Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout09 September 27, 1999 Budget & ImplementationRIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION • /0 • • DATE: TIME: BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE AGENDA Monday, September 27, 1999 2:30 p.m. LOCATION: Riverside County Transportation Commission 3560 University. Avenue, Suite 100 Riverside, CA 92501 ovoy9 Budget and Implementation Committee Members Jim Venable / County of Riverside, Chairman Ron Roberts / City of Temecula, Vice Chair John Hunt / City of Banning Gregory S. Pettis / City of Cathedral City Juan DeLara / City of Coachella Andrea Puga / City of Corona John Pena / City of La Quinta Kevin Pape / City of Lake Elsinore Frank West / City of Moreno Valley Don Yokaitis / City of Rancho Mirage Alex Clifford / City of Riverside Tom Mullen / County of Riverside John Tavaglione / County of Riverside Patrick Williams / City of San Jacinto Eric Haley, Executive Director Dean Martin, Chief Financial Officer BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE Annual Budget Development and Oversight Countywide Strategic Plan Legislation Measure "A" Implementation and Capital Programs Public Communications and Outreach Programs Competitive Grant Programs (TEA 21 - CMAQ & STP, Transportation Enhancement, SB 821, SAFE/Freeway Service Patrol and Other Areas as may be prescribed by the Commission) Comments are welcomed by the Committee. If you wish to provide comments to the Commission, please complete and submit a Testimony Card to the Clerk of the Committee. RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE http://www.rctc.org 3560 University Ave - Riverside, CA 92501 - Conference Room A PARK IN THE PARKING GARAGE ACROSS FROM THE POST OFFICE ON ORANGE STREET MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 27, 1999 - 2:30 p.m. AGENDA* *Actions may be taken on any item listed on the agenda City of La Quinta City Hall (Video Conference Location) 78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta 92253 - Session Room 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. PUBLIC COMMENTS 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES (August 23, 1999) 4. CONSENT CALENDAR - All matters on the Consent Calendar will be approved in a single motion unless a Commissioner(s) requests separate action on specific item(s). Items pulled from the Consent Calendar will be placed for discussion at the end of the agenda. 4A. - SINGLE SIGNATURE AUTHORITY REPORT - P. 4 Receive & file. 4B. - MONTHLY FINANCIAL REPORT - P. 11 Receive & file. 4C. - STATE & FEDERAL LEGISLATIVE UPDATE - P. 15 Receive & file. September 27, 1999 Page 2 • 5. RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION STRATEGIC PLAN / PHASE I - REVIEW AND UPDATE - P. 28 (20 MIN) For discussion and possible action. 6. FISCAL YEAR 1990-2000 CONTRACT AMENDMENT TO FREEWAY SERVICE PATROL TOW TRUCK AGREEMENTS WITH HAMNER TOWING AND PEPE'S TOWING SERVICE - P. 29 (5 MIN) Approve Amendment #3 to the Freeway Service Patrol Tow Truck Agreement with Hamner Towing, Inc. and Pepe's Towing Service, Inc. to continue service until June 30, 2000. 7. CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL (CHP) PRESENTATION - P.31 (10 MIN) Receive and file 8. COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE REQUEST TO REALLOCATE CONGESTION MITIGATION AND AIR QUALITY FUNDS - P. 32 (3 MIN) Approve the reallocation of CMAQ funds in the amount of $420,000. 9. RIVERSIDE TRANSIT AGENCY REQUEST TO REALLOCATE CONGESTION MITIGATION AND AIR QUALITY FUNDS - P. 3 (3 MIN) Approve the reallocation of CMAQ funds in the amount of $423,907. • • September 27, 1999 Page 3 • 10. TRANSPORTATION ENHANCEMENT ACTIVITIES PROGRAM SELECTION CRITERIA - P. 43 (5 MIN) Approve the Transportation Enhancement Activities Program Selection Criteria as presented. 11. HIGHWAY 111 ADVANCEMENT - PALM SPRINGS' REQUEST - P. 50 (5 MIN) Approve the City of Palm Springs' request to advance the construction of Improvements at Gene Autry Trail and Highway 1 1 1 and reimbursement from the Measure A Highway Program. 12. COMMISSION SIGNATURE AUTHORIZATION - P. 56 (1 MIN) • • Authorize the Deputy Executive Director to be added to the account as a primary signature. 13. ADJOURNMENT - The next meeting is scheduled to be held at 2:30 p.m. on Monday, October 25, 1999 at the RCTC offices. RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION • • • BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE August 23, 1999 MINUTES 1. CALL TO ORDER. The meeting of the Budget and Implementation Committee was called to order at 2:30 p.m. by Chairman Jim Venable, at the offices of the Riverside County Transportation Commission, 3560 University Avenue, Suite 100, Riverside, and at the video conference location at the City of La Quinta, 78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta. Self -introductions followed. Members Present Members Absent Juan DeLara* Jim Hunt Ameal Moore Tom Mullen Kevin Pape John Pena* Andrea Puga Ron Roberts Jim Smedley John Tavaglione Jim Venable Frank West Gregory Pettis Don Yokaitis * In attendance at the video conference site. 2. PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no comments from the public. 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Commissioner Frank West noted that under Item 5, the second bullet down, it should be corrected to say City of Moreno Valley rather than the City of Perris. M/S/C (Hunt/Mullen) to approve the minutes of the June 28, 1999 as amended. 4. CONSENT CALENDAR M/S/C (Hunt/Mullen) approve the Consent Calendar as presented. 4A. QUARTERLY CALL BOX UPDATE That the SAFE Board receive and file the quarterly cal/ box update. ►000 Budget & Implementation Committee Minutes August 23, 1999 Page 2 4B. QUARTERLY FINANCIAL STATEMENT That the Commission receive and file the combining statements of revenues and expenditures and changes in fund balances (unaudited) for the quarter ending June 30, 1999. 4C. MONTHLY COST SCHEDULE REPORT That the Commission receive and file the monthly cost and schedu/e reports for the period ending July 31, 1999. 5. STATE & FEDERAL LEGISLATIVE UPDATE M/S/C (Mul/en/Hunt) that the Commission receive and file the State and Federal Legislative Update as an information item. 6. COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND THE RIVERSIDE SERVICE AUTHORITY FOR FREEWAY EMERGENCIES FOR THE OPERATION OF A CONSTRUCTION FREEWAY SERVICE PATROL ON I-215/SR-60 IN RIVERSIDE COUNTY. M/S/C (Hunt/Puga) that the Commission approve the agreement with the State of California Department of Transportation, subject to Legal Counsel review, in the amount of $96,000 in State funding for the Construction Freeway Service Patrol on 1-215/SR- 60 in Riverside County. 7. AGREEMENT BETWEEN SAN BERNARDINO ASSOCIATED GOVERNMENTS (SANBAG) AND RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION (RCTC) FOR THE PROVISION OF DISPATCH SERVICES IN THE SAN BERNARDINO CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL OFFICES. M/S/C (Tavaglione/Mu//en) that the Commission authorize the Executive Director to execute the agreements between San Bernardino Associated Governments and Riverside County Transportation Commission for the provision of dispatch services in the San Bernardino and Indio California Highway Patrol offices for the Riverside County Motorist Aid Call Box Program. 8. SURFACE TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM (STP) LOCAL PROGRAMS FOLLOW UP M/S/C (Puga/Roberts) that the Commission approve the Surface Transportation Program Local Projects included in the staff report and ensure that they are included in the Regional Transportation Improvement Program. ►001 Budget & Implementation Committee Minutes August 23, 1999 Page 3 9. FUND TRANSFER AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION FOR THE OPERATION OF A FREEWAY SERVICE PATROL PROGRAM IN RIVERSIDE COUNTY M/S/C (Puga/Tavag/ione) that the Commission approve the agreement with the State of California Department of Transportation, subject to Legal Counsel review, in the amount of $918,500 in State funding for the Riverside County Freeway Service Patrol program for FY 1999-2000. 10. AWARD OF CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT NO. RO-9969 FOR SOUND WALL #98 ALONG THE SOUTH SIDE OF ROUTE 91, BETWEEN JACKSON AND MONROE STREETS IN THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE (PHASE II SW) M/S/C (Mullen/Tavag/ione) that the Commission award Contract No. RO-9969, for the construction of Sound Wall #98 and Drainage Canal Relocation and Rehabilitation, on Route 91, from Tyler Street to Monroe Street, in the City of Riverside, to Hi//side Contractors, Inc., for the amount of $793,960 and that a contingency amount of $81,040 (10%) be authorized to cover potential change orders encountered during construction for a total not to exceed value of $875,000. The standard RCTC construction agreement will be used, subject to RCTC Legal Counsel review. 11. QUARTERLY Y2K STATUS REPORT M/S/C (Mullen/Tavaglione) that the Commission receive and file the quarterly Y2K status report. 12. CITY OF NORCO - REQUEST TO REPROGRAM SURFACE TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM FUNDS. M/S/C (Mullen/Tavaglione) that the Commission approve the City of Norco's request to reprogram discretionary Surface Transportation Program funds from a signal installation at Sixth Street and California Avenue to a signal installation at Hamner Avenue and Market Street. 13. CONTRACT AWARD FOR FREEWAY SERVICE PATROL TOW TRUCK SERVICES M/S/C (Tavaglione/Mullen) that the Commission award a three-year contract to Pepe's Towing Service to provide tow truck service on Beat #25 for the Riverside County Freeway Service Patrol Program. 14. CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENTS WITH BN&SF FOR THE LA SIERRA AND WEST CORONA PEDESTRIAN OVER CROSSINGS M/S/C (Mullen/Tavaglione) that the Commission approve the agreement with the BN&SF Railway Company, subject to RCTC legal counsel final review, and approval for both the La Sierra and West Corona Metrolink Stations. JO02 Budget & Implementation Committee Minutes August 23, 1999 Page 4 15. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business for consideration by the Budget and Implementation Committee, the meeting was adjourned at 3:00 p.m. The next meeting is scheduled to be held at 2:30 p.m. on Monday, September 27, 1999 at the RCTC offices. Respectfully submitted, Traci R. McGinley Deputy Clerk of the Board • • • ��U0003 • • AGENDA ITEM 4A • • • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION DATE: September 27, 1999 TO: Budget & Implementation Committee FROM: Dean Martin, Chief Financial Officer THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Single Signature Authority Report BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Through August 31, 1999, contracts were executed under single signature authority granted to the Executive Director by the Commission. Remaining was $475,000.00 unused capacity. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Receive and file. 0111)004 CONSULTANT Mathis & Associates SANBA G TOTAL AMOUNT AVAILA BLE July 1, 1999 A MO UNT REMAINING THRU June 30, 2000 Prepared by • CONTRACTS AUTHORIZED UNDER SINGLE SIGNATURE AUTHORITY AS OF AUGUST 31, 1999 DESCRIPTION OF SERVICES Consultant f or RCTC empl oyee survey, RCTC organizational structur e, relationships of new staff & f ollow up meetings with RCTC staff. Co -manage study of growth in demand for air cargo and other freight movement in relation to Inland Empire Empl oyment and population growth. Reviewed by note: Shaded area represents new contracts for July and August f:\users\preprint\dp\sinsig00 0.00 CONTRACT AMOUNT 10,000.00 25,000 .00 500,000 .00 475,000.00 • EXPENDED REMAINING AMOUNT BAL ANCE 0 .00 10,000.00 0.00 15,000.00 0.00 0 .00 25,000.00 • • SANBAG CONTRACT NO: 99-060 by and between San Bernardino Associated Governments and Riverside County Transportation Commission to CO -MANAGE PREPARATION OF A STUDY OF GROWTH IN DEMAND FOR AIR CARGO AND OTHER FREIGHT MOVEMENT IN RELATION TO INLAND EMPIRE EMPLOYMENT AND POPULATION GROWTH (SANBAG CONTRACT NO. NO. 99-059) AND REIMBURSE SANBAG FOR 50% OF i'lii PROJECT COST, NOT TO EXCEED 515,000. FOR.ACCOUNTING PURPOSES Payable OR Vendor Contract No. Receivable Task Number 9911010 Cost Code 6010 New Contract/ Amount: $15,000 for a total amount of 3 15.000 Funding Source(s) 1_ RCTC Reimbursement for Contract 99-059 3 15,000 3. $ 4— $ Contract SANBAG Approval Date: June 2, 1999 Contract Effective Date: June 2, 1999 Contract Ending Date: December 31, 1999 If this is a multi -year contract, please allocate contract costs among fiscal years: Fiscal Year — Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Is this consistent with the adopted budget? No. If no, is budget amendment attached? Yes If 1099 required. Fed ID/SSN# CONTRACT MANAGEMENT Please mark an "X" next to all that apply: x Intergovernmental OR Private Local I Partly Local Non -Local DBE/WBE/DVBE Task Manager: Ty Schuiling Contract Manager. Ty Schuiling A99-060.doc Page 1 of 3 '1)006 AGREEMENT NO. 99-060 BY AND BETWEEN SAN BERNARDINO ASSOCIATED GOVERNMENTS AND RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION TO CO -MANAGE PREPARATION OF A STUDY OF GROWTH IN DEMAND FOR AIR CARGO AND OTHER FREIGHT MOVEMENT IN RELATION TO INLAND EMPIRE EMPLOYMENT AND POPULATION GROWTH THIS AGREEMENT ("Agreement") is entered into as of this qr" day of June 1999 (the "Effective Date"), in the State of California by and between SAN BERNARDINO ASSOCIATED GOVERNMENTS ("SANBAG") and the RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION ("RCTC"). WHEREAS. SANBAG approved the allocation of funding (SANBAG Contract No. 99-059) for preparation of a time -sensitive analysis of the Inland Empire's economic expansion which addresses concerns associated with a probable under -representation of the growth in air cargo demand in the Inland area in SCAG's air cargo modeling efforts ("Analysis"); and. WHEREAS. RCTC has agreed to provide fifty percent (50%) of the project cost. not to exceed S15.000.00. NOW. THEREFORE, the parties agree as follows: A. Contract Services. SANBAG will manage the preparation of the Analysis and RCTC will provide assistance with the Analysis as requested. B. Compensation. Upon completion of the Analysis and acceptance by RCTC, RCTC will reimburse SANBAG for half of the cost of the Analysis. in an amount not to exceed Fifteen Thousand Dollars (S15,000.00). C. Term. This Agreement shall commence on the date first mentioned above and terminate upon acceptance of the Analysis by the parties or December 31. 1999, whichever' comes first. D. Indemnification. It is understood and agreed that neither party nor any officer, employee, consultant or agent thereof is responsible for any damage or liability to the other party occurring by reason of anything done or omitted by it under or in connection with any work authority of jurisdiction delegated to either party under this Agreement. It is understood and agreed that, pursuant to Government Code Section 895.4, each party shall fully defend, indemnify and save harmless the other, and all its officers, employees, consultants and agents from all claims, suits or actions of every name, kind and description brought for or on account of injury (as defined in Government Code Section 810.8) occurring by reason of anything done or A99-060.doc Page 2 of 3 000007 omitted to be done by either parry under or in connection with any work. authority or jurisdiction delezated to either parry under this Agreement. • • FOR APPROVAL E. Rights of SANBAG and RCTC. The Executive Directors of both SANBAG and RCTC shall have full authority to exercise their respective entity's rights under this Agreement. F. Ownership. All materials and data, including data on magnetic media. prepared for the parties under this Agreement. shall become the common property of RCTC and SANBAG. RCTC and SANBAG shall not be limited in any way in its use of the .-Uialvsis. G. Consent. Whenever consent or approval of any party is required under this Agreement, that parry shall not unreasonably withhold nor delay such consent or approval. IN WITNESS THEREOF. THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVES OF THE PARTIES HAVE SIGNED BELOW AND EXECUTED THIS AGREEMENT ON THE EFFECTIVE DATE: SAN BERNARDINO ASSOCIATED RIVERSIDE COUNTY GOVERNMENTS TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION Robert Christman, President Eric A. Haley, Executive Director &--"N REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED APPROVED AS TO FORM FOR RCTC 4 Norman R. King, Executive Director APPROVED AS TO FORM Rex A. Hinesley A99-060.doc Steve.: sei REV OR FISCAL IMPACT 7 ' �. // /. Dea�-Martin, Clef Financial Officer Page 3 of 3 000008 047459 AGREEMENT FOR CONSULTING SERVICES BETWEEN THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION AND MATHIS & ASSOCIATES This Agreement is made and entered into this 1st day of January , 1 999 by and between the Riverside County Transportation Commission, hereinafter referred to as "RCTC," and Mathis & Associates, hereinafter referred to as "CONSULTANT." RECITALS WHEREAS, CONSULTANT is a professional consultant, experienced in providing services to public clients and familiar with the plans of RCTC; and WHEREAS, RCTC desires to engage CONSULTANT to render certain consulting services as set forth herein; and NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration for the promises set forth herein, the receipt and adequacy of which is hereby acknowledged, the parties hereto agree as follows: SECTION I SERVICES OF THE CONSULTANT; TERM 1. General Scope of Services. CONSULTANT shall provide professional consulting services and assist the Riverside County Transportation Commission's Executive Director, in preparing for the staff retreat and to facilitate the Commission's staff retreat. 2. The term of this Agreement shall be from January 1, 1999 to September 30, 1999 unless earlier terminated as provided herein. 3. Termination. 3.1 Notice. Commission may, by written notice to Consultant, may terminate this Agreement in whole or in part at any time. Such termination may be for Commission's convenience or because of Consultant's failure to perform its duties and obligations under this - 1 - 000009 • • pursuant to provisions of Section V of this Agreement. The key personnel for performance of this Agreement is R. William Mathis. 4. Coordination of Services. CONSULTANT agrees to work closely with RCTC staff in the performance of Services and shall be available to RCTC's staff, consultants and other staff at all reasonable times. 5. Standard of Care; Licenses. CONSULTANT shall perform the Services under this Agreement in a skillful and competent manner and shall serve and maintain in force any and all licenses, permits or other approvals necessary for it to carry out the services. 6. Insurance. CONSULTANT shall provide its own insurance, such liability, health and workers' compensation 7. Schedule of Services. CONSULTANT shall perform all required services by September 30, 1999. SECTION III FEES AND PAYMENTS 1. Compensation. CONSULTANT shall receive compensation, including reimbursements, for all Services rendered under this Agreement. Reimbursements for expenses must be authorized by the Executive Director. The total compensation under this Agreement shall not exceed $ 10,000. 2. Payment of Compensation. CONSULTANT shall submit to RCTC a statement which indicates work completed and hours of Services rendered by Consultant. The statement shall describe the amount of Services and supplies provided since the initial commencement date, or since the start of the subsequent billing periods, as appropriate, through the date of the statement. RCTC shall, within 45 days of receiving such statement, review the statement and pay all approved charges thereon. 3. Reimbursement for Expenses. CONSULTANT shall be reimbursed for any authorized and documented expenses. 4. Extra Work. At any time during the term of this Agreement, RCTC may request that CONSULTANT perform Extra Work. As used herein, "Extra Work" means any work which is determined by RCTC to be necessary for the proper completion of the Project, but which the parties did not reasonably anticipate would be necessary at the execution._ of this Agreement. CONSULTANT shall not perform, nor be - 4 - 1)010 • AGENDA ITEM 4B • • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: September 27, 1999 TO: Budget and Implementation Committee FROM: William Hughes, Measure A Project Manager Louis Martin, Project Controls Manager THROUGH: Dean Martin, Chief Financial Officer SUBJECT: Monthly Cost and Schedule Reports STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Receive and file. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The attached material depicts the current costs and schedule status of contracts reported by routes, commitments, and cooperative agreements executed by the Commission. For each contract and agreement, the report lists the authorized value approved by the Commission, percentage of contract amount expended to date, and the project expenditures by route with status for the month ending August 31, 1999. Attachments 0 011 RCTC MEASURE "A" HI GHWAY/ i,- ROJECTS BUD GET REPORT BY ROU CO MMISSI ON C ONTRACTURAL PROJECT AUTHORIZED COMMITMENTS DESCRIPTI ON ALL OCATION TO DATE R OUTE 60 PR OJECTS Park 'n' Ride Lot Final Design (R09738) $62,157 $62,157 Park 'n' Ride Lot Construction (R09928,9832) $325,000 $320,000 SUBTOTAL ROUTE 60 *387,157 $382,157 ROUTE 74 PROJECTS Engineering/Environ/ROW (R09337 9954,9966) SUBTOTAL ROUTE 74 ROUTE 79 PROJECTS Engineering/Environ./R O W (R09961) Realignment study, Right turn lanes SUBTOTAL ROUTE 79 ROUTE 111 PROJECTS (R09219, 9227,9234,9523,9525,9530,9537,9538) 9635,9743,9849-9851,9857 SUBTOTAL ROUTE 111 ROUTE 91 PRO JECTS Soundwall design and construction (R0 9101, 9337,9827,9847,9861, 9848, 9832) Van Buren Blvd. Frwy Hook Ramp (R09535) Sndwall Landscaping (R09848,9933,9948,9945) SUBTOTAL ROUTE 91 1-215 PROJECTS Preliminary Engrg/Environ. (R09008, 9018) SUBTOTAL 1-215 $6,508,900 $6,508,900 $537,000 $537,000 $15,933,909 *15,933,909 $5,048,508 $2,300,000 $883,450 *8,231,958 $6,726,504 $6,726,504 $6,508,900 $6,508,900 $537,000 *537,000 $15,933,909 $15,933,909 $4,796,083 $2,300,000 $798,291 *7,894,374 $5,878,173 $5,878,173 Page 1 of 3 % C OMMITTED EXPENDITURE FOR % EXPENDITURES AGAINST AUTH. MONTH ENDED EXPENDITURES TO -DATE AGAINST ALLO CATION August 31, 1999 TO DATE COMMITMNTS TO DATE 100 .0 % 98.5 % 98.7% 100 .0% 100 .0% 100 .0% 100.0% 100.0% 100 .0% 95.0 % 100 .0% 90 .4% 95.9% 87.4% 87. 4% *0 $30,625 $30,625 $0 $0 $25,021 *25,021 $216,270 $94,416 $7,577 *318,263 *0 $62,020 $312,935 $374,955 $396,173 $396,173 $0 *0 $8,683,852 *8,683,852 $4,533,035 $1,787,850 $582,739 $6,903,624 $5,704,897 $5,704,897 99.8% 97.8 % 98.1% 6 .1 % 6.1% 0.0% 0.0% 54 .5% 54.5% 94.5% 77.7% 73.0 % 87 .4% 97 .1 % 97 .1% RCTC MEASURE "A" HIGHW AY PR OJECTS BUDGET REPORT BY ROUTE C OMMISSI ON C ONTRACTURAL % COM MITTED EXPEN DITURE F OR % EXPENDITURES PR OJECT AUTHORIZED C OM MIT MENTS AGAINST AUTH. MONTH ENDED EXPENDITURES TO -DATE AGAINST DESCRIPTION ALLOCATI ON TO DATE ALLOCATION August 31, 1999 TO DATE C OMMITMNTS TO DATE INTERCHANGE I MPR OV . PROGR AM Yuma IC Final Design (PS&E) (R 09428) Yuma IC Landscaping (R09926,9946) SUBTOTAL INTERCHANGE PROJECT & CONSTR. MG MT SERV . (RO 2000) SUBTOTAL BECHTEL PROGRAM PLAN & SERVICES North/South Corridor study SUBTO TAL PROG RAM PLAN & SVCS. PARK-N-RIDE/INCENT. PROGRAM (RO 9740-9742) 9859 (9901-9915) (9813) SUBTOTAL PARK -N -RIDE COMMUTER RAIL Studies/Engineering (RO 9420,9731,9832,9833,9844,9854,9956) Station/Site Acq/OP Costs/Mai nt. Costs (R00000,9920,9836,9843,9845,9953,9957,) SUBTOTAL COMM UTER RAIL TOTALS $1,386,877 $350,000 *1,736,877 $1,550,000 *1,550,000 $100,000 $ 100,000 $3,575,200 *3,575,200 $1,648,600 $9,350,502 *10,999,102 *49,777,707 $1,386,877 $304,000 *1,690,877 $1,470,000 *1,470,000 $100,000 *100,000 $3,575,200 53,575,200 $1,648,600 $8,369,000 $10,017,600 *47,479,290 100 .0 % 86.9 % 97.4% 94.8% 94.8% 100.0 % 100 .0% 100.0 % 100.0% 100 .0 % 89 .5% 9t1% 95.4% $11,428 $6,626 *18,054 $201,213 $201,213 *0 $104,427 *104,427 $o *666,978 $1,384,351 $273,840 $1,658,191 $804,852 *804,852 $0 $3,253,908 $3,253,908 $1,550,181 $7,599,335 *9,149,516 *36,533,795 99 .8% 90.1 % 98 .1% 54.8 % 54 .8% 0.0% 0.0% 91.0% 91.0% 94.0% 90.8 % 91.3% 76 .9% Page 2 of 3 • • • a PROJECT DESCRIPTION CITY OF RCTC MEASURE "A" BUDGET APPR OVED C OM MITMENT w % LI OUTSTANDING TO-[ COMMITMENT HIGHWAY/L OC AL STREETS & ROADS P ROJECTS REPORT BY PR OJECT EXPENDITURE F OR T OTAL OUTSTANDING M ONTH ENDED MEASURE "A" LOAN August 31, 1999 ADVANCES BALANCE CANY ON LAKE APPR Railroad Canyon Rd Improvements $1,600,000 $1,600,000 $1,310,737 $0 SUBTOTAL CANYON LAKE LOAN *1,600,000 S0 *1,600,000 $1,310,737 *0 CITY OF CORONA Smith, M aple & Lincoln Interchanges & (1) Storm drainage structure $5,212,623 $5,212,623 $3,973,472 $0 SUBTOTAL CITY OF CO RONA *5,212,623 *0 *5,212,623 *3,973,472 *p CITY OF PERRIS _ocal streets & road improvements $1,936,419 $1,936,419 $1,658,822 $0 CITY OF SAN JACINTO .ocal streets & road improvements $1,324,500 $1,324,500 $1,134,625 $0 CITY OF TEM ECULA ocal streets & road improveme nts $5,094,027 $5,094,027 $4,363,768 $0 CITY OF NORCO 'uma I/C & Local streets and road Imprints $2,139,067 $2,139,067 $1,832,419 $0 TOTALS IOTE: *17,306,638 *0 *17,306,836 *14,273,843 *0 (1) Loan against interchange improvement programs. All values are for total Project/Contract and not related to fiscal year budgets . Page 3 of 3 • JAN BALANCE )ATE AGAINST OVED COM MIT. 81.9% 81.9% 76.2% 76 .2 % 85.7% 85.7% 85.7% 85 .7% 82 .5% Status as of 9!31/50 • • AGENDA ITEM 4C • • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: September 27, 1999 TO: Budget and Implementation Committee FROM: David W. Shepherd, Director of Intergovernmental and Legislative Affairs Dean Martin, Chief Financial Officer THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: State and Federal Legislative Update STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Receive and file the State and Federal Legislative Update as an information item. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: State Legislative Update On September 10, 1999, the Legislature adjourned for interim recess until January 3, 2000. Before, adjourning, the following bills were sent to the Governor for signature. The Governor has 30 days to either veto or sign into law bills sent for his review by the Legislature. Staff anticipates favorable action by the Governor on each of the bills listed below. AB 1 155 (Torlakson) - the legislation setting forth the expenditure plan requirements the ballot measure SCA 3 would require. AB 283 (Longville) - this bill would allow a County Board of Supervisors, rather than the California Transportation Commission to adopt a Resolution of Necessity for condemnation of property for transportation projects. AB 1012 (Torlakson) - the project delivery bill which contains the Riverside County Transportation Commission/San Bernardino Associated Governments (RCTC/SANBAG) generated State Highway Account loan concept. AB 1571 (Villaraigosa and Brulte) - this bill would create a state grant program for reduction of diesel emissions. RCTC has a "Support with Amendments" position. The amendment being sought would require both the South Coast Air Quality Management District and the Mobile Source Reduction Review Committee to jointly develop a program for use of the funds allocated to the South Coast Air Basin. 000015 Unfortunately, SCA 3 failed to pass out of the Assembly. Needing 54 votes, the bill only received 46 in favor of passage. The votes were cast strictly on a party -line basis - with Democrats in support and Republicans opposed. In the last two days of the Legislative Session, the Republican Caucus did offer a proposal (essentially transferring the sales tax on the gas tax from the General Fund to transportation) which, if supported by Democrats, would have garnered Republican support for SCA 3. However, an agreement on the two proposals was not reached. Meanwhile, AB 1 155 (Torlakson), which sets forth requirements for the development of an expenditure plan for the revenues generated should SCA 3 pass on the Senate ballot, was sent to the Governor for signature. Passage of AB 1 155 is in anticipation of both parties potentially reaching an agreement when the Legislature resumes legislative activity in January 2000. Federal Legislative Update Shortly after returning from Summer Recess, the Senate unanimously passed the Transportation Appropriations legislation. Largely due to the efforts of Senators Feinstein and Boxer, the language mandating a nationwide 12.5% cap on transit allocations was deleted from the bill legislation, and is the reason for delay in the bill's passage. The deletion of this language helps California avoid a loss of approximately $118 million in federal transit funding, and for Riverside and San Bernardino Counties a funding loss of $7 to 9 million was prevented. While the House Transportation Appropriations legislation contained specific dollar amounts for the earmarked projects, the Senate legislation did not. Thus, soon to be designated members from each house will begin negotiations to resolve the differences in each bill and subsequently report a "Conference" bill for the full body of each house to either approve or disapprove. Conclusion The State Legislature adjourned until January 4t'. Before adjourning, several bills of importance to SANBAG and RCTC were sent to the Governor for signature. In Washington, D.C., both the House and Senate have passed transportation appropriation legislation, but representatives from each house have not yet met to resolve the differences in each bill. • • • (0 0016 fiRIVERSIDE COUNT Y TRANSPORT ATI ON COMM )N/SAN BERNARDI NO ASSO CI ATED GOVERNME• POSITIONS ON ATE LEGISL ATION Legislation/Auth or Description I3i11 Status AB 38 (Washington) Amended to address education issues . Passed the Assembly Floor 57-20 on 5/13/99. Passed Senate Floor 25-1 1 on 9/2/99 . Referred to Assembly . Concurrence in Senate ame ndments pending, may be considered after 9/4/99 . AB 44 (McClintock) Would require Caltrans and local authorities to redesignate all ex isting HOV lan es as mi xed flow. AB 71 (Cunneen) Would permit inherently low - emission v ehicles (ILEV) to travel in High Occupancy Vehicle lanes regardless of the number of occupants in the ILEV . Referred to Assembly Tra nsportati on Committee . No hearing date yet . Passed Assembly Floor 79-0 on 5/27/99 . Passed Senate Floor 31-7 on 8/24/99. Signed into law by Governor, 9/7/99. AB 74 (Strom -Martin) Amended to just Require State Intercity Freight Rail Study. Passed Assembly Floo r 52-27 on 6/4/99. Passed Senate Floor 50-26 on 8/26/99. 011 8/31/99 at Governor's desk for signature. Position Date of Board Adoption SUPPORT NO POSITION ON CURRENT SUBJECT MATTER SA NBAG 3/3/99 RCTC 3/10/99 OPPOSE SANB AG 3/3/99 RCTC 3/10/99 SUPPORT S ANBAG 4/7/99 RCTC 4/14/99 CHANGE FROM OPPOSE TO WATCH OPPOSE SANBAG 3/3/99 RCTC 3/10/99 W A1 'CI1 SANBAG 6/2/99 RCTC 6/2/99 Legislation/Author Description Bill Status Position Date of Board Ad option AB 102 (Wildman and Hertzberg) Would fund the 1989 Priority Soundwall Retrofit list off -the -top of the State Highway Account . Passed the Assembly Floor 43- 31 on 6/3/99 . Failed passage in Senate Tra nsportation Committee on 8/17/99 . CI IANGE FROM SEEK AMENDMENT TO OPPOSE SA NBAG 3/3/99 -SEEK AME NDMENT RCTC 3/10/99 -SEEK AME NDMENT SANBAG 6/2/99 - OPPOSE RCTC 6/9/99 -OPPOSE AB 276 (Longville) Would redirect a portio n of sales and gas ta xes curre ntly going to the General Fund to the P ublic Transportation Acco unt Passed the Assembly Floor on Revenue, Tax and Transportation 14-2 on 5/10/99. Held in Assembly Appropriations Committee, suspense file . NO RECOMMENDATION SANBAG 4/7/99 RCTC 4/14/99 AB 283 (Longv ille) Would allo w a resoluti on of necessity to be approved by a Co unty Board of Supervisors, ra ther than the California Transpo rtatio n Commission . Passed the Assembly Floor 76-0 on 4/20/99. On 9/10/99 Assembly unanimously concurred in Senate Amendments to Governor's desk for signature. Passed Senate Floor 40-0 on 9/7/99. SPONSOR - AD OPTED AS PART OF THE STATE LEGISL ATIVE PROGRAM SANBAG 1/6/99 RCTC 1/13/99 • • • •lation/Author Description Bill Position Date of Board Aran AB 308 (Longville) W ould require a re view and Passed the Assembly analysis of the Public Fl oor48-31 on Transportation Account 6/2/99. On 6/12/99 expe nditures and a review of the passed Senate account's needs Tra nsportation Committee 11-1 . Passed the Senate Appropriations Committee 13-0 on 9/2/99. Passed to Assembly Transportation 25-10 . Concurrence in Senate ame ndments pending . AB 521( McClin tock) Would redirect that porti on of Set for hearing on sales and gas taxes currently goi ng 4/19/99 in the to the General Fu nd to the State Assembly Highway Account. Transp ortation Committee. Hearing canceled at the req uest of author . AB 872 (A lquist) Would allow reimbursement of Passed the Assembly local funds used to advance STIP Floor 78-0 on 6/1/99. programmed projects. On 9/7/99 passed Senate Floor 40-0. To Assembly for concurrence in Senate Amendments. 9/10/99, ordered to Special Consent Calendar. NO RECOMMENDATION SANBAG 4/7/99 RCTC 4/14/99 NO RECOMMENDATION SANBA G 4/7/99 RCTC 4/14/99 UPPORT SANBAG 4/7/99 RCTC 4/14/99 Legislation/Author Description Bill Status Position Date of Board Ad option AB 923 (Hertzberg) Would increase the fines for Rail Right of Way violations . Passed the Assembly Flo or 63-13 on 5/26/99 . On 9/7/99 passed Senate Floor 30-5. Assembly concurred in Senate Amendments to Governor's desk for signature. SUPPORT SANBAG 6/2/99 RCTC 6/2/99 AB 1012 (Torlakson) A comprehe nsive transportation reform package intended to enhance Caltrans' operating en vironment; includes the RCTC/SANBAG generated "loa n" con cept. Passed Assembly Floor 73-7 on 6/2/99. Passed Senate Floor 40-0 on 9/8/99. On 9/10/99 Assembly conc urred in Senate Ame ndments to Governor's desk for sig nature . SUPPORT SANBAG 4/7/99 RCTC 4/14/99 AB 1425(Runner) Pro vides Statutory Direction To Caltrans to Insure More TEA21 Funds Flow Directly to Regions. Passed the Assembly Flo or 50-23 on 5/27/99. On 7/6 passed the Senate Transportation Committee 7-2 . Referred to the Sen ate Appropriations Committee. In Committee, placed on Appropriations suspense file. SUPPORT SANBAG 5/5/99 RCTC 5/12/99 • • • •lation/ Author Description S13 i 11 tatus Positi on AB 1475 (Soto) Would Designate a Portion of Federal Transportation Safety Fundi ng to Sch ool Safety Programs. Passed the Assembly Floor 50-25 on 6/2/99 . On 9/8/99 passed Senate Floor 23-13 . On 9/9/99 Assembly concurred in Senate Amendments to Governor's desk f or signature . Date of Board Ac.)n OPPOSE SANBAG 6/2/99 RCTC 5/12/99 AB 1571 (Villaraigosa) Creates the Carl M oyer Memorial Air Standards Attainment Program. Passed the Assembly Floor 78-0 on 5/26/99. Passed the Senate Floor 40-0 on 9/7/99 . On 9/10/99 Assembly concurred in Senate Amendme nts to Gover nor's desk for signat ure . SEEK AMENDMENTS S ANBAG 5/5/99 RCTC 5/12/99 AB 1612 (Florez) Wou ld A llocate $300 Million of State Highway Account Dollars to Rehabilitate Streets and Roads. Passed the Assembly Floor 60-20 on 6/2/99. Referred to the Senate Transportation Co mmittee. On 8/18/99 hearing can celed at the request of the author. OPPOSE UNLESS AMENDED OPPOSE SANBAG 6/2/99 RCTC 5/12/99 Legislation/Author Description Bill Status Position Date of Board Adoption SB 14 (Rainey) Would require extensive study prior to constr uction of future HOV la nes. Passed the Senate Transportation Committee 33-1 on 6/22/99 . Passed the Assembly Transportatio n Committee 18-0 on 8/16/99. Referred to Assembly Appropriations Committee. On 9/1/99 held in Committee under s ubmissi on. No hearing date yet . OPPOSE UNLESS AMENDED SANBAG 3/3/99 RCTC 3/10/99 SB 17 (Figueroa) Would permit employers to receive a tax credit for purchasing transit passes for their employers . Passed the Se nate Revenue and Ta xation Committee 5-0 on 4/28/99. Referred to the Sen ate Appropriatio ns Committee 5/27/99 . Hearing postpo ned by Committee. SUPP ORT SANBAG 3/3/99 RCTC 3/10/99 SB 63 (So lis) Would reduce the minimum occupancy for the El Monte Busway from 3 plus to 2 plus. Passed the Senate Floor 40-0 on 5/10/99 . On 7/8/99 passed Assembly Floor 74-2. Signed into law by Governor on 7/23/99. OPPOSE UNLESS AMENDED . SANBAG 3/3/99 RCTC 3/20/99 • • • •lationl Author Description 3111 tatus Positio n Date of Board Alkn SB 65 (Murray) Would appropriate $20 Million to support welfare to w ork tra nsportation projects Senate Tra nsportation Committee 9-0 on 3/16/99 . Passed Senate Health & Human Services Committee 6-2 on 3/22/99. Placed on Senate Appropriations Committee . On 5/27/99 hearing postponed by Committee . No hearing date yet. SEEK AMENDMENT SANBAG 4/7/99 RCTC 4/14/99 SB 98 (Alarcon ) Extends SCAQMD Authority to collect $1 v ehicle license fee for air quality programs. Passed the Senate Flo or 28-7 on 4/15/99 . Passed Assembly Floor 56- 21 on 6/1/99. Signed i nto law by the Governor on 6/8/99 . SUPPORT SANBAG 3/3/99 RCTC 3/10/99 SB 117 (Murray) Makes the State Env ironmental En hancemen t and Mitigation fund permanen t. Passed the Senate Floor 24-12 on 6/1/99. On 9/9/99, Senate concurs in Assembly amendments 26-12. To Governor's desk for signature. SUPPORT S ANBAG 3/3/99 RCTC 3/10/99 Legislation/Author Description Bill Status P osition Date of B oard Adoption SB 481(Baca) Establishes a Study of the Economic Benefits of an Inland Port . Passed Senate Floor 30-4 on 5/24/99. Passed Assembly Consumer Protection, Governmental Efficiency & Economic Development C ommittee 7-0 on 6/29/99 . Passed Assembly Fl oor 51- 27 on 8/31/99. On 9/1/99 Senate concurs in Assembly Ame ndments 29-4. 9/7/99, to Governor's desk for signature. SUPPORT WITH AMENDMENTS SANBAG 5/5/99 RCTC 5/12/99 SB 928 (Burton) Au thoriz es Federal Grant Reve nue Anticipation Notes-(Garvee Bonds) Passed Se nate Floor 32-3 on 6/2/99. On 9/5/99 passed Assembly Floor 74-0. On 9/9/99, Senate conc urs in Assembly amendments 35-2, to Governor's desk f or sign ature. NO POSITION SUPPORT S ANBAG RCTC SB 1043 (Murray) Requires the California High Speed Rail Autho rity to Submit it's Fin an cial Plan to the Legislature for Approval. Passed Senate Floor on 28-9 on 5/27/99. On 7/8 passed Assembly Floor 78-0. On 7/28/99 vetoed by Governor. On 9/1/99 placed on inactive file on request of Senator Murray. SUPPORT SANBAG 5/5/99 RCTC 5/12/99 • • • •slationlAuthor Description .13111 tatus P osition Date of Board Alen SB 1277 (Hayden) Would Prohibit C onstruction of Roads in Lands Under the Jurisdiction of the Department of Parks and Recreation, the Department of Fish and Game a nd the state conservancies . Passed Senate Natural Resources and Wildlife Committee 5-3 on 5/13/99 . Passed the Senate Appropriations Committee 7-4 on 6/10/99 . Referred to the Senate Fl oor . OPPOSE NO POSITI ON RCTC 5/12/99 SANBAG 6/2/99 SCA 3 (Burton) Would allow state ballot measure for local transportation sales taxes . Passed Senate floor 27-9 on 7/12/99. On 9/7/99 failed passage on Assembly Floor 46-28 . SUPPORT RCTC 5/12/99 SANBAG 6/2/99 CLIFF MADISON GOVERNMENT REL .::ONS. INC. • • • '.54- A N1.17 i..n.. 4, c.. 1.c D: _inn,. m-. FROM; Dave Shepherd - Paul Blackwelder Madison Ceptember 1, _999 SJLJ: . August Federal Affairs Report The Congress adjourned on August 6, and will return on September 8, at which time, the primary focus of the Congress will be to pass the appropriations bells for the operations of the Federal agencies. As the Federal government fiscal year expires on the evening of September 30, the Congress must pass legislation to ether fund an agency for the entire fiscal legislation to fund an agency for a year, or pass they fail to pass legislation which portion fund anfisagency, cal that agency must shut down until it's funding is approved by the Congress, and signed by the President. While the House of Representatives has passed the Transportation Appropriations for Fiscal Year 2000, the Senate has not acted upon the Committee -approved bill. The Committee -approved bill has a provision which would limit the amount any state could receive in the transit category to 12.5 per cent. This provision applies to only two states -- California which receives almost 14 per cent of the total amount of transit funds, and New York, which transit � receives approximately 14.5 per cent of the transit funding available. Because of this provision, the New York Senators, and the California Senators have pledged to block consideration of the bill. And at this time, the Democratic leadership of the Senate has backed the California and New York delegations. At this time, it appears that Senator Shelby, the Chairman of the Senate Transportation Appropriations Subcommittee, will attempt to invoke cloture (a two-thirds vote to limit debate) on September 9. It also appears that his attempt will fail. If his attempt to limit debate fails, then the Senator has three choioes: 1. Bring the bill to the floor and have the bill debated over a long period of time. The Senate leader (Senator Lott) does not want to waste time debating this bill over a long period of time. 000026 -2- 2. Drop the anti -New York/California provision, and bring the bill to tha floor, where it would progress smoothly, and pass without much cabate. :. Do not bring the bill to the floor for consideration oy the full Senate, and simply meet with his House counterpart (Congressman Frank Wolf, chairman of the House Transportation Appropriations Subcommittee), and reach agreement on the contents of a bill. That bill would be included in an "omnibus" bill to be considered by both the House and the Senate some time in October or November. This last scenario seems the likely outcome. This "omnibus" bill would also include a "tax reform" provision which would force action on the Republican "tax reform" plan that the President has pledged to veto. (In September, -the President will veto the "tax reform" package that was adopted by the House and the Senate in July -August). 000027 • f • • AGENDA ITEM 5 • • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: September 27, 1999 TO: Budget & Implementation Committee FROM: Dean Martin, Chief Financial Officer THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Riverside County Transportation Commission - Strategic Plan / Phase I Review and Update STAFF RECOMMENDATION: For discussion and possible action. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Enclosed for your review is the Riverside County Transportation Commission's Strategic Plan / Phase I Review and Update. Critical issues have been documented in the Executive Summary and throughout the main text. Staff suggests focusing on the Executive Summary and reviewing the rest of the document as needed or desired. Staff, along with the Commission's financial advisors, will make an oral presentation to the Committee. 000028 • • • Riverside County Transportation Commission Strategic Plan Phase 1: Review and Update Riverside Transportation Commission Executive Staff ii Acknowledgements iii EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ES -1 to ES -14 INTRODUCTION 2 Overview of the Commission 2 History of Measure A 2 Measure A Milestones 4 Purpose of Strategic Plan 5 Strategic Plan Development 6 Commission Policy Goals 7 I. FUNDING SOURCES 8 MEASURE A Assumptions/ Projections 8 Program and Geographic Allocations 11 OVERVIEW OF FEDERAL AND STATE TRANSPORTATION 14 FUNDING STIP Revenue Assumptions 18 OTHER FUNDING SOURCES 19 Surface Transportation Program / Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality 20 Funds STRATEGIC PLAN CASH FLOW MODEL 21 II. ACCOMPLISHMENTS — FIRST TEN YEARS OF MEASURE 26 A PROGRAM Project Selection and Prioritization 26 Western Highway Program Accomplishments 28 Coachella Valley Highway Project Accomplishments 33 Rail Program Accomplishments 35 III. PROGRAMMED EXPENDITURES — WESTERN COUNTY 37 Highway and Rail Expenditures Next 10 Years 37 Western County Full or Partial Measure A Funding 38 Commuter Rail 42 1998 State Transportation Improvement Plan 47 Remaining Measure A Projects 51 IV. PROGRAMMED EXPENDITURES — EASTERN COUNTY 52 Non -Highway Expenditures Coachella Valley Regional Arterial Program 52 Palo Verde Valley 57 V. DESIGNING A STRATEGIC VISION 58 Non -Measure A High Priority Highway Projects 58 Balancing Regional and Geographic Needs 60 Community Environmental Transportation Acceptability Process 62 (CETAP) Summary of Open Policy Issues 65 Next Steps 67 APPENDIX 68 Ordinance No. 88-1 AP -1 Appendix 2: Transportation Improvement Plan AP -3 Appendix 3: Cash Flow Model AP -15 Appendix 4: Coachella Valley Regional Arterial Projects AP -25 Appendix 5: Table 89 -Current Measure A AP -3I Appendix 6: Table FY 2000-2003 Proposed CMAQ AP -33 Appendix 7: TEA -21 STP Projects AP -34 Appendix 8: List of Definitions AP -35 Appendix 9: List of Acronyms AP -38 Appendix 10: Complete Project Listing AP -41 MAPS What Has Been Done 32 Measure A Rail Program 36 Can Be Funded Based on Strategic Plan Revenue Estimates 41 San Jacinto Branchline 45 Programmed in 1998 STIP 50 Non -Measure A Highway Projects Identified as Short Term Needs 59 CHARTS AND TABLES Table 1 Table 2 Table 3 Table 4 Table 5 Table 6 Table 7 Table 8 Table 9 Table 10 Table 11 Table 12 Table 13 Table 14 Table 15 Table 16 Table 17 Table 18 Table 19 Table 20 Table 21 Table 22 Table 23 Table 24 Table 25 Table 26 Table 27 Table 28 Table 29 Table 30 Projected Measure A Revenue, Net of SBOE Expense Tax Revenue Allocation by Geographic Area and Program Funding for Measure A Project Sequencing Table Measure A Projects Programmed in the 1998 STIP Named Measure A Projects (Partial) Non -Measure A Highway Projects Identified Measure A Revenue Historical Strategic Plan Phase I: Measure A Milestones Outline Process Population Growth, Riverside County Commission Policy Goals Projected Measure A Revenue Comparative Projected Nominal Taxable Sales and Nominal Measure A Allocation of Sales Tax Revenues Measure A Program Allocation 2000-2009 Federal Demonstration Projects 1998 STIP Funding State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) STIP Intra-County Formula Allocation Measure A Projects Funded with STP Funds Measure A Projects Funded with CMAQ Funds Cash Flow Model What Has Been Done Comparison of SJBL Rail Service Implementation Alternatives Rail Capital Needs Named Measure A Projects CVAG Regional Arterial Program Cash Flow Projection Model CETAP Project Existing Funding ES -3, 10 ES -4, 14 ES -5, 21 ES -7, 27 ES -9, 37 ES -10 ES -12, 58 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 11 12 15 16 17 19 20 21 24 31 44 46 53 56 65 65 • • • Riverside County Transportation Commission Strategic Plan Phase 1: Review and Update • • • Frag WNW Riverside County Transportation Commission Effective September 1, 1999 John Hunt City of Banning John M. Chlebnik City of Calimesa Gene Bourbonnaise City of Canyon Lake Andrea M. Puga City of Corona Percy Byrd City of Indian Wells Kevin W. Pape City of Lake Elsinore Dick Kelly City of Palm Desert Donald F. Yokaitis City of Rancho Mirage Ron Roberts City of Temecula James A. Venable County of Riverside Jack F. van Haaster, Chairman City of Murrieta Tom Mullen, Vice -Chairman County of Riverside Jan Leja City of Beaumont Gregory Pettis City of Cathedral City Doug Sherman City of Desert Hot Springs Chris B. Silva City of Indio Frank West City of Moreno Valley William G. Kleindienst City of Palm Springs Alex Clifford City of Riverside Bob Buster County of Riverside Roy Wilson County of Riverside 09/20/99 Robert A. Crain City of Blythe Juan M. De Lara City of Coachella Robin Reeser Lowe City of Hemet John J. Pena City of La Quinta Frank Hall City of Norco Al Landers City of Perris Jim Smedley City of San Jacinto John F. Tavaglione County of Riverside Stan Lisiewicz Caltrans, District 8 Non -voting Governor's Appointee Riverside County Transportation Commission Strategic Plan Phase I: Review and Update RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION EXECUTIVE STAFF ERIC HALEY Executive Director PAUL BLACKWELDER Deputy Executive Director DEAN MARTIN Chief Financial Officer HIDEO SUGITA Director of Planning and Programming DAVID SHEPHERD Director of Intergovernmental Affairs and Legislation MARILYN WILLIAMS Director of Regional Issues and Communications NATY KOPENHAVER Director of Administrative Services and Clerk of the Board 09/20/99 ii Riverside County Transportation Commission Strategic Plan Phase I: Review and Update • ACKNOWLEDGMENTS • • 1. Bechtel Infrastructure Corporation 2. Boyea Capital Markets 3. Boyle Engineering 4. Economics and Politics, Inc. John E. Husing, Ph.D. 5. Ernst & Young 6. The Chapman Company 09/20/99 iii Riverside County Transportation Commission Strategic Plan Phase I: Review and Update • Executive Summary INTRODUCTION As the 1988 Measure A program moves toward completion, the Riverside County Transportation Commission has achieved significant progress in implementing approved transportation solutions identified in the Transportation Improvement Plan (see full text of the Plan in Appendix 2). Since 1988, the Commission's accomplishments include the programming, funding and completion of highway, street, and rail projects throughout the County. Though much has been done, the next two decades present the Commission with critical challenges and opportunities. In the final 10 years of Measure A, the Commission is committed to completing the projects approved in the Transportation Improvement Plan subject to available funding. Projected growth in the County makes continued transportation investments imperative to ensure the quality of life in the County. To meet those challenges, the Commission has developed Phase I of the strategic plan for the completion of Measure A, and in Phase II, will initiate the process of defining a vision for the next twenty years. • • PURPOSE OF STRATEGIC PLAN - PHASE I The current Strategic Plan will incorporate two phases. The purpose of the Riverside County Transportation Commission Strategic Plan Phase I: Review and Update, is to provide the Commission, the citizens, and transportation planning agencies with an update of the (RCTC) Riverside County Transportation Commission's 1996, MeasureA Vision and Strategy issue Paper, and to establish the Strategic Plan Phase II parameters with rationale for the potential extension of the Measure A program. This Plan includes an overview of current and future transportation priorities and requirements based on today's realities in the County and adjacent. regions. Phase I deals primarily with the major capital programs completed, anticipated to be completed, or under construction by the sunset date of the existing Measure. Phase II will serve as the blueprint for a renewal of Measure A. The draft Strategic Plan will be presented no later than April 2000 for adoption by the Commission and subsequent submittal to the State Legislature. Phase I includes the following: • Overview of the Measure A Program and Policy Goals. • Review and Projections of Funding Sources. • Summary of Measure A Program Achievements to Date. • Update on Project Status by Region and Type. • Framework for Designing a Strategic Vision. ES -1 Riverside County Transportation Commission Strategic Plan Phase I: Review and Update • LIST OF KEY ASSUMPTIONS Strategic plan based on tenets of Measure A Transportation Improvement Plan. Measure A Sales tax revenues based on September 1998 projections (net of administration costs including State. Board of Equalization fees). Debt capacity based upon maintaining a minimum overall debt service coverage ratio (revenues/debt service) of 2.0 times and program coverage of 1.1 times. This plan assumes that the policy on maintaining the same percentage proportional split between Western County rail (29.5%) and highway (70.5%) continues as in the adopted 1996, Measure A Vision and Strategy Issue Paper. Other Funding Commission to receive $3.5 million annually in section 5307 federal transit dollars for rail capital. State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) Revenue Assumptions Revenue assumption levels regarding federal and State transportation funding expected to be available for programming in the STIP have increased and are more predictable since the passage of Senate Bill 45 (SB 45) and Transportation Equity Act for the 21 st Century (TEA -21) legislation. Approximately $35 million per year is expected to be available through the STIP process. Details of the proposed schedule for the funding and implementation of projects on the Measure A Sequencing List are outlined in the cash flow model. STIP funding includes the following assumptions: • Revenues available for the programming of new capital projects between 1998 and 2009 will remain at $30 million per year, after off -the -top allocations for Transportation Enhancement Activities (TEA), planning, and rideshare. • Project costs have been escalated at a rate of 3.5% per year to reflect the impacts of inflation. This assumption is consistent with requirements established by the State for project proposals to be included in the 1998 STIP Process. • The need for additional funds for maintenance, safety, and rehabilitation projects funded through the STIP will increase as the system continues to become older and inflation impacts the cost of these necessary transportation programs. For that reason, no increase in STIP funding is assumed. • The countywide formula for allocation of STIP revenues will be used throughout the remaining term of the Measure, with the formula share, adjusted biennially, based on the most current return to source sales tax data. ES -2 • • Riverside County Transportation CoMMission Strategic Plan Phase I: Review and Update • The Commission will aggressively compete for Interregional Improvement Program (IIP) funding, but no assumptions have been made as to its success or the funding that may be obtained. • In addition, the staff included the following factors in developing the Cash Flow Model and related tables for funding sources, expenditures, project sequencing, and proposed construction schedules. • Federal and state funding decisions, STIP substitutions in 1998, and commitments that the Commission made regarding specific projects. • 1998 STIP proposal development rules applied by the California Transportation Commission (CTC) to review projects proposed for inclusion in the STIP and that are assumed to be continued for development of the STIP between 2000 and 2008. • Return to Source provisions related to the programming of projects within County regions contained in Measure A. • STIP discretionary funding will be used for identified Measure A projects. Measure A Projections Measure A Earned Sales Tax Revenues are projected by, the Commission, based upon an third -party econometric model which relates annual taxable sales figures to total population personal income and the unemployment rate in Riverside County. As noted in the following table, it is projected that the Commission will receive over $1 billion in net sales tax revenues during the period 2000-2009. Projected Measure A Revenue, Net of State Board Of Equalization Expense (in $millions) 160.0 140.0 120.0 100.0 80.0 60.0 — 40.0 20.0 0.0 Table 1 1 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 ES -3 Riverside County Transportation Commission Strategic Plan Phase I: Review and Update The impact and implications of the projected sales tax revenues are as follows: • Stable tax base supports majority of the Commission's transportation initiatives. • Extension of Measure A is needed to accommodate current and future transportation requirements. • Viable opportunity exists to leverage the additional Measure A funds with recently enacted federal and state transportation programs. PROGRAM AND GEOGRAPHIC ALLOCATIONS Measure A Projected Sales Tax Revenue Allocation By Geographic Area and Program For the Period July 1999 through June 2009 (In millions, $ inflated) Highways Rail Regional Local Special Transp. TOTALS GEOGRAPHIC AREA astern County 72.3% Coachella Valley 26.6% Paly Verde Valley 1.1% 38.9% 16.1% 0.0% 40.0% 5.0% $284.3 117.7 0.0 292.3 36.5 100.0% $730.8 15.0% 0.0% 40.0% 35.0% 10.0% $40.3 0.0 107.6 94.1 26.9 100.0% $268.9 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% $0.0 0.0 0.0 11.1 0.0 100.0% $11.1 TOTALS 100.00% $324.6 $117.7 $107.6 $397.5 $63.4 $1,010.8 Table 2 The dollar amounts shown in the chart above are projected gross Measure A revenues for the next 10 years. Expenditures, including debt service, have not been deducted from the gross Measure A revenue amounts. For expenditure amounts, including debt issue, see the cash flow model in Appendix 3. OVERVIEW OF FEDERAL AND STATE TRANSPORTATION FUNDING FEDERAL AND STATE FUNDING The Transportation Equity Act for the 215` Century (TEA -21) was approved in 1998. The implications for the Commission are as follows: • TEA -21 structure increases certainty of federal funding for transportation projects. • Commission has programmed $197 million over a six -year period, through Fiscal Year (FY) 2004. • Local demonstration projects in the bill will provide another $46.5 million for the Commission. • TEA -21 structure permits ability to utilize bond financing (grant anticipation revenue vehicles or "Garvee" bonds) to leverage grants. ES -4 Riverside County Transportation Commission Strategic Plan Phase I: Review and Update • STRATEGIC PLAN CASH FLOW MODEL Overview of Model Based on preliminary Phase 1 programming assumptions, key results derived from the model are listed below: • • • Coachella Valley Highway Program will generate approximately $93 million in additional Measure A and STIP revenue by 2009. Coachella Valley will have approximately $73 million available for programing after allowing for net debt service. • Western County Highway Program will generate approximately $492 million in additional Measure A and STIP (formula and discretionary) revenues by 2009. After net debt service and projected program expenditures, Western County Highway funds are projected to show a shortfall of approximately $8 million. • Commuter Rail Program will generate approximately $117 million in additional Measure A revenue. After net debt service, approximately $67 million is projected to remain unprogrammed. CRITICAL POLICY DECISION : Commission must determine the appropriate allocations for additional commuter rail and Coachella Valleyfunds, as well as resolution, ofprojected shortfall in Western County highway. Total funding, for the Measure A Highway and Rail programs for the next 10 years, is as follows: Table 3 Financing Program Through to Yr. $ in millions Measure A 2009 $442.3 STIP (Incl. 1998) 2008 $413.8 CMAQ/STP 2003 $66.7 FTA 2009 $47.0 Total $969.8 Based on conservative policies, strong management, and economic fundamentals, the Commission is one of the highest rated transportation agencies in the country. Higher than projected growth, in sales tax revenues, and relatively low interest rates, have created a capacity for approximately $35-40 million in additional debt (not available in 1996). No additional debt financing has been assumed in Phase I. CRITICAL POLICYDECISION.• Should the Commission issue bonds or borrow against the State highway account to fund highway improvements? ES -5 Riverside County Transportation Commission Strategic Plan Phase I: Review and Update • ACCOMPLISHMENTS - FIRST TEN YEARS OF MEASURE A PROGRAM During the ten years since election began for Measure A, significant progress has been made toward the delivery of specific highway and rail improvements identified in the Measure A Expenditure Plan. WESTERN HIGHWAY PROGRAM ACCOMPLISHMENTS HIGHWAY PROJECTS - WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY AREA • State Route 91 - Mary Street to the Orange County Line - Additional Lanes $38.3 million. • State Route 60/I-215 - Valley Way to University Ave. - Additional Lanes $31.1 million. • State Route 79 Between I-10 and Gilman Springs Road - Additional Lanes $32.1 million. • Sanderson Avenue at State Route 79 - Construct an All -Weather Crossing $13.5 million. INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENTS - LOCAL CIRCULATION • State Route 91/Van Buren Boulevard - Reconstruct and Widen Interchange $2.3 million. • State Route 91/Lincoln Avenue, Maple Street - Reconstruct and Widen Interchange $1.3 million. NEW INTERCHANGES - JOB DEVELOPMENT • I-15/Yuma Drive - Construct Interchange $8.5 million. • Eastridge/1-215 - Construct Interchange $0.9 million. Most, but not all of the projects discussed above, have been completed, funding has been fully programmed, and/or construction dates have been scheduled. COACHELLA VALLEY HIGHWAY PROJECT ACCOMPLISHMENTS • State Route 86 Construct a Four Lane Expressway on a New Alignment $87.0 million. • Route 111 -Operational Improvements $20 million divided into two phases of $10 million each. RAIL PROGRAM ACCOMPLISHMENTS Measure A, Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ), Transit Capital Improvement (TCI) and Transportation Development Act (TDA) funds that have been allocated to MetroLink rail improvement • ES -6 Riverside County Transportation Commission Strategic Plan Phase I: Review and Update • projects by the Commission include: • Commuter rail service that operates daily during morning and evening peak hours between the Riverside and Los Angeles Lines and between San Bernardino County and Orange County. • Four stations that were constructed by the Commission to serve commuter rail passengers. $37.92 million. • Rail program capital improvements to continue to address the additional demand of commuters in the growth areas of Riverside and San Bernardino counties. $11 million. PROJECT SELECTION AND PRIORITIZATION From 1988 to 1995, RCTC programmed funding for projects based on project readiness and funding, or scope -related opportunities. The first Measure A Project Sequencing List was prepared and approved by the Commission in October 1995. Project Sequencing Table Project Sequencing Approved by RCTC 10/11/95 • • Project Order* Route 1 Project' 1-215 SR 60/SR 91/1-215 to 1st Connector 1-215 2 3 4 SR 60 1-215 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 SR 91 SR 91 IC SR 91 IC 1-215 1-215 12 SR 60 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 SR 74 SR 79 IC IC SR 74 IC 1-215 IC IC IC SR 91 RAIL SR 60/SR 91/1-215 to University Avenue Valley Way to SR 60 / SR 91 / 1-215 University Ave to SR 60 / SR 91 /1-215 Cridge to SR 60 / SR 91 /1-215 Mary to Cridge SR 60 / SR 91 /1-215 (2nd Direct Connector) Magnolia to Mary St (Aux Lanes/Sound Walls) Van Buren © SR 91 3R 60 / 1-215 Truck ByPass University to SR 60 / SR 91 / 1-215 (Truck Lane) SR 60 / 1-215 to Redlands Blvd. 1-15 to Seventh Street (Perris) Newport to Keller La Sierra r„ SR 91 Adams © SR 91 1-215 to 7th St (Interchange) Galena © 1-15 SR 60 / SR 91 /1-215 to San Bernardino Co Line Day St © SR 60 Valley Way © SR 60 Fredrick St © SR 60 Magnolia to O.C. Line (2nd Lane) San Jacinto Branch Line (millions) Amount Targeted Start Date 118.2 2002 31.1 1999 Incl. in #2 above 162.1 2002 237.2 5 abv 49.9 15.9 10.6 Incl. in #4 above Incl. in #4 above 2008 2004 1998 2001 40.8 2002 40.5 13.5 15.4 11.7 21.9 2.7 2004 2003 2006 2008 2007 2002 Incl. in #12 above 7.0 7.3 2008 2009 • Ranked in Order of Priority (Approved by RCTC, 10/11/95) Bold Projects - programmed in 1998 or prior STIP Table 4 ES -7 Riverside County Transportation Commission Strategic Plan Phase 1: Review and Update PROGRAMMED EXPENDITURES -WESTERN COUNTY HIGHWAY EXPENDITURES Amount programmed between 2000-2009, net of debt costs and other off -the -top allocations, available from both Measure A and STIP, is approximately $433 million for Western County highway and rail. The following list of projects are scheduled for completion during the final ten years of the Measure (Note: Completion will actually extend to the year 2012, when the State makes the final disbursements for the 2008 STIP.) • State Route 60 • HOV Lanes between 60/215 and Redlands Blvd. • State Route 74 • Widening Project - I-15 to Seventh St. running between Lake Elsinore and the city of Perris • Interchange improvements at G Street and I-215 • Winchester to Warren • State Route 91 • HOV Lanes from Mary to the 60/91/215 Interchange • Magnolia to Mary • Economic Development Interchanges • Galena at I-15 • Local Circulation Interchanges • Various Interchanges Note: HOV - High Occupancy Vehicle Lanes COMMUTER RAIL EXPENDITURES • The initial capital requirements for the start up of existing commuter rail lines have been satisfied with either Measure A funding, including the use of bond proceeds, or with other revenue sources (e.g., Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Section 5307, state rail bonds).. • Cash flow based on revenue projections indicate that beginning in the year 2002, rail revenues will generate positive cash balances through 2009. • Approximately $67 million can be used to fund previously identified unfunded rail projects, including the next phase of track and signal improvements, additional train sets, rolling -stock storage and maintenance facilities, stations, parking capacity and projects needed to rebuild and operate the San Jacinto Branchline (refer to chart on page 46). ES -8 Riverside County Transportation Commission Strategic Plan Phase 1• Review and Update • San Jacinto Branchline The 1988 Measure A Expenditure Plan allocated a share of the sales tax revenues to complete rail service to Orange and Los Angeles counties. Although the language of Measure A was nonspecific, a map was attached identifying the San Jacinto Branchline as a possible extension. CRITICAL POLICY DECISION: Shoat/the Commission initiate improvements on the San Jacinto Rranchline with cost estimates ranging from $12 million to $'112 million? • Based on operating cost estimates of $2 million annually, the Commission has not identified sufficient funds for operations to Perris. 1998 STATE TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM AND TEA -21 CMAQ PROGRAM • • The initial 1998 STIP provided over $147 million in funding for Riverside County projects. An augmentation to the initial STIP, allocated another $50.3 million. Those monies combined with carry- over 1996 STIP allocations were used to fund a number of major projects in the County including projects from the Measure A Transportation Improvement Plan. A brief listing of each those projects follows with expenditure amounts. 1998 STATE TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM AND TEA -21 CMAQ PROGRAM Route Limits Project Total Cost Western County Highway Program *RT 60/1-215 University to Rt 60/215 Junction Add 1 lane in each direction, plus truck lane, plus truck by pass at 60/215 Junction $162.1 RT 60/91 60/91/215 Interchange in City of Riverside Build Northbound to westbound connector and southbound to eastbound connector $168.1 RT 79 Newport to Keller Widen to 4 lanes (add 1 lane in each direction) $13.5 RT 60 Day St. to Redlands Blvd. Add 1 lane in each direction $34.0 RT 91 Magnolia to Mary Soundwalls and Auxiliary lanes $16.0 TOTAL $393.7 * NOTE: These program funding amounts represent 1996 STIP carryover funding. Because they were programmed in the 1996 STIP, they were not included in the cash flow model. Table 5 ES -9 Riverside County Transportation Commission Strategic Plan Phase I: Review and Update • REMAINING MEASURE A PROJECTS Based on the most recent revenue projections for sales tax and STIP allocations, the ability to program complete funding for one Measure A project within the 2008 STIP time frame presents a challenge. The affected project is the I-215, additional lanes between the State Route 60/State Route 91/I-215 Interchange and the San Bernardino County Line. Funding of this project is conditioned upon additional commitments to be undertaken by San Bernardino County. This project is projected to cost approximately $60 million. The second lane on State Route 91, estimated to cost $150 million, is not feasible, based on the cost and limitations imposed by the franchise toll road agreement granted to a private entity. CRITICAL POLICYDECISIONShouldthe Commission choose not tofundthe railcapitalproject, it may choose to reallocate rail revenue to the Western CountyHighwayprogram. Under that scenario, using a substantial portion of the $67 million, the addition of lanes on 1-215 between the 60/91/215 Interchange and San Bernardino County Line could potentially befunded. PROGRAMMED EXPENDITURES - EASTERN COUNTY EASTERN COUNTY NON -HIGHWAY EXPENDITURES Coachella Valley Regional Arterial Program NAMED MEASURE A PROJECTS Progress on Named Regional Arterial Project are summarized below and the status provided. Table 6 Named Re Tonal Arterial Projects Remainin. Amounts • PROJECTS AMOUNT 1 START (in millions) DATE Aid Valley Parkway (from Gene Autry to Vista Chino to 1.10) Palm Drive/Gene Autry Trail (from Mid Valle Parkwa to Desert Hot Sprin.$). Fred Waring Drive (from Route 111 in Palm Desert to Indio Boulevard. Jefferson Street (from Avenue 54 to Indio Boulevard) $12.2 $6.3 $18.7 $25.2 TOTAL $62.4 2000 1999 2000 1999 ES -10 • Riverside County Transportation Commission Strategic Plan Phase 1: Review and Update • Expected Measure A revenues of $107.6 million over the next ten years for the regional arterial program along with $31 million in Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) revenues are insufficient to meet the projected needs. While significant progress has been made, the Transportation Project Prioritization Study (TPPS) and the related Regional Arterial Cost Estimate (RACE) identify needed projects totaling $639 million. Debt Service Expenditures CVAG elected in 1992 to have the Commission issue bonds to accelerate delivery of regional arterial projects in the Coachella Valley. Total annual debt service amounts to $5.8 million, of which approximately $1.4 million annually has been paid to date by CVAG out of TUMF revenues. Measure A bears the difference of $4.4 million annually, or $44 million through the year 2009. Other Regional Arterial Projects The Coachella Valley Association of Governments has developed an extensive list of regional arterial projects for improvement. Some 215 projects are listed in the TPPS covering 40 streets in the Coachella Valley. Total costs identified in the Regional Arterial Cost Estimates (RACE), exclusive of the costs for the named Measure A projects, is $542 million. • • CRITICAL POLICYDECISION: One of the major challenges facing- the Commission and CVAG will be to devise a funding plan for addressing the needs of the Coachella Valley. As noted, in Part III, ofthis report, the Coachella Valley will have $75 million available in unprogrammed Measure A and STIP funding. CMG, in cooperation with the Commission, will need to determine whether those funds will be spent on highway improvements or the regional arterial program. See Appendix (provided by CVAG) for a listing of all regional arterial projects. ES -11 Riverside County Transportation Commission Strategic Plan Phase 1: Review and Update Designing a Strategic Vision There are a number of challenges and identified issues on which Phase I has endeavored to focus awareness. Phase II will attempt to chart a plan or course for all of the Commission's programs for the next twenty years. NON -MEASURE A HIGHWAY PROJECTS In addition to the Measure A highway projects, the Commission has identified the following projects as high priority needs: ROUTE j LIMITS PROJECT (' : COST Western Count Highway Program (in millions) RT 60 1-15 to Valley Way Add 1 lane in each direction $40.2 RT 71 RT 91 to San Bernardino County line Expand to 6 lane Freeway Undetermined RT 79 Ramona Expressway to Eastside Reservoir Realignment $60.0 Source: 1996, Measure A Vision and Strategy Issue Paper Table 7 FUNDING SHORTFALL WRCOG and CVAG have identified combined project requirements of approximately $7 billion*. That compares with revenue estimates from local sales tax and federal and state funding of only $2.5 billion (Note: Assumes renewal of Measure A for twenty years beyond 2009.) One alternative to be explored is a transportation mitigation fee in Western Riverside County. Comprehensive Transportation Plan Another endeavor, already in progress, is to extend Measure A another 20 years to 2029. The Commission anticipates participating in a statewide effort to renew all existing sales tax measures with a November 2000 ballot initiative. If passed, the state estimates it will generate nearly $2 billion in Riverside County. BALANCING REGIONAL AND GEOGRAPHIC NEEDS There are areas of the county that have experienced remarkable growth, unanticipated by the Measure. Any new funding plan must address needs for the entire County, while not losing focus on the importance of regionally significant projects. ES -12 Riverside County Transportation Commission Strategic Plan Phase I: Review and Update • INTERREGIONAL COOPERATION AND COORDINATION Recognizing the importance of interregional cooperation, the Commission coordinated the development of transportation solutions with several agencies, including SANBAG, OCTA, Caltrans, SCAG, SCRRA and NewTrak. The Commission and Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) have both been working with a not -for-profit agency, NewTrak, in supporting its efforts to pursue purchase of the State Route 91 Expressway (toll road). The Board of NewTrak has agreed that excess revenues from toll fees, after coverage of debt service, will be used for capital projects, mutually agreed to by OCTA and the Commission. No studies have yet been performed by NewTrak on the amount of funding that would become available for that purpose. An aggressive and coordinated legislative program with San Bernardino Associated Governments (SANBAG) will continue in the foreseeable future. A unified approach to implementing legislation should improve funding secured for the Inland Empire, benefiting the area collectively as well as enhancing the respective funding programs within both counties. • • PROGRAM PRIORITIES Substantial funding must continue to be allocated to major highways, arterials, rail, interchanges, and for rehabilitation and maintenance of roads. But the Commission will consider funding for grade separations, demonstrations of alternative fuel use and other clean air initiatives, intercity and express bus for commuters and the transit dependent, and expansion of existing commuter rail lines. INTERCITY PASSENGER RAIL SERVICE The Commission is part of the Southern California Intercity Rail Group, a joint powers authority formed with the transportation agencies of six other counties to expand intercity passenger rail in the region. Amtrak has embarked on a major planning effort and will be seeking the Commission's participation in further exploring the Coachella Valley -Riverside -Los Angeles service as an emerging intercity rail corridor. Caltrans is also considering the corridor for inclusion in its statewide Passenger Rail Plan, scheduled for completion by June 2000. COMMUNITY AND ENVIRONMENTAL TRANSPORTATION ACCEPTABILITY PROCESS (CETAP) CETAP is part of a $23 million Riverside County Integrated Plan that takes into account environmental issues with land use decisions and transportation planning. The CETAP process involves community ES -13 Riverside County Transportation Commission Strategic Plan Phase 1: Review and Update • leaders. business interest, environmentalist, state and federal officials, the building industry, the general public, and other major stakeholders, to arrive at equitable and cost efficient development solutions. The CETAP element of the Riverside County Integrated Plan, with a budget of $5,820,373, is designed to accomplish the following goals: • Improve the efficiency of the transportation system. • Reduce the impacts of transportation on the environment. • Reduce the need for costly future public infrastructure. • Ensure efficient access to jobs, services and centers of trade. • Examine development patterns and identify strategies to encourage private sector development patterns. SUMMARY OF CRITICAL POLICY DECISIONS I) Commission must determine the appropriate allocations for currently unprogrammed commuter rail and Coachella Valleyfunds as well as resolution ofprojected shortfall in Western County highway. la) Should the Commission issue bonds or borrow against the State highway account to fund highway improvements. lb) Should the Commission initiate improvements on the San Jacinto Branchline with cost estimatees ranging from $12 million to $112 million? lc) Should the Commission choose not to fund the rail capital project, it may choose to reallocate rail revenue to the Western County Highway program. Under that scenario, using a substantial portion of the $67 million, the addition of lanes on 1-215 between the 60/91/215 Interchange and San Bernardino County Line could potentially be funded 2) One of the major challenges facing the Commission and CVAG will be to devise a funding plan for addressing the needs of the Coachella Valley. As noted, in Part III, of this report, the Coachella Valley will have $75 million available in unprogrammed Measure A and STIPfunding. CVAG, in cooperation with the Commission, will need to determine whether those funds will be spent on highway improvements or the regional arterial program. 3) One option available to the Commission, for paying for some of the potential highway projects, would be to reallocate unprogrammed rail revenues to the highway program. Previous strategic plans have assumed that 'rail," as defined in the Measure, is a percentage allocation and not a fixed amount (See the Transportation Improvement Plan in the Appendix) Itofired amount were assumed, then the $67 million in Measure A sales tax revenues, now available for rail could be redirected to a highway project Under that scenario, the Commission could potentially fund the additional lanes on Interstate 215 between the 60/91/215 Interchange and the San Bernardino County Line. 4) Unprogrammed STIP funding for the Palo Verde Valley is estimated at Si. 8 million. Currently specific needs for the City ofBlythe and the unincorporated areas of the Palo Verde Valley have not been ident fed The Commission, CVAG, the County, and the City ofBlythe will need to formulate an expenditure plan to ensure full utilization of those funds for transportation improvements III Palo Verde Valley. ES -14 Riverside County Transportation Commission Strategic Plan Phase 1: Review and Update • • • Riverside County Transportation Commission Strategic Plan Phase I: Review and Update 1 Riverside County Transportation Commission Strategic Plan Phase I: Review and Update Introduction OVERVIEW OF THE COMMISSION The California State Assembly Bill 1246 (Ingalls 1976), created transportation commissions, including the Riverside County Transportation Commission, to help plan and find solutions for such issues as population sprawl, transit dependent citizens, mobilization requirements, reduction of duplication of services, and the allocation of resources. Under the provisions of this act, the Commission's initial mission was to serve as a planning authority responsible to coordinate transit services and highway plans with regional and state agencies, adopt short and long range transit and transportation plans and identify and develop projects for state and federal grants or matching funds. That mission was expanded in 1988 with the passage of Ordinance 88-1, Measure A, to include the responsibility for the prioritization, monitoring, and fiscal oversight responsibilities for the one-half cent sales tax fund for transportation needs. In 1997, the state passed landmark legislation (SB 45), which further increased the role of the Commission in the development of expenditure plans relating to the Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP), State Transportation Improvement Programs (STIP), and other regional, state, and federal transportation initiatives. The Commission, originally composed of eight members, was expanded to 30, consisting of five county supervisors, a representative from all 24 cities, and a nonvoting appointee of the Governor's. The expansion was driven by the desire of all areas of the County to have a direct role in making project decisions and forming transportation policy. Full participation from the entire County strengthens the commitment to articulate and document a vision on how the Commission will continue to meet its mission. The new board has confirmed its intent to ensure that the mandates of Measure A are fulfilled to the extent of available revenues. HISTORY OF MEASURE A The voters of Riverside County, with a 78.9% pass rate, overwhelmingly approved Ordinance 88-1 (commonly known as Measure A) in 1988, granting the Commission the authority to levy a one-half of one -percent (.005%) sales tax in Riverside County for twenty years. Through June 30, 1999 the Measure A sales tax had generated over a half -billion dollars. 2 Riverside County Transportation Commission Strategic Plan Phase 1: Review and Update MEASURE A REVENUE HISTORICAL Measure A Revenue (in m illions) Table 8 FY Received Actual 1990 $36.2 1991 48.3 1992 46.1 1993 48.9 1994 48.7 1995 50.8 1996 55.4 1997 57.9 1998 63.5 1999 70.3 $526.1 The Measure A Program for Riverside County was prepared in 1988 and refined by the Commission and the Coachella Valley Association of Governments (CVAG) through a cooperative process that included: • Information from Caltrans regarding cost estimates for various projects. • Several polls of county residents. • Negotiations with City and County elected officials and managers. • Suggestions from the Measure A Campaign Committee (formed to promote the ballot measure through a countywide campaign financed by private sector contributions). This inclusive process will be replicated as the Commission pursues renewal of Measure A. A "return to source" concept was included in the Measure, that required sales tax revenues be expended, in the area generating the tax. This was one of the principal reasons passage of Measure A was so successful. The Measure recognized that the County is comprised of three geographic areas with differing 3 Riverside County Transportation Commission Strategic Plan Phase I: Review and Update • transportation needs and economic strengths: Western Riverside County, the Coachella Valley, and the Palo Verde Valley. The Measure included a Transportation Improvement Plan that defined specific programs, projects, and expenditures for each of these areas. Based on the amount of revenue expected to be collected over the 20 -year program, and understanding that a significant amount of funding would be given to the cities and County to supplement their construction and maintenance programs, the Highway and Rail Program was solely aimed at easing congestion that had already occurred. The impacts on congestion that would result from continued growth beyond 1988 would have to be accommodated through additional fees on new development, increases in gas taxes, a future sales tax measure, and/or extension of the Measure A Program beyond the year 2009 (the final year of the current Measure A program). The Strategic Plan will address first the completion of Measure A. The subsequent phase will tackle the second issue, of how to fund needs beyond Measure A. STRATEGIC PLAN PHASE I: MEASURE A MILESTONES • • Year Action 1988 Riverside County 1/2 cent transportation sales tax Measure A 1990 Short range financial plan developed 1991 Initial bond financing Commence construction 1992 Measure AA approved, increasing debt limit to $525 million Initial Metrolink service 1993 Completion of Route 74 ( Seventh to G), 86 (Stage 1), Highway projects and Downtown Riverside, Pedley Rail Stations Riverside line operations (Riverside to Los Angeles via Ontario) 1994 Sanderson Avenue Bridge Project 1995 Begin operations *IEOC Line (Riverside to Irvine) Completion of initial phase of carpool lanes on RT 91 1996 Commission adopts 1996, Measure A Vision and Strategy Issue Paper Completion of Route 79 (California Ave. to Gilman Springs Rd.) IEOC Line (Riverside to Irvine) extended to San Bernardino Commission receives bond rating upgrade and refinances bond IEOC Line (Riverside to Irvine) extended to San Juan Capistrano 1997 SB 45 Passes Riverside Line (added frequencies) 1998 Completion of Route 111Streetscape Project Downtown Station Expansions 1999 Commission expanded Commission receives bond rating upgrade Strategic Plan Phase 1 2000 Strategic Plan Phase!! Statewide sales tax ballot Measure 2009 Final year of current Measure A Program • Table 9 " IEOC Inland Empire Orange County 4 Riverside County Transportation Commission Strategic Plan Phase 1: Review and Update • PURPOSE OF STRATEGIC PLAN - PHASE I The purpose of the Riverside County Transportation Commission Strategic Plan Phase I is to provide the Commission, the citizens, and transportation planning agencies with an update of the Riverside County Transportation Commission's 1996, Measure A Vision and Strategy Issue Paper. Phase I includes an overview of current transportation priorities and requirements based on today's realities in the county and adjacent regions. Phase I deals primarily with the major capital programs completed, under construction, anticipated to be completed, or under construction by the sunset date of the existing Measure. Phase II will serve as the blueprint for a renewal of Measure A. The Phase II Strategic Plan will be presented no later than April 2000 for adoption by the Commission and submittal to the State Legislature. Included in this report is the documentation of the progress in implementing projects identified in Measure A in 1988, actual and projected Measure A and local sales tax revenues, and a review of STIP and other transportation funding allocations and expenditures. This plan not only depends on revenues generated from the Measure A one-half percent sales tax revenues, but also from reasonable share of projected federal and state gas tax revenues, through the STIP process and Federal Transit Administration (FTA) formula funds. Strategic Plan Phase 1: Outline Process Table 10 Develo • Overview and Ob'ectives Draft Outline, Workplan & Schedule NEQam Collect Data Meet with Program Managers EL Revise Outline, Workplan & Schedule Present and Update Outline INE Review Primary Sources of Funding Update Project Status —11214, Present Draft Phase 1 Strategic Plan • • 5 Riverside County Transportation Commission Strategic Plan Phase I: Review and Update • ECONOMIC CONDITIONS Riverside County continues to benefit from moderate to strong economic growth. Employment growth continues to outpace the state and the nation, with prospects continuing to look bright over the near term. The economic growth is in large part based on increasing population trends, lower than average labor rates and relatively inexpensive housing and land costs than some of the surrounding counties. The growth in demand for affordable housing within the County is beginning to impact the value of housing within Riverside County as demonstrated by small upward movements in the prices of new and existing homes. The Inland Empire has demonstrated its job creating potential, actually adding more jobs than its larger counterparts in Los Angeles, Orange, and San Diego counties. The job growth is broad based with government, construction, and wholesale trade leading the way. With the continual influx of manufacturing companies, distribution and warehousing facilities, and improvements in housing, the area should continue to be a major contributor to the California economy. Given this level of growth, the Strategic Plan will address the continuing need for infrastructure improvements and transportation planning initiatives. • • Table 11 Population Growth Riverside County 1982 -1998 Actual / 1998 - 2010 Forecast Years Added Growth Annual Rate 1982-1990 465,370 66.0% 6.5% 1990-1998 270,787 23.1% 2.6% Subtotal 736,157 1998-2005 430,813 29.9% 3.8% 2005-2010 332,587 17.8% 3.3% 1998-2010 763,400 63,616 per year 1,441,200 to 2,204,600 Subtotal 1,526,800 TOTAL 2,262,957 Source: CA Department of Finance, 1998 STRATEGIC PLAN DEVELOPMENT The Commission is prepared to meet the challenge of developing and adopting a strategic plan to address the needs of Riverside County's growing population and expanding economy. The plan will identify the known transportation needs in the foreseeable future and establish a process to prioritize and encourage community participation in the effort to qualify and quantify regional transportation goals and solutions. The process will be inclusive so that policy makers, business leaders, and the general public will contribute to the development of the plan and ultimately support its conclusions. The development of both phases will use the Commission's policy goals (See the table, next page - Commission Policy Goals) as the broad guiding principles and fundamental basis upon which decisions are made. From those principles, more specific criteria have been developed to assist staff in selecting 6 Riverside County Transportation Commission Strategic Plan Phase I: Review and Update and prioritizing programs and projects. Phase I of the Strategic Plan specifically addresses mobility, goods movement, congestion relief and safety improvements, air quality, economic development, and intermodalism. Phase II will address the eight guiding principles with a comprehensive review of all Commission programs. As part of the Strategic Plan process, the Commission will examine the feasibility of an extension and expansion of Measure A. Measure A includes a sunset provision that would end the half -cent sales tax in the year 2009. By its current sunset date, Measure A will have contributed well over a billion dollars in transportation improvements to Riverside County, but there is widespread consensus that much more is needed. Using current projections, Measure A will not generate enough revenue to fund the multi- billion dollar transportation need in Riverside County. COMMISSION POLICY GOALS Table 12 GOALS DESCRIPTION Mobility The Commission in cooperation with local jurisdictions will strive to create a transportation system that promotes efficient mobility both within the county and regionally. Goods Movement The Commission will work with the Federal and State governments to facilitate the movement of goods and services within the county recognizing the vital role such plays in the economic health of the county, the state, and the nation. Congestion Relief and Safety Improvement Selection of projects and programming of funds by the Commission will be done with a view toward promoting traffic flow, improved safety, and reducing congested traffic corridors. Air Quality The Commission's transportation planning will be designed to achieve clean air standards while fostering economic growth and improving quality of life. Economic Development Transportation decisions will consider the economic benefits derived from any improvement and where feasible and practical will pursue transportation alternatives that enhance or compliment economic development. Intermodalism and Accessibility The Commission desires to serve as many of the County residents as possible and economically feasible by developing differing modes of transportation and considering the needs of a wide range of citizens. Technology Innovation Provide vison and leadership through exploring technology for smarter highways and implementing those that are affordable and practical. Advocate the development and use of advance technology for 'smart' model and intermodal applications that are affordable and practical. Public and Agency Communication The Commission will provide timely, informative and accurate information to encourage informed public and agency participation in the Commission s decision making processes. 7 Riverside County Transportation Commission Strategic Plan Phase I: Review and Update • I. Funding Sources MEASURE A ASSUMPTIONS/PROJECTIONS Measure A Revenue Assumptions Measure A Sales Tax Revenues are projected by the Commission based upon an econometric model which relates annual taxable sales figures to total personal income and the unemployment rate in Riverside County. Projections of these variables (total personal income and the unemployment rate) were obtained from Regional Financial Associates (RFA), a specialty -consulting firm, which has developed comprehensive regional economic models for all counties in the United States. • • RFA specializes in the collection of regional economic data and regional economic projections that are consistent with both local conditions and overall growth in the national economy. As is the common practice, RFA's models are based on inflation adjusted (real) data. The average annual compounded growth rate of taxable sales in Riverside County and related Measure A revenues, as presented in the following table, was calculated to be 7.65 % over the projection period. The table below, Projected Measure A Revenue Comparative, compares the original 1988 projections to the most recent projection in current dollars. Though the September 1998 projection is higher, increased cost, particularly as a result of scope changes and borrowing costs, depleted the difference. Projected Measure A Revenue Comparitive (in millions) Western County Area: 1988 (1) 1998 Change Highways and Commuter Rail $339 $408 $69 Local Streets and Roads 247 297 50 Specialized Transportation 31 37 6 Total Western County Measure A Funds 617 742 125 Coachella Valley Area: Highways 36 41 5 Regional Arterials 96 109 13 Local Streets and Roads 84 95 11 Specialized Transportation 24 27 3 Total Coachella Valley Measure A Funds 240 272 32 Palo Verde Valley Area: Local Streets and Roads 13 11 -2 Total 20 Year Measure A Revenues $870 $1,025 $155 Table 13 (1) 1998 Projections in 1988 Dollars. 8 Riverside County Transportation Commission Strategic Plan Phase I: Review and Update • RFA's projections are derived from an econometric model, which links the major components (including demographic, employment, financial, and other factors) of the Riverside County economy. The model is dynamic in that the results for a particular year are linked to and partially determined by conditions in the prior year. The model allows feedback among/between related variables. For instance, the effect of higher interest rates would impact, among other things, banking industry profits and consumer borrowing (and, of course, spending), thereby slowing employment growth and lowering economic activity. The model would capture the impact over time of such a change. Other assumptions upon which the projection implicitly relies, include the following: • The list of products/items that are subject to sales tax in Riverside County during the projection period (1998 through 2009) is the same as for the historical period. • Relative sales and property tax rates in Riverside and neighboring counties remain at levels observed during the historical period. • An administrative fee of 1.5% of sales taxes received by the Commission is allocated during the projection period for administrative expenses paid to the State Board of Equalization (SBOE). Projected Revenues 2000 - 2009 Measure A revenue assumptions and projections for the next ten years appear to be reasonable given the strong economic and population growth within the County. These projections illustrate significant positive trends at federal, state and local levels to support a stable tax base and many of the transportation initiatives spearheaded by the Commission. However, with population growth and planned economic expansion, the Commission is faced with transportation issues unforeseen and not contemplated with the passage of Measure A. There appears to be a genuine need to extend the sunset provisions of the Measure to accommodate current and future transportation requirements within the county and adjacent regions. There also is a viable opportunity to leverage the additional Measure A funds with federal and state transportation programs that are more predictable with the passage of Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA 21) and the recent 1998 STIP guidelines. • • 9 Riverside County Transportation Commission Strategic Plan Phase I: Review and Update • Projected Nominal Taxable Sales and Nominal Measure A Years Ending June 30 ($ in millions) Projected Measure A Projected Nominal Projected Measure A Revenue, Net of SBOE Year Taxable Sales Revenue Expense % Change 2000 14,921.2 74.6 73.5 7.8% 2001 16,196.2 81.0 79.8 8.5% 2002 17,540.0 87.7 86.4 8.3% 2003 18,894.0 94.5 93.1 7.7% 2004 20,300.4 101.5 100.0 7.4% 2005 21,799.1 109.0 107.4 7.4% 2006 23,406.1 117.0 115.3 7.4% 2007 25,104.2 125.5 123.6 7.3% 2008 26,895.9 134.5 132.5 7.1% 2009 28,854.6 144.3 142.1 7.3% Total 213,911.7 1,069.6 1,053.7 • • Table 14 Table 1 160.0 140.0 120.0 100.0 80.0 Projected Measure A Revenue, Net of State Board Of Equalization Expense (in $millions) 60.0 40.0 20.0 0.0 - 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 10 Riverside County Transportation Commission Strategic Plan Phase 1: Review and Update PROGRAM AND GEOGRAPHIC ALLOCATIONS A "return to source" concept was adopted in the ordinance that required Measure A sales tax revenue generated in specific areas to be spent on projects and programs identified in the Expenditure Plan in each of the three defined areas. The areas are Western Riverside County, Coachella Valley, and Palo Verde Valley: • 72.3% for Western Riverside County. • 26.6% for the Coachella Valley. • 1.1% for the Palo Verde Valley. These percentages will experience slight variations from year-to-year based on changes in the levels of taxable sales. The following chart illustrates the area and programmatic percentage allocations. Allocation of Sales Tax Revenues Sales Tax Less SBOE Riverside County Transpc rtation Commission Western County 72.3% Highway 38.8% Rail 16.2% Local Streets & Roads 40.0% Specialized Transp. 5.00/0 Coachella Valley 26.6% Highway 15.0% Regional Arterial 40.0% Local Streets Specialized & Roads Transp. 35.0%40.0% 5.0%•10% (1) (1) Palo Verde Valley 1.1% Local Streets & Roads 100.0% • • (1) The Measure A Transportation Improvement Plan allows an additional 5% for local streets & roads up to a maximum of 40%. CVAG determines if the additional 5% will be• used for transit or streets & roads. To date CVAG has elected to allocate the 5% to transit. The Strateaic Plan assumes that election continues until 2009. Table 15 11 Riverside County Transportation Commission Strategic Plan Phase I: Review and Update Measure A forecast results indicate that revenues (net of administrative fees) are projected to be $1.011 billion in nominal dollars between fiscal year 2000 and 2009. Based on the established percentages, the program revenues would be distributed as shown below. Measure A Program Allocation 2000-2009 ($million) Special Transportation $63.4 Streets & Roads $397.6 Highways $324.6 Commuter Rail Regional $117.7 Arterials $107.6 The dollar amounts shown in the chart above are projected gross Measure A revenues for the next 10 years. Expenditures, including debt service, have not been deducted from the gross Measure A revenue amounts. For expenditure amounts, including debt issue, see the cash flow model in Appendix 3. Table 16 HIGHWAYS Sales tax revenues available for the combined highway program are projected to be $324.6 million over the next 10 years. Western Riverside County will receive $284.3 million and the Coachella Valley Area will receive $40.3 million. COMMUTER RAIL Based on current Commission policy, Commuter Rail is expected to receive $117.7 million in sales tax revenues from the Western Riverside County share during the period of 2000 to 2009. Local Transportation Fund (LTF) revenues, which are derived from the quarter -cent sales tax levied by the state for transit purposes, including commuter rail. 12 Riverside County Transportation Commission Strategic Plan Phase 1: Review and Update REGIONAL ARTERIALS From 2000 to 2009, the Coachella Valley Regional Arterial Program will receive $107.6 million in Measure A funds. Measure A sales tax revenues are augmented by revenues from the Coachella Valley Association of Governments (CVAG). Through the Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF). This program levies a fee on new development based on expected traffic generation. SPECIALIZED TRANSPORTATION The Special Transportation and Transit Program consists of commuter assistance and specialized transit [e.g., programs for the economically disadvantaged, seniors, persons with disabilities and fixed route transit (in the Coachella Valley)]. In the Western County, Commission policy apportions special transportation funds equally between commuter assistance and specialized transportation. In the Coachella Valley the entire Specialized Transportation allocation is used for transit. In the Western County the revenues have been used to support a variety of specialized transit needs. In addition to supporting some capital and operating expenses related to traditional public dial -a -ride, the Commission has granted funds to nonprofit agencies, to provide transit assistance in hard to serve rural areas, for intercommunity travel, and for riders having very special transit needs. Coachella Valley revenues have been provided, to SunLine Transit Agency, to support their specialized transit programs and support reduced fares for seniors and persons with disabilities. Public transportation services play a major role in the mobility of residents. The public transit systems have had to operate in an environment of restricted funding revenues, which have not allowed for any major expansions in service. Federal operating assistance has been dwindling, and the operators have had to place greater reliance on local tax revenues for necessary operating revenues. In Western Riverside County, $36.5 million is projected over the remaining life of the Measure for Transit, Specialized Transit and Commuter Assistance Programs. The Coachella Valley will receive up to $26.9 million for its transit programs. LOCAL STREETS AND ROADS Sales tax revenues available for local streets and roads totals $397.6 million for the last 10 years of Measure A. The amount allocated to Western Riverside County is expected to be $292.4 million. Coachella Valley revenues are projected to be $94.1 million, and the revenues, for the Palo Verde Valley Area, are estimated at $11.1 million. 13 Riverside County Transportation Commission Strategic Plan Phase I: Review and Update • Measure A Projected Sales Tax Revenue Allocation By Geographic Area and Program For the Period July 1999 through June 2009 (In millions, $ inflated) GEOGRAPHIC AREA Westem County Coachella Valley Palo Verde Valley TOTALS PROGRAMS 72.3% 26.6% 1.1% 100.00% Highways 38.9% $284.3 15.0% $40.3 0.0% $0.0 $324.6 Rail 16.1% 117.7 0.0% 0.0 0.0% 0.0 $117.7 Regional 0.0% 0.0 40.0% 107.6 0.0% 0.0 $107.6 Local 40.0% 292.3 35.0% 94.1 100.0% 11.1 $397.5 Special Transp. 5.0% 36.5 10.0% 26.9 0.0% 0.0 $63.4 TOTALS 100.0% $730.8 100.0% $268.9 100.0% $11.1 $1,010.8 Table 2 The dollar amounts shown in the chart above are projected gross Measure A revenues for the next 10 years. Expenditures, including debt service, have not been deducted from the gross Measure A revenue amounts. For expenditure amounts, including debt cost, see the cash flow model in Appendix 3. • OVERVIEW OF FEDERAL AND STATE TRANSPORTATION FUNDING • GENERAL BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION THE TRANSPORTATION EQUITY ACT FOR THE 21ST CENTURY (TEA 21) California will benefit substantially from the newly enacted transportation legislation, commonly known as TEA 21. The state can expect to receive $18.1 billion in federal transportation funds for highways and mass transit over the next six years (FY 1998-2003) compared to $13 billion under the old formula. Under recently adopted STIP guidelines this will translate into additional funds not contemplated under the 1996, Measure A Vision and Issue Strategy Paper, and may permit the programming and completion of some projects that were doubtful at the time. The Commission will receive $197 million over a six - year period. There are also a significant number of demonstration projects in the bill, (See following table for a listing of the demonstration projects), providing another $49.8 million throughout Riverside County. 14 Riverside County Transportation Commission Strategic Plan Phase I: Review and Update • Federal Demonstration Projects Table 17 Project Description Amount (in $millions) Improve State Route 91/Green River Road Interchange $4.9 Improve Nason Street/State Route 60 Interchange 4.5 Realign and improve Route 79 4.5 Construct Interstate 10 Interchanges in the Coachella Valley 2.2 Widen State Route 71 from the Riverside County line to State Route 91 13.0 Construct Overland Drive overcrossing in Temecula 3.8 Construct Interstate 215/Galena Interchange 6.4 March Inland Port Ground Access 7.2 Bus and bus facility 2.3 Transit Vehicle *ITS Communications 1.0 Total $49.8 *ITS Intelligent Transportation Systems SB 45 and 1998 STIP SB 45 was enacted to transfer transportation decision making responsibility to those who are close to the problems, thereby eliminating artificial constraints and barriers to programming. It also provided incentives for regional accountability and the timely use of funds. The broad changes enacted by the new rules included consolidating several existing funding programs, such as the State Local Partnership Program and the Flexible Congestion Relief Fund, the Transit Capital Improvement Program, and others. The revised program changed the funding plan from seven years to a six -year plan beginning with 1998, a transitional STIP covering the period from FY 1998-99 through FY 2003-04. The 2000 STIP will cover the four-year period from FY 2000-01 through FY 2003-04. Later biennial STIPs will cover four-year periods, each adding two new years of programming. SB 45 also established a Regional Improvement Program (RIP) and the Interregional Improvement Program (HIP) as part of the planning and funding allocation process. Regional Choice Program Of the funds available for the STIP, 75% are allocated to the Regional Improvement Program and 25% are committed to the Interregional Improvement Program, modified by the north -south 40/60% split. (State law allocates STIP funding between the northern and southern part of the state with 60% for Southern California and 40% for Northern California.) These eligible projects include: state highways; grade separations; transportation system and demand management; soundwalls; rail; local street and roads; intermodal facilities; and pedestrian and bicycle facilities. The 1998 STIP includes projects carried forward from the 1996 STIP and new projects proposed by regional agencies in their Regional Transportation Improvement Programs (RTIPs) and by Caltrans in its Interregional Transportation Improvement Program (IIP). State highway project costs in the STIP include all of Caltrans' project support costs, including environmental studies, preparation of plans, specifications, estimates, right-of-way acquisition, construction management, and engineering. • • 15 Riverside County Transportation Commission Strategic Plan Phase I: Review and Update • New funding in the 1998 STIP was as follows (in millions): • • Table 18 Description Amount Regional Choice $147.0 Less Off -the -Top Allocation ($14.0) Net Available for Program $133.0 Interregional Improvement Program $33.6 Total $166.6 Interregional Improvement Program Caltrans is the responsible agency for nominating projects to the interregional program. A major objective of the program is to encourage the connecting of urbanized areas, major metropolitan centers, and gateways to the freeway and expressway system. An additional objective is to ensure a dependable level of service for movement into and through major gateways of statewide significance. The Commission is in a unique geographical and strategic position with adjacent counties, to foster interregional cooperation consistent with the IIP objectives. Transportation planning and implementation efforts with San Bernardino County and Orange County, related to projects that have significant interregional impact, are ongoing. Additionally, the Commission members are very active in a coordinated committee structure with all of the other relevant transportation planning and policy -making bodies at the local, state, and federal levels. It is hoped that the Commission in concert with Caltrans District 8 will successfully compete for IIP funding. However, no expectation of success is assumed in project funding other than the $33.6 million in the 1998 STIP for the second direct connector of the 60/91/1-215 Interchange. (See STIP Revenue Assumptions.) 16 Riverside County Transportation Commission Strategic Plan Phase 1: Review and Update State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) California Transportation Commission (CTC) Evaluates and Adopts STIP t t Regional Improvement Program Recommendation RCTC Adopts Regional Improvement Program 60% to South Counties 40% to North Counties 75% Regional Improvement Program Funds available after Caftrans administration, operations and maintenance responsibilities are funded Table 19 Coordination to Maximize Funding Opportunity 1 Southem Califomia Association of Govemments (SCAG) Reviews Consistency of Project Proposals with Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) CTC Reviews and Adopts Fund Estimate Caftrans Develops Fund Estimate Interregional Improvement Program Recommendation Caftrans 25% Interregional Improvement Program • 17 Riverside County Transportation Commission Strategic Plan Phase I: Review and Update • • • STIP REVENUE ASSUMPTIONS Revenue assumption levels regarding federal and State transportation funding expected to be available for programming in the STIP have increased and are more predictable since the passage of SB 45 and TEA 21 legislation. Between $30-35 million per year is expected to be available through the STIP process. Details of the proposed schedule for the funding and implementation of projects on the Measure A Sequencing List are outlined in the cash flow model. STIP funding includes the following assumptions: • Revenues available for the programming of new capital projects between 1998 and 2009 will remain at $30 million per year, after off -the -top allocations for Transportation Enhancement Activities, planning, and rideshare. • Project costs have been escalated at a rate of 3.5% per year to reflect the impacts of inflation. This assumption is consistent with requirements established by the State for project proposals to be included in the 1998 STIP Process. • The need for additional funds for maintenance, safety, and rehabilitation projects funded through the STIP will increase as the system continues to become older and inflation impacts the cost of these necessary transportation programs. For that reason, no increase in STIP funding is assumed. • The countywide formula for allocation of STIP revenues will be used throughout the remaining term of the Measure, with the formula share, adjusted biennially, based on the most current return to source sales tax data. • The Commission will aggressively compete for HP funding, but no assumptions have been made as to its success or the funding that may be obtained. • In addition, the staff included the following factors in developing the Cash Flow Model and related tables for funding sources, expenditures, project sequencing, and proposed construction schedules. • Federal and state funding decisions, STIP substitutions in 1998, and commitments that the Commission made regarding specific projects. • 1998 STIP proposal development rules applied by the CTC to review projects proposed for inclusion in the STIP and that are assumed to be continued for development of the STIP between 2000 and 2008. • Return to Source provisions related to the programming of projects within County regions contained in Measure A. • STIP discretionary funding will be used for identified Measure A projects. 18 Riverside County Transportation Commission Strategic Plan Phase I: Review and Update • State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) Intra-County Formula Allocation STIP ♦ Formula 75.8% Table 20 • Westem County Coachel a Valley Palo Verde 72.23% 26.39% t .38% * Percentages to be updated every two years based on SBOE estimations. Discretionary 24.2% • OTHER FUNDING SOURCES FINANCING AND OTHER SOURCES The primary funding sources for the Measure A Program currently are sales tax revenues generated as a result of the Ordinance 88-1 and STIP allocations. Other sources of funds could include federal demonstration projects, subsidized or matching grant transportation proposals. For the purpose of this report, additional funding sources were not relied upon in detail for any of the cash flow assumptions or specific projected revenue. Financing It does not appear that senior lien borrowing will make a significant difference in the overall delivery of a majority of the remaining projects proposed in the current Measure A program. There may be some capacity for subordinate debt to help escalate several local projects for some jurisdictions. A number of cities have availed themselves of the Commission's local financing programs to accelerate projects in their jurisdiction. There is a conservative revenue -to -debt policy of a two -to -one ratio for all senior debt that has been III 19 Riverside County Transportation Commission Strategic Plan Phase I: Review and Update • • • maintained. The debt payment requirement associated with bonds sold to accelerate the delivery of highway and rail projects completed or programmed over the past several years has stayed within the parameters of the policy. This policy has provided part of the basis for lower borrowing cost based on the high credit rating assigned to the Commission's debt. Additionally the sunset nature of the Measure A Program in 2009 has placed constraints on the amount of debt financing that could be prudently issued within existing policy and financial market limitations. With the strong growth in Measure A sales tax revenues, there is now some capacity for senior debt issuance that did not exist in 1996. Also, not available in 1996, was the ability to borrow against the State Highway account. Now making its way through the state legislature, AB 1012, a bill authorizing state loans, could be used by the Commission to fund shelf -ready and high -priority projects. An analysis of the relative benefits and disadvantages of a Commission public debt issuance versus borrowing against state funds will need to be completed. For the specific debt amount by program, see the cash flow model in the Appendix. SURFACE TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM / CONGESTION MITIGATION AND AIR QUALITY FUNDS Surface Transportation Program Under Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA), the STP program was created as a replacement program for the former Federal Aid Urban (FAU) and Federal Aid Secondary (FAS) program. These funds are available to all local agencies on a discretionary basis. The STP funds, while principally used for local projects, have also been identified as a source for Measure A projects. Table 21 Measure A Projects Funded with STP Funds Project Description STP Funds State Highways (in $millions) 2nd Connector SB215 to EB 215 $13.3 Galena St. -construct interchange $5.0 Total $18.3 Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) The Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program provides funds to support projects and programs in areas to reduce congestion and transportation related emissions. Of the $69.6 million for CMAQ in Western County, $48,629,243 has been set aside for Measure A projects in the County through the life of TEA 21, fiscal years 1998 through 2003. This demonstrates the Commission's resolve to ensure completion of Measure A, and where practical, to pursue other funding to meet that priority commitment. See Appendix 2 for a complete list of all commission approved projects. 20 Riverside County Transportation Commission Strategic Plan Phase 1: Review and Update Measure A Projects Funded with CMAQ Funds Agency Project Description CMAQ Funds RCTC SR60/Moreno Valley HOV Median Widening $26.2 1-215 from box spgs IC to El Cerrito add 2 mixed flow & truck $7.0 1-215 El Cerrito -60/91/215 construct IC add 2 mixed flow in $7.2 SR91 @ Van Buren IC widen overcrossing, reconstruct ramps $2.0 RCTC Rail Corridor to San Jac Reconst/upgrade of box sprgs $4.9 Ridesharing Programs $1.0 LNG Locomotive Prototype $0.3 Total RCTC $48.6 Table 22 Funding assumed, for the Highway and Rail programs, for the next 10 years, is as follows: Program Through to Yr. $ in millions Measure A 2009 $442.3 STIP (Incl. 1998) 2008 $413.8 CMAQ/STP 2003 $66.7 FTA 2009 $47.0 Total $969.8 Table 3 STRATEGIC PLAN CASH FLOW MODEL Overview of Model Phase 1 of the Commission's Strategic Plan incorporates the use of a consolidated cash flow model. The model enables the Commission to evaluate transportation program funding alternatives under multiple scenarios. The model uses projected sales tax and STIP revenues (subject to respective funding allocation constraints and guidelines) to analyze the impact of transportation project funding sequencing. External factors that can be varied include construction cost growth rates, interest rates, and growth in sales tax revenues. Net revenues are derived by deducting debt service and program management/ support costs from available sales tax and STIP revenues. 21 Riverside County Transportation Commission Strategic Plan Phase 1: Review and Update • Structure of Model As described above, the cash flow model uses a consolidated structure. The model contains the following components: 1) Coachella Valley Highway Component Summary, 2) Western County Rail Component Summary, 3) Western County Highway Component Summary, 4) Western County Highway/Rail Summary (incorporating components 2 and 3), and Summary (incorporating components 1, 2, 3). The model allocates available sales tax and STIP revenues according to Commission formulas/guidelines to each applicable component. This feature enables the Commission to evaluate funding recommendations subject to policy guidelines and assumptions regarding external factors. Component information (including available revenues, project sequencing, and debt service) is automatically aggregated into Summary models to present project funding data in a consolidated format. Based on preliminary Phase 1 programming assumptions, key results derived from the model are listed below: A summary of the overall cash flow model follows. • • • Coachella Valley Highway Program will receive approximately $93 million in additional Measure A and STIP revenue by 2009. Coachella Valley will have approximately $73 million available for programing after allowing for net debt service. • Western County Highway Program will receive approximately $492 million in additional Measure A and STIP (formula and discretionary) revenues by 2009. After net debt service and projected program expenditures, Western County Highway funds are projected to show a shortfall of approximately $8 million. • Commuter Rail Program will receive approximately $77 million in additional Measure A revenue. After net debt service, approximately $67 million is projected to remain unprogrammed. CRITICAL POLICY DECISION : Commission must determine the appropriate allocations for currently unprogrammed commuter rail and Coachella Valley funds, as well as resolution, of projected shortfall in Western County highway. 22 Riverside County Transportation Commission Strategic Plan Phase 1: Review and Update This page is intentionally left blank 23 Riverside County Transportation Commission Strategic Plan Phase I: Review and Update • • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION STRATEGIC PLAN PHASE 1: CASHFLOW SUMMARY CONSOLIDATED PROJECT SUMMARY Measure A Funds Available 1999 2000 2001 2002 Beginning Balance 14,659 14,212 5,848 (2,984) New revenues 28,691 30,924 33,567 36,402 Debt service (23,277) (23,372) (23,282) (23.283) Interest earnings 2,064 1,958 1,457 1,015 Other revenue 360 360 360 360 Net new revenues 7,838 9,870 12,102 14,494 Available revenues 22,497 24,081 17,950 11,510 Project Expenditures (8,285) (18,233) (20,934) (9,734) Endin• Available Balance STIP Funding Available 14,212 1999 5,848 2000 (2,984 2001 1.776 2002 Beginning Balance 221,966 8,755 8,755 8,755 Current revenues: 0 0 0 60000 . Available revenues 221,966 8,755 8,755 68,755 Programmed expenditures (213,211) 0 0 (47,370) Ending Available Balance 8,755 8,755 8,755 21,385 Projects Proposed for Future STIP Funding Route Project WC HIGHWAY SR60 SR91 SR91 1-215 02000 STIP 02002 STIP CV HIGHWAY WC RAIL 60/215 to Redlands' Mary to 60/91/215 Magnolia to SR71 60/91/215 to S.B.Co. Line 60/91/215Riverside (98STIF WH WH WH WH WH 34,800 10,411 0 0 168,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 47,370 0 0 Total Programmed 0 213,211 0 0 Projects Proposed for Measure A Funding Route Project WC HIGHWAY SR91 SR91 SR74 SR74 SR74 SR60 CV HIGHWAY SR 111 SR111 SR 111 1999 2000 2001 47,370 2002 Magnolia to Mary Mary to 60/91/215 1-15 to Seventh Street G St@ I-215 W inchester to Warren 60/215 to Redlands WH WH WH WH WH WH 1,625 0 610 2,750 0 6,553 0 0 0 0 500 8,260 0 0 0 500 0 0 0 0 5,0001 Tier 1 Intersection Im pr. Tier 11 Loan Repayment Tier 11 Intersection Im pr. CH CH CH Economic Development Interchanges 115 0 3,000 0 3,040 2,740 0 1,004 0 0 0 0 0 'Galena Interchange Local Circulation Interchanges SR60 SR60 SR91 Frederick @ RT60 Valley Way @ RT60 WH WH WH 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2,734 0 0 SR91 La Sierra @ RT91 W H u 0 u 0 u 0 0 SR91 Rail Van Buren @ RT91 WH 750 650 9,170 0 Program Management & Support Costs Total Programmed Interest earnings 24 5% 2,000 7,985 2,000 18,233 2,000 20,934 2,000] 9,7341 Riverside County Transportation Commission Strategic Plan Phase I: Review and Update 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 TOTAL 1,776 17,262 12,774 29,564 33,396 44,804 59,534 39,158 42,073 45,179 48,509 52,028 55,742 59,802 472,075 (23,285) (23,216) (23,216) (23,216) (23,216) (23,216) 0 (232,579) 1,253 2,024 1,799 2,639 2,831 3,401 2,977 23,416 360 360 360 360 360 360 360 3,960 17,486 21,241 24,122 28,292 32,003 36,287 63,139 266,872 19,262 38,503 36,896 57,856 65,399 81,091 122,672 (2,000) (25,729) (7,332) (24,460) (20,595) (21 ,557) (47,291) (206,150) 17,262 2003 12,774 2004 29,564 2005 33,396 2006 44,804 2007 59,534 2008 75,381 2009 TOTAL 21,385 21,385 34,015 34,015 46,645 46,645 59,275 0 60,000 0 60,000 0 60,000 0 240,000 0 0 21,385 81,385 34,015 94,015 46,645 106,645 59,275 461,966 0 (47,370) 0 (47,370) 0 (47,370) 0 (402,691) 21,385 34,015 34,015 46,645 46,645 59,275 59,275 59,275 112004 STIP 112006 STIP IJ 112008 STIP UTOTAL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 34,800 0 47,370 0 47,370 0 47,370 0 199,891 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 168,000 0 47,370 0 47,370 0 47,370 0 402,691 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 TOTAL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 21,086 0 0 0 5,251 0 0 0 7,000 0 0 0 0 0 19,895 0 0 0 2,095 0 0 0 37,268 0 0 2,000 0 12,635 37,268 40,500 21,990 2,000 6,000 0 0 0 0 2,643 0 0 81 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4,044 5,740 2,724 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2,734 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15,460 0 0 0 0 0 0 7,004 11,758 0 0 7,323 0 0 0 0 7,323 7,004 1 1 ,758 15,460 10,570 2,000 2,000 2,000 25,729 2,000 7,332 2,000 24,460 700 20,595 700 21,557 700 47,291 18,100 205,850 25 Table 23 Riverside County Transportation Commission Strategic Plan Phase I: Review and Update • II. Accomplishments - First Ten Years of Measure A Program During the ten years since Measure A was approved, significant progress has been made toward the delivery of specific highway and rail improvements identified in the Measure A Expenditure Plan. The information presented in this section of the report is illustrated in the chart on page 31, Measure A Projects Completed or Under Construction: Highway and Rail. PROJECT SELECTION AND PRIORITIZATION The Highway and Rail Program was principally aimed at easing congestion and improving safety based on projected revenues over the Measure A program and known transportation issues at the time that formed the basis for passage of the measure. The impacts of congestion and related transportation issues that would result from potential residential and job growth beyond 1988 were not accommodated in the Measure A Transportation Improvement Plan, identified as the Measure A Expenditure Plan. • • Projects included in the Measure A Highway and Rail Program were selected for the following reasons: • Improved safety and traffic flow at the SR 60/SR 91/1-215 Interchange through the construction of new direct connectors. • Eased congestion for commuters along SR 60, SR 91 and I-215 by adding new lanes. • Eased congestion for commuters along SR 60, SR 91 and I-215 by initiating commuter rail service between Riverside County, Los Angeles, and Orange Counties. • Improved safety and access between the Hemet/San Jacinto Valley and I-10 by widening SR 79 and constructing an "all weather crossing" at Sanderson Avenue. • Improved safety and access between I-15 and I-215 by adding lanes on SR 74. • Improved local circulation at highly congested interchanges in conjunction with mainline improvements identified along SR 60, SR 91, and I-215. • Financial assistance for new interchanges. 26 Riverside County Transportation Commission Strategic Plan Phase I: Review and Update From 1988 to 1995, RCTC programmed funding for projects based on project readiness and funding or scope -related opportunities. The first Measure A Project Sequencing List was prepared and approved by the Commission in October 1995. Project Sequencing Table Project Sequencing Approved by RCTC 10/11/95 Project Route Project (millions) Amount Targeted Start Date Order* 1 1 1-215 SR 60/SR 91/1-215 to 1st Connector 118.2 2002 2 1-215 SR 60/SR 91/1-215 to University Avenue 31.1 1999 3 SR 60 Valley Way to SR 60 / SR 91 / 1-215 Incl. in #2 above 4 1-215 University Ave to SR 60 / SR 91 / 1-215 162.1 2002 5 SR 91 Cridge to SR 60 / SR 91 / 1-215 237.2 2008 6 SR 91 Mary to Cridge 5 abv 7 IC SR 60 / SR 91 / 1-215 (2nd Direct Connector) 49.9 2004 8 SR 91 Magnolia to Mary St (Aux Lanes/Sound Walls) 15.9 1998 9 IC Van Buren @ SR 91 10.6 2001 10 1-215 SR 60 /1-215 Truck ByPass Incl. in #4 above 11 1-215 University to SR 60 / SR 91 / 1-215 (Truck Lane) Incl. in #4 above 12 SR 60 SR 60 / 1-215 to Redlands Blvd. 40.8 2002 13 SR 74 1-15 to Seventh Street (Perris) 40.5 2004 14 SR 79 Newport to Keller 13.5 2003 15 IC La Sierra @ SR 91 15.4 2006 16 IC Adams @ SR 91 11.7 2008 17 SR 74 1-215 to 7th St (Interchange) 21.9 2007 18 IC Galena @ 1-15 2.7 2002 19 1-215 SR 60 / SR 91 / 1-215 to San Bernardino Co Line 20 IC Day St @ SR 60 Incl. in #12 above 21 IC Valley Way @ SR 60 7.0 2008 22 IC Fredrick St @ SR 60 7.3 2009 23 SR 91 Magnolia to O.C. Line (2nd Lane) 24 RAIL San Jacinto Branch Line Ranked in Order of Priority (Approved by RCTC, 10/11/95) Bold Projects - programmed in 1998 or prior STIP Table 4 27 Riverside County Transportation Commission Strategic Plan Phase 1: Review and Update • WESTERN HIGHWAY PROGRAM ACCOMPLISHMENTS Highway Projects • SR 91 - Mary Street to the Orange County Line - Additional Lanes Approximately 17.4 miles of new high occupancy vehicle (HOV or car pool) lanes have been constructed along SR 91 between Mary Street in the City of Riverside and the Orange County Line at a cost of $39.9 million. Construction was completed in July 1995. Due to Right -of -Way (ROW) constraints, HOV lanes were constructed with a minimum width inside shoulder and reduced lane width. The Mary Street to Magnolia Avenue section of this HOV project was considered an "interim" project and was intended to provide immediate congestion relief in the area that it serves. If sufficient funding becomes available, Caltrans and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) would desire a future full standard project be constructed to provide a full standard inside shoulder lane width. • • Soundwalls required for the HOV project were initially deferred to allow the City of Riverside, the Commission, and Caltrans to better define height and location requirements. The Measure A Highway Program identified the addition of "up to 2 lanes in each direction" along this State Route 91 segment. In addition to further study of the soundwall issues, the Commission agreed to expand the study to determine if the construction of additional improvements, such as auxiliary lanes, would further improve traffic flow along State Route 91. The study resulted in the identification of where the sound walls should be located and what the appropriate height should be. The study further identified the need for auxiliary lanes at further locations. Construction of soundwalls and auxiliary lanes are currently underway. • SR 60/1-215 - Valley Way to University Ave. - Additional Lanes Funding to construct new lanes along State Route 60 between Valley Way and the State Route 60/ SR 91/1-215 Interchange, and along I-215 between the SR 60/SR 91/1-215 Interchange and University Avenue is programmed in the STIP. Caltrans is the lead agency for the project. Construction is currently in progress for this project and scheduled for completion in FY 2000 at a cost of $31.1 million. • SR 79 Between I-10 and Gilman Springs Road - Additional Lanes Measure A funds allocated to the project totaled approximately $26.39 million. The project widened the highway from a two to a four -lane expressway with a continuous 14 -foot median and was completed in June of 1996. Measure A funds were used to purchase additional right-of-way along State Route 79 to protect for a future widening project to six lanes. Caltrans provided State Highway Operations & Procedures Program (SHOPP) funds to the Commission (approximately $7.3 million) to fund a grade separation project at Gilman Springs 28 Riverside County Transportation Commission Strategic Plan Phase 1: Review and Update • Road at the State Route 79 widening project. Addition of the grade separation project to the Measure A funded State Route 79 project reduced overall project costs by balancing the earthwork quantities between the projects, and resulted in a savings for both the Commission and Caltrans, when compared to individual cost estimates for separate projects. • Sanderson Avenue at SR 79 Construction of an all-weather crossing by the County of Riverside using $13.52 million of Measure A funds, programmed by the Commission. This was necessary to allow for uninterrupted travel for peak periods between the Hemet/San Jacinto Valley and I-10. • SR 74 from Seventh Street to G Street in the City of Perris. Widened from 2 - 4 lanes, construction cost was $6.2 million and was completed in 1993. • SR 86 from Dillon Road to Imperial County Line Construction of a four -lane expressway on a new alignment from Dillon Road to Avenue 66 (Stage I and II). Stage III is currently under construction to the Imperial County line. Construction cost is • estimated at $87 million. Interchange Improvements - Local Circulation • SR 91/Van Buren Boulevard - Reconstruct and Widen Interchange The Commission programmed $2.3 million in Measure A funding for Phase I (to construct the eastbound off -ramp) and Phase II (to design the future interchange improvements) for the Van Buren Interchange project to improve local circulation on Van Buren Blvd. The construction of the Phase I eastbound off -ramp was completed in 1996. Phase II design, for the interchange's future improvements is currently in progress. This interchange is currently the most congested interchange along State Route 91. Traffic using the interchange is generated not only from adjacent development, but also from highly populated unincorporated areas between State Route 60 to the east and I-215 to the west along Van Buren Boulevard. Congestion at the interchange currently impacts traffic flow along Van Buren Boulevard, Indiana Avenue, and along State Route 91. Measure A funds allocated to the project are matched by local funds from the City of Riverside in accordance with the Commission's policy. Construction is estimated to cost $9.17 million and is scheduled to be funded by Measure A in the year 2001. 29 Riverside County Transportation Commission Strategic Plan Phase I: Review and Update • • SR 91 in Corona - Interchange Widening During construction of the HOV lanes along State Route 91 through the City of Corona, interchanges at Maple and Lincoln Streets, and an overpass at Smith Street were also reconstructed. Widening of these structures provided improved circulation along the interconnecting surface streets. The total project cost was $7.72 million. The project was funded through the Measure A Highway Program and matched with local funds from the City of Corona. New Interchanges - Job Development • I-15/Yuma Drive - Construct Interchange An existing over crossing at Yuma Drive on I-15 was widened and off ramps were constructed to form a new interchange to encourage commercialand industrial development, and to create new job opportunities for residents. The Measure A highway portion of the project cost was $5.5 million. The project was funded through a combination of federal and State STIP funds, Measure A Highway funds, and local funds from the Cities of Norco and Corona. The project was completed in October of 1997. • • • Eastridge/I-215 - Construct Interchange Measure A funds, in the amount of $900,000, were allocated by the Commission to supplement local funds provided by the City of Riverside to construct an "urban interchange" versus the standard diamond interchange at Eastridge Avenue and I-215. This improvement provided additional capacity to the interchange. The project was constructed in conjunction with the upgrade of I-215 to freeway standards between the East Junction of SR 60/I-215 and Perris Avenue. Most, but not all of the projects discussed above, have been completed. Funding has been fully programmed, and no further funding decisions are required. Further, project sequencing or funding decisions are not necessary for these projects and they have been removed from the table on page 26, Named Measure A Project Sequencing List. • 60/91/215 Interchange: 2 direct connectors and I-215 from University Avenue to 60/215 add HOV lanes in each direction, add eastbound truck climbing lane, and truck bypass at 60/215 east junction. 30 Construction start 2002-2006 What Has Been D one Measure A Projects Completed Or Under Construction Highway and Rail • Western County Highway Program RT 60 Valley Way Boul evard to 60/91/215 Interchange Add 2 lanes in each direction 60/91/215 Interchange to University Avenue Add 1 lane in e ach direction $31 .1 RT 91 Orange County Line to Mary Avenue in City of Riverside Added 1 HOV lane in each direction 38 .3 RT 91 Smith Avenue, Lincoln Avenue, and Maple Street City of Corona Lengthen bridge spans and revised ramps 7 RT 91 McKinley Street in City of Corona Improve local circulation 1.6 RT 91 Interchange ove rcrossings of Lincoln Avenue and Maple Street Improve local circulation 1.3 RT 91 Van Buren Boulevard Constructed Phase I ramp improvements 2 .3 RT 91 M agnolia Ave nue to M ary Street Construct Soundw all (Phase 1) 4.2 RT 74 7th Street to G Street in City of Perris Widen to 4 lanes B.9 RT 79 Sanderson Avenue Bridge Constructed 4 -lane all-weather crossing 13.5 RT 79 First Street in City of Beaumont to Gilman Springs Road Add 2 lanes each direction and construct grade separation at Gilman Springs 32 .1 1-15 Yuma Drive and Second Street widening in Cities of Norco and Corona Constructed new interchange 8.5 1-215 Eastridge @ 1-215 in the City. of Riverside Constructed new interchange 0 .9 Sub -total $149.7 Co achella Valley Highway Program RT 86 Dillon Road to Avenue 66 (Phase 1 & 2) Constructed 4 -lane expressway 45.7 RT 86 Avenue 66 to 82 (Phase 3) Construct 4 -lane expressway 41.3 HWY 111 Various operation improvements Tier land Tier 11 projects 12 .2 Sub -total $99.2 Commuter Rail Program UP/BNSF R.R. Riverside -Downtown Station Rail Station/Parking Facility/Train Storage 23 .7 UP/BNSF R.R. Riverside -Downtown so uthside platform and pedestrian overcrossing Rail Station and Pedestrian Overcr ossing 9.6 BNSF R. R. Pedley Station Rail Station/Parking Facility 5.9 BNSF R.R. West Corona Station Rail Station/Parking Facility 4.7 BNSF R.R. Riverside -La Sierra Station Rail Station/Parking Facility 3.6 Sub -t ot al $47.5 TOTAL $296.4 • • to CAO to 72 69 b sz • •• o o A n • 11711 • What Has Been Done MEASURE A COMPLETED Freeways/Highways MI� Canmu ter Rail •• •• Interchange Major Arterials Intersections • • LA OJ TA (OACHELLA 9^k POSA YTtid • Riverside County Transportation Commission Strategic Plan Phase I: Review and Update • COACHELLA VALLEY HIGHWAY PROJECT ACCOMPLISHMENTS • SR 86 - Construct a Four -Lane Expressway on a New Alignment The State Route 86 project (proposed by Caltrans) included construction of a two-lane highway along a new alignment and additional right-of-way, to provide for future expansion of the project to a four -lane expressway. Measure A funds were applied to the project providing for the construction of a four -lane expressway between I-10 and the Imperial County Line. The total project cost is $87.0 million. The project is divided into the following three stages: Stage I: Stage II: A four -lane expressway between Dillon Road and Avenue 58. Stage I received $16.8 million in Measure A funding and has been completed. Continuation of expressway improvements between Avenue 58 and Avenue 66. This Stage was funded by federal and state STIP funds (totaling approximately $28.9 million) and has been completed. Stage III: Continuation of expressway improvements between Avenue 66 and Avenue 82. This Stage has been funded by federal and state STIP funds (approximately $41.3 million), and is under construction by Caltrans with an anticipated completion date of 2001. Stages II and III were delayed for approximately two years due to Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) request to study potential wetland issues. These issues were subsequently determined not to be significant and the environmental clearance was obtained for the cost of two stages of the project. • Route 111 - Operational Improvements • The Coachella Valley Association of Governments (CVAG), and the Commission, cooperatively programmed Measure A Highway Program funds (approximately $20 million) for operational improvements at intersections along State Route 111. The intersection improvements were subsequently divided into two groups of projects totaling approximately $10 million each. The Commission programmed an initial $10 million using Measure A funds for the first group of projects (Tier I). The funded intersection improvements include: Palm Springs: SR 111/Sunrise Way intersection improvements - completed. Rancho Mirage: SR 111 widening between 39th Avenue and Frank Sinatra - completed. • 33 Riverside County Transportation Commission Strategic Plan Phase I: Review and Update Indian Wells: Indio: SR 111 widening between Monroe and Rubidoux Avenues - design complete, right-of-way currently being acquired. Cathedral City: Rancho Mirage: Palm Springs: La Quinta: Palm Desert: Intersection improvements at SR 111 and Cook Street - completed. SR 111 intersection improvements and widening - construction complete.* *The initial $10 million in Measure A funds programmed for State Route 111 improvements provided only partial funding for this project. CVAG has agreed to loan Cathedral City the additional funds (eligible under the second group of projects for Measure A funding) from the Measure A Highway and Rail Program. CVAG is currently being repaid from the Measure A Highway and Rail Program. Widen Frank Sinatra Drive to 39" Avenue. Construction completed 1995 Intersection improvements at Sunrise Way. Construction completed 1996 Intersection improvements at Washington Street. Construction completed 1997 Intersection improvements at Deep Canyon Road. Construction completed 1998 Intersection improvements at Monterey Avenue and Portola Avenue. Final design is currently in progress. Construction start 2000 Intersection improvements at San Pablo Avenue. Currently under construction 34 Riverside County Transportation Commission Strategic Plan Phase I: Review and Update RAIL PROGRAM ACCOMPLISHMENTS Measure A, Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ), Transit Capital Improvement (TCI), and Transportation Development Act (TDA) funds that have been allocated to MetroLink rail improvement projects by the Commission include: • Commuter rail service now operates daily during morning and evening peak hours between the Riverside and Los Angeles Lines using the Union Pacific line, and between San Bernardino County and Orange County using the BNSF line (Burlington Northern Santa Fe), carrying commuters to and from the greater Los Angeles area. TDA funding allocated to operating these lines is approximately $19.4 million. • Four stations were constructed by the Commission to serve commuter rail passengers. The first two stations, the Riverside Downtown Station and the Pedley Station, were funded by Measure A Rail Program funds. The next two stations, the La Sierra Station and the West Corona Station, were federally funded through the CMAQ program. The total cost for the stations was $37.92 million. A new southside passenger platform and a train storage area were constructed at the Downtown Riverside Station. The new platform was required to eliminate conflicts between freight and commuter rail traffic along the Santa Fe Main Line and to improve train schedule reliability along the Inland Empire to Orange County Line. The Commission was responsible for the design and construction of the platform and storage area with total costs of approximately $11 million. Construction was completed in 1998. Funding for the improvements was programmed from State Rail Bond Program revenues allocated by the California Transportation Commission (CTC) and passed through to the Commission from the Southern California Regional Rail Authority (SCRRA). Rail program capital improvements will continue to address the additional demand of commuters in the growth areas of Riverside and San Bernardino counties. Programmed Rail Capital Improvements Due to the lack of available Local Transportation Fund (LTF) funding for rail operations and maintenance, and the lack of Measure A funds for further capital improvements, the Commission identified the "possible expansion" of commuter rail service between Riverside and the cities of Perris, Hemet, and San Jacinto along the San Jacinto Branchline (identified in the Measure A Expenditure Plan), as a relatively low priority on the Measure A Project Sequencing List. The Commission has programmed $7.3 million in CMAQ funds for use in making capital improvements along the San Jacinto Branchline, between Riverside and Perris. These funds can be used to make improvements that benefit freight service in the short term and commuter rail in the long term, once the Commission has determined that commuter rail expansion will proceed. 35 • s • Measure A Rail Program et Co]° A b a A. S et M a. 1. ti • "" INLAND EMPIRE/ORANGE COUNTY LINE . RNERSIDE.DOWNTONR PEDLEY STATIONS • • RIVERSIDEAOSANGELES UNE RNERSIDE.0 SIERRA, WEST CORONA STATIONS • • SAN JACINTO BRANCH (PROPOSED FUTURE EXPANSION) A VAN DUREN, MIN STREET STATIONS (PROPOSED .TER 1) Riverside County Transportation Commission Strategic Plan Phase I: Review and Update • III. Programmed Expenditures - Western County HIGHWAY AND RAIL EXPENDITURES - NEXT 10 YEARS An accelerated project delivery pace guided the Commission for the first ten years. There are still a number of major projects to be initiated and/or completed in the second 10 years. Over two-thirds of the projected revenues will actually be generated in the latter ten years. While some of these revenues will go to retire debt service, a substantial portion is available for project programming and completion. Four STIP periods fall in the latter period, which is expected to yield approximately $240 million from the State Highway Account for project delivery. • The total additional Western County funding generated from both Measure A and STIP, is projected to be approximately $619 million over the next ten years. After net debt service, the amount available is projected to be $433 million (with approximately $67 million remaining to be programmed). (See Appendix 3 for annual cash flow.) Funds appropriated by the Federal government for demonstration projects amount to $48.9 million. Other revenue sources the Commission has been able to obtain in the past, and will likely continue to pursue in the future include: CMAQ; STP; FTA; and State IIP allocations. It cannot be determined with any certainty what amounts of these funding sources the Commission will be successful in obtaining as they involve competing with others agencies for a finite amount of resources. Based on the past, less than 10% of the Commission project funding has been generated from these sources. With this understanding of the total available and potential funding, the Commission has determined that sufficient funds are available for the following list of projects for completion during the remaining ten years of the existing Measure. (Note: Completion will actually extend to the year 2012 when the State makes the final disbursements for the 2008 STIP subject to funding availability.) The projects, as prioritized, were selected under the premise that the Commission must ensure that Measure A projects as promised to the voters will be completed to the extent funding is available. (See page 46: Proposed Measure A Projects, for a discussion of other potential projects.) 37 Riverside County Transportation Commission Strategic Plan Phase I: Review and Update WESTERN COUNTY FULL OR PARTIAL MEASURE A FUNDING HIGHWAYS State Route 60 Construction Start 2002 HOV Lanes between 60/215 and Redlands Blvd. This project will be funded principally with federal CMAQ dollars with a matching amount provided by Measure A. This project will go a long way toward addressing traffic congestion in the Moreno Valley corridor. This project is a median widening consisting of two High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lanes, one in each direction, from the east junction of Interstate 215 with State Route 60, this project includes ramp modifications to Perris Boulevard. Interchange, to Redlands Boulevard in the City of Moreno Valley. CMAQ $26.2 million Measure A 6.0 million STIP 7.2 million Total $39.4 million State Route 74 Construction Start 2004 Widening Project 1-15 to Seventh Street: Running between Lake Elsinore and the City of Perris. This major thoroughfare has been identified as one of the most critical safety issues within the County. Working cooperatively with the State and the City, the Commission has set aside Measure A funding to complete this project. Engineering was initiated in 1999 to prepare the Plans, Specifications and Cost Estimates (PS & E) which will be completed in 2000. Construction is scheduled to begin as soon as possible thereafter. Measure A funding is available beginning in 2004 for construction or loan repayment, should the Committee elect to advance the project by borrowing funds. (Note: Loan repayment could also be in the form of future STIP.) The project consists of both widening and realignment. The current two-lane roadway, with no shoulders or median, will be expanded to four lanes with shoulders and a fourteen -foot median. A number of curves will be realigned for better sight distance. The Commission has also agreed to purchase the necessary right-of-way for a Caltrans State Highway Operations and Protection Program (SHOPP) project that will add further enhancements. Those enhancements will involve curve realignment and appropriate placement of traffic signals. Measure A $40.5 million 38 Riverside County Transportation Commission Strategic Plan Phase 1: Review and Update State Route 74 continued Construction Start 2007 Interchange Improvements at G Street @ 1-215: With the improvements to Route 74, this interchange will need to be upgraded. The upgrade will widen the interchange to facilitate traffic flow and to relieve congestion. Measure A $21.9 million Construction Start 2009 Winchester to Warren: Originally shown in the Measure A Expenditure Plan as a realignment project, this project has been redesigned to be a signal synchronization project, based on the conclusions of a consultant study. State Route 79 Newport to Keller: Widen to 4 lanes, programmed in the 1998 STIP. State Route 91 Measure A $2.0 million Construction Start 2003 STIP $13.5 million Construction Start 2008 HOV Lanes from Mary to the 60/91/215 Interchange: This project, along with Magnolia to Mary, (see project description that follows) will complete the addition of one lane on State Route 91 from the Orange County line to the 60/91/215 Interchange. Although there is a substantial commitment of Measure A to this project, over 80% of the project cost will be with STIP funding. The high cost of this project is due to significant right-of-way impacts and interchange modifications to improve traffic flow. The HOV lane, that currently extends from the Orange County line to Mary, will be extended all the way to the 60/91/215 Interchange. Although significant progress has been made with Caltrans at resolving scoping issues, negotiations are still under way to determine the final project scope. Caltrans is now in the process of redoing the Project Study Report (PSR) to look at various alternatives. STIP $199.9 million Measure A $37.3 million Total $237.2 million Construction Start 1998 Continuing Magnolia to Mary: This project will complete the construction of soundwalls and auxiliary lanes along State Route 91. Although it was known prior to the completion of construction of the HOV widening project that soundwalls would be needed, decisions were postponed pending resolution of height and location issues with Caltrans and the City of Riverside. 39 Riverside County Transportation Commission Strategic Plan Phase 1: Review and Update Through June 1999, six soundwall construction projects have been completed along State Route 91 as a part of Phase I. The constructed soundwalls along with those slated for Phase II completion through 2001 were identified in the December 1995 State Route 91 Soundwall and Auxiliary Lane Study approved by the Commission in April 1996. The study was performed on the stretch of State Route 91 from Jane Street to Pierce Street. Soundwall locations and heights were determined for residential areas to reduce freeway noise to acceptable levels. Auxiliary lanes were also needed to improve operation characteristics of the freeway from crossing over due to closely spaced on and off ramps. 'Measure A 1 $12.6 million Economic Development Interchanges Construction Start Various Galena at 1-15 : is a $20 million dollar interchange improvement project with the County of Riverside as the lead agency. The project is designed to mitigate existing congestion caused by the explosive growth of commercial and industrial activity in the Mira Loma corridor. The project cost is being Measure A funded with federal demonstration dollars, STP discretionary funding, and local funds, including redevelopment and road and bridge district fees. The Measure A commitment of $5.7 million has been partially met by the funding provided to the County for the Winchester Road project. The County agreed to replace that funding in the future with available STP discretionary. The net future commitment from the Commission in Measure A is shown below: Local Circulation Interchanges Measure A $2.7 million Construction Start Various Various interchanges: The Expenditure Plan included an allocation to assist local jurisdictions with improvements to interchanges believed to have a regional impact on congestion. Several interchanges were identified early by the Commission, including Frederick and Valley Way on Route 60, and Adams, La Sierra, and Van Buren along State Route 91 in the City of Riverside. Through 1999, the Commission had already expended $1.8 million on Van Buren. Measure A I $52.1 million) For individual years of programming, refer to the cash flow model on pages 24 and 25 for a complete listing of other interchange projects. Support Costs Programed management, legal fees, staffing and support costs for the highway and rail expenditures totaled $18.1 million. 40 • • • Can Be Funded Based on Strategic Plan Revenue Estimates FREEWAYSINIGWAYS'MAJOR ARTERIALS CC*ANUTER RAIL INTERCWANGE INTERSECTIONS MEASURE COMPLETED I V t • ■ STIP/CIA0. o FUNDED CAN BE FUNDED • • Riverside County Transportation Commission Strategic Plan Phase 1: Review and Update COMMUTER RAIL Aggressive implementation of the commuter rail program resulted in one of the Commission's early successes - promotion of and participation in - a regional commuter rail system (Metrolink). To accomplish this, rail expenditures were advanced several years ahead of actual revenues. For that reason, the past few years, the Commission has allocated few Measure A dollars to commuter rail projects. As discussed in Part II, the initial capital requirements for the start up of existing commuter rail lines have been satisfied with either Measure A funding, including the use of bond proceeds, or with other revenue sources (e.g., Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Section 5307, state rail bonds). Capital needs for system growth must also be funded from a variety of sources. Possible sources could include Measure A, STIP, STP, CMAQ, FTA grants, and Federal demonstration funds. Section 5307 provides transit operators with funding (based on factors including passenger miles) and require a local match. Under this program the Commission has been allocated to date, approximately $12 million. The Commission is projected to receive $3.5 million annually for the next ten years, for a total of $47 million. Existing operating subsidies have been funded with Transportation Development Act (TDA). Cash flow based on revenue projections indicate that beginning in the year 2002, rail revenues will generate positive cash balances through 2009. Approximately $67 million can be used to fund previously identified unfunded rail projects, including the next phase of track and signal improvements, additional train sets, rolling -stock storage and maintenance facilities, stations, parking capacity and projects needed to rebuild and operate the San Jacinto Branchline (refer to chart on page 46). Phase I assumes that the Commission's policy on maintaining the same percentage split between rail and highway continues. San Jacinto Branchline The 1988 Measure A Expenditure Plan allocated a share of the sales tax revenues to complete rail service to Orange and Los Angeles counties. The Commission, as part of the purchase of the Santa Fe operating rights, acquired the entire San Jacinto Branchline with the possibility in the future of operating the line for commuter rail passenger service. That possibility became less likely over time due to the inability to obtain sufficient funding for needed capital improvements as well as to cover operating costs. The San Jacinto Branchline, in need of extensive repair and maintenance, would conservatively cost in excess of $100 million for capital improvements on the entire 39 mile route, including stations and rolling stock. This amount is over and above to the $25.3 million paid to purchase the line (e.g., $19.3 million in Measure A and $6.0 million in state rail bonds) and related properties. State funds targeted to the line were redirected by the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) improvements required at Calexico. Further exacerbating the problem was the failure of two subsequent state rail 42 Riverside County Transportation Commission Strategic Plan Phase I: Review and Update • bond measures in 1992 and 1994. Finally, based on early cost operating cost estimates of $2 million annually, the Commission could not identify sufficient resources to operate the entire line, in the short term. Rail Passenger Service to Perris With the expected revenues of $67 million, currently identified as rail, one partial solution for leveraging the Commission's investment in the San Jacinto Branchline would be to extend service from the City of Riverside to the City of Perris. The Commission in 1995 undertook a study to review the feasibility of implementing commuter rail on the 39 mile San Jacinto Branchline from Highgrove to Hemet. The San Jacinto Branchline Commuter Rail Corridor Study, performed by Boyle Engineering, indicated a phased approach to implementing service on the line. The study estimated that to initiate service to the City of Moreno Valley would cost the Commission approximately $13.8 million in capital improvements and $233,000 in operational costs. Ridership projections, however, were not impressive. • • To extend the line an additional twelve miles to the City of Perris, was estimated to cost another $46.5 million, for a total of $60.3 million in capital expenditures. Operating and maintenance costs were estimated at $1.8 million annually, less fare revenues. Based on changes in the manner in which Metrolink calculates operating costs per line, a more current analysis yields a lower operating costs which could be sustainable with current TDA funding availability (e.g., for commuter rail). Though ridership substantially improved from the Moreno Valley option, it would still beg the question as to the cost effectiveness of the level of capital commitment required versus the number of passengers served. (See the following table, next page). The San Jacinto Branchline between the cities of Riverside and Perris, is also eligible for TEA 21 NewStart funding. A near term effort is underway to conduct a required federal investigation of assessments and preliminary engineering. Should the federal project be awarded, Measure A would be a possible source for required local matching funds. 43 Riverside County Transportation Commission Strategic Plan Phase I: Review and Update Comparison of SJBL Rail Service Implementation Alternatives Rail Service Implementation Strategies Rail Operations Characteristics 1. Metrolink Extension to Alessandro 2. Hlghgrove/SP to 3. HlghgrovelSP to 4. Highgrove/SP to FULL SERVICE Perris Romoland Hemet/Ryan Highgrove/SP to San Jacinto Capital Costs Ways and Track Signal/Train Control Stations4 Rail Vehiclesl O&M Support Facilities Grade Crossing Improvements Southern Pacific Connection Contingency Engineering/Design/construction/Management Total Capital Costs' ROW Costs' $4,468,696 $8,267,605 $10,381,940 $0 $7,077,840 $7,077,840 $1,232,000 $1,982,000 $2,950,000 $0 $18,000,000 $27,000,000 $500,000 $500,000 $500,000 $1,600,000 $4,600,000 $6,200,000 $985,000 $985,000 $985,000 $1,757,129 $8,282,489 $11,018,956 $1,537,488 $4,637,178 $5,726,587 $12,080,313 $54,332,112 $71,840,323 $13,940,141 $7,077,840 $5,512,000 $36,000,000 $500,000 $8,000,000 $985,000 $14,402,996 $7,382,622 $93,800,599 $1,730,000 $5,950,000 $6,710,000 $8,560,000 $16,522,085 $7,077,840 $7,117,000 $36,000,000 $500,000 $9,800,000 $985,000 $15,600,385 $8,430,337 $102,032,647 $9,610,000 Total Annual Operating and Maintenance Costs $232,797 $1,828,137 $2,489,647 Rail O&M $232,797 $1,618,137 $2,269,647 Support Bus O&M $0 $210,000 $220,000 $3,390,697 $3,090,697 $300,000 $3,482,000 $3,182,956 $300,000 1 Including 15 to 20 percent squares 2 Assumes no station stop at UCR for Metrolink service. 3 Excludes boardings at Downtown Metrolink Station 4 Excludes costs for Highgrove, Downtown Riverside and Van Buren station 5 Excludes Right Of Way costs 6 Conceptual estimates based on $5 per sq. R. for additional property at stations and at connection points for SP tracks. Source: San Jacinto Branchline Commuter Corridor Study, 1995 Table 25 44 • • • air METROILI dK" 1 1; • uc Rrrt liif! WATSON O IIV! truniOrf It • FULL LINE OPERATION BUILD OUT SCENARIO FROM THE HEMET/ SAN JACINTO STATION TO THE HIOHGROVE AND RIVERSIDE METROLINK STATIONS r ti Station Locations _U. Maintenance and Operations Facility 1 Mileposts E ti•`I 114 and 112 Mils Stslion Buffers ] City Boundary NN Highway V. .' MAPS APZ 11 Propoeed Domen i oni Faeeervoir Preserve San Jacinto Branch -Line Rail Corridor Study C ounty of Riverside 1 ►0 I it v•' PIIMEMTRikP4 • ' AIRPORT tm RlO w 1 wrseematT> Pte,. t Iwo 12.191111. • • •' { 71 FULL LINE OPERATION BUILD OUT SCENARIO FROM THE HEMET/ SAN JACINTO STA TION TO THE HIGHGROVE AND RIVERSIDE M ETROUNK STATION S _ Station Lac /idiom _it M aintenance and Operations Fa cility �► I Mileposts iV1 1/4 and 112 Mile Station Bu ffers 1 City Soundery 6/ Highway MAPS APZ 11 Y'. Proposed Do meniQoni Reservo ir Preserve 4Ff 1 San Jacinto Branch -Line Rail Corridor Study - - County of Riverside J 1 1 11. IOW • Riverside County Transportation Commission Strategic Plan Phase I: Review and Update Other Potential Rail Capital Needs Though the $67 million in revenues projected to accrue in the final years of Measure A have not yet been programmed, there are estimated to be $152.6 million in rail capital needs. Illustrated in the Table titled, Total Estimated Capital Needs For 2000-2009, are a number of capital requirements including rolling stock, station enhancements, and improvements to the San Jacinto Branchline. The table is based on the assumption that the Commission continues the past precedent, and uses Measure A to leverage state and federal funding. Without use of Measure A, a significant amount of state and federal funding may not be available. A. Current SRTP Projects Programmed 1. Riverside -Fullerton -LA Startup Completion of Tier II Stations at Van Buren & Downtown Corona 2. Passenger Overcrossings 3. Incremental Improvements 4. Extend Pedley Emergency Platform 4a. Electronic Surveillance** 5. Rehab Santa Fe Depot 6. La Sierra Station Temporary Parking" (San Jac) Subtotal FUNDING SOURCE PROJECT COST 2000 .2009 Measure A Section 5307' 2000.2004 2005.2009 1s1 Tier 2nd Tier 2000.2004 2005 2009 1s1 Tier 2nd Tier Other 2000.2004 Fund 2005.2009 Fund 1s1 Tier Name 2nd Tier Name Actual (Hard Money) $ 12,000 $ $ - $ 6,000 $ 3,300 4,100 300 500 $ 20,200 $ • $ • $ 6,000 $ • B. SRTP,+ 3 Years Metrolink Capital Projects Not Yet Programm l does not include San Jacinto extension) 1. Rolling Stock/Construction (incl.Storage track atAe) la. Triple Track at Basta/La Mirada 2. Grade Separations 3. Capital Maintenance (watch cap) 4. Station Parking 5. San Jacinto Branch Line New Start Subtotal (Escalated $') TOTAL CAPITAL NEED C. (Less) Projected Capital Revenue: 1. Federal Section 5307 Capital (Mu +S3.5mryr) 2. Measure A (atter 2009) Escalated per draft 59 Strategic Plan 3. Other (STP, STA, CMAQ, TEA 21, local) TOTAL PROJECTED CAPITAL REVENUE STIP & $ 6,000 STA $ 3,300 CMAQ CMAQ 4,100 CMAQ 300 STP 500 STP $ 10,100 $ 4,100 SRTP + Proposed Project Funds $ 54,648 $ • $ 26,249 $ 9,143 $ 16,971 1,143 914 5,462 • 2,325 3,137 8,156 - 4,078 4,078 63,000 - 24,000 $ 132,409 $ • $ 54,327 $ 12,382 $ 24,186 $ 152,609 $ • $ 54,327 $ 18,382 $ 24,186 $ 47,000 $ 67,000 55,714 $ 169,714 $ • $ 67,000 $ 29,500 $ 17,500 $ 29,500 $ 17,500 • 67,000 NET CAPITAL DEFICITI(NEED 2ND DECADE) S (17.105) Table 26 (S12.673) 46 (S4.432) $ 2,285 STA $ 229 STA 27,000 TEA 21 12,000 TEA 21 S 29,514 $ 12,000 $ 39,614 $ 16,100 $ 39,614 16,100 $ 39,614 $ 16,100 SO Riverside County Transportation Commission Strategic Plan Phase I: Review and Update 1998 STATE TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM AND TEA -21 CMAQ PROGRAM STIP FUNDED The initial 1998 STIP provided over $147 million in funding for Riverside County projects. An augmentation to the initial STIP allocated another $50.3 million. Those monies combined with carryover 1996 STIP allocations were used to fund a number of major projects in the County, including projects from the Measure A Transportation Improvement Plan. Below is a listing of Measure A projects programmed in the 1998 STIP. 1998 STATE TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM AND TEA -21 CMAQ PROGRAM Route Limits Project Total Cost Western County Highway Program 'RT 60/1-215 University to Rt 60/215 Junction Add 1 lane in each direction, plus truck lane, plus truck by pass at 60/215 Junction $162.1 RT 60/91 60/91/215 Interchange in City of Riverside Build Northbound to westbound connector and southbound to eastbound connector $168.1 RT 79 Newport to Keller Widen to 4 lanes (add 1 lane in each direction) $13.5 RT 60 Day St. to Redlands Blvd. Add 1 lane in each direction $34.0 RT 91 Magnolia to Mary Soundwalls and Auxiliary lanes $16.0 TOTAL $393.7 ' NOTE: These program funding amounts represent 1996 STIP carryover funding. Because they were programmed in the 1996 STIP, they were not included in the cash flow model. Table 5 47 Riverside County Transportation Commission Strategic Plan Phase I: Review and Update • • SR 60/SR 91/1-215 Interchange - Two Direct Connectors The SR 60/SR 91/1-215 Interchange improvement project was the centerpiece of the Western Riverside County Highway Program identified in the Measure A Expenditure Plan. The improvements included two new direct connectors that are expected to reduce conflicts at the interchange by 80%. The total project cost is $168.1 million. Project stages are further described below: Stage I: Construction of a direct connector from SR 60/1-215 between the City of Moreno Valley and SR 91, southbound through the City of Riverside, and freeway access modifications for the Spruce Street Industrial Area. Funding for this project has been programmed in the STIP using federal and state funding. Caltrans is the lead agency and environmental clearance is scheduled in 2000. ROW acquisition and design will begin in 2000 and construction is scheduled to begin in 2002. The total cost of this Stage is $118.2 million. • • Stage II: Construction of a direct connector from southbound I-215 to eastbound SR 60/1-215 toward the City of Moreno Valley. The total cost for Stage II construction is estimated at $49.9 million. Construction is scheduled to begin in the year 2004. While federal and state funds (programmed through the STIP) are the primary funding sources for the SR 60/SR 91/1-215 Interchange Improvement Project, the Commission programmed and allocated a considerable amount of Measure A funding toward the project. Specific project funding allocations include: Measure A funding (approximately $5 million) was allocated to provide Caltrans with technical assistance to develop an agreement between the Commission, Caltrans, and the FHWA that: • Addresses the scope of improvements to be constructed along I-215, including the SR 60/SR 91/1-215 Interchange. • Draft an Environmental Impact Study (EIS) for I-215 projects. Measure A funds were allocated to protect ROW for the SR 60/SR 91/1-215 Interchange project. Several properties, including the Ferguson Partners, 3N, Spruce Industrial Park, Friis, Seipel, Carlson, Vail and King properties were purchased using approximately $21.70 million in Measure A funds. Measure A funds were used because Caltrans had not completed the environmental process, and Caltrans would not be eligible for reimbursement with federal funds. 48 Riverside County Transportation Commission Strategic Plan Phase 1: Review and Update • Route 60 Day Street to Redlands Blvd. Add HOV lanes in each direction. CMAQ funds. Construction start 2002. • I-215 Between University Avenue and the East Junction of SR 60/1-215 - Additional Lanes The Commission, Caltrans, and FHWA reached an agreement that the scope of this project should include: • Construction of HOV lanes in each direction. • Construction of a truck bypass lane at the East Junction of SR 60/1-215. • Construction of an eastbound truck climbing lane. This project includes construction of a new interchange at Martin Luther King Boulevard and eliminates the existing interchange at El Cerrito consistent with long-term expansion plans of the University of California at Riverside (UCR) and circulation plans of the City of Riverside. Environmental clearance for the project is expected in 2000. Construction is scheduled based upon available federal and state funding through the STIP process and approval by the CTC. The total cost for these improvements is estimated at $162.1 million. The three project stages are further described below. Stage I: Federal and state funds programmed in the STIP will be used to complete this Stage of the project and Caltrans will be the lead agency. This Stage includes construction of a truck bypass lane at the East Junction of SR 60/I-215, construction of HOV lanes from University Avenue eastward, and construction of an SR 60/I-215/Martin Luther King Boulevard Interchange. Stage II: Construction of HOV lanes from Martin Luther King Boulevard to the East Junction of SR 60/1-215. Stage III: Construction of an eastbound truck climbing lane from east of the proposed Martin Luther King Boulevard/SR 60/1-215 Interchange to the East Junction of SR 60/1-215. • Route 79 Newport to Keller: widen to 4 lanes Widens to 4 lanes, programmed in the 1998 STIP. Construction start 2003. 49 • • • STIP/PAAO LEASURE A COAHLTED Fu DED Programmed in 1998 STIP and/or Other Funding Programs BEAUIONT FRE EWAYSM IGHWAYS COMM UTER RAIL INTERCHANGE MA JOR ARTERIALS INTERSECTIONS BANNING •• NMI MINI Via V r ■ 11411 Riverside County Transportation Commission Strategic Plan Phase 1: Review and Update REMAINING MEASURE A PROJECTS Based on the most recent revenue projections for sales tax and STIP allocations, the ability to program complete funding for one Measure A project within the 2008 STIP time frame presents a challenge. The affected project is the I-215, additional lanes between the SR 60/SR 91/1-215 Interchange and the San Bernardino County Line. Funding of this project is conditioned upon additional commitments to be undertaken by San Bernardino County. This project is projected to cost approximately $60 million. The second lane on State Route 91, estimated to cost $150 million, is not feasible, based on the cost and limitations imposed by the franchise toll road agreement granted to a private entity. CRITICAL POLICY DECISIONS: One option available to the Commission, for paying for some of the potential highway projects, would be to reallocate unprogrammed rail revenues to the highway program. Previous strategic plans have assumed that "rail," as defined in the Measure, is a percentage allocation and not a fixed amount. (See the Transportation Improvement Plan in the Appendix.) If a fixed amount were assumed, then the $67 million in Measure A sales tax revenues, now available for rail could be redirected to a highway project. Under that scenario, the Commission could potentially fund the additional lanes on 1-215 between the 60/91/215 Interchange and the San Bernardino County Line. 51 Riverside County Transportation Commission Strategic Plan Phase I: Review and Update • IV. Programmed Expenditures - Eastern County EASTERN COUNTY NON -HIGHWAY EXPENDITURES COACHELLA VALLEY REGIONAL ARTERIAL PROGRAM As noted in the CVAG Cash Flow Projection Model Summary at the end of this section, Measure A is expected to generate approximately $107.6 million over the next ten years for the regional arterial program , which is far from sufficient to meet the project needs. Within the Coachella Valley, local jurisdictions elected to assess a transportation mitigation fee based on trips generated by new development or site improvement. Termed the Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF), it is collected in most jurisdictions and transferred to CVAG for allocation to the Regional Arterial Program. CVAG estimates that TUMF will generate approximately $3 1 million in years 2000 through 2009. In addition to Measure A and TUMF funds, the CVAG model projections also include local, STIP, interest earnings and STP funding. The Regional Arterial Program, administered by the Coachella Valley Association of Governments, is the largest Measure A program for the Coachella Valley. At least 40% of the Measure A revenues are dedicated to improving the regional arterials in the Coachella Valley. While significant progress has been made, the Transportation Project Prioritization Study (TPPS) and the related Regional Arterial Cost Estimate (RACE) identified needed projects, totaling $639 million. The projects were selected and ranked based on technical scoring that evaluated roadway performance and the need for improvements. Specifically, the criteria looked at surface conditions, availability of right-of-way, system continuity, roadway classification (e.g., consistency with general plan standards), level of service (e.g., measure of traffic congestion or operating performance), and accident rates. The adopted criteria reflect the need for lane additions, new roads, and missing portions of roads. NAMED MEASURE A PROJECTS The Measure A Transportation Improvement Plan stated that the highest priority projects in the Coachella Valley included Gene Autry north of Vista Chino to I-10, Palm Drive/Gene Autry Trail (from Mid Valley Parkway to Desert Hot Springs), Fred Waring Drive (from Route 111 in Palm Desert to Indio Boulevard, and Jefferson Street (from Avenue 54 to Indio Boulevard). The CVAG Executive Committee 52 Riverside County Transportation Commission Strategic Plan Phase I: Review and Update has determined that these named projects will be given priority to ensure that the voter mandate is fulfilled. To encourage jurisdictions in the Coachella Valley, to make Measure A projects priority status in their capital improvement plans, CVAG not only adopted a policy unequivocally promoting the priority nature of the named projects, it also provided financial incentives. While the funding on most projects requires a 50% local match, named Measure A projects are funded 75% from TUMF and Measure A regional arterial monies. The local match is reduced to 25% and can be from any source of funds (e.g., local Measure A, redevelopment monies, or General Fund) the jurisdiction chooses. Due to funding limitations, CVAG is continuing to examine options to provide a greater level of assurance that at least the named Measure A projects will be completed by 2009. Based on CVAG's scoring criteria (See the CVAG Transportation Project Prioritization Study (TPPS) issued June 1999), no project scored higher than 24, while no named Measure A project scored less than 15. All named Measure A projects will be funded using a combination of Measure A and TUMF fees. As discussed in Part II, the two revenue sources are expected to generate $138.6 million over the remaining ten years. REGIONAL ARTERIAL PROJECT STATUS Regional Arterial Project Costs NAMED MEASURE A PROJECTS Coachella Valley Regional Arterial Cost Estimate Update JUNE 1999 TOTAL CUMULATIVE STREET NAME SEGMENT DESCRIPTION COSTS COSTS (1998 $) (1998$) JEFFERSON STREET Fred Waring Dr to Indio Blvd. cEFFERSON STREET JEFFERSON STREET JEFFERSON STREET JEFFERSON STREET JEFFERSON STREET JEFFERSON STREET JEFFERSON STREET GENE AUTRY TRAIL GENE AUTRY TRAIL GENE AUTRY TRAIL FRED WARING DRIVE FRED WARING DRIVE FRED WARING DRIVE FRED WARING DRIVE FRED WARING DRIVE FRED WARING DRIVE FRED WARING DRIVE FRED WARING DRIVE FRED WARING DRIVE FRED WARING DRIVE Westward Ho to Fred Waring Dr 1-10 to Avenue 40 49th Ave to Hwy. 111 Hwy. 111 to Westward Ho Bridge over White Water channel Ave 52 to Ave 50 Ave 50 to Ave 49 Avenue 40 to Avenue 38 Salvia Rd. to and including 1-10 Interchange Vista Chino to E. bank WhiteWater River Whitewater River to Salvia Rd. Washington St. to Starlight Ln. Starlight Ln. to Jefferson St. Silverwood Drive to Indio Blvd. Elkhorn Trail to Washington Street Portola to Phyllis Jackson Ln./Intersect. at Portola & Fred Waring Califomia to Elkhom Trail Hwy. 111 to Town Center Way including bridge Monterey to Portola w/ intersection of Monterey & Fred Waring Intersection of Eldorado & Fred Waring Town Center Way to Monterey Avenue Table 27 53 2,632,300 2,632,300 3,188,300 5,820,600 5,820,600 5,599,200 11,419,800 8,192,700 19,612,500 3,663,200 23,275,700 1,838,400 25,114,100 598,300 25,712,400 12,228,000 37,940,400 31,831,283 69,771,683 6,190,000 75,961,683 3,311,700 79,273,383 3,262,400 82,535,783 2,165,800 84,701,583 1,831,400 86,532,983 2,078,100 88,611,083 2,071,000 90,682,083 1,931,300 92,613,383 3,009,700 95,623,083 26,800 95,649,883 1,174,100 96,823,983 Riverside County Transportation Commission Strategic Plan Phase I: Review and Update • Summarized below is a brief description on the status of the named projects. Gene Autry from Vista Chino to I-10. This named Measure A project has been divided into three segments by CVAG. Those segments are: • Vista Chino to east bank of Whitewater River. • Whitewater River to Salvia Road. • Salvia Road to and including I-10 Interchange. The County of Riverside is the lead agency on the interchange segment of this project. A Project Study Report (PSR) is in the process of being developed by the County. The interchange is estimated to cost $12.2 million. The total project cost is estimated at $50.22 million. Palm Drive/Gene Autry Trail (from Mid Valley Parkway to Desert Hot Springs). This project has gone through engineering, design, and right-of-way acquisition phases. The County of Riverside, the lead agency, is expected to begin construction in October/November 1999. The project is a four- to eight -month construction job, estimated to cost $6.3 million. • • The total project, including engineering, design, right-of-way acquisition and construction, is estimated to cost $44.3 million. Fred Waring Drive (from Route 111 in Palm Desert to Indio Boulevard. Fred Waring Drive has been segmented into ten discrete projects, except for the portion in Indio, the remainder of Fred Waring Drive has been improved to four lanes throughout: • Washington to Starlight Lane. • Starlight Lane to Jefferson Street. • California to Elkhorn Trail. • Elkhorn Trail to Washington Street. • Intersection of El Dorado and Fred Waring. • Highway 111 to Town Center Way. • Town Center Way to Monterey Avenue • Monterey to Portola w/Intersection of Monterey & Fred Waring. • Portola to Phyllis Jackson Lane/Intersection at Portola and Fred Waring. • Silverwood Drive to Indio Boulevard. Fred Waring Drive presents the Coachella Valley with one of its most challenging projects. There are a number of homes adjacent to the planned route improvements that would necessitate costly and extensive right-of-way acquisitions and relocation expenses. These issues are still under review and discussion by CVAG. 54 Riverside County Transportation Commission Strategic Plan Phase 1: Review and Update The intersection at El Dorado and Fred Waring has been improved to four lanes with continuous left - turn lanes, and the segment from Silverwood Drive to Indio Boulevard, is scheduled to be under construction by the end of the year. The total estimated cost of all ten segments, is $18.7 million. The Jefferson Street (from Avenue 54 to Indio Boulevard). Jefferson Street project has two major divisions, south and north of Highway 111. There are three segments north of Highway 111 compared to four south of SR 111. North • Highway 111 to Westward Ho w/ Whitewater River Bridge. • Westward Ho to Fred Waring Drive. • Fred Waring Drive to Indio Boulevard. South • Avenue 54 to Avenue 52 w/ bridge AA canal. • Avenue 52 to Avenue 50. • Avenue 50 to Avenue 49. • Avenue 49 to Highway 111. Engineering, design, and right-of-way are complete on all segments south of Highway 111. Construction is scheduled to begin in September 1999. All segments north of Highway 111 are designed, but do not yet have definitive construction schedules. Total project cost is estimated at $25.16 million. Debt Service Expenditures CVAG elected in 1992 to have the Commission issue bonds to accelerate delivery of regional arterial projects in the Coachella Valley. The Commission issued approximately $60 million in tax-exempt bonds for these projects. CVAG has elected to repay the debt service using both Measure A and TUMF. Total annual debt service amounts to $5.8 million, of which approximately $1.4 million annually has been paid to date by CVAG out of TUMF fees. Measure A bears the difference of $4.4 million annually, or $44 million through the year 2009. Other Regional Arterial Projects The Coachella Valley Association of Governments has developed an extensive list of regional arterial projects for improvement. Some 215 projects are listed in the TPPS covering 40 streets in the Coachella • • 55 Riverside County Transportation Commission Strategic Plan Phase 1: Review and Update Valley. Total costs identified in the Regional Arterial Cost Estimates (RACE), exclusive of the costs for the named Measure A projects, are $542 million. One of the major challenges facing the Commission and CVAG will be to devise a funding plan for addressing the needs of the Coachella Valley. As noted in the following CVAG Cash Flow Projection Model Summary, the Coachella Valley is projected to have $86 million available in unprogrammed Measure A and STIP funding. CVAG, in cooperation with the Commission, will need to determine whether those funds will be spent on highway improvements or the regional arterial program. The required actual cash flow model shows an additional $87 million in unprogrammed funding, for a total of $162 million in unprogrammed funding. That will leave a funding shortfall of $380 million. See the table in Appendix 4 (provided by CVAG) for a listing of all regional arterial projects. For a detailed discussion of ranking and costing methodology, see CVAG's TPPS and RACE or contact CVAG staff directly. The following Cash Flow Projection Model summarizes the projected revenues and expenditures related to the CVAG Regional Arterial Program through 2009. As noted above, the CVAG region is projected to generate over $130 million in Measure A and TUMF funding during the period. Approximately $85 million remains to be programmed, after expenses for project costs and debt service. (As noted above, in addition to Measure A and TUMF funds, the CVAG model revenue projections include STIP, STP and local revenues.) CVAG REGIONAL ARTERIAL PROGRAM CASH FLOW PROJECTION MODEL 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 TOTAL Revenues Beginning Balance 21,458.953 1.391,470 7,695,879 15,434,629 21,568,229 30,209,629 43.507,145 53,033,585 63,366,285 74.600,985 Measure A 7,410,000 8,043,000 8,711,000 9,383,000 10,081,000 10,826.000 11,624,000 12,467,000 13,357,000 15,686.000 107,588,000 TUMF 3.100,000 3,100,000 3,100,000 3,100,000 3,100,000 3,100,000 3,100,000 3,100,000 3,100,000 3,100,000 31,000,000 Local Funds 4,814,496 6.743,369 5,986,750 7,108,500 24,653,115 STIP Funds 10,987,900 12,114,840 8,783,000 4,974,100 0 0 0 0 0 0 36,859,840 Interest Earnings 271,000 280,000 289,000 298,000 307,900 318,300 329,200 340,700 352,700 365,300 3,152,100 Other 350.000 525,000 525,000 525,000 525,000 4,425,716 273,240 225,000 225,000 225,000 7,823,956 STP Funds 3.007,121 337.500 405.000 405.000 427,500 427,500 0 0 0 0 5,009,621 Total Revenues 29,940,517 31,143,709 27,799,750 25,793,600 14,441,400 19,097,516 15,326,440 16,132,700 17,034,700 19,376,300 216,086,632 Expenditures Project Costs 44.208,000 19,039,300 14,261,000 13,860.000 91,368,300 Debt Service 5.800,000 5.800,000 5.800.000 5,800.000 5.800.000 5,800.000 5.800.000 5,800,000 5.800,000 5,800.000 58,000,000 Total Expenditures 50,008,000 24,839,300 20,061,000 19,660,000 5,800,000 5,800,000 5,800,000 5,800,000 5,800,000 5,800,000 149,368,300 Ending Fund Balance 1,391,470 7,695,879 15,434,629 21,568,229 30,209,629 43,507,145 53,033,585 63,366,285 74,600,985 88,177,285 Table 28 56 Riverside County Transportation Commission Strategic Plan Phase I: Review and Update PALO VERDE VALLEY The greatest identifiable need in the Palo Verde Valley is for street and road maintenance and repair. All of Palo Verde Valley's Measure A allocation is used for that purpose along with Local Transportation Fund Article 8 funding. The Strategic Plan assumes that all of their Measure A funding is used for that purpose. (See Part I, Funding Sources, for a discussion of available funding.) CRITICAL POLICY DECISION: Unprogrammed STIP funding for the Palo Verde Valley is estimated at $3.8 million. Currently specific needs for the City of Blythe and the unincorporated areas of the Palo Verde Valley have not been identified. The Commission, CVAG, the County, and the City of Blythe will need to formulate an expenditure plan to ensure full utilization of those funds for transportation improvements in Palo Verde Valley. Rail Service See: Part V, Designing a Strategic Vision: Intercity Passenger Rail. 57 Riverside County Transportation Commission Strategic Plan Phase I: Review and Update • V. Designing a Strategic Vision Phase I of the Strategic Plan has highlighted the tremendous accomplishments of the Commission in administering the first ten years of Measure A. A program is well under way for the next ten years to ensure successful completion of most elements of Measure A. Funding sources were documented and quantified including the extent of state and federal participation in the County's transportation infrastructure program. While the emphasis of Phase I has been on major capital programs, the Commission is responsible for a number of programs providing benefits and services to County residents. Phase II will attempt to chart a plan or course for all of the Commission's programs for the next twenty years. • • There are a number of unsolved problems and identified issues on which Phase I has endeavored, to focus awareness. The Commission serves an area that boasts one of the fastest growth rates in the state and the nation. The infrastructure needs created by that growth present an opportunity for the Commission, in partnership with Caltrans, CVAG, the Western Riverside Council of Governments (WRCOG), and the County, to formulate transportation policies and solutions that should well serve the County in the 21' century, by addressing these unresolved problems and issues. The Commission will lead the way, in working with all stakeholders, to create a mobility plan and a transportation delivery system that will facilitate economic growth and improve the lives of County residents. NON -MEASURE A HIGH PRIORITY HIGHWAY PROJECTS In the 1996, Strategy and Vision Issue Paper, a number of non -Measure A projects were considered high priority within the County. The Commission identified the need for two lanes, one in each direction, on State Route 60 from the 1-15 to Valley Way. There is still no current funding identified for this project. Caltrans has obtained federal demonstration money, IIP funding, and SHOPP allocations to make minor safety improvements on State Route 71 from State Route 91 to the San Bernardino County line. Much of this state highway is a two-lane road (one lane in each direction), that at a minimum, needs to be upgraded to four lanes. A realignment of Route 79 from the Ramona Expressway to the Eastside Reservoir is under study. The Commission has allocated $425,000 in planning monies to complete a Project Study Report. Table 7 ROUTE 1 LIMITS 1 PROJECT 1 COST Western County Highway Program (in millions) RT 60 1-15 to Valley Way Add 1 lane in each direction $40.2 RT 71 RT 91 to San Bemardino County line Expand to 6 lane Freeway Undetermined RT 79 Ramona Expressway to Eastside Reservoir Realignment $60.0 ource: 1996, Measure A Vision and Strategy Issue Paper 58 — NONMEASURE A HIGff41EAY PROJECTS IDENTIFIED AS SHORT TERM NEEDS Non -Measure A Highway Projects Identified as Short Term Needs 1 • • • Riverside County Transportation Commission Strategic Plan Phase 1: Review and Update FUNDING SHORTFALL It is no surprise that one of the unsolved problems is the extent to which the needs of the County far outweigh the available funding. Both WRCOG and CVAG have identified project requirements in excess of $7 billion*. That compares with revenue estimates from local sales tax and federal and state funding of only $2.5 billion. (Note: Assumes renewal of Measure A for twenty years beyond 2009.) Comprehensive Transportation Plan One alternative that will be explored by the Commission is a program, already implemented in the Coachella Valley, for transportation mitigation fees in Western Riverside County. The Western Riverside Council of Governments has already performed some analysis on a possible program, and is working closely with Commission staff, County officials, and cities in southwest Riverside County to promote a transportation mitigation fee program. The success of that program, when and if implemented, will no doubt determine the extent to which it will be rolled out to the remaining sections of Western Riverside County. An endeavor is already in progress to extend Measure A another 20 years beyond 2009. The Commission anticipates participating in a statewide effort to renew all existing sales tax measures with a November 2000 ballot initiative. If passed, the state estimates it will generate nearly $2 billion through 2029. BALANCING REGIONAL AND GEOGRAPHIC NEEDS Measure A was a bold effort at dealing with needs throughout the County as they existed in 1986. When the plan was drafted, it was done so with the view of easing the existing congestion with regionally significant projects with the limited resources that a half -cent sales tax could produce. The limitation did not permit the Commission to fund additional projects resulting from future growth. Since that time, there are areas of the county that have experienced remarkable growth, unanticipated by the Measure. Any new funding plan must address needs for the entire County while not losing focus on the importance of regionally significant projects. This becomes even more critical, in light of funding shortages, requiring choices to be made in allocating limited resources. With all areas of the County directly represented at the Commission, future decisions can strive for solutions that benefit local jurisdictions while maintaining a regional perspective for projects that improve mobility and promote economic development for a wide range of jurisdictions. INTERREGIONAL COOPERATION AND COORDINATION Recognizing the importance of interregional cooperation, the Commission coordinated the development of transportation solutions with several agencies, including SANBAG, OCTA, Caltrans, SCAG, SCRRA and NewTrak. 60 Riverside County Transportation Commission Strategic Plan Phase I: Review and Update Though not a focal point, Measure A embodied a spirit of cooperation with our regional partners in Orange and San Bernardino counties. In the early years of Measure A, the Commission with Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) and San Bernardino Associated Governments (SANBAG), undertook studies for design and engineering on State Route 91 and 1-215. Opportunities have never been greater, than in the coming years, to forge stronger alliances and cooperative efforts at identification of joint corridors and transportation initiatives. One of the joint efforts of the Commission could result in additional funding for transportation improvements in the 91 corridor. The Commission and OCTA have both been working with a not -for- profit agency, NewTrak, in supporting its efforts to pursue purchase of the State Route 91 Expressway (toll road). The Board of NewTrak has agreed that excess revenues from toll fees, after coverage of debt service, will be used for capital projects mutually agreed to by OCTA and the Commission. No studies have yet been performed by NewTrak on the amount of funding that would become available for that purpose. An aggressive and coordinated legislative program with SANBAG may be continued in the foreseeable future. A unified approach to implementing legislation should improve funding secured for the Inland Empire, benefiting the area collectively as well as enhancing the respective funding programs within both counties. PROGRAM PRIORITIES Accompanying the Measure A ballot in 1988 was an expenditure plan with allocated dollars for a number of program elements: e.g., highways, rail, streets and roads, paratransit, commuter education and outreach, fixed route transit, and major arterials. These are all areas with significant and growing requirements. However, other elements were either not addressed or have come to the fore as major Commission concerns now and in the future.. Development of future funding plans should recognize other areas for allocation of resources while sending a message as to Commission intent, and promotes safety and quality of life. Substantial funding must continue to be allocated to major highways, arterials, interchanges, and for rehabilitation and maintenance of roads. But the Commission will consider funding for grade separations, demonstrations of alternative fuel use and other clean air initiatives, intercity and express bus for commuters and the transit dependent, and expansion of existing commuter rail lines (See: Part III: Expenditure Western County: Commuter Rail for a discussion of the San Jacinto Branchline). 61 Riverside County Transportation Commission Strategic Plan Phase I: Review and Update • INTERCITY PASSENGER RAIL SERVICE The Commission has long advocated for the creation of a new state -supported, intercity rail service between the Coachella Valley and Los Angeles, via the Beaumont pass and downtown Riverside. This route would use track owned by both Union Pacific and Burlington Northern Santa Fe. The State of California subsidizes three routes within the state: the "San Diegans" between San Diego and San Luis Obispo via Los Angeles: the "San Joaquins" between Bakersfield and Stockton; and the "Capitols" between Sacramento and the Bay Area. These services are operated under contract by Amtrak, which charges the state for all costs above ticket fare collection. The Coachella Valley routing has been difficult because of limited track capacity and the unwillingness of the freight railroads to allow additional passenger rail traffic along their corridor. It is understood that significant capacity improvements will be necessary to insure reliability for both freight and passenger service; but no local, state or federal funds have yet been identified for that purpose. • • The Commission is part of the Southern California Intercity Rail Group, a joint powers authority formed with the transportation agencies of six other counties to expand intercity passenger rail in the region. Amtrak has embarked on a major planning effort and will be seeking the Commission's participation in further exploring the Coachella Valley -Riverside -Los Angeles service as an emerging intercity rail corridor. Caltrans, also, is considering the corridor for inclusion in its statewide Passenger Rail Plan, scheduled for completion by June 2000. In anticipation of intercity passenger service, the Commission designed the platforms at the Riverside downtown station to accommodate Amtrak trains. Likewise, the City of Palm Springs, using state Transit Capital Improvement and local funds, built its new station to accommodate both existing Amtrak long distance trains and future intercity rail service. No Eastern County funding has yet been identified to provide either capital improvements or operating support. COMMUNITY AND ENVIRONMENTAL TRANSPORTATION ACCEPTABILITY PROCESS (CETAP) Riverside County Integrated Planning Riverside County is embarking on a comprehensive, innovative effort to address serious traffic congestion, habitat conservation, open space, transportation and land -use issues. The Riverside County Integrated Planning (RCIP) process, is bringing together an array of stakeholder groups around three integrated and coordinated activities: the preparation of a new Riverside County General Plan; the 62 Riverside County Transportation Commission Strategic Plan Phase I: Review and Update • development of the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP), and the Community and Environmental Transportation Acceptability Process (CETAP). CETAP is targeted at identifying and preserving right-of-way for needed transportation corridors in the western portion of the County. Traditional Approach Separate linear planning process Asphalt (roads) first Government driven Responds to special interest Conflict inevitable Reactive Timeframe: Decades Compromises quality of life No cost sharing Riverside County Approach Integrated process Environment first Stakeholder driven Supported by data and science Consensus building Proactive Timeframe: Years Enhances quality of life Local, state, federal responsibility CETAP PHASES The CETAP work will provide significant data to assist Riverside County in its long-range decisions regarding transportation, land use, biological resources and related issues. It is anticipated that up to four key corridors will be identified for detailed evaluation. CETAP will be completed in three phases. The first, a vision phase, will define problems and issues and identify corridors for detailed evaluation. This phase is expected to take about 8 months to complete. The second, the detailed analysis phase which is projected to take 16 months to complete, will develop alternatives within each selected corridor and evaluate those alternatives in order to recommend one in each corridor for further refinement. The final phase, closure, will be the time for the formal public hearings on environmental documents and will lead to the final decisions regarding the recommendations. In order for this ambitious, coordinated effort to be successful, it was determined at the outset that a bottom -up process was essential. The public, along with a diverse group of interested stakeholders, will drive it. The interactive process offers unique opportunities to identify and resolve conflicts and issues. CETAP GOALS The CETAP element of the Riverside Integrated Plan is designed to accomplish the following goals: • • Improve the efficiency of the transportation system: One of the primary goals of the CETAP project is to create a comprehensive transportation plan that accommodates future needs and supports quality of life objectives. This effort is focused on providing a balanced and coordinated • transportation system which promotes altematives to automobile use and places increasing emphasis 63 Riverside County Transportation Commission Strategic Plan Phase 1: Review and Update • on transportation modes which enhance efficiency, conserve nonrenewable resources and improves air quality. • Reduce the impacts of transportation on the environment: As an air quality non -attainment area for carbon monoxide, ozone and particulate matter, Riverside County has long struggled with making transportation improvements that will result in reductions in air quality emissions. With the CETAP program, another step is being taken to reduce the impacts of transportation on the environment, with consideration of environmental factors such as ecosystems, habitat fragmentation and water quality. • Reduce the need for costly future public infrastructure: The leadership of Riverside County has directed that the County's transportation program address not only today's transportation needs, but the needs of the future. The goals and implementation strategies of CETAP are developed in such a manner to ensure a reduction in the need for costly future infrastructure by encouraging growth patterns that make better use of existing transportation infrastructure and reduce the costs of the system. • • • Ensure efficient access to jobs, services and centers of trade: By 2020, the primary transportation corridors in western Riverside County (I-10, I-15, I-215, SR 60, SR 71 SR 74, SR 79 and SR 91) will be expected to carry traffic loads at least 125% greater than today. Having CETAP completed in concurrence with the county's new General Plan allows us to identify corridors improvements which will be compatible with general plan land uses. • Examine development patterns and identify strategies to encourage private sector development patterns: The General Plan will identify areas where more compact urban forms, including neo- traditional planning could be applied. Potential locations will be identified where growth can be focused using neo-traditional design or transit -oriented design concepts. CETAP BUDGET AND RESOURCES The funding for the Integrated Plan will come from a variety of sources including regional transportation and planning funds, federal grants for multi -species planning, local environmental mitigation funds and County general funds. The CETAP portion of the Riverside Integrated Plan (RIP) has a specific budget of $5,820,373. This includes an extensive communications budget to ensure adequate public outreach and involvement, the cornerstone of our process. 64 Riverside County Transportation Commission Strategic Plan Phase I: Review and Update The table below outlines specific cost categories for the CETAP Project: Cost Element FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 2001 TOTAL Planning & Corridor Studies $661,288 $1,686,322 $1,165,561 $3,513,171 GIS 75,322 144,618 81,348 301,288 Circulation Element 70,501 134,288 130,931 335,720 Communications/Outreach 182,044 541,271 383,499 1,106,814 Program Management 140,845 270,422 152,113 563,380 TOTAL $1,130,000 $2,776,921 $1,913,452 $5,820,373 Table 29 The following table outlines existing funding commitments. Agency Type of Funds FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 2001 Total RCTC State Transp Improvement Funds $750,000 $500,000 $250,000 $1,500,000 SCAG Federal Overall Work Program $280,000 $500,000 $500,000 $1,280,000 TOTAL FUNDS COMMITTED $1,030,000 $1,000,000 $750,000 $2,780,000 TOTAL FUNDS REQUIRED $1,130,000 $2,776,921 $1,913,452 $5,820,373 Table 30 SUMMARY OF CRITICAL POLICY DECISIONS 1) Commission must determine the appropriate allocations for currently unprogrammed commuter rail and Coachella Valley funds as well as resolution of projected shortfall in Western County highway. la) Should the Commission issue bonds or borrow against the State highway account to fund highway improvements. lb) Should the Commission initiate improvements on the San Jacinto Branchline with cost estimates ranging from $12 million to $112 million? lc) Should the Commission choose not to fund the rail capital project, it may choose to reallocate rail revenue to the Western County Highway program. Under that scenario, using a substantial portion of the $67 million, the addition of lanes on 1-215 between the 60/91/215 Interchange and San Bernardino County Line could potentially be funded. 2) One of the major challenges facing the Commission and CVAG will be to devise a funding plan for addressing the needs of the Coachella Valley. As noted, in Part III, of this report, the Coachella 65 Riverside County Transportation Commission Strategic Plan Phase I: Review and Update • Valley will have $75 million available in unprogrammed Measure A and STIP funding. CVAG, in cooperation with the Commission, will need to determine whether those funds will be spent on highway improvements or the regional arterial program. 3) One option available to the Commission, for paying for some of the potential highway projects, would be to reallocate unprogrammed rail revenues to the highway program. Previous strategic plans have assumed that "rail," as defined in the Measure, is a percentage allocation and not a fixed amount. (See the Transportation Improvement Plan in the Appendix.) If a fixed amount were assumed, then the $67 million in Measure A sales tax revenues, now available for rail could be redirected to a highway project. Under that scenario, the Commission could potentially fund the additional lanes on Interstate 215 between the 60/91/215 Interchange and the San Bernardino County Line. 4) Unprogrammed STIP funding for the Palo Verde Valley is estimated at $3.8 million. Currently specific needs for the City of Blythe and the unincorporated areas of the Palo Verde Valley have not been identified. The Commission, CVAG, the County, and the City of Blythe will need to formulate an expenditure plan to ensure full utilization of those funds for transportation improvements in Palo Verde Valley. • • 66 Riverside County Transportation Commission Strategic Plan Phase I: Review and Update • NEXT STEPS The following chart summarizes the next steps in the strategic plan process. Strategic Plan Outline Process Next Steps Present Phase 1 Strategic Plan Review Key Policy Issues Identif and Project Alternative Funding Sources Review Project Prioritization Criteria Table 31 Develop Enhanced Comprehensive Cashflow Model Assemble Stakeholder Team Develop Preliminary Phase 2 Expenditure Plan Finalize Phase 2 Revenue and Expenditure Plan • • 67 Riverside County Transportation Commission Strategic Plan Phase I: Review and Update • Appendix Ordinance No. 88-1 AP- 1 Appendix 2: Transportation Improvement Plan AP- 3 Appendix 3: Cash Flow Model AP -15 Appendix 4: Coachella Valley Regional Arterial Projects AP -25 Appendix 5: Table 89 -Current Measure A AP -31 Appendix 6:Table FY 2000-2003 Proposed Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Program AP -33 Appendix 7: TEA -21 STP Projects AP -34 Appendix 8: List of Definitions AP -35 Appendix 9: List of Acronyms AP -38 Appendix 10: Complete Project Listing AP -41 • • 68 Riverside County Transportation Commission Strategic Plan Phase I: Review and Update APPENDIX 1 Ordinance No. 88-1 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION TRANSPORTATION EXPENDITURE PLAN AND RETAIL TRANSACTION AND USE TAX ORDINANCE PREAMBLE The transportation system in Riverside County is rapidly deteriorating. Maintenance and repairs of existing roadways and improvements to relieve congestion cannot be accomplished with available funds. Without additional funds, the system will bog down and pavement will crumble into permanent disrepair. State highway funds are inadequate and competition for funds is increasing. Projects in areas where local sales tax funds are available will be viewed much more favorably in the selection process of the California Transportation Commission. Local governments must either generate revenues to save the system or watch the system collapse and endanger the health, welfare, and safety of all Riverside County residents. A one-half percent sales tax for transportation to supplement traditional revenues and revenues to be generated through locally -adopted developer fees and assessment districts for transportation improvements is the only way local governments can be sure the transportation system will serve the current and future travel needs of Riverside County. The Riverside County Transportation Commission will continue to seek maximum funding for transportation improvements through state programs. The Commission will not provide sales tax revenues to any city or to the county unless revenues currently used by that agency for transportation are continued to be used for transportation purposes. The Riverside County Transportation Commission ordains as follows: SECTION I. SUMMARY. This ordinance provides for the imposition of a retail transaction and use tax of one-half percent for a period of twenty (20) years, the authority to issue limited tax bonds, and the administration of the tax proceeds and a county transportation expenditure plan. The Riverside County Transportation Commission ordains as follows: AP -1 Riverside County Transportation Commission Strategic Plan Phase 1: Review and Update SECTION II. DEFINITIONS. The following definitions shall apply in this ordinance: A. EXPENDITURE PLAN. "The Expenditure Plan" means the Riverside County Transportation Commission Expenditure Plan (attached as Exhibit B) and adopted as part of the Ordinance including any future amendments thereto. B. "County" means County of Riverside. C. "Commission" means the Riverside County Transportation Commission created pursuant to Sections 130053 and 130053.5 of the Public Utilities Code. SECTION III. AUTHORITY. This ordinance is enacted, in part, pursuant to the provisions of Division 25 (commencing with Section 240000) of the Public Utilities Code, and Section 7252.22 of the Revenue and Taxation Code. SECTION IV. IMPOSITION OF RETAIL TRANSACTIONS AND USE TAX. Upon voter approval of the same, the Commission shall impose, in the incorporated and unincorporated territory of the County of Riverside, a retail transactions and use tax (referred to as the "A" fund tax) at the rate of one- half of one percent (0.5%) for a period of twenty (20) years from the date which the Commission and the State Board of Equalization agree to begin collection of the tax. The tax shall be in addition to any other taxes authorized by law, including any existing or future state or local sales tax or transactions and use tax. SECTION V. PURPOSES. Measure "A" funds may be used for transportation purpose including the administration of Division 25, including legal actions related thereto, the construction, capital, acquisition, maintenance, and operation of streets, roads and highways, including state highways and public transit systems and for related purposes. These purposes include expenditures for the planning, environmental reviews, engineering and design costs, and related right-of-way acquisition. SECTION VI. BONDING AUTHORITY. Upon voter approval of Measure "A" funds, the Commission shall have the power to sell or issue, from time -to -time, limited tax bonds in the aggregate principal amount at any one time outstanding of not to exceed $300 million for capital outlay expenditures for the purpose set forth in Section V hereof, including to carry out the transportation projects described in the Expenditure Plan. SECTION VIII. RETURN TO SOURCE. Funds for transportation purposes shall be allocated to the Western County, Coachella Valley, and Palo Verde Valley areas proportionate to the Measure "A" funds generated within these areas. SECTION X. ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS. The Commission shall expend only that amount of the funds generated from Measure "A" for the staff support, audit, administrative expenses, and contract services that are necessary and reasonable to carry out its responsibilities pursuant to Division 25, and in no case shall the funds expended for salaries and benefits exceed one percent of the annual net amount of revenues raised by Measure "A". AP -2 Riverside County Transportation Commission Strategic Plan Phase I: Review and Update APPENDIX 2 Riverside County Transportation Improvement Plan July 13, 1988 GOALS AND POLICIES IMPROVE AND MAINTAIN THE QUALITY OF LIFE IN RIVERSIDE COUNTY BY SUPPLEMENTING EXISTING FUNDS FOR TRANSPORTATION. • Enhance Riverside County's ability to secure State and Federal funding for transportation by offering matching local funds. • Avoid "Los Angelization" of Riverside County by reducing current traffic congestion problems now. PROVIDE FOR EQUITY IN THE DISTRIBUTION OF MEASURE A REVENUES. • Return funds to the Western County, Coachella Valley and Palo Verde Valley proportionate to funds generated in those areas. • Adopt Improvement Plan proposals, which address the unique needs of each of these areas of the County. • Provide for a reasonable balance between competing highway, commuter rail, transit and local street and road needs. PROVIDE FOR LOCAL CONTROL OF THE IMPROVEMENT PLAN PROGRAM • Provide for cost-effective, local administration of the program through the existing Riverside County Transportation Commission. No new agency would be created to administer these funds. • Delegate appropriate administrative responsibility to cities, the County, and other local agencies for local programs. AP -3 Riverside County Transportation Commission Strategic Plan Phase I: Review and Update This TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PLAN, which shall also act as the County's expenditure plan, was prepared by the Riverside County Transportation Commission for the proposed 1/2% local transactions and use tax for transportation to be collected for the next 20 years if approved by the voters on November 8, 1988 - Measure A. This is proposed by the Commission, as a means to fill the funding shortfall to implement needed highway and commuter rail projects, local street and road programs and transit improvements for the seniors and handicapped people. SPECIFIC TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS TO BE FUNDED WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY The Improvement Plan Map illustrates both the Western Riverside County and Coachella Valley areas. The Western County area includes the cities of Riverside, Banning, Beaumont, Corona, Hemet, Lake Elsinore, Moreno Valley, Norco, Perris, and San Jacinto. It also includes the unincorporated communities of Sun City, Canyon Lake, and Rancho California and other sparsely populated unincorporated areas. 1. State Highways Many more State highway projects are needed to deal with congestion and safety problems than existing Federal and State revenues can fund. The major focus in the Western County area is improvement to State Route 91 and the State Routes 91/60/215 interchange. The 1988 costs of these and other priority highway projects in the Western County area exceed $655.6 million. Estimated funds from existing State and Federal sources will meet only about one-half of these needs. Measure A funds are anticipated to cover the other half. The highway projects to be implemented with funding assistance from Measure A funds returned to the Western County area are as follows: Route Limits Rte 91 Rte 91 Orange County Line to Magnolia Avenue (South-West Riverside) (Riverside Freeway) Magnolia Avenue to 91/60/215 interchange (Riverside Freeway) Project Cost Range ($Millions) Widen from 6 to 10 lanes (add 2 $118.0 lanes in each direction) Add up to 2 lanes in each direction 173.5 AP -4 Riverside County Transportation Commission Strategic Plan Phase I: Review and Update • • • Route Rte 60 Rte 60 Rte 74 Rte 74 Limits Interstate 215 to Redlands Boulevard (Pomona Freeway) Route 91 to Valley Way (Pomona Freeway) Interstate 15 to Interstate 215 Winchester Road to Warren Road Rte 79/ Interstate 10 to Route 74 Sanderson near Hemet/ San Jacinto Rte 79 Rte 60 *Rte 1-215 Rte 91/60 Rte 60/91 Rte 60/91/215 All All Contingen cies TOTAL Newport Road to Keller Road Route 91 to Route 60 Interchange to San Bernardino County Line 60/91/215 Interchange Various locations Various locations Various locations Spaces per Standard/all Highways Project Widen to 6 lanes (add 1 lane in each direction) Widen to 6 lanes (add 1 lane in each direction) Widen to 4 lanes Realign curve Widen portions to 4 lanes & construct all-weather crossing at Sanderson Widen to 4 lanes (add 1 lane in each direction) Widen to 8 lanes (add 1 lane in each direction) Widen to 8 lanes (add 1 lane in each direction) Reconstruct with 2 direct freeway to freeway ramps Lease Park & Ride lots Interchange work to improve local circulation Share cost of interchanges for job development Augment highway call box funding Cost Range ($Millions) $ 21.7 16.8 28.8 2.0 19.4 10.0 18.8 14.2 115.0 2.0 30.5 20.0 20.0 32.0 $624.7 AP -5 Riverside County Transportation Commission Strategic Plan Phase I: Review and Update • * If connecting projects are constructed in San Bernardino County. Funds to support these projects will come from a highway and commuter rail transportation account of $339 million. 1. Local Streets and Roads Over the last 20 years, available funds for maintenance of local streets and roads have declined. At the same time, these facilities are reaching "middle age", with potholes and need for major reconstruction. Local street improvements adjacent to new residential and business developments will continue to be paid for by the developers. The greatest need is for maintenance and rehabilitation of the existing city and county road system. Current resources cover only 25% to 50% of the pavement maintenance needs. The Improvement Plan proposes that 40% of the Measure A fund to be returned to the Western County area shall be used to assist funding for local streets and roads. Funds should be distributed to the cities and the County by a formula based on 75% on proportionate population and 25% on Measure A revenues generated within each jurisdiction. Five year Capital Improvement Programs will be prepared and annually updated -within each city and the County with public participation. 2. Discount Fare and More Transit Service for Seniors and Handicapped Discount transit fares for senior (age 60 and older) and handicapped people are now one-half the normal fare for fixed route transit service within the Western County area. Measure A funds will be used to guaranteed continuation of this reduced fare for 20 years. In addition, funds will be used to provide further reductions for the truly needy. Funds will be used to expand existing services and implement new services. Ways to do this include providing vans and operating assistance and to social service agencies, contracts for evening taxi service for medical purposes, and an outreach program to advise seniors and handicapped people of all available transit services and how to use them. The intent of this program is to provide service to those with no other means of transportation. Funding for this program would come from $31 million for specialized transportation. 1. Commuter Buses, Carpools and Vanpools A systematic program will be implemented that encourages the use of commuter bus, carpools and vanpools to make our existing highway system work better during congested rush hour periods. The commuter bus component will consist of express bus service between major points for home and work trips utilizing special bus/carpool lanes on the freeway system as they are constructed. The use of carpool and vanpools will be encouraged by improving computer assisted ridesharing matching programs, encouraging positive incentives by major employers and providing "seed" money for the start up of vanpool groups for initial vehicle purchase, insurance and related costs. Funding for this program would come from $31 million for specialized transportation programs. • • AP -6 Riverside County Transportation Commission Strategic Plan Phase I: Review and Update so 2. Commuter Rail to Los Angeles and Orange Counties Recent studies indicate that development of a commuter rail system using existing rail lines from Riverside/San Bernardino areas to Los Angeles and Orange County is feasible. Commuter rail service would be beneficial to Riverside area commuters, and Los Angeles and Orange County employers. There are considerable Federal and State funds available to match local dollars for the provision of rail transit service. It is the intent of the Improvement Plan to match to the maximum extent possible these Federal and State funds for the implementation of commuter rail service to both Los Angeles and Orange Counties. It is anticipated that this program will involve a cooperative plan to be funded by Riverside, San Bernardino, Los Angeles and Orange Counties. In order for Riverside County to be able to qualify for full State matching funds for commuter rail, Measure D on this same ballot will need to be passed by the voters. This will allow Riverside County to be allocated a share of $75 million per year which the California Transportation Commission must, by law, set aside from the State highway account for rail transit. • • Commuter Rail Route Limits Parallel to Rte 91/1-10 and 1-215 Riverside to Los Angeles and Orange Counties existing lines Project Cost Range ($Millions) Commuter rail on $100.0 Riverside County's share of funds for these projects will come from a highway and commuter rail transportation account of $339 million. COACHELLA VALLEY The Transportation Improvement Plan generally illustrates the proposals for the Coachella Valley area. The area includes the cities of Cathedral City, Coachella, Desert Hot Springs, Indian Wells, Indio, La Quinta, Palm Desert, Palm Springs, and Rancho Mirage. It also includes the major unincorporated areas and a substantial amount of more unincorporated areas and a substantial amount of more sparsely populated county areas. 1. State Highways and Major Regional Road Projects Fifty-five percent of the Measure A funds generated within the Coachella Valley will be used for State highways and major regional road projects. The Coachella Valley area is served by few State highways. The proposed Regional Arterial Systems developed through the Coachella Valley Association of AP -7 Riverside County Transportation Commission Strategic Plan Phase I: Review and Update • Governments would function much like State highways to address future needs for the area. Of the 55% share, about one -quarter will supplement Federal and State funds for the following State highway projects: Route Rte 86 Rte 111 All Contingencies TOTAL Cost Limits Project Range ($Millions) Dillion Road to Construct 4 lane freeway $ 55.7 Oasis Ramon to Indio Various operational 20.0 Boulevard improvements Spaced per Augment highway call 1.0 Standard /all box funding Highways 2.8 $ 79.5 The remaining Measure A share of this fund will be used to implement the planned Regional Arterial System. The estimated cost for arterial system improvements will exceed $200 million. The proposed system is to be implemented with a mix of existing funding required from new development, a Uniform Traffic Mitigation Fee which would also be paid by developers from new development, and Measure A funds returned to the Coachella Valley area. The Uniform Traffic Mitigation Fee schedule shall be established in order to generate at least the equivalent of Measure A funding toward the Regional Arterial System. It is anticipated that this plan will be implemented through the Coachella Valley Association of Governments. The highest priority projects include the, Mid -Valley Parkway (from Gene Autry north of Vista Chino to 1-10 at Monterey), Palm Drive/Gene Autry Trail (from the Mid -Valley Parkway to Desert Hot Springs), Fred Waring Drive (from Route 111 in Palm Desert to Indio Boulevard), and Jefferson Street (from Avenue 54 to Indio Boulevard). 1. Local Streets and Roads • As in Western Riverside County, over the last 20 years available funds have not kept pace with local streets and roads needs in the Coachella Valley. Cities and the County are also faced with the problems • of an aging system and potholes. The Measure A funds would supplement existing Federal, State and AP -8 Riverside County Transportation Commission Strategic Plan Phase I: Review and Update local funds. Local street improvements adjacent to new residential and business developments will continue to be paid for by the developers. This creates need for maintenance and rehabilitation of the existing city and county road system. Current resources cover only 25% of the pavement maintenance needs. The Coachella Valley Association of Governments will play a role in determining allocations to local governments for streets and roads. Local streets and roads funds will be provided to Coachella Valley cities and the County if they participate in the Uniform Traffic Mitigation Fee program to assist in financing the priority Regional Arterial System. If local agencies choose not to levy the additional developer fees, the fund they would otherwise receive for local streets and roads will be-, added to the Measure A funds for the Regional Arterial System. In addition, the Coachella Valley Association of Governments will have the discretion to provide a portion of these funds to increase funding for specialized transit programs for seniors and handicapped people, bus replacement or other transit programs which may improve air quality. 2. Discount Fare and More Transit Service for Senior and Handicapped Discount transit fares for seniors (age 60 and older) and handicapped people are normal fare for fixed route transit service for most of the day within the Coachella Valley area. Measure A funds will be used to guarantee reduced fares for 20 years. In addition, Measure A funds will be used to provide further reductions for the truly needy. Funds will be used to expand existing services and implement new services. Ways to do this include providing vans and operating assistance to social service agencies, contract for evening taxi service for medical Purposes, and an outreach program to advise seniors and handicapped people of all available transit services. The intent of this program is to provide service to those with no other means of transportation. Funding for this program would come $12 million of the retail transaction and use tax funds set aside for specialized transportation programs. 3. Commuter Buses, Carpools and Vanpools A systematic program to encourage the use of commuter buses, carpools and vanpools is also proposed for the Coachella Valley. This program would be particularly beneficial to get employees to seasonal jobs in the Desert hospitality industry. It will also improve air quality within the Coachella Valley. The commuter bus component will consist of express buses serving major work locations. The use of carpools and vanpools will also be encouraged by improving computer assisted ridesharing matching programs, encouraging positive incentives by major employers and providing "seed" money for the start up of vanpool groups for initial vehicle purchase, insurance and related costs. Funding for this program would come from the $12 million set aside for specialized transit programs. 4. Bus Replacement and More Service SunLine Transit Agency does not have enough Federal or State funds to replace their buses as they wear out. Despite continuous maintenance and periodic rehabilitation, the need to replace the fleet within the next 20 years is anticipated. Replacement buses would also meet more stringent air pollution control requirements. Funding may also be needed for additional bus service. The Coachella Valley AP -9 Riverside County Transportation Commission Strategic Plan Phase 1: Review and Update Association of Governments may provide up to an additional $12 million. PALO VERDE VALLEY The Palo Verde Valley is located on the far eastern side of Riverside County. It is geographically separated and remote from the Western and Coachella Valley areas. The population within the area is relatively small, and significant growth over the next 20 years is not anticipated. The Palo Verde Valley is served by Interstate 10 as a divided freeway providing adequate connections to more westerly portions of Riverside County and east to Arizona. Increased transit needs can be adequately met from existing available sources. The greatest need within the Palo Verde Valley area is additional funding to maintain and rehabilitate local streets and roads. All of the $13 million Measure A funds to be returned to the Palo Verde Valley are to be used for local streets and roads. Funds shall be distributed to the City of Blythe and the County of Riverside by formula. The formula distribution is based 75% on proportionate population and 25% on sales tax revenues generated in each jurisdiction. AP -10 Riverside County Transportation Commission Strategic Plan Phase 1: Review and Update • Measure A Revenue Allocations ($ Millions) Western County Area Highways and Commuter Rail Account $339.0 Local Streets and Roads Account 247.0 Specialized Transportation Account 31.0 Total Western County Area Measure A Funds $617.0 Coachella Valley Area • • Highways and Regional Arterial Account $132.0 Local Streets and Roads Account 84.0 - 96.0 Specialized Transportation Account 12.0 - 24.0 Total Coachella Valley Measure A Funds $240.0 Palo Verde Valley Area Local Streets and Roads Account $ 13.0 Total Palo Verde Valley Area Measure A Funds TOTAL 20 YEAR MEASURE A REVENUES $ 13.0 $870.0 AP -11 Riverside County Transportation Commission Strategic Plan Phase I: Review and Update • GENERAL PROVISIONS OF THE IMPROVEMENT PLAN, 1. Basis for Revenue Estimates Federal and State participation for highway and commuter rail funding is based upon an assumed statewide $1 billion annual capacity expanding program. (Excluding highway rehabilitation and safety improvement projects.) Riverside County's "70% county minimum" share of this amount is assumed to be about $25 million. Reflecting the need to reserve about 20% of these funds for projects proposed by Caltrans, which are not included in the Transportation Improvement Plan, the assumed Federal and State funding, is about $20 million per year. This is approximately 50% of the highway projects within this Plan. Measure A revenue estimates have not been adjusted to reflect inflation. It is assumed that inflation related revenue increase will be offset by inflating project costs. "Real growth" is assumed to parallel countywide population growth. Prudent growth rates of the State Department of Finance have been used - 4.50% to 1990, 3.40% to 1995 and 2.5% thereafter. Based upon these factors, total Measure A revenues over the 20 -year period are assumed to be about $870 million. 2. Basis for Cost Estimates All cost estimates within this Improvement Plan are preliminary and are based on 1988 values. Future costs may increase due to inflation or other factors beyond the control of the Commission. The 1988 cost estimates are to be used to determine the proportionate distribution of funds by area and category of transportation program. 3. State Highway and Commuter Rail Programs A Eligible State highway project costs include engineering, right-of-way acquisition, long-term leases, and construction. Funds are intended to supplement existing Federal and State sources, not replace them. At minimum, 50% of the funds for the highway projects listed in the Plan should come from state and federal sources. If it is determined that Riverside County is not receiving its fair share of existing funds, sales tax funds may be redirected to other types of transportation needs. • B Commuter Rail projects are anticipated to be on existing rail lines to Los Angeles and Orange Counties, or internal to Riverside County. If commuter rail service is to occur, railroads must agree to a Plan to use their right-of-way and tracks, an agency for implementation of a multi -county system must be created, funding must be secured for ongoing operations if a subsidy is required, and state and/or federal and other county funding participation must be secured. C The scope of highway and commuter rail projects to be implemented is to be determined through required environmental analysis and full consideration of alternatives. Public participation during the environmental analysis process is required. D The Commission shall establish a "State Highway and Commuter Rail Transportation Account" for 111 AP -12 Riverside County Transportation Commission Strategic Plan Phase I: Review and Update • funding capital expenditures for State highways and commuter rail. This account will consist of 60% of the Measure A funds for the Western County area and 15% of the funds for the Coachella Valley area. 4. Specialized Transportation Programs A Eligible transit programs include special discount fares for seniors and handicapped people, commuter bus services, funding for computer assisted rideshare programs, and "seed" programs to encourage the creation of vanpools. Bus capital replacement and additional bus service may also be an eligible program within the Coachella Valley, subject to a determination of funding by the Coachella Valley Association of Governments. B The Commission shall establish a "Specialized Transportation Programs Account" for funding these programs. The Commission shall determine to which public transportation or specialized transportation service operators, or carpool/vanpool-facilitating agencies, shall receive funding assistance. Based on 20 year funding estimates, the amount of funds should be $30.8 million for the Western County area and $12 million for the Coachella Valley area. The fund for the Coachella Valley may increase up to an additional $12 million for SunLine Transit Agency capital replacement, at the discretion of the Coachella Valley Association of Governments. • • 5. Local Streets and Roads Projects A Eligible local street and road projects costs include any engineering, capital or maintenance cost. Decisions on projects are to be made by local jurisdictions, but subject to Capital Improvement Program requirements. The first five-year program shall be submitted to the Commission by the local agencies by May 1, 1989. B Annual population estimates used for the distribution formula for the Western County and Palo Verde Valley areas shall be from the State Department of Finance. Dwelling unit estimates used for the distribution formula for the Coachella Valley shall be from the Riverside County Planning Department. Actual State Board of Equalization retail sales transactions shall be used for the formula in all three areas for cities. The County Planning Department shall estimate the share for each of the unincorporated areas for the three areas, from the total retail sales transactions for the total unincorporated area. C The Commission shall assure the cities' and county compliance with maintenance of effort funding requirements before allocating funds for local streets and road. Further, the Commission shall not allocate funds to an individual city or the County for local streets and road use within the Coachella Valley area unless the Coachella Valley Association of Governments indicates participation of that agency in the Uniform Traffic Mitigation Fee program necessary for implementation of the planned Regional Arterial System. D The Commission shall establish a "Local Streets and Roads Program Account." Based on 20 year funding estimates, the amount of funds should be $216 million for the Western County area, and AP -13 Riverside County Transportation Commission Strategic Plan Phase I: Review and Update from $84 to $96 million for the Coachella Valley area. 6. Funding Flexibility and Bonding to Expedite Program The Commission may make maximum use of available funds by temporarily shifting allocations between geographic areas and transportation Purposes. However, the proportionate shares for areas or the purposes over the 20 -year period may not be changed without an amendment to the Improvement Plan as required by law. Shifts may not be made without previous consultation with the affected agencies. The Commission may also use bonds to speed implementation of some projects. Bonding will not be used without first determining that the benefits of an accelerated program outweigh the additional cost of interest on borrowed funds. 7. Informing the Public of Local Funding Support All State highway, commuter rail, and regional arterial projects using $1 million or more of sales tax revenues shall be signed to inform the public that local voter approved revenues are being used to support the project. 8. Severance Provision If any provision of this Improvement Plan is for any reason held invalid or unenforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction, that holding shall not affect the validity or enforceability of the remaining provisions, and the Commission declares that it would have passed each part of the Plan irrespective of the validity of any other part. APPENDIX 3 Cash Flow Models AP -14 Riverside County Transportation Commission Strategic Plan Phase I: Review and Update RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION STRATEGIC PLAN PHASE 1: CASHFLOW SUMMARY TOTAL FOR THE PERIOD 1999 - 2009 Measure A Revenues WC HWY WC RAIL WC TOTAL CV HWY TOTAL Beginning Balance 18,075 (9,341) 8,734 5,925 14,659 New revenues 302,963 126,695 429,658 42,417 472,075 Debt service' (151,039) (59,645) (210,684) (21,895) (232,579) Interest earnings 11,083 9,726 20,809 2,607 23,416 Other revenues 3,960 0 3,960 0 3,960 Net new revenues 166,967 76,776 243,743 23,129 266,872 Available revenues 185,042 67,435 252,477 29,054 281,531 Project Expenditures (193,342) 0 (193,342) (12,808) (206,150) Ending Available Balance STIP Revenues (8,300) 67,435 59,135 16,246 75,381 TOTAL Beginning Balance 213,211 0 213,211 8,755 221,966 Current revenues: 189,481 0 189,481 50,519 240,000 I 0 Available revenues 402,692 0 402,692 (402,691) 59,274 461,966 Programmed expenditures (402,691) 0 0 (402,691) Ending Available Balance 1 0 1 59,274 59,275 Available Revenues TOTAL New Measure A revenues 302,963 126,695 429,658 42,417 472,075 New STIP Revenues 189,481 0 189,481 50,519 240,000 Total New Revenues 492,444 126,695 619,139 92,936 712,075 Less net debt service/int erngs/other (135,996) (49.919) (185,915) (19,288) (205,203) Net available new revenues 356,448 76,776 433,224 73,648 506,872 AP -15 Riverside County Transportation Commission Strategic Plan Phase I: Review and Update RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION STRATEGIC PLAN PHASE 1: CASHFLOW SUMMARY CONSOLIDATED PROJECT SUMMARY Measure A Funds Available 1999 2000 2001 2002 Beginning Balance 14,659 14,212 5,848 (2,984) New revenues 28,691 30,924 33,567 36,402 Debt service (23,277) (23,372) (23.282) (23.283) Interest earnings 2,064 1,958 1,457 1,015 Other revenue 360 360 360 360 Net new revenues 7,838 9,870 12,102 14,494 Available revenues 22,497 24,081 17,950 11,510 Project Expenditures (8,285) (18,233) (20,934) (9,734) Endin• Available Balance STIP Funding Available 14,212 1999 5,848 2000 (2,984) 2001 1,776 2002 Beginning Balance 221,966 8,755 8,755 8,755 Current revenues: 0 0 0 60,000 Available revenues 221,966 8,755 8,755 68,755 Programmed expenditures (213,211) 0 0 (47,370) Ending Available Balance 8,755 8,755 8,755 21,385 Projects Proposed for Future STIP Funding Route Project u 2000 STIP `J2002 STIP 1 WC HIGHWAY SR60 60/215 to Redlands' W H 34,800 0 0 SR91 Mary to 60/91/215 W H 10,411 0 0 47,370 SR91 Magnolia to SR71 W H 0 0 0 0 1-215 60/91/215 to S.B.Co. Line W H 0 0 0 0 60/91/215Riverside (98STIF W H 168,000 0 0 CV HIGHWAY . WC RAIL Total Programmed fl 213,211 0 0 47,370 Projects Proposed for Measure A Funding Route Project 1999 2000 2001 2002 WC HIGHWAY SR91 Magnolia to Mary W H 1,625 2,750 8,260 SR91 Mary to 60/91/215 W H 0 0 0 0 SR74 1-15 to Seventh Street W H 610 6,553 0 0 SR74 G St@ I-215 WH 0 0 SR74 Winchester to Warren W H 0 0 0 0 SR60 60/215 to Redlands W H 0 500 500 5,000 CV HIGHWAY SR 111 Tier 1 Intersection Im pr. CH 0 3,040 1,004 0 SR111 Tier 11 Loan Repayment CH 3,000 2.740 0 0 SR111 Tier 11 Intersection Impr. CH 0 0 0 0 Economic Development Interchanges 115 Galena Interchange W H 0 0 0 2,734 Local Circulation Interchanges SR60 Frederick @ RT60 W H 0 0 0 0 SR60 Valley Way @ RT60 W H 0 0 0 0 SR91 Adams @ RT91 WH 0 0 0 SR91 La Sierra @ RT91 W H 0 0 0 0 SR91 Van Buren @ RT91 W H 750 650 9,170 0 Rail Program Management & Support Costs 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 Total Programmed 7,985 18,233 20,934 9,734 Interest earnings 5% AP -16 Riverside County Transportation Commission Strategic Plan Phase I: Review and Update • • r 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 TOTAL 1,776 17,262 12,774 29,564 33,396 44,804 59,534 39,158 42,073 45,179 48,509 52,028 55,742 59,802 472,075 (23,285) (23,216) (23,216) (23,216) (23,216) (23,216) 0 (232,579) 1,253 2,024 1,799 2,639 2,831 3,401 2,977 23,416 360 360 360 360 360 360 360 3,960 17,486 21,241 24,122 28,292 32,003 36,287 63,139 266,872 19,262 38,503 36,896 57,856 65,399 81,091 122,672 (2,000) (25,729) (7,332) (24,460) (20,595) (21,557) (47,291) (206,150) 17,262 12,774 29,564 33,396 44,804 59,534 75,381 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 TOTAL 21,385 21,385 34,015 34,015 46,645 46,645 59,275 0 60,000 0 60,000 0 60,000 0 240,000 0i 0 21,385 81,385 34,015 94,015 46,645 106,645 59,275 461,966 0 (47,370) 0 (47,370) 0 (47,370) 0 (402,691) 21,385 34,015 34,015 46,645 A 46,645 59,275 59,275 59,275 J2004 STIP U2006 STIP U J2008 STIP U UTOTAL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 34,800 0 47,370 0 47,370 0 47,370 0 199,891 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 168,000 0 47,370 0 47,370 0 47,370 0 402,691 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 TOTAL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12,635 0 0 0 0 0 37,268 37,268 0 21,086 5,251 7,000 0 0 0 40,500 0 0 0 0 19,895 2,095 0 21,990 0 0 0 0 0 0 2,000 2,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4,044 0 0 0 0 0 0 5,740 0 2,643 81 0 0 0 0 2,724 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2,734 0 0 0 0 0 7,323 7,323 0 0 0 0 0 7,004 0 7,004 0 0 0 0 1 1 ,758 0 11,758 0 0 0 15,460 0 0 0 15,460 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10,570 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 700 700 700 18,100 2,000 25,729 7,332 24,460 20,595 21,557 47,291 205,850 AP -17 Riverside County Transportation Commission Strategic Plan Phase I: Review and Update RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION STRATEGIC PLAN PHASE 1: CASHFLOW SUMMARY WESTERN COUNTY HIGHWAY/RAIL Measure A Funds Available PROJECT 1999 SUMMARY 2001 2002 Beginning Balance 8,734 7,320 (1,369) New revenues 26,113 30,551 33.135 I Debt service (21 ,099) (21 ,090) (21 ,091 ) Interest earnings 1,658 1,420 986 Other revenue I 360 360 360 Net new revenues 7.032 11,241 13,390 Available revenues 15,766 18,561 12,021 Project Expenditures (4,985) (19,930) (9,734) Ending Available Balance STIP Funding Available 10,781 1999 (1,369) 2001 2,287 2002 Beginning Balance 213,211 0 0 Current revenues: 0 0 47,370 I Available revenues 213,211 0 47,370 Programmed expenditures (213,211) 0 (47,370) Ending Available Balance Projects Proposed for Future STIP Funding 0 0 0 Route Project 11 112002 STIP HIGHWAY SR60 60/215 to Redlands' W H 34,800 0 SR91 Mary to 60/91/215 W H 10,411 0 47,370 SR91 Magnolia to SR71 W H 0 0 0 1-215 60/91/215 to S.B.Co. Line W H 0 0 0 RAIL Total Programmed II 213,211 0 47,370 Projects Proposed for Measure A Funding Route Project 1999 2001 2002 SR91 Magnolia to Mary W H 1,625 8,260 SR91 Mary to 60/91/215 W H 0 0 0 SR74 1-15 to Seventh Street W H 610 0 0 SR74 G St@ 1-215 W H 0 SR74 W inchester to W arren W H 0 0 0 SR60 60/215 to Redlands W H 0 500 5,000 Economic Development Interchanges 115 Galena Interchange W H 0 0 2,734 Local Circulation Interchanges SR60 Frederick @ RT60 W H 0 0 0 SR60 Valley W ay @ RT60 W H 0 0 0 SR91 Adams @ RT91 W H 0 0 SR91 La Sierra @ RT91 W H 0 0 0 SR91 Van Buren @ RT91 W H 750 9.170 0 flail Program Management & Support Costs 2,000 2,000 2,000 Total Programmed 4,985 19,930 9,734 Interest earnings 5% AP -18 Riverside County Transportation Commission Strategic Plan Phase I: Review and Update RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION STRATEGIC PLAN PHASE 1: CASHFLOW SUMMARY WESTERN COUNTY HIGHWAY/RAIL Measure A Funds Available PROJECT 2003 SUMMARY 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 TOTAL Beginning Balance 2,287 16.362 12.773 27.667 29.128 37.729 49,179 New revenues 35.639 38,292 41.119 44,150 47,353 50.733 54.428 429.658 Debt service (21.093) (21.024) (21.024) (21.024) (21.024) (21.024) 0 (210.684) Interest earnings 1.169 1.869 1.690 2.435 2.508 2.938 2.459 20.809 Other revenue 1 360 360 360 360 360 360 360 3.960 Net new revenues 16.075 19.497 22.145 25.921 29.197 33.007 57.247 243.743 Available revenues 18.362 35.859 34.918 53.588 58.324 70,736 106.426 Project Expenditures (2,000) (23,086) (7,251) (24.460) (20,595) (21.557) (47.291) (193.342) Ending Available Balance 16.362 12,773 27,667 29.128 37,729 49.179 59.135 STIP Funding Available 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 TOTAL Beginning Balance 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 Current revenues' 0 47.370 0 47.370 0 47.370 0 189,481 I 0 0 Available revenues 0 47,370 0 47,371 1 47,371 1 402.695 Programmed expenditures 0 (47.370) 0 (47.370) 0 (47.370) 0 (402.691) Ending Available Balance 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 Projects Proposed for Future STIP Funding Route Project 12002 STIP 2004 STIP J 2006 STIP J L2008 STIP 'TOTAL HIGHWAY SR60 60/215 to Redlands' WH 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 34.800 SR91 Mary to 60/91/215 W H 0 47,370 0 47,370 0 47.370 0 199.891 SR91 Magnolia to SR71 WH 0 0 0 0 0 0 1-215 60/91/215 to S.B.Co. Line W H 0 0 0 0 0 0 RAIL 0 Total Programmed 0 47,370 0 47,370 0 47,370 0 402,691 Projects Proposed for Measure A Funding Route Project 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 TOTAL SR91 Magnolia to Mary WH 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12,635 SR91 Mary to 60/91/215 WH 0 0 0 0 0 37.268 37.268 SR74 1-15 to Seventh Street W H 0 21.086 5.251 7,000 0 0 0 40,500 SR74 G Sl@ 1-215 WH 0 0 0 0 19.895 2,095 0 21.990 SR74 W inchester to W arren WH 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.000 2,000 SR60 60/215 to Redlands WH 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6.000 Economic Development Interchanges 0 115 Galena Interchange W H 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2,734 Local Circulation Interchanges 0 SR60 Frederick @ RT60 WH 0 0 0 0 0 7.323 7.323 SR60 Valley Way 0 RT60 WH 0 0 0 0 0 7,004 0 7.004 SR91 Adams @ RT91 WH 0 0 0 0 11,758 0 11,758 SR91 La Sierra 0 RT91 WH 0 0 0 15,460 0 0 0 15.460 SR91 Van Buren 0 RT91 WH 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10.570 Rail Program Management & Support Costs 2.000 2.000 2.000 2.000 700 700 700 18.100 Total Programmed 2,000 23,086 7,251 24,460 20,595 21,557 47,291 193,342 Interest earnings 50, AP -19 Riverside County Transportation Commission Strategic Plan Phase I: Review and Update RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION STRATEGIC PLAN PHASE 1: CASHFLOW SUMMARY WESTERN COUNTY HIGHWAY SUMMARY Measure A Funds Available 1999 2000 2001 2002 Beginning Balance 18,075 18,428 12,743 1,002 New revenues 18,412 19,845 21,541 23,378 Debt service! (15,092) (15,115) (15,104) (15,104) Interest earnings 1,658 1,677 1,392 805 Other revenue 360 360 360 360 Net new revenues 5.338 6.767 8,189 9,439 Available revenues 23,413 25,196 20,932 10,441 Project Expenditures (4,985) (12,453) (19,930) (9,734) Endin. Available Balance STIP Funding Available 18,428 1999 12,743 2000 1,002 2001 707 2002 Beginning Balance 213,211 0 0 0 Current revenues: County Discretionary 0 0 0 14,520 W estern County Formula 0 0 0 32,850 Total current revenues 0 0 0 47,370 Available revenues 213,211 0 0 47,370 Programmed expenditures (213,211) 0 0 (47,370) Ending Available Balance 0 0 0 0 INPUT SECTION Projects Proposed for Future STIP Funding Route Project 112000 STIP u 112002 STIP SR60 60/215 to Redlands' W H 34,800 SR91 Mary to 60/91/215 W H 10,411 47,370 SR91 Magnolia to SR71 W H 1-215 60/91/215 to S.B.Co. Line W H 60/91/215Riverside (98STIP) W H 168,000 Total Programmed 0 213,211 0 0 47,370 INPUT SECTION Projects Proposed for Measure A Funding Route Project 1999 2000 2001 2002 SR91 Magnolia to Mary W H 1,625 2,750 8,260 SR91 Maryto60/91/215 WH SR74 1-15 to Seventh Street W H 610 6,553 SR74 G St@ 1-215 W H SR74 W inchester to W arren W H SR60 60/215 to Redlands W H 500 500 5,000 Economic Development Interchanges 115 Galena Interchange W H 2,734 Local Circulation Interchanges SR60 Frederick @ RT60 W H SR60 Valley W ay @ RT60 W H SR91 Adams @ RT91 W H SR91 La Sierra @ RT91 W H SR91 Van Buren @ RT91 W H 750 650 9,170 Program Management & Support Costs 2.000 2.000 2,000 2,000 Total Programmed 4,985 12,453 19,930 9,734 'Project also has $27.6MM in CMAQ funding. Interest earnings 5% AP -20 Riverside County Transportation Commission Strategic Plan Phase 1: Review and Update RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION STRATEGIC PLAN PHASE 1: CASHFLOW SUMMARY WESTERN COUNTY HIGHWAY SUMMARY Measure A Funds Available 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 TOTAL Beginning Balance 707 9,883 301 8,069 1,154 16 242 New revenues 25,129 26,999 28.993 31,130 33,388 35,771 38,377 302,963 Debt service' (15,104) (15,104) (15,104L (15,104) (15,104) (15,104) 0 (151,039) Interest earnings 791 1,249 770 1,159 813 756 12 11,083 Other revenue 360 360 360 360 360 360 360 3.960 Net new revenues 11,176 13,504 15,019 17,545 19.457 21.783 38,749 166,967 Available revenues 11,883 23,387 15,320 25,614 20,611 21,799 38,991 Project Expenditures (2,000) (23,086) (7,251) (24,460) (20,595) (21,557) (47,291) (193.342) Endin• Available Balance 9,883 301 8,069 1,154 16 242 8,300 STIP Funding Available 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 TOTAL t 18eginning Balance 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 Current revenues: County Discretionary 0 14,520 0 14,520 0 14,520 0 58,080 W estern County Formula 0 32,850 0 32,850 0 32,850 0 131,401 Total current revenues 0 47,370 0 47,370 0 47,370 0 Available revenues 0 47,370 0 47,371 1 47,371 1 402,695 Programmed expenditures 0 (47,370) 0 (47,370) 0 (47,370) 0 (402,691) Ending Available Balance 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 INPUT SECTION Projects Proposed for Future STIP Funding Route Project j2004 STIP I, J2006 STIP 1 12008 STIP J TOTAL SR60 60/215 to Redlands' WH 34,800 SR91 Mary to 60/91/215 W H 47,370 47,370 47,370 199,891 SR91 Magnolia to SR71 WH 0 1-215 60/91/215 to S.B.Co. Line WH 0 60/91/215Riverside (98STIP) WH 168,000 Total Programmed 0 47,370 0 47,370 0 47,370 0 402,691 INPUT SECTION Projects Proposed for Measure A Funding Route Project 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 TOTAL SR91 Magnolia to Mary WH 12,635 SR91 Mary to 60/91/215 WH 37,268 37,268 SR74 1.15 to Seventh Street WH 21,086 5,251 7,000 40,500 SR74 G St@ 1.215 WH 19.895 2,095 21,990 SR74 Winchester to Warren W H 2,000 2,000 SR60 60/215 to Redlands WH 6,000 Economic Development Interchanges 0 115 Galena Interchange WH 2,734 Local Circulation Interchanges 0 SR60 Frederick @ RT60 WH 7,323 7,323 SR60 Valley Way @ RT60 W H 7,004 7.004 SR91 Adams @ RT91 WH 11,758 11,758 SR91 La Sierra @ RT91 WH 15,460 15,460 SR91 Van Buren @ RT91 WH 10,570 Program Management 8 Support Costs 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 700 700 700 18,100 Total Programmed 2,000 23,086 7,251 24,460 20,595 21,557 47,291 193,342 'Project also has $27.6MM in CMAQ funding. Interest earnings 5% AP -21 Riverside County Transportation Commission Strategic Plan Phase I: Review and Update RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION STRATEGIC PLAN PHASE 1: CASHFLOW SUMMARY WESTERN COUNTY RAIL SUMMARY Measure A Funds Available 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 Beginning Balance (9,341) (7,647) (5,423) (2,371) 1,580 New revenues 7,701 8,300 9,010 9,757 10,510 Debt service (6,007) (6,076) (5,986) (5,987) (5,989) Interest earnings 0 0 28 181 378 Other revenues 0 0 0 0 0 Net new revenues 1,694 2,224 3,052 3,951 4,899 Available revenues (7,647) (5,423) (2,371) 1,580 6,479 Project Expenditures 0 0 0 0 0 Ending Available Balance (7,647) (5,423 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION STRATEGIC PLAN PHASE 1: CASHFLOW SUMMARY WESTERN COUNTY RAIL SUMMARY Measure A Funds Available 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 TOTAL Beginning Balance 6,479 12,472 19,598 27,974 37,714 48,937 New revenues 11,293 12,126 13,020 13,965 14,962 16,051 126,695 Debt service (5,920) (5,920) (5,920) (5,920) (5,920) 0 (59,645) Interest earnings 620 920 1,276 1,695 2,182 2,447 9,726 Other revenues 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Net new revenues 5,993 7,126 8,376 9,740 11,224 18,498 76,776 Available revenues 12,472 19,598 27,974 37,714 48,937 67,435 Project Expenditures 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ending Available Balance 12,472 19,598 27, AP -22 Riverside County Transportation Commission Strategic Plan Phase I: Review and Update • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION STRATEGIC PLAN PHASE 1: CASHFLOW SUMMARY COACHELLA VALLEY HIGHWAY SUMMARY • • Measure A Funds Available 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 Beginning Balance 5,925 3,430 (1,471) (1,615) (51 1) New revenues 2,578 2,779 3,016 3,267 3.519 Debt service (2,178) (2,181) (2,192) (2,192) (2,192) Interest earnings 405 281 36 29 84 ether revenues I 0 0 0 0 0 Net new revenues 805 879 860 1,104 1,411 Available revenues 6,730 4,309 (611) (511) 900 Project Expenditures (3,300) (5,780) (1,004) 0 0 Ending Available Balance STIP Funding Available 3,430 1999 (1,471) 2000 (1,615) 2001 (511) 2002 900 2003 Beginning Balance 8,755 8,755 8,755 8,755 21,385 urrent revenues: Eastern County Formula 0 0 0 12,630 0 I Available revenues 8,755 8,755 8,755 21,385 21,385 Programmed expenditures 0 0 0 0 0 Ending Available Balance 8,755 8,755 8,755 21,385 21,385 INPUT SECTION Projects Proposed for Future STIP Funding Route Project 2000 STIP 2002 STIP Total Programmed 0 0 0 0 0 INPUT SECTION Projects Proposed for Measure A Funding Route Project 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 SR86 CH 300 SR 111 Tier I Intersection Impr. CH 3,040 1,004 SR 111 Tier 11 Loan Repayment CH 3,000 2,740 SR 11 1 Tier II Intersection Impr. CH Economic Development Interchanges Local Circulation Interchanges Program Management & Support Costs Total Programmed 3,300 5,780 1,004 0 0 Interest earnings 5% AP -23 Riverside County Transportation Commission Strategic Plan Phase I: Review and Update • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION STRATEGIC PLAN PHASE 1: CASHFLOW SUMMARY COACHELLA VALLEY HIGHWAY SUMMARY Measure A Funds Available 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 TOTAL Beginning Balance 900 0 1,897 4,268 7.074 10,355 New revenues 3,781 4,060 4,359 4.675 5.009 5.374 42.417 Debt service (2.192) (2.192) (2,192) (2,192) (2.192) 0 (21.895) Interest earnings 155 110 204 323 463 518 2.607 Other revenues 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Net new revenues 1,744 1,978 2.371 2,806 3,280 5.892 23.129 Available revenues 2,643 1,978 4,268 7,074 10,355 16,246 Project Expenditures (2.643) (81) 0 0 0 0 (12,808) Ending Available Balance STIP Funding Available 0 2004 1,897 2005 4,268 2006 7,074 2007 10,355 2008 16,246 2009 TOTAL Beginning Balance 21,385 34,015 34,015 46,644 46,644 59,274 urrent revenues: Eastern County Formula 12,630 0 12,630 0 12,630 0 50,519 0 Available revenues 34,015 34,015 46,644 46,644 59,274 59,274 348.901 Programmed expenditures 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ending Available Balance 34,015 34,015 46,644 46,644 59,274 59,274 INPUT SECTION Projects Proposed - for Future STIP Funding Route Project +004 STIP +006 STIP STIP TOTAL Total Programmed 0 0 0} 0 12008 0 0 0 INPUT SECTION • for Measure A Funding Projects Proposed Route Project 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 TOTAL SR86 CH 300 SR111 Tier I Intersection Impr. CH 4,044 SR111 Tier II Loan Repayment CH 5,740 SR111 Tier II Intersection Impr. CH 2.643 81 2,724 Economic Development Interchanges 0 Local Circulation Interchanges 0 Program Management 8, Support Costs 0 Total Programmed 2,643 81 0 0 0 0 12,808 Interest earnings 5% • • AP -24 • • • Coachella Valley Regional Arterial Cost Estimate Update JUNE 1999 PS= Palm Springs, UNC=Unincorporated, DHS =Desert Hot Springs, CC=Cathedral City, RM=Rancho Mirage, PD=Palm Desert, IW=Indian Wells, IN=Indio, LQ=La Quinta, COA=Coachella, CAL=CALTRANS STREET NAME GENE AUTRY TRAIL INDIAN AVENUE JEFFERSON STREET JEFFERSON STREET JACKSON STREET FRED WARING DRIVE FRED WARING DRIVE GENE AUTRY TRAIL VARNER ROAD JACKSON STREET INDIAN AVENUE DILLON ROAD VAN BUREN STREET AVENUE 50 INDIO BLVD GENE AUTRY TRAIL AVENUE 56/AIRPORT BLVD INDIAN CANYON DR. DILLON ROAD JEFFERSON STREET AVENUE 54 FRED WARING DRIVE MONROE STREET RAMON ROAD RAMON ROAD FRED WARING DRIVE BUILD CITY PROJECT NO. SEGMENT DESCRIPTION NEW PS B-229 Salvia Rd . to and including 1.10 Interchange (GAT6) NEW PS B-268 1.10 Interchange (in IND2) (IND2a) IN B-38 Fred Waring Dr to Indio Blvd. (JEF6) LO/IN B-37 Westward Ho to Fred Waring Dr(JEF4afJEF5) NEW IN B-247 I.10 interchange to 46th Ave. (JAC2) LQIUNC B-88 Washington SI. to Starlight Ln. (part FW6) LQ/UNC B-89 Starlight Ln. to Jefferson St. (part FW6) PS B-2 Vista Chino to E. bank WW River (GAT2/GAT3) IN B-226 Madison to Monroe (VRNR10) NEW IN/UNC B-246 401h Ave. to I.10 interchange (JAC1) PS/UNC 8-155 19th Av. to Dillon Rd.(IND5) UNC B-172 Mountain View to Bennett Rd.(DLN6) COA/UNC 8.211 54th Ave. to Ave. 56/Airport (VANB5) COA B-219 Hwy 111 to New SR86 including bridge over Whitewater R. (501) NEW IN B-254 Jackson to Hwy 111 (INDO4) PS B-3 W hitewater River to Salvia Rd. (GAT4/GAT5) COA B- 118 0.25 miles W. of Van Buren St. to Harrison (56D) PS B• 146 Racquet Club to Old City limits (INCN6) UNC B• 171 Palm Dr. to Mountain View (DLN5) IN B-204 1.10 to Avenue 40(JEF8) COA B-221 Van Buren to Harrison (old 86) (54A) NEW IN/UNC B•234 Silverwood Drive to Indio Blvd. (FW9) NEW IN/UNC B-241 40th Ave. to 1.10 interchange (MON1) RMIUNC B-62 Da Vail Dr to Los Alamos (part RAM10) RM/UNC B-63 Los Alamos to Bob Hope (part RAM10) PDIUNCIIW B-87 Elkhorn Trail to Washington Street (FW5) 1999 TOTAL OVERALL COSTS SCORE (1998 $) 24 23 23 22.5 22 22 22 21.5 21 21 20 20 20 20 20 19.5 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 12,228,000 15,262,000 2,632,300 3,188,300 1,557,800 3,311,700 3,262,400 31,831,283 535,500 2,841,000 2,449,100 2,357,400 2,054,600 433,400 6,190,000 2,843,000 4,255,000 2,202,500 $ 2,165,800 3,236,800 2,585,300 1,831,400 PALM CANYON DR . PS B-148 Alejo to Ramon (PLCN3/PLCN4) 18.5 $ VARNER ROAD UNC/CC B-180 Palm Dr. to Mountain View Rd.(VRNR1) 18 $ 3,667,200 WASHINGTON STREET LO/UNC B-28 Hwy 111 to Fred Waring Dr. (WSH4IWSH5) 18 $ 3,359,200 DATE PALM DRIVE CC B-10 I .10 to Varner Road (realignment- DPLM5) 18 $ 2,368,000 AVENUE 52 UNC 8.109 Jackson Street to Calhoun Street (52E) 18 $ 1,127,000 MONTEREY AVENUE UNC B •138 1.10 to Ramon Rd . (MNT11) 18 $ 1,385,000 PALM CANYON DR. PS B-151 Sunrise to Farrell (PLCN8) 18 $ 584,000 INDIAN AVENUE PS 8-153 Old City Limit to RR Crossing (IND1) 18 $ 27,775,124 DILLON ROAD UNC 8.179 W hitewater Bridge to Hwy 111 (DLN13) 18 $ 1,701,100 VARNER ROAD UNC B-186 Washington St. to Jefferson (VRNR8) 18 $ 1,075,300 VARNER ROAD IN 8.227 Monroe to Jackson (VRNR11) 18 $ FRED WARING DRIVE NEW PD B•235 Portola to Phyllis Jackson Ln./Intersect. at Portola & Fred Waring 18 $ 2,078,100 MONROE STREETMONROE STREET NEW IN 8.242 1-10 interchange to Miles Ave. (MON2) 18 $ 1,475,900 MADISON STREET UNC 8.40 Ave 60 to Ave 58 (MAD 1) 18 $ 2,984,500 )0DILLON ROAD UNC B-169 SR62 to Indian Avenue (DLN1/DLN2) 17 .5 $ A AVENUE 52 LO 8.106 Jefferson Street to Madison Street includes bridge at All American Canal (52B) 17 $ 3,131,500 y AVENUE 56/AIRPORT BLVD UNC B •117 Jackson St. to 0.25 miles W . of Van Buren (56C) 17 $ 1,578,600 AVENUE 56/AIRPORT BLVD UNC B-119 Harrison Street to Tyler Street (56E) 17 $ 2,181,200 Cn 0 WASHINGTON STREET UNC 8.142 I-10 to 38th Avenue (WSH9) 17 $ .b %Z, MONTEREY AVENUE RM/PD B-15 Clancy Lane to Country Club Drive (MNT3) 17 $ ,I re q DILLON ROAD UNC 8-177 1-1010WhitewaterBridge (DLN11) 17 $ 1,731,200 a `t1 VARNER ROAD CC 8.181 Mountain View t0 Date Palm (VRNR2) 17 $ 4,896,200 0 b y tJ PIERSON BLVD. DHS B-187 SR 62 to Indian Av .(PRSI) 17 $ 6,972,400 C 0 CT AVENUE IN 8-202 Jefferson St. to Clinton (MIL3) 17 S 856,000 cb 0, E. VAN BUREN STREET IN/UNC B-207 Indio Blvd. to 48th Ave.(VANBI) 17 $ Q e y • Z VAN BUREN STREET COA/UNC 8.210 52nd Ave. to 54th Ave.(VANB4) 17 $ 488,000 AVENUE 54 COA 8.223 Tyler St.10 Hwy 111 (54C) 17 $ 1,354,600 0 DATE PALM DRIVE NEW CC B-236 Palm Canyon to Gerald Ford including W hitewater River Bridge widening (DPLM0a) 17 $ a PALM CANYON DR. NEW CC B-239 Westerly City Limits to Cathedral Cyn. Dr. including widening bridge at West Cathedral 17 $ 1,763,000 4. PALM CANYON DR. NEW CC 8.240 200 ft. west of Sungate to easterly City Limits (PLCN11) 17 $ 403,000 0 INDIO BLVD NEW IN 8.251 Jefferson/I.10 to Madison (IND01) 17 $ 771,100 INDIO BLVD NEW IN B-252 Madison to Monroe (IND02) 17 $ 1,296,900 INDIO BLVD NEW IN 8.253 Monroe to Jackson (IND03) 17 $ 1,268,300 WASHINGTON STREET PD/UNC/LO B-29 Fred Waring Drive to 42nd Avenue (WSH6) 17 $ 1,451,100 JEFFERSON STREET LO/IN 8.35 49th Ave to Hwy. 111 (BR -LO EvacChan JEF3/JEF3a) 17 $ 5,599,200 MADISON STREET IN/LO 8.44 Ave 52 to Ave 50 w/BR AA Canal (MAD5) 17 $ 3,538,000 MADISON STREET IN/UNC B-48 Miles to Fred Waring w/missing link (MAD9) 17 $ 1,743,000 VISTA CHINO PS B-50 Palm Canyon Dr. to Sunrise Way (VC1) 17 $ 2,997,500 RAMON ROAD PS/CC B-59 Gene Autry Tr. to E. Bank of Whitewater River (RAM6/RAM7) 17 $ 12,582,900 FRED W ARING DRIVE PD 13.86 California to Elkhorn Trail (FW 4c) 17 $ 2,071,000 FRED W ARING DRIVE PD B-94 Hwy. 111 to Town Center Way including bridge(FW 12) 17 $ 1,931,300 INDIAN AVENUE PS 8.154 RR Crossing to 19th Av. (IND2/IND3IIND4) 17 $ 2,379,600 • • • • • • JEFFERSON STREET IN/LO B-36 Hwy . 111 to W estward Ho w/W WR Bridge(JEF4/JEF4b) 16.5 $ 8,192,700 AVENUE 48 COA/IN/CAL 8-103 Van Buren to Hwy. 86 (48F/48G) 16 $ AVENUE 52 UNC/IN 8.107 Madison Street to Monroe Street (52C) 16 $ 2,447,300 AVENUE 52 UNC/COA 8-110 Calhoun Street to Fredrick Street (52F) 16 $ 2,255,000 AVENUE 56/AIRPORT BLVD UNC/LO 8-115 0.5 mile east of Madison to Monroe (56B part) 16 $ 1,159,300 AVENUE 56/AIRPORT BLVD UNC B-116 Monroe to Jackson (56B part) 16 $ 2,329,600 BOB HOPE DRIVE UNC/RM 8.13 Dinah Shore Drive to Ramon Road (BH3) 16 $ 2,834,600 INDIAN CANYON DR. PS 8.145 Alejo to Racquet Club (INCN3/1NCN4/INCN5( 16 $ 650,700 PALM CANYON DR. PS B -147 Vista Chino to Alejo (PLCNI/PLCN2) 16 $ MOUNTAIN VIEW UNC/CC B-165 20th Av. to Varner Rd.(MTV3) 16 $ 2,820,300 THOUSAND PALMS RD. UNC 8-166 Ramon Rd. to Dillon Rd .(THPL1) 16 $ DILLON ROAD UNC B •176 44th Avenue to 1.10 (DLNIO) 16 $ MILES AVENUE LO B•201 Washington St . to Jefferson St .(MIL2) 16 $ 3,598,000 MADISON STREET IN B-206 1.10 Interchange and Bridge over RR (MAD11) 16 $ 18,191,800 AVENUE 50 COA B-218 Van Buren to Hwy 111 (50G/50H) 16 $ 80,100 JACKSON STREETJACKSON STREET NEW IN/COA 8-249 48th Ave. to 50th Ave . (JAC4) 16 $ 488,000 JACKSON STREETJACKSON STREET NEW IN/UNC 8.250 50th Ave . to 52nd Ave. (JAGS) 16 $ HIGHWAY 111 NEW RM B-259 Bob Hope Dr. to Fairway Drive (relinquished by Caltrans to the City of Rancho Mirage) 16 $ 5,194,500 JEFFERSON STREET LO/IN B-33 Ave 52 to Ave 50 (partJEF2) 16 $ 3,663,200 ,fib JEFFERSON STREET LO/IN 8.34 Ave 50 to Ave 49 (part JEF2) 16 $ 1,838,400 N MADISON STREET IN B-49 Fred Waring Drive to Indio Blvd. (MADIO) 16 $ 1,905,100 AVENUE 52 COA 8.111 Fredrick to Hwy. 86 w/ Intersection (52G/52H) 15.5 $ 1,255,500 RAMON ROAD UNC 8.167 1.10 to Monterey Av.(RAM12/RAM13) 15.5 $ 22,000 DILLON ROAD UNC B-170 Indian Av. to Palm Dr.(DLN3/DLN4) 15.5 $ 5,370,300 MILES AVENUE IN 8.203 Clinton to Indio Blvd. (MIL4/MIL5) 15.5 $ 1,098,700 MONTEREY AVENUE NEW RM/UNC/PD 8.230 Country Club to Frank Sinatra w/ intersections at Country Club and Frank Sinatra 15 $ 2,744,600 COOK STREET PD B-231 Frank Sinatra Dr. to Gerald Ford Dr . (CK3a) 15 $ INDIAN AVENUE UNC B-156 Dillon to 14th Av. (IND6) 15 $ 3,252,400 LITTLE MORONGO RD. DHS B-161 Pierson Blvd. to Two Bunch Palms Tr.(LM2) 15 $ 617,200 RAMON ROAD UNC 8.168 Monterey Av. to Thousand Palms (RAM14/RAM15) 15 $ 7,909,100 DILLON ROAD UNC B-174 Thousand Palms Canyon Rd.to Sunny Rock Rd.(DLN8) 15 $ DILLON ROAD UNC B-175 Sunny Rock Rd. to 44th Avenue (DLN9) 15 $ DILLON ROAD UNC B-178 Bridge over W hitewater Channel (DLN12) 15 $ 5,849,700 VARNER ROAD UNC/CC 8.182 Date Palm to Ramon Rd.(VRNR3) 15 $ 9,961,900 VARNER ROAD UNC 8.185 Chase School Rd. to Washington St.(VRNR7) 15 $ 8,431,800 JEFFERSON STREET IN B-205 Avenue 40 to Avenue 38 (JEF9) 15 $ 598,300 AVENUE 50 LO B- 213 Washington to Jefferson (50B) 15 $ 3,765,800 AVENUE 52 COA 8-220 Hwy 111 to New SR86 includes bridge (52L) 15 $ 990,100 MONROE STREETMONROE STREET NEW IN 8.244 48th Ave. to 50th Ave. (MON4) 15 $ PORTOLA AVENUE NEW PD B-255 Hwy 111 to Magnesia Falls Dr. (POR1) 15 $ WASHINGTON STREET LO 8-26 50th Avenue to Avenue 48 (part WSH3) 15 $ 4,141,500 AVENUE 50 NEW COA B-261 Grade Separation Hwy 111/SPRR (50J) 15 $ 2,533,400 MILES AVENUE NEW IW/UNC B•267 Whitewater River temporary undercrossing (MIL1A - in MILL) 15 $ 2,194,000 WASHINGTON STREET LO 8 .27 Avenue 48 to Hwy. 111 (part WSH3) 15 $ 2,739,200 WASHINGTON STREET PD/UNC B-30 42nd Avenue to Country Club Drive (WSH7) 15 $ 1,524,300 JEFFERSON STREET L0 B-32 Ave 54 to Ave 52 w/ bridge AA Canal (JEF1) 15 $ 3,838,400 MADISON STREET LO B-41 Ave 58 to Ave 56 (MAD2) 15 $ 2,686,900 VISTA CHINO PS 8.52 Gene Autry Tr to E. Bank W hitewater River (VC31VC4) 15 $ 16,336,511 RAMON ROAD PS B -56 Pal m Canyon Dr to Sunrise Way (RAM11RAM2) 15 $ 3,480,800 RAMON ROAD CC 8-60 Landau Blvd . to Date Palm Drive (RAMS) 15 $ 2,629,100 RAMON ROAD CC 8.61 Date Palm Drive to Da Vall Drive (RAM9) 15 $ 2,570,600 COUNTRY CLUB DRIVE RM B-78 Bob Hope Drive 10 Monterey Avenue (CC3) 15 $ FRED WARING DRIVE PD B-96 Monterey to Portola w/ intersection of Monterey & Fred Waring(FW14/MNT10) 15 $ 3,009,700 VARNER ROAD UNC B-183 Ramon Rd. to Monterey Av.(VRNR5) 15 $ 2,234,300 MADISON STREET LO 8.43 Ave 54 to Ave 52 wlmissing link (MAD4) 15 $ 3,464,100 AVENUE 56/AIRPORT BLVD UNC 8.121 Polk St. wl Hwy. 111 & SPRR Grade Sep . (56G/56H) 14 .5 $ 3,259,200 PALM CANYON DR. PS 8 .149 Ramon to East Palm Cny. (PLCN5/PLCN6) 14.5 $ MADISON STREET IN 8-45 Ave 5010 Ave 49 w/missing link (MADE) 14 $ 1,778,100 MADISON STREET IN 8.46 Ave 49 to Hwy. 111 wlmissing link (MAD7) 14 $ 3,127,000 AVENUE 52 UNC/IN B-108 Monroe Street to Jackson Street (52D) 14 $ 2,238,400 'b AVENUE 52 COA 8.113 Future IC of Ave 52 & Realigned Hwy. 86 (52K) 14 $ 7,952,200 tJ AVENUE 56/AIRPORT BLVD LO B-114 Madison St. to 0 .5 miles E. of Madison (56A) 14 $ 1,216,200 00 WASHINGTON STREET UNC 8.143 38th Avenue to Ramon Rd . (WSH10) 14 $ 9,167,100 INDIAN AVENUE DHS B-157 14th Av. to Pierson Blvd.(IND7) 14 $ 2,184,300 INDIAN AVENUE DHS B-159 Mission Lakes to SR 62 (IND9) 14 $ LITTLE MORONGO RD. DHS 8-160 Mission Lakes Blvd. to Pierson Blvd.(LM1) 14 $ 618,500 DILLON ROAD UNC B-173 Bennette Rd. to Thousand Palms Canyon Rd.(DLN7) 14 $ 16,985,300 VARNER ROAD UNC B-184 Monterey Av. to Chase School Rd.(VRNR6) 14 $ 4,750,000 PIERSON BLVD. DHS B-188 Indian Av. to Little Morongo Rd.(PRS2) 14 $ 2,785,900 MILES AVENUE IW/UNC 8.199 Hwy 111 toWashington St. (MI11) 14 $ AVENUE 54 COA 8.222 Harrison (old 86) to Tyler St. (548) 14 $ 2,212,400 VARNER ROAD IN 8-228 Jackson to Van Buren (VRNR12) 14 $ 1,208,500 FRED W ARING DRIVE NEW IW 8.232 Intersection of Eldorado & Fred Waring (FW 3) 14 $ 26 ,800 MONROE STREETMONROE STREET NEW IN B-243 Miles Ave. to48th Ave. (MON3) 14 $ JACKSON STREETJACKSON STREET NEW IN 8.248 46th Ave. to 48th Ave. (JAC3) 14 $ 1,055,400 DATE PALM DRIVE CC B•9 Vista Chino to 1.10 (IC & RR Bridge- DPLM4) 14 $ 19,425,900 FRED W ARING DRIVE PD B-95 Town Center W ay 10 Monterey Avenue (FW 13) 14 S 1,174,100 AVENUE 48 IN 8.99 Jefferson to Hjorth including Bridge (488148C) 14 $ 3,733,800 AVENUE 50 NEW COA B-262 New SR -8610 1.10 (50K) 14 $ 7,437,400 AVENUE 50 NEW COA 8.263 Bridge at All American Canal (501- in 50K) 14 S 703,900 AVENUE 50 NEW COA B-264 1-10 interchange (50M) 14 $ 16,792,900 •• III • • • INDIAN CANYON DR. PS B-144 Ramon Rd. to Alejo (INCNI/INCN2) 13.5 $ AVENUE 48 IN 8-100 Hjorth St . to Monroe St . (part 48D) 13 $ AVENUE 48 IN B-101 Monroe St. to Jackson St. (part 48D) 13 $ AVENUE 48 IN/COA B•102 Jackson Street to Van Buren Street (48E) 13 $ AVENUE 52 LQ B-105 Washington Street to Jefferson Street (52A) 13 $ 3,941,600 AVENUE 52 COA B -112 Hwy . 86 to Hwy. 111 )521/52J) 13 $ 572,500 AVENUE 56/AIRPORT BLVD UNC B-120 Tyler Street to Polk Street (56F) 13 $ 2,169,900 AVENUE 56/AIRPORT BLVD UNC/COA B-122 SPRR to E. of Coa Val Storm Channal Bridge (561) 13 $ 608,100 PALM DRIVE DHS 8.136 Two Bunch Palms to Pierson Blvd .(PD5/PO6) 13 $ GOOK STREET PD 8-140 W hitewater Brg. to Fred Waring Dr. (CK6) 13 $ - PALM CANYON DR. PS 8-150 East Palm Canyon to Sunrise (PLCN7) 13 $ INDIAN AVENUE DHS 8-158 Pierson Blvd. to Mission Lakes (IND8) 13 $ 2,390,800 LITTLE MORONGO RD. DHS 8.162 Two Bunch Palms to Dillon Rd.(LM3) 13 $ 960,400 ?t VAN BUREN STREET COA/UNC B-209 50th Ave . to 52nd Ave.(VANB3) 13 $ e AVENUE 50 IN/LQ 8 214 Jefferson to Madison (50C) 13 $ 2,672,700 DATE PALM DRIVE NEW CC 8.237 Gerald Ford to Dinah Shore (DPLM0b) 13 $ MONROE STREETMONROE STREET NEW IN 8.245 50th Ave. to 52nd. Ave (MON5) 13 $ Co) p WASHINGTON STREET LQ B-25 52nd Avenue to 50th Avenue includes Bridge Over La Quinta Evacuation Channel 13 $ 4,550,400 et a PORTOLA AVENUE NEW PD 8.256 Magnesia Falls Dr . to Country Club Dr. (POR2) 13 $ ' `0 `� e� y AVENUE 48 NEW COA B-260 Grade Separation at Hwy 111/SPRR (48H) 13 $ e' 117 Q RAMON ROAD P5 8.57 Sunrise W ay to El Cielo Rd (RAM3/RAM4) 13 $ 2,921,700 0 ti FRANK SINATRA DRIVE PD B-75 Cook St. to Tamarisk Row Dr. (FS8/FS9) 13 $ 2,225,800 `a,, 0 COUNTRY CLUB DRIVE PD 8. 80 Portola Avenue to Cook Street (CC5) 13 $ 2,630,300 1b, 0- S A. COUNTRY CLUB DRIVE UNC/PD B-83 Oasis Club Drive to W ashington Street (CC8) 13 $ 2,763,200 Q' AVENUE 54 COA B-224 Hwy 111 to Fillmore incl. bridge & IC w/ new SR86 (54D) 13 $ 9,669,500 n HACIENDA AVENUE DHS 8.193 Little Morongo Rd. to Palm Dr.(HAC1) 12 $ 4,546,500 PALM CANYON DR. PS B•152 Farrell to Gene Autry (PLCN9) 12 $ g MOUNTAIN VIEW DHS B-164 Dillon Rd. to 20th Av.(MTV2) 12 $ 3,200,100 x. PIERSON BLVD. DHS B-189 Little Morongo Rd. to Palm Dr.(PRS3) 12 $ 3,781,700 0 PIERSON BLVD. DHS B-190 Palm Dr. to Eastern Terminus of Dsrt View (PRS4) 12 $ 2,595,600 HACIENDA AVENUE DHS B•194 Palm Dr. to Mountain View (HAC2) 12 $ 3,425,800 TWO BUNCH PALMS DHS B-198 Palm Dr. to Miracle Hill (TBP3) 12 $ 3,317,500 CHASE SCHOOL RD. UNC B-212 1-10 to Ram on Rd. (missing link) (CHSC1) 12 $ 6,078,000 AVENUE 50 IN/COA B• 217 Jackson to Van Buren (50F) 12 $ AVENUE 50 COA B-104 Future IC of Ave 50 & Realigned Hwy. 86 (50A) 12 $ 8,001,700 AVENUE 56/AIRPORT BLVD CAL/COA/UNC B-123 Interchange at New Extension of Route 86 (56J) 12 $ 7,945,800 VARNER ROAD IN 8.225 Jefferson to Madison (VRNR9) 12 $ FRANK SINATRA DRIVE NEW RM B-233 Whitewater River Bridge (FS2 within FS1) 12 $ AVENUE 52 NEW COA 8.265 Grade Separation at Hwy111/SPRR (52Ja) 12 $ 2,799,400 COUNTRY CLUB DRIVE PD/UNC B-79 Monterey Avenue to Portola Avenue (CC4) 12 $ 2,908,200 COUNTRY CLUB DRIVE PD 8.82 El Dorado Drive to Oasis Club Drive (CC7) 12 $ 2,703,900 FRANK SINATRA DRIVE RM B-72 Bob Hope to Monterey (FS4IFS5/FS11) 11 .3 $ 2,768,200 PALM DRIVE DHS B-137 Pierson Blvd. to Mission Lakes (PD7) 11 $ MOUNTAIN VIEW DHS 8-163 Hacienda Av . to Dillon Rd .(MTV1) 11 $ 4,449,100 AVENUE 50 IN 8 .215 Madison to Monroe (500) 11 $ AVENUE 54 NEW COA B-266 Grade Separation at Hwy111/SPRR (54E) 11 $ 2,799,400 MADISON STREET IN B-47 Hwy. 111 to Miles Avenue (MADE) 11 $ 3,015,800 VISTA CHINO CC B-53 E. Bank Whitewater River to Landau Blvd. (VC5) 11 $ 2,449,000 RAMON ROAD PS B-58 El Cielo Road to Gene Autry Trail (RAM5) 11 $ MISSION LAKES DHS 8-192 Little Morongo to East . Verbena Dr.(MSLK2/MSLK3) 10.5 $ 5,506,700 COOK STREET PD 8.139 Country Club to W hitewater Brg. (CK5) 10 $ HACIENDA AVENUE DHS B-195 Mountain View to Dillon Rd.(HAC3) 10 $ 5,933,600 TWO BUNCH PALMS DHS B -196 Indian Av. to Little Morongo Rd. (missing link) (TBP1) 10 $ 4,145,200 ` TWO BUNCH PALMS DHS B-197 Little Morongo Rd . to Palm Dr.(TBP2) 10 $ 4,329,600 O AVENUE 50 IN B-216 Monroe to Jackson (50E) 10 $ Col 0 DATE PALM DRIVE NEW CC B-238 Dinah Shore to Ramon Rd . (DPLM0c) 10 $ PORTOLA AVENUEPORTOLA AVENUE NEW PD B-258 Frank Sinatra Dr. to Gerald Ford Dr. (POR4) 10 $ 4. cm . y j- MADISON STREET LO 8.42 Ave 56 to Ave 54 (MAD3) 10 $ 2,551,200 Q b q �G VAN BUREN STREET COA B-208 48th Ave . to 50th Ave.(VANB2) 9 $ Q E b O VISTA CHINO CC 8.55 Date Palm to Da Vall (missing link VC7) 9 $ 5,790,300 C o MISSION LAKES DHS B-191 Indian to Little Morongo Rd .(MSLK1) 8 $ 2,965,100 p, A GERALD FORD DRIVE PD B-68 Portola Avenue to Cook Street (GFD3) 8 $ 8,487,800 �.. e 0 PORTOLA AVENUE NEW PD 8-257 Country Club Dr. to Frank Sinatra Dr. (P0R3) 7 $ I:7' 0 a a y• y • • • WtSItHN COUNTY AREA BANNING BEAUMONT CALIMESA CANYON LAKES CORONA HEMET LAKE ELSINORE MORENO VALLEY MURRIETA NORCO PERRIS RIVERSIDE SAN JACINTO TEMECULA RIVERSIDE COUNTY AREA TOTAL • • 240,353 302,753 282,180 302,667 295,369 313,700 345,030 357,900 386,545 427,245 3,253,742 128,727 162,122 148,993 144,973 137,254 9,821 151,462 156,970 124,255 188,248 1,352,825 57,009 200,311 85,099 82,937 85,372 68,487 97,233 103,526 114,001 893,975 61,228 200,605 107,790 106,023 139,942 130,488 135,117 145,418 160,752 1,187,363 852,540 1,073,614 1,226,332 1,333,824 1,341,500 1,457,387 1,616,724 1,761,020 1,950,466 2,249,403 14,862,810 484,540 610,235 541,239 680,693 737,092 771,285 875,554 855,894 915,970 1,060,757 7,533,259 204,795 257,905 269,984 315,108 323,471 357,964 401,017 437,525 478,631 532,931 3,579,331 1,106,795 1,394,341 1,470,379 1,577,613 1,584,686 1,708,742 1,837,231 1,911,526 2,035,107 2,224,468 16,850,888 410,744 302,931 306,281 384,300 462,274 513,318 593,754 677,219 3,650,821 317,070 399,417 318,317 319,636 310,943 336,100 343,931 394,633 436,121 495,430 3,671,598 194,063 244,396 312,810 357,851 401,231 424,535 459,033 480,558 514,676 591,623 3,980,776 3,205,788 4,037,276 3,338,219 3,616,497 3,485,907 3,704,909 4,025,493 4,149,938 4,431,243 4,880,440 38,875,710 170,962 215,358 191,779 252,226 247,021 280,566 307,844 315,215 337,694 369,995 2,688,660 204,897 554,891 466,962 592,365 640,586 712,787 797,980 879,525 1,006,540 1,129,845 6,986,378 2,758,168 3,065,130 3,430,797 3,464,153 3,380,811 3,387,993 3,767,059 3,899,391 4,498,111 4,888,155 36,539,768 9,868,698 12,435,675 12,809,651 13,453,426 13,381,112 14,075,403 15,589,607 16,345,763 17,958,057 19,990,513 145,907,905 (11 COACHELLA VALLEY AREA CATHEDRAL CITY 488,703 614,763 591,529 626,407 608,262 653,294 683,165 709,853 748,111 830,065 COACHELLA DESERT HOT SPRINGS 114,255 143,739 34,189 51,176 INDIAN WELLS 81,372 102,371 95,776 112,613 107,464 109,492 115,212 116,042 122,484 135,185 INDIO 497,791 626,199 579,981 615,493 561,796 577,084 589,295 550,865 603,100 670,168 LA QUINTA PALM SPRINGS 852,014 1,071,834 905,006 1,000,807 911,915 999,756 943,596 1,182,589 1,030,350 1,136,417 PALM DESERT 622,781 783,424 806,006 869,273 839,520 889,759 1,016,245 957,082 1,314,231 1,490,493 RANCHO MIRAGE 278,535 350,390 302,767 340,276 317,066 350,400 383,794 393,574 422,018 484,655 RIVERSIDE COUNTY 391,840 493,516 696,640 632,724 579,417 600,098 637,938 640,014 720,462 809,335 CVAG 216,841 272,789 443,293 493,902 511,635 578,608 612,299 621,264 670,055 724,644 AREA TOTAL 3,544,132 4,459,025 4,455,187 4,691,495 4,437,075 4,758,490 4,981,544 5,171,283 5,630,811 6,332,138 PALO VERDE VALLEY AREA BLYTHE 395,394 493,893 469,278 476,285 477,441 510,287 586,621 574,257 630,316 671,887 RIVERSIDE COUNTY 239,620 296,939 226,046 238,769 164,086 163,333 153,216 148,882 163,308 156,837 AREA TOTAL 635,014 790,832 695,324 715,054 641,527 673,620 739,837 723,139 793,624 828,724 FY Totals 14,047,844 17,685,532 17,960,162 18,859,975 18,459,714 19,507,513 21,310,988 22,240,185 24,382,492 27,151,375 • • • Riverside County Transportation Commission Strategic Plan Phase I: Review and Update • APPENDIX 6 FY 2000 - 2003 Proposed Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Program Recommended for Funding: • • Agency RCTC County Corona Riverside Riverside County Lake Elshinore San Jacinto Beaumont Hermet Perris Murrieta County So Cal Edison Moreno Valley Murrieta Murrieta WRCOG Various Riverside Transit Agency Riverside Transit Agency CVAG Sunline Transit Agency Sunline Transit Agency TOTAL Project Description SR60/Moreno Valley HOV Median Widening *1215 from box spgs IC to El Cerrito add 2 mixed flow & truck **1215 El Cerrito -60/91/215 construct IC add 2 mixed flow in SR91 @ Van Buren IC widen overxing, reconstruct ramps RCTC Rail Corridor to San Jac Reconst/upgrade of box sprgs Ridesharing Programs Valley Way EB Entrance & Exit Ramp Project Main St/SR91 IC & Circulation improvements SR91/La Sierra Ave. IC Reconstruction Jurupa Ave. Underpass at Union Pacific RR Rancho Calif. Rd left & right turn lanes Interconnect at Center/Collier & Collier/Riverside Signal at Ramona/E. Main/San Jacin/De Anza Interconnect at I-10/SR79 Construction of transportation/transit center Traffic Signal at 4th St/Redlands Ave. Traffic Signal at Jefferson Ave/Kalmia St. Traffic Signal & Interconnect at Eliwanda Ave. Zero Emission Mobile Industrial Equip Buydown Traffic Signals along Nason Street Traffic Signal at Jefferson Ave/Murrieta Hot Spr. Traffic Signal at Adams Ave/Kalma St. Development of 2 Clean Cities Coalitions Lump sum signal synchronization 3 CNG Replac. Buses Trolley Operating Funds (3rd yr) PM 10 Programs 5 CNG Expansion vans 2 Exp 30' vehicles Please Note that the project in Bold are identified as Measure A *CMAQ $7 million programmed in FY 02/03 in 98 RTIP **CMAQ $7.24 million programmed in FY 01/02 in 98 RTIP AP -33 Total $26,165,880 7,000,000 7,240,000 2,000,000 4,923,363 1,000,000 3,507,000 1,653,538 1,591,200 6,271,200 1,056,000 710,892 196,560 472,468 331,344 234,000 67,125 248,000 465,660 348,192 57,297 67,125 148,439 387,637 929,000 230,000 2,552,000 243,457 132,795 $70,230,172 Riverside County Transportation Commission Strategic Plan Phase I: Review and Update • APPENDIX 7 TEA 21 STP Projects Approved by the Commission Project Description Total State Highways 2nd Connector SB215 to EB 215 $ 13,326,000 Murrieta hot sprgs rd -reconstruct interchange 2,200,000 Galena St. -construct interchange 5,000,000 Hwy 215 -Newport Widen Overcrossing from 4-6 lanes 6,100,000 Local Highways Lump sum rehab/reconstruction Lump sum intersection signalization In DHS Palm Dr 110/Two Bunch -widen from 3-6 lanes Moreno Valley on Nason Allesandro/Fir widen FR 2-4 7,590,035 468,536 2,482,476 2,000,000 Transit Pedley Platform extension 300,000 Santa Fe Depot Rehabilitation 500,000 ISTEA STP Carryover 3,868,967 Total $ 43,836,014 Please note that the projects in Bold are identified as Measure A. AP -34 • • Riverside County Transportation Commission Strategic Plan Phase 1: Review and Update • APPENDIX 8 FUNDING DEFINITIONS FEDERAL FUND SOURCES The Transportation Equity Act (TEA 21) is a six -year federal program (FY 1997-98 through FY 2002-03) which provides transportation funding in the following areas: FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION (FTA) Section 5309 - Discretionary funds generally provided to urbanized areas for funding new start rail projects, major bus fleet replacement, transit facility construction. Matching ratios range from 50/50 to 80(federal)/20 (local). Section 5307 - Formula funds made available to urbanized areas for operating subsidy, capital projects and planning. Operating match is up to 50% of the net operating cost; capital and planning match is 80% federal, 20% local. Section 5310 - Funds made available to states for the purpose of providing capital support to private non-profit and, in certain circumstances, public transit operators. This is a state administered discretionary program providing funds on an 80% federal, 20% local basis. Section 5311 - Federal funds provided to support rural transit operating subsidies and capital projects. Operating match is up to 50% of the net operating cost; capital match is 80% federal 20% local. STATE AND FEDERAL HIGHWAY PROGRAMS UNDER SB45 Included in this category are the major programs of the Federal Highway Administration. Under SB 45, Caltrans administration, operations and maintenance continues to be taken off the top but these costs are now limited by the most recent State Budget Act as adjusted for inflation. Seventy-five percent of the funds are made available to regions (subject to north/ south and county minimum formulae) are now identified as county entitlement. SB 45 creates two new programs, the Interregional Improvement Program (25% of available STIP funds after the off the top deductions) administered by Caltrans with CTC discretion and the Regional Improvement Program (75%) over which RCTC has discretion. REGIONAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (RIP) With few exceptions RIP projects are capital projects, such as highway capacity improvements, transit, intercity rail, pedestrian and bicycle improvements, grade separations, local roads, transportation demand management (TDM), transportation system management (TSM), safety, AP -35 Riverside County Transportation Commission Strategic Plan Phase I: Review and Update soundwalls and project planning, programming and monitoring (up to 2%). Non -capital costs for transportation system management or transportation demand management may be included where the regional agency finds the project to be a cost-effective substitute for capital expenditures. INTER -REGIONAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (I I P) The I IP is split into two discrete pots of funds with specific requirements for each. Up to 10% (or 40% of the 25%) can be programmed for projects anywhere in the State subject only to the north/south split, which is 60% to the southern counties and 40% to the northern counties. Eligible projects can include state highways, intercity passenger rail, and mass transit guideway or grade separations. Non -capital costs for transportation system management or transportation demand management may be included where Caltrans finds the project to be a cost-effective substitute for capital expenditures. Projects for this category of I I P funds are nominated solely by Caltrans. At least 15% (60% or more of the 25% Interregional Improvement Program) can be programmed for intercity rail, interregional commuter rail, grade separation projects and for improvements outside of urbanized areas on interregional road system routes (which are specified by statute) These funds are not subject to either county minimums or the north/ south split. The last caveat is that at least 2.25% (or 15% of the 15% Interregional Improvement Program funds) must be programmed for intercity rail projects including interregional commuter rail grade separation projects. SURFACE TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM (STP) Funds allocated by RCTC and administered by Caltrans. Provides funding for local street and road improvements. RCTC programmed FY 1997-98 and 1998-99 STP funds in a call for projects in 1996. A call for projects will be issued in the winter of 1998-99 as soon as an estimate of funds is made available from Caltrans. Please note that the level of funding now expected for STP under TEA 21 is less than what was previously anticipated. Additionally, in the adoption of the 1998 STIP, RCTC approved a significant level of discretionary STP funds to high priority highway capital improvements. Congestion Mitigation Air Quality (CMAQ) Funds allocated by RCTC for transportation -related congestion and air quality improvement projects in air quality non -attainment areas. RCTC programmed FY 1997-98 and 1998-99 CMAQ funds in a call for projects in 1996. A call for projects will be issued in the winter of 1998-99 as soon as an estimate of funds is made available from Caltrans. Under TEA 21 there is a significant increase in funding for the CMAQ program. TRANSPORTATION ENHANCEMENT ACTIVITIES (TEA) The amount of funds made available under this program is 10% of the state apportionment of STP funds. Projects are qualified and funded by RCTC. The California Transportation Commission AP -36 Riverside County Transportation Commission Strategic Plan Phase I: Review and Update recently directed the TEA program to be administered through Caltrans Local Assistance like STP and CMAQ funds. (October 28, 1998) Transportation enhancement activities are over and above normal transportation projects. Typically, a normal transportation project may include mitigation, standard landscaping, other permit requirements and provisions negotiated as a condition of obtaining a permit for a normal (non -enhancement) transportation project. Transportation enhancement activities may not in themselves be routine of customary elements of transportation projects or mitigation for project impacts in compliance with the requirements of environmental, or other federal, state, or local laws, even if those aspects will otherwise constitute specified transportation enhancements. Caltrans will be issuing TEA Guidelines in November 1998. STATE AND LOCAL FUND SOURCES Transportation Development Act (TDA) The TDA is comprised of two elements. LTF funds and State Transit Assistance Funds (STAF). LTF funds are derived from 1/4 of one cent of the state sales tax. There are three areas of apportionment within Riverside County. They are Western County, Coachella Valley and Palo Verde Valley (Blythe). RCTC administers the LTF. Funds are provided for program administration, SCAG regional planning, local transportation planning, and support transit services in Western Riverside and the Coachella Valley. In the Palo Verde Valley funds support transit services and street and road improvements. Additionally, under SB 821, 2% of LTF funds are made available for bicycle and pedestrian projects. State Transit Assistance Funds (STAF) are allocated by the State to RCTC on the basis of population and as a percentage of transit fare revenue. RCTC has generally used these funds to support capital purchases and improvements as these funds have been subject to state budgetary actions. AP -37 Riverside County Transportation Commission Strategic Plan Phase I: Review and Update APPENDIX 9 GLOSSARY OF ACRONYMS ACT -Association for Commuter Transportation APCD-Air Pollution Control District APTA-American Public Transit Association AQMD-Air Quality Management District AQMP-Air Quality Management Plan ARB-Air Resources Board CALCOG-California Council of Governments CALTRANS-California Department of Transportation CARB-California Air Resources Board CCAA-California Clean Air Act of 1988 CEC-California Energy Commission CEQA-California Environmental Quality Act CETAP-Community and Environmental Transportation Acceptability Process CIP-Capital Improvement Program CMA-Congestion Management Agency CMAQ-Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Program CMP-Congestion Management Program COG -Council of Governments CTC-California Transportation Commission CTC's-County Transportation Commissions CTP-Comprehensive Transportation Plan CTSA-Consolidated Transportation Services Agency CVAG-Coachella Valley Association of Governments EPA -Federal Environmental Protection Agency FCAA-Federal Clean Air Act of 1990 FHWA-Federal Highway Administration FIP-Federal Implementation Plan FTA*-Federal Transit Administration GIS-Geographic Information Systems GME-Growth Management Element • • • AP -38 Riverside County Transportation Commission Strategic Plan Phase I: Review and Update HOV-High Occupancy Vehicle Lane ICTC-Interstate Clean Transportation Corridor IECS-Inland Empire Commuter Services IEEP-Inland Empire Economic Partnership IEOC- Inland Empire Orange County IIP-Interregional Improvement Program IRRS-Interregional Road System ISR-Indirect Source Rule ISTEA-Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act ITS -Intelligent Transportation Systems LACMTA-Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority LOS -Level of Service LTF-Local Transportation Fund MPO-Metropolitan Planning Organization MSA-Metropolitan Statistical Area MSRC-Mobile Source Air Pollution Reduction Review Committee (AB 2766) OCTA-Orange County Transportation Authority PSR-Project Study Report RACE- Regional Arterial Cost Estimate RCP -Regional Comprehensive Plan RCTC-Riverside County Transportation Commission RFA- Regional Financial Associates RFP-Reasonable Further Progress RIP -Regional Improvement Program RME-Regional Mobility Element RTA-Riverside Transit Agency RTAC-Regional Transportation Agencies Coalition RTIP-Regional Transportation Improvement Program RTP-Regional Transportation Plan RTPA-Regional Transportation Planning Agency SANBAG-San Bernardino Associated Governments SB- Senate Bill SBOE- State Board of Equalization SCAG-Southern California Association of Governments AP -39 Riverside County Transportation Commission Strategic Plan Phase 1: Review and Update • SCR -Southern California Rideshare SCRRA-Southern California Regional Rail Authority SIP -State Implementation Plan SRTP-Short Range Transit Plan STA-State Transit Assistance Funds STIP-State Transportation Improvement Program STP-Surface Transportation Program SunLine-SunLine Transit Agency TAC-RCTC Technical Advisory Committee TCI-Transit Capital Improvement Program TCM-Transportation Control Measure TDA-Transportation Development Act TDM-Transportation Demand Management TEA- Transportation Enhancement Activities TEA 21 -Transportation Equity Act for the 2151 Century TIP -Transportation Improvement Program TMA/TMO-Transportation Management Association/Organization TMME-Traffic Management and Environmental Enhancement TPPS- Transportation Project Prioritization Study TSM-Transportation Systems Management TUMF- Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee WRCOG-Western Riverside Council of Governments AP -40 • • • Riverside County Transporta ion Com mission Strategic Plan Phase I Capital Projects • • Completed Projects Name Project Cost Year Completed Funding sources Project Catejory Region Meas . A CMAO 108/116 STP FTA Other Highway Rail Street/Rd Reg. Art. West . Cty Coachella Palo Verde RT74 7th street to G street widening $6,216,366 June -93 X X x RT79 Sanderson Avenue Bridge $13,478,320 October -94 X X X RT79 Lamb Canyon Highway widening $25,204,993 March -96 X (1) X X RT79 Grade Separation ® Gilman Springs $7,300,000 March -96 r2) X X RT79 Rock Fall Mitigation $874,645 March -96 X X X RT79 Median Barrier Project $308,000 March -96 X X x RT86 Avenue 58 to Dillon Road $16,799,998 Sept. 93 x (1) X x RT91 Orange County line to Main St-HOV $18,820,737 Sept. 93 X (1) X X RT91 Main St to Magnolia Avenue - HOV $11,326,196 August -92 X (1) X X RT91 Magnolia Ave. to Mary St • HOV $9,753,067 July95 X 1) x X RT 91 Smith, Maple, Lincoln IIC overcrossing $6,409,863 Dec. 92 X X X RT91 McKinley Undercrossing $1,614,951 June -93 X x x RT91 Van Buren Hook ramp • Phase I $2,300,000 July -96 (3) x x x Yuma Interchange 05,500,000 October -97 (3) x x x Eastridge Interchange $900,000 July -96 (3) x X RT111 Streetscape Project- Cathedral city $10,076,000 Sep. 98 X X X RT111 Frank Sinatra Drive $100,000 Jul. 95 X X X RT111Sunrise Way $364,411 January -96 X x x RT 111 Washington Street $435,468 June -97 X X X RT111 Cook Street $120,000 Sep.98 X X X Downtown Riverside Rail Station $23,710,528 June -93 X X X Southside Platform - Downtown Riverside $9,600,000 Nov.98 X X X Pedley Station $5,954,258 June -93 X x x La Sierra Rail Station $3,598,812 October -95 X x x x W est Corona Rail Station $4,676,001 October - 95 X x x x (2) Caltrans Reimbursement (SHOPP) (3) Measure A portion only O • AGENDA ITEM 6 • • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION DATE: September 27, 1999 TO: Budget & Implementation Committee FROM: Jerry Rivera, Program Manager THROUGH: Dean Martin, Chief Financial Officer SUBJECT: Fiscal Year 1999-2000 Contract Amendment to Freeway Service Patrol Tow Truck Agreements with Hamner Towing and Pepe's Towing Service STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve, subject to Legal Counsel review, Amendment No. 3 to the Freeway Service Patrol Tow Truck Agreement with Hamner Towing, Inc., and Pepe's Towing Service, Inc., to continue service until June 30, 2000. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The Riverside County Freeway Service Patrol (FSP) program currently contracts with two tow truck companies, Hamner Towing and Pepe's Towing, to provide the roving tow service on four segments of State Route 91 and 1-215/60. The agreement covers the normal days and hours of operation, reimbursements and penalties, and uniform and equipment requirements for the program. The contract for both operators expired on June 30, 1999. Commission staff asked the contractors if they would be willing to continue providing the FSP tow service at the same hourly rate, and they both agreed. It was staff's intention to include the two agreements in the recurring contracts list, but they were inadvertently omitted. The California Highway Patrol (CHP), who provides the day to day field supervising of the program, is satisfied with their performance and recommends continuing the contracts for another year. The State funding for FY 1999-2000 for the Riverside County FSP program has increased by $282,200, or 30.7%, and will provide funding for beat #25 on 1-15 (awarded at last month's meeting) and an additional hour of service in the afternoon on all four beats. The afternoon service will now operate from 3:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except designated holidays. Sufficient funds were included in the FY 1999-2000 Motorist Assistance budget approved by the Commission at its June 2, 1999 meeting to continue both contracts for another year and provide the increased service. W U029 Project Cost Included in Fiscal Year Budget Y Year Source of Funds Financial Assessment $776,152 State of California 80%; SAFE Fees 20% • Included in Program Budget Y Year Programmed 1999-00 Approved Allocation Y Year of Allocation 1999-00 Budget Adjustment Required N Financial Impact Not Applicable • • ��`+0030 • • AGENDA ITEM 7 • • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION DATE: September 27, 1999 TO: Budget & Implementation Committee FROM: Dean Martin, Chief Financial Officer THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: California Highway Patrol (CHP) Presentation STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Receive and file. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: At the Commission's September 9th meeting, staff was directed to provide information on procedures that the CHP follow and how they make the determination to close a State highway. Based upon Commission direction, staff contacted the CHP. A member of the CHP staff will be present at the Committee meeting to provide a presentation on mitigation measures they take as a result of an accident, traffic congestion or during construction and how they are implemented. 000031 • • AGENDA ITEM 8 • • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION DATE: September 27, 1999 TO: Budget and Implementation Committee FROM: Shirley Medina, Staff Analyst THROUGH: Dean Martin, Chief Financial Officer SUBJECT: County of Riverside Request to Reallocate Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Funds TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: That the Committee approve the reallocation of Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) funds in the amount of $420,000 to a PM10 mitigation project on Holland Road in the County of Riverside. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: On August 9, 1999 the County of Riverside submitted a request to reallocate CMAQ funds from the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) made available from another PM10 mitigation project (road paving) on Leon Road to a PM10 mitigation project on Holland Road. The Leon Road project was approved by the Commission in 1996. The County has completed project design for Leon Road and has estimated the project total at $1,863,950 instead of the original $2,282,950 therefore leaving a balance of $420,000 to reprogram. The County's request was reviewed by the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) at their September 20, 1999 meeting. The TAC approved the County's request based on past Commission action to revert available funds back to the unfunded project list where the funds originated. The Holland Road project is the second project which appears on the unfunded list of projects from a past ISTEA call (the first unfunded project is a PM10 project on Briggs Road costing $1.8 million). The cost of the Holland Road project totals $898,275 and County staff has indicated that they can reduce the project limits to accommodate the paving of a high priority segment of Holland Road within the $420,000 reallocation. The County has also stated that this project is ready to proceed should the Commission approve their request. ►00032 Financial Assessment Project Cost $420,000 Source of Funds ISTEA CMAQ FUNDING • • • 000033 • • COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE TRANSPORTATION AND LAND MANAGEMENT AGENCY Transportation Department August 9, 1999 Mr. Eric Haley, Executive Director Riverside County Transportation Commission 3560 University Avenue, Suite 100 Riverside, CA 92501 RE: CMAQ Project Addition Dear Mr. Haley: 7, ii David E. Barnhart Director of Transportation On April 10, 1996 the Riverside County Transportation Commission approved the reprogramming of some CMAQ funds resulting in an increase in the number of projects funded in the FY 95/96-96/97 CMAQ program. Two County of Riverside projects on Leon Road were among the approved projects. A copy of agenda item 7B is attached for reference and shows a total amount of $2,282,950 for the two Leon Road projects. We recently completed the project design and have estimated the improvements for Leon Road will consume only $1,863,950 of CMAQ funds. We request the programmed CMAQ funding amount for Leon Road be reduced to a total of $1,863,950 and the fund balance of $420,000 be used to fund the next deliverable project on the FY 95/96-96/97 CMAQ program list, which is the County of Riverside's Holland Road project. The amount of CMAQ funds to be used on Holland Road has been reduced from the 1995 application amount due to a reduction in project limits. The projected fund balance from Leon Road will allow for paving of Holland Road between Bradley Road and Haun Road, a length of 0.75 miles. This segment of Holland Road is the most heavily traveled portion since it serves as a primary access road to the new Paloma Valley High School and is also the least costly portion to construct. The County of Riverside has begun preparation of construction plans for Holland Road using local funds due to the importance of this project and to accelerate the project completion. We will be in a position to advertise for construction as soon as the funding becomes available. The County of Riverside respectfully requests the RCTC approve 4080 Lemon Street, 8th Floor • Riverside. California 92501 • (909) 955-6740 P.O. Box 1090 • Riverside, California 92502-1090 • FAX (909) 955-6721 000034 Mr. Eric Haley, Executive Director Riverside County Transportation Commission Page 2, August 9, 1999 the CMAQ funding to pave Holland Road between Bradley Road and Haun Road and administratively amended the project into the RTIP at the earliest opportunity. Should there be any questions, please contact me or George Johnson, Deputy Director of Transportation, at (909) 955-6740. Sincerely, 4z,/ David E. Barnhart Director of Transportation RKN: attachments c: James Venable, Third District Shirley Medina, RCTC Atef Zaki Roy Null • • • 1 0035 /r. / STP/CMAQ POLICY COM-MITTEE RECOMMENDATION - MARCH 25.1996 • RIVERSIDE COUNTY CMAQ PROGRAM ns 1995-96 - 1996-97 SCAB AREA 'PQR^TE" •YRE 1 1 D.(URRET A 2 ".•RTA 31IR CTC 41IRCTC 5 IIRI VERSIDE 6ID.TA 711COUNTY OF RIN' :SIGNAL INTERCONNECT q FREEWAY RAMP TERMINAL SIGNALTZAT1ON 13 R LACI FAENT BUSES AND E rTSCINE OVERHAULS FOR 14 BUSES ISOLTHWEST AREA DEFICIENCY PLAN COMPONENT :MAGNOLIA AVE CORRIDOR (GRADE SEPARATION ON ARLINGTON AVE @ ATSF RAILROAD TRACKS :DOWNTOWN RIVERSIDE TROLLEY OPERATIONS IEIRCTRIC VEHICLE INFitASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMEF.IT t "-ROTC I SAN JAC RAJ. UNE pecifosel cons:rom = and moor. Projects above were approved June 14,1995 9'2.IORENO VLY 10 ''COUNTY OF RSV IHOV ON -RAMP ® MORENO BEACH/SR60 :TRAFFIC MONITORING ! COORDINATION McCALL.. BLVD 11 ;MORENO VLY IHOV ON -RAMP @ NASONSR60 121 COU .Tr' OF RIV 1 AUTOMATED TRAFFIC COUNTS 1312.4ORENO VLY !SIGNAL INTERCONNECT @ HEACOCK 14 TERRIS IPA.RK-N-RIDE-BUS STOP. BICYCLE STORAGL&PARKING IMPROVE-METROLD.Z 15 'COUNTY OF RSV IPM10 MITIGATION PROGRAM - LEON ROAD (OLIVE TO SD 'SON) F I6IICOL'NTY OF RI'.' I PM10 MITIGATION PROGRAM - LEON ROAD MBENTON TO KELLE ! 17 ilCOUNTY OF RA' IPM 10 MITIGATION PROGRAM . BRIGGS RD 111 COUNTY OF RSV IPM I0 MITIGATION PROBLEM • HOLLAND ROAD 19 COUNTY OF R.SV (SIGNAL COORDINATION - MISSION BLVD 20 ICRIVERSIDE !SIGNAL INTERCONNECT @ CENTRAL AVENUE 21 !TIE ECIJLA 1 WESTERN BY-PASS CORRIDOR 2210.4ARCH IPA 1MARCH AIR FORCE BASE CIRCULATION/TRANSPORTATION PLAN 23124ORENO VLY !PEDESTRIAN MEDIANS CONTROL MEASURES 241 CORONA !SIGNAL MODIFICATION AND CFLSNNELI ATTON-EL SOBRANTE4MAGNOLIA 2510.6. SAN .RC INTERACTIVE VIDEO NET WORK 26 RCORON A 1 SIGNAL MODIFICATION AND CHANNEIIIaT ION - SIXTH @ MAIN ST !SIGNAL MODIFICATION AND CHANNE Z TION - MAGNOLIA @ RDAPAU 2711CORONA 21 ::CORONA !SIGNAL MODIFICATION - MAIN ST ® NORTH GRAND BLVD 291CORONA (SIGNAL MODIFICATION AND CHANNPL ATION - SDC7'H ST ® MAGNOLIA 30I0UVERSIDE 1EMERGENCY VEHICLE PRIORITY SIGNAL CONTROL SYSTEM !ELDER AVENUE CONTROL MEASURES !FOOTHILL PARKWAY :TOTAL CMAQ (SCAB] FUNDS AVAILABLE - MARCH 25. 1996 31 !MORENO VLY 321IRRCOG • 1 IF1SC 11 CMAO FUNDENG ' CUML' ATIVE' NEAR I1 RECOMMENDED 95/6 95/d 961 1 967 961 I 951d 195/ 95/1 961 I 95/ 961 95/4 961 93/6 96r 96r 9671 95/ 95/ 9S/1 95/(1 95/6 961 TOTAL IOC"- 703 " 1955.100 11:302 703 AVG SCORE 71 000 21.251503 73.300 1150.0001' 21.401503 65.000 S150.0001. 21.551503 63.200 53.000.01011 14.551 503 61.500 1250.0001i 14. i 01503 59.333 1I20.2001I 24.421.7D3 S2.729.547 57, 651.300 2350.00011 231.2501 2350.000 2257.500 54.00L300 54.039.550 54.319.550 11.647.050 55 500 53 600 51.500 50.667 50 500 44 500 190.000) 14.737.050 S240.000 54.42.500 21.140.450 21.114.250 21.977.050 19.419.550 111.260.000 113,074,250 1191.275 41.133 31.000 37.500 37.500 37.500 513.972.525 37.500 2150.000 1354.010 52.500.000 115.000 515.000 95/41 95/ 95/ 95 95/ 95/ 9S/ 244.000 1524,000 521000 532.000 544.000 514.122525 36.133 1 114.476.525 26.667 216.976.525 0.000 514991.525 0.000 117,076.525 0.000 S17.120,525 0.000 217.644.525 0.000 217.672.525 0.000 117.704.525 0.000 217.741.525 0.000 141.000 5505.000 1300,000 217,796,525 0.000 211.301,525 0.000 211.601.525 0.000 5150.000 S 11.260.000) 211 751 525 0.000 1;)00036 • • AGENDA ITEM 9 • • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION DATE: September 27, 1999 TO: Budget and Implementation Committee FROM: Shirley Medina, Staff Analyst THROUGH: Dean Martin, Chief Financial Officer SUBJECT: Riverside Transit Agency Request to Reallocate Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Funds TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: That the Committee approve the reallocation of Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality funds in the amount of $423,907 to a County of Riverside PM10 mitigation project on Holland Road. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: On September 9, 1999 the Riverside Transit Agency (RTA) submitted a request to reallocate the balance of Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) funds programmed under the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) in the amount of $423,907 made available from unspent funds on capital and operating costs for the Trolley Demonstration project approved by the Commission in 1993. The RTA has requested that the money be reallocated for the construction of a compressed natural gas (CNG) fueling station in the City of Hemet. The fueling station is estimated to cost $1.2 million. The fueling station was submitted for CMAQ funding in the fiscal year 1999/00-2002/03 Call for projects. The project did not score high enough (12 unfunded projects ranked higher than CNG facility) given the amount of CMAQ funds available in the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB) portion of Riverside County. The RTA request was reviewed by the Commission's Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) at their September 20, 1999 meeting. As part of the TAC discussion, it was felt that it was important to remain consistent with past Commission actions to revert funds made available back to the list of unfunded projects where the funds originated and select the next unfunded project. Further, the TAC was concerned about the delivery of the CNG facility project due to the lapse date of ISTEA funds on September 30, 2000. According to RTA the Hemet CNG fueling station is currently partially funded and even ifthese funds were provided, the project would still need to secure additional funding. Construction is estimated to begin in the next 12 to 18 000037 months. It was also discussed that there are other potential fund sources that exist (e.g. the RCTC Clean Fuels Opportunity Program, FTA Section 5307, Mobile Source Reduction Review Committee (MSRC) funds ) for which the RTA could apply. In reviewing the list of unfunded projects from ISTEA, the next project on the list is a Particulate Matter 10 project (road paving) on Holland Road in the County of Riverside. In another agenda item, the County is requesting the Commission's approval for reallocation of CMAQ funds made available from another PM 10 project in the county to the Holland Road project. County staff has indicated that the Holland Road project will be ready to proceed immediately should the Commission approve the unspent funds from the Trolley project towards the Holland Road project. Please note that RTA has forwarded a letter (September 20, 1999 attached) indicating their intent to appeal the TAC recommendation. Financial Assessment Project Cost $423,907 Source of Funds ISTEA CMAQ Funding • 1 1 00038 • • • September 9. 1999 Eric Haley Riverside County Transportation Commission 3560 University Ave.. Suite100 Riverside. CA 92501 Dear Eric: Riverside Transit Agency 1825 Third Street P.O. Box 59968 Riverside, CA 92517 Phone:(909) 684-0850 Fax: (909) 684-1007 Re: Reallocation of CMAQ to CNG Fueling Station Construction Project As a follow-up to our letter dated August 25, 1999 regarding the deobligation of CMAQ funds from grant projects CA -90-X587 and CA -90-X665 we are requesting that the remaining total CMAQ balance of $423.907 be reallocated to RTA specifically for the construction of a compressed natural gas (CNG) fueling station. The proposed fueling station would be located at the Agency's Hemet operating and maintenance facility. This fast -fill fuel station project is included in the FY 1999-2000 Short Range Transit Plan; at total estimated cost of $1.2 million. We appreciate your assistance in this matter. If you should require further information please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerel Stephen 011er Deputy General Manager, Operations cc: Susan J. Hafner, General Manager 000039 047627 eptcmbcr 20, 1999 Eric Haley Executive Director Riverside County "Transportation Commission 3560 Ilniversity Ave., Suite100 Riverside, CA 92501 Dear Eric: Riverside Transit Agency 1825 Third Street P.O. Box 59968 Riverside, CA 92517 Phone:(909) 684-0850 Fax: (909) 684-1007 At the September 20, 1999 meeting of the RCTC Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) K'I'A's request for the reprogramming of unexpended CMAQ funds toward the construction of a CNG fueling station in the City of Hemet was denied in a 9-5 vote. The RTA respectfully wishes to appeal this decision before the RCTC Budget and Implementation Committee on September 27, 1999. The RTA recognizes that it has bccn a past practice to reprogram remaining balances of CMAQ funds to previously approved projects or to fund a project from the original project call list from the year(s) the funds were first made available. It is our belief that reprogramming these funds for the purposes of advancing the construction oi'a public transit CNG fueling station is consistent with the intents and values whereby they were originally awarded and therefore worthy of an exception to this practice. These CMAQ funds were in large part, awarded to encourage the introduction of clean -fueled transit vehicles in the region. Reprogramming the remaining balances to a CNG fuel station will not only continue to support that objective by allowing RTA to expand the use of alternative fuels in the southern portion of its service area, but will also promote the conversion of other municipal fleets to clean fuels as well. If you have any father questions regarding this matter please do not hesitate to contact me at your earliest convenience. Sincerely, Susan 3. Hafner General Manager cc: RTA Board of Directors 000040 AGENDA ITEM 7B Q 1.e RIti'ERSIDE COUNTY CMAQ PROGRAM F1.1 1995-96 - 1996-97 SCAB AREA AOEN7Y PPROPE_^. TYPE IrFISC 11 CMAQ FUNDING 11 CUMULATIVE !, !rYLAR h RECOMMENDED II TOTAL AVG SCORE I IMUR.R.IETA !SIGNAL INTERCONNECT g FREEWAY RAMP TERMINAL SIGNALIZATION 95/d 5302.70311 5302.703 71 000 2 "'RTA 13 REPLACEMENT BUSES AND ENGINE OVERHAULS FOR 14 BUSES 1.1 95/4 5955.10011 31.2st.503 73.500 31RCTC !SOUTHWEST AREA DEFICIENCY PLAN COMPONENT 11 9611 5150.00011 51.401.303 65.000 1 41RCTC !MAGNOLIA AVE CORRIDOR I 9611 1150.000!1. 51.551.503 63.200 5'RIVERSIDE 1 GRADE SEPARATION ON ARLINGTON AVE 02 ATSF RAILROAD TRACKS 53.000.000 I 54.351.503 61.500 1 610RTA !DOWNTOWN RIVERSIDE TROLLEY OPERATIONS I 93/ 5250.000II 54.101.503 59.333 711COUN"fY OF RIV !ELECTRIC VEHICLE INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT 193/ 1 5120.20011 54.921,703 55.500 t "'RCTC ISAN JAC RAIL LINE specified canszncao® ad agereeri 1 95/ 1 52.729.597 I 57.655.300 53 600 re were approved June 14, 91N.4ORENO VLY IHOV ON -RAMP @ MORENO BEACH/SR60 1 96ri 5330.000p 52.0011.300 51.500 101COUNTY OF MN.' f TRAFFIC MONITORING ! COORDINATION McCALL BLVD ' 11 I3.4ORENO VLY IHOV ON -RAMP @ NASON/SR60 12 I CO1JNTY OF RJV I AUTOMATED TRAFFIC COUNTS 13 IIMORENO VLY (SIGNAL INTERCONNECT ® HEACOCK 14IrPERRIS IPARK-N-RIDE.BUS STOP. BICYCLE STORAGE.&PARK1NG IMPROVE-MiTROLW 15 ;COUNTY OF ;LTV IPM10 MITIGATION PROGRAM - LEON ROAD (OLIVE TO SIMPSON) t 161COUNTY OF RJV IPM10 MITIGATION PROGRAM - LEON ROAD !BENTON TO K E LER] 1'/ ]!COUNTY OF RJV IPM 10 MITIGATION PROGRAM . BRIGGS RD 15IICOUNTY OF RP/ IPM10 MITIGATION PROBLEM - HOLLAND ROAD 19 [COUNTY OF R V !SIGNAL COORDINATION MISSION BLVD 20IIRTV EDE !SIGNAL INTERCONNECT @ CENTRAL AVENUE 21 ITEMECULA 1 WESTERN BY-PASS CORRIDOR 1 221IMAROl IPA (MARCH AIR FORCE BASE CIRCULATIONlTRANSPORTATION PLAN 1 23IIMOREND VLY (PEDESTRIAN MEDIANS CONTROL MEASURES 2411CORONA !SIGNAL MODIFICATION AND CHANNEIIZ.ATION-EL SOBRANTE4MAGNOLIA 2511.4T. SAN .RC IINTERACINE VIDEO NETWORK 261CORONA (SIGNAL MODIFICATION AND ANNELI2ATION - SD H t� MAIN ST 2.71 CORONA C i !SIGNAL MODIFICATION AND CHANNELII-ATION - MAGNOLIA 9 RIMPAU 2t!!CORONA (SIGNAL MODIFICATION • MAW ST ® NORTH GRAND BLVD 79ICORONA (SIGNAL MODIFICATION AND CHANNE RATION - SIXTH ST ® MAGNOLIA 30'RIVERSIDE !EMERGENCY VEHICLE PRIORITY SIGNAL CONTROL SYSTEM 3 IP.4OREN° VLY (ELDER AVENUE CONTROL MEASURES 3211WRCOG !FOOTHILL PARKWAY ORAL CMAQ'SCAB] FUNDS AVAILABLE - MARCH 25. 1996 95/E I 9611 93/d 95/d 531.230 5350.000 5257.500 590.000 53,039.550 50.667 53.359.550 53,647.050 52.737.050 50 500 H. 500 41.133 5240.000 51.977.050 3t. 000 9-6-x1 1 -96x1 51.140.450 96/71 S1.114.250 95/64 5191.275 95/d 95/d 95/d 95/d 96/1 95/d 1 93/E 95/E 1 951E 95/E 95/E 95/(1 96x: 5.442.500 5150.000 5354.000 52500.000 S15.000 st5.000 59, 419.550 37.500 511.260.000 SI3.074.250 37.500 37.500 513,972.525 37.500 S14,122.525 36.133 514.476,525 26.667 516.976.525 0.000 516,991.525 0.000 517,076,325 544.000 517,120.525 0.000 0.000 5524.000 521.000 532,000 517,644,525 0.000 517.672525 517,704.325 544.000 517,741,525 0.000 0.000 0.000 541.000 5505.000 5300,000 517,796,525 0.000 511.301,525 513.601.525 0.000 0.000 5150.000 511160.000 511,751,525 0.000 100041. 2000 2003 PROPOSED CUNGES Z IO N M ITIGATION ANC QUAt_11 Y PROGRAM Z TI1E SOUTH CO AST AIR BASIN Funding Available = $43,631,366 Un funded Projects: AGENCY 1 Riverside 2 County 3 March JPA _4 Moreno Valley 5 M uniela 6 Callians 7 Moreno Valley 8 Moreno VaIIey 9 Murrlela 10 I lemel 11 Mo ren 12 WRCOG 13 County 14 RTA 15 UCR 16 RTA 17 County 18 County 19 Corona 20 Co rona 21 Corona 22 Corona 23 Ilen;el PROJECT DESCRIPTION sri 91/Madison Si Ilook Ram s Traffic Signals 6 Inlerconnecl al Bundy Cyn Rd. Alternative Fuel Dispensing Slalion-March Traffic Signal al Iris Ave/Indian SI. Traffic Signal al Calif O aks Rd/Ifancock Ave. Changeable Message Signs/I Iwy Advisory: Inlerconnecl al Pigeon Pass Rd. Inlerconnecl al Perris Blvd. Traffic Signal al Ivy US Jefferson A ve Slate SI M ulti Use Bicycle & Ped. Pall; Inlerconnecl al I Ieacock SI. Clean Fuel Buydown Incentive Program Paving dill shoulder of Jurupa Road Ilemel CNG Compress ro b Fueling Slalion Evalualion of Biodiesel Fuel Effecliveness Purchase of 5R 3 2E CNG Buses Paving of Bradle Road & Garbani Road Paving shoulders on Laz Creek Road Onlarlo Ave. widening & slgnalization El Cerrito Rd. widenin 8, signalizalior; Conslruclion of Foothill Parkwa -East Design & Eng. of Foolhill ParkwaWesl Pre aralion of Transportation Plan TOTAL UNFUNDED REQUESTS Nule Pioiecl scores use 1101 in plIouly wile( CM AQ $ REQ'D $4,800,000 $204,000 $250:000 $146,000 _ $82,582 $ 307,000 $98,000 1123,900 $73,447 $309,000 $123900 _$ 199,23: $150,000 $960,000 $18 0 $584,000 $600,000 $220,000 $2,680,000 $793,000 $2,237,500 $217 ,500 _- $79,500 • $15,48,855 • SC ORE 8 _7 _ 8 _ 8 8 7 7 6 6 6 5 5 5 4 3 3 Inellg Inellg Inellg _Inellg Inellg • CIAAr)I V A' xis • • AGENDA ITEM 10 • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION DATE: September 27, 1999 TO: Budget & Implementation Committee FROM: Cathy Bechtel, Program Manager THROUGH: Dean Martin, Chief Financial Officer SUBJECT: Transportation Enhancement Activities Program Selection Criteria TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: That the Committee recommend approval of the Transportation Enhancement Activities Program Selection Criteria as presented in the attached application. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: At the Commission's July 1999 meeting, staff was directed to develop and release a Call for Projects to obtain proposals under the Transportation Enhancement Activities Program for FY 1998-2004 with a minimum total project amount of $250,000. Additionally, the Commission designated the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) as the Evaluation Committee. A Call for Projects was developed and sent to all local agencies, Commissioners, as well as a number of local organizations that had expressed interest in these funds. Applications are due to the Commission on Friday, November 19, 1999. The TAC worked closely with staff to develop selection criteria based on the state- wide criteria. The entire application was also reviewed by the Caltrans State TEA Coordinator to ensure consistency with state requirements. Attached is the application format which includes the selection criteria under Section VI. The TAC has requested that the Commission affirm the selection criteria to be used for project evaluation. Should the Commission desire modifications to the criteria, an addendum to the call for projects will be released. Financial Assessment Project Cost Up to $ 13,404,000 Source of Funds Federal Transportation Enhancement Activities Program =!!?0043 Transportation Enhancement Activities (TEA) Program Call for Projects for Funds Available in FY1998-FY2004 I. APPLICANT INFORMATION Sponsoring Agency: Address: Contact Person: Title: Phone #: Fax #: E-mail: If Joint Project, include partner agency name, contact person, and phone number: II. PROJECT INFORMATION Project Name: Project Description and Scope: (Include information on project location, limits of work, property needing to be purchased, modifications required to complete project, etc). Amount TEA Requested: $ ( %) Non -Federal TEA Match: $ ( %) Total Project Cost: $ ( 100%) Source(s) of Match: WHICH CATEGORY OR CATEGORIES ENCOMPASS YOUR TEA PROJECT? (May be more than one.) List approximate amount of federal TEA funds to be spent in each of the TEA categories: 1. Pedestrian or Bike Facilities 2. Safety/Educ. for Peds & Bikes 3. Acquisition of Easement/Sites 4. Highway Programs 5. Landscaping/Scenic Beautification 6. Historic Preservation 7. Historic Transportation Rehab 8. Railway Corridor Preservation 9. Outdoor Advertising 10. Archaeological Plan/Research 11. Environmental Mitigation 12. Transportation Museums Federal Environmental Approval for TEA Project (check proposed type and status): TYPE: Environmental Assessment Categorical Exclusion STATUS: Not Started Complete (Date of Completion atenda Riverside County Transportation Commission EIS Negative Declaration ) In Progress 1 �J��U044 f Transportation Enhancement Activities (TEA) Program Call for Projects for Funds Available in FY1998-FY2004 III. PROJECT SCREENING If any of the applicable screening criteria are not met, the proposal will not be ranked or evaluated any further. 1) DIRECT RELATIONSHIP TO TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM: Function Proximity Impact Briefly explain the direct relationship between the proposed TEA Project and the transportation system. How does the proposed project enhance the transportation system? 2) OVER AND ABOVE A NORMAL PROJECT: Yes No A normal transportation project may include mitigation, standard landscaping, etc. as part of the permitting requirements. Briefly explain how the proposed enhancement is over and above a normal transportation project. 3) Is the project consistent with federal, state, regional or local land use and regional transportation plans, goals, and policies? Yes No Describe the plans used in evaluating consistency (e.g. Regional Transportation Plan, Coachella Valley Arterial Program, Comprehensive Transportation Plan): 4) Is the proposed project financially viable? Yes No Describe the financial plan for the project including discussion of project phasing, cash flow and commitment of matching funds. 5) Is the project well-defined, well -justified, and ready -to -go in the year proposed? Yes No Describe evidence supporting this statement. 6) If the project requires on -going maintenance, do you have a maintenance program in place or planned? Yes No N/A If so, please describe program and how it will be funded. 7) Does the proposed project improve air quality or have a neutral air quality impact? Yes No Describe evidence supporting this conclusion. Riverside County Transportation Commission Transportation Enhancement Activities (TEA) Program CaII for Projects for Funds Available in FY1998-FY2004 8) Is the project in compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act? Yes No N/A 9) For archaeology and historic preservation projects, is the proposal in compliance with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards and Guidelines for Archaeological and Historic Preservation? Yes No N/A IV. SCHEDULE AND BUDGET TEA $ (000's) Other $ (000's) Other $ (000's) Total $ Project (000's) Start Date (Mo/Yr) Project End Date • (Mo/Yr) Environmental Design & Engineering ROW/Site Acquisition Construction Project Completion — i TOTAL 1 V. DETAILED COST ESTIMATE ITEM ESTIMATE -CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT ITEMS Item Description Unit Quantity Unit Price Amount 3 Riverside County Transportation Commission 000046 Transportation Enhancement Activities (TEA) Program CaII for Projects for Funds Available in FY1998-FY2004 VI. PROJECT SCORING CRITERIA UNDER WHICH DIVISION SHOULD YOUR PROJECT BE SCORED? (Must designate only one.) The Divisions are groupings of the 12 activity categories into four divisions with similar characteristics. The divisions are for ease of scoring only and are not intended to affect the distribution of funds. Division A: Bicycle, Pedestrian, Abandoned Rail Right -of -Way (Categories 1,2,8) Division B: Historic/Archaeological (Categories 3,4,6,7,10, 12) Division C: Transportation Aesthetics and Scenic Values (Categories 3,4,5,9) Division D: Environmental Mitigation (Category 11) ALL APPLICANTS MUST ANSWER QUESTIONS 1-3 1) Describe why the project is beneficial. How does the project improve overall quality -of -life, community and/or environment? Does the project connect transportation modes or does the activity have other multi -modal aspects? Does the project reinforce or complement the regional transportation system or fill a deficiency in the system? (0-6 points) 2) Describe degree of regional and/or community support for the project. (0-3 points) 3) If project has in excess of the required 12% local match describe sources and commitment for the additional matching funds. (0-3 points) Answer the two questions that correspond to the Project Scoring Division designated above, either Division A, B, C, or D. DIVISION A: Bicycle, Pedestrian, Abandoned Rail Right -of -Way Projects 1) What is the need for the proposed facilities or programs? Please specify high, medium or low and explain your answer. For example, is there a shortage of bicycle or pedestrian facilities available? Is there a missing link in connecting the intermodal system; how important is this link? How necessary are new facilities serving the system? (0-3 points) Riverside County Transportation Commission • • 000047 Transportation Enhancement Activities (TEA) Program Call for Projects for Funds Available in FY1998-FY2004 2) Describe how the proposed project meets the needs or addresses opportunities for bicycle or pedestrian facilities or programs. (0-3 points) DIVISION B: Historic/Archaeological Projects 1) Specify the current recognition of historical or archaeological significance. Please specify whether the recognition is federal, state, local or some other measure of significance. (0-3 points) National Register of Historic Places (Date: State Historical Landmark (No. ) State Points of Historical Interest (No. ) California Register of Historical Resources Regional Archaeological Information Ctr (No. Local Landmarks Program 2) How will the project enhance, preserve, or protect a historic or archaeological resource? (0-3 points) DIVISION C: Transportation Aesthetics and Scenic Values Projects 1) How are the scenic or aesthetic resources rare, unique, or significant, or how does the potential exist for landscaping or scenic beautification or improvements? (0-3 points) 2) How does the project preserve, rehabilitate, or develop scenic or aesthetic resources? (0-3 points) DIVISION D: Environmental Mitigation 1) What are the environmental problems caused by the highway runoff to be mitigated? If project is to reduce vehicle -caused wildlife mortality while maintaining habitat connectivity, provide specific data on wildlife mortality, motorist issues, habitat fragmentation, etc. (0-3 points) Riverside County Transportation Commission 1000048 Transportation Enhancement Activities (TEA) Program CaII for Projects for Funds Available in FY1998-FY2004 2) How does the proposal solve the problem? (0-3 points) VII. Please attach an 81/2 x 11 site map and/or photos of proposed project. VIII. STANDARD ASSURANCES Project Sponsoring Agency possesses legal authority to nominate transportation enhancement activity and to finance, acquire, and construct the proposed project; and by action of an official authorized to submit the project on behalf of the agency, authorizes the nomination of the transportation enhancement activity, including all understanding and assurances contained therein, and authorizes the person identified as the official representative of the Sponsoring Agency to act in connection with the nomination and to provide such additional information as may be required. Project Sponsoring Agency will maintain and operate the property acquired, developed, rehabilitated, or restored for the life of the resultant facility(ies) or activity. With the approval of the California Department of Transportation, the Sponsoring Agency or its successors in interest in the property may transfer the responsibility to maintain and operate the property. Project Sponsoring Agency will give the California Department of Transportation's representative access to and the right to examine all records, books, papers, or documents related to the transportation enhancement activity. Project Sponsoring Agency will cause work on the project to be commenced within a reasonable time after receipt of notification from the State that funds have been approved by the Federal Highway Administration and that the project will be carried to completion with reasonable diligence. Project Sponsoring Agency will comply where applicable with provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act, the National Environmental Policy Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Secretary of the Interior's Standards and Guidelines for Archaeology and Historic Preservation, and any other federal, state, and/or local laws, rules, and/or regulations. I certify that the information contained in this transportation enhancement activity application, including required attachments, is accurate and that I have read and understand the important information and agree to the assurances on this form. Signed Title Date Printed (Name, Agency) Riverside County Transportation Commission 6 ¶J00049 • • AGENDA ITEM 11 • • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION DATE: TO: FROM: THROUGH: SUBJECT: September 27, 1999 Budget and Implementation Committee Paul Blackwelder, Deputy Executive Director Eric Haley, Executive Director Highway 1 1 1 Advancement - Palm Springs Request STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve the City of Palm Springs' request to advance the construction of improvements at Gene Autry Trail and Highway 111 and reimbursement from the Measure A Highway Program for the appropriate share of funding at the completion of construction. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Attached is a letter from the City of Palm Springs requesting the Commission to permit them to advance the Highway 111 improvement project at Gene Autry Trail and be reimbursed from the Measure A Highway Program at the completion of construction. As a part of our efforts to advance all of the highway improvements identified in the Measure A Highway Program, the City of Palm Springs was authorized to use funding left over from the Sunrise Avenue/ Hwy 1 1 1 improvement project to design the Tier II project for improvements on Hwy 1 1 1 at Gene Autry Trail. They have completed the design and have received the necessary permits to proceed with construction from Caltrans. The estimated cost for the project is $997,000 of which Measure A is estimated to cover 70% - 75% of the cost with local funds providing the remainder of the funding required. The Measure A portion of the cost will be based on the cost of the improvements on Highway 1 1 1 using the alignment of Highway 1 1 1 as it was at the time Measure A was approved. This cost sharing is consistent with a policy previously recommended by CVAG, adopted by the Commission, and used for similar projects. The most recent cash flow analysis of the Measure A Highway Program in the Coachella Valley shows that the funding available for improvements on Highway 1 1 1 are under subscribed. Based on the schedule for completion of the higher priority projects which are currently in process, the advancement of the Gene Autry Trail project can be accommodated either within the current pay as you go cash flow or, with short term borrowing. Short term borrowing for the project, if required, can 000050 easily be accommodated by projected revenues, will not delay any other projects, and would cost less than the additional expenses which will be incurred if the project is not advanced. Since CVAG is the advisor to the Commission for the Coachella Valley portion of the Measure A Highway Program, we have requested their input on this request. The CVAG Technical Advisory Committee has reviewed the request and is recommending approval by the Executive Committee at their meeting on September 27, 1999. Attachment Financial Assessment Project Cost $997,000 Source of Funds Measure A $698,000 to $ 747,000 and Local ................... .................. ................... .................. ................... Included in Fiscal Year Budget N Year Included in Program Budget Y Year Programmed 2004 Approved Allocation Year of Allocation Budget Adjustment Required Y Financial Impact Not Applicable • • (WW+0051. 047326 City of Palm Springs Office of the City Llanager ?rwY Ta Nu.CZ La'' ,n • ]-r,.ni.. (.a1urnu TEL, ;-(yr' :-:a'01 • FAX• 1-bn.:_ .._r,- • TDD August 12, 1999 Mr. Eric Haley Executive Director Riverside County Transportation Commission 3560 University Avenue, Suite 100 Riverside, (Rliforn.a 92501 Attentione<Paul Blackwelder, Deputy Executive Director Re: Gene Autry & Highway 111 Street Widening (Hwy. 111 Tier 2- Corridor Project) Request for Reimbursement Agreement ($977,000 Construction Phase) Dear Mr Haley: This letter of request is pursuant to phone conversations with Paul Blackwelder and Louie Martin of your RCTC staff. Plans and specifications (prepared by an RCTC consulting engineer contract) have been completed and Caltrans has issued permits for the street widening project at the Gene Autry Trail & Highway 111 Intersection. The construction funding for this project, however, has not yet been budgeted by RCTC because the project is a Highway 111 Tier -2 Corridor Project and currently only Tier -1 Corridor funds have been allocated by RCTC for Coachella Valley Highway 111 projects. RCTC staff had suggested that if other Coachella Valley cities have Hwy_ 111 Corridor projects that are being delayed and will not be able to go to construction for another year or two, that possibly the City of Palm Springs could request a loan of the Tier -1 funding allocation from a city, with the provision that the funding be restored when RCTC allocates Tier -2 funding in about year 2001. After discussing this proposal with other Coachella Valley cities and with RCTC and CVAG staff members, it appears that no other Coachella Valley projects are now delayed and the other cities wish to proceed with constriction of their projects in a timely fashion. The design for Gene Autry & Hwy. 111 has been complete for about 1 year and met current Caltrans design srAndards at that time. However any further delays would require new permits, and Caltrans will require "metric" design requirements, which would cause the project to go back for redesign. A new design contract would be required (ROTC's previous dcsign consultant for this project is no longer in business) and it could take another year to go through the RFP, design Y:lDut\Dec\RCTCEncHalcy81199.1a.wpd Post Office Box 2743 • Palm Springs, California 92263-2743 000052 • and then Caltrans permit stagcs again. The current Caltrans permit expires on 8/31/99, but the City Engineer can request a time extension on the permit. • Since the Gene Autry & Hwy. 111 project is ready to go to bid, we respectfully request that RCTC reimburse the City for the proportionate RCTC share of costs as soon as possible upon completion of work and the City of Palm Springs could proceed with the work, advancing our Local Measure A funding for the entire construction cost of the project during the construction phase. We could expedite the bidding process and with RCTC's cooperation, insure that the project would be awarded as soon as possible. The City Council would need to make an exception to the City's Construction Policy however, which restricts major street construction to the summer months to avoid conflict with prime- season winter and tourist traffic. Your assistance in obtaining funding by RCTC for this project will be greatly appreciated by the City of Palm Springs. If you have any questions, please call me. Also Bob Mohler, Grants and Government Affairs Manager, can be contacted by phone at (760) 323- 8250, or Dave Barakian, City Engineer at (760) 323- 8253 for further information. Rob W I Parkins City Manager Attachments: 1. Location Map 2_ ROTC's Engineer's Estimate , including coast. contingency =S977,000 cc: Allen Smoot, Assistant City Manager -Operations Bob Mohler, Grants and Government Affairs Manager Dave Barakian, City Engineer Patricia "Corky" Larson, CVAG Allyn Waggle, CVAG Y:li)aalDocUtCrCGeneAutry 81299.lu.wpd • $ jEon5 P . O (Prepared by Engineering Rcsoww'Ces-forticrry NBS Lavery) BID SCHEDULE Schedule of Prices for Construction of INTERSECTION AND STORM DRAIN IMPROVEMENTS GENE AUTRY TRAIL AT STATE HIGHWAY 111, in he City of Palm Springs, California Clt Pro"ect No. 42.36 i Uarn No. Fine: Pay' 2. Deterip�o 1+1Mal MODti¢aliofl 5hesIw Shoring and Br r19 or Equtveitrtl Method 3 Clearing. Gruao.ng end Removat3 F Fernovt g P.0 C. Airstl A.0 rn Re rove E>et w Curb antGufler 8. F RRernnye Eaostin. P C.C. Slca wa* _ 1o:esa SF Grind E dna A.C. Pav*ment 7 8. 9 F Raadlaay Emaystion Estimated Unit Quantity Unit Price Amount LS LS LS 88,250 SF 2170 - LF Remo,, and Orsflose 0f Pipet, Hetayslls, Fencing and Rang 10. G Imported Borrow 11. F Crutt*d Awe Bose (Class If) 12 A C Pavenlant rnya ) 13 8' PCC Cum 14. 8' PCC Curb amp flutter 5 PCC Cross Glatee end S 1e. PCC Si4ewai 17 ie 19. 20. 38" a e0- MoriznrltM Eiltptscsi RCP . Cles1 I Access R But Bay RumetB , Catch Bsain No. 1 RCFC&w,C 11 082 SF AHowencc , 3 30,000 00 S 10000.00 3 10,000.60 5,oCC 00 3 5 000.00 025 3 17,08300 2 00 4 4340 00 0 25 3 2,713 CO LS cY CY CY 3 1.00 S 17 08700 7.50000 S 750000 1 00 , S 375 00 S• 7.00 _ $ 24.500.00 20.00 3 45,200.00 ,21A 218, PCC '4Pron*SQ 143, . F Ste. 20+ Sd �nai and 1 a" RCP D. TON LF LF SF 000 SF 1.320 EA 5 25.00 3 63 200.00 S 1000 S 1.73000 3 3 PCC1111404.46, Wingwebs. Footlncis and APrOns (SD. Sta. 10+22.9,4) • 23. 24- RCP p. 24. AAanhok flo. 1 RCFC a WCD Mant,Ate No. 4 RCFC 8 WCO T 1. DEI tr»1 1/4 C tv h coect NUmttyr 12-34 Coos 4.n ry TI:1Itg1.8U MTphygy 141 �•rnMl 1a$e 2 EA 12.00 , 3 36 078.00 4.00 S 000.00 2.50 i 2,500.00 1,50000 3 6.00000 6.00 S 7,920 03 2,070 LF 150.00 S 309.300.00 EA 1 EA 132 IiF 811 IF E 2 EA 2 EA 335 CY S 3 S 000.00 3 3,000.00 3,000 00 _ S 3,000 00 45.00 f S,pda,Co 60.00 S 48.660 00 2.000.00 S 2,000.00 3 600.00 S 7 040.00 3.000.00 S e 000.00 20 00 _ 1 6.700 00 UNIT PRICE BID SCHEDULE BID FORMS - PAGE 1 '"n ')54 P C loan Final No. Pa BID SCHEDULE (Continued) City Project No. 92-35 Desert Adjust •Erlating Sewer Mantlalit to Grace Lends and Irr a00n lanOsca_a taint+nance Construction Lone Traffic Control Tralhe S . . Mo porta Re none S Merkinos and btsrkara Datsil9 aotan 22 Detali 32 Detail 36 Detail 378 T 4. P 4 Armor Therrnocdastle T a6Arrow (TP r . L 12' WhAe LinaJn. trtstail &' • rte Det 9Markers Det 22 Martgarrs Oct 32 Markers Dot 36 Markers Det 378 Mantes DV 38 Metkers Nursanee Wsttr Drains 51. Juntt'°n Etfl urt No. 4 RCFC1WC0 TOTAL OF ALL ITEMS OF THE BID SCHEDULE 7 858 6 122 32 EA EA EA EA EA EA 3 S 00 $ 698.75 3 5.00 $ 79.17 3 5 DO $ 23.33 1 5.00 $ 142 71 EA 1 1,000.00 3 1,000.00 EA S 760.00 S 750,00 UnI1 Price 300.00 S 1,200.00 50 00000 3 50,000 00 025 $. 1,46700 0.25 $ 95.00 0.50 3 838.50 0.50 3 95.00 0 25 5 3500 025 3 17150 25.00 $ 150 00 25 00 3 175.00 1.00 3 850.00 100 00 S eoo.00 500 S 011.25 5.00 3 158 33 @8822531 (Prior in ODuras) hundred twenty ft" dollars and flQy_t r evils 'B d Went NumPera iplfawad pp Leftor •F alb A ' n words) 0}1ilab n FIna1 Pay Its►rta, pry r+•coact Mumiter •2•ta PPKintuw • trvitillnivtv l41 to y 11 $EA `t on Estimate) +1L12 o% ittr Inspection/ Ad 1JUtilities, etc.) S97 tCOn Cost) USE X000 UNIT PRICE BID SCHEDULE 810 FORMS - PAGE 2 !JO r0055 • • • AGENDA ITEM 12 • • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION DATE: September 27, 1999 TO: Budget & Implementation Committee FROM: Dean Martin, Chief Financial Officer THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Commission Signature Authorization STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Authorize the Deputy Executive Director to be added to the account as a primary signature. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Due to the departure of Dean Martin, the Commission's signature authorization needs to be changed. Currently, the Commission's checks require either the signature of the Chief Financial Officer or the Executive Director, along with co-signators. In order to insure that there are sufficient signatories available for cash disbursement, staff is recommending that the Deputy Executive Director be added to the account as a primary signature. ()01)056 • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: August 9, 1995 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Dean Martin, Controller SUBJECT: Establishment of Checking Account with Bank of America One of the management letter comments from the Commission's fiscal audit of 1993 was a recommendation that the Commission assume much of the responsibility for cash disbursement and general ledger functions. Staff has purchased an accounting system in response to that recommendation and is prepared to fully implement the system no later than October 1, 1995. Staff has held a number of meetings with the County to accomplish this change. County staff has indicated that the most efficient process is for the Commission to establish its own operating account at a separate bank. The Commission's excess (i.e., those funds not needed to pay current month's expenditures) funds would continue to be held and invested by the County of Riverside Treasury. Since the County banks principally with Bank of America, staff recommends establishing an account with the Bank of America as this will facilitate transfers from the County to the Commission. Staff recommends an opening deposit of $100,000 from the General Fund. Each month staff will project cash needs for the ensuing month and transfer that amount from the County Treasury or the trustee (bond requisitions) to the Commission's account for payment of all outstanding checks. The signature requirements on the account will be the same as the imprest account which requires the signature of the Executive Director and/or the Controller, and if needed, counter signatures from the Deputy Executive Director or the Clerk of the Board. Staff will send a formal notification to the Auditor Controller once the Commission takes action to approve this item. Along with that notification staff would like to express its gratitude to the Auditor Controller for the very responsive service they have provided the Commission for a number of years, and to assure them that this change is for reasons of efficiency and economy, not for lack of service. F:\USERS\PREPRINT\AUG.95\BANKACCT.DM 011057 Page 2 STAFF AND BUDGET/FINANCE COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: That the Commission: 1) Authorize the Executive Director to establish an operating account at the Bank of America with an opening deposit of $100,000 from the General Fund for the purpose of processing monthly cash disbursements; 2) Authorize the Executive Director to formally notify the Auditor Controller of the Commission's intent to discontinue use of the County's accounting services, and to express gratitude for the many years of service provided by the Auditor Controller. :jw F:\USERS\PREPRINTIAUG.95\BANKACCT.DM