a g e n d a - pctpapctpa.net/agendas/2016/february/february2016_amended.pdf · amended agenda –...

A G E N D A

PLACER COUNTY TRANSPORTATION PLANNING AGENCY 299 Nevada Street ∙ Auburn, CA 95603 ∙ (530) 823-4030 (tel/fax)

www.pctpa.net

AMENDED AGENDA – FEBRUARY 24, 2016

Wednesday, February 24, 2016 – 9:00 a.m.

A. Flag Salute

B. Roll Call

C.

Approval of Minutes Action

Pg. 1

D. Agenda Review

E. Public Comment

F. Consent Calendar

These items are expected to be routine and noncontroversial. They will

be acted upon by the Board at one time without discussion. Any Board

member, staff member, or interested citizen may request an item be

removed from the consent calendar for discussion.

Pg. 5

1. FY 2016/17 Preliminary Findings of Apportionment for Local

Transportation Fund (LTF)

Pg. 6

2. Reprogram Rocklin Congestion Mitigation & Air Quality

(CMAQ) Funds from Granite Drive at Rocklin Roundabout to

Pacific Street at Rocklin Road Roundabout

G. Unmet Transit Needs Analysis and Recommendations for FY

2016/17

Action

Pg. 8

H. Adoption of the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Placer

County 2036 Regional Transportation Plan

Action

Pg. 12

I. Adoption of the Final Placer County 2036 Regional Transportation

Plan

Action

Pg. 151

Community Development Resource Agency

Commission Hearing Room

3091 County Center Drive

Auburn, California

Board of Directors Meeting Agenda

PLACER COUNTY TRANSPORTATION PLANNING AGENCY

February 24, 2016

J. Preliminary Draft FY 2016/17 Overall Work Program (OWP) and

Budget

Action

Pg. 155

K. State Legislative Program for 2016 Action

Pg. 157

L. Transportation Funding Strategy Outreach and Polling Info

Pg. 161

M. Updated Draft Transportation Sales Tax Expenditure Plan Action

Pg. 163

N. Executive Director’s Report

O. Board Direction to Staff

P. Informational Items Info

1. Revenues and Expenditures for December 2015

(Under separate cover)

2. PCTPA Quarterly Financial Statements for September 30, 2015

and WPCTSA Quarterly Financial Statements for December 31,

2015 (Under separate cover)

3. TAC Minutes Pg. 173

4. Status Reports

a. PCTPA Pg. 176

b. AIM Consulting: January Pg. 195

c. Federal Advocates, Inc.: January Pg. 197

d. Capitol Corridor Pg. 227

5. Newspaper Articles Pg. 236

Next Regularly Scheduled PCTPA Board Meeting

March 27, 2016 – Placer County Board of Supervisors’ Chambers

The Placer County Community Development Resource Agency is accessible to the disabled. If requested, this agenda, and

documents in the agenda packet can be made available in appropriate alternative formats to persons with a disability, as

required by Section 202 of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and the Federal Rules and Regulations adopted in

implementation thereof. Persons seeking an alternative format should contact PCTPA for further information. In addition, a

person with a disability who requires a modification or accommodation, including auxiliary aids or services, in order to

participate in a public meeting should contact PCTPA by phone at 530-823-4030, email ([email protected]) or in person as soon

as possible and preferably at least 72 hours prior to the meeting.

mailto:[email protected]


MINUTES

January 27, 2016

A regular meeting of the Placer County Transportation Planning Agency met on Wednesday,

January 27, 2016 at 9:00 a.m. at the Placer County Planning Commission Hearing Room, 3091

County Center Drive, Auburn, California.

ROLL CALL: Daniel Berlant Celia McAdam

Bonnie Gore Scott Aaron

Jim Holmes Aaron Hoyt

Diana Ruslin Shirley LeBlanc

Ron Treabess Luke McNeel-Caird

Kirk Uhler David Melko

Dave Wheeler Solvi Sabol

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

Upon motion by Ruslin and second by Gore, the minutes of December 9, 2015 were

unanimously approved.

CONSENT CALENDAR

Upon motion by Ruslin and second by Gore, the Consent Calendar was unanimously approved.

ADJOURNED AS THE PLACER COUNTY TRANSPORTATION PLANNING AGENCY

CONVENED AS THE WESTERN PLACER CONSOLIDATED TRANSPORTATION

SERVICES AGENCY

CONSENT CALENDAR

Upon motion by Ruslin and second by Berlant, the Consent Calendar was unanimously

approved.

ADJOURNED AS THE WESTERN PLACER CONSOLIDATED TRANSPORTATION

SERVICES AGENCY

CONVENED AS PLACER COUNTY TRANSPORTATION PLANNING AGENCY

PUBLIC HEARING: DRAFT PLACER COUNTY 2036 REGIONAL

TRANSPORTATION PLAN

Aaron Hoyt gave an overview of the draft 2036 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP), explaining

how the plan was developed, the public outreach activities to date, and the Environmental Impact

Report (EIR) process. Hoyt reported that the draft RTP was conducted in parallel with the

Sacramento Area Council of Governments’ (SACOG) federally recognized Metropolitan

Transportation Plan (MTP) noting that PCTPA’s RTP is integrated into the MTP. He also

provided a detailed description of the process to develop the RTP and the extensive outreach

involved.

Hoyt reported that the 2036 draft RTP reflects $5.9 billion in projects, 43% of which would go

toward roadway maintenance costs. Hoyt added that Placer County will have insufficient

funding to implement the projects in the RTP and that new funding mechanisms, such as a

transportation sales tax, will need to be implemented to keep pace with the transportation

demands of the County. Additionally, Hoyt said that future congestion will be managed through

the implementation of the projects in the RTP, and one of the performance measurements cited

was a decrease in vehicle miles traveled per capita, an important part of managing congestion.

Aaron Hoyt concluded explaining that written and oral comments will be addressed in the final

2036 RTP and EIR and that he expects to bring the plans back to the Board for adoption in

February. Supervisor Holmes opened the public hearing. With no comments from the public, the

public hearing was closed at approximately 9:15 a.m.

I-80 AUXILIARY LANES PROJECT DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT Luke McNeel-Caird briefed the Board on the I-80 Auxiliary Lanes Project draft environmental

document, noting that it includes two locations 1) I-80 Eastbound between SR 65 and Rocklin

Road, and 2) I-80 Westbound between Douglas Boulevard and Riverside Avenue. McNeel-

Caird briefly described the process to date and introduced the project consultant, Liz Diamond

from Dokken Engineering.

Liz Diamond explained the three alternatives being considered as part of the environmental

document for this project: Alternative 1 – Eastbound and Westbound Auxiliary Lanes,

Alternative 2 – Eastbound Auxiliary Lanes and Westbound 5th Lane, and Alternative 3 – No

Build. Diamond then presented how each of these alternatives would function and the potential

environmental impacts associated with each.

Liz Diamond stated and environmental document was prepared and released on January 11 and

the thirty day review process will close on February 11. Luke McNeel-Caird reported that after

comments of the draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) are addressed,

adoption of the preferred alternative is anticipated in the spring 2016.

FEDERAL LEGISLATIVE PROGRAM FOR 2016 Celia McAdam provided PCTPA’s draft Federal Legislative Program for 2016. McAdam

reported that Congress passed two transportation bills – Fixing America’s Surface Transportation

Act (FAST) Act and consolidated transportation appropriations act for FY 2016. The FAST

Act, McAdam reported, is a six year bill which goes through 2020. It increases by 3% annually,

and has passenger rail title in it, although, there is no funding associated with passenger rail at

this time. McAdam added that the five year FAST Act is fully funded however it uses six years

of revenue.

Celia McAdam said that with the passage of these bills are opportunities, particularly for

passenger rail, and funding for the I-80/SR 65 Interchange and Placer Parkway. She added that

the timing is right to pursue the Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery

(TIGER) grant funds for I-80/SR 65. Additionally, I-80/SR 65 and the Roseville-Sacramento

Third Track Rail Project would be competitive in the Nationally Significant Freight and

Highway Program. McAdam explained Transportation Infrastructure Financing and Innovation

Act (TIFIA) is a financing mechanism – a loan that must be paid back, yet could be an option for

funding the Placer Parkway. The transportation sales tax, if passed, could be a source repayment

if we pursued the TIFIA loan. McAdam also recognized that our legislative program includes a

long standing policy of supporting our local jurisdictions’ priorities.

Celia McAdam concluded by stating we are currently working with SACOG on a joint trip to

Washington. McAdam recommended that both she and Board Chair Susan Rohan represent

these positions in Washington, DC.

With a motion by Uhler and second by Ron Treabess, the PCTPA Board unanimously adopted

the Federal Legislative Program for 2016 as provided and directed staff and federal advocates

represent these positions, including travel to Washington, DC.

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR’S REPORT Celia McAdam reported that the California Transportation Commission (CTC) defunded nearly

$800 million from the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP). Because of the

advance of the Lincoln Bypass, McAdam stated, we are probably the least affected county in the

state because we advanced our shares of the STIP, interest free, to build the Lincoln Bypass.

Celia McAdam said that we are working with the United Auburn Indian Community in pursuing

a $150,000 grant which would assist us in outreach efforts to inform the public on some of the

tough transportation funding decisions that are facing us.

Celia McAdam reported that Clipper Creek, a local Auburn firm, generously agreed to donate an

electric vehicle charging station for our parking lot, noting that the electricity costs are being

pursued through the Congestion Management and Air Quality (CMAQ) program.

Celia McAdam concluded her report by stating that in working with the regulatory agencies on

the I-80/SR 65 Interchange project, we were able to come to agreement on wetland mitigation

ratios.

Vice Chair Holmes announced that the next meeting of the PCTPA Board is February 24, 2016

and adjourned the meeting at 10:02 a.m.

_________________________________ ____________________________________

Celia McAdam Susan Rohan, Chair

Executive Director

MEMORANDUM

299 Nevada Street ∙ Auburn, CA 95603 ∙ (530) 823-4030 (tel/fax) www.pctpa.net

TO: PCTPA Board of Directors DATE: February 10, 2016

FROM: Celia McAdam, Executive Director

SUBJECT: CONSENT CALENDAR

Below are the Consent Calendar items for the February 24, 2016 agenda for your review and

action.

1. FY 2016/17 Preliminary Findings of Apportionment for Local Transportation Fund

(LTF)

As the Regional Transportation Planning Agency (RTPA) for Placer County, PCTPA is

responsible for the administration of the Transportation Development Act (TDA) funds.

TDA provides funds under two programs called the Local Transportation Fund (LTF) and

the State Transit Assistance (STA) fund.

The LTF program was established through the TDA in 1972. Funds are allocated for

specific purposes in priority order and are intended for public transportation before other

claims, such as streets and roads are approved.

The preliminary apportionment for FY 2016/17 projects minimal carryover from FY

2015/16 and recommends a three percent growth in LTF revenue over the prior fiscal

year. Staff recommends that the Board approve the attached preliminary findings of LTF

apportionment for FY 2016/17. The PCTPA TAC concurred with this recommendation at

its February 9, 2016 meeting.

2. Reprogram Rocklin Congestion Mitigation & Air Quality (CMAQ) Funds from Granite

Drive at Rocklin Road Roundabout to Pacific Street at Rocklin Road Roundabout

On November 28, 2012 and January 28, 2015, the PCTPA Board approved CMAQ

project funding recommendations for FY 2014/15 through FY 2018/19. The City of

Rocklin is requesting PCTPA approval to reprogram $2,707,607 CMAQ funds approved

for construction of the Granite Drive at Rocklin Road Roundabout to construction of the

Pacific Street at Rocklin Road Roundabout. Staff recommends Board approval.

FY 2015/2016 FY 2016/2017 FY 2016/2017Estimated Fund Revenue Apportionment

Balance Subtotal (1) Subtotal Total$306,192 $21,104,624 $21,410,816

2.9928% $631,618 $631,618$9,164 $9,164

TRPA TOTAL $631,618 $640,782$269

$640,513

97.0072% $20,473,006 $20,473,006$297,028 $297,028

PCTPA TOTAL $20,473,006 $20,770,034$8,731 $8,731

$425,000 $425,000$5,941 $400,785 $406,726

$11,643 $785,540 $797,183$279,443.94 $18,852,950 $19,132,394

Population FY 2016/17 FY 2015/16 Carryover RevenueJanuary 1, 2015 Allocation Subtotal Apportionment(6) Apportionment

PLACER COUNTY 101,491 28.32% $5,333,806 $84,113 $5,417,919 AUBURN 13,818 3.86% $726,198 $11,452 $737,650 COLFAX 1,994 0.56% $104,794 $1,653 $106,446 LINCOLN 45,837 12.79% $2,408,939 $37,988 $2,446,928 LOOMIS 6,623 1.85% $348,068 $5,489 $353,557 ROCKLIN 60,252 16.81% $3,166,512 $49,935 $3,216,447 ROSEVILLE 128,382 35.82% $6,747,048 $106,399 $6,853,447 TOTAL 358,397 100.00% $18,835,366 $297,028 $19,132,394

Revenue Planning Available toApportionment Contribution(7) Claimant

PLACER COUNTY $5,417,919 ($216,717) $5,201,202 AUBURN $737,650 ($29,506) $708,144 COLFAX $106,446 ($4,258) $102,188 LINCOLN $2,446,928 ($97,877) $2,349,051 LOOMIS $353,557 ($14,142) $339,415 ROCKLIN $3,216,447 ($128,658) $3,087,789 ROSEVILLE $6,853,447 ($274,138) $6,579,309 TOTAL $19,132,394 ($765,296) $18,367,098

NOTES:1) FY 2015/2016 LTF balance based on January 29, 2016 preliminary fund estimate provided by Placer County Auditor.2) Tahoe Regional Planning Agency receives funds proportional to its population within Placer County (see box below).3) Apportioned per Section 7.1 PCTPA Rules & Bylaws for FY 2016/2017 Preliminary Overall Work Program and Budget, February 2016.4) Pedestrian and Bicycle Allocation is 2% of the remaining apportionment, per PCTPA Board direction.5) Community Transit Service Article 4.5 allocation is up to 5% of the remaining apportionment, per PCTPA Board direction. FY 2016/2017 Article 4.5 allocation is set at 4%. 6) FY 2015/16 carryover apportionment (see next page) uses May 2015 DOF population estimates.7) PCTPA receives 4% of apportionment for regional planning purposes and implementation of FAST-Act planning requirements.

TRPA Population2 11,057 2.9928%PCTPA Population 358,397 97.0072%

TOTAL 369,454 100.00%

1. Table E-1: City/County Population Estimates January 1, 2014 to January 1, 2015, DOF, May 1, 2015.

29-Jan-16

2. Western Slope and Tahoe Basin for Placer County as of January 1, 2015, DOF, June 2015.

County Auditor Administrative Costs

BALANCE AVAILABLE FOR APPORTIONMENT BY PCTPA

Sources:

Jurisdiction

January 1, 2015 DOF Population Estimates1

Apportionment of FY 2016/2017 PCTPA LTF Revenue Estimate Available to Claimant

Percent (%)Jurisdiction

BALANCE AVAILABLE FOR APPORTIONMENT BY TRPA

County Auditor Administrative Costs

LOCAL TRANSPORTATION FUND (LTF)

Apportionment of FY 2016/2017 PCTPA LTF Revenue Estimate by Jurisdiction

Pedestrian and Bicycle Allocation (4)

TRPA Revenue Estimate (2)

PCTPA Administrative and Planning Costs (3)

PRELIMINARY FINDINGS OF APPORTIONMENT FOR FY 2016/2017

February 2016

Community Transit Service Article 4.5 Allocation (5)

PLACER COUNTY TRANSPORTATION PLANNING AGENCY (PCTPA)

PCTPA Revenue Estimate

PLACER COUNTY LTF REVENUE ESTIMATE

PCTPA LTF Fund Balance

TRPA LTF Fund Balance

Printed:2/3/2016

Amount of FY 2015/2016 Carryover:

JURISDICTION 01-Jan-15 PERCENT ALLOCATION

PLACER COUNTY 101,491 28.32% $84,113 AUBURN 13,818 3.86% $11,452 COLFAX 1,994 0.56% $1,653 LINCOLN 45,837 12.79% $37,988 LOOMIS 6,623 1.85% $5,489 ROCKLIN 60,252 16.81% $49,935 ROSEVILLE 128,382 35.82% $106,399 TOTAL 358,397 100.00% $297,028

2. FY 2015/2016 LTF balance based on January 29, 2016 preliminary fund estimate provided by Placer County Auditor.

29-Jan-16

Calculation of FY 2015/16 PCTPA LTF Carryover Using 2015 Population - Western Slope

$297,028POPULATION

Sources:1. Table E-1: City/County Population Estimates January 1, 2014 to January 1, 2015, DOF, May 1, 2015.

Printed:2/3/2016 ^

MEMORANDUM



FROM: Aaron Hoyt, Associate Transportation Planner

SUBJECT: UNMET TRANSIT NEEDS ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

FOR FY 2016/17

ACTION REQUESTED

Adopt Resolution No. 16-05 making findings and recommendations regarding unmet transit

needs that are reasonable to meet as required by the Transportation Development Act (TDA).

BACKGROUND

As the Regional Transportation Planning Agency for Placer County, PCTPA is responsible for

the administration of TDA funds. This responsibility includes the annual unmet transit needs

process, which has four key components:

1. Soliciting testimony on unmet transit needs that may exist in Placer County;

2. Analyzing transit needs in accordance with adopted definitions of “unmet transit needs”

and “reasonable to meet;”

3. Consultation with the Social Services Transportation Advisory Council (SSTAC); and

4. Adoption of a finding regarding unmet transit needs that may exist for implementation in

the next fiscal year.

Unmet transit needs may include establishing, contracting for, or expanding public

transportation, in addition to services or measures required to comply with the Americans with

Disabilities Act. If, based on the adopted definition and criteria, any unmet transit needs are

determined to be reasonable to meet by the PCTPA Board; they must be funded in the next fiscal

year prior to any TDA funds being allocated for non-transit purposes.

DISCUSSION

This year PCTPA reviewed a total of 102 comments submitted by the public as part of the unmet

transit needs process for FY 2016/17. Of these, 37 were regarding services outside of PCTPA’s

jurisdiction, with the vast majority focused on improving and expanding transit services in the

North Lake Tahoe Basin, and 17 comments are for other requests that do not pertain to the unmet

transit needs process.

Some of the prominent themes amongst the comments include:

Later service hours in Lincoln, Roseville, and on Placer County Transit.

Sunday fixed route service in Lincoln, Roseville, and on Placer County Transit.

Sunday dial-a-ride service in Lincoln, Rocklin, and on Placer County Transit.

Challenges with scheduling dial-a-ride trips.

New commuter bus destinations in the Sacramento Area.

PCTPA Board of Directors

UNMET TRANSIT NEEDS ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FY 2016/17

February 2016

Page 2

Staff analyzed these remaining comments in accordance with the definitions of “unmet transit

needs” and “reasonable to meet” amended by the PCTPA Board of Directors in May 2014, and

the applicable short range transit plans and/or studies that identify recommended transit service

options. This information is documented in the FY 2015/16 Unmet Transit Needs Analysis and

Recommendations Final Report for FY 2016/17, which is provided under separate cover.

As a result of this analysis, staff finds there are no new unmet transit needs that are reasonable to

meet for implementation in FY 2016/17. However, two recommendations were made to further

investigate comments received during this cycle:

Later Evening Weekday Service – Comments pertaining to later evening weekday service

has been voiced annually, but fixed route ridership has declined on average 1% annually

since FY 2011/12, and services may not meet productivity standards with expanded service

hours system-wide. Instead, PCTPA will coordinate with the transit operators to review

ridership trends, service options, and costs to determine whether there are certain routes on

which later evening weekday services are feasible.

Dial-a-Ride Scheduling – Several comments identified challenges with scheduling dial-a-

ride trips in Lincoln, Rocklin, and other parts of the county. Passengers are allowed to

schedule trips up to 14 days in advanced and are encouraged to allow sufficient time to

accomplish their intended activities between drop off and pickup due to the shared ride

nature of the service. As a result, passengers may encounter challenges in getting their

preferred time slot; however, call center operators do offer alternative travel time options.

Dial-a-ride trips have increased five percent between FY 2014 and 2015 and trip denials

totaled approximately 1.6 percent in FY 2015. Beginning FY 2015/16, PCT began

providing contracted dial-a-ride service in Lincoln and the Health Express reservations

were limited to intercity trips only. Given these changes, PCTPA recommends monitoring

dial-a-ride trips, denials, or other potential issues.

In accordance with TDA requirements, the SSTAC met on January 24, 2016 to review the draft

report and staff recommendations. SSTAC recommended approval of the draft report. In

addition, the draft report was presented to PCTPA’s Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) on

February 9, 2016. The SSTAC and TAC concurred with the recommended findings as shown in

Resolution No. 16-05.

Recommended Findings

1) There are no new unmet transit needs in that are reasonable to meet for implementation in

FY 2016/17.

2) That the Unmet Transit Needs Analysis and Recommendations Final Report for FY

2016/17 is accepted as complete.

CM:AH:ss


IN THE MATTER OF: A RESOLUTION RESOLUTION NO. 16-05

MAKING FINDINGS REGARDING UNMET

TRANSIT NEEDS IN PLACER COUNTY

THAT ARE REASONABLE TO MEET

The following resolution was duly passed by the Placer County Transportation Planning Agency at

a regular meeting held February 24, 2016 by the following vote on roll call:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

Signed and approved by me after its passage

_______________________________________

Chair

Placer County Transportation Planning Agency

_________________________________

Executive Director

WHEREAS, pursuant to California Government Code, Title 7.91, Section 67910, PCTPA was

created as a local area planning agency to provide regional transportation planning for the area of

Placer County, exclusive of the Lake Tahoe Basin; and

WHEREAS, California Government Code Section 29532.1(c) identifies PCTPA as the designated

Regional Transportation Planning Agency for Placer County, exclusive of the Lake Tahoe Basin;

and

WHEREAS, pursuant to Public Utilities Code, Section 99401.5(d), the PCTPA must adopt by

resolution a finding on unmet transit needs prior to allocating Transportation Development Act

(TDA) funds for non-transit purposes in the next fiscal year; and

WHEREAS, PCTPA has solicited testimony regarding unmet transit needs from social service

agencies, transit users, and the general public through advertisements, flyers, press releases, the

PCTPA web-page, e-mail distribution, public workshops, Municipal Advisory Council

presentations, and a public hearing; and

WHEREAS, each item of testimony received was analyzed and compared with the definitions of

“unmet transit need” and “reasonable to meet” as adopted by the PCTPA in May 2014, and is

documented in the FY 2015/16 Unmet Transit Needs Analysis and Recommendations Final Report

for FY 2016/17; and

WHEREAS, PCTPA consulted with the Social Services Transportation Advisory Council

(SSTAC) on January 14, 2016 regarding unmet transit needs in accordance with Public Utilities

Code, Section 99238(c).

THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Placer County Transportation Planning Agency:

1) That there are no new unmet transit needs in FY 2015/16 that are reasonable to meet

for implementation in FY 2016/17.

2) That the FY 2015/16 Unmet Transit Needs Analysis and Recommendations Final Report

for FY 2016/17 is accepted as complete.

MEMORANDUM




Aaron Hoyt, Associate Planner

SUBJECT: ADOPTION OF THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT

FOR THE PLACER COUNTY 2036 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION

PLAN

ACTION REQUESTED

Approve Resolution No. 16-06 adopting the Final Environmental Impact Report, adopting a

Statement of Findings, a Statement of Overriding Considerations, and a Mitigation Monitoring

and Reporting Program for the Placer County 2036 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP).

BACKGROUND

The Placer County 2036 RTP is a long-range transportation funding plan that identifies future

transportation improvements, associated costs, projected revenues, and the timing for

implementation of projects through 2036. The Placer County 2036 RTP also serves as the

mechanism by which local transportation projects demonstrate eligibility to receive funding from

various state and federal funding programs. The projects contained in the Placer County 2036

RTP are integrated into the larger six-county regional planning efforts led by the Sacramento

Area Council of Governments' (SACOG) through our Memorandum of Understanding (MOU).

SACOG’s Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP) meets the federal planning requirement and

the states requirements to develop a Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) pursuant to Senate

Bill 375.

California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires the preparation of an environmental

impact report (EIR) prior to approving any project, which may have a significant impact on the

environment. Although many of the projects contained in the Placer County 2036 RTP will be

implemented by various public agencies, at the regional plan level, which is the scope of this

program EIR, PCTPA is responsible for developing and approving the Placer County 2036 RTP.

Therefore, PCTPA is the lead agency for purposes of conducting the environmental review.

Accordingly, PCTPA contracted with the De Novo Planning Group to prepare an Environmental

Impact Report (EIR) on the Placer County 2036 RTP.

Potential environmental impacts in the Final 2036 RTP EIR are discussed on a programmatic

level. Specific impacts of individual RTP projects are not the intended use of the Final 2036 RTP

EIR. Implementation of individual projects may require further environmental review, which

will be determined by the appropriate implementing agency on a case-by-case basis prior to each

project being considered for approval. Each of those individual projects will be required to

comply with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).


ADOPTION OF THE FINAL EIR FOR THE PLACER COUNTY 2036 RTP

February 2016

Page 2

DISCUSSION

The Draft 2036 RTP EIR was released on November 3, 2015 initiating a 45-day public review

period, concluding December 17, 2015. While no comment letters were received during the

public review period, staff did make some minor changes to the text of the Final 2036 RTP EIR.

As required by CEQA Guidelines, those textual changes are identified in the Final 2036 RTP

EIR in Chapter 3.0, Errata.

The Final 2036 RTP EIR identifies potentially significant and significant and unavoidable

environmental impacts. Mitigation measures are recommended for potentially significant impacts

and are anticipated to be reduce or eliminate these impacts to a less than significant level.

However, significant and unavoidable impacts remain on agricultural resources and with regard

to greenhouse gas emissions and climate change, both existing and cumulatively.

The potentially significant and significant and unavoidable environmental impacts are considered

acceptable in light of the economic, fiscal, social, environmental, and other considerations

because the benefits of the Placer County 2036 RTP outweigh such adverse environmental

impacts.

The following actions define the steps necessary to approve the Final 2036 RTP EIR:

Findings Regarding Significant Impacts and Project Alternatives (CEQA Guidelines

Section 15091) – These findings are presented in Attachment A-1 to the resolution and

explain how PCTPA addressed each identified significant impact, including the

mitigation measures adopted or an explanation of why such measures are infeasible.

These findings also explain how PCTPA addressed the use of project alternatives to

reduce or avoid the significant impacts of the Placer County 2036 RTP.

Statement of Overriding Considerations (CEQA Guidelines Section 15093) – These

findings are presented in Attachment A-1 to the resolution and document PCPTA’s

decision to adopt the Placer County 2036 RTP despite the fact that unavoidable

significant impacts will result based on the overriding benefits of the RTP.

Mitigation Monitoring Program – When a lead agency makes findings on significant

effects identified in an EIR, that agency must also adopt a program for reporting or

monitoring mitigation measures that were adopted or made conditions of project approval

(CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(d), 15097. The Mitigation Monitoring program is

included in Attachment A-2 and in Section 4 of the Final 2036 RTP EIR.

Staff, with the concurrence of the TAC, recommends that the Board approve Resolution No. 16-

06 certifying the Final 2036 RTP EIR, adopting a Statement of Findings, a Statement of

Overriding Considerations, and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Placer

County 2036 RTP.

Attachments

CM:AH:


IN THE MATTER OF: CERTIFYING THE FINAL RESOLUTION NO. 16-06

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, ADOPTING

A FINDINGS OF FACT, A STATEMENT OF

OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS, AND A

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING

PROGRAM FOR THE 2036 PLACER COUNTY

REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN

The following resolution was duly passed by the Placer County Transportation Planning Agency

at a regular meeting held February 24, 2016 by the following vote on roll call:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:


_______________________________________

Vice Chair


_________________________________

Executive Director


created as a local area planning agency to provide regional transportation planning for the area of

Placer County, exclusive of the Lake Tahoe Basin;

WHEREAS, California Government Code Section 29532.1(c) identifies PCTPA as the

designated regional transportation planning agency for Placer County, exclusive of the Lake Tahoe

Basin;

WHEREAS, PCTPA is the lead agency for the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report

for the 2036 Placer County Regional Transportation Plan (RTP);

WHEREAS, PCTPA issued and distributed an Initial Study and Notice of Preparation for the

2036 Placer County Environmental Impact Report (SCH #2010052013), including to the State

Office of Planning and Research, on June 5, 2015, which was circulated for a 30-day review

period;

WHEREAS, PCTPA publicly noticed and held a public scoping meeting on June 30th, to solicit

comments from the public and potential responsible and trustee agencies;

WHEREAS, the Draft Environmental Impact Report was completed and filed with the State

Office of Planning and Research on November 3, 2015;

WHEREAS, PCTPA commenced a 45-day public review period to solicit comments on the Draft

Environmental Impact Report on November 3, 2015;

WHEREAS, the State Office of Planning and Research provided a letter indicating that PCTPA

has complied with the State Clearinghouse review requirements;

WHEREAS, PCTPA did not receive any official comments from State or local agencies during

the 45-day public review period;

WHEREAS, PCTPA released the Final Environmental Impact Report, that included minor textual

changes on February 12, 2016;

WHEREAS, the Final Environmental Impact Report identified certain significant and potentially

significant adverse effects on the environment caused by the Project (the RTP);

WHEREAS, PCTPA desires, in accordance with CEQA, to declare that, despite the occurrence

of significant environmental effects that cannot be substantially lessened or avoided through the

adoption of feasible mitigation measures or feasible alternatives, there exist certain overriding

economic, social, and other considerations for approving the Project that the PCTPA believes

justify the occurrence of those impacts;

WHEREAS, PCTPA specifically finds that where one reason for approving the Project and

rejecting alternatives is given in its findings or in the record, where more than one reason for

rejecting or modifying mitigation measures is given in the record, and where more than one reason

is given for adopting the Statement of Overriding Considerations, the PCTPA would have made

its decision on the basis of any one of those reasons.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the PCTPA Board of Directors that:

Section 1. Pursuant to Section 15090 of the CEQA Guidelines, the PCTPA hereby certifies

that: a) the Final 2036 RTP EIR has been completed in compliance with CEQA; b) the Final RTP

EIR was presented to the PCTPA, and the PCTPA reviewed and considered the information

contained in the Final RTP EIR prior to taking action on the Final RTP EIR; and c) the Final RTP

EIR reflects the independent judgment and analysis of PCTPA.

Section 2. As set forth in Section 15043 of the CEQA Guidelines a public agency may approve

a project even though the project would cause a significant effect on the environment if the agency

makes a fully informed and publicly disclosed decision that:

There is no feasible way to lessen or avoid the significant effect; and

Specifically identified expected benefits from the project outweigh the policy of

reducing or avoiding significant environmental impacts of the project. The

PCTPA hereby makes that decision as set forth more fully in Attachment A-1,

attached hereto.

Section 3. Attachment A-1 of this Resolution provides the findings required under Section

15043 and 15093 of the CEQA Guidelines relating to accepting adverse impacts of the project due

to overriding considerations. PCTPA has reviewed the findings and determines that the economic,

legal, social, technological, and other benefits of the project have been balanced against the

unavoidable environmental risks that may result, and finds that the specific economic, legal, social,

technological, and other benefits outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects.

PCTPA, therefore, after reviewing the record and hearing the comments provided, finds the

adverse environmental effects of the project to be outweighed by the benefits provided to the

County by the project. PCTPA hereby makes the findings as set forth in Attachment A-1 and

adopts the Statement of Overriding Considerations attached hereto as Attachment A-1 (Statement

of Overriding Considerations).

Section 4. Exhibit A-1 of this Resolution provides Findings of Fact required under Section

15043 and 15091 of the CEQA Guidelines for significant effects of the project, feasibility of

mitigation measures, and feasibility of alternatives. PCTPA, after reviewing the record and hearing

the comments provided, hereby finds and adopts the various findings of fact attached hereto as

Attachment A-1.

Section 5. After considering the EIR and in conjunction with making these findings, the

PCTPA hereby finds that, pursuant to Section 15092 of the CEQA Guidelines, approval of the

adopted 2036 Placer County RTP will result in significant effects on the environment; however,

PCTPA has eliminated or substantially lessened these significant effects where feasible, and as set

forth in Attachment A-1 has determined that remaining significant effects are found to be

unavoidable under Section 15091 and acceptable under Section 15093.

Section 6. PCTPA has considered the 2036 Placer County RTP alternatives and concludes,

based on substantial evidence in the record that only the adopted RTP alternative (fiscally

constrained) can be feasibly implemented in light of economic, legal, social, technological, and

other reasons, as discussed herein, and therefore adopts the Fiscally Constrained alternative as the

Project.

Section 7. These findings made by PCTPA are made after independent consideration and are

supported by the documents provided and comments received which taken together demonstrate

substantial evidence in the record.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, by the PCTPA Board of Directors that:

Section 8. PCTPA hereby adopts the Mitigation Monitoring Plan (Final EIR, Attachment A-2)

attached hereto to ensure implementation of feasible mitigation measures identified in the EIR.

PCTPA finds that these mitigation measures are fully enforceable as policies and/or

Implementation measures of the Project, and shall be binding upon the affected local jurisdictions.

Section 9. PCTPA hereby directs staff to immediately commence to: a) file of a Notice of

Determination documenting these decisions; and b) retain a copy of the certified Final EIR as a

public record.

FINDINGS

CEQAFindings–2036PlacerCountyRTP 1

FINDINGSFORTHEPLACERCOUNTY

REGIONALTRANSPORTATIONPLANUPDATEREQUIRED UNDER THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT

(Public Resources Code, Section 21000 et seq)

I. INTRODUCTIONThe California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Pub. Resources Code, § 21000 et seq.) requires

the Placer County Transportation Planning Agency (PCTPA), as the CEQA lead agency, to: 1) make

written findings when it approves a project for which an environmental impact report (EIR) was

certified, and 2) identify overriding considerations for significant and unavoidable impacts identified

in the EIR.

This document explains the PCTPA’s findings regarding the significant and potentially significant

impacts identified in the environmental impact report (EIR) prepared for the 2036 Placer County

Regional Transportation Plan (RTP or Project). The statement of overriding considerations in section

VII identifies economic, social, technical, and other benefits of the Project that override any

significant environmental impacts that would result from the Project.

As required under CEQA, the Final EIR describes the Project, adverse environmental impacts of the

project, and Mitigation Measures and alternatives that would substantially reduce or avoid those

impacts. The information and conclusions contained in the EIR reflect the PCTPA’s independent

judgment.

The Final EIR (which includes the Draft EIR, comments, responses to comments, and revisions to the

Draft EIR) for the Project, examined the Proposed Project and several alternatives to the Project

including the: (1) No Project Alternative; (2) Road Emphasis Alternative; (3) Transit Enhanced

Alternative; and (4) Financially Unconstrained Alternative.

The Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations are presented for adoption by the PCTPA

Board, as the PCTPA’s findings under CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines (Cal. Code Regs., title 14, §

15000 et seq.) relating to the Project. The Findings provide the written analysis and conclusions of

this Board regarding the Project’s environmental impacts, Mitigation Measures, alternatives to the

Project, and the overriding considerations, which in this Board’s view, justify approval of the Project,

despite its environmental effects.

CEQAFINDINGS[TYPETHEDOCUMENTTITLE]

2 CEQAFindings–2036PlacerCountyRTP

II. GENERALFINDINGSANDOVERVIEW

BackgroundPCTPA is required to adopt and submit an updated RTP (Regional Transportation Plan) to the

California Transportation Commission (CTC) and the Department of Transportation (Caltrans) every

five years. The RTP is a long‐range, 20‐year minimum, comprehensive transportation plan for all

modes including: highways, local streets and roads, transit, bicycle, aviation, rail and goods

movement. The purpose of the RTP is to serve as a foundation for the development of the shorter

"action" plans called the Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP), which satisfies

California transportation planning requirements, and the federal counterpart referred to as the

Federal Transportation Improvement Program (FTIP) for all transportation projects that require

federal approval. The 2036 RTP Program EIR covers a programmed and planned (Tier 1‐financially

constrained) list of projects and as well as a list of projects identified for development activities only

(Tier 2‐financially unconstrained). The programmed and planned list of projects represents the

financially constrained investments that are either budgeted (funded) in the FTIP or are anticipated

to be funded over the horizon of the RTP. The project development only list of projects consists of

projects that are not fully funded through construction and are identified for preconstruction efforts

through the environmental phase of the project.

The 2036 Placer County Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) introduces a planning framework that is

updated from the 2035 RTP, to reflect current priorities and practices at the regional, State, and

federal levels. This framework provides guidance to policy makers as they make decisions impacting

the region’s transportation system. Over the 20 year time horizon of this long‐range plan, the goals,

policies, and objectives will produce a more coordinated and comprehensive transportation system

that effectively and efficiently utilizes the region’s resources to the benefit of the citizens of Placer

County. The goals, policies, and objectives reflect the desired outcomes of the 2036 RTP.

ProjectOverviewThe proposed project is the adoption and implementation of the 2036 Placer County RTP. The RTP

has been prepared to fulfill the state requirements of AB 402 (Government Code Title 7, Chapter

2.5, Sections 65080‐65082) using specific guidance from the California Transportation Commission

Regional Transportation Plan Guidelines. More specifically, the RTP is a twenty year, comprehensive

transportation plan for all modes including: highways, local streets and roads, transit, bicycle,

aviation, rail, and goods movement. PCTPA is required to adopt and submit an updated RTP to the

California Transportation Commission (CTC) and the Department of Transportation (Caltrans) every

five years.

The secondary purpose of the RTP is to serve as a foundation for the development of the shorter

“action” plans called the Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP), which satisfies

California transportation planning requirements, and the federal counterpart referred to as the

Federal Transportation Improvement Program (FTIP) for all transportation projects that contain

federal transportation dollars or require federal approval.

CEQAFINDINGS


The RTP contains three primary elements: Policy Element, Action Element, and Financial Element.

The Policy Element presents guidance to decision‐makers of the implications, impacts,

opportunities, and foreclosed options that will result from implementation of the RTP. California law

(Government Code Section 65080 (b)) states that each RTP shall include a Policy Element that:

1. Describes the transportation issues in the region;

2. Identifies and quantifies regional needs expressed within both short and long range

planning horizons; and,

3. Maintains internal consistency with the Financial Element and fund estimates.

The Action Element identifies programs and actions to implement the RTP in accordance with the

goals, objectives, and policies set forth in the Policy Element. It includes regionally significant

multimodal projects that currently have funding in place or that are projected to have funding in the

future (Fiscally Constrained), while it also identifies other improvement projects that are needed but

do not have funding (Fiscally Unconstrained).

The Financial Element identifies the current and anticipated revenue sources and financing

techniques available to fund the fiscally constrained transportation investments described in the

Action Element. It also identifies potential funding shortfalls and sources for the unconstrained

project list.

POLICYELEMENT

The 2036 RTP builds upon the 2035 RTP goals, policies, objectives, and performance measures in

order to provide a simplified and more clearly articulated vision of the future that emphasizes the

fundamental values reflected in past RTPs.

The purpose of the RTP is to guide the long‐range planning and development of transportation

projects in Placer County.

The process of updating the RTP provides an opportunity to participate in both planning and priority

setting. The process allows the community to focus their attention on transportation in the context

of the Placer County as well as the entire Sacramento region, building both local and regional

coalitions. The longer time frame of twenty years gives the community a chance to step back from

day‐to‐day concerns and deliberate on how to achieve the desired transportation system.

The RTP defines the goals of the transportation system and sets priorities for project implementation

within the context of six regional planning principles:

Support well‐planned growth and land use patterns;

Improve environmental quality through better stewardship of the transportation system;

Fit within financially constrained budget by delivering cost‐effective projects that are

feasible to construct and maintain;



Improve economic vitality by efficiently connecting people to jobs and delivering goods and

services to markets;

Improve access and mobility opportunities for all people to jobs, services and housing; and

Provide real, viable travel choices for all people within a diverse county.

The RTP contains the following overall goals that provide the framework for the action and financial elements.

ACTIONANDFINANCIALELEMENTS

The Action Element identifies programs and actions to implement the 2036 RTP in accordance with

the goals, objectives, and policies set forth in the Policy Element. The Action Element consists of

short‐term and long‐term activities that address regional transportation issues and needs.

The Action Element represents the heart of the RTP. It describes, by mode of transportation, the

current conditions, recent planning activities, and priorities. Federal conformity regulations (Title 40

CFR 93.106, Content of Transportation Plans) identify the short‐term horizon as a period up to ten

years and the long‐term horizon as projects or activities 20 years and beyond.

The Action Element must be consistent with the financial constraints identified in the Financial

Element, and must conform to the State Implementation Plan. Regionally significant projects are

listed by transportation mode, and are grouped into Tier 1 and Tier 2 categories.

The Financial Element identifies the current and anticipated revenue sources and financing

techniques available to fund the transportation investments described in Tier 1 and Tier 2 list of

improvements provided in the Action Element. The purpose of the Financial Element is to:

Inventory existing and potential funding sources from federal, state and local perspectives.

Summarize costs to operate and maintain the current transportation system.

Summarize street and road candidate projects with both available funding (Tier 1 projects)

and potential funding shortfalls (Tier 2 projects) and the cost to build the projects.

Summarize deferred maintenance for the region and the resulting shortfall.

Tier 1 investments contain the highest priority and most urgent investment needs, and are

separated into short term and long term categories. Enough funding is anticipated to be available

over the life of the RTP to develop and construct or implement these improvements. Tier 1

improvements constitute the “financially constrained” element of the RTP.

Additional projects and improvements that are needed and important to the regional system but

which are not able to be funded through construction at this time are called Tier 2 projects. Tier 2

projects constitute the “financially unconstrained” element of the RTP. Sufficient budget capacity is

assumed to allow projects to proceed with project pre‐development activities (such as preliminary

engineering and environmental clearance), but these projects are not fully funded through

construction.

CEQAFINDINGS


A listing of the Tier 1 projects is described in Table 2.3‐1, and a listing of the Tier 2 projects is

described in Table 2.3‐2 of the EIR.

PROCEDURALBACKGROUND

NOP Public Circulation and Initial Study: The PCTPA circulated a Notice of Preparation (NOP) of an

EIR for the proposed project on June 5, 2015 to trustee and responsible agencies, the State

Clearinghouse (SCH# 2015062014), and the public. Five comments on the NOP were provided from

five different organizations: California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) District 3, the

Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board (CVRWQCB), the City of Rocklin Public Services

Department, the Sierra Club, and the United Auburn Community. The NOP and comment letters are

presented in Appendix A of the Draft EIR.

Notice of Availability and Draft EIR: The PCTPA published a public Notice of Availability (NOA) for

the Draft EIR on November 3, 2015, inviting comment from the general public, agencies,

organizations, and other interested parties. The NOA was filed with the State Clearinghouse (SCH #

2015062014) and the County Clerk, and was published in a regional newspaper pursuant to the

public noticing requirements of CEQA. The Draft EIR was available for public review from May 15

through December 18, 2015. The Draft EIR contains a description of the project, description of the

environmental setting, identification of project impacts, and Mitigation Measures for impacts found

to be significant, as well as an analysis of project alternatives, identification of significant irreversible

environmental changes, growth‐inducing impacts, and cumulative impacts. The Draft EIR identifies

issues determined to have no impact or a less than significant impact, and provides detailed analysis

of potentially significant and significant impacts. Comments received in response to the NOP were

considered in preparing the analysis in the Draft EIR.

Final EIR: The PCTPA received one (1) comment letters during the Draft EIR public review period.

The Governor’s Office of Planning and Research State Clearinghouse (SCH) provided a letter

confirming the submittal of the Draft EIR to selected state agencies. In addition to the SCH letter,

internally the PCTPA has initiated revisions to the EIR to clarify and/or amplify the document. No

additional oral or written comments were received. In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section

15088, this Final EIR responds to the written comments received. The Final EIR also contains minor

edits to the Draft EIR, which are included in Section 3.0, Errata, and the Draft EIR, as amended herein,

constitute the Final EIR.

Responses to comments received during the comment period do not involve any new significant

impacts or “significant new information” that would require recirculation of the Draft EIR pursuant

to CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5. Each response is provided in the Final EIR.

RECORDOFPROCEEDINGSANDCUSTODIANOFRECORD

For purposes of CEQA and the findings set forth herein, the record of proceedings for the PCTPA’s

findings and determinations consists of the following documents and testimony, at a minimum:



The NOP, comments received on the NOP, and all other public notices issued by the PCTPA

in relation to the Project (e.g., Notice of Availability).

The Draft EIR and Final EIR, including comment letters, and technical materials cited in the

documents.

All non‐draft and/or non‐confidential reports and memoranda prepared by the PCTPA and

consultants in relation to the EIR.

Minutes and transcripts of the discussions regarding the Project and/or Project components

at public hearings held by the PCTPA.

Staff reports associated with PCTPA Board meetings on the Project.

Those categories of materials identified in Public Resources Code Section 21167.6.

These documents are not specifically included in the Final EIR, but they are available by the

custodian of the administrative record. The PCTPA is the custodian of the administrative record. The

documents and materials that constitute the administrative record are available for review at the

Placer County Transportation Planning Agency, 299 Nevada St., Auburn CA 95603.

FINDINGSREQUIREDUNDERCEQA

Public Resources Code section 21002 provides that “public agencies should not approve projects as

proposed if there are feasible alternatives or feasible Mitigation Measures available which would

substantially lessen the significant environmental effects of such projects[.]” Further, the

procedures required by CEQA “are intended to assist public agencies in systematically identifying

both the significant effects of proposed projects and the feasible alternatives or feasible Mitigation

Measures which will avoid or substantially lessen such significant effects.” (Id.) Section 21002 also

provides that “in the event specific economic, social, or other conditions make infeasible such

project alternatives or such Mitigation Measures, individual projects may be approved in spite of

one or more significant effects thereof.”

The mandate and principles established by the Legislature in Public Resources Code section 21002

are implemented, in part, through the requirement in Public Resources Code section 21081 that

agencies must adopt findings before approving projects for which an EIR is required.

CEQA Guidelines section 15091 provides the following direction regarding findings:

(a) No public agency shall approve or carry out a project for which an EIR has been certified

which identifies one or more significant environmental effects of the project unless the

public agency makes one or more written findings for each of those significant effects,

accompanied by a brief explanation of the rationale for each finding. The possible findings

are:

(1) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project

which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified

in the final EIR.

(2) Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of

another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have

CEQAFINDINGS


been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other

agency.

(3) Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including

provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible

the Mitigation Measures or project alternatives identified in the final EIR.

(See also Pub. Resources Code, § 21081, subd. (a)(1)‐(3).)

As defined by CEQA, “feasible” means capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within

a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, social, legal, and

technological factors. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21061.1; see also CEQA Guidelines, § 15126.6(f)(1)

[determining the feasibility of alternatives].) The concept of “feasibility” also encompasses the

question of whether a particular alternative or Mitigation Measure promotes the underlying goals

and objectives of a project. (See Association of Irritated Residents v. County of Madera (2003) 107

Cal.App.4th 1383, 1400 [court upholds findings rejecting a “reduced herd” alternative to a proposed

dairy as infeasible because the alternative failed to meet the “fundamental objective” of the project

to produce milk]; Sierra Club v. County of Napa (2004) 121 Cal.App.4th 1490, 1506‐1508 [agency

decision‐makers, in rejecting alternatives as infeasible, appropriately relied on project objective

articulated by project applicant].) Moreover, “‘feasibility’ under CEQA encompasses ‘desirability’ to

the extent that desirability is based on a reasonable balancing of the relevant economic,

environmental, social, legal, and technological factors.” (City of Del Mar v. City of San Diego (1982)

133 Cal.App.3d 410, 417; see also California Native Plant Society v. City of Santa Cruz (2009) 177

Cal.App.4th 957, 1001‐1002.

With respect to a project for which significant impacts cannot be feasibly avoided or substantially

lessened, a public agency may nevertheless approve the project if the agency first adopts a

statement of overriding considerations setting forth the specific reasons that the project’s benefits

outweigh its significant unavoidable adverse environmental effects. (Pub. Resources Code, §§

21001, 21002.1(c), 21081(b).)

CEQA Guidelines section 15093 provides the following direction regarding a statement of overriding

considerations:

(a) CEQA requires the decision‐making agency to balance, as applicable, the economic, legal,

social, technological, or other benefits, including region‐wide or statewide environmental

benefits, of a proposed project against its unavoidable environmental risks when

determining whether to approve the project. If the specific economic, legal, social,

technological, or other benefits, including region‐wide or statewide environmental benefits,

of a proposed project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects, the adverse

environmental effects may be considered “acceptable.”

(b) When the lead agency approves a project which will result in the occurrence of significant

effects which are identified in the final EIR but are not avoided or substantially lessened, the

agency shall state in writing the specific reasons to support its action based on the final EIR



and/or other information in the record. The statement of overriding considerations shall be

supported by substantial evidence in the record.

(c) If an agency makes a statement of overriding considerations, the statement should be

included in the record of the project approval and should be mentioned in the notice of

determination. This statement does not substitute for, and shall be in addition to, findings

required pursuant to Section 15091.

MITIGATIONMONITORINGPROGRAM

A Mitigation Monitoring Program has been prepared for the Project and has been adopted

concurrently with these Findings. (See Pub. Resources Code, § 21081.6, subd. (a)(1).) The PCTPA will

use the Mitigation Monitoring Program to track compliance with Project Mitigation Measures.

CONSIDERATIONOFTHEENVIRONMENTALIMPACTREPORT

In adopting these Findings, this Board finds that the Final EIR was presented to this Board, the

decision‐making body of the lead agency, which reviewed and considered the information in the

Final EIR prior to approving the Project. By these findings, this Board ratifies, adopts, and

incorporates the analysis, explanation, findings, responses to comments, and conclusions of the

Final EIR. The PCPTA Board finds that the Final EIR was completed in compliance with CEQA. The

Final EIR represents the independent judgment of the PCTPA.

SEVERABILITY

If any term, provision, or portion of these Findings or the application of these Findings to a particular

situation is held by a court to be invalid, void, or unenforceable, the remaining provisions of these

Findings, or their application to other actions related to the Project, shall continue in full force and

effect unless amended or modified by the PCTPA.

III. FINDINGSANDRECOMMENDATIONSREGARDINGSIGNIFICANTANDUNAVOIDABLEIMPACTS

A. AGRICULTURALRESOURCES1. IMPACT 3.2.1: CONVERSION OF FARMLANDS, INCLUDING PRIME FARMLAND, UNIQUE

FARMLAND,ANDFARMLANDOFSTATEWIDEIMPORTANCE,TONON‐AGRICULTURALUSES,ORCONFLICTWITHEXISTINGZONINGFORAGRICULTURALUSEORAWILLIAMSONACTCONTRACT.

(a) Potential Impact. The potential for the Project to cause a conversion of farmlands or

conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act Contract is discussed

on pages 3.2‐8 through 3.2‐9 of the Draft EIR.

(b) Mitigation Measures. The following Mitigation Measures are hereby adopted and will

be implemented as provided by the Mitigation Monitoring Program: Mitigation

Measure 3.2‐1 would reduce farmland impacts to the greatest extent feasible. There is

CEQAFINDINGS


no additional feasible mitigation available that would reduce this impact to a less than

significant level.

(c) Findings. Based upon the EIR and the entire record before this Board, this Board finds

that:

(1) Effects of Mitigation and Remaining Impacts. Due to the importance of the region’s

agricultural resources, any impacts on Farmland Mapping & Monitoring Program

(FMMP) designated farmland are considered significant and unavoidable.

Implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.2‐1 would reduce impacts to existing

farmlands to the greatest extent feasible, including compensation for unavoidable

conversion at a 1:1 ratio, if necessary. However, even after implementation of

Mitigation Measures included in the RTP and EIR, the proposed project will still

contribute to a net loss of agricultural land in Placer County. Therefore, this is

considered a significant and unavoidable impact. There is no additional feasible

mitigation available that would reduce this impact to a less than significant level.

(2) Overriding Considerations. The environmental, economic, social and other benefits

of the Project override any remaining significant adverse impact of the Project

associated with impacts to farmland impacts in the region, as more fully stated in

the Statement of Overriding Considerations in Section VII.

B. GREENHOUSEGASEMISSIONSANDCLIMATECHANGE1. IMPACT 3.6.1: GENERATE GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS, EITHER DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY,

THATMAYHAVEASIGNIFICANTIMPACTONTHEENVIRONMENT

(a) Potential Impact. The potential for the Project to generate greenhouse gas emissions

that may have a significant impact on the environments is discussed on pages 3.6‐13

through 3.6‐16 of the Draft EIR.

(b) Mitigation Measures. The following Mitigation Measure is hereby adopted and will be

implemented as provided by the Mitigation Monitoring Program: Mitigation Measures

3.6‐1, 3.6‐2, 3.6‐3, 3.6‐4, and 3.6‐5.


that:

(1) Effects of Mitigation and Remaining Impacts. While Mitigation Measure 3.6‐1, 3.6‐

2, 3.6‐3, 3.6‐4, and 3.6‐5 would reduce per capita VMT levels throughout Placer

County, thereby reducing overall greenhouse gas emissions beyond what would be

expected without mitigation, the proposed project would still contribute to an

overall significant increase in GHG emissions generated by the County. There is no

additional feasible mitigation available that would reduce this impact to a less than

significant level.





associated with an increase in greenhouse gas emissions, as more fully stated in the

Statement of Overriding Considerations in Section VII.

C. CUMULATIVE1. IMPACT4.2:CUMULATIVEIMPACTONAGRICULTURALLANDANDUSES.

(a) Potential Impact. The potential for the Project to result in a cumulative impact on

agricultural land and uses is discussed on pages 4.0‐3 through 4.0‐4 of the Draft EIR.

(b) Mitigation Measures. Mitigation Measure 3.2‐1 (as previously described in Impact

3.2.1).


that:

(1) Effects of Mitigation and Remaining Impacts. Due to the importance of the region’s

agricultural resources, any impacts on FMMP designated farmland are considered

significant and unavoidable. Implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.2‐1 would

reduce impacts to existing farmlands to the greatest extent feasible, including

compensation for unavoidable conversion at a 1:1 ratio, if necessary. However, even

after implementation of Mitigation Measures included in the RTP and EIR, the

proposed project will still contribute to a net loss of agricultural land in Placer

County. There is no additional feasible mitigation available that would reduce this

impact to a less than significant level. Therefore, this is a cumulatively considerable

and significant and unavoidable impact.



associated with a conversion of agricultural land to non‐agricultural uses, as more

fully stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations in Section VII.

2. IMPACT4.6:INCREASEDTRANSPORTATIONGREENHOUSEGASEMISSIONSMAYCONTRIBUTETOCLIMATECHANGE

(a) Potential Impact. The potential for the Project to generate greenhouse gas emissions

that may have a cumulative impact on the environment is discussed on pages 4.0‐5

through 4.0‐6 of the Draft EIR.

(b) Mitigation Measures. Mitigation Measures 3.6‐1, 3.6‐2, 3.6‐3, 3.6‐4, and 3.6‐5 (as

previously described in Section 3.6).


that:

CEQAFINDINGS


(1) Effects of Mitigation and Remaining Impacts. While Mitigation Measure 3.6‐1, 3.6‐

2, 3.6‐3, 3.6‐4, and 3.6‐5 would reduce per capita VMT levels throughout Placer

County, thereby reducing overall greenhouse gas emissions beyond what would be

expected without mitigation, the proposed project would still contribute to an

overall significant increase in GHG emissions generated by the County. There is no

additional feasible mitigation available that would reduce this impact to a less than

significant level. Therefore, this is a cumulatively considerable and significant and

unavoidable impact.



associated with an increase in cumulative greenhouse gas emissions, as more fully

stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations in Section VII.

IV. FINDINGSANDRECOMMENDATIONSREGARDINGSIGNIFICANTIMPACTSWHICHAREMITIGATEDTOALESSTHANSIGNIFICANTLEVEL

A. AESTHETICS1. IMPACT 3.1‐2: SUBSTANTIAL ADVERSE EFFECTS ON SCENIC RESOURCES OR SUBSTANTIAL

DEGRADATIONOFVISUALCHARACTER

(a) Potential Impact. The potential for the Project to adversely affect scenic vistas and

resources or substantially degrade the visual character is discussed on pages 3.1‐7 of

the Draft EIR.



Measure 3.1‐1 and 3.1‐2.

(c) Findings. Based upon the EIR and the entire record before this Board of Directors, this

Board of Directors finds that the potential for adverse effects on scenic resources or

substantial degradation of visual character will be mitigated to a less than significant

level as Mitigation Measure 3.1‐1 and 3.1‐2 would require projects to include design

measures to avoid or reduce removal of scenic features and scenic views. Any remaining

impacts related to this environmental topic after implementation of Mitigation Measure

3.1‐1 and 3.1‐2 would not be significant.

2. IMPACT3.1‐3:CREATIONOFNEWSOURCESOFLIGHTANDGLARE

(a) Potential Impact. The potential for the Project to create new sources of light and glare

near sensitive receptors is discussed at pages 3.1‐12 of the Draft EIR.




implemented as provided by the Mitigation Monitoring Program: Mitigation Measure

3.1‐3.


Board of Directors finds that the impacts to light and glare will be mitigated to a less

than significant level as Mitigation Measure 3.1‐3 would require lighting that is directed

downward and away from adjacent sensitive land uses, installation of shields to avoid

light spillage, and, where necessary, installation of dense landscaping to block light from

sensitive land uses, and would also require use of non‐reflective materials. Any

remaining impacts related to light and glare after implementation of Mitigation

Measure 3.1‐3 would not be significant.

B. AGRICULTURALANDFORESTRESOURCES1. IMPACT3.2‐2:POTENTIALTOCONFLICTSWITHFORESTORTIMBERZONINGORRESULTINTHE

CONVERSIONOFFORESTLANDSORTIMBERLANDS

(a) Potential Impact. The potential for the Project to adversely affect scenic vistas and

resources or substantially degrade the visual character is discussed on pages 3.2‐10 of

the Draft EIR.



3.2‐2.

(c) Findings. Based upon the EIR and the entire record before this Board of Directors, this Board of Directors finds that the impacts to forest or timber will be mitigated to a less

than significant level as Mitigation Measure 3.2‐2 would require that a qualified arborist,

forester, and/or biologist to assess the potential impacts of tree removal. Any remaining

impacts related to forestlands or timberlands after implementation of Mitigation


C. AIRQUALITY1. IMPACT3.3‐2:SHORT‐TERM‐CONFLICTWITH,OROBSTRUCT,THEAPPLICABLEAIRQUALITY

PLAN,CAUSEAVIOLATIONOFAIRQUALITYSTANDARDS,CONTRIBUTESUBSTANTIALLYTOANEXISTING AIR QUALITY VIOLATION, OR RESULT IN A CUMULATIVELY CONSIDERABLE NETINCREASEOFACRITERIAPOLLUTANTINANON‐ATTAINMENTAREA

(a) Potential Impact. The potential for the Project to have short‐term air quality impacts is

discussed at pages 3.3‐17 through 3.3‐18 of the Draft EIR.



3.3‐1.

CEQAFINDINGS



Board of Directors finds that the short‐term air quality impacts will be mitigated to a

less than significant level as Mitigation Measure 3.3‐1 would ensure that a dust control

plan shall be prepared in accordance with APCD Rule 218 (Fugitive Dust Emissions). Any

remaining impacts related to short‐term air quality after implementation of Mitigation


2. IMPACT 3.3‐3: OCCASIONAL LOCALIZED CARBON MONOXIDE CONCENTRATIONS FROMTRAFFICCONDITIONSATSOMEINDIVIDUALLOCATIONS.

(a) Potential Impact. The potential for the Project to impact occasional localized carbon

monoxide concentrations from traffic conditions at individual locations is discussed on

page 3.3‐18 of the Draft EIR.



3.3‐2.


Board of Directors finds that the localized CO impacts will be mitigated to a less than

significant level as Mitigation Measure 3.3‐2 would ensure individual RTP projects will

be screened at the time of design in order to reduce the potential for the formation of

CO hot spots. Any remaining impacts related to CO concentration after implementation

of Mitigation Measure 3.3‐2 would not be significant.

3. IMPACT3.3‐5:POTENTIALTORELEASEASBESTOSFROMEARTHMOVEMENTORSTRUCTURALASBESTOSFROMDEMOLITION/RENOVATIONOFEXISTINGSTRUCTURES.

(a) Potential Impact. The potential for the Project to result in impacts from the release

asbestos from earth movement, or structural asbestos from demolition/renovation of

existing structures is discussed on pages 3.1‐18 through 3.1‐19 of the Draft EIR.



3.3‐3.


Board of Directors finds that the MSAT impacts will be mitigated to a less than significant

level as Mitigation Measure 3.3‐3 would ensure that the implementing agency will

assess the site for the presence of asbestos, and, in the event that asbestos is present,

the implementing agency will comply with state and local regulations, including ARB’s

ACTM and Placer County APCD Rule 228 – Fugitive Dust. Any remaining impacts related

to asbestos after implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.3‐3 would be less than

significant.

D. BIOLOGICALRESOURCES



1. IMPACT3.4‐1:DIRECTORINDIRECTEFFECTSONCANDIDATE,SENSITIVE,ORSPECIAL‐STATUSSPECIESINCLUDINGTHEIRHABITATORMOVEMENTCORRIDORS

(a) Potential Impact. The potential for the Project to have a direct or indirect impact on

special‐status, candidate, or sensitive species is discussed at pages 3.4‐11 through 3.4‐

13 of the Draft EIR.



3.4‐1.


Board of Directors finds that the impacts to special‐status, candidate, and sensitive

species and their habitat will be mitigated to a less than significant level, as Mitigation

Measure 3.4‐1 would first require projects to be designed to avoid impacts to special‐

status, candidate, and sensitive species, and if avoidance through design is not feasible,

to require implementation of project‐specific measures to reduce impacts to a less than

significant level. Any remaining impacts related to special‐status, candidate, and

sensitive species after implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.4‐1 would not be

significant.

2. IMPACT3.4‐2:ADVERSEEFFECTS ONRIPARIANHABITAT OROTHER SENSITIVENATURALCOMMUNITYIDENTIFIEDINLOCALORREGIONALPLANS,POLICIES,REGULATIONSORBYTHECALIFORNIADEPARTMENTOFFISHANDGAMEORU.S.FISHANDWILDLIFESERVICE,ORONFEDERALLYPROTECTEDWETLANDSASDEFINEDBYSECTION404OFTHECLEANWATERACTTHROUGHDIRECTREMOVAL,FILLING,HYDROLOGICALINTERRUPTION,OROTHERMEANS

(a) Potential Impact. The potential for the Project to have a direct or indirect on riparian

habitat and sensitive natural communities is discussed at pages 3.4‐14 through 3.4‐16

of the Draft EIR.



Measure 3.4‐2, 3.4‐3, and 3.4‐4.


Board of Directors finds that the impacts to riparian habitat and sensitive natural

communities will be mitigated to a less than significant level, as Mitigation Measures

3.4‐2, 3.4‐3, and 3.4‐4 would first require projects to be designed to avoid impacts to

riparian habitat and sensitive natural communities, and if avoidance through design is

not feasible, to require implementation of project‐specific measures to reduce impacts

to a less than significant level. Any remaining impacts related to riparian habitat and

other sensitive natural communities after implementation of Mitigation Measures 3.4‐

2, 3.4‐3, and 3.4‐4 would be less than significant.

CEQAFINDINGS


3. IMPACT3.4‐3:INTERFERENCEWITHTHEMOVEMENTOFNATIVERESIDENTORMIGRATORY

FISH OR WILDLIFE SPECIES OR WITH ESTABLISHED NATIVE RESIDENT OR MIGRATORY

WILDLIFECORRIDORS,ORIMPEDETHEUSEOFNATIVEWILDLIFENURSERYSITES

(a) Potential Impact. The potential for the Project to interfere with the movement of fish or

wildlife species, interfere with established wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native

wildlife nursery sites is discussed at pages 3.4‐16 through 3.4‐17 of the Draft EIR.



3.4‐5.


Board of Directors finds that the impacts to movement of fish or wildlife species,

established wildlife corridors, and native wildlife nursery sites will be mitigated to a less

than significant level, as Mitigation Measure 3.4‐5 would first require projects to be

designed to provide design measures to allow wildlife or fish to move through the RTP

projects. If it is not feasible to avoid the impact through design measures, individual

projects will be required to implement alternative project‐specific mitigation prior to

construction. Any remaining impacts related to movement of fish or wildlife species,

established wildlife corridors, and native wildlife nursery sites after implementation of

Mitigation Measure 3.4‐5 would be less than significant.

4. IMPACT3.4‐4:POTENTIALINTRODUCTIONORSPREADOFNOXIOUSWEEDS

(a) Potential Impact. The potential for the Project to introduce noxious weeds is discussed

at pages 3.4‐17 through 3.4‐18 of the Draft EIR.



3.4‐6.


Board of Directors finds that the potential to introduce or spread noxious weeds will be

mitigated to a less than significant level as Mitigation Measure 3.4‐6 would require a

qualified biologist to perform a field survey to determine the presence of noxious weed

infestations in the project area for individual projects, and also requires plans and

specifications to include specific measures that reduce the likelihood of new noxious

weed infestations after construction is completed. Any remaining impacts related to

noxious weeds after implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.4‐6 would not be

significant.

5. IMPACT 3.4‐5: CONFLICTS WITH AN ADOPTED HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN, NATURALCOMMUNITYCONSERVATIONPLAN,RECOVERYPLAN, OR LOCALPOLICIES ORORDINANCESPROTECTINGBIOLOGICALRESOURCES



(a) Potential Impact. The potential for the Project to conflict with an adopted plan, policies,

or ordinances protecting biological resources is discussed at pages 3.4‐18 through 3.4‐




3.4‐7.


Board of Directors finds that the impacts to an adopted plan, policies, or ordinances

protecting biological resources will be mitigated to a less than significant level as

Mitigation Measure 3.4‐7 would require individual projects to be consistent the Placer

County Conservation Plan once it is completed. Any remaining impacts related to an

adopted plan, policies, or ordinances protecting biological resources after

implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.4‐7 would not be significant.

E. CULTURALRESOURCES1. IMPACT3.5‐1:DAMAGETOORTHEDESTRUCTIONOFHISTORICALRESOURCES

(a) Potential Impact. The potential for the Project to have an impact on significant

archaeological resources is discussed at page 3.5‐10 of the Draft EIR.



3.5‐1.


that impacts to significant archaeological resources will be mitigated to a less than

significant level, as Mitigation Measure 3.5‐1 would first require projects to perform a

site‐specific study to identify the potential for significant historical resources to be

present, and, if present, to avoid, preserve, or otherwise mitigate potentially significant

impacts to the resources. Any remaining impacts related to historical resources after


2. IMPACT3.5‐2:DAMAGETOORTHEDESTRUCTIONOFARCHAEOLOGICALRESOURCES

(a) Potential Impact. The potential for the Project to have an impact on human remains is

discussed at page 3.5‐10 through 3.5‐12 of the Draft EIR.



3.5‐2.


Board of Directors finds that impacts to human remains will be mitigated to a less than

significant level as Mitigation Measure 3.5‐2 would ensure consultations with Native

CEQAFINDINGS


American organizations and a records search shall be conducted. In the event the

records indicate that no previous survey has been conducted, the Central California

Information Center will make a recommendation on whether a survey is warranted

based on the archaeological sensitivity of the project areas. Additionally, implementing

agencies and contractors performing improvements to the projects shall adhere to

project‐specific requirements. Any remaining impacts related human remains after


3. IMPACT3.5‐3:DAMAGETOORTHEDESTRUCTIONOFPALEONTOLOGICALRESOURCES


paleontological resources is discussed at page 3.5‐12 of the Draft EIR.



3.5‐3.


Board of Directors finds that impacts to significant paleontological resources will be

mitigated to a less than significant level as Mitigation Measure 3.5‐3 would ensure that

all individual projects either avoid known paleontological resources, or take steps to

implement amelioration methods to reduce impacts to known paleontological

resources. Any remaining impacts related to paleontological resources after


4. IMPACT3.5‐4:DISTURBANCEOFHUMANREMAINS


paleontological resources is discussed at page 3.5‐13 of the Draft EIR.



3.5‐4.


Board of Directors finds that impacts to significant human remains will be mitigated to

a less than significant level as Mitigation Measure 3.5‐4 would ensure that all individual

projects, in the event of discovery or recognition of any human remains during

construction or excavation or disturbance of the site or any nearby area reasonably

suspected to overlie adjacent human remains, project‐specific measures will be taken.

Any remaining impacts related to disturbance of humans after implementation of

Mitigation Measure 3.5‐4 would be less than significant.



F. CULTURALRESOURCES1. IMPACT 3.7‐1: ADVERSE EFFECTS INVOLVING RUPTURE OF A FAULT OR STRONG SEISMIC

GROUNDSHAKING

(a) Potential Impact. The potential for the Project to have an impact on adverse effects

involving rupture of a fault or strong seismic ground shaking is discussed at page 3.7‐11

of the Draft EIR.



3.7‐1.


Board of Directors finds that impacts to rupture of a fault or seismic ground shaking will

be mitigated to a less than significant level, as Mitigation Measure 3.7‐1 would require

project‐level seismic hazard evaluations and project design to conform with the

California Building Code. Any remaining impacts related to adverse effects involving

rupture of a fault or strong seismic ground shaking after implementation of Mitigation


2. IMPACT3.7‐2:SUBSTANTIALSOILEROSIONORTHELOSSOFTOPSOIL

(a) Potential Impact. The potential for the Project to cause substantial soil erosion or the

loss of topsoil is discussed at page 3.5‐14 of the Draft EIR.



3.9‐1 and 3.9‐2 (from Section 3.9 Hydrology).


Board of Directors finds that impacts to substantial soil erosion and the loss of topsoil

would be mitigated to a less than significant level, as Mitigation Measures 3.9‐1 and 3.9‐

2 would ensure that soil erosion and the loss of topsoil would be reduced. Any remaining

impacts related oil erosion and the loss of topsoil after implementation of Mitigation

Measures 3.9‐1 and 3.9‐2 would not be significant.

3. IMPACT 3.7‐3: LOCATED ON A GEOLOGICAL UNIT OR SOIL THAT IS/WOULD BE UNSTABLE,RESULTINGINON‐OROFF‐SITELANDSLIDE,LATERALSPREADING,SUBSIDENCE,LIQUEFACTIONORCOLLAPSE

(a) Potential Impact. The potential for the Project to be located on a geological unit or soil

that is/would be unstable, resulting in on‐ or off‐site landslide, lateral spreading,

subsidence, liquefaction or collapse is discussed at page 3.7‐12 of the Draft EIR.

CEQAFINDINGS




3.7‐2.


Board of Directors finds that impacts to on‐ or off‐ site landslide, lateral spreading,

liquefaction or collapse will be mitigated to a less than significant level as Mitigation

Measure 3.7‐2 would ensure that site‐specific geotechnical investigations for

liquefaction, slope stability, lateral spreading, settlement, and subsidence will be

conducted. The findings of the investigations will serve as the basis for the final design

of the proposed projects. Any remaining impacts related to soil that is/would be

unstable after implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.7‐2 would not be significant.

4. IMPACT3.7‐4:RISKSFROMEXPANSIVESOILS

(a) Potential Impact. The potential for the Project to have an impact on risks from expansive

soils is discussed at page 3.7‐12 through 3.7‐13 of the Draft EIR.



3.7‐3.


Board of Directors finds that impacts to risks from expansive soils will be mitigated to a

less than significant level, as Mitigation Measure 3.7‐3 would ensure that site‐specific

geotechnical investigations for expansive soils will be conducted. Additionally, the

findings of these site‐specific investigations would serve as the basis for the final design

of the proposed project and ensure that appropriate, proven geotechnical methods are

used. Any remaining impacts related to risks from expansive soils after implementation

of Mitigation Measure 3.7‐3 would not be significant.

G. HAZARDSANDHAZARDOUSMATERIALS1. IMPACT3.8‐4:INCLUDEDONALISTOFHAZARDOUSMATERIALSSITESCOMPILEDPURSUANTTO

GOVERNMENTCODESECTION65962.5

(a) Potential Impact. The potential for the Project to be included on a list of hazardous

materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 is discussed at

page 3.8‐11 through 3.8‐12 of the Draft EIR.



3.8‐1.


Board of Directors finds that impacts from being included on a list of hazardous



materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 will be

mitigated to a less than significant level, as Mitigation Measure 3.8‐1 would require a

Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment that includes a review of all known databases

for contaminated sites, prior to approval of individual RTP improvement projects. If it is

determined that a project is located on or near a contaminated site, a Phase II

environmental Site Assessment should be performed to sample the soils/groundwater

and further investigate the extent of the contamination. In such a case, the

implementing agency will devise a remediation plan or avoid disturbance of

contaminated areas, in compliance with appropriate regulatory agency requirements.

Any remaining impacts related to hazardous materials sites after implementation of

Mitigation Measure 3.8‐1 would not be significant.

H. HYDROLOGYANDWATERQUALITY1. IMPACT 3.9‐1: VIOLATE ANY WATER QUALITY STANDARDS OR WASTE DISCHARGE

REQUIREMENTS

(a) Potential Impact. The potential for the Project to be included on a list of hazardous

materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 is discussed at

page 3.9‐13 through 3.9‐16 of the Draft EIR.



3.9‐1, 3.9‐2, 3.9‐3, and 3.9‐4.


Board of Directors finds that impacts from violating water quality standards or waste

discharge requirements will be mitigated to a less than significant level, as Mitigation

Measure 3.9‐1, 3.9‐2, 3.9‐3, and 3.9‐4 would require a Phase 1 Environmental Site

Assessment that includes a review of all known databases for contaminated sites, prior

to approval of individual RTP improvement projects. If it is determined that a project is

located on or near a contaminated site, a Phase II environmental Site Assessment should

be performed to sample the soils/groundwater and further investigate the extent of the

contamination. In such a case, the implementing agency will devise a remediation plan

or avoid disturbance of contaminated areas, in compliance with appropriate regulatory

agency requirements. Any remaining impacts related to the potential for violation of

water quality standards or waste discharge requirements after implementation of

Mitigation Measures 3.9‐1, 3.9‐2, 3.9‐3, and 3.9‐4 would not be significant.

2. IMPACT3.9‐3:ALTEREXISTINGDRAINAGEPATTERN

(a) Potential Impact. The potential for the Project to alter the existing drainage pattern in a

manner which would result in substantial erosion, siltation, flooding, or polluted runoff

is discussed at page 3.9‐16 through 3.9‐18 of the Draft EIR.

CEQAFINDINGS




3.9‐5, 3.9‐6, and 3.9‐7.


Board of Directors finds that impacts from altering the existing drainage pattern in a

manner which would result in substantial erosion, siltation, flooding, or polluted runoff

would be mitigated to a less than significant level, as Mitigation Measures 3.9‐5, 3.9‐6,

and 3.9‐7 would require project‐level drainage studies, and the project would avoid

restriction of flood flows and project dewatering. Drainage systems will be required to

be designed in accordance with the County’s, Flood Control Agency’s, and other

applicable flood control design criteria. Any remaining impacts related to the potential

to alter the drainage pattern of sites would be reduced by implementation of Mitigation

Measures 3.9‐5, 3.9‐6, and 3.9‐7 to a less than significant level.

3. IMPACT3.9‐4:OTHERWISESUBSTANTIALLYDEGRADEWATERQUALITY

(a) Potential Impact. The potential for the Project to otherwise substantially degrade water

quality is discussed at page 3.9‐18 through 3.9‐19 of the Draft EIR.



3.9‐1 through 3.9‐7.


Board of Directors finds that impacts that would otherwise substantially degrade water

quality would be mitigated to a less than significant level, as Mitigation Measures 3.9‐1

through 3.9‐7 describe. Any remaining impacts related to the potential to otherwise

substantially degrade water quality would be reduced by implementation of Mitigation

Measures 3.9‐1 through 3.9‐7 to a less than significant level.

4. IMPACT3.9‐7:EXPOSUREOFPEOPLEORSTRUCTURESTOASIGNIFICANTRISKOFLOSSFROMFLOODING

(a) Potential Impact. The potential for the Project to otherwise substantially degrade water

quality is discussed at page 3.9‐18 through 3.9‐20 of the Draft EIR.



3.9‐8.


Board of Directors finds that impacts that would expose people or structures to a

significant risk of loss through flooding would be mitigated to a less than significant

level, as Mitigation Measure 3.9‐8 describes. Any remaining impacts related to the

potential to expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss from flooding would



be reduced by implementation of Mitigation Measures 3.9‐8 to a less than significant

level.

I. LANDUSEANDPOPULATION1. IMPACT3.10‐1:PHYSICALDIVISIONOFANESTABLISHEDCOMMUNITY.

(a) Potential Impact. The potential for the Project result in the physical division of an

established community is discussed on pages 3.10‐8 through 3.10‐9 of the Draft EIR.



3.10‐1.


Board of Directors finds that the potential for the Project to physically divide an

established community will be mitigated to a less than significant level as Mitigation

Measure 3.10‐1 would ensure that all individual projects are designed to maintain the

cohesiveness of the existing communities to the greatest extent feasible, and where full

design mitigation is not feasible, measures would be incorporated into the design to

minimize the impacts associated with project implementation. Any remaining impacts

after implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.10‐1 would not be significant.

2. IMPACT 3.10‐3: CONFLICTS WITH ANY APPLICABLE HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN ORNATURALCOMMUNITYCONSERVATIONPLAN.

(a) Potential Impact. The potential for the Project to conflict with any Applicable Habitat

Conservation Plan or Natural Community Conservation Plan is discussed on pages 3.10‐




3.10‐2.


Board of Directors finds that the potential for the Project to conflict with any applicable

Habitat Conservation Plan or Natural Community Conservation Plan will be mitigated to

a less than significant level as Mitigation Measure 3.10‐2 would require the

implementation of previously described Mitigation Measure 3.4‐7 from the Section 3.4

Biological Resources. Any remaining impacts after implementation of Mitigation


J. NOISE1. IMPACT 3.11‐1: EXPOSURE OF NOISE‐SENSITIVE LAND USES TO SHORT‐TERM

CONSTRUCTIONNOISE

CEQAFINDINGS


(a) Potential Impact. The potential for the Project to expose sensitive land uses to short‐

term construction noise is discussed at pages 3.11‐14 through 3.11‐16 of the Draft EIR.



3.11‐1.


Board of Directors finds that the potential for the Project to expose sensitive land uses

to short‐term construction noise will be mitigated to a less than significant level as

Mitigation Measure 3.11‐1 would limit construction to the daytime hours, to the extent

feasible, and would require use of equipment with reduced equipment noise/vibration

levels, to the extent practical. Any remaining impacts after implementation of

Mitigation Measure 3.11‐1 would not be significant.

2. IMPACT3.11‐2:EXPOSUREOFNOISE‐SENSITIVELANDUSESTOINCREASESINTRAFFICNOISE

(a) Potential Impact. The potential for the Project to expose sensitive land uses to traffic

noise is discussed at pages 3.11‐16 through 3.11‐17 of the Draft EIR.



3.11‐2.



to traffic noise will be mitigated to a less than significant level, as Mitigation Measure

3.11‐2 would require that the implementing agency shall perform a project‐level noise

evaluation, prior to the approval of RTP projects. The noise evaluation would identify

areas that would have elevated noise levels as a result of the project and require

measures to attenuate the noise to an acceptable level. Such measures could include

constructing earth berms, sound walls, establishing buffers, establishing speed limits

and limits on hours of operation of nearby rail and transit systems. Any remaining

impacts after implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.11‐2 would not be significant.

3. IMPACT3.11‐3:EXPOSUREOFNOISE‐SENSITIVELANDUSESTONOISEFROMIMPROVEDRAILFACILITIESANDSERVICEOPERATIONS

(a) Potential Impact. The potential for the Project to expose sensitive land uses to noise

from improved rail facilities and operations is discussed at pages 3.11‐17 of the Draft

EIR.



3.11‐2.





to noise from improved rail facilities and service operations will be mitigated to a less

than significant level, as Mitigation Measure 3.11‐2 would require that the

implementing agency shall perform a project‐level noise evaluation, prior to the

approval of RTP projects. The noise evaluation would identify areas that would have

elevated noise levels as a result of the project and require measures to attenuate the

noise to an acceptable level. Such measures could include constructing earth berms,

sound walls, establishing buffers, establishing speed limits and limits on hours of

operation of nearby rail and transit systems. Any remaining impacts after

implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.11‐2 would be less than significant.

K UTILITIES,PUBLICSERVICESANDRECREATION1. IMPACT3.12‐1: EXCEEDWASTEWATERTREATMENTREQUIREMENTS OF THEAPPLICABLE

REGIONALWATERQUALITYCONTROLBOARD.

(a) Potential Impact. The potential for the Project to exceed wastewater treatment

requirements of the applicable Water Quality Control Board is discussed on page 3.12‐




3.12‐1.

(c) Findings. Transportation projects included on the RTP are not anticipated to require

significant additional wastewater service, unless they involve the construction of

additional facilities. However, the improvement of and increased usage of non‐

motorized transportation methods, like bike routes, are not anticipated to require

additional levels of waste water service. If restrooms are incorporated into non‐

motorized transportation projects, these uses would also require minimal amounts of

wastewater services. Mitigation Measure 3.12‐1 requires that project implementation

agencies shall evaluate the impacts of wastewater treatment, as part of project‐specific

environmental review. For any identified impacts, project implementation agencies or

local jurisdiction shall identify appropriate Mitigation Measures and shall be responsible

for ensuring adherence to the Mitigation Measures. Any remaining impacts after


2. IMPACT3.12‐2:INADEQUATECAPACITYTOSERVETHEPROJECT’SPROJECTEDWASTEWATERDEMAND.

(a) Potential Impact. The potential for the Project to have inadequate capacity to serve the

project’s projected wastewater demand is discussed on page 3.12‐11 through 3.12‐12

of the Draft EIR.

CEQAFINDINGS




3.12‐2.

(c) Findings. The proposed project may not have adequate capacity to serve the project’s

projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments. Mitigation

Measure 3.12‐2 requires that project implementation agencies shall secure adequate

wastewater treatment capacity and undertake project‐level review as necessary to

provide CEQA compliance. Any remaining impacts after implementation of Mitigation

Measure 3.12‐2 would be less than significant.

3. IMPACT 3.12‐3: CONSTRUCTION OF NEW WASTEWATER TREATMENT OR COLLECTIONFACILITIESOREXPANSIONOFEXISTINGFACILITIES

(a) Potential Impact. The potential for the Project to require construction of new

wastewater treatment or collection facilities or expansion of existing facilities is

discussed on page 3.12‐11 through 3.12‐12 of the Draft EIR.



3.12‐3.

(c) Findings. Some RTP projects may require or result in the construction of new

wastewater treatment or collection facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the

construction of which could cause significant environmental effects. Implementation of

Mitigation Measure 3.12.3, which would require the implementing agencies to provide

CEQA review for all projects that require wastewater infrastructure upgrade, would

reduce this impact to a less‐than‐significant level.

4. IMPACT 3.12‐4: REQUIRE CONSTRUCTION OF NEW WATER TREATMENT FACILITIES OREXPANSIONOFEXISTINGFACILITIES

(a) Potential Impact. The potential for the Project to require construction of new water

treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities is discussed on page 3.12‐13 of the

Draft EIR.



3.12‐4.

(c) Findings. The proposed RTP is not anticipated to require the construction of new water

treatment facilities or expansion of existing water treatment facilities for water service.

However because site specific design details are not currently available, the following

Mitigation Measure requires project specific review by the implementing agency prior

to project approval. Implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.12.4, which would require

the implementing agencies to provide CEQA review for all projects that require



wastewater infrastructure upgrade, would reduce this impact to a less‐than‐significant

level.

5. IMPACT 3.12‐5: INSUFFICIENTWATER SUPPLIES AVAILABLE TO SERVE THE PROJECT FROMEXISTINGENTITLEMENTSANDRESOURCES

(a) Potential Impact. The potential for the Project to have insufficient water supplies is

discussed on page 3.12‐13 through 3.12‐14 of the Draft EIR.



3.12‐5.

(c) Findings. Project site specific design is not currently available for RTP improvement

projects, therefore, the amount of Potable water required to serve individual projects

is not determined. Therefore, the increased demand for water would need to be

evaluated on a project by project basis as part of the CEQA process prior to project

approval. Implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.12.5, which would require the

implementing agency to secure adequate water supplies to serve the proposed project

and undertake project‐level review as necessary to provide CEQA compliance, would

reduce this impact to a less‐than‐significant level.

6. IMPACT3.12‐6:CONSTRUCTIONOFNEWSTORMWATERDRAINAGEFACILITIESOREXPANSIONOFEXISTINGFACILITIES

(a) Potential Impact. The potential for the Project to cause construction of new storm water

drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities is discussed on page 3.12‐14 through

3.12‐15 of the Draft EIR.



3.12‐6.

(c) Findings. Because the project site could increase runoff, project impacts to storm water

are considered potentially significant. Implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.12.6,

which would require the implementing agency to secure adequate water supplies to

serve the proposed project and undertake project‐level review as necessary to provide

CEQA compliance, would reduce this impact to a less‐than‐significant level.

7. IMPACT3.12‐7:SOLIDWASTEDISPOSALNEEDS

(a) Potential Impact. The potential for the Project to cause solid waste impacts is discussed

on page 3.12‐15 through 3.12‐16 of the Draft EIR.

CEQAFINDINGS




3.12‐7.

(c) Findings. Because the project site could increase runoff, project impacts to solid waste

are considered potentially significant. Implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.12.7,

which would ensure reductions in solid waste and that landfills have enough solid waste

capacity, would reduce this impact to a less‐than‐significant level.

L TRANSPORTATIONANDCIRCULATION1. IMPACT 3.13‐2: ALTER PRESENT PATTERNS OF VEHICULAR, BICYCLE, AND PEDESTRIAN

CIRCULATION, INCREASED TRAFFIC DELAY, AND INCREASED TRAFFIC HAZARDS DURINGCONSTRUCTION






3.13‐1.

(c) Findings. Although required permits would be obtained prior to construction of RTP

projects, construction of RTP projects could lead to traffic delays, temporary reductions

in roadway capacity and levels of service, damage to property, or injury. Mitigation

Measure 3.13‐1 would require the preparation of a traffic control plan for all

construction projects. Implementation of a traffic control plan would ensure continued

emergency vehicle access during construction activities. Any remaining impacts after


2. IMPACT 3.13‐5: ALTERATION OF EMERGENCY ACCESS DURING CONSTRUCTION OF FUTUREPROJECT






3.13‐1.

(c) Findings. The proposed project could result in the alteration of emergency access during

construction of future projects. Mitigation Measure 3.13‐1 would require the

preparation of a traffic control plan for all construction projects. Implementation of a

traffic control plan would ensure continued emergency vehicle access during



construction activities. Any remaining impacts after implementation of Mitigation

Measure 3.13‐1 would be less than significant.

V. FINDINGSANDRECOMMENDATIONSREGARDINGTHOSEIMPACTSWHICHARELESSTHANSIGNIFICANTORLESSTHANCUMULATIVELYCONSIDERABLE

Specific impacts within the following categories of environmental effects were found to be less than

significant as set forth in more detail in the Draft EIR.

Aesthetics: The following specific impacts were found to be less than significant: 3.1‐1.

Air Quality: The following specific impacts were found to be less than significant: 3.3‐1 and

3.3‐4.

Greenhouse Gas Emissions: The following specific impacts were found to be less than

significant: 3.6‐2.

Geological and Mineral Resources: The following specific impacts were found to be less

than significant: 3.7‐5, and 3.7‐6.

Hazards and Hazardous Materials: The following specific impacts were found to be less than

significant: 3.8‐1, 3.8‐2, 3.8‐3, 3.8‐5, 3.8‐6, and 3.8‐7.

Hydrology and Water Quality: The following specific impacts were found to be less than

significant: 3.9‐2, 3.9‐5, 3.9‐6.

Land Use and Population: The following specific impacts were found to be less than

significant: 3.10‐2, 3.10‐4, and 3.10‐5.

Utilities, Public Services and Recreation: The following specific impacts were found to be

less than significant: 3.12‐8, 3.12‐9.

Traffic and Circulation: The following specific impacts were found to be less than significant:

3.13‐1, 3.13‐3, 3.13‐4, 3.13‐6.

The project was found to have a less than cumulatively considerable contribution to specific impacts

within the following categories of environmental effects as set forth in more detail in the Draft EIR.

Aesthetics: The following specific impact was found to be less than cumulatively

considerable: Impact 4.1.

Air Quality: The following specific impact was found to be less than cumulatively


Biological Resources: The following specific impact was found to be less than cumulatively


CEQAFINDINGS


Cultural Resources: The following specific impact was found to be less than cumulatively


Geology and Mineral Resources: The following specific impact was found to be less than

cumulatively considerable: Impact 4.7.

Hazards and Hazardous Materials: The following specific impact was found to be less than

cumulatively considerable: Impact 4.8.

Hydrology: The following specific impact was found to be less than cumulatively


Land Use and Planning and Population: The following specific impact was found to be less

than cumulatively considerable: 4.0.

Noise: The following specific impact was found to be less than cumulatively considerable:

4.11.

Utilities, Public Services, and Recreation: The following specific impact was found to be less

than cumulatively considerable: 4.12.

Transportation and Circulation: The following specific impact was found to be less than

cumulatively considerable: 4.13.

The above impacts are less than significant or less than cumulatively considerable for one of the

following reasons:

The EIR determined that the impact is less than significant for the Project.

The EIR determined that the Project would have a less than cumulatively considerable

contribution to the cumulative impact.

The EIR determined that the impact is beneficial (would be reduced) for the Project.

VI. PROJECTALTERNATIVES

A. IDENTIFICATIONOFPROJECTOBJECTIVESAn EIR is required to identify a range of reasonable alternatives to the project. The “range of

potential alternatives to the project shall include those that could feasibly accomplish most of the

basic purposes of the project and could avoid or substantially lessen one of more of the significant

effects.” (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(c).) “Among the factors that may be taken into account

when addressing the feasibility of alternatives are site suitability, economic viability, availability of

infrastructure, general plan consistency, other plans or regulatory limitations, jurisdictional

boundaries (projects with a regionally significant impact should consider the regional context), and

whether the proponent can reasonably acquire, control or otherwise have access to the alternative

site (or the site is already owned by the proponent).” (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(f)(1).)



Chapter 2.0 (page 2.0‐1) of the Draft EIR identifies the Project’s goals and objectives. The purpose

of the 2036 Placer County RTP is to provide a clear vision of the regional transportation goals,

objectives, and policies in the PCTPA planning area. The 2036 Placer County RTP provides short‐term

and long‐term strategies for implementation, which includes realistic and fiscally constrained

alternatives. The following goals and objectives, by transportation mode and strategy, have been

identified for the 2036 Placer County RTP.

The RTP contains ten specific goals, each with supporting policies and objectives, for roadways,

public transit, passenger rail, aviation, goods movement, active and alternative transportation,

transportation systems management (TSM), recreation, integrated land use, air quality, and

transportation planning, and funding:

1. Maintain and upgrade a safe, efficient, and convenient countywide roadway system that meets the travel needs of people and goods through and within the region.

2. Provide effective, convenient, regionally and locally coordinated transit service that connects residential areas with employment centers, serves key activity centers and facilities, and offers a viable option to the drive‐alone commute.

3. Improve the availability and convenience of passenger rail service.

4. Promote general and commercial aviation facilities and services that complement the countywide transportation system.

5. Provide for the safe and efficient movement of goods through, within, and into Placer County.

6. Promote a safe, convenient, and efficient non‐motorized transportation system, for bicyclists, pedestrians, and users of low speed vehicles, which is part of a balanced overall transportation system.

7. Provide an economical solution to the negative impacts of single‐occupant vehicle travel through the use of alternative transportation methods.

8. Promote a transportation system that integrates and facilitates recreational travel and uses, both motorized and non‐motorized.

9. By integrating land, air, and transportation planning, build and maintain the most efficient and effective transportation system possible while achieving the highest possible environmental quality standards.

10. Secure maximum available funding; pursue new sources of funds for maintenance, expansion, and improvement of transportation facilities and services; and educate the public about the need for funding for transportation projects.

B. ALTERNATIVECONSIDERATION1. NOPROJECTALTERNATIVE

CEQAFINDINGS


The No Project Alternative is discussed on pages 5.0‐3 and 5.0‐4 through 5.0‐7 of the Draft EIR. As

required by CEQA, this alternative assumes that the adopted 2035 RTP would remain in place and

would guide improvements to the transportation network.

Findings: The No Project Alternative is rejected as an alternative because it would not

achieve the Project’s objectives. Environmental benefits of this alternative over the

proposed project include the reduction of impacts to aesthetics, agricultural and forest

resources, biological resources, cultural resources, geological resources & mineral

resources, hydrology and water quality, noise, and utilities, public services, and

recreation, while impacts to air quality, greenhouse gases and climate change impacts,

hazards and hazardous materials, land use planning & population, and transportation

are worse than the Project.

Explanation: This alternative would not realize the benefits of the Project nor achieve the

Project objectives. The improvements under the prior RTP would not be funded because

there would be a lapse in the requirement to update the RTP as required by the CTC.

2. ROADEMPHASISALTERNATIVE:

The Road Emphasis Alternative is discussed on pages 5.0‐3 and 5.0‐7 through 5.0‐10 of the Draft EIR.

Findings: The Road Emphasis Alternative is rejected because would require shifting funds

from the Financially Unconstrained Alternative to fund roadway improvements,

operation, and maintenance. However, funding under the Financially Unconstrained

Alternative is not anticipated to be available at this time and it is not known if any funds

identified under the Financially Unconstrained Alternative will become available under

this alternative. Environmental benefits of this alternative over the proposed project

include traffic/circulation impacts, and impacts related to aesthetics, agricultural

resources, air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, geology and mineral

resources, greenhouse gases, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water

quality, land use and population, noise, and utilities, public services, and recreation are

worse than the Project.

Explanation: This alternative focuses investment, and implements projects based on a road

emphasis that are included in the Financially Constrained (programmed and planned

projects), and would require shifting funds from the Financially Unconstrained

Alternative to fund roadway improvements, operation, and maintenance. It should be

noted that funding under the Financially Unconstrained Alternative is not anticipated to

be available at this time and it is not known if any funds identified under the Financially

Unconstrained Alternative will become available under this alternative.

3. TRANSITENHANCEDALTERNATIVE

The Transit Enhanced Alternative is discussed on pages 5.0‐3 and 5.0‐10 through 5.0‐14 of the Draft

EIR.



Findings: The Transit Enhanced Alternative is rejected because it is not considered fiscally

feasible and because it will not achieve the Project’s objectives. Environmental benefits

of this alternative over the proposed project include the reduction of greenhouse gases

and climate change and recreation impacts, while impacts related to aesthetics,

agricultural and forest resources, air quality, biological resources, cultural resources,

hydrology and water quality, and noise are equal, and impacts related to hazards and

hazardous materials, land use and population, utilities and public services, and

transportation are worse than the Project.

Explanation: The Transit Enhanced Alternative focuses investment into transit modes, while

also funding the locally‐funded transportation improvements included in the Financially

Constrained Alternative. This alternative would require shifting funds from the

Financially Unconstrained Alternative to fund transit capital, operational, and

maintenance. It should be noted that funding under the Financially Unconstrained

Alternative is not anticipated to be available at this time and it is not known if any funds

identified under the Financially Unconstrained Alternative will become available. It

should also be noted that the increase in transit service under this alternative would not

result in a proportionate increase in ridership, particularly in the smaller communities

and more rural areas.

4. FINANCIALLYUNCONSTRAINEDALTERNATIVE

The Financially Unconstrained Alternative is discussed on pages 5.0‐3 and 5.0‐14 through 5.0‐16 of

the Draft EIR.

Findings: The Transit Enhanced Alternative is rejected because it is not considered fiscally

feasible. Environmental benefits of this alternative over the proposed project include

the reduction of greenhouse gases and climate change, hazards and hazardous

materials, land use and population, recreation, and transportation/circulation, and

impacts related to aesthetics, agricultural resources, air quality, biological resources,

cultural resources, hydrology and water quality, noise, utilities and public services, are

worse than the Project.

Explanation: The Financially Unconstrained Alternative includes all of the individual projects

identified under the Financially Constrained Alternative (discussed above and in Section

2.0 Project Description) plus numerous additional projects that are needed but not yet

funded over the planning horizon. Under this alternative, total spending would need to

increase by approximately $23.8 billion dollars. This alternative includes all projects

without regard to whether or not they can be funded. These elements are described in

detail in Section 2 Project Description along with the individual improvements. It should

be noted that funding under the Financially Unconstrained Alternative is not anticipated

to be available at this time and it is not known if any funds identified under the

Financially Unconstrained Alternative will become available.

5. ENVIRONMENTALLYSUPERIORALTERNATIVE:

CEQAFINDINGS


CEQA requires that an environmentally superior alternative be identified among the alternatives

that are analyzed in the EIR. If the No Project Alternative is the environmentally superior alternative,

an EIR must also identify an environmentally superior alternative among the other alternatives

(CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(e)(2)). The environmentally superior alternative is that

alternative with the least adverse environmental impacts when compared to the proposed project.

As discussed in Chapter 5.0 of the Draft EIR and summarized in Table 5.4‐1 of the Draft EIR, the

Financially Constrained Alternative (the proposed project) has the lowest overall impact (score of

28) and is deemed the environmentally superior alternative because it provides the greatest

reduction of potential impacts in comparison to the other alternatives. The Transit Enhanced

Alternative and Financially Unconstrained Alternative ranks second (tied) with a score of 30, the No

Project Alternative ranks fourth with a score of 32, and the Road Emphasis Alternative ranks fifth

with a score of 52.

VII. STATEMENTSOFOVERRIDINGCONSIDERATIONSRELATEDTOTHE2036PLACERCOUNTYRTPFINDINGS

As described in detail in Section III of these Findings, the following significant and unavoidable

impacts could occur with implementation of the Project:

Impact 3.2.1: Conversion of Farmlands, including Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, and

Farmland of Statewide Importance, to non‐agricultural uses, or conflict with existing zoning

for agricultural use or a Williamson Act Contract.

Impact 3.6.1: Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may

have a significant impact on the environment.

Impact 4.2: Cumulative Impact on Agricultural Land and Uses.

Impact 4.6: Increased Transportation Greenhouse Gas Emissions May Contribute to Climate

Change.

The adverse effects listed above, and described in detail in Section III, are substantive issues of

concern to the PCTPA. However, the PCTPA has developed a Regional Transportation Plan that

emphasizes reductions in traffic congestion while improving human mobility, safety enhancements,

community connectivity, socioeconomic growth that supports a sustainable broad‐based economy,

preservation and enhancement of community character and the environment, and ensures the

implementation of a feasible funding plan, to preserve and enhance the existing countywide

transportation system.

Based on the entire record and the EIR, the economic and social benefits of the Project throughout

Placer County outweigh and override any significant unavoidable environmental effects that would

result from future Project implementation as more fully described in Section III Findings and

Recommendations Regarding Significant and Unavoidable Impacts. The PCTPA Board has determined

that any environmental detriment caused by the proposed project has been minimized to the extent

feasible through the Mitigation Measures identified herein, and, where mitigation is not feasible, has

been outweighed and counterbalanced by the significant transportation, environmental, and health

and safety benefits throughout the region.

FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (SCH # 2015062014)

FOR THE

2036 PLACER COUNTY

REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN UPDATE

FEBRUARY 8, 2016 Prepared for:

Placer County Transportation Planning Commission 299 Nevada St. Auburn, CA 95603 (530) 823-4030

Prepared by:

De Novo Planning Group 1020 Suncast Lane, Suite 106 El Dorado Hills CA 95762 (916) 580-9818

D e N o v o P l a n n i n g G r o u p

A L a n d U s e P l a n n i n g , D e s i g n , a n d E n v i r o n m e n t a l F i r m

FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (SCH # 2015062014)

FOR THE

2036 PLACER COUNTY

REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN UPDATE

FEBRUARY 8, 2016

Prepared for:

Placer County Transportation Planning Commission

299 Nevada St. Auburn, CA 95603

(530) 823-4030

Prepared by:

De Novo Planning Group

1020 Suncast Lane, Suite 106 El Dorado Hills CA 95762

(916) 580-9818

TABLE OF CONTENTS TOC

Final Environmental Impact Report – 2036 Placer County RTP TOC-1

Chapter Page Number

1.0 Introduction .................................................................................................................... 1.0-1

1.1 Purpose and Intended Uses of the EIR ................................................................ 1.0-1

1.2 Environmental Review Process ........................................................................... 1.0-2

1.3 Organization of the Final EIR ............................................................................... 1.0-4

2.0 Comments on Draft EIR and Responses ........................................................................... 2.0-1

2.1 Introduction ....................................................................................................... 2.0-1

2.2 List of Commentors ............................................................................................ 2.0-1

2.3 Comments and Responses .................................................................................. 2.0-1

3.0 Errata .......................................................................................................................... 3.0-1

3.1 Revisions to the Draft EIR ................................................................................... 3.0-1

4.0 Final MMRP .................................................................................................................... 4.0-1

4.1 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program ................................................... 4.0-1

5.0 Report Preparers............................................................................................................. 5.0-1

Table Page Number

Table 2.0-1: List of Commentors ........................................................................................... 2.0-1

Table 4.0-1: Mitigation Monitoring Program ......................................................................... 4.0-3

TOC TABLE OF CONTENTS

TOC-2 Final Environmental Impact Report – 2036 Placer County RTP

This page left intentionally blank.

INTRODUCTION 1.0

Final Environmental Impact Report – 2036 Placer County RTP 1.0-1

The Placer County Transportation Planning Agency (PCTPA) is the Regional Transportation Planning

Agency (RTPA) for Placer County, which includes the cities of Roseville, Lincoln, Rocklin, Auburn,

Colfax, and the town of Loomis. The nine-member PCTPA Board of Directors consists of one

councilmember from each of Placer County’s six incorporated jurisdictions, two members of the

Placer County Board of Supervisors; and one citizen representative. PCTPA is the forum for making

decisions about the regional transportation system in Placer County.

Both, federal and state laws require each Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) and RTPA to

prepare a Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) in urban areas every four years. The RTP is a long-

range, 20-year minimum, comprehensive transportation plan for all modes including: highways,

local streets and roads, transit, pedestrian/bicycle, aviation, rail and goods movement. The

purpose of the RTP is to serve as a foundation for the development of the shorter "action" plans

called the Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP), which satisfies California

transportation planning requirements, and the federal counterpart referred to as the Federal

Transportation Improvement Program (FTIP) for all transportation projects that require federal

approval. The 2036 RTP Program EIR covers the Tier 1 list of projects. The Tier 1 list of projects

identifies the 20-year list of financially constrained transportation investments in the region.

The 2036 RTP fulfills the federal and state requirements using the specific guidance from the CTC

RTP Guidelines (April 2010). PCTPA is the lead agency for the environmental review of the

proposed project evaluated herein and has the principal responsibility for approving the project.

1.1 PURPOSE AND INTENDED USES OF THE EIR

CEQA REQUIREMENTS FOR A FINAL EIR

This Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) for the 2036 RTP has been prepared in accordance

with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and State CEQA Guidelines. State CEQA

Guidelines Section 15132 requires that an FEIR consist of the following:

the Draft Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIR) or a revision of the draft;

comments and recommendations received on the Draft EIR, either verbatim or in

summary;

a list of persons, organizations, and public agencies commenting on the Draft EIR;

the responses of the lead agency to significant environmental concerns raised in the

review and consultation process; and

any other information added by the lead agency.

In accordance with State CEQA Guidelines Section 15132(a), the Draft EIR is incorporated by

reference into this Final EIR.

An EIR must disclose the expected environmental impacts, including impacts that cannot be

avoided, growth-inducing effects, impacts found not to be significant, and significant cumulative

impacts, as well as identify mitigation measures and alternatives to the proposed project that

could reduce or avoid its adverse environmental impacts. CEQA requires government agencies to

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.0-2 Final Environmental Impact Report – 2036 Placer County RTP

consider and, where feasible, minimize environmental impacts of proposed development, and an

obligation to balance a variety of public objectives, including economic, environmental, and social

factors.

PURPOSE AND USE

The PCTPA, as the lead agency, has prepared the Draft EIR and this Final EIR to disclose the

expected environmental impacts, including impacts that cannot be avoided, growth-inducing

effects, impacts found not to be significant, and significant cumulative impacts, as well as identify

mitigation measures and alternatives to the proposed project that could reduce or avoid its

adverse environmental impacts. CEQA requires government agencies to consider and, where

feasible, minimize environmental impacts of proposed projects, and confers an obligation to

balance a variety of public objectives, including economic, environmental, and social factors.

This document and the Draft EIR, as amended herein, constitute the Final EIR, which will be used

as programmatic-level environmental document to evaluate subsequent planning and permitting

actions associated with the 2036 RTP. Many subsequent actions will require subsequent and/or

supplement analysis as the details of the action become clear from the development of detailed

project planning, design, and engineering. Subsequent actions that may be associated with the

2036 RTP are identified in Chapter 2.0 of the Draft EIR.

1.2 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS

The review and certification process for the EIR has involved, or will involve, the following general

procedural steps:

NOTICE OF PREPARATION AND INITIAL STUDY

The PCTPA circulated a Notice of Preparation (NOP) of an EIR for the proposed project and an

Initial Study on June 5, 2015 to the general public, trustee and responsible agencies, the State

Clearinghouse (SCH# 2015062014), the County Clerk, and was published in the adjudicated

newspaper pursuant to the public noticing requirements of CEQA. A scoping meeting was held on

June 30th, 2015 at 1:00 PM in the City of Auburn. The NOP and Initial Study are presented in

Appendix A of the Draft EIR.

NOTICE OF AVAILABILITY AND DRAFT EIR

The PCTPA published a public Notice of Availability (NOA) for the Draft EIR on November 3, 2015,

inviting comment from the general public, agencies, organizations, and other interested parties.

The NOA was filed with the State Clearinghouse (SCH # 2015062014) and the County Clerk, and

was published in the adjudicated newspaper pursuant to the public noticing requirements of

CEQA. The Draft EIR was available for public review from November 3rd through December 17th

2015. The Draft EIR contains a description of the project, description of the environmental setting,

identification of project impacts, and mitigation measures for impacts found to be significant, as

well as an analysis of project alternatives, identification of significant irreversible environmental

changes, growth-inducing impacts, and cumulative impacts. This Draft EIR identifies issues

INTRODUCTION 1.0


determined to have no impact or a less than significant impact, and provides detailed analysis of

potentially significant and significant and unavoidable impacts.

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS/FINAL EIR

The PCTPA received one (1) comment letter regarding the Draft EIR. In addition to the comment

letter received, PCTPA has provided several text changes. No additional oral or written comments

were received. In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15088, this Final EIR responds to the

written comments received. The Final EIR also contains minor edits to the Draft EIR, which are

included in Section 3.0, Errata. This document and the Draft EIR, as amended herein, constitute

the Final EIR.

CERTIFICATION OF THE EIR/PROJECT CONSIDERATION

The PCTPA will independently review and consider the Final EIR. If the PCTPA finds that the Final

EIR is "adequate and complete", the PCTPA Board may certify the Final EIR in accordance with

CEQA. The rule of adequacy generally holds that an EIR can be certified if:

1) The EIR shows a good faith effort at full disclosure of environmental information; and

2) The EIR provides sufficient analysis to allow decisions to be made regarding the proposed

project in contemplation of environmental considerations.

Upon certification of the Final EIR, the PCTPA Board may take action to approve, revise, or reject

the project. A decision to approve the 2036 RTP, for which this EIR identifies significant

environmental effects, must be accompanied by written findings in accordance with State CEQA

Guidelines Sections 15091 and 15093. A Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, as

described below, would also be adopted in accordance with Public Resources Code Section

21081.6(a) and CEQA Guidelines Section 15097 for mitigation measures that have been

incorporated into or imposed upon the project to reduce or avoid significant effects on the

environment. This Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program will be designed to ensure that

these measures are carried out during project implementation, in a manner that is consistent with

the EIR.

1.3 ORGANIZATION OF THE FINAL EIR

This Final EIR has been prepared consistent with Section 15132 of the State CEQA Guidelines,

which identifies the content requirements for Final EIRs. This Final EIR is organized in the following

manner:

CHAPTER 1.0 – INTRODUCTION

Chapter 1.0 briefly describes the purpose of the environmental evaluation, identifies the lead,

agency, summarizes the process associated with preparation and certification of an EIR, and

identifies the content requirements and organization of the Final EIR.

1.0 INTRODUCTION


CHAPTER 2.0 – COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

Chapter 2.0 provides a list of commentors, copies of written comments made on the Draft EIR

(coded for reference), and responses to those written comments.

CHAPTER 3.0 - ERRATA

Chapter 3.0 consists of minor revisions to the Draft EIR in response to comments on the Draft EIR,

as well as minor staff edits. The revisions to the Draft EIR do not change the intent or content of

the analysis or mitigation.

CHAPTER 4.0 – FINAL MMRP

Chapter 4.0 consists of a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP). The MMRP is

presented in a tabular format that presents the impacts, mitigation measure, and responsibility,

timing, and verification of monitoring.

CHAPTER 5.0 – REPORT PREPARERS

Chapter 5.0 lists all authors and agencies that assisted in the preparation of the EIR, by name, title,

and company or agency affiliation.

COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0


2.1 INTRODUCTION

The PCTPA received one (1) comment letter during the Draft EIR 45-day public review period.

Acting as the lead agency, the PCTPA has prepared a response to the Draft EIR comments.

Responses to comments received during the comment period do not involve any new significant

impacts or “significant new information” that would require recirculation of the Draft EIR pursuant

to CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5. In addition to the comment letter received, PCTPA has

provided several text changes, all of which are incorporated into Section 3.0 Errata.

2.2 LIST OF COMMENTORS

Table 2-1 lists the comments on the Draft EIR that were submitted to the PCTPA. The assigned

comment letter number, letter date, letter author, and affiliation, if presented in the comment

letter or if representing a public agency, are also listed.

TABLE 2-1 LIST OF COMMENTORS

RESPONSE

LETTER/

NUMBER

INDIVIDUAL OR

SIGNATORY AFFILIATION DATE

A Scott Morgan State Clearinghouse 12-18-2015

2.3 COMMENTS AND RESPONSES

REQUIREMENTS FOR RESPONDING TO COMMENTS ON A DRAFT EIR

CEQA Guidelines Section 15088 requires that lead agencies evaluate and respond to all comments

on the Draft EIR that consider an environmental issue. The written response must address the

significant environmental issue raised and provide a detailed response, especially when specific

comments or suggestions (e.g., additional mitigation measures) are not accepted. In addition, the

written response must be a good faith and reasoned analysis. However, lead agencies need to

only respond to significant environmental issues associated with the project and do not need to

provide all the information requested by the commentor, as long as a good faith effort at full

disclosure is made in the EIR (CEQA Guidelines Section 15204).

CEQA Guidelines Section 15204 recommends that commentors provide detailed comments that

focus on the sufficiency of the Draft EIR in identifying and analyzing the possible environmental

impacts of the project and ways to avoid or mitigate the significant effects of the project, and that

commentors provide evidence supporting their comments. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section

15064, an effect shall not be considered significant in the absence of substantial evidence.

CEQA Guidelines Section 15088 also recommends that revisions to the Draft EIR be noted as a

revision in the Draft EIR or as a separate section of the Final EIR. Chapter 3.0 of this Final EIR

identifies all revisions to the Draft EIR.

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES


RESPONSES TO COMMENT LETTERS

Written comments on the Draft EIR are reproduced on the following pages, along with responses

to those comments. To assist in referencing comments and responses, the following coding system

is used:

Those comments received from government agencies are represented by a lettered

response while comments received by individual or private firms or individuals are

represented by a numbered response.

Each letter is lettered (i.e., Letter A) and each comment within each letter is numbered

(i.e., comment A-1, comment A-2).

Where changes to the Draft EIR text result from the response to comments, those changes are

included in the response and identified with revision marks (underline for new text, strike out for

deleted text).



A-1

A-1



Response to Letter A: Scott Morgan, State Clearinghouse

Response A-1: The commentor indicates that their agency submitted the Draft EIR to selected

state agencies for review and no state agencies submitted comments by the December 17,

2015 close of public review. The commentor indicates that PCTPA has complied with the

State Clearinghouse review requirements for draft environmental documents pursuant to

the California Environmental Quality Act.

This comment is noted. No response is necessary.



This Page Intentionally Left Blank.

ERRATA 3.0


Revisions made to the Draft EIR are identified below. None of the revisions identify new significant

environmental impacts, nor does any of the revisions result in substantive changes to the Draft

EIR. The new information to the EIR is intended merely correct, clarify, amplify, and makes

insignificant modifications.

3.1 REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR

SECTION 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

The Project Description was revised to reflect corrections and clarifications. The corrections and

clarifications affect several tables Page 2.0-7 through 2.0-30. Table 2.3-1 and 2.3-2 were replaced

with the following tables.

ERRATA 3.0


THE FINANCIALLY CONSTRAINED PROJECT

A listing of the financially constrained (Tier 1) projects is described in Table 2.3-1 below.

TABLE 2.3-1: FINANCIALLY CONSTRAINED PROJECTS SUMMARY (TIER 1)

Project ID LEAD AGENCY CATEGORY TITLE PROJECT DESCRIPTION TOTAL COST (2015 Dollars)

YEAR OF EXPENDITURE COST

COMPLETION TIMING STATUS

CALTRANS

CAL20497 Caltrans D3 G- System Management, Operations, and ITS

Alpine Meadows Road Traffic Signal

Placer County, about 9.3 miles south of Truckee at Alpine Meadows Road - Construct signalized intersection at SR 89 [FCO Only] (Pla-89-12.1/12.5) [SHOPP Minor A 201.310] (Toll Credits for CON)

$974,000 $974,000 Project complete by 2020

Programmed


CCTV Cameras at Various Locations

In El Dorado, Nevada, Placer, Sacramento and Yolo counties on Routes 5, 50, 51, 80, 89, 99 and 267 at Various Locations - Upgrade closed caption televisions (CCTV) [EFIS ID 0313000197; CTIPS ID 107-0000-0966] (Toll Credits for PE, ROW, CON)


Programmed

CAL20571 Caltrans D3 A- Bike & Ped Complete Streets Improvements to the SHS

Complete Streets improvements in various locations on the State Highway System (SHS) in El Dorado, Placer, Sacramento, Sutter, Yuba and Yolo Counties.

$10,000,000 $13,100,000 Project complete by 2036

Planned

ERRATA 3.0

Final Supplemental EIR – 2010 Nevada County RTP 3.0-3


Crispin Cider STAA Access

I-80 at Canyon Way IC, Illinoistown OC and driveway entrance to Crispin Cider warehouse - Widen ramp pavement at three locations, modify overcrossing and install signage to accommodate Surface Transportation Assistance Act (STAA) (PM 31.1/31.9) [SHOPP Minor A program 201.310] (Toll credits for CON)


Programmed

CAL20511 Caltrans D3 C- Maintenance & Rehabilitation

Gold Run SRRA Water System Upgrades

On I-80 in Placer County, near Gold Run, at the Gold Run Safety Roadside Rest Area - Replace water distribution system (PM 41.4/42.2) [EFIS ID 0313000017; CTIPS ID 107-0000-0960] (Toll credits for PE, ROW, CON)


Programmed


HAR Update at 25 locations in 11 counties

In Sacramento, Butte, El Dorado, Nevada, Placer and Yolo Counties, on Routes 5, 50, 70, 80, 89, 99 and 267 at various locations. Upgrade Highway Advisory Radios


Planned


HAR Upgrades - Various Counties and Routes

In Sacramento, Butte, El Dorado, Nevada, Placer and Yolo Counties, on Routes 5, 50, 70, 80, 89, 99 and 267, at various locations - Upgrade Highway Advisory Radios (HAR) [CTIPS ID 107-0000-1001] (Toll credits for PE, ROW, CON)


Programmed

3.0 ERRATA



I-80 3-Mile Truck Climbing Lane

Near Colfax on Route 80, from the Long Ravine UP to east of Magra Road OC - Construct eastbound truck climbing lane and related improvements (PM 35.1/38.0) (Toll Credits for PE, ROW, CON) [EFIS ID 0300020420]


Programmed


I-80 Culvert Rehabilitation

In and near Colfax on Pla-80, from 0.3 mile south of Weimar overhead to 0.3 mile south of Illinoistown overcrossing - Rehabilitate culvert (PM 28.5/31.5) [EFIS ID 0300020597; CTIPS ID 107-0000-0959] (Toll Credits for PE, ROW, CON)


Programmed


I-80 Vertical Clearance Improvements

Placer County, I-80, in and near Loomis at various locations from Brace Road to Magra Road - Improve vertical clearance (PM 8.1/37.8) [CTIPS ID 107-0000-0757; EFIS ID 0300000473] (Toll Credits)


Programmed


Ramp Meters Installation of Ramp Meters: Various Locations in Placer, Sacramento, and Yolo Counties.


Planned


Replace/Upgrade Sign Panels/Structures at Various Locations

In Sacramento, El Dorado and Yolo counties, on US 50, I-5, SR51, I-80 and SR 99 at various locations - Replace sign panels and upgrade sign structures [EFIS ID 0314000244; CTIPS ID 107-0000-0987] (Toll Credits for PE, ROW,


Programmed

ERRATA 3.0


CON)


Roadway Weather Information Stations (RWIS)

In Sacramento, El Dorado, Nevada, Placer and Yolo Counties, on Routes 5, 28, 50, 51, 80, 89, 99 and 267 at various locations. Repair and upgrade roadway information systems


Planned


RWIS Upgrades - Various Counties

In Sacramento, El Dorado, Nevada, Placer and Yolo Counties, on Routes 5, 28, 50, 51, 80, 89, 99 and 267, at various locations: Repair and upgrade roadway information systems (RWIS) also known as ITS, Intelligent Transportation Systems. [CTIPS ID 107-0000-1000] (Toll credits for PE, ROW, CON)


Programmed

CAL17380 Caltrans D3 D- Programs & Planning

SACOG Region Emergency Repair Program

Lump Sum - Emergency Repair (excluding Federal Emergency Relief Program funds)for non-capacity increasing projects only.


Programmed


SHOPP - Bridge Preservation

Various bridge preservation projects throughout the six-county region.

$157,380,000 $206,167,800 Lump Sum or Ongoing

Planned


SHOPP - Collision Reduction

SHOPP - Collision Reduction


Planned


SHOPP - Emergency Response

SHOPP - Emergency Response


Planned


SHOPP - Facilities SHOPP- Facilities $3,660,000 $4,794,600 Lump Sum or Ongoing

Planned


SHOPP - Mandates SHOPP - Mandates $1,738,500 $2,277,435 Lump Sum or Ongoing

Planned

3.0 ERRATA



SHOPP - Minor SHOPP - Minor $36,600,000 $47,946,000 Lump Sum or Ongoing

Planned


SHOPP - Mobility SHOPP - Mobility $19,306,500 $25,291,515 Lump Sum or Ongoing

Planned


SHOPP - Roadside Preservation

SHOPP - Roadside Preservation


Planned


SHOPP - Roadway Preservation

SHOPP - Roadway Preservation


Planned


Shoulder and Centerline Rumble Strips (Safety) at Various Locations

In Butte, Colusa, El Dorado, Nevada, Placer, Sacramento, Sutter, Yolo and Yuba counties at various locations - Install shoulder and centerline rumble strips [CTIPS ID 102-0000-0174]


Programmed


SR 193 Curve Improvement

Near Lincoln, SR 193, from 0.1 mile west to 0.9 mile east of Clark Tunnel Road - Curve improvements and widening (SHOPP Lump Sum - Collision Reduction) (PM 4.4/5.4) [CTIPS ID 107- 0000-0798; EFIS ID 0300000725] (Toll Credits)


Programmed


SR 193 Pavement Rehabilitation

Rehabilitate SR 193 roadway from Sierra College to Newcastle.


Planned


SR 267 Pavement Rehab

In Placer County, on SR 267 near Truckee, from Nevada County line to Brockway Summit - Pavement overlay (PM 0.0/6.8) [Toll Credits]


Programmed


SR 267 SB Truck Climbing Lane

Extend the existing SR 267 SB truck-climbing lane; shoulder widening from Northstar Dr to Brockway Summit (PM 3.76/PM 6.67)


Planned

ERRATA 3.0



SR 49 Bridge Rehab In Auburn, SR 49, from 0.1 mile south of Routes 49/80 separation to 0.1 mile north of Dry Creek Road - Rehabilitate Pavement (PM 3.1/7.5) [CTIPS ID 107-0000-0992] [EFIS ID 0300020616] (Toll Credits for PE, ROW, and CON)


Programmed

CAL20628 Caltrans D3 A- Bike & Ped SR 49 Class II Bike Lane On SR 49, construct Class II bicycle lane from Bell Rd to Dry Creek Rd.


Planned

CAL20651 Caltrans D3 A- Bike & Ped SR 49 Class II Bike Lane On SR 49, construct Class II bicycle lane from Lincoln Way to Luther Rd.

$960,000 $1,501,000 Project complete by 2036

Planned


SR 49 Signal Coordination

Install signal at Shale Ridge Rd., coordinate to the north on Dry Creek Rd. and to the south on Bell Rd. (PM 6.38/7.427)


Planned


SR 65 Pavement Rehab On SR 65, in and near Roseville, from I-80 to Twelve Bridges Drive - Pavement rehabilitation (PM 4.8/12.5) [EFIS ID0314000010; CTIPS ID 107-0000-0991] (Toll Credits for PE, ROW, CON)


Programmed


Upgrade CMS Panels - Various Counties

In Sacramento, El Dorado, Nevada, Placer, Solano and Yolo Counties, on Routes 5, 50, and 80, at various locations - Upgrade Changeable Message Sign (CMS) panels [CTIPS ID 107-0000-1003] (Toll credits for PE, ROW, CON)


Programmed

3.0 ERRATA



Upgrade CMS panels to LED

In Sacramento, Butte, Colusa, El Dorado, Glenn, Nevada, Placer, Sierra, Sutter, Yolo and Yuba Counties on Routes 5, 50 and 80 at various locations. Upgrade Changeable Message Sign (CMS)


Planned

CAL20516 Caltrans D3 A- Bike & Ped Upgrade Pedestrian Facilities @ VariousLocations

In Yuba, Sacramento, Placer, El Dorado and Butte counties on Various Routes at Various Locations - Upgrade pedestrian facilities [EFIS ID 0312000071; CTIPS ID 107-0000-0974] [Total Project Cost $3,482,000 in 17/18 FY] (Toll Credits for PE, ROW, CON)


Programmed


Upgrade Traffic Monitoring Stations

In Sacramento, Placer, Yolo and Yuba counties, on Routes 5, 50, 51, 65, 70, 80, 99 and 113, at Various Locations - Upgrade Traffic Monitoring Stations (TMS) [EFIS ID 0313000198; CTIPS ID 107-0000-0967] (Toll Credits for PE, ROW, CON)


Programmed

SUBTOTAL $621,601,537 $763,810,255

CAPITOL CORRIDOR JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY

CAL18320 Capitol Corridor JPA E- Transit Capital (Vehicles)

Roseville Third Track On the UP mainline, from Elvas Tower in Sacramento County to Roseville Station in Placer County: Construct third track. Project involves: extension of freight lead track; construction of track and signal


Programmed

ERRATA 3.0


improvements; construction of satellite maintenance facility and other associated improvements; and possible relocation of the Roseville rail station to address conflicting train movements that affect capacity. Project improvements will permit service capacity increases for Capitol Corridor in Placer County, with up to ten round trips to Roseville.

SUBTOTAL $250,800,000 $250,800,000

CITY OF AUBURN

PLA25353 City of Auburn E- Transit Capital (Minor)

Auburn Multi Modal Station - Rail Platform Extension

At the existing Auburn Multi Modal Station: Obtain right-of- way and install rail platform extension . (Emission Benefits in kg/day: 0.93 ROG, 1.18 NOx, 0.43 PM10)


Programmed

PLA25569 City of Auburn E- Transit Capital (Vehicles)

Auburn Transit Bus Replacement

Replace one bus. $408,469 $408,469 Project complete by 2020

Programmed

PLA25547 City of Auburn F- Transit O&M (Bus)

City of Auburn Non-Urbanized Transit Operations

For the ongoing operation of transit within the non-urbanized area of Auburn and a portion of non-urbanized Placer County.


Programmed

PLA25639 City of Auburn A- Bike & Ped Marguerite Mine Road Pedestrian and Bikeway Facilities

Marguerite Mine Road, from Marguerite Mine Road/State Route 49 intersection to the north and Marguerite Mine Road/Auburn Ravine Road intersection, approximately 2,200 feet:


Programmed

3.0 ERRATA


install curb, gutter sidewalk on west side segments and install Class II Bike Lane for the entire length. (Toll Credits for CON). Toll Credits for CON

PLA25471 City of Auburn A- Bike & Ped Nevada Street Pedestrian & Bicycle Facilities

Class 2 bike lane and adjacent sidewalks along Nevada St from Placer St to Fulweiler Ave to allow for continuous pedestrian and bicycle access from Old Town Auburn to the Auburn Station and EV Cain Middle School. (Emission reductions in kg/day: ROG 0.01, NOx 0.01.)


Programmed

Regional Maintenance and Rehabilitation Lump Sum 1

City of Auburn C- Maintenance & Rehabilitation

Street & Road Maintenance

Estimated street and road maintenance costs including signals, safety devices, & street lights, storm drains, storm damage, patching, overlay and sealing, other street purpose maintenance. Excludes major rehabilitation and reconstruction projects. ($ 500,000 annually)


Planned

SUBTOTAL $16,559,238 $20,013,238

CITY OF COLFAX

PLA25439 City of Colfax C- Maintenance & Rehabilitation

Grass Valley Street Railroad Crossing Pedestrian and Bike Improvements

Construct of pedestrian improvements across UP railroad tracks to improve pedestrian safety, road rehabilitation, and bike lane/route along Grass Valley St west of South Auburn St.


Programmed

PLA25591 City of Colfax G- System Management,

I-80/SR174 Interchange

Reconstruct I-80/SR 174 Interchange

$15,000,000 $23,459,000 Project complete by

Planned

ERRATA 3.0


Operations, and ITS

Improvements (Construction funds)

2036

PLA25577 City of Colfax A- Bike & Ped North Main Street Bike Route

Along N. Main Street, from the Depot Transit Center to Highway 174: Construct class III bike route and associated improvements. Improvements include tree trimming, road repairs, non-capacity road widening, re-striping, drain inlet upgrade, bike rack, and barrier curb. (Requesting state-only ATP.)


Programmed


City of Colfax C- Maintenance & Rehabilitation


Estimated street and road maintenance costs including signals, safety devices, & street lights, storm drains, storm damage, patching, overlay and sealing, snow removal, other street purpose maintenance. Excludes major rehabilitation and reconstruction projects. ($ 135,000 annually)


Planned

SUBTOTAL $18,806,433 $28,198,013

CITY OF LINCOLN

PLA25161 City of Lincoln B- Road & Highway Capacity

12th St. Widen: 4 lanes from East Ave. to Harrison Ave.


Planned

PLA25022 City of Lincoln A- Bike & Ped Auburn Ravine Bike/Ped Bridge Phase 1

In Lincoln: Construction of multi-use bridge across Auburn Ravine: Preliminary Engineering, Environmental Documentation, Permitting, and Construction of bicycle and pedestrian bridge

$987,193 $1,035,000 Project complete by 2020

Planned

3.0 ERRATA


crossing Auburn Ravine.

PLA25515 City of Lincoln A- Bike & Ped East Ave. and East Joiner Pkwy. Sidewalks (SRTS)

East side East Ave. between SR 93 (McBean Park Dr.) and 12th St.; east side E. Joiner Pkwy. between 12 Bridges Dr. and Westview Dr.: Construct sidewalk, curb and gutter, curb ramps; install bike lanes. SRTS3-03-005


Programmed


East Joiner Parkway Widen East Joiner Parkway from 2 to 4 lanes from Del Webb Blvd. to Twelve Bridges.


Planned

PLA25531 City of Lincoln G- System Management, Operations, and ITS

Lincoln Blvd. Signal Upgrade and Lighting

Lincoln Blvd. (Old 65) between Sterling Pkwy. and 7th St.: Upgrade traffic signals; install safety lighting and bike lanes. (HSIP5-03-006)


Programmed

PLA25464 City of Lincoln A- Bike & Ped Lincoln Blvd. Streetscape - Phase 1

In Lincoln: Between 7th Street and McBean Park Drive; construct various pedestrian, bicycle, NEV, and ITS improvements along Lincoln Boulevard (old Highway 65 / G Street). Improvements will consist of gap sidewalk construction, pedestrian improvements to railroad crossings, pedestrian crossings along Lincoln Boulevard, bicycle and NEV lanes, connection to the existing trail along Auburn Ravine east of Highway 65, roadway narrowing through the


Programmed

ERRATA 3.0


construction of landscape medians and frontage improvements where appropriate, and traffic signal interconnection and coordination along the corridor. (Emission Benefits in kg/day: ROG 0.58, NOx 0.41, PM10 0.08)

PLA25554 City of Lincoln A- Bike & Ped Lincoln Blvd. Streetscape - Phase 2

Lincoln Blvd, First Street to McBean Park Drive: Provide a more pedestrian, bicycle and Neighborhood Electric Vehicle (NEV) friendly environment along the main street through the city. Pedestrian improvements include wider sidewalks, bulb-outs at intersections and crosswalks. Bicycle and NEV improvements include Class 2 lanes on each side of the street. (Emission Benefits in kg/day: ROG 0.16, NOx 0.11, PM10 0.06) (Toll Credits for PE and CON)


Programmed

PLA25540 City of Lincoln C- Maintenance & Rehabilitation

McBean Park Bridge Rehabilitation

McBean Park Dr. over Auburn Ravine, east of East Ave.: Rehabilitate existing 2 lane bridge. No added lane capacity.


Programmed

City of Lincoln B- Road & Highway Capacity

McBean Drive Widening - Phase 1

Widen McBean Drive to four lanes from Ferrari Ranch to Oak Tree Lane


Planned

City of Lincoln B- Road & Highway Capacity

McBean Drive Widening - Phase 2

Widen McBean Drive from Oak Tree Lane to N/S Connector Loop


Planned

PLA25595 City of Lincoln B- Road & Nelson Lane Extension Extend Nelson Lane south $25,000,000 $39,098,000 Project Planned

3.0 ERRATA


Highway Capacity

of SR-65 Bypass complete by 2036


Nelson Ln/Markham Ravine Bridge Replacement

Nelson Ln, over Markham Ravine, 0.25 mi south of Nicolaus Rd. Replace existing functionally obsolete 2 lane bridge with a new 4 lane bridge.


Programmed

PLA25553 City of Lincoln C- Maintenance & Rehabilitation

Twelve Bridges Drive & Joiner Parkway rehabilitation

In Lincoln, street rehabilitation of (1) Twelve Bridges Drive from Industrial Avenue east to Sierra College Boulevard and (2) Joiner Parkway from the southern city limits to First Street. (Toll Credits for CON)


Programmed


City of Lincoln C- Maintenance & Rehabilitation


Estimated street and road maintenance costs including signals, safety devices, & street lights, storm drains, storm damage, patching, overlay and sealing, other street purpose maintenance. Excludes major rehabilitation and reconstruction projects. ($ 1,400,000 annually)


Planned

SUBTOTAL $94,486,572 $121,226,734

CITY OF ROCKLIN

PLA25566 City of Rocklin C- Maintenance & Rehabilitation

Bridge Preventive Maintenance Program

Bridge Preventive Maintenance Program, various locations in City of Rocklin. See Caltrans Local Assistance HBP web site for backup list of bridges.


Programmed

PLA19260 City of Rocklin B- Road & Highway Capacity

Dominguez Road In Rocklin, Dominguez Road: extend with 2 lanes from Granite Drive to Sierra College Boulevard,


Planned

ERRATA 3.0


including new bridge over I-80.

PLA25635 City of Rocklin G- System Management, Operations, and ITS

Granite Drive at Rocklin Road Roundabout

At Rocklin Rd/Granite Dr., between east of Meyers St to the Caltrans WB on-ramp/right of way on Rocklin Road. : Replace the existing four lane signalized intersection with a two lane roundabout (Toll Credits for PE, ROW, CON).. Toll Credits for ENG, ROW, CON


Programmed

PLA17820 City of Rocklin G- System Management, Operations, and ITS

Pacific Street On Pacific Street: Construct downtown improvements.


Planned

PLA25552 City of Rocklin A- Bike & Ped Pacific Street-Bikeway/Neighborhood Electric Vehicle Expansion Project

Construct & add striped median ,striping, pavement markings and signage on both NB and SB lanes of Pacific Street. The project will also construct a Class II bike path on the northwest portion of Pacific Street from Town of Loomis border to Del Mar Ave.(Emission Benefits in kg/day: ROG 0.16; NOx 0.13; PM10 0.08)


Programmed


Rocklin Rd. Widening In Rocklin, Rocklin Road: widen to 6 lanes from Granite Drive to westbound I-80 ramps.


Programmed


Rocklin Road/I-80 Interchange

In Rocklin: from Rocklin Rd. onto both WB and EB I-80; construct roundabouts at ramp EB/WB ramp terminus.


Programmed

PLA15400 City of Rocklin B- Road & Highway

Sierra College Blvd. Widening

In Rocklin, widen Sierra College Boulevard from 4


Planned

3.0 ERRATA


Capacity to 5 lanes from I-80 to Aguliar Tributary.

2036



In Rocklin, Sierra College Boulevard from Aguilar Tributary to Nightwatch: widen from 4 to 5 lanes.


Planned

PLA25551 City of Rocklin C- Maintenance & Rehabilitation

Sunset Blvd Reconstruction

Reconstruct Sunset Blvd from Fairway Drive to Stanford Ranch Road. (Toll credits for CON.)


Programmed


Sunset Blvd. Widening Sunset Boulevard: Widen from 4 to 6 lanes from north bound SR 65 ramp to West Stanford Ranch Road.


Planned


Sunset Boulevard Widen Sunset Boulevard bridge at UPRR from 4 to 6 lanes from South Whitney Blvd. to Pacific St.


Planned


Sunset Boulevard Widen Sunset Boulevard from 4 to 6 lanes from Stanford Ranch Rd. to Topaz.


Planned


University Avenue Phase 1

University Avenue: Construct new four lane roadway from the intersection of Whitney Ranch Parkway north to the extension of West Ranch View Drive. One or more phases of this project may require federal permitting.


Programmed


West Oaks Boulevard West Oaks Boulevard: Construct new 4-lane extension from terminus to 4-lane portion to Whitney Ranch Parkway.


Planned


Whitney Ranch Parkway

Whitney Ranch Parkway, construct new 4-lane facility from east of Wildcat Blvd. to Whitney Oaks Dr.


Planned

ERRATA 3.0



Whitney Ranch Parkway

In Rocklin, Whitney Ranch Parkway: construct four-lane facility from SR 65 to east of Wildcat Boulevard.


Programmed


Whitney Ranch Parkway Interchange Phase 1A

At SR 65 and Whitney Ranch Parkway: Construct Phase 1A of the Whitney Ranch Interchange by constructing NB on- and off- ramps, overcrossing structure, and southbound loop on-ramp.


Programmed


City of Rocklin C- Maintenance & Rehabilitation




Planned

SUBTOTAL $207,960,649 $259,983,849

CITY OF ROSEVILLE

PLA25578 City of Roseville C- Maintenance & Rehabilitation

2015 RSTP Arterial Microsurfacing Project

In Roseville, resurface the following arterial roadways - Pleasant Grove Blvd from Hartley Wy to Fiddyment Rd & from Michner Dr to Foothills Blvd; Fiddyment Rd from Pleasant Grove Blvd to Blue Oaks Blvd; Foothills Blvd from Pleasant Grove Blvd to Junction Blvd & from Baseline Rd to Atkinson St; Galilee Rd from


Programmed

3.0 ERRATA


Industrial Ave to Pleasant Grove Blvd; Vineyard Rd from Brady Ln to Atkinson St; Denio Loop from Foothills Blvd to Atkinson St; E Roseville Parkway from Douglas Blvd to Sierra College Blvd; Atlantic St from Wills Rd to I-80 WB On Ramp; Eureka Rd from Sunrise Ave to Douglas Blvd; Sunrise Ave from Smith Ln to Kensington Dr; N. Sunrise Ave from Frances Dr to Lead Hill Blvd; Sierra Gardens Dr from Santa Clara Dr to Douglas Blvd; Santa Clara Dr from Sierra gardens Dr to Douglas Blvd; and Douglas Blvd from N. Sunrise Ave to Sierra Gardens. (Toll credits for CON.)

PLA25581 City of Roseville A- Bike & Ped 2017 Pedestrian Facilities Improvement

In Roseville, upgrade ADA pedestrian ramps along various arterial and collector roadways for safety and to meet current ADA standards. (Emission Benefits in kg/day: 0.10 ROG; 0.06 NOx; 0.02 PM2.5)


Programmed

PLA15660 City of Roseville B- Road & Highway Capacity

Baseline Rd. Widening In Roseville, Baseline Rd., from Brady Lane to Fiddyment Road: widen from 3 to 4 lanes.


Programmed


Baseline Road In Roseville, Baseline Road from Fiddyment Road to Sierra Vista Western edge west of Watt Avenue: widen from 2 to 6 lanes.


Programmed

ERRATA 3.0



Blue Oaks Blvd Extension - Phase 1

In Roseville, Extend 2 lanes of Blue Oaks Blvd from Hayden Parkway to Westside Dr., Including south half of a 6-lane bridge over Kaseberg Creek.


Programmed


Blue Oaks Blvd. Extension Phase 2

In Roseville, Blue Oaks Blvd., from Westbrook Dr. to Santucci Blvd. (formerly Watt Ave.), extend 2 lanes.


Programmed

PLA25465 City of Roseville A- Bike & Ped Downtown Pedestrian Bridge

In Roseville, improve access to Civic Center transit transfer facility by constructing transit/bicycle/pedestrian related improvements, including pedestrian bridge and Class I trail improvements. (Emission benefits in kg/day: ROG 0.55, NOx 0.34, PM2.5 0.11)


Programmed

PLA19910 City of Roseville A- Bike & Ped Dry Creek Greenway Trail

In Roseville, along Dry Creek, Cirby Creek and Linda Creek, construct class 1 bike trail. (Emission Benefits in kg/day: 0.09 ROG, 0.07 NOx, 0.03 PM2.5)


Programmed

PLA25386 City of Roseville A- Bike & Ped I-80 To Royer Park Bikeway Phase 2 - Segment 3

Roseville, Harding Blvd @ Dry Creek, I-80 to Royer Park: Construct class 1 bikeway in 2 phases. Phase 1 from I-80 to Harding Blvd completed in 2004 (PLA20870). Phase 2 construction is separated into 3 segments: Segment 3 is located from Folsom Road to Lincoln Street/Royer


Programmed

3.0 ERRATA


Park. (Emission benefits in kg/day: 0.25 ROG, 0.2 NOx 0.09 PM10)


Industrial Ave/Pleasant Grove Creek Bridge Replacement

Industrial Ave, over Pleasant Grove Creek, 0.7 mi S Placer Blvd. Replace the existing 2 lane functionally obsolete bridge with a new 2 lane bridge.


Programmed

REG17928 City of Roseville E- Transit Capital (Minor)

Louis/Orlando Transfer Point Improvements

In Roseville, on Louis Blvd at Orlando Ave.: Develop and construct an improved transfer point and intermodal facility with a 35-space park and ride facility. (Includes previously programmed PLA16080.)


Programmed


Market St. City of Roseville, Market St., from approx. 800 feet north of Baseline Road to Pleasant Grove: Extend 2 lanes.


Programmed


Market Street South In Roseville, Market Street South, from Baseline Road to approx. 800 feet north: construct 2-lane road.


Programmed


Oak Ridge Dr/Linda Creek Bridge Replacement

Oak Ridge Dr, over Linda Creek, 0.2 mi N Cirby Way. Replace the existing functionally obsolete 2 lane bridge with a new 2 lane bridge. 11/8/2010: (Toll Credits programmed for PE, ROW, and & CON.)


Programmed

ERRATA 3.0


PLA25469 City of Roseville A- Bike & Ped Oak Street Extension of Miners Ravine Trail

In Roseville, Miners Ravine Trail, from Lincoln Street to Royer Park along the Dry Creek corridor: Extend class 1 trail, including relocation and safety upgrades to existing Ice House Bridge. From transit stop at Downtown Roseville Library to existing class 1 trail in Royer Park: provide bicycle and pedestrian improvements including replacement of Taylor Street Bridge. (Emission benefits in kg/day: ROG 0.13, NOx 0.09, PM10 0.04) (FTA 5307 to be used on Taylor Street bridge and bike/ped improvements leading to transit stop at library.)


Programmed

PLA25500 City of Roseville A- Bike & Ped Pedestrian Facilities Improvement Project

In Roseville, reconstruct ADA pedestrian ramps along various arterial and collector roadways to current ADA standards. (Emission Benefits in kg/day: 0.10 ROG, 0.06 NOx, 0.02 PM2.5) (Toll Credits for CON)


Programmed


Placer Parkway Phase 2 Construct New Road: 4 lane divided Hwy. between Foothills Boulevard and Fiddyment Road. Includes signalized intersections at Fiddyment Rd.


Planned


Pleasant Grove Blvd. Extension

In Roseville, extend 4 lanes of Pleasant Grove from 1500 feet west of


Programmed

3.0 ERRATA


Market St to Santucci Blvd (Watt Ave).


Pleasant Grove Blvd. Widening

In Roseville, from Foothills Blvd to Wood Creek Oaks, widen Pleasant Grove Blvd from 4 to 6 lanes.


Planned

PLA25572 City of Roseville B- Road & HighwayCapacity

Roseville Bridge Preventive MaintenanceProgram

Bridge Preventive Maintenance Program (BPMP) for various bridges in the City of Roseville. See Caltrans Local Assistance HBP website for backup list of projects.


Programmed

PLA25545 City of Roseville G- System Management, Operations, and ITS

Roseville CMS Installation Project - Pleasant Grove Blvd.

In Roseville, install Changeable Message Sign (CMS) on SW/B Pleasant Grove Blvd. approaching Roseville Pkwy. to reduce traffic congestion by improving traffic information dissemination per the ITS Master Plan. (Qualitative emission benefits on file.)


Programmed


Roseville Rd. Realignment

Roseville Rd. from Cirby Way to the city limits: Realign roadway. (HSIP5-03-017)


Programmed


Roseville Road Widening

Widen Roseville Rd. from 2 to 4 lanes Between Cirby Way and southern city limit.


Programmed

CAL20563 Caltrans HQ F- Transit O&M (General)

FTA 5310 - City of Roseville Mobility Management Program

Transit Ambassador and Mobility Training programs. Assist new transit and paratransit/demand response transportation riders that are seniors and persons with disabilities in Placer County, as well as the


Programmed

ERRATA 3.0


South Placer County "One Stop" Call Center that distributes transit and paratransit/demand response transportation information and handles reservations/transfers for paratransit/demand response transportation users in Placer County. Transportation Development Credits/Toll Credits are being used as match, and as allowable under FTA Section 5310 federal funds will fund 100% of this project. Toll Credits for CON

CAL20565 Caltrans HQ E- Transit Capital (Minor)

FTA 5310 - City of Roseville South Placer Call Center Equipment

Purchase training equipment (a laptop and LCD projector) for Call Center employees and Transit Ambassadors to use, as well as replacement digital recording system and TDD equipment for the South Placer Call Center. Transportation Development Credits/Toll Credits are being used as match, and as allowable under FTA Section 5310 federal funds will fund 100% of this project. Toll Credits for CON


Programmed

CAL20564 Caltrans HQ E- Transit Capital (Minor)

FTA 5310 - City of Roseville Transit Vehicle Navigation Units

Purchase 25 global positioning system (GPS) navigation units to assist demand response drivers serving seniors and people with disabilities. Transportation Development Credits/Toll


Programmed

3.0 ERRATA


Credits are being used as match, and as allowable under FTA Section 5310 federal funds will fund 100% of this project.

PLA25214 City of Roseville E- Transit Capital (Minor)

Roseville Transit ITS Project

To purchase and install electronic fareboxes, software, probes, software, automatic vehicle location devices, mobile data computers, video security cameras and software, and digital readerboard equipment for transfer points. [Project replaces PCT10430 and PCT10420]


Programmed

VAR56109 SACOG F- Transit O&M (Bus)

Roseville Transit JARC Operating Assistance

Use FY 2011 & 2012 Urbanized Area JARC funds to operate two fixed route buses to extend routes A & B from 6:30 to 9:30 PM M-F, and 1 DAR bus to extend service from 7:00 to 9:30 PM.


Programmed

VAR56096 SACOG D- Programs & Planning

Roseville Transit Mobility Management

The proposed mobility management services would enhance the ability of passengers to successfully ride transit in multiple areas (Placer County, Loomis, Rocklin, Lincoln, Auburn and Roseville). The goal of the program would include providing travel training from transit staff, trip planning training, and practice trips with staff.


Programmed

ERRATA 3.0


PLA25498 City of Roseville F- Transit O&M (Demand Response)

Roseville Transit Preventive Maintenance and ADA Operations 2011-2016

Maintenance of transit fleet and operating ADA transit services.2013 Preventive Maintenance = $0; 2013 ADA Operations = $260,000; 2014 Operating Assistance = $1,322,938; 2014 ADA Operations = $20,6952015 Preventive Maintenance = $200,000; 2016 Preventive Maintenance = $200,000;


Programmed


Santucci Blvd. Extension

City of Roseville, Santucci Blvd. (North Watt Ave.): Extend four lanes from Vista Grande Blvd.to Blue Oaks Boulevard.


Programmed


Santucci Boulevard South

In Roseville, Santucci Boulevard South (Watt Ave.) from Baseline Road north to Vista Grande Boulevard: Construct 4- lane road.


Programmed

PLA25323 City of Roseville E- Transit Capital (Minor)

Sierra Gardens Transfer Point

Improve Sierra Gardens Transfer Point. Improvements may include new bus turnouts, shelters, restrooms, landscaping, lighting, crosswalks, sidewalks, and other pedestrian improvements such as bulb-outs. (Emission benefits in kg/day: 63 ROG, 63 Nox, 25 PM10.)


Programmed

PLA25416 City of Roseville F- Transit O&M (Demand Response)

South Placer Call Center

Operating cost contribution towards ADA complementary paratransit services provided for the South Placer Call Center.


Programmed

3.0 ERRATA


PLA25516 City of Roseville D- Programs & Planning

SRTS Toolkit Expansion Multiple Schools in the Roseville City School District: Expand Safe Routes to School (SRTS) toolkit. SRTS3-03-006


Programmed


Taylor Rd. In Roseville; from just N/O E. Roseville Parkway to City Limits, widen Taylor Rd. from 2 to 4 lanes.


Planned


Vista Grande Arterial In Roseville, from Fiddyment Rd west to Westbrook Blvd, construct new 4-lane arterial.


Programmed


Washington Blvd/Andora Undercrossing Improvement Project

In Roseville, widen Washington Blvd from 2 to 4 lanes, including widening the Andora Underpass under the UPRR tracks, between Sawtell Rd and just south of Pleasant Grove Blvd. and construct bicycle and pedestrian improvements adjacent to roadway. (CMAQ funds are for bicycle and pedestrian improvements only. Emission Benefits in kg/day: 0.9 ROG, 0.51 NOx, 0.16 PM10)


Programmed

PLA25582 City of Roseville A- Bike & Ped Washington Boulevard Improvement

In Roseville, along Washington Boulevard from Kaseburg Drive to Pleasant Grove Boulevard, construct new concrete sidewalks, Class I & Class II bike facilities. Proposed facilities cross under the Union Pacific tracks (aka "Andora Underpass").


Programmed

ERRATA 3.0


(Emission Benefits in kg/day: 0.24 ROG; 0.16 NOx; 0.05 PM2.5).

PLA25481 City of Roseville B- Road & HighwayCapacity

Westbrook Blvd. Construct New Road: west of Fiddyment and north of BlueOaks in proposed new Creekview Specific Plan.


Planned


City of Roseville C- Maintenance & Rehabilitation




Planned

SUBTOTAL $460,964,950 $570,945,760


PLA25626 PCTPA G- System Management, Operations, and ITS

At-Grade Railroad Crossings

At-Grade Railroad Crossings, including quite zones throughout County


Planned

PLA25588 PCTPA A- Bike & Ped Bicycle Facilities Construct various bicycle facilities according to implement the Regional Bicycle Master Plan and Local Bicycle Master Plans as amended.


Planned

PLA25632 PCTPA E- Transit Capital (Vehicles)

Bus Replacement Lump-sum for bus vehicles for fiscal years 2019-2036; does not account for expansion of service. Placer County operators only.


Planned

PLA25587 PCTPA A- Bike & Ped Complete Street & Safe Routes to School

Enhance pedestrian/bicycle and


Planned

3.0 ERRATA


Improvements landscaping along approximately 40 miles of roadway and construct Safe Routes to School improvements to implement local plans.


Electric Vehicle Charging and Alternative Fuels Infrastructure

Develop and construct an electric vehicle charging and alternative fuels infrastructure.


Planned

PLA25519 PCTPA B- Road & Highway Capacity

I-80 Eastbound Auxiliary Lane: SR 65 to Rocklin Rd.

In Rocklin: Between SR 65 (PM 4.5) and Rocklin Rd. (PM 5.9); Construct eastbound I-80 auxiliary lane, including two-lane off- ramp, concrete barrier/retaining walls, and shoulder improvements. (Toll credits for PE, ROW, and CON)


Programmed


I-80 Westbound 5th Lane

In Roseville: Between east of Douglas Blvd. off-ramp to west of Riverside Ave.; Extend I-80 westbound auxiliary lane (PLA25542) to the east and west to create continuous 5th lane on westbound I-80. The Douglas Boulevard off-ramp would be reduced from a 2-lane off-ramp to a 1-lane off-ramp.


Programmed


I-80 Westbound Auxiliary Lane - Douglas Blvd. to Riverside Ave.

In Roseville: Between Douglas Blvd. (PM 2.0) and Riverside Ave. (PM 0.2); Construct westbound I-80 auxiliary lane and shoulder improvements. (Toll credits for PE, ROW, and CON)


Programmed

ERRATA 3.0



I-80/SR 65 Interchange Improvements Phase 1A

In Placer County: Between I-80 and Galleria Blvd./Stanford Ranch Rd.; Reconfigure I-80/SR 65 interchange to widen northbound SR 65 from 2 to 3 lanes, including widening Galleria Boulevard/Stanford Ranch Road northbound off-ramp and on-ramp, and southbound on- ramp (PA&ED, PS&E, ROW, and CON to be matched with Toll Credits) SHOPP funding (EA 03-0H260) for auxiliary lane on northbound SR 65 between I-80 and Galleria Boulevard/Stanford Ranch Road.


Programmed

PLA25648 PCTPA B- Road & HighwayCapacity

I-80/SR 65 Interchange Improvements Phase 1B

In Placer County: Between Galleria Boulevard/Stanford Ranch Road and Pleasant Grove Boulevard; Reconfigure I-80/SR 65 interchange to widen northbound SR 65 from 2 to 3 lanes, and widen I-80 westbound to SR 65 northbound ramp from 1 to 2 lanes.


Programmed


I-80/SR 65 Interchange Improvements Phase 1C

In Placer County: Between I-80 and Pleasant Grove Boulevard; Reconfigure I-80/SR 65 interchange to widen southbound SR 65 from 2 to 3 lanes.


Programmed

3.0 ERRATA



I-80/SR 65 Interchange Improvements Phase 2

In Placer County: Between Douglas Blvd. and Rocklin Road; Reconfigure I-80/SR 65 interchange to widen southbound to eastbound ramp from 1 to 2 lanes, and replace existing eastbound to northbound loop ramp with a new 3 lane direct flyover ramp.


Planned



In Placer County: Between Douglas Blvd. and Rocklin Road; Widen Taylor Road from 2 to 4 lanes between Roseville Parkway and Pacific Street, and Reconfigure I-80/SR 65 interchange to widen the southbound to westbound ramp from 2 to 3 lanes.


Planned



In Placer County: Between Douglas Blvd. and Rocklin Road; Reconfigure I-80/SR 65 interchange to construct one lane HOV direct connectors from eastbound to northbound and southbound to westbound (HOV lanes would extend to between Galleria Blvd. and Pleasant Grove Blvd. on SR 65).


Planned

ERRATA 3.0


PLA25634 PCTPA E- Transit Capital (Major)

Placer County - Bus Rapid Transit Capital

Capital Costs for a three route Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) system serving South Placer County; including planning, engineering, environmental studies, right-of-way acquisition, vehicles, related roadway improvements, signalization, park & ride facilities, signage, bus stop improvements, ITS elements, fare vending equipment. BRT Route 1-CSUS Placer to Galleria to Watt/I-80 LRT station via I-80 HOV lane. BRT Route 2 - CSUS Placer to Placer Vineyards to Watt/I-80 LRT station via Watt Avenue. BRT Route 3 - Galleria to Hazel & Sunrise LRT stations via Sierra College Boulevard/Hazel Avenue.


Planned

PLA25585 PCTPA F- Transit O&M (BRT & Express)

Placer County - Bus Rapid Transit O&M

Annual operating & maintenance (O&M) costs ($5,704,000) specifically for a three route BRT system for Fiscal years 2019-2036) for a TBD transit operator.


Planned

PLA25468 PCTPA D- Programs & Planning

Placer County Congestion Management Program

Provide educational and outreach efforts regarding alternative transportation modes to employers, residents, and the school community through the Placer County Congestion Management Program (CMP). CMP activities


Programmed

3.0 ERRATA


will be coordinated with the City of Roseville and SACOG's Regional Rideshare / TDM Program. (KG/day ROG 54.00; NOx 60.00; PM10 39.00)


Placer County Freeway Service Patrol

In Placer County: provide motorist assistance and towing of disabled vehicles during am and pm commute periods on I-80 (Riverside Ave to SR 49) and SR 65 (I-80 to Twelve Bridges Dr). (Emission Benefits in kg/day: ROG 7.35; NOx 1.10; PM10 1.16)


Programmed

PLA25413 PCTPA D- Programs & Planning

Planning, Programming, Monitoring 2011-2015

PCTPA plan, program, monitor (PPM) for RTPA related activities.


Programmed


SR 65 Capacity & Operational Improvements Phase 1

SR 65, from Galleria Blvd. to Lincoln Blvd., make capacity and operational improvements. Phase 1: From Galleria Blvd. to Pleasant Grove Blvd., construct auxiliary lanes on northbound and southbound SR 65, including widening Galleria Blvd. southbound off-ramp.


Programmed



SR 65, from Galleria Blvd. to Lincoln Blvd., make capacity and operational improvements. Phase 2: From Galleria Blvd. to Blue Oaks Blvd., widen from 4 to 7 lanes with 1 carpool lane and 1 general purpose lane southbound, and 1 general purpose lane


Planned

ERRATA 3.0


northbound, including widening Pleasant Grove Blvd. southbound on-ramp, and Blue Oaks Blvd. southbound on-ramps and northbound on-ramp.



SR 65, from Galleria Blvd. to Lincoln Blvd., make capacity and operational improvements. Phase 3: From Blue Oaks Blvd. to Lincoln Blvd., construct auxiliary lanes both northbound and southbound, including widening Lincoln Blvd. southbound on-ramp.


Planned

PLA25631 PCTPA F- Transit O&M (Bus)

Transit Operating & Maintenance

Lump-sum annual Operating & Maintenance costs for fiscal years 2019-2036; does not account for expansion of service


Planned

Regional Service Expansion Lump Sum 1

PCTPA E- Transit Capital (vehicles)

Local and Commuter Transit Bus Expansion

Lump-Sum for increased local and commuter bus service operating and maintenance cost and bus vehicle purchase and replacement.


Planned


PCTPA C- Maintenance & Rehabilitation


Lump-sum estimated street and road maintenance costs including signals, safety devices, & street lights, storm drains, storm damage, patching, overlay and sealing, snow removal, other street purpose maintenance. Excludes major rehabilitation and reconstruction projects. ($52,000,000 annually)

$938,000,000 $1,232,532,000 Lump Sum or Ongoing

Planned

3.0 ERRATA


SUBTOTAL $3,066,869,130 $3,972,186,129

PLACER COUNTY

PLA25477 Placer County C- Maintenance & Rehabilitation

Alpine Meadows Rd Bridge Rehabilitation

Alpine Meadows Rd over Truckee River, 0.1 miles west of SH 89: Replace the existing structurally deficient 2 lane bridge with a new 2 lane bridge. (Toll Credits programmed for ROW & CON)


Programmed

PLA25472 Placer County A- Bike & Ped Auburn Folsom Rd Class II Bike Lane

On Auburn-Folsom Rd between Douglas Blvd and Joe Rodgers Rd, construct a Class II Bike lane on both sides of the road, including signing and striping; construct sidewalk on both sides of Auburn-Folsom Rd from Wilcox Place north to Joe Rodgers. (Emission benefits in kg/day: ROG 0.06, NOx 0.04, PM10 0.03) [Toll Credits for CON]


Programmed

PLA25533 Placer County A- Bike & Ped Auburn Folsom Rd. Safety Improvements

Auburn Folsom Rd. from approximately 60' N of Willow Ln. to Robin Hood Ln.: Construct sidewalks, curb ramps, curb and gutter; install mid-block crosswalk; improve pavement friction; provide dynamic speed sign.(HSIP5-03-013)


Programmed

PLA15070 Placer County B- Road & Highway Capacity

Auburn Ravine Road at I-80 Overcrossing

Auburn Ravine Road overcrossing over I-80 between Bowman Road to Lincoln Way: widen overcrossing from 2 to 4 lanes.


Planned

PLA15080 Placer County B- Road & Highway

Auburn-Folsom Rd Widening

From Placer / Sacramento County line


Programmed

ERRATA 3.0


Capacity to Douglas Blvd, : Widen to 4 lanes. Install signal at Auburn-Folsom Blvd and Fuller Dr.

2020


Baseline Road Four to Six Lane Widening (East Portion)

Widen From 4 to 6 lanes from Watt Avenue to Fiddyment/Walerga Road.


Planned


Baseline Road Widening Phase 1 (West Portion)

Baseline Rd. from Watt Avenue to future 16th street: Widen from 2 to 4 lanes.


Programmed


Baseline Road Widening Phase 2 (West Portion)

Baseline Road from Sutter County Line to Future 16th Street. Widen from 2 to 4 lanes.


Programmed


Bowman Rd Bridge Bowman Rd, over UP Railroad, BNSF RR and AMTRAK, 0.1 miles south of 19C-62: Rehabilitate the existing bridge without adding additional lanes.


Programmed


Bowman Rd Bridge Bowman Rd, over UP Railroad, BNSF Railyards & AMTRAK, 0.1 miles north of 19C-61: Rehabilitate the existing bridge without adding additional lanes.


Programmed


Brewer Rd. Bridge Replacement

Brewer Rd., over Pleasant Grove Creek, 4.2 miles north of Baseline Rd.: Replace 2-lane bridge with a new 2-lane bridge. (Toll Credits for PE, ROW, & CON.)


Programmed


Bridge Approach and Non-HBP Participating Costs

In Placer County, bridge approach and non-HBP participating costs at Alpine Meadows @ Truckee River and Dowd Road @ Yankee Slough. (Toll Credits for CON)


Programmed

3.0 ERRATA



Bridge Preventive Maintenance

In various location ins Placer County, perform preventive maintenance on bridges.1. Squaw Valley Rd., over Squaw Creek, 2 mi west of SH 89, Bridge Rail Replacement, Deck Rehab.2. Donner Pass Rd., over S. Yuba River, north of Yuba Dr., Bridge Rail Replacement, Deck Rehab.3. Cisco Rd., over S. Yuba River, near Hampshire Rocks Rd., Replace Joint Seals, Deck Rehab.4. Alpine Meadows Rd., over Bear Creek, 0.9 mi west of SH 89, Polyester Concrete Deck Overlay.5. Fowler Rd., over Auburn Ravine, 0.6 mi north of SH 193, Methacrylate Deck Overlay.6. Gold Hill Rd., over Doty Ravine, 0.3 mi south of Wise Rd., Methacrylate Deck Overlay.7. Develop Bridge Preventive Maintenance Plan.


Programmed

PLA25583 Placer County E- Transit Capital (Vehicles)

CNG Bus Replace one CNG bus with one new cleaner CNG Bus for Placer County Transit. (Emissions Benefits in kg/day: NOx 0.75.)


Programmed

PLA25565 Placer County A- Bike & Ped Cook Riolo Road Pathway

Pedestrian Pathway along Cook Riolo Rd from existing sidewalk at Creekview Ranch Middle School North (Emission Benefits in kg/day: ROG 0.04, NOx 0.02, PM10


Programmed

ERRATA 3.0


0.01) [Toll Credits for PE, ROW, CON]


Crosby Harold Rd. Bridge

Crosby Harold Rd. Over Doty Creek, 0.9 mi N of Wise Rd.: Replace an existing 1 lane bridge with a new 2 lane bridge. (Toll Credits for PE, ROW, CON)


Programmed


Dowd Rd at Yankee Slough Bridge Replacement

Dowd Rd. over Yankee Slough, just south of Dalby Rd.: Replace existing structurally deficient 1 lane bridge with new 2 lane bridge. (Toll Credits for CON)


Programmed


Dowd Rd Bridge Replacement at Coon Creek

Dowd Rd over Coon Creek, 0.4 miles north of Wise Rd.: Replace existing 2 lane bridge with a new 2 lane bridge. (Toll Credits programmed for ROW & CON)


Programmed


Dowd Rd Bridge Replacement at Markham Ravine

Dowd Rd, over Markham Ravine, 0.5 miles south Nicolaus Rd: Replace existing 2 lane structurally deficient bridge with a new 2 lane bridge. (Toll credits for CON.)


Programmed


Gold Hill Rd. Bridge Replacement

Gold Hill Rd. over Auburn Ravine, 0.65 mi north of SR 193: Replace existing 2 lane bridge with a new 2 lane bridge. (Toll credits for PE, ROW, CON)


Programmed


Haines Rd Bridge Replacement

Haines Rd, over Wise Canal, 0.45 miles North of Bell Rd: Replace the existing functionally obsolete 2 lane bridge


Programmed

3.0 ERRATA


with a new 2 lane bridge. (Toll Credits for PE, ROW, & CON)


HMA Overlay, Various County Roads (Yr2)

In Placer County, hot mix asphalt (HMA) overlay on various County roads: (1) Douglas Boulevard from Barton to Auburn- Folsom, (2) Dry Creek Road from Joeger to HWY 49, (3) Richardson Drive from Atwood Rd to Bell Rd, (4) Nevada Street from 150' east of Nevada Way to Auburn City Limits, (5) Edgewood Road from SR49 to Edgewood Place (Toll Credits for CON). Toll Credits for CON


Programmed


HMA Overlay, Various County Roads (Yr3)

In Placer County, hot mix asphalt (HMA) overlay on various County roads: (1) Sierra College Boulevard from Olympus Rd to Eureka Rd, (2) Old State Highway from Taylor Rd to HWY 193, (3) Fruitvale Road from Fowler Rd to Gold Hill Rd, (4) West Wise Road from HWY 65 to Lincoln-Sheridan Blvd (Toll Credits for CON)


Programmed

PLA25512 Placer County D- Programs & Planning

King Rd. Safety Lane Widening

King Rd. between Auburn Folsom Rd. and Sudor Ln.: Widen travel lanes; construct drainage improvements. HSIP4-03-007 [Toll Credits for CON]


Programmed

ERRATA 3.0


PLA20350 Placer County B- Road & HighwayCapacity

Local Roads in Auburn In and near Auburn - adjacent to Route 49 between I-80 and Dry Creek Road - three new local connector roads; 1)Quartz Drive Connector from Route 49 to Locksley Lane, 2) Willow Creek Drive Connector from Route 49 to 1st Street in Dewitt Center, and 3)Edgewood Road Connector from Route 49 to Alta Mesa Drive (City of Auburn) - state and local funding only. LIMITS: Auburn and north of Auburn, three connector roads intersecting with State Route 49. (1) Quartz Drive Connector, (2) Willow Creek Drive Connector (3) Edgewood Road Connector. STREET NAME: Local Roads in Auburn


Planned

PLA25549 Placer County A- Bike & Ped Martis Valley Trail Complete a 10' wide paved Class I multipurpose trail connecting Northstar Village roundabout to the southerly border of Army Corps property. (Emission Benefits in kg/day; ROG 0.02;NOx 0.01;PM10 0.01)


Programmed


Pavement Markings Various locations throughout Placer County: Install pavement markings (HSIP5-03-011, HSIP5-03-012)


Programmed

3.0 ERRATA


PLA25564 Placer County A- Bike & Ped Pedestrian Improvements along Hwy 49, Education Street, and Town Court

Along Hwy 49 on the westside from Bell Rd to Education St. South side of Education St. west to connect to existing sidewalk and improve ADA ramps & crosswalks along Town Court (Emissions Benefits in kg/day: ROG 0.07, NOx 0.04, PM10 0.02) (Toll Credits for PE, ROW, CON)


Programmed


PFE Rd. Widening PFE Rd, from Watt Ave. to Walerga Rd: Widen from 2 to 4 lanes and realign.


Programmed


Placer Parkway Phase 1 In Placer County: Between SR 65 and Foothills Boulevard; Construct phase 1 of Placer Parkway, including upgrading the SR 65/Whitney Ranch Parkway interchange to include a southbound slip off-ramp, southbound loop on-ramp, northbound loop on-ramp, six-lane bridge over SR 65, and four- lane roadway extension from SR 65 (Whitney Ranch Parkway) to Foothills Boulevard.


Programmed

PLA25567 Placer County G- System Management, Operations, and ITS

Safety Surface Treatment

At 18 various locations throughout Placer County: install high friction surface treatment. (HSIP6-03-010)


Programmed

PLA25568 Placer County G- System Management, Operations, and

Signage Upgrades Various corridors throughout Placer County: Conduct a


Programmed

ERRATA 3.0


ITS Roadway Safety Signing Audit and upgrade signs. (HSIP6-03-011)


SR 49 Widen from 4 lanes to 6 lanes from Luther Road to Nevada Street.


Planned

PLA25630 Placer County G- System Management, Operations, and ITS

SR49 Signalizations/ Improvements

Signalizations and Improvements along SR 49 in Auburn/North Auburn.


Planned


Sunset Blvd Phase 2 Sunset Blvd, from Foothills Boulevard to Fiddyment Rd: Construct a 2-lane road extension [PLA15410 is Phase 1.]


Programmed

PLA25044 Placer County B- Road & HighwayCapacity

Sunset Blvd. Widening Widen Sunset Boulevard from State Route 65 to Cincinnati Avenue from 2 to 4 lanes. Project includes widening Industrial Blvd / UPRR overcrossing from 2 to 4 lanes.


Programmed

PLA25584 Placer County A- Bike & Ped Truckee River Trail Along SR89, from Squaw Valley Road to the USFS Silver Creek Campground: construct 1.4 miles of multi-use trail . (Emission Benefits in kg/day; ROG 0.01; NOx 0.01)


Programmed


Walerga Rd/Dry Creek Bridge Replacement

Walerga Rd, over Dry Creek, 1.1 mi S Base Line Rd. Rehabilitate the existing 2 lane bridge without adding additional lanes. High Cost Project agreement required.


Programmed


Walerga Road Walerga Rd: Widen and realign from 2 to 4 lanes from Baseline Rd. to Placer / Sacramento County line.


Programmed

3.0 ERRATA



Watt Ave. Bridge Replacement

Watt Ave./Center Joint Ave., over Dry Creek, 0.4 mi north of P.F.E. Rd.: Replace existing 2 lane bridge with a 4 lane bridge.


Programmed


Watt Avenue Watt Avenue, from Baseline Rd. to Sacramento County Line: Widen from 2 to 4 lanes.


Planned


Wise Rd Bridge Replacement

Wise Rd, over Doty Creek, 0.5 miles east of Garden Bar: Replace existing 1-lane functionally obsolete bridge with a new 2-lane bridge.


Programmed


Yankee Jim's Rd Bridge at North Fork American River

Bridge No. 19C0002, Yankee Jim's Rd over North Fork American River, 1.5MI W of Shirttail Cyn Rd, Replace structurally deficient 1 lane bridge with a new 2 lane bridge. (Toll credits programmed for PE, ROW & CON.)


Programmed

PCT10503 Placer County E- Transit Capital (Vehicles)

PCT Bus Replacements - 2015

Replace two CNG powered buses currently in use by Placer County Transit. The new CNG buses will be used on regional transit routes connecting Rocklin, Lincoln, Loomis, Auburn and Placer County to Roseville and the Watt/I-80 Light Rail Station. (Emission Benefits in kg/day: 1.49 NOx)


Programmed

PCT10494 Placer County Transit E- Transit Capital (Minor)

CNG Station Upgrade Phase 2

Dewitt Center in Auburn: Increase of CNG compressor capacity at Placer County CNG


Programmed

ERRATA 3.0


fueling station in Auburn. (Emissions Benefits in kg/day: 3.46 NOx, 0.12 PM10.) *Local Funds are Air District Funds*

PLA25550 Placer County Transit F- Transit O&M (Bus)

Lincoln Transit (Subrecipient) Operating Assistance

Lincoln Transit (Subrecipient)- Operating assistance and preventive maintenance for transit services within the City of Lincoln. Sacramento Urbanized Area. FFY 2014 operating assistance: $149,108; FFY 2014 preventive maintenance: $12,281


Programmed

PCT10501 Placer County Transit E- Transit Capital (Vehicles)

Placer County CNG Replacement Buses

Replace four CNG powered buses currently in use by Placer County Transit. The new CNG buses will be used on regional transit routes connecting Rocklin, Lincoln, Loomis, Auburn and Placer County to Roseville and the Watt/I-80 Light Rail Station. (Emission Benefits in kg/day: 3.16 NOx)


Programmed

PCT10491 Placer County Transit F- Transit O&M (Bus)

Placer County Non-Urbanized Transit Operations

Operating assistance for rural transit services within Placer County. Outside the Sacramento Urbanized Area. FFY 2015: $291,197; FFY 2016: $291,197


Programmed

3.0 ERRATA


PCT10493 Placer County Transit F- Transit O&M (Demand Response)

Preventive Maintenance, ADA Operations, and Operating Assistance 2009-2016

Operating assistance, preventive maintenance, and ADA operations for transit services for urban transit services within El Dorado County as well as commuter service to / from Sacramento. Sacramento Urbanized Area. FFY 2009 preventive maintenance: $324,890; FFY 2009 ADA operations: $281,700; FFY 2010 preventive maintenance: $300,000; FFY 2010 ADA operations: $200,000; FFY 2011 preventive maintenance: $324,890; FFY 2011 ADA operations: $206,700; FFY 2012 preventive maintenance: $32,890; FFY 2012 ADA operations: $217,000; FFY 2012 Fuel: $84,429; FFY 2013 Operating assistance: $539,341; FFY 2014 Operating assistance: $563,744; FFY 2014 preventive maintenance: $56,696; FFY 2015 preventive maintenance: $341,000; FFY 2015 ADA operations: $217,000; FFY 2016 preventive maintenance: $341,000; FFY 2016 ADA operations: $217,000


Programmed

PCT10488 Placer County Transit E- Transit Capital (Vehicles)

Purchase 2 Replacement Buses

Purchase of two (2) 35' CNG replacement buses for Placer County Transit. (Emission Benefits: 0.5 kg/day NOx)


Programmed

PCT10504 Placer County Transit E- Transit Capital T.A.R.T Bus Purchase Replace one 35-foot bus $525,000 $525,000 Project Programmed

ERRATA 3.0


(Vehicles) for Tahoe Area Reginal Transit.

complete by 2020

PCT10505 Placer County Transit F- Transit O&M (Bus)

TART Operations TART operations (lump sum) on SR89 and SR267 corridors within Placer County/SACOG region.


Planned


Placer County C- Maintenance & Rehabilitation


Estimated street and road maintenance costs including signals, safety devices, & street lights, storm drains, storm damage, patching, overlay and sealing, snow removal, other street purpose maintenance. Excludes major rehabilitation and reconstruction projects. ($ 19,000,000 annually)


Planned

SUBTOTAL $873,238,168 $1,044,450,368

PRIDE INDUSTRIES

CAL20562 Caltrans HQ E- Transit Capital (Vehicles)

FTA 5310 - Pride Industries Replacement Buses

Replace three existing buses that provide transportation to persons with developmental and other disabilities in Placer and Sacramento counties. Transportation Development Credits/Toll Credits are being used as match, and as allowable under FTA Section 5310 federal funds will fund 100% of this project. Toll Credits for CON


Programmed

VAR56123 Pride Industries E- Transit Capital (Vehicles)

Pride Industries One, Inc. 5310 Replacement Bus and Cameras

FTA 5310 funds will be used to purchase one (1) Medium Bus that accommodates up to 14 passengers (incl. 2 wheelchair positions) & a driver and thirty-eight


Programmed

3.0 ERRATA


(38) cameras for Pride Industries. (Uses Toll Credits for local match).

SUBTOTAL $335,489 $335,489

SOUTH PLACER REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY

PLA25592 South Placer Regional Transportation Authority

B- Road & Highway Capacity

Placer Parkway Phase 3 Construct New Road: 4 lane divided Hwy. between Fiddyment Rd and Watt Avenue. Includes signalized intersections at Watt Avenue.


Planned

SUBTOTAL $85,000,000 $132,934,000

TOWN OF LOOMIS

PLA25530 Town of Loomis C- Maintenance & Rehabilitation

Taylor Road Overlay Maintenance Project

Taylor Road: Asphalt overlay.


Programmed

PLA25548 Town of Loomis D- Programs & Planning

Town Center Implementation Plan Improvements Phase 2

Taylor Road, Horseshoe Bar Road to Walnut Street: streetscape improvements. (Emissions in kg/day: 0.06 ROG, 0.04 NOx, 0.02 PM10)


Programmed


Town of Loomis C- Maintenance & Rehabilitation


Estimated street and road maintenance costs including signals, safety devices, & street lights, storm drains, storm damage, patching, overlay and sealing, other street purpose maintenance. Excludes major rehabilitation and reconstruction projects. ($ 634,000 annually)


Planned

SUBTOTAL $15,199,000 $19,578,672

ERRATA 3.0


USFS TAHOE NATIONAL FOREST

PLA25556 USFS Tahoe National Forest G- System Management, Operations, and ITS

Sugar Pine OHV Staging Area

Outside of Foresthill, Sugar Pine Off Highway Vehicle (OHV) Staging Area: Renovation of an existing staging area, including parking, accessible restrooms, and picnic facilities. (RM-13-016)


Programmed

SUBTOTAL $325,950 $325,950

WESTERN PLACER CONSOLIDATED TRANSPORTATION SERVICE AGENCY

PLA25594 Western Placer Consolidated Transportation Service Agency

E- Transit Capital (Major)

Placer County - CTSA Capital

Capital costs for CTSA Article 4.5 & complementary ADA dial-a- ride services for designated CTSA operating in Placer County, including vehicles, miscellaneous capital items & facilities expansion.


Planned


F- Transit O&M (Demand Response)

Placer County - CTSA O&M

Annual operation & maintenance (O&M) costs for Article 4.5 Community Transit Services & complimentary Transit Services & complimentary ADA dial-a-ride services for designated CTSA of Placer County servicing Placer County & Cities


Planned

PLA25511 Western Placer ConsolidatedTransportation Service Agency

F- Transit O&M (Bus)

New Freedom (Rural) Operating Assistance

Operating Assistance for the rural portion of the "Health Express." This service is being provided as a new transportation alternative to traditional public transit fixed route and dial-a-ride services.


Programmed

3.0 ERRATA


The service is a low-to-no-cost scheduled door-to-door transportation service to non-emergency medical appointments for rural Placer County residents. Service operates Monday through Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., and Thursdays, 10:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. in Sacramento.


F- Transit O&M (Demand Response)

Western Placer CTSA Operations

The Western Placer CTSA operates non-emergency medical transportation demand-response paratransit service; volunteer door-to-door transportation; & voucher program within western Placer County.


Programmed

VAR56116 Western Placer Consolidated Transportation Service Agency

F- Transit O&M (Bus)

WPCTSA - New Freedom Operating Assistance

Western Placer Consolidated Transportation Service Agency: Operating assistance for Health Express", a low-to-no cost, scheduled, door-to-door, shared ride service for Placer County residents needing transportation to non-emergency medical appointments.


Programmed

SUBTOTAL $89,640,400 $115,940,176

Short-Term $1,069,419,063 $1,075,799,063

Long-Term $4,732,368,453 $6,224,929,570

Project Development Cost (10% of project

total) $105,146,710 $164,028,868

Total $5,906,934,226 $7,464,757,501

SOURCE: PCTPA, 2016.

ERRATA 3.0


THE FINANCIALLY UNCONSTRAINED PROJECT

A listing of the financially unconstrained (Tier 2) projects is described in Table 2.3-2 below.

TABLE 2.3-2: FINANCIALLY UNCONSTRAINED PROJECTS SUMMARY (TIER 2)

Project ID COUNTY LEAD AGENCY CATEGORY TITLE PROJECT DESCRIPTION TOTAL COST (2015 Dollars)

YEAR OF EXPENDITURE COST

COMPLETION TIMING STATUS

CALTRANS

CAL20583 Placer Caltrans D3 G- System Management, Operations, and ITS

SR89 UPRR Undercrossing

Widening of SR89 (mousehole) under UPRR tracks

$42,000,000 N/A Project complete after 2036

Project Development Only

CAL20612 Multiple Counties

Caltrans D3 G- System Management, Operations, and ITS

System Management/Traffic Operations System on SR 65 between I-80 and SR 70

Operational Improvements: traffic monitoring stations, closed circuit television, highway advisory radio, changeable message signs, and other system management infrastructure in Placer and Yuba Counties.



CAL20630 Placer Caltrans D3 B- Road & Highway Capacity

I-80 Bus/carpool Lanes East of SR65 in both directions

New bus/carpool lanes - one each direction - on I-80 from SR65 east to SR49 in Auburn.



CAL20633 Placer Caltrans D3 B- Road & Highway Capacity

Route 65 Lincoln Bypass Phase 2B

In Placer County, SR65: Right-of-way acquisition & construct a 4-lane expressway from North Ingram Slough to Sheridan.



CAL20637 Placer Caltrans D3 G- System Management, Operations, and ITS

System Management/Traffic Operations System on SR49

Operational Improvements: traffic monitoring stations, closed circuit television, highway advisory radio, changeable message signs, and other system management infrastructure in Placer County.



PLA25136 Placer Caltrans D3 B- Road & Highway Capacity

SR 267 Widening In eastern Placer County, widen SR 267 from 2 lanes to 4 lanes from Nevada County line (PM 0.001) to Northstar



3.0 ERRATA


Drive (PM 3.785).

CAL20639 Placer Caltrans Division of Rail


Auburn to Donner Summit Track Improvements Phases 1 & 2

Upgrade Donner Pass Summit (UP Line) double track: including addition of crossovers, notching of tunnels, reactivation & replacement of second mainline track between Auburn &Reno, Nevada



CAL20640 Placer Caltrans Division of Rail


UP Over/Under Crossing Build over/undercrossing at Union Pacific crossing of Sierra College Boulevard



SUBTOTAL $428,795,600

CAPITOL COORIDOR JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY

VAR56134 Placer Capitol Corridor Joint Powers Authority

F- Transit O&M (Rail)

Capitol Corridor Operations & Maintenance

Capitol Corridor operations & equipment maintenance, funded by the State of California/ Caltrans Division of Rail. (Total Cost: $728,000,000)



VAR56135 Placer Capitol Corridor Joint Powers Authority

E- Transit Capital (Minor)

Capitol Corridor Rail Replacement & Expansion

Lump-sum of capital improvements between Colfax & Davis (Total Cost: $120,720,000)



SUBTOTAL $67,829,702

CITY OF AUBURN

PLA25234 Placer City of Auburn B- Road & Highway Capacity

Baltimore Ravine Development

Construct New Road: various roadways in the Baltimore Ravine area of Auburn. Includes: widening and construction of new local roadways as a result of new development.

$200,000 N/A Project complete after 2036


SUBTOTAL $200,000

CITY OF COLFAX

ERRATA 3.0


PLA25146 Placer City of Colfax G- System Management, Operations, and ITS

Grass Valley St./UPRR Overcrossing

Rail Crossing Project; above-grade crossing of UP Tracks from east side (S Auburn) to west side (Main)




I-80/Canyon Wy. Intersection Improvements

Intersection Improvements at Canyon Wy. / I-80 Overpass, to include signalization, intersection realignment and striping.




I-80/SR174 Road Widening and Signal Improvements

Roadway Operational Improvements at Hwy. 174 & I-80, to include 2 new signals and intersection widening with sidewalks and curb ramps




Main and Grass Valley Signal Improvements

Design and construction of a new traffic signal and turn-lane at the intersection of Main Street and Grass Valley Street. (Emission reductions: ROG .02 kg/day; NOx .01 kg/day)



PLA25237 Placer City of Colfax A- Bike & Ped S Auburn Street Bicycle Improvements

Add bike routes lanes on both sides of South Auburn Street from Mink Creek to Grass Valley UP Tracks.




S. Auburn/Central/Hwy.174 Intersection Improvements

Intersection improvements on S. Auburn St. at Central Ave./Hwy. 174 intersection, to include widening, signalization, and pedestrian improvements.



SUBTOTAL $746,000

CITY OF LINCOLN

PLA20740 Placer City of Lincoln B- Road & Highway Capacity

Airport Rd. Construct New Road: 2 lanes from Weco Access Rd. to Wise Rd.




Aviation Blvd. Widen Aviation Blvd. from 2 to 4 lanes from Venture Dr. to terminus 0.5 miles north of Venture Dr.



3.0 ERRATA



Aviation Blvd. Road Extension: 4 lanes from Venture Dr. to Wise Rd.




E. Joiner Pkwy. Widen: 6 lanes from Ferrari Ranch Rd. to Sterling Pkwy. Includes: Hwy. 65 / UPRR overcrossing.




East Joiner Parkway Widen East Joiner Parkway from 2 to 4 lanes from Twelve Bridges Dr. to Rocklin city limits.




Ferrari Ranch Road Widen from 2 to 4 lanes from SR 65 to SR 193 to Ferrari Ranch Road




Ferrari Ranch Road Extension

Extend Ferrari Ranch Road from existing City Limit near Caledon Circle to Moore Road (Village 7 boundary).




Gladding Parkway In Lincoln: from Nicolaus Rd.(near K Street)to East Avenue; including overpass over UPRR and SR 65 and connection to 12th Street, construct a new 2 lane roadway.



PLA18710 Placer City of Lincoln B- Road & HighwayCapacity

Industrial Blvd. Industrial Blvd., from Route 65 to 12 Bridges Dr.: Widen from 2 to 4 lanes.




Industrial Blvd. Industrial Blvd., from 12 Bridges Dr. to Athens Blvd.: Widen from 2 to 4 lanes.




Joiner Pkwy. Widen: 6 lanes from Nicolaus Rd. to Ferrari Ranch Rd.




McCourtney Rd. Widen: 4 lanes from 12th St. to north Lincoln city limits.




Nicolaus Rd. Widen Nicolaus Rd. from 2 to 4 lanes from Airport Rd. to Aviation Blvd.




Oak Tree Extension Construct New Road: 2 lanes between Sierra College Blvd. and Wise Rd. / Hwy. 65



ERRATA 3.0



Twelve Bridges Dr. Twelve Bridges Dr. from Industrial Blvd. to SR 65 Interchange: widen from 2 to 4 lanes, including interchange improvements.




Twelve Bridges Dr. Widen: 6 lanes from Hwy. 65 Interchange to Lincoln Pkwy. Includes: interchange improvements.




Venture Drive In Lincoln: from Aviation Blvd. to Lakeside Dr., widen Venture Dr. from 2 to 4 lanes.




Village 1-7, SUD A-C local streets

Construct New Road: Local roads for various villages and SUD. Includes: street enhancements.




Virginiatown Rd. Widen: 4 lanes from McCourtney Rd. to east Lincoln city limits.




Wise Rd. Road Realignment: between Hwy. 65 Lincoln Bypass and existing Hwy. 65. Includes: overcrossing.




CITY OF ROCKLIN

PLA25373 Placer City of Rocklin E- Transit Capital (Minor)

Midas Ave. Grade Separation

Midas Ave., from Pacific St. to Third St., construct 2 lane grade separation of UP tracks including right of way.



PLA25272 Placer City of Rocklin B- Road & Highway Capacity

Pacific St. Widen: 6 lanes from SW of Sunset Blvd. to NE of Sunset Blvd.




Rocklin Road In Rocklin, Rocklin Road from Aguilar Road / Eastbound I-80 on- ramps to Sierra College Blvd: widen from 4 to 6 lanes.




Rocklin Road Widening Widen Rocklin Road from 2 to 4 lanes from Loomis town limits to east of Sierra College Boulevard.



3.0 ERRATA


PLA19330 Placer City of Rocklin B- Road & HighwayCapacity

Sierra College Boulevard In Rocklin, Sierra College Boulevard: widen to 4 lanes from intersection with Valley View Parkway to Loomis Town limits (SPRTA Segment #2a).




Sunset Boulevard Widen Sunset Boulevard from 4 to 6 lanes, from Stanford Ranch Road to Pacific Street




Valley View Parkway Valley View Parkway: Construct 2 lanes from Park Drive to Sierra College Blvd.




CITY OF ROSEVILLE

PLA19810 Placer City of Roseville


Atkinson St./PFE Rd. Widening

In Roseville, Atkinson St./PFE Rd.: widen from two to four lanes from Foothills Blvd to just south of Dry Creek, including connector road from Foothills to Atkinson (mirror image of existing Denio Loop connector on N/E side of Foothills) and signal removal.





Dry Creek Bikeway Facilities: from Darling Wy. to western Roseville City limits along Dry Creek.





Foothills Boulevard Widen: 6 lanes from Cirby to Vineyard and from Switchman to Pilgrims.





Galleria Blvd. Widen: 6 lanes from Berry to Roseville Pkwy.





Galleria Blvd. Interchange Modification: Hwy. 65 / Galleria Blvd. Interchange. Includes: re-stripe Galleria/ Stanford Ranch to 6 lanes; modify 3 NB & SB off ramps and SB



ERRATA 3.0


Stanford Ranch Rd. to NB 65 on ramp; add 2nd N/B Galleria to NB Hwy. 65 left-turn lane (Phase II).



Galleria Blvd./SR 65 Interchange Phase II Improvements

In Roseville, at existing interchange on State Route 65/Galleria Blvd/Stanford Ranch Rd.: modify all on and off ramps to provide improved operations.





Pleasant Grove Blvd. Extend 4-lanes from 1500 feet west of market to Santucci (Watt)





Sierra College Blvd Widening

Sierra College Blvd from Sacramento County line to Olympus Dr.: widen to 6 lanes.





Westbrook Blvd. Construct New Road: west of Fiddyment Road between Baseline and Pleasant Grove in proposed new Sierra Vista Specific Plan.





Woodcreek Oaks Widen from 2 - 4 lanes from Canavari Dr to North Branch of Pleasant Grove Creek.





Placer PCTPA B- Road & Highway Capacity


SR 65, from Galleria Blvd. to Lincoln Blvd., make capacity and operational improvements. Phase 4: From Lincoln Blvd. to Blue Oaks Blvd., widen southbound in median to add lane; and from north of Galleria Blvd. (end of the I-80/SR 65 Interchange project) to Lincoln Blvd., widen northbound in median to add lane. Future



3.0 ERRATA


environmental document will be completed to determine if widening in median will be carpool or general purpose lanes.


PLACER COUNTY

PLA25479 Placer Placer County B- Road & Highway Capacity

16th St. Construct New Road: 4 lanes from Sacramento/Placer County Line to Baseline Rd.




Baseline Road Four to Six Lane Widening (West Portion)

Placer County, Baseline Road from Watt Avenue to Sutter County Line, widen from 4 to 6 lanes.




Dyer Lane Extension Extend Dyer Lane west/north to Baseline Road at Brewer Road and east/north to Baseline Road west of Fiddyment Road and widen to four lanes in accordance with the Placer Vineyards Specific Plan.




Fiddyment Road Widening

Widen Fiddyment Road from 2 lanes to 4 lanes from Roseville City Limits to Athens Road.




Foothills Boulevard Foothills Blvd.: Construct as a 2 lane road from the City of Roseville to Sunset Blvd.




North Antelope Rd. North Antelope Rd: Widen from 2 to 4 lanes from Sacramento County line to PFE Rd.




Parallel Rd. In Placer County, east of Route 49, from Dry Creek Rd to Quartz Rd, construct a 2 lane road. Name of road shall be determined in the future.



ERRATA 3.0



PFE Rd. Widen: 4 lanes from North Antelope Rd. to Roseville City Limits.




Sierra College Blvd. Widen Sierra College Blvd. from 2 to 4 lanes from Route 193 to Loomis Town Limits.




SR 49 Widen from Bell Road to Dry Creek Road (total construction cost is $10,000,000)




SOUTH PLACER REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY

PLA20721 Placer South Placer Regional Transportation Authority


Placer Parkway New 4 lane connector (ultimate 6 lanes freeway) in 500'- to 1,000'-wide corridor connecting SR 70/99 (between Riego Road & Sankey Road) to Watt Avenue. (Note: as the project proceeds, Parkway segments will be administered by different lead agencies depending upon location of the segment. In Placer County, it will be SPRTA or Roseville and/or Placer County; in Sutter County it will be Sutter County.)



SUBTOTAL $295,000,000

TOWN OF LOOMIS

PLA25264 Placer Town of Loomis

A- Bike & Ped Antelope Creek Bikeway Facilities: In Loomis along Antelope Creek, construct Class I bike and pedestrian facility. Federal permitting may be required as part of this project.



3.0 ERRATA



G- System Management, Operations, and ITS

Antelope Creek Roadway Operational Improvements: Expand/ replace culvert along Antelope Creek at King Rd. from Sierra College Blvd. to Vet Clinic. Includes: ancillary road work.





Barton Rd. Widening Widen: from Brace Rd. to S. Town limits to standard lane widths. Includes: bike lanes.





Brace Rd. Widen from Sierra College Blvd. to Horseshoe Bar Rd. to standard lane widths. Includes: bike lanes.





Brace Rd. / Horseshoe Bar Rd.

Road Realignment: two existing intersections into one intersection. Includes: related signalization improvements.




C- Maintenance & Rehabilitation

Brace Rd. Bridge Improvements

Replace Bridge: at Secret Ravine creek. Includes: ancillary road work.





Doc Barnes Dr. Road Extension: 2 lanes, landscaped median and bike lanes from Horseshoe Bar Rd. to King Rd.





Horseshoe Bar Road at I-80 Overcrossing Widening

Widen Horseshoe Bar Rd. @ I-80 overcrossing 2 to 4 lanes and improve ramps.





Horseshoe Bar Road Widening

Widen from Taylor Rd. to Highway 80 Interchange 2000 feet of two-way left turn lanes/landscaped median, bike lanes, sidewalk, curb, gutter & underground Drainage system




C- Maintenance & Rehabilitation

I-80 at Brace Road Modify Bridge: Brace Rd. Bridge to Caltrans standards.





King Rd. Interchange Modification: existing King Rd. overcrossing to accommodate freeway access for traffic from King



ERRATA 3.0


Rd. onto WB I-80. Includes: a transition auxiliary lane on I-80 from King Rd. to Horseshoe Bar interchange.



King Rd. Roadway Operational Improvements: at Sucker Ravine and King Rd. expand culvert. Includes: ancillary road work. Federal permitting may also be required as part of this project.





Rocklin Rd. Widening In Loomis, Rocklin Rd. from Barton Rd. to west town limits: widen from 2 to 4 lanes.





S. Holly Area Roadway Operational Improvements: Storm drain extension in the South Holly area. Includes: ancillary road work. Federal permitting may also be required as part of this project.




A- Bike & Ped Secret Ravine Bikeway Facilities: Along Secret Ravine creek system from north Loomis town limits to south Loomis town limits, construct Class I bike and pedestrian facility.





Sierra College Blvd. Roadway Operational Improvements: Culvert expansion at Loomis Tributary and Sierra College Blvd. Includes: ancillary road work.





Sierra College Blvd. Railroad Crossing Improvements

Construct 4 lane overcrossing/undercrossing at UPRR Tracks.






In Loomis, Sierra College Blvd. from railroad tracks (Taylor Rd.) to the north town limits: widen from 2 to 4 lanes and construct turn lanes, bike lanes, and



3.0 ERRATA


landscaped median.



Sierra College Boulevard Widening

In Loomis, Sierra College Blvd. from Granite Drive to Taylor Road: widen from 4 to 6 lanes.





Sunrise-Loomis Subdivision

Roadway Operational Improvements: Upgrade storm drain facilities in the Sunrise-Loomis subdivision. Includes: ancillary road work.





Taylor Rd. Roadway Operational Improvements: Construct storm drain facility from King Rd. to Sierra College Blvd. Includes: ancillary road work. Federal permitting may also be required as part of this project. Phase 1 is King Rd. to Walnut Street, $800,000.





Webb St. Extension Extend from Laird St. to future Doc Barnes Dr. 1800 feet of two- way left turn lanes/landscaped median, bike lanes, sidewalk, curb, gutter & underground Drainage system




Short-Term Unconstrained $0 $0

Long-Term Unconstrained $1,051,467,100 $1,640,288,676

Project Development Cost

(10% of project total) $105,146,710 $164,028,868

Total Unconstrained (excluding project

development cost)

$1,051,467,100 $1,640,288,676

SOURCE: PCTPA, 2016.

ERRATA 3.0


SECTION 3.10 LAND USE AND POPULATION

The Land Use and Population section was revised to reflect a correction. The change to the EIR

occurs on Page 3.10-1. The changes are identified with revision marks (underline for new text,

strike out for deleted text).

Text changes on Page 3.10-1 are as follows:

City of Auburn. Auburn is a historic City, located in the foothills (‘Gold Country’) portion of the County. The City

of Lincoln is accessible from SR-193 from the east and SR-65 from the south. Auburn is known for its California

Gold Rush history, and is registered as a California Historical Landmark. As of January 1, 2015 the DOF

estimated the City's population to be 13,813.

SECTION 3.13 TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION

The Transportation and Circulation section was revised to reflect a correction. The change to the

EIR occurs on Page 3.13-3 and 3.13-17. The changes are identified with revision marks (underline

for new text, strike out for deleted text).


State Route 65 (SR-65) runs north/south connecting I-80 to Lincoln and Marysville. The route currently

includes 4-lane freeway segments between I-80 and just north of West Wise RoadNelson Lane, and between

Beale Air Force Base north of Wheatland to SR-70 south of Marysville. The remainder of SR-65 is a 2-lane

highway.


TABLE 3.13-6 PLACER COUNTY LANE MILES

LANE MILES BASE YEAR (2012) YEAR 2036 PLUS PROJECT1

VALUE VALUE%

CHANGE

% CHANGE

General Purpose Freeway 310 317 +8

+2

HOV Lanes 10 11 +1

+10

Freeway Auxiliary/Ramp 22 201 +17 +817

Arterial/Major Surface Streets 556 788 +232

+42

Collectors/Other 1,225 1,193 -31

-3

“Major Roadways” 897 1,156 +259

+29

All Classes 2,122 2,349 +227 +11

NOTES: 1 THIS SCENARIO INCLUDES ALL 2036 RTP TIER I PROJECTS ANTICIPATED TO OCCUR BY 2036.

SOURCE: SACOG 2015 (DATA PROVIDED BY ELIZABETH THEOCHARIDES OF SACOG).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Gold_Rush

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Gold_Rush

3.0 ERRATA



FINAL MMRP 4.0


This document is the Final Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (FMMRP) for the 2036

RTP. This FMMRP has been prepared pursuant to Section 21081.6 of the California Public

Resources Code, which requires public agencies to “adopt a reporting and monitoring program for

the changes made to the project or conditions of project approval, adopted in order to mitigate or

avoid significant effects on the environment.” A FMMRP is required for the proposed project

because the EIR has identified significant adverse impacts, and measures have been identified to

mitigate those impacts.

The numbering of the individual mitigation measures follows the numbering sequence as found in

the Draft EIR. All revisions to mitigation measures that were necessary as a result of responding to

public comments and incorporating staff-initiated revisions have been incorporated into this

FMMRP.

4.1 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM

The FMMRP, as outlined in the following table, describes mitigation timing, monitoring

responsibilities, and compliance verification responsibility for all mitigation measures identified in

this Final EIR. Agencies considering approval of subsequent activities under the 2036 RTP project

would utilize this EIR as the basis in determining potential environmental effects and the

appropriate level of environmental review of a subsequent activity.

The agencies responsible for implementing the mitigation measures (implementing agency) will be

the lead agency for the individual RTP project. The implementing agency for individual projects will

vary by individual project, but will involve one of the following: Placer County Transportation

Planning Agency, Placer County, the Cities of Auburn, Colfax Lincoln, Loomis, Roseville, Rocklin,

and Caltrans District 3. The implementing agency will be responsible to monitor mitigation

measures that are required to be implemented during the operation of the project.

The FMMRP is presented in tabular form on the following pages. The components of the FMMRP

are described briefly below:

Mitigation Measures: The mitigation measures are taken from the Draft EIR and Initial

Study, in the same order that they appear in the Draft EIR and Initial Study.

Mitigation Timing: Identifies at which stage of the project mitigation must be completed.

Monitoring Responsibility: Identifies the agency that is responsible for mitigation

monitoring.

Compliance Verification: This is a space that is available for the monitor to date and initial

when the monitoring took place.

4.0 FINAL MMRP



FINAL MMRP 4.0


TABLE 4.0-1: MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE MONITORING

RESPONSIBILITY TIMING

VERIFICATION

(DATE/INITIALS)

AESTHETICS

Impact 3.1-2: Substantial Adverse Effects on Scenic Resources or Substantial Degradation of Visual Character

Mitigation Measure 3.1-1: The implementing agency shall implement the following measures in the design of RTP projects:

Design transportation systems in a manner where the surrounding landscape dominates.

Design transportation systems to be compatible with the surrounding environment (e.g., colors and materials of construction material).

Design transportation systems such that landscape vegetation blends in and complements the natural landscape.

Design transportation systems such that trees are maintained intact, or if removal is necessary, incorporate new trees into the design.

Design grades to blend with the adjacent landforms and topography.

Implementing Agency

Prior to Design Approval

Mitigation Measure 3.1-2: Prior to the design approval of RTP projects, the implementing agency shall assess whether the project would remove any significant visual resources in the project area, which may include trees, rock outcroppings, and historical buildings, and shall also assess whether the project would significantly obstruct views of scenic resources including historic buildings, trees, rocks, or scenic water features.

If it is determined that the RTP project would remove significant visual resources, the implementing agency shall consider alternative designs that seek to avoid and/or minimize impacts from removal of significant visual resources to the extent feasible. Project-specific design measures may include revisions to the plans to retain trees, rocks, and historic buildings, or replanting of trees, and/or the relocation of scenic features.

If it is determined that the RTP project would significantly obstruct scenic views, the implementing agency shall consider alternative designs that seek to avoid and/or minimize obstruction of scenic views to the extent feasible. Project-specific design measures may include reduction in height of improvements or width of improvements to reduce obstruction of views, or relocation of improvements to reduce obstruction of views.

Implementing Agency


Impact 3.1-3: Creation of New Sources Mitigation Measure 3.1-3: The RTP projects shall be designed to meet Implementing Prior to Design

4.0 FINAL MMRP




VERIFICATION

(DATE/INITIALS)

of Light and Glare minimum safety and security standards and to avoid spillover lighting to sensitive uses. Design measures shall include the following:

Luminaries will be cutoff-type fixtures that cast low-angle illumination to minimize incidental spillover of light onto adjacent private properties and undeveloped open space. Fixtures that project light upward or horizontally will not be used.

Luminaries will be directed away from habitat and open space areas adjacent to the project site.

Luminaries will provide good color rendering and natural light qualities. Low-pressure sodium and high-pressure sodium fixtures that are not color corrected will not be used. Light intensity at roadway intersections and crosswalks will be at approximately low average maintained illumination, as classified by the Recommended Practices for Roadway Lighting of the Illuminating Engineering Society of North American (IESNA). Low average maintained illumination is 1.8 foot-candle for major/major roadways, 1.5 foot-candle at major/collector roadways, 1.3 foot-candle at major/local roadways, 1.2 foot-candle at collector/collector roadways, 1.0 foot-candle at collector/local roadways, and 0.8 foot-candle at local/local roadways.

Luminary mountings will be downcast and the height of the poles minimized to reduce potential for back scatter into the nighttime sky and incidental spillover of light onto adjacent private properties and undeveloped open space. Luminary mountings will have non-glare finishes.

Exterior lighting features shall be directed downward and shielded in order to confine light to the boundaries of the subject project. Where more intense lighting is necessary for safety purposes, the design shall include landscaping to block light from sensitive land uses, such as residences.

Agency Approval

AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES

Impact 3.2-1: Conversion of Farmlands, including Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, and Farmland of Statewide Importance, to Non-Agricultural Uses

Mitigation Measure 3.2-1: Prior to the design approval of RTP projects, the implementing agency shall assess the project area for agricultural constraints. For federally funded projects, the implementing agency shall complete a form AD-1006 to determine the Farmland Conversion Impact Rating in compliance with the Farmland Protection Policy Act. The AD-1006 shall be submitted to the NRCS for approval. For non-federally funded projects, the implementing agency

Implementing Agency


FINAL MMRP 4.0




VERIFICATION

(DATE/INITIALS)

shall assess the project for the presence of important farmlands (prime farmland, unique farmland, farmland of statewide importance), and if present, perform a Land Assessment and Site Evaluation (LESA).

If significant agricultural are identified within the limits of the project, the implementing agency shall consider alternative designs that seek to avoid and/or minimize impacts to the agricultural resources. Design measures may include, but are not limited to, reducing the proposed roadway width or relocating/realigning the improvement to avoid important and significant farmlands. If the improvement cannot be designed without complete avoidance of important or significant farmlands, the implementing agency shall compensate for unavoidable conversion impacts in accordance with the Farmland Protection Policy Act and local and regional standards, which may include enrolling offsite agricultural lands under a Williamson Act contract or other conservation easement, or paying mitigation fees.

Impact 3.2-2: Conflict with Existing Zoning for Agricultural Use or a Williamson Act Contract

Mitigation Measure 3.2-2: Prior to the design approval of individual RTP improvement projects that could impact forest or timber resources, the implementing agency shall retain a qualified arborist, forester, and, or biologist to Assess the potential impacts of tree removal and encroachment activities, and provide recommendations to the implementing agency.

Implementing Agency


AIR QUALITY

Impact 3.3-2: Short-term - Conflict with, or Obstruct, the Applicable Air Quality Plan, Cause a Violation of Air Quality Standards, Contribute Substantially to an Existing Air Quality Violation, or Result in a Cumulatively Considerable Net Increase of a Criteria Pollutant in a Non-Attainment Area

Mitigation Measure 3.3-1: The implementing agency for any construction activities, including dismantling/demolition of structures, processing/moving materials (sand, gravel, rock, dirt, etc.), or operation of machines/equipment, shall prepare a dust control plan in accordance with APCD Rule 218 (Fugitive Dust Emissions). The dust control plan shall use reasonable precautions to prevent dust emissions, which may include: cessation of operations at times, cleanup, sweeping, sprinkling, compacting, enclosure, chemical or asphalt sealing, or other recommended actions by the APCD.

Implementing Agency

Prepare DCP prior to Design Approval, implement DCP during construction.

Impact 3.3-3: Occasional Localized Carbon Monoxide Concentrations from Traffic Conditions at Some Individual Locations

Mitigation Measure 3.3-2: The implementing agency shall screen individual RTP projects at the time of design for localized CO hotspot concentrations and, if necessary, incorporate project-specific measures into the project design to reduce or alleviate CO hotspot concentrations.

Implementing Agency


Impact 3.3-5: Potential to release asbestos from earth movement or

Mitigation Measure 3.3-3: Prior to construction of RTP projects, the implementing agency should assess the site for the presence of asbestos

Implementing Prior commencement

4.0 FINAL MMRP




VERIFICATION

(DATE/INITIALS)

structural asbestos from demolition/renovation of existing structures

including asbestos from structures such as road base, bridges, and other structures. In the event that asbestos is present, the implementing agency should comply with applicable state and local regulations regarding asbestos, including ARB’s asbestos airborne toxic control measure (ATCM) (Title 17, CCR § 93105 and 93106), to ensure that exposure to construction workers and the public is reduced to an acceptable level. This may include the preparation of an Asbestos Hazard Dust Mitigation Plan to be implemented during construction activities.

Agency of construction activities

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES

Impact 3.4-1: Direct or Indirect Effects on Candidate, Sensitive, or Special-Status Species including their Habitat or Movement Corridors

Mitigation Measure 3.4-1: Prior to final design approval of individual projects, the implementing agency shall have a qualified biologist conduct a field reconnaissance of the environmental limits of the project in an effort to identify any biological constraints for the project, including special status plants, animals, and their habitats, as well as protected natural communities including wetland and terrestrial communities. If the biologist identifies protected biological resources within the limits of the project, the implementing agency shall first, prepare alternative designs that seek to avoid and/or minimize impacts to the biological resources. If the project cannot be designed without complete avoidance, the implementing agency shall coordinate with the appropriate regulatory agency (i.e. USFWS, NMFS, CDFW, ACOE) to obtain regulatory permits and implement project-specific mitigation prior to any construction activities.

For projects that are located within the Placer County Conservation Plan (PCCP) plan area, and are constructed after adoption of the PCCP, the implementing agency shall coordinate with the PCCP administrator to verify whether construction within the study area would require a permit. The permit process will require a field reconnaissance of the project study area by an approved biologist in an effort to identify any biological constraints, including covered species or habitat. If the biologist identifies covered species or habitat within the limits of the study limits the implementing agency shall implement all minimization measures and pay the appropriate mitigation fees or provide land in lieu of fees as established by the PCCP.

Implementing Agency


Impact 3.4-2: Adverse Effects on Riparian Habitat or Other Sensitive Natural Community Identified in Local or Regional Plans, Policies,

Mitigation Measure 3.4-2. Prior to approval of RTP projects, the implementing agency shall retain a qualified biologist to perform an assessment of the project area to identify wetlands, riparian, and other sensitive aquatic environments. If wetlands are present the qualified biologist shall

Implementing Agency


FINAL MMRP 4.0




VERIFICATION

(DATE/INITIALS)

Regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, or on Federally Protected Wetlands as Defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act through Direct Removal, Filling, Hydrological Interruption, or Other Means

perform a wetland delineation following the 1987 Army Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. The wetland delineation shall be submitted to the ACOE for verification.

Mitigation Measure 3.4-3. If wetlands, riparian, or other sensitive aquatic environments are found within the project area, the implementing agency shall design or modify the project to avoid direct and indirect impacts on these habitats, if feasible. Additionally, the implementing agency shall minimize the loss of riparian vegetation by trimming rather than removal where feasible.

Prior to construction, the implementing agency shall install orange construction barrier fencing to identify environmentally sensitive areas around the wetland (20' from edge), riparian area (100' from edge), and other aquatic habitats (250' from edge of vernal pool). The location of the fencing shall be marked in the field with stakes and flagging and shown on the construction drawings. The fencing will be installed before construction activities are initiated and will be maintained throughout the construction period. The following paragraph will be included in the construction specifications:

The Contractor’s attention is directed to the areas designated as “environmentally sensitive areas.” These areas are protected, and no entry by the Contractor for any purpose will be allowed unless specifically authorized in writing by the implementing agency. The Contractor will take measures to ensure that Contractor’s forces do not enter or disturb these areas, including giving written notice to employees and subcontractors.

Temporary fences around the environmentally sensitive areas will be installed as the first order of work. Temporary fences will be furnished, constructed, maintained, and removed as shown on the plans, as specified in the special provisions, and as directed by the project engineer. The fencing will be commercial-quality woven polypropylene, orange in color, and at least 4 feet high (Tensor Polygrid or equivalent). The fencing will be tightly strung on posts with a maximum 10-foot spacing.

Immediately upon completion of construction activities the contractor shall stabilize exposed soil/slopes. On highly erodible soils/slopes, use a

Implementing Agency

Prior to Design Approval, and prior to commencement of construction activities

4.0 FINAL MMRP




VERIFICATION

(DATE/INITIALS)

nonvegetative material that binds the soil initially and breaks down within a few years. If more aggressive erosion control treatments are needed, geotextile mats, excelsior blankets, or other soil stabilization products will be used. All stabilization efforts should include habitat restoration efforts.

Mitigation Measure 3.4-4: If wetlands or riparian habitat are disturbed as part of the individual RTP project, the implementing agency shall compensate for the disturbance to ensure no net loss of habitat functions and values. Compensation ratios shall be based on site-specific information and determined through coordination with state, federal, and local agencies as part of the permitting process for the project. Compensation may comprise onsite restoration/creation, off-site restoration, preservation, or mitigation credits (or a combination of these elements). The implementing agency shall develop and implement a restoration and monitoring plan that describes how the habitat shall be created and monitored over a minimum period of time.

Implementing Agency


Impact 3.4-3: Interference with the Movement of Native Resident or Migratory Fish or Wildlife Species or with Established Native Resident or Migratory Wildlife Corridors, or Impede the Use of Native Wildlife Nursery Sites

Mitigation Measure 3.4-5: Prior to design approval of RTP projects that contain movement habitat, the implementing agency shall incorporate economically viable design measures, as applicable and necessary, to allow wildlife or fish to move through the transportation corridor, both during construction activities and post construction. Such measures may include appropriately spaced breaks in a center barrier, or other measures that are designed to allow wildlife to move through the transportation corridor. If the project cannot be designed with these design measures (i.e. due to traffic safety, etc.) the implementing agency shall coordinate with the appropriate regulatory agency (i.e. USFWS, NMFS, CDFW) to obtain regulatory permits and implement alternative project-specific mitigation prior to any construction activities.

Implementing Agency


Impact 3.4-4: Potential Introduction or Spread of Noxious Weeds Associated with the RTP Projects

Mitigation Measure 3.4-6: Prior to approval of RTP projects, the implementing agency shall retain a qualified botanist determine whether noxious weeds are an issue for the project. If the botanist determines that noxious weeds are an issue, the implementing agency shall review the noxious weed list from the County Agricultural Commission, California Department of Food and Agriculture, and the California Exotic Pest Plant Council to identify target weed species for a field survey. Noxious weed infestations shall be mapped and documented. The implementing agency shall incorporate the following measures into project plans and specifications:

Certified, weed-free, imported erosion-control materials (or rice straw in upland areas) will be used.

Implementing Agency


FINAL MMRP 4.0




VERIFICATION

(DATE/INITIALS)

The project sponsor will coordinate with the county agricultural commissioner and land management agencies to ensure that the appropriate BMPs are implemented.

Construction supervisors and managers will be educated about noxious weed identification and the importance of controlling and preventing their spread.

Equipment will be cleaned at designated wash stations after leaving noxious weed infestation areas.

Impact 3.4-5: Conflicts with an Adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, Recovery Plan, or Local Policies or Ordinances Protecting Biological Resources (less than significant with mitigation)

Mitigation Measure 3.4-7: If the PCCP has been adopted, prior to design approval of individual projects, the implementing agency shall coordinate with Placer County (or the designated agency responsible for implementing the PCCP) to determine the appropriate coverage, permits, compensatory mitigation or fees, and project specific avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures.

Implementing Agency


CULTURAL RESOURCES

Impact 3.5-1: Damage to or the Destruction of Archaeological Resources from Construction of RTP Projects

Mitigation Measure 3.5-1: During environmental review of individual RTP improvement projects, the implementing agencies shall retain a qualified architectural historian to inventory and evaluate architectural resources located in project area using criteria for listing in the California Register of Historic Resources. In addition, the resources would be recorded by the architectural historian on appropriate California Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) 523 forms, photographed, and mapped. The DPR forms shall be produced and forwarded to the Central California Information Center. If federal funding or approval is required, then the implementing agency shall comply with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act.

If architectural resources are deemed as potentially eligible for the California Register of Historic Resources or the National Register of Historic Places, the implementing shall consider avoidance through project redesign as feasible. If avoidance is not feasible, the implementing agencies shall ensure that the historic resource is formally documented through the use of large-format photography, measured drawings, written architectural descriptions, and historical narratives. The documentation shall be entered into the Library of Congress, and archived in the California Historical Resources Information System. In the event of building relocation, the implementing agency shall ensure that any alterations to significant buildings or structures conform to the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation and Guidelines for

Implementing Agency


4.0 FINAL MMRP




VERIFICATION

(DATE/INITIALS)

Rehabilitating Historic Buildings.

Impact 3.5-2: Inadvertent Discovery of Human Remains during Construction of RTP Projects

Mitigation Measure 3.5-2: During environmental review of individual RTP improvement projects, the implementing agencies shall:

Consult with the United Auburn Indian Community (UAIC) to determine whether a project could affect cultural resources that may be of importance to the UAIC. Provide the UAIC with copies of any archaeological reports, environmental documents, and mitigation measures that are prepared for a project. Consult with the UAIC to determine if tribal monitors are needed for field surveys on individual projects.

Consult with the Native American Heritage Commission to determine whether known sacred sites are in the project area, and identify the Native American(s) to contact to obtain information about the project area.

Conduct a records search at the Central California Information Center of the California Historical Resources Information System to determine whether the project area has been previously surveyed and whether resources were identified.

In the event the records indicate that no previous survey has been conducted, the Central California Information Center will make a recommendation on whether a survey is warranted based on the archaeological sensitivity of the project area. If recommended, a qualified archaeologist shall be retained to conduct archaeological surveys. The significance of any resources that are determined to be in the project area shall be assessed according to the applicable local, state, and federal significance criteria. Implementing agencies shall devise treatment measures to ameliorate “substantial adverse changes” to significant archaeological resources, in consultation with qualified archaeologists and other concerned parties. Such treatment measures may include avoidance through project redesign, data recovery excavation, and public interpretation of the resource. Implementing agencies and the contractors performing the improvements shall adhere to the following requirements:

If an improvement project is located in an area rich with cultural materials, the implementing agency shall retain a qualified

Implementing Agency

Prior to Design Approval, and during construction activities

FINAL MMRP 4.0




VERIFICATION

(DATE/INITIALS)

archaeologist to monitor any subsurface operations, including but not limited to grading, excavation, trenching, or removal of existing features of the subject property.

If, during the course of construction cultural resources (i.e., prehistoric sites, historic sites, and isolated artifacts and features) are discovered work shall be halted immediately within 50 meters (165 feet) of the discovery, the implementing agency shall be notified, and a qualified archaeologist that meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards in prehistoric or historical archaeology shall be retained to determine the significance of the discovery.

The implementing agency shall consider mitigation recommendations presented by a professional archaeologist that meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards in prehistoric or historical archaeology for any unanticipated discoveries and shall carry out the measures deemed feasible and appropriate. Such measures may include avoidance, preservation in place, excavation, documentation, curation, data recovery, or other appropriate measures. The project proponent shall be required to implement any mitigation necessary for the protection of cultural resources.

Impact 3.5-3: Damage to or the Destruction of Paleontological Resources from Construction of RTP Projects

Mitigation Measure 3.5-3: During environmental review of RTP projects, the implementing agencies shall retain a qualified paleontologist to identify, survey, and evaluate paleontological resources where potential impacts are considered high. All construction activities shall avoid known paleontological resources, if feasible, especially if the resources in a particular lithologic unit formation have been determined to be unique or likely to contain paleontological resources. If avoidance is not feasible, paleontological resources should be excavated by a qualified paleontologist and given to a local agency, State University, or other applicable institution, where they could be curated and displayed for public education purposes.

Implementing Agency


Impact 3.5-4: Damage to or the Destruction of Historical Resources from Construction of RTP Projects

Mitigation Measure 3.5-4: Implement Stop-Work and Consultation Procedures Mandated by Public Resources Code 5097. In the event of discovery or recognition of any human remains during construction or excavation activities associated with an RTP project, the implementing agency shall cease further excavation or disturbance of the site or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent human remains until the following steps are taken:

Implementing Agency

Prior to Design Approval, and during construction

4.0 FINAL MMRP




VERIFICATION

(DATE/INITIALS)

The Placer County Coroner has been informed and has determined that no investigation of the cause of death is required. If the remains are of Native American origin, either of the following steps will be taken: (1) The coroner will contact the Native American Heritage Commission in order to ascertain the proper descendants from the deceased individual. The coroner will make a recommendation to the landowner or the person responsible for the excavation work, for means of treating or disposing of, with appropriate dignity, the human remains and any associated grave goods, which may include obtaining a qualified archaeologist or team of archaeologists to properly excavate the human remains. (2) The implementing agency or its authorized representative will retain a Native American monitor, and an archaeologist, if recommended by the Native American monitor, and rebury the Native American human remains and any associated grave goods, with appropriate dignity, on the property and in a location that is not subject to further subsurface disturbance when any of the following conditions occurs: (a) The Native American Heritage Commission is unable to identify a descendent. (b) The descendant identified fails to make a recommendation. (c) The implementing agency or its authorized representative rejects the recommendation of the descendant, and the mediation by the Native American Heritage Commission fails to provide measures acceptable to the landowner.

GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS

Impact 3.6.1: Effects on Climate Change and Global Warming

Mitigation Measure 3.6-1: The PCTPA should continue to explore the feasibility of a transportation pricing policy for the transit system and selected portions of the road network to encourage people to drive less and increase use of transit, walking and bicycling modes. The PCTPA should continue to participate and host programs that are deemed feasible by the PCTPA for the region to incentivize alternative transportation modes (e.g. Spare the Air program, Commuter Club, Bucks for Bikes program, $10 Youth Summer Pass program, Walk to School Program, and Emergency Ride Home Services).

Implementing Agency

On-going

Mitigation Measure 3.6-2: The PCTPA should consider incorporating a complete streets policy with a strong focus on identifying opportunities to create more active transportation within the region (i.e. bike and pedestrian facilities).

Implementing Agency

On-going

Mitigation Measure 3.6-3: Consistent with Appendix F of the CEQA Guidelines, the agencies implementing RTP projects should: Implementing On-going

FINAL MMRP 4.0




VERIFICATION

(DATE/INITIALS)

Promote measures to reduce wasteful, inefficient and unnecessary consumption of energy during construction, operation, maintenance and/or removal. As the individual RTP projects are designed there should be an explanation as to why certain measures were incorporated in the RTP project and why other measures were dismissed.

Site, orient, and design projects to minimize energy consumption, increase water conservation and reduce solid-waste.

Promote efforts to reduce peak energy demand in the design and operation of RTP projects.

Promote the use of alternate fuels (particularly renewable ones) or energy systems for RTP projects.

Promote efforts to recycle materials used in the construction (including demolition phase) of RTP projects.

Agency

Mitigation Measure 3.6-4: The PCTPA should coordinate with local and regional agencies to assist in efforts to develop local and regional CAPs (Climate Action Plans) and/or General Plan policy that address climate change and greenhouse gas emissions. Some local agencies in Placer County have adopted a local CAP (Roseville 2009 and Rocklin 2012), or are in the process of preparing a local CAP (Lincoln, in process) to address climate change and greenhouse gas emissions. Local and regional CAPs should include the following components:

Baseline inventory of GHG emissions from community and municipal sources.

A target reduction goal consistent with AB 32.

Policies and measures to reduce GHG emissions.

Quantification of the effectiveness of the proposed policies and measures.

A monitoring program to track the effectiveness and implementation of the CAP(s).

PCTPA’s role in the development of local and regional CAPs should include:

Assistance in seeking and securing funding for the development of local and regional CAPs.

Collaboration with local and regional agencies throughout their respective planning processes.

Implementing Agency

On-going

4.0 FINAL MMRP




VERIFICATION

(DATE/INITIALS)

Mitigation Measure 3.6-5: PCTPA has included alternative vehicle

fueling/charging stations in the RTP. PCTPA should consider the development of

an Alternative Fuel Vehicle (AFV) and Infrastructure Policy in the future and assist

local agencies with the development of an Alternative Fuel Vehicle (AFV) and

Infrastructure Policy. In developing an AFV policy, PCTPA should consider the

studies prepared by SACOG (i.e. TakeCharge II: Infrastructure Roadmap). The

policy could include provisions that address best practices, and standards related

to saving energy and reducing GHG emissions through AFV use, including:

A procurement policy for using AFV by franchisees of these cities, such

as trash haulers, green waste haulers, street sweepers, and curbside

recyclable haulers. Such AFVs should have GHG emissions that are

lower than comparable gasoline- or diesel- powered vehicles.

To the extent that is deemed economically feasible for the local agency,

a fleet purchase policy to increase the number of AFVs (i.e., vehicles not

powered strictly by gasoline or diesel fuel) for municipally owned fleets.

A public education policy to encourage the use of alternative fuel

vehicles and development of supporting infrastructure.

Implementing Agency

On-going

GEOLOGICAL AND MINERAL RESOURCES

Impact 3.7‐1: Potential to expose people or structures to potential adverse effects involving rupture of a fault or strong seismic ground shaking (less than significant with mitigation)

Mitigation Measure 3.7‐1: Conduct project‐level seismic hazard evaluations and design those project facilities according to the California Building Code. Implementing agencies will ensure evaluations of seismic ground shaking hazards for all individual improvement projects at the project level. Based on these evaluations, the implementing agencies will ensure that design and construction of all new facilities are constructed in accordance with the most appropriate building standards to minimize the potential impacts to new facilities.

Implementing Agency


Impact 3.7‐3: Potential to be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the Project, and potentially result in on‐ or off‐site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse

Mitigation Measure 3.7‐2: Conduct site‐specific geotechnical investigations for liquefaction, slope stability, lateral spreading, settlement, and subsidence. Implementing agencies will ensure that site specific geotechnical investigations are conducted before or during the preliminary and/or final design stages of the individual RTP improvement projects to identify and characterize areas that may be susceptible to these geological conditions. These site‐specific investigations may range from limited screening investigations to identify obvious hazards, to very detailed subsurface investigations. The findings of these site‐specific investigations will serve as the basis for the final design of the

Implementing Agency


FINAL MMRP 4.0




VERIFICATION

(DATE/INITIALS)

(less than significant with mitigation) proposed projects and ensure that appropriate geotechnical methods are used to avoid or minimize the potential for damage to project‐related facilities.

Impact 3.7‐4: Potential to result in risks from expansive soil (less than significant with mitigation)

Mitigation Measure 3.7‐3: Conduct site‐specific geotechnical investigations for expansive soils and implement appropriate, proven geotechnical methods. Implementing agencies will conduct site specific geotechnical investigations before or during the preliminary and/or final design stages of the individual RTP improvement projects to identify areas with expansive soils. The findings of these site specific investigations would serve as the basis for the final design of the proposed projects and ensure that appropriate, proven geotechnical methods are used to avoid or minimize the potential for expansive soils and sediments to damage project‐related structures. The exact methods that would be used to address potential expansive soil issues may include the selective placement of expansive fill materials; the use of imported, non‐expansive fill materials; or other methods of ground improvement.

Implementing Agency


HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS

Impact 3.8-4: Impact from being included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5

Mitigation Measure 3.8-1: Prior to approval of individual RTP improvement projects, the implementing agency should perform a Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment that includes a review of all known databases for contaminated sites. If it is determined that a project is located on or near a contaminated site a Phase II Environmental Site Assessment should be performed to sample the soils/groundwater and further investigate the extent of the contamination. Based on the results of the Phase II Environmental Site Assessment, the implementing agency should devise a remediation plan or avoid disturbance of contaminated areas, in compliance with appropriate regulatory agency requirements. All work should be conducted under a work plan approved by the regulatory oversight agency and should be conducted by a registered environmental assessor (pursuant to 22 CCR 69200).

Implementing Agency


HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY

Impact 3.9-1: Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements

Mitigation Measure 3.9-1: Comply with NPDES General Construction Permit requirements. To reduce or eliminate construction-related water quality effects, the implementing agency will ensure that transportation improvement projects comply with the requirements of the NPDES General Construction Permit. Project implementation agencies are required to obtain coverage under the General Construction Permit before the onset of any construction

Implementing Agency

Prior to the commencement of construction

4.0 FINAL MMRP




VERIFICATION

(DATE/INITIALS)

activities, where the disturbed area is 1 acre or greater in size.

A SWPPP will be developed by a qualified engineer or erosion control specialist in accordance with the NPDES General Construction Permit requirements. The SWPPP will be implemented prior to the issuance of any grading permit before construction. The SWPPP will be kept on site during construction activity and will be made available upon request to representatives of the RWQCB.

Compliance and coverage under the NPDES General Construction Permit will require controls of pollutant discharges that utilize BMPs and technology to reduce erosion and sediments to meet water quality standards. BMPs may consist of a wide variety of measures taken to reduce pollutants in stormwater runoff from the construction site. Measures may include, temporary erosion control measures (such as silt fences, staked straw bales/wattles, silt/sediment basins and traps, check dams, geofabric, sandbag dikes, and temporary revegetation or other ground cover) will be employed to control erosion from disturbed areas.

Final selection of BMPs will be subject to approval by the implementing agency. The implementing agency will verify that an NOI has been filed with the SWRCB, and a SWPPP has been developed before allowing construction to begin.

Mitigation Measure 3.9-2: Implement a Spill Prevention and Control Program. As part of requiring compliance with the NPDES General Construction Permit, the implementing agency and its agents will develop and implement a spill prevention and control program to minimize the potential for, and effects from, spills of hazardous, toxic, or petroleum substances during all construction activities. The program will be completed before any construction activities begin.

Implementing Agency

Prior to Design Approval, and during construction

Mitigation Measure 3.9-3: Implement measures to maintain water quality after construction. The project implementing agencies will implement source and treatment control measures according to the Stormwater Quality Control Criteria Plan (San Joaquin County 2005). For new development and redevelopment projects, general site design control measures are required to minimize the volume and rate of stormwater runoff discharge from the project site. General site design control measures incorporated into the project design can include:

conserving natural areas; protecting slopes and channels; minimizing impervious areas;

Implementing Agency

Prior to Design Approval, during/after construction

FINAL MMRP 4.0




VERIFICATION

(DATE/INITIALS)

storm drain identification, and appropriate messaging and signing; and

minimizing effective imperviousness through the use of turf buffers and/or grass-lined channels, if feasible.

In addition, new development and redevelopment projects must include treatment control measures, if possible and when feasible, to remove pollutants from stormwater runoff prior to discharge to the storm drain system or receiving water. Treatment control measures may include, but not be limited to, the following:

Vegetated buffer strip Vegetated swale Extended detention basin Wet pond Constructed wetland Detention basin/sand filter Porous pavement detention Porous landscape detention Infiltration basin Infiltration trench Media filter Retention/irrigation Proprietary control device

Selection and implementation of these measures would be based on a project-by-project basis depending on project size and stormwater treatment needs.

Mitigation Measure 3.9-4: Comply with provisions for dewatering. Before discharging any dewatered effluent to surface water, the project implementation agency will obtain an NPDES permit and Waste Discharge Requirement from the Central Valley RWQCB. Depending on the volume and characteristics of the discharge, coverage under the NPDES General Construction Permit may be permissible. If coverage under the General Construction Permit is not allowed, the project will conform to requirements of the General Dewatering Permit, issued by the Central Valley RWQCB. The project implementation agencies will design and implement measures as necessary so that the discharge limits identified in the relevant permit are met.

Implementing Agency

Prior to Design Approval, during/after construction

Impact 3.9-3: Alter the existing drainage pattern in a manner which

Mitigation Measure 3.9-5: Conduct project-level drainage studies. As part of the infrastructure plan, the project implementation agencies and/or their

Implementing Prior to Design

4.0 FINAL MMRP




VERIFICATION

(DATE/INITIALS)

would result in substantial erosion, siltation, flooding, or polluted runoff.

contractors will conduct a drainage study. This study will address the following topics:

A calculation of pre-development runoff conditions and post-development runoff scenarios using appropriate engineering methods. This analysis will evaluate potential changes to runoff through specific design criteria, and account for increased surface runoff.

An assessment of existing drainage facilities within the project area, and an inventory of necessary upgrades, replacements, redesigns, and/or rehabilitation, including the sizing of on-site stormwater detention features and pump stations.

A description of the proposed maintenance program for the onsite drainage system.

Standards for drainage systems to be installed on a project/parcel-specific basis.

Proposed design measures to ensure structures are not located within 100-year floodplain areas.

Drainage systems will be designed in accordance with the County’s, Flood Control Agency’s, and other applicable flood control design criteria. As a performance standard, measures to be implemented from those studies will provide for no net increase in peak stormwater discharge relative to current conditions, ensure that 100-year flooding and its potential impacts are maintained at or below current levels, and that people and structures are not exposed to additional flood risk.

Agency Approval

Mitigation Measure 3.9-6: Avoid restriction of flood flows. Proposed projects requiring federal approval or funding will comply with Executive Order 11988 for floodplain management. Projects will avoid incompatible floodplain development designs, they will restore and preserve the natural and beneficial floodplain values, and they will maintain consistency with the standards and criteria of the National Flood Insurance Program. In addition, a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) will be prepared and submitted to FEMA where unavoidable construction would occur within 100-year floodplains. The LOMR will include revised local base flood elevations for projects constructed within flood prone areas. Potential impacts due to flooding as a result of RTP projects are assumed to be alleviated through the FEMA LOMR approval process.

Implementing Agency


Mitigation Measure 3.9-7: Avoid project dewatering. Project designs that require continual de-watering activities for the life of the projects will be avoided if possible. Due to the potential for flooding and destabilizing

Implementing Agency


FINAL MMRP 4.0




VERIFICATION

(DATE/INITIALS)

conditions, project implementation agencies will choose project designs that do not require continual dewatering, if suitable project alternatives exist. Project alternatives may include construction of overpasses, as opposed to below-grade underpasses, which would avoid interception with groundwater.

Impact 3.9.7 Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam, seiche, tsunami, or mudflow.

Mitigation Measure 3.9-8: Design projects to pass flows in the event of levee or dam failure. If the proposed project would have the potential to impede or redirect flows from a levee or dam failure, such that there would be less than a one percent chance that flooding would extend to areas not previously mapped as inundation areas, the project applicant will redesign the project, to the maximum extent practicable, such that the site would exhibit pre-project inundation conditions. This may be achieved through incorporation of culverts or bridges into the project design. The project applicant would consult with the California and San Joaquin Offices of Emergency Services to ensure that the flooding risks of pre-project conditions would not increase.

Implementing Agency


LAND USE PLANNING AND POPULATION

Impact 3.10-1: Physical Division of an Established Community

Mitigation Measure 3.10-1: Prior to approval of RTP projects, the implementing agency shall consult with local planning staff to ensure that the project will not physically divide the community. The consultation should include a more detailed project-level analysis of land uses adjacent to proposed improvements to identify specific impacts. The analysis should consider new road widths and specific project locations in relation to existing roads. If it is determined that a project could physically divide a community, the implementing agency shall redesign the project to avoid the impact, if feasible. The measures could include realignment of the improvements to avoid the affected community. Where avoidance is not feasible, the implementing agency shall incorporate minimization measures to reduce the impact. The measures could include: alignment modifications, right-of-way reductions, provisions for bicycle, pedestrian, and vehicle facilities, and enhanced landscaping and architecture.

Implementing Agency


NOISE

Impact 3.11-1: Exposure of Noise-Sensitive Land Uses to Short-Term Construction Noise

Mitigation Measure 3.11-1: Subsequent projects under the RTP shall be designed and implemented to reduce adverse construction noise and vibration impacts to sensitive receptors, as feasible. Measures to reduce noise and vibration effects may include, but are not limited to:

Implementing Agency


4.0 FINAL MMRP




VERIFICATION

(DATE/INITIALS)

Limit noise-generating construction activities, excluding those that would result in a safety concern to workers or the public, to the least noise-sensitive daytime hours, which is generally 6am to 9pm.

Construction of temporary sound barriers to shield noise-sensitive land uses.

Location of noise-generating stationary equipment (e.g., power generators, compressors, etc.) at the furthest practical distance from nearby noise-sensitive land uses.

Phase demolition, earth-moving and ground-impacting operations so as not to occur in the same time period.

Use of equipment noise-reduction devices (e.g., mufflers, intake silencers, and engine shrouds) in accordance with manufacturers’ recommendations.

Substituting noise/vibration-generating equipment with equipment or procedures that would generate lower levels of noise/vibration. For instance, in comparison to impact piles, drilled piles or the use of a sonic or vibratory pile driver are preferred alternatives where geological conditions would permit their use.

Other specific measures as they are deemed appropriate by the implementing agency to maintain consistency with adopted policies and regulations regarding noise.

Comply with all local noise control and noise rules, regulations, and ordinances.

Impact 3.11-2: Exposure of Noise-Sensitive Land Uses to Increases in Traffic Noise (less than significant with mitigation)

Mitigation Measures 3.11-2: Prior to approval of RTP projects, the implementing agency shall perform a project-level noise evaluation. For projects adjacent to noise-sensitive uses, implementing agencies shall consider the following measures:

Construct vegetative earth berms with mature trees and landscaping to attenuate roadway noise on adjacent residences or other sensitive use, and /or sound walls or other similar sound-attenuating buffers, as appropriate.

Properly zone, buffer, and restrict development to ensure that future development is compatible with transportation facilities.

Design projects to maximize the distance between noise-sensitive land uses and new roadway lanes, roadways, rail lines, transit centers, park-and-ride lots, and other new noise generating facilities.

Improve the acoustical insulation of residential units where setbacks and sound barriers do not sufficiently reduce noise.

Implementing Agency


FINAL MMRP 4.0




VERIFICATION

(DATE/INITIALS)

Establish speed limits and limits on hours of operation of rail and transit systems.

UTILITIES, PUBLIC SERVICES AND

RECREATION

Impact 3.12-1: The proposed project has the potential to exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board.

Mitigation Measure 3.12-1: Project implementation agencies shall evaluate the impacts to wastewater treatment, as part of project-specific environmental review. For any identified impacts, appropriate mitigation measures shall be identified. The project implementation agencies or local jurisdiction shall be responsible for ensuring adherence to the mitigation measures.

Implementing Agency


Impact 3.12-2: The proposed project has the potential to result in a determination by the wastewater treatment and/or collection provider which serves or may serve the project that is does not have adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments

Mitigation Measure 3.12-2: Prior to construction of facilities that would require wastewater treatment services; the implementing agency shall secure adequate wastewater treatment capacity and undertake project-level review as necessary to provide CEQA compliance.

Implementing Agency


Impact 3.12-3: The proposed project has the potential to require or result in the construction of new wastewater treatment or collection facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects

Mitigation Measure 3.12-3: The implementing agencies shall be required to provide CEQA review for all projects that require additional wastewater infrastructure upgrades. Projects shall be analyzed on a case by case basis to determine if construction or expansion of wastewater treatment and collection facilities, and or infrastructure upgrades of existing and new facilities would cause significant environmental effects. Implementing agencies shall determine appropriate mitigation measures that are project specific.

Implementing Agency


Impact 3.12-4: The proposed project has the potential to require construction of new water treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects

Mitigation Measure 3.12-4: The implementing agencies shall be required to provide CEQA review for all projects that may require additional water treatment upgrades. Projects shall be analyzed on a case by case basis to determine if construction or expansion of water treatment facilities, and or infrastructure upgrades of existing and new facilities would cause significant environmental effects.

Implementing Agency


4.0 FINAL MMRP




VERIFICATION

(DATE/INITIALS)

Impact 3.12-5: The proposed project has the potential to have insufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources

Mitigation Measure 3.12-5: Prior to construction of facilities that would require water service for potable consumption and landscaping purposes; the implementing agency shall secure adequate water supplies to serve the proposed project and undertake project-level review as necessary to provide CEQA compliance. Wherever feasible, facilities should implement water conservation practices including but not limited to: the use of reclaimed water instead of potable water for landscaping purposes, low flow fixtures, and water efficient landscape design.

Implementing Agency


Impact 3.12-6: The proposed project has the potential to require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects

Mitigation Measure 3.12-6: The implementing agency shall require projects to direct stormwater run-off and other surface drainage into an adequate on-site system or into a municipal system with capacity to accept the project drainage. This should be demonstrated by requiring consistency with local stormwater drainage master plans, and include a project-specific drainage analysis satisfactory to the jurisdiction’s engineer.

Implementing Agency


Impact 3.12-7: The proposed project has the potential to be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs and comply with federal, State, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste

Mitigation Measure 3.12-7: Prior to construction of transportation improvements and facilities that generate solid waste or require solid waste services; the implementing agency shall ensure receiving landfills have adequate solid waste capacity to serve additional project waste volumes. Additionally the implementing agency shall:

Require the construction contractor to work with the County Recycling Coordinator to ensure that source reduction techniques and recycling measures are incorporated into project construction.

Require the amount of solid waste generated during construction to be estimated prior to construction, and appropriate disposal sites will be identified and utilized.

For individual projects that include facilities that produce ongoing waste streams (including trash receptacles) the implementing agency shall where feasible:

Require waste reduction strategies including but not limited to: convenient recycling stations (onsite recycling receptacles) at all solid waste collection (trash receptacle) locations. Waste reduction strategies shall be coordinated with the County Recycling Coordinator.

Implementing Agency


TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION

FINAL MMRP 4.0




VERIFICATION

(DATE/INITIALS)

Impact 3.13-2: The Proposed Project could result in the alteration of present patterns of vehicular, bicycle, and pedestrian circulation, increased traffic delay, and increased traffic hazards during construction of future projects. (less than significant with mitigation)

Mitigation Measure 3.13-1: The implementing agencies shall to develop a traffic control plan for construction projects to reduce the effects of construction on the roadway system throughout the construction period. As part of the traffic control plan, project proponents shall coordinate with emergency service providers to ensure that emergency routes are identified and remain available during construction activities.

Implementing Agency


FINAL MMRP 4.0



REPORT PREPARERS 5.0



Celia McAdam .................................................................................................. Executive Director

Aaron Hoyt ........................................................................................................ Associate Planner

DE NOVO PLANNING GROUP

Steve McMurtry....................................................................... Principal Planner/Project Manager

Ben Ritchie ......................................................................................................... Principal Planner

Beth Thompson .................................................................................................. Principal Planner

Josh Smith ......................................................................................................... Associate Planner

William Crenshaw .............................................................................................. Associate Planner

5.0 REPORT PREPARERS



MEMORANDUM




Aaron Hoyt, Associate Planner

SUBJECT: ADOPTION OF THE FINAL PLACER COUNTY 2036 REGIONAL

TRANSPORTATION PLAN

ACTION REQUESTED

Approve Resolution No. 16-07 adopting the Placer County 2036 Regional Transportation Plan

(RTP).

BACKGROUND

The Placer County 2036 RTP is a long-range transportation funding plan that identifies future

transportation improvements, associated costs, projected revenues, and the timing for

implementation of projects through 2036. Developed to fulfill State requirements of AB 402

(Government Code Title 7, Chapter 25, Sections 65080-65082), the Placer County 2036 RTP

also serves as the mechanism by which local transportation projects demonstrate eligibility to

receive funding from various state and federal funding programs.

The projects contained in the Placer County 2036 RTP are integrated into the larger six-county

regional planning efforts led by the Sacramento Area Council of Governments' (SACOG)

through our Memorandum of Understanding (MOU). SACOG’s Metropolitan Transportation

Plan (MTP) meets the federal planning requirement and the state’s requirements to develop a

Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) pursuant to Senate Bill 375.

The PCTPA Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) has reviewed the goals, policies and

objectives, project lists, and financial forecasts during the preparation of the document. In

February 2014, the Board reviewed and approved the draft Policy Element. In September 2014,

the Board reviewed and approved the draft project list and financial forecasts.

DISCUSSION

The development of the draft Placer County 2036 RTP was initiated in parallel with the SACOG

MTP/SCS update in 2013. Close coordination during the development of each plan was critical

to ensure consistency in the identification of transportation projects, forecasted population

growth and revenue projections, and public outreach given the similar and overlapping nature of

the plans. The close coordination offered efficiencies in local jurisdiction staff meetings, early

consultation with the United Auburn Indian Community of the Auburn Rancheria, and a joint

public outreach meeting at the Rocklin Johnson-Springview Park during a Rocklin Food Truck

event in October 2014.

PCTPA conducted a continuous and comprehensive public outreach during the preparation of the

document by engaging citizens through focus groups, statistically valid polling, and more than


ADOPTION OF THE FINAL 2036 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN

February 2016

Page 2

30 presentations to business, civic, and community groups such as the Municipal Advisory

Committees, Rotatory Clubs, and Chambers of Commerce.

A public hearing on the Draft Placer County 2036 RTP was held on January 27, 2016 during the

68 day public review period. All comments have been considered for incorporation into the Final

Placer County 2036 RTP which was publically released on February 12, 2016 and was made

available on the www.pctpa.net website. The Final Placer County 2036 RTP is provided under

separate cover to this memo.

One comment letter was received from the Department of Transportation – Caltrans District 3,

but there were no comments suggesting changes to goals, policies, project lists, or financial

forecasts. The following list summarizes new or enhanced information incorporated into the

Final Placer County 2036 RTP:

Updates to reflect references to the passage of the recently adopted federal transportation

bill, Fixing Americas Surface Transportation (FAST) Act, and adoption of the California

Strategic Highway Safety Plan and the California State Wildlife Action Plan;

Enhanced discussion of State’s Road User Charge Pilot Plan;

Enhancements to socioeconomic indicators;

Enhancements to the Air Quality element to highlight the similar, but distinct topics of

Air Quality Conformity and Global Warming/Climate Change/ and Greenhouse Gases;

Enhance clarity to distinguish between the financially constrained and unconstrained

projects contained in the RTP;

Add reference to mitigation activities that are anticipated to result from the

implementation of the 2036 RTP; and

Enhanced discussion and documentation regarding consultation and coordination with

appropriate federal, state, regional and local agencies, tribal governments, various

stakeholder groups, and the public.

With TAC concurrence, staff recommends that the Board adopt the Placer County 2036 Regional

Transportation Plan by resolution following certification of the associated Final Environmental

Impact Report.

CM:AH:

http://www.pctpa.net/


IN THE MATTER OF: ADOPTION OF THE RESOLUTION NO. 16-07

2036 PLACER COUNTY REGIONAL

TRANSPORTATION PLAN

The following resolution was duly passed by the Placer County Transportation Planning Agency

at a regular meeting held February 24, 2016 by the following vote on roll call:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:


_______________________________________

Chair


_________________________________

Executive Director


created as a local area planning agency to provide regional transportation planning for the area

of Placer County, exclusive of the Lake Tahoe Basin;

WHEREAS, California Government Code Section 29532.1(c) identifies PCTPA as the

designated regional transportation planning agency for Placer County, exclusive of the Lake

Tahoe Basin;

WHEREAS, the 2036 Placer County Regional Transportation Plan was developed to fulfill the

requirements of AB 402 (Government Code Title 7, Chapter 2.5, Sections 65080-65082), using

specific guidance from the California Transportation Commission Regional Transportation plan

Guidelines (revised April 2010), as well as federal planning requirements under the FAST-Act,

and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA);

WHEREAS, the 2036 Placer County Regional Transportation Plan provides a clear vision of

Placer County’s transportation goals, objectives and policies, which result in the development of

a balanced, comprehensive, multi-modal transportation system over the next twenty years;

WHEREAS, the 2036 Placer County Regional Transportation Plan documents the actions and

funding recommendations intended to meet both short- and long-range needs of Placer

County’s transportation systems within the plan’s horizon;

WHEREAS, the draft 2036 Placer County Regional Transportation Plan was distributed for

public comments during a 68-day review period, beginning November 20, 2015 and concluding

January 27, 2016;

WHEREAS, a public hearing was noticed and held on January 27, 2016, to receive comments

on the draft 2036 Placer County Regional Transportation Plan;

WHEREAS, the PCTPA Board of Directors, by Resolution No. 16-06 has certified the

Environmental Impact Report on the 2036 Placer County Regional Transportation Plan (SCH

#2015062014), has adopted findings of fact, a statement of overriding considerations, and a

mitigation monitoring and reporting program pursuant to the California Environmental Quality

Act (Public Resources Code Sections 21000 et seq.) supporting adoption of the 2036 Placer

County Regional Transportation Plan; and

WHEREAS, all of the comments provided have been considered and addressed in the final 2036

Placer County Regional Transportation Plan.

THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Placer County Transportation Planning Agency

hereby adopts the 2036 Placer County Regional Transportation Plan.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Executive Director is authorized to submit the 2036

Placer County Regional Transportation Plan to the Sacramento Area Council of Governments

(SACOG) as the Placer County portion of the SACOG 2016 Metropolitan Transportation Plan.

MEMORANDUM

299 Nevada Street ∙ Auburn, CA 95603 ∙ (530) 823-4030 ∙ FAX 823-4036 www.pctpa.org



SUBJECT: PRELIMINARY DRAFT FY 2016/17 OVERALL WORK PROGRAM

(OWP) AND BUDGET

ACTION REQUESTED

Authorize the Executive Director to submit the attached preliminary draft FY 2016/17 Overall

Work Program (OWP) and Budget to Caltrans.

BACKGROUND

Each Regional Transportation Planning Agency (RTPA) must submit a draft OWP to Caltrans no

later than March 1 of each year.

The OWP should provide a description of the activities to be undertaken by the agency in the

coming year, along with detailed budget information. The attached draft OWP and Budget has

been developed in compliance with these requirements and has been reviewed by the Technical

Advisory Committee and Caltrans staff. The draft will undergo continued refinement, as staff

receives comments from the Board, Caltrans, and jurisdictions, and as information on grant

awards and state budget allocations becomes available. A final FY 2016/17 OWP will be

presented for Board approval at your May meeting.

DISCUSSION

Work Program

The Agency took on several major planning and implementation efforts over the past several

years that have hit major milestones impacting the FY 2016/17 work program. The Regional

Transportation Plan Update, the I-80 Auxiliary Lanes, the I-80 and SR 65 Improvement

Sequencing, and Rural Transit Study are expected to be completed in FY 2015/16, and the

Regional Transportation Funding Strategy is expected to conclude by August 2016, as shown in

the attached document.

The conclusion of these multi-year activities creates the opportunity to consolidate and

modernize several work elements to be more descriptive of the current planning and funding

landscape. The work program changes Work Element 20 from Regional Transportation Plan,

which incorporated work with SACOG on the Metropolitan Transportation Plan and Sustainable

Communities Strategies, to encompass overall work with SACOG on Federal and State long

range planning activities. This also allows us to consolidate Work Element 55 into Work

Element 50 to encompass all Project Planning and Reporting.

As always, the Work Program maintains our strong focus on core Agency activities, such as

Transportation Development Act (TDA) administration, State and Federal transportation

programming compliance, Freeway Service Patrol and Congestion Management Program

implementation, and management of various Joint Powers Authorities (JPAs) including the


PRELIMINARY DRAFT FY 2016/17 OWP and BUDGET

February 2016

Page 2

South Placer Regional Transportation Authority (SPRTA) and the Western Placer Consolidated

Transit Services Agency (CTSA).

Proposed for FY 2016/17 are two major plan updates. First, the work plan proposes a

comprehensive update to the Placer County Regional Bikeway Plan, which was last updated in

2001. In addition, the Placer County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan is proposed to be

updated in response to the City of Auburn’s ongoing work to update their Airport Master Plan.

Staffing

Staffing levels remain the same as in FY 2015/16 with 6.95 full time equivalent staff.

Budget

Staff is pleased to again provide the Board with a balanced budget of $3,697,276. As would be

expected with the conclusion of several grant funded projects, this budget is approximately 25%

less than the budget for FY 2015/16.

CM:ss

Attachment

MEMORANDUM




SUBJECT: STATE LEGISLATIVE PROGRAM FOR 2016

ACTION REQUESTED

1) Adopt the State Legislative Program for 2016 as shown in Attachment 1.

2) Take a position of support for AB 1591 (Frazier).

BACKGROUND

The big issue for transportation at the State level continues to be the deep shortfalls in funding.

In his 2015 State of the State address, Governor Brown urged the Legislature to take on the

longstanding problem of road maintenance, citing the $59 billion in unfunded needs on the State

highway system. The League of California Cities and California State Association of Counties

quickly added that the State’s needs are on top of the $78 billion shortfall on the local road

system. This situation results from there being no inflationary index on a gas tax coupled with

ever increasing vehicle fuel efficiency and greater use of alternative fuel vehicles. This means

that the buying power of the gas tax is about 1/3 of what it was when it was last raised in 1994.

A Special Extraordinary Session of the Legislature was convened in the Fall of 2015 to deal with

the ever worsening condition of the State’s road system. A number of proposals were put

forward, as summarized in Attachment 2, to generate and/or redirect funds to road maintenance

but no action has been taken to date.

DISCUSSION

State Funding Issues

If anything, the State’s transportation funding problem has recently become more acute. In late

January, the California Transportation Commission (CTC) announced they would have to

remove nearly $800 million in projects programmed in the State Transportation Improvement

Program (STIP) due to a serious decline in projected revenues. The projection is a result of the

decline in gas prices, and thereby the revenues from the price based excise tax on gasoline,

which serves as an equivalent for the sales tax on gasoline.

This does not have as serious an impact on PCTPA as other regional agencies, since we

advanced our shares of the STIP to build the SR 65 Lincoln Bypass and still owe approximately

$40 million. On the other hand, it will likely take at least another decade before we will repay

this interest-free advance.

Meanwhile, the Special Extraordinary Session on transportation is still in effect, and discussions

are ongoing.

An updated proposal has recently come from Assembly Transportation Committee Chair Jim

Frazier in AB 1591. This would generate approximately $3.4 billion annually for a new Road


STATE LEGISLATIVE PROGRAM FOR 2016

February 2016

Page 2

Maintenance & Rehabilitation Fund through a 22.5 cent increase to the gas tax and a $38

registration fee. The distribution would be for half the money to go to the State Highway

Operations Protection Program and the other half to cities and counties via the longstanding gas

tax formula. What is most intriguing is that 5% of the funds, or about $170 million annually,

would come off the top for counties that pass a new transportation sales tax after July 2016. This

could be a very significant source of match money for PCTPA.

Other provisions of AB 1591 could also benefit Placer priorities, including a program that would

direct 20% of Cap and Trade revenues along with a 30 cent tax on diesel fuel to the Trade

Corridors Improvement Fund for goods movement, stabilizing the STIP by restoring vehicle

weight fees and setting the price based excise tax to 18 cents, and increasing to 20% the amount

of Cap and Trade revenues directed to intercity rail.

Project Streamlining and Regulatory Reform

PCTPA prides itself on getting the job done for transportation – that is, getting those needed

improvements on the ground to benefit citizens, businesses, and visitors to Placer County. It is

important to work with the State to preserve and enhance that effectiveness by streamlining

processes and improving local control.

One way for that to occur is through California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)

modernization, and streamlining of the process for projects that comply with certain standards

was one of the benefits provided with SB 375. There have been various concepts of how this

modernization might occur floating around the Legislature, and these efforts should be

encouraged and refined as a way to provide certainty to development and reduce lawsuits.

Another way of streamlining project development is maximizing the local control over project

selection, approvals, and implementation.

Staff recommends the Board continue its longstanding support for expanded use of locally

controlled funding approaches, maximizing discretionary funding opportunities, and streamlining

project delivery, while opposing proposals that would inequitably increase burdens on local and

regional agencies as outlined in the State Legislative Program for 2016.

CM:ss

Attachments

Draft State Legislative Program for 2016 Policy

Support proposals in the Governor’s Budget for 2016-17 focused on Caltrans efficiencies, including:

o Streamlining project delivery, including targeted California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) exemptions, federal delegations of environmental review authority, early identification of project environmental mitigations, and expanding innovative procurement methods, such as combining design and construction management in a single contract;

o Permitting Caltrans to expand use of contract staff to expedite project delivery over the next five years;

o Establishing measureable targets for improvements including regular reporting to the California Transportation Commission, Legislature, and the public; and

o Extending the sunset date for the use of public-private partnerships to 2027.

Support expanded use of creative funding mechanisms to expedite projects and minimize public costs;

Promote the use of Cap and Trade funding for pavement maintenance that improves vehicle efficiency and reduce greenhouse gases;

Support incentives and matching funds for counties to pass new transportation funding programs, such as local option transportation sales taxes;

Support the establishment of a 55% majority threshold for the passage of a local option transportation sales tax; and

As a general principle, support efforts to increase amount, flexibility, and local control for use of transportation funds while reducing the redundancies, conflicting directives, and expansion of environmental reviews by regulatory agencies.

California Association of Councils of Governments September 21, 2015

1100 K Street, Suite 101 Sacramento, CA 95814 � (916) 557-‐1170 � www.calcog.org

FIRST EXTRAORDINARY SESSION TRANSPORTATION FUNDING & REFORM PROPOSALS

FUND I N G S O U R C E S E X P E N D I T U R E S PO L I C I E S & R E F O RM S

Governor’s Proposal

Raises $3.6 Billion in New Revenue • $500 Million from CPI adjustments• $300 Million from 11 cent diesel tax increase• $ 2 Billion from $65 per year vehicle fee• $100 Million in Caltrans efficiencies• $500 Million in Cap & Trade Funding (1 time?)Plus $879 Million in One Time Loan Repayments

− $265 Million for transit and intercity rail − $334 Million for trade corridors, − $148 Million to local traffic congestion relief − $132 Million in state highway repairs.

New Road Maintenance & Rehab Account (RMRA) -‐ $1.8 Billion for State Programs • $1.6 Billion to SHOPP• $200 Million for Goods Movement (TCIF)

-‐ $1.8 Billion for Local Programs • $1.050 Billion to local streets and roads• $250 Million to State-‐Local Partnership for anycounty with a dedicated transportation fee

• $400 Million commuter rail & low carbon transit• $100 Million – Local complete street program

• Ballot initiative to protect revenues• Indexes gas and diesel tax rates to CPI• Eliminates fuel tax swap; restores pre-‐swap 18cent excise rate

• CEQA exemption for repairs in ROW• P3 extension for 10 years• CM/GC extended to 12 projects• Unspecified Caltrans efficiencies ($100 M)• Advanced mitigation ($30 M)

Legislative Proposals from

Democrats

$3.9 Billion in New Road Funding: Beall (SBX1-‐1) • $1.8 Billion -‐ 12 cents/gal increase on motor fuels• $572 Million -‐ 22 cents/gal on diesel fuels• $1.5 Billion – New $35 vehicle registration fee and another$35 fee for road access ($100 for Zero Emission Vehicles)

$1 Billion in Restored Weight Fees (ABX1-‐1); • $1 Billion in weight fees remain in State Highway Account

$700 Million Transit Funding: (SBX1-‐7 & 8) (ABX1-‐7 & 8) • $400 Million by doubling allocations from Cap & Trade forIntercity Rail and Low Carbon Transit programs

• $300 Million (estimated) from 3.5% increase on diesel fuelsales tax for State Transit Account

Active Transportation Program (SBX1-‐23) • $125 Million redirected to ATP from State Hwy. Account

Road Maintenance & Rehab. Account (SBX1-‐1) • $300 Million to Goods Movement via TCIF program(from extra 10 cents/gal on diesel fuel)

• 5% (est. $180 Million) incents new local sales taxes• Remaining $3.4 Billion split equally for SHOPP andto cities and counties for local streets and roads

• CTC oversight of fund expenditures

Weight Fee & Transit Funding: Per existing State Highway Account and Cap and Trade programs

Active Transportation Program (SBX1-‐23) • Funds redirected to current ATP;• Also includes policy reform proposal in SBX1-‐1related to STIP and SHOPP performance criteria.

SBX1-‐1 (and SB 16 from regular session) • Indexes gas and diesel tax rates to CPI• Eliminates fuel tax swap; restores base rate• Increase Caltrans efficiencies by 30% withsavings dedicated to SHOPP maintenance

Late Active Transportation Amends (SBX1-‐1) • STIP & SHOPP capital projects must address bikeand pedestrian access unless excluded

• CTC develops criteria for STIP & SHOPP toaddress GHG, social equity, public health, and effects on disadvantaged communities.

• CTC develops LSR criteria to measure PCI,bridge health, maintenance LOS, GHG, ATP benefits, and public health co-‐benefits.

Legislative Proposals from

Republicans

Senate Bills Redirect $1.3 Billion in Existing Revenues • $1.3 Billion (est.)* in Cap and Trade (proposals overlap)− Redirect all cap and trade funds derived from motor

vehicle fuels to transportation (SBX1-‐2) − Redirect 65% of cap and trade proceeds (approximate

motor fuel contribution) to CTC (SBX1-‐6) Assembly Bills Redirect $4.4 Billion in Existing Revenues • $500 Million -‐ 25% of Cap & Trade to SHOPP (ABX1-‐17)*• $1 Billion from rededicating Weight Fees (ABX1-‐18)• $200 Million from AHSC (ABX1-‐13)• $1 Billion annually from General Fund (ABX1-‐14)• $685 Million by eliminating vacant positions (ABX1-‐20)• $500 Million by redirecting capital outlay (ABX1-‐15)

Senate Bill Methodologies • $1.3 Billion* in cap in trade (proposals overlap)− Appropriated for transportation infrastructure

annually, including streets and highways, but excludes high speed rail (SBX1-‐ 2)

− For priority projects; 40%state highways, 40% local streets and roads, & 20% transit (SBX1-‐6)

Assembly Bill Methodologies • $1 Billion weight fees stay in State Hwy Account• $500 Million* -‐ 25% Cap & Trade funds to SHOPP• Remaining bills would evenly split funds:− $1.2 Billion for the SHOPP− $1.2 Billion for Local Streets and Roads

• Ballot initiative to protect revenues (SCAX1-‐1)• Eliminate sunset on P3 authority (SB1X-‐14)• CEQA: exempt ROW repairs (SBX1-‐11) andprohibit enjoining construction (ABX1-‐21)

• Increases Caltrans contracting and limit use oftemp funding for permanent positions (SB X1-‐9)

• Create Inspector General (SBX1-‐13)• Convert STIP to regional grants (ABX1-‐10)• Allow Design-‐Build (AB 1X-‐22)• Remove CTC from CalSTA (SBX1-‐12; ABX1-‐19)• Two county pilot for county operation of statehighways (AB1X-‐16)

* Cap and Trade: All calculations based on $2 billion in annual revenues ** General Disclaimer: This chart is only a summary. Some funding totals and outcomes are inferred. See referenced legislation for specific details.

Attachment

MEMORANDUM




SUBJECT: TRANSPORTATION FUNDING STRATEGY OUTREACH AND

POLLING

ACTION REQUESTED None. For information and discussion only.

BACKGROUND

Staff continues to put laser focus on developing the financial resources necessary to provide the

transportation infrastructure that is fundamental to the economic vitality of Placer County.

Along with our consultants, including FSB Core Strategies and Fairbanks Maslin, we are now

nearing completion of the Strategic Funding and Outreach Work Plan. This Plan focuses on

communicating complex issues about our abilities to meet Placer’s transportation needs in a way

that the public can understand, and getting the feedback needed to move forward.

The communications efforts over the last several years have gone into overdrive in the past six

months with the discussion of developing a transportation sales tax for consideration by the

voting public in 2016 and release of the draft Expenditure Plan. The efforts were further

intensified with the recent award of a $150,000 grant for public outreach on transportation

infrastructure needs by the United Auburn Indian Communities (UAIC) (Attachment 1).

DISCUSSION

Staff and consultants will provide an update the Board on the most recent feedback on our

outreach and information efforts.

Staff, assisted by Jeff Flint of FSB Core Strategies, will provide the Board with a

summary of the most recent outreach efforts funded through the UAIC grant; and

Kurt Below of Fairbank Maslin will present the preliminary results of the polling effort

scheduled for the third week of February 2016;

Handouts will be provided at the Board meeting.

CM:ss

MIWOK United Auburn Indian CommunityMAIDU of the Auburn Rancheria

Gene WhitehouseChairman

John L. WilliamsVice Chairman

Brenda AdamsTreasurer

Calvin MomanCouncil Member

Danny ReySecretary

Februarv 3.2016

Ms. Celia McAdam,Executive DirectorPlacer County Transportation Planning Agency299 Nevada StreetAuburn, CA 95603

Dear Ms. McAdam:

On February 2,2016, the United Auburn Indian Community Tribal Council approved a grarrtl'othe Placer County Transportation Agency of $150,000 to fund community outreach projects insupport of the financing of infrastructure projects in Placer County.

This outreach is focused on improvements to the Placer County transportation infrastructure,including design, right of way, construction, maintenance and repair of transportation structuresand facilities.

The United Auburn Indian Community will

We appreciate the work of the PCTPA, and

make this grant on July I,2016.

we look forward to working with your agency.

TribalOffice 10720lndian Hill Road Auburn,CA95603 (530)883-2350 FAX(530)883-2360

MEMORANDUM




SUBJECT: UPDATED DRAFT TRANSPORTATION SALES TAX EXPENDITURE

PLAN

ACTION REQUESTED Authorize staff to release the updated Draft Transportation Sales Tax Expenditure Plan shown in

Attachment 1 for public outreach and comment.

BACKGROUND

PCTPA’s transportation planning efforts have long identified the need for significant

infrastructure investment to accommodate the growing needs of our population and economy. In

spite of our creative and aggressive efforts to generate funds and minimize costs, the gap

between our needs and our available funding is growing.

Starting with the work of the Transportation Funding Strategy Steering Committees dating as far

back as 1999 and further honed by the most recent public outreach and polling directed by the

Board, it’s become clear that a transportation sales tax is the most viable approach to bridging

the gap between our most critical transportation needs and foreseeably available funding.

A fundamental component of this effort is a detailed listing of those top transportation needs that

would be funded by a proposed transportation sales tax, known as an Expenditure Plan. Based

on those years of Board direction, technical study, jurisdiction coordination, and public input,

staff developed a preliminary draft Expenditure Plan that was released for public discussion in

August 2015.

DISCUSSION

Staff has been persistently pursuing the public’s input on the draft Expenditure Plan through a

multi-media approach, including mailers, Town Hall meetings, social media, teleforums, and

more. The response has been both significant and positive. What we have heard from the public

is that the Expenditure Plan captures their top priorities for transportation improvements, but

could use some tweaking.

At the same time, staff has consulted with economist Dr. Manuel Salazar, III of William Jessup

University to review the underlying revenue projections for the Expenditure Plan. The analysis,

as shown in Attachment 2, was that staff’s preliminary projection of $1.25 billion over 30 years,

which was simply based on existing revenues, is very low and that $1.6 billion is a more

appropriate yet conservative estimate.

The good news is that, with the higher revenue estimates, more of the high priority

improvements that came out of the public outreach can be addressed.


UPDATED DRAFT TRANSPORTATION SALES TAX EXPENDITURE PLAN

February 2016

Page 2

Key changes in the Updated Draft Expenditure Plan shown in Attachment 1 include:

Baseline Road Widening, Commuter Bus Service Expansion, and I-80 Auxiliary Lane

projects are added to the project list;

The 30% of the funds being allocated to local jurisdictions to fund local road

rehabilitation and maintenance backlogs, as well as address congestion hot spots, and

leverage funds for local transportation priorities is increased from $375 million to $480

million;

Pots of funds for bicycle and pedestrian improvements, competitive transportation

projects, and Tahoe projects are increased; and

Funding amounts for the I-80/SR 65 Interchange, SR 65 Widening, and Placer Parkway,

as well as bond financing costs, are adjusted to allow faster implementation of critical

projects.

CM:ss

Attachment

Category ProjectTotal Project

Cost

Estimated

Funding from

Other Sources

(in millions)

Shortage

Sales Tax

Contribution

(in millions)

Percentage

of Sales Tax

Revenue

Sources of Other Revenues/

Matching Funds

Annual Amount

Sales Tax

Revenues

(in millions)

TOTAL MAJOR HIGHWAY PROJECTS 1,548.0$ 832.0$ 716.0$ 716.0$ Various

I-80/SR 65 Interchange Phases 1-3 380.0$ 80.0$ 300.0$ 300.0$ State funds, developer fees

SR 65 Widening

Galleria Blvd to Lincoln Blvd

Placer Parkway 595.0$ 560.0$ 35.0$ 35.0$ Developer fees, Sutter Co fees

SR 49 Signal Synchronization 58.0$ 29.0$ 29.0$ 29.0$ State funds, developer fees

Baseline Road Widening 70.0$ 60.0$ 10.0$ 10.0$ Developer fees

I-80 Auxiliary Lanes 20.0$ 8.0$ 12.0$ 12.0$ State funds

Interchange Program

I-80/SR 174

I-80/Rocklin Road

I-80/Horseshoe Bar

SR 65/Nelson Lane

Financing for Early Construction 200.0$ -$ -$ 200.0$ None

TOTAL RAIL/TRANSIT PROJECTS 365.0$ 220.0$ 190.0$ Various

Commuter Bus Enhancements 75.0$ 30.0$ 45.0$ Cap & Trade, transit funds

Senior/Disabled Transit Enhancements 90.0$ 35.0$ 55.0$ Transit funds

Capital Corridor Rail/Bus Rapid Transit 275.0$ 185.0$ 90.0$ Cap & Trade, transit funds

BICYCLE/PEDESTRIAN PROJECTS

Environmental, design, right of way,

and construction

Various Countywide 151.2$ 76.2$ n/a 75.0$ 5% State and Federal funds n/a

TAHOE PROJECTS

Potholes, transit, trails in TahoeVarious in North Lake Tahoe 149.5$ 101.5$ n/a 48.0$ 3%

State and Federal funds, transient

occupancy taxes1.60$

TOTAL JURISDICTIONS 1,247.6$ 767.7$ 480.0$ 16.00$

City of Auburn 38.4$ 21.0$ 17.4$ 0.58$

City of Colfax 11.4$ 3.9$ 7.5$ 0.25$

City of Lincoln 128.1$ 72.4$ 55.7$ 1.86$

Town of Loomis 22.3$ 13.1$ 9.2$ 0.31$

City of Rocklin 170.6$ 109.2$ 61.4$ 2.05$

City of Roseville 286.6$ 145.5$ 141.1$ 4.70$

Placer County 590.3$ 402.7$ 187.6$ 6.25$

COMPETITIVE PROJECTS PROGRAM

Transportation improvementsVarious Countywide 100.0$ 25.0$ n/a 75.0$ 5%

State and Federal funds,

developer fees2.50$

ADMINISTRATION Administration of Sales Tax 16.0$ -$ n/a 16.0$ 1% None 0.53$

3,561$ 2,022$ 1,600$ 100%

Version 8.sept.15

State funds, developer fees

State and Federal funds

PCTPA DRAFT TRANSPORTATION SALES TAX EXPENDITURE PLAN

n/a

n/a 30%

105.0$ 70.0$ 35.0$ 35.0$

n/a

n/a

95.0$ Developer fees

45%

12%

TOTAL PROGRAM

MAJOR HIGHWAY PROJECTS


and construction

120.0$ 25.0$ 95.0$

LOCAL PROJECTS

Potholes, road maintenance, local

congestion hot spots, matching funds

for local transportation priorities

RAIL/TRANSIT


construction, and operation

LONG-RUN SALES TAX REVENUE FORECAST FOR PLACER COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Dr. Manuel Salazar III, William Jessup University, Rocklin, California

December 2015

Economic Objective

To provide an economic forecast of increased revenues resulting from a proposed ½ percent increase in the

sales tax rate for Placer County (California) to assist in the funding of future county-wide capital projects over

a thirty year period.

Economics Professor

Dr. Manuel Salazar III is an associate professor of business at William Jessup University (Rocklin, CA). His

research and teaching focuses on economics, taxation, accounting and finance. Manuel has also taught

graduate level course work in government finance and budgeting. He is a former financial executive and

planning commissioner. During the Reagan Administration he served in the U.S. Army’s 82nd Airborne.

Economic Assumptions (Summary)

National Economic Forecasts (Source: UCLA Anderson Forecast)

“The forecast for GDP growth is in the 2 percent to 3 percent range, and better in 2016 than the year after.

The forecast anticipates an improving labor market, a declining unemployment rate and a rising employment-

to-population ratio”.

California Economic Forecasts (Source: UCLA Anderson Forecast)

“In the California forecast report, senior economist Jerry Nickelsburg estimates total employment growth at

2.7 percent in 2015, 2.2 percent in 2016 and 1.4 percent in 2017. Real personal income growth is estimated to

be 4.6 percent in 2015 and forecast to be 4.5 percent and 4.2 percent in 2016 and 2017, respectively. At the

same time, the unemployment rate should drop below 6.0 percent through the balance of 2015.

Unemployment will fall throughout the next year and will average 5.2 percent — unchanged from the June

forecast. Nickelsburg expects the unemployment rate in 2017 to be approximately 4.8 percent, the same as

for the U.S.”

Placer County Forecasts (Source: Caltrans Economic Forecast 2014-2019)

“Annual population growth in the 2014-2019 period will average 1.4 percent per year. The vast majority of this

growth will be the result of rapid in-migration. Net migration will average 4,600 people per year, accounting

for 87 percent of total population growth”

“Job growth will accelerate in 2014, as total employment increases by 4.0 percent. Between 2014 and 2019,

growth will average 3.0 percent per year – one of the highest rates in the state”

“Real per capita income is expected to increase by 3.6 percent in 2014. During the 2014-2019 period, real per

capita income growth will average 2.5 percent per year”

Other Considerations:

Surrounding county sales tax rates are assumed to remain at the same level or just below Placer

County levels. An increase of 1% or more above the surrounding counties could have a significant

negative impact on revenues and projections. Consumers are price sensitive and will often seek choices

outside of the county when possible should sales taxes make items more expensive.

US Inflation (Consumer Price Index): According to the EIU Economic and Commodity Forecast, July

2015, CPI will average 2.23% annually over the next four years. Inflation means less buying power for

the consumer for each dollar they earn because of higher overall prices which often translates into

reduced overall sales and growth. Thus, if inflation reaches 2.5% or higher, it could have a negative

impact of revenues from sales tax.

Time Value of Money: This forecast is in “current” dollars and is not adjusted for inflation and does not

take into account the time value of money. For example, funds received in 2017 could be invested for

three years and then used for a capital project (these additional earnings have not been included in the

forecast and would increase amounts available for projects).

Methodology and Data

Forecasts were based on the following:

County Population and Growth: Used actual county population data from 2008-2013 to determine a

five year average growth rate of 1.56%. To more accurately forecast in the long-run, accounting for

potential increase/decreases in this population growth rate it is prudent to use 1.56% as the

benchmark, increase/decrease this rate by .50% and then weight based upon an estimated probability

of occurrence. Thus, 1.56% was weighted at 50% (most probable), 1.06% (least probable) and 2.06%

(probable) to determine a more accurate weighted forecast estimate.

Taxable County Sales and Growth: Used actual data for years 2008-2013 to determine a growth rate of

1.92% over a five year period in total county taxable sales.

Average Taxable Sales Per County Resident. This forecast determined the average amount of sales per

resident (total taxable sales per year/total actual county population) and used this factor in forecasting

total taxable sales per year based on annual county resident each year. The standard used was $22,877

in taxable sales per resident of Placer County, this will be constant to estimate annual taxable amounts.

Forecast

Based upon the assumptions above and using the methodology noted, a ½ percent increase (ceteris paribus) in

the Placer County sales tax rate is forecasted to generate, in current dollars over a thirty year period, an

additional $1,627,769,591 in revenue for capital projects or approximately 51.2% of the $3.179 billion

estimated total for capital projects.

Estim

ated P

robab

ility

Thirty Y

ear T

otals

Weigh

ted E

stim

ate

50% 1,612,353,800$ 806,176,900.00$

20% 1,493,816,152$ 298,763,230.40$

30% 1,742,764,869$ 522,829,460.72$

FORECAST TOTAL 1,627,769,591$

LOW 20%

MID 50%

HIGH 30%

$1,493,816,152

$1,612,353,800

$1,742,764,869

Total Additional Revenue Probabilities

Additional Revenue Per Year (.5% Sales Tax Increase)

Fore

caste

d Year

Populatio

n (2.0

6% Gro

wth)

Total T

axable

Sales

Taxable Sa

les P

er Resid

ent (000)

Sale

Tax Incr

ease %

Additional

Revenue

2017 372 8,511 22.88 0.50% 42,556,800$

2018 380 8,687 22.88 0.50% 43,433,470$

2019 387 8,866 22.88 0.50% 44,328,200$

2020 395 9,048 22.88 0.50% 45,241,360$

2021 404 9,235 22.88 0.50% 46,173,333$

2022 412 9,425 22.88 0.50% 47,124,503$

2023 420 9,619 22.88 0.50% 48,095,268$

2024 429 9,817 22.88 0.50% 49,086,030$

2025 438 10,019 22.88 0.50% 50,097,203$

2026 447 10,226 22.88 0.50% 51,129,205$

2027 456 10,436 22.88 0.50% 52,182,467$

2028 466 10,651 22.88 0.50% 53,257,425$

2029 475 10,871 22.88 0.50% 54,354,528$

2030 485 11,095 22.88 0.50% 55,474,232$

2031 495 11,323 22.88 0.50% 56,617,001$

2032 505 11,557 22.88 0.50% 57,783,311$

2033 516 11,795 22.88 0.50% 58,973,647$

2034 526 12,038 22.88 0.50% 60,188,504$

2035 537 12,286 22.88 0.50% 61,428,388$

2036 548 12,539 22.88 0.50% 62,693,812$

2037 559 12,797 22.88 0.50% 63,985,305$

2038 571 13,061 22.88 0.50% 65,303,402$

2039 583 13,330 22.88 0.50% 66,648,652$

2040 595 13,604 22.88 0.50% 68,021,615$

2041 607 13,885 22.88 0.50% 69,422,860$

2042 619 14,171 22.88 0.50% 70,852,971$

2043 632 14,463 22.88 0.50% 72,312,542$

2044 645 14,760 22.88 0.50% 73,802,180$

2045 658 15,065 22.88 0.50% 75,322,505$

2046 672 15,375 22.88 0.50% 76,874,149$

1,742,764,869$

$0

$10,000,000

$20,000,000

$30,000,000

$40,000,000

$50,000,000

$60,000,000

$70,000,000

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30

Do

llars

Year 1 - 30

Additional Revenues Generated Annually From a 1/2% Placer County Sales Tax Increase


Fore

caste

d Year

Populatio

n (1.5

6% Gro

wth)

Total T

axable

Sales

Taxable Sa

les P

er Resid

ent (000)

Sale

Tax Incr

ease %

Additional

Revenue

2017 372 8,511 22.88 0.50% 42,556,800$

2018 378 8,644 22.88 0.50% 43,220,686$

2019 384 8,779 22.88 0.50% 43,894,929$

2020 390 8,916 22.88 0.50% 44,579,690$

2021 396 9,055 22.88 0.50% 45,275,133$

2022 402 9,196 22.88 0.50% 45,981,425$

2023 408 9,340 22.88 0.50% 46,698,735$

2024 415 9,485 22.88 0.50% 47,427,235$

2025 421 9,633 22.88 0.50% 48,167,100$

2026 428 9,784 22.88 0.50% 48,918,507$

2027 434 9,936 22.88 0.50% 49,681,636$

2028 441 10,091 22.88 0.50% 50,456,669$

2029 448 10,249 22.88 0.50% 51,243,793$

2030 455 10,409 22.88 0.50% 52,043,196$

2031 462 10,571 22.88 0.50% 52,855,070$

2032 469 10,736 22.88 0.50% 53,679,609$

2033 477 10,903 22.88 0.50% 54,517,011$

2034 484 11,073 22.88 0.50% 55,367,477$

2035 492 11,246 22.88 0.50% 56,231,209$

2036 499 11,422 22.88 0.50% 57,108,416$

2037 507 11,600 22.88 0.50% 57,999,308$

2038 515 11,781 22.88 0.50% 58,904,097$

2039 523 11,965 22.88 0.50% 59,823,001$

2040 531 12,151 22.88 0.50% 60,756,239$

2041 539 12,341 22.88 0.50% 61,704,037$

2042 548 12,533 22.88 0.50% 62,666,620$

2043 556 12,729 22.88 0.50% 63,644,219$

2044 565 12,927 22.88 0.50% 64,637,069$

2045 574 13,129 22.88 0.50% 65,645,407$

2046 583 13,334 22.88 0.50% 66,669,475$

1,612,353,800$


Fore

caste

d Year

Populatio

n (1.0

6% Gro

wth)

Total T

axable

Sales

Taxable Sa

les P

er Resid

ent (000)

Sale

Tax Incr

ease %

Additional

Revenue

2017 372 8,511 22.88 0.50% 42,556,800$

2018 376 8,602 22.88 0.50% 43,007,902$

2019 380 8,693 22.88 0.50% 43,463,786$

2020 384 8,785 22.88 0.50% 43,924,502$

2021 388 8,878 22.88 0.50% 44,390,102$

2022 392 8,972 22.88 0.50% 44,860,637$

2023 396 9,067 22.88 0.50% 45,336,160$

2024 400 9,163 22.88 0.50% 45,816,723$

2025 405 9,260 22.88 0.50% 46,302,380$

2026 409 9,359 22.88 0.50% 46,793,185$

2027 413 9,458 22.88 0.50% 47,289,193$

2028 418 9,558 22.88 0.50% 47,790,459$

2029 422 9,659 22.88 0.50% 48,297,037$

2030 427 9,762 22.88 0.50% 48,808,986$

2031 431 9,865 22.88 0.50% 49,326,361$

2032 436 9,970 22.88 0.50% 49,849,221$

2033 440 10,076 22.88 0.50% 50,377,622$

2034 445 10,182 22.88 0.50% 50,911,625$

2035 450 10,290 22.88 0.50% 51,451,288$

2036 455 10,399 22.88 0.50% 51,996,672$

2037 459 10,510 22.88 0.50% 52,547,837$

2038 464 10,621 22.88 0.50% 53,104,844$

2039 469 10,734 22.88 0.50% 53,667,755$

2040 474 10,847 22.88 0.50% 54,236,633$

2041 479 10,962 22.88 0.50% 54,811,542$

2042 484 11,079 22.88 0.50% 55,392,544$

2043 489 11,196 22.88 0.50% 55,979,705$

2044 495 11,315 22.88 0.50% 56,573,090$

2045 500 11,435 22.88 0.50% 57,172,765$

2046 505 11,556 22.88 0.50% 57,778,796$

1,493,816,152$

PLACER COUNTY TRANSPORTATION PLANNING

AGENCY

Technical Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes

February 9, 2016

ATTENDANCE: Mengil Deane, City of Auburn

Wes Heathcock, City of Colfax

Mark Johnson, City of Roseville

Ray Leftwich, City of Lincoln

Jason Shykowski, City of Roseville

Brit Snipes, Town of Loomis

Mike Wixon, City of Roseville

Kevin Yount, Caltrans

Celia McAdam, PCTPA

Aaron Hoyt, PCTPA

Luke McNeel-Caird, PCTPA

David Melko, PCTPA

Solvi Sabol, PCTPA

Preliminary Draft FY 2016/17 Overall Work Program Celia McAdam provided a copy of the preliminary draft FY 2016/17 Overall Work Program (OWP).

McAdam explained that the majority of projects within this OWP reflect the ongoing efforts in FY

2015/16. McAdam added that there are couple of new projects in FY 2016/17 including updating the

Countywide Bike Plan. The plan will reflect the added bikeways within the county and will support

efforts to compete for bikeway funding.

McAdam reported that we will also be updating the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan, in large part

because the City of Auburn is updating their Master Plan and these plans need to be compatible.

McAdam added that the budget balances and the final FY 2016/17 OWP will go the Board in May.

She asked that the TAC provide any comments/changes over the next couple of months.

The TAC concurred with taking the preliminary draft FY 2016/17 to the Board for approval.

FY 2015/16 Unmet Transit Needs Analysis and Recommendations Final Report for 2016/17 Aaron Hoyt explained that the Unmet Transit is process conducted to find out if there are any

inadequacies within the existing transit system. He went over the outreach efforts and said that there

were 102 comments received, about half of which were outside of our jurisdiction and/or did not

pertain to the process. Hoyt said that we addressed 48 comments and met with the Social Service

Transportation Action Committee (SSTAC) to go over the report and recommendations. Hoyt

explained that while it was determined that there are no new unmet transit needs that are reasonable to

meet at this time, the report reflects two recommendations. These recommendations include 1)

working with the Transit Operators Working Group (TOWG) to investigate later night transit service

and 2) monitoring dial-a-ride reservations as there were comments pertaining to ride denials.

The TAC concurred with bringing this to the PCTPA Board to adopt the Unmet Transit Needs finding

and recommendations.

FY 2016/17 Preliminary Findings of Apportionment for Local Transportation Fund (LTF) and

Preliminary State Transit Assistance (STA) Fund Allocation Aaron Hoyt handed out the Local Transportation Fund (LTF) allocation, explaining the State Transit

Assistance (STA) Allocation is still not available. He added the State Controller’s Office has said it

will be out ‘soon’.

The TAC agreed to bring the FY 2016/17 preliminary finding of apportionment for LTF to the PCTPA

Board for adoption.

2036 Placer County Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) & Programmatic Environmental

Impact Report (EIR) – TAC Recommendation to PCTPA Board to Adopt the 2036 Placer

County RTP & to Certify the 2036 RTP EIR Aaron Hoyt said the final Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) is going to the Board for adoption with

the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) going to them for certification. Hoyt said that this RTP

reflects the project lists that each of the jurisdictions provided. He explained that the RTP is made part

of SACOG’s Metropolitan Transportation and that these projects are eligible for state and federal

funding, and met greenhouse gas and air quality criteria. Hoyt said that we received one comment

letter from Caltrans during the public comment period on the RTP and that no comments were received

on the EIR.

The TAC agreed to bring the RTP to the Board for adoption and the EIR for certification.

State Legislative Program for 2016 Celia McAdam provided a draft copy of the State Legislative Program for 2016. She explained many

of the policies pertain to efficiencies in Caltrans and project delivery, along with greater flexibility in

funding and contracting.. McAdam added that the policies include supporting counties that pass a

transportation sales tax and supporting the 55% majority threshold for passing a transportation sales

tax.

The TAC concurred with bringing the 2016 State Legislative Program to the PCTPA Board for

approval.

Transportation Funding Strategy Update: Outreach Program, Polling, and Next Steps Celia McAdam reported that we received confirmation for a $150,000 grant from United Auburn

Indian Community Tribal Council, which is going toward intensive outreach efforts. McAdam said

that this week we are conducting a series of teleforums in different areas throughout the county.

People are able to participate in these teleforums by phone and are able to ask questions and provide

feedback.

a) Updated Expenditure Plan: Celia McAdam provided the updated version of the draft

transportation Expenditure Plan. McAdam explained that this version reflects the public input

we’ve received since the plan was released and has been adjusted based on economic

forecasting which was recently conducted. This forecast shows our revenues as $1.6 billion.

McAdam went over the adjustments for projects based on this increased revenue prediction and

noted that Baseline Road, commuter bus, and the I-80 Auxiliary lanes have been added to the

plan. McAdam reported that the jurisdiction share increased $105 million to $480 million, and

also emphasized that we would try and front load major projects like the I-80/SR 65

Interchange, taking advantage of the financing opportunities to get these improvements on the

ground.

Celia McAdam noted that we will also be going over this draft expenditure plan at a City/Town

Managers/County Exec/Public Works Directors breakfast on March 21. Lastly, McAdam explained

that depending on polling, we will be asking the Board in April for authorization to start the process to

put the transportation sales tax on the ballot in November 2016.

The TAC agreed to bring this to Board for approval to release the updated draft Expenditure Plan to

the public.

Other Issues/Upcoming Deadlines a) Active Transportation Program (ATP) Call for Projects: Aaron Hoyt said the draft

guidelines for the 3rd round of ATP projects are circulating through the state. There is talk of

reducing the number of points for disadvantaged communities, which may help with scoring in

Placer County applications. The CTC will adopt these guidelines in March with applications

tentatively due in June. Hoyt asked that the jurisdictions start thinking about bike and

pedestrian projects that would be competitive noting that in past years, projects that were

utilitarian, with a focus on greenhouse gas reduction and public health, seemed to score better

over recreational projects.

b) PTMISEA Semiannual Reports Due – February 18: David Melko said the PTMISEA

reports are due February 15.

c) Local Streets and Roads Needs Assessment: Luke McNeel-Caird said the Needs Assessment

is done every two years, and last time there was $80 billion in need for road maintenance

statewide. McNeel-Caird added this report was helpful in the transportation funding strategy

and the importance of ensuring our needs here in Placer County are identified and kept current.

The needs assessment is by March 18, and McNeel-Caird will follow up with an email to the

jurisdictions.

Adjourn Meeting adjourned at 3:47 p.m.

MEMORANDUM

299 Nevada Street ∙ Auburn, CA 95603 ∙ (530) 823-4030 (tel/fax)

www.pctpa.net


FROM: Luke McNeel-Caird, Senior Planner/Engineer

Scott Aaron, Associate Planner

SUBJECT: STATUS REPORT

1. Quarterly Status Report on State and Federal Funded Projects

The attached Quarterly Status Report summarizes currently programmed projects in

Placer County that are regionally significant and/or funded with state and federal funds.

The report provides project descriptions, project costs, and key schedule information.

2. TDM Report

PCTPA’s annual Bucks for Bikes incentive program kicked off on February 3, 2016.

This program, administered by PCTPA in partnership with the City of Roseville, is

intended to promote bicycling as a viable alternative to driving alone thereby reducing

traffic congestion and improving air quality in the region. The program offers subsidies

of up to 50 percent or $200 (whichever is less) toward the purchase of a bicycle for those

who are willing and committed to commute to work or school by bike. Eligible

applicants must be 18 years of age or older and be employed and/or attend school in

Placer County. Successful applicants are required to attend a free cycling clinic.

Additionally, all bicycles must be purchased within Placer County. This program also

serves to increase awareness of May is Bike Month as successful applicants are required

to register and log their cycling miles throughout the month. More information and an

online application are available at pctpa.net.

Status Report on Federal and State Funding for Regionally Significant Transportation Projects in Placer County

February 2016

Lead Agency MTIP ID Project Title Project Description Fund Source Total Project Cost Year Complete 1st Yr PA&ED 1st Yr ROW 1st Yr CON

Column 1 Column 2 Column 3 Column 4 Column 5 Column 6 Column 7 Column 8 Column 9 Column 10

Caltrans D3 CAL18828 I‐80 Vertical Clearance Improvements

Placer County, I‐80, in and near Loomis at various locations

from Brace Road to Magra Road ‐ Improve vertical

clearance (PM 8.1/37.8) [CTIPS ID 107‐0000‐0757; EFIS ID

0300000473] (Toll Credits)

SHOPP Bridge AC $36,045,000 2016 2013 2013 2014

Caltrans D3 CAL20389 SR 193 Curve Improvement

Near Lincoln, SR 193, from 0.1 mile west to 0.9 mile east of

Clark Tunnel Road ‐ Curve improvements and widening

(PM 4.4/5.4) [CTIPS ID 107‐0000‐0798] (Toll Credits)

SHOPP Collision AC $18,562,000 2018 2015 2015 2015

Caltrans D3 CAL20424 I‐80 3‐Mile Truck Climbing Lane

Near Colfax on I‐80, from the Long Ravine UP to east of

Magra Road OC ‐ Construct eastbound truck climbing lane

and related improvements (PM 35.1/38.0) (Toll Credits for

PE, ROW, CON). Toll Credits for ENG, ROW, CON

IM, SHOPP Mobility

AC$52,657,337 2019 2010 2015 2016

Caltrans D3 CAL20486Shoulder and Centerline Rumble Strips

(Safety) at Various Locations

In Butte, Colusa, El Dorado, Nevada, Placer, Sacramento,

Sutter, Yolo and Yuba counties at various locations ‐ Install

shoulder and centerline rumble strips [CTIPS ID 102‐0000‐

0174]


Caltrans D3 CAL20494 SR 267 Pavement Rehab

In Placer County, on SR 267 near Truckee, from Nevada

County line to Brockway Summit ‐ Pavement overlay (PM

0.0/6.8) [Toll Credits]

SHOPP Roadway

Pres AC$5,101,000 2015 2014 2014 2014

Caltrans D3 CAL20497 Alpine Meadows Road Traffic Signal

Placer County, about 9.3 miles south of Truckee at Alpine

Meadows Road ‐ Construct signalized intersection at SR 89

[FCO Only] (Pla‐89‐12.1/12.5) [SHOPP Minor A 201.310]

(Toll Credits for CON)

CT Minor SHOPP AC $974,000 2016 2014

Caltrans D3 CAL20511 Gold Run SRRA Water System Upgrades

On I‐80 in Placer County, near Gold Run, at the Gold Run

Safety Roadside Rest Area ‐ Replace water distribution

system (PM 41.4/42.2) [CTIPS ID 107‐0000‐0960] [Total

Project Cost $2,700,000 in 16/17 FY] (Toll credits for PE,

ROW, CON). Toll Credits for ENG, ROW, CON


Caltrans D3 CAL20516Upgrade Pedestrian Facilities @ Various

Locations

In Yuba, Sacramento, Placer, El Dorado and Butte counties

on Various Routes at Various Locations ‐ Upgrade

pedestrian facilities [EFIS ID 0312000071; CTIPS ID 107‐

0000‐0974] [Total Project Cost $3,482,000 in 17/18 FY]

(Toll Credits for PE, ROW, CON)

SHOPP ‐ Mandates

AC$3,482,000 2019 2016 2018 2018

Caltrans D3 CAL20518 CCTV Cameras at Various Locations

In various counties, on various routes at various locations

in the SACOG region: Upgrade closed caption televisions

(CCTV) [CTIPS ID 107‐0000‐0966] (Toll Credits for PE, ROW,

CON). Toll Credits for ENG, ROW, CON

SHOPP Mobility AC $4,784,000 2017 2016 2016 2016

P:\Federal and State Coordination\Status Reports\2016\February 2016 Project Status Report.xlsx 1 of 18


February 2016



Caltrans D3 CAL20519 Upgrade Traffic Monitoring Stations

In various counties, on various routes at various locations

in the SACOG region: Upgrade Traffic Monitoring Stations

(TMS) [CTIPS ID 107‐0000‐0967] (Toll Credits for PE, ROW,

CON). Toll Credits for ENG, ROW, CON


Caltrans D3 CAL20521 I‐80 Culvert Rehabilitation

In and near Colfax on I‐80, from 0.3 mile south of Weimar

overhead to 0.3 mile south of Illinoistown overcrossing ‐

Rehabilitate culvert (PM 28.5/31.5) [EFIS ID 0300020597;

CTIPS ID 107‐0000‐0959] (Toll Credits for PE, ROW, CON).

Toll Credits for ENG, ROW, CON

SHOPP Roadway

Pres AC$2,115,000 2019 2016 2018 2018

Caltrans D3 CAL20531 SR 65 Pavement Rehab

On SR 65, in and near Roseville, from I‐80 to Twelve Bridges

Drive ‐ Pavement rehabilitation (PM 4.8/12.5) [CTIPS ID 107‐

0000‐0991] (Toll Credits for PE, ROW, CON). Toll Credits

for ENG, ROW, CON

SHOPP Roadway

Pres AC$10,668,000 2016 2015 2015 2016

Caltrans D3 CAL20538 Crispin Cider STAA Access

I‐80 at Canyon Way IC, Illinoistown OC and driveway

entrance to Crispin Cider warehouse ‐ Widen ramp

pavement at three locations, modify overcrossing and

install signage to accommodate Surface Transportation

Assistance Act (STAA) (PM 31.1/31.9) [SHOPP Minor A

program 201.310] (Toll credits for CON)

CT Minor SHOPP AC $2,020,000 2016 2015

Caltrans D3 CAL20541 SR 49 HMA Overlay

In Auburn, SR 49, from 0.1 mile south of Routes 49/80

separation to 0.1 mile north of Dry Creek Road ‐

Rehabilitate Pavement (PM 3.1/7.5) [CTIPS ID 107‐0000‐

0992] [EFIS ID 0300020616] (Toll Credits for PE, ROW, and

CON)

SHOPP Roadway

Pres AC$29,400,000 2020 2018 2018 2018

Caltrans D3 CAL20547 RWIS Upgrades ‐ Various Counties

In Sacramento, El Dorado, Nevada, Placer and Yolo

Counties, on Routes 5, 28, 50, 51, 80, 89, 99 and 267, at

various locations: Repair and upgrade roadway information

systems (RWIS) also known as ITS, Intelligent

Transportation Systems. [CTIPS ID 107‐0000‐1000] (Toll

credits for PE, ROW, CON). Toll Credits for ENG, ROW, CON


Caltrans D3 CAL20548HAR Upgrades ‐ Various Counties and

Routes

In Sacramento, Butte, El Dorado, Nevada, Placer and Yolo

Counties, on Routes 5, 50, 70, 80, 89, 99 and 267, at

various locations ‐ Upgrade Highway Advisory Radios (HAR)

[CTIPS ID 107‐0000‐1001] (Toll credits for PE, ROW, CON)




February 2016



Caltrans D3 CAL20550 Upgrade CMS Panels ‐ Various Counties

In Sacramento, Butte, Colusa, El Dorado, Glenn, Nevada,

Placer, Sierra, Sutter, Yolo and Yuba Counties, on Routes 5,

50, and 80, at various locations ‐ Upgrade Changeable

Message Sign (CMS) panels [CTIPS ID 107‐0000‐1003] (Toll

credits for PE, ROW, CON). Toll Credits for ENG, ROW, CON


Caltrans D3 CAL20674I‐80 Gold Run Safety Roadside Rest Area

Rehab

Near Colfax, I‐80, at the eastbound off‐ramp to the Gold

Run Safety Roadside Rest Area (PM 41.8) ‐ Replace/repair

and line culvert, and repair ramp [CTIPS ID 107‐0000‐1009]

(Toll Credits for PE, ROW, CON). Toll Credits for ENG, ROW,

CON

SHOPP ‐ Emergency

Response (SHOPP

AC)

$430,000 2015 2015 2015 2015

Caltrans D3 CAL20680 SR 89 Maintenance Asphalt Overlay

In Placer County, on SR 89, from Jct with SR 28 north to

0.14 mile south of Squaw Valley Road ‐ Maintenance

asphalt overlay (PM 8.5/13.6) [HM1 ‐ Pavement

Preservation Fed‐Funded)] (Toll Credits for PE, ROW, CON).


HM STP $2,410,000 2017 2016 2016 2016

Caltrans HQ CAL20562FTA 5310 ‐ Pride Industries Replacement

Buses

Replace three existing buses that provide transportation to

persons with developmental and other disabilities in Placer

and Sacramento counties. Transportation Development

Credits/Toll Credits are being used as match, and as

allowable under FTA Section 5310 federal funds will fund

100% of this project.. Toll Credits for CON

FTA 5310 $229,500 2018 2015

Caltrans HQ CAL20563FTA 5310 ‐ City of Roseville Mobility

Management Program

Transit Ambassador and Mobility Training programs. Assist

new transit and paratransit/demand response

transportation riders that are seniors and persons with

disabilities in Placer County, as well as the South Placer

County "One Stop" Call Center that distributes transit and

paratransit/demand response transportation information

and handles reservations/transfers for paratransit/demand

response transportation users in Placer County.

Transportation Development Credits/Toll Credits are being

used as match, and as allowable under FTA Section 5310

federal funds will fund 100% of this project.. Toll Credits

for CON

FTA 5310 $234,000 2018 2015

Caltrans HQ CAL20564FTA 5310 ‐ City of Roseville Transit

Vehicle Navigation Units

Purchase 25 global positioning system (GPS) navigation

units to assist demand response drivers serving seniors and

people with disabilities. Transportation Development

Credits/Toll Credits are being used as match, and as

allowable under FTA Section 5310 federal funds will fund

100% of this project.

FTA 5310 $6,900 2018 2015



February 2016



Caltrans HQ CAL20565FTA 5310 ‐ City of Roseville South Placer

Call Center Equipment

Purchase training equipment (a laptop and LCD projector)

for Call Center employees and Transit Ambassadors to use,

as well as replacement digital recording system and TDD

equipment for the South Placer Call Center. Transportation

Development Credits/Toll Credits are being used as match,

and as allowable under FTA Section 5310 federal funds will

fund 100% of this project.. Toll Credits for CON

FTA 5310 $28,100 2018 2015

Capitol Corridor JPA CAL18320 Roseville Third Track

On the UP mainline, from Elvas Tower in Sacramento

County to Roseville Station in Placer County: Construct

third track. Project involves: extension of freight lead track;

construction of track and signal improvements;

construction of satellite maintenance facility and other

associated improvements; and possible relocation of the

Roseville rail station to address conflicting train

movements that affect capacity. Project improvements will

permit service capacity increases for Capitol Corridor in

Placer County, with up to ten round trips to Roseville.

IIP ‐ Public

Transportation

Account, Local, Prop

1A High Speed Rail,

RIP PTA, STIP RIP AC

$250,800,000 2021 2001 2016

City of Auburn PLA25353Auburn Multi Modal Station ‐ Rail

Platform Extension

At the existing Auburn Multi Modal Station: Obtain right‐of‐

way and install rail platform extension . (Emission Benefits

in kg/day: 0.93 ROG, 1.18 NOx, 0.43 PM10)

CMAQ, Local $1,416,480 2017 2011 2017 2017

City of Auburn PLA25471Nevada Street Pedestrian & Bicycle

Facilities

Class 2 bike lane and adjacent sidewalks along Nevada St

from Placer St to Fulweiler Ave to allow for continuous

pedestrian and bicycle access from Old Town Auburn to the

Auburn Station and EV Cain Middle School. (Emission

reductions in kg/day: ROG 0.01, NOx 0.01.)

ATP (Fed), CMAQ,

Local, Prop 1B

PTMISEA

$2,265,355 2016 2013 2016

City of Auburn PLA25547City of Auburn Non‐Urbanized Transit

Operations

For the ongoing operation of transit within the non‐

urbanized area of Auburn and a portion of non‐urbanized

Placer County.

FTA 5311, Local $2,418,854 2018 2013

City of Auburn PLA25569 Auburn Transit Bus Replacement Replace one bus. FTA 5311, Local $408,469 2016 2015

City of Colfax PLA25439Grass Valley Street Railroad Crossing

Pedestrian and Bike Improvements

Construct of pedestrian improvements across UP railroad

tracks to improve pedestrian safety, road rehabilitation,

and bike lane/route along Grass Valley St west of South

Auburn St.

Local, Prop 1B

PTMISEA, RSTP, RSTP

Exchange

$537,100 2015 2014 2015

City of Colfax PLA25577 North Main Street Bike Route

Along N. Main Street, from the Depot Transit Center to

Highway 174: Construct class III bike route and associated

improvements. Improvements include tree trimming, road

repairs, non‐capacity road widening, re‐striping, drain inlet

upgrade, bike rack, and barrier curb. (Requesting state‐only

ATP.)

ATP (Fed), Local $299,333 2016 2015 2016



February 2016



City of Lincoln PLA25464 Lincoln Blvd. Streetscape ‐ Phase 1

In Lincoln: Between 7th Street and McBean Park Drive;

construct various pedestrian, bicycle, NEV, and ITS

improvements along Lincoln Boulevard (old Highway 65 / G

Street). Improvements will consist of gap sidewalk

construction, pedestrian improvements to railroad

crossings, pedestrian crossings along Lincoln Boulevard,

bicycle and NEV lanes, connection to the existing trail along

Auburn Ravine east of Highway 65, roadway narrowing

through the construction of landscape medians and

frontage improvements where appropriate, and traffic

signal interconnection and coordination along the corridor.

(Emission Benefits in kg/day: ROG 0.58, NOx 0.41, PM10

0.08)

CMAQ, Local $3,278,812 2015 2010 2014 2014

City of Lincoln PLA25509Nelson Ln/Markham Ravine Bridge

Replacement

Nelson Ln, over Markham Ravine, 0.25 mi south of Nicolaus

Rd. Replace existing functionally obsolete 2 lane bridge

with a new 4 lane bridge.

HBP, Local $8,212,828 2015 2011 2014

City of Lincoln PLA25515 East Ave. Sidewalks (SRTS)

East side East Ave. between SR 93 (McBean Park Dr.) and

12th St.; Construct sidewalk, curb and gutter, curb ramps.

SRTS3‐03‐005

SRTS $519,600 2016 2012

City of Lincoln PLA25531 Lincoln Blvd. Signal Upgrade and Lighting

Lincoln Blvd. (SR 65) between Sterling Pkwy. and 7th St.:

Upgrade traffic signals; install safety lighting and bike lanes.

(HSIP5‐03‐006)

HSIP, Local $1,080,000 2017 2013

City of Lincoln PLA25540 McBean Park Bridge RehabilitationMcBean Park Dr. over Auburn Ravine, east of East Ave.:

Rehabilitate existing 2 lane bridge. No added lane capacity. HBP, Local $8,083,000 2020 2013 2017 2020

City of Lincoln PLA25553Twelve Bridges Drive & Joiner Parkway

rehabilitation

In Lincoln, street rehabilitation of (1) Twelve Bridges Drive

from Industrial Avenue east to Sierra College Boulevard

and (2) Joiner Parkway from the southern city limits to First

Street. (Toll Credits for CON)

RSTP, RSTP Exchange $1,332,655 2016 2014 2016

City of Lincoln PLA25554 Lincoln Blvd. Streetscape ‐ Phase 2

Lincoln Blvd, First Street to McBean Park Drive: Provide a

more pedestrian, bicycle and Neighborhood Electric

Vehicle (NEV) friendly environment along the main street

through the city. Pedestrian improvements include wider

sidewalks, bulb‐outs at intersections and crosswalks.

Bicycle and NEV improvements include Class 2 lanes on

each side of the street. (Emission Benefits in kg/day: ROG

0.16, NOx 0.11, PM10 0.06) (Toll Credits for PE and CON).

Toll Credits for ENG, CON

CMAQ $1,019,639 2017 2013 2016



February 2016



City of Lincoln PLA25645Lincoln Boulevard Streetscape

Improvements Project Phase 3

Lincoln Boulevard for a half mile and sections of First

Street, Third Street, Fifth Street, Sixth Street and Seventh

Street: construct streetscape improvements, including

improved sidewalks and 0.3 miles of NEV/Bike Lanes.

(Emission Benefits in kg/day: 0.08 ROG, 0.05 NOx, 0.02

PM2.5, 0.02 PM10) (Toll credits for PE & CON). Toll Credits

for ENG, CON

CMAQ $1,469,458 2018 2017 2018

City of Lincoln PLA25646 Street Resurfacing

On 1st Street between Lincoln Boulevard and R Street:

Rehabilitate and resurface roadway. Various drainage,

ADA, and striping improvements will also be constructed as

part of the project. (Toll credits for CON). Toll Credits for

CON

RSTP $1,671,954 2017 2017 2018

City of Rocklin PLA19400Rocklin Rd. Rehabilitation (Aguilar St. to

Meyers St.)

In Rocklin, Rocklin Road, from Meyers st to Aguilar St.:

rehab. pavement. Local, RSTP $1,075,000 2018 2016 2016

City of Rocklin PLA25025 Whitney Ranch ParkwayIn Rocklin, Whitney Ranch Parkway: construct four‐lane

facility from SR 65 to east of Wildcat Boulevard. Local $1,730,000 2016 2012 2014

City of Rocklin PLA25268 University Avenue Phase 1

University Avenue: Construct new four lane roadway from

the intersection of Whitney Ranch Parkway north to the

extension of West Ranch View Drive. One or more phases

of this project may require federal permitting.

Local $2,500,000 2017 2013 2017

City of Rocklin PLA25345 Rocklin Road/I‐80 InterchangeIn Rocklin: from Rocklin Rd. onto both WB and EB I‐80;

construct roundabouts at ramp EB/WB ramp terminus. Local $26,150,000 2018 2011 2015 2018

City of Rocklin PLA25521Whitney Ranch Parkway Interchange

Phase 1A

At SR 65 and Whitney Ranch Parkway: Construct Phase 1A

of the Whitney Ranch Interchange by constructing NB on‐

and off‐ramps, overcrossing structure, and southbound

loop on‐ramp.

Local $3,800,000 2016 2012 2014

City of Rocklin PLA25551 Sunset Blvd ReconstructionSunset Blvd from Fairway Drive to Stanford Ranch Road:

Reconstuct. (Toll credits for CON.) Local, RSTP $863,676 2016 2015

City of Rocklin PLA25552Pacific Street‐Bikeway/Neighborhood

Electric Vehicle Expansion Project

In Rocklin: Pacific Street between Delmar Ave/Dominguez

Road and Rocklin/Loomis City limits; Construct Class 1 and

2 bicycle facilities, dual left turn median lane, right turn

lane, curb ramps, portland cement concrete pavement

rehabilitation, hot mixed asphalt and base, installation of

metal beam guard railing, traffic signal modifications, new

striping and signage, landscaping, fencing, and related

improvements.

CMAQ, Local, RSTP $1,996,098 2016 2014 2016

City of Rocklin PLA25566 Bridge Preventive Maintenance Program

Bridge Preventive Maintenance Program, various locations

in City of Rocklin. See Caltrans Local Assistance HBP web

site for backup list of bridges.

HBP, Local $623,520 2015 2014 2015



February 2016



City of Rocklin PLA25635 Pacific St at Rocklin Road Roundabout

At Rocklin Rd/Pacific St., replace existing traffic signal

intersection with a two lane roundabout : (Toll Credits for

PE, ROW, CON).(Emission Benefits kg/day: ROG 0.26; NOx

0.21; PM2.5 0.01).

CMAQ $2,707,607 2018 2016 2017 2017

City of Roseville PLA15100 Baseline Road

In Roseville, Baseline Road from Fiddyment Road to Sierra

Vista Western edge west of Watt Avenue: widen from 2 to

6 lanes.

Local $7,852,055 2018 2013 2015 2016

City of Roseville PLA15660 Baseline Rd. WideningIn Roseville, Baseline Rd., from Brady Lane to Fiddyment

Road: widen from 3 to 4 lanes. Local $6,106,889 2020 2017 2018 2019

City of Roseville PLA15850 Roseville Road WideningWiden Roseville Rd. from 2 to 4 lanes Between Cirby Way

and southern city limit. Local $2,500,000 2020 2018 2018 2019

City of Roseville PLA19910 Dry Creek Greenway Trail

In Roseville, along Dry Creek, Cirby Creek and Linda Creek,

construct class 1 bike trail. (Emission Benefits in kg/day:

0.09 ROG, 0.07 NOx, 0.03 PM2.5)

CMAQ, Local $3,268,629 2019 2011 2016 2019

City of Roseville PLA25214 Roseville Transit ITS Project

To purchase and install electronic fareboxes, software,

probes, software, automatic vehicle location devices,

mobile data computers, video security cameras and

software, and digital readerboard equipment for transfer

points. [Project replaces PCT10430 and PCT10420]

FTA 5307 *, Local $1,100,000 2016 2008

City of Roseville PLA25323 Sierra Gardens Transfer Point

Improve Sierra Gardens Transfer Point. Improvements may

include new bus turnouts, shelters, restrooms, landscaping,

lighting, crosswalks, sidewalks, and other pedestrian

improvements such as bulb‐outs. (Emission benefits in

kg/day: 63 ROG, 63 Nox, 25 PM10.)

FTA 5307 *, Local $1,012,151 2016 2007 2016

City of Roseville PLA25377 Market St.City of Roseville, Market St., from approx. 800 feet north of

Baseline Road to Pleasant Grove: Extend 2 lanes. Local $8,500,000 2017 2013 2015 2016

City of Roseville PLA25378 Santucci Blvd. ExtensionCity of Roseville, Santucci Blvd. (North Watt Ave.): Extend

four lanes from Vista Grande Blvd.to Blue Oaks Boulevard. Local $6,500,000 2020 2017 2018 2019

City of Roseville PLA25386I‐80 To Royer Park Bikeway Phase 2 ‐

Segment 3

Roseville, Harding Blvd @ Dry Creek, I‐80 to Royer Park:

Construct class 1 bikeway in 2 phases. Phase 1 from I‐80 to

Harding Blvd completed in 2004 (PLA20870). Phase 2

construction is separated into 3 segments: Segment 3 is

located from Folsom Road to Lincoln Street/Royer Park.

(Emission benefits in kg/day: 0.25 ROG, 0.2 NOx 0.09

PM10)

Local $870,909 2016 2018 2011 2018

City of Roseville PLA25416 South Placer Call Center

Operating cost contribution towards ADA complementary

paratransit services provided for the South Placer Call

Center.

FTA 5307 *, Local $187,500 2015 2010



February 2016



City of Roseville PLA25465 Downtown Pedestrian Bridge

In Roseville, improve access to Civic Center transit transfer

facility by constructing transit/bicycle/pedestrian related

improvements, including pedestrian bridge and Class I trail

improvements. (Emission benefits in kg/day: ROG 0.55,

NOx 0.34, PM2.5 0.11)

CMAQ, Local $3,217,000 2018 2011 2018

City of Roseville PLA25469Oak Street Extension of Miners Ravine

Trail

In Roseville, Miners Ravine Trail, from Lincoln Street to

Royer Park along the Dry Creek corridor: Extend class 1

trail, including relocation and safety upgrades to existing

Ice House Bridge. From transit stop at Downtown Roseville

Library to existing class 1 trail in Royer Park: provide bicycle

and pedestrian improvements including replacement of

Taylor Street Bridge. (Emission benefits in kg/day: ROG

0.13, NOx 0.09, PM10 0.04) (FTA 5307 to be used on Taylor

Street bridge and bike/ped improvements leading to transit

stop at library.)

ATP (Fed), Bicycle

Transportation

Account, CMAQ, FTA

5307 *, Local, State

Cash

$4,370,732 2016 2011 2016

City of Roseville PLA25498

Roseville Transit Preventive

Maintenance and ADA Operations 2011‐

2016

Maintenance of transit fleet and operating ADA transit

services.2013 Preventive Maintenance = $0; 2013 ADA

Operations = $260,000;2014 Operating Assistance =

$1,322,938; 2014 ADA Operations = $20,6952015

Preventive Maintenance = $333,780;2015 Operating

Assistance = $459,9162016 Preventive Maintenance =

$333,7780;2016 Operating Assistance = $459,916

FTA 5307 *, FTA

5307 ‐ E.S., Local$7,210,859 2016 2011

City of Roseville PLA25500Pedestrian Facilities Improvement

Project

In Roseville, reconstruct ADA pedestrian ramps along

various arterial and collector roadways to current ADA

standards. (Emission Benefits in kg/day: 0.10 ROG, 0.06

NOx, 0.02 PM2.5) (Toll Credits for CON)

CMAQ $904,676 2016 2015

City of Roseville PLA25501Washington Blvd/Andora Undercrossing

Improvement Project

In Roseville, widen Washington Blvd from 2 to 4 lanes,

including widening the Andora Underpass under the UPRR

tracks, between Sawtell Rd and just south of Pleasant

Grove Blvd. and construct bicycle and pedestrian

improvements adjacent to roadway. (CMAQ funds are for

bicycle and pedestrian improvements only. Emission

Benefits in kg/day: 0.9 ROG, 0.51 NOx, 0.16 PM10)

Local $16,091,643 2018 2016

City of Roseville PLA25507Industrial Ave/Pleasant Grove Creek

Bridge Replacement

Industrial Ave, over Pleasant Grove Creek, 0.7 mi S Placer

Blvd. Replace the existing 2 lane functionally obsolete

bridge with a new 2 lane bridge.

HBP, Local $4,960,000 2015 2011 2015



February 2016



City of Roseville PLA25508Oak Ridge Dr/Linda Creek Bridge

Replacement

Oak Ridge Dr, over Linda Creek, 0.2 mi N of Cirby Way.

Replace the existing functionally obsolete 2 lane bridge

with a new 2 lane bridge. 11/8/2010: (Toll Credits

programmed for PE, ROW, and & CON.). Toll Credits for

ENG, ROW, CON

HBP $3,250,000 2019 2011 2018 2019

City of Roseville PLA25516 SRTS Toolkit ExpansionMultiple Schools in the Roseville City School District:

Expand Safe Routes to School (SRTS) toolkit. SRTS3‐03‐006 SRTS $295,000 2017 2014

City of Roseville PLA25527 Pleasant Grove Blvd. ExtensionIn Roseville, extend 4 lanes of Pleasant Grove from 1500

feet west of Market St to Santucci Blvd (Watt Ave). Local $5,300,000 2016 2014

City of Roseville PLA25528 Blue Oaks Blvd Extension ‐ Phase 1

In Roseville, Extend 2 lanes of Blue Oaks Blvd from Hayden

Parkway to Westside Dr., Including south half of a 6‐lane

bridge over Kaseberg Creek.

Local $6,000,000 2018 2016 2016 2017

City of Roseville PLA25534 Roseville Rd. RealignmentRoseville Rd. from Cirby Way to the city limits: Realign

roadway. (HSIP5‐03‐017) HSIP, Local $3,539,500 2017 2015

City of Roseville PLA25538 Vista Grande ArterialIn Roseville, from Fiddyment Rd west to Westbrook Blvd,

construct new 4‐lane arterial. Local $2,500,000 2015 2015

City of Roseville PLA25539 Blue Oaks Blvd. Extension Phase 2In Roseville, Blue Oaks Blvd., from Westbrook Dr. to

Santucci Blvd. (formerly Watt Ave.), extend 2 lanes. Local $6,350,000 2019 2016 2017 2018

City of Roseville PLA25545Roseville CMS Installation Project ‐

Pleasant Grove Blvd.

In Roseville, install Changeable Message Sign (CMS) on

SW/B Pleasant Grove Blvd. approaching Roseville Pkwy. to

reduce traffic congestion by improving traffic information

dissemination per the ITS Master Plan. (Qualitative

emission benefits on file.)

CMAQ, Local $200,000 2015 2016

City of Roseville PLA25570 Santucci Boulevard South

In Roseville, Santucci Boulevard South (Watt Ave.) from

Baseline Road north to Vista Grande Boulevard: Construct

4‐lane road.

Local $1,000,000 2017 2017

City of Roseville PLA25571 Market Street SouthIn Roseville, Market Street South, from Baseline Road to

approx. 800 feet north: construct 2‐lane road. Local $500,000 2015 2015

City of Roseville PLA25572Roseville Bridge Preventive Maintenance

Program

Bridge Preventive Maintenance Program (BPMP) for

various bridges in the City of Roseville. See Caltrans Local

Assistance HBP website for backup list of projects.

HBP, Local $817,000 2018 2014 2018



February 2016



City of Roseville PLA255782015 RSTP Arterial Microsurfacing

Project

In Roseville, resurface the following arterial roadways ‐

Pleasant Grove Blvd from Hartley Wy to Fiddyment Rd &

from Michner Dr to Foothills Blvd; Fiddyment Rd from

Pleasant Grove Blvd to Blue Oaks Blvd; Foothills Blvd from

Pleasant Grove Blvd to Junction Blvd & from Baseline Rd to

Atkinson St; Galilee Rd from Industrial Ave to Pleasant

Grove Blvd; Vineyard Rd from Brady Ln to Atkinson St;

Denio Loop from Foothills Blvd to Atkinson St; E Roseville

Parkway from Douglas Blvd to Sierra College Blvd; Atlantic

St from Wills Rd to I‐80 WB On Ramp; Eureka Rd from

Sunrise Ave to Douglas Blvd; Sunrise Ave from Smith Ln to

Kensington Dr; N. Sunrise Ave from Frances Dr to Lead Hill

Blvd; Sierra Gardens Dr from Santa Clara Dr to Douglas

Blvd; Santa Clara Dr from Sierra gardens Dr to Douglas

Blvd; and Douglas Blvd from N. Sunrise Ave to Sierra

Gardens, Junction Blvd from Woodcreek oaks Blvd to

Baseline Rd, Vernon St from Cirby Wy to City Limits and

Melody Ln from Cirby Wy to Cresthaven Dr. (Toll credits

for CON.)

RSTP $6,374,233 2018 2018

City of Roseville PLA25581 2017 Pedestrian Facilities Improvement

In Roseville, upgrade ADA pedestrian ramps along various

arterial and collector roadways for safety and to meet

current ADA standards. (Emission Benefits in kg/day: 0.10

ROG; 0.06 NOx; 0.02 PM2.5)

CMAQ, Local $815,925 2018 2016

City of Roseville PLA25582 Washington Boulevard Improvement

In Roseville, along Washington Boulevard from Kaseburg

Drive to Pleasant Grove Boulevard, construct new concrete

sidewalks, Class I & Class II bike facilities. Proposed

facilities cross under the Union Pacific tracks (aka "Andora

Underpass"). (Emission Benefits in kg/day: 0.24 ROG; 0.16

NOx; 0.05 PM2.5).

CMAQ, Local $1,242,517 2019 2017

City of Roseville PLA25647Atlantic Eureka I‐80 W/B On‐ramp

Widening (PE only)

In Roseville, widen the Atlantic Street/Eureka Road/I‐80

W/B On‐ramp, including bridge widening over Miners

Ravine, from 1‐lane to 2‐lanes plus an HOV bypass lane. (PE

Only)

Local $600,000 2018 2016

City of Roseville REG17928Louis/Orlando Transfer Point

Improvements

In Roseville, on Louis Blvd at Orlando Ave.: Develop and

construct an improved transfer point and intermodal

facility with a 35‐space park and ride facility. (Includes

previously programmed PLA16080.)

FTA 5307 *, FTA

5307 ‐ Discr., FTA

5339 ‐ Discr., Local,

RIP PTA

$4,738,000 2016 2011 2011 2014

PCTPA PLA25413Planning, Programming, Monitoring

2011‐2015

PCTPA plan, program, monitor (PPM) for RTPA related

activities. RIP State Cash $1,455,000 2019 2011



February 2016



PCTPA PLA25440I‐80/SR 65 Interchange Improvements

Phase 1A

In Placer County: Between I‐80 and Galleria Blvd./Stanford

Ranch Rd.; Reconfigure I‐80/SR 65 interchange to widen

northbound SR 65 from 2 to 3 lanes, including widening

Galleria Boulevard/Stanford Ranch Road northbound off‐

ramp and on‐ramp, and southbound on‐ramp (PA&ED,

PS&E, ROW, and CON to be matched with Toll Credits)

SHOPP funding (EA 03‐0H260) for auxiliary lane on

northbound SR 65 between I‐80 and Galleria

Boulevard/Stanford Ranch Road.

DEMO HPP, Local,

NCI, SHOPP Collision

AC

$37,109,873 2022 2010 2016 2017

PCTPA PLA25468Placer County Congestion Management

Program

Provide educational and outreach efforts regarding

alternative transportation modes to employers, residents,

and the school community through the Placer County

Congestion Management Program (CMP). CMP activities

will be coordinated with the City of Roseville and SACOG's

Regional Rideshare / TDM Program. (Emission Benefits

kg/day: ROG 11.44; NOx 11.59; PM2.5 5.54)

CMAQ, Local $1,548,812 2020 2011

PCTPA PLA25519I‐80 Eastbound Auxiliary Lane: SR 65 to

Rocklin Rd.

In Rocklin: Between SR 65 (PM 4.5) and Rocklin Rd. (PM

5.9); Construct eastbound I‐80 auxiliary lane, including two‐

lane off‐ramp, concrete barrier/retaining walls, and

shoulder improvements. (Toll credits for PE, ROW, and

CON)

DEMO HPP, Local $4,990,000 2019 2014 2016 2019

PCTPA PLA25529SR 65 Capacity & Operational

Improvements Phase 1

SR 65, from Galleria Blvd. to Lincoln Blvd., make capacity

and operational improvements. Phase 1: From Galleria

Blvd. to Pleasant Grove Blvd., construct auxiliary lanes on

northbound and southbound SR 65, including widening

Galleria Blvd. southbound off‐ramp. (Toll credits for

PA&ED)(Emission Benefits in kg/day: ROG 15.80; NOx

15.88; PM10 11.66)

CMAQ, Local $16,520,000 2020 2013 2018 2018

PCTPA PLA25542I‐80 Westbound Auxiliary Lane ‐ Douglas

Blvd. to Riverside Ave.

In Roseville: Between Douglas Blvd.(PM 2.0) and Riverside

Ave. (PM 0.2); Construct westbound I‐80 auxiliary lane and

shoulder improvements. (Toll credits for PE, ROW, and

CON)

Local, NCI $5,910,000 2019 2014 2016 2019

PCTPA PLA25543 Placer County Freeway Service Patrol

In Placer County: provide motorist assistance and towing of

disabled vehicles during am and pm commute periods on I‐

80 (Riverside Ave to SR 49) and SR 65 (I‐80 to Twelve

Bridges Dr). (Emission Benefits in kg/day: ROG 1.13; NOx

0.45; PM 2.5 0.07)

CMAQ, State Cash $1,556,177 2020 2014



February 2016



PCTPA PLA25576 I‐80 Westbound 5th Lane

In Roseville: Between east of Douglas Blvd. off‐ramp to

west of Riverside Ave.; Extend I‐80 westbound auxiliary

lane (PLA25542) to the east and west to create continuous

5th lane on westbound I‐80. The Douglas Boulevard

off‐ramp would be reduced from a 2‐lane

off‐ramp to a 1‐lane off‐ramp.

Local, NCI $3,700,000 2020 2018 2019

PCTPA PLA25643 2019 PCTPA TCMFunding for PCTPA share of Transportation Control

Measures in 2019. Toll Credits for CON CMAQ $235,358 2020 2019


Phase 1B

In Placer County: Between Galleria Boulevard/Stanford

Ranch Road and Pleasant Grove Boulevard; Reconfigure I‐

80/SR 65 interchange to widen northbound SR 65 from 2 to

3 lanes, and widen I‐80 westbound to SR 65 northbound

ramp from 1 to 2 lanes.

Local $17,500,000 2022 2021


Phase 1C

In Placer County: Between I‐80 and Pleasant Grove

Boulevard; Reconfigure I‐80/SR 65 interchange to widen

southbound SR 65 from 2 to 3 lanes.

Local $11,500,000 2022 2021

Placer County PLA15080 Auburn‐Folsom Rd Widening

From Placer / Sacramento County line to Douglas Blvd, :

Widen to 4 lanes. Install signal at Auburn‐Folsom Blvd and

Fuller Dr.

Local, Other Fed ‐

ARRA‐RSTP, Prop 1B

SLPP

$28,300,000 2015 2001 2006 2007

Placer County PLA15105Baseline Road Widening Phase 1 (West

Portion)

Baseline Rd. from Watt Avenue to future 16th street:

Widen from 2 to 4 lanes. Local $19,200,000 2018 2012 2013 2014

Placer County PLA15420 Walerga RoadWalerga Rd: Widen and realign from 2 to 4 lanes from

Baseline Rd. to Placer / Sacramento County line. Local $13,781,700 2019 1998 1999 2014

Placer County PLA18490 PFE Rd. WideningPFE Rd, from Watt Ave. to Walerga Rd: Widen from 2 to 4

lanes and realign. Local $13,085,000 2018 2012 2013 2017

Placer County PLA25044 Sunset Blvd. Widening

Widen Sunset Boulevard from State Route 65 to Cincinnati

Avenue from 2 to 4 lanes. Project includes widening

Industrial Blvd / UPRR overcrossing from 2 to 4 lanes.

Local $8,675,000 2020 2014 2014 2014

Placer County PLA25170 Sunset Blvd Phase 2Sunset Blvd, from Foothills Boulevard to Fiddyment Rd:

Construct a 2‐lane road extension [PLA15410 is Phase 1.] Local $6,365,000 2018 2006 2006 2016

Placer County PLA25299 Placer Parkway Phase 1

In Placer County: Between SR 65 and Foothills Boulevard;

Construct phase 1 of Placer Parkway, including upgrading

the SR 65/Whitney Ranch Parkway interchange to include a

southbound slip off‐ramp, southbound loop on‐ramp,

northbound loop on‐ramp, six‐lane bridge over SR 65, and

four‐lane roadway extension from SR 65 (Whitney Ranch

Parkway) to Foothills Boulevard.

Local, RSTP $70,000,000 2020 2013 2016 2018



February 2016



Placer County PLA25447 Bowman Rd Bridge

Bowman Rd, over UP Railroad, BNSF RR and AMTRAK, 0.1

miles south of 19C‐62: Rehabilitate the existing bridge

without adding additional lanes.

HBP, Local $2,650,002 2017 2010 2019

Placer County PLA25449Dowd Rd Bridge Replacement at Coon

Creek

Dowd Rd over Coon Creek, 0.4 miles north of Wise Rd.:

Replace existing 2 lane bridge with a new 2 lane bridge.

(Toll Credits programmed for ROW & CON). Toll Credits for

ROW, CON

HBP, Local $6,275,000 2020 2008 2018 2021

Placer County PLA25453Dowd Rd at Yankee Slough Bridge

Replacement

Dowd Rd. over Yankee Slough, just south of Dalby Rd.:

Replace existing structurally deficient 1 lane bridge with

new 2 lane bridge. (Toll Credits for CON). Toll Credits for

CON

HBP, Local $4,812,511 2015 2012 2012 2014

Placer County PLA25458 Bridge Preventive Maintenance

In various location ins Placer County, perform preventive

maintenance on bridges. See Caltrans Local Assistance HBP

website for locations.

HBP, Local $1,356,000 2020 2015 2021

Placer County PLA25463Baseline Road Widening Phase 2 (West

Portion)

Baseline Road from Sutter County Line to Future 16th

Street. Widen from 2 to 4 lanes. Local $29,000,000 2025 2014 2016 2019

Placer County PLA25472 Auburn Folsom Rd Class II Bike Lane

On Auburn‐Folsom Rd between Douglas Blvd and Joe

Rodgers Rd, construct a Class II Bike lane on both sides of

the road, including signing and striping; construct sidewalk

on both sides of Auburn‐Folsom Rd from Wilcox Place

north to Joe Rodgers. (Emission benefits in kg/day: ROG

0.06, NOx 0.04, PM10 0.03) [Toll Credits for CON]. Toll

Credits for CON

CMAQ, Local, RSTP $1,227,674 2016 2012 2013 2015

Placer County PLA25474Dowd Rd Bridge Replacement at

Markham Ravine

Dowd Rd, over Markham Ravine, 0.5 miles south Nicolaus

Rd: Replace existing 2 lane structurally deficient bridge

with a new 2 lane bridge. (Toll credits for CON.). Toll

Credits for CON

HBP, Local $5,200,000 2019 2008 2011 2018

Placer County PLA25475 Haines Rd Bridge Replacement

Haines Rd, over Wise Canal, 0.45 miles North of Bell Rd:

Replace the existing functionally obsolete 2 lane bridge

with a new 2 lane bridge. (Toll Credits for PE, ROW, & CON)

HBP $5,180,000 2020 2011 2021 2021

Placer County PLA25477Alpine Meadows Rd Bridge

Rehabilitation

Alpine Meadows Rd over Truckee River, 0.1 miles west of

SH 89: Replace the existing structurally deficient 2 lane

bridge with a new 2 lane bridge. (Toll Credits programmed

for ROW & CON)

HBP, Local $22,625,063 2015 2015 2014 2008

Placer County PLA25505Yankee Jim's Rd Bridge at North Fork

American River

Bridge No. 19C0002, Yankee Jim's Rd over North Fork

American River, 1.5MI W of Shirttail Cyn Rd, Replace

structurally deficient 1 lane bridge with a new 2 lane

bridge. (Toll credits programmed for PE, ROW & CON.).


HBP $14,999,400 2020 2011 2018 2021

Placer County PLA25506Walerga Rd/Dry Creek Bridge

Replacement

Walerga Rd, over Dry Creek, 1.1 mi S Base Line Rd. Replace

the existing 2 lane bridge with a 4 lane bridge. HBP, Local $23,025,007 2020 2011 2016 2021



February 2016



Placer County PLA25512 King Rd. Safety Lane Widening

King Rd. between Auburn Folsom Rd. and Sudor Ln.: Widen

travel lanes; construct drainage improvements. HSIP4‐03‐

007 [Toll Credits for CON]. Toll Credits for CON

HSIP, RSTP $1,200,000 2016 2011

Placer County PLA25513 Wise Rd Bridge Replacement

Wise Rd, over Doty Creek, 0.5 miles east of Garden Bar:

Replace existing 1‐lane functionally obsolete bridge with a

new 2‐lane bridge.

HBP, Local $4,759,200 2020 2012 2015 2021

Placer County PLA25518 Brewer Rd. Bridge Replacement

Brewer Rd., over Pleasant Grove Creek, 4.2 miles north of

Baseline Rd.: Replace 2‐lane bridge with a new 2‐lane

bridge. (Toll Credits for PE, ROW, & CON.). Toll Credits for

ENG, ROW, CON

HBP $4,807,500 2020 2012 2015 2019

Placer County PLA25532 Pavement MarkingsVarious locations throughout Placer County: Install

pavement markings (HSIP5‐03‐011, HSIP5‐03‐012) HSIP, Local $1,251,500 2015 2013

Placer County PLA25533 Auburn Folsom Rd. Safety Improvements

Auburn Folsom Rd. from approximately 60' N of Willow Ln.

to Robin Hood Ln. and Joe Rodgers Rd from 450' W of

Auburn Folsom Rd to Auburn Folsom Road: Construct

sidewalks, curb ramps, curb and gutter; install mid‐block

crosswalks; traffic feedback sign; pedestrian warning

beacon; guardrail replacements; improve pavement

friction. (Toll credits for CON) (HSIP5‐03‐013). Toll Credits

for CON

HSIP, Local, RSTP $1,278,227 2016 2016

Placer County PLA25535 Watt Ave. Bridge Replacement

Watt Ave./Center Joint Ave., over Dry Creek, 0.4 mi north

of P.F.E. Rd.: Replace existing 2 lane bridge with a 4 lane

bridge.

HBP, Local $19,892,750 2019 2013 2018 2021

Placer County PLA25536 Crosby Harold Rd. Bridge

Crosby Harold Rd. Over Doty Creek, 0.9 mi N of Wise Rd.:

Replace an existing 1 lane bridge with a new 2 lane bridge.

(Toll Credits for PE, ROW, CON). Toll Credits for ENG, ROW,

CON

HBP $3,550,000 2020 2013 2018 2021

Placer County PLA25541 Gold Hill Rd. Bridge Replacement

Gold Hill Rd. over Auburn Ravine, 0.65 mi north of SR 193:

Replace existing 2 lane bridge with a new 2 lane bridge.

(Toll credits for PE, ROW, CON)

HBP $5,018,250 2020 2013 2018 2021

Placer County PLA25549 Martis Valley Trail

Complete a 10' wide paved Class I multipurpose trail

connecting Northstar Village roundabout to the southerly

border of Army Corps property. (Emission Benefits in

kg/day: ROG 0.01; NOx 0.01)

CMAQ, Local $4,700,000 2019 2016 2017 2018

Placer County PLA25559Bridge Approach and Non‐HBP

Partipating Costs

In Placer County, bridge approach and non‐HBP

participating costs at Alpine Meadows @ Truckee River and

Dowd Road @ Yankee Slough. (Toll Credits for CON). Toll

Credits for CON

RSTP $410,773 2017 2017



February 2016



Placer County PLA25562HMA Overlay, Various County Roads

(Yr2)

In Placer County, hot mix asphalt (HMA) overlay on various

County roads: (1) Douglas Boulevard from Barton to

Auburn‐Folsom, (2) Dry Creek Road from Joeger to HWY 49,

(3) Richardson Drive from Atwood Rd to Bell Rd, (4) Nevada

Street from 150' east of Nevada Way to Auburn City Limits,

(5) Edgewood Road from SR49 to Edgewood Place (Toll

Credits for CON). Toll Credits for CON

RSTP $2,809,435 2016 2016

Placer County PLA25563HMA Overlay, Various County Roads

(Yr3)

In Placer County, hot mix asphalt (HMA) overlay on various

County roads: (1) Sierra College Boulevard from Olympus

Rd to Eureka Rd, (2) Old State Highway from Taylor Rd to

HWY 193, (3) Fruitvale Road from Fowler Rd to Gold Hill Rd,

(4) West Wise Road from HWY 65 to Lincoln‐Sheridan Blvd

(Toll Credits for CON)

RSTP $2,299,047 2017 2017

Placer County PLA25564Pedestrian Improvements along Hwy 49,

Education Street, and Town Court

Along Hwy 49 on the westside from Bell Rd to Education St.

South side of Education St. west to connect to existing

sidewalk and improve ADA ramps & crosswalks along Town

Court (Emissions Benefits in kg/day: ROG 0.07, NOx 0.04,

PM10 0.02) (Toll Credits for PE, ROW, CON)

CMAQ $925,000 2017 2014 2015 2015

Placer County PLA25565 Cook Riolo Road Pathway

Pedestrian Pathway along Cook Riolo Rd from existing

sidewalk at Creekview Ranch Middle School North

(Emission Benefits in kg/day: ROG 0.02, NOx 0.01) [Toll

Credits for PE, ROW, CON]. Toll Credits for ENG, ROW,

CON

CMAQ, Local, RSTP $2,190,157 2017 2014 2016 2018

Placer County PLA25567 Safety Surface TreatmentAt 18 various locations throughout Placer County: install

high friction surface treatment. (HSIP6‐03‐010) HSIP, Local $1,537,600 2014 2014

Placer County PLA25568 Signage Upgrades

Various corridors throughout Placer County: Conduct a

Roadway Safety Signing Audit and upgrade signs. (HSIP6‐03‐

011) (Toll Credits for CON). Toll Credits for CON

HSIP, Local $2,228,914 2017 2014

Placer County PLA25583 CNG Bus

Replace one CNG bus with one new cleaner CNG Bus for

Placer County Transit. (Emissions Benefits in kg/day: NOx

0.75.)

CMAQ, Prop 1B

PTMISEA$530,000 2017 2017

Placer County PLA25584 Truckee River Trail

Along SR89, from Squaw Valley Road to the USFS Silver

Creek Campground: construct 1.4 miles of multi‐use trail .

(Emission Benefits in kg/day; ROG 0.01; NOx 0.01)

CMAQ, Local $4,500,000 2020 2019

Placer County PLA25650 Safety Improvements

At 19 intersections throughout southwest Placer County:

Installation of lighting, upgraded pavement markings, and

flashing beacon improvements. HSIP7‐03‐009 (Toll Credits

for CON)

HSIP $777,400 2017 2017



February 2016



Placer County Transit PCT10488 Purchase 2 Replacement BusesPurchase of two (2) 35' CNG replacement buses for Placer

County Transit. (Emission Benefits: 0.5 kg/day NOx)

CMAQ, CMAQ XFER,

Prop 1B PTMISEA$1,000,000 2016 2012

Placer County Transit PCT10491Placer County Non‐Urbanized Transit

Operations

Operating assistance for rural transit services within Placer

County. Outside the Sacramento Urbanized Area.FFY 2015:

$303,000FFY 2016: $291,197

FTA 5311, Local $7,204,917 2016 2010

Placer County Transit PCT10493

Preventive Maintenance, ADA

Operations, and Operating Assistance

2009‐2016

Operating assistance, preventive maintenance, and ADA

operations for transit services for urban transit services

within El Dorado County as well as commuter service to /

from Sacramento. Sacramento Urbanized Area.FFY 2009

preventive maintenance: $324,890FFY 2009 ADA

operations: $281,700FFY 2010 preventive maintenance:

$300,000FFY 2010 ADA operations: $200,000FFY 2011


operations: $206,700FFY 2012 preventive maintenance:

$32,890FFY 2012 ADA operations: $217,000FFY 2012 Fuel:

$84,429FFY 2013 Operating assistance: $539,341FFY 2014

Operating assistance: $563,744FFY 2014 preventive

maintenance: $56,696FFY 2015 preventive maintenance:

$207,695FFY 2015 Operating assistance: $485,000FFY 2016


operations: $217,000

FTA 5307 *, FTA

5307 ‐ E.S., Local$10,316,520 2016 2009

Placer County Transit PCT10494 CNG Station Upgrade Phase 2

Dewitt Center in Auburn: Increase of CNG compressor

capacity at Placer County CNG fueling station in Auburn.

(Emissions Benefits in kg/day: 3.46 NOx, 0.12 PM10.)

*Local Funds are Air District Funds*

CMAQ, Local $576,809 2016 2012 2012

Placer County Transit PCT10501 Placer County CNG Replacement Buses

Replace four CNG powered buses currently in use by Placer

County Transit. The new CNG buses will be used on

regional transit routes connecting Rocklin, Lincoln, Loomis,

Auburn and Placer County to Roseville and the Watt/I‐80

Light Rail Station. (Emission Benefits in kg/day: 3.16 NOx)

CMAQ, Prop 1B

PTMISEA$2,059,528 2016 2012

Placer County Transit PCT10503 PCT Bus Replacements ‐ 2015

Replace two CNG powered buses currently in use by Placer

County Transit. The new CNG buses will be used on

regional transit routes connecting Rocklin, Lincoln, Loomis,

Auburn and Placer County to Roseville and the Watt/I‐80

Light Rail Station. (Emission Benefits in kg/day: 1.49 NOx)

CMAQ, Prop 1B

PTMISEA$1,082,000 2016 2014

Placer County Transit PCT10504 T.A.R.T Bus Purchase Replace one 35‐foot bus for Tahoe Area Reginal Transit. FTA 5311, Prop 1B

PTMISEA$525,000 2016 2014



February 2016



Placer County Transit PCT10507 T.A.R.T. Bus Purchase Replace one 35‐foot bus for Tahoe Area Regional Transit. FTA 5311, Prop 1B

PTMISEA$525,000 2017 2015

Placer County Transit PLA25550Lincoln Transit (Subrecipient) Operating

Assistance

Lincoln Transit (Subrecipient)‐ Operating assistance and

preventive maintenance for transit services within the City

of Lincoln. Sacramento Urbanized Area.FFY 2015 operating

assistance: $120,000FFY 2015 preventive maintenance:

$50,894

FTA 5307 *, FTA

5307 ‐ E.S., Local$1,691,970 2016 2013

Pride Industries/CTSA VAR56123Pride Industries One, Inc. 5310

Replacement Bus and Cameras

FTA 5310 funds will be used to purchase one (1) Medium

Bus that accommodates up to 14 passengers (incl. 2

wheelchair positions) & a driver and thirty‐eight (38)

cameras for Pride Industries. (Uses Toll Credits for local

match).

FTA 5310 $105,989 2015 2014

SACOG VAR56096 Roseville Transit Mobility Management

The proposed mobility management services would

enhance the ability of passengers to successfully ride

transit in multiple areas (Placer County, Loomis,

Rocklin,Lincoln, Auburn and Roseville). The goal of the

program would include providing travel training from

transit staff, trip planning training, and practice trips with

staff.

FTA 5317, Local $47,500 2016 2011

SACOG VAR56109Roseville Transit JARC Operating

Assistance

Use FY 2011 & 2012 Urbanized Area JARC funds to operate

two fixed route buses to extend routes A & B from 6:30 to

9:30 PM M‐F, and 1 DAR bus to extend service from 7:00 to

9:30 PM.

FTA 5316, Local $371,680 2015 2013

SACOG VAR56116WPCTSA ‐ New Freedom Operating

Assistance

Western Placer Consolidated Transportation Services

Agency: Operating assistance for "Health Express," a low‐to‐

no cost, scheduled, door‐to‐door, shared ride service for

Placer County residents needing transportation to non‐

emergency medical appointments.

FTA 5317, Local, STA $600,000 2015 2013

Town of Loomis PLA25530Taylor Road Overlay Maintenance

ProjectTaylor Road: Asphalt overlay. Local $460,000 2016 2015 2016

Town of Loomis PLA25548Town Center Implementation Plan


Taylor Road, Horseshoe Bar Road to just south of Oak St.:

Construct new ADA‐compliant sidewalk, replace

non‐compliant sidewalk, new curb and gutter, 5'

bike lanes, irrigation and new trees, new St. lighting, four

in‐Rd. warning lights at the crosswalks, and

pedestrian‐friendly features at intersections. (Emissions in

kg/day: 0.06 ROG, 0.04 NOx, 0.02 PM10)

ATP (Fed), CMAQ,

Local$1,910,444 2016 2015 2016

Town of Loomis PLA25579 2017 CIP Road Maintenance Project

Asphalt overlay and reconstruction repair of various streets

in the Loomis Downtown Core Area covered under the

Capital Improvement Program Schedule for 2017.

Local, RSTP $500,000 2017 2017



February 2016



Town of Loomis PLA25644Town Center Implementation Plan


In Loomis: Taylor Road from Circle Drive to Oak Street:

construct streetscape improvements. (Emission Benefits in

kg/day: 0.03 ROG, 0.02 NOx, 0.01 PM2.5, 0.01 PM10)

CMAQ, Local $860,000 2017 2018

USFS Tahoe National Forest PLA25556 Sugar Pine OHV Staging Area

Outside of Foresthill, Sugar Pine Off Highway Vehicle (OHV)

Staging Area: Renovation of an existing staging area,

including parking, accessible restrooms, and picnic

facilities. (RM‐13‐016)

Local, RTP $325,950 2016 2013

Western Placer CTSA PLA25510 Western Placer CTSA Operations

The Western Placer CTSA operates non‐emergency medical

transportation demand‐response paratransit service;

volunteer door‐to‐door transportation; & voucher program

within western Placer County.

Local $4,900,000 2019 2011

Western Placer CTSA PLA25511New Freedom (Rural) Operating

Assistance

Operating Assistance for the rural portion of the "Health

Express." This service is being provided as a new

transportation alternative to traditional public transit fixed

route and dial‐a‐ride services. The service is a low‐to‐no‐

cost scheduled door‐to‐door transportation service to non‐

emergency medical appointments for rural Placer County

residents. Service operates Monday through Friday, 8:00

a.m. to 5:00 p.m., and Thursdays, 10:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. in

Sacramento.

FTA 5310, FTA 5317,

Local$416,176 2016 2011

Total All Projects: $1,491,963,102


MEMORANDUM TO: Celia McAdam FROM: AIM Consulting DATE: February 8, 2016 RE: January 2016 Monthly Report

The following is a summary of communications and public information work performed by AIM Consulting (AIM) on behalf of Placer County Transportation Planning Agency (PCTPA) in the month of January. AIM assisted with media relations and public information. AIM maintained and drafted content for PCTPA social media and the blog page to share current information about PCTPA projects and activities. AIM also began working on an informational graphic to summarize and highlight PCTPA’s key achievements in 2015. Following is a capsule summary of activities:

Funding Strategy AIM continued to work with PCTPA and the consultant team on the Regional Transportation Funding Initiative. AIM has continued to support PCTPA’s efforts in discussing a future sales tax measure with community leaders and organizations,

PCTPA.net AIM continued to update the blog with current news articles about PCTPA and additional information including the Executive Director’s speaking engagements, public transportation workshops, PCTPA programs, and news releases. The blog page will continue to be updated with current information about projects, programs, and events. AIM continued posting Social Media updates on the PCTPA’s Facebook and Twitter pages as well as the Executive Director’s Facebook page to highlight the work the Executive Director does for PCTPA, including photos from speaking engagements and events. Key promotions included:

South Placer Bus Pass Subsidy

PCTPA January 2016 Monthly Report Page 2 of 2

Bucks for Bikes Subsidy Program

Galleria Boulevard/Stanford Ranch Road/SR 65 Northbound Ramps Stakeholder Meeting

I-80 Auxiliary Lanes Project

I-80 Auxiliary Lanes Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration and Initial Study Document Availability and Comment Period

Celia’s Speaking Engagements

Caltrans Traffic Alert for Raise 80 Overnight Alternating Lane Closures

Media Relations AIM continued to monitor industry and local news in an effort to identify outreach opportunities as well as support the Agency’s efforts to address local transportation and transit issues.

Special Events AIM coordinated with PCTPA and other transportation agencies to plan a meeting in February regarding the CCJPA Third Track project.

1701 Pennsylvania Avenue

Suite 300

Washington, DC 20006

Phone: (202) 351-6855

Fax: (202) 351-6855

www.federaladvocates.com

January 29, 2016

To: Celia McAdam

From: Sante and Michael Esposito

Subject: January Monthly Report

Federal Legislative Program for 2016

Policy

Advocate for the appropriation of funding for intercity passenger rail as authorized in the

FAST Act;

Seek relief from Federal regulations on projects to improve the highway system that do

not have Federal funding support;

Balance road maintenance and accessibility needs by supporting greater flexibility in the

definition of structural and non-structural improvements in triggering Americans with

Disabilities Act (ADA) improvements.

Projects/Appropriations

Actively and strategically pursue Federal funding opportunities in the Nationally

Significant Freight and Highway Projects Program, Transportation Investment

Generating Recovery (TIGER), and other grant programs for the following priority

projects:

o I-80/SR 65 Interchange Improvements

o Placer Parkway

o Roseville – Sacramento Third Track Rail Project

http://www.federaladvocates.com/

Investigate the potential use of the Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation

Act (TIFIA) loan program to jump-start construction of priority projects, including the

Placer Parkway;

Explore opportunities for Federal grants to fund various transportation priorities,

including transit and bikeways;

Support member jurisdiction efforts to obtain Federal funding and/or approvals for local

transportation priorities.

FAST Act and FY16 Consolidated Appropriations Act: Funding Opportunities

In December the President signed into law both the FAST Act, “Fixing America’s Surface

Transportation Act.,” the five-year Federal highway, transit, motor carrier and rail program, and

the FY16 Consolidated Appropriations Act that funds all twelve appropriations bills for FY16.

These laws provide various funding opportunities for infrastructure, as follows:

Federal Opportunities

Nationally Significant Freight and Highway Projects Program. This program will provide an

average of $900 million per year in grants of at least $25 million for highway, bridge, rail-grade

crossing, intermodal and freight rail projects costing more than $100 million that improve

movement of both freight and people, increase competitiveness, reduce bottlenecks, and improve

intermodal connectivity. The Secretary will award projects competitively based on criteria listed

in the bill. At least 25 percent of the funds must be spent in rural areas and the federal share of

project costs will be 60 percent. While the program allows HTF resources to be diverted to

freight rail projects, it will impose a $500 million limitation on the total amount that can be

awarded over the next five years to freight and intermodal projects. It also reserves 10 percent of

the annual grant awards for projects that do not meet the program’s cost threshold. The Secretary

of Transportation must report all grant awards to Congress, which will have 60 days to reject a

project by joint resolution.

TIFIA. The Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (TIFIA) program provides

federal credit assistance in the form of direct loans, loan guarantees, and standby lines of credit

to finance surface transportation projects of national and regional significance. TIFIA credit

assistance provides access to capital markets, flexible repayment terms, and potentially more

favorable interest rates than can be found in private capital markets for similar instruments.

TIFIA can help advance qualified, large-scale projects that otherwise might be delayed or

deferred because of size, complexity, or uncertainty over the timing of revenues. Many surface

transportation projects - highway, transit, railroad, intermodal freight, and port access - are

eligible for assistance. Each dollar of federal funds can provide up to $10 in TIFIA credit

assistance - and leverage $30 in transportation infrastructure investment. MAP-21 provided $1.7

billion in new TIFIA loan authority. The FAST ACT provides additional funding of $275 million

in FY16; $275 million in FY17; $285 million in FY18; $300 million in FY19; and, $300 million

in FY20.

TIGER Discretionary Grants. The U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT) has awarded

grants under seven annual TIGER programs for surface transportation projects that will have a

significant impact on the Nation, a metropolitan area or a region. This program was first created

in the 2009 Recovery Act, since which time USDOT has referred to these grants as

Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery or "TIGER Discretionary Grants."

Beginning with the Recovery Act and continuing through the FY15 appropriations processes,

Congress has provided DOT with seven rounds of competitive grants totaling just over $4.7

billion for capital investments in surface transportation infrastructure. Since 2009, the TIGER

program has awarded 342 projects in all 50 states, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico,

including 117 projects to support rural and tribal communities. For FY16, $500 million is

provided in the FY16 Omnibus Appropriations Act for an eighth round of grants in 2016.

On-going Federal Grant Announcements: Given the enactment of the FY16 Omnibus

Appropriations Act and with this year being an election year, the expectation is that there will be

a significant number of grant announcements. These are being monitored on a weekly basis with

notice to PCTPA if a grant of interest is announced.

State Opportunities

National Highway Performance Program (NHPP). The NHPP is the most significant highway

program, focusing on maintaining and improving the Interstate Highway System and other major

highways designated as part of the National Highway System. The program receives 63.7

percent of formula funds remaining after funding is provided for the Congestion Mitigation &

Air Quality (CMAQ) Program, metropolitan planning and national freight programs. The new

law will add two permissible uses for NHPP funds: to pay subsidy and administrative costs for

TIFIA projects and for improvements to bridges that are not on the National Highway System.

Surface Transportation Block Grant. The FAST Act expands the existing Surface

Transportation Program (STP) into a “Surface Transportation Block Grant Program (STBGP)”

based on the thought that most of the benefits of STP funds accrue locally and that decisions

about how such funds are obligated should be determined by state and local governments, which

can best respond to unique local circumstances and implement the most efficient solutions. The

bill rewrites and simplifies the list of uses eligible for program funds and increases the ways that

STP funds can be used for local roads and rural minor collectors. The new program still requires

that a fraction of program funds be distributed within each state on the basis of population, and

the fraction subject to this requirement grows from 50 percent in 2015 under the existing STP

program to 55 percent in FY 2020 and thereafter. Furthermore, $835 million to $850 million of

the annual funding for this program is set aside for the transportation alternatives program, which

supports a variety of pedestrian, bicycling, and environmental activities. This maintains the same

funding for enhancements as in MAP-21. It also requires states to invest the same amount each

year in recreational trails as in 2009, although states are able to opt out of the Recreational Trails

Program. The STBGP block grant program receives the same 29.3 percent of formula funds as

did the STP program under MAP-21.

Congestion Mitigation & Air Quality (CMAQ) Program. This long-standing program focuses

on reducing highway traffic congestion and improving air quality with a particular focus on

states and areas that do not meet current air quality standards. The FAST Act makes only a few

changes to the CMAQ program: CMAQ funds can be used not only for attainment of ambient air

quality standards, but also to maintain standards in an attainment area; the diesel retrofit program

is expanded to include port-related off-road equipment and vehicles; and low-population-density

states are exempt from PM 2.5 attainment requirements if the non-attainment area has no

projects that are part of a transportation plan and vehicles are an insignificant contributor to PM

2.5 non-attainment. The CMAQ program receives the same share of formula funds as applied

under MAP-21.

Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP). The Act ends the ability of states to shift

funds designated for infrastructure safety projects to behavioral or educational activities,

ensuring resources remain in construction-related programs. It also designates several new safety

improvements eligible for funding including vehicle-to-infrastructure communication and

roadway improvements that provide separation between pedestrians and motor vehicles. With

regards to unpaved roads, it allows states to “opt out” of collecting safety inventory data for

unpaved/gravel roads if certain conditions are met, as long as the states continue to collect data

related to serious crashes and fatalities. It also requires the U.S. DOT to review data and report to

Congress on best practices for roadway infrastructure improvements that enhance commercial

motor vehicle safety.

Transportation Alternatives. MAP-21 combined the Transportation Enhancement Program,

Safe Routes to School and the Recreational Trails Program into a comprehensive Transportation

Alternatives Program. The most significant FAST Act modification to this program changes its

funding from 2 percent of annual apportionments (about $820 million per year) to a flat $835

million in FY16 and FY17 and then to $850 million per year thereafter. The FAST Act also

expands eligible recipients for funds to include nonprofits responsible for administration of local

transportation safety programs and requires annual reports from state and local planning

organizations on the number of project applications and awards.

National Freight Program. The FAST Act transforms the National Freight Policy provisions of

MAP-21 into a new program that funds freight-related highway improvements. It authorizes a

five-year total of $6.2 billion program. Funds are apportioned among the states by formula, but

states must establish a freight advisory committee and develop a state freight investment plan

before obligating any funds. Under the proposal, the Secretary of Transportation and the states

will designate a “National Freight Network” comprised of the Interstate highways and other

roads that are critical to the safe and efficient shipment of freight. The national and state

networks will be update every five years. Program funds will be directed under national and state

strategic plans to projects that improve highway freight transportation. States will be able to

obligate up to 10 percent of their freight program funds for improvements to freight rail or ports,

statutorily breaking a long-standing practice against opening up HTF resources to modes of

transportation other than highways and public transportation.

Earmark Repurposing

Included within the FY16 Omnibus Appropriations Bill is a provision that allows state DOT’s to

repurpose earmarks for specific projects that are at least 10 years old and for which less than 10

percent of the total was obligated. States may apply the money to different projects within 50

miles of where the original earmark would have been spent and must use the funds within three

years. In addition, states will be allowed to repurpose leftover earmark funds from projects that

were completed at less cost than the congressional earmark provided. These funds can be applied

to projects anywhere in the state. FHWA estimates roughly $2 billion in unspent earmark funds.

Currently, FHWA is in the process of identifying the exact amount of congressionally earmarked

funds (through FY15) that would qualify for repurposing. Some states will receive a large chunk

of money while others won’t receive anything. We will continue to monitor the situation with

FHWA.

President’s FY17 Budget

Scheduled for transmittal to Congress on February 9. On May 1, 2105 (revised July 9) OMB sent

a memorandum for the heads of departments and agencies on the FY17 Budget Guidance. That

memo provides, in part, that the FY 2017 Budget should continue to build on the investments

and reforms proposed in the FY 2016 Budget. In addition, agency budget requests should reflect

management strategies that will help us deliver a Government that is more effective, efficient,

and supportive of economic growth. To provide the President with the options needed to sustain

or augment critical investments and support effective programs, your FY 2017 budget

submission to OMB should reflect a 5 percent reduction below the net discretionary total

provided for your agency for FY 20 17 in the FY 20 16 Budget (unless otherwise directed by

OMB). This reduction applies equally to defense (budget function 050) and non-defense

programs; agencies that are split between the two may not reduce defense by more than 5 percent

to offset non-defense or vice versa. In working toward this funding target, all agencies should

include sufficient funding for ongoing Presidential priorities and continue efforts to increase

effectiveness and reduce fragmentation, overlap, and duplication. Your submission should

include a separate section that identifies recommendations to this effect, both within your agency

and across programs administered jointly with other agencies. As appropriate, your list of

recommendations should include proposals that address the Government Accountability Office's

recommendations in this area. In addition, agencies are asked to identify additional investments

in programs that support their missions, especially programs with strong evidence of

effectiveness. Overall, these investments and your FY 2017 Budget submission should together

achieve a level that is no more than the net discretionary total provided for your agency for FY

2017 in the FY 2016 Budget, for both defense and non-defense programs. These additional

investments should be separately identified in your budget submission and ranked in priority

order. As in previous years, when developing your FY 2017 submission, please exclude: 1) shifts

of costs to other parts of the Federal budget; 2) reclassifications of existing discretionary

spending to mandatory; 3) reductions to mandatory spending to be enacted in appropriations

bills; 4) across-the-board reductions; and 5) the enactment of new user fees to offset existing

spending. You may, however, include these items as separate proposals for consideration on their

merits or as alternative ways to achieve the guidance. Your request for mandatory spending

should reflect the same rigorous review as you unde1take for discretionary spending. OMB will

work with you over the next several months to identify areas of mandatory spending that merit

special scrutiny, including reviewing the mandatory proposals included in the FY 2016 Budget.

Agencies are pa1ticularly encouraged to identify new mandatory savings proposals as part of

their FY 2017 budget submissions. In addition, if your budget request includes any new

mandatory proposals that are not at least budget neutral, they should be accompanied by new

mandatory savings proposals to offset those costs. The President is committed to creating a

Government that will make a significant, tangible, and positive difference in the lives of the

American people and the economy, and to driving lasting change in how Government works. To

that end, agency budget choices discussed above should be driven by the agency's strategic plan

and prioritization across their goals and objectives as informed by their strategic review. To help

deliver on the President's vision for a Government of the Future, the FY 2016 Budget included a

set of reform priorities to advance the four key pillars of the President's Management Agenda:

effectiveness-delivering world-class customer service to citizens and businesses; efficiency-

enhancing productivity and achieving cost savings across the Government; economic Growth-

opening Government-funded data and research to the public to spur innovation,

entrepreneurship, economic growth, and job opportunities; and people and Culture-unlocking the

full potential of today's Federal workforce and building the workforce needed for tomorrow.

Agencies should continue to invest in these priorities in their FY 2017 submissions.

FY16 Omnibus Appropriations Act: Funding Generally

To review one last time, the Consolidate Appropriations Act includes appropriations legislation

and funding for the 12 annual Appropriations bills through the end of the fiscal year, September

30, 2016, as well as a tax measure that permanently extends more than 20 tax cuts for businesses

and individuals (see the following section). The House passed the omnibus spending portion

316-113 and the tax-extenders 318-109. The Senate voted 65-33 to send the entire package to the

President who signed the legislation into law on December 18. The overall level -$1.15 trillion -

reflects the increased domestic discretionary funding provided by the Bipartisan Budget Act of

2015, which was enacted on November 2. The bill includes: $1,067 billion in base funding; $7.1

billion of disaster aid; $1.5 billion for program integrity; and $700 million in emergency

funding. The package also contains emergency Global War on Terror (GWOT) Overseas

Contingency Operations (OCO) funding of $73.7 billion to combat the emerging real-world

threat brought by the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) and other U.S. enemies, to

conduct successful military operations, and to maintain a well-equipped and prepared military

force. In addition to the 12 Appropriations bills, the package also includes other legislative

language, including reforms to the Visa Waiver program, and a lifting of the ban on U.S. oil

exports. Transportation highlights are as follows:

The bill reflects the surface transportation funding levels provided in the recently passed Fixing

America’s Surface Transportation (FAST) Act. The bill includes $18.7 billion in discretionary

appropriations for the Department of Transportation (DOT) – $847 million above the 2015

enacted level and $5.4 billion below the President’s request. The bill also provides DOT with

$56.4 billion in “obligation limitation” funding for surface transportation and safety programs.

Within this total, the legislation provides $500 million for the TIGER program.

Highways – The bill provides the full amount authorized by the recently enacted FAST

legislation – $42.4 billion. This is an increase of $2.1 billion over the 2015 enacted level.

Air – Included in the legislation is $16.3 billion for the Federal Aviation Administration

(FAA), $564 million above the 2015 enacted level. The bill rejects the Administration’s

proposal for new passenger facility fees. The bill funds FAA’s Next Generation air

transportation systems (NextGen) at $2.9 billion – an increase of $255 million above the

2015 enacted level.

Rail – The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) is funded at $1.7 billion, an increase

of $52 million above the 2015 enacted level. Within this amount, Amtrak grant funding is

maintained at $1.4 billion, and $50 million is provided for positive train control

technologies and other rail safety grants. No funding is provided for high-speed rail.

Transit – The bill contains $11.8 billion for the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) –

an increase of $870 million over the 2015 enacted level – meeting the level authorized by

the recently enacted FAST legislation. The legislation allows $9.3 billion in state and

local transit grant funding from the Mass Transit Account of the Highway Trust Fund, to

help local communities build, maintain, and ensure the safety of their mass transit

systems. The legislation also provides a total of $2.2 billion for Capital Investment

Grants (“New Starts”), full funding for state and local “Small Starts” grants, and funding

for all current “Full Funding Grant Agreement” projects within FTA.

Safety – The legislation contains funding for the various transportation safety programs

and agencies within DOT. This includes $869 million in both mandatory and

discretionary funding for the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),

$580 million for the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, and $252 million for

the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration.

Maritime – The legislation contains $210 million for the Maritime Security Program, an

increase of $24 million over the 2015 enacted level.

Bill Tracking

Note: some of the following bills lack a subject summary. That is because the internal Hill bill

information system has still not “caught up” with the number of bills introduced. It will. Also,

some of the following bills may drop off the tracking list depending upon what is learned about

their subject matter.

H.R.935, To establish a National Freight Network Trust Fund to improve the performance

of the national freight network, and for other purposes.

Introduced on Feb. 12 by Congresswoman Janice Hahn (D-CA-44) with 11 (now 18) cosponsors.

The bill was referred to the Committees on Transportation and Infrastructure and Ways and

Means. Last Congress: On July 14, Congresswoman Janice Hahn (D-CA), Co-Chair of the

Congressional Ports Caucus, introduced H.R. 5101, the “National Freight Network Trust Fund

Act of 2014”. The legislation (with 39 cosponsors) calls for transferring five percent of all import

duties collected by U.S. Customs and Border Protection (calculated to be about $1.9B annually)

into a new freight trust fund. Her goal is to use this bill to continue the freight funding discussion

as the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee starts to draft its MAP-21

reauthorization bill. Hahn's bill: operates as a competitive grant program in which the U.S.

Secretary of Transportation makes the selections; requires a federal project cost share of 90

percent; names ports, states, and local and regional transportation bodies as eligible entities;

names state freight plan projects and state transportation plan projects as eligible; specifies that

funds can be used for connectors, regional freight projects, cross-border projects, on dock rail,

and intermodal freight facility projects; and, requires state freight plans be updated every five

years.

Status Update: no change since the last report.

H.R.198, the “MOVE Freight Act of 2015”

Introduced on January 7 by Congressman Albio Sires (D-NJ-8) with no (now 4) cosponsors. The

bill was referred to the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. The Multimodal

Opportunities Via Enhanced Freight Act of 2015 or “MOVE Freight Act of 2015”defines the

"national freight network" as a network composed of highways, railways, navigable waterways,

seaports, airports, freight intermodal connectors, and aerotropolis transportation systems most

critical to the multimodal movement of freight; revises requirements for establishment and

designation of a national freight network; directs the Secretary of Transportation (DOT) to

establish a national freight network for efficient movement of freight on highways (as currently),

railways, and navigable waterways, as well as into and out of inland ports, seaports, and airports;

re-characterizes the primary freight network as multimodal, including critical rail corridors,

critical intermodal connections, and critical inland port, seaport, and airport infrastructure;

directs the Secretary to require (currently, encourage) states to develop state freight plans for

immediate and long-range planning activities and investments with respect to freight. Requires

states to coordinate with neighboring states to ensure multistate network continuity and

connectivity; directs the Secretary to establish a competitive grant program for capital investment

projects that improve the efficiency of the national transportation system to move freight; limits

the federal share of project net capital costs to 80%; and, requires a grant recipient to submit to

the Secretary: (1) a project management plan and an annual financial plan for a project with a

total cost of $500 million or more, or (2) an annual financial plan for a project with a total cost of

$100 million or more.


H.R.2716, Transportation Empowerment Act

Introduced on June 10 by Congressman Ron DeSantis (R-FL-6) with 9 (now 43) cosponsors. The

bill was referred to the Committees on Transportation and Infrastructure, Ways and Means,

Budget and Rules. This bill prescribes a limitation on funding of transportation programs and

projects for FY2016-FY2020. Appropriations out of the Highway Trust Fund (HTF) (other than

the Mass Transit Account) are authorized for FY2016-FY2020, subject to a certain limitation, for

specified core programs under the federal-aid highway program, including emergency relief for

highways and roads, the federal lands transportation program, and Federal Highway

Administration administrative expenses. A state may transfer and use excess federal-aid highway

funds for any surface transportation project (including mass transit and rail). Certain limits are

placed on federal assistance to states for highway bridge replacement and rehabilitation to

bridges on the federal-aid highway system. Beginning with FY2015, a highway construction or

improvement project shall not be considered a federal project: unless and until a state expends

federal funds for the construction portion of the project, solely by reason of the state expenditure

of federal funds before the construction phase of the project (including for any environmental

document or design work), or upon state reimbursement to the federal government of the federal

costs of such projects. The Internal Revenue Code is amended to make amounts in the HTF

available for expenditure for core highway programs through FY2022. The Department of the

Treasury shall pay from the HTF into the Treasury general fund amounts equivalent to the floor

stocks refunds made before July 1, 2022, as well as into the Airport and Airway Trust Fund

amounts equivalent to certain aviation fuel taxes received before October 1, 2022. A motor fuel

tax rate schedule is prescribed for the financing of core highway programs. Treasury authority to

make certain transfers to the Mass Transit Account shall be terminated at the end of FY2016, at

which time Treasury shall transfer all amounts from the Mass Transit Account to the Highway

Account. The national highway performance program is revised to repeal program requirements

for specified National Highway System transportation improvement projects, including

environmental mitigation projects. The surface transportation program is revised to eliminate

from eligibility for program assistance: carpool projects, fringe and corridor parking facilities

and programs, including electric vehicle and natural gas vehicle infrastructure, and bicycle

transportation and pedestrian walkways projects transportation alternatives; and environmental

mitigation projects, including environmental restoration and pollution abatement projects Also

repealed are: the obligation of a state to use a portion of program funds for replacement or

rehabilitation of off-system bridges, metropolitan transportation planning requirements for

federal-aid highways, and the authorization of federal assistance to states for historic bridges.

Certain requirements of the highway safety improvement program are revised or repealed,

eliminating eligibility for projects for pedestrian or bicyclist safety or safety of persons with

disabilities. The congestion mitigation and air quality improvement program and the

transportation alternatives program are repealed. Appropriations out of the HTF (other than the

Mass Transit Account) are authorized for FY2016-FY2020 for the highway research and

development program. Treasury shall allocate to the states for surface transportation projects

(including mass transit and rail) any excess highway tax receipts appropriated to the HTF in

FY2016-FY2019. Excise taxes on gasoline, diesel fuel or kerosene, and diesel-water fuel

emulsion are reduced. Credits or refunds are required for certain floor stocks taxes on liquids

imposed before October 1, 2020.This Act shall become effective only if the Office of

Management and Budget certifies that it is deficit neutral.

Status Update: three cosponsors added since the last report.

S.1544, A bill to rescind unused earmarks provided for the Department of Transportation,

and for other purposes.

Introduced on June 10 by Senator Jeff Flake (R-AZ) with no (now 2) cosponsors. The bill was

referred to the Committee on Appropriations. This bill rescinds unused earmarks previously

appropriated to the Department of Transportation (DOT) and transfers the balances to the

Highway Trust Fund. Under the House and Senate rules, an earmark is a provision or report

language included primarily at the request of a Member of Congress providing, authorizing, or

recommending a specific amount of discretionary budget authority, credit authority, or other

spending authority for a contract, loan, loan guarantee, grant, loan authority, or other expenditure

with or to an entity, or targeted to a specific state, locality or congressional district, other than

through a statutory or administrative formula-driven or competitive award process. Under this

bill, earmarks provided to DOT are unused and rescinded if more than 90% of the funding

remains available for obligation at the end of the 9th fiscal year following the year the earmark

was made available. DOT may delay the rescission if it determines that an additional obligation

is likely to occur during the 10th year after funds were made available. The bill requires each

federal agency to submit an annual report to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)

identifying: (1) each earmark for a project that is ineligible for funding, (2) projects for which

funding has been made available under an earmark, and (3) projects with unobligated balances.

OMB must submit to Congress and post on its website an annual report including an accounting

of unobligated earmarks, rescissions resulting from this bill, and DOT earmarks scheduled to be

rescinded


S.1732, Comprehensive Transportation and Consumer Protection Act of 2015

Introduced on July 9 by Senator John Thune (R-SD) with two cosponsors. The bill was referred

to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation and was ordered reported.


H.R.2353, Highway and Transportation Funding Act of 2015

Introduced on May 15 by Congressman Bill Shuster (R-PA-9) with one cosponsor. Directs the

Secretary of Transportation to reduce the amount apportioned for a surface transportation

program, project, or activity for FY2015 by amounts apportioned or allocated under the Highway

and Transportation Funding Act of 2014 for the period from October 1, 2014, through May 31,

2015. Amends the Highway and Transportation Funding Act of 2014 to continue from October

1, 2014, through July 31, 2015, and authorizes appropriations through that period for, specified

federal-aid highway programs under: the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act

(MAP-21), the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for

Users (SAFETEA-LU) Technical Corrections Act of 2008, SAFETEA-LU, the Transportation

Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21), the National Highway System Designation Act of

1995, the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA), and other

specified law. Subjects funding for such programs generally to the same manner of distribution,

administration, limitation, and availability for obligation, but at a specified pro rata of the total

amount, as funds authorized for appropriation out of the Highway Trust Fund (HTF) for such

programs and activities for FY2014. Amends the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century

Act (MAP-21) to authorize appropriations out of the general fund of the Treasury for the Tribal

High Priority Projects program for the same period. Prescribes an obligation ceiling of

$33,528,284,932 for federal-aid highway and highway safety construction programs for the same

period. Authorizes appropriations from the HTF (other than the Mass Transit Account) for

administrative expenses of the federal-aid highway program for the same period. Extends for the

same period the authorization of appropriations for National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration (NHTSA) safety programs, including: highway safety research and development,

national priority safety programs, the National Driver Register, the High Visibility Enforcement

Program, and NHTSA administrative expenses. Amends SAFETEA-LU to extend for the same

period high-visibility traffic safety law enforcement campaigns under the High Visibility

Enforcement Program. Sets aside a specified amount of the total apportionment to states for

highway safety programs for a cooperative program to research and evaluate priority highway

safety countermeasures for the same period. Extends for the same period the authorization of

appropriations for Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) programs, including:

motor carrier safety grants, FMCSA administrative expenses, commercial driver's license

program improvement grants, border enforcement grants, performance and registration

information system management grants, commercial vehicle information systems and networks

deployment grants, safety data improvement grants, a set-aside for high priority activities that

improve commercial motor vehicle safety and compliance with commercial motor vehicle safety

regulations, a set-aside for new entrant motor carrier audit grants, FMCSA outreach and

education, and the commercial motor vehicle operators grant program. Amends the Dingell-

Johnson Sport Fish Restoration Act to continue, for the same period, the authorized distribution

of funds for coastal wetlands, recreational boating safety, projects under the Clean Vessel Act of

19921, boating infrastructure projects, and the National Outreach and Communications Program.

Extends for the same period the apportionment of non-urbanized (rural) area formula grants for

competitive grants and formula grants for public transportation on Indian reservations. Extends

the apportionment of urbanized area formula grants for passenger ferry projects for the same

period. Extends for the same period the authorization of appropriations from the HTF Mass

Transit Account for: formula grants for public transportation, including allocations for specified

projects; research, development demonstration, and deployment projects; the transit cooperative

research program; technical assistance and standards development grants; human resources and

training grants; capital investment grants; and administrative expenses. Allocates, for the same

period, certain amounts to states and territories for formula bus and bus facilities grants.

Authorizes appropriations for the same period for hazardous materials (hazmat) transportation

safety projects. Authorizes the Secretary to make certain expenditures, including an amount for

hazmat training grants, from the Hazardous Materials Emergency Preparedness Fund for the

same period. Amends the Internal Revenue Code to extend through July 31, 2015, the authority

for expenditures from: (1) the HTF Highway and Mass Transit Accounts, (2) the Sport Fish

Restoration and Boating Trust Fund, and (3) the Leaking Underground Storage Tank Trust Fund.

Bill became law (PL 114-21).


H.R.2410, To authorize highway infrastructure and safety, transit, motor carrier, rail, and

other surface transportation programs, and for other purposes.

Introduced on May 19 by Congressman Peter DeFazio (D-OR-4) with 23 (now 62) cosponsors.

The bill was referred to the Committees on Transportation and Infrastructure, Energy and

Commerce, Ways and Means, Science, Space, and Technology, Natural Resources, Oversight

and Government Reform, the Budget, and Rules. Prescribes requirements for environmental

reviews with respect to state and federal agency engagement, obstruction of navigation, historic

sites, categorical exclusion of multimodal projects from environmental review, and creation in

the Department of Transportation (DOT) of an Interagency Infrastructure Permitting

Improvement Center. Directs DOT to establish a multimodal freight incentive grant program and

a National Freight Infrastructure Program. Re-designates the Dwight D. Eisenhower System of

Interstate and Defense Highways as the National Highway System and the National Freight

Network. Requires the federal long-range transportation plan to include a transportation system

resilience assessment. Prescribes criteria for high performing metropolitan planning

organizations (MPOs) representing urbanized areas with populations of over 200,000. Removes

the congestion management process from the transportation planning process for MPOs. Directs

DOT to establish a pilot program for up to 10 MPOs to improve multimodal connectivity and

increase connections for disadvantaged Americans and neighborhoods with limited

transportation options. Revises requirements with respect to congestion mitigation and air quality

improvement, including electric vehicle charging stations and commercial motor vehicle anti-

idling facilities in rest areas along the Interstate System. Establishes in DOT: a discretionary

TIGER Infrastructure Grant Program for various transportation projects; and a discretionary

FAST Grant Program to reform the way surface transportation investments and decisions are

made, implemented, and funded to achieve national transportation outcomes. Revises

requirements for the funding of railroad rehabilitation and improvement financing, the state

infrastructure bank program, toll roads, bridges, tunnels, and ferries. Establishes within DOT the

position of Assistant Secretary for Innovative Finance. Reauthorizes the federal-aid highway and

related programs through FY2021, including revised obligation limitation and apportionment

requirements. Directs DOT to: establish a nationally significant federal lands and tribal projects

program to fund construction, reconstruction, or rehabilitation of nationally significant federal

lands and tribal transportation projects; carry out a broadband infrastructure deployment

initiative; create a program to make critical and immediate improvements to infrastructure and

highway safety; set-aside specified funds for states for highway safety data improvement

activities on public roads; and create and maintain data sets and data analysis tools to assist

MPOs, states, and the DOT in carrying out performance management analyses. Federal Public

Transportation Act of 2015 Revises fixed guideway capital investment grants requirements.

Authorizes grants to state and local governments for very small starts projects. Revises

requirements for formula grants for enhanced mobility and for rural areas, workforce

development programs, and the public transportation safety program. Requires recipients of

transportation assistance to meet certain standards for hiring locally. Reauthorizes specified

public transportation assistance programs through FY2021. Authorizes DOT to make

competitive grants to state and local governmental entities for bus rapid transit projects.

Authorizes appropriations for specified highway safety programs through FY2021, and revises

related requirements. Revises criteria for state graduated driver licensing incentive grants. Adds a

24-7 sobriety program to criteria for state repeat offender and open container laws. Authorizes

specified amounts of grant funds to states for distracted driving enforcement. Authorizes

appropriations for specified motor vehicle safety programs through FY2021, and increases

penalties for safety violations. Revises certain reporting requirements for tire manufacturers.

Requires DOT to conduct a pilot grant program to evaluate the feasibility and effectiveness for a

state process for informing consumers of open motor vehicle recalls at the time of motor vehicle

registration. Revises specified requirements for commercial motor vehicle and commercial driver

safety. Requires disqualification to operate a commercial motor vehicle for anyone who fails to

pay an assessed civil penalty for a motor vehicle safety violation. Revises certain medical and

registration requirements for commercial motor vehicle operators. Revises requirements for the

Motor Carrier Safety Assistance Program. Directs DOT to administer a High Priority Program,

an innovative technology deployment grant program, and a Commercial Motor Vehicle

Operators Grant Program. Authorizes DOT to establish: a motor carrier safety facility working

capital fund, and a financial assistance program for commercial driver's license program

implementation. Directs DOT to maintain for the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration a

motor carrier safety advisory committee. Revises requirements for the Unified Carrier

Registration System plan. Repeals the authorization for self-insurance by motor carriers.

Prescribes notice requirements relating to decisions that electronic logging devices fail to comply

with standards. Authorizes DOT to issue regulations: governing contractors that exercise control

over motor carrier operations; and requiring motor vehicle employers to track and compensate

employees for on-duty, not-driving time. Authorizes DOT, with respect to unsafe conditions or

practices in the transportation of hazardous materials (hazmat transportation), to order necessary:

operational controls, restrictions, and prohibitions without prior notice or an opportunity for a

hearing; and removal, remediation, or disposal of hazardous materials causing unreasonable risk

of death, personal injury, or significant harm to the property or the environment. Authorizes

DOT to collect reasonable fees for the administration of the special permits and approvals for

deposit into a Hazardous Materials Approvals and Permits Fund. Revises requirements for

planning and training grants under the Emergency Planning and Community Right-To-Know Act

of 1986. Reauthorizes the program for regulating hazmat transportation through FY2021.

Amends the Internal Revenue Code to extend through FY2023 specified highway-related taxes

as well as requirements for expenditures from the Sport Fish Restoration and Boating Trust

Fund. Replaces the Highway Trust Fund with a Transportation Trust Fund, and authorizes

appropriations to it through FY2021. Directs DOT to establish and support a National

Cooperative Freight Transportation Research Program and a Priority Multimodal Research

Program. Revises the competitive selection process for the university transportation centers

consortia program. Requires the Director of the Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS) to

create data sets and data analysis tools for intermodal transportation data. Establishes in the BTS

a National Transportation Library. Authorizes the BTS Director to establish a Port Performance

Statistics Program to provide nationally consistent measures of performance of the nation's

maritime ports. Revises requirements for the intelligent transportation system (ITS) program.

Includes as an ITS program goal the development and deployment of automated vehicles in all

modes of surface transportation. Prescribes requirements for the use of funds to develop ITS

infrastructure, equipment, and systems. Rail for America Act Directs DOT to facilitate by

financial assistance the establishment of a National High-Performance Rail System of integrated

passenger and freight rail services, including a Current Passenger Rail Service Program and a

Rail Service Improvement Program. Authorizes appropriations through FY2021 for the System

and for the planning, development, construction, and implementation of rail corridors and related

infrastructure improvements. Requires Amtrak to submit to the Secretary draft 5-year business

line plans and draft 5-year capital asset plans. Authorizes DOT to establish Regional Rail

Development Authorities, including a Regional Committee, to facilitate the development of

multi-state high-performance rail services, and to coordinate these investments with other rail,

transit, highway, and aviation system services. Prescribes requirements for the standardization of

passenger equipment and level-entry boarding platforms. Directs DOT to: evaluate the shared-

use of right-of-way by passenger and freight rail systems and the operational, institutional, and

legal structures that would best support improvements to both of these systems; and conduct a

nationwide disparity and availability study to establish the availability and utilization of small

business concerns owned and controlled by socially and economically disadvantaged individuals

in publicly funded railroad projects. Requires DOT to complete a National Rail Development

Plan meeting certain criteria, and facilitate development of Regional Rail Development Plans.

Authorizes DOT to prescribe regulations or issue orders to require host railroads for joint

operations that occur within a small geographic area to develop unified rules governing all

operations within that area. Revises or prescribes requirements relating to positive train control,

hours of service, maximum employee duty hours, safety appliances, locomotive inspections,

noise emission standards, and damaged track inspection equipment. Authorizes federal agency

heads to construct, install, operate, and maintain electric charging infrastructure for official

agency vehicles.


S.206, Local Transportation Infrastructure Act

Introduced on January 21 by Senator Kelly Ayotte (D-NH) with no cosponsors. The bill was

referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation. The bill revises and

reauthorizes the state infrastructure bank program for FY2015 and FY2016.


H.R.652, State Transportation and Infrastructure Financing Innovation Act (STIFIA)

Introduced on February 3 by Congressman Richard Hanna (R-NY-22) with 3 cosponsors. The

bill was referred to the Subcommittee on Highways and Transit of the Transportation and

Infrastructure Committee. The bill revises and reauthorizes the state infrastructure bank program

for FY2016-FY2020.


H.R.413, Partnership to Build America Act of 2015

Introduced on January 21 by Congressman John Delaney (D-MD-6) with 34 (now 41)

cosponsors. The bill was referred to the Committees on Ways and Means and Transportation and

Infrastructure. The bill establishes the American Infrastructure Fund (AIF) as a wholly-owned

government corporation to provide bond guarantees and make loans to state and local

governments, non-profit infrastructure providers, private parties, and public-private partnerships

for state or local government sponsored transportation, energy, water, communications, or

educational facility infrastructure projects (Qualified Infrastructure Projects [QIPs]). Authorizes

AIF also to make equity investments in QIPs. Directs the Secretary of the Treasury, acting

through the AIF, to issue American Infrastructure Bonds with an aggregate face value of $50

billion. Requires proceeds from the sale of the bonds to be deposited into the AIF. Amends the

Internal Revenue Code to allow U.S. corporations to exclude from gross income qualified cash

dividend amounts received during a taxable year from a foreign-controlled corporation equal to

the face value of qualified infrastructure bonds the corporation has purchased. Prohibits

allowance of a foreign tax credit to the excluded portion of any dividend received by a U.S.

corporation. Prohibits also the allowance of a deduction for expenses related to that excludable

portion.


H.R.625, Infrastructure 2.0 Act

Introduced on January 30 by Congressman John Delaney (D-MD-6) with 4 (now 24) cosponsors.

The bill was referred to the Committees on Rules, Ways and Means and Transportation and

Infrastructure. Amends the Internal Revenue Code, with respect to the taxation of earnings and

profits of a deferred foreign income corporation, to: (1) make such earnings and profit subject to

taxation in the last taxable year that ends before the enactment of this Act; (2) reduce the rate of

tax on such earnings and profits by allowing an exemption of 75% (equal to a tax of 8.75% of

repatriated earnings and profits); and (3) allow such corporations to elect to pay such tax in eight

installments. Establishes the American Infrastructure Fund to provide assistance to states, local

governments, and other public and private entities for investment in public infrastructure

projects. Appropriates tax revenues from this Act to the Highway Trust Fund. Establishes the

Highway Trust Fund Solvency Commission to submit recommendations and proposed legislation

for achieving long-term solvency of the Highway Trust Fund. Sets forth congressional

procedures for the expedited consideration of a bill containing such legislation. Directs the

Secretary of Transportation to establish a regional infrastructure accelerator pilot program to

assist public entities in developing infrastructure projects. Establishes a deadline of 18 months

after the enactment of this Act for the enactment of legislation that reforms the international tax

system by eliminating the incentive to hold earnings in low-tax jurisdictions. Imposes a tax on

repatriated offshore corporate earnings upon the expiration of the deadline. Sets forth provisions

for the reform of the international tax system (to be effective if reform legislation is not enacted

by the 18-month deadline established by this Act), including provisions relating to subpart F

income and insurance income, gains and losses from the sale or exchange of stock in controlled

foreign corporations, limitations on the foreign tax credit, and the tax treatment of previously

deferred foreign income.


H.R.211, REBUILD Act

Introduced on January 8 by Congressman Ken Calvert (R-CA-42) with no cosponsors. The bill

was referred to the House Committee on Natural Resources. This bill amends the National

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) to authorize: (1) the assignment to states of federal

environmental review responsibilities under NEPA and other relevant federal environmental

laws for covered federal projects, and (2) states to assume all or part of those responsibilities.

Each responsible federal official who is authorized to assign such responsibility must promulgate

regulations that establish requirements relating to information required to be contained in state

applications to assume those responsibilities. An official may approve an application only if: (1)

public notice requirements have been met, (2) the state has the capability to assume the

responsibilities, and (3) the head of the state agency having primary jurisdiction over covered

projects enters into a written agreement with an official to assume the responsibilities and to

maintain the financial resources necessary to carry them out. The officials must audit state

compliance with federal laws for which responsibilities are assumed. The officials may terminate

the responsibilities assigned to states after providing notice to states of any noncompliance and

an opportunity to take corrective action.


S.268, Rebuild America Act of 2015

Introduced on January 27 by Senator Bernard Sanders (I-VT) with one cosponsor. The bill was

referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs. Reduces the non-federal

share of the cost of any activity funded by this Act by 50% of what is was before enactment of

this Act. Appropriates funds for FY2015-FY2022 to the Highway Trust Fund to improve roads,

bridges, and other U.S. transportation infrastructure. Appropriates funds for FY2015-FY2019:

(1) for intercity high-speed rail service, (2) to provide credit assistance for surface transportation

projects of national and regional significance, (3) to implement airport improvement and noise

compatibility projects at public-use airports, (4) to the Federal Aviation Administration to

accelerate deployment of satellite technology to improve airport safety and capacity, and (5) for

the TIGER Discretionary Grant Program. Appropriates funds for FY2015-FY2019 for water

infrastructure, including to: (1) the Environmental Protection Agency for capitalization grants to

states to establish water pollution control revolving funds and drinking water treatment revolving

loan funds and for loans for large water infrastructure projects that are ineligible for funding

from a state revolving loan fund; (2) the Federal Emergency Management Agency to carry out

the predisaster hazard mitigation program for minor localized flood reduction projects and major

flood risk reduction projects; and (3) the Army Corps of Engineers for inland waterways

projects, coastal harbors and channels, inland harbors, and dams and levees. Appropriates funds

for FY2015-FY2019 for the National Park Service. Appropriates funds for FY2015-FY2019 for

the Broadband Initiatives Program, the Broadband Technology Opportunities Program, and the

Department of Energy to modernize the electric grid. Establishes the National Infrastructure

Development Bank as a wholly owned government corporation. Makes the Bank's Board of

Directors responsible for monitoring and overseeing energy, environmental, telecommunications,

data, or transportation infrastructure projects. Authorizes the Board to: make senior and

subordinated loans and purchase senior and subordinated debt securities; issue and sell debt

securities of the Bank; issue public benefit bonds and provide direct subsidies to infrastructure

projects from the proceeds; make loan guarantees; borrow on the global capital market and lend

to regional, state, and local entities, and commercial banks, to fund infrastructure projects; and

purchase, pool, and sell infrastructure-related loans and securities on the global capital market.

Requires the Board to establish: (1) an Executive Committee, a Risk Management Committee,

and an Audit Committee; and (2) criteria for determining eligibility for financial assistance from

the Bank and disclosure and application procedures for entities to nominate projects for such

assistance. Requires the Bank to conduct an analysis that considers the economic, environmental,

and social benefits and costs of each project under consideration, prioritizing projects that

contribute to economic growth, lead to job creation, and are of regional or national significance.

Sets forth criteria to be considered by the Board in determining the eligibility of transportation,

environmental, energy, and telecommunications infrastructure projects for assistance. Exempts

all bonds issued by the Bank from state or local government taxation. Deems all debt securities

and other obligations issued by the Bank to be exempt securities within the meaning of laws

administered by the Securities and Exchange Commission. Sets forth requirements regarding

compliance of financed infrastructure projects with prevailing wage rate, domestic content, and

buy American statutes. Authorizes appropriations for the capitalization of the Bank.


H.R.1308, Economy in Motion: The National Multimodal and Sustainable Freight

Infrastructure Act

Introduced on March 4 by Congressman Alan Lowenthal (D-CA-47) with 3 (now 15)

cosponsors. The bill was referred to the Committees on Transportation and Infrastructure and

Ways and Means. The bill directs the Secretary of Transportation to: (1) establish a Multimodal

Freight Funding Formula Program to distribute funds to states, and a National Freight

Infrastructure Competitive Grant Program to make grants to entities for projects, to improve the

efficiency and reliability of freight movement in the United States; (2) establish a multimodal

national freight network to accomplish the goals of the national freight policy, including

increasing the productivity and efficiency of the national freight system and improving its safety,

security, and resilience; (3) develop, maintain, and post on the public website of the Department

of Transportation a national freight strategic plan that includes an assessment of the condition

and performance of the national freight system; and (4) develop and improve tools to support an

outcome-oriented, performance-based approach to evaluate proposed freight-related and other

transportation projects. Amends the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (or

MAP-21) to: (1) expand the membership and duties of state freight advisory committees; and (2)

require state freight plans to include strategies and goals to decrease greenhouse gas emissions,

local air pollution, water runoff, and wildlife habitat loss. Amends the Internal Revenue Code to:

(1) impose a 1% excise tax upon taxable ground transportation of property (i.e., transportation by

freight rail or truck trailer and semitrailer chassis and bodies, suitable for use with a trailer or

semitrailer with a gross vehicle weight of 26,000 pounds or more), and (2) deposit such tax

revenues into a Freight Trust Fund (established by this Act) to finance the Multimodal Freight

Program.


H.R.1330, American-Made Energy and Infrastructure Jobs Act

Introduced on March 4 by Congressman Steve Stivers (R-OH-15) with one cosponsor. The bill

was referred to the Committees on Natural Resources, Ways and Means, Energy and Commerce

and Transportation and Infrastructure. Directs the Secretary to collect non-refundable fees from

the operators of facilities subject to inspection under this Act. Establishes in the Treasury the

Ocean Energy Enforcement Fund as depository for oil and gas leasing fees. Redefines the OCS

to include all submerged lands lying within the U.S. exclusive economic zone and the

Continental Shelf adjacent to any U.S. territory. Authorizes the Secretary of the Treasury, with

the President's approval, to: (1) borrow for highway and transportation project expenditures and

for water infrastructure expenditures, and (2) issue interest-bearing infrastructure revenue bonds

for the amounts borrowed. Amends the Internal Revenue Code to appropriate to the Highway

Trust Fund 95% of any proceeds from the issuance of such infrastructure revenue bonds. Makes

available to the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency for making capitalization

grants to eligible states: (1) 2.5% of infrastructure revenue bond proceeds for grants under the

Federal Water Pollution Control Act, and (2) 2.5% of such proceeds for grants under Safe

Drinking Water Act.


H.R.278, Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery for Cities

Underfunded Because of Size Act of 2015 or TIGER CUBS Act

Introduced on January 12 by Congressman Rick Larsen (D-WA-2) with one cosponsor. The bill

was referred to the Committees on Appropriations and Budget. The bill provides $500 million in

supplemental FY2015 appropriations to the Department of Transportation for national

infrastructure investments under a competitive grant program commonly known as the

Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery (TIGER) program. At least $100

million of the funds must be used for projects located in cities with populations between 10,000

and 50,000. The funding provided by this bill is designated as an emergency requirement

pursuant to the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985. This funding is

only available if the President designates the amounts as an emergency and submits the

designation to Congress.


H.R.680, Update, Promote, and Develop America's Transportation Essentials Act of 2015

Introduced on February 3 by Congressman Earl Blumenauer (D-OR-3) with 25 (now 38)

cosponsors. The bill was referred to the House Committee on Ways and Means. The bill

expresses the sense of Congress that by 2024 the gas tax should be repealed and replaced with a

more sustainable, stable funding source. Amends the Internal Revenue Code, with respect to the

excise tax on motor fuels, to increase the rate of tax on: (1) gasoline other than aviation gasoline

to 26.3 cents per gallon in 2016, 30.3 cents per gallon in 2017, and 33.3 cents per gallon after

2017 and before 2028; (2) diesel fuel or kerosene to 32.3 cents per gallon in 2016, 36.3 cents per

gallon in 2017, and 39.3 cents per gallon after 2017 and before 2027; and (3) diesel-water fuel

emulsion. Delays the termination of such increased rates from the end of FY2016 to December

31, 2026. Requires an adjustment for inflation to such increased rates beginning after 2017.

Increases allocations in the Mass Transit Account of the Highway Trust Fund in 2016 and 2017

and after 2017. Imposes a floor stocks tax on rate increases for gasoline, diesel fuel, and

kerosene (other than aviation-grade kerosene), subject to specified exemptions for exempt uses

and low-volume producers.


S.762, Innovation in Surface Transportation Act of 2015

Introduced on March 17 by Senator Roger Wicker (R-MS) with 3 cosponsors. The bill was

referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works. The bill directs the Secretary of

Transportation, in coordination with state transportation departments, to establish an innovation

in surface transportation program. Requires states to make competitive grants for innovative

surface transportation projects to eligible entities, including local governments, metropolitan

planning organizations, regional transportation authorities, transit agencies, tribal governments,

private providers of public transportation, nonprofit transportation organizations, port authorities,

joint power authorities, freight rail providers, and local rail authorities. Requires each state

(including the governor and state department of transportation) to establish an innovation in

surface transportation selection panel to formulate criteria for selecting projects. Requires a state

to reserve certain percentages of federal funds apportioned for the national highway

performance, the highway safety improvement, the congestion mitigation and air quality

improvement, surface transportation, and transportation alternatives programs in order to fund

related projects under state innovative surface transportation grants. Authorizes states to reserve

a certain percentage of such funds for a fiscal year to meet specific requests for project

application support from eligible rural local governments.


H.R.1620, 414 Plan Act of 2015

Introduced on March 25 by Congressman Randy Forbes (R-VA-4) with no cosponsors. The bill

was referred to the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. Declares that federal

laws and regulations (including prevailing rate of wage requirements under the Davis-Bacon

Act) shall not apply to any federal-aid highway or highway safety construction project, except

those relating to: (1) the safety or durability of a highway facility, or (2) public or workplace

safety. Repeals the prohibition against approval of federal-aid highway projects or regulatory

actions that will result in the severance of an existing major route or have significant adverse

impact on the safety for non-motorized transportation traffic and light motorcycles, unless the

project or action provides for a reasonable alternative route or such a route exists. Defines

"transportation alternatives" as any of the following activities when carried out as part of an

authorized or funded federal-aid highway program or project, or as an independent program or

project related to surface transportation for the construction, planning, and design of: (1)

transportation projects to achieve compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990;

or (2) infrastructure-related projects and systems that will provide safe routes for nondrivers,

including children, older adults, and individuals with disabilities to access daily needs. Repeals

the authorization for states to use certain funds for construction of pedestrian walkways and

bicycle transportation facilities. Eliminates the requirement that statewide transportation plans

and statewide transportation improvement programs provide for the development of accessible

pedestrian walkways and bicycle transportation facilities. Expresses the sense of Congress that

states, federal agencies, localities, and private stakeholders should take steps toward increased

cooperation to further expedite surface transportation projects.


S.176, W21, Water in the 21st Century Act

Introduced on January 13 by Senator Barbara Boxer-D-CA) with two cosponsors. The bill was

referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works. The House companion bill is

H.R.291.Water in the 21st Century Act or W21 establishes within the Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA) a WaterSense program to identify, label, and promote water efficient products,

buildings, landscapes, facilities, processes, and services. This bill establishes a program to

provide financial incentives for consumers to purchase and install products, buildings,

landscapes, facilities, processes, and services labeled under the WaterSense program. The EPA is

required to make grants to owners or operators of water systems to address any ongoing or

forecasted impact of climate change on a region's water quality or quantity. The Department of

the Interior may: (1) provide financial assistance to water projects in specified states, including

projects for water recycling, water infrastructure, enhanced energy efficiency, desalination, and

water storage and conveyance; and (2) transfer to nonfederal entities title to any reclamation

projects or facility in need of rehabilitation that are authorized before enactment of this Act. The

U.S. Geological Survey must establish an open water data system to advance the availability,

timely distribution, and widespread use of water data and information for water management,

education, research, assessment, and monitoring purposes. This bill reauthorizes through FY2020

the Water Desalination Act of 1996 and water resources research and technology institutes under

the Water Resources Research Act of 1984. After receiving a request from a nonfederal

sponsor, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers must review the operation of a reservoir and, if

appropriate, update the water control manual to incorporate improved weather and runoff

forecasting methods. The EPA is required to develop voluntary national drought resilience

guidelines relating to preparedness planning and investments for water users and providers. The

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service must prepare a salmon drought plan for California.


H.R.291, W21, Water in the 21st Century Act

Introduced on January 14 by Congresswoman Grace Napolitano (D-CA-32) with 28 (now 31)

cosponsors. The bill was referred to the Committees on Natural Resources, Energy and

Commerce, Science and Transportation and Infrastructure. The Senate companion bill is S.176.

Water in the 21st Century Act or W21 establishes within the Environmental Protection Agency

(EPA) a WaterSense program to identify, label, and promote water efficient products, buildings,

landscapes, facilities, processes, and services. This bill establishes a program to provide financial

incentives for consumers to purchase and install products, buildings, landscapes, facilities,

processes, and services labeled under the WaterSense program. The EPA is required to make

grants to owners or operators of water systems to address any ongoing or forecasted impact of

climate change on a region's water quality or quantity. The Department of the Interior may: (1)

provide financial assistance to water projects in specified states, including projects for water

recycling, water infrastructure, enhanced energy efficiency, desalination, and water storage and

conveyance; and (2) transfer to nonfederal entities title to any reclamation projects or facility in

need of rehabilitation that are authorized before enactment of this Act. The U.S. Geological

Survey must establish an open water data system to advance the availability, timely distribution,

and widespread use of water data and information for water management, education, research,

assessment, and monitoring purposes. This bill reauthorizes through FY2020 the Water

Desalination Act of 1996 and water resources research and technology institutes under the Water

Resources Research Act of 1984. After receiving a request from a nonfederal sponsor, the U.S.

Army Corps of Engineers must review the operation of a reservoir and, if appropriate, update the

water control manual to incorporate improved weather and runoff forecasting methods. The EPA

is required to develop voluntary national drought resilience guidelines relating to preparedness

planning and investments for water users and providers. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service must

prepare a salmon drought plan for California.


H.R.499, Sustainable Water Infrastructure Investment Act of 2015

Introduced on January 22 by Congressman John Duncan (R-TN-2) with one (now 10) cosponsor.

The bill was referred to the Ways and Means Committee. Amends the Internal Revenue Code to

exempt from state volume caps tax-exempt facility bonds for sewage and water supply facilities

Status Update: one cosponsor added since the last report.

H.R.3038, Highway and Transportation Funding Act of 2015, Part II

Introduced on July 13 by Congressman Paul Ryan (R-WI-1) with one cosponsor. The bill passed

the House and was placed on Senate Legislative Calendar. Directs the Secretary of

Transportation to reduce the amount apportioned for a surface transportation program, project, or

activity for FY2015 by amounts apportioned or allocated under the Highway and Transportation

Funding Act of 2014 and the Highway and Transportation Funding Act of 2015 for the period

from October 1, 2014, through July 31, 2015. TITLE I--SURFACE TRANSPORTATION

PROGRAM EXTENSION Subtitle A--Federal-Aid Highways (Sec.1001) Amends the Highway

and Transportation Funding Act of 2014 to continue from October 1, 2014, through December

18, 2015, and authorizes appropriations through that period for, specified federal-aid highway

programs under: the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21) the Safe,

Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU)

Technical Corrections Act of 2008, SAFETEA-LU, the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st

Century (TEA-21), the National Highway System Designation Act of 1995, the Intermodal

Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA), and other specified law. Subjects

funding for FY2015, and for the period October 1, 2015, through December 18, 2015, for such

programs to certain funding level restrictions. Amends MAP-21 to authorize appropriations out

of the general fund of the Treasury for the Tribal High Priority Projects program for the same

period. Prescribes an obligation ceiling of $40.256 billion for FY2015, including $8,689,136,612

for the period October 1, 2015, through December 18, 2015, for federal-aid highway and

highway safety construction programs. (Sec. 1002) Authorizes appropriations from the HTF

(other than the Mass Transit Account) for administrative expenses of the federal-aid highway

program for the same period. Subtitle B--Extension of Highway Safety Programs (Sec. 1101)

Extends for the same period the authorization of appropriations for National Highway Traffic

Safety Administration (NHTSA) safety programs, including: highway safety research and

development, national priority safety programs, the National Driver Register, the High Visibility

Enforcement Program, and NHTSA administrative expenses. Amends SAFETEA-LU to extend

for the same period high-visibility traffic safety law enforcement campaigns under the High

Visibility Enforcement Program. Sets aside a specified amount of the total apportionment to

states for highway safety programs for a cooperative program to research and evaluate priority

highway safety countermeasures for the same period. (Sec. 1102) Extends for the same period

the authorization of appropriations for Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA)

programs, including: motor carrier safety grants, FMCSA administrative expenses, commercial

driver's license program improvement grants, border enforcement grants, performance and

registration information system management grants, commercial vehicle information systems

and networks deployment grants, safety data improvement grants, a set-aside for high priority

activities that improve commercial motor vehicle safety and compliance with commercial motor

vehicle safety regulations, a set-aside for new entrant motor carrier audit grants, FMCSA

outreach and education, and the commercial motor vehicle operators grant program. (Sec. 1103)

Amends the Dingell-Johnson Sport Fish Restoration Act to continue, for the same period, the

authorized distribution of funds for coastal wetlands, recreational boating safety, projects under

the Clean Vessel Act of 19921, boating infrastructure projects, and the National Outreach and

Communications Program. Subtitle C--Public Transportation Programs (Sec. 1201) Extends for

the same period the apportionment of non-urbanized (rural) area formula grants for competitive

grants and formula grants for public transportation on Indian reservations. (Sec. 1202) Extends

the apportionment of urbanized area formula grants for passenger ferry projects for the same

period. (Sec. 1203) Extends for the same period the authorization of appropriations from the

HTF Mass Transit Account for: formula grants for public transportation, including allocations

for specified projects; research, development demonstration, and deployment projects; the transit

cooperative research program; technical assistance and standards development grants; human

resources and training grants; capital investment grants; and administrative expenses. (Sec. 1204)

Allocates, for the same period, certain amounts to states and territories for formula bus and bus

facilities grants. Subtitle D--Hazardous Materials (Sec. 1301) Authorizes appropriations for the

same period for hazardous materials (hazmat) transportation safety projects. Authorizes the

Secretary to make certain expenditures, including an amount for hazmat training grants, from the

Hazardous Materials Emergency Preparedness Fund for the same period. TITLE II--REVENUE

PROVISIONS (Sec. 2001) Amends the Internal Revenue Code to extend through December 19,

2015, the authority for expenditures from: (1) the Highway and Mass Transit Accounts of the

Highway Trust Fund, (2) the Sport Fish Restoration and Boating Trust Fund, and (3) the Leaking

Underground Storage Tank Trust Fund. (Sec. 2002) Appropriates additional funds to the

Highway and Mass Transit Accounts of the Highway Trust Fund. (Sec. 2003) Requires tax

information returns reporting mortgage interest received in a trade or business to include: (1) the

outstanding principal on the mortgage, (2) the date of the origination of the mortgage, and (3) the

address of the property which secures the mortgage. (Sec. 2004) Requires that: (1) the value of

the basis in any property acquired from a decedent be consistent with the basis as determined for

estate tax purposes; and (2) executors of estates disclose to the Internal Revenue Service and to

persons acquiring any interest in the decedent's estate information identifying the value of each

interest received. (Sec. 2005) Makes the six-year limitation on assessments of additional tax

applicable to understatements of gross income due to an overstatement of unrecovered costs or

other basis. (Sec. 2006) Changes tax return due dates for partnerships, S corporations, and C

corporations. Extends the automatic extension for corporate income tax returns from three to six

months. (Sec. 2007) Extends through 2025 the authority for transfers of excess pension assets of

a defined benefit plan to a retiree health benefits account. (Sec. 2008) Equalizes excise tax rates

for liquefied petroleum gas, liquefied natural gas, and compressed natural gas. TITLE III--

ADDITIONAL PROVISIONS (Sec. 3001) Revises aviation security service passenger fee

requirements. Requires the deposit into the Treasury as offsetting receipts the following sums

collected to pay the costs of providing civil aviation security services to airline passengers:

$1.560 billion for FY2024, and $1.6 billion for FY2025.


H.R.3064, To authorize highway infrastructure and safety, transit, motor carrier, rail, and

other surface transportation programs, and for other purposes.

Introduced on July 6 by Congressman Chris Van Hollen (D-MD-8) with eight (now 12)

cosponsors and referred to the Committees on Transportation and Infrastructure, Energy and

Commerce, Ways and Means, Science, Space, and Technology, Natural Resources, Oversight

and Government Reform, Budget, and Rules. Prescribes requirements for environmental reviews

with respect to state and federal agency engagement, obstruction of navigation, historic sites,

categorical exclusion of multimodal projects from environmental review, and creation in the

Department of Transportation (DOT) of an Interagency Infrastructure Permitting Improvement

Center. Directs DOT to establish a multimodal freight incentive grant program and a National

Freight Infrastructure Program. Re-designates the Dwight D. Eisenhower System of Interstate

and Defense Highways as the National Highway System and the National Freight Network.

Requires the federal long-range transportation plan to include a transportation system resilience

assessment. Prescribes criteria for high performing metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs)

representing urbanized areas with populations of over 200,000. Removes the congestion

management process from the transportation planning process for MPOs. Directs DOT to

establish a pilot program for up to 10 MPOs to improve multimodal connectivity and increase

connections for disadvantaged Americans and neighborhoods with limited transportation options.

Revises requirements with respect to congestion mitigation and air quality improvement,

including electric vehicle charging stations and commercial motor vehicle anti-idling facilities in

rest areas along the Interstate System. Establishes in DOT: a discretionary TIGER Infrastructure

Grant Program for various transportation projects; and a discretionary FAST Grant Program to

reform the way surface transportation investments and decisions are made, implemented, and

funded to achieve national transportation outcomes. Revises requirements for the funding of

railroad rehabilitation and improvement financing, the state infrastructure bank program, toll

roads, bridges, tunnels, and ferries. Establishes within DOT the position of Assistant Secretary

for Innovative Finance. Reauthorizes the federal-aid highway and related programs through

FY2021, including revised obligation limitation and apportionment requirements. Directs DOT

to: establish a nationally significant federal lands and tribal projects program to fund

construction, reconstruction, or rehabilitation of nationally significant federal lands and tribal

transportation projects; carry out a broadband infrastructure deployment initiative; create a

program to make critical and immediate improvements to infrastructure and highway safety; set-

aside specified funds for states for highway safety data improvement activities on public roads;

and create and maintain data sets and data analysis tools to assist MPOs, states, and the DOT in

carrying out performance management analyses. Federal Public Transportation Act of 2015

Revises fixed guideway capital investment grants requirements. Authorizes grants to state and

local governments for very small starts projects. Revises requirements for formula grants for

enhanced mobility and for rural areas, workforce development programs, and the public

transportation safety program. Requires recipients of transportation assistance to meet certain

standards for hiring locally. Reauthorizes specified public transportation assistance programs

through FY2021. Authorizes DOT to make competitive grants to state and local governmental

entities for bus rapid transit projects. Authorizes appropriations for specified highway safety

programs through FY2021, and revises related requirements. Revises criteria for state graduated

driver licensing incentive grants. Adds a 24-7 sobriety program to criteria for state repeat

offender and open container laws. Authorizes specified amounts of grant funds to states for

distracted driving enforcement. Authorizes appropriations for specified motor vehicle safety

programs through FY2021, and increases penalties for safety violations. Revises certain

reporting requirements for tire manufacturers. Requires DOT to conduct a pilot grant program to

evaluate the feasibility and effectiveness for a state process for informing consumers of open

motor vehicle recalls at the time of motor vehicle registration. Revises specified requirements for

commercial motor vehicle and commercial driver safety. Requires disqualification to operate a

commercial motor vehicle for anyone who fails to pay an assessed civil penalty for a motor

vehicle safety violation. Revises certain medical and registration requirements for commercial

motor vehicle operators. Revises requirements for the Motor Carrier Safety Assistance Program.

Directs DOT to administer a High Priority Program, an innovative technology deployment grant

program, and a Commercial Motor Vehicle Operators Grant Program. Authorizes DOT to

establish: a motor carrier safety facility working capital fund, and a financial assistance program

for commercial driver's license program implementation. Directs DOT to maintain for the

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration a motor carrier safety advisory committee. Revises

requirements for the Unified Carrier Registration System plan. Repeals the authorization for self-

insurance by motor carriers. Prescribes notice requirements relating to decisions that electronic

logging devices fail to comply with standards. Authorizes DOT to issue regulations: governing

contractors that exercise control over motor carrier operations; and requiring motor vehicle

employers to track and compensate employees for on-duty, not-driving time. Authorizes DOT,

with respect to unsafe conditions or practices in the transportation of hazardous materials

(hazmat transportation), to order necessary: operational controls, restrictions, and prohibitions

without prior notice or an opportunity for a hearing; and removal, remediation, or disposal of

hazardous materials causing unreasonable risk of death, personal injury, or significant harm to

the property or the environment. Authorizes DOT to collect reasonable fees for the

administration of the special permits and approvals for deposit into a Hazardous Materials

Approvals and Permits Fund. Revises requirements for planning and training grants under the

Emergency Planning and Community Right-To-Know Act of 1986. Reauthorizes the program

for regulating hazmat transportation through FY2021. Amends the Internal Revenue Code to

extend through FY2023 specified highway-related taxes as well as requirements for expenditures

from the Sport Fish Restoration and Boating Trust Fund. Replaces the Highway Trust Fund with

a Transportation Trust Fund, and authorizes appropriations to it through FY2021. Directs DOT

to establish and support a National Cooperative Freight Transportation Research Program and a

Priority Multimodal Research Program. Revises the competitive selection process for the

university transportation centers consortia program. Requires the Director of the Bureau of

Transportation Statistics (BTS) to create data sets and data analysis tools for intermodal

transportation data. Establishes in the BTS a National Transportation Library. Authorizes the

BTS Director to establish a Port Performance Statistics Program to provide nationally consistent

measures of performance of the nation's maritime ports. Revises requirements for the intelligent

transportation system (ITS) program. Includes as an ITS program goal the development and

deployment of automated vehicles in all modes of surface transportation. Prescribes requirements

for the use of funds to develop ITS infrastructure, equipment, and systems. Rail for America Act

Directs DOT to facilitate by financial assistance the establishment of a National High-

Performance Rail System of integrated passenger and freight rail services, including a Current

Passenger Rail Service Program and a Rail Service Improvement Program. Authorizes

appropriations through FY2021 for the System and for the planning, development, construction,

and implementation of rail corridors and related infrastructure improvements. Requires Amtrak

to submit to the Secretary draft 5-year business line plans and draft 5-year capital asset plans.

Authorizes DOT to establish Regional Rail Development Authorities, including a Regional

Committee, to facilitate the development of multi-state high-performance rail services, and to

coordinate these investments with other rail, transit, highway, and aviation system services.

Prescribes requirements for the standardization of passenger equipment and level-entry boarding

platforms. Directs DOT to: evaluate the shared-use of right-of-way by passenger and freight rail

systems and the operational, institutional, and legal structures that would best support

improvements to both of these systems; and conduct a nationwide disparity and availability study

to establish the availability and utilization of small business concerns owned and controlled by

socially and economically disadvantaged individuals in publicly funded railroad projects.

Requires DOT to complete a National Rail Development Plan meeting certain criteria, and

facilitate development of Regional Rail Development Plans. Authorizes DOT to prescribe

regulations or issue orders to require host railroads for joint operations that occur within a small

geographic area to develop unified rules governing all operations within that area. Revises or

prescribes requirements relating to positive train control, hours of service, maximum employee

duty hours, safety appliances, locomotive inspections, noise emission standards, and damaged

track inspection equipment. Authorizes federal agency heads to construct, install, operate, and

maintain electric charging infrastructure for official agency vehicles. Stop Corporate

Expatriation and Invest in America's Infrastructure Act of 2015 Amends the Internal Revenue

Code to revise rules for the taxation of inverted corporations (i.e., U.S. corporations that acquire

foreign companies to reincorporate in a foreign jurisdiction with income tax rates lower than the

United States) to provide that a foreign corporation that acquires the properties of a U.S.

corporation or partnership after May 8, 2014, shall be treated as an inverted corporation and thus

subject to U.S. taxation if, after such acquisition: it holds more than 50% of the stock of the new

entity (expanded affiliated group), or the management or control of the new entity occurs

primarily within the United States and the new entity has significant domestic business activities.


H.R.3104, To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to reduce carbon pollution in the

United States, invest in the Nation's infrastructure, and cut taxes for working Americans.

Introduced on July 16 by Congressman John B. Larson (D-CT-1) with no cosponsors and

referred to the Committee son Ways and Means and Foreign Affairs. Amends the Internal

Revenue Code to impose an excise tax, beginning in calendar year 2016, on any taxable carbon

substance sold by its manufacturer, producer, or importer. Defines "taxable carbon substance" as:

(1) coal (including lignite and peat); (2) petroleum and any petroleum products; and (3) natural

gas that is extracted, manufactured, or produced in the United States, or entered into the United

States for consumption, use, or warehousing. Establishes in the Treasury the America's Energy

Security Trust Fund to assist industries negatively affected by this Act, make transfers to the

Highway Trust Fund to cover shortfalls, and provide payroll tax relief. Allows individual

taxpayers a tax credit equal to carbon tax rebate amounts calculated by the Department of the

Treasury. Directs Treasury to study and report to Congress on the best methods to assess and

collect taxes on non-carbon greenhouse gases. Expresses the sense of Congress that the United

States should establish binding agreements with major greenhouse gas emitting nations to reduce

global greenhouse gas emissions


S.1589, Building and Renewing Infrastructure for Development and Growth in

Employment Act or the BRIDGE Act

Introduced on June 16 by Senator Mark Warner (D-VA) with ten (now 11) cosponsors and

referred to the Committee on Finance. Establishes the Infrastructure Financing Authority (IFA)

as a wholly-owned government corporation, headed by a Chief Executive Officer and managed

by a Board of Directors, which shall provide direct loans and loan guarantees to facilitate the

construction, consolidation, alteration, or repair of transportation, water, and energy

infrastructure projects. Requires infrastructure projects assisted under this Act to have costs

reasonably anticipated to equal or exceed $50 million ($10 million for rural infrastructure

projects). Sets forth special requirements for infrastructure projects in rural areas. Establishes an

Office of Technical and Rural Assistance to: provide technical assistance to state and local

governments and parties in public-private partnerships in the development and financing of

eligible, including rural, infrastructure projects; and establish a regional infrastructure accelerator

demonstration program. Establishes an Office of Special Inspector General to conduct, supervise,

and coordinate audits and investigations of the business activities of IFA. Prohibits IFA

financing of a project if: it is private or does not create a public benefit, or the loan applicant is

unable to demonstrate a sufficient revenue stream. Sets forth terms for loans or loan guarantees

for eligible infrastructure projects and for the repayment of such loans. Requires an annual

independent audit of IFA finances. Requires the President, immediately after IFA approves

financing for a proposed project, to convene a meeting of representatives of all permitting

agencies to: establish a permitting timetable for the environmental review of a project, and

coordinate with relevant state agencies and regional infrastructure development agencies in the

review of such projects. Requires the Chief Executive Officer of IFA to: establish fees with

respect to loans and loan guarantees that are sufficient to cover IFA's administrative costs; and

take actions to make IFA a self-sustaining entity, with administrative and federal credit subsidy

costs fully funded by fees and risk premiums on loans and loan guarantees. Amends the Internal

Revenue Code to increase from $15 billion to $16 billion the aggregate amount of proceeds from

tax-exempt facility bonds the Department of Transportation shall allocate among qualified

highway or surface freight transfer facilities.


S.1701, Infrastructure Rehabilitation Act of 2015

Introduced on June 25 by Senator Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) with no cosponsors. The bill was

referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.


S.1748, A bill to provide for improved investment in national transportation

infrastructure.

Introduced on July 9 by Senator Patty Murray (D-WA) with four cosponsors and referred to the

Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.


S.1680, National Multimodal Freight Policy and Investment Act

Introduced on June 25 by Senator Maria Cantwell with three cosponsors (now 4). The bill was

referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.


H.R.3337, National Infrastructure Development Bank Act of 2015

Introduced on July 29 by Congresswoman Rosa DeLauro (D-CT-3) with seventy cosponsors

(now 84). The bill was to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, Transportation and

Infrastructure, Financial Services, and Ways and Means. Establishes the National Infrastructure

Development Bank as a wholly owned government corporation. Makes the Bank's Board of

Directors responsible for monitoring and overseeing energy, environmental, telecommunications,

and transportation infrastructure projects. Authorizes the Board to: (1) make senior and

subordinated direct loans and loan guarantees to assist in the financing or refinancing of an

infrastructure project, (2) issue public benefit bonds and provide financing to infrastructure

projects, and (3) pay an interest subsidy to the issuer of American Infrastructure Bonds. Requires

the Board to establish an Executive Committee to establish requirements and make

recommendations for project proposals to be considered for financial assistance. Requires the

Bank to establish a Risk Management Committee, which shall: (1) create financial, credit, and

operational risk management guidelines for the Bank; (2) set guidelines to ensure diversification

of lending activities by geographic region and infrastructure project type; (3) create conforming

standards for all financial assistance provided by the Bank; (4) monitor financial, credit, and

operational exposure of the Bank; (5) provide financial recommendations to the Board; and (6)

ensure that the aggregate amount of interest subsidies provided for American Infrastructure

Bonds in a given calendar year does not exceed 28% of interest payable under all such Bonds.

Requires the Bank to establish an audit committee. Requires the Board to approve criteria

established by the Executive Committee for determining project eligibility for financial

assistance. Sets forth criteria to be considered by the Board for each type of infrastructure

project. Requires the Executive Committee to conduct an analysis that considers the economic,

environmental, and social benefits and costs of each project under consideration, prioritizing

projects that contribute to economic growth, lead to job creation, and are of regional or national

significance. Requires any financial assistance for an infrastructure project to be repayable from

dedicated revenue sources that also secure the infrastructure project obligations. Limits the

amount of assistance under this Act to 50% of reasonably anticipated project costs. Exempts all

bonds issued by the Bank from state or local government taxation. Sets forth requirements

regarding compliance of assisted projects with wage rate, domestic content, and buy American

statutes. Requires the Board to establish an American Infrastructure Bond program. Establishes

in the Treasury the National Infrastructure Development Bank Trust Fund into which an amount

estimated to equal the tax receipts attributable to interest payable under such Bonds is to be

appropriated.


H.R.3376, To authorize States to carry out bridge construction, maintenance, repair, and

replacement projects using previously allocated surface transportation funds that are

identified as being excess or inactive, and for other purposes.

Introduced on July 29 by Congresswoman Nita Lowey (D-NY-17) with no cosponsors. The bill

was referred to the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee.


H.R.3398, To improve the condition and performance of the national multimodal freight

network, and for other purposes.

Introduced on July 29 by Congressman David Reichert (R-WA-8) with two cosponsors. The bill

was referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.


S.1994, Tax Relief And Fix-The-Trust Fund For Infrastructure Certainty Act of 2015

Introduced on August 5 by Senator Thomas Carper (D-DE) with one cosponsor. The bill was

referred to the Committee on Finance. This bill amends the Internal Revenue Code to phase in:

(1) an increase of the excise tax rate on gasoline beginning in 2016 until such rate is 34.3 cents

per gallon in calendar years beginning after 2018, and (2) a similar increase to 40.3 cents per

gallon for diesel fuel and kerosene. The rates are to be adjusted for inflation for calendar years

after 2019. The bill phases in increases in allocations of fuel excise tax amounts to the Mass

Transit Account of the Highway Trust Fund for calendar years beginning in 2015. Such

increased allocations are to be adjusted for inflation for calendar years beginning after 2019. The

bill makes permanent the increase in the refundable portion of the child tax credit and the

increase in the earned income tax credit for families with three or more qualifying children. The

earned income tax credit is also modified to: (1) allow an increase in such credit for individuals

with no qualifying children, (2) revise tax credit eligibility rules for married individuals living

apart and qualifying children claimed by another family member, and (3) repeal the denial of

such credit for taxpayers with excess investment income.


S.2008, Transportation, Access, and Opportunity Act of 2015

Introduced on August 6 by Senator Jeff Merkley (D-OR) with no cosponsors. The bill was

referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.


H.R.3465, Public-Private Partnership Infrastructure Investment Act

Introduced on September 9 by Congressman Sean Patrick Maloney (D-NY-18) with no

cosponsors. The bill was referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.


H.R.3585, Surface Transportation Research and Development Act of 2015

Introduced on September 22 by Congresswoman Barbara Comstock (R-VA-10) with six (now 7)

cosponsors. The bill was referred to the Subcommittee on Highways and Transit.

Status Update: on cosponsor added since the last report.

H.R.3756, WIFIA Improvement Act

Introduced on October 16 by Congressman Carlos Curbello (R-FL-26) with 17 (now 24)

cosponsors. The bill was referred to the Subcommittee on Environment and the Economy. The

bill amends the Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act of 2014 to repeal provisions

prohibiting any project receiving federal credit assistance under such Act from being financed

from the proceeds of tax-exempt bonds.


S.2247, SAFE Bridges Act of 2015

Introduced on November 5 by Senator Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH) with no cosponsors. The bill was

referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works. This bill directs the Department of

Transportation to establish a program to assist states to rehabilitate or replace bridges found to be

structurally deficient, functionally obsolete, or fracture critical. States shall use apportioned

program funds for projects to rehabilitate and replace such bridges. The federal share of project

costs is 100%


H.R.4081,TIFIA 2.0 Act

Introduced on November 19 by Congressman Daniel Webster (R-FL-10) with no cosponsors and

referred to the Subcommittee on Highways and Transit. The bill amends the Transportation

Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (TIFIA) to revise the Department of Transportation

(DOT) TIFIA program of direct loans, loan guarantees, and credit for surface transportation

projects. A TIFIA Revolving Fund is established in the Treasury. A set-aside of up to 10% of

Fund amounts is required for rural infrastructure projects (as similarly required in current

funding law).The DOT is directed to transfer from the Fund to the general fund of the Treasury

amounts equal to moneys deposited in the Fund as a result of the repayment of principal and

interest on direct loans for transportation infrastructure projects before enactment of this Act.

Project eligibility requirements are revised.


H.R.4228, Transporation Megaprojects Accountability and Oversight Act of 2015

Introduced on December 10 by Congressman Mark DeSaulnier (D-CA-11) with one cosponsor

and referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.


Capitol Corridor Monthly Performance Report - December 2015

1

The Capitol Corridor continued its positive trend in December 2015. The service experienced gains in

the "Three R's” (Ridership, Revenue, and Reliability), with a total of 120,600 passengers in December

2015, an increase of 3.6% over December 2014; revenues were up 2.1% over December 2014 (a record

for the month); and reliability, as measured by On-Time Performance (OTP), was an exemplary 96%,

6% above the standard of 90%.

Year-To-Date (YTD) ridership and revenues are up 3% and 4%, respectively, with the System

Operating Ratio remaining at 54%, which is above the 50% standard. YTD OTP is 94%, maintaining

Capitol Corridor’s distinction as the most reliable train service in the national Amtrak intercity

passenger rail network.

While detailed station and train ridership reports are not yet available for November 2015, the

following are ridership highlights for December 2015 based on reports received from Amtrak:

Average weekend ridership for December 2015 was down 4%, primarily due to there being

fewer weekend days compared to December 2014, plus one fewer 49ers football game, which

occurred in the following month (January 2016).

Average weekday ridership was up by 3% compared to December 2014, due to sustained

growth in ridership on the trains traveling to and from San Jose/Silicon Valley, as well as

continuing ridership growth on the two trains serving the Placer County stations.

Draft California FY 2016-17 State Budget on January 7, 2016

Governor Brown released his draft budget for FY 2016-17. The Governor’s budget proposal addresses

the state’s transportation infrastructure crisis by proposing to invest $36 billion in transportation over

the next 10 years. This plan is consistent with last year's request by the Governor to the Legislature to

convene a conference committee as part of the transportation special session, with directions to invest

new revenues on: “fix it first” initiatives/projects to repair local roads and state highways and bridges;

trade corridors that will increase economic growth; matching funds for high priority transportation

projects; passenger rail; and public transit modernization and improvement.

Specifically, the draft budget support for the Capitol Corridor and other state transit/intercity rail


2

services includes:

Cap and Trade Transit Intercity Rail Capital Program (TIRCP): The proposed budget for

TIRCP initially maintains the continuously-appropriated funds from the Cap and Trade auction

proceeds whereby TIRCP is expected to receive $200 million. However, the Governor’s Cap

and Trade plan for FY 16-17 acknowledges that if his proposed transportation funding package

is enacted then TIRCP would receive a supplemental $400 million, increasing the amount

available to $600 million. The CCJPA plans to submit an application(s) for a portion of the

$200 million (or $600 million) FY 16-17 TIRCP funds.

CA Intercity Passenger Rail Operating Budget: The Governor’s Draft FY 16-17 Budget

provides the same amount of funding ($127 million) as the enacted FY 15-16 budget for the

operating support of the operation on the three intercity passenger rail routes (San Joaquin,

Pacific Surfliner and Capitol Corridor), which includes the addition of the new 7th San Joaquin

round trip train. The Governor’s draft budget may be updated as part of the May Revise based

upon Amtrak’s submittal of final FY 2016-17 operating (and ridership and revenue) estimates,

which are due in late March 2016.

Surface Transportation Authorization – FAST Act of 2015 Through the collaborative efforts of the House Transportation and Infrastructure and Senate Commerce

committees, Congress approved the Fixing America's Surface Transportation (FAST) Act of 2015 on

Thursday, December 3, 2015. President Obama signed the bill into law on Friday, December 4, 2015.

The FAST Act, the first multi-year surface transportation authorization in over 10 years, provides up

to $305B over five years for the nation's highway network, transit and commuter rail services, Amtrak,

and – for the first time ever – state-supported intercity passenger rail (IPR) services.

Of the $305B, the Rail Title (Section XI) authorizes approximately $10.4B for Amtrak, state-supported

IPR services, and freight and other rail-related programs. Key passenger rail-related accounts in the

FAST Act are:

Consolidated Rail Infrastructure and Safety Improvements (CRI & SI): The US DOT will seek

projects from eligible applicants for competitive grants to finance improvements to passenger

and freight rail services in terms of safety, efficiency, or reliability. PTC and other technology

items and rail line relocation are also eligible for funding. $1.103B over five years, with a 50%

match required.

State of Good Repair (SOGR): The US DOT shall develop a program that will allow for grants

to eligible applicants, on a competitive basis, to finance capital projects that reduce the state of

good repair backlog with respect to qualified railroad assets. $0.997B over five years, with

20% match required.

State Supported Route Commission (SSRC): The SSRC is authorized at $10M ($2M per year

for five years) and established by the US DOT Secretary of Transportation coordinate planning

of trains operated by Amtrak on state-supported routes so as to further implement Section 209

of the Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008 (PRIIA). Members include US

DOT (likely FRA), Amtrak, and state intercity passenger rail agencies. (Note: The current State

Amtrak Intercity Passenger Rail Committee (SAIPRC) closely resembles the SSRC as

described in the FAST Act.)

FY 2016 Omnibus Federal Appropriations

For all the success of including intercity passenger rail in the Rail Title of the FAST Act of 2015 (FY

2016 – FY 2020), the FY 2016 Omnibus Appropriations bill (signed into law on December 18, 2015)


3

did not include the $200 million authorized for FY 2016 under the Consolidated Rail Infrastructure

and Safety Improvements (CRI & SI) and State Of Good Repair (SOGR) sections of the FAST Act.

The FY 2016 Omnibus budget did include (1) the continuation of the popular TIGER grant program

($500 million), which averages an award of $10-$20 million per project (Note: The CCJPA’s projects

for the Capitol Corridor are eligible for TIGER funds), and (2) an appropriation of $500,000 to support

the newly created State Supported Route Commission (SSRC), which is currently organized under the

State-Amtrak Intercity Passenger Rail Committee (SAIPRC). This committee is comprised of the 22

state IPR agencies, the FRA, and Amtrak. It achieved consensus in revising the cost allocation

methodologies and subsequent budgets for the FY 2017 Amtrak costs relating to stations, marketing,

and support services (such as Information Technology).

Upcoming efforts include ensuring the full FY 2017 authorization amounts (approximately $350

million) identified in the FAST Act are within the FY 2017 appropriations bill(s).

Customer Service Program Upgrades

Bicycle Access Program: CCJPA staff continues to work with Amtrak and individual station owners

to install eLockers using several grants that are financing this project. On the trains, conversions to

allow for more bicycle parking in select cars have proven to be effective in accommodating demand.

That said, bicycle access demand continues to grow, so staff is beginning to examine new options for

on-train storage that could hopefully increase capacity even more. CCJPA will work with Caltrans to

explore such on-train retrofits.

Improvements to CCJPA Train Status Feature on Website: The CCJPA recently launched the real-time

train status map/app and station arrivals estimates on its website. Initial usage and feedback from

customers has been positive, and staff will continue to review and make enhancements to this feature

going forward.

Marketing: Staff continues to promote the Friends & Family small group deal, which has been renewed

for 2016. To assist with this promotion, as well as the marketing of possible winter/spring fare

discounts, staff in the process of hiring an ad agency. Other major initiatives for the Marketing

Department include the 2015 Annual Performance Report, Super Bowl 50 communications, new and

ongoing strategic partnerships, website improvements, and the development of the new onboard

wireless landing page (AmtrakConnect).

Safety Initiatives

Security Cameras at Capitol Corridor Stations: Funding has been secured to install cameras and

surveillance equipment at the Rocklin, Roseville, Suisun, and Fremont stations. This project is under

development and will be constructed over the next 6-8 months. Funding has been identified in a future

funding year for security cameras at the Martinez, Emeryville, and Oakland Jack London Square

stations. When complete, all Capitol Corridor stations will be equipped with security cameras and

surveillance equipment.

Positive Train Control: On October 28, 2015, the House of Representatives passed H.R. 3819, which

would provide a three-year extension of the current PTC implementation deadline of December 31,

President Obama signed the bill before midnight October 29.

With the enactment of the three-year extension of PTC, railroads responsible for installing PTC on

their rail networks are now required to provide the US DOT Secretary a revised implementation and


4

testing schedule for PTC within 90 days of the enactment of H.R. 3819. In addition to being in close

communication with the UPRR and Caltrain on their PTC installation plans,

CCJPA staff will continue working with Caltrans and Amtrak on completing the installation and the

PTC on-board equipment in the locomotives and cab cars, plus installation by Amtrak of the back-

office server that will relay the location of the Capitol Corridor trains to the UPRR and Caltrain PTC

servers.

Project Updates

Travel Time Reduction Project: The CCJPA is working with the UPRR to finalize the phasing plan for

the project, schedule, and budget that will achieve the projected 10-minute travel time reduction for

Capitol Corridor trains between Sacramento and San Jose. This project was awarded $4.62 million in

Cap and Trade Transit and Intercity Rail Capital Program (TIRCP) funds. ACE trains would receive a

five-minute travel time reduction between Fremont and San Jose on the shared section of the Capitol

Corridor route.

CCJPA Oakland-San Jose Phase 2 Project: The engineering and environmental consultants continue

working for CCJPA on the Newark-Albrae and Great America double track segments. Initial survey

data has been gathered and conceptual design is advancing. Concurrently, Caltrain is completing the

design and environmental plans for the track upgrades into and out of the San Jose/Diridon station

terminal facility as a means to accommodate additional Capitol Corridor trains.

Sacramento to Roseville 3rd Track Environmental Review/Preliminary

Engineering: On November 18, 2015, the CCJPA Board adopted the California Environmental Quality

Act (CEQA) Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for this project, which will allow up to 10 round trips

to/from Roseville. In parallel, the CCJPA is preparing a National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)

environmental document for the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), which the FRA will complete

with a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) once CCJPA requests federal funding for the project.

Outlook – Closing

With the first quarter complete for FY16 (October - December 2015), the Capitol Corridor remains in

growth mode, with actual results exceeding standards thanks to steady ridership and revenue growth

and reductions in operational/mechanical and host railroad/dispatching delay minutes. While current

global economic indicators are pointing downward, the Capitol Corridor continues to have moderate

growth in passenger demand and operating expenses that are below budget. Progress continues on the

numerous projects and initiatives planned for FY16: installation of on-board Positive Train Control

equipment and supporting technology, the delivery of new Tier IV diesel-electric locomotives (the

cleanest in the nation), the construction planning for the Sacramento-Roseville 3rd Track and Travel

Time Savings Projects, and incremental updates to the CCJPA website.

94.6% 88.4% 92.7% 93.2% 93.9% 93.5% 94.0% 94.0% 94.4% 92.4% 95.9% 95.4%

6.1% 5.3% 0.3% -0.8% 6.7% 5.9% 2.9% 5.1% 1.9% 4.4% 3.7% 6.1%

50,000

60,000

70,000

80,000

90,000

100,000

110,000

120,000

130,000

140,000

Rid

ersh

ip

Prior 12 Months Current 12 Months

How's Business?Ridership

% difference current month to prior year's month

On-time Performance

3.87% Overall 12-Month Growth

Ridership Last 12 Months=1,494,079

Ridership Prior 12 Months=1,438,438

$2,000,000

$2,100,000

$2,200,000

$2,300,000

$2,400,000

$2,500,000

$2,600,000

$2,700,000

$2,800,000

$2,900,000

Oct-15 Nov-15 Dec-15 Jan-16 Feb-16 Mar-16 Apr-16 May-16 Jun-16 Jul-16 Aug-16 Sep-16

Rev

en

ue

Month

Capitol Corridor PerformanceFFY 2015-16

Monthly RevenuesActual vs Business Plan

Actual FY 16 Revenue YTD (through Jan-16)

FFY 16 Business Plan

Actual FY 15 Revenue

Actual FY 14 Revenues

How's Business?:Revenue

3.9% vs.FFY 16 Business Plan YTD

4.4% vs. Prior FFY 15 YTD


How's Business?:Revenue

3.9% vs.FFY 16 Business Plan YTD


Total Annual FFY 16 Business Plan = $30,406,000


Ridership On-time Performance System Operating Ratio (b)Customer

Satisfaction

Month Actual Business Plan Actual Actual Actual Business Plan Actual

October-15 134,233 127,310 94.4% 51.8% $2,686,162 $2,522,142 88

November-15 130,045 127,120 92.4% 59.7% $2,845,496 $2,800,028 87

December-15 120,600 116,620 95.9% 57.3% $2,640,617 $2,605,670 88

January-16 119,250 111,830 95.4% 48.9% $2,487,049 $2,332,299

February-16 112,030 $2,308,541

March-16 128,460 $2,619,967

April-16 126,870 $2,521,391

May-16 131,030 $2,621,365

June-16 121,650 $2,472,371

July-16 117,260 $2,582,879

August-16 124,340 $2,528,269

September-16 116,930 $2,491,078

Total YTD 504,128 482,880 94.5% 54% $10,659,324 $10,260,139 88Previous YTD 484,922 - - 93.2% 52% $10,206,919 - - 87YTD Change 4.0% 4.4% 1.3% 4.2% 4.4% 3.9% 0.7%

Annual Standard/Measure 1,461,450 90% 50% $30,406,000 88

b) This standard measures total revenues (farebox and other operating credits) divided by total expenses (Amtrak operations + CCJPA Call Center)

State Perfomance Standards (a)

a) Standard developed by CCJPA in annual business plan update and approved by the California State Transportation Agency

Other Performance Measures

FY 2016 Performance Measures

Revenues

Cummulative FFY Year-to-Date: December 2015

Monthly Station Ridership Activity

Capitol Corridor Train Service

FFY 2015 - 2015

Station Boardings Alightings Total

Boardings/

day

Alightings/

day Boardings Alightings

% Change from last FFY

FFY 2015 - 2015

Total/ day

Weighted

Boardings

Weighted

Alightings

Weighted

Total

ARN 2205 1837 4042 23.97 19.97 9.3% 6.6%43.93 23.97 19.97 43.93

RLN 2059 1843 3902 22.38 20.03 0.2% 2.4%42.41 22.38 20.03 42.41

RSV 3561 3673 7234 38.71 39.92 10.0% 6.6%78.63 38.71 39.92 78.63

SAC 99837 99268 199105 1085.18 1079.00 0.5% 1.7%2164.18 97.76 97.21 194.97

DAV 46725 43551 90276 507.88 473.38 -0.5% -1.8%981.26 45.75 42.65 88.40

SUI 21133 21604 42737 229.71 234.83 6.5% 2.7%464.53 20.69 21.16 41.85

MTZ 25889 27698 53587 281.40 301.07 0.3% 0.0%582.47 25.35 27.12 52.47

RIC 24456 26116 50572 265.83 283.87 2.7% 4.1%549.70 23.95 25.57 49.52

BKY 18040 17708 35748 196.09 192.48 4.2% 3.0%388.57 17.67 17.34 35.01

EMY 45875 46650 92525 498.64 507.07 1.5% 1.5%1005.71 44.92 45.68 90.60

OKJ 27671 28291 55962 300.77 307.51 9.3% 12.0%608.28 27.10 27.70 54.80

OAC 8156 10087 18243 88.65 109.64 18.3% 19.7%198.29 13.64 16.87 30.51

HAY 5592 5729 11321 60.78 62.27 12.6% 13.7%123.05 13.20 13.52 26.72

FMT 4818 4586 9404 52.37 49.85 16.5% 6.9%102.22 11.37 10.82 22.20

GAC 18728 18942 37670 203.57 205.89 6.7% 4.5%409.46 44.21 44.71 88.92

SCC 4966 4630 9596 53.98 50.33 37.1% 30.8%104.30 #Div/0! #Div/0! #Div/0!

SJC 21771 19269 41040 236.64 209.45 2.4% 2.7%446.09 51.39 45.48 96.87

FFY Total

or Average381482 381482 762964 4146.54 4146.54 8293.09

December 2015

ARNOrig BKYDAV EMY FMT GACHAYMTZ OKJRICRLN RSV SAC SJCSUI Grand Total:

Origin-Destination Table

OAC

ARN 2244 116 2149 5678314 14 69641

RLN 1290 92 4 5146 2034307 16 62728

1RSV 59134 283 4 13270 77981 228 45 101554

214SAC 15731822 7840 576 9465304872 35594658262 204 21722054 312821518

35DAV 1242 2848 231 3171411304 1247258281 123 1951 568445 13115327

18SUI 411429 1411 51 10352605 57548016 83 1878 133 6245204

42MTZ 3151153 500 14 1261723420232 99 4729 173578 821460

64RIC 52314 28 2 109204 3539 76 4374 104509 786311

30BKY 1234 47 21 57034389 127414 60 1603 418397 494818

137EMY 162680 242 61379414 1713578 297 7734 6581437 1459129

77OKJ 341141 79 19 122952215 4528 98 3773 906578 827446

10OAC 12216 10 3 474128 60177 35 1095 307176 2451

3HAY 34106 70 55326 14112 2 534 16659 16974

FMT 35184 272 141210 4172 3 618 6362 14403

1GAC 541274 620 130537111 12001006 8 947 2998 4602510

1SCC 11284 234 15 163131 280132 5 291 9315 1223140

7SJC 448513 735 88 15302220 10741043 9 2686 200 6404431

Grand Total: 640 487112418 15185 1402 523017828594 88978458573 1102 33062 57906683 1146873424

Date: February 4, 2016

Reader Input: New taxes not the answer

It looks like the Placer County Transportation Planning Agency (PCTPA) will place a tax

increase measure on the ballot this year.

PCTPA is made up of Placer County Supervisors and City Council members of cities in Placer,

including Supervisors Jim Holmes and Kirk Uhler and City Council members Keith Nesbitt,

Tony Hesch, Stan Nader, Brian Baker, Diana Ruslin and Susan Rohan.

We are told the problem is we do not pay enough in taxes. Just another tax increase, just a

little more spending and all our problems will be solved; how many times have we heard that

baloney?

The real problem is misplaced spending priorities. For example, PCTPA has the money to hire

an expensive consultant, send out expensive mailers and campaign to get you to raise your

taxes, but no money for roads.

Lincoln can pay their city manager almost $500,000, but no money to repair roads.

The supervisors can find money for their 139 percent pay increase, but no money to fill

potholes.

Roseville can build the Roseville Fitness Center, but no money to build roads. As nice as that

facility is, isn’t that better left to the private sector - maybe California Family Fitness or 24

Hour Fitness?

There would be outrage if we were told taxes need to go up for politician pay raises, to

overpay bureaucrats, to build a government health club to compete with the private sector, or

to run an expensive tax-hike campaign. So, money is moved around and we are told the tax

increase is for roads.

This is an election year. We need to vote out every politician that believes increasing taxes

and increasing spending is the solution to every problem confronting us.

We must vote for people who can properly prioritize, spend wisely and live within their

means.

Ken Campbell, Lincoln

Date: January 15, 2016

Comment

The issue of a transportation tax was brought up at the Meddlers’ meeting January 12. Many people

present did not know the Board of Supervisors and the Placer County Transportation Agency are two

separately governed boards.

The Placer County Transportation Agency (PCTPA) is a “joint powers authority” agency whose nine

member Board is served by six incorporated city representatives, two county supervisors, and an at-

large citizen representative.

It is an independent Agency which covers many transportation issues from public transportation to

building new roadways or improving traffic movement such as the HOV lanes on I-80, or the Highway

65 bypass of the town of Lincoln.

The PCTPA board, as your representatives of transportation issues, wrestled with the road needs of

our county. Because of the vast need for roadways and the lack of funds coming to PCTPA in a

reasonable time period (say 5-10 years) your board looked at ways to improve this financial dilemma.

No one likes taxes, and we citizens usually have a say in taxing ourselves. What PCTPA is proposing is

a very small increase of our sales tax to help with funding the needed roads in Placer County.

Please learn more about this proposed increase in sales tax so you will better understand the need for

it and where the money will go in Placer County.

This is a local issue. You, as voters, should stand against the scare tactics of naysayers and make an

informed decision.

Harriet White, North Auburn

a g e n d a - pctpapctpa.net/agendas/2016/february/february2016_amended.pdf · amended agenda –...

Documents