HomeMy Public PortalAbout08 August 23, 2004 Plans and ProgramsRECORDS
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION
•
•
•
PLANS AND PROGRAMS COMP___
MEETING AGENDA
TIME: 12:00 P.M.
DATE: August 23, 2004
LOCATION: Board Chambers, 1St Floor
County of Riverside Administrative Center
4080 Lemon Street, Riverside
*** COMMITTEE MEMBERS ***
Frank Hall/Harvey Sullivan, City of Norco, Chairman
Michael H. Wilson/Gene Gilbert, City of Indio, Vice -Chairman
Shenna Moqeet / John Chlebnik / Jon Winningham, City of Calimesa
Jack Wamsley/Mary Craton, City of Canyon Lake
Jeff Miller/Jeff Bennett, City of Corona
Matt Weyuker/Henry "Hank" Hohenstein, City of Desert Hot Springs
Percy L. Byrd/Robert Bernheimer, City of Indian Wells
Frank West/Charles White, City of Moreno Valley
Dick Kelly/Robert Spiegel, City of Palm Desert
Ronald Oden/Ginny Foat, City of Palm Springs
Daryl Busch/Mark Yarbrough, City of Perris
Ron Roberts/Jeff Comerchero, City of Temecula
Bob Buster, County of Riverside, District 1
Marion Ashley, County of Riverside, District V
go25
*** STAFF ***
Eric Haley, Executive Director
Cathy Bechtel, Director of Transportation Planning and Policy Development
*** AREAS OF RESPONSIBILITY ***
State Transportation Improvement Program
Regional Transportation Improvement Program
New Corridors
Intermodal Programs (Transit, Rail, Rideshare)
Air Quality and Clean Fuels
Regional Agencies, Regional Planning
Intelligent Transportation System Planning and Programs
Congestion Management Program
The Committee welcomes comments. If you wish to provide comments to the
Committee, please complete and submit a Testimony Card to the Clerk of the Board.
I1.%.15
•
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION
PLANS AND PROGRAMS COMMITTEE
www.rctc.org
AGENDA*
*Actions may be taken on any item listed on the agenda
12:00 P.M.
Monday, August 23, 2004
BOARD CHAMBERS, 1ST FLOOR
4080 LEMON STREET, RIVERSIDE
COUNTY ADMINISTRATIVE CENTER
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. ROLL CALL
3. PUBLIC COMMENTS
4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
5. ADDITIONS/REVISIONS (The Commission 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 Commission 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
Commission 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.)
Plans and Programs Committee Agenda
August 23, 2004
Page 2
•
6. COMMUTER EXCHANGE VEHICLE PROCUREMENT
Overview
This item is for the Committee to:
1) Approve the purchase of a replacement Commuter Exchange Mobile
Education Vehicle pursuant to the staff approved technical
specification, from Matthews Specialty Vehicles, Inc. of Greensboro,
NC;
2) Authorize the Executive Director, pursuant to Legal Counsel review, to
execute a purchase order agreement with Matthews on behalf of the
Commission;
3) Authorize the Executive Director, pursuant to Legal Counsel review, to
enter into those agreements necessary to secure the exterior and
interior graphics and information displays; and
4) Forward to the Commission for final action.
7. 2004 STATE TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
Overview
This item is for the Committee to:
Pg. 1
Pg. 32
•
1) Receive and file information regarding the 2004 State Transportation
Improvement Program; and
2) Forward to the Commission for final action.
8. UPDATE ON MID COUNTY PARKWAY PROJECT (CAJALCO-RAMONA
CORRIDOR)
Pg. 35
Overview
This item is for the Committee to:
1) Receive and file the Mid County Parkway (Cajalco-Ramona Corridor)
Update; and
2) Forward to the Commission for final action.
Plans and Programs Committee Agenda
August 23, 2004
Page 3
•
•
•
9. UPDATE ON THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY TO ORANGE COUNTY MAJOR
INVESTMENT STUDY
Overview
This item is for the Committee to:
Pg. 37
1) Receive and file the Riverside County to Orange County Major
Investment Study Update; and
2) Forward to the Commission for final action.
10. ANNUAL LOCAL TRANSPORTATION FUND PLANNING ALLOCATIONS TO
CVAG AND WRCOG
Overview
This item is for the Committee to:
Pg. 39
1) Approve allocation of Local Transportation Funds totaling $241,848
to the Coachella Valley Association of Governments and $443,388 to
the Western Riverside Council of Governments to support
transportation planning programs and functions as identified in the
attached work programs; and
2) Forward to the Commission for final action.
11. GOODS MOVEMENT UPDATE
Overview
This item is for the Committee to:
1) Receive and file the Goods and Movement update; and
2) Forward to the Commission for final action.
Pg. 45
Plans and Programs Committee Agenda
August 23, 2004
Page 4
•
12. PALO VERDE VALLEY TRANSIT AGENCY'S REQUEST TO PURCHASE
GLOBAL POSITIONING SOFTWARE AND EQUIPMENT
Overview
This item is for the Committee to:
Pg. 48
1) Approve PVVTA's purchase of @Road Global Positioning Software
and equipment;
2) Reallocate $8,400 in Local Transportation Funds to cover the cost;
and
3) Forward to the Commission for final action.
13. AMENDMENT TO DISADVANTAGED BUSINESS ENTERPRISE PROGRAM
AND REPORT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2003-2004 AND PROPOSED GOAL FOR
FISCAL YEAR 2004-2005
Pg. 50
Overview
This item is for the Committee to:
1) Approve the amendment to the Disadvantaged Business Enterprise
Program;
2) Approve Resolution No. 04-014;
3) Adopt 4.02% as its DBE overall annual goal for Federal FY 2004-
2005 (from October 1, 2004 to September 30, 2005);
4) Post the proposed DBE overall annual goal for FY 2003-2004 and
receive comments for 45 days; and
5) Forward to the Commission for final action.
14. COMMUTER RAIL PROGRAM UPDATE
Overview
This item is for the Committee to:
Pg. 60
1) Receive and file the Commuter Rail Program Update as an information
item; and
2) Forward to the Commission for final action.
•
•
Plans and Programs Committee Agenda
August 23, 2004
Page 5
•
15. COMMISSIONERS / STAFF REPORT
Overview
This item provides the opportunity for the Commissioners and staff to report
on attended and upcoming meetings/conferences and issues related to
Commission activities.
16. CLOSED SESSION ITEM
Conference with Real Property negotiator pursuant to Section 54956.8
Property: APN: 285-210-(018, 019 and 023)
Negotiating parties:
RCTC: Executive Director or designee
Property Owner: QBH Development LLC, Anthony Johnson
17. ADJOURNMENT
•
•
The next Plans and Programs Committee meeting is scheduled to be held at
12:00 p.m., Monday, September 27, 2004, Board Chambers, 1St Floor,
County Administrative Center, 4080 Lemon Street, Riverside.
MINUTES
•
•
•
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION
PLANS AND PROGRAMS COMMITTEE
Monday, June 28, 2004
MINUTES
1. CALL TO ORDER
The meeting of the Plans and Programs Committee was called to order by
Chairman Frank Hall at 12:04 p.m., in the Board Room at the County of
Riverside Administrative Center, 4080 Lemon Street, First Floor, Riverside,
California, 92501.
2. ROLL CALL
Members/Alternates Present Members Absent
Daryl Busch
Bob Buster
Percy L. Byrd
Frank Hall
Dick Kelly
Jeff Miller
Shenna Moqeet
Ronald Oden
Ron Roberts
Jack Wamsley
Frank West
Michael H. Wilson
Marion Ashley
Matt Weyuker
3. PUBLIC COMMENTS
There were no requests from the public to speak.
4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES — March 22 and May 24, 2004
M/S/C (Byrd/Busch) to approve the March 22 and May 24, 2004
minutes.
Abstain on March 22, 2004 minutes: Moqeet
Abstain on May 24, 2004 minutes: Wilson
Plans and Programs Committee Minutes
June 28, 2004
Page 2
•
5. ADDITIONS/REVISIONS
There were no additions or revisions to the agenda.
6. RIVERSIDE COUNTY DRAFT 2004 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION
IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (RTIP) PUBLIC HEARING
Philip Law, SCAG, presented the Draft 2004 Regional Transportation
Improvement Program and informed those present on the purpose of the
public hearing.
Chairman Hall opened the public hearing at this time. No comments were
received from the public and the Chair closed the public hearing.
7. 2004 UPDATE TO LOCAL GUIDELINES FOR IMPLEMENTING THE
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT ("CEQA") AND ADOPTION
OF RESOLUTION NO. 04-013, "RESOLUTION OF THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY
TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION AMENDING AND ADOPTING LOCAL
GUIDELINES FOR IMPLEMENTING THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL
QUALITY ACT" (PUB. RESOURCES CODE § §21000 ET SEQ.)
Steven DeBaun, RCTC Legal Counsel, reviewed the 2004 Update to Local
Guidelines for Implementing the California Environmental Quality Act and the
resolution for its adoption.
M/S/C (Busch/Roberts) to:
1) Receive the 2004 Update to Local Guidelines for Implementing
CEQA;
2) Adopt Resolution No. 04-013, "Resolution of the Riverside
County Transportation Commission Amending and Adopting
Local Guidelines for Implementing the California Environmental
Quality Act" (Pub. Resources Code §§21000 Et Seq.). ; and,
3) Forward to the Commission for final action.
8. MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING NO. M24-001 FOR STATE
PLANNING AND RESEARCH FUNDS - CETAP RIVERSIDE COUNTY TO
ORANGE COUNTY CORRIDOR
Shirley Medina, Program Manager, reviewed the purpose of the
memorandum of understanding between the Commission, Orange County
Transportation Authority, and the Southern California Association of
•
•
Plans and Programs Committee Minutes
June 28, 2004
Page 3
Governments for the use of State Planning and Research funds in the
amount of $300,000 for the Riverside County to Orange County Corridor
Major Investment Study.
In response to Commissioner Jeff Miller's inquiry regarding use of the funds,
Hideo Sugita indicated that the intended use of the funds is to develop a
purpose and need for the project.
M/S/C (Wilson/Byrd) to:
1) Approve Memorandum of Understanding No. M24-001 between
the Riverside County Transportation Commission, Orange
County Transportation Authority, and the Southern California
Association of Governments for the use of State Planning and
Research funds in the amount of $300,000 for the Riverside
County to Orange County Corridor Major Investment Study;
2) Authorize the Executive Director, pursuant to Legal Counsel
review, to execute the memorandum of understanding on behalf
of the Commission; and,
3) Forward to the Commission for final action.
9. FOLLOW-UP TO CVAG'S APPROVAL OF TUMF/MEASURE "A" FUNDS FOR
I-10/PALM DRIVE AND 1-10/RAMON ROAD INTERCHANGES
Shirley Medina provided an update to the Committee on recent CVAG
actions to facilitate project delivery of the 1-10/Palm Drive and 1-10/Ramon
Road Interchanges.
M/S/C (Byrd/Wamsley) to:
1) Receive and file the follow-up report on CVAG's approval of
TUMF/Measure "A" funds for the 1-10/Palm Drive and
1-10/Ramon Road Interchanges; and,
2) Forward to the Commission for final action.
10. FISCAL YEAR 2004-2005 MEASURE "A" COMMUTER ASSISTANCE
BUSPOOL SUBSIDY FUNDING CONTINUATION REQUEST
Brian Cunanan, Staff Analyst, presented the Measure "A" Commuter
Assistance buspool subsidy funding request.
Plans and Programs Committee Minutes
June 28, 2004
Page 4
In response to Commissioner Bob Buster's concern regarding the impact of
the fee structure for three or more riders on the 91 express lanes, Marilyn
Williams responded that the change did not affect buspool costs and noted
that the subsidy relates to the individual riders.
Commissioner Shenna Moqeet expressed her concern that ridership has not
increased since the inception of the program and her belief that an increase
in subsidy is not justified.
Marilyn Williams indicated that the program is organized by the commuters
who independently contract with the bus leasing company to maintain the
routes and the program is not advertised. She also noted that the
recommended subsidy increase maintains the average subsidy rate at 20% in
comparison to the public transit subsidy rate of 80%.
Commissioner Michael Wilson expressed his support for the request and
suggested the use of advertising to increase ridership.
M/S/C (Buster/Wilson) to:
1) Set monthly buspool subsidy to $35/seat/month;
2) Authorize payment of $1,645/month/buspool for the period
July 1, 2004 to June 30, 2005 to the existing Riverside,
Moreno Valley, Corona, Mira Loma buspools;
3) Continue the existing monthly and semi-annual reporting
requirements as support documentation to monthly subsidy
payments; and,
4) Forward to the Commission for final action.
No - Moqeet
11. RCTC AND TRANSIT OPERATORS RESPONSES TO THE FISCAL YEARS
2000-2001 THROUGH 2002-2003 TRIENNIAL PERFORMANCE AUDITS
Tanya Love, Program Manager, reviewed the auditor's recommendations and
the transit operators and RCTC staff's responses to the Triennial
Performance Audits.
Commissioner Jack Wamsley commended SunLine for the improvements
made to its administrative and financial practices.
e
•
•
•
•
Plans and Programs Committee Minutes
June 28, 2004
Page 5
M/S/C (Miller/Busch) to:
1) Approve the RCTC and Transit Operators' responses to the
FYs 2000-01 through FY 2002-03 Triennial Performance
Audits;
2) Direct staff to implement the RCTC recommendations and
provide a status report on progress made in December 2004;
3) Monitor Transit Operators' progress made regarding
implementation of the recommendations; and,
4) Forward to the Commission for final action.
12. MEASURE "A" SPECIALIZED TRANSIT TAXI DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM
Tanya Love updated the Committee on the Measure "A" Specialized Transit
Taxi Demonstration Program.
Commissioner Moqeet requested that the number of people utilizing the
program for medical services be tracked. Tanya Love affirmed her request.
Commissioner Percy Byrd asked if needs could be determined, specifically
long distance trips. Tanya Love responded that need cannot be determined
due to passengers not knowing the type of transportation that will be
received when a trip is requested.
M/S/C (Busch/Miller) to:
1) Receive and file the status report on the Measure "A"
Specialized Transit Taxi Demonstration Program; and,
2) Forward to the Commission for final action.
13. FISCAL YEAR 2004-2005 FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION'S
SECTION 5307 PROGRAM OF PROJECTS FOR RIVERSIDE/SAN
BERNARDINO, HEMET/SAN JACINTO, TEMECULA/MURRIETA AND
INDIO/CATHEDRAL CITY/PALM SPRINGS URBANIZED AREAS
At the Committee's request, Tanya Love addressed Agenda Items 13
through 16 as the items relate to the allocation of funding based on the
Short Range Transit Plans previously approved by the Commission.
•
Plans and Programs Committee Minutes
June 28, 2004
Page 6
M/S/C (Wilson/Byrd) to:
1) Approve the FY 2004-05 Federal Transit Administration's
Section 5307 Program of Projects for Riverside County; and,
2) Forward to the Commission for final action.
14. FISCAL YEAR 2004-2005 FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION'S
SECTION 5311 RURAL TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM
M/S/C (Wilson/Byrd) to:
1) Approve the proposed FY 2004-05 Federal Transit
Administration's Section 5311 Program of Projects for Riverside
County; and,
2) Forward to the Commission for final action.
15. FISCAL YEAR 2004-2005 LOCAL TRANSPORTATION FUND ALLOCATIONS
FOR TRANSIT
M/S/C (Wilson/Byrd) to:
1) Approve the FY 2004-05 Local Transportation Fund (LTF)
allocations for transit; and,
2) Forward to the Commission for final action.
16. RESOLUTION NO. 04-012 "RESOLUTION OF THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY
TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION TO ALLOCATE STATE TRANSIT
ASSISTANCE FUNDS" AND FISCAL YEAR 2004-2005 STATE TRANSIT
ASSISTANCE ALLOCATIONS
M/S/C (Wilson/Byrd) to:
1) Adopt Resolution No. 04-012, "Resolution of the Riverside
County Transportation Commission to Allocate State Transit
Assistance Funds";
2) Approve the FY 2004-05 State Transit Assistance fund
allocations for Riverside County; and,
3) Forward to the Commission for final action.
•
•
•
Plans and Programs Committee Minutes
June 28, 2004
Page 7
•
17. RIVERSIDE TRANSIT AGENCY'S REQUEST TO REPROGRAM FUNDS TO
PURCHASE TRANSIT VEHICLES
Tanya Love reviewed RTA's request to purchase three 32' commuter type
vehicles for use in its Commuter Link services.
In response to Commissioner Roberts' question, Tanya Love confirmed that
the vehicles would utilize CNG fuel.
M/S/C (Roberts/Miller) to:
1) Approve the reprogramming of Federal Transit Administration
and Local Transportation Funds for the purchase of three
32' commuter type vehicles; and,
2) Forward to the Commission for final action.
18. COMMISSIONERS / STAFF REPORT
There were no reports from Commissioner or staff.
• 19. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business for consideration by the Plans and Programs
Committee, the meeting adjourned at 12:53 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Jennifer Harmon
Deputy Clerk of the Board
•
• AGENDA ITEM 6
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION
DATE:
August 23, 2004
TO:
Plans and Programs Committee
FROM:
Robert Yates, Program Manager
THROUGH:
Marilyn Williams, Director of Regional Programs and Public Affairs
SUBJECT:
Commuter Exchange Vehicle Procurement
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
This item is for the Committee to:
•
•
1) Approve the purchase of a replacement Commuter Exchange Mobile
Education Vehicle pursuant to the staff approved technical
specification, from Matthews Specialty Vehicles, Inc. of Greensboro,
NC,
2) Authorize the Executive Director, pursuant to Legal Counsel review, to
execute a purchase order agreement with Matthews on behalf of the
Commission;
3) Authorize the Executive Director, pursuant to Legal Counsel review, to
enter into those agreements necessary to secure the exterior and
interior graphics and information displays; and
4) Forward to the Commission for final action.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
On October 8, 2003, staff requested and received from the Commission,
permission to enter into a proposal development process which would result in the
preparation of a technical specification for, and the purchase of, a new Commuter
Exchange Mobile Education Vehicle. Commission action also provided staff with a
not to exceed project budget of $345,000 which would allow for completion of the
mechanical, exterior/interior appointments and display portions of the vehicle.
Based on the October Commission action, a Technical Consultant was hired to
oversee the development of the vehicle specification. This specification was
provided to staff on May 17, 2004 at which time it was reviewed, approved and
incorporated into a Commission Request for Proposal package. In approving the
vehicle specification, staff made the determination that it contained all elements
necessary to ensure delivery of a vehicle with a long service life, and those
necessary to address the Commission's commitment to ADA compliance
requirements and use of clean fuels.
1
Highlights of the specification include the following:
• Heavy duty Class A chassis 37-40' in length
• Compressed Natural Gas 8.1L engine manufactured by John Deere
• 86" height interior headroom
• 2 doors with 1 ADA approved wheelchair lift device
• On board generator
• Air conditioning
• Computer workstation with satellite wireless communication
The Request for Proposals package, including the approved technical specification,
was then released to the public on June 14, 2004 with Proposals due back to the
Commission on or before August 4, 2004. The entire Request for Proposals
package as released by the Commission is provided herein as Attachment A.
The Request for Proposal package was mailed to 8 firms, advertised in Inland
Empire newspapers and placed on the Commission's website. A pre -bid meeting
was held on July 15, 2004 with 4 people representing 3 companies participating
via teleconference. Two proposals were received by the Commission on the due
date from Matthews Specialty Vehicles of Greensboro NC and Clegg Industries of
Victoria TX.
Staff and its Technical Consultant have reviewed the proposals and staff is pleased
to report that the proposal submitted by Matthews Specialty Vehicles meets the
technical specification required for the vehicle by the Commission. The proposal
submitted by Clegg was ultimately deemed by staff and the Technical Consultant
to be non -responsive to the technical specification and was eliminated from further
consideration. The Technical Consultant's analysis is provided herein as
Attachment B.
Staff is also pleased to report that the proposal submitted by Matthews is well
within the budget established for the vehicle with a base price bid of $241,000.
Given that the exterior graphics and interior displays will be constructed separately
using local vendors and suppliers, contracting the vehicle from Matthews will
require staff to maintain flexibility in the determination of options and accessories.
Accordingly, staff is requesting the Commission to provide the Executive Director
with the authority to negotiate and authorize contract change orders and/or
agreements with Matthews and other vendors as appropriate and necessary to
complete the vehicle.
•
•
•
2
•
•
•
In no case shall the Executive Director exceed the Commission approved budget of
$345,000. Should that need arise, staff will return to the Commission for
guidance and approval.
Financial Information
In Fiscal Year Budget:
Y
Year:
FY 04/05
Amount:
$345,000
Source of Funds:
Measure A Commuter Assistance
Budget Adjustment:
N
GLA No.:
226-41-90202
Fiscal Procedures Approved:
�.1i.g4
Date:
8/23/04
Attachments:
(A) Request for Proposals Package
(B) Technical Evaluation of Proposals
3
•
•
•
INVITATION FOR BID
To
Manufacture a Compressed Natural Gas (CNG)
Mobile Education Specialty Vehicle
BIDS DUE:
August 4, 2004 by 4:00 p.m.
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
4080 Lemon Street, Third Floor
P.O. Box 12008
Riverside, California 92502-2208
Phone: 909-787-7141 FAX: 909-787-7920
www,RCTC.o
•
TABLE OF CONTENTS
•
•
SECTION
1.0 Introduction 1
2.0 Commission Overview 1
3.0 Project Background 1
4.0 Scope of Work 3
5.0 Pre -submittal Activities 5
6.0 Bid Requirements 6
7.0 Bid Submittal Requirements 8
8.0 Vendor Selection Process 10
9.0 Calendar of Events 11
10.0 Special Conditions 11
ATTACHMENTS
A. Vehicle Technical Specifications 13
B. Conflict of Interest Disclosure 19
ii
5
•
•
•
INVITATION FOR BID
To Manufacture a Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) Mobile Education
Specialty Vehicle
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The Riverside County Transportation Commission, hereinafter referred to as
"Commission", requests bids from qualified specialty vehicle manufacturers to
manufacture a Compressed Natural Gas -Fueled Mobile Education Vehicle in
accordance with the requirements, terms, and conditions specified herein.
This Invitation for Bid uses the words "bidder", "manufacturer", and "vendor"
interchangeably. Failure to submit information in accordance with the instructions
included in this Invitation for Bid may be cause for disqualification. Please note the
Commission reserves the right to make no awards under this solicitation.
2.0 COMMISSION OVERVIEW
The Commission, through Assembly Bill 1246, was created in 1976 to: 1) Coordinate
State highway planning; 2) Adopt Short Range Transit Plans; 3) Coordinate transit
service; 4) Allocate Transportation Development Act funds; and, 5) Coordinate county
highway and transit plans with regional and state agencies. Over time, the Commission
was charged with several expanded roles including: 1) Service Authority for Freeway
Emergencies; 2) Measure "A" 1/2 cent sales tax for transportation; and, 3) Congestion
Management Program. In 1998, through Senate Bill 1851, the Commission's
membership was expanded to include a representative from every city in Riverside
County, all five County Supervisors, and a Governor's appointee (non -voting).
3.0 PROJECT BACKGROUND
Since 1991, the Commission has operated the "Commuter Exchange", a 40 -foot
Fleetwood recreational vehicle converted to serve as a mobile public information and
student education center.
1
6
Figure 1 — The existing "Commuter Exchange" mobile education & outreach vehicle
The Commuter Exchange vehicle, along with the talented and dedicated individuals who
operate it, serves as the Commission's air quality and traffic congestion education
ambassador at local schools and public events throughout Riverside County. While the
existing vehicle has served the Commission well over the past 13 years, normal wear
has taken its toll on both the exterior, interior displays, and most critically, the vehicle
drive train. The Commission has made the decision to replace the vehicle as opposed
to attempting a reconditioning or restoration.
The replacement vehicle sought by the Commission must meet all technical
requirements included in the "Attachment A" Technical Specifications. Most significant
is the requirement that the replacement vehicle engine operate on dedicated
compressed natural gas (CNG).
2
7
Figure 2, below, shows the interior of the existing commuter exchange vehicle. This is
•
•
Figure 2 — The existing commuter exchange interior is configured to serve as a mobile air quality and
traffic congestion information and education center at local schools and public events throughout
Riverside County
This information is provided so that bidders understand the intended use of the vehicle;
however, design, fabrication, and installation of interior displays, cabinetry, wall, and
floor coverings will be performed by the Commission and is OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF
THIS INVITATION FOR BID. This Invitation for Bid is for the BASE VEHICLE ONLY
per the requirements set forth in the "Attachment A" Technical Specifications.
4.0 SCOPE OF WORK
The Commission seeks a specialty vehicle manufacturer with experience in the
construction of 37'-40' Class A heavy-duty mobile education vehicles equipped with a
dedicated CNG drive train in accordance with the "Attachment A" Technical
Specifications.
3
8
The Technical Specifications outline requirements for the following vehicle attributes:
• Base Vehicle Chassis & Drive Train Specifications — CNG Fuel;
• Body Specifications;
• Interior Requirements & Specifications;
• Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Accommodations;
• Electrical & Lighting Requirements & Specifications;
• Safety Requirements & Specifications.
As stated above, the Commission is seeking a base vehicle equipped with options as
specified in Attachment A. The following are NOT requirements of the vehicle and are
NOT to be included as an element of the bid:
• Vehicle will NOT be equipped with a lavatory;
• Vehicle will NOT be equipped with a kitchen or galley;
Vehicle will NOT be equipped with an exterior awning;
• Vehicle will NOT be equipped with a slide out compartment.
In addition to the satisfying all Technical Requirements, qualifying bids must conform to
the following programmatic requirements:
4.1 Minimum Warranty Requirements:
• Chassis: Five years/Unlimited Mileage
• Body: Five years/Unlimited Mileage
• Engine: Two years/100,000 miles
• Generator: Two years
• Air Conditioners One year
• Other: All other base vehicle components, including specified
options, shall have a minimum warranty period of one
(1) year.
4.2 Inspections:
The Commission shall conduct two (2) inspections of the vehicle during manufacture.
The inspections will take place at the vendor's manufacturing facility at vendor's
•
•
•
4
9
•
•
•
expense. Expenses shall include mileage, lodging, and meals as applicable. Airfare
costs will be borne by the Commission. One inspection trip shall be conducted following
purchase order/contract award at the time vehicle construction is initiated; the second
inspection will occur prior to vehicle delivery.
4.3 Vehicle Maintenance & Repair Facilities
Vendors shall include a list of authorized maintenance and repair facilities within or in
close proximity to Riverside County at which vehicle warranty repairs, scheduled and
unscheduled maintenance, and inspections may be conducted. Bidders shall include a
statement in their Bid confirming that the listed maintenance and repair facility(s) have
experience with and can accommodate maintenance and repair of compressed natural
gas vehicles.
4.4 Vehicle Delivery Schedule
The vehicle shall be constructed and delivered within a maximum of 180 days following
execution of a contract or purchase order between the vendor and the Commission.
Vehicle delivery shall be to a location designated by the Commission.
4.5 Vehicle Onsite Training
At the time of vehicle delivery, the vendor shall arrange for a minimum of day training
on all aspects of vehicle operation, to be conducted onsite at the Commission or at a
location designated by the Commission. This shall include training on safe natural gas
refueling operations as well as operation of all vendor -installed components.
5.0 PRE -SUBMITTAL ACTIVITIES
5.1 Pre -Bid Meeting
A Pre -Bid Meeting will be held at the offices of the Commission on July 15, 2004 at
10:00 am. While this is not a mandatory meeting for a Bid to be accepted, this will be
the only opportunity to discuss and clarify any questions Bidders may have regarding
the Invitation for Bid directly with Commission staff. Staff will not be available to discuss
the Invitation for Bid with Bidders at any other time before or after the Pre -Bid Meeting.
Manufacturers unable to attend in person have the option of participating in the Pre -Bid
5
10
Meeting via teleconference. Vendors who wish to participate in this manner are
required to contact the Commission no later than July 14, 2004 to obtain the
teleconference phone number.
5.2 Questions Concerning this Invitation for Bid
All questions regarding this Invitation for Bid should be submitted in writing no later than
4:00 pm on July 13, 2004. Faxes are acceptable. Questions should be addressed as
follows:
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
Mobile Education Specialty Vehicle Bid
ATTN: Robert J. Yates — Program Manager
4080 Lemon Street, Third Floor
Riverside, California 92501
FAX: 909-787-7920
For questions received in writing after the Pre -Bid meeting and prior to the July 15, 2004
submittal date, the Commission may, in its sole discretion, prepare a response. Any
Commission response will be distributed to Bidders in attendance at the Pre -Bid
Meeting, and Bidders who notify the Commission in writing of their request to receive
any question and answer information issued by the Commission.
6.0 BID REQUIREMENTS
Written bids are required and shall be concise, well organized and demonstrate the
Bidder's qualifications and experience applicable to this solicitation. The maximum
length of the Technical Proposal and Cost Proposal shall not exceed fifteen (15) 8-1/2 X
11 sheets of paper total. An Appendix that includes additional vehicle drawing,
photographs, company promotional materials, etc., may also be included but should not
exceed twenty (20) pages in length. All pages within the Technical and Cost Proposals
must be numbered; materials included in the Appendix do not require numbering.
•
6
11
• 6.1. Cover Letter
A transmittal cover letter must accompany the bid specifying the Invitation for Bid title,
and the Bidder's legal name and address of its main office. The letter shall specify the
contact person(s) for technical and contractual matters including telephone/fax numbers
and e-mail address, and be signed by the individual(s) authorized to execute legal
documents on behalf of the bidder.
6.2 Bid Content — Technical Proposal
Bids submitted in response to this Invitation for Bid shall include the following elements:
6.2.1 Vehicle Description, Specifications, & Drawings
•
•
Provide a detailed description and specifications for the proposed vehicle in accordance
with the Scope of Work requirements discussed in Section 4, above. The proposed
vehicle description should identify adherence to each requirement set forth in
"Attachment A", Technical Specifications. Any deviation from these specifications
shall be identified by the bidder as an element of the bid package, and the Bidder
shall include additional information explaining the requirement deviation. In
addition, the Technical Proposal should discuss bidder's approach to satisfying Scope
of Work requirements as they relate to:
• Base Vehicle, Drive Train, & Specified Optional Equipment Warranties
• Vehicle Inspections by the Commission;
• List of Authorized Repair & Maintenance Facilities;
• Vehicle Delivery Schedule;
• Onsite Training.
In addition, the Technical Proposal shall include dimensioned drawings of the proposed
vehicle and representative photographs of a vehicle similar to the proposed vehicle.
The location of specified options on the proposed vehicle should be noted on the
drawings as appropriate.
7
12
6.3 Bidder's Qualifications and Experience
The Bidder shall describe their firm's qualifications and experience in manufacturing
vehicles as described in this Invitation for Bid, emphasizing experience in the
manufacture of vehicles fueled with compressed natural gas. If subcontractors are
proposed, a full description of each participating firm should be included. The Bidder
shall provide at least three references of organizations or agencies who have procured
a similar vehicle, including the organization's name, contact name, telephone/fax
numbers, and value of the contract.
6.5 Bid Content - Cost Proposal
The Bidder shall submit a separate Cost Proposal for the proposed vehicle. The Bidder
must warrant that the cost bid will remain in effect for 90 days and state such in this
section. The Cost Proposal shall include:
• Base Vehicle Cost, specifying all standard equipment included in base cost;
• Cost for the compressed natural gas drive train option;
• Cost by Line Item for each option required per "Attachment A", if such options are
not included in the Base Vehicle Cost;
Taxes, as applicable;
Delivery costs;
• Other costs;
• Total cost.
Bidder should also include a discussion of their firm's payment schedule requirements.
7.0 SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS
One executed original Bid, clearly marked on the cover, and five (5) copies must be
received no later than 4:00 p.m. local time on August 4, 2004, and be addressed in
the following manner:
•
e
8
13
•
•
•
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
Mobile Education Specialty Vehicle Bid
ATTN: Robert J. Yates — Program Manager
4080 Lemon Street, Third Floor
Riverside, California 92501
All bids will be time and date stamped upon receipt by the Commission. Bids received
after the specified date and time will be disqualified from the evaluation process. No
exceptions will be granted regardless of reason or circumstance. Failure to comply with
the requirements of this Invitation for Bid may result in disqualification.
7.1 Revision to the Invitation for Bid
The Commission reserves the right at its sole discretion to:
Cancel this Invitation for Bid at any time;
• Revise the Invitation for Bid prior to the date bids are due. Revisions to the
Invitation for Bid shall be mailed to all potential bidders to whom the RFP was
originally distributed and those who notified the Commission in writing of their
interest in submitting a Bid;
• Extend the date by which the Bids are due.
The full content of the Invitation for Bid, Attachments, and Conflict of Interest Disclosure
Form are available on the Commission's web page located at www.RCTC.org. Firms
anticipating submitting a bid are asked to send a letter acknowledging the receipt of the
Invitation for Bid to the above address so that the firm can be added to the notification
list. Please note that the Commission will not be responsible for mailing any
addendums. All addendums will be posted on the RCTC web page. Firms are
encouraged to check the web page regularly since each firm will be responsible for
downloading all addendums.
Prospective manufacturers are encouraged to promptly notify the Riverside County
Transportation Commission of any apparent major inconsistencies, problems or
9
14
ambiguities in the Scope of Work, including the "Attachment A" Technical
Specifications. Please note in the Calendar of Events that there will be a Bidders'
information meeting (Pre -Bid Meeting) to answer any questions that you may have
regarding this Invitation for Bid.
8.0 VENDOR SELECTION PROCESS
8.1 A selection panel (Panel) will be established for this Project and will include
representatives from the Commission, and, when deemed in the Commission's best
interest, representatives of its member agencies, allied agencies, Commission staff, and
technical consultants.
8.2 Based on the bids submitted, the Commission's Panel will screen all bids for
adherence to solicitation requirements. Bids that fail to conform to the requirements set
forth in this solicitation will be disqualified.
8.3 The Panel will review the Cost Proposal for each qualifying bid. Vendor selection
will be based on Lowest Cost.
8.4 The selected Bidder will be notified and a Commission Purchase Order Agreement
will be developed. The Agreement will cover scope of work, contract schedule, contract
terms and conditions, technical specifications, and price. The Commission, at its sole
discretion, will establish the form and content of the Purchase Order Agreement,
consistent with this Invitation to Bid and the Cost Proposal and Technical Proposal of
the selected Bidder.
8.5 The Commission reserves the right to reject any or all bids, to waive any informality
or irregularity in any bid, and to be the sole judge of the merits of each bid.
9.0 CALENDAR OF EVENTS
9.1 The Commission anticipates that the process for nominating and selecting a vendor
and awarding the purchase order will be conducted in accordance with the following
tentative schedule:
•
•
10
15
•
•
•
Table 1 — Calendar of Events
SOLICITATION EVENT
DATE
Last Date to Submit Pre -Bid Meeting Written Questions
Last Date to Register for Pre -Bid Meeting Teleconference Option
Pre -Bid Meeting
Bid Due Date
Vendor Selection:
Commission Action on Staff Recommendation
July 13, 2004 @ 4:00 pm
July 14, 2004 @ 4:00 pm
July 15, 2004 @ 10:00 am
August 4, 2004 @ 4:00 pm
August 16, 2004
September 8, 2004
Expected date for Notice to Proceed
September 15, 2004
9.2 Notice to Proceed (NTP):
Following Commission action on September 8, 2004, the successful bidder will be
notified and the Commission will prepare and execute a Purchase Order Agreement.
Receipt of the fully executed Purchase Order Agreement will serve as vendor's
Notice to Proceed (NTP). Any work performed by vendor prior to receipt of a fully
executed Purchase Order Agreement is at vendor's sole risk.
10.0 SPECIAL CONDITIONS
10.1 Reservations
This Invitation for Bid does not commit the Commission to award a purchase order or
contract or defray any costs incurred in the preparation of a Bid pursuant to this
Invitation for Bid.
10.2 Public Records
All Bids submitted in response to this Invitation for Bid become the property of the
Commission and public records, and as such may be subject to public review. The Cost
Proposal portions of the submittals will be kept confidential to the extent allowed by
applicable law, including the California Public Records Act (Government Code Section
6250 et seq.).
11
16
10.3 Right To Cancel
The Commission, at its sole discretion, reserves the right to cancel, for any or no
reason, in part or in its entirety, this Invitation for Bid, including but not limited to:
selection schedule, submittal date, and submittal requirements. Notice of cancellation
or addendum will be posted to the RCTC website; bidders are encouraged to check the
web page regularly.
10.4 Additional Information
The Commission reserves the right to request additional information and/or clarifications
from any or all Bidders to this Invitation for Bid.
10.5 Conflict Of Interest
The Riverside County Transportation Commission has established a policy concerning
potential Conflicts of Interest. This policy applies to all Bidders and their subcontractors.
All bidders and subcontractors must complete the Conflict of Interest Disclosure Form
included as "Attachment B" of this solicitation and include the Disclosure Form as an
element of vendor's bid package.
10.6 Public Information
Vendor selection announcements, contract awards, and all data provided by the
Commission shall be protected from public disclosure by the selected Bidder. Vendors
desiring to release information to the public must receive prior written approval from the
Commission. The Commission, in its sole discretion, shall determine the release and
disclosure of information related to this solicitation.
10.7 Insurance Requirements
The Commission requires contractors and vendors doing business with it to obtain
insurance as described in the Purchase Order Agreement. The required insurance
certificates must comply with all requirements in the Agreement and must be provided
(original copy) prior to the commencement of any work by the manufacturer.
•
12
17
•
•
•
Attachment A: Technical Specifications
The following specifications outline the base Vehicle Requirements and required
Vehicle Options for the Riverside County Transportation Commission's "Commuter
Exchange" mobile education and public information unit. Only bids that conform to
these specifications will be deemed acceptable. Any deviation from these specifications
shall be identified by the bidder as an element of the bid package, and the bidder shall
include additional information explaining the requirement deviation.
BASE VEHICLE CHASSIS & DRIVE TRAIN SPECIFICATIONS — CNG FUEL
Vehicle Type: Class A
Overall Length: 37' — 40' (444" — 480")
Chassis: Thomas Built, Blue Bird, Freightliner, or equivalent Heavy -Duty
Commercial with standard suspension.
Engine: John Deere 6081H 8.1L
Transmission: Heavy-duty electronic automatic with overdrive
Fuel: Compressed Natural Gas (CNG)
Fuel Capacity: 10,920 standard cubic feet or 80 diesel equivalent gallon minimum
Fuel Tanks: CNG fuel tanks shall be mounted between the frame rails and
conform to FMVSS 301 Fuel System Integrity and FMVSS 304
CNG Fuel Container Integrity specifications. CNG engine and fuel
system shall comply with 16CFR309.1, 49CFR567, NFPA52, as
well as all applicable State of California regulations.
CNG Fill
Receptacle: CNG fill receptacle shall conform to ANSI NGV1 specifications.
Engine Cooling: Vehicle shall be equipped with a heavy-duty, increased capacity
cooling system suitable for operation in a desert climate.
Brakes: Heavy-duty power brakes; Anti -lock Braking System (ABS)
Steering: Power steering with tilt wheel.
Alternator: Heavy-duty, 150 amp minimum.
Hydraulic Leveling
Jacks: Vehicle shall be equipped with hydraulic leveling jacks.
Wheels and Tires: Vehicle wheels and tires shall be as recommended by the chassis
manufacturer and suitable for vehicle gross vehicle weight rating.
Tires shall be all season belted radial.
13
18
BODY SPECIFICATIONS
Interior Headroom: 84" minimum; 87" preferred
Interior Width: 90" minimum
Doors: Vehicle shall be equipped with two (2) doors.
Both doors shall be located on the right (passenger) side of the
vehicle.
One of two side doors will be located near the front of the vehicle;
the other side door will be located near the rear of the vehicle.
Nominal door dimensions are approximately 30" wide by
approximately 72" inches high.
The rear door should be configured to accommodate ADA
wheelchair access requirements.
Doors shall be equipped with FMVSS- approved passage and dead
bolt locks.
Doors shall be equipped with heavy-duty handrails at both sides of
door.
Windows: In addition to the windshield and driver side and passenger cab
windows, vehicle shall be equipped with a minimum of three (3)
windows located on the right side (passenger side) of the vehicle.
Each window shall have nominal dimensions of 18" wide by 12"
high, and shall be installed at approximately eye level (nominal)
when standing in the vehicle. Windows shall be capable of being
opened and shall be equipped with entry -proof latches on the
interior.
Window material shall be tinted.
Insulation: Vehicle roof and sidewalls shall be both thermally and acoustically
insulated, including reflective insulation with vapor barrier.
Side View Mirrors: Vehicle shall be equipped with motorized driver and passenger side
view mirrors and shall include convex mirrors.
Body Color: Vehicle exterior shall be painted white.
Vehicle exterior shall not include any emblems or graphics that
would inhibit use of a polymer exterior "wrap".
•
•
14
19
•
•
•
INTERIOR REQUIREMENTS & SPECIFICATIONS
Air Conditioning:
Heater/Defroster:
12 -volt Receptacle:
Auxiliary Heater:
Cruise Control:
Driver Sun Visors:
Windshield Wipers:
Seats:
Instrumentation:
Cup Holders:
Audio System:
Speaker System:
Public Address:
Vehicle shall be equipped with an upgraded air conditioning system
to accommodate use in a desert climate, including two (2) 13,500
BTU air conditioning units or equivalent.
Vehicle shall be equipped with air conditioning in the driver
compartment area.
Driver cab area shall be equipped with a heater and windshield
defroster.
Driver cab will be equipped with a 12 -volt receptacle and/or
cigarette lighter.
Vehicle shall be equipped with one (1) electric forced air heater
rated @1500 watts minimum.
Vehicle shall be equipped with cruise control.
Vehicle shall be equipped with motorized/electrically actuated front
windshield sun visors.
Windshield wipers shall be 2 -speed electric with coordinated
washers and intermittent capability.
Vehicle shall be equipped with cloth driver and passenger high -
back seats including integral armrests. Driver seat shall be
adjustable to accommodate a range of driver heights, arm, and leg
reach capabilities.
Driver and passenger seat shall be capable of turning a minimum of
180 degrees to allow seats to face the interior of the vehicle.
Vehicle shall include standard instrumentation, including at a
minimum speedometer, coolant temperature indicator, oil pressure
indicator, ammeter or voltmeter, battery state of charge indicator,
fuel gauge for CNG storage tanks, fuel gauge for gasoline
generator, and well as all FMVSS required indicator lights.
Vehicle shall be equipped with a minimum of two (2) cup holders
located within convenient reach of the driver and front seat
passenger.
Vehicle shall be equipped with AM/FM/Compact Disc.
Vehicle shall be equipped with a minimum of eight (8) high fidelity
audio speakers located in the front, mid, and rear areas of the
vehicle. Speakers will be configured in zones and include a
speaker selector switch.
Vehicle shall be equipped with a wireless public address (PA)
system. The PA system may use the same speakers as the other
audio system components.
15
20
Video System:
Satellite System:
Vehicle shall be wired to accommodate a customer -installed DVD
video player and television. Anticipated location for television
mounting is the vehicle's rear interior panel.
Vehicle shall be equipped with one (1) MotoSat Datastorm or
equivalent, two-way, broadband, roof -mounted satellite data
system. System shall include all control hardware and software
required to integrate two (2) computer workstations for Internet
connectivity.
Navigation System: Vehicle shall be equipped with a global positioning system (GPS)
onboard navigation system, including exterior mounted antenna.
Navigation system display screen and controls shall be mounted in
a location easily accessed by driver during vehicle operation.
AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT (ADA) ACCOMMODATIONS
Wheelchair Access: Vehicle shall include provision for wheel chair access. This may
include a wheel chair lift or ramp.
ELECTRICAL & LIGHTING REQUIREMENTS & SPECIFICATIONS
Electrical Service:
Battery:
Generator:
Transfer Switch
System:
Isolator:
110 -volt Outlets:
Computer Work
Station:
Vehicle shall be equipped with a power panel and include breakers
for each circuit. All vehicle wiring shall be a minimum of gauge 12
and conform to applicable safety standards and codes.
Vehicle shall be equipped with one (1) main and one (1) auxiliary
maintenance free deep cycle 12 -volt batteries each rated at a
minimum of 700 cold cranking amps. Vehicle shall include a
battery condition meter.
Vehicle shall be equipped with an ONAN MicroQuiet 4000
Generator or equivalent using gasoline fuel. Generator refueling
port shall accept standard gasoline hose nozzle. Generator
exhaust shall be located in a position such that exhaust does not
enter vehicle through open doors or windows when operating.
Vehicle shall be equipped with an automatic transfer switch system.
Vehicle shall be equipped with a heavy duty, minimum 160 -amp
isolator to allow charging of auxiliary battery from vehicle alternator.
Vehicle shall be equipped with a minimum of ten (10) 110 -volt
ground fault circuit interrupter (GFCI) outlets.
One location will be designated for a computer workstation.
Vehicle shall be configured and equipped to support customer -
installed computer workstations, including GFCI 110 -volt outlets,
CAT -5 cabling, and integration with the broadband satellite system.
•
e
•
16
21
• Interior Lighting: Vehicle shall be equipped with full interior lighting configured in
lighting zones that can be switched on and off independently. The
level of interior lighting must be adequate to allow the interior to
function as a mobile classroom and presentation center.
Shore Power Cord: Vehicle shall be equipped with single 50 foot 125 -volt 30 amp
marine grade cord with matching 30 amp marine grade service
connector.
SAFETY REQUIREMENTS & SPECIFICATIONS
Methane Gas
Detection System: Vehicle shall be equipped with an interior methane gas detection
system with audible alarm installed in accordance with
manufacturer requirements and all applicable codes.
Carbon Monoxide
Detection System: Vehicle shall be equipped with an interior carbon monoxide gas
detection system with audible alarm installed in accordance with
manufacturer requirements and all applicable codes.
Vehicle shall be equipped with a transmission mounted parking
brake or equivalent emergency brake system.
The windshield and all windows in the driver compartment shall be
constructed of tinted safety glass conforming to FMVSS
requirements.
Backup Alarm: Vehicle shall be equipped with an audible backup alarm actuated
by shifting the vehicle into reverse.
Fire Extinguisher: Vehicle shall be equipped with a class ABC fire extinguisher.
Handrails: All entry/exit doors shall be equipped with heavy-duty handrails.
Steps: All vehicle steps shall be heavy-duty with non-skid surfaces.
Backup Camera: Vehicle shall be equipped with a color backup camera with sound
capability, including dashboard mounted color monitor and audio
speaker.
Dashboard: Vehicle shall be equipped with padded dashboard.
Parking Brake:
• Safety Glass
•
MINIMUM WARRANTY REQUIREMENTS
Chassis: Five years/unlimited mileage
Body: Five years/unlimited mileage
Engine: Two years or 100,000 miles
Generator: Two Years
Air Conditioners: One Year
17
22
Other: All other base vehicle components, including specified options,
shall have a minimum warranty period of one (1) year.
VEHICLE FEATURES NOT REQUIRED
The following are NOT REQUIREMENTS of the RCTC Commuter Exchange vehicle:
Vehicle SHALL NOT be equipped with a lavatory.
Vehicle SHALL NOT be equipped with a kitchen or galley.
Vehicle SHALL NOT be equipped with an exterior awning.
Vehicle SHALL NOT be equipped with a slide out compartment.
•
•
•
18
23
• Attachment B: Conflict of Interest Disclosure
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
DISCLOSURE OF CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS TO COMMISSIONERS
Pursuant to Government Code Section 84308, and 2 California Code of Regulations 18438.1, et
seq., no Commissioner of the Riverside County Transportation Commission shall receive or
solicit a campaign contribution of more than $250 from Bidder, or Bidder's agent, during the time
of: 1) Bid solicitation; 2) Consideration of Bids received; and, 3) Awarding of a contract based of
a Bid (collectively referred to as the "Proceeding"), and for three (3) months following the
conclusion of the Proceeding. This prohibition does not apply to the awarding of contracts that
are competitively bid. In addition, Commissioners cannot participate in any such matters if they
have received more than $250 in campaign contributions within the last year from anyone
financially interested in the Proceeding, such as Bidder and/or Bidder's agent.
•
•
Pursuant to these requirements, Bidder shall disclose any campaign contribution in an amount
of more than $250 made by Bidder, and/or Bidder's agent, to any Commissioner within 12
months from the date of these Bid Documents/Request For Proposals (as applicable). For the
purposes of this disclosure obligation, contributions made by Bidder within the preceding 12
months shall be aggregated with those made by Bidder's agent within the preceding 12 months
or the period of the agency relationship between Bidder and Bidder's agent, whichever is
shorter. In addition, Bidder and/or Bidder's agent shall not make a contribution of more than
$250 to a Commissioner during the Proceeding and for three (3) months following the
conclusion of the Proceeding.
The disclosure by Bidder, as set forth, herein, shall be incorporated into the written record of the
Proceeding and shall be made available to the public for inspection and copying.
The following is a list of the Commissioners of the Riverside County Transportation
Commission:
Art Welch / Barbara Hanna, City of Banning
Roger Berg / Jeff Fox, City of Beaumont
Robert Crain / George Thomas, City of Blythe
19
24
Shenna Moqeet / John Chlebnik / Jon Winningham, City of Calimesa
Jack Wamsley / Mary Craton, City of Canyon Lake
Gregory S. Pettis / Paul Marchand, City of Cathedral City
Juan M. DeLara / Richard Macknicki, City of Coachella
Jeff Miller / Jeff Bennett, City of Corona
Matt Weyuker / Henry "Hank" Hohenstein, City of Desert Hot Springs
Robin Lowe / Lori Van Arsdale, City of Hemet
Percy L. Byrd / Robert A. Bernheimer, City of Indian Wells
Michael H. Wilson / Gene Gilbert, City of Indio
Terry Henderson / Don Adolph, City of La Quinta
Bob Magee / Robert L. Schiffner, City of Lake Elsinore
Frank West / Charles White, City of Moreno Valley
Kelly Seyarto / Warnie Enochs, City of Murrieta
Frank Hall / Harvey Sullivan, City of Norco
Dick Kelly / Robert Spiegel, City of Palm Desert
Ronald Oden / Ginny Foat, City of Palm Springs
Daryl Busch / Mark Yarbrough, City of Perris
Ron Meepos / Harvey Gerber, City of Rancho Mirage
Ameal Moore / Steve Adams, City of Riverside
Chris Buydos / Jim Conner, City of San Jacinto
Ron Roberts / Jeff Comerchero, City of Temecula
Bob Buster, County of Riverside - District I
John Tavaglione, County of Riverside - District II
Jim Venable, County of Riverside - District I II
Roy Wilson, County of Riverside - District IV
Marion Ashley, County of Riverside - District V
Ann Mayer, Director — CalTrans District 8
I/We hereby disclose the following political contributions of more than $250 made within the
preceding 12 months to any Commissioner:
Date of Contribution Amount of Contribution Recipient
e
20
25
•
(Attach Additional Sheet, If Necessary)
Date of Disclosure (Same As Bid Date)
BIDDER:
Signature of Bidder
Name
Title
•
•
21
26
•
•
•
Date:
To:
From:
Subject:
August 15, 2004
Robert Yates
RCTC Program Manager
Ray Gorski
RCTC Technical Consultant
Technical Evaluation of Proposals Received in Response to the Invitation
for Bid to Manufacture a Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) Mobile
Education Specialty Vehicle
Reference: a) Invitation to Bid Attachment A, Technical Specifications; b) Proposal
from Clegg Industries, Inc., August 4, 2004; c) Proposal from Matthews
Specialty Vehicles, August 4, 2004.
1. Overview: The following is a technical evaluation of two (2) proposals received in
response to the above -referenced Invitation for Bid. This evaluation is conducted to
document compliance with the technical requirements delineated in the Technical
Specification, as well as provide an independent engineering assessment of the
potential ramifications of proposed deviations to the Technical Specifications.
2. Proposal Evaluations:
A. Clegg Industries, Inc.
Clegg Industries has proposed construction of the RCTC Commuter Exchange using
the Freightliner MB -55 chassis and Union City Body Company aluminum body.
Two (2) exceptions to the Technical Specification were noted by the proposer: 1) use
of the Cummins B5.9G+ compressed natural gas (CNG) engine; and 2) an interior
width of approximately 88". The proposed engine deviates from the Technical
Specification, which requires the use of the John Deere 8.1L CNG engine. Also, the
Technical Specification requires a minimum interior width of 90".
Paragraph 6.2.1 of the RCTC Invitation for Bid, entitled "Vehicle Description,
Specifications, & Drawings", states that "The proposed vehicle description should
identify adherence to each requirement set forth in Attachment A, Technical
Specifications. Any deviation from these specifications shall be identified by the
bidder as an element of the bid package, and the bidder shall include additional
information explaining the requirement deviation."
Although Clegg Industries has noted two exceptions to the specified requirements, it
should be noted that the proposal is incomplete, as it does not specifically identify
adherence to each requirement set forth in Attachment A. Instead, the proposal states
"All other features as per your specification are included". The proposal includes an
appendix comprised of copies of manufacturer web pages listing the standard features
included in the Freightliner MT -55 chassis and the Union City aluminum body, with a
statement that the RCTC vehicle will incorporate "additional features", presumably
those amenities called out as vehicle requirements in the Technical Specification.
However, a comparison of the proposal and technical specification reveals other
requirements not satisfied by the Clegg Industries proposal. The issue, therefore, is
whether the Technical Specification deviations noted by Clegg Industries, in addition
to those noted by the author, are substantive to the extent that they provide an unfair
advantage to the bidder or, more importantly, undermine the performance or
functionality of the vehicle. Deviations from the RCTC Technical Specification
include the following:
Fuel Capacity — The RCTC Technical Specification requires a minimum CNG fuel
capacity of 10,920 standard cubic feet (SCF). This equates to approximately 80
diesel equivalent gallons. The Clegg Industries proposal offers a maximum of 5,895
SCF of CNG storage, or approximately 43 diesel equivalent gallons.
Warranty Requirements — The minimum warranty requirements as specified in the
Technical Specification are also either not satisfied or not addressed by the Clegg
Industries proposal, as follows:
Warranty Provision
RCTC Requirement
Clegg Industries Proposal
Chassis
Body
Engine
Generator
. .....................................................................
Air Conditioners
Five Years/Unlimited Miles
Five Years/Unlimited Miles
Two Years/100,000 Miles
_...........___................_...._._......_......_.....__.. ._.._........_.--
Two Years
One Year
Three Years/36,000 miles
Not Specified
Not Specified
Two Years
............_._ .......................__ . ..............
Not Specified
As shown above, the Clegg Industries proposed chassis warranty does not meet the
requirements set forth in the RCTC specification. It is unclear as to whether the body
and drive train components do or do not meet the minimum warranty requirements, as
these requirements were not explicitly addressed in the proposal.
Interior Width — A 90" minimum vehicle interior width was specified to afford
maximum floor space to support a key vehicle role as a mobile classroom. The body
proposed by Clegg Industries supports an approximately 88" maximum interior
width.
While not meeting the specification per se, a two-inch reduction in vehicle interior
width would most likely not impede vehicle functionality, nor would one expect a
significant cost differential between an 88" and 90" interior width. Thus, from a
technical perspective, the deviation from minimum interior width does not appear to
influence the bidder's competitive posture, nor does this deviation compromise the
vehicle's ability to perform its intended mission.
•
28
•
Engine Selection — Clegg Industries has proposed the Cummins B5.9 Gas Plus CNG
engine in lieu of the John Deere 8.1L CNG engine defined in the Technical
Specification. Although not explicitly discussed in the proposal, this deviation most
likely results from chassis/engine compatibility requirements. The Freightliner MB -
55 chassis is designed to accommodate the Cummins ISB 5.9 liter family of engines;
the John Deere engine is most likely not compatible with this chassis.
The John Deere engine was specified for use in the RCTC Commuter Exchange for
the following reasons:
• Compatibility with multiple heavy-duty 40 -foot Class A vehicle platforms;
• Certified by the California Air Resources Board at the Optional Low NO„ level;
• Horsepower and torque levels that ensure adequate performance in a >26,000 lb.
gross vehicle weight rated vehicle;
• Proven track record for reliability, operability, and maintainability.
The following Table compares the performance specifications of the Cummins
B5.9G+ and the John Deere 6081H CNG engines:
CNG Engine
Rated Horsepower (bhp)
Rated Torque (lb -ft)
Cummins B5.9G+
195-230
250
420-500
John Deere 6081H-250
800
As shown above, the proposed 5.9 -liter Cummins engine has approximately 40% less
torque as compared to the 8.1 liter John Deere engine.
The RCTC Commuter Exchange vehicle, as specified, is a 37-40 foot heavy-duty
class A vehicle having a gross vehicle weight rating in excess of 26,000 pounds.
Given the necessity to operate the Commuter Exchange at highway speeds in varied
terrain, it is the opinion of the author that the Cummins B5.9 Gas Plus engine is rated
below the minimum desired performance levels for the Commuter Exchange. The
smaller displacement Cummins engine will offer noticeably lower performance,
especially as it relates to vehicle acceleration and ability to maintain freeway speeds
on a grade.
Summary for Clegg Industries: Of the four deviations discussed above, three are
deemed significant, in that they directly influence vehicle performance and bid price.
The engine and fuel capacity issues are, from an engineering perspective, the most
critical, as these elements translate to a proposed vehicle that would most likely
deliver marginal performance, less range, but cost less compared to a vehicle that
meets all specified requirements. Thus, the proposed vehicle from Clegg Industries
cannot be compared on an "apples to apples" basis to a vehicle that substantially
complies with the desired vehicle attributes.
1. Matthews Specialty Vehicles, Inc.
Matthews Specialty Vehicles has proposed a Class A Series 5000 vehicle based on
the Thomas Built bus chassis. The proposer complied with the Invitation to Bid
instructions and addressed each requirement included in the Technical Specification.
The bidder identified three (3) deviations:
Fuel Tanks — The Technical Specification states that "CNG fuel tanks shall be
mounted between the frame rails and conform to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety
Standard (FMVSS) 301 Fuel System Integrity and FMVSS 304 CNG Fuel Container
Integrity Specifications..." Matthews has stated that the Thomas Built bus chassis
specifies that the CNG tanks be mounted transverse of the chassis frame rails, with
the tanks surrounded by a protective tubular cage assembly.
Cruise Control — The Technical Specification required that the vehicle be outfitted
with cruise control. The bidder has included a statement in their proposal that the
cruise control option is not available from Thomas Built Buses on the John Deere
CNG engines.
Dashboard — The Technical Specification required that the dashboard be padded.
Matthews has included a statement that the Thomas Built Buses are equipped with a
molded dash for maximum visibility. The Matthews proposal also included
photographs of the molded dash assembly to document their statement.
As with the proposal from Clegg Industries, a determination must be made as to
whether the deviations in the Matthews proposal are substantive to the degree they
provide an unfair advantage to the bidder or undermine the performance or
functionality of the vehicle.
Fuel tank location — The location of the CNG fuel tanks was specified to ensure
maximum safety in the event of a vehicle collision. The Technical Specification
required that the tanks be located between the frame rails to form a protective steel
barrier. This requirement was prompted by past experience with vehicles that were
sold commercially with the CNG tank cylinders mounted outboard of the frame rails,
offering little protection in the event of a side impact.
The proposed Thomas Built chassis configuration places the CNG cylinders across
the frame rails at a 90 -degree angle, protected by a steel tubular cage. This is the
same configuration used during the manufacture of Thomas CNG school buses.
Given that this CNG school bus chassis configuration has undergone both Federal and
California safety scrutiny, it can be concluded that the proposed tank configuration
complies with the intent of the Technical Specification, i.e., maximize occupant
safety.
Cruise Control — The bidder points out that a cruise control option is not available on
the Thomas chassis when equipped with the John Deere engine. Given that the
Thomas chassis is one of the platforms specifically called out in the Technical
Specification, any bidder would be precluded from complying with this requirement.
Thus, although cruise control is a highly desirable feature for the Commuter
Exchange, a bidder's failure to comply should not be held against them.
•
30
•
•
•
Dashboard — The Technical Specification required that the vehicle be equipped with a
padded dash. This was done to ensure maximum occupant safety in the event of a
frontal collision. Matthews states that a padded dash option is not available in the
Thomas Built bus platform.
The Matthews proposal includes photographs of the Thomas Built dashboard
assembly. The dash is very low profile, and, according to Matthews, affords the
driver maximum forward visibility.
As with the case with the fuel tank location, the intent of the Technical Specification
requirement is to maximize occupant safety. Given the Thomas Built low -profile
dash design, and its relationship to the driver's seat -belted seating position, it does not
appear from a visual inspection that safety is compromised by not having the dash
padded.
Summary for Matthews Specialty Vehicles: The Matthews proposal is very
complete, with each vehicle requirement addressed thoroughly. The three exceptions
to the Technical Specification noted by Matthews do not appear to impact vehicle
performance, operability, or functionality, nor should they substantially influence the
cost of the vehicle. Thus, based upon an assessment of the information provided, it is
the opinion of the author that the Matthews proposal conforms to the
requirements established by RCTC for procurement of the Commuter Exchange
vehicle.
3. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at (760) 738-8392 or
by e-mail at rgorski@pacbell.net.
•
• AGENDA ITEM 7
•
•
•
•
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION
DATE:
August 23, 2004
TO:
Plans and Programs Committee
FROM:
Shirley Medina, Program Manager
THROUGH:
Cathy Bechtel, Director of Transportation Planning
Development
and
Policy
SUBJECT:
2004 State Transportation Improvement Program
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
This item is for the Committee to:
1) Receive and file information regarding the 2004 State Transportation
Improvement Program; and
2) Forward to the Commission for final action.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
On August 5, 2004 the California Transportation Commission (CTC) adopted the
2004 State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP). The CTC staff
recommendations resulted in slight modifications in project scheduling for a few of
our projects, which are noted in the attachment. While the 2004 STIP has been
adopted issues regarding cash flow prevents any funds from being allocated over
the next few months.
As you will recall, the Governor's May Revise held some hope that the CTC would
begin allocating projects again at their August 5, 2004 meeting. Unfortunately,
recent negotiations in the budget process left a $200 million hole in the STIP
leaving the CTC with no option but to continue placing allocations on hold until
after the November elections. The CTC has been unable to allocate funds for
capacity projects for nearly two years, with the exception of a few project
allocations made in April and May, 2003; otherwise, only Safety Highway
Operations and Protection Program (SHOPP) Projects have been obligated but at
lower levels then what was programmed in the STIP.
Future allocations in fiscal year 2004/05 are largely dependent upon the outcome
of two gaming initiatives, Propositions 68 and 70. Proposition 68 would allow slot
machines at card clubs and race tracks and Proposition 70 would allow tribes to
limitlessly expand their gaming operations while paying a corporate tax of
approximately 9 percent. The defeat of these measures would be ideal for the
32
transportation community as the Governor has been negotiating Indian Gaming
compacts with five Native American Tribes. This negotiation is positioned to
provide a direct funding source for transportation. The passage of Propositions 68
and 70 would nullify the negotiated compacts.
Other issues the state is grappling with that affect transportation revenues are the
ethanol fix and the reauthorization of the transportation bill or TEA -21. These two
actions need to occur in the near future in order to keep transportation funds
flowing to the state at levels that will sustain current programming in the 2004
STIP. In a worst case scenario, no funding will be allocated in fiscal year 2004/05
and projects programmed in the STIP will continue to be delayed over the next two
to three years.
Of immediate concern is the State Route 60 High Occupancy Lane (HOV) project
from Valley Way to Interstate 15. This project has been waiting for an allocation
of $13 million ($3.2 million of Regional Improvement Program (RIP) and $9.8
million of Interregional Improvement Program (IIP) funds for over 12 months. The
environmental document will expire in June, 2005 and the recent rise of
construction costs resulted in a $6.5 million increase on the project; of which
RCTC committed an additional $5 million of federal funds at their July, 2004
meeting. The SR 60 project was scheduled for an allocation at the August 5, 2004
CTC meeting and was placed on hold again. RCTC and Caltrans will be exploring
alternative funding options in the event funds cannot be allocated prior to the
environment document expiration date.
Attachment: 2004 State Transportation Improvement Program
Regional Improvement Program
•
33
•
Ri verside County
2004 State Transp ortation Impr ovement Program
Regi onal Impr ovement Pr ogram
• •
Agency
Project
Total
RIP $
FY 04/05
FY 05/06
FY 06/07
FY 07/08
FY 08/09
Desert Hot Springs
Pierson Blvd
$ 627
$ 35
$ 627
Cathedral City
Ramon Rd Improvements
$ 1,385
$ 1,385
Coachella
Dillon Rd Grade Sep
$ 4,559
$ 4,559
Moreno Valley
Perris Blvd
$ 3,184
$ 3,184
Riverside County
Miles Ave/Clinton St
$ 2,040
$ 2,040
RCTC
Rideshare
$ 1,220
$ 400
$ 300
$ 400
$ 120
RCTC
PPM
$ 2,228
$ 170
$ 953
$ 105
$ 500
$ 500
Co achella
Dillon Road Widening
$ 2,117
$ 2,117
Moreno Valley
Reche Vista Dr
$ 1,967
$ 1,967
Riverside
Van Buren Blvd
$ 3,465
$ 3,465
Caltrans
I-10/Ramon Rd/Bob Hope IC
$ 18,538
$-8,538
$ 18,538
Murrieta
1-15/Calif Oaks IC
$ 7,366
$ 2,224
$ 5,142
Caltrans
SR 60 HOV Valley -I-15 IC
$ 3,261
$ 3,261
Caltrans
Green River Rd IC
$ 3,889
$ 3,889
NEW PROJECTS:
Blythe
Intake Boulevard
$ 1,031
$ 50
$ 53
$ 928
Blythe
Lovekin Boulevard
$ 844
$ 30
$ 54
$ 760
RCTC/Caltrans
SR 91 HOV, Mary St to
60/91/215 IC - Design Only
$ 13,070
$ 13,070
$ 13,070
Palm Springs/CT
1-10 Indian IC
$ 15,262
$ 2,000
$ 13,262
Indio/Caltrans
1-10 Jefferson IC
$ 10,710
$ 10,710
Riverside County
De Frain Blvd
$ 810
$ 810
Total Pro gram
$ 97,573
$ 3,431
$ 28,434
$ 31,042
$ 29,487
$ 5,179
RESERVA TION PROJECTS:
Caltrans / Coa chella
SR 86/Ave 66 IC and Ave 50
$8,963
Proposed programming in FY 08/09 through 2006 STIP .
ROTC
SR 91 HOV, Mary to IC R/W
and Construction
$166,000
Proposed programming right-of-way in FY 07/08,
construction in FY 08/09 through 2006 STIP.
mo aitications (highlighted in italics) made subsequent to A pril 2004 Submittal:
#1 - Pierson Rd, design funds were moved from FY 04/05 to FY 05/06.
#2 - Planning, Programming and Monitoring, additio nal $1 million allowed by CTC for programming in FY 07/08 and 08/09.
#3 - 1-10 Ramon Rd IC, Caltrans revised schedule moved construction from FY 05/06 to FY 06/07.
#4 - SR 91 HOV, design funds were moved from FY 06/07 to FY 05/06 since environmental phase is nearing completion .
#5 - SR 91 HOV, design funds were re duced from $13.9 m to $13 m to reflect CTC actio n that the 2004 STIP would not
include additional programming capacity.
AGENDA ITEM 8
•
•
•
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION
DATE:
August 23, 2004
TO:
Plans and Programs Committee
FROM:
Cathy Bechtel, Director of Transportation Planning and Policy
Development
THROUGH:
Hideo Sugita, Deputy Executive Director
SUBJECT:
Update on Mid County Parkway Project (Cajalco-Ramona Corridor)
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
This item is for the Committee to:
1) Receive and file the Mid County Parkway (Cajalco-Ramona Corridor)
Update; and
2) Forward to the Commission for final action.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
The planning work on the Mid County Parkway project (Cajalco-Ramona Corridor) is
progressing on schedule. Two key project milestones are approaching in the next
few months -- the first round of public meetings on the project and the finalization
of alternatives which will be studied in the draft environmental documents.
Public Meetings
In September, the first round of public meetings will be conducted for the project.
The purpose of these meetings is to: 1) inform the public of the project; 2)
educate the public on the required NEPA/CEQA process which must be followed;
and 3) solicit input on key concerns, what the public likes about the project, and
what they want to make sure is considered as the environmental process is
initiated.
The meetings will be held from 6:30 pm to 8:30 pm on the following dates and
locations:
• Tuesday, September 21, 2004
Valley Wide Recreation and Park District (San Jacinto)
• Wednesday, September 22, 2004
Val Verde Unified School District's Conference Room (1-215 at
Cajalco/Ramona)
35
• Thursday, September 23, 2004
Eagle Glen Golf Course
(Will also address Riverside County -Orange County Major Investment Study)
Notice of the meetings will be announced with display ads in the Press Enterprise
and local papers. Additionally, an informational newsletter has been developed for
the project. This will be sent to property owners along the corridor to explain the
project and inform them of the upcoming public meetings. A copy of the
newsletter is included in the agenda packet for your reference. A website has also
been set up for the project. The address is www.midcountyparkway.org .
Initiation of the Environmental Process
Staff has been working with the federal and state agencies over the past year to
reach agreement on the Purpose and Need for the project, as well as the slate of
alternatives to be studied in the draft NEPA/CEQA documents. Back in January,
2004, concurrence was received from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
and the Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) on the following Purpose and Need:
"The purpose of the proposed action is to provide a transportation facility that will
effectively and efficiently accommodate regional east -west movement of people
and goods between and through San Jacinto, Perris, and Corona. More
specifically, the selected alternative will:
• Provide increased capacity to support the forecast travel demand for the
2030 design year.
• Provide limited access.
• Provide roadway geometrics to meet State highway design standards.
• Accommodate Surface Transportation Assistance Act (STAR) National
Network for oversized trucks.
• Provide a facility that is compatible with a future multimodal transportation
system."
Concurrence has not yet been received from the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(FWS); however the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) has allowed us to
continue moving forward. Significant discussions are anticipated with the FWS
regarding the timing and process to ensure compliance with the MSHCP. Staff is
currently in the process of scheduling meetings with FWS supervisory level staff to
allow the project to move forward on schedule and in line with the Partnership
Agreement.
Later this month, FHWA is scheduled to request agreement from the Federal
Resource Agencies on the alternatives to be studied in the environmental
document. Once agreement is received, we will be able to start the formal
environmental process and release the Notice of Intent/Notice of Preparation.
•
36
•
• AGENDA ITEM 9
•
•
•
ARIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
DATE:
August 23, 2004
TO:
Plans and Programs Committee
FROM:
Cathy Bechtel, Director of Transportation Planning and
Development
Policy
THROUGH:
Hideo Sugita, Deputy Executive Director
SUBJECT:
Update on the Riverside County to Orange County
Investment Study
Major
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
This item is for the Committee to:
1) Receive and file the Riverside County to Orange County Major
Investment Study Update; and
2) Forward to the Commission for final action.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
The planning work on the Riverside County to Orange County Major Investment
Study (MIS) is underway. There are three committees supporting this project: the
Policy Committee which is comprised of the members of the SR 91 Policy
Committee along with a policy representative from the Transportation Corridors
Agency; the Technical Advisory Committee which includes public works staff from
all affected cities, Caltrans Districts 8 and 12, and representatives from the
Resource Agencies; and the Stakeholder Advisory Committee which includes
interested parties representing development, environmental interests, the
community and local business. All Committees are formed and have met at least
once.
The consultants are currently in the data gathering stage of the project and have
contacted local agencies to secure copies of pertinent reports to review what has
been considered for the study area previously and what may be reasonable to
consider in this MIS. We are also reaching out to the public to hear their thoughts
on what should be done to improve mobility in the study area. A series of public
meetings will be held in September to solicit comment.
37
Dates and locations are as follows:
RIVERSIDE COUNTY MEETINGS (6:30pm-8:30pm)
• Thursday, September 16, 2004 - Lake Elsinore Cultural Center
• Thursday, September 23, 2004 - Eagle Glen Golf Course
ORANGE COUNTY MEETINGS (6:OOpm-8:OOpm)
• Tuesday, September 7, 2004 - Anaheim Hills Community Center
• Thursday, September 9, 2004 - Irvine Heritage Park Regional Library
• Tuesday, September 14, 2004 - Mission Viejo City Hall
A newsletter for the project has been developed to explain the MIS and what will
take place over the next 16 months. We will also use a website,
rcocconnection.info, and a toll free hotline (1-877-SR91FWY) to make information
available to the public.
Over the next month the Committees will be working on developing the Purpose
and Need Statement for this project. We expect to bring an MIS Policy Committee
recommendation forward for Commission approval at the October meeting. This
Purpose and Need Statement will guide the overall study and be key to the
alternatives development phase of the project since all alternatives that will
undergo the detailed evaluation must meet purpose and need.
38
• AGENDA ITEM 10
•
•
•
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISS/ON
DATE:
August 23, 2004
TO:
Plans and Programs Committee
FROM:
Cathy Bechtel, Director of Transportation Planning and Policy
Development
THROUGH:
Hideo Sugita, Deputy Executive Director
SUBJECT:
Annual Local Transportation Fund Planning Allocations to CVAG
and WRCOG
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
This item is for the Committee to:
1) Approve allocation of Local Transportation Funds totaling $241,848 to
the Coachella Valley Association of Governments and $443,388 to
the Western Riverside Council of Governments to support
transportation planning programs and functions as identified in the
attached work programs; and
2) Forward to the Commission for final action.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
On an annual basis the Commission, CVAG and WRCOG develop transportation
planning programs. The Commission's planning program is identified in the annual
budget that was approved on June 9, 2004.
Staff has reviewed the attached FY 2004/05 transportation planning and
administrative work programs submitted by CVAG and WRCOG and finds them
consistent with the overall RCTC transportation program and planning objectives.
The funding requested is consistent with the approved FY 2004/05 Commission
budget.
Financial Information
In Fiscal Year Budget:
Y
Year:
FY 2004/05
Amount:
$241,848 CVAG
$443,388 WRCOG
Source of Funds:
Local Transportation Funds
Budget Adjustment:
N
GLA No.:
106-65-86205
Fiscal Procedures Approved:
\)/x1/1,,,i,...42,uv
Date:
8/16/04
Attachments: CVAG FY 2004/05 Program Objectives
WRCOG FY 2004/05 Program Objectives
39
CVAG
•
•
•
TRANSPORTATION
FISCAL YEAR 2004/05
PROGRAM OBJECTIVES
The Work Plan for 2004/05 is separated into eight main program areas:
Transportation Department Operations
. Transportation Program Administration
. Monitor Implementation of Transportation Project Prioritization Study (TPPS)
. Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Update
. Other Transportation Planning
. Operations Management and Administration
This program area performs primarily administrative functions which consist of
general transportation program administrative activities and various transportation
planning duties in support of the Transportation Depaitiiient.
(Funded from Measure A and TUMF)
Project Management and Contract Administration
. Financial Cash Flow
. Project Status Tracking
. Preparation and Monitoring Agreements
Includes staff time to conduct project oversight (design, environmental, construction
and close-out), preparation of reimbursement agreements for regional arterial
proj ects,
review and approval of project billings in accordance with project scope of work and
participation in project development, team meetings and associated staff reports.
(Funded from Measure A, TUMF and TEA -21)
Riverside County Transportation Commission fRCTC) Programs
. State Highway Routes in the Coachella Valley
. Congestion Management Program/System (CMP/CMS)
. RCTC Technical Advisory Committee
. State Highway Measure A Discussions
Includes staff time to, (i) support the Riverside County Congestion Management
Program through building permit analysis of the one non-TUMF jurisdiction and
analysis of traffic patterns through the traffic count program, (ii) participation in the
Surface Transportation Program/Congestion Management Air Quality (STP/CMAQ)
project selection for CVAG and western County areas, (iii) assist RCTC staff in the
40
•
selection of SB 821 bicycle and pedestrian projects for the Coachella Valley and
western County areas, (iv) provide RCTC staff regional transportation project
information for the State Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP), and
(v) support the RCTC Technical Advisory Committee. This also includes the state
highway project construction program. This area includes staff time to monitor,
assist in problem resolution, (funding/environmental/political) and report on the
status of construction projects for State Routes 74, 86S, and 111.
(Funded from CMAQ, TUMF and State Highway Measure A)
Planning, Programming and Monitoring Program
. Regional Transportation Improvement Program/State Transportation Improvement
Program (RTIP/STIP)
This area includes staff time in support of the State Transportation Improvement
Program (STIP) and Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP), support
in implementation and updating of the CVAG Transportation Prioritization Study
(TPPS), coordination of updates to the Capital Improvement Plan (CIP), and
monitoring and examining impacts of implementing SB 45. TPPS activities support
the regional project construction program which includes staff time to develop an
annual prioritized list of construction projects and required financial resources.
(Funded from TEA -21 PP&M, LTF and Measure A)
Miscellaneous Programs
. GIS Information Services
. Maintain Transportation Model
. Regional Arterial Traffic Count Program
. I-10 Corridor
This area involves support to multiple programs with a focus on key project areas.
These areas include staff time and project management to, (i) GIS Information
Services, (ii) the regional transportation model (CVATS), (iii) the regional arterial
traffic count program, and (iv) transportation legislation review and analysis GIS
Information Services includes staff time to provide regional land use information to
CVAG jurisdictions, developers, SCAG and Caltrans. The Coachella Valley Area
Transportation Study (CVATS) regional transportation model involves support
to update the current transportation model to the year 2025 and add the proposed
2025 land use plus socio-economic data for forecasting projected transportation
system needs.
(Funded from Measure A, TUMF, CMAQ and Special Program Funds)
•
•
41
•
•
•
Support Congestion Management /Air Quality Programs
• SB 821 Program
. Conformance with SIP requirements
Involves Transportation Depai tment staff support to CMAQ program areas. Support
will focus on the SB 821 program. Also includes implementation of State
Implementation Plan (SIP) conformance to CVAG regional projects.
(Funded from TEA -21, Measure A and SB 821)
Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) Program
. TUMF Program Administration
. TUMF/GIS Interface
Includes staff time in support of the TUMF program and TUMF/GIS Interface
program. TUMF program activities include staff time to (i) monitor the
implementation of the TUMF program in member jurisdictions, (ii) perform annual
fiscal reviews of building permits and TUMF collections, (iii) research, analyze and
prepare reports for TUMF appeals, (iv) enter TUMF collections in the TUMF data
base, (v) meet with developers on request to review potential TUMF assessments,
and (vi) perform special TUMF analysis on request. The TUMF/GIS Interface
program requires support for continuing the development of integrating the TUMF
collection process with electronic transmission of new development information for
land use coverages.
(Funded from TUMF)
Governmental and Special Projects
. Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) Overall Work Program
The SCAG OWP program includes staff time to coordinate the CVAG sub -region
SCAG Overall Work Program needs, develop annual growth projections, collect
annual Highway Performance Monitoring System data, provide input to the Federal
Regional Transportation Plan, and assist SCAG with transportation modeling
refinements. Additionally, staff performs specific transportation project work for
SCAG through their Overall Work Program.
(Funded from SCAG OWP funds)
. Special Projects
Some proposed projects may involve general fund money or special grants. Any
project not already a part of the regular work programs, will be brought through the
committee process for approval of the proposed work.
(Funded from Special Grant funds and General Funds)
•
WRCOG
Fiscal Year 2004-2005
Local Transportation Funds Program Objectives
The Work Plan for FY2004-05 is divided into 3 key program areas:
Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) Programs
($18,000)
Participate in the SCAG Technical Advisory Committees and work with our Policy
Committee members to assist SCAG with the performance of specific planning
and GIS work for SCAG as part of their Overall Work Program.
State and Federal Programs
($55,000)
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and California Air Resources Board
Federal Highway Administration and Caltrans
Department of Energy (DOE) and California Energy Commission
Continue the Clean Cities program and expand the Coalition to include the entire
WRCOG subregion; participation in the National Clean Cities Conference;
continue to apply for and administer grants for alternative fueled vehicles and
infrastructure development; attend regional air quality and transportation
meetings and conferences to provide subregional input; participate/attend in EPA
and Air Resources Board hearings and workshops;
Manage, in tandem with SANDAG, a new grant from Caltrans to continue work
on the 1-15 Interregional Partnership for Phase 11.
Regional Transportation, Planning and Air Quality Programs
(370,800)
South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD)
Riverside Transit Agency
Riverside and San Diego County Transportation Commissions
Participate in the continued development of the Air Quality Guidance Document
and outreach to our jurisdictions regarding SCAQMD rule making; continue as
the lead agency for the Air Quality Task Force to develop policies and guide lines
to reduce PM 10 emissions in the WRCOG subregion.
Continue to implement the Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) for
western Riverside County and prepare the two year program update. Continue
to assist RCTC and RTA in Regional TUMF issues
G:\WP\DOC\LTF FY 0405.doc
43
Provide assistance in transportation planning and air quality programs;
participation in the evaluation of the SB 821 Bicycle and Pedestrian projects and
other evaluation committees as expected; assist RCTC in ensuring Riverside
County projects are included in the RTP; continued participation in CETAP and
other planning related tasks as determined in consultation with the RCTC
Executive Director.
•
G:\WP\DOC\L1'F FY 0405.doc
44
•
• AGENDA ITEM 11
•
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
DATE:
August 23, 2004
TO:
Plans and Programs Committee
FROM:
Stephanie Wiggins, Rail Department Manager
THROUGH:
Hideo Sugita, Deputy Executive Director
SUBJECT:
Goods Movement Update
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
This item is for the Committee to:
1) Receive and file the Goods Movement Update; and
2) Forward to the Commission for final action.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
Southern California is the gateway to much of the world, as goods move
through the Ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles, the busiest ports in the
nation. While the movement of goods is critical for business and the
creation of jobs, it has an increasingly severe impact on the quality of life in
Southern California as more and more goods are shipped through our local
ports. In addition, Eastern Riverside County also serves as a NAFTA corridor
and will also face increasing truck traffic.
The Goods Movement Update provides the Committee with information on
current activities to provide trade congestion relief. Trade congestion relief
includes capacity improvements to the rail and highway corridor as well as
mitigation of community impacts such as grade separation projects.
• Multi County Goods Movement Action Plan
RCTC has joined OCTA, SANBAG, and MTA in the submittal of a State
Planning and Research (SPR) grant application for a "Southern California
Goods Movement Strategy Study." Initiated by OCTA, the intent is to have
a Commission led effort to take a look at freight mobility issues (focusing on
rail and truck), coordinating goods movement policies, and determining how
to deal with some of the community, land use, and air quality impacts of
goods movement. The total project is budgeted at $800,000 and the
application requests $300,000 of SPR grant funding with the balance to be
split evenly among the Commissions.
45
As a result of the joint application, the county transportation commissions
(RCTC, OCTA, SANBAG, MTA, and VCTC) have joined together with SCAG
and Caltrans (Districts representing Orange, Los Angeles, San Bernardino,
Riverside, and San Diego Counties) to develop a goods movement action
plan. The action plan will represent a regional framework for goods
movement initiatives, and be developed collaboratively by the county
transportation commissions, SCAG, Caltrans, councils of governments, the
private sector (ports, railroads, trucking companies, shippers, etc.,) and other
agencies involved in the movement of freight. The creation of a goods
movement action plan is particularly important in today's financially
constrained environment to minimize duplication of effort and ensure that
agencies are not inadvertently working at cross purposes. The action plan
must also identify ways to minimize the impacts of goods movement on
nearby communities and the environment.
The action plan has the following objectives:
■ Document existing freight movement systems and constraints;
■ Identify projected goods movement growth and trends, and possible
private sector responses;
■ Identify optimal short-term and long-term infrastructure and
operational strategies;
■ Identify private and public -sector roles in implementation, and funding
sources;
■ Identify strategies to lessen community and environmental impacts
(e.g. to mitigate congestion, rail crossing delay, land use, noise, air
quality impacts); and
■ Identify potential obstacles to implementation and needed public -
private institutional arrangements.
The results of this effort will contribute to an update of county
transportation plans and the Regional Transportation Plan. If the SPR grant is
awarded to the Study, staff will bring back to the Commission a formal
request to participate in the Study with the anticipated use of Western
County Local Transportation Funds in the amount of $125,000.
• LAEDC Goods Movement Joint Venture
The Goods Movement "Joint Venture," conducted by the Los Angeles
Economic Development Corporation (LAEDC) under contract to Metrolink, is
an effort to develop short-term federal funding and longer -term financing
mechanisms for goods movement infrastructure, both public and private.
•
46
•
The intent is to increase revenue, not reshuffle existing dollars. The county
transportation commissions as well as the Burlington Northern Santa Fe
Railroad and the Union Pacific Railroad are partners in this effort. RCTC
projects included in this effort are priority grade separations, rail capacity
improvements, and an East West Corridor Study which includes the SR91,
60, 86, and 1-10.
•
• AGENDA ITEM 12
•
•
•
•
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION
DATE:
August 23, 2004
TO:
Plans and Programs Committee
FROM:
Tanya Love, Program Manager
THROUGH:
Cathy Bechtel, Director of Transportation Planning and Policy
Development
SUBJECT:
Palo Verde Valley Transit Agency's Request to Purchase Global
Positioning Software and Equipment
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
This item is for the Plans and Programs Committee to:
1) Approve PVVTA's purchase of @Road Global Positioning Software
and equipment;
2) Reallocate $8,400 in Local Transportation Funds to cover the cost;
and
3) Forward to the Commission for final action.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
As reported at the June 9, 2004 Commission meeting, PVVTA staff secured
@Road Global Positioning Software (GPS) and 10 units of equipment to track its
vehicles throughout its 25 square mile service area. Originally, the equipment was
secured under a 75 day demonstration agreement at a cost of $1,400. If the
equipment was returned to the manufacturer by November 10, 2003, no additional
financial commitment would occur. Unfortunately, PVVTA staff failed to terminate
the agreement within the 75 day trial period resulting in a contractual obligation
through August 2006. As a result, expenses in the amount of $8,400 were
incurred during FY 2003/04 without Short Range Transit Plan (SRTP) approval.
At the June Commission meeting, RCTC staff was directed to meet with PVVTA
staff to clarify the intended use of the equipment and to determine if there were
any other options available including the possibility of returning the equipment to
the manufacturer. Commission staff met with the City of Blythe's Assistant City
Manager and PVVTA's Transit Manager on June 11, 2004, to discuss the following
options: 1) possibility of returning the equipment to the manufacturer; 2) selling
the equipment to the City of Blythe's Police Department; and 3) selling the
equipment to another transit operator.
48
Based on the various discussions regarding the purchase of the @Road system,
PVVTA has decided that the best alternative is to pay for the equipment and the
associated monitoring costs through June 30, 2004.
PVVTA is requesting that $8,400 of LTF originally allocated for the purchase of a
Hurricane Fueler be reallocated to cover the @Road system cost. At this time,
PVVTA's Board has decided not to pursue the purchase of the fueling system.
For FY 2004/05, monitoring costs for one unit will be paid out of current operating
funds. PVVTA staff will review the data received as a result of using the @Road
system and will report results to its Board at the end of the contract period which
will expire in August, 2006.
Financial Information
In Fiscal Year Budget:
N
Year:
FY 2004/05
Amount:
$8,400
Source of Funds:
LTF
Budget Ad ustment:
No
GLA No.:
601-62-86102
Fiscal Procedures Approved:
\V - ev`
Date:
8/16/04
•
•
•
49
. AGENDA ITEM 13
•
•
•
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION
DATE:
August 23, 2004
TO:
Plans and Programs Committee
FROM:
Naty Kopenhaver, Director of Administrative Service
THROUGH:
Eric A. Haley, Executive Director
SUBJECT:
Amendment to Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Program and
Report for Fiscal Year 2003-2004 and Proposed Goal for Fiscal
Year 2004-2005
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
This item is for the Committee to:
1) Approve the amendment to the Disadvantaged Business Enterprise
Program;
2) Approve Resolution No. 04-014;
3) Adopt 5.02% as its DBE overall annual goal for Federal FY 2004-2005
(from October 1, 2004 to September 30, 2005);
4) Post the proposed DBE overall annual goal for FY 2003-2004 and receive
comments for 45 days; and
5) Forward to the Commission for final action.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
In accordance with regulations of the U. S. Department of Transportation (DOT) and
the Federal Transit Administration (FTA), 49 CFR Part 26, the Riverside County
Transportation Commission must adopt its DBE annual goal as a condition to receive a
commitment for federal financial assistance from DOT and FTA. Local agencies'
annual goals must be submitted to the federal agencies and Caltrans by October 1,
2004. Over the years, the Commission has committed to ensure equal opportunity in
transportation contracting markets and increase participation in federal funded
contracts by small, socially and economically disadvantaged businesses.
For Federal FY 2004-2005, it is proposed that the annual DBE overall goal be 5.02%.
Statistics were based on the U.S. Census Bureau "County Business Patterns" for
2001, using the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS). As was
done in previous years, staff used statistics within the four -county areas — Los
Angeles, Orange, Riverside, and San Bernardino — areas that the Commission draws
bids from. The analysis attached to the report details the formula utilized in
developing the overall annual goal for the next federal fiscal year.
50
For FY 2003-2004, the Commission set an annual goal of 12.05%. To date, the total
percentage of DBE award is 9.07%. The reason for this was only two of the three
projects that were included in the calculation were awarded. Although RCTC did not
attain the goal that it set for FY 2003-2004, it was able to achieve over the base
figure percentage of 1.94%. In its calculation last fiscal year, an adjustment was
made wherein the difference between the annual goal and the actual percent of DBEs
award (10.11%) was added to the 1.94%. 9.07% as the total DBE award for FY
2003-2004 is still considered as a good effort. It is important to note that RCTC had
set its goal higher than other public agencies.
For information, the federally -funded projects awarded were: 1) SR 74 Segment II
Realignment and Widening Project; and, 2) Mid County Parkway PR/ED (previously
known as Cajalco Ramona Corridor). The awards and the percentage of DBEs
attained per project are listed below:
FISCAL YEAR 2003/04
TOTAL DBE CONTRACT AWARD AND DBE DOLLAR AMOUNT
Federal -Aid Project No./
Contractor
Total Project
Bid Amount
Dollar Amount DBE
% DBE
04-31-031*, Federal -Aid
Construction Project No. ACSTPH-
P074(046) (SR 74 Segment 11
Construction)
AC Dike Company
Highlight Electric
Sudhakar
ACE Fence
W.C. Goolsby Inc. (Supplier —
only 60% of subcontract value
allowed to count towards DBE
goal, subcontract value
$1,017,500.00)
$20,207,532
$27,417
$221,600
$283,475
$284,174
$610,500
7.1%
04-31-018 (Mid County Parkway
PR/ED previously known as
Cajalco-Ramona Corridor)
Epic Land Solutions
VRPA
MIG
Geographics
$5,030,501
$500,000
$245,583
$57,967
$59,246
17.2%
TOTAL
$ 25,238,033
$2,289,962
9.07%
*"Good Faith Effort" documentation was submitted and determined to be n •
compliance.
•
•
51
•
•
•
For FY 2004-2005, staff anticipates three (3) federally -funded projects: 1) San
Jacinto Branch Line Project, from the City of Perris to Downtown Riverside —
Engineering Design; 2) Perris Multi Modal Facility — Engineering Design; and, 3) State
Route 79 Realignment Project between the Cities of San Jacinto and Hemet —
Amendment No. 1 — Environmental Re-Scoping. It is estimated that the total cost of
the three projects is $3,200,000 ($1,800,000 federal funds). All of the projects are
for consultant services.
Attached to the staff memorandum is a report on the methodology used to determine
the proposed goal, the anticipated projects and the notice that was posted.
In conformance to 49 CFR Part 26.45, the notice to adopt the proposed annual DBE
goal was in the local newspaper's Legal Notice section. Local agencies are required
to provide 45 days from the date that it was noticed to receive comments on the
proposed goal. To abide by the 45 -day requirement, the notice was posted in local
newspapers on August 16, 2004. If the Commission approves the proposed annual
goal and if there are no substantive comments received with the 45 -day public
comment period, the proposed annual goal of 5.02% for FY 2004-2005 will be
submitted to Caltrans District 8 Local Assistance Office and to the FTA. The
schedule allows RCTC to meet the submission deadline of October 1, 2004.
Attachments: Resolution #04-014
DBE Program Proposal Annual Overall Goal
52
•
RESOLUTION NO. 04-014
RESOLUTION OF THE
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
AMENDING ITS
DISADVANTAGED BUSINESS ENTERPRISE PROGRAM
(TITLE 49 CODE OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS (CFR) PART 26.29)
WHEREAS, the Riverside County Transportation Commission has
adopted its Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Program in 1999;
WHEREAS, the federal governments has made changes to the
Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Program requirements;
•
•
WHEREAS, in order to comply with Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations
(CFR) Part 26.29, local agencies requesting federal funds for FY 2004-2005 must
amend its Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Program;
WHEREAS the amendment to the program requires the local agencies'
program to include one of the three methods to ensure prompt and full payment of
retainage (withheld funds) to subcontractors in compliance with the Title 49 Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 26.29.
NOW, THEREFORE, the Riverside County Transportation Commission
hereby resolves as follows:
SECTION 1. The Riverside County Transportation Commission will
amend its Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Program and its contracts and
agreements to include the following provision as required:
53
The Riverside County Transportation Commission shall hold retainage
from prime contractors and provide for prompt and regular incremental
acceptance of portions of the prime contract, pay retainage to prime
contractors based on these acceptances, and require contract clause
obligating the prime contractor to pay all retainage owed to the
subcontractor for satisfactory completion of accepted work within
30 days after the payment to the prime contractor.
SECTION 2 The above provision shall replace prior provisions
prompt and full payment of any retainage kept by the prime contractor or
subcontractor to any subcontractor.
ADOPTED this 8th day of September, 2004.
Roy Wilson, Chairman
Riverside County Transportation Commission
ATTEST:
Naty Kopenhaver, Clerk of the
Riverside County Transportation Commission
•
•
•
54
•
•
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
FEDERAL FISCAL YEAR 2004-2005
DISADVANTAGED BUSINESS ENTERPRISE (DBE) PROGRAM
PROPOSED ANNUAL OVERALL GOAL
I GOAL METHODOLOGY
As required by Federal Regulations 49 CFR Section 26, public agencies
receiving Federal Department of Transportation -assisted funds must adopt its
annual overall DBE goal by using every effort to meet its goal through race
neutral measures. Agencies may establish specific contract goals, including
goals for particular projects through subcontracting opportunities, in those
instances when race neutral measure are not sufficient to meet the
Commission's overall goal.
The following methodology was used in establishing a Base Figure for DBE
availability for FY 2004-2005:
NUMERATOR - DBE firms in the four -county area (Riverside, San
Bernardino, Los Angeles, Orange)
DENOMINATOR — Total number of construction firms, the work category
identified within the four -county area based on the more recent available
date from the U.S. Census Bureau — 2001
Under the Construction/Consulting Categories, the following lists the number of
DBEs in each of the four county areas:
CONSTRUCTION
CALTRANS
DBE CODE
NAICS COUNTY
CODE
COUNTY
NO. OF
FIRMS
19
037
Los Angeles
12,078
30
059
Orange
6,081
33
065
Riverside
3,452
36
071
San Bernardino
2,885
TOTAL
24,496
Of the 24,496 firms, there are 989 identified available DBE firms in the Caltrans DBE
directory of firms in the construction work codes that operate within the four -county
areas.
55
CONSULTING SERVICES
CALTRANS
DBE CODE
NAICS COUNTY
CODE
COUNTY
NO. OF
FIRMS
19
037
Los Angeles
26,046
30
059
Orange
11,271
33
065
Riverside
2,201
36
071
San Bernardino
1,819
TOTAL
41,337
Of the 41,337 firms, there are 1,502 identified available DBE firms in the Caltrans
DBE directory of firms in the consultant services work codes that operate within the
four -county areas.
The following lists the total amount of contracts in each of the Work Category and
the projected federal funds for FY 2004-2005. Please note that for this fiscal year,
there are no construction awards.
WORK
CATEGORY
AMOUNT OF
FY 03-04
CONTRACTS
ESTIMATED
AMOUNT OF
FEDERAL FUNDS
% OF
FEDERAL
FUNDS
Consultant Services
$3,200,000
$1,800,000
56.25%
Construction
(Including Materials
and Trucking)
$0
$0
0%
The formula that is provided to determine calculation of DBE goal is as follows. The
weighted Base Figure is calculated by first determining the number of ready, willing,
and able DBEs in the four counties for the work category shown above, divided by the
number of total firms in the category. Using this method determines the availability
by the number of firms that have directly participated in, or attempted to participate
in, past federally -funded assisted contracting efforts.
The application of the formula yields the following baseline information:
Number of Ready, Willing and Able DBEs
Number of All Ready, Willing and Able Firms
The Base Figure resulting from the calculation is as follows:
A. Construction
989 = 4.04%
24,496
= Base Figure
•
•
•
56
•
•
•
B. Consulting Services
1502
41,337
C. Base Figure
3.63%
Using the percentage of federal funds projected to be available for FY 04-05
and the percentage of available for each DBEs for each work category, the
result is a base figure of 2.04%
0.0 ( 989) + 0.5625 ( 1502) = 0.0204
24,496 41,337
II. ADJUSTMENTS TO THE BASE FIGURE:
Staff reviewed and assessed other known relevant evidence to determine what
additional adjustments, if any, were needed to adapt the Base Figure to the
four -county area marketplace. Several factors as outlined under Title 49 were
considered to see if there was a need to adjust the base goal. In reviewing last
year's goal, the Commission set a 12.05% annual goal based on the DBEs
available in the four -county area. In awarding its federally -funded projects for
this fiscal year, the Commission awarded 9.07% to DBEs. Staff is
recommending that an adjustment be made to the base figure using the
difference of its FY 2003-2004 annual goal and the attained percentage to
date, which is 2.98%. With the adjustment, the base figure and proposed goal
for FY 2004-2005 is 5.02%.
III. ANTICIPATED PROJECTS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2003-2004
The following projects represent the projected federally funded contracts for
Fiscal Year beginning October 1, 2004 through September 30, 2005.
A. San Jacinto Branch Line
Scope of Work - This is for Engineering Design of the San Jacinto Branch
Rail line from the City of Perris to Downtown Riverside for the extension
of Metrolink Commuter Rail Service.
Estimated Total Amount of Contract: $ 1,000,000
Estimated Federal Funds: $ 800,000
57
•
B. Perris Multi Modal Facility
Scope of Work - This is for Engineering Design of the RTA — Metrolink
Perris Multi Modal Facility
Estimated Total Amount of Contract: $700,000
Estimated Federal Funds: $700,000
C. SR 79 Realignment Project — Amendment No. 1
Scope of Work - This is for Re-Scoping of the Environmental Process for
the SR79 Realignment Project between Cities of San Jacinto and Hemet.
Estimated Total Amount of Contract: $1,500,000
Estimated Federal Funds: $300,000
IV. UTILIZATION OF RACE/GENDER-NEUTRAL METHOD
Staff foresees meeting the proposed 5.02% goal utilizing race -neutral methods
by: 1) making efforts to ensure that the Request for Proposals (RFPs) and
Invitation for Bids (IFBs) process and the contracting requirements facilitate
participation by DBEs and other small businesses; 2) encouraging the prime
consultant and contractors to subcontract portions of the work to DBEs; 3)
distributing the RFPs and IFBs to organizations that represent and assist DBEs;
and, 4) listing the RFPs and IFBs on the Commission website www.rctc.org.
V. PUBLIC NOTICE IN SETTING OVERALL ANNUAL DBE GOAL
As required, the Notice informs the public of the proposed goals and the
rationale for setting the goal and they are available for inspection at the
Commission for 30 days following the date of the Public Notice. Public
comments on the proposed annual goal will be accepted for 45 days from the
date of the Public Notice. The Notice was published on August 16, 2004. The
adopted goal and goal methodology must be submitted to the Department of
Transportation and the FTA prior to October 1, 2004.
VI. ESTABLISHMENT OF GOAL
Based on the information presented in the report, it is proposed that the
Commission's overall annual DBE goal for federal FY 2004-2005 be established
at 5.02%.
•
•
58
•
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
ADOPTION OF DISADVANTAGED BUSINESS ENTERPRISE (DBE)
OVERALL ANNUAL GOAL FOR
FEDERAL FISCAL YEAR 2004-2005
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Riverside County Transportation
Commission will be adopting its overall annual DBE goal, applicable to contracting
opportunities scheduled to be awarded during the period of October 1, 2004 through
September 30, 2005. RCTC's proposed overall annual goal of 5.02% and its
rationale were developed in accordance to U.S. Department of Transportation's New
Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Program Final Rule (49 CFR Part 26) and are
available for inspection for 30 days following the date of this Notice, from 8:00 a.m.
to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, at its principal place of business located at 4080
Lemon Street, Third Floor, Riverside, California 92501.
Comments will be accepted on the proposed annual goal for 45 days from the
date of this Notice. Comments can be forward to RCTC at the above address or to
Caltrans District 8, Local Assistance, 464 W. Fourth Street, San Bernardino, California
92401-1400.
•
•
Dated at Riverside, California this 16th day of August 2004.
By: Naty Kopenhaver
Director of Administrative Services
59
•
• AGENDA ITEM 14
•
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
N
DATE:
August 23, 2004
TO:
Plans and Programs Committee
FROM:
Sheldon Peterson, Staff Analyst
Stephanie Wiggins, Rail Department Manager
THROUGH:
Hideo Sugita, Deputy Executive Director
SUBJECT:
Commuter Rail Program Update
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
This item is for the Committee to:
1) Receive and file the Commuter Rail Program Update as an information item;
and
2) Forward to the Commission for final approval.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
• Riverside Line
Passenger trips on Metrolink's Riverside Line for the month of July averaged 4,606 which
is down 23 (0.5%) from the month of June. The line has averaged an overall increase of
13% from a year ago July 2003.
July on -time performance averaged 96% inbound (+4% from June) and 95% outbound
(+4% from June). There were 11 delays greater than 5 minutes during the month of
July, a 50% decrease from the month of June. The following were the primary causes:
Signals/Detectors
Dispatching
Mechanical
Other*
2
4
0
5
19%
36%
0%
45%
TOTAL
*Track Work, Freight Problems
•
100%
60
Inland Empire -Orange County Line
Passenger trips on Metrolink's Inland Empire -Orange County (IEOC) Line for the month of
July averaged 3,427, a change of 192 Tess riders or a decrease of 5% from the month of
June. The line has averaged an overall increase of 13% from a year ago July 2003.
July on -time performance averaged 90% inbound (-7% from June) and 86% outbound
(-8% from June). There were 30 delays greater than five minutes during the month of
July, an 18 point increase from the month of June. The primary causes were:
Signals/Detectors/MOW
Dispatching
Mechanical
Other*
8
13
5
4
27%
43%
17%
13%
TOTAL
*Vandalism, Passenger Delays
91 Line
0
Passenger trips on Metrolink's 91 Line for the month of July averaged 1802, down 60
riders or a decrease of 3%, from the month of June. The line averaged an increase of
15% from a year ago July 2003.
July on -time performance averaged 94% inbound (-3% from June) and 91% outbound •
(-8% from June). There were 14 delays greater than five minutes during the month of
July, up 10 from June. The primary causes were:
Signals/Detectors
Track/Switch
Dispatching
Other*
1
2
7
4
7%
14%
50%
29%
TOTAL
*Amtrak Train
1'
The decline in ridership from June to July on the three rail lines is consistent with the
summer season and probable vacation plans.
End of Year Metrolink Ridership & Revenue Report
Metrolink completed the fiscal year with system -wide ridership of 9.5 million passengers
for the twelve months ended June 30, 2004. This is a 6% increase over the prior year of
8.9 million passengers. The Inland Empire Orange County Line experienced the largest
growth with an increase of 15%, followed by the 91 line at 10% growth. System -wide
fare revenues for the year were $44.5 million and have increased $2.7 million, or 6.4% •
over last year.
61
Lease of Rail Equipment Update
ElbOn August 13, 2004, the SCRRA board approved a budget amendment to allow for the
lease of rolling stock from Central Puget Sound Regional Transit Authority. This is one of
the final phases to the process, the negotiations were completed and the agreement
signed. It is anticipated that the rail cars will be transported via Amtrak from Seattle
during August and hopefully available for service in September.
2004 Summer Beach Trains
The 2004 Summer Beach Train season is well under way with trips continuing until
October 3rd. There are 20 trips this year to a variety of popular destinations and events,
including the San Clemente Ocean Festival, Oceanside Harbor Days, and the always
popular San Clemente Chowder Festival. We have sold 8,350 tickets, which brings us to
69% of our break even goal. Sales are down a little this year, with one of the main
reasons being the lack of free shuttles in San Clemente for our riders. This year we have
an unprecedented number of 22 Season pass purchases. A new element added this year is
the partnership with OCTA, which offers several additional stops in Orange County for
boarding and unloading of passengers.
Metrolink Holiday Trains
`Thanksgiving & New Years Day Service:
Metrolink has started planning for the 2nd year of providing Thanksgiving Day train service
on selected routes. This year there will be two routes operating from Riverside, one to Los
Angeles and the other to Orange County. The New Year's Day service may run from
Riverside on the San Bernardino line into Los Angeles with connections to Pasadena via the
Gold Line.
Rideshare
Rideshare 2 Rails (R2R) Program OAKS
The Rideshare 2 Rails program has drawn to a close. We will continue to provide preferred
parking spaces to participants, but the financial incentives are no longer available. The
connecting shuttle that was part of the program from Moreno Valley to Downtown
Riverside was replaced with RTA's upgraded CommuterLink route 208.
RCTC Metrolink Station Daily Activities
Daily activities are recorded by station security guards and submitted to RCTC on a weekly
basis. During the first quarter of 2004 (January - March), there were eleven criminal
incidents (+38% from October — December 2003), and one crisis situations (-3 from
October — December 2003). The increase in criminal incidents is largely due to
vagrants/trespassing, which is the lesser offense in this category. Attached is summary
• data covering the first quarter of 2004.
Attachments:
Metrolink Performance Summaries (July 2004)
RCTC Metrolink Stations Daily Activity Report
2
•
METROLINK PERFORMANCE SUMMARIES
July 2004
11� 11 METROLINK
•
•
40,000
38,000
36,000 =
34,464
Jul -03
Aug -03
Sep -03
METROLINK
AVERAGE WEEKDAY PASSENGER TRIPS
37,806
37,399 V.
38,099
Mar -04 Apr -04
38,198
37,751
'1
11
May -04 Jun -04
HoUday,dJ —UnadjAvg
9
PERCENT PASSENGERS ON-TI .ME vs TRAINS ON -TIME *
100.0%
95.0%—•--
90.0% — • —
85,0% —
80. 0%
Ju103 Aug
* Within 5 -Minutes Of Schedule
Includes Weekend Service
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Jan
Feb
❑ Passenger O TP% O Train OTP%
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul 04
•
•
•
•
METROLINK ON -TIME PERFORMANCE
Weekday Trains (Latest 13 Months)
Sep 03 Oct 03
444'}
Nov 03 Dec 03 Jan 04 Feb 04 Mar 04 May 04
% Arriving Within 5 -Minutes Of Scheduled Time I
4
f1T 45, A ..RI.... .
% of Train Delays By Responsibility
July 2004
•
TRK-Contractor
2%
SIG -Contractor
4%
SCRRA
18%
Includes Weekend Service
Passenger
4%
IJPRR
8%
Vandalism
5%
Other
18%
Mechanical
11 %
OP Agree
4%
Law-Enf
0%
BNSF
22%
Improv (SCRRA)
4%
TRK-Contractor
1%
SIG -Contractor
8%
Passenger
4%
Includes Weekend Service
11 % OP Agree Law-Enf Improv (SCRRA)
2% 1% 7%
% of Train Delays By Responsibility
12 Month Period Ending July 2004
Vandalism
4%
Mechanic al
9%
BNSF
31%
•
•
5
•
PERFORM ANCE CHARTS - BACK-UP
11 11 METROLINK
METROLINK AVERAGE WEEKDAY PASSENGER TRIPS
THIRTEEN MONTH WINDOW - HOLIDAY ADJUSTED
ROU.
. �. out
n
n . ....
Aritela e.
1 e
.a L . ..
ar€.:;::::
r�
�� �rdlno
. ..
::::
.. Bur
.>:�'ur.:cns:;.;: .>;;;;
k� �
�
:: :.:`: .::
[�... ....... .... .... .:.:
�
;.Ri��r��d�.;::.;.>:.;;:.::.:: .:unt.
....:... . Or.;�n
�
;::. ;;>; :;; ...
..Ir�l.Em 1.. ......
,::.:::.: :.:;:: .;>;:::<.:;;:>:: .::>
0�. ... .. ....... ..... ..SY�'�'EM<.:.:
RwLF:u#
:..:.:.:.:.
.::. :...;: ..;
fs: .:'r:.�ac: 0.
Jul 03
3,624
5,536
10,278
555
4,074
5,453
3,375
1,569
34,464
0%
A ug 03
3,714
5,772
10,169
531
4,008
5,611
3,245
1,603
34,653
1%
Sep 03
3,883
5,748
10,624
540
4,431
5,780
3,638
1,620
36,264
5%
Oct 03
4,295
5,583
9,965
639
4,337
5,557
3,764
1,663
35,803
-1%
No v 03
4,568
5,466
10,007
649
4,317
5,641
3,858
1,717
36,223
1%
Dec 03
3,516
5,230
9,983
549
4,321
5,031
3,467
1,630
33,727
-7%
rn
co
Jan 04
4,001
5,665
10,690
581
4,639
5,482
3,701
1,640
36,399
8%
Feb 04
4,095
5,990
10,630
588
4,655
5,845
3,812
1,784
37,399
3%
M ar 04
4,153
5,885
10,978
612
4,745
5,876
3,804
1,753
37,806
1%
Apr 04
4,107
6,262
11,046
599
4,639
5,959
3,713
1,774
38,099
1%
May 04
3,970
6,180
11,213
645
4,745
5,966
3,696
1,783
38,198
0%
Jun 04
3,868
6,258
11,013
626
4,629
5,876
3,619
1,862
37,751
-1%
Jul 04
3,829
6,384
10,674
615
4,606
5,900
3,427
1,802
37,237
-1%
% Change
Jul 04 vs Jun 04
-1%
2%
-3%
-2%
0%
0%
-5 %
-3%
-1%
% Change
Jul 04 vs Jul 03
6%
15%
4%
11%
13%
8%
2%
15%
8%
•
•
7
•
•
AVERAGE DAILY METROLINK MONTHLY PASSHOLDERS ON AMTRAK
THIRTEEN MONTH WINDOW
•
?�?�i�atsrfdtes
Jul -03
1,037 181 145
100
31
13
1,137 212 158
7% 18%
7%
111
Aug -03
Sep -03
Oct -03
995
993
1,038
326
217
265
194
175
256
102
111
111
42
62
60
47
52
39
1,097
1,104
1,149
368
279
325
241
227
295
-4 %
1%
4%
74%
-24 %
53%
-6%
16% 30 %
114
100
120
Nov -03 (4)
1,054
228
157
130
50
60
1,183
278
217
3%
-15% -26%
119
Dec -03 (5)
947
156
179
104
23
29
1,051
179
209
-11%
-36% -4%
110
Jan -04 (6)
1,060
189
135
110
27
20
1,170
216
155
11%
21 % -26%
107
Feb 04
1,117
360
201
119
55
28
1,236
415
229
6%
92% 48%
99
Mar 04
1,113
242
228
128
51
44
1,241
293
272
0%
-29% 19%
94
Apr 04
May 04 (7)
1,132
1,123
186
278
225
265
133
120
48
34
48
35
1,265
1,243
234
312
273
300
2%
-2%
-20 % 0%
33% 10%
116
104
Jun 04
1,112
269
220
119
47
26
1,231
316
246
-1%
1%
-18%
90
Jul 04 (8)
1,110
247
230
128
37
26
1,238
284
256
1%
-10% 4%
118
Uhange Jul
04 vs Jun 04
0%
-8%
5%
8%
-21%
0%
1%
-10%
4%
% Change
Ju)04 vs JuI03
7%
36%
59%
28%
19%
100%
9%
34%
62%
(1) Prior to Rail 2 Rail, Amtrak Step-Up/No Step -Up program was only good on Amtrak weekday trains.
(2) Rail 2 Rail program started September 1, 2002.
(3) Missing data has been adjusted by using the lowest ridership count for the respective train , day of week and month.
(4) Average of first 3 weeks of month only as black -o ut in place for the Thanksgiving week
(5) Average excluding 12/25
(6) Average excluding January 1
(7) Average excluding May 31
(8) Average excluding July 5
31%
6%
8
perf summ-Rail 2 Rai(8/8!2004
METROLINK AVER AGE WEEKDAY PASSENGER TRIPS - HOLIDAY ADJUSTED
INCEPTION TO D ATE
40,000
38,000
36,000
Fy 04/05
34,000 t.�,,,���•.�-
32,000
30,000
28,000
26,000
24,000 yrr--------_. ,
22,000
20,000
18,000
16,000 x-
14,000
12,000
10,000
8,000
6,000
X
X
X
X
X
!FY 03/04
FY 02/03
01/02
FY 00/01
Y 99/00
Y 98/99
Y 97/98
XFY 96/97
FY 95/96
X—'---XFY 94/95
FY 93/94
Jan
Feb
Mar
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Apr
May
Jun
AOR MoNew,xls
,�;,...r;�;.,.
,rx�:�2�,"wu✓ : .
•
•
•
11
•
•
METROLINK SCHEDULE ADHERENCE SUMMARY
Percentage of Trains Arriving Within 5 Minutes of Scheduled Time
LATEST 13 MONTHS
•
a
Ra. ute, :;;
Ventura Count
;:�`
,.
: in tat;
.Antelo e: VaU
... : � . ,. ��`.. :;. ... .. :.
;art <::.C�t1t
.. ..h:
5�n.8ernardtna
:::;;;; .:. .
.:::: In �::.::,:: .
_..: : but:<
;:::
�t�rbank:7u�ns .
.
.:(� : ... out ..
: .. . :... , -
,.. Rlverstde
.. :..:.:.:..: ..:;... ..
::: ;::Ift:::: :::>>>: .. .
but :.>
.- :. ... :::; ..:;:..
dr.�n e:Co n .:::1
:. :..: . ... ::.:: .. :
.. .;:::.: ::.::: ::.:.:: ..:. . .:.:...,:„
Sri:: Csut
. :..:
1 :Errs :.. ::>;...,:;.;: .::
. .:: . ,:.. ...,
;::.::.
Std:;>::::;:::I�cz
- .. . ... :.
..:
. ...::.:::.. <..:::
;: ;: ....::: .:: .:: :: :::
S .:,. ems
` .�trt
JuI03
98%
96%
91%
89 %
91%
83%
100 %
98 %
87%
80%
85 % 88%
93 % 80 %
90%
80%
92 % 87%
89%
Aug 03
98%
97%
94%
94%
95%
94 %
100%
100%
84%
90%
91 %
97%
92%
94%
85%.
80%
93%
94 %
94%
Sep 03
98%
97%
98%
96%
87%
81%
100%
100%
91 %
94%
90%
87%
90%
86%
88%
86%
93%
90%
91 %
Oct 03
95%
97%
96%
97%
95%
94%
100%
97%
93%
96%
93%
95 %
89%
90%
95%
90%
95%
95%
95 %
Nov 03
100%
97%
96%
96%
94%
92 %
97%
98 %
92%
96%
93%
89%
85 %
90%
95%
84%
94%
93%
94%
Dec 03
98%
98%
98%
98%
98%
99%
100%
98%
98%
93%
91 %
90%
95%
96%
95%
89%
97%
96%
96%
Jan 04
99%
96%
97%
95%
96%
96%
100%
99%
98%
91 %
90%
97 %
91%
98%
90%
91%
96%
96 %
96%
Fk 04
99%
98%
97%
90%
96%
96%
98%
100%
93%
95%
91%
95 %
93%
86%
93 %
91%
95%
94%
95%
Mar04
100%
98%
97%
95%
97%
97%
99%
99%
95%
89 %
95%
96%
88%
86%
97%
95%
96%
95%
96%
Apr 04
100%
98%
97%
95%
97%
97%
99%
99%
95%
89%
95%
96%
88%
86%
97%
95 %
96 %
95%
96%
May 04
98%
97%
96%
96%
96%
95%
100%
99%
89%
86%
96%
94%
92%
86%
89%
90%
95%
94%
95%
Jun 04
100%
98%
97%
95%
93%
93%
100%
100%
92%
91%
95%
94 %
97 %
94 %
97 %
99%
96%
95 %
96%
JuI04
100%
98%
96%
92%
90%
89%
100%
100%
96%
95%
94%
.97%
90%
86%
94%
91%
94%
93%
94%
Peak Period Trains Arriv ing Within 5 Minutes of Sched
Jul 04
Peak Penod
VEN. Raute
A1/�:E{Qute
ShtB;Route' :
`
: BUft:Tur t1s
.. ........R1v.F~:out_
:Route.:::>::
._._
::•:<::_
'idt:(rigtf ki_
7ofS.
f::::
Trains
99% 97%
94% 90%
90% 87%
100% 100%
96%.
98%
93% 99%
.u.aRoute::::::>:<
92% 87%
95 %
86%
,T.a.t .
94% 93%
94%
No adjustments have been made for relievable delays.
Terminated trains are considered OT if they were on -time at point of termination. Annulled trains are not included in the on -time calculation.
12
CAUSES OF METROLINK DELAYS
July 2004
PRIMARY CAUSE OF TRAIN DELAYS GREATER THAN 5 MINUTES
CA USE:
VEN
AVL
SNB
BUR
RIV
OC
INLJOC
91 -LA
TOTAL
% of TOT
Signals/Detectors
1
2
3
0
2
0
2
1
11
6%
Slow Orders/MOW
0
1
8
0
0
0
3
0
12
6%
Track/Switch
0
0
3
0
1
3
3
2
12
6%
Dispatching
0
2
6
0
4
4
13
7
36
19%
Mechanical
0
6
6
0
0
1
5
0
18
10%
Freight Train
0
8
0
0
0
0
0
0
8
4%
Amtrak Train
2
2
0
0
0
1
0
2
7
4%
MBtrolink Meet/Turn
1
6
21
0
0
0
1
0
29
16%
Vandalism
0
0
8
0
0
0
1
0
9
5%
Passenger(s)
0
0
6
0
0
0
1
0
7
4%
SCRRA Hold Policy
1
2
0
0
0
1
0
0
4
2%
Other
1
1
14
0
4
9
1
2
32
17%
TOTAL
6
30
75
0
11
19
30
14
185
100%
Saturday
SNB
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
3
Saturday
AVL
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Sunday
SNB
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
3
•
•
•CAUS
•
•
FREQUENCY OF TRAIN DELAYS BY DURATION
July 2004
•
MINUTES LATE:
VEN
AVL
SNB
BUR
RIV
OC
IE/OC
RIV/FUL
TOTAL
% of TOT
NO DELAY
387
398
417
240
210
327
193
164
2336
78 .4%
1 MIN - 5 MIN
27
75
225
10
31
51
29
11
459
15.4%
6MIN -10 MIN
3
16
38
0
5
4
13
5
84
2 .8%
11 MIN - 20 MIN
3
8
14
0
4
9
14
5
57
1.9 %
21 MIN -30 MIN
0
1
10
0
2
2
2
2
19
0.6%
4REATER THAN 30 MIN
0
5
13
0
0
4
1
2
25
0.8 %
ANNULLED
0
1
1
2
0
2
0
0
6
0.2%
TOTAL TRAINS OPTD
420
503
717
250
252
397
252
189
2980
100%
TRAINS DELAYED >0 min
33
105
300
10
42
70
59
25
644
21.6%
TRAINS DELAYED > 5 mir
6
30
75
0
11
19
30
14
185
6.2%
14
0405FREQ
• • •
Activity Detail Report
Gen erated from 1/01/2004 to 3/31/2004
Riverside - Downtown
Date Time
3/11/2004
3/31/2004
2/7/2004 9:45 p.m.
3/17/2004 11:40
3/19/2004 11:30
3/30/2004 7:30 a. m.
Pedley
Activity Log # Description
76128 Property damage- report given to Claudia Chase
76592 Police on scene - Grand Theft Auto (P Rpt#04-
009)
75347 Male adult urinated in parking lot-thru trash out
76494 Security informed Male not to film station
76432 Security told male in car -no trains till next day
76620 Police called male asked to leave & wouldn't
D ate Time Activity Log # Description
1/20/2004 3:55 p. m. 75144 Male adult putting flyers on vehicles
2/5/2004 10:00 75424 Security made contact w/couple ingaged in lewd
act
La Sierra
D ate Time Activity Log # Description
2/9/2004 12:00 75698 RPD called &spoke with Intoxicated male RPD
let go
North Main Corona
Date Time Activity Lo g # Description
2/25/2004 12:45 am
3/11/2004 12:15 pm
3/31/2004 6:00 p. m.
76326 Security advised male sleeping on bench to leave
76139 Security stopped peo ple fr. Putting flyers on cars
76603 Frieght tran vs pedestrian fatal accid trans
Activity Type
2 - Criminal Incidents
2 - Criminal Incidents
2 - Criminal Incidents
2 - Criminal Incidents
2 - Criminal Incidents
2 - Criminal Incidents
Activity Type
2 - Criminal Incidents
2 - Criminal Incidents
Activity Type
2 - Criminal Incidents
Activity Type
2 - Criminal Incidents
2 - Criminal Incidents
3 - Crisis Situations
Activity Subtype
2A - Burglary / Theft /
2A - Burglary / Theft /
2B - Vagrants / Trespassing
2C - Suspicious Behavior
2C - Suspicious Behavior
2C - Suspicious Behavior
# Vehicles
0
0
0
0
0
0
Activity Subtype # Vehicles
2B - Vagrants / Trespassing 0
2B - Vagrants / Trespassing 0
Activity Subtype # Vehicles
2B - Vagrants / Trespassing 0
Activity S ubtype # Vehicles
2B - Vagrants / Trespassing 0
2B - Vagrants / Trespassing 0
3C - Passenger Accidents 0
Mon da y, Au gust 16, 2004 Page 1 of 1
HOW CAN YOU
PARTICIPATE ?
RCTC and OCTA are holding public meetings in September to get
public input for the study . Y ou can attend a meeting in either c ounty
on o ne of these dates:
Riverside Co unty:
• September 16, 2004
6:30 pm -8:30 pm
Lake Elsinore Cultural Center
130 South Main Street
Lake Elsinore, CA
• September 23, 2004
6: 30 pm -8:30 pm
Eagle Glen Golf Course
1800 Eagle Glen Parkway
Corona, CA
Ora nge C ou nty :
• September 7, 2004
6 pm -8 pm
Anaheim Hills C ommunity
Center
8201 East Santa Ana Canyon
Road
Anaheim, CA
• September 9, 2004
6 pm -8 pm
Heritage Park Regional Library
14361 Yale Avenue
Irvine, CA
• September 14, 2004
6 pm -8 pm
Mission Viejo City Hall
(Saddleback Room)
200 Civic Center
Mission Viejo, CA
RIVERSIDE C OUNTY'S
COMMITMENT TO
IMPROVING MOBILITY
Measure A
The primary source of transportation funding in
Riverside County is the voter -appr oved MeasureA
1/2¢ sales -tax program. Measure A funds highway,
street and road, and transit improvements through-
out Riverside County and was first approved by
Riverside County voters in 1988 . In 2002, voters
extended Measure A to continue until 2039 with
69 percent of the vote . For more information on
Measure A please visit
www .rctc .org/measureA/index .asp.
Mid County Parkway
The Riverside C ounty Transportation
Commission is currently studying the feasibility of
c onstructing a new transportation corridor
between Corona and San Jacinto that would
roughly approximate the current route of Cajalco
Road and the Ramona E xpressway .
This project, called the Mid County
Parkway, offers a number of oppor-
tunities for public input and will
help shape Riverside County's
transp ortation future . For
more information, please visit
www.midcountyparkway .org.
We want to know what you think. If you have any comments about the
Riverside County —Orange County Connectio n, call us at (951) 787-7141,
email us through o ur website at www.rcocconnection. info, or write us:
Cathy Bechtel, Riverside County —Orange County Connection Manager,
Riverside County Transportation Commission
P.O. Box 12008 • Riverside, CA 92502-2208
C131S3f1a321 3DIA213S SSDiaCIV
ZOSZ6 VD `aplsuaAl2l
800Z1 xo8 'Od
uoiss!wwoj uol;vl.iodsueult(lunop aPisuanl'
NOI1D3NNOD AJNf1OD
3DNVUO-A1NfO D 3a1S213AR1
d lNdd
3DVI SOd S fl
a lS l asad
Congestion on the 91 Freeway
0 0111e Riversid eCoanty www.rctc.org
Trares /tortalion Commiss ion
RIVERSIDE COUNTY
ORANGE CO UNTY
CONNECTION
A project of the Riverside County Transportation Co mmission and the Orange County Transportation
WHAT IS THE RIVERSIDE
COUNTY -ORANGE COUNTY
MAJOR INVESTMENT STUDY?
The Riverside County Transp ortati on Commissi on (RCTC), the Orange C ounty
Transportation Authority (OCTA), and the Transportation Corridor Agencies
(TCAs), have j oined in partnership to assess multi -m odal alternatives for impr oving
travel between Orange County and Riverside County .The study will define short and
long term transportation needs and examine a wide range of options for improving
traffic flow between Orange and Riverside counties .
Along with evaluating improvements to the 91 freeway itself, the study will examine
the p otential f or building a new corridor between Riverside and Orange County.The
goal of this Major Investment Study, or MIS, is to come up with a long-range,
balanced transportation plan that includes highway, mass transit, and other options.
WHAT IS THE
PROCESS FOR
THE STUDY?
Data will be c ollected regarding
traffic demands, points of origin
and arrival, environmental consid-
erations, and many other factors.
Public input is an important part of
the process and RCTC will hold
meetings with Riverside County
residents to find out what is impor-
tant to them . In Orange County,
OCTA will hold similar meetings .
The expected result of this
technical and stakeholder -driven
pr ocess will be consensus on trans-
portation improvements within the
study area. A program of projects
to relieve congestion and help
address future transportation
needs will emerge from the study
and RCTC and OCTA will identify
their preferred strategies for
solving congestion problems . After
that, project -level environmental
review processes such as Draft
Environmental Impact Statements/
Rep orts can begin f or the identified
improvements. The MIS began in
June 2004 and will be completed in
18 months .
Identifying Locally
Preferred Strategies
Public input
A Statement of Purpose and
Need for the Project and
Public Meetings .
TECHNICAL
DEVELOPMENT OF
ALTERNATIVES
Initial set of 7-10 conceptual
alternatives .
INITIAL EV ALU ATION
Final set of 3-4 alternatives.
DET AILED EVALUATION
OF ALTERN ATIVES
Recommended "Locally
Preferred Strategies" that
include the best combination
of RC to OC solutions .
RIVERSIDE C OUNTY ORANGE C OUNTY CONNEC TION
0 A project of the Riverside County Transpo rtatio n Commission and the Orange County Transportation Authority
jZ
"'
WHAT AREA
IS BEING
STUDIED?
The study area is bounded
by SR -55/1-5 on the west,
1-15 on the east, SR -91 on
the north and Ortega
Highway on the south. At
this point, the study area is
very bro ad. Public outreach
and technical findings are
likely to shrink the study
area early in the process but
it is important to include all
proposals at the start and
document their evaluation
fo r the record.
RCTC AND OCTA-
PARTNERS FORA SOLUTION
Expa nded Metro link Se rvice
Already a number of improvements have taken place to ease
the commute between counties. In May 2002, Metrolink service
was expanded on the Inland Empire/Orange County and the
Riverside/Fullerton/Los Angeles (91) lines. This included two
additional trains between Riverside and Los Angeles via
Fullerton. Both RCTC and O CTA are members of Metrolink
and provided funding for these additio nal trains.
Toll Road Purchase Clears the Wa y
for Mo re Improvements
The most significant move in improving congestion on the 91
freeway has been OCTA's purchase of the 91 Express Lanes.
WHY IS THE
STUDY NEEDED?
Each day, more than one -quarter of a million
vehicles travel between Riverside and Orange
counties. With only two choices of roadways,
SR -91 in the north and the narro w, two -lane
Ortega Highway in the south, it is easy to
understand why congestion now impairs basic
mobility for all those who make this trip.
In addition, the number of trips forecast
over the next 20 years is ex pected to do uble
to nearly one-half million. RCTC and OCTA
take this problem very seriously and are
wo rking to gether to find transportation
solutions that will ease the trip for residents
and businesses on bo th sides of the county
line.
This purchase
lifted restrictio ns
on future expan-
sio ns of the 91
freeway that were
a part of the
o riginal 91 Ex press
Lanes franchise with the State of California Department
Transportation (Caltrans). Eliminating this so-called "non -com-
pete" provision in the franchise agreement afforded OCTA,
Caltrans and RCTC the opportunity to plan, design and con-
struct impro vements to the 91 which would otherwise have
been prohibited.
Immedia te Impro vements
In just one year the following improvements have taken place:
• New pavement is already in place with a new westbound
aux iliary lane providing congestio n relief and improved
speeds between Coal Canyo n and the Riverside —Orange
County Iine.The lane o pened in March 2004.This was made
of
La Paz Rd.
Oso Pkwy.
own Valley Pkwy .
possible through the work of OCTA and funding fr om the
California Transportation Commission.
• A re -striping project through Corona extended the west-
bound auxiliary lane from the Riverside —Orange County line
to SR -71, improving freeway operations by reducing weaving
at the county line.
The lane extension
opened in May 2004 .
This was made possible
through funding from
the Riverside County
Board of Supervisors .
• OCTA authorized
the use of $2.5 milli on
in 91 E xpress Lanes
toll road revenues
as seed funding to
accelerate preliminary
engineering and environmental documentation of an east-
bound au xiliary lane extending from SR -241 to SR-71 .When
El So brante Rd.
completed, this $30 million project will open up a major
eastbound traffic chokepoint at the Riverside —Orange
County line .
• Caltrans is completing five Project Study Reports for
improvements on the 91 between the Riverside County Line
and 1-15. This would include improvements to the 1-15/91
Interchange.
• Caltrans is currently widening SR -71 just north of the 91.
This project, partially funded by RCTC, will add another lane
in each directi on to SR -71 and will provide needed relief to
the evening eastb ound commute.
• OCTA is completing four Project Study Reports (PSRs)
which identify specific transportation issues and potential
solutions, conceptual engineering, and cost estimates . PSRs
are necessary in order to qualify a project for state funding.
WHAT IS THE PROCESS
FORTHE MID COUNTY
PARKWAY?
Right now RCTC is studying the location of alternative routes for the
Mid County Parkway. In order to move forward, the following steps must be
completed:
• Rou te Evaluation: Possible routes will be identified and evaluated for
feasibility both by engineers and environmental agencies .
• Public Input: Public meetings will be held to gather public input on the p os-
sible alignments both before the formal environmental process and then again
in the first phase of the environmental process, called Scoping . Public input
helped determine the general location of this route during the regional trans-
portation planning process held in 2002 and 2003 and RCTC is committed to
seeking residents' input as the project moves forward.
• Environmental Studies: Environmental studies to determine the potential
impacts of the alternative routes will be completed including a draft EIS/EIR.
These studies will measure impacts to biological resources, water resources,
geology, air quality, cultural resources, paleontology, noise, s oci oec onomics,
land use, public services and utilities,
aesthetics, traffic and circulatio n, and
public safety.
• Alternatives Narro wed: The
results of the public input process,
environmental studies, and the
input of other transportation and
environmental agencies will narrow
down the choice of possible routes
for the Mid County Parkway.
• Preferred Alternative Selectio n:
• Preliminary
Studies
• Public
Meetings
• Identify
Alternatives
• Study
Alternatives
• Enviro nmental
Studies and
Engineering
• Public
Meetings
• Draft EIR/EIS
• Public
Hearings
WHAT IS THE
MID COUNTY
PARKWAY SCHEDULE?
The Mid County Parkway is being pursued
under the historic Cajalco-Ramona Corridor
NEPA Partnership agreement between RCTC,
the County of Riverside, the United States
Department of Transportation, the United
States Environmental Protection Agency, the
United States Fish and Wildlife Service, the US
Army Corps of Engineers, Caltrans, and the
California Department of Fish and Game . This
agreement means that all project partners have
pledged to employ streamlining procedures that
will help ensure timely traffic relief for western
Riverside County residents . Nevertheless, the
project is e xpected to take at least three years
before final engineering and right of way
acquisition can begin . Construction can begin
after all right of way has been obtained and
utility conflicts have been resolved.
• Final EIR/EIS
• Obtain other
envir onmental
approvals and
permits
• Final Design • C onstruction
• Right of way
acquisiti on
RCTC will choose the locally preferred alternative from those studied in the
Draft EIS/EIR. If approved, the preferred route will move forward for design
and construction.
We want to know what you think. If you have any comments about the Mid County Parkway,
call us at (951) 787-7141, email us through our website at www.midcountyparkway.org, or write us:
Cathy Bechtel, Mid County Parkway Manager
Riverside County Transportation Commission
P.O. Box 12008 • Riverside, CA 92502-2208
Blvd
3D VI SOd S fl
GI S 1 2HSbd
L
a31S3f1a321 3Dit213s SS3 iaabi
c;Hto_-C
Z0SZ6 VD `aP1sJaAN
800Z1 xo8 'Od
uolsslwwoD uoRel.JodsuE.11
X unoj apisaanlj
AVM)121Vd ALNf1OD aiw
The Mid County Parkway
will help relieve congestion.
WANT TO KN OW MORE
ABOUT THE
MID COUNTY
PARKWAY?
Meetings will be held at the following
times and locations:
9/21/04 (Tuesday) -6:30 pm
Valley Wide Recreation & Park District
901 W. Esplanade Ave.
San Jacint o, CA 92581
9/22/04 (Wednesday) -6:30 pm
Val Verde Unified Sch ool District
District Office C onference Room
975 W. Morgan St.
Perris, CA 92571
9/23/04 (Thursday) -6:30 pm
Eagle Glen Golf Course
1800 Eagle Glen Pkwy .
(1-15 & Cajalco Rd .)
Corona, CA 92581
Stay Inf ormed—
www.midcountyparkway. org
RiversideCo nn ty
Transportation Commission
(IA
MID COUNT Y
PARKWAY
A pr oject of the Riverside County Transp ortation Commission
MOW
WHAT IS THE
MID COUNTY PARKWAY?
The Mid County Parkway is a proposed 32 -mile transportation corridor that will relieve
traffic congestion for east -west travel in western Riverside C ounty between the San Jacint o
and Corona areas and help address future transportation needs through 2030.
The proposed corridor was identified as a part of the Riverside County
Integrated Project, a regionwide transportation and envir onmental planning project
undertaken over several years by the Riverside County Transportation Commission
(RCTC) and the County of Riverside.The Pr oject determined that a c orrid or in the
vicinity of Cajalco Road in the west and Ramona Expressway in the east would sig-
nificantly reduce c ongesti on, improve traffic flow, and reduce travel times on 1-215,
SR 91, SR 74, and SR 60 . County residents, through their input at public meetings,
helped determine the general corridor locations under consideration. Further study
of potential route locations is being conducted by RCTC, the agency resp onsible f or
transportation planning in Riverside County and the administrator of Measure A,
Riverside County's 1/2¢ sales ta x f or transp ortati on .
WHY IS THE MID COUNTY
PARKWAY NEEDED?
By 2020, the County's population is projected to double to 3 million. Today, east -west
traffic within western Riverside C ounty is carried on State Routes 60, 91 and 74 . These
corridors, which link western Riverside County to San Bernardino County and the Coachella
Valley to the east and Los Angeles and Orange counties to the west, are already e xperiencing
significant gridlock .Another east -west route to relieve this congestion is essential in order to
maintain and enhance quality of life in western Riverside County.
Such a route was identified as a high priority in the Riverside County Integrated Project's
transportation element, called the Community
and Environmental Transportation Acceptability
Process (CETAP) . In July 2002, a draft
Environmental Impact Study/Environmental
Impact Report (EIS/EIR) was published f or an
east -west corridor identified as the "Hemet to
Corona/Lake Elsin ore C orrid or ." While RCTC
studied several alternatives f or the corridor, a
r oute roughly f ollowing Cajalco Road and the
Ramona Expressway was eventually identified as
a preferred route to relieve congestion and
provide future mobility . The new name f or this
Cajalco-Ramona route is the Mid County
Parkway .
The project received nati onal recognition
when it was identified by the White House
under Executive Order 13274 f or envir onmental
streamlining, one of only seven transportation projects in the
nati on to initially receive this designation .
In order to m ove forward n ow, it is necessary to study the
corridor in detail and eventually identify a specific route .
CETAP and the projects it studied, including the
Mid County Parkway, were identified by the
White House for Environmental Streamlining.
Between now and 2020, Riverside will
double its population to 3 million people.
T Y p,94,4//
4 MID COUNTY PARKWAY
CETA P
C!rvro-c
A project of the Riverside County Transportation Commission
WHAT ARE THE
BENEFITS OF THE
MID COUNTY
PARKWAY?
The Mid Co unty Parkway will offer a variety of benefits
to residents, commuters, property owners and business
owners throughout western Riverside County.
For the General Public, the Mid County Parkway
will bring badly needed traffic congestio n relief, giving
residents mo re time at ho me with family and less time
in traffic.
For Businesses, improved mobility provided by the Mid
County Parkway will expedite the mo vement of goods
and services across western Riverside County, a key
factor in maintaining and enhancing the local eco nomy.
Reduced travel times across western Riverside County
and improved mobility will bring residents and businesses
substantial savings in transportation co sts and impro ve
the climate for attracting new businesses to the regio n.
Commercia l a nd industria l property values alo ng
the route will see an upswing in value from impro ved
transportation access.
The Mid County Parkway will also create an express
route for regional trips and public transit between the
population centers of San Jacinto/Hemet, Perris/Moreno
Valley, and Corona/Norco.
The following roadway designs are being
evaluated as possibilities for various
segments of the Mid County Parkway:
Roadway with Center Divider
Divided Roadway with
Drainage Facility in Median
Divided Roadway
WHERE WILL THE MID COUNTY
PARKWAY BE LOCATED?
Box Spring
Van Buren Blvd
Van Buren Blvd
Cajalco Rd
Cajalco Rd
PROJECT STUDY AREA
Study Area
MA RCH
A IR
RESERVE
BA SE
E
Ramona Expel
Presently, no specific route has been selected for the Mid County Parkway .
The study area, shown here, includes a large area located on either side of the
existing roadway known as Cajalco Road between 1-15 and 1-215 and as Ram ona
Expressway east of 1-215. The project must provide for connections to SR 79 in the
east, 1-215 in the center, and 1-15 to the west .
HOW WILL THE
Study Area: Cajalco Road looking tow ard 1-15.
Study Area:
Ramona Expressway
in the Perris Area.
MID COUNTY PARKWAY BE FUNDED?
The preliminary design and environmental studies for the Mid
C ounty Parkway will be funded through a Federal Streamlining
Allocati on and the western Riverside County Transportation
Unif orm Mitigation Fee or TUMF.
The TUMF is paid as a part of the fees collected for development
of land in Riverside County and is participated in by all 14 cities in
western Riverside C ounty and the County of Riverside.These fees
paid by new devel opment offset the c ost of providing transportation
improvements to accomm odate new homes and residents.
Final Engineering Design, right-of-way acquisition and construction
costs are anticipated to be funded by a combination of Measure A,
Riverside County's 1/4 sales tax for transportation;TUMF fees; and
state and federal dollars . RCTC is working closely with Caltrans and
the Federal Highways Administration so that the proposed roadway
will meet state and federal standards and be eligible for state and
federal funding.