Loading...
06 June 13, 1990 Budget & Finance• • t ^ r `qq,DAV RIVER•E COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION AGENDA BUDGET AND FINANCE COMMITTEE 053 750 1:00 P.M., JUNE 13, 1990 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION 3560 UNIVERSITY AVENUE, SUITE 100 RIVERSIDE, CA 92501 1. C:AI,I. TO ORDER. 2. Graphic Design/Public Relations Qualified Consultant List. (RCFC Agd. No. 4F) Recommendation That the Commission approve the list of qualified graphic/public relations consultants contained in the agenda packet and authorize staff to: 1) select and interview consultants from the list based on project need and type of product to be developed; 2) solicit written quotes from the consultant(s) determined to be most qualified; 3) accept the bid determined to be in the best interest of the Commission based on cost, firm experience, and type and qttality of products produced; and, 4) authorize consultant to proceed per written quote. 3. DJ. Smith Contract Renewal. (11CFC Agd. No. 6) Reamtmendation That the Commission approve DJ. Smith's contract renewal as proposed. 4. Establishment of Commission Policy for Timing and Content of Measure A Program Reports. (RCFC Agd. No. 12A2) That the Commission approve the reporting plan as submitted. 5. Cost Sharing Agreement with the City of Corona for Construction of the Promenade Overcrossing on Route 91. (RCJ'C Agd. No. 12A4) Recommendation That the Commission approve the cost sharing agreement. 6. Amendment to Memorandum of Understanding with the City of Corona to Establish a Cost Sharing Agreement for Construction of the Smith, Maple, and Lincoln Overcrossings on Rothe 91. (11C-FC: Agd. No. 12A6) Recommendation That the Commission approve thh proposed cost sharing. The increased cost is a result of additional detailed work to be performed. RCI'C: staff and Bechtel have reviewed the cost sharing analysis and feel that it fairly represents the required effort and finding source identification. 7. Contract for Services with Ilinderliter, de Llamas. (RCM Agd. No. 12A7) Recommendation Authorize the Executive Director to execute an agreement with Ilinderliter, de llamas & Associates to incorporate the RCITC geocode data into the County Sales Tax database for a one time fee of not to exceed $1,000. • • • Budget and Finance Committee Meeting Page 2 8. Bechtel Contract Amendment for the 1990/91 Fiscal Year. (RCM Agd. No. 12B) Recommendation To approve Amendment No. 3 to the contract with Bechtel Corporation. 9. Measure A Park N Ride Program - Route 60 & Pigeon Pass Road. (RCM Agd. No. 12F) Recommendation That the Commission approve, in concept, the use of Measure A Ifighway funds in an amount not to exceed $306,000 for the design and construction of a park n ride lot at the northwest corner of the Route 60/Pigeon Pass Road interchange in cooperation with Caltrans and the City of Moreno Valley, and direct staff to prepare a formal agreement for Commission action. 10. Riverside -Orange County Commuter Rail Study Electrification Study. (RCM Agd. No. 13) Recommendation 1. Based upon the Southern California Edison Company's existing $27,000 commitment, RCTC should approve the expanded scope of work proposed by Morrison-Knudsen. 2. RCM should encourage the Southern California Edison Company to increase its commitment from $27,000 to $40,000. 3. In the event the Southern California Edison Company does not agree to the increase, the Executive Director should be authorized to shop for additional funding from other affected entities (LACK/LOSSAN, Irvine, ATSF, Southern California Gas, SCAQMD, etc.) 4. Follow-up with formal funding agreements between RC1C and Southern California Edison (and possibly other affected entities (as soon as possible). 11. Selection of Copier for RCfC. Staff will brief the Committee on the proposals received and its recommendation for a copier for RCTC at the meeting. 12. Commission Approval Process - Budgetary Items. This item is before the Budget and Finance Committee in order to discuss the process and proposals for approving items relating to the budget. 13. Other Items. 14. Adjournment. • • • • AGENDA ITEM NO. 2 • • • • RIVERS• COUNTY TRANSPORTATION OMMISSION June 13, 1990 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Marilyn Williams, Staff Analyst III THROUGH: Jack Reagan, Executive Director SUBJECT: Graphic Design/Public Relations Qualified Consultant List Due to the development of various Measure A programs and increasing demand for related informational brochures and materials, there is a need for services available from various types of graphic design and public relations consultants. The Commission has an opportunity to establish an identity for itself and to provide the general public and the public and private agencies with which it works with good quality and informative periodic materials such as annual reports, brochures, newsletters, etc. Part of forming a highly visible identity for the Commission is designing graphic I.D.'s for the various Measure A highway improvement, transit, rideshare, and rail projects. The purpose of these identity's is to create a distinct theme for each type of project so that citizens can easily recognize and associate the project to the Commission and to their Measure A tax dollars at work for them. Commission staff is preparing to develop several types of communication materials for an on -going newspaper column, rideshare marketing project and park-n-ride lots which require design development in various formats. As these will be the first materials produced relating to Measure A projects it makes sense to establish quality themes that will communicate action and progress to the general public over the next twenty years. Repetitive use of I.D.'s has been proven to be extremely valuable to an organization's efforts to increase awareness of its programs. The need for various types of graphic/public relations services can vary from project to project due to differing characteristics and budget limitations. It would be difficult to follow the Request For Proposal (RFP) process for each project under the limited time normally available to develop and produce the desired printed materials. In order to provide staff with some flexibility in obtaining consultant service needed for the various types of projects and materials, we are proposing that a list of qualified graphic/public relations consultants be pre -approved by the Commission. Consultants from this list would be interviewed by staff to review their approach and work samples, and evaluate their experience and suitability for the job. The consultants would then be required to prepare a written quote for the project detailing tasks, product, completion date AMNDA I'171'4 # 4F JUNF 13, 1990 • • • and cost. Based on cost and expertise, a consultant would be selected and awarded the project by staff. A total of $70,000 was included in the FY 90/91 Commission budget for these types of consultant services. Staff has been in the process of identifying consultants who have performed graphic/public relations services for transportation oriented agencies (CTS, OCTD, & RTA). Included in the search were local governmental agencies (City and County of Riverside) who have used consultants based in the county. The following firms come with a recommendation from the contacted agency: IPL Marketing Design 4319 E. Gage Ave. Bell, CA 90201 dGWB 20 Executive Park #200 Irvine, CA 92714 Corona Printing 1651 Pomona Road Corona, CA 91720 Ober Graphics, Inc. 6905 Magnolia Ave. Riverside, CA 92506 The Byrnes Company 5995 Brockton Ave. Riverside, CA 92509 Niebrugge Public Relations 996 N. Michigan Ave. Pasadena, CA 91104 Salvati, Montgomery, Sakoda & Co. 535 Anton Costa Mesa, CA Frank Wilson & Associates, Inc. 23332 Mill Creek Drive, Suite 155 Laguna Hills, CA 92653 Highpoint Type & Graphics, Inc. 552 N. Claremont Blvd. Claremont, CA 91711 A to Z Printing Company 4330 Van Buren Blvd. Riverside, CA 92503 BUDGET AND FINANCE COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION If the Budget and Finance Committee amends staff recommendation, this item will be pulled from the consent agenda. STAFF RECOMMENDATION' That the Commission approve the list of qualified graphic/public relations consultants contained in this report and authorize staff to: (1) select and interview consultants from the list based on project need and type of product to be developed; (2) solicit written quotes from the consultant(s) determined to be most qualified; and (3) accept the bid determined to be in the best interest of the Commission based on cost, firm experience, and type and quality of products produced, and (4) authorize consultant to proceed per written quote. MW:sc • • • • AGENDA ITEM NO. 3 • • • RIVERS COUNTY TRANSPORTATIOOCOMMISSION June 13, 1990 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Jack Reagan, Executive Director SUBJECT: D.J. Smith Contract Renewal Attached is the proposed contract renewal with D.J. Smith. In light of D.J.'s record of support and success representing RCTC's interests in Sacramento, I strongly believe that renewal of the contract is justified. The contract reflects a proposed 10% increase in both the monthly retainer ($3,000 to $3,300) and hourly rate ($100 to $110). This is the first such adjustment since December 1988 and is warranted based upon general cost increases and the growing demand for D.J.'s services throughout California. The approved FY 1990-91 budget reflects the adjusted rates for D.J.'s services, and no additional budget adjustments are required. BUDGET AND FINANCE COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: The Budget and Finance Committee recommendation will be presented at the Commission meeting. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: RCTC should approve the D.J. Smith contract renewal as proposed. JR:sc attachment AGENDA ITEM #6 JUNE 13, 1990 • i • • • AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT is entered into as of the date hereinafter specified between D.J. SMITH ASSOCIATES, INC., (hereinafter referred to as SMITH) and RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION (hereinafter referred to as RCTC. WHEREAS, RCTC wishes to engage SMITH to provide professional services in transportation consulting, legislative advocacy, and governmental affairs on transportation matters generally, and in particular, in assisting with implementation of Measure A activities. NOW, THEREFORE the parties hereto do mutually agree to the following terms and conditions: 1. SMITH shall assist in the initial "start up" activities of the sales tax expenditure program in general, but more specifically: A. Project Consultation. Assist in the description and detailing of specific projects and implementation approaches as needed, particularly those involving commuter rail and paratransit. This work would be in cooperation with and coordinated with Bechtel Civil, Inc. If issues develop regarding Caltrans' role or policies in implementing Measure A projects, SMITH would assist in resolution of such problems at the District and/or Headquarters level. B. Federal and State Funding. Assist, as needed, in developing projections or current and projected federal state funding sources to match Measure A funds. 2. SMITH shall assist in the development of short- and long- term strategy for RCTC in approaching Caltrans and the California Transportation Commission regarding the annual State Transportation Improvement Program (S.T.I.P.) process. 3. SMITH shall provide legislative monitoring and advocacy on State and Federal transportation related bills and any other items on the Legislative Agenda that is of interest to RCTC. 4. SMITH shall continue to work with public and private groups in Sacramento, including "Self Help Counties Group" and Californians for Better Transportation (CBT), in addition to the League of California Cities and the California County Supervisors Association of California, on RCTC's behalf and to promote RCTC's program accordingly as issues and opportunities arise. • • • 5. RCTC shall, at its discretion, develop a Commuter Rail Program, and SMITH shall provide assistance in bringing the appropriate parties together to assess the feasibility of the various proposed commuter lines, and suggest a short- and long-term program to RCTC that would have the best chance for success in this area. 6. RCTC hereby designates SMITH to act as its representative with various State government committees, commissions, and persons involved in governmental affairs affecting RCTC's interest in transportation matters. Such representation may include legislative advocacy as directed by RCTC. 7. SMITH shall receive administrative supervision regarding interests in this contract from Mr. Jack Reagan, Executive Director, RCTC, or his specified alternate in his absence. 8. SMITH shall perform the foregoing services in full compliance with applicable laws, rules, and regulations, and shall, in cooperation with RCTC, file all reports required of it by him by applicable law in a timely manner in connection with any representation work for RCTC. SMITH shall furnish all necessary information and assist RCTC in filing all reports required of it and him by applicable law in a timely manner. 9. The parties shall recognize that SMITH has other clients for which it may perform services similar to those provided for herein, and may find from time to time that the interests of various such clients may conflict with the interests of RCTC. SMITH shall advise RCTC of all such instances wherein there is a conflict between the interests of RCTC and the interests of one or more of its other clients, and in each and every such instance agrees that it shall not take any action on behalf of RCTC or such other client or clients without the consent of RCTC. 10. SMITH agrees that it will not disclose any confidential information regarding RCTC, its current or former employees, or its consultants, that it has obtained or will obtain, either directly or indirectly, without the prior consent of RCTC. 2 • • • 11. RCTC shall pay SMITH the sum of $3,300 per month on July 1, 1990 and the first day of each month until this contract is terminated as specified below, up to a maximum of 30 hours per month, plus chargeable expenses. Upon specific RCTC authorization work performed in any given month in excess of 30 hours shall be reimbursed on an hourly basis by RCTC at a rate of $110 per hour. All work is to be performed by Mr. D.J. Smith, except as verbally authorized by RCTC. Chargeable expenses for the purpose of this agreement shall include reasonable and necessary expenses directly related to the interests of RCTC and travel outside the Sacramento area, including meals and lodging while engaged in such travel. All chargeable expenses, extra hours of compensation and any other expenses related to this contract shall be expressly authorized by RCTC prior to such expenses being incurred, and shall not include ordinary office overhead. 12. SMITH shall submit a monthly statement of billing and a written report on work performed on behalf of the Commission. 13. The term of this Agreement shall commence July 1, 1990, and shall continue in full force and effect unless terminated in writing by 60 days written notice from one party to the other. 14. Upon the effective date of this Agreement, this Agreement will supersede all prior agreements between the parties, including, but not limited to that certain agreement dated December 7, 1988, and all such prior agreements shall have no force or effect. D.J. SMITH, President D.J. SMITH ASSOCIATES, INC. 1121 L Street, Suite.'401 Sacramento, CA 95814 DATED: 3 JACK REAGAN, Executive Director RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION 3560 University Ave., Ste. 100 Riverside, CA 92501 DATED: . • • • • AGENDA ITEM NO. 4 • • RIVER COUNTY TRANSPORTATIOINCOMMISSION June 13, 1990 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Mark Massman, Measure A Project Manager Louis Martin, Project Controls Manager THROUGH: Jack Reagan, Executive Director SUBJECT: Establishment of Commission policy for timing and content Measure A program reports. In the past month, staff has met with each member of the Budget and Finance Committee to demonstrate the Measure A Cost Tracking System. The data maintained and each available report was discussed. Following is the staff recommendation for the frequency and review level for each type of report. Measure A Project and Cost Reporting Recommendation Report B&F Committee Commission Quarterly Accounting Report Q Q Budget Reconciliation M Q Progress Report for all Projects Q Q Highway Expenditures by Route Q Q DBE/MBE Utilization Report Q Q Contract Commitments M Q Contract Amendments, Q Q Project Expenditures by Work Phase A A Contract Status Report M M Project Expenditures Report M M Invoice Tracking Log R R Interagency (Rev Credit) Expenditures A A -Caltrans -MOUs -Cooperative Agreements Invoice versus Payment Reconciliation R R AGENDA ITEM #12A2 JUNE 13, 1990 Page Two June 13, 1990 Establishment of Commission policy for timing and content of Measure A program reports. BUDGET AND FINANCE COMMITI EE RECOMMENDATION The Budget and Finance Committee will review the staff recommendation prior to the Commission meeting and report. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Commission approve the reporting plan as submitted. • • • • • AGENDA ITEM NO. 5 • • • • RIVER.E COUNTY TRANSPORTATI. COMMISSION June 13, 1990 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Mark T. Massman, Measure A Project Manager Mike Limbaugh, Measure A Project Coordinator THROUGH: Jack Reagan, Executive Director SUBJECT: Cost Sharing Agreement with the City of Corona for Construction of the Promenade Overcrossing on Route 91. At its meeting of August 2, 1989 the Riverside County Transportation Commission approved, in concept, the expenditure of Route 91 Measure A funds to supplement City of Corona funding for the construction of an Overcrossing on Route 91 at Promenade. The additional Measure A funding would cover that portion of the construction expense necessary for the Promenade Overcrossing to accommodate the Measure A project for the addition of two lanes on Route 91. The balance of construction costs not attributable to accommodation of the Measure A project will be borne by the City of Corona. This action will avoid future significant cost to the Measure A program by eliminating the need for future reconstruction of the overcrossing. The final design for the Overcrossing will be completed and submitted to Caltrans within the next month. The sharing formula for construction costs between the Commission and City of Corona will be based solely on the increase in the bridge deck area needed to accommodate the Route 91 widening. This percentage will be applied only to the bridge construction items. The current estimate for the bridge item construction work is $1,240,000. The shared cosi values will be calculated on the actual bid amounts from the final construction contract. The original Overcrossing proposed was to be 248 feet in length and 60 feet in width, comprising a total deck area of 16,898 square feet. The Overcrossing to be constructed for accommodation of the Measure A Route 91 widening will be 275 feet long and 60 feet wide for a total deck area of 18,700 square feet. Thus, the increase in deck area is ten (10) percent. AGENDA ITEM #12AA JUNE 13, 1990 • 0 Page Two June 13, 1990 Cost Sharing Agreement with the City of Corona for Construction of the Promenade Overcrossing on Route 91 Based upon this figure the recommended funding split for the Promenade Overcrossing is 90% for the City of Corona and 10% for the Commission. The Commission's share will be allocated from Measure A Western County Highway Improvement funds for Route 91 and will be approximately $ 130,000. The City of Corona has agreed in concept to the proposed cost sharing arrangement. Attached is the draft cooperative agreement. BUDGET AND FINANCE COMMITTEE The cost sharing agreement will be reviewed by the Budget and Finance Committee prior to the Commission meeting. Any comments made by the Committee will be reported at the Commission meeting. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Commission approve the cost sharing agreement. JR/ML:sc • • • • AGENDA ITEM NO. 6 • • • • RIVEROE COUNTY TRANSPORTATIO COMMISSION June 13, 1990 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Mark T. Massman, Measure A Project Manager THROUGH: Jack Reagan, Executive Director SUBJECT: Amendment to Memorandum of Understanding with the City of Corona to Establish a Cost Sharing Agreement for Construction of the Smith, Maple, and Lincoln Overcrossings on Route 91 At its July 12, 1989 meeting the Riverside County Transportation Commission approved a Memorandum of Understanding with the City of Corona for the Smith, Lincoln, and Maple Overcrossings. As stipulated in this MOU, the City and RCTC are to mutually agree on the cost sharing determination for this project. The project will be financed using Measure A funds supplemented by potential State monies applied for under Senate Bill 140. The Measure A funds for the project will come from three different programs: 1) Western County Highway funds; 2) the Western County Highway interchange improvement monies, and; 3) the City of Corona's Measure A Local Streets and Roads funds. In determining the cost share split between the City and ROTC a hypothetical project (replacement of existing facility, with longer bridge) was compared to the actual project (replacement of existing facility with wider and longer bridge). The results of this analysis show the funding split, based on the final design of the actual project, are as follows. The City of Corona's share is 33 %, to be funded with interchange improvement funds and local streets and roads monies. The RCTC's share is 67 %, to be financed with Western County Highway improvement funds. The current cost estimate for the total project is $14,605,000. Based upon the above cost sharing formula RCTC's portion of project expenses would be $9,785,000, with the City paying the $4,805,000 balance. The total estimated project cost includes 10% contingency for construction. The amounts to be paid for this project will be based on actual costs to the project. The cost sharing between the Interchange Improvement Program(IIP) and the Local Streets and Roads program will be determined once the IIP policy is adopted. AGENA I".1F/4 #12A6 JUNE 13, 1990 • Page Two June 13, 1990 Amendment to Memorandum of Understanding with the City of Corona to Establish a Cost Sharing Agreement for Construction of the Smith, Maple, and Lincoln Overcrossings on Route 91 The City is reviewing the proposed cost sharing. If the split is acceptable to both the City and ROTC an amendment to the MOU will be executed. A draft copy of this amendment is included with this agenda item for your review. BUDGET AND FINANCE COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION The Budget and Finance Committee will review this item prior to the meeting and staff will report on any Committee comments. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the proposed cost sharing. The increased cost is a result of additional detailed work to be performed. ROTC Staff and Bechtel have reviewed the cost sharing analysis and feel that it fairly represents the required effort and funding source identification. 411 MM/ML:sc i • • • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING AMENDMENT NO. 1 WITH THE CITY OF CORONA FOR INTERCHANGE/OVERCROSSING FUNDING ASSISTANCE This amendment to the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) defines the Project funding percentage to be used in the execution of the agreement. WHEREAS, pursuant to the MOU entered into between the City and ROTC, the cost sharing arrangement between the parties for the PROJECT was determined in accordance with the policy established in the MOU dated July 19, 1989 between the City and RCTC, and; WHEREAS, the City will fund thirty-three percent (33%) of the PROJECT as defined in the agreement, and; WHEREAS, RCTC will fund sixty-seven percent (67%) of the PROJECT as defined in the agreement. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that both parties consent to the modification of the agreement in accordance with this amendment date June 13, 1990. Riverside County Transportation Commission KAY CENICEROS, CHAIRPERSON DATE Attest: JACK REAGAN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR DATE The City of Corona RICHARD DEININGER, MAYOR DATE Attest: CITY CLERK DATE • 714/736-2295 714/736-2496 (FAX) • • June 1, 1990 PW-0799-90 7.30-4 City Manager 815 WEST SIXTH STREET (P.O. BOX 940), CORONA, CALIFORNIA 91718-0090 OFFICE OF: Jack Reagan, Executive Director Riverside County Transportation Commission 3560 University Avenue, Suite 100 Riverside, CA 92501 SMITH, LINCOLN AND MAPLE/SR 91 OVERCROSSINGS COST SHARING DETERMINATION RECERVIED &IN 51990 Riverside County Transportation Commission Reference is made to your letter of May 21, 1990, concerning the cost sharing for the three -bridge project in Corona. I agree with the 33% City, 67% Riverside County Transportation Commission cost sharing proposal. It is my understanding that this cost sharing proposal pro- vides that the City pay, as part of its share, 100% of the cost of the Smith Avenue storm drain from an upstream connec- tion at Pleasant View Avenue to an outlet at an existing storm drain in Maple Street. With the exception of the por- tion under the freeway, this storm drain will be built under a separate contract utilizing an amount of the 33% local sharing for funding. At some future date a determination will be made as what por- tion of the 33% of the local share will be reimbursed from the interchange improvement program, which we have applied for. i Your recommendation to commence repayment of the City's local share in 1995 is appreciated. This will allow the City to complete the five-year capital improvement program which was recently transmitted to your office. • • • Jack Reagan - R.C.T.C. Page 2 June 1, 1990 I wish to thank you and your staff for the excellent coopera- tion which has allowed the three -bridge project to proceed on schedule. Ids Jtfully ours, WILLIAM H. GARRETT City Manager WHG:JRP:ed • • • AGENDA ITEM NO. 7 • • • • RIVEROE COUNTY TRANSPORTATI. COMMISSION June 13, 1990 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: James W. Werle, Senior Staff Analyst THROUGH: Jack Reagan, Executive Director SUBJECT: CONTRACT FOR SERVICES WITH HINDERLITER, de LLAMAS The Commission has an approved Memorandum of Understanding, (MOU) with the County to use the quarterly sales tax data provided to the County by Hinderliter de Llamas and Associates. We need to have the data summarized for the three geographic areas, (Western County, Coachella Valley, and Palo Verde), of the Measure "A" program. Staff has geocoded the data for those three areas. For a one time charge not to exceed $1,000, Hinderliter de Llamas & Associates will incorporate the geocode data into their database. They will then maintain and update that database and produce quarterly reports sorted and summarized for each of the three areas as part of their agreement with the County, at no additional cost to RCTC. Commission staff will then receive periodic reports on the sales taxes collected in the format necessary to apportion Measure "A" funds among the three County areas. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Authorize the Executive Director to execute an agreement with Hinderliter, de Llamas & Associates to incorporate the RCTC geocode data into the County Sales Tax database for a one time fee not to exceed $1,000. BUDGET AND FINANCE COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION The Budget and Finance Committee will meet to consider this item prior to the Commission meeting, and their recommendation will be presented to the full Commission. JW:sc AGENDA I'1714 # 12A7 JUN7 13, 1990 • . • • AGENDA ITEM NO. 8 • • • RNERME COUNTY TRANSPORTATIll COMMISSION June 13, 1990 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Jack Reagan, Executive Director SUBJECT: Bechtel Contract Amendment for the 1990/91 Fiscal Year Bechtel Corporation has been providing project management services to the Commission throughout the 1989/90 Fiscal year. Bechtel currently has 10 full time professional and administrative staff located in RCTC's offices. During the 1989/90 Fiscal Year, Bechtel has assisted with scoping, negotiations, contract administration and project management for the following projects: o Route 91 HOV Project Development and Design o Smith, Maple, and Lincoln Overcrossings o Route 91 additional projects o Route 74 widening in Perris o Route 111 Corridor Study o Route 215 Project Development o Cajalco Corridor Study o Measure A Alternatives Analysis o Sanderson Bridge Project In all, some 22 contracts (including MOU's and Cooperative Agreements) have been initiated and approved by the Commission during the fiscal year. In addition, Bechtel has: o Prepared estimates for the Interchange Improvement Program o Revised the Western County Scope and Cost Review o Implemented a Project Cost Tracking System o Assisted with development of the Short Range Financial Plan o Provided environmental support services to Caltrans o Performed right-of-way studies for the 60/91/215 IC Consistent with Commission direction, we are expecting to continue with the projects identified above as well as proceed with project development activities for the Measure A projects on Route 74 and Route 79. AGENDA I1'04 # 12B JTJNE 13, 1990 • • • Page Two June 13, 1990 Bechtel Contract Amendment for the 1990/91 Fiscal Year Included in your agenda package is the proposal Bechtel has submitted to continue to perform project management services for the Measure A program. In response to the PECG vs. Caltrans decision, it is possible that some of the contracts originally intended to be administered by RCTC/Bechtel may be administered by Caltrans. However, I believe Bechtel's services at the proposed level would still be required in order to serve as RCTC's agent in dealing with Caltrans to assure that the work continues to be expedited. Such indirect project monitoring is oftentimes more difficult than direct project management. BUDGET AND FINANCE COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION The recommendations of the Budget and Finance Committee will be presented at the Commission meeting. The $1,250,000. contract amount for the 1990/91 Fiscal Year is included in the 1990/91 budget by $1,250,000. identified for Bechtel services. The $109,000. discretionary amount for Caltrans environmental support is included in the budget under "Caltrans". STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of Amendment No. 3 to the contract with Bechtel Corporation. JR:sc attachments • Bechtel 3560 University Avenue Suite 100 Riverside, CA 92501 June 1, 1990 Jack Reagan Executive Director Riverside County Transportation Commission 3560 University Avenue, Suite 100 Riverside, CA 92501 Subject: Amendment No. 3 to the contract between Bechtel and RCTC. Dear Jack: In response to your request, we are pleased to offer the continuing services of Bechtel Corporation to provide Project Development Management Services (PDMS) for the Riverside County Transportation Commission Measure A Transportation Improvement Plan. These additional and continued services are for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 1990 and ending June 30, 1991. The total cost of these services for the 1990/91 fiscal year is $1,250,000.00. Due to uncertainty over Caltrans confirmation of the Measure A program direction (approval of the overall program MOU), and at your direction, Bechtel delayed staffing during the 1989/90 fiscal year. We currently estimate that this delay will result in a minimum under expenditure of our 1989/90 budget of $156,000. Of this, approximately $109,000. for Caltrans Environmental support remains unspent. Provision has been made in the contract amendment for Bechtel to provide these support services as an additional service at RCTC direction. Bechtel has completed staffing under the 1989/90 budget plan. Our assumption for the 1990/91 fiscal year is that our current staffing is adequate to achieve the following program goals: 1. Follow through with ongoing project development activities for Route 91, 86, 79 (Sanderson), and 74 (Perris). 2. Follow through on added program activities for Cajalco Corridor, Route 111 Corridor Study, and Route 215, including the portion in San Bernardino County. 3. Initiate project development activities for 1990 RTIP projects including Route 74 and 79 as well as selected projects from the Interchange Improvement Program list. .,11% Bechtel Corporation civil Company • 4. Maintain project cost tracking and reporting system. Complete scheduling of Measure A projects including integration with Caltrans District 8 scheduling process. These proposed additional services are complementary to our existing agreement. Enclosed is our proposed Amendment No. 3 to the Agreement between RCTC and Bechtel including revised Appendices A and B. Sincerely, Bechtel Corporation 4142-17.99744V411 a-11 rh Thomas R. Lammers Manager, Highway Projects Enclosure: Amendment No. 3 to the Agreement between Bechtel Corporation and the Riverside County Transportation Commission including revised Appendices A and B. cc: Mark Massman (Bechtel -Riverside) • • • • • APPENDIX "A-3" AMENDMENT NO.3 TO THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION AND BECHTEL CIVIL, INC. DATED "SCOPE OF WORK" This amendment to the agreement is to cover additional Project Development Management Services to be provided by Bechtel in the July 1, 1990 to June 30, 1991 fiscal year. These services are supplementary to those provided in previous amendments. Scope of Added Services The added scope of services to be provided in the 1990/1991 fiscal year are identified in bold in Appendix A. Schedule of Added Services The added schedule of milestone tasks to be completed in the 1990/1991 fiscal year are identified in bold in Appendix B. Added Cost of Services The added cost for the continuing services, new tasks, and associated direct costs added by this amendment are estimated to be as follows: Added Project Development Management Services=$1,196,000. Direct Costs for - automobile operation and maintenance - travel - reprographics/graphics -computer support - communications & postage contingency (2 i)ercent) Total Additional Cost of Services Subtotal = $26,000. $28,000. =$1,250,000. Estimated Unspent Caltrans Environmental Support Available to be spent through the Bechtel contract at Commission discretion = $109,000. There are no modifications to the cost terms as outlined in Appendix C. • • • All services provided pursuant to this amendment shall be governed by and provided subject to all applicable provision of the original agreement between the parties including without limitation the insurance and indemnification provisions. In witness thereof, the Commission has caused the Agreement with Bechtel Civil, Inc. to be amended and subscribed in its behalf by binding authority, and the Consultant has caused the Agreement to be amended and subscribed on its behalf be duly authorized signees. RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION By Kay Ceniceros, Chairperson Date BECHTEL CIVIL, INC. (now known as Bechtel Corporation) By Sr. Vice President Approved as to Form and Legality By Dallas Holmes Best Best & Krieger Counsel for the Riverside County Transportation Commission Date Date • • • APPENDIX "A" SCOPE OF SERVICES 1.0 Assist Commission and Caltrans in defining the appropriate roles and responsibilities in project development and implementation for the Riverside County Transportation Commission Transportation Improvement Plan. This will involve review of the various approaches of existing sales tax authorities, discussions with Commission members, and negotiations with Caltrans. 2.0 Provide support to Commission for project management and contract administration for the Route 91 project design engineering. This would include assistance with final interview selection (November 16, 1988), working with Caltrans Districts 8 and 12 to negotiate work scope and cost (prior to January 1989), and monitoring work (project scope and timing) in Commission's and Orange County Transportation Commission's interest. 3.0 Support Commission with project management and contract administration associated with initiating the preliminary engineering, environmental studies, and design engineering (if applicable) for priority projects. This would include assistance to Commission and Caltrans to prepare RFP's and participate in consultant selection processes. Priority projects for which assistance would be provided are as follows: o 60/91/215 Interchange o Commuter rail, including more detailed work for the Riverside to Orange County service and preliminary study of the Riverside-Perris-Hemet/San Jacinto Services. o Sanderson Avenue bridge (Route 79 project) and Route 74 widening in Perris. o Projects on the CTC's 1988 STIP Appendix Standby List <i.e. Balance of Route 86, Route 60 through Moreno Valley, and the balance of Route 79 from Beaumont to the Sanderson Bridge project). o Balance of Western County highway program including Route 60 from Valley Way to the 60/91/215 Interchange, Route 215 from the easterly junction with Route 60 to Route 10 including the portions in San Bernardino County, Route 91 from the 60/91/215 Interchange to the Orange County Line, Route 74 from Route 15 to Route 215, and the Interchange Improvement program. • • • o Route 111 in the Coachella Valley o Cajalco Corridor Study 4.0 Support Commission with developing a plan for implementing project development for the overall Improvement Plan. This includes working with Commission's financial advisors in developing the program expenditure and bonding plans. 5.0 Support Commission with specific initial project development tasks for the Measure A program including: o Preparation of applications for SB140 funding eligibility for Routes 86 and 91. o Preparation of applications for federal reimbursement under the provisions of the Advance Construction features of the 1987 Federal Aid Highway Act and SB1411. o Prepare a Study Report for the 60/91/215 Interchange right-of-way requirements. Study has been expanded to include study of right-of-way requirements for all four quadrants. o Assist Commission with development of scope, cost, and implementation criteria for the economic development and circulation improvement interchange improvement programs. o Assist Commission with review of Caltrans scope and cost estimates for Measure A projects, compare with Bechtel estimates, and evaluate differences. 6.0 Support Commission by developing an in-house project controls system including: o Implement project control system including engineering planning and control, cost control, CPM schedules, milestone reporting, computerized variance and exception reporting, and highlighting of prdblem areas. o In coordination with Caltrans and with their assistance, develop and implement a Measure A project cost control program using a trend analysis system. o In coordination with Caltrans and with their assistance, provide an early warning system of potential schedule delays and a basis for recommended actions to recover identified schedule slippage. Enable early identification of areas where Commission could provide technical staff • • • • • assistance to recover identified schedule delays. o Develop a close working relationship with Caltrans Project Controls Group to enhance the progress of Measure A projects and to enable Caltrans to better prioritize their work breakdown structures. 7.0 Support the Commission with additional Project Management and Administration functions including: o Through Commission staff, provide regular support to the Commission including preparation of studies, reports, public presentations, etc. o Prepare Monthly Progress Reports which records project progress, highlights problem areas, and forecasts overall program costs and schedule. o Prepare project procedures to describe the requirements and controls placed upon the Commission. Procedures will be developed to control costs, provide documentation, administer contracts, and govern other activities as necessary. o Develop and implement project and correspondence action item tracking system. 8.0 Support the Commission through project coordination with Caltrans as follows: o Assist the Commission in developing Commission/ Caltrans Cooperative Agreements as required. Participate in modifying or consolidating existing agreements and developing new agreements. Negotiate with Caltrans, as requested by the Commission for engineering, right-of-way acquisition, and construction management agreements. o Work with Caltrans to develop baseline documents for overall Project Control including standards, prioritization of improvements, project scope, budget, schedule, and cash flow. o Assist Caltrans in developing work plans for engineering and right-of-way acquisition to meet schedule targets. Assist Caltrans in establishing engineering production and performance goals. Develop a detailed current year forecast and a summary ten year forecast for project development. Specify division of effort between Caltrans and private consultants. • • • • • o In conjunction with Caltrans staff, meet regularly with Caltrans management to coordinate on issues of policy, priority, resources, etc. related to successful implementation of the Measure A program. 9.0 Provide Technical Project Development support to Caltrans as follows: o Assist Caltrans with in-house environmental studies by providing qualified environmental personnel as defined by Caltrans. 10.0 Provide technical support and training to Commission/Caltrans Measure A staff including: o Definition, procurement, and implementation of Local Area Network System (LANS) for the ROTC/Caltrans combined Riverside office. o Technical training on the LANS and computer software as required. o Preparation of presentation graphics as required. PLANNED STAFFING POSITIONS BECHTEL - Other ESTABLISHED BECHTEL OFFICES (San Francisco and Norwalk, CA) Bechtel will provide the services of the following staff in its established offices and in offices furnished by ROTC, supplemented by business trips to RCTC offices as required to complete the above scope of services through June 30, 1991. Total Estimated Hours Project Manager'- Full Time 1900 Project Controls Engineer - Full Time 1900 Cost/Schedule Analyst - Full time 1900 Senior Highway Engineer - Full Time (3) 5700 Senior Transportation Planner - Full Time (2) 3800 Senior Traffic Engineer - Full Time 1900 Administrator - Full Time 1900 Management and Technical support for 1400 the above, of approximately Notes: 1) Changes identified in this section from the original agreement are identified in bold • • • APPENDIX "B" MILESTONE SCHEDULE 1. Schedule of Work: Bechtel shall conform with the schedule set forth herein, except as otherwise modified in the Agreement. In the event the schedule of work is so modified, Bechtel will prepare a revised schedule to be substituted herein upon approval by the Commission. 2. Milestone schedule: The Commission and Bechtel agree on the scope of work in Appendix "A" and its completion in accordance with the following milestone schedule dates: MILESTONE o Begin Program Services o Complete Project Development Management Implementation Plan for selected projects o Complete Strategic Plan Outline o Complete 60/91/215 Interchange ROW study o Implement project controls system o Prepare draft Interchange Improvement Program o Prepare Project reporting system o Complete Project Staffing o Develop Integrated Project Development Schedule for all Measure A projects o Provide support to financial and bonding plans o Initiate Project development contracts for Route 74 and 79 DATES 11/15/88 04/15/89 06/30/89 12/10/89 09/30/89 O1/10/90 02/01/90 03/01/90 10/01/90 As Required 9/30/90 STATUS Completed Completed Not Required Completed Completed Completed Completed Completed Note: Changes identified in this section from the original agreement and last amendment are identified in bold characters. • • • AGENDA ITEM NO. 9 RIVERSt COUNTY TRANSPORTAT[ct COMMISSION • June 1 1990 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Marilyn Williams, Staff Analyst III THROUGH: Jack Reagan, Executive Director SUBJECT: Measure A Park-n-Ride Program - Rt. 60 @ Pigeon Pass Rd. The City of Moreno Valley is proposing to build a park-n-ride lot at Rt. 60 and Pigeon Pass Rd. in conjunction with a new on -ramp and commercial development (Home Depot) on the northwest corner of the interchange. Commission staff was contacted by the City to discuss the possible use of Measure A Highway funding for the project. The proposed 2.1 acre parcel (map attached) is owned by Caltrans and offers excellent access to west bound morning traffic heading to Routes 91 and 215. Commission staff has met with the City and Caltrans to define areas of participation. Generally, Caltrans will provide the parcel and oversight services for the design and construction of the entire project. The City has awarded the project design contract and will enter into a cooperative agreement with Caltrans to perform contract administration for the project and will assume responsibility for on -going maintenance. The Commission is requested to fund the design and construction of the lot estimated at $305,935 based on a minimum of 200 spaces (see attached project cost estimate). There is some question concerning a potential riparian habitat on the proposed site which may affect the use and/or layout of the site. The new on -ramp project which is contiguous to the park-n-ride site has cleared the environmental review process and received a "categorical exemption" determination. However, the proposed park-n-ride site was identified in that review as vacant land. Before final approval can be granted, the City of Moreno Valley will have to rgvise the on -ramp project report to include the exact park-n- ride site to determine if the change in scope presents any significant environmental impacts. This is a high priority project for the City and they are making every effort to leverage developer funding. This project allows the Commission to participate in a joint effort to establish a permanent park-n-ride lot along a highly congested section of Route 60. AGFICA #12F JUNE 13, 1990 • • • BUDGET AND FINANCE COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION The Budget and Finance Committee recommendations will be presented at the Commission meeting. STAFF RECOMMENDATION That the Commission approve in concept the use of Measure A Highway or Commuter Services funds in an amount not to exceed $306,000 for the design and construction of a park-n-ride lot at the northwest corner of the Rt. 60/Pigeon pass Rd. interchange in cooperation with Caltrans and the City of Moreno Valley, and direct staff to prepare a formal agreement for Commission action. MW:sc attachments 3 4!q!4X3 3.-1-01 AVG Ind S310WA. AlOMAS] rA'011. - 06 uoDnlosay gad colonial Aq Paiepodiooul sl kialS a6uep{aalul 09 alnoa alelS :31ON DNISS0143113A0 AVM338d • lPasaa+d) NOOIkmoo NOI 110dSNVkI11VNO103110VOS 30NVH01131N1 AVM33kil Z 000'01 .m.99 klolo3ll00 HO1O3nOo •, z OOobt �.z l k�a b 000`OZ Jk�, 9461 'VI�°� 4 000t£ .91./.001 1VIy3111VN lViN31.HV > 000`OE 99IA11 O3QW0� 11/ak1311111 NOrvri O3(11A1O 1VR131HV • 0001b .0I1/1Cl HO111ri amnia LA V/N VIN AVM33ki4� ..n -Amodio Ants 1wi Ana 0N3031 amsespegc NOLLVTn01:110 VS3ralro t1� AAM100 0.0111•Me• lM1MMA 3.1.101Y OI.rJ.r NYS SItlH3d 3)IY1 .114100a..o,...1,o WS !1)V HOUVw lerwe en tpNIIINS AG1 n • • s-es 18CVL1.1 1r i v T lYNL 08 '3121 'IS 310193039A S31anis 3ONVHOL131N1 3lvJS rnS :903M1OUdev A311VA ON3HOW AO A11O I I 0130+011•1 K0111011 31v0 )Oi-B 31s :s vip=v}aloes 1N1Y11N0rd30 04411:133N10143 A31111A 0143H0111 10 All' 1 4I ll��II IL 5111111 I'I. III a 1111 n ; ;Ii `IIL y III 111 I OA' 91-14' `1 twl .us - �- --4__ --1----�-_-------� 1 4. :3-------- - � �a ---- 417 1 - --------• ; 1 i 11 Jr3AF'7Lw �r 10'1 ao rS ioMi •7/41d aaS4pi0?Jd - ./3 15113 1 • ------ — r-- - • dNYY• Y/ MN•NO(!/A777 Y3..3 mr. VI u tr o•• ail .1 I tO• s I ti1111.10 M N • 3D73111ai . s1 n rl l ,).-r i 7 I i • 'te a--�liTA17 --_ ~_ ���..�..s y....� �....,,: �1 1 ' • DIM MO» mama can -1 SDI-Z 133111S .11731313 411 WNW OY3NS41116 NAV9 , --�- i L �l 1SI13 alot • i r• •.q •I s aldl•a t N s 0�^ ------_-_)� - -i YO L•• • lints 7117LXIM Y3C613N 3I ON 1 4114 533 �NAVA . .O 1 .) ) N ��Ll J Y . 10, -a I, M Wm • l MLR •1 .Z1.74.21 • I �f GA79 G13FIIAAI6 1 1; 1 .l• 1; I .O .• 1 • 1 M 9 >V, is • • • • PROJECTS COST ESTIMATE OPINION OF PROBABLE CONSTRUCTION COSTS PARK AND RIDE LOT (MINIMUM 200 SPACES) PIGEON PASS ROAD/SH 60 2.1 AC SITE ITEM QUANTITY UNIT COST EXTENSION TOTALS CONSTRUCTION Paving 73,180 SF 2.25 164,655 Ground Cover/ Shrub 18,295 SF .20 3,659 Irrigation 18,295 SF .75 13,721 Lighting 15 EA 350.00 5,250 Trees 30 EA 200.00 6,000 Signage 5,000.00 5,000 Concrete 1,000 SF 2.25 2,250 Terraced Walls 240 LF 60.00 14,400 Grading 20,000 Yd 3.00 60,000 SITE DEVELOPMENT Civil Engineer Electrical Engineer Soils Engineer Signage Consultant Structural Engineer 411 JS:pc/projcest.001 $ 247,935.00 20,000 3,000 3,000 2,000 3,000 $ 31,000.00 Total $ 305,935.00 • ENGINEERS, INC. Mr. Jim Smith City of Moreno Valley May 23, 1990 Page 2 Re: 15004.02 2. Upon approval of the preliminary plan, prepare final plans for the Park and Ride facilities, including all details of construction. 3. Coordinate disposition of utilities and modifications. 4. Prepare specifications for the Park and Ride facilities. 5. Prepare quantity and cost estimate of earthwork and proposed improvements. 6. Submit drawings for review and approval by the City and Caltrans. 7. Incorporate necessary plan revisions and obtain approval of the final plans. This proposal is based on incorporating the Park and Ride facility into the P.S.&E for the Route 60 Auxiliary Lane Project. We recommend incorporating it into the Route 60 Auxiliary Lane Project because of the similarity of the proposed work and the coincidental location of the facilities. City of Moreno Valley MAY 2 5 1990 _ - - Public Works Dept. Capital Projects Division ENGINEERS, INC. 22632 Golden Springs Drive, Suite 110, Diamond Bar, G1 91765 (714) 861-3844 (213) 747-8917 Fax: (714) 860-3170 May 23, 1990 Re: 15004.02 Mr. Jim Smith Principal Engineer/Capital Projects City of Moreno Valley Public Works Department 23119 Cottonwood Avenue, Bldg. B Moreno Valley, CA 92388 SUBJECT: PROPOSAL FOR DESIGN OF A PARK AND RIDE LOT AT PIGEON PASS ROAD AND ROUTE 60 Dear Mr. Smith: Jaykim Engineers is pleased to present this proposal to the City of Moreno Valley. • • • ENGINEERS, INC. PARK AND RIDE FACILITY ENGINEERING AND DESIGN COST SUMMARY May 23, 1990 Description P.E. Engineer Drafter Preliminary Plan 24 24 Utility Investigation 2 Final Plan 24 24 Drainage and Misc. Details 32 32 Lighting - Electrical 24 24 Landscaping and Irrigation 40 40 Specifications 8 Cost Estimate 8 Coordination 12 Total 12 162 144 P.E. 12 hrs x $85/hr = $ 1,020 Engineer 162 hrs x $65/hr = 10,530 Drafter 144 hrs x $55/hr = 7,920 Reproduction 230 TOTAL $19,700 • • • COST SHARING DAY STREET - FREDERICK STREET/PIGEON PASS ROAD $3.5 MILLION PROJECT DESCRIPTION FUNDING SOURCE 1. Day Street Westbound off -ramp (widen) Developer Eastbound on -ramp (widen) Developer 2. Route 60 Auxiliary Lanes Day Street to Frederick Street City 3. Pigeon Pass Road Westbound on -ramp (new) 50/50 Developer/City Eastbound off -ramp (widen) Developer Pigeon Pass Road widen/overlay (new) Developer Signalization a) @ Sunnymead Blvd b) @ Hemlock Avenue c) @ West off/on ramp (100 feet south of Hemlock) d) Interconnect a), b), c) 50/50 Developer/City Park and Ride Access Developer • • • AGENDA ITEM NO. 10 • • • RIVER.E COUNTY TRANSPORTATIM COMMISSION June 13, 1990 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Jack Reagan, Executive Director SUBJECT: Riverside -Orange County Commuter Rail Study Electrification Study During the process of negotiation the scope of Morrison-Knudsen Engineers, Inc. scope of service with ATSF, it was determined that approximately $27,000 of work should be shifted from the Electrification Study (Task 2) to the Conventional Commuter Rail Study (Task 3). We have invited Jack Wyatt and Glen Ducat of the Southern California Edison Company in the technical advisory committee. Because of Southern California Edison's interest in this study, Jack Wyatt has secured a commitment of funding to make up the difference (i.e., $27,000). According to Jack, this is the first time Southern California Edison has made a commitment to rail transportation of this nature for fifty years or more. Even though the dollars are small, from the standpoint of public policy this is a major commitment for Southern California Edison. Subsequent discussions with Morrison-Knudsen related to what else should be done to develop a truly complete Electrification Study would raise the additional price to $40,000 instead of $27,000. The attached May 30, 1990 letter and proposed Revised Scope of Work describes the additions, which in summary are as follows: 1. Expand the study to include electrification of freight, in addition to commuter rail as originally proposed. 2. Extend the electrification study to include Fullerton to Redondo Junction and the Olive Subdivision, to coincide with the added Conventional Commuter Rail Study analysis funded by LACTC/LOSSAN and the City of Irvine. 3. Expand the economic analysis to define the "shortfall" that might be necessary to make up from other than operators funds. Possible sources might be local and/or state rail funds, utilities funding to transportation as a partial offset to alternative stationary source controls, federal grants, etc.. AMNDA 1'1# 13 JUNE 13, 1990 • Page Two June 13, 1990 Riverside -Orange County Commuter Rail Study Electrification Study Jack Wyatt has committed to seek additional funding from Southern California Edison, but it is not certain if he will receive an answer by the June 13, 1990 RCTC meeting date. In order for Morrison-Knudsen to adjust their Electrification Study schedule, it is necessary to act as quickly as possible. BUDGET COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS The Budget Committee will present its recommendations during the June 13, 1990 RCTC meeting. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Based upon the Southern California Edison Company's existing $27,000 commitment, RCTC should approve the expanded scope of work proposed by Morrison-Knudsen. • 2. RCTC should encourage the Southern California Edison Company to increase its commitment from $27,000 to $40,000. 3. In the event the Southern California Edison Company does not agree to the increase, I should be authorized to shop for additional funding from other affected entities (LACTC/LOSSAN, Irvine, ATSF, Southern California Gas, SCAQMD, etc.). 4. Follow-up with formal funding agreements between RCTC and Southern California Edison (and possibly other affected entities) as soon as possible. JR:sc • • • • • MORRISON-KNUDSEN ENGINEERS, INC. A MORRISON KNUDSEN COMPANY HEADQUARTERS OFFICE 180 HOWARD STREET SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA U.S A. 94105 TELEX: (WUI) 677058. (ITT) 470040, (RCA) 278362. (WUD) 34376 PHONE: (415) 442.7300 Mr. Jack Reagan, Executive Director Riverside County Transportation Comm. 3560 University Ave., Suite 100 Riverside, CA 92501 Sub: Riverside -Orange County Commuter Rail Study Electrification Study Dear Jack: 3871-002-10 May 30, 1990 RECEIIVED MAY 811990 Riverside County Transportation Commission Based on discussions with Jack Wyatt and Glenn Ducat of Southern California Edison, we have drafted a revised scope of work for the electrification study (Task Group 3 in our original proposal), to reflect what we understand SCE would like to see as a product of that analysis. Enclosed please find a draft of the revised scope and estimated consultant costs for Task Group 3. By copy of this letter, I am also sending this draft to both Jack Wyatt and Glenn Ducat for review and comment. The attached work scope is essentially the same as that included in our original proposal. (As you recall, that original scope was reduced in our final consultancy contract in order to transfer some budget to the study of conventional commuter rail.) We have, however, expanded the original scope somewhat to reflect SCE's concerns, and this has accordingly increased the estimated cost from the original proposal amount. The additional scope includes the following: 1. Expansion of the study to include freight traffic. The original proposal addressed only electrification of commuter service, but SCE is interested in electrification of all rail traffic in the Los Angeles basin. Therefore, we have added the incremental study of electrifying the AT&SF freight services, for which we consider the minimum operable segment would extend from Barstow to Hobart. This additional analysis will involve evaluating the existing diesel freight operations and costs, modeling the same operations with electric traction, establishing electrical supply requirements on the extended line, assessing terminal operations, and estimating the additional capital costs of electrification. 2. Extension of commuter rail electrification to Irvine and LAUPT. The original proposal included commuter service only to Fullerton, but the current study now extends to Irvine and Hobart. Electrification of this complete service would be included in the revised work scope. 7626R MORRISON-KNUDSEN ENGINE. INC. A MOPPISON NNOO9[M COMPANY • • • Riverside -Orange County Commuter Rail Study Electrification Study May 30, 1990 Page 2 3. Expanded economic analysis. While the original proposal focuses on determination of the optional timing of implementing electrification, it now seems apparent that economically this timing may be beyond the deadline imposed by the Air Quality Plan. Thus we understand the preferred focus is to estimate the economic "shortfall" that would result from converting to electric traction at a predetermined date, so that external funding requirements could be identified. Again, this analysis would be done separately for commuter and freight electrification. We believe these changes reflect SCE's desires, but are prepared to discuss them further with SCE and RCTC. The estimated cost to perform the electrification study as revised is approximately $73,000, as detailed in the attached estimate. This amount compares to approximately $59,000 in our original proposal, or approximately $33,000 in our current contract. If the expanded work scope is adopted, our current schedule for the electrification study will probably need some modification. This task is presently scheduled for completion by mid -July, but with the added work, would require approximately an additional month. However, this should not materially affect the overall study duration, provided an early decision is made to proceed with the additional work. We welcome your comments on the enclosed draft and are prepared to discuss it in more detail if desired. Please contact me if there are any questions. Very truly yours, ___ Willard 0. Weiss Project Manager WDW/fb cc: A. Daniels, MKE Jack Wyatt, SCE Glenn Ducat, SCE Carl Schiermeyer, RCTC Encls. 7626R • • • Riverside -Orange County Commuter Rail Study Revised Scope of Work Task Group 3 - Electrification Study May 30, 1990 Objective Electrification of the commuter line offers the potential for faster train service coupled with reduced operating costs through savings in fuel, crew and vehicle maintenance costs. A separate study will be performed to examine the feasibility of electrification of the conven- tional commuter rail service, based on results of and in conjunction with the analysis of Task Group 2. As part of this task, we will also examine the possible additional electrification of the AT&SF lines for freight traffic and will perform a separate analysis of this additional increment. For freight operations, it is assumed that electrification will be required between Barstow and Hobart, as the minimum practical segment for changing motive power. Being one of the leading firms in the U.S. in the design of rail and transit electrification systems, MKE is in a unique position to under- take this analysis. We have performed numerous such studies in the past to aid in the choice between diesel and electric traction for a variety of projects, and have established an analytical approach and design data background that is directly suited to this application. In the electrification study approach, motive power alternatives will first be evaluated to select the most appropriate rolling stock. A power system analysis will then be performed to select the electrifica- tion voltage and develop the power system configuration, including substation locations and ratings and overhead conductor sizes. With the basic criteria defined, conceptual design of the electrification system will be prepared, including any necessary modifications to other system elements such as trackwork, signalling, communications and control, maintenance facility, etc. Upon completion of the conceptual design, cost estimates will be prepared, which will then be used as the basis for comparison with the conventional rail and high-speed commuter rail alternatives, and for comparing diesel and electric freight operations. Task 3.1 - Motive Power and Operations Motive Power An initial task in planning for electrification is the selection of motive power equipment. An electrified passenger service could be operated with locomotive -hauled trainsets or with electric multiple - unit railcars similar to those used in Europe, New York City, or on the Illinois Central and Chicago South Shore and South Bend commute lines in Chicago. Both types of equipment possess performance characteristics - 1 - 7627R • • different from diesel traction. Acceleration, deceleration, and maximum speed, as well as energy consumption, maintenance requirements, and equipment utilization will all be different in an electrified alternative. The choice of motive power equipment for the commuter service depends largely on the implementation timing for electrification. If electrification proves to be justified for initial operation of the commuter service, either type of equipment could be adopted. On the other hand, if initial operation is with diesel locomotives and passenger cars, future conversion to electrification would probably be done by simply replacing the locomotives with electric units. The choice of motive power will be made jointly with RCTC and AT&SF considering the likely timing and comparative costs of equipment. For freight operation, an electric locomotive will be selected, in consultation with AT&SF, which is appropriate for heavy freight service and can replace the existing diesel locomotives without changing the basic train dispatch. Train Operations An analysis of train operations and scheduling is fundamental to the electrification system design, as the movement of the train loads define the electrical supply requirements. The initial step in the electrified operations analysis will be to model the train runs for the selected equipment, again using a computerized simulation model. Since motive power performance characteristics are different for electrified alternatives, it is necessary to model the operations separately from the diesel operation. MKE's train perfor- mance simulation capability is especially adapted to model an electri- fied system, making the study of this alternative more reliable and less time-consuming than a manual analysis. It is anticipated that individual simulations will be performed for a number of different commuter train configurations and operating conditions developed from the operations analysis for the conventional rail. From these simulations, operating schedules will be prepared for each service level scenario, as in Task 2.3 and electrical loading requirements will be; defined for use in the traction power system design. A similar analysis will be performed for the electrified freight operation. The MKE team will also be equipped to assess the interface between an electrified passenger system and AT&SF's diesel freight trains in the event the freight service is not electrified. Since relatively high passenger service frequencies will be needed to justify the capital costs of an electrified system, the electrification alternative may require a separate set of electrified tracks. Consequently, we will specifically evaluate the effects of high -density electrified passenger service on AT&SF freight trains, separately from the analysis of diesel passenger operation. - 2 - 7627R • • Output from the electrified operations analysis will include the following operating parameters: o Optimum train schedules and start -to -stop speeds. o Optimum service levels, including definition of the amount of service that can be operated with a given investment in rolling stock. o An impact analysis of the effects an electrified system would have on the AT&SF diesel freight operation. Task 3.2 - Power System Analysis An initial consideration in the traction power system analysis is the choice of system voltage for the vehicles. A comparative analysis will be made between 12.5, 25, and 50 kV ac power supplies, and standard do supply levels, to determine the most suitable system voltage in light of an overall electrification strategy in the area. This study will evaluate the effects of the alternative traction system voltages on electrification costs such as the overhead contact wire system; the traction power substations and their spacing along the route; the civil modifications needed to overcome any clearance restrictions on the route; and differences in signalling and communications system modifica- tions required for different power supply systems, specifically between ac and do supplies. The study will determine the system voltage level which gives the lowest cost of the combined elements, and will also consider the long-range effects of adjacent lines possibly being electrified, in particular, the Los Angeles -San Diego Corridor and the high-speed rail system between Los Angeles and Las Vegas. In this task, the MKE team will also meet with Southern California Edison, the principal utility that will supply the electrified railroad, to establish criteria and collect data on the primary supply, such as: o Locations and characteristics of existing substations and transmission lines. o Utility loading criteria (generation capacity, short circuit capacity, etc.). o Electrical power and energy rates and related charges. The principal configuration and dimensioning of the traction power system will then be developed in this task. A number of individual studies are involved, which consider the effects of various related factors, such as vehicle performance characteristics, substation locations, transformer/rectifier ratings, utility system criteria, and overhead contact system ratings. Using the train loading data generated in the TSP, together with the established train schedule, a load flow analysis will be performed using MKE's Load Flow Program. This program combines the electrical demand of the individual train loads derived in the train simulations - 3 - 7627R • • • with the overall train dispatch, and calculates the voltage at each train location. The load analyses will be performed considering normal operating conditions and emergency conditions that could result due to outage of a utility supply line or malfunction of a substation equip- ment. In locations where the voltage drop exceeds the limits established, adjustment will be made to the sizes of the conductors in the overhead contact system or to the location of the substations. The results of this analysis will be used to confirm substation locations, equipment ratings and overhead contact system conductor sizes. This analysis will also identify any differences in the traction power system configuration if freight service is also electrified, such as increased traction substation capacity, catenary conductor sizes, etc. A sample plot showing power, voltage and current in a substation is shown in Exhibit 1. Task 3.3 - Conceptual Design Substations Based on the results of the power systems studies discussed above and the locations established for the substations, conceptual design of the individual traction substations and related facilities will be performed. This will include the following activities: o Prepare system layout including transmission line configurations. o Prepare typical single -line diagrams for substations. o Define supervisory monitoring, control, and data requirements. o Size and tentatively select principal equipment. Catenary Conceptual design of the overhead contact system, or catenary, will be performed to establish the basic system configurations and structural design features. Selection of conductors will be based on the elec- trical criteria, principally the capacity requirements, developed in the power system studies. The configuration of the catenary, in terms of system depth, number of conductors, conductor material, conductor tensions, and fixed or auto -tensioning, will be balanced against the requirements of train speed and economic support structure spacing. The optimum support spacing will be determined considering the following aspects: o Conductor sizes and loading conditions o Pantograph sweep, wind blow -off and locomotive sway o Choice of weight -tensioned or fixed -termination equipment o Position of ground wire on support structures o Effect of meteorological conditions (ambient temperature and winds) on current capacity - 4 - 7627R EXHIBIT 1 • SUBSTATION OUTPUT PROFILES • • s a IW 0 a i z� W a • Y W O J 0 • 10- t !"" POWER 1 � 1 1 w • \ % 40, i Lei l 104 Yw SUSSTAT10N 9 SUBSTATION i SO 0 400 - SOO - ZOO 100 - 27 - 26 2S Zi o 1 O 6 B 10 T T . 10 • i b T T CURRENT , IS 20 VOLTAGE 25 A-v T T IS =0 \ i i I 4204 i . e tlSNtJT! 4404 , - , _ 1.15 kW ra• - - t. tww .a• 1 % �/ V So 211114 \--- 216AITT !S —r amt.:7E t 50 267KV • 24 11(V ms E --, 24.64V►m• ts��► IMINUTE t SO - 5 - • • At this stage, the practical problems of catenary installation during railroad operation must also be considered. It is often the case when electrifying an existing railroad that the basic cost of materials is small in comparison with the cost of labor and its supervision, espe- cially when these are combined with the additional railroad traffic operating costs incurred by temporary track possessions during construction. Conceptual design drawings will be prepared covering major elements of the overhead contact system, to describe the design arrangements and components selected. The overall line layout will then be analyzed to establish material and construction quantities for cost estimating purposes. Again, separate catenary configurations will be described for electrification of both passenger and freight services, if appropriate. Modifications to Other System Elements Conceptual designs will be prepared covering modifications to other system elements affected by electrification, such as signals, communi- cations and control, along -track civil structures, trackwork, and maintenance facilities. Since electrification systems can impact the electrical coding used by railroad CTC dispatching systems to control signal aspects, an evalu- ation will be made of the possible continued use of the existing AT&SF system, and necessary signalling system modifications will be designed. An assessment will be also made of the possibility of utilizing existing communications equipment in the electrified system, along with a deter- mination of modifications necessary to permit operation under electric traction. This task will also include conceptual design of the remote supervisory control system for the traction power equipment. Overhead and lateral structures along the line will be reviewed to determine where clearance restrictions exist for catenary installation. Cased on the review of along -track structures, the most suitable form of modification will be determined (e.g. structural modification, track lowering, etc.). An assessment will be made of the maintenance facilities to determine modifications required for locomotive maintenance. In addition, maintenance requirements will also be determined for the catenary, substations, signalling system, and communications and control systems, in order to estimate annual maintenance costs. Task 3.4 - Capital and Operating Cost Estimates Applying unit prices to the quantities derived in the conceptual design, capital costs will be estimated for the following electrification facilities: o Electric locomotives (and spare parts) o Overhead contact system (catenary) - 6 - 7627R • • • o Substations o Utility system installations or modifications o Signal and communications systems installation and modifications o Installed facilities and equipment for electrification system maintenance o Modification of vehicle maintenance facilities o Modifications to bridges or tracks for restrictive clearances o Trackwork installations and modifications In addition, estimates will be made of the costs of surveying, engineering, and other implementation services, as well as transitional costs associated with the electrification process. The residual values of diesel locomotives and salvage values of diesel support facilities considered surplus at the time of electrification will also be estimated. MKE will make use of its extensive electrification cost data files for applicable unit prices for the estimates. Costs of operation and maintenance of the electrified operation will be developed on an annual basis. These costs will be broken down into major components such as electric energy consumption and demand costs, materials and equipment, maintenance labor and other costs, as developed in the respective tasks discussed earlier. Primary elements of annual costs will be: o Electrical energy consumption and power demand o Electrical locomotive maintenance o Maintenance of installed electrification facilities (overhead contact system, substations, signaling system, etc.) Capital and annual costs will be estimated separately for electrification of commuter service only and for electrification of both commuter and freight operations. Task 3.5 - Implementation Timing Based on the costs and corresponding service levels developed in the preceding tasks for electrification of the commuter service, we will evaluate the service level at which it would be most desirable to adopt electrification. This will essentially be an economic analysis, incorporating the beneficial effects of reduced air pollution, noise levels and other impacts as well. The evaluation of railroad electrification involves essentially a trade-off between the initial capital costs of the installed equipment and motive power and the annual economic savings deriving from reduced fuel/energy costs, reduced vehicle maintenance costs, reduced train crew costs, reduced pollution, and reduced travel time. While the initial costs are relatively independent of future traffic levels, the annual savings vary directly with the number of trains operating; hence there is a theoretical traffic threshold, or service level, at which electrification becomes economical. - 7 - 7627R • • • Our analysis in this task will focus on the determination of the optimum service level which will justify electrification, but it is recognized that some impacts are not readily quantifiable, such as reduced pollution, travel time savings, and impact on related railroad operations. Thus we will analyze these effects subjectively, in consultation with RCTC and AT&SF, to arrive at realistic conclusions regarding the appropriate service level for electrification of the line. In the event an optimal implementation date is not clearly indicated in the foregoing analysis, a separate computation will be made of the economic "shortfall" resulting from electrification at a designated point in time. For example, if conversion to electric traction must be done by a certain year to comply with clean air regulations, we will assess the amount of "subsidy" that would be required in order to make the investment economically attractive. This analysis will be performed separately for electrification of commuter rail only and for the incremental additional electrification of freight service. Task 3.6 - Prepare Technical Memorandum (TM-2) At the conclusion of the electrification study, we will prepare a Technical Memorandum (TM-2) which will document the various analyses, findings and conclusions and will present the resulting operations plans, facility designs and costs. The Technical Memorandum will be prepared as a stand-alone document, to be used as input for subsequent study tasks and for agency and/or public distribution, and will also become a component of the final report to be prepared in Task Group 7. - 8 - 7627R . i • • Our analysis in this task will focus on the determination of the optimum service level which will justify electrification, but it is recognized that some impacts are not readily quantifiable, such as reduced pollution, travel time savings, and impact on related railroad operations. Thus we will analyze these effects subjectively, in consultation with RCTC and AT&SF, to arrive at realistic conclusions regarding the appropriate service level for electrification of the line. In the event an optimal implementation date is not clearly indicated in the foregoing analysis, a separate computation will be made of the economic "shortfall" resulting from electrification at a designated point in time. For example, if conversion to electric traction must be done by a certain year to comply with clean air regulations, we will assess the amount of "subsidy" that would be required in order to make the investment economically attractive. This analysis will be performed separately for electrification of commuter rail only and for the incremental additional electrification of freight service. Task 3.6 - Prepare Technical Memorandum (TM-2) At the conclusion of the electrification study, we will prepare a Technical Memorandum (TM-2) which will document the various analyses, findings and conclusions and will present the resulting operations plans, facility designs and costs. The Technical Memorandum will be prepared as a stand-alone document, to be used as input for subsequent study tasks and for agency and/or public distribution, and will also become a component of the final report to be prepared in Task Group 7. - 8 7627R 1 MORRISON-KNUDSEN ENGINEEAC,'INC. ., •YORRI90N MNUDREN COY.ANY • • • Task Group 3 - Electrification Study Estimated Consultant Costs for Revised Scope of Work 1. Labor Hours MKE Kingsley Task Prof. Tech/Cler Prof. Tech/Cler Totals 301 Motive/Power/Oper. 112 0 100 0 212 302 Concept Design 264 48 0 0 312 303 Cost Estimates 64 0 50 0 114 304 Econ. Eval. 64 0 0 0 64 305 Tech Memo 2 64 28 34 12 138 568 76 184 12 840 2. Labor Costs Average Rate Labor Cost 3. Other Direct Costs (Incremental to Present Project total) 4. Administrative Cost 5. Fee (10% on Labor Costs) TOTALS 7626R 68.23 43,940.00 2,700.00 1,140.00 4,390.00 52,170.00 94.77 18,580.00 74.43 62,520.00 300.00 3,000.00 20.00 1,160.00 1,860.00 6,250.00 20,760.00 72,930.00