FHWA/FTA AGUADILLA LRTP JOINT AGENCY COMMENTS

November 2, 2011

Page/Section / Comment / PRHTA Response (September 2011) / Nov 2, 2011 Federal Agency Response / Nov 23, 2011 Federal Agency Response
General Comments / Please verify the Table of Contents for titles, section numbers, and appendices / Table of contents verified. / Accepted
1 / The titles on the tables throughout the plan need to be specifically identified. PR is revising currently 7 Plans, any general reference to 2031 plans without specifically identify the LRTP being reviewed will cause confusion. / Tables identified by 2031 year horizon as applicable. / Accepted
2 / Please ensure the final document has been edited for grammar, spelling as well as consistency in format and acronym usage. / Done / Accepted
3 / Congestion Management Plan - please provide a sentence in your CMP chapter that the full report is found in the appendix of this document and incorporate. / Sentence included at Chapter 5, page 59. / Please include the full Congestion Management Process in the appendices (it was not in the draft we received) and identifyin Chapter 5 which appendix that is..
PRHTA Response: Congestion Management Process was included in Appendix D, as requested. Chapter five mentions and refers to Appendix D.
4 / Maps of the municipalities of the Arecibo North Region need to be included.At times the write is confusing as to whether Barceloneta is separate or a part of the Arecibo UZA. As you read along they explain it. But this should be clear from the beginning. / This question appears to be for the Arecibo UZA Plan not the one for Aguadilla. / Accepted
5 / Please check the first paragraph under Section 6.1.9 Forecast Growth in Federal Funds- part of this sentence appears to be a fragment form a prior version (regarding fiscal year 2010) / It is revised to be consistent with the Projection tables C-1 and C-2 / Accepted
6 / Table 4.4 Section 4.2.2 – the projects are in Spanish, please translate to English. / Done / Accepted
7 / Table 4-5 and Table 4-6 – these tables are in Spanish, please translate to English / Done / Accepted
8 / Table 4-6 and 4-7 – Intermediate and Long Range – all the projects list the same funding level – will the bridge replacement projects cost as much as the roadside pavement markings? Will the intermediate projects and the long term costs remain the same over these years? / As agreed, we are doing the same as with the 2030 San Juan UA Plan, with the proportion applicable to Aguadilla (in the absence of a model run for the 2031 plan). / Please include all the transit related projects, including project identification, costs, and funding sources, and other projects that are being considered as part of the development of a system wide/regional transit system (e.g., nonmotorized projects). The LRTP cannot consist of strictly highway related projects. 23 CFR 450.322 requires that the LRTP contain long range and short range strategies/actions/investments that lead to the development of an integrated multimodal transportation system. The lack of these projects makes it impossible to demonstrate that the LRTP is fiscally constrained, since it does not provide costs and revenues for the missing projects.
PRHTA: See Appendix C, Table C-3A, as well as project tables in Chapter 4. / Transit -PRHTA addressed this and added Transit funding for short, intermediate and long term funding.
Accepted
9 / Tables 4-5, 4-6 and 4-7 should list projects specific to the Aguadilla TMA, and not island wide. How much of the lump sum projects will be dedicated specifically to this area? / These are region-wide projects, not Islandwide. The last version of the AUALRTP we submitted for review included regionwide projects.
The description says “Islandwide”. because it is the name of the lumpsum project. However, the column with the heading “Municipality” and the cost column refer to the region (“regionwide”). It has also been accepted thus for purposes of the TIP and STIP. / It is important for transparency to the public, that the proportion of these lump sum projects that will be specifically for the Aguadilla region be identified. Additionally are these projects intended to use federal funds? As was done with the San Juan LRTP, please identify the Aguadilla portion in these tables.
Response: The Aguadilla Area-specific lump sum projects are identified as “Region Wide” among those that are intermediate- and long-range. Those projects identified as Islandwide are lump sum projects that cover thewhole of Puerto Rico and the portion specific to Aguadilla may not have been defined yet (once defined, they will be presented as such). / The agencies would like to offer a suggestionfor how this can be illustrated by adding the following 8 line table that is the sum of the 20 years:
20 Year total for Island Wide
20 year total for San Juan
20 year total for Aguadilla
20 year total for South UZA
20 year total for North UZA
20 Year total for East UZA
20 Year total for Southeast UZA
20 Year total for Southwest UZA
Total costs of the Plan recommendations in each UZA and TMA should match the revenues expected to be going to that area. A table is needed to demonstrate this.
PRHTA Reponse: See newTable C-4 in Appendix C of the Aguadila LRTP.
.
10 / We need to be in agreement that PRHTA is using the PIP that was updated for the SJUZA. However, they are simultaneously working on a PIP document that will be one PIP for all planning processes. / Yes / We agree. It is our understanding that for the 2040 plans a new comprehensivePublic Participation Process will be developedand used. And that PIP /PPP will be prepared in accordance with SAFETEA-LU requirements, which calls for a 45 day public review of the draft PIP/PPP before it is finalized.
11 / The PR State Natural Resource Dept. should have given comments as to the protection of the 3-4 State Forests in this region. As well as the noted “Magotes” that should have a policy for conserving them. / Yes, as part of the regular project development process, the DRNA was consulted. / In the 2040 Long Range Plans the state environmental agencies will need to be more involved and documentation of that collaboration will need to be included in the Plans.
12. 2031-2040 LRTP - / Comment: All tables and charts have been re-titled to reflect the 2031 horizon / Yes. / Accepted
13. List of Projects short, intermediate, and long range / Comment: I did not find and tables showing transit projects in the short, intermediate or long term…..I only saw roads and bridges for FHWA. / That is correct. / Please include all transit projects and any other projects that are being considered as part of the development of a system wide/regional system. The LRTP cannot consist of strictly highway related projects. 23 CFR 450.322 requires that the LRTP contain long range and short range strategies/actions/investments that lead to the development of an integrated multimodal transportation system. The lack of these projects speaks directly to the question about the fiscal constraint, or lack thereof, of this Plan. Include an explanation of the regional transit system planned in the future which will include a transit system for the for Aguadilla UZA which includes the Bike system that crosses municipalities such as for Rincon, Isabela, Aguadilla, Etc. A norther Region Transit System that begins in Bayamon and ends in Camuy or Hatillo which is so close to Camuy…
Response: See tables in Chapter 4 of the revised 2031 LRTP, as well as Table C-3 and C-3A in Appendix C. / Please identify where the narrative discussion is located that identified the corridors where transit investment is needed – consistent with the maps. Additionally Please identify where in the document the narrative connects the planned projects for the network mapped in figure 2-2 and the costs and revenues identified in the appendices. And, if such a narrative does not exist, it needs to be prepared and included. The FHWA network corridor description can be used in mirroring the transit network.
Please correct the title to figure 2-2 to make it consistent as 2031
PRHTA Response:
The narrative mentioning a conceptual transit plan suggesting an express intercommunity service is at Section2.2: Strategies for Public Transportation in Aguadilla TMA (page 20). This is further developed at Section 4.1.3.1 Public Transportation Network at page 41, and in the Recommendation section in page 45. At Section 4.1.3.1, although it focuses on the publicos’ service, it also mentions the corridor.
A brief explanation was added to the narrative in order to refer how the conceptual Transit Plan shown at figure 2.2 was considered in current projects as follows (page 20): “Figure 2.2 suggests an alignment for this intercommunity express service through the median of the PR-2. This is at a conceptual stage and needs further analysis. Thus, this alternative is not included at this point, as part of cost feasible projects mentioned in Chapter 4.”
Aguadilla TMA Transit network is characterized mainly by públicos’ routes at this point. The reference to transit network and services throughout the AUA considers this particular situation and the fact the regional Airport brings about other factors in terms of visitors and freight needs that have to be addressed. Nevertheless, AUA considers transit as a definite possibility for the area due to the activity generated, although currently there are not funds identified. Furthermore, FTA annual allocations for the region are addressed toward the policy defined in the plan for the region incentivizing and promoting local transit routes, and other initiatives.
Thefigure 2.2 title was corrected to make it consistent as 2031 as well as figure 2.3.
14.Highy Project Tables / Do the short term and intermediate tables show all anticipated highway projects that will need to be amended into the STIP and the TIP for the period between the adoption of the 2031 and the 2040 Plan adoption? / Yes. It is our understanding so far, that the short term and intermediate tables in the Aguadilla LRTP show all anticipated highway projects that will need to be amended into the TIP and the STIP for the period between the adoption of the 2031 LRTP and the adoption of the 2040 LRTP. In fact, some of these projects have already been included in the TIP and STIP, and do not require amendment, while others may be included as part of a new TIP and STIP, once the LRTPs are adopted. Thus, they may not necessarily require amendments for inclusion. / Please insert narrative that outlines the transit strategic improvements using the format in Section 4.1.4.2 that was used for the highway improvements.
PRHTA Response: Although the recommended transit corridor is mentioned throughout the discussion of the transportation network, at page 45 Section 4.1.4.1 was added the following suing the referred format:
“The following key transit project is recommended for the ATMA:
  • Express Transit Service. An express transit service is proposed to connect urban centers throughout the island, and part of that system will serve the Aguadilla region. It will link Aguadilla to Arecibo, Mayagüez, San Juan, Ponce, and other urban areas, connecting to público terminals or transit centers in each community (figure 2.2). The objective is to offer an island wide inter-urban service that is similar to the interurban train and bus service that operated throughout the island in the past. The economic growth in the region with the expansion of the Rafael Hernández airport in 2005 had generated and increase in passenger movement in almost 50%. This transit corridor would connect these activities and the mobility of the academic community in the University of Puerto Rico, Mayaguez Campus, representing a population of approximately 15,000 students and staff traveling from municipalities around the island. Nevertheless, further studies are required to estimate ridership and route alignment.”

15. Bridge Replacement / Are there any critical bridge replacement projects that need to be included in the listing of Cost Feasible projects? / Not yet. / Accepted
16. A final breakdown of the revenues and expenditures specific for AUZA. See Chapter VI Tables C / Comment: Table C-1 Island wide Revenues - FTA is good with the island wide / Thank you. / Accepted
17. Toll Revenues / Question: It is observed that tolls revenue appear to continue to increase for every year until 2031. Can the public sustain these consistent increases. Is it realistic? What is the price for toll today and what the price projected to end up as for the public. / The average actual toll price is $0.60 approximately. We have projected increases in this source of revenues based on projections made by our consultant, which are very conservative. The increases in Tolls revenues have been established in less than 2% annually, which is consider sustainable. Most of these increases are due to the elimination of the 5% discount in Auto- Expreso, more traffic and a slight increase in the average toll price up to $0.64 in 2016. / Please include this discussion in the text narrative in Chapter 6 to support the basis of these assumptions and as an important component of demonstrating that the LRTP is fiscally constrained.
Response: Please see new next to last paragraph in section 6.1.8 of the revised 2031 Aguadilla LRTP. / Please indicate what financial analysis and studies support this forecast rather than statingit was based on the projections of the consultant.
RESPONSE: WE SUGGEST TO MAKE THE FOLLOWING CHANGES TO CHAPTER 6: "The average actual toll price is $0.60 approximately. We have projected increases in this source of revenues based on a regression analysis, using fiscal years from 1999 to 2011. The regression analysis considered the average toll price, the real personal income, and the gasoline price, among other factors. Based on this, the increases in Toll revenues have been established in less than 2% annually, which is considered conservative and sustainable. Most of these increases are due to the elimination of the 5-cent discount in "Auto- Expreso" (e-pass), more traffic, and a slight increase in the average toll price of up to $0.64 in 2016. This represents additional revenues of approximately $4.0 million annually."
18. Toll Revenues / We too are concerned about the projected toll revenues and whether or not growth estimate for this revenue stream is realistic. If there is information that you can provide to support this assumption, please include that information in Chapter 6. / The Toll revenues projection are considered conservative and realistic. The increases in Toll Revenues (less than 2%) basically comes from the elimination of the 5% discount on Auto-Expreso, which represents an additional revenue of approximately $4M annually. This explanation has been included in Section 6.1.8 of Chapter 6. / Please include this discussion in the text narrative in Chapter 6 to support the basis of these assumptions and as an important component of demonstrating that the LRTP is fiscally constrained.
Response: Again, please see new next to last paragraph in section 6.1.8 of the revised 2031 Aguadilla LRTP. / See comment above – what type of analysis was performed that the projection was based upon?
RESPONSE: Same as above.
19.. Toll Revenues / FHWA: Chapter 6 Toll Revenues: Currently the information only provides projected revenues vs. real revenues through 2009. There should be at least one more real year data for this and a projected level for the rest of the life of the 2031 plan. Additionally, there is the statement in the document that actual toll receipts have been lower than projected. This information within Chapter 6 needs to be updated as well as toll revenues in Table C-1 / When we prepared this document, the most recent data was for the year 2009, due to 2010 Audited Financial Statements were issued during the March 2011. Thus, we considered to keep 2009 numbers as the latest actual information to be consistent with the information presented in the San Juan LRTP. The Table 6-1 (page 65) shows a decreased in tolls revenues and Figure 6-5 (Page 71) shows that the actual tolls revenues are less than previous projection. However, historically the tolls revenues have been consistently increased, except for year 2008 and 2009 which the decreases were due to: 1) Decrease in Traffic due to slowdown in the economy, 2) 5% Discount offered to Autoexpreso users, and 3) Reclassification of Prepaid amounts as Deferred Revenues. This is explain in more detail in Section 6.1.3 (Page 71). / Please include this discussion in the text narrative in Chapter 6 to support the basis of these assumptions and as an important component of demonstrating that the LRTP is fiscally constrained.
Response: Again, please see section 6.1.8 of the revised 2031 Aguadilla LRTP. / Accepted
20.FTA Revenues / FTA: Why are the revenues for FTA and FHWA consistent throughout the 2010 -2031: FHWA $127,050,000 million and FTA $12, 0000 million. / The revenues from FHWA have been increasing $5M every year, but for conservative purpose we projected a slight increase in this figure. Regarding the revenues from FTA, we considered only the amount that the PRHTA received for the TrenUrbano operation, which is $12M annually. / Please include more text narrative to support this methodology and the uncertainties related to the future Federal allocations, including any adjustments for inflation.