HomeMy Public PortalAbout04 April 6, 1998 Technial Advisoryalb
lit
NOTE
041267
)4'),Li
RSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING
Monday, April 6, 1998, 11:00 a.m.
*Banning City Hall, Civic Center, Conference Room
LOCATION 99 East Ramsey Street; Banning, CA (909) 922-3102
AGENDA
Please Note: All items on the agenda are for discussion and possible action.
1. Call to Order
2. Self -Introductions
3. Approval of Minutes - March 2, 1998
4. STIP Follow-up
5. STP Formula Balances (Attachment)
6. RTP Update (Attachment)
7. CMP Update (Attachment)
8. STP/CMAQ RTIP Tracking Lists (To Be Distributed At Meeting)
9. Other Business
10. Adjournment
*SEE MAP OF BANNING ON REVERSE
CITT OF BANNING, CIVIC C6/!/f
4
N
N.T. S.
froo tt.erei�• /iSRret d0 Eeet t• Isterstat• 10 . 1•
east ea Reese Street to Rleiee.Rre Road/lot is Ate !tree! eEE Re ■
t
From Eastern tieeratl• Coeat parking le t. P. North en At6 Street
StreetVest ea Reoset Street�to Alessa droet.
take eloal to 10 last to lNerve's Street eft
Perlia� let. ramp Nettle t• Reeser
•
MINUTES
AGENDA ITEM 3.
TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES
Monday, March 2, 1998, 11:00 A.M.
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
1. CALL TO ORDER
Incoming Chair George Johnson called the meeting of the Riverside County
Transportation Commission (RCTC) Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) to order at
11:05 a.m. at the Riverside County Transportation Commission, 3560 University Avenue,
Suite 100, in Riverside.
2. SELF -INTRODUCTIONS
Self -introductions followed.
Members Present: Tom Bassler, City of Palm Desert
Dan Clark, City of Murrieta
Delia Garrison, City of Riverside
Bruce Harry, Rancho Mirage
George Johnson, Riverside Co. Transportation Dept.
Joseph Kicak, City of Temecula
Rick McGrath, City of Riverside
Elroy Kiepke, City of Calimesa
Ken Lobeck, Coachella Valley Assn. Of Governments/CVAG
Habib Motlagh, For the Cities of Perris and San Jacinto
Craig Neustaedter, City of Moreno Valley
Kahono Oei, City of Banning
Juan Perez, City of Hemet
Trent Pulliam, City of Moreno Valley
Chris Vogt, City of La Quinta
Chet Wior, City of Corona
Others Present:
Jane Dobberpuhl, RCTC
Louis Flores, Caltrans
Cis LeRoy, Consultant to RCTC
Shirley Medina, RCTC
Hideo Sugita, RCTC
RCTC Technical Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes
March 2, 1998
Page 2
3. Approval of Minutes - January 5, 1998
M/S/C (Pulliam/Harry): to approve the minutes of the January 5, 1998,
Technical Advisory Committee meeting as submitted.
4. 1998 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP)
Hideo Sugita reported that SCAG is nearing the approval of the RTP, which has been in
the works for about three years. He distributed copies of the most recent schedule of the
Draft 98 Regional Transportation Plan Committee Meetings and Workshops during March
and April for those who may wish to comment on the Plan. Attempts were made to form
a joint comment to SCAG from the Inland Empire area, however, it does not appear that
will occur. As a result, comments are expected to come from WRCOG, CVAG, and RCTC
which will be forwarded to SCAG. Adoption of the Plan is scheduled for April 16.
Attached to this TAC agenda item were comments by staff which were presented to the
Commission. Upon approval, the comments will be forwarded to SCAG. The Ad Hoc
Committee met February 9, 1998. Concerns arising out of that meeting included: refine
transportation models; increase flexibility; and, the need to seek a nexus between UCR
and industrial development.
Regarding refinement of transportation models, RCTC was pursuing the Physics
Alternative model refinement, although CVAG did not support the concept. The SCAG
model as it presently is configured projects more traffic than can be handled on the
highway system. The idea is to constrain it for a 24 -hour period and see what occurs, and
then deduct all trips that couldn't be made in that 24 -hour period: if the trips cannot be
made, why count the emissions from them. RCTC, as well as SCAG, is in a difficult
position because of the federal requirements to (1) meet air quality conformity and (2) meet
the financial constraint requirement. As the Plan moves forward, if it is not conforming,
potential sanctions (in getting federal funds approved) may be put in place by the federal
government. RCTC believes the Physics Alternative may be a viable way of looking at the
problem versus the SCAG plan. Other areas RCTC hopes to work with SCAG on includes
flexibility.
Hideo said encouraging discussions with SCAG staff were conducted last week relating
to the Arterial and the ITS Programs. The ITS Program is moving forward to the
Commission at their March 11 meeting. However, the projects in it are not funded, so
theoretically they cannot be incorporated into the Plan. Discussions are underway with
SCAG to include such things as the arterial program, as well as the ITS Program in what
is called the "unconstrained" portion of the Plan, and there is no money associated with it.
SCAG tacitly agreed at this point to allow that and now staff is pushing for wording to the
effect if a project is funded and it is in the unconstrained portion, it will automatically
become part of the "constrained" portion of the Plan without generating a lot of paperwork.
The purpose is to avoid the laborious amendment process for fairly minor projects. SCAG
has been open to this idea, acknowledging the amount of amendments that could result
if the project specific line is strictly adhered to, and decided that arterial projects, as well
as ITS, may have to go through some type of modeling process before they could be
amended into the plan.
RCTC Technical Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes
March 2, 1998
Page 3
Last is the need to seek a nexus between UCR and industrial development. Attention was
drawn to the example of the relationship of Stanford University and the development of the
Silicon Valley. RCTC supports using colleges and universities as bases, i.e., the College
of the Desert which has an established curriculum for mechanics for altemative fuel
vehicles, as well as the possibility of electrical mechanics. UCR has a CECERT Program
that looks at emissions from vehicles, as well as stationery sources, such as bakeries, fast
food restaurants, etc., because they also contribute to emissions in the air. The
Commission may decide to support such future endeavors.
Trent Pulliam asked for additional information about the meeting at WRCOG scheduled
for today (March 2) at 2:00 p.m. Hideo said the Public Hearing is taking place on the Draft
Master Environmental Impact Report, which is the master EIR for the RTP that is moving
forward. The Public Hearing precedes the WRCOG Board Meeting at 4:00 p.m. The final
submission date for comments is Friday, March 6, 1998.
Discussion took place with members voicing concems regarding: enforce ability, air quality
requirements, and financial constraints of the Plan.
Shirley Medina added that the SCAG RTP staff performed an analysis of how a lapse in
the RTP would affect projects in the RTP. In Riverside County there were no projects that
would be impacted for the duration of the lapse. Also, if SCAG adopts the RTP most likely
an amendment process would be included to refine the Plan to acceptable levels to most
counties (based upon the amount of opposition being received).
5. 1998 State Transportation Improvement Program
Hideo Sugita reported he had attended the CVAG Executive Committee Meeting last week
(following the Special Meeting on Saturday), and they discussed the item and he
understood as a group they were at 26% and West County at 16%. WRCOG will meet
this afternoon and he believed they too would form an opinion regarding the percentages.
Hideo said the Inter -Regional Improvement Program is expected to be released possibly
today (March 2) or as late as Wednesday (March 4). It is hoped the second connector will
be proposed for funding.
Staff expects to have a program of projects ready for the March 11 Commission meeting,
and if approved it will be forwarded to the CTC and SCAG. The CTC will conduct a
hearing in Southem Califomia on Tuesday, April 7 at 10:30 a.m. at the LACMTA
Auditorium. Riverside County representatives will attend to support the second connector.
It is hoped by that time there will be settlement within the County regarding the STIP funds
currently available. It is anticipated the CTC will adopt the STIP in June.
Chair George Johnson asked about the Inter -Regional Program, stating he understood
Caltrans developed the priorities and projects for the program (based upon what they have
statewide). Caltrans determines what is funded and their recommendation goes to the
CTC for discussion. Hideo said, generally speaking, that is correct. However, the County
is operating under the new rules associated with SB 45 and that separates the funding:
75% goes to the counties and 25% is retained to cover items such as inter -city rail,
RCTC Technical Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes
March 2, 1998
Page 4
commuter rail, the Inter -Regional Roads Program. The CTC Teamed that after Caltrans
had released the Draft Inter -Regional Improvement Program Plan that there was a
significant amount of concern and a hearing was conducted to take comments. They
decided to postpone it for a while because there was no way they could adopt a Plan to
guide the programming of this year's TIP Program. They deferred that and committed to
adopt matters with mandated dates which allowed CTC and Caltrans a lot of latitude.
Hideo said 2% (approx. $2.7 million) of planning funds currently are reserved and exist in
the STIP. Presently RCTC has not taken any action to allocate these funds to specific
projects. An amendment may be used to determine what these funds should be used for.
It is scheduled out over four years and is roughly $450,000 yearly.
Rich McGrath asked if there had been legislation (subsequent to SB 45) to address
formula issues (geared toward L.A. County). Hideo said an Assemblyman in the
Lancaster area has proposed legislation which allocates 50% of the Regional Improvement
Program Funds available to the MTA and make it available to cities in the county.
Senator Kopp is introducing "clean up" legislation to SB45, but at this time, he won't accept
any major changes to the Program; only technical changes.
Although he had not seen the draft legislation, Hideo said he would make it available to
members when it is received. Rick requested staff watch the legislation affecting L.A.
County because he believes entire state is headed toward a formula method.
6. Progress Report on STP/CMAQ FY's 1991/92 -1996/97
Shirley Medina distributed copies of her revised memo dated February 27, 1998. All
Caltrans' apportionment levels have been recorded and when the call for projects was
made, it was based upon estimates. The attachment reflects what was programmed, the
estimates, and the actual for the STP Program and CMAQ. The STP portion is $1.7 million
over program (for 3 years). However, Riverside. County had relied upon information that
it would receive $12-$13 million; it came in much lower. Amounts were scaled down in the
next fiscal year and in 95-96 it came out a little ahead, but the County is still over
programmed. Some projects reflect a cost savings; others are 10% above the federally
programmed amount. When programmingis done for the next reauthorization, it may be
necessary to consider the $1.7 million, and when obligations are done for the first year, an
adjustment may be needed. The obligation for the STP is at 76% of the overall program,
which is an acceptable level.
The balance shown for the CMAQ Program has been revised (from her original memo to
the TAC dated February 23) to reflect an adjustment; one project had been counted
against STP and CMAQ. The Program obligation is at 78%.
Information was mailed to the jurisdictions regarding the balance of the 6 month extension
of the ISTEA reauthorization, and there has been no change to that information. A balance
remains in some accounts, and cities need to advise RCTC (for tracking purposes) of their
plans to use the monies. The extension expires at the end of May and no information has
been received yet regarding a second extension.
Chair George Johnson asked Louis Flores if Caltrans had heard when the Obligational
RCTC Technical Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes
March 2, 1998
Page 5
Authority (OA) might be used up under the 6 -month extension. Louis' last information was
that Riverside County wasn't in trouble yet and they have been obligating.
Hideo said at the meeting of the Regional Transportation Planning Agencies Group, staff
from Caltrans headquarters reported that they are concerned that the Local Program may
face the loss of some obligational authority. They are urging local governments to obligate
as much as possible. If there is an issue with the local obligational authority becoming
threatened due to lapse, to protect the obligational authority (as they have done in the
past), they will put in place a "parachute", obligating it to a State highway project and
paying it back once the new budget is approved. Hideo believed Riverside County had
done pretty well in obligating projects. It appears the State will protect obligational authority
and Hideo did not perceive this as a major concern.
Some believe the reauthorization issue may come up in Congress this week. The Senate
has supported $145 billion for highways and transit over the next six years; the House
version is approximately $218 billion. Most likely the House version will be reduced (by
about $25-30 billion) because it exceeds the spending limitation resulting from the
Balanced Budget Act. FHWA is obviously anxious to have a Plan in place.
Discussion took place regarding hypothetical flows, mixes, scenarios, amendment
processes, alternative funding methods, "placeholders," and possible fiscal impacts.
7. RTIP Tracking Lists
Shirley Medina said she had spoken to Ernie Rogers (Caltrans) and although he has some
updates, these lists are not yet available as anticipated. She will wait until next month to
furnish the most up-to-date information and this item will be carried forward to the next
TAC agenda.
8. Other Business
RCTC Meeting Calendar: Shirley Medina distributed copies of the 1998 calendar of
meeting dates. The September meeting date is shown as the second Monday of the
month (due to the Labor Day Holiday). Members were reminded that generally the TAC
membership will determine whether or not they will convene the month the meeting date
falls on a holiday, and they should check with the TAC secretary if they have any
questions regarding a meeting date.
Murrieta - STP Discretionary Funds: Shirley Medina said the City of Murrieta has
submitted a request to transfer STP discretionary funds from the Jefferson Avenue project
to the Murrieta Hot Springs Road project. This would eliminate federal funding from the
Jefferson Avenue project in order to expedite the project and eliminate administrative
work. This is not a substitution of projects (one was formula and one was discretionary),
but rather swapping federal funds for local.
RCTC Technical Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes
March 2, 1998
Page 6
ISTEA - Formula Funds Used: Shirley Medina said a report will be forthcoming next
month regarding how much money has been used on the formula side of the first ISTEA,
i.e., which cities have exceeded their amounts and which still have balance available to
program.
9. Adjournment
There being no other business to come before the TAC, the meeting adjourned at 11:45
a.m. The next TAC meeting is set for Monday, April 6,1998, at 11:00 a.m. in Banning.
Respectfully submitted,
dy"
Hideo Sugita, Assistant Director
Planning and Programming
:jmd
AGENDA ITEM 5.
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
DATE: March 20, 1998
TO: Technical Advisory Committee
FROM: Shirley Medina, Staff Analyst II
SUBJECT: Surface Transportation Program (STP) Formula Balances
Staff has reviewed the formula usage for each local agency. This involved checking the obligation
amounts for those projects obligated with those projects that have not been obligated against the
available amounts for programming. Project obligations were obtained from a report that Caltrans
Headquarters prepares on bi-monthly basis. The report which was used to present the information
today is dated November 30, 1997. The balances will continue to be monitored as more projects are
obligated. Therefore, anticipate the balances changing somewhat.
In addition, we have estimated that the reauthorization of ISTEA will be for a six -year period
(1997/98-2002/03). RCTC has already programmed the first two years, therefore, the remaining four
years have been calculated to provide an estimate of the amount of funds which could be available
for each jurisdiction.
If any local agency finds these amounts to be inaccurate, please contact us so that we can review the
calculations.
SM:jmd
Attachments
STP FORMULA FUNDS USAGE AND PROJECTIONS -3/18/98
ISTEA FIRST AUTHOR ZATION REAUTHORIZATION FIRST 2 YEARS
FY 1991/92 -1996/97 FY 1997/98 8 1998/99
PROGRA MMED
AVAILABLE
PROGRAM MED
FORM ULA $
AVAILABLE
/OBLIGATED
BALANCE
(ANNUAL X 2 YRS)
/OBLIGATED
BALANCE
OVER 200,000
CALIMESA
154,648
267,870
(113,222
67,824
0
(45,398
CORONA
2,132,670
2,389,391
(256,721
710,890
710,890
(256,721
MO VALLEY
3,328,956
3,036,086
292,870
1,109,652
2,000,000
(597,478
NORCO
653,070
0
653,070
217,690
215,000
655,760
RIVERSIDE
6,348,132
6,270,788
77,344
2,116,044
1,555,992
637,396
RIVERSIDE CO.
2,960,854
3,538,787
(577,933
1,401,595
1,226,528
(402,866
200+ TO TAL
15,578,330
15,502,922
75,408
5,623,695
5,708,410
(9,307
UNDER 200,000
BANNING
326,028
309,141
16,887
108,778
217,350
(91,685
BEAUM ONT
153,504
65,007
88,497
51,168
0
139,665
BLYTHE
133,578
225,000
(91,422
44,526
0
(46,896
CYN LAKE
125,814
0
125,814
41,938
0
167,752
CATH CITY
476,832
482,593
(5,761
158,944
0
153,183
COACHELLA
267,792
316,214
(48,422
89,264
0
40,842
DHS
184,932
203,341
(18,409
61,644
0
43,235
HEMET
572,076
572,076
0
190,692
306,200
(115,508
INDWELLS
41,952
0
41,952
13,984
55,936
INDIO
583,152
740,000
(156,848
194,384
244,025
(206,489
L ELSINORE
289,806
243,138
46,668
96,602
96,900
46,370
LA QUINTA
177,750
151,534
26,216
59,250
100,000
(14,534
MURRIETA
117,462
224,624
(107,162
100,258
191,858
(198,762
P DESERT
368,532
472,171
(103,639
122,844
0
19,205
P SPGS
636,852
587,597
49,255
212,284
250,367
11,172
PERRIS
340,134
374,228
(34,094
113,378
0
79,284
R MIRAGE
154,974
179,352
(24,378
51,658
0
27,280
RIVERSIDE CO
4,103,038
4,666,106
(563,068
3,333,523
2,917,149
(146,694
S JACINTO
256,920
311,300
(54,380
85,640
0
31,260
TEM ECULA
429,504
477,378
(47,874
143,168
143,169
(47,875
200 - TOTAL
9,740,632
10,600,800
(860,168
5,273,927
4,467,018
(53,259
GRAND TOTAL
25,318,962
26,103,722
(784,760
10,897,622
10,175,428
(62,566
UNINCORPORATED RI
CO <200,000=70
4%; >200,000=2• .6
% OF TOTAL
@29 .6%
70 .4%
REAUTHORIZATION NEXT 4 YRS
FY 1999/00 - 02/03
AVAILABLE
+/- BAL ANCE
AVAILABLE
(ANNUAL X 4 YRS)
NEXT 6 YRS
135,648
(45,398)
90,250
1,421,780
(256,721)
1,165,059
2,219,304
(597,478)
1,621,826
435,380
655,760
1,091,140
4,232,088
637,396
4,869,484
2,803,190
(402,866)
2,400,324
11,247,390
(9,307)
11,238,083
217,556
(91,685)
125,871
102,336
139,665
242,001
89,052
(46,896)
42,156
83,876
167,752
251,628
317,888
153,183
471,071
178,528
40,842
219,370
123,288
43,235
166,523
381,384
(115,508)
265,876
27,968
55,936
83,904
388,768
(206,489)
182,279
193,204
46,370
239,574
118,500
(14,534)
103,966
200,516
(198,762)
1,754
245,688
19,205
264,893
424,568
11,172
435,740
226,756
79,284
306,040
103,316
27,280
130,596
6,667,046
(146,694)
6,520,352
171,280
31,260
202,540
286,336
(47,875)
238,461
10,547,854
(53,259)
10,494,595
21,795,244
(62,566)
21,732,678
STP FORMULA ALLOCATIONS BY JURISDICTION
JURISDICTION
ANNUAL ALLOCATIONS
BANNING
$54,338
BEAUMONT
$25,584
BLYTHE
$22,263
CALIMESA
$33,912
CYN LAKE
$20,969
CATH CITY
$79,472
COACHELLA
$44,632
CORONA
$355,445
DHS
$30,822
HEMET
$95,346
IND WELLS
$6,992
INDIO
$97,192
L ELSINORE
$48,301
LA QUINTA
$29,625
MO VALLEY
$554,826
MURRIETA
$50,129
NORCO
$108,845
P DESERT
$61,422
P SPGS
$106,142
PERRIS
$56,689
R MIRAGE
$25,829
RIVERSIDE
$1,058,022
RIV CO OVER 200
$485,339
RIV CO UNDER 2
$653,287
S JACINTO
$42,820
TEM ECULA
$71,584
TOTAL
$4,219,827
PRIOR TO 95/96 CALIMESA ANNUAL FORMULA AMOUNT WAS $21,706
PRIOR TO 95/96 MURRIETA ANNUAL FORMULA AMOUNT WAS $4,301
PRIOR TO 95/96 RIVERSIDE COUNTY ANNUAL FORMULA AMOUNT >200 WAS $497,544
PRIOR TO 95/96 RIVERSIDE COUNTY ANNUAL FORMULA AMOUNT < 200 WAS $699,116
AGENDA ITEM 6.
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
DATE: March 20, 1998
TO: Technical Advisory Committee
FROM: Shirley Medina, Staff Analyst II
SUBJECT: 1998 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) Update
As you are aware, the 1998 Regional Transportation Plan is scheduled for adoption by the Southern
California Association of Governments (SCAG) at their April 16, 1998, meeting. The 1998 RTP
is a twenty-year planning document which contains a list of transportation improvement projects.
The plan must conform with the State Implementation Plan (SIP). The current RTP (1994 RME)
is due to lapse on April 14, 1998. Therefore, a new plan must be in place in order to keep federal
funds flowing throughout the SCAG region.
The RTP project list includes the proposed 1998 RTIP along with unconstrained projects which the
subregional agencies submitted to SCAG about three years ago. WRCOG's list of projects was
based on the Comprehensive Transportation Plan (CTP) effort, and CVAG submitted their list based
on the Coachella Valley regional arterial program.
The RTP is not to be confused with the Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP).
These are two different documents with different processes and are being updated simultaneously
since the RTP adoption schedule has been significantly delayed. The RTIP contains only financially
constrained projects over the next seven years. The 1998 RTIP is scheduled for adoption by SCAG
at their June 1998 meeting. The 1998 RTIP development is based upon the 1998 RTP. To go one
step further, the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) is part of the State Highway
portion of the RTIP and includes projects nominated by Caltrans and regional transportation
planning agencies. When a RTIP is approved at the federal level it becomes the FTIP.
The development of the 1998 RTP took on a new approach (bottom -up). Since it has been a three
year effort, it appears that the subregional agencies, and county transportation commissions, were
not kept in the loop as to how the information submitted would impact the final outcome. For
example, the draft RTP indicates that when county transportation commissions submit a county TIP
to be included in subsequent RTIP' s, arterials and interchanges must be contained within the project
listing. The previous RTP did not contain this requirement.
RCTC Technical Advisory Committee
March 20, 1998
Page 2
With the 1998 RTP being finalized, local agencies have contacted me regarding inclusion of their
projects in the RTP and/or the RTIP. I have been informed .by SCAG staff that projects in the
proposed 1998 RTIP will be included in the 1998 RTP project listing as well. As a reminder, the
WRCOG, CVAG, and RCTC comments on the draft RTP (attached) request flexibility in the
submittal of projects which may not appear on the final RTP listing. This is important as we await
reauthorization of ISTEA and will be programming additional projects in the RTIP. Another
concern among local agencies is that the threshold for including projects is undefined.
This past year has been a unique year as it relates to planning and programming. For those who have
had trouble keeping up on these issues, don't worry, it has been difficult to comprehend for
everyone.
SM:jmd
Attachment
I RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
DATE: March 11, 1998
TO:
Riverside County Transportation Commission
FROM:
THROUGH:
Hideo Sugita, Assistant Director Planning and Programming
Norm King, Interim Executive Director
SUBJECT:
Comments on the Draft 1998 SCAG Regional Transportation Plan
At the February 11, 1998 meeting draft
Transportation Plan (RTP) were reviewed
Commission meeting CVAG and WRCOG
comments the 1998 Draft RTP.
comments on the Draft SCAG Regional
by the Commission. Subsequent to the
met, reviewed comments and acted on
While the individual comments of CVAG and WRCOG are substantially consistent with
the draft comments presented at the February 11, 1998 Commission meeting there.
is one specific area of difference (Physics Alternative) and another area of contrasting
viewpoint (high speed rail).
With respect to the Commission supported modeling effort which has come to be
known as the "Physics Alternative," CVAG, at their February 23, 1998 meeting has
gone on record as not supporting this effort. For your information the CVAG
comments on the Draft RTP are attached.
At the February Commission meeting the "Physics Alternative" was approved by the
Commission and one of the comments coming from the Ad Hoc Committee review of
the draft RTP comments was to seek refinement of transportation models. The
comment was specific to moving away from socio-economic models to a more
pragmatic model such as the Integrated Transportation Emissions Model (ITEM) which
was developed by UCR's CECERT program through funding from the SCAQMD.
WRCOG reviewed and acted on the draft comments at their meeting on March 2,
1998. The WRCOG comments (attached) are in line with the draft comments
presented at the February meeting. However, discussion at the WRCOG meeting
identified a different viewpoint on the highspeed rail alternative which is proposed to
be included in the SCAG RTP.
Previously, the Commission appointed 3 Commissioners (Clifford, Van Haaster,
Venable) to participate with members from Sanbag on an Inland Empire High Speed
Rail Task Force which has been working to build upon the recommendations from the
California High Speed Rail Commission. This Task Force was formed after all 24
Cities, the County, CVAG, WRCOG, and Sanbag adopted resolutions requesting an
000036
Inland Empire alignment (1-15/1-215) be included in the California High Speed Rail
Commission's subsequent recommendations. The Commission held a special meeting
on October 22, 1996 to adopt the resolution.
According to SCAG staff, the high speed rail alternative for Draft RTP has not yet been
fully defined. Yet the Draft RTP identifies a routing which is inconsistent with the
California Highspeed Rail Commission's recommendations. You may recall there was
a consortium (Bechtel, Lockheed, Boeing) which expressed an interest in the Project
California identified technology of magnetic levitation. This group is apparently
pursuing the potential of developing a mag lev project in Pittsburg, g Pennsylvania.
Additionally, the Transrapid group has expressed an interest in developing a mag lev
system in California.
There will be presentations at the SCAG Planning Committee on March 5t►, on the
various highspeed rail alternatives which might be included in the RTP. Therefore,
without a clearly defined alternative, it is difficult to provide comments. Included in
the attachment are the draft commentson high speed rail reviewed in February which
point out the difference between the Commission supported alignment as
recommended by the California High Speed Rail Commission and the High Speed Rail
Alternative published in the Draft RTP.
Also attached with this item is the Inland Empire High Speed Rail Task Force letter to
the President of SCAG Judy Mikels. Staff has contacted SCAG staff and several maps
of the various high speed rail alternative alignments may be available at the March 11,
1998 Commission meeting.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Discussion and approve forwarding comments on the Draft 1998 RTP to SCAG.
000037
RTP Development Process - "Bottom Up" Problem Settina - "Top Down Identification
of Possible Solutions"
The development of the 1998 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) is a dramatic
departure from previous iterations of RTPs. This cycle included a "bottom up" planning
process which required significant effort by SCAG, regional agency and local agency
staff(s) in "setting the stage" or identifying the range and scope of the transportation
issues facing the region. This effort should be commended for its inclusive and iterative
process.
However, the process for identifying potential solutions to address regional
transportation problems/issues has been a "top down" approach which does not take
into account such things as, local commitments made in % cent sales tax programs,
jurisdictional authority, etc..
The Draft 1998 RTP is a Project Oriented Plan vs a Policy Document
The RTP, as currently written, is a project list rather than a plan. Previous RTPs were
more policy oriented. With a policy driven plan, when funding opportunities arise,
agencies could use the policies of the RTP to make a determination of
consistency with the plan. With a project
project oriented plan we may be faced with
situations if and when funding opportunities come about we may have to amend the
RTP (which is an unspecified process), in order to qualify a project for RTIP/STIP
inclusion. Funding opportunities may be hampered if project consistency with the plan
can not be determined in a timely fashion.
It is also important to note that we are trying to work in a post SB 45 environment
within the state and Congress has yet to settle the reauthorization of ISTEA. Staff
recommends that a policy element or transportation strategy be developed for the 1998
RTP which would provide flexibility to take advantage of funding opportunities as they
may arise.
The Draft RTP Appears to Force County Transportation Commissions and Sub -Regional
Agencies to Redirect Local Funding to Support RTP Proposed Projects to Meet
Conformity
The Draft RTP relies on local Transportation Commissions and subregional agencies to
fund projects identified in the RTP as necessary to demonstrate conformity regardless
if those projects are in any current local Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) or
supported by long range planning documents. For example, the RTP identifies a public
cost of approximately $16.7 million in Riverside County to construct exclusive truck
lanes on Route 60 to reduce emissions, congestion and accidents. This project is an
extension of the RTP's proposed privately funded truck lane on 1-15 from Route 395
to Route 60 (private cost est. $1.588 billion). There is no information regarding access
for trucks traveling west bound on Route 60 in Riverside County.
000038
The Draft RTP is Continuation of the East-West Travel Pattern - Status Quo
The RTP, in general, continues to support the status quo of an east to west flow of
people and goods to and from Riverside but does little to analyze the north to south
movement that occurs between San Bernardino, Riverside, San Diego and Mexico.
Considering greater north/south movements in the Inland Empire may provide some
relief for over capacity east\west facilities.
The Pr000sed RTP Does Not Adeauatelv Address How Truck Lanes, Toll Roads, Smart
Shuttle and High Speed Rail Will be Funded
The RTP does not adequately address how the projects that have been identified as
necessary for conformity will be funded. To simply say certain proposed projects will
be privately or publicly funded leaves a reasonable question of how will these projects
be funded? For example, the two cents per mile vehicle mile traveled (VMT) fee called
out in the 1994 Regional Mobility Element (RME) under market pricing for innovative
financing was a revenue generator. Last year, the REACH Task Force recommended
and the SCAG Regional Council subsequently adopted a position that the VMT fee be .
revenue neutral. With automobiles becoming more fuel efficient, as well as, the
assumption that the entire Southern California vehicle fleet would be alternatively fueled
by 2010 (no more gas tax), where's the money coming from?
Conflicting Goals for Aviation
The RTP has identified that growth in population and employment will continue at an
accelerated rate in the outlying subregions of the basin. Given the local news of the
Inland Empire economy has rebounded and is improving, the high assumption of
passenger boardings at Los Angeles International Airport (LAX) from ap existing 53.9
million to 101 million does not make sense from a long range planning perspective.
This is in direct conflict with Policy #19 which states "Airports shall be expanded and
added to the system to reinforce regional growth patterns and make regional
communities more livable." The regional airports have been provided token recognition
and there is virtually no discussion of air cargo.
The March JPA is pursuing the development of the "Inland Port" at the March Reserve
Base and is developing strategies to handle ground access. An example of this is the
Oleander Interchange on 1-215 which is included in the WRCOG Comprehensive
Transportation Plan for western Riverside County. The RTP needs to specifically
address the air cargo potential of the March Inland Port. Access to the Inland Port off
of 1-215 will also provide access to 5,000+ acres of industrial zoned land which can
then be developed and create much needed jobs for the Inland Empire. Its this type of
development that will contribute to balancing the transportation demand in Southern
California. Staff recognizes that LAX will probably continue to be a focal point for air
passengers in Southern California.
000039
The Draft RTP Proposes a Number of Hiah Cost Low Emission Reduction Measures
(Projects) in the Plan
In some cases the RTP relies on high cost/low emission reduction measures to achieve
the current air quality standards. For example, Exclusive Truck Lanes. The cost for the
Route 60 truck lanes is approximately $1.8 billion and achieves a 1.91 tons per day
reduction of reactive organic gases (ROG).
The emission reduction resulting from this transportation investment equates to a cost
of 942 million per ton. While there are congestion and safety related benefits
associated with this project there must be more cost effective emission reduction
measures available.
Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS)
The RTP takes a benefit for ITS and recommends continuation of current practices but
the plan does not identify funding for development and implementation. The subject
of ITS can be difficult to get an understanding of. In simple form it is the use of
communication, computer and sensor technology to better manage the existing system
and provide accurate and timely information to both transportation system operators
and users.
Staff has been working with Sanbag, Caltrans, CHP, Omnitrans, RTA, SunLine, local
jurisdictions and the private sector to develop an ITS Strategic Plan for the Inland
Empire. This plan will be brought forward to policy boards for their endorsement in late
February and March. If the plan is endorsed, staff recommends that we forward the
plan to SCAG and request incorporation of the Inland Empire ITS plan in the 1998
SCAG RTP with the provision that the program of ITS projects identified in the ITS
Strategic Plan is included in the unconstrained (unfunded portion of the plan) with the
provision should funding be identified for an ITS project, that the funded project(s)
automatically be considered part of the constrained (funded) RTP (without the need for
any formal amendment process).
The Draft RTP Appears to Make Uninformed assumptions about Capital and Operating
Costs for the San Jacinto Branch Line and Ignores the State High Speed Rail
Commission and the Inland Empire High Speed Rail Task Force Recommendations
The draft's reference to the San Jacinto "Transitway" implies that a dedicated busway
might be built on existing railroad right-of-way. In reviewing the "Transit Corridor
Analysis" in the technical appendices (p. D-54, D-55), it is evident that SCAG
quintupled (at least) the costs of creating a fully functional passenger rail line ($570
million for 17 miles), when RCTC's San Jacinto Branchline Commuter Rail Corridor
Study (Boyle, 1995) conservatively identified the capital costs for the full 38 -mile line,
including 11 stations and rolling stock, at $102 million. RCTC already owns the rail
right-of-way, and most of the proposed station sites, while BNSF continues to hold the
000040
freight rights. With active shippers on the line (and new industrial development planned
for the corridor), "taking" the right-of-way (and discontinuing freight service) for bus
purposes is highly unlikely. Likewise the O&M costs are highly inflated. These
discrepancies have the effect of making dedicated busways appear more financially
attractive, on the San Jacinto Branchline and possibly elsewhere (Redlands, for
instance).
The RTP mentions the California High Speed Rail Commission but does not fully
represent the scope of work it undertook. The "baseline planning actions" mentioned
in the proposed RTP involved 3 years and the expenditure of $4 million and included;
system feasibility, alignment studies and route recommendations, extensive ridership
estimates with varied assumptions, estimate of capital and operating costs, financing
options (both public and private), etc..
The RTP fails to recognize the statutory authority which has been established to carry
out the recommendations of the prior Commission which includes the design of a high
speed rail program and a corresponding campaign to achieve legislative and voter
approval by November 2000.
The inland Empire High Speed Rail (HSR) Task Force is a joint body composed of 3
members each of the RCTC and SANBAG boards. Its mandate is to coordinate Inland
Empire activities for high speed rail and its mission is to proactively build on the
recommendations of the California High Speed Rail Commission. In contrast, the
Project California venture embraced in the RTP is an independently promoted venture
of a private consortium. Acceptance of this specific program, without regard to the
more inclusive public process would be premature.
The RTP recommends the high speed rail program of the Project Californ_ is consortium,
including its route and institutional arrangements. The RTP assumes $6.2 billion of
public funding, but we haven't seen the alignments nor are we aware of either the total
cost, private share nor where the public funding will come from.
000041
COACHELLA VALLEY ASSOCIATION of GOVERNMENTS
CVAG Subregion RTP Concerns and Issues
1. Lack of Rail Expansion to the Coachella Valley: Previously submitted by CVAG and
officially part of comments received by SCAG. Response by SCAG pending.
2. Arterial Funding Needs: The RTP proposes $400 million for arterial
County. The identified funding need for the County °J for Riverside
exceeds $1 billion. In the "Arterial/In (as submitted by WRCOG and CVAG)�
1 x5 "Arterial/Interchanged Improvements (Unconstrained)" list (pages D.-
)� only proposed projects along Hwy 111 are listed as modeled as part of the draft 1998
RTP. Confusion exists whether or not only these modeled projects are to be included in the RTP,
or if only state highways projects needed to be modeled, and modeling for other regional arterials
is not required. Either way, the required funding to support arterial
projects in Riverside County
exceeds
projected available funding by 150%. Staffs question is what is the process to
determine which arterial projects will remain in the RTP, and enabling them to be eligible
as part of the RTIP?
3. The "Bottom -Up" Approach to RTP Development SCAG is to be commended for using this
initial approach to identify the serious transportation problems the region faces in the future.
However, as the RTP developed, the bottom -up approach turned into a top -down development
and resulted in serious disconnects between CVAG and RCTC. RCTC was not aware of the
unconstrained project list CVAG bad submitted. At the same time, CVAG was not aware of the
RTIP baseline approach RCTC had submitted to SCAG. The end result
local transportation commissions to fight for pitted against
implemented, project submissions into the RTP. With SB 45 now
p ted, refinement to the bottom -up approach is needed. CVAG staffpropose a SCAG
Overall Work Element during the 98/99 funding cycle to refine the bottom -
up between
the CVAG and RCTC to elimina development cycle which
te future conflicts during the next RTP develapproach
will begin on April 17, 1998.
4. Aviation Growth:
The RTP indicates aviation travel will increase by 100% by the year 2020.
At the same time, the growth forecast anticipates outlying areas (i.e. north Los Angeles County,
San Bernardino County, will experience the greatest portion of the
population growth. However,
the Los Angeles International
Airport has the largest forecasted number of Million of Annual
Passengers (MAP) increase. The growth distribution and air travel forecasts appear
ict
with each other. Palm Springs Regional Airport has reviewed the Aviation component and has
submitted concerns about MAP projections and other aviation issues to RCTC.
5. Freight Mov •++•..* awu_._u :The RTP
Angeles County, San B proposes truck lanes be established in Los
Bernardino County and Riverside County to alleviate the anticipated
increase in goods movement traffic. The Coachella Valley (along I-10) also is projected as a
truck corridor which will experience 40,000 or more trucks
this traffic will be east -west. The per day. The RTP projects much of
proposed lanes will be constructed to support this east -
west traffic. The costs of the proposed truck lanes total over $8 billion with a large
portion
assumed to be covered by the private sector. However, what if the region commits o this
strategy and the private sector is not willing to provide support. Would the public sector be
090042
COACHELLA VALLEY ASSOCIATION of GOVERNMENTS
required to pick-up all the costs? Out of the $18 billion projected to be available,
45% would have to directly to the construction of the truck lanes. Additionally, what about
north -bound pass- through truck traffic? Per the Southwest Strategic Plan, these trucks will have
to access the I-5, 1-405, and I-805 corridors to head north. This means northbound goods
movement traffic will have to traverse the Los Angeles Basin to reach central and northern
California from southern California CVAG staff believe an effort needs to be undertaken to
examine a eastern Riverside County by-pass truck corridor to enable northbound by-pass goods
movement traffic to completely avoid the Los Angeles basin. Finally, emission issues from
goodsmovements entering. California via Mexico need further attention for conformity impacts.
6. Transportation Infrastructure O& Mneeds: Caltrans has already identified an urgent need
to increase 0 & M funding to support southern California freeways. Caltrans projections
indicate as high as $13 billion is need during the next 5-10 years just to keep the freeway system
operating at its current level. The RTP proposes only an additional $1 billion. The proposed
allocation for arterial funding is about $1 billion region -wide ($400 million projected for
Riverside County). Does the $1 billion include long term O&M needs for the arterials as well,
or is for construction, or both? In metropolitan Los Angeles, the obvious focus will be on
maintenance needs. However, in outlying areas where growth will occur, new arterials will
be needed. With SB 45 now implemented, clarification appears necessary on how arterial
needs will be properly addressed among county transportation commissions, subregional
pltrnning agencies, the RTIP, and the RTP?
7. Physics Model: CVAG does not support this effort.
00 043
"
"
D A T E :
/ . �� _
N A M E : K e n
L o b e c k
F A C S I M I L E T R A N S M I T T A L :
F R O M : J e r i R i d d l e , A v i a t i o n D i r e c t o r
F A X # : 3 4 0 - 5 9 4 9
F I R M : C V A G
N U M B E R O F P A G E S ( I N C L U D I N G C O V E R P A G E ) :
R E : C I T Y O F P A L M S P R I N G S - D E P A R T M E N T O F T R A N S P O R T A T I O N
P A L M S P R I N G S R E G I O N A L A I R P O R T
R T P C O M M E N T S
A T T E N T I O N : K E N L O B E C K
D e a r K e n :
2 _
L e t ' s t r y t h i s a g a i n . I t s h o u l d b e n o t e d t h a t C Y 1 9 9 6 , a r e c o r d y e a r f o r P S P A i r p o r t p a s s e n g e r t r a f f i c .
e n d e d i n a 1 7 . 7 % i n c r e a s e o v e r 1 9 9 5 w i t h 1 , 1 1 5 , 3 5 1 p a s s e
1 9 9 7 w h i c h r e s u l t e d i n a n o t h e r b i g y ����' 1 9 9 6 i s s u p e r s e d e d n o w b y C Y
5 . 8 % i n c r e a s e o v e r 1 9 9 6 . A d d i t i o n a l l y , s h o u l d b e n o t e d t h a t 1 9 9 9 h a s s o r e c o r d b r e a k i n g g f a r e r c o n t i n u e d u n t s t s h o w v , y
s t r o n g a n d s t a b l e g r o w t h . E v e n w i t h t h e n e g a t i v e e f f e c t s o f E i N o m , w e e t o s h o w v e r y
y e a r a n d a r e f o r e c a s t i n g a 6 % - 7 . 5 % i n c r e a s e o v e r 1 9 9 7 ; t h i s i s a c o n s e r v a t i v e e s t i m a t e . c o r d b r e a k i n g
I n a d d i t i o n t o t h e f a x e d c o m m e n t s , I n o t i c e d t h a t F A A f o r e c a s t f o r p a s s e n g e r a c t s
o p e r a t i o n s ) g r o w t h w e r e n o t c o n s i d e r e d i n t h e R T P . T h i s i s a b a s e l i n e a n d p l a n n i n g Y a n d t r a f f i c ( u s u a l l y
r e c o g n i z e d b y t h e F A A a n d c o m m e r c i a l A i r p o r t s i n t h e M a s t e r P l a n n i n i n h e r e i s n o y m e n t i o n
o f P S P b e i n g t h e o n l y C o m m e r c i a l S e r v i c e A i r p o r t s e r v i n g R i v e r s i d e C o u n t y p r o c e s s . T h e r e i s n o m e n t i o y
r e c o g n i z e o u r l o c a l t a r g e t m a r k e t a s t h e B e a u m o n t a n d H e m e t a r e a s t o e a s t e r n R i v e r s i d e C o u n t y r 9 m y a s w e l l . W e g e n e r a l l y
P S P h a s f u l l t i m e U n i t e d S t a t e s C u s t o m s S e r v i c e ( b e g a n O c t o b e r 1 9 9 6 ) . U S C S , I N S ( M y t h ) .
i n t e r n a t i o n a l n o n - c o m m e r c i a l f l i g h t s . P S P i s a m u l t i - u s e A i r p o r t p r o v i d i n g t o p - n o t c h a n d U S D A p r O c e S S
g e n e r a l a v i a t i o n , c o r p o r a t e , b u s i n e s s a n d p r i v a t e a i r c r a f t a s F g 0 f a c i l i t i e s , s e r v i n g
a i r l i n e s n o t i n c l u d i n g t h e C o m m e r c i a l I n t e r n a t i o n a l C h a r t e r f l i g h t s t h e a r e c l e a r e d w e l l a s i n C a n a d a ) . i a l e s ( t w e l v e
I b e t t e r g e t t h i s f a x e d o f f t o y o u o r y o u ' l l b e w a i t i n g a g a i n . I f y o u r e c e i v e m y p r e v i o u s c o m m e n t s o r
a n y c o m m e n t s r e g a r d i n g t h e s e ( i d e n t i c a l t o p r e v i o u s ) , p l e a s e c a l l . h a v e
S i n c e r e l y ,
r i R i d d l e
A v i a t i o n D i r e c t o r
3 4 0 0 E A S T T A H O U I T Z C A N Y O N W A Y , P A L M S P R I N G S , C A L I F O R N I A 9 2 2 6 2
( 6 1 9 ) 3 2 3 - 8 1 6 1 / F A X ( 6 1 9 ) 3 2 2 - 4 3 0 8
0 0 3 0 4 4
COMMENTS - CITY OF PALM SPRINGS
CONCERNING:
SCAG'S "COMMUNITY LINK 21"
Draft 98 Regional Transportation Plan
The underlying premise of the Draft 98 Regional Transportation Plan seems to be that
transportation, needs are critical to the future of the Southern California economy, and we
concur. However, the focus of the plan seerns to be around the concept that it is crowded
at high volume facilities now (such as LAX) and that it will get much worse, so investments
in access infrastructure to those high density facilities are of highest importance. Perhaps a
focus away from the traditional "choke points" in our
way to approach the new century! transportation systems might be a better
centralized LA Basin, such as Palm Springs There Regional irport, under utilized transportation
haveecna hubs
s it outside city now d are
building for future. Access to these non -choke point hubs should receive a higher focus in the
RTP.
The Palm Springs Regional Airport is extending its runway, expanding its terminal, achieved
Customs status as a "User Fee Facility" •and has applied for "Foreign Trade Zone" status.
Palm Springs and other Coachella Valley cities are making major investments in passenger rail
facilities in hopes of enticing people off the roads and to head e
crowded area. Pslm. Springs east rather than west into a
routew from the s p ngs has achieved federal designation of the surface
city' rail station (at Interstate 10) to the Regional Airport, as a National
Highway System Connector for all weather vehicular and light rail access to the Airport.
Specific comments and recommendations are as follows:
1 • Palm Springs Regional Airport passenger traffic projections do not coincide with the
Airport's Master Plan forecasts and the Airport is presently running ahead of these
forecasts. The document should reflect projected traffic (Table 11) for 2020 as
follows:
2020 Low
2020 Medium
2020 High
3. Rail improvements to eliminate "t
and
to the Coachella Valley should be a focus of the p an,taongain to mo eefoouble tracking
traditional transportation check points. ks away from
2.2 million
2.5 million
3.1 million
2. The Palm Springs National Highway System Connector all weather access fro
interstate 10 and the Rail Station should be listed in the plan as a significant m
project
to help focus out from the LA Basin to ensure the populace west of Riverside can
access the only commercial service Airport in Riverside County.
4. With the expanding nature of truck traffic an the interstate 10 corridor interchange
improvements in the western end of the Coachella Valley are essential,
000045
1..uuita 1LC/lt: V 1.li
WEST RIVERSIDE COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS
STAFF TRANSMITTAL
TO: Executive Committee
FR: Wesley C. Mc Daniel, Interim Executive Director
BY: Ruthann Taylor Berger, Director of Transportation and Air uali
RE: Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) Quality Prn grams
ISSUE: Draft comments on the RTP.
BACKGROUND: SCAG released the Draft RTP referred to as Community Link 21, on 6 November
1997 and the Technical Appendices on 5 December 1997. Comments are due by 15 March 1997.
The RTP has two requirements:
1.It must be fiscally constrained
2.It must demonstrate conformity with state and federal air quality standards.
The plan, by the narrowest of margins, shows that this was
threats to the plan as proposed. For example, the�A�ompIisted. However, there are serious
has had a shortfall in revenue, in the
neighborhood of a billion dollars and cannot fund
projects that are critical to the RTP.
At their December meetings the governing boards of WRCOG and RCTC took action to form an Ad
Hoc Committee of elected officials from CVAG, WRCOG and RCTC to formulate a county wide
response to policy matters for the RTP. Staff from SANBAG, RCTC, WRCOG and CVAG would
serve as technical staff to the Committee and has had several meetings in December and January to
identify issues and draft responses for the Committees review.
WRCOG appointed the Chair, Andrea Puga, and Mayors Leja, Loveridge, Roberts and Lowe, RCTC
appointed Ms. Nieburger and Supervisors Buster and Mullen, CVAG took no formal action to appoint
members, however, senior staff from CVAG including Ms. Larson has °
participated in the process.
The Ad Hoc Committee met on 9 February 1998 to review
on policy -issues. The Committee enorsed staff comments provide input and guidance
on policy elements that should be contained RTT�ts and provided clarification and direction
Staff has made revisions to the draft comments to reflect the direction of the committee.
is the draft letter to SCAG and the comments as Attached
are shown in bold italics. Please presented to the Ad Hoc Committee. The revisions
no later than 10 March 1998. provide any additional comments or revisions that you have to me
COMMENDATION: Review and comment
G:dockze0398
000046
Southern California Association of Governments
ATTN. Mr. Richard Spicer, Principal Planner
818 est 7'h Street
I2° Floor
Los Angeles, Ca.
RE: Regional Transportation Plan
Dear Mr. Spicer:
DRAFT
On behalf of the WRCOG Executive Committee, Coachella Valley
and the Riverside County Transportation Commission(RCTC), Association of Governments,
comment on the Draft thank you for the opportunity to
Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) and the Master Environmental Impact
Report (�) • Our comments will be divided into two sections, one addressing the RTP and
the other for the MEIR we think this will be more convenient for your staff to respond to.
SCAG has, in this RIP revision, take a new approach to transportation planning than
and staff has been aggressive in their efforts to involve the subregions p plans,
ification of
problems and creation of performance criteria for the RTP. We urge SCAG to co
AGtoco ue the
planning process with all the stakeholders to develop a broader understanding of what needs to be
accomplished on a regional level to meet our statutory requirements for the RTP.
The region continued to grow even with the recent (past) economic down turn and we have had
the cleanest air in the basin in 50 years, which is primarily due to technological advances in both
the stationary and mobile source arenas. WRCOG and RCTC continue to support the
technological innovations and initiatives incorporated in the RIP. ,
advances, our region still suffers from the worst air nation despite recent
estimated to cost the region 7 million dollars a day. By the quality� 2010 the congestion °n l
reach an estimated 104 million dollars a day. will
Congress is currently negotiating the reauthorization of ISTEA and there is potential that
California could receive a
largerreturn of its dollars paid than it has in the past; this is an
opportunity for our region. The RTP should be written in a manner that provides maximum
flexibility to local agencies to capture funding opportunities and h tis purpose.
program
projects in the RTP listed as post 2020 projects, which should be loaded for exactlyththesedollars
Part of Riverside county's overall economic development plan is to include a process to assess
and maximize partnering it's educational
markets/niches in the Inland Empire, institutions with businesses to create new job
However, we do have concerns about the RIP from both a policy and technical stand point.
are as follows: pom They
G:1docVRTPs
000047
DRAFT
The emission reduction resulting from this transportation investment
per ton While there is congestion and equates to a cost of 942 million
ng safety -related benefits associated with this project there must
be more cost effective measures available.
The Draft RTP is a Contin cation of th East west Travel Pptte Statnc Ouo
Given that facilities cannot operate at over capacity 24 hours a day, one can assume that trips will not
be made or that if they are made it will be to a different destination. This leads to the entire issue of
land use, transportation and economics.
The RTP, in general, continues to support the status quo of east to west flow of people and goods
to and from Riverside. The RTP, if occtpted, it forces one to accept that certain freeways will
operate at over capacity on a 24 -hour period The Ph
olR� SANBr1G, and ysiesAhernat:vt (a collaborative effort
The plan does little to Orange Co ) cry identified where this would occur in the basin.
analyze the north to south movement, which is not an insignificant travel
pattern in the inland Empire, that occurs between San Bernardino, Riverside, San Diego and
Mexico. Considering greater north/south movements in the Inland Empire may provide some relief
for over capacity east/west facilities.
The Proposed RTP Does Not Adequately Address How Truck Lanes, Toll Roads. Smart
Shuttle and High_Speed Rail Will be Funded
The RTP does not adequately address how the
conformity will be funded. To projects that have been identified as necessary for
funded leaves a reasonable questionp f how will theain sepro projects
� will privately be example,or the t publicly
cents per mile vehicle mile traveled (VMT) fee called out in the 1994 Regional ? For obility Element
(RME) under market pricing for innovative financing was a revenue generator. Last year, the
REACH Task Force recommended and the SCAG Regional Council subsequently
that the VMT fee be revenue neutral. With automobiles becoming mor ent, as well adopted a as,tihe
sthe
assumption that the entire Southern California vehicle fleet would be alternatively fueled by 2010 (no
more gas tax), where's the money coming from?
onflicting Conk for via____
The RIP has identified that growth in population and 1 acceleratednue at an
in the outlying subregions of the basin. Given the local news of thecoInland mire econo ratea
rebounded and is improving, the high assumption of my has
Airport � hoardings at Los Angeles International
rP (LAX) from an existing 53.9 million to a potential of 101 million in 2020 does not make
sense from a long range planning perspective.
This is in direct conflict with Policy #I9 which states Airports shall be expanded and added to the
system to reinforce regional growth patterns and make
regional airports have been provided token recognition regional communities more livable.' The
cargo and there is virtually no discussion of air
The March WA is pursuing the development of the `Inland Port' at the March. Reserve Base and has
G:1doe1RTP5
000048
uRaFr
a corresponding campaign to achieve legislative and voter approval by November 2000.
The Inland Empire High Speed Rail (HSR) Task Force is a joint body composed of 3 members each
of the RCTC and SANBAG boards. Its mandate is to coordinate Inland Empire activities for high
speed rail and its mission is to proactively build on the recommendations of the California Nigh Speed
Rail Commission. In contrast, the Project California venture embraced in the RTP is an
independently promoted venture of a private consortium.
without regard to the more inclusive public process would be p� of this specific program
The RTP recommends the high speed rail program of the Project California consortium,
route and institutional anan including its
arrangements. The RTP assumes S6.2 billion of public funding, but we haven't
seen the alignments nor are we aware of either the total cost, private share nor where the public
funding will come from.
Again thank you for providing us with this opportunity to review and comment on these documents.
We look forward to working with you to collectively solve our transportation and air quality
mandates for the region.
Sincerely,
Councilperson Andrea Puga,
WRCOG Executive Committee Chair
Supervisor Bob Buster,
Riverside County Transportation Commission Chair
G:idocvvrp3
000049
3560 University Avenue, Suite 100, Riverside, CA 92501
Chair
Alex Clifford; Councilman,
City of Riverside
Jack F. van Haaster, Councilman
City of Murrieta
Jim Venable, Supervisor
County of Riverside
an BBeerdteo Associated Gooeuneete
Vice Chair
John Longville, Mayor
City of Rialto
Eunice Ulloa, Mayor
City of Chino
Larry Walker, Supervisor
County of San Bernardino
Alternate
Bill Alexander, Mayor
City of Rancho Cucamonga
Jack Reagan
Executive Director. RCTC
Norman L. King
Executive Director. SANBAG
Susan Cornelison
RCTC Staff
Eric Haley
SANBAG Staff
November 12, 1997
(909) 787-7141 • FAX (909) 787-7920
Hon. Judy Mikels, President
Southern California Association of Govemments
818 West 7th.Street, 12th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Subject: High Speed Rail Planning
Dear Ms. Mikels:
We write to you as colleagues and as members of the Inland
Empire High Speed Rail Task Force, which was established jointly
by the Riverside County Transportation Commission and the San
Bemardino Associated Govemments early this year. The task
force consists of elected RCTC and SANBAG representatives who
have taken responsibility for reaching public consensus and
directing community support to bring high speed.rail to the Inland
Empire. This activity builds proactively on the recommendations
of the State of California's High Speed Rail Commission, which
completed its deliberations last fall. At that time, the Commission
identified a conceptual corridor from the Bay Area and
Sacramento to Los Angeles and San Diego via an Inland
Empire/1-15 routing. Our agencies worked diligently to inform the
Commission's members and staff of the Inland Empire's
transportation needs and economic development plans. We are
pleased with the Commission's work and concur in its
recommendations.
We will be establishing a close working relationship with the new
State High Speed Rail Authority, recently appointed by the
Govemor and Legislature, when that body begins its work in this
month. We are aware of the momentous undertaking a statewide
ground transportation would be and we are equally aware of the
000050
tremendous public effort and investment that will be required throughout California to make it
a reality. We believe our efforts will be instrumental in legitimizing and optimizing that effort.
We are concemed, however, that SCAG's draft regional transportation plan proposes a
commercially untested high speed maglev project in parts of Southem California. This
unsolicited proposal breaks with the decade -long history of coordination and consultation with
local transportation planning activities that marks the Inland Empire's experience with high
speed rail. Indeed, we fear that the SCAG proposal, however interesting as a demonstration
project in its own right, will undermine the serious commitment that both we and the state have
been pursuing. By making predetermined decisions on technology and routing, we believe
that the SCAG concept invites political distractions and financial diversions. These can only
harm the long-term prospects for a practical high speed system in the region and the state.
Thus we urge you to refrain from making specific recommendations for high speed rail in the
regional transportation element at this time. We invite you instead to bring SCAG's
considerable planning influence into the concerted efforts already underway to make high
speed rail a statewide and regional reality.
Sincerely,
Alex Clifford
Riverside City Councilman
Chair,
Inland Empire High Speed
Rail Task Force
cc: N. King, SANBAG
J. Reagan, RCTC
M. Pisano, SCAG
4-)
hn Longville
Mayor of Rialto
Vice Chair,
Inland Empire High Speed
Rail Task Force
000051
AGENDA ITEM 7.
VALLEY RESEARCH
AND PLANNING
ASSOCIATES
Transportation Planning • Traffic Engineering
intelligent Transportation Systems • 1?nvirontttrrt:;l wt hysis • Air Qu:un Pl:untint
MEMORANDUM
TO:
THROUGH:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
RCTC Technical Advisory Committee
Hideo Sugita, Assistant Director of Planning and Programming
Shirley Medina, Staff Analyst II
Georgiena Vivian, Vice President, Valley Research & Planning Associates (VRPA)
RCTC Review of Inter -Governmental Review (IGR) Development Projects
BACKGROUND
On December 10, 1997, the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) approved the
1997 Congestion Management Program (CMP) that included a revised. Land Use Coordination
Program element now referred to as the Enhanced Transportation System Management Program.
The revised Program focuses on the implementation of an Enhanced Traffic Monitoring Program
to more effectively determine congestion levels. Once congestion levels along the CMP System has
been determined, the results can be applied as criteria to establish funding priorites. Also included
in the revised Land Use Coordination Program is continued review of major IGR and California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA)
development projects. The minimum trip generation threshold for such regional projects is put at
500 peak hour trips through the SCAG IGR process. The IGR trip threshold is also considered
appropriate for CEQA or NEPA development projects.
DISCUSSION
While the CMP Enhanced Traffic Monitoring Program will provide RCTC with an assessment of
current CMP System level of service (LOS), it will not provide affected agencies with how large
development projects may impact LOS along the existing CMP system prior to the
implementation/construction of such projects. Therefore, to reduce the number of CMP Deficiency
Plans required to address deficient levels of service along the CMP System, it is important to
continually track TOR, CEQA, and NEPA projects so that local agencies can address CMP System
impacts prior to occurance of a deficiency.
Central California: 4746 W. Jennifer • Suite 103 • Fresno, CA 93722 • 209-271-1200 • FAX 209-271-1269 • e-mail:vrpafo@aol.com
2•d
CEEB— T L8-888— T dd21A
dTT=Z0 86 E2 JeW
The future occurance of deficiencies along the CMP System is inevitable if not emminate. With
125,000 nested dwelling units in the County and a growing housing market and economy, properly
tracking the CMP System will be necessary.
RECOMMENDATION
To achieve the above referenced goal, local agencies must forward IGR, CEQA and NEPA projects
that meet the 500+trip generation threshold to the appropriate agencies such as SCAG, RCTC,
WRCOG, and CVAG for review. WRCOG is currently under agreement with SCAG to review IGR
projects; however WRCOG's emphasis has been .to ensure that such projects are reflected in the
CTP/RIVSAN Traffic Model and to address other subregional impacts. To ensure that traffic
impacts are addressed along the CMP System, WRCOG would forward IGR projects to RCTC staff'
for review and comment.
E'd CEEB -U.8 -888-T
bd2IA dT T :2O 86 C2 JeW