HomeMy Public PortalAbout07 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
���% O u r P r o j e c t T y p e s
f& A l l B r i d g e S t r u c t u r e s m e w , r a m p o r n e d i f i c t i i n . s l
f& N o n - S t a n d a r d S t r u c t u r e s i n c l u d i n g R e t a i n i n g a n d
S o u n d W a l l s , C u l v e r t s , S i g n S t r u c t u r e s , e t c .
f& T u n n e l s , C u l v e r t s w i d e r t h a n 2 0 , P u m p i n g p l a n t s ,
t e r i
S t o r a g e B o x e s , S e a l S l a b / B o a t S e c t i o n , T r a n s i t S t a t i o n , A n
M a i n t e n a n c e S t a t i o n , e t c .
f& A n y T y p e o f P r o j e c t t h a t O S D w o u l d T y p i c a l l y b e
R e s p o n s i b l e f o r
f& I f y o u a r e n o t s u r e , J u s t A s k ! ! !
I
1 j a w c e a f j U M l e
"
1 e w e e ��
T y p i c a l R e v i e w D u r a t i o n
B r i d g e S i t e
D a t a S u b m i t t a l
G e n e r a l P l a n
( T y p e S d e 1 1 o n i
>