HomeMy Public PortalAbout02 February 14, 2005 Technical AdvisoryRECORDS
•
•
•
TIME:
DATE:
LOCATION:
TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITT
MEETING AGENDA*
2:00 P.M. (Note Time Change)
February 14, 2005
Banning City Hall Civic Center
Large Conference Room
99 East Ramsey Street
Banning, CA
*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 8
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: 2:00 P.M. (Note Time Change)
DATE: February 14, 2005
LOCATION: Banning City Hall Civic Center
Large Conference Room
99 East Ramsey Street
Banning, CA
•
•
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act and government Code Section 54954.2, if
you need special assistance to participate in a Committee meeting, please contact Riverside County
Transportation Commission at (951) 787-7141. Notification of at least 48 hours prior to meeting
time will assist staff in assuring that reasonable arrangements can be made to provide accessibility
at the meeting.
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. SELF -INTRODUCTION
3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - January 10, 2005
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. APPROVAL OF EVALUATION CRITERIA FOR UPDATE OF ALAMEDA
CORRIDOR EAST (ACE) TRADE CORRIDOR RAIL CROSSING GRADE
SEPARATION PRIORITY LIST (Attachment)
6. TEA EXTENSION - STATUS (Attachment)
7. COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL TEA FUNDS
(Attachment)
Technical Advisory Committee Meeting
February 14, 2005
Page 2
•
8. STP REHABILITATION CALL FOR PROJECTS
9. STIP UPDATE
10. RTIP/FTIP UPDATE
11. CALTRANS LOCAL ASSISTANCE UPDATE
• 2005/06 BICYCLE TRANSPORTATION ACCOUNT
12. February 9, 2005 COMMISSION HIGHLIGHTS
13. OTHER BUSINESS/ANNOUNCEMENTS
14. ADJOURNMENT (The next meeting will be March 21, 2005, 10:00 A.M. in
Riverside.)
•
• MINUTES
•
•
•
TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING
MINUTES
Monday, January 10, 2005
1. Call to Order
The meeting of the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC)
Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) was called to order at 10:00 A.M., at
Riverside County Transportation Commission, 4080 Lemon Street, Riverside,
California.
2. Self -Introductions
Members Present:
Others Present:
Bill Bayne, City of Cathedral City
Tom Boyd, City of Riverside
Bill Brunet, City of Blythe
Mark Greenwood, City of Palm Desert
Bruce Harry, City of Rancho Mirage
Bill Hughes, City of Temecula
George Johnson, County of Riverside
Elroy Kiepke, City of Calimesa
Eldon Lee, City of Coachella
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
Juan Perez, County of Riverside
Amad Qattan, City of Corona
Ken Seumalo, City of Lake Elsinore
Tim Wassil, City of Indian Wells
John Wilder, City of Beaumont
Cathy Bechtel, RCTC
Fran Dunajski, City of Riverside
Jesse Glazer, FHWA
Eric Haley, RCTC
Gary Hamrick, Meyer, Mohaddes Assoc.
Ken Lobeck, RCTC
Shirley Medina, RCTC
Hazem Mobarek, PBS&J
Technical Advisory Committee Meeting
January 10, 2005
Page 2
•
Tony Rahimian, RMC, Inc.
Julie Rush, Parsons Brinckerhoff
John Standiford, RCTC
Ed Studor, Riverside County
Stephanie Wiggins, RCTC
Marilyn Williams, RCTC
3. Approval of Minutes
No objections.
4. Public Comments
There were no public comments.
5. PRESENTATION BY FHWA ON INTELLIGENCE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM
(ITS) LOCAL ASSISTANCE PROCEDURES
Marilyn Williams, RCTC, reminded the TAC that in June, 2003 the
Riverside/San Bernardino County ITS Regional Architecture Plan was
completed. Since that time other counties have been working on their
plans/updates and Caltrans and FHWA have been working on defining new
local assistance guidelines. She introduced Jesse Glazer, ITS Engineer,
FHWA Los Angeles Metro Office. He provided data regarding the Systems
Engineering Process, Significant Changes to Procedures for Local Assistance
Projects and ITS Training in Southern California and highlighted the
significant changes.
6. PRESENTATION BY COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ON TRUCK ROUTE/PARKING
REGULATION STUDY
Ed Studor, County of Riverside, said that Supervisor Tavaglione has called
for an investigation of truck routing not only in the Mira Loma area but the
entire County. He introduced Gary Hamrick, Meyer, Mohaddes Assoc.,
Project Manager, County of Riverside, who outlined the key issues regarding
trucking impacts on roadways, some of which include pavement -related
issues, truck intrusion on streets where there shouldn't be trucks, too many
trucks, parking, air quality, and other issues.
Mr. Hamrick provided two documents, "Data/Truck-Related Ordinance
Collection Effort January 2005" and a copy of his Powerpoint presentation
entitled, "County of Riverside Truck Routing and Parking Study." He said
•
•
Technical Advisory Committee Meeting
January 10, 2005
Page 3
•
that recommendations will be developed along with strategies to address
these issues. Following his presentation, he answered questions.
7. WESTERN COUNTY TUMF UPDATE
Marilyn Williams, RCTC, thanked the participants who helped to shape the
"Agreement for the Funding of TUMF Regional Arterial Improvements" and
answered questions regarding its implementation.
This agreement language will be taken to the Budget and Implementation
Committee meeting January 24, 2005 and to the full Commission February
9, 2005.
8. FEDERAL/STATE LEGISLATIVE STATUS REPORT
•
•
John Standiford, RCTC, indicated that the state budget is being released
today and that there is no good news for transportation. He further
indicated that another suspension in FY 05/06 of Proposition 42 is imminent.
Although Proposition 42 was passed by voters 2 years ago, it has netted the
State of California nothing in terms of funding. Mr. Standiford pointed out
that Riverside County is losing well over $50M of anticipated TCR funds
annually and that it will get worse. He further indicated that Measure "A"
funding has been moved around along with other funding to fill in funding
gaps. Legislative efforts to try to make Proposition 42 more permanent are
ongoing.
On the federal level, the main issue for the last 18 months or more is the
reauthorization of the transportation bill. Projects that were previously
included in the legislation have a head start and it is hoped that it will be a
priority this year in terms of moving the bill. He said that the good news is
that Congressman Jerry Lewis, who has parts of Riverside County in his
district, has been elevated to Chair the Appropriations Committee. However,
he will be the chair in an environment of diminishing returns. Unless there is
an increase in revenue, i.e. gas tax, there is no way to increase the amount
of funding to be divided on the federal level.
He stated that as a county -wide agency, we are looking for funding and
trying to communicate with Congress with big projects that have county-
wide focus. One of the biggest things that we've obtained approval for in
the last bill was about $900M funding for southern California for Alameda
Corridor East related infrastructure. A big part of that, grade crossings,
affect a number of cities. That will be a major priority, as well as funding for
Technical Advisory Committee Meeting
January 10, 2005
Page 4
•
Riverside to Orange County, Interchanges on 1-10 in the Coachella Valley,
215, including Van Buren off ramp near March.
He summarized by stating that successes in meeting the County's needs will
be helped by a unified front going to Congress.
Eric Haley cautioned the TAC not to count on a 2008 road maintenance
windfall. He stated that multi -billion dollar IOU's are being built up in the
STIP (approximately $3 Billion)and RCTC has an unallocated reserve of
$186M, which covers the entirety of the SR 91 project through downtown
Riverside.
Mr. Haley reported that TUMF money is currently $106M and that sales tax
is up 14% on a year-to-year basis. In spite of that, we are still under by 30-
35% of anticipated revenue overall due to the state budget deficit.
9. STIP UPDATE
• Prop. 42 Efforts "Running on Empty"
• December 2003 CTC meeting
Eric Haley said that following today's state budget announcement, there will
be a privately financed initiative of about $15-16M and it will be on the
November, 2006 ballot.
Shirley Medina, RCTC, reported that the December, 2003 CTC meeting and
reception in Riverside went very well. There were no allocations but the TEA
extension was approved. We have until June, 2005 to obligate the $1.4M
of TEA funds and the obligation packages should be into Caltrans by May.
Wendy Li is working with agencies listed on the TEA extension list. All TEA
projects that are not obligated by June will be required to be incorporated
into the STIP and existing TEA money would expire.
10. RTIP/FTIP UPDATE
Ken Lobeck, RCTC, said that the 2004 RTIP update was approved on
October 4, 2004 and since then the first quarterly amendment has been
started. There is a formal amendment at Caltrans being reviewed that
primarily involves transit projects, which is expected to be approved in about
30 days, an administrative amendment was approved in December, and a
STIP reconciliation amendment is going forward to SCAG this week. FHWA
and EPA are concerned about the STIP reconciliation amendment because of
•
•
Technical Advisory Committee Meeting
January 10, 2005
Page 5
•
the updates that we are doing to correct the TIP to match up the STIP that
may throw the RTIP out of conformity.
The Galena project amendment to move the funds from FY 05/06 to 04/05
was approved. When CMAQ, STPL or TEA projects are ready to be
obligated, it will be necessary to cite the RTIP page reference. Mr. Lobeck
offered his assistance in providing the references.
11. JANUARY 2005 PROJECT MILESTONE REPORTS
Ken Lobeck stated that the milestone reports went out and are due on
January 24`''. Under AB 1012 "Use it or Lose it" provisions, both TEA and
STPL funds are at risk if not obligated by June 2005. However, Galena will
obligate the STPL balance soon.
12. CETAP UPDATE
•
•
Cathy Bechtel said that the Mid -County Parkway project is still on schedule
and is in the scoping process. An agenda item requesting the Commission's
approval to start a phase 2 contract with Jacobs Engineering to complete the
environmental and preliminary engineering is going forward to the
Commission at the January 12 meeting.
She said that the Riverside County to Orange County Corridor is also on
schedule. A policy committee meeting is scheduled for February 4, 2005
and a March meeting has also been scheduled. Public meetings will occur in
the March timeframe to talk about the draft alternatives. The study is
expected to be completed with a locally prepared strategy by December,
2005.
SANBAG has reauthorized their Measure I and the Moreno Valley to San
Bernardino CETAP Corridor is expected to be reinvigorated.
13. CALTRANS LOCAL ASSISTANCE UPDATE
There was no update.
14. DECEMBER 8, 2004 COMMISSION HIGHLIGHTS
The Commission Connection was provided and Eric Haley stated that the
highlight was the commitment of $ 13.4M to keep the 60 project moving
Technical Advisory Committee Meeting
January 10, 2005
Page 6
•
forward. An AB 3090 replacement request is before the CTC next week to
set up a funding vote in March. An AB 30 replacement serves as an "IOU"
The CTC will reserve the funds that were committed to the SR 60 project on
another project to be determined at a future date.
15. OTHER BUSINESS/ANNOUNCEMENTS
Shirley Medina reminded the TAC to review the ITS technical memo closely.
Marilyn Williams will e-mail Jesse Glazer's e-mail address and telephone
number to the TAC. There is still time to provide input on the guidelines and
another version will be provided in a few weeks.
Tim Wassil, City of Indian Wells, reminded the group that the next TAC
meeting will commence at 2:00 P.M., February 14, in Banning.
Stephanie Wiggins, RCTC, said that staff is in the process of updating the
priority list for grade separations in the County. The Commission established
a grant policy program where RCTC will match up to $500,000 towards a
grade separation project that is on the priority list as well as ranked by the
California Public Utilities Commission. In addition, it has served as a
guideline in lobbying efforts for reauthorization of TEA 21. She indicated
that it is being updated. The timeline is to take to the Plans and Programs
Committee at the end of this month a request to reaffirm the evaluation
criteria. A single signature agreement is being executed with Parsons
Brinkerhoff who performed the initial analysis in 2000.
She provided the RCTC ACE Trade Corridor Grade Crossing Separation Need
List, March 2001 and introduced Julie Rush, Parsons Brinkerhoff, who said
there are 3 major items that are needed. They are:
• Existing traffic counts at the at -grade intersections, probably 2004 or
whatever is available;
• Ensure that existing assumptions on the roadway configurations are
accurate. If there has been any work done at the at -grade crossings,
or if there are any changes to the circulation elements, Parsons
Brinkerhoff needs to know;
• 10% of the evaluation has to do with local rankings and that data will
be resubmitted to the TAC to see if the cities and agencies still concur
with the rankings.
•
Ms. Rush said that she will contact the TAC with the deadline for the •
information.
Technical Advisory Committee Meeting
January 10, 2005
Page 7
•
In response to a question regarding priority evaluation, Mr. Haley
recommended that priorities reflect objective criteria.
16. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business for consideration by the Technical Advisory
Committee, the meeting was adjourned at 11:30 A.M. The next meeting is
scheduled for February 14, 2005, 2:00 P.M., Banning City Hall, 99 East
Ramsey Street, Banning, California.
Respectfully submitted,
Shirley Medina
Program Manager
•
•
med„7„,
•
• AGENDA ITEM 5
•
•
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION
DATE:
February .14, 2005
TO:
Technical Advisory Committee
FROM:
Stephanie Wiggins, Rail Department Manager
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
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 Plans & Programs Committee for review and
subsequent approval by the Commission.
1111 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.
•
•
At its March 2001 meeting, the Commission approved the evaluation criteria for
the Riverside County ACE Trade Corridor Rail Crossing Grade Separation Priority
List. 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. Accordingly, staff recommends
that the evaluation criteria and related weighting remain the same with adjustments
for current data:
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
2
RCTC ACE Trade Corridor Grade Crossing Separation Need List, March 2001
•
•
•
Rail Line
BNSF & UP (SB SUB)
BNSF & UP (SB SUB)
UP (YUMA MAIN)
BNSF (SB SUB)
BNSF (SB SUB)
UP (YUMA MAIN)
BNSF & UP (SB SUB)
UP (LA SUB)
BNSF & UP (SB SUB)
UP (LA SUB)
UP (LA SUB)
BNSF (SB SUB)
BNSF & UP (SB SUB)
BNSF & UP (RIV)
UP (YUMA MAIN)
BNSF (SB SUB)
UP (YUMA MAIN)
UP (LA SUB)
BNSF (SB SUB)
BNSF & UP (SB SUB)
UP (YUMA MAIN)
UP (LA SUB)
BNSF & UP (SB SUB)
BNSF (SB SUB)
BNSF (SB SUB)
BNSF (SB SUB)
UP (YUMA MAIN)
UP (YUMA MAIN)
BNSF (SB SUB)
BNSF & UP (SB SUB)
BNSF (SB SUB)
UP (YUMA MAIN)
BNSF (SB SUB)
BNSF (SB SUB)
BNSF (SB SUB)
UP (LA SUB)
BNSF (SB SUB)
UP (YUMA MAIN)
BNSF (SB SUB)
BNSF (SB SUB)
BNSF (SB SUB)
UP (LA SUB)
UP (LA SUB)
UP (YUMA MAIN)
UP (YUMA MAIN)
UP (YUMA MAIN)
BNSF & UP (SB SUB)
BNSF (SB SUB)
BNSF (SB SUB)
Cross Street
3rd St
Iowa Av
Avenue 48/ Dillon Rd
McKinley St
Magnolia Av
Avenue 50
Chicago Av
Streeter Av
Spruce St
Magnolia Av
Riverside Av
Mary St
Columbia Av
Cridge St
Avenue 52
Auto Center Dr
Sunset Av
Jurupa Rd
Washington St
Center St
Hargrave St
Brockton Av
Kansas Av
Tyler St
Adams St
Madison St
San Timoteo Canyon Rd
California Av
Smith Av
7th St
Railroad St
Broadway
Pierce St
Buchanan St
Joy St
Palm Av
Jackson St
22nd St
Harrison St
Jefferson St
Cote St
Bellgrave Av
Clay St
Jurisdiction
Riverside
Riverside
Indio/Coachella
Corona
Riverside County
Coachella
Riverside
Riverside
Riverside
Riverside
Riverside
Riverside
Riverside
Riverside
Coachella
Corona
Banning
Riverside County
Riverside
Riverside County
Banning
Riverside
Riverside
Riverside
Riverside
Riverside
Calimesa
Beaumont
Corona
Riverside
Corona
Riverside County
Riverside
Riverside
Corona
Riverside
Riverside
Banning
Riverside
Riverside
Corona
Pennsylvania Av
San Gorgonio Av
Airport Road
Main St
Gibson St
Jane St
Riverside County
Riverside County
Beaumont
Banning
Riverside County
Riverside County
Riverside
Riverside
Overall
Weig hted
Score*
4260
3880
3775
3600
3600
3500
3440
3000
3180
3100
3060
3320
2940
2820
2750
2738
2675
2650
2520
2500
2500
2480
2480
2460
2400
2240
2225
2200
2113
2000
1975
1950
1885
1880
1850
1820
1755
1750
1740
1740
1713
1700
1700
1667
1625
1450
1350
1220
1200
UP (YUMA MAIN)
Viele Av
Beaumont
1133
BNSF (SB SUB)
Sheridan St
Corona
1125
UP (LA SUB)
Panorama Rd
Riverside
1060
BNSF & UP (SB SUB)
Palmyrita Av
Riverside
1020
UP (LA SUB)
Mountain View Av
Riverside
1000
UP (YUMA MAIN)
UP (YUMA MAIN)
UP (YUMA MAIN)
Avenue 66
Riverside County
950
Avenue 54
Coachella
825
Apache Trail
Riverside County
800
BNSF (SB SUB)
Radio Rd
Corona
563
Priority Group
1
1
1
1
1
1 (Completed 1/04)
1
1**
1
1
2
2**
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
5
= Per RCTC March 2001
QCongre55 of the liniteb 6tateg
gouge of iktpregentatibefS
aisbington, lrie 20515
September 13, 2004
The Honorable Don Young
Chairman
Committee on Transportation & Infrastructure
United States House of Representatives
2165 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
The Honorable James Oberstar
Ranking Member
Committee on Transportation & Infrastructure
United States House of Representatives
2163 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
Dear Chairman Young and Ranking Member Oberstar:
As we continue working toward a conference agreement on the Transportation Equity Act
- a Legacy for Users, we are writing to express our strong support for the retention, of the House
passed program for Projects of National and Regional Significance. In addition, we strongly
advocate that the Alameda Corridor East, as designated in the House passed bill, be recognized
as a project of national significance at a level of $900 million, to be equally distributed by the
state to Los Angeles, Orange, San Bernardino, and Riverside counties through their respective
lead agencies: Alameda Corridor East Construction Authority, OnTrac Joint Powers Authority,
San Bernardino Associated Governments, and Riverside County Transportation Commission.
The Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, under your leadership, recognized that
federally re -designating the Alameda Corridor East to include all four counties directly impacted
by the Alameda Corridor, including Los Angeles, Orange, San Bernardino, and Riverside, was a
critical step in mitigating the congestion and air quality impacts of increased movement of goods
throughout the southern California region.
Section 1105 (c), paragraph 34 of TEA -21 was amended in TEA-LU to state that the
Alameda Corridor East would be defined as:
"(34) The Alameda Corridor -East and South-west Passage, California. The Alameda
Corridor- East is generally described as the corridor from East Los Angeles (terminus of
Alameda Corridor) through Los Angeles, Orange, San Bernardino, and Riverside
Counties, to termini at Barstow in San Bernardino County and Coachella in Riverside
County. The Southwest Passage shall follow I-10 from San Bernardino to the Arizona
State line."
As we stated when we requested this language change in TEA-LU, the intent of amending
the definition of the Alameda Corridor East is to federally recognize that all four counties bear
significant goods movement impacts on existing infrastructure. Significantly, all four counties
have implemented comprehensive programs to address infrastructure needs including safety
upgrades, traffic synchronization, and grade separations.
The ACE Trade Corridor encompasses 285 miles of mainline freight corridor and passes
through a current population of 16 million residents. An expected 160 percent increase in freight
trains by 2020 will result in congestion, disruption to emergency services, impaired access to
community facilities, and train noise associated with movement of goods. The 130 grade
crossings proposed for improvement experience 1.4 million vehicles/trucks per day and will
increase to 2.4 million by 2020. Implementation of improvement programs in each of the four
counties would eliminate 13,000 vehicle hours of delay, 370 accidents per year, and 288 tons of
air pollution would be eliminated in the worst air basin in the nation.
Federally recognizing the Alameda Corridor East as a Project of National and Regional
Significance is of paramount importance in achieving the basic goals of this program, as outlined
in Section 1304 of 1'EA-LU. The very purpose of the Alameda Corridor East is to improve our
nation's economic productivity by facilitating international trade, relieving congestion, and
improving transportation safety by facilitating passenger and freight movement. Each of the four
counties' programs planned for the next six years are eligible as described in Section 1304, and
under Title 23. Even more important is that the Alameda Corridor East is an example of
infrastructure investment that yields tangible results like traffic congestion reduction, air quality
and safety improvement, and increased mobility efficiency.
We share a commitment to meet our critical national economic and transportation needs
with significant investment in areas that will reap national and economic benefits. The Alameda
Corridor East is a top transportation priority for the State of California and is unanimously
supported by Los Angeles, Orange, San Bernardino, and Riverside counties to work together to
facilitate trade in the region while mitigating the infrastructure impact to our communities.
Therefore, we respectfully request that the Alameda Corridor East be recognized as a project of
national significance at a level of $900 million, and look forward to working with you on this
critical priority for Southern California.
Sincerely,
Jerry ewis 1 avi e 1 eier
Chris Cox
Ed Royce
Howard P. "Buck" McKeo
Lucille RoybalY-A11ard
Grace F. Napolitano
Hilda L. Solis
•
• AGENDA ITEM 6
•
•
•
•
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION
DATE:
February 14, 2005
TO:
Technical Advisory Committee
FROM:
Shirley Medina, Program Manager
SUBJECT:
Status of TEA Extension Request
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
This item is for the TAC to:
1) Receive and file.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
As reported at the January 10, 2005 TAC meeting, the California
Transportation Commission approved our request (attached) to extend the
AB 1012 Cycle 5 TEA balance obligation deadline to June 29, 2005.
Per Caltrans' November 30, 2004 AB 1012 Balance Report, $998,697 is
subject to reprogramming if not obligated by June 29, 2005. However,
including the obligations that have occurred or will occur in the next couple
of weeks the new balance that must be obligated by the end of June is
$301,523.
AB '1012 Cycle 5 Balance
$ 998,697
Obligation
Date
Riverside, Victoria Parkway
($277,000)
Feb 2005
Calimesa, Calimesa Blvd Landscaping
($ 56,000)
Feb 2005
Norco, Santa Ana Regional Trail
($364,174)
Feb 2005
Funds Subject to Reprogramming
If Not Obligated by June 29, 2005
$301,523
The following cities have estimated project obligations close to the deadline:
Blythe, Hobsonway Improvements
$ 201,571
May 2005
Moreno Valley, Aqueduct Bike Trail
$ 892,776
May 2005
Perris, Santa Fe Depot Restoration
$ 297,518
Jun 2005
Total Estimated Obligations
$1,391,865
4
It should be highlighted that the obligation packages for these projects need
to be submitted at least six weeks prior to the June 29 deadline in order to
allow sufficient time for Caltrans staff to review and obligate the project.
As a reminder, this year's AB 1012 Cycle 6 TEA balance is approximately
$2.2 million. We will need to obligate this amount by November 1, 2005.
Projects listed for obligation prior to November 1, 2005 include:
AB 1012 Cycle 6 Balance
$ 2,154,921
Estimated
Obligation
As of
1/25/05
Calimesa, Calimesa Blvd landscaping
$ (236,149)
Aug 2005
Cathedral City, Ramon Road Improv.
$ (31 1,571)
Nov 2005
Hemet, State St Bike/Ped Path
$ (519,571)
Oct 2005
Temecula
$ (885,511)
Jul 2005
Funds Subject to Reprogramming If Not
Obligated by June 29, 2005
$ 202,119
A balance of $202,119 is subject to reprogramming. Those projects that are
not obligated in Cycle 5 will be included in the Cycle 6 reporting.
Programming of TEA projects in the STIP
We previously reported that projects not obligated by June 2005 will be
required to be included in the 2004 STIP. An amendment to the STIP to
include these projects is being prepared.
Attachment: RCTC's Request for AB 1012 Time Extension
•
e
•
5
•
NERNIII
REGIONAL TEA FUNDS
REQUEST FOR AB 1012 TIME EXTENSION
October 25, 2004
Ms. Wendy Li
District Local Assistance Engineer
Caltrans, Division of Local Assistance
464 West Fourth Street, 61h Floor
San Bernardinom, CA 92401-1400
Subject: Request for AB 1012 Time Extension for Transportation Enhancement Activities Funds — Cycle 5
Dear Wendy:
We request that the California Transportation Commission (CTC) approve a 6 -month time extension for obligation of Transportation
Enhancement Activities (TEA) funds for the projects listed below. It is our understanding that the CTC will consider this request at
either their December 2004 meeting. Please forward this request to the appropriate staff at Caltrans Headquarters and CTC.
Per the 8/31/04 Apportionment Status Report, the balance of TEA Cycle 5 is $1,484,697. Projects that are scheduled to be
obligated over the next few months are as follows:
Agency
Project
Phase
Amount
Estimated Obligation
Riverside
Historic Victoria Parkway Restoration
Con
$ 511,571
October 2004
Blythe
Hobsonway Pedestrian Improvements
Con
$ 201,571
December 2004
Calimesa
Calimesa Blvd Landscaping
PS&E
$ 56,000
December 2004
Norco
Santa Ana Regional Trail
Con
$ 364,174
December 2004
Perris
Restoration of Historic Santa Fe Depot
Con
$ 297,518
December 2004
Temecula
Murrieta Creek Multi -purpose Tail.
Con
$ 885,511
March 2005
Moreno Valley
Aqueduct Bike Trail
Con
$ 892,776
May 2005
Total
$3,209,121
All but one project will be ready to obligate construction funds within the next few months. These projects have required extensive
environmental studies and reviews (including Section 106 studies) that required coordination with other agencies, (e.g. flood control,
Santa Ma River Conservancy, Fish and Wildlife, flood control districts, etc.). In addition, Caltrans District 08 Office of Local
Assistance lost three key staff members over the last year, which has caused additional delays with project approvals.
This Request for AB 1012 Time Extension form has been prepared in accordance with CTC Resolution G-01-30 dated
October 4, 2001. I certify that information provided in this document is accurate and correct. I understand that if the required
information has not been provided, this form will be retumed and the request may be delayed. Please advise us as soon as the time
extension has been approved. You may direct any questions to Shirley Medina at (951) 787-7141
Signature;( 4
eU.!/Y1A Title: Program Manager Date: October 25. 2004
Agency/Commission:" Riverside County Transportation Commission
F. Regional Transportation Planning Agency/County Transportation Commission Concurrence
Concurred
Signature: Title: Program Manager
Agency/Commission: Riverside County Transportation Commission
G. Caltrans District Local Assistance Engineer Acceptance
Date: October 25. 2004
6
•
• AGENDA ITEM 7
•
•
•
•
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION
DATE:
February 14, 2005
TO:
Technical Advisory Committee
FROM:
Shirley Medina, Program Manager
SUBJECT:
County of Riverside TEA Funding Request
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
This item is for the TAC to:
1) Consider the County of Riverside's Request for Additional TEA
Funds.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
We received a letter from the County of Riverside (attached) regarding the
status of a previously approved TEA project, I-10/Monterey and Washington
interchanges landscaping. Bids were opened on December 22, 2004 and the
low bid was significantly higher than the engineer's estimate due to the
recent increase in steel and concrete.
The County is requesting an additional $286,1 19 of TEA funds to cover the
difference. Our policy concerning cost increases has been to allow an
additional 10% of the approved amount of funds. However, with the
circumstances that we're facing regarding AB 1012 "Use It Or Lose It"
provisions and delays in project delivery, it may be in our best interest to
consider an exception.
In December 2004, we requested a six-month time extension to obligate
three year old TEA fund balances. Three projects remain to be obligated
with estimated obligation dates in May and June (see previous agenda item).
Any delays on these projects could cause us to lose the TEA balance of
$301,523. Allowing the County of Riverside to obligate the additional funds
would help reduce the risk of losing funds that are subject to reprogramming
by June 29, 2005 since the funds can be obligated quickly.
We fully programmed the TEA -21 TEA apportionment, however; the city of
Riverside recently deprogrammed one of their TEA projects and
7
reprogrammed a portion of the funds ($277,000) to the Victoria Restoration
project leaving $225,000 available for reprogramming.
Attachment: Letter from County of Riverside
•
8
•
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE
TRANSPORTATION AND
LAND MANAGEMENT AGENCY
Transportation Department
January 31, 2005
Ms. Shirley Medina, Program Manager
Riverside County Transportation Commission
4080 S. Lemon St, Third floor
Riverside, CA 92501
rt
George A. Johnson, P.E.
Director of Transportation
70588
FEB 01 2005 t=
?iVE RS DE COUNT
y",; a, i".-a_r1t)N COMMISSION
RE: 1-10 /Monterey & Washington Interchanges Landscaping
Dear Ms. Medina:
Riverside County is the lead agency for the landscaping project at the 1-10 /Monterey
& Washington Interchanges. Funding for the project includes federal TEA funds that
were approved through a competitive process conducted by the RCTC. Federal TEA
funds in the amount of $707,571 were approved for the project.
Bids were opened for the project on December 22, 2004 and the low bid was found
to be substantially higher than budgeted due to increased costs in steel and
concrete. Based upon the low bid we have calculated that the amount of federal
funds needed to fully fund the project, including contingencies, is $993,690.
Riverside County requests an increase in the amount of federal TEA funds for this
project in the amount of $286,119 for a new total amount of $993,690.
We are holding award of the construction contract pending a determination of funding
availability and attention to this matter would be appreciated. Please feel free to
contact Mr. Juan Perez, Deputy Director of Transportation, if there are any questions.
Sincerely,
Georg A. Johnso
Director of Trans r Srtation
RKN:
cc: Supervisor Roy Wilson
Neil Nilchan
Roy Null
4080 Lemon Street, 8th Floor • Riverside, California 92501 • (909) 955-6740
P.O. Box 1090 • Riverside, California 92502-1090 • FAX (909) 955-3198
K.16.00
9
•
AGENDA ITEM 8
A presentation will be made but
there is no attachment to the
agenda for item 8.
•
-r7-
7 -Ac
RCTC 2005 STP Rehab Project CaII R. ...v .c..,.
T P o.rwm Ca-� ..b..
Agency
Project
Funding Summary
STP Max Requested
Possible Amount
Ma x vs Req
Difference
T otal
Proj ect
C ost
Tot al
Match
Total
Match
%C ons
Match in
Phase
C ons
Match
Banning
Rehab Wilson St - Highland Springs Ave to Highland
Home Rd
$207,138
$ 531,180
$ (324,042)
$ 625,000
$ 93,820
o
15 .01 %
$ 93,820
0
15.01 /o
Beaumont
Rehab Palm A ve from East 6th St to Oak Valley
Pkwy
$ 115,456
$ 115,456
$ -
$ 415,456
$ 300,000 '
72 .21%
$ 264,000
69 .57%
Blythe
Late Submission
$ 128,296
$ -
Calimesa
Rehab Avenue L from Fourth St to Calimensa Blvd
and Calimesa Blvd from Avenue L to Avenue K
$ 67,161
$ 67,161
$ -
$ 108,481
$ 41,320
38 .09 %
$ 8,700 11.47 %
Canyon Lake
Rehab Railroad Cyn Road from Canyon Lake Dr to
Westerly City Limit - various locations eastbound
$ 50,737
$ 50,737
$ -
$ 65,737
$ 15,000
o
22 .82%
$ 10,000
0
16.46 /o
Cathedral athedral
Late Submission
$ 404,106
$ -
Coachella
Late Submission
$ 197,862
$ -
Corona
#1: Rehab Railroad St from West Gran Blvd to Auto
Center Dr and on Auto Center Dr from Railroad St to
SR91
$ 1,011,429
$ 1,200,000
$ (188,571)
$ 1,337,700
$ 137,700
10 .29%
$ 137,700
10.29 %
#2: Rehab Sampson Ave from Radion Dr to Corona
City Limits
$ -
$ 390,000
$ (390,000)
$ 434,700
$ 44,700
10.28%
$ 44,700
10 .28 %
#3: Rehab Pomona Rd from Smith Ave to Auto
Center Dr
$ -
$ 500,000
$ (500,000)
$ 557,300
$ 57,300
10.28%
$ 57,300
10 .28%
#4: Rehab Lincoln Ave from Eighth St to Ontario Ave
$ -
$ 500,000
$ (500,000)
$ 557,300
$ 57,300
10.28%
$ 57,300
10.28%
Total Co rona Possible versus R equested:
$ 1,011,429 $ 2,590,000
$ (1,578,571)
$ 2,887,000
$ 297,000
10.29%
$ 29 7, 000
10 .29%
Desert Hot
Springs
Re hab/Reconstruct Hacienda Ave - Phase I: Cholla
Dr to Palm Dr
$ 195,559
$ 750,000
$ (554,441)
$ 1,100,000
$ 350,000
31.82%
$ 250,000
25 .00%
Hemet
Rehab State St Segments - Between Chambers St &
Ruby Ave plus between Esplanade Ave & Fruitvale
Ave; and on Devonshire Ave between Kirby St and
Lyon Ave
$ 510,583
$ 510,583
$ -
$ 821,583
$ 311,000
37.85%
$ 229,000
30.96%
Indian Wells
No project submission
$ 35,142
$ -
Indio
Late Submission
$ 450,018
$ -
La Quinta
Late Submission
$ 228,523
$ -
Lake Elsinore
Central A ve (SR74) from Collier St to Dexter
Ave
$ 310,996
$ 310,996
$ -
$ 351,286
$ 40,290
11 .47 %
$ 40,290
11.47%
Agency
Pr oject
Funding Summary
- Page 2
STP Ma x
Possible
Requested
Amou nt
T otal
Max vs Req
Project
Difference Co st
Total Match
T otal
Match
%
Cons
M atch in C ons
Match
Phase %
Moreno
Valley
#1: Rehab Heacock St from Gentian Ave to
Poppystone Dr and Frederick St/Pigeon Pass Rd
from Sunnymead Blvd to Hemlock Ave
$ 1,375,174
$ 1,550,000
$ (174,826)
$ 2,045,000
$ 495,000
24 .21%
$ 201,000
11.48 %
#2: Rehab Indian St from Sunnymead Blvd to
Hemlock Ave and on Redlands Blvd between EB and
WB SR60 Ramps
$ -
$ 1,155,000
$ (1,155,000)
$ 1,525,000
$ 370,000
24.26%
$ 151,000
11 .56%
#3: Rehab Iris Ave from Heacock St to Indian St
$ -
$ 1,100,000
$ (1,100,000)
$ 1,455,000
$ 355,000
24.40%
$ 143,000
11.50%
Total More no Val. Possible versus Requested:
$ 1,375,174 $ 3,805,000
$ (2,429,826)
$ 5,025,000
$ 1,220,000 24 .28 % $ 495,000 11.51%
Murrieta
Rehab Clinton Keith Rd from Grand Ave to Calle Del
Oso Oro (or far west as possible)
$ 369,055
$ 369,055
$ -
$ 461,220
$ 92,165
19 .98%
$ 92,165 19 .98%
Norco
No project submission
$ 212,862
$ -
Palm Desert
Rehab Country Club Dr from Eldorado Dr to Cook St
$ 372,685
$ 372,685
$ -
$ 420,685
$ 48,000
11 .41%
$ 43,000
10.34 %
Palm Springs
Rehab Arterial Segments (Asphalt Rubber Hot Mix
Overlay):
(1) Golf Club Dr from Ave 34 to Hwy 111
(2) Ave 34 from Golf Club Dr to Easterly City Limits
(3) Indian Ave from 20th St to Northerly City Limits
$ 498,025
$ 488,700
$ 9,325
$ 559,000
$ 70,300
12 .58%
$ 63,300
11.47%
Perris
Rehab Perris Blvd from Ramona Expressway to
Nuevo Rd
$ 281,939
$ 281,939
$ -
$ 1,541,939
$ 1,260,000
81.72 %
$ 1,200,000
80.97%
Rancho
Mirage
No project submission
$ 157,497
$ -
Riverside
#1: Rehab Hole Ave from California Ave to M agnolia
Ave plus Washington Ave from Francis St to
Southerly City Limits
$ 2,129,588
$ 790,000
$ 1,339,588
$ 923,000
$ 133,000
14.41%
$ 103,000
11 .53%
#2: Re hab Arlington Ave from Frairhaven Dr to Tyler
St
$ 736,000
$ 603,588
$ 862,000
$ 126,000
14.62 %
$ 96,000
11 .54%
#3: Rehab Orange Terrace Parkway from Trautwein
Rd to Van Buren Blvd
$ 603,588
$ -
$ 711,588
$ 108,000
15.18%
$ 78,000
11.44%
Total Riverside Possible versus Requested:
$ 2,129,588
$ 2,129,588
$ -
$ 2,496,588
$ 367,000 14.70 %
$ 277,000
.,1 .1:5196
Riverside
County
STP Rehab CaII applications:
Year 1 Priority: Rehab Cajalco Rd from La Sierra Ave
to Lake M athews Dr
$ 4,993,067
$ 2,056,000
$ 2,937,067
$ 2,488,000
$ 432,000
17.36 %
$ 267,000
11.49%
Year 2 Priority: Re hab Etiwanda Ave fro m Van Buren
Blvd to Philidelphia Ave
$ 1,469,000
$ 1,468,067
$ 1,780,000
$ 311,000
17 .47%
$ 191,000
11.51%
Year 1 Priority: Rehab Four M id -County Roads:
(1) Menifee Rd from San Jacinto Ave to Nuevo Rd
STP Rehab
Call --->
$ 1,468,067
$ -
$ 3,199,067
$ 624,000
19.51%
$ 333,000
11 .45%
(2) Old Elsinore Rd from Sly Rider 0.85 yo San
Jacinto Ave
STP Rural
funds --->
$ 1,107,000
Agency
Pr oject
Funding Summary
- Page 3
STP Max
Possible
Requested
Amount
Max vs Req
Difference
Total
Pr oject
Cost
Total Match
Total
Match
ova
Match in Cons
Phase
Cons
Match
Riverside
County
(con't)
(3) Redlands Blvd from San Timoteo Cyn Rd to
Moreno Valley City Limits
(4) San Timoteo Cyn Rd from County Line to Oak
Cyn Rd
Total STPL:
$ 2,575,067
Total STP Rehab:
$ 4,993,067 $ 4,993,067
$ - $ 6,360,067
$ 1,367,000
21 .49%)
$ 791,000
13.68O
Additional STP Rural Funded Projects
Year 1 Priority: Rehab Caljaco Rd from Kirpatrict Rd
to Lake M athews Dr
Rural STP
$ 800,000
$ 1,111,000
$ 311,000
27.99%
$ 104,000
11.50 %
Year 1 Priority: Rehab Simpson Rd/ Menifee Rd from
Briggs Rd to Grand Ave
Rural STP
$ 500,000
$ 590,000
$ 90,000
15 .25 %
$ 66,000
11 .66 %
Year 3 Priority: Rehab Washington St from
Thousand Palms Canyon to Pushawalla Rd
Rural STP
$ 700,000
$ 910,000
$ 210,000 23 .08%
$ 91,000
11 .50%
Yea r 3 Priority: Rehab Varner Rd from Rio Del Sol
Rd to Ramon Rd and Rio Del Sol from Varner Rd to
1.25 mi north of Del Norte Wy
Rural STP
$ 960,000
$ 1,195,000
$ 235,000
19.67%
$ 125,000
11.52%
Ye ar 4 Priority: Rehab Three Coachella Valley Area
Rural Roads:
(1) 52nd Ave from Jackson Ave to Van Buren Ave
(2) 62nd Ave from Van Buren Ave to Hayes Ave
(3) 66th Ave from Grant Ave to Hayes Ave
Rural STP
$ 950,000
$ 1,215,000
$ 265,000
21.81 %
$ 125,000
11 .63%
Year 2 Priority: Rehab Three Palo Verde Area
Roads:
(1) Lovekin Blvd from 0.25 mile north to 0. 75 mile of
Seeley Ave
(2) Seeley Ave from Lovekin Blvd ro South Broadway
(3) South Broadway from Seeley A ve to 0.5 north
Rural STP
$ 500,000
$ 660,000
$ 160,000
24.24 %
$ 65,000
11 .50 %
Total Ru ral STP:
$ 5,517,000
$ 6,788,000
$ 1,271,000 18.72 %
$ 576,000
San Jacinto
Rehab State St from Ramon Blvd (SR79) to
Esplanade Ave/Southerly City Limits
$ 279,845 $ 279,845
$ -
$ 999,845
$ 720,000 1 72 .01%
$ 690,000 171 .15%
Temecula
Rehab De Portola Rd between Jedediah Smith Rd
and Margarita Rd
$ 417,264
$ 417,264
$ -
$ 1,159,923
$ 742,659 I 64 .03% $ 742,659 64 .03 %
Total Rehab Call STP Possible and Requested:
$15,000,007
$ 18,063,256
$ 32,186,810
$ 8,606,554 26 .74%
Total Rural STP Requested:
$ 5,517,000
Note: The total STPL requested amount does not reflect the additonal $1,408,805 expected
to be requested by the late submissions . This will increase the total requested to
$19,472,061.
Total STPL Requested
$ 23,580,256
Total of STPL not requested by agencies:
$ 405,501
•
AGENDA ITEM 9
A presentation will be made but
there is no attachment to the
agenda for item 9.
•
•
AGENDA ITEM 10
•
A presentation will be made but
there is no attachment to the
agenda for item 10.
•
•
AGENDA ITEM 11
•
A presentation will be made but
there is no attachment to the
agenda for item 11.
•
•
AGENDA ITEM 12
A presentation will be made but
there is no attachment to the
agenda for item 12.
•