Loading...
07 July 17, 2000 Technical AdvisoryRIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA" 05094G RECORDS TIME: DATE: LOCATION: TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING MEETING AGENDA* 10:00 A.M. July 17, 2000 Banning City Hall Civic Center, Large Conference Room 99 East Ramsey Street, Banning, CA *By request, agenda and minutes may be available in alternative format; i.e. large print, tape. Bill Bayne, City of Cathedral City Dan Clark, City of Murrieta Dick Cromwell, SunLine Transit Louis Flores, Ca!trans District 08 Richard Folkers, City of Palm Desert Bruce Harry, City of Rancho Mirage Bill Hughes, City of Temecula Mike Janis, City of Desert Hot Springs George Johnson, County Elroy Kiepke, City of Calimesa John Licata, City of Corona Rick McGrath, City of Riverside Amir H. Modarressi, City of Indio Bob Mohler, City of Palm Springs COMMITTEE MEMBERS Dee Moorjani, City of Beaumont Habib Motlagh, Cities of Perris, San Jacinto, Canyon Lake Craig Nuestaedter, City of Moreno Valley Ray O'Donnell, City of Lake Elsinore Steve 011er, RTA Juan Perez, City of Hemet Jim Rodkey, City of Blythe Joe Schenk, City of Norco Ruthanne Taylor Berger, WRCOG Paul Toor, City of Banning Chris Vogt, City of LaQuinta Allyn Waggle, CVAG Tim Wassil, City of Indian Wells Byron Woosley, City of Coachella Cathy Bechtel, Director of Planning and Programming RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA* *Actions may be taken on any item listed on the agenda. Banning City Hall Civic Center, Large Conference Room 99 East Ramsey Street, Banning, CA 10:00 A.M. Monday, July 17, 2000 1. CALL TO ORDER. 2. SELF -INTRODUCTION. 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES — June 19, 2000 4. PUBLIC COMMENTS. (This is for comments on items not listed on the agenda. Comments relating to an item on the agenda will be taken when the item is before the Committee.) 5. CALTRANS EXTERNALLY FINANCED STRUCTURES. (Attachment) 6. SIP CONFORMITY UPDATE/2000 RTIP UPDATE (Attachment) 7. GOVERNOR'S TRANSPORTATION INITIATIVE/2000 STIP AUGMENTATION (Attachment) 8. 2000/2001 SB 821 PROGRAM (Attachment) 9. PROJECT MONITORING DATABASE — PROJECT LISTING 10. JULY 12, 2000 RCTC MEETING FOLLOW-UP 11. OTHER BUSINESS 12. ADJOURNMENT (The next meeting will be August 21, 2000 in Riverside.) MINUTES TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES Monday, June 19, 2000 1. Call to Order Vice Chairman Juan Perez called the meeting of the Riverside 'County Transportation Commission (RCTC) Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) to order at 10:00 a.m. at the offices of the Riverside County Transportation Commission, 3560 University Avenue, Conference Room "A", in Riverside, California. 2. Self Introductions Members Present: Tom Boyd, City of Riverside Dan Clark, City of Murrieta Kerry Forsythe, SunLine Transit Mark Greenwood, City of Palm Desert Bruce Harry, City of Rancho Mirage Bill Hughes, City of Temecula George Johnson, County of Riverside John Licata, City of Corona Bob Mohler, City of Palm Springs Craig Nuestaedter, City of Moreno Valley Ray O'Donnell, City of Lake Elsinore Kahono Oei, City of Banning Juan Perez, City of Hemet Larry Rubio, RTA R. Taylor Berger, WRCOG Chris Vogt, City of LaQuinta Allyn Waggle, CVAG Tim Wassil, City of Indian Wells Others Present: Fred Alamolhoda, Caltrans Cathy Bechtel, RCTC Louis Flores, Caltrans Shirley Medina, RCTC Amad Qattan, City of Corona Michael Todd, UC Riverside Dale West, WRCOG Technical Advisory Committee Minutes June 19, 2000 Page 3 of 4 County agencies. $20 million is available statewide for this program for the years 2000 and 2001. District 8 may receive a little more than 10% of this money however, this is a preliminary estimation. Mr. Flores further advised the members that the candidate pool is much smaller for the safety index, and that this may be something to consider in the future. The second call for -projects will be in November 2000. 9. June 14, 2000 RCTC Meeting Follow -Up Cathy Bechtel stated that at this last meeting the Commissioners considered which of the CETAP corridors should move forward for environmental documentation. The corridors were narrowed down to four at this meeting, as it was the desire of the consultants to see all four corridors move forward to Tier I Environmental Documentation. All four were considered vitally important to the county. A seven member ad hoc committee will be formed, the purpose of which will be to make a recommendation on these corridors at the July 12, 2000, Commission meeting. The commission approved the San Jacinto branch Tine report. Also a discussion regarding the establishment of an emission standard policy for urban transit buses took place. A presentation of the proposed MagLev Rail System took place at this meeting. The commission took action to support SCAG's application for federal funds for the MagLev project,with the caveat that it may not conflict with our commuter rail system. 10. Other Business Ms. Bechtel advised that at the last Commission meeting the Commission had been informed that there would be a Call for Projects this fall for STIP funds. AGENDA ITEM 5 State of California Department of Transportation Engineering Service Center, Structures Office of Special Funded Projects 801 121h Street, Suite 400 Sacramento, CA 95814 Mail: 1801 30th Street, MS-12 Sacramento, CA 95816 rsrll6trns (916) 445-7410 CALNET 485-7410 Earl R. Seaberg Jr, P.E. FAX (916) 445-7752 Senior Bridge Engineer E-mail: Earl_Seaberg@dot.ca.grry Spocial Funded Projects EireEI(G/Nffi/.15sawECEiwr • {. .—b...i:• ... •. e'i �.. w .-eH-.ate What Are Special Funded Projects? • Capital Improvements Sponsored by others on the State Highway System (or within R/W) • Involve Federal, State, Local and Private Partnerships • Funding Sources Include: Local Tax Measures Funds Local Non -Tax Funds Private Funds Combination of Local, Private, State and Federal Funds GOP 3 a Where Do Our Projects Come From? • Local Transportation Authorities (Tax Measure Authorities, Association of Governments, etc.) • Local Agencies (Counties, Cities, etc.) • Private Developers • Encroachment Permit Program • Public Toll Road Agencies • Privatization Projects (Toll Roads) • Rail Agencies (Light or Heavy Rail) • Others (State Depts, Fed Agencies, etc.) a..iammmrs] 3 Who Are We? E. wearing S...le. cuter John Allison.--+ctini Director dN,lu of E. rh on tF. Englwutlwg l[ Deolgn Support Thomas Post,Chief Orrice. of Specl.l Fu.A.d Projects :Arid re, Boutros, CI]iei OSFP Organization Lam ha IW 2L11.10miale OWLC DM I. Zia y I. Zii c. rwry Br 'r ; Pm. 4'r.cu� 5 am ifit Why Do We Get Involved? • • CALTRANS is Responsible for Operations, Maintenance and Tort Liability After Special Funded Projects are Constructed (r.fler they are rcliwquishd V. the State /n case .f Flour Highway RIM • All Special Funded Projects Must Conform to CALTRANS Policies, Standards and Practices What Do We Do? Provide Liaison and Technical Support to Ensure i that Transportation Structures on the State we Highway System, which are Designed by Others, itim Conform to CALTRANS Policies, Standards and Practices mc,,mgasesw®I MN 7 _...... -_rem Why the OSFP Liaison Engineer? I Mum • Coordination of procedural and technical issue relayed to consultant designed structure project • Liaison and structural consultation to Project Development staff at all phases of a project • Oversight and Approval of the structure PS&E • Technical coordination & Support during Construction ESC's Single Point of Contact e • What Is Our Role? • Detailed Process in Information & Procedures Guide Pii, • Enforce Current Standards and Practices ▪ • Mirror In -House Requirements y • Approve Process and Design Exceptions ; 71- 1 • Identify and Broadcast new Requirements 02110 0 Typical Project Development Cycle PID Phase Project AppmvaI Phase Construction Phase �ABWWaQrm'i Programming Phase PS&E Phase Project Wrap -Up Phase • f Where Do We Get Involved? PA/EA PIp PR Exvira.Da Typical Project Development Tasks It� 1 (4111 Indicates Work Breakdown jStructure (WBS) Activities) �IMCilgrocrcrirl .ri PS&E Project Final Cpn[rac! Constrac inn R1W� 12 0 Typical Structure Project Tasks I • Advance Planning Study Preparation (P!iR Stages] I Advance Planning Study Update (PR Stage) 11111 Bridge Site Data Submittal / Prelim Investigations 1E Ma 4s ,'il 40 Structure General Plan • Draft Structure PS&E • Final Structure PS&E • r.ltaissarzura Construction Engineering AGENDA ITEM 6 DATE: July 10, 2000 TO: Technical Advisory Committee Members FROM: Shirley Medina, Program Manager SUBJECT: State Implementation Plan (SIP) Conformity Update / 2000 Regional Transportation Improvement Program Update As discussed at last month's TAC meeting, there was rising concern over the State Implementation Plan (SIP) for ozone not meeting the air quality standards for Reactive Organic Gas (ROG) in the 2010 attainment year due to the lack of full implementation of State sponsored programs/commitments included in the SIP - mainly the Inspection and Maintenance Program or Smog Check II Program. This would cause a shortfall in emissions reductions of 19 tons per day in ROG. If the SIP could not meet the air standards/emissions budgets, then capacity enhancement projects and any federal approvals needed for projects identified in the Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP) would be halted in the South Coast Air Basin. We also reported that several agencies were working to resolve the problem including the Air Resources Board (ARB), Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD), and Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). A meeting was held at SCAG on July 9th to discuss the conformity issue. The outcome of the meeting was good news. Attached is a presentation given by ARB on anticipated strategies to meet the SIP obligations. In summary, improvements to Smog Check II, and inclusion of currently adopted ARB Measures along with new measures into the SIP will fulfill the State's commitment. Although the strategies that will be undertaken by ARB would eliminate the SIP conformity problem, further actions are needed to put this issue to rest. EPA would still need to approve the strategies proposed by ARB and emissions tests would need to be run to demonstrate conformity. As it stands now, SCAG is pursuing the adoption of the 2000 RTIP which will include all projects (noncapacity and capacity enhancement projects). The schedule for the 2000 RTIP adoption by the Regional Council is September 7, 2000. Should any problems arise with ARB's proposed strategies in meeting the SIP commitments, SCAG is prepared to submit an "Interim" RTIP that would include only noncapacity enhancement projects and Transportation Control Measures (TCMs) to ensure that they proceed with implementation. AGENDA ITEM 7 Cc* CALIFORNIA TRANSIT ASSOCIATION 1:: 4 1; Str!cl. SAC ;. 3 • :::r3mrnr3. 9:;3:. Fr :ire 191E -:4 4?1j • .3'6; 4ZE -•r Via Fax/£mail July 7, 2000 To: Members of the California Transit Association Fm: Joshua W. Shaw, Executive Director RE: STATUS REPORT ON TRANSPORTATION FINANCE ACTIONS Months of negotiations between Governor Davis and the Legislature over a package of transportation investments are finally coming to a close: o On Friday, June 30, the Govemor signed the 2000-01 Budget Bill, containing S2 billion in one-time appropriations for transportation capital projects. o On Thursday, July 6, the Governor signed two Budget "trailer bills" implementing a five- year, S4.8 billion transportation funding program. I was invited to attend the Governor's Budget signing ceremony on Friday, where he publicly thanked me and the California Transit Association, and several other representatives from the transportation world, for working toward an improved California transportation system. These legislative actions by the Govemor and Legislature, and the personal acknowledgment of the Governor, represent an unprecedented investment in California's transportation systems, and an extraordinary recognition of public transit's vital role.' The members of the California Transit Association should be particularly pleased that more than 60% of the funds dedicated to capital projects in this package are going to public transit, and that a new five-year program of increased Public Transportation Account funding will provide additional operational and capital assistance. It is no accident that these investments have been made on the heels of our Association's decision to greatly step up its efforts to influence the political process. At the same time, I view this year's accomplishments as a down payment on our vision of a truly balanced California transportation system. There is still much work to be done. Following is my analysis of what's contained in the package, and what's still to come. Meeting California's On -Road Mobile Source Emission Reduction Commitments July 6, 2000 California Environmental Protection Agency Air Resources Board Introduction • _ State Implementation Plan (SIP): California's blueprint to reach health - based air quality standards • The South Coast SIP relies on Smog Check II • The SIP also relies on other State measures to provide necessary emission reductions 2 Near -Term Strategy to Improve Smog Check 11 • More stringent NOx cut -points • Better evaporative system and liquid leak check • Direct more vehicles to Test - Only stations • Loaded mode test for gas trucks • Remote sensing Smog Check 11 Program Improvements Underway • Consumer assistance — $1000 to scrap high polluters — $500 repair assistance: • $20 co -pay for low income • $100 co -pay for Test -Only • Administrative fixes - DMV 6 IAA 811 Where Do We Get Involved? .r. I ♦ Project Initiation (Advance Planning Studies) ♦ Contract Statement of Work ♦ Consultant Selection WI • Field Review ♦ [value Analysis ♦ Project Development Team Representation sasaaram] 1 lilt Where Do We Get Involved? • Public Hearings /Meetings • Structural Consultations ♦ Type Selection Approval lone " • Technical Oversight of Structure Projects ' (PS&E) • Construction Design Support �_,�aurzma9 Sim Construction Support • Coordination with Consultant & Field Personnel • Construction Contract (Bidder's !nannies, Addenda) i ♦ CRIPs and CCO's ♦ Clarifications /Interpretations of Details ♦ Shop Plans • As -Built Plans iNCravmerl .. 77 11 �► Our Project Types ♦ All Bridge Structures mew, ramp or nedifictiin.sl ♦ Non -Standard Structures including Retaining and Sound Walls, Culverts, Sign Structures, etc. ♦ Tunnels, Culverts wider than 20 , Pumping plants, teri Storage Boxes, Seal Slab/Boat Section, Transit Station, An Maintenance Station, etc. ♦ Any Type of Project that OSD would Typically be Responsible for ♦ If you are not sure, Just Ask!!! I 1 jawceafj UM le • —1 ewee� Typical Review Duration Bridge Site Data Submittal General Plan (Type Sde11oni >RI•L Unchecked Details 'RriL Submittal luldal PS&E 1 Submittal Intermediate PS&E Submittal Final PS&E Submittal 35% kS l 100% 1:4.1 Our Challenges ♦ Workload Identification /Resoureine ♦ Early Project Involvement ♦ Quality & Responsiveness of Consultant a4 ♦ Schedule Commitments ♦ Oversight Staff Availability /Experience ♦ Scope Determination /Late Changes • Construction Process and Documents • Encroachment Permit Review Process 1 Alc'rrrarI 411 A: OSFP Liaison Engineer Contact the OSFP Liaison Engineer for Additional information IfijkEncroachment Permit Projects Special Funded Prnject Improvements on the Highway System Will Require a Cooperative or a Highway Improvement Agreement Total Cost > S1,000,000 Typically handled by a Project Development Unit within the District �aaa�asvem•I Permit Prt7tect ♦ Improvements on the Highway System ♦ Aja Require a Cooperative or a Highway Improvement Agreement ♦ Total Cost < SI,000,000 • Permit Application and Permit Review Process • • at What's with Permit Projects? ♦ No Input into the Development of the Project ♦ Potendal Conflicts .14' on Many Fronts 3.1 iii • Life cycle Liabilities • Schedule Delays and Cost Increase ♦ Credibility/ Customer Service 77 �®ascrarar� PA/FM Project Final _ Contract constntCti¢n riv! (211116 2 11 How do we hear about projects? ♦ District • Sponsoring Agency ♦ Consultant • Rumors Larimvarf 11 51„.. it How do we Identify Resource Needs? • Most of our resources are based on PMCS ♦ Few projects are based on Spread Sheets asi tat • Few Projects w/ Work Agreements (XPM) me' has • No Resources for Permits (< $1 M) ▪ !a► • Unplanned / Unresourced Reimbursed Work �+,f�raac�er� OUP 2 i "Traffic Congestion Relief Fund" Implementation Issues Funding Issues 1. Use It Or Lose It Deadlines: The statute establishes a new set of "use it or lose it" deadlines for the projects in the initiative. Regional agencies encourage the CTC to recognize up front that certain projects, particularly large ones with significant cost or scope issues, will be hard-pressed to meet the deadlines. Also, air quality conformity issues may delay the • amendment.of some projects into the Federal Transportation Improvement Programs and/or the Regional Transportation Plans, stalling their ability to proceed. In these and other circumstances, flexibility in the use of the CTC's statutory discretion to grant time extensions is encouraged if a compelling case can be made for a reasonable alternative timeline. 2. Need for Matchine Funds: Most projects will require additional matching funds, in some cases the source of which has yet to be determined. It will take some time for agencies to develop a funding plan for these projects. In some cases, the lack of matching funds may require phasing of the project or substitution of a fully -funded project. 3. Front Loading of State General Funds: Front -loading of general funds may be desired when matching funds are only available at a later date. 4. Coordination with STIP Funds: Agencies are interested in the ability to access STIP funds, including AB 1012 advance funding, in a timeframe that corresponds with their state general fund allocations. 5. EarIv Access To Funding: Certain projects are ready to use their funding as early as possible. The statute is clear that no costs incurred prior to approval of the application by the CTC will be reimbursed. The earliest date that the first allocations are likely to be made is December, 2000, perhaps even January, 2001. In order to avoid delaying a project that is ready to deliver, it is worthwhile to consider adding language in•the clean up legislation to allow expenditure of funds for projects prior to approval of an application. The process could be similar to the process set forth in SB 872. 6. Federalization of Projects: Many projects will require additional funds from federal sources, thereby subjecting the project to all the federal regulations. When state general funds exceed the amount needed to match these federal funds, an overmatch of "clean" state funds will result. If possible, it would be desirable to provide opportunities to trade these overmatched state funds for federal funds, and consolidate the state funds in another project. Delivery of these 100% state -funded projects can then be expedited because the cumbersome federal delivery requirements will not apply. This objective is consistent with that of the STP/CMAQ "fund swap" provisions included in AB 2928. Depending on the flexibility of the statute, trades of this nature could be made across projects within a single lead agency, across lead agencies within a region, across regions, or even to projects outside of the TCRF projects. 1 CALIFORNIA'S REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLANNING AGENCIES July 6, 2000 Mr. Jeremiah F. Hallisey, Vice Chairman California Transportation Commission 1120 N Street, Room 2233 (MS-52) Sacramento, CA 95814 RE: Guidelines for Implementing Projects in the Traffic Congestion Relief Fund Dear Vice Chairman Hallisey and Task Force Members: The regional transportation planning agencies are pleased to have the opportunity to work with you to develop guidelines for implementing the provisions of AB 2928, including projects to be funded by the "Traffic Congestion Relief Fund" (TCRF). The infusion of $5.4 billion in new transportation funding represents a unique opportunity for us to work together to bring a significant level of congestion relief to the traveling public. A representative group of our agencies has met and discussed the issues that we believe will need to be addressed in the development in these guidelines, to maximize the chances for successful delivery of the projects in the initiative. Regardless of the specific provisions, we have agreed that overall the guidelines should support a process that is both flexible and streamlined. Flexible guidelines are important because there is a wide range of projects, project sponsors and levels of funding within the program. For instance, some project sponsors are ready to spend money as of July 1, while others may need more than the two year timeline to fully develop the project's scope, cost, schedule and institutional arrangements. The guidelines should be flexible enough to make the program work given a variety of different project circumstances. A streamlined process is also critical. The availability of state general funds provides the opportunity to expedite the delivery process by avoiding the cumbersome federal requirements. The application process as outlined in statute could become so detailed and complex that many large projects would take the entire two year period to complete it. We hope that the process for obtaining funds from the California Transportation Commission can instead be as simple and straight -forward as possible --even serve as a model for streamlining other funding programs. c/o Santa Cruz County Regional Transportation Commission, 1523 Pacific Ave., Santa Cruz, CA 95060 phone: (831) 460-3209 fax: (831) 460-3215 e-mail: debbie.hale@co.santa-cruz.ca.us Re Tonal North Coast Railroad: repair and upgrade track to meet Class II (freight) standards $85 60 32 )Los Angeles,Bus Fleet: acquire new clean fuel Buses for LAMTA. $150 150 33 ]Los Angeles Blue line to Los Angeles - New rail line Pasadena to Los Angeles $40 1$40 34 ILos Angeles San Megan (Pacific Surfliner): triple track within LA County and add run -through -tracks through LA Union Station $176 1$100 35 Los Angeles LA Eastside Transit Extension: build new light rail line into East LA, from Union Station to $704 1S236 36 Atlantic via 1st St. to Lorena :Los Angeles LA Mid-CityTransit Extension: build Light Rail Transit and Bus Rapid Transit system in iMid-City/Westside/Expasition Corridors $595 $256 137 !Los Angeles LA San Fernando Valley Transit Extension: build Bus Rapid Transit system in Burbank- $291 $245 Chandler Corridor North Hollywood to Warner Center 138 ILos AneelesiRte 405: add northbound HOV lane over Sepulveda Pass, Rte 10 to Rte 101 f$336 $90 [39 ILos Angeles Rte 10: add HOV lanes on San Bernardino Freeway over Kellogg Hill, near Pomona, Rte $300 $90 40 605 to Rte 57 ILos Angeles Rte 5: add HOV lanes on Golden Stale Freeway through San Femando Valley, Rte 170 $164 $50 41 (Hollywood Freeway) to Rte 14 (Antelope Valley Freeway) ILos Angeles Rte 5: widen Santa Ana Freeway to 10 lanes (2 HOV + 2 mixed flow), Orange County line tr.$1,250 $125 42 Rte 710, with related major arterial improvements Los Angeles Rte 5: improve Carmenita Road interchange in Norwalk 587 ,S71 )43 Los Angeles Route 47 (Terminal Island Fwy) at Ocean Blvd Overpass - construct interchange in the city of Lone Beach $48.2 $18.4 144 ILos Angeles Rte 710: complete Gateway Condor Study, LA/LB Ports to Rte 5 ($4 $2 145 ILos Angeles1Rte 1 at Rte 107 (in Torrance) Reconstruct intersection $2 1S2 [16 ILos Angeles Rte WI: complete environmental studies to improve corridor from Rte 170 (North $3 $3 [18 Hollywood Freeway) to Rte 23 in Thousand Oaks (Ventura County) Los Angeles Highland Avenue at Hawthorn - Intermodal Transportation Center 550 S10.0 149 ILos Angeles Rte 71: complete 3 miles of 6 lane freeway through Pomona, from Rte 10 to Rte 60 1560 —1530 30 ILos Angeles Rte 101/405: add auxiliary lane and widen ramp through freeway interchange in Sherman $62 $21 51 Oaks Los Angeles Rte 405: add HOV and auxiliary lanes for 1 mile in West LA, from Waterford Ave to Rte10 $74 525 152 Los Angeles Automated Signal (ATSAC) Corridors: improve 479 automated signals in VictoryNentura $16.0 $16 153 Corridor, and add 76 new automated signals in Sepulveda Boulevard_ and Rte 118 Corridors Los Angeles Alameda Corridor East: build grade separations on BNSF and UPRR lines, Downtown LA to$950 5150.0 54 LA County line Ventura Rte 101/California street off ramp 515 515.0 47 F Inland :Empire Alameda Corridor East: build grade separations on UPRR line, LA County line to Colton, 15550 with rail -to -rail separation at Colton S95 [55 San Metrolink: Track and signal improvements on Metrolink's San Bernardino line $15 $15 56 ,Bernardino :San Rte 215: add HOV lanes thru downtown San Bernardino, Rte 10 to Rte 30 $263 $25 57 .Bernardino San Rte 10: widen freeway to 8 lanes through Redlands, Rte 30 to Ford St $35 1510 IBernardino 158 San I-10/Live Oak Canyon Interchange in the City of Yucaipa $11 1511.0 59 IBernardino San I-15 South Bound Truck Climbing Lanes (2 Locations) $10 1$10 60 !Bernardino Riverside Route 10 East of Banning - reconstruct Apache Trail Interchange as the first phase of $30 1530.0 61 improvements on this corridor. ;Riverside IRte 91: add HOV lanes thru downtown Riverside, Mary St. to Rte 60/215 Jct. $170 1$40 162 :Riverside IRte 60: add 7 miles of HOV lanes west of Riverside. Rte 15 to Valley Way $40 1$25 i63 :Riverside Rte 91: improve the Green River interchange and add auxiliary lane and connector ramp east $44 $5 - 64 of the Green River Interchange to northbound Rte 71 _ Orange Rte 22: add HOV lanes on Garden Grove Freeway, Route I-405 to Route SR55 1$250 $207 Drange Alameda Corridor Expansion (Orangethorpe-Corridor): build grade separations on BNSF '$300 $28 FO 3 line, LA County line through Santa Ana Canyon San Diego San Diegan (Pacific Surfliner): double track intercity rail line between San Diego & Orange $126 $47.0 74 County line; Add maintenance _yard in San Diego San Diego San Diego Transit Buses: acquire about 85 new clean fuel Buses for San Diego transit $30 S30 75 service San Diego Coaster Commuter Rail: acquire one new train set to expand commuter rail service +$14 r514 76 San Diego Rte 94: complete environmental studies to add capacity to Rte 94 corridor, Downtown San $20 $20 77 Diego to Rte 125 in Lemon Grove :San Diego „East Village Access: irarove access to light rail from new in town East Village development$15 r$15 178 San Diego North County Light Rail: build new 20 mile light rail line from Oceanside to Escondido 5253 580 79 Boulevard and Bond Road Sacramento Route 50/Sunrise Boulevard; interchange modifications S13.2 $3.0 134 Sacramento Route 99/Seldon Road; interchange project; reconstruction and expansion $18.3 :$3.0 l35 Tulare .Cross Valley Rail; upgrade track from Visalia to Huron '$12.0 S4.0 138 :San Francisco Balboa Park BART Station; phase I expansion 340.0 S6.0 139 Tulare Hwy 99 - Construct new Pedestrian Overcrossing in the community of Goshen :62.5 :S2 140 Alameda In Union City - construct pedestrian bridge at Union Pacific rail tracks from Wipple Road to Decoto Road $2.0 $2.0 l41 .Los Angeles West Hollywood; repair. maintenance, and mitigation of Santa Monica Boulevard '$26.0 $2.0 142 .San rMrancisco, arin Seismic retrofit of the national landmark Golden Gate Bridge $297.0 $5.0 144 os AngeleslConstruction of a new siding in Sun Valley between Sheldon Streed and Sunland Boulevard :$6.5 :56.5 145 Riverside Construction of Palm Drive Interchange $10.0 '.$10.0 146 Imperial Route 98; widening of 8 miles between Route 111 and Route 7 from two lanes to 4 lanes :$50.0 '1610.0 148 Santa Cruz Purchase of low -emission buses for express service on Route 17 133.75 $3.75 149 .Santa Cruz Renovation or rehabilitation of Santa Cruz Metro Center ''61.0 ~:$1.0 150 ILos Angeles Purchase of 5 alternative fuel buses for the Pasadena Area Rapid Transit System $1.1 :$1.0 151 Los Angeles .Pasadena Blue Line transit -oriented mixed -use development .$5.085 :$1.5 t52 Los Angeles Pasadena Blue Line utility relocation .$1.05 :60.55 153 Los Angeles Route 134/1.5 interchange study :60.1 $0.10 _ 154 Regional Seismic retrofit and core segment improvements for the Buy Area Rapid Transit system :5800.0 S20.0 156 Napa Route 12; Con=estion relief improvements from Route 29 to 1-80 through Jamison Canyon SI04.0 37.0 157 Los Angeles Remodel the intersection of Olympic Boulevard and Lemon Street and install a new traffic .$2.0 signal .$2.0 158 :Sonoma County Route 101; redesign and construction of Steele Lane interchange $14.0 36.0 159 transportation plan to the California Transportation Commission and the Department of Transportation. The plan shall be consistent with federal planning and programming requirements. A transportation planning agency that does not contain an urbanized area may at its option adopt and submit a regional transportation plan once every four years beginning by September 1, 2001. Prior to adoption of the regional transportation plan, a public hearing shall be held, after the giving of notice of the hearing by publication in the affected county or counties pursuant to Section 6061. Regional Transportation Improvement Program Amendment for STIP SEC. 8. Section 65082 of the Government Code is amended to read: 65082. (a) (i y A five-year regional transportation improvement program shall be prepared, adopted d~submitted to the California Transportation Commission on or before December 15...of each odd -numbered year thereafter, updated every two years, pursuant to Sections 65080 and 65080.5 and the guidelines adopted pursuant to Section 14530.1, to include regional transportation improvement projects and programs proposed to be funded, in whole or in part, in the state transportation improvement program. (2) Major projects shall include current costs updated as of November 1 of the year of submittal and escalated to the appropriate year, and be listed by relative priority, taking into account need, delivery milestone dates, as defined in Section 14525.5, and the availability of funding. (b) Except for those counties that do not prepare a congestion management program pursuant to Section 65088.3, congestion management programs adopted pursuant to Section 65089 shall be incorporated into the regional transportation improvement program submitted to the commission by December 15 of each odd -numbered year. (c) Local projects not included in a congestion management program shall not be included in the regional transportation improvement program. Projects and programs adopted pursuant to subdivision (a) shall be consistent with the capital improvement program adopted pursuant to paragraph (5) of subdivision (b) of Section 65089, and the guidelines adopted pursuant to Section 14530.1. (d) Other projects may be included in the regional transportation improvement program if listed separately. (e) Unless a.county not containing urbanized areas of over50,000 population notifies the Department of Transportation by July 1 that it intends to prepare a regional transportation improvement program for that county, the department shall, in consultation with the affected local agencies, prepare the program for all counties for which it prepares a regional transportation plan. (f) The requirements for incorporating a congestion management Demonstration of Mass Transit Guideway/high density residential project SEC. 9. Section 65083 of the Government Code is amended to read: 65083. As part of implementation of the demonstration program established pursuant to Section 14045 of the Government Code, the regional transportation planning agency preparing the five-year regional transportation improvement program pursuant to Section 65082 shall consider those exclusive mass transit guideway projects where the applicant and the local entity responsible for land use decisions have entered into a binding agreement to promote high density residential development within one-half mile of a mass transit guideway station. Any project selected by the agency that is located in a demonstration site shall be considered for inclusion in the regional transportation improvement program. This section shall not preclude the agency from applying the criteria for making awards that may be required or permitted pursuantto other provisions of law. also evaluate and assess the technical merits, determine the phasing and delivery schedule, and identify a financing strategy for the proposed corridor improvements. The commission shall allocate some or all of the available funds to one or more of the lead applicants for specific projects within the corridor that meet the requirements under this chapter...." (STA) program to providing the levels of bus service mandated under the consent decree entered into by the authority on October 29, 1996, in the case of Labor/Community Strategy Center, et al. v. Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority. This year, the amount transfered to the STA will be approximately $42 million. 4)Provide a list of specific projects elii}�[e for funding (attached), including the amount of state funding available, a description of the project and each lead applicant agency for the funding. Virtually none of these projects are not fully funded, and the source of the shortfall is not included in the legislation or the plan. 5)Establish an application process for the projects specified in this bill. The lead applicant agency would submit an application to the California Transportation Commission (CTC) within two years and comply with related conditions and guidelines for applications. 6)Provide a "flexibility" process for application for a substitute or alternative project: a) when the designated project is delayed by external factors; b) when there are not sufficient matching funds; c) when the original project is inconsistent with the regional transportation plan; or, d) when the project's completion would jeopardize previously - approved projects in STIP. 7)Establish guidelines and timelines for the use of allocated project funds. 8)Authorize an exchange, or program between local agencies and Caltrans, involving the swap of federal Regional Surface Transportation Program and Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) obligational authority for state funds in TCRF. Local governments would receive 90% of the amount exchanged as a tradeoff for obtaining the more flexible state funds. 9)Require the local streets and roads subventionsto be used for specific maintenance and repair purposes, and require cities and counties to maintain their current transportation expenditures (maintenance of effort or MOE requirement) as a condition of continued funding from the sales tax revenues. Specifically, the Plan requires that (1) Cities and counties shall maintain their existing commitment of local funds for street and highway maintenance, rehabilitation, reconstruction, and storm damage repair in order to remain eligible for the allocation of funds for maintenance, rehabilitation, and reconstruction work on local streets and roads. To do this, the city or county shall annually expend from its Approved California Transportation Congestion Relief Flan The state has enacted, through AB 2928 and SB 406, the California Transportation Congestion Relief Plan. This plan will be implemented by dedicating all the gasoline sales tax revenues to transportation for five years; providing additional funding for local streets and roads, the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP), and the Public Transportation Account (PTA). The Transportation Congestion Relief Plan will be funded from a combination of General Fund (GF) revenues and a five-year transfer of the sales tax revenues from the sale of gasoline. It will provide, over the six -year period, approximately $6.8 billion for transportation projects and programs, including approximately $4.9 billion for specified projects, $600 million in additional STIP funds, $1 billion in local streets and roads funds, and $300 million in PTA funds (transit and rail programs). Appropriations will be made after Proposition 98 and Vehicle License Fee commitments are met. The specifics of the Transportation Congestion Relief Plan now include: 1)Appropriate $1.5 billion from the General Fund (GF) and transfer $500 million from gasoline sales tax revenues to a new Traffic Congestion Relief Fund (TCRF) ($2 billion total), for the purposes of funding transportation projects in the Traffic Congestion Relief Plan ($1.6 billion) and funding local streets and roads maintenance, rehabilitation and reconstruction ($400 million) in Budget Year 2000-2001.. 2)For the five-year period from July 1, 2001 to June 30, 2006, transfer the state's share of revenues from the sales tax on gasoline to a new Transportation Infrastructure Fund (TIF). 3)From the transferred gasoline sales tax revenues in the TIF: a) Appropriate $3.39 billion to TCRF on a quarterly basis ($678 million annually) for the five years to fully fund the Governor's commitment to the list of specific transportation projects contained in the bill; and, b) Appropriate the remaining funds as follows: i) 40% to the Department of Transportation (Caltrans) for capitol improvement projects in STIP. These funds would be allocated using the SB 45 STIP formula (i.e. 75% for the Senate Bill No. 406 Page 1 of 2 Dear Members of the Senate: I am signing Senate Bill No. 406, which corrects certain provisions of AB 2928, a comprehensive transportation funding measure which incorporates most of the proposals I made for almost S5 billion in congestion relief, transportation system connectivity and goods movement projects. This bill contains the same list of project funding allocations, with a few modifications, as is contained in AB 2928. I am taking identical veto actions on projects in this bill that I took when signing AB 2928. I am reducing or eliminating certain appropriations made in Section 6 of the bill, which adds Chapter 4.5 (commencing with Article 5, Section 14556.40) to Part 5.3 of Division 3 of Title 2 of the Government Code, by a total of $93,800,000. These expenditures are being eliminated because I have specific concerns about the projects and their priority for inclusion in this plan, and about the precedent these projects would set with respect to state expenditures. Additionally, I am requesting that the Legislature enact subsequent legislation to corect certain technical defects in this bill and modify the financing of the program to have less of an impact on the State General Fund in future years. I am reducing the expenditures in Chapter 4.5, Article 5, Section 14556.40, subsection (a) of the Government Code by eliminating or reducing the following paragraphs: Paragraph (120) is eliminated, which allocates S1.500.000 to Yuba County for the Yuba Airport runway extension and associated improvements. This project is not a congestion relief project affecting. most travelers in the area.. Paragraph (125) is eliminated, which allocates S5,000.000 to the Orange County Transportation Authority for the Route 57 toll road environmental impact report and study for expansion project. The franchise agreement for this project prohibits use of state funds in this fashion. Paragraph (130) is eliminated, which allocates $3,500,000 to the City of Garden Grove for the Route 22; connector to the interchange with I-405. Over $206 million for Route 22 is already included in paragraph (70). Paragraph (131) is eliminated, which allocates S800,000 to the town of Apple Valley for the Bear Valley Road closure project and Kasota Road safety redesign. Funding for this project may be available in the State Highway Operations and Preservation Program and through local street and road funding. Paragraph (132) is eliminated, which allocates $7,000,000 to Los Angeles County for the Fairway Drive grade separation project in the San Gabriel Valley. This project already has access to several funding sources through the Alameda Corridor East Project. Paragraph (136) is eliminated, which allocates S3,500,000 to City of Palmdale for the widening of Avenue S; between Route 14 and Route 138. This project does not appear to provide significant congestion relief or to fit other priorities for use of these funds. Paragraph (137) is eliminated, which allocates S5,500,000 to City of Lancaster for improvements to the Fox Field Industrial Corridor. This project does not appear to provide significant congestion relief or to fit other priorities for use of these funds. .,sembly Bill No. 2928 Page 1 of 2 To Members of the Assembly: I am signing_ Assembly Bill No. 2928, a comprehensive transportation funding_ measure which incorporates most of the proposals I made for almost $5 billion in congestion relief, transportation system connectivity and Goods movement projects. The bill also provides over $1.4 billion in additional funds over five years for local street and road maintenance, transit operations and State Transportation Improvement Program projects. However, I am reducing_ or eliminating_ certain appropriations made in Section 6 of the bill, which adds Chapter 4.5 (commencing_ with Article 5, Section 14556.40) to Part 5.3 of Division 3 of Title 2 of the Government Code, by a total of S93.800,000. These expenditures are being eliminated because I have specific concerns about the projects and their priority for inclusion in this plan, and about the precedent these projects would set with respect to state expenditures. Additionally, I am requesting that the Legislature enact subsequent legislation to correct certain technical defects in this bill and modify the financing, of the program to have less of an impact on the State General Fund in future years. I am reducing_ the expenditures in Chapter 4.5, Article 5, Section 14556.40, Subsection (a) of the Government Code by eliminating_ or reducing_ the following. parag_raphs: Paragraph (120) is eliminated, which allocates S1,500,000 to Yuba County for the Yuba airport runway extension and associated improvements. This project is not a congestion relief project affecting most travelers in the area.. Paragraph (125) is eliminated, which allocates $5,000,000 to the Orange County Transportation Authority for the Route 57 toll road environmental impact report and study for expansion project. The franchise agreement for this project prohibits use of state funds in this fashion. Paragraph (130) is eliminated, which allocates $3,500,000 to the City of Garden Grove for the Route 22: connector to the interchange with I-405. Over $206 million for Route 22 is already included in parag_raph (70). Paragraph (131) is eliminated, which allocates $800,000 to the town of Apple Valley for the Bear Valley Road closure project and Kasota Road safety redesign. Funding_ for this project may be available in the State Highway Operations and Preservation Program and through local street and road funding. Paragraph (132) is eliminated, which allocates $7,000,000 to Los Angeles County for the Fairway Drive grade separation project in the San Gabriel Valley. This project already has access to several funding_ sources through the Alameda Corridor East Project. Paragraph (136) is eliminated, which allocates $3,500,000 to City of Palmdale for the widening of Avenue S: between Route 14 and Route 138. This project does not appear to provide significant congestion relief or to fit other, priorities for use of these funds. Paragraph (137) is eliminated, which allocates $5,500,000 to City of Lancaster for improvements to the Fox Field Industrial Corridor. This project does not appear to provide significant congestion relief or to fit other priorities for use of these funds. OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR L00:039 FOR LMIVIEDIATE RELEASE July 6, 2000 GOVERNOR DAVIS SIGNS TRANSPORTATION CONGESTION RELIEF MEASURES Governor Davis Signs Bills to Make Historic 36.8 Billion Investment in Transportation SAN FRANCISCO — Arriving, by Muni train with San Francisco Mayor Willie Brown, Oakland Mayor Jerry Brown, and San Jose Mayor Ron Gonzalez at San Francisco's Pac Bell -Park, Governor Gray Davis today signed Transportation Congestion Relief bills which will ease commutes and expand transportation options for Californians. "Our economy has produced unprecedented prosperity. But people can't work if they can't get to work. For too long, political gridlock has prevented us from doing, something, useful about highway gridlock," Governor Davis said "This new commitment to transportation will fund more than�120 local high -priority projects across the State, projects that will relieve congestion along, our most crowded commuter corridors." The Budget trailer bill commits 56.8 billion in new transportation money, including, 55.3 billion to fund Governor Davis' Transportation Plan. In April 2000, Governor Davis announced his plan to make the comprehensive investment in California's transportation system, aimed at relieving traffic congestion, improving, the movement of goods, and strengthening, the integration of highway and transit systems. The Transportation Congestion Relief Plan provides 56.3 billion in critically needed transportation resources from the General Fund over the next five years to fund more than 100 locally recommended projects throughout the State. This proposal represents the largest General Fund commitment to transportation in California's history. Governor Davis' Transportation Congestion Relief Plan will include projects that will bring relief to some of the most heavily congested areas in America. These include: An extension of San Francisco's Muni line underground all the way to Chinatown. Today, Muni buses serve 90,000 riders a day along this route and it is one of the most congested in the city. An extension of the BART system from the existing Fremont Station into downtown San Jose to relieve traffic congestion between Alameda and Santa Clara counties. NEXT STEPS Members of the Association should thank Governor Davis and their respective delegations (to the extent they supported the package!) for investing significantly in public transportation in this year's transportation finance package, and urge them to maintain funding for ongoing programs at the funding levels currently called for. P : call me at (916) 446-4656 if you have any questions about this material. STATE TRANSIT ASSISTANCE (STA) ALLOCATIONS: EXISTING STA FORMULA 310NAL ENTITY Tahoe RPA MTC SACOG Alpine Amador Butte Calaveras Colusa Del Norte El Dorado Fresno Glenn Humboldt Imperial Inyo Kern Kings Lake Lassen Los Angeles Madera Mariposa iocino M� ced Modoc Mono Monterey Nevada Orange Placer Piumas Riverside San Benito San Bernardino SANDAG San Diego MTDB San Joaquin San Luis Obispo Santa Barbara Santa Cruz Shasta Sierra Siskryou Stanislaus Tehama 1 Trinity Tulare + Ti mne V,. ;a State Totals I I ACTUAL" 1999-00 STA, • 1 ALLOCATIONSI 1 1 1 " I I 1 A , $120,615 j $38,001,127 $3,253,749 $1,814 " $54,936 $342,688 $56,111 $31,104 I $43,429 $170,192 f $1.403,878 + $41,200 I $224,158 $215,990 " $29,956 $1,072,645 I S188,380 $84,243 $55,310 I S30,408,161 S 1 71.561 " $25,448 I $148,697 $321,588 • $15,603 $15,988 1 $684,523 ' $139,906 I $4.859,650 1 S308,328 S31,283 " S2,362,433 $68,179 $2,660,285 • $1,732,257 I, $4,896,539 1 $966,222 " $435,757 /, $752,040 I $903,577 $269,441 $5,166 1 $71,547 f $697,869 + $84,245 $20,997 1 $573,061 " $80,093 I $1,157,030 1 $100,259,000 1 1 I AB 2928 ' ESTIMATED; $149 MILLION t 2000-01 STA! TOTAL 5-YEAR NEW I ALLOCATIONS) STA ALLOCATIONS $121,507 • $179,253 $38,281,988I $56,475,408 $3,277,7971 $4,835,563 $1,828 od $2,696 $55,342 : $81,644 $345,221 I $509,286 $56,526 j S83,390 $31,333 , $46,225 $43,750 I $64,542 $171,450 I $252,931 S1,414,254 + $2,086.375 $41,505 I $61,230 $225,815 I $333,132 $217,586 " $320,994 $30,177 ! $44,519 $1,080,572I $1,594,112 $189,772 ' $279,961 $84,866 , $125,198 $55,719 I $82,199 $30,632,904 i $45,191,116 $172,829 " S254,966 $25,636 I $37,820 $149,796 I $220,986 $323,965 + $477,928 $15,719 I $23,189 $16,106 1 $23,760 $689,582 " S1,017,304 $140,940 r S207,922 $4,895,567I S7,222,173 $310,607 S458,222 S31,515 " 546,492 $2,379,8931 $3,510,932 $68,682 i $101,324 $2,679,947 " $3,953,585 $1,745,060 I; $2,574,395 $4,932,729 j $7,276,996 $973,363 " $1,435,951 $438,978 ! $647,601 $757,598I $1,117,645 $910,255 i $1,342,851 $271,432 , $400.430 $5,204 I $7,677 $72,075 i $106,329 $703,027 " $1,037,139 $84,867 I $125,200 $21,152 1 $31,205 $577,297 " $851,655 $80,685 ; $119,030 $1.165,581 I $1,719,521 (_ _$101,000,000I $149,000,000 AB 2928 AVERAGE ANNUAL NEW STA ALLOCATION $35,851 $11,295,082 $967,113 $539 $16,329 $101,857 S16,678 $9,245 S12,908 S50.586 S417.275 $12,246 S66,626 $64,199 $8,904 $318,822 $55,992 S25,040 $16,440 S9.038,223 S5u.993 $7,564 $44,197 $95,586 $4,638 $4,752 $203,461 $41,584 S1,444,435 S91,644 59.298 $702,186 $20,265 $790,717 $514,879 S 1,455,399 $287,190 $129,520 $223,529 $268,570 580,086 $1,535 $21,266 $207,428 $25,040 $6,241 $170,331 $23,806 $343,904 $29,800,000 MORE CHANGES AWAIT For information put out by the Governor's office on the package, check the web at <w«w.governor.ca.gov/briefing!pressreleases/j ul00iju100.shtm>. While the overall elements of the transportation package have now been signed into law, the final piece of the puzzle is still not in place. Specifically, the Governor has indicated to the Legislature that he wants to see tWo additional changes to the package: o Use of some of the shifted revenues from the sales tax on gasoline to fund debt service on transportation bonds that were issued in the 1990s. o Reduction of the flexibility given to the California Transportation Commission to substitute local projects for those favored by the Governor. - We are told that a "caboose" to the trailer bills has bden prepared to accomplish these goals, for possible action by the Legislature when it returns from its Summer Recess on August 7. The bond debt service currently costs the state's General Fund about S330 million per year, and will grow to about S440 million in a few years. Paying for any or all of the bond debt service from the sales tax on gas would presumable come after the Governor's projects are funded, at the expense of revenue now designated in the fundin` package for the STIP, local streets and roads, and the PTA. In fact, a summary of the Governor's latest proposal to the Leg=islature, shared with me by legislative staffers, indicates that the Governor would accept paying about half the transit bond debt service each year from the sales tax on gas, starting in 2001-02. A corresponding reduction would be allocated to the projects and programs currently in AB 2928 and SB 406. To make up for these reductions, the Governor would support adding a sixth year to the whole program. Such a proposal would pencil out as follows: 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004•05 2005-06 2006-07 Sales Tax Revenue (million$) $ 2,000 $ 947 $ 949 $ 968 S 995 $ 1,023 $ 1,051 Ss Committed to Projects $ 565 $ 565 $ 565 $ 565 $ 565 $ 565 3ond Debt Service $ 145 $ 145 $ 155 $ 175 $ 202 $ 229 ,s Remaining After Projects $ 237 $ 239 $ 248 $ 255 $ 256 $ 2571 X% STIP •0% Streets 8 Roads 0 ,o PTA $ 95 $' 96 $ 99 $ 102 $ 102 $ 103 $ 95 $ 96 $ 99 $ 102 $ 102 $ 103 $ 47 $ 48 $ 50 $ 51 $ 51 $ 51 01-02 thru 06-07 Tatals 3,390 1,051 1,492 $ 597 $ 597 $ 298 Ion -Article XIX 5s to PTA $ 45 $ 45 $ 45 $ 45 $ 45 $ 45 $ 45 e have urged legislative leaders to fund the ongoing programs at their maximum possible level. However, we are >ld that the Democratic leadership in the Senate has already signed off on this deal; we presume the Assembly lemocrats have. also. It remains to be seen whether the Governor will be able to round up the necessary Republican Dtes to win passage of this adjustment to the package. The Governor did line -item veto almost S 10.0 million in -gislative augmentations to the AB 2928 ! SB 406 project list; this action makes it more likely that legislators will turn in August willing to address the Governor's concerns. Summary • The SIP outlines the State's enforceable commitments • State will fulfill SIP obligations • ARB, SCAG and SCAQMD will continue working closely together 9 AGENDA ITEM 8 DATE: July 17, 2000 TO: Technical Advisory Committee Members FROM: Shirley Medina, Program Manager SUBJECT: SB 821 Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities Program Funding Recommendations Attached is the SB 821 Program of Projects recommendation included in the July 12, 2000 RCTC agenda. The recommendation includes the approval of 21 projects. The board action will be reported at the TAC meeting. RIVERS/DE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMM/SS/ON DATE: July 12, 2000 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Budget and Implementation "Committee As A Whole" Jerry Rivera, Program Manager THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: FY. 2000-01 SB 821 Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities Program Funding Recommendations STAFF AND BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION "COMMITTEE AS A WHOLE" RECOMMENDATION: This item is to seek Commission approval of the FY 2000-01 SB 821 Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities Program allocations, as shown on the attached schedule. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: In April the Commission notified the cities, the county, and local school districts that an estimated $802,891 would be available for programming in FY 2000-01 through the SB 821 Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities Program. This Program is funded by an allocation of 2% of the total Local Transportation Funds (LTF) apportioned to Riverside County by the State and funds carried over from prior years. Carryover funds available this year were $4,204 due to higher than estimated revenues last year and previously programmed projects which either did not require the full allocation due to actual costs being lower than the estimated costs or were subsequently abandoned by the applicants for various reasons. The proposals were due on Friday, May 26th. The Commission received 43 proposals for projects (3 bicycle projects, 33 sidewalk projects, and 7 ADA related retrofit projects) from 19 agencies requesting a total of $1,786,433 (Attachment I). An evaluation committee comprised of two members from the Commission's Citizens Advisory Committee (a third member was unable to attend) and three members from the Technical Advisory Committee reviewed the proposals on June 12, 2000. All of the applicants were invited to the meeting and requested to present their proposal(s) and answer questions from the Committee members. The proposals were evaluated and ranked based upon the Commission's adopted scoring criteria (Attachment III). Twenty-one projects are recommended for funding as indicated on Attachment II. )00251 Attachment I RCTC SB 821 PROGRAM SUBMITTALS FY 2000-01 Total SB 821 Funds Local Agency Cost Requested Match Banning (5) Ramsey St. S/W (Highland Sp.- Highland Home Rd.) $68,000 $34,000 $34,000 Ramsey St. S/W (Martin St. - Hargrave St.) $36,000 $18,000 $18,000 Nicolet St. Sidewalk $40,000 $20,000 $20,000 Park Avenue Sidewalk $50,000 $25,000 $25,000 Sylvan Park Sidewalk $42.000 $21,000 $21,000 Total $236,000 $118,000 $118,000 Blythe (2) Gateway St. Sidewalk $15,025 $10,518 $4,507 North Lovekin Sidewalk $28.500 $19.950 $8,550 Total $43,525 $30,468 $13,057 Canyon Lake Goetz Road Sidewalk Cathedral City Agua Caliente Elem. School Area Sidewalk Coachella SR-86 Pedestrian Enhancement Project $20,000 $10,000 $10,000 $28,500 $19,500 $9,000 $268,752 $134,376 $134,376 Corona (2) South Corona Bikeway $144,100 $115,280 $28,820 Bus Stop Accessibility Project $81�828 S50.514 $31,314 Total $225,928 $165,794 $60,134 Hemet (2) Kirby & Devonshire Sidewalk/Curb Access Ramps $48,500 $38,800 $9,700 State St. Sidewalk / Curb Access Ramps $48,000 $38.400 $9,600 Total $96,500 $77,200 $19,300 Indio (2) Dr. Carreon Blvd. Sidewalk $35,000 $30,000 $5,000 Lido Avenue/Shadow Avenue Sidewalk $,54.800 547.600 $7,200 Total $89,800 $77,600 $12,200 000253 Attachment I RCTC SB 821 PROGRAM SUBMITTALS FY 2000-01 Total SB 821 Funds Local Agency Cost Requested Match Riverside County (6) Washington St. S/W & Krameria Ave. Walkway $59,000 $49,000 $10,000 Opal Street Walkway $49,000 $44,000 $5,000 Linares Avenue Sidewalk $45,000 $40,000 $5,000 Sun City Disability Access Ramp Project $46,000 $41,000 $5,000 76th Avenue Sidewalk $146,000 $101,000 $45,000 Highgrove Disability Access Ramp Project $22,000 S19,500 $2,500 Total $367,000 $294,500 $72,500 San Jacinto Tahquitz Ave. & First St. Sidewalk $80,000 $40,000 $40,000 Temecula Southern Cross Road Sidewalk $53,543 $40,160 $13,383 Rancho Vista Road Sidewalk $59,869 $44,901 $14,967 Ynez Road Sidewalk $24,833 $18,600 $6,233 Solana Way Sidewalk $85.25C $63,900 $21,350 Total $223,495 $167,561 $55,933 Grand Totals - 19 Agencies 44 Projects $2,_841.,368 $1.786.433 $1,054.934 Total SB 821 Funds Available $807.095 000255 Rank Agency 1 Corona 2 Canyon Lake 3 Perris 4 Moreno Valley 5 Cathedral City 6 La Quinta 7 Moreno Valley 8 San Jacinto 9 Lake Elsinore 10 Moreno Valley II Temecula 12 Coachella 13 Palm Springs 14 Banning 15 Riverside 16 Riverside County 17 Riverside 18 Palm Springs 18 Riverside County 20 Hemet 21 Banning 21 Blythe 23 Riverside County 24 Hemet 25 Riverside County 26 Riverside 27 Riverside County RIVERSIDE COIiN'I'1' TRANSPORTATION CONIAIISSION SB 821 111('l'('I.E AND PEDESTRIAN FA('ILITIES PROGIZAN1 EN' 2000-01 RANKING OF PROJECTS Project Description Bus Stop Accessibility Project Goetz Road Sidewalk Orange & Indian Sidewalk School Area Access. Enhance. Agua Caliente Elem Sch Sidewalk Dune Palms/Westward Ho S/W Accessibility Enhancements T'ahquitz Ave & First St Sidewalk Railroad Canyon Elem. Sch. S/W Brodiaea Ave. Sidewalk Southern Cross Road Sidewalk SR-86 Ped. Enhancement Proj. Via Escuela Sidewalk Ramsey St S/W (Highland Sprgs.) Hole Ave. Sidewalk Opal St. Sidewalk Wells Ave. Sidewalk Avenida Caballeros Sidewalk Highgrove Disab. Access Ramps Kirby/Devonshire S/W & Ramps Ramsey St S/W (Martin/I largrave) North Lovekin Sidewalk Washington/Krameria Sidewalk State St Sidewalk /Access Ramps Sun City Disability Access Ramps 14th St. / MLK Blvd. Sidewalk Linares Ave. Sidewalk Attachment II 'total SB 821 Funds Recommended Cummulalive Average Costs Requested Allocation Funds Allocated Score $81,828 $50,514 S50,514 $50,514 90.96 $20,000 $10,000 $10,000 $60,514 89.4 $80,000 $40,000 $40,000 $100,514 88.4 $25,000 $12,500 $12,500 $113,014 87.4 $28,500 $19,500 $19,500 $132,514 87.1 $64,800 $32,400 $32,400 $164,914 86.4 $25,000 $12,500 $12,500 $177,414 85.4 $80,000 $40,000 $40,000 $217,414 85.2 $80,000 $72,000 $72,000 $289,414 84.6 $20,000 $10,000 $10,000 $299,414 83.4 $53,543 $40,160 $40,160 $339,574 83.2 $268,752 $134,376 $134,376 $473,950 82.6 $70,000 $49,000 $49,000 $522,950 82 $68,000 $34,000 $34,000 $556,950 81.8 $69,000 $34,500 $34,500 $591,450 80 $49,000 $44,000 $44,000 $635,450 79.3 $1 19,500 $59,750 $59,750 $695,200 79.2 $25,000 $17,500 $17,500 $712,700 78.4 $22,000 $19,500 $19,500 $732,200 78.4 $48,500 $38,800 $38,800 $771,000 78 $36,000 $18,000 $17,073 $788,073 77.6 $28,500 $19,950 $19,022 $807,095 77.6 $59,000 $49,000 $0 $807,095 76.9 $48,000 $38,400 $0 $807,095 76.6 $46,000 $41,000 $0 $807,095 75.9 $188,000 $94,000 $0 $807,095 75.8 $45,000 $40,000 $0 $807,095 75.5