The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My Public Portal About01 January 10, 2005 Technical Advisory• • • TIME: DATE: LOCATION: TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTE MEETING AGENDA* RECORDS 10:00 A.M. January 10, 2005 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 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 Bruce Harry, City of Rancho Mirage Bill Hughes, City of Temecula George Johnson, County of Riverside Tim Jonasson, City of LaQuinta Elroy Kiepke, City of Calimesa 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 Les Nelson, PVVTA 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: January 10, 2005 LOCATION: Riverside County Transportation Commission Riverside County Regional Complex 4080 Lemon Street, Riverside, CA Conference Room A, 3rd Floor • • 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 — November 15, 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. PRESENTATION BY FHWA ON INTELLIGENCE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM (ITS) LOCAL ASSISTANCE PROCEDURES (Attachment) 6. PRESENTATION BY COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ON TRUCK ROUTE/PARKING REGULATION STUDY 7. WESTERN COUNTY TUMF UPDATE 8. FEDERAL/STATE LEGISLATIVE STATUS REPORT Technical Advisory Committee Meeting January 10, 2005 Page 2 • 9. STIP UPDATE • Prop. 42 Efforts "Running on Empty" (Attachment) • December 2003 CTC meeting 10. RTIP/FTIP UPDATE 11. JANUARY 2005 PROJECT MILESTONE REPORTS (Attachment) 12. CETAP UPDATE 13. CALTRANS LOCAL ASSISTANCE UPDATE 14. December 8, 2004 COMMISSION HIGHLIGHTS 15. OTHER BUSINESS/ANNOUNCEMENTS 16. ADJOURNMENT (The next meeting will be February 14, 2005, 2:00 P.M. in Banning.) • • MINUTES • • • TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES Monday, November 15, 2004 1. CaII 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 Riverside County Transportation Commission, 4080 Lemon Street, Riverside, California. 2. Self -Introductions Members Present: Others Present: Dave Barakian, City of Palm Springs Mike Gow, City of Hemet Mark Greenwood, City of Palm Desert Bruce Harry, City of Rancho Mirage Bill Hughes, City of Temecula Tim Jonasson, City of LaQuinta Eldon Lee, City of Coachella Wendy Li, Caltrans District 08 Amir Modarressi, City of Indio Habib Motlagh, Cities of Perris, San Jacinto, Canyon Lake Russ Napier, City of Murrieta Craig Neustaedter, City of Moreno Valley Kahono Oei, City of Banning Dan Patneaude, City of Desert Hot Springs Juan Perez, County of Riverside Amad Qattan, City of Corona Ken Seumalo, City of Lake Elsinore Tim Wassil, City of Indian Wells Shirley Gooding, RCTC Ken Lobeck, RCTC Shirley Medina, RCTC 3. Approval of Minutes No objections. Technical Advisory Committee Meeting November 15, 2004 Page 2 • 4. Public Comments There were no public comments. 5. CITY OF RIVERSIDE STIP REPROGRAMMING REQUEST Shirley Medina, RCTC, presented the City of Riverside's request to accelerate the schedule on the Van Buren widening project from Jackson Street to the Santa Ana River with local funds and apply the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) funds to the Van Buren Interchange. The Van Buren Interchange was not included in the STIP discretionary round that the TAC evaluated; however, it is a high priority regional project for the City of Riverside. M/S/C (Perez/Motlagh) approval to forward the City of Riverside's request to the RCTC Commission. 6. SR 79 — ADDITIONAL STP FUNDS Shirley Medina reminded the TAC that in January 2004 local funds were used to replace STIP funds that included the SR 79 project and that a change in the lead agency was made from Caltrans to the County of Riverside. She said that when the replacement was made, it was not known how much money could be given to the County for project development work because Caltrans had already started environmental work on SR 79. Initially it was thought that the County had about $2M of expenditures for that project but in fact the County had expended only about half a million dollars leaving $3.5M in environmental and design work that could be credited to the County's share in the 2006 STIP. Now that Caltrans has stated the final numbers, the County should receive $3.5M of Surface Transportation Program funds in exchange for the STIP money that will be reprogrammed on another project in the 2006 STIP. 7. AB 3090 REQUEST FOR SR 60 Shirley Medina said that the SR 60 HOV widening project from Valley Way to 1-15 has been in the STIP, the allocation has been requested and for over a year it has been on the pending list. The environmental document will expire in June 2005 and since the California Transportation Commission has indicated that most likely there will not be any more allocations for a number • • Technical Advisory Committee Meeting November 15, 2004 Page 3 • of months or until the end of the fiscal year, staff is looking at other options, including local funds replacing the STIP funds and the ITIP funds. $3M of Regional Improvement Program (RIP) funds and almost $10M of Interregional Improvement Program (IIP) funds would be replaced with local funds, such as TUMF funds. In exchange, staff would want a commitment from the CTC to program that money on the 60/215 East Junction Interchange. She also stated that this item will be discussed at the December 8 RCTC meeting. 8. STATE AND FEDERAL LEGISLATION AND TRANSPORTATION MEASURES UPDATE Ms. Medina summarized the November 10, 2004 RCTC Commission agenda item regarding state and federal legislation and transportation measures. She indicated that she would invite John Standiford, Director of Public Information, RCTC, to a future TAC meeting to further detail the report and provide an update. 9. 2004 RTIP/FTIP AND AMENDMENT UPDATE • • Ken Lobeck, RCTC, stated that the 2004 Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP) was approved on October 4, 2004 with several conditions. The first quarterly amendment, including 2 relating to non-STIP projects, will be submitted to SCAG. A total of 67 projects were submitted to SCAG as formal or administrative. He explained that a formal amendment requires full approval through FHWA which could take up to 4 months. New projects are formal. Administrative amendments are those projects that require minor changes and do not require formal approval outside of Caltrans Headquarters which takes about 60 days. A reconciliation of the STIP will be made for consistency with the final approved STIP. STIP funds will be designated as to which are out of the Regional Improvement Program and which are from the Interregional Improvement Program. That is expected to be submitted to SCAG by the end of November 2004. The next amendment is scheduled for January or February 2005. The 2004 RTIP is posted on the SCAG website at www.scag.ca.gov (click on the RTIP hyperlink to the project listings). Technical Advisory Committee Meeting November 15, 2004 Page 4 • Regarding the TUMF projects, WRCOG is moving forward with recommendations for funding. He recommended keeping the WRCOG agenda item as funding verification which Mr. Lobeck will require in order to put the projects into the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). 10. CALTRANS LOCAL ASSISTANCE UPDATE Wendy Li, Caltrans Local Assistance, announced that for the AB1012, the extension request is being prepared and will be in the December CTC agenda. She provided a Caltrans Local Assistance Assignment Sheet and urged TAC members to contact the appropriate Engineer listed on the document if they have any questions. 11. CITY OF RIVERSIDE REQUEST TO REPROGRAM TRANSPORTATION ENHANCEMENT ACTIVITIES (TEA) FUNDS Shirley Medina provided the City of Riverside's request to reprogram Transportation Enhancement Activities (TEA) funds as an addendum to the agenda. She recapped the City's request to reprogram funds from the University Streetscape project to the Victoria Restoration project and trade $225,000 with another Commission approved federal project or with another agency. Ms. Medina said that RCTC staff supports this request. M/S/C (Harry/Motlagh) to forward the City of Riverside's request to the Commission. 12. NOVEMBER 10, 2004 COMMISSION HIGHLIGHTS Ms. Medina indicated that the Commission accepted the project status report as a consent item. She further indicated that such a report will be presented to the Commission 2 or 3 times a year. 13. OTHER BUSINESS/ANNOUNCEMENTS Ken Lobeck pointed out that the Milestone Reports will be updated and distributed early in December 2004. Shirley Medina said that for the 2005 TAC meeting schedule, there is a conflict due the February 21 holiday and other RCTC commitments. It was suggested that the meeting be held February 14, 2005 at 2:00 in Banning. • • Technical Advisory Committee Meeting November 15, 2004 Page 5 • Habib Motlagh, Cities of Perris, San Jacinto and Canyon Lake, praised Caltrans and Wendy Li's contribution to that agency. A short discussion regarding whether or not to have a December 2004 TAC meeting resulted in a recommendation that the December 20 date be held and if there are no substantive agenda items, a notice will be sent to the TAC canceling the meeting. Shirley Medina encouraged attendance at the December 9, 2004 California Transportation Commission meeting at the Riverside County Regional Complex, 4080 Lemon Street, Riverside. She also invited TAC members to the December 8 evening reception for the CTC. 14. ADJOURNMENT • • There being no further business for consideration by the Technical Advisory Committee, the meeting was adjourned at 10:35 A.M. The next meeting is scheduled for December 20, 2004, 10:00 A.M., Banning City Hall, 99 East Ramsey Street, Banning, California. Respectfully submitted, Shirley Meldina Program Manager • • AGENDA ITEM 5 • • • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION DATE: January 10, 2005 TO: Technical Advisory Committee FROM: Marilyn Williams, Director of Regional Programs and Public Affairs SUBJECT: Caltrans ITS Local Assistance Procedures In response to Section 5206(e) of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21St Century (TEA -21), the Inland Empire region moved forward in the first half of 2003 to develop an Inland Empire Regional Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) Architecture Plan. Completed in June 2003, the work effort involved a number of stakeholders including city, county and Commission staffs. The final product and documentation was provided to each entity as a resource to local jurisdictions for their use in the development of future projects incorporating major ITS elements. It was envisioned and understood that the Inland Empire Plan would meet the federal requirements for a regional ITS plan to be in place by April 2005 given the direct participation in the Plan's development by Caltrans and Federal Highways Administration (FHWA) staff. Over the last year and a half, Caltrans and FHWA staff have been working to develop and formalize guidelines that would be used by Caltrans Local Assistance to approve projects containing ITS elements. The TAC may remember that Jesse Glazer, ITS Engineer from the FHWA Los Angeles Metro Office, spoke to the TAC in October 2003 regarding how a fairly simple "check box" process might be put in place for Caltrans to acknowledge that local projects met the federal ITS requirements and were consistent with the Inland Empire Plan. Several months ago, Commission staffs in the region became aware of the existence of "final guidelines" which had been developed and incorporated as revisions to the Caltrans Local Assistance Procedures this past summer. The Commissions individually and collectively raised a number of questions and objections to the incorporation of new ITS guidelines without seeking input or understanding their ramifications on local jurisdictions. The attached memo from Jesse Glazer/FHWA outlines a number of issues raised by the county transportation commissions and the clarifications offered by FHWA to assist local jurisdictions in processing projects through Caltrans Local Assistance. Mr. Glazer will be in attendance at the January TAC meeting to review his Technical Memo and provide TAC members an opportunity to seek further clarification and/or raise additional concerns. Attachment • Technical Memo To: Bob Huddy — SCAG Peter Liu — MTA Michele Kirkhoff — SANBAG Marilyn Williams — RCTC Steve De George — VCTC From: Jesse Glazer, ITS Engineer, FHWA Los Angeles Metro Office cc: Jim Lee, ITS Coordinator, Caltrans Division of Local Assistance Date: December 6, 2004 Subj: ITS Projects and Systems Engineering Requirements • • During our previous discussions, you have raised questions and concerns about the Systems Engineering requirements for ITS projects, which were introduced in the summer of 2004 as revisions to the Caltrans Local Assistance Procedures. This memo discusses those questions and concerns, and describes measures to clarify and streamline the process so that it will achieve the intended objectives with the minimum possible effort by all parties involved. The key question that has been raised regards the definition of "major" versus "minor" projects. Other questions related to: • Definitions of ITS versus non -ITS projects • Clarifying what is needed in the SERF and SEMP documents • Ensuring timely processing of required documents by FHWA and Caltrans. This memo responds to all of these questions. The goal of the Systems Engineering requirements and the supporting training activities is to help develop increased professional capabilities to deal with the increased technical challenges inherent in ITS projects. The purpose of this memo and related discussions is to develop these new ITS professional capabilities in the most cost-effective manner — recognizing the many competing priorities at this time. 1 A. Background What is an "ITS Project?" Although ITS projects come in many shapes and sizes, two elements are common: 1.) Use of "technology" (computers, communication, sensors, etc.) to improve the delivery of transportation services. 2.) Exchange of information, either within a system or between systems of different agencies, for the benefit or one or more parties. This definition encompasses many projects that have not traditionally been considered "ITS." Many smaller ITS projects involve primarily purchase and installation of existing infrastructure elements. Other ITS projects involve integration of multiple systems, and/or the development of custom software, both of which are generally recognized as involving much higher risk. However, experience has shown that all ITS projects involve some risk, which can be reduced by using Systems Engineering techniques that are appropriately scaled to the situation. What is "ITS Project Risk?" Based upon experience to date, ITS project risk can be described in several dimensions: 1.) Schedule slippage 2.) Budget overruns 3.) Excessive change orders (which increase cost and schedule) 4.) Expected capabilities not fully achieved 5.) System not sustainable over its lifetime Experience in ITS and related fields indicates that most projects have not been fully successful, that is, they experienced one or more of the above problems to a significant extent. It is true that many of these "not fully successful" ITS projects are producing valuable benefits, but many also fall short of promised results. FHWA believes with improved use of best professional practices, future ITS projects will produce greater benefits per public dollar spent, with fewer problems. Therefore, FHWA has taken on an increased oversight role with ITS projects to encourage and guide the adoption of these best practices, with a clear focus upon improving project management capabilities of public agencies to reduce project risk. What New Professional Skills are Needed? Although they have been used extensively in other fields for many years, Systems Engineering process and tools are new to the ITS profession. Thus, the expertise of ITS project managers varies widely. Some have strong technical training and much experience with implementing complex systems. At the other end of the spectrum, some have little or no technical training and no previous experience with ITS or managing technical projects. Most ITS project managers fall toward the latter end of this spectrum. • • 2 • • • What is the "Systems Engineering Process?" The Systems Engineering Process is an organized approach to designing and implementing a system. Although there are some variations, the typical steps are summarized next. Each of these steps is performed to a greater or lesser extent, depending upon the nature and size of the project. 1. Project Management Plan — Guides the effective use of all project staff and resources. 2. Concept of Operations — Describes the problem, the general solution, and the roles and responsibilities of all parties involved in implementation and ongoing operations. 3. Requirements — Defines the specifications that the system must meet. 4. Design — Technical description of all hardware, software, interfaces, etc. 5. Implementation — Create and test all elements of the system (hardware, software, etc.). 6. Integration — Assemble all elements and test for proper connections. 7. Acceptance Test — Final tests to ensure that entire system works (per the "requirements") 8. Operations & Maintenance — Put the system into ongoing use, and keep it running B. The New Systems Engineering Requirements What is the Intent? The intent of the new regulations and procedures is to: 1.) Increase the probability of successful project implementation (reduce risk) 2.) Help achieve inter -agency coordination (when appropriate) 3.) Help ensure consistency with federal funding requirements What are the Elements? The new Systems Engineering requirements boil down to four new elements: 1.) Systems Engineering Review Form (SERF) — Completed at beginning of a project, this form summarizes activities needed to meet the Architecture Rule requirements that all ITS projects must undertake a Systems Engineering Analysis. 2.) Systems Engineering Management Plan (SEMP) — Completed in early phases of project, to serve as part of the Project Management Plan, the SEMP identifies the "best professional practices" to manage and undertake the technical tasks. 3.) Systems Engineering Process — As defined in the SEMP, this process establishes the design, implementation, and testing steps necessary to accomplish the project in a manner that is scaled to the size and risk of the project. 4.) Revisions to Local -Assistance Process — additional items on existing forms and a couple of additional steps in the procedures 3 C. Proposed Changes in Response to Questions and Concerns General Principles: There will be additional cost and time required to carry out the Systems Engineering (S.E.) requirements, and the increased cost and time will be proportional to the type and extent of S.E. activities carried out for any given project. Experience has proven that the S.E. process will reduce costs and time, by reducing the major risk factors inherent in ITS projects. Thus, the overarching question is: How and when can the S.E. process be applied so that the net benefits exceed the net costs? The FHWA Architecture and Standards Final Rule states that "The systems engineering analysis should be on a scale commensurate with the project scope." The authors of the Rule wanted to make it clear to ITS project organizations that systems engineering analysis is not one -size -fits - all. Since Systems Engineering analysis is there to address the technical challenges in building a system, it must be tailored to the specific technical challenges. The SEMP provides that tailoring. An adequate level of commitment to project management is essential for ensuring the effective delivery and operation of the transportation system envisioned in base federal statutes. Just as you need to have in place engineering plans for designing and building the transportation infrastructure, you also need engineering plans for any acquisition and deployment of technologies or systems of technologies as a part of that transportation infrastructure. Industry process standards for information technology systems point to the use of the SEMP as that engineering plan for technical control. Although, not specifically called out in federal regulation, the SEMP is considered a critical means of addressing accountability for ensuring both efficient and effective results of any systems engineering effort. Proposed Clarifications and Revisions based upon these Principles: 1.) "Major" and "minor" projects are defined in terms of combined risk and cost. Minor projects do not require SERF or SEMP approval by Caltrans or FHWA. However, the SERF still must be filled out as part of the field review package. Minor projects include: a. Legacy System Expansion — This includes expansion and/or upgrading of existing systems, which add no new capabilities or interfaces. For example, expansion of existing traffic signal systems with similar equipment and no new software. Another example would be purchase of additional buses using similar specifications as for existing vehicles. b. Commercial Off -The -Shelf ("COTS") — Example: purchasing new electronic fare boxes that do not interface with other transit ITS packages and do not require any software development. COTS software is often customized for an installation, but only by selecting modules and/or setting parameters — not by writing software. c. Application Service Provider ("ASP") — Example: contracting for off -site operations and maintenance of a pre-existing "next bus arrival" website, with no new interfaces and no software development. In essence, this involves leasing a pre-existing service rather than buying a product. • • • 4 • • • d. Projects that Produce Only Documents — This includes studies or plans, whose products are all documents. This does not include software. It should be recognized that, although there may be no "formal" S.E. requirements or oversight for such minor projects (beyond filling out the SERF), good procurement practices would still ensure that the solicitation documents contain detailed system requirements and specifications, plus a thorough Acceptance Testing Plan. These items are elements of the S.E. process, hence, this is one example of scaling down the S.E. process to fit the needs of a small project. Major projects are defined in terms of significant risks or costs. "Major" projects include: a. Multi jurisdictional or multi -modal projects — These projects require connecting systems from different agencies, which are often developed and maintained by different contractors/vendors. Examples include a traveler information system that collects data from multiple agencies or modes, or a Bus Signal Priority system that crosses multiple jurisdictions. Because of the external interfaces, these projects generally include substantial software development. b. The first stage of an "umbrella" project — A traffic -related example would be the overall Information Exchange Network (IEN) design plus the first implementation in Pasadena. A transit example would be the Universal Fare System design and initial implementation on Metro buses. During this first stage, the full S.E. process would be used to develop the overall framework plus the first implementation of that framework. Subsequent stages that replicate the initial implementation would fit the definition of a "minor" project (see above) for expansion of existing systems with similar capabilities and interfaces. These projects often require heavy software development. Based upon further discussions with ITS practitioners, we will further clarify the above definitions of major and minor ITS projects and add more examples over time. To enable the resources of FHWA/L.A. and Caltrans to focus upon projects with greatest financial exposure and to avoid project -approval delays, all projects less than $300,000 (total cost of ITS elements) will not require FHWA or Caltrans review and approval for an initial period of time. This definition does not apply to projects that are split up to fall below the cost threshold, as evidenced by the FSTIP submissions or other planning/programming/design documents. Projects that utilize this exemption are still expected to use project -management processes commensurate with the size and nature of the effort, even though there are no SEMP or SERF approvals. The determination of Major and Minor ITS projects is delegated to the local agency's project sponsor. FHWA and Caltrans will honor this determination unless there is an obvious error in the determination or if problems arise from this arrangement. 5 2.) We will make the oversight process as streamlined and as user-friendly as possible. SERF — We will clarify the instructions for this form and define what is the minimum information required to be supplied. We will develop several examples of a completed SERF. (See sample attached.) For those who need help while completing this form, we will provide prompt technical assistance, upon informal request. I will serve as the point - of -contact for these requests. SEMP and Systems Engineering Process — We will develop additional instructions, guidance and examples to assist users in determining: which SEMP elements should be completed by the public agency versus the consultant, which of the "potential" SEMP elements are needed for different types of projects, and how to adjust the S.E. process in proportion to the complexity, cost and risk involved. Much of this information will be contained in the "ITS Systems Engineering Guidebook" now being developed by a Systems Engineering consultant team under contract to Caltrans (available early 2005). We will also provide technical assistance upon informal request, as described above. Local -Assistance Forms — As experience is gained and any difficulties are identified, Caltrans will periodically revise the forms involved, or provide supplemental instructions, to make these forms easier to use. Telephone or email technical assistance will be provided by the Caltrans District Local Assistance Office, upon informal request. 3.) All procedures will be reviewed and revised periodically or as needed, with streamlining as our continuing goal. At any time, if an unforeseen procedural problem arises that creates a significant hardship for any local agency, we will promptly convene a meeting with appropriate Caltrans staff to address the issues and seek resolution. FHWA and/or Caltrans will conduct joint process reviews periodically, on a two to four year cycle, to determine if any improvements in the ITS procedures are needed. If so, the Caltrans manuals and guidelines would be revised and updated accordingly. D. Summary of Key Points 1. The goal is to increase the ITS project success rate by using best professional practices. 2. We will continue to seek the most cost-effective way to achieve this goal. 3. Minor projects include: a. Legacy system expansions (with same capabilities) b. Commercial Off The Shelf (COTS) systems (with same interfaces) c. Application Service Provider (ASP) packages (with no external interfaces) d. Studies, Analyses, or Designs (whose products are all documents) e. For an initial period of time, all projects under $300,000 of ITS costs will be deemed minor projects 4. Major projects include: a. Multi jurisdictional or multi -modal projects b. First stage of "umbrella" projects 5. All minor projects will be self -certified. • • • 6 ITS Training in Southern Calif. re�» (as of October 25, 2004) A comprehensive ITS training program is now available to you in Southern California, courtesy of Caltrans, USDOT, ITS America, and Institute of Transportation Engineers. Most of these courses will be scheduled across the region based on your needs. Courses in Group 1 and 2 are free; some courses in groups 3 and 4 are not. 1. Courses Tailored Specifically for California: A. Systems Engineering Fundamentals for ITS Dec. 15-16 in Irvine B. Understanding and Navigating Your ITS Architecture..... Dec. 2 in Thousand Oaks C. Using & Maintaining Your Regional ITS Architecture For info or to register for items A -C: http://www.its.berkelev.edu/techtransfer/train/its/index.html D. Caltrans Local Programs — New ITS Procedures Nov. 17 in San Bernardino and Nov. 18 in Los Angeles For more info or to register for class "D" call Laberta Malone at (213) 202-3950. 2. Courses Available from ITE: A. ITS Standards Overview. Dec. 8 in Pomona B. ITS Standards for Center to Center Communications Spring 2005 C. ITS Standards for Dynamic Message Signs. Spring 2005 For more info: http://www.ite.orq/standards/CourseSchedule.asp or call 202-289-0222 x131 3. Courses Available from NHI and NTI: A. ITS Awareness Seminar (NHI) B. ITS Telecommunications Overview (NHI) C. ITS Software Acquisition (NHI) D. ITS Procurement (NHI) E. Managing High -Tech. Projects in Transportation (NHI). Nov. 2 in Los Angeles To register for this class: http://www.itsa.orq and look under "-- ITS Industry News --" or click: www.itsa.org/ITSNEWS.NSF/4e0650bef6193b3e852562350056a3a7/61141 ced22f403b385256f23004d2015?OpenDocument F. Deploying Integrated ITS in Metropolitan Areas (NHI) G. Turbo Architecture Software Training (NHI) H. ITS for Transit: Applications, Costs, Benefits (NTI) 1. Complying with FTA Policy on ITS Architecture Consistency (NTI) For NHI info: http://www.nhi.fhwa.dot.qov/category.asp?category id=8 For NTI info: http://www.ntionline.com/topic.asp?TopicArea=3 4. ITS Courses Available via the Internet: A. Introduction to National ITS Architecture B. Fundamentals of ITS and Traffic Management C. ... plus many other ITS courses and an ITS Systems Certificate Program For more info: http://www.citeconsortium.orq/curriculum.html If you have any questions about any of the (in Southern Calif.) Jesse Glazer, ITS Engineer FHWA/FTA — Los Angeles (213) 202-3955 Jesse.Glazer@fhwa.dot.gov above courses, please contact: (in Northern Calif.) Frank Cechini, ITS Engineer FHWA — Sacramento (916) 498-5005 Frank.Cechini@fhwa.dot.gov Significant Changes to Procedures for Local Assistance Projects 1. Two Preliminary Engineering appro val steps 2. Systems Engineering Review Form (SERF) 3. Systems Engineering Management Plan (SEMP) Why all the emphasis on SE? Results from a Standish Group (1986) study of 8,360 IT application efforts: • Average Cost Overrun 189% • Projects that met initially stated requirements 16% • Cancelled Projects 31 % • And the remaining 53% met on av erage only abo ut 61% of the initially specified functions. In 1994 in the United States, $140 Billion was spent on failed software projects. A system designed to coordinate bus repairs can't do math, workers contend. Agency officials say 'kinks' are being worked out. By CAITLIN Lru Times Staff Writer A new .$29 -million computer software system -at the Metro- politan Transportation :Author- ity has been causing major prob- lems and delaying repairs at bus maintenance facilities by send- ing wrong orders for engine parts, according to agency au- dits and memos. Employees' complaints, in documents obtained by the Times, portray the M3 computer system as being so error -prone that it botched simple calcula- tions about how many parts were needed for bus repairs. MTA officials acknowledge that the system has had prob"- lems but said they are trying to fix them "we're now ;working out the. kinks," said Elizabeth Bennett, who oversees the MTAs informa- tion technology. The Maintenance and Ma- teriel Management . System, or M3, is intended :to 'coordinate equipment: for buses and trains, order _parts from arobotized warehouse, schedule repairs,. process some payroll and track work schedules. Parts of the system were im- • plemented at maintenance yards last year Other :compo- nents will launch in the coming months. 'When approved by the 1VTI'A board in January 2003, the sys- tem .cost about :. 24 million pi. million for the software7,s de ,eloper Oaklan1-based ,:Spear Technologies, anti' $3 nilglion m .tther expenses -`he . project's ibst has risen to $28.8 million, af- er an increase that MTA offs iols blame on `an earlier ac- )unting error. Spear Technologies officials Id not return calls seeking com- VITA Software Doesn't Compute, Audits Say merit. " Still more money will be needed to complete the project, MTA officials say. Last November, ,MTA chief fi- nancial officer .Richard Brum- baugh outraged board members when he .asked for an additional $4.5 million to complete the project, which is now nine months behind schedule. Brum- baugh has withdrawn that re- questand says he swill provide the board .with new cost esti- mates in the next few weeks. "I was really coneerned that. 'problems with M3] could fore- bode wider issues," said MTA board . member John Fasana, who has seen some: of the inter- nal reports critical of the project. A Nov. 30, 2004, memo, writ- ten by maintenance manager Mi- chael Singer to Milo, Victoria, deputy executive officer for op- erations, provided anecdotes and workers' quotes about their experiences with the computer software_ "M3 can't -do the math" la- mented an :equipment mainte- nance supervisor,. . explaining how the MTAsold computer sys- tem correctly tabulated , the number of crankshafts required to rebuild air conditioners. The new software sputtered when galled to the task "Before M3, approximately .95% of our engine -rebuild shop orders had ::all the parts we needed to build the engine. Now, after M3, :approximately 90% .of: our orders are incomplete;"said another equipment supervisor. "My leader and I spend ap- proximately three hours every day chasing parts" to rectify M3's -mistakes, said a supervisor °at the MTAs transmission shop, also quoted in the memo Brumbaugh, however, said the problemshave led to a `Sriini- nnal loss of productivity" More than a year ago, the •MTA's audit -department began warning about what it said was a `lack of quality; control over the software's development. A Nov. 15, 2004, audit memo to MTA' executives said the soft- ware's payroll program per- formed .poorly in tests. DRAFT — July 26, 2004 Example Project for Systems Engineering Process — Los Diablos Fast Bus Project BACKGROUND INFORMATION Project Objectives: Increase transit ridership by substantially reducing travel time for existing express buses on the heavily traveled Hades Street corridor in the City of Los Diablos, California (in Riverside County). Background: Local and Express SCAMP buses run every five minutes along this major arterial roadway. Studies show that these buses encounter 20 minutes of delay at the 40 traffic signals on the route. To support the Mayor's new "Go Transit" initiative, Los Diablos DOT (LoDDOT) and Southern California Associated Mobility Providers (SCAMP) aim to reduce this delay to 10 minutes or less for express buses. Preliminary Planning: During their monthly golf game, the CEO's of LoDDOT and SCAMP agreed to their first application of preferential treatment for transit vehicles. Technical staff at each agency then conducted a Feasibility Study, including research and site visits, to learn about the current technologies and alternative project designs that have been used elsewhere, plus typical costs. Description in TIP: "Preferential Treatment for SCAMP buses on Hades Street in Los Diablos, from Atlantic Road to Pacific Avenue (10 miles) — $500,000." Description in the Regional ITS Architecture: This project appears in a generic form in the Inland Empire Regional ITS Architecture — "IE-13: Transit Vehicle Signal Priority" [See page G-3] Systems Engineering Review Form (SERF): See next page. Systems Engineering Review Form (SERF) for Los Diablos Fast Bus Project 1. Identification of portions of the Regional ITS Architecture being implemented: Project IE-13: "Transit Vehicle Traffic Signal Priority (local agencies)" [see I.E. Reg. Arch., page G-3] Subsystems: roadway and transit vehicle; Arch. Flows: Local Signal Priority Request. 2. Identification of Participating Agencies roles and responsibilities: SCAMP will install/operate equipment on buses to issue requests for traffic signal priority [RA, 4-21] LoDDOT will upgrade signal controllers to receive requests and provide appropriate priority [RA, 4-21] We will define detailed roles and responsibilities in the Concept of Operations step. 3. Requirements Definitions: The high-level requirements, as defined in the Regional Architecture, are: SCAMP Transit Vehicles [RA, 5-19] • Request signal priority from equipment on the roadside, as appropriate LoDDOT Roadside Equipment [RA, 5-11] • Receive vehicle signal priority requests and send to traffic signal controllers ■ Provide signal priority at signalized intersections when activated (as appropriate) We will identify detailed requirements during the project definition phase. 4. Analysis of alternative system configurations and technology options to meet requirements: Our Feasibility Study indicated that the project budget will constrain our options to "local control" at each intersection, because SCAMP buses will not have AVL until 2010 and LoDDOT will not have a centralized traffic control system until 2009. We will analyze: (1) alternative approaches and technologies for local signal control, (2) alternative schedule -adherence policies for the SCAMP buses, and (3) options for communications between bus and traffic signals. S. Procurement options: If this requires two separate contracts, we will hire a Systems Manager to coordinate both projects and perform acceptance tests. We will also consider having one agency lead the project and hire a System Integrator for implementation, plus a System Manager for project definition and acceptance testing. We believe that all components will be "off the shelf' with no software development, so we plan to use fixed -price contract(s) for system installation, and probably T&M for the Systems Manager. 6. Identification of applicable ITS standards and testing procedures: No information yet. The System Manager will assess and recommend ITS standards during the project definition phase, and will later develop and oversee the system acceptance/validation tests. 7. Procedures and resources necessary for operations and management of the system: LoDDOT will train their equipment maintenance staff to repair the upgraded signal controllers. SCAMP will repair bad transmitters by swapping out a bad unit and sending it to the factory. In both shops, the existing staff can handle the small additional workload. LoDDOT will have final authority to decide on when and how much extra green time is allowed at each intersection. Full details regarding procedures and resources needed for O&M will be developed during the project definition. • AGENDA ITEM 6 • A presentation will be made but there is no attachment to the agenda for item 6. • Data/Truck-Related Ordinance Collection Effort January 2005 Jurisdiction Data Collection Status County Riverside Parking Ordinance, General Plan, Mira Loma Air Quality Study, Draft Parking Ordinance # 413 Cities/Areas in Riverside County Banning Not on City website, requested via phone Beaumont Not on City website, requested via email and phone Blythe No website, requested via phone; they're looking Calimesa Not on City website, requested via phone Canyon Lake Received truck route verbally, no parking restrictions Cathedral City Code: Truck Routes, Parking Restrictions, Noise Restrictions Coachella Existing/Recommended Truck Routes; no parking info Corona Truck Routes from General Plan (over 6,000 lb); Code: off-street parking by permit only Desert Hot Springs Not on City website, requested via phone Hemet Code: Truck Routes (over 14,000 lb), Parking Restrictions (location and time) Indian Wells Truck Routes map; Code: Parking Restrictions (location and duration) Indio Resolution of Truck Routes; Code: Parking Restrictions (time) La Quinta Code: Truck Routes, Parking Restrictions (park only if screened) Lake Elsinore Received Truck Route map from City March Air Force Base General Plan not online, request via phone Moreno Valley Code: Truck Routes, Parking Restrictions (locations, duration) Murrieta Ordinance: Truck Routes; Code: Parking Restrictions (location) Norco Code: Truck Routes, Resident Exemption Permits (park at home w/permit), Parking Restrictions Palm Desert Code: Truck Routes and Prohibitions (time restriction in Central City area), Draft Gen Plan Palm Springs Code: Prohibitions identified, parking restrictions; Truck Route Map Perris Existing and Proposed Truck Routes in current Generla Plan Update Rancho Mirage Truck Routes identified in Circulation Element Riverside (County Seat) Truck Prohibited Routes Only San Jacinto Truck Routes and Restrictions (time) listed in Code Temecula Code: Truck Routes, Weight Restrictions, Parking Restrictions Other WRCOG Goods Movement Study Phase 1 and 2 Reports CVAG Received Valley -wide Truck Route System Info SCAG 2004 RTP Federal Federal Motor Carrier Rules/Regulations State-Caltrans Truck Routes, STAA info, Truck Restrictions, Vehicle Code Note: Cities noted in Bold - we are still awaiting information Issues • Trucks Impacts on Roadways • Lack of Consistent Routing Treatment • Truck Parking Impacts in Neighborhoods • Suburban Growth vs. Industrial Development • Truck Parking Deficiencies for Trucking Industry • Air Quality Impacts Associated with Parking/Idling Project Goals • Review Current Rules and Regulations • Assess Truck Routing Issues • Assess Truck Parking Issues • Work with Stakeholders: - Residents - Trucking operators - Cities/County • Recommendations • Develop Toolbox of Strategies ) Outreach Effort • California Trucking Association • Trucking Owners/Operators • Affected Residents/Businesses • City/County Staff Findings To Date • Cities Treat Truck Routing Differently - designated routes - no routes - designated restrictions (location and time of day) • Truckers Prefer More Designated Routes • Truckers Follow Thomas Bro. Guide • Parking Problem is Very Complex Preliminary Recommendations/Toolbox Strategies • Cities/County Need to Respond to new CARB Idling Rules • Education and Enforcement Recommended • Develop Parking Brochure/Summarize Rules and Regulations • Consider Participation in EPA SmartWay Program by County Fleet • Implement Truck Issue Hotline • Consider Thomas Brothers Truck Route Pages • Cities/County Work Together to Coordinate Truck Routes Truck Routes and Restrictions RNuside County Truck Routes and RahkHons and Supervisory D a*dct" Truck Routes and Restrictions (Not Including State Routes) i AGENDA ITEM 7 A presentation will be made but there is no attachment to the agenda for item 7. AGENDA ITEM 8 • A presentation will be made but there is no attachment to the agenda for item 8. • • • AGENDA ITEM 9 • os tion 42 to tion Infrastructure BRIEF HISTORY OF LOST TRANSPORTATION FUNDS • Once again the State of California is facing tremendous fiscal difficulties with a projected $8-$io billion deficit in FY o5-06. The challenges associated with fixing the deficit are both near -term-- with actions needed in the current and upcoming budget years --and long-term, with ongoing structural causes that need permanent solutions. As lawmakers once again consider balancing the state budget with diversions of transportation revenues and cuts to transportation programs, the Save Proposition 42 Coalition, a public -private partnership of transportation stakeholders, has come together to inform decision makers of the critical contributions the transportation industry makes to the state's competitive advantage. Funding critical transportation infrastructure projects stimulates the economy, creates jobs, moves goods, improves air quality and enhances our quality of life for all Californians. The Save Proposition 42 Coalition — comprised of representatives from business, labor and transportation agencies —is seeking permanent protection of Proposition 42 funds. THE FACTS With Proposition 42 funds. expected to account for about 75% of funding for the State Transportation Improvement Program in future years, on -going raids will likely play an increasing role in slowing the state's recovery. BRIEF HISTORY OF LOST PROPOSITION 42 TRANSPORTATION FUNDS In 2002, California voters approved Proposition 42 by almost a 7o% margin, redirecting the state's portion sales tax on gasoline from the General Fund to transportation programs. Approximately $1.1 billion in Proposition 42 funds annually were supposed to start flowing in FY 2003-04. Out of the $2.4 billion expected from Proposition 42 for FY 2003-04 and FY 2004-05, only $295 million has flowed to transportation projects. The Governor has made it clear that due to the FY 2005-06 deficit, chan- neling Proposition 42 funds from transportation to the General Fund is once again a distinct possibility. PROPOSITION 42 SUSPENSIONS, TRANSFERS AND LOANS TO THE GENERAL FUND Year 2003-2004 2004-2005 Source: Legislative Analyst's Office Amour mount Loaned to General Fund 62 trillion billion In addition to the $2.4 billion, another $3.1 billion has been diverted from transportation to the General Fund in the same time period as shown in the table below: AVAILABLE TRANSPORTATION FUNDS V. ACTUALLY AUTHORIZED TRANSPORTATION FUNDS FY 04-05 SUM ANNUALIZED UNFUNDED NEED TOTAL TRANSPORTATION FUNDSA (PRIOR TO TRANSFERS, LOANS OR Ii1V TOTAL TRANSIORIATION FUNDSAAACTUALL'. TOTALTFANSPORTATI N-Ff � l " FY 01-o2. FY 02-03 FY 03.04 $1'1.7 $12.o $12.5 $59 $4.6 $21.3 'INCLUDES Svi BIL IN PROPOSITION 42 FUNDS ANNUALLY STARTING IN FY 03-04 •• FY 03-04 AND FY 04-05 ESTIMATED (SOURCE. CTC TRANSPORTATION REPORT DATED JULY 26, 2004) DIRE STRAITS FOR CURRENT TRANSPORTATION FUNDING FLOW $15.8 $5:5 The combination of eliminated Proposition 42 funds and slower than expected federal transportation funds coming to California has resulted in such a severe cash flow crunch that no new project allocations have been approved since December 2002. Only priority emergency and rehabilitation programs have been funded. With barely enough cash to sustain $500 million in projects through December 2004, the California Transportation Commission expects to continue its moratorium on new project allocations from the State Transportation Improvement Program and the Traffic Congestion Relief Program. Additionally, the Commission will not be able to issue any new GARVEE bonds, which have proved to be an innovative way to advance funding. Transportation funding has been cut to the quick. Now, even the quick may have to be cut. Without an infusion, the Commission may be forced to stop state highway rehabilitation project allocations. With more than 5o% of California roads already in fair or poor condition, more deferrals of Proposition 42 funds for General Fund purposes continue to put Californians --especially emergency personnel --in harm's way as they attempt to navigate through a congested and deteriorating road system. PROMISED RELIEF IN PRECARIOUS POSITION Even though some funds earmarked for transportation could flow as a result of the Governor's negotiated gaming compact, federal ethanol funds returning to California and the passage of a federal transportation reauthorization bill expected next year, all of these sources are now expected to provide less funding than anticipated during enactment of the FY 04-05 budget. Specifically, the $1.2 billion from tribal gaming bonds is now estimated to generate only $850 million. The ethanol fix, which will return $3oo million to California annually through 2010 won't begin to flow for two more years. Finally, the much anticipated increase in federal transportation funding remains on hold pending approval of a new federal transportation program to replace the Transportation Equity Act for the 2ist Century (TEA 21), which expired more than a year ago. As a consequence, the transportation funding hole continues to deepen. Indian gaming compacts are now expected to generate only $85o million — a loss of 3o% of expected transportation revenues. • • THE CONSEQUENCES Failure to increase investment in transportation will further delay the state's economic recovery, reduce employment growth, and limit access to employment, education, recreation, and social services. Consider the following: The so-called Golden State's chronic underinvestment in infrastructure is documented in the table below. California currently ranks 47th of 5o states in both per -capita and income -based spending on highways. In fact, our poor investment in highways today indicates we are essentially no better off than we were in 1998. Worse yet, of all major categories of infrastructure in California, transportation ranks lowest on average. This neglect only detracts from our competitiveness, which is particularly troubling at a time when the Governor is traveling abroad to attract foreign investment to our state. 42,000 jobs could have been created if Proposition 42 funds had not been raided over the past two years. California's Public Investment Priorities in a National Context California's 5o State Ranking Basis '" Personal Income Basis Highways Higher Education Public Schools Solid -•Waste Management Correction Sewage overall nfF s The Saer Group Source: US Census for population data; US Bureau of Economic Analysis for investment data EMPLOYMENT GROWTH AND WORLD TRADE IMPERILED 48th 41st ----- According to the California Business Roundtable, every $1 billion of investment in transportation in California creates approximately 20,o00 jobs. Many of these jobs are high -paying, especially in the growing logistics industry which offers better salaries than the shrinking manufacturing industry. Diversion of $2.1 billion in Proposition 42 funds caused the state to forego approximately 42,000 jobs that would have contributed tax revenue to the State's General Fund. Given the total $S.5 billion in diverted transportation funds to date, the state has lost the opportunity to create approximately 110,000 new jobs. Investing in transportation helps move goods more efficiently. California is the world's sixth largest economy which is largely due to our international trade activity. In fact, the value of international goods coming through our air and water ports is estimated to be $350 billion this year — an increase of 17% over last year. To maintain this competitive position, we must invest in infrastructure to avoid losing jobs and increasing congestion. The following alarming statistic underscores this point: starting in 2006, 28,000 good paying trade jobs will be at risk annually as a result of gridlock caused by Los Angeles area trade activity, centered at ports and on rail corridors. BUDGET CUTS WORSEN AIR QUALITY AND RISK HUMAN HEALTH Transportation funding and air quality conformity go hand -in -hand, especially in large metropolitan areas including the Bay Area, Sacramento and Southern California. While air pollution has noticeably improved in the last zo years, these regions are still classified as a "non -attainment" areas, meaning that levels of certain air pollutants still exceed federal standards. The Journal of the American Medical Association recently published a landmark new study linking exposure to ozone (a precursor to smog) to a significant increase in premature death in cities across the nation. The study found that increasing levels of this air pollutant could be linked to thousands of premature deaths annually. More than 5o% of California roads are in fair or poor condition. Investing in repaving is critical since reconstructing roads costs approximately 5 times more than resurfacing a road. Reducing or eliminating Proposition 42 funding jeopardizes metropolitan regions' ability to institute federally mandated Transportation Control Measures within required timeframes. As a result, traffic could slow to a halt, vehicle emissions will increase, and our major metropolitan areas may experience a conformity lapse within the next two years. The penalty for such a lapse could limit these regions' ability to implement transportation projects programmed in the currently approved Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP), valued at approximately $3o.5 billion in combined federal, state and local funding. BUDGET CUTS THREATEN FUTURE FEDERAL FUNDS Next year is a critical year for the surface transportation community because this likely is the year that Congress will finally reauthorize TEA -21. The next reautho- rization bill will determine the programs, policies, and funding for the nation's transportation systems for the next six years. With the new act comes new match- ing requirements for state and local regions. TEA -21 legislation, which Congress is expected to adopt by mid -2005 includes higher local matching shares than previ- ously approved federal transportation programs - up to 5o percent for some programs. Local and regional transportation entities cannot carry the full weight of matching federal transportation funds. Voters in many communities have already increased funding for local surface transportation projects to supplement state and federal funding. California must position itself to commit its full state match, carry its financial share by dedicating to transportation all existing revenue sources (both gas taxes and sales taxes on gasoline) in order to best leverage more federal funds for surface transportation projects. RECOMMENDATIONS The Journal of the American Medical Association recently published a landmark new study linking exposure to ozone (a precursor to smog) to a significant increase in premature death in cities across the nation. California's budget crisis will not be resolved without some sacrifice in programs across the state and/or an increase in revenue. However, transportation has already made deep sacrifices for the past two years when Proposition 42 suspensions, transfers and loans to the General Fund programs have provided a safety valve for other state priorities. Further cuts in transportation programs will harm California economy's growth and resultant growth in general fund revenues. As the Governor develops his FY o5 -o6 Budget scheduled for release in early January, we urge the Administration and Legislature to resist further suspensions or loans of Proposition 42 funds or any other transportation money to the General Fund for a third consecutive year. Immediate transportation infrastructure investments are necessary to ensure we not only reclaim our moniker as the Golden State, but that we elevate that nickname to "the Golden Dream by the Sea" as proffered by Governor Schwarzenegger. • • • 4 APPENDIX OF PROJECTS AT RISK FOR DELAY AND ADDITIONAL COST OR ELIMINATION Special Note: Transportation projects by their very nature tend to take longer than the one year fiscal year (FY05-06) discussed in this document. •Nonetheless, the Governor's proposed cuts to transportation put at risk major short and long-term projects included in the current State Transporta- tion Implementation Program (STIP) and Traffic Congestion Relief Program (TCRP). Proposition 42 funds are used support these programs. Attached is a partial list of STIP projects at risk. The current STIP is scheduled to expire in FY 06-07. The TCRP is currently scheduled to expire in FY 07-08. PRIORITY PROJECTS AT RISK FOR LOSING STATE TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM FUNDING (PARTIAL County Alameda Project Nome BART Oakland Airport (weeder 1880 Mission 809 Lone 1 238 Widening Alameda/Santa Clara t I680SunolGrade HOVLane -MilipitastoSR84 Alpine, Amado , Calnveras SR 88 fine Grove Passing Lone SR 4 Angels (amp Bypass SR 149 Widening - SR 99 to SR 70 SR 70 Orphir Rd Widening SR 99 Auxiliary Lane Contra Costa 180 West Bound 1109 - Rt 4 to Carquinez 1680 Bollinger Cyn and Syromore Aux Lane Richmond Inlennodol Station Parking Structure [ SR 4 Loveridge to Somersville bel No.rte f Fred Haight Drive Reconstruction A Street Rehabilitation Kern Westside Pkwy Widening - in Bakersfield 8t 46 Widening - SLO County Line to Kecks Ctrl l Rt 14 Widening near Mojave Kings SR 198 Improvements- Hanford to Vi ¢ KART Transfer Facility Construction Overlay and Reconstruction Prole Lake Soda Bay Rd Rehabilitation South Main St Rehabilitation Lassen Susanville Town Hill Safety ondOpsIiaprnvemeni Los Angeles Expo Iliad to Santo Mon • Crenshaw Corridor Tra o- San Fernando Valley .1405 Northbound Co a y10 to 115 { 1 10 Carpool Loner 15 Carpool and Mix 10 Carpool lanes 1405/US 10L N tindl Tractor Butte Madera Marin Mended Merced Manes -Mono- flit' Placer Sacrti aliaa#o Sa Bernurdin Sar6iego Sa#i iitincisco San Joachin San Luis Obispo San Mateo Santa Clara SR 71 Car Addition SR 90 uS Wil Am" 511/40' Wainer fmprovemenl " t Improvement t RdlmprovemenLo -1 endl`un teconstfudion Independence SR 395 Improvements 1 US 101 Pruoedele improvement SR 49 iYpleiuig,FroaiWiiVComic Mtn 6iosi Valley Rt 4a a u 0 tmgr°r lrt�Ay t N9w lga ul:,ljds 18OI ie[ca'.College tivd tnlerritonge, aproveraents 145,Wrde ft Tb Wide rrgi9:. ?abed Lanes and B Mid-Coasf tight Rail 0ldtov SR $2' SF Meal 3rd Street Light R 1205rmprovements 'a SR 99 Unprovements lligheray 101/Price Street Exterawb in Pismo Beach Highway 101/41 Interchange Improvement in Alosurdero Colman Grade Separation -Tilton 8 Poplar - U5101 Aux tones • 3rd to A1016rae SR 152J156Interchid`ngelmpruvements STIP•DollarsNot Risk S33 -p S3fp poj Mote , 32, t18on in Los Alrge1 v{aunty Toying Mil 0, delayed if Prop 42ponsferis- strTpte Atol Ml <ari 5cmoke oyoitabkr`la usst£j +oeeting fu Total Project Cost $233.0 5134.5 S125.1 $166.8 56.4 S31.4 564.6 5257 S243 529.8 523.0 516.2 575.0 St:t Sits $382 Morm4i and Ke 5117,6 ',g 5920 S71.1.::a SIR 5112 -, 536-0: 515951..f; 525.4^ Senator Perota Figueroa Figueroa Figueroa Cox Cox Aanestad Aanestnd Aanestod Torlakson Torlokson Perota Torlokson Aanostad Aanastnd Ashburn floret Ashburn florez Fiorez oyez C tesbro gl liliesbro Assemblymember than Torrtc° Klehs Klehs and Terdco Nekonishi and CogdM -Nokanishi and Cogdill Keene Keene Keene Candontilla Houston Hancock Candamilla Berg Berg. McCarthy Porro and 8kkeske Maze Parra Parra Parra Berg Berg Keene Cogdill Nation' Berg Ma0hews ; Motltrewsi' Le Sear Matthews PRIORITY PROJECTS AT RISK FOR LOSING STATE TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM FUNDING (PARTIAL Santa Barbara Santo Cruz Shasta Sierra Solana Sonoma Sutter Tehama Tulare US 101 Widening near Santa Maria US 101 Milpes/Cabrillo Hot Springs Improvement SR 17/Rte 1 Merge Lanes MetroBase ConsolidatedBus Ups. Facility Redding Downtown Street Alignments Liberty Street to 15 lane and Bridge Widening Dann lamp lane and Bridge Widening Gold lake Hwy Bridge Rehabdilation Goodyears Creek. Bridge Rehabilitation Sierra Buttes Rd at Reis Ravine Vallejo Ferry Terminal Intermodd Sty US 101 HOV -Steele Lane to Rt 1 US 101 -Steek Lone Interchan SR 99 Widenings. SR 70 Expressway Rawson Rd at Red Bank; Flores Rd. Access SR 63 Widening Rd 80 Widening Rd 108 Widen Tuolumne SR 108/East Road Pave Ventura Rt 23 Wide Rt 118-1A Lewis Rd V' Yuba Highw l Total This list is based on a sun Of the 58 counties, 44' 0.6 570.6 Maldonado 545.5 McGintack 552.0 Simitian 539.5 Sirnitian and Maldonado S4.8 Aanestud 510.1 Aoneslad 530.0 Amiestad S0.6 Cox 50.7 Fax 50.5 Fax 19.3 Migden dieslio *dm Ahaestad Aonestdd Aueeslad Anesmd:" Foxes and Ashburn Flores and Ashburn re and Ashburn Blakeslee Nava Laird Laird andSahara La Matta La Malta Lo MaNa Keene Keene Keene Berg Berg, Na0on and Evans LoMalia La Malta La Matta La Mafia Mare Pami and: Maze Maze DNA Strickland Richman Pawky Keene • • Current Repaving Cycle (Cycle should be 18-20 years) 50 years 51 years 100 years 100 years 20 years Infinite 50 years 125 years infinite 100 years 30 years 50 years 100. y 4r APPENDIX OF DEFERRED ROAD PAVEMENT AND MAINTENANCE PROGRAMS DUE TO FUNDING SHORTFALLS special Note: The following table contains information collected in November zoo4, which provides a •snapshot of the condition and existing shortfall of the county (unincorporated area only) road system. It should be noted that this spreadsheet reflects pavement rehabilitation and maintenance needs only. This does not include safe op erations, p er attons, drain- age, NPDES, sidewalks or non -pavement needs. This does not include any traffic enhancement or capacity needs with the exception of Los Angeles County needs, which includes their traffic congestion needs. The results show that with 38 counties reportingon repaving cycles (that shouldlccur even/18 to zo years) only 2 are within that range. SUMMARY SNAPSHOT OF COUNTY REPAVING AND MAINTENANCE NEEDS - AT LEAST4.4 BILLION IN DEFERRED NEED! County Alameda 'Mulder Butte Cnlaveras Contra Costa Fresno Humboldt Imperial Kern 'Kings Luke Lassen *Les -Angeles Marin :Mendocino Merced Modoc Napa Nevada, awn wtariwo ; -,M Sunta.Burbara. 'fun`p d''rma- tsit Y u�re Teoturnn 'Ventura 'Yolo =TOTALS Survey conducted by GA Of the 58 counties;, 42es; Percentage of Roads in Fair to Very Poor Condition rl finite. 30yeecirs di ears ears ite ars ears Annual Need.(In i Gap•or Shortfall 1 Millions) (In Millions) $6.3 $2.5 5.4 a Mona .$5.3.• ' Figures for Los A mdude trotfic.congestion-r Is. Ventura County usei,a Pavement Condi6optnd of45 as acceptable, the back s'pavernent ove o It does not include sidee alk r u backl'` r* §vP epa o��; dewalfv repair needs, drdinage,miproverrients, slope hard'eni�e�j •oi: improvements, or storm damcic,Je repairs.• For Kings County repaving: le is 125 miles of major ,miles of minor roads. $0.7 $2.0 $5.2 $1.5 $8.9 $10.0 $25.0 $2.4 $3.6 $3.6 $70.0 $5.3 $0.6 $4.0 A$9.7 $5.3 $1.0 2:0 40 0 Existing Backlog (In Millions) $28.6 $30.0 380.0 $65.0 $21.0 $135.0 $300.0 $100.0 $80.0 $500.0 $56.1 $90.0 $500.0 $45.0 $98.0 $26.0 $1004 t2 t3 $170.0 2:0 $32.0 $4r405.7 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION PLEASE CONTACT: D Anti' Baker tiibyist for Housing, Land Use and Transportation lifornia State Association of Counties 1100 ISireet, Suite 101 Sacramento, CA 95814 (9i6) 327-7500 Fax: (916) 441-5507 dbaker@counties.org Mike Lawson Executive Director Transportation Cati#ornia 1610 Blossom Hi 2oad, Suite 7A San Jose, CA 95124 (408) 265-6500 Fax: (408)49o-2796 mklgroup@com cast. net Kris Leathers Murray Director of Intergovernmental and Legislative Affairs San Bernardino Associated Governments 117o West Third Street, 2nd Floor San Bernardino, CA 92401 (909) 884-8276 Fax: (909) 885-4407 sanbag.ca.gov nsportation Planning Agency et 03 Mark Watts Smith, Watts & g8o Ninth Stree Sacramento, CA srr (9i6)446-5508 Fax; (916) 446-1499 mvotts@smithwattsco.com • AGENDA ITEM 10 • A presentation will be made but there is no attachment to the agenda for item 10. • • • AGENDA ITEM 11 • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: January 10, 2005 TO: Technical Advisory Committee FROM: Ken Lobeck, Staff Analyst THROUGH: Cathy Bechtel Director, Transportation Planning and Policy Development SUBJECT: Project Milestone Reports — January 2005 Update STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the TAC to: Notify TAC members of the January 2005 Update for Project Milestone Reports for CMAQ, DEMO, STPL, STIP, and TEA funded projects. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Project Milestone Reports as part of the January 2005 Update were sent out to lead agencies beginning January 5th for unobligated CMAQ, DEMO, STPL, STIP, and TEA projects. The updated reports need to be returned to RCTC no later than Monday, January 24, 2005. Currently, $3.166 million of STPL and $1.48 million of TEA funds are at risk based on AB1012 Cycle 5 obligation requirements. Obligations of these amounts must be accomplished by May 2005, or they will be reprogrammed by the California Transportation Commission (CTC). Additionally, TEA funds not obligated by June 2005 will become a component of the STIP and require CTC approval to be allocated prior to obligation. Accurate and realistic project information will assist us with the following: AB1012 Reporting: Estimate projected AB1012 obligations that will occur during four key periods in support of AB1012 Cycle 6 reporting requirements. Annual Obligation Targets and Advancement of Projects: Provide obligation estimates for projects programmed in FFY 05/06 that could be accelerated and are ready to obligate their federal funds towards the end of FFY 04/05 (Jun -Aug, 2005) if obligation authority is available. • RTIP/FTIP Programming Adjustments: Evaluate potential obligation issues, required actions, and RTIP/FTIP programming adjustments if needed. Commission Reports: Assist in the development of the semi-annual project status report for the RCTC Board. • • AGENDA ITEM 12 A presentation will be made but there is no attachment to the agenda for item 12. • AGENDA ITEM 13 • A presentation will be made but there is no attachment to the agenda for item 13. • AGENDA ITEM 14 A presentation will be made but there is no attachment to the agenda for item 14. 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 — 1999 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 Z74 /V / S� EXHIBIT "A" Scope of Services for RCTC Rail Crossing Priority Update The purpose of this project is to update the Year 2001 priority evaluation of improvements to railroad grade crossings in Riverside County. This study will follow the methodology of the previous study, using updated information on existing and future freight rail volumes, traffic volumes, and other factors. Task 1: Confirm Methodology and Evaluation Criteria The 2001 priority analysis was based on the following evaluation factors: • Safety (accident score rating, combining frequency and severity) • 1999 vehicle delay • 2020 vehicle delay • emissions • noise • adjacent grade separations • local priority ranking We will review these factors, and the methodology for evaluating and scoring each, and the process for overall weighting of the factors, with RCTC staff and the Technical Advisory Committee. Not only will the underlying data need to be updated, but there may be a desire to modify the factors or methods. Such modifications need to be made at the beginning of the process so the evaluation can proceed in a timely manner and so all participants understand and concur with the process before the analysis is undertaken. Task 2: Assemble Data Assembly of data can start concurrently with Task 1, since freight rail volumes, traffic volumes, and traffic forecasts will be required for the estimation of vehicle delay at rail crossings. Assembly of other data will be undertaken after the TAC has concurred with the evaluation criteria and methods to be used in this analysis. For budgeting purposes, the following assumptions have been made: • The number and types of evaluation factors will be similar to the 2001 analysis. • Existing and future freight rail volumes and train lengths can be obtained from recent studies or readily -available data). • Local agencies will be able to provide 2004 average daily traffic (ADT) volumes for most of the crossings (the budget includes money for up to 10 new 24 -hour machine counts). • SCAG will provide year 2000 and year 2030 ADT forecasts from the CTP model. R VPUB\ELC\660570 A-1 • Accident data will be obtained from a single consistent source, such as the Federal Railroad Administration database. • Other data required for the analysis will be obtainable from readily -available sources. Task 3: Perform Evaluation We will apply the approved methodology to evaluate and score each factor. For budgeting purposes, it has been assumed that the number and types of evaluation will be similar to the 2001 analysis, and that no new field work will be required. Weighting factors approved by the TAC will be applied to the score for each factor to obtain an overall weighted score for each crossing. A draft priority listing will be prepared based on the overall weighted score. The results will be reviewed with RCTC staff and the TAC. Task 4: Prepare Report A draft report will be prepared which incorporates feedback from RCTC staff and the TAC on the evaluation results. The draft report (including text, charts, and maps - showing evaluation results, scores, and priority, plus and Executive Summary) will be presented to the RCTC Board. After review by the Board, a final report will be prepared which incorporates feedback from the Board. Task 5: Meetings During the project, it is anticipated that PB will attend and participate in meetings as follows: • RCTC staff: up to 4 meetings • TAC: up to 2 meetings • RCTC Board: 1 meeting RVPUB\ELC\660570 A-2 /s" 2005 TAC MEETING SCHEDULE Following is the Technical Advisory Committee meeting schedule for 2005. The meetings are scheduled the third Monday of the month, except for those months that have a legal holiday falling on that Monday. In those instances, the meeting will be moved forward to the second Monday. Every other month the meeting will be in Banning at Banning City Hall, Civic Center, Large Conference Room, 99 East Ramsey Street, Banning, CA (951) 922-3102. Alternate meetings will be at RCTC's offices, Riverside County Regional Complex, 4080 Lemon Street, Third Floor, Riverside, CA 92502-2208 (951) 787-7141. All meetings will begin at 10:00 A.M., except for the February 14 meeting which will begin at 2:00 P.M. due to a schedule conflict. ** ** 2:00 start time January 10 Riverside February 14 Banning March 21 Riverside April 18 Banning May 16 Riverside June 20 Banning July 18 Riverside August 15 Banning September 19 Riverside October 17 Banning November 21 Riverside December 19 Banning