HomeMy WebLinkAboutSLOCOGdecarlipresentationr
,E /,/)''
~~rn-27L 7n/).
San Luis Obispo City Council
Focused Public Opinion Pol l
&
Supplemental Funding Assessment
Highway Accomplishment s
Widenings,Realignments,and Auxiliary Lanes
•Cuesta Grade Widenin g
•41 realignment and bridge (Atascadero )
•101 Aux Lanes (4) (Pismo Beach I Arroyo Grande )
•101 Aux Lanes (SLO City : Madonna to Marsh)
Interchange s
-- ~--.,101141 (Atascadero )
'.l y01 !yillo"""w''' (funded with ARRA) Nipomo
•101`T 'Nipomo)
•101 Palyc (PBIAGIGB)
•101 l 4th (Pismo Beach)
•101 1 LOV (1und6d, but delayed) SLO city
•101 146E (PaRotrles)
•101 I46W Phasit 1 (Paso Robles).
2010 RTP Projected Revenue s
Highway Improvements
Highway Improvements
Improvement Type
Interchange Improvements
Highway Corridor Improvements
Auxiliary Lane Improvements
PROJECT CANDIDATES
Rt 1 imps (101/Olive NB & SB turn
lanes)
1C1 Aux lane (Prado to Madonna )
Rt 1 / Foothill Intersection Imp.
^^Constrained / vv Unconstrained
1C1/Prado Overcrossin g
Rt 1 / 101 Capacity improvement s
1C7 Aux Lanes (NB and SB :
Madonna — Broad)
CTC 2010 Annual Report
Key Finding s
•State's transportation system continues t o
deteriorate
•Federal Highway Trust Fund is insolvent
•SB 375 requires funding to succeed
.New revenue sources needed
:{tii ovative financin g
•Inn st project delivery .
1
2010 RTP Projected Revenue s
Road Maintenanc e
$1 .1B identified as needed to improve ALL local roads .
$624M assumed.
Onaverage expectationwasminimal improvement
Some jurisdictions would see improvemen t
Some would see further degradatio n
Some Jurisdictions faced with need to reconstruct large part of roa d
--srtem ,
'''-1 ver; any redirection of 'General Funds' to other programs or Loca lTraitsatbn Funds to Public Transit would result in degrading
condilionsv .
Projected Revenu e
Concerns And Conclusion s
No OR Reduced earmarks and n o
Leverage for Caltrans $
No increases to existing or new
revenues
Recent Legislation provides chang e
and uncertainty, but no $
Transportation Reauthorization
delays; restructuring; reductions
Past Gen'l Fund contributions no w
overly optimistic .
All Future 46E widening phase s
in questio n
High Cost Interchanges and
Highway projects will be difficul t
to fund and will require
significant local $
Regional Route funding ma y
diminish furthe r
(cont'd) Projected Revenu eConcerns And Conclusion s
Expect reductions to State and Delivery of fewer improvement s
Federal Funding Programs and and more delays for Non -
Competitive Grants Sources Motorized projects:
•Bikes and Trails
Growth of Federal Transit fundin g
expected to be flatter tha n
assumed
• Downtown Enhancements ,
• Landscaped median s
STA projections : Uncertain
Transit Services will be i n'Urban' areas definitions may decline .jeopardize N . County status and
$700k /yr (and S . County ?).
Redirection of Gen'l Fund $ away Road Maintenance will be i n
from St ./Rd .Maintenance decline .
Overall Fundinq Conclusion :
1 . Previously projected revenues now appea r
overly optimistic and a significant reduction ($
and Projects) should be anticipated .
Cannot rely on State or Federal Govt's fo r
a~fdittonal bailout s
SLOCOG Board approved polling the publi cto identify transportation investmen tpriorities and use this information t oprepare for a future :
~~.,1(jhout supplemental funding (reductions )
\\`~R
.With s'ttppmental funding .
Next Step s
Released RFP for Opinion Polling for :
Projects and Improvement s
Programs and Service s
Assess Supplemental Funding Options :
' 'Regional Impact Fee s
jo'cal Option Gas Ta x
tion Sales Ta x
Registration Fees
3