Loading...
10 October 28, 2019 Traffic Relief Strategy Comments are welcomed by the Commission. If you wish to provide comments to the Commission, please complete and submit a Speaker Card to the Clerk of the Board. MEETING AGENDA Traffic Relief Strategy Committee Time: 11:30 a.m. Date: October 28, 2019 Location: BOARD ROOM County of Riverside Administration Center 4080 Lemon St, First Floor, Riverside CA 92501 COMMITTEE MEMBERS Jan Harnik, Chair / Kathleen Kelly, City of Palm Desert Michael Naggar, Vice Chair / Maryann Edwards, City of Temecula Larry Smith / Linda Molina, City of Calimesa Wes Speake / Jim Steiner, City of Corona Scott Matas / Russell Betts, City of Desert Hot Springs Linda Krupa / Russ Brown, City of Hemet Brian Berkson / Chris Barajas, City of Jurupa Valley Victoria Baca / Carla Thornton, City of Moreno Valley Scott Vinton / To Be Appointed, City of Murrieta V. Manuel Perez, County of Riverside, District IV STAFF Anne Mayer, Executive Director Aaron Hake, External Affairs Director AREAS OF RESPONSIBILITY Countywide Transportation Improvement and Traffic Relief Plan and implementation ordinance RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION TRAFFIC RELIEF STRATEGY COMMITTEE www.rctc.org AGENDA* *Actions may be taken on any item listed on the agenda 11:30 a.m. Monday, October 28, 2019 BOARD ROOM County of Riverside Administrative Center 4080 Lemon Street, First Floor Riverside, California In compliance with the Brown Act and Government Code Section 54957.5, agenda materials distributed 72 hours prior to the meeting, which are public records relating to open session agenda items, will be available for inspection by members of the public prior to the meeting at the Commission office, 4080 Lemon Street, Third Floor, Riverside, CA, and on the Commission’s website, www.rctc.org. In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, Government Code Section 54954.2, and the Federal Transit Administration Title VI, please contact the Clerk of the Board at (951) 787-7141 if special assistance is needed to participate in a Commission meeting, including accessibility and translation services. Assistance is provided free of charge. Notification of at least 48 hours prior to the meeting time will assist staff in assuring reasonable arrangements can be made to provide assistance at the meeting. 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL 3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 4. PUBLIC COMMENTS – Each individual speaker is limited to speak three (3) continuous minutes or less. The Committee may, either at the direction of the Chair or by majority vote of the Committee, waive this three minute time limitation. Depending on the number of items on the Agenda and the number of speakers, the Chair may, at his/her discretion, reduce the time of each speaker to two (2) continuous minutes. Also, the Committee may terminate public comments if such comments become repetitious. In addition, the maximum time for public comment for any individual item or topic is thirty (30) minutes. Speakers may not yield their time to others without the consent of the Chair. Any written documents to be distributed or presented to the Committee shall be submitted to the Clerk of the Board. This policy applies to Public Comments and comments on Agenda Items. Under the Brown Act, the Board should not take action on or discuss matters raised during public comment portion of the agenda which are not listed on the agenda. Board members may refer such matters to staff for factual information or to be placed on the subsequent agenda for consideration. Traffic Relief Strategy Committee October 28, 2019 Page 2 5. ADDITIONS/REVISIONS (The Committee may add an item to the Agenda after making a finding that there is a need to take immediate action on the item and that the item came to the attention of the Committee subsequent to the posting of the agenda. An action adding an item to the agenda requires 2/3 vote of the Committee. If there are less than 2/3 of the Committee members present, adding an item to the agenda requires a unanimous vote. Added items will be placed for discussion at the end of the agenda.) 6. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES – SEPTEMBER 23, 2019 7. REVENUE ESTIMATE FOR COUNTYWIDE TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT AND TRAFFIC RELIEF PLAN Page 1 Overview This item is for the Committee to: 1) Approve a revenue estimate to guide development of the Countywide Transportation Improvement and Traffic Relief Plan (Plan); and 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. 8. TRAFFIC RELIEF PLAN STRUCTURE: GEOGRAPHY AND EXPENDITURE CATEGORIES Page 5 Overview This item is for the Committee to: 1) Approve geographic divisions and expenditure categories for the countywide Traffic Relief Plan (Plan); and Forward to the Commission for final action. 9. USE OF TECHNOLOGY FOR TRAFFIC RELIEF STRATEGIES Page 10 Overview This item is for the Committee to: 1) Receive and discuss information on the use of technology for Traffic Relief Strategies; and 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. Traffic Relief Strategy Committee October 28, 2019 Page 3 10. COMMISSIONERS / STAFF REPORT Overview This item provides the opportunity for the Commissioners and staff to report on attended and upcoming meeting/conferences and issues related to Commission activities. 10A. DISCUSSION OF NEXT TRAFFIC RELIEF STRATEGY COMMITTEE AGENDA 11. ADJOURNMENT The next Traffic Relief Strategy Committee meeting is scheduled to be held at 11:30 a.m., Monday, November 25, 2019, Board Chambers, First Floor, County Administrative Center, 4080 Lemon Street, Riverside. Draft Riverside County Traffic Relief Plan Vision, Goals, and Objectives Approved by Traffic Relief Committee, September 23, 2019 (Unanimous) Approved by Commission, October 17, 2019 (22-1) Vision 1. All Riverside County residents have a safe, reliable transportation system with options to get us where we want to go. 2. An efficient, world class transportation network attracts more industries with better paying jobs in Riverside County, reduces long commutes, improves health, provides social equity, strengthens our economy, and allows us to make a difference in our local communities. 3. We control our own destiny by making investments in our priorities without the heavy hand of Sacramento or Washington blocking our path, and with accountability provided by local citizens and the leaders they elect. 4. We respect and preserve the diverse communities, unique environments, and open spaces of Riverside County. Goals and Objectives 1. Address safety concerns on Riverside County roadways for motorists, cyclists and pedestrians. 2. Reduce fatalities and collisions on Riverside County’s transportation network. 3. Improve traffic flow to save us time. 4. Start construction of planned projects sooner. 5. Support more economic investment in Riverside County to attract high-paying jobs. 6. Increase our use of alternate modes of transportation in Riverside County, such as mass transit and ridesharing, while also keeping fares low for our seniors, veterans, youth and individuals with disabilities. 7. Provide for local control of sales tax revenue, ensuring that such revenue generated in the Coachella Valley, Palo Verde Valley, and western Riverside County is expended within those regions. 8. Advance projects that improve traffic flow along major transportation corridors and on parallel routes. 9. Keep roads in good condition by fixing potholes and making repairs quickly. 10. Reinforce infrastructure against natural disasters, such as floods and earthquakes to avoid road closures and traffic jams during emergencies. 11. Promote open spaces, wildlife, and culturally significant places in Riverside County through a sustainable transportation network. 12. Improve transportation services in rural and disadvantaged communities. 13. Establish safe and efficient routes to school for students. 14. Limit administrative staff salaries and benefits to 1% of collected sales tax revenue. 15. Develop a transportation network that harnesses existing and future technologies; anticipates future technologies to make travel safer and more efficient; and increases access to healthcare, employment, and economic development. AGENDA ITEM 6 MINUTES RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION TRAFFIC RELIEF STRATEGY COMMITEE Monday, September 23, 2019 MINUTES 1. CALL TO ORDER/ ROLL CALL The meeting of the Traffic Relief Strategy Committee was called to order by Commissioner Jan Harnik at 11:32 p.m., in the Board Room at the County of Riverside Administrative Center, 4080 Lemon Street, First Floor, Riverside, California, 92501. 2. ROLL CALL Members/Alternates Present Members Absent Brian Berkson Victoria Baca Jan Harnik Larry Smith Linda Krupa Michael Naggar Scott Matas Scott Vinton V. Manuel Perez Wes Speake* *Arrived after the meeting was called to order 3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE At this time, Commissioner Perez led the Traffic Relief Strategy Committee in a flag salute. 4. PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no requests to speak from the public. 5. ADDITIONS/REVISIONS There were no additions or revisions at this time. Traffic Relief Strategy Committee Minutes September 23, 2019 Page 2 6. COUNTYWIDE TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT & TRAFFIC RELIEF PLAN: VISION, GOALS, AND OBJECTIVES Aaron Hake, External Affairs Director, provided background information on the Traffic Relief Strategy Committee and invited Commissioners to provide their comments on their goals, vision, and objectives for the committee. Commissioner Michael Naggar stated it is essential the Committee look at future funding and infrastructure from a countywide perspective and not get mired in politics. He expressed his disappointment that the public is not there to participate in the future funding discussion and as such, is hoping for good public outreach. Commissioner V. Manuel Perez stated the Commissioners just need to do the work and the public will come. He believes the purpose of the committee is to work through the struggles and challenges to get to a tax measure that can be pushed forward to a vote. Commissioner Linda Krupa stated the Commissioners need to work together on this and look at it as a Countywide issue even though they each represent their own constituents; noting that constituents from every city impact each other’s communities when they get into their cars for travel. She agreed with her fellow Commissioners in removing the politics and just getting the job done. Commissioner Larry Smith stated he comes from a tax adverse community and his community expects him to represent them in a way that reflects what is important to them, however, he does not see another solution. He does not want to always have to go to the taxpayers to fund projects that are absolutely important to move traffic through the County, however if something is not done through the pass area at Interstate 10 there is going to be another area like the traffic situation going through Corona. He stated he sits on the committee with some reluctance, but understands and recognizes the absolute importance of the Commissioners responsibility to mitigate traffic in Riverside County. He commits to doing everything in his power to improve the traffic situation. He is not a big tax person and wishes there was another solution, but until another solution is brought forward he needs to be supportive of the things that the Commission has a responsibility to do. At this time, Commissioner Wes Speake arrived. Commissioner Scott Matas stated he has served on the Commission for more than 10 years, and the staff has done a fantastic job of trying to move the County into the future without money, which has been the toughest part. He noted he tries not to take things personally, however there were some harsh comments made by the public at the last meeting, which stuck with him. The Commission should not be ashamed for anything they have done, and thinks the group of individuals who addressed the Commission could be a strong advocate for their needs in their community but the Commissioners have to serve the whole County. The Coachella Valley is fortunate as they are able to take a Traffic Relief Strategy Committee Minutes September 23, 2019 Page 3 portion of the money that comes through and program it the way they want to, however he feels it is important to sit on the Committee and help the rest of the County get through some of the major issues that are going on the freeway and highway systems. He referenced a congestion map that was shown to Commissioners at a prior meeting and stated it is difficult to think how long solutions will take to build even if they were programmed today. He noted the plans have always been there, and the question is whether plans for the future can be found that can take the areas of congestion and make them better for people to live. He does not know the answer but he is going to try and that is why he is a part of this committee. Commissioner Brian Berkson stated the Commissioners need to be cognizant of the perspectives of their residents, meaning all County residents. When Commissioners are sitting on the Committee, they are responsible for regional programming for countywide transportation needs and need to look at it from the regional perspective. He stated the residents of the region are looking for more lanes or better scenarios to get them from A- Z without stealing what they have already paid for, which is what the perception is. He stated this has to be dealt with regionally in a way that is fair for everyone so they do not feel they are being ripped off by anyone. He stated he is also not a tax person, however if the tax initiative is moved forward, he looks at is as giving the residents the opportunity to weigh in and make the decision on a new tax. The State and Federal government have not provided enough funding for the improvement deficit so there is no other choice other than to pursue all perspective avenues and let the voters decide. He noted he is not promoting a new tax, he is promoting options. Commissioner Wes Speake stated when residents come in to speak it is indicative of a problem, and the Commissioners are there to help solve those problems. He noted there has been very little investment from the State and Federal government and the County is left to fight for themselves, which the Commission has done a good job at. If the Commission continues to make improvements, the way they have done and finish the things they have been started there will be a lessening of the public complaining. It is not a Corona problem or project, the western part of the County is fed by the 91 and the southern part of the County is fed by the 15 and the projects need to be wrapped up. Commissioner Jan Harnik expressed her appreciation to the other Commissioners for their comments. She stated this has to be looked at holistically, and the ink lines on a map mean little to community members as they travel throughout the region so this has to be looked at as a regional plan. She noted 40 percent of the goods that come in through the port go onto the 10 freeway. She looks at this as both as an opportunity to educate the community members and give them an opportunity to vote, and also as an opportunity to be proactive and get in front of some of the quality of life issues for the community members. She stated there is work to do, let us keep the politics out of it and do the work for our community members and for our County. Traffic Relief Strategy Committee Minutes September 23, 2019 Page 4 M/S/C (Matas/Perez) to: 1) Receive background information on the Traffic Relief Strategy Committee; 2) Discuss the vision, goals, and objectives of the Countywide Transportation Improvement &Traffic Relief Plan; and 3) Forward to the Commission for final action. 7. ECONOMIC IMPACT STUDY John Standiford, Deputy Executive Director, provided an overview of the proposed agreement with the University of California, Riverside School of Business to perform an economic impacts analysis related to the investment of an additional sales tax for transportation improvements in Riverside County. The study will analyze the benefits and costs of implementing a transportation plan. M/S/C (Perez/Matas) to: 1) Approve Agreement No. 20-19-012-00 to University of California, Riverside (UCR) School of Business, Center for Economic Forecasting & Development (UCR Center) to perform an economic impacts analysis related to the investment of an additional sales tax for transportation improvements in Riverside County in an amount not to exceed $199,500; 2) Authorize the Chair or Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission; and 3) Forward to the Commission for final action. 8. PROPOSED COMMITTEE MEETING SCHEDULE M/S/C (Vinton/Speake) to approve its meeting schedule as proposed. 9. ELECTION OF OFFICERS Lisa Mobley, Clerk of the Board, stated this item is for the Committee to select a Chair and Vice Chair. Commissioner Naggar nominated Commissioner Harnik as Chair, and Commissioner Speake seconded. Commissioner Perez nominated Commissioner Naggar as the Vice Chair, noting the entire county would be represented. M/S/C (Perez/Smith) to appoint Commissioner Jan Harnik as Chair and Commissioner Michael Naggar as Vice Chair. Traffic Relief Strategy Committee Minutes September 23, 2019 Page 5 10. COMMISSIONERS / STAFF REPORT Commissioner Perez invited everyone to the McCallum Theater on Saturday, October 19 for the first annual Mariachi Gala, noting he dressed for the occasion. He noted he is trying to establish bi-national and bilateral relationships with the County of Riverside and the nation states of Mexico, particularly Jalisco and Oaxaca. He has been working over the course of two years on these relationships and as a result of that work the Mayor and Governor are coming with some of the best mariachi in the world for this free event. Commissioner Smith stated after listening to the comments from the other Commissioners that this Committee is the right place to be. There is sensitivity to the potential impacts on people but he is serving with a strong group that recognizes and understands that this in not just a government bureaucracy as they actually deliver projects. He stated for the amount of money that is accumulated they deliver something as a Commission that positively impacts people’s lives. They don’t always do it right or get it perfect and sometimes it is difficult to keep up with demand, but he pledges his support to do everything he can to improve traffic in the region even though he may face some local resistance. Historically he has been a resistor in having anything to do with imposing taxes upon people, but in reality, they are not imposing but telling people here is your opportunity. He is going to be supportive of what the Committee can do together as a group to improve the traffic situation in Riverside County. He thanked his fellow Commissioners for their comments, as it is meaningful to know early on where everyone is in order to move forward as a group. Anne Mayer, Executive Director, thanked the Commissioners for volunteering to serve on this very important Committee. She noted there is a lot of work ahead and it is important that staff understands what the Commissioners think as they represent their communities and the County as a whole. She encouraged Commissioners to reach out to her directly with any questions, comments or concerns as the goal is to provide the Commissioners with the data and information so they can make the policy decisions. 11. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business for consideration by the Traffic Relief Strategy Committee, the meeting was adjourned at 12:05 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lisa Mobley Clerk of the Board AGENDA ITEM 7 Agenda Item 7 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: October 28, 2019 TO: Traffic Relief Strategy Committee FROM: Theresia Trevino, Chief Financial Officer THROUGH: John Standiford, Deputy Executive Director SUBJECT: Revenue Estimate for Countywide Transportation Improvement and Traffic Relief Plan STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Committee to: 1) Approve a revenue estimate to guide development of the Countywide Transportation Improvement and Traffic Relief Plan (Plan); and 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: An initial step in the development of the Plan is the estimation of projected revenues to fund the Plan. Determining a revenue estimate is critical for several reasons: • It creates a reasonable constraint to the scope and size of the Plan; • It ensures the Plan is achievable, which assists voters to have a reasonable expectation the Plan will be achieved; • It provides transparent information to the public regarding the estimated revenue that may be generated from a sales tax and what it could accomplish; and • State law requires the Commission to declare an approximate amount of annual revenue generated by a ballot measure. The University of California, Riverside School of Business, Center for Economic Forecasting & Development (UCR Center), through a partnership with Beacon Economics (Beacon), is a leading economic research and consulting center for the Inland Empire. The UCR Center team has extensive economic analysis and forecasting experience. The UCR Center presents an annual economic conference that includes its Inland Empire analysis and forecasts in addition to national and state forecasts. As a result of the UCR Center’s experience and understanding of the Inland Empire, it is a vital community partner and resource to businesses and local governments. The UCR Center and Beacon have provided long-term sales tax forecasting services to the Commission since 2013. The Commission also obtained economic impact studies from Beacon related to the State Route 91 Corridor Improvement Project and the Interstate 15 Express Lanes 1 Agenda Item 7 Project for inclusion in federal loan and grant submittals. At its October meeting, the Commission approved an agreement with the UCR Center to perform an economic impacts analysis related to the investment of an additional sales tax for transportation improvements in Riverside County. Considering the UCR Center’s familiarity with the Commission, Riverside County and the Inland Empire, and Measure A, Commission staff engaged the UCR Center to estimate the revenue from an increase in the sales tax rate in Riverside County using the California Department of Finance (DOF) demographic forecasts and an alternative demographic forecast. • According to the UCR Center, the DOF demographic model relies on net migration calculated based on total population and distributed equally based on age groups. This method does not account for shifts in net migration between generations and, therefore, does not accurately depict changes in demographics. The net migration allocation results in sharply different patterns of age in the region than what current data shows is occurring. The differences in age impact estimates of future growth as well as taxable sales. Further, the DOF estimates do not consider home production, and the link between home production and sales tax growth is important to long-term revenue projections. • Beacon developed a modified demographic forecast using a net migration model derived from historic trends based on each age group, resulting in a more comprehensive understanding of changes in population and more accurate total population estimate. Beacon’s model also uses economic variables such as home prices and unemployment as drivers for population. The sales tax estimate using the DOF demographic forecast is 6.1 percent higher than the sales tax estimate using Beacon’s alternative demographic forecast. The Fiscal Year 2019 sales tax estimates under the Beacon and DOF scenarios were comparable to each other and reasonable when benchmarked to the actual FY 2019 results. Staff also compared the two sales tax estimates and found that the DOF scenario estimate resulted in higher year-over-year growth rates than the Beacon scenario estimate. While any revenue projection is not a guarantee of actual revenues, staff believes the Beacon scenario revenue estimate is reasonable and more conservative than the DOF scenario revenue estimate. Using this revenue estimate would demonstrate the Commission’s continued prudent conservatism for revenue projections. The revenue estimate is presented in Attachment 1. Staff estimated the subregional revenue estimates based on a return to source allocation estimate that demonstrates the importance of each subregion retaining the funding generated in each subregion: • Western County • Coachella Valley • Palo Verde Valley 2 Agenda Item 7 Staff recommends the approval of the revenue estimate presented in Attachment 1 to guide the development of the Plan. Attachment: Riverside County Revenue Projection for New Expenditure Plan 3 DRAFT Riverside County Revenue Projection for New Expenditure Plan Amounts in 2020 Real $ FY Projected Revenue1 WC CV PV Total 2022 214,710,494$ 167,724,996$ 46,052,146$ 933,352$ 214,710,494$ 2023 220,185,206 172,001,667 47,226,389 957,151 220,185,206 2024 225,714,821 176,321,226 48,412,407 981,188 225,714,821 2025 231,099,968 180,527,931 49,567,440 1,004,598 231,099,968 2026 236,182,642 184,498,354 50,657,596 1,026,692 236,182,642 2027 241,243,220 188,451,516 51,743,013 1,048,690 241,243,220 2028 246,413,445 192,490,331 52,851,948 1,071,166 246,413,445 2029 251,591,898 196,535,573 53,962,648 1,093,676 251,591,898 2030 256,875,126 200,662,663 55,095,820 1,116,643 256,875,126 2031 262,136,830 204,772,939 56,224,376 1,139,516 262,136,830 2032 267,374,913 208,864,762 57,347,865 1,162,286 267,374,913 2033 272,510,602 212,876,599 58,449,393 1,184,611 272,510,602 2034 277,529,703 216,797,361 59,525,914 1,206,429 277,529,703 2035 282,385,445 220,590,512 60,567,397 1,227,537 282,385,445 2036 287,096,591 224,270,709 61,577,866 1,248,016 287,096,591 2037 291,749,672 227,905,547 62,575,881 1,268,243 291,749,672 2038 296,325,395 231,479,956 63,557,305 1,288,134 296,325,395 2039 300,867,668 235,028,235 64,531,553 1,307,879 300,867,668 2040 305,375,633 238,549,714 65,498,444 1,327,476 305,375,633 2041 309,758,408 241,973,398 66,438,482 1,346,528 309,758,408 2042 313,788,806 245,121,816 67,302,941 1,364,048 313,788,806 2043 317,721,053 248,193,562 68,146,349 1,381,142 317,721,053 2044 321,579,070 251,207,322 68,973,835 1,397,912 321,579,070 2045 325,327,122 254,135,181 69,777,735 1,414,205 325,327,122 2046 328,967,557 256,978,973 70,558,554 1,430,030 328,967,557 2047 332,567,099 259,790,820 71,330,601 1,445,678 332,567,099 2048 336,175,362 262,609,481 72,104,518 1,461,363 336,175,362 2049 339,812,355 265,450,584 72,884,598 1,477,173 339,812,355 2050 343,479,115 268,314,940 73,671,063 1,493,113 343,479,115 2051 347,135,693 271,171,342 74,455,343 1,509,008 347,135,693 8,583,680,911$ 6,705,298,010$ 1,841,069,418$ 37,313,482$ 8,583,680,911$ Subregional Return to Source2 78.1%21.4%0.4%100.0% Source: Revenue projections per UCR Center for Economic Forecasting and Development updated September 4, 2019) 1 Scenario is a new 1/2-cent sales tax beginning 7/1/2021 through 6/30/2051 2 Allocation by Geographic Area Assuming revenues are allocated to Western County, Coachella Valley, and Palo Verde Valley areas proportionate to the funds generated within those areas, these percentages represent the taxable sales for each geographic area generated in FY 2018, the most recent data available. Such allocations are subject to change annually. Prepared by TT 10/15/2019 Page 14 REVENUE ESTIMATES Countywide Transportation Improvement and Traffic Relief Plan Presentation to the Traffic Relief Strategy Committee October 28, 2019 Theresia Trevino, Chief Financial Officer 1 Revenue Estimates Purpose of Revenue Estimate OCTOBER 28, 2019 2 Reasonable constraint to Plan’s scope and size Reasonable expectation to achieve Plan Transparent information to the public State law requirement Revenue Estimates Measure A: A Historical Perspective OCTOBER 28, 2019 3 $- $50,000,000 $100,000,000 $150,000,000 $200,000,000 $250,000,000 199019911992199319941995199619971998199920002001200220032004200520062007200820092010201120122013201420152016201720182019 Revenue Estimates Regional Forecast Model Trend Factors OCTOBER 28, 2019 4 Employment/ Unemployment Consumer spending and income Real estate and construction Population Revenue Estimates Sales Tax Revenue Estimate Recommendation OCTOBER 28, 2019 5 •Assumptions –30-year period –Amounts in real $ –Growth rates of 2.55% decreasing to 1.06% –Geographic distribution based on 2018 taxable sales generation •Estimate: $8.6 billion •Geographic distribution: –Western: $6.71 billion –Coachella Valley: $1.84 billion –Palo Verde Valley: $0.04 billion QUESTIONS 6 AGENDA ITEM 8 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: October 28, 2019 TO: Traffic Relief Strategy Committee FROM: Aaron Hake, External Affairs Director THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Executive Director SUBJECT: Traffic Relief Plan Structure: Geography and Expenditure Categories STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Committee to: 1) Approve geographic divisions and expenditure categories for the countywide Traffic Relief Plan (Plan); and 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Proposal Staff puts forward for Committee deliberation and direction the following concept for how the Plan should be organized by geography and expenditure category: Geography Maintain the three geographic subregions in the 1989 and 2009 Measure A expenditure plans: • Western County • Coachella Valley • Palo Verde Valley Expenditure Category Organize expenditures in the Plan (projects, programs, and services) in all three subregions according to plain-language purposes the expenditures will achieve, rather than by mode (e.g., bus, rail, highway). Proposed Category Illustrative types of expenditures Reducing Congestion and Connecting Communities • Highway Improvements • Interchanges • Technologies • Rail/Express Bus 5 • New Corridors • Local and regional arterials • Active Transportation Projects • Infrastructure supporting permanent local jobs and economic development to reduce commuting Improving Safety and Keeping Infrastructure in Good Condition • Safety upgrades to county arterials, bridges, local roads, and highways • Alternative routes on major corridors • Grade separations • Freeway Service Patrol • Safe Routes to School • Active Transportation Projects • Upgrades, operations, maintenance of Metrolink and intercity rail stations • Maintaining local roads and transit systems Supporting Seniors, Veterans, Students, and Individuals with Disabilities • Specialized transit services • Fare stabilization • Safe Routes to School • Active Transportation Projects Rationale for Proposal Staff offers the following thoughts as the basis for the concept proposed above: Geography • Consistency with regional governance (e.g., Measure A, council of governments, transit properties). • Sense of identity among residents, particularly in the Coachella Valley. • Residents’ desire to see revenues remain within their area and not sent to other parts of the county, as expressed in public opinion surveys. Expenditure Categories • Purpose-driven: The Traffic Relief Strategy Committee’s name concisely conveys its purpose. So should elements of the Plan. While many transportation expenditure plans in California, including both of RCTC’s prior expenditure plans, are organized according to mode (bus, rail, highways, etc.), this traditional mindset can lead to debates that stray from the underling public policy challenges needing to be addressed. 6 • Direct: The Plan is an opportunity to clearly communicate to the frustrated users of the transportation system why RCTC is developing the Plan and what the Commission intends to accomplish. Unambiguous plain language rather than technical transportation-speak will spare concerned residents further time and frustration in trying to understand what the Plan does and how it will impact them. • Countywide: Maintaining consistent expenditure categories across all three subregions simplifies the message to the public and speaking to residents who travel between subregions of the county. Implementation of the Plan within each subregion in terms of allocation of dollars among each category and policy provisions within each category can be tailored according to local preferences. RCTC staff has conferred with staff to the Coachella Valley Association of Governments and has received concurrence on these categories. • Durability: The Plan will establish transportation priorities in Riverside County for multiple decades. Riverside County is changing rapidly and so is technology and the economy. As such, the way people move throughout Riverside County may change in the future. The Committee should consider the relevance of the Plan to future generations and the challenges they will face that cannot be anticipated today. • Public Support: Public support of the Plan is essential to implementation. Staff’s verbal presentation to the Committee will demonstrate levels of public support for various features of the Plan, based on recent statistically valid public opinion research throughout Riverside County. Feedback Requested – City and County Local Street Funding The 1989 and 2009 Measure A expenditure plans provide a portion of sales tax funds generated in each subregion directly to cities and the county of Riverside for local street and road improvements. The 2009 Measure A expenditure plan allocates the following amounts directly to cities and the County for local streets and roads: Subregion Amount of subregional funds for local streets and roads Basis for distribution among jurisdictions Western County 29%* 75% - Proportion of population 25% - Proportion of revenue generated Coachella Valley 35% 50% - Proportion of dwelling units 50% - Proportion of revenue generated Palo Verde Valley 100% 75% - Proportion of population 25% - Proportion of revenue generated *The expenditure plan says “an estimated $970 million specifically for this purpose” which is approximately 29% of estimated total proceeds in Western County over the life of the 2009 Measure A. 7 As a condition to receiving local streets and roads funds from Measure A, cities and the County are required to report to annually file their five-year capital improvement program (CIP) with RCTC and maintain the same level of local funding for street maintenance. In Western County and Coachella Valley, jurisdictions must participate in each subregion’s Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee program. In Western County, jurisdictions must also participate in the Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan. Jurisdictions have broad discretion to use these funds; RCTC does not set priorities for use of these funds. Staff requests feedback from the Committee as to whether the Traffic Relief Plan should provide a percentage of funds directly to cities and the County, and if so, for what purposes and under what conditions, if any. Staff has engaged in dialogue with several city managers and County Transportation and Land Management Agency regarding this topic. Many city managers have expressed a desire to see the Plan focus on larger regional projects that need to get done, rather than trimming some funds for smaller city projects. Some city managers have expressed that basic maintenance is a significant need and should be provided in the Plan for cities that need it. Considerations submitted for the Committee’s deliberations: • 2009 Measure A provides local street and road funding to local governments; • Senate Bill 1 (SB 1) provides local street and road funding to local governments in addition to pre-SB 1 gas tax funding for local streets and roads; • Providing funds to all 28 cities and the County for unincorporated areas reduces available funds for major regional projects and achieving meaningful quantities of funds for any one city will require a significant amount of the Plan to be devoted to local streets and roads; • Voters throughout Riverside County strongly support providing more funding to “repairing potholes,” “maintaining local roads,” and “keeping infrastructure in good condition;” • Voters throughout Riverside County strongly support funding returning to their local communities and having local control over those funds; and • Any funds provided in the Plan for local streets and roads do not necessarily have to follow the same distribution policy as 2009 Measure A. Next Steps Following Committee and Commission adoption of the geographic delineations and expenditure categories in this item and the revenue estimate in the previous agenda item, staff will return to the Committee on November 25 with potential projects, programs, and services to insert into the Plan. The Committee’s guidance on how to structure the Plan is essential for staff being able to provide recommendations for what specific expenditures should be included in the draft Plan scheduled for release to the public on January 8, 2020. 8 The proportion of funds allocated among the expenditure categories in each of the subregions will be determined based on the desired policy approach, specific project, program, and service priorities adopted by the Committee and Commission. 9 TRAFFIC RELIEF PLAN STRUCTURE: GEOGRAPHY & EXPENDITURE CATEGORIES Traffic Relief Strategy Committee Meeting October 28, 2019 1 Concept for Discussion & Committee Direction Traffic Relief Plan Structure: Geography & Expenditure Categories Geography OCTOBER 28, 2019 2 Policy –Return to source by sub-region Western County Coachella Valley Palo Verde Valley Traffic Relief Plan Structure: Geography & Expenditure Categories Expenditure Categories OCTOBER 28, 2019 3 Purpose-driven Direct Countywide Durable Public Support Reducing Congestion and Connecting Communities Improving Safety and Keeping Infrastructure in Good Condition Supporting Seniors, Veterans, Students, and Individuals with Disabilities Projects, Programs, Services Traffic Relief Plan Structure: Geography & Expenditure Categories Direction Needed: Local Streets & Roads OCTOBER 28, 2019 4 Traditional Approach: •Cities, County receive automatic formula share for local streets & roads For the Traffic Relief Plan: •Should traditional approach continue? –Alt. approaches? •Benefits of local returns vs. Benefits of impactful regional projects QUESTIONS, DIALOGUE, FEEDBACK & DIRECTION 5 AGENDA ITEM 9 Agenda Item 9 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: October 28, 2019 TO: Riverside Traffic Relief Strategy Committee FROM Marlin Feenstra, Project Delivery director THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Executive Director SUBJECT: Use of Technology for Traffic Relief Strategies STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Committee to: 1) Receive and discuss information on the use of technology for Traffic Relief Strategies; and 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The public has invested billions of dollars in highway infrastructure over many years, but as the population and economy have increased, construction of new capacity has not kept pace with the increased demand for that capacity. Furthermore, current policy, fiscal, and environmental constraints make it more and more difficult to provide new capacity. In various places around the world, innovative technologies are being used to manage freeways in a way that maximizes the capacity and efficiency of these investments. Staff will present some introductory information on the use of these innovative technologies. 10 MANAGING CONGESTION THROUGH TECHNOLOGY October 28, 2019 Marlin Feenstra, Project Delivery Director 1 ACTIVE TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT SMART FREEWAYS MANAGED MOTORWAYS United Kingdom 2 United Kingdom 3 Washington State 4 Minnesota 5 California 6 I-80 Smart Corridor- Alameda County & Contra Costa County Innovate 680 – Contra Costa County Active Traffic Management Strategies 7 •Dynamic Lane Use, Speed Control (queue protection) •Dynamic Junction Control •Motorist information •Part -time shoulder use •Bus on shoulder •Transit signal priority •Adaptive signal control or ramp meter control Goals of Active Traffic Management 8 •Increase throughput •Increase safety •Provide reliable travel times •Reduce congestion •Provide enhanced information to motorists •Improve work zone safety •Reduce congestion related pollution •Maximize use of existing infrastructure Use of Traffic Management Strategies in Reducing On-Road CO2 Emissions 9Source: US DOT website Some Considerations 10 •Choose Wisely •Driver Education •Caltrans •High Reward / Relatively Low Cost QUESTIONS DISCUSSION 11