California

[Quillz]

I'll probably do Sherman Pass in a couple weeks myself. Was planning for it this weekend but other stuff came up.

[ClassicHasClass]

We're going to do Sonora Pass this coming weekend. Should be lovely.

[Quillz]

We're going to do Sonora Pass this coming weekend. Should be lovely.

Hey, maybe I'll run into you. That's my plan for this weekend. Do a long loop starting in Fresno, cross Sonora Pass, end up in the Mono Lake area, then stop in Bishop. Then maybe on the way back, try to work in Sherman Pass. My original plan was Tioga Pass but that's out. Maybe if Yosemite itself is open, I'll visit the village some time in the future.

Last time I drove Sonora Pass was in 2020. I didn't actually stop at the actual pass so this time I plan to try to get some photos, maybe find a short hiking trail in the area.

[pderocco]

Hey, maybe I'll run into you. That's my plan for this weekend. Do a long loop starting in Fresno, cross Sonora Pass, end up in the Mono Lake area, then stop in Bishop. Then maybe on the way back, try to work in Sherman Pass. My original plan was Tioga Pass but that's out. Maybe if Yosemite itself is open, I'll visit the village some time in the future.

If you do Sherman Pass, you'll have a choice of how to get back into the valley. Going north on Great Western Divide Highway up to Ponderosa, and then out CA-190 is really nice, but it's very tortuous, and late Sunday you're certain to find yourself behind a slow camper all the way down. Taking M-50 out through California Hot Springs isn't quite as interesting, but it's shorter and easier. Or you can go down the Kern River through Lake Isabella, and take CA-178 to Bakersfield. Much longer, but if you've never seen the Kern Canyon, it's a great ride.

[Max Rockatansky]

Hey, maybe I'll run into you. That's my plan for this weekend. Do a long loop starting in Fresno, cross Sonora Pass, end up in the Mono Lake area, then stop in Bishop. Then maybe on the way back, try to work in Sherman Pass. My original plan was Tioga Pass but that's out. Maybe if Yosemite itself is open, I'll visit the village some time in the future.

If you do Sherman Pass, you'll have a choice of how to get back into the valley. Going north on Great Western Divide Highway up to Ponderosa, and then out CA-190 is really nice, but it's very tortuous, and late Sunday you're certain to find yourself behind a slow camper all the way down. Taking M-50 out through California Hot Springs isn't quite as interesting, but it's shorter and easier. Or you can go down the Kern River through Lake Isabella, and take CA-178 to Bakersfield. Much longer, but if you've never seen the Kern Canyon, it's a great ride.

Shame CA 155 over Greenhorn Summit isn't open.  I found myself on Old Stage Road north of Glennville early this year, definitely worth the drive.  I'm not sure if Caliente-Bodfish Road is open south of Lake Isabella but that's a great mountain drive also.

Also, Tioga Pass Road in Yosemite opens on the 22nd at 8 AM:

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=pfbid04xkMezn53z4JksRKCt9zAf8NDRaVBZnrabkeBdB93t9nP6W8hNRnEAiHVK6dY1D5l&id=100064546485710&mibextid=qC1gEa

https://www.nps.gov/yose/planyourvisit/index.htm

[ClassicHasClass]

Hey, maybe I'll run into you.

My insurance company hopes not. 

But! That sounds like a fun route. Haven't done Sherman Pass in the longest time, though it will have already been a long day by the time we get down there, so perhaps another weekend.

[Quillz]

Hey, maybe I'll run into you. That's my plan for this weekend. Do a long loop starting in Fresno, cross Sonora Pass, end up in the Mono Lake area, then stop in Bishop. Then maybe on the way back, try to work in Sherman Pass. My original plan was Tioga Pass but that's out. Maybe if Yosemite itself is open, I'll visit the village some time in the future.

If you do Sherman Pass, you'll have a choice of how to get back into the valley. Going north on Great Western Divide Highway up to Ponderosa, and then out CA-190 is really nice, but it's very tortuous, and late Sunday you're certain to find yourself behind a slow camper all the way down. Taking M-50 out through California Hot Springs isn't quite as interesting, but it's shorter and easier. Or you can go down the Kern River through Lake Isabella, and take CA-178 to Bakersfield. Much longer, but if you've never seen the Kern Canyon, it's a great ride.

Shame CA 155 over Greenhorn Summit isn't open.  I found myself on Old Stage Road north of Glennville early this year, definitely worth the drive.  I'm not sure if Caliente-Bodfish Road is open south of Lake Isabella but that's a great mountain drive also.

Also, Tioga Pass Road in Yosemite opens on the 22nd at 8 AM:

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=pfbid04xkMezn53z4JksRKCt9zAf8NDRaVBZnrabkeBdB93t9nP6W8hNRnEAiHVK6dY1D5l&id=100064546485710&mibextid=qC1gEa

https://www.nps.gov/yose/planyourvisit/index.htm

Nice. Gonna try to get it done a weekend in August. I've got a longer Lassen/redwoods trip planned for September.

[pderocco]

Shame CA 155 over Greenhorn Summit isn't open.  I found myself on Old Stage Road north of Glennville early this year, definitely worth the drive.  I'm not sure if Caliente-Bodfish Road is open south of Lake Isabella but that's a great mountain drive also.

I drove CalBod in the spring, although I did the loop through Loraine and Twin Oaks, but I didn't see any signs saying it was closed over the hill.

[Plutonic Panda]

What is up with the roads north of San Francisco particularly in Marin, Sonoma, and Napa Counties? For the most part amazing bike and cool roads but the merging distances are comical especially on the 101. The room is also there why don't they add more merging space? Also the 101 on ramp going south off of Sir Francis Drake BLVD is horrible. Almost got into an accident there.

Who's the the MPO or agency that oversees planning and construction projects here?

[jrouse]

The Metropolitan Transportation Commission oversees overall transportation project planning and funding in the nine counties of the San Francisco Bay Area.  This would include Marin, Sonoma and Napa Counties.  MTC administers the State and Federal transportation funds for the region.  Each of those 9 counties has a county-level congestion management agency which administers locally generated transportation sales taxes and also does some county level transportation planning.  The CMA for Marin County is the Transportation Authority for Marin (TAM) and the CMA for Sonoma County is the Sonoma County Transportation Authority (SCTA). For Napa County, it's the Napa Valley Transportation Authority (NVTA)

[Plutonic Panda]

Wasn't there some initiative to consolidate some of the agencies in the Bay Area? It's insane how many there are. It's something like 26 of them, no?

[Rothman]

The Metropolitan Transportation Commission oversees overall transportation project planning and funding in the nine counties of the San Francisco Bay Area.  This would include Marin and Sonoma Counties.  MTC administers the State and Federal transportation funds for the region.  Each of those 9 counties has a county-level congestion management agency which administers locally generated transportation sales taxes and also does some county level transportation planning.  The CMA for Marin County is the Transportation Authority for Marin (TAM) and the CMA for Sonoma County is the Sonoma County Transportation Authority (SCTA).

All state funding in the area?  From their website, it looks like they review state grant applications, which would not mean that they administer all state funding?

At least in NY, MPOs do not have any control over the administration of core state funding (state dedicated funds and personal income tax funds), despite being involved with grant applications for certain initiatives.  This is because their legal authority is really only over federal urban funding dedicated to the areas within their MPAs (e.g., STBG Large Urban).  However, to facilitate transportation planning, NYSDOT suballocates additional federal funds to certain MPOs at its own discretion.  Some MPOs have control over adding projects to the STIP, rather than just their TIPs; for some others, NYSDOT has retained sign off on amendments.

Anyway, if I were at CalTrans and discovered that some idiot handed over all discretion of state funding usage to an MPO, I'd make sure their legacy would be permanently infamous...of course, looking at the situation through a NY lens...

[jrouse]

Wasn't there some initiative to consolidate some of the agencies in the Bay Area? It's insane how many there are. It's something like 26 of them, no?

You're thinking of the transit agencies. 

[jrouse]

The Metropolitan Transportation Commission oversees overall transportation project planning and funding in the nine counties of the San Francisco Bay Area.  This would include Marin and Sonoma Counties.  MTC administers the State and Federal transportation funds for the region.  Each of those 9 counties has a county-level congestion management agency which administers locally generated transportation sales taxes and also does some county level transportation planning.  The CMA for Marin County is the Transportation Authority for Marin (TAM) and the CMA for Sonoma County is the Sonoma County Transportation Authority (SCTA).

All state funding in the area?  From their website, it looks like they review state grant applications, which would not mean that they administer all state funding?

At least in NY, MPOs do not have any control over the administration of core state funding (state dedicated funds and personal income tax funds), despite being involved with grant applications for certain initiatives.  This is because their legal authority is really only over federal urban funding dedicated to the areas within their MPAs (e.g., STBG Large Urban).  However, to facilitate transportation planning, NYSDOT suballocates additional federal funds to certain MPOs at its own discretion.  Some MPOs have control over adding projects to the STIP, rather than just their TIPs; for some others, NYSDOT has retained sign off on amendments.

Anyway, if I were at CalTrans and discovered that some idiot handed over all discretion of state funding usage to an MPO, I'd make sure their legacy would be permanently infamous...of course, looking at the situation through a NY lens...

The State of California uses revenues from state and federal gas taxes for transportation projects through the Transportation Improvement Fund (TIF). The State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) lists the capital projects that will receive funding, and allocates 25 percent of the Transportation Improvement Fund to Caltrans and 75 percent of the fund to metropolitan planning organizations.

State funds are used for new capital projects such as the expansion of transit networks and new highway lanes, and maintenance costs such as street and highway resurfacing.  A much smaller portion covers operational costs, such as paying the salaries of bus drivers and mechanics at the local level. In addition, state funds are used to match funds for federal projects.

The majority of federal transportation funding is used for capital projects, such as new interstate highway and rail construction. Some of this funding goes to specific projects earmarked by Congress.

Metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) and regional transportation planning agencies (RTPAs) are largely responsible for planning, coordinating and distributing funds for local and regional projects.  Projects listed in a metropolitan planning organization or regional transportation planning agency's regional transportation plan (RTP) and regional transportation improvement program (RTIP) then make up the STIP..

In California, metropolitan planning organizations, regional transportation planning agencies and county transportation commissions manage 75 percent of the available STIP funds.  The funds available to metropolitan planning organizations and regional transportation planning agencies are called regional improvement program (RIP) funds.   This local control was established under legislation passed in 1997.  That legislation came about because of a number of counties implementing voter-approved sales tax measures with detailed plans for spending on specified projects.  Since these revenues were managed at the county level, and were used to match state and federal dollars, the next logical step was to give the locals control over the State funds.  More than half of the counties in California have a local transportation sales tax.

As noted above Caltrans still has control of 25 percent of the TIF. There's also a large program known as the State Highway Operations and Protection Program (SHOPP).  These are the State funds that go to cover maintenance and operations and fund needed operational and safety improvements.  The SHOPP is fully controlled by Caltrans.  SHOPP funds cannot be used for capacity increasing projects.

This local control of the vast majority of the STIP is the primary reason why you see local agencies taking the lead in getting roadway widening projects built in California's urban areas. The many competing maintenance and safety needs mean the SHOPP is well spoken for each year and some of the things you see in California that bother roadgeeks so much, such as poor signing, lack of mileposts, etc.,are what they are because of the higher priorities and limited dollars.

More info can be found here: 

https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot-media/programs/transportation-planning/documents/data-analytics-services/transportation-economics/transportation-funding-booklet/2022/final-2022-transportation-funding-a11y.pdf

https://www.ca-ilg.org/transportation-funding

[Plutonic Panda]

Wasn't there some initiative to consolidate some of the agencies in the Bay Area? It's insane how many there are. It's something like 26 of them, no?

You're thinking of the transit agencies.

OK, so would that be similar to how Metro in LA operates its own transit system yet still has planning jurisdiction in areas like Santa Monica who operate their own service?

Because if so, then, that makes sense why there's so many different transit agencies because of all the different cities. But I was under the impression that there was too many different, planning agencies within the bay area, causing a lot of bureaucratic, red tape and different hurdles for projects.

[Plutonic Panda]

Multiple projects in California moving forward: https://www.constructionequipmentguide.com/contractors-ready-for-billions-in-caltrans-spending/61811

[Rothman]

The Metropolitan Transportation Commission oversees overall transportation project planning and funding in the nine counties of the San Francisco Bay Area.  This would include Marin and Sonoma Counties.  MTC administers the State and Federal transportation funds for the region.  Each of those 9 counties has a county-level congestion management agency which administers locally generated transportation sales taxes and also does some county level transportation planning.  The CMA for Marin County is the Transportation Authority for Marin (TAM) and the CMA for Sonoma County is the Sonoma County Transportation Authority (SCTA).

All state funding in the area?  From their website, it looks like they review state grant applications, which would not mean that they administer all state funding?

At least in NY, MPOs do not have any control over the administration of core state funding (state dedicated funds and personal income tax funds), despite being involved with grant applications for certain initiatives.  This is because their legal authority is really only over federal urban funding dedicated to the areas within their MPAs (e.g., STBG Large Urban).  However, to facilitate transportation planning, NYSDOT suballocates additional federal funds to certain MPOs at its own discretion.  Some MPOs have control over adding projects to the STIP, rather than just their TIPs; for some others, NYSDOT has retained sign off on amendments.

Anyway, if I were at CalTrans and discovered that some idiot handed over all discretion of state funding usage to an MPO, I'd make sure their legacy would be permanently infamous...of course, looking at the situation through a NY lens...

The State of California uses revenues from state and federal gas taxes for transportation projects through the Transportation Improvement Fund (TIF). The State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) lists the capital projects that will receive funding, and allocates 25 percent of the Transportation Improvement Fund to Caltrans and 75 percent of the fund to metropolitan planning organizations.

State funds are used for new capital projects such as the expansion of transit networks and new highway lanes, and maintenance costs such as street and highway resurfacing.  A much smaller portion covers operational costs, such as paying the salaries of bus drivers and mechanics at the local level. In addition, state funds are used to match funds for federal projects.

The majority of federal transportation funding is used for capital projects, such as new interstate highway and rail construction. Some of this funding goes to specific projects earmarked by Congress.

Metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) and regional transportation planning agencies (RTPAs) are largely responsible for planning, coordinating and distributing funds for local and regional projects.  Projects listed in a metropolitan planning organization or regional transportation planning agency's regional transportation plan (RTP) and regional transportation improvement program (RTIP) then make up the STIP..

In California, metropolitan planning organizations, regional transportation planning agencies and county transportation commissions manage 75 percent of the available STIP funds.  The funds available to metropolitan planning organizations and regional transportation planning agencies are called regional improvement program (RIP) funds.   This local control was established under legislation passed in 1997.  That legislation came about because of a number of counties implementing voter-approved sales tax measures with detailed plans for spending on specified projects.  Since these revenues were managed at the county level, and were used to match state and federal dollars, the next logical step was to give the locals control over the State funds.  More than half of the counties in California have a local transportation sales tax.

As noted above Caltrans still has control of 25 percent of the TIF. There's also a large program known as the State Highway Operations and Protection Program (SHOPP).  These are the State funds that go to cover maintenance and operations and fund needed operational and safety improvements.  The SHOPP is fully controlled by Caltrans.  SHOPP funds cannot be used for capacity increasing projects.

This local control of the vast majority of the STIP is the primary reason why you see local agencies taking the lead in getting roadway widening projects built in California's urban areas. The many competing maintenance and safety needs mean the SHOPP is well spoken for each year and some of the things you see in California that bother roadgeeks so much, such as poor signing, lack of mileposts, etc.,are what they are because of the higher priorities and limited dollars.

More info can be found here: 

https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot-media/programs/transportation-planning/documents/data-analytics-services/transportation-economics/transportation-funding-booklet/2022/final-2022-transportation-funding-a11y.pdf

https://www.ca-ilg.org/transportation-funding

I'll dig into the links more, but I think more clarification on what I was asking is needed.  In the end, I think it boils down to the question as to whether or not California adds all 100% state funded capital projects to their STIP and, even if they do, if the MPOs and RTPAs have real control over them (i.e., if the MPOs/RTPAs have real authority to veto a 100% state-funded project to the STIP put forward by CalTrans).  I'm not talking about operations funding, as state-funded operations funding should not added to the STIP...unless certain activities are funded federally with capital project funding and let traditionally (Interstate mowing/cleanup comes to mind as one of these rare exceptions in NY...much to NYSDOT Program Management's chagrin...operations pilfering the capital project funds...).

The reason why I was half-surprised at the assertion of total MPO control (the other half-not-surprised because of CA infamously being quirky) is because the STIP is only federally mandated for enabling the authorization and obligation of federal funding (You went into the process a little early by talking about tax revenues; let's set aside the fact that federal funding is a reimbursement process, which is usually taken for granted when talking about capital program funding, anyway).  In other words, the only reason why CA would require 100% state-funded projects to be added to the STIP would be a state requirement, rather than federal -- something they would do to themselves for whatever reason (and misguided, as this New Yorker would assert ).

Like I said in my original post, allocation to MPOs in NY (thank goodness we don't have rural transportation organizations to deal with like in other states ) does not necessarily mean full control over the STIP.  Sure, it's a commitment to spend those particular funds within the MPAs, but NYSDOT retains some leverage, however harsh/severe, when it comes to what ends up on the STIP, depending upon the agreed upon bylaws of the particular MPO.  NYSDOT relies upon federal legislation which dictates that DOTs are the pass-through agency for federal funding to keep that leverage, while respecting that some federal funding must be distributed to the MPOs (like I said, STBG Large Urban, in particular).  That said, in CA, it sounds like the allocation to the MPOs/RTPAs happens at a much higher level at that rather arbitrary split of 75/25...although I'd really like to see how that really plays out in reality (i.e., given the programming and expenditures of the allocated funds, there's always room for back door shenanigans with the funding).  In other words, what is the federal/state funding mix of that 75% in the end, and determining if the state-funded portion of that 75% pertains to 100% state-funded capital projects, rather than matches to federal funding.

I guess that's really the outstanding question -- how much of that 75% is not programmed to be federally-funded, if capital projects end up 100% state-funded (which, in NY, is a big deal since SDF funding cannot be used off the state-maintained system), and whether CalTrans/State of CA has allowed MPOs/RTPAs to veto CalTrans' programming decisions with such.  I suppose it also raises the question of even if the MPOs/RTPAs have that power, if they've ever exercised it and what CalTrans' reaction was...

(personal opinions/commentary emphasized)

[jrouse]

Wasn't there some initiative to consolidate some of the agencies in the Bay Area? It's insane how many there are. It's something like 26 of them, no?

You're thinking of the transit agencies.

OK, so would that be similar to how Metro in LA operates its own transit system yet still has planning jurisdiction in areas like Santa Monica who operate their own service?

Because if so, then, that makes sense why there's so many different transit agencies because of all the different cities. But I was under the impression that there was too many different, planning agencies within the bay area, causing a lot of bureaucratic, red tape and different hurdles for projects.

Not quite.  LA Metro happens to be a county level transportation planning agency that's also a transit operator.   The discussion in the Bay Area has revolved around consolidating all the individual transit agencies (27 in total) into one larger agency. 

There are several different planning agencies in the Bay Area and there has been some consolidation there.  The Association of Bay Area Governments is the the Council of Governments (COG) for the nine-county Bay Area, and MTC is the MPO.  The ABAG and MTC staff have been consolidated but both organizations continue to have separate boards of directors.

[jrouse]

I'll dig into the links more, but I think more clarification on what I was asking is needed.  In the end, I think it boils down to the question as to whether or not California adds all 100% state funded capital projects to their STIP and, even if they do, if the MPOs and RTPAs have real control over them (i.e., if the MPOs/RTPAs have real authority to veto a 100% state-funded project to the STIP put forward by CalTrans).  I'm not talking about operations funding, as state-funded operations funding should not added to the STIP...unless certain activities are funded federally with capital project funding and let traditionally (Interstate mowing/cleanup comes to mind as one of these rare exceptions in NY...much to NYSDOT Program Management's chagrin...operations pilfering the capital project funds...).

The reason why I was half-surprised at the assertion of total MPO control (the other half-not-surprised because of CA infamously being quirky) is because the STIP is only federally mandated for enabling the authorization and obligation of federal funding (You went into the process a little early by talking about tax revenues; let's set aside the fact that federal funding is a reimbursement process, which is usually taken for granted when talking about capital program funding, anyway).  In other words, the only reason why CA would require 100% state-funded projects to be added to the STIP would be a state requirement, rather than federal -- something they would do to themselves for whatever reason (and misguided, as this New Yorker would assert ).

Like I said in my original post, allocation to MPOs in NY (thank goodness we don't have rural transportation organizations to deal with like in other states ) does not necessarily mean full control over the STIP.  Sure, it's a commitment to spend those particular funds within the MPAs, but NYSDOT retains some leverage, however harsh/severe, when it comes to what ends up on the STIP, depending upon the agreed upon bylaws of the particular MPO.  NYSDOT relies upon federal legislation which dictates that DOTs are the pass-through agency for federal funding to keep that leverage, while respecting that some federal funding must be distributed to the MPOs (like I said, STBG Large Urban, in particular).  That said, in CA, it sounds like the allocation to the MPOs/RTPAs happens at a much higher level at that rather arbitrary split of 75/25...although I'd really like to see how that really plays out in reality (i.e., given the programming and expenditures of the allocated funds, there's always room for back door shenanigans with the funding).  In other words, what is the federal/state funding mix of that 75% in the end, and determining if the state-funded portion of that 75% pertains to 100% state-funded capital projects, rather than matches to federal funding.

I guess that's really the outstanding question -- how much of that 75% is not programmed to be federally-funded, if capital projects end up 100% state-funded (which, in NY, is a big deal since SDF funding cannot be used off the state-maintained system), and whether CalTrans/State of CA has allowed MPOs/RTPAs to veto CalTrans' programming decisions with such.  I suppose it also raises the question of even if the MPOs/RTPAs have that power, if they've ever exercised it and what CalTrans' reaction was...

(personal opinions/commentary emphasized)

Let me take a step back, and forgive me if I'm sharing info you may already know.  Long story short, federal dollars are put into the STIP along with State dollars, but are managed and allocated according to federal law.

The two primary California state transportation programming documents are the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) and the State Highway Operation and Protection Program (SHOPP).

Every county in California is served by a regional transportation planning agency (RTPA), and every county with at least one urbanized area is also served by an MPO. Each of the 18 MPOs and the 26 RTPAs develops and adopts a regional transportation plan (RTP).

Federal law requires that MPOs prepare a Federal Transportation Improvement Program (FTIP) which is a short-range program of specific projects derived from the RTP and supported with available funding commitments from various sources.  The Federal Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (FSTIP) is a statewide programming document required by federal law and prepared by Caltrans. It is a compilation of 18 MPOs' FTIPs and projects from the rural portions of the state that are not located within an MPO boundary.

The STIP lists the capital projects that will receive State and federal funding.  The 1997 legislation that I mentioned in my earlier post broke up the STIP into two programs -75 percent goes into a regional program and 25 percent goes into an interregional program. The regional program is further subdivided by formula into county shares. 

The aforementioned RTP is the basis for each RTPA's Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP).  The RTIPs form the regional portion of the STIP and they also serve as the MPO's portion of the FSTIP.

Caltrans plans, designs, and nominates state highway projects in the Interregional Transportation Improvement Program (ITIP) — the interregional portion of the STIP. Caltrans also is responsible for the projects that are funded through the SHOPP.

Most projects in the adopted STIP and SHOPP are included in MPOs' FTIPs and the FSTIP. FTIPs and the FSTIP also include other federally funded projects that are not subject to the state's programming process.

Source: https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot-media/programs/financial-programming/documents/2023-fstip-final-a11y.pdf

[Rothman]

I'll dig into the links more, but I think more clarification on what I was asking is needed.  In the end, I think it boils down to the question as to whether or not California adds all 100% state funded capital projects to their STIP and, even if they do, if the MPOs and RTPAs have real control over them (i.e., if the MPOs/RTPAs have real authority to veto a 100% state-funded project to the STIP put forward by CalTrans).  I'm not talking about operations funding, as state-funded operations funding should not added to the STIP...unless certain activities are funded federally with capital project funding and let traditionally (Interstate mowing/cleanup comes to mind as one of these rare exceptions in NY...much to NYSDOT Program Management's chagrin...operations pilfering the capital project funds...).

The reason why I was half-surprised at the assertion of total MPO control (the other half-not-surprised because of CA infamously being quirky) is because the STIP is only federally mandated for enabling the authorization and obligation of federal funding (You went into the process a little early by talking about tax revenues; let's set aside the fact that federal funding is a reimbursement process, which is usually taken for granted when talking about capital program funding, anyway).  In other words, the only reason why CA would require 100% state-funded projects to be added to the STIP would be a state requirement, rather than federal -- something they would do to themselves for whatever reason (and misguided, as this New Yorker would assert ).

Like I said in my original post, allocation to MPOs in NY (thank goodness we don't have rural transportation organizations to deal with like in other states ) does not necessarily mean full control over the STIP.  Sure, it's a commitment to spend those particular funds within the MPAs, but NYSDOT retains some leverage, however harsh/severe, when it comes to what ends up on the STIP, depending upon the agreed upon bylaws of the particular MPO.  NYSDOT relies upon federal legislation which dictates that DOTs are the pass-through agency for federal funding to keep that leverage, while respecting that some federal funding must be distributed to the MPOs (like I said, STBG Large Urban, in particular).  That said, in CA, it sounds like the allocation to the MPOs/RTPAs happens at a much higher level at that rather arbitrary split of 75/25...although I'd really like to see how that really plays out in reality (i.e., given the programming and expenditures of the allocated funds, there's always room for back door shenanigans with the funding).  In other words, what is the federal/state funding mix of that 75% in the end, and determining if the state-funded portion of that 75% pertains to 100% state-funded capital projects, rather than matches to federal funding.

I guess that's really the outstanding question -- how much of that 75% is not programmed to be federally-funded, if capital projects end up 100% state-funded (which, in NY, is a big deal since SDF funding cannot be used off the state-maintained system), and whether CalTrans/State of CA has allowed MPOs/RTPAs to veto CalTrans' programming decisions with such.  I suppose it also raises the question of even if the MPOs/RTPAs have that power, if they've ever exercised it and what CalTrans' reaction was...

(personal opinions/commentary emphasized)

Let me take a step back, and forgive me if I'm sharing info you may already know.  Long story short, federal dollars are put into the STIP along with State dollars, but are managed and allocated according to federal law.

The two primary California state transportation programming documents are the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) and the State Highway Operation and Protection Program (SHOPP).

Every county in California is served by a regional transportation planning agency (RTPA), and every county with at least one urbanized area is also served by an MPO. Each of the 18 MPOs and the 26 RTPAs develops and adopts a regional transportation plan (RTP).

Federal law requires that MPOs prepare a Federal Transportation Improvement Program (FTIP) which is a short-range program of specific projects derived from the RTP and supported with available funding commitments from various sources.  The Federal Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (FSTIP) is a statewide programming document required by federal law and prepared by Caltrans. It is a compilation of 18 MPOs' FTIPs and projects from the rural portions of the state that are not located within an MPO boundary.

The STIP lists the capital projects that will receive State and federal funding.  The 1997 legislation that I mentioned in my earlier post broke up the STIP into two programs -75 percent goes into a regional program and 25 percent goes into an interregional program. The regional program is further subdivided by formula into county shares. 

The aforementioned RTP is the basis for each RTPA's Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP).  The RTIPs form the regional portion of the STIP and they also serve as the MPO's portion of the FSTIP.

Caltrans plans, designs, and nominates state highway projects in the Interregional Transportation Improvement Program (ITIP) — the interregional portion of the STIP. Caltrans also is responsible for the projects that are funded through the SHOPP.

Most projects in the adopted STIP and SHOPP are included in MPOs' FTIPs and the FSTIP. FTIPs and the FSTIP also include other federally funded projects that are not subject to the state's programming process.

Source: https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot-media/programs/financial-programming/documents/2023-fstip-final-a11y.pdf

As someone who actually attends MPO meetings, yes, I know what a TIP and STIP is.  Repeating the high level description of which organizations are involved doesn't get down to the more detailed level of where my question is getting at:  Which is, again, do MPOs/RTPAs hold veto authority over whether 100% state funded projects are added to their TIPs and therefore the STIP, if 100% state-funded projects even are.  That's a question that's a yes, no or sometimes answer, not "CA has MPOs that put together TIPs that make up the STIP" answer.  The answer does not lie in the boilerplate of a STIP document.

I'll put this way:  Given your scouring of the CalTrans website, the answer to my question lies not in an online .pdf intended for the public, but either from someone with access to California's version of "eSTIP," where the real magic happens (like in NY), or someone who is in or has experience in CalTrans' planning/program management group (whatever they call it out there).  Boilerplate from the STIP is not going to contain the actual mechanics of how CalTrans and their MPOs and RTPAs actually amend the TIPs and STIP in their continual updating of their capital program.  As I just heard for the 1000th time today from another group in my office, unless you're in program management, most people don't understand the day-to-day workings of it...until they find they need more money.

You don't seem to be understanding what I mean by a "100% State Funded" project, since you went back up to the high level explanation of what a TIP/STIP is.  This is a state-funded project that will have no federal reimbursement whatsoever and there is no federal mandate to include such projects in a TIP or STIP.  FHWA certainly doesn't have sign-off authority on 100% State funded projects, as there is no need for them to be authorized in FMIS -- their federal management software.  FHWA only checks federal authorizations against the STIP.  Although DOTs put together those fancy documents like you shared, in practice, the only thing that matters is what goes on in a state's eSTIP, where amounts are amended through whatever process deemed appropriate in the MPOs (and I'd imagine RTPAs).  100% State-funded projects in NY simply aren't in there most of the time because they don't need to be to get their funding authorized.  So, if MPOs/RTPAs can sit there and vote against CalTrans in their committee meetings in progressing 100% State-funded projects, that would be stupefying and if there is any legal backing for it, that would be another example of California being California instead of having common sense.

All that said, as I peruse the FSTIP document you shared (and I do like how they include the F.  NYSDOT should as well...), it does seem to me that CalTrans follows NYSDOT's programming practices.  The only projects listed in their highway bridge program section are federally-funded (i.e., I didn't see any with a totally blank federal row).  There are a paltry few 100% "State Cash" projects on local projects listed earlier in the document -- this arrangement would not be allowed in NY, unless it was a reverse betterment for a local entity to work on a state-owned road -- a situation NYSDOT tries to avoid at all costs...but fails to do so in rare cases.  Anyway, I'm suspecting that I'm correct in assuming that California doesn't add 100% state-funded projects to their STIP on a regular basis.  SHOPP also appears to be federally-reimbursed in some fashion and to some extent, per what I see in the document.

In other news:

I'm also intrigued by California ATP's program, which they list as a State fund source, but also includes federal TAP funding (!).  That must be an absolute nightmare to manage, given the various restrictions on TAP, especially regarding solicitation of projects.  Why on Earth did they think that was advantageous to mix that up with State funding?  Unless...my goodness, are they covering the local matches?  I've heard that's allowed, but NYSDOT forbids it at the State level.  Shoot, if I was municipality that got money for absolutely free and no skin in the game, there'd be a good chance the project would not progress on schedule.

I do also like how CalTrans just lists "STIP advanced construction" in their project listings.  "Um, this will be federally-funded somehow, sometime."   When you have to authorize the funds in FMIS, it has to have a federal program code/fund source associated with it.  Interesting that they're keeping the fund sources from the public...or, maybe they just fly by the seat of their pants.  Discussions with FHWA over their STIP's fiscal constraint must be quite entertaining.

Anyway, that was fun.  Thanks for trying.

[bing101]

https://ktla.com/news/local-news/portion-of-santa-monica-bluffs-in-danger-of-falling-onto-pch/

a section of CA-1 in Santa Monica has a section that looks like its about to fall off.

[Plutonic Panda]

^^^ weird Al's wife was the one that called it in too lol

[pderocco]

The crack looks much bigger than in the Street View 360VR shot from the bluff.

[Plutonic Panda]

Surprisingly one of my first times I've traveled from LA to San Francisco and back a few times during the day in the summer. Usually my trips are during the winter or at night. Mind you this also comes during a time where PCH is still closed south of Big Sur so perhaps that might have something to do with it.

But regardless it makes me think there are so many roads that need massive upgrades rather it be lane expansions, merging lanes, roundabouts, grade separations, or hell just build a fucking train to peoples front doors. Goddamn Caltrans do something.

Max, you seem to be closer to this area and more traveled than me, is it normal to have so much traffic? It wasn't necessarily stop and go except a few of usual culprits just the steady unrelenting amount and then you see some poor soul on a road trying to make a left turn. I watch it and weep. Is it just summer traffic? Related to CA-1 closures?

It makes me think we need a lot more freeways in California lol

[Techknow]

Max, you seem to be closer to this area and more traveled than me, is it normal to have so much traffic? It wasn't necessarily stop and go except a few of usual culprits just the steady unrelenting amount and then you see some poor soul on a road trying to make a left turn. I watch it and weep. Is it just summer traffic? Related to CA-1 closures?

Tl;Dr: I think it's pretty normal.

This year I routinely driven US 101 between SF and SJ in specific segments in late afternoon which tends to be one of the peak traffic periods. Here are my anecdotes:

Redwood City to Belmont (north) and Menlo Park (south) is generally fine with high volume traffic, even when ramp meters are on. The only reason there would be stop and go traffic is that an accident was nearby or on the way but it happens from time to time. Underpowered exits and junctions do end up with a line of cars. The Bayfront Expressway section of CA 84 is usually good, can travel fast but there are traffic lights. I seen complaints about crossing Dumbarton bridge though.

Redwood City to Sunnyvale: traffic is much heavier in Palo Alto and Mountain View before the CA 85 junction but gets better after that. Still, a 15 mile trip takes at best 30 minutes and if there is an accident, 50 minutes or more.

Saturday (and probably Sunday): high traffic levels around noon and afternoon around SFO and San Mateo, and stop and go traffic if there's an accident. Not sure why, honestly.