Loading...
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.