Meeting_Body
EXECUTIVE MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE
OCTOBER 20, 2016
Subject/Action
SUBJECT: FEDERAL FREIGHT FUNDING PROGRAM UPDATE
ACTION: RECEIVE AND FILE
Heading
RECOMMENDATION
Title
RECEIVE AND FILE report on Federal Freight Funding Program Update.
Issue
ISSUE
At the August 25, 2016 Metro Board meeting, the Board unanimously approved Motion #52 by Directors Garcetti, Knabe, Antonovich, Solis, Dubois and Fasana (Attachment A) that directed the CEO to provide an update on federal freight funding opportunities at the October Metro Board of Directors meeting, including efforts made for the first year of the federal FASTLANE grant competition, lessons learned and strategies to secure future FASTLANE funding, and the creation of a Freight Corridor Implementation Working Group (Working Group).
Background
The Fixing America’s Surface Transportation Act (FAST Act), a five-year transportation authorization bill funded at $305 billion and signed into law on December 4, 2015, established the Nationally Significant Freight and Highway Projects (NSFHP) program to provide federal financial assistance to projects of national or regional significance. This grant program, also known as the Fostering Advancements in Shipping and Transportation for the Long-term Achievement of National Efficiencies (FASTLANE) grant program, was authorized at $4.5 billion for fiscal years (FY) 2016 through 2020, with $800 million for FY 16 to be awarded by the Secretary of Transportation and vetted by Congress.
On March 2, 2016 a Notice of Funding Opportunity (NOFO) was published by the Office of the Secretary of Transportation that provided information to solicit applications for FY 16 FASTLANE grants. The NOFO provided eligibility criteria for agencies and projects as well as application requirements. The deadline for grant applications to be submitted was April 14, 2016, providing approximately six weeks for agencies to submit their application(s).
Metro as lead sponsor submitted its maximum of three projects to be considered for a total of $68.8 million in FASTLANE grants. The projects selected for consideration were as follows:
• State Route 71 Freeway Conversion Project (SR 71 Project)
• I-110/I-405 Interchange Improvements Project (110/405 Project)
• Freight Advanced Traveler Information System (FRATIS) project, developed in partnership with the Gateway Cities Council of Governments (GCCOG)
Metro also worked with the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) to submit an additional application for the Rosecrans/Marquardt Grade Separation Project as one of Caltrans’ three FASTLANE project submissions.
In addition to these projects, other agencies in Los Angeles County submitted projects for FASTLANE grants, including the following:
Alameda Corridor-East Construction Authority (ACE)
• Montebello Boulevard Grade Separation
• Durfee Avenue Grade Separation
Cities of Diamond Bar and Industry
• 57/60 Confluence Project
Port of Long Beach
• Middle Harbor Upgrades and Expansion
• Terminal Island Wye Track and Realignment
Port of Los Angeles
• On-Dock Rail Improvements
Overall, the United States Department of Transportation (USDOT) received 212 applications submitted for a total of $9.8 billion for the FY 16 FASTLANE cycle.
On July 6, 2016, USDOT Secretary Anthony R. Foxx submitted a letter to House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Chairman Bill Shuster (Attachment B), Senate Environment and Public Works Chairman Jim Inhofe, and ranking members Congressman Peter DeFazio and Senator Barbara Boxer, respectively, informing them of the 18 projects that would be awarded a total of $759.2 million in FASTLANE grants for FY 16 (Attachment C).
Metro’s three projects were not selected for a FASTLANE grant for FY 16, nor was any other project in Los Angeles County or in the six-county Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) region, despite the presence of nationally significant and major freight infrastructure facilities such as:
• The Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach, which combined constitute the 9th largest port in the world for container traffic and handle 40% of the nation’s container traffic
• Major highways like I-710, I-5 and SR-60 that are congested by thousands of trucks a day in support of the movement of freight nationally and regionally
• Two major Class I freight railroad operators moving containers to and from the rest of the country
The only project selected in California was the State Route 11/Otay Mesa East Port of Entry Project located in San Diego County which received $49.3 million, constituting only 6.5% of the FASTLANE grant funding available for FY 16.
California-particularly Los Angeles County-plays a primary role as the international trade gateway moving goods throughout the country. California’s gross state product of $2.46 trillion makes it the world’s sixth largest economy following the United States as a whole, China, Japan, Germany, and the United Kingdom.
Los Angeles County’s population of 10.2 million would make it the country’s eighth largest state (approximately), after Ohio and before Georgia, with a gross county product of $670 billion that would make it the world’s 20th largest economy on its own.
Consequently, the outcome for the FY 16 FASTLANE grant cycle has caused concern among local, state, and federal officials. On July 13, 2016, a letter signed by 16 members of Congress raising concerns with the lack of FY 16 FASTLANE grant funding being awarded to the Los Angeles County region was submitted by Congressmember Janice Hahn to Secretary Foxx (Attachment D).
In response to the results of the FY 16 FASTLANE grant, and to assist Metro in preparation for competing for federal funding during the remaining four years of the FASTLANE program, Metro Board Directors Garcetti, Knabe, Antonovich, Solis, Dubois and Fasana submitted Motion #52 in August 2016.
Discussion
DISCUSSION
Motion #52 called for several tasks to be completed, as detailed in Sections A through E (Attachment A). Metro’s staff response is as follows:
A. Review MTA’s process for selecting the three projects presented for the first year of FASTLANE grants, including the list of projects and selection process.
Metro staff reviewed the different elements of the FASTLANE program to determine which projects would be most competitive to submit for consideration. The review determined the following:
• Pursuant to the FASTLANE program, up to $500 million of the $4.5 billion may be used for freight rail, ports, or other freight intermodal projects that make significant improvements to freight movement on the National Highway Freight Network. Only the non-highway portion(s) of multimodal projects count toward the $500 million maximum. With the exception of the Interstate 710 Freight Corridor project, there are no eligible projects that would match this element.
• Grade crossing and grade separation projects do not count toward the $500 million maximum for freight rail, port and intermodal projects.
• FASTLANE earmarks at least 25% of funding (e.g. $190 million in FY 16) for projects located in rural areas.
• FASTLANE authorizes funding for Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) programs that conduct research to advance transportation safety, mobility and environmental sustainability through electronic and information technology applications.
• One of the key requirements in the NOFO is Project Readiness. Projects are required to demonstrate the ability to begin construction within 18 months of obligating FASTLANE funding. For the FY 16 FASTLANE cycle, the expected obligation deadline is September 30, 2019.
Future cycles of FASTLANE are expected to follow the same approximate process, thus creating a reasonable guide for project eligibility for upcoming cycles.
FASTLANE Grant Deadlines* for Start of Project Construction
|
FASTLANE APPLICATION CYCLE BY FISCAL YEAR |
REQUIRED CONSTRUCTION START DATE* |
|
2016 |
September 2019 |
|
2017 |
September 2020 |
|
2018 |
September 2021 |
|
2019 |
September 2022 |
|
2020 |
September 2023 |
*Extrapolated dates based on FY16 FASTLANE grant deadline to begin construction.
This sharp focus on projects being “shelf ready” eliminated several projects for consideration for submittal, particularly on major freight corridors I-710, I-5 and I-605 that would not have been ready to go to construction by the FY 16 FASTLANE deadline.
SELECTION PROCESS
Based on the parameters defined in the FASTLANE grant NOFO guidelines, Metro staff found it difficult to identify highly competitive projects for FY 16. However, to seize the opportunity, staff decided to select the projects that could reasonably demonstrate eligibility and be submitted for consideration.
A rigorous two-step screening and selection process was used to identify candidate projects for the FY16 FASTLANE grant funding cycle. The first step in the process involved reviewing and compiling a preliminary list of eligible projects, with particular importance attached to existing facilities with the following challenges:
• Constrained roadway geometrics
• High average daily traffic (ADT) and truck volumes
• Levels of Service (LOS) reported to be E (or worse) on designated freight corridors
Emphasis was placed on identifying projects that would do the following:
• Improve mobility
• Facilitate goods movement
• Correct deficient roadway geometrics
• Eliminate bottlenecks
• Enhance truck movement and access.
In addition, non-traditional operational improvement projects that apply new and innovative technologies to support and optimize freight/goods movement, and improve the overall efficiency of the freeway system were also identified.
The second step in the selection process involved screening and evaluating the preliminary list of projects against the FASTLANE goals and grant requirements (e.g. review of project schedules, funding, etc.) to develop a final list of candidate projects for submission.
The inventory of highway projects conducted during the screening and selection process for the FASTLANE grant revealed that a number of potentially qualified projects were either delayed in the environmental phase of the project development process, lacked project funding or simply were not project ready. For example, the Interstate 710 Freight Corridor (I-710 South) project, one of our most competitive project corridors based on project impact, has been in the environmental process since 2008 and will not be cleared until 2018, with a potential construction start date well beyond the September 2019 deadline. Completion of this regionally significant project will also be contingent on funding which has not yet been secured.
Other highway projects considered were also precluded from consideration due to similar circumstances, such as a major funding shortfall or an extended or too nascent environmental process driving a potential construction start date beyond the FY 16 FASTLANE requirement.
After deliberation, staff selected the following projects to be submitted by Metro for the FY16 FASTLANE grant cycle. A brief narrative and other information about the projects considered but not selected for the FY 16 FASTLANE grant cycle funding are included in Attachments A and B.
• Interstate 110/405 Interchange Improvements Project - an operational improvement on I-110 that includes construction of an auxiliary lane and other improvements on southbound I-110 at the I-405 interchange.
o Total Project Cost $ 45,200,000
o Funds Available $ 18,800,000
o FASTLANE Grant Request $ 15,000,000
Justification for eligibility of this project: I-110 is a direct access route to the Port of Los Angeles.
• State Route 71 Mission Boulevard to SR 60 Conversion Project - an upgrade of the existing 4-lane expressway to an 8-lane, grade-separated freeway by adding mixed flow lanes and High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lanes and closing off at-grade intersections on the facility.
o Total Project Cost $ 181,500,000
o Funds Available $ 0
o FASTLANE Grant Request $ 40,000,000
Justification for eligibility of this project: Helps eliminate the bottleneck at the SR 71/SR 60 interchange and provides an important link between two major east-west freight corridors (SR 60 and I-10).
• Freight Advanced Traveler Information System (FRATIS) Project - applies advanced transportation technologies to optimize truck and terminal operations between the San Pedro Bay Ports and helps improve overall freeway system performance.
o Total Project Cost $ 23,000,000
o Funds Available $ 9,200,000
o FASTLANE Grant Request $ 13,800,000
Justification for eligibility of this project: The innovative technology used to optimize freight operations would improve the overall freeway system performance and add capacity.
B. Present on lessons learned from the first FASTLANE grant cycle, outlook for the future FASTLANE grant cycles, and strategies for better positioning MTA to secure funding from future FASTLANE cycles.
Lessons learned from FY 16 and strategies for future FASTLANE grant cycles
State DOTs were very successful as lead applicants
FASTLANE allowed a broad spectrum of eligible applicants to submit grant applications, including local governments and political subdivisions of a state or local government in addition to port authorities and state Departments of Transportation. Each eligible applicant was allowed three applications as the lead applicant.
Despite this expanded opportunity for local government agencies to compete for FASTLANE funding, only two were successful in securing a grant - the cities of Seattle and Tukwila in Washington State. The remaining 16 FASTLANE grants were awarded to applications submitted by a state Department of Transportation (DOT) or a Port Authority.
Eleven large projects and seven small projects received a FASTLANE grant. Of these projects, state DOTs submitted successful grant applications for eight large projects and four small projects, for a total of 12 of the 18 FASTLANE grant awards. Port Authorities submitted four successful applications.
Strategy: In future FASTLANE grant cycles, Metro should consider seeking support from Caltrans to serve as lead applicant for at least one of our projects, especially one that is highly competitive and seeks a large award.
Stand-alone Grade Separation projects were not as successful as expected
Grade Separation projects overall were minimally successful in the FY 16 FASTLANE cycle. Of the 18 projects selected, only two stand-alone grade separation projects (both in Washington State) were selected for funding, for a total of $50 million (6.6% of total funding available) combined. Another project in Oklahoma with a grade separation feature was also selected for funding.
Three grade separation projects in Los Angeles County - two submitted by ACE and one by Caltrans for the Rosecrans/Marquardt Project - were unsuccessful in this FASTLANE round. Metro submitted the Rosecrans/Marquardt Project for a USDOT Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery (TIGER) grant as well, and subsequently secured a $15 million TIGER grant for this vital safety and capacity project in the Gateway Cities subregion.
Grade separations have enjoyed success in previous federal authorization bills, given their role in improving highway safety and mobility more so than providing enhanced capacity for freight railroad activity. While other factors, including geographical diversity, may have played more significant roles in final project selection, understanding USDOT project priorities up front could be helpful.
Strategy: In future FASTLANE grant cycles, Metro should consider incorporating grade separation and bridge replacement/repair projects into larger corridor projects wherever possible and practical instead of submitting projects as stand-alone grade separations to provide for a stronger application.
Rural Projects Were More Successful than Expected
The FAST Act included direction that at least 25% of each fiscal year’s FASTLANE grants be set aside for projects - whether large or small - located in rural areas, defined as an area outside of a U.S. Census Bureau designated urbanized area with a population over 200,000. [23 U.S.C. 117(i)].
For the FY 16 cycle of FASTLANE grants, $268.5 million was allocated to eight rural projects - constituting over 35% of funding available, well above the 25% minimum.
Los Angeles County did not submit a project that qualified as rural, primarily because nearly all of Los Angeles County is located in what is considered an “urbanized area”. However, certain portions of unincorporated North Los Angeles County outside the city limits of Lancaster, Palmdale, and Santa Clarita are considered rural according to FASTLANE rules and could yield a project that could compete for funding from this portion of the FASTLANE program, which could be as much as $1.5 billion of the $4.5 billion available over its five-year span, that would otherwise go to the rest of the country.
Strategy: Metro should consider working with Caltrans District 7 and Los Angeles County to develop an eligible rural project to compete for a FASTLANE grant in future fiscal year cycles. To provide maximum flexibility for Metro, this discussion should determine whether such a project should be submitted by Metro or Los Angeles County as the lead applicant.
Multimodal Projects Performed Well
FASTLANE provides up to $500 million total over the life of the grant program (FY 16 to FY 20) for non-highway portions of multimodal projects to be used for freight rail, port, or other freight intermodal projects that make significant improvements to freight movement on the National Highway Freight Network. This provision requires that these portions funded by FASTLANE must provide public benefit.
Seven of the 18 projects selected for a FASTLANE grant included a multimodal element that qualified for this funding, including the Atlantic Gateway project in Virginia which received the largest award ($165.0 million) overall and had a $45.0 million non-highway multimodal component.
Strategy: Metro should consider working with Union Pacific, BNSF, the Port of Los Angeles and the Port of Long Beach to determine if there are opportunities to combine project elements into a multimodal project that would be deemed more competitive for a FASTLANE grant and access the remaining $326.5 million (65.3%) of the $500.0 million capacity for these types of project elements.
Large Projects received 90% of FASTLANE funding, as anticipated
FASTLANE provides guidance that grants will be divided into large and small projects, with specific requirements for determining under which category a project will fall. Regardless of project size, FASTLANE grants may not exceed 60% of future eligible project costs.
Of great importance is that under FASTLANE, 90% of funding ($4.05 billion over five years) is made available for Large Projects, with 10% set aside for Small Projects. The definition for Small and Large Projects, how they fared in the FY 16 FASTLANE cycle, and how Metro’s projects were categorized is found in the following chart:
|
FASTLANE Grants: Project Size Categories |
|
Project Size |
Small |
Large |
|
Minimum Grant Award |
$5 million |
$25 million |
|
Project Cost |
Under $100 million |
$100 million or more |
|
Portion of FASTLANE funding per cycle available |
10% |
90% |
|
Overall Amount Awarded in FY 16 |
$75.92 million (10%) |
$683.28 million (90%) |
|
Number of Projects Awarded Funding |
7 |
11 |
|
Average Project Award |
$7.59 million |
$62.12 million |
|
Urban Projects |
3 of 7 (42.9%) |
7 of 11 (63.6%) |
|
Rural Projects |
4 of 7 (57.1%) |
4 of 11 (36.4%) |
|
|
|
|
|
Metro FASTLANE Grant Applications |
Small |
Large |
|
FRATIS |
$23.0 million Project Cost $13.8 million Request |
|
|
110/405 |
$45.2 million Project Cost $15.0 million Request |
|
|
SR 71 |
|
$181.5 million Project Cost $40.0 million Request |
$100 million cost threshold applies to California projects per the FASTLANE Notice of Funding Opportunity (pp. 9-10, Attachment B)
Of the three grants Metro submitted for FASTLANE awards in FY 16, two of the grant applications (FRATIS and 110/405) were considered Small Projects and competed against other Small Projects nationally, while only the SR 71 Project was eligible for a Large Project FASTLANE grant award.
Strategy: Metro should consider submitting at least two Large Projects per FASTLANE cycle, leaving the third project open for a Small Project (like FRATIS), in order to have the best opportunity to access the 90% of funding available for Large Projects.
Outlook for future FASTLANE grant cycles
The remaining four years of FASTLANE grants (FY 17-20) will provide up to $3.7 billion in funding for which Metro will have an opportunity to compete. Given the requirements for project readiness for construction within 18 months of obligation of a FASTLANE grant, some of Metro’s larger freight-focused highway projects-such as I-5 South and I-710 South-were not yet ready for submission for the FY 16 FASTLANE cycle.
With each year that passes, more of Metro’s projects, especially the larger ones under environmental review, will become eligible to submit for a FASTLANE grant. Additionally, creating early action elements for these larger projects could provide opportunities to obtain FASTLANE funding for larger projects before the entire project can be cleared environmentally.
Metro staff has reviewed the list of current highway projects that would be considered eligible for future FASTLANE cycles and has identified several - including early action projects - that could contend for a future FASTLANE grant award (Attachment F). Staff will continue to seek opportunities to expand this list of projects for future freight funding opportunities.
FAST Act National Highway Freight Program formula funds - California
In addition to the FASTLANE grant program, the FAST Act also authorized the National Highway Freight Program (NHFP) which allocates funding to each state by formula. These funds are designed to improve the condition of and performance of the National Highway Freight Network.
California will receive up to $582.36 million with an allocation provided each federal FY, according to the legislation.
|
California’s Share of NHFP Formula Funds |
|
FY 16 |
FY 17 |
FY 18 |
FY 19 |
FY 20 |
TOTAL |
|
$106.3 M |
$101.7 M |
$110.9 M |
$124.8 M |
$138.7 M |
$582.4 M |
To date these funds have not yet been distributed, as the process by which they will be allocated within the state has been a focus of discussion and legislation in Sacramento over the past year.
Metro has a strong interest in securing these funds for goods movement projects within the region. Of particular interest for Metro’s FASTLANE strategy is the potential for these funds to be used as matching funds for FASTLANE grant applications, thus creating additional opportunities to provide a financial strategy to support future FASTLANE grant applications.
On September 28, 2016 Governor Brown vetoed AB 2170 (Frazier) that sought to allocate these funds through the Trade Corridor Improvement Fund (TCIF) process administered by the California Transportation Commission (CTC). The Governor’s veto message provided direction to the California State Transportation Agency to work with the CTC and the author to ensure these funds are allocated to high-priority trade projects as soon as practicable.
Metro will continue to develop a strategy to access these funds in support of the region’s goods movement priorities and in accordance with the process laid out by the state.
C. Establish a Freight Corridor Implementation Working Group which includes representatives from the following:
1. MTA Deputy Executive Officer for Goods Movement
2. Representatives from the Gateway Cities Council of Governments
3. The I-5 Joint Powers Authority
4. Caltrans District 7
5. Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG)
6. Alameda Corridor-East Construction Authority (ACE)
7. Alameda Corridor Transportation Authority (ACTA)
8. Port of Long Beach & Port of Los Angeles
On September 13, 2016, Metro CEO Phil Washington sent a letter to the leadership of each of the agencies identified in Section B to request a high-level representative be selected and confirmed by September 23, 2016 for the Working Group.
Each agency responded by the deadline and provided its representatives (Attachment F).
Following the identification of a representative from each stakeholder agency, Metro set up the Working Group’s first meeting on October 13, 2016.
D. Activation of “charter” for the Working Group, including but not limited to, the following:
1. Development of early action implementation projects with advanced environmental planning in
place
2. Identification of actions to accelerate and expedite the Early Action Projects which shall
include Public Private Partnership (P3) opportunities and strategy
3. Preparation of a strategic action program targeted to access the maximum amount of federal
freight formula funds apportioned by FHWA to the state, including proposed criteria for the
State to use in a project selection process, i.e., Trade Corridor Improvement Fund (TCIF)
At the first meeting of the Working Group the “charter” will be discussed, with the outcome of the discussion presented by oral report to the Metro Board in October.
E. A comprehensive review of federal advocacy in support of Metro’s FASTLANE grant applications, including an assessment of our communications, outreach, and strategies employed to secure these grant funds.
Summary:
The Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority’s (Metro) Federal Affairs Team strategically advocates for all of Metro’s federal grant applications by seeking support through the key steps of educating our congressional delegation, relevant congressional committee members, officials at the White House and USDOT, and by building a coalition of stakeholders to express support for the projects submitted for funding opportunities. As a result of Metro’s strategic efforts with respect to federal grants over the last several years, our agency has had the most successful track record in the nation with respect to securing federal transportation grants.
With respect to the USDOT’s FY 16 FASTLANE grants cited in Motion #52, Metro’s Federal Affairs staff coordinated with Metro’s Planning Department staff to identify key aspects of the project applications that include cost, financing, scope, project partners, goals, and project justification/benefits. This information was used to develop suggested draft support letters and to create easy to understand fact sheets for each grant application. These fact sheets and draft support letters assisted Metro’s staff in explaining the projects and to garner support from elected officials and stakeholders. Once all materials were developed for each project application, Metro’s team reached out to request support letters from the congressional members that represent the projects within their congressional district as well as California’s two U.S. senators which represent all projects that Metro submits for federal funding.
Actions:
Congressional Outreach - Metro’s staff used a combination of meeting with both District and Washington, DC offices to inform our congressional delegation of the projects that we had applied for under the FASTLANE Grant program and to request letters of support for each of the projects. The fact sheets and suggested draft support letters were provided to each office and Metro staff followed up to answer any supplemental questions those offices had on the projects. Metro received letters of support from U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein, Congresswoman Maxine Waters, Congresswoman Hahn, and Congresswoman Torres - all members who represent areas that would be favorably impacted by our FASTLANE projects. Lastly, Metro staff met and advocated for our projects with key staff on the relevant congressional committees that worked to create the FASTLANE program within the FAST Act - specifically, the U.S. Senate’s Environment and Public Works Committee and the U.S. House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee.
White House and U.S. Department of Transportation - Metro staff met with the White House Intergovernmental Affairs Office, Office of Management and Budget and with U.S. Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx to advocate for Metro’s FASTLANE projects and answer any and all questions related to our grant requests. In addition, Metro staff communicated support letters we received from our congressional delegation and stakeholders to key staffers within the Obama Administration.
Stakeholder Outreach - Metro’s staff worked with a wide range of stakeholders to build awareness within Congress of the need to improve the movement of freight in and across Southern California. In addition, Metro coordinated with the Coalition of America’s Gateways and Trade Corridors in Washington, DC to advocate for our specific grant applications as well as to advocate for the USDOT to select projects with the strongest performance measures that would have the greatest impact for the funding being awarded.
Conclusion:
Through the strategic approach of advocating for Metro’s FASTLANE projects before Congress, the Administration, and with local, regional and national stakeholders, Metro developed a base of support for Metro’s FASTLANE applications. While we were not successful in winning an award this year, we look forward to developing an advocacy strategy for the next round of FASTLANE grants in order to be successful in future years.
Similar to the FASTLANE grant program, Metro has not won TIGER Grant awards every year the program has been offered, but by employing proven, coordinated advocacy strategies, Metro has won five out of the eight rounds of TIGER Grant funding as well as securing the largest TIGER Grants awarded in California for the past three years in a row. We have employed similar advocacy strategies with respect to our New Starts grants, which has resulted in our agency securing nearly five times our historical annual share of New Starts funds ($300 million annually).
F. Presentation of an interim report and recommendations by the working group to the October MTA Board meeting of the Board of Directors.
As the first meeting of the Working Group was scheduled for October 13, 2016 this report will be provided under separate cover to the Board.
Determination_Of_Safety_Impact
DETERMINATION OF SAFETY IMPACT
No impact to safety exists as a result of this report. Success in acquiring federal funding for freight movement projects in Los Angeles County will provide opportunities to improve the safety of the highway and rail system in Los Angeles County.
Alternatives_Considered
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
Alternatives for FASTLANE strategies will be developed within the Working Group and in consultation with various Metro departments to secure as much funding as possible with every freight funding opportunity that becomes available.
Next_Steps
NEXT STEPS
With receipt of this report by the Board, staff will continue to develop recommendations through the Working Group and prepare for securing funding from the FASTLANE federal freight grant program, the Freight Formula funds allocated to California, and additional funds wherever possible to implement the recommendations of the Working Group.
Attachments
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A - August 25, 2016 Motion #52 (File #2016-0487)
Attachment B - July 1, 2016 Letter from USDOT Secretary Foxx to Chairman Shuster
Attachment C - US DOT Proposed FY 2016 FASTLANE Project Awards
Attachment D - Letter from Federal Delegation to USDOT Secretary Foxx
Attachment E - Future FASTLANE Grant Candidate Project Information
Attachment F - Metro Freight Corridor Implementation Working Group Roster
Prepared_by
Prepared by: Michael C. Cano, Deputy Executive Officer, Goods Movement, (213) 418-3010
Reviewed_By
Reviewed by: Therese W. McMillan, Chief Planning Officer, (213) 922-7077
