HomeMy Public PortalAbout02 February 22, 1999 Plans and ProgramsPLANS AND PROGRAMS COMMITTEE
•
•
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION
AGENDA
TIME: 12:00 P.M.
DATE: Monday, February 22, 1999
LOCATION: Riverside County Transportation Commission Office
3560 University Avenue, Conference Room A
Riverside, CA 92501
Records
cV/O
Plans and Programs Committee Members
Roy Wilson / County of Riverside, Chairman
Robin Reeser Lowe / City of Hemet, Vice Chair
Jan Leja / City of Beaumont
Robert Crain / City of Blythe
John Chlebnik / City of Calimesa
Eugene Bourbonnais / City of Canyon Lake
Doug Sherman / City of Desert Hot Springs
Percy Byrd / City of Indian Wells
Chris Silva / City of Indio
Frank Hall / City of Norco
Dick Kelly / City of Palm Desert
Will Kleindienst / City of Palm Springs
A. L. Landers / City of Perris
Bob Buster / County of Riverside
Eric Haley, Executive Director
Hideo Sugita, Director - Planning and Programming
Plans and Programs Committee
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
Comments are welcomed by the Committee. If you wish to provide comments to the Committee,
please complete and submit a Testimony Card to the Clerk of the Commission.
•
•
•
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
PLANS AND PROGRAMS COMMITTEE
CONFERENCE ROOM A
3560 UNIVERSITY AVENUE, SUITE 100, RIVERSIDE 92501
MONDAY, FEBRUARY 22, 1999
12:00 P.M.
AGENDA*
* Action may be taken on any items listed on the agenda.
1. CALL TO ORDER.
2. PUBLIC COMMENTS.
3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES (JANUARY 25, 1999).
4. FEDERAL APPROPRIATIONS LIST.
Staff recommends that the Plans and Programs Committee recommend the Commission to
direct staff to work with RCTC's federal advocate to obtain funding for the projects listed in
this report. Provide input/suggestions to include any additional projects.
5. CONTRACT WITH CETAP CONSULTANT
Staff recommends that the Plans and Programs Committee authorize staff to negotiate a
contract with the selected CETAP consultant consistent with previously allocated funds,
including SCAG planning funds and County funds, subject to Legal Counsel review with the
understanding that the contract will be brought back for Commission review and action.
6. REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL TO PRODUCE FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR FUTURE NORTH SOUTH
CORRIDORS BETWEEN 1-10 AND SR -60 BETWEEN 1-15 AND 1-215
Staff recommends, subject to SANBAG approval of their participation, the Plans and Programs
Committee recommend the Commission to direct Staff to prepare a Request for Proposal to
Produce a Feasibility Study for Future North South Arterial Corridors between 1-10 and SR -60
between 1-15 and 1-215. Staff will evaluate the proposals received and bring back a
recommendation for contract award to the selected firm that produces the proposal favored
by the selection process. The selection team will be composed of members representing RCTC,
SANBAG, County of Riverside, City of Fontana and others as deemed appropriate by RCTC
Staff.
7. SB 45 2% PLANNING, PROGRAMMING AND MONITORING ACTIVITIES PLAN AMENDMENT
Staff recommends that the Plans and Programs Committee recommend Commission approval
of:
1) $244,471 of SB 45 2% Planning, Programming and Monitoring funds to
support the SB 45 staff position for fiscal year 2003 and 2004;
2) $253,782 of SB 45 2% Planning, Programming and Monitoring funds to
support CVAG Project Monitoring Activities for FY 1999-2004;
3) $70,000 of SB 45 2% Planning, Programming and Monitoring funds to conduct
a Project Master Plan in the Coachella Valley;
4) $175,000 of SB 45 2% Planning, Programming and Monitoring funds to
support an 1-10 lane addition Project Study Report in the Coachella Valley; and
5) Reserving the balance of planning funds available in the Coachella Valley and
the Palo Verde Valley for future Transportation Project Prioritization uses.
6) Authorize staff to proceed with the necessary administrative requirements to
process a STIP amendment to program PPM funds consistent with current and
prior Commission actions.
8. TRANSFER OF CONSOLIDATED TRANSPORTATION SERVICE AGENCY (CTSA) FUNCTION
FROM SUNLINE TRANSIT AGENCY TO COMMUNITY PARTNERSHIPS OF THE DESERT
Staff recommends that the Plans and Programs Committee recommend that the Commission
approve the transfer of the Consolidated Transportation Service Agency (CTSA) designation
in the Coachella Valley from SunLine Transit Agency to Community Partnerships of the Desert
as requested.
9. MEASURE A COMMUTER ASSISTANCE PROGRAM EVALUATION SURVEY REQUEST FOR
PROPOSAL
Staff recommends that the Plans and Programs Committee recommend that the Commission
authorize staff to: 1) develop and issue a Request for Proposal for a Measure A Commuter
Assistance Program Evaluation Survey; 2) rate the RFP's by a committee comprised of two
RCTC Commissioners, two RCTC staff members, two SANBAG staff members and possibly two
SANBAG Board members; and 3) present a recommendation on selecting a firm to conduct the
work at a future Commission meeting.
10. ADJOURNMENT
•
•
•
AGENDA ITEM 3
•
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
PLANS AND PROGRAMS COMMITTEE
JANUARY 25, 1999
MINUTES
1. CALL TO ORDER.
The meeting of the Plans and Programs Committee was called to order by Eric Haley, Executive
Director, at 12:10 p.m., at the offices of the Riverside County Transportation Commission, 3560
University Avenue, Riverside.
Members Present: Members Absent. -
Eugene Bourbonnais
Bob Buster
John Chlebnik
Robert Crain
Frank Hall
Dick Kelly
A.I Landers
Jan Leja
Robin Reeser Lowe
Doug Sherman
Chris Silva
Roy Wilson
2. ELECTION OF CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR.
Percy Byrd
Will Kleindienst
M/S/C (Kelly/Lowe) to elect Commissioner Roy Wilson as Chairperson of the Plans
and Programs Committee.
M/S/C (Landers/Leja) to elect Commissioner Robin Reeser Lowe Vice -Chairperson
of the Plans and Programs Committee.
At this time, Commissioners Roy Wilson and Robin Reeser Lowe assumed the Chair and Vice Chair
seats, respectively.
3. PUBLIC COMMENTS.
There were no public comments at this time.
4. 1998 STIP AMENDMENT $15 MILLION EL NINO, REHABILITATION & ARTERIAL PROGRAM
The following points were made during the deliberation of this item:
♦ Commissioner Bob Buster requested that the spreadsheet attached to this agenda,
that will be forwarded to the Commission, include a column for traffic counts,
congestion rating and pavement condition for the proposed projects.
♦ Tom Boyd, Principal Engineer City of Riverside, requested that the Commission
also consider funding for their second priority project - improvements to
Alessandro Boulevard.
• Craig Neustaeder, City of Moreno Valley, recognized the effort put forth by the
Technical Advisory Committee in developing the funding recommendation for the
1998 STIP Amendment.
+ Habib Motlagh, City of Perris, thanked Commission staff for their diligent work on
this difficult issue. He emphasized that the Commission approved criteria was used
in ranking these projects and recommended that the Committee approve the
recommendation as written in the agenda item.
+ Juan Perez, City of Hemet, expressed his support of the recommendation from the
Technical Advisory Committee and staff. He stated that it was a difficult process
to pare down the numerous worthy projects submitted to a list that could be funded.
The merits of each of the projects were debated and they did look at geographic
distribution.
+ Commissioner Buster said that it is important to also take into consideration the
repairs needed on Alessandro Boulevard. This road will become an even more
heavily traveled route once the construction begins in the Box Springs Canyon
area.
+ Commissioner Jan Leja suggested the possibility of combining the projects in
Banning and Beaumont to maximize the use of funds while alleviating congestion
problems for both cities.
+ Commissioner Dick Kelly stated that he is satisfied with the process that the
Technical Advisory Committee went through to come up with this recommendation.
He was concerned though when reviewing the table included in the agenda item
that it appears that the discretionary funds have been deducted twice.
+ Paul Toor, City of Banning, said that they will be recommending to their City
Council joining their project with the one in the City of Beaumont to maximize the
benefit for both cities.
It was suggested that a meeting be scheduled with the City of Riverside, the Supervisors
from Districts 1 and 5 and the March JPA to discuss possible improvements to Alessandro
Boulevard and that the cities of Banning and Beaumont look at a combined improvement
project on Sixth Street.
M/S/C (Kelly/Landers) that the Commission:
1) Eliminate the El Nino storm damage category from the $15 million call
for projects.
2) Approve the attached list of arterial and rehabilitation projects for
STIP funding recognizing that the two actions listed below make it
possible to establish a reasonable level of geographic equity by
funding the Pass Area project with received the highest score in the
evaluation process; funds the City of Riverside's project, and
establishes a reserve of formula STIP funds for the Palo Verde Valley
area, consistent with the adopted Intra-County Formula for allocating
STIP Regional Improvement Program funds:
a) The City of Hemet has increased its local share for the State
Street arterial widening and rehabilitation project by $400,000.
b) The Washington Street widening and rehabilitation project
STIP request is reduced by $1,000,000.
•
•
•
•
•
3. 1998 STATE TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM AMENDMENT.
M/S/C (Lowe/Leja) that the Commission:
1) program the entire amount of discretionary 1998 STIP amendment funds and
the entire Western County formula share of the 1998 STIP Amendment funds
to the following Measure A projects in the following amounts:
Route 91 - Mary Street to 7"' Street
Project Subtotal =
Route 79 - Newport Road to Keller Road
Project Subtotal =
Route 91 Phase II Sound Walls & Auxiliary lanes
Total Western County =
$ 1.0M for Environmental
$10.0M for PS&E
$11.0M
$ 0.5M for Environmental
$ 1.5M for PS&E
$ 2.5M for R/W and Utilities
$ 8.3M for Construction
$12.8M
$ 3.345M Construction
$27.145M
2) Consider any programming recommendations coming from the January 25,
1999 CVAG Executive Committee meeting for the Coachella and Palo Verde
Valleys' formula share of the 1998 STIP Amendment funds.
3) Should no recommendation be forwarded from CVAG, reserve the respective
Coachella and Palo Verde Valleys' formula share of the 1998 STIP
Amendment funds for their future programming recommendations.
4) Combine the $1.007M of 1998 STIP Amendment Planning, Programming &
Monitoring funds with the $1.376M of previously programmed 1998 STIP
funds to make programming recommendations for these planning funds
consistent with the Commission's direction to allocate the funds in
accordance with the adopted Intra-County Formula for allocating shares of
STIP funds. (Commission action October 14, 1998)
6. PRIORITY RAIL PROJECTS FOR CALIFORNIA STIP AND FEDERAL PROGRAMS
M/S/C (Lowe/Leja) that the Commission:
1) Endorse the priority project lists developed by Metrolink and the Southern
California Intercity Rail Group and actively advocate for STIP funding of the
particular rail capital projects that include:
+ Track Improvements at Bandini (located in L.A. County;
system wide benefit).
+ Metrolink Rolling Stock (system wide benefit).
♦ Colton Junction (located in San Bernardino Co.; benefit to the
Inland Empire Line).
2) Endorse Metrolink's federal funding request as listed in the agenda item.
7. CMAQ SET ASIDE FOR LNG LOCOMOTIVE
M/S/C (Lowe/Landers) that the Commission set aside up to $300,000 of CMAQ funds
to cover RCTC's share of costs for manufacturing a prototype LNG fueled locomotive.
8. CONTRACTS/AGREEMENTS FOR CETAP
M/S/C (Landers/Leja) that the Commission approve the following contract/agreements
recommendations:
1) Authorize the Chairman to execute a contract/agreement with the Southern
California Association of Governments (SCAG) to facilitate the flow of SCAG
planning funds to support the Commission's CETAP planning project, subject
to Legal Counsel review, and
2) Authorize the Chairman to execute a contract/agreement with the County of
Riverside which secures the County's obligation to pay up front or reimburse
RCTC in a timely fashion for work performed by the selected CETAP
consultant to develop and complete the update to the County of Riverside's
General Plan Circulation Element, subject to Legal Counsel review and
subject to the amount of funds previously allocated by the Commission to
support the CETAP planning project, and
3) Schedule an action item on the February 10, 1999 Commission meeting to
provide for the possible selection of a recommended CETAP consultant and
authorize staff to negotiate a contract with the selected CETAP consultant (if
selection is made) and authorize the Chairman to execute a contract with the
selected CETAP consultant subject to the level of previously allocated funds,
including SCAG planning funds and County funds, subject to Legal Counsel
review.
9. REGIONAL AIRPORT EXPANSION ISSUES AND OPTIONS
M/S/C (Leja/Buster) that the Commission consider adoption of Resolution No. 99-01,
Resolution of the Riverside County Transportation Commission Calling for the
Development of a Regional Airport Plan for Southern California.
10. MEASURE A SPECIALIZED TRANSIT ALLOCATION TO FAMILY SERVICE ASSOCIATION OF
RIVERSIDE COUNTY
M/S/C (Kelly/Silva) that the Commission:
1) Approve operating support for two vehicles to Family Service Association
until such time that the Specialized Transit Analysis is complete and
recommendations are provided regarding the future service levels for the
Jurupa area, and
2) Amend the funding agreement with Family Service Association to include
additional Measure A Specialized Transit funds of $4,375 per month to
support the operating cost of a second vehicle in the Jurupa/Rubidoux area.
•
•
•
•
11. REAPPOINTMENT TO THE CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE/SOCIAL SERVICE
TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY COUNCIL (CAC/SSTAC)
M/S/C (Landers/Lowe) that the reappointment of members to the Citizens Advisory
Committee/Social Service Transportation Advisory Council (CAC/SSTAC) be
rescheduled and direct staff to prepare and bring back a proposal to broaden the
scope of the committee.
12. METROLINK MONTHLY REPORT
M/S/C (Landers/Lowe) that the Commission receive and file the operating report for
December 1998, along with the most recent weekly update to Board members.
13. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business for consideration by the Plans and Programs Committee, the
meeting was adjourned at 2:07 p.m. The next meeting is scheduled to be held at 12:00 p.m., on
February 22, 1999 at the RCTC offices.
R ectfully submitted,
7
aCt
Naty op
Clerk f t
AGENDA ITEM 4
•
•
RIVERSIDE
COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION
DATE:
February 22, 1999
TO:
Plans and Programs Committee
FROM:
David W. Shepherd, Director of Intergovernmental
and Legislative Affairs
THROUGH:
Eric Haley, Executive Director
SUBJECT:
Federal Appropriations List
In 1998, Congress passed and the President signed the Transportation Equity Act of
the 21st Century (TEA21), a six -year multi -billion dollar expenditure plan and policy
priority plan for transportation projects and policies. Included in TEA21 was nearly
$58 million in authorizations for "demonstration projects" in Riverside County. Unlike
most authorizations for appropriation, these projects need not be revisited annually.
Thus, each year, the appropriation levels are already considered to be authorized.
Nevertheless, some of these project authorization levels leave the project underfunded.
This year, as Congress begins its appropriations process, an opportunity to fully fund
or augment the existing funding levels of the underfunded projects exists. Further, the
opportunity to seek funding for new projects is available. As this is an annual process
and the likelihood for full project funding is not high, the maximum request for each
project will be $5 million.
A review of the demonstration projects authorized, and additional project funding
needs led to staff development of the following list of projects recommended for which
to seek federal funding:
Highway/Road Projects:
Improve State Route 91 /Green River Interchange/Add Auxiliary Lanes - Total Project
cost is $22.6 million, $4.5 million authorized in 1998, needs additional $5 million.
Design and Land Acquisition for Portrero Interchange on Route 60 - Not authorized in
1998, needs $5 million.
Route 79 Realignment Project - Total Project Cost is $70 million, $4.5 million
authorized in 1998, needs additional $5 million.
Interchange Improvements on Interstate 10 and State Route 86- $2.25 million
authorized in 1998, needs additional $5 million.
000001
Rail Grade Separation Projects (None authorized):
City of Riverside - several projects totaling $164 million, request $5 million.
Center Street - total cost is $20 million, request $5 million.
Magnolia Avenue (combine with Buchanan) in Corona - total cost is $22 million,
request $5 million
San Timoteo Canyon Road in Calimesa - total cost is $7 million, request $2 million.
Dillon Road in Indio - total cost is $11 million, request $3 million.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
That the Plans and Programs Committee recommend the Commission to direct staff
to work with RCTC's federal advocate to obtain funding for the projects listed in this
report. Provide input/suggestions to include any additional projects.
•
•
•
000002
AGENDA ITEM 5
•
RIVERSIDE
COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION
DATE:
February 25, 1999
TO:
Plans and Programs Committee
FROM:
Hideo Sugita, Director of Planning and Programming
THROUGH:
Eric Haley, Executive Director
SUBJECT:
Contract with CETAP Consultant
At the February 10, 1999 meeting, the Commission acted to return the Community
& Environmental Transportation Acceptability Process (CETAP) contract authorization
back to the Plans and Programs Committee. The action requested further review of
the recommended action due to the significance of the CETAP effort and the potential
dollar value of the contract. For your information the integrated planning effort
includes transportation corridor planning (western county), County General Plan
update (entire County) and the development of a Multi -Species Habitat Conservation
Plan (MSHCP) for the western county area.
Following is the recommendation on the CETAP contract which was included in Item
9 of the February 10, 1999 Commission agenda.
"Additionally, it is recommended that the Commission provide for the possible
selection of a recommended CETAP consultant and authorization for staff to negotiate
a contract with the selected CETAP consultant (if a selection is made) and authorize
the Chairman to execute a contract with the selected CETAP consultant subject to the
level of previously allocated funds, including SCAG planning funds and County funds,
subject to Legal Counsel review."
The Commission action also provided for the Plans and Programs Committee action to
be the Commission action on this item subject to a majority vote of the Committee.
The following is a listing of activities undertaken to date for the selection of the CETAP
consultant.
December 7, 1998
December 17, 1998
January 21, 1999
January 22 - 27, 1999
February 3, 1999
February 11, 1999
Request for Proposal (RFP) issued
Pre -Bid Conference
Proposals due
Review proposals
Consultant interviews
Evaluation of interviews
It is important to note that the RFP provided significant flexibility for the Commission,
CVAG , the County, as well as, prospective proposers.
000003
The RFP allowed the proposers to bid on the entire integrated planning projects,
individual plans or selected work element of the plans. Examples of a selected work
element could be the seismic or housing element of the General Plan. An example of
an individual work element related to all three planning components could be data
collection, data development and integration.
To bring you up to date RCTC, CVAG, County staff conducted a technical review of
the proposals, narrowed the field to three prospective consultant teams and completed
interviews. Given the relative strengths and weaknesses of the written proposals and
interviews, discussions with the top two consultant teams were held to determine if,
between the two teams, a more effective teaming arrangement addressing the
collective staffs concerns could be put together.
Staff expects to receive a letter indicating the consultants proposal to reconstruct their
team by February 17th or 18th. Due to the time frame for agenda preparation, staff
will provide an update at the Plans and Programs Committee.
Staff is seeking Commission authorization to negotiate a contract(s) with the selected
or reconstructed consultant team. Staff estimates it may take 30 days to negotiate a
contract which would be brought back to the Commission for review and action.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
That the Plans and Programs Committee authorize staff to negotiate a contract with
the selected CETAP consultant consistent with previously allocated funds, including
SCAG planning funds and County funds, subject to Legal Counsel review with the
understanding that the contract will be brought back for Commission review and
action.
•
•
•
000004
•
• AGENDA ITEM 6
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
DATE:
February 22, 1999
TO:
Plans and Programs Committee
FROM:
Bill Hughes, Bechtel Project Manager
THROUGH:
Paul Blackwelder, Deputy Executive Director
SUBJECT:
Request for Proposal to Produce Feasibility Study for Future
North South Corridors Between 1-10 and SR -60 Between 1-15 and
1-215
At the January RCTC meeting, the Commission authorized a $ 100,000 study to
access the feasibility of providing future regional arterial improvements to provide
better north/south connectivity between the 1-10 and State Route 60 corridors
between 1-15 and 1-215. The City of Fontana in conjunction with the San Bernardino
Association of Governments (SANBAG) are also in favor of such a study and are each
considering funding allocations that would share in the cost of the study. The current
proposal is that the funding be split between SANBAG and RCTC on a 50/50 basis
and that the SANBAG 50% share be further split between SANBAG and the City of
Fontana. It is currently envisioned that RCTC Staff will be the lead agency for the
project with agency participation from both the funding agencies City of Fontana and
SANBAG. Development team members will also include planners from the County of
Riverside, Caltrans and adjacent cities.
In order to move this study forward, Staff recommends that RCTC issue a request for
proposals that would provide the necessary information to explore the possible
alignments and disclose any fatal flaws that would prevent a proposed alignment from
being pursued in the future as either a new arterial corridor, an expansion of an
existing arterial corridor or a combination of their approach. The current thoughts on
potential alignment opportunities are outlined in a letter received from the City of
Fontana that is attached for your information and are summarized below:
1. Sierra Avenue to Valley Way
2. Mulberry to Country Village
3. Cedar to Rubidoux
4. Poplar to Pyrite
5. Alder Avenue to Market or Armstrong
000005
Financial Assessment
Project Cost
$100,000
Source of Funds
$50,000 (SANBAG/City of Fontana) $50,000 RCTC
Included in Fiscal Year Budget
n
Year
Included in Program Budget
n
Year Programmed
Approved Allocation
Year of Allocation
Budget Adjustment Required
y
Financial Impact Not Applicable
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Subject to SANBAG approval of their participation, that the Plans and Programs
Committee recommend to the Commission to direct staff to prepare a Request for
Proposal to Produce a Feasibility Study for Future North South Arterial Corridors
between 1-10 and SR -60 between 1-15 and 1-215. Staff will evaluate the proposals
received and bring back a recommendation for contract award to the selected firm
that produces the proposal favored by the selection process. The selection team will
be composed of members representing RCTC, SANBAG, County of Riverside, City
of Fontana and others as deemed appropriate by RCTC staff.
000006
•
•
04384S
City of Fontana
CALIFORNIA
September 24, 1998
Mr. Norm King, Executive Director
San Bernardino Associated Governments
472 North Arrowhead Avenue
San Bernardino, CA 92401
Mr. Eric Haley, Executive Director
Riverside County Transportation Commission
3560 University Avenue, Suite 100
Riverside, CA 92501
SUBJECT: North -South Corridors linking San Bernardino County to Riverside
County
Dear Messrs. Haley and King:
This letter is a follow-up to discussions our staff had as well as meetings between Mayor
Eshleman and Supervisors Tavag]ione and Eaves on North -South Corridor issues
between the two counties. As you know, there are few arterial street connections linking
San Bernardino County to Riverside County between the I-15 and 1-215 freeways. In the
Fontana area, for instance, we have Sierra Avenue linking to Valley Way, which connects
to the 1-60 freeway. There is a three mile gap to the Cedar -Market connector on the east,
and a four mile gap to the Mulberry -Country Village connector to the west. The lack of
adequate north/south connectors linking the two counties from the I-10 freeway to the Rt.
60 freeway, places extraordinary demands on the existing ones, resulting in traffic
diversion to the 1-15 and the 1-215 freeways.
The lack of adequate north -south corridors is mostly due to the topography of the area.
The Jurupa Hills run east -west mid point between the I-10 freeway and the Rt. 60
freeway. Given this limitation, few corridors cross the Jurupa Hills, linking the I-10 to
Rt. 60.
MAILING ADDRESS: P.O.BOX 518
8353 SIERRA AVENUE • FONTANA, CALIFORNIA 92334-0518 • (909) 350-7600
•RIMED ON RECYCLED PA/ER
000007
Messrs. Haley and King
September 24, 1998
Page 2
This is to request that San Bernardino County Associated Governments (SANBAG) and
Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) jointly conduct north/south
corridor studies in order to identify solutions to our mobility needs. Based on staff
discussion, the following corridors have been identified for studies:
Sierra -Valley Way
This roadway connection is indirect via Armstrong. The Valley Way interchange with
RT 60 is congested, and there are a number of operational problems.
Improvements to this corridor, particularly the Valley Way connection to Rt. 60 are of the
highest priority. The Mission Boulevard, Valley Way and Jurupa Rd alignments need to
be analyzed as well.
Mulberry -Country Village
This connector serves as an industrial corridor, but lacks a connection and or grade
separation at I-10.
Cedar — Rubidoux
The traffic flow currently if on the Cedar -Market connector, which is indirect. This
corridor needs to be evaluated.
Poplar -Pyrite
Pyrite Rd interchanges with Rt. 60 about two miles west of Valley Way. Pyrite is the
natural extension of Poplar Avenue in Fontana. Poplar is master planned as a four lane
roadway with a grade separation at I-10. Poplar Avenue connects to Beech Avenue
which has a proposed interchange with I-10 freeway and Citrus Avenue, with an existing
interchange at I-10. This connector would break a four mile stretch between Mulberry -
Country Village corridor and Sierra —Valley Way corridor.
Alder -Market or Armstrong
Alder Avenue is proposed to interchange with I-10 with a potential connector to Market
or Armstrong.
•
•
•
00000s
•
•
Messrs. Haley and King
September 24, 1998
Page 3
Sierra -Pacific
The natural extension of Sierra Avenue is Pacific Avenue, which has an underpass at the
Rt. 60 freeway. There is a 1,000 foot gap in this corridor through an open field. This
corridor needs to be looked at to evaluate benefits versus impacts, including the potential
for a new freeway interchange with Rt. 60.
The study should, at a minimum look at the traffic demand for the planning horizon year.
be it 2015 or 2020. A traffic modeling effort utilizing a focused Comprehensive
Transportation Plan (CTP) model will be necessary. There may be corridors or
combinations other than those listed above which can be identified in the initial phase of
a north -south corridor study. An initial environmental study should review each
alternative for potential impacts. We suggest that the study be managed by RCTC and
SA_NBAG with the participation of staff from affected agencies.
North -South corridors are needed to link our communities for congestion relief for air
quality improvement by shortening trips lengths for traffic safety and motorist
convenience. The corridor study should create a matrix comparing alternatives based on
need, benefit, impact and cost. The project team may outline specific goals and objectives
for the study, including an implementation program.
As you know, we stand ready to participate in the studies and look forward to hearing
from you.
Respectfully.
Frank A. Schuma
City Manager
FAS:pb:jh
C: City Council
Supervisor Tavaglione, Riverside County
Supervisor Eaves, San Bernardino County
UUUilf)t�
•
• AGENDA ITEM 7
•
RIVERSIDE
COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
DATE:
February 22, 1999
TO:
Plans and Programs Committee
FROM:
Cathy Bechtel, Program Manager
THROUGH:
Hideo Sugita, Director of Plans and Programs
SUBJECT:
SB 45 2% Planning, Programming and Monitoring Activities Plan
Amendment •
As allowed under SB 45, RCTC previously approved an "off the top" set aside of 2%
of the 1998 State Transportation Improvement Program(STIP)/Regional Improvement
Program (RIP) funds to support planning, programming and monitoring (PP&M)
activities. A total of $3,758,660 is available to RCTC to support these efforts in the
County through FY 2004. At our October 14, 1998 meeting the Commission
approved a total of $447,648 to support RCTC staff monitoring activities for the first
four years of the STIP. This was done with the understanding that staff support costs
are provided on an "off the top" basis and the costs for FYs 2003 and 2004 would
be programmed with funds available under the 1998 STIP Augmentation. Staff is
now requesting that the Commission program the staff support costs for the last two
years of the STIP, an amount totaling $244,471.
The Commission directed that the balance of the planning funds, $3,066,540, be
programmed using the approved intra-county formula. To date, all the available
western county funds have been programmed: $425,000 to support a Project Study
Report (PSR) for Route 79 and $1,500,000 for the Community and Environmental
Transportation Acceptability Process (CETAP). We have recently received the
Planning, Programming and Activities Plan for the Coachella Valley from CVAG. They
are requesting that the Commission program a total of $498,782 for PP&M activities
in the Coachella Valley: $253,782 to support their project monitoring costs over the
six year STIP cycle, $70,000 to conduct a Project Master Plan in the Palo Verde Valley
and $175,000 to support an 1-10 lane addition Project Study Report. CVAG requests
that the balance of planning funds available in the Coachella Valley ($1 14,637) and
the Palo Verde Valley ($32,077) be reserved for future Transportation Project
Prioritization Study uses. Staff is supportive of the Activities Plan presented by CVAG
and would recommend approval and incorporation in the Commission's Activities Plan.
The RCTC Planning, Programming and Monitoring Activities Plan is attached for your
reference. The proposed additions are shown in italics.
In addition, staff will return with an agreement between the Commission and CVAG
for the use of the PP&M funds because the Commission retains fiduciary responsibility
for the funds through its agreement with the State of California.
Lastly, staff requests authorization to proceed with the necessary administrative
requirements to process a STIP amendment to program PPM funds consistent with
000010
current and prior Commission actions. This amendment needs to be processed by
June 1999.
Financial Assessment
Project Cost
$743,253
Source of Funds
SB 45 Planning, Programming and Monitoring funds
Included in Fiscal Year Budget
fV/N)
N
Year
Included in Program Budget
Y
Year Programmed
1998-99
1 999-00
Approved Allocation
Y
Year of Allocation
1998-99
1999-00
Budget Adjustment Required
Y
Financial Impact Not Applicable
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
That the Plans and Programs Committee recommend Commission approval of:
1) $244,471 of SB 45 2% Planning, Programming and Monitoring funds to
support the SB 45 staff position for fiscal year 2003 and 2004;
2) $253,782 of SB 45 2% Planning, Programming and Monitoring funds to
support CVAG Project Monitoring Activities for FY1999-2004;
3) $70,000 of SB 45 2% Planning, Programming and Monitoring funds to conduct
a Project Master Plan in the Coachella Valley;
4) $175,000 of SB 45 2% Planning, Programming and Monitoring funds to
support an 1-10 lane addition Project Study Report in the Coachella Valley; and
5) Reserving the balance of planning funds available in the Coachella Valley and
the Palo Verde Valley for future Transportation Project Prioritization uses.
6) Authorize staff to proceed with the necessary administrative requirements to
process a STIP amendment to program PPM funds consistent with current and
prior Commission actions.
000011
RCTC Sr" CANNING, PROGRAMMING AND MONITORING ACTIVITIES PLAN
RCTC ST I CTIVITIES
Review Project Study Reports
STIP Development/Amendment(s)/M onitoring
Local Agency Coordination
CTC/Caltrans Coordination
Development and Processing
RTIP Amendmen t (s)
Including: Local Agency Coordin.
SCAG Caltrans Coordin
Pro ject Monitoring and Implementation
Planning Funds Requested t0 Date
Transportation Corridor Planning Request
Route 79 Project Study Report Request
CVAG-Project Monitorin g
CVAG-Project Master Plan for Palo Verde Valley
CVAG-I-10 Project Study Report
FUNDING AVA ILA BLE TO SUPPORT PPM ACTIVITIES
STAFF COSTS FOR SIX YEARS
BALANCE AVAILABLE FOR PROGRAMM ING
DISCRETIONARY FUNDS (24.2%)
BALANCE OF CETAP AND RT. 79 PROJECTS
BALANCE AVAILABLE FOR PROGRAMM ING
FORMULA FUNDS:
WESTERN COUNTY (72.23%)
Transportation Corridor Planning (CETAP)
Rt. 79 Project Study Report
BALANCE A VAILABLE FOR PROGRAMMING IN W. C.
COACHELLA VALLEY (26. 39%)
CVAG Project Monitoring
Master Plan for P. V. V.
1-10 Project Study Report
BALANCE AVAILABLE FOR PROGRAMMING IN C.V.
PALO VERDE VALLEY (1. 38%)
No Projects Programmed to Date
BALANCE AVAILABLE FOR PROGRAMMING IN P. V.V.
(TIME FRAME
7/01/98 to 6/30/02
7/01/98 to 6/30/02
7/01/98 to 6/30/02
7/01/98 to 6/30/02
7/01/98 to 6/30/02
7/01/98 to 6/30/02
III
FY 19 9', FY1999-00 FY 2000-01 FY 2001-02 FY 2002-03
FY 2003-04 TOT AL
$17,1201
$17,120
$17,120
$8,560
$21,400
$25,680
517,634
$17,634
$17,634
$8,817
$22,042
$26,450
'Staff C osts T $107,0001 $110,210
7/01/98 to 6/30/01
7/01/98 to 6/30/00
7/01/98 to 6/30/04
7/01/98 to 6/30/99
7/01/98 to 6/30/99
(Total
$3,758,660
($692,120)
$3,066,540
$742,103
(5246,059)
$496,044
$2,324,437
$1,678,941'
(51,500,000
($425,000)
$0
5613,4191
($253,782f
($70,000)1
($175,000)
$114,637
$32,077
$0
$32,077
$500,000
$212,500
$42, 297
$70,000
$175,000
$18,163
$18,1631
$18,163
$9,081
$22,703
$27,244
S18,7071 519,269
$18,707
S18,707
S9,354
$23,384
$28,061
$19,269
$19,269
$9,634
$24,086
S28,903
519,847
5/9,847
$19,847
$9,923
524,808
529,770
$113,5161 $116,9221 5120,4291 5124,042 $692,120
$500,000 5500,000
$212,5001
542,2971 542,297
542,297
542,297 542,297
1$1,106,7971 $865,0071 $655,8131 $159,219) $162,7261 $166,339
$1,500,000
$425,000
$253,782
$ 70,000
$175,000
$3,115,902
r iI:FRS PREPRIN r CB 2: . PLAN 5A v✓K4
AGENDA ITEM 8
RIVERSIDE
COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION
DATE:
February 22, 1999
TO:
Plans and Programs Committee
FROM:
Jerry Rivera, Program Manager
THROUGH:
Eric Haley, Executive Director
SUBJECT:
Transfer of Consolidated Transportation Service Agency (CTSA) .
function from SunLine Transit Agency to Community Partnerships
of the Desert
The Transportation Development Act (TDA) requires the Commission to designate one
or more consolidated transportation service agencies (CTSA) to promote the
coordination of social service transportation in the county. The Commission
designated the Riverside Transit Agency and SunLine Transit Agency as the CTSA in
their respective region of the County. The CTSA may coordinate the transportation
service by either providing the service directly or entering into a contract for the
service, as well as provide other technical assistance.
SunLine has always fulfilled its responsibilities as the CTSA. However, a consultant's
report on the review of SunLine's role with Coachella Valley social service organization
recommended the transfer of the CTSA function to its non-profit arm, Community
Partnerships of the Desert (CPD). This would enable the CPD to take a more pro-
active role in the coordination of transportation services in the community and avail the
program of funding only accessible to non-profit organizations.
At their January meeting, SunLine's ACCESS Advisory Committee voted unanimously
to recommend to the Board that the CTSA responsibilities be shifted from SunLine to
CPD. SunLine's Board approved the transfer at their January 27, 1999 meeting.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
That the Plans and Programs Committee recommend that the Commission approve the
transfer of the Consolidated Transportation Service Agency (CTSA) designation in the
Coachella Valley from SunLine Transit Agency to Community Partnerships of the
Desert as requested.
000013
1
February 8, 1999
•
045056
Dese^ Hcr Scr,ncs
Po,-, S ,
:. ^ear„
Jerry Rivera
Riverside County Transportation Commission
3560 University Avenue, Suite 100
Riverside, CA 92501
Dear Jerry:
MEMBERS
^ - h1
d J'^
A Public Agency
At their January 27 meeting, the SunLine Board of Directors approved the transfer of
the CTSA function to our non profit organization, Community Partnerships of the Desert,
Inc.
Attached is the staff report which provides background and rationale for the action. We
are submitting this RCTC for consideration and approval.
Please let me know if you need any further information.
Sincerely,
SUNLINE TRANSIT AGENCY
Tracy A. Daly
Assistant General Manger
cc:
Richard Cromwell III, General Manager
Dennis Gilman, Director of Administrative Services
-505 Harry Oliver Trail, Thousand Palms, California 92276
Phone 760-343-3456 Fax 760-343-3845
000014
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
RE:
SunLine Transit Agency
January 27, 1999
Board of Directors
ACTION
Assistant General Manager and Senior Long Range
Transportation Analyst
Transfer of Consolidated Transportation Services
Agency function to Community Partnerships of the
Desert
Recommendation
Recommend that the Board of Directors approve the transfer of the Consolidated
Transportation Services Agency (CTSA) function from SunLine Transit Agency to
Community Partnerships of the Desert (CPD).
Background
The primary purpose of a CTSA is to promote the coordination of social service
transportation in a given service area, as mandated by the State of Califomia.
CTSAs serve a variety of roles ranging from direct service provision, to brokering
services, to technical assistance.
SunLine has always been a very proactive CTSA within the limits of staff time
available for CTSA activities. In June 1998 a report entitled "Creating the Social
Service Transportation Resource Center" was presented to the Board, the result of
consultants' review of SunLine's role with Coachella Valley social service
organizations. One of the many recommendations of the report was to move the
CTSA function to our non profit arm enabling us to take a more proactive role in the
coordination of transportation services for the community, and avail the program of
funding only accessible to non profit organizations.
After a careful review, the ACCESS Advisory Committee at their January meeting
voted unanimously to recommend to the Board that CTSA responsibilities be shifted
from SunLine to CPD. Staffing the CTSA function would be Ronnie Williams, CPD's
Transportation Coordinator.
Fiscal Implications
None, although CPD can tap a variety of funding sources that are not available to
SunLine as a govemment agency.
Leslie Grosjea
f:lpctran\brdagendUan99\CTSA.doc
Page 27
000015
AGENDA ITEM 9
•
•
•
RIVERSIDE
COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION
DATE:
February 22, 1999
TO:
Plans and Programs Committee
FROM:
Tanya Love, Program Manager
THROUGH:
Eric Haley, Executive Director
SUBJECT:
Measure A Commuter Assistance Program Evaluation Survey
Request for Proposal
The Measure A Commuter Assistance Program provides multiple incentive and
education services to support both employers and commuters in Western Riverside
County. The Advantage Rideshare Local and Freeway Programs each have an eight
year history. Based on unsolicited comments, these two incentive programs, along
with Club Ride, are considered to be among the most proactive and respected
transportation demand management efforts in the South Coast Air Basin. The
Commission's success in serving commuters and employers within Riverside County
continues to be replicated in adjoining San Bernardino County. The San Bernardino
Associated Governments (SANBAG) has contracted with the Commission since 1993
to provide a sister commuter assistance program for its residents. In addition, the
program has served as a model for the Los Angeles County Metropolitan
Transportation Authority's Voluntary Rideshare Program.
While qualitative input is important, it must be balanced against quantitative
information. Staff is requesting that a consultant be hired to evaluate the effectiveness
of the incentive programs in changing travel behavior through short term incentives.
In FY 94/95, an effectiveness study was completed. The study looked at: 1) the
length of time an incentive participant continued to rideshare after the initial three
month period; 2) the importance the incentive was in motivating the participant to
begin ridesharing; 3) the number of days per week the participant continued to
rideshare; 4) if no longer ridesharing, what factors caused the participant to stop; 5)
the types of improvements, if any, participants and employers suggest; 6) the reasons
employers chose and/or chose not to participate in the. programs; 7) the impact the
programs have had on an employer's trip reduction plan; and 8) a rating of the
performance of the consultant program staff.
Staff is recommending that staff develop and send out a Request for Proposal (RFP)
for a similar evaluation of the effectiveness of these programs over the past four years.
Preliminary discussion with SANBAG staff indicates they are also interested in having
their commuter assistance program, administered by RCTC, evaluated.
00001 r
Funding for the consultant evaluation survey is available in the FY 98/99 Measure A
Commuter Assistance Program budget. Based on similar types of program evaluation
surveys, we estimate the cost for the survey will range between $15,000 to
$25,000.
Financial Assessment
Project Cost
Source of Funds
Measure A
Included in Fiscal Year Budget
Y
Year
Included in Program Budget
Y
Year Programmed
98/99
Approved Allocation
Year of Allocation
98/99
Budget Adjustment Required
N
Financial Impact Not Applicable
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
That the Plans and Programs Committee recommend the Commission authorize staff
to: 1) develop and issue a Request for Proposal for a Measure A Commuter Assistance
Program Evaluation Survey; 2) rate the RFP's by a committee comprised of two RCTC
Commissioners, two RCTC staff members, two SANBAG staff members and possibly
two SANBAG Board members; and 3) present a recommendation on selecting a firm
to conduct the work at a future Commission meeting.
•
•
000017