1 / 38

Eileen O. Yazzie March 18, 2009

MAG Sub-Allocation of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 and Allocation Scenarios Transportation Policy Committee. Eileen O. Yazzie March 18, 2009. Programming Projects for ARRA. Status of MAG Sub-Allocation - Highway Proposed Project Funding Scenarios –Discussion & Direction

kenyon
Télécharger la présentation

Eileen O. Yazzie March 18, 2009

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. MAG Sub-Allocation of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 and Allocation ScenariosTransportation Policy Committee Eileen O. Yazzie March 18, 2009

  2. Programming Projects for ARRA • Status of MAG Sub-Allocation - Highway • Proposed Project Funding Scenarios –Discussion & Direction • On the Agenda for: possible action to recommend a scenario for projects/allocations of the MAG Sub-Allocation Portion of the ARRA • Next Steps/Schedule

  3. Federal Eligibility Criteria • Most Flexible Federal Program: • Road projects on Functionally Classified Roadways • Transit Projects • Bike & Pedestrian projects • ITS projects on roadways • ADA projects on Functionally Classified and local roads • Paving dirt roads and alleys are NOT eligible under this program

  4. MAG RegionTransportation Infrastructure American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA)

  5. MAG RegionTransportation Infrastructure American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA)

  6. When Should We Expect Funding? Funds were to be made available on: March 3, 2009 After which the clock starts ticking for…

  7. Use It or Lose It Expectations to begin ‘work’ quickly. Projects obligated within 1 year and completed within 3 years.

  8. Use It or Lose It Any portion of the apportioned funds, including MPO/Sub-allocated funds that are not obligated within one year, will be withdrawn and redistributed to other states. These funds are then available until September 30, 2010 for obligation

  9. DRAFT – SUBJECT TO CHANGE Reporting Requirements & Deadlines • 1st Report: 90 days; May 19, 2009 • 2nd Report: 180 days; August 16, 2009 • 3rd Report: 1 year; February 17, 2010 • 4th Report: 2 years; February 2011 • 5th Report: 3 years; February 2012 Still waiting on final Guidelines from FHWA & ADOT for agency responsible for reporting requirements. Reporting to be posted on

  10. DRAFT – SUBJECT TO CHANGE Reporting Requirements & Deadlines • Number of projects underway • Number of projects complete • Number of indirect and direct jobs • Aggregate # of State funds • Total amount appropriated, allocated, obligated, and outlayed • Number of projects to let bid • Number of projects awarded Reporting to be posted on

  11. DRAFT – SUBJECT TO CHANGE Highway – MAG Sub-Allocation Transportation Policy Committee recommended Scenarios for review: • #1 - Member Agency Allocation • Priority to Proposition 400 projects #2 – Highway #3 - Highway & Arterials #4 - Highway, Arterials, and Transit • #5 Projects Ready to go – Federal Requirements Please review Scenario Packet at your seat

  12. Proposed Project Funding Scenarios Scenario #1A & #1B : $104.6 Million - Member Agency Allocation for Projects ready to go and obligate within a year

  13. Proposed Project Funding Scenarios Scenario #1A & #1B - $104.6 Million: • Option A calculates a minimum agency allocation and then adds population to the minimum agency allocation. • Option B provides jurisdictions with a minimum agency allocation and calculates population distribution after the minimum agency allocations are provided. Decision on which Option – A or B, and the minimum agency allocation.

  14. Important Factors for Scenario #1A or #1B • Jurisdictions would have to identify specific projects for the use of the Economic Recovery funds – possible quick deadline. • The normal federal requirements still hold; this is a reimbursement program and all federal clearances are required. • It is suggested that projects that have an 'A' or a 'B' status for TIP and NEPA are used. • Projects that would require a lengthy NEPA/environmental review process, 'C' projects, are not good candidates for these funds. • The projects will have to be identified and agreed to prior to amending the TIP.

  15. Proposed Project Funding Scenarios Scenario #2 – Prop. 400 Highway Projects • 7 Projects = $43.1 million - remaining Highway ADOT projects approved in priority order by Regional Council, which are not funded by the ADOT/State Portion. • 3 projects = $160.5 million - non-prioritized Prop. 400 projects If Scenario #2 is recommended, decision on which projects to fund with ARRA funds.

  16. SR 74: MP 13 - MP 15 SR 74: MP 20 - MP 22 Loop 101: Northern to Grand Loop 101 at Olive Avenue I-17: I-10 to Indian School SR 85: Southern Ave to I-10 Scenario #2 7 Prioritized Projects: $43.1 million Regionwide Noise Walls

  17. SR 74: MP 13 - MP 15 SR 74: MP 20 - MP 22 Loop 101: Northern to Grand Loop 303: Greenway to Mountain View Loop 101 at Olive Avenue I-17: I-10 to Indian School SR 85: Southern Ave to I-10 Scenario #2: 7 Prioritized Projects: $43.1 million 3 Unprioritized Projects: $160 million Regionwide Noise Walls SR 87: Four Peaks – Dos S Ranch Rd 99th Ave: I-10 to MC85

  18. Proposed Project Funding Scenarios Scenario #3 – Prop. 400 Highway & Street Projects • 7 Highway Prioritized Projects = $43.1 million • 3 Highway Non- Prioritized Projects = $160.5 million • 4 ALCP Projects = $50 million ready-to-go • 4 ALCP Project = $103 million possibly-could-go If Scenario #3 is recommended, decision on which projects to fund with ARRA funds

  19. SR 74: MP 13 - MP 15 SR 74: MP 20 - MP 22 Loop 101: Northern to Grand Loop 303: Greenway to Mountain View Loop 101 at Olive Avenue I-17: I-10 to Indian School SR 85: Southern Ave to I-10 Scenario #3: 7 Prioritized Projects: $43.1 million 3 Unprioritized Projects: $160 million 4 ALCP Projects: $50 million Loop 101: Beardsley Rd/ Union Hills TI Regionwide Noise Walls SR 87: Four Peaks – Dos S Ranch Rd Shea Blvd: Palisades to Fountain Hills 99th Ave: I-10 to MC85 Chandler /Dobson

  20. Scenario #3: 7 Prioritized Projects: $43.1 mill 3 Unprioritized Projects: $160 mill 4 Ready-to-go ALCP Projects: $50 mill 4 Possible ALCP: $103 mill SR 74: MP 13 - MP 15 SR 74: MP 20 - MP 22 Loop 101: Northern to Grand Loop 303: Greenway to Mountain View Loop 101 at Olive Avenue I-17: I-10 to Indian School SR 85: Southern Ave to I-10 Loop 101: Beardsley Rd/ Union Hills TI Regionwide Noise Walls Pima Rd: Thomp. – Pinnacle Pk Northern Pkwy: Overpasses SR 87: Four Peaks – Dos S Ranch Rd Shea Blvd: Palisades to Fountain Hills 99th Ave: I-10 to MC85 Chandler /Dobson

  21. Proposed Project Funding Scenarios Scenario #4 – Prop. 400 Highway, Street, and Transit • 7 Highway Prioritized Projects = $43.1 million • 3 Highway Non- Prioritized Projects = $160.5 million • 4 ALCP Projects = $50 million ready-to-go • 4 ALCP Project = $138 million possibly-could-go • Transit Projects = ? – Still under development If Scenario #4 is recommended, decision on which projects to fund with ARRA funds

  22. Proposed Project Funding Scenarios Scenario #5 – Projects that are ready to go • $85 - $121 Million • The amount needed to fund projects in the TIP Status A and NEPA Status A list is $84 million. • Adding the STP-TEA projects, raises the needed funding amount to $95 million • Then adding projects in the TIP Status A and NEPA Status B list increases the funding need to $121 million. If Scenario #5 is chosen, projects would have to be selected to be funded as the number of candidate projects is higher than the MAG sub-allocated amount

  23. Proposed Project Funding Scenarios Questions & Discussion On the Agenda for: possible action to recommend a scenario for projects/allocations of the MAG Sub-Allocation Portion of the ARRA

  24. DRAFT – SUBJECT TO CHANGE Next Steps • Continue working with Valley Metro • Targeting February 25th Regional Council for: • TIP amendment & Conformity Consultation– Highway • Targeting the March – April Committees (TRC, Management, TPC, RC) • TIP amendment & Conformity Consultation MAG Sub-allocation projects & Transit • Due to timeframe – possible additional Committee meetings, and possible change of meeting dates & times • April – joint meeting with ADOT Local Governments, MAG Member Agencies, and FHWA

  25. MAG Regional Portion of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act – TransitTransportation Policy Committee Eileen O. Yazzie March 18, 2009

  26. Programming Projects for ARRA • Status of MAG Regional Transit portion of ARRA • Next Steps/Schedule

  27. DRAFT – SUBJECT TO CHANGE MAG RegionTransportation Infrastructure American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA)

  28. When Should We Expect Funding? Funds were made available by FTA on: March 3, 2009 The clock is ticking for…

  29. Use It or Lose It Expectations to begin ‘work’ quickly. Projects completed within 3 years.

  30. Status of MAG Regional Transit portion of ARRA • February 19, 2009 – RPTA Board of Directors recommended criteria for project selection • Prop. 400 Projects • Construction Projects or Projects that generate significant local job creation • Ready to go Projects (timing) • Project size (larger is better) • Projects that may not qualify for federal funds • Projects that typically receive less federal funding

  31. Status of MAG Regional Transit portion of ARRA • March 4, 2009 – RPTA Management Committee • Reviewed ARRA Project recommendations for funding and approved them for review by the RPTA Board of Directors Memorandum from RPTA in your agenda packet.

  32. Recommended by RPTA Management Committee

  33. Recommended by RPTA Management Committee

  34. Status of MAG Transit portion of ARRA • March 6, 2009 – RPTA Budget & Finance Subcommittee • Chairperson requested alternative funding scenarios: • Funding by Population • Funding by Revenue Miles Operated • Funding by TLCP Jurisdictional Equity Percentage Memorandum Tables on pages 13 - 18.

  35. Status of MAG Regional Transit portion of ARRA • March 16, 2009 – RPTA Memorandum/Information Summary Update • Change of project recommendation of projects for ARRA - $1 billion shortfall in the Transit Life Cycle Program • Change affects 5307 to the Phoenix/Mesa Urbanized Area – removes Arizona Ave – BRT and lowers project costs for shade canopies New Memorandum from RPTA in your place.

  36. Status of MAG Transit portion of ARRA

  37. Status of MAG Transit portion of ARRA • March 19, 2009 – RPTA Board of Directors • Forward recommendations to MAG for inclusion in the Transportation Improvement Program

  38. MAG Transit portion of ARRA Questions & Discussion RPTA Staff – Paul Hodgins

More Related