Final 2011/14 MTIP - sacog

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Fund Sources Programmed in the MTIP The 2011/14 MTIP programs transportation funding from a wide variety of sources. Several of the major sources from which funds are programmed are: Federal Transit Administration Programs • Section 5307 Urbanized Area Formula • Section 5309 New Starts • Section 5309 Fixed Guideway Modernization • Section 5309 Bus Allocation • Section 5310 Elderly and Disabled • Section 5316 Job Access and Reverse Commute (JARC) • Section 5317 New Freedom Federal Highway Administration Programs • Regional Surface Transportation Program (RSTP) • Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Program (CMAQ) • Other federal programs including High Priority Projects and other earmarks State, Regional, and Local Programs Not all state and local funds have to be programmed in the MTIP. However, if these funds are used to match federal dollars described above, or if they are attached to projects that require federal approval or other formal federal action, or if the project funded is considered to be regionally significant, they must be included in the MTIP. Such state and local fund sources can include the following: • State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP), comprising the Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP) and the Interregional Transportation Improvement Program (ITIP) • Proposition 1B Bond Funds, approved by voters in 2006, which includes Corridor Mobility Improvement Account (CMIA), Trade Corridors Improvement Fund (TCIF), and Public Transportation Modernization, Improvement, and Service Enhancement Account (PTMISEA) funds; • Transportation Development Act (TDA) & State Transit Assistance (STA) funds; • Proceeds from Sacramento County half-cent transportation sales tax; • Various other funds programmed to regionally significant, locally funded projects. Project Funding Selection Development of Project Proposals Ideas for projects emerge from a variety of planning efforts at the city, county, transit operator, and regional levels. Some of the major sources for projects are the county congestion management programs, countywide transportation plans, transit operator short-range transit plans, and the state highway planning process conducted by Caltrans. These efforts are then merged with the planning efforts of the Metropolitan 2011 MTIP - Page 8 of 423 6
Transportation Plan. When the project scope, schedule, and budget are fully developed, the project may then be proposed for funding. Project sponsors (the agencies designated to implement the projects) are responsible for initiating requests for MTIP programming, applying for the programmed funds, and carrying their projects to completion. In the Sacramento Region, the implementing agencies include public transit operators, Caltrans, SACOG, the five local air districts, the six Sacramento Region counties, several joint power authorities, and the individual cities within each county. Project Selection Criteria Processes The process, by which a project is selected for programming utilizing federal, state, and regional funds, depends on the type of project, and the specific fund source being sought. Once selected, the project is then eligible for inclusion in the MTIP. Metropolitan Transportation Plan Consistency Only projects consistent with the MTP 2035 were included in the 2011/14 MTIP as required by federal law. In accordance with the law, projects are reviewed for consistency with the MTP, as they are submitted for funding in the various programs, and as they are amended into the MTIP. Consistency also includes the requirement that project costs in the MTIP do not exceed those in the MTP’s funding constrained investment plan. Air Quality Conformity Under federal law and regulations, the MTIP must be analyzed by SACOG to determine if it conforms to the Sacramento Region’s approved federal Air Quality Plan (also referred to as the State Implementation Plan, or SIP). Motor vehicle emissions are modeled, considering all projects in the MTIP, and must not exceed the Motor Vehicle Emissions Budget (MVEB) identified in the SIP and approved by EPA. In addition, the MTIP must provide for the timely implementation of strategies to reduce emissions that are in the SIP, called Transportation Control Measures (TCMs). Air quality conformity ("conformity") is a way to ensure that Federal funding and approval goes to those transportation activities that are consistent with air quality goals. Conformity applies to transportation plans, TIPs, and projects funded or approved by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) or the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) in areas that do not meet or previously have not met air quality standards for ozone, carbon monoxide, particulate matter, or nitrogen oxides. These areas are known as "nonattainment areas" or "maintenance areas," respectively. A conformity determination demonstrates that the total emissions projected for a plan or program are within the emissions limits ("budgets") established by the air quality plan or State Implementation Plan (SIP), and that transportation control measures (TCMs) are implemented in a timely fashion. SACOG analyzes the projects in the MTIP, using a prescribed computer model and process, and makes a finding that those projects, if completed, would not contribute to air pollution that exceeds an amount specified in the region’s clean air plan. 2011 MTIP - Page 9 of 423 7
Page 1 and 2: SACOG-10-010 Metropolitan Transport
Page 3 and 4: 2011/14 MTIP Contents A Guide to th
Page 5 and 6: A Guide to the Metropolitan Transpo
Page 7 and 8: comment period, SACOG’s response
Page 9: Relationship of the MTIP to Other F
Page 13 and 14: two types of revisions to the MTIP,
Page 15 and 16: The 2011/14 MTIP is a compilation o
Page 17 and 18: MTP Update While the MTP update wil
Page 19 and 20: 2011 MTIP - Page 17 of 423
Page 21 and 22: NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING REQUEST FO
Page 23 and 24: REVISED 9/21/10 Sacramento Area Cou
Page 25 and 26: REVISED 9/21/10 TABLE 2: PROGRAMMED
Page 27 and 28: REVISED 9/21/10 TABLE 3: REVENUE VS
Page 29 and 30: Sacramento Area Council of Governme
Page 37 and 38: 2014 2014 2014 2014 2014 2014 2014
Page 61 and 62:
Sacramento Area Council of Governme
Page 63 and 64:
Page 65 and 66:
Page 67 and 68:
Page 69 and 70:
Page 71 and 72:
Page 73 and 74:
Page 75 and 76:
Page 77 and 78:
Page 79 and 80:
Page 81 and 82:
Page 83 and 84:
Page 85 and 86:
Page 87 and 88:
Page 89 and 90:
Page 91 and 92:
Page 93 and 94:
Page 95 and 96:
Page 97 and 98:
Page 99 and 100:
Page 101 and 102:
Page 103 and 104:
Page 105 and 106:
Page 107 and 108:
Page 109 and 110:
Page 111 and 112:
Page 113 and 114:
Page 115 and 116:
Page 117 and 118:
Page 119 and 120:
Page 121 and 122:
Page 123 and 124:
Page 125 and 126:
Page 127 and 128:
Page 129 and 130:
Page 131 and 132:
Page 133 and 134:
Page 135 and 136:
Page 137 and 138:
Page 139 and 140:
Page 141 and 142:
Page 143 and 144:
Page 145 and 146:
Page 147 and 148:
Page 149 and 150:
Page 151 and 152:
Page 153 and 154:
Page 155 and 156:
Page 157 and 158:
Page 159 and 160:
Page 161 and 162:
Page 163 and 164:
Page 165 and 166:
Page 167 and 168:
Page 169 and 170:
Page 171 and 172:
Page 173 and 174:
Page 175 and 176:
Page 177 and 178:
Page 179 and 180:
Page 181 and 182:
Page 183 and 184:
Page 185 and 186:
Page 187 and 188:
Page 189 and 190:
Page 191 and 192:
Page 193 and 194:
Page 195 and 196:
Page 197 and 198:
Page 199 and 200:
Page 201 and 202:
Page 203 and 204:
Page 205 and 206:
Page 207 and 208:
Page 209 and 210:
Page 211 and 212:
Page 213 and 214:
Page 215 and 216:
Page 217 and 218:
Page 219 and 220:
Page 221 and 222:
Page 223 and 224:
Page 225 and 226:
Page 227 and 228:
Page 229 and 230:
Page 231 and 232:
Page 233 and 234:
Page 235 and 236:
Page 237 and 238:
Page 239 and 240:
Page 241 and 242:
Page 243 and 244:
Page 245 and 246:
Page 247 and 248:
Page 249 and 250:
Page 251 and 252:
Page 253 and 254:
Page 255 and 256:
Page 257 and 258:
Page 259 and 260:
Page 261 and 262:
Page 263 and 264:
Page 265 and 266:
Page 267 and 268:
Page 269 and 270:
Page 271 and 272:
Page 273 and 274:
Page 275 and 276:
Page 277 and 278:
Page 279 and 280:
Page 281 and 282:
Page 283 and 284:
Page 285 and 286:
Page 287 and 288:
Page 289 and 290:
Page 291 and 292:
Page 293 and 294:
Page 295 and 296:
Page 297 and 298:
Page 299 and 300:
Page 301 and 302:
Page 303 and 304:
Page 305 and 306:
Page 307 and 308:
Page 309 and 310:
Page 311 and 312:
Page 313 and 314:
Page 315 and 316:
Page 317 and 318:
Page 319 and 320:
Page 321 and 322:
Page 323 and 324:
Page 325 and 326:
Page 327 and 328:
Appendix 5 - Completed, Deleted, an
Page 329 and 330:
Page 331 and 332:
Page 333 and 334:
Page 335 and 336:
Page 337 and 338:
Page 339 and 340:
Page 341 and 342:
Page 343 and 344:
Page 345 and 346:
Page 347 and 348:
Page 349 and 350:
Page 351 and 352:
Page 353 and 354:
Page 355 and 356:
Page 357 and 358:
Page 359 and 360:
Page 361 and 362:
Page 363 and 364:
Page 365 and 366:
Amendment #3 to the Metropolitan Tr
Page 367 and 368:
programs will receive state funding
Page 369 and 370:
MTP: Metropolitan Transportation Pl
Page 371 and 372:
and public transit operators. TDM:
Page 373 and 374:
Comments from the Public Comment 8/
Page 375 and 376:
Comment 8/2/2010, 2:08 PM Renee, Th
Page 377 and 378:
COMMENT2: Project YOL17010 of Group
Page 379 and 380:
RESPONSE: SACOG identified the matc
Page 381 and 382:
staff and could generate typographi
Page 383 and 384:
Appendix 10 County Lead Agency Proj
Page 385 and 386:
Page 387 and 388:
Page 389 and 390:
Page 391 and 392:
Page 393 and 394:
Page 395 and 396:
Page 397 and 398:
Page 399 and 400:
Page 401 and 402:
Page 403 and 404:
Page 405 and 406:
Page 407 and 408:
Page 409 and 410:
Page 411 and 412:
Page 413 and 414:
Appendix 10 Yolo Yolo Yolo Yolo Yol
Page 415 and 416:
Page 417 and 418:
Page 419 and 420:
APPENDIX 11: EXPEDITED PROJECT SELE
Page 421 and 422:
2011 MTIP - Page 419 of 423
Page 423 and 424:
2011 MTIP - Page 421 of 423
Page 425:
WHAT WE DO The Sacramento Area Coun
show all

Final 2011/14 MTIP - sacog

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?