5 SR 78 West to South $ TransNet SR 94 SR 125 South to East $ I-5 I-8 East to North $ I-15 SR 56 North to West $ I-5 SR 94 North to East $ TransNet I-5 SR 56 West to North $ TransNet I-5 SR 56 South to East $ /17/

37 Attachment Regional Transportation Plan Draft HOV Connector Evaluation Ranking Project ID TransNet, EAP Freeway Intersecting Freeway Movement Capital Cost Est. (mil) Total Score 12 TransNet I-15 SR 78 East to South and North to West $ I-805 SR 52 West to North and South to East $ TransNet I-5 I-805 North to North and South to South $ I-15 I-805 North to North and South to South $ I-5 SR 56 North to East and West to South $ I-805 SR 94 East to South and North to West $ I-5 SR 78 North to East and West to South $ I-5 SR 78 South to East and West to North $ I-15 SR 163 North to North and South to South $ RTP Project Rank 9 I-15 SR 52 West to North and South to East $ I-5 SR 15 North to North and South to South $ SR 94 SR 125 East to North and South to West $ I-15 SR 56 East to North and South to West $ I-805 SR 94 East to North and South to East $ I-805 SR 54 South to East and West to North $ SR 52 SR 125 North to West and East to South $ I-805 SR 163 North to North and South to South $ I-5 SR 56 South to East and West to North $ TransNet I-15 SR 94 East to North and South to West $ I-805 SR 94 West to South and North to East $ I-5 SR 54 West to South and North to East $ I-5 SR 54 South to East and West to North $ I-15 SR 52 West to South and North to East $ /17/

38 Attachment 15 Draft List of Prioritized Projects for the 2050 San Diego Regional Goods Movement Strategy Summary of Rankings by Mode Total Points Modal Ranking Project ID System/Project Estimated Cost (millions) Out of 100 Rank MARITIME 1-6 a Vesta Street Bridge Mobility Connector over Harbor Drive at Naval Base San Diego $ b TAMT 1 Enhance Military Project Cargo Capacity, expand open storage $ c 32nd Street Freeway Access Enhancement $ d TAMT Entrance, Rail Line Grade Separation/ Barrio Logan Enhancement $ e NCMT 2 Wharf Extension, Vehicle Processing Facility, Berths & $ f NCMT Bay Marina Drive, Civic Center Freeway Access Improvements $ RAIL MAINLINE CAPACITY 1-9 g LOSSAN 3 CP San Onofre to CP Pulgas Double Track $ h LOSSAN CP Ponto to CP Moonlight Double Track $ i LOSSAN Sorrento to Miramar Phase II Double Track $ j LOSSAN CP Moonlight to CP Swami Double Track $ k LOSSAN Penasquitos Double Track $ l LOSSAN Carlsbad Village Double Track $ m LOSSAN San Dieguito Bridge/Double Track $ n LOSSAN CP Tecolote to CP Friar Double Track $ o Desert Line Basic Service, Rehabilitation $ RAIL INTERMODAL CAPACITY 1-4 p National City Rail Yard $ q Logistics Center South County $ r Logistics Center Mid County $2, s Logistics Center North County $ RAIL SAFETY, TUNNELS 1-3 t LOSSAN Camino Del Mar Tunnel $ u LOSSAN UTC Tunnel UTC Alignment $2, v LOSSAN Del Mar Bluffs Stabilization $

39 Draft List of Prioritized Projects for the 2050 San Diego Regional Goods Movement Strategy Summary of Rankings by Mode Total Points Modal Ranking Project ID System/Project Estimated Cost (millions) Out of 100 Rank ROAD/TRUCKWAY CAPACITY 1-27 Route From To Existing DRAFT 2050 RTP UNCONSTRAINED 7 I-5 SR 56 Palomar Airport Road 8F 10F+4ML $2, I-805 I-8 La Jolla Village Drive 8F/10F 8/10F+4ML $ I-5 Palomar Airport Road Vandegrift Boulevard 8F 10F+4ML $1, I-805 SR 54 I-8 8F 8F+4ML $1, SR 52 I-15 SR 125 4F 6F+3ML/MB $ SR 125 SR 94 I-8 8F 10F+2HOV $ SR 54 I-5 SR 125 6F 6F+2HOV $ I-805 SR 905 Telegraph Canyon Road 8F 8F+4ML $ I-805 La Jolla Village Drive I-5 (North) 8F 8F+4ML $ I-805 Telegraph Canyon Road SR 54 8F 8F+4ML $ SR 125 SR 54 SR 94 4F 6F+2HOV $ I-5 La Jolla Village Drive I-5/I-805 Merge 8F/14F 8F/14F+4ML $ SR 67 I-8 Mapleview Street 4F/6F 6F/8F $ I-805 Mission Valley Viaduct 8F 8F+4ML $ SR 94 I-805 College Avenue 8F 8F+2HOV $ I-5 I-5/I-805 Merge SR 56 8F/14F 10F/14F+4ML $ SR 52 SR 125 SR 67 4F 6F $ SR 94 SR 125 Avocado Boulevard 4F 6F $ SR 94 College Avenue SR 125 8F 8F+2HOV $ I-8 2nd Street Dunbar Road 4F/6F 6F $ SR 905 I-805 Mexico 6F 8F $ SR 94 Jamacha Road Melody Road 2C 4C $ SR 905 I-5 I-805 4F 8F $ SR 125 I-8 SR 52 6F 6F+2HOV $ I-8 SR 125 2nd Street 6F/8F 6F/8F Operational $ I-15 I-5 SR 94 6F 8F+2HOV $ SR 94 Avocado Boulevard Jamacha Road 4C 6C $

40 Draft List of Prioritized Projects for the 2050 San Diego Regional Goods Movement Strategy Summary of Rankings by Mode Total Points Modal Ranking Project ID System/Project Estimated Cost (millions) Freeway Intersecting Freeway Movement SR 94 SR 125 West to North $ SR 94 SR 125 South to East $ AIR CARGO 1-3 w SDIA 4 Access to I-5 $ x SDIA, Aircraft/Ground Access, AC Facilities, Transload $ y Future Expansion, Freeway/Ground Access N. Field $ PROJECTS OF INTEREST PIPELINE Out of 100 Rank z aa bb I-15 Access to Kinder Morgan (KM) MV Terminal KM, New Miramar Junction/Terminal/Tanks KM Expand to 16 Pipe/Extend to Mexico BORDER/LOCAL ROAD OR TOLL PROJECTS cc dd Otay Mesa East Port of Entry and SR 11 (toll) Otay Mesa Southbound Truck Route Improvements MEXICAN FREIGHT PROJECTS ee ff gg hh ii jj Mesa de Otay II Port of Entry and Related Roads Tijuana Intermodal Terminal/Distribution Center Ensenada Port Expansion Punta Colonet Port/Rail Plan Mex Rail Yard Bicentennial Multi-modal Center in Tijuana Tijuana-Tecate Rail Line 1. Tenth Avenue Marine Terminal 2. National City Marine Terminal 3. Los Angeles-San Diego Rail Corridor 4. San Diego International Airport 40 22

41 DRAFT RAIL GRADE CROSSING EVALUATION SUMMARY Points based on Rail Grade Separation Evaluation Criteria approved by the SANDAG Transportation Committee on October 16, 2009 At Grade Crossing Location Rank Veh. per Trains Accidents Total Estimated Assumptions Day ADT per Day Points Cost to Grade Separate (2010) (mil) Washington, Laurel, Hawthorn, Grape, Ash, and 1 263, $2,200 heavy & light rail trench* Broadway Streets, San Diego Taylor Street, San Diego 2 42, $70 street underpass* Broadway/Lemon Grove Avenue, Lemon Grove 3 40, $80 light rail overpass Palomar Street, Chula Vista 4 59, $40 light rail overpass H Street, Chula Vista 5 47, $40 light rail overpass E Street, Chula Vista 6 45, $40 light rail overpass Euclid Avenue, San Diego 7 37, $40 light rail overpass Washington Street, San Diego (light rail only) 8 30, $40 light rail overpass Vista Village Drive/Main Street, Vista 9 61, $60 light rail overpass** Civic Center Drive, Vista 10 40, $40 light rail overpass 28th Street, San Diego 11 33, $40 light rail overpass Ash Street, San Diego (light rail only) 12 30, $100 light rail underpass Broadway, San Diego (light rail only) 13 27, $110 light rail overpass 32nd Street, San Diego 14 32, $40 light rail overpass Allison Ave/University Ave/La Mesa Blvd, La Mesa 15 24, $100 light rail overpass Severin Drive, La Mesa 16 13, $40 light rail overpass Sorrento Valley Blvd., San Diego 17 37, $130 heavy rail overpass Melrose Drive, Vista 18 25, $40 light rail overpass** El Camino Real, Oceanside 19 35, $40 light rail overpass** North Drive, Vista 20 8, $30 light rail overpass Mar Vista Drive, Vista 21 9, $30 light rail overpass Los Angeles Drive, Vista 22 4, $30 light rail overpass Grand Avenue/Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad 23 21, $110 heavy rail overpass Guajome Street, Vista 24 4, $30 light rail overpass Tamarack Avenue, Carlsbad 25 10, $90 heavy rail overpass Cannon Road, Carlsbad 26 12, $90 heavy rail overpass Leucadia Blvd., Encinitas 27 34, $90 heavy rail overpass* Total $3,790 Shaded cells indicate that the cost to grade separate is also included in the total cost of other projects in the RTP * included in the Coaster double track project ** included in the Sprinter double track project Attachment 16 jdo Page /1/2010

42 Attachment RTP: Projects Exempt from Project Rankings The following transportation projects were not ranked using the Board-approved transportation project evaluation criteria. These projects are either under construction or development, a TransNet lockbox project, or revenue neutral facilities, such as a toll facility. Highway Projects From To Note I-5 Vandegrift Blvd. Orange County Toll lanes SR 11 SR 905 Mexico Toll facility I-15 SR 163 SR 78 Under construction I-15 SR 78 Riverside County Toll lanes SR 52 SR 125 SR 67 Under construction; only the 4F to 6F project was ranked SR 76 Mission Road I-15 Segments under construction; only the 4C to 6C project was ranked SR 125 SR 905 SR 54 Toll facility SR 241 Orange County I-5 Toll facility I-805 Carroll Cyn Road I-5/I-805 Merge High-occupancy vehicle lanes under development; only the 4ML project was ranked SR 905 I-805 Mexico Under construction; only the 6F to 8F project was ranked Transit I-15 Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) (Downtown and UTC) Mid-Coast Light Rail Transit SuperLoop Mid-City Rapid Bus South Bay BRT (Downtown) 24 42

43 State Route 76 East South Mission Road to Interstate 15 FACT SHEET Agenda Item #8 Tribal TWG September 30, 2010 September 2010 GOALS Relieve existing and future traffic congestion; improve motorist safety; and protect and enhance natural resources. FUNDING The current project estimate is $203 million. Anticipated funding for the project includes TransNet, developer, county of San Diego Transportation Impact Fee, and Tribal contributions. CONTACT Project Manager Ann Fox at (619) or by at THE PROJECT The current proposal is to develop a four-lane conventional highway from South Mission Road to just east of Interstate 15 (I-15) as well as widen and improve the SR-76/I-15 interchange. Project alternatives currently being developed include the Existing Alignment, Southern Alignment and the No Build Alternative. ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS The widening and realigning of SR-76 will present numerous environmental challenges. Potential concerns include safety, change of community character and possible business displacements. Other environmental concerns are the possible loss of biological resources including riparian habitat, wetlands, endangered species and impacts to public parks, recreation areas, wildlife and waterfowl refuges and historic and archaeological sites. There is also the potential for floodplain encroachment, the taking of agricultural land and visual impacts due to cuts, fills, and structures. Studies to determine the extent and severity of the impacts to these resources began in Spring 2007 and the draft environmental document is available for review. Construction is scheduled to begin in TRAFFIC The current traffic volume on SR-76 between South Mission Road and I-15 is approximately 20,000 average daily trips. Planned growth will increase the traffic volume to approximately 46,000 average daily trips by the year Within the study limits, a transportation project will need to be implemented to safely and efficiently handle the traffic increase. Rail transit is not planned for the corridor. Department of Transportation 4050 Taylor Street San Diego, CA Ph: (619) Fax: (619) Camp Pendleton (USMC) Fallbrook Bonsall Rainbow Pala PROJECT AREA Pauma Valley Rincon Oceanside Vista San Marcos Carlsbad Escondido N 43

44 Transportation Decision Making: Information Tools for Tribal Governments Developing A Long Range Transportation Plan The purpose of transportation planning is to identify broad goals to meet transportation needs. The multimodal strategies for achieving these goals should address current and future community land use, economic development, traffic demand, public safety, health, and social needs, among others. By developing a Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP), tribes will gain experience with process-related practices that can be applied as "good planning" and appreciation of linkage between Tribal transportation planning and other planning activities. Several federal requirements call for a LRTP. Most tribes are familiar with this requirement in the Indian Reservation Roads (IRR) Program Final Rule (IRR Rule 25 CFR ). Additional requirements for LRTPs are in the FHWA/FTA statute and regulation on Statewide and metropolitan planning (23 USC 134 and 135; and 23 CFR/49 CFR and ). Public Involvement/Consultation with Planning Partners The IRR Rule and the FHWA/FTA Statewide and metropolitan planning process specify requirements related to public involvement. Public involvement is an opportunity to capture the Tribal community s values, perceived needs, establish consensus and identify issues and concerns. Public involvement is perhaps the single most important component of transportation planning. Separate and equally important to the public involvement process is consultation with planning partners. There are consultation requirements specified in the Statewide, metropolitan and IRR statute and regulation. Consultation between planning partners is an opportunity to confer on needs of the larger community, to compare and coordinate planning approaches and generally to communicate about the mutual vision for the transportation system that often will cross over multiple jurisdictions. Step 1: Establish Policy, Goals, and Objectives At this stage the tribe is setting the overall goals for how their transportation system should be designed, built, operated and maintained over the next 20 years. Agenda Item #9 Tribal TWG September 30, 2010 Goals should be specific enough to guide the development of the plan but at the same time flexible enough to respond to changing conditions and implementation priorities. Policy statements are often developed as a result of goals. No tribe will have the same priorities, and therefore each tribe may have different goals and objectives. Nevertheless, goals and objectives are developed in a consultative manner, include public involvement, are measurable, and are used to guide plan development. Step 2: Analyze Transportation System Conditions To determine what future investments to make, tribes should evaluate the existing conditions. There are a variety of tools/techniques available to do this. Factors to consider include: o Defining the geographic limits of the transportation system. o Defining information needed about the overall system and the different elements of the system. o Assessing which conditions are most important for the area s economic and social well-being. o Determining who will use the information and why. o Defining which measures of system conditions will be used. o Maximizing existing tools and data. Step 3: Perform Needs Analysis Transportation system requirements should be evaluated by comparing the goals and objectives for the transportation system with the existing baseline system conditions. The needs analysis addresses the gap between current conditions and the future. How much can be implemented over the planning horizon will depend in large part on finance levels. A successful needs analysis should: o Provide technical information for goal setting. o Define the costs of meeting plan goals and objectives. o Compare transportation plan needs with available funds. o Provide information to evaluate trade-offs between different needs. Step 4: Set Priorities Since transportation needs typically outweigh expected revenues, it is important to prioritize the needs identified during the transportation planning process. Some key success factors for setting priorities are: o Establish formal prioritization criteria. o Apply the same criteria to all programs and projects. o Attempt to use the same criteria used in the development of the statewide plan. o Consider as many factors as possible in determining program priorities. 44

45 Step 5: Establish A Funding Plan A financial analysis of the specific projects that implement the transportation plan will help to ensure that it is realistic. Without tying transportation projects to reliable funding sources, the recommended solutions that are developed can easily become a "wish list." The funding plan should be a multi-year financing plan based on identified needs. It should also include an analysis of the participating tribe's capabilities for financing such needs. If probable funding falls short of meeting identified needs, the funding plan should contain a discussion of how additional funding will be raised or how assumptions will be reassessed to ensure that level of service standards will be met or adjusted. Step 6: Develop the Plan Developing the plan document or "putting it all together" can be a difficult process if not approached in a systematic fashion. Key success factors for developing plans include: o Having clearly established roles and responsibilities for who will develop the plan, how and when it will be adopted, and how and when the plan can be amended. o Using the planning team and the public consultation process to help develop the outline for the plan. o Ensure that the plan is a strategic and visionary document and not a "wish list". After all the evaluation, analysis and public involvement, a recommendation is made to the Tribal Council. As decision-makers for the Tribe, Tribal Council members may want further information or may choose a different alternative than exactly what is presented by staff. With the technical analysis and information presentation, the Council can make an informed decision. Step 7: Develop the Program Programming refers to a series of activities carried out by planners, including data assessment, appraisal of identified planning needs, and consideration of available or anticipated fiscal resources to result in the development, scheduling, and planning of a list of identified transportation improvements. The programming of projects for funding should consider timing of the need for improvements and timing for fund availability. Often, plans will require more funds than are available from federal, state, and local sources traditionally dedicated to transportation funding. The agencies engaged in planning should identify funding mechanisms to support implementation of the transportation plan or reassess their desired levels of service. Step 8: Implement and Monitor the Plan For a plan to be successful it must be implemented effectively. Transportation planning includes continually monitoring the performance of the transportation system and ensuring that plans are being implemented to meet the intended objectives. Success factors for implementation and monitoring of the transportation plan include: o Developing an ongoing process for monitoring progress toward plan objectives. o Establishing a decision making process. o Establishing a process for tracking conditions. o Establishing a well-defined process for how priorities will be set. The LRTP under the IRR Program needs to be reviewed annually and updated every five years as per 25 CFR Conclusion Transportation planning provides a framework for the community to make decisions about its transportation system. The LRTP is a tool for tribal members as well as the tribal decisionmakers. As you set out to develop the LRTP for your tribe, remember that the process does not need to be complex to be successful. There is no set length of pages. Through a focused set of tribal meetings, your tribe can develop a transportation plan that is suited to meet the unique needs of your tribe and can be developed with a minimal budget. Additional Resources Transportation Planning Capacity Building Website: FHWA Tribal Transportation Planning For more information contact: Tim Penney, FHWA Office of Legislative and Governmental Affairs Phone: (202) tim.penney@dot.gov Kenneth Petty, FHWA Office of Planning Phone: (202) kenneth.petty@dot.gov 45

46 Transportation Decisionmaking Information Tools For Tribal Governments Developing A Long-Range Transportation Plan 46

47 TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION 2 STEPS FOR DEVELOPING A LONG-RANGE 4 TRANSPORTATION PLAN Public Involvement/Consultation 5 with Planning Partners Establish Policy Goals and Objectives 7 Analyze Transportation System 8 Conditions Perform Needs Analysis 10 Set Priorities 11 Establish Funding Plan 11 Develop the Plan 12 Develop the Program 14 Implement and Monitor the Plan 14 CONCLUSION 15 RESOURCES 16 Notice This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the U.S. Department of Transportation in the interest of information exchange. The U.S. Government assumes no liability for the use of information contained in this document. Quality Assurance Statement The Federal Highway Administration provides high-quality information to serve Government, industry, and the public in a manner that promotes public understanding. Standards and policies are used to ensure and maximize the quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity of its information. FHWA periodically reviews quality issues and adjusts its programs and processes to ensure continuous quality improvement. 47

48 Transportation Decisionmaking Information Tools For Tribal Governments Developing A Long-Range Transportation Plan Prepared by: FHWA Office of Planning In Coordination with: Bureau of Indian Affairs FHWA Federal Lands Highway FHWA New York Division FHWA Resource Center Federal Transit Administration Publication Number: FHWA-HEP

49 INTRODUCTION The Federal Highway Administration s (FHWA) Office of Planning developed this document in cooperation with the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) Northwest Division, other FHWA offices (Federal Lands Highways [FLH], New York Division, and Resource Center), and the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Office of Planning and Environment. The goal of this document is to provide a tool to assist Tribal Governments in developing a Long-Range Transportation Plan. The Transportation Decisionmaking: Information Tools for Tribal Governments series contains modules that cover different aspects of transportation planning. All modules identify linkage points between Indian Reservation Roads (IRR) transportation planning and the Statewide and metropolitan planning process. The intention of this series is to provide an overview of fundamental and conceptual techniques as well as notable practices. The first round of modules 1 to be developed include: Introduction to Planning. Developing a Long-Range Transportation Plan (LRTP). Developing the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). Funding Resources. Public Involvement. Data Collection and Use. Transportation Decision-making Information Tools Introduction to Planning Developing an LRTP Developing the TIP Funding Resources Public Involvement Data Collection and Use 2 1. Additional modules, once developed, will be accessible on the Internet at the FHWA Tribal Planning Web site at and on the FHWA/FTA Transportation Planning Capacity Building Web site at 49

50 The purpose of this module, Developing a Long-Range Transportation Plan (LRTP), is to provide Tribal decisionmakers and planners with a summary of the fundamental process for developing an LRTP. This module offers a general framework for developing an LRTP and provides examples of noteworthy practices by several Tribal organizations. By developing an LRTP, Tribes will benefit from the following two key perspectives: 1. Process-related practices that can be applied within the context of good planning within a particular Tribal area. 2. An appreciation of how Tribes (and Tribal transportation planning) connect to other planning activities, including IRR, Statewide, metropolitan, and local transportation planning processes (as appropriate). The IRR Rule (25 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] 170) identifies elements that may be included in an LRTP. The specific steps described herein are not required by Federal statute or regulation; instead, these steps represent a general process on how to develop an LRTP in support of the requirements of the IRR program, as well as of the Federal Highway Administration/Federal Transit Administration Statewide and metropolitan planning process. 50 3

51 STEPS FOR DEVELOPING A LONG-RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN The purpose of transportation planning is to identify broad goals to meet transportation needs. The multimodal strategies for achieving these goals can and should address current and future community land use, economic development, environment (natural, human, and cultural), traffic demand, public safety, health, and social needs, among others. There are several Federal requirements that call for an LRTP. Most Tribes are familiar with this requirement in the IRR Program Final Rule (IRR Rule 25 CFR ). Additional requirements for LRTPs can be found in the FHWA/FTA statute and regulation on Statewide and metropolitan planning (23 United States Code [USC] 134 and 135; and 23 CFR and ). Generally speaking, all the Federal regulations and the statute mentioned above require public involvement and a 20-year horizon for the LRTP to assist communities in the transportation decisionmaking process. In addition, there are specific elements required for States and metropolitan areas. For Tribal governments, the IRR Rule identifies elements that may be included in the LRTP (see Figure 1); however, there are A comprehensive long-range transportation plan may include: A. An evaluation of a full-range of transportation modes and connections between modes such as highway, rail, air, and water, to meet transportation needs. B. Trip generation studies, including determination of traffic generators due to land use. C. Social and economic development planning to identify transportation improvements or needs to accommodate existing and proposed land use in a safe and economical fashion. D. measures that address health and safety concerns relating to transportation improvements. E. A review of the existing and proposed transportation system to identify the relationships between transportation and the environment. F. Cultural preservation planning to identify important issues and to develop a transportation plan that is sensitive to tribal cultural preservation. G. Scenic byway and tourism plans. H. Measures that address energy conservation considerations. I. A prioritized list of short- and long-term transportation needs. J. An analysis of funding alternatives to implement plan recommendations. Figure 1. Elements That May Be Included in a Long-Range Transportation Plan (Source: IRR Rule 25 CFR Part ). 4 51

52 no statutory required steps or elements for a Tribal LRTP. This outline covers a set of eight basic steps to consider when developing your Tribe s LRTP. It is important to note that some textbooks outline a process with as few as four steps. The important message here is that this model can be tailored to meet each Tribe s needs and resources. This module for Developing a Long-Range Transportation Plan is adapted for Tribes from the joint FHWA/FTA document titled Planning for Transportation in Rural Areas. 2 These basic steps are outlined in Figure 2 below. The LRTP steps outlined in this module can be used to develop an LRTP as required by the IRR Rule (25 CFR through ) as well as a means for coordinating planning activities within the Statewide and metropolitan transportation planning processes (23 CFR and 23 CFR ). As noted earlier, the steps outlined are neither to be considered prescriptive nor are they required. As with every Tribe, each transportation-planning process is unique and should be tailored to best meet local community circumstances and needs. Transportation planning provides a framework for the community to make decisions about its transportation system. The LRTP is a tool for Tribal members as well as for the Tribal decisionmakers. As you set out to develop the LRTP for your Tribe, remember that a successful process does not have to be complex and that there is no set length of pages. Through a focused set of Tribal meetings, your Tribe can develop a transportation plan that is suited to meet the unique needs of your Tribe. These planning activities can occur with a minimal budget. Ultimately, the plan will identify long- and short-term needs that may be large or small investments. For example, the short-term budget may include either bridge improvements or perhaps only one van and one driver. Public Involvement and Consultation With Planning Partners Public Involvement Step 1: Establish Policy Goals and Objectives Step 2: Analyze Transportation System Conditions Step 3: Perform Needs Analysis Step 4: Set Priorities Step 5: Establish Funding Plan Step 6: Develop the Plan Step 7: Develop the Program Step 8: Implement and Monitor the Plan Figure 2. Basic Steps in Developing an LRTP. Environment Public involvement is an opportunity to capture a community s values and perceived needs, establish consensus, and identify issues and concerns. The IRR Rule and the FHWA/FTA Statewide and metropolitan planning process specify requirements related to public involvement. In fact, public involvement is perhaps the single most important component of transportation planning. Effective public involvement will result in opportunities for Tribal members to participate in the planning process. As depicted in Figure 2, public involvement should take place throughout the entire planning process, and it is an integral component to many of the steps. Prior to adopting plans or programs, the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) or State Department of Transportation (DOT) are required to prwwwovide citizens, affected public agencies, representatives of 2. This section is adapted from the joint FHWA/FTA document titled Planning for Transportation in Rural Areas, which can be accessed at gov/planning/rural/planningfortrans/index.html. 52 5

53 transportation agency employees, private providers of transportation, other affected employee representatives, and other interested parties with a reasonable opportunity to comment on the plan. The new IRR Rule found in 25 CFR 170 identifies a set of criteria for the BIA and Tribes regarding public hearings. After consultation with the appropriate Tribe and other agencies, the MPO or DOT then will determine the need for public involvement (based on the criteria) for an IRR transportation improvement program and an LRTP or project. In addition, a public review of the draft IRR LRTP is required. Separate and equally important to the public involvement process is consultation with planning partners. As described in Figure 3, there are consultation requirements specified in the Statewide, metropolitan, and IRR statute and regulation. Consultation between planning partners is an opportunity to confer on needs of the larger community, to compare and coordinate planning approaches, and to generally communicate about the mutual vision for the transportation system that often will cross over multiple jurisdictions. The Navajo Transit System (NTS) successfully demonstrated a comprehensive process for public involvement outreach as well as consultation with planning partners while developing the Navajo Transit System. In developing the plan, the NTS conducted extensive outreach across three States and to more than 100 Tribal chapters. This effort brought together passengers, Tribal leaders, and representatives from the Navajo Nation, the Bureau of Indian Affairs... to collaborate on developing a long-range plan for the NTS. The plan demonstrates a realistic need for regional and community transportation. It includes strategies for expanding mode choices and providing access to healthcare and employment for those living in remote, isolated areas with few transportation options. 3 Transportation and Planning Excellence Awards FY 2004, Honorable Mention 3 The Navajo Transit System Long-Range Transportation Plan received an honorable mention through the Transportation Planning Excellence Awards in FY More information is available at dot.gov/planning/tpea04/tribal.htm. Action Description Statutory/Regulatory References Indian Reservation Defines consultation as government-to-government 25 CFR Roads Program communication in a timely manner by all parties about a 25 CFR proposed or contemplated decision in order to (1) secure 25 CFR meaningful Tribal input and involvement in the decisionmaking 25 CFR process and (2) advise the Tribe of the final decision and provide an explanation. Statewide Defines distinct forms of cooperation or consultation to be 23 U.S.C. 135(d)-(f) Transportation undertaken by the States in the development of Statewide 23 CFR Planning long-range transportation plans and Statewide Transportation ; (a)(23); Improvement Programs with the following three types of (a); (c)(2); governments: (1) metropolitan planning organizations, (a) (2) non-metropolitan local officials, and (3) Indian Tribal areas. Metropolitan Requires that where a metropolitan planning area includes Federal 23 U.S.C. 134(h)(3)(B) Transportation Planning public lands and/or Indian Tribal lands, the affected Federal agencies 23 U.S.C. 134(i)(5) and Indian Tribal governments shall be involved appropriately in 23 U.S.C. 101(a)(23) the development of transportation plans and programs. The 23 CFR Transportation Management Area (TMA) Planning Certification ; ; (i); Review is an oversight opportunity for FHWA/FTA to ensure (a) that the metropolitan planning process in each TMA is being conducted in accordance with applicable provisions of Federal law. Figure 3. Consultation and Public Involvement Statutory/Regulatory Requirements. 6 53

54 Step 1: Establish Policy Goals and Objectives The first step in developing an LRTP is to discuss the goals and objectives. At this stage, the Tribe is setting the overall goals for how the transportation system should be designed, built, operated and maintained over the next 20 years. LRTPs should be linked to the Tribe s land use plan and should consider a full range of modal choices and investment options such as the following: Transportation modal choices: Roads. Rail. Transit. Equestrian. Air. Water. Bicycle. Pedestrian. Investment options: System operations. System maintenance. Technological improvements. Capacity expansion. Innovative financing/leveraging of funds. To be most useful, the goals should be specific enough to guide the development of the plan but at the same time flexible enough to respond to changing conditions and implementation priorities. For example, the Organized Village of Kake (OVK) in Alaska developed a transportation plan with a general goal to address: the future land use, social and economic development, traffic demand, public safety, and health and social needs for the next 20 years. The LRTP will help identify OVK s role in the community of Kake s development and help maintain the transportation infrastructure that is needed within Kake. Policy statements are also often developed as a result of goals. In the policy statement below from the Bois Forte Indian Reservation 20-year transportation plan, multiple modes are identified. Emphasis is placed on an interconnected and efficient system. It is also important to note that this policy statement considers the transportation boundaries beyond the limits of the reservation. The purpose of this study is to develop a guide for transportation improvements over a 20-year period, looking at all modes of transportation affecting the reservation. This study looks at the entire Bois Forte transportation network in order to develop a plan that links all modes together into an interconnected and efficient system. In addition, the study examines ways to connect reservation residents to other parts of the State whether it be through increased service from the Orr Regional Airport, or mass transit that links the reservation to the Iron Range cities of Minnesota. 4 Additional items to consider in the development of policy goals and objectives include the following: Determining who will be responsible for making the policy decisions. Developing policy goals and objectives that involve local officials and provide for broad stakeholder and modal involvement. Making a clear connection to action plans. Identifying timelines for decisions and mechanisms for modifying and updating polices. Determining how your Tribal plan coordinates with neighboring communities (i.e., local or county) as well as with regional and State policies. Goals and objectives may include qualitative and quantitative characteristics. For example, one goal may be for all members of the Tribe to have access to some form of transportation. A possible objective to achieve this goal may be to establish a dial-a-ride system, accessible to all Tribal members. Figure 4 identifies NTS goal and objective for completing their long-range plan. 4. Bois Forte Indian Reservation 20-year Transportation Plan, March

55 In 2003, the NTS completed a long-range plan to guide the gradual strengthening and expansion of its services and facilities. This long-range plan was the first of its kind in the history of the NTS and represents a unique achievement in Tribal transportation planning. While short-range, three-year plans are commonly prepared in order to secure Federal transit funding, those plans are limited by their lack of ability to pursue the big picture and are not appropriate tools for implementing major changes in strategy or direction. The NTS recognized that a longer-range vision was needed to address the large-scale route restructuring and capital improvements needed for the system, including a new administrative and maintenance facility. In developing the plan, it became evident that a clear and financially sustainable long-term strategy would be necessary to meet future transit demand across the reservation. The result was a long-range plan unique in its assessment of need and in its prescription of incremental and cumulative change. Figure 4. FHWA/FTA Transportation Planning Excellence Awards: 2004 Honorable Mention (co-sponsored by The American Planning Association). Every Tribe will, of course, have different priorities and therefore different goals and objectives. Nevertheless, the key factor is that the goals and objectives are developed in a consultative manner, including significant public involvement; are measurable; and are used to guide plan development. Step 2: Analyze Transportation System Conditions To determine what future investments to make, the Tribe should first evaluate the existing conditions of the transportation system. There are a variety of tools and techniques available to evaluate existing conditions. To evaluate the existing system condition, you must first identify the types of system performance measures to use. The measurements will vary on the basis of the mode. For example, service objectives for roadways may include consideration of roadway capacity, design, and safety. Examples of transit service standards are population coverage and frequency of service. The Navajo Nation provides a good example of how the first two steps support the development of an LRTP: The Navajo Nation is by far the largest Tribal reservation in the United States, covering over 26,000 square miles and comprising over 280,000 members. The NTS currently has fifteen vehicles serving seven routes. The long-range plan found that, given the continuation of historical trends, transit demand is anticipated to outpace system growth by a factor of seven over the next 20 years. It was clear that the NTS faces some unique challenges in meeting future demand within current funding levels. It also became clear that, given the real funding constraints of the past two decades, the plan would need to carefully prioritize improvements. Based on a comprehensive assessment of existing capital facilities and service levels, ridership data, Tribal leadership priorities, and Reservation demographics, the NTS longrange plan identified and prioritized a series of capital and service improvements over the next 20 years. 5 Factors to consider when conducting a conditions analysis are as follows: Defining the geographic limits of the transportation system. Defining potential environmental (cultural, human, and natural) impacts. Defining information needed about the overall system and the different elements of the system (e.g., What conditions are most important for the economic and social well-being of your community?). Determining who is going to use the information and why. Defining which measures of system conditions will be used. Maximizing the use of existing management systems, analysis tools, and data collection procedures to provide measures and data. If data collection is beyond your current resources, it is important to remember that Federal, State, and local agencies (such as the Federal Lands, BIA, State, city, and county) are valuable resources for obtaining existing system-conditions data. The BIA maintains a database of Indian Reservation Roads. The State DOT may have data regarding operational and physical characteristics of the State and county system The Navajo Transit System Long-Range Transportation Plan received an honorable mention through the FHWA/FTA Transportation Planning Excellence Awards in FY More information is available at tpea04/tribal.htm.

56 Data sharing enables cooperating agencies to effectively utilize one another as a resource. Some areas, like Washington State, are working with Tribes to develop an accurate database of incidents on reservation roads. Another example of data sharing comes from the Executive Summary of the Grand Portage Transportation Plan: The first step taken toward completing the transportation plan consisted of working with the Grand Portage Natural Resources Department to obtain the comprehensive inventory of all roads within the reservation developed by their Geographic Information System staff. Results from the inventory were used to establish an up-to-date database of all reservation roads. 6 Measurement/Monitoring of Existing System Conditions The steps involved in the measurement and monitoring of existing system conditions are as follows: Establish agreed upon measures and evaluation procedures for system elements based on performance goals and objectives. A way to do this is to establish condition measures that describe the physical conditions of facilities or condition measures that describe levels of service or operational performance. Determine data and information requirements to measure progress toward policy goals and objectives that are set for the transportation system. Apply condition and performance measures. Types of condition information that fall into the following categories are shown in Table 1. Table 1. Condition information and category. Category Extent of the system basic inventory Use of system Physical conditions/ performance Operational conditions/ performance Measure Number of lane miles Number of transit vehicles Square footage of bridges Length of culverts, etc. Services available Traffic, ridership, etc. Pavement, bridges, transit equipment Mobility Safety Remember that these steps are general. Many Tribes will not develop this level of detail when measuring existing system conditions. For example, in the Organized Village of Kake Transportation Plan, factors considered are weather, soil, and topography, community road system, drainage, right-of-way road ownership, and inventory of maintenance equipment. Forecasting Future Conditions Plans are future-oriented. Although they typically respond to a backlog of needs, they should address future conditions and plan for them. In rural areas, straightforward approaches can be used to forecast future conditions. There are a number of ways to estimate travel demand within the transportation-planning context. These range from simple techniques, such as historical trend analysis, to variants of more complex computer models that require large databases of demographic and socioeconomic information to forecast travel demand. Simplified demand estimation techniques and analysis are appropriate in most Tribal planning situations. The demand analysis should identify all perceived mobility issues, impediments, and opportunities in the region. For example, if a section of roadway is thought to be unsafe and safety improvements are proposed, then a detailed accident history should be compiled to support the assessment. Or if the transportation of the elderly and/or disabled is felt to be an important transportation need, then various findings from State, regional, and local transit needs and benefits studies should provide the supporting documentation. The State DOT will be able to provide modal data, such as traffic volumes, volume/capacity ratios, accident rates, transit ridership, and the core rail system to assist in this analysis. Land use and economic development information can be accessed through the following: Local Comprehensive Plans Tribal agencies, BIA, regional, city, or county plans. Local school districts. Rural Development Plans Federal, State, local (e.g., water districts, Indian Health Service). 6. Grand Portage Transportation Plan Executive Summary, January

57 Census Bureau Population statistics. County business patterns. American Indian and Alaska Native Service Population. U.S. Geological Survey Land use and other mapping data. Step 3: Perform Needs Analysis Transportation system needs are most usefully assessed by evaluating the gap between the goals and objectives that are established for the transportation system and the baseline system conditions. The needs are the planned actions for addressing this gap. How much can be implemented over the planning horizon will depend in large part on finance levels. A successful needs analysis should: Provide technical information for setting goals. Define the costs of meeting plan goals and objectives. Compare transportation plan needs with available funds. Provide information to evaluate trade-offs among different needs. In identifying the deficiencies, results from public involvement meetings/activities should be used as input, although these may be mostly subjective. The Grand Portage Transportation Plan states the following: Following the gathering of the road inventory data, the first transportation steering committee meeting was held to review the inventory data and identify issues within the Grand Portage transportation system. Issues regarding the transportation system were also gathered from Grand Portage residents through the use of a community-wide survey mailed in June The issues were grouped into the following topics: trails and recreation; the Grand Portage National Monument; community walkability and safety; the Grand Portage Lodge and Casino; and maintenance issues. In addition, the public was offered an additional opportunity to comment on the transportation planning process during an open house held at the Grand Portage Community Center in June Gap Analysis The needs analysis can be used to determine broad but different categories of need for achieving planning goals. A first step in a needs assessment is to measure the gap between the transportation system goals and current objectives and conditions. This requires a set of goals and objectives that can be quantified and that can relate to the operational and physical condition of the transportation system. The results of this gap analysis are often referred to as deficiencies. Evaluation of Alternative Strategies and Actions to Address the Gap The purpose of this step is to assess the cost and impacts on transportation system condition of alternative strategies or improvements that address transportation needs. For long-range planning purposes, the needs areas can be grouped different ways. They can be organized for the different elements of the transportation system (roads, bridges, rail, etc.) and different policy goal areas (mobility, safety, preservation, economic development, environmental, etc.) that are established in the plan. Evaluation can be undertaken at a coarse level to consider the full range of alternative strategies and to identify those meriting further consideration. These can be then subject to a more detailed analysis. Select Strategies and Actions Identify Costs For your Tribal transportation plan, remember to consider alternative strategies for addressing deficiencies. Once a strategy is developed, the cost of implementing this strategy defines the needs. The total cost of the plan improvements is important for determining implementation. This is developed by determining the cost of implementing the selected strategies. See Cost Estimates under Step

58 Step 4: Set Priorities Because transportation needs typically outweigh expected revenues, it is important to prioritize the needs identified during the transportation planning process. Given the often overwhelming number of potential improvements, it is important that the planning process has an agreed upon approach to project prioritization. The key success factors for setting priorities are as follows: Establishing formal prioritization-ranking criteria and applying it consistently. Applying the prioritization criteria to all programs and projects. Making efforts to use the same prioritization criteria as those used to develop the Statewide plan. Prioritizing ranking criteria that consider as many factors as possible in determining program priorities (system, multimodal, environmental, social, and economic factors). Perhaps specific projects will need to be phased over several years. In the case of the Grand Portage Transportation Plan, the Step 3: Needs Analysis outlined in this module was addressed in combination with the Step 4: Set Priorities. This again underscores the point made earlier that Tribes should customize the process to fit their needs and available resources. Step 5: Establish a Funding Plan The transportation plan needs to be realistic, and usually that means fundable. A financial analysis of the specific projects that implement the transportation plan will help to ensure that it is realistic. Without tying transportation projects to reliable funding, the recommended solutions that are developed can easily become a wish list. Principles for developing a funding plan include the following: Including an analysis of the participating Tribe s capabilities of financing needs. Basing the multiyear financing plan on the needs identified in the funding plan. Taking into account the possibility that funding falls short of meeting identified needs. The funding plan should contain a discussion of how additional funding will be raised or how assumptions will be reassessed to ensure that level of service standards will be met or adjusted. If there are funding constraints, specific projects may have to be funded over several years. Financial Planning Steps The following steps can be used to develop the transportation finance analysis: 1. Identify transportation needs and solutions. 2. Develop cost estimates for solutions. 3. Assess the ability to pay for these projects and services. 4. Develop financing policies. 5. Forecast revenue from existing and potential sources. 6. Develop a financing schedule by matching transportation projects and services to revenue projections. 7. Establish policies to govern the management of the transportation-financing program. These steps are not strictly sequential. For example, forecasting revenue from existing and potential sources can proceed at the same time as the identification of transportation needs. Cost Estimates Cost estimates are necessary to compare the transportation needs with available revenues. Costs should be estimated for the following: Maintaining the existing and proposed transportation system. Designing and building new, expanded, or replacement facilities (e.g., roads, terminals, bridges). Acquiring new transit vehicles and related capital costs (e.g., maintenance facilities). Operating transportation services, such as transit or ridesharing. Administering and planning the transportation system

59 On the highway side, there are well-established unit costs that can be applied to develop needs estimates for improvements. Project development costs to consider include planning, environmental analysis and review, engineering, design, construction, right of way (property, relocation, and settlement costs), construction, and maintenance costs. Use rough unit prices, for example, $3,000/linear foot of new roadway, $800/linear foot of new, shared bike pedestrian path, and $200/square foot for a new bridge. These unit prices can come from a variety of sources such as BIA, county, State, FLH, FHWA, or FTA. Unit costs can be developed and factored for inflation. For other transportation modes there are less well-established methods; however, most State DOTs are now working on developing consistent assumptions and a rigorous approach for developing cost estimates for other transportation modes. It is important to estimate transportation systems operations and maintenance costs, because these will likely consume a significant portion of the existing revenue resources. Estimates can usually be based on existing historic data. The information required is likely to be available from the finance officer of the State, transit agency, and city or county. Estimates of new costs for facilities and services will generally be based on a combination of rough estimates and specific cost estimates. Detailed cost estimates based on preliminary engineering, right-of-way appraisals, or operating plans only need to be done for the most immediate recommended improvements. Most of the recommended improvements in a long-range transportation plan will need an order-of-magnitude cost estimate. These estimates are based on factors such as typical per mile construction costs for different types of roadways or the operating costs for similar transit services in other counties. Step 6: Develop the Plan Developing the plan document or putting it all together can be a difficult process if not approached in a systematic fashion. Key success factors for developing plans include the following: Having clearly established roles and responsibilities for who will develop the plan, how and when it will be adopted, and how and when the plan can be amended. Using the planning team and the public consultation process to help develop the outline for the plan. Ensuring that the plan is a strategic and visionary document and not a wish list. Just as the Statewide, MPO, and LRTPs are the basis for the Statewide Transportation Improvement Program, for the Indian Reservation Roads Program Transportation Improvement Program (IRRTIP), the LRTP is used to develop the Tribal Transportation Improvement Program and the IRRTIP. During the planning process, all technical data and methodologies used should be documented. All references and other reports cited should also be documented. A model outline for a transportation plan is provided in Figure 5. After the evaluation, analysis, and public involvement process takes place, a recommendation is made to the Tribal Council. A formal presentation should be made to the decisionmaking group, presenting the technical analysis and information gathered. As decisionmakers for the Tribe, Tribal Council members may want further information or may choose a different alternative than exactly what is presented by Tribal staff. With the technical analysis and information presented, the Tribal Council can make an informed decision

60 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Provides an overall summary of the plan s objectives, methodology, findings, and recommendations. SECTION I: GOALS AND POLICY STATEMENTS This section presents the overall vision, goals, and objectives developed during the planning process. These form the overall umbrella for the direction of the transportation plan in terms of plan priorities. SECTION II: TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT Chapter I. Introduction The introduction outlines the purpose of the plan, the plan participants, and the organization of the document. Chapter II. Existing Conditions This section presents the existing condition of the transportation system in terms of: Roadways (road and bridge conditions, traffic volumes, safety, and other criteria). Public or quasi-public transportation (transit, school bus, emergency service routes and facilities, air, and water). Non-motorized transportation (bicycle pathways, pedestrian pathways, and equestrian routes). Land use and population considerations, plans and programs of other agencies and jurisdictions, and county-wide policies. Chapter III. Traffic Forecasts This section presents historical traffic trends; population and land-use trends; population and demographic projections; population distribution; future land-use map; and future traffic projections and trends. Chapter IV. Alternative Strategies Evaluation The alternative strategies evaluation section presents the determination of needs based upon existing conditions and traffic. It forecasts the evaluation of alternatives for traffic safety, level of service and congestion, environmental impacts, financing, community support, and consistency with plans of other agencies and jurisdictions. Chapter V. Priorities and Recommendations This section presents prioritized recommendations for improvements to the area transportation system including: level of service; new corridors; road widenings; spot/ intersection widenings; realignments or channelization; traffic control or signalization; shoulder improvements; paving, bridge replacements, or other physical improvements; pedestrian, bicycle, or equestrian improvements; transit and transit facilities; and land-use/transportation linkages. Chapter VI. The Financing Element of the Plan The financing section presents cost estimates for identified improvements, potential financing options, re-assessment of identified improvements based upon financial constraints, and the 3-year transportation improvement program for the area. Chapter VII. Implementation and Monitoring This section provides the plan for continually monitoring the performance of the transportation system to determine the progress being made in improving system performance and to identify additional areas of improvement. SECTION III: APPENDICES A. References B. Technical Data and Methodologies C. Excerpts from other Reports Figure 5. General Transportation Plan Format 60 13

61 Step 7: Develop the Program Programming refers to a series of activities carried out by transportation planners, including data assessment, appraisal of identified planning needs, and consideration of available or anticipated fiscal resources (i.e., funding) to result in the drawing up, scheduling, and planning of a list of identified transportation improvements for a given period of time. The programming of projects for funding should consider: 1. Timing of the need for improvements (e.g., when the facility falls below the locally established level of service under assumed growth rates). 2. Timing for fund availability (i.e., transportation project may need to be replaced, phased over several years). Plans often will require more funds than are available from Federal, State, and local sources traditionally dedicated to transportation funding. This means that the agencies engaged in transportation planning should identify funding mechanisms to support implementation of the transportation plan or reassess their desired levels of service. Step 8: Implement and Monitor the Plan For a transportation plan to be successful, it must be implemented effectively, and its progress should be monitored against the plan s objectives, thereby providing a feedback loop. Transportation planning includes continually monitoring the performance of the transportation system and ensuring that plans are being implemented to meet the intended objectives. The success factors for implementation and monitoring of the transportation plan include the following: Developing an on-going process known to participants for monitoring progress toward plan objectives. Establishing a process for how decisions regarding implementation are to be made. Establishing a process for conditions tracking. Establishing a well-defined process for how priorities will be set. Less effective transportation plans typically lack an effective implementation plan and monitoring mechanism. These are required to keep the plan alive and to ensure that the plan guides and shapes transportation decisions in the future. Transportation plans need to be periodically reviewed and updated to stay current. The IRR Program requires an annual review of the LRTP and updates every 5 years (see 25 CFR )

62 CONCLUSION Transportation planning provides a framework for the community to make decisions about its transportation system. The LRTP is a tool for tribal members as well as for the tribal decisionmakers. As you set out to develop the LRTP for your tribe, remember that the process does not need to be complex to be successful. There is no set length of pages. Through a focused set of tribal meetings, your tribe can develop a transportation plan that is suited to meet the unique needs of your tribe and that can be developed with a minimal budget

63 RESOURCES Planning Glossary IRR Program 25 CFR through Statewide and Metropolitan Planning Process: 23 USC 134 & 135; 23 CFR A Briefing Notebook for Transportation Decision-Makers Officials and Staff Guide to Federal-Aid Programs and Projects Planning for Transportation in Rural Areas FHWA Native American Coordination FHWA/FTA Transportation Planning Capacity Building Indian Health Service FHWA Office of Planning, Environment and Realty FTA Office of Planning and Environment Federal Railroad Administration Bureau of Transportation Statistics Office of Transportation Technologies ITS Electronic Document Library Federal Aviation Administration ITS Joint Program Office ITS America The Safe Communities Services U.S. Department of Commerce Job Access and Reverse Commute Transportation Toolbox for Rural Areas and Small Communities National Atlas of the U. S. U.S. Census Bureau U.S. Geological Survey htm#2bb html HTML.htm grant_programs/specific_grant_programs/ 4339_ENG_HTML.htm

64 National Association Web Sites American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) American Planning Association (APA) American Public Transit Association (APTA) American Public Works Association (APWA) American Short Line and Regional Railroad Association (ASLRA) Amtrak Association of American Railroads (AAR) Association of Metropolitan Planning Organizations (AMPO) Community Transportation Association of America (CTAA) National Association of Towns & Townships National Association of County Engineers (NACE) National League of Cities (NLC) National Association of Regional Councils (NARC) Appalachian Regional Commission (ARC)

65 Federal Highway Administration Office of Planning HEPP Seventh Street SW, Room 3301 Washington, DC ; fax Publication No. FHWA-HEP

66 Agenda Item #10 Tribal TWG September 30, 2010 POLICY FRAMEWORK BASELINE TRANSPORTATION PLANS AND PROGRAMS RELATED PLANS, PARTNERS AND REQUIREMENTS TOOLS Vision and Policy 3Es Sustainability Prosperous Economy Social Equity Quality Environment Goals: Improve Mobility and Accessibility Preserve, Maintain and Improve Transportation System Support the Economy Enhance Public Safety Enhance Transportation Security Connect Transportation and Land Use Planning Enhance and Conserve Environmental Resources Statewide and Regional Transportation Plans Interregional Transportation Strategic Plan Transportation Management System Master Plan California State Rail Plan/ High Speed Rail Statewide Transit Strategic Plan California Aviation System Plan Goods Movement Action Plan Regional Transportation Plans/Regional Blueprint Plans Tribal Transportation Plans Other Statewide Strategic Plans Statewide Programs Regional Blueprint Planning Smart Mobility Framework Complete Streets Other State Plans Strategic Growth Plan California Water Plan California Wildlife Action Plan AB 32 Climate Change Scoping Plan State Partners Air Resources Board Department of Housing and Community Development Natural Resources Agency Department of Water Resources Strategic Growth Council Legal Requirements AB 32, SB 375, SB 391, Section 6001 (49 USC) Interim Report 2012 California Transportation Plan (CTP) Update 2015 Phase I Baseline Effort 2010 Narrative/Maps Proof of Concept Report Phase II Modeling Tools 2012 Data/Robust Tools/ Scenario Testing/ Performance Measures Interregional Travel Demand Model Statewide Household Travel Survey Statewide Freight Model Statewide Integrated Interregional Model CALIFORNIA INTERREGIONAL BLUEPRINT CTP 2040 CONNECTING CALIFORNIA: A Sustainable Transportation System Caltrans Essential Habitat Connectivity Study Caltrans Climate Action Program A New Plan for a New Transportation Era 66

67 what? The Department of Transportation is expanding the State s transportation planning process to include the development of a state level transportation blueprint focused on interregional travel needs. The California Interregional Blueprint (CIB) will articulate the State s vision for an integrated, multimodal interregional transportation system that complements regional transportation plans and land use visions. The CIB when fully developed will become the foundation of the 2040 update to the State s long-range transportation plan, the California Transportation Plan (CTP). why? The CIB will help evaluate how well our collective plans (both State and regional) will address future demand for interregional travel, while meeting our goals for a sustainable transportation system. It will strengthen and add relevance to the existing CTP policy plan and will expand the understanding of the interactions between land use and transportation investments, especially those related to greenhouse gas emissions. This understanding will position us to respond to new legislative requirements (SB 391) for the next CTP update that require the plan to define the statewide transportation system that meets our climate change goals under AB 32 and SB 375. The ultimate benefit of this effort will be stronger partnerships, with regional and local agencies and tribal governments, and better data for improved decision-making at the State, regional, and local level. how? The CIB will integrate proposed interregional highway, transit, rail (including high-speed and intercity rail), intelligent transportation system, and goods movement and other transportation system and strategic plans into a common framework for analysis. The Department is currently compiling project data from our long range planning documents, as well as projects from Regional Transportation Plans (RTPs) developed by the State s Metropolitan Planning Organizations and Regional Transportation Planning Agencies, to define the future interregional transportation system. Using regional growth and land use projections in regional blueprint plans and RTPs, the resulting system will then be analyzed to determine how well it will meet projected demand. As more advanced tools and data become available, the project concepts and strategies along with growth and land use projections will be modeled, and their impact on various outcomes, including greenhouse gas emissions, will be quantified. when? The California Interregional Blueprint will be completed in two phases. The first phase to be completed in September 2010 will focus on integrating existing State modal plans and, in advance of statewide modeling tools, developing a narrative describing how these plans relate to regional transportation and land use plans. A final report incorporating all available data and analysis will be delivered in September 2010 to the Governor s Business, Transportation and Housing Agency. The second phase will enhance the initial analysis by employing more robust modeling and data programs including a statewide travel demand model and freight model. The Statewide Travel Demand Model and Statewide Freight Model will enable us to model and evaluate alternative scenarios for addressing interregional transportation needs and will measure performance across defined outcomes. contact: Pam Korte, Project Manager, at (916) or Pam.Korte@dot.ca.gov. For more information see our web portal at 67

68 Agenda Item #10 Tribal TWG September 30, 2010 fact sheet the california interregional blueprint and native american tribes The primary focus of the California Interregional Blueprint (CIB) is to better understand interregional travel and to better align the State s long-range transportation planning processes together with the regional transportation plans. A better understanding of interregional travel needs and how the state plans to meet those needs should ultimately lead to better project selection. As frequent users of the State s interregional road system, it is important that California s Native American Tribes and communities be involved in the development of the CIB. Travel demand is generally measured using travel demand models that project vehicle miles traveled (VMT) along a prescribed route. However, current regional travel demand models do not adequately account for trips that begin in one region and end within or travel through another region - in other words interregional trips. Without accurate counts for these trips interregional travel cannot be accurately measured. Interregional travel particularly affects rural areas and tribal lands. Whether it is the trip to enjoy rural recreational opportunities, tribal members leaving and arriving at the reservation, or trucks carrying goods from place to place, these trips often begin and end in different regions. A better understanding of these trips can lead to a better identification of transportation needs and funding for rural and tribal transportation Interregional Trip Types* Trips that begin in a Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) or Regional Transportation Planning Agency (RTPA) region and end in another region Trips that travel through a region but begin and end outside of the region (through trips) Trips that begin in a region but do not end in a region (international, interstate, tribal land, and military base) Trips that end in a region but do not begin in a region (international, interstate, tribal land, and military base trip) *As defined by the Regional Target Advisory Committee Report for SB 375 (only impacts MPOs) For questions about the California Interregional Blueprint (CIB) please visit: or contact Laurie Waters at (916) or at laurie_waters@dot.ca.gov 68

69 infrastructure. Inadequate transportation infrastructure limits access to economic centers, social services and emergency services. Phase I of the CIB opened the conversation on interregional travel by integrating state longrange modal plans and developing a narrative that describes how these plans relate to regional transportation and land use plans. Phase II, will expand on this initial analysis by including other transportation plans and programs such as Tribal Transportation Needs Assessments and data from the California Indian Reservations Roads (IRR) Technical Report. Phase II also will add more robust modeling and data programs, including a statewide integrated transportation, land use and economic model. This statewide model will provide a consistent measurement of VMT associated with interregional travel and will provide the ability to evaluate alternative scenarios for addressing interregional transportation needs. Tribal input is essential in guiding the direction of the CIB. Federally recognized tribes, nonrecognized tribes, and tribal organizations can help the CIB team identify what data should be included in the travel models and what scenarios should be run. Tribes also can help the CIB team determine policies and practices that will ensure that tribal transportation needs are considered and addressed throughout all of the State s long-range transportation plans. For questions about the California Interregional Blueprint (CIB) please visit: or contact Laurie Waters at (916) or at laurie_waters@dot.ca.gov 69