1 / 22

Presented by: Capital SouthEast Connector Joint Powers Authority Tom Zlotkowski Executive Director

Presentation for. Presented by: Capital SouthEast Connector Joint Powers Authority Tom Zlotkowski Executive Director July 17, 2014. Connector Update - July, 2014. Location and General Information Project Description and History Project Implementation and Phasing

valiant
Download Presentation

Presented by: Capital SouthEast Connector Joint Powers Authority Tom Zlotkowski Executive Director

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. Presentation for Presented by: Capital SouthEast Connector Joint Powers Authority Tom Zlotkowski Executive Director July 17, 2014

  2. Connector Update - July, 2014 • Location and General Information • Project Description and History • Project Implementation and Phasing • Recent Activity and Accomplishments • Anticipated Next Steps • Scheduled Segment Milestones • Opportunities and Challenges

  3. Project Location Folsom • Alignment • Kammerer/Grant Line/White Rock Roads El Dorado County • Selection of General Alignment JPA SouthEast Connector: From I-5 south of Elk Grove (Hood Franklin Road) through Rancho Cordova to Highway 50 in El Dorado County, just east of El Dorado Hills (Silva Valley Parkway Rancho Cordova Sacramento County White Rock Elk Grove Length: 33.41 miles Width: 4 to 6 lanes Signals: 25 + - Interchanges: 10 Speed Limit: 40-55 MPH Sidewalk/Trail: Continuous Grant Line Kammerer

  4. Project History • Studied by Caltrans in mid-90s • Studies abandoned due to cost and priorities • JPA History • 2004 Sacramento County Sales Tax Extension • Studied extensively by SACOG (2005-2006) • Selected Project Alignments/Governance recommended by SACOG • Joint Powers Authority Formed (2007) • JPA Makeup • Sacramento County • El Dorado County • City of Elk Grove • City of Rancho Cordova • City of Folsom • (one vote format) Folsom El Dorado County • Selection of General Alignment Rancho Cordova Sacramento County Elk Grove

  5. Activities of Significance • 2011 Certification of PEIR and Selection of Preferred Alignment (Amended and Re-certified March, 2012) • 2012 Economic Impact Analysis (December, 2012) • 2012/2013 Design Guidelines and Committee Work (initial adoption, March, 2013; Rev. 3.0 Nov. 2013) • 2013 Initial Draft Plan of Finance (Initial adoption, March, 2013; Rev. 2.0 Jan. 2014) • 2013 Design-Build Legislation AB 401 (September 2013) • 2014 Environmental Phasing Strategy (May 2014) • 2014 Sacramento County General Plan Amendment (May 2014)

  6. Programmatic Environmental Impact Report

  7. Programmatic Environmental Impact Report PEIR Certified March 2012 • Selection of General Alignment • Identification of Mitigation Measures • Adoption of MMRP • ECOS settlement agreement on legal challenge Scoping Meetings (February/March 2010) Public Input Opportunity Notice of Preparation (February 2010) Public Input Opportunity SACOG Phase 1 Study (November 2006) Pre-scoping (2008-2010) Public Input Opportunity Final EIR/responses to comments (Minimum 10 days) (Aug/September 2011) Public Input Opportunity Final PEIR Public Hearings and Certification (2011) Public Input Opportunity Draft EIR Circulated (March –May, 2011) Public Input Opportunity Current Related Activities • Explore Mitigation Strategies through SSHCP • Complete General Plan Amendments • Project Level Environmental Documents • NEPA Determination Technical Studies JPA Member Agencies amend General Plans to align with adopted corridor Board adoption of Corridor Alignment Notice of Determination Project Level Environmental Analysis Begin

  8. Economic Impact Analysis

  9. Economic Impact Analysis Construction • $830.9 Million in New Economic Output • 5,448 New Full Time Jobs • $23.03 Million in New Indirect Business Taxes Importance of the Connector As Regional Accelerator and Catalyst • $2.5 Billion in New Output • 25,015 New Jobs • $1.06 Billion of new Labor Income • $1.6 Billion of New Value Added (GRP) • $182.2 Million in New Indirect Business Taxes

  10. Economic Impact Analysis “This project has the SINGLE LARGEST OVERALL ECONOMIC IMPACT POTENTIAL compared to other projects (Airport, Downtown Arena) in terms of Increased Vibrancy and Overall Economic Prosperity for Region.” Dr. Sanjay Varshney, Ph.D. Dean – CSUS Business School

  11. Project Design Guidelines

  12. Project DesignGuidelines • Ensures the Connector • has the following characteristics: • Uniform in character, appearance, and blends with communities • Effectively located access to maximize efficiency of the corridor • Integrated modes of travel • Well-coordinated, efficient traffic operations • Implements sustainable solutions • Maintains integrity of regional transportation systems • Cost-effective implementation of the project SCC Project Team JPA Board TAC PDT Input SAC

  13. Initial Plan of Finance Includes: • Cost Estimate methodology and breakdown by segment • Project implementation and phasing • Funding and Finance mechanisms

  14. Project Segments Latrobe Rd E2 D3 E1 County Line White Rock Rd D2 Jackson Hwy D1 C Calvine Rd Bond Rd Bruceville Rd B A2 A1 I-5 99

  15. Project Cost Estimates Cost Estimate Methodology • Consistent with Project PEIR • Project Delivery Method: Design-Build/CMGC/? • Broken Down by Segment • 5 Major Categories Used (Project Delivery, ROW, ROW Administration, Environmental, Construction)

  16. Project Implementation and Phasing • Project Segmentation: • Smaller Sub-Segments for flexibility- A1, A2, B, C, D1, D2… • Two–Phased Approach: Phase 1:Construct “Backbone Facility” - capacity for between five to fifteen years Phase 2:Finish corridor for full buildout – six lane segments, interchange conversions

  17. Funding and Finance Mechanisms • Connector JPA Measure A Funds - $118.0M • Federal and State Regional Funds - $136.9M • Member Jurisdiction Developer Fees - $197.0M • Fair Share Contributions - $23.8M • Member Jurisdiction Direct Contributions - $2.3M • Potential Revenue Sources - $80M

  18. Anticipated next steps • Discussion, Development, and Execution of Reciprocal Use and Funding Agreements to Address: • Funding contributions • Timing and Sequencing of segment construction • Future access requests • Overall JPA authority • Refine Alignment • Right of Way Assessment and Acquisition • Further Technical Development

  19. Schedule for segmentmilestones Segment Schedule Dec 2015 – certify NEPA document Winter 2014 – Initiate PA/ED process: NEPA/CEQA Fall 2014 – Initiate PA/ED process: CEQA 2014/2015 – Initiate PA/ED process w/ D3 • Segment A Kammerer Road • Segment D2 Jackson to White Rock Road • Segment D3 Prairie City to County Line • Segment E County Line to Latrobe

  20. Opportunities and Challenges Opportunities • Stated project transportation benefits • Economic growth potential – Jobs!! • Provides opportunities for other necessary infrastructure • Single largest local road project in region will raise capabilities and capacities • Improved jurisdictional relations amongst members • Introduce design-build as procurement option

  21. Opportunities and Challenges Challenges • Stakeholder Outreach and education • Jurisdictionalsovereignty and policy sensitivity • California enviro-political climate • Project “Champion” vacancy • Financing capacity and construction cash flow • Competing local government priorities • Lack of perceived “immediacy of need” • Advocacy deficiency

  22. Questions www.connectorjpa.net

More Related