Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout11 November 27, 2000 Plans and Programss • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA 7 Records PLANS AND PROGRAMS COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA TIME: 12:00 DATE: Monday, November 27, 2000 LOCATION: Riverside County Transportation Commission Office 3560 University Avenue, Conference Room A Riverside, CA 92501 052823 ••• COMMITTEE MEMBERS ••• Robin ReeserLowe/Lori Van Arsdale, City of Hemet, Chairman Percy Byrd/Conrad Negron, City of Indian Wells, Vice Chair Gerald Zeller/Brian DeForge, City of Beaumont Robert Crain/Gary Grimm, City of Blythe John Chlebnik/Gregory V. Schook, City of Calimesa Eugene Bourbonnais/Cora Sue Barrett, City of Canyon Lake Greg Ruppert/Matt Weyuker, City of Desert Hot Springs Jack van Haaster, City of Murrieta Frank Hall/Harvey Sullivan, City of Norco Dick Kelly/Robert Spiegel, City of Palm Desert Will Kleindienst/Deyna Hodges, City of Palm Springs Daryl Busch/Mark Yarbrough, City of Perris Bob Buster, County of Riverside, District I Roy Wilson, County of Riverside, District IV ••• STAFF ••• Eric Haley, Executive Director Cathy Bechtel, Director, Planning and Programming • • • 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 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 Board. RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION PLANS AND PROGRAMS COMMITTEE http://www.rctc.org MEETING LOCATION 3560 UNIVERSITY AVENUE, SUITE 100, RIVERSIDE 92501 CONFERENCE ROOM A PARKING IS AVAILABLE IN THE PARKING GARAGE ACROSS FROM THE POST OFFICE ON ORANGE STREET MONDAY, NOVEMBER 27, 2000 12:00 NOON AGENDA* * Action may be taken on any items listed on the agenda. 1. CALL TO ORDER 2 ROLL CALL 3. PUBLIC COMMENTS 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES (October 23, 2000) 5 APPROVAL OF THE FEASIBILITY STUDY REPORT FOR THE NORTH/SOUTH CORRIDORS BETWEEN 1-10 AND SR -60 BETWEEN 1-15 AND 1-215 Pg. 1 This item is to seek Committee approval to: 1) Receive and file the Feasibility Study Report for the North/South Corridors between 1-10 and SR -60 between 1-15 and 1-215 per Contract No. RO-9936; Plans & Programs Committee Meeting November 27, 2000 Page 2 2) Approve the recommendations contained in the report; 3) Forward to the Commission for final action. 6 RCTC'S ACE GRADE CROSSING PRIORITY LIST Pg. 30 This item is to seek Committee approval of the RCTC Alameda Corridor -East Grade Crossing Priority List presented by Parsons Brinckerhoff and forward to the Commission for final action. 7. METROLINK 2000 ONBOARD SURVEY PRELIMINARY RESULTS Pg. 33 This item is to seek Committee approval to receive and file the presentation on the Metrolink 2000 Onboard Survey as an information item and forward to the Commission for final action. 8. RAIL PROGRAM UPDATE Pg. 64 This item is to seek Committee approval to receive and file the Rail Program Update as an information item and forward to the commission for final action. 9 CONSULTANT SELECTION FOR THE PERFORMANCE AUDITS OF THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION AND THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSIT OPERATORS Pg. 83 This item is to seek Committee approval to: 1) Authorize the Executive Director to enter into a contract with O'Melia Consulting to conduct the Performance Audits of the Riverside County Transportation • • • Plans & Programs Committee Meeting November 27, 2000 Page 3 Commission and the Riverside County Transit Operators in an amount not to exceed $70,000; and 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. 10. REALLOCATE LOCAL TRANSPORTATION FUNDS AND AMEND SUNLINE TRANSIT AGENCY'S SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN FOR FY 00/01 Pg. 86 This item is to seek Committee approval to: 1) Reprogram $680,000 in Local Transportation Funds originally identified for the purchase of two expansion buses. $346,000 of the reprogrammed funds will be used for bus maintenance and modifications to their maintenance facility, with the balance of $334,000 set aside as capital reserves; 2) Amend SunLine Transit Agency's Short Range Transit Plan for FY 00/01; and 3) Forward to the Commission for final action. 11. REQUEST FROM ANZA VALLEY TRANSPORTATION TO PURCHASE NEW WHEELCHAIR LIFT EQUIPPED VEHICLE Pg. 91 This item is to seek Committee approval to: 1) Reallocate Measure A Specialized Transit funds in the total amount of $16,916 ($10,212 from FY 98/99 and $6,704 from FY 99/00) for the purchase of a new wheelchair lift equipped vehicle; Plans & Programs Committee Meeting November 27, 2000 Page 4 2) Re -designate Measure A Specialized Transit funds in the total amount of $13,820 ($6,500 from FY 00/01 and $7,320 from FY 01/02); 3) Direct Anza Valley Transportation to secure a minimum of three bids for the purchase of a vehicle (including one through the Riverside Transit Agency's procurement process or through Caltrans' Section 5310 Program); and 4) Forward to the Commission for final action. 12. RE -BID OF SMART CALL BOX INSTALLATIONS AND ENHANCED TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT CENTER SITES Pg. 94 This item is to seek Committee approval to re -bid the Request for Proposals/Bid Package for the installation of Smart CaII Boxes and Caltrans Traffic Management Center Sites for the purpose of including updated federal provisions and forward to the Commission for final action. 13. ADJOURNMENT - The next meeting will be at noon, Monday, January 22, 2001 at the RCTC offices. • MINUTES • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION • • • PLANS AND PROGRAMS COMMITTEE Monday, October 23, 2000 MINUTES 1. CALL TO ORDER The meeting of the Plans and Programs Committee was called to order by Chairperson Robin Lowe at 12:07 p.m., at the offices of the Riverside County Transportation Commission, 3560 University, Suite 100, Riverside, California, 92501. 2. ROLL CALL Members Present: Daryl Busch Percy Byrd John Chlebnik Frank Hall Dick Kelly Robin ReeserLowe Greg Ruppert Roy Wilson Members Absent: Eugene Bourbonnais Bob Buster Robert Crain Will Kleindienst Jack van Haaster Gerald Zeller Arrived after the start of the meeting. 3. PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no comments from the public. 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES M/S/C (Hall/Chlebnik) approve the minutes dated September 25, 2000 as submitted. Abstain: Busch, Byrd, Wilson 5. REVIEW OF 1-215 PROJECT COST INCREASE — OPTIONS Hideo Sugita, Deputy Executive Director, provided an overview of this item and an update on -the ad hoc committee which met on September 27, and October 6, 2000. Eric Haley, Executive Director, added that this would keep the County ahead of schedule in terms of the Route 91 to Mary Street to the 90/215/60 interchange. Chairman Lowe asked about the bridge requirements and if there would be a partnership entered into regarding the bridges in Riverside and Hideo Sugita replied that Caltrans has a policy that they match replacement structures with the current street section, they actually project these projects out five years to accommodate local agencies. Commissioner Dick Kelly commented that he understood there was nothing to be done about this project, but he does not agree that Caltrans cannot contribute, since it is Caltrans' policy. Chairman Lowe added she believes the Committee needs to look at this policy and suggest to the City that this should be revised. Plans and Programs Committee Minutes October 23, 2000 Page 2 Eric Haley said that most capital improvement programs are 5 to 10 years out and in that initial 27 months there should have been the ability to scale the initial financial request to accommodate those bridge sizing(s), and as such there was probably an error or oversight in the initial planning. Commissioner Kelly requested that the minutes reflect the Committee's concern regarding these issues and their observation that the City should, in the future, consider offsetting some of their local growth impacts on state highways. M/S/C (Kelly/Ruppert) recommend the Commission to: 1) Request Caltrans to participate in funding the cost increase on the 1-125 project in the amount of $7.5 million of ITIP funds; 2) Request Caltrans to apply $20.0 million of the TCRP funds for the Route 91 Mary Street to the 91/215/60 interchange to assist in addressing the 1- 215 cost increase; 3) Program $10.278 million of Route 91 Mary Street to Seventh Street project to the 1-215 cost increase; 4) Program the 1-215 reserve funds of $729,000 of Western County formula funds from the 1998 STIP to address the 1-215 cost increase; and, 5) Program $11,451,000 of 2000 STIP Augmentation Western County Formula funds (total available $26,493,930) to the 1-215 cost increase. 6. ROUTE 74 PROGRAMMING Hideo Sugita stated that RCTC was informed by Caltrans that they have obtained their commitment to include $16.7 million in SHOPP funding for the Route 91 auxiliary lane project. However, the cost estimate for that project has grown from $12.5 million to approximately $20 million. RCTC has received approval of the environmental document by federal highway and can now move into right-of-way acquisition. M/S/C (Byrd/Ruppert) recommend the Commission approve to Reprogram $3.345 million of RIP funds from the Route 74 project to the Route 91 Auxiliary Lane project. 7. 2000 STIP AUGMENTATION FORMULA ADJUSTMENT M/S/C (Wilson/Hall) recommend the Commission approve the adjusted SB 45 formula shares for the 2000 STIP Augmentation. 8. STIP DISCRETIONARY FUNDING CALL FOR PROJECTS AND EVALUATION CRITERIA. Allyn Waggle, CVAG, distributed a memorandum from Corky Larsen, Executive Director of CVAG, for the record. He pointed out that the formula for distribution of STIP money was arranged in March 1998. At that time the criteria for the disposition of the discretionary money was also determined. Further, the formula and criteria were memorialized in a MOU adopted in December 1998, and required that if any changes were to be made to the MOU and the elements of it, that those changes would first be approved or reviewed by the CVAG Executive Committee. If changes were made to the criteria, including additions and modifications recommended by the RCTC TAC, that those changes should first be processed through the CVAG Committee review process. This is a process argument rather than an argument that may affect the outcome of the distributions of the discretionary monies. Eric Haley pointed out that the memo indicates that the 1998 STIP was decided on March 11, 1998, when actually this was formalized later in the year, and that there was a 1999 supplemental STIP as well. In the last two years there have been four call for projects, each • • • • • Plans and Programs Committee Minutes October 23, 2000 Page 3 one operating under judgment criteria. He added that it was his recollection that the Commission considered special conditions which have arisen since the passage of Measure 'A', and which was broadly defined to include jurisdictions that were not even municipalities at the time. When looking at discretionary dollars the first step should be to decide what standards are to be used to base a calculation of relative merit on. The standards for reviewing these projects are necessary, as they are discretionary in the broadest sense and do come back to the Commission. There has to be some means of evaluating projects across the geography of the county, and that this was decided upon unanimously by the TAC, a geographically dispersed group of Public Works Directors. This has worked well in the past without any abuse of the process in terms of east and west. Commissioner Kelly stated that he was on the committee that set up the current criteria. He added that he was concerned that this would cause continual changes because of "looking at special conditions", this was originally set up with this in mind. This is a discretionary fund and should be used now for problems, it would be a mistake to tie this in with something else, such as another call for projects or part of a whole new STIP. Cathy Bechtel, Director of Planning and Programming, said that the TAC would review all of the applications using the agreed upon criteria adopted by the Commission and then develop a recommended funding list that would then come forward to the Commission for final action. Commissioner John Chlebnik stated that he favored moving forward with the programs with 2000 funds now and to issue that call for projects to encompass 2002 and that any un-funded call for projects be carried over so entities with unfinished projects would not have to reapply for the same project in 2002. Any changes or additions to the criteria should be treated as a separate issue prior to a call for projects, and that CVAG be given adequate notice and time. Commissioner Percy Byrd requested that, in the future, additional criteria be added to an item through the proper process of discussion prior to placing it on the agenda and Cathy Bechtel replied that the proper process had been followed by the TAC and all agencies affected were involved. Commissioner Kelly stated that CVAG does not disagree with having uniformed standards and that all that CVAG would like to do is as an organized group of cities that has been set up in Measure 'A' decide what the top projects are. RCTC does not come to CVAG, they go straight to the cities. Chairman Lowe responded that RCTC is made up of all the individual cities in the County and they are represented in RCTC. Commissioner Byrd stated that the concern is that prior to any adoptions or changes to the criteria that CVAG be given an opportunity to review, express and either agree or disagree with them. Allyn Waggle reminded the Committee that RCTC and CVAG have an MOU that specifies criteria and priorities and that any changes to those criteria be brought back to CVAG for consideration. Plans and Programs Committee Minutes October 23, 2000 Page 4 Shirley Medina, Program Manger, explained that in the past during call for projects, WRCOG and CVAG have been represented in the evaluation committees and discussions. This time it seemed that WRCOG and CVAG did not attended. M/S/C (Chlebnik/Byrd) that the Commission approve to release a call for projects using the recommended evaluation criteria for programming 2000 State Transportation ImprovementProgram (STIP) discretionary funds; and '2)'All un-funded projects are to be carried over to be included in the 2002 evaluation. Dissension: Kelly 9. 2000 STIP AUGMENTATION 2% PLANNING REQUEST M/S/C (Byrd/Wilson) that the Commission approve to Program 2000 STIP Augmentation 2% planning funds from both the Western County and Discretionary pots totaling $778,559, and a portion of the un-programmed balance of the 1998 STIP 2% discretionary planning funds totaling $221,441, for a total of $1,000,000 to be programmed for the Community and Environmental Transportation Acceptability Process (CETAP) planning effort. 10. STATUS OF 2000 AUGMENTATION SUBMITTAL M/S/C (Wilson/Byrd) that the Commission approve to receive and file the status of the 2000 STIP Augmentation Submittal as an information item. 11. TRANSPORTATION SPECIALISTS, INC. - JURUPA VALLEY SENIOR SHUTTLE M/S/C (Busch/Ruppert) that the Commission approve additional funding to Transportation Specialists, Inc., in the amount of $5,000 for FY 01 and $10,000 for FY 02. 12. CETAP CORRIDORS STATUS REPORT M/S/C (Busch/Byrd) that the Commission receive and file the CETAP Corridors Status Report as an information item. 13. RAIL PROGRAM UPDATE Stephanie Wiggins, Program Manager, informed the Committee of the parking problem at the La Sierra Station. The lot has a capacity of 350 spaces and has an overflow of 50-60 spaces. In an attempt to resolve this matter the passengers were surveyed last week and entry into a drawing for a free monthly pass was offered for participation. Chairperson Lowe drew the winning ticket, which will go to Michael Wallace of San Jacinto. Stephanie Wiggins continued and said that the MTA strike was over and with this the rail program began to regain ridership momentum again. First quarter revenues were strong enough that the temporary loss of ridership and revenue will have no lasting effect. M/S/C (Busch/Ruppert) recommend the Commission receive and file the Rail Program Update as an information item. s • • There being no further business for consideration by the Plans and Programs Committee, the meeting was adjourned at 1:30 p.m. The next meeting will be held at 12:00 p.m., Monday, November 27, 2000 at the RCTC offices. • • AGENDA ITEM 5 • • • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMM/SS/ON DATE: November 27, 2000 TO: Plans and Programs Committee FROM: Bill Hughes, Bechtel Project Manager Gustavo Quintero, Bechtel Project Coordinator THROUGH: Hideo Sugita, Deputy Executive Director SUBJECT: Approval of the Feasibility Study Report for the North/South Corridors between 1-10 and SR -60 between 1-15 and 1-215. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is to seek Committee approval to: 1) Receive and file the Feasibility Study Report for the North/South Corridors between 1-10 and SR -60 between 1-15 and 1-215 per Contract No. RO-9936; 2) Approve the recommendations contained in the report; and 3) Forward to the Commission for final action. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: At the June 9, 1999 Commission meeting, the Commission awarded Contract No. RO- 9936 to Meyer, Mohaddes and Associates (MMA) to produce a Feasibility Study for future North/South Corridors between 1-10 and SR -60 between 1-15 and 1-215. The funding of the study was split between SANBAG and RCTC on a 50/50 basis. SANBAG's 50% share was further split with the City of Fontana. RCTC was the lead agency for the project with agency participation from both the City of Fontana and SANBAG. Study team members also included planners from the County of Riverside, Caltrans and adjacent cities. Based on the extensive involvement of the North -South Corridors Study Team, a wide range of arterial improvements were identified and evaluated. The resulting report provides an overview of the technical assessment efforts/results of the six arterial alternatives included in the Final Study Set. The technical results compare the alternative mobility improvement scenarios and allow for informed decision -making on the prioritization of the alternatives within engineering, environmental and financial constraints. The North -South Arterial Corridor Study Area is an east -west oriented corridor which covers portions of Riverside and San Bernardino counties, as well as the cities of Fontana and Riverside, and unincorporated areas of both counties. As illustrated in the 000001 following map, the approximate limits of the study area are the 1-10 Freeway on the north; the 1-215 Freeway on the east; the SR -60 Freeway on the south; and the 1-15 Freeway on the west. The identification and evaluation of possible arterial improvements in the study area was extended north to Valley Boulevard in San Bernardino County, and south to Mission Boulevard in Riverside County. The North -South Arterial study area was recommended for study based on capacity deficiencies and related congestion problems, which have affected both local residents and long-distance commuters for many years. The lack of adequate north -south traffic capacity in this area has resulted in the exacerbation of traffic congestion problems on the few connecting arterials, as well as on area freeways, which support the overflow traffic. An overview of the factors identified in the 1998 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) prepared by SCAG, which will shape transportation system decisions in the North - South Arterial Corridors Study area are significant population growth, significant employment growth, substantial intra-study area trip growth, and significant capacity deficiencies resulting in projections of high levels of future congestion. The resulting analysis shows the North -South Arterial Study Area is forecast to attract and serve 3.2 million daily vehicle miles traveled and 169,600 daily vehicle hours traveled. The projected increase in traffic volumes will require an additional 26 lane miles of lane capacity on the study area's surface streets alone. More than 37 percent of the study area's travel time, or 38,500 hours every week day, will be spent in congestion. The study area's north -south arterials are forecast to experience growth ranging from 44 percent over 2000 conditions at the Mulberry/Country Village screenline at the western edge of the study area to a 64 percent increase at the Riverside Avenue/Main Street screenline on the eastern edge. The future growth is evenly distributed throughout the study area with an average arterial volume growth of 64 percent. For the study area's north -south freeways, the RIVSAN model analysis showed a forecast 51 percent increase from 2000 conditions in daily vehicular traffic at the 1-15 Freeway screenline, and a 46 percent daily increase on the 1-215 Freeway - with an average study area freeway volume growth of 48 percent. Overall, 2020 traffic volumes in the study area are forecast to increase by an average of 52 percent over 2000 traffic conditions. The North -South Arterial Corridors Feasibility Study was accomplished through the following five tasks: 1. Identification of current study area conditions including mobility problems and related engineering and environmental constraints. 2. Identification of future mobility needs and goals based on information about the future levels of congestion and mobility without any further • • • 00000� • • • transportation improvements in the study area. 3. Development of alternative improvements based on the identified future congestion problems and capacity deficiencies. 4. Evaluation and comparison of the alternative improvements including resulting mobility improvements along with engineering feasibility and environmental impacts. 5. Development of recommendations identifying the best performing alternative improvements based on a combination of mobility improvements, engineering feasibility, conceptual cost and overall environmental impacts. The purpose of this study was to identify projects to improve area wide circulation by enhancing north -south movement between 1-10 and SR -60. Based on Study Team member input and previous studies, an Initial Study Set of twelve corridors was identified and evaluated on a "fatal flaw" basis. This effort resulted in the definition of the Final Study Set of the six arterial corridors illustrated on the following map and described below: 1. Mulberry A venue/Country Vil/age Road/Mission Boulevard 2. Poplar A venue connection to Pyrite Road 3. Sierra Avenue connection to Pacific Avenue 4. A/der Avenue to Locust Avenue to Armstrong Road to Valley Way 5. Cedar Avenue to Market Street 6. Sierra A venue to Pacific A venue with Armstrong Road to Valley Way A summary of the findings is included in the following tables attached to the staff report. Recommendations: Based on the finding of this study, the North -South Arterial Corridors Study Team has developed recommendations for consideration and approval: 1. The study identified the range of engineering, environmental and mobility impacts, benefits and costs generated by the six corridor alternatives. This information should be used by the local agencies to evaluate their respective long range circulation needs in coordination with adjacent jurisdictions and, as appropriate, make amendments to their respective General Plans and Circulation Elements to guide land use and preserve future rights -of -way. 2. Where agreement can be reached on specific projects by affected jurisdictions, next steps work should include more detailed engineering and environmental analysis to identify detailed design elements, mitigation costs and project phasing. Advancement through the project 000003 development process will better position the project for discretionary funding opportunities at the local, regional, state and federal level. 3. The study revealed considerable congestion on a majority of the area's east -west streets under 2020 Baseline Conditions. Further analysis will be necessary in both counties to mitigate this east -west congestion and fully address the mobility problems within the study area. 4. Coordinate the identified alternatives with the ongoing CETAP Study in Riverside County and the San Bernardino County Comprehensive Transportation Plan process in order to integrate the identified alternative improvements with other proposed western Riverside and San Bernardino County arterial improvements. A copy of the "Draft Final Executive Summary of the North -South Arterial Corridors Feasibility Study" is attach hereto. • 000001 • • Table A: Overview of Technical Assessment Results Alt Mulberry/ Country Village Alt2 Poplar/ Pyrite Alt3 Sierra/ Pacific Alt4 Alder/ Locust/ Armstrong/ Valley Way Alt5 Cedar/ Rubidoux/ Market Alt6 Sierra/ Pacific + Armstrong/ Valley Way Total Order -of- Magnitude Cost 3 2 4 1 2 3 Cost Per Lane Mile Added 3 2 3 1 2 • 4 Ease of Constructability 4 1 3 1 2 3 Environmental Impact 4 1 3 1 2 3 Environmental Process 4 1 3 1 2 3 Increase in Vehicles Miles Traveled 4 1 4 3• 2 3 Reduction in Daily Hours Spent in Delay 2 3. 2 3 4 3 Improve peak travel speed 3 1 3 2 1 2 Total Study Area Freeway Relief • • 2 2 1 1 4 3 North -South Study Area Freeway Relief 2 1 2 2 3 4 Total 31 15 28 16 24 31 Notes 4 Alternative providing the highest level of mobility benefit, ease of constructability, lowest cost, or the lowest level of environmental impacts. Altemative providing a high level of mobility benefit, moderate cost, ease of constructability, or moderate environmental impacts. Altemative with a moderate level of mobility benefit, some constructability issues, higher cost, or higher level of environmental impacts. Alternative with minor or no mobility benefit, highest cost, major constructability issues, or major environmental impacts. 000006 • • • 'fable C: Su nlniary of Tech nical Asxess nlcnl Results Alt I Mulberry/ Country Village Alt 2 Poplar/ Pyrite Alt 3 Sierra/ Pacific Alt 4 Alder/Locust/ Armstrong/ Valley Way Alt 5 Cedar/ Rubidoux/ Market i @hh t fJlelll 1 actftfiS> V ? Project Description - New project and/or operational improvement Alt 6 Sierra/ Pacific + Armstrong/ Valley Way New + Improvement Improvement New + Improvement - Arterial lane miles added 4 6 3 New + New + Improvement Improvement Improvement 7 5 5 - Existing number of arterial lanes per direction I-2 0-I 0-2 0-2 I-2 0-2 - Resulting number of arterial lanes per direction 2 2 2 2 2 2 I. O rder -of -Magnitude Cost (Millions) Total conceptual cost including administration, engineering, right-of-way and construction. 520.4 539 .0 $15.5 560.8 532 .9 521 .2 2. Cost"Per Lane Mile Added (Millions) $5.1 56 .5 55.2 58.7 56.6 54.3 3. Constructability - Assessment of engineering constraints (Minor, moderate, major) Minor Major (earthwork) Minor Major (r -o -w takes I-I0/Alder) Moderate Minor 4. Resulting O perating Speeds (Miles per ho ur) 55 - 65 45 - 55 55-65 55 - 65 55-65 55-65 5. Operational Improvements (Yes/No) Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 6. Geometric Improvements (Yes/No) No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Fable C: Summar of Technical Assessment Results continued irviranm,ar ASSOssrn nt Factors: .., I. Potential Impacts - Corridor level impacts (Unknown, none, minor, moderate, major) 2. Potential Impacts - Areas of concern: - Community disruption - Biological resources, wetlands - Endangered species, sensitive habitat 3. Review Pro cess Requirements (Minor, moderate, major) 4. Possible Unavoidable Adverse Impacts (Yes/No) Alt I Mulberry/ Country Village Moderate Moderate Minor - Moderate Minor - Moderate Yes Alt 2 P oplar/ Pyrite Major Unknown Moderate - Major Moderate - Major Yes Alt 3 Sierra/ Pacific Moderate - Major Minor Major Minor Major Moderate - Major Moderate - Major Yes Alt 4 Alder/L ocust/ Armstrong/ Valley Way Moderate - Major Major Major Moderate - Major Moderate - Major Yes Alt 5 Cedar/ Rubidoux/ Market Moderate Moderate Moderate - Major Moderate - Maj or Moderate - Major Yes Alt 6 Sierra/ Pacific+ Armstrong/ Valley Way Moderate - Major Major Major Moderate - Major Moderate - Major Yes • • • • Table C: Summary of Technical Assessment Results (continued) Alt 1 Mulberry/ Country Village Alt 2 Poplar/ Pyrite Alt 3 Sierra/ Pacific Alt 4 Alder/Locust/ Armstrong/ Valley Way Alt 5 Cedar/ Rubidoux/ Market eminent Fa Alt 6 Sierra/ Pacific+ Armstrong/ Valley Way 1. Improve linkages between two cou nties - Additio nal lane miles and/or new facility Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 2. Increase arterial capacity (Additional lane miles) Yes 4 Yes 6 Yes 3 Yes 7 Yes 5 Yes 3. Improve peak hour travel speed - 2020 Study Corridor average congested speed with improvements compared to Baseline Conditions projected by RIVSAN model. (Change in miles per hour) Yes - 0 .4 No +0 .4 Yes - 0.4 No +0.1 No +0.6 5 No +0.2 4. Reduce peak hour delay - Percentage change in PM peak hour delay over 2020 Baseline Conditions projected by RIVSAN model. No 3.5 % Yes - 3.4 % No 2 .7 % Yes - 1 .2 % Yes -6.0% Yes -2.3 % 5. Reduce daily hours of delay - Daily hours of delay with improvements compared to 2020 Baseline Conditions projected by RIVSAN Percent daily hours of travel time spent in delay compared to 2020Baseline Conditions projected by RIVSAN model. No + 1,400 - 0.4 % Yes -1,300 -0.8 No +1,100 -0.4 % Yes - 500 -0.8 Yes - 2,300 -1 .4 % Yes -1,000 Fable (2: Summary of Technical Assessment Results (co nti nued Alt 1 Mulberry/ Country Village Alt 2 Poplar/ Pyrite Alt 3 Sierra/ Pacific Alt 4 Alder/Locust/ Armstrong/ Valley Way Alt 5 Cedar/ Rubidoux/ Market Alt 6 Sierra/ Pacific+ Armstrong/ Valley Way nessin t!' 6. Improve arterial operations - Yes/No - Arterial and/or freeway improvements Yes Arterial + Freeway Yes Arterial + Freeway Yes Arterial + Freeway Yes Arterial + Freeway Yes Arterial Yes Arterial + Freeway gc`go `og 7A. Increase arterial capacity (Yes/No) Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 713. Increase peak hour travel speeds (Yes/No) Yes No Yes No No No 7C. Reduce peak ho ur travel time spent in delay (Yes/No) No Yes No Yes Yes Yes 7D. R oadway grade constraints - Need for truck climbing lanes No Yes No No No No 8. Increase study area freeway capacity - 2020 PM peak period trips added/deleted from study area freeway system Yes (300) Yes No (300) 1,600 No Yes 3,000 (2,300) Yes (1,600) 9. Improve north -south arterial capacity - Number of improved screenline locations (of 7 locations) 2 5 4 4 4 3 • • • 0S2634 • • • NORTH -SOUTH ARTERIAL CORRIDORS FEASIBILITY STUDY Draft Final Executive Summary Prepared for: Riverside County Transportation Commission San Bernardino Association of Governments Prepared by: Meyer, Mohaddes Associates Boyle, Engineering BonTerra Consulting November 2000 J99-094 RECEIVED NOV 092000 BECHTELiv Office eS 6. (7 ji/ego /CD /79j /5.//.D/ 000011 North -South Arterial Corridors Feasibility Study EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) and San Bernardino Association of Governments (SANBAG), in association with other city, county and regional agencies, have undertaken a North -South Arterial Corridors Feasibility Study to identify improved connections between Riverside and San Bernardino counties in the area between the I-15 and 1-215 freeways. The purpose of the North - South Corridors Study was to define the extent of future mobility problems within the study area and to identify improvement projects that would address the identified mobility needs. Based on the extensive involvement of the North -South Corridors Study .Team, which was comprised of representatives from the affected agencies, a wide range of arterial improvements was identified and evaluated. The resulting report provides an overview of the technical assessment efforts/resuks of.the six arterial alternatives included in the Final Study Set. The technical results compare the alternative mobility improvement scenarios and allow for informed decision -making on the prioritization of the alternatives within engineering, environmental and financial constraints. Need for Project The North -South Arterial Corridor Study Area is an east -west oriented corridor which covers portions of Riverside and San Bernardino counties, as well as the cities of Fontana and Riverside, and unincorporated areas of both counties. As illustrated in the following map, the approximate limits of the study area are the I-10 Freeway on the north; the I-215 Freeway on the east; the SR -60 Freeway on the south; and the I- I 5 Freeway on the west. The identification and evaluation of possible arterial improvements in the study area was extended north to Valley Boulevard in San Bernardino County, and south to Mission Boulevard in Riverside County. The North -South Arterial study area was recommended for study based on capacity deficiencies and related congestion problems, which have affected both local residents and long-distance commuters for many years. The lack of adequate north -south traffic capacity in this area has resulted in the exacerbation of traffic congestion problems on the few connecting arterials, as well as on area freeways, which have absorbed the overflow traffic. An overview of the factors identified in the 1998 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) prepared by SCAG, which will shape transportation system decisions in the North -South Arterial Corridors Study area, includes the following: Significant population growth — with Riverside County projected to experience a 82 percent population growth between 1994 and 2020, and San Bernardino County forecast to have a 100 percent increase during the same time period. • Significant employment growth — with Riverside County projected to experience a 174 percent increase in the number of employees between 1994 and 2020, and San Bernardino County forecast to have a 127 percent growth during the same time period. ▪ Substantial intra-study area trip growth — with 60 percent of Riverside County's work trips in 2020 projected to take 30 minutes or less (45 percent are forecast to take 15 minutes or less), and 67 percent of San Bernardino County's future work trips projected to take 30 minutes or less (40 percent are forecast to take 15 minutes or less). 1 Meyer, Mohaddes Associates • • 00001j_' • • North -South Arterial Corridors Feasibility Study • Significant capacity deficiencies resulting in future high levels of congestion — with future congestion increasing on the study area's freeway system and spreading to the arterial system, with higher north -south arterial congestion due to constrained arterial facilities with limited capacity. During this study, the forecast future high levels of vehicle trip growth and related congestion projected in the 1998 RTP were confirmed through a 2020 screenline analysis performed at arterial and freeway locations along the Riverside -San Bernardino county line using traffic forecasts from the RIVSAN model. The future year model runs incorporated approved and funded projects identified with RCTC and SANBAG staff. The resulting analysis shows the North -South Arterial Study Area is forecast to attract and serve 3.2 million daily vehicle miles traveled and 169,600 daily vehicle hours traveled. The projected increase in traffic volumes will require an additional 26 lane miles of lane capacity on the study area's surface streets alone. More than 37 percent of the study area's travel time, or 38,500 hours every week day, will be spent in congestion. The study area's north -south arterials are forecast to experience growth ranging from 44 percent over 2000 conditions at the Mulberry/Country Village screenline at the western edge of the study area to a 64 percent increase the Riverside Avenue/Main Street screenline on the eastern edge. The future growth is evenly distributed throughout the study area with an average arterial volume growth of 64 percent. The exception was Agua Mansa Road — a diagonal arterial connecting the Cedar/Rubidoux/Market travel corridor with the Riverside Avenue/Main Street corridor. This two-lane roadway, serving heavy truck traffic, is forecast to experience a 228 percent increase in traffic by 2020. No improvements to Agua Mansa Road were proposed and analyzed as part of this study; widening and other improvements to this arterial will need to be addressed in any follow-on work. For the study area's north -south freeways, the RIVSAN model analysis showed a forecast 51 percent increase from 2000 conditions in daily vehicular traffic at the I-15 Freeway screenline, and a 46 percent daily increase on the I-215 Freeway — with an average study area freeway volume growth of 48 percent. Overall, 2020 traffic volumes in the study area are forecast to increase by an average of 52 percent over 2000 traffic conditions. A mobility analysis was performed using the RIVSAN model at seven north -south and five east -west screenline locations to identify the 2020 Baseline Conditions without the implementation of any of the arterial and freeway -related improvements identified as part of this study. In 2020, all 12 of the screenline locations are forecast to experience a significant increase in congestion. During the morning peak period, while all of the intersections are projected to operate at a constrained, but still acceptable level of service (LOS D), operations at 75 percent of the locations are forecast to experience a major increase in traffic volumes resulting in a lower level of service. Operations at a majority of the study area's screenlines are projected to worsen by a factor ranging from two to four times. Future baseline conditions are significantly worse during the evening peak hour. Five of the seven north -south screenline locations are expected to experience capacity problems ranging from approaching to exceeding capacity with negative operational effects. Three screenline locations are projected to operate at LOS D with traffic volumes approaching capacity — Etiwanda Avenue, Armstrong Road and Riverside/Main. Two screenline locations are forecast to operate at LOS E Nvith traffic volumes experiencing a high level of delay — north -south Mulberry/Country Village and east -west Jurupa Avenue. Three east -west locations are projected to experience LOS F with a breakdown in operations — Agua Mansa Road, Valley Boulevard before the 1-10 and Mission Boulevard. 3 Meyer, Mohaddes Associates 00001 North -South Arterial Corridors Feasibility Study • • • Study Process The North -South Arterial Corridors Feasibility Study was accomplished through the following five tasks: 1. Identification of current study area conditions including mobility problems and related engineering and environmental constraints. 2. Identification of future mobility needs and goals based on information about the future levels of congestion and mobility without any further transportation improvements in the study area. 3. Development of alternative improvements based on the identified future congestion problems and capacity deficiencies. 4. Evaluation and comparison of the alternative improvements including resulting mobility improvements along with engineering feasibility and environmental impacts. 5. Development of recommendations identifying the best performing alternative improvements based on a combination of mobility improvements, engineering feasibility, conceptual cost and overall environmental impacts. Alternatives Considered The purpose of this study was to identify projects to improve area wide circulation by enhancing north - south movement between I-10 and SR -60. Based on Study Team member input and previous studies, an Initial Study Set of twelve corridors was identified and evaluated on a "fatal flaw" basis. This effort resulted in the definition of the Final Study Set of the six arterial corridors illustrated on the following map and described below: Mulberry Avenue/Country Village Road/Mission Boulevard — This alternative included widening portions of this existing arterial facility, along with extending Mulberry Avenue north from Stover Avenue to a new half -diamond I-10/Mulberry Avenue interchange, along with widening of the existing bridge over the SR -60 at the southern end of the corridor. Poplar Avenue connection to Pyrite Road — This option proposed a new roadway connection south from Poplar Avenue in San Bernardino County through the Jurupa Hills to connect with Pyrite Road in Riverside County. Related improvements include: constructing a new bridge over the I-10 Freeway and Union Pacific Railroad tracks; widening Popular Avenue south to the Poplar/Beech/Citrus terminus using the Municipal Water District right-of-way; widening and realigning Pyrite Road south to Mission Boulevard; and making improvements to the existing bridge over the SR -60 Freeway. Widening and other improvements to Granite Hill Drive may also be required, but have not been included in this study effort. Sierra Avenue connection to Pacific Avenue — This alternative proposed widening and improving Sierra Avenue south from Valley Boulevard to 301h Street, along with extending Sierra Avenue south to connect with Pacific Avenue and widening of Pacific Avenue (which would become Sierra Avenue) south to Mission Boulevard. Related improvements include: improving the at - grade Union Pacific Railroad crossing north of the current terminus of Pacific Avenue; providing a new half -diamond SR-60/Pacific interchange (westbound off and eastbound loop on); and replacing the existing SR-60Nalley Way eastbound ramps with hook ramps connecting to Mission Boulevard east of Byrne Road. 4 Meyer, Mohaddes Associates 000015 .xts-aa‘c.Ru'moo • North -South Arterial Corridors Feasibility Study • • 4. Alder Avenue 10 Locust Avenue to Armstrong Road to Valley Way — This alternative proposed widening Alder Avenue south from Valley Boulevard and providing a new I-10 interchange and related bridge over the Union Pacific railroad tracks. Alder Avenue would be widened and a new connection to Armstrong Road via Locust Avenue would be provided. Alder Avenue and Locust Avenue would be connected via a new roadway in the vicinity of Jurupa Avenue. Armstrong Road/Valley Way would be widened south to Mission Boulevard. Related improvements include: widening and improving of the SR-60Nalley Way undercrossing; and replacing the existing SR-60Nalley Way eastbound ramps with hook ramps connecting to Mission Boulevard east of Byrne Road. 5. Cedar Avenue to Market Street — This alternative proposed to widen and improve Cedar Avenue and Rubidoux Boulevard south to Market Street, along with the reconfiguration of the Rubidoux Boulevard/Market Street intersection. Market Street south to the SR -60 Freeway would be widened, including the Santa Ana River crossing. This option includes widening and other improvements to the SR-60/Market Street and the SR-60/Rubidoux Boulevard interchanges. Based on Study Team discussions, a sixth alternative was identified combining proposed improvements from Alternative 3 (Sierra Avenue connection to Pacific Avenue) and Alternative 4 (Alder Avenue to Locust Avenue to Armstrong Road to Valley Way): 6. Sierra Avenue to Pacific Avenue with Armstrong Road to Valley Way — This alternative combines all of the improvements described above for Alternative 3, along with roadway widening of Valley Way and Armstrong Road south from Sierra Avenue. Similar to Alternative 4, this option would include widening and improving of the SR-60Nalley Way undercrossing and replacing of the existing SR-60Nalley Way eastbound ramps with new hook ramps connecting to Mission Boulevard east of Byrne Road: In addition, a new half -diamond interchange would be constructed at SR-60/Pacific Avenue. As described in each of the alternatives, a wide range of arterial and freeway improvements was identified and evaluated through this study effort. In summary, study area freeway improvements included new interchanges, bridges and ramps along with widening and improving of existing facilities. Identified arterial improvements focused on provision of new roadway connections and widening of existing facilities: Many of the study area's arterial roadways provide only a single lane in each direction. The figure on the next page illustrates the preferred design configuration, providing two lanes in each direction, utilized in this study effort. Overview of Technical Assessment Results Analytical efforts focused on an engineering, environmental and mobility assessment at a "fatal flaw" level. The results provide jurisdictions with a basis for informed decision -making on the prioritization of the alternatives and provide an understanding of the issues that may arise during the next steps of preparing detailed engineering design and environmental documentation. The technical assessment results are presented in detail in the North -South Arterial Corridors Study report. In summary, while the six alternatives range in ease of constructability, community and environmental impacts, mobility benefits and resulting cost, all of the proposed improvement options appear feasible. An overview of the technical assessment results is presented below by alternative and in two summary tables on the following pages. Mulberry/Country Village (Alternative 1) Alternative 1 is the second least expensive option with a total cost of $20.3 million and the lowest cost of S5.1 million per lane mile added. This alternative has been identified as one of the easiest of the corridor 6 Meyer, Mohaddes Associates 000017 • R/W 110' R/W 86' 6' 6' 27. 8 CURB 12' AC PAVEMENT\ 2 14' CURB-. 9' 9' 14' 12' -CURB SIDEWALK BASE COURSE / (OPTIONAL) BO E 8' CURB Imo 6' 6'i 2% CURBED L BASE COURSE SIDEWALK OR (OPTIONAL) PAINTED MEDIAN NO SCALE RNERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMtl$SOON NORTH -SOUTH CORRIDOR STUDY TYPICAL ROADWAY CROSS SECTION ALL SirittlS SFEET 1 O' ALOUST MOO 000013 North -South Arterial Corridors Feasibility Study • • options to construct and environmentally process, as it generally involves improvements along existing roadway facilities and would not require extensive right-of-way takes or impact known sensitive biotic resources. Implementation of the proposed arterial and freeway -related improvements proposed in Alternative 1 will attract and serve an additional 88,900 daily vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and 7,500 vehicle hours traveled (VHT) over 2020 Base Conditions — the highest increase in VMT and VHT among the alternatives. This alternative will result in an increase in the daily hours spent in delay, but will result in a minor reduction in the percentage of the total daily vehicle hours spent in delay. Under Alternative 1, both the study area average freeflow and congested speeds are forecast to decrease. The future conditions analysis identifies no upgrading in the operation of any study area arterials, including Mulberry/Country Village, as improvements to this corridor attract and serve a major increase in the number of daily trips. In the evening peak hour, implementation of this alternative provides minor traffic volume relief to east -west Valley Boulevard, which is still forecast to operate at LOS F at the county screenline. Implementation of this option provides moderate relief to three freeways — the I-10, the I-15 and the I-215 — with a total reduction of 300 daily evening peak period trips, or approximately 75 peak hour trips. • IWANDA AVENUE w it w i 1.MA.. •===-a- -e--a. >- iCr W 7 J 0 w z w o644 60 14/6 o�F ti Poplar Avenue connection to Pyrite Road (Alternative 2) This alternative was identified as having the second highest total cost of $39.1 million, and a mid -range cost of $6.5 million per lane mile added. Alternative 2 has major constructability issues related to the provision of a new roadway connection through the Jurupa Hills, which will require extensive grading. In addition, this option could potentially be effected by the contamination of the nearby Stringfellow acid pits, would require the elimination of the Metropolitan Water District (MWD) greenbelt running parallel to Poplar Avenue, would impact commercial uses along Pyrite Road, and would effect sensitive biotic resources. Should the MWD greenbelt be considered parkland, the impacts may trigger the need to do Section 4(f) evaluation if the project is processed through the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) in order to secure federal funding. 0 The proposed arterial improvements in Alternative Meyer, Mohaddes Associates 8 00001; North -South Arterial Corridors Feasibility Study 2 would attract and serve an additional 2,800 daily vehicle miles traveled, while providing a decrease in daily vehicle hours traveled of 1,000 hours over 2020 Base Conditions. In addition, this option will result in a reduction of the number and percentage of daily hours spent in delay (0.8 percent). Alternative 2 is forecast to improve the study area average congested speed, while resulting in a decrease to the average freeflow speed. Even with implementation of a new north -south roadway connection, the operational analysis shows no resulting improvement to any of the area's arterials level of service during the morning peak hour. This option does remove some peak period traffic from Mulberry/Country Village, Sierra Avenue, Armstrong Road, Cedar/Rubidoux and Valley Boulevard. During the evening peak hour, implementation of -this alternative improves operations on Mulberry/Country Village (LOS E to D), -while removingsome traffic from parallel north -south arterials and slightly increasing the traffic volume on Mission Boulevard. Analysis of this alternative clearly shows the strong need for additional study area capacity, as link analysis shows the new Poplar/Pyrite connection carrying close to capacity peak hour traffic volumes in 2020. Implementation of this option provides moderate relief to three freeways — the I-10, the I-215 and the SR - 60 — with a total reduction of 300 daily evening peak period trips, or approximately 75 peak hour trips. This is the only alternative that reduces peak period trips on the study area portion of the SR -60. • Sierra Avenue connection to Pacific Avenue (Alternative 3) Alternative 3 has the lowest total cost ($15.6 million) and the third lowest per lane mile added cost ($5.2 million). Based on conceptual engineering analysis, this alternative was identified as being relatively easy to construct as it generally involves improvements to existing roadway facilities, and a new roadway connection within flat terrain with minor construction constraints. The environmental assessment found that implementation of this alternative would require some residential displacements, affect sensitive habitat, and potentially have noise impacts that could not be adequately mitigated. With implementation of the proposed arterial improvements to Sierra/Pacific, the study area is forecast to attract and serve 80,900 additional daily VMT and 7,200 more daily VHT over 2020 Base Conditions, while experiencing a minor decrease (0.4 percent) in daily hours of delay. This alternative is projected to provide the largest decrease in average freeflow speed, along, with a decrease in average congested speed. Even with attracting and serving an additional 80,900 vehicle miles, the Sierra/Pacific corridor is forecast to operate at LOS C in the morning peak hour and at LOS D in the evening peak hour. In the morning peak hour, implementation of this alternative provides significant operational improvements with three adjacent north -south arterials returning to free flow operations: Cedar/Rubidoux, Agua Mansa Road and Riverside/Main. Alternative 3 also improves operations to east -west Jurupa Avenue (LOS D to C), while 9 Meyer, Mohaddes Associates 000020 North -South Arterial Corridors Feasibility Study • • • resulting in some increases in volume, but not level of service on Armstrong Road south towards Valley Way and the SR -60. In the evening peak hour, operations are forecast to improve on adjacent Riverside/Main (LOS D to C), while adjacent Cedar/Rubidoux remains at LOS C, and Agua Mansa Road remains at LOS F, but does experience some reduction in traffic volume. Both Armstrong Road and Mission Boulevard are forecast to experience an increase in volume, with Armstrong degrading from LOS D to E and Mission Boulevard remaining at LOS F. Implementation of Alternative 3 is forecast to increase the number of peak period trips on two study area freeways — the east -west I-10 and the SR -60 — while reducing trips on the north -south I-15 and I-215. This option is forecast to increase travel on the study area's freeway system by a total of 1,600 peak period trips, or approximately 400 peak hour trips. • Alder Avenue to Locust Avenue to Armstrong Road to Valley Way (Alternative 4) Alternative 4 was assessed as having the highest total cost of $60.8 million along with the highest cost per lane mile added ($8.7 million). This alternative has major constructability issues related to the provision of a new I- I 0/Alder Avenue interchange, which also must incorporate the crossing of the adjacent highly active railroad tracks. Alternative 4 also has engineering constraints related to the construction of a new high capacity connection between Alder and Locust avenues, while avoiding the Jurupa Hills, existing residential properties, and the proposed Delhi Sands flower loving fly habitat. This option would potentially result in extensive right-of-way impacts in the vicinity of the I-10 Freeway and may result in access problems in Riverside County for the homes fronting on Valley Way. Additionally, the high school located on Alder Avenue could pose safety issues, while the required school zone traffic speed reduction would negatively impact the operational effectiveness of this facility. Widening of Armstrong Road and Valley Way ould result in extensive residential right-of-way takes and noise impacts that could not be adequately mitigated: The arterial and freeway -related improvements proposed in Alternative 4 will attract and serve an additional 37,000 daily vehicle miles traveled over 2020 Base Conditions with a minor decrease (0.8 percent) in daily hours of delay. This alternative will result in a minor increase of 2,700 in daily vehicle hours traveled. Implementation of this alternative would result in a decrease to the average freeflow speed and provide a minor improvement to the average congested speed. Implementation of the arterial improvements proposed in this option, including a new roadway connection between Alder and Locust along with a new Alder/I-10 interchange, is forecast to provide major capacity improvements to north -south Mulberry/Country Village and Sierra Avenue, as well as east -west Agua Mansa Road and 7th. Street. This alternative would also provide minor capacity improvements to Etiwanda Avenue, Valley Boulevard/I-10 on- and off -ramps and Valley Boulevard berv.een Citrus and Sierra avenues. Implementation of Alternative 4 is projected to result in a major increase in traffic volumes on north -south Armstrong Road, as well as east -west Jurupa Avenue and Mission Boulevard. 1t would result in a minor increase in traffic volumes on Cedar/Rubidoux and Riverside/Main. This alternative does not improve the forecast level of service on any study area 10 Meyer, Mohaddes Associates 000021 North -South Arterial Corridors Feasibility Study arterials, but would degrade the future level of service on Armstrong Road (LOS D to E) and on Jurupa Avenue (LOS E to F). Implementation of this set of arterial improvements results in the highest increase in evening peak period trips on the area's freeway system with an estimated total increase of 3,985 peak period trips. This option does provide the highest relief to the I-215, but does add 3,900 peak period trips to the SR -60. • Cedar Avenue to Market Street (Alternative 5) This option was assessed as having a mid -range total cost ($32.9 million) and a mid -range cost of $6.6 million per lane mile added. Alternative 5 has moderate constructability issues related to the widening of Market Street as it crosses the Santa Ana River. Construction of this option would also result in land use and biotic impacts. Should an individual permit pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act be required and federal funding used, this alternative could be more complicated to process due to the NEPA/Section 404 Integration Process. Implementation of Alternative 5 is forecast to result in a decrease of 12,000 daily VMT and 2,500 VHT compared to 2020 Base Conditions. This alternative correspondingly has the highest reduction (1.4 percent) in daily hours spent in delay among the alternatives. implementation of this set of improvements provides the largest increase in the average congested speed, along with a minor decrease in the average freeflow speed. With implementation of the proposed arterial and freeway -related improvements proposed in this alternative, Cedar/Main is forecast to continue operating at LOS C in both peak hours. During the morning peak hour, implementation of this alternative is projected to result in minor volume reductions on Riverside/Main, while increasing volumes on Agua Mansa (LOS F) and Sierra (LOS A to B). In the evening peak hour, this option again would improve operations on Riverside/Main (LOS D to C), while negatively impacting Jurupa Avenue (LOS E to F) and increasing the traffic volume on Agua Mansa Road (LOS F). This alternative is forecast to provide congestion relief to a majority of the study area's freeways and provide the highest reduction of total peak period freeway trips — 2,300 peak period trips, or approximately 575 peak hour trips. The SR -60 is the only freeway not provided peak period relief by this option. • Sierra Avenue to Pacific Avenue with Armstrong to Valley Way (Alternative 6) Alternative 6 proposes a combination of arterial and freeway -related improvements from alternatives 3 and 4. This option was identified as having the third lowest total cost of $21.2 million and the lowest cost per lane mile added ($4.3 million). The proposed arterial improvements were identified as being relatively easy to implement with proposed improvements to existing facilities along with a new roadway connection within a flat terrain with minor construction constraints. Implementation of this alternative would require displacements and affect sensitive habitat. Widening of Armstrong Road and Valley Way 11 Meyer, Mohaddes Associates North -South Arterial Corridors Feasibility Study would result in extensive residential right-of-way takes and noise impacts that could not be adequately mitigated. • • • 5. Difficulty in environmental clearance process requirements 6. Increase in vehicle miles traveled 7. Reduction in daily hours spent in delay Implementation of the proposed arterial and freeway - related improvements proposed in Alternative 6 is forecast to attract and serve a mid -range number of additional daily vehicle miles traveled (33,800) over Base Conditions with the second highest decrease (1.1 percent) in daily hours of delay. This alternative (1.2 would result in an increase of 1,900 hours in daily (1.3 vehicle hours traveled. Alternative 6 is forecast to improve the study area's average congested speed, while resulting in a minor decrease in average freeflow speed. During the evening peak period, implementation of this alternative would have a minor or no impact on Etiwanda Avenue and Cedar/Rubidoux. It is forecast to relieve some pressure on Mulberry/ Country Village (LOS E to D), while resulting in a negative impact on north -south Sierra Avenue (LOS C to D) and Armstrong Road (LOS D to F) as they attract and serve additional trips. This option also would negatively impact the operations of east - west Jurupa Boulevard (LOS E to F). Two study area streets are projects to experience some increase in available capacity while remaining at a LOS F — north -south Agua Mansa Road and east -west Valley Boulevard before the I-10 on and off -ramps. Mission Boulevard would experience increased traffic volumes while continuing to operate at LOS F. Alter -native 6 is projected to provide the highest congestion relief to the study area's north -south freeways and the second highest number of evening peak period freeway trip reductions. Implementation of the arterial and freeway -related improvements proposed in this option is forecast to reduce the total evening peak period trips on the I-15 and I-215 freeways by 5,100 trips. This option provides the second highest level of peak period relief— 1,600 evening peak period trips, or approximately 400 peak period trips. Summary of Findings A summary of the technical assessment findings is presented in Table A on the following page. This table summarizes the differences among the alternatives based on the following key factors: Total order -of -magnitude cost Cost per lane mile added 3. Ease of constructability 4. Range of environmental impacts 9. Total study area freeway relief 10. Study area north -south freeway relief. S. Improvements to peak period travel speed 12 Meyer, Mohaddes Associates 000023 Table A: Overview of Technical Assessment Results Alt 1 Mulberry/ Country Village Alt 2 Poplar/ Pyrite Alt 3 Sierra/ Pacific Alt 4 Alder/ Locust/ Armstrong/ Valley Way Alt 5 Cedar/ Rubidoux/ Market Alt 6 Sierra/ Pacific + Armstrong/ Valley Way Total Order -of- Magnitude Cost 3 2 4 1 2 3 Cost Per Lane Mile Added 3 2 3 1 2. 4 • Ease of Constructability 4 1 3 1 2 3 Environmental Impacts 4 1 3 1 2 3 Environmental Process 4 1 3 1 2 3 Increase in Vehicles Miles Traveled 4 1 4 3 2 3 Reduction in Daily Hours Spent in Delay 2 3. 2 3 4 3 Improve peak travel speed 3 1 3 2 1 2 Total Study Area Freeway Relief 2 2 1 1 4 3 North -South Study Area Freeway Relief 2 1 2 2 3 4 Total 31 15 28 16 24 31 Notes 4 3 Alternative providing the highest level of mobility benefit, ease of constructability, lowest cost, or the lowest level of environmental impacts. Alternative providing a high level of mobility benefit, moderate cost, ease of constructability, or moderate environmental impacts. Alternative with a moderate level, of mobility benefit, some constructability issues, higher cost, or higher level of environmental impacts. 1 Alternative with minor or no mobility benefit, highest cost. major constructability issues, or major environmental impacts. • • 00002'4 North -South Arterial Corridors Feasibility Study • • • The results presented in Table A provide a relative ranking of the six alternatives based on conceptual level engineering, environmental and mobility analysis. Alternatives providing the highest level of mobility benefit, ease of constructability, lowest cost, and/or lowest level of environmental impacts were assigned a higher numerical ranking than those alternatives with a minor mobility benefit, high cost, major constructability issues, and/or major environmental impacts. Based on the resulting relative numerical ranking, alternatives 1, 3, 5 and 6 scored high, while alternatives 2 and 4 received a lower ranking. A more detailed analysis of the technical findings is presented at the end of the report in Table B, which provides overview of the mobility analysis results, and Table C, which provides a detailed summary of the technical assessment results. - Next Steps The purpose of the North -South Arterial Corridors Study was to identify projects to improve area wide circulation by enhancing north -south movement between the I-10 and SR -60 freeways. This initial study effort determined the need for the project, addressed a full set of alignment options, determined conceptual engineering feasibility and performed an initial environmental assessment. A Final Study Set of six corridor alternatives was evaluated through a fatal flaw level of analysis to identify engineering, environmental and mobility impacts and benefits. While the alternatives range in ease of constructability, community and environmental impacts, mobility benefits and resulting costs, the conceptual level analysis demonstrated that all six alternatives were feasible. And while the alternative arterial improvements yield minor mobility improvement to the regional system as shown in Table B, they do offer significant improvement to mobility and local area access at strategic locations within the study area. Overall, the identified alternatives allow the transportation network within the study area to accommodate the forecast 64 percent increase in arterial traffic. It should be noted that this study process focused on the identification and evaluation of possible improvements to enhance north -south movement between the I-10 and SR -60 freeways. During this study process, the future impact to east -west streets within the study area was also evaluated, but no improvements were identified. The 2020 Baseline Conditions show a significant level of future congestion on a majority of the area's east -west streets. Possible improvements to mitigate this forecast mobility problem should be initiated to fully address the mobility problems within the North -South Arterial Corridors Study Area. If the decision is made to move ahead on any or all of the arterial alternatives, the next step would be to perform a more detailed engineering and environmental analysis through a Conceptual Engineering Study for the arterial improvements and a Project Study Report for the freeway -related improvements. A key factor in designing and ultimately constructing the improvements will be the anticipated funding source. The six alternatives represent a combination of roadway improvements typically funded through a range of local, regional, state and federal funding sources: • Freeway, improvements — including new/upgraded interchanges, overcrossings, undercrossings and ramps are typically funded with state and federal funding sources, as well as county measure programs as available; and Arterial improvements — including new and widened roadways, realigned intersections are constructed with local. regional and state funding. 14 Meyer, Mohaddes Associates 000025 North -South Arterial Corridors Feasibility Study Recommendations The North -South Arterial Corridors Study Team has developed recommendations for consideration and approval: The study identified the range of engineering, environmental and mobility impacts, benefits and costs generated by the six corridor alternatives. This information should be used by the local agencies to evaluate their respective long range circulation needs in coordination with adjacent jurisdictions and, as appropriate, make amendments to their respective General Plans and Circulation Elements to guide land use and preserve future rights -of -way. 2. Where agreement can be reached on specific projects by affected jurisdictions, next steps work - should include more detailed engineering and environmental analysis to identify detailed design elements, mitigation costs and project phasing. Advancement through the project development process will better position the project for discretionary funding opportunities at the local, regional, state and federal level. 3. The study revealed considerable congestion on a majority of the area's east -west streets under 2020 Baseline Conditions. Further analysis will be necessary in both counties to mitigate this east -west congestion and fully address the mobility problems within the study area. 4. Coordinate the identified alternatives with the ongoing CETAP Study in Riverside County and the San Bernardino County Comprehensive Transportation Plan process in order to integrate the identified alternative improvements with other proposed western Riverside and San Bernardino county arterial improvements. 15 Meyer, Mohaddes Associates 000626 Table B: Summary of Mobility Analysis ANemattva 1: Mulberry/Country Village ' Base Admstod 2020 Level el barters !Base f erna1M 0.051 upgrade Dogma LaMar Saw+r,r s Lorat.os i AM 1 PM 1 1.6 1 Eu.ands Ave 2 .►4veeny/Courary Wage 3 .Sorra Avenue 4 A nwtrong Read 5 Cedar AvesemAiu0ldeso 6 O D D E A j C A 1 0 j 0 B I e 0 D D 6 A LOS AMarna0iw 6- GtlarlRubiOoua/Markat iBw 10630140 2020 Laval el $anew law Condemn 0.06) Loralan Isaeerdwa Locations a 6 Amos Ave Ohm Carus/Serra 10 Yawn Bed Ohm Vevey/Pao.c 11 Veaay OW Man Canrsl5ana 12 7V St M6m LrasUCadar Apes Maw Reed R,w.saa/Mai, V.aey 814,1.10 Remy IFresways - PM Peak Period Volumes Cost: 61140 520.4 m 1.10 1-15 1-215 Net Change (n0aaa645Maue n tips) C 1 P I F E - _ F I D 6 D 1 I Eurrsae Ave 2 +W NCasaary Vaage 3 learn Avenue 4 IAmwoong Read 5 !Cedar Avrare4R.Oaesal 6 'Ague Mama Reed 7 1Rwersi6611Alen +Vaay 66,06.10 Ramps 10 Ma.ta 6 Jumps Ave Man Cena#Swn Alternative 2: Poplar/Pyrite Base Adjusted 2020 Leval el Swum !Baa CanaaY 11.011) 1 Unseat Degrade Locatam Saaeanlne Locators - AM ' PM 1 1.05 1 l.05 Saga 44200 62.600 63.600 75.300 YY66 YRpnuenRrds •OMa6aeI macaw 44,700 62.400 , . 63.000 75100 Nei 500 .100 400 -100 Mal Men Vseep9M. arc 11 i Valley Med Men 04.1114.11. 12 1766 Se Sewn Loa1VCedr AM I PM • LOS ' LOB D D ' E A A D C B C D D D B A !Freeways - PM Pell Prod Volumes Cost: 151140 132.6 m It -10 11.15 .4-215 WM Change (ndnaseaeaeea w Mee) 0 C o • � F a F 0 B a Base 44200 62.500 63100 75100 74.000 1 400 YM6 IrtprOvemeras Daa.w , Increase 61.4000 62200_ 44.000 Net 600 •1.100 400 .2.740 1 Erwande Ave 2 Mueerry/Cesmtry Waage 3 Serra Avenue _4 Armstrong Read 5 Cedar Avenue/Ruodoue D D j D E A I D I A O B D C F D F E F 0 B ALL IMPROVEMENTS Bw Adimted 2020 Level el Serleoe . Base Condemns 1105) Lec66ian ISoereer Locators 6 Aqua Manse Road 7 Rwersoe/Man 6 Vasey 804/1-10 Ramps e day Ave Mem C4rwSorn 10 Mason Bad Owe Vadey/Paofc 11 Valley BNO Man Canslssrrs 12 766 St torn LaasUCaOar t A D 0 !Freeways • PM Peak Paiod Volumes Cost: 514)0 579.0 m 1-10 15 1-215 Nei Change (naeue/decrew n trees) Alternative 7' Si.Ra/PaC111C Locator, 8a6e 44.200 62.500 67.600 75.300 Wan WripoverMerin Dea1w I Immune 43,700 I 62.100 74.700 64.000 Net -500 400 1200 400 1 I Elrrn. Ave 2 'Weeny/Country V616ps 3 'Sawa Avenue 4 !Amorat1 Reed 5 ;Cedar Ava1w1R1apwa 6 )Ago Maw Rood 7 IRka0ONM6n I iVasey 861{•10 Ramps 6 lAmme Ave Man Caruml4.re. 10 )Marla Blvd Man VaMy/Padlc 11 IVaIey 86d Maui Cann/Sim 12 i7t6 St Mom Laer5UCedr 'Newels - PM Peak Period V05.11.s Cat BR40 $166.6m11-10 0115 11-215 ;Net Change (noea+aaetsaw n tree) 1 400 Upgrade Dapna AM • PM LOS LOS D O A A C 5 0 D D D e ; D A B F D A F 1 a F 44.200 62.500 67.000 75.700 wan D. a.w 77.000 mpnvamal I 'edema Net I 63.300 000 65.700 2.100 1 46.607 2.407 •1.500 3.003 base Adjusted r 2020 lee o1 Service 'Bass commons M1OS) ' upgrsat Degrade SaeenOme Lou:prrs AM ' E0.an0a Ave MJplr*y/CWn•./y Wage 5e•n Avenue D D A A C B C D D D • F I 5 D i A e &-•wrong Road Casa: A...veR:sera. A,v W a Manse Rood Rxn mMan vales 5e4A-10 Ramps S .Al*Oa Ave Mrs Ctrus/Sem ua ..on Blvd tear V ey/Pao6c 1' va4ey 136a re Nd own Carus/Sm 1: 77' Si Oran LoostCodar meweys - PM Peet Period Volumes Cast 5R-60 5155 m v_ 'l :.e' Change Ie' asenlecaalae n tree) PM LOS LOS D E C D C 0 F E • BaseB 6 AA •. C C_ 5506 Imovnemants Decrees Increase 0 E 44100 62.500 63.600 75.300 • 62.000 2.100 400 67.700 74.700 ' 400 1.1100 Alternative 4: Alder/Locust/ArmstrongNalley Way - - base Adrystod 2020 Level 01 SINS! .sage Cessations MOS) upgrade ' Degrade PM ' LOS LOS D :OCa1�M' Saeenene LOcr'ans m ' E: ena Ave AM 0 O E A C A • 0 C C 5 ' F O 0 a O F 0 0 B A Alternative 6: Sierra/Pacific and Armstrong/Volley Way w B Adryelod 2020 Level of Seneca I Base Condemns 0.05) 1 Location 'San va na Lemons 2 3 4 5 6 7 e 6 10 'Masan BNd Man VaMy/Padlc 11 'Veers Blvd fawn CaruUSem 12 ' 716 5t Sawn LOa od stt ar Eteearsae Ave 1 my ary Vases Sierra Avenuensi • Ar rerlg Ready/R Caner Aven ued01o0 •Aqua Maw Rood n RwapeMn . Vagary 5646/1 - Rawls Ram 'Amps Ave Ohm C4naern 61:061:00119 MOM*MOM*AM PM ' LOS LOS 0 0 A A O 8 C 0 0 O 6 A Penal Freeways - PM Peak Vom lues Base 1 0 E C D C F D D B A B D P I B . , Meltimprovements Cost: 51140 621.2m 1-10 1-15 1-215 Net Change (aweasldevaw n Imes) 44 200 52.500 67.600 75.300 I increase 63.060 70/00 47.000 63.200 Nat 2100 700 400 x.000 -1.666 M.deem rrlry Village S.In Avenue 4 &-swop Rosa Cedar AvenueRu000ua E-- W A: -a MeMenu:RO RvendMn ea 11 v a4y Bled/I-10 Ramps 5 dw0. Ave /Nun Cans/Srem 1C Ms1On B04wn a Vaaey/Paarc 1 v axr Bed Sewn Ctro m oda/Se 1: +. S1 town LoosvC ar •'+Sways - PM Peat Penal Vo1mles A Bose Cost _.. S7�C 44.200 f 60 6 m 62500 X67 600 �•�5 75.700 Change iswveaslmecn 1n .se n os) E F 0 5 D wan rrrprev.mams Decrees moven 4.060 62.500 63.500 74 600 Net 7.660 0 -100 -700 3060 000027 1 'ablc C: Summary of I ccli nic tl Assessment Itesulls :;>;;:;:.;>;:;:.;;: .::«{; .;;: . Alt I Mulberry/ Country Village ;.-::.: :_ ::.:.. ..... ............... .... ... .. Alt 2 Poplar/ Pyrite Alt 3 Sierra/ Pacific Alt 4 Alder/Locust/ Armstrong/ Valley Way Alt 5 Cedar/ Rubidoux/ Market Alt 6 Sierra/ Pacific + Armstrong/ Valley Way :::.: .:::.::::.::<.:<.;:.;>:< .; ..;;:. .:: ::: ::..: :.. ��!yy� A .. .f : JVif1 �G n :.:. .... i ........ � � y���y y.( .:::: .v:.:::: :::::: :::v ::::: :.�:: :: :::::•iii:v: .i: •`:iii:.::::i :: ::: .{ •::: :: .: � .: ::: :::::::........ . : . . .... .,..... . �. :... :. .: .. .:.**#: .KI:A{F1F1T.�::<ii:ii:viii?: �: :: .: :: :::: ::: . �::: :::.:: ::: :. �: ::: :: .::.. ... ...... ... .. .......... ..... .. .. ..... ....... v.. ... ....... .. ....:... ... .... . ..... ... .. ... ..: ..:::: :. ...... .. ..... .. ... .. ...... ... ..... .. 4n •:: : rT ....+. .r:. ::: v .. .. r n. , , ...{{ v' :: •i:G:';:xv ..$[ . 'NM::. $::. :: tv .. .. ..i .�n �v: :: ::.. . ..�$ . n.. %. ,.,, . . . ... . .. .... ... ......r .. .,r. .. f. .. .\ vw: :: : { .:.. v ... .. Q\: :r{/.; }.,q v ... .f •#i::? r{i f.(j r{::::Y{:}�::vt >:.t ::vi.. � :.. t ,¢�:Cy( j�, +�:#;ii Project Description - New pro ject and/or operational improvement Improvement New + Improvement New + Improvement New 4- Improvement Improvement New + Improvement - Arterial lane miles added 4 6 3 7 5 5 - Existing number of arterial lanes per direction I - 2 0 -1 0 - 2 0 - 2 1 - 2 0 - 2 - Resulting number of arterial lanes per direction 2 2 2 2 2 2 1. Order -of -Magnitude Cost (Millions) Total conceptual cost including administration, engineering, right-of-way and construction. $20 .4 $39 .0 $15 .5 $60 .8 $32 .9 $21 .2 2. Cost Per Lane Mile Added (Millions) $5.1 $6.5 $5.2 $8 .7 $6.6 $4.3 3. Constructability - Assessment of engineering constraints (Minor, moderate, major) Minor Major (earthwork) Minor Major (r -o -w takes I -10/A Moderate Minor 4. Resulting Operating Speeds (Miles per hour) 55 - 65 45 - 55 55 - 65 55 - 65 55 - 65 55 - 65 5. Operational Improvements (Yes/No) Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 6. Geometric Improvements (Yes/No) No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes • • • • s T able C: Summary of Technical Ass essment Results (c onti nued >nJri*Mr taX sre rn n! 'arf� 1. Potential Impacts - Corridor level impacts (Unknown, none, minor, moderate, major) 2. Potential Impacts - Areas of concern: - Community disruption - Biolo gical resources, wetlands - Endangered species, sensitive habitat 3. Review Process Requirements (Minor, moderate, major) 4. Possible Unavoidable Adverse Impacts (Yes/No) Alt I Mulberry/ Country Village Moderate Minor Moderate Minor - Moderate Mino r - Moderate Yes Alt 2 Poplar/ Pyrite Major Major Unknown Moderate - Maj or Moderate - Major Yes Alt 3 Sierra/ Pacific Moderate - Major Minor Major Moderate - Major Moderate - Major Yes Alt 4 Alder/Locust/ Armstrong/ Valley, Way l• Moderate - Major Major Major Moderate Major Moderate - Major Yes Alt 5 Cedar/ Rubid oux/ Market M oderate Moderate Moderate - Major Moderate - Major Moderate - Major Yes Alt 6 Sierra/ Pacific+ Armstrong/ Valley Way { Moderate - Major Major Major Moderate - Major Moderate - Major Yes • • AGENDA ITEM 6 • • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION DATE: November 27, 2000 TO: Plans and Programs Committee FROM: Stephanie Wiggins, Program Manager THROUGH: Cathy Bechtel, Director of Planning and Programming SUBJECT: RCTC's ACE Grade Crossing Priority List TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is to seek Committee approval of the RCTC Alameda Corridor -East Grade Crossing Priority List presented by Parsons Brinckerhoff and forward to the Commission for final action. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: As a result of RCTC's involvement in the development of the Corridor Plan for the Alameda Corridor East Steering Committee, a prioritized list of grade crossing improvements along the three main lines (UP Los Angeles Subdivision, UP Yuma Main, and BNSF San Bernardino Subdivision) must be developed. The following jurisdictions, which have public at -grade crossings along the three main lines, were asked last month to submit a "Grade Crossing Prioritization Form": Cities of Banning, Beaumont, Calimesa, Coachella, Corona, Indio, and Riverside, and the County of Riverside. On Tuesday, November 14th, a meeting was held to review the submitted forms and develop criteria that would form the basis of developing a prioritized tier list. The key factors agreed upon were safety, delay, and availability of alternate grade separations. On Monday, November 20th, the RCTC TAC approved the prioritized tier list subject to technical clean-up (the addition of Airport Road and consideration for calculating total delay along Van Buren (Rutile, Jurupa, Bellegrave, and Clay). J. D. Douglas of Parsons Brinckerhoff will present the updated prioritized tier list (59 at -grade crossings) to the Committee for review and approval. 000030 • • • 100 YEARS To: RCTC Technical Advisory Committee From: J.D. Douglas Date: November 20, 2000 Subject: Rail Crossing Prioritization Factors Memorandum 505 South Main St, Suite 900 Orange, CA 92868 (714) 973-4880 fax (714) 973-4918 On November 14, RCTC staff and I met with the TAC subcommittee dealing with rail crossing grade separation issues. One of the items discussed was which evaluation factors RCTC should recommend be used in the four -county study to establish grade separation priorities. Based on our discussions with the subcommittee, the following factors should be recommended by RCTC for use as primary criteria for prioritizing grade separations in the four -county study: Safety • Existing accident rates and severity • Potential for future accidents (due to increases in blockage and delay) Delay • Total delay to existing traffic (including train switching and parking) • Total delay to future traffic Alternate Crossings • Availability of alternate grade separations nearby (locations without alternate available crossings should receive higher priority) In addition, the following factors should be recommended by RCTC for consideration in the four -county prioritization, but should be treated as secondary factors in the prioritization: • Nearness to residential areas (since grade separation would reduce the noise impacts of train whistles on residential neighborhoods) • Constructibility • Existing commitments of local funds Over a Century of Engineering Excellence 000031 CD O RCTC GRADE SEPARATION PRIORITIES C) Prioritization Meth od ol ogy C..) Factors Used in Prioritization 1999 Average Daily Vehicle Delay 2020 Average Daily Vehicle Delay Overall Accident Score (combination of frequency and severity) Adjacent Grade Separations Local Ranking Methodolo gy for Measuring 1999 Average Daily Vehicle Delay: 1999 Average Daily Traffic volume and gate down time (through trains only) 2020 Average Daily Vehicle Delay: 2020 Average Daily Traffic v olume and gate down time (through trains only) Overall Accident Score: Accident frequency multiplied by severity (train -involved accidents). Adjacent Grade Separations: Distance to near est grade separation. Local Ranking: local agency ranking of priority. Rating Points 1999 Average Daily Ve hicle Delay 5 > 30 veh hrs/day 4 > 20 ve h hrs/day 3 > 15 veh hrs/day 2 > 10 veh hrs/day 1 > 5 veh hrs/day 0 < 5 veh hrs/day 2020 Average Daily Vehicle Delay >100 veh hrs/day > 75 veh hrs/day > 50 veh hrs/day > 25 veh hrs/day > 10 veh hrs/day > 10 veh hrs/day Overall Accident Score > 0.20 > 0. 15 > 0. 10 > 0.05 > 0.00 0 Adjacent Grade Separations > 1 mile > 1/2 mile > 1/4 mile < 1/4 mile Rating points for local ranking score were determined using the inverse of the local agency's ranking, factored up so that the highest priority project received 25 points. Weighting Points Weighting points were applied to each evaluation factor so that each factor is weighted equally, with a maximum possible score of 500 points. The maximum possible total score is 2,500 points (500 for each factor). Prio rity Gro upings The grade crossings were grouped into five priority groupings based on the ir overall score. • AGENDA ITEM 7 • • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION DATE: November 27, 2000 TO: Plans and Programs Committee FROM: Stephanie Wiggins, Program Manager THROUGH: Cathy Bechtel, Director of Planning and Programming SUBJECT: Metrolink 2000 Onboard Survey Preliminary Results STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is to seek Committee approval to receive and file the presentation on the Metrolink 2000 Onboard Survey as an information item and forward to the Commission for final action. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The Metrolink 2000 Onboard Survey was conducted June 13-17, 2000, with follow- ups July 11-13. The last in-depth survey was accomplished in 1997; since then Metrolink service has expanded and ridership has grown by 25%. The Onboard study is designed to provide improved statistical validity and to provide a representative baseline of Metrolink ridership and travel characteristics. The objectives of the survey included obtaining, among others: • Information about passenger origins and destinations; • Information about customer satisfaction and the importance of particular service features; • Detailed information about passenger access and egress, including connecting modes of travel; and • A profile of riders including various segmentations. Mr, Henning Eichler, Market Research Manager for the SCRRA will provide a presentation on the preliminary results of the 2000 Metrolink Onboard Survey and highlight results related to the two Lines in Riverside County, the Riverside and Inland Empire -Orange County Lines. 000033 • • YEAR 2000 METROLINK CUSTOMER ONBOARD SURVEY 1 REA& • PARKER RFSF.\RCH I titi ,,•tj:uKSi nOui7. b Results in Research Survey/Market Rcsc:trrh \..•1 r'••� :rrry fit' iwl\:JIB.. C.•1,111, nn H s -+n _:.na Aual l • z '. r -.n.41 •uial•.-n 11.n,:4rr_lliur 4•IrI (:o?tri 1.0.a-att Nth.] kill {t scuar Frautnnic Rcsearal Ar,rh'tu. tbv^i'prrrr, 12cnnrrtatW And C..oxwh Irr.,.ua Rea & Parker Research San Diego, CA May -October, 2000 1 000031 INTRODUCTION AND METHODOLOGY The Metrolink Year 2000 Onboard Survey was conducted June 13-17, 2000, with follow-ups during July 11-13. A randomly drawn sample was based upon actual station boarding/alighting counts for each Metrolink train. The scientific sample of 3,479 Metrolink riders was designed to provide unbiased and statistically representative findings about Metrolink riders. Objectives of the survey included obtaining, among others: • information about passenger origins and destinations • information about customer satisfaction and the importance of particular service features • detailed information about passenger access and egress, including connecting modes of travel • a profile of riders including various segmentations The survey margin of error of +/-4% per line (Burbank +/- 8.9%) and +/-1.6% overall (@ 95% confidence) was achieved by the following sample distribution: Line Sample Size Ventura County Line 550 Antelope Valley Line 555 San Bernardino Line 630 Riverside Line 557 Orange County Line 566 Inland Empire Line 517 Burbank Turn (Airport Connections) 104 Total 3,479 Data were expanded by weights to establish overall proportionality. • 000033 2 RIDER DEMOGRAPHICS • • • The increase of Midday and Weekend service has resulted in more diverse ridership demographics. The ethnic diversity of Metrolink riders has increased, as has the proportion of female riders. Median income has declined and the ridership has grown older. This is especially evident for weekend riders. • Breakdown by major ethnic group shows . an increase in Hispanics and African -Americans, but a decrease in the proportion of Asians. Compared to the 1990 US Census figures, the proportion of Caucasian (52%) and Asian (9%) Metrolink riders is consistent with that of the corridors served. African American riders, however, are under -represented and Hispanics over- represented. It may also reflect demographic changes since 1990. • Although the mean age of riders is increasing, this growth is less than it was between 1995 and 1997. There has been a decline in the proportion of full-time employee use of Metrolink and an increase in students and part-time workers, both of which are consistent with the expanded off peak service since 1997. 3 000036 RIDERSHIP RETENTION AND LOYALTY The median length of ridership has declined with the addition of many new riders; however, the retention of existing riders from 1997 and before has been excellent. Indications from the riders are very strong that they will continue to be loyal riders in the future who will recommend Metrolink to friends and family members. Median length of usage Length of use for upper 20% of riders 1995 1997 2000 1 year 2 years 1.8 years 2 years 3.6 years 4.7 years • The median length of time using Metrolink has decreased from 2.0 years in 1997 to 1.8 years in 2000. • Today, the upper 20% of riders have used the system for 4.7 years and the bottom 20% for less than 6 months. • Upper 20% of rider length of use has increased by 1.1 years (increase from 1995 to 1997 was 1.6 years). Approximately 80% of Metrolink riders in 1997 are still using the system regularly in 2000. • 9.6% of riders have used Metrolink for 6 or more years (2,800 riders). • There has been a strong attraction of new riders, as indicated by the reduced median ridership tenure. • Riders are notably loyal with more than 80% indicating that they are very likely to continue using Metrolink and almost 77% indicating that they had already recommended Metrolink to friends and family, with another 11% very likely to do so. r 000037 4 • • • SATURDAY RIDER PROFILE Riders of Metrolink on Saturdays are very different from weekday riders. They are of significantly lower income, using the system less for work than for other purposes, and much less frequent in their ridership. Their level of satisfaction is very high and is similar to the general ridership in that regard ALL RIDERS ON ANTELOPE VALLEY AND SATURDAY RIDERS SAN BERNARDINO LINES Female Riders 62.1% 59.0% Caucasians 32.0% 45.5% African -Americans 37.0% 25.1% Income $27,700 $51,800 Full-time Employed 62.5% 83.4% Service Sector Employment 30.9% 18.6% Law/Goverment Employ. 11.5% 23.4% Frequency of Use 1.8 days 3.6 days Access to Station by carpool or bus 66.8% 46.8% Available car 53.7% 77.1% Purpose: Shopping/leisure 43.9% 10.6% Work One-way/Round Trip Tickets One-way trip Overall Satisfaction Likely to Continue Using Likely to Recommend 30.0% 75.6% 85.3% 33.6% 43.4% 17.4% 1.65 1.32 1.52 1.72 1.23 1.36 5 000038 TRAVEL BEHAVIOR The expansion of Metrolink service has led to a lower average weekly frequency of use, more diverse trip purposes, and less reliance upon monthly passes. • Predominant Metrolink stations of origin and destination in terms of daily boardings include (with percentage of total system boardings): Los Angeles 35.1% Irvine 3.8% Burbank 3.5% Industry 3.4% Riverside -Downtown 2.9% San Bernardino 2.8% Glendale 2.3% Covina 2.2% Fullerton 2.2% • LAUS-San Bernardino is the largest volume station pair in the system, followed by LAUS-Riverside-Downtown, LAUS-Irvine, and LAUS-Rancho Cucamonga. • Work and work -related trips declined from 97% to 86% total (91% weekday). Shopping, personal errands, and school -related trips have increased. • With the decline in the proportion of full-time employee use of Metrolink comes the logical drop in frequent ridership (5 or more days) and in the mean number of days riding. The Inland Empire/Orange County line shows the highest frequency of use, Antelope Valley the lowest. Women are more frequent riders than men. Working age riders (25-64) average 4.17 days. All other groups average 2.01 days per week. Again consistent with the expanded service, a lower percentage of riders are using monthly passes, with one way and round trip ticket purchases having increased. The vast majority of riders has automobiles available to them and uses Metrolink as an optional transportation alternative to their cars. There has been effectively no change in this characteristic from 1997. Ventura County, Orange County, Riverside, and the Inland Empire riders exhibit the highest automobile availability (almost 90% of riders). • 62% of riders (who made the same trip) used to drive alone before using Metrolink. The proportion of car/van pool users who switched to Metrolink has increased since 1997. • • • 6 000 0 3` • • 1 CUSTOMER SATISFACTION Metrolink riders continue to be remarkably satisfied with the overall service they receive. The Ventura County Line is the most satisfied among the lines and Riverside the least. Most of the service features are now more important to riders than they were in 1997, with the most important being on -time arrivals, seating availability on the train, personal security on the train, communication of delays, and cost. Data was analyzed to determine Metrolink's core strengths and weaknesses. Combining importance and satisfaction ratings (Quadrant Analysis, Figure 20.) helps rank service attributes, as they are being perceived by Metrolink customers. Strengths: Service attributes that receive both high importance and satisfaction ratings can be interpreted as representing Metrolink's core strengths. These attributes that can help define Metrolink's competitive marketing position include: • Safe Operation of Trains • Personal Security on the Train • Courtesy of Metrolink Conductors Weaknesses: • Attributes that are important to Metrolink customers, but receive low satisfaction ratings represent weaknesses that may damage Metrolink's brand equity. Among these service attributes are: • Cost of a Metrolink Ride • Communication of Delays • Communication of Service Interruptions 7 000040 CUSTOMER SATISFACTION (Continued) Further analysis aimed at identifying opportunities for Metrolink to take advantage of, and threats to customer satisfaction and long-term ridership. Opportunities Factor analysis was used to identify relationships between groupings of variables and the likelihood of continuing to use Metrolink and of recommending Metrolink to others. Improving service attributes related to these factors may help improve customer retention. Five factors proved to be statistically significant in predicting likelihood of continued usage: • Importance of safety and security • Importance of courtesy of Metrolink staff • Satisfaction with staff courtesy and performance • Satisfaction with seating on the train • Satisfaction with travel time/on-time Threats: In addition to customer satisfaction, analysis also determined the impact of problem occurrence rates. Problems concerning on -time arrivals, communication of delays, frequency of early morning trains, seating comfort on the trains, frequency of late evening trains, travel time, cost, and communication of service interruptions were shown to have the largest impact on overall satisfaction. Regression analysis was applied to service feature satisfaction and the rate at which certain problems occur. This procedure identified statistically significant predictors regarding the likelihood of continued Metrolink use and the likelihood of recommending Metrolink to others. Problem occurrences in the following service attributes impact the likelihood of continued Metrolink usage: • Travel time • Parking availability at the station • Availability of seating on the train • Cost of ride • Courtesy of conductors While Metrolink may have a certain level of control over some of these attributes, the strongest reasons for customers to stop using Metrolink (change of job or residential move) are clearly outside Metrolink's sphere of influence. 000041 8 • Oqur e 1 • 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% G 1993 G-. G C7 • Metro link (October 2000) Social Science Research Labora tory - SDSU Ethnicity of Metr olink Riders o Caucasian p Other 1994 1995 9 1997 2000 Figure 2 Ethnic Min ority Metrolink Ridership p Hispanic:, African p Asian/ American Pacific Islander 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% 1993 Metrolink (October 2000) Social Science Research Laboratory - SDSU 1994 1995 1997 F,y 2000 • 10 • 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 00/0 0- Under 35 Figure 4 Age of Metr olink Riders 35-54 55 and over 01995 Median Age: 40. 8 ■ 1997 Median Age: 42. 6 0 2000 Overall Median Age: 43.1 ■2000 Weekday Median Age: 43.7 • • 12 • • • • $70,000 $60,000 $50,000 $40,000 1 Figure 5 Median Household Income of Metr olink Riders 1995 1997 2000 Overall 2000 Weekday 13 Empl oyment Status of Metrolink Riders 1997 ■ 2000 Overall ❑ 2000 Weekday 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% - 0 • • Figure 7 Trip Purp ose for Metrolink Riders 4t %Jy 1997 112000 Overall ❑ 2000 Weekday 100% y 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% C) Kt1 To/From Work *Information Not Available for 1997 Business/Work Related Shopping/Personal Errands/School * 15 Frequency of Daily Ridership and Mean Number of Days Riding M etr olink 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% • • Figure 9 Ticket/Fare Types used by Metr olink Riders 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% Mo nthly Passes One -Way/ Round Trip Tickets 10 Trip Tickets 1997 ■ 2000 Overall ■ 2000 Weekday] 17 • • Figure 11 Car Availability by Metrolink Line (weekdays) 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% Figure 12 Mode of Transp ortation Prior to Using Metrolink (excluding those riders wh o did not make this particular trip previ ously) Drove Alone Car/Vanpool Other tran II 1995 ■ 1997 ❑ 2000 Overall ❑ 2000 Weekday it • 020 Figure 14 Origin Station by Time Segment* and Line Morning Peak Simi Valley Moorpark Chatsworth Oxnard Camarillo Morning Peak Lancaster Vincent Grade/ Acton Santa Clarita Princessa Sylmar/San Fernando Late Evening Los Angeles Burbank Lancaster Princessa Morning Peak San Bernardino Rancho Cucamonga Upland Fontana Covina Ventura County Midday 19.4 Los Angeles 17.9 Chatsworth 16.8 Northridge 10.7 Van Nuys 6.1 Antelope Valley Midday 31.9 Los Angeles Santa Clarita 26.9 Princessa 15.7 Lancaster 12.5 Newhall 4.6 27.3 27.3 18.2 18.2 34.9 15.0 11.6 9.3 7.5 San Bernardino Midday Los Angeles San Bernardino Montclair Afternoon/Evening Peak 40.7 Los Angeles 67.0 6 11.1 Chatsworth 8.1 11.1 Northridge 4.9 11.1 Simi Valley 3.2 Burbank 3.2 Afternoon/Evening Peak 41.2 Los Angeles 13.2 Burbank 11.8 Glendale 8.8 Lancaster 8.8 Santa Clarita Sylmar/San Fernando Saturday Lancaster Los Angeles Vincent Grade Sylmar/San Fernando Glendale Burbank Afternoon/Evening Peak 57.0 Los Angeles 12.7 Covina 6.3 Pomona Rancho Cucamonga 61.1 10.0 7.8 4.4 4.4 4.4 43.8 32.3 7.3 3.1 3.1 3.1 69.5 6.8 3.7 3.7 00005.1) 22 San Bernardino (continued) • • Late Evening Los Angeles San Bernardino Fontana Morning Peak 45.7 25.7 11.4 Riverside Midday Riverside -Downtown 38.0 Los Angeles Pedley 22.2 Riverside -Downtown Industry 18.7 Industry East Ontario 14.8 Montebello/ Commerce Morning Peak Irvine Oceanside Santa Ana San Juan Capistrano Anaheim 35.3 13.1 8.7 7.9 5.6 Morning Peak Riverside - La Sierra 40.5 Riverside -Downtown 27.3 West Covina 18.2 San Bernardino 11.6 *via connection Orange County Midday Los Angeles Irvine Orange Oceanside Inland Empire Midday Los Angeles* Irvine Saturday Los Angeles 31.4 San Bernardino 25.0 Riverside -Downtown 25.0 Upland 5.5 Rialto 4.7 Afternoon/Evening Peak 43.5 Los Angeles 34.8 Industry 8.7 Riverside -Downtown Montebello - 8.7 Commerce Afternoon/Evening Peak 37.8 Los Angeles 22.2 Irvine 11.1 Norwalk/Santa 8.9 Fe Springs Glendale* Fullerton Afternoon/Evening Peak 50.0 Irvine 50.0 Santa Ana Orange West Covina Riverside - La Sierra 65.9 10.8 5.4 4.8 60.7 8.9 7.1 3.6 3.6 27.4 23.0 15.0 9.7 9.7 *Time Segments are as follows: Morning Peak (depart prior to 8:30 a.m.), Midday (depart between 8:30 a.m. and 3:29 p.m.), Afternoon/Evening Peak (depart between 3:30 p.m. and 6:55 p.m.), Late Evening (depart at or after 6:55 p.m.) 23 Figure 15 Major Station Pairs (Both Directions) Two -Way Route Ridership as Percent of Total Los Angeles - San Bernardino 5.6 Los Angeles - Riverside Downtown 5.0 Los Angeles — Irvine 4.3 Los Angeles - Rancho Cucamonga 4.1 Los Angeles — Lancaster 3.6 Los Angeles — Industry 3.3 Los Angeles — Covina 3.2 Los Angeles — Upland . 2.9 Los Angeles — Chatsworth 2.1 Los Angeles — Pedley 2.0 Los Angeles - Santa Clarita 2.0 24 000657 • • • Figure 16 O verall Satisfaction with Metrolink Services (Mean Range on a Scale of 1 to 5; 1=Satisfied, 5=Dissatisfied) Metrolink (October 2000) Social Science Research Labora tory - SDSU p1997 J2000 . 60 25 Figure 17 Mean Importance/Satisfaction Ratings Overall Metrolink System (2000 and 1997) (Scale: 1 = very importa nt/very satisfied; 5 = very unimportant/ very unsatisfied) • Importance Satisfactio n 2000 1997 2000 1997 Frequency of weekend trains 3.2-1 N/A 2.72 N/A Frequency of early morning trains 1.43 1 .71 2 .17 2.07 Frequency of midday trains 2.46 2.65 2.97 2.87 Frequency of late evenin g trains 1.91 1.67 2.82 2.42 Travel time vs. car 1.57 N/A 1 .95 N/A On -time arrivals 1.26 1.40 2 .13 1.89 Con necting transit 2 .19 1.89 2 .17 2.02 Parkin g availability 1.82 N/A 2 .07 N/A Cost of parkin g 1.96 N/A 1 .71 N/ A Security of parking lot .1. 50 1.58 1 .99 2 .02 Seating availability at station 2.53 N/A 2.26 N/A Seating availability on train 1.29 N/A 2.32. N/A Comfo rt of seating on train 1.39 1.71 2 ,.42' 2.38 Cleanliness of train interior 1.34 1.49 1.81 1 .53 • 4026 • • • Importance S atisfaction 2000 1997 2000 1997 Sate operation of trains 1.15 N/A 1.38 N/A Personal security on train 1.29 1 .40 1 .53 • 1 .40 Personal security at station 1.31 1 .49 1 .75 1.71 Train defects 1.31 N/A 1 .71 N/ A Fase of purchasing ticket 1.39 2.29 2.04 2.15 Cost of Metrolink ride 1 .30 N/A 2.80 N/A Courtesy of Metrolink conductors 1.44 1 .53 1.61 1.53 Courtesy of Metro link ambassadors 1.78 2 .02 1 .80 1.76 Courtesy of Metro link phone operato rs 2.17 2.15 2.31 2.11 Communicatio n of schedule changes 1.37 N/A 2.04 N/A Communication of delays 1.29 N/A 2.68 N/A Communicatio n of service interruptions 1.32 N/A 2.50 N/A Ease of using 800 -371 -LINK information 1.80 N/A 2.25 ' ' N/A Ease of using metrolin ktrains. com in formation 1.82 N/A 1.94 N/ A 27 Figure 18. Features of Metr olink Service Rec eiving Highest Overall Satisfaction (Mean Range on a Scale of 1 to 5; 1=Satisfied, 5=Dissatisfied) Safe operations of trai ns Personal security on trains Courtesy of con ductors Train defects Cost of parking Personal s ecu rity at station Metrolink (October 2000) Social Science Research Laboratory - SDSU • 128 • • • Figure 19 Features of Metrolink Service Receiving L owest Overall Satisfaction (M ean Range on a Scale of 1 to 5; 1=Satisfied, 5=Dissatisfied) Frequenc y of midday trai ns Freque ncy of late ev enin g Tra ins Cost of Metrolink ride F requen cy of weeken d trains Co mmunic ation of delays O G Meta)link (October 2000) O Social Science Research Laboratory - SDSU 0 29 Figure 20 Importance/Satisfacti on Chart of Metrolink System F eatures (O verall System) Low Satisfaction, H igh Importan ce Satisfaction 4 © O 10 0 Lo w Satis faction, Lo w Impo rtance 0 0 High Satisfaction, High Imp orta nce Ke y: 1 . Freq uency of weekend trains 2. Frequency of early m omkrg treks 3. Frequency of midday trains 4 . Frequency of late evening tr ains 5. Travel time on Mefrolink vs. car 8. On -time arrivals 7. Connecti ng tra nsit r outes at station 8 . Availability of parki ng at stati on 9 . Cost of parking at stati on 10. Security of parking lot at station 11. Availability Of seating al the station 12. Availability of seating on the train 13. Comfort of se ating on the trai n 14. Cleanline ss of train interi or 15. Safe ope ration of trains Importance T 16. Personal security on the train 17. Personal s ecurity at the station 18: Trains hee of defects 19. Ease of pur chasing tickets 20. Cost of a M etrolink ride 21 . Courtesy of Metr oll nk conductors 22 . Co urtesy of M etr olink ambassadors 23 . Co urtesy of Metr oll nk phone operators 24. C omm unic ation of sched ule changes 25. C ommunication of delays 26 . Camm un ketion of servi ce interruptio ns 27. Ease of pelting Info rmation by c alli ng 800 -371 -LINK 28. Ease of getting information on Metroli nktr ains .com Metrolink (October 2000) Social Science Rese arch Laboratory - SDSU High Satisfacti on, Low Imp orta nce • • • • AGENDA ITEM 8 • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION DATE: November 27, 2000 TO: Plans and Programs Committee FROM: Stephanie Wiggins, Program Manager THROUGH: Cathy Bechtel, Director of Planning and Programming SUBJECT: Rail Program Update STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is to seek Committee approval to receive and file the Rail Program Update as an information item and forward to the Commission for final action. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Riverside Line Weekday Patronage: Passenger trips on Metrolink's Riverside Line for the month of October averaged 4,297, an increase of 5% from the month of September. This is due in part to the conclusion of the MTA strike that began in September. Inland Empire - Orange County Line Weekday Patronage: Ridership on Metrolink's Inland Empire -Orange County (IEOC) Line for the month of October averaged 2,907, an increase of 11% from the month of September. This increase illustrates the continued ridership growth on this Line and represents a 58% increase from October 99 to October 00. Increased ridership on this Line is due to the increase in gas prices, the addition of the mid -day train, marketing efforts (see Corona Utility Stuffer below) and increasingcongestion on the 91 Freeway. Unfortunately, this increase in ridership has resulted in an overflow of parking at the La Sierra Station in the City of Riverside. RCTC Staff is continuing to work with the City, RTA, and our passengers to come up with a solution to this issue. Special Promotions Corona Utility Stuffer: The City of Corona partnered with RCTC to promote the IEOC Line as an alternative to driving on the 91 Freeway. RCTC received over 1,030 responses to our utility stuffer promotion. The promotion, which ended October 31, required Corona residents to mail in a coupon to receive a ticket which allows four free trips on the IEOC Line within a 60 -day period. Metrolink will conduct follow-up phone calls in January to all of the participants in order to evaluate the effectiveness of the promotion. Special Trains /EOC Midday Train: The October 2000 average weekday trips of 2,907 on the IEOC Line continue to surpass the ridership performance target of 2,264. The 000064 demonstration period for the midday train began November 1999 and ends March 2001. These ridership numbers need to be sustained for the next 5 months in order for the Midday service to be included in the regular Metrolink budget for FY2001 /02. 2000 Holiday Toy Express Train A Metrolink train decorated with more than 20,000 lights, ornaments and displays will be rolling into Riverside County next month. A live stage show featuring the Metrolink Band, Santa Claus and his friends will be performed at the Downtown Riverside, La Sierra, and West Corona stations on December 8th while the show will be at the Pedley station on December 16th. The local fire department will be on hand to collect toys for needy children through the annual Spark of Love toy drive. Intercity Rail Update The Southern California Intercity Rail Group (SCIRG) will be voting on December 1St on the future of the Group. The SCIRG TAC is recommending that the Group be dissolved. If the SCIRG were to dissolve, RCTC would work with Metrolink and other members of the SCIRG TAC to create an alternate forum to discuss intercity rail issues. • • • HOLIDAY TOY EXPRESS 2000 El Monte SATURDAY, NOVEMBER 25 Media Kick Off Night FRIDAY, DECEMBER 1ST 7:OOpm-7:30pm L.A. Union Station On Display: 4:OOpm to 6:40pm Glendale 6:55pm-7:15pm Burbank 7:30pm-7:50pm Van Nuys 8:10pm-8:30pm Northridge 8:40pm-9:OOpm SATURDAY, DECEMBER 2ND Montclair 5:30pm-5:50pm Upland 6:OOpm-6:20pm Rancho Cucamonga 6:45pm-7:05pm Fontana 7:25pm-7:45pm Rialto 7:55pm-8:15pm San Bernardino 8:25pm-8:45pm El Monte Baldwin Park Covina Pomona Claremont Riverside La Sierra West Corona Fullerton Norwalk Sylmar / San Fernando Newhall Via Princessa Vincent Grade / Acton Lancaster Oceanside San Clemente Pier San Clemente North Beach San Juan Capistrano SUNDAY, DECEMBER 3RD FRIDAY, DECEMBER 8TH SATURDAY, DECEMBER 9TH SUNDAY, DECEMBER 10TH FRIDAY, DECEMBER 15TH 5:55pm-6:15pm 6:45pm-7:05pm 7:15pm-7:35pm 7:50pm-8:10pm 8:20pm-8:40pm 6:OOpm-6:20pm 6:35pm-6:55pm 7:10pm-7:30pm 8:OOpm-8:35pm 8:45pm-9:05pm 5:20pm-5:40pm 6:OOpm-6:20pm 6:55pm-7:15pm 7:55pm-8:15pm 8:40pm-9:OOpm 5:30pm-5:50pm 7:15pm-7:35pm 7:40pm-8:OOpm 8:40pm-9:OOpm Irvine 6:45pm-7:05pm Santa Ana 7:25pm-7:40pm Orange 8:15pm-8:35pm Anaheim 8:40pm-9:OOpm SATURDAY, DECEMBER 16TH Pedley 5:40pm-6:OOpm Ontario 6:15pm-6:35pm Downtown Pomona 7:OOpm-7:20pm Industry 7:35pm-7:55pm Montebello/Commerce 8:20pm-8:40pm SUNDAY, DECEMBER 17TH Chatsworth Simi Valley Moorpark Camarillo Oxnard 5:05pm-5:30pm 5:45pm-6:20pm 6:35pm-6:55pm 7:10pm-7:30pm 8:OOpm-8:20pm 000066 SCRRA Operations and Marketing Committee — 10/27 Meeting October 20, 2000 Page 3 placements. In contrast, the San Bernardino and Orange County press has not been so forthcoming in media coverage with sales slower than last year. Marketing is assisting the Rose Parade Express promotion and ticket sales in Metrolink Matters, Explorer Events (Marketing's quarterly recreational direct mail newsletter), and the Metrolink web sites (Metrolinktrains.com and Metrolinkfun.com). In addition, media releases have been issued by both External Communications and Marketing aggressively targeting the more regional media outlets along the San Bernardino and Orange County lines. Local public access cable stations along the lines also have been provided information. Direct mail ticket packages have been sent to more than 25 regional Senior Centers BUDGET IMPACT The Holiday Toy Express train is included in the FY 00/01 SCRRA Marketing budget. Total amount is $76,000, which includes show operations and marketing for the special train. The 2001 Rose Parade trains are operated on a recollectible basis and will have no impact on the FY 00/01 budget. Prepared by: Charlene Ariza Event Marketing Manager Steve Lantz Director, Strategic Development and Communications 000067 42 • • METROLINK PERFORMANCE SUMMARIES October 2000 110111 METROLINK • • ._ �,_.... .. .. Y....Y....w.. F. �, n m �.� ►, �, e u u e u �► U v .0 .. ,F],u M A M J J A t O N D J F M A M J J A! O N D J F M A Y J J A■ O N D J F M A M J J SONWM M J J A% O DJ F M A Y J J A$ O N D J F M A M J A O N I1 N N Dy 2. METROLINK AVER AGE WEEKDAY PASSENGER TRIPS No v -99 Dec -99 [ Holiday Adj—IIUn adj Avg Oct -00 • • • • • METROLINK AVER AGE WEEKDAY PASSENGER TRIPS THIRTEEN M ONTH WINDOW - HOLID AY ADJUSTED ROUTE => Ventura County Antelope Valley San Bernardino Burbank Turns Riverside Orange County Inl Emp/ OC Oct 99 3,871 4,204 8,799 498 4,201 5,434 1,843 Nov 99 3,945 4,307 8,836 452 4,310 5,418 1,910 Dec 99 3,537 4,322 8,254 359 3,915 5,165 1,717 Jan 00 3,766 4,677 8,681 455 4,363 5,773 1,922 Feb 00 3,929 4,696 9,017 417 4,501 5,672 2,040 Mar 00 3,998 5,022 9,287 462 4,593 5,779 2,113 Apr 00 4,150 5,178 9,616 453 4,554 5,714 2,220 M ay 00 3,959 4,992 9,541 462 4,614 5,577 2,301 Jun 00 3,829 5,006 9,636 460 4,676 5,667 2,433 Jul 00 3,722 4,911 9,586 481 4,335 5,818 2,521 Aug 00 3,681 4,824 9,507 477 4,133 6,065 2,610 Sep 00 3,920 4,506 8,867 544 4,100 5,553 2,616 Oct 00 3,865 4,669 9,103 577 4,297 5,655 2,907 Riv/Full LA 99 89 75 93 93 104 104 92 100 100 99 84 96 TOTAL SYSTEM 28,949 29,267 27,344 29,730 30,365 31,358 31,989 31,538 31,807 31,474 31,396 30,190 31.169 % Change vs Prior Mo 4% 1% -7% 9% 2% 3% 2% -1% 1% -1 % 0% -4% 104 Change Oct vs Sep 00 4% 3% 6% 5% 2% 11 % % Change Oct 00 vs Oct 99 I 0%I 11% 3%I 16%I 4%I 2%I 58% School Trips - Oct 00: IAvg Daily School Trips % of Monthly Trips 0 0% 14% -3% 23 1% 22 0% 0 0% 0 0% 2 0% 3% 8% 0 0% 0% 47 0% 4 AOR_Mo.,Is Inland Empire/Orange County Line % of Peak -Direction Trains Arriving Within 5 -Minutes of Scheduled Time 111/ San Bernardino Line Saturday Service Average Daily Passenger Trips Avg Daily Riders 3500' 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 Oct -99 Nov Dec Jan -00 Feb Mar Apr May 'Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct -00 'Note: Sept Includes L. A. Cou nty Fair Rldersi San Bernardino Line Saturday Service % of Trains Arriving Within 5 -Minutes of Scheduled Time 6 Antelope Valley Line Saturday Service Average Daily Passenger Trips Avg Daily Riders 3500 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 Oct -99 Nov Dec Jan -00 Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct -00 100.0% 80. 0% 60. 0% 40.0% 20. 0% 0.0% Antelope Valley Line Saturday Service % of Trains Arriving Within 5 -Minutes of Scheduled Time Nov Dec Oct -99 96. 9° Jan -00 87.5°/• Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct -00 40 • Avg Daily Ride rs 3500 3000 2500 2000- 1500 1000 Riversidne Saturday Service Average Daily Passenger Trips Oct -99 Nov • Dec Jan -00 Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct -00 0 Riverside Line Saturday Service 0/0 of Trains Arriving Within 5 -Minutes of Scheduled Time 100.0% 80.0% 60.0% 40.0% 20.0% 0.0% V/ Oct -99 Nov Dec Jan -00 Feb Mar Apr May "Riverside Line Saturday Service Began 06/24/00 8 San Bernardino Line Sunday Service % of Trains Arriving Within 5 -Minutes of Scheduled Time 100.0% 80. 0% - 60. 0% 40.0% 20.0% 0. 0% Aug -99 Sep -99 Oct Nov Dec Jan -00 Feb Mar Apr May Jul Aug Jun -00 Sep Oct -00 Sunday Service Began 06/25/00 • 9 • • • • Oct 99 Nov 99 Dec 99 METROLINK SCHEDULE ADHERENCE Peak -Period, Peak -Direction Trains (Latest 13 Months) Jan 00 Feb 00 M ar 00 Apr 00 May 00 Jun 00 Jul 00 Aug 00 Sep 00 0% Arriving With 0 -M inute Delay CI % Arriving With 5 -Minute Delay Oct 00 I0 Peak-OTP. x s C. C) METROLINK SCHEDULE ADHERENCE All Weekday Trains (Latest 13 Months) 92% 95% 93% O ct 99 Nov 99 Dec 99 Jan 00 Feb 00 Mar 00 Apr 00 May 00 ❑ % Arriving Within 5 -Minutes Of Scheduled Time • �-13 Mo.xls • • • Route => Ventura County In Out Antelope Valley In Out METROLINK SCHEDULE ADHERENCE SUMMARY Percentage of Weekday Trains Arriving Within 5 Minutes of Schedul ed Time LATEST 13 MONTHS San Bernardino In Out Burbank Turns In Out Riverside In Out Orange County In Out Oct 99 97% 97% 95% 96% 97% 98% 97 % 99% 83% 89% 91% 89% Inland Emp/OC No So Nov 99 97% 96% 99% 97% 96% 95 % 99 % 99 % 86% 74% 81% 82% Dec 99 Jan 00 99% 98% 99% 96% 99% 97 % 99% 98% 98 % 95% 98% 98% 99% 100% 99 % 97 % 78% 80% 85% 79 % 89% 93% 85% 85% 93 % 87% 89% 84% 92% 92 % 95% 93 % Riv/Ful/LA In Out 86% 95% 71% 93 % 81% 98% 86% 88 % Total System In Out 94% 95% 93% 91% 94% 95% 95 % 93% Total 94% 92 % 94% 94% Feb 00 98% 97% 100% 98% 96 % 96% 98 % 98% 92% 83% 83 % 88% 97 % 96% 76% 93% 95% 94% 94 % Mar 00 99% 97% 98% 96% 98% 97% 100% 99 % 83 % 88% 88% 89 % 97 % 96% 96% 93 % 95% 95% 95 % Apr00 98% 98% 98% 99% 97% 98 % 98% 97% 83% 71 % 94 % 96% 97 % 93% 70% 95% 95 % 95 % 95% M ay 00 98% 94% 95% 93% 92% 96% 99 % 99% 80% 83% 93% 95 % • 98% 97% 95% 95% 94% 94% 94% Jun 00 98% 95% 95% 88% 95% 94% 99% 100% 77% 73 % 84% 89% 98% 95 % 86 % 98% 93% 91% 92 % Jul 00 99% 95% 95% 88% 97% 94% 98% 97% 740/ 58% 82% 78% • 84% 93% 65 % 90% 91% 87 % 89 % Aug 00 97% 96% 98% 97% 95% 98% 99% 99% 86% 77% 80% 79 % 91% 93% Sep 00 99% 97% 96% 94% 98% -99% 99% 99% 88% 74% 95% 89% Oct 00 98% 97% 98% 98% 96% 97% 100% 100% 92% 83 % 84% 81% 92% 96% 86% 92 % 82% 93% 90% 88% .82% 86% 92 % 92 % 96% 93% 94% 93% 92% 95 % 93 % Peak Period Trains Arrivin g Within 5 Min utes of Scheduled Time Oct 00 Peak Period Trains VEN Route 97% 96% AVL Route SNB Route 96% 98% 98% 97% BUR Turns 100% 100% RIV Route 94% 82% OC Route 86 % 84% Inl Emp/OC Rou 83% 90 % Riv/FuI/LA No adjustments have been made for relievable delays. Terminated trains are considered OT if they were on -time at po int of termination. Annulled trains are not included in the on -time calculation. 12 - 0% 0% Tot I nbd Tot Outbd 93% 92% Tot Syst OT-13Mo.xls 93% CAUSES OF METROLINK DELAYS OCT OBE R 2000 PRIMARY CAUSE OF TR AIN DELAYS GREATER THAN 5 MINUTES CAUSE: VEN AVL SNB BUR RIV OC INL/OC R/F/L T OTAL % of TOT Signals/Detectors 1 0 1 0 12 2 0 2 18 10% Slow Orders/MOW 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 1% Track/Switch 0 0 0 0 6 3 2 0 11 6% Dispatching 0 1 2 0 7 40 20 6 76 41% Mechanical 3 5 1 0 2 4 1 0 16 9% Freight Train 1 0 14 0 6 10 5 2 38 21 % Amtrak Train 2 0 0 0 0 5 1 0 8 4% Metrolink M eet/Turn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% Vandalism 0 2 2 0 0 1 0 0 5 3% Passenger(s) 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 1% SCRRA Hold Policy 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1% Other 0 0 1 0 0 5 0 0 6 3% TOTAL 8 10 22 0 33 72 29 10 184 100% Saturday SNB 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 Saturday AVL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Saturday RIV 0 0 0 4 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 • Ill O CA US. xis • • M1IINUI'ES LA'Z'E: FREQUENCY OF TRAIN DELAYS BY DURATION October 2000 NO DELAY 1 MIN - 5 MIN 6 M IN - 10 MIN 11 MIN - 20 MIN 21 MIN - 30 MIN GREATER THAN 30 MIN ANNULLED VEN AVL SNB BUR RIV OC IE/OC RIV/FUL 358 450 501 254 193 250 215 50 29 24 93 10 38 96 17 6 6 4 11 0 14 34 9 3 1 3 8 0 13 17 6 4 0 1 0 0 3 17 9 3 1 2 3 0 3 4 5 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 3 0 TOTAL 2271 313 81 52 33 18 6 %ofT OT 82 .0% 11 .3% 2.9 % 1.9% 1 .2% 0.7% 0.2% TOTAL TRAINS OPTD TRAINS DELAYED >0 min TRAINS DELAYED > 5 min 395 484 616 264 264 418 261 66 37 34 115 10 71 168 46 16 8 10 22 0 33 72 29 10 This summary excludes Saturday & Sunday Service. 2768 497 184 100 % 18.0 % 6.6% 14 0010FREQ xis PERCENT OF DELAYS BY DURATION (ALL WEEKDAY TRAINS) OCTOBER 2000 0 min delay (82.0%) 1-2 min delay (5.2 %) % Of Trains Arriving Within 5 Minutes = 93.4% 1 > 20 min late (1 .8 %) 11-20 min delay (1.9 %) 6-10 min delay (2 .9 %) 3-5 min delay (6.1 %) 1 • • AGENDA ITEM 9 • • • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION DATE: November 27, 2000 TO: Plans and Programs Committee FROM: Performance Audit Ad Hoc Sub Committee Tanya Love, Program Manager THROUGH: Cathy Bechtel, Director of Planning and Programming SUBJECT: Consultant Selection for the Performance Audits of the Riverside County Transportation Commission and the Riverside County Transit Operators AD HOC SUB COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION This item is to seek Committee approval to: 1) Authorize the Executive Director to enter into a contract with O'Melia Consulting to conduct the Performance Audits of the Riverside County Transportation Commission and the Riverside County Transit Operators in an amount not to exceed $70,000; and 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. BACKGROUND INFORMATION On September 13, 2000 the Commission directed staff to release a Request for Proposal (RFP) to conduct the required triennial performance audits of RCTC and the transit operators providing services in Riverside County. The RFP was distributed to 78 agencies. We received two proposals to conduct the audit as follows: Arthur Bauer & Associates O'Melia Consulting As required by the "Performance Audit Guidebook for Transit Operations and Regional Transportation Planning Entities", a letter was sent to the Riverside County Transit Operators requesting feedback on whether there were any conflicts of interest or comments regarding the two firms. No comments were received. Consultant interviews were conducted on November 13, 2000. Commissioners Hall, Kelly and van Haaster were designated to serve on the Performance Audit Ad Hoc Sub Committee to review the proposals and interview consultants. To assist the Commissioners with their decision, a Summary Table (Attachment 1) was prepared comparing the two firms. O'Melia Consulting completed RCTC's Triennial Performance 000083 Audits for the 1989, 1991 and the 1997 audit periods. Both firms are capable of conducting the audits, however, based on the experience of O'Melia Consulting together with the firm's perspective of the "old" Commission consisting of seven members and the "new" expanded Commission (consisting of 29 voting members), the Performance Audit Ad Hoc Sub Committee recommends that O'Melia Consulting be hired to conduct the audits. The FY01 Budget was amended at the September 13, Commission meeting to cover the cost of conducting the audits. The Commission's legal counsel previously reviewed and approved the draft model contract. Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: Yes Year: FY2000-01 Amount: $70,000 Source of Funds: Local Transportation Funds Budget Adjustment: No Fiscal Procedures Approved: Date: 11/20/00 Attachment 1 • • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION FY 97/98, 98/99 AND 99/00 TRIENNIAL PERFORMANCE AUDIT SUMMARY TABLE EVALUATION CRITERIA FIRM: O'Melia Consulting FIRM: Arthur Bauer & Assoc. Understanding of the - Purpose and requirements of the audit References the regulatory compliance areas. References appropriate PUC codes that requires the audit. References the regulatory - compliance areas. References appropriate PUC codes that requires the audit. Experience in public transit, performance auditing and the issues and functional areas to be analyzed Completed sixty (60) transit operator audits and ten (10) regional transportation planning entity audits Completed seven (7) transit operator audits and five (5) regional transportation planning entity audits Approach to be followed and the tasks to be performed, including detailed steps and resources required and proposed project schedule Provided. Projected to complete project within established time frame. Provided. Projected to complete project within established time frame Relative allocation of resources, in terms of quality and quantity to key tasks RCTC audit: 120 hours Transit audits: 405 hours Total: 525 hours RCTC audit: 335 hours Transit audits: 290 hours Total: 625 hours Costs $67,824 (includes $5,000 for direct costs: postage, printing, travel and parking) $68,979 (includes $3,475 for direct costs and $5,955 as a fixed fee). Education and specific experience of the project team Mary Sue O'Melia, Principal, served as Project Manager for the 1989, 1991 and 1997 triennial performance audits for RCTC. Has a M.S. degree in Urban and Policy Science and a B.S. in City and Regional Planning Has not conducted audits for RCTC in the past. Arthur E. Bauer, Principal, has a M.A. degree in Public Administration and a B.A. from the University of California, Davis 000085 • • AGENDA ITEM 10 • • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION DATE: November 27, 2000 TO: Plans and Programs Committee FROM: Tanya Love, Program Manager THROUGH: Cathy Bechtel, Director of Planning and Programming SUBJECT: Reallocate Local Transportation Funds and Amend SunLine Transit Agency's Short Range Transit Plan for FY 00/01 STAFF RECOMMENDATION This item is to seek Committee approval to: 1) Reprogram $680,000 in Local Transportation Funds originally identified for the purchase of two expansion buses. $346,000 of the reprogrammed funds will be used for bus maintenance and modification to their maintenance facility, with the balance of $334,000 set aside as capital reserves; 2) Amend SunLine Transit Agency's Short Range Transit Plan for FY 00/01; and 3) Forward to the Commission for final action. BACKGROUND INFORMATION SunLine Transit Agency (SunLine) is requesting an amendment to their FY 00/01 Short Range Transit Plan (SRTP). Originally, $680,000 in Local Transportation Funds (LTF) was programmed for the purchase of two expansion buses. Due to expected arrivals of some fuel cell buses, SunLine is no longer in need of additional buses and has requested that the funds be reprogrammed as follows: 1) $346,000 for bus maintenance and modification to their maintenance facility (see Attachment 1 for a copy of SunLine's Agenda Item which was approved at their November 1, 2000 meeting); and 2) Place $334,000 in capital reserves. 000086 Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: No Year: Amount: $680,000 Source of Funds: LTF Budget Adjustment: No Fiscal Procedures Approved: Date: 11/20/00 000 6' • • • • • SunLine Transit Agency DATE: November 1, 2000 TO: Board of Directors FROM: Chief Financial Officer RE: Amendment to SRTP / Budget. ACTION Recommendation Recommend that the Board of Directors approve an amendment to the FY 2000 SRTP and Budget authorizing staff to reprogram $ 345,926 of LTF funds, originally programmed for the purchase of two replacement Orion fixed route buses, and apply them to the higher than estimated capital costs of modifications to SunLink and Thomas bus purchases and an extension of the present maintenance facility. Background SunLine programmed $680,000 of LTF funds in the FY 2000 SRTP for the purchase of two replacement Orion fixed -route buses. Since that time, we have consummated the purchase of nineteen (19) Thomas buses and are close to entering into a multi -agency agreement which will secure for SunLine the purchase of ten (10) Xcellsis hydrogen fuel cell buses for delivery in 2003. These events have significantly delayed the current need for the additional Orion buses. The FY 2000 SRTP/Budget included estimates for the modification of SunLink and Thomas buses. The actual work required to bring these buses into serviceable condition was considerably more complex than originally estimated. Each of these buses is discussed below: SunLink Buses: The original estimate to purchase and modify these buses for service was $539,000. Once modification of the trailer (passenger) units began, it was dear that the cost to install lavatories, ADA and other equipment would be much greater than anticipated. The final average cost to modify each of these units was approximately $109,000, compared to the original estimate of approximately $35,000. The result was a total $71,831 over budget on the project. 000088 Page 20 Thomas Buses: The original estimate to purchase and modify these buses for service was $525,000. Higher than anticipated painting and decal costs, and additional electronic and higher cost of other equipment resulted in a $29,326 over run on this project. Seven (7) of the buses are scheduled for SunLine service. The remaining ten (10) Thomas buses are scheduled to be leased to Imperial County in connection with our management of this transit facility. Present diesel buses in service there are old and in need of replacement. Imperial is presently completing construction of a CNG fueling station and preparation of a maintenance facility in anticipation of utilizing our cleaner burning CNG buses. Capital expenditures of approximately $153,000 are needed to complete the installation of extended range fuel tanks on five (5) of the buses, painting, fare boxes and other minor equipment. These costs will be recovered through lease payments by Imperial. Maintenance Facility: A requirement of a contract with the Department Of Energy (DOE), was a fifty percent (50%) sharing of the costs of building a bus maintenance facility which was hydrogen handling approved. The estimated cost of building this facility was $95,000, and SunLine's share of this cost was $47,500. It was originally anticipated that new funding sources could be found for the SunLine matching share of the cost, however, none have been identified.This facility is being used to service the Xcellsis bus currently in our care under an FTA contract, and will of course be SunLine property after completion of these contracts. Very few similar facilities have been previously built, therefore estimating costs on this somewhat experimental project was extremely difficult. Final costs of construction were $44,269 over budget for this project. SunLine therefore needs a total of $91,769 to cover the over run in addition to its matching share. Summary To summarize the above discussion, total funds need to reprogram are as follows: SunLink Buses $ 71,831 Thomas Buses — SunLine use $ 29,326 Thomas Buses — Imperial County use $ 153,000 Maintenance Facility $ 91,769 Total $ 345,926 • • 0000 Page 21 • • • Fiscal Impact Capital funds will be reallocated to new uses, as the original use is no longer applicable due to changes in future bus requirements. .L�LGif?K/ William A. Maier H:1pctra nlbrsagend\nov001S RTPB udgetAmend 000090 Page 22 • AGENDA ITEM 11 • • • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION DATE: November 27, 2000 TO: Plans and Programs Committee FROM: Tanya Love, Program Manager THROUGH: Cathy Bechtel, Director of Planning and Programming SUBJECT: Request from Anza Valley Transportation to Purchase New Wheelchair Lift Equipped Vehicle STAFF RECOMMENDATION This item is to seek Committee approval to: 1) Reallocate Measure A Specialized Transit funds in the total amount of $16,916 ($10,212 from FY 98/99 and $6,704 from FY 99/00) for the purchase of a new wheelchair lift equipped vehicle; 2) Re -designate Measure A Specialized Transit funds in the total amount of $13,820 ($6,500 from FY 00/01 and $7,320 from FY 01/02); 3) Direct Anza Valley Transportation to secure a minimum of three bids for the purchase of a vehicle (including one through the Riverside Transit Agency's procurement process or through Caltrans' Section 5310 Program); and 4) Forward to the Commission for final action. BACKGROUND INFORMATION In 1998, Anza Valley Transportation (Anza) received two surplus 1992 Ford vans from the Riverside Transit Agency. With operating assistance provided through RCTC's Measure A Specialized Transit Program, Anza continues to provide local transit service to residents in this rural community. Due to the age of the vans and the high mileage (over 230,000 miles each), the vehicles require frequent maintenance and repair due to mechanical breakdowns. Since July 1999, through September 2000, a total of $11,077 has been spent on maintenance, repair and towing charges (See Attachment 1). The continued maintenance on one or both of these vans has required Anza to cancel regularly scheduled routes. Currently, Anza does not have any back-up vehicles although they have been successful in securing a large bus through Caltrans' Section 5310 Program. Unfortunately, delivery of that vehicle is not anticipated until December 2001. 000091. Anza has approximately $16,916 of unused Measure A operating funds available from the 1998 grant cycle. Anza is requesting to use these funds towards the purchase of a new vehicle. In addition, Anza is requesting that $13,820 of Measure A Specialized Transit funds be re -designated from FY 00/01 and FY 01/02. Anza has raised approximately $17,314 through fund-raising activities which will also be used for the purchase of the vehicle. The following chart illustrates the various funding sources and grant years that, if approved, can be used to purchase the vehicle: FY 98/99 unused Measure A grant funds: FY 99/00 unused Measure A grant funds: FY 00/01 re -designated Measure A grant funds: FY 01/02 re -designated Measure A grant funds: Anza Valley fund-raising Money: Total Estimated Funds Available: $10,212 $ 6,704 $ 6,500* $ 7,320* $17,314 $48,050 Anza secured one cost estimate from A -Z Bus Sales for the purchase of a nine passenger wheelchair lift equipped vehicle. Staff recommends that Anza secure two additional bids (including one through the Riverside Transit Agency's procurement process or through Caltrans' Section 5310 Program). Once obtained, the bids should be reviewed for not only costs but the vendor's time frame in delivering the vehicle. *Measure A grant funds would be re -designated from approved operating costs including the line items of rent, utilities, uniforms and general office expenditures. Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: Yes Year: FY2000-01 Amount: $ 6,500 Source of Funds: Measure A Budget Adjustment: No Fiscal Procedures Approved: Date: 11/20/00 00009 1 • • 17 j LL lb'r 00 0 ;' mO1 A V byle"mynotte-y- - 0-4 - oss 1 - tit* ____ ext.*. 0 A d 81 - -- � s f ist SIC r A V 1st -- , titer - °'p"' AV -- - s°iif,_ ,_ ruit •moot,-- 0 0 14 - --7 ,44z - _ - it.2 --rt ' Il ojeiV ^_-----_ ,.7c*hive 1 1,44 r, ruSl-w47', , deP/17 hie?, ;?'"?kri",VP'414 -rarcracieoci- , ,1�it�S-- -pew X(Ping 11 ,./Lr ( 91W 1101Z4.- 1 .41h_ ,, --3ra tq. Ake 11- YYY MMNxr 10,54% zF -cR . ;wano 1 a A °°/h .. - Z; /� I— -- at j.-4''''17 �'l?» �- 41-1---s,-.v� 11 at -- . FElgri-- 1i_rgt }ALi .rrovi,4 1nw- "EL161- 1rlf fib;:iro • j auao833y • • AGENDA ITEM 12 • • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION DATE: November 27, 2000 TO: Plans and Programs Committee FROM: Shirley Medina, Program Manager THROUGH: Cathy Bechtel, Director of Planning and Programming SUBJECT: Re -bid of Smart Call Box Installations and Enhanced Traffic Management Center Sites STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is to seek Committee approval to re -bid the Request for Proposals/Bid Package for the Installation of Smart Call Boxes and Caltrans Traffic Management Center Sites for the purpose of including updated federal provisions and forward to the Commission for final action. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: At the July 12, 2000 Commission meeting, the Commission approved the release of a Request for Proposals/Bid Package for the installation of Smart Call Boxes and Enhanced Traffic Management Center Sites. This effort is part of the Riverside County Congestion Management Program (CMP) and was developed to meet state and federal traffic reporting requirements as well as provide on -time traffic count data for the purposes of planning and programming transportation improvement projects. A total of $1.1 million was programmed in the 1998 State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) for this project. The funds were allocated by the California Transportation Commission (CTC) in June, 2000, At the September 13, 2000 Commission meeting, the Commission approved the award of two contracts pending legal review. The contractors were Comarco Wireless Technologies for the installation of Smart Call Boxes, and Peek Traffic - Signal Maintenance for the Traffic Management Center Sites. The contracts could not be signed due to the following: 1) State's obligational authority had ceased from September through the end of October, and 2) Caltrans' rules changed as of October 1, 2000 and now require incorporation of updated federal provisions into RFP/Bid Package prior to obligation of federal funds. Pending Commission action, the re -bid would be released on December 14, 2000 and open for 21 days. The RFP will also be available on RCTC's web site. Both Comarco Wireless Technologies and Peek Traffic - Signal Maintenance have been notified of the re -bid. It is anticipated that a recommendation of award for both contracts will be brought forward for Commission approval at their February 2001 meeting. 000034-