Loading...
05 May 7, 1992 Budget & Finance053'7'72 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION BUDGET & FINANCE COMMITTEE (COMMISSIONERS RUSS BEIRICH, KAY CENICEROS, CORKY (ARSON, PAT MURPHY) THURSDAY, MAY 7, 1992 2:00 P.M. 46-209 OASIS ST., RM. 414 INDIO, CA 92201 AGENDA 1. CALL TO ORDER. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES. 3. PUBLIC COMMENTS. 4. GENERAL ITEMS. 4A. MEASURE A EXPENDITURE PLAN AMENDMENT AND OPTIONS Staff Recommendation That the Commission recommend: 1. That the proposals from the County of Riverside identified in the staff memorandum Attachment A should be forwarded to WRCOG and CVAG for recommendations. 2. That the Commission determine if they want to proceed with the Expenditure Plan Amendment prior to completion of the Financial Plan Update or to exercise the interim options identified by Staff and Legal Counsel. 48. OCTOBER 1992 SYMPOSIUM ON PRICING AND MARKET STRATEGIES FOR TRANSPORTATIONI[AND USE/AIR QUALITY. Staff Recommendation Approve the Commission's participation and co-sponsorship ($5,000) of the October 1992 Symposium on Pricing and Market Strategies for Transportation/Land Use/Air Quality. Page 3 Budget and Finance Committee Meeting May 7, 1992 6C. CONTRACT AGREEMENT W1TH GREINER,INC. FOR THE PREPARATION OF THE PROJECT STUDY REPORT FOR THE STATE ROUTE 91 OUTSIDE WIDENING PROJECT, FROM THE 1-15 INTERCHANGE TO THE CRIDGE STREET OVERCROSSING Staff Recommendation Approve contract with Greiner, Inc. to perform a Project Study Report for Route 91 between 1-15 and Cridge Street in Riverside. The contract budget amount is for $1,250,000. 6D. APPROVAL OF FOUR CONSULTANT CONTRACTS FOR GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES CONSULTANT AGREEMENTS FOR ROUTE 60 Staff Recommendation Staff recommends the following: 1. Assignment of firms to the available work on Route 60 in order of ranking as indicated in the staff memorandum. 2. Approve the following contracts: Geofon - Produce a Materials Report in support of final roadway design on Project #2 for a cost not to exceed $150,000 with a 15% contingency of $25,000 for a maximum contract amount of $175,000. Converse - Produce nine (9) Foundations Reports in support of final structures design on Project #1 for a cost not to exceed $165,000 with a 15% contingency of $25,000 for a maximum contract amount of $190,000. Schaefer -Dixon - Produce a Materials Report in support of final roadway design on Project #1 for a cost not to exceed $125,000 with a 15% contingency of $20,000 for a maximum contract amount of $145,000. Woodward -Clyde - Produce seven (7) Foundations Reports in support of final structures design on Project #2 for a cost not to exceed $115,000 with a 15% contingency of $20,000 for a maximum contract amount of $135,000. Approval of the Geofon and Woodward -Clyde contracts (Project #2) are contingent upon the outcome of the availability of either Measure A or SB300 funds. This availability is discussed in the agenda item on the Measure A Plan Amendment. Page 5 Budget and Finance Committee Meeting May 7, 1992 8. COMMUTER RAIL. 8A. FY 1992-93 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA REGIONAL RAIL AUTHORITY (SCRRA) PRELIMINARY FY 1992-93 CAPITAL BUDGET Staff Recommendation That the Commission approve the preliminary FY 1992-93 SCRRA capital budget subject to approval of the RCTC FY 1992-93 budget which is scheduled for action at the June 1992 RCTC meeting. 8B. INVESTIGATE THE FEASIBILITY OF PURCHASING USED COMMUTER RAIL CAPS Staff Recommendation Discussion and possible action or receive and file. 9. SERVICE AUTHORITY FOR FREEWAY EMERGENCIES (SAFE). 9A. TECHPLAN REVIEW OF CALL BOX SYSTEM INFILL AND EXPANSION At the time of the agenda preparation, the final draft of the report had not yet been received for staff review and analysis. Staff anticipates Techplan providing this report by Tuesday, May 5th. Staff will review and present the status of the report, if ready, at the Committee meeting. 10. ADJOURNMENT. :SC RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MINUTES BUDGET AND FINANCE COMMITTEE APRIL 1, 1992 1. CALL TO ORDER. The meeting of the Budget and Finance Committee was called to order by Commissioner Russ Beirich at 10:38 a.m. at the City of Palm Desert Conference Room, 73-510 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES. M/S/C to approve the minutes of the March 4, 1992 meeting. 3. PUBLIC COMMENTS. There were no public comments. 4. HIGHWAYS/LOCAL STREETS AND ROADS. 4A. City of Canyon Lake Measure A Loan. Jeff Butzlaff, Canyon Lake City Manager, and Ray Wellington, Canyon Lake City Engineer, briefed the Committee on project description, estimated project cost, and proposal for reimbursement. M/S/C that the Commission recommend approval, In concept, the City of Canyon Lake's request for a loan of up to $4 million In Measure A funds for the Railroad Canyon Road project, and direct staff and Legal Counsel to work with the City of Canyon Lake and the WRCOG Executive Director to develop an agreement for approval by the Commission for approval at their meeting in May or June. 4B. Acquisition of Right -of -Way for the Route 79, Keller Road to Newport Road, Measure A Highway Improvement Proiect. M/S/C that the Commission approve: 1) Acquiring the required ROW (approximately $1.5 million) for the Route 79 project from Newport to Keller; 2) The use of Centennial Civil Engineers to perform ROW Engineering for the project; and, 3) A contract amendment with Centennial Engineers as follows: o Allow reallocation of up to $95,000 in currently approved base work towards the ROW engineering effort. o Add an additional $65,000 to the approved base work towards the ROW engineering effort. o Allow the Executive Director the authority to use the existing $74,767 Extra Work allocation as required for the ROW engineering effort. An initial allocation of $38,826 will be required to be shifted to base work to allocate the required $198,825.91. The remaining $35,941 will remain in Extra Work for allocation by the Executive Director as required. Budget and Finance Committee April 1, 1992 Page 2 4C. Friis Property Acquisition Hazardous Materials Study - increase in Authorized Contract Amount for Tetra Tech, Inc. M/S/C that the Commission approve Amendment No. 2 to contract RO-9201 with Tetra Tech, Inc. In the amount of $3,651.46 to complete the Hazardous Materials Study in support of the Friis property acquisition. 4D. Contract Amendment for Tudor Engineering on Route 74 Traffic Engineering Services. That the Commission authorize the allocation of $21,958 and execution of a contract amendment to the Tudor Engineering Agreement RO-9117 for completion of traffic engineering services on Route 74. The amendment should convert the Agreement to Not -to -Exceed contract In; the amount of $223,371. Tudor's original contract called for a budget of $175,155 with an extra work fund of $26,258 for a total amount of $201,413. 4E. Contract Agreement No. RO-92-XX with Jaykim Engineers, Inc. for Topographic Surveying Services for the State Route 111 Projects, from Palm Springs to Indio. Mark Massman requested the Committee to take this item off the agenda as staff is still in the process of negotiating the contract cost as he felt that it is too high. The Committee felt that if staff has negotiated the contract cost before the Commission meeting that they should move forward and bring this item before the Commission. 4F. Contract Revision for Valley Research and Planning Associates. Russ Beirich stated that at a previous Commission action, it was indicated that staff training to use the TranPlan software package would be provided by SCAG. He inquired the need for additional training by the consultant. After discussion, the recommendation was changed to omit the training cost from the contract and thereby changing the cost from $50,000 to $30,000. M/S/C to approve the contract amendments to Valley Planning and Associates and authorize the Executive Director to transfer $30,000 from Contingency to Professional Services. 5. TRANSIT/RIDESHAREIPARK-N-RIDE. 5A. Caftrans/RCTC Draft Telecommuting WorkCenter Contribution Agreement. M/S/C that the Commission: 1) approve, subject to review by Legal Counsel, the Caltrans Contribution Agreement awarding $75,000 in State funding to the Commission for the Telecommuting WorkCenter of Riverside County; 2) authorize the Commission Chairperson and Executive Director to execute said Agreement, and, 3) upon receipt of funds, transfer same to the Economic Development Partnership pursuant to the terms and conditions of the Agreement for implementation of the identified marketing tasks. Budget and Finance Committee April 1, 1992 Page 3 5B. Rideshare Incentive Tracking Program Database. M/S/C that the Commission: 1) authorize the expenditure of funds in an amount not to exceed $5,000 from the three approved Measure A Rideshare Incentive Program budgets for the development of an incentive tracking computer program; 2) approve the modified contract, subject to legal review, for use between RCTC and Kevin R. Odom; and, 3) authorize the Executive Director to sign the agreement on behalf of the Commission. 5C. Riverside Transit Agency - FY 1992-96 Short Range Transit Plan Amendment. M/S/C that the Commission approve an amendment to the FY 1992-96 Riverside County Short Range Transit Plan and Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP) for the Riverside Transit Agency for the purchase of six (6) vans and three (3) minibuses from their existing allocation and four (4) replacement coaches to be funded from the balance of the Western County capital reserve. 5D. City of Beaumont Capital Funds Request. M/S/C that the Commission: 1) allocate to the City of Beaumont Dial -A -Ride an additional $57,000 in local transportation funds for capital assistance to purchase a 17-passenger, lift -equipped replacement bus from prior year carry- over funds available in the Western County area; and, 2) authorize an amendment to the FY 1992-96 Riverside County Short Range Transit Plan and Transportation Improvement Program for the City of Beaumont Dial -A -Ride. 6. COMMUTER RAIL. At this time, Hideo Sugita brought forward the Metrolink Fares and Operating Subsidy item and requested the Committee to add the item on the agenda for discussion. This matter came up after the agenda was mailed. M/S/C to add 'Metrolink Fares and Operating Subsidy' Item on the Budget and Finance Committee agenda. 6A. Agreement to Contract RO-9O21 with Morrison Knudsen. M/S/C that the Commission approve the amendment of Contract RO-9021 with Morrison Knudsen Corporation in the amount of $44,958 for the following tasks: $9,970 LOSSAN Corridor Analysis, $9,988 Additional Stages for Traffic Analysis, $25,000 Additional Other Direct Costs. A standard contract will be developed and reviewed by Legal Counsel. The contract is a three -party agreement with AT&SF, therefore, the amendment must be approved by AT&SF. Budget and Finance Committee April 1, 1992 Page 4 6B. Metrolink Fares and Operating Subsidy. Hideo Sugita reported on the base fares and corresponding zone charges being considered by Metrolink service. Currently being discussed are how fares should be set, how operating subsidies will be distributed and how alternative fare and zone charges affect ridership and fare revenue. The longest trip is an eight -zone trip from Hemet to Los Angeles. The maximum zone cap of six zones is being considered with a base fare of $2.00 and zone charges at $1/per zone. He informed the Committee that the Fares and Revenue Subsidy public hearing is being scheduled next month. There is no staff recommendation at this time. 7. FINANCIAL ITEMS. 7A. Cost and Schedule Reports for the Month of February. M/S/C to receive and file. 7B. Mid -Year Budget Revisions. M/S/C that the Commission approve the budget revisions as shown on the worksheet included in the agenda packet. 8. ADJOURNMENT. There being no other items to consider, the meeting was adjourned at 12:24 p.m. Respectfully submitted, ccrt- Naty Ko nhaver Clerk of the Riverside County Transportation Commission WAS- AGENDA ITEM #4A RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: May 7, 1992 TO: Administrative Committee Budget and Finance Committee FROM: Paul Blackwelder, Deputy Executive Director SUBJECT: Measure A Expenditure Plan Amendment and Options The Commission has been considering three Measure A Expenditure Plan Amendments. Action to forward these amendments to the County, the cities, WRCOG and CVAG was held over last month due to concerns over the Route 60 project addition voiced by the City of Riverside and the appropriate action and wording for five proposals submitted for consideration by the County of Riverside. Staff was directed to review these items with staff from the two agencies and to bring back appropriate documents for proceeding with this item. We have had discussions with County staff and believe we have agreement with the approach contained in the Draft Resolution (Attachment "A" ) for processing their proposals. A copy of this attachment has been given to County staff and we should have their comments prior to the Committee meeting. The request to change the formula for distributing local streets and roads funds to the cities and the county would be held over until an amendment requiring voter approval, such as increasing the Bonding Authority is considered. We are scheduled to meet with staff from the City of Riverside and Commission Alternate Alex Clifford Monday, May 4th. We will report the outcome of that meeting at the Committee meeting. We expect that it will be difficult to give the City of Riverside the assurances they are seeking regarding the Route 91 project and the interchange improvements they are requesting as part of the project prior to completion of the Financial Plan Update, which has been delayed due to uncertainty related to rail negotiations. Staff and Legal Counsel have identified some options for moving ahead with the items identified in the Plan Amendment on a interim basis. These are partial solutions but will suffice until the Financial Plan Update is completed. The Amendments and interim solutions as options to proceeding with the Plan Amendment are provided below. f :\uars\preprintVnay.92\explan. pb Page Three May 7, 1992 Measure A Expenditure Plan Amendment and Options STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: That the Commission recommend: 1. That the proposals from the County of Riverside identified in the staff memorandum Attachment A should be forwarded to WRCOG and CVAG for recommendations. 2. That the Commission determine if they want to proceed with the Expenditure Plan Amendment prior to completion of the Financial Plan Update or to exercise the interim options identified by Staff and Legal Counsel. PB:sc f:\ussrs\prsprint\msy.92\explsn.pb RESOLUTION NO. (1,) C (_--- RESOLUTION OF THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION ADOPTING ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES REGARDING THE ALLOCATION OF MEASURE "A" LOCAL STREETS AND ROADS SALES TAX REVENUES WHEREAS, the Commission is authorized pursuant to Ordinance No. 88-1 (Measure "A"), as approved by a vote of the people in November, 1988, to levy and administer a retail transaction and use tax of one-half of one percent within the County of Riverside for the purpose of implementing transportation improvements described in the expenditure plan dated July 13, 1988 (the "Expenditure Plan"); and WHEREAS, the Commission has determined that it is necessary to adopt certain administrative procedures regarding the allocation of Measure "A" local streets and roads revenues to cities and Riverside County. NOW, THEREFORE, the Riverside County Transportation Commission hereby resolves as follows: Section 1. Repayment for MaTor County Expenditures. The County of Riverside has undertaken and plans to continue to construct major transportation projects within unincorporated areas of the County. Some of these projects are located on land that will inevitably be annexed by cities. The Commission has determined that in many cases it is fair and reasonable that an annexing city be required to pledge some or all of its Measure "A" local streets and roads revenues to repay the County for the cost of such projects. Thus, the Commission resolves to cooperate with SCD106840 Section 4. Adjustments to Local Streets and Roads Allocation Estimates. Consistent with the policy set forth in paragraph 5(b) of "General Provisions of the Improvement Plan" of the Expenditure Plan, after the Commission makes its estimated allocation of local streets and roads revenues at its June meeting, no adjustments in that allocation will be made until the next fiscal year, except to reflect changes resulting from the incorporation of a new city. ADOPTED this ATTEST: Naty Kopenhaver, Secretary Riverside County Transportation Commission SCD106840 day of , 1992. -3- S.R. "Al" Lopez, Chairman Riverside County Transportation Commission AGENDA ITEM #4B RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION May 7, 1992 TO: Administrative Committee Budget and Finance Committee FROM: Naty Kopenhaver, Office Services Manager THROUGH: Jack Reagan, Executive Director SUBJECT: October 1992 Symposium on Pricing and Market Strategies for Transportation/Land Use/Air Quality The UCLA Extension Public Policy Program has submitted a request to the Riverside County Transportation Commission to participate as a co-sponsor for the special two-day policy and research symposium on Pricing and Market -Based Strategies being planned in October 1992 in Lake Arrowhead. The cost to the Commission to sponsor the program is $5,000. The issues to be covered at the symposium are: o Address the growing attention being paid to the use of pricing and other market - based strategies for influencing travel behavior, mobile source emissions, and land use development patterns; o Examine pricing and other market proposals that have been recently made in California; o Review experiments that have been performed elsewhere; o Probe strategies which hold the most promise, and strategies which require further resolution; o Review the role of existing subsidies in influencing choices; and, o Analyze major unanswered questions and political issues associated with implementation, such as equity achievement, use of revenues, and relationships to regulatory frameworks. The .� Transportation � Land Use Air Quality Connection A Policy and Research Symposium Convened by the Public Policy Program. UCLA Extension Lake Arrowhead, California November 6th, 7th, and 8th, 1991 Symposium Summary Prepared by: Brian Taylor and Elham Shirazi UCLA Graduate School of Architecture and Urban Planning Public Policy lrogam. UCLA Extension. 10995 Le Conte Ave., Room 714, Los Angela, CA 90024 Co -Sponsors: Atlantic Richfield Company Bay Area Air Quality Management District California Air Resources Board California Department of Transportation Federal Highway 'Administration Hughes Aircraft Company The Irvine Company Los Angeles County Transportation Commission 'ernardino :iated Governments South Coast Air Quality Management District Southern California Edison Company Southern California Gas Company U.S. Environmental Protection Agency University of California Transportation Center Cooperating Organizations: American Lung Association Automobile Club of Southern California California Energy Conunission California Transportation Commission Governor's Office of Planning & Research Natural Resources Tense Council .there California Association of Governments UCLA Graduate School of Architecture & Urban Planning The Transportation Land Use _1 Air Quality Connection A Policy and Research Symposium Convened by the Public Policy Program, UCLA Extension January 9, 1992 Dear Colleague: We are pleased to send you the summary proceedings of the November 6-8 Lake Arrowhead Symposium on The Transportation/LandUse/Air Quality Connection convened by UCLA Extension Public Policy Program. The report summarizes the presentations and discussions of the symposium, and includes an indepth summary of Alan Altshuler's concluding remarks which synthesized the symposium discussions. We hope you find the report useful and that you will share it with your colleagues and others that may be interested. Please contact our office at (310)825-7885 if you wish additional copies. Sincerely, Joanne L. Freilich Assistant Director Public Policy Program UCLA Extension Enclosure Public Policy Program. UCLA Extension. 10995 Le Conte Ave.. Room 714. Los Angeles. CA 90024 Symposium Summary: The Transportation, land Use, Air Quality Connection H. SUMMARY OF THE KEY TOPICS AND DISCUSSIONS The conference was carefully designed to provide an array of perspectives on five related topics, each of which is presented in tum on the following pages: A. Transportation, Air Pollution, and Urban Form in California: An Overview. B. How Far Can We Go With Technology? C. Investing in Transportation Infrastructure and Managing Congestion for Air Quality Improvements. D. Urban Forms and Density Patterns: What Do We Know About These Relationships to Transportation and Air Quality? E. Regulatory Approaches to Maldng the Connections. A. Transportation, Air Pollution, and Urban Form in California: An Overview Professor Martin Wachs opened the symposium by outlining some of the policy and research connections in transportation, air quality, and land use. Professor Wachs believes that our knowledge of these connections is incomplete and that Americans, in general, have a naive view of the relationship between research and policy -making. Scientific research is extremely powerful because it is believed by most Americans to be objective and well-informed. These views of science do not hold for research in transportation, land use, and air quality, in part, contends Wachs, because the line between knowledge and advocacy is unclear. Academics view their transportation and air quality research through the lenses of their disciplines, while policy makers view these questions through the lenses of the various positions already taken by their agencies. The "truth" gradually emerges from the lively interchange among facts, ideas, and perspectives. Michael Scheible of the California Air Resources Board (ARB) outlined the four components of his agency's clean air efforts: cleaner new cars, clean up the cars in use, cleaner fuels, and the implementation of transportation control measures (TCMs). While technical improvements in vehicles during the last fifteen years have lowered emissions by 70%, nearly half of these emissions improvements have been lost to the significant growth in vehicle travel (particularly vehicle trips) during the same period. This, according to Scheible, makes the implementation of Transportation Control Measures (TCMs, such as carpooling programs) and indirect source regulations (ISRs, such as land use planning) key elements in mitigating air quality degradation due to continued growth of both population and per capita 2 Symposium Summary: The Transportation, LAM Use, Air Quality Connection Given the better track record and political palatablilty of technological improvements, technological fixes are a better path to clean air than the land use and demand management policies currently proposed. Current air quality standards, according to Professor Sperling, ignore energy policies and requirements. Methanol and compressed natural gas are likely the preferred fuels for the first half of the twenty-first century, but these, and all other new fuels, need to be examined for their greenhouse effects as well. Vehicles designed for methanol (which is more expensive than gasoline) provide modest ozone reductions and small energy security benefits, but no greenhouse effect improvements. Further down the road, electric vehicles are the most promising new technology, despite the fact that research and development on electric vehicles by the major auto makers has languished. Finally, Professor Sperling believes that uniform emissions standards make little sense; emissions standards should be targeted to specific problems in specific regions. University of Denver Professor Donald Stedman then presented his controversial research on remote sensing of vehicle emissions. This research shows that most mobile source emissions come from a small minority of the vehicle fleet. Small improvements in the emission standards of new cars and biennial vehicle inspection and maintenance programs, states Professor Stedman, are far less effective strategies than finding and correcting the small minority of "gross polluters." Professor Stedman bases his conclusions on data gathered using a remote sensing device that measures vehicle emissions produced by cars driving by the detection equipment. This device, developed by University of Denver researchers, has tested the emissions of over 300,000 vehicles in the US, Canada, Mexico, and Europe. Professor Stedman contends that tighter new car emission standards will increase air pollution because the higher cost of new, marginally cleaner cars will discourage the junking of older, dirtier cars and keep gross polluters on the road longer. Contrary to popular perception, however, the gross polluters are not simply the oldest cars; rather, they are vehicles of any age that are out of tune or have malfunctioning or altered emission control equipment. According to Professor Stedman, finding these cars, tuning them up, and fixing their existing emission control equipment is the most cost-effective strategy to improve air quality. The panel discussants were Larry Caren° of California State University, Northridge and Tim Yau of the Electric Power Research Institute. The future of electric vehicles was discussed and several audience members questioned both the accuracy of the Professor Stedman's remote detection equipment and the administrative ease of locating and correcting the gross polluters. Others warned against focusing exclusively on air quality as the only transportation problem; they believe that energy use, mobility, and economic development are other valid goals of transportation policy. 4 Symposium Summary: The Transportation, Land Use, Air Quality Connection hydrocarbon emissions resulted from bottleneck improvements. These air quality improvements could, however, be reversed if additional increments of suburban growth are induced by the new highway capacity. The reason the highway investments to reduce traffic congestion result in Only modest air quality improvements is because the new investments are relatively small and incremental changes in comparison to the size of regional highway systems. USC Planning Professor Genevieve Giuliano then discussed the potential air quality impacts of congestion pricing. The theory of congestion pricing, according to Professor Giuliano, is based on two beliefs: (1) that there exist markets based on supply and demand that can be equilibrated by price, and (2) that time has a value such that people are willing to trade money for time. Potential short-term responses to pricing would likely be a reduction in total travel and shifts in travel behavior away from peak period and single occupant vehicle travel. Long-term responses to pricing might include more compact development patterns as well. While congestion pricing would likely improve air quality through congestion reduction, these improvements would be mitigated by the fact that much of congestion reduction would come from trip time shifts rather than a reduction of trips and vehicle travel. Additionally, for congestion pricing to work, there is a need for alternative transportation modes and subsidy programs to be in place. Professor Giuliano thinks that the most likely applications of pricing will be: higher tolls on existing toll roads, higher gas taxes, higher parking charges, time of day tolls, some travel -based pollution fees, freeway fees in air quality non -attainment areas, and regional taxes for owning and operating automobiles in non -attainment areas. Professor Giuliano concludes that the equity concerns are significant, and unless carefully designed the poor could be priced off the roads and the rich could benefit the most from pricing; she believes that pricing programs should be structured to mitigate the disproportionate impacts on low-income people. In the discussion, labor strategist Eric Mann cautioned against assuming that social questions such as transportation, land use, and air quality could examined in a value -free way. He encouraged the participants to consider the differential impacts of air quality and transportation strategies on people of color, women, and working people. Joseph Brecher of the Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund was skeptical of the effectiveness of current air quality planning, citing the history of implementation delays and postponements in clean air planning since the early 1970s. The only recourse for clean air advocates, according to Brecher, is litigation against government for non-compliance. He also stated that we need to try all strategies regardless of the imperfect knowledge regarding their actual effectiveness. Richard Sommerville of the San Diego Air Pollution Control District was very optimistic about TCMs, which he thinks are the policies with the fewest risks and the broadest array of benefits in addition to air quality. 6 Symposium Summary: The Transportation, Land Use, Air Quality Connection o The failure of rail transit is no surprise given that proportionally fewer trips are made to central business districts (CBDs) over time and the continuing increase in suburb to suburb trips. o Policies should use market forces to facilitate decentralization, impose congestion charges and emission taxes, price parking, and deregulate transit. Jane Blumenfeld from the Los Angeles Mayor's Office and Veronica Kun of the Natural Resources Defense Council were generally supportive of Professor Newman's position on land use and travel; both -called for more central -city, transit -oriented development. On the other hand, Hugh Fitzpatrick from the Irvine Company discussed the planning experience in Irvine and concluded that, even in the best of circumstances, changes in urban form do not have a positive impact on transportation or air quality. E. Regulatory Approaches to Making the Connections UCLA Urban Planning Professor Donald Shoup presented research undertaken with Professor Richard Willson of California State Polytechnic University, Pomona which uses an international data set to estimate the impacts of subsidized employee parking on travel, congestion, and air pollution. When employers have eliminated parking subsidies, the proportion of employees driving to work alone has declined by between 18 and 81 percent; the reduction in the number of cars driven to the work site ranges between 15 and 38 percent. Because most employers subsidize employee parking costs, even in CBDs, solo commuting is subsidized and encouraged. Additionally the federal government encourages this behavior by considering the provision of free parking by the employer as non-taxable, while other transportation subsidies (except public transit subsidies of $15.00 or less) are part of one's taxable income. Professor Shoup proposes that employers should cash out free parking by offering a transportation stipend to employees in lieu of subsidized parking; employees could then use the stipend as they see fit, either by purchasing parking or by pocketing the money and commuting by some other mode. He estimates that in downtown Los Angeles, employer paid parking stimulates an additional $25 million per year in congestion costs and an additional $5 million per year in air pollution costs. Professor Shoup also added that we need to look closely at the parking requirements cities place on new developments which, he believes, are frequently excessive. In some areas, city regulations require more than half of new developments be devoted to parking. This excessive parking encourages solo driving by reducing the user parking costs, thus subsidizing driving alone. 8 Symposium Summary: The Transportation, Land Use, Air Quality Connection III. TYING IT ALL TOGETHER: MAJOR ISSUES, COMMON THEMES. When San Francisco Supervisor Harry Britt took to the podium at the close of the conference, he advised the assembled academics and analysts against ambiguity. "Elected officials don't want ambivalence from their advisors," he warned, "we want certainty." Supervisor Britt's address at the closing session was part of panel o elected officials them responding to the one and a half days of presentations and discussionPreceded The sentiment of this closing panel -- comprised of Britt, Greg Cox from the California Governor's Office of Planning and Research for Local Government, Judy Hathaway -Francis of the Los Angeles County Transportation Commission, and Norton Younglove of the South Coast Air Quality Management District -- was that more consensus was needed on the connections between transportation, land use, and air quality. These calls for consensus were a response to the differences of opinion in the symposium presentations and discussions. These differences posed a particular challenge for Harvard Professor Alan Altshuler who, in the penultimate session, was to fit all of the conference presentations into a coherent framework. A. Fitting the Research Findings into a Policy Framework: Professor Alan Altshuler Rather than simply summarize the conference presentations, Professor Altshuler focused on exploring the paradigms, values, and beliefs expressed by symposium presenters and participants. The symposium, Altshuler judged, had confirmed Martin Wachs' opening observations that the line between analysis and advocacy lsten he advocat�esedin this field. of contending pos�vns highligh d fferenis is not because � analyses are flawed, but rather because t aspects of a very complex set of problems; these differences, of course, are largely driven by values and beliefs. Policy Approaches to Cleaner Air The discussions, Altshuler observed, had revolved around four main categories of mitigation action: Each of these speakers is or has been a locally elected official serving on a regional planning body. Locally elected officials serving on regional bodies face a special challenge in balancing regional planning needs -- such as reduced traffic congestion and improved air quality -- with the desires of their local constituents for economic development, convenient parking, local land use control, etc. 10 Symposium Summary. The Transportation, Land Use, Air Quality Connection 2. The Comprehensive Behavior Alternative approach views air pollution as just one among many social problems to be addressed. Advocates of this approach believe that each mitigation alternative should be evaluated in terms of all its effects, not just its effect on air quality. And the decision about whether to adopt it should hinge on this comprehensive evaluation. 3, The Limited Behavior Alternative approach views air quality improvement as one of several critical aims that should guide transportation policy making. Other vues voiced most prominently at the conference included congestion relief, greater an compactness, economic development, and equity in the distribution of both mobility and financial responsibility. For obvious reasons the supporters of these several approaches emphasize very different questions and arrive at widely divergent policy conclusions. Consider, for example, orientations toward transportation control measures (TCMs) (intended to reduce vehicle miles of travel), and indirect source regulation measures (intended to generate land use patterns requiring less travel) in the South Coast Air Quality Plan. o Many transportation specialists favor such measures primarily for their congestion relief potential. Allan Hendrix of Caitrans, for example, judges that technological improvements will solve the air quality problem over the next 20 years or so, but not the congestion problem. He considers it essential, therefore, to pursue air quality improvement at least in part by means that also offer congestion relief. o Advocates of technical fix options tend generally to be in the least cost, least inconvenience camp. However, they are often willing to impose significant costs if necessary to hasten the pace of change. Professor Sperling, for example, favors the current California emphasis on creating a market for zero -pollution (i.e. electric) vehicles even though it is far from clear that they represent a least cost path to meeting the Clean Air Act standards. He views this strategy as the only viable path, however, toward a long term "reactive organic carbon free future," which he believes as essential to reversing global warming. o Some of the most passionate advocates of clean air believe that any measure with potential benefits should be adopted, regardless of cost and inconvenience, since some measures are likely to fail and the goal of clean air is so vital. o Finally, some believe that TCMs and indirect source reductions are absolutely necessary if clean air goals are to be met on schedule. They emphasize that rapid growth has wiped out half the air quality gains that technology has produced over the past two decades, and that predominant sentiment in the region favors comparable growth over 12 Symposium Summary: The Transportation, Land Use, Air Quality Connection relief gains may be very short-lived. BART attracted most of its patrons from buses, carpool passengers, and those who were making new trips; but it did attract some drivers. Within several months, however, these were largely replaced on parallel routes by new drivers -- who had presumably foregone the trips in question before the opening of BART for fear of encountering too much congestion. Finally, environmentalists have long proclaimed that commuters have travel time budgets; if they can travel faster, they will travel farther, and they are willing to incur longer trips infrequently that they may consider unacceptable every day. It follows that a successful telecommuting strategy might result in employees coming to work less often, but commuting from greater distances. 5. How feasible, administratively and politically, are TCMs and ISRs? During the 1970s politicians gradually took away from EPA the most powerful measures they had potentially available to reduce motor vehicle travel such as gasoline rationing, tax increases, and parking surcharges. Politicians, in general, cannot vote against the idea of clean air; it is also true, however, that they cannot vote 4 tough enforcement measures. Thus, the California Clean Air Act is essentially toothless when it comes to TCMs and ISRs. Its premise is that localities and firms will put the muscle on employees and developers. But localities and firms have little zeal to carry out this mandate. 6. How equitable are TCMs, ISRs, and technology forcing measures like the electric vehicle program? Regulation KV is more likely to put low -paid secretaries and factory workers into carpools than their bosses. Growth controls may drive up housing costs, providing windfalls to those who now own their homes but imposing heavy burdens on those who currently rent and those who will establish households in the future (future immigrants, children living in current households). The electric vehicle program may require cross - subsidies by the auto manufacturers, driving up the cost of new cars. One result would be to increase the cost of used cars. Current owners of relatively new cars in this scenario will have the option of hanging onto them longer than they might have otherwise, or of selling them for a higher price than they could otherwise have obtained. Those in the market for used cars, however, who are generally less affluent, will bear the burden of a transition to electric vehicles. 7. What do we know about the air quality effects of higher urban densities? Not a great deal. People travel less in dense cities like New York, but air pollution heaviest in the largest dense cities; so the residents of the most densely developed cities breathe the heaviest concentrations of air pollution. There is little evidence, moreover, that scattered high density development in a large sprawling region like Los Angeles produces major travel reductions. Finally, half or more of the pollution associated with a typical trip of 10 miles is a product of the engine warming up and cooling off, independent of mileage. 14 Symposium Summary: The Transportation, land Use, Air Quality Connection implemented. In particular, presenters and other participants seemed particularly skeptical that the TDM and ISR components of the current South Coast Air Quality Plan would be fully implemented. This, he believes, raises an interesting question; is the current plan intended as a literal blueprint for the future, or as a statement of aspirations and fervent hopes? The answer at this point, he concluded, is anything but clear. B. Major Issues, Common Themes, and Further Work Several important debates framed the conference: The importance of air quality vis-a-vis other social problems; the need for transportation control measures and indirect source regulations: command -and -control versus market -based approaches; and the role of new technologies, such as electric vehicles, in maintaining air quality in the long term. These alternative views revealed different sets of values, different perceptions of the problem, different approaches to planning, different sets of proposals, and different visions of the future. Thus, despite the elected officials calls for consensus, the connections between transportation, land use, and air quality will likely remain debated for some time to come. At the close of the symposium, participants were asked about the key areas for further research on the transportation. land use, air quality connection. Five areas were mentioned most frequently by presenters, discussants, and attendees: 1. Evaluations of the effectiveness of transportation control measures (such as Regulation XV) and indirect source regulations (such as regional jobs -housing balance programs); 2. Empirical studies of congestion pricing and market -based pricing, based on actual practice; 3. Examinations of the effect of future demographic and economic changes on land use, transportation, and air quality; 4. Evaluations of the economic impacts of transportation and land use policies to improve air quality; and 5. More research on remote emissions detection and "gross polluters." With this agenda, then, the search for the transportation, air quality, and land use connection will continue. 16 Presenters & Coordinators The Transportation/Land Use/Air Quality Connection Alan A_ A.itshuler is the Ruth and Frank Stanton Professor in Urban Policy and Planning at the John F. Kennedy School of Public Policy at Harvard University, where he is also Director of the Taubman Center for State and Local Government. He was formerly Dean of the Graduate School of Public Administration at New York University, and prier to that he served as the Chair of the Political Science Department at MtT. He was the first Secretary of Transportation and Construction of the state of Massachusetts, a position which he held between 1971 and 1975. He is the author of several widely read books on the city planning process. urban transportation policy, and the automobile industry. His current research includes work on the relationship between transportation and air quality. lacrabeth Deakin is Assistant Professor of City and Regional Planning at the University of California, Berkeley, where she is also Assistant Research Engineer with the Institute of Transportation Studies. She holds degrees in Political Science, Law, and Civil Engineering. Her major areas of scholarly interest have been transportation policy, planning and analysis, land use policy and planning. energy and environmental planning, and legal and regulatory issues in transportation and land use. She has recently reviewed proposed legislation on land use planning, growth management, and air quality planning for the California legislature. Joanne Frediich is Assistant Director of the Public Policy Program at UCLA Extension where she develops and implements conferences, seminars, and courses for policy leaders and professionals in areas such as land use. governance, transportation, environmental quality, and public finance. She previously served as a regional planner with the Southern California Association of Governments from 1973 through 1989 where she specialized in air and water quality, transportation and land use planning. Genevieve Giuliano is Associate Professor of Urban and Regional Planning at the University of Southern California where she specializes in transportation planning and land use,i,ssues. She has recently published research papers on staggered work hours, congestion pricing, and the role of transportation demand management in growth management. Her research documenting the effectiveness of transportation planning for the 1984 Los Angeles Olympics is very well known, and she is currently working with Martin Wachs on an evaluation of Regulation XV of the South Coast Air Quality Management District. Peter Gordon is Associate Dean of the School of Urban and Regional Planning at the University of Southern California, where he is also Professor of Economics, He specializes in transportation. regional development and regional science, and has recently conducted research on urban travel patterns with an emphasis on gender, time of day, and urban -suburban differences. Professor Gordon is well-known in Los Angeles as a critic of the regional rail transit construction program. LeRoy Graymer established the Public Policy Program at UCLA Extension in 1979 and continues to serve as its Director. The Program addresses public policy issues of regional, state, and national importance through numerous conferences, seminars, workshops, and other activities. He was formerly Associate Dean of the Graduate School of Public Policy at the University of California. Berkeley, and Vice President and Professor of Political Science at California State University, Dominguez Hills. PANELISTS THE TRANSPORTATION/LAND USE/AIR QUALM( CONNECTION Thomas C. Austin is a Senior Partner in the firm of Sierra Research�Inc., hems analysis ❑f is experience has included ncl doe the design and evaluation of vehicle inspection and maintenance {l) p gr emission standard revisions, and the development ela QrytaImplementation copies chicle manufacturersamendments ind energy companies. state ompanies' governments. Sierra's clients include � , and also From 1975 to Mr. Austin served e ery d as the manager ofcer of f projects on advanC d engines Resources and emission control worked for the U.S.C.7.5EPA, where systems, and motor vehicle fuel economy. onsible tracking major ,lane Blumenfeld is the Planning Adandrto use policy foryor Bt eley where she is City of Los AngelesSpPreviouslyrshe spent eleven development projects and developing P years as a planner in various capacities within the effectively�Angeles channel growthCity $suDch as he development lof (mixed particularly interested in formulating city policy use projects and the integration of land use, transportation and environmental planning. rs in 1979, and served as President Supervisor Harry o Britt was first 1990e. the is San ember of he Board of Direoard of ctors of the Bay Area Air President of the Board. from 19$8 to Quality Management District, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission, and also serves as President of the San Francisco County Transportation Authority. David L. Calkins has been with the Federal Government for r years, 19 of which have been with the EPA. Office In Region IBC, he has served as Chie�,rAtDeputy eand ut Water Planning Institutional AnalysisD,D vision.( IFn 19811 Relations; Chief, Air Program Branch; and Acting F Y special assignment to the Bay Area Air Quality Management District. fe Laurence S. Caretto is Associate Dean of the School of Engineering fan o eeateher Si iencegists nn ludeoa spec of ssor of Eneincerine at California State University, Northridge. His S n interest in combustion, vehicle emission, Vice-Chair and air Board afrom 19?9 to 1982ewhere he was involve Resources Board from 1978 [0 1983, in new regulations for fuel composition, diesel slat vehicles, tloeal interactimissionon uiFrroht i983 [nt1987 working with was local � air pollution control districts for improved/ anagement alternate board member, representing thg the d' Angeles City ouncil to the statewide committeen the South Coast to oversee the Vehicle District Board, where he sere Inspection ("Smog Check") Program. Norman C is the AirPollutionthDirectorvof theer forEnvir n mental ManagementDeparttmennte Sacramento Metroolitan Air ufor the County al District. Mr.r. Covell is also e Sacramento. This Department was created r hed the Hazardous MaterialsSupervisors in 1988, and includes the it Pollution Control, Environments Harman H. Emerson is principal in the consulting ementEand transportationAssociates policy nd planning $ Recent policy analysis, strategic planning, public affairsmana g he was appointed to the Las Angeles Community Committee on Congestion o ency Board Managemment Plann�n�focusing Pnor Qa transportation issues, and to LACT Y establishing Emerson r al real estate develo Emerson ment and managem management coPublic mpany, and developers of Warner Center. Angeles based commercial real esta F Carol G. Whiteside is the Assistant Secretary for Resources, Intergovernmental Relations, at the California Resources Agency. Ms. Whiteside was previously the Mayor, City of Modesto from 1987 to 1991, as well as serving as a councilmember from 1983 to 1987. Ms. Whiteside's previous positions include Chair of the Human Development Committee of the U.S. Conference of Mayors; Member of the Board of Directors of the League of California Cities; Chair of the League's Special Committee on Growth Management; and member of the Consensus Project on Growth Management. She is currently a Director of the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy. te in lo Timothy S. Yau is Manager of 5ireat�Sls Planning on newthe demalnd�s de planning approachesric Power Research uas (welRas po Paonsartd He is currently developing a [hre y P policies on major energy issues. Previously, MrYau'sresponsibilities tERlincluded arch pro]ects to advance the state -of -the a psYstemplanningandoperaonsthroughcomputerization. Hon. the Fifth t since o serves as r of Hon. Norton Yaunglove, Supervisor, Hp s � mte representing of the SDoiuthcCoast A 1971, Quality ManagementiD trig t Board e Board of Supervisors of Riverside County. since 1982, and served as its Chair from 1987 thru 1990. Mr. Younglove continues to regularly represent the district before the state legislature and Congressional committees. habeenamember0 local, and Soof more than 4i years public service with Riverside as an elected official, national organizations, and is past president of SCAG. Robert Yuhnke since 1bar ofrved as the EDF's new nRatioional Counsel at Environmental nal transportation rogram which sfa med at developing aping Mountainin office. He is coordirdtnato strategies to reduce vehicle emissions and the greenhouse effect. These include switching to cleaner alternative fuels, and transportation system improvements designed to reduce reliance on the single occupant auto. As a nationally recognized expert on the Clean Air Act, Mr. Yuhnke frequently testifies at Congressional hearings and speaks at American Bar Association conferences. WILLIAM BLACKMER Chief Office of Environmental Analysis California Department of Transportation 650 Howe Avenue, Ste. 400 Sacramento, CA 95825 JANE BLUMENFELD (Panelist) Planning Advisor Los Angeles City Mayor's Office City Hall 200 N. Spring Street, M-10 Los Angeles, CA 90012 JOSEPH BRECHER Attorney Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund 1970 Broadway - 12th Floor Oakland, CA 94612 HON. HARRY BRITT (Panelist) Supervisor City and County of San Francisco City Hall, Rm. 235 San Francisco, CA 94102 JEFFREY R. BROOKS Director Office of Program Development Federal Highway Administration 211 Main Street, Ste. 1100 San Francisco, CA 94105 DAVID CALKINS (Panelist) Chief Air Programs Branch Air and Toxics Division U.S. EPA, Region IX 75 Hawthorne Street San Francisco, CA 94105 EDWARD CAMPBELL Member, Board of Directors Bay Area Air Quality Management District 939 Ellis Street San Francisco, CA 94109 LARRY CARETTO (Panelist) Associate Dean School of Engineering & Computer Science California State University, Northridge Northridge, CA 91330 2 (916) 920-7786 (213) 485-6330 (510) 272-0433 (415) 554-5145 (415) 744-3110 (415) 744-1210 (415) 771-6000 (818) 885-2183 ROGER EMBREY Division Manager, Orange County Southern California Gas Co. P.O. Box 3334 Anaheim, CA 92803 NORMAN H. EMERSON (Panelist) Principal Emerson & Associates 550 N. Brand Blvd., Ste. 530 Glendale, CA 91203 EUGENE L. FISHER Intergovernmental Affairs Officer South Coast AQMD 21865 E. Copley Drive Diamond Bar, CA 91765-4182 MICHAEL FITTS Attorney Natural Resources Defense Council 617 S. Olive Street Los Angeles, CA 90014 HUGH FITZPATRICK (Panelist) Vice President Regional Infrastructure Policy and Planning The Irvine Company 550 Newport Center Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 JOANNE L. FREILICH (Coordinator) Assistant Director Public Policy Program UCLA Extension 10995 Le Conte Ave., Ste. 714 Los Angeles, CA 90024 MARC FUTTERMAN Director Urban Design and Planning Urban Innovations Group 1063 Gayley Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90024 ANNE GERAGHTY Manager Transportation Strategies Group Air Resources Board P.O. Box 2815 Sacramento, CA 95812 4 (714) 634-3061 (213) 481-3731 (818) 572-6400 (213) 892-1500 (714) 720-5440 (213) 825-7885 (213) 208-8200 (916) 322-2745 HON. JUDY HATHAWAY-FRANCIS (Panelist) Commissioner Los Angeles County Transportation Commission 818 W. 7th Street, llth Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 PETER HATHAWAY Chief Deputy Director California Transportation Commission 1120 "N" Street, Ste. 2225 Sacramento, CA 95814 WILLIAM HEIN Deputy Executive Director Metro. Transportation Commission (MTC) Joseph P. Bort Metro Center 101 - 8th Street Oakland, CA 94607 LAMONT HEMPEL Assistant Professor Center for Politics & Policy Claremont Graduate School 170 E. Tenth Street Claremont, CA 91711 ALLAN HENDIX (Panelist) Deputy Director Transportation Planning California Department of Transportation 1120 "N" Street, Rm. 1129 Sacramento, CA 95814 MICHAEL HOFFACRER Executive Director Sacramento Area Council of Govts. 3000 "S" Street, Ste. 300 Sacramento, CA 95816 BONNIE HOLMES Associate V. John White & Associates 1100 - llth Street, Ste. 321 Sacramento, CA 95814 LEE HULTGREN Director of Transportation San Diego Association of Governments 401 "B" Street, Ste. 800 San Diego, CA 92101 6 (213) 244-6529 (916) 654-4245 (510) 464-7780 (714 ) 621-8171 (916) 654-5368 (916) 457-2264 (916) 447-7983 (619) 595-5300 TIM LITTLE Executive Director Coalition for Clean Air 122 Lincoln Blvd., Ste. 201 Venice, CA 90291 STEPHEN LOCKWOOD (Panelist) Associate Administrator for Policy Federal Highway Administration 400 - 7th Street, Rm. 3317, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590 VICTOR MAGISTRALE American Lung Association of California 207 Oaklawn Drive Pasadena, CA 91030 CAROLE MAGNUSON Director - Local Relations UCLA Community & Governmental Relations 2224 Murphy Hall Los Angeles, CA 90024 ERIC MANN (Panelist) Director Labor Community Strategy Center 14540 Haynes Street, Ste. 200 Van Nuys, CA 91411 TONI MARTINEZ-BURGOYNE Director, External Affairs ARCO 515 S. Flower Street Los Angeles, CA 90071 DANIEL MAZMANIAN Director Center for Politics & Policy Claremont Graduate School 160 E. Tenth Street Claremont, CA 91711 CHARLES B. McCARTHY Sr. Vice President Southern California Edison Company P.O. Box 800 Rosemead, CA 91770 8 (213) 450-3190 (202) 366-0585 FAX: (202) 366-9626 (818) 799-2287 (213) 825-3826 (818) 781-4800 (213) 486-2165 (714) 621-8171 (818) 302-2974 PETER W. G. NEWMAN (Speaker) Professor Institute for Science and Technology Policy Murdoch University Perth, W. Australia 6150 JAMES ORTNER Transportation/Air Quality Administrator Los Angeles County Transportation Commission 818 W. 7th Street Los Angeles, CA 90017 WILLIAM PENNINGTON Commissioner's Advisor California Energy Commission 1516 Ninth Street, MS/35 Sacramento, CA 95814 BEN PRUETT Local Governmental Affairs Manager Southern California Gas Co. Box 3249 Los Angeles, CA 90051-1249 PAUL RAMOS Manager, Community Affairs Southern California Gas Co. P.O. Box 3334 Anaheim, CA 92803 VIVIAN RAY Air Quality Planner South Coast AQMD 21865 Copley Drive Diamond Bar, CA 91765 LARRY RHINEHART Mayor, City of Montclair President, SANBAG 10221 Pradera Avenue Montclair, CA 91763 GEORGE ROSS Director State & Local Governmental Relations ARCO 515 South Flower St., AP-4095 Los Angeles, CA 90071 10 011-61-9-332-2902 (213) 244-6865 (916) 654-4930 (213) 689-3714 (714) 634-3061 (714) 396-3065 (714) 884-8276 (213) 486-2626 BRIAN SMITH Chief, Transportation Planning California Department of Transportation 1130 "K" Street, 4th Floor P.O. Box 942874 Sacramento, CA 94274-0001 KENT SMITH Chief Deputy Director California Energy Commission 1516 - 9th Street, MS 39 Sacramento, CA 95814 RICHARD J. SOMMERVILLE (Panelist) Air Pollution Control Officer County of San Diego APCD 9150 Chesapeake Drive San Diego, CA 92123-1096 DANIEL SPERLING (Speaker) Professor Department University 206 Walker Davis, CA of Civil Engineering of California, Davis Hall 95616-5294 DONALD STEDMAN (Speaker) Professor Department of Chemistry Brianerd F. Phillipson Chair University of Denver Denver, CO 80208 JOHN STEVENS (Panelist) Principal Consultant Committee on Transportation California State Assembly State Capitol, Rm. 3194 Sacramento, CA 95814 PETER R. STOPHER Director/Professor Louisiana Transportation Research Center 4101 Gourrier Avenue Baton Rouge, LA 70808 BRIAN TAYLOR Graduate Student UCLA Graduate School of Architecture and Urban Planning 1125 Perloff Hall Los Angeles, CA 90024 12 (916) 445-7111 (916) 654-4996 (619) 694-3300 (916) 752-7434 (303) 871-2580 (916) 445-1616 (504) 767-9131 (213) 825-9871 ROBERT A. WYMAN Attorney Latham & Watkins 633 W. 5th Street Los Angeles, CA 90071 TIMOTHY YAU (Panelist) Manager Strategic Planning Electric Power Research Institute 3412 Hillview Avenue P.O. Box 10412 Palo Alto, CA 94303 NORTON YOUNGLOVE (Panelist) Supervisor & Chair South Coast AQMD County of Riverside 4080 Lemon Street Riverside, CA 92501 ROBERT YOHNRE (Panelist) Senior Attorney Environmental Defense Fund 1405 Arapahoe Boulder, CO 80302 HON. DENNIS ZANE Councilman City of Santa Monica 1685 Main Street Santa Monica, CA 90401 14 (213) 485-1234 (415) 855-2000 (714) 275-1050 (303) 440-4901 (213) 395-4485 AGENDA ITEM #5A DATE: RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION May 7, 1992 TO: Administrative Committee Budget and Finance Committee FROM: Dean Martin, Controller THROUGH: Jack Reagan, Executive Director SUBJECT: Proposed Budget for Fiscal Year 1992/93 Staff has prepared the budget for Measure A, RCTC, and SAFE for fiscal year 92/93. A copy of the proposed budget is attached for your review. Staff will be prepared to discuss the assumptions underlying the proposed budget amounts. Any changes recommended by the members of the committee will be incorporated into the proposed budget that will be included in the regular Commission agenda packet. The public hearing is scheduled for the May 13th meeting. The final budget may be adopted at that meeting if so desired, or if needed, formal approval and adoption can be completed at the June meeting. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Review and discussion. DM:sc attachment f:\ueerelpreprint\m ey.92\9 3bud0et.d m Riverside County Transportation Commission MEASURE 'A' / RCTC / SAFE Proposed 1992-93 Budget TOTALS MEASURE 'A' RCTC SAFE REVENUES Sales Tax Allocation $47,174,000 $47,174,000 $0 Regional DistribUtions ($22,960,529) ($22,960,529) TDA Planning $675,000 $675,000 TDA Administration $290,000 $290,000 SAFE Fees $960,000 $960,000 State Rail Bonds $17,850,000 $17,850,000 SB300 Reimbursements $6,430,000 $6,430,000 SANBAG $188,000 $188,000 LACTC $0 $0 OCTC $0 TCI Allocation $10,960,000 $10,960,000 Interest Income $4,120,000 $4,000,000 $30,000 $100,000 Bond Proceeds TO BE DETERMINED TO BE DETERMINED TOTAL REVENUES $65,686,471 $63,641,471 $995,000 $1,060,000 Other Funds Carry over from 1991-92 $102,680,000 $100,000,000 $180,0oo $2,500,000 Line of Credit Balance $0 TOTAL of OTHER FUNDS $102,680,000 $100,000,000 VI80,000 $2,500,000 GRAND TOTAL: FUNDS AVAILABLE $168,366,471 $163,641,471 $1,175,000 $3,560,000 EXPENDITURES RCTC Personnel Salary R Fringe $1,274,091 $1,274,091 $952,691 $321,227 $66,247 Services 3 Supplies Communications $51,543 $39,173 $9,278 $3,093 Household Expenses $16,740 $12,722 $3,013 $1,004 Insurance $30,000 $22,800 $5,400 $1,800 Equipment Maintenance $39,629 $30,118 $7,133 $2,378 Office Expense $47,395 $36,020 $8,531 $2,844 Commissioners Per Diem $36,639 $27,846 $6,595 $2,198 Publications & Notices $4,279 $3,252 $770 $257 Office Lease $172,575 $131,157 $31,063 $10,354 Special Departmental EXpens $40,392 $30,698 $7,271 $2,424 Community Relations $60,000 $45,600 $10,800 $3,600 Transp/Travei $78,084 $59,344 $14,055 $4,685 PRELIMINARY I. 10 I. e6Ed SE6'LZZ'913 9NI11V101 Z05 H31kiVf10 1=103 OIVd S3910ANI 30 1:138HVf1N 9SS H3111V(10 H03 03SS30011d 83010ANI 30 li38Wf1N ive6'969'8LS I7L9'SSL'SIS 0til'S6S'8S 9Z9'0£8' LS LL8'OLVS l9Z'ZO l$ EbL'ELS'tS S8£' L81.S 996'00014 9l8'6SVS 1►£E'S99S 0176' LZZS LZ6'0617'08$ L68'L99'013 990'989'913 Slb'lS9'ZS 09L'958$ 000'0le LS V9L'689'1.S LL9'LBZS 689' l8Z'£S £Z£'994lS SZ8'9S V6£'Z6L'LS %Z8 610'595`9l L1: 91.S`LE9' 1173 4600L 6S6'929'8S 696'SZ9'8S 96001 O l9'E LSS O L9'E LS$ %96 098'09L't, 991'£8614 %96 000'8EL.P$ 000'Z l6'tr$ %L6 £6L'OS£'£S 6Z9' L89%1 %98 VZ9'££V.ZES LL8'Sl9'L£S %L8 VOL' L6S' l£S fi£9'i+'S 1.'93 %S6 LL l' 186$ 1►5£'8£0' LS 9600 L 000'66l' LZS 000'66l' LZS %88 L£8'069'Z$ llS'980'£S %68 9LS'68910$ 6LL'LZZ'6$ 000'909'6LS ZEAL 'LE HOEIVW Z661.'LEH01:1M M11WW00 f1HH131VO 9NION3 a311iVf10 1390f18 d0 Ol S3Li11110N3dX3 llOd 31111110N3dX3 39V1N30113d S1d.1.01 11V1:1 1i3111WW00 3011:1-N-)11:1Vd 'SOAS V NVId WVI19011d 'MSS 1W9W 193r011d 1311-1038 VIVH901:1d 'AOHdWI 39NVH01131N1 8193r0t:Id SLZ-1 l6 31f10ki 8193r011d 11131f101:1 98 31f10F1 6L 31f1011 VL 31f1011 '331:19V 'd000 VN01:109 31V0 Ol N011V0011V NOI1dI1j0S30 S1N3W11WWOO 03ZI1:I0H1f1V 103P01:1d 1V11111OVli1N0O NOISSIWWOO Z661 ' L£ H911VW 9NION3 0011:13d 11:10d31i 1390f18 Jlll_1311iVf10 S103fOldd AVMH911-1 V 31:1f1SV3W 0101:1 986'0017$ 986' OOV$ KE'S99$ n£' S99$ LZ6`06VOES 088'00 L'8Z$ LLO'06E'Z$ 990`989`9 3 Z6L'80 LS OZO'L££' L$ 666'1709' L$ SSZ'9E9'£ l$ ZEO'SL l$ ZEO'SL L$ 1►68' LS t'68' L$ Z08`£9L$ t790'££ l$ 8£L'OE9$ E 10 Z e6ed 000`8E1`let 000`ZL6'14 %96 000'8EL.Vs 000'ZL6'17$ %L6 E6L'OS£'£S 6Z9' L89'E$ (L) (L) %L6 E6L'05£'£$ 6Z9' L89'£$ %98 VZ9`£EVZ£S 11,8'91.9`LES %SE 058'00l'8Z$ 000'09L'ZE$ (9) (9) %S6 t'LL'Z££'ti$ LL9'999'VS %L8 WI' L69' LES toE'YPS L'9ES cYo00L Z6L'80L$ Z6L'80l$ %L8 l69`£Z8'Z$ L5L'Lt'Z'£$ %88 E95'E09' L$ L8V9 L8' l$ % L 8 859' 550' LZS 86 l'Z86'0E$ 131H038 -unmans (OOz6'00 L6'0006'006801:1) 'A1i3S 114911103fOHd 131H038 39NVH01:131N11V1018nS (ZE L6'LZ L6'9Z L6 SZ L6'17Z L6'LO L61 L0601:0 (S.HSd) 6.16u3 A eulwllead VIVI:1901:1d-A011dW139NVH01:131NI 51Z-11V1018n$ (ZHdL000 '8 llidL000' 60007006' £0060H) ABM-10-41.161a (0E06'8 L06'900600 .uoJIAu3/6i6u3 kieuww!Ieid S103f01id SLZ-1 46 31nOu -maims (LEl6oa) 92-1019N (OE L6'6Z L6'8Z l6'EZ L6013) SL-I 01 LL1:IS (z LZ6'So L6'EO l6'ZO L6' l0 L601:1) Amyl O> e110u6ew (b LZ6'£E 16'Z006 1006'Z068'1.068'10880H) (AOH)100 01 ellou6ew S103fOHd l6 31110H 31V0 Ol Z661 ' lE 431eW 0311110100 31VO Ol S3Hf1110N3dX3 030N3H1NOW 13J0f1830 S1N3W11WW00 FiOd 31Af111ON3dX3 3JV1N301:13d "1Vdf110VIA1N00 NOI1V0011V NOIldlIAOS30 03ziaoH1f1V 103f0ad NOISSIWW00 31n013 A811:10d31:1 Beane S103f01:1d AVMH9I1-1 V 31:1nSV3V1 0101:1 xi1 •sual a5 eFi• pmnxidy 1 L'14-414). -uTirsi=_�—1 MO 11114110 [ S. I l'a5 3 l n 0 3 H 3 5 l u w w n s WUdOOdd 1WAOddWI Id0d5NUdI U lin5d3W NSSIWW03 NINcE Nda1 A1Nn0) 301SHAId NOII3OHISN03 [ ___J AUM 30 1H91H L_._. 1 38Sd ONU N9IS30 1HN13 L A,i�ilal 6�tfliai'AIiY r0/0 1 ,nlwbiH� .1 i 1 y,eQ 41J3l,1r4 Laws 1 268UUIC usiu., oaroJd b6Mire paroJd Zb8dUl aled ele0 Z68dtlb2 ale0 Told 1H1N3WN0HIAN3 a 9NIH33NI9N3 AdUNIWIl3dd [ ' IHARI O1NI3Ur S11NW3Ulad 390IH0 NOSH30NUS bL1H 1 10103WN0dIAN3 8 9NIH33NI9N3 AdUNIWI13Hd I ' t 41OH NO I 1N3WN9I1V-38 3AH03 - NWIUM 01 H31S3413NIM Hid 1d10341N0dIAN3 a 9NIH33NI9N3 18UNIWI138d S3NU1 01 N30IM - SIZI O1 1S 9 iL18 N01130dISN03 r ______J AUM 30 189I8 38Sd ONtl N9IS30 1UN13 1U1N3WN0HIAN3 8 9NIH33NI9N3 AdUNIWI13dd r I N011302119100 AlNO NOI NON JI1H33 AUM 30 1119IH L AUM 30 MOIH 38Sd ONU N9IS30 1UN13 I� F 1 1 1 1• 3NU1 01 N30IM - ISIHH3d ND1S 9 01 1S HI/ 4L1H 1 1 1d1N3WN0HIAN1 A 9NIH3341I9N3 AdUNIWI13Hd J 4101130dISN03 AVM 30 1H9IH i 1 S3NU1 4 01 N30IM - 1S H1L 01 SII 4L10 PNNIWI-Hdd 53Nd1 8 01 N30IM - AUM A311UA 01 Sll Dr 091H lUINNNOHIAN3 8 941I8330I903 AHUNIWI13Hd 1 NOI13081SN03 131 Nl of sruf rl ri Wl 111 w 9bb l A1N0 N011U3IAIld13 AUM 30 141918 AUM 30 1H9IH Air I 1 1 32Sd ONU CIS30 1UNIA 1 1 38Sd ONU N9IS30 1UNI3 L__ - 1 11 1U1N3WNOHIAN3 a 9NIH33NI9N3 AdVNIWI13Hd 01 sf ul rlrl w Sbbl drWl Ai r 1 a Ni 0 si u r I r 6bbl w a]W �] r 3NU1 8 01 N30IM-0A10 ONU103H 01 1N Stour 0918 AddNIWI13dd r al NI 0151 ui ri fl Wl u{3 Ebb' r O]N 01s1d1r1r1wIti 14! r Zbbl S3NU1 9 01 N30IM-3I Ste/lb/09 Ol AUM A311UA 091d oNoNdsir al Nl 01 SI di r[rjwl ul Wf r Obbl PAGE NO. i 04/29/92 CONTRACT NO./ AMENDMENT fit/ CONSULTANT 0009BP1 - 0 Covers Several Firm/Consultants/Persons 0009PT2 - 0 COVERS SEVERAL FIRMS/CONSULTANTS/PERSONS R08900 - 0 Bechtel Corporation R08902 2 Parsons, Brinckerhoff, Wade and Douglas, Inc. R08905 - 2 Schiermeyer Consulting Services Services R08907 - 0 Route 86 Cooperative Agreement R08908 - 1 City of Corona Construct 4 lane expressway at Rt. 86 START SCOPE/DESCRIPTION DATE REPORT MPR001 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION CONTRACT STATUS REPORT (All Dollars X $1000) CURRENT COMPLETION AUTHORIZED DATE CONTRACT VALUE Bond Principal Repayment 07/01/90 06/30/91 10,000.00 PASS THRU Project Management 07/01/91 06/30/92 472.98 02/15/89 06/30/89 170.00 Rt. 91 Final design - 04/07/89 / / 739.00 converted to a lump sum contract Commuter Rails Consulting 06/30/89 06/30/92 336.00 06/12/89 06/30/94 21,035.40 Cooperative Agreement 07/19/89 06/30/94 14,605.00 EXPENDED PERCENT AGAINST CONTRACT CONTRACT EXPENDED 0.00 0% 0.00 0% 170.00 100% 708.51 96% 314.43 94% TOTAL DBE AS % PAID OF ACTUAL TO DBE'S EXPENDED REMARKS 0.00 0% 0.00 0% 0.00 0% THIS CONTRACT IS CLOSED 0.00 0% Converted to a lump sum contract. Approved by RCTC on 5/9/90. PROJECT COMPLETE 0.00 0% 1,210.11 6% 0.00 0% Contract value is RCTC portion only and does not include administration cost for Caltrans. 8,144.70 56% 0.00 0% The indicated cost is an estimate for design, construction and construction management. RCTC's share is 67% of total cost. PAGE NO. 04/29/92 3 CONTRACT NO./ AMENDMENT #/ CONSULTANT R09008 - 1 NBS/Lowry R09009 - 5 Chicago Title R09010 LSA 2 R09011 - 0 County of Riverside R09012 - 0 City of Perris R09013 - 1 DKS and Associates R09014 - 0 County of Riverside / Wilbur Smith Associates R09015 - 0 Cathedral City SCOPE/DESCRIPTION START DATE REPORT MPR001 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION CONTRACT STATUS REPORT (All Dollars X S1000) CURRENT COMPLETION AUTHORIZED DATE CONTRACT VALUE Rt. 215 Surveying Work 02/01/91 02/01/92 676.67 Escrow and Title Fees for 01/23/90 / / 21,465.89 ROW procured for 60/91/215 IC Environmental Study (APA) 01/31/90 / / 232.53 Cooperative Agreement 03/30/90 06/30/92 802.57 (Sanderson Project) Rt. 74 - Phase 0,2 and 01/31/90 07/30/92 3,000.00 Phase 9 Work PAA Traffic Engineering 02/02/90 09/30/91 1,295.10 Cooperative Agreement for 02/20/90 01/31/91 62.00 I-15 Galena PSR (Loan) Rt. 111 Construction (Loan) - Perez St. Intersection / / / / EXPENDED AGAINST CONTRACT PERCENT CONTRACT EXPENDED 363.53 54% 21,465.89 100% 186.70 80% 519.02 65% 1,880.07 63% 1,245.63 96% 0.00 0% TOTAL PAID TO DBE'S DBE AS % OF ACTUAL EXPENDED 0.00 0% 0.00 0% 0.00 0% 0.00 0% 0.00 0% 0.00 0% 0.00 0% REMARKS Reimbursement to county for consultant contract and contract administration. Capital project, and this amount is RCTC's share of total project costs. This will not be a cooperative agreement but will be a loan agreement per Jack Reagan. The county is in charge of this study. 600.00 0.00 0% 0.00 0% This contract may be signed as a cooperative agreement or a loan arrangement with Cathedral City. Details need to be discussed with BB&K. Negotiations are on going. •a4a1dwo3 %0 00'0 %a 69'8 %0 00'0 %68 06'0L %0 00'0 %77 08'8 %0 00'0 %0 00'0 %0 00'0 00'01 06/1£/01 06/LZ/01 uol;sa6uo3 ana!laJ o; samlpe; nau Jo; paau ay; Apn;S Slaa3d AO A113 (S311/130SSV $ N3A0119 '31HOW) V914 0 - 01160E '30SSV 9NINNVId WVa90ad 1N3W39VNVW 2 H3HV3S3a A311VA 00'08 / / 06/Z1/L0 NO11S39NO3 30 1N3Wd013A30 Z - 60160H 1300W '1d30 3133Va1 NVSAIH NOl VIVO 9NINNVd AlNnO3 30ISa3AIa 00'02 26/0£/L0 06/10/70 AHOM13N 8 '0'3'S/31VOdn 0 - 80160H l6-;a ;e xoppaJi/Ae0 Hueoin %L OL'h 00'008 / / / / ;uawanoJdwi a6uey3Ja;ul 9N I A3AWS %Lh 68'591 01'25£ 16/10/60 06/11/60 (11311 9NIddVW hL 31n0a S33IAa3S A3AMS %£8 62'L££ 68'L07 / / 06/Z0/11 01311 8 9NIddVW 16 alma %0 00'0 %66 5£'£££ SAHVW3a A311VA ON3NOW A1I3 0 - L0160a 9NIa33NI9N3 )131H 0 - 90160H S31VI30SSV $ 3110N 1 - 50160H a31NI-VI10N9VW/16 31n0a NO S33IAa3S S31VI30SSV ONV JIHf OL'S££ 16/£1/60 06/LZ/60 9N1a33N19N3 3133Va1 0 - £0160a 030N3dX3 S ABO 01 03ON3dX3 13Va1NO3 3n1VA 13Va1NO3 31V0 31V0 NOI1d1a3S30/3d03S 1NV11nSN03 1tlf113V 30 OIVd 13Va1NO3 1SNIV9V 03ZIa0HlIIV N01131dW03 1HV1S /# 1N3WON3WV % SV 380 1tl101 1N33a3d 030N3dX3 1N31111f13 /'ON 13Va1NO3 (OOOLS X SJelloO lltl) 1110d3a sniviS 13Va1NO3 NOISSIWW03 NOI1V1HOdSNVa1 A1Nf103 30ISa3AIa LOOadW 1a0d3a Z6/62/70 S 'ON 39Vd %0 00'0 %26 S8'25L OL1 X L6NS NO SS33NI9N3 H3SIVX J31 £L'7SL l6/L£/ZL L6/ZZ/20 AOflls r0Hd M03 SASS 9N3 0 - SZL6021 09HS NO (7)2131N1 S1M0d3H AOf11S '3NI S1NV11nSN03 SWV1 %0 00'0 %6L OS'£8L LL'L£Z L6/L£/ZL L6/2Z/Z0 f021d 2103 9NI2133N19N3 0 - hZL6011 I'LL-0'0 '3NI 9NIA3AHnS 1SVO3 %0 00'0 %LS 09'LL£ S6'9L9 L6/8L/OL 16/60/L0 Wd WOHA L6 la 9NIA3AHnS 0 - £ZL6021 W. 31I1021 2103 -3NI '33N313S 9N1H33N19N3 %0 00'0 %L8 99'89Z 60'0L£ Z6/0£/90 L6/LO/L0 S33IAM3S 1V1N3WNOHIAN3 0 - ZZL6OH %0 00'0 %£8 SS'6h %0 00'0 1N3W33219V LS'6S / / 06/SL/OL 3SV31 101 30IH $ Nad SISAIVNV S3AI1VNM311V %lh LS'8h OS'LLL L6/0£/80 l6%1.0/Z0 - AOIl1S All1I9ISV33 %0 00'0 %£S 88'66L %0 00'0 %6L L6'££L SNHVW321 WHO NVA '3 OlVN00/A11S213AINn VONII VWOI £ - LZL6OH (9V8NVS) S1N3WNH3A09 OSSV ON1021VN2138 NVS 0 - OZL60H 1300W NVSAI21 1N3WN213A09 30 30SSV S31V130SSV ONV XHf £0'6L£ / / 06/9L/OL VO N213N1nOS 01 1SISSV L - 61L6OH 6L 31n021 (S133r0Hd OR1) '3NI '9NIH33N19N3 3AHOA 8S'891, 16/0£/60 L6/10/L0 NO 9NI2133N19N3 3Id3V211 0 - 8LL6021 030N3dX3 Si380 01 030N3dX3 13VN1NO3 3n1VA 13V211N00 31V0 31V0 NO11d1H3S30/3d03S 1NV11nSNOO IVI113V 30 Olvd 13V211NO3 1SNlV9V 03Z1N011inv N01131dW03 121V1S /# 1N3WON3WV % SV 380 1V101 1N33213d 030N3dX3 1N3NIUI3 /'ON 13VH1NO3 (000L$ X SJ P:KJ 11V) 1H0d3H Sf11V1S 13VH1NO3 NOISSIWW03 NOI1V1HOdSNVM1 AlNnO3 301S213AI21 LOOadW 1N0d321 Z6/6Z/h0 L 'ON 39Vd SNHVW3b %0 00'0 908 L8'01. 06'ZL / / / / 1N3W31V8V SO1S38SV 1V1N3WNOSIAN3 N31NI 0 - 90Z60a SNOON3A S911,1 H01 0001 3HM OVA3 SnOIHVA H9110b141 S13 %0 00'0 %Z£ £8'h 00'SL 26/0£/90 16/10/L0 NI 91W 9NINHOM13N AlH1NOW 0 - SOZ6OH 3HM 9NINHOM S1N30IS3b b01 WVb90bd 3AI1N33NI 100dNVA %0 00'0 XhZ SL'9Z £L'£LL Z6/0£/90 1.6/hL/80 90bd 1HV1S N3II10 100dNVA 0 - hOZ6OH %0 00'0 %£h £h'Z, %0 00'0 3HM 9NINHOM WV2190bd 3AI1N33N1 2 9N1All S1N30IS3b 301Sb3A1b Nb31S3M ZL'L6 26/0£/90 L6/71/80 b01 3AI1N33N1 3HVHS30Ib 0 - £OZ6011 WVb90bd 3AI1N33NI %LS S6'1,01. 9Z-61I Z6/0£/90 l6/LO/L0 3HVHS30Ib 1.61H 39VNVW WVb90bd 3AI1N33N1 AVM33111 301Sb3A18 0 - ZOZ6011 31IS 1V1S 11Vb WW03-SNO11V911S3ANI '3N1 H331 VH131 %0 00'0 %86 96'SS LZ'LS / / L6/60/60 AHVNIWI13bd 11 3SVHd Z - LOZ6OH '3NI 11A13 '131H338 %0 00'0 %£Z 86'50h 00'0SL'L Z6/0£/90 L6/LO/L0 1N3W39VNVW WVb90bd 0 - 00Z6OH %0 00'0 %L9 W ZOL '3NI 011n8 'S3S1bdb31N3 000M13311 Oh'89l / / 06/21/21. 9 NOIS30'3WOHHOlOW sOh L - h£L60b 030N3dX3 S,380 01 030N3dX3 13Vb1NO3 3n1VA 13Vb1NO3 311/0 311/0 NOI1d1H3S30/3d03S 1NV1111SN03 1Vnl3V 10 01Vd 13Vb1NO3 1SNlVOV 03ZIHOH1nV N01131dW03 1HV1S /# 1N3WON3WV % SV 380 1V101 1N33b3d 030N3dX3 1N3bb113 /'ON 13Vb1NO3 (OOOLE X SJe1100 11V) 1110d3b SI11V1S 13Vb1NO3 NOISSIWW03 NOl1V1HOdSNVb1 A1NI103 301Sb3A1b LOOMW 180d3b Z6/6Z/h0 6 'ON 39Vd SNHVW3H %0 00'0 %0 00'0 %0 00'0 %0 00'0 %0 00'0 %0 00'0 %0 00'0 %0 00'0 %79 Z7'9 %OOL 00'£L6'L %0 00'0 %0 00'0 %7 89'6 %LOL 87'LLS '3NI S31V130SSV S311213d0Hd NOSn9H31 2 NOISHVW H3SAD 00'0L / / Z6/0L/L0 13A30 HOl SASS 1NV11nSN03 0 - ZZZ60H 31111 Alllvn0 00-£L6'L / / L6/ZO/OL IIVH H03 MOH 0 - LZZ6OH '3NI NO11V/S '1NV11nSN03 1V1N3WNOHIAN3 IIVH H31nWW03 NMOAM00 '1V3N 3NNOAA 05'8LL Z6/L0/80 26/8Z/L0 S33IAUS 1V1N3WNOHIAN3 0 - OZZ60H LLL 1H 1dH A0n1S AHM0I/S8N 99'SL7 / / Z6/£L/Z0 103f0Hd A0 NOI1VHVd3Hd 0 r 6LZ60H S133f0Hd 09 S31V130SSV HlIWS maim 65'09Z Z6/0£/LL L6/LO/ZL 31nOH 9NIH33N19N3 3I33VH1 0 - 81260S H3931HX $ 1S38 1S38 98'£LS / / 16/LO/L0 1V931 IVH3N39 L - LLZ6OH %77 72'£S 00'0ZL Z6/0£/90 L6/L0/£0 AHOSIAOV IVIONVNI3 %76 5S'79L IIVH 00'SLL / / L6/LO/L0 183dVd IV3IH3WW00'1V931 S311IHn33S H3dW3N 0 - 9LZ60H SH3AW $ AN3A131410 L - SLZ6OH 030N3dX3 So380 01 030N3dX3 13VH11400 3n1VA 17VH1N00 31V0 31V0 NOIld1H3S30/3d07S 1NV1lnSN00 1tln10V 30 OIVd 13VH1N00 1SNIV9V 03ZIHOH1nV N01131dW03 111V1S /# 1N3WON3WV % SV 380 1V101 1N33113d 0303dX3 1N3HHn3 /'ON 13VH1NO3 Comm X siello0 llV) 180d3H Sn1V1S 13VH1NO3 NOISSIWW00 NO11V1HOdSNVH1 A1Nn03 301SMAIH LOOHdW 1H0d311 1I Z6/6Z/70 'ON 39Vd PAGE NO. 04/29/92 CONTRACT NUMBER CONSULTANT FIRM 0007PR2 COVERS SEVERAL FIRMS, CONSULTANTS 0007PS Covers Several Firms/Consultants/Persons 0007PS0 Covers Several Firms/Consultant/Persons 0007PS1 Covers Several Firms/Consultants/Persons 0007PS2 SMITH & ACKLER 0007PT1 Covers Several Firms/Consultants/Persons 0007PT2 COVERS SPECIAL TRANSIT PROJECTS AGENCIES 0007RA2 COVERS SEVERAL FIRMS & CONSULTANTS 00081E12 COVERS SEVERAL FIRMS/CONSULTANTS/PERSONS OOOBSBI Covers Several Firms/Consultants/Persons 0008SB2 COVERS SEVERAL PERSONS & PERS 0009B1 Covers Several Firms/Consultants/Persons 0009BP1 Covers Several Firm/Consultants/Persons 0009PT2 COVERS SEVERAL FIRMS/CONSULTANTS/PERSONS R08801 RCTC/OCTC MOU (Environmental Studies) R08900 Bechtel Corporation R08901 Parsons Brinckerhoff, (Wade and Douglas, Inc. R08902 Parsons, Brinckerhoff, Ouade and Douglas, Inc. R08905 Schiermeyer Consulting Services R08907 Route 86 Cooperative Agreement R08908 City of Corona R09000 Bechtel Corporation R09001 NBS/Lowry R09002 KaWes and Associates R09003 J.F. Davidson Associates R09004 Caltrans REPORT COMMIT RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION COMMITMENT LOG REPORT Sorted by CONTRACT NUMBER SCOPE OF WORK AMOUNT AMOUNT TOTAL TOTAL RCTC COMMITTED TO COMMITTED TO AMOUNT AMOUNT COORD. BASE HONK EXTRA WORK COMITTED EXPENDED RIGHT OF WAY Professional Services - Common to all tasks Professional & Specialized Services Professional Services (Legislative Advocate) LEGISLATIVE ADVOCATE Professional Services - Transit Projects SPECIALIZED TRANSIT RISC CHARGES RELATED TO RAIL INSURANCE (WC, LIFE, SHORT & LONG DISAB) Salaries & Benefits HEALTH & SALARY BENEFITS Financial Services - Bond Interest Bond Principal Repayment PASS THRU Environmental Studies with the Keith companies Project Management Rt. 91 Conceptual Design Services Rt. 91 Final design - converted to a lump sum contract Commuter Rails Consulting Services Construct 4 lane expressway at Rt. 86 Cooperative Agreement Program Management Final Design Svcs for Rt 91 bet. Serfas Club & Main St_ Professional and Technical Design Svcs for Rt 91 Right -of -Way Mapping for RT 60/91/215 IC Agreement for Rt 60/91/215 IC DM 50000.00 0.00 50000.00 21604.80 LM 1296327.00 0.00 1296327.00 515647.99 NK 119700.00 0.00 119700.00 0.00 DM 40000.00 0.00 40000.00 61589.29 DM 45577.00 0.00 45577.00 28335.22 DM 2251942.00 0.00 2251942.00 992338.17 JR 1509000.00 0.00 1509000.00 1609365.00 DM 100000.00 0.00 100000.00 186.48 DM 31000.00 0.00 31000.00 26066.54 DM 685479.00 0.00 685479.00 103546.19 DM 112520.00 0.00 112520.00 88900.50 DM 1500000.00 0.00 1500000.00 0.00 DM 10000000.00 0.00 10000000.00 0.00 DM 472980.00 0.00 472980.00 0.00 MTM 79527.76 0.00 79527.76 65018.48 LM 170000.00 0.00 170000.00 170000.00 ML 2234275.00 80000.00 2314275.00 2040798.86 KS 739000.00 0.00 739000.00 708506.52 LM 336000.00 0.00 336000.00 314426.45 MTM 21035400.00 0.00 21035400.00 1210108.65 ML 14605000.00 0.00 14605000.00 8144703.98 LM 1291000.00 0.00 1291000.00 1059104.15 ML 970338.00 12566.00 982904.00 976013.99 ML 1458927.00 40077.00 1499004.00 1435048.27 LM 8500.00 0.00 8500.00 8500.00 MTM 20000000.00 0.00 20000000.00 1500000.00 Ll'056101 00'552621 00'0 00'552621 MW 0£'£9855 00'11225 00'0 00'11225 0Wf 29'926501 00'0000521 00'0 00'0000521 W0 12"86£201 00'001891 00'0 00'00891 MW 50'568£891 00'29121£L 00'22900 00'0189989 IW 00'0 00'0000051 00'0 00'0000051 06'162801 06'162901 00'0 06'162801 IW 11'9£Lhhh OZ'£190h 02'52995 00'89116£ H1 85'016£ 00'11110 00'61£25 00'2620£ OWf 62'258169 £9'2526221 00'0002E2 £9'2522151 0Wf 1£'05112£ 00'950951 00'00009 00'95096£ IW 22'0£9521 00'99025 00'9£9292 00'2£2952 lW 08'519211 00'2£2151 00'00002 00'2£21£1 lW 06'005£81 00'222102 00'0 00'222102 lW £8'66521£ £1'056919 02'12109 EL'8219£5 HM 20'229992 00'59001£ 00'0 00'58001£ OW 00'0567 00'50565 00'0 00'50565 MW 69'0250 00'005211 00'0 00'005211 0Wf 99'199661 00'1£062£ 00'5£291 00'96229£ OS 5h'£L6££L 00'195091 00'69612 00'56501 H31 12'219561 00'82,102 00'£L292 00'551521 H3/ 9£'21.9££L 05'60£9L£ 00'1806h 05'52222£ HM 29'£08669 00'19951£1 00'909121 00'950 111 HM 6£1111£1 00'00052 00'0 00'00052 MW 59'h102£ 00'00005 00'0 00'00005 MW 6£'1£925£ L£'£LZ£L5 56'99212 9£'91196h SOX WV890ad 3AI1N33N1 3HVHS301a 16111 39VNVW 311S 1V1S IIVH WW03-SNOI1V911S3ANI ANVNIW11321d II 3SVHd 1143W39VNVW Wand O11I18 2 N91S30'3WOH11010W .Oh Vdf 1SN03 33X 9VW-NIVW 161H AOH 1SN03 512-1 NO 30 3901111SV3 1SN03 3389V d0-03 LEAS 30 30N3WOad d0 1S03 NOI13f1a1SN03 1N3W33119V d0-00 51-1 01 LLla HA L618 9/1111331119Na 31JAVa1 9NIOIM 30IS1110 161H 1N3WSS3SSV 1V1N3WNOSIAN3 Mad 133f0ad/9N1a33N19N3 AHVNIW1138d 161H 9NOIV S39NVH3831N1 S.8Sd 512/098S 9NO1V 39NVH3a31N1 S,HSd 011 2 L6HS NO Aonis f0ad a03 SASS 9N3 09HS NO 0)1131N1 S180d3a ants rO8d a03 9NIa3314I9113 1'11-0'0 Wd MONA 16 la 9NIA3AHOS hL 31nod SOA S331Aa3S IVI143WNOHIAN3 1N3W33a9V 3SV31 101 301a 2 XNVd SISAIVNV S3AI1VNa31IV - Aanis 0.111181SM 1300W NVSAIS 1N3WNa3A09 d0 30SSV V3 Na3H1MOS 01 1SISSV 62 3100a (S133rOdd 0M1) NO 9NIa33N19N3 3133Va1 12 alma (sloalord £) u0 500IAJ8S 6upaaul6u3 3 Weel 62 31110a 9NIddVW 1V11910 $ 9NIA3AHOS hL 31HOa 9NIa33N19N3 AHVNi1411311d S1N3W33119V 3SV31 30111-N-AHVd 31V11093N SNOI1V11093N 3SV31 30Ia-N-X4Vd 31V11093N 62 alma Jo; S031A.10S 614J00ul6u3 AJOUIW1laid 030N3dX3 03111W00 n AdOM Va1X3 NHOM 3SV8 '08003 lonowV 1NOOWV Ol 03111WW03 01 03111W(03 313H 1V101 1V101 1NIX)WV 1N00WV N8OM d0 3d03S a38W1N 10Va1NO3 Aq palJos 180d3a 901 1N3W11WW03 NOISSIWW03 NOI1V1HOdSNVH1 A111003 301Sa3A1a 11WW03 1110d311 WVa90Hd 3A11N33N1 AVM33a1 301Sa3A18 '3NI H331 VH131 '3NI 11A13 '131H338 '3N1 'S3SIad831N3 000M1331d (SNVa11tl3) NOI1V1NOdSNV81 30 1N3W18Vd30 301583A1a dO A113 VNOa03 30 A113 S31V130SSV 8 XHf '3NI 'S31V130SSV VS1 S31V130SSV /INV S3MBN ANVdW03 8 a3H1V3 M03130 111H 1013 Sa33NI9N3 113SIV)I d31 '3NI S1NV110SN00 SWV1 '3NI 9NIA3AHOS 1SV03 '3NI '30N313S 9NI1133NI9N3 WVNHO NVA '3 011/N00/A11Sa3A1/81 VONII VW01 (9VSNVS) S1N3WNa3A09 OSSV ONIOSVNa38 NVS S31V130SSV ONV XHf '3N1 '9NIa33N19N3 3ANOX -dJo3 fiulJaaul6u3 Jopnl S31V130SSV ONV 1SOa3 WVIIIIM 'N138 11138011 11VHN30N3W 8 NOSNHOf 'NNVW 'lama '3NI 'S31V130SSV ONV1SV9/SN3A31S S33IA83S NOI1V180dSNV111 ONV1111 •oul 'sJaaul61J3 11A13 laluuayua3 Wald 1NV1111SN03 202608 102608 002608 1£1608 ££L60a 2£16oa l£l6oa O£1608 621608 82160E 221604 9216011 521608 121608 £2160a 2216011 1216011 02160E 611608 8116011 21160H 9116011 sll6oa ILL6oa £LL6oa 211608 a38WON 13V81NO3 26/62/10 i 'ON 39Vd • AGENDA ITEM #5B • DATE: TO: RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COM1iISSION May 7, 1992 Administrative Committee Budget and Finance Committee FROM: Dean Martin, Controller SUBJECT: Resolution No. 92-014 "First Supplemental Resolution Providing for the Issuance of Taxable Commercial Paper Notes Supplementing Resolution No. 91-009 of the Riverside County Transportation Commission" In January 1991, the Commission authorized a not -to -exceed $100 million (supported by a credit facility of $51,250,000), tax exempt commercial paper program. The intent was to finance right-of-way acquisitions and commuter rail capital expenditures. Since that time, the Commission's bond counsel has expressed uncertainty as to whether tax exempt debt can fund certain rail purchases, (i.e., user rights, track improvements). Essentially, federal regulations limit the use of tax exempt funds for public projects with private benefit. Since the rail companies will continue to operate freight trains on the rail lines, a potential private benefit issue arises. This is a state- wide issue with serious implications for "derailing" commuter rail. Bond counsel advises that an IRS ruling is needed to clarify the "private benefit" rules with respect to commuter rail. Notwithstanding the above, negotiations with Santa Fe are ongoing and may result in the immediate need for a cash payment to consummate the deal. In the meantime, bond counsel does not feel that it would be prudent to use tax exempt funds. Therefore, a Resolution needs to be adopted by the Commission which authorizes the issuance of taxable Commercial Paper. The taxable Commercial Paper will be used to fund rail expenditures which may not qualify for the use of tax exempt debt. In the event that a favorable ruling is received from the IRS, the taxable Commercial Paper will be retired by a tax exempt short or long term issue. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: That the Commission adopt Resolution No. 92-014, First Supplemental Resolution Providing for the Issuance of Taxable Commercial Paper Notes Supplementing Resolution No. 91-009 of the Riverside County Transportation Commission" f Aussn\ppsprint\rnsy.G2\eomDp•dm RESOLUTION NO. 92-014 FIRST SUPPLEMENTAL RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR THE ISSUANCE OF TAXABLE COMMERCIAL PAPER NOTES SUPPLEMENTING RESOLUTION NO. 92-014 OF THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION WHEREAS, the Riverside County Transportation Commission (the "Commission") adopted the Transportation Expenditure Plan and Retail Transaction and Use Tax Ordinance (the "Ordinance") on July 6, 1988 pursuant to the provisions of Sections 240000 through 240323, inclusive, of the California Public Utilities Code, which Ordinance provides for the imposition of a retail transactions and use tax (the "Retail Transactions and Use Tax") applicable in the incorporated and unincorporated territory of the County of Riverside (the "County") in accordance with the provisions of Part 1.6 (commencing with Section 7251) of Division 2 of the California Revenue and Taxation Code at the rate of one-half of one percent (1/2%) for a period not to exceed twenty (20) years; and WHEREAS, by its terms the Ordinance became effective at the close of the polls on November 8, 1988, the day of the election at which the proposition imposing the Retail Transactions and Use Tax was approved by a majority vote of the electors voting on the measure; and WHEREAS, the Commission is authorized by Section 240309 of the California Public Utilities Code to issue from time to time limited tax bonds (defined to include indebtedness and securities of any kind or class, including commercial paper) secured by and payable from revenues of the Retail Transactions and Use Tax; and WHEREAS, the Commission has determined that prudent management of the fiscal affairs of the Commission requires the issuance of short-term limited tax bonds in the form of commercial paper (the "Commercial Paper Notes") in the manner set forth in its Resolution No. 91-009 (the "Resolution"), authorizing the issuance of tax-exempt Commercial Paper Notes; and WHEREAS, the Commission desires to supplement the Resolution " by this First Supplemental Resolution No. (this "First Supplemental Resolution") to provide for the issuance of taxable Commercial Paper Notes in addition to tax-exempt Commercial Paper Notes; and LA1-186933.V2 vs .V1 04/22/92 second paragraph of such section and substituting therefor the following "Subject to applicable_terms, limitations and procedures contained herein, Commercial Paper Notes herein authorized shall be dated as of their date of issuance,_bear no interest or bear interest at such rate per annum computed on the basis of actual da s ela sed and on a 365-da ear as may be approved by an Authorized Representative, and may be sold at par or at suchd scount as may be approved by an R Authorized Representative all in such manner at public or rivate sale as an Authorized Re resentative shall a rove at the time of the sale thereof. The Commercial Paper Notes shall be designated by the Commission, in its discretion, as Taxable Commercial Paper Notes or Tax -Exempt Commercial Paper Notes." Section 4. Issuance and Sale of commercial Paper_ Notes. Section 3.01 of the Resolution is hereby amended by deleting the ^ sixth sentence of such section and substituting therefor the following: " ^ Such instructions shall also contain provisions representing that all action on the part of the Commission necessar, for the valid issuance of the Commercial Paper Notes then to be issued has been taken, that all provisions of California law necessary for the valid issuance of such Commercial Paper Notes " with provision for interest exemption from California personal " taxation have been complied with {and for Tax -Exempt Commercial Paper Notes, that all rovisions of federal law for the valid issuance of such Tax-Exem t Commercial Pa er Notes with rovisions for interest exemption from federal income taxation have been com lied with and that such Commercial Pa er Notes in the possession of the Holders thereof will be valid and enforceable obli ations of the Commission accordin to their terms, subject to the exercise of judicial discretion in accordance with eneral rinci les of e it and bankru tc moratorium and other siml� - laws affecting creditorsrights heretofore or hereafter enacted and that the stated interest " on the. Commercial Paper Notes is exempt from California personal income tax 4and for Tax -Exempt Commercial Paper Notes. that the stated interest on such Tax -Exempt Commercial Paper Notes is exem■t from federal income taxi,." Section 5. Tax Exemption Covenant. The title to Section 4.04 of the Resolution is hereby restated to read in its entirety: "Tax -Exempt Commercial Paper Notes to Remain Exempt from Federal Income Tax." Section 4.04 of the Resolution is further amended by deleting the term "Commercial Paper Notes" and substituting therefor the term "Tax -Exempt Commercial Paper Notes." LA1-186933.V2 vs .V1 3 04/22/92 I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing is a correct and complete copy of Resolution No. adopted by not less than a two-thirds vote of the Riverside County Transportation Commission at its regular meeting held on " May _, 1992. LA1-186933.V2 vs .V1 Clerk of the Riverside County Transportation Commission 5 04/22/92 AGENDA ITEM #5C DATE: RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMIVIISSION May 7, 1992 TO: Administrative Committee Budget and Finance Committee FROM: Dean Martin, Controller SUBJECT: Revenue Forecast Report The continuing recession/slow recovery (depending upon who you read) has resulted in a decline in Measure A revenues through some of the economic problems cyclical in nature, there is a growing concern that California is experiencing structural changes in the economy. For that reason, staff believes that the time has arrived to re- evaluate our Measure A revenue projections. Ernst & Young submitted a proposal in November of 1991 for a total not -to -exceed $22,000. Staff recommends that the proposal from Ernst & Young be accepted. The revised projections will then be used in the Financial Plan Update. STAFF REQOMMENDATION: That the Commission authorize the Executive Director to enter into a contract with Ernst & Young to re-evaluate Measure A projections for a total not -to -exceed $ 22, 000. DM:sc attachment Mu sers‘prprint\may.92kovf or.dm ill ERNST & YOUNG November 25, 1991 Mr. Jack W. Reagan Executive Director Riverside County Transportation Commission 3560 University Ave., Suite 100 Riverside, CA 92501 Dear Mr. Reagan: ■ Inland Empire Office Suite 600 3750 University Avenue P.O. Box 1270 Riverside, California 92502 W Phone: 714 276 7200 Fax: 714 787 8184 Ernst & Young is pleased to respond to your request for assistance in reviewing RCTC's expected Measure A sales tax revenue. Situation We will be assisted by Drs. Esmael Adibi and James Doti of Chapman University's Center of Economic Research. The problem faced by RCTC is that the ongoing recession has apparently dimished the level of taxable sales in the State and specifically in Riverside County. RCTC's forecasted Measure A revenues based on our earlier economic forecast and other input, are part of the financial plan needed to project the extent and timing of Measure A project expenditures. The forecasted Measure A revenues, and an Ernst & Young opinion on its reasonableness, was used to inform the financial community about RCTC's capability to meet the obligations of a recent bond financing. Recently, the State Board of Equalization (SBOE) informed many sales tax recipients that statewide sales tax revenues would be about 20% less than previously estimated for this year. Obviously, this immediate and any subsequent continuing shortfall concerns RCTC. Projected Ernst & Young will provide RCTC with an independent perspective of the extent and general impact of the potential sales tax revenues shortfall. We will not develop new multi- year sales tax projections or express an accountant's opinion on the sales tax data we will provide RCTC. Given your need for qualitative and directional data, we believe the additional rigor and cost of a more formal product is not warranted. Specifically, we will accomplish the following tasks. 1. Meet with ROTC to: • • • define the issue and your needs obtain data you have obtained that is relevant to this project finalize the approach and schedule for the work. J ERNST & YOUNG Anderson Seigel Barnes Support Staff Hours 8 32 40 24 Expenses should be about $1,000. Therefore, we approximately $17,500. If RCTC elects to engage our team to meet with $4,500 additional to cover airfares and hours. * * * Rate Fees $450 $ 2,000 250 8,000 140 5,600 30 720 $16,320 anticipate the project (task 1-7) will cost SBOE (task 8), the cost would be about * * * We are pleased to be able to assist you in this matter. Please call Sally Anderson at (714) 276-7213 if you have any questions. Very truly yours, Sarah J. Anders Partner AGENDA ITEM #5D RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: TO: Administrative Committee Budget and Finance Committee FROM: Dean Martin, Controller Louie Martin, Project Controls Manager THROUGH: Jack Reagan, Executive Director SUBJECT: Quarterly Financial, Cost and Schedule Reports May 7, 1992 Attached are the Project Summary Schedules, the RCTC Measure A Highway Projects Budget Report by Route, Contract Commitment, Contract Amendments, DBE/MBE Utilization Report, and the Contract Status Report through Quarter ending March 31, 1992 prepared by Bechtel Civil, inc. The combining Statements of Revenues and Expenditures and Changes in FUnd Balances (Unaudited) for the Quarter ended March 31, 1992 are being reviewed and will formally be presented at the Administrative and Budget and Finance Committees' meetings. Detailed supporting material for all contracts and Cooperative Agreements is available from Bechtel staff. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Receive and file. LM/DM:sc f Aueen\preprUrtlmay.82\codtrep. l m 1991 Jtr]MjA 199E Trfri A IMlJ[JlAI5 iRT215 E60/215 JCT TO ORANGE SHOW RD(581-WIDENING M�J�JlA151OIN D J 1F M IA M J IJ IA15 j[11N {D O �N [1 J1F 1993 M{AIMIJ E 11T215 INTERCHANGE 60/91/215 -IMPROVEMENTS (PSR) I PROJECT STUDY REPORT (PSR) ONLY INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENTS ON RT 10 14 1 INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENTS ON RT 60 INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENTS ON RT 91 INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMEN Plot Date 29APR92 Data, Date 1APR92 Project Start 2JAN89 Project Finish 31MAR92 1 J 1A 5 0 IN D PROJECT STUDY REPORT (PSR) ONLY PROJECT STUDY REPORT (PSR) ONLY PROJECT STUDY REPORT ( PSR ) ONLY 1994 JIF1M[Alm 1JIJIAIS l f 1 TS ON RT 215 1 1 PROJECT STUDY REPORT (P5R) ONLY I 5,mmarl llrrErl r Dales f Cr.!! DworOcr- x _I Regress Ear Opt rilesimerrieg rxt.r,ty 01-N iD J IF jM 1995 1996 A1MfJ�J1A S10jN D,JIFIr1IA M JLJ`A1510INOD PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING B ENVIRONMENTAL (PSR AT FAIR ISLE IS NOW A TECH MEMO) RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTN COMMISSN MEASURE A TRANSPORT IMPROVMT PROGRAM SUMMAR SCHEDULE 54mt 7 0 a BECHTEL CORP Date. —Rev istan Che[kpd Approved i c i P, ,r•a Systems, Inc AGENDA ITEM #6A DATE: RIVERSIDE CO1UNTY TRANSPORTATION CONnlISSION May 7, 1992 TO: Administrative Committee Budget and Finance Committee FROM: Paul Blackwelder, Deputy Executive Director SUBJECT: Measure A Loans To Local Agencies The Commission has approved "in concept" loans to the City of Murrieta for an interchange at 1-215 and the City of Canyon Lake for improvements on Railroad Canyon Road, both approvals were subject to the availability of Measure A funds and their consistency with sound business practices. Staff is still working with these two cities and reviewing the projected Measure A cash flow to determine if these criteria can be met. The City of Lake Elsinore has submitted a request for Measure A Loan in excess of $30 million for several interchange improvements related to traffic from residential development. The City of Temecula has also advised staff they plan to request a substantial loan of Measure A funds for interchange improvements and overcrossing construction to alleviate traffic congestion and to help create employment. Their request will be forwarded when they have sufficient data to support their request. While analysis of the availability of Measure A funds is not complete, staff and our financial consultants are certain that funds will not be available for any additional loans if the railroad negotiations are final any time in the near future. Bonding Authority provided under Measure A does not provide sufficient capacity to approve any additional loan requests given amount of bonding already used, the amount expected to be needed for commuter rail, and the set aside for the Coachella Valley requested by CVAG and agreed to by the Commission. Unless the Bonding Authority is increased by voter approval, the Measure A Highway Program will be on a pay as you go basis for most, if not all, of the remainder of the program. In order to make loans of any significance to local agencies, the Commission would have to move highway projects in the Measure A Program back in the schedule. Muaara\praprirrt4nay92Uoarr.pb AGENDA ITEM #6B RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: May 7, 1992 TO: Administrative Committee Budget and Finance Committee FROM: Paul Blackwelder, Deputy Executive Director SUBJECT: Measure A and LTF Streets and Roads Estimates At the time of the mailing of the agenda, the information on Measure A and LTF streets and roads estimates was not available. This item will be presented at the Administrative and Budget and Finance Committee meetings. PB:sc DATE: TO: FROM: THROUGH: SUBJECT: RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION May 7, 1992 Administrative Committee Budget & Finance Committee Keith Fullenwider, Project Coordinator Mark Massman, Project Manager Jack Reagan, Executive Director Contract with Greiner, Inc. for the Preparation of the Project Study Report for the State Route 91 Outside Widening Project, from the 1-15 Interchange to the Cridge Street Overcrossing In the summer of 1990, RCTC contracted with Greiner, Inc to prepare the preliminary engineering documents for the Measure A projects on Route 91 from Magnolia Avenue to the 1-215 interchange. These preliminary studies indicated a feasible project on Route 91 from Magnolia Avenue to Mary Street. As a result, Greiner's efforts were redirected towards the development of a project study report, project report, and final design PS&E for the extension of the HOV (carpool) lanes on the State Route 91 from Magnolia Avenue to Mary Street. The Project Report is scheduled to be approved by Caltrans in May of 1992. The final design engineering is scheduled to be completed in the fall of 1992, and the construction activities to begin in the summer of 1993. In June of 1991, a memorandum of Understanding was signed by RCTC and Caltrans, in part outlining the need for development of an outside widening project on SR 91 between the 1-215 and 1-15 interchanges. The scope of this project is undetermined at present,but would cover alternatives including the upgrade of the reduced standard design features of the HOV lanes from 1-15 to Mary, extension of the HOV lanes to Cridge, evaluation of future outside widening to add an additional lane on Route 91, as well as evaluation of auxiliary lanes and ramp braids where required. In support of this effort, and to resolve remaining project issues for Route 91, staff recommends that a thorough Project Study Report be developed for Route 91 between 1-15 and Cridge Street. The segment from Cridge to the 1-215 interchange has been added to the scope of work currently being performed for the 1-215 projects. This is a continuation of the previous effort by the Greiner team. Staff has requested that Greiner prepare a proposal for this effort. MusenlpreprintVnay. B21rte01.1d 1 t PROPOSED SCOPE OF WORK LEVEL OF EFFORT STATE ROUTE 91 OUTSIDE WIDENING 1-1 a TO CRI DGE STREET Prepared For: i RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION Prepared By: Geller April 24, 1992 February 15, 1992 April 13, 1992 Annotated April 20, 1992 STATE ROUTE 91 OUTSIDE WIDENING I-15 TO CRIDGE STREET SCOPE OF SERVICES The Riverside County Transportation Commission (ROTC) has directed its staff to prepare preliminary engineering leading to a project study report for the upgrading of State Route 91 to 8 or 10 lanes from the I-15 interchange to Cridge Street in downtown Riverside (PM 6.6 to 19.63). The work involves the improvement of the freeway to 8 or 10 lanes, modification of interchanges and provision for auxiliary lanes. Where a 10 lane cross-section ill is consideredinfeasible, an 8- lane cross-section In addition, a menu of reduced nonstandard improvement programs will be investigated with associated costs. This will allow RCTC to determine the costs to ratchet up to standard configuration. The work effort assumes that several ongoing projects will be implemented prior to the implementation of this project. These projects include median widening for HOV lanes between Orange County line and Magnolia Avenue (project currently in construction) and median widening between Mary Avenue and Magnolia Avenue (Project Report and PS&E currently under preparation). These projects will be considered the "baseline" or existing conditions for analysis purposes. These projects are included in the Measure A Transportation Improvement Plan. It is our understanding that RCTC wishes to proceed with preliminary engineering and environmental studies leading to a PSR at this time. In order to accomplish this objective, ROTC has designated Greiner to lead the consultant team efforts. Greiner will be responsible for overall coordination of the team., Project Study Report preparation as well as coordination of other common elements. Other team members include: LSA to provide environmental input. ISA will be a subconsultant for Greiner's contract. infoimdtioal7atd JHK will provide traffic engineering services. L�ighta.1t—arrd JIII vYrll lratie under separate contractual relationships with ROTC. The project requires coordination with RCTC, Caltrans, the Cities of Riverside and Corona, and other consultants working in the area. Ongoing projects which will require coordination include: planned HOV construction between Mary Street and Magnolia Avenue, the HOV construction on Route 91 west of Magnolia; ramp metering project(s) by Caltrans along Route 91; and the Route 60/91/I-215 interchange modifications. The thrust of the work effort involves development of preliminary engineering and environmental studies for SR 91 between 1-15 and Cridge Street. The level of effort will involve an initial analysis of various project alternatives which relate to: Materials information is based on existing conditions 1 ■ Preliminary Materials Investigations ■ Review of Landscape Impacts and Needs ■ Local and Regional Input ■ ROW Needs and Cost ■ Fact Sheet Development ■ Cost Estimates z; Existing and Future Traffic Forecasts ■ Level of Service Analysis ■ Safety Analysis As part of the efforts in this phase of work a prua0:or limited public agency outreach program is planned. This outreach program will serve to educate inform tire -selected groups public of the project, its impacts and solicit early input from agencies and the public. [The level of effort is not defined by Caltrans; however, we recommend a limited proArtive program.] LSA's scope of work for the Preliminary Environmental Evaluation is attached. This work will involve the following elements: ■ Development of an inventory of environmental resources with a listing of project issues or impacts. • Identification of additional studies. ■ Initial Hazardous Waste Site Assessment In Phase 2, Project Report and Environmental Documents involves development of preliminary engineering, under a later contract, to allow a more focussed analysis of the selected alternatives. The development of this scope is premised on the leadership of the Project Consultant Team by Greiner with full participation from LSA and Webb Associates as subconsultants. Leighton gird Ykssotiatesrarrd1 R K and Associates will participate under separate contract to RCTC. 1Matetials information is based on existing condition 3 (anpetuauggns $) -guoi-ua) pmppums paarnpag L 10011s allppo 01 SI-X moat; (leaulaunuAs) vorpas auei-uPp prgpuiels paanpax .9 'Pons 02p10 01 SI-I woo (leaplaunuAs) uopaas auei-UOR prePuR1s TIRO 'S •suopeaoi papaias 1e sa1181 fLIE lrxne 1111A1 12011s a5pu3 01 anuanv ugou3eyti wag (ieaulaurtuAs) uopas auei-lOp paepuEls Bud •suoneaoi palaaias 1e sauei krenpa E gppvt anuand gtiougryi o1 S -i UM] (ieaula1.u111AS) uopas auei-ual plepuels rind •suopenoY papaias 1e sauei kre[ipme Qlpti► Apio pttu pans kepi uaampq uopaas auepila a p zpuels un3 ieopauituAse uv ,'d£ •suopeaoi palaaias saws' Angpmie twin (laa us aSp9D of taasrs beini woxj Ieap-punuAs) uopas aunei-utMa pxepuels ilnA •suorleaal palaaias;e sauei kminme gm% pans ►nyq 01 5i-T maid (ieappunlfs) uotlaas auel-ual [minims Ting •£ •suogool papaw 1e salmi Arenpate t00% laaxlS pug pans Areal uaampii uotlaas anti-uoi pxepuels pry ieaaupunu►[se try „ -Vz -suopgaoi papaias le sauni Augupcnte ql pans a$ppp of St -I wo13 (ieaulaunuhs) uopas attei-uo1 p.repuels Tina 'Z Pllnll o.N 'I Z S3ALLVNI13 11V NSA 1.14 MAPPING RCTC will supply scaled photography and magnetic tapes in Intergraph format (IGDS version 8.8) containing complete topographic maps of the project at scales of 1" = 1(]0' . Greiner will use the IGDS tape provided to produce base maps for use in the development of the preliminary engineering and environmental studies. [2 See P7] We have assumed the tape is fully readable and sheets can be constructed without manipulation. Coordination: RCTC/Bechtel Product: Obtain IGDS File Produce Base Maps 1.15 FIELD RECONNAISSANCE After obtaining encroachment permits, as -built maps and aerial photography, a field reconnaissance of the project will be scheduled. This work will incorporate a reconnaissance level review of the existing conditions as it relates to the as -built and aerial mapping. Discrepancies will be noted and where possible, rectified. Structural data including as-builts, inspection reports, and construction records will be incorporated in the information. A photo record of the field reconnaissance will be prepared. A field reconnaissance of each bridge will be accomplished. This review is not intended to be a detailed survey of the project. This work will build on the work done by Greiner during previous preliminary engineering efforts. [2 See P7] Coordination: Caltrans/RCTC Product: Field Reconnaissance 1.16 BASE PLAN PREPARATION Base plans will be needed at 1" _ 100' scale throughout the segrnent. From the IGDS file provided by RCTC, base plans will be prepared. F., rvey ties fog NAD83 W;11 lre t,raotdud Uy Re'Fe. The work effort will include the following: ■ Place geometric information from as-builts on sheets in CARD; ■ • Plot R/W Information on Basemap in CARD fitn„ Callaa.u3 .ilsl]t-of-way ol.ruri.35; aud ■ improvement 2 Required by PSR Guidelines 3 Not requited by PSR Guidelines 7 The input will be plcxced on an overlay for use in basernapping. The utility information will be assembled in a format useable for latter stages of the project. This effort will build on information already obtained. A log of utility locations will be prepared. Coordination: Each utility will be contacted to obtain records, meetings will be held to check plots and review future plans. Product: Utility and Substructure Overlay Plans Map Utility Log 11 PROJECT DEVELOPMENT TEAM 1.21 ESTABLISH PDT A Project Development Team (PDT) will be formed to act as a steering group during the course of the study. Initially, a basic PDT will be formed for the development of the PSR. Later, an expanded development will be formed from the basic PDT with additional memberships as appropriate. The team will be formed and function as defined in Section 2-7 of the Caltrans Project Development Manual. Greiner will provide staff for the team including preparation of agendas, coordination of presentations and preparation of minutes. Budget is provided in this milestone for the initial meeting. Additional meetings are included in the Project Management efforts in Milestone 4. [2 See P6] Coordination: RCTC and Caltrans Product: Establish the PDT 112 DESIGN STANDARDS Detailed design standards for the project based on Caltrans and FHWA criteria will be explored. In concert with the Project Development Team (PDT), specific design standards for the project will be developed. Design standards will be reviewed with Caltrans and FHWA. (2 See P11] Coordination: PDT, Caltrans, FHWA Product: Project Design Standards - Technical Memo 1.23 PROJECT STUDY REPORT/ROUTE CONCEPT REPORT REVIEW Caltrans District 8 developed a Project Study Report (PSR) for this reach of Route 91 in August of 1987. In October of 1989 a Route Concept Report (RCR) for Route 91 between the Orange County line and the SR91/SR64/1-215 interchange was prepared. The results and conclusions of these reports will be reviewed and used in the development of concept engineering for this reach. Recommendations for modification to the RCR will be made. [ See P71 2Required by PSR Guidelines 9 2. Describe specific quality control procedures to be applied to various elements of the services to include the level and frequency of review required. Include or make references to specific procedures for preparing and checking calculations, checking of drawings, drafting standards to be used, and coordination checking. 3. Identify elements of the project, if any, requiring special quality control attention or emphasis. Include applicable standards of quality or practice to be met, completeness, or extent of detailing required. 4. Define quality control responsibilities and authorities within the project team (i.e., who is responsible for what). List names of key personnel, by discipline, responsible for design as well as for checking. Include a project organization chart. 5. Name external technical experts required, if any; anticipated timing of needs; expected availability; and coordination required. 6. Estimate the resources required for the quality control functions to include specific timing, budgets, and manpower requirements. Include overall project budget and schedule. Identify deliverables to be reviewed at each milestone. 7. Define the requirements for documentation; for the filing of design notes, calculations, drawings, and supporting materials; and for the specific assigned responsibilities in satisfying these requirements. 8. Define procedures for resolving differing technical viewpoints. 9. Define design change control procedures to be employed. 10. Define internal approval procedures. The Q/C plan developed for the median widening project will be updated for this assignment. Coordination: N/A Product: Q/C Plan 1.4 QUALITY CONTROL MILESTONE 1 Budget for quality control is contained in this milestone. The effort will conform with Greiner's Q/C plan developed in Milestone 133. Coordination: N/A Product: Q/C of Work Products - 11 - An initial review of this reach of freeway shows three (3) potential segments for evaluation: 1. I-15 to Magnolia Avenue 2. Magnolia Avenue to Mary Street 3. Mary Street to Cridge Street The work in this task will be accomplished utilizing a "task force" approach. A team of four senior Greiner personnel will perform prelirninary studies over a Four week period The results will be reviewed and the alternative evaluation completed within seven weeks of start. After the four week study period an all day workshop with appropriate agencies will be held to solicit input and identify viable alternatives. [This effort is not required per se as part of the PSR; however, P8 indicates that "alternatives need to be developed that will satisfy project goals, be cost effective ... " This effort will be used to build consensus on alternatives to be included.] Coordination: RCTC, Caltrans, PDT, LSA and JHK Product: Sketch Layouts Cost Estimate Typical Sections 2.12 INTERCHANGE RECONFIGURATION This project will require reconfiguration of most of the eleven interchanges in the reach. Short weave sections between Central Avenue and Arlington Avenue must be addressed. Ramp braids or C-D roads are likely solutions in these areas. Configurations at each interchange (3 per interchange estimated) will be developed at a sketch level (100' scale layouts on base maps) for each alternative. The layouts will be reviewed with Caltrans, RCTC and the Cities of Riverside and Corona, as appropriate. Interchange schematics for each alternative will be identified and reviewed with the PDT. [See comment on 2.11] Coordination: RCTC, Caltrans, PDT, LSA and JHK Product: I/C Reconfiguration Sketch 2.13 ALTERNATIVE EVALUATION The alternative Analysis will be presented in text and tabular form (matrix if appropriate). The candidate alternatives will be reviewed with the PDT to revise, eliminate or continue development of the alternative. The decision on each will be documented. A set of alternatives for PSR development will be identified. [See comment on 2.11] Coordination: PDT, JHK and LSA Product: Technical Memo - 13 - 2.23 CUT/FILL SLOPES Cut/fill slopes locations will be identified for each alternative. Areas requiring regrading or retaining walls will be identified. Sections will be prepared in areas requiring regrading or retaining walls. Earthwork quantities will be calculated. Impacts on landscaping will be determined and quantified. Areas requiring sound walls [Potential Significant Cost Item] will be identified based on initial input from LSA add 'Webb. Coordination: PDT, Caltrans, FHWA and LSA Product: Cut/Fill Locations Retaining Wall Locations and Heights Sound Wall Locations Earthwork Quantities Landscape Impacts [Required P.10] 2.24 INITIAL DRAINAGE DESIGN Based on Caltrans, city and county standards, an initial hydraulic review will be conducted. Initial concept design of systems serving the project area will be accomplished. Locations of proposed structures and connections to existing systems will be identified. New systems or upgraded system requirements will be estimated. A technical memo will be prepared. Concept drainage design will be incorporated. The work includes an initial estimate of upgrades or improvements to facilities crossing SR91. This effort will be closely coordinated with ongoing studies for the median widening project. [No mention in PSR Guidelines per se but required for cost estimate.] Coordination: Product: PDT, Caltrans, Cities of Riverside and Corona, and Riverside County Flood Control District Preliminary Drainage Design 23 STRUCTURE ADVANCE PLANNING STUDIES 231 STRUCTURE ADVANCE PLANNING STUDIES Advance ]Planning studies will be conducted, in accordance with Caltrans standard procedures, for selected bridges within the project limits. (total of 21). The resultant will be Advance Planning Studies for each structure between I-15 and Cridge Street along SR 91. The studies will consider two alternatives. Typically, t Only a lalanc sya,meirical aard an a,9mmetriLak one bridge section will be analyzed i.e., two alt,,uatives). The work scope will include: 1. Review available data pertaining to the existing bridges including as -built drawings, inspection reports, and construction records. 2. Conduct a detailed field review of each existing bridge. 3. Attend project team meetings (maximum of ten) to provide structures input and enhance coordination of the overall project effort. - 15 - 4. Conduct Advance Planning Studies in accordance with Caltrans standard procedures, for the bridges described in Table. 3. The studies will consider a selected configuration. The studies will be prepared in 11x17 format showing plan, section and elevation. Cost estimates will be provided for each alternative. 5. Provide coordination with railroad companies to determine requirements for modifications of existing railroad structures crossing the freeway. 6. Provide structures input for development of design and construction segments, right-of-way mapping, and other Project Report related activities. 7. Provide structures input for public hearings and evaluation of comments. 8. Assist in preparation of Project Approval Report and issuance of documents. 9. Provide structures input and/or written documentation for public information summary report. [See P10] Coordination: PDT and Caltrans Product: Advanced Planning Studies (21 Locations) 2.4 INTITAL RIGHT-OF-WAY DETERMINATION 2.41 PRELIMINARY RIGHT-OF-WAY DETERMINATION Preliminary right-of-way needs will be determined and plotted on base maps at a scale of 1" = 100' for each 1:b..t=aiY of the three build alternatives developed iii Mil-estone 2.11. mrfornration shvWu aff the mays grill irrcl�dc ■ ■ ■ Easements ■ Improvements ■ Propertrewnersirip ■ ■ [= Above is required but goes beyond scope necessary] Coordination: PDT, Caltrans and LSA Product: Initial ROW Maps 2 Requited by PSR Guidelines - 17 - 2.9 PROJECT STUDY REPORT Included in this work effort are Value Engineering, Project Reviews, and production of elements of the Draft Project Study Report and Fact Sheet, and Quality Assurance. 2.91 VALUE ENGINEERING A formal value engineering (VE) session will be convened eight weeks before the scheduled completion of the initial draft Project Report. An independent review of all project decisions and methods will be accomplished by staff trained in VE techniques. [x See P81 Coordination: PDT Product: Value Engineering Session and Report 2.92 PROJECT REVIEWS Project reviews will be conducted with the PDT, Caltrans District= personnel, Caltrans Headquarters personnel and FHWA. Field reviews will be conducted. [ See P8] Coordination: PDT, Caltrans and FHVVA Product: Project Reviews 2.93 FACT SHEET A draft fact sheet will be prepared detailing all non-standard design elements. This sheet will be prepared in close coordination with and reviewed by Caltrans and FHWA. Revisions will be made as appropriate and a final fact sheet prepared. [a See Pil, P121 Coordination: PDT, FHWA and Caltrans Product: Fact Sheet 2.94 DRAFT PROJECT STUDY REPORT A draft Project Study Report (PSR) will be prepared in compliance with Caltrans' Project Study Report Guidelines. Greiner will compile input from other project team members. Coordination: PDT, Caltrans and FHWA Product: Draft PSR = Required by PSR Guidelines - 19 - MILESTONE # 3 PUBLIC HEARINGS/PROJECT OUTREACH/PROJECT MEETINGS Greiner will provide the lead for all project outreach and meetings for the project. Efforts of LSA and MIK will be coordinated with the PDT, RCfC and Caltrans. The work will include preparation of notices, hearing schedules, and support for the hearings. A public involvement program will be developed and implemented as directed by RCTC. The level of effort for the public involvement program will vary depending on the public's perception of the project, concentrated opposition and/or the need for right-of-way. After the project studies are underway the level of effort may need to be revised to be more reflective of the actual needs. However, due to the significant nature of this assignment, substantial efforts are envisioned. All public/agency participation is included in this milestone. [P10 indicates that local and regional input is mandatory; however, the level of effort is not clearly defined.] 3.1 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT PROGRAM a-h i AdLiyCa Tile public an' cinthrsts of iportents- Gc --� Citizen i Agruey Task force FJj1pLiL 11V `jj/1Lr ,-�------v- u -cum . h1l El ni:--va be dra y L,Oth ,rates whir R-CfC. �� ��TRCV3 Ti 4. i v a Fa e.+ p[O]ec working -I! etzrs to was fut stady diapfays dIld grcs as w ovrnnranvn. .odact. RefC, LSA and JIi'K .oject uft�ce ► ek ei r C7lsrn plzotails--lane 21- Eala J�,ralKLn. , CA MTh :[:rd L5A 3: i16 SPEAKERS BUREAU gs rlT rttimx ee l Coordination. RCi C, Calti sins and LSA PIQd11 Speaking Euigagy,,.tith (5) 3.127 PUBLIC MEETINGS A series of three public workshops are estimated. Two workshops will be scheduled at the mid- point of the study with the final workshop scheduled during the later part of the schedule. The workshops will be an informal opportunity for the public to examine displays and conceptual alternatives drawn on aerial base maps and to obtain information from team members and the PDT about the study. The workshops will be organt7ed as informal meetings. A slide show may be used to provide an overview of the study. The slide shows can run continuously throughout the workshop. Attendees will be encouraged to comment on the study and each meeting's concepts. either on comment sheets provided or through the court reporters available to receive their verbal comments. After the public meetings, the comments received at the workshop will be summarized in a report. [This is not mandatory but will likely be required] Coordination: RCTC, POT, Caltrans, LSA and JHK and the Cities of Riverside and Corona Product: Workshops (3) 3.2 INTERAGENCY AND COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT 3.21 AGENCY LIAISON A number of agencies, organizations and consultants are involved in this project. A key consideration is to assure liaison with the key players for the project. Greiner will lead the teams' effort. Greiner must interface with organizations and firms beyond RCTC and Caltrans. Those involved include utility providers such as the City of Riverside, SCE, SCG, GTE, Cablevision, as well as the City and County of Riverside, City of Corona and Riverside County Flood Control District. Budget for fifteen t ortrfive meetings with agency staff has been included within this milestone. All liaison efforts will be coordinated with RCTC staff. Coordination: PDT/ALL Product: Liaison Meetings (15 25) 23 3.4 PROJECT REPORT SCOPING MEETINGS AND NOTIFICATION 3.41 INITIAL MEETINGS/SCOPING MEETINGS iSClrss 1 Schedulc —w—Proerchtres --mar ebiectives - ta.gruR.13 __6rOupS rs�dc Cauary an It has $,surmd that the ,.ufitacts will be fuiural A total of one public iileGintg., and acre a.6Gu► [Can be made part of the PR] Coordination: Cakraus, PDT, Local Agencies, LSA, and JHK Product: Attend Initial/Scoping Meetings (2) 3.42 WRITTEN NOTIFICATION OF STUDY INITIATION Coordination: Product: 1}e.ie,r NatitL [Can be made part of the PR] 3.5 QUALITY CONTROL MILESTONE 3 Budget for quality control is contained in this milestone. The effort will conform with Greiner's Q/C plan developed in Milestone 1.33. Coordination: N/A Product: Q/C of Work Products 25 432 Q/A PROGRAM Strategy Review Sessions will be scheduled at critical points in the project development. A team of senior level staff, not assigned any other function in the project, will review work to date. The thrust of this effort will be to assure that all reasonable and feasible alternatives have been examined and the reasons for rejection of alternate approaches are valid and technically defensible. These sessions will be scheduled early on in critical tasks to assure that no factors are overlooked and to allow the project to proceed on the appropriate course. The budget in this milestone is to monitor the Strategy Review sessions. Coordination: N/A Product: Monitor Q/A Program 4.4 PROGRESS REPORTS Monthly progress reports (12 estimated) will be prepared to document Greiner's progress on the project. The report will consist of the following;. ■ Work accomplished during the reporting period ■ Work anticipated during the next reporting period ■ Issues ■ Impacts ■ Planning & Cost Control ■ Percent Complete by Activity ■ Updated Schedule ■ Interface Report ■ Submittal Status and Action Item Register ■ Data Request Log Coordination: PDT, JHK and LSA Product: Monthly Progress Report 4.5 TREND MEETINGS Greiner will conduct trend meetings on a bi-weekly (every two weeks) basis with RCTC staff & CnItrans. The Trend Meeting will encompass discussions on schedule, work progress, cost issues for the previous period and for the corning period. Greiner will be responsible for developing agendas and minutes and maintenance of a Data Request Log and Submittal and Action Item Register. A total of twenty-six trend meetings have been estimated. Coordination: RCTC, JHK and LSA Product: Trend Meetings (26) Minutes/Agenda Data Request Log Submittal and Action Item Register - 27 - SCHEDULE LEVEL OF EFFORT LSA SCOPE AND ESTIMATE Upon concurrence with the revised scope and estimate by Greiner and RCTC, we will provide you with a final revised proposal. Please call me at (714) 553-06.6,6 if you have any questions regarding this revised estimate or if we can be of any assistance in your negotiations with RCTC. Sincerely, LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. Rob McCann Associate Attachment: Preliminary Revised Budget 04/1)2j92(RCT101.41ACIL 2.LTR) 2 WILLDAN AS S D CIATE S PROPOSAL Mr. Mel Piacilla Greiner Engineering April 22, 1992 Page 2 New Braided Ramps 1. Eastbound off -ramp at Arlington Avenue 2. Eastbound off -ramp at Arlington Avenue on -ramp 3. Westbound off -ramp at Central Avenue 4. Westbound off -ramp at Central Avenue on -ramp Based on our previous conversations with Caltrans Division of Structures, detailed seismic retrofit analysis of existing bridges will not be required and that effort is excluded from our scope. For retrofit, the as-builts will be briefly reviewed and a determination of probable retrofit measures and costs, based on engineering judgement, will be made. The retrofit cost estimate will be shown as a separate line item in each bridge estimate. The following is our proposed scope of services. The proposed manhours and associated fee are indicated on the enclosed forms. Scope of Services 1. Review available data pertaining to the existing bridges including as -built drawings, inspection reports, and construction records. Review geometric drawings for proposed braided ramp bridges. 2. Conduct a detailed field review of each existing bridge. 3. Attend project team meetings (maximum of ten) to provide structures input and enhance coordination of the overall project effort. 4. Conduct advance planning studies for the preferred alternative only in accordance with Caltrans standard procedures for the above -described bridges. The studies will be prepared in 11-inch by 17-inch format showing plan, section, and elevation for each configuration. Cost estimates will be provided for each structure. For existing bridges which are to be widened, a more comprehensive General Plan type estimate will be prepared. 5. Assist Caltrans and Greiner in communication and coordination with Union Pacific Railroad. Caltrans has indicated that they will act in the lead role for direct contact with the railroad. W. KOO & ASSOCIATES PROPOSAL W. KOO AND ASSOCIATES COST PROPOSAL FOR PROJECT: — cute 91 Outside Widening Preliminary Engineering Services IIIPTirrillWreiner Inc./ RCTC Prep. by : W. Koo ©ate: 23—Apr— 92 RFP No : Date: PROPOSED SERVICE Provide preliminary engineering and structure advanced planning study for RCTC on the Route 91 HOV widening project report; proposal includes the preparation of adveonced piercing study basso on the symmetrical widening option for the following structiues: 1. Temaacal Wash /RR Overpass 6. Van Buren Blvd. OC 2. Pierce Street UC 7. Jackson Street OC 3. Magnolia Ave. UC 8. Ivy Street OC 4. La Sierra Ave. UC 9. Cridge Street OC 5. Tyler Street UC MANHOUR SUMMARY Cl SSIFICATION Manhours Average Rates Total Salary Proj. Manager Proj. Engineer Engineer/ Designer Designer/Draftsman Clerical t ; TO FAL LABOR COSTS (2) OVERI-EAD +GM (3) LABOR COST + OVERHEAD (1) + (2) (3)* 10.5% 222 395 318 268 29 35.50 27.83 21.84 16.80 14.00 7,861 10.991 6,945 4,502 406 1232 120% 30,725 (4) FEE (Profit) O TOTAL COST + FEE o I HER DIRECT COST SUMMARY 01 Reproductioone 02 Xerox 03 Computer 04 Travel Transportation 05 SubConsuttants 06 ■ =aal Deliveries k6; FOTAL ODC (Remit)) 71 'OTAL PROPOSED ANIOUN 1 tsr9lapa 3 + 4 35,870 67,596 7,098 74.693 634 0 400 300 0 460 1,794 $7'6,487_ MILESTONE #4 - PROJECT MANAGEMENT/LIAISON/QUALITY CONTROL In this task, budget for overall project management, liaison with affected agencies, team leadership and management and quality control of all technical work is included. 4.1 PROJECT WORK PLAN AND SCHEDULE A detailed project work plan will be developed in Milestone 1 which incorporates the work outlined in this technical scope of services. This detailed work plan will specify products and portions thereof. The work plan will be developed in concert with proposed manpower loadings and incorporated in a Primavera schedule for the project. The work plan, manpower loading and will be updated monthly. The schedule will be updated for each Trend Meeting. The work plan will incorporate the schedule of other Consultants working on this reach of SR91 and be included in the Primavera Schedule. The budget is predicated on a one year schedule. Coordination: PDT, RCTC, Ca'trans, JHK, Leighton and LSA Product: Work Plan Maintenance Manpower Loading Schedule 4.2 PROJECT FILES A project file will be developed which adheres strictly with the Caltrans Project Development Uniform File System. Filing will be separated by source and indexed as necessary. upon completion, these project files will be turned over to RCTC. Coordination: RCTC Product: Project File 4.3 QUALITY CONTROL PLAN 4.31 Q/C PLAN Greiner has responsibility for the accuracy and completeness of the reports and related documents furnished under this scope of work and shall meet that responsibility through the preparation and implementation of a Quality Control Plan. Greiner will review for coordination only, not for technical content, work prepared by others for inclusion in the Project Report. Greiner will not be responsible for exhaustive reviews or checks of work by other team members. The Quality Control Plan will be developed in Milestone 1 and maintained throughout the project with budget in the appropriate milestone. The Quality Control Plan is an integral part of the Work Program. Greiner's approach to quality control is to allow time and budget and assign qualified for quality control functions at appropriate locations in the work program. The work in this task involves monitoring the Q/C efforts in relation to the Q/C plan. Coordination: N/A Product: Q/C Plan Maintenance - 26 - 4.6 PROJECT DEVELOPMENT TEAM (PDT) Greiner will be a member of and attend meetings of the PDT and relevant subcommittees. The PDT will be established to guide the study in accordance with the Caltrans Project Development Procedures Manual. Greiner will serve as staff in arranging meetings, providing discussion materials and agendas and in developing and distributing minutes. A total of 'le 8 PDT meetings have been included in the level of effort. Coordination: PDT Product: PDT Meetings (-11Y (8) Minutes Materials 4.7 CONSULTANT LIAISON Greiner will lead the project consultant team efforts. As such, Greiner will coordinate work of JHK through RCTC to assure that all elements are on schedule and needed information is available. A total of twenty...Eve fifteen meetings are assumed. Interface with JHK and LSA will be maintained by: ■ Weekly Conference Calls a Action Item Register ■ Monthly Review of Progress R00685 Coordination: RCTC, JHK, LSA a.. . �1 I Product: Liaison with Consultants 28 3901E10 ul AVW HVW NVf 6661 £ 6'Z 8'Z L'Z 9'Z S'Z teZ £'Z Z'Z 11.17.0mi l'Z l AON 1d3S Alnr AVNI Z661 JNIU33NIJN3 Jlna3HOS 03S0dObld 3NO1S3lIW I:1Sd lew1S eBqJO 01 S1-1 / Oulu°NM ePls1n0 IZE1S Q 40•DOQsolz 4 — M(�3�7r+1a_rend °2 004 S l'9LS'9£0' lS 9r CL6'501S 5PATtig ZO'OolrLOLS 0Z'L95'£LS 1V1O1 00'L8b'SZ£S 00 OS OVOS 0015V9Z£S coos siNvlinsnoaens 1V101 LZ'1►£l'91S ooros 00'0% trott 00'0$ 103111a £L-ZS£`Ol£S oa'oS 0'0 £L'Z5C Ol3 00. siNvllnSNO39ns S 1'690'903 5£'85Z'69S OW 0£8' 8£9$ 1V101 8r'CL6'501$ 5t'Ltil'fiS3 z0-tOr'0K OrL95'CLS li3N13HJ 1V101 00-005-PS 05' lCr'9; 5£'ParL4S 05205'0i$ 1031110 ot-CLVIOIS 56'51L131 L9'9LS'IZ10S OL1,90'C9S li3N131:10 Z6-idv-vZ AadwvunS 1S00 - 39a11:10 Ol 5L-1 193r01:1d 31V11111n ONIN3a1M 3aISlnO L6 amour r fi Z l 3NO1S3lIW (la418A3aF/ Nd1l0l.l.9a11, 8)Z6-Ad V-ZO S86'68! 8S9' I! 60£'L! 6£T'9T! ££0'6Z! 898'£! Z£Z'L! ZYO`9! 909'Z! L I8`L! L8Z`£I! lsei Ay saag J yul 'selo-lorsV VS7 9LTI 6Z 66 Z9Z 99£ 86 66 09 1'Z ZL Z£I hq ulnoH S1V.LO.L 7661 'I dln f awnaaija sacra 8u!11!q u! astanu! 9601 pan uOsa ur sapnpu! Agri iq saad.:atoN •8wt 8we L£! Yl•! LS! TS! £L! TS! £8! LOT! £it! Z9T! (NW!) O.1.V11 JNTT 19 9TI 8 .LNOddf1S 0£i Z 04 06 OZ 8 OZ 'd'dA 88 06 OZ OZ 8 SDII-1dV99 ZZ£ Z 91 OZT 09T 9L 8 okew PUY ZZ Z 8 4 8 PuElu!]I 8£ Z 6Z 6 8 &aqua (' SNOW f011d Z£ 9i 91 MOH 06£ 8 OZ 91 OP OZ Ui OZ PZ ZL t18 uuti•,}yW SO I.VIa0SSV Z9 8 8 91 Z 8 9i az irryi 9Z 8 P►r) S'IVdI�NINd SNOLLVD141SSV'ID 'IBNNOSNBd VS1 (Z6/Z/4 pas!wall) la8pnfl pur suo9113011V I/MIMS saMAJaS Iruauluoi!wud T asegd (iaanS aSPUD/SI ainoi!) laa(oid airuroO1 16 - 9 algs.L AWINIFITITJ SNf1OH "iV.1.O.L sal!d 1340.41 '9 s8unaaW &radon S VSI 211srdA snopWmH ' P tizu!unlahl ti nltv ammadooO ' Z uo9tn!ul lfoid ' i s8unaaW uonruquooD s8unaaW .Lt7d saunaapi puai,L 1*.1aua!J .LN3N139VNVW .1.33fOIId SMSY.L -\, WILLDAN ASSOCIATES ElE\GI\EERS & PA\\ERS `V Professional Consulting Services Since 1964 April 22, 1992 Mr. Mel Piacilla Greiner Engineering 1261 East Dyer Road Santa Ana, California 92705 Subject: Engineering Services Proposal for State Route 91 Outside Widening - Interstate 15 to Cridge Street Dear Mr. Piacilla: In accordance with your request, Willdan Associates is submitting this revised proposal to provide structural engineering services for the above -mentioned project. The services and fees included in this proposal are those necessary to complete the structural portion of the Project Study Report. Advance planning studies are required for the preferred alternative only as outlined in our conversation of April 16, 1992. This proposal will supersede all of our previous proposals. In general, Willdan will continue to act as structural task manager for preparation of advance planning studies and provide general oversight and technical direction for your additional structural subconsuitant, W. Koo & Associates. Our efforts will include analysis of the following structures: Existing Bridges 1. Route 15/91 Separation (Tie -Back Wall) 2. Promenade Avenue Overcrossing 3. McKinley Street Undercrossing 4. Buchanan Street Overcrossing 5. Monroe Street Undercrossing 6. Adams Street Overcrossing 7. Jefferson Street Undercrossing 8. Madison Street Undercrossing 9. Mary Street Undercrossing 10. Arlington Avenue Undercrossing 11. Central Avenue Undercrossing 12. Pachappa Underpass 888 S. WEST STREET • SUITE 300 • ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA 92802-1845 • (714) 563-3200 • FAX (714) 563-3299 Mr. Mel Piacilla Greiner Engineering April 22, 1992 Page 3 6. Provide structures input for development of design and construction segments, right-of-way mapping, and other project study report related activities. 7. Provide overall direction and management of the structures team. The foregoing scope of services and enclosed fee schedule are based on the following assumptions; 1. travel is limited to the Southern California area; 2. CADD preparation of drawings is acceptable but not required; and 3. development of track alignments, shoofly requirements, and other necessary geometric data at the Pachappa Underpass is not included. We are pleased to continue our association with Greiner Engineering and look forward to a successful project. If you have any questions, please call Mr. Gary Antonucci. Respectfully submitted, WILLDAN ASSOCIATES Terry J. Rodrigue, P.E. Regional Office Manager Enclosures TJR:GA:ssg 89130/010/2000452S AGENDA ITEM #6D DATE: TO: RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION May 7, 1992 Administration Committee Budget & Finance Committee FROM: Karl Sauer, Measure "A" Project Coordinator THROUGH: Jack Reagan, Executive Director SUBJECT: Approval of Four Consultant Contracts for Geotechnical Services Consultant Agreements for Route 60: 1. Route 60 Measure "A" improvements between the Valley Way Undercrossing and the Main Street Overcrossing in the City of Riverside; and 2. Route 60 improvements between the San Bernardino County Line and the Valley Way Undercrossing. Caltrans has asked for RCTC assistance in getting two projects on Route 60 ready for construction. These projects include Valley Way to 1-215 (Project #1), a Measure A project that is in the STIP as a State funded project, and Valley Way to 1-15 (Project #2), not a Measure A project and as yet unfunded. Expenditure of funds on Project #2 is dependent on adoption of the Measure A Expenditure Plan Amendment adding in the Route 60 project from Valley Way to 1-15 as an eligible Measure A project or adoption of a policy regarding expenditure of SB300 funds, both the subject of another agenda item. Assuming that the funding issues are resolved, staff and Caltrans have worked up the following responsibility matrix for the Route 60 projects. Project #1 Project #2 Environmental CT CT Preliminary Engr. CT CT Traffic RCTC RCTC Geotechnical RCTC RCTC Structures PS&E RCTC RCTC Roadway PS&E RCTC CT muserApraprirftway.92VEt90peo.lu STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the following: 1. Assignment of firms to the available work on Route 60 in order of ranking as indicated. 2. Approve the following contracts: Geofon - Produce a Materials Report in support of final roadway design on Project #2 for a cost not to exceed $150,000 with a 15% contingency of $25,000 for a maximum contract amount of $175,000. Converse - Produce nine (9) Foundations Reports in support of final structures design on Project #1 for a cost not to exceed $165,000 with a 15% contingency of $25,000 for a maximum contract amount of $190,000. Schaefer -Dixon - Produce a Materials Report in support of final roadway design on Project #1 for a cost not to exceed $125,000 with a 15% contingency of $20,000 for a maximum contract amount of $145,000. Woodward-Clvde - Produce seven (7) Foundations Reports in support of final structures design on Project #2 for a cost not to exceed $115,000 with a 15% contingency of $20,000 for a maximum contract amount of $135,000. Approval of the Geofon and Woodward -Clyde contracts (Project #2) are contingent upon the outcome of the availability of either Measure A or SB300 funds. This availability is discussed in the agenda item on the Measure A Plan Amendment. KS:sc fAuwr.\proprine4n.v.92\rtelOpeo.w DATE: TO: FROM: THROUGH: SUBJECT: RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION May 7, 1992 Administrative Committee Budget & Finance Committee Keith Fullenwider, Project Coordinator Mark Massman, Project Manager Jack Reagan, Executive Director Contract RO-9116 Amendment with Robert Bein, William Frost and Associates for Right -of -Way Engineering and Final Design Surveying Services for the State Route 79 Projects The State Route 79 improvements are composed of two projects that will widen the existing roadway from two lanes to four lanes. Project One is located from Gilman Springs Road and the Beaumont railroad crossing, and Project Two is from Keller Road to Newport Road. The preliminary engineering phase of the projects will be completed in October of 1992, with the approval of the Project Report and the Environmental Document. Staff expects to initiate right-of-way acquisition and final design engineering for the northerly project in July 1992 following completion of the Phase II Consultant Selection effort. To maintain this schedule, the surveying efforts must begin as soon as possible. Robert Bein, William Frost & Associates (RBF) is the Surveys/Mapping firm assigned to the State Route 79 projects through the 1989 RCTC Consultant Selection Process. They have recently satisfactorily completed the mapping effort for the project. It has been staff's intent to maintain project continuity throughout the preliminary engineering, right-of-way, and design phases of the Measure A projects through continued use of the assigned surveying teams. RBF has been directed by RCTC to prepare a proposal to perform surveying in support of right-of-way and final design tasks (to be done by others). The scope of work for Project One will consist of the retracement of the Route 79 centerline, which will provide data to assist in the right-of-way engineering process. Also, cross-section surveying will be performed to obtain data to be utilized in the final design of the Project. The Project Two scope of work will be the retracement of the centerline of Route 79 and to produce data to be used in the right-of-way engineering. The proposed duration for the surveying services for the two projects is four months for Project One, and two months for Project Two, from -the date of the notice to proceed. CAus.o\pr.prloNeay. eTre.7era w STATE HIGHWAY 79 PROJECT 1 (RBF JN 400396) ADDENDUM NO. 1 EXHIBIT "A" SCOPE OF SERVICES for RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION Measure "A" State Highway Projects for RIGHT-OF-WAY ENGINEERING SUPPORT SURVEY SERVICES and FINAL ENGINEERING SUPPORT SURVEY SERVICES GENERAL PROJECT DESCRIPTION The right-of-way engineering, centerline retracement survey and road cross -sections for this project will be conducted along State Highway 79. "Project 1" is located on State Highway 79 in Riverside County between Gilman Springs Road and the Beaumont Railroad Crossing (PM 33.88 to 40.33). The entire length of survey may extend some nominal distance beyond the actual project limits as required by the approved retracement plan. However, the cross- section work will be confined to the project as stated. The project scope shall include the following: Office surveying work which is to include centerline record research, preparation of a centerline retracement survey plan, and subsequent to the field retracement survey analysis of the monument locations, preparation of a road centerline and right-of-way alignment exhibit all performed by Robert Bein, William Frost & Associates (RBF). Field surveying and office related tasks for Project 1 which is to include a centerline retracement survey, cross-section survey and office reduction of field data all performed by RBF. Right-of-way engineering performed by a right-of-way engineering consultant (RWEC) to be selected. Task 4. Frejob Safety Meeting RBF will conduct one prejob safety meeting at the RBF offices that shall be attended by the appropriate representatives of Caltrans and RBF. Task Tailgate Safety Meetings RBF crews will conduct tailgate safety meetings every 10 working days to discuss general safety items (specifically traffic safety) for the field personnel and the general public. The first safety meeting shall occur before the commencement of the field work. Minutes shall be recorded and shall be submitted to Caltrans. RIGHT-OF-WAY ENGINEERING SUPPORT SURVEY SERVICES Task 6• Data Collection/Retracement Plan Preparation RBF will search state and county records and obtain copies of existing documents and maps to assist in the establishment of existing right-of-way and property lines as required. RWEC will obtain copies of existing documents described in the title reports as requested to calculate right-of-way lines and prepare documents. RBF will compile the research data on a retracement plan for review by Caltrans that will subsequently be used to govern the retracement survey. Task 7, Road. Centerline Retracement Survey RBF field crews will perform a road centerline retracement survey of the project locating the centerline monuments and sideline monuments for the B.C.'s, E.C.'s, and angle points as indicated on the retracement survey plan prepared by RBF. This will also include surveying the intersection street centerlines to determine their bearing. The survey procedure shall provide for at least one redundant measurement for each element (x, y, z) of the geometric determination of each monument located (i.e., closed traverse, dual location, etc...). The survey shall also conform to the requirements of the Land Surveyor's Act and the Caltrans Survey Manual. The minimum standard of survey quality shall be that of similar surveys performed by Caltrans. Task 8, Office Data Downloading and Reduction (ati er . e Retni meat urvey new RBF office personnel will download the digital field notes, provide hard copy printouts, analyze and reduce the raw data to final x, y, z positions. The "final positions file" shall contain point numbers, northing (x), casting (y), elevation (z), and monument description. Task 14, CADD Processing (Topographic Data) After downloading and archiving the raw data, RBF will process the data into Moss Format Files, process by TLI and obtain cross-section information therefrom. Task 15, Proce a DataDocumemation Deliver [Top4gr phi Da The survey data including the original raw field data capture files, supplemental topo control data, TLI files, will be delivered to RCTC in digital and/or hard copy medium as required by the ROTC "Survey Data Formats and Deliverable Standards for RCTC Measure "A" Transportation Projects". COORDINATION AND ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES Task 16, Coordination with Other Team Consultants RBF will coordinate by phone and/or FAX and/or mail with RWEC, Caltrans, and other team consultants and ROTC on day-to-day issues not requiring a special meeting. Coordination with Traffic Control Services (TCS) will be covered under the "Traffic Control Planning" task described in this scope of work. Task 17, Traffic Control Planning and Coordination RBF together with Traffic Control Services Company (TCS) will consult with the appropriate Caltrans or Riverside County inspector to determine the traffic control requirements for the project. RBF will coordinate with TCS to obtain traffic control or lane closures when required. Task 18, Trend Meetings RBF will attend trend meetings with the designated project managers of the Commission and Caltrans on a bi-weekly basis, or as required, with such meetings scheduled at a standard day and time. Trend meetings will encompass focused and informal discussions concerning scope changes, schedule, work progress, and cost issues. RBF will be responsible for the preparation and distribution of meeting agendas, preparation and distribution of trend meeting minutes, and other meeting requirements. 1N31N3AVd 30 30031V IONS —� '013 SNIVHO 'S3X( .,1 '•;Llf)VA 30 S83N8CiJ 1V IONS HV3H8 30V8J 80 3011V 10HS S I I OOVNI' EZ/b 6207"sstY) Pi2412 tawill!AU'kPEL, uac141.2 1N310VH0 3NI14183130 Ol 3dOlS NO HO 3011V IONS 3N11 M013 03AVd — 1N3Y43AVd 30 30031V /OHS H301n0HS 30 30031V 10HS — (JNIddVIN 1V183V NM 318VNIV180'03HIf103H ION) 1N310V89 3NI1183130 Ol 3d01S NO 80 d011V /OHS (3NI1 3d181S) 31111NM080 30 3NI1831N301V IONS A3ALIf1S N01103S SSOdO NI SNOIId001 IONS 318d80dd 31 tnICINI OI 11V130 N01103S ad0L! .X.1191HX3 S>IV388 30VHJ (JNIddVNI IVIH 3V Wn8 i 318VNIVlE10'(, I ION) NV388 30Vt u — d011V 10HS — NOM 8301110HS 30 3903 1V IONS APR 27 '92 13:52 RBF TE ECULA P.2/3 112CEMT B PROJECT NO. 1 BY do BETWEEN THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION • AND ROBERT BEM, 'WII.LIAM FROST AND ASSOCIATES FOR RIGHT-OF-WAY ENGINEERING SUPPORT SURVEY SERVICES AND DESIGN ENGINEERING SUPPORT SURVEY SERVICES FOR STATE ROUTE 79 BHTWEEN GILMAN SPRINGS ROAD AND TAB REAUMONZ RAILROAD CROSSING tar R3rttir N E S4TREDuL E Revised 4/27/92 _ • ". _ __.. YY.-..,i"�=�'..�.•r"yr'.r-"�f.srL.a ylnY �- v+.n r •;r;' • , y. .;y.l �� w J - .y.•..y. 0.112..14 i .Mti • .'".i NI•NMik.Lie . i Mi: �ia.P •'� i ai . . � ' ' • 4 w. w• nr+.r+`' _ �"" �r�.wr-wr«^ Meri 9" { ry. i '`,p ,.�.{.. W�•:".�..::=- I'r7'!__. a--w _ �^irr"..:.� wiMtrilUr.4fi.w.`��.,�i..a as .er'�+....we.w. aiw y r+-.r.�r♦- t�cs.r- .. i . "•'•yy'OW - �w. • I ��'� ss a' . ��.,yyW.��� '��►'r w++w. is i ."''.•'� � 1111/14 IrYiEf'E0.01�%-.'.rp'!.'i.d"l.'. ••-..i -'i.]i�' SndulF.htas: �.'.M1in' M?�!F^..M..rtF•�_ 1 2 CIA[. PROJECT 'SCOPE AncETIN0 •5.6 04/06/92 aa..aY ©© PROJECT siCoPE MEETING a P*WECT SCOPE METING 93 (Diturr su1 kOrTAL) 'PROJECT SCOPE ]MIi O IiL .• 1: G{i . .5.4 04/07/92 -3.4 04/21/92 04/23/92� 5 1 END OP SCOPE PREPARATION 6 2 PINAL PEcaCT SCOPE MRETINO IO p:F7NAL 3UALOT'PAL} 7 6 MEN DATA COLLECTION PLAN PRVARATION 3 3 )REF TASK PoRCE IMMO 11 17 CONTACT CALTRAI111! &dm RIV. CO. IIQIRBC.TOR 10 6 END DATA coLLECnONARITRACIMENT PLAN PREPARATION 11 17 CONTACT TCS (IP NECESSARY POI TRAFFIC CONTROL CMS%) 12 13 14 1S 16 4 PREJOE SAFETY MEETING 1$ TREND WIRING TO 1tsvzsVY ROAD CENTERLDr8 PLAN NOTICE TO psncRED PROM 1tC TO sIzoi11'DAD CBhRii.LINE RITEACEmENT ?MD WORK 14 E OEN MIMS DOWNLOAD i REDUCTioN (EirrvAcEMENT DATA) 17 i 1$ TREND METING PAGE 1 -3.0 04/24/92 -3.0 •Z.3 -0.6 -0.6 -0.4 -0.4 04/2 4192 04/29/92 05106/92 05/11/92 09/11/92 OSM/92 OS/12/92 .0.4 05/ 12/92 0.0 03/ ISM 0.4 05/18/92 0.61 06/14/92 1.6 j 05/26/92 TASK NO SCOPE OF SERVICES PROJECT NI EXHL..I' C - R.C.T.C. PROJECT NO. 1 AGREEMENT NO. R.O. WITH RBF & ASSOCIATES FOR RIGHT-OF-WAY ENGINEERING SUPPORT SURVEY SERVICES AND DESIGN ENGINEERING SUPPORT SUR ✓EY SERVICES (STATE ROUTE 79 BETWEEN GILMAN SPRINGS ROAD AND THE BEAUMONT RAILRAOD CROSSING) RBF TASK CODE PROJECT SCOPING & SAFETY MEETINGS CHIEF OF PARTY ASST CHIEF OF PARTY CHAINMA APPENDIX C COMPENSATION AND PAYMENT N REAR CHNMN FIELD SURV COORD PROF LAND SURV SURV TECH 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Propel Scope Preparation Project Scope Meetings RBF Task Force Meeting Pre Joh Safely Tailgate Safety Meetings (Di -Weekly) 022 018 104 229 060 5 RIGHT-OF-WAY ENGINEERING SUPPORT SURVEY SERVICES Data Collection/Retracement Plan Prep Road Centerline Retracement Survey Office Data Downloading & Reduction Survey Analysis/Alignment Exhibit Processed Data/Documentation Delivery 200 810 062 808 302 280 5 280 5 280 5 280 1 5 70 CADD TECH ADMIN ASSIST DPTY PRO1 MGR PROJ MGR SURV/MAP COORD OFF MNGR P.L,S_ COMP SVCS SUPR PR1N TOTAL MAN HOURS 8 38 10 30 6 4 2 5 10 6 22 8 r I 1 2 15 40 10 I 40 120 2 3 1 4 4, 4 I 2 l 2 I 32 II 10 4 30 64 1209 78 154 28 DESIGN ENGINEERING SUPPORT SURVEY SERVICES 12 Supplemental Topo Control 13 Survey Cross Sections 14 15 840 60 60 60 60 15 8 3 1 267 861 380 380 380 380 95 19 4 1638 Data Downloading & Reduction CADD Processing 650 80 8 88 061 242 1 2 245 Processed Data/Documentation Delivery 425 8 I I 1 I 12 PAGE 1 EXHIBIT C PROJECT NO. 1 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION AGREEMENT NO. R.O. WITH ROBERT BEIN, WILLIAM FROST AND ASSOCIATES FOR RIGHT-OF-WAY ENGINEERING SUPPORT SURVEY SERVICES AND DESIGN ENGINEERING SUPPORT SURVEY SERVICES FOR STATE ROUTE 79 APPENDIX C COMPENSATION AND PAYMENT PERSONNEL CLASSIFICATION AVERAGE* HOURLY RATE TOTAL MANHOURS PERCENT OF TOTAL HOURS TOTAL DIRECT LABOR SURVEY CHIEF OF PARTY ASSISTANT PARTY CHIEF CHAINMAN REAR CHAINMAN FIELD SURVEY COORDINATOR PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYOR SURVEY TECHNICIAN CADD TECHNICIAN ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT DEPUTY PROJECT MANAGER, P.L.S. PROJECT MANAGER, P.L.S. SURVEY/MAPPING COORDINATOR, P.L.S OFFICE MANAGER, P.L.S. COMPUTER SERVICES SUPERVISOR, P.E. PRINCIPAL S26 48 S24.77 S22.65 S17.05 S27.50 S26.99 S17.75 S23.54 S15.56 S30.56 S30.56 S43.99 S50.96 S40.38 S50.96 805 805 805 805 214 0 174 286 52 0 209 161 34 11 6 18.4% 18.4% 18.4% 18.4%' 4.9 % 0.0 % 4.0% 6.5 % 1.2 % 0.0 % 4.8% 3.7 % 0.89 0 3% 0.19 S21,316.40 S19,939.85 S18,233.25 S13,725.25 S5,885.00 S0.00 S3,088.50 S6,732.44 S809.12 S0.00 56,387 04 S7,082.39 S1,732.64 S444 18 S305.76 AVERAGE AND TOTAL FIELD RATES, HOURS AND D.L. AVERAGE AND TOTAL OFFICE RATES, HOURS AND D.L. TOTAL DIRECT LABOR $23.69 $33.13 S28.41 3434 933 4367 FIELD DIRECT LABOR COST MULTIPLIER = (1.0) X TOTAL DIRECT LABOR OFFICE DIRECT LABOR COST MULTIPLIER = (1.0) X TOTAL DIRECT LABOR FIELD PAYROLL ADDITIVES MULTIPLIER = (0.6) X TOTAL DIRECT LABOR OFFICE PAYROLL ADDITIVES MULTIPLIER = (0.4) X TOTAL DIRECT LABOR FIELD ALLOWABLE OVERHEAD COST OFFICE TOTAL MULTIPLIER FIELD TOTAL MULTIPLIER OFFICE TOTAL MULTIPLIER 1.1 TOTAL DIRECT LABOR COST l 2 FIXED FEE = 10.5% ADDITIONAL DIRECT COST TOTAL MAXIMUM INVOICE (AVERAGE HOURLY RATES ARE SUBJECT TO CHANGE AUGUST 1, 1992 AND HAVE BEEN ADJUSTED FOR 1991) = (1.0) X TOTAL DIRECT LABOR = (1.0) X TOTAL DIRECT LABOR = (2.6) = (2.4) PROJECT NO. l = (10.5%) X (TOTAL DIRECT LABOR COST) X TOTAL MULTIPLIER COST 78.6 % 21.4% 100.0% $79,099.75 S26,582.07 S105,681.82 S79,099.75 S26,582.07 S47,459.85 S10,632.83 $79,099.75 S26,582.07 S205,659.35 S63,796.97 S269,456.32 S28,292.91 S49,080.00 S346,829.23 EXHIBIT C POSITION OR CLASSIFICATION RANGE OF HOURLY RATES Principal $49.00 - $52.00 /hour Office Manager $49.00 - $52.00 Computer Services Supervisor $36.00 - $40.00 Survey/Mapping Coordinator $42.00 - $46.00 Project Manager Deputy Project Manager $29.00 - $34.00 Administrative Assistant $13.00 - $15.00 CARD Technician $20.00 - $24.00 Survey Technician $18.00 - $20.00 Professional Land Surveyor $26.00 - $30.00 Field Survey Coordinator $26.00 - $29.00 Rear Chainman $16.00 - $19.00 Chainman $22.00 - $25.00 Assistant Party Chief $23.00 - $26.00 Survey Chief of Party $25.00 - $29.00 SCOPE OF SERVICES RIGHT-OF-WAY ENGINEERING SUPPORT SURVEY SERVICES PROJECT SCOPING AND SAFETY MEETINGS Task 1, Project Scope Preparation Consultant has prepared this scope both draft and final to define the specific field and office tasks required to provide the necessary right-of-way engineering survey support services. Task 2• Project Scope Meetings Meeting # 1 :Meeting #2 Meeting #a Meeting #4 Meeting #S Consultant has met with members of the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) on April 6, 1992 at the request of RCTC. Consultant has met with members of RCTC and Caltrans on April 7, 1992 at the request of RCTC. Consultant will meet with RCTC on April 21, 1992 to review a draft of the project scope. Consultant has met with RCTC and Caltrans on April 23, 1992 at the request of RCTC. If required, Consultant will meet with RCTC to review the final project scope. Task 3, RBF Task Force Meeting After authorization and prior to commencement of services, RBF will have a task force meeting in-house, for the purpose of reviewing and coordinating the project in terms of scope of services, time reporting, technical procedures, quality control, safety procedures, schedules and deliverables. Task 4• Prejob Safety Meeting RBF will conduct one prejob safety meeting at the RBF offices that will be attended by the appropriate representatives of Caltrans and RBF. by the ROTC "Survey Data Formats and Deliverable Standards for ROTC Measure "A" Transportation Projects" for distribution to CCEI and/or other appropriate project team consultants. Task 10, Processed Data/Documentation Delivery (Centerline Retracement Survey Data) The survey data, including the research, original field notes, least squares reduction data reports, monument positions and character, survey analysis work sheets, alignment exhibit, etc., will be delivered to RCTC in digital and/or hard copy medium as required by the RCTC "Survey Data Formats and Deliverable Standards for ROTC :Measure "A" Transportation Projects" for distribution to CCEI and/or other appropriate project team consultants. COORDINATION AND ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES Task 11, Coordination with Other Teem Consultants RBF will coordinate by phone and/or FAX and/or mail with CCEI, Caltrans, and other team consultants and RCTC on day-to-day issues not requiring a special meeting. Coordination with Traffic Control Services (TCS) will be covered under the "Traffic Control Planning" task described in this scope of work. Task 12, Traffic Control Planning_and Coordination RBF together with Traffic Control Services Company (TCS) will consult with the appropriate Caltrans or Riverside County inspector to determine the traffic control requirements for the project. RBF will coordinate with TCS to obtain traffic control or lane closures when required. Task 13, Trend Meetings RBF will attend trend meetings with the designated project managers of the Commission and Caltrans on a bi-weekly basis, or as required, with such meetings scheduled at a standard day and time. Trend meetings will encompass focused and informal discussions concerning scope changes, schedule, work progress, and cost issues. RBF will be responsible for the preparation and distribution of meeting agendas, preparation and distribution of trend meeting minutes, and other meeting requirements. All surveys will be performed in accordance with the current State Department of Transportation (Caltrans) "Survey Manual' and its revision. Work not covered by the Manual will be performed in accordance with accepted professional surveying standards. l 3'JVd SI Z 01 910 s8mlPg V vyodaa s12.1801d 001 CIS 601 (E opitu9s3) s81.9aaW puail 41 CI uogvu!pioop vy 'Sum I011uo0 aplvil s1uv11nsuoD weal iay1O 41!M uonvmpwo0 S33IA113S 3AIV1VIIISINIWOV V NOI1VN1011000 ZI II L Z9 81 9LZ Zf Z 1 Z OC OZ f Z ZOE Rian!pu ua19102wn30O/°1°O Pasvaaoid 01 OZ 01 91 49 49 49 808 Z90 018 00Z ugpyx3 luauu$r1VfslsArgv 6aninS 6 uo!pnpab v 8u!pvoluntou Erma aoJJO danmS luawaavipa augialua� pvoa dam uvld luauaavipmpo!Iaallop °1°O 8 L S301A113S A3A1111S 1110ddnS ON11133NIDN3 AVM-30-1H0I11 4 01 II LZ Z I Z sanOH NV W 11/101 Nlad &Ins S3AS 31.103 'S Td NONNI 330 1 I B 090 6ZZ 401 810 sNwpaW Ap1°S arOl!vl 9 S C11003 ,Idw�nans 91 NOW 10113 HOW road Aldo 1SISSV NI W OV H331 aaVD H331 Hans mans O N V'1 3011d 011003 Alms 01313 NWNHO 1IV311 IN3WAVd (INV NOI1VSN3dWOD J XIQN3ddV NYWNIV117 A111Vd 30 331HD 1SSV A11IVd 30 331H3 ZZO 46'12S 901'3,3 8u92214 03io3 4H11 s8u!p244 adaas rnford u0!Ivfadaid aduaS laafoid SONI13314 A133VS V ONI300S.L031011d 3(103 )ISV1 34111 4 E Z I ZN 13310Nd 1 'ON S331A113S 3O 3303S )ISV1 cOV021 213'1'13s dV021 1210dM3N N33M-L3H 6L 3.Lf1021 31V.LS) S33IA213S A3A11f1S 1110c1dnS DN12133NIDN3 AVM-30-1HDI21 110A S31VIDOSSV 75' ABS HIIM '0'21 'ON 1N31A13321DV Z 'ON ID31.011d "D'1.3.11 — O nalHX3 EXHIBIT C PROJECT NO. 2 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION AGREEMENT NO. R.O. WITH ROBERT BEIN, WILLIAM FROST AND ASSOCIATES FOR RIGHT-OF-WAY ENGINEERING SUPPORT SURVEY SERVICES FOR STATE ROUTE 79 APPENDIX C COMPENSATION AND PAYMENT PERSONNEL CLASSIFICATION AVERAGE* HOURLY RATE TOTAL PERCENT OF MANHOURS TOTAL HOURS TOT AL DIRECT LABOR SURVEY CHIEF OF PARTY ASSISTANT PARTY CHIEF CHAINMAN REAR CHAINMAN FIELD SURVEY COORDINATOR PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYOR SURVEY TECHNICIAN CADD TECHNICIAN ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT DEPUTY PROJECT MANAGER, P.L.S. PROJECT MANAGER, P.L.S. SURVEY/MAPPING COORDINATOR, P.L.S. OFFICE MANAGER, P.L.S. COMPUTER SERVICES SUPERVISOR, P.E. PRINCIPAL AVERAGE AND TOTAL FIELD RATES, HOURS AND D.L. AVERAGE AND TOTAL OFFICE RATES, HOURS AND D.L. S26.48 S24.77 $22.65 S17.05 S27.50 $26.99 S17.75 S23.54 S 15.56 530.56 S30.56 543.99 $50.96 S40.38 $50.96 $23.69 $33.13 l05 105 105 105 30 0 45 0 33 0 72 60 18 3 4 450 235 15.3% 15.3% 15.3% 15.3% 4.4 % 0.0 % 6.6 % 0.0% 4.8% 0.0 % 10.5% 8.8% 2.6% 0.4 % 0.6 % 65.7% 34.3 % S2,780.40 52,600.85 S2,378.25 S1,790.25 $825.00 S0.00 S798.75 S0.00 S513.48 S0.00 52,200.32 $2,639 40 5917 28 S121.14 S203.84 S10,374.75 S7,394.21 TOTAL DIRECT LABOR S28.41 685 FIELD DIRECT LABOR COST MULTIPLIER = (1.0) X TOTAL DIRECT LABOR OFFICE DIRECT LABOR COST MULTIPLIER = (1.0) X TOTAL DIRECT LABOR FIELD PAYROLL ADDITIVES MULTIPLIER = (0.6) X TOTAL DIRECT LABOR OFFICE PAYROLL ADDITIVES MULTIPLIER = (0.4) X TOTAL DIRECT LABOR FIELD ALLOWABLE OVERHEAD COST = (1.0) X TOTAL DIRECT LABOR OFFICE TOTAL MULTIPLIER = (1.0) X TOTAL DIRECT LABOR FIELD TOTAL MULTIPLIER OFFICE TOTAL MULTIPLIER 1.1 TOTAL DIRECT LABOR COST 1.2 FIXED FEE = 10.5% ADDITIONAL DIRECT COST TOTAL MAXIMUM INVOICE (AVERAGE HOURLY RATES ARE SUBJECT TO CHANGE AUGUST 1, 1992 AND HAVE BEEN ADJUSTED FOR 1991) = (2.6) = (2.4) PROJECT NO. l = (10.5%) X (TOTAL DIRECT LABOR COST) X TOTAL MULTIPLIER COST 100.0 % S17,768.96 S10,374.75 S7,394.21 S6,224.85 S2,957.68 S10,374.75 S7,394.21 $26,974.35 S17,746.10 S44,720.45 S4,695.65 $7,040.00 S56,456.10 AGENDA ITEM #7A DATE: TO: RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION May 7, 1992 Administrative Committee Budget and Finance Committee FROM: Marilyn Williams, Senior Staff Analyst THROUGH: Jack Reagan, Executive Director SUBJECT: Measure A Buspool Subsidy Policy and Commuter Buspools Over the past five months the Measure A Commuter Assistance Guidelines and commuter buspools have been a focus of discussion between the Commission, Riverside Transit Agency (RTA), buspool sponsors, commuters and other interested parties. To assist the Commission in its decision making process, the Guidelines are discussed in a separate agenda item. The purpose of this agenda item is to address a specific Measure A Commuter Assistance Program, the buspool subsidy policy. As background information a summary sheet is attached which lists the Commission's actions regarding establishment of the policy and funding allocations for the commuter buspools. COMMUTER ASSISTANCE ISSUES Just like all commuter assistance incentives established to date, the $25 per seat per month buspool subsidy, herein referred to as "subsidy", is administered as a "user side subsidy". It is allocated to reduce the monthly pass costs of Riverside residents commuting to work. While the monthly cost of each buspool varies based on route miles, the subsidy represents an average of 20% of the total costs. In comparison, the average subsidy for a public transit route is 80°% of the cost for the service. The buspools all function in much the same way. The employers/commuters, herein referred to as "Sponsors", determine the route characteristics, manage daily operations with service provider, set pass rates, market and sell passes, enter into agreements for bus service, etc. The Commission allocated funding to the buspools as a user side subsidy based on the fact that the Sponsors held full operational and financial responsibility for the buspools. Holding Sponsors financially accountable for buspeol operations is consistent with the }Ausefi prsprint\may.92kbuwp.mw Page Three May 7, 1992 Measure A Buspool Subsidy Policy and Commuter Buspools Sunline Transit regarding the buspool subsidy policy and accessibility issues. In addition, Mr. Jim Collins, representing the Paralyzed Veterans of America (PVA), submitted a letter dated March 31, 1992 (attached) from the national PVA organization regarding the buspools. Staff and Legal Counsel are currently talking with the author of the letter, Ms. Maureen McCloskey, to review the buspool operations and the Commission's subsidy policy. Based on the discussions and a clearer understanding of the facts, Ms. McCloskey, has indicated she will prepare a follow-up letter. The Commissioners' discussion in response to Sunline's concern highlighted the long standing commitment of the Commission to the provision of accessible public transit and para-transit service. As noted in previous discussions and agenda items, it is Legal Counsel's position that the user side subsidy, as a commuter assistance strategy, does not place the Commission in conflict with federal or state accessibility regulations based on the following facts: ■ The Commission is not the operator of the buspool services, • The Commission is not the employer of the commuters, ■ The Measure A subsidy does not constitute a substantial portion of the commuters monthly pass cost or total operational cost (20%), and e A private service provider is not required to lift equip existing over -the -road buses until 1997. BUSPOOL SPONSORS' FUNDING REQUESTS While the RTA/CTS transition process is underway, the Sponsors feel a sense of uneasiness regarding the Commissions' continued participation which they feel is critical to the on -going success of the commuter buspools. As a result they have submitted written proposals (attached) to the Commission which in summary: 1. request continuation of the $25 subsidy for the period June 1, 1992 to June 30, 1993; 2. guarantee the full cost of service less the subsidy; 3. agree to market routes so as to maintain the highest possible ridership; 4. commit to solicitation of proposals through an RFQ process for existing and accessible service to establish service delivery options; and 5. make a good faith effort to accommodate requests for service from disabled commuters within the context of applicable federal and state accessibility regulations. I: \users\praprint \may • 92\bup.mw Page Five May 7, 1992 Measure A Buspool Subsidy Policy and Commuter Buspools STAFF RECOMMENDATION: That the Commission approve the buspool sponsors requests for funding under the Measure A commuter buspool subsidy policy ($25 per seat per month) totalling $1,175 per month per buspool for the period June 1, 1992 through June 30, 1993. Further, the sponsors shall be required to submit a written report to the Commission detailing the Sponsors actions relative to the proposal summary points by June 30, 1993. MW:sc attachment f:\users\preprint\may.92\buip.mw 4/92 MEASURE A BUSPOOL SUBSIDY POLICY AND COMMUTER BUSPOOLS Riverside County Transportation Commission Summary List of Actions 1 1 /89 Commission adopted a Measure A commuter buspool policy requiring "that at least 50% of the costs for buspools should be covered by fares and employer contributions". 9/90 Commission authorized funding and implementation of the 1st Rideshare Marketing Demonstration Project in cooperation with the County of Orange. 10/90 Commission set a Measure A buspool subsidy standard of $25 per seat per month, herein referred to as "subsidy", for the only existing commuter buspool (Riverside to Fullerton/Hughes). The private buspool was operated by Hunt Transportation and had received a monthly $10 Local Transportation Fund (LTF) passenger subsidy under a contractual agreement with RTA over a multiple year period. Commission approved an allocation of $13,500 annually for the commuter service. Contractor absorbs any difference between monthly income (subsidy plus pass revenue) and costs. 12/90 Commission approved, based on a request from Hughes and their Riverside commuters, an allocation of $14,100 annually pursuant to the subsidy policy for development of a Moreno Valley to Fullerton commuter service. Hughes paid for any difference between monthly income and costs for the period 1 /91 to 6/91. Commission paid any difference for period 7/91 to 2/92. Beginning 3/92, the commuters pay full cost of service less the subsidy. 12/90 Commission approved, based on a request from County of Orange and their Riverside commuters, an allocation of $14,100 annually pursuant to the subsidy policy for support of the Riverside to Santa Ana Civic Center commuter service. Commuters and County of Orange pay full cost of service less the subsidy. 12/90 Commission authorized funding and implementation of the 2nd Rideshare Marketing Demonstration Project in cooperation with City of Anaheim and Disneyland. 6/91 Commission approved, based on a request from the City of Anaheim/Disneyland and their Riverside commuters, allocation of $14,100 annually pursuant to the subsidy policy for support of the Riverside to Anaheim commuter service. Commuters and City of Anaheim/Disneyland pay full cost of service less the subsidy. 6/91 Commission authorized funding and implementation of the 3rd Rideshare Marketing Demonstration Project. This project, in partnership with Irvine Spectrumotion, did not result in the formation of a commuter buspool. Muiers\preprintUn ay.92\bup.mw /%4/ RUSSELL C. PATTON Personnel Director ROBERT E. THOMAS HALL OF ADMINISTRATION 10 Civic Center Plaza Santa Ana, CA 92701 1714) 834-2828 PERSONNEL DEPARTMENT 1/ APR 3 1992 April 27, 1992 Riverside County Transportation Commission 3560 University Avenue, Suite 100 Riverside, California 92501 SUBJECT: Continuation of Commuter Subsidy for Riverside/Corona to Santa Ana Civic Center Buspool for the period June 1, 1992 through June 30, 1993 Dear Commissioners, This correspondence serves as a request on behalf of Riverside County residents for continuation of the $25 per seat subsidy currently offered by your Commission for the Riverside/Corona to Santa Ana Civic Center Buspool. Since August 1990, the County of Orange has been an avid supporter of the buspool projects sponsored by the Commission using Measure A funds to benefit Riverside residents who work in Orange County. Orange County`s commitment to this form of alternative transportation consists of 1] guaranteeing any empty seats, 2) full responsibility for the promotion and marketing in County employee publications and the Rideshare Program newsletter, Commuter Chatter, and 3] administering ticket sales directly to County employees and to employees of other employers in the Santa Ana Civic Center area. Although priority is given to County employees, buspool riders also include employees from: the City of Santa Ana, United States Banknzptcy Court, State Disability, the State Court of Appeals, Internal Revenue Service, State Board of Equalization, the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development. Employment Development Department. and Trans -American Title. During the 16 months of this project, the majority of the financial support has come from the riders themselves who pay $92 each month for their seats. The second major financial supporter is the County of Orange who has provided a fluctuating monthly cost dependent on the number of riders which has ranged from as high as $1,380 to as low as $368. The third financial partner is the Commission which subsidizes the 47 passenger bus in the amount of $25 per seat per month. The County of Orange has offered its administrative and financial support to this project beyond the strict mandates of Regulation XV which requires employers to encourage their employees to use alternative modes of transportation. The PARALYZED VETERANS OF AMERICA Chartered by the Congress of the United States March 31, 1992 James W. Collins 82-490 Requa Ave. #216A Indio, CA 92201 Dear Jim: I've had a chance to look at the information you sent me on the Disney/Riverside County commuter transportation information. It is an interesting "hybrid" question under the ADA because of the employment, public sector and private entity involvement. I want to qualify this information by recognizing that I am operating with a limited understanding of the situation. I suggest that the entities involved get a firm answer from the Department of Justice and/or the Department of Transportation before they go much further. The address for DOJ is: Office on the Americans with Disabilities Act U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division P.O. Box 66738 Washington, D.0 20035-9998 202-514-0301 If you want to contact DOT, I would call either Bob Ashby at 202- 366-9306 or Susan Schruth with the Federal Transit Administration at 202-366-1936. Bob's address is: Robert Ashby Deputy Assistant Counsel for Regulation and Enforcement U.S. Department of Transportation 400 Seventh Street SW Room 10520 Washington, D.C. 20590 I believe that two ADA provisions apply in this situation. As a public entity, Riverside County may not discriminate on the basis of disability, in the provision of any service, program or activity. The Title II Department of Justice regulations state: ( b) (1) A public entity, in providing any aid, benefit, or service, may not, directly or through contractual, licensing, or other arrangements, on the basis of disability - (i) Deny a qualified individual with a disability the opportunity to participate in or benefit from the aid, benefit 801 Eighteenth Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20006 (202) USA-1300 45736 Federal Register / Vol. 56. No. 173 / Friday, September 6, 1991 / Rules and Regulations We also would point out that the ADA does not assert any blanket preemptive uthonty over state or local iondiscrimtnation laws and enforcement mechanisms. While requirements of the ADA and this regulation would preempt conflicting state or local provisions ie.g.. a building code or zoning ordinance that prevents compliance with appendix A or other facility accessibility requirements- a provision of local law that said bus diners could not • leave their seats to help secure wheelchair users), the ADA and this rule do not prohibit states and localities from legislating in areas relating to disability. For example. if a state law requires a higher degree of service than the ADA, that requirement could still be enforced. Also, states and localities may continue to enforce their own parallel requirements. For example. it would be a violation of this rile for a taxi driver to refuse to pick up a person based on that person's disability. Such a refusal may Liao be a violation of a county's taxi rules. subjecting the violator to a Fine or suspension of operating privileges. Both ADA and local remedies could proceed in such a case. Labor-management agreements cannot stand in conflict with the requirements of the ADA and this rule. For example, if a labor- management agreement provides that vehicle dr:vers are not required to provide assistance to persons with disabilities in a situation in which this rule requires such assistance, then the assistance must be provided notwithstanding the agreement. Labor and management do not have the authority to Free to violate requirements of Federal law. ctian 37.13 Effective Dote for Certain Vehicle Lift Specifications. This section contains an explicit statement of the effective date for vehicle lift platform specifications. The Department has decided to apply the new 30" by 48" lift platform specifications to solicitations after January 25. 1992. As in the October 4. 1990, rule implementing the acquisition requirements: the date of a solicitation is deemed to be the closing date for the submission of bids or offers in a procurement. Subpart B—Applicability Section 37.21 Applicability. —General This section emphasizes the broad applicability of part 37. Unlike section 504. the ADA and its implementing rules apply to entities whether or not they receive Federal financial assistance. They apply to private and public entities alike. For entities which do receive Federal funds, compliance with the ADA and part 37 is a condition of compliance with section 504 and 49 CFR part 27, DOT' section 504 rule. Virtually all entities covered by this rule also are covered by DO] rules, either under 28 CFR part 30 as state and local program providers or under 29 CFR pari 35 as operators of places of public accommodation. Both sets of rules apply: one does not override the other. The DOT rates apply only to the entity's transportation facilities. •}iicles, or services: the DOI rules may cover entity's activities more broadly. For .mple, if a public entity operates a transit system and a zoo. DOTS coverage would atop at the transit system's edge. while DOJ's rule would cover the zoo as well. DOT and DOI have coordinated their rules. and the rules have been drafted to be consistent with one another. Should, in the context of some future situation, there be an apparent inconsistency between the two rules, the COT rule would control within the sphere of transportation serviceir' flies end vehicles. Section 37.23 ...rvice finder Contrvct This section requires private entities to "stand in the shoes" of public entities with whom they contract to provide transportation services. 1t ensures that, while a public entity may contract out its service, it may not contract away its ADA response i to . e rii-Strirement-appues primarily no-velvde acquisition requirements and to service provision requirements. If a public entity wishes to acquire vehicles for use on ■ commuter route, for example, it must acquire accessible vehicles. It may acquire accessible over-the•road buses, it may acquire accessible full-size transit buses, it may acquire accessible smaller buses, or it may acquire accessible vans. It does not matter what kind of vehicles it acquires, so long as they are accessible. On the other hand. if the public entity wants to use inaccessible buses in its existing fleet for the commuter service, it may dQap. All r acement vehicip acquired in the future must, of course. be accessi3te. Under this provision. a private entity which contracts to provide this commuter service stands in the shoes of the public entity and is subject to precisely the same requirements (it is not required to do more than the public entity). If the private entity acquires vehicles used to provide the service, the vehicles must be accessible. If it cannot, or chooaes not to. acquire an accessible vehicle of one type, it can acquire an accessible vehicle of another type- Like the public entity, it can provide the service with inaccessible vehicles in its existing fleet The import of the provision is that it requires a private entity contracting to provide transportation service to a public -entity to follow the rules applicable to the public entity. For the time being, a private entity operating in its own right can purchase a new over -the -road bus inaccessible to individuals who use wheelchairs. When that private entity operates service under contract to the public entity, however, it is lust as obligated as the public entity itself to purchase an accessible bus for use in that service, whether or not it is an over -the -road bus. The "stand to the shoes" requirement applies not only to vehicles acquired by private entities explicitly under terms of an executed contract to provide service to a public entity, but also to vehicles acquired "in contemplation of use" for service under such a contract. This language is included to ensure good faith compliance with accessibility requirements for vehicles acquired before the execution of a contract. Whether a particular acquisition is in contemplation of use on a contract will be determined on a case -by -case basis. However, acquiring a vehicle a short tirne before a contract is executed and then using it for the contracted service is an indication that the vehicle was acquired in contemplation of use on the contract, as is acquiring a vehicle obstensibly for other service provided by the entity and then regularly rotating it into service under the contract. The "stand in the shoes" requirement is applicable only to the vehicles and service (public entity service requirements, like �§ 37.163, apply to a private entity in these situations) provided under contract to a public entity. Public entity requirements clearly do not apply to all phases of a private entity's operations, just because it has a contract with a public entity. For example. a private bus company, if purchasing buses for service under contract to a public entity. must purchase accessible buses. The same company, to the extent permitted by the private entity provisions of this part, may purchase inaccessible vehicles for its tour bus operations. The Department also notes that the "stands in the shoes" requirement may differ depending on the kind of service involved. The public entity's "shoes" are shaped differently, for example. depending on whether the public entity is providing fixed route or demand responsive service to the general public. In the case of demand responsive service, a public entity is not required to buy an accessible vehicle if its demand responsive system. when viewed in its entirety, provides service to individuals with disabilities equivalent to its service to other persons. A private contractor providing a portion of this paratransit service would not necessarily have to acquire an accessible vehicle if this equivalency test is being met by the system as a whole. Similarly, a public entity can, after going through a "good faith efforts" search. acquire inaccessible buses. A private entity under contract to the public can do the same. "Stand in the shoes" may also mean that, under some circumstances, a private contractor need not acquire accessible vehicles. If a private company contracts with a public school district to provide school bus service, it is covered. for that purpose, by the exemption for public school transportation. In addition, the requirement that a private entity play by the Hiles applicable to a public entity can apply in situations involving an "arrangement or other relationship" with a public entity other than the traditional contract for service. For example. a private utility company that operates what is, in essence, s regular fixed route public transportation syetem for a city, and which receives section 3 or 9 funds from UMTA via an agreement with a state or local government agency, would fall under the provisions of this section. The provider would have to comply with the vehicle acquisition, paratransit, and service requirements that would apply to the public entity through which it receives the UMTA funds, if that public entity operated the system itself. The Department would not. however, construe this section to apply to situations in which the degree of UMTA funding and state and local agency involvement is considerably AGENDA ITEM #7B w] RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: May 7, 1992 TO: Administrative Committee, Budget and Finance Committee FROM: Cathy Bechtel, Staff Analyst III THROUGH: Jack Reagan, Executive Director SUBJECT: SunLine Transit Agency Request for FY 1991-92 State Transportation Assistance Funds The SunLine Transit Agency is requesting the Commission to program the estimated $1,250,000 in State Transportation Assistance (STA) Funds apportioned to Riverside County for FY 1991-92 to SunLine as match funds for a federal capital grant (letter attached). Commission staff met recently with Dick Cromwell, SunLine General Manager, and Susan Hafner, the RTA General Manager. Mr. Cromwell presented SunLine's need for the STA funding for the current year to match federal discretionary funds for bus replacement. The average age of SunLine's fleet is 11.8 years, the average mileage per bus exceeds 850,000 miles, and 30% of their fleet is not currently lift -equipped. The SunLine Transit Agency has aggressively pursued federal funds and has received tentative approval of a Section 3 grant in the amount of $2.175 million for bus replacement. They are also putting together a major project to convert their entire bus fleet to compressed natural gas (CNG). This project includes public/private sector partnerships involving the South Coast Air Quality Management District, College of the Desert, Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians, and the Southern California Gas Company. As an outgrowth of SunLine's efforts there will be a new CNG training center at the College of the Desert. With the continued shift to alternative fuels to meet air quality goals, a focus will be placed on the College of the Desert and allow them to be a resource to much larger colleges and universities. It is imperative that SunLine has sufficient local match funds for their Section 3 grant. Staff recommends allocation of the full $1.25 million in State Transportation Assistance Funds available in FY 1991-92 to the SunLine Transit Agency for capital projects. SunLine should be applauded for their efforts to obtain scarce funding from this federal discretionary program. fAusanApnprlrrthmay.92\d fsunl.cb SunLine Transit MEMBER AGENCIES Cathedral City Coachella Desert Hot Springs Indian Wells Indio La Quints Palm Desert Palm Springs Rancho Mirage Riverside County Paul Blackwelder, Deputy Executive Director Riverside County Transportation Commission 3560 University Avenue - Suite 100 Riverside, CA 92501 RE: STA Funds - 1991/92 April 14, 1992 Dear Paul: As a follow-up to our meeting at RTA last week, SunLine is requesting final action by RCTC regarding State Transit Assistance Funds available in 1991/92. Discussion was deferred last October so that SunLine and RTA could meet to discuss short and long range funding needs. I met with you, Cathy Bechtel, and Susan Hafner, from RTA, and presented our need for the STA funding for this year. May we also request that any longer range approach for the use of these funds should be part of the Short Range Transit Approval Process to be completed over the next two to three months. As I explained at our meeting, the average mileage and age of our buses exceed the average mileage and age of the national average as outlined by the FTA. These conditions present us with the same maintenance costs and safety concerns that RTA presented when their request was approved for local funding available in the Western County area for replacement of buses. We, unfortunately, have no excess revenues for streets or major capital purchases, as you are aware. Our LTF reserves are decreasing and are needed for costs to operator existing transit services. We have very activellt sought federal discretionary funds for replacement of buses. We are on the verge of achieving some major successes in this area. It appears that our success has been greater than we anticipated and I would be most happy to present our overall program to the Commission at their earliest convenience.. We have been advised that our approval of our federal grant is eminent and involves public/private sector partnerships, regional opportunity to convert the Coachella Valley to compressed natural gas, being designated a "pilot project" where we would be buying 32.505 Harry Oliver Trail • Thousand Palms, CA 92276 • (619) 343-3456 • FAX (619) 343-3845 A Public Agency +MM 1A..JIn N.-Pe r, SunLine Transit Agency PROJECT NEWSLETTER Volume 1 Number 3 1 �% J ,pR',Qw. LLEG E OF THE DESERT"- Criiir,41/ • _ FORGES AHEAD April 22, 1992 Since our last newsletter, College of the Desert (COD) has moved rapidly ahead on the establish- ment of the technical training school. Taking the suggestion from the AQMD, Terry Green, Dean of Community Education and Resource Develop- ment at College of the Desert (COD), contacted Dr. Joe Norbeck of the Environmental Research Lab at the University of California at Riverside (UCR). Dr. Norbeck is leading a newly estab- lished Alternative Energy Research Center. Their meeting was used to discuss how Dr. Norbeck could assist in certifying the curriculum and pro- viding industry contacts and providing other types of professional expertise. College of theasot COD has also made contact with Southern California Gas Company and Cummins (an engine manufacturer) to explore relationships and identify equipment cost needs for CNG training. The Gas Company's representative, Mike Marelli, will visit the college on April 24 to tour the facilities. In the meantime, progress has been made in defining the concept of the technical training school. COD has envisioned an "Alternative Energy Technology Training Center" which would house four separate components: Research - To conduct innovative basic and applied research for the use of alternative energy for transportation systems. This would include: alternative fuel systems, energy efficiency, energy utilization, manufacturing process, and blending technologies. Demonstration - To serve as a demonstration and technical application site: testing new technology, piloting prototypes, performing comparative analyses, demonstrating training methods, showcasing new systems and loaning new systems to other agencies. Training - To provide applied and contract training and technical education services to industry and government and provide certification and skills testing. This would include installation, repair, preventive maintenance and diagnostic training. AGENDA ITEM! #7C DATE: TO: RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION May 7, 1992 Administrative Committee Budget and Finance Committee FROM: Cathy Bechtel, Staff Analyst III THROUGH: Jack Reagan, Executive Director SUBJECT: Measure A Specialized Transit Funds for Family Service Association of Western Riverside County Family Service Association serves the elderly and handicapped residents of the Rubidoux, Mira Loma and Jurupa areas. They currently own only one vehicle and have received many requests for expanded service. They were recently notified by Caltrans that they have been approved for funding for a 1989 Ford, 10-passenger, lift -equipped van, offered under the FTA 16(3)(2) program. This vehicle was returned to Caltrans and offered to existing 16(B)(2) recipients operating in Caltrans District 8. Family Services is requesting an allocation of Measure A Specialized Transit Funds to provide the 20% ($3,420) local matching funds. A similar request was approved by the Commission in FY 1990 for their first van. This request is in compliance with the RCTC adopted policies for Measure A Specialized Transit and Commuter Service Program. Family Services is an active member of the Service Providers Association of Riverside County (SPARC) and fully concurs with coordination efforts in the area. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: That the Commission approve the Measure A funding request of $3,420 from Family Services Association of Western Riverside County subject to the conditions of the Measure A Specialized Transit and Commuter Service Program policies. CB:sc '7euitelet Seine Fitdddeesatztuo° Weateuc Revevide etteateet Se ugeee4 5888 Mission Blvd. • Riverside, CA 92509 • (714) 275-9161 APR 2 8 1992 April 28, 1992 Mr. Paul Blackwelder, Deputy Executive Director Riverside County Transportation Commission 3560 University Avenue, Suite 100 Riverside, CA 92501 Dear Mr. Blackwelder, Family Service Association of Western Riverside County has received notification from Caltrans, that they were the successful applicant to receive the 1989 Ford "California Custom Design" modified 10-passenger van, with a fully automatic Braun wheelchair lift, offered under the FTA 16 (b) (2) program. In order to receive this much need vehicle, FSAWRC is requesting a grant from Measure "A" funds in the amount of $3,420.00. This requested amount will be applied towards the required 20% local match. We appreciate your assistance in providing the funding for this long awaited vehicle. Should you need any additional information, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, Wayne C. King Director of Transportation WCK/ba " FAMILY STRENGTH IS COMMUNITY STRENGTH " 45626 _ Federal Register / Vol. 56, No. 173 / Friday, September 6, 1991 / Rules and Regulatlo (.. 37.23 Service under contract (a) When a public entity ent ❑ a dual or�t gement or :lotionship with a private entity to operate fixed route or demand responsive service, the public entity shall ensure that the private entity meets the requirements of this part that would apply to the public entity if the public entity itself provided the service. (b) A private entity which purchases or leases new, used, or remanufactured vehicles, or remanufactures vehicles, for use, or in contemplation of use, in fixed route or demand responsive service under contract or other arrangement or relationship with a public entity, shall acquire accessible vehicles in all situations in which the public entity itself would be required to do so by this part. (c) A public entity which enters into a contractual or other arrangement or relationship with a private entity to provide fixed route service shall ensure that the percentage of accessible vehicles operated by the public entity in its overall fixed route or demand responsive fleet is not diminished as a result. (d) A private entity that provides fixed route or demand responsive transportation service under contract or tether arrangement with another private '.ity shall be governed. for purposes of .e transportation service involved. by the provisions of this part applicable to the other entity. § 37.25 University transportation systems. (a) Transportation services operated by private institutions of higher education are subject to the provisions of this part governing private entities not primarily engaged in the business of transporting people. (b) Transportation systems operated by public institutions of higher education are subject to the provisions of this part governing public entities. if a public institution of higher education operates a fixed route system, the requirements of this part governing commuter bus service apply to that system. § 37.27 Transportation for elementary and secondary education systems. (a) The requirements of this part do not apply to public school transportation. (b) The requirements of this part do not apply to the transportation of school children to and from a private elementary or secondary school. and its Sr,hool-related activities, if the school is cipient of Federal financial .tstance, subject to the provisions of section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and is prodding transportation service to students with disabilities equivalent to that provided to students without disabilities. The test of equivalence is the same as that provided in § 37.105. if the school does not meet the criteria of this paragraph for exemption from the requirements of this part, it is subject to the requirements of this part for private entities not primarily engaged in transporting people. § 37.29 Private entitles providing taxi service. (a) Providers of taxi service are subject to the requirements of this part for private entities primarily engaged in the business of transporting people which provide demand responsive service. (b) Providers of taxi service are not required to purchase or lease accessible automobiles. When a provider of taxi service purchases or leases a vehicle other than an automobile, the vehicle is required to be accessible unless the provider demonstrates equivalency as provided in § 37.105 of this part. A provider of taxi service is not required to purchase vehicles other than automobiles in order to have a number of accessible vehicles in its fleet. (c) Private entities providing taxi service shall not discriminate against individuals with disabilities by actions including, but not limited to, refusing to provide service to individuals with disabilities who can use taxi vehicles. refusing to assist with the stowing of mobility devices, and charging higher fares or fees for carrying individuals with disabilities and their equipment than are charged to other persons. § 37.31 Vanpools. Vanpool systems which are operated by public entities, or in which public entities own or purchase or lease the vehicles, are subject to the requirements of this part for demand responsive service for the general public operated by public entities. A vanpool system in this category is deemed to be providing equivalent service to individuals with disabilities if a vehicle that an individual with disabilities can use is made available to and used by a vanpool in which such an individual chooses to participate. § 37.33 Airport transportation systems. (a) Transportation systems operated by public airport operators. which - provide designated public transportation and connect parking lots and terminals or provide transportation among terminals, are subject to the requirements of this part for fixed route or demand responsive systems;, applicable, operated by public Public airports which operate fixed route transportation systems are su to the requirements of Ibis part for commuter bus service operated by public entities. The provision by an airport of additional accommodations (e.g., parking spaces in a close -in lot) is not a substitute for meeting the requirements of this part. (b) Fixed -route transportation systems operated by public airport operators between the airport and a limited number of destinations in the area it serves are subject to the provisions of this part for commuter bus systems operated by public entities. (c) Private jitney or shuttle services that provide transportation between an airport and destinations in the area it serves in a route -deviation or other variable mode are subject to the requirements of this part for private entities primarily engaged in the business of transporting people which provide demand responsive service. They may meet equivalency requirements by such means as sharing or pooling accessible vehicles among operators, in a way that ensures the provision of equivalent service. § 37.35 Supplemental aervlce for other transportation modes. (a) Transportation service provided by bus or other vehicle by an intercity commuter or rail operator, as an extension of or supplement to its rail service, and which connects an intercity rail station and limited other points, is subject to the requirements of this part for fixed route commuter bus service operated by a public entity. (b) Dedicated bus service to commuter rail systems, with through ticketing arrangements and which is available only to users of the commuter rail system, is subject to the requirements of this part for fixed route commuter bus service operated by a public entity. § 37.37 Other applications. (a) A private entity does not become subject to the requirements of this part for public entities, because it receives an operating subsidy from, is regulated by, or is granted a franchise or permit to operate by a public entity. (b) Shuttle systems and other transportation services operated by privately -owned hotels, car rental agencies, historical or theme parks, and other public accommodations are subject to the requirements of this part for private entities not primarily engaged in the business of transporting people. Either the requirements for AGENDA ITEM #8A RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: May 7, 1992 TO: Administrative Committee Budget and Finance Committee FROM: Hideo Sugita, Assistant Director of Planning and Programming THROUGH: Jack Reagan, Executive Director SUBJECT: FY 1992-93 Southern California Regional Rail Authority (SCRRA) Preliminary FY 1992-93 Capital Budget At their April meeting the SCRRA approved a preliminary FY 1992-93 commuter rail capital budget. Per the Joint Powers Agreement, any action by the SCRRA which has a financial impact on member agencies must be reviewed and approved by the by the member agencies. The attached SCRRA agenda item which was provided at the April 10, 1992 SCRRA meeting provides a short summary on the progress towards implementation of the capital program to date and demonstrates that 25% of the capital improvements identified in the SB 1402 Report ($208 million of a total estimated $823 million capital program) is on schedule to be completed by the end of FY 1991-92. This in it self is a remarkable achievement, particularly given the wet weather we were most fortunate (at least in the drought sense) to have this past winter. The estimated SCRRA capital budget for FY 1992-93 is $292.6 million. This includes an RCTC share for the implementation of the capital improvements of $22.968 million ($19.372 M for Union Pacific capital program and $3.596 for shared facilities). This does not include station development costs which, along with the SCRRA identified Union Pacific line capital budget, is included in the proposed RCTC budget. Additionally, the preliminary SCRRA budget includes $27.0 million for capital improvements to the Santa Fe San Bernardino Subdivision. This is included as a preliminary figure in order to facilitate a quick response to getting this line ready for service should there be a successful conclusion to the protracted SCRRA/Santa Fe Railway negotiations. The current status of the Santa Fe negotiations will be discussed in closed session and staff recommends inclusion of a budget line item for this work. f Aurnkpnprint4nay.92V rlbud.hs f� if1METROlINK Los Angeles County Transportation Commission Orange County Transportation Authority Riverside County Transportation Commission San Bernardino Associated Governments Ventura County Transportation Commission Ex-Officio Members: Southern California Association of Governments April 9 , 1992 San Diego Association of Governments TO: SCRRA MEMBERS AND ALTERNATES - 4 / 10 MEETING State of California FROM: EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR SUBJECT: PROPOSED PRELIMINARY FY 1992/93 CAPITAL BUDGET ISSUE The Joint exercise of Powers Agreement which established the SCRRA requires that the SCRRA approve a preliminary budget no later than May 1 of each year. This proposed preliminary budget, which in- cludes only capital costs projected for FY 92/93, is submitted for approval and referral to the member agencies. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the SCRRA approve the proposed preliminary FY 92/93 capital budget shown in Exhibit 1, attached, and refer it to member agencies for approval and funding. It is also recom- mended that the SCRRA defer action on the operating budget until its meeting May 8. BACKGROUND The JPA agreement requires approval of an annual budget each year, including administration, capital costs, and operating costs. A preliminary budget is to be approved by May 1, then approvedy each Member Agency, and approved in final form by the SCRRA no later than June 30. Accordingly, staff developed, and reviewed with the Technical Advisory Committee and the Finance Committee, a preliminary budget. A draft of this budget was presented to the SCRRA as an information item in March.. During late March and early April the draft was continually reviewed and discussed at regular TAC meetings. The capital budget attached is the result of this process. Several open items retain on the operating budget, and staff requests that action on these components be deferred pending Southern California 818 West Seventh Street, 7th Floor 213 623-1194 Regional Rail Authority Los Angeles, CA 90017 FAX 213 489-1469 SCRRA MEMBERS AND ALTERNATES APRIL 9, 1991 Page Three million represents the portion of the adopted capital program scheduled for the fiscal year. Exhibit 1 summarizes the budget by line and by county share. The county shares are based on agree- ments between the participating counties. It is also based on the funding plan for each project (shown as Chart A in the attachments) that was approved as part of the SB 1402 report. Certain items, specifically the split on locomotives for the Riverside (UP) - L.A. Line, and the initial force account work on the Riverside (SF) - L.A. Line are under discussion by the involved counties, and may be adjusted in the final budget. Amounts budgeted for work on Santa Fe rights -of -way are preliminary estimates and assume an agreement is reached for acquisition of SF rights -of -way. Exhibit 2 shows the preliminary budget by expenditure category. All staff and other administrative costs not directly assigned to operations are included in the capital budget. Staff and associ- ated costs (labeled 'agency costs') make up 1% of the total. This budget requests two additional staff positions: one to check all work and invoices done by the railroads themselves, and an accounting technician to help with the budgets, grants, and other financial requirements of Metrolink. An additional position - a senior accountant - is presently on loan from LACTC, but the need will be permanent. It is requested that that position be so desig- nated. Approval of this positions raises the total Metrolink authorized staff by two to 35. Of these, five are temporary and will be phased out by the next fiscal year. Exhibit 3 summarizes the budget by line and by cost category within each line. Project management costs, labeled 'construction sup- port', are shown within each line, rather than as a separate proj- ect. Included as attachments are, for each line: Detail listing of contracts making up the preliminary FY 92/93 budget for the line; Chart A, showing the project plan approved in the SB 1402 report, the shares by county and funding sources; The Capital Plan in relation to the fiscal year budget for the line. This shows the original SB 1402 plan approved in 1991 by the IJPA for the line, actual and forecasted costs through the end of this fiscal year, the proposed budget for FY 92/93, and any future work forecast. The estimate at completion and 90Z'5 665 0 0 0 0 609'4 0 646'99 OS1 Z63'9 0 0 690'6 0 0 L95'£4 996'ZZ O81 965.E 0 0 ZL£'61 0 0 0 LL9'04 081 1.64'L 99£'£E 0 0 0 0 0 9Z9'L£L O81 996'l1 0 69VOZ 5£Z'6l 9£4'0l £Z9'£Z 9L6' l5 1300f18 6Z9'Z6Z 000a 496'6Z 99£'E£ 69l'OZ 9L9'L4 9E4b1 ZEV9Z 995'96 NOISSf S3NI1 HO' 3HVHS OlOA 31AVHS DVS NVS 311VHS 01013 31:IVHS V100 3HVHS 010V1 NVId £6/Z6 AA 1V101 Ad9 Z6/60/b0 OSIO H30Nf1 3HV NHOM SIM HOd NVId JMONN ONV S3HVHS A1Nf100.. �3 NI 030f11O NI 31jV 'ddV1S JNOf1l0NI 'S19001N3013JVNVW 103COFJd • 1VIldV01V101 .. N01H311f1A - 3019Id3AIWONIOHVNH38 NVS S3111110Vd O3HVHS (LN31^103S) NO1k1311RA - 301SNV300 iLN3W03S) NO1H311f1A - S3139NV SO1 OIHVINO VIA 301SH3AI1:1 - S313ONV SO1 S3139NV SO1 - VlI1010 VIM/9 S313JNV SO1 - VH111N3A S313DNV SO1 - ONI01:1VNH38 NVS 1V11dV0 } 7V11d110 IIHVWWnS lsoNVSnOHl=S) 13JOn9 £6—Z6A.4 03S0dOHd JIlIIJOH1nV 11VH 1VN01031:1 VINH0d11V0 N1:13H1nOS 1-�TIHX3 Z 3o t abpd O 0 0 O 0 0 p 0 0 0 690'6 O 90Z O Z6L'Z O 990'9 ?LC '6I- C ll S69'S l 49£'£ O o v p 0 0 O 0 O p p 0 609'4 0 0 ZL 0 0 OVVZ 0 0 L60'Z 0 0 0 0 0 0 RAMS O1OA Ad9 Z6/60/b0 L9S'£4 0 9SZ' l 0 609'9 0 OZL'9£ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 691'OZ 691'OZ 6LS 6LS 9la 9la 4L9'9l 4L9'9l S£Z'6l 9L9'L4 L4S 999 Z6L'Z 094'lZ 969'9l 9Z£'SZ 9£4`0l 9£4'01 Zbl Zbl 29l'9 991'9 6Z1'4 6Z1'4 £Z9'£Z Z£4'9Z Z9S bS9 bLZ'9 bLL'9 L96'9l 490'6l 3NtlHS OV9NVS 31iV HS O1OH 3HV HS V130 9L6'19 999'96 6 14'l LL9'3 ZSl'6 Webl 904' lb 9Z I.'9L 3NVHS 31OVl NV -Id £61Z6 il3 1V1O1 s ZIE[IHXH 39Vd 1X3N NO O3f1NI1NOO NO1.1:1311f13 - 5313ONY SOl 1V1O1 1HOddf1S Noliont11SNOO NOO1S 018111O13 S1N3W3A01:1dWl AVM-dO-1140W NOlH311f13 - 93139NV SOl OIHVINO VIA 3O19113AI1:1 - S3139NV SOl 1V1O1 11:10ddf1S NO110(1H1SNOO NOO1S %MOH VJ10V'dif1O31ON1 S1N3MI3A013d1A11 AVM-30-IH0I1A OILIV1NO VIA 3O15113AM - 93139NV SO1 S3139NV SO1 - V111:1 1O V1NVS 11/101 111Oddf1S NO110f11i1SNO0 NOO19 OM11011 S1N3W3AO1:1dW1 AVM-dO-1HOIH S313ONV SOl - V1113V10 V1NVS S3139NV SO1 - V1:1111N3A 1V1O1 WOddns NolionH1SNOO NOO19 ON111O11 S1N3W3AOHdWI AVM-dO-1140Id S3139NV SO1 - VHf11N3A S3139NV SO1 - ONIOHVNI1313 NVS 1V1O1 11:1OddflS NO110(11:11SNO0 • NOO1S 0NI11O8 S1N31^13A01:1dVil AVM-AO-114DH 9313ONV SOl - ONIOHVNH39 NVS 3HVN5 A1Nf100 CINV 3NI1 A9 AHVINwnS 3Nn (SONVSf10Hl=S) 13Jaf19 £6—Z6A3 03S0d013d 1JV1:10 AlIHOH1f1V 11VH 1VNOIJ3H VINH0311V0 NH3H1110S ATTACHMENT SAN BERNARDINO - LOS ANGELES LINE Preliminary FY 92/93 Budget Contract Details Chart A - Financial Plan Capital Plan in Relation to Capital Budgets O'LIS S CSS S OLIS O OS S LS e Cif S Lef t-m O Of 0OS 0Ot 0 Of Oa 0 Of r 0'Ot 0'0t 0 of 0 06 0 OS S LS O CIS S LIS 0 OS C o1S 0WS 1 SLf 0 OS P Ot 0 OS 0 Of 103C011d UO4 TM101 �� •PIS AL110071 011 duld OOl dold Pool Z6/9VC S 70101 ePIS i.4wA01 01l dad OOt dad P301 A1Nn00 Van1N3A 0Of DIMS I.uwA01 01l dad 001 dad A4N000 34N WO Pool uPIS NI80601 pI l dad sot dad A1Nn07 3dsion i1 Pool S LS S if e 11,1 0 SS O'Olf } rut 1 S'Lf C tot O 01f Lott 0'06I i OZ►t Scat O Of S'L It S LLf S Llf W101 roots eun oa OvCi OSIS OSt% PVdvO ■P1S 10401101 Olt dad tot dad taNn07 ONIOaYNtl3A NYS Psol ems ot00A01 Ot l dad tot dad y dad ALNnon S3130lV Sol A.m p-140,u 0101Vb100/0191NOV 9N VS /010V1 (SNOf11IW$) 103rOHd ininWW00 S3139NV S01-ONIOHbINI139 NVS =NVId 1VIONVNIJ V 1HVH0 ATTAC H M ENT VENTURA - LOS ANGELES LINE Preliminary FY 92/93 Budget Contract Details Chart A - Financial Plan Capital Plan in Relation to Capital Budgets yolew ou annbai pue wei6wd Alpalul ayl waI ale spunq got. uowsodoad fono0 einlueA (Z) 'spunl 9l L uolllsodoad among ewes uowu gZ$ sepnloul (l) Z 98f J 0 rf Z Orf 0 at 0-MS 0 of OT IS L CS 0 Olt 0 OS 0 Ot 0 OS 0 1cf OOS L OZS [ St �_, L it 0 Oi O rOS OK OOZf CSIf C-ALS 0VS ZCf 0 oS o of 0 of 0 of 0 OS 103rovd 1303 1I101 aply JN10A01 011 doid Oot dad Pool op IS 10V10710i Olt doh; iL1 OOl dold 9,001 vine 09410E31 9 t i dom OW l STY101 111NR03 Vd111N 3R A1Nf1D3 310 Z6/5Z/E Piol YEO LEOS 0 0t 0 01 0 0S 0 0S 0 OS 0 0i 0VS OK C Ctt i LIS 0 CZS 7N101 cols PiNsa1171 0 t l dad 901. dad A1Nf107 301 ii 3+4 d pool CRi Lit L St N>olS euiIwH 0'K 0'►Lt l Eli C Llf omit ..4101131 Ol I dotd sot dem Amocto pNq}lYMld36 NYi OTW1S •k OA7S fs! 011 dad OOl dad Y do, ASN(1t)0 S3l3ONY SQl 1•ll D AoM 10- it0u 010AM100/010li/JV9NVS/010V1 (SNOIIIMS) 103('01:1d 11VH J1110H31N1 aNV H31f1WW00 S3139NV S01—VHf11N3A =NVId 1VI0NVNId V 1HVH0 ATTACH M ENT SANTA CLARITA - LOS ANGELES LINE Preliminary FY 92/93 Budget Contract Details Chart A - Financial Plan Capital Plan in Relation to Capital Budgets 0'0S 0 OS 991S 9 912 0'01 O OS 0 OS 0'O• 0'OS 0 OS 7 0OS OOS OOS 991S 103f011d H03 T 101 0 OS 0 OS 0 OS .talS "110A01 911 dold 901 duld S14101 0'OS 9 •lS 0 OS Pool Z6/9/17 .w1S nw0A0l 911 dad 901 dad AS11no0 run LN }A I..OI OOS 0 0S O O• O OS 0 0• L 0 OS o OS O'OS Oa 0 O• 0 OS 001 006 0 0• •'•lS 991S T1101 moots ouwu VMS 1•H101lo1 Ol 1 dad 901 dad A IN no D 30NY110 12301 .w1s l•1P0R01 911 dad 901 dad urrnoo 3as H 3NU 12001 .wlS au2017L 9l1 dad 001 dad P301 A.11+n00 ON1011YN1130 NYS 0 9l• 0 9ls {0.p1S +�110A71 911 doid 90l dem r do,d IY- A1Nno3 9313DNY Sol PDduO A.M M-N6,u 0101V'd100/010I:i19VEINVS/010V-1 (SNOITIMS) 1031'01:Id IIVH H31f1W{N,00 STBONV S01—V11H'd-10 V1NVS :NVid IVION`dNii V ltIVH0 ATTACHMENT LOS ANGELES - RIVERSIDE VIA ONTARIO LINE Preliminary FY 92/93 Budget Contract Details Chart A - Financial Plan Capital Plan in Relation to Capital Budgets 'senpow000i {o uomspbov 10l wow girt puedxe of Zeal 't l 4u1gYV uo uoiesp.uwoa uop uodsuwl kunO0 episiengl Aq uarm uogov page' selnupuedxe xoolg 6uylou v 961 0LS 0OS l O►f LISP Z SZS 0 LS 0 Of Z CS 0 Slf p 9SS O OS O Of a KS L 61 S 0LIS OOS OOS OOS OL1S 103(011d ' ..PtS HOd t9111O1101 Olt dad 901 dotd Pool T/1O1 S-N1O1 MIC IA 001 Oa 0 Of O Of o Of 0 06 0 06 0 Of op IS +WIOAOI vl1 dot,' 901 dotd A1NL1O0 VHn1N 3A Pool PIS I ooAO1 911 dot., 901 dotd A1NnOO 3ONVHO P.OI 0 Li 0 Lf 00S CPS C Yf T 9 llf 0 CS Oa 0 06 Z'Ef 9 if rs L If 9 Lf Z 96 PIS IIK00AO1 911 clot,' 901 dotd A1NL1OO 3019F13NH C if P901 �P1S t1tN1OAO1 911 dotd 901 11et., A1Nf1O0 ONIOHVN93e NV9 C if P2ol 10111 001 9 fff rlf f KS L If Moo1S &MPH 0 SZf 901S C IS "11O1131 el t dot., 901 clad L,wnaa suaoNx voi V &Id P1 do 19M p-tu0�H 010A/V100/0l0d/JV8NVS/010V i (SNOII-iIW$) 103f OHd IIVd H31f1WW00 do VIA S3139NH S01-30ISd3Ald =NVld 1VIONNNId V 1HVH0 ATTACHMENT LOS ANGELES - FULLERTON (SEGMENT) Preliminary FY 92/93 Budget Contract Details Chart A - Financial Plan Capital Plan in Relation to Capital Budgets 0 eLS 0 00 0 eLS 0 OS 0 OS L 61S 0 0s Le1S 0 Os 0 OS O Of 0-01 0 OS 0 0 OS 0 Os 0 0S 0 Of C 6SS 0 of 0 OS C 65S o OS O OS 0 0 0S 0 OS 103n]Hd •PIS 1i01 ,•410001 /Y101 all dad gol dad ST/101 O Of Taal •alf ,•10oA01 ell dad e01 do,d 1•zOl A1NR00 VNn1N3A 0OS 0 OS O OS 0 Of •1•If mu10/101 all dad 901 dad Pool A1Nn003oNVIIO , •a1S 0410/101 all dad e0l dad awl 0 Os 0 Of 0 OS CYO 0 OS O IlLS 0 OS O Oc 74101 calf ,•1110/101 e11 dead 901 dead L Ills geol5 eunrotl C 44a* AoM M-1093 le sal All1n07 30IlH3N1A Own m.401101 all Clod 901 load AINo°, C9l3oHV 80 i V dad 010A/V100/910H/JV 9NVS/010V1 Z6/31./E (SNOmms) 133('OHd I:i invol0o 1dnvi-NOla331f13 =NVId IVIONVNIA V 1HVHO ATTACHMENT OCEANSIDE - FULLERTON (SEGMENT) Preliminary FY 92/93 Budget Contract Details Chart A - Financial Plan Capital Plan in Relation to Capital Budgets 0 0S Z6/Z l/E CS1S COPS TOS 001 0 0S 0 0S 9191 C911 1413.1 000 Rur4v$70 t 091 0OS 001 TOO .00S OOS DOI 004 WOG 001 0.011 OOS I W101 _ L _ Mb19 eugro0 ard., AVM p-lue. mils mis l 1«11pJ101 911 dad Ed dad A,OI .x0 Ol Sl l dad an dad V d01d talP0107 01110171T11l30 N+14 A.1H1100 431309)1 SO 010NV100/010H/JV9NVS/olovl (SNOmms) 1031'Odd 11V1i 1:131f1M100 NOILITIT13-3UISNV300 =NVId 1V10NVNIA V 1HVH0 ATTACHMENT SHARED FACILITIES Preliminary FY 92/93 Budget Contract Details Chart A - Financial Plan Capital Plan in Relation to Capital Budgets 0OS L ZS'S OOS ILLS CSIS C011 0OS CIS 0OS 0OS OOS LCIS OOS 0OS 0OS OOS OOS 0OS LCIS [LSS OOS 1CC% CS'S CStS CIS 0 OS 0 OS 0 OS 0 OS 0 OS 9110A01 1031Otld 90A 7V101 .Ptg 19910A01 Ol l Aom OOt &td 19001 *P14 1.t110A01 Ol t dad OOl &id 19001 01 t dad 90l dad Pxl i 41001 1.11.1l100 Ytlf11N3A uNr107 avord0 Z6/E L/C .r1S +.V10A01 i C vs C os Ol t dold 0OS 00l dad 0 OS Al1Jl'100 3010113M13 0 0s .>F19 81010A01 C is C tS Oil dad O M O ►S O 01 dad A1Nf100 ON1p}rYNtl36 1,080 sn 014 Paul 0 ZS ft} 6m1s 118L00A51 A1N1900 4d130NY 401 0'00 O'OIS O OIS 011 duo 001 dad 1Y101 Y dad 010Nd100/010H/JV9NVS/010` 1 (SNOITIIW$) S3111110dd 031JVHS =Ntild IVI0NVNIA H 1HHH0 AGENDA ITEM #8B DATE: TO: RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMIVIISSION May 7, 1992 Administrative Committee Budget and Finance Committee FROM: Hideo Sugita, Assistant Director of Planning and Programming THROUGH: Jack Reagan, Executive Director SUBJECT: Investigate the Feasibility of Purchasing Used Commuter Rail Cars At a vendor forum held during the APTA Commuter Rail Conference in Washington D.C. staff became aware of a company (Rader Railcar, Inc.) which has ten used rail cars for sale at a stated price starting at $395,000 per unit. The cars offered for sale are currently used by Princess Cruise Lines to carry cruise passengers from the Port of Whittier to Anchorage, Alaska. In discussions with Rader representatives staff has since learned that it may be possible to procure up to 22 cars. The cars, which were originally built by American Car and Foundry in 1957, are reported to be in excellent condition and are used four months a year by the Princess Cruise Lines in the above noted service. The cruise line operation places approximately 3,000 miles a year on the cars. The cars are a gallery car design and were previously used in service by Caltrans on the Peninsula Commute service. As you are aware, the SCRRA member agencies and San Diego County have significant concerns with the Caltrans "managed" development of the Proposition 116 "California Car" design. On one hand, investigating the viability of purchasing these cars is like shooting ourselves in the foot with respect to our position on the Caltrans California Car. The conspicuous flaw in investigating this car is having to incorporate a mechanical lift into the car body to meet Americans with Disabilities Act requirements. As you may recall, the Bombardier (UTDC) car was designed to meet wheelchair accessibility requirements by using concrete mini -ramp and a fiberglass plate to bridge the gap between the mini -ramp and the car floor. This is a simple non -mechanical solution which has been well received. f Auaaralpreprimlmay. B Zlydarrailear.fr AGENDA ITEM! #9A riwki RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: May 7, 1992 TO: Administrative Committee Budget and Finance Committee FROM: Hideo Sugita, Assistant Director of Planning and Programming THROUGH: Jack Reagan, Executive Director SUBJECT: Techplan Review of Call Box System Infill and Expansion At the time of the agenda preparation, the final draft of the report had not yet been received for staff review and analysis. Staff anticipates Techplan providing this report by Tuesday, May 5th. Staff will review and present the status of the report, if ready, at the Committee meeting. HS:sc f AuNn\prepr i nt\m a y.9 2 V r hx p• he