Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout11 November 15, 2004 Technical AdvisoryRECORDS • • TIME: DATE: LOCATION: TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMIT" MEETING AGENDA* 10:00 A.M. November 15, 2004 Riverside County Transportation Commission Riverside County Regional Complex 4080 Lemon Street; Riverside, CA Conference Room A, 3rd Floor *By request, agenda and minutes may be available in alternative format; i.e. large print, tape. COMMITTEE MEMBERS PVVTA Dave Barakian, City of Palm Springs Bill Bayne, City of Cathedral City Tom Boyd, City of Riverside Bill Brunet, City of Blythe Mike Gow, City of Hemet Mark Greenwood, City of Palm Desert Keith Haan, City of Calimesa Bruce Harry, City of Rancho Mirage Bill Hughes, City of Temecula George Johnson, County of Riverside Tim Jonasson, City of LaQuinta Jim Kinley, City of Murrieta Eldon Lee, City of Coachella Cis Leroy, SunLine Transit Wendy Li, Caltrans District 08 Amir Modarressi, City of Indio Habib Motlagh, Cities of Perris, San Jacinto, Canyon Lake Craig Neustaedter, City of Moreno Valley Kahono Oei, City of Banning Anne Palatino, RTA Dan Patneaude, City of Desert Hot Springs Juan Perez, County of Riverside Amad Qattan, City of Corona Joe Schenk, City of Norco Ken Seumalo, City of Lake Elsinore Ruthanne Taylor Berger, WRCOG Allyn Waggle, CVAG Tim Wassil, City of Indian Wells John Wilder, City of Beaumont Cathy Bechtel, Director Transportation Planning & Policy Development • • • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMM/SS/ON TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA* *Actions may be taken on any item listed on the agenda. TIME: 10:00 A.M. DATE: November 15, 2004 LOCATION: Riverside County Transportation Commission 4080 Lemon Street Riverside, CA In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act and government Code Section 54954.2, if you need special assistance to participate in a Committee meeting, please contact Riverside County Transportation Commission at (951) 787-7141. Notification of at least 48 hours prior to meeting time will assist staff in assuring that reasonable arrangements can be made to provide accessibility at the meeting. • 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. SELF -INTRODUCTION 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES — October 18, 2004 4. PUBLIC COMMENTS (This is for comments on items not listed on agenda. Comments relating to an item on the agenda will be taken when the item is before the Committee.) 5. CITY OF RIVERSIDE STIP REPROGRAMMING REQUEST (Attachment) 6. SR 79 — ADDITIONAL STP FUNDS (Attachment) 7. AB 3090 REQUEST FOR SR 60 8. STATE AND FEDERAL LEGISLATION AND TRANSPORTATION MEASURES UPDATE (Attachment) • 9. 2004 RTIP/FTIP AND AMENDMENT UPDATE Technical Advisory Committee Meeting November 15, 2004 Page 2 • 10. CALTRANS LOCAL ASSISTANCE UPDATE 11. NOVEMBER 10, 2004 COMMISSION HIGHLIGHTS 12. OTHER BUSINESS/ANNOUNCEMENTS 13. ADJOURNMENT (The next meeting will be December 20, 2004 in Banning.) • • • MINUTES • • • TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES Monday, October 18, 2004 1. Call to Order The meeting of the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) was called to order at 10:05 a.m., at Banning City Hall Civic Center, 99 East Ramsey Street, Banning, California. 2. Self -Introductions • Members Present: Others Present: Dave Barakian, City of Palm Springs Tom Boyd, City of Riverside Mike Gow, City of Hemet Mark Greenwood, City of Palm Desert Bruce Harry, City of Rancho Mirage Bill Hughes, City of Temecula George Johnson, County of Riverside Tim Jonasson, City of LaQuinta Eldon Lee, City of Coachella Wendy Li, Caltrans District 08 Amir Modarressi, City of Indio Russ Napier, City of Murrieta Craig Neustaedter, City of Moreno Valley Kahono Oei, City of Banning Amad Qattan, City of Corona Tom Rafferty, Cities of Perris, San Jacinto, Canyon Lake Ken Seumalo, City of Lake Elsinore Tim Wassil, City of Indian Wells Cathy Bechtel, RCTC Shirley Gooding, RCTC Eric Haley, RCTC Shirley Medina, RCTC Hazem Mobarek, W. Koo & Associates Evita Premdas, Caltrans 3. Approval of Minutes No objections. Technical Advisory Committee Meeting October 18, 2004 Page 2 4. Public Comments There were no public comments. 5. STP REHABILITATION CALL FOR PROJECTS Shirley Medina, RCTC, provided a draft Surface Transportation Program (STP) Call for Rehabilitation Projects (dated November 2004). She stated that on October 13, 2004, the Commission approved going forward with the STP call for projects using the 2 -tier evaluation criteria where locals would submit projects that had already been through an evaluation process at the local level. Cathy Bechtel, RCTC, indicated that funds will be available for programming about June 2005. The TAC was encouraged to review the draft and let staff know of any comments, questions or concerns by November 1, 2004. 6. PROJECT STATUS REPORT TO COMMISSION Shirley Medina detailed the Project Status Report for unobligated CMAQ, DEMO, STPL, STIP, and TEA funded projects. She would welcome comments from the TAC as soon as possible since the report would be on the November RCTC agenda. 7. 2004 FSTIP/FTIP ADOPTION Shirley Medina said the 2004 FSTIP/FTIP was approved by the Federal Highway Administration on October 4, 2004. Staff will begin processing project amendments. 8. TRANSPORTATION ENHANCEMENT FUNDS ACTIVITIES — 6 MONTH EXTENSION REQUEST Ms. Medina stated that the projects listed on the Regional TEA Funds Request for AB 1012 Time Extension are the projects going forward in the next 6-8 months. Staff is requesting an extension since obligating $1.5 Million would not be possible by December. The extension deadline for obligating the TEA projects listed will be May 2005. 9. CALTRANS LOCAL ASSISTANCE UPDATE Wendi Li, Caltrans Local Assistance, informed the TAC that Local Assistance is fully staffed and that each engineer has been assigned a specific area. In • Technical Advisory Committee Meeting October 18, 2004 Page 3 the next 2 weeks, she expects to send letters to local agencies stating their contact person. One Caltrans person will devote full time to tracking the environmental status of each project. It is hoped that by the end of November, a database will be in place so that each agency may track projects. There are 12 staff members in the local assistance office with 3 assigned to Riverside County. 10. CETAP UPDATE Cathy Bechtel stated that there were 3 public prescoping meetings in September for the Mid -County Parkway. The 3 meetings in San Jacinto, Perris and Corona were well -attended with a lot of participation and interest. The environmental process will be starting soon and the Notice of Intent/Notice of Preparation (NOI/NOP) will be released in early November. Formal letters of concurrence from the federal resource agencies are forthcoming. Regarding the Riverside County to Orange County major investment study, 2 public meetings were held, both of which were well -attended in Lake Elsinore and Corona. It is expected that by December 2005, that project will be completed with the locally preferred strategy developed for a new corridor into that area. Once the locally preferred strategy has been identified, project level environmental documents will commence. She encouraged TAC members to attend the monthly project development team meetings for the MIS. They are held the first Wednesday of each ' month at 9:00 rotating between Corona and Orange County. The Moreno Valley to San Bernardino CETAP corridor is on hold until San Bernardino resolves issues relating to alignments and funding. 11. OCTOBER 13, 2004 COMMISSION HIGHLIGHTS Eric Haley, RCTC, stated that at the Commission meeting on October 13, 2004, Council Member Charles White advocated a retrofit sound wall on the 60 project that is currently under construction in Moreno Valley. The neighborhood, composed of 30 homes, went through a procedure which required a unanimous vote of all homeowners to place a sound wall on private property. The sound wall would have to be built on private property due to configuration, slopes, etc. There were 18 aye votes, 2 negative and 10 homeowners could not be located during the 6 months they were being Technical Advisory Committee Meeting October 18, 2004 Page 4 sought. Commissioner White requested reopening the environmental document and funding the sound wall. Mr. Haley stated that Measure A does not have a dedicated source of funding outside of the new construction and the freeway is not on the TUMF system. The Commission was made aware that funding for sound walls would have to come from the local agencies. Tim Wassil, City of Indian Wells, recommended sound wall- discussions at a future TAC meeting. 12. OTHER BUSINESS/ANNOUNCEMENTS • 2005/06 STATE SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL • BICYCLE TRANSPORTATION ACCOUNT • ITS TRAINING Shirley Medina reminded the TAC that the project milestone reports will be sent out the beginning of November. She requested that each agency inform her of whether or not there are any changes so she will know that the data has been reviewed. 13. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business for consideration by the Technical Advisory Committee, the meeting was adjourned at 11:00 A.M. The next meeting is scheduled for November 15, 2004, 10:00 A.M., Riverside County Transportation Commission, 4080 Lemon Street, Riverside, California. Respectfully submitted, ry u -ifs frb.doi*..4 Shirley Me a Program Manager • • • • • AGENDA ITEM 5 • • • • • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION DATE: November 15, 2004 TO: Technical Advisory Committee FROM: Shirley Medina, Program Manager SUBJECT: City of Riverside Request to Reprogram State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) Regional Improvement Program (RIP) Funds STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the TAC to: Forward a recommendation to the Riverside County Transportation Commission on the City of Riverside's request to reprogram State Transportation Improvement Program funds from the Van Buren widening (Jackson to Santa Ana River) to the SR 91 Van Buren Interchange. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: On November 14, 2001, the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) approved $3.465 million of STIP/RIP funds for the Van Buren Boulevard widening project from the Santa Ana River to Jackson Street. These funds are currently programmed in the 2004 STIP in fiscal year 2006/07. The city of Riverside is accelerating the project with local funds. Therefore, the city is requesting to reprogram the funds to another high priority project, the SR 91 and Van Buren Interchange improvement project, and the program year will remain the same (FY 2006/07). RCTC staff supports the city's request based on the following: 1) there is no capacity in the STIP to request an advance allocation; 2) the city has committed to advance the Van Buren widening project with local funds; and 3) the SR 91 Van Buren Interchange project is regionally significant and is identified in the Measure "A" Strategic Plan. Since the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) was directly involved in the evaluation of the STIP discretionary call for projects that included the Van Buren project, we are seeking the TAC's input and/or recommendation regarding this reprogramming request. • • • • AGENDA ITEM 6 • • • • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION DATE: November 15, 2004 TO: Technical Advisory Committee FROM: Shirley Medina, Program Manager SUBJECT: Additional STP Funding for the SR 79 Widening Project In January 2004, the Commission approved to trade delayed STIP funding for local projects programmed in fiscal years 2002/03 through 2004/05 with federal Surface Transportation Program (STP) funds. Initially, Caltrans was the lead agency for the SR 79 project and had begun working on project development activities for this project. Last year Caltrans halted all work on this project due to the state budget crisis. The County is now the lead and is working on project development work. At the time of the Commission's approval to trade funds, it was unknown how much Caltrans had expended on project development work, and therefore, only the construction phase received approval for the trade of STP funds. At last month's California Transportation Commission meeting, a technical adjustment was made to credit our county share with the unexpended amount for project development. The unexpended amount was $3.55 million. We will request that the Commission approve $3.55 million of STP funds for the SR 79 project at the December meeting. The $3.55 million credit to our STIP county share will be available for programming in the 2006 STIP. • • • AGENDA ITEM 7 • • A presentation will be made but there is no attachment to the agenda for item 7. • • • • AGENDA ITEM 8 • • • • • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: November 10, 2004 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Budget and Implementation Committee John Standiford, Director of Public Information THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: State and Federal Legislation and Transportation Measures Update BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to receive and file the update on State and Federal Legislation and the results of the transportation measures on the ballot for November 2"d as an information item. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: State Update California Performance Review Governor Schwarzenegger's California Performance Review (CPR) held its eighth and last public hearing on October 20 at the University of California, Irvine. The purpose of the Irvine hearing was to review public comment on the entire plan, and will result in a report from the Commission that provides recommendations to the Governor. In the case of transportation issues, the most promising recommendation in the report is a call for more flexible project delivery methods. This would include design -build and design -sequencing efforts that could speed the delivery of construction projects. So far the Legislature and the Governor have approved a pilot program for design sequencing which is being utilized on the current construction project at the 60/91/215 interchange. The CPR also includes recommendations regarding performance and warranty specifications and construction costs that should be helpful. These recommendations will require legislative action and staff will return to the Commission when specific legislative proposals are introduced. Other beneficial areas of the CPR include support for upholding Proposition 42, a call for California to receive a greater share of federal transportation funding, support for environmental streamlining and comprehensive planning, and the • ongoing development of alternative, cleaner -burning fuels. These are all long -held positions by RCTC; however the jump between including it in the CPR and accomplishing some of the goals will be a challenge. For example, almost everyone in California agrees that the state should receive a greater "share of federal funding, but that lies in the hands of Congress which has yet to pass a long-term extension of the Federal Transportation Act. Upholding the provisions of Proposition 42 would maintain the will of the state's voters who approved the Measure in 2002; however what other choices will the state have if it is faced with yet another multi- billion dollar budget shortfall? Finally, there are a number of suggested improvements in the CPR that raise concerns and Commission staff will pay close attention to any legislative action that might take place next year. For example, one provision in the report suggests that a number of state highways could be turned over to local jurisdictions. This was based on a Caltrans report that was issued in 1995 that called for the relinquishment of 3,262 miles of state highway. The CPR suggests that this would save the state $ 108 million annually from reduced costs. During the CPR Public Hearing held in Riverside on August 13, Senator Jim Brulte (R -Rancho Cucamonga) expressed a concern that it was inappropriate for the state to claim a savings on any recommendation that merely passed on a responsibility to another level of government. He asked for a full accounting for provisions of this type and relinquishing state highways to local governments certainly fits that description. If this proposal is to be implemented, it will likely result in a contentious legislative fight which impacts areas throughout the state. Another controversial facet of the CPR is the recommendation to create an infrastructure agency that would be overseen by a commission appointed by the Governor. This would meld a number of agencies including Caltrans into a much larger structure with a vast scope of responsibilities. The intent of the proposal would be to look at the state's infrastructure needs in a comprehensive approach that would consider the state's housing, transportation and water needs. While it is certainly true that these subjects are not always coordinated, does combining the issues make it too unwieldy for a state commission to deal with all of it? Moreover, could a commission appointed entirely by the Governor be ready to consider all of the issues in an informed manner and would it be advisable to concentrate this much power with any governor? Implementation of this idea will likely require legislative and voter approval and might be years in the making. It appears as if the CPR Commission will suggest a State Department of Infrastructure but will refrain from recommending changes to the California' Transportation Commission. • • Staff's conclusion is that the California Performance Review exercise will result in a number of worthwhile improvements and changes to state government in a number of areas. However, the issuance of the report in August of this year should be considered the start of the process rather than a defining statement of what will happen. Some press accounts have suggested that a number of recommendations in the CPR are likely to be shelved or scaled back. Some of the CPR Commissioners including Assembly Patricia Bates (R -Laguna Niguel) have called for additional public comment before action is taken. Actual implementation of the recommendations in the report will depend on the subject matter. Some recommendations will require legislation or even voter approval if it involves a constitutional change while simpler recommendations can be implemented by gubernatorial action. Legislative actions and public reaction will either hasten or hinder the implementation of provision in the CPR. Staff will provide ongoing updates and requests for Commission positions as the process unwinds next year and beyond. Bay Bridge Bid Expires On another state subject that is of interest to everyone is the issue of the San Francisco -Oakland Bay Bridge seismic retrofit project. The issue was one of the most contentious items debated by the Legislature during the final hours of their session and was unresolved. It became an issue of statewide importance because a construction bid $2.5 billion more than originally anticipated would have placed statewide transportation resources in even more jeopardy than they already are. Moreover, long -held state policies of an equitable north -south split in transportation funding would be made a moot point. At first, the Governor reacted by stating that the bridge was a Bay Area problem and costs should be borne by local residents through higher tolls. Northern California legislators countered that claim by arguing that the bridge was of statewide importance and deserving of statewide funding. The state has now responded by rejecting the only bid that was submitted for the project. The next step is in the state's hands and could involve re -bidding the project or choosing a simpler design that could prove to be less costly. The problem is that a new design could delay environmental review of the project which could eat into any potential savings. Sunne McPeak, the state's Secretary of Business, Transportation, and Housing has promised a recommendation by the end of this year. Federal Update Federal Reauthorization Delayed Yet Again Congress has yet again decided to approve a short-term extension of the Federal Transportation Act. This time, the action is a six-month extension which effectively punts the bill to the next Congress. While some members have vowed to bring up the bill again before the end of this session, action is highly unlikely. Grade Crossing Funding & Priorities When action is finally taken in the future to pass a federal reauthorization bill, one item of interest to Riverside County and to all of Southern California will be the issue of goods movement. Most specifically the need for federal funding of railroad grade separations is especially acute in a number of communities within the county. Recently, a number of Congressional leaders including all of Riverside County's congressional delegation signed on to a letter to Chairman Don Young of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee urging a total of $900 million be allocated to the Alameda Corridor East project and for the funding to be split equally between Los Angeles, Orange, San Bernardino and Riverside counties. It would also recognize the Alameda Corridor East as a project of national significance and provide Riverside County with its most significant amount of federal funding for freight -related projects which could be used for grade separations. Without a reauthorization of the federal transportation bill, funding for grade separations will remain uncertain and will once again be an important Commission priority next year. During the September meeting of the Budget and Implementation Committee, a number of members sought additional information regarding the Commission's grade separation priority list. The current priority list, which is attached, was approved by the Commission in March 2001. The criteria used to develop the list was based on the following seven factors: • Existing Vehicle Delay • Future Vehicle Delay (2020) • Accident Reduction (Safety) • Distance from other grade separations • Local ranking • Emission reduction • Noise reduction (impact on nearby residential areas) • Since the list was first approved, one grade separation has been completed in Coachella at Avenue 50 and the Union Pacific Line. It is certainly advisable that the Commission continue to update its priority list and make changes when circumstances require such a re-evaluation. The 2001 effort required a significant level of data collection and work with local jurisdictions on a countywide basis. Ethanol Taxation Fix Approved There is good news, however on the issue of ethanol. Congress recently passed a corporate tax reform bill known as the American Jobs Creation Act of 2004. As is usually the case with federal legislation, various amendments for special interest groups can often overwhelm this kind of bill. As one news article stated, "...The final 633 -page product pared taxes for interests ranging from major manufacturers to native Alaskan whalers and ethanol producers. Other winners included fishing tackle box makers, NASCAR track owners, Chinese ceiling fan importers, and foreigners placing winning bets at U.S. horse and dog racing tracks..." • • Of interest to California and other states that are required to blend their gasoline with ethanol, was a provision that will no longer divert money from the Federal Highway Trust Fund to pay for ethanol production. Under the new law, ethanol production will still be subsidized but 5.2 cents per gallon in federal gas taxes will no longer be siphoned away to pay for the subsidy. What it means for California is that as much as $2.7. billion in federal transportation dollars over the next five years will continue to flow to the state. Attachment: RCTC ACE Trade Corridor Grade Crossing Separation Need List March 2001 • • RCTC ACE Trade Corridor Grade Crossing Separation Need List, March 2001 Rail Line Cross Street Jurisdiction Overall Weighted Score* Priority Group BNSF & UP (SB SUB) 3rd St Riverside 4260 1 BNSF & UP (SB SUB) Iowa Av Riverside 3880 1 UP (YUMA MAIN) Avenue 48/ Dillon Rd Indio/Coachella 3775 1 BNSF (SB SUB) McKinley St Corona 3600 1 BNSF (SB SUB) Magnolia Av Riverside County 3600 1 UP (YUMA MAIN) Avenue 50 Coachella 3500 1 (Completed 1/04) BNSF & UP (SB SUB) Chicago Av Riverside 3440 1 UP (LA SUB) Streeter Av Riverside 3000 1** BNSF & UP (SB SUB) Spruce St Riverside , 3180 1 UP (LA SUB) Magnolia Av Riverside 3100 1 UP (LA SUB) Riverside Av Riverside 3060 2 BNSF (SB SUB) Mary St Riverside „3320 2** BNSF & UP (SB SUB) Columbia Av Riverside 2940 2 BNSF & UP (RIV) Cridge St Riverside 2820 2 UP (YUMA MAIN) Avenue 52 Coachella 2750 2 BNSF (SB SUB) Auto Center Dr Corona 2738 2 UP (YUMA MAIN) Sunset Av Banning 2675 2 UP (LA SUB) Jurupa Rd Riverside County 2650 2 BNSF (SB SUB) Washington St Riverside 2520 2 BNSF & UP (SB SUB) Center St Riverside County 2500 3 UP (YUMA MAIN) Hargrave St Banning 2500 3 UP (LA SUB) Brockton Av Riverside 2480 3 BNSF & UP (SB SUB) Kansas Av Riverside 2480 3 BNSF (SB SUB) Tyler St Riverside 2460 3 BNSF (SB SUB) Adams St Riverside 2400 3 BNSF (SB SUB) Madison St Riverside 2240 3 UP (YUMA MAIN) San Timoteo Canyon Rd Calimesa 2225 3 UP (YUMA MAIN) California Av Beaumont 2200 3 BNSF (SB SUB) Smith Av Corona 2113 3 BNSF & UP (SB SUB) 7th St Riverside 2000 3 BNSF (SB SUB) Railroad St Corona 1975 3 UP (YUMA MAIN) Broadway Riverside County 1950 3 BNSF (SB SUB) Pierce St Riverside 1885 3 BNSF (SB SUB) Buchanan St Riverside 1880 3 BNSF (SB SUB) Joy St Corona 1850 3 UP (LA SUB) Palm Av Riverside 1820 3 BNSF (SB SUB) Jackson St Riverside 1755 4 UP (YUMA MAIN) 22nd St Banning 1750 4 BNSF (SB SUB) Harrison St Riverside 1740 4 BNSF (SB SUB) Jefferson St Riverside 1740 4 BNSF (SB SUB) Cota St Corona 1713 4 UP (LA SUB) Bellgrave Av Riverside County 1700 4 UP (LA SUB) Clay St Riverside County 1700 4 UP (YUMA MAIN) Pennsylvania Av Beaumont 1667 4 UP (YUMA MAIN) San Gorgonio Av Banning 1625 4 UP (YUMA MAIN) Airport Road Riverside County 1450 4 BNSF & UP (SB SUB) Main St Riverside County 1350 4 ** = Per RCTC March 2001 * Seven factors were considered in determining the overall score and resulting priority group; they were identified in consultation with technical staff of the affected jurisdictions, and approved by the Riverside County Transportation Commission. The factors include: • • Safety — Accident Score (combination of frequency & severity) 20% of total score • Delay — Daily Vehicle Delay 20% of total score • Delay — 2020 Daily Vehicle Delay 20% of total score • Emissions Reduction 10% of total score • Noise Reduction 10% of total score • Adjacent Grade Separations; and 10% of total score • Local Priority Ranking 10% of total score • O • • AGENDA ITEM 9 A presentation will be made but there is no attachment to the agenda for item 9. • • • AGENDA ITEM 10 • A presentation will be made but there is no attachment to the agenda for item 10. 0 • • Ca ltra ns Loca l As sista nce As sig nment Sheet - Oc t. 2004 We ndy Li, Offic e Chie f, (909)383-4030 Office Fax: (909)3834129 qiptl N ader Nagu ib (909)383-6212 RCTC County of Riv City of Riv Te mecu la Murrieta La ke Elsinore Corona Norco Marcella Marcy -Cagle (909)383-6463 SAN BAG County of SBD Yucaipa Rialto Lorna Lin da Redlands Grand Terrace Big Bear E vita Premdas (909)383-4939 City of SBD Fontan a Ra ncho Cu camonga Mon tclair C otton Ontario Chino Chino Hills 29. Pa lms BiRARIDGEII HBPRO RRP)G Steven Nguyen (909)383-6464 CVAG Palm Springs Palm Desert Coachella Desert Hot Springs Cathedral City La Q uinta Rancho Mirage Indian Wells RN rs Eric Tang (909)383-4578 M oreno Valley Beaumont Banning Calimesa Hemet Canyon Lake San Jacinto Perris K ayhan Amin! (909)383-4830 Victorville Hesperia Apple Valley Barstow Adelanto Highland Needles Upland Roxanna Payntar (909)383-6909 ENV Coordinator RW Coordinator Assisting SBD projects RI V Da vid Fran cesche lll (909)383-4574 CVAG ' WRC OG' Perris' Rancho Mirage' San Jacinto ' Database FTA Transfer Finals Lan a Beals (909)383-6460 LP2000 DBE Coordinator Project Status Review Debbie M orales (909)383-4941 Safe Ro ute to School Training Cooridnator OLA EA tracking Operation Expense Backup - DBE Donna Viega-Sage (909)383-6797 Gen eral I nfo Mail Filing Memo Letters WRCOG Yucca Valley Indio Blythe RTA BRtDGi P1 OG <- SBD(HBRRP) • AGENDA ITEM 11 • A presentation will be made but there is no attachment to the agenda for item 11. • • • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION DATE: November 15, 2004 TO: Technical Advisory Committee FROM: Shirley Medina, Program Manager SUBJECT: City of Riverside Request to Enhancement Activities (TEA) Funds Reprogram Transportation STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the TAC to approve: 1) Reprogramming $277,000 of Transportation Enhancement Activities (TEA) funds from the University Streetscape project to the Victoria Restoration project; 2) Deprogram the remaining $225,000 of TEA funds from the University Streetscape project to allow the city to move forward with the project using local funds resulting in cost/time savings; 3) Allow the City of Riverside to trade the $225,000 with another Commission approved federal project by January 30, 2005; and 4) Forward the above recommendations to the Commission. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The City of Riverside is requesting the reprogramming of $277,000 Transportation Enhancement Activities (TEA) funds from the University Streetscape project to the Victoria Restoration project. These two projects were approved by RCTC in 1999. The Victoria Restoration project was allocated $511,571 and is ready to be obligated. The University Streetscape project was allocated $501,571 and is scheduled for obligation in November 2005. After reviewing the University Streetscape project with Caltrans, it was determined that the project would face many obstacles (e.g. historical and right-of-way issues) resulting in a significant schedule delay and cost increase. Therefore, the city decided to commit local funding on the University Streetscape project, which will allow the city to implement the project in a much timelier and cost efficient manner. The city is requesting that $277,000 of the $501,571 approved for the University Streetscape project be reprogrammed to the Victoria Restoration project. The city will be provided the opportunity to trade the remaining $225,000 from the University Streetscape to another Commission approved federal project by January 30, 2005. If the city cannot trade the funds, then RCTC staff will reprogram the funds to other active projects. RCTC staff supports the city of Riverside's request, especially because of the urgent need to obligate our 3 -year old balance of TEA funds in the next six months or risk loss of funding under AB 1012. In addition, TEA projects that are not obligated by June 2005 will be required to be amended into the STIP. The STIP would impose additional time restrictions that currently do not exist, which will heighten the risk of losing funds when timelines are not met. Lastly, the city of Riverside's commitment to funding the University Streetscape project with local funds will provide a quicker delivery of this enhancement project.