TIP Modifications | SLIDE Lehi 700 S/Rail Trail Phase III Utah - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

▶
tip modifications
SMART_READER_LITE
LIVE PREVIEW

TIP Modifications | SLIDE Lehi 700 S/Rail Trail Phase III Utah - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Aug 31, 2023 487 likes •800 views

TIP Modifications | SLIDE Lehi 700 S/Rail Trail Phase III Utah County - Rail Trail Phase III Selected 2012 $1,379,599 - STP P/O Delayed by ROW issues Bids came in 15% above estimates Contingency and additional funds

slide-1
SLIDE 1

| SLIDE

TIP Modifications

slide-2
SLIDE 2

| SLIDE

  • Utah County - Rail Trail Phase III
  • Selected 2012
  • $1,379,599 - STP P/O
  • Delayed by ROW issues
  • Bids came in 15% above estimates
  • Contingency and additional funds

have been applied

  • Road project delayed by this

project.

Lehi – 700 S/Rail Trail Phase III

2

slide-3
SLIDE 3

| SLIDE

  • Lehi - 700 S Cycle Track
  • Selected 2014
  • $3,283,550 - CMAQ
  • Set to begin in 2020
  • Portions of the project have

already been done since selection

Lehi – 700 S/Rail Trail Phase III

3

slide-4
SLIDE 4

| SLIDE 4

slide-5
SLIDE 5

| SLIDE

Lehi’s Request

  • Transfer up to $300,000 from the

existing Lehi 700 South Cycle- Track project to the Rail Trail project. Motion-

“I move that the transfer request be approved, and the TIP be modified, as necessary.”

Lehi – 700 S/Rail Trail Phase III

5

slide-6
SLIDE 6

| SLIDE

Spanish Fork- Provo Sub Railroad Scope Mod.

6

  • Selected 2016
  • $669,780 – MAG Exchange in 2021
  • Engineering Design,

Environmental other Fees

  • No foreseeable funding to

complete the project ($23M)

  • Union Pacific permitting has

slowed significantly

slide-7
SLIDE 7

| SLIDE

Spanish Fork- Provo Sub Railroad Scope Mod.

7

  • Approved development along the

rail line

  • Need to purchase ROW
  • Not eligible for corridor

preservation funds

slide-8
SLIDE 8

| SLIDE

Spanish Fork- Provo Sub Railroad Scope Mod.

8

Timeline

  • 2015 – Development was approved.
  • 2016 – Railroad consultant indicated the

need for additional ROW in this location.

  • 2016 - Developer modified the plat but

needs to be compensated.

slide-9
SLIDE 9

| SLIDE

Spanish Fork- Provo Sub Railroad Scope Mod.

9

Request –

  • Add ROW acquisition to the scope of

the project

  • Remaining funds will be used to

begin permitting process.

Motion –

“I move that the scope of the Provo Sub Railroad project be modified to include ROW acquisition. “

slide-10
SLIDE 10

| SLIDE

2020 TIP Selection

Process Improvements

slide-11
SLIDE 11

| SLIDE

  • The Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) lists all funded regional

transportation projects (MPO, UDOT, UTA, locals)

  • The MPO selects projects for State Exchange Funds, MPO Federal Funds,

County Transportation Sales Tax Funds every two years.

  • Next Selection cycle will begin this fall.
  • New projects will be funded in 2023 and 2024
  • Approximately $75m to $85m.
  • Each cycle - review the adjust the process to make it better.

11

2020 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP)

slide-12
SLIDE 12

| SLIDE 12

slide-13
SLIDE 13

| SLIDE

Process Improvement Discussion

  • 1. Inclusion on local plans
  • 2. Airport eligibility
  • 3. Formula distribution of funds
  • 4. Cost estimates and scope
  • 5. TAC scoring to be public
  • 6. Combination of MAG staff and TAC scores.

13 2020 SELECTION PROCESS

slide-14
SLIDE 14

| SLIDE

Process Improvement – 1

Project must be adopted in a local plan.

(General plan, master transportation plan, capital improvements plan or other similar documents)

MAG Staff and TAC Recommendation

Yes

14

slide-15
SLIDE 15

| SLIDE

Process Improvement – 2 (Provo)

Airport projects are eligible.

(Must be a capacity increasing project)

15 2020 SELECTION PROCESS

slide-16
SLIDE 16

| SLIDE

Process Improvement – 3 (Orem)

Formula distribution of funds.

County funds would be distributed by population.

16 2020 SELECTION PROCESS

slide-17
SLIDE 17

| SLIDE

Process Improvement – 4

Cost estimates and scope may be reviewed by a third party.

17 2020 SELECTION PROCESS

slide-18
SLIDE 18

| SLIDE

Process Improvement – 5

Results of the project selection voting will be made public after the voting is completed.

18 2020 SELECTION PROCESS

slide-19
SLIDE 19

| SLIDE

Process Improvement – 6

MAG staff scoring will be added to the TAC score to rank each project and create the initial project list.

75% TAC – 25% MAG Staff

19 2020 SELECTION PROCESS

slide-20
SLIDE 20

| SLIDE

“I move that the TIP project selection process be amended as presented. “

20

Recommended Motion

slide-21
SLIDE 21

| SLIDE

Process Improvement Discussion

Next Steps

  • Staff will make the proposed changes to the MAG TIP

Project Selection Policies.

  • Project Kickoff meetings for TAC and RPC next month.

21 2020 SELECTION PROCESS

slide-22
SLIDE 22

| SLIDE

Thank you!

Please start discussing potential projects with your staff. Contact MAG staff if you would like developing a project application.

22

slide-23
SLIDE 23

23

slide-24
SLIDE 24

| SLIDE FORMULA DISTRIBUTION

10 Year MAG Fund Distribution 2013 - 2022

2018 Population % Pop Fund Dist. 10yr % Funds Funds 10yr % Funds Funds Annual Funds 10yr Sales Tax % Funds Annual All MPO Funds 10yr % Funds All MPO Funds 10 yr % Funds Distribute by Population Distribute by Sales Tax Provo 116,702 18.8% 57.3m 32.3% 33.3m 18.8% 3.3m 30.4m 17.17% 3.0m 78.2m 24.0% 54.2m 16.7%

  • 24.0m
  • 26.8m

Orem 97,521 15.7% 36.5m 20.6% 27.8m 15.7% 2.8m 35.4m 19.99% 3.5m 61.7m 19.0% 53.0m 16.3%

  • 8.7m
  • 1.1m

Lehi 66,037 10.6% 18.3m 10.3% 18.8m 10.6% 1.9m 20.3m 11.43% 2.0m 23.4m 7.2% 23.9m 7.3% 483k 1.9m Spanish Fork 39,961 6.4% 9.4m 5.3% 11.4m 6.4% 1.1m 12.5m 7.03% 1.2m 22.5m 6.9% 24.5m 7.5% 2.0m 3.1m Pleasant Grove 38,428 6.2% 330k 0.2% 11.0m 6.2% 1.1m 9.5m 5.37% 952k 3.0m 0.9% 13.6m 4.2% 10.6m 9.2m Eagle Mountain 35,616 5.7% 1.4m 0.8% 10.2m 5.7% 1.0m 6.6m 3.70% 656k 16.6m 5.1% 25.3m 7.8% 8.7m 5.1m Springville 33,104 5.3% 4.9m 2.8% 9.4m 5.3% 943k 9.2m 5.18% 919k 8.0m 2.5% 12.6m 3.9% 4.5m 4.3m American Fork 32,519 5.2% 2.0m 1.1% 9.3m 5.2% 927k 13.6m 7.69% 1.4m 9.2m 2.8% 16.5m 5.1% 7.3m 11.7m Saratoga Springs 31,393 5.0% 4.1m 2.3% 8.9m 5.0% 895k 7.2m 4.06% 720k 6.4m 2.0% 11.2m 3.4% 4.8m 3.1m Payson 19,826 3.2% 226k 0.1% 5.7m 3.2% 565k 5.4m 3.06% 543k 422k 0.1% 5.8m 1.8% 5.4m 5.2m Highland 19,183 3.1% 2.8m 1.6% 5.5m 3.1% 547k 3.9m 2.18% 387k 2.8m 0.9% 5.5m 1.7% 2.7m 1.1m Santaquin 12,274 2.0% 388k 0.2% 3.5m 2.0% 350k 2.3m 1.29% 229k 5.6m 1.7% 8.7m 2.7% 3.1m 1.9m Lindon 10,970 1.8% 1.1m 0.6% 3.1m 1.8% 313k 6.9m 3.87% 686k 2.1m 0.7% 4.2m 1.3% 2.0m 5.8m Alpine 10,504 1.7% 0.0% 3.0m 1.7% 299k 2.1m 1.21% 215k 95k 0.0% 3.1m 0.9% 3.0m 2.1m Cedar Hills 10,217 1.6% 0.0% 2.9m 1.6% 291k 2.3m 1.28% 227k 0k 0.0% 2.9m 0.9% 2.9m 2.3m Mapleton 10,168 1.6% 0.0% 2.9m 1.6% 290k 2.0m 1.11% 197k 7.8m 2.4% 10.7m 3.3% 2.9m 2.0m Vineyard 10,052 1.6% 0.0% 2.9m 1.6% 286k 1.6m 0.90% 160k 0.0% 2.9m 0.9% 2.9m 1.6m Salem 8,469 1.4% 0.0% 2.4m 1.4% 241k 1.8m 1.00% 177k 75k 0.0% 2.5m 0.8% 2.4m 1.8m Utah County 8,428 1.4% 35.7m 20.2% 2.4m 1.4% 240k 2.8m 1.57% 278k 40.8m 12.5% 7.4m 2.3%

  • 33.3m
  • 33.0m

Elk Ridge 4,053 0.7% 0.0% 1.2m 0.7% 116k 674k 0.38% 67k 0.0% 1.2m 0.4% 1.2m 674k Draper 2,198 0.4% 0.0% 626k 0.4% 63k 0k 0.00% 0k 0.0% 626k 0.2% 626k 0k Woodland Hills 1,567 0.3% 0.0% 447k 0.3% 45k 284k 0.16% 28k 0.0% 447k 0.1% 447k 284k Genola 1,549 0.2% 0.0% 441k 0.2% 44k 355k 0.20% 35k 0.0% 441k 0.1% 441k 355k Goshen 936 0.2% 0.0% 267k 0.2% 27k 177k 0.10% 18k 0.0% 267k 0.1% 267k 177k Cedar Fort 397 0.1% 0.0% 113k 0.1% 11k 89k 0.05% 9k 0.0% 113k 0.0% 113k 89k Fairfield 141 0.0% 0.0% 40k 0.0% 4k 35k 0.02% 4k 0.0% 40k 0.0% 40k 35k Mountainland 0.0% 0k 0.00% 0k 11.2m 3.4% 11.2m 0.0344 0k UDOT 0.0% 0k 0.00% 0k 12.1m 3.7% 12.1m 0.0371 0.0k UTA 2.8m 1.6% 0k 0.00% 0k 13.4m 4.1% 10.6m 0.0326

  • 2.8m
  • 2.8m

Total County 622,213 100% 177.3m 100% 177.3m 100% 17.7m 177.3m 100.0000% 17.7m 325.3m 100% 325.3m 100%

10yr Change

All MAG Funds (county, fed, state)

  • Prop. Dist. By Pop.

Census Pop. Current Process Proposed Distribution by Pop. Current Process Proposed Distribution by Tax.

County Sales Tax Funds

slide-25
SLIDE 25

| SLIDE

  • State law - Only regional, new capacity projects are eligible (No

maintenance)

  • Projects would still have to be approved by the MPO and County

Commission (Not money transfer)

  • Cities cannot bond against these funds
  • Would not start until 2023
  • Cities receive formula B&C Road Funds and the new 4th quarter cent

sales tax

25

Realities

slide-26
SLIDE 26

| SLIDE

City % of total Sales Projected 4th Annual Revenue

Orem 19.97% $ 1,970,021 Provo 17.17% $ 1,693,544 Lehi 11.43% $ 1,127,733 AF 7.69% $ 759,086 SF 7.03% $ 693,836 PG 5.37% $ 529,761 Springville 5.18% $ 510,873 SS 4.06% $ 400,966 Lindon 3.87% $ 382,135 EM 3.70% $ 364,830 Payson 3.06% $ 302,277 Highland 2.18% $ 215,128 UT co 1.57% $ 154,704 Santaquin 1.29% $ 127,605 CH 1.28% $ 125,839 Alpine 1.21% $ 119,710 Mapleton 1.11% $ 109,694 Salem 1.00% $ 98,756 Vineyard 0.90% $ 88,442 ER 0.38% $ 37,951 Genola 0.20% $ 19,710 WH 0.16% $ 16,100 Goshen 0.10% $ 9,373 CF 0.05% $ 4,912 Fairfield 0.02% $ 2,012 Total 100.00% $ 9,864,997

Projected 4th Quarter Revenue

  • Cities can bond against these

funds

  • About 60% to 70% of the Orem

proposal

26

slide-27
SLIDE 27

| SLIDE

  • Everybody gets something
  • Cities choose their projects
  • Cities can save funding until they can fund a project
  • Shortens the “darn” bus ride

27

Pros

slide-28
SLIDE 28

| SLIDE

  • Removes regional nature and intent of funds
  • Removes primary funding source for non-UDOT, regional projects
  • Less flexibility to fund larger regional projects (Smaller Pots)
  • Smaller communities unlikely to accrue enough funds for a project
  • No contingency fund or backup funds
  • No incentive to develop regional projects between cities (North County

BLVD, Elk Ridge DR, Pony Express PKWY, Murdock Canal Tr)

  • No regional transit funding (BRT used this fund)
  • Reduces ability to leverage local funds for larger outside funding sources

(TIGER, UDOT, UTA, etc.)

28

Cons

slide-29
SLIDE 29

| SLIDE 29

Sponsor Project Approve $ Sponsor Project Approve $ Provo/Orem Provo / Orem Bus Rapid Transit

$ 65,000,000

Orem Orem-1600 N; State ST to I-15

$ 4,250,000

UDOT I-15 Core

$ 65,000,000

Mapleton Mapleton Lateral Canal Trail Phase 3

$ 3,982,000

Utah County North County BLVD

$ 49,582,237

Saratoga Springs Saratoga Springs Pony Express PKWY Phase 2

$ 3,880,870

UDOT Pioneer Crossing

$ 30,000,000

Provo Provo 3700 North

$ 3,525,575

Provo Provo Westside Connector/Lakeview

$ 27,448,482

Utah County Murdock Connector RD

$ 3,501,119

UDOT Geneva RD

$ 18,187,845

Santaquin Santaquin Main ST Phase 1

$ 3,380,000

Utah County Elk Ridge DR; Elk Ridge to 8000 S

$ 16,994,051

Lehi Lehi 700 South Cycle Track

$ 3,283,550

Lehi SS Crossroads BLVD/Lehi Main ST

$ 12,397,000

American Fork American Fork 900 West Phase 1

$ 3,265,805

Eagle Mountain EM Pony Express PKWY; Redwood RD to Porters Crossing

$ 10,781,485

Eagle Mountain Pony Express PKWY - Silver Ranch RD to Redwood RD

$ 3,203,544

Lehi Lehi-1200 W: 2100 N to Timpanogos HWY

$ 5,940,000

Provo Provo River PKWY Trail

$ 3,095,700

Utah County Canyon RD / PG 100 East

$ 5,932,855

Utah County Murdock Canal Trail

$ 3,054,059

Lehi Lehi 2300 West - Lehi Main ST to HWY 92

$ 5,733,630

Spanish Fork SF Spanish Fork River Trail Phase 2

$ 2,941,850

Orem Orem 1600 N Corridor Preservation

$ 5,608,696

Lindon Lindon Heritage Trail - Lindon 800 West to Utah Lake

$ 2,867,498

UTA Springville-Sharp/Tintic RR Connection

$ 5,228,300

Provo State ST Safety Improvements - Provo

$ 2,857,850

Spanish Fork Spanish Fork-Center ST; US6 to 900 E

$ 5,171,000

Provo Provo Bulldog BLVD; Canyon RD to Provo River

$ 2,805,000

American Fork AF 200 S Multimodal Improvements

$ 4,877,000

Lehi Lehi 2300 West

$ 2,800,000

Utah County Provo Reservoir Canal Trail - Orem to Lehi

$ 4,603,082

Pleasant Grove Pleasant Grove 2600 N Improvements Phase 1

$ 2,693,450

Lehi Lehi 1200 East

$ 4,580,560

Spanish Fork Spanish Fork 800 N / 800 E Intersection Improvements

$ 2,434,783

Santaquin Santaquin Main ST Improvements Phase 4

$ 4,450,000

Highland Highland-6800 W; AF 1120 N to 9600 N

$ 2,410,800

slide-30
SLIDE 30

| SLIDE FORMULA DISTRIBUTION

10 Year MAG Fund Distribution 2013 - 2022

2018 Population % Pop Fund Dist. 10yr % Funds Funds 10yr % Funds Funds Annual Funds 10yr Sales Tax % Funds Annual All MPO Funds 10yr % Funds All MPO Funds 10 yr % Funds Distribute by Population Distribute by Sales Tax Provo 116,702 18.8% 57.3m 32.3% 33.3m 18.8% 3.3m 30.4m 17.17% 3.0m 78.2m 24.0% 54.2m 16.7%

  • 24.0m
  • 26.8m

Orem 97,521 15.7% 36.5m 20.6% 27.8m 15.7% 2.8m 35.4m 19.99% 3.5m 61.7m 19.0% 53.0m 16.3%

  • 8.7m
  • 1.1m

Lehi 66,037 10.6% 18.3m 10.3% 18.8m 10.6% 1.9m 20.3m 11.43% 2.0m 23.4m 7.2% 23.9m 7.3% 483k 1.9m Spanish Fork 39,961 6.4% 9.4m 5.3% 11.4m 6.4% 1.1m 12.5m 7.03% 1.2m 22.5m 6.9% 24.5m 7.5% 2.0m 3.1m Pleasant Grove 38,428 6.2% 330k 0.2% 11.0m 6.2% 1.1m 9.5m 5.37% 952k 3.0m 0.9% 13.6m 4.2% 10.6m 9.2m Eagle Mountain 35,616 5.7% 1.4m 0.8% 10.2m 5.7% 1.0m 6.6m 3.70% 656k 16.6m 5.1% 25.3m 7.8% 8.7m 5.1m Springville 33,104 5.3% 4.9m 2.8% 9.4m 5.3% 943k 9.2m 5.18% 919k 8.0m 2.5% 12.6m 3.9% 4.5m 4.3m American Fork 32,519 5.2% 2.0m 1.1% 9.3m 5.2% 927k 13.6m 7.69% 1.4m 9.2m 2.8% 16.5m 5.1% 7.3m 11.7m Saratoga Springs 31,393 5.0% 4.1m 2.3% 8.9m 5.0% 895k 7.2m 4.06% 720k 6.4m 2.0% 11.2m 3.4% 4.8m 3.1m Payson 19,826 3.2% 226k 0.1% 5.7m 3.2% 565k 5.4m 3.06% 543k 422k 0.1% 5.8m 1.8% 5.4m 5.2m Highland 19,183 3.1% 2.8m 1.6% 5.5m 3.1% 547k 3.9m 2.18% 387k 2.8m 0.9% 5.5m 1.7% 2.7m 1.1m Santaquin 12,274 2.0% 388k 0.2% 3.5m 2.0% 350k 2.3m 1.29% 229k 5.6m 1.7% 8.7m 2.7% 3.1m 1.9m Lindon 10,970 1.8% 1.1m 0.6% 3.1m 1.8% 313k 6.9m 3.87% 686k 2.1m 0.7% 4.2m 1.3% 2.0m 5.8m Alpine 10,504 1.7% 0.0% 3.0m 1.7% 299k 2.1m 1.21% 215k 95k 0.0% 3.1m 0.9% 3.0m 2.1m Cedar Hills 10,217 1.6% 0.0% 2.9m 1.6% 291k 2.3m 1.28% 227k 0k 0.0% 2.9m 0.9% 2.9m 2.3m Mapleton 10,168 1.6% 0.0% 2.9m 1.6% 290k 2.0m 1.11% 197k 7.8m 2.4% 10.7m 3.3% 2.9m 2.0m Vineyard 10,052 1.6% 0.0% 2.9m 1.6% 286k 1.6m 0.90% 160k 0.0% 2.9m 0.9% 2.9m 1.6m Salem 8,469 1.4% 0.0% 2.4m 1.4% 241k 1.8m 1.00% 177k 75k 0.0% 2.5m 0.8% 2.4m 1.8m Utah County 8,428 1.4% 35.7m 20.2% 2.4m 1.4% 240k 2.8m 1.57% 278k 40.8m 12.5% 7.4m 2.3%

  • 33.3m
  • 33.0m

Elk Ridge 4,053 0.7% 0.0% 1.2m 0.7% 116k 674k 0.38% 67k 0.0% 1.2m 0.4% 1.2m 674k Draper 2,198 0.4% 0.0% 626k 0.4% 63k 0k 0.00% 0k 0.0% 626k 0.2% 626k 0k Woodland Hills 1,567 0.3% 0.0% 447k 0.3% 45k 284k 0.16% 28k 0.0% 447k 0.1% 447k 284k Genola 1,549 0.2% 0.0% 441k 0.2% 44k 355k 0.20% 35k 0.0% 441k 0.1% 441k 355k Goshen 936 0.2% 0.0% 267k 0.2% 27k 177k 0.10% 18k 0.0% 267k 0.1% 267k 177k Cedar Fort 397 0.1% 0.0% 113k 0.1% 11k 89k 0.05% 9k 0.0% 113k 0.0% 113k 89k Fairfield 141 0.0% 0.0% 40k 0.0% 4k 35k 0.02% 4k 0.0% 40k 0.0% 40k 35k Mountainland 0.0% 0k 0.00% 0k 11.2m 3.4% 11.2m 0.0344 0k UDOT 0.0% 0k 0.00% 0k 12.1m 3.7% 12.1m 0.0371 0.0k UTA 2.8m 1.6% 0k 0.00% 0k 13.4m 4.1% 10.6m 0.0326

  • 2.8m
  • 2.8m

Total County 622,213 100% 177.3m 100% 177.3m 100% 17.7m 177.3m 100.0000% 17.7m 325.3m 100% 325.3m 100%

10yr Change

All MAG Funds (county, fed, state)

  • Prop. Dist. By Pop.

Census Pop. Current Process Proposed Distribution by Pop. Current Process Proposed Distribution by Tax.

County Sales Tax Funds