Transcript Document

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
 Recent Activity and Accomplishments
 Anticipated Next Steps
 Scheduled Segment Milestones
 Opportunities and Challenges
Project Location
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

Kammerer/Grant Line/White Rock Roads

Selection of General Alignment
Kammerer
Length:
33.41 miles
Width:
4 to 6 lanes
Signals:
25
Interchanges:
10
Speed Limit:
40-55 MPH
+-
Sidewalk/Trail: Continuous
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
Folsom

Selection of General
Alignment
Rancho
Sacramento County
El Dorado County
City of Elk Grove
City of Rancho Cordova
City of Folsom
(one vote format)
Cordova
Sacramento
County
Elk Grove
El Dorado
County
Activities of Significance

2011 Certification of PEIR and Selection
of Preferred Alignment (Amended and Recertified 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)
Programmatic Environmental Impact
Report
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
Current Related
Activities




Explore Mitigation
Strategies
through SSHCP
Complete General
Plan Amendments
Project Level
Environmental
Documents
NEPA
Determination
SACOG Phase 1
Study
(November
2006)
Technical Studies
Board adoption of
Corridor Alignment
Notice of Determination
Pre-scoping (2008-2010)
Public Input
Opportunity
Draft EIR Circulated
(March –May, 2011)
Public Input
Opportunity
JPA Member Agencies
amend General Plans to
align with adopted corridor
Notice of Preparation
(February 2010)
Scoping Meetings
(February/March 2010)
Public Input
Opportunity
Public Input
Opportunity
Final EIR/responses to
comments (Minimum 10
days)
(Aug/September 2011)
Public Input
Opportunity
Project Level
Environmental Analysis
Begin
Final PEIR Public
Hearings and
Certification (2011)
Public Input Opportunity
Economic Impact Analysis
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
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
Project Design Guidelines
Project
Team
TAC
Input
Project Design
Guidelines
PDT
JPA
Board
SCC
SAC
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
12
Initial Plan of Finance
Includes:
 Cost Estimate methodology
and breakdown by segment
 Project implementation and
phasing
 Funding and Finance
mechanisms
Project Segments
SEGMENT
DESCRIPTION
A
4 laneexpressway, on Kammerer Rd from the
I-5/Hood Franklin IC to Bruceville Rd & 6 lane
Thoroughfare from Bruceville Rd to SR99
B
4 to 6 lane thoroughfare, from SR 99 to
Bond Rd
C
4 lane roadway, on Grant Line Rd from Bond
Rd to Calvine Rd (Sheldon Area)
D
4 to 6 lane expressway, on Grant Line/White
Rock Rd from Calvine Rd to the
Sacramento‐El Dorado County line
E
4 to 6 lane thoroughfare, on White Rock Rd
from the County line to US 50/Silva Valley
Pkwy IC
White Rock Rd
Jackson Hwy
I-5
Bruceville Rd
Calvine Rd
Bond Rd
99
Project Cost Estimates
Cost Estimate Methodology
 Consistent with Project
PEIR
Construction
Contingency,
12%
Right-of-Way,
6%
Right-of-Way
Administration
, 1%
 Project Delivery Method:
Design-Build/CMGC/?
 Broken Down by Segment
 5 Major
Categories Used
Major
Segment
A
B
(Project Delivery,
ROW, ROW
Administration,
Environmental,
Construction)
C
D
E
Project
Delivery
Costs, 14%
Environmental
Mitigation, 5%
Construction
(includes
sustainability)
, 62%
Roadway Segment
I-5 to State Route 99
State Route 99 to Bond Road
Bond Road to Calvine Road
Calvine Road to El Dorado County Line
El Dorado County Line to US-50/Silva Valley
Parkway
Total Project Cost
Estimate
$ 76,194,000
$ 56,746,000
$ 25,471,000
$275,635,000
% of Total
17%
12%
6%
60%
$ 22,354,000
5%
$ 456,400,000
100%
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
Major
Segment Segment
Roadway Segment
Phase 1 Cost
Estimate
Phase 2 Cost
Estimate
Total Costs
A1
I-5 to Bruceville Road
$ 44,444,304
$
1,553,552
$ 45,997,856
A2
Bruceville Road to State Route 99
$ 24,099,838
$
6,096,544
$ 30,196,382
A
B
B
State Route 99 to Bond Road
$ 45,850,190
$ 10,896,296
$ 56,746,486
C
C
Bond Road to Calvine Road
$ 24,810,822
$
660,000
$ 25,470,822
Calvine Road to Jackson Road
Jackson Road to White Rock/Grant Line
Road
$ 35,384,781
$ 15,336,192
$ 50,720,973
$ 45,450,559
$ 61,139,733
$106,590,292
White Rock/Grant Line Road to
Sacramento/El Dorado County Line
$ 69,371,880
$ 48,951,704
$118,323,584
El Dorado County Line to Latrobe
Latrobe to US-50/Silva Valley Parkway
$ 10,653,793
$ 11,700,235
$
$
$ 10,653,793
$ 11,700,235
D1
D
D2
D3
E
E1
E2
$ 311,766,403
-
$ 144,634,021
$ 456,400,424
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
Potential,
$80.00
Measure A,
$118.00
Member
Direct, $2.30
Other
Contributions ,
$23.80
Fed/State,
$136.90
Dev. Fees,
$197.00
Measure A
Fed/State
Dev. Fees
Other Contributions
Member Direct
Potential
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
Schedule for segment
milestones
Segment
 Segment A
Kammerer Road
 Segment D2
Jackson to White Rock
Road
 Segment D3
Prairie City to County
Line
 Segment E
County Line to Latrobe
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
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
Opportunities and Challenges
Challenges
 Stakeholder Outreach and education
 Jurisdictional sovereignty 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
Questions
www.connectorjpa.net