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.