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
Division of Local Assistance Page 2 of 8 HBP Advisory Committee 6/18/2020
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
Division of Local Assistance Page 3 of 8 HBP Advisory Committee 6/18/2020
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
Division of Local Assistance Page 4 of 8 HBP Advisory Committee 6/18/2020
• 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
Division of Local Assistance Page 5 of 8 HBP Advisory Committee 6/18/2020
• 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
Division of Local Assistance Page 6 of 8 HBP Advisory Committee 6/18/2020
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
Division of Local Assistance Page 7 of 8 HBP Advisory Committee 6/18/2020
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
Division of Local Assistance Page 8 of 8 HBP Advisory Committee 6/18/2020
• 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
Division of Local Assistance Page 1 of 5 HBP Advisory Committee 7/9/2020
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
Division of Local Assistance Page 2 of 5 HBP Advisory Committee 7/9/2020
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
Division of Local Assistance Page 3 of 5 HBP Advisory Committee 7/9/2020
• 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.”
• Committee members voted on new language (7 YES, 0 NO)
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
Division of Local Assistance Page 4 of 5 HBP Advisory Committee 7/9/2020
• CTC escalation factors (updated every 2 years) are a helpful guide; different regions
may have higher rates
• Committee members voted on new language (7 YES, 0 NO)
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
Division of Local Assistance Page 5 of 5 HBP Advisory Committee 7/9/2020
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.
• Committee members voted on new language (7 YES, 0 NO)
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
Division of Local Assistance Page 1 of 2 HBP Advisory Committee 8/20/2020
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)
Division of Local Assistance Page 2 of 2 HBP Advisory Committee 8/20/2020
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.
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
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
53 7 6 Tulare County 46C0148 Rehabilitation (HBP) 58.4 FO - N - 1.9 4,204 1949 - 1,971,564$ 204,281,517$ 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
Division of Local Assistance 2 of 2 2/13/2020
March 2020 HBP Project Prioritization - OFF SYSTEM Agenda Item 6.2
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 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
16 4 1 CalFire 10F0037 Replace 43.9 SD 5 N 123.6 12 1992 - 380,000$ 19,780,520$ 1/1/2019
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
27 5 1 CalFire 10F0057 Replace 51.0 SD 5 N 21.1 12 1997 - 524,000$ 52,975,370$ 1/1/2019
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
Division of Local Assistance 1 of 2 2/13/2020
March 2020 HBP Project Prioritization - OFF SYSTEM Agenda Item 6.2
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
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
49 7 6 Tulare County 46C0189 Rehabilitation (HBP) 79.3 FO - N - 29.2 102 1938 - 835,000$ 86,351,821$ 7/25/2016
50 7 3 El Dorado County 25C0083 Rehabilitation (HBP) 56.0 FO 8 N 13.0 1567 1930 - 3,187,500$ 89,539,321$ 9/29/2016
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
52 7 6 Tulare County 46C0010 Rehabilitation (HBP) 69.0 FO - N - 8.7 1,069 1917 - 2,400,000$ 93,651,121$ 7/25/2016
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
55 7 3 El Dorado County 25C0089 Rehabilitation (HBP) 69.1 FO 8 N 8.1 2088 1931 - 3,272,500$ 99,517,621$ 9/29/2016
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
58 7 3 El Dorado County 25C0097 Rehabilitation (HBP) 66.0 FO 8 N 6.8 1467 1930 - 3,330,000$ 106,114,211$ 9/29/2016
59 7 6 Tulare County 46C0012 Rehabilitation (HBP) 69.8 FO - N - 5.0 1,069 1916 - 1,780,000$ 107,894,211$ 7/25/2016
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
69 7 6 Tulare County 46C0101 Rehabilitation (HBP) 68.6 FO - N - 1.9 4,333 1949 - 6,065,000$ 138,007,734$ 7/25/2016
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
76 7 6 Tulare County 46C0221 Rehabilitation (HBP) 67.1 FO - N - 1.2 158 1915 - 948,000$ 153,614,534$ 7/25/2016
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
Division of Local Assistance 2 of 2 2/13/2020
8/07/2020 Agenda Item 7
1 | P a g e
Division of Local Assistance HBP Advisory Committee 8/20/2020
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
8/07/2020 Agenda Item 7
2 | P a g e
Division of Local Assistance HBP Advisory Committee 8/20/2020
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
8/07/2020 Agenda Item 7
3 | P a g e
Division of Local Assistance HBP Advisory Committee 8/20/2020
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
8/07/2020 Agenda Item 7
4 | P a g e
Division of Local Assistance HBP Advisory Committee 8/20/2020
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
5904140 01 HUM Humboldt County
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
5904164 01 HUM Humboldt County
04C0209 WILLIAMS CREEK BRIDGE AT
GRIZZLY BLUFF ROAD REVEGETATION
MITIGATION MONITORING 7/24/2019 $2,191.86 $45,288.14
5904165 01 HUM Humboldt County
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
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
5906088 02 SHA Shasta County
CASSEL FALL RIVER ROAD BRIDGE AT PIT
RIVER BRIDGE REPLACEMENT 8/6/2019 $1,494,606.21 $342,391.79
5906107 02 SHA Shasta County
OLD FORTY-FOUR DRIVE @ OAK RUN
CREEK, BRIDGE NO. 06C-0098 BRIDGE
REPLACEMENT 9/19/2019 $2,403,291.42 $178,888.08
5906124 02 SHA Shasta County
BEAR MOUNTAIN ROAD AT DEEP HOLE
CREEK BR (06C-0263), BRIDGE
REPLACEMENT 8/15/2019 $166,985.67 $42,387.33
5906119 02 SHA Shasta County
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
5906106 02 SHA Shasta County
SODA CREEK RD AT SODA CREEK BRIDGE
BRIDGE REPLACEMENT (TC) 8/30/2019 $462,722.10 $12,277.90
5906105 02 SHA Shasta County
FERN ROAD AT GLENDENNING CREEK,
BR#06C0178, BRIDGE REPLACEMENT 7/2/2019 $232,729.78 $6,301.22
5906117 02 SHA Shasta County
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
BRIDGE REPLACEMENT (TC) 7/24/2019 $8,041.44 $406,958.56
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
5908055 02 TEH Tehama County
REEDS CRK RD @ PINE CRK BRIDGE NEAR
RED BLUFF, BRIDGE REPLACEMENT (TC) 1/24/2018 $1,842,141.50 $205,042.50
5908029 02 TEH Tehama County
MCCOY RD. NORTH OF RED BLUFF,
TEHAMA COUNTY REPLACE LOW H20
CROSSING W/ BR 8/24/2018 $676,724.79 $53,079.21
Division of Local Assistance 2 of 12HBP Advisory Committee 8/20/2020
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
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
5905071 02 TRI Trinity County
WILDWOOD RD. OVER HAYFORK CREEK;
BR#05C0086 BRIDGE REPLACEMENT 8/15/2019 $3,811,956.91 $592,248.09
5905114 02 TRI Trinity County
PRICE CREEK BR (05C-0164) 0.2 MILES
SOUTH OF SR 299 BRIDGE REPLACEMENT
(TC) 9/5/2019 $160,417.59 $533,582.41
5905082 02 TRI Trinity County
CORRAL BOTTOM ROAD AT TRINITY RIVER;
BR.# 05C0162 BRIDGE REPLACEMENT (TC) 9/5/2019 $1,078,127.11 $421,872.89
5905103 02 TRI Trinity County
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
5905106 02 TRI Trinity County
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
5905105 02 TRI Trinity County
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
5905107 02 TRI Trinity County
5 BRIDGES - VAR LOCS. BRIDGE NUMBERS
05C0105, 05C0153, 05C0185,0C0205,
05C0223 JOINT SEAL REPAIR
8/30/2019 $3,999.29 $13,254.71
Division of Local Assistance 3 of 12HBP Advisory Committee 8/20/2020
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
5905110 02 TRI Trinity County
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
5915054 03 COL Colusa County
DANLEY ROAD AT GLENN COLUSA CANAL.
BR.3 15C0057 BRIDGE REPLACEMENT (TC)
8/28/2019 $71,558.65 $4,838.35
5915056 03 COL Colusa County
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
5918079 03 SUT Sutter County
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
5918080 03 SUT Sutter County
18C0074 NICOLAUS AVE AT COON CREEK
~1.0 WEST OF PLEASANT GROVE RD
BRIDGE REPLACEMENT 8/24/2018 $230,901.00 $40,000.00
Division of Local Assistance 4 of 12HBP Advisory Committee 8/20/2020
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
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
Division of Local Assistance 5 of 12HBP Advisory Committee 8/20/2020
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
5029024 04 SM Redwood City
BRIDGE PARKWAY OVER MARINE WORLD
LAGOON, PREVENTATIVE MAINTENANCE
8/2/2017 $39,121.06 $27,276.94
5029025 04 SM Redwood City
BRIDGE PARKWAY(RIGHT) OVER MARINE
WORLD LAGOON, EAST OF MARINE WORLD
PARKWAY, PREVENTATIVE MAINTENANCE
8/2/2017 $39,121.06 $27,276.94
5029032 04 SM Redwood City
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,
BRIDGE REPLACEMENT (TC) 1/10/2019 $160,345.44 $370,834.56
5920146 04 SON Sonoma County
KING RIDGE RD OVER BIG AUSTIN CREEK,
REPLACE BRIDGE (TC) 9/27/2019 $326,616.99 $301,383.01
5920125 04 SON Sonoma County
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
Division of Local Assistance 6 of 12HBP Advisory Committee 8/20/2020
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
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
5936061 05 SCR Santa Cruz County
QUAIL HOLLOW ROAD OVER ZAYANTE
CREEK_#36C0035, BRIDGE REPLACEMENT
PROJECT 2/1/2018 $280,218.16 $498,431.84
5936107 05 SCR Santa Cruz County
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
Division of Local Assistance 7 of 12HBP Advisory Committee 8/20/2020
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
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
Division of Local Assistance 8 of 12HBP Advisory Committee 8/20/2020
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
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
Division of Local Assistance 9 of 12HBP Advisory Committee 8/20/2020
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
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
5954155 08 SBD San Bernardino County
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
5954153 08 SBD San Bernardino County
NATIONAL TRAILS HIGHWAY OVER TERRA
DITCH, APPROXIMATELY 3.6 MILES EAST OF
AMBOY ROAD, BR. NO. 54C-0280 BRIDGE
REPLACEMENT 7/5/2019 $12,210.11 $287,020.89
5954152 08 SBD San Bernardino County
NATIONAL TRAILS HIGHWAY OVER LEITH
DITCH, APPROXIMATELY 3.1 MILES EAST OF
AMBOY ROAD, BR. NO. 54C-0279 BRIDGE
REPLACEMENT 7/5/2019 $12,325.04 $286,905.96
5954150 08 SBD San Bernardino County
NATIONAL TRAILS HIGHWAY OVER GORDO
DITCH, APPROXIMATELY 1.8 MILES EAST OF
AMBOY ROAD, BR. NO. 54C-0276 BRIDGE
REPLACEMENT 7/5/2019 $12,332.57 $286,898.43
5954149 08 SBD San Bernardino County
NATIONAL TRAILS HIGHWAY OVER CERRO
DITCH, APPROXIMATELY 1.3 MILES EAST OF
AMBOY ROAD, BR. NO. 54C-0275 BRIDGE
REPLACEMENT 7/5/2019 $12,608.43 $286,622.57
5954147 08 SBD San Bernardino County
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
5954156 08 SBD San Bernardino County
NATIONAL TRAILS HIGHWAY OVER LARISSA
DITCH, APPROXIMATELY 1.1 MILES EAST OF
KELBAKER ROAD, BR. NO. 54C-0284 BRIDGE
REPLACEMENT 7/5/2019 $12,975.17 $286,255.83
Division of Local Assistance 10 of 12HBP Advisory Committee 8/20/2020
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
5954142 08 SBD San Bernardino County
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
Division of Local Assistance 11 of 12HBP Advisory Committee 8/20/2020
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
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
Division of Local Assistance 12 of 12HBP Advisory Committee 8/20/2020
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