HomeMy Public PortalAbout02 February 28, 2005 Plans and ProgramsRECORDS
•
•
•
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION
PLANS AND PROGRAMS COMM.. .
MEETING AGENDA
TIME: 12:00 P.M.
DATE: February 28, 2005
LOCATION: Board Chambers, 1st Floor
County of Riverside Administrative Center
4080 Lemon Street, Riverside
*** COMMITTEE MEMBERS ***
Michael H. Wilson/Gene Gilbert, City of Indio, Chairman
Daryl Busch/Mark Yarbrough, City of Perris, Vice Chairman
Shenna Mogeet / John Chlebnik / Jon Winningham, City of Calimesa
Mary Craton/John Zaitz, City of Canyon Lake
Jeff Miller/Karen Spiegel, City of Corona
Percy L. Byrd/Robert Bernheimer, City of Indian Wells
Frank West/Charles White, City of Moreno Valley
Frank Hall/Harvey Sullivan, City of Norco
Dick Kelly/Robert Spiegel, City of Palm Desert
Ronald Oden/Ginny Foat, City of Palm Springs
Ron Roberts/Jeff Comerchero, City of Temecula
Bob Buster, County of Riverside, District I
Roy Wilson, County of Riverside, District IV
Marion Ashley, County of Riverside, District V
*** 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.
•
•
•
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION 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, February 28, 2005
BOARD ROOM
County of Riverside Administrative Center
4080 Lemon Street, First Floor, Riverside
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act and Government Code Section
549542, if you need special assistance to participate in a Committee meeting, please
contact the Clerk of the 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. ROLL CALL
3. PUBLIC COMMENTS
4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
5. ADDITIONS/REVISIONS (The Committee may add an item to the Agenda
after making a finding that there is a need to take immediate action on the
item and that the item came to the attention of the Committee subsequent to
the posting of the agenda. An action adding an item to the agenda requires
2/3 vote of the Committee. If there are less than 2/3 of the Committee
members present, adding an item to the agenda requires a unanimous vote.
Added items will be placed for discussion at the end of the agenda.)
Plans and Programs Committee Agenda
February 28, 2005
Page 2
•
6. REQUEST TO INCREASE THE TUMF LOAN AMOUNT ON THE SR 91 /GREEN
RIVER INTERCHANGE PROJECT
Overview
This item is for the Committee to:
Pg.1
1) Approve a $551,000 increase to the TUMF Loan for the SR/91 Green
River Interchange; and
2) Forward to the Commission for final action.
7. SUNLINE TRANSIT AGENCY'S REQUEST FOR FUNDING TO CONDUCT A
COMPREHENSIVE OPERATIONAL ANALYSIS AND FY 2004/05 SRTP
AMENDMENT
Pg. 3
Overview
This item is for the Committee to:
1) Allocate up to $200,000 in Local Transportation Planning Funds (LTF)
to the SunLine Transit Agency (SunLine) to conduct a Comprehensive
Operational Analysis;
2) Amend SunLine's FY 2004/05 Short Range Transit Plan; and
3) Forward to the Commission for final action.
8. CITY OF BEAUMONT'S REQUEST TO REPROGRAM FUNDS AND FY
2004/05 SRTP AMENDMENT
Overview
This item is for the Committee to:
Pg. 5
1) Approve the City of Beaumont's request to reprogram $150,000 in
State Transit Assistance Funds for the purchase of a fixed route
vehicle;
2) Amend the City of Beaumont's FY 2004/05 Short Range Transit Plan;
and
3) Forward to the Commission for final action.
•
•
Plans and Programs Committee Agenda
February 28, 2005
Page 3
•
•
9. RIVERSIDE TRANSIT AGENCY'S REQUEST TO REPROGRAM FUNDS FOR
CONSTRUCTION OF A COMPRESSED NATIONAL GAS STATION
Overview
This item is for the Committee to:
Pg. 6
1) Approve the Riverside Transit Agency's request to reprogram
$218,484 in Federal Transit Administration's (FTA) Section 5307
funds, $134,463 in State Transit Assistance Funds (STA), $11,158 in
Local Transportation Funds (LTF) and $32,724 in miscellaneous lease
revenues for the construction of a Compressed National Gas Station;
2) Advance $97,136 of LTF funds pending receipt of FTA's Section
5307 funds;
3) Amend RTA's Short Range Transit Plan to reflect these changes; and
4) Forward to the Commission for final action.
10. APPROVAL OF EVALUATION CRITERIA FOR UPDATE OF ALAMEDA
CORRIDOR EAST (ACE) TRADE CORRIDOR RAIL CROSSING GRADE
SEPARATION PRIORITY LIST
Pg. 8
Overview
This item is for the Committee to:
1) Approve the evaluation criteria for the update of the Alameda Corridor
East (ACE) Trade Corridor Rail Crossing Grade Separation Priority List;
and
2) Forward to the Commission for final action.
11. QUARTERLY GOODS MOVEMENT UPDATE
Overview
This item is for the Committee to:
1) Receive and file the Quarterly Goods Movement Update; and
2) Forward to the Commission for final action.
Pg. 15
•
Plans and Programs Committee Agenda
February 28, 2005
Page 4
•
12. COMMUTER RAIL PROGRAM UPDATE
Overview
This item is for the Committee to:
Pg. 24
1) Receive and file the Commuter Rail Program Update as an information
item; and
2) Forward to the Commission for final action.
13. EXPANSION OF COMMUTESMART.INFO TRAFFIC MAP
Overview
This item is for the Committee to:
Pg. 43
1) Approve Agreement #05-41-541 with Iteris, Inc. of Anaheim,
California to expand the Inland Empire portion of the real time traffic
information map hosted on the regional rideshare website,
www.CommuteSmart.info, in an amount not to exceed $80,000;
2) Authorize the Chair, pursuant to Legal Counsel review, to execute the
agreement with Iteris, Inc. on behalf of the Commission; and
3) Forward to the Commission for final action.
14. 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.
15. ADJOURNMENT
The next Plans and Programs Committee meeting is scheduled to be held at
12:00 P.M., Monday, March 28, 2005, Board Chambers, 1st Floor, County
Administrative Center, 4080 Lemon Street, Riverside.
•
•
MINUTES
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION
PLANS AND PROGRAMS COMMITTEE
Monday, January 24, 2005
MINUTES
1. CALL TO ORDER
The meeting of the Plans and Programs Committee was called to order by
Chairman Frank Hall at 12:03 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
Marion Ashley
Daryl Busch
Bob Buster
Percy L. Byrd
Ginny Foat
Frank Hall
Dick Kelly
Jeff Miller
Shenna Moqeet
Ron Roberts
Frank West
Michael H. Wilson
Roy Wilson
Mary Craton
3. PUBLIC COMMENTS
There were no requests from the public to speak.
4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES — September 27, 2004
M/S/C (Byrd/West) to approve the September 27, 2004 minutes.
Abstain: Foat, Hall, Moqeet, M. Wilson, R. Wilson
Plans and Programs Committee Minutes
January 24, 2005
Page 2
5. ADDITIONS/REVISIONS
There were no additions or revisions to the agenda.
6. 2005 STATE TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (STIP) INTRA-
COUNTY FORMULA ADJUSTMENT
Shirley Medina, Program Manager, reviewed the STIP Intra-County formula
adjustment and briefed the Committee on the CTC workshop that outlined a
movement towards a two-tier STIP.
Commissioner Percy Byrd requested additional information on the population
growth that justified the change in the formula. Shirley Medina responded
that the information would be provided.
In response to Commissioner Michael Wilson's question, Eric Haley,
Executive Director, indicated that the adjustment is based on population
growth utilizing population data from the Department of Finance.
M/S/C (M. Wilson/Ashley) to:
'1) Approve the STIP Intra-County Formula adjustment per the STIP
Intra-County Memorandum of Understanding; and,
2) Forward to the Commission for final action.
7. RIVERSIDE TRANSIT AGENCY'S (RTA) REQUEST FOR LOCAL
TRANSPORTATION FUNDS (LTF) PENDING RECEIPT OF FISCAL YEAR
2004-2005 FTA SECTION 5307 FUNDS
Tanya Love, Program Manager, reviewed RTA's request for an advance of
LTF funds while awaiting receipt of federal operating funds.
M/S/C (Busch/Kelly) to:
1) Allocate $5,830,000 in Local Transportation Funds (LTF) to the
Riverside Transit Agency (RTA) pending receipt of FY 2004-05
Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Section 5307 funds; and,
2) Forward to the Commission for final action.
•
•
•
Plans and Programs Committee Minutes
January 24, 2005
Page 3
•
•
•
8. MEASURE "A" SPECIALIZED TRANSIT - TAXI DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM
Eric Haley briefed the Committee on his meeting Larry Rubio, Riverside
Transit Agency (RTA) Executive Director, regarding his concerns about the
information presented in the staff memo for this item. He clarified that
RTA's concerns do not impact the recommended action. RTA disputes the
average cost of a taxi trip to be $23.63 and RTA's cost to provide the
service to be $25.12. The RTA Board gave their staff directions to follow-up
on the planning and programming issues for the transition between the taxi
demonstration program and full integration of this program into RTA
operations.
Tanya Love updated the Committee on the taxi demonstration program
noting that regardless of the average costs reported by staff or RTA, the
program provides an annual savings of approximately $200,000 and senior
trips are no longer being cancelled due to capacity. She then reviewed the
proposed service improvements and enhancements, program funding, and
the recommendation for RTA and DPI to develop a coordination/transition
plan to include the use of taxi services in its FY 2005-06 SRTP within 45
days of Commission approval of this item.
Judylynn Gries, representing RTA, expressed that the RTA Board believes
the 45 -day requirement would not be feasible. RTA is currently working on
a transition plan for taxis and possibly other alternative vehicle scenarios to
integrate with the van service.
Commissioner Frank West reported that he had been contacted by a RTA
member who indicated the same concern about the 45 -day requirement as it
would not be an adequate amount of time to develop a transition plan. He
suggested that perhaps RTA be granted an extension to June 30, 2005.
Tanya Love noted that the draft Short Range Transit Plans (SRTPs) are due
from the transit operators in April and RTA's plan should highlight the use of
the taxi program. Staff's concern is that a transition needs to occur and
added that this has been in discussion since July 2004. Also, there is the
need to inform riders who have expressed concern about a threat of a lack of
service.
Chairman Hall asked if a draft transition plan would be sufficient for inclusion
in the draft SRTP to which Tanya Love responded affirmatively.
Plans and Programs Committee Minutes
January 24, 2005
Page 4
Cathy Bechtel, Director of Transportation Planning and Policy Development,
added that the SRTP needs to include a plan for taxi service as services are
funded based on the SRTP. The SRTPs are scheduled to be presented to the
Commission for approval at its June meeting.
Commissioner Jeff Miller recommended modifying the time period for the
draft plan to be submitted within 60 days. He also requested staff provide a
report to the Committee on the number of trips allocated by city.
In response to Commissioner Dick Kelly's question regarding implementation
of a taxi program in the Coachella Valley, Tanya Love recommended
including the program in SunLine's SRTP and offered staff assistance, if
needed.
Commissioner Mike Wilson concurred with Commissioner Miller's
recommendation to extend the time period to 60 days in order to maintain
the Commission's responsibility to the riders.
M/S/C (Busch/Miller) to:
1) Approve up to $400,000 in Western Riverside County Measure
"A" Specialized Transit funds for continuation of the taxi
demonstration program;
2) Approve Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) No. M24-010,
Amendment No. 2 to MOU No. M23-010, with the Riverside
Transit Agency (RTA) to cover the cost of the taxi services;
3) Approve Agreement No. 05-26-539, Amendment No. 2 to
Agreement No. 05-26-506, with Diversified Paratransit, Inc.
(DPI) for oversight and administration of the program;
4) Authorize the Chairman, pursuant to Legal Counsel review, to
execute the MOU and agreement on behalf of the Commission;
5) Direct staff to work with RTA and DPI to develop a draft taxi
coordination/transition plan (for submission to RCTC staff
by April 11, 2005) to be effective with the start of
FY 2005-06; and,
6) Forward to the Commission for final action.
9. COMMUTER RAIL PROGRAM UPDATE
Sheldon Peterson, Staff Analyst, updated the Committee on the Commuter
Rail Program noting reductions in ridership and highlighting that staff is
working with Metrolink to develop a specific marketing plan to attract new
riders to the IEOC and 91 lines from Riverside.
•
•
•
Plans and Programs Committee Minutes
January 24, 2005
Page 5
•
At Commissioner Jeff Miller's request, Sheldon Peterson provided an update
on the cars leased from Sound Transit that have been added to the San
Bernardino line noting that the addition has relieved capacity issues on the
IEOC line.
M/S/C (Miller/Busch) to:
1) Receive and file the Commuter Rail Program Update as an
information item; and,
2) Forward to the Commission for final action.
10. ELECTION OF OFFICERS
Chairman Frank Hall opened the nominations for the 2005 Plans and
Programs Committee Officers. Commissioner Kelly nominated Commissioner
Michael Wilson as Chairman and Commissioner Daryl Busch as Vice
Chairman of the 2005 Plans and Programs Committee.
•
M/S/C (Kelly/Ashley) to elect Commissioners Michael Wilson and Daryl
Busch as the Committee's Chairman and Vice Chairman for 2005,
respectively.
11. COMMISSIONERS / STAFF REPORT
Eric Haley briefed the Committee on the CTC workshop which outlined a
movement towards a two-tier STIP and its potential impact on Riverside
County transportation projects. At Commissioner Miller's request, he also
updated the Committee on ballot initiatives being proposed by the
engineering and construction communities to protect transportation
revenues.
12. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business for consideration by the Plans and Programs
Committee, the meeting adjourned at 12:46 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
--
Jennifer Harmon
Deputy Clerk of the Board
•
• AGENDA ITEM 6
•
•
•
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION
DATE:
February 28, 2005
TO:
Plans and Programs Committee
FROM:
Shirley Medina, Program Manager
THROUGH:
Cathy Bechtel, Director of Transportation Planning and Policy
Development
SUBJECT:
Request to Increase the TUMF Loan Amount on the SR 91/Green
River Interchange Project
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
This item is for the Committee to:
1) Approve a $551,000 increase to the TUMF Loan for the SR 91/Green
River Interchange; and
2) Forward to the Commission for final action.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
Staff is requesting a $551,000 increase to the Transportation Uniform Mitigation
Fee (TUMF) loan (from $13.4 million to $13.951 million) to replace State
Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) Regional Improvement Program (RIP)
and Interregional Improvement Program (IIP) construction capital costs on the SR
91/Green River interchange project.
At the May 7, 2004 Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) retreat,
the Commission approved the $13.4 million TUMF loan to cover delayed IIP funds.
The loan payback included the commitment of future federal Surface
Transportation Program (STP) funds for TUMF projects such as the Mid -County
Parkway Corridor or the Route 79 realignment.
The SR 91/Green River Interchange project is also funded with RIP funds that were
originally proposed for programming in fiscal year 2005/06. Due to budget
constraints, the California Transportation Commission (CTC) moved the $3.889
million of RIP funds to match up with the HP funds programmed in FY 2007/08.
Therefore, it is necessary to include the replacement of RIP funds along with the IIP
funds to keep the project on schedule for construction in FY 2005/06.
Recently Caltrans informed us that the construction support costs can remain
funded under the HP program. This lowers the IIP replacement amount to $10.062
1
million. Adding this to the RIP amount of $3.889 million, the total construction
capital that will be replaced by TUMF funds is $13.951 million. Upon approval of
this action, a STIP amendment and AB 3090 request will be presented to the CTC
in May 2005 identifying the 60/215 East Junction as the AB 3090 replacement
project in fiscal year 2007/08.
•
•
•
2
AGENDA ITEM 7
•
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
DATE:
February 28, 2005
TO:
Plans and Programs Committee
FROM:
Tanya Love, Program Manager
THROUGH:
Cathy Bechtel, Director of Transportation Planning and Policy
Development
SUBJECT:
SunLine Transit Agency's Request for Funding to Conduct a
Comprehensive Operational Analysis and FY 2004/05 SRTP
Amendment
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
This item is for the Committee to:
1) Allocate up to $200,000 in Local Transportation Planning Funds (LTF)
to the SunLine Transit Agency (SunLine) to conduct a Comprehensive
Operational Analysis;
2) Amend SunLine's FY 2004/05 Short Range Transit Plan; and
3) Forward to the Commission for final action.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
SunLine is requesting financial assistance to hire a consultant to conduct a
Comprehensive Operational Analysis (COA) of its transit services. The Coachella
Valley's population continues to increase; however, due to financial constraints,
SunLine has made minimal service changes over the past ten years. While some
service frequencies have increased, many newly developed areas have not received
adequate transit services. At the February 9, 2005 Commission meeting,
$210,480 in Local Transportation Planning Funds was identified for RCTC through
the mid -year budget adjustment process. Staff is requesting that up to $200,000
of those funds be allocated to SunLine to cover the cost of the COA.
If approved, the COA would include a demographic analysis of the service area,
growth projections, zoning and other potential service issues that have resulted due
to growth in the area. The COA would also review SunLine's operations and
recommend potential improvements which would assist management in identifying
needs, potential areas for improved cost effectiveness as well as areas in which
ridership improvements should occur.
If approved, it is anticipated that SunLine will release a Request for Proposal to hire
a consultant to conduct the operational analysis and that completion of the study
will occur no later than December 31, 2005.
3
Financial
Information
In Fiscal Year Budget:
Yes
Year:
2004/05
Amount:
$200,000
Source of Funds:
Local Transportation
Funds
Budget Ad
ustment:
No
GLA No.:
106-65-86205 — LTF
Planning Expenditures
Fiscal Procedures Approved:
VU,,,,„„jt
Date:
2/22/05
•
•
4
•
• AGENDA ITEM 8
•
•
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION
DATE:
February 28, 2005
TO:
Plans and Programs Committee
FROM:
Tanya Love, Program Manager
THROUGH:
Cathy Bechtel, Director of Transportation Planning and Policy
Development
SUBJECT:
City of Beaumont's Request to Reprogram Funds and FY 2004/05
SRTP Amendment
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
This item is for the Committee to:
1) Approve the City of Beaumont's request to reprogram $150,000 in
State Transit Assistance Funds for the purchase of a fixed route
vehicle;
2) Amend the City of Beaumont's FY 2004/05 Short Range Transit Plan;
and
3) Forward to the Commission for final action.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
In FY 2004/05, the City of Beaumont's transit system (Beaumont) was approved to
receive $200,000 in State Transit Assistance Funding (STA) to purchase two 16
passenger Dial -A -Ride (DAR) vehicles. Since that time, Beaumont implemented
new transit services resulting in an unexpected increase in passengers on Route 3
serving the Beaumont Commercial area as well as the residential areas of Beaumont
and Cherry Valley. (Route 3 ridership increased from an average of 50 to 100
passengers per day). As a result of the increased ridership, Beaumont is requesting
approval to amend its FY 2004/05 Short Range Transit Plan to purchase one DAR
vehicle at a cost of $50,000 and reprogram the balance of funds ($150,000) to
purchase a 28 passenger fixed route Compressed Natural Gas vehicle. The larger
capacity vehicle will accommodate the increased passenger demand on Route 3 but
will still be small enough to negotiate Cherry Valley's residential areas.
Financial Information
In Fiscal Year Budget:
N/A
Year:
N/A
Amount:
N/A
Source of Funds:
N/A
Budget Adjustment:
No
GLA No.:
N/A
Fiscal Procedures Approved:
\)/xz,i,t4t., 3lia,,,7
Date:
2/22/05
5
•
• AGENDA ITEM 9
•
•
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION
DATE:
February 28, 2005
TO:
Plans and Programs Committee
FROM:
Tanya Love, Program Manager
THROUGH:
Cathy Bechtel, Director of Transportation Planning and Policy
Development
SUBJECT:
Riverside Transit Agency's Request to Reprogram Funds for
Construction of a Compressed National Gas Station
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
This item is for the Committee to:
1) Approve the Riverside Transit Agency's request to reprogram
$218,484 in Federal Transit Administration's (FTA) Section 5307
funds, $134,463 in State Transit Assistance Funds (STA), $11,158 in
Local Transportation Funds (LTF) and $32,724 in miscellaneous lease
revenues for the construction of a Compressed National Gas Station;
2) Advance $97,136 of LTF funds pending receipt of FTA's Section
5307 funds;
3) Amend RTA's Short Range Transit Plan to reflect these changes; and
4) Forward to the Commission for final action.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
In October, 2003, RTA received board approval to reprogram several funding
sources in the amount of $1,534,600 to construct a Compressed Natural Gas
Fueling Station at its Third Street Facility. This request was approved by the
Commission in November, 2003. Subsequently, RTA was informed that
approximately $102,864 of those funds were not available, resulting in a revised
project fund balance of $1,431,196.
In September, 2004, RTA released an Invitation for Bid (IFB) to prospective
vendors. Through that process, construction costs were identified as $1,589,669.
Additional project costs of $238,356 were also identified for station design, heat
exchangers and the installation of a gas line resulting in a total project cost of
$1,828,025. The following provides a summary of the current costs and available
funding:
$1,828,025 Total project cost
$1,431,196 Funds previously approved
$ 396,829 Additional funds required to complete project
6
As summarized below, RTA is requesting approval to reprogram $396,829 from
various grants and lease revenues to cover the additional costs of the project:
$218,484
$134,463
$ 11,158
$ 32,724
$396,829
Federal Section 5307 Funds
State Transit Assistance Funds
Local Transportation Funds
RTA's Miscellaneous Lease Revenues
Total funds requested to be reprogrammed to complete project
Funding is available to reprogram from existing grants consisting of facility
improvements, the Bus Rapid Transit Study and RTA's lease revenues.
Included in RTA's original request of October, 2003, was $100,000 in FTA's
Section 5307 funds although only $97,136 was available to allocate. RTA recently
applied for the federal funds through its FY 2004/05 grant application but has not
yet received the funding. As a result, RTA is requesting that the Commission
advance LTF funds pending receipt of the federal funding. If approved, upon
receipt of the federal funding, RTA's annual LTF allocation will be reduced by
$97,136.
Financial Information
In Fiscal Year Budget:
N/A
Year:
N/A
Amount:
N/A
Source of Funds:
N/A
Budget Adjustment:
No
GLA No.:
N/A
Fiscal Procedures Approved:
\14„,„4„14,,
Date:
2/22/05
•
7
• AGENDA ITEM 10
•
•
•
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
DATE:
February 28, 2005
TO:
Plans and Programs Committee
FROM:
Stephanie Wiggins, Rail Department Manager
Technical Advisory Committee
THROUGH:
Hideo Sugita, Deputy Executive Director
SUBJECT:
Approval of Evaluation Criteria for Update of Alameda Corridor East
(ACE) Trade Corridor Rail Crossing Grade Separation Priority List
TAC AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
This item is for the Committee to:
1) Approve the evaluation criteria for the update of the Alameda Corridor
East (ACE) Trade Corridor Rail Crossing Grade Separation Priority List;
and
2) Forward to the Commission for final action.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
The Alameda Corridor is a 20 -mile freight line that connects the ports of Long
Beach and Los Angeles to intermodal facilities near downtown Los Angeles and
generally parallels Alameda Street along most of its route. Throughout the corridor,
the rail line is separated from surface street traffic, so the high volume of freight
trains will not delay street traffic.
After leaving the Alameda
Corridor, the majority of trains
turn east, destined to intermodal
terminals in the Inland Empire or
to other parts of the country.
This area is known as the
Alameda Corridor East (ACE)
Trade Corridor. The rail lines of
the ACE Trade Corridor pass
through the San Gabriel Valley,
Orange County, San Bernardino
County, and Riverside County.
8
At its March 2001 meeting, the Commission approved the evaluation criteria for
the Riverside County ACE Trade Corridor Rail Crossing Grade Separation Priority
List (see Attachment 1). The evaluation criteria are based on seven factors:
• Existing Vehicle Delay (1999) - weighted 20%
• Future Vehicle Delay (2020) - weighted 20%
• Accident Reduction (Safety) - weighted 20%
• Distance from other grade separations
• Local Ranking
• Emission Reduction; and
• Noise Reduction (Impact on nearby residential areas).
From the evaluation of these factors, the rail crossings are separated into five
groups to indicate their relative priority for'improvement. Those included in Groups
#1 and #2 are considered to be the high priority crossings for near -term
improvement. (See Attachment).
Purpose for 2005 Update
Since March 2001, projected freight growth and population growth have increased.
In addition, Plans and Programs Committee members have expressed a desire to
update the data used in the criteria. The weighting of safety and delay provides
consistency when comparing the grade separation needs of Riverside County with
those of the rest of the Southern California basin (see Attachment 2).
At its meeting two weeks ago, the RCTC Technical Advisory Committee (TAC)
reviewed the proposed evaluation criteria. The TAC expressed a desire for the list
to be flexible in relation to the needs of the local jurisdiction and for the evaluation
of delay criteria to include in its calculation the delay experienced at intersections
within 200-300 feet of the grade crossing or a similar methodology practiced by
federal/state agencies for certain crossings such as Van Buren and Jurupa. Staff
will report back to the TAC on the methodology for calculation of this delay. In
addition, the current and updated list allows for flexibility by including the local
jurisdiction ranking as a criteria for evaluation and providing for final consideration
at the policy level by the full Commission. The current list reflects this through the
Commission's action to upgrade the Streeter Avenue crossing at the request of the
City of Riverside. Accordingly, staff and TAC recommend that the evaluation
criteria and related weighting remain the same with adjustments for current data:
•
9
•
•
•
2001 Approved Evaluation Criteria
2005 Proposed Evaluation Criteria
Criteria
Weight
Criteria
Weight
Existing Vehicle Delay
(1999)
20%
Existing Vehicle Delay
(2004)
20%
Future Vehicle Delay (2020)
20%
Future Vehicle Delay (2030)
20%
Accident Reduction (Safety)
20%
Accident Reduction (Safety)
20%
Distance from other Grade
Separations
10%
Distance from other Grade
Separations
10%
Local Ranking
10%
Local Ranking
10%
Emission Reduction
10%
Emission Reduction
10%
Noise Reduction
10%
Noise Reduction
10%
TOTAL
100%
TOTAL
100%
Attachment: March 2001 RCTC ACE Trade Corridor Grade Crossing Priority List
4 County Integrated List Ranking by 2020
10
•
•
•
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
3880
1
1
BNSF & UP (SB SUB)
Iowa Av
Riverside
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
2
2
BNSF & UP (RIV)
Cridge St
Riverside
2820
UP (YUMA MAIN)
Avenue 52
Coachella
2750
BNSF (SB SUB)
Auto Center Dr
Corona
2738
2
2
UP (YUMA MAIN)
Sunset Av
Banning
2675
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)
Betlgrave 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
BNSF (SB SUB)
Gibson St
Riverside
1220
4
BNSF (SB SUB)
Jane St
Riverside
1200
4
UP (YUMA MAIN)
Viele Av
Beaumont
1133
4
BNSF (SB SUB)
Sheridan St
Corona
1125
4
UP (LA SUB)
Panorama Rd
Riverside
1060
4
BNSF & UP (SB SUB)
Palmyrita Av
Riverside
1020
4
UP (LA SUB)
Mountain View Av
Riverside
1000
5
UP (YUMA MAIN)
Avenue 66
Riverside County
950
5
UP (YUMA MAIN)
Avenue 54
Coachella
825
5
UP (YUMA MAIN)
Apache Trail
Riverside County
800
5
BNSF (SB SUB)
Radio Rd
Corona
563
5
** = Per RCTC March 2001
2020 Total Daily Veh Hrs of Delay w/ERF (Sorted)
RANK
Agency
Cross -Streets
4 -county tntegratea
City
list
Rail Line
Total
Daily
Delay 2020
Economic
Refinement
Factor
Adjusted
2020
Delay
1
SANBAG
State/University*
San Bernardino
Cajon
248
2.28
490
2
SANBAG
Rialto Ave.
San Bernardino
San Bernardino
293
1.65
483
3
SANBAG
Milliken Ave.
Ontario
Alhambra
315
1.40
441
4
SANBAG
Lenwood (1)*
San Bernardino Co.
Cajon
286
2.28
431
5
SANBAG
Palm Ave*
San Bernardino
Cajon
249
2.28
388
6
SANBAG
Ramona Ave.
Montclair
L.A. - Alhambra
251
1.32
331
7
SANBAG
Grove Ave.
Ontario
Los Angeles
265
1.24
329
8
RCTC
Ave 48/Dillon Rd.
Indio/Coachella
UP (YUMA MAIN)
193
1.57
303
9
RCTC
McKinley St.
Corona
BNSF (SB SUB)
190
1.56
296
10
SANBAG
Glen Helen Pkwy.
San Bernardino Co.
Cajon
126
2.28
287
11
SANBAG
Vista (1)*
San Bernardino Co.
Cajon
133
2.28
246
12
SANBAG
Laurel St.
Colton
San Bernardino
128
1.65
211
13 RCTC
California Ave.
Beaumont
UP (YUMA MAIN)
127
1.57
200
14
COP
Rose/Tustin
Placentia
San Bernardino
184
1.01
186
15
COP
Lakeview
Placentia
San Bernardino
172
1.01
174
16
SGVCOG
Ramona St.
San Gabriel
Alhambra
92
1.84
170
17
SGVCOG
Valley Blvd.
Los Angeles
Alhambra
91
1.84
167
18
OCTA
State College Blvd.
Fullerton
BNSF (SB SUB)
162
1.01
164
19
SGVCOG
Nogales Ave.
Industry
Alhambra
89
1.84
164
20
SANBAG
Monte Vista Ave.
Montclair
L.A. - Alhambra
123
1.32
162
21
RCTC
Iowa Ave.
Riverside
BNSF & UP (SB SUB)
110
1.47
161
22
SANBAG
Vineyard Ave.
Ontario
Alhambra
114
1.40
160
23
RCTC
Hargrave St.
Banning
UP (YUMA MAIN)
99
1.57
156
24
RCTC
3rd St.
Riverside
BNSF & UP (SB SUB)
106
1.47
155
25
COP
Kraemer
Placentia
San Bernardino
152
1.01
153
26
OCTA
Raymond Ave.
Fullerton
BNSF (SB SUB)
150
1.01
152
27
OCTA
Imperial Highway
Anaheim
BNSF (SB SUB)
148
1.01
150
28
RCTC
Pennsylvania Ave.
Beaumont
UP (YUMA MAIN)
92
1.57
145
29
RCTC
Chicago Ave.
Riverside
BNSF & UP (SB SUB)
97
1.47
142
30
RCTC
Magnolia Ave.
Riverside Co.
BNSF (SB SUB)
90
1.56
140
31
RCTC
Auto Center Drive
Corona
BNSF (SB SUB)
88
1.56
137
32
SANBAG
Valley Blvd.
Colton
San Bernardino
83
1.65
137
33
RCTC
Mary St.
Riverside
BNSF (SB SUB)
87
1.56
136
34
COP
Orangethorpe
Placentia
BNSF (SB SUB)
119
1.01
120
35
RCTC
Spruce St.
Riverside
BNSF & UP (SB SUB)
82
1.47
120
36
SANBAG
Campus Ave.
Ontario
L.A. - Alhambra
90
1.32
119
37
SANBAG
Ranchero Rd.
San Bernardino Co.
Cutoff
93
1.27
118
38
SGVCOG
San Gabriel Blvd.
San Gabriel
Alhambra
64
1.84
117
39
SANBAG
Olive St.
Colton
San Bernardino
70
1.65
116
-40
SGVCOG
Temple Ave.
Pomona
Alhambra
59
1.84
108
41
RCTC
Railroad St.
Corona
BNSF (SB SUB)
69
1.56
107
42
RCTC
7th St.
Riverside
BNSF & UP (SB SUB)
71
1.47
104
43
RCTC
Columbia Ave.
Riverside
BNSF & UP (SB SUB)
68
1.47
101
44
SANBAG
Milliken Ave.
Ontario
Los Angeles
80
1.24
99 -�
45
SGVCOG SGVCOG
Fairway Dr.
Industry
Los Angeles
54
1.83
99
46
SGVCOG
Sunset Ave.
Industry
Alhambra
54
1.84
99
47
RCTC
Avenue 50
Coachella
UP (YUMA MAIN)
59
1.57
93
48
RCTC
Tyler St.
Riverside
BNSF (SB SUB)
59
1.56
93
49
SGVCOG
Puente Ave.
Industry
Alhambra
50
1.84
93_
50
SGVCOG
Fairway Dr.
Industry
Alhambra
50
1.84
91
51
SGVCOG
Mission Dr.
San Gabriel
A
Alhambra
49
1.84
89
52
SGVCOG
East End Ave.
Pomona
L.A. - Alhambra
48
1.84
88
53
SANBAG
Hunts Ln.*
San Bern./Colton
Yuma
20
1.50
89
54
SANBAG
Hinkley (1)
San Bernardino Co.
Cajon
38
2.28
87
55
RCTC
Adams St.
Riverside
BNSF (SB SUB)
53
1.56
83
56
SGVCOG
Temple Ave.
Industry
Alhambra
45
1.84 - _..
_^ 83 _
57
SGVCOG
Del Mar Ave.
San Gabriel
Alhambra
-
44
1.84
81
58
GCCOG
Valley View Ave.
Santa Fe Springs
BNSF
72
1.08
78
59
RCTC
Smith Ave.
Corona
BNSF (SB SUB)
50
1.56
78
60
SANBAG
San Timoteo Rd.
Redlands
Yuma
52
1.50
78
61
RCTC
San Tim. Can. Rd
Calimesa
UP (YUMA MAIN)
49
1.57
76
62
SGVCOG
7th Ave.
Industry
Los Angeles
42
1.83
76
63
SGVCOG
Nogales Ave.
Industry
Los Angeles
42
1.83
76
64
SGVCOG
Baldwin Ave.
El Monte
Alhambra
40
1.84
-
73
65
RCTC
C
Cridge St.
Riverside
BNSF & UP (RIVE _ -
51
1.39
71
(1) ADT growth from 1999 to 2020 was estimated
Adjusted 2020 Delay per SANBAG
12
Prepared: 3/30/01
2020 Total Daily Veh Hrs of Delay wIERF (Sorted)
RANK
Agency
Cross -Streets
4 -county integrated
City
List
Rail Line
Total
Daily
Delay 2020
Economic
Refinement
Factor
Adjusted
2020
Delay
66
SGVCOG
Lemon Ave.
industry
Alhambra
37
1.84
68
67
RCTC
Kansas Ave_
Riverside
BNSF & UP (SB SUB)
44
_
1.47
65
68
RCTC
Center St.
Riverside Co.
BNSF & UP (SB SUB)
-
43
1.47
64
69
RCTC
Avenue 52
Coachella
UP (YUMA MAIN)
40
1.57
63
70
SGVCOG
Fullerton Rd.
Industry
Alhambra
34
1.84
63
71
RCTC
Magnolia Ave.
Riverside
UP (LA SUB)
55
1.14
62
72
RCTC
Cota St.
Corona
BNSF (SB SUB)
39
1.56
61
73
RCTC
Harrison St.
Riverside
BNSF (SB SUB)
_
38
1.56
59
74
RCTC
22nd St.
Banning
UP (YUMA MAIN)
36
1.57
57
75
SANBAG
San Antonio Ave.
Ontario
L.A. - Alhambra
_
43
1.32
57
76
SGVCOG
Reservoir St.
Pomona
LL.A. - Alhambra
31
1.84
57
77
SGVCOG
Ramona Blvd.
El Monte
!Alhambra
29
1.84
53
78
SANBAG
Archibald Ave.
Ontario
,Los Angeles
42
1.24
52
79
GCCOG
Rosecrans Ave.
Santa Fe Springs
BNSF
46
1.08
50
80
OCTA
Acacia Ave.
Fullerton
San Bernardino
49
1.01
50
81
COP
Richfield
Placentia
San Bernardino
48
1.01
49
82
RCTC
,Joy St.
Corona
BNSF (SB SUB)
31
1.56
49
83
RCTC
Jackson St.
Riverside
BNSF (SB SUB)
32
_
1.56
49
84
RCTC
Buchanan St.
Riverside
BNSF (SB SUB)
30
_
1.56
47
85
RCTC
Washington St.
Riverside
BNSF (SB SUB)
30
1.56
47
86
SGVCOG
Brea Canyon Rd.
Industry
Alhambra
25
1.84
47
87
RCTC
Sunset Ave.
Banning
UP (YUMA MAIN)
30
1.57
46
88
RCTC
Riverside Ave.
Riverside
UP (LA SUB)
40
1.14
46
89
SANBAG
Vine Ave.
Ontario
L.A. - Alhambra
35
1.32
46
90
SANBAG
Alessandro Rd_
Redlands
Yuma
31
1.50
46
91
COP
Placentia
Placentia
San Bernardino
44
1.01
44
92
SGVCOG
Montebello Blvd.
Montebello
Los Angeles
24
1.83
44
93
SGVCOG
San Antonio Ave.
Pomona
L.A. - Alhambra
_
24
1.84
44
94
SGVCOG
Lower Azusa Ave.
Temple City
Alhambra
24
1.84
44
95
RCTC
Madison St.
Riverside
BNSF (SB SUB)
_
28
1.56
43
96
RCTC
Pierce St.
Riverside
BNSF (SB SUB)
28
1.56
43
97
SANBAG
Bon View Ave.
Ontario
:L.A. - Alhambra
32
1.32
42
98
GCCOG
Norwalk Blvd.
Santa Fe Springs
37
1.08
40
99
RCTC
Streeter Ave.
Riverside
UP (LA SUB)
35
1.14
40
100
SANBAG
Phelan
San Bernardino Co.
Cutoff
31
1.27
40
101
SGVCOG
Fullerton Rd.
Industry
Los Angeles
y
22
1.83
40
102
SGVCOG
Hamilton Blvd.
Pomona
L.A. - Alhambra
22
1.84
40
103
SGVCOG
Park Ave.
Pomona
L.A. - Alhambra
22
1.84
40
104
SGVCOG
Boca Ave.
Los Angeles
Alhambra
21
1.84
39
105
COP
Van Buren
P
Placentia
San Bernardino
38
1.01
38
106
SGVCOG
Temple City Blvd.
El Monte
Alhambra
20
1.84
38
107
COP
Jefferson
Placentia
San Bernardino -
36
1.01
37
108
COP
Kellogg Dr.
Pacentia
San Bernardino
36
1.01
37
109
RCTC
Clay St.
Riverside Co.
UP (LA SUB)
32
1.14
37
110
COP
Melrose
P
Placentia
San Bernardino
33
1.01
33
111
SGVCOG
Brea Canyon Rd-
Industry
L
Los Angeles
18
1.83
33
112
RCTC
Sheridan St.
Corona
-BNSF (SB SUB)
21
1.56
32
113
RCTC
Airport Road
Riverside Co.
UP YUMA MAIN)
20
1.57
32
114
SANBAG
Sultana Ave.
Ontario
L
L.A. - Alhambra
24
1.32
32
115
SGVCOG
California Ave-
Industry m
Alhambra
18
1.84
32
116
RCTC
Brockton Ave.
Riverside
UP (LA SUB)_
27
1.14
31
117
GCCOG
Passons Blvd-
Pico Rivera
BNSF
28
1.08
30
118
RCTC
San Gorgonio Ave.
Banning
UP (YUMA MAIN)
19
1.57
30
119
COP
Bradford
Placentia
San Bernardino
28
1.01
28
120
SGVCOG
Pomona Blvd.
Pomona
Alhambra
15
1.84
28
121
SGVCOG
Walnut Grove Ave.
Rosemead
A
Alhambra
15
1.84
27
122
RCTC
Jurupa Rd
Riverside Co.
_
UP (LA SUB)
22
1.14
26
123
SANBAG
Beaumont Ave-
Loma Linda
Yuma
16
1.50
2
25
124
RCTC
Jane St.
Riverside
BNSF (SB SUB)
- 15
1.56
24
125
RCTC
Jefferson St.
Riverside
BNSF SB SUB
15
1.56
24
126
RCTC
Palmyrita Ave.
Riverside
BNSF & UP (SB SUB)
16
1.47
24
127
SGVCOG
Lemon Ave.
Industry
Los Angeles
13
1.83
24
128
SGVCOG
Vineland Ave.
Industry
Alhambra
13
1.84
24
129
SGVCOG
Arden Dr.
El Monte
Alhambra
13
1.84
23
130
SGVCOG
Orange Ave:
I
Industry
Alhambra
12
1.84
23�
(1) ADT growth from 1999 to 2020 was estimated
Adjusted 2020 Delay per SANBAG
13
Prepared: 3/30/01
2020 Total Daily Veh Hrs of Delay w/ERF (Sorted)
4 -County Integrated List
RANK
Agency
Cross -Streets
City
Rail Line
Total
Daily
Delay 2020
Economic
Refinement
Factor
Adjusted
2020
Delay
131
SGVCOG
Stimson Ave.
Industry
Los Angeles
12
1.83
_ 22 _
132
SGVCOG
Palomares St.
Pomona
L.A. - Alhambra
12
1.84
22
133
SGVCOG
Cogswell Rd.
El Monte
Alhambra
12
1.84
21
134
SGVCOG
Durfee Ave.
Pico Rivera
Los Angeles
11
1.83
20
135
ROTC
Broadway
Riverside Co.
UP (YUMA MAIN)
12
1.57
19
136
SANBAG
_
Vineyard Ave.
_
Ontario
L
Los Angeles
14
1.24
18
137
SGVCOG
_
Rose Hills Rd
_
Industry_
_
Los Angeles
10
1.83
18
_ µ_
138
SGVCOG
San Pablo St.
Los Angeles
Alhambra
10
1.84
18
139
SGVCOG
Encinita Ave.
Temple City
Alhambra
10
1.84
18
140
RCTC
Bellgrave Ave.
Riverside Co.
UP (LA SUB)
15
1.14
17
141
SGVCOG
Tyler st.
El Monte
Alhambra
9
_ 1.84
__ 17
142
Palm Ave.
a
Riverside _
UP (LA SUB)
14
1.14
16
143
_RCTC
RCTC
Main St.
Riverside Co.
BNSF & UP (SB SUB)
10
1.47
_ 15
144
SANBAG
Whittier Ave.
_
Loma Linda
Yuma
10
1.50
15-
145
SGVCOG
Cypress Ave.
El Monte
Alhambra a
8
1.84
15
146
SGVCOG
Turnbull Canyon
Industry
Los Angeles _
8
W 1.83
15
147
SGVCOG
S. Vail Ave.
Montebello
Los Angeles
8
1.83
15-
148
RCTC
Panorama Rd.
Riverside
U
UP (LA SUB)
12
1.14
13
149
RCTC
Avenue 66
Riverside Co
UP (YUMA MAIN)
8
1.57
12
150
SANBAG
Indian Trail (1)
San Bernardino Co.
Cajon
5
2.28
12
151
SGVCOG
Workman Mill Rd.
Industry
Los Angeles
6
1.83
11
152
RCTC
Rutile St.
Riverside Co.
UP (LA SUB)
8
1.14
10
153
RCTC
Gibson St.
Riverside
BNSF (_SB SUB)
5
1.56
8 _
154
RCTC
Apache Trail
Riverisde Co.
UP (YUMA MAIN)
5
1.57
8
155
SGVCOG
S. Greenwood Ave.
Montebello
Los Angeles
4
t83
7
156
SGVCOG
S. Maple Ave.
Montebello
Los Angeles
4
1.83
7
157
SGVCOG
Main St.
Pomona
L.A. - Alhambra
4
1.84
7
158
SGVCOG
Vineburn Ave.
Los Angeles
Alhambra
3
1.84
6
159
RCTC
Viele Ave.
Beaumont
UP (YUMA MAIN)
4
1.57
_ -5_ __
160
RCTC
Mountain View Ave.
Riverside _ _
UP_ LA SUB
5.__
_____1:14 _
5
161
RCTC
Avenue 54
Coachella
UPJYUMA MAIN)
2
1.57
3
162
RCTC
Radio Rd.
Corona
BNSF (SB SUB) _
_ 2
1.56
3
163
SGVCOG
Bixby Dr
Industry
L
Los Angeles
2
1.83
3
164
SANBAG
Johnson Rd.
S
San Bernardino Co.
Cutoff
2
1.27
2
165
SGVCOG
Mission Mill Rd.
Industry
Los Angeles
166
SANBAG
E. St.
Colton
San Bernardino
0
1.65
0
T167
SANBAG
H. St.
Colton
San Bernardino
0
1.65
0
(1) ADT growth from 1999 to 2020 was estimated
Adjusted 2020 Delay per SANBAG
14
Prepared: 3/30/01
•
• AGENDA ITEM 11
•
•
•
•
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION
DATE:
February 28, 2005
TO:
Plans and Programs Committee
FROM:
Stephanie Wiggins, Rail Department Manager
THROUGH:
Hideo Sugita, Deputy Executive Director
SUBJECT:
Quarterly Goods Movement Update
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
This item is for the Committee to:
1) Receive and file the Quarterly 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.
• SCAG & LAEDC Policy Paper
During Governor Schwarzenegger's Fall 2004 visit to Japan, he was criticized by
government and business leaders for allowing congestion at the San Pedro Bay
ports to impede flow of goods from Asia to US markets. On his return, the
Governor tasked Business, Transportation, and Housing Secretary Sunne Wright
McPeak with developing a strategy on this issue.
In late November the Secretary asked SCAG to work with the LA County Economic
Development Corporation (LAEDC), the region's transportation agencies, goods
movement system operators and other stakeholders to develop a policy paper
describing the region's needs. RCTC's Executive Director contributed to the paper
(see attached).
15
The policy paper and commitment letter outline the following principles and
strategies the region has agreed to follow:
• Environmental and community impact mitigation must be integral to the
goods movement program;
• Improvements to the goods movement system should not come at the
expense of the other transportation system investments;
• Investments in the regional goods movement system should be made to
realize regional benefits that have statewide implications;
• Funding for these investments must begin now because many key projects
will take years to deliver. Without action, congestion will worsen. And;
• Without leadership and collective action at the state and national levels, we
will not be able to realize these benefits.
In addition the SCAG policy paper, public and private transportation leaders
developed a summary "commitment" paper which summarizes the principles and
outlines deliverables. Included in the deliverables is an initial list of goods
movement projects for the region. RCTC staff recommends the Riverside County
list include Alameda Corridor East Grade Separations, improvements to the SR60 &
110, and the Van Buren Interchange Project outlined by March JPA at the
Commission meeting earlier this month.
Attachment: Southern California Goods Movement Program: A Public -Private
Partnership
SCAG: Southern California Regional Strategy for Goods
Movement
•
•
•
16
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GOODS MOVEMENT PROGRAM
A Public -Private Partnership
OUR COMMITMENT
MISSION
The mission of the undersigned Principals is to establish this public -private partnership to
evaluate and propose an efficient, secure and integrated goods movement system capable
of handling the rapidly rising tide of international trade and domestic freight with
sensitivity to the mobility needs and environmental interests of the state, region and local
communities.
GUIDING PRINCIPLES
1. A well -planned, expanded and efficient goods movement system in California
is vital to maximizing the economic benefits of projected trade growth, both
for the State's economy and the United States as a whole. At least 547,000
jobs in Southern California and $17 billion over 25 years in just state sales and
income taxes may all be foregone without sufficient capacity improvements.
2. Environmental, quality of life, and mobility issues associated with the
forecasted import/export trade growth will be a primary focus of the planning
and approval process.
3. Planning and investment as a result of the work of this partnership must begin
immediately because many key projects will take years to deliver. Without
action, congestion will worsen.
4. Goods movement investments made as a result of the work of this partnership
must not draw from other existing programs like Proposition 42. Similarly,
any new revenues that are established to further goods -movement initiatives
must not be diverted for other purposes.
5. Leadership and collective action at both the federal, state and regional levels
will enable California to capitalize on new economic opportunities and
maintain its world leadership in goods movement.
6. Public sector investment must deliver benefit to the federal, state, and regional
stakeholders, while private sector investment must deliver private sector
benefits.
Page 1 of 4
17
OBJECTIVES
1. Maintain California's preeminence as an import-export gateway.
Capturing an adequate share of the expected cargo growth will create good
jobs, many of them paying wages commensurate or greater than those in
industries losing jobs, such as manufacturing.
2. Optimize the mobility and environmental benefits.
A well -planned goods movement system can deliver significant environmental
benefits. Mobility and environmental issues such as air quality must be
managed both statewide and regionwide to ensure that full benefits that
enhance quality of life are actually achieved.
3. Accelerate planning for capacity expansion.
Projects that can begin delivering benefits in the near term must be driven to
rapid completion, while longer -term planning and projects should be
accelerated. Operating efficiency improvements should be implemented as
soon as possible to maximize use of existing infrastructure.
4. Develop effective funding mechanisms.
The federal, state, and region's goods movement community must work
together to develop and tap creative funding mechanisms that allow beneficial
infrastructure projects to proceed rapidly.
DELIVERABLES
The Principals will meet as soon as possible to discuss the following deliverables with the
goal of agreement on each in accordance with the mission, guiding principles and
objectives outlined above.
1. An Initial List of Types of Goods Movement Projects. The Principals will
work together as a system -wide team to seek agreement on a list of the types of
goods movement projects for which the public private partnership could develop a
funding plan. The list may be revisited periodically to ensure it continues to
represent the region's priorities.
2. A Financing and Funding Plan. The Principals will seek agreement to identify
potential funding mechanisms for the different types of projects. A full range of
traditional and innovative funding and finance concepts will be considered,
including, for example, market -neutral public and private fees and tax -credit
financing from the public sector and at the Federal level an increment of the
Customs Duties collected on waterborne goods.
3. An Environmental and Project Delivery Plan. The Principals should explore
and develop a strategy for implementing alternatives for accelerating project
•
Page 2 of 4
18
•
•
•
development and delivery, because faster completion of goods movement projects
will ultimately save money while improving the environment sooner.
4. A Legislative Plan. The Principals will outline a legislative plan to pursue
initiatives necessary to complete and fund the types of projects in accordance with
the developed funding plan. To the extent possible, the involved Principals will
seek to speak with one voice on goods movement issues at the local, state and
federal levels. The Principals recognize that it will be more effective if they reach
an agreement on working together toward a single legislative plan.
5. A Goods Movement Economic Development Plan. The Principals agree to
outline a range of methodologies to assure that the maximum, appropriate
economic development flows from goods movement projects.
6. A Community Stakeholder Outreach and Public Education Plan. The
Principals will outline a goods movement -related community stakeholder
outreach plan to solicit input, promote and advance the agreed upon proposals.
We agree to the mission and guiding principles of the public -private partnership and
will work together to further the partnership's objectives and deliverables.
Agreed on January 25, 2005
THE PRINCIPALS
Alameda Corridor Transportation Authority
ACE Construction Authority
Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway
Metrolink
OnTrac
Los Angeles County Metropolitan
Transportation Authority
Orange County Transportation Authority
Union Pacific Railroad
EX OFFICIO MEMBERS
USDOT/U.S. Maritime Administration
Port of Hueneme
Port of Los Angeles
Port of Long Beach
Riverside County
Transportation Commission
San Bernardino Associated
Governments
Venture County Transportation
Commission
19
Page 3 of 4
•
•
INITIAL LIST OF STAKEHOLDERS
• Academia Representatives-Metrans (USC and CalState Long Beach)
■ Air Quality Management District
• American Association of Port Authorities
• Automobile Club of Southern America
• Caltrans
■ California Marine and Intermodal Transportation System Advisory Council
(CALMITSAC)
■ Coalition for America's Gateways and Trade Corridors
• Council of Governments/Subregions
o Arroyo Verdugo
o Gateway Cities
o Las Virgenes/Malibu
o San Fernando Valley/North Los Angeles County
o San Gabriel Valley
o Southbay Cities
o Westside
■ Elected Officials/Representatives
• Federal Highway Administration/Federal Transit Administration
■ Freight Industry Representatives (trucking/railroad/airlines)
• Future Ports
• Goods Movement Committee of the Mayor's Transportation Taskforce-Los
Angeles
• Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce
■ Los Angeles County Department of Public Works
■ Los Angeles Department of Transportation
• Los Angeles Economic Development Corporation (LAEDC)
• Los Angeles -San Diego Rail Corridor Agency (LOSSAN)
• Los Angeles World Airports
• Mobility 21 Freight Subcommittee Representative(s)
■ Pacific Merchant Shipping Association
• Southern California Association of Governments
■ UC Irvine Institute of Transportation Studies, Center for Urban Infrastructure
• Waterfront Coalition
20
Page 4 of 4
Southern California Regional Strategy for Goods Movement:
A Plan for Action
Southern California's trade infrastructure is a global gateway that serves the rest
of the nation. In Fall 2004, Southern California experienced a bottleneck in freight
movement through the San Pedro Bay ports. Ships waited days to enter the ports with
goods for the holiday season bound for stores in California and beyond, and some ships
diverted to other West Coast ports.
Through a combination of short-term actions, this immediate crisis is being
relieved. First, the longshoremen's union has added 3,000 new hires to keep goods
moving from the container ships.
Second, a new program called PierPass will collect container fees to fund
extended gate hours. The addition of five new off-peak shifts will make productive use
of more hours of the day. The ports are taking other actions to increase the use of rail to
move goods, keeping trucks off the highways during peak traffic hours.
Third, $2 billion in near -term construction projects are under way, including rail -
highway grade crossing separations and truck climbing lanes, that will keep goods
moving through the region once they leave the ports. Negotiations are occurring for the
implementation of demonstration projects, such as a shuttle train that will relieve
highway congestion related to goods movement.
These short-term actions are only the beginning. We will need to be, and will
continue to be, vigilant over the next three to six years to make sure that these actions
continue to keep the goods moving. In the meantime, the Governor and the U.S.
Secretary of Transportation have the opportunity to plan for the future, when the volume
of freight transportation through Southern California will double or even triple.
Our success is contingent on our ability to address four overarching issues and
move ahead immediately:
1. We must address community concerns over air pollution, health impacts, and
other impacts of freight movement by ship, truck, and rail. To assure this, only
projects that have environmental and community clearance can be brought
forward. Acceleration of both the federal and state review processes is needed to
facilitate such an effort. Further, it is important that the United States
Environmental Protection Agency, the California Environmental Protection
Agency, and the California Air Resources Board take a leadership role in
reducing air pollution from the ports and related sources. It is also important that
international standards for ship emissions be imposed through U.S. ratification of
MARPOL Annex VI.
So. Calif. Regional Strategy for Goods Movement - February 2005
Page 1
•
21
•
2. Goods movement projects must be funded through a variety of non-traditional
means that do not compete with traditional transportation revenues. Other
potential sources of funding include user or beneficiary fees, customs fees, tax
credit instruments, private activity bonds, and federal loans and loan guarantees.
The region has already requested over $1 billion in federal funding for Projects of
National and Regional Significance through the reauthorization of TEA -21, but
this is only a small portion of the total funding needed for the regional system.
3. Projects must be facilitated through the use of innovative procurement
arrangements, such as the design -build method, that compress the project delivery
timeline. Changes to state law are needed to make this process more widely
applicable.
4. In achieving these ends, the region and state must speak with one voice to the
federal government. The Governor's leadership and his initiative to collaborate
with the White House, Secretary of Transportation, and Congress on these issues
are essential to success.
With these tools in place, Southern California can proceed to implement a variety
of short- and long-term actions that will respond to the growing demand for goods
movement while mitigating community impact.
•
By 2010, the region will need additional freight rail capacity to keep pace with
goods movement demand. New intermodal facilities will also be needed to transfer
goods between truck and rail. Dedicated truck lanes should be added to several area
freeways to increase the speed and safety of goods moving by highway. Again, these
projects must be accompanied by mitigation of local impacts — for example, through the
separation of at -grade crossings and the widespread adoption of cleaner fuels. The
attached map shows needed additions to the Southern California goods movement
system.
Important as these investments are to the region's quality of life, they have a
significant economic benefit for the region and for the state. Logistics jobs are high -
paying — more on average than construction or manufacturing. Just by investing in new
freight rail capacity and truck lanes, Southern California could add over 450,000
logistics -related jobs and produce over $17.6 billion in additional federal, state, and local
tax revenue by 2035. Thus, these investments can help balance the state budget. By
supporting and implementing these goods movement actions, we have the opportunity to
improve regional air quality and shape a more prosperous future for California.
So. Calif. Regional Strategy for Goods Movement - February 2005
Page 2
-..;; .. _, -,CASVPAPASPARWttruMMIIPAHSICASAFAA:COVISZASAVORACOMPWSVMIRSA,CSAC FMattuaAeCUSC,C,COPMAVM MOM.
Needed Additions to the Goods Movement System
Planned Improvements
Noss Freight Rai Capady
.,... x: Grade Separations
manor Potential Truck
Lane Route•
IF,, East-West come.
'Parma Twat Lam Pam.
ww:.�uu Other Highway
Improvement
Nt,:uur Intermodal Access
1 Pod
X Major Airport
j Pori of Entry
Freeway
�- Freight Rai
arm.. Alameda Corridor
Pond
ua v
' Ragerdng I.Es reele and scope may chops dapendrg on rue ma.h of the Muln Count' Goods Movement Ands* ken.
F
So. Calif. Regional Strategy for Goods Movement - February 2005
Page 3
•
•
23
AGENDA ITEM 12
•
•
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION
DATE:
February 28, 2005
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 action.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
Riverside Line
Passenger trips on Metrolink's Riverside Line for the month of January averaged
4,623 which is up 206 (5%) from the month of December. The line has averaged
an overall decrease of 22 riders from a year ago January 2004.
January on -time performance averaged 82% inbound (-5% from December) and
70% outbound (-17% from December). There were 61 delays greater than 5
minutes during the month of January, a 27 point increase from the month of
December. Union Pacific continues to be the primary cause of delays; Metrolink
staff is working directly with the railroad to try to improve performance. The
following were the primary causes:
Ca:s
�% of.
Signals/Track/MOW
31
51%
Dispatching
5
8%
Mechanical
4
6%
Other
21
35%
TOTAL
__ .. G'1
'II00%
24
Inland Empire -Orange County Line
Passenger trips on Metrolink's Inland Empire -Orange County (IEOC) Line for the
month of January averaged 3,738 an increase of 578 riders or (18%) from the
month of December. The line has averaged an increase of 1% from a year ago
January 2004. RCTC Staff is working with Metrolink to develop a specific
marketing plan to attract new riders to the IEOC and 91 Lines from Riverside.
Over the past few months, ridership has dropped and there is sufficient station and
rail car capacity to increase ridership on these lines through a directed marketing
effort.
January on -time performance averaged 91% inbound (-2% from December) and
88% outbound (-6% from December). There were 26 delays greater than five
minutes during the month of January, an increase of 9 from the previous month.
The primary causes were:
91 Line
Passenger trips on Metrolink's 91 Line for the month of January averaged 1,808,
up 157 riders or an increase of 10%, from the month of December. The line has
averaged an increase of 10% from a year ago January 2004.
January on -time performance averaged 87% inbound (-8% from December) and
94% outbound (-3% from December). There were 17 delays greater than five
minutes during the month of January, an increase of 10% from December. The
primary causes were:
rn ,1
Signals/MOW/Track
5
29%
Dispatching
4
24%
Mechanical
1
6%
Other
7
41%
TOTAL
17
0 0
to
•
•
•
25
•
•
•
Metrolink Glendale Incident 1/26/05
At approximately 6:05 AM the morning of January 261h, Metrolink Train #101
struck a Jeep Cherokee that was abandoned on the tracks 100 ft south of the
Chevy Chase street crossing in Glendale. The vehicle was stuck under the cab car
of train #100 and caused it to derail and fall off of the tracks into a parked Union
Pacific work train. The force of the collision with the UP train caused train #100 to
jack-knife and strike the side of passing train #901 causing it to derail on its side.
Emergency crews responded very quickly and put out a diesel fire and rescued
survivors. There were 11 confirmed fatalities, including the conductor of train
#910 Thomas Ormiston, and over 100 injuries to passengers on the trains.
After a quick investigation, it was determined that Juan Manuel Alvarez had put his
car on the track in a suicide attempt and then he escaped from the car before the
train collided with it. The Glendale Police department handled the criminal
investigation before the NTSB arrived. The investigation continued and the scene
was released back to Metrolink on Friday January 28th to begin clean up and
restoration of the damaged tracks. Train service was cancelled on the Ventura and
Antelope Valley lines with limited bus bridge service available from the time of the
incident until Monday, January 31St. The tracks were restored over the weekend
and regular Metrolink service resumed on Monday. Ridership decreased due to the
derailment and service disruption but has rebounded since the incident. In fact,
the first Monday that the trains ran on the Ventura Line, there were riders who
were involved in the accident returning to work via Metrolink. As follow up,
Metrolink has taken the preemptive safety action to restrict access to the middle
level seating areas on the lead passenger cars.
Metro/ink's 2004 On Board Survey
Metrolink conducted their On Board Survey of weekday riders from April to June of
2004 and the final report was just released. The overall response rate was 90%
with 13,470 surveys completed. The results indicate that 87% of riders use the
train for Work Commute trips, 12% are Non -Work trips, and 1% are Business
Appointment trips. The survey shows that 85% of riders are employed full time
and the average number of days traveled per week is 4.3 days. Systemwide the
automobile availability percentage was 79%. It was higher for the Riverside Line at
85%, the IEOC Line at 84%, and the 91 Line at 81%. In a measure of ridership
loyalty, the Riverside Line led the system with the 23% of the riders in the greater
than 6 year category, the system average was 17%. The survey showed that
Systemwide 66% of the riders use Monthly Passes, with 25% using 10 -Trip
tickets, 4% using Round Trip tickets, and 4% using One Way tickets. The income
level was categorized by the percentage of riders with annual household incomes
26
over $50,000. The Systemwide percentage was 71% over $50,000, the Riverside
Line was at 78%, the IEOC at 74%, and the 91 Line at 71%.
Attachments: Metrolink Performance Summaries (January 2005)
Metrolink Commuter Update Dated February 17, 2005
•
•
27
• • •
METROLINK PERFORMANCE SUMMARIES
January 2005
[ � METROLINK
•
•
•
40,000
38,000
36,000
34,000
32,000
30,000
IV
28,000
26,000
24,000
22,000
20,000
Aug -04
36,399
Jan -04
37,399
37,806
38,099
38,198
Fe b -04 Mar -04 Apr -04 May -04
METROLINK
37,751
37,237
Jun -04
37,086
Jul -04
9NdidayAdJ tUnadJAvg Y
37,982
Sep -04
38,636
Oct -04
38,849
Nov -04
34,745
Dec -04
37 254
Jan -05
7
100.0%
PERCENT PASSENGERS ON -TIME vs TRAINS ON -TIME *
95.0%---
90. 0%
85. 0% —
80.0%
Jan 04
Fe b
• Within 5 -Minute s Of Schedule
Includes Wee kend Se rvice
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
0Passenger OTP% DTrain OTP%
sep
Nov
Dec
Jan 05
Oct
•
•
•
•
4
•
% of Train Delays By Resp onsibility
January 2005
TRK-Contractor
1%
SIG -Contractor
6%
SCRRA
7%
Passenger
2%
Includes Weekend Service
Vandalism
UPRR 3%
15%
Mechanical
6%
Other
44%
BNSF
13% Improv (SC RRA)
o%
Law-Enf
1%
OP Agree
2%
TRK-Contractor
2%
SIG -Contractor
8%
SCRRA
12%
Includes Weekend Service
UPRR
14%
% of Train Delays By Responsibility
12 M onth Period Ending January 2005
Passenger
5%
Vandalism
4%
Other
17%
Mechanical
10 %
Law-Enf
0%
OP Agree
2%
BNSF
22%
mpr ov (SCRRA)
4%
•
•
• • •
PERFORMANCE CHARTS - BACK-UP
110111 METRO LINK
�\ii►
Jan 04
•
•
METROLINK AVERAGE WEEKD AY P ASSENGER TRIPS
THIRTEEN MONTH WINDOW - HOLIDAY ADJUSTED
•
lle
4,001
5,665
10,690
581
4,639
5,482
3,701
1,640
Feb 04
4,095
5,990
10,630
588
4,655
5,845
3,812
1,784
Mar 04
4,153
5,885
10,978
612
4,745
5,876
3,804
1,753
Apr 04
May 04
Jun 04
4,107
3,970
3,868
6,262
6,180
6,258
11,046
11,213
11,013
599
645
645
4,639
4,745
4,629
5,959
5,966
5,876
3,713
3,696
3,619
1,774
1,783
1,862
Jul 04
3,829
6,384
10,674
615
4,606
5,900
3,427
1,802
Aug 04
Sep 04
Oct 04
3,822
3,954
4,143
6,327
6,370
6,540
10,456
10,913
11,221
613
632
644
4,676
4,829
4,575
5,943
5,755
5,973
3,468
3,555
3,647
1,781
1,974
1,893
Nov 04
4,099
6,769
10,902
671
4,896
6,001
3,649
1,862
Dec 04
3,465
6,187
10,062
595
4.417
5208
in
Jan 05
3,378
5,953
11,237
605
4,623
5,912
3,738
36,399
8%
37,399
37,806
38,099
38,198
37,770'
37,237
37,086
37,982
38,636
38,849
34,745
37,254
3%
1%
1%
0%
-1%
-1 %
0%
2%
2%
2%
7%
% Change
Jan 05 vs Dec 04
-3%
-4%
12%
2%
5%
14%
18%
10%
7%
% Change
Jan 05 vs Jan 04
-16%
5%
5%
4%
0%
8%
1%
10%
2%
AVERAGE DAILY METROLINK MONTHLY PASSHOLDERS ON AMTRAK
THIRTEEN MONTH WINDOW
Jan -04 (6)
1,060
189
135
110
27
20
Feb 04
1,117
360
201
119
55
28
Mar 04
1,113
242
228
128
51
44
Apr 04
May 04 (7)
1,132
1,123
186
278
225
265
133
120
48
34
48
35
ay �tllr�tay .... ...may
1,170
1,236
1,241
216
155
415
229
6% 92 %
fay
-26%
48%
293
272
0% -29%
19 %
1,265
1,243
234
312
273
300
2% -20%
-2% 33%
0%
10 %
104
Jun 04
1,112
269
220
119
47
26
1,231
316
246
-1% 1%
-18%
90
Jul 04 (6)
1,110
247
230
128
37
26
1,238
284
256
1% -10%
4%
118
Aug 04
Sep -04 (9)
1,110
1,106
244
210
275
199
128
135
86
21
34
25
1,238
1,241
330
231
309
224
0% 16%
0% -30 %
21%
-28%
99
93
Oct -04 (10)
1,222
255
237
137
43
19
1,359
298
256
10% 29%
14%
85
Nov -04 (4)
1,246
296
270
152
27
26
1,398
323
296
3%
8%
16%
83
48
Dec -04 (5)
1,123
251
197
212
13
24
1,335
264
221
-5% -18%
-25%
85
49
Jan -05 (6)
1,115
190
199
268
22
20
1,383
212
219
4% -20 %
-1%
103
48
(.,hange
Jan 05 vs Dec 04
-1%
-24%
1%
26%
69%
-17%
4%
-20%
-1%
% Change
Jan 05 vs Jan 04
5%
1%
47%
144%
-19%
0%
18%
-2%
41 %
(1) Prior to Rail 2 Rail, Amtrak Step-Up/No Ste p -Up program wa s only good on Amtrak weekday trains,
(2) Rail 2 Rail program started September 1, 2002.
(3) Missing data has been adjuste d by using the lowest ridership count for the respective train, day of week and month.
(4) Average of first 3 wee ks of month only as black -out in place for the Thanksgiv ing week. NOTE: Started Code Share trains north of LA 11/17/04, monthly passholders included In Rail 2 R ail counts
(5) Average excluding Christmas and New Years Day holidays. NOTE In 2004 - Coaster #s higher due to derailment on 12/17
(6) Average excluding Janu ary 1 an d MLK holiday. In 2005 no Amtra k serv ice north of LA after 1/9/05 and south of LA 1/12-14. Average reflects days of serv ice.
(7) Average e xcluding May 31
(8) Average excluding July 5
(9) A verage ex cluding Labor Day
(10) Average excluding Columbus Day
•
21%
-2%
-4 %
perf summ- Rail 2 1/005
•
•
40,000
38,000
36,000
34,000
32,000
30,000
28,000
26,000 -
24,000
22,000
20,000
18,000
METROLINK AVERAGE WEEKDAY PASSENGER TRIPS - HOLIDAY ADJUSTED
INCEPTION TO DATE
16,000 X
14,000
12,000
10,000
8,000
6,000
Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov
Fy 04/05
03/04
FY 02/03
::,FY 01/02
FY 00/01
99/00
Dec
Jan
•
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
t'FY 98/99
•FY 97/98
FY 96/97
FY 95/96
XFY 94/95
FY 93/94
Jun
4
San Bernardino Line Saturday Service
Average Daily Passenger Trips
Avg Daily Riders
3500
3000-
2500-
2000-
1500-
1000-
500
Note: Sept Includes L. A. County Fa ir Riders
Jan -04
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan -05
Avg Daily Riders
3500
3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
Note: Sunday Service Began 06/25/00
San Bernardino Line Sunday Service
Average Daily Passenger Trips
Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan -05
•
•
in
3500
3000
2500-
a)
0
CC 2000 -
>,
iii
0 1500-
0
`t 1000-
500 -
Jan -04
Antelope Valley Line Saturday Service
Average Daily Passenger Trips
Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan -05
11
•
METROLINK SCHEDULE ADHERENCE SUMMARY
Percentage of Trains Arriving Within 5 Minutes of Scheduled Time
LATEST 13 MONTHS
Ve
Rciute :.
tura Q t my
o ut
Antelope Vafley
*.i. Gut ::: .
San
fn
00 .04 0.0:
•Iout,
Burbank Turns
(v ers(ide:;' .-7
rai a
autj y :
Jan 04
99%
96%
97%
95%
96 %
96%
100%
99%
98%
91%
90%
97%
Feb 04
99%
98%
97%
90%
96%
96%
98%
100%
93%
95%
91%
95%
Mar 04
100%
98%
97%
95%
97%
97%
99%
99%
95 %
89 %
95 %
96 %
Apr04
98%
97%
96%
96%
96%
95%
100%
99 %
89%
86%
96%
94%
May 04
99%
97%
98%
98%
99%
98 %
100%
100 %
98 %
95%
96%
97 %
Jun 04
100%
98%
97%
95%
93%
93%
100%
100%
92%
91 %
95 %
94 %
Jul 04
100%
98%
96%
92%
90%
89%
100%
100%
96 %
95 %
94%
97%
Wg 04
99%
99%
98%
93%
91%
90%
97%
99%
93%
92%
91%
91%
Sep 04
99%
98%
98%
95%
94%
91%
98%
100%
86%
89%
89%
91%
Oct 04
99%
98%
95%
93%
94%
89%
98%
98%
85%
82%
91%
94%
Nov 04
96%
97%
94%
96%
96%
95%
98%
98%
89%
83%
90 %
91%
Dec 04
99%
96%
94%
93%
95%
97%
99%
99%
87%
87 %
92%
96%
Jan 05 _
88%
81%
87%
77%
98%
94%
97%
98%
82%
70%
85 %
87 %
Pe ak Period Trains Arriv ing Within 5 Minutes of Scheduled Time
Jan 05 VEN ROEIte::z. Au Route SNB Rrtttt BU Tu rns i l}l:.Route
Pe ak Period
Trains 79% 71% 90% 67%1 98% 90% I 96% 99%1 80% 70%I
91%
98%
90 % 91%
93% 86%
88% 86 %
92 % 86%
95 % 93%
97 % 94 %
90 % 86%
95% 89%
91% 87 %
90% 93 %
92 % 91 %
93% 94%
91% 88%
93 % 91%
97% 95 %
89% 90%
96% 98 %
97% 99 %
94% 91%
92 % 94%
93% 89 %
90% 94 %
94% 92%
95% 97%
87 % 94%
96% 95 %
95 % 94 %
98% 97%
96% 95 %
94% 93%
94 % 93%
94% 93%
93 % 92%
94% 94%
94 %
95%
90 % 87%
96%
95%
96%
95%
97 %
96%
94%
94 %
93%
93 %
94%
95 %
89 %
OC PPJA . .>
(tll l MplOG
Oute
9f LA
TaleibitPITtitClUtbdTCit;Syst.
89% 82%
86%
86% 84 %
88%
86 %
91 %
88%
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
January 2005
PRIMARY CAUSE OF TRAIN DELAYS GREATER THAN 5 MINUTES
CAUSE:
VEN
AVL
SNB
BUR
RIV
OC
INL/OC
91 -LA
TOTAL
% of TOT
Signals/Detectors
2
6
2
0
11
0
3
3
27
8%
Slow Orders/MOW
8
6
1
1
19
3
0
2
40
12 %
Track/Switch
0
0
2
0
1
0
2
0
5
2%
Dispatching
7
9
1
0
5
14
7
4
47
14%
Mechanical
3
0
6
0
4
4
3
1
21
6%
Freight Train
0
1
0
0
1
2
1
0
5
2%
Amtrak Train
1
3
0
0
0
2
2
0
8
2%
Metrolink Meet/Turn
1
8
4
0
0
0
0
0
13
4%
V andalism
0
1
9
0
0
0
0
0
10
3%
Passenger(s)
1
1
0
0
0
2
1
1
6
2%
SCRRA Hold Policy
2
2
0
0
4
4
0
1
13
4%
Other
28
46
7
4
16
23
7
5
136
41%
TOTAL
53
83
32
5
61
54
26
17
331
100%
Saturda
SNB
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
3
Saturday
AVL
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
2
Sat urday
OC
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
Sunda
SNB
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
4
•AUS
•
•
FREQUENCY OF TR AIN DELAYS BY DUR ATION
January 2005
MINUTES LATE:
VEN
AVL
SNB
BUR
RIV
OC
IE/OC
RIV/FUL
TOTAL
% of T OT
NO DELAY
260
300
640
183
168
274
192
160
2177
75.3%
1 MIN - 5 MIN
32
81
122
20
21
62
32
12
382
13.2%
6MIN -10 MIN
17
28
9
2
15
16
10
2
99
3.4%
11 MIN - 20 MIN
21
33
12
3
33
23
14
8
147
5.1%
21 MIN -30 MIN
8
14
5
0
6
2
0
3
38
1 .3 %
GREATER THAN 30 MIN
7
8
6
0
7
13
2
4
47
1 .6 %
ANNULLED
51
37
0
44
0
3
2
0
137
4 .7%
TOTA L TRAINS OPTD
345
464
794
208
250
390
250
189
2890
100%
TRAINS DELAYED >0 min
85
164
154
25
82
116
58
29
713
24 .7%
TRAINS DELAYED > 5 mir
53
83
32
5
61
54
26
17
331
11.5%
14
nenc FR Fn
•
•
M
ETROLINK COMMUTER
February 17, 2005
Dear Metrolink Passenger,
The events of Wednesday, January 26 in which two Metrolink trains were derailed
by the actions of a suicidal individual have left all of us grieving and sorrowful. The
loss of eleven members of the Metrolink rider family has affected us deeply and
we extend our heartfelt condolences to their families and friends. We also extend
our sincere wishes for a speedy and complete recovery to those who were injured
that morning.
Last month's devastation was the result of an improbable sequence of events that
occurred within seconds in the same location. We have not been able to identify
another incident involving two passenger trains that is comparable. An individual
attempting to commit suicide by placing their vehicle on the tracks is rare.
We would like to thank all of our passengers who are demonstrating their
confidence in our safety record by riding our trains. Metrolink locomotives and
passenger cars are built to the highest standards. Your safety is our number one
priority. Metrolink will be working with local, state and federal agencies to identify
any changes that would further ensure your safety. But until more facts are known
on this incident and more research is completed, we are making one change as a
precautionary measure:
Passengers will be prohibited from sitting in any seats in the front
mezzanine (middle) level of all lead passenger cars until further
notice. Crews will be placing a red strap restricting access to those
seats on all trains beginning immediately.
Metrolink is committed to providing our passengers the safest possible trip
onboard our trains. We believe that this is a prudent change to make in light of the
recent events.
•
AGENDA ITEM 13
•
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
DATE:
February 28, 2005
TO:
Plans and Programs Committee
FROM:
Robert Yates, Program Manager
THROUGH:
Marilyn Williams, Director of Regional Programs and Public Affairs
SUBJECT:
Expansion Of CommuteSmart.info Traffic map
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
This item is for the Committee to:
1) Approve Agreement #05-41-541 with Iteris, Inc. of Anaheim,
California to expand the Inland Empire portion of the real time traffic
information map hosted on the regional rideshare website,
www.CommuteSmart.info, in an amount not to exceed $80,000;
2) Authorize the Chair, pursuant to Legal Counsel review, to execute the
agreement with Iteris, Inc. on behalf of the Commission; and
3) Forward to the Commission for final action.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
On January 24, 2005, www.CommuteSmart.info was unveiled to the public as the
regions' one stop shopping center on the internet for regional rideshare and
commute information. Working in partnership with its sister agencies in Los
Angeles, Orange, San Bernardino and Ventura counties, the Commission contracted
for the design and maintenance of the website and is currently hosting it on behalf
of the 5 county partnership.
By leveraging the use of existing services and products, the Commission was able
to place many different rideshare and commute information services on the website
for a relatively low start-up cost. One of these services was the incorporation of a
real time traffic information map. This map was originally developed by the Los
Angeles County Department of Public Works (LACoDPW) for a project located in
the City of El Segundo. The map was provided to the Commission for
incorporation into the CommuteSmart website at no charge by the LACoDPW. The
map is interactive for the user and, utilizing data feeds from Caltrans, allows a
viewer to obtain estimated travel times as well as identify any trouble areas on the
regions' freeways and the route of their choice.
While serving a relatively large area of Southern California, the LACoDPW map was
limited to the western metropolitan area of the Inland Empire. Recognizing its
43
limitations for commuters in San Bernardino and Riverside Counties, staff attended
a meeting with the LACoDPW and their contractor, Iteris, Inc., on February 3,
2005 in order to discuss how the map and its functionality might be increased to
better serve Inland Empire constituents.
On February 9, 2005, Commuter Assistance staff demonstrated the
CommuteSmart.info website during the Commission meeting. At that time, the
Commission also noted the limited Inland Empire functionality of the map and
requested staff to address the matter.
Based on the Commission's direction, staff requested that Iteris, Inc. prepare a
proposal to expand the Inland Empire map. The proposal was delivered to staff on
February 22, 2005 and is the subject of this recommendation. The proposal
contains a scope of work and technical specification which will accomplish the
following:
1. Expand the functionality of the map into the south Riverside County areas
though the 1-15 corridor past the county line and into the San Diego
metropolitan area.
2. Expand the functionality of the map east through the SR 60 and 1-10
corridors to include.,the pass cities and the Coachella Valley.
3. Expand the functionality of the map northward from the Coachella area,
through 29 Palms, Yucca Valley to the 1-15 corridor northward to the
California/Nevada state line.
4. Include in the northern expansion, the mountain areas of Big Bear
westerly to Wrightwood.
Map functionality of the expansion areas will conform to that of the current map
when possible. In areas where no congestion and speed data sources are available
from Ca!trans, the minimum map functionality shall be CHP incident reporting and
Changeable Message Sign displays.
It should be noted that the expansion items 3 and 4 above have been requested by
the San Bernardino Associated Governments (SANBAG) which contracts with the
Commission to provide their County's commuter assistance program. The costs
associated with that work will be reimbursed by SANBAG and represent
approximately 30% of the total proposed cost from Iteris for the work.
At the time of preparing this agenda item, staff is in the process of finalizing the
scope of work and costs with Iteris, Inc. for Agreement #05-41-541. Staff will
report to the Committee any changes that may be necessary as a result of on -going
negotiations. The standard Commission consultant services agreement will be used
pursuant to Legal Counsel review.
•
44
•
•
•
Financial Information
In Fiscal Year Budget:
N
Year:
FY 04/05
Amount:
$75,000
Source of Funds:
Commuter Assistance Measure "A"
Budget Adjustment:
Y
GLA No.:
226 41 65520 P2107
Commuter Assistance Measure "A"
Fiscal Procedures Approved:
\i auvna'
Date:
2/22/05
Attachment: Iteris Inc. proposal
45
ITERfS.
•
February 22, 2005
Robert Yates
Riverside County Transportation Commission
4080 Lemon Street, 3rd Floor
Riverside, CA 92502-2208
Subject: CommuteSmart.info Traffic Map Enhancements Proposal
Dear Mr. Yates,
Iteris, Inc. is pleased to submit this proposal to deliver enhancements to the traffic maps included
on the www.commutesmartinfo website. Through the delivery of these traffic maps, the county
transportation commissions are able to empower their constituents with information to make
their daily commutes more predictable. The improvements that are proposed in this proposal
will further enhance these services.
•
•
This proposal is structured with a baseline enhancement program and two optional tasks. If there
are any questions regarding the content of this proposal, don't hesitate to contact me for
clarifications. I can be reached at (714) 780-7267 or via email at mnn@iteris.com.
Once again I want to thank you for this opportunity to enhance the service that thousands of
Southern California commuters have come to enjoy.
Sincerely,
Mark Nuaimi
Senior Program Manager
Iteris, Inc.
46
COMMUTESMART.INFO PROPOSAL
BACKGROUND
A number of the local county transportation agencies have created a single clearinghouse of
information to assist the local commuters in the Southern California area. Marketed under the
Internet site of www.commutesmart.info, agencies like Los Angeles County Metropolitan
Transportation Authority (Metro), Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC), San
Bernardino Associated Governments (SANBAG), Orange County Transportation Authority
(OCTA), and Ventura County Transportation Commission (VCTC) are providing a "one -stop"
shop for area commuters interested in rideshare, transit, and traveler information services.
OPPORTUNITY
The www.commutesmart.info website has enjoyed tremendous interest since its introduction.
There is additional interest in making enhancements to the traffic maps that are referenced as
part of this site. Iteris, Inc. operates and maintains the Internet traffic maps known as
CommunityView. These maps provide traffic information for much of the 5 county region.
There is expressed interest among the CommuteSmart.info organizations to expand the coverage
areas of the Internet traffic maps. Specifically, Riverside County Transportation Commission
(RCTC) has asked Iteris, Inc. for a fixed -price cost proposal to accomplish the following:
o Expand the traffic maps north into the high desert of San Bernardino County
providing coverage along the I-15 north to state line;
o Provide an enhanced view of the San Bernardino mountain communities;
o Expand the traffic maps east into the low desert providing coverage into the
Coachella Valley area;
o Expand the traffic maps south to the Riverside County line just south of Temecula;
o (Optional Task 1) Expand the traffic maps south into San Diego County and provide
comparable functionality to the current traffic maps;
2
47
l I' 1iRIS
COMMUTESMART.INFO PROPOSAL
•
PROPOSAL
Iteris, Inc. is proud to propose to the Riverside County Transportation Commission the following
approach to the enhancement of the www.commutesmart.info traveler information site:
❑ Task 1 -- Map Views Generation -- Iteris, Inc. will generate up to six additional
traffic map views to provide the expanded coverage into the high and low deserts and
into the Temecula area. These will include:
•
•
1. Cajon Pass to north of Victorville (20 hours)
2. Victorville to Barstow (20 hours)
3. Barstow to state line (20 hours)
4. Moreno Valley to Coachella Valley (20 hours)
5. Lake Elsinore to San Diego county line (20 hours)
6. San Bernardino County Mountain communities (40 hours)
u Task 2 — Link Association -- Given that much of this area has no traffic congestion
information currently collected by Caltrans, the information presented will likely be
limited to incident information from the California Highway Patrol and Changeable
Message Signs (where deployed) -- travel time information will not be based upon
real-time data. However, map segments need to be defined to allow for data addition
in the future when available (80 hours);
❑ Task 3 — Deployment Related Activity -- There are certain tasks associated with
integrating these enhancements to the current application. They include:
❑ Modifications to current map selector tile to incorporate new expanded views (20
hours);
❑ Integration / test / deployment (16 hours);
❑ Optional Task 1 (San Diego coverage) -- Iteris would expand coverage into the San
Diego area and develop up to 2 views of that area. To accomplish this, the following
activity would be required:
♦ Map view generation / artwork development (40 hours);
• Data collection processing -- Caltrans D11 data access & CHP data collection
modification (80 hours);
• Map link ID process to support travel time, congestion association with specific
segments, and incident association with specific segments (160 hours);
3
48
1:77Enrs.
COMMUTESMART.INFO PROPOSAL
STAFFING
Mr. Mark Nuaimi will serve as the task manager for completion of these enhancements. As such,
Mr. Nuaimi will oversee the project activities and quality control activities of the task products.
He will be assisted by Sr. Software Engineer Gary Hsu and Software Engineer Nicholas Hartman
during this development / deployment process.
COST ESTIMATE
The total costs for this effort are detailed per task and shown in the table below. The activity
required for the deployment will be complete within two months of notice to proceed.
Task
Task Mgr.
Hours
Sr.
Software
Engineer
Hours
Software
Engineer
Hours
Total
Hours Cost
1.0 Map Views Generation
4
112
24
140
$21,560
2.0 link Association
4
40
36
80
$10,880
3.0 Deployment Related Activity
2
26
8
36
$5,430
REQUIRED PROJECT SUBTOTAL
256
$37,870
Optional Task 1 (San Diego Coverage)
10
200
70
280
$11,700
TOTAL PROJECT (ALL OPTIONS)
$79,570
PAYMENT TERMS
This proposal is offered as a fixed price estimate. Payment will occur once successful
deployment of the traffic map enhancements is accomplished. An invoice and status report will
be generated to substantiate this milestone. A separate invoice will be developed at the
completion of the Optional task 1. A status report will document this milestone.
4
•
49