Loading...
04 April 11, 1990 Budget & Finance• 053748 BUDGET AND FINANCE COMMITTEE (COMMISSIONERS RUSS BEIRICH, AL LOPEZ, PAT MURPHY) 12:30 P.M. WEDNESDAY, APRIL 11, 1990 RCTC BOARD ROOM 3560 UNIVERSITY AVENUE, SUITE 100 RIVERSIDE, CA 92501 1. Call to Order. 2. Proposed Revision to Scope of Services for Financial Advisory Services - Ernst & Young/Security Pacific. (RCTC Agenda 5B) Staff Recommendation 1. Approve the revisions to the Scope of Services for Financial Advisory Services as proposed. 2. Transfer $110,000 from Measure A Contingencies Account to the Professional and Specialized Services Account for this revision. 3. SAFE - Public Officials Errors & Omissions and General Commercial Liability Insurance. (RCTC Agenda 7A) Staff Recommendation That the Commission select Schrimmer Insurance Agency, Inc., to provide the Errors and Omissions coverage for SAFE. 4, SAFE - Budget Revision for Phase III. (RCTC Agenda 7B) Staff Recommendation That the Commission approve the TechPlan Phase III contract adjustment and the associated cost increases. .161400111 01010101111 $*,I Staff RecpmmendlOn Receive and file. 6. Final Design for Park and Ride Facilities. (RCTC Agenda 8A2) Staff Recommendation To approve the NBS/Lowry contract amendment subject to execution of the lease agreement with Fleetwood Enterprises. 7. Measure A Park N Ride Program. (RCTC Agenda 8A3) Staff Recommendation To award a contract for services to the consultant as recommended by the Budget and Finance Committee, subject to review and approval by Legal Counsel. 8. Additions to RCTC/ATSF Commuter Train Engineering Assessment Study by Morrison-Knudsen. (RCTC Agenda 8B) Staff Recommendations 1. Approve both additions to the study, subject to the provisions that LACTC, LOSSAN, and the City of Irvine pay the incremental costs and authorize budget revisions totalling $95,156. 2. Authorize execution of legal documents, as they may be revised by Legal Counsel, which would include the following: A. Agreement between RCTC and LACTC/LOSSAN for addition of study from Fullerton to Redondo Junction. B. Agreement between RCTC and the City of Irvine for addition of a study of the Olive Subdivision. C. Amendment to the contract between RCTC/ATSF and Morrison- Knudsen. • • 9. Route 91 Construction Traffic Management Plan. (RCTC Agenda 8D) Staff Recommendations 1. Approve having a consultant perform a study on TMP measures for the Route 91 project per the scope of work. Further, the potential consultants be limited to PBQ&D and KAWES (HNTB) currently working on Route 91 design. The work will be added to an existing contract as an amendment. The amendment will be subject to review by Legal Counsel. 2. Approve a budget amendment transferring $80,000 from Contingencies to Professional Services for this work. OCTC is expected to reimburse RCTC for approximately 53% of this amount. 10. Establishing Preliminary Field Surveying for the 1-215 Project in Conjunction with SanBAG. (RCTC Agenda 8G3) Staff Recommendations 1. Approve the contract with NBS/Lowry Engineers and Planners, subject to final review by Legal Counsel, for the amount of $676,672 with a 15% contingency amount of $101,501 for a maximum contract amount of $778,173. Through the project MOU, SanBAG will be asked to fund the portion of work attributable to the Measure 1 portion of the project. 2. Amend the current budget by transferring the amount of $778,173 from the Contingency Account to the Professional Services Account for execution of this contract. 11. Wilbur Smith Route 111 Study. (RCTC Agenda 81) Staff Recommendation 1, Approve the Consultant Agreement with Wilbur Smith Associates, Inc. 2, Approve the transfer of $440,240 from the Measure A Contingency Account to the Consultant Professional Services Budget to fund the traffic engineering services provided by Wilbur Smith Associates as a maximum not to be exceeded. 12. Adjournment. • AGENDA ITEM #513 'RIVERS* COUNTY TRANSPORTATIAR COMMISSION TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Jack Reagan, Executive Director SUBJECT: Proposed Revision to Scope of Services for Financial Advisory Services Ernst & Young/Security Pacific Attached are proposed revisions to the Scope of Services for Financial Advisory Services which reflect the following: 1. A shift of work responsibility between Ernst & Young and Security Pacific is proposed. In the actual conduct of the preparation of the Short -Range Financial Plan, Ernst & Young was required to perform relatively more and Security Pacific was required to perform relatively less work than anticipated by their original Proposal. No revision to the total base for the proposal is required, but a shift of $60,000 from Phase III to Phases I and II is proposed. 2. Budget capacity for preparation and modification of the Financial Plan is exhausted. However, I anticipate the need to continue to confer with Ernst & Young and Security Pacific for the balance of FY 89-90. A revision to the total base proposal up to $285,000 (transfer $60,000 from the Measure A Contingencies Account) is proposed. I do not propose specific budget allocations to the individual firms or phases. 3. RCTC has previously authorized use of Ernst & Young to assist staff with negotiation with the Atchison, Topeka, and Santa Fe Railway Company. Services as required was authorized with an initial budget allocation of $150,000. Required services now total $146,600, and additional services within the current year are anticipated. A revised budget allocation of $50,000 is proposed. BUDGET AND FINANCE COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS The Budget and Finance Committee recommendations will be presented during the April 11, 1990 meeting. Agenda Item #5B April 11, 1990 • • STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Approve the revisions to the Scope of Services for Financial Advisory Services as proposed. 2. Transfer $110,000 from the Measure A Contingencies Account to the Professional and Specialized Services Account for this revision. JR:nk • • AGENDA ITEM #7A TO: FROM: THROUGH: SUBJECT: Riverside County Service Authority For Freeway Emergencies (SAFE) Hideo Sugita, Senior Staff Analyst Jack Reagan, Executive Director Public Officials Errors and Omissions and General Commercial Liability Insurance for the SAFE At the SAFE Board's March 14, 1990 meeting, staff was authorized to solicit proposals for both Public Officials Errors and Omissions and general commercial liability insurance for the SAFE. The Request for Proposals was issued on March 19, 1990 with responses due to the SAFE offices by April 2, 1990. (RFP and mailing list attached) only one company responded to the request for proposals and at the time of the agenda publishing date, the only quote received was for the Errors and Omissions insurance from Schrimmer Insurance Agency Inc. The Robert F. Driver Company Inc. responded with a letter that due to the time frame required for response to the RFP they respectively declined to provide a proposal. For whatever reasons the other insurance agencies did not respond to our request for proposals nor did they return phone calls. Due to the tight time frame for responses from liability insurance carriers, Schrimmer Insurance was unable to respond with a quote for the requested coverage proposal. However, Schrimmer Insurance Agency is following up on the request and appears to be a responsible and responsive agency. Schrimmer happens to be the agency serving the insurance requirements of both the Orange County Transportation Commission and SANBAG. Staff hopes to have a liability insurance proposal from Schrimmer Insurance Agency Inc. for review by the Budget and Finance Committee prior to the SAFE Board meeting. If so, the recommendation and information on the coverage and premiums will be provided at the April 11 SAFE Board meeting. BUDGET AND FINApgl COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION The Budget and Finance Committee recommendations will be presented during the April 11, 1990 meeting. STAFF RECOMMENDATION That the Commission select Schrimmer Insurance Agency, Inc. to provide the Errors and Ommissions coverage. Agenda Item #7A April 11, 1990 • • March 19, 1990 Dear The Riverside County Transportation Commission, which also serves as the Service Authority for Freeway Emergencies (SAFE) is actively pursuing the acquisition of both broad public officials errors and omissions as well as commercial general liability insurance coverage for the SAFE Board of Directors and program. The Riverside County Transportation Commission also serves as the transportation planning agency for Riverside County and administers a county -wide 1/2 cent sales tax program that is directed towards transportation improvements. The insurance sought in this request is of immediate need because the Riverside SAFE Board is the implementing agency of a motorist aid callbox system in Riverside County which will be under construction in late April 1990. For your information, the Riverside County SAFE Board is composed of seven voting members, six of which are public officials (County Supervisors or City Councilmembers) and one citizens representative. The Riverside SAFE Board, at their meeting on March 14, authorized staff to solicit proposals for public officials and commercial general liability insurance. We request proposers to structure proposals in the following manner: The insurance proposals should include, at minimum, public officials errors and omissions with limits of $1.0 million per occurrence and with an aggregate of $1.0 million, and commercial general liability with coverage at $3.0, $4.0 and $5.0 million. Please structure your proposal in a stepped fashion and include an itemized menu which will allow a quick review of the costs associated with different levels of insurance coverage. Additionally, the proposals for the public officials and the commercial general liability should be separate and demonstrate a discount, if procured through the same broker. Please note that insurance is to be placed with insurers with a Best's rating of no less than A:VII, unless otherwise agreed to by the SAFE Executive Director. • • The BASE Board would like to procure and have in force the noted insurance coverage for the BAFB by April 15, 1990. Therefore, proposals are to be submitted, no later than Monday, April 2, 1990, 6:00 P.M. at the BAta offices which are located at 3560 University Ave, Suite 100, Riverside, CA 92501. Due to the other roles and responsibilities the Commission fulfills, we will shortly be acquiring the services of an insurance consultant to evaluate the Commission's risk exposure and recommend insurance(s) and coverage limits. This is only the beginning of our effort to acquire insurance coverage for the Commission and its various activities. If you should have any questions concerning this request for proposals please call Hideo Sugita of my staff at your earliest convenience. Sincerely,' JACK REAGAN Executive Director • • Mr. Phillip Buchanan, President Curtis Day & Company 50 California Street San Francisco, CA 94111 Mr. Donald McLean, Vice President Robert F. Driver Company 3636 Birch Street, Suite 230 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Mr. Robert Molinaro, Sr. Vice President Sedgwick James 18201 Von Karman Drive, Suite 600 Irvine, CA 92715 Mr. Molinaro Ms. Patty Skalla Schrimmer Insurance P.O. Box 788 La Habra, CA 90633 • • AGENDA ITEM #7B TO: Riverside County Service Authority for Freeway Emergencies (SAFE) FROM: Hideo Sugita, Senior Staff Analyst THROUGH: Jack Reagan, Executive Director SUBJECT: Revised Contract With Techplan Corporation for Phase III of the Callbox Program At the joint meeting of the San Bernardino and Riverside County SAFES on February 7, 1990, the Boards approved the Phase III contract for Techplan to provide the required technical assistance and over sight during the installation of the callbox project. The Phase III contract was based on the original Techplan proposal which dates back to April of 1988. The Western Operations Office Director of the Techplan Corporation (Bruce Churchill) was amenable to fulfilling the requirements of the original proposal, however, Techplan's home office has requested an increase over the original Phase III contract proposal to cover inflation related increases. The original Techplan Phase III proposal included 1664 hours of work at a cost of $89,668 to cover the implementation of the callbox system. The initial price increase requested by Techplan's home office is $12,881 which would bring the cost of the Phase III contract to $102,549 (a 14.34 increase). Since the time differential between the initial proposal and the execution of the Phase III contract has been two years, and Techplan has been responsive and responsible to the bi-county callbox project, staff believes a contract adjustment is justified. However, staff has requested Techplan to reassess the initial increase proposal and provide this information so it can be reviewed by the Board's Budget and Finance Committee prior to the April 11, 1990 SAFE Board meeting. Staff expects a reasonable cost increase will be provided. As in the past, the cost will be split with the SANBAG SAFE based on generated SAFE revenue as has been past practice (Riverside has been charged 434 of the contract price). The Budget and Finance Committee's recommendation will be brought forward at the Board meeting., BUDGET AND FINANCE COMMITTED RECOMMENDATION The Budget and Finance Committee's recommendation on the Techplan Phase III contract will be presented at the SAFE Board meeting. STAFF RECOMMENDaTIOH That the Commission approve the Techplan Phase III contract adjustment and the associated cost increase. Agenda Item #7B April 11, 1990 • • 199L 1S1 O►1 OOP OLS 9SL 9Z 0 06 OP 9FC 96 OZL OZL • OP = Z5 00L 001 09 009 0 OOd Q6 OS 09C 0 OZl Oat Oat (snoi) (sisal) (smotl) Tam Uoddns is inns / 1 s ed% 9 Rldge S AllAuoll 'd Apfeemie usid leupaand0 Pue suogeaad0 =Odell Nei Apfeem seodebf Appears ( p4) (smog) eldiumllap Peal admen Wd 1:300ud W3 it Pawl P apWOVOS ue Ili aSsaid Maid uopanalltaO a,unP Sun,oead illuogead0 Jai ammiDS dolma° 9 uouxuv000 du!ep uoPesed0 sainuelunt AIWA Y Id Puegando Pue !ems suolvad° aedatd tumsit 10 auaaol AIM 9 seaoo+d uogeolpieo dolmwp ugyeueetq a unP eaugamav MIAMI aP!Aald UOMPalea Niel f E Z t Niel • • AGENDA ITEM #8A2 Page Two April 11, 1990 Final Design for Park and Ride Facilities RCTC staff recently issued Requests for Proposals for park and ride lot design to consultants now under contract to the Commission for work on the Route 91 HOV project. ThA firm of MRC/I nwry wac.snlerter! nn the hock of nnalifiratinns. exnerience and_nrniect_ __. RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION April 11, 1990 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Mark T. Massman, Measure A Project Manager THROUGH: Jack Reagan, Executive Director SUBJECT: Final Design for Park and Ride Facilities Pursuant to the provisions of the Measure A Plan, staff has been seeking potential sites for leased park and ride lots serving commuters on Routes 60 and 91. This work has proceeded quickly toward the objective of establishing such lots prior to the initiation of construction on Route 91. Two sites in the City of Riverside have been identified for park and ride development. The first, located at the intersection of Van Buren Avenue and Rudicill Street adjacent to State Route 91, is the Fleetwood Industries property considered by the Commission at its February 14, 1990 meeting. It is estimated that the Fleetwood site can accommodate approximately 280 vehicles. Fleetwood has agreed to lease the property to RCTC for a ten year period; terms of the agreement are currently under negotiation. Construction will be performed by Fleetwood and financed by the Commission. Staff anticipates that construction will be completed by the end of 1990. A second site at the intersection of Orange Street and Route 60 also has been identified. This area was recently purchased by the Commission for the purpose of protecting right-of- way for the planned Measure A improvement of the SR 60/SR 91/1-215 interchange. The location of this area is considered very advantageous in that commuters on both Routes 60 and 91 can be served effectively. Use of this site for a park and ride lot would be subject to concurrence by the City. • • AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO AGREEMENT NO. R-90-1 BETWEEN THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION AND NBS/LOWRY ENGINEERS & PLANNERS SCOPE OF WORK This amendment to Agreement No. R-90-1 will add funds for payment of the preparation of Plans, Specifications and Estimates for two Park and Ride facilities to be located at Van Buren and Rudicill Street and at State Route 60 and Orange Street in the City of Riverside. Location. Description, and Purpose The Projects are located within the City of Riverside. Project A is located near the intersection of Van Buren and Rudicill Street within a block of State Route 91. Project B is located near the intersection of State Route 60 and Orange Street. Park and Ride facilities will be constructed at these locations. Project A will be constructed on property owned by Fleetwood Enterprises. This lot will be constructed by Fleetwood and financed by RCTC with Measure A funds. The lot will be available for use by RCTC for ten years. Ordinary maintenance of the lot will be the responsibility of Fleetwood. Project B will be constructed on Caltrans right-of-way that was purchased for potential use in the reconstruction of the 60/91/215 interchange. This lot will be a temporary facility, with design guidelines to be negotiated with Caltrans. Scope of Added Services The scope of added services includes preparation of Plans, Specifications and Estimates for construction of Park and Ride facilities. Attachment A includes a complete scope of services for Project A. Attachment B includes a complete scope of services for Project B. Schedule of Added Services Attachment C includes a schedule for completion of services for Project A. Attachment D includes a schedule for completion of services for Project B. Added Cost of Services The total cost of additional services is $84,558. The total value of the Agreement shall not exceed $906,014 for the Base Work and $70,000 for Extra Work. Attachment E provides a detailing of cost for Project A. Attachment F provides a detailing of cost for Project B. ‘r, Amendment 2 of Agreement R-90-1 Page 2 of 2 In witness whereof, Commission and NBS/Lowry Engineers and Planners have by order caused the Agreement to be amended and Subscribed on their behalf by the by duly authorized signatories. RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION BY Kay Ceniceros, Chairperson Date NBB\LOWRY ENGINEERS AND PLANNERS BY G. Brent Muchow, Date Principal -in -Charge Approved as to Form and Legality BY Best Best & Krieger Counsel for the Riverside County Transportation Commission Date • • SCOPE OF WORK Attachment A Project A Page 1 of 3 VAN BUREN/RUDICILL STREET PARK AND -RIDS LOT The Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) is interested in retaining professional engineering services for the completion of plans, specifications and estimates (PS&E) for a Park -and -Ride Lot facility within the southwest quadrant of the intersection of Rudicill Street and Van Buren in the City of Riverside. This facility is located on property owned by Fleetwood Enterprises and is proposed to be operated on a long term lease as a park -and ride facility. The tasks proposed to complete this work have been divided into three categories and are as follows. TASK 1 - DATA COLECTION/REBEARCN, At the onset of the project, NBS/Lowry will conduct a comprehensive review of the available information, including necessary planning requirements for such projects which are to be supplied by RCTC. We have assumed that any required environmental documentation will be completed by others and also will be made available to NBS/Lowry. In addition, we would also participate in an initial "kick-off" meeting so as to have an opportunity to meet the other agency personnel concerned, outline project concerns, establish project design criteria and provide an overview of the project schedule. TASK 2 - FIELD REVIEW AND TESTING After the review of the background documents, a field review of the project location will be made in order to define the parameters of the surveys and mapping, soils investigation and utilities search. The first order of business is to initiate the required surveys which are to be used as the basis for design plans. The areas for soil testing will be defined and soil sampling/testing conducted as necessary to obtain a representative R-value. TASK 3 - PREPARATION OF PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS AND ESTIMATES This task will be completed in accordance with the requirements set forth by the City of Riverside as set forth for park -and -ride lots. (by the Caltrans park -and -ride Facilities criteria dated November 6, 1989.) This task will also include the preparation of parking low layout and contours, lighting, fencing, signing and striping, landscaping and off -site guide signing. in terms of drainage facilities, it is assumed that lot can be surface drained into the existing City street. s., • Scope of Work Page 2 Attachment A Project A Page 2 of 3 At the completion of the PS&E, the complete package will be submitted to the appropriate agencies via the ROTC for formal review. At the conclusion of the agency review, the plans will be returned to NBS/Lowry for revisions and revised accordingly. A final submittal of the PS&E package will then be resubmitted to the approval agencies via RCTC for approval. In addition, the following terms of the original contract have also been addressed as indicated below: Reports Four types of reporting mechanisms are required for this project. Monthly status reports will be prepared to highlight the progress made on key issues during the preceding month. The monthly report will be submitted to RCTC as part of the monthly invoice. Preparation of monthly Engineering Progress and Performance Reports (EPPRII) are included and are also required to be submitted with the monthly status reports. Participation in biweekly "trend" meetings is also required. Preparation for the meeting may also include preparation of agenda items specific to the Park'n'Ride project. Preparation of "trend" meeting minutes is also included as part of the scope of work. Plan submittal Format NBS/Lowry will submit the completed plans utilizing AUTO/CADD format. It is NBS/Lowry's understanding that an Intergraph submittal on magnetic tape will not be required. Materials Furnished It is NBS/Lowry understanding that the plans for the Van Buren/Rudicill Street Park'n'Ride project are required to be prepared per the City of Riverside standards for a park -and - ride facility which are to be provided by RCTC to NBS/Lowry for their use in preparing the plans. Permits As the Rudicill/Van Buren Park'n'Ride is located on private property, we anticipate authorization from the landowner via RCTC Staff, with minimal resources required from NBS/Lowry. The requirement for any permits required from the City of Riverside will be established at the initial project "kick-off" meeting between the City of Riverside, Caltrans, RCTC and NBS/Lowry. Project Processing At such time as when the plans, specifications and estimates (PS&E) are complete for the Van Buren/Rudicill Street Park'n'Ride project, NBS/Lowry will submit ten (10)copies to the designated RCTC representative for processing for approval through the City of Riverside. 1 • • Scope of Work. Page 3 Attachment A Project A Page 3 of 3 Construction Services NBS/Lowry will provide technical support during the construction bid phase of the project and will be available to answer questions on as -needed basis. In addition, NBS/Lowry will also be available to provide technical services during the construction phase including on -site consultation with the contractor and review of the "punch" list prepared by the project Inspector. The cost estimate for this portion of the work will be provided to RCTC at their request and, as such is not include in this cost estimate. TASK START 4-12-90 PROPOSED PR ,CCT SCHEDULE RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION SR-60 / ORANGE PARK AND RIDE LOT APRILr MAY JUNE MONTHS JULY AUGUST Data Collection/Research Surveys Soils Investigation Drainage/Utilities Investigation Prepare Plans, Specifications & Estivate$ Agency Review Finalize PS&E Submit to Agency 7-9-90 A END V goacold 3 1uamyoPijy Attachment R Project B Page 1 of 3 SCOPE OF WORK 8R 60/ORANGE PARR -AND -RIDE LOT The Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) is interested in retaining professional engineering services for the completion of plans, specifications and estimates (PS&E) for a temporary Park - and Ride Lot facility located within the northwest quadrant of the intersection of State Route 60 and Orange Street within the City of Riverside. This facility was purchased by RCTC and is located adjacent to the existing Caltrans right-of-way. The tasks proposed to complete this work have been divided into three categories and are as follows. TASK 1 - DATA COLECTION/REBEARCR At the onset of the project, NES/Lowry will conduct a comprehensive review of the available information, including necessary planning requirements for such projects which are to be supplied by RCTC. We have assumed that any required environmental documentation will be completed by others and also will be made available to NBS/Lowry. In addition, we would also participate in an initial "kick-off" meeting so as to have an opportunity to meet the other agency personnel concerned, outline project concerns, establish project design criteria and provide an overview of the project schedule. TASK 2 - FIELD REVIEW AND TEBTINO After the review of the background documents, a field review of the project location will be made in order to define the parameters of the surveys and mapping, soils investigation and utilities search. The first order of business is to initiate the required surveys which are to be used as the basis for design plans. The areas for soil testing will be defined and soil sampling/testing conducted as necessary to obtain a representative R-value. TASK 3 - PREPARATION OF PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS AND ESTIMATES This task will be completed in accordance with the requirements set forth by the City of Riverside as set forth for park -and -ride lots. (by the Caltrans park -and -ride Facilities criteria dated November 6, 1989.) This task will also include the preparation of parking low layout and contours, lighting, fencing, signing and striping, landscaping and off -sits guide signing. In terms of drainage facilities, it is assumed that lot can be surface drained into the existing City street. • • Scope of Work Page 2 Attachment B Project B Page 2 of 3 At the completion of the PS&E, the complete package will be submitted to the appropriate agencies via the RCTC for formal review. At the conclusion of the agency review, the plans will be returned to NBS/Lowry for revisions and revised accordingly. A final submittal of the PS&E package will then be resubmitted to the approval agencies via RCTC for approval. In addition, the following terms of the original contract have also been addressed as indicated below: Reports Four types of reporting mechanisms are required for this project. Monthly status reports will be prepared to highlight the progress made on key issues during the preceding month. The monthly report will be submitted to RCTC as part of the monthly invoice. Preparation of monthly Engineering Progress and Performance Reports (EPPR's) are included and are also required to be submitted with the monthly status reports. Participation in biweekly "trend" meetings is also required. Preparation for the meeting may also include preparation of agenda items specific to the Park'n'Ride project. Preparation of 'trend'' meeting minutes is also included as part of the scope of work. Plan submittal Format NBS/Lowry will submit the completed plans utilizing AUTO/CADD format. It is NBS/Lowry's understanding that an Intergraph submittal on magnetic tape will not be required. Project At such time as when the plans, specifications and estimates (PS&E) are complete for the SR 60/Orange Park'n'Ride project, NBS/Lowry will submit ten (10) copies to the designated Caltrans representative, Mr. Jo Sanford, for processing for approval through Caltrans. Permits In terms of securing the required permits relevant to conduct the survey work required for design, a Caltrans encroachment permit is required for the Orange/SR 60 Park'n'Ride Lot. The resources required to secure this permit are not included in NBS/Lowry's cost proposal at this time, but can be provided to ROTC at their request. Construction Services NBS/Lowry will rt during the construction bid phase of the roviprojt projectandwillbeavailable to answer questions on as -needed basis. In addition, NBS/Lowry will also be available to provide technical services during the construction phase including on -site consultation with the contractor and review of the "punch" list prepared by the project Inspector. The cost estimate for this portion of the work will be provided to RCTC at their request and, as such is not include in this cost estimate. • • Scope of Work Page 3 Attachment 3 Project B Page 3 of 3 Project Processing At such time as when the PS&E is complete for the SR 60/Orange Park -and -Ride Lot, NBS/Lowry will submit 10 copies to the designated RCTC representative for processing for approval through Caltrans, District 8 and/or any other division of caltrans. TASK START 4-12-90 PROPOSED PR.__jeCT SCHEDULE RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION VAN BUREN AND RUDICILL PARK AND RIDE LOT APRIL MAY JUNE MONTHS JULY AUGUST Data Collection/Research Surveys Soils Investigation Drainage/Utilities Investigation Prepare Plans, Specifications & Estimate* Agency Review Finalize PS&E Submit to Agency 7-0-90 A BID 8 gaacold Q 4uamgovgqv • • AGENDA ITEM #8A3 • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION April 11, 1990 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Marilyn Williams, Staff Analyst III THROUGH: Jack Reagan, Executive Director SUBJECT: Measure A Park-n-Ride Program At the February 14, 1990, Commission meeting, staff was given direction to solicit proposals for a consultant to assist in negotiating joint use leases of existing parking lots along the Route 91, Route 60 and other major roadways to create park-n-ride lots. To identify local firms that might be interested in performing such services, staff contacted the Greater Riverside Chambers of Commerce. They provided the names of five qualified firms. The firms were contacted and asked to participate in a pre -proposal meeting. Three firms including Grubb & Ellis, Lee & Associates, and Claude T. Smith Realtors, Inc. attended the meeting at which staff reviewed the tasks and procedures that would be required to negotiate lease agreements with owners of existing parking lots. The firms had an opportunity to clarify any questions they might have which would assist them in preparing their bid for consultant services. A due date for proposals was set for Friday, April 6, 1990, at 5 p.m. Staff will review submitted proposals and present its recommendation for selection of a consultant to the Budget and Finance Committee for recommendation, and then to the Commission at the April 11 th meeting. Hopefully the Commission will be able to award a contract for these services subject to review and approval by Legal Counsel. BUDGET & FINANCE COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION The recommendations of the Budget and Finance Committee will be reported during the April 11, 1990 meeting. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Commission award a contract for services to the consultant as recommended by the Budget & Finance Committee, subject to review and approval by Legal Counsel. MW:sc Agenda Item #8A3 April 11, 1990 • • 4 Memorandum of Understanding has been drafted and is included as a separate item on this Commission agenda. Wilbur Smith Associates has prepared the attached scope of work after consultation with RCTC staff, Caltrans District 8, Caltrans District 11 and a subcommittee of the CVAG TTAS committee. A partial Notice -to -Proceed was issued to Wilbur Smith Associates to begin conducting traffic counts on March 5, 1990. This notice, granted to permit collection of accurate base data during the peak traffic flow season in the Coachella Valley, was for an amount not to exceed $48,107. WILBUR SMITH CONTRACT The contract scope for the Route 111 Corridor Study has been agreed upon by the project study team. The terms and conditions of the contract have been reviewed with RCTC legal counsel. A proposal has been prepared by Wilbur Smith Associates which defines the scope, cost and schedule. The only remaining item to be conducted is a final contract negotiation with Wilbur Smith Associates on the final cost and schedule. At the Commission meeting a final cost and schedule for the corridor study will be presented along with an budget ceiling for the contract. Approval of the contract at this point involves very little risk as staff will proceed to put the final contract in place following completion of negotiations with Wilbur Smith. BUDGET AND FINANCE COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION This item will be reviewed with the Budget\Finance committee prior to the Commission meeting. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Commission: 1. Approve the Consultant Agreement with Wilbur Smith Associates, Inc. 2. Approve the transfer of $440,240 from the Measure A Contingency Account to the Consultant Budget to fund the traffic engineering services provided by Wilbur Smith Associates as a maximum not to be exceeded. TH:sc • • Memorandum of Understanding has been drafted and is included as a separate item on this Commission agenda. Wilbur Smith Associates has prepared the attached scope of work after consultation with RCTC staff, Caltrans District 8, Caltrans District 11 and a subcommittee of the CVAG TTAS committee. A partial Notice -to -Proceed was issued to Wilbur Smith Associates to begin conducting traffic counts on March 5, 1990. This notice, granted to permit collection of accurate base data during the peak traffic flow season in the Coachella Valley, was for an amount not to exceed $48,107. WILBUR SMITH CONTRACT The contract scope for the Route 111 Corridor Study has been agreed upon by the project study team. The terms and conditions of the contract have been reviewed with RCTC legal counsel. A proposal has been prepared by Wilbur Smith Associates which defines the scope, cost and schedule. The only remaining item to be conducted is a final contract negotiation with Wilbur Smith Associates on the final cost and schedule. At the Commission meeting a final cost and schedule for the corridor study will be presented along with an budget ceiling for the contract. Approval of the contract at this point involves very little risk as staff will proceed to put the final contract in place following completion of negotiations with Wilbur Smith. BUDGET AND FINANCE COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION This item will be reviewed with the Budget\Finance committee prior to the Commission meeting. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Commission: 1. Approve the Consultant Agreement with Wilbur Smith Associates, Inc. 2. Approve the transfer of $440,240 from the Measure A Contingency Account to the Consultant Budget to fund the traffic engineering services provided by Wilbur Smith Associates as a maximum not to be exceeded. TH:sc • • AGENDA ITEM #8B • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION April 11, 1990 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Jack Reagan, Executive Director SUBJECT: Additions to RCTC/ATSF Commuter Train Engineering Assessment Study by Morrison-Knudsen RCTC and the Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway Company have executed an agreement with Morrison-Knudsen Engineers, Inc. to determine required improvements on the San Bernardino Subdivision from San Bernardino to Fullerton to accommodate freight and commuter rail needs. Our study also considers high-speed rail and electrification issues. The Los Angeles County Transportation Commission (LACTC) and LOSSAN Rail Corridor Agency have indicated their willingness to fund an addition to the study to consider commuter rail requirements from Fullerton north to the Redondo Junction. Morrison- Knudsen indicates the incremental costs for such an addition to be $70,000 and LACTC has committed to pay these costs (see attached). In addition, the City of Irvine has indicated its willingness to fund an addition of the study to consider commuter rail requirements for the Olive Subdivision from Atwood to the San Diego Subdivision. Morrison-Knudsen indicates the incremental costs for this addition would be $25,156. Best, Best and Krieger is currently reviewing the legal documents necessary to formalize these additions. The proposed agreement with the City of Irvine will be passed out at the meeting. Agenda Item #8B April 11, 1990 • • April 11, 1990 Page 2 BUDGET & FINANCE COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS The recommendations of the Budget and Finance Committee will be reported during the April 11, 1990 meeting. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS 1. RCTC should approve both proposed additions to the study; subject to the provisions that LACTC, LOSSAN, and the City of Irvine will pay the incremental costs and authorize budget revisions totally $95,156. 2. RCTC should authorize execution of legal documents, as they may be revised by Legal Counsel, which would include the following: a. Agreement between RCTC and LACTC/LOSSAN for addition of study from Fullerton to Redondo Junction. b. Agreement between RCTC and the City of Irvine for addition of a study of the Olive Subdivision. c. Amendment to the contract between RCTC/ATSF and Morrison-Knudsen. JR:sc Attachments • • TECHNICAL SERVICE AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT, entered into this day of , 19, by and among: Riverside County Transportation Commission 3560 University Avenue, Suite 100 Riverside, California 92501 ("RCTC") and The Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway Company 80 E. Jackson Boulevard Chicago, Illinois 60604 hereinafter collectively called "OWNER", and MORRISON-KNUDSEN ENGINEERS, INC. 180 Howard Street San Francisco, CA 94105 hereinafter called "ENGINEER", provides: ARTICLE I SCOPE OF SERVICES ENGINEER agrees to perform for OWNER the services described in Appendix A, which is incorporated herein and made a part hereof. The scope of services may be amended by written agreement between the parties. ARTICLE II COMPENSATION AND PAYMENT For the performance of its services, ENGINEER shall be paid by RCTC, in the manner and at the times hereinafter specified, its Recoverable Costs and Fixed Fee, as follows: A. Recoverable Costs. RCTC shall pay Engineer for all costs and expenses expended by ENGINEER in the performance of the services described in Article I. Such costs and expenses include: 1. Payroll Costs. Costs and related expenses incurred by ENGINEER in accordance with its established personnel policies including all salaries and wages of personnel engaged directly in the performance of the services, and all employee benefits and allowances for these personnel for vacations, sick leave, holiday, and social security and retirement benefits, all payroll taxes, worker's compensation, employer's liability insurance and other contributions and benefits imposed by any applicable law or regulation and all insurance premiums measured by payroll costs. For the purpose of this item, payroll costs shall be computed as 40% of direct salaries, billed on an hourly rate basis for all hours expended on the project. The hourly rate is computed by dividing the annual payroll costs by 2080 hours. The ENGINEER'S best estimate of direct salaries of ENGINEER's employees is set forth in the Scope -2- • • of Services and Estimated Cost attached hereto as Appendix "A", although the parties recognize that these salaries may increase during the term of this Agreement due to cost of living or merit based salary increases. 2. Other Direct Costs plus 5% administrative cost, as follows: a. The cost of all materials and supplies used in the performance of the services. b. Costs for reproduction of plans, specifications, reports and other data, and for computer service at ENGINEER's established rates set forth in Appendix "C". c. Long distance communication costs. d. All costs associated with outside consultants, subcontracts, and other outside services and facilities, as approved in writing by RCTC. e. Reasonable Costs incurred for travel and subsistence of personnel engaged in the performance of the services. f. Rental of special equipment and special field office, as approved in writing by RCTC. g. The cost of ENGINEER's package insurance coverages applicable to this Agreement and any deductibles due to loss. h. Any other costs not described above which are proper charges to the project and approved by OWNER. -3- • • 3. Indirect Costs. An amount equal to 79% of the costs described in paragraph 1 of this Article to cover such indirect costs to ENGINEER as maintaining and operating established offices, which indirect costs are not charged to the services as direct costs and shall not duplicate such direct costs. B. Fixed Fee. In addition to the Recoverable Costs set forth in Section A above, ENGINEER shall be paid by RCTC a Fixed Fee of $24,300. C. Manner of Payment. On or as soon as practic- able after the first day of each month, ENGINEER shall prepare and submit to RCTC an invoice covering Recoverable Costs incurred during the previous month, and a portion of the Fixed Fee applicable to such costs. Recoverable costs shall be identified separately by major task group as designated in the scope of services described in Appendix A. RCTC shall pay to ENGINEER within thirty (30) days after receipt of the invoice the amount shown to be due. If RCTC fails to make any payment properly due ENGINEER for services and expenses within thirty (30) days after receipt of ENGINEER's invoice therefor, the amounts due ENGINEER will be increased at the rate of 1 1/2t per month from said thirty (30) day, and in addition, ENGINEER may, after giving 7 days' written notice to OWNER, suspend services under this Agreement until ENGINEER has been paid in full all amounts due for services, expenses and charges. -4- D. Estimated Cost. ENGINEER's estimate for performance of the base work services, based on its best judgment as to the work required, is outlined in Appendix A. This estimate is for OWNER's budget purposes only, and is not guaranteed. The total value of the agreement shall not exceed $458,000 for the base work and $42,000 for extra work which may be authorized by OWNER in writing. Services beyond the total of base and extra work set forth in Appendix A shall not be undertaken by ENGINEER, except upon the execution of an amendment to this Agreement. ARTICLE III ACCOUNTING OF COSTS During the period of this Agreement, ENGINEER shall maintain books and accounts of its Recoverable Costs in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles and practices. OWNER shall have access to these books and accounts during normal business hours to the extent required to verify all Recoverable Costs for a period of three years after completion of ENGINEER's services, provided that ENGINEER may destroy all such material at an earlier time upon written notice from OWNER; and provided further that OWNER should endeavor to complete any and all audits of such books and accounts within one year after completion of ENGINEER'S services. -5- ARTICLE IV CONFIDENTIALITY ENGINEER shall sign a confidentiality agreement with The Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway Company (ATSF) because of proprietary information. Such information provided in writing by ATSF shall be destroyed pursuant to the confidentiality agreement at the conclusion of the services. ENGINEER shall provide no written information to the Riverside County Transportation Commission which ENGINEER wishes to keep confidential if such information would be classified as public records pursuant to the California Public Records Act (California Government Code Sections 6250-6305). ARTICLE V RESPONSIBILITY OF ENGINEER ENGINEER shall perform its services as an independent contractor in accordance with its own methods, this Agreement, and applicable laws and regulations. ENGINEER agrees to correct any deficiencies resulting from its negligent performance of its services which are discovered and reported to ENGINEER within two years from the date of completion of its services hereunder: ENGINEER shall only be liable to OWNER for any loss or damage arising out of, or in connection with, -6- • • ENGINEER'S negligent performance of this agreement. Not- withstanding anything in the agreement to the contrary, it is agreed that ENGINEER shall have no liability for loss of product, loss of profit, loss of use, or any other indirect or consequential damages. ARTICLE VI INSURANCE. ENGINEER shall obtain a policy or policies of liability insurance of the type and in the amounts described below and satisfactory to OWNER'S Attorney. Except for worker's compensation insurance and professional liability insurance, OWNER, its elected officials, officers, and employees shall be added as insureds on all policies required under this agreement, but only with respect to operations of ENGINEER relating to the performance its duties under of this agreement. The Contractor's insurance coverage shall be primary insurance as respects OWNER, its elected officials, officers, and employees. Any insurance or self-insurance maintained by OWNER, its elected officials, officers, and employees shall be excess of ENGINEER'S insurance and not contribute with it. A. Prior to the commencement of any services hereunder, ENGINEER shall provide certificates of insurance with original endorsements of the following insurance with Best's Class 8 or better carriers: • • 1. Worker's Compensation Insurance covering all employees and principals of the ENGINEER, in at least the minimum amount required under the laws of the State of California. 2. Commercial General Liability Insurance covering third party liability risks, including contractual liability, in a minimum amount of $1,000,000 combined single limit per occurrence for bodily injury, and property damage. 3. Commercial Auto Liability and Property Insurance covering any owned and rented vehicles of ENGINEER in a minimum amount of $1,000,000 combined single limit per accident for bodily injury and property damage. 4. Professional liability insurance covering the professional acts of ENGINEER and all of its principals in a minimum amount of $1,000,000. B. If a general aggregate is used for any insurance required hereunder, the aggregate shall be made to apply separately for this project, or the general aggregate shall be twice the occurrence limit. C. Said policy or policies shall be endorsed to state that coverage shall not be suspended, voided, cancelled by either party, or reduced in coverage or in limits except after thirty (30) days prior notice has been given in writing to OWNER. ENGINEER shall give OWNER prompt and timely notice of any claim made or suit instituted arising out of ENGINEER'S operations hereunder. ENGINEER • • shall also procure and maintain, at its own cost and expense, any additional kind and amounts of insurance, which in its own judgment may be necessary for its proper protection in the prosecution of its services hereunder. ARTICLE VII RESPONSIBILITY OF OWNER OWNER will designate a representative to review and approve documents submitted by ENGINEER. The represen- tative shall be empowered to render decisions and provide information in a timely manner, that will not delay the orderly progress of the work. ENGINEER is entitled to rely upon the information, decision and approvals furnished by OWNER's representative. ARTICLE VIII DELAYS Neither party hereto shall be considered in default in the performance of its obligations hereunder to the extent that the performance of any such obligation is prevented or delayed by any cause, existing or future, which is beyond the reasonable control of such party. • • ARTICLE IX TERMINATION AND ASSIGNMENT OWNER may terminate this Agreement at any time upon payment to ENGINEER of all of the Recoverable Costs incurred in the performance of its service, plus all costs incurred as a result of such termination, plus related Fee. ENGINEER may terminate this Agreement in the event of non-payment of costs and fees as specified herein. This Agreement shall not be assigned by either party without prior written approval of the other except that ENGINEER may utilize in the performance of this Agreement, without prior approval of OWNER, personnel or services of its related entities and affiliated companies as if they were an integral part of ENGINEER. ARTICLE X ATTORNEY'S FEES. If either party commences an action against the other party arising out of or in connection with this agreement, the prevailing party in such litigation shall be entitled to have and recover from the losing party reasonable attorney's fees and costs of suits. • • ARTICLE XI ENTIRE AGREEMENT. This agreement contains the entire agreement of the parties with respect to the subject matter hereof, and supersedes all prior negotiations, understandings or agreements. This agreement may only be modified by a writing signed by both parties. ARTICLE XII GOVERNING LAW. This agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of California. ARTICLE XIII NONDISCRIMINATION BY ENGINEER. ENGINEER represents and agrees that it does not and will not discriminate against any subcontractor, engineer, employee or applicant for employment because of race, religion, color, sex, or national origin. Such nondiscrimination shall include but not be limited to the followings employment, upgrading, demotion, transfers, recruitment, recruitment advertising, layoff, termination, rates of pay or other forms of compensation, and selection for training, including apprenticeship. • • ARTICLE XIV OWNER'S RIGHT TO EMPLOY OTHER ENGINEERS. OWNER reserves right to employ other engineers in connection with this project. ARTICLE XV SUCCESSORS•AND ASSIGNS. This agreement shall be binding on the successors and assigns of the parties, and shall not be assigned by ENGINEER without the prior written consent of the OWNER. ARTICLE XVI PREVAILING WAGES. ENGINEER is altered to the requirements of California Labor Code Section 1770 et seq. which requires the payment of prevailing wages to certain types and classes of employees. The ENGINEER agrees that it shall be solely responsible for insuring compliance with the above mentioned code sections. • • IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have entered into this Agreement effectively as of the day and year first hereinabove written. RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION By: Kay Ceniceros, Chairperson THE ATCHISON, TOPEKA AND SANTA FE RAILWAY COMPANY By: Title: Title: REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED MORRISON-KNUDSEN FOR APPROVAL By: Jack Reagan, Executive Director, Riverside County Transportation Commission APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGAL CONTENT_: By: Stefe,eBaun BesE,i Best, 6 Kger Coufisel for thRiverside 9'unty Transportation Commission -13- ENGINEERS, INC. Titles y .v By: Title: SCD0225B APPENDIX A 1. SCOPE OF SERVICES The services shall be as described In Section 2 of ENGINEER's proposal to OWNER entitled "Proposal for RCTC/ATSF Commuter Train Engineer Assessment,' dated January 18, 1990, which is incorporated as part of this Agreement by reference, with Task Group 3 modified as follows: Task Group 3 - Electrification Study The scope and budget for the electrification study are reduced in order to provide additional budget for the study of conventional computer rail. Revisions involve a reduction in electrification system design analysis by initially selecting standard design features of a typical electrification system based on similar modern systems already In operation. Revisions by task are as follows: Task 3.1 - Motive Power and Operations Rather than evaluating alternative motive power equipment types, an initial selection will be made jointly with RCTC/AT&SF of typical equipment similar to that in use elsewhere (e.g. 25 kV ac electric locomotives with conventional passenger coaches in push-pull operation). No change to train operations analysis. Task 3.2 - Power System Analysis Rather than evaluating alternative traction power supply systems, an initial selection will be made jointly with RCTC/ATBSF of a typical power supply system similar to that In use elsewhere (e.g. 25 kV ac) with typical traction substation sizes and spacings. Preliminary substation locations will be selected based on locations of the primary electrical supply network. Substation sizes and locations will be confirmed by simplified manual power system calculations. Task 3.3 - Conceptual Desleq Standard design configurations will be adopted for substations and catenary equipment with limited analysis to establish major design features such as catenary pole spacing and sizing. Optimization of design details will not be performed, but design features will be carefully selected, based on similar Installations, to generate a reliable estimate of capital costs. Tasks 3.4-3.6 No revisions. 7513R gg s g 1 a o 4" eg e 11 N is a 00 a R. I $ 0 g " a A: a 9 1 0 I 4 :i. i 4 • • APPENDIX 8 [Insert full copy of Engineer's Proposal] SCD02258 ot)ARD MEMBERS: lames R. Mills Chairman ( h•urm,ln. \t.•Irntp,I m framlt Ilr•,, tnpnlrnl Ifrr•lnl Ed Slruiksma, Alternate Dana Reed First Vice -Chair ( i•IIrrilr.Hnner t )Lliig 1 nr1r11\ Ir,IIhl, 11 dp 11 r ,rmml..um Iry Pickier, Alternate jacki 8acharach Second Vice -Chair ConnniSiuuupr. Iris •1ngeles Counts Immix rrtatim1 (r munis.irm s.tact tits nt • Rare ho Rdn. Verdes Ray Remy, Alternate Ruth Aldaco Representative Los Angeles Cr tints transportation (`1/r11miss1u11 \tasor. Cill id Cormier(e Robert Cormack, Alternate %chard B. Edgar ire Chairman. Orange p''."''mt' lramporlalinn t Illi[.inn „asnr Prn Iem. Cih ni fu<tin Iry Pickier, Alternate Ann Kulchin 1 'unman North San I hegn Counts' transit Decelnlpnent (Board .Iasnr Pro tem. 1 Its nil ,ul.had Sam Williamson, Alternate Cindy McKim t hie' I)rs iwm ni ,%tas Ii,mspnrtatinn ( alilnmia 1lepartinent nl han.pr,rtatinn Chuck Davis, Alternate Ex Officio Members: Lawrence Bagley Repre.eniatise.San Diego 1ssor iatinn nl Governments %Lnnr its. ni Oceanside Gordana Swanson Roprosenlatise. Siutlirn Cahinrnia 1:.04Idtion of Guvernmenh t omit Ilnleml t r. fitsnl Rolling hills Bijan Yarjani, Alternate )Raton Greene Eser utise Dire(tor 2 LOS ANGELES-SAN DIEGO LOSSAN RAIL CORRIDOR AGENCY March 22, 1990 Jack Reagan Executive Director Riverside County Transportation Commission 4075 Main Street - Suite 302 Riverside, California 92501 Dear Jack: RECEVED '+k 2 7199p Riverside County Transportation Commissian over the past month, the Los Angeles -San Diego Rail Corridor Agency and the Los Angeles County Transportation Commission have been considering your offer for the two agencies to participate in a supplemental task to the Riverside - Orange County Rail Study, to be conducted by a consultant team led by Morrison-Knudsen Engineers. This supplemental task will focus on defining the magnitude and phasing of capacity im- provements that will be required in the Fullerton to Redondo Junction portion of the San Bernardino Subdivision under different level of service scenarios. I am pleased to inform you that the LOSSAN RCA and LACTC have agreed to accept your offer. Each agency will con- tribute $35,000 toward the $70,000 estimated cost of the ad- ditional task and will pay these funds to the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC). RCTC will retain project administration responsibilities for the work effort, with LACTC and LOSSAN to co -manage the technical portion of the new task. The LOSSAN Rail Corridor Agency Board will formally approve this action at its next meeting on May 2, 1990. The Board has been apprised of the upcoming work, and I do not an- ticipate any problem in securing Board approval. Representatives of LOSSAN RCA and LACTC have met with Carl Schiermeyer and members of the MK study team. At present, we are in the process of finalizing the scope of work for the new task and are developing input on level of service scenarios for the Planning Basis Memorandum. Carl will be preparing a letter agreement outlining each agency's respon- sibilities and financial commitment. 275 CENTENNIAL WAY, SUITE 110 f()STIN. CALIFORNIA 92680 714/669-1441 FAX 714/669.9359 I am looking forward to a both a highly competent technical product and an enjoyable working relationship on this impor- tant study. Sincerely, Sharon Greene Executive Director cc: David Solow, LACTC Jim Mills, LOSSAN RCA Jacki Bacharach, LOSSAN RCA/LACTC Carl Schiermeyer • • March 16, 1990 Mr. Jack Reagan Executive Director Riverside County Transportation Commission 4075 Main Street, Suite 302 Riverside, CA 92501 403 West Eighth Stn.rt Suite 500 Los Angeles California 90014-3096 (213) 626-0370 1ECERV1ED LIAR 2 61990 Dear Mr. Reagan: Riverside County Transportation Commission RIVERSIDE — ORANGE RAIL STUDY This letter is to inform you of the progress between the LACTC, LOSSAN and RCTC concerning the supplemental task (track review between Fullerton and Redondo Junction) to the Riverside - Orange Rail Study. On March 16, 1990 I met with Carl Schiermeyer and Sharon Greene to resolve the issues concerning the track study between Fullerton and Redondo Junction. This additional task will be added to the existing RCTC study being performed by Morrison Knudsen Engineers (MKE). The LACTC and LOSSAN will split the cost of this extra task and will pay the funds to RCTC for distribution to MKE. It was decided that representatives from LACTC and LOSSAN will co - manage this portion of the RCTC study, and that RCTC will retain project administration responsibilities. We are in the process of finalizing the Scope -of -Work for the extra task. When the Scope is complete, Mr. Schiermeyer will draft a letter of agreement outlining each agencies' responsibilities and financial commitment. If you have questions please contact me at (213) 236-9189. Sincerely, id Solow Manager, Commuter Rail DS:GC gcl\reagan cc: Sharon Greene, LOSSAN • • AGENDA ITEM #8D • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Mark T. Massman, Measure A Project Manager THROUGH: Jack Reagan, Executive Director SUBJECT: Route 91 Construction Traffic Management Plan Managing traffic can become a significant cost and planning consideration during the construction of major projects on the state highway system. Development of a Traffic Management Plan (TMP) can take many forms including construction of detours and alternate routes, operation of alternate transportation systems, public relations, and informational efforts. These efforts can cost as much as 15 to 20 percent of the project construction cost. Caltrans has suggested that RCTC consider funding a TMP for the Route 91 project. Caltrans envisions a large scale and therefore potentially expensive program for Route 91. RCTC has not budgeted funds for a TMP within the Measure A Expenditure Plan. RCTC staff has requested that Caltrans investigate that availability of federal funds for the TMP as well as the ability for RCTC to use federal funds without impacting SB 140 funding eligibility. To date, we have not received a reading on this issue. RCTC staff has also asked for a list of potential measures to be employed along with cost estimates and measures of effectiveness. Caltrans District 8 has not previously executed a major TMP. District staff has asked for assistance in collecting and presenting the required data. Route 91 construction is scheduled to begin in the fourth quarter of 1990. If some TMP strategies are to be implemented for this project, it is essential that data on cost and effectiveness be collected so that RCTC can make appropriate programming decisions. In order to expedite this data collection, RCTC staff recommends the use of a consultant to study construction of the Route 91 HOV project and make a report on potential TMP strategies that would be appropriate and cost effective. If implemented, a TMP will likely need to address the complete project including those portions in Orange County. Initial contact with OCTC indicates that they may be interested in funding a portion of the TMP program. At a minimum, OCTC is interested in participating in defining the required TMP measures and would be willing fund a portion of the consultant study addressed here. Agenda Item #8D April 11, 1990 Page 2 Route 91 Construction Tr fic Management Plan Two of the consulting firms presently working on the Route 91 construction staging and detour plans (Parsons Brinkerhoff Quade & Douglas, Inc. and Howard Needles Tammen and Bergenhoff, a subconsultant to KaWES and Associates) have considerable experience with TMP programs. Staff has prepared and included in your agenda package a proposed work scope and schedule. Staff has asked for proposals from PBQ&D and KaWES (HNTB). These will be submitted on April 11, 1990. A preliminary budget of $80,000.00 has been set for this work. Staff recommends that RCTC approve this additional work and budget. This study will help to expedite decision making regarding the Route 91 project TMP. Performance of this work by existing consultants will avoid the need for a new contract. The work can quickly executed through amendment to an existing contract. BUDGET AND FINANCE COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION The Budget and Finance Committee will review this item prior to the Commission meeting. Committee comments and actions will be reported to the Commission. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends: 1. That RCTC approve having a consultant perform a study on TMP measures for the Route 91 project per the attached scope of work. Further, that potential consultants be limited to PBQ&D and KaWES (HNTB) currently working on Route 91 design. The work will be added to an existing contract as an amendment. The amendment will be subject to review by legal counsel. 2. That RCTC approve a budget amendment transferring $80,000.00 from contingencies to professional services for this work. OCTC is expected to reimburse RCTC for approximately 53 percent of this amount. MM:sc • • Route 91 TMP Study Scope of Work phase I - Definition of TMP Programming Alternatives 1. Collect information from each design consultant on construction impacts for the entire Route 91 NOV and Ramp Meter projects from Magnolia Avenue in Riverside to Route 57. 2. Meet with impacted local agencies to obtain concerns and impacts to be addressed. 3. Prepare a matrix of 'impacts and a list of specific strategies that can be applied to each situation. Strategies to be evaluated include: o Detour Plans o Changeable signs (locations and messages) o Local Radio Information Program (timing and messages) o Television Advertisements (timing and messages) o Tow Truck Services o Emergency Response Teams o Rideshare Programs o Van Pool Programs o Park and Ride Facilities o Telemarketing o Routing of Truck Traffic o Any other innovative measures proven to be effective 4. Collect data from Caltrans and other agencies to assess the cost of each of the strategies. 5. Analyze each specific strategy to develop measures of effectiveness that will enable policy makers to make programming decisions. 6. Prepare a final report (assume 30 copies). • Phase II - TMP Implementation (following policy direction) 1. Prepare a report for public circulation explaining the construction impacts, strategies being employed to mitigate those impacts, and listing contact persons and agencies for the various programs (assume 250 copies). 2. Prepare public presentation materials and assist with public presentations explaining the TMP (assume 5 presentations). ' Schedule of Wor% Proposal Due - 4/11/90 Notice to Proceed - 4/13/90 Phase I Final Report - 5/30/90 Phase II Report - 6/27/90 Presentations - As Required • • AGENDA ITEM #8G3 • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION April 11, 1990 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Mark Massman, Measure A Project Manager William Hughes, Project Coordinator THROUGH: Jack Reagan, Executive Director SUBJECT: Establishing Preliminary Field Surveying for the I-215 Project in Conjunction with SanBAG. BACKGROUND Common to both the RCTC and SanBAG Measure programs is the widening and improvement of a contiguous segment of the Interstate 215 freeway, from the Interstate 10 south through the 60/91/215 interchange and then east to the junction with Route 60 in Moreno Valley. The MOU between RCTC, SanBAG and Caltrans covering the subject work was presented to the Commission and approved at the March Meeting. To initiate the preliminary phases of this project, the RCTC staff is developing engineering, environmental, traffic engineering, and surveying contracts with the consultants that were selected for this project. Current aerial photomapping and preliminary surveying is required for both the engineering and environmental studies and digital mapping will be required for the final design phase of the project. RCTC staff has met with Caltrans and will be using their technical guidance to obtain the required aerial photography and subsequent mapping. Mapping is a critical area requiring substantial Caltrans involvement to assure the necessary quality and completeness. NBS/Lowry Engineers and Planners have been assigned this task for the Interstate 215 project. SCOPE OF WORT( NBS/Lowry has been directed to prepare a proposal to address the following tasks: Agenda Item #8G3 April 11, 1990 • • 1. To perform all surveying work necessary to support the preliminary engineering and/or environmental studies with the exception of the establishment of primary horizontal and vertical control. 2. To obtain aerial photography and digital mapping for the entire length of the I215 project from the intersection with I10 south to 14th street and from Market street on Route 60 east to Pigeon Pass/Fredricks St. East of the intersection with I15E. Included in your agenda package are the scope, schedule, and cost appendices negotiated by Bechtel and CALTRANS for the NBS/Lowry Engineers and Planners contract. Terms and conditions have been reviewed by Legal Counsel. BUDGET AND FINANCE COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION The contract with NBS/Lowry will be presented to the Budget and Finance Committee for review prior to the Commission meeting. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that: 1. The Commission approve the contract with NBS/Lowry Engineers and Planners, subject to final review by Legal Counsel, foe the amount of $676,672 with a 15% contingency amount of $101,501 for a maximum contract amount of $778,173. Through the project MOU, SanBAG will be asked to fund the portion of work attributable to the Measure I portion of the project. 2. That the current budget be amended by transferring the amount of $778,173 from the contingency account to the Professional Services account for execution of this contract. MTM/WH • • �/ /fl ci ENGINEERS & PLANNERS S/89 April 4, 1990 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION 3560 University Avenue, Suite 100 Riverside, CA 92501 Attention: William R. Hughes, RCTC/Bechtel SURVEY AND MAPPING - 1215 Gentlemen: We are submitting herewith our revised proposal for survey and mapping services on 1215. Revisions have been made in accordance with discussions at our meeting on April 3, 1990. The work is in Riverside and San Bernardino Counties. The length of roadway in San Bernardino County is 28% of the total. Thirty-three percent of the structures are in San Bernardino County. When the work is performed, time records will be separated for work done in each county. Hernandez, Kroone & Associates (HKA) is our DBE subconsultant for this work. We will subcontract non -field survey work such as data collection, as -built and right-of-way research, and preparation of a construction survey control map. The wage and overhead rates, shown in the proposal, are applicable to HKA. We understand that this proposal is intended to establish a budget for the project, and that actual work will be initiated by task orders for specific items of work. We appreciate this opportunity to provide our services to RCTC. Our staff is available, at your convenience, to discuss this submittal. ARK J. RATERMANN Principal Engineer MJR/nm Encls. 164 W. Hospitality Lane • Suite 1 • P.O. Box 8124 • San Bernardino, CA 92412-8124 • (714) 888-1401 • • 2/15/90 Rev: 3/01/90 Rev: 3/22/90 PROPOSAL TO RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION FOR SURVEY AND MAPPING SERVICES PROJECT LOCATION SR91/I215 from 14th Street north to 1800 feet north of 1-10 SR60/1215 from Market Street east to Pidgeon Pass Road/ Fredricks Street. SCOPE OF SERVICES Provide survey and mapping services as required and requested to provide data for preliminary engineering studies (Phase I) and Plans, Specifications and Estimates (Phase II). All work will be in accordance with Caltrans standards, specifications and policies. All submittals of plans and maps will be provided on magnetic tape using Intergraph IGDS version 8.8 file format. Phase I - Services To Be Performed 1. Map corridor at 1" = 50' with 2-foot contour interval, 1600 feet wide. 2. Map selected bridge sites (approximately 15) at 1"=?O' with 1-foot contour interval. 3. Provide field surveys to: 3.1 Make ties to miscellaneous control points and monuments as needed to re-establish layout lines and stationing. 3.2 Field locate major utilities that may impact preliminary design 3.3 Make field measurements as requested by design consultants to verify ramp widths, sign structure locations and sizes, and drainage features. 3.4 Detail surveys of approximately 15 bridges; horizontal and vertical clearances, edge profiles, detail measurements of special features; data needed by designers for widening structures. 4. Construction survey control map and data processing. 5. Research and data collection. As-builts, survey control, property lines, right-of-way. /iVa _WL-_® .ur - 1 - • • WORK FORCE REQUIREMENTS PERSON HOURS BY TASK Task Survey Phase I PM SM PC Chain Apprent. D/D Total 3.1 Field ties for control 24 104 416 416 832 20 1,812 3.2 Major utilities 10 40 160 160 320 20 710 !disc. features 20 60 240 240 480 20 1,060 3.1 Bridge details 20 120 480 480 960 40 2,100 4.0 Survey map 10 120 40 200 370 5.0 Research 8 80 80 200 368 92 524 1,416 1,296 2,592 500 6,420 /A1 -s//�® .uv - 2 • • ESTIMATE OF SURVEY AND MAPPING COSTS Phase I - Mapping and Surveys for Preliminary Engineering Surveys: Function Estimated Hourly Hours Rate Amount Project Manager, M. Ratermann 92 34.86 $ 3,207 Survey Manager, R. Kelley 524 26.00 13,624 Party Chief 1,416 24.93 35,301 Chainman 1,296 21.33 27,644 Apprentice D 2,592 12.18 31,571 Designer/Drafter 500 15.00 7,500 Clerical 80 12.00 960 Total Direct Labor 6,500 $119,807 Fringe, Overhead 6 General Admin. 150% $179,711 Other Costs: Travel - 10,000 miles @ $ 0.24 = $ 2,400 Lane Closures - 50 days @ $1,050 = $ 52,500 Total Other Costs Subtotal Fee (10.5%) Labor + Overhead $299,518 TOTAL SURVEY PHASE I Mapping - $ 54,900 $354,418 31,449 $385,867 Airborne Systems Inc. (Detailed Proposal Attached) $290,805 TOTAL FOR PHASE I $676,672 • • BREAKDOWN OF COSTS 1-215 FREEWAY 1" = 50'/2' CONTOUR INTERVAL MAPPING LABOR COSTS Category Principal/Associate/Senior Project Manager Staff/Stereo/Analyst Editor CAD Technician Photo Lab Technician Hourly Estimated Rate Total Hours $36.06 16.15 18.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 TOTAL LABOR Overhaed and General Administrative - 139% OTHER DIRECT COSTS Subcontractors - Aerial Photo Vehicle Costs/Mileage - 15 Trips @ $30.00 Field/Office/Lab Supplies Shipping/Postage Maps/Photos/Publications Telephone/FAX Miscellaneous TOTAL OTHER DIRECT COSTS SUBTOTAL Fee (10.5%) Labor + Overhead - $229,156 TOTAL ESTIMATED COSTS 80 424 3,140 375 2,000 94 Cost $ 2,885 6,848 56,520 4,500 24,000 1,128 6,113 $ 95,881 $133,275 $ 2,900 450 6,350 300 20 200 400 $ 10,620 $239,776 $ 24,006 $263,837 .17.17 • • BREAKDOWN OF COSTS I-215 FREEWAY BRIDGE SITES (15) 1" = 20'/2' CONTOUR INTERVAL MAPPING LABOR COSTS Hourly Estimated Category Rate Total Hours Cost Principal/Associate/Senior $36.06 15 $ 541 Project Manager 16.15 38 614 Staff/Stereo/Analyst 18.00 300 5,400 Editor 12.00 45 540 CAD Technician 12.00 240 2,880 Photo Lab Technician -0- -0- TOTAL LABOR 638 $ 9,975 Overhaed and General Administrative - 139% $13,865 OTHER DIRECT COSTS Subcontractors - Aerial Photo Vehicle Costs/Mileage - Field/Office/Lab Supplies Shipping/Postage Maps/Photos/Publications Telephone/FAX Miscellaneous $ 625 TOTAL OTHER DIRECT COSTS $ 625 SUBTOTAL $24,465 Fee (10.5%) Labor + Overhead - $23,840 $ 2,503 TOTAL ESTIMATED COSTS $26,968 • • SURVEYING & MAPPING SERVICES MILESTONE SCHEDULE 1. Survey work will be initiated by Task Orders. The schedule to complete the task order will be indicated therein. 2. N B S/Lowry will provide a survey party on 72-hour notice to be available for the duration of the work as required. 3. Mapping shall be in accordance with the following schedule: 3.1 Photography - Within one week after notification that all targets are set. Estimate 4-16-90 to 4-21-90 - Weather permitting. 3.2 Analytical aerotriangulation completed with one week after receipt of field control data. Estimated date June 18, 1990. 3.3 Mapping begins after completion of checking of analytics. Estimated date - July 2, 1990. 3.4 Mapping complete by December 7, 1990. . • • AGENDA ITEM #SI • RIVERRE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION P RTATION COMMISSION TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Mark Massman, Measure A Project Manager Tom Horkan, Measure A Project Coordinator THROUGH: Jack Reagan, Executive Director SUBJECT: AUTHORIZATION FOR NOTICE -TO -PROCEED FOR WILBUR SMITH ASSOCIATES ON STATE HIGHWAY 111 CORRIDOR STUDY BACKGROUND Improvements to State Highway 111 in the Coachella Valley are included within the Measure A program under State Highways and Major Regional Road Projects. The project for Route 111 was identified within the Measure as "various operational improvements" with an estimated cost range of $20 million. The section of State Highway 111 identified for operational improvements extends from Ramon Road in Palm Springs to Indio Boulevard in the City of Indio. This portion of Route 111 passes through the Cities of Palm Springs, Cathedral City, Rancho Mirage, Palm Desert, Indian Wells, La Quinta, and Indio. State Highway 111 primarily consists of four travel lanes with some sections built to six lanes. This route experienced significant traffic delays during the peak season of the Coachella Valley. Included in this agenda as a separate but related item is a Memorandum of Understanding between CVAG, Caltrans District 8, Caltrans District 11, and RCTC formalizing cooperative responsibilities for the Corridor Study. PROPOSED STUDY By previous Commission action, the traffic engineering firm of Wilbur Smith Associates was selected to prepare a engineering study of State Highway 111. This study will: 1) assess existing conditions, 2) project future traffic volumes, 3) identify candidate improvement projects, 4) estimate the costs of these projects, and; 5) prioritize project implementation. This study will be prepared with the full involvement of Caltrans Districts 8 and 11, and the Coachella Valley Association of Governments. Refinement of the study scope and ongoing technical review will be performed cooperatively by the above agencies. A four -party Agenda Item #8I April 11, 1990 1rm-U4-177YJ U7•44 r►[UI1 WILNV^ 31'111►1 G P/Z.,W4-1111L4J IQ • 1 1 1'1 I IJ 11 GU I IWTRODOCTION APP$NDIX A acOnn OF SXRYicae The Route 111 project, as defined in the Transportat .off xpendit re 21Dn - APope _and Cost Review, extends from Ramon Road at post -mile 57,2 to post -mile 28.50 at Indio Boulevard. The section from Ramon Road to poet -mile 37.86, which is located between Cook Street and Deep Canyon Road, falls within District 8 of Caltrans. P.M. 37.86 is approximately the Palm Desert and Indian Wells city boundary. South of P.M. 37.86 to Indio Boulevard Route 111 falls within District 11 juriedliction. Wilbur Smith Associates (WSA) will complete a study of the entire corridor to identify potential projects and the benefits of these projects. Short-term and long-term benefits will be assessed. Extensive interaction will be maintained with CVAG and local jurisdictions to ensure that the final product is completed as a cooperative study for the betterment of the Coachella Valley. The outcome of the Route 111 study will be a listing of the projects With associated construction and right-of-way costs. The projects Will be prioritized based upon criteria determined early in the study. Study results will lead to completion of Initial Project Reports (IPR's) for Route 111. I I , OCOPR OF WORX Task 1 t_ CollC a altriitial Meetings purpose; To identify and collect readily available data of relevance to the study; to review the scope, objectives and issues with the RCTC and the Project Study Team (PST); and to consult with each rtrfC-IUy £ J JU %.I7 • y.4 r Kul l 41 I L IJUI[ :A A1 I I I a u • • (1-/.1.J 1 1 J_U I. 1 J jurisdiction along the corridor regarding their improvement plane and needs. p. cr4ptiQl This study will take full advantage of the extensive information already generated in previous traffic planning and engineering efforts by RCTC, Caltrans, SCAG, CVAG and local jurisdictions. The initial data collection efforts will also focus on consultations with affected jurisdictions to gain clear understandings of issues important to local communities. Subtask 1(aI : CofleCt Initial Data, including: o Available traffic volume counts on State Route 111 and on intersecting roadways through the corridor. Data on weekend as well as weekday traffic, peak hour as well as daily volumes, and heavy vehicle as well as auto traffic will be collected. These data will be compiled for significant screen lines across the corridor. Turning movement counts will be obtained at key intersections, if available; o Traffic counts, evaluation criteria, methodology, and results of CVAG's Transportation Projeot Priority Program Project (TPPP) ; o Mapping, as -built drawings, right-of-way maps, and preliminary design concepts, to the extent available; a Travel data and projections of travel patterns from the Coachella Valley area Transportation Study (CVATS) of 1987 and its update which is currently underway; o Available aerial photographs; • Accident data from Caltrans; • • 0 Caltrans route inventory logs. • • : . - 1,1 - The second element of Task 1 will be a team field reconnaissance. Strip maps will be prepared in advance of the field trip to facilitate note -taking. A van will be rented to facilitate a joint field review of conditions along the corridors by key members of the Study Team. Representatives of RCTC, CVAG and Caltrans will. be encouraged to participate in the preliminary reconnaissance trip with the► Study Team. A video tape log of the corridor will also be made. The primary purpose of this trip will be to acquaint the Study Team with each segment of the corridor and with traffic and development patterns in each community of the corridor. agInask 1(c) :_._Meetings vjttl Localjurisdictipns The third element of the initial task will be initial meetings with each of the jurisdictions along the corridor. These meetings should preferably be held after the consultant team has performed the field reconnaissance noted above and reviewed available data and previous reports. These initial meetings will include (1) a review of the study scope and work plan, (2) an exchange of views on key issues and alternatives to be addressed in the study, and (3) a determination of planned improvements to Route 111 to be made by the local jurisdiction. Deliverables A brief summary document (a working paper) for distribution to RCTC and PST members summarizing results of the data collection effort and confirming the issues to be addressed. pchedu1e; Assuming receipt of Notice to Proceed by mid-april, the initial meetings and reconnaissance trip should Tadsbaratgag 2: be completed by the first weak of May. On this basis, the working paper would be submitted prior to the end of May. To supplement available traffic count information. pgsa iptic r1; This task will be conducted prior to Task 1 so that data is collected during the peak season. The work involves five Subtasks which are listed and subsequently discussed below; Subtask 2(a) Subtask 2(b) Subtask 20) Subtask 2(d) Subtask 2(e) Mobilization Intersection Counts Machine Counts Speed/Delay Surveys Data Reduction/Analyses beak (a) : aisilisat This Subtask includes: q contacting each of the local jurisdictions along the corridor, Caltrans Districts $ and 11, and the consultant for CVAG's ',Transportation Project Priority Program Project", to determine what relevant traffic count information exists; p design of the traffic count/survey program --locations, Schedule, staffing and equipment needs, preparation of forms, etc,; 0 procurement of staff, equipment and other resources; APR-04-1990 09:45 FRUI.1 WILBUR 51`111H li F+5S- LIHTES Tu • 1?14YCi'r.9::U fr. o training of field staff. Oubtask 2(b): Intersection Counts This subtask includes conducting turning movement counts during A.M., midday, and P.M. peaks at 44 intersections; and vehicle classification counts at nine intersections. The four key intersections at Washington, Monroe, Date Palm and Gene Autrey Trail are included in a turning movement count program being conducted as part of CVAG's project prioritization study. Therefore, these locations are not included in this count program. The proposed intersection count locations will be reviewed in the field prior to conducting counts to ensure they are appropriate. The need for midday peak counts will also be reviewed in the field. Local jurisdictions advise that midday peaks are significant in Palm Springs and Palm Desert; however, it is not clear that midday peak periods need to be counted in other corridor communities. Intersection counting will start at Palm Springs and progress towards Indio. Oubtask 2 (c); Machine Count CVAG's project prioritization study conducted one day, 24-hour machine counts at 86 locations. Sixteen of these locations are located on S.R.111, between Indio Boulevard and Ramon Road. This subtask will conduct directional, 24-hour machine counts at these sixteen locations, fiuktaek 2jd): Speed-py Surveys Three floating car runs Would be made during peak and off-peak periods in each direction, giving a total of 12, round-trip runs. The first set of these runs Would ba done during the first day of the counting program to give an early appreciation of the intensity and duration of peak periods along the corridor and allow for adjusting intersection counts if necessary. 1'Y 1\ V`1 1 J JU V J •''1U 1 1`.1.-11 1 Y/ / L.UV1\ J1 11 • • 4 41 1uI I __.� figiatAsk 2(0): Data Redu/Ans ctionalyse This subtask involves the processing of raw field data and preparation of count tabulations and travel time plots. Deliverables Tabulations of traffic counts, turning movement counts at key intersections and travel time plots. Schga4e: The peak traffic season in Coachella Valley extends through the month of March. We propose to commence traffic counts at the Palm Springs end of the corridor during the week of March 5, 1990, and progress eastward to completion in Indio before March 30, 1990. This schedule is intended to avoid counting at locations affected by major special events such as the Dinah Shore LPGA Tournament in Indian Wells (March 26-April 1), or the university Spring break which affects Palm Springs from March 16. All counts would be conducted during the mid- week period (Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday). Task 3: Inventory/Analyze Existing ,Conditions 'post; To define existing highway facilities and travel conditions in the corridor, and to document these findings in a factual background paper. Using information collected in tasks 1 and 2, prepare documentation of existing conditions including a general analysis of volume/capacity on Route 111 and ICU analysis of key intersections. HF'K-U4-1J`JU U fib FItUs9 WILbUR ,I.11IH 4 HV=4.11_IHIt IU • • Description Tt is sometimes a problem in controversial situations that those with different positions on an issue, such as how to improve traffic flows, also have differing perceptions of the prevailing conditions. The existing traffic conditions will be defined and documented as a key step in a process of consensus -building. The purpose will be to increase the level of understanding of the facts and will involve the following subtasks: Subtask 3(a): Exlstina Roadway Conditig1 Document existing roadway conditions, including number of lanes, degree of access, alignment features, scope for upgrading, etc. Subtask 3 (b) T _J,evels gj ervice (LOS) Determine existing traffic volumes and service levels on each key segment (from TPPP) of the roadway system in the corridor, and at major intersections utilizing ICU methods and TPPP capacity assumptions. A corridor traffic flow map will be prepared to make this information understandable. $ubtagk 3_0; Existina Traffic Patterna Estimate existing inter -community traffic patterns, and interpret traffic flow patterns. This information will be presented graphically. $ubtagk 3(d): Travel Times Estimate existing travel times between corridor communities based on field observations. HrK—u 4-177u Ely. 4( rl' LN I W 1 LL$UK :+1'I 1 1 rl 4 h t..1.. 1 H I t 1 u 1 1 1 s you • r. __• Aubask 3 (e) : Accidenti _Experience SumAaarize accident experience and identify high accident locations in the corridor. Dgllverablgs A concise working paper for distribution to the RCTC, PST and TTAS, well in advance of a second round of meetings with them. Any disagreement relative to the facts presented, or omissions, will be identified at this stage of the analysis, and corrections will be made as appropriate so that all participants will agree on the fundamental facts about the existing situation. In addition to the working paper, graphic aids suitable for use in presentations and workshops will be produced. gcpedulet This work will be completed by mid -June to be available for late June meetings of the ROTC, PST, and TTAS. Thsk 4; p veloq Evaluation Criteria Pnrpg0et Descrigtign To define and reach full agreement on the evaluation criteria to be considered in comparing candidate projects and providing the RCTC, PST and CVAG TTAS the bases for prioritizing project implementation. The TPPP criteria relevant to the scope of this project will be adopted, Additional criteria, which reflect the critical issues of the study, may be proposed. The evaluation criteria will need to be appropriate to a 'planning level' study; and address Caltrans' requirements for preparation of initial Project Reports. The proposed project evaluation criteria will be submitted for hirK—U4-177W U7•-1( rrul'1 I'1lLDur :Alton G 1-/7,JU/_1nIC7J su 1 • 1-.1V 1 i ?=u • • consideration and approval to a PST meeting convened especially for this purpose. The consensus reached at this meeting on evaluation criteria will permit the consultant team to derive quantitative ratings for each candidate improvement project. Deliveratls: A working paper presenting proposed evaluation criteria keyed to the critical issues of the study, for review and approval by the RCTC and PST prior to the evaluations. Schedule: We propose to develop this deliverable by mid -June. this is to ensure that subsequent work efforts are properly focused to generate all required criteria. Task 5: Preliminary �'raffic Forecast ancd Evaluation purpose: pescrint ion To forecast year 2010 traffic volumes and analyze the impacts of this traffic on the currently planned roadway system. The CVATS traffic forecasting model is currently being updated, with completion anticipated by June. - The updated CVATS model will assign projected traffic to a base ease network, and alternative improvement scenarios. It is IIut proposed to repeat any of the work being carried out under the model updating. It is proposed to utilize the new trip tables for making TRANPLAN traffic assignments to modified networks. This Task will include the following Subtasks; 5(a) Development of a base case network of the currently planned roadway system, and assignment of 2010 traffic projections to that network; 5(b) Interpolation between CVATS 1987 and 2010 traffic r, 1s .J-e iJJV VJ • '7V I Vl 11_.A4..ry♦ JI 14111 4> I I J JV•_ 1I'II L.I IV • . 1£ 9 I J I 1 forecasts to develop 1995 projections and assignment of 1995 traffio to the base case network; 5(0) Analyses of the base case network in terms of link volume to capacity ratios, and major intersection operation using ICU methodology; 5(d) Review of planning level intersection analyses to determine where new improvements are needed; 5 (e) Identification of roadway deficiencies as a basis for developing improvement alternatives. peliverable: A working paper summarizing year 2010 and 1995 forecasts and identifying projected deficiencies. schedule: Assuming availability of the updated CVATS model by mid -June, the deliverable for this task will be submitted by mid -August. Task 6: Define Candidate Improvements Purpose: Degarjntion To identify and define individual improvements needed to incrementally improve traffic flow on Route 111. The analyses of existing 1995 and 2010 traffic conditions carried out in Tasks 3 and 4, respectively, will identify deficiencies for which mitigating improvements will be formulated. In general, projects will be developed to reduce accidents, delays and improve volume/capacity ratios. It is anticipated that numerous candidate projects will be identified at a broad range of scope and cost, including, but not limited tos fU 1P1 ♦JJV VJ•° V 1 11V11 W►►. WV, .J11► 111 M I IJJV•_►1'/1 L.J • I V ♦ I♦ 1, V 1 1 _ V o access controls, o traffic management modifications, o traffic signal modifications, o intersection redesigns, o additional auxiliary lane$, o additional through lanes. Projects will be developed to a "functional" level of design, only. Right-of-way and capital cost estimates appropriate for planning purposes will be developed utilizing Caltrans and/or local jurisdiction unit cost data. For the purpose of developing a work program, it is assumed that 40 candidate projects will be identified and defined. Subtasks will be: Subtask (a) - DeveloR Candidate Proie9t Co_ncentx to a schematic level of detail sufficient for making planning level cost estimates; and $ubtask 6(b) - irepare cost Estimates utilizing aggregated unit cost amounts obtained from Caltrans and/or local jurisdictions. Deliverable; The deliverable for this task will be a report summarizing all candidate improvement projects, including cost estimates. OahedulQs This task can start in late June upon completion of Task 3. Completion of the work is scheduled for the end of August, two weeks after the final results of Task 5 are available. t PurP09.2; To group candidate projects into phased implementation scenarios. W K-Ui-17VU U7,47 rruri WILDUK :Alton 4 H7JULIr IC . lU • • 1 1 1 H 1 U t i J._ L* Description The evaluation criteria developed in Task 4 will be quantified for each of the candidate improvement projects. Sets of projects for phased implementation will be developed in close consultation with RCTC and the PST. Four scenarios have been proposed based on total implementation budgets of $20, $40, $60 and $80 million. The work will involve the following subtasks; Subtask 7(a) - Evaluation Criteria will be quantified and a preliminary weighting given to each candidate project, including projects proposed by local jurisdictions. $ubtask 7(b) - Alternative Sgenarios representing total project costs of approximately $20, $40, $60 and $80 million will be developed by utilizing evaluation criteria to group candidate projects into logical sets for phased implementation; Subtask 7(c) - Finalise Scenarios Alternative scenarios developed by WSA will be submitted to RCTC and the PST for consideration. A special meeting of the PST will be held to review comments, consider proposed changes, and reach a consensus on alternative project scenarios. Deliverables An interim report documenting candidate project weighting and development of alternative project implementation scenarios. Schedules Task 7 will commence at the end of August and will be completed by the end of September. Task $s AnalyzQ kjernatiYe 4cenarios Purposes To refine quantitative measures of the criteria Hh'K-Ui-1771� U7;47 1-KU1'1 W1LbUK :d'11111 IU • • • Resaription selected for comparison of alternative candidate projects and project traffic volumes in 1995 and 2010 resulting from each alternative project implementation scenario. In this task, traffic assignments will be made to networks representing corridor improvement scenarios using TRANPLAN. Travel speeds used in these network assignments will represent anticipated future speeds with the improvements included in each of the four scenarios. The distribution of future traffic on Route 111 and arterials will be determined from these assignments, as well as other traffic -related measures defined in Task 5. The network analysis also will be used to derive comparative estimates for vehicle hours of travel and diversion from congestion locations. Level of service will be refined. A matrix will be developed to summarize the comparison of alternatives according to all evaluation factors. Critical trade- offs will be identified and ranked with respect to each evaluation factor, Task 8 will involve the following subtasks: Subtask 8 (a) t Prepare Networks The CVATS network will be recoded for eight Route 111 conditions (four alternative scenarios for 1995 and 2010). Subtask $ (bt Project Traffiq TRANPLAN assignments of traffic will be made for each of the eight modified networks; APR-04-1990 39:50 FRurI WILBUR EI IITH :. A:,SOC IHTEi. Tu • • • 171.170,''?u F.31 Projected traffic volumes will be used to refine level of service criteria and to derive Comparative estimates of travel time and shifts of traffic patterns. Subtask 8 (d) : Develen Eyalua 9 nn Mat-.4., A matrix will be prepared to provide a comparison of alternatives, with respect to evaluation criteria and indicating critical trade- offs. Deliverable A report on the comparative analyses of alternatives, including a summary of findings, identification of key trade-offs, and a recommended strategy for the phased upgrading of Route 111. Schedule: This deliverable will be completed and submitted by late October for a key round of RCTC and PST meetings and workshops to be held in early November. Task 9: Protect Management This task includes attendance at 20 bi-weekly trend meetings; 15 Coordination meetings with RCTC, CVAG, Caltrans and other involved consultants' staff; and an estimated 12 community meetings. It also includes preparation of detailed work plans and man-hour estimates, invoices, progress reports, and trend meeting documentation. Task 20: Written Reportq Written documentation of all analyses and results will be prepared and submitted in the form of text, tables, figures, drawings and technical appendices. The Final Report will be submitted in four phases: Preliminary Draft, Draft, Prefinai, and Final. Reports/working papers will be submitted to document methodology and findings for Tasks 1 through 8. Appendix B gives a detailed schedule for submittals of all deliverables. AFR-04-1990 09:55 FROM W ILBUR SMITH & ASSOCIATES TO 17147877920 P.02 APPENDIZ B 1. MILESTONE SCHEDULE OF SERVICES 1.1 Milestone BGhodule by Task/8ubteek • Milestone Task 1, Working Paper Subtask 2(b), Tabulations Task 2, Summary of Results Task 3, Working Paper Task 4, Proposed Evaluation Criteria Task 4, Working Paper Task 5, Working Paper Task 6, Working Paper Subtask 7(c), Proposed Alternative Task 7, Interim Report Task 8, Interim Report Preliminary Draft Report Draft Report Prefinal Report Final Report Date May 31, 1990 April 13, 1990 April 27, 1990 June 15, 1990 June 15, 1990 June 29, 1990 August 17, 1990 August 31, 1990 Scenarios September 10, 1990 October 1, 1990 October 31, 1990 November 23, 1990 December 14, 1990 January 14, 1991 February 1, 1991 1.2 Milestone Schedule in Chronological Milestone Subtask 2(b), Tabulations Task 2, Summary of Results Task 1, Working Paper Task 3, Working Paper Task 4, Proposed Evaluation Criteria Task 4, Working Paper Task 5, Working Paper Task 6, Working Paper Subtask 7(c), Proposed Alternative Task 7, Interim Report Task 8, Interim Report Preliminary Draft Report Draft Report Prefinal Report Final Report order Date April 13, 1990 April 27, 1990 May 31, 1990 June 15, 1990 June 15, 1990 June 29, 1990 August 17, 1990 August 31, 1990 Scenarios September 10, 1990 October 1, 1990 October 31, 1990 November 23, 1990 December 14, 1990 January 14, 1991 February 1, 1991 f'l/ 1'. UJ LJ1U UI •J`. I r.Lij1 WlLL,UI•u -Ali 111 IIJ..rU. 1111 L., 1U 1 1 4. I I L I 1 J_•J 1 . ROUTE 111 CORRIDOR STUDY HOURLY STAFF CONS BASE HOURLY PDE[I1ON BAT,R MULTIPLIER I WILBUR SMITH ASSOCIATES Officer $38 2.58 $98 Principal Associates 631 2.58 $80 Associates $27 2.68 $70 Senior Engineers $21 2.58 $54 Engineers $18 2.68 $46 Assistant Engineer $15 2.58 $39 Technician/Clerical $12 2.58 $31 GARDNER CONSULTING PLANNERS (MBE) Principles $32 2.00 $65 Senior Engineers $25 2,00 *60 Technician/Clerical $12 2.00 $24 Surveyors (Temporary) $12 CGS PLANNING AND ENGINEERING (WBE) C. Siripocanont $35 1.95 $68 (Principal) 1-u 1•, U.:- 7Ju UI •1 11`U1.1 W11I1,_LP_III ILJ IU • • 1 1 1'1 I V I 1 . UJ ROUTE 111 CORRIDOR STUDY OTHER DIRECT COSTS ALLOCATION WILOUR SMITH ASSOCIATES TASK twls 1 2 a ! 5 S Z SUB- S ]O T0TM.B Mileage: 80.24/11186 700 400 150 150 226 150 150 2300 350 4111111 Van Rental: $400hrnnk 400 Round Trip Awktsres: '00 0 Pfniu-Ohturlo: 0S0 0 0 190 SO 00 160 840 S.F.-LA.:8100 1110 460 150 760 Lodging A wale: 110Wd y 2000 S00 100 200 100 100 300 300 3000 Cammack, RW:11001dsy 400 400 Supplies a Equipment 300 200 160 100 100 100 100 300 1360 aproduotion 250 126 200 126 126 75 125 260 1000 2000 4276 Telephone/Fax 125 126 00 60 60 60 76 50 100 100 775 SUBTOTALS 4335 1730 560 675 OW 666 530 400 4260 3370 17166 GARDNER CONSULTING PLANNERS TASK SUS- S ;l 10 JOTALB, Mileage:10.24/ml► 1W1 50 100 1g60 Lodging & Maala:1100/day 2506 2801 Supplies & Equipment 1000 50 500 1550 median 100 260 360 Telephone/Fait a00 6D 100 360 SUBTOTALS 6e06 M0 060 7000 CO PANNING a ENDR. TASK SUB- 1 1 ]O TOTALR Round Trip Airfares; S.F..I..A.: $160 160 160 300 Lodging i Weir $loWday 200 300 600 'Pd"eMan OD 50 100 Telephone Far 60 100 100 SUBTOTALS 360 660 160 1000 0 c- C- 0J .r P. UILBUR SMITH & ASSOCIATES • -L t �s a 8 0 8 1 1 a I d 8 1 w P $ 1 1 • 8 g N x 8 1 1 1 1 1 i f If f 1 8 x 81S a If /84 8 8 8* St 838 ZZ N 1 1 1 6 3 1 2 8i p 8 3 82 1 1I 8 3 28 is IJ i a a 0 1 a 1 ;JP 1 1 Z 18 spa O 2 • ff 8 • • 1 1 1 O 0 111 1 >1 a 8 1 a 1 11a a 8 8 1 2 8 1 a 8 8 O A O O 1 f 1 F 1 1 1 1 1 • a O 0 0 8 O • a 8 818 818 111 Lag 3I2 11£ *13 I� 1 A 4 • 1 p 1 S