Agenda Item 3...Aug 14, 2020 · specifying the dollar amount needed for bridge program. 7. 2020...

Agenda Item 3.1

Division of Local Assistance Page 1 of 8 HBP Advisory Committee 6/18/2020

DRAFT Local Assistance

Highway Bridge Program Advisory Committee Meeting

June 18, 2020—Decisions Made, Action Items and Summary

Attendees Dee Lam, Acting Division Chief, DLA

Mark Samuelson, DLA

Robert Peterson, DLA

Linda Newton, DLA

Eileen Crawford, DLA

Jeremy Wright, DLA

Robert Zezoff, DLA

Jim Perrault, DLAE D6

Rand Helde, SLA

Michael Chung, San Joaquin County

Matt Randall, Placer County

Chris Sneddon, Santa Barbara County

Marina Espinoza, CSAC

Debbie O’Leary, City of Oxnard

Rebecca Neves, City of Placerville

Robert Newman, City of Santa Clarita

Jesse Gothan, City of Sacramento

Ross McKeown, MTC

José Luis Cáceres, SACOG

Amy Lewis, CALCOG

Jon Pray, CTC

Teri Anderson, CTC

Greg Kolle, FHWA

Max Katt, Quincy Engineering

Gavin Keating, Quincy Engineering

Margot Yapp, NCE

Shahram Misaghi, NCE

Susan Herman, CSUS

Decisions The committee recommended that the Caltrans HBP managers update the program

prioritization scheme to move BPMP from priority 6 to 3 (implementation details to be

discussed further), with the condition requiring agencies to have a Preventive Maintenance

Plan.

Action Items Item

Number

Status Who Action Date

Created

Target

Date

A95 Open DLA Bridge Capacity System (BCS)

hosting: consider costs and risks,

with input from County of LA,

Caltrans IT, and LTAP Center

2/19/15 2020

A106 Open All

Review proposed HBP policy

improvements regarding:

ADT/Future ADT, approach

roadway length, bridge project item

eligibility for Federal-aid

reimbursement, width of bridge

project lanes and shoulders

8/23/18

6/18/20

A110 Open

CSAC

reps

Contact county agencies whose

unprogrammed bridge projects

2/21/19 2020

Agenda Item 3.1


appear on the scour critical list

coded 1 or 2, to promote

awareness of HEC 23 chapter 2

(Scour Plan of Action and

Countermeasures), available

mitigation funding, and HBP

prioritization criteria.

A112 Open DLA Invite a specialist from Caltrans

Division of Environmental Analysis

to provide input on NEPA process,

for discussion on how to streamline.

4/18/19 2020

A114 Open All Discuss possible changes to 6-A

scoping document to help estimate

project cost more precisely.

4/18/19

6/18/2020

A115 Open All Discuss future of BIC program to

balance flexibility and fairness—

e.g., whether to simplify the

program to encourage better

utilization, discontinue program, or

other action.

4/18/19

2020

A120 Open DLA Circulate letter for comment to 6

county agencies whose yet-to-be

programmed bridge projects appear

on the scour critical list coded 2,

seeking response on Scour Plan of

Action and Countermeasures.

8/22/19

2020

A122 Open DLA Draft guidelines for CSAC and CLC

to use in implementing SB 137

Federal-State Highway Funds

exchange.

12/12/19 2020

A123 Open DLA How many projects are we

delivering versus in the past with

rising costs?

2/20/20 2020

A124 Open DLA Report on Bridge Projects with

Inactive Obligation and possible

actions by the HBP managers.

2/20/20 2020

A125 Open DLA Increasing HBP apportionment:

Dee will convene a group with

Caltrans Federal liaison Nicole

Longoria and report back on

available channels for advocacy

and sources of support.

6/18/20 2020

Agenda Item 3.1


A126 Open CEAC/

LCC

Increasing HBP apportionment:

Develop statewide talking points

targeted to non-bridge experts, and

specifying exact dollar amount

needed for bridge program. Identify

channels and lobbyists who can

advocate for HBP in the highway

bill currently in Congress.

6/18/20 2020

Discussions 1. Welcome and Introductions

2. Agenda Review No changes to the agenda were made

3. Review of 4/16/20 Draft action summary

• HBP will provide a report on inactive bridge project in August (A124)

• Committee agendas and final action/discussion summaries are now being posted on

the HBP website: https://dot.ca.gov/programs/local-assistance/fed-and-state-

programs/highway-bridge-program/committee

• No corrections or changes were made to the action list, finalize for posting

4. Local Bridge Assessment Update Max Katt of Quincy Engineering presented results from a survey of local bridge owners,

data from which will inform the bridge portion of the 2020 California Statewide Local Streets

and Roads Needs Assessment. He will provide the slides to committee members for

reference.

• This year there will be a standalone bridge report with data on both NBI and non-NBI

bridges

• The survey of bridge owners was revised from last year and included 21 questions

covering agency capabilities and main concerns, use of the BIC program, widening

of bridge deck areas, sources of funding for bridge projects, “soft” costs vs.

construction, accuracy of bridge inspection reports, maintenance and repair

expenses, and plans for future spending to meet safety criteria

• General awareness of HBP issues was higher at the county than the city level; city

respondents weighed in on pavement questions rather than bridges

Agenda Item 3.1


• Responses to the questions about agency capabilities (for evaluating bridge

inventory, design, and undertake repairs without external contracting) suggested a

need to increase awareness of inventory and of agencies’ responsibility to make

informed decisions on their bridge assets

• 2/3 of respondents said they spent less than $500K in local funds over the last 3

years on all bridge projects. A few reported they spend $5M +

• Half of respondents said they spend 50% or more on soft costs (i.e., non-

construction costs such as environmental mitigation) relative to construction costs.

o This question is worth drilling down. Sometimes it’s unclear whether

construction management counts as construction or soft cost

o Local agencies are more aware lately of water quality issues and

enforcement of them, e.g. stormwater detention basins, as well as the need to

incorporate this early on as part of footprint for overall environmental

evaluation

• About 1/4 of respondents said they are seeing between 21% and 100% percent

increase in deck width in new and replacement bridges

o This item had many “don’t know” responses. Better historical data on deck

width can be found elsewhere

o Max suggested that the HBP advisory committee could use an expert on

roadway geometrics to advise on minimum width standards

o The survey item doesn’t capture age of bridge

• The question about the BIC program included a descriptive paragraph about BIC

with a link to the LAPM; however, about 1/4 of respondents said they were unaware

of the program. About the same proportion of respondents said they were interested

in the program

• Responses about the bridge inspection reports indicate that most agencies are using

the reports and see them as accurate

• Reported maintenance and repair expenses seem quite low

• Some respondents said they would need to need to spend 100 times their annual

budget just to meet minimum safety criteria over the next 10 years

• Takeaways from survey:

o Response rate was lower this year than in the past, mainly due to COVID-19

related office shutdowns that made it difficult for respondents to gather data—

one budget analyst said she had to consult 6 or 7 different bureaus to compile

the data

o Respondents were not equally knowledgeable about their agency’s bridge

inventory or other data requested—more reliable input might be obtained if

bridge-specific contacts can be engaged

o Outreach and education is needed, to get “don’t know” responses down.

o Agencies’ biggest concerns are: Funding availability, Environmental

mitigation and document clearance, State and federal agency regulations

Agenda Item 3.1


• Local agency portion of survey is done. Matt’s team will analyze the NBI data during

June-July and will coordinate with Matt and Greg to follow up with focus group

before the August HBP committee meeting

5. Financial Status The program’s full fiscal year apportionment may be spent by end of June.

6. HBP Funding Jose Luis reported on advocacy strategies for the HBP advisory committee to raise

awareness about the need for a higher apportionment amount.

The most immediate opportunity for advocacy is this year’s highway act reauthorization

(INVEST Act). It will be important to request a specific dollar amount that includes data on

program backlog and cost inflation.

Potential talking points/channels include:

• The HBP apportionment has remained the same for 11 years

• HBP is massively over-subscribed; has a 20-year backlog. Report this at the

upcoming RTPA meeting and advocate through CALCOG, League of Cities, CEAC

• Bridges deteriorate “silently” in comparison to pavement, so local officials are less

aware of repair/replacement needs

• HBP delivers on an annual basis, while other programs deliver as little as 30% of

their obligated funds programmed years ago

• HBP is replacing bridges with deck widths originally designed for Model-Ts; it’s

accommodating California’s increasing population while also complying with new

regulations on bike/ped access and more

Dee Lam will convene a group with Caltrans Federal liaison Nicole Longoria and report

back on available channels for advocacy and sources of support.

CEAC/LCC will develop a set of statewide talking points targeted to non-bridge experts, and

specifying the dollar amount needed for bridge program.

7. 2020 Prioritization / BPMP Priority The committee decided to re-prioritize new Bridge Preventive Maintenance Program

(BPMP) projects from priority level 6 to 3. The new priority would apply to 2022 list.

• Metering projects into the program allows HBP to be more needs-based rather than

first-come first-served; however, due to cost increases since 2019, metering is

insufficient to reduce the backlog of projects. Multiple strategies are needed

• Maintenance is important to keep bridges in good condition

• Why aren’t we requiring bridge owners to do their own preventive maintenance to

enter the bridge program for replacement or rehab in the first place? Local

Agenda Item 3.1


jurisdictions coming in for HBP need an incentive to have local measures, gas taxes,

SB-1 revisions, etc.

• Not funding maintenance encourages agencies to come back when in greater

need—funding maintenance is a better reflection of the program’s mission and vision

• The current priority list is based on safety; other factors need to be weighed

• Require all agencies applying to HBP to have a Bridge Preventative Maintenance

Plan

8. HBP Guideline Changes Matt shared participant poll data from the June 3 & 4 outreach webinars on the Local

Highway Bridge Program reform policies.

• 656 attended the Zoom webinars over the two days

• Presenters fielded a total of 275 questions during and after the event. Participant

questions generally fell into five categories: General/administrative,

Technical/engineering, Funding, Process, and adequacy of Caltrans

resources/responsiveness to carry out the new guidelines efficiently. Most of the

questions had to do with process details and Caltrans responsiveness

• Another theme was, “What will be the result of implementing each policy change, in

terms of time and money saved or other measure(s)?”

• Poll items asked participants to rate the effect each policy change would have on

their agency or clients’ agency. The new policy limiting approach roadway work

received the largest vote: 59% of respondents said this change would have “some

negative effect.”

• Most poll items received 50% or more in the “some negative” and “major detrimental

effect” categories combined, with the exception of the high cost bridge federal

funding cap of $80M, which was rated “no effect” by 40% respondents and “positive

effect” by 29%

• Comments from the committee:

o Important to be very clear about when changes will be rolled out. Final

version of updates will be published January 2021. HBP program managers

aren’t advocating to change rules on projects that are currently in process

(e.g. mandatory field reviews won’t apply to a project in ROW phase);

however, many projects just started PE this year, or won’t start until next year

so some changes can, in fact, be applied as soon as they are published.

o Many who attended the webinar were grappling with unfamiliar technology

and had low awareness of the issues

o Nearly all respondents said they would attend future webinars on HBP

committee activities and policies

The committee discussed two of the guideline updates and scheduled a new date to

continue the discussion on Thursday, July 9 at 10am.

Agenda Item 3.1


1c— All projects must have a Field Review, Type Selection, Hydraulic Report, 65% and 95% plans

reviewed by HQ and/or SLA

• The purpose of the type selection report review is to ensure the most cost-effective

solution is being considered and that the preferred alternative is HBP eligible. The

65% PS & E review is to determine whether project scope is consistent with type

selection. 95% review is a perfunctory update just prior to construction authorization

to ensure project meets current code/standards

• Q: How long do the 65% and 95% reviews take? They may be problematic if they

slow down project. A: The review time for 65% is not long. Open communication

between local agency and SLA will be required to ensure these can get done quickly

• Q: What are we saving in cost or time by adding these reviews? A: They ensure the

project continues to be eligible, which protects local agencies from having funding

pulled from their project

• Q: Procedurally, how is the review handled? What is workflow? A: DLAE staff works

with SLA to get review done. It’s always best to go through DLAE staff

• Other comments:

o A turnaround time commitment from Caltrans would be helpful

o Make sure the benefits of the review to the local agency are emphasized in all

messaging

o Messaging should also include accountability, noting who is the project

advocate in the end, i.e., who is the designated decision maker after the 65%

review?

o Change applies to rehab & replace projects

2a—Limit HBP Funding to Basic Bridge Costs. All bridges are only funded at the cost of basic

structural solution. No aesthetics treatment (except historic bridge projects). HBP will not pay for

signature structures.

• Make sure language is specific, e.g. does “historic” mean the bridge is on the

National Register? Other terms to define: signature, gateway, special

• Needs to be consistent with language on federal statutes such as NRHP, NEPA

• Should “baseline” be covered in the type selection report—materials, truss type?

9. Review New Action Items Items A125 and 126 were added

10. Round Table

• Eileen is retiring soon; her last meeting will be July 9. New HBP manager Andy Chou

starts July 1

• Matt will send proposed language on BIC policy to the group for consideration; would

like to move burden of cost increases from Caltrans to the local agency. Jose Luis

will host a separate conversation about BIC

Agenda Item 3.1


• Regarding the SB-137 federal/state swap: HSIP is prioritized for the state-only funds,

but this could change in subsequent years

• The 2021 FSTIP will be adopted in May or June 2021

• Ross shared appreciation for Matt for doing a fantastic job with the webinars

• Jeremy noted that the project delivery agreements for Prop 1b Seismic projects

deadline has moved to August 30. Since April he has approved 3-5 projects but is

still less than half the delivery agreements. Some still need Board approvals; others

haven’t responded at all. Jeremy will create a list of those with no delivery

agreement. Ross will share list with RTPA moderator—meeting is next week

11. Adjourn

Agenda Item 3.2


Draft Local Assistance

Highway Bridge Program Advisory Committee Meeting

July 9, 2020 Workshop

Attendees Dee Lam, Acting Division Chief, DLA Robert Peterson, DLA

Linda Newton, DLA Eileen Crawford, DLA

Jeremy Wright, DLA Robert Zezoff, DLA

Jim Perrault, DLAE D6 Sudhakar Vatti, SLA

Michael Chung, San Joaquin County Matt Randall, Placer County

Chris Sneddon, Santa Barbara County Marina Espinoza, CSAC

Rebecca Neves, City of Placerville Andy Chou, DLA

Robert Newman, City of Santa Clarita Jesse Gothan, City of Sacramento

Ross McKeown, MTC José Luis Cáceres, SACOG

Jon Pray, CTC Greg Kolle, FHWA

Kirk Anderson, D6 Susan Herman, CSUS

DiscussionsThe intent of this workshop was to continue the discussion on the 9 proposed

HBP Chapter 6 Reform Proposals.

A review of the committee’s feedback from the June 18 meeting regarding HBP policy items

1c and 2a.

• 1c—committee will need to revisit the 65% review; consensus on much else

2a—Limit HBP Funding to Basic Bridge Costs. All bridges are only funded at the cost of basic

structural solution. No aesthetics treatment (except historic bridge projects). HBP will not pay for

signature structures.

• The committee had consensus that the statement on architectural treatments is

clear.

Additional comments:

• Definition of baseline should be covered in bridge type selection report--this should

be used as guiding document.

• Many states have definitions of baseline bridges for a given span, ADT, existing

roadway width and other parameters. Would be a good idea to obtain lists from the

states that have this, if California doesn’t have one already.

o HBP noted Caltrans does have standard box girder bridge types for certain

span length; still many variations such as longer bridges, moveable,

approach, location-specific environmental needs

o DES may have such a list as a starting point. SLA: we have some guidance

for type selection, though it’s dated 1990—needs update

• What recourse do sponsors have if the preferred alternative that gets selected

through NEPA and community input process is not the baseline type?

Agenda Item 3.2


o NEPA may require certain finishes or railings but will not typically require a

certain structure type

o Can there be a “way out” in case HBP says “here’s the baseline bridge you

should build” but community selects another type.

o If there’s a federal requirement to preserve certain aspects of a bridge (or

follow other requirements that Fish & Game or other federal/state entities

impose), and an agency cannot obtain permits & move forward with the

bridge without meeting the requirement, then why should this not be a

covered cost? The bridge sponsor can be “held hostage” to such

requirements.

o An example was shared, a project in Sacramento had a comment from SHPO

that the new bridge cannot mimic the existing, historic I Street bridge because

it would threaten its distinctive character.

o Would be helpful to get guidance from Caltrans Environmental Branch on the

purpose of the Visual Impact analysis and where a line could be drawn.

o Not all states have a federal bridge program—there’s no requirement that

federal funds cover it. Think of the 2% as “seed” money. Just because a

requirement is federal does not mean federal money must cover it. Mt.

Vernon bridge is a good example of this

o Limiting HBP spending to 2% makes a clear boundary—funding availability

should be clear when public outreach is happening

• “Exception” language isn’t needed because historic bridges already have criteria

described in Title 23

• Keep: “The HBP participation in signature, or gateway structures will be

limited to the cost of the baseline bridge.” Jeremy will update the definition of

baseline bridge to say that this is guided by the type selection document.

• Committee members voted on new language—members wanted to see actual text

revisions first. Others supported. (7 YES, 1 NO)

2c—Limit HBP Funding to Basic Bridge Costs. No approach roadwork beyond what is necessary

to build abutments. Approach roadway costs capped at 10% bridge construction cost unless

otherwise approved by HBP managers.

Comments:

• Rather than specify what elements are/are not included in approach roadway,

simpler to keep the percentage language.

• 10% seems low. An allowance of 20% would get projects closer to the 200 to 400-

foot approach length

• HBP managers had noticed that “exactly 400 feet of approach roadwork was being

done” on projects off the federal-aid system.

• Does specifying approach lengths undermine expectations that bridge sponsors

simply follow standard engineering design practices?

Agenda Item 3.2


• Local or state standards may require long approaches. This limits local agencies to

road funds or SB-1; could be a limitation. This concern came up during the webinar.

• Vertical profile requirements of regulatory agencies—these may exceed AASHTO.

• Re-alignment to approach roadway may be needed if doing a staged construction,

adding more length. Limiting funding for approach length may present a safety issue.

(If need for exception is documented, HBP managers may consider it)

• Local agencies should be committed to the one-time allocation of local funds to

cover expenses that HBP does not cover. The 10% option is reasonable.

• Committee members voted on new language (2 YES, 5 NO)

• No determination to be made on this item now. HBP managers will re-

introduce this at another time.

3a and b—Project Delivery Accountability and Monitoring. a. Require regular project status

report that provide project updates. This will replace the current annual survey. b. All changes to

programmed project costs must be submitted to the HBP managers using LAPG 6-D

This change is to document need for cost increases and determine the project is still eligible

for the HBP prior to its inclusion in the program list. It rearranges the workflow slightly.

Comments:

• It was noted there are cases in which a local agency was not notified about approval

status of the 6-D; this was inferred from programming documentation. What is best

practice, according to DLAEs? Who are the main parties to this documentation?

• Important for bridge sponsors to know whether 6-D is approved. Would be helpful to

add a Caltrans signature block to the 6-D form. Either way, clear paper trails are

necessary because bridge projects take so many years and staff members turn over.

• HBP will introduce this process conversation in monthly meetings with district bridge

program coordinators and DLAEs

• Typical turnaround time for 6-D approval depends on time of year; can be as long as

6 weeks. Best time to submit is January due to HQ workload. Predictable timelines

for this are helpful.

• HBP proposed removing this sentence from existing Chapter 6 language:

“Failure to provide status may result in project cancellation.”


4b—Programming Changes. b. Include cost escalation factors with project programming.

HBP managers recommend replacing “industry standards” with "CTC approved escalation

factors" so rate is consistent across the state.

Comments:

• Agencies should re-calculate construction cost escalation at each milestone

• As projects move into the FTIP, federal regulations require showing costs in year of

expenditure dollars

Agenda Item 3.2


• CTC escalation factors (updated every 2 years) are a helpful guide; different regions

may have higher rates


5a—High-cost Bridges. a. Cap HBP funding on High Cost Bridge Projects to $80 mil.

High cost projects take up 50% of on-system funding for the next 15 years. HBP noted that

an implementation schedule will need to be agreed upon if this guideline change is

approved, to account for new and in-progress high-cost bridge projects.

Comments:

• For parts of the state whose topography/geography requires high bridges, this cap is

unfair. Many such regions cannot cover their costs without HBP. While these bridges

do cause strain to the program as a whole, they are not the root of the problem.

• It was suggested imposing higher local agency match percentages to cover cost

increases, rather than imposing the $80M cap uniformly. Or, a scalable

reimbursement rate for an additional tier of “super high cost” bridges

• High cost projects tend to be the ones that provide the most benefit in terms of

number of users served—so their inclusion in the program is important. Is number of

bridges replaced/repaired the “best use of funds”? This is a broader discussion.

• said it was suggested that maybe high cost projects could compete in a grant

program—to help “meter expectations”

• FHWA recommended an alternate mechanism where bridge owners could request

“special funding” rather than drain the HBP

• It was noted that the overall intent behind policy change is good—it may not be

workable, but it’s a helpful conversation starter for the larger issue of increasing

funding for the bridge program.

• True problem HBP managers need to solve now is overcommitment of funds. It was

proposed putting coverage of cost increases on bridge owners, rather than limiting

dollar amount paid each year.

• The $80M cap is an arbitrary, rather than technocratic/scientific solution. Cost-

benefit analysis won’t pencil out because the bridges that serve fewer people are

also often more poorly positioned to collect tolls, etc. to raise local funds.

• Doris Matsui’s office reached out on the I Street project, as she is involved in

shaping next transportation act in Congress. This $80M cap would certainly get her

attention. Link to her June 30 testimony on the Moving Forward Act:

https://twitter.com/dorismatsui/status/1278044419489443845?s=21

• High-cost bridges are “outliers” and they need outlier solutions. The money that local

agencies and regions get is not proportional to these high costs. What about a 3rd

party inter-regional program for bridges that do not fit the normal structure of HBP?

• FHWA recommended we need to look at the state’s entire inventory and make

decisions from there

• Committee members voted on new language (0 YES, 6 NO,1 undecided)

Agenda Item 3.2


HBP managers tasked the committee with coming up with a better proposal. The

Committee members will work together on this.

6a—Other Considerations. a. All bridge projects start as rehabilitation or BPMP, proposed

replacements must be justified and approved by HBP managers

HBP noted that state bridge projects receive a peer review with input from various

specialists, to be fair and consistent in determining most cost-effective project scope. Good

idea to have parallel process for locally-owned bridges.

Comments:

• Needs to be clear what’s required on the front end to determine replacement or

rehab/BPMP

• Consider including language to make this apply primarily to bridges less than 100

years old; present design code is 75-year life span. Certain environments age

bridges faster and slower.

• As of now, the average age of locally owned bridges in California is 55 years.

Replacement cycle over the last decade has lengthened to 200+ years.

• Consider requiring sponsors to show evidence of having performed regular

preventive maintenance to be eligible for HBP at all—this is already being worked

into priority scheme voted on last time

• Final determination of replace vs. rehab will be done at type selection stage.

Agencies would submit their justification for replacement when the project is being

prioritized into the HBP.


6b—Other Considerations. c. Only minimum AASHTO standards are eligible

HBP proposed removing the “and/or NACTO standards” language.

Comments:

• It was noted NACTO guidelines include helpful refinements for urban street design.

They do include minimum width standards, factoring in speed and volume of

adjacent traffic (e.g., for bike lanes). It was recommended guidance that explicitly

puts bike/ped-friendly structures top of mind

• Cities that do not adopt NACTO guidelines defer to Caltrans bike/ped design

standards.

• It was proposed including clarification that when local standards exceed minimum

AASHTO, the agency covers the difference with other funding sources.

• If including NACTO language, it will be important to clarify what elements are and

are not eligible (e.g. overlooks, 8-ft sidewalks with 2-ft buffer zones)

• Committee members voted on new language (7 YES, 0 NO) – need to flush out

NACTO guidelines, 4 want with NACTO, 3 did not.

Agenda Item 3.3 (AI123)

Note: (1) The data above does not include Preventive Maintenance, Low Water Crossings, or BART Projects. Data taken as of 8/8/2020. FFY 2020 data does not include anticipated CON authorizations after 8/8/2020.

19

29

1720

40

62

37

44

63

40

45

37 38

60

49

40

51

38 39

3134

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

7020

00

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

No.

of C

ON

Aut

horiz

atio

ns

Federal Fiscal Year, FFY

No. of CON Authorizations per FFY per District(1)

D12D11D10D9D8D7D6D5D4D3D2D1


Agenda Item 3.3 (AI123)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 122000 1 15 0 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 192001 0 24 1 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 292002 0 7 1 2 0 0 3 0 0 0 2 2 172003 0 4 1 1 5 0 5 0 0 3 1 0 202004 1 8 3 10 5 1 4 0 0 4 2 2 402005 0 9 4 9 7 13 12 4 0 2 1 1 622006 0 2 8 5 5 0 10 0 0 3 2 2 372007 0 7 8 10 3 0 10 2 0 2 1 1 442008 3 1 7 6 2 1 32 2 0 2 3 4 632009 1 3 3 11 5 0 15 0 0 1 1 0 402010 1 6 6 7 2 5 7 0 1 3 1 6 452011 1 2 4 7 7 3 6 4 0 1 1 1 372012 1 7 8 13 1 3 3 1 1 0 0 0 382013 0 2 7 11 5 19 3 7 0 5 1 0 602014 5 2 8 8 8 1 7 6 0 2 1 1 492015 4 4 5 9 4 3 6 1 0 3 1 0 402016 6 7 10 4 4 1 5 4 0 7 1 2 512017 4 3 11 5 3 1 3 0 0 5 3 0 382018 4 1 15 4 6 3 0 0 0 5 1 0 392019 1 3 3 4 7 6 0 2 0 4 1 0 312020 1 3 11 5 3 1 2 4 0 4 0 0 34

Total / District 34 120 124 132 82 61 137 39 2 56 24 22 833Note: (1) The data above does not include Preventive Maintenance, Low Water Crossings, or BART Projects.

Data taken as of 8/8/2020. FFY 2020 data does not include anticipated CON authorizations after 8/8/2020.

District Total / FFYFFY

No. of CON Authorizations per FFY per District(1)


Local Assistance HBP FFY 19/20 Fund Status

As of 08/03/2020

Agenda Item 5

Fund Type Carry-over

Balance

FFY 18/19

New FFY 19/20 HBP

Funds

($303M minus 2% SPR)

Transfers FFY 19/20

Deobligations

(+)

FFY 19/20

Obligations

(-)

Projects in

Districts

(-)

FFY 19/20

Projects in HQ,

not ready for

reserve

(-)

FFY 19/20Pending Obligations

(-)

Projected

Balance

Balances(Includes pending

obligatons only)

On/Off Federal Aid Highway Flex Funds(Pre MAP-21 and Map-21 STP funds and Pre-Map-21 HBP Funds) $0 $0 ($83,428) $4,302,205 ($2,624,134) $0 $0 ($1,594,642) ($0) ($0)

Off Federal Aid Highway Set Aside Funds(MAP-21 STP and Pre-MAP-21 HBP Funds) $0 $74,908,951 $0 $5,314,320 ($78,689,177) $0 ($2,571,000) ($1,530,342) ($2,567,248) $3,752

National Highway Performance Program (NHPP) Funds(Projects on the National Highway System) ($25,856,087) $214,000,000 ($10,281,484) $3,524,539 ($173,519,888) $0 ($8,637,808) ($7,867,080) ($8,637,808) $0

Totals: ($25,856,087) $288,908,951 ($10,364,912) $13,141,064 ($254,833,199) $0 ($11,208,808) ($10,992,064) ($11,205,056) $3,752

Seismic Match Balances as of December 2, 2019 Past Apportionment Delivery

Federal Fiscal Year CTC Allocation Initial Current

Encumbrances

CTC Allocation Initial Project

Encumbrances

Federal Fiscal Year Obligations

13/14 and prior $50,440,741 $44,648,818 $24,300,000 $21,035,687 Aug-15 $207,978,15914/15 $7,028,096 $1,309,500 $138,787 Aug-16 $224,366,07115/16 $10,239,205 $9,020,624 Aug-17 $237,057,22216/17 $9,790,000 $9,020,624 Aug-18 $286,085,17017/18 $2,187,216 $9,020,624 Aug-19 $246,530,11018/19 $3,231,44019/20 $5,442,720 $1,113,392 $127,890

Totals: $85,127,978 $77,365,022 $24,300,000 $21,302,364

On/Off, Off, and STP Flavored HBP funds obligated on Off

Federal Aid Highway Bridges (FFY):

Obligations Off

FA Highways

% of State+Local

HBP Funds

State+Local

HBP Funds14/15 $106,244,063 141.8% $74,908,951 (Note: Only Local HBP funds under MAP-21)15/16 $97,826,162 130.6% $74,908,95116/17 $76,559,851 102.2% $74,908,95117/18 $74,478,754 99.4% $74,908,95118/19 $72,573,513 96.9% $74,908,95119/20 $70,740,811 94.4% $74,908,951

Toll Credit Status (FFY) Obligations Balance

14/15 $9,983,561 (Note: Toll Credits were used on some On Federal Aid Highway projects to supplant Seismic Prop 1B funds used for R/W.)15/16 $7,297,31616/17 $9,353,46917/18 $14,601,95618/19 $7,540,19619/20 $7,959,123

OA Delivery

Federal Fiscal Year OA Allocation Obligations %OA Delivery

13/14 $193,328,473 $308,943,306 159.8%14/15 $176,811,980 $233,964,053 132.3%15/16 $220,469,180 $333,194,580 151.1%16/17 $181,913,046 $277,789,936 152.7%17/18 $197,241,101 $291,007,658 147.5%18/19 $192,715,787 $328,860,651 170.6%

19/20 (Projected) $171,774,547 $254,833,199 129.2%

FFY 2019-20

Bond SHA

Division of Local Assistance HBP Advisory Committee 8/20/2020

March 2020 HBP Project Prioritization - ON SYSTEM Agenda Item 6.1

Priority

Rank

Dist

.

Local Agency Bridge

No.

Project Description SR Status Scour

113

Posted?

Y/N

Posting

K, D, P,

or R NBI

41

Detour

Length

(miles) NBI

19

Future

ADT NBI

114

Year

Built

Year

Recon.

Total Federal

Funds

Running

Federal

Funds total

Date of

Application

1 1 2 Trinity County 05C0039 Replace 28.5 SD 2 N 123.6 426 1955 2,613,111$ 2,613,111$ 2/28/2018

2 1 3 Butte County 12C0009L Replace 7.0 SD 2 N 18.0 12,054 1949 - 5,920,886$ 8,533,997$ 8/21/2018

3 1 7 City of Pasadena 53C0757 Voluntary Seismic Retrofit (HBP) 75.9 FO 8 N 1.9 1,140 1922 - 9,291,230$ 17,825,227$ 10/16/2018

4 1 7 City of Ventura (San Bueno Ventura)52C0061 Replace 31.1 SD 2 N 1.2 6,853 1932 1995 36,700,112$ 54,525,339$ 5/6/2019

5 2 1 Willits 10C0198 Replace 31.6 SD 8 Y P 1.2 2137 1993 5,985,062$ 60,510,401$ 11/22/2019

6 3 3 Butte County 12C0022 Scour 40.0 SD 3 N 24.8 5,200 1965 - 1,250,044$ 61,760,445$ 11/22/2019

7 4 1 Humboldt County 04C0189 Replace 30.1 SD 8 N 123.6 205 1935 - 9,274,226$ 71,034,671$ 11/27/2019

8 4 8 San Bernardino County 54C0239 Replace 37.3 SD 5 N 39.7 275 1930 - 5,173,693$ 76,208,364$ 11/21/2019

9 4 5 San Luis Obispo County 49C0346 Replace 20.7 SD U N 8.1 569 1965 4,546,016$ 80,754,380$ 10/9/2019

10 4 4 Town of San Anselmo 27C0094 Replace 29.3 SD 8 N 1.2 2,708 1935 - 4,320,795$ 85,075,175$ 3/6/2019

11 5 1 Humboldt County 04C0061 Rehab 51.5 SD 8 N 67.1 38 1955 1993 1,473,316$ 86,548,491$ 11/27/2019

12 5 7 Long Beach 53C0208 Remove Bridge 67.5 SD N N - 1.2 19,769 1932 12,721,761$ 99,270,252$ 5/30/2019

13 6 2 Shasta County 06C0192 BPMP (HBP) stand alone 35.6 SD 8 N 21.1 2,769 1987 121,641$ 99,391,893$ 11/6/2019

14 6 3 Sacramento County 24c0005 BPMP (HBP) 39.4 U N 14.9 6,626 1952 7,303,725$ 106,695,618$ 10/30/2019

15 6 8 City of Rialto 54C0063 BPMP (HBP) stand alone 78.2 SD N N 3.1 49000 1959 1972 500,000$ 107,195,618$ 11/21/2019

16 6 12 City of Santa Ana PM00187 BPMP (HBP) 1,626,423$ 108,822,041$ 7/19/2019

17 6 2 Tehama County PM00200 BPMP (HBP) 1,006,510$ 109,828,551$ 9/19/2018

18 6 8 City of La Quinta PM00201 BPMP (HBP) 4,862,972$ 114,691,523$ 7/15/2018

19 6 7 City of Ventura PM00202 BPMP (HBP) 1,893,657$ 116,585,180$ 10/17/2018

20 6 4 City of Novato PM00205 BPMP (HBP) 198,307$ 116,783,487$ 10/1/2018

21 6 4 City of Sunnyvale PM00204 BPMP (HBP) 2,764,526$ 119,548,013$ 7/18/2018

22 6 4 City of Santa Clara PM00199 BPMP (HBP) 1,645,871$ 121,193,884$ 3/1/2019

23 6 7 City of Long Beach PM00206 BPMP (HBP) 948,455$ 122,142,339$ 8/17/2018

24 6 6 Shasta County PM00213 BPMP (HBP) 434,394$ 122,576,733$ 10/10/2019

25 6 6 Fresno County PM00214 BPMP (HBP) 281,106$ 122,857,839$ 10/4/2019

26 6 11 City of Escondido PM00216 BPMP (HBP) 350,243$ 123,208,082$ 10/11/2019

27 6 10 San Joaquin County PM00215 BPMP (HBP) 7,393,694$ 130,601,776$ 10/4/2019

28 6 3 Shasta County PM00213 BPMP (HBP) 434,394$ 131,036,170$ 10/10/2019

29 7 12 Laguna Niguel 55C0037 Rehabilitation (HBP) 45.1 FO 8 N - 123.6 7324 1938 - 2,895,196$ 133,931,366$ 9/23/2016

30 7 10 San Joaquin County 29C0349 Replace (HBP) 48.2 FO - N - 123.6 3,000 1950 - 5,488,861$ 139,420,227$ 9/9/2016

31 7 5 San Luis Obispo 49C0398 Replace (HBP) 39.2 FO - N - 123.6 2,061 1922 - 2,334,802$ 141,755,029$ 9/16/2016

32 7 10 Stanislaus County 38C0199 Replace (HBP) 77.8 FO - N - 34.2 909 1918 1968 1,760,862$ 143,515,891$ 9/26/2016

33 7 10 Stanislaus County 38C0268 Replace (HBP) 71.0 FO 8 N - 19.9 1,527 1927 - 3,802,409$ 147,318,300$ 9/26/2016

34 7 10 San Joaquin County 29C0035 Rehabilitation (HBP) 76.1 FO - N - 11.8 3,207 1955 - 3,619,549$ 150,937,849$ 9/9/2016

35 7 3 El Dorado County 25C0063 Rehabilitation (HBP) 64.7 FO U N - 11.2 1462 1930 - 2,875,013$ 153,812,862$ 9/29/2016

36 7 6 Fresno County 42C0118 Rehabilitation (HBP) 76.6 FO - N - 9.9 1,048 1946 - 1,304,932$ 155,117,794$ 6/28/2016

37 7 6 Tulare County 46C0182 Rehabilitation (HBP) 51.5 FO - N - 6.8 3,679 1949 - 2,202,627$ 157,320,421$ 7/25/2016

38 7 3 Placer County 19C0079 Replace (HBP) 52.9 FO 8 N - 6.8 1562 1935 2,118,966$ 159,439,387$ 9/30/2016

39 7 3 Placer County 19C0051 Rehabilitation (HBP) 59.5 FO 5 N - 6.2 18000 1930 1981 2,133,573$ 161,572,960$ 9/30/2016

40 7 12 Orange County 55C0008 Replace (HBP) 72.1 FO - N - 6.2 8,437 1980 - 6,374,160$ 167,947,120$ 3/16/2016

41 7 10 San Joaquin County 29C0225 Rehabilitation (HBP) 60.1 FO 8 N - 6.2 2144 1928 1,849,923$ 169,797,043$ 9/23/2016

42 7 10 Stanislaus County 38C0080 Rehabilitation (HBP) 52.4 FO - N - 6.2 1,886 1934 - 2,048,850$ 171,845,893$ 9/26/2016

43 7 6 Fresno County 42C0253 Rehabilitation (HBP) 72.3 FO - N - 6.2 1,587 1924 - 1,573,178$ 173,419,071$ 6/28/2016

44 7 3 Chico 12C0106 Replace (HBP) 59.8 FO 5 N - 5.0 14,330 1969 - 6,325,469$ 179,744,540$ 8/3/2016

45 7 5 San Luis Obispo 49C0372 Replace (HBP) 54.1 FO - N - 3.1 30,912 1958 1974 2,820,123$ 182,564,663$ 9/16/2016

Division of Local Assistance 1 of 2 2/13/2020

March 2020 HBP Project Prioritization - ON SYSTEM Agenda Item 6.1

Priority

Rank

Dist

.

Local Agency Bridge

No.


113

Posted?

Y/N

Posting

K, D, P,

or R NBI

41

Detour

Length

(miles) NBI

19

Future

ADT NBI

114

Year

Built

Year

Recon.

Total Federal

Funds

Running

Federal

Funds total

Date of

Application

46 7 3 Placer County 19C0076 Replace (HBP) 65.6 FO 8 N - 3.1 7910 1973 1983 4,894,381$ 187,459,044$ 9/30/2016

47 7 5 San Luis Obispo 49C0380 Replace (HBP) 48.2 FO - N - 3.1 3,606 1920 - 4,077,692$ 191,536,736$ 9/16/2016

48 7 7 Los Angeles County 53C0440 Rehabilitation (HBP) 73.4 FO - N - 1.9 30,451 1952 - 1,548,390$ 193,085,126$ 9/8/2016

49 7 7 Long Beach 53C0729 Rehabilitation (HBP) 75.4 FO - N - 1.9 17,200 1958 - 1,680,742$ 194,765,868$ 9/8/2016

50 7 11 Imperial County 58C0028 Replace 56.7 FO 5 N - 1.9 8579 1925 1947 2,330,110$ 197,095,978$ 7/26/2016

51 7 3 Placer County 19C0074 Replace (HBP) 52.4 FO 8 N - 1.9 7000 1930 - 3,053,843$ 200,149,821$ 9/30/2016

52 7 6 Tulare County 46C0056 Replace (HBP) 77.5 FO - N - 1.9 4,731 1937 - 2,160,132$ 202,309,953$ 7/25/2016


54 7 10 San Joaquin County 29C0317 Rehabilitation 53.1 FO - N - 1.9 1599 1945 889,727$ 205,171,244$ 9/9/2016

55 7 8 San Bernardino County 54C0127 Replace (HBP) 76.2 FO - N - 1.2 11,221 1939 - 11,774,490$ 216,945,734$ 6/23/2016

56 7 5 San Luis Obispo 49C0370 Replace (HBP) 51.3 FO - N - 1.2 10,304 1935 1954 2,174,120$ 219,119,854$ 9/16/2016

57 7 3 Chico 12C0279 Rehabilitation (HBP) 77.5 FO - N - 1.2 2,490 1958 - 2,175,166$ 221,295,020$ 9/13/2016

58 8 3 Butte County 00L0092 Low Water Xing (HBP) 14,441,899$ 235,736,919$ 7/19/2016

59 8 5 San Luis Obispo County 00L0095 Low Water Xing (HBP) 8,760,897$ 244,497,816$ 8/4/2016

60 8 11 San Diego County 00L0105 Low Water Xing (HBP) - - 8,159,509$ 252,657,325$ 9/15/2016

61 Not Ranked 8 Barstow 54C0090 Replace 32.8 SD N - 0.8 5291 1939 - 14,189,822$ 266,847,147$ 12/19/2016


March 2020 HBP Project Prioritization - OFF SYSTEM Agenda Item 6.2

Priority

Rank

Dist. Local Agency Bridge

No.


113

Posted?

Y/N

Posting

K, D, P,

or R NBI

41

Detour

Length

(miles) NBI

19

Future

ADT NBI

114

Year

Built

Year

Recon.

Total Federal

Funds

Running

Federal

Funds total

Date of

Application

1 1 2 Trinity County 05C0144 BPMP (HBP) stand alone scour/paint28.7 SD 2 N 123.6 21 1950 1990 2,640,000$ 2,640,000$ 8/21/2019

2 2 3 Nevada County 17C0028 Replace 22.8 SD 5 Y P 11.2 27 1952 - 2,086,000$ 4,726,000$ 11/29/2019

3 2 3 El Dorado County 25C0078 Replace 18.2 SD 8 Y P 6.8 350 1940 1994 2,558,000$ 7,284,000$ 10/31/2019

4 2 2 Lassen County 07C0040 Replace 39.9 SD U Y P 5.0 267 1978 - 2,293,000$ 9,577,000$ 11/27/2019

5 2 1 CalFire 10F0056 Replace 26.3 SD 8 Y P 0.6 31 2005 - 455,000$ 10,032,000$ 1/1/2019

6 3 3 Butte County 12C0301 Scour 49.7 SD 3 N 123.6 210 1921 - 759,500$ 10,791,500$ 11/21/2019

7 3 6 Tulare County 46C0313 BPMP (HBP) stand alone scour 30.8 SD 3 N 123.6 200 1932 1952 620,000$ 11,411,500$ 2/12/2020

8 3 1 CalFire 04F0001 Scour 68.5 - 3 N 123.6 160 1965 - 393,000$ 11,804,500$ 3/12/2019

9 3 2 Trinity County 05C0147 Scour & Painting 79.8 - 3 N 123.6 15 1950 1990 2,640,000$ 14,444,500$ 11/19/2019

10 3 1 County of Lake 14C0114 Scour 59.7 SD 3 N 24.2 308 1930 1993 111,020$ 14,555,520$ 11/27/2019

11 3 1 CalFire 10F0011 Replace 41.8 SD 3 N 11.2 115 1948 - 502,000$ 15,057,520$ 1/1/2019

12 3 1 CalFire 10F0051 Scour 89.0 - 3 N 9.9 31 1981 - 187,000$ 15,244,520$ 1/1/2019

13 3 1 CalFire 10F0022 Scour 89.0 - 3 N 6.2 31 1980 - 187,000$ 15,431,520$ 1/1/2019

14 4 2 Shasta County 06C0297 Replace 44.0 SD 5 N 123.6 240 1925 1,249,000$ 16,680,520$ 10/22/2019

15 4 6 Tulare County 46C0118 Replace 48.8 SD U N 123.6 100 1936 2,720,000$ 19,400,520$ 11/27/2019


17 4 3 Nevada County 17C0057 Replace 33.5 SD U N 9.9 80 1920 - 2,622,000$ 22,402,520$ 5/6/2019

18 4 3 El Dorado County 25C0090 Replace (HBP) 31.0 SD 8 N 8.1 2305 1936 - 4,318,750$ 26,721,270$ 9/29/2016

19 2 2 Lassen County 07C0041 Replace 32.0 SD U Y P 5.0 191 1978 2,265,000$ 28,986,270$ 11/27/2019

20 4 3 El Dorado County 25C0085 Rehabilitation (HBP) 31.6 SD U N 3.1 3059 1928 - 3,387,500$ 32,373,770$ 9/29/2016

21 4 4 Town of San Anselmo 27C0101 Replace (HBP) 20.0 SD 8 N 1.2 12,000 1935 - 5,595,400$ 37,969,170$ 7/18/2018

22 4 4 Contra Costa County 28C0383 Replace 44.6 SD 5 N 1.2 6,800 1954 7,506,200$ 45,475,370$ 9/20/2019

23 4 6 Madera County 41C0155 Replace 49.9 SD 5 N - 1.2 295 1955 - 653,000$ 46,128,370$ 12/19/2016

24 5 6 Tulare County 46C0370 Rehabilitation (HBP) 62.8 SD - N - 123.6 77 1949 - 1,777,000$ 47,905,370$ 7/25/2016

25 5 1 CalFire 10F0019 Replace 51.0 SD U N 123.6 3 1965 2009 436,000$ 48,341,370$ 1/1/2019

26 5 5 San Luis Obispo County 49C0093 Replace 62.0 SD U N 26.1 294 1940 4,110,000$ 52,451,370$ 10/15/2019


28 5 1 County of Lake 14C0089 Rehab 69.6 SD 8 N 19.9 169 1979 - 100,720$ 53,076,090$ 11/27/2019

29 5 6 Tulare County 46C0216 Replace (HBP) 51.5 SD - N - 9.9 536 1942 - 1,516,000$ 54,592,090$ 7/25/2016

30 5 6 Tulare County 46C0215 Replace (HBP) 50.6 SD - N - 8.7 536 1942 - 1,305,000$ 55,897,090$ 7/25/2016

31 5 6 Tulare County 46C0325 Rehabilitation (HBP) 66.4 SD - N - 3.7 268 1949 - 1,777,000$ 57,674,090$ 7/25/2016

32 5 2 CalFire 06F0030 Replace 60.2 SD 8 N 3.1 35 1994 867,200$ 58,541,290$ 11/6/2019

33 5 6 Tulare County 46C0225 Rehab 41.9 SD 5 N 1.9 1920 1949 100,000$ 58,641,290$ 11/27/2019

34 5 7 Long Beach 53C0024 Replace (HBP) 54.2 SD - N - 1.2 1,346 1953 - 4,423,000$ 63,064,290$ 7/15/2016

35 6 2 Trinity County 05C0122 Painting 76.7 SD 8 N 123.6 160 1960 - 825,000$ 63,889,290$ 12/5/2019

36 6 4 Contra Costa County 28C0495 Painting 45.2 SD 5 N 123.6 150 2001 - 184,200$ 64,073,490$ 1/21/2020

37 6 4 Contra Costa County 28C0207 BPMP (HBP) stand alone deck/paint47.8 SD N N 3.1 5,063 1965 1,051,200$ 65,124,690$ 11/25/2019

38 6 4 Contra Costa County 28C0389 Painting 68.7 - 5 N 1.9 747 1946 2003 630,000$ 65,754,690$ 1/22/2020

39 6 6 Tulare County 46C0229 BPMP (HBP) stand alone 47.0 SD 8 N 1.9 54 1949 100,000$ 65,854,690$ 11/27/2019

40 7 10 Sonora 32C0075 Rehabilitation (HBP) 48.8 FO - N - 123.6 8,666 1940 - 1,165,000$ 67,019,690$ 9/29/2016

41 7 3 El Dorado County 25C0082 Rehabilitation (HBP) 68.3 FO 5 N 123.6 6286 1966 - 3,897,750$ 70,917,440$ 9/29/2016

42 7 10 San Joaquin County 29C0348 Replace (HBP) 44.0 FO - N - 123.6 3,000 1950 - 6,200,000$ 77,117,440$ 9/9/2016

43 7 10 Tuolumne County 32C0023 Replace (HBP) 46.6 FO - N - 123.6 586 1925 - 678,500$ 77,795,940$ 5/20/2016

44 7 6 Fresno County 42C0495 Replace (HBP) 70.6 FO - N - 123.6 180 1934 1978 1,076,000$ 78,871,940$ 6/28/2016

45 7 1 Humboldt County 04C0057 Replace (HBP) 44.4 FO - N - 123.6 170 1923 - 2,203,600$ 81,075,540$ 9/2/2016


March 2020 HBP Project Prioritization - OFF SYSTEM Agenda Item 6.2

Priority

Rank

Dist. Local Agency Bridge

No.


113

Posted?

Y/N

Posting

K, D, P,

or R NBI

41

Detour

Length

(miles) NBI

19

Future

ADT NBI

114

Year

Built

Year

Recon.

Total Federal

Funds

Running

Federal

Funds total

Date of

Application

46 7 2 Trinity County 05C0025 Replace (HBP) 48.2 FO - N - 123.6 159 1970 - 2,814,781$ 83,890,321$ 9/26/2016

47 7 10 Tuolumne County 32C0038 Rehabilitation (HBP) 50.9 FO - N - 41.0 533 1925 - 997,500$ 84,887,821$ 5/10/2016

48 7 6 Tulare County 46C0183 Rehabilitation (HBP) 68.6 FO - N - 31.7 156 1956 - 629,000$ 85,516,821$ 7/25/2016



51 7 10 San Joaquin County 29C0368 Replace (HBP) 70.2 FO - N - 11.8 350 1961 - 1,711,800$ 91,251,121$ 9/9/2016


53 7 2 Plumas County 09C0037 Rehabilitation (HBP) 68.5 FO - N - 8.7 734 1953 - 818,000$ 94,469,121$ 9/22/2016

54 7 6 Fresno County 42C0512 Replace (HBP) 79.6 FO - N - 8.7 400 1940 1982 1,776,000$ 96,245,121$ 6/28/2016


56 7 10 San Joaquin County 29C0352 Rehabilitation (HBP) 60.7 FO - N - 8.1 600 1950 - 1,644,390$ 101,162,011$ 9/1/2016

57 7 10 San Joaquin County 29C0272 Replace (HBP) 71.7 FO - N - 8.1 97 1956 - 1,622,200$ 102,784,211$ 9/9/2016



60 7 6 Fresno County 42C0419 Replace (HBP) 73.6 FO - N - 3.7 1,059 1948 1970 1,157,000$ 109,051,211$ 6/28/2016

61 7 3 Placer County 19C0132 Replace (HBP) 53.4 FO 8 N 3.7 1048 1935 - 4,918,000$ 113,969,211$ 9/30/2016

62 7 3 Placer County 19C0122 Replace (HBP) 65.4 FO 5 N 3.7 1048 1928 - 4,109,500$ 118,078,711$ 9/30/2016

63 7 2 Trinity County 05C0049 Bridge Rehabilitation/Painting 66.1 FO U N 3.7 53 1935 1993 1,072,500$ 119,151,211$ 9/30/2016

64 7 5 Santa Cruz County 36C0041 Replace (HBP) 72.2 FO - N - 3.1 7,500 1948 - 3,959,000$ 123,110,211$ 8/29/2016

65 7 6 Fresno County 42C0407 Rehabilitation (HBP) 54.6 FO - N - 3.1 6,856 1940 1950 3,149,000$ 126,259,211$ 9/13/2016

66 7 3 Placer County 19C0146 Rehabilitation (HBP) 52.2 FO - N - 3.1 3,291 1930 1940 1,717,000$ 127,976,211$ 9/30/2016

67 7 6 Fresno County 42C0405 Rehabilitation (HBP) 57.7 FO - N - 3.1 214 1936 - 1,149,000$ 129,125,211$ 6/28/2016

68 7 4 Oakley 28C0206 Replace (HBP) 48.3 FO - N - 1.9 14,619 1938 - 2,817,523$ 131,942,734$ 9/29/2016


70 7 10 Tuolumne County 32C0039 Replace (HBP) 60.7 FO - N - 1.9 533 1912 - 910,800$ 138,918,534$ 5/10/2016

71 7 10 Tuolumne County 32C0002 Replace (HBP) 49.2 FO - N - 1.9 380 1910 - 1,455,000$ 140,373,534$ 5/10/2016

72 7 6 Tulare County 46C0224 Rehabilitation (HBP) 49.7 FO - N - 1.9 80 1949 - 2,912,000$ 143,285,534$ 7/25/2016

73 7 3 Placer County 19C0101 Replace (HBP) 57.6 FO U N 1.2 1631 1950 - 3,317,500$ 146,603,034$ 9/30/2016

74 7 3 Placer County 19C0102 Replace (HBP) 61.5 FO U N 1.2 1437 1950 - 3,317,500$ 149,920,534$ 9/30/2016

75 7 5 Santa Cruz County 36C0136 Replace (HBP) 48.8 FO - N - 1.2 600 1948 - 2,746,000$ 152,666,534$ 9/27/2016


77 7 6 Fresno County 42C0355 Rehabilitation (HBP) 55.9 FO - N - 0.6 100 1940 - 1,929,000$ 155,543,534$ 6/28/2016


8/07/2020 Agenda Item 7

1 | P a g e


FINAL DRAFT SB 137 – Optional Federal HSIP / NHPP Funds and State Match

Exchange

Discussion and Implementation Guidelines

Introduction

Senate Bill (SB) 137 (Chapter 639 of the 2019 Statues), effective October 8, 2019, added Section

182.85 to the Streets and Highways Code that authorizes Caltrans to allow up to $100M of federal

local assistance funds be exchanged for non-federal State Highway Account (SHA) funds. This

exchange can take place as long as the federal funds received can be readily and effectively used on

other projects and will not risk other transportation projects or activities needing state funds. The

exchange will be appropriated on a dollar-for-dollar basis. Federal local assistance funds include

either Federal funds apportioned for local bridge projects (23 U.S.C. 119) or the Highway Safety

Improvement Program (23 U.S.C. Sec. 148) apportionments received in a federal fiscal year (23

U.S.C. Sec. 104(b)(3)) and allocated to local assistance pursuant to this chapter, excluding funds that

are set aside for the railway-highway crossings program (23 U.S.C. Sec. 130). The exchange requires

funds be used by the city, county, or other eligible recipients on projects for purposes for which the

federal local assistance funds being exchanged were originally intended in order to meet national

transportation goals and performance management measures (23 U.S.C. Sec. 150), and must satisfy

the intent of the Legislature, as described in Section 2333.

Eligible Uses and Priorities

The main purpose for this legislation is to reduce the time and resources needed to deliver a federal

project, especially lower cost projects that have minimal right of way (R/W) and environmental

impacts. Projects in the Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) fit these criteria. As detailed

in the table below using the last three funding cycles, 66% of the HSIP projects are under $1M, and

89% are under $2M (constructions and support) and are typically delivered in 3 to 5 years. Also,

some agencies don’t apply for HSIP federal grants to fund projects due to the lower cost of these

types of projects and the added cost of the federal compliance process. This exchange will help

those local agencies by removing this barrier and potentially get them to send in an application in

the upcoming call for HSIP projects, Cycle 10.

For the Highway Bridge Program, even though there are more projects listed within the program as

compared to HSIP, 70% of HBP projects are over $2M and are either rehabilitation or a replacement.

These projects generally take many years to deliver and typically the efficiencies gained would not

be realized as compared to HSIP projects. However, as noted in the table below, there are HBP

projects that are less than $2M and fall under the lower cost, minimal R/W and environmental

impacts such as the bridge preventative maintenance program (BPMP) and bridges with scour

concerns (may not have minimal environmental impacts). Exchanging funds for these project types


2 | P a g e


would be recommended as well as using exchanged funds to develop better project scopes on

higher cost rehabilitation and replacement bridge projects.

Implementation of SB 137 was discussed at the Transportation Co-op Committee (TCC)

meeting, the Local HSIP Advisory Committee meeting and the Local HBP Advisory Committee

meeting. The following are recommendations agreed upon by the above committees in priority

order:

1. 1st priority – HSIP projects

2. 2nd priority – HBP Projects, specifically for project scoping reports, bridge

preventative maintenance projects (BPMPs) or bridge scour projects

3. 3rd priority – Selected lower cost rehabilitation bridge projects as recommended by

HBP Managers

Steps for Implementation

1. For each Federal Fiscal Year (FFY), a list of HSIP and HBP projects will be developed by

the Caltrans Local Assistance HSIP and HBP Program Managers in consultation with the

statewide HBP and HSIP Advisory Committees, respectively, showing which projects,

phases and funding amounts will be exchanged. The funding amount to be exchanged

will be reviewed and approved by the Division of Budgets.

Cycle No. % No. % No. % Total

7 122 67% 38 21% 22 12% 182

8 143 64% 56 25% 26 12% 225

9 152 69% 49 22% 20 9% 221

Total 417 66% 143 23% 68 11% 628

< $2M is 89% of the projects

Local HSIP Program

Number of HSIP Projects

< $1M $1M - $2M > $2M

Type No. % No. % No. % Total

BPMP 40 49% 17 21% 24 30% 81

Scour 8 42% 2 11% 9 47% 19

Other HBP 25 4% 113 16% 576 81% 714

Total 73 9% 132 16% 609 75% 814

< $2M is 25% of the projects

Local HBP Program

Number of HBP Projects

< $1M $1M - $2M > $2M


3 | P a g e


2. A California Transportation Commission (CTC) book item will be completed by Division

of Local Assistance (DLA) Headquarters (HQ) showing the amount of funds to be

exchanged which will be presented at a CTC meeting for approval. After approval, the

Division of Budgets will make the necessary transactions and a state funds account with

subsequent funding codes will be set up to be used for funding allocations.

3. A state funds allocation request will be made by the local agency. Allocation requests

will follow the same phases as the federal process for both HSIP and HBP projects, i.e.

Preliminary Engineering (PE), R/W and Construction (CON) phases.

4. After approval, the project sponsors (local agencies) and DLA will proceed with the

following steps to implement the state only funded projects:

I. For each phase of the project (PE, R/W and CON), the local agency will request

the allocation of funds by submitting the required documents to their District

Local Assistance Engineer (DLAE):

a. A letter of request for the Funding Allocation of the phase

b. Finance Letter

II. After the funding allocation request has been received, the DLAE updates the

milestones and other information in DLA’s LP2000 database and then forwards

the request to the DLA HQ Area Engineer for allocation. If the funding request

is the first one for the project, the DLAE needs to assign a project number and

Advantage ID.

III. After receipt of the complete request package, the DLA HQ Area Engineer will:

a. Prepare an allocation letter which will serve as the authorizing

document for the local agency to begin reimbursable work for the

phase. A copy of the allocation letter and Finance Letter will be

distributed to the local agency, the DLAE and Local Programs

Accounting (LPA). Note that any work performed prior to the effective

date of the allocation letter for the phase is not eligible for

reimbursement.

b. Prepare a Program Supplement Agreement (PSA) and send it to the

local agency for execution. If the local agency does not have a “State-

only Funds Master Agreement” on file with Caltrans, one will need to

be executed in conjunction with the PSA.

IV. All costs incurred by the local agency will be reimbursed in arrears. For the

project to remain active, the local agency must submit invoices to Caltrans at


4 | P a g e


least every six (6) months after funds are allocated. The DLAE reviews invoices

and forwards to the LPA for payment.

V. DLA HQ HSIP and HBP Program Managers will update their respective

databases regularly based on Caltrans’ Enterprise Datalink reports.

VI. For both the HSIP and HBP programs, there are project delivery requirements

when a project receives state exchanged funding. Please refer to the

respective guidelines to see what the requirements are for PE, R/W and CON.

Along with the consequences noted in the guidelines, failure to deliver each

phase may jeopardize the agency from receiving future state exchanged funds

for other projects.

VII. All subsequent cost increases will be funded out of the state funds account. If

no state funds remain for allocation, an agency will have to wait the following

FFY for additional funding or have the option to use their own local funds.

VIII. The local agency must submit the Final Invoice and other required documents

to the DLAE within six (6) months of the project completion. Failure to do so

may jeopardize the agency from receiving additional state exchanged funds

until the close-out paperwork is submitted. The DLAE reviews the submittals

for compliance and then forwards the package to the LPA for processing. The

LPA and the DLA will then close out the project.

Inactive HBP Projects as of 7/31/2020 Agenda Item 10

Project

Number Dist. Co. Agency Project Description

Last Action

Date

Expenditure

Amount

Unexpended

Balance

5904127 01 HUM Humboldt County

04C0209 WILLIAMS CREEK BRIDGE ON

GRIZZLY BLUFF ROAD BRIDGE

REPLACEMENT 8/28/2019 $2,544,723.54 $303,132.46


PM00126 BPMP - VARIOUS BRIDGES IN

HUMBOLDT COUNTY BRIDGE PREVENTIVE

MAINTENANCE: APPROACHES, JOINT

SEALS, AND MINOR CONCRETE REPAIR. 5/2/2019 $20,613.12 $161,546.88


04C0209 WILLIAMS CREEK BRIDGE AT

GRIZZLY BLUFF ROAD REVEGETATION

MITIGATION MONITORING 7/24/2019 $2,191.86 $45,288.14


04C0124 ON JACOBY CREEK BRIDGE AT

BROOKWOOD DRIVE 04C0124 BRIDGE

REHABILITATION CHILD PROJECT

REVEGETATION MITIGATION MONITORING

(TC) 7/24/2019 $2,475.84 $20,179.16

5909079 02 PLU Plumas County

09C0034 CR 415 (PM 0.12) OVER SPANISH

CREEK ON KEDDIE RESORT ROAD 0.1 MIL

E/0 SR 70/89 BRIDGE REPLACEMENT(TC)

11/25/2019 $628,501.86 $33,832.14

5068060 02 SHA Redding

PM00126 - 7 BRIDGES WITHIN THE CITY OF

REDDING: 06C0033, 06C0057, 06C0106,

06C0334, 06C0352, 06C0090, AND 06C0336

BRIDGE PREVENTATIVE MAINTENANCE -

EROSION CONTROL 6/18/2019 $0.00 $134,565.00

5068036 02 SHA Redding

06C0335 EASTSIDE RD @ OLNEY CREEK

BR.# 06C0335 BRIDGE REPLACEMENT

10/25/2019 $416,490.35 $32,222.65

5906087 02 SHA Shasta County

06C0209 SPRING CREEK RD AT FALL RIVER

(BR# 06C0209) BRIDGE REPLACEMENT 8/22/2019 $657,275.65 $422,790.35

Division of Local Assistance 1 of 12HBP Advisory Committee 8/20/2020


Project


Last Action

Date

Expenditure

Amount

Unexpended

Balance


CASSEL FALL RIVER ROAD BRIDGE AT PIT

RIVER BRIDGE REPLACEMENT 8/6/2019 $1,494,606.21 $342,391.79


OLD FORTY-FOUR DRIVE @ OAK RUN

CREEK, BRIDGE NO. 06C-0098 BRIDGE

REPLACEMENT 9/19/2019 $2,403,291.42 $178,888.08


BEAR MOUNTAIN ROAD AT DEEP HOLE

CREEK BR (06C-0263), BRIDGE

REPLACEMENT 8/15/2019 $166,985.67 $42,387.33


GAS POINT ROAD BRIDGE (06C-0183) OVER

NO NAME DITCH, 1.9 MILES WEST OF I-5.

BRIDGE REPLACEMENT 8/30/2019 $276,334.81 $30,018.19


SODA CREEK RD AT SODA CREEK BRIDGE

BRIDGE REPLACEMENT (TC) 8/30/2019 $462,722.10 $12,277.90


FERN ROAD AT GLENDENNING CREEK,

BR#06C0178, BRIDGE REPLACEMENT 7/2/2019 $232,729.78 $6,301.22


PARKVILLE ROAD AT ASH CREEK 3.4 MILES

SOUTH OF DERSCH ROAD/BR.# 06C0220,

BRIDGE REHABILITATION (TC) 8/20/2019 $194,370.03 $5,629.97

5183007 02 SIS Dunsmuir

02C0076 BUTTERFLY AVE. BRIDGE OVER

THE SACRAMENTO RIVER IN DUNSMUIR


5902065 02 SIS Siskiyou County

OLD HWY 99 AT GUYS GULCH, 1 MIILE N

CO. RD. A-12 BR. 02C0276 REPLACE BRIDGE

7/7/2017 $183,554.03 $4,233.97

5908081 02 TEH Tehama County

IN TEHAMA COUNTY AT VARIOUS

LOCATIONS BRIDGE PREVENTATIVE

MAINTENANC 8/28/2019 $1,301,114.88 $704,975.12


REEDS CRK RD @ PINE CRK BRIDGE NEAR

RED BLUFF, BRIDGE REPLACEMENT (TC) 1/24/2018 $1,842,141.50 $205,042.50


MCCOY RD. NORTH OF RED BLUFF,

TEHAMA COUNTY REPLACE LOW H20

CROSSING W/ BR 8/24/2018 $676,724.79 $53,079.21



Project


Last Action

Date

Expenditure

Amount

Unexpended

Balance

5905109 02 TRI Trinity County

EAST FORK HAYFORK RD OVER HAYFORK

CRK, 0.2 MI E WILDWOOD RD BRIDGE

REPLACEMENT (TC) 8/30/2019 $24,749.67 $771,750.33


WILDWOOD RD. OVER HAYFORK CREEK;

BR#05C0086 BRIDGE REPLACEMENT 8/15/2019 $3,811,956.91 $592,248.09


PRICE CREEK BR (05C-0164) 0.2 MILES

SOUTH OF SR 299 BRIDGE REPLACEMENT

(TC) 9/5/2019 $160,417.59 $533,582.41


CORRAL BOTTOM ROAD AT TRINITY RIVER;

BR.# 05C0162 BRIDGE REPLACEMENT (TC) 9/5/2019 $1,078,127.11 $421,872.89


EAST FORK RD AT HALL'S GULCH BR (OLD -

05C-0149) LONG TERM ENVIRONMENTAL

COMMITMENT (TC) 8/30/2019 $30,182.72 $40,797.28


05C-0037 BUTTER CREEK BR, 7 MI SOUTH

OF HYAMPOM RD ON SAINT JOHNS RD

05C-0039 LITTLE CREEK BR, 6 MI WEST OF

SR 3 ON HYAMPOM RD

05C-0100 CARR CREEK BR, 0.1 MI EAST OF

SR 3

05C-0133 BIG CREEK BR, 4.5 MI NORTH OF

SR 3 ON BIG CREEK RD RSP AND SCOUR

MITIGATION

8/30/2019 $10,605.17 $22,903.83


PM00019

KERLIN CRK BR (05C-0122) & SALT CREEK

BR (05C-0147) BRIDGE PREVENTATIVE

MAINTENANCE - CLEAN & PAINT BRIDGES

9/5/2019 $4,295.96 $17,380.04


5 BRIDGES - VAR LOCS. BRIDGE NUMBERS

05C0105, 05C0153, 05C0185,0C0205,

05C0223 JOINT SEAL REPAIR

8/30/2019 $3,999.29 $13,254.71



Project


Last Action

Date

Expenditure

Amount

Unexpended

Balance


PM 15.2 ON COFFEE CREEK RD, BETWEEN

15.1 MI & 15.3 MI NORTH OF SR 3.

BR.#05C0196, BRIDGE REPLACEMENT (TC)

11/28/2017 $307,154.11 $12,290.89

5905104 02 TRI Trinity County PM00019 PREPARE NEXT YEAR'S BPMP 8/30/2019 $8,236.14 $2,829.86

5915055 03 COL Colusa County

FINKS ROAD AT GLENN COLUSA CANAL BR

# 15C-84, BRIDGE REPLACEMENT 8/28/2019 $70,606.83 $17,923.17


DANLEY ROAD AT GLENN COLUSA CANAL.

BR.3 15C0057 BRIDGE REPLACEMENT (TC)

8/28/2019 $71,558.65 $4,838.35


LEESVILLE-LODOGA ROAD AT LTL INDIAN

CREEK BRIDGE REPLACEMENT BR#15C0131

11/13/2019 $59,542.35 $22,336.94

5919105 03 PLA Placer County

BREWER RD @ PLEASANT GROVE CREEK

4.2 MILES N/O BASELINE RD. BR.# 19C0135

BRIDGE REPLACEMENT (TC) 8/30/2019 $4,730,704.36 $263,223.64

5288039 03 SAC Folsom

PM00081 - GREENBACK BRIDGE @

AMERICAN RIVER 0.2 MILES EAST OF

FOLSOM AUBURN RD PREVENTIVE

MAINTENANCE 11/21/2019 $692,445.01 $388,714.81

5913060 03 SIE Sierra County

13C0029 PACKER LAKE ROAD, OVER

SALMON CREEK, WEST OF GOLD LAKES

ROAD. REPLACEMENT - (TC) 9/13/2019 $331,099.96 $56,900.04

5918101 03 SUT Sutter County

ON HOWSLEY RD, 1.02 MILE EAST OF

STATE ROUTE 99 BRIDGE REPLACEMENT

(TC) 8/6/2019 $540,190.82 $862,215.97


18C0105 LARKIN RD OVER SOUTH BRANCH

SUTTER-BUTTE CANAL, 0.2 MI NORTH OF

ENCINAL RD. BRIDGE REPLACEMENT

8/21/2018 $273,395.99 $40,000.01


18C0074 NICOLAUS AVE AT COON CREEK

~1.0 WEST OF PLEASANT GROVE RD

BRIDGE REPLACEMENT 8/24/2018 $230,901.00 $40,000.00



Project


Last Action

Date

Expenditure

Amount

Unexpended

Balance

5101029 04 ALA Pleasanton

CITY OF PLEASANTON: 5 BRIDGES,

33C0454, 33C0099, 33C0453, 33C0461, AND

33C0462. BRIDGE PREVENTIVE

MAINTENANCE PROJECT 4/23/2020 $128,710.19 $5,821.81

5928045 04 CC Contra Costa County

28C0024 ORWOOD BRIDGE (28C-0024) AT

INDIAN SLOUGH BRIDGE REPLACEMENT

(TC) 8/28/2019 $11,401,744.41 $51,204.59

5928107 04 CC Contra Costa County

28C0141 MARSH CREEK RD, APPROX. 1.8 MI

E OF MORGAN TERRITORY RD, REPLACE

EXISTING BRIDGE (28C0141) 11/25/2019 $6,252,556.23 $10,308.77

5137046 04 CC Richmond

IN THE CITY OF RICHMOND: BRIDGES

28C0472 AND 28C0474 (LEFT/RIGHT) ON

THE RICHMOND PARKWAY AND BRIDGE

28C0317 ON 13TH STREET. BRIDGE

PREVENTATIVE MAINTENANCE 11/19/2019 $0.00 $44,265.00

5176014 04 MRN Ross

GLENWOOD AVE OVER ROSS CREEK IN

TOWN OF ROSS, BRDIGE SCOUR REPAIR

AND COUNTER-MEASURE 6/24/2015 $0.00 $44,265.00

5921010 04 NAP Napa County

04-NAP-0-CR, OAKVILLE CROSS RD AT

NAPA RIVER BRIDGE REPLACEMENT,

BR.NO. 21C -0069(TC) 7/2/2019 $6,317,158.23 $298,164.77

5034026 04 SCL Gilroy

6 BRIDGES IN GILROY 37C0271, 37C0320,

37C0321, 37C0339, 37C0352, AND 37C0363.

BRIDGE PREVENTIVE MAINTENANCE

PROGRAM (BPMP) 12/10/2019 $0.00 $299,151.00

5213040 04 SCL Sunnyvale

OLD MT.VIEW-ALVISO RD OVER

CALABAZAS CREEK, BRIDGE # 37C0254

BRIDGE REPLACEMENT 8/20/2019 $5,972,219.24 $193,345.76

6272023 04 SF San Francisco County Transportation Authority

YERBA BUENA ISLAND EASTSIDE

WESTBOUND ON & OFF RAMPS RECONST

EXISTING WB ON & OFF RAMPS ON EAST

OF YBI 8/8/2019 $73,639,964.22 $2,107,236.78



Project


Last Action

Date

Expenditure

Amount

Unexpended

Balance

5029024 04 SM Redwood City

BRIDGE PARKWAY OVER MARINE WORLD

LAGOON, PREVENTATIVE MAINTENANCE

8/2/2017 $39,121.06 $27,276.94


BRIDGE PARKWAY(RIGHT) OVER MARINE

WORLD LAGOON, EAST OF MARINE WORLD

PARKWAY, PREVENTATIVE MAINTENANCE

8/2/2017 $39,121.06 $27,276.94


MAIN ST, VETERANS BLVD, AND MAPLE ST

OVER REDWOOD CREEK BRIDGE

PREVENTATIVE MAINTENANCE 8/28/2019 $4,519.81 $18,719.19

5935064 04 SM San Mateo County

VARIOUS BRIDGES IN SAN MATEO COUNTY:

35C0186, 35C0056,35C0054, 35C0052,

35C0064, 35C0118, 35C0187, 35C0119,

35C0053 BRIDGE PREVENTATIVE

MAINTENANCE 11/25/2019 $59,981.62 $45,369.38

5094067 04 SOL Vacaville

JEPSON PARKWAY: LEISURE TOWN ROAD

BRIDGE AT NEW ALAMO CREEK;

BRIDGE NO. 23C0168 BRIDGE

REPLACEMENT 8/6/2019 $2,795,529.64 $466,623.36

5920118 04 SON Sonoma County

CHALK HILL RD OVER MAACAMA CREEK,



KING RIDGE RD OVER BIG AUSTIN CREEK,

REPLACE BRIDGE (TC) 9/27/2019 $326,616.99 $301,383.01


HAUSER RD BRIDGE OVER SOUTH FORK

OF GUALALA RIVER, 5 MI E OF SEAVIEW RD

BRIDGE REPLACEMENT (TC) 8/30/2019 $6,895,606.62 $150,494.38

5944099 05 MON Monterey County

ROBINSON CANYON BRIDGE AT CARMEL

RIVER SCOUR PROTECTION (TC) 9/17/2019 $557,598.47 $436,570.53

5944103 05 MON Monterey County

HARTNELL ROAD BRIDGE BRIDGE

REPLACEMENT (TC) 10/10/2019 $734,046.08 $14,528.92



Project


Last Action

Date

Expenditure

Amount

Unexpended

Balance

NBIL512 05 SB Santa Barbara County

FOOTHILL RD (1.5 MI W OF SR33) @

CUYAMA RIVER, SANTA BARBARA COUNTY.

REPLACE LWC #00L0047 WITH 2-LANE

BRIDGE (TC). 12/3/2019 $1,858,714.22 $726,285.78

5138054 05 SB Santa Maria

CITY OF SANTA MARIA BRIDGE

PREVENTATIVE MAINTENANCE PROGRAM

(BPMP) 11/19/2019 $0.00 $49,577.00

NBIL501 05 SBT San Benito County

HOSPITAL RD. BETWEEN SOUTHSIDE RD.

AND CIENEGA RD. ELIMINATE LOW WATER

CROSSING WITH 2-LANE BRIDGE (TC)

5/28/2020 $2,016,517.30 $9,000,007.70

5943062 05 SBT San Benito County

ANZAR ROAD BRIDGE #43C0039

REHABILITATE BRIDGE 11/8/2019 $483,417.99 $44,265.01

5936097 05 SCR Santa Cruz County

IN THE COUNTY OF SANTA CRUZ ON

REDWOOD ROAD OVER BROWN CREEK

TRIB 36C-0121 BRIDGE REPLACEMENT (TC) 7/30/2019 $2,418,818.43 $806,012.57


QUAIL HOLLOW ROAD OVER ZAYANTE

CREEK_#36C0035, BRIDGE REPLACEMENT

PROJECT 2/1/2018 $280,218.16 $498,431.84


COUNTY OF SANTA CRUZ- BPMP- 36C0116

VALENCIA CRK BR; 36C0113 APTOS CRK BR

BPMP-SCOUR PROTECTION

5/17/2019 $22,369.54 $4,189.46

5084017 05 SLO El Paso De Robles

24TH ST BRIDGE - BR. NO. 49C-0357 IN

PASO ROBLES, CA REPLACE 2-LANE PASO

ROBLES OH BRIDGE WITH ADDED MEDIAN

LANE (NO ADDED CAPACITY). BRIDGE IS

OVER THE UPRR TRACK AND AMTRAK.

STANDARD LANES AND SHOULDERS. 8/6/2019 $458,813.05 $320,674.95



Project


Last Action

Date

Expenditure

Amount

Unexpended

Balance

5942213 06 FRE Fresno County

BRIDGE 42C0074 ON WEST NEES AVENUE

OVER DELTA-MENDOTA CANAL REPLACE 2

LANE BRIDGE WITH NEW 2 LANE BRIDGE 7/5/2019 $428,331.20 $430,409.80

5942225 06 FRE Fresno County

BRIDGE 42C0343 ON EAST MCKINLEY OVER

FRESNO CANAL REPLACE 2 LANE BRIDGE

WITH 2 LANE BRIDGE (TC) 5/4/2020 $385,000.00 $40,000.00

5945102 06 KIN Kings County

PM00144 VARIOUS COUNTYWIDE BRIDGE

LOCATIONS BRIDGE PREVENTATIVE

MAINTENANCE PROGRAM (BPMP)

ADMINISTRATION 10/22/2019 $5,565.39 $16,566.61

5157104 06 MAD Madera

PM00133 BRIDGE 41C0009, 41C0043 &

41C0155 IN THE CITY OF MADERA BRIDGE

PREVENTATIVE MAINTENANCE PROGRAM

PROJECT 9/25/2019 $27,724.00 $20,081.00

5122036 06 TUL Porterville

BRIDGE 46C0099 ON JAYE STREET OVER

THE TULE RIVER BRIDGE REHABILITATION 12/12/2018 $5,644,051.67 $194,281.33

5403020 07 LA Carson

WILMINGTON AVE / 223RD STREET OVER

DOMINGUEZ CHANNEL, SEISMICALLY

RETROFIT THE BRIDGE.4/4/2019 $1,321,720.48 $39,288.80

5334045 07 LA Downey

FLORENCE AVENUE OVER SAN GABRIEL

RIVER, SCOPE THE HBP PROJECT BRIDGE

#53C0080 8/8/2019 $87,212.24 $1,317.76

5204018 07 LA Glendora

LONE HILL AVE BRIDGE WIDENING

PROJECT. BRIDGE #53C0780, BRIDGE

REHABILITATION. 9/17/2019 $44,851.06 $220,738.94

5953777 07 LA Los Angeles County

VARIOUS LOCATIONS WITHIN THE

UNINCORPORATED LA COUNTY AND

CONTRACT CITIES. BRIDGE INSPECTION

AND LOAD RATING ANALYSIS 7/2/2019 $0.00 $2,965,249.00



Project


Last Action

Date

Expenditure

Amount

Unexpended

Balance

5129070 07 VEN Oxnard

CHANNEL ISLAND BLVD OVER MANDALAY

BAY, 0.2 MILES EAST OF HARBOR BLVD,

52C0095, BRIDGE REHABILITATION (NO

ADDED LANE CAPACITY) 5/24/2019 $56,826.83 $19,398.17

5129069 07 VEN Oxnard

CHANNEL ISLAND BLVD OVER EDISON

CANAL, 0.4 MILES EAST OF HARBOR BLVD,

52C0108, BRIDGE REHABILITATION (NO

ADDED LANE CAPACITY) 5/24/2019 $18,015.12 $5,759.88

5186014 08 RIV Hemet

STETSON AVENUE OVER HEMET CHANNEL,

BR. NO. 56C-0262 REPLACE 2-LANE BRIDGE

3/19/2019 $24,091.19 $20,173.81

5464023 08 RIV Murrieta

GUAVA STREET BRIDGE OVER MURRIETA

CREEK, BR. NO. 56C-0162 BRIDGE

REPLACEMENT (TC) 8/22/2019 $5,792,363.50 $741,413.50

NBIL502 08 RIV Palm Springs

SOUTH PALM CANYON DRIVE OVER

ARENAS CANYON CANAL, LWC NO. 00L0027

ELIMINATE LOW-WATER CROSSING WITH 4-

LANE BRIDGE 2/8/2019 $597,782.68 $544,784.32

5459022 08 RIV Temecula

MAIN STREET BRIDGE OVER MURRIETA

CREEK, BR. NO. 56C-0227 REPLACE 2-LANE

BRIDGE (TC) 8/31/2017 $4,696,063.53 $50,882.47

5065014 08 SBD Colton

LA CADENA DRIVE OVER SANTA ANA

RIVER, BR. NO. 54C-0077 REPLACE

EXISTING 4-LANE BRIDGE 9/27/2019 $2,077,025.04 $1,132,186.96

5065017 08 SBD Colton

MOUNT VERNON AVENUE OVER THE

SANTA ANA RIVER, BR. NO. 54C-0100,

SEISMIC RETROFIT 9/19/2018 $23,511.61 $29,606.39

5449015 08 SBD Highland

GREENSPOT ROAD OVER THE SANTA ANA

RIVER FROM THE S.C.L. TO SANTA PAULA

STREET NEW BRIDGE AND RESTORE

EXISTING BRIDGE (TC) 2/6/2020 $8,379,102.31 $255,964.35



Project


Last Action

Date

Expenditure

Amount

Unexpended

Balance

5954154 08 SBD San Bernardino County

NATIONAL TRAILS HIGHWAY OVER

SOMBRA DITCH, APPROXIMATELY 4.1

MILES EAST OF AMBOY ROAD, BR. NO. 54C-

0281 BRIDGE REPLACEMENT 9/19/2019 $13,627.78 $313,933.22


NATIONAL TRAILS HIGHWAY OVER BEACON

DITCH, APPROXIMATELY 6.2 MILES EAST OF

AMBOY ROAD, BR. NO. 54C-0282 BRIDGE

REPLACEMENT 7/5/2019 $12,105.00 $287,126.00


NATIONAL TRAILS HIGHWAY OVER TERRA



REPLACEMENT 7/5/2019 $12,210.11 $287,020.89


NATIONAL TRAILS HIGHWAY OVER LEITH



REPLACEMENT 7/5/2019 $12,325.04 $286,905.96


NATIONAL TRAILS HIGHWAY OVER GORDO



REPLACEMENT 7/5/2019 $12,332.57 $286,898.43


NATIONAL TRAILS HIGHWAY OVER CERRO



REPLACEMENT 7/5/2019 $12,608.43 $286,622.57


NATIONAL TRAILS HIGHWAY OVER

BRISTOL DITCH, APPROXIMATELY 26.7

MILES EAST OF CRUCERO ROAD IN

LUDLOW, BR. NO. 54C-0272 BRIDGE

REPLACEMENT 7/5/2019 $12,696.08 $286,534.92


NATIONAL TRAILS HIGHWAY OVER LARISSA


KELBAKER ROAD, BR. NO. 54C-0284 BRIDGE

REPLACEMENT 7/5/2019 $12,975.17 $286,255.83



Project


Last Action

Date

Expenditure

Amount

Unexpended

Balance


NATIONAL TRAILS HIGHWAY AT ADENA

DITCH, 21.9 MILES EAST OF KELBAKER

ROAD, BR. NO. 54C-0315 BRIDGE

REPLACEMENT 7/5/2019 $65,940.26 $252,767.74

NBIL539 08 SBD Yucaipa

13TH STREET OVER WILSON CREEK FROM

OAK GLEN ROAD TO KENTUCKY STREET,

LWC 00L0017, REPLACE LOW WATER

CROSSING WITH 2-LANE BRIDGE 4/17/2018 $1,287,622.38 $305,917.62

5931030 10 ALP Alpine County

HOT SPRINGS ROAD OVER HOT SPRINGS

CREEK, BRIDGE# 31C0005, BRIDGE

REPLACEMENT 5/22/2018 $295,978.75 $2,809.25

5930039 10 CAL Calaveras County

STAGECOACH RD OVER LITTLE JOHNS

CREEK (LOW WATER CROSSING 00L0039)

REPLACE LOW WATER CROSSING (TC) 7/13/2020 $2,582,868.32 $595,254.68

5930038 10 CAL Calaveras County

HAWVER RD. AT NORTH FORK CALAVERAS

RIVER CROSSING (BR.# 00L0038) REP LACE

LOW WATER CROSS WITH NEW BRIDGE

(TC) 8/20/2019 $376,603.58 $405,677.42

5929292 10 SJ San Joaquin County

SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY DEVELOP BRIDGE

PREVENTIVE MAINTENANCE PLAN

12/17/2019 $42,696.73 $1,568.27

5207036 11 SD La Mesa

GROSSMONT CENTER DRIVE BRIDGE (#57C-

0467) OVER MTDB LRT & SDIV RR WIDEN

BRIDGE TO ACCOMODATE WIDER LANES,

SHLDRS, SIDEWALKS 8/30/2019 $45,321.60 $330,931.40

5004068 11 SD San Diego

EL CAMINO REAL OVER SAN DIEGUITO

RIVER (57C0042), REPLACE 2 LANE BRIDGE

W/ 4 LAN 9/13/2019 $3,602,392.27 $1,791,975.73

5004009 11 SD San Diego

GEORGIA ST OC UNIVERSITY AVE 57C-0418

BRIDGE SEISMIC RETROFIT &

REHABILITATION (TC) 4/24/2019 $11,569,614.01 $1,293,105.38



Project


Last Action

Date

Expenditure

Amount

Unexpended

Balance

5957095 11 SD San Diego County

VIEJAS BLVD 1.2MILES WEST OF SR79 IN

DESCANSO, ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING

SISTER TO BRLS-5957(039) 8/16/2018 $52,541.20 $44,841.80

5181174 12 ORA Huntington Beach

ADMIRALTY DRIVE OVER ELIZABETH

PASSAGE IN HUNTINGTON HARBOUR, BR.

NO. 55C-0282, BRIDGE REHABILITATION

(TC) 8/28/2019 $405,845.15 $179,154.85

5181175 12 ORA Huntington Beach

HUMBOLDT DRIVE OVER SHORT CHANNEL

IN HUNTINGTON HARBOUR, BR. NO. 55C-

0284, BRIDGE REHABILITATION (TC)

8/28/2019 $403,882.36 $98,117.64

5269025 12 ORA Placentia

55C0192 GOLDEN AVENUE OVER CARBON

CANYON CHANNEL, 0.2 MILES WEST OF

ROSE DRIVE, BR. NO. 55C-0192 BRIDGE

REPLACEMENT WITH ADDED CAPACITY

12/6/2019 $487,755.12 $34,571.88

105 projects Total Inactive $38,019,183.45


Item 11

ALTERNATIVE SOLUTIONS FOR HIGH COST BRIDGES

BACKGROUND

Caltrans asked the local members of the HBPAC to meet and develop alternatives to the proposed policy which would cap High Cost Bridge projects at $80 million. Two meetings were held on Friday July 24 and Tuesday July 28, 2020. Jose Luis Caceres, Chris Sneddon., Ross McKeown, Matt Randall, Jesse Gothan, and Rebecca Neves attended one or both meetings. The meetings resulted in the following recommendations.

RECOMENDATIONS

Recommendation #1: Revise federal/local reimbursement ratio for all new HBP projects: 80%/20% for on-federal aid system projects and 88.53%/11.47% for off-federal aid system projects. Apply to projects coming into the program (projects without e76 for PE).

Recommendation #2: High Cost Bridge (HCB) projects over $50M require scoping document to get into the program paid for by local agency. Scoping document consists of preliminary design developed by agency (30% plans & estimate). Project funding limited to 80/20 split of 30% estimate for on & off federal aid system projects. Caltrans to provide standard outline and format of scoping document.

Recommendation #3: Caltrans shall not accept new high-cost projects into the local HBP that result in the sum of all unobligated high cost bridge project phases, current & proposed exceeding 50% of 15-years of anticipated local HBP revenue. Applies to both on and off federal aid system projects.

DISCUSSION / ANALYSIS

Recommendation #1: Reduces the federal fund commitment which is a primary objective of the reform policies. Shares the overall “pain” with all local HBP projects rather than focusing on high-cost bridge projects.

Recommendation #2: Reduces HCB PE costs. Helps reduce scope and cost creep. All future HCB projects must comply (not focused on a specific agency or project size). Potentially change to $50 million value in proposed policy to $20 million so that the policy applies to all HCBs.

Recommendation #3: If implemented, this policy would not allow new HCB’s to come into the program if the sum of the current and proposed unobligated phases exceed $2.1 billion assuming current revenue estimates for both on and off federal aid system projects. The proposed policy that limited HBP’s contribution to HCB’s to $80 million was intended to provide appropriate budgetary limits on high cost projects but seemed to negatively target large local projects that do not have an alternative funding source. Implementing recommendation #3 with #2 strengthens current policies that limit HBP’s commitment to high cost projects without targeting a specific type of project or agency. Furthermore, the #3 policy can scale with increased funding which gives incentives for agencies delivering high cost bridge projects to rally and advocate for additional HBP funding which could be beneficial for all California local agencies.

ADDITIONAL COMMENTS:

Additional policy for consideration which was discussed after the meetings (no consensus):

Recommendation #4: To be eligible for the bridge program, agencies must submit a bridge asset management plan for their inventory. The plan should follow FHWA guidelines and address bridge preservation / preventative maintenance. The plan must also demonstrate continued maintenance efforts during the life of their bridges that have been completed at their cost. Caltrans/HBPAC to develop & provide a standard outline and format of this document. The plan could be scaled / simplified for owners with only a few bridges. See pages 32-56 for an example: https://www.michigan.gov/documents/mdot/Local_Bridge_Asset_Management_Guide_480551_7.pdf

Date post:	25-Sep-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	0 times
Download:	0 times

Agenda Item 3...Aug 14, 2020 · specifying the dollar amount needed for bridge program. 7. 2020...

Documents