HomeMy Public PortalAbout01 January 26, 2004 Plans and Programs•
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TIO
RECORDS
PLANS AND PROGRAMSCO11
MEETING AGENDA
TIME: 12:00 P.M.
DATE: January 26, 2004
LOCATION: Board Chambers, 1st Floor
County of Riverside Administrative Center
4080 Lemon Street, Riverside
*** COMMITTEE MEMBERS ***
Dick Kelly/Robert Spiegel, City of Palm Desert, Chairman
Frank Hall/Harvey Sullivan, City of Norco, Vice Chairman
(cl� &-S�
Jack Wamsley/Mary Craton, City of Canyon Lake
Jeff Miller/Jeff Bennett, City of Corona
Matt Weyuker/Henry "Hank" Hohenstein, City of Desert Hot Springs
Robin Lowe/Lori Van Arsdale, City of Hemet
Percy L. Byrd/Robert Bernheimer, City of Indian Wells
Michael H. Wilson/Gene Gilbert, City of Indio
Frank West/Charles White, City of Moreno Valley
( Ronald Oden/Ginny Foat, City of Palm Springs
Daryl Busch/Mark Yarbrough, City of Perris
Ron Roberts/Jeff Comerchero, City of Temecula
Bob Buster, County of Riverside, District I
Marion Ashley, County of Riverside, District V
*** STAFF ***
Eric Haley, Executive Director
Cathy Bechtel, Director of Transportation Planning & Policy Development
*** AREAS OF RESPONSIBILITY ***
State Transportation Improvement Program
Regional Transportation Improvement Program
New Corridors
Intermodal Programs (Transit, Rail, Rideshare)
Air Quality and Clean Fuels
Regional Agencies, Regional Planning
Intelligent Transportation System Planning and Programs
Congestion Management Program
L1.3(o,�
The Committee welcomes comments. If you wish to provide comments to the
Committee, please complete and submit a Testimony Card to the Clerk of the Board.
•
•
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION
PLANS AND PROGRAMS COMMITTEE
www.rctc.org
AGENDA *
*Actions may be taken on any item listed on the agenda
12.00 p.m.
Monday, January 26, 2004
BOARD CHAMBERS, 1ST FLOOR
4080 LEMON STREET, RIVERSIDE
COUNTY ADMINISTRATIVE CENTER
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act and Government Code Section 54954.2, if
you need special assistance to participate in a Commission meeting, please contact the clerk of the
Commission at (909) 787-7141. Notification of at least 48 hours prior to meeting time will assist
staff in assuring that reasonable arrangements can be made to provide accessibility at the meeting.
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. ROLL CALL
3. PUBLIC COMMENTS
4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
5. PRESENTATION: DRAFT SCRRA FARE POLICY PROPOSAL
Overview
This item is for the Committee to:
1) Receive and file the presentation on the status of the draft SCRRA fare policy
proposal; and
Pg. 1
Plans and Programs Committee Agenda
January 26, 2004
Page 2
•
2) Forward to the Commission- for final action.
6. 2004 STATE TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT
STATUS
Overview
This item is for the Committee to:
Pg. 3
1) Receive and file the 2004 State Transportation Improvement Program
Development Status; and
2) Forward to the Commission for final action.
7. ALLOCATE STATE TRANSIT ASSISTANCE FUNDS AND REPROGRAM LOCAL
TRANSPORTATION FUNDS TO RIVERSIDE TRANSIT AGENCY
Overview
This item is for the Committee to:
Pg. 6
•
1) Allocate $115,838 of State Transit Assistance (STA) funds to the Riverside
Transit Agency (RTA);
2) Reprogram $96,691 in Local Transportation Funds (LTF) to cover an STA
funding shortfall;
3) Reprogram $413,238 of LTF operating funds to capital; and
4) Forward to the Commission for final action
8. UPDATE ON THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY TO ORANGE COUNTY MAJOR INVESTMENT
STUDY
Overview
This item is for the Committee to:
Pg. 8
1) Receive and file an update on the Riverside County to Orange County Major
Investment Study as an information item; and
2) Forward to the Commission for final action.
9. GOODS MOVEMENT UPDATE/FRA TRAIN HORN (QUIET ZONE) INTERIM RULE
PRESENTATION
Pg. 1 •
,
Plans and Programs Committee Agenda
January 26, 2004
Page 3
•
Overview
This item is for the Committee to:
1) Receive and file the Goods Movement Update; and
2) Forward to the Commission for final action.
10. COMMUTER RAIL PROGRAM UPDATE
Overview
This item is for the Committee to:
Pg. 34
1) Receive and file the Commuter Rail Program Update as an information item;
and
2) Forward to the Commission for final action.
11. ELECTION OF OFFICERS
• 12. COMMISSIONERS / STAFF REPORT
Overview
This item provides the opportunity for the Commissioners and staff to report on
attended and upcoming meetings/conferences and issues related to Commission
activities.
13. ADJOURNMENT
The next Plans and Programs Committee meeting is scheduled to be held at 12:00
p.m., Monday, February 23, 2004, Board Chambers, 15t Floor, County Administrative
Center, 4080 Lemon Street, Riverside.
•
MINUTES
•
•
•
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION
PLANS AND PROGRAMS COMMITTEE
Monday, December 15, 2003
MINUTES
1. CALL TO ORDER
The meeting of the Plans and Programs Committee was called to order by
Chairman Dick Kelly at 12:02 p.m., in the Board Room at the County of
Riverside Administrative Center, 4080 Lemon Street, First Floor, Riverside,
California, 92501.
2. ROLL CALL
Members/Alternates Present Members Absent
Marion Ashley
Daryl Busch
Bob Buster
Percy L. Byrd
Frank Hall
Dick Kelly
Robin Lowe
Jeff Miller
Shenna Moqeet
Ronald Oden
Matt Weyuker
Roy Wilson
Jack van Haaster
3. PUBLIC COMMENTS
There were no requests from the public to speak.
4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - November 24, 2003
M/S/C (Miller/Byrd) to approve the November 24, 2003 minutes as
submitted.
Abstain: Moqeet, Oden, Weyuker
Plans and Programs Committee Minutes
December 15, 2003
Page 2
5. PROPOSED FUNDING TRADE FOR STATE TRANSPORTATION
IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (STIP) REGIONAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
(RIP) FUNDS
Shirley Medina, Program Manager, reviewed the recommendations to
reprogram State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) projects with
TEA -21 Reauthorization Surface Transportation Program (STP) or Congestion
Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) funds to keep the projects on schedule.
Eric Haley, Executive Director, noted that STIP funds received will be split by
formula. Also, he believes the major rehabilitation project issues have been
addressed with a call for projects in the amount of $15 million to cover FYs
2004-05 through 2006-07.
M/S/C (Ashley/Miller) to:
1) Approve removing Discretionary STIP Projects programmed in
FYs 2002-03 through 2004-05 from the STIP in the amount of
$40,866,092, with the consent of the lead agencies, and
substitute funding with TEA -21 Surface Transportation Program
(STP) or Congestion Mitigation Air Quality (CMAQ)
Reauthorization Funds;
2) Approve TEA -21 Reauthorization STP or CMAQ Funds for STIP
Discretionary Projects already funded with local funds allowing
the lead agencies to substitute a project for the same amount as
the former STIP project;
3) Approve reprogramming Discretionary Projects programmed
beyond FY 2004-05 with TEA -21 STP or CMAQ Funds, if
available, when project is within a year of the construction start
date;
4) Approve a $15 million set aside of TEA -21 Reauthorization STP
Funds for a Rehabilitation Call for Projects; and,
5) Forward to the Commission for final action.
Abstain: Lowe
6. COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT 2004 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN
Shirley Medina outlined the draft 2004 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP)
highlighting the categories the plan addresses. She then reviewed staff
comments to be submitted to the Southern California Association of
Governments (SCAG). She noted that comments on the draft RTP are
•
•
•
Plans and Programs Committee Minutes
December 15, 2003
Page 3
•
•
divided into the categories in which RCTC is involved. Other areas such as
Growth Forecasts and Aviation will be coordinated with the appropriate
agencies.
Commissioner Robin Lowe expressed that she has serious concerns
regarding the RTP process and well as a number of items in the draft plan as
it relates to the Inland Empire region including CETAP corridors, aviation, and
a number of items that require specificity. Also, the Commission needs to
ensure the comments are incorporated in the RTP.
Eric Haley explained how non-compliance with air quality conformity is
determined and the impact this would have on projects. Staff will make
certain that the Commission's points are conveyed vigorously to SCAG.
In response to Commissioner Jeff Miller's request, Cathy Bechtel, Director of
Transportation Planning and Policy Development, explained that public
comment period for the draft RTP ends January 16th and the cities are
welcome to submit comments to either the Commission for incorporation or
directly to SCAG.
Commissioner Marion Ashley requested that the representatives to the
various committees and SCAG are provided with all the Commission's
comments. Also, he suggested reviewing the future possibility of removing
the Commission from SCAG region and forming its own regional agency.
Commissioner Sheena Moqeet expressed her concerns with the draft RTP
what the affects are if SCAG determines that the Riverside County's General
Plan, the MSHCP, and the Measure "A" Expenditure Plan are not in
compliance with RTP. Eric Haley responded that, by law, Measure "A" is
wrapped into the RTP. He noted that it is an issue of reinforcing that
CETAP, MSHCP, and other programs are a major part of Measure "A".
Commissioner Moqeet then asked what would happen if the Commission
does not concur with the RTP. Shirley Medina responded that SCAG is not
an implementing agency. SCAG coordinates each agency's long range plans.
It is the Commission's responsibility as well as the other agencies to ensure
SCAG accurately represents its region in the RTP.
•
Plans and Programs Committee Minutes
December 15, 2003
Page 4
M/S/C (West/Busch) to:
1) Approve staff comments on the Draft 2004 Regional
Transportation Plan; and,
2) Forward to the Commission for final action.
No: Moqeet
7. PRESENTATION — DRAFT SCRRA FARE POLICY PROPOSAL
This item was pulled from the agenda by staff at this time and will be
rescheduled at a future meeting.
8. ALLOCATION OF LOCAL TRANSPORTATION FUNDS TO SUNLINE TRANSIT
AGENCY
M/S/C (Wilson/Byrd) to:
1) Approve a one-time allocation of $300,000 in Local
Transportation Funds (LTF) to SunLine Transit Agency to cover
increased operating costs; and,
2) Forward to the Commission for final action.
9. FISCAL YEAR 2002-2003 TRANSIT OPERATORS' REPORT
M/S/C (Wilson/Ashley) to:
1) Receive and file the FY 2002-03 Transit Operators' Report; and,
2) Forward to the Commission for final action.
10. COMMISSIONERS / STAFF REPORT
There were no comments from Commissioners or staff.
•
•
•
Plans and Programs Committee Minutes
December 15, 2003
Page 5
• 11. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business for consideration by the Plans and Programs
Committee, the meeting adjourned at 12:40 p.m. The next meeting is
scheduled to be held at 12:00 p.m., Monday, January 26, 2003, in the
Board Room at the County of Riverside Administrative Center, 4080 Lemon
Street, First Floor, Riverside, California, 92501.
Respectfully submitted,
V\
Jennifer Harmon
Deputy Clerk of the Board
•
• AGENDA ITEM 5
•
•
•
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
DATE:
January 26, 2004
TO:
Plans and Programs Committee
FROM:
Stephanie Wiggins, Rail Department Manager
THROUGH:
Hideo Sugita, Deputy Executive Director
SUBJECT:
Presentation: Draft SCRRA Fare Policy Proposal
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
This item is for the Committee to:
1) Receive and file the presentation on the status of the draft
SCRRA fare policy proposal; and
2) Forward to the Commission for final action.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
The Metrolink fare structure and fare policies are determined by the SCRRA
Board of Directors. First established over 10 years ago, Metrolink fares
today are primarily based on 11 -mile zones. Unfortunately, pricing
inconsistencies have emerged as the system has expanded. Riverside
County is currently impacted by the fare consistency issue with the opening
of the North Main Corona (NMC) Station. As a result of requests from
Riverside County riders, the Commission requested that the Southern
California Regional Rail Authority (SCRRA) modify/discount the fare zone of
the NMC Station so that the fares would be equivalent to the West Corona
Station, located 3 miles west. The request was granted; however, SCRRA
indicated that a systemwide review of the fare policy would take place.
Over the last twelve months, the SCRRA has reviewed the current fare
structure in anticipation of a new fare restructuring policy. Among the key
elements for the restructuring are the impact to Riverside County riders, including
ease of use, and outreach and education of incentive programs. Elizabeth
Mahoney, SCRRA Market Development Administrator, will present the
preliminary results of analyses options available to address current fare structure
inconsistencies.
ATTACHMENT: Potential Draft Fares with Highway Mileage Fare Structure
1
Baseline: Fare R estructuring and a X% Total Reven ue In crease Each Year
T otal %
Cha nge
Over Ten
Year s
Ticket
Type
Per Year
Change
Avg. Daily
Ridershi p
C urrent
Fare
Year
O ne
Year
Two
Year
Three
Year
Four
Year
Five
Year Six
Year
Seven
Y ear
Eight
Y ear Ni ne
Year
Ten
Annu alSystem Wide Increase
3 .5%
3.5%
3.5%
3.5%
3.5%
3.5%
3.5%
3 .5%
3 .5 %
3.5%
Burbank Air to Montebello
10 -Trip
8.0%
3
$28
$31
533
$36
$38
$41
-1$45
$48
$52
$56
$61
115%
Orange to Santa Ana
10 -Trip
-1.4%
2
$40
$39
$39
$38
$38
537
$37
536
$36
$35
$35
-13%
Fullerton to LAUS
10 -Trip
5 .2%
1275
$40
542
$44
547
$49
$52
554
$57
560
$63
$66
66%
.
s ...
.S'/
.9
4 1::
$1Q4
$107•
11;1;
't; Ai .,
,511$_.
. 11g
,q
. .$321:'.,
.;$132-
$436
5 ,141 ..,
;.,. ?L'1%
ROM -ailing
,
Downtown Rivers ide' to LA
10 -Trip
3.99%
855
$74
$77
$80
$83
$86
$90
593
$97
$101
$105
$109
48%
Monthly,
3.76%
5236
5245
5254
$264
$274
. $284
$295
$306
$317
3329
$342
45%
Pedley* - LAUS
10 -Trip
4 .89%
290
$63
$66
$69
$72
$76
$79
$83
$87
$92
$96
$101
61%
58 %
M onthly
4.66 %
290
$200
$209
$219
$229
$240
$251
$263
$275
$288
5301
$315
E. Ontario - LAUS
10 -Trip
3.52%
454
$63
565
$67
$69
$72
574
577
$80
$82
585
588
41%
Monthly
3.26%
5200
$207
$213
5220
5227
$235
5242
$250
$259
$267
$276
38%
Dwntn Pomona" - LAUS
10 -Trip
3.44%
257
$51
$53
$55
$57
559
$81
563
$65
$67
$69
$72
40 %
Monthly
3. 15%
$164
$169
5174
$179
$185
$191
$197
$203
$209
$216
$223
36%
Industy- LAUS
10 -Trip
5.19%
150
5401
542
544
$47
$49
$52
554
557
$60
563
$66
66%
Month)
4. 92%
$127
$1.33
$140
$147
5154
5161
$169
$178
$186
5196
$205
62%
M ontebello - LAUS
10 -Trip
3. 93%
77
$28
529
$31
$32
533
$34
536
$37
$38
$40
542
47 %
Monthly,
3. 33%
$91
594
$97
$100
$103
5107
5110
$114
$118
$122
$126
39%
Downto wn Riverside' to Orange'
10 -Trip
4. 57%
205
$51
$54
$56
$59
561
$64
567
$70
573
$77
$80
56%
M onthly
4. 31%
$164
$171
$178
$186
$194
$202
$211
$220
5229
$239
$249
52%
Downto wn Riverside' to Irvine
10 -Trip
3. 20%
200
$63
$64
$67
$69
. $71
$73
$75
$78
$80
583
$86
37%
Monthly
2.93%
200
$200
$206
5212
5218
5224
$231
$238
5245
$252
$259
$267
33 %
La Sierra to Orange`
10 -Trip
3. 03%
270
551
553
$54
$56
$58
$60
361
$63
$65
567
$69
35%
Monthly
2.73%
. $164
$168
5173
$177
5182
$187
$192
$197
5203
$208
5214
31 %
La Sierra to Santa Ana
10 -Trip
1.40%
143
563
563
$64
565
$66
$67
568
$69
570
$71
572
- 15%
Monthly
1. 09%
145
5200
5202
$204
5207
$209,
5211
$213
. $216
.$218
$220
$223
11%
N. Main Corona to Orange
10 -Trip
4.28%
200
$40
$42
$43
$45
547
549
551
554
556
$58
$61
52 %
Monthly
3.98%
$127
$132
$137
$143
$148
5154
$160
$167
$174
$180
5188
48 %
N. Main Corona to Tustin
10 -Trip
2. 40%
100
551
$52
554
$55
$56
$58
559
561
$62
563
$65
27%
M onthly
2.08%
$164
$167
5170
5174
$178
$181
$1 .85
$189
5193
$197
$201
23%
W. Corona' to Orange'
10 -Trip
3. 55%
300
. 540
$41
$43
$44
$48
$48
549
$51
553
555
$57
42%
Mo nthly
3.22%
5127
5131
5135
$140
$144
5149
$154
$159
5164
5169
$174
37%
'La Sierra to Fullerton`
10 -Trip
3. 24%
34
$51
$53
$55
$56
$58
$60
562
564
566
$68
$70
38 %
Monthly
2. 94%
$164
$168
5173
$178
$184
$189
5195
5200
$206
$212
$218
34%
N. Main Corona' to Fullerton'
10 -Trip
5. 19%
30
$40
$42
$44
$47
$49
$52
554
557
$60
$63
$66
66%
Mo nthly
4.92%
$127,
$133
$140
5147
5154
$161
5169
$178
, 5186
$196
$205
62%
West Corona to FUlierton'
10 -Trip
4. 04%
28
540
542
$43
$45
$47
$49
551
$53
$55
557
$59
49%
Monthly
3. 73%
$127
$132
$137
$142
$147
5153
$158
5164.
5170
$177
5183
44 %
La Sierra to LA
10 -Trip
3. 45%
85
574
$76
579
582
$84
587
590
594
$97
$100
$104
40%
Monthly,
3.22%
5236
$244
5252
5260
$268
$277
$286
$295
5304
$314
$324
37%
N. Main Corona* to LA
10 -Trip
4.30%
180
583
$65
$68
$71
$74•
$77
580
$84
$88
$91
.595
52%
Monthly
4.06%
180
5200
$208
5217
5225
$235
5244
5254
5264
$275
, $286
5298
49 %
West Corona to LA
10 -Trip
3.84%
186
$63
$65
$67
$70
$73
575
578
$81
$85
$88
591
46%
M
Monthly
3. 59%
$200
$207
5215
$222
$230
$239
$247
$256
$265
$275
5285
42%
N. Main Corona* to Norwalk
1O -Trip
4.02%
30
$51
$53
$55
$58
$60
$62
565
568
$70
$73
$76
48%
Mo nthly
3. 74%
30
5164
$170
5176
5183
$189
$196
5204
5211
$219
5228
$236
44%
Fullerton' to LA
10 -Trip
5.19%
1275
$ 40.00
342
$44
$47
$49
$52
554
. 557
$60
$63
$66
66%
Monthly
4.92%
$ 127.00
$133
' $140
5147
5154
5161
$169
$178
$186
$196
5205
62%
Anaheim to LA
' 10 -Trip
3. 03%
260
$ 51. 25
553
$54
$58
$58
$60
561
563
$65
$67
$69
35%
Monthly
2. 73%
$ 163.50
$168
5173
5177
5182
5187
5192
$197
$203
5208
5214
31%
LWM W to LA
10 -Trip
3.03%
205
$ 73. 75
$76
578
581
$83
$86
$88
S91
$94
$96
$99
35%
'M onthly
2. 79%
$ 236.25.
$243
$250
$257
5264
$271
$279
$286
$294
5303
$311
32 %
Irvine to LA
10 - Trip
3.52%
820
$ 62. 50
$65
$67
$69
$72
$74
$77
580
582
585
588
41%
Monthly
3. 26%
$ 200.00
$207
$213
$225227
$235
$242
$250
5259
$267
5276
38%
•
• AGENDA ITEM 6
•
•
.RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
DATE:
January 26, 2004
TO:
Plans and Programs Committee
FROM:
Shirley Medina, Program Manager
THROUGH:
Cathy Bechtel, Director of Planning and Policy Development
SUBJECT:
2004 State Transportation Improvement Program Development
Status
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
This item is for the Committee to:
1) Receive and file the 2004 State Transportation Improvement Program
Development Status; and
2) Forward to the Commission.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
The 2004 State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) Fund Estimate was
approved by the California Transportation Commission (CTC) in December 2003.
As previously reported, the 2004 STIP Fund Estimate adds only $2.3 million of
additional programming capacity for Riverside County. Projects currently
programmed in the STIP for Riverside County total $95 million and will need to be
re -spread into the 2004 STIP fiscal years 2004/05 — 2008/09 in accordance with
programming "targets" established by the CTC.
2004 STIP Programming targets per fiscal year are as follows:
000's
Total
2004/05
2005/06
2006/07
2007/08
2008/09
$95,091
$ 3,538
$34,225
$28,953
$28,375
--
At the January 14, 2004 Commission meeting, the Commission approved the
deletion of approximately $40 million of STIP projects that were programmed in __
fiscal years 2002/03 through 2004/05 and approval was given to substitute
Surface Transportation Program/Congestion Mitigation Air Quality (STP/CMAQ)
funds in their place. This action will facilitate the delivery of projects and assist us
in meeting our STIP programming targets. There will also be an opportunity to use
3
the $40 million of freed up capacity in later years of the STIP to add projects
previously committed for STIP funding.
Per the January 14th action, the total amount of projects remaining in the STIP is
$55.6 million and is currently programmed as follows:
000's
2004/05
2005/06
2006/07
2007/08
2008/09
$11,284
$28,810
$15,565
0
0
The above identifies the need to move approximately $8 million out of the 2004/05
fiscal year to meet the target amount of $3.5 million.
In addressing the $40 million of freed up capacity, staff will be reviewing the $119
million of STIP commitments currently not programmed in the STIP. These
projects, with the exception of the 91 HOV lanes, were submitted to the CTC for
inclusion in the 2002 STIP in October 2002, however, the CTC has denied all
amendments to the 2002 STIP due to the State Budget Crisis. The 91 HOV lane
project was identified for inclusion in the 2004 STIP.
Unprogrammed/reservation projects:
Funding Area
Off the top
Western County
Coachella Valley
Palo Verde Valley
Project Description
Planning, Programming, Monitoring
SR 91 HOV lanes, Mary to IC
I-10/Indian IC
I-10/Jefferson IC
*Jefferson Widening
De Frain Blvd. Improvements
STIP $ (000's)
$ 2,602
$ 80,768
$ 15,262
$ 10,710
$ 8,963
$ 810
Total $119,115
*Project was recently funded with local funds. CVAG will propose substitution project.
RCTC staff will be reviewing all STIP project commitments (programmed and
unprogrammed) to evaluate project implementation schedules against fiscal year
programming targets. This effort will be coordinated with CVAG and the project
sponsors. After confirming project schedules, staff will present the proposed new
spreading of projects for programming in the 2004 STIP. Recommendations on the
incorporation of unprogrammed/reservation projects into the 2004 STIP will also be
provided.
The 2004 STIP submittal is due to the CTC on April 12, 2004. Therefore,
Riverside County's 2004 STIP will be presented for approval at the March 10,
•
4
•
•
•
2004 RCTC meeting. The STIP hearing scheduled for Southern California will be
held on June 16, 2004 in Santa Clarita. The CTC staff recommendation will occur
on July 16, 2004 with the CTC adopting the 2004 STIP on August 5, 2004.
Upon adoption of the 2004 STIP, agencies will be able to proceed with their
projects according to the fiscal years in which their projects are programmed.
Local agencies must submit their allocation request in the year they are
programmed. For example, if construction is programmed in fiscal year 2004/05,
all pre -construction phases must be completed and federally approved (e.g.
environmental document, final design, and right-of-way) in order to receive the
allocation from the CTC in fiscal year 2004/05. If the pre -construction phases are
not completed by the end of 2004/05, the local agencies can ask for an allocation
extension, however, there are no guarantees that an extension will be granted. If
an extension is not granted, the funds will be reverted back to the state for
reprogramming. STIP amendments to change programming years are not allowed
within the year that the project is programmed. Therefore, it is critical that the
local agency provide realistic schedules that include plenty of time for Caltrans and
federal agencies to review and approve each project phase, particularly the
environmental phase.
5
• AGENDA ITEM 7
•
•
•
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION
DATE:
January 26, 2004 -
TO:
Plans and Programs Committee
FROM:
Tanya Love, Program Manager
THROUGH:
Cathy Bechtel, Director of Transportation Planning and
Development
Policy
SUBJECT:
Allocate State Transit Assistance Funds and Reprogram
Transportation Funds to Riverside Transit Agency
Local
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
This item is for the Committee to:
1) Allocate $115,838 of State Transit Assistance (STA) funds to the
Riverside Transit Agency (RTA);
2) Reprogram $96,691 in Local Transportation Funds (LTF) to cover an
STA funding shortfall;
3) Reprogram $413,238 of LTF operating funds to capital; and
4) Forward to the Commission for final action.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
At the February 12, 2003 Commission meeting, staff provided an informational
agenda item regarding a potential decrease in STA funds for FY 2002/03. The
original STA fund projection was $2,906,565 ($2,663,987 in discretionary funding
and $242,578 in non -discretionary funds). Actual funds received for FY 2002/03
totaled $2,856,109. Of that amount, $2,487,940 was discretionary funding and
$368,169 was non -discretionary funding. Discretionary funds are apportioned to
Western Riverside County, Coachella Valley and Palo Verde Valley based on
population. The non -discretionary funds are operator specific funds relating to the
operators' fare box. The following provides a summary of projected funds and
actual funds received for FY 2002/03 for STA:
PUC 99313 -
Discretionary Funds
PUC 99314 — Non -
Discretionary Funds
Funds
Projected
$2,663,987
$242,578
Funds
Received
$2,487,940
$368,169
Difference
$176,047 (decrease)
$125,591 (increase)
6
Due to the lower than anticipated revenues, there are insufficient STA funds to
fulfill RTA's approved capital program. As of June 30, 2003, the total outstanding
STA balance for RTA was $212,529, however, there are only $115,838 of
unallocated Western County STA funds available.
As of June 30, 2003, RTA had a reserve balance of $8,018,814 in LTF funds. (Of
that amount, $7,549,267 is classified as operating and $469,547 as capital
funds). Due to the STA shortfall, staff developed a list of RTA's outstanding
capital projects. As shown below, that process revealed that RTA has a total of
$882,785 in outstanding LTF capital projects, resulting in a shortfall of $413,238
in LTF capital funds ($882,785-$469,547).
Following is a summary of STA and LTF outstanding capital projects for RTA as of
June 30, 2003:
Fiscal Year
STA
LTF
1998/99
$111,082
$ 0
1999/00
$ 34,895
$468,725
2000/01
$ 0
$414,060
2001/02
$ 20,404
$ 0
2002/03
$389,000
$ 0
Total:
$555,381
$882,785
Commission staff discussed the funding shortfall with RTA and verified that the
capital funds allocated are still required. Two approaches could be taken to resolve
the funding shortfall:
1) Request RTA to reduce its capital program; or
2) Allocate $115,838 in unallocated western County STA bus
funds and reprogram $96,691 in LTF from RTA's operating
reserves to cover the STA shortfall; and reprogram $413,238 of
LTF operating funds to capital to cover the LTF capital shortfall.
Staff is recommending that due to RTA's need for the capital, the issue of the
shortfall be resolved by reallocating STA funds and reprogramming LTF funds.
Financial Information
In Fiscal Year Budget:
N/A
Year:
N/A
Amount:
N/A
Source of Funds:
State Transit Assistance and Local
Transit Funds
Budget Ad ustment:
g
N/A
GLA No.:
N/A
Fiscal Procedures Approved:
\y J
Date:
1/21/04
•
•
7
• AGENDA ITEM 8
•
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION
DATE:
January 26, 2004
TO:
Plans and Programs Committee
FROM:
Cathy Bechtel, Director of Transportation Planning and
Development
Policy
THROUGH:
Hideo Sugita, Deputy Executive Director
SUBJECT:
Update on the Riverside County to Orange County
Investment Study
Major
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
This item is for the Committee to:
1) Receive and file an Update on the Riverside County to Orange County
Major Investment Study as an information item; and
2) Forward to the Commission for final action.
• BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
•
We are continuing to work closely with the staff from the Orange County
Transportation Authority (OCTA) to secure a consultant team to start work on the
Riverside County to Orange County Major Investment Study (MIS). The Request
for Proposals was released by the Orange County Transportation Authority on
November 20, 2003. Proposals were received on December 22, 2003 and the
Evaluation Committee reviewed and evaluated each of the proposals to determine
which firms would be invited to interview. The three firms interviewed on January
20, 2004 included DMJM, Jacobs and URS. The Orange County Transportation
Authority (OCTA) will be the contractor for this project and is planning to take a
consultant recommendation forward to their Regional Planning and Highway
Committee on February 16 and to their full Board on March 8, 2004. In order to
preserve the required confidentiality on the process, we will report on the
consultant recommendation upon OCTA action.
Four committees will assist in the MIS Study. The SR91 Advisory Committee will
function as the policy committee for this work effort and we anticipate quarterly
discussions on the MIS. The first meeting has already been scheduled for Friday,
April 2, 2004. We also plan on having an Executive Steering Committee comprised
of executive staff from OCTA, RCTC, and the Transportation Corridors Agency (to
meet as needed). Monthly meetings will be held with a Project Technical Advisory
8
Committee which will include key technical stakeholders from the Cities, Counties,
Caltrans and Resource Agencies. Additionally, we will form a Stakeholder Advisory
Group comprised of business, community and environmental groups to receive
feedback on the study.
Attached is an Interim Schedule which outlines the major tasks and activities for
the Study.
Attachment: Riverside County to Orange County MIS Interim Schedule
•
9
•
•
•
Riverside Co unty to Orange Co unty MIS Interim Schedule
kr
H Projectr
initiation
2
commit
N Inform:
d cities 8i:'
>
public
ct • Flag earl,
C:ollectda
Inform
Board
member
0
12/1812003
Identify
:travel
m arkets &
quantify
current and:
future •
congestion
Project Technical
Advisory Committe e
F�5
Legen d:
potential options
to' solve
transportation
.pro blems
(freeway, transit,
and arterial)
Reduced Set of
Alternatives &
Screening
Work with Cities,'public,
and, Board to r educe
alternatives to three
multi -modal alternatives
Quantify order - of -
magnitude costs,
benefits; and` impacts'
Highlight."better
fit," strategies for .. Travel deman
corridor;! • forecasting
�resent'to Bo ards - : Pre sent to Boards for
o. .r approv al• ,approval.
Engineering /
E nvir onmental
Analysi s
Develop c onceptual: plans
and profiles for
alternatives
Quantify costs, benefits,
and impacts based on
conceptual engineering
Travel demand
forecasting
Present to Boards: for
review and discussion
Executive Steering SR -91 MIS Committee Major Policy
Decisions
Refine
engineering•
details and c osts
f or .one :multi -
modal . alternative
Prepare
Implementation/
Finance Plan
Present to Boards
for approval
If necessary i
• AGENDA ITEM 9
•
•
•
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
DATE:
January 26, 2004
TO:
Plans and Programs Committee
FROM:
Stephanie Wiggins, Rail Department Manager
THROUGH:
Hideo Sugita, Deputy Executive Director
SUBJECT:
Goods Movement Update/FRA Train Horn (Quiet Zone) Interim Rule
Presentation
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
This item is for the Committee to:
1) Receive and file the Goods Movement Update; and
2) Forward to the Commission for final action.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
Southern California is the gateway to much of the world, as goods move
through the Ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles, the busiest ports in the
nation. While the movement of goods is critical for business and the
creation of jobs, it has an increasingly severe impact on the quality of life in
Southern California as more and more goods are shipped through our local
ports. In addition, Eastern Riverside County also serves as a NAFTA corridor
and will also face increasing truck traffic.
The Goods Movement Update provides the Committee with information on
current activities to provide trade congestion relief. Trade congestion relief
includes capacity improvements to the rail and highway corridor as well as
mitigation of community impacts such as grade separation projects.
• Goods Movement Study
RCTC has joined OCTA, SANBAG, and MTA in the submittal of a State
Planning and Research (SPR) grant application for a "Southern California
Goods Movement Strategy Study." Initiated by OCTA, the intent is to have
a Commission led effort to take a look at freight mobility issues (focusing on
rail and truck), coordinating goods movement policies, and determining how
to deal with some of the community, land use, and air quality impacts of
goods movement. The total project is budgeted at $800,000 and the
application requests $300,000 of SPR grant funding with the balance to be
11
split evenly among the Commissions. The eventual scope of this effort will
be modified from that shown in Attachment 1. One of the modifications will
extend the east -west project limit from the junction of 1-10 and SR -60 to
Indio in Riverside County.
If the SPR grant is awarded to the Study, staff will bring back to the
Commission a formal request to participate in the Study with the anticipated
use of Western County Local Transportation Funds in the amount of
$125,000.
• Grade Separation Priority List Update
At its March 2001 meeting, the Commission adopted the "Alameda Corridor
East (ACE) Grade Crossing Separation Need List", a prioritized list of at -grade
crossings recommended for grade separation. Nine months later, the
Commission approved the policy to support successful California Public
Utilities Commission (CPUC) Section 130 Grade Separation Projects that are
included in the RCTC adopted ACE priority list by funding the 10% local
share match requirement of the CPUC, if funding sources are available.
In June 2002, the Commission awarded $500,000 to the City of Coachella
for the Avenue 50 Grade Separation Project which was completed earlier this
month. It is anticipated that this Project will result in an elimination of 93
vehicle hours of delay forecasted for 2020.
• FRA Train Horn "Quiet Zone" Interim Final Rule
Among the factors considered in determining the priority group of the RCTC
Grade Separation Priority List is the desire for noise reduction in
neighborhoods. The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) has released an
Interim Final Rule relating to the sounding of train horns at highway/rail grade
crossings and the procedures for the establishment of quiet zones. The FRA
is currently soliciting comments on the Interim Final Rule until February 18,
2004. The Interim Rule is anticipated to be Final by December of this year.
The basic premise of the Interim Final Rule is a requirement for trains to
sound horns/whistles at all highway/rail crossings for specified time periods
and distances, except within quiet zones established under the procedures
defined in the Interim Final Rule. The Interim Final Rule establishes
procedures under which grade crossings can be improved within a proposed
quiet zone in order to mitigate the lack of audible warning provided by train
horns/whistles within the quiet zone.
12
•
•
•
One of the most significant aspects of the Interim Final Rule is the conferring
of authority to establish quiet zones upon a "public authority", which is the
entity responsible for safety and maintenance of the roadway crossing the
railroad tracks at the public highway/rail crossing. This is likely to be the
City or County. If jurisdiction is shared by multiple agencies (i.e. Avenue
48/Dillon Road in Coachella Valley), all responsible agencies must concur in
the establishment of the quiet zone. Under the Interim Final Rule, affected
railroads do not have the authority to establish, or to prohibit the
establishment of, a quiet zone.
Steve Wylie, Assistant Executive Officer of SCRRA, will present information
to the Committee on the Interim Final Rule.
ATTACHMENTS: SPR Grant Proposal: Southern California Goods
Movement Strategy Study
RCTC ACE Grade Separation Priority List, March 2001
Httacnment 1
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
GOODS MOVEMENT
STRATEGY STUDY
SUBMI 1'1ED TO:
CALTRANS DIVISION OF TRANSPORTATION PLANNING
FISCAL YEAR 2004-2005
CATEGORY:
PARTNERSHIP PLANNING
SOURC Y OF FUNDING:
FHWA STATE PLANNING AND RESEARCH
SUBMI'17ED BY:
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS
818 West Seventh Street, 12th Floor
Los Angeles, California 90017-3435
>>>
Project Partners:
Los Angeles Metropolitan Transportation Agency, Orange County Transportation Authority
Riverside County Transportation Commission, San Bernardino Associated Governments, and
Caltrans Districts 7, 8, and 12
January 5, 2004
•
•
i
14
•
•
26044'20. 'ransportati6n Pl niiir g Grant Applica
neralInfortnb. o.
Grant Program: Partnership Planning
Project Title: Southern California Goods Movement Strategy Study
Location (county/city): Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside and San Bernardino Counties
�:--K rY�� 5a'& '��L K..k:; �f� i�
AgpIicant _ t
Mq.� �k���k.� �� ... .` � _F,�''y }�'�_ .
xr Sub -recipient( 3
Organization
Southern California Association
of Governments
.,
San Bernardino
Associated Governments
Contact Person
Hasan Ikhrata
Steve Smith
Mailing Address
818 West 7th Street, 12th Floor
472 Arrowhead Avenue
City
Los Angeles
San Bernardino, CA
Zip Code
90017-3435
92401
E-mail
ikhrataaa,scag.ca.gov
ssmith@sanbag.ca.gov
(909) 884-8276
Telephone
(213) 236-1800
Fax
( 213)-236-1963
(909) 885-4407
;
Fu din Information _
_
.y ;
Grant Funds Requested
$300,000
FHWA State Planning & Research
In -Kind Contribution
$7,500
SANBAG, OCTA, RCTC, &
MTA Local Funds
Cash Contribution
$500,000
*SANBAG, OCTA, RCTC, &
MTA Local Funds
($125,000 each)
Other Funding
$0
N/A
Total Project Cost
$807,500
*SANBAG will serve as the sub -recipient. Three other transit agencies, OCTA, RCTC, and MTA, are
Project Partners. Each will contribute $125,000 in local funds if grant funds are awarded.
15
Part 2: Project Summary
The Southem California Association of Governments, Los Angeles Metropolitan Transportation
Agency, Orange County Transportation Agency, Riverside Transportation Commission, San
Bernardino Associated Governments, and Caltrans Districts 7, 8, and 12 (Project Partners)
request funds to conduct a comprehensive, multi -modal, inter -modal goods movement study for
the Southern California region. The study will bring together stakeholders, identify short- and
long-term cost effective strategies to improve goods movement, and identify funding
opportunities. The goal is to create a regional goods movement framework from which detailed
goods movement planning and analysis can be conducted. The proposed study area represents
one of the highest volume truck and rail goods movement corridors in the United States, and as a
result is of major importance in the distribution of consumer goods and in facilitating
international trade. The focus will be on the freeway and rail system, recognizing the integral
role these modes have in goods movements. The framework will not only deal with how to
improve mobility for truck and rail freight movement but will address the mitigation of the
impacts of freight movement as well, including impacts to air quality, adjacent communities, and
overall quality of life in Southern California.
Part 3: Purpose and Need for the Project
Description of Project Area
The study will encompass goods movement issues for the entire region, and as such, will include
all the counties within the SCAG region. However, a particular emphasis of the study will
involve the movement of freight through the corridor that extends from the Ports of Los Angeles
and Long Beach, through Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, and San Bernardino Counties, to the
junction of the State Route 60/Interstate 10 (SR 60/1-10) Freeway Interchange in San Bernardino
County. The study area will generally include the east -west freeways SR -91, SR -60, I-10, I-210
(including SR -30), SR -138 and the connecting north -south freeways (I-710, 1-405, I-5, I-605, SR
57, and I-15). The study area also includes the rail system traversing through these same
corridors including what is known as the Alameda Corridor and the OnTrac project. The focused
study area ranges from high -density residential, commercial, and industrial land uses to areas of
lower density suburban and rural land uses towards the eastern terminus. There are 15.6 million
residents living in Los Angeles, Orange, San Bernardino, and Riverside counties. This is 46% of
the total state of California population.
The exact geographic extent of the corridor will be defined upon commencement of the Study,
but will include an evaluation of key highway and rail facilities proximate to the freeways
identified.
Figure 1. Proposed Study Area
•
•
2
16
•
•
•
Project Justification and Benefits
The corridor identified in the study area represent one of the highest volume truck and rail goods
movement corridors in the United States. For example, 60 percent of the imported goods
consumed in Chicago area are shipped through the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach. Yet,
there has not been a comprehensive effort to develop an overall strategy for how to manage
traffic in this corridor and to promote the optimum use of the corridor. This effort will involve
establishing a close partnership among federal, state, regional, and local agencies and
stakeholders to seek integrated transportation solutions, through a consensus process, that
enhances public safety, environmental resources, and quality of life.
We know that increased congestion will have a substantial impact on the efficiency of
transporting goods to and from the ports and among the many manufacturing and distribution
facilities in the region. Improvements made over the past few years are not expected to keep
pace with the growth expected in the Inland Empire, northern Orange County, and eastern Los
Angeles County. Congestion during peak periods now extends for at least four hours in both the
AM and PM peak periods in certain bottleneck locations, and often within the off-peak periods.
Because the facilities tend to be operating at or near the threshold of breakdown during much of
the day, traffic incidents, even minor ones, can create substantial additional congestion and
delay.
Furthermore, citizens and communities are increasingly concerned about the impacts of truck
and rail traffic on their quality of life. There are many examples of these conflicts, such as those
experienced in the Mira Loma area of Riverside and San Bernardino Counties over the last few
years, with conflicts between the need to promote economic development while minimizing the
air quality and community impacts. There are similar conflicts over these issues throughout
Southern California. The growth in goods movement by truck and rail are integrally related to
local land use decisions, community perceptions of noise and visual impacts, quality of the air.
Solutions to mobility for goods movement must also address how truck and rail movements can
be accommodated in a way that is compatible with a diverse set of community values and over a
broad geographic coverage.
This study will evaluate a full range of multi -modal and inter -modal transportation strategies that
addresses operational, safety, environmental, and community issues associated with project
implementation. The study will:
• Create a regional framework from which detailed goods movement planning and
analysis can be conducted.
• Create a network of federal, state, regional, and local agencies and stakeholders.
17
3
• Identify who is moving goods, where the goods are being sent, and how they are
being moved.
• Recommend cost-effective strategies to improve goods movement throughout the
study area. This will include short- and long-term program, policies, and projects.
• Identify strategies for mitigating the impacts of freight movement and working
with communities most impacted by goods movement.
• Identify funding programs for financing goods -related transportation
improvements.
Overall Goal of the Project
To identify and evaluate existing and anticipated goods movement issues in the Southern California
area and to propose operational, policy, and infrastructure improvements at strategic, "big picture"
level. The Southern California Goods Movement Study will:
1. Highlight existing and projected transportation deficiencies related to goods
movement,
2. Identify goods movement strategies, including policy and legislative, that should be
considered in the management of the system as a whole, and
3. Recommend types of transportation improvements that should be considered by
agencies responsible for those facilities.
4. Identify approaches to the mitigation of the land use, community, and environmental
impacts often associated with truck and rail movements.
Part 4: Scope of Work
See Appendix A.
Part 5: Grant -Specific Objectives
• This is a transportation planning study of critical corridors that have regional, statewide, and
national significance. The ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach handle approximately 35
percent of all waterborne container cargo in the entire U.S. and have a 50 percent share of all
west coast cargo. The proposed corridor accommodates over 60 percent of the commodity
flows into and out of Southern California. It is also one of the principal multi -modal
commuting corridors in the region. The project partners include the Southern California
Association of Governments, San Bernardino Associated Governments, Riverside
Transportation Commission, Los Angeles Metropolitan Transportation Agency, Orange
County Transportation Agency, and Caltrans Districts 7, 8, and 12.
• The study will evaluate transportation projects (see scope of work for more detail) that would
be considered for inclusion in the next federal transportation reauthorization and the Regional
Transportation Program. Projects identified would result in improvements to the state and
regional transportation system.
• The geographic scope and diversity of the study will bring together numerous agencies and
organizations with a wide range of interests. One of the challenges of studies with a goods
•
4
18
•
•
•
movement orientation has been the engagement of the private sector. The private sector often
has limited time and interest in publicly sponsored planning efforts. This study proposes to
use consensus -building approaches that are designed to obtain more effective input and
guidance from the private sector. It will engage numerous public entities as well. A key
element will include how to bring the public and private sectors together to address some of
the air quality and community impact issues associated with the movement of goods.
Part 6: Public Participation
A community outreach program is outlined in detail in the scope of work (Task #2). The
Southern California Goods Movement Strategy Study presents several challenges from a public
and agency participation point of view. Three principal challenges involve 1) the geographic
scope of the effort; 2) strategies for resolving the community and environmental impacts
sometimes brought about by goods movement; and 3) the need for substantial input from the
private sector, more specifically, the goods movement industry. Regarding the geographic
scope, the challenge is that the public and agencies have difficulty focusing on issues when a
study area is very large. One of the keys to obtaining useful input from the public for such a
large effort is knowing which questions to ask and making the response to those questions simple
for the public to deal with. In this project, we believe the best way to obtain input will be by
working through established community and business associations. Input will be sought at
strategic points in the study through written questionnaires sent to community and business
associations, advocacy groups, and local governments throughout the corridor. This will not be a
public opinion poll, but a structured format for obtaining responses to specific questions. The
following is a sample list of the specific types of input to be sought. Simple questionnaires will
be devised and distributed at the appropriate point in time.
• Issue/problem identification — will ask about the transportation concerns in the
corridor most important to the association or agency
• Solution identification — will ask what they think should be done about the
problems/issues
• Response to draft plan — will solicit comment on the basic elements of the draft plan
formulated as part of the project
Using the questionnaire format will provide for a more convenient method of meaningful
comment on study issues. It not only provides a written record of the thoughts and ideas of
stakeholders, but is a mechanism that provides community and business groups flexibility in
when and how to respond. Information, study updates, and fact sheets will be provided
periodically to each of the stakeholder groups. Public comment will also be received at any of
the TAC or PAC meetings for the project. The meetings will be open to the public.
The other challenging aspect of the outreach effort is the outreach to the private sector — those
responsible for goods movement itself. It is difficult to engage these groups, for reasons_
explained earlier in the proposal. The study will approach the shipping industry, rather than
expecting them to come to us. This will involve individual interviews with railroad
representatives, trucking and shipping firms, port personnel, and selected industries in the
corridor. A questionnaire feedback mechanism can also be used for the continued outreach to
these constituencies. The private sector responds best to specific questions and specific
19
5
proposals, and the strategy will be to make the provision of their input as easy for them as
possible, at points in the project where their input is important and relevant to the outcome. A
detailed community outreach strategy will be prepared as part of the project.
Part 7: Relevance to Federal Emphasis Area and Caltrans' Mission and Goals
Goods movement has been a federal emphasis for several years. The Intermodal Surface
Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) of 1991, and its successor, the Transportation Equity Act
for the 21st Century (TEA -21), provided the basis for states and metropolitan areas to examine
and address freight transportation issues in the context of metropolitan Long Range
Transportation Plans (LRTP).
The state of California recognized the importance of freight/goods movement in 1998 when then
Governor, Pete Wilson, approved a statewide goods movement strategy. The strategy
emphasized improving existing system efficiency, through new technology and other means, to
maximize system capacity and reliability, and minimize long-term transportation costs.
Additionally, Senate Concurrent Resolution (SCR) 96 (which was enacted in the 1999-2000
session) sought to develop a "global gateways development program" to enhance intermodal
freight access. The goal of the Global Gateways Development Program is to enhance overall
mobility, including increased access at and through international ports of entry, international
airports, seaports, other major intermodal transfer facilities and goods movement distribution
centers, and trade corridors in California.
Both FHWA and Caltrans place heavy emphasis on minimizing the impacts of transportation
projects on the environment and the surrounding communities. This study will help to structure
approaches to resolving such conflicts, which are becoming increasingly intense.
Part 8: Project Outcomes
• Documentation of existing and anticipated goods movement issues, based on data available
from Caltrans, SCAG, and Commission databases and forecasts.
• A report identifying opportunities and strategies for improving goods movement in the study
area. These may include operational, policy, or infrastructure improvements and strategies
for minimizing community and environmental impacts.
• An implementation plan identifying how each of the participating agencies can proceed to
the next level of detail in project development, operational policy development, funding, etc.
The project outcomes are clearly identified in the Scope of Work which is included as Appendix
A. San Bernardino Associated Governments will serve as the lead agency. All of the project
partners will participate in the interview and selection process of a consultant. The successful
consultant will be selected through a competitive process using the Southern California
Association of Governments contracting process.
•
6
20
•
•
•
The contract with the consultant will be either a fixed price contract or cost -plus -fixed -fee
contract and deliverable -based. The project manager having oversight for this project is Mr.
Steve Smith, P.E. Mr. Smith is with the San Bernardino Associated Governments and has over
30 years experience managing transportation projects and programs and will be responsible for
ensuring that project resources are used in the most cost-effective manner.
The consultant will be responsible for carrying out study technical tasks and providing monthly
progress reports.
List of State Senators and State Assembly Members
District
Assemblymember
District
Assemblvmember
34
Assem. Phillip D. Wyman
55
Assem. Jenny Oropeza
35
Assem. Hannah Beth Jackson
56
Assem. Sally Havice
36
Assem. George Runner
57
Assem. Edward Chavez
37
Assem. Tony Strickland
58
Assem. Tom Calderon
38
Assem. Keith Richman
59
Assem. Dennis Mountjoy
39
Assem. Tony Cardenas
60
Assem. Robert Pacheco
40
Assem. Robert Hertzberg
61
Assem. Gloria McLeod
41
Assem. Fran Pavley
62
Assem. John Lonqville
42
Assem. Paul Koretz
63
Assem. Bill Leonard
43
Assem. Dario Frommer
64
Assem. Rod Pacheco
44
Assem. Carol Liu
65
Assem. Russ Boqh
45
Assem. Jackie Goldberg
66
Assem. Dennis Hollingsworth
46
Assem. Gil Cedillo
67
Assem. Thomas Harman
47
Speaker Herb Wesson
68
Assem. Ken Maddox
48
Assem. Roderick Wright
69
Assem. Lou Correa
49
Assem. Judy Chu
70
Assem. John Campbell
50
Assem. Marco Antonio Firebaugh
71
Assem. Bill Campbell
51
Assem. Jerome Horton
72
Assem. Lynn Daucher
District
Senator
District
Senator
17
Sen. W illiam Knight
28
Sen. Debra Bowen
18
Sen. Jack O'Connell
29
Sen. Bob Margett
19
Sen. Tom McClintock
30
Sen. Martha Escutia
20
Sen. Richard Alarcon
31
Sen. James Brulte
21
Sen. Jack Scott
32
Sen. Nell Soto
22
Sen. Richard Polanco
33
Sen. Dick Ackerman
23
Sen. Sheila Kuehl
34
Sen. Joe Dunn
24
Sen. Gloria Romero
35
Sen. Ross Johnson
25
Sen. Edward Vincent
36
Sen. Ray Haynes
26
Sen. Kevin Murray
37
Sen. Jim Battin
27
Sen. Betty Karnette
38
Sen. Bill Morrow
21
7
Proposal;SChedule-anal Funding Chart'
Project
Title:
So uthern California G oods M ovement Strategy Study
rY�
Y
Il
CSI
!.Y
` s`cal ear 200`4'/2005
TASKS
Responsible
Party
Cost Total
Grant
(80%)
Local Tn_ki nd
(20 %)
Other $ JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
NOV
DEC
JA N
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JU NE
Issue RFP for
Consultant
SCAG/
Project
Partners
Part of Project Management Costs (see below) X
X
Task 1
Mobilization 84
Kick-off Mtg.
*(5%)
Task 2
Community
IV Ou treach
N Program
(10%)
Project
Partn ers &
Consu ltant
Consultant
$38,500
$77,000
$13,500
$27,000
$25,000
$50,000
Task 3
Study Area
Refined &
Mapping
(10%)
Consultant
$77,000
$27,000
$50,000
Task 4
Field Review &
Data
Compilation
(30%)
Co nsultant
$231,000
$81,000
$150,000
Task 5
System
Performance
(35% )
Consultant
$269,500
$94,500
$175,000
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Deliverable
Product
RFP &
Consultant
Selected
Detailed
Schedule, &
Work Plan
Community
Outreach/Stake
holder meetings
Support
materials
Recommended
type of data &
level of detail to
gather & base
inaps and
overlay data
Identification of
location &
magnitude of
existing &
future
deficiencies on
freeways &
railways
Stakeholder
Interviews;
Performance
Report, Purpose
and Need
Report
•
•
Project
Title:
Task 6
Goods
Movement
Strategy
(10%)
•
Southern Calif ornia Goods Movement Strategy Study
Responsible Cost Total Grant Local
Party (80%) (20%)
Consultant $77,000 $27,000 $50,000
Project
Partners
$37,500
$30,000
In -kind Other $
$7,500
MAR APR: .. MAY JUNE
*Percentage in parenthesis den otes the percen t of tota l grant funds (i.e. the $300,000) expected to be used for the task .
**Project Man agemen t costs total $37,500. SCAG will u se gran t funds totali ng $30,000 and the Project Part ners will contribute
$7,500 in -kind services to match the $30,000 for SCAG. Project management includes preparing the req uest for proposal, reviewing
an d evalu atin g proposals su bmitted by consultants, con ductin g in terv iews, and selecti ng the most qualified co nsultant. Project
management also includes atten din g Project Oversight meetin gs, reviewin g reports and doc ume nts s ubmitted by the cons ultant,
prov idin g direction to the con sultant, processing inv oices an d payments to the consulta nt and seeking reimburseme nt from the State.
Deliverable
Product
Final Rep ort
which
highlights
existing and
projected
deficiencies,
ide ntifies
strategies to
consider to
improve goods
movement,
recommends
improvements
9
Appendix A
Scope of Work
•
•
•
•
•
Scope of Work
The consultant will be managed by the San Bernardino Associated Governments. A Project
Oversight Committee, which will be comprised of the project partners, will monitor the work of
the consultant and provide any needed policy direction. The services to be performed by
Consultant shall consist of services requested by the Project Manager or a designated
representative including, but not limited to, the following:
Task 1- Mobilization, Project Management, Administration
Consultant shall prepare and submit a Project Management Plan (The Plan) for review, which will
contain at a minimum, details of methodology, expected sequence of tasks, subtasks and important
milestones, a comprehensive quality control and assurance program, project administration,
progress reports, meetings and coordination, subcontracts, and project file. The Plan shall also
include
The schedule shall include target dates for completion of work tasks and deliverables. Adequate
time should be allowed for review of deliverables by the Project Manager and the Project Oversight
Committee.
Consultant will present the detailed Plan to the Project Oversight Committee for review and
comment before finalizing it based on a single set of comments provided by the Project Manager.
Task 1- Deliverables:
1. Project Management Plan
3. Support Materials for Meetings (e.g., agendas, minutes, presentation materials, etc.)
Task 2 - Community Outreach Program
The consultant shall develop and conduct a community outreach program. The purpose of the outreach
program is to identify and assess goods movement issues from elected officials, agency staff, community
and business groups, and the private sector. The second purpose is to define the study area and limits.
Principal techniques for community outreach shall include at a minimum:
• Preparation of corridor study fact sheets and status reports.
• Provision of project information on a web site, either within an existing agency web site or on a
stand-alone web site.
• Interviews and/or focus group meetings with a wide range of agency and stakeholder
representatives (policy and technical) to identify corridor issues and concerns.
• Questionnaires distributed to other agencies and organizations, requesting input on study area= -
issues.
• Policy Advisory Committee Meetings.
The outreach program should also describe how the consultant will interact with community and business
groups and various agencies, including city councils, commissions, and technical staff. The program
25
11
should be specific in describing efforts to address potential environmental justice issues, e.g., targeted
outreach to minority and low-income populations, bi-lingual literature, etc.
Task 2 — Deliverables:
1. Community Outreach Program Report
2. Support Materials for Outreach Program (e.g., announcements, newsletters, presentations
materials, documentation on meetings, etc.)
Task 3 - Study Area Refinement and Mapping (Phase 1)
Upon commencement of the Study, consultant will refine the proposed study area and collect data and
evaluate the overall transportation system performance of the corridor freeways and freight rail systems.
The consultant shall refine the study area and limits based upon information obtained from the community
outreach program. The consultant shall review all relevant documents and interview relevant agencies, as
needed, as part of the process in determining study limits. The consultant should clearly document rationale
used in assessing study limits.
The consultant shall prepare various size base maps for showing a wide range of information as the Study
proceeds. All planning maps shall be prepared using acceptable Geographic Information Systems (GIS)
software. All data gathered for the Corridor Study shall be registered as "overlays" to the GIS base map,
as appropriate, and shall be used in performing impact analyses and evaluating data at a system -wide
level, corridor level, and a project -specific level.
Task 3 - Deliverables:
1. Technical memorandum with recommended type of data and level of detail to be gathered for
the Study area, to include a description of methodology used
2. Corridor Study base maps and overlay data
Task 4 - Field Review and Compile Available Data
The field review and data compilation will focus on identifying the location and magnitude of existing and
future deficiencies on the freeways and railways within the study area. Methods for identifying existing and
future deficiencies shall be identified. Particular areas of community impact will also be identified and
classified as to the types of conflicts that exist with goods movement, both existing and potential future
conflicts.
Future deficiencies should be based on the SCAG future baseline network for the 2004 RTP. Historical
traffic growth trends will also be documented and used together with projected future traffic volumes to make
an assessment of expected traffic growth rates. These will be identified for trucks only (by type) and for total
traffic. It is anticipated that the traffic analysis at the system level will be conducted principally using daily
existing traffic volumes and daily volume forecasts at the segment level, and will not analyze individual
interchanges, ramps, or intersections.
Additional types of information expected to be gathered in this task include:
• Travel patterns and mode split (ports, rail, trucks, airports)
• Capacity and design constraints/network limitations of all modes
•
•
•
12
26
•
•
•
• Operations/Maintenance/Safety Issues
• Growth in volume of goods projected by the ports
• Growth trends for major trip generators and special trip generators (e.g. large commercial, office
and/or industrial business centers, airports, universities, warehouses, distribution centers, and
intermodal yards)
• Future land use changes and trends that may heavily affect the corridor
• Existing lane configurations on each freeway
• Physical constraints that exist along each freeway (which may have implications on the feasibility
and cost of additional widening)
• Environmental constraints that could affect the feasibility of improvements (based on readily
available information)
• Transportation Demand Management (TSM/TDM)
• Transportation System Demand/Intelligent Transportation System Infrastructure, e.g., changeable
message signs, closed circuit television cameras, electronic data interchange (EDI), automated
vehicle identification (AVI), positive train control (PTC), and global positioning systems (GPS)
• Institutional and policy affecting transportation system
• Bus and rail transit services
• Improvements identified in the Regional Transportation Improvement Program and improvements in
the RTP (including the draft 2004 RTP, when available)
The data collection is intended to occur at the "macro" level. Detailed data collection would occur in follow-
on studies. Data in the system -level analysis should be targeted toward the information needed to identify
current and future deficiencies (important to the development of purpose and need statements) and to identify
issues and strategies important to the management of the movement of people and goods within the corridor.
The consultant shall review the study area in the field as often as necessary to identify issues that could
affect proposed strategies. In addition, the consultant shall research and obtain available pertinent
information and data applicable to each phase of the Corridor Study, including traffic counts, accident
history, delays, Level of Service (LOS) analysis, Right -of -Way (R/W) maps, etc. The consultant shall
collect and review transportation/land use related reports and studies and identify potential relevance to
the study. In addition to reviewing completed studies and projects, the consultant shall review relevant
studies and projects planned or already underway within the freeway corridor and identify any "gaps" in
the transportation planning and implementation process.
In addition to sponsoring agencies, other agencies to be contacted for relevant information include at a
minimum:
1. Transit authorities within the Corridor
2. Regulatory agencies, e.g., South Coast Air Quality Management District, U.S. Corps of
Engineers, Regional Water Quality Control Board, California Department of Fish and Game,
U.S. Fish and Wildlife, flood control authorities
3. California Highway Patrol
4. California Trucking Association
5. Rail road companies, rail yards, "Class 1 Rail Road", etc.
27
13
Task 4 - Deliverables:
1. Technical memorandum identifying the location and magnitude of existing and future
deficiencies on the freeways and railways within the study area, to include the methodology
used for field review and data compilation
2. Technical memorandum documenting field work, data compiled, as well as documentation
on all meetings, and correspondence
Task 5 - Baseline System Performance
A baseline travel demand forecast shall be prepared in the system -level analysis as the basis for the evaluation
of future truck and rail traffic, as well for the identification of system deficiencies. Baseline forecasts from
the SCAG regional model, prepared for the draft 2004 RTP, shall be used in this analysis No new modeling
runs will be prepared in the baseline analysis. However, additional modeling runs may be required in the
assessment of potential improvement strategies.
The consultant will evaluate the SCAG model results for applicability and reliability for use in the system -
level analysis. The emphasis of the forecasts will be on the east -west and north -south freeways and railways
within the study area. An assessment will also be made of the transit assignment results for the SCAG model.
A comparative analysis with output from other models (e.g. the MTA, OCTA, and RIVSAN models) may
also be made as part of the assessment of the forecasts.
This task should be started as early as possible after the initiation of the contract, to allow sufficient time for
interaction with the modeling agencies. In addition, an ad hoc technical review group will be established to
specifically work with the consultant and SCAG on the modeling issues. This activity will be conducted in
coordination with modeling activities of other projects and studies in the area so that a unified set of forecasts
can be presented for all studies within the same study area, such as the I-15 corridor study.
Using the compiled and collected data, the consultant shall evaluate the information and determine the
existing baseline transportation system performance, which includes the mainline freeway and adjacent
arterials. The consultant shall also estimate future baseline transportation system performance for a horizon
year, such as year 2030, using available data from local agencies, Caltrans, SCAG, MTA, and other entities,
as appropriate. Baseline analysis, analysis of existing conditions, and travel demand forecast modeling shall
be an integral part of this effort. The consultant should also evaluate not only goods movement within the
region, but also goods moving to and from the region that are transported through the study corridor.
Interviews
Stakeholder interviews and questionnaires will be a key source of information used in the system -level
analysis. The interviews and questionnaires will be used to identify issues and problems from the perspective
of agencies and groups located within and affected by the corridor. They will also solicit ideas for
improvements in the movement of goods and people within the corridor. The consultant shall provide a
listing of the individuals for whom interviews are to be obtained and/or from whom questionnaire responses
will be sought. At a minimum, interviews will be conducted with staff from Caltrans District 7, 8 and 12,
MTA, OCTA, RCTC, SANBAG, transit agencies, Metrolink, the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach, Los
Angeles World Airports (for Ontario International Airport), and Councils of Governments. Selected
representatives of the rail and trucking industry will also be interviewed, as well as a sample of city -
representatives (elected officials and/or staff).
At a minimum, every city along the corridor shall be provided with an opportunity for input through a
questionnaire. A questionnaire format will also be used to obtain input from advocacy groups, additional
trucking and rail industry representatives, and other entities with an interest in transportation in the corridor.
The consultant will identify the most appropriate techniques for obtaining input from all of these stakeholders
•
•
•
14
28
•
•
and will work with the Project Oversight Committee to identify the individuals to be contacted.
System Performance Report
The consultant shall prepare a System Performance Report that thoroughly describes baseline
existing conditions and evaluates performance at a system -wide level (Phase 1). This Report
must also identify corridor -specific strategic routes that will be evaluated in further detail.
Consultants analysis of baseline existing and future system performance that shall include at a
minimum:
• Develop appropriate performance measures for review and approval by the study
committees. Listed below are desired outcomes and candidate measures or indicators of
these outcomes that may be appropriate to consider as part of the evaluation process.
• Develop an interview/survey form and meet with key representatives of each sponsoring, and
other relevant, agency to help identify their relevant planned projects, transportation/land use
issues and priorities within the corridor; to collect relevant reports, studies, and data; and to
discuss potential solutions needed.
• Using the data compiled and collected, identify existing and projected deficiencies on
regionally significant roadways within the study area.
• Identify local transportation and general plan issues relevant to the Corridor Study, such as
planned improvements, new or revised development plans, and existing or potential
"through" traffic in jurisdictions within the study area.
The consultant shall describe data compiled and collected in detail and summarize existing transportation
issues and problems within the study area and provide detail regarding freeway, key arterial, intermodal,
multi -modal, and truck -related issues.
Sample Desired Outcomes/Performance Measures
Desired Outcomes
Description
Candidate
Measures/Indicators
Mobility & Accessibility
Reaching desired destinations with relative ease
within a reasonable time, at a reasonable cost
with reasonable choices.
-
.
•
Travel times
Delay
Access to desired
locations
Access to the system
Level of service (LOS) of
freeways, arterials & key
intersections
Reliability
Providing reasonable and dependable levels of
service by mode.
-
Variability of travel time
Cost —Effectiveness
Maximizing the current and future benefits from
public and private transportation investments.
-
Benefit/cost ratio
Outcome benefit per unit
of cost
•
29
15
Sample Desired Outcomes/Performance Measures
Desired Outcomes
Description
Candidate
Measures/Indicators
Economic Well-being
Contributing to California's economic growth.
•
Final demand (value of
transportation to the
economy)
Sustainability
Preserving the transportation system while
meeting the needs of the present without
compromising the ability of future generations to
meet their own needs.
-
Household transportation
costs
Environmental Quality
Helping to maintain and enhance the quality of
the natural and human environment (particularly
air quality and noise).
•
National and state
standards
Safety and Security
Minimizing the risk of death, injury, or property
loss.
-
Accident and crime rates
Equity
Distributing benefits and burdens fairly.
•
•
Benefits per income group
Environmental Justice
Customer Satisfaction
Providing transportation choices that are safe,
convenient, affordable, comfortable, and that
meet customer needs.
•
Customer survey
Minimize Maintenance
Requirements
Minimizing efforts required to maintain freeway
and arterial facilities as well as the maintenance
needs of public transit facilities.
-
•
Maintenance costs
Accident rates
Information to be described in text and in graphics (as appropriate) will include the following:
• Freeways and (where appropriate) major arterial conditions
Describe conditions and issues associated with traffic patterns and characteristics, parking,
operations, safety, and design issues (e.g., right-of-way constraints, physical constraints) for the
freeway mainline and any arterials considered key to regional goods movement within the study
area.
• Goods Movement (e.g., Truck, Freight Rail, Port, Air, Intermodal)
Considerable effort shall be spent in identifying key goods movement characteristics and issues
within the corridor, evaluating impacts and developing solutions relating to this element of
mobility. Evaluation should include the impacts of major traffic generators, such as the Ports of
Los Angeles and Long Beach, and consider the relative capacities and other characteristics of
truck transportation versus freight rail. For instance, the influence of regional and interregional
truck movements within and through east -west and north -south freeways should be fully_ -
evaluated.
Issues to be included in the analysis of goods movement include at a minimum:
1. Capacity and design constraints
2. Network limitations, opportunities for capacity and/or operational improvements to
•
16
30
•
•
•
network system, e.g., adding exclusive truck lanes, truck "by-pass" lanes on the freeway
on -ramps, modifying curb turning radii along highway routes heavily used by trucks
3. Operations, Maintenance, and Safety Issues
4. Transportation Demand Management Issues (e.g., extending port operating hours to
reduce truck traffic during peak periods)
5. New technology implementation and deployment issues that will allow for increased
efficiency of movement of trucks and rail freight.
Purpose and Need Report
Consultant shall prepare a Purpose and Need Report which describes the purpose and need for
improvements within the overall Study area, as well as for corridor -specific improvements.
Per Caltrans' "Project Development Procedures Manual," the Purpose and Need Report must address at a
minimum:
• Supporting legislation
• Safety
• System linkage
• Maintenance and operational deficiencies/requirements
• Demand exceeding capacity issues
• Growth and cumulative impacts
• Economic development
• Eliminate unacceptable impacts
• Financial resources
Task 5 - Deliverables:
1. Stakeholder Interviews
2. System Performance Report
3. Purpose and Need Report
Task 6 — Assessment of System Analysis, Issues, and Strategies and Final Report
Based on the data from the interviews, questionnaires, and analytical data prepared in previous tasks, a
wide range of transportation options will be identified to address the issues, challenges and problems.
The intent of the analysis is to address issues from an overall corridor goods movement and corridor
management perspective. It should involve the identification of improvement needs in a broad, strategic
sense, with consideration of all modes of travel, changes in policies and institutional arrangements, and
possible private as well as public initiatives. It should also address issues associated with user fees and
other fmancing mechanisms for major infrastructure improvements.
The issues identified by stakeholders are expected to be wide ranging, from very isolated spot problems, to
overarching policy and institutional issues. All dimensions should be explored and documented, even though=
the more location -specific issues may not be addressed in detail. A structured approach for presenting this
information shall be suggested by the consultant and will be reviewed by the Project Oversight Committee.
Improvement concepts may be formulated as a range of alternative strategies, from major infrastructure
initiatives to less costly operational strategies. The consultant shall identify actions, if any, agencies should
31
17
take in the near term that would enhance the movement of people and goods within the study area (e.g.
operational changes, legislative initiatives, policy considerations, etc.). The Project Oversight Committee
will consider these recommendations and determine which may be appropriate and feasible for further
pursuit. The options will be analyzed at a "sketch planning" level in the system -level evaluation stage. The
consultant shall propose methods for conducting an evaluation at this broad, strategic level.
The potential role of major infrastructure projects (e.g. the potential role of truck lanes, express facilities, use
of additional HOV and mixed flow lanes, etc.) shall be addressed, as well as strategies that focus on
management and operations of the highway and pertinent transit facilities. Challenges that would need to be
surmounted to implement major mainline infrastructure improvements should be highlighted.
The effort in this task will constitute a type of "top -down" examination of corridor operation and
opportunities for improvement. Subsequent studies may explore alternatives in greater detail.
Task 6- Deliverable:
Southern California Goods Movement Strategy Report, which:
5. Highlights existing and projected transportation deficiencies related to goods
movement,
6. Identifies good movement strategies, including policy and legislative, that should be
considered in the management of the system as a whole, and
7. Recommends types of transportation improvements that should be considered by
agencies responsible for those facilities.
•
18
32
1111.1.0 t...11 !MCI It
•
•
•
KCTC ACE Trade Corridor Grade Crossing Separation Need
List, March 2001
Rail Line
Cross Street
Jurisdiction
Overall
Weighted
Score*
Priority Group
BNSF & UP (SB SUB)
3rd St
Riverside
4260
1
BNSF & UP (SB SUB)
Iowa Av
Riverside
3880
1
UP (YUMA MAIN)
Avenue 48/ Dillon Rd
Indio/Coachella
3775
1
BNSF (SB SUB)
McKinley St
Corona
3600
1
BNSF (SB SUB)
Magnolia Av
Riverside County
3600
1
UP (YUMA MAIN)
Avenue 50
Coachella
3500
1 (Completed 1/04)
BNSF & UP (SB SUB)
Chicago Av
Riverside
3440
1
UP (LA SUB)
Streeter Av
Riverside
3000
1"
BNSF & UP (SB SUB)
Spruce St
Riverside
3180
1
UP (LA SUB)
Magnolia Av
Riverside
3100
1
UP (LA SUB)
Riverside Av
Riverside
3060
2
BNSF (SB SUB)
Mary St
Riverside -
3320
2**
BNSF & UP (SB SUB)
Columbia Av
Riverside
2940
2
BNSF & UP (RIV)
Cridge St
Riverside
2820
2
UP (YUMA MAIN)
Avenue 52
Coachella
2750
2
BNSF (SB SUB)
Auto Center Dr
Corona
2738
2
UP (YUMA MAIN)
Sunset Av
Banning
2675
2
UP (LA SUB)
Junipa Rd
Riverside County
2650
2
BNSF (SB SUB)
Washington St
Riverside
2520
2
BNSF & UP (SB SUB)
Center St
Riverside County
2500
3
UP (YUMA MAIN)
Hargrave St
Banning
2500
3
UP (LA SUB)
Brockton Av
Riverside
2480
3
BNSF & UP (SB SUB)
Kansas Av
Riverside
2480
3
BNSF (SB SUB)
Tyler St
Riverside
2460
3
BNSF (SB SUB)
Adams St
Riverside
2400
3
BNSF (SB SUB)
Madison St
Riverside
2240
3
UP (YUMA MAIN)
San Timoteo Canyon Rd
Calimesa
2225
3
UP (YUMA MAIN)
Califomia Av
Beaumont
2200
3
BNSF (SB SUB)
Smith Av
Corona
2113
3
BNSF & UP (SB SUB)
7th St
Riverside
2000
3
BNSF (SB SUB)
Railroad St
Corona
1975
3
UP (YUMA MAIN)
Broadway
Riverside County
1950
3
BNSF (SB SUB)
Pierce St
Riverside
1885
3
BNSF (SB SUB)
Buchanan St
Riverside
1880
3
BNSF (SB SUB)
Joy St
Corona
1850
3
UP (LA SUB)
Palm Av
Riverside
1820
3
BNSF (SB SUB)
Jackson St
Riverside
1755
4
UP (YUMA MAIN)
22nd St
Banning
1750
4
BNSF (SB SUB)
Harrison St
Riverside
1740
4
BNSF (SB SUB)
Jefferson St
Riverside
1740
4
BNSF (SB SUB)
Cota St
Corona
1713
4
UP (LA SUB)
Bellgrave Av
Riverside County
1700
4
UP (LA SUB)
Clay St
Riverside County
1700
4
UP (YUMA MAIN)
Pennsylvania Av
Beaumont
1667
4
UP (YUMA MAIN)
San Gorgonio Av
Banning
1625
4
UP (YUMA MAIN)
Airport Road
Riverside County
1450
4
BNSF & UP (SB SUB)
Main St
Riverside County
1350
4
** = Per RCTC March 2001
* Seven factors were considered in determining the overall score and resulting priority group; they were identified in consultation with
technical staff of the affected jurisdictions, and approved by the Riverside County Transportation Commission. The factors include:
• Safety — Accident Score (combination of frequency & severity)
• Delay —1999 Daily Vehicle Delay
• Delay — 2020 Daily Vehicle Delay
• Emissions Reduction
• Noise Reduction
• Adjacent Grade Separations; and
• Local Priority Ranking
20% of total score
20% of total score
20% of total score
10% of total score
10% of total score
10% of total score
10% of total score
• AGENDA ITEM 10
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION
DATE:
January 26, 2004
TO:
Plans and Program Committee
FROM:
Stephanie Wiggins, Rail Department Manager
Karen Leland, Staff Analyst
THROUGH:
Hideo Sugita, Deputy Executive Director
SUBJECT:
Commuter Rail Program Update
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
This item is for the Committee to:
1) Receive and file the Commuter Rail Program Update as an information item;
and
2) Forward to the Commission for final action.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
• Riverside Line
Weekday Patronage: Passenger trips on Metrolink's Riverside Line for the month of
December averaged 4,321, which is unchanged from the month of November. The Line
has averaged an overall increase of 7% from a year ago December 2002.
December on -time performance averaged 98% inbound (+6% from November) and 93%
outbound (-3% from November). There were 12 delays greater than 5 minutes during the
month of December, a 25% decrease from the month of November. The following were
the primary causes:
*Track Work, Freight Problems
Inland Empire -Orange County Line
• Weekday Patronage: Passenger trips on Metrolink's Inland Empire -Orange County (IEOC)
Line for the month of December averaged 3,467, a 10% decrease from the month of
November. The line has averaged an overall increase of 27% from a year ago December
34
2002. The large increase was partly due to increased marketing efforts through a
partnership with RCTC, Metrolink, and Pat Crockett and Associates.
December on -time performance averaged- 95% inbound (+ 10% from November) and 96%
outbound (+ 6% from November). There were 12 delays greater than five minutes during
the month of December, a 59% decrease from the month of November. The primary
causes were:
91 Line
*Train/Vehicle Accident, BNSF Freight Interference
Weekday Patronage: Passenger trips on Metrolink's 91 Line for the month of December
averaged 1,630, a 5% decrease from the month of November. The Line has averaged an
overall increase of 1% from a year ago December 2002.
December on -time performance averaged 95% inbound (unchanged from November) and
89% outbound (+5% from November). There were 16 delays greater than five minutes
during the month of October, unchanged from the month of November. The primary
causes were:
*Train/Veh. Accident, Train Struck Trespasser, Traffic Accident, Amtrak/Veh. Accident
Ri'ksh'ire
Rideshare 2 Rails (R2R) Program ARKS
Rideshare Incentives: Rideshare2Rails is an 18 -month demonstration project that began
March 2002. Total enrollment in Rideshare2Rails is 283 (Riverside -Downtown 93, Pedley
19, La Sierra 63, West Corona 42, and North Main Corona 66), and freed up 142 spaces
for new riders.
RTA Express Bus Shuttle (Route 99): As the second component to the Rideshare2Rails
Program, the Route 99 express shuttle from Moreno Valley to the Riverside -Downtown
Metrolink station made its last run on Friday, December 31, 2003. The RTA Board met on
December 18th and voted to eliminate the Route due to inefficiencies caused by low
•
•
35
ridership. Ridership decreased to an average 11 passengers/day, a 48% decrease from
October, and further to 8 passengers/day in December, a 27% decrease from November.
The final report for the Rideshare2Rails Program is being developed and will be provided as
a separate agenda item at a later date.
Metrolink Holiday Trains
Thanksgiving Day Train Service: For the first time in Metrolink history, Thanksgiving Day
train service was provided on the San Bernardino and IEOC Lines. A total of 1,200
passengers traveled on the San Bernardino Line, and 800 on the IEOC.
Holiday Toy Express: From November 22nd through December 21st, the Metrolink Holiday
Toy Express stopped at 45 stations along all Lines and was well equipped with over
50,000 lights and a free live stage show. Metrolink partnered with Southern California
firefighters in the Spark of Love Toy Drive where thousands of new unwrapped of toys
were donated for needy children across Riverside, San Bernardino, Orange, Los Angeles
and Ventura counties. A new record was set this year for the Holiday Toy Express —
51,000 people came out to see this light extravaganza, 15,000 or 29% more than last
year.
New Years Day Train Service: Also for the first time in Metrolink history, train service
was provided on New Years Day on the Orange County and San Bernardino Lines with
extension to the Riverside -Downtown station. Passengers were afforded the ability to
connect to the Metro Gold Line at Los Angeles Union Station for travel to/from the 2004
Rose Parade. New Years Day service was a success with 808 one-way trips on the San
Bernardino Line (four trains averaging 202 passengers per round trip), and 228 one-way
trips on the Orange County Line (two trains averaging 114 passengers per round trip).
RCTC Metrolink Station Daily Activities
Daily activities are recorded by station security guards and submitted to RCTC on a weekly
basis. During the fourth quarter of 2003 (October —December), there were eight criminal
incidents (+ 38% from July - September), and four crisis situations (+1% from July -
September). The increase in criminal incidents is largely due to vagrants/trespassing,
which is the lesser offense in this category. Attached is summary data covering fourth
quarter.
Attachments:
Metrolink Performance Summaries (December 2003)
RCTC Metrolink Stations Daily Activity Report (October -December 2003)
36
66795 SW/KLe
METROLINK PERFORM ANCE SUMM ARIES
December 2003
psZEOWE,
11 JAN 2 0 2004
RIVERSIDE COUNTY
TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
.e. METROLINK
• s
AP41 .4. .8
• • •
METROLINK
AVERAGE WEEKDAY PASSENGER TRIPS
00
36,000
34,000
32,000
30,000
28,000
26,000
24,000
22,000
20 000
32,032
33,708
,01
34,988
35,472
35,585
Dec -02 Jan -03 Feb -03 M ar -03 Apr -03
4,394
May -03
Sep -03
Oct -03
Nov -03 Dec -03
Jun -03
Jul -03
® Holiday Adl —4—Un adj Avg
Aug -03
36,264
36 223
33 684
ADR xis
PERCENT PASSENGERS ON -TIME vs TRAINS ON -TIME
100 0%
950%—
900%—
850% —
—
-
-
-
-
-
-
- -
- -
-
- -
-
-
-
-
-
-
- -
- -
-
-
- -
-
80 0%
Dec 02 Jan Feb M ar Apr M ay Ju n Jul Aug Sep Oct N ov Dec 03
• Within 5 -Minutes a Schedule
Includes Weekend Serv ice
0 Passenger OTP% 0Train OTP% 1
•
•
•
3
R,d .* TP
•
METROLINK ON -TIME PERFORMANCE
Weekday Trains (Latest 13 Months)
® % Arriving Within 5 -M inutes Of Scheduled Tim e
May 03
Jun 03 Jul 03 Aug 03 Sep 03 Oct 03 Nov 03 Dec 03
40
4
OT-13MoNew
Includes Weekend Service
% of Train Delays By Responsibility
12 Month Period Endi ng Dec ember 2003
% of Train Delays By Responsibility
D ecember 2003
TRK-Contractor
g r 1%
SCJRFao/tractor
3%
Passenger
1%
TRK-Contractor
1%
SIG -Contractor
9%
SCRRA
8%
Passenger
3%
Includes Weeker'd Service
•
UPRR
6%
Vandalism
3%
OP ItiglioWEDIRA)
1% 1
Vandalism
UPRR 2%
10%
14%
Mechanical
12%
Mechanical
7%
OP Agree Law-Enf
1% 3%
mprov (SCRRA)
6 /o
NSF
37%
BNSF
36%
• •
PERFORMANCE CHARTS - BACK-UP
1e.METROLINK
METROLINK AVERAGE WEEKDAY PASSENGER TRIPS
THIRTEEN MONTH WINDOW - HOLIDAY ADJUSTED
ROUTE =>
Ventura
County
Antelope #
Valley
San
Bernardino
Burbank
Turns
Riverside
Orange
County
Inl Emp/
OC
Riv/Full/
LA
TOTAL
SYSTEM
% Change
Vs Prior MO
Dec 02
3,402
5,437
9,516
497
4,031
4,802
2,730
1,617
32,032
-9%
Jan 03
3,673
5,253
10,112
536
4,393
5,148
2,997
1,596
33,708
5%
Feb 03
3,727
5,370
10,248
551
4,559
5,540
3,360
1,633
34,988
4%
Mar 03
3,919
5,384
10,546
553
4,377
5,655
3,414
1,624
35,472
1%
Apr 03
3,880
5,584
10,652
598
4,095
5,599
3,499
1,678
35,585
0%
May 03
3,694
5,402
10,206
572
4,112
5,478
3,323
1,607
34,394
-3%
Jun03
3,641
5,536
10,378
557
4,075
5,474
3,319
1,631
34,611
1%
Jul 03
3,624
5,536
10,278
555
4,074
5,453
3,375
1,569
34,464
0%
Aug 03
3,714
5,772
10,169
531
4,008
5,611
3,245
1,603
34,653
1%
Sep 03
3,883
5,748
10,624
540
4,431
5,780
3,638
1,620
36,264
5%
Oct 03
4,295
5,583
9,965
639
4,337
5,557
3,764
1,663
35,803
-1
Nov03
4,568
5,466
10,007
649
4,317
5,641
3,858
1,717
36,223
1%
Dec 03
3,516
5,230
9,954
549
4,321
5,017
3,467
1,630
33,684
-7 %
% Change
Dec 03 vs Nov 03
-23%
-4%
-1 %
-15%
0%
-11 %
-10 %
-5%
-7 %
% Change
Dec 03 vs Dec 02
3%
-4%
5%
10%
7%
4%
27%
1%
5%
•
7
•
Ava Riders Table and Line Graph
•
•
AVER AGE DAILY METROLINK MONTHLY PASSHOLDERS ON AMTRAK
THIRTEEN MONTH WINDOW
ROOTEF>
ORANGE COUNTY
VENTUR A COUMTY
TOTAL
% change- vs prior
month
Amtrak rider s
on M etrottnk
Weekday ,
Saturday -
Sunday.
Weekd ay
Saturday
-Sunday
Weekd ay
-Saturday
Su nday
Weekd ay
Saturday
-Sund ay
Dec -02
692
119
82
73
23
22
765
142
104
-5%
-38%
-55%
71
Jan -03
797
128
98
88
15
18
885
143
116
16%
1%
12%
61
Feb -03
848
284
137
89
22
7
936
306
144
6%
114%
24 %
82
Mar -03
865
199
194
85
47
24
951
246
218
2%
-20%
51 %
90
Apr -03
951
253
122
108
18
10
1,059
271
132
11%
10%
-40%
113
May -03
892
150
121
106
34
35
998
184
156
-6%
-32 %
19%
89
Jun -03
975
155
134
89
24
14
1,064
179
148
7%
-3%
-5%
117
Jul -03
1,037
181
145
100
31
13
1,137
212
158
7%
18%
7%
111
Aug -03
995
326
194
102
42
47
1,097
368
241
-4%
74 %
53 %
114
Sep -03
993
217
175
111
62
52
1,104
279
227
1%
-24%
-6%
100
Oct -03
1,038
265
256
111
60
39
1,149
325
295
4%
16%
30%
120
Nov -03 (a)
1,054
228
157
130
50
60
1,183
278
217
3%
-15 %
-26%
119
Dec -03 (5)
947
156
179
104
23
29
1,051
179
209
-11 %
-36 %
-4%
Not
Available
o ange •ec
03 vs Nov 03
-10% -32% 14%
-20%
-54%
-51%
-11%
-36%
-4°/a
Change Dec
03 vs Dec 02
37%
31%
119%
43%
0%
33%
37%
26 %
100 %
(1) Pnor to Rail 2 Rail Amtrak Step-Up/No Step -Up program was only good on Amtrak weekday trains
(2) Rail 2 Rail program started September 1 2002
(3) Missing data has been adjusted by using the lowest ridership count for the respective train day of week and month
(4) Average of first 3 weeks of month only as black -out in place for the Thanksgiving week
(5) Average excluding 12/25
8
44
N/A
N/A
perf summ-Rad 2 Rail1/8/2004
METROLINK AVERAGE WEEKDAY PASSENGER TRIPS - HOLIDAY ADJUSTED
INCEPTION TO DATE
40,000
38,000
36,000
34,000 •
32,000 I
30,000 - A
28,000
26,000
24,000
22,000
20,000
18,000
16,000 x,
14,000
12,000
10,000
8,000
X
Oct
X
Nov
FY 03/04
Dec
Jan
Feb
FY 02/03
FY 01/02
,'"--- ` '-- .4i FY 00/01
FY 99/00
FY 98/99
FY 97/98
X !X FY 96/97
Mar
Apr
FY 95/96
X xFY 94/95
13.1 FY 93/94
May Jun
s
•
9
Avo Riders Tabl e and Line Graoh
3500
3000-
2500 - rwya
2000-
1500-
:rs
1000 -
500-
`- 'nYi
Dec -02
Note Sept Includes L A Cou nty Fa ir Riders
•
San Bernardino Line Saturday Service
Average Daily Passenger Trips
27471
26741
'3048
Aµ1 r t ''%,«t:•y 9.y .
Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec -03
San Bernardino Line Sunday Service
Average Daily Passenger Trips
Avg Daily Riders
3500
3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
Dec -02 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec -03
No te Sun day Service Began 06/25/00
46
In
nat 7ui k„r,rr Ne,.r
3500
3000-
v) 2500 -
L
CC ▪ 2000-
p • 1500-
cn
1000
Antelope Valley Line Saturday Service
Average Daily Passenger Trips
.,1,773'
.1_;320
x,1378'
Dec -02 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 03
11
1111
0312WKendNew
•
•
METROLINK SCHEDULE ADHERENCE SUMMARY
Percentage of Trains Arriving Within 5 Minutes of Scheduled Time
LATEST 13 MONTHS
Route -->
Ventura County
In Out
Antelope Valley
In Out
San Bernardino
In Out
Burbank Turns
In Out
Riverside
En Out
Orange County
In Out
Inland Emp/OC
So No
Riv/Ful/LA
to Out
Total System
In Out
Total
Dec 02
98%
97%
98%
97%
97 %
91%
99%
100%
97%
97%
96%
97%
90 %
93%
93%
96%
96%
95 %
96 %
Jan 03
99%
98%
89%
89%
95 %
85%
97 %
97%
93%
97%
94 %
97%
90%
89 %
92%
98%
94%
93 %
93%
Feb 03
97%
96%
95%
92%
95%
95 %
100%
96%
95%
91 %
96%
93%
93%
93%
91%
92%
95 %
94%
95 %
M ar 03
97%
99%
88%
92%
94%
94%
99%
97%
97%
81%
87 %
93%
87%
90%
85 %
90%
92%
93%
92%
Apr 03
98%
97%
96%
97%
97%
94 %
99 %
99%
92%
98 %
76%
85%
81 %
86%
82%
82%
91%
93 %
92%
M ay 03
99%
99%
92%
90%
92%
89%
99%
99%
98 %
98 %
95 %
94%
95%
91%
94%
90 %
95 %
93%
94%
Jun 03
98%
97%
91%
91%
93%
88%
100%
100%
85%
81%
93%
94%
96 %
88%
95%
93%
94%
91%
92%
Jul 03
98%
96%
91%
89%
91%
83%
100 %
98 %
87 %
80%
85 %
88 %
93%
80 %
90 %
80%
92 %
87 %
89 %
Aug 03
98%
97%
94%
94%
95%
94%
100%
100%
84 %
90%
91%
97 %
92%
94 %
85%
80 %
93 %
94%
94 %
Sep 03
98%
97%
98%
96%
87%
81%
100%
100%
91 %
94%
90%
87%
90%
86%
88%
86 %
93 %
90%
91 %
Oct 03
95%
97%
96%
97%
95%
94%
100%
97%
93 %
96%
93 %
95 %
89%
90%
95 %
90 %
95 %
95%
95 %
Nov 03
100%
97%
96%
96%
94%
92%
97%
98%
92%
96%
93%
89 %
85 %
90 %
95%
84%
94 %
93%
94%
Dec 03
98%
98%
98%
98%
98%
99%
100%
98%
98%
93%
91 %
90%
95%
96 %
95 %
89%
97%
96%
96 %
Peak Period Trains Arriving Within 5 Minutes of Scheduled Time
Dec 03
VEN Route
AVL Route
SNB Route
BUR Turns
R1V Route
OC Route
Inl Emp/OC Route
Riv/Ful/LA
Tot Inbd
Tot Oulbd
Tot Syst
Peak Penod Trains
97% 97%
99% 98%
99% 99%
100% 99%
98%
97%
92 %
89%
92% 96%
98%
93%
96 %
96 %
96%
No adjustments have been made for relievable delays
Terminated trains are considered OT if they were on time at point of termination Annulled trains are not included in the on -time calculation
Riverside route OTP represents on time performance against schedules temporarily modified for the UPRR tie replacement program Temporary schedules in effect 3/10/03 5/16/03
48
12
FREQUENCY OF TRAIN DELAYS BY DURATION
DECEMBER 2003
MINUTES LATE
VEN
AVL
SNB
BUR
RIV
OC
IE/OC
RIV/FUL
TOTAL
% of TOT
NO DELAY
386
452
554
227
225
326
221
166
2557
85 0%
1 MIN - 5 MIN
44
65
94
13
26
52
31
16
341
11 3%
6MIN -10 MIN
1
5
5
2
5
11
7
7
43
14%
11 MIN - 20 MIN
3
3
4
0
3
16
4
4
37
1 2%
21 MIN - 30 MIN
3
0
2
0
1
2
0
2
10
0 3%
GREATER THAN 30 MIN
3
2
1
0
3
9
1
3
22
0 7%
ANNULLED
1
1
3
0
1
2
2
0
10
0 3%
TOTAL TRAINS OPTD
440
527
660
242
263
416
264
198
3010
100%
TRAINS DELAYED >0 min
54
75
106
15
38
90
43
32
453
15 0%
TRAINS DELAYED > 5 mir
10
10
12
2
12
38
12
16
112
3 7%
•
0
Jay
Sport itm (lay""' � �"'° Generated rom 10/1/2003 to 12/31/2003
1 - Standard Procedures
1A - RCTC Staff on Site
1B - Customer Assistance
1C - Ambassador on Site
Daily Activity Report
Metrolink Stations
Riverside Pedley La Sierra W. Corona N. Corona Total/*Avg
12 1 2 1 3 19
90 74 90 82 86 422
90 8 14 10 41 163
Total 192 83 106 93 130 604
2 - Criminal Incidents
2B - Vagrants / Trespassing 4
2C - Suspicious Behavior 1
2D - Criminal Behavior 2
0
0
0
0 0 1 5
0 0 0 1
0 0 0 2
Total 7 0 0 0 1 8
3 - Crisis Situations
3A - Medical / Fire Emergencies 1
3B - Police Emergencies 1
3C - Passenger Accidents 0
0
0
0
0 0 0 1
0 0 0 1
0 1 1 2
Total 2 0 0 1 1 4
4 - Maintenance/Repairs
4A - Lights 3 0 0 0 1 4
4B - TVM / Validator Machine 41 13 13 16 14 97
4C - Elevator 1 0 0 0 7 8
4D - Station Cleaning 33 25 23 30 4 115
4E - Landscaping 21 19 4 25 19 88
4F - Dumpster/Porta Potti 11 19 5 17 10 62
4G - Pepsi Vending 1 0 0 1 0 2
4H - Other 2 0 1 2 16 21
5 - Miscellaneous
5A - Miscellaneous Activity
Total 113
76 46 91 71 397
25 7 101 12 24 169
Total 25 7 101 12 24 169
6 - Parked Overnight
* 6A - Parked Overnight 24 3 16 7 13 13
Total 24 3 16 7 13 13
9 - Empty Spaces
• 9A - Empty Spaces 199 0 70 295 72 159
Total 199 0 70 295 72 159 -= -
91 - R2R Vehicles
* 91A - R2R Vehicles 8 2 6 1 10 6
Total 8 2 6 1 10 6
92 - Vehicles Parked
* 92A - Vehicles Parked 0 0 437 0 0 437
Total 0
437 0 0 437
* Value is averaged over the data entry days Thursday, January 15, 2004
50
County
nontssion
Riverside - Downtown
Activity Detail Report
Ge ner ated from 10/1/2003 to 12/31/2003
D ate Time Activity Log # Description
11/3/2003 10:00 am 73489
11/5/2003 12:00 am 73440
11/21/2003 1:30 am 73709
11/22/2003 10:30 pm 73690
11/29/2003 10:36 pm 73531
10/8/2003 4:15 am 72776
11/23/2003 11:00 am 73675
10/17/2003 2:10 pm 72553
West Corona
Activity Type
Activity Subtype
Hispanic male drinking alcohol by dumpster
Security escorted male adult off property- trespas
Security observed someone in bushes .
Security made contact w/ white male walking
Two men removed from train- both were intoxicated
S/O was attacked by lady w/ knife- RPD on site
Female hit her head on train while in route
RPD on site -released passenger to his sister.
2 - Criminal Incidents
2 - Criminal Incidents
2 - Criminal Incidents
2 - Criminal Incidents
2 - Criminal Incidents
2 - Criminal Incidents
3 - Crisis Situations
3 - Crisis Situations
2B - Vagrants / Trespassing
2B - Vagrants / Trespassing
2B - Vagrants / Trespassing
2B - Vagrants / Trespassing
2C - Suspicious Behavior
2D - Criminal Behavior
3A - Medical / Fire Emergenci es
3B - Police Emerg encies
Date Time Activity Log # D escription
10/24/2003 6:49 am 72898 Lady fell to the ground but refused medical attn.
North Main Co ro na
Activity Type
3 - Crisis Situations
Activity Subtype
3C - Passenger Accidents
Date Time Activity Log # D escription
10/9/2003 12:15 pm 72757 Corona PD called - person put flyers on cars
10/9/2003 7:10 pm 72759 Lady fell onto curbside- refused treatment
zukesmac
Woday, Janu ary 21, 2004
Activity Type
2 - Criminal Incidents
3 - Crisis Situations
Activity Subtype
2B - Vagrants / Trespassing
3C - Passenger Accidents
Page 0