HomeMy Public PortalAbout02 February 10, 2003 Technical AdvisoryTIME:
DATE:
LOCATION:
TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITT
MEETING AGENDA*
10:00 A.M.
February 10, 2003
Records
66321.3
Riverside County Transportation Commission
Riverside County Regional Complex
4080 Lemon Street, Riverside
Conference Room A, 3rd Floor
*By request, agenda and minutes may be available in alternative format; i.e. large print, tape.
COMMITTEE MEMBERS
Bill Bayne, City of Cathedral City
Tom Boyd, City of Riverside
Bill Brunet, City of Blythe
Dick Cromwell, SunLine Transit
Louis Flores, Caltrans District 08
Mike Gow, City of Hemet
Mark Greenwood, City of Palm Desert
Terry Hagen, City of Indio
Jerry Hanson, City of Desert Hot Springs
Bruce Harry, City of Rancho Mirage
Bill Hughes, City of Temecula
George Johnson, County of Riverside
Tim Jonasson, City of LaQuinta
Elroy Kiepke, City of Calimesa
Eldon Lee, City of Coachella
John Licata, City of Corona
Bob Mohler, City of Palm Springs
Habib Motlagh, Cities of Perris, San
Jacinto, Canyon Lake
Craig Neustaedter, City of Moreno Valley
Ray 0' Donnell, City of Lake Elsinore
Kahono Oei, City of Banning
Anne Palatino, RTA
Juan Perez, County of Riverside
Joe Schenk, City of Norco
Ken Seumalo, City of Murrieta
Ruthanne Taylor Berger, WRCOG
Allyn Waggle, CVAG
Tim Wassil, City of Indian Wells
John Wilder, City of Beaumont
Cathy Bechtel, Director Transportation Planning & Policy Development
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING
AGENDA*
*Actions may be taken on any item listed on the agenda.
TIME: 10:00 A.M.
DATE: February 10, 2003
LOCATION: Riverside County Transportation Commission
Riverside County Regional Complex
4080 Lemon Street, Riverside
Conference Room A, 3rd Floor
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. SELF -INTRODUCTION
3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES — January 13, 2003
4. PUBLIC COMMENTS (This is for comments on items not listed on the agenda.
Comments relating to an item on the agenda will be taken when the item is
before the Committee.)
5. UPDATED AGENCY PROJECT TRACKING LISTS (Attachment)
6. 2004 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN (RTP) PROJECT SUBMISSIONS
(Attachment)
7. SB 821 EXTENSION STREAMLINING
8. 2002 STIP — BUDGET IMPACT
9. CETAP UPDATE
10. ITEMS FOR FEBRUARY 12, 2003 RCTC MEETING
11. OTHER BUSINESS/ANNOUNCEMENTS
12. ADJOURNMENT (The next meeting will be March 17, 2003 in Banning.)
TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING
MINUTES
Monday, January 13, 2003
1. Call to Order
The meeting of the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC)
Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) was called to order at 10:00 a.m., at
Banning City Hall, 99 East Ramsey Street, Banning, CA.
2. Self -Introductions
Members Present:
Others Present:
Bill Bayne, City of Cathedral City
Tom Boyd, City of Riverside
Louis Flores, Caltrans
Mike Gow, City of Hemet
Mark Greenwood, City of Palm Desert
Terry Hagen, City of Indio
Bill Hughes, City of Temecula
Tim Jonasson, City of La Quinta
Eldon Lee, City of Coachella
Cis Leroy, SunLine
John Licata, City of Corona
Bob Mohler, City of Palm Springs
Bill Mosby, Caltrans
Habib Motlagh, Cities of Perris,
San Jacinto, Canyon Lake
Kahono Oei, City of Banning
Anne Palatino, RTA
Juan Perez, County of Riverside
Ken Seumalo, City of Murrieta
Tim Wassil, City of Indian Wells
Dale West, WRCOG
Jane Williams, City of Moreno Valley
Teri Argabright, Iteris
Cathy Bechtel, RCTC
J. D. Douglas, Parsons, Brinckerhoff
Shirley Gooding, RCTC
Adnan Hindiyeh, Parsons, Brinckerhoff
Ken Lobeck, RCTC
Shirley Medina, RCTC
Marilyn Williams, RCTC
Technical Advisory Committee Minutes
January 13, 2003
Page 2
3. Approval of Minutes
M/S/C (Wassil/Licata) approve the minutes dated November 18, 2002.
4. Public Comments
There were no public comments.
5. ELECTION OF OFFICERS
Juan Perez was nominated Chairman.
M/S/C (Wassil/Mohler)
Tim Wasill was nominated Vice -Chairman.
M/S/C (Mohler/Greenwood)
6. 2002 STIP — STATE BUDGET IMPACT
Cathy Bechtel, RCTC, stated that the Transportation Congestion Relief
Program (TCRP) has been suspended, a $1.8B loss in one year. She
further stated that there is an anticipated $4B shortfall in the overall
statewide STIP and that, although there are no specifics yet, but if there is
a pro rata reduction, RCTC, Riverside County's share, is about $144M.
She pointed out the tables attached to the agenda that indicate those STIP
projects that have not yet been allocated, all of which could be affected.
She further stated that discussion indicates that the current Measure A
projects should have some level of priority.
Ms. Bechtel explained that the Commission is going to establish an ad hoc
committee, chaired by Ron Roberts, to work on the STIP issues and to
specifically prioritize the projects. Commissioner Roberts is seeking
volunteers to participate in the ad hoc committee. She further stated that
although there is information from the CTC and Caltrans indicating that on -
system projects seem to have priority at the state level, as opposed to
local improvements, those decisions have not yet been made.
Technical Advisory Committee Minutes
January 13, 2003
Page 3
Louis Flores, Caltrans, advised the TAC that CTC is scheduled to
reprioritize some projects this Friday and next Thursday, although it is not
expected that they will take any action. He further advised that on the
local side, the Department of Finance has asked for those types of projects
that remain inactive financially for over 5 years. He said that the state has
not only a money problem but a problem with obligational authority, that
there is not enough obligational authority to handle all the projects. For
example, for projects that are currently under construction even though the
funds may have been obligated, an award package and an invoice should
be sent in.
Bob Mohler, City of Palm Springs, asked if this crisis is just a delay. Mr.
Flores said that much of the predicament is related to the resources able to
deliver the projects, as well as the TCRP Program in which those funds are
gone, that is $1.8M taken from the general fund. He further stated that
Congress still has to act on future funds, doing an appropriations bill for
this final year of TEA 21 and that Congress will have to enact a new
highway act this coming year.
Shirley Medina, RCTC, added that regarding the ad hoc committee that the
RCTC Commissioner will be forming will review the possibility of back -
billing the STIP projects that fall out with federal fund sources.
Further STIP discussion followed and in response to Tom Boyd's request
for an explanation of how the STIP became problematic, Cathy Bechtel,
said that one reason is overestimates in certain areas of the 2002 STIP
fund estimate. Shirley Medina, RCTC, said another reason relates to
expected revenues from the gas tax and that RCTC has a copy of a power
point presentation by the CTC which staff can share.
7. ITS REGIONAL ARCHITECTURAL PLAN
Marilyn Williams, RCTC, reported that the ITS (Intelligent Transportation
Systems) Plan needs to be updated as a result of federal requirements that
are directing specific development by regions to address new standards for
ITS and related architecture. She further reported that funding is available
to assist the Inland Empire in updating this plan. The funds have been
made available through discussions with the City of Fontana, which has
had a federal grant to implement an ATMS project. There are some
reserves available. The City said that they are willing to work with us in
the amendment of their grant and FHWA has approved it and that the grant
funds will expire the end of June, 2003. Ms. Williams introduced Teri
Technical Advisory Committee Minutes
January 13, 2003
Page 4
Argabright, ITERIS, and Bill Mosby, Caltrans, District 8. Ms. Argabright
outlined the roles and responsibilities of the agencies and entities involved
and handed out a two -page document entitled, "Examples of Intelligent
Transportation Systems" and included a "Typical ITS Survey Form." She
reported that Bill Mosby is the overall project manager of the program and
that ITS is guided by a steering committee, which is comprised of RCTC,
SANBAG, Caltrans, City of Fontana, and FHWA.
Cathy Bechtel asked if this program will cover all the cities in Riverside
County to which Ms. Argabright responded in the affirmative, adding that it
includes San Bernardino County. She further stated that future workshops
and their locations will be discussed with the steering committee.
Ms. Williams specified that the purpose of the strategic plan is to lay out
the framework for what is going to happen in the County as a whole and
how the cities will fit in that plan, and then use this information for seeking
federal or state funds. She said that it will be necessary to prepare a plan
in order to seek federal funds.
8. WRCOG GOODS MOVEMENT STUDY PHASE 11
Dale West, WRCOG, reminded the TAC members that in February, 2001
WRCOG initiated a goods movement analysis, Phase 1, during which a plan
to develop improvements of at -grade rail crossings and improvements to
facilitate alternate truck routes. There were recommendations that came
out of that work which has been initiated as Phase 11, which will review
development of a plan for improving systems and truck routes on freeways
and a plan of access.
He introduced J. D. Douglas, Parsons Brinckerhoff, who said that the study
in 2001 was done with input from local agencies in western Riverside
County and that his firm is taking the next step from recommendations
received. He pointed out the two parts to this plan, the first of which
found several factors indicating a need to have an alternate system of truck
routes off the freeways on the arterial streets in western Riverside County.
He also pointed out that the freeway system is fairly limited and there is
congestion in many areas on the freeway system. He reported that the
recommendation was to identify a sub regional truck route system that
would provide alternate routes to the freeway and major truck route access
to activity centers that do not have freeway access. He further reported
Technical Advisory Committee Minutes
January 13, 2003
Page 5
that the goal of the study is to identify a plan for what those routes will be
and identify ways to develop it. He discussed elements of the study and
indicated that his agencies' goal is completion by June, 2003.
He said that with this part of the study, his agency plans to work primarily
with trucking firms and local agencies to identify, where there are current
problems with truck circulation and access to the freeway system that is
inhibiting efficient circulation causing congestion and developing a plan to
overcome those problems. The plan is intended to be improvements that
could alleviate trucking circulation problems and help facilitate the flow of
goods in western Riverside County.
9. CETAP UPDATE
Cathy Bechtel stated that CETAP public hearings are underway and when
they are finished, decisions will be made regarding the interior corridors
with results expected by June 30, 2003. Ms. Bechtel encouraged
participation in the public hearings. She said that local decisions will have
to be made in the February/March timeframe. Although the Commission
has not yet taken action, RCTC staff has made recommendations on where
the alternatives should be.
10. 2004 RTP UPDATE — PROJECT/IMPROVEMENT LIST
Shirley Medina indicated that she looked at the Coachella Valley and
WRCOG list of TUMF programs and that many agencies did not give
beginning and ending construction dates. She further stated that SCAG
will put in dates; therefore, it is important to give realistic dates. Ken
Lobeck, RCTC, said that the WRCOG side is similar to the western side.
11. JANUARY 8, 2003 COMMISSION MEETING HIGHLIGHTS
Cathy Bechtel commented that the Commission Meeting lasted for about 3
and a half hours and that the Route 74 eminent domain portion drew many
property owners to the meeting expressing concern about the offers they
were given. She handed out the Commission Connection.
Ms. Bechtel also handed out the Federal Transportation Authorization Act
Priority Project List agenda item and pointed out the updated pink copy of
the priority list that was handed out at the Commission meeting. She
announced that RCTC will be lobbying for the new transportation bill and
that this list could be modified again depending on the actions of the ad
hoc committee in looking at the STIP. It was determined that the list is not
Technical Advisory Committee Minutes
January 13, 2003
Page 6
the one that was handed out at the Commission meeting and Ms. Bechtel
said she will e-mail the correct information to the TAC members.
12. OTHER BUSINESS/ANNOUNCEMENTS
Marilyn Williams reminded the TAC members that the MSRC (Mobil Source
Air Pollution Reduction Review Committee's) 02/03 work program is still
open for two categories; one is the alternative fueling stations. $1.25M is
available through a competitive call for projects, due April 8, 2003. The
other is the Local Government Subvention Fund Match Program (AB2766).
This year $300,000 has been set aside as a County _ninixnurn focused
specifically on new stations and expanding old stations as well as
purchasing heavy and medium -duty vehicles. They must be publicly
accessible. She encouraged viewing MSRC's website where applications
can be downloaded by interested applicants. In response to the question
of whether this program includes trash trucks, Ms. Williams said she will
find out if refuse vehicles are included. Projects are also due on April 8,
2003.
Juan Perez informed the TAC members that the Board of Supervisors
approved the TUMF for western Riverside County, which goes into effect
February 10. He said it is $6,650 dwelling unit; the commercial rate is
$8.90, depending on the type of retail. He further stated there is an
ongoing effort by the BIA to ask for a referendum.
Mr. Perez also said that the County's general plan is going to the Board and
hearings in March.
Shirley Medina reminded the TAC members that RCTC staff will bring back
the subject of limiting the SB 821 extensions and that further information
will be presented at the February TAC meeting.
Mark Greenwood, City of Palm Desert, announced that the next ITE
meeting will be the second Thursday in February at the City of Fontana's
new Traffic Management Center. He stated that Paul Balbock is the
contact at Fontana or feel free to call Mark Greenwood.
Cathy Bechtel mentioned the revised TAC meeting schedule on which the
May date was changed.
Shirley Medina reminded everyone that quarterly milestone reports will be
sent out and should be responded to immediately.
Technical Advisory Committee Minutes
January 13, 2003
Page 7
13. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business for consideration by the Technical Advisory
Committee, the meeting was adjourned at 11:45 AM. The next meeting is
scheduled for February 10, 2003, 10:00 AM, at Riverside County
Transportation Commission, Riverside County Regional Complex, 4080
Lemon Street, Third Floor, Riverside 92502.
Respectfully submitted,
S"irley Medina
Program Manager
AGENDA ITEM 5
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
DATE:
February 10, 2003
TO:
Technical Advisory Committee
FROM:
Ken Lobeck, Staff Analyst
THROUGH:
Cathy Bechtel
Director, Transportation Planning and Policy Development
SUBJECT:
Updated Agency Project Tracking Lists
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
This item is for the TAC to:
1) Receive updated lead agency project tracking lists
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
TAC members will receive at the meeting their updated Project Tracking Lists based on
the November 30, 2002 Caltrans Project Detail Reports for CMAQ, STP, and TEA
funded projects. Staff also reviewed and updated as necessary STIP projects listed in
the California Transportation Improvement Program System (CTIPS). The Project
Tracking Lists provide a historical summary of approved/programmed funding divided out
by fund types for CMAQ, DEMO, STIP, STP TEA, and TCR-S funded projects. Along
with this, current fund allocation/obligation and funds expended information (where it
can be obtained) is included along with FTIP programming summary information.
Some adjustments have occurred to the report format and were briefly covered during
the January TAC. The report adjustments are provided in more detail in this item. Along
with this item are (1) a report overview description, and (2) a summary of project report
sources via the Internet. The key changes to the Project Tracking Lists include:
a. RCTC Approved Amount: This column was previously labeled as "Programmed
Amount". The label has been changed to reflect the Commission approved
amount for the specific fund for the project. This is the amount that was
programmed into the FTIP. Because of the dual programming process between
STIP funded projects and the FTIP, the label was adjusted to reduce possible
programming confusion between the FTIP and the STIP.
b. Funds Expended: The history of expended funds can be obtained for CMAQ,
STP, and TEA projects. There are no source reports available to retrieve the
same information for DEMO, STIP and TCR-S funded projects. In past reports,
the field for DEMO, STIP, and TCR-S funded projects was set at $0 to ensure
the database would correctly sum the totals for the report. This internal issue
with the database has been resolved. For projects where funds expended
information can't be obtained, the field is now left blank.
c. FTIP Program Year: The FTIP Reference Section was designed to provide
project managers required FTIP obligation information when they were
completing obligation packages for submission. Only one field is available in
the database, but projects can span multiple years. The FTIP programmed year
range for the project was entered in this field. If a project had programmed
funds in the FTIP in FY 02/03, 03/04, and 04/05, then the field stated "02/03
— 04/05". However, this created confusion with STIP funded projects and their
specific STIP years. Per the request of several TAC members for STIP
projects, the FTIP Program Year field now reflects the specific STIP year (or
STIP year range) funds are programmed in the 2002 STIP. For other funds in
active projects (such as CMAQ, STP, and TEA), the FTIP Program Year may
still reflect the FTIP programmed year range. These projects will be adjusted in
a similar fashion during future updates where possible.
Report Prier D ate:
Tuesda y. Amur). 25, 71X)3
RCTC Project Summary
A project'trackinglist k+y fun'd`t3'pe fior C MAQ, DEMO, sup, STP, TEA, and TCft-S ['ttndecl projects
Summary pr oject information: Total Approved Amount: 5217,203,125
Total Count: 3-1 Total Obligated Amount: S45,583,810
Total Funds Expe nded: 513,926,597
Project Funding
m# Type Authority
Fund Type: 2002 ITIP
Project ltefrr enge Irtformatiaar
Project Des cription
125 Transit ITIP Construct New 1,000 Space Packing Structure at Ncc, Cor on a N Mai n St \ Ietrol ink Stal ion
Total Nu mber of Prvriects in This Fun(
Fu nd Ty pc: 2002 STIP - F
921 1 1A,caI SIP -R II'
Reserve for 91)• 13
Total Number of Projects in This Fun d:
Fu nd Type: 5307
1
up to 2°o) - Planning Progr:un nring, & Monitoring
Pro ject Reference Informatio n:
ID#: RCTC database number
Pro ject Type: Projects are categorized 1 of 3 types in
the FTIP: Local Highway System, State Highway
System, or Transit (stated on report as Local, State, or
Transit)
Funding Authority: Source fo r the funds (e.g. TEA21,
2002 STIP)
Pro ject Description: Basic description of what the
project will accomplish
1 1 IryLs,
1 P
t,ll,
1111
1, an
R)
]:ltl :aetttlrl H alt LUrrr,rlur L-1,}jeai7
Notes:
1. (A) The Cnitrnns' RSTP and CMAQ Project Detail report pro vides the "Funds l -t(
" Funds Expe nde d" field. A source report is no t av ailable to Irack funds expen de d for
for constr uction) and its date for STIP pro jects. (D) TEA project financial infortnati'
2. Accou nting Status (OA Stop): lA = Cancelled - Project Needs Ro rie‘‘. 113.- C.0
Program Accoun ting Receives the First Invo ice. 7F = Financial A djustment Wuxi
Vou cher Paid or Step 9 Notification. 91 = Fin al Vo ucher Paid o yStep 9 N otification :
Fi na ncial Summ ary OA Step and
RCTC FNDI76 Last Activity.
Approved Obligation/ Funds Date or Vote
Am ount Allocation Expended and Date
511,000.000 9500.01x)'
Fund Tn t ul s: 311,00Kl,(55!. 55011,01K1
6329,000 I 54,007,000
Fund Total, . 9329371/0 --94,007,000
11-[r4
Financial Summary:
RCTC Approved Amount: Funding amount approved by
the Commissi on for the project
FNM76 Obligati on/All ocation: Amount obligated for
CMAQ, DE MO, STP, and TEA projects or allocated for
STIP projects. Note: The STIP allocation is n ot th e same as
an obligation. STIP funded pr ojects must still complete an
obligation package to be approved by the CTC . However,
STIP obligation information is n ot available for tracking
purposes.
Funds Expended: The fund amount expended by the
agency for CMAQ, STP, and TE A projects as reported by
Caltrans. Note: There are no current reports available for
STIP, DEMO, and TCR-S to track their funds expended .
Where information is not available, the field has been left
blank. This does not mean funds have not been expended.
But, the mechanism to track them is not present.
OA Step and Last Activ ity Date or Vote and Date: The
OA Step and Activity Date apply to CMAQ, STP, and TEA
funded projects. An overview of the accounting status
codes are listed at the report footer. The Vote and Date
applies to STIP projects and reflects the type of allocation
(for PA & ED, PS & E, R/W, or Constructio n) and the date
the CTC Vote occurred. Where multiple allocations have
been voted, the type and date reflect the most recent vote.
FTIP
Pr ogt'am
Year
rersrd rCrr nrrlr -
nur ,, rtmnnti.N C,, i .rr4W
1.771' Refi' rence Information
2002 FTIP
FTIP ID Sheet
Nwnber Number
Federal
Number
-1 ' - 061)7 1)1\-01121 I I R ANSI 157 Not Applicable
Pcr� •ul of Programmed Fun& Ohligaod':lllr
Gm- IYI8,02 0203-03:04 RICd2047 LOC;al . 71
Project Tracking Summary Lists
Report Ove rview
-10
-101
-417
t
(lice t 1
n cold
rdcd (
ug Fin
Pepe ul of 14,+gra hoed Funds [Yhti rta:d+Aifo7
FTIP
Approval
Date
Not Applicable I0'420) 2
rd- 1217.93%
FTIP Reference Information:
FTIP Pr ogram Year: For non STIP projects, this field
displays the year or year range the project is
programmed in the FTIP . For STIP projects, the field
displays the year(s) the STIP funds are programmed in
the most current STIP.
FTIP ID Number: Displays the FTIP ID code for the
project (e.g. RIV000101, RIV011211, 0121D, etc.). If the
project is part of a lump sum, then multiple projects can
have the same FTIP ID number . An example is the
TEA21 TEA projects lump sum (RIV62046). A total of 23
separate projects comprise this lump sum .
2002 FTIP Sheet Number: This is the page in the
SCAG 2002 Regional FTIP where the project is located.
The regional FTIP is divided into 3 sections — Local,
State, and Transit projects . If the project is listed in the
Local Highways System section on page 71, it will be
listed on the report as LOCAL 71 . If the project funds
have been complet ely obligated, "Obligat ed " will be
entered in field.
Federal Numb er: When CMA Q, STP, and TEA proj ects
obligate a portion or all of their funds, they are assigned
a federal number ( e.g . CML6054(4), STPL6054(22),
etc.). STIP and TCR-S projects generally do not ha ve a
federal numb er . "Not Applicable" will be listed if the
project will not have a federal number for the funds.
FTIP Approval Date: This is the o fficial federal approval
date for the FTIP .
Project Tracking Sources via the Internet
Caltrans Local Assistance Home Page
For CMAQ, HBRRP, STP, & TEA projects
Go to:
http:www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LocalPrograms/
Select "Reports and Databases".
Select the hyperlink "fedrep2.htm" located in
item #4.
Select the program from the ones listed (e.g.
RSTP and CMAQ, Regional TEA Program,
etc.).
Open the various PDF reports to review
projects and associated information
Caltrans Transportation Programming
Home Page
For STIP projects.
Go to:
http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/transprog/
Select the "STIP" hyperlink.
Select "Current 2002 STIP as of
(date) CTC Meeting" hyperlink.
This opens into Adobe Acrobat.
Use the magnifying glass icon to
enlarge the report view. Use the
binocular icon to search and find
your specific project.
:t _,; j; lvt;A
•-t
2ae61ayJ61/
finVrwer
Lace! ASArilence Hama 7
Local Assistance Borne
Publications
Rapala and eJakaaes
Training Prop -acts
6P4ale Ndillcglan
Olh.r Units
Environmental Units
Forms
Proram Hot malign
Oselot Contact Into
Caltrans Search
OBE lac -mat.
Division . of Local -Assist e
000-6,4 Itrc ran... Ruing eu.lnue vd7 414..s i. a .4.o..1 Lees, Addanw
What is the Division of Local Assistance?
Ti.. Division of Local Assistance sssists kcal agencies in taking viva/tine ofsbb and kderal funded
e.ansphtmxrnlump-ants-Ws ar-campllah lids byt oo.ioph. Imp/salmi/an. yolkiss 707 1 are certism.l
L. 1olslke rng0o..aanis. The nitkici lima! Assistuirs Q16eos, ceonlin:MI by the Division ofLacal
hssubwcr ie ms Wn.prveess➢ reject n idling ayylimdmits, redcral d.amranla, and time as Ow pin
conbet fmr kcal agencies, Lout sgoi, ,m 0ebarinirmed Sir their irantrirtin0 projects lkrvoh Call
Announcements:
Dual -Unit Standards now avadablel
Approved fiscal year 2002/2003 Bievelt Trmlroortatioe Arcotmt (BTA) program prejr
Approved fiscal year 2002/2003 Sart Router to School (SR2S) program projects
genet/rote
rt.
Transportation Programming
Home Page
M ntrr M -Pn-na
What Is Transportation Programming?
Transportation progrn ' g is the public decision making process which sets priorities and
funds projects envisioned in long-range transportation plans. It commits expected revenues
ove1 a multi -year period to transportation projects.
.®..wreaTr.e..ar -
Click on imagest above to magnify
e1.eev/holbafeeer /slip/atir11e2... — _ - _ I �;.. . Llr
1
—
'M= {� ' T L"G�t1: �.l.aiI 141 4 i 11 i• t M 4 .�I - 1Sc� C.) :0 ID DI _ D yI`
-9 L-3 e- •IZ.IE1-iIi0I
I �
,Yaa_4dd6T3erdrA i.1
2002 State Transportation Improvement Program J
Riverside County
Current Official Document
Current Official STIP as of November 2002 CTC Meeting
PPM I EA Slate Funds by Fiscal Year 8 Component IIIP & RIP Funds Only)
C1013 Ir-001YtcLM 017- PN0.ECTTITL FUND 151/3A'EOTWgli ppbn
0161 m RTE r 4ENT L2C.f11L3c'rlE',CrenTICM 9'4.*CE 62217615 VIM ME." NAC 0201 00 Ceite
Ib IN m 000 0151 eww-Skit Salbnkgmke
PM 12771071276 IM Kan- 78 6 Q'd Awry. p e4Al Arne 790.01 70 d to
eP C41a1 GNry /isla5te_5Ns mankt51r1.am Asst-ic myrik route hp:
215odiamlanonsmis
301
1 Ii
�,
m W4 40 MPS 0141 oara.rltlmlday Fie nitalatermatiOnstyl5o
PA 21117. 166.60/072 13Rarely Cievnv m Podtt 44, 1114135(A.aea Rl)-sWdiW
xP COW enemy roWrr la talninmast N: ware 2Re
3591
I
_ TOTM. l
5Yi
h
.11
m 104 96 MO 0110 Urdu-Frvbw Roeisimpkve45
P/E 7712/ R52 0-1207373 /4v Cm- 910A1rub nil AMor-gnaud Sate LWr
61, RSV I14 Cgu6 OWN 1(1' 090,1112 10
76Na
1 ,
lei 15_ 7556
2.67
__
1+
03 104 40 COT31 0111 (Java -Rib RA,bgtor Rkpitrarl Ply P
PIE 11.34 718 7 7a00a1a% 001410aey1Mt¢t Rai. 08 adl:1-MuZiY�raad.alb
EP 2161 3S1 twin!sa EP: Oeitle2 1Fb
1731
3p1
Vr.
73* _
TOTAL 1.15
1734
799 6 -
AGENDA ITEM 6
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION
DATE:
February 10, 2003
TO:
Technical Advisory Committee
FROM:
Ken Lobeck, Staff Analyst
THROUGH:
Cathy Bechtel
Director, Transportation Planning and Policy Development
SUBJECT:
2004 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) Project Submissions
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
This item is for the TAC to:
1) Receive and review projects submitted for inclusion into the 2004 RTP
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
The 2004 Regional Transportation Plan Update is in development which occurs every
three years. SCAG is responsible for preparing a long range transportation plan (25 -year
plan) and determining conformity of the RTP with the air plans or State Implementation
Plans (SIP) for the SCAG region. Once the RTP is developed, SCAG then develops the
regional Federal Transportation Improvement Program (FTIP) which represents the first
six years of the RTP.
During late 2002, development of additional planned projects to be submitted into the
2004 RTP began occurring among RCTC staff and TAC members. RCTC coordinated the
effort to provide SCAG a single County submission to help avoid project duplications and
related fiscal constraint issues that have emerged during past RTP development cycles.
The additional projects (1) go beyond what is programmed in the 2002 RTIP/FTIP, (2)
are likely to be funded with federal funds, and (3) are capacity enhancement projects
planned out to the year 2030. The total RTP additional project list utilized various capital
improvement listings. The list was then divided into the below seven sections:
1. Measure A and Measure A Extension projects
2. Grade separation projects/Alameda Corridor East (ACE) grade separation
projects
3. CVAG and WRCOG's Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) funded
projects
4. State Highway System Projects
5. Transit Projects
6. Rail Projects
7. Other Arterial/IC Improvement Projects
The additional planned project lists will be provided to TAC members at the meeting.