HomeMy WebLinkAbout1992-10-20; City Council; 11934; INTERMODAL SURFACE TRANSPORTATION EFFICIENCY ACT (ISTEA) FUND ALLOCATIONS'6
.- EFFICIENCY ACT (ISTEA) FUND ALLOCATIONS
Council consider poliGy direGtion on the allocation of Federal Transportation Funds by the
Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG),
ITEM EXPLANATION:
In late 1991 the Congress passed the lntermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act - IS1
This program consolidated all previous federal transportation funds into two major block E
style programs. The legislation also designated SANDAG as the organization authorize coordinate the expenditure and authorization of those funds over the six year period betu
Fiscal Years 1992 and 1997.
Two major funding programs are involved: The Surface Transportation Program (STP) and
Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) funds. STP funds allocated to San Diego COI
over the six years are approximately $1 09 million. CMAQ funds are estimated at approxim:
Attached for Council review are SANDAG agenda reports dealing with the distribution of STP
CMAQ funds to the region. At its September 25, 1992 meeting the SANDAG Board considc
a recommended distribution of STP local funds that followed the formulas previously enactec
the Federal Aid Urban (FAU) program.
The attached ISTEA table outlines the distribution of STP funds. This distribution is out1
SURFACE TRANSPORTATION FUNDS
(STP) $109.1 Million
Local Fund Regional Funds
$67.2 Million $41.9 Million
City/County Agency by Population
Transit (1 5%)
Caltrans (25%)
Commuter Computer
It should be noted that the STP Regional Funds are new funds not previously available. The L
.& @ rn
PAGE 2 OF AGENDA BILL NO. I I ,93 Y
Both the Transit agencies and Caltrans have objected to this proposal. Sandag Board took
action and referred this item back to the Committee for review and recommendation at ti
October 23 meeting.
The City Engineer sits on the FAU Committee. This Committee reviewed the proposal i
recommended that the item be reviewed with respective policy bodies.
The overall ISTEA program significantly changed how funds are distributed and increased fu
available to the region. It is staff’s opinion that distribution of the entire six year allocation ne to be done carefully considering all transportation needs. Overall it would appear that STP fui
are the only funds practically available to the City’s and County and for transit operations. Th
agencies should therefore be given priority on these funds.
ALTERNATIVE FUND DISTRIBUTION:
Staff recommends that City Council pursue neither of the proposed programs but a tt
alternative that allocates twenty percent of the funds to transit and distributes the remaining fur
to the City, County and Caltrans based on the Solana Beach proposal. This would have
effect of reducing the Caltrans share to about 10%. These funds will be more than made up
the STP Regional funds.
If Council concurs in this recommendation this position would be advocated by staff, SAND
and NCTD representatives.
FISCAL IMPACT:
To be determined.
EXHl BITS:
1.
2.
3.
lntermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act - ISTEA, San Diego Region FY 924
SANDAG Board of Directors Agenda Report R-64
SANDAG Board of Directors Agenda Report R-65
zm a: &a sz
gsf5 f e:S 2 oCJ
GGei G
a
d a U Lu n c
a w !i I
I
2 0 5 k!
0 c3 = n
a 2
v)
u)u) 8p:g2 ZASU
I "I2 gem & 5: S"9t g
et",En t -04, Q) mant= 82 ma - ugg; c 335$
(v r -.9Lo,Lo,s; 9 Eo mz
4) F 2 E$ s 05rbrN 2
itcnh
c r s g-
I- o'pcns .. :.E f-
c. agzg 8S;k 2
0 0)
0 *-*em (D 00 mor" QJ
r -*e* u) F c o'p
zc 9 F 0 - ::9Lo,Ln,5; 6-b-N z Q,
5: aa 0 *r*bLn (D a3 mm-CYcu w
c c cu)u)u)
u)u) u)
b,
bL r'pE
3 - 8caE 8 cSL= - 'pgq s * am
e
EO N cp c1 ma e 6
E- 0 >
-
E e z t5E PC, 5 L
d azz: ib oh
E 0 .- bp 85 & 'E
F Feu)* 2
't:
n = -
v) N 'p7 f- m-c : z** gp c .: 0
Qo.=~o a - .o_ z jj
cAaF$a t E $.gZa&
e 5 ggn+o 2 c a
o a CL.O+~U a
v) u ;am 9CklIltk%g m0
2 rsrgm mom, Q + .-
-& gz
dw a CLmEg ..I-, 0- OUOO
z c*(Y ri
Hb.g:
-- - 4 --
w w
ISTEA PROGRAM CONSIDERATIONS
The 1991 Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) establishes fifteen
factors that must be considered & the transportation planning process including
development of the Regional Transportation Improvement Program @TIP). All federally
funded candidate projects submitted for inclusion in the RTIP should address at least one
of the following fifteen factors. Future year project submittals must also consider
recommendations from the six statewide management systems identified in Item #9 below.
1) Preservation of existing transportation facilities and, where practical, ways to meet transportation needs by using existing transportation facilities more efficiently;
2) The consistency of transportation planning with applicable Federal, State, and local
energy conservation progmns, goals, and objectives;
3) The need to relieve congestion and prevent congestion from occurring where it does
not yet occur;
4) The likely effect of transportation policy decisions on land use and development and the consistency of transportation plans and programs with the provisions of all
applicable short- and long-term land use and development plans;
The programming of expenditure on transportation enhancement activities as required
by ISTEA;
The effects of all transportation projects to be undertaken within the metropolitan
area, without regard to whether such projects are publicly funded;
International border crossings and access to ports, airports, intermodal facilities,
major freight distribution routes, national parks, recreation areas, monuments and
historic sites, and military installations;
The need for connectivity of roads within the metropolitan area with roads outside
the metropolitan ami;
The transportation needs identified through the use of the six statewide management
systems require by ISTEA (Highway pavement, Bridges, Highway safety, TMic
congestion, Public transportation facilities and systems, and Intermodal transportation
facilities and systems);
10) Preservation of rights-of-way for construction of future transportation projects, including identification of unused rights-of-way which may be needed for future
txmsportation corridors and identification of those corridors for which action is most
needed to prevent destruction or loss;
11) Methods to enhance the efficient movement of freight;
12) The use of life-cycle costs in the design and engineering of bridges, tunnels, or pavement;
13) The overall social, economic, energy, and environmental effects of transportation decisions;
14) Methods to expand and enhance transit services and to increase the use of such services;
15) Capital investments that would result in increased security in transit systems.
5)
6)
7)
8)
9)
‘1 i) .!
’
ISTEA PROJECT ELIGIBILITY
Surface Transportation Promam f STP):
Construction, reconstruction, resurfacing, restoration, and rehabilitation.
Operational improvements.
Capital costs for transit projects and publicly owned intracity or intercity bus
terminals or facilities.
Surface transportation planning, highway and transit technology transfer activities,
and research and development.
Capital and operating costs for traffic management and control.
Fringe and corridor parking facilities.
Most transportation control measures in the Clean Air Act.
Development and establishment of Management Systems.
Transportation enhancements (Limited to pedestrian and bicycle facilities, acquisition
of scenic easements and scenic or historic sites, scenic or historic highway programs,
landscaping and other scenic beauMication, historic preservation, rehabilitation of
historic transportation facilities, preservation of abandoned transportation corridors,
archeological plannjng and research, control and removal of outdoor advertising, and
mitigation of water pollution due to highway runoff).
Participation in wetland mitigation and wetland banking. Bicycle facilities and pedestrian walkways.
State bicycle and pedestrian coordinator.
Highway and transit safety improvements.
Carpool and vanpool projects.
@
Congestion Mitigation & Air Oualitv (CMAO) Prom:
Transportation activities in approved State Implementation Plan (SIP) for Air
Specific Transportation Control Measures (TCM’s) included in the federal Clean Air
Act Amendments (CAAA) of 1990.
Developing and establishing management systems for Mic congestion, public
transportation facilities and equipment, and internodal transportation facilities and
systems, where it can be demonstrated that they are likely to contribute to attainmen1
of air quality standards.
Capital and opemting cost of Sic monitoring, management, and control facilities
and programs, where it can be demonstrated that they are likely to contribute to
attainment of air quality standards. CMAQ funds may not replace existing local and
state funds used for operating costs, but are intended to augment and reinforce new
efforts.
Construction of bicycle and pedestrians facilities, nonconstruction projects related
to safe bicycle use, and State bicycle/pedestrian coordinator positions. Included are
public education, promotional, and safety programs for using such facilities.
Quality.
w v
1982 REWED REGIONAL AIR QUALITY STRATEGY
TRANSPORTATION "T" TACTICS
San Diego Region
TACTIC T-1 - RIDESHARING
Tactic DescriDtion: The purpose of this tactic iS to shift travel from single-occupan
vehicles to those carrying two or more persons, thereby reducing total trave
Ridesharing entails prearranged shared rides by people traveling at similar time
from approximately the same origin to approximately the same destination. Th
primary ridesharing arrangements for work trips are carpools, vanpools, and buspoolr Major emphasis also is placed on employers who collect and distribute ridesharin
infsrmatian and pramate the ridesharing concept among their employees. Assistant is also available to individuals through dial-in-services.
TACTIC T-2 - TRANSIT
Tactic DescriDtion: This tactic is aimed at diverting automobile users to fmed-roui
public transit, primarily by increasing the level of transit service. Improvements SUC
as more frequent service, more extensive area coverage, and greater use of exprer
service are proposed, which would make transit more competitive with the automobi
and attract choice riders (persons who are not dependent on transit for transportc
tion and would otherwise be driving their cars). Broader actions such as the use f
employer incentives are also encouraged.
TACTIC T-3 - BICYCLE TRAVEL
Tactic DescriDtion: This tactic proposes a much more extensive bicycle system tha
currently exists through development of a regional bicycle route system, communit
oriented routes, bicycle feeder systems to public transit, and employer incentives an
facilities. Employer-provided facilities include bicycle parking, and connections wit
express bus service. Extensive educational and promotional programs are ah
emphasized in the tactic.
TACTIC T-5 - TRAFFIC FLOW IMPROVEMENTS
Tactic DescriDtion: This tactic smoothes the flow of traffic and maintains existin
average automobile travel speeds on arterial streets through relatively low-cor
reductions in idling time at traffic Eignals and at points of traffic congestior
Hydrocarbon and carbon monoxide emissions also decrease as speeds increase, du
to the more complete combustion of fuel at higher speeds.
transportation systems management techniques, Emission benefits are due t
.E e m
1
Q 6) ri
a 8
a .- s z
3 50
22 -&
w E .-
.b <
oi
0
c .5
E2
m w PRELIMINARY SCREENING CRITERIA
[Confirm Project Eligibility & Identify Fatal Flaws]
1. Must Meet ISTEA & Other Federal Requirements
o o
o
o
o
Required Consistency With Regional Plans
o
o
Eligible project type per U.S. DOT memos and policy.
Street improvements on "Locals" and "Rural Minor Collectors" ineligible.
Address at least one of ISTEA's "15" Planning Factors.
Project design concept & scope must be in sufficient detail for emissions
analysis.
Project funding must be reasonable compared to likely available funds.
2.
1990 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) - ALL PROJECTS.
1982/1991 Regional Air Quality Strategy (RAQS) - PROGRAM as a whole must conform, - NO PROJECT can contradict or delay TCM implementation. 1991 Congestion Management Program (CMP) - HIGHWAY PROJECTS that increase capacity for single-occupant vehicles.
o
3. Reasonable Expectation of Being Funded and Implemented
o
o
o
Agency eligibility to receive federal funds.
Agency commitment (or reasonable expectation) to provide non-federal funds.
Supported by all responsible/affected public transportation agencies.
RATING CRITERIA
[Identify Relative Priority of Project Categories and/or Individual Projects]
1.
2.
Expeditious Implementation of Transportation Control Measures (TCM' s).
Timely Implementation of Projects that Help Meet Quantitative Emissions Analysis
Requirements.
3. Priority to Implement Voter-Approved TransNet Program Projects.
o
o
Degree of Traffic Congestion Relief - Especially CMP System LOS Standards.
Achievement of Transit Performance & Service Area Coverage CMP Standards.
Basic TransNet core project (not future upgrades),
Consistent with TransNet Plan of Finance (POF) revenue assumptions.
4.
5.
6. Implement Cost-Effective Projects
o Increased mobility, improved air quality, & reduced energy (fuel) consumption.
DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION NOT APPROVED
s P RED M I NARY w
7. Maintenance, Preservation, and Increased Efficiency of Existing Transportation
System.
8. Ability to Maximize StatelFederal Discretionary Funds.
9.
10.
Ability to Leverage Other LocaVPrivate Funds.
Effect on State/Local Transportation Partnership Funding.
o Federal funding and State TSM matching funds.
11. Preservation of Existing Transportation MOE Requirements - Not Replace Other
Previously Committed Funds.
12. Availability of Alternative Funding Programs for Candidate Projects.
13. Provide Regional/Geographic Balance in Fund Allocation/Project Implementation.
14. Generally Follow Project Submittal Agency Priorities.
PROGRAMMING CRITERIA
[Schedule Projects in RTIP Based on Realistic Project Deliverability & Funding]
1. Likelyhood of Project Deliverability in Programmed Year.
o Adequate staffing (Agency and/or Consultant),
o Realistic schedule for PS&E and Right-of-way,
o Timely funding (Receipt of federal and non-federal).
Agency Commitment to Begin Work in Programmed Year.
Affect of Fund Transfers between FHWA and FTA.
2.
3.
DRAFT FOR DISCUS§!
MOT APPROVED
-s &%2 OOG5
<%Om us
7 =!e a>:& c -
v) de , Ssy5
I J
E t W Y %f E! I! Fu Y:k'Eg4 c p &x c E ggg 50 f gz E
g Pg2pkr:BE a
po Q 38 g 8 ZE Ei
w z :!~TCPok?apy& Y"P 5 t3g g y rE?g , 0 p59"pgaz 0 'E P 3 sz E s s sg O e 3% g gz2 diz 2a g a p= d
E ?-' g zz z
85 E
z
v
OSP Ev,
€ f zz
8 n Wks zp E U 2 z 0: a v,
' pIP - bgp
2 Q &+>E SgSE - Og"5 gmZP .
az<:Q 9 e%%
< z& t-
c W -w
tE - g: ss
2
c +m
2; Qk
48 - 5z
35 owb" gzs!Z - -.WE'
Q4k-u z
'as& - - =Qwg 8 8-
*
sag5 r
W g= g wg $a I.5-J
5 "3 & v, - i% G gs
I-
2 a
-
W zq
J - ezz gzz U g - E +
Eg
b
rn - w la8
J e m
1
I
SANDAG TRANSPORTATION COMMlTEES
e Pepional Transporta tion Advisorv Co mmittee (RTAC) . This committee serves 5c
SANDAG's overall transportation advisory committee. The purpose of RTAC is to hell
insure regional coordination of all transportation programs and studies, reviewin]
transportation-related legislation and financial issues, and reviewing implementation of thl
Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). RTAC membership consists of representatives fror
CALTRANS, MTDB, NCTD, the City and County of San Diego, two smaller cities an
the Port District. In addition, there are 25 representatives from a variety of citiZer
public, and special interest groups.
0 Combined Road Plan Committee (C RPC). This committee's responsibilities incluc
review and advice on: (1) federal ISTEA Surface Transportation Program (STP) LOG
program issues, (2) highway related aspects of regional transportation plans and program
and (3) highway and street and road related SANDAG studies. CRPC membershj
consists of representatives from each of the region's cities, the County, CALM!
MTDB, and NCTD.
Transit General Manage r's GrouD. This regionwide committee is responsible for technic
transit coordination. It consists of the General Manager of each transit operator and tl
SANDAG transportation director.
Bicvcle Facilities Co mmittee. This committee assists in the development of the bicyc
facilities portion of the RTP, and recommends projects for funding with Transportatic
Development Act (TDA) and TransNet bicycle funding. The committee includes
representative from each city and the County, San Diego Transit, the Port Distric
CALTRANS, and various bicycle organizations.
Subcommittee for Accessible transport at^ 'on. This committee was formed in response
federal requirements and increased local inkrest and involvement in accessibility issuf
Responsibilities include review and advice on: (1) federal funding programs for t
elderly and disabled, (2) coordination of vehicles for elderly and disabled tranprtatio
(3) SNAG'S Overall Work Program, and (4) special studies. Membership consists
representatives from the region's transit operators and user groups.
TransNet Committee. This committee of SANDAG Board members is advisory
SANDAG on matters pertaining to the TransNet local sales tax program.
6 Traffic Engineer's Council. The San Diego Regional Traffic
Engineer's Council (SANTEC) serves as SANDAG'S technical
advisory committee on regional traffic engineering matters.
from each of the region's cities, the County of San Diego,
and CALTRANS.
0
0
Membership consists of a traffic engineering representative
m
o€ Governments SanDi€?gOAssoaab<m .. .us @
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
September 25, 1992 AGENDA REPORT No.: R-64
FY92-97 ISTEA SURFACE TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM (STP) LOCAL FUND ALLOCATION
Introduction
The Surface Transportation Program (STP) is one of the new transportation programs established
in the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA). The STP essentiallj
combines and replaces the old Primary (FAP), Urban (FAU) , Secondary (FAS), and Combinec
Road Plan (CRP) programs. Pending state legislation (SB1435, Kopp) now before the Govern0
for signature provides that a specified amount of the STP funds apportioned to SANDAG b
allocated for projects implemented by cities, counties, and other transportation agencies on a fai
and equitable basis, essentially similar to prior year FAU/CRI? programs. In the San Diegc
region, these STP Local funds total $1 1,093,944 annually which is about a 37% increase from
the FY91 FAU urbanized area funding levels and a 10% increase in FAS rural area funding.
The Combined Road Plan Committee (CRPC), which serves as SANDAG’s overall highwq
advisory committee, is responsible for developing a recommended allocation of STP Local fund
for approval by SANDAG. The CRPC is composed of a representative of each city, th
County, CALTRANS, MTDB, and NCTD. Over the past three months, the CRPC ha
reviewed the needs and revenues for local streets and roads, for transit, and for CALTRAN:
including the TransNet program. Based on this review, the CRPC concluded that the existin
Board approved 1987 FAU/CRP fund distribution process continues to be a fair and equitab
fund allocation and should be continued for the FY92-97 STP Local program. It is my
RECOMMENDATION
that the Board of Directors adopt Resolution 93-10 approving the FY92-97 ISTEA Surfac
Transportation Program (STP) Lucal Fund Allocation as shown on the attached Table 1.
Discussion
Table 1 shows the FY92-97 STP Local fund distribution as recommended by the Combined Ro;
Plan Committee (CRPC) on August 13, 1992. The fund distribution basically allocates 60% I
the Urbanized area funds to local agencies on a population basis, 25% for state highw;
projects, and 15% to transit projects. Each local agency also receives an annual base fundi]
of $25,000 and Commuter Computer, the regional ridesharing program, receives $125,0(
m w
annually. The Rural area funds, essentially replacing the prior FAS Secondary program, a
allocated separately to the County of San Diego.
The recommended STP Local fund allocation uses the same distribution method approved b
SANDAG in May 1987 for the FY87-91 Federal Aid Urban (FAU)/Combined Road Plan (CRI
programs. The CRPC considered a number of possible revisions to the existing fund distributic
process. These included changing the annual base funding levels for local jurisdictions, an
revising the overall allocation of funds among local agencies (a%), CALTRANS (25%), a
transit (15%). While a number of alternatives exist, none was determined to be more "fair an
equitable" than the existing formula.
The actual allmation of STP Local funds to specific projects will continue to occur through th
Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP) development and approval process. Th
recommended FY92-97 STP Local program is consistent with the "Interim FY92 Allocation c
STP Local Funds" approved by the Board in March 1992 (Agenda Item R-28). In March 199:
the Board also supported the exchange of STP Local funds with TransNet highway funds e
provided in the TransNet Ordinance to maximize the effectiveness in the use of those fund:
ted their intent to participate in this fund exchange program.
Attachments
2
.- w m
San ASSOCIATION Diego OF msomma
GOVERNMENTS NO. First Interstate Plaza, Suite 800
401 0Street San Diego, California 92101
(619) 595-5300 Fax (619) 595-5305
93-10 4.: @J
APPROVAL OF THE FY92-97 ISTEA SURFACE
TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM (STP) LOCAL FUND ALLOCATION
FOR THE SAN DIEGO REGION
WHEREAS, a new Surface Transportation Program (STP) was established under th
Internodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) of 1991 and a portion of those ST
revenues are intended to be allocated to local transportation agencies; and
WHEREAS, Senate Bill 1435 (Kopp) provides that a specified amount of the ST
funds apportioned to SANDAG be allocated for projects implemented by cities, counties, rn
other transportation agencies on a fair and equitable basis, essentially similar to prior year FA1 CRP programs; and
WHEREAS, the Combined Road Plan Committee (CRPC) has prepared a recon
mended "FY92-97 ISTEA Regional Surface Transportation Program (STP) Local Fur
Allocation" that provides for a fair and equitable distribution of STP Local funds and meets sta
and federal program requirements; and
WHEREAS, the recommended STP local fund allocation is supported by the 19!
Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) transportation needs and revenue analysis, and any projex
funded with STP local funds will address the fifteen transportation planning and programmi
factor specified in ISTEA; and
WHEREAS, individual STP Local funded projects are separately approved 1
SANDAG through the Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP) developmr
process; NOW THEREFORE
BE IT RESOLVED that the SANDAG Board of Directors hereby approves the "FY!
97 ISTEA Surface Transportation Program (STP) Local Fund Allocation" dated August 1
1992, as attached to this resolution.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 25th day of September, 1992.
ATTEST: CHAIRPERSON SECRETARY
MEMBER AGENCIES Clties of Carlsbad Chula Vista Coronado Del Mar El Calon. Enanitas. Esoondldo. Imperial Beach, La Mesa Lemon Grove. National Powsy San Dlego San Marcos Santee Solsna Beach. V~sta and County of San Diego
ADVISORY/LIAISOh MEMBERS California Department of Transportation. U S Department of Defense and TiiuancdBaja California
r m
Attachment to SA
Resolution
091
*** PRELIMINARY DRAn - UNAPPROVED ***
ISTEA FY92-97 SURFACE TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM (STP)
LOCAL FUND ALLOCATION
San Diego Region
$220,936 $1,325,616
$268,110 $1,608,660
Lemon Grove
$25,000 2,479,372 $2,504,372 8 15,026,229
San Marcos
Solana Beach
$187,805 $1,126,830
County - Urban $788,339 $4,730,034
8 1.098.41 7 86,590,502
Transit (15%) - $1.51 4.329 - $1,514,329 $9,085,974
CALTRANS (25% -_- $2,523,882 -- $2,523,882 $15,143,292
$125,000 $750,000
Notes:
1. The Sen Diego Region FY92 Surface Transportation Program (STP) Local fund estimated apportionment totals
$1 1, 193,944 including $10,095,527 for Urban area and $1,098,417 for Rural area.
2. Local agency population allocations will be revised by SANDAG on an annual basis using the then most current
population estimates. The Urban area population is MTDB and NSDCTDB Board areas. All Rural area funds are
allocated to the County of Sen Diego.
This table is an estimated STP Local fund allocation based on anticipated STP annual fund apportionments to
SANDAG as provided for in S81435 (Kopp). Final annual allocations will be adjusted if necessary based on
actual STP apportionments to SANDAG.
-
3.
** RECOMMENDED BY THE COMBINED ROAD PLAN COMMllTEE ON AUGUST 13, 199;
STPLOCAL.XLS SANDAGIBTUIO
e 0
It is noted that "indexing" the original $25,000 base for Consumer Price Index (CPI) increase:
1992 our Board approved an annual allocation of the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality
Program (CMAQ) of ISTEA of $11 million to the transit districts. Due to the nature of th;
requirements for CMAQ funding, it is likely that a majority of future allocations will similarl:
go to transit districts or CalTrans to meet our regional needs.
Thus the merits of the alternative allocation formula I have presented include:
1) Continuing approximately the same dollar amount compared with last years allocation for
regional use; 2) large public agencies needs are adequately addressed through the per capit
allocation; and 3) majority of remaining public agencies will realize a 20% to 40% increase ii
funding level over the "status quo" formula. This alternative formula coupled with the CMA(
program and other ISTEA programs present us with an unusual opportunity to achieve truly 4
win-win policy in helping the regions public agencies meet their infrastructure funding shortfalls
Therefore, I hope that you will join me in supporting an updating of the funding allocatio
formula to meet today's needs. I would be pleased to discuss this proposal with you and ma
be contacted at work at 237-7816, or at home, 755-8583.
since 1978 would alone achieve a base amount of approximately $70 OOO. Furthermore, in Junc
Sincerely,
RICHARD D. HENDLIN
City Councilmember,
City of Solana Beach
w v 0) o&!!@& @ CITV OF SOLANA BEACH
'ed*' 380 STEVENS AVENUE SUE 305 SOLANA EEACH. CALIFORNIA 92075 [61S] 75:
788.
September 10, 1992
(Original of this letter was sent to each member of the Board of Directors)
I am writing to inform you about an opportunity for us to augment our cities ravaged budgets.
At our September 25 meeting, Sandag staff has indicated they will be seeking Board approval
of the funding dispersion of one of the programs under the Federal Intermodel Surface
Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA). As you are aware, ISTEA replaces the former federal
transportation program with a program that provides increased levels of funding and flexibility
in the manner funds can be allocated in an effort to assist public agencies meet their
transportation infrastructure needs. Nevertheless, the complexity of the implementing legislation
and maze of programs and their applicability to local jurisdiction requires a near-Herculean
effort t9 ferret out and Sandag staff certainly is working diligently to insure our region receives
all the funds possible.
It is my understanding that one of the items on the next agenda is the allocation of the $11
million Surface Transportation Program (STP) portion of ISTEA with a recommendation from
Sandag ztaff and a majority of our technical committee, the Combined Road Project (CRP)
Committee, to maintain the allocation formula previously used. The focus of my proposal is to
adjust this formula to better recognize the special needs of our cities especially in light of recent
reductions in property tax revenues. In an effort to "not rock the boat", the CRP Committee
is recommending that the STP funds be allocated as has been done since 1978 and re-authorized
in 1987 - 40% to regional agencies (25% CalTrans, 15% Transit) and 60% to local cities anc
the County. This 60% is distributed with each City receiving a base amount of $25,000, and
the remainder allocated on a per capita basis (see Attachment A).
Recognizing that today's unique circumstances are vastly different than experienced in 1978, anc
that ISTEA delivers approximately 35% more funding than previous programs, I suggest tha
we use the following allocation formula - 30% to regional agencies (20% CalTrans, 10%
transit), and 70% to local cities and County, with the per capita calculation identical to Sandag
staffs and increase in the base allocation to approximately $78,000 (see attachment B). Thi: formula assures CalTrans and transit districts approximately the same funding amount as ir previous years and provides cities with sorely needed funding(see Attachment C).
PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
e m
43 ;'c L ATTACEMENT A
*** PRELIMNARY DRAFT - UNAPPROVED *** I ',
FY92 ISTEB SURFACE TEANSPOBTBTION PROGRAM (STP)
UXAL lpcJHD ALLOCATION
SAN DTEGO REGION
*/ *I 5- nnnuc., - Urban Area Base fopuiatioi- --
jurisdiction Population Amount Ailocation Total
Carlsbad 64 , 300 25,000 141,083 .3P.clt'-
Chula Vista 138 , 700 25 , 000 304,326 '4, -.::
Coronado 26 , 600 25 , 000 58,364 i-3, jr-
Del Mar 4,880 25,000 10,707 >5,7L-
El Cajon 89 , 300 25,000 195,936 ''0 .gjh
Enc ini t as 56 , 000 25 , 000 122,872 147,877
Escond id o 110,800 25 , 000 243,110 Lh8,i IU
Imperial Beach 26,650 25,000 58,474 33,47$
La Mesa 53,300 25,000 116,947 i4l ,9G7
National City 55 , 700 25,000 122,213 147,213
Poway 44.450 25,000 97,529 122,529
San Diego 1,130,000 25 , 000 2,479,371 2,504,371
San Marcos 40 f 250 25,000 88,314 113,314
tee 53,200 2s ,000 116,728 141,728
Solana Beach 13,000 25,000 28,524 53,524
Vista 74,200 25 f 000 162,805 187,805
County - Urban 347,900 25,000 763,339 788 , 339
1,098,417
1,514,329
2,523,882
125,000
TOTAL 2,487,230 --_ - 11,193,944
Lemon Grove 24,300 25 , 000 53,317 78,317
Oceanside 133,700 25 , 000 293,356 318,356
--- 1,098,417 County - Rural ---
Transit (15%) --- 1,514,329 ---
CALTRANS (25%) ---
Regional Carpool --- --- 2,523,882
125,000 ---
m w
ATTACEMENT B
ALTERNATIVE FOBMIkA
Fp92 ISTEA SURFACE TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM (STP)
SAN DLEGO REGION
LOCAL FUHD ALWCATION -
- .. __.._--_ -:Dan rir&z kasr -- 11PGl.a L i0 Z 7:- 0 :
Jurisdiction Fopulation Amount: Aiiocarior, TOTAL
Carlsbad 64 , 300 78,152 141,083 219,1135
Chula Vista 138,700 78,152 304,326 -+07,47s
Co ronad o 26,600 78,153 58,364 136,516
Del Mar 4,880 78,152 10,707 88,859
El Cajon 89 , 300 78,152 195,936 274,088
Enc init a s 56 , 000 78,152 122,872 226,024
Escondido 110,800 78,152 243,110 321,262
Imperial Beach 26,650 78,152 58,474 136,626
La Mesa 53 , 300 78,152 116,947 195,099
Lemon Grove 24,300 78,152 53,317 131 , 469
National City 55,700 78 , 152 122,213 200 , 365
Oceanside 133 , 700 78,152 293 , 356 371,508
Poway 44 , 450 78,152 97,529 175,681
San Diego 1,130,000 78 , 152 2,479,371 2,557,523
.C tee 53 * 200 78,152 116 , 728 194,880
5- -ana Beach 13,000 78,152 28,524 106,676
Vista 74 , 200 78 , 152 162,805 240,957
County - Urban 347,900 78,152 763,339, 841,491 County - Rural , --- 1,098417 - --- 1,098,417
Transit (10%) --- 1,009,552 --- 1,009,552
CALTRANS (20%) --- 2,019,105 --- 2,019,105
Regional Carpool --- 125,000 --- 125,000
TOTAL 1,487,230 --- --- 11,193,944
San Marcos 40,250 78,152 88,314 166,466
@ a *.
1 llTTdcBwlTC
FUND DISTRLBUTIONS
ISTEB -ACE TRANSPORTATION PBOGBBM (STP)
FY91 Actual FY9 2 FY92 - 1987 Formula 1987 Formula Alternative Fc
Local Agency $4,330,844 $5,932,316 $6,941,870
Ca 1Tr an s 1,808,888 2,523,882 1,019,105
Transit 1,085,333 1,5 14,329 I, 009 , 55 2
125,000 125,000 Carpool 125,000
-
--
(m
of Governments .. SanDkgOAssoaPbon
t' e
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
September 25, 1992 AGENDA REPORT No.: R-6
DRAFT 1992-99 REGIONAL TIP - NEW ISTEA
CANDIDATE PROJECTS
Introduction
The 1992-99 Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP) is a seven-year progm
of proposed major transportation projects to be funded with various categories of federal, statt
and local funding. In November and December 1991, the Board approved an Interim 1992-9
RTIP programming approximately $5.1 billion for highway, transit, bikeway, and airpoi
projects. The Interim 1992-99 RTIP did not include the new federal Intermodal Surfac
Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) programs which received federal authorization i
December 1991, and for which California implementing legislation (SB1435, Kopp) is no1
before the Governor for signature,
In July 1992, local agencies and transportation operators were requested to submit candida1
transportation projects for the new federal ISTEA funding programs. This agenda item lists th
new candidate projects that have been submitted for Board consideration. Candidate projecl
for the new ISTEA Surface Transportation Program (STP) and Congestion Mitigation & A
Quality (CMAQ) programs greatly exceed estimated revenues, with about $364 million (
candidate projects and only $112 million of federal funds. These new ISTEA programs ha\
significantly increased flexibility with funds previously restricted to highways now available fc
most transportation programs including highways, streets and roads, transit, traffic signals, an
bikeways. This new flexibility and the increased local discretion provided by ISTEA wi
provide the Board the opportunity to select the most needed transportation projects for tl
federal funds. The candidate projects must now be reviewed for state and federal progrsu
eligibility with a priority list constrained to estimated revenues prepared for Board consideratioi
It is my
RECOMMENDATION
that the Board accept for public distribution and comment and for review by SANDAG
transportation committees the new ISTEA candidate project lists.
wj .b
Discussion
ISTEA Summary and Se nate Bill 1435: In December 1991, the President signed the 199’
Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) into law. The ISTEA provides thc
overall federal transportation program direction and authorized funding levels for the six-yea
period FY92-97. Overall, ISTEA authorized $155 billion nationwide for transportatioi
programs with approximately $14 billion for California highway, mass transit, highway safety
and other surface transportation programs. For FY92, the highway obligation authority tc California is approximately $1.34 billion, about $200 million (1 8 %) higher than previous years
ISTEA also provided a significant consolidation and redirection of federal transportatior
programs and policy including increased flexibility and local discretion in the use of federa
funds.
ISTEA has consolidated federal highway programs into four basic programs: National Highwa!
System (NHS), Surface Transportation Program (STP), Bridges, and Interstate. In addition
ISTEA has established a new Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) Program directec
towards transportation projects that improve air quality. Nearly all of the Interstate, NHS, an(
STP state funds have been committed to fund the 1992 (FY93-99) State Transportatior
Improvement Program (STIP). Most of the new ISTEA funds available for new projects wil
be allocated to and programmed by Regional Transportation Planning Agencies (RTPA’s)
including SANDAG, outside the STIP process, thereby not requiring subsequent approval by the
California Transportation Commission (CTC). New ISTEA programs to be allocated througl
SANDAG as described below include CMAQ, STP Regional, and STP Local.
Senate Bill 1435 (Senator Kopp), which is state legislation related to the implementation o
ISTEA in California, is now before the Governor for signature. The funding levels and progran
implementation procedures in this agenda item are based on SB1435. Under the provisions o
SB1435, SANDAG will receive from CALTRANS an annual apportionment of both Surfaa
Transportation Program (STP) and Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) funds. Tht
Board will program these funds to specific projects in the RTIP. Table A identifies thc
estimated allocation of both STP and CMAQ formula funds to the San Diego region. Agend;
Report R-63 is a related item dealing with the allocation of the FY92-97 ISTEA Surfaa
Transportation Program Local (STP-L) funds.
Conpestion - Mitigation & Air Oualitv (CMAO) Program: The CMAQ is a new ISTEA program
for implementation of transportation projects that improve air quality in non-attainment areas.
SB1435 allocates CMAQ funds to non-attainment areas only, using a population and air quality
severity factor. SANDAG’s estimated CMAQ funding for FY92 totals $1 1,050,000 as shown
on Table A or about $66.3 million over the FY92-97 period. In June 1992, the Board approved
eight CMAQ funded transit projects submitted by MTDB and NCTD as an amendment to the
1990-97 RTIP. These eight projects totalled $11,087,000 of CMAQ funds, including
additional $33.2 million of CMAQ funded projects.
Local agencies and transportation operators submitted more candidate projects for CMAQ
funding than all the other new ISTEA funding programs combined. Table 1 lists 94 candidate
2
$10,232,000 for 52 lower emission replacement buses. The 1992-99 RTIP may include an
a* e rn
CMAQ projects with a total cost of $367.5 million and an estimated federal CMAQ fund shut
of $247.5 million. The $247.5 million of requested CMAQ funding is about 4.5 times mort than the $55.2 million of CMAQ funds available for new projects.
Ten transit candidate projects requesting about $103.1 million of CMAQ funds were submitted
Included was $45.0 million for the Mission Valley East LRT, $18.1 million for the Oceanside
Escondido Commuter Rail project, and $39.1 million for four railroad grade separations i~
Oceanside. CALTRANS requested $43.1 million for three HOV lane projects on 1-5 and 1-15
and $47.7 Won for 42 ramp meter, HOV bypass, changeable message sign, and inciden
detector projects. Other CMAQ candidate projects listed in Table 1 include ten traffic signa
improvement projects ($6.4 million), twelve bicycle projects ($28.2 million), and thre
rideshardTDM projects ($5.4 million). The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and EPI
have not yet determined if freeway ramp metering projects are air quality beneficial anc
consequently ramp meter projects may be ineligible for CMAQ funding.
STP Regional and Local Program: The STP is a new flexible intermodal transportation progm
that essentially replaces the prior Federal Aid Primary (FAP), Urban (FAU), Secondary (FAS and Combined Road Plan (CRP) programs. SANDAG’s estimated STP fund allocation for FYS
as shown on Table A is $18,180,000 or about $109.1 million for the FY92-97 period. SB143
provides that a specified amount of the STP funds be apportioned for projects implemented t
cities, counties, and other transportation agencies on a fair and equitable basis essentially simil;
to prior year FAWCRP programs. In the San Diego region, these STP Local funds tot
$11,194,OOO annually which is about a 37% increase from the FY91 FAU urbanized are
funding levels and a 10% increase in FAS rural area funding. Agenda Report R-63 discuss
the allocation of the STP Local funds. The remaining STP Regional funds totalling about $41
million for the FY92-97 period are available for allocation and programming by the Board
any qualifying transportation projects.
Based on prior SANDAG Board policy and Proposition A TransNet Program commitments, sta
has submitted TransNet highway projects for the STP Regional funds ($41.9 million) and for tl
recommended 25 percent CALTRANS share of STP Local funds ($15.1 million). This wou
help restore most of the state/federal funds previously programmed by SANDAG for TransN
highway projects but subsequently not approved by the CTC. Allocation of these funds to tI
TransNet highway program should help offset previous cost increases and assist in retaining t
TransNet highway scheduling approved in the 1991 TransNet Plan of Finance. Tables 2 and
identify $57.0 million of federal STP funds for right of way acquisition on the Route 52 Ea
Route 76 North County, and Route 125 Sweetwater TransNet program projects. CALTRAF
supports the allocation of the STP Regional funds for TransNet highway projects.
Table 2 also includes 19 additional candidate projects submitted for STP Regional funds totalli
$53.9 million. Six projects submitted by Oceanside and totalling $33.0 million of STP fun
include five interchange improvements and a roadway widening project. MTDB submitted
transit projects totalling $20.9 million of STP funds. The MTDB projects upgrade the existi
light rail transit (LRT) lines, modify LRT stations and bus shelters, construct a park-and-ri
lot, improve trolley vehicle destination signs, and construct an intermediate access to the I-
3
w w
HOV express lanes and a new multimodal transportation facility at the San Ysidro Border
crossing.
Table 3 includes four STP Local projects submitted by the City of San Diego. These project!
agency project funds. Nearly all other jurisdictions intend to participate in the exchange of ST€
Local funds with TransNet highway funds and consequently have not submitted STP Loca
funded projects. CALTRANS has submitted three candidate projects totalling $5.5 million 01
federal funds that are not eligible for CMAQ funding but are eligible for STP Local funds
Included is a reconstruction of SR188 at the Tecate Border crossing, southbound auxiliary roac
improvements along Route 163 in Kearny Mesa, and an 1-15 truck climbing lane. In addition
CALTRANS wants any of their CMAQ candidate projects listed in Table 2 to also be considera
as STP Local candidates if they are ineligible for or do not receive CMAQ program funding.
Other ISTEA Proyrams: CALTMNS will implement two other ISTEA funding programs or
a statewide priority basis. These are the new STP Enhancement program and the expanda
federal Highway Bridge Replacement and Rehabilitation (HBRR) program. As yet, CALTRANI
has not issued specific project application guidelines for the STP Enhancement program nor i
new multi-year statewide local bridge replacement priority list. However, since the program!
involve federal ISTEA funding, the projects must be included in the RTIP prior to receivini
find federal funding approval.
ISTEA requires that ten percent of the statewide STP funds be earmarked for the new STE
Enhancement program encompassing a broad range of environmental-related activities. Use o
the enhancement funds is for measures that go beyond what is customarily provided througl
regular project environmental mitigation. Over the next several months, CALTRANS will br
developing guidelines and statewide funding levels for the STP Enhancement program. Tablc
4 identifies nineteen STP Enhancement projects that were submitted for inclusion in the 1992-95
RTIP. These projects totalling about $44.1 million are not restricted to a specified regiona
funding limitation and do not have to be placed in regional priority order at this time. Thc
Board may need to prioritize or constrain the STP Enhancement projects to a specified fundinl
level at some future time if required by the pending statewide guidelines.
Other federal funding programs that need to be included in the 1992-99 RTIP include the Federa
Transit Administration (FTA) Section 16(b)(2) program. This program administered bj
CALTRANS provides federal funding for the acquisition of small buses and vans to nonprofi
organizations that offer special transportation services to elderly and disabled persons. Tabk
6 programs $1.58 million of federal transit funds for the acquisition of 37 small buses and van!
and related equipment.
Table 7 includes twelve Traffic Systems Management (TSM) program projects scheduled ir
FY93 and one Highway System Operation & Protection Plan (HSOPP) project scheduled ir
FY95. All of these projects have been approved by CALTRANS and CTC in either thc
statewide 1992 (FY93) TSM Plan or the 1992 (FY93-96) HSOPP. The 13 projects totalling
$1 1.8 million generally consist of freeway ramp metering including HOV bypass lanes, traffic
would be funded from the City of San Diego local share of STP funds and not affect any othei
4
I)* c w
signal improvements, changeable message signs, and minor roadway realignment ant
channelization.
1992 RTIP Schedule: The Board is currently scheduled to adopt a Final 1992-99 RTIP i
December 1992. The final RTIP will consist of the Interim 1992-99 RTIP, the adopted 199:
State TIP, the FY92-99 TransNet Program of Projects, and the new federal ISTEA projects
An air quality conformity finding including a quantitative emissions analysis will also b
prepared for the final 1992-99 RTIP.
Staff will further discuss the new ISTEA candidate projects at the Board meeting.
KENNETH E. SULZER
Executive Director
Attachments
5
* e w
e m C 0
v)
v) W
.-
Li Eq 8 *z
E .I$ 3-u iJa 5
FZ 2 0 =k 0
zg f In, s
2s P %E z 0s +
5
; = .- C
m3 g “S 2 g si- o= w 2 s
K E .;Q =Gi;;;B C?mY -gm> g zi w, 3yL c GgEm
ma*, a
3% C > La w 0 t; 0 *--tern to
I ko pa v)_p z Q€E> 0 - 3 ‘f 2
c3 5k*
P .- gGg5 m.E =+- 0 w-2-
gJZ%b n 2 EZEE
-0 g m
CL
W ’b u S? < G
0
C 0
u) v
c3c L
v)
3
am
v)a =
5 E
C Lu
Lu 3 a5 Q)rT)-“ co 2
W
0 e-eem (D
0 e-tern a co Q)o--N(V co
4
, Om
cm
t;:g 2:
;$ m”
Lu cK5-1 -
Lu w 0-u
c3 W “,;si -
2-0
a p5g
PC, z
ZEq E- 3pro” 0
0cn.i:
am v)
=a :=;E
womg mC a;F %a a+- gC* a
Jw ~cn Eg --I-> 0- gcnLLoV) 2-w *17_ - 4
.* e W
NEW ISTEA CANDIDATE TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS
Draft 1992-99 Regional Transportation Improvement Program
SANDAG - September 25, 1992
LIST OF TABLES
Ea32
Table 1 Congestion Mitigation & Air Quality (CMAQ A- 1
Candidate Projects
Table 2 ISTEA Surface Transportation Program (STP) Regional A- 14
Candidate Projects
ISTEA Surface Transportation Program (STP) Local
Candidate Projects
A-18 Table 3
Table 4 ISTEA Surface Transportation Program (STP) Enhancement A-2 1
Candidate Projects
Table 5 ISTEA Bridge Replacement & Rehabilitation (HBRR) A-24
Candidate Projects
Table 6 Federal Transit Administration (FTA)Section 16(b)(2) A-26
Candidate Projects
Table 7 Traffic Systems Management (TSM) and Highway Systems A-28
Operation & Protection Plan (HSOPP) Candidate Projects
- 0 9
.
ABBREVIATIONS
ADA Americans With Disabilities Act
CMAQ
HBRR
HOV
HSOPP
IM Interstate Maintenance
ISTEA
LRT
MTDB
NCTD North County Transit District
NSDCTDB
Neutral
ROW Right of Way
Sec. 3
Sec. 9
Sec. 16(b)2
SLPP State/Local Partnership Program
STP Surface Transportation Program
STP-E STP Enhancement Program
STP-FE STP/TransNet Fund Exchange
STP-L STP Lucal Program
STP-R STP Regional Program
STP-S STP State Program
TCM
TransNet
TSM Traffic Systems Management Program
82RAQS
82RAQS,T-1 1982 RAQS Ridesharing Tactic
82RAQS,T-2 1982 RAQS Transit Tactic
82RAQS,T-3 1982 RAQS Bicycle Tactic
82RAQS,T-5
92RAQS
Congestion Mitigation & Air Quality Program
Highway Bridge Replacement & Rehabilitation Program
High Occupancy Vehicle (eg. Bus, Carpool, Vanpl)
Highway System Operation & Protection Plan
Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991
Light Rail Transit (eg. San Diego Trolley)
San Diego Metropolitan Transit Development Board
North San Diego County Transit Development Board
EPA/DOT Project Category Not Impacting Regional Emissions
FTA Section 3 Transit Program - Discretionary Funds
FTA Section 9 Transit Program - Formula Funds
FTA Section 16@)2 Transit Program
Transportation Control Measure (Air Quality Tactic)
Proposition A, 1/2% Local Transportation Sales Tax Program
1982 Regional Air Quality Strategy for San Diego Region
1982 RAQS Traffic Flow Improvements Tactic
1992 Regional Air Quality Strategy for San Diego Region
- w -_ 0
0
0
0
m
-c r -
2
%
3 8
z F
K n 3
gg
3:
5s p ;E &a - F% = 208 I-" 22
iq
NO
cn
a3 '0 P,
0)
90 OF
at 4s gz -0 OF a2 no zz a0 a0 s k Y
E d
3
6)-
5 2
A- 1
- w
P) c
).
m N
m
n.
om oomo nn nsnn
LLL 999 c-
F 2
ii i2 a 3 N(3
'0. %g
&a^ Na BE
&<
10
v %E
a3 bZ = $08 6 zz gE
&$ 8E $E
az -9 2k gp
4
r
3
gs rE
a3
l-l-l-I-+l-I- I- I-
a0 a0
2
P
I-
4
Q z
A- 2
-. m
-.. e
m .-
%
g n
CI)
0
c
c 5
fii a
s
Gg ma ma mm am am am ma am ma am
.;a Na w
kzi
c PCT c3
;rl zz Pg
Q+ Ea
02 mk AI gz -2
at3 22
CT L
5
hlQ
09 tin 0t mt *In tin tm u)(D tin wr-
PL
p
PC
: <d
a3 '0
wu wu wu uu wu wu wu wo wo wu $5
$8
Gs z E s si
a
w
v) 2
0 0
e
4
Z
0
A- 3
- w
m
8 *
P u-
ti B
c
c
7
0
Y
3 B
3 NO
-n gg
$3 a E= 9"
KC kg
s $a I-" zz
E$
$E
sg $8
0000 rnm (D Lorn lorn 0 UJUJUJUJ I-w t ww OUJ 4)- PF 8 .be*** ubub 4, &DQ, &
a3 '0
c n F%
PO OF
m- * mk
mz -P Ob 4
9
r d E
a
c B
2
0
A-4
e 0 ._ '. 2 - 0
u)
0) m p"
I=
I=
Y
fi!
8 7
b f NO a0 EE $5 Na E= gs? :E e$ - p. Fs
= <d r-" 22 g;
Ea Q)g mt &E
a2 -2
OF
a0 a0
z
a3 '0
0 -
Q)
22 2s
4
r - d n 2
F
0
A- 5
w w
m c -
(D
0 W 2
k
8
3
I-
i2 &
3 cv(1 %2
$$
5s p
PC ea a=, '0
r &cr - I-z : *a8 g zz 90 OF E8 enF +-
-9 c9I- 42 Bg $8
4
d
va
2: Q)
I-
W + E
n
a z
0
A-6
e w
._
m
0
b
0 m m P
-
IC
t z
fd
OJ +
cy a2
i$ R
3
8g
$$
EZ p
KC ea c?a
c eLg
O) :a = ad s zz SO UF: Eg
ak &E 82 v2
cJ+ a sg $8
4
E d
cu(3
'0
a-
+ 9
B
a z
0
A- 7
- w
m c
.c
a
Q a L
ki
b 5 B
2
& 3
Q
p k!c
CUQ a0 Eg
w
kia a2
10
F Ler
p1 +z
zz GO OF
at
mz .-2
PC3 22
2 dd 43 43 43 (D 4, 43
E$
$E
ZG
sg
a-
ou 0
4
k! d B 2 a 0
I- Y
A- 8
W
._
m .-
0
Q)
m
'c
&
0
I- % II c % 3 E
d
8g
tieyr
a2
E
NO
~n q
g"-
EE
F ks Zi $4 s zz gz
%$
$E
2% si $00
a3 '0
Q, Q, Q, Q, *
m- mk
mz c4
9
d
5
I=
W I-
s
B 2
A-9
w w
-clmcl e***
A-10
0 W
cr) -c
r
c c
0 - m 8
n
%
8
3 +
2 P 3 a
NO CnO ma -L m-o^ Na 8%
hzi as ‘0
r Pfc
a! I-z = $08 I-” zz 90 OF kg
?E NE 32 -,o a+ a% s: m -- $8
4 z
d
p
L4
W I-
P 2
0 a
A-I 1
W w
m
r 0
cy
e m
0
c
F
I- Y
8 3 E
gg
m' 5 Na EZ mo_ 5
r gg
z &tJ I-" zz
E5
$I
SO UI-I- (3F 4 gg 28
4
? d E
a
c
3 NU
'IL
k$
a3 '0 n
a?
90 UF
mk a-
2
I- E
z
0
A-1 2
0 W - -*
m
-LC
m
0 01
F
c
d
c v)
c
3
&
zi
M B
3
@
p :E
.- Q) Fa = $08 i? zz
#g
gz
5?: $8
NO
CP :g
85
sa a3 '0
bU
SO CJ;
mk
m= -P W+ aY
3
E 2 5
m-
+ 2
3
A-1 3
. -* e m
.* ;
0 m
0
c
m b K 0
ta
!4 2 E F
gs
3
=i c
n Nb
$S
k!g
E$ 85
a3 c2
I2 sz sg
EW au ma ?& zz E4 4 80 2; a= 4 !i
3
au
Ea
*b
N Qa
B dw
* *e?
W b
n
a z
0
A-14
w w
d
0
lv
0 W (D L
*-
F
c Y
g ;3 E z
@JI- mu3 m-
-E sa
#g
E2 hE ?z
a P= - a9 bB
E5 v5 2s w 0s 80 2s sa a
e? @Jer &z9e(3
Zk
5 g$
E+
wav weev wav r-l
w I= E w I-
P z
0
B
a
A-1 5
r 0 0
8 d
h( Q)
A-1 6
w w
w r
t a W 2
I-
4
I-
2
# 3 B
E
3s
gg z; k0
WF ?$
“1 &a
9) I-2 $ gm
E? 3W ao eg
8P
0s do ZE sa 4
v d
3
LL
Nk
.E
a<l
b)m m- c
“13
rA
I- I?
E z
A-1 7
e rn
* ,@
0
0
a.
q2
g
c
c c c c. c
0 0 5 5 5 .. - .. - .. - .. - .. -
I- v, d
I- % 8
Nd slk -
m'B Na F5E si2
LE ?Z
*$ =I-
Q c-8 dL 5 bu, F zz "d sc- aw mu ?$ NU %s r ss 29 $5 5 r B B
a
U n
c1
Q,
W&
2
0
A-1 8
I- W
m
4-4
m
r
0
h
l- 2 d I= B i2
tug !&
$5 E5 !is
t9
z &
O2 Ec
E2
3s 3 $5
P d E
a
LL
L.
-2
WD
"F 'a Dl- *) Fpc
c 22
P)
KW mu ?Z Ne
I- Y
z
0
A-1 9
0 0 8
m
L 0
5
PI
*)
W
a
4-
E m
n C .- m c V 0 - i
8
6
a
E P
3
I- f g 2 8
e b 2 4
.- E. 2 .E
22 a!
vc? Qd. UiP E$ gg s; “d Bo H .P E Z?
Do i: q % :E m kk ID0 - 8-
ria a 22
$3 b .E
s
5-0 EI- a8
L .OD
@t; B .P :E 5L.i Q v
8%
@’o
a? ab
zv .E a 5s
4 I- :;
r
- a o? .- &a UZ
-0 CA
Q
1
a2+
SC cs
‘6
00
Am
c5 v)c
Ua n
KW
“K
0- m0 ’W 93
CQ
ma a
80
8W
BE
Y
a e E2
.L A aa 50
06 e -
P 2 U 0 -c
03 3
c a
;a
:o 25 z:
-e
=Z
a2 am 3 .f a~ 0% .. E-: 0 z
A-20
W w
m
8
0 01
h
r
c
iz
8 3
zz .a KG $2
E5 LS
ac '2 t =a
B -15 c" 9, PO q 4,4,4,4,4, 32 Q)2 Ea c9E 2s
$5 r d
2
3 c-
cu= rn&
%%%gg 8 tcC, (3aD re4 4,- *e4 4,4,4,4,4, 7 3 4,- 8-0 sg
4, 4, 4, 4, 4,
rnn
c-I 0
c9k
Q)
Zb-
Ei
0
A-21
0 0 *.?
m
'c 0
e4
P) m
n
tij
k! 3 CUE zz a &a
aco #E z; kg
me
t &a
5i Jzu c" %L PP
wa :k Tg Q
2U OF S$ 52
- d
5
=
F
oah
a11
'Z
FI 0
c9k
Zk
w I-
n z
A-22
W w
(3
c
m
8 n"
F
I=
Y
8 3
zs 4 fia 'E 8
5%
hz g
t &a
B -Iz I-" 1, SS
wa :ki @ g2 4
qa :E p
2
Nee: mk
aak
CW
z
CX 0)
a+
ab
w
P n
a z
0
A-23
*- A 0 0 -
N k-
c
0) m d
I- I?I 4
I- g 3 &
NZ gp rn :z
#$ 5% kk %G la
It) E5
(u i=a
s za c 2c Q, eZ EZ
"4 ** To.
3=
rnddrn -*In m*In mmmm mmm mmm
-2
c
-
KO
*w
rW c3 #E
q Zrn
2
W I- d
a
5 z
u
t
A-24
w w
N
).
N
0 CD B
s 7
k! 8 E
gs
sz
Ez mG 52 kk si Ia
m EI
a 2. I-" z+ aZ !2g
"4 X&
%a gn z:
z
k
NE
-0 *z
0)
=u
rW Q
*P E
W
i5
a z
0
A-25
m 0 **
'Y y
c
n K
z
M 3 4 a3 g2 m.&
k!g zg E* &g 'F
(O &a
aa ka z 2s c" zz 22E
Ea a3k ?g %a ZE ad 4 Qw 2a aw wu. W
3 c
cur a2
On
i E
a z
0
W w
cy
u-
cy
0 m
P
!i
%
P -2 := :2 az
Lo
=
I-
i2
ii:
E3
?g WZ
a sa +a 2 AI- a a% c zg sz an Ea mk p ma ZP ad as nu zn $E E a e n
a Z
0
A-27
sa As
-L 6
g B
PI
c
c
I-
8
E i2 n
3 Q.
E
E
P s:
Z 0 cur %E
m'o flE
Ea
'I-
BE
kg
'55 b %&
P) t-0 = gE s I- $?
MUZ
WU
Wu) ig
2%
NI
'I
(308
gg
$k
E
E 9 2
E
5j
2
t-
E
E
v)
2 u.
ce +
A-28
V
N
).
N
0 m
t
c
I?
!!
b! 8 E
8
e 0 0
3 3
Ne %2
L6g
gs
!zE
?3
g sz & et; 3 v w
P.
L
'c-
No
Ea WZ
W yc Po gA c-0
wr
--x
(36 pg
st
E
t 9 9
c-
E
E u I- ua %
$?
!! I-
A-29