Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My Public Portal
About
02 February 27, 2012 Budget & Implementation
Or rn - (— C of RECORDS RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA TIME: 9:30 a.m. DATE: Monday, February 27, 2012 LOCATION: BOARD ROOM County of Riverside Administrative Center 4080 Lemon Street, First Floor, Riverside kPo COMMITTEE MEMBERS Scott Matas, Chair / Yvonne Parks, City of Desert Hot Springs Ron Roberts, Vice Chair / Jeff Comerchero, City of Temecula Roger Berg / Jeff Fox, City of Beaumont Ella Zanowic / Jeff Hewitt, City of Calimesa Mary Craton / Barry Talbot, City of Canyon Lake Greg Pettis / Kathleen DeRosa, City of Cathedral City Steven Hernandez / Eduardo Garcia, City of Coachella Larry Smith / Robert Youssef, City of Hemet Douglas Hanson / Patrick Mullany, City of Indian Wells Bob Magee / Melissa Melendez, City of Lake Elsinore Rick Gibbs / Kelly Bennett, City of Murrieta Steve Adams / Andy Melendrez, City of Riverside John F. Tavaglione, County of Riverside, District II Jeff Stone, County of Riverside, District III John J. Benoit, County of Riverside, District IV o STAFF Anne Mayer, Executive Director Theresia Trevino, Chief Financial Officer AREAS OF RESPONSIBILITY � Annual Budget Development and Oversight Competitive Federal and State Grant Programs Countywide Communications and Outreach Programs Countywide Strategic Plan Legislation Public Communications and Outreach Programs Short Range Transit Plans Comments are welcomed by the Committee. If you wish to provide comments to the Committee, please complete and submit a Speaker Card to the Clerk of the Board. • • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE www.rctc.org AGENDA* *Actions may be taken on any item listed on the agenda 9:30 a.m. Monday, February 27, 2012 BOARD ROOM County Administrative Center 4080 Lemon Street, First Floor Riverside, California In compliance with the Brown Act and Government Code Section 54957.5, agenda materials distributed 72 hours prior to the meeting, which are public records relating to open session agenda items, will be available for inspection by members of the public prior to the meeting at the Commission office, 4080 Lemon Street, Third Floor, Riverside, CA, and on the Commission's website, www.rctc.org. In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act and Government Code Section 54954.2, if you need special assistance to participate in a Committee meeting, please contact the Clerk of the Board at (951) 787-7141. Notification of at least 48 hours prior to meeting time will assist staff in assuring that reasonable arrangements can be made to provide accessibility at the meeting. 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 3. ROLL CALL 4. PUBLIC COMMENTS - Each individual speaker is limited to speak three (3) continuous minutes or less. The Committee may, either at the direction of the Chair or by majority vote of the Committee, waive this three minute time limitation. Depending on the number of items on the Agenda and the number of speakers, the Chair may, at his/her discretion, reduce the time of each speaker to two (2) continuous minutes. Also, the Committee may terminate public comments if such comments become repetitious. In addition, the maximum time for public comment for any individual item or topic is thirty (30) minutes. Speakers may not yield their time to others without the consent of the Chair. Any written documents to be distributed or presented to the Committee shall be submitted to the Clerk of the Board. This policy applies to Public Comments and comments on Agenda Items. Budget and Implementation Committee February 27, 2012 Page 2 Under the Brown Act, the Board should not take action on or discuss matters ID raised during public comment portion of the agenda which are not listed on the agenda. Board members may refer such matters to staff for factual information or to be placed on the subsequent agenda for consideration. 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES -NOVEMBER 28, 2011 6. ADDITIONS/REVISIONS (The Committee may add an item to the Agenda after making a finding that there is a need to take immediate action on the item and that the item came to the attention of the Committee subsequent to the posting of the agenda. An action adding an item to the agenda requires 2/3 vote of the Committee. If there are less than 2/3 of the Committee members present, adding an item to the agenda requires a unanimous vote. Added items will be placed for discussion at the end of the agenda.) 7. CONSENT CALENDAR - All matters on the Consent Calendar will be approved in a single motion unless a Commissioner(s) requests separate action on specific item(s). Items pulled from the Consent Calendar will be placed for discussion at the end of the agenda. 7A. QUARTERLY FINANCIAL STATEMENTS Overview This item is for the Committee to: Page 1 • 1) Receive and file the Quarterly Financial Statements for the period ended Dec ember 31, 2011; and 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. 7B. QUARTERLY SALES TAX ANALYSIS Overview This item is for the Committee to: Page 8 1) Receive and file the sales tax analysis for Quarter 3 (Q3) 2011; and 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. • Budget and Implementation Committee February 27, 2012 Page 3 • 8. • 7C. REPORT ON EXPENDITURE OF PROCEEDS FROM 2010 BONDS Overview This item is for the Committee to: Page 16 1) Receive and file the report on the expenditure of the proceeds from the 2010 Bonds; and 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. PROPOSED POLICY GOALS AND OBJECTIVES FOR FISCAL YEAR 2012/13 BUDGET Overview This item is for the Committee to: Page 19 1) Approve the proposed Commission Policy Goals and Objectives for the FY 2012/13 Budget; and 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. 9. REVISION OF DEBT MANAGEMENT POLICIES Overview This item is for the Committee to: Page 26 1) Approve the revisions to the Commission's Debt Management Policy; 2) Adopt Resolution No. 12-010, "A Resolution of the Riverside County Transportation Commission Regarding the Revised Debt Management Policy" and 3) Forward to the Commission for final action. • Budget and Implementation Committee February 27, 2012 Page 4 10. EXTENSION OF THE COMMERCIAL PAPER PROGRAM STANDBY LETTER OF • CREDIT Page 46 Overview This item is for the Committee to: 1) Adopt Resolution No. 12-009, "Resolution of the Riverside County Transportation Commission Ratifying and Confirming Prior Authorization of the Execution and Delivery of a Substitute Credit Agreement, a Second Amendment to Credit Agreement and Related Amendments to Certain Other Documents, a Supplement to Offering Memorandum and the Taking of All Other Actions Necessary in Connection Therewith"; 2) Ratify the draft Amendment No. 2 to the Reimbursement Agreement dated as of March 1, 2005, by and between the Commission and Bank of America, N.A. (Bank of America), relating to the Commission's Commercial Paper Notes, Series A, and authorization for the Executive Director and/or other authorized representative to approve and execute the final Amendment No. 2; 3) Ratify the draft Letter Agreement between the Commission and Bank of America relating to the Commission's Commercial Paper Notes, Series A, and authorization for the Executive Director and/or other authorized representative to approve and execute the final Letter Agreement; 4) Ratify the draft Reimbursement Agreement by and between the Commission and Union Bank, N.A. (Union Bank), relating to the Commission's Commercial Paper Notes, Series B and authorization for the Executive Director and/or other authorized representative to approve and execute the final agreement; 5) Ratify the draft Fee Agreement between the Commission and Union Bank relating to the Commission's Commercial Paper Notes, Series B, and authorization for the Executive Director and/or other authorized representative to approve and execute the final Fee Agreement; 6) Ratify any necessary or desirable amendments to the commercial paper dealer agreements between the Commission and Barclays Capital Inc. (Barclays) and between the Commission and Bank of America Merrill Lynch (BAML); 7) Approve the draft supplement to the offering memorandum for the issuance of $120 million in Commercial Paper Notes, Series A and Series B and authorize the Executive Director and/or other authorized representative to approve distribution of the supplement to the offering memorandum by Barclays and BAML; 8) Approve the estimated costs related to the amendment of the letter of credit and authorize the Executive Director to execute related professional service agreements, as required; and 9) Forward to the Commission for final action. Budget and Implementation Committee February 27, 2012 Page 5 • • 11. PROPOSITION 1B STATE -LOCAL PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM — FORMULA PROGRAM PROJECT RECOMMENDATIONS Overview This item is for the Committee to: Page 69 1) Approve programming State -Local Partnership Program (SLPP) formula funds on the following projects: Perris Valley Line, State Route 91 Corridor Improvement Project (SR -91 CIP), Interstate 215 Central widening (Scott Road to Nuevo Road), and Foothill Parkway; 2) Authorize the Executive Director to determine the appropriate programming amount for each project; and 3) Forward to the Commission for final action. 12. MEASURE A LOCAL STREETS AND ROADS FIVE-YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN FOR THE CITY OF JURUPA VALLEY Overview This item is for the Committee to: Page 71 1) Approve the city of Jurupa Valley's FYs 2012-16 Measure A Five -Year Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) for Local Streets and Roads; and 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. 13. FEDERAL CONGESTION MITIGATION AND AIR QUALITY FUNDING FOR THE MEASURE A REGIONAL RIDESHARE PROGRAM Overview This item is for the Committee to: Page 79 1) Approve the programming of $2.7 million in federal Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) funds for continuation of the Regional Rideshare Program in fiscal years 2012/13 through 2017/18; 2) Authorize staff to program the CMAQ funds for the Regional Rideshare Program in the Federal Transportation Improvement Program (FTIP); and 3) Forward to the Commission for final action. • Budget and Implementation Committee February 27, 2012 Page 6 14. GRADE SEPARATION PRIORITY UPDATE STUDY FOR RIVERSIDE COUNTY • PROJECTS LOCATED ON THE ALAMEDA CORRIDOR EAST Page 81 Overview This item is for the Committee to: 1) Approve the Grade Separation Priority Update Study for Riverside County projects located on the Alameda Corridor East (ACE); 2) Based on study, direct staff to develop a 2012 grade separation funding strategy; and 3) Forward to the Commission for final action. 15. FEDERAL SURFACE TRANSPORTATION REAUTHORIZATION UPDATE Page 157 Overview This item is for the Committee to: 1) Receive and file an update on federal surface transportation reauthorization; and 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. 16. ELECTION OF OFFICERS Overview Page 163 This item is for the Budget and Implementation Committee to conduct an election of officers for 2012 - Chair and Vice Chair. 17. COMMISSIONERS / STAFF REPORT Overview This item provides the opportunity for the Commissioners and staff to report on attended and upcoming meeting/conferences and issues related to Commission activities. 18. ADJOURNMENT AND NEXT MEETING • The next budget and Implementation Committee meeting is scheduled to be held at 9:30 a.m., Monday, March 26, 2012, Board Chambers, First Floor, 0 County Administrative Center, 4080 Lemon Street, Riverside. • AGENDA ITEM 5 MINUTES • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE Monday, November 28, 2011 MINUTES 1 CALL TO ORDER The meeting of the Budget and Implementation Committee was called to order by Chair Scott Matas at 9:30 a.m., in the Board Room at the County of Riverside Administrative Center, 4080 Lemon Street, First Floor, Riverside, California, 92501. 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE • • At this time, Commissioner Mary Craton led the Budget and Implementation Committee in a flag salute. 3. ROLL CALL Members/Alternates Present Roger Berg Mary Craton Douglas Hanson Steven Hernandez Scott Matas Greg Pettis Ron Roberts Larry Smith Jeff Stone* John Tavaglione* Ella Zanowic *Arrived after the meeting was called to 4. PUBLIC COMMENTS Members Absent Steve Adams Rick Gibbs Scott Hines Bob Magee order There were no requests to speak from the public. RCTC Budget and Implementation Committee Minutes November 28, 2011 Page 2 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES — SEPTEMBER 26, 2011 M/S/C (Zanowic/Roberts) to approve the minutes of September 26, 2011 meeting as submitted. Abstain: Craton 6. ADDITIONS / REVISIONS There were no additions/revisions to the agenda. 7. CONSENT CALENDAR - All matters on the Consent Calendar will be approved in a single motion unless a Commissioner(s) requests separate action on specific item(s). Items pulled from the Consent Calendar will be placed for discussion at the end of the agenda. M/S/C (Roberts/Craton) to approve the following Consent Calendar item(s): 7A. QUARTERLY FINANCIAL STATEMENTS 1) Receive and file the Quarterly Financial Statements for the period ended September 30, 2011; and 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. At this time, Commissioners John Tavaglione and Jeff Stone arrived at the meeting. 8. QUARTERLY SALES TAX ANALYSIS Theresia Trevino, Chief Financial Officer, presented the latest quarterly analysis for the 2011 Quarter 2, highlighting the following areas: • Sales tax audit results; • Measure A sales tax breakdown by economic category and economic segment; • Measure A revenues; and • Next steps. • • • • • RCTC Budget and Implementation Committee Minutes November 28, 2011 Page 3 M/S/C (Tavaglione/Stone) to: 1) Receive and file the sales tax analysis for Quarter 2 (Q2) 2011; and 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. 9. 2011 CONGESTION MANAGEMENT PROGRAM Shirley Medina, Programming and Planning Manager, presented the 2011 Congestion Management Program (CMP) update, highlighting the following areas: • Riverside County CMP background; • Why prepare a CMP; • Riverside County CMP; • 2011 CMP System for Riverside, Western Riverside, Coachella Valley and Eastern Riverside; • CMP street and highway monitoring; • 2011 level of service (LOS) on CMP system for Western Riverside and Coachella Valley; • CMP system monitoring and results; and • 2011 CMP - next steps. In response to Commissioner Roger Berg's question about multimodal aspects to relieving congestion, Shirley Medina explained it is part of the traffic demand management strategy chapter that has been implemented. Commissioner Berg stated most commuters are unaware of how to locate a bus stop or a train station and any measures the Commission can take to help is a benefit. M/S/C (Zanowic/Smith) to: 1) Approve the 2011 Congestion Management Program (CMP) Update; and 2► Forward to the Commission for final action. • RCTC Budget and Implementation Committee Minutes November 28, 2011 Page 4 10. MOVING AHEAD FOR PROGRESS IN THE 21ST CENTURY Aaron Hake, Governments Relations Manager, presented an overview and the program highlights of Senator Barbara Boxer's Transportation Reauthorization Bill Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century, which was introduced in November. In response to Chair Scott Matas' questions about the funding source for the national freight program and if there is a formula of the freight volume that pass through the states, Aaron Hake replied the formula is determined by the total lane miles of primary freight network and interstate miles in each state as compared to the rest of the nation. The U.S. Transportation Secretary is charged with designating a national primary freight network of highways and a national strategic plan. Senator Boxer restructured the current programs and the existing functions of the federal government were consolidated into fewer programs, therefore funding the new program from various sources. Commissioner Pettis asked with regard to the Congestion Mitigation Air Quality (CMAQ) and the focus on particulate matter (PM 2.5), if street sweeping will continue to be allowed. Aaron Hake replied staff will inquire as there is no specific language in Senator Boxer's bill. Commissioner John Tavaglione requested clarification onr the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) versus National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and how it is factored in Senator Boxer's bill. Aaron Hake replied in Senator Boxer's bill, it proposes to make the NEPA delegation pilot program a permanent program, which allows the state to accept responsibility for reviewing federal documents. In response to Commissioner Tavaglione's question if the NEPA delegation pilot program has expedited the process in California, Anne Mayer replied there are areas where there are several examples of savings for projects that Caltrans tracks. However, from a local prospective, time savings are not evident. She provided an overview of the discussions with the Self -Help Counties Coalition and Caltrans to make the NEPA delegation program effective for local agencies. She stated the Commission will remain engaged on the house side and in those discussions of substituting CEQA for NEPA. Commissioner Ron Roberts discussed the need and appropriate timing of a dedicated freight funding program. • • • • • • RCTC Budget and Implementation Committee Minutes November 28, 2011 Page 5 Commissioner Larry Smith expressed his interest in the proposed formula and asked staff to keep the Commission apprised. Anne Mayer stated the Commission wants to ensure the formula is based on lane miles, not center line miles. She explained it is crucial to watch this program and to see how it is defined. The other area to focus is to ensure that when money comes to the state, it comes to the area by formula. She explained in 2008, the Commission made a decision to become more engaged at the federal level in policy related issues, therefore expanding the advocacy team. She stated the Commission is seeing initiatives that the Commission has been working on for years in Senator Boxer's bill, showing the effectiveness of the increased advocacy efforts. M/S/C (Craton/Stone) to: 1) Receive and file an update on Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21St Century (MAP -21); and 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. 11. ITEM(S) PULLED FROM CONSENT CALENDAR AGENDA There were no items pulled from the Consent Calendar. 12. COMMISSIONERS / EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR REPORT There were no comments by Commissioners or staff. 13. ADJOURNMENT AND NEXT MEETING There being no further business for consideration by the Budget and Implementation Committee, the meeting was adjourned at 10:09 a.m. The next meeting of the Budget and Implementation Committee is scheduled for February 27, 2012 at 9:30 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Jennifer Harmon Clerk of the Board • AGENDA ITEM 7A • • • • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: February 27, 2011 TO: Budget and Implementation Committee FROM: Michele Cisneros, Accounting and Human Resources Manager THROUGH: Theresia Trevino, Chief Financial Officer SUBJECT: Quarterly Financial Statements STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Committee to: 1) Receive and file the Quarterly Financial Statements for the period ended December 31, 2011 ; and 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: During the last six months of the fiscal year, staff has monitored the revenues and expenditures of the Commission. The attached financial statements present the revenues and expenditures for the first six months of the fiscal year. Period closing accrual adjustments are not included for revenues earned but not billed and expenditures incurred for goods and services received but not yet invoiced, as such adjustments are normally made during the year-end closing activities. The operating statement shows the sales tax revenues for the second quarter at 35 percent of the budget. This is a result of the Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) Statement No. 33. GASB 33 requires sales tax revenue to be accrued for the period in which it is collected at the point of sale. The State Board of Equalization collects the Measure A funds and remits these funds to the Commission after the reporting period for the businesses. This creates a two -month lag in the receipt of revenues by the Commission. Accordingly, these financial statements reflect the revenues related to collections through October 2010. On a cash basis, the Measure A and Local Transportation Fund (LTF) sales tax revenues are 9.44 percent and 9.84 percent higher, respectively, than the same period last fiscal year. This continued increase is an encouraging sign that economic recovery in the region is broadening. Staff will continue to monitor the trends in the sales tax receipts and will report to the Commission any necessary adjustments to the FY 2011/12 budget sales tax revenues. Agenda Item 7A 1 Federal, state, and local revenues are on a reimbursement basis, and the Commission will receive these revenues as the projects are completed and invoiced to the respective agencies. During the FY 2011/12 budget process, the Commission took a conservative approach in estimating the Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) receipts as a result of the housing crisis and significant impact this has had on the Inland Empire's local economy. The operating statement shows the TUMF revenues at 32 percent of the budget. Other revenues include $440,325 from the proceeds related to the sale of land at the West Corona Station and easement on the San Jacinto Branch Line property. The Commission took a conservative approach in estimating interest income for FY 2011/12, due to flat interest yields on invested balances. Additionally, the 2010 Build America Bonds (BABs) subsidy payments were reflected as a reduction of interest payments in the FY 2011/12 budget; however, generally accepted accounting principles require such payments to be accounted for as interest income. During December 2012, the Commission received approximately $1.5 million in BABs subsidy payments. Interest income is at 170 percent of the budget as a result of the conservative approach to estimating interest income as well as the accounting for BABs subsidy payments. Other than capital project expenditures that are discussed separately, the other expenditures are in line overall with the expectations of the budget with the following exceptions: • Salaries and benefits are slightly over as a result of a prepayment for the FY 2011/12 employer retirement contribution that provides a discount of half a year's interest. • Professional services are under budget due to ongoing contract negotiations with Burlington Northern Santa Fe regarding the 4"' Main track and significant legal and advisory services related to the State Route 91 Corridor Improvement Project (SR -91 CIP) design -build procurement being delayed until a full project funding commitment from the Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (TIFIA) loan program has been secured. • Support costs are under budget due to unused budget authority for station maintenance and repair, and utilities. • Program operations expenditures are under budget and reflect vendor invoices for program management submitted through November 2011. • Operating and capital disbursements are made as claims are submitted to the Commission by the transit operators. • Special studies are under budget due to unused budget authority for Caltrans project initiation documents (PID). Due to the state's budget issues, funds Agenda Item 7A • • • 2 • • • were budgeted in FY 2011/12 should the Commission be required to reimburse Caltrans for PIDs. • Local streets and roads expenditures are related to the timing of Measure A sales tax revenues as previously explained. These financial statements reflect expenditures made to the local jurisdictions related to collections through October 2011. • Regional arterial expenditures primarily represent expenditures for the highways and regional arterial program administered by the Coachella Valley Association of Governments (CVAG). CVAG requests reimbursements from the Commission based on available funds and sufficient budget authority. • Capital outlay expenditures are under budget due to unexpended authority for financial software improvements, regional rideshare hardware improvements, and station security improvements. This category is expected to remain under budget for lower costs related to the financial software improvements and not requiring the regional rideshare hardware. At the February meeting, the Commission approved a new model for operating the regional rideshare system that does not require hardware. Debt service interest expenditures on the 2010 Bonds are made in December and June, while interest expenditures on the 2009 Bonds are made monthly due to the variable rate nature of the bonds. Principal payments on the 2009 Bonds and 2010 Bonds are made in June. Staff will continue to monitor the revenues and expenditures and will notify the Commission of any unusual events. Listed below are the significant capital projects and the status. Capital project expenditures are generally affected by lags in invoices submitted by contractors and consultants, as well as issues encountered during certain phases of the projects. The capital projects budgets tend to be based on aggressive project schedules. Highway Engineering/Construction/Design-Build/Right of Way/Land 74/215 Interchange Project - Construction is progressing as planned and a ribbon - cutting ceremony was held on February 16; one right of way acquisition is currently in condemnation proceedings. SR -79 Realignment Project - The draft project report and environmental document is being reviewed by Caltrans to receive approval to release for public circulation. Due to the size and complexity of the project, this phase has taken longer than anticipated. Agenda Item 7A 3 SR-91/Van Buren Boulevard Interchange Project - The city of Riverside is the lead agency for this project. Construction started in March 2010 and the project is substantially completed and open to traffic. The Measure A funded portion of construction is $5 million; only $3 million in costs have been submitted by the city with the remaining $2 million expected to be billed in the third quarter of FY 2011/12. SR -91 HOV Lanes Project - Caltrans has completed design work. Expenditures remain within the budget authority. Utility relocation contractors continue to perform relocation of utilities; however, no invoices for expenditures incurred to date have been submitted for payment. Staff is performing right of way acquisition, and negotiations continue to progress and are on schedule; several acquisitions are pending settlements. Construction managed by Caltrans is currently forecasted to start in the late march of early April. 71/91 Interchange Project - The preliminary engineering and environmental phase was completed in late FY 2010/11. The availability of federal earmark funds allows the final design phase of work to move forward. Procurement for the design consultant was awarded at the February Commission meeting. SR -91 CIP (design -build) - A Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery (TIGER) III grant application and letter of interest (LOI) for a TIFIA loan was submitted in October 2011. In December, the Commission was selected to receive a $20 million TIGER III TIFIA grant that will translate into a TIFIA loan to partially fill the remaining funding gap for the project. Early right of way acquisition work was approved by Caltrans in April 2011. Following the public comment period ending in July 2011, early acquisition work began. Right of way expenditures for FY 2011/12 are weighted toward the end of the fiscal year due to the long lead time to close escrow on property purchases. The design -build request for proposals is being finalized for issuance in late FY 2011/12. Agency, utility, and railroad agreement work continues with certain agreements now completed and with others in various stages of completion. 1-15 CIP - Work on the environmental phase continues. Toll feasibility work continues to evaluate various project options in our current funding environment. Staff has used toll feasibility work to develop a scoping and implementation plan that was presented to an 1-15 CIP Ad Hoc Committee in July 2011. Comments were received and action items were developed to perform further analysis and to make further project recommendations to the ad hoc committee in the fourth quarter of FY 2011/12. 1-215 South Widening Project from Murrieta Hot Springs Road to Scott Road - Construction began in July 2011 and is on schedule. Agenda Item 7A • 4 • • • 1-215 Central Widening Project from Scott Road to Nuevo Road - Final design and right of way acquisitions related to the project are on schedule. I-215/Van Buren Interchange - This project is managed by the county of Riverside, and construction bids were received in February. Contract award by the County is anticipated within the next few months. Mid County Parkway Project - Right of way acquisitions have been curtailed as property development has subsided, and the critical need to acquire property for protection has been delayed due to the substantial rescoping of the project. Rail Engineering/Construction/Right of Way/Land Perris Valley Line Project - Advance preliminary engineering is approximately 90 percent complete and right of way acquisition has started. Environmental clearances are scheduled to be obtained the end of the third quarter of FY 2011/12, which would release activity for final right of way procurement and start of the final design phase. Attachment: Quarterly Financial Statements - December 2011 Agenda Item 7A 5 • • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANPORTATION COMMISSION QUARTERLY BUDGET VS ACTUAL 2ND QUARTER FOR SIX MONTHS ENDED 12/31/2011 FY 2011/12 2ND QUARTER REMAINING PERCENT BUDGET ACTUAL BALANCE UTILIZATION Revenues Sales tax $ 180,937,000 $ 62,621,339 $ (118,315,661) 35% Federal reimbursements 23,650,700 1,998,055 (21,652,645) 8% State reimbursements 23,935,100 5,342,893 (18,592,207) 22% Local reimbursements 1,066,200 611,476 (454,724) 57% Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee 7,084,300 2,248,677 (4,835,623) 32% Other revenues 608,000 710,331 102,331 117% Interest 1,824,200 3,092,048 1,267,848 170% Total revenues 239,105,500 76,624,819 (162,480,681) 32% Expenditures Salaries and benefits 6,576,900 3,651,902 2,924,998 56% Professional and support Professional services 16,472,800 4,473,835 11,998,965 27% Support costs 5,396,100 2,081,250 3,314,850 39% Total Professional and support costs 21,868,900 6,555,085 15,313,815 30% Projects and operations Program operations - general 17,222,400 3,731,034 13,491,366 22% Engineering 41,568,800 7,016,776 34,552,024 17% Construction 59,777,600 10,203,803 49,573,797 17% Design Build 29,438,000 4,124,066 25,313,934 14% Right of way/land 85,927,000 16,578,009 69,348,991 19% Operating and capital disbursements 109,109,300 33,577,625 75,531,675 31% Special studies 770,000 29,320 740,680 4% Local streets and roads 33,168,000 11,827,819 21,340,181 36% Regional arterials 15,215,000 3,555,118 11,659,882 23% Total projects and operations 392,196,100 90,643,570 301,552,530 23% Debt service Principal 6,500,000 - 6,500,000 N/A Interest 13,695,000 7,266,388 6,428,612 53% Total debt service 20,195,000 7,266,388 12,928,612 36% Capital outlay 470,200 4,926 465,274 1% Total Expenditures 441,307,100 108,121,871 333,185,229 25% Excess revenues over (under) expenditures (202,201,600) (31,497,052) 367,737,253 16% Other financing sources/(uses) Operating transfer in 169,301,100 47,980,791 (121,320,309) 28% Operating transfer out (169,301,100) (47,980,791) 121,320,309 28% Debt proceeds 38,000,000 (38,000,000) N/A Total financing sources/(uses) 38,000,000 - 38,000,000 N/A Net change in fund balances (164,201,600) (31,497,052) 405,737,253 19% Fund balance July 1, 2011 530,978,300 589,364,644 58,386,344 111% Fund balance December 31, 2011 $ 366,776,700 $ 557,867,592 $ 464,123,597 152% 6 • • RIVERSIDE C OUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSI ON QUARTERLY BUDGET VS ACTUALS 85 FUND 280 QUARTER FOR 51X MONTHS ENDED 12/31/2011 MEASURE A SALES TAX Revenues Sales tax $ 1,080.000 $ - $ 29,588,583 Federal reimbursements 2.350 - 1,995,705 State reimbursements 57.201 1,116,630 4,169,062 Local reimbursements 53,486 163,577 394,413 Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee - - Othe r rev enues 7,921 168 699,897 Interest 17.769 7,210 298,762 Total revenues 1.218,727 1.287.585 37.146,422 FSPI WESTERN PALO COACHELLA LOCAL GENERAL FUND SAFE COUNTY VERDE TRANSPORTATION STATE TRANSIT VALLEY VALLEY FUND ASSISTANCE TRANSPORTATION UNIFORM MITI GATION FEE (TUMF) COMMERCIAL SALES TAX COMBINED PAPER BONDS DEBT SERVICE TOTAL Expenditures Salaries and benefits Professional and support Professional services Support costs Total Professional and support costs Projects and o perations Progra m operations - general Engineerin g Construction Design Build Right of way/land Operating and capital disbursements Special studies Loc al streets and roads Regiona l arterials Total projects an d operations Debt service Interest Total debt service Net change in fund balances 3,086,089 (447,750) (11,167,129) - 265,413 (15,524,174) 2,748,865 Fu nd balance Jut 1, 2011556514,247 953,429 (1,099,814) (10 ,427.228) (31,497,052) Y 13,524. 35410 6,599,199 258,599,521 556 10,162,008 82,210,219 32,178,629 73,294,737 33,227,032 25,226,581 53,894.069 589,364,644 Fund balance December 31. 2011 $ 16. 610,443 $ 6. 599,188 5 247,6}2,392 $ 556 $ 10,428,421 $ 66.686,045 $ 34,527494 $ 73.808,984 $ 34,180,461 $ 24,126,767 $ 43,466.841 $ 557,867,592 266,025 $ 9 .137,229 $ 19,751,802 $ 2,797 ,700 $ - $ - $ $ 62,621.339 - 1.998.055 5,342,893 2,268,677 - - 611,476 • - - - 2,248.677 - - 12 ,918 - 2,345• 1710,331 88.122 48,093 93 .693 953,459 25,328 1 ,546,694 3.092.048 266.025 9,150 ,147 19,839,924 2.845,793 2,342,370 953,459 27,673 1,546.694 76,624,519 2,421,232 61,513 1,108,126 484 60,547 376,019 253.644 3 .717,662 1,661 1,600.590 193,407 287,141 - - 1,976,609 447,051 4,004 ,803 - 1,661 495.426 912,471 2,254,956 5.028,759 9,967,926 4,124,066 16,161,206 - 1,738,046 2,039,413 - 2,128,441 27,174,797 496,928 - 29,320 - - - - 8,363,764 266,025 3.198,030 - 3.555,118 3.651.902 124.849 - - - 4.473.835 112 - - - 2.081.250 124,961 - - 6.555,085 68 ,181 1 ,868,912 235,877 3.731.034 119,105 7,016,776 10,203.803 4,124,066 (530.355) - 947,158 - 16,578.009 33,577,625 29.320 11.827,819 2,233,472 912,471 47, 969,410 266,025 8.881,589 27,174,797 496,928 - 3,555,118 1,642,615 1,066,263 - 90.643 ,570 7,266.388 7 .266 .388 7,266.388 7 .266.388 Capital outlay 4,926 4.926 Total Expenditures 6,636.239 1,421,035 53,082,339 266,025 8,883,734 27,174,797 496,928 1,828,123 - 1,066,263 7,266 .388 108.121,871 Excess reven ues over (under) expenditures (5,417.512) (133,450) (15, 935,917) 266,413 (7,334,873) 2,348,865 514,247 953,459 (1.038,590) (5,7/9.694) (31,497.052) Other financing sources/(uses) Opera ting transfer in 8,503,601 800,000 14,621.178 54 _ Operating transfer out (1.114,300) (9.852,390) (54) - 14,381,746 9,674 ,212 47,980,791 Total financing sources/(uses) 8,503. 601 (314,300) 4,768.788 (8,189,301) - - (30) (14,442,970) (14.381,746) (47.980,791) (8,189,301) (30) (61,224) (4,707,534) 7 AGENDA ITEM 7B • • • • • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION DATE: February 27, 2012 TO: Budget and Implementation Committee FROM: Theresia Trevino, Chief Financial Officer THROUGH: John Standiford, Deputy Executive Director SUBJECT: Quarterly Sales Tax Analysis STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Committee to: 1) Receive and file the sales tax analysis for Quarter 3 (Q3) 2011; and 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: At its December 2007 meeting, the Commission awarded an agreement to MuniServices, LLC (MuniServices) for quarterly sales tax reporting services plus additional fees contingent on additional sales tax revenue generated from the transactions and use tax (sales tax) audit services. The services performed under this agreement pertain to only the Measure A sales tax revenues. Since the commencement of these services, MuniServices submitted an audit update, which reported findings that have been generated and submitted to the State Board of Equalization (SBOE) for review and determination of errors in sales tax reporting related to 205 businesses. Through Q3 2011 for July through September 2011, the SBOE has approved corrections for 151 of these accounts for a total sales tax revenue recovery of $1,810,970. If the SBOE concurs with the error(s) for the remaining claims, the Commission would receive additional revenues; however, the magnitude of the value of the remaining findings was not available. It is important to note that while the recoveries of additional revenues will be tangible, it will not be sufficient to alter the overall trend of sales tax revenues. Additionally, MuniServices provided the Commission with the quarterly sales tax summary report for the third quarter of calendar year 2011 for July through September 2011(Q3 2011). Most of the Q3 2011 Measure A sales tax revenues was received by the Commission in the fourth quarter of calendar 2011, during October through December 2011, due to a lag in the sales tax calendar. The summary section of the Q3 2011 report is attached and includes an overview of Agenda Item 78 8 California sales tax receipts, local results, historical cash collections analysis, summary of the top 25 sales tax contributors, historical sales tax amounts, sales tax by business category, economic trends for significant business category (auto sales -new), and results. The following observations were noted in the Q3 2011 report: • Sales tax receipts for Riverside County were 10.3 percent higher compared to the Q3 2010, and slightly higher than the state. This supports the previous quarterly reports' analyses that an economic recovery statewide and locally is underway; however, the Commission should continue to be cautious as service stations is one of the top three economic segments throughout the state leading this recovery. A significant portion of this growth is attributable to the high fuel prices. • Taxable transactions for the top 25 tax contributors in Riverside County, which generated 23 percent of the taxable sales for the year ended Q3 2011, increased 5.1 percent compared to the year ended Q3 2010. For the top 100 tax contributors, which generated 37 percent of the taxable sales, the growth was 8 percent. • For the third consecutive period, all economic categories experienced increases in the Q3 2011 benchmark year comparison to Q3 2010. Transportation had the largest increase at 20 percent, which was primarily related to the service station segment increase. Business to business had the next highest increase at 6.1 percent. These two categories represent 41.2 percent of total sales taxes. The remaining four economic categories had increases ranging from 2.5 percent to 5.6 percent. • ECONOMIC CATEGORY ANALYSIS %of Total/ %Change: General Retail RCTC 30.2 / 5.6 Califor Statewide 29.9 / 4.1 29.5 / 4.6 ea acranento. Valley'. 30.6 / 0.8 Central Valley.. 32.0 / 4.2 South Coast 29.8 / 4.1 In,l nd Empire 26.6 / 8.8 North Ct 31.8 / 1.1 Central Coast 33.2 / 1.0 Food Products 16.4 / 3.4 19.1 / 4.4 19.8 / 5.9 17.5 / 3.3 16.7 / 3.9 19.4 / 4.0 13.7 / 3.9 17.7 / 1.3 29.5 / 2.9 Construction 10.1 / 3.9 8.3 / 4.2 8.1 / 4.8 10.1 / 3.0 10.5 / 7.0 7.8 / 3.8 7.7 / 4.2 12.5 / -0.4 8.7 / -4.3 • Transportation 27.1 / 20.0 23.5 / 15.0 20.6 / 14.4 26.8 / 13.7 25.4 / 18.8 24.1 / 14.7 23.9 / 17.1 28.4 / 15.3 21.7 / 16.6 Business to Business 14.1 / 6.1 17.9 / 8.1 20.8 / 7.9 13.6 / 0.8 14.1 / 15.9 17.6 / 8.3 23.8 / 1.3 8.6 / 4.3 5.8 / -7.7 Miscellaneous 2.1 / 2.5 1.3 / 2.8 1.2 / -0.7 1.3 / 2.7 1.4 / 32.9 1.2 / 1.8 4.2 / 6.5 1.0 / -62.5 1.1 / -30.5 Total 100.0 / 8.6 100.0 / 7.2 100.0 / 7.4 100.0 / 4.7 100.0 / 9.8 100.0 / 7.2 100.0 / 7.6 100.0 / 3.2 100.0 / 3.0 General Retail: Apparel Stores, Department Stores, Furniture/Appliances, Drug Stores, Recreation Products, Florist/Nursery, and Misc. Retail Food Products: Restaurants, Food Markets, Liquor Stores, and Food Processing Equipment Construction: Building Materials Retail and Building Materials Wholesale Transportation: Auto Parts/Repair, Auto Sales - New, Auto Sales - Used, Service Stations, and Misc. Vehicle Sales Business to Business: Office Equip., Electronic Equip., Business Services, Energy Sales, Chemical Products, Heavy Industry, Light Industry, and Leasing Miscellaneous: Health & Government, Miscellaneous Other, and Closed Account Adjustments Agenda Item 7B • 9 • • • • More than half of the top 10 segments (service stations, department stores, restaurants, auto sales -new, miscellaneous retail, and apparel stores) sales reached a new high point during Q3 201 1 . • Service stations, department stores, and restaurants continue to represent the three largest economic segments for Riverside County, or 35.5 percent of total sales taxes. Auto sales —new represents the fourth largest economic segment at 9 percent of total sales taxes. RCTC California Statewide ECONOMIC S.F. Bay Area '- SEGMENT ANALYSIS Sacramento Valley Central Valley South Coast Inland' . Empire. Coast North Coast Central'_' Largest Segment Service Stations Restaurants Restaurants Department Stores Department Stores Restaurants Service Stations Department Stores Restaurants %ofTotal/%Change 13.0/23.6 13.2/5.1 13.7/6.7 12.8/0.3 15.1/2.8 13.9/4.9 10.9/18.7 14.6/1.2 19.8/2.6 2nd Largest Segment Department Stores Department Stores Department Stores Service Stations Service Stations Service Stations Restaurants Service Stations Misc Retail %ofTotal/%Change 12.0/3.4 10.9/3.1 9.7/3.5 10.8/19.0 12.2/25.6 10.7/20.7 10.5/6.0 13.6/23.4 10.4/0.6 3rd Largest Segment Restaurants Service Stations Service Stations Restaurants Restaurants Department Stores Office Equipment Restaurants Service Stations %ofTotal/%Change 10.5/4.7 10.5/21.3 9.1/21.7 10.7/2.1 9.8/3.6 10.5/3.4 9.5/3.1 9.7/1.0 10.1/21.0 During the review of the Q3 2011 detailed report with MuniServices, information regarding sales tax comparisons by city and change by economic category from Q3 2010 to Q3 2011 was provided, and is attached. Newly incorporated cities such as Eastvale and Jurupa Valley will be listed when sufficient comparative information is available. Staff continues to monitor monthly sales tax receipts and other available economic data to determine the need for any adjustment to the revenue projections. Staff will utilize the forecast scenarios included with the complete report and recent trends in assessing such projections. Attachments: 1) Sales Tax Analysis Q3 2011 2) Sales Tax Comparison by City for Q3 2010 to Q3 2011 Agenda Item 7B 10 ATTACHMENT 1 • • • Riverside County Transportation Commission Sales Tax Digest Summary Collections through December 2011 Sales through September 2011 (2011Q3) CALIFORNIA'S OVERVIEW The RCTC, sales tax receipts changed by 10.3% from October -December 2010 to October -December 2011. Statewide sales tax receipts during October -December 2011 grew by 9.2%. Northern California grew by 9.4% and Southern California grew by 9.0%. For now the economy looks to be moving in the right direction. The housing market is improving in comparison to previous years with declines in both the number of defaults and foreclosures. California exports, technological products, domestic capital spending and agriculture have accelerated the economic recovery in California. Many automotive dealers, including products made by the "Detroit 3", are experiencing moderate sales increases. Consumer spending jumped from last quarter and helped stimulate the economy for a moderate third quarter growth. CALIFORNIA'S FUTURE California's outlook for the future remains mostly positive but faces some headwinds. Consumer confidence and rising income has helped drive the increase in taxable sales and we expect to see continued growth for the balance of 2011 and 2012. Unemployment will remain stubbornly high; job creation will occur, but recovery will be slow. California home sales and median prices will improve slightly in 2012, construction sector, which has seen a 40% decline since 2007, will grow but will not be able to regain its former strength in the foreseeable future. Many economists expect California's economy to slowly improve but at a rate slower than other states. However, California does have a big future ahead of itself: a large and growing population. By 2012, 39.5 million residents will call California home. Growth will boost residential construction, retail sales and services. California still faces high unemployment rates and ongoing reductions in government sector jobs. LOCAL RESULTS Net Cash Receipts Analysis Local Collections Share of County Pool 0.0% Share of State Pool 0.0% SBE Net Collections Less: Amount Due County 0.0% Less: Cost of Administration Net 3Q2011 Receipts Net 3Q2010 Receipts Actual Percentage Change $31,149,737 0 0 31,149,737 .00 (329,200) 30,820,537 27, 942, 296 10.3% www.MuniServices.com (800) 800-8181 11 Page 1 ty Transpo • ion Co>r ml aline: Actiu!ty Performance Analysis Local Collections Less: Payments for Prior Periods Preliminary 3Q2011 Collections Projected 302011 Late Payments Projected 302011 Final Results Actual 302010 Results Projected Percentage Change (HISTORICAL CASH CO TI NS ANALYSIS BY QUARTER S35,000 530,000 S25,000 S20,000 515,000 S10,000 55,000 SO $31,149,737 (1,482,078) 29, 667, 659 726,555 (in thousands of S) 202009 3Q2009 4Q2009 102010 2Q2010302019 4Q2010 102011 20201 1 3Q2011 Net Receipts me,'" SRO E. A dm in Fees Doe 30,394,214 28,118,945 8.1% TOP 25 SALES/USE TAX CONTRIBUTORS The following list identifies RCTC's Top 25 Sales/Use Tax contributors. The list is in alphabetical order and represents sales from October 2010 through September 2011, The Top 25 Sales/Use Tax contributors generate 23.0% of RCTC's total sales and use tax revenue. BEST BUY STORES RALPH'S GROCERY COMPANY CARMAX THE AUTO SUPERSTORE CHEVRON SERVICE STATIONS CIRCLE K FOOD STORES COSTCO WHOLESALE DEPT OF MOTOR VEHICLES HOME DEPOT J C PENNEY COMPANY K MART STORES KOHL'S DEPARTMENT STORES LOWE'S HOME IMPROVEMENT MACY'S DEPARTMENT STORE MOBIL SERVICE STATIONS RITE AID DRUG STORES ROSS STORES SAM'S CLUB SEARS ROEBUCK & COMPANY SHELL SERVICE STATIONS STATER BROS MARKETS TARGET STORES VERIZON WIRELESS W.W. GRAINGER WAL MART STORES WALGREEN'S DRUG STORES W '.rWur , l i Page 2 • • 12 • • • Riverside County T o nion Commission HISTORICAL SALES TAX AMOUNTS The following chart shows the sales tax level from sales through September 2011, the highs, and the lows for each segment over the last two years. (in thousands of S) 518,000 S16,000 514,000 512,000 S10.000 58,000 56,000 54,000 52,000 .ANNUAL. SALES TAX BY BUSINESS CATEGORY (in thousands n r S) 302011 2Q 201 1 10 2 0 1 1 402010 3 Q 2 0 1 0 2 Q 2 0 1 0 10 2 0 1 0 40 2009 3Q2009 202009 3Q2u1 0 11 igh ',Low SO 520,000 $40,000 560,000 5110,000 5100,000 5120,000 5140,000 �7G enera l Retail ©Fond Prodoxta C3Trnnsportatiaa cdCoostrurtioa Q11uxinesa To 0nsinras Nisrellantuas 13 Riverside County Transpor FIVE -YEA 56,000 55.001) 54,000 53,000 S2,000 51.000 SO ECONOMIC TREND: Au sales - New tin thousands of S) FINAL, RESULTS: April -June 2011 Sales Local Net Cash Collections Less: Pool Amounts Less: Prior Quarter Payments Add: Late Payments Local Net Economic Collections after Adjustments Percent Change from April -June 2010 Sales MLINISERVICES This Quarter Total to Date GOING AUDIT RESULTS $166,684 $1,394,813 X01 Cole $32,584,252 (5-329,200) ($1,997,172) $1,082,228 $31,998,507 UP BY 9.6% WW i00) ,st?tt_° `, j Pag 4 • • • 14 Southern California: Sales Tax Com.ariso Jul -Se. 2010 Sales to Jul -Se • 2011 Sales ATTACHM2 tIVERS/DE COUNTY Retail Products to Busi ness -' ' Total u - ep 1 1 Total o g argest Gain 2nd Largest Gain Largest Decline 2nd Largest Decline Banning Beaumont -4.8% -1.7 % 2 ,6% 0.0 % 110% 34.6 % -12.2% -5.9% 49.2% 5,8% -22 .4% 19 5% 383,414 744,629 360,263 699,915 6 ,4% Service Statio ns 6.4% Ser vice Stations Auto Sales - New Miscellaneous Retail BIdg.Matls-Whsle BIdg.Matls-Retail Miscellan eous Other Department Stores Blythe -3.5 % 1,4 % 8 .5% 35.2 % 102.9 % 1 .8% 360,614 316,261 14 .0% E nergy Sales Auto Sales - New Auto Parts/Repair Florist/Nursery Calimesa -27.4 % 2,9 % 23 .9% 6.8 % -35 .5% 23 .6% 144,918 136,159 6.4 % Service Stations Liqu or Stores Light Industry Apparel Stores Canyon Lake -29.5 % 44.3 % -70.5% 0.9% -60.7% -64,9 % 31,687 38,405 -17.S % Restaurants Liquor Stor es Auto Parts/Repair Department Stores Cathedral City -9.9% 5,4% 5.1 % 22.6% 2 .3% 9.4% 1,380,718 1,334,338 3.5 % Auto Sales - New Food Markets Miscellaneous Retail Furniture/Applia nce_ Coachella 10.3% -6 .8% 18.2% 17 .0 % 26 .8% 4.0% 670,743 598,454 12 .1% Service Stations BIdg .Matis•Retail Food Markets Aut o Sales Used Corona 7.2 % 1.5% 23.7% 11.9% 11.4% -12.6% 7,022,130 6,281,232 11.8% Service Stati ons BIdg.Matls-Whsle Office Equipment - Food Markets Desert Hot Springs 2,9% 4,2% 128.6 % 72.0% 29.1 % 29.4% 271,173 189,181 43 .3 % Service Stations R estaurants Dep artme nt St or es Food Markets Hemet -2.4% 1.6% 14.4% -5 .8% 12,2 % -9 .9% 1,918,621 1,817,290 5.6% Auto Sales - N ew Service Statio ns Apparel Stores Bldg.Matls-Whsle Indian Wells 1.2% -7.1% -17.4% 7.4% 50.1% 1100.0% 92,603 97,241 -4,8 % Recreation Products Light Industry Restaurants Food Markets Indio 9, 4% 2.3% 11.8% 12 .2 % 10 .8 % -18.6% 1,449,739 1,326,643 9 ,3% Auto Sales - New Service Stations Health & Go vernment Recreation Products La Qu inta -2.5% 7.7% 27.3 % -0,8 % -1 .2% -31.7 % 1,293,724 1,245,909 3.8% Auto Sales - New Restaurants Department St ores Offic e Eq uipment Lake Elsinore 0.5% 1.9% 14.3 % -2 .3 % 10 .8% 105.6 % 1,562,888 1,485,226 5 .2%Service Stations Auto Sales - N ew BIdg.Matls-Whsle Miscellaneous Retail Menifee 13.4% 1. 9% 32.7% 3.1% 9.3 % 48.6% 1,015,429 892,451 13 .8 % Service Stati ons Furniture/Applianc e Energy Sales F ood M arkets M oreno Valley 2.2% 4, 4% 15.2% -10,6% 31.5% -7,7% 2,753,800 2,581,905 6.7 % Auto Sales - New Service Stations BIdg.Matls-Whsle Departme nt Stores Murrieta 5.5% 6.4% 20.8% -3 .7% -3.2 % -13.5% 2,362,691 2,210,500 6.9 % Service Statio ns A uto Sales - N ew Furniture/Applia nc e Bldg . Matls-Whsle Norco Palm Desert 4.4% 7. 3% 2.8% 6.7% 19.2% 23.7% -0.9% 5.5% 5.5 % 4.2 % 24.6% -35.7 % 999,301 2,597,769 903,150 2,399,177 10.6% Auto Sales - N ew 8.3% Service Stations Service Stations Department Stores Leasi ng Business S ervices BIdg .Matls-Retail Food Markets Palm Springs 10% 9. 0% 9. 8% 2.2% 10,9% -28.3 % 1,760,655 1,668,426 5.5 % Restaurants Electronic Eq uipme nt Health & Government Recreation Pr oducts Perris 5. 2% 0.6% 23.7% 1.4% -2.8% 5.9% 1,472,397 1,352,713 8.8 % Service Stati ons Aut o Sales • New Heavy Ind ustry Chemical Pr oducts Rancho Mirage 25. 4% 8.0% -8.0% 3. 8% -32.1% -4.2% 730,492 700,603 4,3% Miscellaneous Retail R esta urants Light Industry Auto Sales - New Riverside 1.6% 2,4% 16.2% 26.3% 1.4% -7.0% 9,995,453 9,204,190 8.6%Auto Sales -New BIdg .Matls-Whsle Florist/Nursery Heavy Industry Riverside County -18.7% 0,3% 18. 9% 5.0% 3.3% -9.5 % 5,976 ,718 6,028,842 -0.9% Service Stations Bldg .Matls-Whsle Departme nt St or es Miscellaneous Retail San Jacinto 3. 2% -1.6% 13.6% -14. 3% -35. 9% -38.7 % 461,268 451,432 2 .2% Service Stati ons Florist/Nursery Light Industry Food Markets Temecula 4.5% -1.0% 19.3% 5.0% -0. 6% 9.2% 5,766,047 5,389,771 7,0 % Auto Sales - New Service Stations Light I ndustry Food Processi ng Eqp Wildomar 4. 4% 5. 7% 25.4% 36.1% -14. 0% 123.1% 300,297 259,465 15.7% S ervice Stations H ealth & Go ver nment Miscellaneous Retail Electronic Equipment 15 MuniServices. LLC • AGENDA ITEM 7C • • • • • • • • RIVERS/DE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION DATE: February 27, 2011 TO: Budget and Implementation Committee FROM: Theresia Trevino, Chief Financial Officer THROUGH: John Standiford, Deputy Executive Director SUBJECT: Report on Expenditure of Proceeds from 2010 Bonds STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Committee to: 1) Receive and file the report on the expenditure of the proceeds from the 2010 Bonds; and 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: In November 2010, the Commission issued $37,630,000 in fixed rate tax-exempt bonds (Series A) and $112,370,000 in fixed rate taxable bonds (Series B) designated as build America bonds (BABs) under American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (collectively, the 2010 Bonds). The aggregate amount issued of $150 million for the 2010 Bonds was used to retire approximately $103,300,000 of outstanding commercial paper notes, provide funds for 2009 Measure A Western County capital projects, and pay costs of issuance. Approximately $44,229,000 of Series B bond proceeds was deposited to the 2010 Bonds Project Fund for future capital expenditures. A portion of the BABs were designated as recovery zone economic development bonds (RZEDBs). The Commission expects to receive, and has received to date, a semi annual cash subsidy from the United States Treasury equal to 35% of the interest payable on the BABs or 45% of the interest payable on the Series B bonds additionally designated as RZEDBs. As required under the debt management policy, a report is to be provided to the Commission regarding the expenditure of proceeds from the 2010 Bonds Project Fund since the closing of the debt issuance transaction. As of February 3, all proceeds in the 2010 Bonds Project Fund have been expended, and the attached report is a summary of the expenditures for the various 2009 Measure A capital projects. Attachment: Report on Expenditure of Proceeds from 2010 Bonds Agenda Item 7C 16 • • • Riverside County Transportation Commission Expenditure of 2010 Bonds, Series B Proceeds --Project Fund December 1, 2010 -January 31, 2012 Description of Transaction Deposit of 2010 Bonds, Series B Proceeds (12/1/2010) Interest earned (12/2010-3/2011) Balance -March 31, 2011 Interest earned (4/2011-6/2011) 91 CIP (#003026, 003028): Nossaman LLP Fieldman & Associates Parsons Brinckerhoff Beacon Economics Geographics IB Reprographics Parsons Brinckerhoff Gonzales Parsons Transportation Group Subtot al Purpose * Special legal counsel/strategic partnership advisory • Financial advisory • Strategic partnership advisory • Professional services (economic benefit study) • Professional services (website) • Printing • Preliminary engineering • Right of way support services (relocation claim) * Project construction manager 91/71 CIP (#003021): Parsons Transportation Group • Preliminary engineering 1-15 CIP (#003027): Parsons Brinckerhoff • Strategic partnership advisory HDR • Preliminary engineering Subtotal 215 CIP (#003022, 003023, 003031): Atkins North America (PBS&J) TRC Solutions URS County of Riverside/TLMA All American Asphalt & Community Bank Southstar Engineering & Consulting URS Overland Pacific Cutler Coachella Valley Projects (#0081XX): CVAG/Avenue 42 (Indio) First American Title Balance -June 30, 2011 Interest earned (7/2011-9/2011) 91 CIP (#003026, 003028): Nossaman LLP Fieldman & Associates Parsons Brinckerhoff Geographics Stantec Parsons Brinckerhoff Lawyers Title Parsons Transportation Group 91/71 CIP (#003021): Parsons Transportation Group 1-15 CIP (#003027): Nossaman LLP KPMG LLP HDR • Preliminary engineering (central segment) • Preliminary engineering (gap project) • Final design (central segment) • Final design (data extraction re: central segment) • Contruction (south segment) • Contruction management (south segment) • Construction support services (south segment) • Right of way support services (central segment) Subtotal Preliminary engineering Land (mitigation) Subtotal Subtotal Subtotal 215 CIP (#003022, 003023, 003031): Atkins North America (PBS&J) TRC Solutions URS Pechanga Band of Luiseno Mission Indians All American Asphalt & Community Bank Southstar Engineering & Consulting URS Pechanga Band of Luiseno Mission Indians Mason & Mason Real Estate Appraisers & Consultants RP Laurain & Associates Overland Pacific Cutler Coachella Valley Projects (#0081XX): CVAG/Avenue 42 (Indio) Balance -September 30, 2011 Subtotal • Special legal counsel/strategic partnership advisory • Financial advisory * Strategic partnership advisory • Professional services (website) * Professional services (investment grade study) • Preliminary engineering * Right of way acquisition • Project construction manager • Preliminary engineering * Special legal counsel/strategic partnership advisory * Strategic partnership advisory • Preliminary engineering • Preliminary engineering (central segment) * Preliminary engineering (gap project) * Final design (central segment) * Final design (central segment) • Construction (south segment) " Construction management (south segment) Construction support services (south segment) • Construction support services (south segment) ' Right of way support services (central segment) • Right of way support services (central segment) * Right of way support services (central segment) Preliminary engineering ATTACHMENT 1 (Subject to rounding differences) Amount Balance 22,057 15,530 (287,700) (6,174) (59,135) (5,000) (540) (14) (949,375) (1,900) (3,978,995) (5,288,834) (1,217,687) (1,570) (801,335) (802,905) (153,138) (69,156) (416,830) (135) (13,104) (235,277) (45,327) (41,512) (974,479) (199,697) (49,620) (249,317) 4,353 (466,457) (12,486) (22,334) (840) (164,449) (1,132,112) (1,500,224) (3,326,991) (6,625,894) (118,629) (6,038) (3,500) (383,085) (392,623) (4,176) (43,806) (3,388,679) (4,265) (1,020,432) (475,592) (32,391) (8,452) (65,094) (6,600) (92,433) (5,141,920) (48,419) $ 44,228,939 44,250,996 35,733,305 23,410,172 17 Riverside County Transportation Commission Expenditure of 2010 Bonds, Series B Proceeds --Project Fund December 1, 2010 -January 31, 2012 Description of Transaction Purpose Interest earned (10/2011-12/2011) 91 CIP (9003026, 003028): Nossaman LLP Fieldman & Associates Stantec Parsons Brinckerhoff Brown & Cassel Martinez Kardar Parsons Transportation Group 91/71 CIP (9003021): Parsons Transportation Group I-15 CIP (9003027): Nossaman LLP KPMG LLP HDR * Special legal counsel/strategic partnership advisory * Financial advisory • Professional services (investment grade study) • Preliminary engineering * Right of way support services (relocation claim) * Right of way support services (relocation claim) • Right of way support services (relocation claim) * Project construction manager Subtotal Subtotal 215 CIP (9003022, 003023, 003031): Atkins North America (PBS&J) TRC Solutions URS All American Asphalt & Community Bank Southstar Engineering & Consulting URS Department of California Highway Patrol Pechanga Band of Luiseno Mission Indians Sanabria Mason & Mason Real Estate Appraisers & Consultants RP Laurain & Associates Overland Pacific Cutler Coachella Valley Projects (90081XX): CVAG/Cook St (Palm Desert) First American Title Fidelity National Title Balance -December 31, 2011 Interest earned (1/2012-2/2012) 91 CIP (#003026, 003028): Nossaman LLP Parsons Brinckerhoff Villa Lawyers Title Parsons Transportation Group 91/71 CIP (9003021): Thompson Cobb Bazilio & Associates 1-15 CIP (#003027): Nossaman LLP KPMG LLP HDR 215 CIP (9003022, 003023, 003031): Atkins North America (PBS&J) URS All American Asphalt & Community Bank Southstar Engineering & Consulting Tract No. 23311 Community Association Overland Pacific Cutler Coachella Valley Projects (90081XX): Fidelity National Title Balance -February 3, 2012 * Preliminary engineering (central segment) • Preliminary engineering (gap project) • Final design (central segment) • Contruction (south segment) * Contruction management (south segment) • Construction support services (south segment) ' Construction support services (south segment) * Construction support services (south segment) * Right of way acquisition (central segment) • Right of way support services (central segment) * Right of way support services (central segment) • Right of way support services (central segment) Subtotal Subtotal * Preliminary engineering • Special legal counsel/strategic partnership advisory * Strategic partnership advisory Preliminary engineering Preliminary engineering Land (mitigation) --escrow refund Land (mitigation) * Special legal counsel/strategic partnership advisory * Strategic partnership advisory • Right of way support services (relocation claim) * Right of way acquisition * Project construction manager Subtotal • Audit services (preaward) * Special legal counsel/strategic partnership advisory • Strategic partnership advisory * Preliminary engineering Subtotal * Preliminary engineering (central segment) • Final design (central segment) " Construction (south segment) * Construction management (south segment) • Right of way acquisition (central segment) * Right of way support services (central segment) Subtotal (Subject to rounding differences) Amount Balance 2,904 (374,533) (56,716) (352,503) (676,011) (9,615) (1,175) (7,828) (2,211,694) (3,690,076) (30,653) (2,013) (4,556) (64,668) (71,237) (6,047) (44,930) (664,247) (5,221,442) (592,826) (11,688) (7,918) (898) (7,400) (47,727) (8,800) (12,635) (6,626,557) (119,105) 2,345 (947,158) (1,063,918) 953 (146,301) (107,772) (2,150) (8,186,464) (1,353,513) (9,796,201) (10,850) (1,150) (62,730) (139,125) (203,005) (1,748) (524,216) (1,117,233) (174,448) (14,750) (12,193) (1,844,588) Land (mitigation) (76,945) 11,930,635 $ (0) • • 18 AGENDA ITEM 8 • • • M • • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION DATE: February 27, 2012 TO: Budget and Implementation Committee FROM: Theresia Trevino, Chief Financial Officer THROUGH: John Standiford, Deputy Executive Director SUBJECT: Proposed Policy Goals and Objectives for Fiscal Year 2012/13 Budget STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Committee to: 1) Approve the proposed Commission Policy Goals and Objectives for the FY 2012/13 Budget; and 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The initial step in the budget process is to develop policy goals and objectives for the next fiscal year that are consistent with the Commission's overall strategic direction. Most importantly, the adoption of the Commission Policy Goals and Objectives for the annual fiscal year budget provides an opportunity to match the Commission's spending priorities in a manner that implements the promises made to the citizens of the county of Riverside in both Measure A Expenditure Plans and that fulfills other Commission responsibilities. The Commission's seven long-term policy goals are: • Promote mobility; • Mitigate and address the impact of goods movement; • Encourage economic development; • Ensure improved system efficiencies; • Foster environmental stewardship; • Support transportation choices through intermodalism and accessibility; and • Prioritize public and agency communications. The Commission's Financial and Administrative Policies are also included in the Commission Policy Goals and Objectives for the FY 2012/13 Budget. Attachment: Proposed Commission Policy Goals and Objectives for FY 2012/13 Budget Agenda Item 8 19 • • • Commission Policy Goals and Objectives In addition to financial and administration policies, the Commission has seven long-term policy goals: promote mobility, mitigate and address the impact of goods movement, encourage economic development, ensure improved system efficiencies, foster environmental stewardship, support transportation choices through intermodalism and accessibility, and prioritize public and agency communications. For each of these policy goals, the objectives and initiatives that were considered in the framework of the work plan for the FY 2012/13 budget are identified below. While Riverside County grapples with the challenges of a weak real estate market, high unemployment, and a recovering economy, the need for better transportation remains a top public priority. The Commission is poised to address these challenges via the seven policy goals. In moving forward with an aggressive program of projects and services, the Commission will face the challenge of fluctuating Measure A, TUMF, and TDA revenues and uncertainty regarding the availability of federal and state transportation revenues. Due to the long-term nature of many of the Commission's programs, many of the policy goals' objectives and initiatives are ongoing from year to year. Promote Mobility The Commission, in cooperation with local, state, and federal agencies, will strive to create a transportation system that promotes efficient mobility both within the County and region. • Complete projects and programs included in the 1989 Measure A and determine use(s) for any unexpended revenues. • Continue to aggressively pursue completion of the environmental, design, and construction processes on key components of the Western Riverside County Delivery Plan, which includes the SR -91, 1-15, and 1-215 corridor improvement projects. • Continue to develop the toll program consistent with the Western Riverside County Delivery Plan including executing toll program agreements with key regional and state partners namely Caltrans, Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA), toll operator, city of Corona, California Highway Patrol (CHP), and others. • Develop requests for proposals for SR -91 corridor improvement project design -build contract and pursue funding opportunities via the TIFIA loan program. • Continue the preliminary engineering and environmental clearance for the Mid County Parkway and SR - 79 realignment projects. • Continue to work with state and federal agencies to fund and construct projects programmed in the STIP, Federal Transportation Improvement Program (FTIP), Proposition 1B bond programs, and Measure A program as well as other high priority regional projects. • Maximize obtaining all available transportation funds and strategically program funds to meet funding deadlines and to prevent the lapse and loss of funds. • Maximize the effective application and use of Western County TUMF funds to deliver eligible Commission priority projects. • Work closely with local jurisdictions to implement the TUMF Regional Arterial Program and facilitate the delivery of arterial improvements in Western County. • Actively participate in the SR -91 Advisory Committee to facilitate near and long-term improvements to SR -91, enhance intercounty public transit options, and foster mobility improvements between the two counties. Advocate streamlining efforts at the state and federal levels that will reduce costs, time, and delays currently associated with project delivery including, but not limited to, timely project reviews and approvals. • Continue to coordinate and provide public access to commuter information via the 1E511 system and focus commuter assistance and 1E511 outreach efforts under one brand. • Continue cooperation with the FTA regarding the Small Starts process to support the initiation of the Perris Valley Line commuter rail service in 2013. • Continue to work with the public transit operators to control costs and increase system efficiencies in order to accommodate fluctuating revenues from local, state and federal sources. • Continue to develop transit service to further promote seamless intracity, intercity, and regional transit connectivity for County residents. Mitigate and Address the Impact of Goods Movement The Commission will work with federal, state, and local governments to facilitate the movement of goods and services to, within, and through the County, recognizing the vital role goods movement mobility plays in the economic health of the County, the State, and the nation. • Seek funding and local agency concurrence to implement the Commission's approved, high -priority railroad grade separation priority list to mitigate the impact of increased goods movement demands on the transportation system. • Encourage Congress to create a federal freight trust fund, or similar program with a dedicated and firewalled revenue structure, in order to treat the nation's multimodal national goods movement network as a system rather than individual projects. • Remain committed to a regional approach regarding goods movement issues in order to maximize funding from state and federal sources to goods movement needs in Southern California. • Continue working with the Ports and regional transportation commissions to develop a funding mechanism for needed projects and mitigation on a regional basis. Encourage Economic Development Transportation decisions will consider the economic benefits derived from any improvement, and, where feasible and practical, will pursue transportation alternatives that enhance or complement economic development. • Commit to seek opportunities related to transportation projects that will create jobs and improve the economic base in the County. • Support local agencies in the design and construction of interchanges that are in proximity to regional economic centers and developments. • Support local projects, consistent with countywide transportation goals, which enhance business development, local employment, and area tourism. Ensure Improved System Efficiencies The Commission will select projects and allocate funds in a manner that will improve safety and reduce congested traffic corridors. • Advocate the development and use of advanced technologies for transportation applications that are affordable and practical. • In partnership with SANBAG, refine and enhance the 1E511 system through the deployment of an iPhone and Android App, which will make real-time traffic information, real-time bus and rail transit trip planning information, and rideshare information available to commuters for the purpose of trip planning and reducing congestion. • Assure the effectiveness of transit planning through coordination with the County's eight transit operators, Citizens' Advisory Committee, and annual SRTP process with a goal toward promoting program productivity, efficiency, and effectiveness. • Provide innovative commuter rideshare programs to reduce single occupant vehicle trips and coordinate with other regional rideshare service providers to address intercounty commute trips. • Work with local jurisdictions, Caltrans, and the CHP to continue efficient delivery of a comprehensive motorist aid system which includes an 1E511 traveler information service, a call box program, and an FSP program, including temporary services in freeway construction zones. • Leverage resources to incorporate park and ride facilities and additional connecting bus service at Metrolink stations that may have available capacity. • 21 • • • • Continue working with Caltrans to monitor traffic conditions for the purpose of focusing transportation funds on congested corridors and system deficiencies. • Work with Caltrans and regional agencies in developing resources for preservation and maintenance of the highways and regional arterials. Foster Environmental Stewardship The Commission will achieve its mobility goals while promoting environmental stewardship and protecting the area's natural resources and quality of life. • Continue working with the Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority (RCA), Caltrans, and state/federal resource agencies to implement the Multi -Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP). • Work with the SCAG, SCAQMD, sub -regional agencies, and local jurisdictions to implement an RTP and sustainable communities strategy that meets regional air quality goals, conformity guidelines, and SB375 green house reduction targets for the SCAG region. • Support a variety of outreach channels and educational programs that promote the benefits of ridesharing, public and specialized transit, rail, and availability of commuter resources for the purposes of reducing vehicle trips and vehicle miles traveled. • Facilitate private/public use of clean fuels technology. • Continue to develop sustainable and green commuter rail stations and provide upgrades and rehabilitation projects to reduce the environmental impact of the existing stations. Support Transportation Choices through Intermodalism and Accessibility County residents will be served, where economically feasible, through the development of transportation alternatives and travel options that consider the needs of a wide range of citizens. • Work with transit providers and local social service agencies to provide specialized transit service to meet a broad spectrum of socio-economic transit needs of seniors and persons of low income and/or with disabilities. • Leverage commuter assistance and freeway service patrol outreach channels in order to increase the awareness of and foster the use of alternative commuting modes. • Implement the Commission's commuter rail SRTP and SCRRA's plan for commuter rail services with an emphasis on the Perris Valley Line, an extension from Riverside to Perris via Moreno Valley. • Advocate for the provision of Amtrak commuter and/or passenger rail services to the Pass Area and the Coachella Valley. • Continue to pursue the goals and objectives as outlined in the Coordinated Public Transit -Human Services Transportation Plan (Coordinated Plan) for Riverside County related to a unified, comprehensive but flexible strategy for transportation service delivery to address transportation gaps and/or barriers focusing on unmet transportation needs of elderly individuals, persons with disabilities, and individuals of limited income. • Enhance security, surveillance, and emergency response capabilities of County transit facilities and roadway infrastructure through proactive planning, interagency coordination, and investment. Prioritize Public and Agency Communications The Commission will provide timely, informative, and accurate information to encourage informed public and agency participation in the Commission's decision -making processes. • Promote a close working relationship with news and civic entities to increase interest and understanding of transportation and related issues. • Enhance the provision of public information through various forms of communication (e.g., website, annual report, monthly newsletter, television, Speakers Bureau, print media, radio, etc.). • Maintain an ongoing effort of informing Riverside County's Congressional and State Legislative delegations regarding County transportation issues. 22 • Develop an effective long-range legislative strategy regarding the reauthorization of the federal transportation bill to ensure that the federal government participates as a full partner in funding Riverside County projects that are of national and regional significance. • Protect and enhance flexibility in the Commission's use of state and federal transportation revenue in addressing regional priorities and needs. • Advocate for sufficient funding for Riverside County transit and transportation projects from various federal and state revenue sources including, but not limited to, annual federal appropriations, economic recovery programs, STIP, and Proposition 1B bond programs. • Seek legislative flexibility for innovative financing and delivery methods. • Maintain ongoing efforts to educate commuters, businesses, and the public regarding the Commission's toll planning efforts and specific project development efforts currently underway. Financial and Administration Policies Financial Planning Policies • Administrative costs, including salaries and benefits, shall be funded by allocations from Measure A, LTF, FSP, SAFE, and TUMF funds. • The Commission shall budget no more than one percent (1%) of Measure A sales tax revenues for administrative salaries and benefits. • Administrative program delivery costs will be budgeted at whatever is reasonable and necessary, but not to exceed four percent (4%) of Measure A sales tax revenues (inclusive of the one -percent salary limitation). The Commission shall budget 100% of the annual required contribution related to the postretirement health care benefits. • The Commission shall utilize unexpended 1989 Measure A funds only for projects and programs included in the 1989 Measure A. Sales tax revenues from the 2009 Measure A shall be expended only for projects and programs included in the 2009 Measure A. • Amounts will be budgeted by fiscal year for multi -year projects, based on best available estimates, with the understanding that, to the extent actuals vary from those estimates and the project is ongoing, adjustments will be made on a continual basis. • The fiscal capital budget should be consistent with the strategic plan and deviations appropriately noted, explained, and justified. • A balanced budget shall be adopted annually with operating and capital expenditures and other financing uses funded by identified revenues and other financing sources as well as available fund balances. Revenue Policies • Sales tax revenue projections will be revised semi-annually to ensure use of current and relevant data. Staff may adjust annual amounts to reflect the most current economic trends. • A strategic application of local funding sources will be used to maximize federal and state funding of projects. • Fiduciary responsibility regarding Western County TUMF revenues shall be exercised, and revenues will be allocated pursuant to Commission direction and the approved 2009 Measure A. Debt Management Policies • Outstanding sales tax revenue bonds shall not exceed $975 million. • The Commission will maintain 2.0x debt ratio coverage on all senior sales tax revenue debt. • Debt issuance will be for major capital projects including engineering, right of way, and construction. Debt secured by Measure A revenues may be used to advance projects included in the 2009 Measure A • • 23 • • • expenditure plan. • Operating requirements, if any, must be paid from current ongoing revenues and may not be financed. • Costs of issuance, including the standard underwriter's discount, will not exceed two percent (2%). • The Commission may enter into interest rate swaps to better manage assets and liabilities and take advantage of market conditions to lower overall costs and reduce interest rate risk. • While it is the intent of the Commission to establish a cash debt reserve for long term bond issuance, surety bonds can be obtained when beneficial to the Commission. • All sales tax revenue debt must mature prior to the termination of 2009 Measure A on June 30, 2039. Expenditure Accountability Policies • Established priorities for planning and programming of capital projects will be reviewed annually with the Commission. • Actual expenditures will be compared to the budget on at least a quarterly basis, and significant deviations will be appropriately noted, explained, and justified. Reserve Policies • The Commission will maintain program reserves in accordance with Measure A and TDA policies and guidelines. • The Commission will establish and maintain a transit operator's reserve of ten percent (10%) for the Coachella Valley and Palo Verde Valley. Additionally, a ten percent (10%) reserve will be established and maintained for each of the Western County transit operators (public bus and commuter rail). Cash Management and Investment Policies • Where possible, the Commission will encourage receipt of funds by wire transfer to its accounts. • Balances in the bank operating account will be maintained at the amount necessary to meet monthly expenditures. • Idle funds will be invested per the Commission's established investment policy emphasizing in order of priority: 1) safety, 2) liquidity, and 3) yield. • Cash disbursements to local jurisdictions and vendors/consultants will be completed in an expeditious and timely manner. Auditing, Accounting, and Financial Reporting Policies • The Commission will maintain its financial software system in order to integrate project accounting needs and improve accounting efficiency. • The Commission will issue a Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) in accordance with the GASB Statement 34 financial reporting model. • An audit is to be conducted annually on the Commission's accounting books and records. As long as the Commission has outstanding bonds, an independent accounting firm must conduct the audit. • The Commission is responsible for ensuring that audits of Measure A and TDA funding recipients are completed and reviewed for compliance and other matters in a timely manner. • An internal audit program will be maintained to identify improvements in controls and procedures as well as best practices. 24 Human Resources Management Policies • Commission staffing levels will be consistent with the intent of its enabling legislation, which envisioned a small, but effective staff. • Contract staff and consultants will be used to augment staff efforts as much as possible to support programs or workloads, which do not appear to be of a permanent nature. Information Technology Management Policy • Significant effort will be made to maintain efficient and cost-effective technology infrastructure by continuously upgrading network equipment and software to ensure quality performance, productivity, and connectivity among staff, other agencies, and the public. Network security will continue to be a top priority to maintain the integrity of the Commission's network and information. Linking Commission Policy Goals and Departmental Goals and Objectives The following matrix (Table 19) illustrates the linkage of the Commission's overall policy goals described in this section to the individual departmental goals and objectives included in Section 6. Table 19 —Relationship Between Commission and Departmental Goals Management Services Executive Management Administration Legislative Affairs & Communicai Finance Regional Programs Planning and Programming Rail Maintenance and Operations Public and SpedaltzedTransit Commuter Assistance Motorist Assistance Capital Project Development & Delivery • • 25 b pp -t-, 2/29/2012 Budget Policy Goals and Objectives Fiscal Year 2012/13 Commission Policy Goals Environmental Stewardship .Worl.v. tram. ',enters.. ensnagek 1 2/29/2012 ng System Efficiencies {• h�K Advocate for advanced technologies for transportation applications • Refine and enhance 1E511 system through deployment of mobile Apps r • Provide innovative rideshare programs • Work with agencies to deliver comprehensive motorist aid system • use resources to incorporate park and ride facilities and connecting bus services at Metrolink stations J • Assure effective transit planning through coordination with other agencies • Work with Caltrans to monitor traffic conditions • Develop resources with Caltrans and other agencies to preserve and maintain highways and arterials • Work with local, state and federal agencies on MSHCP implementation • Work with agencies on RTP and SCS to meet air quality goals, conformity guidelines, and 58375 reduction targets Environmental Stewardship • Facilitate use of clean fuels technology • Develop sustainable and green commuter rail stations • Support programs that promote multimodal services to reduce trips and miles traveled 2 2/29/2012 Intermodalism & Accessibility Financial & Administrative Policies 3 AGENDA ITEM 9 • • • • • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION DATE: February 27, 2012 TO: Budget and Implementation Committee FROM: Theresia Trevino, Chief Financial Officer THROUGH: John Standiford, Deputy Executive Director SUBJECT: Revision of Debt Management Policies STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Committee to: 1) Approve the revisions to the Commission's Debt Management Policy; 2) Adopt Resolution No. 12-010, "A Resolution of the Riverside County Transportation Commission Regarding the Revised Debt Management Policy"; a n d 3) Forward to the Commission for final action. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The Internal Revenue Service continues its compliance efforts to evaluate post - issuance and record retention policies, procedures, and practices of governmental issuers of tax-exempt bonds. Accordingly, as a proactive measure and in consultation with bond counsel and the financial advisor, staff periodically reviews its current debt management policy to ensure that it is appropriate and in compliance with applicable laws and regulations. The attachment to this staff report is the marked -up version of the debt management policy with the proposed changes. The most significant changes to the debt management policy are as follows: • Reference to the 2009 Measure A program debt limitation increase to $975 million, as amended by Measure K in November 2010; • Addition of goal to not take any action regarding use of debt proceeds that would affect tax-exempt status of debt; • Updated ratings; • Updated information regarding outstanding debt anticipated as of March 31, 2012 and authorized but unissued debt; • Update to types of bond counsel services to include post -issuance requirements; • Addition of a section on investment and use of debt proceeds; Agenda Item 9 26 P • Update to section regarding recordkeeping and tax return filing requirements; and • Clarification regarding rating agencies relations program. Staff believes that the revised debt management policy is in compliance with applicable laws and regulations and recommends that the Commission approve such policy. Attachments: 1) Resolution No. 12-010 2) Proposed Debt Management Policy Agenda Item 9 • • • 27 • • • RESOLUTION NO. 12-010 RESOLUTION OF THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION REGARDING THE REVISED DEBT MANAGEMENT POLICY WHEREAS, the Riverside County Transportation Commission (the "Commission") currently retains the authority to add, delete or otherwise modify the Commission's policies and procedures. NOW, THEREFORE, the Riverside County Transportation Commission does hereby resolve as follows: Section 1. The Riverside County Transportation Commission hereby adopts the Debt Management Policy, as revised on March 14, 2012. APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 14th day of March, 2012. John J. Benoit, Chair Riverside County Transportation Commission ATTEST: Jennifer Harmon Clerk of the Board • Riverside County Transportation Commission DEBT MANAGEMENT POLICY The Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) is responsible for providing leadership and creating transportation choices that enhance the quality of life in Riverside County. RCTC's mission is to create, coordinate, finance, and deliver an easy to use transportation network that keeps Riverside County moving and meets the public's needs. In an effort to fulfill this vision, RCTC issues short and long-term debt on an as -needed basis. RCTC's Chief Financial Officer (CFO) is responsible for the sale of debt for the specific projects. RCTC's main objectives in the sale of debt are to: • Issue bonds subject to a bond debt limitation of $500975,000,000 under the 2009 Measure A program, as amended by Measure K in November 2010, • Maintain a 2x debt service coverage, • Obtain the lowest possible cost of funds for each of RCTC's borrowing programs, • Obtain the highest possible credit ratings that allow sufficient flexibility, • Minimize risk exposure to variable rate debt and/or derivatives, and • Maintain the required secondary market disclosure with the rating agencies, institutional and retail investors. This Comprehensive Debt Management Policy contains the policies and the procedures that govern all debt sales. All participants performing services on RCTC's debt sales: • Must comply with the policies and procedures set forth herein, and • Will be expected to consistently perform at a level that provides maximum benefit to RCTC. The CFO, after consultation with and approval by RCTC's Board of Commissioners (Board), reserves the right to remove any participant from an RCTC transaction or underwriting pool at any time for substandard performance or failure to abide by RCTC's Comprehensive Debt Management Policy. The CFO actively manages all phases of each financing. All decisions related to each transaction are subject to the CFO's approval. Questions regarding the policies and procedures outlined in this Comprehensive Debt Management Policy should be directed to: Theresia Trevino, CFO Riverside County Transportation Commission 4080 Lemon Street, 3`d Floor Riverside, California 92501 Mailing Address: PO Box 12008, Riverside, CA 92502-2208 (951) 787 -7141 —E-mail address: ttrevino(cvrctc.org 1 F:/USERS/FINANCE/FISCAL PROCEDURES/DEBT POLICIES.DOC — Revised 10/13/10March 14, 2012 29 A. GOALS AND CREDIT OBJECTIVES RCTC's goals and credit objectives are to: • • Serve the people of Riverside County in the fulfillment of RCTC's policy and transportation objectives, • Comply with all State and Federal laws and regulations governing the issuance of debt, • Promptly repay when due the principal and interest on all debt issued and outstanding, • Implement debt programs with the highest possible credit ratings which provide the necessary flexibility in order to achieve the lowest possible borrowing costs on RCTC's debt obligations, • Ensure that RCTC's debt proceeds are invested in safe, liquid and secure investments that earn competitive market rates of return in accordance with RCTC's Annual Investment Policy and indenture, • Ensure that RCTC does not take any action regarding the use of the debt proceeds that would cause the interest on any tax-exempt debt to be included in gross income for purposes of federal income taxation, • Establish policies and procedures for participation in RCTC's debt financing, • Hold debt financing participants accountable to such policies and procedures, • Reward adherence to RCTC's policies and procedures and good performance by the debt financing participants with continued participation in RCTC's debt financing program, • Explore and implement innovative structuring ideas when they are prudent and consistent with the statements listed above, and thus • Protect the funds that Riverside County taxpayers have entrusted to RCTC. B. CREDIT RATING OBJECTIVES RCTC seeks to obtain and maintain the highest possible debt ratings while at same time providing the appropriate and necessary flexibility in its bond financing documents. I Sales Tax Revenue Bonds, including Commercial Paper Program RCTC currently maintains an "AA1Aa1" rating from Moody's Investors Service, an "AA+" rating from Standard and Poor's Ratings Group and a "AA+" from Fitch Ratings. RCTC will support the Measure A program, in part, by the issuance of debt backed by revenues derived from the Measure A sales tax. Any debt related to the 1989 Measure A was retired as of June 30, 2009. As of December March 31, 20102012, RCTC will have the following debt issues or commercial paper programs outstanding under the 2009 Measure A: 1. $185,000,000 Sales Tax Revenue Bonds, Series 2009 A, B and C, with a total outstanding balance of $174,700,000, 2. $120,000,000 Commercial Paper Notes Program, 2005 Series A and Series B, with a total outstanding balance of $40,000,000, and 3. $150,000,000 Sales Tax Revenue Bonds, Series 2010 A (tax-exempt) and B (taxable), with a total outstanding balance of $150,000,000. Toll Revenue Bonds Additionally, in July 2010, RCTC authorized the issuance of up to $900,000,000 in toll revenue bonds related to the SR -91 Corridor Improvement Project; however, no such bonds have been issued to date. F:/USERS/FINANCE/FISCAL PROCEDURES/DEBT POLICIES.DOC - Revised 10113/1OMarch 14, 2012 30 • C. SELECTING THE APPROPRIATE METHOD OF DEBT SALE It is in the interest of RCTC to sell its public debt using the method of sale that is expected to achieve the best sale results, taking into account both short-range and long-range implications for Riverside County taxpayers. The CFO will advise the Board of the most appropriate method of sale in light of the prevailing financial, market and transaction -specific conditions. D. APPOINTMENT OF A FINANCIAL ADVISOR The CFO, with the approval of the Board, may select a financial advisor to assist in the issuance and administration of RCTC's debt. The services of the financial advisor may include, but are not limited to: • Monitoring all fixed income markets, • Evaluating proposals submitted to the CFO, • Analyzing the costs and risks of debt issues, • Reviewing the structuring and pricing of debt issues, • Developing and maintaining the time and responsibility schedule, • Advising on terms and conditions of credit facilities dealing with the issuance of variable rate debt, • Assisting in the preparation of official statements, and • Preparing and reviewing presentation materials for rating agencies, investors and insurers. The services of a financial advisor will be obtained through a competitive evaluation of proposals. The criteria to be used in evaluating and selecting a financial advisor include: • Experience in providing formal financial advisory services, • Experience with diverse and complex financial structuring requirements, • Experience and reputation of assigned personnel, and • Fees and expenses. RCTC's financial advisor will provide RCTC with objective advice and analysis, maintain the confidentiality of RCTC's financial plans and be free from any conflict of interest as defined by the: • CFO and all California statutes and regulations governing financial advisors. RCTC's financial advisor may not participate in any of RCTC's syndicates in the sale of debt. E. APPOINTMENT OF LEGAL COUNSEL The CFO, with the approval of the Board, must select legal counsel, including bond counsel and disclosure counsel, and engage RCTC's general counsel, to assist in the issuance of RCTC's debt. All debt issued by RCTC must include a written opinion of bond counsel affirming that RCTC is authorized to issue the proposed debt, that RCTC has met all the constitutional and statutory requirements necessary for the issuance of the proposed debt and a determination of the proposed debt's income tax status. This approving legal opinion and other documents relating to the issuance of the proposed debt must be prepared by a nationally recognized private legal counsel with extensive experience in municipal finance and tax matters. The services of the bond counsel may include, but are not limited to: 1 F:/USERS/FINANCE/FISCAL PROCEDURES/DEBT POLICIES.DOC — Revised 10/13/10March 14, 2012 31 • Rendering a legal opinion with respect to the authorization and valid issuance of debt obligations of RCTC including whether the interest paid on the debt is tax exempt under federal and State of California laws; • Preparing all necessary legal documents in connection with the authorization, sale, issuance and delivery of bonds and other obligations; • Assisting in the preparation of the preliminary and final official statements and commercial paper memoranda; • Participating in discussions with potential investors, insurers and credit rating agencies, if requested, and • Providing continuing advice, as requested, on the proper use and administration of bond debt proceeds under applicable laws and the indenture, particularly arbitrage tracking and rebate requirements, and post -issuance requirements, particularly future contracts with respect to the use of debt -financed assets. The services of the disclosure counsel may include, but are not limited to: • Preparing the preliminary and final official statements and commercial paper memoranda. RCTC will engage its outside general counsel in the review of all documentation, including the preliminary and final official statements and commercial paper memoranda. Outside general counsel will provide an opinion that RCTC has duly authorized the documents for the issuance of the proposed debt. F. APPOINTMENT OF UNDERWRITERS The CFO, with the approval of the Board, may select a pool of qualified underwriters. The appointment will be based upon a competitive evaluation of objective criteria. The best -qualified firm will be appointed as the book -running senior manager for long-term debt. The best -qualified firm will be appointed as the dealer for commercial paper. Criteria to be used in the appointment of qualified underwriters will include: • Demonstrated ability to manage complex financial transactions, • Demonstrated ability to structure debt issues efficiently and effectively, • Demonstrated ability to sell debt to institutional and retail investors, • Demonstrated willingness to put capital at risk, • Quality and applicability of financing ideas, • Experience and reputation of assigned personnel, and • Fees and expenses. The CFO will monitor the performance of the members of the underwriting pool and recommend changes as appropriate. The underwriters selected to participate in RCTC's underwriting pool must follow certain rules for participation: Minimum Underwriter Qualifications 1. The firm must maintain minimum net capital of at least $500,000. 2. The firm must hold and maintain all licenses and registrations required by applicable federal and state laws for businesses offering underwriting or investment banking services. All licenses and registrations must be current and in good standing with each of the following: 1 F:/USERS/FINANCE/FISCAL PROCEDURES/DEBT POLICIES.DOC — Revised 1O/1 1pMarch 14, 2012 • 32 • • the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), • the National Association of Securities Dealers (NASD), and • the California Department of Corporations (CDC). G. PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT All of RCTC's debt financing participants shall maintain the highest standards of professional conduct at all times: 1. Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board (MSRB) Rules, including Rule G-37, shall be followed at all times. 2. RCTC expects debt financing participants to assist RCTC's staff in achieving its goals and objectives as defined in this Comprehensive Debt Management Policy. 3. All debt financing participants shall make cooperation with RCTC's staff their highest priority. H. NEW ISSUANCE AND BOND PROCEEDS MINIMUM BALANCE RCTC has developed a Strategic Plan (Plan) which sets forth the transportation programs and services to be provided to the residents of the County. The Plan also contains cash flow analysis for the capital program with corresponding analysis projecting the available sources and uses of funds verifying RCTC's financial ability and commitment to deliver current and planned programs and services. The RCTC Plan is based on a set of assumptions developed through detailed data collection and analysis of historical data concerning revenues, economic forecasts and trend projections. The main sources of revenues include sales tax revenues, contributions from other agencies and federal capital assistance grants. The largest sales tax revenue source is the Measure A Y2 cent transactions and use tax. The revenue generated from Measure A is expended on the projects contained in the Measure A Ordinance. RCTC also intends to earn revenues through the imposition of tolls for the use of selected transportation corridors. Tolls will be imposed and toll revenues expended as allowed under the governing statutes and ordinances. RCTC's Measure A and toll programs are capital intensive. RCTC will issue its debt as needed in order to fund the Measure A and toll programs. RCTC must be able at all times to pay contractors and vendors for work in progress. Therefore, the CFO will work with the applicable RCTC directors to forecast the program construction draw down requirements. Based upon program construction draw down requirements and the conclusions resulting from the Plan, the CFO shall attempt to keep a reasonable amount of bond debt proceeds (approximately 4 months of program construction draw down requirements) available for construction draw down purposes. The CFO with the approval of the Board may increase the size of the Measure A tax-exempt commercial paper program to maintain liquidity in the program construction draw down account. 1 F:/USERS/FINANCE/FISCAL PROCEDURES/DEBT POLICIES.DOC - Revised 10/13/10March 14, 2012 33 I. MANAGING THE COMPETITIVE SALES PROCESS The CFO is responsible for implementing and managing RCTC's competitive bid debt sale process. If the CFO selects a competitive bid process for a sale of debt, the CFO will instruct RCTC's financial advisor to deliver a preliminary official statement and notice of sale to prospective underwriters and buyers that clearly states the location, time and requirements of the bid. After a successful competitive bid, the CFO will instruct RCTC's financial advisor to work closely with the winning underwriter(s) in order to prepare and deliver the final official statement at closing. J. MANAGING THE NEGOTIATED SALES PROCESS The CFO is responsible for implementing and managing RCTC's negotiated debt sale process. Introduction A. RCTC expects its underwriters to participate in a valuable and significant way with respect to the structuring and pricing of each debt issue, sales performance and various other aspects of the financing. B. Underwriters are expected to make themselves available to participate, when requested, in information and other meetings prior to the issuance of debt. C. Underwriters are expected to cooperate fully with the book -running senior manager in a way that provides the maximum benefit to RCTC. D. The book -running senior manager is responsible for communicating RCTC's finance plan and timing to the other managing underwriters in the syndicate. Syndicate Management Process A. Liability 1. Prior to the day of pricing, the book -running senior manager must provide to the CFO a recommended liability assignment for each underwriter in the underwriting syndicate. The CFO will review the recommended assignments and make any necessary adjustments. Upon approval by the CFO, the liability assignments of each underwriter must be incorporated into the Agreement Among Underwriters (AAU) by the book - running senior manager. 2. As a general rule, the liability assignments must not exceed the underwriting ability of the underwriters in the syndicate to whom they are assigned. B. AAU The AAU must include the liability assignments of each managing underwriter, the priority of orders for the purpose of allocation and the takedown designation policy. The book -running senior manager must provide a copy of the AAU to each managing underwriter in the syndicate. Each underwriter in the syndicate must review the terms and conditions set forth in the AAU and return a signed copy of the AAU to the book -running senior manager the day of the pricing. C. Underwriting Gross Spread Components; Fees and Expenses • The management fee, if any, will be distributed to the managing underwriters based upon their relative contribution to the development and imp►ementation of the financing plan. 1 F:/USERS/FINANCE/FISCAL PROCEDURES/DEBT POLICIES.DOC - Revised 10/13/10March 14, 2012 w 34 • • Proposed takedowns (i.e. sales commissions) for all maturities must be included as part of the proposed pricing terms delivered by the book -running senior manager to RCTC prior to the final pre -pricing discussions. All takedowns are subject to review and approval by the CFO. • The expense component of the underwriting gross spread must be submitted by the book - running senior manager to RCTC's CFO for approval prior to the day of pricing. The CFO reserves the right to review and approve all fees and expenses and to request their substantiation. An estimate of the expense component of the underwriting gross spread must be submitted by the book -running senior manager to the CFO no later than one week prior to the pricing. RCTC expects the book -running senior manager to keep expense items and costs of issuance to an absolute minimum. • In general, RCTC will not reimburse the book -running senior manager for clearance fees except for the Depository Trust Company ("DTC") charge on issues that are registered in book -entry form only. RCTC will not reimburse the book -running senior manager for MSRB, Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association and California Public Securities Association expenses. • There will be no consideration of an underwriting risk component of the gross underwriting spread until after the order period closes. At that time, the CFO and the book -running senior manager will review the book of orders and discuss the need, if any, for including an underwriting risk component in the gross underwriter's spread for unsold bonds. There will be no negotiation of the underwriting risk component of the gross underwriter's spread after the CFO has given the verbal award to the book -running senior manager. D. Marketing Plan Once the issue of debt has received its ratings and the credit enhancement, if any, has been determined, the book -running senior manager will provide to the CFO and the financial advisor its plan for marketing the issue. The plan will specify the sectors and specific customer types to which each maturity, group of maturities or type of bonds will be directed. In addition, the marketing plan will specify the efforts of the syndicate in advertising the issue and distributing notice of the issue to the market as a whole and the expected customers. E. Selling Groups The book -running senior manager will discuss with the CFO the advantages and/or disadvantages of using a selling group for the financing. If the CFO decides to use a selling group, the book -running senior manager will provide a list of recommended firms for RCTC's approval at least one week prior to the day of pricing. F. Retention and Takedown Designation Policies • The book -running senior manager will discuss the use of retention with the CFO at least one week prior to the day of pricing. During this discussion, the book -running senior manager will provide to the CFO the proposed retention amounts by maturity for each underwriter in the syndicate. • If the use of retention is advised by the book -running senior manager and agreed upon by the CFO, the book -running senior manager will make retention amounts and maturities available to the underwriters as soon as possible prior to the day of pricing. • Any change in the retention to the managing underwriters must be approved by the CFO prior to its release. • At least one week prior to the day of pricing, the book -running senior manager must provide the CFO a proposed priority of orders for the purpose of allocation and a proposed policy for the designation of takedown on net designated orders. The policy must include a maximum 1 F:/USERS/FINANCE/FISCAL PROCEDURES/DEBT POLICIES.DOC — Revised 10113/10March 14, 2012 35 percentage of takedown to be designated to any one firm, as well as a minimum number of firms to be designated on any one net designated order. It is anticipated that each underwriter in the syndicate will be allowed to place net designated orders on all RCTC debt sales. Upon approval by the CFO, the priority of orders and the designation policy must be communicated to the underwriters and included in the preliminary pricing wire. Any changes to the designation policy must be approved by the CFO and communicated to all underwriters in the syndicate and selling group members, if any, RCTC and the financial advisor. G. Pricing Procedures • At least one hour prior to the pre -pricing meeting or conference call (one business day prior to the day of the pricing) the book -running senior manager must deliver to the CFO and the financial advisor the proposed pricing terms. This is to allow for the thorough evaluation of the proposed pricing terms by the CFO. The list of the proposed pricing terms must include principal amounts, coupons, yields, optional redemption prices, and takedowns per maturity. • One day prior to the day of the pricing, the book -running senior manager must initiate a pre - pricing meeting or conference ca►l with the CFO and the financial advisor to discuss the proposed pricing terms, order period, underwriting gross spread components, market conditions and other necessary pricing information. • A draft copy of the preliminary pricing wire must be provided to the CFO upon the completion of the pre -pricing meeting or conference call. Prior to its release, the preliminary pricing wire is subject to the approval of the CFO. The preliminary pricing wire must include, among other things, all pricing terms agreed upon by the CFO and the book -running senior manager during the pre -pricing meeting or conference call. • On the morning of the day of the pricing (and prior to the start of the order period), if the book -running senior manager believes that a change in any of the pricing terms approved at the pre -pricing meeting or on the pre -pricing conference call is required, the book -running senior manager must contact the CFO and the financial advisor to review proposed changes and any suggested changes in light of the current market conditions. Any change in the initial pricing terms must be approved by the CFO and promptly communicated to the underwriters and syndicate and selling group members, if any. • The book -running senior manager must track the receipts of orders broken down by maturity, amount, type and firm. Status reports of the pricing, including total orders received for each maturity, amount, type and firm, may be requested by the CFO and the financial advisor at any time during the order period. The Dalnet "Orders and Allotments by Maturity" report is an acceptable report for these purposes. • The book -running senior manager must receive approval from the CFO before terminating any order period on any maturity before the previously determined close of the order period. • At the close of the order period, the book -running senior manager must provide in writing and in a format acceptable to the CFO and the financial advisor, a listing of the total orders received for each maturity, amount, type and firm, through the end of the order period. At this time the book -running senior manager must also make a concerted effort to provide the CFO and the financial advisor with the true interest cost of the issue. The book -running senior manager must initiate a meeting or conference call with the CFO and the financial advisor to review the book of orders and negotiate any change in pricing terms, prior to the verbal award of the issue to the book -running senior manager as the representative of the underwriters in the syndicate and selling group members, if any. • The CFO may agree to a verbal award of the bonds and sign a bond purchase contract with the book -running senior manager as representative for the underwriters in the syndicate after consultation with and approval from the Board. • A complete set of final quantitative analyses must be provided to the CFO before the CFO signs the bond purchase contract. The quantitative analyses must include, but not 1 F:/USERS/FINANCE/FISCAL PROCEDURES/DEBT POLICIES.DOC — Revised 10/13/10March 14, 2012 • 36 • • • necessarily be limited to, a table of sources and uses of funds, a summary of assumptions and results (including significant dates, underwriting gross spread breakdown, ratings, true interest cost, etc.) and any additional tables that include coupons, yields, prices, takedowns, principal amounts and related debt service by maturity. • The book -running senior manager and underwriter's counsel is jointly responsible for coordinating the execution of the bond purchase contract. • The CFO reserves the right to postpone the pricing if the above pricing procedures are not strictly followed. H. Allocation of Bonds The book -running senior manager will be responsible for ensuring that the overall allocation of bonds meets RCTC goals of: (a) obtaining the best price for the issue and (b) providing each underwriting firm involved with bond allocations that are commensurate with the work performed (i.e., the type and amount of orders submitted). The CFO reserves the right to monitor the order taking process and to review and approve bond allocations prior to their release. 1. Post -Sale Support • In accordance with MSRB rules, sales credits designated by an institutional investor must be distributed within 30 days after the delivery of the bonds. • In accordance with MSRB rules, final settlement of the underwriting account and the distribution of any profit to members must be made within 60 days of delivery of the bonds. • The underwriting syndicate agrees to comply with any syndicate rules prohibiting the selling of bonds below the public offering price (less the full takedown) prior to the release of syndicate restrictions. In addition, each managing underwriter in the syndicate agrees to inform the CFO of any non-compliance with such syndicate rules. • For seven business days following the release of syndicate restrictions, the managing underwriters in the syndicate agree to inform the CFO of any firm significantly lowering the price of the bonds in the secondary market below market levels. • The book -running senior manager must be prepared to provide the CFO on an ongoing basis for at least seven business days following the release of the syndicate restrictions secondary market price levels, unsold balances, and the level of trading activity of the bonds. RCTC expects the managing underwriters in the syndicate to provide liquidity in the secondary market for its bonds on an ongoing basis. J. Post -Sale Evaluation RCTC has a policy of acknowledging good performance and building accountability into its relationships with its managing underwriters. RCTC will conduct post -sale evaluations of the underwriting account to ensure that its policies are adhered to and that sales performance is documented. • The book -running senior manager must provide the CFO and the financial advisor with a final pricing book. The final pricing book must include, but not necessarily be limited to, the following information: the time and responsibility schedule; the working group distribution list; a discussion of the market conditions leading up to and during the final pricing; the preliminary and final pricing wires; media coverage; rating agency credit reports; a full set of quantitative analyses; a table identifying takedown and designation dollars by firm; and a table identifying designations on net designated orders. The book -running senior manager's final pricing book must be provided to the CFO and the financial advisor within 60 days of the closing. 1 F:/USERS/FINANCE/FISCAL PROCEDURES/DEBT POLICIES.DOC - Revised 10/13/1OMarch 14, 2012 37 • The financial advisor must also provide the CFO with its own final pricing report. The final pricing report must include, but not necessarily be limited to, the following information: a discussion of the market conditions leading up to and during the final pricing; a discussion on the sales process; a pricing comparison of similar credits in California and the national markets and the preliminary and final pricing wires. The financial advisor's final pricing report must be provided to the CFO within 30 days of the pricing. • In addition to the book -running senior manager, each underwriter is encouraged to provide the CFO and the financial advisor with a confidential written analysis of the sale of the bonds. K. MANAGING THE SALE OF COMMERCIAL PAPER The CFO is responsible for implementing and managing RCTC's sale of commercial paper. The CFO shall work closely with RCTC's commercial paper dealers to develop a marketing strategy for the initial sale and subsequent frequent rollover of commercial paper amounts and maturities. The marketing strategy for the initial sale and subsequent frequent roll-over of commercial paper amounts and maturities shall take into account the short-term yield curve as well as RCTC's philosophy to have a significant number of diverse commercial paper investors. The CFO may require RCTC's commercial paper dealers to provide quarterly and annual reports detailing the commercial paper average cost, average maturity and a list of commercial paper investors. Subject to the approval of its liquidity and/or letter -of -credit provider, RCTC reserves the right to change the number of commercial paper dealers for the commercial paper program. L. REFUNDING OPPORTUNITIES An advance refunding involves refunding bonds in advance of the bond's first optional redemption date. An advance refunding is an important debt management tool for RCTC. Advance refundings are commonly used to achieve interest cost savings, remove or change burdensome bond covenants or to restructure future debt service payments. Advance refundings are limited by federal tax law and must be used judiciously. RCTC generally will only pursue an advance refunding if the threshold present value savings level (net of all issuance costs and any cash contribution to the refunding) is at least three percent of the par value of the refunded bonds. However, in certain circumstances, the CFO after consultation with and approval by the Board, may agree that lower savings levels may be justified. RCTC's debt management practices anticipate the potential for advance refundings. When RCTC issues debt careful attention is given to pricing considerations that will affect future advance refunding flexibility such as: • Optional redemption provisions and • Coupon characteristics. In addition, it is important to create a refunding defeasance escrow that will produce the greatest savings level. A defeasance escrow is efficient if the yield on the defeasance escrow is as close as possible (i.e., generally less than 100'h of a basis point) to the arbitrage yield on the refunding bonds. The CFO will select the appropriate defeasance securities. M. FIXED RATE VERSUS VARIABLE RATE DEBT 1 F:/USERS/FINANCE/FISCAL PROCEDURES/DEBT POLICIES.DOC — Revised 10/13/1OMarch 14, 2012 • • • 38 • The CFO and the Board recognize that variable rate securities are a useful debt management tool that traditionally have had lower interest rate costs than fixed rate debt. RCTC's current goal is to maintain a debt program which consists of approximately 20% to 25% of variable rate debt (which includes commercial paper but does not include variable rate debt subject to an interest rate swap to a fixed rate) with the remaining 75% to 80% kept as fixed rate debt. RCTC's book -running senior manager, commercial paper dealer and financial advisor shall advise the CFO if the rating agencies and/or institutional investors feel that 20% to 25% of RCTC's debt in the variable rate mode is too large a percentage. N. DERIVATIVES RCTC will continue to explore the use of derivative products as appropriate and in accordance with the Investment Policy and the Swap Policy, provided that the derivative products: • Hedge variable rate debt exposure, • Lower interest rate costs, or • Minimize risks to RCTC. Although RCTC may enter into swap agreements, including fixed to variable rate swap agreements, derivative products for debt shall not be used for the purpose of interest rate speculation. The CFO has the sole responsibility for determining which prospective debt products for new issue debt are derivatives. Derivative products debt instruments may be incorporated into RCTC's debt program only after the CFO has informed the Executive Director and the Commissioners of the purpose and the risks associated with the derivative product debt instruments including but not limited to: • Interest rate risk, • Counterparty credit risks, • Termination risks, and • Tax implications. If appropriate, the CFO, after consultation and approval by the Board, may determine a minimum level of savings required before implementing a derivative product debt instrument. If the Commission authorizes the use of derivative products, the CFO will provide the Commissioners within twenty-four hours with a memo detailing any activity related to the use of derivative products. O. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY MARKET DISCLOSURE A trustee has been appointed for the benefit of the Measure A Sales Tax Revenue Bonds. The trustee shall perform all functions and duties required under the terms and conditions set forth in the respective indentures. The CFO will recommend changes as appropriate. In addition to the responsibilities required by the respective indentures, RCTC has a commitment to continuing to disclose material information after the sale of its debt. The CFO is responsible for implementing and managing RCTC's legal and professional commitment to continuing to disclose material information after the sale of its debt. In adherence to Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 15c2 -12(b)(5), the Commission's Continuing Disclosure Agreement with its trustee or disclosure dissemination agent, as applicable, agrees to provide its Annual Report and notice of material events to the NRMSIR (unti► June 30, 2009) or the MSRB (effective July 1, 2009)- and 1 F:/USERS/FINANCE/FISCAL PROCEDURES/DEBT POLICIES.DOC - Revised 4-01131--18March 14, 2012 39 state repository, as applicable, for dissemination to interested parties. "Material events" are defined as: 1. Principal and interest payment delinquencies; 2. Non-payment related defaults; 3. Unscheduled draws on the debt service reserve funds reflecting financial difficulties; 4. Unscheduled draws on credit enhancements reflecting financial difficulties; 5. Substitution of credit or liquidity providers, or their failure to perform; and 6. Adverse tax opinions or events adversely affecting the tax-exempt status of any bonds or COPs; 7. Modifications to rights of Bondholders; 8. Optional, contingent or unscheduled bonds calls; 9. Defeasances; 10. Release, substitution or sale of property securing the payment of any bond or COPs. 11. Rating changes. P. INVESTMENT AND USE OF DEBT PROCEEDS Unless otherwise provided by RCTC resolutions, unexpended debt proceeds shall be held by RCTC and the investment of debt proceeds shall be managed by the CFO or its designee. The CFO or designee shall maintain records and prepare quarterly statements to the Board regarding the investments and transactions involving debt proceeds. In order to ensure compliance with debt covenants and restrictions set forth in app►icable RCTC resolutions and tax certificates, the CFO and other appropriate Commission personnel shall perform the following responsibilities: • Monitor the use of debt proceeds, the use of debt -financed assets throughout the term of debt (and in some cases beyond the term of the debt►, • Maintain records identifying the assets or portion of assets that are financed or refinanced with proceeds of each issue of debt, • Consult with bond counsel and other professional expert advisors in the review of any contracts or arrangements involving use of debt -financed facilities, including any sale of financed -assets or changes from a qualifying governmental use of such assets to non - qualifying uses, • Maintain records for any contracts or arrangements involving the use of debt -financed facilities as might be necessary or appropriate, and • Meet at least annually with personnel responsible for debt -financed assets to identify and discuss any existing or planned use of debt -financed assets. The CFO will retain the above documents as described below in Paragraph R. PO. COMPLIANCE WITH ARBITRAGE REBATE AND YIELD CALCULATIONS RCTC will engage the services of an expert advisor to assist in the calculation of arbitrage rebate from investment of bond debt proceeds. Trustee statements and other requested documents and information will be provided to the rebate service provider upon request on a prompt basis. The CFO will monitor the arbitrage rebate services to assure compliance with required rebate payments, if any, no later than each 5 year period over the term of the tax exempt debtbends. In addition, during the construction period of the capital project, the CFO will monitor the investment and expenditure of debt bond proceeds and will consult the arbitrage rebate service provider to determine compliance with exceptions from the arbitrage rebate requirement upon the 1 F:/USERS/FINANCE/FISCAL PROCEDURES/DEBT POLICIES.DOC — Revised 10/13/10March 14, 2012 • • • 40 expenditure of proceeds during each 6 month spending period up to 6 months, 18 months or 24 months as applicable, following the issuance of the debtbeads. The CFO will retain copies of the arbitrage reports and trustee statements as described below in Paragraph R. QR. RECORD -KEEPING AND TAX RETURN FILING REQUIREMENTS The CFO, or its designee, will maintain the following documents for the term of the debt (including refunding bonds, if any) plus three years: • a-ECopy of the bond debt closing transcript and other relevant documentation fog „ et-t-I4e-befids-(4-n-c44€14-1443-refimadi-R-g----benGle,-i-f-an-y-)-plu-s-t-Isg-ee-year-sin connection with the closing of the issuance of debt, • . A cCopy of all material documents related to capital expenditures financed or refinanced by debtbeR4 proceeds, sh „i bo stained b� the CFO for the term of the me (including refunding bonds, if any) plus three years. Such documents will includinge construction contracts, purchase orders, invoices, trustee requisitions and payment records - Such documents will include as well as other documents relating to costs reimbursed with debtlaeGel proceeds. and records identifying the assets or portion of assets that are financed with tax exempt debtbond proceeds, —A • sCopy of all contracts and arrangements involving private or unrelated use of the debtbond financed assets, any) plus three y ars. In addition, • GCopies of all records of investments, investment agreements, arbitrage reports and underlying documents, including trustee statements-s-1441-be-Fetai e nod { th f th bonds (including refunding bonds, if any) plus three years. The CFO, or its designee, will also assure compliance with IRS tax return filing requirements. The basis: RS. RATING AGENCIES The CFO is responsible for implementing and managing RCTC's rating agencies relations program. The CFO recognizes the importance of immediate and timely disclosure of relevant financial and program information concerning each of RCTC's debt programs to the rating agencies. The CFO shall promptly respond to any inquiry from any rating agency analyst. In addition, the CFO and/or the Executive Director and one or more representatives of RCTC's Commissioners shall periodically meet with the rating agencies in order discuss RCTC's proposed debt financings and/or recent financial results, financial projections, Board policy, specific RCTC programs such as Measure A as well as the general economy in Riverside County and Southern California and other matters. ST. INVESTOR RELATIONS The CFO is responsible for implementing and managing RCTC's investor relations program. F:/USERS/FINANCE/FISCAL PROCEDURES/DEBT POLICIES.DOC - Revised 10/13/10March 14, 2012 41 The CFO shall make every attempt to promptly respond to any inquiry from an institutional or retail investor. In addition, the CFO shall periodically attempt to meet with key institutional investors in order to familiarize the institutional investors with RCTC's financial history and financial projections. The CFO shall periodically post investor disclosure information on the unique website established by the Digital Assurance Certification, LLC (DAC) for RCTC on its website, www.dacbond.com. 1 TU. BUILD AMERICA BOND AND RECOVERY ZONE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT BOND SUBSIDIES Introduction The Board recognizes its responsibility to ensure compliance with all Federal laws and regulations ("Federal Requirements") associated with the issuance of tax-exempt debt ("Tax -Exempt Obligations") and tax -advantaged direct pay notes, bonds or other form of repayment obligations issued under Section 54A or Section 1400U-2 of the Internal Revenue Code ("Tax Advantaged Obligations"). The purpose of this policy is to provide guidelines and establish procedures for compliance with Federal Requirements in connection with the issuance of Tax -Exempt Obligations and Tax Advantaged Obligations. Procedures Unless otherwise instructed by bond counsel, at least five business days before distributing a preliminary official statement in which RCTC contemplates offering Tax Advantaged Obligations for sale, RCTC will obtain the advice of bond counsel regarding applicable Internal Revenue Code compliance with respect to the Tax Advantaged Obligations and provide a written notice to financial advisor, underwriter, and its counsel, that none of the maturities which represent Tax Advantaged Obligations can have an issue price with more than a de minimis amount of premium as required by Section 54AA(d)(2)(c) of the Internal Revenue Code (or other applicable Section of the Internal Revenue Code or guidance provided thereunder as instructed by bond counsel) and that costs of issuance (including underwriter's discount) cannot exceed 2% of the proceeds of the sale of the Tax Advantaged Obligations. Unless otherwise instructed by bond counsel, prior to executing any purchase contract with respect to Tax Advantaged Obligations, RCTC will require written confirmation from the underwriter that at least the first ten percent of each maturity of Tax Advantaged Obligations has been sold to the public (and not to bond houses, brokers, or other intermediaries) at a price that does not have more than a de minimis amount of premium as required by Section 54AA(d)(2)(c) of the Internal Revenue Code (or other applicable section of the Internal Revenue Code or guidance provided thereunder as instructed by bond counsel) and that costs of issuance do not exceed 2% of the proceeds of the sale of the Tax Advantaged Obligations. Unless otherwise instructed by bond counsel, on a quarterly basis the CFO will provide a written report to the Board of the expenditure of proceeds derived from Tax -Exempt Obligations and Tax Advantaged Obligations certifying the amount expended in the prior month, the total amount expended from the date of the closing of the transaction; that the expenditure was for capital projects (as defined by the applicable provisions of the Internal Revenue Code and guidance provided thereunder (or as otherwise permitted by bond counsel)); the amount remaining to be spent; land the amount remaining invested in a reasonably required reserve fund, if any]. Unless otherwise instructed by bond counsel, at closing RCTC will execute documentation covenanting to comply with Federal rebate and arbitrage requirements as required under Paragraph P Q above as though the Tax Advantaged Obligations were tax exempt bonds. 1 F:/USERS/FINANCE/FISCAL PROCEDURES/DEBT POLICIES.DOC — Revised 10/13/10March 14, 2012 • 42 Unless otherwise instructed by bond counsel, at least 67 days before an interest payment date pertaining to fixed rate Tax Advantaged Obligations, RCTC will calculate, or cause to be calculated: the interest amount due on the next interest payment date; and the refundable credit to be reported on Form 8038-CP. Unless otherwise instructed by bond counsel, the CFO will file, or cause to be filed, the completed and executed Form 8038-CP with the Department of the Treasury not later than 45 days prior to the applicable interest payment date. The CFO is hereby designated as the staff person responsible for RCTC's compliance with this policy. U. GLOSSARY Additional Bonds Test: A calculation based upon total pledged revenues divided by total proposed debt service. This is a protection to investors so that the issuer cannot issue additional parity bonds without providing ample security to the investors in the previous financing(s). Advance Refunding: A defeasance of outstanding debt prior to the date the bonds can be called by depositing cash and/or securities in escrow sufficient to pay all principal and interest plus the call premium, if any, when due. Upon an advance refunding and defeasance, all covenants and restrictions of the refunded bond indenture are extinguished. Agreement among Underwriters or AAU: The contract establishing the underwriting syndicate formed to underwrite and purchase the bonds. The AAU will include provisions covering the liability of each syndicate member, a description of order types, pricing of the bonds and requirements respecting a public offering. The AAU may contain a variety of other matters relating to trade practice and applicable rules of the MSRB. Allocation: The post -sale distribution of bonds among the syndicate and selling group members, if any. Basis Point: Yields on bonds are usually quoted in increments of basis points. One basis point is equal to 1/100 of one (1) percent. For example, the difference between 7.00% and 7.50% is 50 basis points. Bond Purchase Agreement: The contract between the syndicate and the issuer setting forth the final terms, prices and conditions upon which the syndicate will purchase a new issue. Book -Running Senior Manager: The managing underwriter that controls the book of orders for the transaction and is primarily responsible for the successful execution of the transaction. Concession: In the new issue market, one of the two discounts members receives from the syndicate. In the secondary market, a discount one dealer offers to another. Group Net Order: An order for bonds submitted by a syndicate member in which the takedown is distributed to syndicate members according to their respective liability shares in the issue. Liability: The principal amount of bonds to be underwritten by each member of the syndicate. Member Order: An order for bonds placed by a member of the syndicate where the bonds would be confirmed to that member at syndicate terms. 1 F:/USERS/FINANCE/FISCAL PROCEDURES/DEBT POLICIES.DOC — Revised 10/13/10March 14, 2012 43 Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board (MSRB): An independent self -regulatory organization established by the Securities Acts Amendments of 1975, which is charged with primary rulemaking Commission over broker -dealers and brokers in municipal securities. National Association of Securities Dealers (NASD): A self-regulating and self -financed organization which acts as a buffer between the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and broker -dealers. The NASD operates in municipal securities according to a special set of municipal bond rules written by the MSRB. Net Designated Order: An order for bonds submitted by a syndicate member in which all or a portion of the takedown is to be credited to firms designated by the purchaser of the bonds according to relative designated by the said purchaser. Priority Order: A retail or a net designated order. Retail Order: An order for bonds placed by an individual or, as determined by the CFO, a retail order may also include an order placed by a bank trust department or an investment advisor for an individual. Retention: An amount of bonds that will be guaranteed to be available for sale by each member of the syndicate. Rule 10b-5: A regulation of the SEC adopted pursuant to the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, which makes it unlawful for any person to employ any device, scheme, or artifice to defraud, to make any untrue statement of a material fact or to omit a material fact necessary to make statements made, in the light of the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading; or to engage in any act, practice, or course of business which operates or would operate as a fraud or deceit upon any person, in connection with the purchase or sale of any security. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC): The federal agency that oversees and regulates stock, bond and other financial market participants. Selling Group: A group of underwriters formed to aid in the distribution of the bonds in a bond financing. Selling group members do not assume any financial or legal liability in the financing. Syndicate: A group of underwriters formed to purchase and re -offer an issuer's bonds for sale to the public. Each syndicate member has a share in the liability of the issue. Syndicate Participation Percentages: A sales participation goal for each syndicate member determined by RCTC and its CFO for RCTC bond issues. Takedown: The total discount at which members of syndicates buy bonds from an account - composed of two parts: concession and takedown. True Interest Cost: The rate, compounded semi-annually, necessary to discount the amounts payable on the respective principal and interest payment dates to the purchase price received on the closing date of the bond issue. Trust Indenture: A contract between an issuer and a trustee, for the benefit of investors. The trustee administers the funds specified in the indenture and implements the remedies provided in case of default. 1 F:/USERS/FINANCE/FISCAL PROCEDURES/DEBT POLICIES.DOC — Revised 10/13/10March 14, 2012 • 44 • Underwriter's Gross Spread: In a negotiated sale, the difference between the price the underwriter pays the issuer and the original re -offering price to the public; includes the management fee, expenses, and sales commissions (takedown and concession). 1 F:/USERS/FINANCE/FISCAL PROCEDURES/DEBT POLICIES.DOC — Revised 10/13/10March 14, 2012 45 • AGENDA ITEM 10 • • • • • ADDITIONAL INFORMATION AGENDA ITEM 10 Additions are noted by Underline, Deletions are noted by Strikethrough REVISED AGENDA ITEM 10 Additions are noted by Underline, Deletions are noted by Strikethrough RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION DATE: February 27, 2012 TO: Budget and Implementation Committee FROM: Theresia Trevino, Chief Financial Officer THROUGH: John Standiford, Deputy Executive Director SUBJECT: Extension of the Commercial Paper Program Standby Letter of Credit STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Adopt Resolution No. 12-009, "Resolution of the Riverside County Transportation Commission Ratifying and Confirming Prior Authorization of the Execution and Delivery of a Substitute Credit Agreement, a Second Amendment to Credit Agrccmcnt and Related Amendments to Certain Other Documents, a Supplement to Offering Memorandum and the Taking of All Other Actions Necessary in Connection Therewith "; 2) Ratify the draft Amendment No. 2 to the Reimbursement Agreement dated as of March 1, 2005, by and between the Commission and Bank of America, N (B,ank of Ar- erica) efat►ng to t C �csion's Commercial per Notes, Series A, and authorization for the Executive Director and/or other 3) Ratify the draft Letter Agreement between the Commission and Bank of authorization for the Executive Director and/or other authorized r ep-resentative to approve and e xeeute the finial I etter Agreement; Ratify the draft Reimbursement Agreement by and between the Commission and Union Bank, N.A. (Union Bank), relating to the Commission's Commercial Paper Notes, Series A and B and authorization for the Executive Director and/or other authorized representative to approve and execute the final agreement; Ratify the draft Fee Agreement between the Commission and Union Bank relating to the Commission's Commercial Paper Notes, Series A and B, and authorization for the Executive Director and/or other authorized representative to approve and execute the final Fee Agreement; Ratify any necessary or desirable amendments to the commercial paper (BAML); 5) Continue consideration o obtaining a second letter of credit with another qualified bank; Approve the draft supplement to the offering memorandum for the issuance of $120 million in Commercial Paper Notes, Series A and Series B and authorize the Executive Director and/or other authorized representative to approve distribution of the supplement to the offering memorandum by Barclays and BAML; Approve the estimated costs related to the amendment of the letter of credit and authorize the Executive Director to execute related professional service agreements, as required; and 977) Forward to the Commission for final action. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: In February 2005, the Commission authorized a $200 million commercial paper program to advance right of way acquisition, environmental mitigation, and project development related to the 2009 Measure A. The commercial paper program was established in March 2005 in the amount of $185 million. A five-year, $190 million direct pay letter of credit with Bank of America was obtained as a liquidity facility for the commercial paper program. The initial letter of credit expired on March 29, 2010. As a result of Commission action in February 2010, the letter of credit with Bank of America was extended to March 29, 2012 and the commercial paper program was reduced to $120 million. Additionally in March 2005, the Commission entered into agreements with Barclays (as assigned by Lehman Brothers) and BAML (formerly Banc of America Securities LLC) to serve as the commercial paper dealers for the $110 million Series A and $75 million Series B, respectively. Due to the reduction in commercial paper program in 2010, the dealer agreements were also amended to reflect $75 million for Barclays and $45 million for BAML. Staff determined that the commercial paper program should be maintained at $120 million for at least a few more years, as the Commission continues the financing activities necessary for the State Route 91 Corridor Improvement Project (SR -91 CIP) design -build phase. Short-term financing may be required during the next few years in anticipation of the issuance of sales tax revenue bonds and toll revenue bonds and receipt of proceeds of a Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act loan in connection with the SR -91 CIP. An additional factor in continuing the commercial paper program is that the cost for the letter(s) of credit has decreased significantly since 2010. At the 2010 extension, the cost for the extended letter of credit commitment was 105 basis points. The cost of the Agenda Item 10 commitments involved in the current transaction is approximately 60 percent lower than the 2010 extension. In December 2011, the Commission's financial advisors, Fieldman Rolapp and Associates (Fieldman), conducted a request for indications of interest and availability for a letter of credit to support the commercial paper program. It was anticipated that the Commission would require one or more letters of credit with a total stated amount of $120 million plus interest as a means of diversification. Two responses were received from Bank of America and Union Bank; both banks proposed to support the full program at $120 million at rates of 35 basis points and 48 basis points, respectively. After an evaluation of the responses and negotiations with the two banks, staff initially planned to recommends that the Commission: • Extend the letter of credit with Bank of America through September 30, 2014 at the stated amount of $60 million plus $750,000 in interest at a fee of 42 basis points; and • Obtain a letter of credit with Union Bank through September 30, 2014 at the stated amount of $60 million plus $750,000 in interest at a fee of 42 basis points. However, last week the financial team became aware of Moody's Investors Service report that puts Bank of America on a review for downgrade within the next couple of months. Should a downgrade of Bank of America occur, it would also affect the Commission's commercial paper ratings and potentially the rollover of the commercial paper notes —in particular, the interest rate. After significant consultation among the financial team and discussions with Bank of America and Union Bank, management determined that it was in the Commission's best interest to revise its recommendation as follows: • Obtain a letter of credit with Union Bank through September 30, 2014 at the stated amount of $120 million plus $1,500,000 in interest at a fee of 48 basis points. • Continue consideration of obtaining a second letter of credit with another qualified bank. As a result of maintaining two letters of crcdit, staff determined that management of the commercial paper program would be facilitated if each letter of credit would be assigned to a specific dgalcr. Accordingly, it will be necessary to amend the commercial paper notes for which each d ler is responsible. Staff currently reduced from $75 million to $60 million and supported by the Bank of America Agenda Item 10 letter of credit, and the Series B notes managed by BAML will be increased from r of credit. In connection with the amendment of the Bank of America letter of crcdit and new letter of credit with Union Bank, a supplement to the initial offering memorandum will be required to describe (1) the extension and reduction in the amount „f the letter of credit and update the new letter of credit and information about Union Bank. As noted in previous debt issuances, the Commissioners serving on the Board as the governing body of the issuer are expected to read and be familiar with the Offering Memorandum (related to commercial paper notes) or Official Statement (related to sales tax revenue bonds). The Commissioners may employ the services of experts to take the lead in the drafting and review of such offering document; however, the Commissioners have the duty to review the information and bring to the attention of those responsible for the preparation of the offering document any misstatements or omissions in the draft and to ask questions it is unclear about the information or their role. Staff will be available at the Commission meeting to respond to the identification of any misstatements or omissions or to such questions related to the draft of the supplement to the offering memorandum, which is attached. The estimated costs for professional services related to the amendment of the letter credit are $230,000. The costs primarily include fees for the financial advisor, bond counsel, bank counsel, disclosure counsel, dealer counsel, general counsel, and rating agencies. Amendments to certain professional services agreements will be required in connection with this amendment. When the commercial paper was initially established, the Commission approved Resolution No. 05-001 which included authorization for the Authorized Representatives (i.e., the Executive Director and/or the Chief Financial Officer, as defined in the master indenture for the commercial paper program) to take any action necessary for the amendment of documents without further authorization by the Commission. Although Commission approval of the agreements is not required, staff requests their ratification. On behalf of the Commission, Fieldman and bond counsel are currently negotiating the terms of the agreements with Bank of America and Union Bank; therefore, draft agreements are not available for the committee meeting. Staff intends to make a presentation at the committee meeting regarding the agreement terms and to provide the draft agreements at the March Commission meeting. Additionally, staff recommends that the Commission adopt Resolution No. 12-009 and approve the draft supplement to the offering memorandum, both of which will be revised to reflect the deletion of references to the proposed amendment to the Bank of America agreement, and estimated professional services costs. Staff, the financial advisors, and bond and general legal counsels will continue to review the draft documents and work with the banks and dealers Union Bank and itsth-eir counsel to finalize the terms of the Agenda Item 10 agreements. Revised documents are expected to be presented at the March Commission meeting. Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: Yes N/A Year: FY 2011/12 FY 2012/13+ Amount: $ X375,600 $ 1,118310,200 Source of Funds: Measure A Budget Adjustment: No N/A GL/Project Accounting No.: 264 19 65XXX $ 230,000 (professional services) 264 19 65505 $1,275455,800 (letter of credit bank fees) Fiscal Procedures Approved: Date: Attachments: 1) Resolution No. 12-009 2) Draft Supplement to the Offering Memorandum Agenda Item 10 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION DATE: February 27, 2012 TO: Budget and Implementation Committee FROM: Theresia Trevino, Chief Financial Officer THROUGH: John Standiford, Deputy Executive Director SUBJECT: Extension of the Commercial Paper Program Standby Letter of Credit STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Adopt Resolution No. 12-009, "Resolution of the Riverside County Transportation Commission Ratifying and Confirming Prior Authorization of the Execution and Delivery of a Substitute Credit Agreement, a Second Amendment to Credit Agreement and Related Amendments to Certain Other Documents, a Supplement to Offering Memorandum and the Taking of All Other Actions Necessary in Connection Therewith"; 2) Ratify the draft Amendment No. 2 to the Reimbursement Agreement dated as of March 1, 2005, by and between the Commission and Bank of America, N.A. (Bank of America), relating to the Commission's Commercial Paper Notes, Series A, and authorization for the Executive Director and/or other authorized representative to approve and execute the final Amendment No. 2; 3) Ratify the draft Letter Agreement between the Commission and Bank of America relating to the Commission's Commercial Paper Notes, Series A, and authorization for the Executive Director and/or other authorized representative to approve and execute the final Letter Agreement; 4) Ratify the draft Reimbursement Agreement by and between the Commission and Union Bank, N.A. (Union Bank), relating to the Commission's Commercial Paper Notes, Series B and authorization for the Executive Director and/or other authorized representative to approve and execute the final agreement; 5) Ratify the draft Fee Agreement between the Commission and Union Bank relating to the Commission's Commercial Paper Notes, Series B, and authorization for the Executive Director and/or other authorized representative to approve and execute the final Fee Agreement; 6) Ratify any necessary or desirable amendments to the commercial paper dealer agreements between the Commission and Barclays Capital Inc. 46 Agenda Rem 10 (Barclays) and between the Commission and Bank of America Merrill Lynch (BAML); 7) Approve the draft supplement to the offering memorandum for the issuance of $120 million in Commercial Paper Notes, Series A and Series B and authorize the Executive Director and/or other authorized representative to approve distribution of the supplement to the offering memorandum by Barclays and BAML; 8) Approve the estimated costs related to the amendment of the letter of credit and authorize the Executive Director to execute related professional service agreements, as required; and 9) Forward to the Commission for final action. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: In February 2005, the Commission authorized a $200 million commercial paper program to advance right of way acquisition, environmental mitigation, and project development related to the 2009 Measure A. The commercial paper program was established in March 2005 in the amount of $185 million. A five-year, $190 million direct pay letter of credit with Bank of America was obtained as a liquidity facility for the commercial paper program. The initial letter of credit expired on March 29, 2010. As a result of Commission action in February 2010, the letter of credit with Bank of America was extended to March 29, 2012 and the commercial paper program was reduced to $120 million. Additionally in March 2005, the Commission entered into agreements with Barclays (as assigned by Lehman Brothers) and BAML (formerly Banc of America Securities LLC) to serve as the commercial paper dealers for the $110 million Series A and $75 million Series B, respectively. Due to the reduction in commercial paper program in 2010, the dealer agreements were also amended to reflect $75 million for Barclays and $45 million for BAML. Staff determined that the commercial paper program should be maintained at $120 million for at least a few more years, as the Commission continues the financing activities necessary for the State Route 91 Corridor Improvement Project (SR -91 CIP) design -build phase. Short-term financing may be required during the next few years in anticipation of the issuance of sales tax revenue bonds and toll revenue bonds and receipt of proceeds of a Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act loan in connection with the SR -91 CIP. An additional factor in continuing the commercial paper program is that the cost for the letter(s) of credit has decreased significantly since 2010. At the 2010 extension, the cost for the extended letter of credit commitment was 105 basis points. The cost of the commitments involved in the current transaction is approximately 60 percent lower than the 2010 extension. 47 Agenda Item 10 • • • • In December 2011, the Commission's financial advisors, Fieldman Rolapp and Associates (Fieldman), conducted a request for indications of interest and availability for a letter of credit to support the commercial paper program. It was anticipated that the Commission would require one or more letters of credit with a total stated amount of $120 million plus interest as a means of diversification. Two responses were received from Bank of America and Union Bank. After an evaluation of the responses and negotiations with the two banks, staff recommends that the Commission: • Extend the letter of credit with Bank of America through September 30, 2014 at the stated amount of $60 million plus $750,000 in interest at a fee of 42 basis points; and • Obtain a letter of credit with Union Bank through September 30, 2014 at the stated amount of $60 million plus $750,000 in interest at a fee of 42 basis points. As a result of maintaining two letters of credit, staff determined that management of the commercial paper program would be facilitated if each letter of credit would be assigned to a specific dealer. Accordingly, it will be necessary to amend the dealer agreements with Barclays and BAML to reflect the maximum amount of commercial paper notes for which each dealer is responsible. Staff currently anticipates that the Series A commercial paper notes managed by Barclays will be reduced from $75 million to $60 million and supported by the Bank of America letter of credit, and the Series B notes managed by BAML will be increased from $45 million to $60 million and supported by the Union Bank letter of credit. In connection with the amendment of the Bank of America letter of credit and new letter of credit with Union Bank, a supplement to the initial offering memorandum will be required to describe (1) the extension and reduction in the amount of the letter of credit and update information about Bank of America and (2) the new letter of credit and information about Union Bank. As noted in previous debt issuances, the Commissioners serving on the Board as the governing body of the issuer are expected to read and be familiar with the Offering Memorandum (related to commercial paper notes) or Official Statement (related to sales tax revenue bonds). The Commissioners may employ the services of experts to take the lead in the drafting and review of such offering document; however, the Commissioners have the duty to review the information and bring to the attention of those responsible for the preparation of the offering document any misstatements or omissions in the draft and to ask questions it is unclear about the information or their role. Staff will be available at the Commission meeting to respond to the identification of any misstatements or omissions or to such questions related to the draft of the supplement to the offering memorandum, which is attached. Agenda Item 10 48 The estimated costs for professional services related to the amendment of the letter credit are $230,000. The costs primarily include fees for the financial advisor, bond counsel, bank counsel, disclosure counsel, dealer counsel, general counsel, and rating agencies. Amendments to certain professional services agreements will be required in connection with this amendment. When the commercial paper was initially established, the Commission approved Resolution No. 05-001 which included authorization for the Authorized Representatives (i.e., the Executive Director and/or the Chief Financial Officer, as defined in the master indenture for the commercial paper program) to take any action necessary for the amendment of documents without further authorization by the Commission. Although Commission approval of the agreements is not required, staff requests their ratification. On behalf of the Commission, Fieldman and bond counsel are currently negotiating the terms of the agreements with Bank of America and Union Bank; therefore, draft agreements are not available for the committee meeting. Staff intends to make a presentation at the committee meeting regarding the agreement terms and to provide the draft agreements at the March Commission meeting. Additionally, staff recommends that the Commission adopt Resolution No. 12-009 and approve the draft supplement to the offering memorandum and estimated professional services costs. Staff, the financial advisors, and bond and general legal counsels will continue to review the draft documents and work with the banks and dealers and their counsel to finalize the terms of the agreements. Revised documents are expected to be presented at the March Commission meeting. Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: Yes N/A Year: FY 2011/12 FY 2012/13+ Amount: $ 357,600 $ 1,148,200 Source of Funds: Measure A Budget Adjustment: No N/A GL/Project Accounting No.: 264 19 65XXX $ 230,000 (professional services) 264 19 65505 $1,275,800 (letter of credit bank fees) Fiscal Procedures Approved: Date: Attachments: 1) Resolution No. 12-009 2) Draft Supplement to the Offering Memorandum 49 Agenda Item 10 • • • NO. 12-009 RESOLUTION OF THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION RATIFYING AND CONFIRMING PRIOR AUTHORIZATION OF THE EXECUTION AND DELIVERY OF A SUBSTITUTE CREDIT AGREEMENT, A SECOND AMENDMENT TO CREDIT AGREEMENT AND RELATED AMENDMENTS TO CERTAIN OTHER DOCUMENTS, A SUPPLEMENT TO OFFERING MEMORANDUM AND THE TAKING OF ALL OTHER ACTIONS NECESSARY IN CONNECTION THEREWITH WHEREAS, the Riverside County Transportation Commission (the "Commission") is a county transportation commission duly organized and existing pursuant to the County Transportation Commissions Act, being Division 12 of the Public Utilities Code of the State of California (Section 130000 et seq.); WHEREAS, the Commission is authorized pursuant to the Riverside County Transportation Sales Tax Act, being Division 25 of the Public Utilities Code of the State of California (Section 240000 et seq.) (the "Act"), to, among other things, and with voter approval, levy a retail transactions and use tax in accordance with the provisions of Part 1.6 (commencing with Section 7251) of Division 2 of the California Revenue and Taxation Code (the "Sales Tax Law"); WHEREAS, the Commission adopted Ordinance No. 02-001, named the "Transportation Expenditure Plan and Retail Transaction and Use Tax Ordinance" (as it has been subsequently amended, the "Ordinance") on May 8, 2002, pursuant to the provisions of the Act, which Ordinance provides for the imposition of a retail transactions and use tax (the "Sales Tax") applicable in the incorporated and unincorporated territory of the County in accordance with the provisions of the Sales Tax Law at the rate of one-half of one percent (1/2%) for a period not to exceed thirty (30) years from June 30, 2009; WHEREAS, by its terms, the Ordinance became effective at the close of the polls on November 5, 2002, the day of the election at which the proposition imposing the Sales Tax was approved by more than two-thirds of the electors voting on the measure; WHEREAS, the Commission is authorized by the Ordinance and the Act to issue from time to time limited tax secured and payable in whole or in part from revenues of the Sales Tax, to finance capital expenditures for various purposes, including to carry out the transportation projects described in the Riverside County Transportation Improvement Plan, adopted as part of the Ordinance, including any amendments thereto; WHEREAS, the Commission has heretofore authorized the issuance of not to exceed $120,000,000 in aggregate principal amount of its Commercial Paper Notes (Limited Tax Bonds), Series A (the "Series A Notes") and its Commercial Paper Notes (Limited Tax Bonds), Series B (the "Series B Notes" and, together with the Series A Notes, the "CP Notes"), pursuant OHSUSA:750005829.3 50 to an Indenture dated as of March 1, 2005 (the "indenture"), by and between the Commission and U.S. Bank National Association, as successor trustee; WHEREAS, the Notes are authenticated and delivered from time to time pursuant to an Issuing and Paying Agent Agreement, dated as of March 1, 2005 (the "issuing and Paying Agent Agreement"), between the Commission and U.S. Bank Trust National Association, as issuing and paying agent (the "Issuing and Paying Agent"); WHEREAS, the Series A Notes are offered and sold from time to time by Barclays Capital, Inc. ("Barclays"), pursuant to a Commercial Paper Dealer Agreement, dated as of March 1, 2005, as it has been amended by a First Amendment to Commercial Paper Dealer Agreement, dated as of June 1, 2007, and a Second Amendment to Commercial Paper Dealer Agreement, dated as of February 25, 2010 (collectively, the "Series A Dealer Agreement"), each by and between the Commission and Barclays, as successor in interest to Lehman Brothers (the "Series A Dealer"); WHEREAS, the Series B Notes are offered and sold from time to time by Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Inc. ("Merrill" and, together with Barclays, the "Dealers"), pursuant to a Commercial Paper Dealer Agreement, dated March 1, 2005, as it has been amended by a First Amendment to Commercial Paper Dealer Agreement, dated as of June 1, 2007, and a Second Amendment to Commercial Paper Dealer Agreement, dated as of February 25, 2010 (collectively, the "Series B Dealer Agreement" and, together with the Series A Dealer Agreement, the "Dealer Agreements"), each by and between the Commission and Merrill, as successor in interest to Banc of America Securities LLC (the "Series B Dealer" and, together with the Series A Dealer, the "Dealers"); WHEREAS, pursuant to the terms of a Reimbursement Agreement, dated as of March 1, 2005, as it has been amended by an Amendment No. 1 to Reimbursement Agreement, dated as of February 25, 2010 (collectively, the "Existing Credit Agreement"), each by and between the Commission and Bank of America, N.A. ("Bank of America"), Bank of America issued an Irrevocable Direct Draw Letter of Credit on March 30, 2005 (as extended pursuant to that certain Notice of Extension, dated as of February 25, 2010, the "Existing Letter of Credit") in favor of the Issuing and Paying Agent, which Existing Letter of Credit currently provides credit and liquidity support for the issuance, from time to time, of the CP Notes; WHEREAS, in order to provide information about the CP Notes and related matters to purchasers and potential purchasers of the CP Notes, the Commission executed and delivered an Offering Memorandum, dated March 22, 2005, and a Supplement Dated February 26, 2010 to Offering Memorandum Dated March 22, 2005 (collectively, the "Offering Memorandum"); WHEREAS, the Existing Letter of Credit is scheduled to expire pursuant to its terms on March 29, 2012; WHEREAS, it is in the best interests of the Commission, on or prior to March 29, 2012, to renew or replace the Existing Letter of Credit providing credit and liquidity support for the CP Notes; OHSUSA:750005829.3 -2- • • • 51 • • WHEREAS, the provisions of the Indenture and the Existing Credit Agreement provide for the substitution of the Existing Letter of Credit and Existing Credit Agreement or the renewal of the Existing Letter of Credit by extension of the stated expiration date of the Existing Letter of Credit (the "Stated Expiration Date"); WHEREAS, the Commission has previously authorized, pursuant to its Resolution No. 05-001 and its Resolution No. 10-006 (together, the "Prior Resolutions"), that all consents, approvals, directions, notices, orders, requests and other actions required or permitted by any of the documents authorized in such Prior Resolutions, including the Indenture, the Issuing and Paying Agent Agreement, the Dealer Agreements, the Offering Memorandum and the Existing Credit Agreement including, without limitation, actions which may be necessary or desirable in connection with any amendment of any such documents, the extension or replacement of the Existing Credit Agreement and the Existing Letter of Credit, the removal or replacement of the Trustee or any of the Dealers or any similar action may be given or taken by an Authorized Representative (as such term is defined in the Indenture), without further authorization or direction by this Board, and the Commission has further authorized and directed each Authorized Representative to give any such approval, consent, direction, notice, order, or request and to take any such action which such Authorized Representative may deem necessary or desirable to further the purposes of such Prior Resolutions (collectively, the "Prior Authorization"); WHEREAS, an Amendment No. 2 to Reimbursement Agreement and related Letter Agreement (collectively, the "Second Amendment") providing for the issuance of a notice of extension of the Existing Letter of Credit extending the Stated Expiration Date with respect to the Series A Notes only, and amending the Existing Letter of Credit so that it no longer provides credit and liquidity support for the Series B Notes, and providing for such other terms and conditions as are therein provided, is proposed to be entered into between the Commission and Bank of America; WHEREAS, the Commission has been presented with a proposed form of Second Amendment; WHEREAS it is proposed that credit and liquidity support will be provided for the issuance, from time to time, of the Series B Notes pursuant to a reimbursement agreement and related Fee Agreement (collectively, the "Union Bank Credit Agreement"), proposed to be entered into between the Commission and Union Bank, N.A. ("Union Bank"), providing for the issuance of an Irrevocable Direct Draw Letter of Credit (the "Union Bank Letter of Credit") by Union Bank in favor of the Issuing and Paying Agent, in substitution for the Existing Credit Agreement and Existing Letter of Credit with respect to the Series B Notes; WHEREAS, the Commission has been presented with proposed forms of Union Bank Credit Agreement and Union Bank Letter of Credit; WHEREAS, there has been prepared and presented to the Commission a proposed form of Supplement to Offering Memorandum (the "Supplement") describing the extension of the Stated Expiration Date and the substitution of the Union Bank Credit Agreement and Union Bank Letter of Credit for the Existing Credit Agreement and Existing Letter of Credit, and related matters; OHSUSA:750005829.3 -3- 52 WHEREAS, in connection with the execution of the Second Amendment and the renewal of the Existing Letter of Credit with respect to the Series A Notes and the replacement of the Existing Credit Agreement and Existing Letter of Credit with respect to the Series B Notes, it may be necessary and desirable to amend and supplement certain provisions of the Indenture, the Issuing and Paying Agent Agreement and the Dealer Agreements in order to reflect certain terms of the Existing Credit Agreement as supplemented by the Second Amendment, the renewed Existing Letter of Credit, the Union Bank Credit Agreement and the Union Bank Letter of Credit; WHEREAS, the Commission wishes to ratify, confirm, continue and extend its Prior Authorization, for an Authorized Representative to execute and deliver the Second Amendment, the Union Bank Credit Agreement, the Supplement and any replacements, amendments or supplements thereto or to the Existing Credit Agreement, the Indenture, Issuing and Paying Agent Agreement and the Dealer Agreements (collectively, the "CP Documents"), as such Authorized Representative deems necessary or desirable in connection with the CP Notes, all in furtherance of the purposes set forth in the Prior Resolutions and the transactions contemplated thereby; WHEREAS, all acts, conditions and things required by the Act, the Sales Tax Law and the Constitution and laws of the State of California to exist, to have happened and to have been performed precedent to and in connection with the ratification, confirmation continuing of the Prior Authorization, the extension of the Stated Expiration Date of the Existing Letter of Credit with respect to the Series A Notes and the substitution of the Union Bank Letter of Credit with respect to the Series B Notes do exist, have happened and have been performed in regular and due time, form and manner as required by law, and the Commission is now duly authorized and empowered, pursuant to each and every requirement of law, to ratify and confirm its authorization of such extension of the Stated Expiration Date of the Existing Letter of Credit with respect to the Series A Notes and substitution of the Union Bank Letter of Credit for the Series B Notes, and to acknowledge and confirm its authorization of the execution of the Second Amendment, the Union Bank Credit Agreement, the Supplement and any amendments or supplements to the CP Documents, including future amendments thereof or substitutions therefor, deemed necessary or desirable by an Authorized Representative; NOW THEREFORE, THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION RESOLVES: Section 1. The Commission finds and determines that the foregoing recitals are true and correct. Section 2. The Commission ratifies, confirms, continues and extends its Prior Authorization, and acknowledges and confirms that an Authorized Representative is authorized and directed to execute and deliver the Second Amendment, the Union Bank Credit Agreement pursuant to which the Union Bank Letter of Credit will be issued, and the Supplement, each in substantially the forms presented to this meeting, with such changes therein as the officer executing the same may require or approve, such approval to be conclusively evidenced by the execution and delivery thereof, and any replacements, amendments or supplements to any of the CP Documents and agreements or documents relating thereto, and any future replacements, OHSUSA:750005829.3 -4- • 53 • • • amendments or supplements to any such documents, as such Authorized Representative deems necessary or desirable in connection with the maintenance of the CP Notes and the transactions contemplated thereby. The Dealers are hereby authorized to distribute the Offering Memorandum, together with the Supplement, in the form so executed by an Authorized Representative, if the Authorized Representative determines such distribution is appropriate for the sale of the CP Notes. Section 3. All actions heretofore taken by the officers and agents of the Commission with respect to the extension of the Stated Expiration Date of the Existing Letter of Credit and the substitution of the Union Bank Letter of Credit, and such other actions as have been or shall be necessary in connection therewith, are hereby ratified, confirmed and approved. The Commission hereby confirms that if, at the time of execution of any of the documents authorized hereby, the Executive Director is unavailable, such documents may be executed by the Deputy Executive Director of the Commission or the Chief Financial Officer in lieu of the Executive Director. The Commission further confirms that the Clerk of the Board of the Commission is authorized to attest to the execution by the Executive Director or the Deputy Executive Director or the Chief Financial Officer of any of such documents as said officers deem appropriate. Section 4. This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption and approval. APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the Riverside County Transportation Commission at its meeting on March 14, 2012. ATTEST: By: Clerk of the Board of the Commission OHSUSA:750005829.3 By: Chair, Board of Commissioners -5- CERTIFICATE OF THE CLERK OF THE BOARD OF THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION I, Jennifer Harmon, Clerk of the Board of the Riverside County Transportation Commission (the "Commission"), hereby certify that the foregoing is a full, true and correct copy of a resolution duly adopted at a meeting of the governing board of said Commission duly and regularly held in Riverside, California, on March 14, 2012, of which meeting all of the members of said Commission had due notice. I further certify that I have carefully compared the foregoing copy with the original minutes of said meeting on file and of record in my office; that said copy is a full, true and correct copy of the original resolution adopted at said meeting and entered in said minutes; and that said resolution has not been amended, modified, rescinded or revoked in any manner since the date of its adoption, and the same is now in full force and effect. I further certify that an agenda of said meeting was posted at least 72 hours before said meeting at a location in Riverside, California, freely accessible to the public and a brief general description of the resolution to be adopted at said meeting appeared on said agenda. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have executed this certificate hereto as of this date, , 2012. OHSUSA:750005829.3 By Clerk -6- • • • 55 F&J DRAFT OF 02/21/12 • • • Ratings: Moody's: S&P: (See "Ratings" herein) SUPPLEMENT DATED MARCH 2012 TO OFFERING MEMORANDUM DATED MARCH 23, 2005 On March 30, 2005, the date of original issuance of the Notes, Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP, Bond Counsel to the Commission, delivered an opinion with respect to the Notes to the effect that based upon an analysis of existing laws, regulations, rulings and court decisions, and assuming, among other matters, the accuracy of certain representations and compliance with certain covenants, interest on the Notes, when issued in accordance with the Indenture, the Tax Certificate and the Issuing and Paying Agent Agreement, is excluded from gross income for federal income tax purposes under Section 103 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 and is exempt from State of California personal income taxes. The opinion of Bond Counsel stated that the amount treated as interest on the Notes and excluded from gross income may depend upon the taxpayer's election under Internal Revenue Service Notice 94-84. The opinion of Bond Counsel further stated that interest on the Notes is not a specific preference item for purposes of the federal individual or corporate alternative minimum taxes, although Bond Counsel observed that such interest is included in adjusted current earnings when calculating corporate alternative minimum taxable income. Bond Counsel expressed no opinion regarding any other tax consequences related to the ownership or disposition of, or the accrual or receipt of interest on, the Notes. See "TAX MATTERS." $120,000,000 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION COMMERCIAL PAPER NOTES (LIMITED TAX BONDS) $60,000,000 $60,000,000 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION COMMISSION Commercial Paper Notes Commercial Paper Notes (Limited Tax Bonds), Series A (Limited Tax Bonds), Series B This Supplement, dated March _, 2012 (this "Supplement"), to the Offering Memorandum, dated March 23, 2005 (the "Offering Memorandum"), is issued with respect to the Riverside County Transportation Commission Commercial Paper Notes (Limited Tax Bonds), Series A (the "Series A Notes") and the Riverside County Transportation Commission Commercial Paper Notes (Limited Tax Bonds), Series B (the "Series B Notes" and together with the Series A Notes, the "Notes"). This Supplement is being delivered in connection with the extension of the irrevocable, direct -pay letter of credit (the "Series A Letter of Credit") issued by Bank of America, N.A. (the "Series A Bank") to support the payment of principal and interest with respect to the Series A Notes, and the delivery of an irrevocable, direct -pay letter of credit (the "Series B Letter of Credit" and together with the Series A Letter of Credit, the "Letters of Credit") issued by Union Bank, N.A. (the "Series B Bank" and together with the Series A Bank, the `Banks"). The Stated Expiration Date for the Series A Letter of Credit has been extended to September 30, 2014. The Stated Expiration Date for the Series B Letter of Credit is September 30, 2014. Capitalized terms used and not defined herein shall have the meanings ascribed to such terms in the Offering Memorandum. This Supplement updates and supersedes the following sections of the Offering Memorandum: "THE LETTER OF CREDIT," "THE BANK," "TAX MATTERS," "RATINGS" and "THE DEALERS." Further, this Supplement updates Appendix E to the Offering Memorandum, now entitled "FORM OF OPINIONS OF BOND COUNSEL." Moreover, this Supplement adds a new section to the Offering Memorandum, entitled "RECEIVER'S POWER TO REPUDIATE LETTER OF CREDIT." The section of the Offering Memorandum entitled "THE COMMISSION," together with APPENDIX A — "INFORMATION REGARDING THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE" and APPENDIX B — "AUDITED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION FOR FISCAL YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 2004," are not being updated by this Supplement and should be considered deleted from the Offering Memorandum. The offering and sale of the Notes is made only by means of the Offering Memorandum as supplemented by this Supplement. Neither delivery of the Offering Memorandum and this Supplement nor any sale made thereunder and hereunder shall, under any circumstances, create any implication that there has been no change in the affairs of the Commission since the date of the Offering Memorandum or in any other matters that are material to the full and punctual payment of any Notes. Because each series of the Notes is payable primarily from draws made under the applicable Letter of Credit, this Supplement does not contain information relating to the ability of the Commission to pay principal of or interest 95474347.2 56 on the Notes as they mature. Accordingly, the investment decision to purchase the Notes should be made solely on the basis of the creditworthiness of each Bank issuing its respective Letter of Credit from which will be paid all principal of and interest on the related Notes. Barclays Capital BofA Merrill Lynch Dealer for the Series A Notes Dealer for the Series B Notes • • • 57 • • THE LETTERS OF CREDIT The following is a summary of certain provisions of the Letters of Credit. This summary is not to be considered a full statement of the terms of the Letters of Credit and accordingly is qualified by reference thereto and is subject to the full text thereof Except as otherwise defined herein, capitalized terms used in this Offering Memorandum without definition have the respective meanings set forth in the Letters of Credit. Series A Letter of Credit At the request and for the account of the Commission, the Bank of America, N.A. (the "Series A Bank") issued the Series A Letter of Credit in favor of the Issuing and Paying Agent, on or prior to the date of initial issuance of the Notes. The current stated amount of the Series A Letter of Credit is equal to $60,750,000. The Commission may request the Series A Bank to increase the stated amount of the Series A Letter of Credit from time to time by an amount not to exceed the unutilized commitment under the Reimbursement Agreement relating to the Series A Letter of Credit (the "Series A Reimbursement Agreement") prior to the Series A Letter of Credit Expiration Date (defined below) or such earlier date on which the Series A Bank or the Commission may permanently reduce the unutilized commitment under the Series A Reimbursement Agreement to zero; but in no event shall the stated amount of the Series A Letter of Credit exceed $60,750,000. Upon satisfaction of certain conditions precedent, the Series A Bank will execute and deliver a specified Notice of Increase in Stated Amount to the Issuing and Paying Agent, thereby increasing the stated amount of the Series A Letter of Credit. The stated amount of the Series A Letter of Credit in effect from time to time shall be subject to reductions and reinstatements as set forth in the Series A Letter of Credit. The Issuing and Paying Agent will draw moneys under the Series A Letter of Credit to the extent necessary to pay principal of and interest on the Series A Notes. Drawings by the Issuing and Paying Agent under the Series A Letter of Credit will reduce the amounts available for subsequent drawings under the Series A Letter of Credit, subject to reinstatement as provided in the Series A Letter of Credit. The Series A Bank will use only its own funds in honoring a drawing on the Series A Letter of Credit. The Series A Letter of Credit shall expire on the earliest of the following (the "Series A Letter of Credit Expiration Date") (i) September 30, 2014, as such date may be extended by the Series A Bank upon delivery of a Notice of Extension substantially in the form set forth in the Series A Letter of Credit (the "Series A Stated Expiration Date"), (ii) the date on which the Series A Bank honors a draw request accompanied by the Issuing and Paying Agent's certification in the form set forth in the Series A Letter of Credit for payment of Series A Notes which will reduce the Stated Amount to $0.00, (iii) the date of the Series A Bank's receipt of notice from the Issuing and Paying Agent to the effect that an Alternate Credit Facility (as defined in the Indenture) in full and complete substitution for the Series A Letter of Credit has been issued and is in effect, which notice shall be substantially in the form of the certificate attached to the Series A Letter of Credit, or (iv) the date which is five days after the date of the Series A Bank's receipt of notice from the Issuing and Paying Agent to the effect that no Series A Notes (other than Series A Notes with respect to which an Alternate Credit Facility has been issued and is in effect) remain outstanding under the Indenture and the Commission does 95474347.2 58 not contemplate any further issuance of Series A Notes, which notice shall be substantially in the form of the certificate attached to the Series A Letter of Credit. The Commission has the right to deliver to the Issuing and Paying Agent an Alternate Credit Facility for the Series A Letter of Credit upon satisfaction of certain conditions set forth in the Indenture. The Issuing and Paying Agent will provide 30 days' advance written notice of the acceptance of any Alternate Credit Facility to the owners of the Series A Notes. Series B Letter of Credit At the request and for the account of the Commission, the Union Bank, N.A. (the "Series B Bank") intends to issue the Series B Letter of Credit in favor of the Issuing and Paying Agent, on or prior to March , 2012. The current stated amount of the Series B Letter of Credit is equal to $60,750,000. The Commission may request the Series B Bank to increase the stated amount of the Series B Letter of Credit from time to time by an amount not to exceed the unutilized commitment under the Reimbursement Agreement relating to the Series B Letter of Credit (the "Series B Reimbursement Agreement") prior to the Series B Letter of Credit Expiration Date (defined below) or such earlier date on which the Series B Bank or the Commission may permanently reduce the unutilized commitment under the Series B Reimbursement Agreement to zero; but in no event shall the stated amount of the Series B Letter of Credit exceed $60,750,000. Upon satisfaction of certain conditions precedent, the Series B Bank will execute and deliver a specified Notice of Increase in Stated Amount to the Issuing and Paying Agent, thereby increasing the stated amount of the Series B Letter of Credit. The stated amount of the Series B Letter of Credit in effect from time to time shall be subject to reductions and reinstatements as set forth in the Series B Letter of Credit. The Issuing and Paying Agent will draw moneys under the Series B Letter of Credit to the extent necessary to pay principal of and interest on the Series B Notes. Drawings by the Issuing and Paying Agent under the Series B Letter of Credit will reduce the amounts available for subsequent drawings under the Series B Letter of Credit, subject to reinstatement as provided in the Series B Letter of Credit. The Series B Bank will use only its own funds in honoring a drawing on the Series B Letter of Credit. The Series B Letter of Credit shall expire on the earliest of the following (the "Series B Letter of Credit Expiration Date") (i) September 30, 2014, as such date may be extended by the Series B Bank upon delivery of a Notice of Extension substantially in the form set forth in the Series B Letter of Credit (the "Series B Stated Expiration Date"), (ii) the date on which the Series B Bank honors a draw request accompanied by the Issuing and Paying Agent's certification in the form set forth in the Series B Letter of Credit for payment of Series B Notes which will reduce the Stated Amount to $0.00, (iii) the date of the Series B Bank's receipt of notice from the Issuing and Paying Agent to the effect that an Alternate Credit Facility (as defined in the Indenture) in full and complete substitution for the Series B Letter of Credit has been issued and is in effect, which notice shall be substantially in the form of the certificate attached to the Series B Letter of Credit, or (iv) the date which is five days after the date of the Series B Bank's receipt of notice from the Issuing and Paying Agent to the effect that no Series B Notes (other than Series B Notes with respect to which an Alternate Credit Facility has been issued and is in effect) remain outstanding under the Indenture and the Commission does 95474347.2 2 • • • 59 • • • not contemplate any further issuance of Series B Notes, which notice shall be substantially in the form of the certificate attached to the Series B Letter of Credit. The Commission has the right to deliver to the Issuing and Paying Agent an Alternate Credit Facility for the Series B Letter of Credit upon satisfaction of certain conditions set forth in the Indenture. The Issuing and Paying Agent will provide 30 days' advance written notice of the acceptance of any Alternate Credit Facility to the owners of the Series B Notes. THE BANKS The following information has been provided by the Banks for use in this Offering Memorandum. Such information has not been confirmed or verified by the Commission. The Commission makes no representation as to the accuracy or adequacy of such information or as to the absence of material adverse changes in such information subsequent to the date hereof. Bank of America, N.A. [to be updated] Bank of America, N.A. (the "Series A Bank") is a national banking association organized under the laws of the United States, with its principal executive offices located in Charlotte, North Carolina. The Series A Bank is a wholly -owned indirect subsidiary of Bank of America Corporation (the "Corporation") and is engaged in a general consumer banking, commercial banking and trust business, offering a wide range of commercial, corporate, international, financial market, retail and fiduciary banking services. As of December 31, 2009, the Bank had consolidated assets of $1.465 trillion, consolidated deposits of $1.003 trillion and stockholder's equity of $167 billion, based on regulatory accounting principles. The Corporation is a bank holding company and a financial holding company, with its principal executive offices located in Charlotte, North Carolina. Additional information regarding the Corporation is set forth in its Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2009, together with its subsequent periodic and current reports filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "SEC"). Filings can be inspected and copied at the public reference facilities maintained by the SEC at 100 F Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20549, United States, at prescribed rates. In addition, the SEC maintains a website at http://www.sec.gov, which contains reports, proxy statements and other information regarding registrants that file such information electronically with the SEC. The information concerning the Corporation and the Series A Bank is furnished solely to provide limited introductory information and does not purport to be comprehensive. Such information is qualified in its entirety by the detailed information appearing in the documents and financial statements referenced herein. The Series A Letter of Credit has been issued by the Series A Bank. Moody's Investors Service, Inc. ("Moody's") currently rates the Series A Bank's long-term debt as "Aa3" and short- term debt as "P-1." The outlook is stable. Standard & Poor's currently rates the Series A Bank's long-term debt as "A+" and its short-term debt as "A-1." The outlook is negative. Fitch Ratings, Inc. ("Fitch") currently rates long-term debt of the Series A Bank as "A+" and short-term debt as 954743472 3 60 "F1+." The outlook is stable. Further information with respect to such ratings may be obtained from Moody's, Standard & Poor's and Fitch, respectively. No assurances can be given that the current ratings of the Series A Bank's instruments will be maintained. The Series A Bank will provide copies of the most recent Bank of America Corporation Annual Report on Form 10-K, any subsequent reports on Form 10-Q, and any required reports on Form 8-K (in each case as filed with the SEC pursuant to the Exchange Act), and the publicly available portions of the most recent quarterly Call Report of the Series A Bank delivered to the Comptroller of the Currency, without charge, to each person to whom this document is delivered, on the written request of such person. Written requests should be directed to: Bank of America Corporate Communications 100 North Tryon Street, 18th Floor Charlotte, North Carolina 28255 Attention: Corporate Communication PAYMENTS OF PRINCIPAL OF AND INTEREST ON THE SERIES A NOTES WILL BE MADE FROM DRAWINGS UNDER THE SERIES A LETTER OF CREDIT. ALTHOUGH THE SERIES A LETTER OF CREDIT IS A BINDING OBLIGATION OF THE SERIES A BANK, THE SERIES A NOTES ARE NOT DEPOSITS OR OBLIGATIONS OF THE CORPORATION OR ANY OF ITS AFFILIATED BANKS AND ARE NOT GUARANTEED BY ANY OF THESE ENTITIES. THE SERIES A NOTES ARE NOT INSURED BY THE FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION OR ANY OTHER GOVERNMENTAL AGENCY AND ARE SUBJECT TO CERTAIN INVESTMENT RISKS, INCLUDING POSSIBLE LOSS OF THE PRINCIPAL AMOUNT INVESTED. The delivery hereof shall not create any implication that there has been no change in the affairs of the Corporation or the Series A Bank since the date hereof, or that the information contained or referred to under this caption "THE BANKS" is correct as of any time subsequent to its date. Union Bank, N.A. [to come] RECEIVER'S POWER TO REPUDIATE LETTER OF CREDIT If a financial institution, such as the Series A Bank or the Series B Bank, is placed into receivership, the receiver generally will have broad powers with respect to the disposition of the assets and liabilities of such financial institution. A receiver may, depending on the circumstances and the scope of its legal authority, repudiate letters of credit issued by the failed financial institution while discharging its powers as receiver. No assurance can be given that if either Bank were to enter receivership that its corresponding Letter of Credit would not be subject to repudiation by such Bank's receiver. 95474347.2 4 • • • 61 • • • TAX MATTERS On March 30, 2005, the date of original issuance of the Notes, Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP, Bond Counsel to the Commission, delivered an opinion with respect to the Notes to the effect that based upon an analysis of existing laws, regulations, rulings and court decisions, and assuming, among other matters, the accuracy of certain representations and compliance with certain covenants, interest on the Notes, when issued in accordance with the Indenture, the Issuing and Paying Agent Agreement and the Master Tax Certificate of the Commission (the "Tax Certificate"), is excluded from gross income for federal income tax purposes under Section 103 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (the "Code") and is exempt from State of California personal income taxes. The opinion of Bond Counsel further stated that interest on the Notes is not a specific preference item for purposes of the federal individual or corporate alternative minimum taxes, although Bond Counsel observed that such interest is included in adjusted current earnings when calculating corporate alternative minimum taxable income. A complete copy of the opinion Bond Counsel delivered at the time of original issuance of the Notes and a subsequent revision thereto are set forth in Appendix E hereto, subject to the matters discussed below. Notice 94-84, 1994-2 C.B. 559, states that the Internal Revenue Service (the "IRS") is studying whether the amount of the payment at maturity on short-term debt obligations (i.e., debt obligations with a stated fixed rate of interest which mature not more than one year from the date of issue) that is excluded from gross income for federal income tax purposes is (i) the stated interest payable at maturity or (ii) the difference between the issue price of the short-term debt obligations and the aggregate amount to be paid at maturity of the short-term debt obligations (the "original issue discount"). For this purpose, the issue price of the short-term debt obligations is the first price at which a substantial amount of the short-term debt obligations is sold to the public (excluding bond houses, brokers, or similar persons or organizations acting in the capacity of Dealers, placement agents or wholesalers). Until the IRS provides further guidance with respect to tax-exempt short-term debt obligations, taxpayers may treat either the stated interest payable at maturity or the original issue discount as interest that is excluded from gross income for federal income tax purposes. However, taxpayers must treat the amount to be paid at maturity on all tax-exempt short-term debt obligations in a consistent manner. Taxpayers should consult their own tax advisors with respect to the tax consequences of ownership of Notes if the taxpayer elects original issue discount treatment. Notes purchased, whether at original issuance or otherwise, for an amount higher than their principal amount payable at maturity (or, in some cases, at their earlier call date) ("Premium Notes") will be treated as having amortizable bond premium. No deduction is allowable for the amortizable bond premium in the case of notes, like the Premium Notes, the interest on which is excluded from gross income for federal income tax purposes. However, the amount of tax-exempt interest received, and a Holder's basis in a Premium Note, will be reduced by the amount of amortizable bond premium properly allocable to such Holder. Holders of Premium Notes should consult their own tax advisors with respect to the proper treatment of amortizable bond premium in their particular circumstances. The Code imposes various restrictions, conditions and requirements relating to the exclusion from gross income for federal income tax purposes of interest on obligations such as the Notes. The Commission has made certain representations and covenanted to comply with 95474347.2 5 62 certain restrictions, conditions and requirements designed to ensure that interest on the Notes will not be included in federal gross income. Inaccuracy of these representations or failure to comply or to have complied with these covenants may result in interest on the Notes being included in gross income for federal income tax purposes, possibly from the date of original issuance of the Notes. The opinion of Bond Counsel rendered in connection with the original issuance of the Notes assumes the accuracy of these representations and compliance with these covenants. Bond Counsel has not undertaken to determine (or to inform any person) whether any actions taken (or not taken), or events occurring (or not occurring), or any other matters coming to Bond Counsel's attention after the date of issuance of the Notes may adversely affect or have adversely affected the value of, or the tax status of interest on, the Notes. Accordingly, the opinion of Bond Counsel was and is not intended to, and may not, be relied upon in connection with any such actions, events or matters. Although the opinion Bond Counsel rendered in connection with the original issuance of the Notes stated that interest on the Notes is excluded from gross income for federal income tax purposes and is exempt from State of California personal income taxes, the ownership or disposition of, or the accrual or receipt of interest on, the Notes may otherwise affect a Holder's federal, state or local tax liability. The nature and extent of these other tax consequences depends upon the particular tax status of the Holder or the Holder's other items of income or deduction. Bond Counsel has expressed no opinion regarding any such other tax consequences. The opinion of Bond Counsel described herein is deemed to be delivered and in effect by Bond Counsel as to any Note issued after the date of such opinion, to the extent that, at the date of issuance of such Note: (i) there is and has been no change in applicable existing federal or State of California law; (ii) the provisions of the Indenture, in so far as such provisions affect the terms and conditions pursuant to which Notes are issued and held, have not been materially amended or supplemented; (iii) the representations and covenants of the parties contained in the Indenture, the Issuing and Paying Agent Agreement, the Tax Certificate and certain certificates dated the date of the opinion of Bond Counsel and delivered by authorized officers of the Commission remain and have remained from the date of original issuance true and accurate and are and have been complied with in all material respects; and (iv) no litigation affecting the issuance or validity of the Notes is pending at the time of delivery of any such Notes. Legislation, if enacted into law, or clarification of the Code subsequent to the date Bond Counsel delivered its opinion may cause or may have caused interest on the Notes to be subject, directly or indirectly, to federal income taxation, or otherwise prevent Holders from realizing the full current benefit of the tax status of such interest. The introduction or enactment of any such subsequent legislation or clarification of the Code may also affect or have affected the market price for, or marketability of, the Notes. Prospective purchasers of the Notes should consult their own tax advisors regarding any federal tax legislation pending, proposed or enacted subsequent to the date Bond Counsel delivered its opinion in connection with the original issuance of the Notes, as to which Bond Counsel has expressed no opinion. The opinion of Bond Counsel was based on current legal authority, covered certain matters not directly addressed by such authorities, and represented Bond Counsel's judgment as to the proper treatment of the Notes for federal income tax purposes. It is not binding on the IRS or the courts. Furthermore, Bond Counsel cannot give and has not given any opinion or assurance about activities of the Commission subsequent to the date Bond Counsel delivered its 95474347.2 6 • • • 63 • • opinion, or about the effect of changes in the Code, the applicable regulations, the interpretation thereof or the enforcement thereof by the IRS subsequent to the date Bond Counsel delivered its opinion. The Commission has covenanted, however, to comply with the requirements of the Code. Bond Counsel's engagement with respect to the Notes ended with the issuance of the Notes, and, unless separately engaged, Bond Counsel is not obligated to defend the Commission or the Holders regarding the tax-exempt status of the Notes in the event of an audit examination by the IRS. Under current procedures, parties other than the Commission and their appointed counsel, including the Holders, would have little, if any, right to participate in the audit examination process. Moreover, because achieving judicial review in connection with an audit examination of tax-exempt notes is difficult, obtaining an independent review of IRS positions with which the Commission legitimately disagrees, may not be practicable. Any action of the IRS, including but not limited to selection of the Notes for audit, or the course or result of such audit, or an audit of notes presenting similar tax issues may affect the market price for, or the marketability of, the Notes, and may cause the Commission or the Holders to incur significant expense. RATINGS The Notes have been assigned ratings of " " and " " by Moody's Investors Service and Standard & Poor's Ratings Services, respectively, based on the issuance by the Banks of their respective Letters of Credit. Certain information was supplied by the Commission to Moody's Investors Service and Standard & Poor's Ratings Services to be considered in evaluating the Notes. The ratings reflect only the views of such rating agencies and any explanation of the significance of such ratings should be obtained from the rating agencies. There is no assurance that any rating will be retained for any given period of time or that the same will not be revised downward or withdrawn entirely by either rating agency if in its judgment, circumstances so warrant. The Commission undertakes no responsibility to oppose any such revision or withdrawal. Any such downward revision or withdrawal of the ratings may have an adverse effect on the market price of the Notes. THE DEALERS The Commission has appointed Barclays Capital Inc. as commercial paper dealer (the "' Dealer") with respect to the offering and sale of the Series A Notes pursuant to the Series A Dealer Agreement, and has appointed Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated as commercial paper dealer (the "Series B Dealer" and, together with the Series A Dealer, the "Dealers") with respect to the offering and sale of the Series B Notes pursuant to the Series B Dealer Agreement (the "Series B Dealer Agreement" and, together with the Series A Dealer Agreement, the "Dealer Agreements"). The Dealer Agreements, among other things, do not require the Dealers to purchase the Notes. Furthermore, pursuant to the Dealer Agreements, the Dealers may resign or be replaced by the Commission. The Series B Dealer and Bank of America, N.A., the provider of the Series A Letter of Credit supporting payment of the Series A Notes, are both wholly -owned, indirect subsidiaries of Bank of America Corporation. 95474347.2 7 64 The execution and delivery of this Supplement has been duly authorized by the Commission. RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION By: /s/ Anne Mayer Executive Director 95474347.2 8 • • 65 • • • 95474347.2 O ORRICK March 30, 2005 Riverside County Transportation Commission Riverside, California Ladies and Gentlemen: oRRICR, HERRIHGTOH t 5uiCLIrfn EE, THE ORRICK 3UIU'1IMG 405 NMxARo stRFtf SAH HRANCISCO, CA 9414S-2 9 ref 415-7735790 fax 415773.5759 M.N./A RR,Ct[.COM Riverside County Transportation Commission Commercial Paper Notes (Limited Tax Bonds), Series A and Series B (Final Opinion) We have acted as bond counsel in connection with the authorization of issuance of up to $185,000,000 aggregate principal amount (at any time Outstanding) of commercial paper notes by the Riverside County Transportation Commission (the "Issuer"), and designated Riverside County Transportation Commission Commercial Paper Notes (Limited Tax Bonds), Series A and Series B (the "Notes"). The Notes are authorized to be issued pursuant to Resolution No. 05- 001, adopted by the Board of the Commissioners of the Issuer on February 9, 2005; Measure A — the Riverside County Transportation Commission Transportation Expenditure Plan and Retail Transaction and Use Tax Ordinance, approved by more than two-thirds of the voters of the County of Riverside voting on the measure en November 5, 2002; an Indenture, dated as of March 1, 2005 (the "Indenture"), by and between the Issuer and U. S. Bank Trust National • Association as trustee; and an Issuing and Paying Agent Agreement, dated as of March 1, 2005 (the "Issuing and Paying Agent Agreement"), by and between the Issuer and U. S. Bank Trust National Association as issuing and paying agent. Capitalized terms not otherwise defined herein shall have the meanings ascribed thereto in the Indenture. In such connection, we have reviewed the Indenture, the Issuing and Paying Agent Agreement, the Tax Certificate of the Issuer, dated the date hereof (the `Tax Certificate"), an opinion of counsel to the Issuer, certificates of the Issuer, the Issuing and Paying Agent and others and such other documents, opinions and matters to the extent we deemed necessary to render the opinions set forth herein. Certain agreements, requirements and procedures contained or referred to in the Indenture, the Issuing and Paying Agent Agreement, the Tax Certificate and other relevant documents may be changed and certain actions (including, without limitations, defeasance of the Notes) may be taken or omitted under the circumstances and subject to the terms and conditions set forth in such DOCSSF1:&A31533 E-1 V ORRICK Riverside County Transportation Commission March 30, 2005 Page 2 documents. No opinion is expressed herein as to any Note or the interest thereon if any such change occurs or action is taken or omitted upon the advice or approval of counsel other than ourselves. The opinions expressed herein are based -on an analysis of existing laws, regulations, rulings and court decisions, and cover certain matters not directly addressed by such authorities. Such opinions may be affected by actions taken or omitted or events occurring after the date hereof and before or after the Notes are issued. We have not undertaken to determine, or to inform any person, whether any such actions are taken or omitted or events do occur or any other matters come to our attention after the date hereof, and we disclaim any obligation to update this letter. We have assumed the genuineness of all documents and signatures presented to us (whether as originals or as copies) and the due and legal execution and delivery thereof by, and validity against, any parties other than the Issuer. We have assumed, without undertaking to verify, the accuracy (as of the date hereof and as of the date of issuance from time to time of the Notes) of the factual matters represented, warranted or certified in the documents, and of the legal conclusions contained in the opinion, referred to in the second paragraph hereof. Furthermore, we have assumed compliance with all covenants and agreements contained in the indenture, the Issuing and Paying Agent Agreement and the Tax Certificate, including (without limitation) covenants and agreements compliance with which is necessary to assure that future actions, omissions or events will not cause interest on the Notes to be included in gross income for federal income tax purposes, possibly retroactive to the date on which the first Notes were issued. We call attention to the fact that the rights and obligations under the Notes, the Indenture, the 'Issuing and Paying Agent Agreement and the Tax Certificate and their enforceability may be subject to bankruptcy, insolvency, reorganization, arrangement, fraudulent conveyance, moratorium and other laws relating to or affecting creditors' rights, to the application of equitable principles, to the exercise of judicial discretion in appropriate cases and to the limitations on legal remedies against county transportation commissions in the State of California. We express no opinion with respect to any indemnification, contribution, penalty, choice of law, choice of forum, waiver or severability provisions contained in the foregoing documents, nor do we express any opinion with respect to the state or quality of title to or interest in any of the real or personal property described in or as subject to the lien of the Indenture or the accuracy or sufficiency of the description contained therein of, or the remedies available to enforce liens on, any such property. Finally, we undertake no responsibility for the accuracy, completeness or fairness of the Offering Memorandum or other offering material relating to the Notes and express no opinion with respect thereto. Based on and subject to the foregoing and in reliance thereon, as of the date hereof, we are of the following opinions: r>ocSSF11031533 95474347.2 E-2 • 67 • O ORRICK Riverside County Transportation Commission March 30, 2005 Page 3 1. The Indenture and the Issuing and Paying Agent Ageerent have each been duly executed and delivered by the Issuer and constitute valid and binding obligations of the Issuer. • • 95474347.2 2. The Notes, when duly issued in the form authorized by and otherwise in compliance with the Indenture and the Issuing and Paying Agent Agreement, executed by a duly authorized official of the Issuer and authenticated by the Issuing and Paying Agent against payment therefor, will constitute the valid and binding obligations of the Issuer. 3. Interest on the Notes, when issued in accordance with the Indenture, the Issuing and Paying Agent Agreement and the Tax Certificate, will be excluded from gross income for federal income tax purposes under Section 103 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 and exempt from State of California personal income taxes. The amount treated as interest on the Notes and excluded from gross income will depend upon the taxpayer's election under Internal Revenue Service Notice 94-84. Interest on the Notes is not a specific preference item for purposes of the federal individual or corporate alternative minimum taxes, although we observe that interest on the Notes is included in adjusted current earnings when calculating corporate alternate minimum taxable income. We express no opinion regarding other tax consequences related to the ownership or disposition of, or the accrual or receipt of interest on, the Notes. Faithfully yours, ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP per nOcssat-803753.3 E-3 2/29/2012 RCTC Commercial Paper Program Budget and Implementation Committee February 27, 2012 Evolution of RCTC CP Program Total CP Proceeds: Total CP Refinanced: Total CP Outstanding: $307,005,000 267,005,000 $ 40,000,000 1 2/29/2012 Continuation of CP Program Interim financing until 91 CIP financial close LOC cost significantly lower VERY low short-term interest rates 2 2/29/2012 Next Steps Executive Director and/or CFO sign do omen CP Program in place through 9/30/2014 3 • AGENDA ITEM 11 • • • • • • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION DATE: February 27, 2012 TO: Budget and Implementation Committee FROM: Shirley Medina, Programming and Planning Manager THROUGH: Cathy Bechtel, Project Development Director SUBJECT: Proposition 1B State -Local Partnership Program - Formula Program Project Recommendations STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Committee to: 1) Approve programming State -Local Partnership Program (SLPP) formula funds on the following projects: Perris Valley Line, State Route 91 Corridor Improvement Project (SR -91 CIP), Interstate 215 Central widening (Scott Road to Nuevo Road), and Foothill Parkway; 2) Authorize the Executive Director to determine the appropriate programming amount for each project; and 3) Forward to the Commission for final action. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The Highway Safety, Traffic Reduction, Air Quality, and Port Security Bond Act of 2006, approved by the voters as Proposition 1B on November 7, 2006, authorized $1 billion to be deposited in the SLPP account. The California Transportation Commission (CTC) is responsible for administering and allocating these funds over a five-year period between 2009 and 2013. The funds are divided among two programs - competitive and formula. The competitive grant program is a discretionary program, and projects are submitted by local agencies directly to the CTC for selection. For the formula program, the CTC determines a funding share for each eligible applicant with a voter -approved tax or toll that was approved prior to the adoption of the funding. Therefore, the Commission is the eligible applicant for programming SLPP formula funding share in Riverside County. SLPP guidelines require formula funds to be matched on 50-50 basis (match must be Measure A funds) and used for the construction phase only. The Commission previously programmed SLPP funding for the 74/215 interchange project, but subsequently replaced the SLPP funds with federal stimulus funds since bonds were not being sold due to unfavorable market conditions. Over the last couple of years, Proposition 1B bond sales continued to be infrequent and unreliable. Agenda Item 11 69 Therefore, staff programmed other reliable fund sources, such as federal fund sources, so that projects were not delayed due to the uncertainty of bond sales. CTC guidelines also allowed regions to carryover unprogrammed balances from year to year until the fifth or last year of the program, which is FY 2012/13. To date, the Commission's SLPP programming balance is $42,294,000. In following the Commission's direction to fund construction ready projects that the Commission previously committed to, such as projects identified in the Measure A 10 -year Western Riverside County Highway Delivery Plan (Delivery Plan), Grade Separation program, or Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) Regional Arterial program, staff is recommending the following projects for SLPP formula programming: • Perris Valley Line (Measure A); • SR -91 CIP (Measure A); • 1-21 5 Central widening from Scott to Nuevo (Measure A); and • Foothill Parkway (TUMF Regional Arterial). The first three projects have sufficient Measure A funds programmed to meet the match requirements and also meet the project readiness criteria based on the ability to request the construction allocation by the CTC's June 2013 meeting. Foothill Parkway in the city of Corona is a TUMF Regional Arterial project. There are insufficient funds available to fund the project with TUMF Regional Arterial funds; however, the project also qualifies for Western County Measure A Regional Arterial funds. In order to program SLPP funding on the Foothill Parkway project, Measure A funds would be used as match and would replace TUMF funds. Measure A programming for the Foothill Parkway will be brought back to the Commission for approval at a future meeting. Staff will also be meeting with the county of Riverside and the Coachella Valley Association of Governments to review eligible projects for SLPP funds located in the Coachella Valley. In addition, staff will be monitoring other fund sources and programs as they may have an impact on current funding plans, such as the 2012 State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) and Proposition 1B Corridor Mobility Improvement Account (CMIA) funds. Therefore, staff is requesting that the Commission approve the above projects for programming and authorize the Executive Director to determine the appropriate programming amount for each project within the next few months as more information becomes available regarding the 2012 STIP adoption estimated to occur by April, and the next cycle of CMIA programming anticipated in June 2012. Staff will report on the SLPP project programming amounts at a future meeting as well as the resulting financial impact regarding the receipt of any SLPP funds. Agenda Item 11 • 70 • AGENDA ITEM 12 • • • • • • • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION DATE: February 27, 2012 TO: Budget and Implementation Committee FROM: Shirley Medina, Programming and Planning Manager Theresia Trevino, Chief Financial Officer THROUGH: John Standiford, Deputy Executive Director SUBJECT: Measure A Local Streets and Roads Five -Year Capital Improvement Plan for the City of Jurupa Valley STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Committee to: 1) Approve the city of Jurupa Valley's FYs 2012-16 Measure A Five -Year Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) for Local Streets and Roads; and 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Measure A Local Streets and Roads funds are available to local agencies that meet the following requirements: 1) participation in the Coachella Valley Association of Governments or Western Riverside Council of Governments (WRCOG) Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) program; 2) participation in the Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) administered by the Western Riverside County Regional Conversation Authority (RCA); 3) submission of Five - Year CIP for Commission approval detailing how the funds are to be expended; and 4) submittal to the Commission of ari annual certification of maintenance of effort (MOE) and associated documentation. Jurupa Valley has submitted its FYs 2012-16 Measure A Five -Year CIP consisting of programs eligible to receive Measure A funding. Jurupa Valley has also received confirmation from WRCOG and RCA that it is a participant in the Western County TUMF and MSHCP programs, respectively. Staff has reviewed these confirmations. Regarding Jurupa Valley's MOE certification, the MOE guidelines established for the 2009 Measure A Local Streets and Roads program allow local agencies that incorporate after July 1, 2009, an additional three years after incorporation to determine the MOE base year. Once the MOE base year is established newly Agenda Item 12 71 incorporated cities will be required to submit the annual MOE certification along with its CIP submittal. Staff recommends that the Commission approve the city of Jurupa Valley's Five - Year CIP, which is attached. Measure A Local Streets and Roads payments will be disbursed to the city of Jurupa Valley following the Commission's approval of the CIP. Attachments: Jurupa Valley's FYs 2012-16 Measure A Five -Year CIP Agenda Item 12 • • • 72 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM CITY OFJURUPA VALLEY MEASURE "A" LOCAL STREETS AND ROADS FIVE-YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN (CIP) FY 2011/2012 - 2015/2016 ADOPTED JANUARY 24, 2012 73 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE A LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM FY 2011 - 2012 Agency: City of lurupa Valley Date: December 2011 Adopted: January 24, 2012 2011,1 Camino Real Pavement Linares Ave to 270' N/o Rehabilitation Black Hills Dr (83001F) $200,000 per year $200,000 2011.2 limonite Avenue Pavement Wineville Ave to Etiwanda Rehabilitation Ave (5200LF) $624,000 $624,000 20 11.3 Annual Miscellaneous Street Var Improvements Program 2011:4 Annual Roadway Safety and Various Locations Citywide $100,000 per year Traffic Improvement Program 00 $100,000 2011.5 Annual Miscellaneous Street' Maintenance Program 2011.6 8% Overhead/ Administration inter -fund 8' Measure A Administrative Inter -Fund Transfer n`per year $90,000 TOT BUDGET = $1,214,000 • • • 74 • • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE A LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM FY 2012 - 2013 Agency: City of Jurupa Valley Date: December 2011 Adopted: January 24, 2012 2012.1 Camino Real P Rehabilitation' ve ent Linares Aveto 270' ty/o Black Hills Dr (8300LF) 2012.2 Felspar Street Pavement Jurupa Rd to Beilgrave Ave Rehabilitation (5300LF) 200,000 per year $564,000 200,000 $564,000 2012.3 Annual Miscellaneous Street Various Locations Citywide Improvements Program $120,000 per year $120,000 2012.4 Annual Roadway Safety and Various Locations Citywide $120,000 per Traffic Improvement Program year $120,000 2012.5 Annual Miscellaneous Street Maintenance Program Various Locations Citywide' $120,000 per year $120,000 2012.6 8% Overhead/ Administration Inter -fund 8% Transfer per Measure A Administrative Inter -Fund Transfer $90,000 TOT BUDGET = $1,214,000 75 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE A LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM FY 2013 - 2014 Agency: City ofJurupa Valley Date: December 2011 Adopted: January 24, 2012 2013.1 Camino Real Pavement Rehabilitation 2013.1 Bain Street Paveemenj Rehabilitation 2013,1 Pacific Avenue Pavement abiiitaton $304,000 Linares Ave to 270' Nib Black Hills Dr (83001F) 54th St to Bellgrave Ave (54001F) 45th St to Mission Ave (41001F) $200,000 per year $260,000 $304,000 $ 200,000 $260,000 2013.3 Annual Miscellaneous Street Improvements Program Various Locations Citywide, $120,000 per year $120,000 2013.4 ' Annual Roadway Safety and Various Locations Citywide $120,000 per Traffic Improvement Program year $120,000 2013.5 Annual Miscellaneous Street >' Maintenance Program Various Locations Citywide $120,000 per year $120,000 2013.6 8% Overhead/ Administration Inter` -fund 8% Transfer per Measure A Administrative Inter -Fund Transfer $90,000 TOT BUDGET = $1,214,000 • • 76 • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE A LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM FY 2014 - 2015 Agency: City of Jurupa Valley Date: December 2011 Adopted: January 24, 2012 2014.1 mu e Pave ien Rehabilitation Linares Ave to 270''(4/o Black Hills Dr (8300LF) 2014.2 Country Village Road Pavement SR -60 to North City Limit (53001F) Rehabilitation 2014.3 Rutile Street and Galena Road Pavement Rehabilitation 2014.4 Annual !Miscellaneous Stree Improvements Program $200,000 per year Rutile St, Jurupa Rd to Van Buren Blvd and Galena St $470,000 1100' W/o Rutile to Rutile Various Locations Citywide 2014.5 Annual Roadway Safety and Various Traffic Improvement Program ions Citywide 2014.6 Annual Miscellaneous Street Various Locations Citywide 2014.7 8% Overhead/ Administration ;Inter -fund 8% Transfer per Measure A 120,000 per year 120,000 per year $120,000 per year Administrative Inter -Fund Transfer $ 94,000 $470,000 $120,000 $120,000 $120,000 TOT BUDGET = $1,214,000 77 20153 Annual Roadway Safety and Traffic Improvement Program RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE A LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM FY 2015 - 2016 Agency: City of Jurupa Valley Date: December 2011 Adopted: January 24, 2012 2015.1 Camino Real Pavement Rehabilitation Linares Ave to 2.70' N/o Black Hills Dr (8300LF) $200,000 per year $ 200,000 2015.2 Country Village Road Pavement SR -60 to North City Limit Rehabilitation (5300LF) $402,000 2015.3 Rubidoux Boulevard Paw's ent Mission Blvd to SR -60 EB On - Rehabilitation ramp (31001_F}_` Various Locations Citywide $ 372,000 $162,000 2015.4 Annual Miscellaneous Street Improvements Program $120,000 per year $120,000 2015.6 Annual Miscellaneous St Maintenance Program Various Locations Citywide $120,000 ywide $120,000 per year 5120,000 per year $120,000 2015.7 3%o Overhead/ Administration Inter -fund 8% Transfer per Measure A Administrative Inter -Fund Transfer 590,000 • • • 78 • AGENDA ITEM 13 • • • • • RIVERS/DE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISS/ON DATE: February 27, 2012 TO: Budget and Implementation Committee FROM: Jillian Edmiston, Staff Analyst Brian Cunanan, Commuter Assistance Manager THROUGH: Robert Yates, Multimodal Service Director SUBJECT: Federal Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Funding for the Measure A Regional Rideshare Program STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Committee to: 1) Approve the programming of $2.7 million in federal Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) funds for continuation of the Regional Rideshare Program in fiscal years 2012/13 through 2017/18; 2) Authorize staff to program the CMAQ funds for the Regional Rideshare Program in the Federal Transportation Improvement Program (FTIP); and 3) Forward to the Commission for final action. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Transportation Demand Management and Measure A While much of the Commission's work is focused on increasing transportation infrastructure and capacity, there is significant value in ensuring that the transportation systems in Riverside County are used efficiently. Rideshare and other commuter transportation demand management (TDM) programs are a vital tool for Riverside County and the entire Inland Empire region as it significantly decreases the number of vehicles traveling on congested corridors and saves thousands of pounds of pollutants from being emitted into the air each year. The Commission has valued rideshare as a viable element to ensure efficient use of its transportation system. That vision is acknowledged in the extension of the Commission's Commuter Assistance Program (CAP) as a funded element in the 2009 Measure A plan. The CAP efficiently influences driver behavior by fostering a mode -shifting decision at both the employer and commuter levels through employer rideshare services and support, ridematching services, park and ride lots, commuter incentives, and program outreach. In FY 2010/11, the CAP had over 8,879 Agenda Item 13 79 participants and saved 1.9 million one-way trips from being taken and prevented over 790,000 pounds of emissions from polluting the air. CMAQ Funds The federal CMAQ program was first established in 1991 under the Intermodal Surface Transportation Act to fund transportation projects and programs that improve air quality and reduce congestion. CMAQ funds have continued to be included in subsequent federal transportation authorizations. The Regional Rideshare Program meets CMAQ eligibility requirements and is an excellent candidate for these funds. DISCUSSION: Funding for CAP is primarily provided by Measure A revenues. Staff regularly seeks supplemental funding for CAP to expand the suite of services it offers. Since 2007, a county grant and federal Job Access Reverse Commute funding have been secured to extend the Rideshare Incentives program to Coachella Valley commuters. In addition, various Mobile Source Air Pollution Reduction Review Committee grants have been awarded for TDM-related programs and activities. In FY 2006/07, the Commission approved $820,000 of federal Surface Transportation Program funds to cover the regional rideshare activities for FY 2006/07 through FY 2010/11. Staff recommends programming $2.7 million in federal CMAQ funds for continuation of the Regional Rideshare Program in FY 2012/13 through FY 2017/18 and to authorize staff to program the CMAQ funds for the Regional Rideshare Program in the FTIP. Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: N/A Year: FYs 2012/13-17/18 Amount: $2,700,000 Source of Funds: Federal CMAQ funds Budget Adjustment: N/A GL/Project Accounting No.: 0021 XX 414 41403 263 41 41401 Fiscal Procedures Approved: \"ir4 Date: 02/16/12 Agenda Item 13 • • • 80 AGENDA ITEM 14 • • • • • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION DATE: February 27, 2012 TO: Budget and Implementation Committee FROM: Technical Advisory Committee Tanya Love, Goods Movement Manager THROUGH: John Standiford, Deputy Executive Director SUBJECT: Grade Separation Priority Update Study for Projects Located on the Alameda Corridor East Riverside County TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Committee to: 1) Approve the Grade Separation Priority Update Study for Riverside County projects located on the Alameda Corridor East (ACE); 2) Based on study, direct staff to develop a 2012 grade separation funding strategy; and 3) Forward to the Commission for final action. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The impact of delays caused by freight trains traveling through Riverside County continues to be one of the area's most pressing transportation concerns. Southern California is the goods movement gateway to the nation because of the area's numerous advantages: deep -water marine ports, highly developed networks of highways and railways, an extensive concentration of warehousing and distribution facilities, and an enormous local consumer market. Congested highways and rail corridors are a barrier to keeping goods moving and the economy growing. Public health is at risk as regional freight activities are a major source of air pollution, which is recognized as responsible for approximately 5,000 premature deaths per year. Goods movement was identified as a component of the Southern California Association of Governments' (SCAG) 2012 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS). The RTP/SCS is currently being circulated for review and comment. Following the 2008 RTP, SCAG initiated a Comprehensive Regional Goods Movement Plan and Implementation Strategy. The regional goods movement system defined through the implementation strategy was the basis of the goods movement section of the 2012 RTP/SCS. The train assumptions, particularly future growth rates for freight rail assumed in the 2012 Agenda Item 14 81 Grade Separation Priority Update Study were finalized after discussion and collaboration with SCAG RTP and goods movement technical staff and consultants. As a result, the proposed project list from the 2012 grade separation study, if approved, can be incorporated within SCAG's Goods Movement Plan. There are currently 55 at -grade railroad crossings remaining in Riverside County. These crossings present conflicts between rail and highway traffic and are located on the main lines of either the Union Pacific (UP) or Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) railroads. In 2008, the Commission ranked the at -grade crossings into five priority tiers based on a set of criteria that included safety, congestion, air quality, noise, adjacent grade separations and local community preferences. At that time, the Commission identified 28 crossings that were ranked in the top two tiers as the highest priority for grade separations. Based on funding availability as well as project deliverability, the 2008 funding strategy update also identified three additional projects - Avenue 52, Avenue 56/Airport Boulevard, and Avenue 66 - as top priority projects. Significant Progress Completing Grade Separations As shown on the table below, significant progress has been made since the 2008 funding strategy was adopted. Two projects - Avenue 48/Dillon Road, and Jurupa Avenue - were completed. Two at -grade crossings were permanently closed - Jane Street and Mountain View Avenue. In addition, $ 162.7 million in Proposition 1B funds was allocated to 13' goods movement projects - 12 at -grade crossings and one interchange project - in Riverside County through the Trade Corridor Improvement Fund (TCIF) program. Two of those grade separations - Columbia Avenue and Magnolia Avenue - have been completed. Three additional TCIF projects - Auto Center Drive, Iowa Avenue, and the I-215/Van Buren Boulevard interchange project - will start construction within the next three months. It is projected that the remaining five at -grade crossings (Clay Street, Magnolia Avenue, Riverside Avenue, Streeter Avenue, and Sunset Avenue) will start construction by August 2013. Grade Separation Jurisdiction TCIF Project (Yes/No) Status Construction Start Date (Projected) Auto Center Corona Yes 4/2012 Avenue 48/Dillon Coachella No Completed Avenue 52 Coachella Yes 7/2013 Avenue 56/Airport Blvd. Riverside County Yes 3/2013 Clay Street Jurupa Valley Yes 8/2013 ' In March 2011, at the city of Riverside's request, the Commission deleted the Third Street grade separation project from the TCIF program. Agenda Item 14 • • • 82 • • • Grade Separation Jurisdiction TCIF Project (Yes/No) Status Construction Start Date (Projected) Columbia Avenue Riverside Yes Completed Iowa Avenue Riverside Yes 4/2012 Jane Street Riverside No Permanently Closed Jurupa Avenue Riverside No Completed Magnolia Avenue Riverside Yes Completed Magnolia Avenue Riverside County Yes 4/2013 Mountain View Avenue Riverside No Permanently Closed Riverside Avenue Riverside Yes 12/2012 Streeter Avenue Riverside Yes 8/2012 Sunset Avenue Banning Yes 3/2013 When completed, there will be 46 at -grade crossings remaining in Riverside County. Given the update of the 2012 RTP/SCS, the pending completion of the at -grade crossings identified above, and the near -term reauthorization of the transportation bill, the consulting firm of InfraConsult LLC was retained through the Commission's on -call goods movement contract to work with local jurisdictions to update the 2008 grade separation funding criteria in order to prioritize the remaining 46 at -grade crossings. 2012 Grade Crossing Prioritization Study The effective and efficient movement of goods is critical to getting people and businesses the products they need in a timely manner. Based on the San Pedro Bay Ports (Port of Los Angeles and Port of Long Beach) container forecast, container traffic is projected to triple to 43.2 million twenty -foot equivalent units (TEUs) by 2035. Based on 2011 data, the ports currently handle 13.5 million TEUs of freight annually. While the growth represents significant economic opportunities to Southern California and the nation, it also presents challenges in terms of improving the region's goods movement infrastructure, as well as air quality issues, safety and impacts to quality of life. The increased freight movement means that rail crossing gates will be down for longer periods of time, further delaying motorists at the rail crossings. In 2035, based on the projected growth of rail traffic, population and employment, the following impacts are anticipated, if railroad crossings are maintained at -grade. • Total vehicle hours of delay at all railroad crossings combined is anticipated to increase six -folds from existing levels; • Total emissions at all railroad crossings combined is anticipated to increase from nine tons/year in 2010 to 53 tons/year; and Agenda Item 14 83 • Population being impacted by at least 63 dB of noise due to train activity and horn blowing is projected to almost double. Attached for review and approval is a draft report entitled Grade Separation Priority Update Study for A/ameda Corridor East. This study builds upon previous studies approved by the Commission. The first study was done in 2001 in partnership with the Coachella Valley Association of Governments and the Western Riverside Council of Governments. That study identified long-term needs for grade separation at -grade crossings on railroad mainlines passing through Riverside County. The 2001 study prioritized grade separation needs based on several technical criteria, which were subsequently updated in 2006. The 2012 study used the approved methodology from the 2006 study for the evaluation of updated data. In addition to the original seven factors that were used in 2006, two new criteria were added to the 2012 study. The criterion was confirmed in consultation with technical staff of the affected jurisdictions and approved by Commission's Technical Advisory Committee on January 30, 2012. The original factors used in the 2006 study included: • Safety (accident score rating, combination of frequency and severity); • Existing (2010) daily vehicle delay; • Future (2035) daily vehicle delay; • Emissions (2035); • Residential noise; • Adjacent grade separations; and • Local priority. The following two additional criteria were added to the 2012 study: • Project readiness; and • Isolated location (bonus criteria). An overview of the 2012 study results will be presented at the Committee meeting including the proposed criteria to reprioritize rail crossing locations with the greatest need for improvement in Riverside County. Attachment: Grade Separation Priority Update Study for Alameda Corridor East Agenda Item 14 • 84 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION Grade Separation Priority Update Stud for Alameda Corridor East (Riverside� ou • Riverside County Transportation Commission Grade Separation Pri©rity? Update Sty.: for Alameda Corridor East (Riverside Co • InfraConsult LLC 2/21/2012 • 86 ade Separation P iC)i'lty Up€!a e =€ fdv or I\ ai7xeda Corridor East (Riverside County) Table of Contents 1.0 Introduction 1 1.1 Grade Crossing Project Status since 2006 Update 3 2.0 Methodology 8 2.1 Weighting Options 8 2.2 Methodology for Safety Evaluation 9 2.3 Methodology for Rail Crossing Delay 10 2.4 Methodology for Vehicle Emissions 13 2.5 Methodology for Noise Impacts 15 2.6 Methodology for Distance to Nearest Grade Separation 15 2.7 Methodology for Local Agency Priority 15 2.8 Methodology for Project Readiness 16 2.9 Methodology for Isolated Locations 16 2.10 Priority Groupings 17 2.11 Consistency and Coordination with SCAG 17 3.0 At -grade Crossing Analyses 18 4.0 2012 Analysis Results 26 5.0 Recommendations 32 2/21/201.2 InfraConsult 87 ' Studv for Alameda Corridor East (leiversicle County) List of Tables Table 1.1: Grade Crossing Projects Status and Projected Construction Start Dates 5 Table 2.1: Evaluation Criteria and Weighting 9 Table 2.2: Criterion, Weighting Factors and Weighted Scores for each Weighting Option 9 Table 2.3: Overall Accident Rating 10 Table 2.4: Train Count 11 Table 2.5: Vehicle Delay Criteria and Score 13 Table 2.6: Emission Factors 14 Table 2.7: State of California 2008 Total Vehicles by Classification 14 Table 2.8: State of California 2008 Total Vehicles by Classification by Mode 14 Table 2.9: Noise Level from Source 15 Table 2.10: Local Ranking Scoring Example 16 Table 3.1: Train Volumes 18 Table 3.2: Train Volume by Time Period 18 Table 3.3: Train Speeds and Length 19 Table 3.4: Vehicle Delay and Gate Down Time 20 Table 3.5: Vehicle Emissions 22 Table 3.6: Accident History and Noise -Impacted Population 24 Table 4.1: Priority Group Breakdown 26 Table 4.2: Scores for each Criterion 27 Table 4.3: 2012 Priority Groups 28 Table 4.4: List of Crossing within 2012 Priority Groups #1 and #2 30 Table 4.5: Quantitative Benefits 30 List of Figures Figure 1.1: Alameda Corridor. ....... . ......... 2 Figure 1.2: Alameda Corridor and Alameda Corridor East Rail Lines 4 Figure 1.3: Location and Status of Rail Crossings in 2012 Study 7 Figure 2.1: Count Locations and Identification of Railroad Lines in Riverside County 12 Figure 4.1: 2012 Priority Rankings 29 Figure 4.2: Location of Crossings within 2012 Priority Groups #1 and #2 31 List of Appendix Appendix A: 2011/2012 Observed Train Counts Counts at Jurupa Avenue A-2 Counts at Riverside Avenue A-3 Counts at McKinley Street A-4 Counts at Sunset Avenue A-5 Counts at Clay Street A-6 Counts at Center Street A-7 Counts at Avenue 54 A-8 2/21/2012 InfraConsult 88 • • • de Separation iority L pd ;te. Stud Tarn i t 1.0 Introduction Riverside County serves as a conduit for the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach for transportation of goods to areas beyond the state with more than 77 percent of freight being pass -by freight destined for areas beyond. Of the pass -by freight 65 percent passes through by rail and the remaining 35 percent on trucks'. This results in having a train at most rail crossings at least twice an hour. Slow freight trains create delays for vehicles at many of the 55 at -grade crossings in the county, which are owned by private freight operators Union Pacific (UP) and Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF), both being Class I railroad. In addition to freight rail traffic, commuter and passenger rail services (Metrolink and Amtrak) share tracks with freight trains, which often result in poor on -time performance due to constrained track capacity. The 2010 Census reported a population of 2.2 million people in Riverside County which is about a 41.7% increase from the 2000 Census report of 1.5 million2. In comparison, the state of California grew at the rate of approximately 10% during the same time period. Within the Southern California Association of Governments' (SCAG) six county region (Counties of Los Angeles, Ventura, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, Imperial), Riverside County's growth rate for the past ten years (2000-2010) was the highest. One of the major effects of the rapid growth has been the emergence of traffic congestion on roadways many of which formerly operated at free flow, even during peak traffic hours. Long-distance commute patterns have created substantial peak hour congestion and deteriorated air quality, particularly in corridors where topographic barriers limit the number of available roadways. Freight movement through Southern California is also increasing at a rapid rate. In order to manage this growth, following the 2008 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP), SCAG initiated its Comprehensive Regional Goods Movement Plan and Implementation Strategy. The plan incorporates findings and recommendations from completed and ongoing studies, like the Multi -County Goods Movement Action Plan (MCGMAP) and SCAG's Port and Modal Elasticity Study Phase II, etc. The regional goods movement system defined through this plan (Comprehensive Regional Goods Movement Plan) will be the basis of the Goods Movement section of the 2012 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS). The draft 2012 RTP/SCS is currently in circulation and is under a formal review and comment period until February 15, 2012. The assumptions for this study was finalized after discussion and collaboration with SCAG RTP and Goods Movement technical staff and consultant, so that the findings from this study and the Goods Movement project recommendation in the 2012 RTP/SCS are in sync. Effective and efficient movement of goods is critical to getting people and businesses the products they need in a timely manner. According to SCAG, the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach currently (2011 data) handle 13.5 million twenty -foot equivalent units (TEUs) of freight annually. This quantity is approximately 40 percent of containers entering the United States and is projected to triple to 43.2 1 RCTC: http://www.rctc.orq/downloads/Mobility 21 Goods Move Brochure proof pdf 22010 Census: http.//quickfacts.census.qov/qfd/states/06/06065.html .1 2/21/2012 lnfraConsult 89 la Co-Frit-for million (TEUs) by year 203534. While this growth presents significant economic opportunities to Southern California and the nation, it also presents challenges in terms of improving the region's goods movement highway and rail infrastructure, as well as warehouse/industrial capacity to accommodate anticipated growth. Major investments in infrastructure will be required to provide short and long-term solutions to support moving goods both locally and throughout the country while mitigating associated environmental and community impacts. Figure 1.1: Alameda Corridor - +�- BNSF Rail Lines ..��a UP Rail Lines • Raiiyards Los Angeles Rail Lines Source: Alameda Corridor Transportation Authority Corridor and ACE Rail Lines. In order to accommodate increasing freight rail traffic leaving the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach, the Alameda Corridor was constructed and has been operational since April 20025. The Alameda Corridor (see Figure 1.1) is a 20 -mile rail cargo expressway linking the ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles to the transcontinental rail network near downtown Los Angeles. The corridor is comprised of a series of bridges, underpasses, overpasses and street improvements that separate freight trains from street traffic and passenger trains, facilitating more efficient goods movement. The project's centerpiece is the Mid -Corridor Trench, which carries freight trains in a 10 -mile long and roughly 33 feet deep open trench, which widens to about 50 feet between SR -91 in Carson and 25`h Street in Los Angeles. After leaving the Alameda Corridor, the majority of trains travel east, destined to intermodal terminals in the Inland Empire and to other parts of the country. This area, known as the Alameda Corridor East (ACE) passes through the San Gabriel Valley (Los Angeles County), Orange County, San Bernardino County, and Riverside County. Figure 1.2 shows the Alameda In 2001, the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC), partnering with the Coachella Valley Association of Governments (CVAG) and the Western Riverside Council of Governments (WRCOG), identified long-term needs for grade separation at grade crossings on railroad mainlines passing through Riverside County. The 2001 Study prioritized grade separation needs based on several technical criteria, which were subsequently updated in 2006. This report is a 2012 update of priority evaluation and its results for 46 at -grade rail crossings in the county. The evaluation of rail crossings addresses five mainline freight rail ►ines in Riverside County6: 3 http://www.scaq.ca.qov/goodsmove/regionalplan.htm 4 San Pedro Bay Ports Container Forecast 5 http://www.acta.orq/projects/projects completed alamedo.asp 6 The San Jacinto Branch Line and the spur line off the Union Pacific line do not carry regional rail traffic, and are therefore not included in the analysis /201.2 InfraConsult 90 Scpa aUon Priority Update Study for Alameda Corridor East ( ai side Count • Union Pacific (Los Angeles Subdivision); • Burlington Northern Santa Fe (San Bernardino Subdivision); • Burlington Northern Santa Fe & Union Pacific (Riverside); • Burlington Northern Santa Fe & Union Pacific (San Bernardino Subdivision); and • Union Pacific (Yuma Main). These rail lines accommodate freight service as well as passenger service (Metrolink commuter rail service and Amtrak). Currently about 66 freight trains pass through Riverside County per day, and the number is projected to increase to 137 by 2035. Increase in train volume means that rail crossing gates will be down for longer periods of time, further delaying Riverside County motorists at the rail crossings. In 2035, with the projected growth of rail traffic, population and employment, the following impacts are anticipated, if railroad crossings are maintained at -grade: • Total vehicle hours of delay at all railroad crossings combined is anticipated to increase from 600 hours per day in 2010 to 3,700 hours per day in 2035, which is more than six -folds; • Total emissions at all railroad crossings combined is anticipated to increase from 9 tons per year in 2010 to 53 tons per year in 2035; • Population being impacted by at least 63 dB of noise due to train activity and horn blowing is expected to increase from 811,000 in 2008 to 1,380,000 by 2035; and • At least 25 injury/fatal accident per million vehicles will occur at railroad crossings in the next 10 years, or at least 230 injury/fatal accident per million vehicles will occur with 250 feet of railroad crossings in the next 10 years. Therefore, safety and delay issues at rail crossings are becoming an increasingly important concern. 1..1 Grade Crossing Project Stags since 2006 Update This report is the third iteration of Grade Crossing Priority Study since its inception in 2001. In the 2006 update, 62 at -grade crossings were evaluated and prioritized in five priority groups. Since that update, several rail crossing locations were grade separated, closed or have secured monies towards construction through the Proposition 1B Trade Corridors Improvement Funds (TCIF) Program. In 2008, the RCTC Commission adopted a Funding Strategy for grade separation based on the 2006 prioritization with 28 at -grade crossings ranked in the top two tiers as the highest priority for grade separations. Based on funding availability as well as project deliverability, the 2008 Funding Strategy Update' also identified the following three additional projects as high priority projects: • Avenue 52; • Avenue 56/Airport Boulevard; and • Avenue 66. ' Source: Grade Separation Funding Strategy: A Blueprint for Advancing Projects, RCTC, 2008 3 2/71/201.2 InfraConsult 91 Grade Separatio n Priority Update Study for Alameda Corridor East (Riverside County) Figure 1.2: Alameda C orridor and Alameda Corridor East Rail Lines SimiIle Q • 2/21/2012 InfraConsult Ob. GE RIVERSIDE LEGEND Alameda Corridor — Alameda Corrid or East • rode Sepal-atm Poior'ity tlj]( to til( t' for t It1Y;tieda (.ol"]"idClr Fast (,Riverside County) Since the 2008 funding strategy was adopted, significant progress has been made in constructing grade separations and the following four projects have been completed: • Avenue 48/Dillon Road; • Columbia Avenue (TCIF Project); • Magnolia Avenue (TCIF Project); and • Jurupa Avenue. The following two at -grade crossings have been permanently closed: • Jane Street; and • Mountain View Avenue. A $162.7 million in Proposition 1B funds was allocated to 138 goods movement projects (12 are at -grade crossings and one interchange project) through the Trade Corridor Improvement Fund (TCIF) Program. Grade separation projects at Columbia Avenue and Magnolia Avenue in the City of Riverside have been completed. Grade separation projects at Auto Center Drive and Iowa Avenue, and a goods movement interchange project at I-215/Van Buren Boulevard will start construction by Spring/Summer of 2012. The remaining seven at -grade crossings are slated to start construction by December 2013. Table 1.1 presents a project status update for at -grade railroad crossings since the 2006 Study. Table 1.1: Grade Crossing Projects Status and Projected Construction Start Dates At -Grade Crossing Location Rail Line Jurisdiction Sunset Avenue Avenue 52 Avenue 56/Airport Boulevard Auto Center Drive Iowa Avenge Clay Street Total 2006 RCTC TCIF Projected Construction Project Priority Tier Allocation9 Start Date1° Cost (in million) Fully Funded Projects - Funding Priority Gr UP Banning 536.5 UP Coachella S17.3 UP County 560.0 a BNSF Corona 532.0 BNSF/UP Riverside 532.0 1 Partially Funded Projects— Funding Priority Group B UP County $37.4 2 512.5 Magnolia Avenue BNSF County $81.8 1 $13:7 Riverside Avenue UP Riverside $30.3 _ 58.5 Streeter Avenue UP Riverside $36.8 2 515 5 510.0 March 2013 510.0'' July2013 510.0 March 2013 516.0 April 2012 513.0 April 2012 Source: Grade Separation Funding Strategy: A Blueprint for Advancing Projects, RCTC, 2008 August 2013 April 2013 December 2012 August 2012 Although the anticipated completion of the Auto Center Drive grade separation project may reduce the need for future grade separation at Railroad Street and Smith Avenue, those crossings were included in the 2012 Study. In summary, 46 rail road crossings were studied in this 2012 study. This includes the omission of the following 15 crossings since the 2006 Study that evaluated 62 crossings: 8 in March 2011, at the City of Riverside's request, the RCTC Commission deleted the 3rd Street grade separation project from the TCIF program 9 Source: Grade Separation Funding Strategy: A Blueprint for Advancing Projects, RCTC, 2008 10 RCTC Staff(RCTC Staff Report for February 27, 2012 Budget and Implementation Committee) 2/21/2012 InfraConsult 93 fade Se) ara dy for Marne da Corridor East (Riverside County) • Two closed; • Four completed; and • Nine with TCIF funding commitments (all scheduled to start construction no later than December 2013). Figure 1.3 shows the location and status of railroad crossings in the county. The remainder of this report presents the methodology by which the remaining 46 rail crossing improvements were prioritized, potential benefits of grade separations, results and recommendations of the prioritization analysis. 6 2/21/2.012 InfraConsuit 94 • Grade Separation Priority Update Study for Alameda Corridor East (Riverside County) Figure 1.3: Location and Status of Rail Cr ossi ngs in 2012 Study M ORENO VALLEY NORCO —or , CALIM ESA .';2:1%2012 InfraCo nsult RIVERSIDE BEAUMONT • • LEGEND Rail Crossings P;'O 9N.r t:,;s • • COACHELLA 1 PALM SPRINGS 95 riority t_`)date Study for Alameda C orridor Fas 1ive.side County) 2M Methodology The purpose of this rail crossing priority analysis is to update the 2006 Study" and re -prioritize rail crossing locations with the greatest need for improvement in Riverside County. This study uses the approved methodology from the 2006 Study for the evaluation of updated data. In addition to the seven factors that were considered in the 2006 Study, two new criteria were added to this iteration. These were confirmed in consultation with technical staff of the affected jurisdictions, however the results of the 2012 study is pending approval of elected officials on the RCTC. The factors used in the 2006 Study include: • Safety (accident score rating, combination of frequency and severity) • Existing (2010) Daily Vehicle Delay • Future (2035) Daily Vehicle Delay • Emissions (2035) • Residential Noise • Adjacent Grade Separations • Local Priority The two additional criteria that were added to the 2012 study are: • Project Readiness • Isolated Location (bonus criterion) Each rail crossing was evaluated in terms of each of these nine factors, and a score was assigned based on the potential for benefits from grade separation. For example, a location with a high accident rating was given a high score because of the potential to improve safety through grade separation. A location with a high delay was given a high score because of the potential to reduce delay through grade separation. The scores for each factor were weighted to achieve the relative importance approved by the RCTC Commission. The weighted factor scores were combined to achieve an overall score for each location. The overall scores were used to assign each location a relative priority of 1 through 5, with priority #1 and #2 locations being the locations with greatest need for grade separation. 2.1 Weighting Options Based on feedback from the Technical Team (comprising of staff of the affected jurisdictions) meeting at the RCTC offices on November 8, 2011, two weighting options were reviewed. For each weighting option the criteria were scored slightly differently. Weighting option #1 is identical to the weighting that was used for the 2006 Study. Weighting option #2 differed from weighting option #1 by adding criterion "Project Readiness" and altering the weights for criteria "Existing (2010) Delay", "Future (2035) Delay" and "Safety". To the final scores obtained from each weighting option, a bonus score was added for the "Isolated Location" criterion. Each criterion was evaluated separately after which the scores for each " Riverside County Grade Crossing Priority Analysis, Kimley Horn and Associates, October 2006 8 2/21.%2012 lnfraConsult 96 I lde Separation Priority Update for .% ti anted ,ot.liit 4,l criterion were combined into an overall score for the crossing. In calculating the overall score, the individual criteria were weighted as shown in Table 2.1. Table 2.1: Evaluation Criteria and Weighting Weighting Option #1 (2006 Criteria) Safety Existing (2010) Vehicle Delay Future (2035) Vehicle Delay Emissions 20% 20% 20%, 10%0 Residential Noise 10% Adjacent Grade Separation Local Priority Project Readiness 10° 20Z 0z Weighting Option #2 (2012 Criteria) Safety Existing (2010) Vehicle Delay Future (2035) Vehicle Delay Emissions Residential Noise Adjacent Grade Sepa Local Priority Project Readiness 25% 15% 15% 10% 0 10% `10% 5%. For both weighting options, a bonus criterion (Isolated Location) was added as contributing to an additional 5% to the overall score To achieve the desired weighting, each score was multiplied by a weighting factor that was applied in order to achieve the following: • Normalize all the scores relative.. to each other; and • Apply the additional weighting to the delay and safety scores. Table 2.2 shows the scoring and weighting factors applied to each criterion for each weighting options. Table 2.2: Criterion, Weighting Factors and Weighted Scores for each Weighting Option Safety Existing (2010) Vehicle Delar Future (2035) Vehicle Delay Emissions Residential Noise Adjacent Grade Separation Local Priority Project Readiness Bonus: Isolated Location Total Score 100 100 5 25 Weighting Option #1 Weighting Maximum Possible Weighted Score Weighting Option #2 Weighting Maximum Factor Possible Weighted Score 200 1,000 200 1,000 200 1.000 5 500 5 500 100 500 20 500 250 250 5,250 250 150 150 5 100 20 83.33 250 1,250 750 750 500 500 500 500 250 250 5,250 The following discussion describes each factor used in the prioritization analysis, and how it was evaluated and scored. 2.2 Methodology for Safety Evaluation Consistent with the 2006 Study, recent rail crossing accident data was obtained from the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA). The FRA maintains a database of incidents involving rail equipment (both passenger and freight trains) at the crossings. From this database, accident data for each crossing was obtained, representing the accident history for each crossing over a 10 -year period (2001-2010). In addition, at the November Technical Team meeting, the local agencies suggested that the 2012 Study 2/2112012 InfraConsult 97 • • • Grade Separation Priority Update St; uneda lor East (I3iversicle County) incorporate accidents within 250 feet of railroad crossings. This data was available from the Cities of Beaumont, Corona, Jurupa Valley, and the County of Riverside. An overall accident rate was developed for each rail crossing based on the 10 years of recorded incidents from FRA and where available from within 250 feet of the railroad crossing. The accident rate took into account both frequency (number of accidents per million vehicles) and severity (property damage only, injury accident, fatality). The calculation produced an overall accident rating that is weighted according to the total number of injury and fatality accidents. Each location was assigned a safety score of 0 through 5 based on its overall accident rating. The scoring of FRA data and local data within 250 feet of crossings is shown in Table 2.3. For each location, the higher of the two scores (using FRA and local data) was used as the final rating for scoring purposes. Table 2.3: Overall Accident Rating FRA Data (accidents per million vehicles) Rating Criteria Rating Points > 0.20 0.15 - 0.20 0.10 - 0.15 0.05 - 0.10 0.001 - 0.05 0,0 5 4 3 2 1 Local Data (within 250 feet of Crossings) (accidents per million vehicles) Rating Criteria Rating Points > 10 5 5 10 3-5 1'_3 0-1 0 4 3 2 2.3 Methodology= for Rail Crossing Delay Delay impacts at railroad crossings are characterized in terms of total gate down time in minutes and vehicle -hours of delay per day. The grade crossing delay analysis used for this study followed the same methodology used 2006 Study12 to estimate existing and future levels of delay at each grade crossing being analyzed. The delay for each grade crossing was calculated based on through train traffic plus the delay attributable to local train traffic and switching/operational delays. The calculation produced the total crossing -gate down -time and vehicle -hours of delay experienced by roadway traffic at each grade crossing location. In addition, it produced an estimate of the length of roadway traffic queue due to the gate down interval caused by trains passing through the crossing. The formulas are as follows: • Gate down time (for each train) = 0.603 + 60 * (train length + 50 + (12*# lanes)) 5280 * train speed (gate down time)2 * vehicle queue per lane * 1 • Vehicle delay (for each train) = # lanes 2 * (1 vehicle queue per lane) 60 vehicle departure rate • Queue length (for each train)=gate down time*vehicle queue per lane*avg. vehicle length 12 Riverside County Grade Crossing Priority Analysis, Kimley Horn and Associates, October 2006 10 2/21/2012 InfraConsult 98 ade : ci -ration Pric city Update Stud : f ; Alameda Corridor East (Riverside Co • Vehicle hours of delay at grade crossings were calculated for both 2010 and 2035 conditions based on existing and future train volumes, and traffic volumes on arterial streets. Existing train activity was determined by means of train observations conducted at seven crossings throughout the study area. These locations were chosen to be geographically representative of each of the rail corridors within the county, and counts were collected over two consecutive weekdays. Of these seven locations, two were chosen to be representative where switching activity was reported in the 2006 Study. Switching activity for this study's purpose is defined as a location where short trains were observed to stop at crossings, instead of moving through. Table 2.4 summarizes the details of train count observation for this study. These count locations are identified in Figure 2.1. Observed train counts are included in Appendix A to this report. Table 2.4: Train Count Location Rail Line Duration Data Collection Date Switching Activity No No No No Clay Street Center Street McKinley Street Avenue 54 Sunset Avenue Jurupa Road Riverside Avenue; UP (LA Sub) BNSF & UP (SB Sub) BNSF (SB Sub) UP (Yuma Main) UP (Yuma Main) UP (LA Sub) UP (LA Sub) 24 -hour 10/26/11 — 10/27/11 24 -hour 10/26/11 — 10/27/11 24 -hour 10/26/11 — 10/27/11 24 -hour 10/26/11 — 10/27/11 24 -hour 10/26/11 — 10/27/11 15 -hour 01/11/12-01/12/12 15 hour 01/11/12-01/12/12 For each location the following was observed: • For each train: o type of train (freight, passenger) o company (BNSF, UP, Metrolink, Amtrak) o direction of train travel o time of day (the time the bells start ringing) o train speed o number of locomotives o number of cars o gate down time (time during which cars are unable to cross) (min: sec) o is it a through train (no evidence of stopping or backing up) o does the train stop o does the train back-up • Other information: o number of tracks o number of emergency vehicles that cross the tracks (and time of crossing) o predominant land use type around the crossing In addition to the train observations, train data was gathered from some of the local jurisdictions (Corona and the County of Riverside) that have recently completed studies in the area. Included in the Study No Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Information on existing passenger train operations was obtained from Metrolink and Amtrak timetables. The forecasts of freight train and passenger train growth are consistent with SCAG's assumptions for their 2012 RTP/SCS. 017 InfraConsult • • 99 1 Grade Separation Priority Update Study for Alameda Corridor East (Riverside County) Figure 2.1: Count Locati ons and Identification of Railroad Lines in Riverside County UP (LA SUB) BNSF iCajo n SUF;) UP & NSF ISB SUB} UP & B NSF OW) BNSF iSF 51113) UP itihanbra 5UR1 UP (YUMA) n r lo? E 4}' Sti, dv for Alameda Corridor st e •sideCounty) Existing average daily traffic volumes on roadways crossing the railroad tracks were obtained from the local jurisdictions, where available (for the larger jurisdictions, the County, Corona etc.). To forecast traffic volumes for 2035, the current TransCAD model for Riverside County (Riverside County Transportation Analysis Model (RIVTAM)) was used to determine how much the existing volume would increase by the year 2035. 2035 traffic forecast at each location was calculated by applying a growth factor to existing (observed) vehicle counts at each location. The growth factor was derived from the RIVTAM. The train observation data were used to ascertain the switching and operational delays at each location. Local trains and switching/operational delays were identified in the train counts if trains were short (<10-15 cars), or if trains stopped or backed up. The level of local/switching delay was estimated for each of the seven locations observed in 2011/2012, and that amount of delay was applied to other rail crossings in proportion to the local/switching delay observed in 2006, then added to through train delays to obtain the total daily delay at each crossing. Based on these calculations, each location was assigned a score of 0 through 5 based on the average daily vehicle delay as follows: Table 2.5: Vehicle Delay Criteria and Score 2005 Average Daily 2030 Average Daily Vehicle Delay Vehicle Delay > 30 vehicle hours/day 20-30 vehicle hours/day 15-19 vehicle hours/day 10-14 vehicle hours/ day 5-9 vehicle hours/day <5 vehicle hours/day Score X150 vehicle hours/day 100-150 vehicle hours/day 50-99 vehicle hours/day 25-49 vehicle hours/day 10-24 vehicle hours/day < 10 vehicle hours/day 2.4 Methodology for Vehicle Emissions Vehicle emissions resulting from grade crossing, delays were calculated under both existing and future conditions by multiplying estimated daily delay by the idling vehicle emissions factors established by the California Environmental Protection Agency Air Resources Board (ARB) and summarized in Table 2.6. On September 30, 2011, the ARB released their EMFAC2011 (EMission FACtors). The EMFAC2011 is the latest installment of the EMFAC series of models, which is ARB's tool for estimating emissions from on - road vehicles. The EMFAC outputs emission factors categorized by region (county and air basin where a county may encompass multiple air basins), calendar year, season (annual, summer, winter), vehicle category (passenger cars, trucks etc.), fuel type (gas, diesel), model year of vehicle and speed. For the purpose of this study idling emissions factors were obtained at five miles per hour speed under summer conditions, for all vehicle types and fuel. As different emission factors are provided for different vehicle classifications, total delay was disaggregated proportional to vehicle classification. In the absence of a specific estimated vehicle classification breakdown for each grade crossing, vehicle classifications were assumed to be proportional to the 2008 estimated total vehicles for the State of California13 as presented in Table 2.7 and Table 2.8. 13 Source: 2008 California Motor Vehicle Stock, Travel and Fuel Forecast, Caltrans, June 2009 13 2/21/201.2 InfraConsult 101 partition 'i iorit;% ° fcl,ite Study Table 2.6: Emission Factors Corridor East (Riverside Gasoline Diesel Pollutant Autos Light Heavy Motor- Autos Light Heavy (grams per hour) Trucks Trucks cycles Trucks Trucks South Coast Air Basin 1.59 2.70 2.76 24.37 0.96 1.46 2.16 23.35 40.29 43.65 167.98 6.83 8.68 14.09 1.20 2.93 1.65 4.79 5.47 6.03 33.30 0.07 0.10 0.05 0.01 0.72 1.22 0.53 Salton Sea Air Basin 1.68 2.93 3.84 25.41 1.16 1.40 2.96 24.50 42.29 49.03 193:29 7.23 8:39 18.94 1.41 3.39 2.09 4.86 5.11 6.02 35.09 0.07 0.10 0.05 0.01 0.88 1.18 0.66 ROG CO NO, PM,, ROG CO NO., PMiz: Notes: ROG: Reactive Organic Gas; CO: Carbon Monoxide; NOx: Oxides of Nitrogen; PM10: Particulate Matter Source: EMFAC2011, California Environmental Protection Agency Air Resources Board, Summer Conditions Table 2.7: State of California 2008 Total Vehicles by Classification Gasoline Diesel Total Autos Light Heavy Motor- Autos Light Heavy nllions) Trucks Trucks cycles Trucks Trucks 28.279 20.528 4.705 1.472 0.724 4.101 0.142 0.607 100.00% 72.59% 36,64°a 5,21° 2.56% 0.36°!x' ' 0.50°0 2. Source: 2008 California Motor Vehicle Stock, Travel and Fuel Forecast, Caltrans, June 2009, Table 6, 2010 Forecast Table 2.8: State of California 2008 Total Vehicles by Classification by Mode Total Auto Motorcycles Auto - Total Light Heavy Light Heavy (millions) (Gas) (Gas) Diesel (millions) (Gas) (Gas) (Diesel) (Diesel) 21.353 20.528 0.724 0.101 6.926 4.705 3.472 0.142 0.607 100.00% 96.14% 3.39% 0.47% 100.00% 67.93.. 21.25% 2.05 8.76^r° Source: 2008 California Motor Vehicle Stock, Travel and Fuel Forecast, Caltrans, June 2009, Table 6, 2010 Forecast The formula used for calculating the vehicle emissions for each vehicle classification is as follows: VC;e = vhd * ms * vc * ef where VC,e is idle emissions for vehicle classification type vhd is total vehicle hours of delay at crossing ms is vehicle type mode split at crossing vc is vehicle type classification split by mode for State of California (from Table 2.8) ef is emissions factor for vehicle and fuel type (from Table 2.6) The total vehicle idle emissions resulting from grade crossing delay is obtained by summing the idle emissions for each vehicle classification type. Using the delay data from 2035, each location is assigned an emissions score of 0 through 100 based on the total daily emissions generated by delayed traffic. 14 2/21/2012 InfraConsult 102 • • • 2.5 '' to Study F; r Alan Noise impacts (Riverside Noise impacts resulting from mandatory whistle blowing at grade crossings was determined by plotting whistle noise profiles as concentric rings corresponding to estimated decibel levels and judging intrusion into residential areas. Noise profiles are based on a whistle noise level of 108 dB at 100 feet from the source extending 1/4 mile (1,320 feet) on either side of the subject crossing'4. This level is consistent with the upper threshold of the allowed maximum range of whistle levels and the maximum warning distance prescribed in the Use of Locomotive Horns at Highway -Rail Grade Crossings; Final Rule, FRA, August 2006. Concentric rings corresponding to each 15 dB reduction in noise level (noise levels typically reduce by 7.5 dB with each doubling in distance from the source) are drawn until a level of 55 dB is observed. A noise level of 55 dB is considered to be below the ambient noise level of a typical residential neighborhood, and therefore the impact of a whistle below this level is considered insignificant. The concentric rings correspond to the distances indicated in Table 2.9, although actual observed distances could vary based on topological and climatic conditions. Table 2.9: Noise Level from Source Noise Level (dB) 108/110 93 78 63 55.5 Distance from Source (feet) 100 400 1,600 6,400 12,800 Source: Use of Locomotive Horns at Highway -Rail Grade Crossings, Final Rule, August 2006 (http://www.fra.dot.gov/downloads/safety/trainhorn 2005/amended final rule 081706.pdf) Each location was assigned a noise score of 0 through 100 based on a weighted percentage of existing residential development within 1,600 -feet and 6,400 -feet contours, and based on the number of trains per day that pass through each crossing. Population within the 1,600 -feet and 6,400 -feet contours was obtained from the recent RIVTAM. 2.6 Methodology for Distance xtance to Nearest: Grade Separation The distance to the nearest adjacent grade separation was measured using map and field information. Each grade crossing location was assigned a score of 0 through 5 for adjacent grade separations based on the distance to the nearest grade separation, as follows: 2.! Distance to nearest grade separation > 1.0 mile = 5 0.5 — 1.0 mile = 3 0.25 — 0.499 mile = 1 < 0.25 mile = 0 ethodology for Local Agency Priority, Local agency priorities were determined through a survey of the affected local jurisdiction, and the results were scaled so that the highest priority location in each jurisdiction received the highest score and the lowest priority location in each jurisdiction received the lowest score. Rankings from the cities of Corona, Jurupa Valley, Riverside, Beaumont and County of Riverside were updated with input from each of the jurisdictions. For the rest, rankings are consistent with the 2006 Study. Each crossing was assigned a score of 1 through 25 for local priority, with the local agency's highest priority location 14 Source: Determination of a Sound Level for Railroad Horn Regulatory Compliance, Final Report, October 2002(http://www.fro.dot.qov/downloads/RRDev/Compliance Level Derivation.pdf) /201.2 InfraConsult 103 Alameda t -side i ountyj receiving 25 points, with lower priority locations receiving points in a descending scale so that in each jurisdiction the lowest priority location received 25/x points (where "x" is the number of crossings within that jurisdiction). Following is an example from the City of Corona: Table 2.10: Local Ranking Scoring Example Cross Street Local Rank McKinley Street 1 Cota Street Sheridan Street Joy Street Radio Road Smith Avenue Railroad Street 2 3 4 5 0 7 Score 25 21 18 14 11 7 4 Note: Local Rank 1 denotes highest priority crossing for a particular jurisdiction 2.8 Methodology for Project Readiness One of the key factors of success in securing funding for a grade separation project through the TCIF Program is the ability for the project to be completed and delivered in a timely manner, consistent with California Transportation Commission's (CTC) directives when allocating Proposition 1B funds. Hence, at the request of the project technical team, "Project Readiness" was included as a criterion in weighting option #2 for scoring each at -grade crossing. Project readiness generally provides information on how far along each at -grade crossing is in its planning process namely: • Whether or not environmental clearance is obtained; and/or • Whether or not plans, specification and estimates (PS&E) is completed; and/or • Whether or not right-of-way (ROW) acquisition is secured. Each jurisdiction impacted by this study was requested to provide pertinent information on each of the grade crossings in their jurisdiction: Based on the information received, a score of 1 through 3 was assigned to rank at -grade crossing based on the following "Project Readiness" criterion: Project Readiness: All project elements completed = 3 Two out of three project elements completed = 2 One out of three project elements completed = 1 2.9 Methodology for Isolated Locations The Task Order recommended the inclusion of this criterion to measure and rank an at -grade crossing based on its accessibility to an alternate route for vehicular traffic to be diverted, should there be an incident at the railroad crossing or on the arterials or at adjacent freeway. An example of such a location is the rail crossing of San Timoteo Canyon in Calimesa. If there was an incident blocking a portion of 1-10 parallel to the railroad and a train was blocking the rail crossing at the same time, traffic through the area would be unable to move because there are no other available alternate routes. Based on feedback from the Technical Team meeting at the RCTC offices on November 8, 2011, this criterion was included as a "bonus" criterion, with a weighted score of 250 assigned to those locations that are determined as being "isolated". The following two locations were assigned bonus points for this criterion: 16 2/21/2012 InfraConsult 104 (rade= Separation Priority Update Study for Alameda Corridor East iZ ve.tsicle Count • San Timoteo Canyon Road in Calimesa • Apache Trail in the County of Riverside 2.10 Priority Groupings From the evaluation of these factors, the rail crossings were separated into five groups to indicate their relative priority for improvement, with the crossings grouped according to their overall score, with group #1 representing the highest priority locations. 2.11 Consistency and Coordination with SCAG Following the 2008 RTP, SCAG initiated its Comprehensive Regional Goods Movement Plan and Implementation Strategy. The regional goods movement system defined through this plan will be the basis of the Goods Movement section of the 2012 RTP/SCS. The train assumptions, particularly future growth rates for freight rail assumed in this study were finalized after discussion and collaboration with SCAG RTP and Goods Movement technical staff and consultant, so that the project list identified from this study can be incorporated within SCAG's Goods Movement Plan in a consistent manner. Until recently, the draft 2012 RTP/SCS was in circulation and was under a formal review and comment period which ended on February 14, 2012. Railroad crossings, identified in priority groups #1 and #2 were forwarded to SCAG to include in its Constrained RTP/SCS project list, while the rest were recommended to be included in the agency's list of Strategic projects. 2012 InfraConsult 105 • • • Separation Pt iority Update Study for .Alameda Corridor East (Riverside Count 3.0 At -grade Crossing Analyses The methodologies described in the previous chapter were applied to each of the nine evaluation factors. Two separate scoring calculations were performed corresponding to each weighting options discussed in Section 1.2. The resulting analysis data gives insight into the potential benefits associated with grade separation construction for each crossing in the study area. Existing and future train operating characteristics are summarized in the following four tables. Table 3.1 summarizes the current (observed) and future (estimated) train volumes applied in the analysis. Table 3.1: Train Volumes 2011 Rail Line Freight Metrolink Amtrak UP (LA SUB) 24 12 0 36 BNSF (SB SUB) 42 ` 23 3 6 BNSF & UP (RIV) 66 35 3 104 137 BNSF & UP (SB SUB) 66 8 3 77 137 UP (YUMA MAIN) 40 0 1 41 90 Freight 2035 (Projected) Metrolink Amtrak Total:,< 46 12 0 58 42 4 137 54 4 195 42 0 1 91 Notes: Metrolink train include 91 and Inland Empire-OC line (normal operating schedule); Year 2011 freight train volume was factored up by 2.71 consistent with SCAG growth factors Table 3.2 and Table 3.3 show the distribution of existing and future passenger and freight train activity by time period during the day, respectively. Table 3.2: Train Volume by Time Period Train Line Freight'' (`•Metrolink 3 Amtrak 0 BNSF (SB SUB) 13 Freight 7 Metrolink 5 Amtrak 1 BNSF & UP (RIV) 18 Freight 9 Metrolink 8 Amtrak 1 BNSF & UP (5B SUB) 11 Freight Metrolink Amtrak UP (YUMA MAIN) Freight Metrolink Amtrak 0 AM Peak 6-9 am 1 1 7 Midday PM Peak 9 am -3 pm 3 pm -7 pm EXISTING (2011) 8 1 a 16 10 6 4 0 13 5 8 23 21 16 9 7 12 0 18 0 12 PM Off-peak Night 7 pm -10 pm 10 pm -6 am 2 2 13 3 1 10 29 23 5 1: 26 Daily 36 24 12 0 104 66 35 3 77 16 66 11 11 0 40 0 0 0 0 0 0 18 2/21/2012 InfraConsult 106 ie Separation Priority i_ { date Study for Alai ieda Table 3.2: Train Volume by Time Period (continued) sL B i Train Line AM Peak Midday PM Peak PM Off-peak Night daily 6-9 am 9 am -3 pm 3 pm -7 pm 7 pm -10 pm 10 pm -6 am UP (LA SUB) Freight Metrolink Amtrok BNSF (58 SUB) Freight Metrolink Amtrak BNSF & UP (RIV) Freight 3 0 24 14 a 1' 31 18 .Metrolink 12 Amtrak UP (5,5 SUB) 28 Freight 18 M,etrohnk 9 Amtrok 1 UP (YUMA MAIN) 17 Freight 17 Metrolink 0 1 0 31 21 10 0 43 32 0 42 32 10 0 24 0 FUTURE (2035) 12 12 8 4 0 26 12 13 1 38 20 17 4 20 13 0 17 12 4 1 27 20 6 10 17 8 15 2 2 0 39 32 6 1 56 47 8 20 47 4 1 Table 3.3 reports the observed train speeds and lengths on each line. Table 3.3: Train Speeds and Length Train Speed Freight Passenger UP (LA SUB) BNSF (56 SUB) BNSF & UP (RIV) BNSF & UP (5B SUB)' UP (YUMA) — Banning UP (YUMA) - Coachella,, 25-40(a) 40 40 30 25 40 60 55 55 45 55 60 Freigh 2011/2035 2011/2035 2011 2035 2011 6 23 23 0 0, 58 46 12 0 137 91 42 4 195 137 54 4 183 Train Length Metrolink Amtrak 2035 2011/2035 4,000 5,000 4,900 4,900 6,500 6,400 6,400 500 500 500 500 750 1,000 750 1,000 750 1,000 750 1,000 4,700 100 ,000 4,700 6,100 1,000 Note: Speed on UP Yuma Mainline is from Amtrak trains. There are no Metrolink services on this line (a) Riverside crossing hos a freight speed of 25 mph due to slow speed approaching the merge with the BNSF roil line. (b) faster speeds observed through Coachella (Ave 48 - Ave 66) (c) Note: freight train lengths assumed to increase by 50% for Year 2035 The analysis evaluates several areas of concern for Riverside County residents that affect existing daily life and would increasingly affect daily life in the forecasted year 2035. Table 3.4 summarizes gate down time and vehicle hours of delay per day under existing and future conditions. The total gate down time per day was measured in minutes for each crossing, and is the number of minutes every day that the crossing gates are down. Under future conditions (2035), it is estimated that the crossing gates will be down for all crossings in Riverside County for a total of 214 hours per day which is triple the existing levels of 84 hours per day. Vehicle hours of delay per day takes queue length into consideration and 0 2/21/2012 InfraConsult • • • 107 e side „1 quantifies the number of hours drivers are delayed per day at each crossing due to train activity. Under future conditions (2035), it is anticipated that drivers will experience a total of 3,700 hours of daily delay for train activity. Though gate down time is forecasted to be the maximum at a number of railroad crossings on the BNSF&UP San Bernardino line (over 7.5 hours daily at 7th Street, 3rd Street, Spruce Street, Chicago Avenue, Center Street and Main Street), Spruce Street is expected to experience the most delay (320 hours) under future conditions, an 18 -fold increase from the existing conditions. Table 3.4: Vehicle Delay and Gate Down Time Rail Line UP (LA SUB) Cross Street Bellgrave Avenue Rutile Street Jurupa Road Palm Avenue Brockton Avenue Panorama Road Vehicle Hours of Delay Jurisdiction 2010 Jurupa Valley Jurupa Valley Jurupa Valley Riverside Riverside River side 5.18 5.63 10.43 5.50 9.83 6.06 Projected 2035 44.88 17.31; 27.24 33.48 53.55 27.90 Gate Down Time (in minutes) 2010 Projected 2035 55.29 55.29 55.29 61.55 61.82 69.39 111.00 110.64 110.64 130.71 130.71 149.25 BNSF (SB SUB) Smith Avenue Railroad Street Cota Street Sheridan Street Joy Street Radio Road McKinley Street Buchanan Street Pierce Street Tyler Street Harrison Street Gibson Street Jackson Street Adams Street Jefferson Street Madison Street Washington Street Mary Street' Corona Corona Corona Corona Corona Corona Corona Riverside Riverside Riverside Riverside Riverside Riverside Riverside Riverside Riverside Rive' side Riverside 14.14 16.69 59.60 105.35 261.45 11.35 52.44 105.35 261.45 7.21 18.72 104.94 260.60 2.61 36.60 104.94 260.60 8.95 123.15 10494 251.45 4,99 35.03 10494 260.60 56.72 322.63 105.35 261.45 12.51 42.54' 104.94 261,45 13.47 69.76 10.5.35 261.45 19.32 111.79 105.35 261.45 8.23 22.48 104.94 260.60< 0.92 3.00 104.94 260.60 9.11 80.56 105.35 261.45 22.88 157.86 105.35 261.45 8.89 21.88 104.94 260.60 19.77 140.14 105.35 261,45 10.21 61,43 104.94 261.45 111.79 105.35 261.45 BNSF & UP (RIV) Cridge Street BNSF & UP (SB SUB Riverside 5.42 19.04 159.97 241.78 7th Street Street Spruce Street Chicago Avenue Palrnyrite Avenue Center Street Riverside Riverside 27.39 12:84 144:29 173.42 457.66 173.42 457.66 127.30 Riverside 17`.91 322.67 173.42 457.66 Riverside Riverside Riverside County Riverside County 6.08 18.47 36.31. 9.15 15.06 115.28 35.47 56.56 173.42 457.66 172,75 456.13 173.42 457.66 Main Street 172.75 457.66 UP (YUMA MAIN) San Timoteo Canyon Road Viele Avenue California Avenue Pennsylvania Avenue 22nd Street San Gorgonio Avenue 20 2i 2.1X201.2 InfraConsult Calimesa Beaumont Beaumont Beaumont Banning Banning 0.20 14.12 18:08 33.90 32 19 2.77 41.65 111.83 69.05 111.83 187.05 111.83 164.92 111.83 122.10 112.27 307.75 308.74 308.74 308.74 308.74 124.49 111.83 308.74 108 Table 3.4: Vehicle Delay and Gate Down Time (continued) Rail Line Cross Street UP (YUMA MAIN) Hargrave Street Apache Trail Broadway Tipton Road Avenue 54 Avenue 58 Avenue 62 Avenue 66 Jurisdiction Banning Riverside County Riverside County Palm Springs Coachella Riverside County Riverside County Riverside County st (Riverside Vehicle Hours of Delay 2010 Projected 2035 46.69 4.94 14.35 0.22 0.72 1.88 3.45 8.11 230.34 39.45 42.18 12.92 27.72 7.85 95.57 46.68 u Gate Down Time (in minutes) 2010 Projected; 2035 111.83 308.74 111.83 308.74 112.01 308.74 112.27 308.74 79.50 213.59 79.22 212.98 79.22 214.21 79.22 214.21 Total 603 3,727 5,060 12,829 Total (hours per day) 603 3,727 84 214 Air pollution emissions associated with delay from train activity at each grade crossing was measured in tons per year for particulate matter (PM10), nitrogen oxide (NO,), reactive organic gas (ROG), and carbon monoxide (CO). Table 3.5 summarizes the emissions in tons per year under existing and future conditions. Under future conditions (2035), it is anticipated that 53 tons per year of the various emissions will pollute Riverside County air due to traffic delays attributable to train activity and operational delay. This is almost a six -fold increase from existing levels of 9 tons per year. Accident analysis included data both from FRA as well as from local jurisdictions where it was available. Table 3.6 shows accident history and noise -impacted population for all study crossings. According to FRA data, a total of 25 injury/fatal accidents over a ten year period might have been avoided if all crossings were grade separated. During the same period, from the limited accident data within 250 feet of these crossing, approximately 230 injury/fatal accidents could have been avoided. The corresponding noise analysis quantifies existing population surrounding each grade crossing affected by 78 dB and 63 dB noise levels from train whistles; this population is within 1,600 feet and 6,400 feet from the railroad crossings, respectively. If crossings were grade separated today, a single grade separation could eliminate 63 dB train whistle impacts on as many as 33,600 people around Avenue 54. However the magnitude of people affected by train whistles will decrease as Quiet Zones are implemented in many of the populated areas in the County. A Quiet Zone is a section of a rail line that contains one or more consecutive at -grade crossings at which locomotive horns are not routinely sounded. Since Quiet Zones imposes restrictions on sounding horns to keep vehicles and pedestrians off the tracks when a train passes through crossings, it uses alternative measures to implement safety at railroad crossings. These improvements, dictated by federal guidelines, include sidewalks and fences to keep pedestrians out of the railroad right-of-way, raised medians to prevent cars from driving around lowered gates, and signs to alert people that no horn will sound. 2. 2/21/2.01.2 InfraConsult 109 • • • ade Separation Priority Update Staady for Alameda Corridor East (Ri verside Cot.ult:v) Table 3 .5: Vehicle Emissions Raft Line UP (LA SUB) BNSF (141 SUB) BNSF & UP (RIV) BNSF 84 UP (SB SUB) Cross Street Jurisdiction Air Basin Bellgrave Avenue Jurupa Valley Rutile Street Jury rpa Dailey Jurupa Road Jurupa Valley Palm Avenue Riverside Brockton Avenue Riverside Panorama Road Riverside Smith Avenue Railroad Street Cota Street Corona Corona Corona Sheridan Street C orona . lo y Street Corona Radio Road C orona McKinley Street Corona Buchanan Street Riverside Pierce Street Tyler Street Harrison Street Gibson Street Jackson Sir eet Adams Street Jefferson Street Medison Street Washington Street Mary Street Riverside Riverside, Riverside Riverside Riverside Riverside Riverside Riverside Riv erside_ Riverside Cridge Street Riverside 7th Street Riverside SC 1 .10 25,01 30 .79 0.38 12 .36 281.02 346.06 4.28 3'j Street Riverside SC 2.45 58 .89 66.08 0 .83 11.40 273.65 307 .08 2.84 Spruce Street Riverside SC 1.60 38.50 43.21 0.54 28.91 693 .66 778 .38 9 .73 Chicago Avenue Riverside 5C 3.11 70.72 87.09 1.08 9.87 224.51 276.47 3 .42 Palmyrita Avenue Riverside SC 0. 82 19.66 22.06 0.28 3 .18 76.26 85 .57 1 .07 Center Street Riverside County SC 1.35 32.37 36 .32 0.45 5.07 121.58 136 .43 L71 Main Street Riverside'County SC 0.54 13.06 14.66 0 .18 1.65 39.71 44 .56 0 .56 SC 2010 PMI�; NO„ ROG CO Projected 2035 PMlo NO, ROG CO SC 0,46 30.46 12 .49 0.16 4 .02 264.10 108 .26 1.35 SC 0.50 33.14 13.58 0 .17 '' 1.55 101.89 41 .76 0.52 SC 0,93 61.38 25.16 0.31 2.44 160.32 65.72 0.82 5C 0 .43 27 .09 13.03 0.16 2 .60 164.93 79 .35 0 .96 SC 0 .80 51 .56 23.43 0.29 4.38 280 .89 127.67 1.56 SC 0.47 29.84 14 ,35 0.17 2.17 137.44 66 .13 0 .80 1.50 98.24 40.27 1 .02 66.79 27.38 0,65 42 .44 17 .39 0.50 5 .34 350.73 143.77 1 .80 0.34 4,70 308 .63 126.51 1 .58 0.22 l..68 110.19 45 .17 0 56 0.22: 14.51 6.25 0 .08 3.14 203.72 87.79 1.09 SC 0.80 52.67 21.59 0.27 1.1.03 724.772 297.07 3 .71 SC 0,45' 29.34 12 .03 0.15 3.14 206.14 84.50 1.06 SC 4.86 315 .64 136.02 1.68 27.63 1,795.56 773.75 9.57 SC 1 .07 69 .62 30.00 0.37 3.64 236.75 102.02 1.26 SC 1 .15 74 .98 32 .31 . 0.40 5.98 388.26 1.67.3.1. 2.07 SC 1 .58 101 .34 46.06 0 .56 9.13 586:46 266.55 3.26 SC 0 .71 45.82 19.75 0 .24 1_933 125 .1.1 . 53.91 . 0.67 SC 0.08 5 .10 2.20 0.03 0.26 16.68 7 .19 0.09 SC 0.71 44.87 21..59 0 .26 6.27 396.85 190.94 2 .31 . SC 1.96 127.32 54 .87 0.68 13.52 878.58 378.60 4 .68 5C 0.76 49.47 11 .32 0 .76 1..87 .121 /5 52.46 0.65 1.62 34 .50 47.13 0.58 11.45 244.60 334.14 4.09 0.83 17.82 24 .35 0.30 5 .02 107.21 146.46 1.79 1.16 24 .68 33.71 0.41 9 .13 195.12 266.55 3.26 0.58 13.81 15.49 0.19 1 .71 40.93 45 .93 0.57 22 2/21/2012 InfraConsult 110 IGrad e Separation Priority Update Study for Ala eda Co Table 3.5: Vehicle Emissions (continued) rit:3or t (Riverside Count Rail Line Cross Stree Jurisdiction Air Basin P 10 2010 NO, ROG 2035 CO PM10 " NO„ ROG CO UP (YUMA MAIN) San Timoteo Canyon Road Viele Avenue California Avenue Pennsylvania Avenue 22nd Street San Gorgonio Avenue Hargrave Street Apache Trail Broadway Tipton Road Avenue 54 Avenue 58 Avenue 62 Avenue 66 Calimesa Bea unnant Beaumont Beaumont Banning Banning Banning Riverside County Riverside County Palm Springs Coachella Riverside County Riverside County Riverside County Total (grams per day) Total (tons per year) SC 3Ci SC SC SC SC Sc S5 SS SS SS S5 SS SS 0 .22 0 ,02' 1.2 2.77 2.88 4 .18 0.38 1.16 0.02 0.05 0.14 0.26 0.62 4 ,28 6.57 0.89 0.48 27.50 33.86 5,22 43 .37 43 .37 59.17 80 .83 69.19 77.64 .100 .37 112.63 8.71 12 .43 28.43 36.53 0.39 0.56 1.26 1 .80 3 .32 4.74 6 .07 8.67 14.29 20.41 51.73 2,079.21 1,452.48 0.02 0.84 0.58 0.08 0.01 0.42 0.54 0.99 0,97 1.41 0.15 0.45 0.01 0.02 0.06 0.11 0.25 17,98 7.23 3.24 5 .91 16.02 14.13 9.98 11.15 20.64 3 .01 3 .40 0.98 2 .11 0.60 64.28 134.49 364 .28 321.19 213 ..10 267.62 495.18 69.48 83.58 22 .75 48.81 13.83 98 .72 165.62 448 .59 395.53 291 11 300 .30 555.66 99.24 107.39 32 .49 69.72 19 .76 1 .19 2.05 5.55 4.89 3.56 3 ,75 6.95 1 .21. 1 .32 0 .40 0 .85 0.24 7 .29 .168 .32. 240 .41 ' .9 3 3.56 82 .21 117 41 1 .43 318.18 12, 207 .06 8,976.01 111 .01 0 .13 4 .91 3.61 44 .67 Notes: all emission reported as grams per day except Carbon Monoxide (CO) which is reported as kilograms per day Air Basin: South Coast Air Basin (SC); Salton Sea Air Basin (SS) 23 • 2/21/2012 InfraConsult t1 • • • 1 Grade Separation Priority Update Study for Alameda Corridor East (Riverside County) Table 3.6: Accident History and Noise -Impacted Population UP (LA SUB) Bellgrave Avenue Jurupa Valley Rutile Street Jurupa Valley Jurupa Road .Jurupa Valley Palm Avenue Riverside Brockton Avenue Riverside Panorama Road Riverside Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) 2 0 0 0 0 0 0_ Within 250 feet of railroad crossings Noise Populati on Pop ulati on Injury Fatal Total (1,600 (6,400 feet) feet) 63 53 3 119 570 10,640 47 50 1 98 1,140 12,577 80 47 1 128 1,065 13,871 1,980 25,355 1,806 23,469 2,069 20,557 BNSF (SB SUB) Smith Avenue Corona Railroad Street C orona Cola Street Corona Sheridan Street Corona Joy Street Corona Radio Road Corona McKinley Street Corona Buchanan Street Riverside Pleice Street Riverside Tyler Street Riverside Harrison Street Riverside Gibson Street Riverside Jackson Street Riverside Adams Street Riverside Jefferson Street Rive rside M adisonStreet Riverside Washington Street Riverside Mary Street Riverside BNSF & UP (RIV) Cridge Street Riverside 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 26 10 0 36 51 20,51.5 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 3 58 24,115 0 0 0 0 14 15 0 29 973 25,233 0 1 2 19 7 0 26 1,187 28,436 0 5 9 2 0 11 778 31,308 0 0 0 8 1 d 9 84 22,594 0 1 3 109 22 0 1 .:3.1 . 1,790 27,382 0 2 2 1,574 25,990 0 1 2,348 25,1 .1 .8 0 1,728 22,984 0 0 0 0 1,540 22,297 0 0 1,523 23,178 2 1,975 21,896 1,000 22,655 765 21,486 1,928 21,415 0 1 0 1 1,764 23,198 0 0 0. 0 1,852 22,591 1,743 22,888 24 2/21/2012 InfraConsult 112 de Sep wataon Priority Update Study for Alameda Corridor East (Riverside County) Table 3.6: Accident History and Noise -Impacted Population (continued) Rail Line FRA Within 250 feet of railroad crossings Cr oss Street Jurisdiction BNSF <`u UP SB SUB) 7 Street 3"d Street Spruce Street Chicago Avenue Pairnyr' ita Avenue Center Street Main Street Riverside Riverside 0 Riverside 1 1 Riverside 4 R iverside 0 0 Riverside County, 0 Riverside County Injury 0 0 Noise* Total„ Non- Injury Fatal Total P opulati on Pop ulation Injury (1,600 (6,400 feet) f eet) 1 .485 29.040 1,832 28,740 1,032 28,896 1,670 16,408 110 10,161 0 9 2 0 11 314 5,059 698 4,797 0 UP (YUMA MAIN) San Tirnateo Canyon Road Calimesa Viele Av enue Beaumont California Avenue Beaumont Pennsylvania Avenue Beauront . 22nd Street Banning San Gorgonio Avenue Banning, Hargrave Street Banning Apache frail Rivei side County Broadway Riverside County 'Tipton Road Palm Springs Avenue 54 Coachella Avenue 58 Riverside County Avenue 62 Riverside County 0 0 Avenue 66 Riverside County 0 0 2 2 13 4 35 361 521 8,798 649 8.077 534 10,225 966 9,570 1,138 1.1,425 856 10,151 1.0 144 885 10 215 1,438 5 1 .90 1,804 33,646 1,639 8,109 13 585 12 ,582 2 19 4,952 10,518 Total 21 14 11 E. 46 423 277 No te: Population within 1,600 feet of railroad crossing endure 78 dB of noise, while those as far as 6,400 feet endure 63 dB Population estima tes are based on 2008 Base Year from the RIVTAM * Population may overlap at adjacent crossings — totals are likely to include double counting 5 2/21/2012 InfraConsult • 411 113 657 54,975 810,824 • '-ad ' Separation l'r oritl- Update Study for Alameda Corridor :.rz5t (Riv "I'side County) 4.0 2012 Analysis Results At the Technical Team meeting on January 26, 2012, results using both weighting option were presented for discussion and direction on which to recommend for adoption. The group unanimously opted to move forward the rankings based on weighting option #2. Subsequently this weighting option #2 was reviewed and recommended for adoption by the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) on January 30, 2012. Weighting option #2 uses "Project Readiness" as one the criterion. It also reduces the relative importance of both existing and future "Vehicle Delay" while putting more weightage on "Safety". Table 4.1 presents the overall breakdown of Priority Groups 1 through 5, and lists the number of crossings in each group using each weighting options. Table 4.1: Priority Group Breakdown Weighting Option 41 Weighting Option 42 Priority Group Score Range Number of Crossings Score Range Number of Crossings 1 > 3,200 9 > 3,000 9 2 2,520 3,200 10 ': 2,490-3,000: 9 3 2,030 — 2,520 10 2_,000 — 2,490 11 4 1,400 — 2,040 8 1,300 2,000 3 5 1,400 9 < 1,300 9 Tota! 46 46 Individual scores for each of the nine criteria factors were calculated, and are reported in Table 4.2. The overall weighted score for each crossing represents the sum of the individual factor scores after being multiplied by their respective weighting factors. This methodology was followed for both weighting option #1 and #2 (presented in Section 1.2). Table 4.3 and Figure 4.1 show the priority group ranking for all crossings studies for this analysis, using each of the weighting options. Each location is indicated with a half circle representing the results of each weighting option. The left half circle represent weighting option #1, while the right half circle represents weighting option #2. Results indicate that crossings may shift one level up or one level down using each of the weighting option. For example, Joy Street crossing in Corona is placed in Priority Group #2, using weighting option #1, but moves up to Priority Group #1 using weighting option #2. On the other hand, 22"d Street crossing in Banning is placed in Priority Group #1, using weighting option #1, but moves down to Priority Group #2 using weighting option #2. Table 4.4 and Figure 4.2 identifies those locations that received the highest priority scores and ranked in Priority Group #1 or #2 using weighting option #2. Total quantitative benefits for the construction of grade crossings under existing conditions and under future conditions for the top two priority tiers are summarized in Table 4.5. If all crossings in the top two Priority Groups are grade separated by the year 2035, a total of approximately 90 hours of gate down time per day would be avoided, vehicle hours of delay per day would be reduced by over 2,400 hours, anywhere between 20 to 150 accidents may be avoided over a ten year period, 34.7 tons of air pollutants would not be released into the atmosphere, and approximately 634,000 people would experience less noise from train whistles. 2/21/2012 InfraConsult 114 a.>a,i.:n Priority i?j: d tt, L udy for Alar..c.:. Corridor East , Riversi c:::0 3tyl Table 4.2: Sco res for each Criterion Roil tine trP LA SUM) 109 01( (fir S.1It) cl,.f 11 HP;rav) HhlsF 8( 11F (SR 011P) r, of La nes VHfJ CroSS Street Jurisdiction Land Use -' 2008 2035 Tracks 2010 ,20. 5 131 - Venue Refitile Street rirtur2 Va xllev Mo roi, Fend luru pa Vailev Palm Avenueiverside Brockto n Avenue 71v4rside CM ersitle RF. Paso ai_,o /ua,J Railroad Street Corona MI Cola 5`feet Co rona S l ieridcr: Street Cortina Radio Ro ad Coronae: MI MO:1 ov Street (mo no Fur.hanan Stree t Rive rside oc, _^1�:;,i,l ✓ai de Fl von, Harrison 5tree l rilvtlsrite Gibson: Street z mitre fide laclitort 541,et. RE Adam: Street Let id' Jefferson ittrdit. rsldr Madison Sneer: tirve rside CM Washintitr51 Street rr6 110412 y Streetr Riverside tn1 -' 1,1] ointago Avenue PalmVnta Avenue 81011 St ree d Eive fside R Ve rside ,'v'^rlde Riverside , rsi,ie County <Cto^erside, Co unty_ UP 11.1,1 1,14,0) San imoteo Canyon Rand C' ,lin,esa Viele Avenue Beaumont Califo rnia %•ve%1e . ... ,.v nienl Pennsylva 1 i<, Avenue Beatimont 22nd Street . Latin; E(` San Gorgonio Avorm::ironing MI Hargra:'e Stmet 3aonia g npl Apache I rail ) Riverside County RE _v ✓ay Rlv orslde County Tinton Road Palm sprinrys. Avenue :,n. Cca!helld: Avenue 55 Riverside County av enue; G2 Roordile. Co unty Accident Adjace nt Cross PRA 250' %t tnii9 ./>mile 14 1 ., 11_%, a 6.a u ___ 1 :1 12 1: 1 ',1 1,11 4 7:7 4 127 _ 1,11 : 4 1l .9' r1 n 36.E 115.3 9.1. Rr 51 F- ker r :,4 i ✓ rside Courlty Rt Notes La nd Use type - RE: Residential; CM:Commerciall; Ll: Light Industrial; MI:Medium Industria l l'2.1.r X011. InfraConsult • 18.5 2 41 / 0.2 60.1 181. 0 164.9 1.22 .1 124.5 41.7 7303 4.3 39. 5 14 it 421 :2q 0.7 27.7 1.9 7.9 3 A 91, ., 5.1 46.7 115 • Project Readiness Local Ra nk Emissions Noise E nv . PS&E ROW Sc ore Is olated10 0 20 0 20 50 005 0 45 1001 45 30 G 100 65 R, 85 52 85 50 25 20 0 85 100 2i1 9b /13 ;0 1017 55 .4 100 ,.. 35 SS 20 50 • • • • Grade Separation Priority Update Sttsd�r` Table 4.3: 2012 Priority Groups Alameda Co Rail Line BNSF & UP (58 SUB) BNSF (SB SUB) BNSF & UP (SB SUB) UP (YUMA MAIN) BNSF & UP (SB SUB) BNSF (SB SUB) BNSF (SB SUB) BNSF (5B SUB) BNSF (SB SUB) UP (LA SUB) UP (LA SUB) UP (YUMA MAIN) UP (YUMA MAIN) UP (YUIvMA MAIN) UP (YUMA MAIN) UP (YUMA MAIN) BNSF (58 SUB) UP (YUMA MAIN) Cross Street Spruce Street McKinley Street Chicago Avenue Hargrave Street 3rd Street Joy Street Madison Street Adams Street Tyler Street Bellgrave Avenue Jurupa Road 22nd Street Viele Avenue San Gorgonio Avenue Avenue 62 Avenue 66 Pierce Street California Avenue BNSF (SB SUB) UP (LA SUB) BNSF (5B SUB) BNSF (S8 SUB) BNSF (SBSUB) UP (YUMA MAIN) BNSF & UP (SB SUB) BNSF (SB SUB) BNSF & UP (5B SUB) UP (YUMA MAIN) BNSF (58 SUB);: BNSF (56 SUB) UP (YUMA MAIN), BNSF (59 SUB) BNSF (58 SUB) UP (YUrv1A MAIN) BNSF & UP (513 SUB) UP (YUMA MAIN) UP (LA SUB) Sheridan Street Rutile Street Mary Street Jackson Street Smith Avenue Pennsylvania Avenue Center Street Washington Street 7th Street Apache Trail Cota Street Buchanan Street Broadway Jefferson Street Railroad Street San Timoteo Canyon Road Palmyrita Av (UP) Avenue 54 Brockton Avenue Jurisdiction Riverside Corona Riverside Banning Riverside Corona Riverside Riverside Riverside Jurupa Valley Jurupa Valley Banning Beaumont Banning Riverside County Riverside County Riverside Beaumont Weighting Option #1 Score Ranking 1 1 1 1 4100 4100 3725 3750 3550 3186 3475 3525 3325 2808 2900 3253 2733 3192 2504 2500, 2700 2800 2 1 1 1 2 2 1 2 3 3 2 Recommended by TAC Weighting Option 42 2006 Score Ranking Ranking 1 ] 1 1 1 1 3900 3700 3425 =1250 3250 3186 3175 3125 3025 2908 2900 2858 28'33 2792 2504 2500 2500 2500 1 1 L 2 2 2 1 4 2 2 3 2 3 3 Corona Jurupa Valley Riverside Riverside Corona Beaumont Riverside Coun Riverside Riverside Riverside County Corona Riverside Riverside County Riverside Corona Calirnesa Riverside Coachella Riverside 2332 2292 2725 2400 2493 2b92 2532 2450 2475 2011 1954 2025 2039 1875 2046 1825 1700 1550 1600 3 2 4 2482 2442 2425 2300 2293. 2292 2282 2250 2175 2011 4 2004 1925 1889 1875 1846 4 1725 4 4 1700 4 4 1450 4 4 1400 4 4 3 3 2 5 2 BNSF & UP (RIV) UP (LA SUB) UP (YUMA MAIN) BNSF (5B S(JB) UP (LA SUB) BNSF (513 SUB) BNSF & UP (SB SUB) UP (YUNIA MAIN) BNSF (SB SUB) Cridge Street Panorama Road Tipton Road Harrison Street Palm Avenue Riverside Riverside Paint Springs Riverside Riverside 1350 1400 1300 1300 1325 Radio Road Cot ona 1189 Main Street Avenue 58 Gibson Street Riverside County Riverside County Riverside 1071 743 62S 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5' 1250 1250 1250 1200 1175 1139 971 743 625 5 5 5 5 5 5, 5 5 5 4 3 4 4 5 4 5 Note: Red bold font indicate different priority ronking using Weighting Option #1 28 2/21/2012 InfraConsult 116 trade Separ ation Pri itv Update 0 Ludy- (or A.larned . Cc:I 'd d 0 rE.t hi rside Cou Figure 4.1: 2012 Priority Ra nki ngs • 29 2/21/2012 CaInfraConsult 117 !NDfo, Rail Cr ossi ngs Ra nk P' • • • • 3 Table 4.4: List of Crossing within 2012 Priority Groups #1 and #2 Rail Line Lour' Weighting Option 42 2006 Cross Street Jurisdiction Score Ranking Ranking Spruce Street Riverside 3900 1 1 McKinley Street Corona 3700 1 1 Chicago Avenue Riverside 3425 1 1 Hargrave Street Banning 3250 1 2 3rd Street Riverside 3250 1 1 Joy Street Corona 3186 1 4 Madison Street Riverside 3175 1 2 Adams Street Riverside 3125 1 2 Tyler Street Rive side 3025 1 2 Bellgrave Avenue Jurupa Valley 2908 2 3 Jurupa Road Jurupa Valley 2900 2 22nd Street Banning 2358 Viele Avenue Beaumont 2833 San Gorgonio Avenue Banning 2792 Avenue 62 Riverside County 2504 Avenue 66 Riverside County 2500 Pierce Street Riverside 2500 California Avenue Beaumont 2500 BNSF & UP (5B SUB) BNSF (SB SUB) BNSF & UP (5B SUB) UP (YUMA MAIN) BNSF & UP (SB SUB) BNSF (5B SUB) BNSF (513 SUB) BNSF (513 SUB) BNSF (SB SUB) UP (LA SUB) UP (LA SUB) UP (YUMA MAIN) UP (YUiv1A MAIN) UP (YUMA MAIN) UP (YUMA MAIN) UP (YUMA MAIN) BNSF (5B SUB) UP (YUMA MAIN) 2 2 2 2 1 2 4 3 3 Table 4.5: Quantitative Benefits Accidents at Railroad Crossings (injury and fatal combined) Norse 2008 Population affected by train whistles of 78 dB (within 1,600 feet of railroad crossings) Nose: 2008 Population affected by train whistles of 63 dB (within 6,400 feet of railroad crossings) Noise: 2035 Population affected by train whistles of 78 dB (within 1,600 feet of railroad crossings) Noise: 2035 Population affected by train whistles of 63 dB (within 6,400 feet of railroad crossings) 20-150 25,400 320,500 67,600 634,000 Gate down time (hours per day) Vehicle hours of Delay per day Emissions from Vehicle Delay (in tons per year) Pll�l,r, NO ROG CO 2010 30 2035 0 380 2,400 0.01 0.50 0.36 4:52 0.10 3.20 2.40 29.00< Total 5.40 34.70 30 2/21/2017 InfraConsult 118 • IGrade Separation Iris. city Update Study for Alameda Corridor East (Riverside Count; Figure 4.2: Location of Crossings within 2012 Priority Groups #1 and #2 MORENO VALLEY JURUPA VALLEY RIVERSIDE CORONA • • LA QUINTA COACHELLA ALIMESA DESERT HOT i SPRINGS 2i,2oaz InfraConsult BANNING PALM SPRINGS LEGEND r � $NS U na R ail Crossings Rank � e NN�ny <Mii.ii r. i` 4eu Iv Opp pi y(rvI . 119 • • • Separation Priority Update Study foi• Alameda Corridor East (Riverside County) 5.0 Recommendations While many of the rail crossings in Riverside County are projected to experience high levels of delay under future conditions (2035), the prioritization of rail grade crossings is based on the factors approved by the RCTC Commission. The underlying assumptions for train count and freight forecast were finalized after discussion and collaboration with SCAG RTP and Goods Movement technical staff and consultant, so that the project list identified from this study can be incorporated within SCAG's Goods Movement Plan in a consistent manner. The 18 crossings that have been identified with the highest, priority for improvements (those within Priority Groups #1 and #2) are typically characterized by high train and vehicular traffic volumes, extensive vehicle delay and emissions, and one or more traffic incidents in recent years. These crossings have the highest priority for near -term improvement and it is recommended that these locations be programmed for improvements as funding becomes available. Railroad crossings identified in priority groups #1 and #2 were forwarded to SCAG during its comment period for the 2012 RTP/SCS to include in its Constrained project list, while the rest was recommend to SCAG to include in the agency's list of Strategic projects. 21/2012 InfraConsult 120 Appendix A: 2011/2012 Observed Train Counts 112012 InfraConsult • 121 • Counts at Jurupa Avenue (Wednesday and Thursday —January 2012) • • 2%21.;2012 InfraConsult • • • NATIONAL DATA & SURVEYING SERVICES Train Count Project No. 12-6005-001 Day_1 Location: Railway Crossing @ Jurupa Road & Van Buren Boulevard Day: Wednesday City: Jurupa Valley Dote: 1/11/2012 Time Interval From: 5:00 AM To 8:00 PM Type of Land use Around Location: Business/ Residential Number of Tracks at Location: 3 TRAIN INFO M...., �ta3k�$ ��a{a��� TI E" • :E= s TIME OF: BELL 5:20:37 5:20:41 5:21:16 5:24:42 5:24:36 5:24:28 27 Freight Union Pacific North 3 96 Yes No No 5:55:22 5:56:20 5:55:27 5:56:16 5:56:02 5:56:08 45 Passenger Metrolink North 1 6 Yes No No 6:27:11 6:27:55 6:27:20 6:27:36 6:27:50 6:27:42 45 Passenger Metrolink North 1 6 Yes No No 7:03:53 7:03:59 7:04:30 7:04:50 7:04:43 7:04:37 51 Passenger Metrolink North 1 6 Yes No No 7:55:19 7:55:25 7:55:39 7:56:13 7:56:10 7:55:46 15 Freight UPY-GMTX North 2 0 Yes No Yes 8:10:23 8:10:25 8:10:35 8:11:11 8:11:06 8:10:57 12 Freight UPY-GMTX South 2 4 Yes No Yes 8:20:55 8:21:08 8:21:13 8:21:31 8:21:27 8:21:19 12 Freight UPY-GMTX South 2 0 Yes No Yes 8:27:23 8:27:30 8:27:34 SAME GATE 8:29:29 12 Freight Union Pacific North 2 16 Yes No No 8:27:51 8:29:45 8:29:40 8:27:57 Passenger Metrolink North 1 4 Yes No No 10:27:31 10:27:38 10:27:56 10:31:34 10:31:28 10:31:21 17 Freight BNSF South 4 110 Yes No No 11:18:37 11:18:41 11:19:09 11:21:42 11:21:36 11:21:29 24 Freight BNSF South 2 78 Yes No No 13:28:02 13:28:04 13:28:15 13:32:19 13:32:15 13:32:05 10 Freight Union Pacific South 2 12 Yes No No 14:22:38 14:23:40 14:23:48 14:24:09 14:24:05 14:23:57 50 Passenger Metrolink South 2 6 Yes No No 15:20:26 15:20:27 15:20:38 15:21:10 15:21:06 15:21:01 60 Passenger Metrolink North 2 6 Yes No No 17:15:08 17:15:12 17:15:18 17:15:33 17:15:28 17:15:23 60 Passenger Metrolink South 2 5 Yes No No 17:58:08 17:58:13 17:58:19 17:58:33 17:58:29 17:58:24 57 Passenger Metrolink South 6 Yes No No 18:37:21 18:37:26 18:37:31 18:37:43 18:37:39 18:37:35 56 Passenger Metrolink South 1 6 Yes No No 19:06:20 19:06:44 19:06:24 19:06:39 19:06:30 19:06:35 50 Passenger Metrolink South 1 6 Yes No No 19:36:17 19:36:21 19:36:29 19:36:45 19:36:41 19:36:36 40 Passenger Metrolink South 1 5 Yes No No 123 NATIONAL DATA & SURVEYING SERVICES Train Count Project No. 12-6005-001 Day_2 Location: Railway Crossing @ Jurupa Road & Van Buren Boulevard Day: Thursday City: Jurupa Valley Date: 1/12/2012 Time Interval From: 5:00 AM To 8:00 PM Type of Land use Around Location: Business/ Residential Number of Tracks at Location: 3 TRAIN INFO a, EMERGENCY VEHl ES INIE' ;;• QUANTITY TIME QI±L{N 7A� .. . ,a , .. .. 7 53 � ....., g Passenger Metrolink p ON �� North \',4E LCCflNlP3Ti 1 SCARS \`r 6 ti#RU' Yes TRAIN STflF No HACKiiCr` No 5:56:58 5:57:51 5:57:03 5:57:48 5:57:34 5:57:41 6:27:03 6:28:07 6:27:08 6:28:04 6:27:46 6:27:57 55 Passenger Metrolink North 1 6 Yes No No 7:02:21 7:03:10 7:02:26 7:03:07 7:02:57 7:03:02 57 Passenger Metrolink North 1 6 Yes No No 7:34:42 7:38:51 7:34:48 7:38:45 7:35:25 — 7:38:30 39 Freight Union Pacififc North 4 80 Yes No No 7:54:21 7:54:26 7:55:10 7:54:55 7:55:03 12 Freight Union Pacififc North 2 0 Yes No No 7:55:15 8:28:22 8:28:26 8:29:18 8:29:06 8:29:13 59 Passenger Metrolink North 1 4 Yes No No 8:29:21 8:39:15 8:41:20 8:39:20 8:40:15 8:39:38 8:40:07 16 Freight Union Pacififc South 2 9 Yes No No 9:57:02 9:57:07 9:57:15 41 Freight Union Pacififc North 5 69 Yes No No 9:59:13 9:59:09 9:59:05 12:41:17 12:41:23 12:41:35 61 Freight Union Pacific South 4 126 Yes No No 12:43:24 12:43:20 12:43:16 13:57:16 13:57:20 13:57:31 47 Freight Union Pacific South 3 78 Yes No No 13:58:35 13:58:30 13:58:25 14:14:55 14:14:59 14:15:15 14:15:07 14:15:12 72 Passenger Metrolink South 2 5 Yes No No 14:15:18 15:20:09 15:20:13 15:20:24 59 Passenger Metrolink North 2 5 Yes No No 15:20:39 15:20:35 15:20:30 17:19:31 17:20:02 17:19:37 17:19:57 17:19:45 17:19:51 76 Passenger Metrolink South 2 3 Yes No No 17:56:47 17:57:16 17:56:51 17:57:11 17:56:59 17:57:05 72 Passenger Metrolink South 2 5 Yes No No 18:35:25 18:35:28 18:35:34 76 Passenger Metrolink South 2 5 Yes No No 18:35:50 18:35:46 18:35:40 18:56:20 18:59:35 18:56:24 18:59:29 18:56:41 18:59:21 32 Freight Union Pacific South 4 106 Yes No No 19:04:36 19:05:02 19:04:40 19:04:58 19:04:47 19:04:53 70 Passenger Metrolink South 1 6 Yes No No 19:42:31 19:42:36 19:42:42 77 Passenger Metrolink South 1 4 Yes No No 19:42:59 19:42:54 19:42:48 • • • 124 NATIONAL DATA & SURVEYING SERVICES Train Count Project No. 12-6005-002 Day_1 Location: Railway Crossing @ Riverside Avenue Day: Wednesday City: Riverside Date: 1/11/2012 Time Interval From: 5:00 AM To 8:00 PM Type of Land use Around Location: Residential Number of Tracks at Location: 1 TRAIN INFO 9:18:37 1 Engine TIME OF BELL DOWN , �a�,.:a TIME OF TRAIN .. ..` -PEED .. .. . TYPE ,,. �, •,, TitAIN COMPANY DIRE C7I') •- aa # OF LOCOMOTIVE -; # OF CARS TI-1RU TRAIN TRAIN STOP BACK - 5:47:25 5:47:43 5:47:28 5:47:39 5:47:32 5:47:36 48 Passenger Metrolink West 1 6 Yes No No 6:05:00 6:08:17 6:05:06 6:08:14 6:06:14 6:08:10 46 Freight Union Pacific East 4 94 Yes No No 6:18:47 6:19:11 6:18:49 6:19:09 6:18:58 6:19:05 46 Passenger Metrolink West 1 6 Yes No No 6:54:14 6:54:45 6:54:20 6:54:41 6:54:30 6:54:36 44 Passenger Metrolink West 1 6 Yes No No 8:19:00 -- 8:19:36 8:19:04 8:19:31 8:19:23 8:19:27 45 Passenger Metrolink West 1 4 Yes No No 10:49:15 10:49:23 10:49:42 10:53:56 20 Freight BNSF East 4 110 Yes No No 10:54:12 10:54:04 11:47:40 11:49:19 11:47:59 11:49:13 11:48:07 11:49:07 28 Freight BNSF East 2 78 Yes No No 14:33:28 14:33:38 14:33:50 40 Passenger Metrolink East 2 6 Yes No No 14:34:15 14:34:09 14:34:00 15:11:28 15:11:32 15:11:40 25 Passenger Metrolink West 2 6 Yes No No 15:12:07 15:12:00 15:11:54 17:25:27 17:25:31 17:25:46 39 Passenger Metrolink East 2 5 Yes No No 17:26:06 17:26:02 17:25:58 18:10:10 18:10:15 18:10:52 18:10:35 18:10:45 29 Passenger Metrolink East 1 6 Yes No No 18:10:56 18:47:01 18:47:08 18:47:25 31 Passenger Metrolink East 1 6 Yes No No 18:47:48 18:47:40 18:47:33 19:07:50 19:08:36 19:07:55 19:08:30 NO TRAIN 19:16:20 19:16:23 19:16:40 19:16:55 28 Passenger Metrolink East 1 6 Yes No No 19:17:15 19:17:11 19:46:10 19:46:13 19:46:38 24 Passenger Metrolink East 1 5 Yes No No 19:47:05 19:46:59 19:46:45 126 NATIONAL DATA & SURVEYING SERVICES Train Count Project No. 12-6005-002 Day_2 Location: Railway Crossing @ Riverside Avenue Day: Thursday City: Riverside Date: 1/12/2012 Time Interval From: 5:00 AM To 8:00 PM Type of Land use Around Location: Residential Number of Tracks at Location: 1 TRAIN INFO �M E RCzLNy, QUANTITY r .... r .... TRAIN COMPANY DIRECTION # OF LOCOMOiiVE it OF CARS TMIi,,; TRAIN �• :TRAIN STOP Tit BACKUP= 5:46:41 5:46:49 5:47:12 43 Passenger Metrolink West 1 6 Yes No No 5:47:29 5:47:22 5:47:19 6:06:30 6:06:34 6:06:46 30 Freight Union Pacific East 4 80 Yes No No 6:09:28 6:09:22 6:09:15 6:18:15 6:18:19 6:18:30 47 Passenger Metrolink West 1 6 Yes No No 6:18:55 6:18:49 6:18:35 6:53:02 6:53:06 6:53:30 46 Passenger Metrolink West 1 6 Yes No No 6:53:44 6:53:41 6:53:35 7:26:06 7:26:09 7:26:28 39 Freight Union Pacific West 4 80 Yes No No 7:28:42 7:28:37 7:28:32 7:55:57 7:56:04 NO TRAIN 7:56:48 7:56:42 8:19:20 8:19:25 8:19:48 48 Passenger Metrolink West 1 4 Yes No No 8:19:59 8:19:55 8:19:52 9:02:03 9:02:13 9:02:25 17 Freight Union Pacific East 2 9 Yes No No 9:03:10 9:03:03 9:02:55 9:46:50 9:47:01 9:47:10 28 Freight Union Pacific West 5 69 Yes No No 9:49:09 9:49:01 9:48:52 10:36:03 10:36:13 10:36:20 40 Freight Union Pacific West 1 8 Yes No No 10:36:48 10:36:40 10:36:29 12:51:44 12:51:53 12:51:58 26 Freight Union Pacific East 4 126 Yes No No 12:57:19 12:57:11 12:56:59 14:09:22 14:09:30 14:09:50 24 Freight Union Pacific East 3 78 Yes No No 14:16:21 14:16:16 14:16:00 14:24:43 14:24:51 14:25:10 46 Passenger Metrolink East 2 5 Yes No No 14:25:38 14:25:32 14:25:20 15:11:59 15:12:06 15:12:13 50 Passenger Metrolink West 2 5 Yes No No 15:12:31 15:12:25 15:12:20 17:30:30 17:30:39 17:30:57 36 Passenger Metrolink East 2 3 Yes No No 17:31:29 17:31:22 17:31:05 18:06:31 18:06:37 18:06:58 37 Passenger Metrolink East 2 5 Yes No No 18:07:29 18:07:21 18:07:09 18:45:07 18:45:11 18:45:27 40 Passenger Metrolink East 2 5 Yes No No 18:45:50 18:45:44 18:45:39 19:14:09 19:14:14 19:14:32 35 Passenger Metrolink East 1 6 Yes No No 19:14:58 19:14:51 19:14:40 19:24:31 19:24:39 19:24:54 27 freight Union Pacific East 4 106 Yes No No 19:27:58 19:27:50 19:27:43 19:53:05 19:53:12 19:53:27 40 Passenger Metrolink East 1 4 Yes No No 19:53:59 19:53:51 19:53:35 • 127 Counts at McKinley Street (Wednesday and Thursday — October 2011) A-4 2/21/2012 InfraConsult • • NATIONAL DATA & SURVEYING SERVICES Train Count Project No. 11-6107-001 Location: McKinley Street Crossing Day: Wednesday City: Corona Date: 10/26/2011 Time Interval From: 12:00 AM To 23:59:00 PM Type of Land use Around Location: Residential/ Commercial Number of Tracks at Location: 2 TRAIN INFO TIME 11:58:14 Ambulance 16:05:20 Ambulance P ?F EP RAIN SPEED TYPE TRAIM OF .COMPANY DIRECTION LOCOMOTIVE _ T .RIk1Al S` 0:28:10 0:28:14 0:28:23 FREIGHT UNION WEST 2 80 Y N N 0:31:10 0:31:10 0:31:07 45 1:08:54 1:08:56 1:09:07 50 FREIGHT BNSF EAST 4 115 Y N N 1:11:23 1:11:22 1:11:19 1:20:48 1:20:50 1:20:57 44 FREIGHT BNSF EAST 4 118 Y N N 1:24:10 1:24:15 1:22:38 1:43:13 1:43:19 1:43:30 25 FREIGHT BNSF WEST 3 40 3 N N 1:45:31 1:45:33 1:45:28 1:55:06 1:55:10 1:55:15 45 FREIGHT BNSF WEST 5 154 Y N N 2:00:24 2:00:23 1:58:20 1:58:09 1:58:15 1:58:20 47 FREIGHT BNSF EAST 6 142 Y N N 2:01:49 2:01:40 2:00:30 2:53:37 2:53:40 2:53:50 58 PASSENGER AMTRAK WEST 1 6 Y N N 2:54:13 2:54:10 2:54:00 3:18:20 3:18:22 3:18:40 45 FREIGHT BNSF EAST 4 78 3 N 8 3:20:42 3:20:41 3:20:12 3:45:53 3:45:53 3:45:56 46 FREIGHT USBF EAST 5 130 Y N N 3:47:11 3:47:10 3:47:03 4:01:15 4:01:17 4:01:20 27 FREIGHT USBF EAST 3 55 Y N N 4:03:06 4:03:05 4:03:01 4:25:18 ------- 4:29:31 4:25:19 --------- 4:29:30 4:25:28 --- 29:28 4:29:28 45 FREIGHT USBF WEST 6 174 Y N N 4:49:10 4:49:11 4:49:19 50 FREIGHT USBF EAST 3 96 Y N N 4:51:27 4:51:26 4:51:22 5:01:36 5:01:37 5:01:39 - 51 FREIGHT USBF EAST 5 92 Y N N 5:03:41 5:03:40 5:03:37 5:19:45 5:19:47 5:19:49 48 FREIGHT USBF EAST 5 110 Y N N 5:22:04 5:22:03 5:21:58 5:22:08 5:22:09 5:22:10 59 PASSENGER METROLINK WEST 1 5 Y N 8 5:22:21 5:22:20 5:22:19 5:32:11 5:32:12 5:32:14 48 FREIGHT USBF EAST 4 113 3 N N 5:34:28 5:34:27 5:34:25 5.44:56 5:44:57 5:45:01 58 PASSENGER METROLINK WEST 1 7 Y N N 5:45:13 5:45:12 5:45:08 5:53:07 5:53:13 5:53:34 58 PASSENGER METROLINK WEST 1 7 Y N N 5:54:01 5:53:56 5:53:46 6:32:15 6:32:23 6:32:43 58 PASSENGER METROLINK WEST 1 7 3 N N 6:33:12 6:33:07 6:33:01 6:44:02 6:44:08 6:44:34 58 PASSENGER METROLINK WEST 2 3 Y N N 6:45:00 - 6:44:55 6:44:42 6:53:11 6:53:16 6:53:41 46 FREIGHT BNSF WEST 1 63 Y N N 6:54:59 6:54:53 6:54:39 7:00:40 7:00:45 7:01:03 53 PASSENGER METROLINK EAST 1 5 Y N N 7:01:23 7:01:21 7:01:17 7:11:58 7:12:03 7:12:32 43 FREIGHT BNSF EAST 4 170 Y N N 7:15:01 7:14:56 7:14:49 7:23:26 7:23:30 7:23:51 53 PASSENGER AMTRAK WEST 1 10 Y N N 7:24:24 7:24:19 7:24:05 7:34:29 7:34:32 7:34:56 58 PASSENGER METROLINK EAST 1 5 Y N N 7:35:13 7:35:10 7:35:08 7:41:28 7:41:33 7:41:56 49 PASSENGER METROLINK WEST 2 3 Y N N 7:42:21 7:42:16 7:42:03 7:43:37 7:43:41 7:44:08 41 FREIGHT BNSF EAST 4 91 3 N N 7:45:44 7:45:40 7:45:35 7:50:40 ---- ------------- 7:53:05 7:50:45 __- - 7:53:00 7:51:13 - - --- - 7:52:45 36 FREIGHT BNSF WEST 4 77 3 N N 8:12:28 8:12:33 8:13:00 41 FREIGHT BNSF WEST 2 130 Y N N 8:15:10 8:15:05 8:14:51 129 NATIONAL DATA & SURVEYING SERVICES Train Count Project No. 11-6107-001 Location: McKinley Street Crossing Day: Wednesday City: Corona Date: 10/26/2011 Time Interval From: 12:00 AM To 23:59:00 PM Type of Land use Around Location: Residential/ Commercial Number of Tracks at Location: 2 TRAIN INFO 11:58:14 Ambulance 16:05:20 Ambulance ry,.pp II.t,C $G� *A A��y� ,Rl E".4 \ ll). '� TtiAliti - a i t 4� � te \ I \ \ e � � 1VIp . 8:38:11 8:38:13 8:38:41 48 FREIGHT BNSF EAST 4 93 Y N N 8:40:21 8:40:16 8:40:13 8:56:47 8:56:51 8:57:20 51 FREIGHT BNSF WEST 4 107 Y N N 8:59:03 8:58:58 8:58:42 9:12:56 9:13:03 9:13:29 46 FREIGHT BNSF WEST 4 134 Y N N 9:15:53 9:15:48 9:15:30 9:31:28 9:31:34 9:32:00 50 FREIGHT BNSF EAST 4 95 Y N N 9:33:34 9:33:30 9:33:25 10:05:52 10:05:56 10:06:25 58 PASSENGER METROLINK EAST 1 4 Y N N 10:06:39 10:06:36 10:06:32 10.08:48 10:08:50 10.09:09 41 FREIGHT BNSF EAST 3 4 Y N N 10:09:53 10:09:49 10:09:36 10.56:18 10:56:21 10.56:52 58 PASSENGER METROLINK WEST 2 3 Y N N 10:57:17 10:57:11 10:56:58 11:52:40 11:52:44 11:53:15 29 FREIGHT BNSF EAST 3 88 Y N N 11:55:31 11:55:25 11:55:12 11:55:00 11:55:04 11:55:29 51 PASSENGER METROLINK WEST 2 4 Y N N 11:56:10 11:56:05 11:55:53 12:03:24 12:03:28 12:04:02 41 FREIGHT BNFS WEST 2 2 Y N N 12:04:25 12:04:18 12:04:10 12.54.38 12:54:40 12.55:34 36 FREIGHT BNFS WEST 4 145 Y N N 12:58:01 12:57:56 12:57:40 13:35:16 13:35:20 13:35:45 51 FREIGHT BNFS WEST 4 72 Y N N 13:37:16 13:37:12 13:36:58 14.03:56 14.04:01 14.04:40 58 PASSENGER METRO LINK EAST 2 48 Y N N 14:05:06 14:05:01 14:04:48 14:15:01 14:15:05 14:15:34 50 FREIGHT BNFS EAST 4 108 Y N N 14:17:18 14:17:15 14:17:10 14:35:27 --------- 14:37:48 14:35:32 ------ ---- 14:37:42 14:36:03 — -- --- 14:37:32 49 FREIGHT BNFS EAST 4 115 Y N N 14:43:59 14:44:06 14.44:30 59 PASSENGER METRO LINK WEST 2 5 Y N N 14:44:56 14:44:48 14:44:38 14:54:20 14:54:27 14:54:53 49 FREIGHT BNFS WEST 2 115 Y N N 14:56:45 14:56:38 14:56:23 14.58:45 14:58:54 14:59.15 60 PASSENGER METRO LINK EAST 2 5 Y N N 14:59:37 14:59:31 14:59:21 15:43:15 15:44:06 15:43:20 15:43:55 59 PASSENGER METRO LINK WEST 1 5 Y N N 15:44:01 15:43:59 15:54:36 15:54:41 15:55:10 51 FREIGHT BNFS EAST 2 92 Y N N 15:56:33 15:56:28 15:56:24 17:05:54 17:06:03 17:06:26 59 PASSENGER METRO LINK EAST 2 4 Y N N 17:07:09 17:07:05 17:06:30 17:20:39 17:20:48 17:21:10 44 FREIGHT BNFS WEST 4 133 Y N N 17:23:41 17:23:37 17:23:15 17:27:35 17:27:40 17:27:51 58 PASSENGER METRO LINK EAST 1 4 Y N N 17:28:55 17:28:48 17:28:15 17:48:02 17:48:07 17:48:12 59 PASSENGER METRO LINK EAST 1 5 Y N N 17:48:58 17:48:54 17:48:41 17.59:27 17:59:37 17.59:45 48 FREIGHT BNFS EAST 6 106 Y N N 18:01:57 18:01:52 18:01:32 18:05:40 18:05:45 18:06:10 60 PASSENGER METRO LINK WEST 2 4 Y N N 18:06:52 18:06:45 18:06:38 18:44:36 18:44:39 18:45:00 59 PASSENGER METRO LINK EAST 2 2 Y N N 18:45:17 18:45:12 18:45:05 18:49:38 18:49:46 18:50:00 25 FREIGHT BNSF EAST 4 107 Y N N 18:53:32 18:53:25 18:53:20 18:58:23 18:58:30 18:58:55 41 FREIGHT BNSF WEST 4 63 Y N N 19:00:37 19:00:32 19:00:00 • • 130 NATIONAL DATA & SURVEYING SERVICES Train Count Project No. 11-6107-001 Location: McKinley Street Crossing Day: Wednesday City: Corona Dote: 10/26/2011 Time Interval From: 12:00 AM To 23:59:00 PM Type of Land use Around Location: Residential/ Commercial Number of Tracks at Location: 2 TRAIN INFO EMERGENCY VE# i, „TIME : ::QUANTITY TIME 11:58:14 Ambulance 16:05:20 Ambulance 19:08:10 19:08:16 19:08:42 19:13:20 19:13:14 19:12:52 23 FREIGHT BNSF WEST 6 98 Y N N 19:27:15 19:27:36 19:27:52 19:30:45 19:30:39 19:30:21 20 FREIGHT BNSF WEST 3 99 Y N N 19:36:45 19:36:49 19:37:10 19:37:24 19:37:20 19:37:15 57 PASSENGER METRO LINK EAST 2 3 Y N N 19:51:50 19:51:57 19:52:24 19:52:53 19:52:47 19:52:36 59 PASSENGER AMTRAK EAST 2 8 Y N N 19:58:14 19:58:20 19:58:45 20:00:08 20:00:01 19:59:49 49 FREIGHT UNION WEST 2 73 Y N N 20:12:24 20:12:25 20:12:54 20:15:00 20:14:56 20:14:24 46 FREIGHT BNSF EAST 4 112 Y N N 20:24:02 20:24:07 20:24:36 20:26:20 20:26:17 20:26:10 50 FREIGHT BNSF EAST 4 105 Y N N 131 Location: McKinley Street Crossing City: Corona Time Interval From: 12:00 AM Type of Land use Around Location: Residential/ Commercial Number of Tracks at Location: 2 NATIONAL DATA & SURVEYING SERVICES Train Count Project No. 11-6107-001 To 23:59:00 PM Day: Thursday Date: 10/27/2011 TRAIN INFO lc Ambulance 8:07:08 Police 21:25:26 15:53:02 Rail Truck 22:55:00 Police 17:19:03 Ambulance ®' �.- BEi1 GATE DOW TIME :TIME or TRAIN SPEED TYPE 'TRAIN COMPANY DIRECTION OF LOCOMOTIVE "#O - " 'iIt3"CRAlN ��: STOF. _ SACK P `. 0:31:17 0:31:23 0:31:36 48 FREIGHT BNSF EAST 5 100 N N 0:33:25 0:33:19 0:33:07 0:59:33 0:59:41 1:00:06 44 FREIGHT BNSF WEST 4 66 Y N N 1:01:27 1:01:21 1:01:08 1:09:21 1:09:33 1:09:54 48 FREIGHT BNSF EAST 4 129 Y N N 1:11:58 1:11:52 1:11:48 Train at same time in opposite direction 48 FREIGHT BNSF WEST 2 100 4 N N 1:38:36 1:38:46 1:39:08 49 FREIGHT BNSF EAST 5 134 Y N N 1:41:41 1:41:36 1:41:25 1:45:22 1:45:32 1:45:56 46 FREIGHT BNSF WEST 5 160 Y N N 1:48:23 1:48:18 1:48:12 2:21:40 2:21:49 2:22:10 51 FREIGHT BNSF EAST 4 57 Y N N 2:23:27 2:23:23 2:23:17 2:35:47 2:35:52 2:35:57 50 FREIGHT BNSF EAST 4 88 Y N N 2:36:53 2:36:46 2:36:43 2:42:56 2:48:02 2:48:26 51 FREIGHT BNSF EAST 4 130 Y N N 2:50:40 2:50:34 2:50:02 Train at same time in opposite direction Unknown PASSENGER METROLINK WEST 1 4 Y N N 3:00:54 3:02:58 3:00:59 3:02:51 3:01:29 3:02:35 48 FREIGHT BNSF WEST 4 76 Y N N 3:11:01 3:11:07 3:11:42 22 FREIGHT BNSF WEST 4 88 V N N 3:15:00 3:14:54 3:14:36 3:43:22 3:43.28 3:43:48 24 FREIGHT BNSF EAST 7 60 Y N N 3:45:32 3:45:25 3:45:22 4:02:32 4:02:38 4:03:03 52 FREIGHT BNSF EAST 3 83 Y N N 4:04:29 4:04:23 4:04:19 4:16:51 4:16:57 4:17:27 50 FREIGHT BNSF EAST 4 137 Y N N 4:19:25 4:19:20 4:19:14 5:17:12 5:17:17 5:17:46 49 FREIGHT BNSF EAST 4 126 Y N N 5:19:46 5:19:42 5:19:37 5:21:13 5:21:16 5:21:42 60 PASSENGER METROLINK WEST 2 3 Y N N 5:22:08 5:22:02 5:21:47 5:30:09 5:30:14 5:30:30 50 FREIGHT BNSF EAST 4 115 3 N N 5:32:11 5:32:09 5:32:07 5:43:09 5:43:11 5:43:44 62 PASSENGER METROLINK WEST 3 3 Y N N 5:44:09 5:44:03 5:43:49 5:52:20 5:52:25 5:52:51 60 PASSENGER METROLINK WEST 2 5 3 N N 5:53:19 5:53:12 5:52:58 5:57:21 5:57:27 5:57:55 49 FREIGHT BNSF EAST 2 127 Y N N 5:59:43 5:59:37 5:59:35 6:01:08 6:01:15 6:01:24 52 FREIGHT BNSF WEST 2 96 3 N N 6:03:31 6:03:24 6:03:15 6:28:05 6:28:13 6:28:49 62 PASSENGER METROLINK WEST 1 5 Y N N 6:30:04 6:29:58 6:29:52 6:41:46 6:41:52 6:42:08 60 PASSENGER METROLINK WEST 1 4 Y N N 6:42:45 6:42:39 6:42:16 6:48:24 6:48:29 6:48:57 60 PASSENGER METROLINK EAST 1 4 Y N N 6:49:37 6:49:32 6:49:05 6:50:30 6:50:36 6:50:56 44 FREIGHT BNSF WEST 3 57 Y N N 6:52:22 6:52:16 6:52:04 7:04:40 7:04:46 7:05:10 62 PASSENGER AMTRAK WEST 1 10 Y N N 7:05:41 7:05:35 7:05:20 7:30:00 7:31:21 7:30:38 7:31:16 7:30:45 7:31:05 60 PASSENGER METROLINK EAST 1 4 Y N N 7:39:38 7:39:45 7:40:09 58 PASSENGER METROLINK WEST 1 4 3 N N 7:40:37 7:40:31 7:40:16 132 NATIONAL DATA & SURVEYING SERVICES Train Count Project No. 11-6107-001 Location: McKinley Street Crossing Day: Thursday City: Corona Date: 10/27/2011 Time Interval From: 12:00 AM To 23:59:00 PM Type of Land use Around Location: Residential/ Commercial Number of Tracks at Location: 2 TRAIN INFO itifttat 8:07:08 Police 21:25:26 Ambulance 15:53:02 Rail Truck 22:55:00 Police 17:19:03 Ambulance 7:51:06 7:51:12 7:51:40 48 FREIGHT BNSF WEST 2 90 Y 19 N 7:53:30 7:53:25 7:53:12 8:02:30 8:02:35 8:02:48 44 FREIGHT BNSF WEST 4 137 Y N N 8:05:20 8:05:16 8:04:58 8:13:04 8:13:12 8:13:34 49 FREIGHT BNSF WEST 4 108 Y N N 8:15:32 8:15:28 8:15:12 8:45:31 8:45:36 8:46:03 48 FREIGHT BNSF WEST 4 114 Y N N 8:47:58 8:47:54 8:47:35 9:09:33 9:09:39 9:10:18 22 FREIGHT BNSF EAST 4 122 Y N N 9:14:36 9:14:31 9:14:16 9:23:05 9:23:09 9:23:40 55 PASSENGER METROLINK EAST 1 4 Y N N 9:23:52 9:23:48 9:23:45 10:07:05 10:07:10 10:07:36 58 PASSENGER METROLINK EAST 1 4 Y N N 10:07:49 10:07:45 10:07:40 10:54:25 10:54:28 10:54:57 44 FREIGHT BNSF EAST 4 125 9 N N 10:56:58 10:56:54 10:56:46 10:57:31 10:57:35 10:57:40 59 PASSENGER METROLINK WEST 1 4 Y N N 10:58:10 10:58:06 10:57:59 11:03:10 11:03:16 11:03:53 25 FREIGHT SANTA FE EAST 2 8 Y N N 11:04:58 11:04:54 11:04:40 11:06:46 11:06:50 11:06:54 10 FREIGHT SANTA FE WEST 2 8 9 N N 11:08:09 11:08:05 11:08:01 11:11:00 11:11:05 11:11:34 37 FREIGHT BNSF WEST 5 91 9 N N 11:13:37 11:13:33 11:13:16 11:52:02 11:52:07 11:52:32 60 PASSENGER METROLINK WEST 4 4 9 N N 11:52:49 11:52:45 11:52:38 12:02:13 12:02:18 12:02:19 28 FREIGHT BNSF EAST 2 8 Y N N 12:02:47 12:02:46 12:02:45 13:13:57 13:13:58 13:13:59 45 FREIGHT BNSF WEST 3 114 Y N N 13:16:03 13:16:01 13:15:59 13:37:13 13:37:21 13:37:50 21 FREIGHT BNSF WEST 2 8 Y N N 13:38:37 13:38:34 13:38:32 13:50:42 13:50:45 13:50:47 60 PASSENGER METROLINK EAST 2 4 9 N N 13:51:01 13:51:04 13:50:59 14:08:26 14:08:35 14:08:38 49 FREIGHT BNSF EAST 4 107 Y N N 14:10:35 14:10:32 14:10:27 14:23:06 14:23:10 14:23:15 50 FREIGHT BNSF EAST 4 134 Y N N 14:25:34 14:25:32 14:25:30 14:37:54 14:37:56 14:38:20 48 FREIGHT BNSF EAST 3 105 Y N N 14:40:12 14:40:19 14:40:06 14:45:39 14:45:45 14:45:50 59 PASSENGER METROLINK WEST 3 3 9 N N 14:46:20 14:46:17 14:46:12 14:59:26 14:59:29 14:59:32 59 PASSENGER METROLINK EAST 2 4 Y N N 14:59:56 14:59:51 14:59:46 15:06:05 15:06:10 15:06:18 41 FREIGHT SANTA FE WEST 4 136 Y N N 15:09:49 15:09:43 15:09:28 15:45:25 15:45:30 15:45:48 60 PASSENGER METROLINK WEST 2 4 Y N N 15:46:07 15:46:01 15:45:58 16:02:29 16:02:31 16:02:34 47 FREIGHT SANTA FE WEST 4 101 Y N N 16:04:14 16:04:12 16:04:09 17:08:51 17:08:54 17:09:03 60 PASSENGER METROLINK EAST 2 4 Y N N 17:09:27 17:09:24 17:09:20 17:26:39 17:26:41 17:26:58 60 PASSENGER METROLINK EAST 2 4 Y N N 17:27:26 17:27:22 17:27:19 17:50:13 17:50:16 17:50:20 59 PASSENGER METROLINK EAST 2 4 Y N N 17:50:42 17:50:40 17:50:36 18:01:09 18:01:12 18:01:27 51 FREIGHT BNSF EAST 5 83 Y N N 18:06:13 18:03:10 18:03:06 133 NATIONAL DATA & SURVEYING SERVICES Train Count Project No. 11-6107-001 Location: McKinley Street Crossing Day: Thursday City: Corona Date: 10/27/2011 Time Interval From: 12:00 AM To 23:59:00 PM Type of Land use Around Location: Residential/ Commercial Number of Tracks at Location: 2 TRAIN INFO 8:07:08 ERGENCY V Police #CL 21:25:26 Ambulance 15:53:02 Rail Truck 22:55:00 Police 17:19:03 Ambulance - - c v �z #7TRAt 18:09:05 18:09:11 18:09:16 59 PASSENGER METROLINK WEST 2 5 Y N N 18:09:34 18:09:31 18:09:28 18:12:06 18:12:16 18:12:21 42 FREIGHT BNSF EAST 4 119 Y N N 18:14:07 18:14:04 18:14:01 _ 18:18:01 18:18:06 18:18:10 50 FREIGHT BNSF WEST 2 63 Y N N 18:19:20 18:19:16 18:19:10 18:32:10 18:32:14 18:32:39 69 FREIGHT BNSF WEST 3 49 Y N N 18:34:00 18:33:57 18:33:43 18:34:56 18:35:01 18:35:25 61 PASSENGER METROLINK EAST 1 4 Y N N 18:36:06 18:36:01 18:35:35 18:45:01 18:45:09 18:45.31 50 PASSENGER METROLINK EAST 1 4 Y N N 18:46:06 18:46:01 18:45:42 18:51:42 18:51:47 18:52:15 27 FREIGHT BNSF WEST 6 57 1 N N 18:54:42 18:54:38 18:54:21 19:21:32 19:21:36 19:22:03 45 FREIGHT BNSF WEST 8 39 Y N N 19:23:12 19:23:07 19:22:52 19:32:16 19.32:21 19:32:48 60 PASSENGER AMTRAK EAST 2 13 1 N N 19:33:20 19:33:16 19:33:04 19:42:07 19:42:11 19:42:39 59 PASSENGER METROLINK EAST 2 4 Y N N 19:42:53 19:42:50 19:42:45 19:51:03 19:51:09 19:51:35 40 FREIGHT BNSF EAST 4 103 Y N N 19:54:13 19:54:09 19:53:36 20:02:05 20:02:11 20:02:38 41 FREIGHT BNSF EAST 2 131 Y N N 20:04:11 20:04:06 20:04:00 21:18:16 21:18:20 21:18:49 49 FREIGHT BNSF EAST 4 130 Y N N 21:21:15 21:21:10 21:20:38 22:00:14 22:00:17 22:00:45 46 FREIGHT BNSF WEST 4 42 Y N N 22:01:47 22:01:41 22:01:26 • • 134 NATIONAL DATA & SURVEYING SERVICES Train Count Project No. 11-6107-004 Location: Sunset Avenue Crossing Day: Wednesday City: Banning Date: 10/26/2011 Time Interval From: 12:00 AM To 23:59:00 PM Type of Land use Around Location: Residential/Commercial Number of Tracks at Location: 2 TRAIN INFO 11:41:34 Rail Truck 0:15:21 24 FREIGHT ka UNION PACIFIC EAST e., R e N 110 TRAiN STOP �N e BACK UUP 0:15:29 0:15:37 3 107 Y N N 0:18:50 0:18:39 0:18:32 0:50:37 0:50:48 0:51:04 23 FREIGHT CSX WEST 2 102 Y N N 0:55:20 0:55:13 0:55:04 1:08:18 1:08:25 1:08:39 16 FREIGHT UNION PACIFIC WEST 3 106 Y N N 1:14:07 1:13:58 1:13:48 1:22:55 1:23:03 1:23:14 27 FREIGHT UNION PACIFIC EAST 3 103 Y N N 1:26:13 1:26:07 1:26:00 3:14:23 — — 3:18:14 3:14:34 3:18:03 3:14:50 3:17:49 25 FREIGHT UNION PACIFIC/ CSX EAST 3 104 Y N N 4:45:12 4:45:27 4:45:41 33 FREIGHT UNION PACIFIC EAST 1 68 Y N N 4:48:09 4:48:07 4:47:58 4:56:31 4:56:45 4:56:59 32 FREIGHT UNION PACIFIC EAST 2 35 Y N N 4:57:57 4:57:54 4:57:46 5:10:42 5:10:54 5:11:13 34 FREIGHT UNION PACIFIC EAST 3 71 Y N N 5:13:05 5:13:02 5:12:49 5:18:28 5:18:42 5:18:55 22 FREIGHT UNIOPN PACIFIC WEST 2 111 Y N N 5:22:53 5:22:51 5:22:37 5:43:47 5:43:58 5:44:07 55 PASSENGER METROLINK WEST 2 10 Y N N 5:44:32 5:44:29 5:44:16 5:57:01 5:57:15 5:57:30 32 FREIGHT UNION PACIFIC EAST 4 113 Y N N 6:00:18 6:00:16 6:00:02 6:13:40 6:13:52 6:14:07 27 FREIGHT UNION PACIFIC WEST 2 79 Y N N 6:16:32 6:16:30 6:16:16 6:58:52 6:59:05 6:59:20 32 FREIGHT UNION PACIFIC EAST 4 89 Y N N 7:01:34 7:01:32 7:01:18 7:09:39 7:09:52 7:10:05 37 FREIGHT UNION PACIFIC EAST 2 36 Y N N 7:10:53 7:10:50 7:10:36 7:46:17 7:46:30 7:46:46 32 FREIGHT UNION PACIFIC EAST 3 108 Y N N 7:48:45 7:48:43 7:48:29 7:47:23 7:47:40 7:47:56 26 FREIGHT UNION PACIFIC WEST 4 70 Y N N 7:50:14 7:50:10 7:49:56 8:00:44 8:00:52 8:01:09 31 FREIGHT UNION PACIFIC EAST 2 80 Y N N 8:03:03 8:02:57 8:02:49 8:20:40 8:20:49 8:21:04 22 FREIGHT UNION PACIFIC WEST 3 70 Y N N 8:24:06 8:24:06 8:23:57 8:31:55 8:32:04 8:32:20 34 FREIGHT UNION PACIFIC EAST 4 83 Y N N 8:34:23 8:34:14 8:34:07 9:43:29 9:43:38 9:43:54 19 FREIGHT UNION PACIFIC WEST 2 55 Y N N 9:46:53 9:46:46 9:46:36 9:48:29 9:48:37 9:48:56 37 FREIGHT UNION PACIFIC EAST 5 99 Y N N 9:51:14 9:51:05 9:50:58 10:30:31 10:30:40 10:30:57 10:33:46 21 FREIGHT UNION PACIFIC EAST 4 110 Y N N 10:34:04 10:33:54 12:02:31 12:02:44 12:02:58 16 FREIGHT UNION PACIFIC WEST 2 40 Y N N 12:04:29 12:04:27 12:04:11 12:14:48 12:15:01 12:15:16 24 FREIGHT UNION PACIFIC WEST 3 63 Y N N 12:17:45 12:17:43 12:17:29 12:38:24 12:38:37 12:38:53 33 FREIGHT UNION PACIFIC EAST 5 100 Y N N 12:41:22 12:41:20 12:41:06 12:50:28 12:50:41 12:50:57 30 FREIGHT UNION PACIFIC EAST 6 99 Y N N 12:53:23 12:53:21 12:53:07 13:15:22 13:15:35 13:15:51 24 FREIGHT UNION PACIFIC EAST 3 101 Y N N 13:18:52 13:18:50 13:18:37 136 NATIONAL DATA & SURVEYING SERVICES Train Count Project No. 11-6107-004 Location: Sunset Avenue Crossing Day: Wednesday City: Banning Date: 10/26/2011 Time Interval From: 12:00 AM To 23:59:00 PM Type of Land use Around Location: Residential/Commercial Number of Tracks at Location: 2 TRAIN INFO E RC,1lCY t+Efil S P , f1�9G.n., QiiiANT!£1t 1 ..... � .... _ .. 11:41:34 Rail Truck 13:21:15 13:21:28 13:21:43 UNION PACIFIC 13:27:30 13:27:28 13:27:10 12 FREIGHT WEST tt OF LOCOMOTIVE l OF CARS THRti' TRAIN , 5 102 Y N N 14:10:05 14:10:18 14:10:33 14:12:49 14:12:47 14:12:33 25 FREIGHT UNION PACIFIC WEST 3 53 Y N N 14:28:29 14:28:41 14:29:00 14:33:00 14:32:58 14:32:43 21 FREIGHT UNION PACIFIC WEST 4 112 Y N N 15:53:20 15:53:33 15:53:49 15:57:39 15:57:37 15:57:22 21 FREIGHT UNION PACIFIC WEST 5 121 Y N N 16:43:02 16:43:12 16:43:36 16:47:41 16:47:33 16:47:25 19 FREIGHT UNION PACIFIC WEST 4 133 Y N N 17:18:23 17:18:31 17:18:48 17:19:17 17:19:08 17:19:02 55 PASSENGER AMTRAK EAST 2 13 Y N N 17:29:35 17:29:44 17:30:05 17:32:39 17:32:32 17:32:23 34 FREIGHT UNION PACIFIC EAST 4 100 Y N N 17:47:18 17:47:27 17:47:50 17:51:22 17:51:16 17:51:05 20 FREIGHT UNION PACIFIC WEST 4 97 Y N N 18:35:12 18:35:21 18:35:43 18:38:45 18:38:38 18:38:29 17 FREIGHT UNION PACIFIC WEST 1 50 Y N N 18:54:40 18:54:50 18:55:13 18:57:17 18:57:09 18:57:03 25 FREIGHT UNION PACIFIC EAST 5 66 Y N N 19:06:43 19:06:54 19:07:21 19:11:14 19:11:06 19:10:57 23 FREIGHT UNION PACIFIC WEST 4 111 Y N N 19:25:27 19:25:38 19:25:59 19:28:47 19:28:39 19:28:31 23 FREIGHT UNION PACIFIC WEST 3 83 Y N N 19:48:00 19:48:10 19:48:29 19:50:38 19:50:30 19:50:22 27 FREIGHT UNION PACIFIC WEST 4 77 Y N N 21:47:24 21:47:37 21:47:50 21:50:40 21:50:39 21:50:24 24 FREIGHT UNION PACIFIC WEST 3 105 Y N N 22:54:27 22:54:40 22:54:57 22:58:32 22:58:30 22:58:15 20 FREIGHT UNION PACIFIC WEST 3 101 Y N N 23:23:19 23:26:28 23:23:31 23:26:26 23:23:47 23:26:12 35 FREIGHT UNION PACIFIC EAST 5 108 Y N N • • • 137 NATIONAL DATA & SURVEYING SERVICES Train Count Project No. 11-6107-004 Location: Sunset Avenue Crossing Day: Thursday City: Banning Date: 10/27/2011 Time Interval From: 12:00 AM To 23:59:00 PM Type of Land use Around Location: Residential/Commercial Number of Tracks at Location: 2 TRAIN INFO iME or BEa GATE DOWN TIME TIMEOF TRAIN SPEED D TYPE -_TRAIN COMPANY DIRFCTION #OF LOCOMOTIVE #OF CARS THRU TRAIN DOES TRAIN STOP BAC 1:18:18 1:18:29 1:18:45 34 FRIEGHT UNION PACIFIC EAST 3 95 Y N N 1:21:14 1:21:06 1:20:57 1:43:47 1:43:58 1:44:23 19 FRIEGHT UNION PACIFIC WEST 8 64 Y N N 1:46:59 1:46:51 1:46:44 2:01:14 2:01:26 2:01:43 34 FRIEGHT UNION PACIFIC EAST 3 85 Y N N 2:03:50 2:03:42 2:03:34 3:30:08 3:30:19 3:30:39 22 FRIEGHT UNION PACIFIC WEST 7 68 Y N N 3:33:14 3:33:06 3:32:58 4:11:53 4:15:05 4:12:07 4:15:03 4:12:22 4:14:49 17 FRIEGHT UNION PACIFIC WEST 4 70 Y N N 4:30:13 4:30:27 4:30:39 37 FRIEGHT UNION PACIFIC WEST 3 36 Y N N 4:31:34 4:31:33 4:31:20 4:53:09 4:53:22 4:53:40 18 FRIEGHT UNION PACIFIC WEST 4 66 Y N N 4:56:03 4:56:01 4:55:47 5:11:48 5:12:00 5:12:13 18 FRIEGHT UNION PACIFIC EAST 3 96 Y N N 5:17:08 5:17:06 5:16:52 5:56:57 5:57:10 5:57:25 34 FRIEGHT UNION PACIFIC EAST 2 88 Y N N 5:59:30 5:59:28 5:59:15 6:05:26 6:05:39 6:05:55 34 FRIEGHT UNION PACIFIC EAST 2 40 Y N N 6:06:46 6:06:44 6:06:33 6:46:43 6:46:57 6:47:12 28 FRIEGHT UNION PACIFIC EAST 4 112 Y N N 6:50:37 6:50:35 6:50:21 7:15:06 7:15:20 7:15:35 10 FRIEGHT UNION PACIFIC WEST 4 88 Y N N 7:19:19 7:19:17 7:19:03 7:25:27 7:25:38 7:25:53 36 FRIEGHT UNION PACIFIC EAST 5 100 Y N N 7:28:15 7:28:13 7:27:59 7:40:42 7:40:55 7:41:15 21 FRIEGHT UNION PACIFIC WEST 3 81 Y N N 7:43:51 7:43:49 7:43:35 8:39:25 8:39:35 8:39:51 34 FRIEGHT UNION PACIFIC EAST 4 109 Y N N 8:42:48 8:42:39 8:42:33 9:02:02 9:02:12 9:02:31 15 FRIEGHT UNION PACIFIC WEST 4 103 Y N N 9:06:43 9:06:34 9:06:27 10:11:52 10:12:01 10:12:19 24 FRIEGHT UNION PACIFIC WEST 4 71 Y N N 10:14:32 10:14:23 10:14:16 10:37:56 10:38:06 10:38:25 16 FRIEGHT UNION PACIFIC WEST 2 40 Y N N 10:39:59 10:39:46 10:39:37 11:12:32 11:12:41 11:12:58 40 FRIEGHT UNION PACIFIC EAST 2 105 Y N N 11:15:25 11:15:17 11:15:10 12:03:02 12:03:15 12:03:30 17 FRIEGHT UNION PACIFIC WEST 3 75 Y N N 12:07:21 12:07:20 12:07:05 12:18:50 12:19:03 12:19:19 33 FRIEGHT UNION PACIFIC EAST 4 79 Y N N 12:21:12 12:21:10 12:20:56 12:32:26 12:35:15 12:32:38 — — 12:35:13 12:32:54 — 12:34:58 24 FRIEGHT UNION PACIFIC EAST 3 85 Y N N 12:46:28 12:46:42 12:46:57 35 FRIEGHT UNION PACIFIC EAST 4 99 Y N N 12:49:33 12:49:31 12:49:17 13:12:12 13:12:25 13:12:39 34 FRIEGHT UNION PACIFIC / CSX EAST 4 129 Y N N 13:15:34 13:15:32 13:15:19 14:02:50 14:03:01 14:03:23 19 FRIEGHT UNION PACIFIC WEST 3 94 V N N 14:06:01 14:05:59 14:05:45 14:30:04 14:30:17 14:30:34 18 FRIEGHT UNION PACIFIC EAST 4 115 Y N N 14:34:35 14:34:34 14:34:18 15:10:16 15:10:29 15:10:44 24 FRIEGHT UNION PACIFIC EAST 4 114 Y N N 15:13:53 15:13:52 15:13:38 138 NATIONAL DATA & SURVEYING SERVICES Train Count Project No. 11-6107-004 Location: Sunset Avenue Crossing Day: Thursday City: Banning Dote: 10/27/2011 Time Interval From: 12:00 AM To 23:59:00 PM Type of Land use Around Location: Residential/Commercial Number of Tracks at Location: 2 TRAIN INFO £fitCY,Y tlifllNilTY .. ' TIME QUANTITY .'�l�� aiisaiaismsvumm \OAi 0 THRU RAir . 15:43:16 15:43:29 15:43:43 25 FRIEGHT UNION PACIFIC WEST 2 87 Y N N 15:46:37 15:46:35 15:46:21 16:10:39 16:10:48 16:11:09 21 FRIEGHT UNION PACIFIC WEST 4 85 Y N N 16:14:16 16:14:09 16:14:00 16:35:57 16:36:06 16:36:24 22 FRIEGHT UNION PACIFIC EAST 5 84 Y N N 16:39:31 16:39:24 16:39:15 17:03:01 17:03:12 17:03:30 17 FRIEGHT UNION PACIFIC WEST 3 94 Y N N 17:07:03 17:06:55 17:06:46 17:19:58 17:20:09 17:20:30 24 FRIEGHT UNION PACIFIC WEST 4 118 Y N N 17:24:16 17:24:07 17:23:59 17:20:29 17:20:38 17:20:58 22 FRIEGHT UNION PACIFIC EAST 3 84 Y N N 17:23:41 17:23:34 17:23:24 17:44:35 17:44:47 17:45:02 35 FRIEGHT UNION PACIFIC EAST 4 57 Y N N 17:46:26 17:46:18 17:46:11 18:23:45 18:23:56 18:24:14 33 FRIEGHT UNION PACIFIC EAST 2 72 Y N N 18:26:34 18:26:24 18:26:17 18:48:08 18:48:19 18:48:38 25 FRIEGHT UNION PACIFIC WEST 3 42 Y N N 18:50:16 18:50:06 18:49:57 19:09:29 19:09:39 19:10:00 20 FRIEGHT UNION PACIFIC WEST 3 69 Y N N 19:12:42 19:12:34 19:12:27 21:24:09 21:24:22 21:24:37 22 FRIEGHT UNION PACIFIC EAST 4 130 y N N 21:29:04 21:29:02 21:28:47 22:33:39 22:33:52 22:34:02 34 FRIEGHT UNION PACIFIC EAST 3 105 y N N 22:36:32 22:36:30 22:36:17 22:59:58 23:00:11 23:00:27 31 FRIEGHT UNION PACIFIC EAST 4 107 Y N N 23:03:22 23:03:20 23:03:06 • 139 • Counts at Clay Street (Wednesday and Thursday — October 2011) • • /2012 InfraConsult • • • NATIONAL DATA & SURVEYING SERVICES Train Count Project No. 11-6107-002 Location: Clay Street Crossing Day: Wednesday City: Riverside Date: 10/26/2011 Time Interval From: 12:00 AM To 23:59:59 Type of Land use Around Location: Commercial Number of Tracks at Location: 1 TRAIN INFO TIME OF BELL 2:57:36 3:00:38 DOWN TIME 257:51 3:00:51 71147E OF TRAIN 2:58:11 3:00:37 SPEED 33 TYPE TRAIN COMPANY DIRECTION s' #Of LOCOMOTIVE aF �. 8 OF CARS • • ,. . iHRU TRAIN DOES TRAIN STOP DOES TRAIN BACK-UP FREIGHT UNION PACIFIC EAST 2 84 Y N N 3:29:01 3:32:16 3:29:31 3:32:29 3:29:52 3:32:15 31 FREIGHT UNION PACIFIC EAST 3 69 Y N N 4:05:48 4:06:02 4:06:25 54 FREIGHT UNION PACIFIC EAST 4 143 Y N N 4:08:08 4:08:21 4:08:06 4:50:03 4:50:42 4:50:17 4:50:55 4:50:30 4:50:41 58 FREIGHT METROLINK WEST 2 3 Y N N 4:56:48 4:58:35 4:57:02 4:58:48 4:57:18 4:58:33 51 FREIGHT UNION PACIFIC EAST 4 84 Y N N 5:49:32 5:49:46 5:50:01 70 PASSENGER METROLINK WEST 2 4 Y N N 5:50:09 5:50:22 5:50:08 5:56:13 5:58:03 5:56:27 5:58:16 5:56:40 5:58:01 38 FREIGHT UNION PACIFIC EAST 3 79 Y N N 6:23:00 6:23:14 6:23:35 71 PASSENGER METROLINK WEST 2 4 Y N N 6:23:42 6:23:55 6:23:37 6:57:01 6:57:45 6:58:02 70 PASSENGER METROLINK WEST 2 4 Y 8 N 6:58:10 6:58:23 6.58:08 7:04:22 7:06:39 7:04:36 7:06:52 7:04:54 7:06:37 45 FREIGHT UNION PACIFIC EAST 4 121 Y N N 8:22:43 8:22:57 8:23:13 69 PASSENGER METROLINK WEST 2 3 Y N N 8:23:21 8:23:34 8:23:19 10:47:56 10:48:10 10:48:25 39 FREIGHT UNION PACIFIC EAST 5 101 Y N N 10:50:37 10:50:50 10:50:34 12:29:52 12:32:37 12:30:06 12:32:50 12:30:36 12:32:34 40 FREIGHT UNION PACIFIC WEST 3 72 Y N N 13:15:20 13:15:34 13:16:05 36 FREIGHT UNION PACIFIC WEST 2 59 Y N N 13:17:36 13:17:49 13:17:33 14:25:15 14:25:57 14 : 14:25:29 14:26:10 14:25:40 14 -- 4. 14:25:53 53 PASSENGER METROLINK EAST 2 5 Y N N 15:15:02 15:15:29 15:15:16 15:15:22 15:15:27 67 PASSENGER METROLINK WEST 2 5 Y N N 15:15:42 15:25:26 15:25:40 15:25:57 44 FREIGHT UNION PACIFIC EAST 4 103 Y N N 15:27:59 15:28:12 15:27:55 16:48:15 16:50:22 16:48:30 16:50:35 16:48:53 16:50:21 35 FREIGHT UNION PACIFIC WEST 3 57 Y N N 17:21:36 17:22:14 17:21:50 17:22:27 17:22:04 17:22:11 53 PASSENGER METROLINK EAST 2 4 Y N N 18:02:41 18:02:52 18:03:07 53 PASSENGER METROLINK EAST 2 5 Y N N 18:03:17 18:03:22 18:03:15 18:36:01 18:36:07 18:36:48 18:36:13 18:36:40 59 PASSENGER METROLINK EAST 2 5 Y N N 18:36:42 19:10:28 — 19:11:12 19:10:42 — 19:11:25 19:11:00 19:11:11 44 PASSENGER METROLINK EAST 8 1 Y N N 19:40:25 19:40:34 19:40:48 60 PASSENGER METROLINK EAST 2 3 Y N N 19:40:56 19:41:09 19:40:53 20:14:01 20:14:53 20:14:14 20:15:06 20:14:39 20:14:50 44 FREIGHT UNION PACIFIC WEST 3 7 Y N N 20:22:50 20:23:01 20:23:24 54 FREIGHT UNION PACIFIC EAST 2 40 Y N N 20:23:51 20:24:04 20:23:48 141 Location: Clay Street Crossing City: Riverside Time Interval From: 12:00 AM Type of Land use Around Location: Number of Tracks at Location: 1 To 23:59:59 Commercial Project No. 11-6107-002 Day: Wednesday Date: 10/26/2011 TRAIN INFO EMERGENCY.VE}.iT 5 . TIME': .QUANTITY ' TM' ;..QUANTITY 21:50:46 21:50:58 21:51:14 21:53:32 21:53:45 21:53:30 40 FREIGHT UNION PACIFIC EAST 5 109 Y N N 22:13:50 22:14:03 22:14:22 22:14:33 22:14:46 22:14:30 34 FREIGHT UNION PACIFIC EAST 2 4 Y N N 23:05:00 23:10:03 23:05:12 23:10:23 23:05:28 23:10:01 22 FREIGHT UNION PACIFIC EAST 3 96 Y N N 23:31:04 23:31:24 23:31:29 23:32:40 23:32:58 23:32:38 42 FREIGHT UNION PACIFIC WEST 4 77 Y N N • 142 • • • NATIONAL DATA & SURVEYING SERVICES Train Count Project No. 11-6107-002 Location: Clay Street Crossing Day: Thursday City: Riverside Date: 10/27/2011 Time Interval From: 12:00 AM To 23:59:59 Type of Land use Around Location: Commercial Number of Tracks at Location: 1 TRAIN INFO EMEi E�''U NICLES � ' 9:44:48 Ambulance 19:08:00 Ambulance 13:01:37 Ambulance 18:33:42 Ambulance E% \ ., t s� = � ?x' ti 12:12:38 12:15:53 12:12:50 12:16:06 12:13:06 12:15:50 26 FREIGHT UNION PACIFIC EAST 4 v` 97 Y N ., .., L..sP�,`,•\` N 3:17:47 3:18:01 3:18:11 35 FREIGHT UNION PACIFIC EAST 2 105 Y N N 3:20:31 3:20:44 3:20:30 3:42:39 3:44:35 3:42:53 3:44:48 3:43:12 3:44:32 43 FREIGHT UNION PACIFIC EAST 2 94 Y N N 4:50:46 4:51:10 4:51:00 4:51:23 4:51:05 4:51:09 52 FREIGHT UNION PACIFIC EAST 2 3 Y N N 4:57:10 4:57:23 4:57:38 26 FREIGHT UNION PACIFIC EAST 4 116 Y N N 5:00:35 5:00:48 5:00:34 5:51:25 5:51:52 5:5139 5:52:05 5:51:45 5:51:51 50 PASSENGER METROLINK WEST 2 4 Y N N 6:23:19 6:24:03 6:23:33 6:24:18 6:2334 6:23:59 50 PASSENGER METROLINK WEST 2 5 Y N N 6:57:45 6:57:59 6:58:12 59 PASSENGER METROLINK WEST 2 4 Y N N 6:58:19 6:58:32 6:58:18 8:22:32 8:23:16 8:22:46 8:23:29 822:58 8:23:13 65 PASSENGER METROLINK WEST 1 5 Y N N 8:48:56 8:49:45 8:49:10 8:49:58 8:49:23 8:49:43 17 FREIGHT UNION PACIFIC EAST 1 7 Y N N 9:23:32 9:23:45 9:23:54 24 FREIGHT UNION PACIFIC EAST 3 112 Y N N 9:26:13 9:26:24 9:26:11 10:22:40 10:24:33 10:22:52 10:24:46 10:23:04 10:24:32 36 FREIGHT UNION PACIFIC EAST 3 85 Y N N 10:59:25 10:59:39 11:00:06 46 FREIGHT UNION PACIFIC WEST 2 10 Y N N 11:00:23 11:00:36 11:00:20 11:15:32 11:15:46 11:15:59 28 FREIGHT UNION PACIFIC EAST 4 133 Y N N 11:18:39 11:18:52 11:18:37 10:22:46 10:24:33 10:22:52 10:24:46 10:23:04 10:24:32 29 FREIGHT UNION PACIFIC EAST 3 108 Y N N 13:16:04 13:16:18 13:16:33 54 FREIGHT UNION PACIFIC EAST 4 118 Y N N 13:17:54 13:18:07 13:17:51 13:54:14 13:54:18 13:54:57 41 FREIGHT UNION PACIFIC WEST 4 72 Y N N 13:55:58 13:56:11 13:55:55 14:21:45 14:22:17 14:22:00 14:22:24 14:22:08 14:22:15 52 FREIGHT UNION PACIFIC EAST 2 5 Y N N 15:16:26 15:16:40 15:16:58 69 FREIGHT UNION PACIFIC EAST 2 5 Y N N 15:17:07 15:17:20 15:17:04 15:24:49 15:27:28 15:25:02 15:27:41 15:25:18 40 FREIGHT UNION PACIFIC EAST 3 95 Y N N 15:27:25 16:35:06 16:38:32 16:35:18 16:38:45 16:35:33 16:38:28 23 FREIGHT UNION PACIFIC EAST 2 75 Y N N 16:51:20 16:51:34 16:52:00 36 FREIGHT UNION PACIFIC EAST 3 76 Y N N 16:54:00 16:54:13 16:53:59 17:25:48 17:26:21 17:26:01 17:26:34 17:26:11 17:26:17 52 FREIGHT UNION PACIFIC EAST 2 4 Y N N 18:46:06 18:46:41 18:46:16 18:46:50 18:46:31 18:46:39 54 PASSENGER METROLINK EAST 2 4 Y N N 19:11:30 19:11:41 19:11:55 51 PASSENGER METROLINK EAST 2 4 Y N N 19:12:06 19:12:19 19:12:03 143 NATIONAL DATA & SURVEYING SERVICES Train Count Project No. 11-6107-002 Location: Clay Street Crossing Day: Thursday City: Riverside Date: 10/27/2011 Time Interval From: 12:00 AM To 23:59:59 Type of Land use Around Location: Commercial Number of Tracks at Location: 1 TRAIN INFO m, EMEI7 N • Iti QU ITY , 31M� t2 4$ w 9:44:48 Ambulance 19:08:00 Ambulance 13:01:37 Ambulance 18:33:42 Ambulance `a KIM �t ` . ,,.. #.OF £1At19, v .� , k � # OF CARS TFtRU TRAIN RAN STOP A %1C Py' 19:21:22 19:21:32 19:21:45 52 FREIGHT UNION PACIFIC EAST 4 131 Y N N 19:22:10 19:22:20 19:22:08 19:41:53 19:42:24 19:42:06 19:42:36 19:42:17 19:42:22 57 PASSENGER METROLINK EAST 4 2 Y N N 20:44:21 20:47:10 20:44:35 20:47:23 20:44:51 20:47:08 37 FREIGHT UNION PACIFIC EAST 3 104 Y N N 21:12:00 21:13:13 21:13:39 43 FREIGHT UNION PACIFIC WEST 2 2 Y N N 21:13:46 21:13:59 21:13:43 21:21:26 21:23:48 21:21:39 21:24:01 21:21:56 21:23:46 50 FREIGHT UNION PACIFIC EAST 4 108 Y N N 21:51:55 21:53:47 21:52:03 21:53:58 21:53:18 21:53:45 42 FREIGHT UNION PACIFIC EAST 3 94 Y N N 23:18:27 23:18:41 23:18:57 26 FREIGHT UNION PACIFIC EAST 3 51 Y N N 23:19:31 23:19:44 23:19:28 23:42:51 23:43:05 23:43:24 52 FREIGHT UNION PACIFIC EAST 3 124 Y N N 23:44:54 23:45:07 23:44:50 23:50:00 23:50:34 23:50:05 23:50:47 23:50:23 23:50:30 30 FREIGHT UNION PACIFIC EAST 2 2 Y N N • • • 144 Counts at Center Street (Wednesday and Thursday — October 2011) 2/2.1/2012 InfraConsult • • • NATIONAL DATA & SURVEYING SERVICES Train Count Project No. 11-6107-003 Location: Center Street Crossing Day: Wednesday City: Riverside Date: 10/26/2011 Time Interval From: 12:00 AM To 23:59:59 PM Type of Land use Around Location: Residential/Commercial Number of Tracks at Location: 2 0:09:40 0:09:47 0:09:58 0:11:34 0:11:38 0:11:25 1:05:30 1:05:30 N/A 1:06:35 1:06:35 N/A 1:07:02 1:07:12 N/A 1:07:31 1:07:31 N/A 1:08:43 1:08:51 1:08:55 1:09:40 1:09:45 1:09:10 45 FREIGHT 13 1:22:51 1:22:59 1:23:01 1:24:30 1:24:35 1:24:20 26 1:24:44 1:24:50 1:25:20 1:27:00 1:27:01 1:26:51 26 1:28:20 1:28:35 1:29:30 1:31:20 1:31:20 1:31:10 1:46:23 1:46:36 1:47:03 1:49:19 1:49:19 1:49:11 2:15:04 2:15:15 2:15:24 22 32 2:19:08 2:19:08 2:19:00 28 2:22:05 2:22:10 2:22:45 2:23:10 2:23:10 2:23:05 3:16:30 3:16:35 3:16:40 3:19:48 3:19:48 3:19:38 3:37:14 3:37:26 3:37:57 3:39:41 3:39:41 3:39:32 3:45:48 3:45:58 3:46:04 3:48:13 3:48:13 3:48:03 4:02:31 4:02:36 4:03:02 4:07:11 4:07:36 4:07:05 23 26 28 31 33 FREIGHT FREIGHT FREIGHT FREIGHT FREIGHT FREIGHT FREIGHT FREIGHT FREIGHT FREIGHT FREIGHT TRAIN INFO UNION PACIFIC Could not See Could not See SANTA FE BNSF BNSF BNSF BNSF BNSF BNSF UNION PACIFIC BNSF UNION PACIFIC BNSF SOUTH SOUTH SOUTH NORTH NORTH NORTH NORTH NORTH NORTH NORTH SOUTH 2 SAME TRAIN SAME TRAIN 2 3 5 4 4 5 2 2 4 3 2 80 0 37 130+ 118 121 143 8 76 78 71 177 N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N N N N N N N N N N N Y N N N N N N N N N N N Crossing Same Time FREIGHT BNSF NORTH Could not See Y N N 4:10:13 4:10:17 4:10:21 4:12:19 4:12:17 4:12:15 21 FREIGHT BNSF NORTH 1 7 Y N N 4:20:52 4:20:58 4:21:43 4:23:22 4:23:21 4:23:18 32 FREIGHT BNSF NORTH 2 56 Y N N 4:33:19 4:33:23 4:34:01 4:37:11 4:37:09 4:37:07 31 FREIGHT BNSF NORTH 2 112 5 N N 4:59:06 4:59:15 4:59:35 5:01:25 5:01:23 5:01:20 38 PASSENGER METROLINK SOUTH 2 6 Y N N 5:06:48 5:06:51 5:07:04 5:09:15 5:09:13 5:09:11 31 FREIGHT BNSF NORTH 4 99 9 N N 5:10:39 5:10:42 5:10:49 5:10:47 NO TRAIN 5:16:37 5:16:43 5:17:53 5:19:23 5:19:22 5:19:20 37 FREIGHT UNION PACIFIC NORTH 4 87 Y N N 5:30:16 5:30:21 5:31:29 5:33:02 5:33:03 5:33:01 22 FREIGHT BNSF NORTH 4 96 Y N N 5:31:42 Crossing at the same time 42 PASSENGER METROLINK SOUTH 4 Y N 5:42:03 5:42:07 5:43:14 5:43:54 5:43:52 5:43:50 23 FREIGHT BNSF SOUTH 2 4 Y N N 5:48:32 5:48:35 5:49:39 5:52:16 5:52:14 5:52:12 35 FREIGHT BNSF NORTH 4 110 Y N N 5:54:21 5:54:27 5:54:33 5:54:31 NO TRAIN 5:59:58 6:00:02 6:01:10 6:03:18 6:03:17 6:03:15 19 FREIGHT BNSF NORTH 4 113 Y N N 146 NATIONAL DATA & SURVEYING SERVICES Train Count Project No. 11-6107-003 Location: Center Street Crossing Day: Wednesday City: Riverside Date: 10/26/2011 Time Interval From: 12:00 AM To 23:59:59 PM Type of Land use Around Location: Residential/Commercial Number of Tracks at Location: 2 TRAIN INFO EME�1CY YEliC1 TIME.: QtJA8' TJTY iN1E d TIME OF BELL .. GATE DOWN TIME y "4..., _. . TIME OF TRAIN � r�s SPEED �. _ . TYPE TRAI COMPANY �� . . ... DIRECTION LOCOMOTIVE # OF CARS THRU TRAIN bt3E$ TRAIN 'STOPa. .x _. 6:09:59 6:10:02 6:10:43 41 PASSENGER METROLINK SOUTH 1 5 Y N N 6:10:59 6:10:57 6:10:55 6:13:21 6:13:24 6:14:23 UNION 32 FREIGHT NORTH 3 80 Y N N 6:16:15 6:16:13 6:16:11 PACIFIC 6:30:37 6:30:40 6:31:12 34 FREIGHT BNSF SOUTH 3 63 Y N N 6:32:15 6:32:13 6:32:10 7:00:45 7:00:52 7:01:01 39 PASSENGER AMTRAK SOUTH 3 5 Y N N 7:01:18 7:01:13 7:01:10 7:23:32 7:23:37 7:24:12 UNION 35 FREIGHT NORTH 4 110 Y N N 7:26:22 7:26:17 7:26:11 PACIFIC 7:27:51 7:27:56 7:28:48 31 FREIGHT BNSF SOUTH 5 75 Y N N 7:30:28 7:30:23 7:30:19 7:34:27 7:34:30 7:35:19 12 FREIGHT BNSF NORTH 5 169 Y N N 7:39:41 7:39:36 7:39:30 7:41:02 7:41:06 NO TRAIN 7:41:15 7:41:12 7:51:58 7:52:01 7:52:04 25 FREIGHT BNSF SOUTH 2 130 V N N 7:54:32 7:54:29 7:54:24 8:03:04 8:03:11 8:03:51 37 FREIGHT BNSF NORTH 4 87 Y N N 8:05:42 8:05:37 8:05:32 8:34:20 8:34:25 8:35:08 43 FREIGHT BNSF SOUTH 4 108 Y N N 8:36:41 8:38:34 8:36:31 8:50:44 8:50:53 8:50:59 39 FREIGHT BNSF SOUTH 4 134 0 N N 8:53:40 8:53:36 8:53:29 8:55:27 8:55:33 8:56:04 42 FREIGHT BNSF NORTH 6 94 0 N N 8:58:05 8:58:02 8:57:56 9:49:21 9:49:26 9:49:31 39 FREIGHT BNSF NORTH 4 94 Y N N 9:51:56 9:51:49 9:51:46 10:25:30 10:25:39 10:25:55 47 PASSENGER METROLINK NORTH 2 3 V N N 10:26:29 10:26:45 10:26:03 11:04:00 11:04:13 11:04:41 UNION 35 FREIGHT NORTH 5 101 V N N 11:07:39 11:07:39 11:07:30 PACIFIC 11:19:26 _.____ 11:19:39 ......._...------_.... . . . . NO TRAIN 11:19:50 11:19:50 11:34:28 11:34:35 11:34:55 47 PASSENGER METROLINK SOUTH 2 4 Y N N 11:35:18 11:35:18 11:35:10 12:05:39 12:05:52 12:06:20 UNION 25 FREIGHT SOUTH 3 71 0 N N 12:09:11 12:09:11 12:09:00 PACIFIC 12:22:18 12:22:30 12:22:55 25 FREIGHT BNSF NORTH 3 87 Y N N 12:24:57 12:24:57 12:24:48 12:26:41 12:26:52 NO TRAIN 12:27:18 12:27:18 12:30:04 12:30:15 12:30:43 29 FREIGHT BNSF SOUTH 4 142 Y N N 12:33:27 12:33:27 12:33:18 12:57:40 12:57:52 NO TRAIN 12:58:30 12:58:30 12:59:02 12:59:15 12:59:58 UNION 25 FREIGHT SOUTH 2 55 Y N N 13:02:09 13:02:09 13:02:01 PACIFIC 13:07:59 13:08:10 13:08:31 41 FREIGHT BNSF SOUTH 4 129 Y N N 13:10:04 13:10:04 13:09:55 13:18:46 13:18:58 13:19:38 30 FREIGHT BNSF SOUTH 2 0 Y N N 13:19:58 13:19:58 13:19:50 14:34:30 14:34:40 14:35:03 30 FREIGHT BNSF NORTH 3 85 Y N N ARM/BELL STILL 14:36:48 DOWN/WORKING 14:36:08 Could not 31 FREIGHT BNSF SOUTH 2 0 N N 14:38:20 14:38:20 14:38:04 See • • 147 NATIONAL DATA & SURVEYING SERVICES Train Count Project No. 11-6107-003 Location: Center Street Crossing Day: Wednesday City: Riverside Date: 10/26/2011 Time Interval From: 12:00 AM To 23:59:59 PM Type of Land use Around Location: Residential/Commercial Number of Tracks of Location: 2 TRAIN INFO _ 14:56:00 14:56:10 14:56:39 37 FREIGHT BNSF NORTH 4 116 Y N N 14:58:56 14:58:56 14:58:46 15:41:47 15:41:59 15:42:33 UNION 28 FREIGHT PACIFIC NORTH 4 100 Y N N 15:45:57 15:45:59 15:45:49 16:17:15 16:17:21 16:19:19 33 FREIGHT BNSF NORTH 2 92 Y N N 16:20:29 16:20:27 16:20:23 16:29:51 16:29:57 16:30:47 16:30:44 NO TRAIN 16:31:19 16:31:19 16:31:51 30 FREIGHT BNSF SOUTH 3 53 Y N N 16:33:52 16:33:52 16:33:39 16:34:04 16:34:07 16:36.15 22 FREIGHT SANTA FE NORTH 2 83 Y N N 16:41:19 16:41:14 16:41:05 16:59:33 16:59:39 17:00:10 35 FREIGHT BNSF SOUTH 4 133 Y N N 17:02:51 17:02:48 17:02:41 17:29:07 17:29:14 17:29:53 48 PASSENGER METROLINK NORTH 2 4 Y N N 17:30:07 17:30:05 17:30:00 17:56:17 17:56:20 17:56:47 33 FREIGHT BNSF SOUTH 4 83 Y N N 17:59:17 17:59:12 17:58:29 18:08:40 18:08:46 18:09:14 14 FREIGHT BNSF SOUTH 6 104 Y N N 18:14:25 18:14:20 18:14:13 18:08:40 18:08:46 18:10:05 42 PASSENGER METROLINK NORTH 2 4 9 N N 18:14:25 18:14:20 18:10:24 18:20:54 18:21:05 18:21:32 37 FREIGHT BNSF NORTH 5 109 Y N N 18:24:17 18:24:14 18:24:06 18:29:01 18:29:07 18:29:59 18:29:56 NO TRAIN 18:30:42 18:30:48 18:31:25 28 FREIGHT BNSF SOUTH 3 95 9 N N 18:34:38 18:34:34 18:33:46 18:55:06 18:55:13 18:55:49 46 PASSENGER METROLINK NORTH 1 4 Y N N 18:56:05 18:56:02 18:55:56 19:12:13 19:12:18 19:12:53 45 FREIGHT BNSF NORTH 4 112 Y N N 19:14:55 19:14:50 19:14:46 19:37:16 _._------37:22 19:39:24 19:37:22 19:39:22 19:37:49 1 :37:49 19:39:15 39 FREIGHT BNSF SOUTH 2 69 Y N N 20:10:25 20:10:30 20:11:09 48 PASSENGER AMTRAK NORTH 2 9 Y N N 20:11:30 20:11:28 20:11:22 20:36:28 20:36:33 20:37:09 38 FREIGHT BNSF NORTH 2 40 Y N N 20:37:48 20:37:45 20:37:40 20:44:31 20:44:36 20:45:10 42 FREIGHT BNSF NORTH 4 104 Y N N 20:47:17 20:47:15 20:47:09 21:16:09 21:16:13 21:16:49 42 FREIGHT BNSF NORTH 4 106 9 N N 21:18:15 21:18:13 21:18:07 22:07:32 22:07:45 22:08:21 33 FREIGHT BNSF NORTH 5 108 Y N N 22:11:12 22:11:45 22:11:05 23:09:40 23:09:56 23:10:38 23:10:38 NO TRAIN 23:10:51 23:11:00 23:11:33 32 FREIGHT BNSF SOUTH 4 77 Y N N 23:13:12 23:13:12 23:13:03 23:36:21 23:36:24 23:37:06 23:39:40 23:39:40 23:39:36 36 FREIGHT BNSF NORTH 3 94 Y N N 148 NATIONAL DATA & SURVEYING SERVICES Train Count Project No. 11-6107-003 Location: Center Street Crossing Day: Thursday City: Riverside Date: 10/27/2011 Time Interval From: 12:00 AM To 23:59:59 PM Type of Land use Around Location: Residential/Commercial Number of Tracks at Location: 2 TRAIN INFO -'- xIME QUA�tTA , 'TIM) Y 3:37:47 Fire Truck g g a t1UM S 0:30:51 0:31:03 0:31:30 UNION 27 FREIGHT NORTH 3 94 Y N N 0:33:50 0:33:50 0:33:42 PACIFIC 0:37:10 0:37:20 0:37:54 39 FREIGHT BNSF SOUTH 4 66 Y N N 0:40:43 0:40:43 0:39:52 0:49:03 0:49:13 0:49:20 36 FREIGHT BNSF SOUTH 2 104 Y N N 0:51:36 ARM/BELL still DOWN/ON 0:49:35 Could Not Could Not FREIGHT BNSF NORTH Could Not See Y N N 0:52:15 0:52:05 0:51:50 See See 1:24:50 1:25:00 1:25:10 39 FREIGHT BNSF SOUTH 5 162 Y N N 1:31:16 1:31:16 1:28:50 1:24.50 1:25:00 1.28:50 38 FREIGHT BNSF NORTH 3 146 Y N N 1:31:16 1:31:16 1:31:10 1:32:35 1:32:47 NO TRAIN 1:33:10 1:33:10 1:53:46 1:55:56 2:02:24 34 FREIGHT BNSF NORTH 5 143 Y N N ------------------------- 2:03:26 2:03:26 2:02:24 2:27:00 2:27:10 2:27:45 27 FREIGHT BNSF SOUTH 3 73 Y N N 2:30:14 2:30:14 2:30:01 2:44:40 2:44:45 2:45:05 27 FREIGHT BNSF SOUTH 4 88 Y N N 2:48:00 2:48:00 2:47:43 2:56:02 2:56:16 2:56:30 36 FREIGHT BNSF NORTH 4 92 Y N N 2:58:30 2:58:30 2:58:20 3:07:36 3:07:44 3:08:21 35 FREIGHT BNSF NORTH 4 107 Y N N 3:10:38 3:10:38 3:10:30 3:37:20 3:37:30 3:37:40 30 FREIGHT BNSF NORTH 3 95 Y N N 3:40:47 3:40:47 3:40:38 4:02:33 4:02:38 4:0319 32 FREIGHT BNSF NORTH 7 60 Y N N 4:05:12 4:05:08 4:05:01 4:07:08 ---- 4:07:13 NO TRAIN 4:07:43 4:07:41 4:10:21 4:10:31 4:11:14 38 FREIGHT BNSF NORTH 2 88 Y N N 4:13:10 4:13:06 4:13:01 4:20:41 4:20:45 4:20:59 13 FREIGHT BNSF NORTH 2 10 Y N N 4:22:15 4:22:11 4:22:02 4:22:45 4:22:49 4:23:35 8 FREIGHT BNSF NORTH 2 86 Y Y N 4:30:46 4:30:42 4:30:35 4:39:25 4:39:29 4:40:37 20 FREIGHT BNSF NORTH 4 137 Y N N 4:45:25 4:45:21 4:45:13 4:59:11 4:59:15 4:59:45 50 PASSENGER METROLINK SOUTH 2 4 Y N N 4:59:58 4:59:55 4:59:51 5:16:12 5:16:14 5:16:52 30 FREIGHT BNSF NORTH 4 114 Y N N 5:20:55 5:20:49 5:20:43 5:23:17 5:23:21 NO TRAIN 5:33:52 5:28:47 5:32:30 5:32:34 5:33:13 53 PASSENGER AMTRAK SOUTH 2 10 Y N N 5:33:27 5:33:24 5:33:21 5:38:10 5:38:13 5:38:50 41 FREIGHT BNSF NORTH 4 134 Y N N 5:42:15 5:42:12 5:42:05 5:42:59 5:43:03 5:43:34 39 FREIGHT BNSF SOUTH 2 110 Y N N 5:45:27 5:45:30 5:45:21 5:50:00 5:50:03 5:50:42 40 FREIGHT BNSF NORTH 4 116 Y N N 5:52:45 5:52:39 5:52:34 5:53:59 5:54:02 5:54:36 5:54:30 NO TRAIN 6:07:20 6:07:25 6.07.53 47 PASSENGER METROLINK - SOUTH 2 4 Y N N 6:08:09 6:08:06 6:08:01 • • 149 Number of Tracks at Location: NATIONAL DATA & SURVEYING SERVICES Train Count Project No. 11-6107-003 Location: Center Street Crossing City: Riverside Time Interval From: 12:00 AM To 23:59:59 PM Type of Land use Around Location: Residential/Commercial 2 Day: Thursday Date: 10/27/2011 TRAIN INFO 3:37:47 Fire Truck OF 6:14:36 GA QWN 6:14:40 l E OF 6:15:10 ; 39 EI, FREIGHT TRA} L `% ;. BNSF l', o Si a 3$ SOUTH OF + OTNE 3 :3i OFC1R5 57 T1iRl17RAiN Y N N 6:19:05 6:19:02 6:16:18 6:14:36 6:14:40 6:16:24 35 FREIGHT BNSF NORTH 3 124 Y N N 6:19:05 6:19:02 6:18:58 6:45:10 6:45:15 6:46:05 43 PASSENGER AMTRAK SOUTH 2 9 Y N N 6:46:28 6:46:24 6:46:20 7:26:22 7:26:24 7:26:52 19 FREIGHT BNSF SOUTH 2 90 Y N N 7:29:27 7:29:24 7:29:19 7:41:15 7:41:22 7:41:57 19 FREIGHT BNSF SOUTH 4 136 Y N N 7:45:15 7:45:12 7:45:10 7:51:22 7:51:27 7:51:56 39 FREIGHT BNSF SOUTH 6 111 Y N N 7:54:04 7:54:01 7:53:56 8:24:40 8:24:45 8:25:15 39 FREIGHT BNSF SOUTH 4 114 8 N N 8:27:18 8:27:15 8:27:10 9:34:12 --- --- 9:38:21 9:34:16 — ---4:16 9:38:18 9:34: 9:34:52 9:37:10 40 FREIGHT BNSF NORTH 4 123 Y N N 9:51:14 9:51:55 9:51:55 25 FREIGHT BNSF NORTH 5 105 Y N N 9:55:08 9:55:00 9:55:00 10:07:01 10:07:15 NO TRAIN 10:07:52 10:07:52 10:28:50 10:28:55 10:29:05 47 PASSENGER METROLINK NORTH 2 3 Y N N 10:29:15 10:29:15 10:29:10 10:37:28 10:37:41 10:38:13 20 FREIGHT BNSF SOUTH 5 Could Not See 8 N N ARM/BELL slit DOWN/ON 10:40:28 10:38:00 39 FREIGHT UNION PACIFIC NORTH 3 87 Y N N 10:41:20 10:41:20 10:39:40 11:14:50 11:14:56 11:15:25 40 FREIGHT BNSF NORTH 4 123 Y N N 11:17:46 11:17:46 11:17:37 11:31:37 11:31:50 11:32:13 48 PASSENGER METROLINK SOUTH 2 4 Y N N 11:32:30 11:32:30 11:32:21 11:34:20 11:34:28 11:34:57 33 FREIGHT UNION PACIFIC NORTH 4 130 Y N N 11:38:12 11:38:12 11:38:02 11:40:25 11:40:38 NO TRAIN 11:40:58 11:40:59 12:30:50 12:31:03 12:31:42 32 FREIGHT UNION PACIFIC NORTH 4 116 Y N N 12:34:22 12:34:22 12:34:14 12:53:16 12:53:29 12:53:52 36 FREIGHT BNSF SOUTH 3 113 Y N N 12:55:51 12:55:51 12:55:42 13:33:59 13:34:03 13:34:44 28 FREIGHT UNION PACIFIC NORTH 4 117 Y N N 13:39:44 13:39:44 13:37:45 13:33:59 13:34:03 13:37:58 27 FREIGHT UNION PACIFIC SOUTH 4 71 Y N N 13:39:44 13:39:44 13:39:36 14:26:05 14:26:13 14:26:44 43 FREIGHT BNSF NORTH 4 108 Y N N 14:28:37 14:28:37 14:28:30 14:40:00 14:40:10 14:40:36 22 FREIGHT BNSF SOUTH 4 131 Y N N 14:43:50 14:43:50 14:43:37 14:40:00 14:40:10 14:41:20 FREIGHT BNSF NORTH 3 Y N N 14:43:50 14:43:50 14:43:37 14:56:15 ----- 14:59:12 14:56:20 14:59:12 1436:29 14:59:02 27 FREIGHT BNSF NORTH 3 105 Y N N 15:01:26 15:01:36 NO TRAIN 15:02:03 15:02:03 15:41:15 15:41:26 15:41:50 41 FREIGHT BNSF SOUTH 5 Could Not See Y N N ARM/BELL still DOWN/ON 15:43:34 15:42:20 30 FREIGHT UNION PACIFIC NORTH Could Not See Could Not See Y N N 15:44:461 15:44:46 15:44:39 150 NATIONAL DATA & SURVEYING SERVICES Train Count Project No. 11-6107-003 Location: Center Street Crossing Day: Thursday City: Riverside Dote: 10/27/2011 Time Interval From: 12:00 AM To 23:59:59 PM Type of Land use Around Location: Residential/Commercial Number of Trucks at Location: 2 TRAIN INFO 3:37:47 Fire Truck ��+m,�_.- e� - ` • - � tii s 16:29:39 16:29:44 16:30:23 27 FREIGHT UNION SOUTH PACIFIC 3 73 Y N N 16:33:09 16:33:06 16:32:59 16:41:04 16:41:09 NO TRAIN 16:42:03 16:42:00 16:42.09 16:45:11 16:45:46 21 FREIGHT SANTA FE SOUTH 3 29 Y N N 16:48:27 16:48:23 16:48:16 16:58:57 16:59:03 16:59:35 39 FREIGHT UNION PACIFIC NORTH 2 70 Y N N 17:04:49 17:01:47 17:01:45 17:02:08 17:02:10 NO TRAIN 17:03:06 17:03:02 17:28:45 17:28:47 17:29:27 48 PASSENGER METROLINK NORTH 2 5 Y N N 17:29:43 17:29:40 17:29:35 17:44:45 17:44:49 17:45:25 22 FREIGHT BNSF SOUTH 2 63 Y N N 17:48:01 17:47:57 17:47:39 17:53:29 ----------------.-_ 17:54:24 17:53:34 ......._----_._-__..-- 17:54:20 NO TRAIN 18:11:17 18:11:21 18:11:48 24 FREIGHT BNSF SOUTH 3 62 Y N N 18:14:12 18:14:08 18:13:48 18:11:17 18:11:21 18:13:24 43 PASSENGER METROLINK NORTH 2 4 Y N N 18:14:12 18:14:08 18:13:30 18:18:25 18:18:32 18:20:07 39 FREIGHT BNSF/SANTA FE NORTH 54=BNSF 1=SANTA FE 80 Y N N 18:22:07 18:22:02 18:21:55 18:28:30 18:28:33 18:29:05 23 FREIGHT BNSF SOUTH 6 66 Y N N 18:31:25 18:31:22 18:30:36 18:33:14 18:33:19 18:34:05 17 FREIGHT BNSF NORTH 4 118 Y N N 18:37:16 18:37:14 18:37:08 18:54:11 18:54:15 18:54:57 45 PASSENGER METROLINK NORTH 2 3 Y N N 18:55:13 18:55:11 18:55:02 19:00:02 19:00:06 19:00:39 41 FREIGHT BNSF SOUTH 8 42 Y N N 19:01:42 19:01:39 19:01:33 19:36:56 19:36:59 19:37:43 30 FREIGHT BNSF NORTH 3 142 Y N N 19:40:52 19:40:48 19:40:44 19:56:28 19:56:35 19:57:12 49 PASSENGER AMTRAK NORTH 2 10 Y N N 19:57:34 19:57:31 19:57:28 20:11:05 20:11:09 20:11:38 42 FREIGHT BNSF NORTH 4 101 Y N N 20:13:49 20:13:46 20:13:41 20:15:12 20:15:16 NO TRAIN 20:15:52 20:15:47 20:23:08 20:23:11 20:24:05 22 FREIGHT BNSF NORTH 2 112 Y N N 20:25:11 20:25:08 20:25:05 20:58:31 20:58:36 20:59:11 36 FREIGHT BNSF NORTH 3 103 Y N N 21:01:59 21:01:55 21:01:49 21:34:57 21:35:01 21:35:36 38 FREIGHT UNION PACIFIC NORTH 3 109 Y N N 21:38:38 21:38:34 21:38:26 21:38:53 21:38:56 21:39:23 40 FREIGHT BNSF SOUTH 4 43 Y N N 21:40:22 21:40:16 21:40:03 21:46:26 21:46:31 21:47:30 18 FREIGHT BNSF SOUTH 4 137 Y N N 21:51:34 21:51:32 21:51:26 22:06:00 - 22:09:49 22:06:07 --------------------- 22:09:46 22:07:39 22:09:43 34 FREIGHT UNION PACIFIC NORTH 3 93 Y N N 23:12:56 23:13:00 23:13:37 38 FREIGHT BNSF SOUTH 4 103 Y N N 23:15:31 23:15:28 23:15:24 23:31:12 23:31:16 23:31:53 40 FREIGHT UNION PACIFIC NORTH 2 58 Y N N 23:32:32 23:32:27 23:32:23 23:58:16 23:58:19 23:59:04 36 FREIGHT UNION PACIFIC NORTH 3 99 Y N N 0:01:15 0:01:13 0:01:07 • • • 151 • Counts at Avenue 54 (Wednesday and Thursday — October 2011) • • A-8 2/21/2012 InfraConsult • • • Location: Avenue 54 Crossing City: Coachella Time Interval From: 12:00:00 AM Type of Land use Around Location: Number of Tracks at Location: NATIONAL DATA & SURVEYING SERVICES Train Count Project No. 11-6107-005 To 23:59:59 PM Industrial 2 Day: Wednesday Date: 10/26/2011 TRAIN INFO TIME OF RUA. DOWN TIME TIME OF TRAIN SPEED TYPE TRAIN COMPANY DIRECTION !t OF LOCOMOTIVE g OF CARS RU TRAIN TRAIN .' STOP Pte_ 0:05:03 0:05:10 0:05:30 40 FREIGHT UNION PACIFIC SOUTH 2 72 Y N N 0:07:17 0:07:20 0:07:11 0:45:36 0:45:42 0:46:02 21 FREIGHT UNION PACIFIC SOUTH 4 110 Y N N 0:47:33 0:47:40 0:47:24 1:36:00 1:36:08 1:36:34 24 FREIGHT UNION PACIFIC SOUTH 3 117 Y N N 1:38:21 1:38:26 1:38:04 2:29:26 2:29:30 2:29:57 28 FREIGHT UNION PACIFIC SOUTH 3 102 Y N N 2:31:34 2:31:40 2:31:26 3:21:41 3:21:47 3:22:11 26 FREIGHT UNION PACIFIC NORTH 2 108 Y N N 3:24:16 3:24:32 3:24:08 4:12:58 4:13:00 4:13:25 36 FREIGHT UNION PACIFIC NORTH 2 79 Y N N 4:41:00 4:14:57 4:14:50 4:39:55 4:39:59 4:40:24 27 FREIGHT UNION PACIFIC SOUTH 3 104 Y N N ARM/BELL STILL DOWN/ON 4:41:53 4:41:23 Could Not See FREIGHT UNION PACIFIC NORTH 1 Could Not See Y N N 4:42:17 4:42:19 4:42:13 5:35:44 5:35:48 5:36:21 29 FREIGHT UNION PACIFIC NORTH 5 53 Y N N 5:38:11 5:38:14 5:38:01 6:13:08 6:13:12 6:13:38 45 FREIGHT UNION PACIFIC SOUTH 2 79 Y N N 6:15:21 6:15:22 6:15:14 6:38:27 6:38:31 6:38:59 30 FREIGHT UNION PACIFIC SOUTH 2 30 Y N N 6:39:42 6:39:42 6:39:36 6:42:51 6:42:53 6:43:19 46 FREIGHT UNION PACIFIC NORTH 4 78 Y N N 6:44:58 6:45:04 6:44:49 6:52:10 6:52:20 6:52:39 50 FREIGHT UNION PACIFIC SOUTH 2 72 Y N N 6:53:49 6:53:54 6:53:43 7:02:10 7:02:19 7:02:41 46 FREIGHT UNION PACIFIC SOUTH 4 112 Y N N 7:04:34 7:04:40 7:04:28 7:38:30 7:38:37 7:38:58 37 FREIGHT UNION PACIFIC NORTH 2 56 Y N N 7:40:37 7:40:43 7:40:28 8:04:55 8:05:03 8:05:16 45 FREIGHT UNION PACIFIC SOUTH 4 87 Y N N 8:07:13 8:07:16 8:07:00 8:35:23 8:35:31 8:36:00 25 FREIGHT UNION PACIFIC NORTH 4 107 Y N N 8:39:08 8:39:13 8:39:08 8:59:28 8:59:33 8:59:50 50 FREIGHT UNION PACIFIC SOUTH 4 76 Y N N 9:01:12 9:01:17 9:01:04 9:37:34 9:37:43 9:38:05 51 FREIGHT UNION PACIFIC SOUTH 5 85 Y N N 9:39:33 9:39:36 9:39:23 9:55:00 . FREIGHT UNION PACIFIC SOUTH ' s N Y N • s * 10:35:30 10:35:36 10:35:55 49 FREIGHT UNION PACIFIC NORTH 3 67 Y N N 10:37:10 10:37:15 10:37:05 10:56:24 10:56:30 10:56:55 25 FREIGHT UNION PACIFIC SOUTH 3 84 Y N N 10:59:30 10:59:36 10:59:22 11:15:44 11:15:50 11:16:11 47 FREIGHT UNION PACIFIC SOUTH 5 104 Y N N 11:17:54 11:17:58 11:17:47 11:59:40 11:59:46 11:59:53 55 FREIGHT UNION PACIFIC NORTH 3 53 Y N N 12:02:02 12:02:05 12:01:53 12:13:17 12:13:26 12:13:45 54 FREIGHT UNION PACIFIC SOUTH 4 110 Y N N 12:15:15 12:15:21 12:15:08 12:23:50 12:23:56 12:24:21 40 FREIGHT UNION PACIFIC NORTH 4 112 Y N N 12:26:39 12:26:45 12:26:34 153 Location: Avenue 54 Crossing City: Coachella Time Interval From: 12:00:00 AM Type of Land use Around Location: Number of Tracks at Location: NATIONAL DATA & SURVEYING SERVICES Train Count Project No. 11-6107-005 To 23:59:59 PM Industrial 2 Day: Wednesday Date: 10/26/2011 TRAIN INFO a " 13:52:09 13:52:20 13:52:36 33 FREIGHT UNION PACIFIC NORTH 5 122 Y N N 13:54:32 13:54:38 13:54:26 14:05:54 14:06:03 14:06:25 27 FREIGHT NORFOLF S SOUTH 5 102 Y N N 14:08:29 14:08:34 14:08:22 14:36:54 14:37:00 14:37:21 34 FREIGHT UNION PACIFIC NORTH 4 133 Y N N 14:39:13 14:39:19 14:39:08 14:58:00 14:58:09 14:58:23 25 FREIGHT UNION PACIFIC SOUTH 5 100 Y N N 15:00:30 15:00:38 15:00:24 15:41:34 15:41:43 15:42:02 31 FREIGHT UNION PACIFIC NORTH 4 98 Y N N 15:43:48 15:43:53 15:43:42 15:52:33 15:52:41 15:53:00 48 FREIGHT UNION PACIFIC SOUTH 2 96 Y N N 15:54:40 15:54:49 15:54:36 15:56:18 15:56:29 15:56:47 26 FREIGHT UNION PACIFIC NORTH 1 51 Y N N 15:58:25 15:58:29 15:58:17 16:29:36 16:29:44 16:30:01 53 FREIGHT UNION PACIFIC NORTH 4 113 Y N N 16:31:56 16:32:04 16:31:49 16:39:00 16:39:08 16:39:27 53 FREIGHT UNION PACIFIC NORTH 3 86 Y N N 16:40:50 16:40:55 16:40:43 17:42:26 17:42:36 17:42:55 50 FREIGHT UNION PACIFIC NORTH 4 81 Y N N 17:44:07 17:44:13 17:44:01 18:31:06 18:31:12 18:31:20 67 PASSENGER AMTRACK SOUTH 2 14 Y N N 18:31:50 18:31:56 18:31:45 18:48:50 18:49:00 18:49:22 49 FREIGHT UNION PACIFIC NORTH 4 103 Y N N 18:51:12 18:51:19 18:51:06 19:49:42 19:49:50 19:50:10 45 FREIGHT UNION PACIFIC NORTH 3 108 Y N N 19:51:43 19:51:48 19:51:37 20:42:38 20:42:48 20:43:10 28 FREIGHT UNION PACIFIC SOUTH 5 84 Y N N 20:45:00 20:45:07 20:44:53 20:52:14 20:52:24 20:52:41 48 FREIGHT UNION PACIFIC NORTH 3 104 Y N N 20:54:31 20:54:36 20:54:23 21:20:58 21:21:08 21:21:31 46 FREIGHT UNION PACIFIC NORTH 8 67 Y N N 21:22:45 21:22:50 21:22:40 * Train going 5 MPH stops 500 ft North o crossing at 9:55:00 and starts again at 10:56:24 • • • 154 NATIONAL DATA & SURVEYING SERVICES Train Count Project No. 11-6107-005 Location: Avenue 54 Crossing City: Coachella Time Interval From: 12:00:00 AM Type of Land use Around Location: Number of Tracks at Location: To 23:59:59 PM Industrial 2 Day: Thursday Date: 10/27/2011 TRAIN INFO EMERGEN Y VE IC 7IN1E=; QUANTITY Ft Q UNION PACIFIC N 0:44:31 0:44:42 0:46:56 0:47:01 0:45:01 0:46:49 46 FREIGHT SOUTH 5 108 Y N 1:28:05 1:29:57 1:28:16 1:30:01 1:28:34 1:29:50 47 FREIGHT UNION PACIFIC NORTH 7 79 Y N N 1:44:59 1:45:06 1:45:25 1:46:44 1:46:51 1:46:40 42 FREIGHT UNION PACIFIC NORTH 4 73 Y N N 2:03:51 2:03:58 2:04:13 2:05:25 2:05:31 2:05:17 26 FREIGHT UNION PACIFIC NORTH 3 37 Y N N 2:29:35 2:31:38 2:29:46 2:31:44 2:30:10 2:31:30 31 FREIGHT UNION PACIFIC NORTH 4 64 Y N N 3:28:30 3:30:40 3:28:40 3:30:45 3:28:52 3:30:34 46 FREIGHT UNION PACIFIC SOUTH 3 97 Y N N 3:58:10 4:00:04 3:58:20 4:00:09 3:58:39 4:00:00 43 FREIGHT UNION PACIFIC SOUTH 3 106 Y N N 5:26:49 5:27:00 5:27:02 5:28:35 5:28:39 5:28:26 47 FREIGHT UNION PACIFIC NORTH 3 86 Y N N 6:32:00 6:32:09 6:32:18 6:33:28 6:33:32 6:33:24 39 FREIGHT UNION PACIFIC NORTH 4 105 Y N N 6:56:15 6:56:24 6:56:48 6:58:57 6:59:02 6:58:49 39 FREIGHT UNION PACIFIC SOUTH 3 95 Y N N 7:24:48 7:26:43 7:24:56 7:26:48 7:25:19 7:26:36 46 FREIGHT UNION PACIFIC SOUTH 2 88 Y N N 8:20:55 8:22:34 8:21:00 8:22:40 8:21:22 8:22:28 48 FREIGHT UNION PACIFIC NORTH 4 75 Y N N 8:33:30 8:35:58 8:33:36 8:36:04 8:34:00 8:35:52 50 FREIGHT UNION PACIFIC SOUTH 4 116 Y N N 9:20:20 9:20:30 9:20:51 9:22:31 9:22:38 9:22:24 49 FREIGHT UNION PACIFIC SOUTH 5 107 Y N N 9:50:05 9:50:12 9:50:30 9:52:18 9:52:24 9:52:12 48 FREIGHT UNION PACIFIC NORTH 3 76 Y N N 10:04:53 10:05:00 10:05:23 10:07:12 10:07:19 10:07:05 48 FREIGHT UNION PACIFIC SOUTH 4 114 Y N N 12:05:28 12:07:15 12:05:35 12:07:21 12:05:52 12:07:09 48 FREIGHT UNION PACIFIC NORTH 3 99 Y N N 12:29:18 12:31:34 12:29:27 12:31:39 12:29:47 12:31:26 49 FREIGHT UNION PACIFIC SOUTH 4 112 Y N N 13:11:39 13:13:44 13:11:48 13:13:50 13:12:11 13:13:39 47 FREIGHT UNION PACIFIC NORTH 3 88 Y N N 13:30:50 13:31:00 13:31:26 13:47:06 13:47:12 13:46:56 29 FREIGHT UNION PACIFIC NORTH 2 92 Y N N 13:44:30 13:44:39 13:45:00 13:46:14 13:46:20 13:46:08 47 FREIGHT UNION PACIFIC SOUTH 4 78 Y N N 14:59:08 15:01:28 14:59:17 15:01:34 14:59:42 15:01:21 38 FREIGHT UNION PACIFIC NORTH 3 98 Y N N 15:01:48 15:03:37 15:01:56 15:03:42 15:02:18 15:03:30 45 FREIGHT UNION PACIFIC SOUTH 3 87 Y N N 15:23:49 15:26:00 15:23:56 15:26:08 15:24:20 15:25:57 48 FREIGHT UNION PACIFIC SOUTH 4 104 Y N N 15:48:57 15:49:05 ARM/BELL STILL DOWN/ON 15:52:32 15:52:39 15:50:07 15:52:09 40 FREIGHT UNION PACIFIC SOUTH 4 100 Y N N 15:50:56 15:52:29 58 FREIGHT UNION PACIFIC NORTH 4 117 Y N N 155 NATIONAL DATA & SURVEYING SERVICES Train Count Project No. 11-6107-005 Location: Avenue 54 Crossing Day: Thursday City: Coachella Date: 10/27/2011 Time Interval From: 12:00:00 AM To 23:59:59 PM Type of Land use Around Location: Industrial Number of Tracks at Location: 2 TRAIN INFO DIME 4�AItiTlTY �` e ` 16:21:03 16:21:11 16:21:32 31 FREIGHT UNION PACIFIC SOUTH 4 115 Y N N 16:23:39 16:23:45 16:23:35 16:32:22 16:32:30 16:32:52 46 FREIGHT UNION PACIFIC SOUTH 4 120 Y N N 16:34:29 16:34:35 16:34:23 17:10:51 17:12:11 17:10:58 17:12:17 17:11:15 17:12:07 45 FREIGHT NORFOLK S NORTH 3 42 Y N N 17:21:19 17:23:06 17:21:29 17:23:11 17:21:52 17:23:00 47 FREIGHT UNION PACIFIC NORTH 3 71 Y N N 18:25:32 18:27:31 18:25:42 18:27:37 18:26:01 18:27:26 58 FREIGHT UNION PACIFIC SOUTH 3 98 Y N N 18:34:25 18:34:31 18:34:52 42 FREIGHT UNION PACIFIC SOUTH 5 87 Y N N 18:36:22 18:36:28 18:36:17 20:13:08 20:13:19 20:14:19 20:14:25 21:05:27 21:05:34 21:05:54 18 FREIGHT UNION PACIFIC SOUTH 4 64 Y N N 21:07:44 21:07:50 21:07:36 22:11:04 22:16:55 22:11:15 22:17:01 22:11:35 22:16:48 16 FREIGHT UNION PACIFIC NORTH 3 135 Y N N 22:27:22 22:33:27 22:27:33 22:33:35 22:27:52 22:33:22 17 FREIGHT UNION PACIFIC NORTH 5 133 Y N N 22:52:51 _------------------------ 22:54:55 22:53:01 22:55:01 22:53:18 ------------- 22:54:50 46 FREIGHT UNION PACIFIC NORTH 6 108 Y N N 23:07:53 23:08:01 23:08:20 52 FREIGHT UNION PACIFIC SOUTH 4 132 Y N N 23:10:32 23:10:39 23:10:27 * Truck arrived just East of tracks at utility box to test Bell and Gate • • 156 2/29/2012 Grade Separation Priority Update Study for Riverside County Projects February 27, 2012 • Riverside County serves as a conduit for the movement of goods to areas beyond Riverside and the State — 77% of freight travels through Riverside • 65%travels by rail • 35% by truck on an c Growth Nearly 40% of the nation's freight enters the Ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles (San Pedro Bay Ports) • San Pedro Bay Ports handle approximately 13.5 million twenty -foot equivalent units of freight annually • Projected to triple to 43.2 million TEUs by 2035 Freight creates jobs, income and tax revenue in all 50 states SUBJECT CURRENT PROJECTED (2035) Number of freight trains that pass through Riverside County per day 66 137 Emissions (per year) 9 tons 53 tons 1 2/29/2012 • In 2008, there were 61 at -grade crossings • The 61 crossings were ranked into five priority tiers based on a set of criteria that included: • Safety • Congestion • Air quality • Noise • Adjacent grade separations • Local community preferences • 31 (of the 61) crossings were identified as priority • Funding strategy was developed • Two crossings permanently closed: — Jane Street — Mountain View Avenue • Three additional projects should start construction within the next three months: — Auto Center Drive (TCIF) — Iowa Avenue (TCIF) — I-215/Van Buren Blvd. Interchange Project (TCIF) • $162.7 million in Proposition 1B funds allocated to 13 goods movement related projects — 12 grade separation projects — 1 interchange project • Four grade separated crossings constructed: — Avenue 48/Dillon Road — Columbia Avenue (TCIF) — Jurupa Avenue — Magnolia Avenue —UP (TCIF) • Seven additional at -grade crossings scheduled to start construction no later than August 2013: — Avenue 52 — Avenue 56/Airport Blvd. (TCIF) — Clay Street (TCIF) — Magnolia Avenue — BNSF (TCIF) — Riverside Avenue (TCIF) — Streeter Avenue (TCIF) — Sunset Avenue (TCIF) 2 2/29/2012 Y � aming. Crossin 46 Initiated study to identify long-term needs for grade separations on railroad mainlines passing through Riverside County Up -dated emission calculations, delay rates, accidents and noise impacts. Developed new funding strategy • Small working group — Technical staff from impacted jurisdictions • RCTC's Technical Advisory Committee • SCAG RTP and goods movement technical staff — Proposed Riverside County project list, if approved, can be incorporated within SCAG's Goods Movement Plan 3 2/29/2012 Evaluation Methodology Almost same as in 2006, using updated data. Differences in methodology: ► Bonus score added for isolated locations ► Safety analysis (accident history) options: 1. FRA accidents only 2. FRA or local data ► Two criteria/weighting options 1. Same criteria and weighting as in 2006 2. Add project readiness, modify weighting Background Data -- # of Trains Freight Trains (daily) 2011 2035 24 46 Passenger Trains (daily) 2011 2035 12 12 91 137 26 11 46 46 40 90 1 1 Evaluation Criteria & Weighting 71 20% 2010 Vehicle Delay 2035 Vehicle Delay 20% 2035 Emissions 10% Accident Rate 20% Residential Noise 10% Adjacent Grade Separations 10% Local Priority 10% Project Readiness 0% Bonus: Isolated Location 5% 15% 2010 Vehicle Delay 2035 Vehicle Delay 15% 2035 Emissions 10% Accident Rate 25% Residential Noise 10% Adjacent Grade Separations 10% Local Priority 10% Project Readiness 5% Bonus: Isolated Location 5% Background Data: Train Speed & Length Freight Train Length (feet) 2011 4,000 5,000 4,900 4,700 2035 5,200 6,500 6,400 6,100 Speed (mph) 25-40 40 30 25-40 Passenger Trains Speed (mph) Length 2011 Length 2035 60 55 Metrolink: 500 ft. Metrolink: 500 ft. 45 55 Amtrak: 1000 ft. Amtrak: 1000 ft. 4 Approve the Grade Separation Priority Update Study for Riverside County Projects located on the Alameda Corridor East Based on study, direct staff to develop a 2012 grade separation funding strategy; and Forward to the Commission for final action. • AGENDA ITEM 15 • • • • • • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: February 27, 2012 TO: Budget and Implementation Committee FROM: Aaron Hake, Government Relations Manager THROUGH: John Standiford, Deputy Executive Director SUBJECT: Federal Surface Transportation Reauthorization Update STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Committee to: 1) Receive and file an update on federal surface transportation reauthorization; and 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Over the last several weeks, Congress has made significant strides towards enacting a new multi -year surface transportation authorization bill. With a March 31 deadline looming for the expiration of the nation's current transportation programs and the federal excise tax on gasoline, Washington's attention to transportation infrastructure investment has spiked in recent days. Several key committees moved their pieces of the legislation forward in early February. However, as both the House and Senate versions of the transportation bill neared consideration on their respective floors prior to the President's Day holiday recess, Beltway politics began to cloud the prospects for passage. Despite major differences in the House and Senate versions of the bill and pundits' skepticism about the prospects of a final bill making it to the President's desk, the Commission remains optimistic that the process will continue. Commission staff is encouraged by the progress made thus far by Committee Chairs Barbara Boxer and John Mica in their respective chambers. Staff recommends that the Commission continue a posture that encourages Congress to move all of the pieces of a transportation bill to a Conference Committee as quickly as possible so that negotiations on a final bill can begin in order to avoid further short-term extensions of the nation's transportation program. Here is a brief update of where the bills stand at this time and how the Commission has been engaged on the national stage. Commission staff's oral presentation on Agenda Item 15 157 this item will contain more up-to-date information as developments in Washington, D.C. evolve quickly. House of Representatives - H.R. 7 Consideration of the core transportation bill in the House has been delayed by Speaker John Boehner until after the President's Day recess. Speaker Boehner has decided to allow an open rule, allowing Members to offer amendments to the bill. More than 240 amendments have been offered in House Rules Committee, meaning that a lengthy process is ahead to consider all of these policy ideas. The Commission has reviewed all of the amendments and is prepared to advocate in support and opposition to key amendments that impact Commission priorities, as adopted in the Commission's legislative platform. The Commission is also working closely with allied transportation agencies throughout California. The Commission authored an amendment, sponsored by Representatives Ken Calvert and Mary Bono Mack, which would eliminate bureaucratic red tape that can delay certain projects by three to six months. Such streamlining policies have long been a priority of the Commission. A copy of the amendment is attached to this staff report. The Commission is grateful to Mr. Calvert and Ms. Bono Mack for bringing this policy item for consideration by the House. First, the amendment must be approved by the House Rules Committee, and then ordered to the House floor for debate and a vote. In general, the House bill contains many favorable provisions that will streamline environmental approvals for projects and increase local control. The bill also includes a robust Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (TIFIA) program, funding for State Infrastructure Banks, and reduces restrictions on tolling and innovative financing. However, the Commission remains concerned about the House's approach to removing public transportation funding from the Highway Trust Fund and reversing three decades of precedent by moving transit to the General Fund and removing long-term funding certainty. Senate - MAP -21 The Senate process continues to be bi-partisan. Senator Boxer and Majority Leader Harry Reid continue to navigate the bill forward. Many amendments are also being offered to the Senate bill; however, more than 80 Senators voted to begin debate on the bill. The Commission is working with the staff of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee on policy recommendations to Chair Boxer's bill. MAP -21 contains key provisions helpful to the Commission on TIFIA and expanding the amount of formula dollars that get sent to the Commission for projects. MAP - 21 also contains the most robust goods movement program of any proposal at this Agenda Item 15 • • 158 • • • time; a key priority to the Commission. Senator Boxer's visit to the Magnolia Avenue Grade Separation project in Riverside in January underscores the Senate's emphasis on freight and the need for federal funding for goods movement projects. While MAP -21 revamps our planning processes in many ways, the bill does a number of things that increase flexibility for the Commission and ensures performance and accountability for the federal transportation program. However, there is one provision that is of concern to the Commission that would send some of the Commission's formula funds for congestion mitigation and air quality projects to private construction companies to purchase clean construction equipment. While this provision is well-intentioned, it will have a negative impact on the Commission's ability to fund key projects, create jobs in Riverside County, and reduce congestion. The Commission and allied transportation groups are communicating with Senate staff and other stakeholders on this issue. Agenda Item 15 F:\M 12\CALVER\CALVER 014.XML • AMENDMENT TO THE RULES COMMITTEE PRINT OF H.R. 7 OFFERED BY MR. CALVERT OF CALIFORNIA Page 444, line 24, strike "participation" and insert. "comment". Page 445, line 1, strike "in the development of the program". Page 449, after line 21, insert the following: • • 1 "(6) OTHER CONDITIONS. -If the MPO cer- 2 tifies that a modification described in this paragTaph 3 to a project included in the metropolitan TIP will 4 not impact a conformity determination under section 5 176 of the Clean Air Act, action is not required by 6 the Secretary with respect to such modification. 7 Such certification shall be considered to meet the 8 conformity requirements of the Clean Air Act. A 9 modification described in this paragTaph is - 10 "(A) a minor modification to a project de - 11 scription or a project limit alteration that does 12 not significantly impact the scope of the 13 project; f:\VHLC\021312\021312.096.xm1 (51838914) February 13, 2012 (10:35 a.m.) F:\M12\CALVER\CALVER 014.XML 9 1 "(B) an update of the project completion 2 (late that will cross into a new air quality con - 3 formity model year; or 4 "(C) a project alteration due to a cost in - 5 crease. 6 "(7) MINU1z. MODIFICATIONS. —For projects in - 7 eluded in a transportation project category exempted 8 by the Administrator of the Environmental Protec- 9 tion Agency from the conformity requirements under 10 the Clean Air Act - 11 "(A) such projects within the approved 12 metropolitan TIP may be amended without ac - 13 tion by the Secretary if such amendment does 14 not significantly alter the scope of the project 15 and does not increase the cost of the project by 16 more than 40 percent or $10,000,000; 17 "(B) such projects may be added to the 18 metropolitan TIP without action by the Sec - 19 retary; and 20 "(C) the Secretary shall ensure that the fi- 21 nancial constraint requirements under this sec - 22 tion apply to any metropolitan TIP amended 23 pursuant to this subsection.". Page 449, line 22, strike "(6)" and insert "(8)". f:\VHLC\021312\021312.096.xml (51838914) February 13, 2012 (10:35 a.m.) 161 F:\M 12\CALVER\CALVER 014.XML 3 Page 450, line 12, strike "(7)" and insert. "(9)". f:\VHLC\021312\021312.096.xml (51838914) February 13, 2012 (10:35 a.m.) 162 AGENDA ITEM 16 • • • • • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION DATE: February 27, 2012 TO: Budget and Implementation Committee FROM: Jennifer Harmon, Office and Board Services Manager THROUGH: John Standiford, Deputy Executive Director SUBJECT: Election of Officers STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Budget and Implementation Committee to conduct an election of officers for 201 2 - Chair and Vice Chair. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The election of officers for the full Commission and its Committees are held on an annual basis. Commissioners Scott Matas and Ron Roberts were elected as the Budget and Implementation Committee's officers in February 2011. Once the election has been conducted, the new Chair and Vice Chair will immediately assume the positions. Past Chairs of the Budget and Implementation Committee are as follows: 2011 - Scott Matas, City of Desert Hot Springs 2010 - Greg Pettis, City of Cathedral City 2009 - Mary Craton, City of Canyon Lake 2008 - Steve Adams, City of Riverside 2007 - Rick Gibbs, City of Murrieta 2006 - Jeff Stone, County of Riverside, District 3 2005 - Bob Magee, City of Lake Elsinore 2004 - Terry Henderson, City of La Quinta 2003 - Robert Schiffner, City of Lake Elsinore 2002 - Chris Carlson, City of San Jacinto 2001 - John Hunt, City of Banning 2000 - Ron Roberts, City of Temecula Agenda Item 16 163 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE SIGN -IN SHEET FEBRUARY 27, 2012 AGENCY E MAIL ADDRESS Ste SteOPh [IP triit4 Jt-z Cock t L.,/-2Gt.i 5 M rt 14 cvwGTAitti71,01 .,_,)- __ /r, -;--d.2- 4,40;;A:' '' g;r7rr-'!"vfiZ --/dam -1-i--- 1--fit- Zft ,e mw i t ,mss - 'i.c= G / L e3_5- �1,i,2� r 7 GR : ,� l S 0.14,na E. roe/ L C IQ 0 rte 6 En -6 136b-0mov RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE ROLL CALL FEBRUARY 27, 2012 Present Absent County of Riverside, District II 0 County of Riverside, District III County of Riverside, District IV 0 City of Beaumont .17' City of Calimesa 0 City of Canyon Lake 0 City of Cathedral City City of Coachella City of Desert Hot Springs City of Hemet City of Indian Wells City of Lake Elsinore City of Murrieta City of Riverside City of Temecula