HomeMy Public PortalAbout09 September 15, 2003 Technical AdvisoryTIME:
DATE:
LOCATION:
TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITT
MEETING AGENDA*
10:00 A.M.
September 15, 2003
RECORDS
(p515/1l
Banning City Hall
Civic Center, Large Conference Room
99 East Ramsey Street
Banning, CA
*By request, agenda and minutes may be available in alternative format; i.e. large print, tape.
COMMITTEE MEMBERS
John Andoh, PVVTA
Dave Barakian, City of Palm Springs
Bill Bayne, City of Cathedral City
Tom Boyd, City of Riverside
Bill Brunet, City of Blythe
Louis Flores, Caltrans District 08
Bob French, City of Calimesa
Mike Gow, City of Hemet
Mark Greenwood, City of Palm Desert
Terry Hagen, City of Desert Hot Springs
Bruce Harry, City of Rancho Mirage
Bill Hughes, City of Temecula
George Johnson, County of Riverside
Tim Jonasson, City of LaQuinta
Eldon Lee, City of Coachella
Cis Leroy, SunLine Transit
John Licata, City of Corona
Amir Modarressi, City of Indio
Habib Motlagh, Cities of Perris, San
Jacinto, Canyon Lake
Craig Neustaedter, City of Moreno Valley
Ray 0' Donnell, City of Lake Elsinore
Kahono Oei, City of Banning
Anne Palatino, RTA
Juan Perez, County of Riverside
Joe Schenk, City of Norco
Ken Seumalo, City of Murrieta
Ruthanne Taylor Berger, WRCOG
Allyn Waggle, CVAG
Tim Wassil, City of Indian Wells
John Wilder, City of Beaumont
Cathy Bechtel, Director Transportation Planning & Policy Development
11.36 .Z
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA*
*Actions may be taken on any item listed on the agenda.
TIME: 10:00 A.M.
DATE: September 15, 2003
LOCATION: Banning City Hall
Civic Center, Large Conference Room
99 East Ramsey Street
Banning, CA
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act and Government Code Section 54954.2, if you
need special assistance to participate in a Commission meeting, please contact the clerk of the
Commission at (909) 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. SELF -INTRODUCTION
3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES — July 21, 2003
4. PUBLIC COMMENTS (This is for comments on items not listed on the agenda.
Comments relating to an item on the agenda will be taken when the item is before the
Committee.)
5. ITS ARCHITECTURE PLAN PRESENTATION
6. COUNTY CMAQ REPROGRAMMING REQUEST (Attachment)
7. CITY OF MURRIETA TEA FUNDING REQUEST (Attachment)
8. STIP/TEA 3 FUND TRADES (Attachment)
9. STIP UPDATE
10. 2003 DRAFT CMP
Technical Advisory Committee Meeting
September 15, 2003
Page Two
11. RTIP UPDATE (Attachment)
12. RTP UPDATE
13. CETAP UPDATE (Attachment)
14. TUMF UPDATE
15. SEPTEMBER 3, 2003 COMMISSION MEETING HIGHLIGHTS
16. OTHER BUSINESS/ANNOUNCEMENTS
17. ADJOURNMENT (The next meeting will be October 20, 2003 in Riverside.)
MINUTES
TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING
MINUTES
Monday, July 21, 2003
1. Call to Order
The meeting of the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC)
Technical Advisory Committee (TAG) was called to order at 10:00 a.m., at
the Banning City Hall, Banning, CA.
2. Self -Introductions
Members Present:
Others Present:
Dave Barakian, City of Palm Springs
Bill Bayne, City of Cathedral City
Tom Boyd, City of Riverside
Bill Brunet, City of Blythe
Mike Gow, City of Hemet
Bill Hughes, City of Temecula
George Johnson, County of Riverside
Eldon Lee, City of Coachella
Cis Leroy, SunLine
Amir Modarressi, City of Indio
Bill Mosby, Caltrans
Craig Neustaedter, City of Moreno Valley
Ray O'Donnell, City of Lake Elsinore
Kahono Oei, City of Banning
Anne Palatino, RTA
Tom Rafferty, Cities of Perris, San Jacinto,
Canyon Lake
Ken Seumalo, City of Murrieta
Tim Wassil, City of Indian Wells
Dale West, WRCOG
John Wilder, City of Beaumont
Cathy Bechtel, RCTC
Shirley Gooding, RCTC
Ken Lobeck
Tanya Love
Shirley Medina, RCTC
Technical Advisory Committee Meeting
July 21, 2003
Page 2
3. Approval of Minutes
The Minutes dated June 16, 2003 were approved.
4. Public Comments
There were no public comments.
5. SB 821 PROJECT APPROVALS
Cathy Bechtel, RCTC, indicated that the SB 821 project extensions
requested at the July 9, 2003 Riverside County Transportation Commission
meeting were approved.
6. 2004 SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN
Tanya Love, RCTC, summarized the information that was attached to the
agenda item. She announced that seven of the eight Short Range Transit
Plans were approved at the June 11, 2003 Commission meeting. She
stated that the cities of Banning and Beaumont continue to work together
to have a seemless transit agency, meaning that anyone wanting to ride
the public buses will board without knowing whether it is a Banning or
Beaumont transit vehicle. The fare structure and appearance of the transit
system will be the same. She further stated that Beaumont is reporting a
7.4% fare box return and that they need a 10% fare box return, which
RCTC is monitoring carefully. If they don't meet their fare box, their
funding will be decreased or the city would make up the difference for the
year they would be exempt.
Ms. Love highlighted operations at the cities of Corona, Riverside, Palo
Verde Valley Transit Agency, Riverside Transit Agency and Regional
Commuter Rail. She stated that the SRTP for SunLine has been put on
hold.
7. STATUS OF STIP/STATE BUDGET
Shirley Medina, RCTC, handed out a Draft chart entitled, "STIP Projects —
TEA 21 Reauthorization Funding Alternative." She indicated that TEA 21
reauthorization funds will be supplementing local STIP projects. This was
an option given to local agencies with STIP projects that are or will be
delayed due to the state budget deficit.
Technical Advisory Committee Meeting
July 21, 2003
Page 3
Cathy Bechtel pointed out that most of the local agencies have requested
that they keep the same projects using STP funds instead of STIP funds.
Once all responses to the funding alternative requests have been received,
staff will provide this to the TAC for a recommendation to the RCTC board
at their October meeting.
Ms. Medina said that CMAQ funding will also be reviewed to supplement
STIP funds. For example, the Corona ATMS project would probably be
eligible for CMAQ and possibly the Coachella Dillon grade separation.
8. CETAP UPDATE
Cathy Bechtel reported that on the Winchester to Temecula Corridor, the
final environmental document is completed and we are waiting for the
County's general plan to be adopted. On the Moreno Valley to San
Bernardino corridor, the CEQA environmental process has been started.
Regarding the Orange County to Riverside County corridor, assuming the
funds are available an RFP will be out in late summer and Orange County
will award a contract probably in early November for the MIS work. On the
east -west corridor, Ramona/Cajalco Corridor, at the June Commission
meeting, RCTC did approve moving forward with a project level
environmental document for Ramona/Cajalco, south of Lake Matthews. An
RFP is expected to be out in the September timeframe. RCTC will be the
project lead on this.
9. TUMF UPDATE — BALANCES — RCTC PROJECT SELECTION PROCESS
Shirley Medina pointed out the Western Riverside Council of Governments
Traffic Uniform Mitigation Fee report states that as of June 30, 2003
$858,000 had been collected.
Dale West, WRCOG, stated that a letter will be sent this week explaining
how TUMF funds should be sent to RCTC.
10. PROJECT MILESTONE AND STATUS REPORTS
Shirley Medina conveyed that RCTC has to report regularly to the state
information regarding project milestones, and she requested that each
agency complete the white spaces on the project milestone reports that
have been sent electronically to each TAC member. She stated that the
Commission has requested copies of the reports and that Ken Lobeck,
RCTC, will start sending them out this week. They should be returned
Technical Advisory Committee Meeting
July 21, 2003
Page 4
by the specified deadline and will be given to the Commission in
September.
Ken Lobeck handed out an RCTC STIP Milestones and Status Report and
indicated that those projects that have already been allocated by the CTC
will need updates. He reiterated that only the white cells need to be
completed on the form.
11. 2002 RTIP/FTIP UPDATE OVERVIEW
Ken Lobeck reminded the TAC that every two years or when a new
Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) is adopted, it is necessary to do a full
RTIP update. The 2004 update will begin this week with Caltrans
regarding state highway projects. He pointed out the general schedule, on
the agenda item, to develop the 2004 RTIP/FTIP.
12. 2002 RTIP/FTIP AMENDMENT 04 SUMMARY
Mr. Lobeck said that Amendment 03 received federal approval on July 8,
2003; however, there is no letter yet available to download off the SCAG
website. It should be available by mid -week. He further stated that 57
projects were submitted in Amendment 04, which will take approximately
four months for approval. He further indicated that the next amendment
will be in the August/September timeframe.
13. LETTER FROM CALTRANS RE: ADA STANDARDS FOR NEW
CONSTRUCTION
Tim Wassil, City of Indian Wells, said that the letter from Caltrans is
reminding the local agencies to comply with ADA standards for new
construction and alterations and that each agency should read it.
14. JULY 9, 2003 COMMISSION MEETING HIGHLIGHTS
Cathy Bechtel called attention to the new look of the Commission
Connection. She said the new format will be used not only for the
Commission Connection but for other notices of hot topics.
Technical Advisory Committee Meeting
July 21, 2003
Page 5
15. OTHER BUSINESS/ANNOUNCEMENTS
Bill Brunet, City of Blythe, asked when the MOU with WRCOG and RCTC
regarding the prioritization of projects will happen. Cathy Bechtel
responded that WRCOG is moving forward with a recommendation after
which RCTC will proceed with prioritization.
Ms. Bechtel indicated that the next RCTC full Commission meeting will be
next Monday, July 28, 2003 at 1:00. There will not be any committee
meetings that day. She further indicated that there will not be an RCTC
Commission meeting in August. The September Commission meeting will
be September 3, at 11:00.
It was decided that there will not be an August TAC meeting. If TAC
action is required prior to the September TAC meeting, it can be
accomplished by calling a special meeting, via a sub -committee, or by e-
mail.
16. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business for consideration by the Technical Advisory
Committee, the meeting was adjourned at 11:10 AM. The next meeting is
scheduled for September 15, 2003, 10:00 AM, at Banning City Hall, Civic
Center, 99 East Ramsey Street, Banning, CA.
Respectfully submitted,
YVIPdt,in
Shirley Medina
Program Manager
AGENDA ITEM 6
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION
DATE:
September 15, 2003
TO:
FROM:
Technical Advisory Committee
Shirley Medina, Program Manager
SUBJECT:
2004 County of Riverside CMAQ Reprogramming Request
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
This item is for the TAC to:
1) Forward a recommendation to the RCTC Board regarding the County
of Riverside's Reprogramming Request.
BACKGROUND:
The County of Riverside has submitted the attached letter requesting
reprogramming $1,510,863 of CMAQ funds that are available through costs
savings from previous County CMAQ funded projects and the deletion of
four CMAQ projects previously approved by RCTC.
The projects that are proposed to receive the additional funds are the
Mission Boulevard Traffic Monitoring project and the Route 60/Valley Way
East Ramp project. Through the initial project planning these projects were
found to require additional work that resulted in significant increases to the
project. The Mission Blvd. project was programmed for $235,000 and the
cost for the project is now $600,000. The Route 60/Valley Way project
increased from $3,507,000 to $4,599,000.
This request is satisfactory to RCTC staff since the funds are being shifted
to already approved CMAQ projects and consistent with past reprogramming
requests.
65101 CB/SM/KLc
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE '`i �4F
TRANSPORTATION AND
LAND MANAGEMENT AGENCY
Transportation Department
July 30, 2003.
Mr. Eric Haley
Executive Director
Riverside County Transportation Commission
P.O. Box 12008
Riverside, CA 92502-12008
RE: Riverside County's CMAQ Program
Dear Mr. Haley:
George A Johnson, PE.
Director of Transportation
tEcE[NED
AUG 012003
RIVERSIDE COUNTY
TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
) ou1 !IA
This letter is to request Commission,approval of changes to some County of Riverside CMAQ
projects. This request is to formalize communications which have occurred between our
respective staffs in the past regarding the County of Riverside's CMAQ.Program.
A number of the County's ISTEA CMAQ funded projects have been -or are estimated to be
completed under budget or are proposed to be dropped. Attached is a listing of the County's
ISTEA CMAQ projects. The column titled, "PROGRAM RCTC $" shows the amount initially
approved -by RCTC based on the project applications. The column titled, "EST. FED. REIMB."
shows the amount of Federal funds the project is estimated to expend based on Riverside
County's most recent cost estimates.
Through the preparation of construction plans for the Mission Boulevard (Opal Street to Wallace
Street) Traffic Monitoring project, a need has been identified to increase the programmed
CMAQ funding amount from $235,000 to $600,000. Additionally, through the preparation of
construction plans for the Route 60Nalley Way Eastbound Ramp project, a need has been
identified to increase the funding amount from $3,507,000 to $4,599,000. The County proposes
to fund the increase of $365,000 for the Mission Boulevard Traffic Monitoring Project, and to
partially fund the increase of $1,092,000 for the Route 60/Valley Way"Ea"stbound Ramp project,
by dropping four of the Cciunty's'CMAQ projects and through savings incurred by eight of the
County's CMAQ projects being delivered below budget, as.Iisted below:
Projects that are being proposed to be dropped:
1. The Countywide Traffic Signal Coordination Strategy Study, programmed in the
amount of $300,000.
2. Automated Traffic Counts at various locations, programmed in the amount of $257,500.
3. Electric Vehicle Purchase at the County Administrative Center, programmed in the amount
of $64,500.
4. Isolated Traffic Signals —Timing Optimization Project, programmed in the amount of
$75,000.
The total CMAQ funds available for reprogramming due to the above four projects being
dropped is $697,000.
4080 Lemon Street, 8th Floor • Riverside, California 92501 • (909) 955-6740
PO. Box 1090 - Riverside, California 92502-1090 • FAX (909) 955-6721
K.16.3
Mr. Eric Haley, Executive Director
July 30, 2003
Page 2
Projects that have been delivered below budget:
5. Mission BoulevardNan Buren Boulevard Route 60/Bellegrave/Pyrite/Rutile project was
delivered at a cost of $171,939. The CMAQ funds programmed were in the amount of
$309,750, resulting in $137,811 being available for reprogramming.
6. Limonite Avenue, Pedley to Mission Boulevard project was delivered at a cost of $321,334.
The CMAQ funds programmed were in the amount of $480,000, resulting in $158,666 being
available for reprogramming.
7. Stetson Avenue, San Jacinto Street to Stanford Street project was delivered at a cost of
$45,870. The CMAQ funds programmed were in the amount of $200,000, resulting in
$154,130 being available for reprogramming.
8. Electric Vehicle Infrastructure, Lazy Creek Road, between Bradley and Wintorhawk, was
delivered at a cost of $72,505. The CMAQ funds programmed were in the amount of
$120,200, resulting in $47,695 being available for reprogramming.
9. Limonite Avenue at Felspar Street signal project was delivered at $132,167. The CMAQ
funds programmed were in the amount of $175,000, resulting in $42,833 being available for
reprogramming.
10. Leon Road PM10 paving projects, Olive Road to Simpson Road, and Benton/Keller &
Scott/Holland. These two projects were jointly delivered at a cost of $1,680,680. The CMAQ
funds programmed were in the amount $442,500 and $1,420,450, resulting in $182,270
being available for reprogramming.
11. Holland Road PM10 paving projects, Bradley Road to Haun Road, and Murrieta Road to
Bradley Road. These two projects were jointly delivered at a cost of $753,699. The CMAQ
funds programmed were in the amount of $420,000 and $423,907, resulting in $90,208
being available for reprogramming.
12. McCaII Boulevard Traffic Monitoring and Signal Coordination project was delivered at a cost
of $31,000. The CMAQ funds programmed were in the amount of $31,250, resulting in $250
being available for reprogramming.
The total CMAQ funds available for reprogramming due to the above eight projects being
delivered under budget is $813,863.
The combined funds available for reprogramming from the above twelve projects is $1,510,863.
Reprogramming $365,000 for the Mission Boulevard Traffic Monitoring Project will leave a
balance of $1,145,863, that can be reprogrammed to fund the current increase of $1,092,000 for
the Route 60Nalley Way Eastbound Ramp project.
The County of Riverside respectfully requests RCTC to approve the CMAQ funding
reprogramming proposals, and to advise Caltrans of the project funding adjustments to enable
us to continue with the delivery of these projects.
Eric Haley, Executive Director
July 30, 2003
Page 3
If you have any questions, please contact me or Juan C. Perez, Deputy Director of
Transportation, at (909) 955-6741.
Pte- Juan C. Perez
Deputy Director of Transportation
Ghorge A. Johnson
Director of Transportation
RKN:sbw
Attachment
cc: Supervisor Bob Buster, First District
Supervisor John Tavaglione, Second District
Supervisor Jim Venable, Third District
Supervisor Roy Wilson , Fourth District
Supervisor Marion Ashley, Fifth District
Shirley Medina, RCTC
Juan C. Perez
Scott Staley
Roy Null
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT
7/24/03
FEDERALLY FUNDED PROJECT STATUS TRACKING LIST - ISTEA Projects
PROGRAM `
EST. FED.
PROJECT
RCTC $
REIMB.
COMMENTS
FUND TYPE: CMAQ
UMONITE AVE
Pedley to Mission Blvd
MISSION BOULEVARD
Opal St to Wallace St /Traf. monitoring
STETSON AVENUE
San Jacinto St to Stanford St
LIMONITE AVENUE
0 Felspar St
ISOLATED TRAFFIC SIGNALS
Timing Optimization Project
COUNTYWIDE TRAFFIC SIGNAL
Coordination Strategy Study
MISSION BLVD AND VAN BUREN BLVD
Rte 60/Bellegrave/Pyrite /Ruble
ELECTRIC VEHICLE PURCHASE
0 County Admin Ctr
ELEC INFSTRUCTRJLazy Creek
Bradley to Winterhawk
McCALL BLVD
Traff monitor'g & signal coord_
AUTOMATED TRAF COUNTS
various locations
480,0.00
235,000
200,000
175,000
75,000
300,000
309,750
64,500
120,200
31,250
257,500
321,334
600,000
45.870
132,167
0
0
171,939
0
72,505
31,000
0
Completed in 94/951 Final Bill Amt
Pending Advertisment
Project Completed 11/6/01 / Final Bill AmL
Completed Dec. 1996 / Final Bill Amt.
Drop
Drop
Project Completed 2/7/00 / Final Bill Amt
Drop, Vehicles returned 12/99
Project Completed 2/29/99 /Final Bill Amt.
Project Completed 2/7/00 / Final Bill Amt
Drop
LEON ROAD PM10
442,500
Olive Rd to Simpson Rd
1,680,680
Project Completed 10/16/01 / Final Bill Amt
LEON ROAD PM10
1,420,450
Benton/Keller & Scott/Holland
HOLLAND ROAD PM10
420,000
Bradley Rd to Haun Rd
753,699
Project Completed 10/16/01 / Final Bill Amt
HOLLAND ROAD
423,907
Murrieta Rd to Bradley Rd
orals
4,955,057
3,809,193
1,145,864 = BALANCE
AGENDA ITEM 7
09/09/2003 11:10 909461604B PAGE 02
CITY OF MURRIETA
September 9, 2003
Ms. Shirley Medina, Program Manager
Riverside County Transportation Commission
3560 University Ave., Suite 100
Riverside, CA 92501
Subject: Project No. STPLER 5464 (019), Murrieta Hot Springs Road — Madison Ave. to
1-215
Dear Shirley,
The city of Murrieta was approved on the FY 01/02 TEA list for a grant of $580,571.00
($8.53% of project cost) for the above referenced project. The total construction cost is
budgeted to be 5607,791.00 ($538,077-00 grant funds).
The City of Murrieta has put the project out to bid twice. The first time we received 5
bids but because of irregularities in the bids, the City Council rejected the bids and
authorized the project to be re bid. One bid was received the second time in the amount of
$799,668.69 which is $199,877.69 over the budget for construction_
The City of Murrieta is requesting RCTC to consider any additional funding that might
be available to offset the increase in construction costs necessary to complete the project.
I am enclosing the FNM-76 received from Caltrans for your information.
Thank you for your consideration in this matter.
Sincerely,
CC: Ray Meijer, Caltrans
s E. Kinley
Director of Publ c odes/ City Engineer
26442 Beckman Court * Murrieta, California 92562
phone: 909.301 -.CITY (2489) - fah: 909.698.4509 - web: murtieta_org
9094616048
09/09/2003
DPT OF TRNS 0
JUN. -30' 03 NON) 20:08
Tit -F6 ;VERSION E-76;
FEDERAL A ID
0LP LOCATOR
PREFIX
PROJECT NO
3E12 NO
DIST-EA
AGENCY
ACUTE
TIP DATA:
M PQ/YEAS
DATE
STIP REF:
URB ANIZED
WRB /RtAL
BRIDGE BIOS
AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION SUMMAR Y
PROGRAM
03 -RI'T-0-F.RTA
STPLE R PX03 €C] LOCATION
5464(419) MURRIET; HOT SPRINGS RD -MADISON AVE.
2
OR-92S602L TYPE or PORK
NURRIETA MEDIAN L ANDSC APING AND sizes
FEI. RANDS
5'00 COME E )
SCAG EXIMPT FR OM FHWA REVIEW
02/06 ENV STUDS OAT. EXCL. - PROG 01/18/D1
RIFT SIMS 1 11120/02
BEGIN MP .000
SAteEN00-RIVER END MP .000
URBAN AREA INV RTE
PHASE
PE
PREV. . OBLIGATION
THIS REQUEST
SUBTOTA L
CAZIFQ1 N1A DEPARTME NT OF TRANSPORTATION
PREY. ROTH/AGREE DA TE
FE 02/02/1J1
RiN
CON 05/22/03
sat
mcs
OTE
APPR CODES 0220
LINE NOS DO 30 31
IMPKV TYPE 15 31 17
MEC. SYS P
PROJECT COST FEDERAL COST
ACCOST
48,000.00 42,494.00 .00
.00 .0D .00
48,000.00 42.,494.00 .00
PREY. OBLIGATION
C ON THIS REQUEST
SUBTOTA L
TOTAL
P2E0 - OB-R.V6204 6
STAT E R :HAR KS
.0C
607,791.00
C07,791. 00
555,491,00
.00
53B4O77. 00
538,o71.00
.00
.00
,00
. 560, Sii.40
STPI R-5464 (019) IS 4N EA SK01 PROJECT AND A PROGRAMMATIC CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
NORRIATA NOT SPRI NGS ROA D: [OADISON AVE. TO T -215 --MEDIAN LANDSCAPING AND SL OPE
PAVING. FY 01/02 APP ROVED T& A LIST.
!CODE 54G4
SEQOBNCE #1 NAB A REQUEST E'OR P T.ININARY ENGINEERING FUNDS AND REIMBURSED
WITH Q220 FUNDS (PSEUDO CODE 3TE) AT BB.53k UP TO TRY FEDE RAL AMOUNT SHOWN.
11/21/02 SEQUEN CE 42 SUBMITTED REQUESTING CL iSERtKI LON AND CE.
02/05103 PER C -MAIL TO DISTRICT 12/21!02, THIS RECORD WAS RETURNED 'PENDING
SUBMITTAL OF COOPERATIVE AOR,EFI+ENT miT3 CAIMANS. PL
5/12/03 RFS DBIIITTAL OF THE PROJECT REQUIRED AN EHCROA C ENT PERIOD ACS
HAS SEEN O BTAINED UNDER 06-02-N-LF-4340.
COPY OF ENCROAACFB!UZ4T P83LT RECEIVED IA HQ ON 5/12/03. PL
T.IS IS A REQUEST FOR CON STRUCTION AND CONSTRUCTION E NGINEEREIG F UNDING.
PR ELI14IWT E. VGINErERING FUNDS WARE PREVIOUSLY OBLIGATED . REI MBURSE MIEN Q220
TEA FUNDS ;PSEUDO CODE BTBO} AT 88 .53% OP TO TEE FEDERAL, ANOINTS SH0 fl EqR
PRELI1:N MY ETTGINBSRING, CONSTRUCTION, AND CONSTRUCTION ENGIU ERIN^o. PL
TOTA1 COSTS PART, COSTS FED. FUNDS LOC AL FORDS
{Q220/8'50}
.00
?AGE 2
t
133
w;
ST• .TE RE B$
FREL. ENGR.
CCNSE_
CO{+iST. ENGR
TOTALS
$ 46,00C
$ 519,840
$ 27,951
S 555, 791
$ 48, 00
$ 579, Bel D
$ 27, 95.1
$ 655,191
* 42,494
4 513,332
4 24, 745
4 56 0, 571
norm ORIE TLOW TO PROCSEU WITH C ON PREPARED BY
CONSTRUCTION & CENG. REV IEMBO BY
AUTHORIZED $Y
ELECTRONTO SIG&ATURE DM:MEW sins MEND/MOD SIGitED BY
$ 5, 506
$ 66, 508
$ 3,206
$ 75,220
RAY NE L BA
PATRICK I UIE
P. LOUIS
P. LO UIE
BRODESSLO BY L H LLAC
LAST E'EC+7A ELECTRONIC SIG) 21 WE EXECUTED BY THAN N OECHAMMAD ON 05/27/ D3
O N 05113/03 8-670-6454
ON 05/22/03 0-453-7349
ON 05/22/03
ON 05/22/03 FOR CLTRAMS
ON 05/23103 FOR FHWA
AGENDA ITEM 8
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION
DATE:
September 15, 2003
TO:
Technical Advisory Committee
FROM:
Shirley Medina, Program Manager
SUBJECT:
STIP Funding Trade for TEA 21 Reauthorization Funds (STPL or
CMAQ)
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
This item is for the TAC to:
1) Forward a recommendation to the RCTC Board regarding trading STIP
funds for TEA -21 Reauthorization funds (STPL or CMAQ)
BACKGROUND:
Due to the State's budget deficit at least half of the STIP projects
programmed in Fiscal Year 2002/03 did not receive allocations and it is
expected that the majority of projects programmed in FY 03/04 will not
receive allocations due to very limited cash flow levels. Therefore, projects
are backlogged awaiting allocations with no availability of funding in sight.
In fact, the 2004 STIP does not hold any promises for additional funding
capacity and is likely to have very limited funds in the out years, if any.
RCTC has provided the lead agencies with STIP projects the opportunity to
trade local State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) funds for TEA
21 reauthorization funds, Surface Transportation (STP) or Congestion
Mitigation and Air Quality Program (CMAQ) funds. Although the
reauthorization of TEA 21 will be delayed, it is likely that funds will be
available sooner than STIP funds. RCTC sent a letter to lead agencies with
STIP projects regarding their preference to trade or substitute projects for
STP or CMAQ funds. The preference of each lead agency is attached.
Staff will forward the recommendation of the TAC to the October 8, 2003
Commission meeting. Upon approval, staff will then proceed with deleting
the projects from the STIP and adjusting the RTIP/FTIP to reflect the fund
source changes.
STIP Projects - TEA 21 Reauthorization Funding Alternati ve
RCTC Appro ved Projects for STIP Funding - On State Hwys, Local Arterials
Agency
STIP Protect
DRAFT
Proposed Funding with STPL (000's)
Reauthorization Project STIP $ (000'sj FY in STIP FY 03/04 FY 04/05 FY 05/06 FY 06/07
Blythe
Hobsonway
Intake Blvd Widening and
Hobsonw/Intake Signal
$ 1,875
03/04
1875
Lovekin Rehabilitation
w —
Cathedral City
Ramon Rd Improv.
Ramon Road
$ 1,385
05/06 )
1385
Coachella
Dillon Rd Grade Sep
Dillon Rd Grade Sep
$ 4,559
06/07
M4559
Dillon Rd Widening
Dillon Rd Widening
$ 2,117
06/07
2117
Corona
Lincoln Improv.
Lincoln Improv.
$ 671
03/04
671
ATMS
ATMS
$ 1,990
03/04 _
1990
1-15 Magnolia IC improv.
1-15 Magnolia IC Improv.
$ 6,418
06/07
6418
Desert Hot Springs
Pierson Blvd Improv. -
Pierson Blvd
$ 627
02/03
627
Indio
Indio Blvd Improv
no response yet
$ 325
02/03
325
1-10/Jefferson IC Improv
I-10/Jefferson IC Improv
$ 10,710
not in STIP
10710
Moreno Valley
Perris Blvd Improv
Perris Blvd Improv
$ 3,184
05/06
3184
Reche Vista Realign
Reche Vista Realign
$ 1,967
06/07
1967
-
Murrieta
I-15/Calif Oaks lc Improv
Project to remain in STIP
$ 7,366
05/06, 06/07
-
Palm
Desert/Rancho
Mirage
Monterey Ave Widening
TBD
$ 2,125
04/05, 05/06
==
744
1381
,ter
Palm Springs
Gene Autry Trail -Bridge
and Road Widening
Gene Autry Tr -
Bridge,Widen - $112
allocated for PE
$ 1,730
02/03, 04/05
1730
-
Indian Cyn Widening
Indian Cyn Widening
$ 2,199
02/03, 04/05
2199
I-10/Indian Ave IC Imp.
1-10/Indian Ave IC Imp.
$ 15,262
not in STIP -
4000
11262
STIP Projects - TEA 21 Reautho rization Funding Alternative
RCTC Approved Projects for STIP Funding - On State Hwys, Local Arterials
Agency
DRAFT
Proposed Funding with STPL
STIP Project Reauthorization Project STIP $ (000's) FY in STIP M FY 03/04 FY 04/05 FY 05/06 FY 06/07
Riverside
Van Buren Blvd Widening
Van Buren Blvd Widening
$ 3,465
03/04-06/07
25
221
439
2780
Riverside County
Valley Way/Armstrong
Widening and Recons
TBD
$ 1,564
04/05
1564
Limonite Widen, Recons.
Limonite Widen, Recons.
$ 3,158
04/05
3158
Miles Ave/Clinton Widen
Miles Ave/Clinton Widen
and Bridge
$ 2,040
05/06
2040
Van Buren Median, Bus
turnout
TBD
$ 1,323
02/03
-__ --
1323
-
Jefferson Bridge and
Road Widening
Funding w local funds,
Future 2004 STIP
substitution project
-
not in STIP
r R
De Frain Blvd. Reconst.
De Frain Blvd. Reconst.
$ 810
not in STIP
I
Temecula
Butterfield Stage Rd Ext.
TBD
$ 2,720
04/05
2720
Total STIP Replacement $ $ 79,590
$ 12,764 $ 11,053 $ 13,135 $ 34,462
Amounts in bold are programming years
specified by lead agencies.
Amounts not in bold are based upon
programming year in the 2002 STIP.
RCTC staff will continue to work with local
agencies to identify year for programming .
Projects cannot begin phases in which
reimbursement will be requested until TEA
21 is reauthorized and RCTC gives notice to
proceed with obligation of funds .
AGENDA ITEM 11
- Y
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION
DATE:
September 15, 2003
TO:
Technical Advisory Committee
FROM:
Shirley Medina, Program Manager
Ken Lobeck, Staff Analyst
SUBJECT:
2004 RTIP Update
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
This item is for the TAC to:
1) Receive Notification of the 2004 RTIP Update Development and
Submit Project Reviews and New Projects by November 7, 2003.
RTIP Development Background
Approximately every two years the Southern California Association of
Governments (SCAG) is required to update the Regional Transportation
Improvement Program (RTIP) to reflect the most recently adopted long-range
Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). The 2004 RTIP Update is underway and
will reflect the 2004 RTP that is scheduled for adoption by SCAG in April
2004. It is anticipated that the 2004 RTIP Update will receive federal
approval in October 2004. Once the RTIP is approved by the federal
agencies it becomes part of the Federal Transportation Improvement Program
(FTIP).
The RTIP is the vehicle to receive federal/state funds and project approvals.
The 2004 RTIP will implement the first six years (2004/05 - 2009/10) of the
2004 RTP. Therefore, projects that are planned for implementation in the
2004/05 — 2009/10 timeframe are required to be in the RTIP to receive
federal funds and approvals. Projects programmed in the first three years
(2004/05 — 2006/07) must have committed funding. Projects programmed
in the outer years (2007/08 — 2009/10) should have reasonably expected
funding.
Under the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Transportation
Conformity Rule, SCAG is required to conduct a conformity analysis to
determine that the RTIP conforms to the state air plans. In other words, the
RTIP cannot generate emissions that exceed the air standards for the region.
Conformity Analysis
The conformity determination consists of the following three tests:
1. Emissions Budgets
Each of the six county transportation commissions in the SCAG region
provides SCAG with specific project information that is entered into
the RTIP database. A transportation computer model is used to
simulate traffic patterns based on these projects including
demographic and socio-economic data. The model produces various
data that is used to determine emissions generated by the RTIP.
2. Timely Implementation of Transportation Control Measures (TCMs)
As indicated in the Transportation Conformity Rule, Transportation
Control Measures (TCMs) are given a high priority status and TCMs,
must be implemented in a timely manner. The following project types
are considered TCMs: High Occupancy Vehicle Improvements,
Transit/System Management, Information Services, and other TCMs
specifically identified in an adopted air plan.
If a TCM project cannot be implemented or will be significantly
delayed, a lengthy substitution process will be initiated that will
involve the lead agency, RCTC, and SCAG. The substituted project(s)
must provide equal or greater emissions reductions than the project
that is being replaced.
3. Financial Constraint
The Financial Constraint test demonstrates that the region has the
financial means to implement the projects in the RTIP. Transportation
revenues must support projects programmed per fiscal year. No
overprogramming is allowed. County Transportation Commissions are
required to submit a financial resolution certifying that funds are
committed for each project.
If SCAG can not determine conformity, then federal funds and approvals will
be halted with the exception of exempt projects (non capacity
enhancements) and TCMs.
Project Reviews and New Project Submissions
The RTIP Update involves the review of existing projects, additions of new
projects, and deletions of completed projects. Since RTIP Updates occur
approximately every two years, it is very important for lead agencies to
include new capacity enhancement projects at this time. Transportation
projects that must be included in the RTIP are projects that meet one or more
of the following criteria:
• On the State Highway System
■ Federally Funded
■ Regionally Significant (regardless of fund source)
■ Requiring Federal Approval
Projects not meeting the above criteria do not need to be included in the.
RTIP. Contact Shirley Medina or Ken Lobeck with any questions regarding
project eligibility.
Riverside County 2004 RTIP Update Process
Step 1
Step 2
During September, RCTC staff will send out project detail
reports (TIP sheets) for agencies to review and adjust if
necessary. TIP sheet adjustments (e.g. fund swaps, description
modifications, completion date changes, etc.) require a
sufficient reason for the change. Local agencies must submit
their reviews to RCTC by November 7, 2003.
Staff will also send the New Project Submittal form for new
projects via electronic mail. The New Project Submittal form
must also be submitted to RCTC by November 7, 2003.
Note: STIP funded project TIP sheets will not be included as
their review and update is already occurring through a separate
process.
After review of initial submittals, staff will add comments or
questions on the TIP sheets/New Project forms and send to lead
agencies for further clarification if necessary.
Staff will also notify lead agencies of additional supporting
materials (e.g. project exhibits, etc.) needed to submit with the
project(s) for transportation modeling purposes.
Step 3
If necessary, follow-up project review meetings will be held
between RCTC staff and the lead agency to address
outstanding issues.
New Project Submissions -
Lead agencies will need to complete and submit the RTIP New Project form
to RCTC by November 7, 2003. The form is available electronically and will
be sent to each TAC member. New projects will require specific information,
especially those that are capacity enhancing (e.g. detailed description,
project limits, number of existing and proposed lanes, maps, etc.). Contact
Ken Lobeck with any questions regarding the form.
Project Detail Report (TIP Sheet) Reviews -
Lead agencies will need to complete the TIP sheet reviews and submit to
RCTC by November 7, 2003. In reviewing TIP sheets, project lead agencies
should closely review the following information for accuracy:
1. Completion Date: Does the Completion Date accurately reflect the
construction completion date for highway improvement projects, or
the vehicle delivery date for transit system vehicle procurements?
2. Environmental Document and Document Date: Is the environmental
document correctly stated for the project? And, does the
environmental document date accurately reflect when the
environmental document will be signed -off?
3. Description:
a. Does the project accurately reflect what the project will
accomplish and closely parallel the description for the
environmental document?
b. Does the description accurately state the project location, limits,
and cross streets for the project?
4. Project Limits - Applies to projects on the State Highway System:
Are the stated limits correct?
5. Fund Types, Fund Years, and Costs:
a. Does the project include all required federal, state, and local
fund types?
b. Are the correct fund amounts programmed in the correct fund
element (e.g. Engineering, R/W, and Construction)?
c. Are the required funds programmed in the correct years?
d. Is the total project cost accurately stated?
e. If the project is 100% locally funded and must be programmed
in the RTIP, and will be in the first three years of the TIP (FY
04/05, 05/06, and/or 06/07), has the lead agency formally
committed the funds for the project (e.g. city/agency resolution
or minute action)?
6 Project Status Update: All carry-over projects from the 2002 RTIP
will require a status update. A status update code list will be
provided to the lead agency. The selected status code will then be
programmed in the "Element" field on the TIP sheet.
AGENDA ITEM 13
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION
DATE:
September 3, 2003
TO:
Riverside County Transportation Commission
FROM:
Cathy Bechtel, Director of Transportation Planning and Policy
Development
THROUGH:
Eric Haley, Executive Director
SUBJECT:
Action Plan for the Cajalco-Ramona Corridor
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
This item is for the Commission to:
1) Approve the proposed Action Plan for the Cajalco-Ramona Corridor
(CRC);
2) Authorize staff to issue a Request for Proposal (RFP) to develop a
Project Study Report, Project Report and a project level environmental
document for the proposed Cajalco-Ramona Corridor project;
3) Authorize staff to negotiate the scope, schedule and cost with the top
ranked firm resulting from the selection process; and,
4) Direct staff to bring back the results of the selection process and
contract negotiations for the Commission's consideration of a contract
award.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
At its June 11, 2003 meeting, the Commission approved acceleration of the
CETAP internal east -west corridor work to a project level environmental document.
Staff was directed to return to the Commission in 90 days with an action plan
including details on schedule, budget, and implementation.
OVERALL APPROACH
We will be following the federally required process for completion of project
approvals and environmental documentation (PA&ED). We are fortunate to have
CETAP identified under President Bush's Executive Order 13274 for Environmental
Stewardship and Transportation Infrastructure Reviews. This recognition has
resulted in tremendous staffing support from all the federal agencies involved in the
first phase of the project; we expect this active participation to continue through
Agenda Item 7
the completion of the project. The agencies provide an over the shoulder look
during the environmental and pre -engineering phases and will provide assistance in
obtaining environmental permits including: Section 404, Section 401, and
Section 7.
Early in the PA&ED phase of work, a Project Study Report (PSR) and accompanying
Project Environmental Assessment Report (PEAR) will be completed to provide a
funding document for RCTC to be able to access FHWA and Caltrans funding. At
the end of this phase of work, a Project Report (PR) will be completed.
Although much of the Cajalco-Ramona Corridor alignment was analyzed in the
Tier 1 draft environmental document for the Hemet to Corona/Lake Elsinore (HCLE)
Corridor, significant work will be required as part of this project level effort to
develop the detail needed to adopt a precise alignment and secure construction
level environmental approvals.
The overall action plan for the Cajalco-Ramona Corridor involves three major
components: public outreach, engineering and environmental. Included in the
attachment is a more detailed description of the engineering and environmental
elements.
Public Outreach
A major transportation project such as the Cajalco-Ramona Corridor requires a
significant public outreach effort to ensure that there is an open ongoing dialogue
with public agencies, the communities affected by the project, and other key
stakeholders. In order for RCTC to receive meaningful input on the project,
consistent information about the project needs to be disseminated on a regular
basis. Many of the tools successfully applied in the development of the RCIP may
be applicable to the Cajalco Ramona Corridor, including use of a project website,
issuance of regular newsletters and press releases, and comprehensive noticing of
public meetings. Focused outreach activities and forums such as the Small
Working Group will continue for the Cajalco Ramona Corridor, requiring ongoing
support from RCTC and consultant team staff. Staff also recommends that a
focused RCTC work group involving the County and the affected cities (Corona,
Hemet, Moreno Valley, Norco, Perris, Riverside, San Jacinto) be formed to keep the
local agencies engaged throughout the project development process.
Engineering
The engineering work conducted in support of the HCLE Tier 1 EIS/EIR was done
on a very broad scale. Over 100 miles of east -west alternative corridor routes
were developed for this effort. The engineering developed a horizontal alignment
Agenda Item 7
defined by a "bandwidth" for right-of-way preservation ranging from 500 to 1,000
feet in width. USGS topographic mapping was used for initial engineering, which is
at a scale unsuitable for establishing a precise alignment and right-of-way. The
mapping of the alternatives was done on an aerial photo base.
The Cajalco-Ramona Corridor is initially viewed as a parkway, which, if required in
the future, can be later expanded to a freeway level facility. The initial number of
lanes will be determined by the transportation demand calculated during the
modeling phase in conformance with FHWA requirements. However, based on past
CETAP traffic studies, the Corridor is envisioned to be a six -lane facility with
geometric suitable to accommodate freeway level speeds. The facility can be
upgraded later to accommodate additional lanes, transit or rail by widening to the
center -median of the facility. Typical sections will be determined for the initial
phase of construction, i.e., parkway facility and the ultimate phase of construction,
i.e. freeway facility. Typical sections providing additional right of way for areas
with frontage roads or in large cut or fill sections, will also be developed.
Much more detailed engineering will be required to provide the basis for the
environmental impact studies required for a "project" or "construction" level
environmental document. Completion of a "30 percent" level of design is
necessary to establish a precise horizontal and vertical alignment for the selected
alternative, as well as evaluating any necessary design variations before the project
goes into final design.
The scope of work for the engineering effort will need to include the following
elements:
- Surveys and Mapping
- Transportation Modeling
-Alternatives Definition
- Roadway Design
-Right of Way Engineering
Environmental
- Geotechnical Engineering
- Structural Engineering
- Hydraulic Engineering
- Utility Coordination
As with the engineering, although a substantial amount of environmental data
collection and analysis was performed for the HCLE Tier 1 EIS/EIR, much more
detailed analysis will be required to achieve project level environmental approvals
under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Much of the base data developed for the Tier 1
studies will still be useful for the project level analysis.
Agenda Item 7
The following highlights some of the key considerations and elements of the project
level environmental effort:
-NEPA/CEQA Requirements
- Technical Study Requirements
-NEPA/404 Integration Process
- Environmental Streamlining
- MSHCP Process
- Special Area Management Plan (SAMP)
SCHEDULE
Typically, the PA&ED component of a project can take from four to eight years.
Based upon research conducted by FHWA on documents prepared over the last 30
years on the length of the NEPA process, the average time for processing an EIS is
4.6 years; however, for more recent documents the duration has been closer to six
years. The estimated time frame for this EIS approval is 36 months, starting from
the issuance of the Notice of Intent in May 2004, to approval of a Record of
Decision in May 2007 (these are the milestones that FHWA uses to measure the
time required for EIS approval).
The 36 -month NEPA process estimated for the Cajalco-Ramona Corridor is highly
aggressive considering the size of the project (40 miles in length) and the
significant community and natural resource issues to be addressed through this
process. The proposed schedule incorporates means and methods to ensure
"environmental streamlining". These methods are similar to the processes used in
the current CETAP process:
e
•
•
e
Continue a working group consisting of all the resource agencies,
which will foster agency coordination and collaboration.
Continue with a partnership agreement, which fosters expedited
decision -making across all the agencies. By working together in a
partnership, resource agencies and transportation agencies improve
upon the decision -making process while safeguarding the environment.
Continue to bring high-level officials to the table to address immediate
issues and track the progress of the project.
Continue the use of concurrent agency reviews of plans and
documents.
Because this process stems from the larger Riverside County Integrated Project to
integrate land use, transportation and conservation planning for the future
development of the County, this next phase will have the benefit of an already
Agenda Item 7
adopted conservation plan. The recently adopted MSHCP for western Riverside
County provides some of the mitigation for this corridor and provides a framework
to address habitat and species issues.
BUDGET
The cost to complete the necessary funding and construction approval documents
can vary greatly depending upon the complexity of the project. A general Caltrans
"rule of thumb" assumes that the PA&ED documents are generally about 8% of the
cost of construction. Using this assumption, this next phase of work could cost up
to $40 million (construction assumed at $500 M). However, we believe that the
actual costs will be significantly less given that at least half of the project will be
considered as a "road widening". Additionally, since this project is identified under
President Bush's Executive Order for environmental streamlining, we expect to
receive continued cooperation and coordination from the Resource Agencies; this
should assist in cost and schedule containment. An estimate of the project cost
will be made after completion of contract negotiations with the top ranked firm.
Staff cannot, however, predict what new regulations or requirements may be put in
place during the projected 36 month duration of this project phase and their
resulting impacts on schedule and cost.
NEXT STEPS (IMPLEMENTATION)
Current Contract
As a result of the June RCTC Board action, we have begun work to accelerate the
CETAP east west corridor to provide project level documentation. The current
contract lays the groundwork to launch a new contract, which will begin the
project level environmental documents for the Cajalco-Ramona Corridor in January
2004. Under the current contract we are laying the framework for a smooth
transition from the CETAP east -west corridor work to the Cajalco-Ramona Corridor
project level environmental documents. We are continuing the engagement with
the resource agencies working on a preliminary purpose and need statement.
CRC PA&ED Contract
The awarded consultant team will begin familiarization with the project by
attending meetings with all resource agencies, consultants and transportation
agencies currently involved. The awarded consultant will participate in the final
months of the current contract activities. This will ensure a smooth and seamless
transition into the continued contract.
Agenda Item 7
The CRC PA&ED contract will launch the development of project level
environmental documents for the Cajalco-Ramona Corridor. This contract will
result in construction -level environmental clearance, including applicable permits.
This contract will also provide the appropriate level environmental and engineering
documents to support federal, state and local funding for design, right-of-way
acquisition, and construction.
Final Design and Construction
The final phase of the project will be final design and construction of the Least
Environmentally Damaging Practicable Alternative as determined in the Final EIR/EIS
for the Cajalco-Ramona Corridor. RCTC may choose to build the facility in
segments as needed and as funding becomes available. RCTC may also choose to
build the facility using an interim cross section that can be built out to an ultimate
cross section as needed in the future.
The final design and construction could be issued as a conventional Design -Bid -
Build contract, i.e., a Plans, Specifications and Estimates (PS&.E) contract, followed
by the construction contract, which could be broken down into segments and
multiple bid packages. The second option would be to use a Design Build
approach, which can facilitate saving time and may save money on a project. of this
size. The project could be phased based on available funding and the need to
support growth in the area.
SELECTION PROCESS
Since the project is approximately 40 miles long, Staff is considering breaking up
the project into two segments for delivery of the Project Report and environmental
documents for each segment. The logical dividing point is the 1-215 crossing
which occurs at roughly the middle of the 40 mile project. The resulting project on
the east between SR 79 and 1-215 can be characterized as a roadway widening
using the existing Ramona Expressway alignment. The resulting project on the
west between 1-215 and 1-15 can be characterized as a realignment project with a
significant portion of the alternatives to be studied believed to fall on new
alignment. The same RCTC/Bechtel management team would control both projects
so that dividing the projects would only act to accelerate the approval process by
allowing more resources to efficiently work on the project. Acceleration of the
approval process can result in significant savings to the final cost of the project in
right-of-way savings alone.
Agenda Item 7
The Selection Committee will be composed of representatives from RCTC, County
of Riverside, Caltrans and Bechtel. The request for proposal will follow the
calendar of events shown below. The proposal will request information on team
composition, experience, project approach and insights into the challenges of
delivering the CRC project.
CALENDAR OF EVENTS FOR THE REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL
Item Date
Project Request for Proposals is issued 09/04/03
Proposals are Due 10/16/03
Short List Notification 10/30/03
Consultant interviews are held 11/13/03
Recommendations to Committee 11/24/03
Recommendations to Commission for Award 12/10/03
Anticipated Notice to Proceed 01/12/04
Attachment: Scope of Work for the Engineering and Environmental Efforts
Agenda Item 7
SCOPE OF WORK FOR THE ENGINEERING AND ENVIRONMENTAL EFFORTS
The scope of work for the engineering and environmental efforts will need to
include the following elements:
Engineering
Surveys and Mapping. One of the basic elements of any project level
engineering effort is the development of detailed topographic base mapping
(typically with 1 foot contours for the topography). This is developed through the
use of aerial surveys with established horizontal and vertical control points. The
base mapping provides the detail to lay out precise alignments as well as providing
an accurate base to estimate grading quantities, cut and fill slopes, etc. This
mapping is also used extensively in the environmental analysis; e.g., the contour
mapping allows for accurate calculation of noise impacts and the identification of
any needed soundwalls.
Transportation Modeling. The project will require detailed transportation
modeling to ensure the facility is right sized, while also ensuring that the major
interchange location and local access points to the facility are optimized for the
traffic. The modeling will determine the actual number of lanes required for the
facility. The traffic modeling will be based on the year 2030 traffic projections.
The proposed right of way will allow for expansion in the future if needed. This
growth would occur toward the center median. The outside lanes for the initial
parkway will be fixed so as not to allow expansion and additional encroachment on
residences and businesses.
Alternatives Definition. Both transportation and civil engineering will be
required to determine the project alignment plan and profile. For purposes of NEPA
and the Clean Water Act compliance, a range of off -site alternatives will be
evaluated. Detailed traffic analysis will be required to determine the location of
service interchanges and local access ramps and the effect on local circulation
patterns. In developed areas, different alternatives for access will be developed
based on traffic analysis. The initial parkway is envisioned to have direct
connections at 1-15, 1-215 and SR -79. There will need to be modified highway
access reports for connections to 1-15 and 1-215 submitted to FHWA for approval.
Roadway Design. 40 miles of roadway will have to be engineered. This
effort will lay out the sections for the initial parkway while providing horizontal and
vertical curves to meet Caltrans requirements. For any areas requiring a design
exception, design exception reports will need to be submitted to Caltrans. Value
engineering will need to be considered and incorporated at the appropriate
milestones throughout the project.
Agenda Item 7
Right of Way Engineering. Concurrent with the civil engineering to develop
the project plan and profile will be a significant amount of right-of-way engineering.
This will define specific parcels that will be affected by the project (either by full
acquisition, partial acquisition, or temporary acquisition for construction easements)
and is critical to developing an accurate cost estimate.
Geotechnical Engineering. Given the steep topography in the western
portion of the project area, geotechnical studies will be required to assess slope
stability, faulting, soil stability, and other geotechnical factors that may influence
the project design and the overall project costs.
Structural Engineering. Many structures will be required for the project,
including roadway undercrossings/overcrossings, drainage overcrossings and other
structures, soundwalls, retaining walls, etc. Each structure will require the
preparation of an Advance Planning Study in accordance with Caltrans' design
guidelines for structures.
Hydraulic Engineering. For any drainage crossings (rivers, creeks, streams),
hydraulic analyses will be necessary to determine how such a crossing may affect
the drainage channel in terms of water flow and scouring of streambed both
upstream and downstream. Of particular concern is where the project may impact
the base floodplain levels. Size and location of drainage facilities will also need to
be determined for handling increased runoff from the project. The developed
drainage facilities will also be determined by the expected land use adjacent to and
effecting the parkway.
Utility Coordination. Along the 40 -mile route, many utilities will be
potentially affected (e.g., gas, water, electric, telephone, cable, etc.) and may
require relocation or protection in place.
Environmental
As with the engineering, although a substantial amount of environmental data
collection and analysis was performed for the HCLE Tier 1 EIS/EIR, much more
detailed analysis will be required to achieve project level environmental approvals
under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Much of the base data developed for the Tier 1
studies will still be useful for the project level analysis such as the cultural resource
surveys. The following highlights some of the key considerations and elements of
the project level environmental effort:
Agenda Item 7
NEPA/CEQA Requirements. A project level NEPA/CEQA document requires
comprehensive, in-depth analysis of issues with the potential for significant impacts
to the human or natural environment. While in the Tier 1 analysis it was sufficient
to identify resources as being "potentially affected", a much more rigorous
determination of those resources actually impacted will be required in this next
phase. This is important both from the standpoint of public disclosure as well as
ensuring that mitigation feasibility and cost are incorporated into the project.
A NEPA approval is required (the Federal Highway Administration or FHWA is the
lead federal agency for the project) due to the federal nexus of new connections to
the Interstate highway system at 1-15 and 1-215, as well as the need for a Section
404 permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for the discharge of dredged or
fill material into waters of the United States in accordance with the federal Clean
Water Act.
NEPA has many requirements that are standard for any transportation project, and
that have been addressed on all other projects on the State Highway system within
Riverside County. Some of these special requirements unique to NEPA include, but
are not limited to, compliance with:
Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (addressing
resources listed on or eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places)
Section 4(f) of the 1966 U.S. Department of Transportation Act
(addressing avoidance of impacts to public parklands, wildlife refuges, and historic
sites)
Executive Order 12898 regarding Environmental Justice (requires that
federal actions not result in disproportionate impacts to minority or low income
populations, and that ample opportunity is provided for input into the process by
these populations).
Technical Study Requirements. The environmental technical studies
conducted for the, HCLE Tier 1 EIS/EIR identified the potential environmental
impacts occurring within or adjacent to the bandwidth for the 14 different
alignment alternatives considered in Tier 1. While a precise determination of
impacts (e.g., determination of specific land parcels that would be affected) was
not possible in Tier 1 due to the conceptual nature of the alignments, the Tier 1
studies provided an effective comparison of the differences between the
alternatives with regard to impacts on land use, habitat, aquatic resources, cultural
resources. Approximately 75% of the Cajalco-Ramona Corridor was covered
during the Tier 1 phase.
Agenda Item 7
As with the project engineering, the project level environmental studies for the
Cajalco Ramona Corridor will require a much finer level of detail to accurately
disclose impacts to both the human and natural environment, as well as providing
the basis for determining appropriate mitigation measures to eliminate or reduce
those impacts. Based upon the findings of the Tier 1 studies, key issues to be
addressed in the project level studies include community impacts,
transportation/circulation, aquatic resources, floodplains, biological/endangered
species (especially the effects on the existing SKR reserve area), air quality, noise,
hazardous waste, cultural resources, Section 4(f) resources, and environmental
justice. Much of the baseline data collected in Tier 1 can be used for these
studies, but there will still be a significant amount of new data to be collected and
analyzed to support a project level approval. In addition, the area south of Lake
Mathews was not evaluated in the Tier 1 studies, and will require some additional
work in comparison to the rest of the Cajalco Ramona Corridor.
NEPA/404 Integration Process. In 1994, Caltrans and FHWA entered into a
Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
(Corps), the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (FWS), to integrate the NEPA process with the Section 404
permitting process. The intent of this MOU was to coordinate the alternatives
analysis requirements of each process to ensure that a project approved through
the NEPA process could also be issued a Section 404 permit as the Least
Environmentally Damaging Practicable Alternative (LEDPA). The NEPA/404 MOU
establishes a formal review process whereby the Corps, EPA, and the FWS must
render concurrence on project purpose and need, alternatives, evaluation criteria,
and ultimately on the LEDPA. While the intent of the NEPA/404 MOU is sound in
terms of integrating the study requirements for NEPA and Section 404 compliance,
transportation agencies have often experienced lengthy project schedules due to
the combination of the applicable requirements, complex projects, the need to
involve numerous agencies, and public controversy. Through RCTC's ongoing
coordination with Caltrans, FHWA, and the federal resource agencies through the
Small Working Group, a positive foundation has been established for the agencies
to work together to expedite the review and concurrence process for the Cajalco
Ramona Corridor.
Environmental Streamlining. Section 1309 of TEA -21 calls for a coordinated
environmental review process to expedite federal highway and transit projects.
Executive Order (EO) 13274 signed by President Bush on September 18, 2002,
requires that federal agencies work to promote environmental stewardship in the
nation's transportation system and expedite environmental reviews of high priority
transportation projects. TEA -21 and EO 13274 do not eliminate or reduce the
requirements to provide thorough environmental documentation; rather, they focus
on ways for federal agencies to improve how they work together and in
Agenda Item 7
cooperation with State and local transportation agencies to implement
transportation projects. CETAP was one of the first seven projects in the nation to
be recognized as a priority project under EO 13274. This status has enabled the
CETAP corridors to receive a high level of attention from FHWA and the federal
resource agencies in working to expedite the federal environmental approval
process. FHWA has confirmed that the Cajalco Ramona Corridor, as a part of
CETAP, will continue to receive priority attention pursuant to EO 13274. Many of
the "lessons" learned on other projects throughout the nation are being applied to
the Cajalco-Ramona Corridor, including the use of a facilitator to help guide agency
discussions and assist in dispute resolution.
MSHCP Process. A significant component of the work plan for the Cajalco
Ramona Corridor will be to assess the effects of the project on the existing
Stephens Kangaroo Rat (SKR) reserve area south of Lake Mathews, the
Metropolitan Water District's Habitat Conservation Plan and the County of
Riverside's newly approved MSHCP. The Cajalco-Ramona Corridor has supporting
language in the MSHCP as a covered activity as an arterial roadway along the
existing alignment south of Lake Mathews. The expansion and realignment of
Cajalco south of Lake Mathews is not a Covered Activity in the MSHCP. The
process presented in the MSHCP would allow the realignment south of Lake
Mathews to be accommodated without a formal amendment to the MHSCP,
assuming appropriate equivalency findings can be made. Concurrence by the
Wildlife Agencies with the proposed realignment is required as part of the process.
In addition to the consistency/equivalency analysis process in the County's
MSHCP, the proposed alignment south of Lake Mathews would likely affect both
the existing SKR HCP and MWD's Lake Mathews HCP and discussions will be
necessary to accommodate the proposed facility. Any amendments that may be
necessary will need to be processed as part of the project level approval for the
Cajalco-Ramona Corridor. Optimally, this process would be part of the CRC
corridor contract to ensure total integration and to achieve cost savings in not
having to analyze species impacts twice. The process and possible amendments
can be expected to take approximately 12 to 24 months. Direct costs to write and
publish the amendment, conduct species surveys and complete the EIS/EIR will be
over one million dollars. Because these actions are critical to the completion of the
alignment, they would need to be started as soon as possible so as not to impact
project schedule.
Special Area Management Plan (SAMP), The Corps of Engineers is currently
preparing a SAMP for the San Jacinto and Santa Margarita watersheds. A Draft
EIS is currently being prepared for the SAMP and is expected to be available for
public review in late 2003. At the end of the SAMP process, there will be
Agenda Item 7
watershed areas that will be protected and preserved, as well as areas where
future actions will be allowed to occur provided they meet specific criteria
developed for protection of the watersheds. The project level work plan will
require RCTC to continue working with the Corps to ensure that the Cajalco
Ramona Corridor will he a covered action under the SAMP.
Agenda Item 7