Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout11 November 19, 2001 Technical AdvisoryRIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTAT TIME: DATE: LOCATION: �6 8/ 4 Records TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEt ivitt 111%3 MEETING AGENDA* 10:00 A.M. November 19, 2001 Banning City Hall Civic Center, Large Conference Room 99 East Ramsey Street, Banning, CA *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 Bruce Harry, City of Rancho Mirage Bill Hughes, City of Temecula Mike Janis, City of Desert Hot Springs George Johnson, County Elroy Kiepke, City of Calimesa Eldon Lee, City of Coachella Cis LeRoy, RTA John Licata, City of Corona Jim Miller, City of Murrieta Amir H. Modarressi, City of Indio Bob Mohler, City of Palm Springs Dee Moorjani, City of Beaumont Habib Motlagh, Cities of Perris, San Jacinto, Canyon Lake Craig Neustaedter, City of Moreno Valley Ray O'Donnell, City of Lake Elsinore Kahono Oei, City of Banning Joe Schenk, City of Norco Ruthanne Taylor Berger, WRCOG Chris Vogt, City of LaQuinta Allyn Waggle, CVAG Tim Wassil, City of Indian Wells Cathy Bechtel, Director of Planning and Programming RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA* *Actions may be taken on any item listed on the agenda. TIME: 10:00 A.M. DATE: November 19, 2001 LOCATION: Banning City Hall Civic Center, Large Conference Room 99 East Ramsey Street, Banning, CA 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. SELF -INTRODUCTION 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - October 15, 2001 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. 2001 CMP UDATE (Attachment) 6. SB 821 EXTENSIONS 7. GOODS MOVEMENT UPDATE (Attachment) 8. 2002 STIP DISCRETIONARY PROJECTS (Attachment) 9. 2001 RTIP AMENDMENT 01 FEEDBACK (Attachment) 10. NOVEMBER 14, 2001 COMMISSION ACTIONS TAC Committee Meeting November 19, 2001 Page Two 11. CETAP UPDATE 12. OTHER BUSINESS 13. ADJOURNMENT (The next meeting will be December 10, 2001 in Riverside.) MINUTES TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES Monday, October 15, 2001 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 RCTC offices. 2. Self -Introductions Members Present: Tom Boyd, City of Riverside Carol Cross, CVAG Louis Flores, Caltrans Mike Gow, City of Hemet Mark Greenwood, City of Palm Desert Bruce Harry, City of Rancho Mirage Bill Hughes, City of Temecula George Johnson, County of Riverside Elroy Kiepke, City of Calimesa Eldon Lee, City of Coachella Cis Leroy, RTA John Licata, City of Corona Jim Miller, City of Murrieta Bob Mohler, City of Palm Springs Habib Motlagh, Cities of Perris, San Jacinto and Canyon Lake Craig Neustaedter, City of Moreno Valley Kahono Oei, City of Banning Juan Perez, County of Riverside Joe Schenk, City of Norco Chris Vogt, City of La Quinta Tim Wassil, City of Indian Wells Dale West, WRCOG John Wilder, City of Beaumont Bruce Williams, City of Rancho Mirage Technical Advisory Committee Minutes October 15, 2001 Page 2 Others Present: Fred Alamolhoda, Caltrans Cathy Bechtel, RCTC Shirley Gooding, RCTC Eric Haley, RCTC Ken Lobeck, RCTC Shirley Medina, RCTC Debbie Morales, Caltrans Sid Mousari, AAE, Inc. Trish Pietrzak, AAE, Inc. Arnold San Miguel, SCAG Georgiena Vivian, VRPA Technologies 3. Approval of Minutes M/S/C (Greenwood/Johnson) approve the minutes dated September 17, 2001. 4. Public Comments Louis Flores, Caltrans, introduced Debbie Morales, Training Coordinator, Caltrans. He announced that Caltrans is hosting the ITS course series on developing federal aid projects. He said that course 1, the introduction course, will be held at the Caltrans Office, annex building on November 1. Courses 2, 3, 4, and 5 will be on December 5, 13, 19 and 20 respectively, and that notices will be mailed. Mr. Flores also stated that if a construction invoice on a federal aid project is being sent, be sure to include a copy of the award package to local programs accounting along with the invoice. 5. 2001 CONGESTION MANAGEMENT PROGRAM UPDATE Georgiena Vivian, VRPA Technologies, highlighted the Draft 2001 Congestion Management Program (CMP) Update, which was handed out. She referenced Chapter 4 regarding levels of service. Ms. Vivian pointed out that there are approximately twenty (20) smart call boxes out on the system that are in the process of collecting traffic counts. She further stated that VRPA Technologies used as many of the boxes to collect traffic counts as possible to evaluate the level of service along a particular Technical Advisory Committee Minutes October 15, 2001 Page 3 segment and that the information from that system is assisting in the monitoring process as it relates to this Congestion Management Program Update. Ms. Vivian announced that based on the analysis, there are no deficiencies but that deficiencies are getting close. She pointed out that there are a couple of different segments where it is necessary to keep track of them fairly closely, anticipating that a deficiency may result within the next two (2) years. She stated that the only other major change since 1999 is the implementation of the smart call box program and the Caltrans Traffic Management Center (TMC) program. Two (2) firms were contracted to install smart call boxes and TMC sites. She reported that her firm is working with Caltrans and the contractor to address those locations where a call box is not needed as well as ADA issues. Ms. Vivian conveyed that her firm is going out in the field within the next week to view the TMC sites where there are issues and that they will draft a plan to identify how those sites will be implemented by the contractor. She explained that information will be downloaded from smart call boxes as well as from the TMC locations and have fairly good, accurate estimates of traffic volumes along state routes where the boxes are located. The Smart Call Box and TMC project is anticipated to be complete in December, 2001. She then answered related questions posed by the TAC. Shirley Medina asked the TAC members to review the 2001 Draft CMP and give your comments to RCTC within two (2) weeks (by October 29) so that the final version may be brought to the TAC at the November meeting for approval after which it will go to the November Plans and Programs Committee and then to the full Commission in December. Ms. Vivian stated that her firm will prepare the graphics that identify the number of lanes and level of service thresholds that were used to calculate LOS so that the TAC may see exactly how the levels of service was reached as it appears on the maps included in the draft. 6. SB 821 EXTENSION PROCESS This item is being held over until the November, 2001 TAC meeting. Technical Advisory Committee Minutes October 15, 2001 Page 4 7. TEA III, SURFACE TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM FORMULA FUNDS Shirley Medina, RCTC staff, spoke of properly using Surface Transportation Program (STP) funds. She indicated that under ISTEA and TEA 21, it specifically states that federal funds are not to be distributed on a formula basis such as by population. Therefore, for the reauthorization of TEA 21, staff is recommending convening a subcommittee of the TAC to review the needs of local agencies such as possibly setting aside pots for rehab and signal installs in order for these types of projects to continue receiving funding from STP funds. Eric Haley added that the discussion of reauthorization at the federal level is just beginning and a call for projects for these funds could be beyond 18 months from now. Cathy Bechtel, RCTC staff, offered to research other counties to find out how they distribute STP funds and provide it at the next TAC meeting. 8. 2002 RTIP UPDATE Ken Lobeck, RCTC staff, commented that affected agencies had received TIP sheets from the 2001 RTIP amendment 01 and he handed out what had been input into the RTIP database based on agency responses. He said that the federal approval of Amendment #1 to the 2001 RTIP is expected about February, 2002. Mr. Lobeck also added that RCTC is beginning the 2002 RTIP update, which encompasses all projects. He requested that if any agency has any new capacity -enhancing projects, projects that require full scope changes, etc. these should be submitted at this time. He further stated that if a project is added to the 2002 RTIP, federal approval is estimated to occur in October, 2002. 9. 2002 STIP DISCRETIONARY FUNDS, RECOMMENDATION Cathy Bechtel thanked the TAC for their hard work on the 2002 STIP Evaluations. She handed out two (2) tables — one is the TAC recommended table and the _other is an RCTC staff recommendation. Eric Haley said that RCTC is proposing to go forward and draw down the full amount of discretionary funds that are available to the Commission if RCTC receives its full allocation of fourth year dollars. Technical Advisory Committee Minutes October 15, 2001 Page 5 Mr. Haley also explained that Caltrans recently revealed their Draft Interregional Transportation Improvement Program (ITIP). The SR 91 /Green River Road project is proposed for funding under the ITIP. Caltrans is requesting that RCTC contribute Regional Improvement Program (RIP) funds in the amount of $3.889 Million. Therefore, staff is also recommending funding the $3.889 from the discretionary pot. Mr. Haley noted that the staff recommendation would allow the funding of additional projects in the amount of $41 Million and that the added local agency match would be less (at 20%) than the TAC recommendation. The TAC discussed and raised questions regarding pre -committing 2004 STIP funds, not knowing the availability of "4th year" funding at the time they submitted projects, and the process for submitting the Green River Road IC project without it going through the application process. Cathy Bechtel explained that the 4th year funding option was something new and that there were many questions that the Regional Transportation Planning Agency (RTPA) group had regarding this programming option. A workshop was held at the end of July. Shirley Medina presented this information at the August 27th Plans and Programs Committee meeting and September 10th Commission meeting and stated that staff would be preparing a recommendation on the 4th year option prior to the December 15th STIP submittal. Tim Wassil, City of Indian Wells, recommended that the TAC reiterate its previous recommendation for 2002 STIP Discretionary funding. Cathy Bechtel stated that both the TAC and staff recommendations will be forwarded to the October 29th Plans and Programs Committee meeting and the November 14th Commission meeting. 10. OCTOBER 10, 2001 RCTC MEETING Cathy Bechtel referenced the October 10, 2001 Commission Connection which was handed out at this meeting. She highlighted the Storm Water Runoff Rules portion dealing with the cost of transportation projects and improvements. Eric Haley pointed out the Inland Empire Aviation Commission discussion. Technical Advisory Committee Minutes October 15, 2001 Page 6 Ms. Bechtel also announced that the Commission had, on the consent calendar, approved programming of three (3) Coachella Valley formula STIP projects. 11. OTHER BUSINESS Cathy Bechtel reported that a letter will be going out in the next day or two to city managers regarding the MSHCP that the county is doing for the western county cities. She explained that the letters will request that if there are any changes to the list, they are made at this time to ensure the projects requested are accurate. 12. Adjournment There being no further business for consideration by the Technical Advisory Committee, the meeting was adjourned at 11:45 A.M. The next meeting is scheduled for November 19, 2001, 10:00 a.m., at Banning City Hall, Banning. Respectfully submitted, l.�s j�111)(lenLi. Shirley Med a Program Manager AGENDA ITEM 5 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: November 19, 2001 TO: Technical Advisory Committee FROM: Shirley Medina, Program Manager SUBJECT: 2001 Congestion Management Program Update Staff Recommendation: That the TAC Approve the 2001 Congestion Management Program Update and forward to the Commission for final approval. Background: At the October 15, 2001 TAC meeting, Georgiena Vivian of VRPA Technologies (RCTC CMP Consultant) provided the TAC with an overview of the 2001 CMP Update. Under statute, the CMP is required to be updated on a biennial basis to reflect changes or impacts on the CMP system through the monitoring program, changes in legislation impacting the CMP, or any desired changes the Commission may want to include. This year's update includes minor revisions and clarifications to the document since no legislation has been introduced affecting the CMP. The Level of Service (LOS) analysis conducted over the past few months revealed that no segments were operating at a deficient level or level of service "F". However, Ms. Vivian cautioned that in certain areas there are segments operating at LOS "E" and are very close to falling to "F". Once the LOS turns to "F" on the CMP system a Deficiency Plan is required to be prepared by the local agency where the deficient segment is located. If a deficiency occurs on the state highway system, RCTC will prepare the Deficiency Plan in coordination with affected local agencies. It should be noted that when a segment falls to LOS "F" through our monitoring effort that a very detailed analysis will be performed that may involve reviewing the LOS methodology used, updating traffic counts, and a field review of the segment to determine that a true deficiency exists. Comments received by TAC members regarding the 2001 Update noted minor technical corrections, and questions regarding the LOS calculations used. The Final 2001 CMP will reflect the recommended corrections. LOS calculations are attached. Three sections include 1) CMP system map with LOS and peak hour volumes (both directions); 2) Freeway/Arterial/Rural Level of Service Tables; and 3) Existing Conditions/Number of Lanes Listing. VRPA staff will be present at the November 19, 2001 TAC meeting to address any additional questions or comments. ■ 858 566 0243; Sent By: VRPN Technologies; 6th Si 9,88,1© V eal Duna Are Limonite Av e Onuein A" 7,698 Robidoox Blvd Te mer._sI Ca rve Rd Lake Sha n Dri. e` 1q _ O unnersoa St Grand .ice 905 13,525 8,739 10,196 Cre amrwe Ave Orange Si 1 Pigeon Pass Rd 10,600 10,600 1 Oleander Ave 8,740 6,240 1,720 ®room Rd AUenndro Blv d Va n Rolm RSv d Ramona Expressway Slueve Rd D Si 1,510 Cliu :rn Keith Rd 6,971 hltaria ha Flor Springs Rd 6,138 10,612 — 6,030 1,430 eitiamac Rd 580 w 4,770 4,46 4,151 9,364 7,500 1,220 Sanderson .ive 1.28 —_lam —. 2,ss ,,r ,„ Ave Simpson A vg 2,960 Rancho California Rd 1 ,410 2 300 2001- Level of Service on CMP System in Western Riverside %limn Nalt ev Rd sae . R4410 .a nre Conneras Ad© 470 590 Exhibit 4-2 Legend LOS A. B, C. D. or E designation for segment 0 LOS F designation for segment (Ncne in 20011 XXX Peak I -bur Volume (Both Directions) Ex empt Facilities Prindpal Arta -tale on CI41P Sys'em Solace: Celtrans 1999 Traffic \Qllumes Report extrapolmed 2% per year es 2001 it from existing Smart Call Boxes o fit a Exempt System. STATE R OUTE 60 Riverside County Line lo Junction 1-15 Valley V11Fy lo Junction 60,'81/215 Jun ction Route 60 East to Pens Blvd . STATE ROUTE 71 San Bernardino County Lite to Junction Stale Roue 91 STATE ROUTE 74 Grand Avenge to Lakeshore Drive Lakeshore Drive 101.15 Sanderso n Ave nue lo Cornell Street Cor nell Street to Hemel She et EXEMPT FACILITIES STATE ROUTE 91 Riverside County Line to Junction State Ro ute 7 t Junction State Route 71 to Maple Street Maple Street to Juncti on 1-15 Junction 1-15 to 0.6 Mile Nest of McKinley O .E Mie West of McKinley to Magnolia Ave nue Magnolia Avenue to 14th Street 14th Str eet b Junglon 501911215 STATE ROUTE 111 District 11 Boundary to Junction Slate Rout e 74 Junction State 74 10 Gen e Autry Trail 1-21 ti East Junction State R ollie 60 to Ju nction 60191/2215 Jlmctlon E0/91/215 to San Bernardino County Line LA S1EFtRA AVENUE Arlington Avenue to Gramercy PI. VAN BUREN B OULEVARD Nortterty City Limit to Junlpe Aven ue Ju nipa Avenue to Central Avenue Central Avenue to Arli ngton Avenue STATE ROUTE 79 California Avenu e to Junction 1-10 775_'1 INit II (X:11{ti 858 566 0243; Sent By: VRPA Technologies; 2001- Level of Service on CMP System.in Central Riverside Exhibit 4-2 ' 520 @. 111 3,550 comm. cke or . U Legend ® LOS A, 8, C. 0, or E designation br se gment 0 LOS F designation for segment (None in 2001) XXX Peak Hour Volume (Both Directons) Exempt Facallies Principal Arterials on CMP Syste m Sotaoc: Cations 1999 Traffic Volumes Report extrapolated 2% pet yeu to 2001 & from existing Seurt Cell Boxes off die Exempt System. STATE ROUTE 60 Riverside County Une to J unction 1-15 Valley Way to Junction 60191/215 Junction Route 60 East to Penis Blvd. STATE ROUTE 71 San Bernardino County Line to Junction Slate Route 91 STATE ROUTE 74 Grand Avenue lo Lakeshore Drive Lakeshore Drive to 1-15 Sanderso n Avenue to C ornet Street Correll Street 10 Hemet Street EXEMPT FACILITIES STATE ROUTE 91 Riverside Cou nty Line l0 Junction State Route 71 Juncton State Route 71 to Maple Street Maple Steel to Junction 1-15 Juncton 1-15 b 0 .6 Mile Vdost of McKinl ey 0.6 Mile Met of McKinley to Magnolia Avenue Magnolia Avenue l0 141h Street 14th Street to Junction 60!911215 STATE ROUTE 111 District 11 Boundary 10 Junction Stale Route 74 Junction State 74 to Gene Autry Tral 1-216 East Junction State R oute 60 to Junction 60/91.215 Junction 801911215 to San Bernardino C ounty Line LA SIERRA AVENUE Arlington Ave nue to Gramercy PI. VAN BUREN BOULEVARD Northerly City Limit to Jurupa Avenue Jurupa Avenue to Central Av enue Central Avenue to Arlington Avenue STATE ROUTE 79 California Aven ue to Junction 1-10 VIZ PA. . 17F;('I 1 N Cl1.(_)t . r FIG 858 566 0243; Sent By: VRPA Technologies; 6 7280 ® 9.780 ti 1,430 f 1.500 1,590 Limonite Arllo 1,630 \— Riverside `l City Limit 1 • \ 2,650 Gramercy 2,490 Pk,, i1 M..rrf ''590 Hnn irun 1.970,L� �I d 1Ji1 Btrimay Dr (.j 230 1.770 Rir¢.sr G 3. 250 A ve • 2.870 200-1- Level of Service on CMP System (NW Riverside County) 3,320 2, 92 2360/ 2,070, / / / • /oi • \ 1,750 • \ • • N aari, Ac trade st Z,130 3,070 ModoFtad C an mkt 3,110 Ce en St Wan elven SI Buren Orio n arc 61:1 Vi -.y ad Tr Loh.eo Rd 3, 80 _.080 M OI TO SCALE Legend LOS A. B, C, 0, ar E designation for segment ® LOS F designa tion for segment (None in 2001) XXX Peak Hour Volume (Both Directions) Exempt Facilities Principal Arterials on CMP System Source: Caft ans 1999 Traffi c Volumes Report extrapolated -2%per year 102(101 & fro m existing Smart Cali Boxes oiithc Exempt System. STATE ROUTE 60 Riverside County Line to Junction 1-15 Valley Vilay to Junction 60/91,/215 Junction Route 60 East to Perris Blvd. STATE ROUTE 71 San Be rnardino County Line to Junction State Route 91 STATE ROUTE 74 Grand Avenue to Lakeshore Drive Lakeshore Drive to 1-15 Sand erson Avenu e to Corner Stre et Cornell Street to Hemet Str eet EXEMPT FACILfTIES STATE ROUTE 91 Riv erside County Line to Junction State R oute 71 Junction State R oute 71 to Maple Street Maple Str eet b J unction 1-15 Junction ( -15 to 0.6 Mile 14.11c51 McKinley 0.6 Mile IAkst o1 McKinley to Magnolia Avenue Magnolia Avenue to 14Ih Str eet 14(h Street to Junction 60!91/215 STATE ROUTE 111 District 11 Boundary to Junctio n State Route 74 J1 onion Stale 74 to Gene Autry Trail I-215 East Junction St ate R o:lt e 60 10 Junction 6091!215 Junction 60/01;215 to San Bernardino County Line LA SIERRA AVENUE Arlington Avenue to Gramercy PI. VAN BUREN B OULEVARD Northerly City Limit :o J urupe Avenue Jurupa Avenue In Central Av en ue Centr al Avenue to Arlington Ave nue STATE R OUTE 79 Calif ornia Avenue to Junction '-10 Exhibit 4-2 TV.:(1 1 lN( .)1.( :(111a Freeway/Arterial/Rural Level of Service Tables R2LN-TAB 3.0 Rural Two -Lane Uninterrupted Highway Level of Service Tables Based on the 1997 Highway Capacity Manual Update Florida Department of Transportation September 1998 DESCRIPTION Road Name: Distance (mi): Study Tens Pend: Analysis Date: AADT: User Notes: Mtn Arterial (2 Lanes) Rlv. Co. Integrated Plan TRAFFIC CHARACTERISTICS K Factor. 0 Factor. PHF: Bi-Dredion Adjusted Saturation Flow Rats: 0.100 0.568 0.880 2,250 ROADWAY -CHARACTERISTICS Posted Speed Lima (mph): Percent No Passing Zones: % Exclusive Passing Lanes: Left Tum BaysILanes (YIN): 40 80 10 N —Range-- (0.06 - 020) (0.50 -1.00) (070 -1.00) PEAK HOUR PEAK DIRECTION VOLUME A 8 C D E N/A 90 330 580 1,130 N/A PEAK HOUR VOLUME (BOTH DIRECTIONS) A B C D E_ 160 580 1,010 1,990 AVERAGE ANNUAL DAILY TRAFFIC (AADT) _ A B C 0 E (2000 - 2800) EN/A 1,600 5.800 10,100 19,900 (55.50, 45 of 40) (0 - 100) (0 -100) R2LN-TAB 3.0 Rural Two -Lane Uninterrupted Highway Level of Service Tables Based on the 1997 Highway Capacity Manual Update Florida Department of Transportation •Se . ember 1998 DESCRIPTION Road Name: Distance (nu): Study Time Period: Analysis Dare: AADT: User Notes: Min Arterial (3 Lanes) Rlv. Co. Integrated Plan N/A PEAK HOUR PEAK DIRECTION VOLUME A B_ C 0 E 110 390 680 1,340 TRAFFIC CHARACTERISTICS K Factor. D Factor. PHF: Si -Direction Adjusted Saturation Flow Rate: 0.100 0.568 0.880 2,250 ROADWAY CHARACTERISTICS Posted Speed Lima (mph): Percent No Paste Zones: % Exclusive Passing Lanes: Left Tum 6ay:llanes (Y/N): ---Range— (0.06 - 020) N/A (0.50 -1.00) (0.70.1.00) (2000 - 2800) N/A 40 05,50..50(40) 80 (0 -100) 100 (0-100) N PEAK HOUR VOLUME (BOTH DIRECTIONS) A B C 0 E 190 680 1,200 2,350 AVERAGE ANNUAL DAILY TRAFFIC (AADT) A B C 0 E 1.900 6.800 12,000 23,500 RMUL-TAB 3.0 Rural Undeveloped Multilane Uninterrupted Highway LOS Tables Based on Chapter 7 dew. 1987 Highway Capacity Mend Update Florida Department of Transportation simtember 1998 DESCRIPTION Road Name Dianna. (nu): Study Tin. Period Analysis Gate MDT: user Naves Mtn. Arterial (4 Lanes) Riv. Co. hrtvegneed Pion LANES 2 3 PEAK HOUR PEAK DIRECTION VOLUME • Level of Service B C D E 860 1,450 2.030 2,430 3,080 1,290 2,170 3,050 3,650 4,620 TRAFFIC CHARACTERISTICS --Ran9e— K Feast 0.100 (0.08 - 0.20) D Faior 0.666 (0.50 - 1.00) Past Hour Factor 0.aa0 (0.70 - 1.00) 44 sdurtbon Farr R. 1.750 (1800 - 2400) PEAK HOUR VOLUME (BOTH DIRECTIONS) Level of Service LANES A 8 C D E 4 L 1,520 2,550 3.580 4.280 5,420 8 2.280 3,82D 5.370 6,430 8,130 ROADWAY CHARACTERISTICS Free Flaw Spend(mph) Len Turn B.'. (Y/N) 45 Y Y (SO, 55, 50, or 45) AVERAGE ANNUAL DAILY TRAFFIC (AADT) Level of Service LANES A B C D E 4 r 15,200 25.500 35,800 42.800 54,200 6 I 22.800 38,200 53,700 64.300 81.300 ART -TAB 3.1 Arterial Level of Service Volume Tables Based on Chapter 11 of the 1997 Highway Capacity Manual Update Florida Department of Transportation April 1999 DESCRIPTION Reed Name From To Peak Direction Study Time Period Arwiy-is Date Nunn ,- of Lanes AADT User Notes Secondary (4 Lanes) 4 Riv. Co. Integrated Plan TRAFFIC CHARAGTF_RISTICS K Factor D Favor Peak Hour Factor Ad) Saturation Flow Rabe % Turns from Exclusive Lana 0.091 0.568 0.925 1850 16 ---Ranpe— ((l08-0.2o) (DSO -1.00) (0.70 -1.00) (1400 - 2000) (0 -100) J LANES 1 2 3 4 PEAK HOUR PEAK DIRECTION VOLUME (Includes vehicles in exclusive tum lanes) 2 intersections per mile Level of Service A B C D E N/A NIA 510 640 670 N/A N/A 1,120 1,300 1,340 N/A NIA 1,710 1,960 2,010 N/A N/A 2,300 2.620 2 680 ROADWAY CHARACTERISTICS Jrbanizad, Transhloning/Urban. or Rural Area Type Arterial Clans Free Flow Speed(mph) Total Length d Arterial(mi) 1 Medlans(r/N) Left Tum Bays (YIN Y u 3 35 (U, T, or R) (1,2,3, or 4) (40.35,30,25) SIGNALIZATION CHARACTERISTICS No.SIgnalized Internecdona Arrival Type,Peak Dtr Type Signet System System Cycle Lenoth(sec) weighted 2 3 S 120 0.32 (1,2,3,4,5 or 6) (P, S, or A) (60 - 240 sec) (0.20 - 0.80 Note that intersection capacity is reached at LOS 'E. ; 2 Constant volumes across the remaining LOS ranges indicate that 3 1 these levels are not achievable. Higher volumes result in an 'F'. 4 LANES 2 4 6 8 LANES 2 4 6 8 VOLUME (BOTh DIRECTIONS) (includes vehides in exclusive tum lanes) 2 Jnterserdsons per mile Level of Service A B C D E N/A N/A 910 1.130 1,180 WA NIA 1,980 2,290 2,360 N/A N/A 3.010 3,450 3,540 N/A N/A 4,050 4.610 4,710 AVERAGE ANNUAL. DAILY TRAFFIC (AADT) (Includes vehides in exclusive tum lanes) 2 Intersections jeer mile Level of Service A 8 C D E N/A N/A 10,000 12,400 13,000 N/A NIA 21, 700 25.200 25,900 N/A N/A 33, 000 37,900 38.900 N/A N/A 44,500 50,600 51,800 ,1 of service is not achievable Peak I4our Peak Direction Through/Right vk Retie for the Full Flour I Level of Service 1 LANES A B C D E 1 WA N/A 0.77 0 96 1.00 N/A N/A 0.84 0.97 1.00 N/A N/A 0.85 0.98 1.00 N/A N/A 0.86 0.98 1.00 ART -TAB 3.1 Art.efai Laval of Service Velum Tables Based on Chapter 11 o/ the 1997 Highway Capac3t'y Manual Update Florida Department of Transportation Ana 1689 aescRIPTION Rena Nansi Flan To Parr Oi,stisn away Tale Paned Andrea Dyer Namtw sr Rams MOT User Nana Major (4 Lanes) 4 Rlv. Co. Integrated Plan I TRAFFIC C!(ANACIER1sTlCS - K Pacer 0 Facer Peak Man Fedor A4J 9swration Plea Rata 1G Vane tram EtelLoivs Lanes 0.091 0.588 0.925 1900 14 pt 0a -020) w.30 -1.00) .170-1.0M (140) -2000) (a•1m) ROADWAY CHARACTERISTICS unwind. TesnalirrriIyu tier. or Runt Ada Tjree Arterial Cams Free Floor 3Gaa tener0 Total Length se Arteeiet(nrl Lr.dionseir N) Lad: Tun. Berg Cy/N) u 2 45 1 Y N.T.erR) (12,3. or 41 (as, 40, or 35) SIGMALPATION CHARACTERISTICS troSignaLtrad Inunaellens Antral Typo -Peak O, TO, sigwal syer.a+ 5yrlsn Cyd. L. (are) w.�l trod 'Dina Mot We 2 1 2 3 2 4 6 8 PEAK HOUR PEAK DIRECTION VOLUME (Includes whiles in exclusive turn lanes) 2 Itagnactifai s Level of Serino* A 8 C D E WA WA WA WA 320 690 1.070 1,450 750 1.550 2,380 3,210 850 880 1,720 1,760 2,580 2,640 3.450 3.530 OLUME t • pt -T CTIONS) (Includes vehicles in to dvaive turn lanes) 2 Intersections =Link Level of Swice A B C D lar E WA WA WA N/A 560 1,210 1.880 2.550 1,330 2,750 4,190 5.650 1,500 3,020 4.550 6.070 1,530 3.100 4,860 6.210 AVERAGE ANNUADAIL I. Y TRAFFIC (MOT) - (Indudes vehicles n occlusive turn tones) 2 IMer Petiona per rnlp Level cif Send LANES A 6 C 2 4 6 8 N/A 6.100 14.600 WA 13.300 30.200 NIA 20.700 45.000 N/A 28,100 62,100 D E 16.500 17.100 33-200 34.100 50.000 51.200 66,800 66.200 (1.2.3,4.5 or 6) (P.S.orA) (BO - 240 sec) 0.42 . (0.20 - 0.80 E9 1 L 5 120 -Note that intersection capacity is reached at LOS 'E. , 2 Constant volurrws across the remaining l.06 ranges indicate tha:. 3 i;these levels are not achievable. Nigher volumes result in an 'F. 4 • of service is not achievable Pima Fleur Psi owaelisa lf.eughiR4ht ,fc Rails far ate Foe Mou► Level of Service 8 C 0 6 A N/A N/A N/A NJA 036 0.86 0 39 0.40 041 0 88 0.90 0 91 0.96 0.97 0.98 0.98 1.00 1 00 1 00 1.00 11 ART -TAB 3.1 Arterial Level of Service Volume Tables Based on Chapter 11 of the 1997 Highway Capadty Manual Update Florida Department of Transportation April 1999 DESCRIPTION Rand Nome From To Pak Diection Study Time Period Analysis Number of lanes AADT User Notes Urban Arterial (6 Lanes 6 Riv. Co. Integrated Plan TRAFFIC CHARACTERISTICS K Factor D Factor Peek Hour Factor Adj Saturation Flow Rate % Turps from Exclusive Lanes 0.091 0.568 0.925 1800 14 -Range-- (0.05 - 0.20) (0.50 - 1.00) (0.70 -1.00) (1400-2000) (0 -100) PEAK HOUR PEAK DIRECTION VOLUME .(Includes vehicles in exclusive tum lanes) 2 Irttersertians per mile Level of Service LANES A B C D E 1 NIA 330 790 900 930 2 N/A 730 1,640 1,810 1,860 3 N/A 1,120 2,510 2,720 2,780 4 N/A 1,530 3,380 3,630 3,710 ROADWAY CHARACTERISTICS Jrtnn¢ed, Teansdiorting/Urhan, or Rural Agee Type Arterial Class Free Flow Speed(mph) Total Length of Arterial(m1) Medlans(Y/N) Lail Turn Bays (Y/N) u 2 45 1 Y Y (U. T, or R) (12,3, or 4) (45, 40, or 35) SIGNAL)ZATION CHARACTERISTICS No.Sigralizad Intersections Atrh el Type,Pak Ok Type Signal Syetam Syeter„ CVoln L.raleh(so c) Weighted Ttuu stvrst prC 2 4 S 120 0.42 (1,2,3,4,5 or 6) (P, S, or A) (60 - 240 sec) (0.20 - 0.80) Note that intersection capacity is reached at LOS E. Constant volumes across the remaining LOS ranges indicate that these levels are not achievable. Higher volumes result in an 'F. LANES 2 4 6 8 LANES 2 4 6 8 VOLUME (BOTH DIRECTIONS) (Includes vehicles in exclusive tum lanes) 2 Intersections par mils Level of Service A B C D E N/A N/A N/A N/A 580 1,280 1,980 2,690 1,400 2,890 4,410 5,950 1,580 3,180 4,790 6,390 1,630 3,270 4,900 6,530 AVERAGE ANNUAL DAILY TRAFFIC (AADT) (Includes vehides n, exclusive tum lanes) 2 Intersections per mile Level of Service A B C D E N/A N/A N/A N/A 6,400 14,000 21,800 29,500 15,400 31.800 48,500 65,400 17,300 18,000 35,000 35,900 52,600 53,900 70,300 71,800 of service is not achievable Peek Hour Peak Direction Through/Right We Ratio for the Full Hour Level of Service LANES A B C 1 2 3 4 D E N/A 0.36 0.86 0.96 1.00 N/A 0.39 0,88 0.97 1.00 N/A 0.40 0.90 0.98 1.00 N/A 0.41 0.91 0.98 1,00 ART -TAB 3.1 Arterial Level of Service Volume Tables Based on Chapter 11 of the 1997 Highway Capacity Manual Update Florida Department of Transportation April 1999 DESCRIPTION Road Name From To Peak Direction Study Tints Period Analysis Data Number of Lars AADT User Notre Urban Arterial (8 Lanes) 8 Riv. Co. Integrated Plan 1 TRAFFIC CHARACTERISTICS K Facer D Factor Peak How Favor Adi Sabasbon Flow Rita % Turns from Exclusive Lanes 0.091 0.568 0.925 1900 14 -- (0•05 - 0.20) (0.50 - 1.00) (0.70 -1.00) 2001) (0-100) 1ROADWAY CHARACTERISTICS Urbanised, Transitioninp/Urbwn, or Rural Area Type Arterial Class Free Flow Spsed(mph) Total Length of Arterial(m) Medians(Y/N) Leh Tum Bays (Y/N) U 2 45 1 Y (U. T. or R) (12.3. or 4) (45, 40. or 35) SIGNALIZATION CHARACTERISTICS No_Signallzad Intscssctlons Arrival Type,Peak DIr TYpa Signal 3)%rirn System Cycle Lsnglh(eae) Weighted Thar Myna giC 2 4 S 120 0.42 (1,2,3,4,5 or 6) (P, S, or A) (80 - 240 sec) (0.20 - 0.80) Note that intersection capacity is reached at LOS 'E'. Constant volumes across the remaining LOS ranges indicate that these levels are not achievable. Higher volumes result in an 'F'. LANES 1 2 3 4 LANES 1 2 3 4 LANES 2 4 6 8 LANES 2 4 6 8 PEAK HOUR PEAK DIRECTION VOLUME (Includes vehicles in exclusive tum lanes) 2 jj tersections per rrijlg Level of Service A B C D E N/A 330 790 900 930 N/A 730 1,640 1,810 1,860 N/A 1,120 2,510 2,720 2,780 N/A 1,530 3,380 3,630 3,710 VOLUME (BOTH DIRECTIONS) (includes vehicles in exclusive tum lanes) 2 Intersections per mile Level of Service A B C 0 E N/A N/A N/A N/A 580 1,280 1,980 2,690 1,400 2,890 4,410 5,950 1,580 3,180 4,790 6,390 1,630 3,270 4,900 6,530 AVERAGE ANNUAL DAILY TRAFFIC (AADT) (includes vehicles in exclusive turn lanes) 2 Intersections per n1jj2 Level of Service A B C D E N/A N/A N/A NIA 6,400 14,000 21,800 29,500 15,400 17,300 18,000 31,800 35,000 35,900 48,500 52.600 53,900 65,400 70,300 71,800 of service is not achievable Peak Hour Peak Direction Through/Rigid vie Ratio for tree Full How Level of Service A B C O E N/A 0.36 0.86 0.96 1.00 N/A 0.39 0.88 0.97 1.00 N/A 0.40 0.90 0.98 1.00 WA 0.41 0.91 0.98 1,00 ART -TAB 3.1 Arterial Level of Service Volume Tables Based on Chapter 11 of the 1997 Highway Capacity Manual Update Florida Department of Transportation April 1999 DESCRIPTION Road Name From To Pock Dkoction Study Time Period Analysis Dow Number of Lanes AADT User Notes Expressway (8 Lanes) 8 Riv. Co. Integrated Plan TRAFFIC CHARACTERISTICS K Factor D Factor Peak Hour Factor Ad) Saturation ROW Rate % Turn from Exclusive Lanes 0.091 0.568 0.925 1900 12 -Range- (0.06 - 020) (D.50 -1.00) (0.70 -1.00) 04013- 2000) (0 - 100) ROADWAY CHARACTERISTICS Urbanized. TranslWning/Urben, or Rural Area Type Arterial Class Free Row Speed(mph) TotI Length of Arterial(mi) Modians(Y/N) Left Tum Bays (YIN) U 2 40 1 Y Y (U, T, or R) (12,3, or 4) (45, 40, or 35) SIGNALLZATION CHARACTERISTICS No.Signakaed Intersections Arrival Type,Peak Dir Type Signal System system Ards Lengtlr(sec) W - .bred Thru Myrrh 0.718 (1,2,3,4,5 or 6) (P, S, or A) (60 - 240 sec) 0.20 - 0.80 LANES 1 Note that intersection capacity is reached at LOS '8'. ' 2 Constant volumes across the remaining LOS ranges indicate that 3 these levels are not achievable. Higher volumes result in an 'F'. 4 PEAK HOUR PEAK DIRECTION VOLUME (Includes vehicles in exclusive turn lanes) ILI Intarsections ner mile Level of Service LANES A 8 C D E 1 880 2 1.780 3 2,690 4 3,590 LANES 2 4 6 8 LANES 2 4 6 8 1,550 3,100 4,660 6,200 1,550 3,100 4.650 6,200 1,550 3,100 4,650 6,200 1,550 3,100 4.650 6,200 VOLUME (BOTH DIRECTIONS) (Includes vehicles in exclusive rum lanes) QJ Intersections per mile Level of Service A B C D E 1,550 2,730 3,140 5,460 4,730 8,190 6,330 10,920 2,730 5,460 8,190 10.920 2,730 5,460 8,190 10,920 2,730 5,460 8,190 10,920 AVERAGE ANNUAL DAILY TRAFFIC (AADT) (includes vehicles in exclusive tum lanes) Q. Intersections per mile Level of Service A a C D E 17.000 34.500 52,000 69,500 30,000 60,000 90,000 120.000 30,000 60.000 90.000 120.000 30,000 60.000 90.000 120,000 30,000 60.000 90,000 120,000 Peak Hour Peak Direction Through/Right eft Ratio for the Full Hour Level of Service A B C D E 0.57 0.57 0.58 0.58 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FREE -TAB 3.0 Freewa► Love! of Ser14:s Teets ea_e on Chapter 3 0 r 11191997 -9 *gy Cap9 * Yaf1w1 VDdite Florida Department of Transportation 1998 DESCRIPTION Road Nano Fmmrro SOM Tara Period MINDS oft AADT uar Now Freeway (4 lanet1 Riv. Co. napraaae Ran TRAFFIC CHARACTERISTICS K rasa RCM Peak Imo. Ram SiasaOon Flow Roo - 0.082 0.560 DJ?5 2.050 2400) ROADWAY CHARACTERISTICS Fran Fro. SPA (mph) 65 (75.70. 85.60. s 55) • Notes: _arw WS? — ■ar - wawa IMO PEAK HOUR PEAK DIRECTION VOLUME Level of SOWS L t4ES A 6 C D E 2 1,120 1,760 2,640 3,360 4,000 3 1,680 2,610 3,980 5,040 6,000 4 2.240 3,520 5.280 6.720 8,000 5 2,800 4,400 6,600 8.390 9.990 6 3.350 5.280 7,92D 10,070 11.990 7 3.920 6,180 9,230 11,750 13,990 -.1f Muse s • PEAK HOUR VOWS& (10Th DIRECTIONS) Lewd of Sonic* LANES A a C D E 4 2,000 3,100 4,800 5,900 7,000 6 3,000 4,600 7,000 8,900 10,600 8 3,900 6.200 9.300 11,800 14,100 10 1,900 7.700 11,600 14.800 17.800 12 5.900 9.300 13.900 17.700 21.100 14 8 900 10,800 16,300 20,700 24.600 AVERAGE ANNUAL DAILY TRAFFIC (AADT) L. of Service LANES A_ B C D E L� 21.400 33.700 50,500 64,300 76,500 6 32.100 50.500 75.700 96.400 114,700 8 42.800 67,300 101,000 128.500 153.000 10 53.500 84,100 126.200 160,600 191.200 12 64.300 101,000 151,500 192,800 229.500 14 75.000 117.800 178.700 724,900 267.700 FREE -TAB 3.0 Freeway Lowell sf 8 *.. Tablas Based an Chapter 3 Otos 1997 HOhow Copeck Marvel Update Florida Department of Transportation seat inb.r 109e DESCRIPTION Rand Neese R eveTe SCdy nem Period ask 0ile MDT Laser POWS Ffeeivry (8 Lame) Rte. Co. integrated Men TRAFFIC CHARACTERISTICS KFacie .D fscte• Pew alias Fleur Aquilino air on Flow Re. 0.092 0.568 0.975 2,100 • ROADWAY CHARACTERISTICS Rem Fins Sinned 01 10) 65 j (75.70, 65, d0, er 55) PEAK HOUR PEAK DIRECTION VOLUME Laved of Unice LANES A 8 C D 2 1.150 1,800 2700 3,440 3 1,720 2.700 4.050 5,160 4 2290 3.600 5.410 6,880 5 2,870 4,500 6.760 8.800 6 3.440 5,110 8,110 10.320 7 a 010 6.310 9,460 12.040 E PEAK HOUR VOLUME (BOTH DIRECTIONS) 4,100 6,140 8,190 10.260 12.290 14,330 Level of Soles= LANES A 6 C D E 4 2,000 3,200 4,800 6,100 7,200 3,000 4,800 7,100 9,100 10,800 8 4,000 6.300 9.500 12,100 14,400 10 5.000 7.900 11,900 15,100 18,000 12 ' 6,100 9,500 14,300 18,200 21,600 14 7,100 11,100 16,700 21,200 25200 Notes: •eerw1111 UMW ROM Miff ese1111111ee+re AVERAGE ANNUAL DAILY TRAFFIC (AADT) Level of Semen . LANES A 8 C D E 4� 21.900 8.1•10-52,900 8 10 12 14 43,900 54,900 65.800 76,500 34500 51,700 65.800 51,700 71.600 98,700 69,000 103,400 131.700 86.200 120.300 164,600 103.400 155,200 197,500 120.700 181.000 230.`00 78,400 117.500 156.700 195,900 235,100 274.300 Existing Conditions/Number of Lanes Listing RIVERSIDE COUNTY INTEGRATED PLAN Existing Roadway Capacity Analysis INTERSTATE & STATE ROUTES Existing Conditions (1999/) 1 RoadwaySaeerm Limas F 712w " 0 of Laws.= ADT 4 LAS" Seed RA - N moral 14, Freels a 41900 A Newport ltd. - McCall BN6. Freeway 4 41940 A Q1kCd Blvd. - F.fl aa.e Rd. Freeway 4 40000_ • Ethane RC. - 8.. Jet nu. 74, C•.. Rd. Freeway 4 41400 A So. Jet. Rte. 74, Cam Rd. • Ka. Jet. Rs. 74; Terra It Fle.w., 4 6'1200 D Na Jo_ Rai. 74; F.artb 9L - D 21. Freeway 4 54100 C D SL - Nw.eo RA Freeway 6 61200 A N.aee RA - Raarag Eaoraswa Freeway 6 41600 E Rasoaa EIDIIMMI - Olea5r Arm Freeway 6 27400 C Oleasd.r Ave. - Yea 1.,.. 2led Freeway 6 91100 C Vow Sae. BM. - Cass= Awe. Freeway 6 22700 C Cedes Ave. • ♦llessewdr. Ned Fteeenty 6 03700 C _ AiMs o eLo waw Blvd. - .l�s./iaerW5 Ave. Freeway 61 6 9 00 C ' Y.dylers1Fi1054 . Ave. - Jai Rea 60 =.s Freeway 6 t: J .12a - 44 Ran - Fair L4. Dr. Fewwwy 6' *F Felr 1.1. Dr. - Cewd.1 •w. Fleeway 6' 1 B Cgtesl Ave. - Pesvlvasa ♦ t. Freeway 6' 1 F Y.nw1,a61. Ave. - Ua. r y •ve. Breeway 6' 1 F Umveetty Ova - 3s*BlNee BI. beam, 6' 1 F 3rr1Bd. Bt. - Spat. SL Freeway 4' 1F BMus Si - JQltte. 60.91 Wes Freswa 4' 1 F is Bs 60 ! 0l Wad - Calarla Ave. Freeway 14 1E Gleaba Ave. -Greece SC Framer 6' 1F - Sam Bereariwo Ca. Line 9t4gKiief%AI'R1k� Frwwif ••^r1::=*51790 F ' ,7Coetr t,r,. :.; . 4 . onMr�' .itP!9!MR41M!! i1::lrr;':i+9t . 92144,119: vO -. .14 ; SR 243 Jet, Rte. 79 fderataa Ceder - C.army Club Dr. Arterial 2 3600 A Cway t(si Dr. - Chyle Dr- arterial 2 , 4400 A Circle Dr- - Floe n/D.iy RA Arterial 2 4'300 • Pl.wv,'Doty ltd - Marina Rides Dr. Arterial 2 MO A Marla Dike Dr. - sew G. ssi. Ave. Arterial 2 27011 A Sae Game a e Ave. - Jet Rte. 10 r Arterial _ 2 5600 • .. ., :, J: r.!/.:i l • .�j-faW•N' .1T '•N +i^-i•al4J'q•�4#fi': . l•el-.; :. . - .. T' .T.T+fi •"l:4.411fy . . . SR 371 Jaw Mal, - Vinare Yeller RA ♦reart.l 2 4300 A Waren Valley Rd. - Care Rd Arterial 2 4500 A Cars RA • Careers aA Arlarl1 2 4400 A Ceeneras RA - Jct. Rte. 74; Aw Est Arterial 2 6200 A NOTES: At Bt. 60 - Son Hccenrimo Co Len • Analya/d as a 9 -!me Freeway. All ammo massed 214 per yaw to edger 1999 C— . -- 'I Rerfiefmd from SCAO Y!V2ANK.ZP Her Yost Medal a CVAO C: VATS Bee Year Modal. •2 Reienot.d Gem SCAG RIVSANKTP Doe Yea Model at CVAG CVA?9 Bar Yee/ Modal. •3 Referenced tom 5iesside Casey GIS 3ya s. - These Cram Dragon or from CVAG Manuel er from Colima Comm Mamad • 4 Dented by VRPA Tar"dagrs bard upon mehodolau ....&. s4 m Appendix --. • S asst Eta Cb-- regeaaas beams/ rte. boatty De5mme lam hem LOS F mos 1991. '6 Not apt ban CM! Baquasmaa. The Riverside Camey Ca04e.tion Ma oternef Present has identified this learners s 1.30 '7' and eswapr from CMP requirements nue 1991. The 1.05 Aewa o this sale eery di8is ton the LOS reported re the CUP. This m race hose dee CdIP is bead ea a chrome mwbodolegy thmea taw table at beaus Los hass been added to the &eddy moor in tamp it woo dodged ton be eaceapr. PISTE: 5/15199 Pape 5 EM 2JDrosO dRCTC cata0lsttlriate.sls RIVERSIDE COUNTY INTEGRATED PLAN Existing Roadway Capacity An.lysii CLASSIFIED LOCAL FACILITIES' 1 Ezistinfl Foca* Tpre ' Conditions 4 ./ L0 of Lows 4 (1999, Apr.. LOS T Roadway Se;.ae Iiaitr , mom Are W.d.iaam. 5t - al.m. a Arterial 4 32000 D 7111 Ave O1td.. St - V.. Boron St Arterial 4 NIA NA 5214 Ave washiness St - Jefferson! St Muria' 2 SSW A 62nd Ave JeCerr. • Madison 9t Arterial 2 4500 A Cad Ave Madiea 6t - Monroe St Arterial 2 5100 A Seal Aye Rowse St - Incite.* St Arterial 2 5100 A 62.d Ave Jackman St - SR 06 Arterial 2 91110 A Ave SR 16 - SR 111 Arterial 2 11900 A ad Ave SR 111 - ERIK Arterial 2 9000 A Ave SR 96 . Pierre St Arterial 2 NIA MA .d Ave Mares St • J.do.* St Arerial 2 N/A N/A ad Ave Alcamo St - SR 96 Arterial 2 NIA N/A 62.4 Are SR 56 - SR 111 Arterial 2 700 A Ave SR 111- SR 116 4r90111 2 600 A 6214 Ave BR>0 - larch St Arterial 3 3010 A 66th Ave SR 36 - Pieria St Arterial 2 1360 Ave Pierce St . SR 111 Arterial 4 3200 A 66th Ave Sit 111- Garfield St Collector 2 2000 A Ave Hammed Rd - Vatld.r .. Rd Collector 2 NIA N/A Hari BM Moore. St • Jackass St Arterial 2 2:60 A ping Aches Sc - BRIM Mortal 2 3300 A Blvd SR f6 - Pelt Sr Arrant.. 2 31100 A Blvd Polk St • 33111 Arterial 2 4100 A Blvd 51111- SR S6 Arterial 2 4600 A Blvd 52116 - Pierce St Arterial 2 1VA NIA HMI Treetweis Rd .1.215 An.Mrl 4 25200 C Im.sadroBM 1-215-P11d.riclt3l Arterial 4 25700 C moedro Blvd Frederick 91- 3Tam& St Arterial 4 33100 E Bard B..cuc k SI - Been. Blvd Arterial 6 33300 C: Blvd Perils Blvd - B1toNmo St Arterial 4 11500 4 Bled Mackin, St • L Salle St Seceder, 4 13600 _ A Alm.aedre Blvd L Whir: - Morose Boode Dr Collector 2 6500 y A Blvd Mcrae load Dr - nmisr. St C.11.ctar 2 5570 A aodro Blvd Tr..dme SI • Gilmour Selma Rd Collector 2 1200 A msldre BM Gamine* Ate- Arirael.a Ave Arterial N/A 1't/Ai•) Blvd A1UvB.a Aria - Overlook Mow Anatol 4 27700 C. Aima..d.o Blvd Overlook Pkv - Triestine Arterial a 30700 D 12d Network Rd - Sewage! Collector 2 6150 A 124 Scott Rd - Claim m Keith Rd Collector 2 500 A Arita Rd SR 79 - De Payola Rd Collector 2 NIA NIA A.. L Sierra Ave - Sae ter Ave Arterial • N/A NIA Ave Streeter Ave - A4rreandre Bhtl Arterial 4 NIA 1414 Ave La NAM AVE - Trier AVE Anertal d N/A N/A Arlieraa Ave T71er Ave . Vu Bars Blvd ♦Anatol 4 NIA N/A Ave V. Bata Blvd - Alma Ana.ial 4 N/A NIA Ave 4d tea - M.Ot11. Ave Arterial 4 34300 2 note. Ave MaTokolla Ave • De As Arterial 4 25672 C Ave De Arm - SR VI ........—ArMial 4 3.3.9 C Miier?t. Ave Mamie St - Victoria Ave Arterial 4 211271 C Arligb. Aye Vidwla Ave - Chicano Ave _ Arterial 4 27459 D c Ave 16th Se. E 6th St Arterial • Na N/A Ave E Mk SI - Westward Ave Arterial 2 N/A N/A Ave 14.6 8t - Chem Valley Blvd Collector 2 6100 a t Ave trine V.IIs lhd • X11 Sal,emr j 6100 A wove Ave - - Some Ave - barmen 4'. ♦heard 2 N/A NIA e Ave Raw Ave -1-15 Arterial 2 3206 A Ave 1-15 - Datm.mda Ave Arterial 2 3300 A B.WAray. Ave FJ1a..d. Ave - Bra St Arterial 2 5100 A ve Awe Boa* St - Via Bt.ve. Bid 4neriel 2 6100 A DATE: 8/15/95 Pape 1 EIt2JDtolait5/RGT C 1 iqlff�����" n$$n n �nrsn n !Cilium sows Rd _Nom e. & - C.W.ern o.i Pifiti!"ififfiiifiriirl >s>ii�jm. Urn i t e h 7 ll t o /�1��� 7 iii (try' VVV ii"`“ � • p gt E i ►> n �i i, r a A .>"""111 Fe ► 0 6 c.tm....d c... .. Rd - Humes. Rd 1 iMililieil[111Pailf111111MINIP6111F i . pri/•,;:.TErFiftieFitiiw!irisoi ifirlimit Pvrt,ir g 141 fv,uplii,v7t!I 1 t i• !wf!!i-.*iial s -1 >i 1 i FFilin >�etilciit �C \ i qiifilf ..i.; �0 .ss 3331r di ■1 eQ! 6 ee 0 I "_ t a '�0 ►LL > a r y' a i RIDE COUNTS Existing Ro adway CLASSIFIED LOC F . r r r . r I Q / \ \ .. , 11111111 11111111111111111111111111111(11111, 1'i .n iPI 4 3 S 7 gi i e 6/ a pg� i i 1 j i► i ��Q+ a i ya 6 i r` 3 l rs b W i i$ ■ a i p a �apg a i a iii 3 p i y i 6 i /. b> g (� O b i r i i S T i i b i l P$ >; 1 .q O : i ► i ! Y i > > P ► i i i p ► ► ► i ► i i > i ► s P > ro i > to > ► • C i ► ► i ► ► ,1 ► . ► • ► > ► ► • ► > ► i > ► R 4 RIVERSIDE COUNTY INTEGRATED PLAN Existing Roadway Capacity Analysis CLASSIFIED LOCAL FACILITIES•1 a.Auee1L,g l.onnnions i 19Y`J) Radice, Segment Law& � Foci&y Type-2 149Lsua .3 r - WT•'r � Lag's Frebystes Av. 2.215 - Dry St CaWdr 2 N/A NIA Prost 9t — Rambo California Rd - SR 79 (Winelmsirj Attalla' • 14600 A Centime Rd Aare Rasa - Chides Emu Cellular 2 6100 Gass Awry T-10 - Palm Sptap Imam Austria' 2 14900 A D Gage Aura Psis 1prip Bysam - Vista Chloe Artartal 1 2 r Guy ABUT Gem AMY Vint Chi= • Ramon Rd Ratios Rd - Pad Cams Dr►S8 111 17rbsa Arterial Arterial 6 4 1500 15000 19200 D A A Camas Sutras Rd SR 60 - Alsearud o flied Arterial 2 6700 pih... Sulu" 8d erica Oslo Rd AlesasMn Blvd - SR 79 Arterial 2 7100 A Bale Rd - Do Portals Rd Calmar 2 3300 A 'G Guts Rd Perris Blvd - Railroad Cayes Rd ollects 2 1100 _a w oodhart Raub Rd Craws Valley Rd - Diamond Valley Rd Cr 2 NIA NIA Gusset GaAve Llrmr. i. All - Madrid, St S.osrdrr/ 4 5100 Crowd Ave Madmd. St . Riverside DI Colluder 2 NIA A Grain Ave 8ive+lde Dr • Copd.s St A 12300 N/A 9ariamks Ave Paim Dr • LouR Cartes Rd Ardrial 2 6700 BAmino! 2 Hammond Rd 706 Ave -'oar's Se Collector 2 600 A Roaster An • S8 60 - Rliert;de Dr drbrlal 4 M00 A Rasa.r ,Hamer Ave Riverside Dr - Betlepser Astoria'1 2 4400 • Ave Rallsasave - Noma Dr •rear- _ 2 6300 A Bamaer Ave Noma Dr - Partridge Arterial 4 lr/A A DAUYr Ave Partridge - Ontario Ave Arterial 4 N/A /1/A N/A Hussar Ave fdiaiar Blvd - SR 60 Ara/rid 4 9300 A dales Ave Remora EXIIMISIFT - Castor Ave ColIs r 2 2500 • Haunch Si Sas4mmd Raub Pkwy - SR 60 Arlorial 2 7900 B4O -.a An River Rd - asuroisbe Rd Collector 2 6600 A Indian Ave Plane Blvd - S8 6S Arterial 2 6100 A A ladles Ave DRIo. Rd - Planes Bard Atbtia1 2 11200 9 lodten Ave 1-10 - Dillon Rd Arterial 2 _ 12100 a lodiae An Sin Rafael - I-10 Arterial 2 N/A N/A Indian Ave Visa City, • Sea Raid Arterial 4 NIA N/A 1rdiaa Ave Rosso Rd - Vise Ciro Arterial 4 NIA N/A bean Au $ Palm Caq.n Dr • Raters Rd Arterial 4 NIA NIA 2wdiera Ave Calais, 11. 9111snro SI Carrier 2* 13700 r iridium Av. Putman 81- La Siena Ave �.., 4 N/A N/A 1Mium Av. La Sirs. A.. - Vas Been Blvd S.eydary 4 N/A N/A ladhna Asa Vas Bans Blvd - Adam Cailemr 2 N/A wA • Pdisa Ave Awe St - Mudioa St SeuedarY 4 N/A N/A 1Mbm A.. Madlam Sl • Mar/ R Collector 2 N/A N/A tails* Av. Mm/ Se -Misuse Ave Sarwirr 4 NIA N/A lairs Blvd 1-10 - DOS.. Rd Arterial 4 21000 A JiIra.a Au Wichder Airs - Date St Arterial 2 14100 D Jefferson Ave Dam 9t Manisa Arlorm1 2 14000 C - Bat Srsge Rd Janata. 511 Caesar Mob Dr - 4114 Ave Arterial X7000 C -Warms St 46th Ave - 47tH Au Arterial .2 2 14000 C Jeflm.s. Bt 4711 Ave • 4111 Ave Arterial 2 12000 8 Antrum St Orb An - Cad Aso Arend 2 11000 • Jaalpsr 41.1. Rd Caatiour Ave - Jsoipsr Saito lid C.alledar 2 N/A NIA J..lp.r F1d Rd rJssiaer Sutras Rd - Weems Rd Carus 2 2100 A Judger Plat Rd Waters Rd -.S8 74 Collector 2 N/A N/A Janus, Rd E6naada Ave - Baia Sr Arterial 2 6400 4 Arropa Rd Rate ge - V* Buis Blvd Arterial 2 1600 A Jumps Rd Vs. Be.. Blvd - ifrsl.. Blvd Arbrial 2 1100 A •ia1111a Ave Vas Bare tow - Adams Arterial 4 via V/ Jumps An Adams -16raso1i Ave Arterial 4 NIA N/A LaiSierra Ave V.iGe. _ * Ave - Eliwada Ave ArueW 2 NIA N/A La:Slurs Ave R4waad. Ave - AaMatit.. Ave Arterial 2 24/A NIA 41.a:Sierra Ave JAdioatao Av. - Cmssbea9 Ave Ariariel 2•T 27900 F I]ATE. 9/15/99 Pape 3 EH 2:/prooects/RCTC_c60apa►ornafd.Rale TOTAL P.15 suvEKsiuE COUNTY INTEGRATED PLAN Everting Roadway Capacity Analysis CLASSIFIED LOCAL FACILITIES•1 Existing Conditions (1999 Roadway Swann' Limits Facility Type .2 .' A eJl .s wei AZT.' LW L Sierra Ave L Ginsberg/ MLrial 4 Stem. Ave term Q St•bL .11aAve Arterial a 27400 C , La Sierra Ave L Stem Nepole Ave - an in Arterial 4 26900 c Ave 9R 91 - Marta Ave 401 I 4 35200 D L Siam Ave Varna' Arterer Ave-CIsebrade Arterial 2 15300 A la 54.1'r. Ave Saimaa - Carnet Rel Collector I 13000 C Las Mee hewr Dr Cawlea Etprse w.s - Gerdes RI — or 1400 A Lai St Es1.se NaasWa Rd -Cad Ave ceinadbaer 2 2 N/A NIA Lakeshore Dr Rabb Rd- R*.end . Dr CeOaoer N/A WA Lao.rare Dr ,4 Riverside Dr. - Garr .Ave Collector 2 2 Ni* N/A I.sbaebor: a Ave Male _, Catheter 2 N/A N/A I+kaabore Dr Main at . Railroad Cur. Rd Collector 2 PRA N/A lamb Canoe Rd 168 79) Warned Ave - Sarnia Rd Arterial 3 N/A N/A N/A L. Rd Greet Ave - Tiro4v Rd Cow 2 NIA Tern Rd Grp Ave - Sc RI Collector 2 NIA N/A Leer Bat Sean Rd - Tbeerere. ■d Coil.eror 2 N/A N/A Llae.ir. Ave ChoySt - •ter at Arterial 4 l4/.1 NIA 1.1w.rdta Ave va Ba er Ave - I-15 Art.rial • NIA N/A — thornier Ave I-15 - aims& Ave Arterial 2 1 10300 _ 71/5 A Laeatl. Ave Ssim.d. Ave -Bair SI ArteB 2 17 E — Ln.Ut. Ave Baia at - VI. Hared Ned Arterial E Llama* . Ave Vita Bann DM b - Rjesrow Dr Amnia( 4 4 17200 A Learn St 43ad Ave - Heed Rd Collector 2 17200 2100 A Los Cense Rd Mee Rd - Two Beads Pares Tr Arterial 2 1300 A Mamie* Ave ' Det•rie Ave - I-15 .crserlal 4 • 4ataolla A.s I-15 - Li.sahe 51 Arterial 4 IVA 12900 295 NIA Marne*Ave Li.rd. St - La Sham Ave Arterial 4 A WM** Ave , 521.91-L Mein' Ave Arterial 4 5 M..aslle Ave La Seers Ave - Dsrbery 5I Anarlai a D tilde pdie Ave Ma Arterial 5 34310 3750 B Mean* Ave Telsr Ave - Harries. St Arterial 4 74000 ■ Marna*Aro Barre*St - Vita Dares Blvd Arterial 4 29074 � B MaPelia Ave Vet Bore ■iv1- AMMO* Ave Arterial 4 30300 D Maasd. Ave Mikados Ave . 7th St Arterial 4 35100 D Male Sr lisimas Blvd - Samosa Eapeenra7 C !letter 2 2090 E Maki St Raa.ait ESpror.wv - Sarnia Rd Collator 2 3300 A Mee St 3rd St-SR40 Arterial 4 16900 A Maio N H8 40 - Cohe •v. Coles** APlerial 4 0100 A Mall ft ColauW Ave - Gewgaw St G• 2 A Marne* 7th St -3rd St + Artorid 4 2W145 0 N/A Market St 3rd St - SR 60 AtOrty 4 112110 C Mar4st 51 !4R 60 - Santa A.. River Arterial 4 14300 C Melee St Seem Ass River - Ash Massa Amoral 2 9400 A Meade RI Ne ne Rd - !!lli. Ave Codes, 3 4400 A Meath. BS Foie 'St..dt Av. - McCaw Blvd Ceaecter 2 4100 A. Rd McCall Blvd -Shale* Rd t:-.Il.c r 2 4100 b5M.lo. Blvd aR 60 - Bad Ss Arterial 4 NIA w NIA Mimes Blvd Bata St- Avon St Art.ti.l 4 N/A N/A 1libclea Bird Av.a St Rd Arterial 4 NIA NIA Miseios Blvd Nth, Rd - Jerome Arterial 4 16200 Mialon Blvd Jerwp. - 7th St Arterial a 14700 A _ A Marne Blvd MINI= Ave • L15 Arterial 4 9200 A Fission Blvd I-15 - SR 64 Arterial 4 3700 • Mal Blvd SR 60 - Elenada Ave Arterial 4 13300 A Marna Tr Pala* St . Lase RA Collector 2 1000 C 36.ddaolyd Camp. Rd Vora Bares Blvd - El S.breate Arterial 2 57x0 A aleery 51 MEd Ave - Airport BM Afleral 2 5100 A Als.rw St , Ajmer) Blvd - 60th Ave Arterial 2 2900 A Meanie 51 60* Ave - 62M Are Art.rW 3 N/A N/A GATE: 8/15199 P000 4 EH_2IpropUs/RCTC:_RWN:Rer /1.d1 RIVERSID E CO UNTY INT EGRATED PLAN Existing Ro adway Capacity Analysis C LASSIFIED LOCAL FACILII7ES•1 Existing Conditio ns (1999 Roo way Segment Limas F ki 1lle .2 1.fL Y MT ~ LO S" • MaNway Av e 410 - Geo id Ford SW A rterial 4 267!0 c as .ate A v. Gera ld Fo rd Blvd - T ras k 9laetra Dr Ar terial • 27500 a Moatoev Ave Ptak Swore Dr - eR 117 Mtari& 4 24900 D Moaoia Ave Sa ban it - Fleri • Av e IM arritta Bat War Rd I.1B - W1S Arte rial • 16400 A Marriwa Hat Swiss Rd 1. 215 - M•revite M _IVIws1 _ 4 19!00 A 4, 4 f, f, 4, 4 f, g 4, w w w f g g g i g l w w! A g l i, 4 4 T 4 x 4 m g r f 4 4, O i l g f 4■ 0 VIII?! , iligldNfN N I M u.1 ll""ggnIf 1w y$� �I wl g4 z ; N JA 24309 M N - m A "g"1$ M. . e. .1 t N t M♦♦ N N t N N N N N 9 N N N N A 11 '1 N N N l N t V t t t,1 N N N • N N , '1 t M t t N N t t t N 1 N N N 1 ` C i I (6L DO III mla s11311VA- PauNnzniPir vi rd i sin+J4(- PS ,I PQoas 9-PBPN I1iLhIJ 6 e ! m`V aa„ IPMna4 Blvd - T ao B asc h Pear Tr 1 a 4 ax� ax+ as lh 1 �� j1r!V v J dm Ii!iij m ie 4. �. VA. jia# ax l t l f,. ii i ee it iii MNI:s X11 a 'l X111 in 1 il 1/11111 I ) MEMO Eregr Mir'M ..*WW*SM I gg !MA! trr Ig ii Tiaw.o Came Rd Theano Commas Rd `� i nill t I RIVERSIDE C OUNTY INTE GRATED PLAN Existing Rusdway Capacity Analyse CL ASSIFIED LO CAL FACILITIES•1 • r" i Vil A A l N_ i f} A f F 1E i!! P '_ I N i l F A !st !elf)f! A _ pe f 9� �' a i�$f`l.y I— hilsolos Blvd • SR 60 SR 60 . l6siat Cad= Vaal) Rd - Rd lf.eai Rd llii! E firi i ri gt El Ifili. 4 1= f= E •wii 1 if l,iii Eg -' "4 4,1 p 52 , . • 1 I, • r I 1 Existing Conditions (1999j t111LtiLt IlUlIL Itt q 1 t 111111 1 N N M I. N `J . N I N .. N N M♦ 4. 4. 4.• N M N N M �M N N N N N N N� N N N N M♦ N . li N N N N 4.♦ N M N �. N M 4. d�♦ p er 42 z C Y■■ �i 1 1 1 N/A L 11- 66,06 wA 7200 wA N/A Iiiii illi>>>saimilfilmi >ivas>u>oililii m; ;9 a >a>P>eaaaaa eftMo ssa> - N/A OP>?.i►► V/li V/ll ns.a0>a>►a>►> 4 RIVERSIDE COUNTY INTEGRATED PLAN Existing Roadway Capacity Analysis CLASSIFIED LOCAL FACILITIES' 1 Existing Conditions (1999) Rauirap Sevens Lett FR iffy Type' 0 4"Lmnu •' 4DT •' LOS Transmit' Rd AIessdro Bird - Vas Bens Blvd Arterial 4 NIA n/A 'II_eh.ntey Ave Victoria Ave - SR 11 Arterial 4 N/A NIA Yea BUMS Bled Mecidee 009 C. Rd - Wedowee 6t Arl.ria 4 20700 A ,11ae Biros Ord Watbiemee 6t - WW Rd Arterial 4 34406 E V. Bens Bled Wood Rd - Trammels Rd Arterial Md , 4 24146 C V.s Bnse Bled Tradm.4a RI -1-615 Aeeebi 4 22000 a V.. Rena B Y4 Esimasda Aye • Rier.N. City Linda Arterial 4 24100 D V. Berea Bled 'therein' C1t7 Iiarib-.isr00a Aye Arterial 49 34400 B Vas Bane Mel Ave ,lens - Anus^. Aye Arterial 46 31200 D V.. Beyer Bled AtiMS= Ave - ►4salis Ave Arterial 4 31740 D Vae Berm Blvd Mapralb Ave - 34 91 ^aerial 4 3813 D Vas Hers Bled SR 91 - M.due biro Caq.. Rd Aratrbl X7141 - C Vaadenee Rd 70th Ave • SR 111 .• 4 Collector 2 NIA N/A Venter Rd Pale Dr - Monaca* Vert Rd Arterial 2 606e A Vanier Rd Meawais Vero Rd - Dom pals Dr Arterial 2 4100 A Varner Rd Date Pals Dr -1-10 Arterial 2 3600 A Verse- Rd I.16 - Cite. Brune Rd Arterial 2 3600 A Varner Rd plaid Schaal RI - Webe[t.. $t Areriel 2 1109 Yereer Rd , Wasable . St - 42nd Ave • Arterial 2 I 3000 _A A Vkamia Ave Arlbato a Ayr - Cranal Ave Arterial 4 N/A WA Victoria Ave Central Aye -1461 St C.ILetor 2 NIA NIA Vktaria Ave 2016, 16 - 7B, Bt Collector 2 N/A MA Vp:torte M. Le Sierra Ave - Ve dens Bled Aartel 2 2200 A Vi_el rla Ave Van Bev, Red - Aims Arterial I 2 N/A NIA - Vl.ts Mime What Ave - Gam ^nary Tr Arterial 2 12400 4 Warren Rd Bue.e Aye - tames Rd Arterial 2 4200 A Warns Rd Raman E09e.m r .7 - CaM e ommd $t Collector 2 30 A %Ma en Rd ..Cetia.e.md St - Flor4b (6R 74) Collector 3 410 A Want's Rd Florida (SR 74) - Mabee 9t Arterial 2 N/A N/A Wre.a Rd Back Rd • deed Rd Collector 2 1600 A Wi.sbiatb. Ave Me•rie1. Rat Srriae Rd - 1.y 1t Coateor 2 N/A N/A W ai6lancon Ave 1v5 St • Nona St Arterial 2 N/A wA Waablssea $t Victor% Aye - V.. Ben Bird Arterial 2 12900 C '7 Waelamitoa St SR 70 - Rema.s Rd Collector 2 N/A N/A WaeMsR4s St Rawest Rd • Bassos Rd Collector 2 600 A Waabiagstt St Regan Rd Beck Rd Wmitimalo. Bt - Cad An -17dt Ave Collector Arterial 2 4 700 17200 A A Waebiee_4os et 4716 Ave - 4411 Ave Arterial 1 N/A N/A Wshisa n Bt 446* /v. • Cad Ave Arterial 2 N/A Ni* W.iieeo.s St 42.4 An - teams,' C%b Dr Arterial 4 24000 1 Webledoe Sr Comm" Club Dr - I-10 Arterial 4 25)00 C Watifesten St 1-10 - Rectos RI Arterial 2 6041 A Whirler Ave SWAMI Ave - Fairview C4d.Ner 2 3109 A Wood Rd Treatmei Rd - Vali Bares Bled Collector I 2 6200 a Woad Rd Vas Bona 11v4 - Gialm C.4.ser 2 0!00 C Wbnele7 Rd N 2011 Ave - Ms* Rd Arterial 2 N/1 N/A Warmth", Rd Dillon RA • Memos 112.4 Merrill 2 N/A N/A Weneln Rd Parana 111•A - twits Ave /nerd 2 14/A N/A NOTES: ldeouf.d by VRPA Tetiatola6eea am lmpottant to reflect.stsg Conditions on ■ 'Regional Brir' '2Rcloroaoed [tom =AG litIVSANCTP Hoe Yen Model at CVAG CVATS Bee Yam Model •39tegrmmsd Goat RCAt3 RIVSAN/CV Bee Ys Modal or CVAG CVAT$ Bare Ys Model •4 4eirroned Sam Rivsaide Comm GIS System - Id& Cris Dauber or 6.o CVAt3 Matsu nl r lira Calmed Cunt Mammal. ,All waste mused 2% Prays to mass 1990 Coldioaea `5 Dsiv.d by VRPA Teebmleps bred ape me hodolop sic eimd n Appeeda •6 ifi.sopt hem QIP r.grsnuem bemuse die Era* tepmett be beet LOS F stoat 1991. '7I Jet mime Gam Cie 0-quieael. 'V Not m MCP System 1llbe Riemsid. County Ctaortios Mmomeet Promos Isar idetrrified This tepasot is LOS T• and =moat from Me rvquirmen anee 1991. AE: 9(15/99 Pape 7 EH 2:/popctc/RCTC oenustattiontststt.afa TOTAL P.04 AGENDA ITEM 7 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: November 19, 2001 TO: RCTC Technical Advisory Committee FROM: Stephanie Wiggins, Program Manager THROUGH: Cathy Bechtel, Director of Planning and Programming SUBJECT: Goods Movement Update STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is to seek Commitee approval to receive and file the Goods Movement Update as an information item. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: At the September 2000 Commission Meeting, the RCTC approved participation in the Alameda Corridor East Trade Corridor -Goods Movement related activities. This item provides an update on these activities: • The formal ACE Grade Separation Position Paper is now available. This paper was funded and adopted by RCTC and WRCOG. CVAG has also authorized use of their logo for the paper thereby underscoring the point that the current and forecasted increase in train traffic has severe impacts throughout Riverside County; • At the September 2001 Commission Meeting, the Commission adopted the policy to support RCTC Alameda Corridor East grade separation projects that are funded by the CPUC by providing the 10% local match to the CPUC funding, if funds are available. The application form to request these funds is now available. (see attachment A); and • In conjuction with WRCOG, SANBAG, and SCAG, RCTC is participating in the Subregional Freight Movement Truck Access Study for the 1-15 Corridor. This study will cover the geographic areas of Corona, Norco, and the unincorporated areas of Mira Loma and Pedley. Funding is provided by SCAG through the Overall Work Program Element. The scope of work is attached and we are requesting the Public Works Directors, or designee, of the affected areas actively participate on the working committee. (see attachment B). RCTC CPUC Sec 190 10% Local Match Request Form iverside County ransportation Commission Purpose Project Types Steps To support successful CPUC Section 190 Grade Separation projects that are included in the RCTC approved ACE Grade Crossing Priority List by funding the 10% local share match requirement of the CPUC, if funding sources are available. (This policy was approved by RCTC on September 10, 2001.) Eligible grade separation projects must: 1) Have received CPUC Section 190 funds; and 2) Be on the RCTC approved ACE Grade Crossing Priority List. 1. Complete this form. 2. Return this form and supporting documents to RCTC via fax or mail, attention Stephanie Wiggins 3. Include with this form the local agency's CPUC Nomination Application, and proof of award of CPUC Section 190 funds, and proof of other funding commitments. RCTC Fax (909) 787-7920 Section A: Project Title and Lead A•enc Information Date Submitted: 1. Project Lead Agency: 2a. 2b. Project Title: Total Project Costs: 3 Project Limits: (State cross streets. Please indicate whether the project proposes to construct an underpass, overpass, or eliminate a current crossing) Section B: Project Funding Information • 111 • •• 4a. Fund Type (City, CPUC, CMAQ etc.) Specify Year Eng. Cost RJW Cost Cons. Cost Fund Total Fund Totals: RCTC 10% local share match of CPUC Sec 190 Requested 4b. Section C: Support Documentation 5 Include the following with a. CPUC Nomination b. Proof of Award of c. Funding source documentation this form: Application CPUC Section 190 Funds for any other sources committed to the project. 6. Section Project Point of Contact D: Project Point of Contact and Signature Name: Title: Telephone: Fax: Email address: Project Authorization for Submission of 10% Local Share Match Reguest Name: Title Signature: Date: Internal RCTC Staff Review Actions 7. Review by Planning and Programming Department Req Position Initials Date X Rail Program Manager Comments: X Programming Program Manager Comments Director of Planning & Programming X Comments: Additional Staff Comments: SUBREGIONAL FREIGHT MOVEMENT Truck Access FY 01/02 Scope of Work Subregion: San Bernardino Associated Governments Work Element: SCAG 02-0051 SBG S Funding: $150,000 FY 00/01 SCAG OWP + $37,500 Match Objective: Develop strategies and planning tools to improve truck access to intermodal facilities and other truck activity centers in the western end of the Inland Empire Valley area, from the 1-15 corridor to the Los Angeles County Line. This is a cooperative work effort with WRCOG and RCTC, representing an extension of our respective Goods Movement Studies, with the participation from the respective city and county member agencies, the California Trucking Association and other interested parties.. Scope of Work: 1. Compile information on designated truck routes and truck restrictions within the local jurisdictions throughout the study area. 2. Collect data on truck trip generation rates by facility type to supplement and support trip forecasting capabilities, and for comparative analysis of trends in the movement of goods within the Inland Empire. 3. Collect origin/destination data from shippers and carriers to support upgrades of the travel demand model in forecasting regional and subregional heavy duty truck trips. 4. Identify roadway and operational impediments to efficient truck movement within the study area. 5. Support the collection of additional traffic and vehicle classifications counts at critical locations for refinement of the regional and subregional travel demand model, and other regional truck movement analysis. AGENDA ITEM 8 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION DATE: November 14, 2001 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Plans and Programs Committee Shirley Medina, Program Manager THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: 2002 State Transportation Improvement Program Discretionary Funding Recommendations PLANS AND PROGRAMS COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Approve projects with a score of 31 and above for 2002 STIP Discretionary funds utilizing "4`h year" funding option to increase available programming capacity from $21 million to $41 million with an additional local agency match of 11.8%; and, 2) Approve $3.889 million of 2002 STIP Western County Formula funds for the SR 91 /Green River Interchange project to provide a local contribution toward the Interregional Transportation Improvement Program (ITIP) funds, and reduce the SR 91 HOV (Mary Street to Seventh Street) pre -commitment of 2002 STIP Western County Formula funds by $3.889 million. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: On June 26, 2001, the Commission released a CaII for Projects to program approximately $25 million of 2002 State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP)/Regional Improvement Program (RIP) funds made available through the RCTC Intra-county Formula Discretionary pot. Project applications were due on August 17, 2001. A total of 39 projects were received by the deadline with STIP/RIP requests totaling $130 million. Criteria Development In March 2001, the Commission directed staff to work with the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) to further refine the criteria as a result of issues raised from the 2000 STIP Discretionary call for projects process. The TAC began its review of the criteria in April 2001 and worked on recommended changes for three consecutive TAC meetings. The TAC s work on the criteria should be commended as each meeting was three to four hours long and included the creation of a subcommittee to discuss the more technical aspects of the criteria. The TAC presented to the oabi49 Commission its recommended changes to the criteria and process on June 13, 2001 (Attachment A). The Commission approved the TAC s recommended changes, with the exception of criteria #1, 'Emphasis on Measure A", which the Commission directed to remain as follows: 'Projects in the Strategic Plan not expected to be funded from anticipated revenues " The focus of the refinements consisted of providing as much objectivity to the evaluation of projects as possible. At the direction of the Commission, two criteria, Regional Significance and Safety, were double weighted. 2002 STIP Fund Estimate Caltrans' development of the STIP Fund Estimate was rather fluid during the period the CaII for Projects was open. The initial county share information was released in May 2001. The Riverside County share was identified as $147 million. The call for projects released on June 26, 2001, stated that the funding available for the Discretionary call for projects was approximately $25 million. In July 2001, the California Transportation Commission (CTC) and Caltrans released the Draft 2002 STIP Fund Estimate. The Riverside County share was identified as dropping to $117 million, which resulted in $18 million available for the discretionary program. Finally, on August 22, 2001, the CTC/Caltrans released new funding projections that identified Riverside County' s share at $130 million. The CTC adopted the 2002 STIP Fund Estimate on August 23, 2001. A chronology of these events is summarized in Attachment B. The following table was presented at the September 10, 2001 Commission meeting which outlines the adopted 2002 STIP Fund Estimate for Riverside County. ADOPTED 2002 STIP RIVERSIDE COUNTY INTRA-COUNTY FORMULA 2002 STIP Fund Estimate Available for Programming $130,115,000 Less 2% for Planning, Programming, & Monitoring $ 2,602,300 Discretionary: 24.20% $ 629,757 Formula: 75.80% $ 1,972,543 Available for Project Programming $127,512,700 Discretionary: 24.20% $ 30,858,073 Formula: 75.80% $ 96,654,627 Formula breakdown: Western County 72.08% $ 69,668,655 Coachella Valley 26.91 % $ 26,009,760 Palo Verde Valley 1.01% $ 976,212 000150 As a result of the March 2001 Commission action on funding 2000 STIP Discretionary funds, the Commission committed to fund the following projects from 2002 STIP Discretionary funds: Newport Road reconstruction, widening SR 60 HOV lanes, Valley Way to 1-15 Total Committed Funds $6.000 million $3.261 million $9.261 million The lead agency for the Newport Road project is the County of Riverside. This project was one of the top ranked projects from the 2000 STIP Discretionary call for projects. The County of Riverside agreed to program their project with 2002 STIP funding to allow additional projects to be funded from the 2000 STIP Discretionary round since the funding available was limited to $11.8 million. The $3.261 million for the SR 60 HOV lanes was a request from Caltrans to provide a local contribution towards the Governor' s Traffic Congestion Relief Program project, thus matching $9.785 million of 2000 ITIP funds and $25 million from the Governor' s program. This project was submitted in the call for projects and was the number 1 ranked project. RCTC staff also recommended earmarking this project from the 2002 STIP Discretionary round to allow additional projects to be funded from the 2000 STIP Discretionary pot. As a result of the earmarking in March 2001 and the adopted 2002 STIP Fund Estimate in August 2001, the available funding for the 2002 STIP Discretionary call for projects is $21,597,073. "4t" year" Funding Programming Option The 2002 STIP Guidelines and Fund Estimate, adopted on July 11th and August 23rd, respectively, included for the first time, language on the option to program first year funding from the 2004 STIP cycle. These funds, referred to as "4th year ", are the 4th year of the current 4 -year county share period that is not included in the 2002 STIP period (FY 02-03 — 06-07). The 2004 STIP will provide two years of programming capacity in FY 07-08 (the 4th year of the current 4 -year county share period) and '08/09 (the 1:t year of the next 4 -year county share period. The option to program the "4t" year" in the 2002 STIP is at the discretion of each county. The CTC intends to provide fiscal capacity to counties with projects that would be programmed in the 2002 STIP period rather than waiting two more years for the 2004 STIP cycle. OOQ151 The CTC clarified that the "4th year" funds may not be available should all the counties fully program their 2002 SI IP county shares. However, it is anticipated that some counties may not fully program their 2002 STIP share as they may reserve funding for future high cost projects. The Commission' s September 10, 2001 STIP item included information on the option of programming "4`h year" funds. The item stated that staff would review the advantages and disadvantages of "4th year" funds and bring back a recommendation prior to the 2002 STIP submittal in December 2001. 2002 STIP Discretionary Project Evaluations On October 1, 2001, the TAC convened to evaluate the 39 project applications. Project applications were sent to the TAC on August 23, 2001 for their review prior to the evaluations. In addition, one -page summaries for each project were prepared by RCTC staff to help facilitate the evaluation process by highlighting how the project met the criteria. The one -page summaries were provided to the TAC the week prior to the evaluations. Each project sponsor provided a brief 2 -minute presentation summarizing the project. Once the results of the scores were distributed, the TAC deliberated for an hour on how to best distribute the STIP funds. Staff reminded the TAC of the option to program the "4th year" funds. The TAC discussed this option and a majority of the TAC members expressed concern over pre -committing funding from the 2004 STIP funding cycle thereby reducing the amount of funding available from the 2004 STIP. The TAC recommended that the Commission not program the 4th year funds. . The motion was approved with 20 votes supporting the motion and 5 votes opposing. However, it should be noted that other funding opportunities would be available in the next 18 to 24 months from CMAQ/STP funds under the reauthorization of TEA -21. Estimated available funds for Riverside County is $25- $30 million a year for a six year period covering fiscal years 2003/04 — 2008/09. In summary, the evaluation process went well and was a significant improvement to the previous evaluation. As with previous calls for projects, the criteria will be reviewed prior to the release of the next call for projects to look for ways to improve and refine the process. TAC Recommendation for 2002 STIP Discretionary Funds The TAC recommended approving 9 projects that scored 35 points and above and an additional local agency match of 25.5% (Attachment C) programming a total of $21,581,310 of STIP funds. Each agency scoring 35 and above stated that they felt comfortable with increasing their local match by 25.5% or slightly modifying their project thereby reducing the costs by 25.5% with the condition that they do not alter the project scope and merit of the project. 000152 Interregional Transportation Improvement Program (ITIP) With the passage of SB 45, the STIP is divided into two programs, the Regional Improvement Program (RIP) and Interregional Transportation Improvement Program (ITIP). The RIP, programmed by each county, receives 75% of the funding, and the ITIP, programmed by Caltrans, receives 25%. The SR 91 /Green River Interchange Improvement project in Riverside County is one of the top priority projects identified on the Draft District 8 ITIP list. Currently, the project is under funded by approximately S7.8 million dollars. Recently, Caltrans requested that RCTC provide a local contribution in the amount of $3.889 million (50% of the shortfall) to strengthen our local commitment toward approval and inclusion of this project in the 2002 ITIP. Caltrans is proposing to program the remaining funds from the 2002 ITIP. The total cost of the project is $19.2 million. The advantage of programming $3.889 million of 2002 RIP funds would be that Riverside County would benefit from a fully funded regional project on the most congested corridor in the county. It would also demonstrate a cooperative approach with Caltrans on targeting funds on the State highway system. . Further, considerable discussion has taken place with Caltrans regarding additional investments in the 2002 ITIP for several major highway, transit and rail projects in Riverside County. It is felt that the Commission' s participation on the Green River Interchange will be helpful in securing ITIP funding for these projects. Plans and Programs Committee and Staff Recommendation for 2002 STIP Discretionary Funds Given the recent events in the country and state of the economy, staff feels that future STIP funding levels may be negatively impacted. Therefore, staff is recommending that Riverside County take a proactive approach in programming available funding. The 4th year funding, discussed above, is an opportunity to secure available funding in light of an uncertain economic climate. This programming option has not been available in previous STIP cycles and has evolved over the past few months. The 4th year funding is anticipated to be available for programming and allocation in the 2002 STIP period. As previously discussed, the availability of the 4th year funds will be known after the STIP submittal deadline of _December 14, 2001. The CTC and Caltrans indicated that programming capacity would be on a 'first -come first -serve" basis. Therefore, staff feels it would be prudent to program projects as soon as possible from the 2002 STIP Discretionary ranked project list. This recommendation is '0-0'0153 consistent with the evaluation process that took place on October 1, and funds five (5) additional projects from the TAC s priority ranked project list. In order to fund the 14 projects an additional local agency match of 11.8% would be needed (Attachment D). This additional local agency match commitment is less than the TAC recommendation (at 25.5%) due to the use of 4th year funds. Lastly, staff is also recommending programming the SR 91/Green River Interchange project from the Western County Formula pot. As a reminder, on January 11, 2000, the Commission approved committing 2002 through 2008 STIP Western County Formula funds on the Measure "A" SR 91 HOV project. This recommendation reduces the SR 91 HOV project commitment from the 2002 STIP period. The total project cost of the SR 91 HOV project is identified at $170.7 million. The 91 HOV project is anticipated to begin construction in FY 05-06. In summary, staff' s recommendation is as follows: 1) Approve projects scoring 31 and above utilizing the 4th year funding option to increase available programming capacity from $21 million to $41 million, and requiring an additional local match of 11.8%; and 2) Approve funding $3.889 million of 2002 STIP Western County Formula funds for the SR 91/Green River Interchange, and reduce the pre - commitment of 2002 STIP Western County Formula funds by $3.889 million from the SR91 HOV project from Mary Street to Seventh Street. Comparison of Plans and Programs Committee/Staff and TAC Recommendations The Plans and Programs Committee and staff recommendation is to program available 2002 STIP Discretionary funds and the 4th year county share (or 1" year of the 2004 STIP Discretionary funds) on 14 projects for a total of $41 million. This recommendation is due to the fact that the current economic situation may preclude the county from having as large a funding capacity in the future. Staff is reminded of the recession in the 1990' s when two consecutive STIP cycles (1994 and 1996 STI' s) had no funding capacity available for programming. Programming available funds now would give Riverside County an advantage of having identified projects in the pipeline for delivery rather than risk losing a programming opportunity. The recommendation to program $3.889 million of Western County Formula funds on the SR91 /Green River Road Interchange is a result of recognizing the importance of this project, and fostering a partnership with Caltrans to bring as much ITIP funding to the County as possible. The TAC s recommendation is to fund 9 projects up to the 521.5 million of available 2002 STIP Discretionary funds. The TAC opted not to pre -commit 2004 STIP funds in order to keep as much funds available for the 2004 STIP Call for Projects, and in the event of unforeseen circumstances where the Commission may wish to use the funds on a high priority project(s). 000154 Summary of Plans and Programs C ommittee and Technical Advisory C ommittee Rec ommendati ons TAC Reco mmendation to Fu nd Projects 1 - 9 PPC Reco mmendatio n to Fund Pro jects 1 -14 Rank Lead Agency 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Palm Desert County Corona Corona Palm Springs Coachella Moreno Valley County Beaumont Riverside Caltrans Coachella Moreno Valley Murrieta Project Description Monterey Ave Widenin Van Buren Median/Bus Turn outs Advance Traffic Mgmt System (AT MS) Magnolia Ave Corridor Widening,Signals Indian Canyon Or Widenin Dillo n Rd Grade Separation Perris Blvd Improvements Limonite Ave Widening/Reconst. Sixth St Multi -Modal Widening/Rehab Van Buren Blvd Widenin Rte 79 Widenin Dillon Rd Widenin Reche Vista Dr Realignment,Signals I-15/Califo rnia O aks IC Improvements Total Pro po sed Funding 9 9 9 Projects ranked #15 through #39 on next page. 9 9 . TAC RIP Add'I Match Funds 25 .50% PPC RIP Add'I Match Funds 11.80 % $ 1,794,854 $ 1,414,346 $ 2,124,914 $ $ 1,117,500 $ 1,176,500 $ 1,323,000 1,084,286 $ $ 1,680,720 $ 1,327,280 $ 1,989,792 971,000 $ $ 5,420,993 $ 4,974,007 $ 6,417,873 1,018,208 $ 3,977,127 $ 1,857,285 $ 1,466,715 $ 2,198,926 $ $ 3,850,533 $ 6,852,967 $ 4,558,617 1,125,174 $ 6,144,883 $ 2,689,450 $ 2,124,550 $ 3,184,020 $ 1,629,980 _$ 2,667,100 $ 2,967,900 $ 3,157,560 $ 2,477,440 $ 502,875 $ 884,122 $ 595,350 $ 791,647 - $ 3,464,496 $ 1,771,504 - - $ 1,323,000 $ 13,699,000 - $ 2,116,800 $ 1,083,200 - $ 1,966,860 $ 1,006,140 - $ 7,365,582 $ 3,769,418 $ 21,581,310 $ 41,786,790 1 of 2 Pro ect Des1 ---r-„—t j cr lion Requested Fund 15 Murrieta I-215/Clinton Keith IC Improvements $ 5,700,000 1s Temecula I-15/Cherry St S/B Off -Ramp lmprov. $ 750,000 17 Riverside La Si erra Ave Widening $ 2,548,500 is Palm Springs Gene Autry Trail Improvement $ 3,000,000 is Colfnty Ramona Expressway Missing Link $ 2,500,000 20 La Quinta Fred Waring Dr West Phase, widening $ 2,400,000 21 La Quinta Fred Waring Dr East Phase, widening $ 2,400,000 22 RTA ATIS/ITS at Corona No. Main Metrolink Station $ 100,000 23 Sunline ITS Deployment Pr oject $ 850,000 24 M urrieta Los Alamos Ave IC Improvements $ 5,707,500 25 Indio Monroe St Widening $ 4,250,000 26 Banning Wilson St Rehabilitation $ 410,000 27 Palm Desert Portola Ave Bridge Over Whitewater Channel $ 4,243,300 28 Murrieta MHS Rd/I-215 N/B Ramps "Bottleneck Relief' $ 1,355,000 29 Hemet Sanderson Ave Widening $ 3,024,000 30 Corona SR 91/Lincoln IC $ 1,938,800 31 County Scott Rd Widening/Reconstruction $ 4,000,000 32 Sunline Zero Emission Fleet Expansion $ 1,200,000 33 Coro na 1-15/EI Cerrito IC M odification $ 2,350,000 34 Hemet Stetson Ave Realignment $ 1.360,000 35 County Jefferson/Palo mar/Washington Realignment $ 1,050,000 36 Palm Desert Dinah Sho re Dr Extension $ 5,773,600 37 Lake Elsinore Casino Dr Bridge Widening $ 2,700,000 38 La Quinta Eisenhower Dr Bridge Improvements $ 1,797,000 39 Palm Desert Porto la Ave Overpass of 1-10 $ 21,231,700 2 of 2 ATTACHMENT A 11RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION Y - - -- - --- -- _ - - 'D ATE: June 13, 2001 TO: I Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Plans and Programs Committee Shirley Medina, Program Manager THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: 2002 STIP Discretionary Call fo_Jects PLANS AND PROGRAMS AND $TAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Release a call for projects for 2002 State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) Discretionary funding; 2) Approve the revised criteria to be used for the 2002 STIP project evaluations; and, 3) Retain a consultant to perform air quality analysis. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: valuation Criteria At the March 2001 Commission meeting, the Commission directed staff and the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) to review and refine the project evaluation criteria used for STIP project funding. This was in response to concerns raised by Commissioners and local agencies regarding the scoring of projects for the 2000 STIP Discretionary Call for Projects. The last three TAC meetings, each lasting three to four hours long, were spent reviewing the ten criteria to consider those that required quantifiable data, those that should remain subjective, and clarifications to the evaluation process. Following is the TAC's recommended changes to the criteria and process: Process 1. Maintain the TAC as the evaluators of the STIP discretionary projects. 2. Each TAC member will be allowed to vote for their own project. This will allow each agency to officially support their project(s) or joint project(s). 3. individual votes of the TAC members will not be recorded. The TAC felt it was unnecessarily burdensome to record votes. Recording of votes would require more time in the evaluation process, which already lasts approximately 10 hours. 4. Point system for scoring will be zero to five. The point system is being modified from 0 to 3 points to 0 to 5 points to provide a broader spread of points and reduce the number of projects that score the same number of points. 5. Agencies will be encouraged to limit their number of projects to 2 or 3. (The TAC will reconsider this prior to the release of the call for projects.) Limiting the number of projects will help facilitate the evaluation process and require project applicants to submit top priority projects when applying for limited amount of funds. Joint projects will be allowed/encouraged. 6. Projects will be reviewed by lottery as opposed to alphabetically. This will provide for an equitable project evaluation order. Revised Evaluation Criteria 1. Emphasis on Measure "A" Current Definition: Modified Definition: Projects in the RCTC Strategic Plan not expected to be funded from anticipated revenues. Named projects identified in the Measure "A" ballot. Modified Definition clarifies projects eligible to receive points under this criteria. Projects that meet this criteria will receive 5 points. 2. Regional Significance Current Definition: Modified Definition: Projects which are regional, multi jurisdictional, identified on the CMP network or CTP network in Western Riverside County and Regional Arterial Program in the Coachella Valley. Projects which Bre regional, multi -jurisdictional, identified on the CMP network or CETAP network in Western Riverside County and Regional Arterial Program in the Coachella Valley, and transit capital. nnl,5R This change eliminates the CTP network, which is not an officially adopted network. The four CETAP corridors represent large geographic areas in Western Riverside County that are recognized as priority corridors. Scoring of this criteria will be double weighted (e.g. projects receiving a score of 4 will be multiplied by 2). The definition of regional significance was recommended to be consistent with how the Coachella Valley Association of Governments (CVAG) defines regionally significant projects in their TUMF Program. Therefore, in order for projects to be considered for scoring under this criteria, the project must first meet four or more of the following to be deemed regionally significant: 1. At least 5 miles in length 2. Planned for at least 4 lanes 3. Must cross or share jurisdictional boundaries 4. Must cross a stream, river, or flood/storm channel 5. Connects or crosses Interstate or State Route 6. On city's/county's General Plan, or SRTP for transit projects Rail projects will automatically qualify as regionally significant. The second tier of scoring for those projects that are deemed regionally significant based on the above indicators, will be based on Average Daily Traffic (ADT) growth on the roadway. Projected ADT will be forecasted for the year 2020 using a transportation computer model approved by the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) as consistent with the SCAG Regional Model. The scoring will be applied as follows: 5 points = over 50,000 ADT 4 points = 40,000 - 49,999 3 points = 30,000 - 39,999 2 points = 20,000 - 29,999 1 point = 10,000 - 19,999 0 point = under 10,000 Rail and transit projects will provide for conversion of passenger trips to ADT. Transit agencies will review this criteria in applying it to transit projects and suggest comparable scoring delineations. 000159 3. Economic Development Current Definition: Projects resulting in retention or expansion of the job base in Riverside County. Modified Definition: None. Projects will be required to provide nexus between the proposed project and its ability to retain or expand the job base in Riverside County. Suggested supporting data for this criteria would include the number of current and/or projected employees the project will directly have an impact on, the description of current and/or proposed job activity, etc. Scoring will be applied subjectively based on data provided. 4. Project Readiness Current Definition: Projects ready and as close to construction as possible (e.g. completing engineering and design, environmental and right of way clearance). Modified Definition: None. Scoring will be applied based on completion of required documents that lead to construction. 5. Air Quality Current Definition: Projects that will result in improving air quality. Modified Definition: None. The TAC is recommending that an air quality consultant analyze the impacts projects have on air quality (as was done for the previous CMAQ call for projects). The benefits of having an air quality expert perform the analysis will provide for consistency and accuracy of the analysis that will determine the impacts of air quality for each of the projects. The consultant would incorporate the methodologies approved by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) and the California Air Resource Board (CARB). Most importantly, having a consultant perform the analysis will reduce the burden on the project applicants. Scoring will be based on projects that reduce the highest net emissions reductions. Since STIP funded projects are not required to reduce emissions, projects that negatively impact air quality will not be penalized by way of Toss 00!l1_ n of points. Included in the call for projects will be templates provided by the air quality consultant categorized for project types. The project applicants will be required to submit required data in order for the air quality analysis to be performed for the project. 6. Safety Current Definition: Projects that will improve safety. Modified Definition: None. Project applicants will need to clearly identify the safety problem and demonstrate how the project will mitigate it. In addition, project applicants will be encouraged to provide as much technical data as possible to support that the project will in fact improve. A Subcommittee of the TAC was formed to work on establishing the scoring delineation for this criteria. Due to the importance of this criteria, it is recommended that it be double weighted (e.g. projects receiving a score of 4 will be multiplied by 2). 7. Congestion Mitigation Current Definition: Projects that will result in congestion reduction. Modified Definition: None. Project applicants will be required to submit data that will be applied in a methodology for calculating delay in seconds per vehicle as recommended in the Highway Capacity Manual. The TAC subcommittee will develop a form that would outline how project applicants would perform the calculation of delay, and develop trie 0 to 5 point scoring range. 8. Matching Funds Current Definition: Projects that meet or contribute above the minimum requirement for local match. Modified Definition: None. Project applicants will be required to identify the source of matching funds. Certification that the match funds have been approved by the council will be provided by the .local agency in the form of a minute action, council or board resolution, or signature of the agency's staff person authorized to certify the commitment of local match funds. Scoring of this criteria will range from 0 to 5 points with projects participating in 25% or more of the total project cost 000161 receiving 5 points. For joint project submittals, the financial contribution of each of the agency's will be determined among them. Further, the agency will be allowed to include in the match the amount of "hard costs/real dollars" spent on the project including staff time. 9. System Continuity Original Definition: Modified Definition: Projects that provide for system continuity i.e. gap closures. Projects that will complete the continuity an existing road system or transit service. Projects must demonstrate how they provide for system continuity and the importance of the facility as it relates to the operations of the facility, volume of traffic, congestion relief of the facility and/or parallel facility, and number of person trips associated with a transit service. Scoring will be subjective based on the need for the facility based on the above factors. 10. Geographic Balance Original Definition: Balancing the number of projects an agency or subarea would receive funding for within the County. Project distribution is not necessarily based upon population equity. This could be applied at the discretion of the Commission. Modified Definition: None. This criteria is intended to be used at the discretion of the Commission. A map will be preparea and provided to the TAC, Plans and Programs Committee, and Commission identifying project locations of the proposed projects. 2002 STIP The Draft 2002 State Transportation Implementation Plan (STIP) Fund Estimate was released by the California Transportation Commission (CTC) last month. The Riverside County share is $147 million. Please note that the numbers are only an estimate. The final Governor's budget could increase or decrease our County share. The Riverside County STIP inter -county formula is applied as follows: 000162 Therefore, the available funding for the call for projects for 2002 discretionary funds, based on the Draft 2002 fund estimate is 525,614,830 million. projects eligible for STIP funding per the STIP Guidelines may include, but are not limited to, improving the State highways, local roads, public transit (including buses), intercity rail, pedestrian and bicycle facilities, grade separations, transportation system management, transportation demand management, soundwalls, intermodal facilities, and safety. Non -capital costs for transportation system management or cost-effective substitute for capital expenditures. Other non -capital projects (e.g. road and transit maintenance) are not eligible. Road projects must be identified on the Federal Functional Classification System since STIP funded projects are anticipated to be funded with federal funds, with the exception of projects that qualify for state only funding (e.g. projects less than $ 750,000). Project Study Reports (PSRs) or equivalent will not be required at the time of the application submittals. However, the CTC will not program the project in the 2002 STIP unless a completed PSR is included with the programming request. Upon the Commission's approval of the 2002 STIP Discretionary projects, RCTC staff will meet with agency's approved for STIP funding and review the STIP programming requirements. Agencies will be required to complete the requisite project information (nomination fact and funding sheets along with the PSR or equivalent) and submit to RCTC. RCTC will formally submit the request for programming projects into the 2002 STIP by the December 15, 2001 deadline. Projects that do not provide the requisite oject information by December 15, will be added to the 2002 STIP through the amendment process. X000163 DRAFT 2002 STIP FUND ESTIMATE 2002 STIP Available Funding $147,056,000 Less 2% for Planning 2,941 ,000 Discretionary 24.20% 711,722 Formula: 75.80% 2,229,278 Western County 72.08% 1,606,864 Coachella Valley 26.91 % 599,899 Palo Verde Valley 1.01% 22,515 Available for Project Programming 144,1 15,000 Discretionary 24.20% 34,875,830 Formula: 75.80% 109,239,170 Western County 72.08% 78,739,594 Coachella Valley 26.91 % 29,396,261 Palo Verde Valley 1.01% 1,103,315 In order to release a call for projects for the discretionary funds and meet the deadline for submittal to the CTC in December 2001, it will be necessary to issue the call for projects by June 30, 2001. Releasing the call for projects by the end of June would allow sufficient time for agencies to prepare and submit project applications to RCTC on August 17, 2001. The 2002 STIP Discretionary Project funding available, as noted above, is 534,875,830. At the March 2001 Commission meeting, the Commission approved an earmark of 59.261 million for the following two projects in order to fund additional projects in the 2000 STIP Augmentation: Agency Project Description RIP Funds 1 RCTC On SR 60, from Valley Way to the S 3.261 M San Bernardino County line, add 2 HOV lanes and 2 mixed flow lanes. 2. County On Newport Road from Menifee Rd. to Winchester Rd., construct 4 lane road and widening. $6M 000164 ATTACHMENT B 2002 STIP Development Chronology The following chronology of events explains how the 2002 STIP evolved since the Commission released the Call for Projects for 2002 STIP Discretionary funds. May 3, 2001 June 7, 2001 June 13, 2001 June 26, 2001 July 1 1, 2001 July 25, 2001 CTC/Caltrans Distributes Preliminary Fund Estimate Riverside County Share 5147,056,000 Discretionary Funds, 525.6 million (assumes balance after pre - committed funds) This was the first time county shares were provided to the counties with the caveat that the assumptions were under review (subject to change) and the Governor's budget had not been approved. Amounts were provided for planning purposes only. CTC Adopts Fund Estimate Assumptions RCTC Board Approves A) Release of 2002 STIP Discretionary Call for Projects B) Revised Criteria C) Retaining Air Quality Consultant Staff states release of call for projects would be by June 30, 2001. RCTC Releases Call for Projects Discretionar i.' Funds Estimated at S25 million. CTC Adopts 2002 STIP Guidelines/Presents Proposed 2002 STIP Fund Estimate Riverside County Share 5117,002.000 Discretionary 518.4 (assumes balance after pre -committed funds) Guidelines include new language regarding "4`h year" funding option. Regional Transportation Planning Agencies (RTPA 's) have concerns regarding the Fund Estimate assumptions, 4`h year funding availability, and other areas covered in the Guidelines. RTPA 's requested Caltrans and the CTC to conduct a workshop to review and clarify many questions regarding the above. CTC/Caltrans Workshop on 2002 STIP _Guidelines/Assumptions Clarifications on the 2002 STIP were provided. Discussion of "°4'h year" funding availability revealed that we won't know what the 4`h year availability is until the counties submit their 2002 STIP. The 2002 STIP guarantees 3 years of new funding. A 4`h year is potentially available, though not guaranteed, in the 2002 STIP. 000,165 The availability of the 4th year is dependent upon counties fully programming their 3 year share. August 2001 RCTC Board Meeting, "Dark" in August August 17, 2001 RCTC STIP Call for Projects Submittal Due Date August 2001 RCTC TAC Meeting, "Dark" in August August 23, 2001 CTC Adopts 2002 STIP Fund Estimate (Revised from Draft Release) Riverside County Share $130,115,000 Discretionary Fund $21.5 million (assumes balance after pre - committed funds) County Shares revised the day before. County Shares are increased from the July Draft based on Caltrans ' revised assumptions. It was also clarified that "4th year" funds are the first year of the next 4 -year county share period. Two years of the next county share period would be available for programming in the 2004 STIP. Counties wishing to program ' 4t' year" funds would reduce programming capacity in the 2004 STIP by pre -committing funding. August 27, 2001 RCTC Plans and Programs Committee. "4th year" funding option included in agenda item. Committee is notified through "pink item" of last minute change to reflect the August 23rd adopted Fund Estimate (new Riverside County share). Staff states that they will continue to explore advantages and disadvantages of programming 4th vear/unds and bring back recommendation prior to December 141' STIP Submittal deadline. September 11, 2001 RCTC Board Meeting. "4th year " funding option included in agenda item. Staff states that they will continue to explore advantages and disadvantages of programming 4`h year funds and bring back recommendation prior to December 14th STIP submittal deadline. No discussion took place. September 17, 2001 RCTC TAC Meeting. "4`h year" funding option included in agenda item. Staff explains that the advantages and disadvantages of the 4'h vear funds will be reviewed with a recommendation forthcoming. October 1. 2001 RCTC 2002 STIP Discretionary Project Evaluations and TAC Recommended Project List Projects scoring 35 points and higher are recommended for funding. It is recommended that each agency contribute 25.5% more in order to fund all projects in this scoring range. RCTC staff reminds TAC of the 4rh year funding option. The TAC voted to not program projects with 4th year funding/not pre -commit 2004 STIP funds. October 3, 2001 RCTC Staff and Caltrans Meeting to Discuss 2002 ITIP Caltrans provides Draft ITIP list identifying Green River Interchange as a top priority project. Caltrans requests local * participation in the amount of $3.889 million. October 15.2001 RCTC TAC Meeting RCTC staff presents the 2002 STIP Discretionary "staff recommendation'' to include projects scoring 31 points and above requiring those projects to contribute 20% more in order to fund all projects in this scoring range. In addition, it was recommended to fund the Green River Interchange Improvement project with 2002 STIP Discretionary funding at 53.889 million. This recommendation is a result of discussions initiated by Caltrans on October 3rd to full' fiord this project with RCTC participation. October 29, 2001 RCTC Plans and Programs Committee 2002 STIP Discretionary Recommendation(s) November 14, 2001 RCTC Board Meeting Approval of 2002 STIP Discretionary Program of Projects. December 14, 2001 .2002 STIP Submittal Deadline April 2002 CTC Adopts 2002 STIP 000167 ATTACHMENT C Attachment C - TAC Funding Recommendation: 2002 Discretionary STIP Total Availabl e 2002 Discretionary STIP Funds: Total 2002 Discr etionary STIP Funds Requested: $21,597,073 $130,016,600 N umber of Projects Submitted: 39 Rank Lead Agency Protect Ranking and Description Protect Title PALM DESERT 2 RIVERSIDE COUNTY 3 CORO NA 3 CORONA 5 PALM SPRINGS 6 COACHELLA 6 M ORENO VALLEY 6 RIVERSIDE COUNTY 6 BEAUM ONT Monterey Ave Widening Van Buren Blvd Raised Median/Bus Turnouts Co rona Advanced Traffic Manag ement System (ATMS) Magno lia Ave Corrido r - Rimpau to 6th St Indian Canyon Dr Wide ning al Whitewaler Wash Dillon Rd Grade Separation Project Perris Blvd Impro vements - Ramona to Perris VSD Lim onite Ave Widening/Recon struction Sixth SI M ulti -Modal Widen in g/Rehab - Phase 11 Note: Projects listed on the first page are recommended for funding TAC Recommended Option: Pr ojects Scoring 35 and above ar e fu nded with a 25 5% reduction of original request Agency Applic ation Request STIP T otal Fu nds Agency Agency Project Req Match Match % C ost $2,409,200 $1,500,000 $2,256,000 $7,276,500 $2,493,000 $5,168,500 $3,610,000 $3,580,000 $675,000 S C 0 R E r• Ri, r..ie,• 0,11.1 4 1;n o,rnn1n/low (,,nrm h, Ion Print Date: Wednesday, October 31, 20 $800,000 25% $3,209,200 43 $1,794,854 $1,414,346 56 % $1,794,854 $794.000 35 % $2,294,000 41 $1,117,500 $1,176,500 49 % $2,912,354 $752,000 25% $3,008,000 38 51,680,720 $1,327,280 56 % 54,593,074 53.118,500 30% 510,395,000 38 55,420,993 $4,974,007 52% $10,014,067 5831,000 25% 53,324,000 36 51,857,285 51,466,715 56 % 511,871,352 $5,535,000 52% 510,703,500 35 $3,850,533 56,852,967 36% 515,721,885 51,204,000 25% 54,814,000 35 52,669,450 52,124,550 56% $18,411,335 52,055,000 36% 55,635,000 35 52,667,100 52,967,900 47% 521,078,435 5711,997 51% 51,386,997 35 $502,875 5884,122 36% 521,581,310 Page 1 of 4 Rank Lead Agency Protect Ranking and Description Project Title 10 RIVERSIDE 10 CALTRANS 12 CO ACHELLA 13 M ORENO VALLEY 14 M URRIETA 15 M URRIETA 15 TEM ECULA 15 RIVERSIDE 15 PA LM SPRINGS 19 RIVERSIDE COUNTY 19 LA QUINTA 19 LA QUINTA 22 RTA Van Buren Bvd Widening - Jackson to SAR Rte 79 Segment Wid eni ng - Keller to Domenigoni Pkwy Dillon Rd Wideni ng - Hwy 86 Expressway to 1-10 Reche Vista Dr Realignme nt/Install Multiple Sig nals California Oaks Rd IC Ultimate Improvements Clinton Keith Rd/I-215 IC Ultimate Impr ovem ents I-15/Cherry SI S/B Off -Ramp Impr ovement Project La Sierra Avenue Widening Gen e Autry Trail Improve ment Project Ramona Expressway Missing Link Construction Fred Waring Drive WEST Phase Improvement Projecl Fred Waring EAST Phase Improvement Project ATIS/ITS at Co ron a North Main M etrolink Station Note: Projects listed on the first page are recommended for funding STIP Funds Reg Agency Application Req uest Total Agency Agency Pr oject Match Match % Cost S C 0 R E $3,928,000 ! $1,308,000 25% $5,236,000 34 $1,500,000 13,522,000 90 % $15,022,000 34 $2,400,000 $800,000 25% $3,200,000 33 $2,230,000 $743,000 25% $2,973,000 32 $8,351,000 $2,784,000 25% $11,135,000 31 $5,700,000 $1,900,000 25% $7,600 .000 30 $750,000 $3,150,000 81% $3,900,000 30 $2,548,500 $849,500 25% $3,398,000 30 $3,000,000 $1,300,000 30% $4,300,000 30 $2,500,000 $1,731,000 41% $4,231,000 29 $2,400,000 $900,000 27% $3,300,000 29 $2,400,000 $800,000 25% $3,200,000 29 $100,000 $1,000,000 91% $1,100,000 28 AddltIdriall. ' bcal Match .' ktllidw'4t' Adjusted • ' hats Itectlififnelic>i "r Agencji Match fbit'yytoJo -., Match nt r; S#IP RUrinIng ; °tat ' $0 $5,236,000 0% 521,581,310 $0 15,022,000 0% $21,581.310 $0 $3,200,000 0% $21,581,310 $0 $2,973,000 0% $21,581,310 $0 11,135,000 0% $21,581,310 $0 $7,600,000 0% $21,581,310 $0 $3,900,000 0% $21,581,310 $0 $3,398,000 0% $21,581,310 $0 $4,300,000 0% $21,581,310 $0 $4,231,000 0% $21,581,310 $0 $3,300,000 0% $21,581,310 $0 $3,200,000 0% $21,581,310 S0 $1.100,000 O% S21,581,310 Page 2 of 4 r Rank Lead Agency Project Ranking and Descripti on Pr oject Title 22 SUNLINE 22 MURRIETA 25 INDIO 25 BANNING 25 PALM DESERT 28 MURRIETA 29 HEMET 30 CORONA 30 RIVERSIDE COUNTY 30 SUNLINE 33 CORONA 34 HEM ET 34 RIVERSIDE COUNTY SunLine ITS Deployment Pr oject Los Alamos Ave IC Ultimate Improvements Monroe SI Wideni ng - 1-10 to Miles Ave Wilson St Rehab - Highla nd Springs Ave to Omar SI Portola Ave Bridge Over the Whil ewater Channel Murriela HS Rd at 1-215 N/B Ramps "Bottleneck Relief' Sanderson Avenue Widening Slate Route 91/Linco ln Ave Interchange Scott Ro ad Widening/Reconstruction Zero Emissions Fleet Expansion Project EL CerritoRd/I-15 IC Modification Project Stetso n Avenue Realignmen t Jefferson/Paloma r/Washington Streets Realignment "I 0 1-11 0 Note: Pro jects listed on the first page are recommended for funding STIP F unds Req Agency Application Request T otal Agency Agency Protect Match Match Y. C ost 5850,000 51,147,000 55,707,500 51,902,500 $4,250,000 154,250,000 5410,000 5410,000 $4,243,300 $1,355,000 53 ,024,000 $1,938,800 55,000,000 $452,000 5336,000 5646,200 $4,000,000 58,560,000 51,200,000 $4,490,000 52,350,000 i $1,190,000 51,360,000 5340,000 51,050,000 j 5360,000 57% $1,997,000 25% $7,610,000 50% 58,500,000 50% $820,000 54% $9,243,300 25% 51,807,000 10% $3,360,000 25% 52,585,000 68% $12,560,000 79 % 55,690,000 34% 53,540,000 20% $1,700,000 26% 51,410,000 28 28 27 27 27 25 24 23 23 23 21 20 20 $0 $0 50 50 $0 50 $0 50 50 50 50 50 50 $1,997,000 57,610,000 $8,500,000 $820,000 $9,243,300 $1,807,000 53,360,000 52,585,000 12,560,000 $5,690,000 53,540,000 $1,700,000 $1,410,000 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% $21,591,310 521,581,310 $21,581,310 $21,581,310 521,581,310 $21 ,581,310 521,581,310 521,581,310 521,581,310 $21,581,310 521,581,310 $21,581,310 $21,581,310 Page 3 014 Rank Project Ranking and Description Lead Protect Agency Title 36 PALM DESERT 37 LAKE ELSINORE 38 LA Q UINTA 39 PALM DESERT I Dinah Shore Drive Exte nsion Casino Drive Bridge Widening Pr oject Eisenhower Drive Bridge Improvements Portola Ave Overp ass of 1-10 Note : Projects Listed on the first page are recommended for funding Agency Application Req uest STIP T otal F unds Agency Age ncy Project Req Match Match % Cost $5,773,600 $2,700,000 $1,797,000 $21,231,700 $600,000 $300,000 $843,000 $1,100,000 9% : $6,373,600 10% 1 $3,000,000 32% 52,640,000 5% $22,331,700 S c 0 R E 25.%' . ., Additlohal local Match Funds � (: ' Adjusted New e�oittmand Agency Match tot Project Match % , STIP Funds RUnning Total 19 18 17 13 $0 $6,373,600 0% $21,581,310 $0 $3,000,000 0% $21,581,310 $0 $2,640,000 0% $21,581,310 $0 22,331,700 0% $21,581,310 Page 4 of 4 ATTACHMENT D Attachment D - Plans and Programs Recommendation: 2002 Discretionary STIP with 4th Year Opti on Applicatio ns S ummary Projects Submitted: 39 STIP Funds Requested by Agencies: $130,016,600 4th Year Opti on Summary 2002 Discretionary STIP Funds: 4th Year STIP Funds Addition: A vailable Discretio nary STIP Funds: $21,597,073 $20,204,609 $41,801,682 Th e Plans and Programs Committee recommendation d oes not include the addition of the Gree n River IC project Rank Lead Agency Project Ra nking and Description Project Title PALM DESERT 2 RIVERSIDE COUNTY 3 CORO NA 3 CORONA 5 PALM SPRINGS 6 COACHELLA 6 M ORENO VALLEY 6 RIVERSIDE COUNTY 6 BEAUM ONT 10 RIVERSIDE 10 CALTRANS 12 COACHELLA ' 13 MORENO VA LLEY 14 MURRIETA 0 ' i✓ M on terey Ave Widening Van Buren Blvd Ra ised Median/Bus Turnouts Corona Advanced Traffic Management System ( AT MS) Magnolia Ave Corridor - Rimpau to 61h SI Indian Can yon Dr Widening at Whilewater Wash Dillon Rd Grade Separalion Project Perris Blvd Improvements - Ramona to Perris VSD Limonite Ave Widening/Reconstruction Sixth St M ulli-Modal Widening/Rehab - Phase 11 Van Buren Bvd Widen in g - Jackson to SAR Rte 79 Segment Widen ing - Keller to Domenigo ni Pkwy Dillon Rd Widening - Hwy 86 Expressway to 1-10 Reche Vista Dr Realignmen t/In stall Multiple Signa ls California O aks Rd IC Ultimate Improvements Note: Projects listed on the first page are recommended for funding tV 4th Year Funding Optio n: The 41h y ear opti on would c ommit an additional $20,204,609 of STIP fu nds increasi ng the avail able Discr etionary STIP funds 10 $41,801,682. Projects scoring 31 and ab ove are recomm ended for funding enabling 14 pr ojects to be funded at 88.2% of their r equested STIP funds. Agency Application keq uest STIP Funds Agency Agency Total C osstt ct Requested Match Match Proj $2,409,200 $800,000 $1,500,000 $794,000 $2,256,000 $752,000 $7,276,500 $3,118,500 $2,493,0001 $831,000 $5,168,500 $5,535,000 $3,610,000 $1,204,000 $3,580,000 $2,055,000 $675,000 $711,997 $3,928,000 $1,308,000 $1,500,000 13, 522,000 $2,400,000 $800,000 $2,230,000 $743,000 $8,351,000 $2,784,000 S C 0 R E 25% $3,209,200 43 35% $2,294,000 41 25% $3,008,000 38 30% $10,395,000 38 25% $3,324,000 36 52 % $10,703,500 35 25 % $4,814,000 35 36% $5,635,000 35 51% $1,386,997 35 25% $5,236,000 34 90% S15,022,000 34 25% $3,200,000 33 25% $2,973,000 32 25% $11,135,000 31 11.8% Additional Local Match • -- Funds -- Adjusted :. New Recommend Agency Match tot. Project Match 1 , % r Rl rrr, l d�(jix nlr• Iin nap,nfa oon ( j,mmGalu w Rep ort Print D ate Wednesd ay, October 31, 2001 4th Year bptlo►1 r: $2,124,914 $1,323,000 $1,989,792 $6,417,873 $2,198,826 $4,558,617 $3,184,020 $3,157,560 $595,350 $3,464,496 $1,323,000 52,116,800 $1,966,860 $7,365,582 $1.084,286 $971,000 $1,018,208 $3,977,127 $1,125,174 $6,144,883 $1,629,980 $2,477,440 $791,647 $1,771,504 $13,699,000 $1,083,200 $ 1,006,140 $3,769.418 34 % FUhds Rufihing Total $2,124,914 $3,447,914 $5,437,706 $11,855,579 $14,054,405 $18,613,022 $21,797,042 $24,954,602 $25,549,952 $29,014,448 $30,337,448 $32,454,248 $34,421,108 34% S41,786,690 42% 34% 38% 34 % 57% 34 % 44 % 57% 34 % 91% 34% 34 % Page 1 of 3 Rank Protect Ranking and Description Lead Project Agency Title 15 M URRIETA 15 TEMECULA 15 RIVERSIDE 15 PALM SPRINGS 19 RIVERSIDE CO UNTY 19 LA QUINTA 19 LA QUINTA 22 RTA 22 SUNLINE 22 MURRIETA 25 INDIO 25 BANNING 25 PALM DESERT 28 M URRIETA 29 HEMET 30 CORONA 30 RIVERSIDE COUNTY 30 SUNLINE 33 CO RONA 34 HEM ET Cli nton K eith Rd/I-215 IC Ultimate Impr ovements I.15/Cherry St S/B Off -Ramp Improvem ent Project La Sierra Aven ue Widening Gene Autry Trail Impro vement Project Ramo na Expressway Missing Link Construction Fre d Waring Drive WEST Phase Impr ovement Project Fred Warin g EAST Phase Improvement Project ATIS/ITS at Corona North Main Metrolink Station Sunline ITS Deplo ymen t Project Los Alamos Ave IC Ultimate Improvements Monroe St Widening - 1-10 to Miles Ave Wilson St Rehab - Highland Sprin gs Ave to O mar St Portola Ave Bridge Over the Whitewater Channel M urrleta HS Rd at 1-215 N/B Ramps "Bottleneck Relier Sanderson Avenue Widening Slate Route 91/Lincoln Ave Inte rchange Scott Road Widening/Reconstru ction Zero Emissions Fleet Expansion Project EL CerritoRd/I-15 IC Modification Project Stetson Avenue Realignment Note: Projects listed on the first page are recommended for fundin g Agency Applicatio n R eq uest Total STIP Funds Age ncy Ag ency Project Requested Match Match % C ost $5,700,000 $1,900,000 25% 1 $7,600,000 $750,000 $3,150,000 81% $3,900,000 $2,548,500 $3,000,000 $2,500,000 $2,400,000 $2,400,000 $100,000 $850,000 $5,707,500 $4,250,000 $410,000 $4,243,300 $1,355,000 $3,024,000 $1,938,800 $4,000,000 $1,200,000 $2,350,000 $1.360,000 $849,500 $1,300,000 $1,731,000 $900,000 $800,000 $1,000,000 $1,147,000 $1,902,500 $4,250,000 $410,000 $5,000,000 $452,000 $336,000 $646,200 $8,560,000 $4,490,000 $1,190,000 $340,000 25 % 30% 41% 27 % 25 % 91% 57% 25 % 50% 50 % 54% 25% 10% 25% 68% 79% 34% 20% $3,398,000 $4,300,000 $4,231,000 $3,300,000 $3,200,000 $1,100,000 $1,997.000 $7,610,000 $8,500,000 $820,000 $9,243,300 $1,807,000 $3,360,000 $2,585,000 $12,560,000 $5,690,000 $3,540,000 S1.700,000 S C 0 R E 30 30 30 30 29 29 29 28 28 28 27 27 27 25 24 23 23 23 21 20 'c.;:. ,;4414/i. 4 2' � '.r nth Year Option y 4ditknai run LL BW •, RecorEnlerjd ii:; Ag�nay :i Klatch, t :144 ,41),,,,,011J1 ' ,; Match,,; j: ,g r; • STIP II klirids' •-Rurining, Total $0 $7,600,000 100% $41,786,690 $0 $3,900,000 100% $41,786,690 SO $3,398,000 100% $41,786,690 $0 $4.300,000 100% $41,786,690 $0 $4,231,000 100 % $41,786.690 $0 $3,300,000 100% $41,786,690 $0 $3,200,000 100 % $41,786,690 $0 $1,100,000 100% $41,786,690 $0 $1,997,000 100 % $41,786,690 $o $7,610,000 100 % $41,786,690 $0 $8,500,000 100% $41,786,690 SO $820,000 100% $41,786,690 SO $9,243,300 100% $41,786,690 $0 $1,807,000 100% $41,786,690 $0 $3,360,000 100 % $41,786,690 $0 $2,585,000 100% $41,786,690 $0 $12,560,000 100 % $41,786,690 SO $5,690,000 100 % $41,786,690 SO $3,540,000 100% S41,786,690 SO $1,700,000 100% $41,786,690 Page 2 of 3 Rank Lead Agency Protect Ranking and Descriptio n Project Title 34 RIVERSIDE COUNTY Jefferson/Palomar/Washington Streets Realignme nt 36 PALM DESERT Dinah Shor e Drive Extensi on 37 LAKE ELSINORE Casino Drive Bridge Widening Project 38 LA QUINTA 39 PALM DESERT Eisenhower Drive Bridg e Improvem ents Poriola Ave Overpass of 1-10 Note : Projects listed on the first page are recommended for funding Agency Application Req uest Total STIP Funds Agency Agency Project Requested Match Match % C ost $1,050,000 $360,000 26% $1,410.000 $5,773,600 ! $600,000 9% $6,373,600 $2,700,000 ! $300,000 i 10 % $1,797,000 $21,231,700 $843,000 $1,100,000 32% 5% $3,000,000 $2,640,000 $22,331,700 $0 $0 $o $0 $o $1,410,000 $6,373,600 $3,000,000 $2,640 ,000 $22,331,700 100% 100 % 100% 100 % 100 % $41,786,690 $41,786,690 $41,786,690 $41,786,690 $41,786,690 Page 3 of 3 AGENDA ITEM 9 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION DATE: November 19, 2001 TO: Technical Advisory Committee FROM: Ken Lobeck, Staff Analyst THROUGH: Cathy Bechtel, Director of Planning and Programming SUBJECT: 2001 RTIP Amendment 01 Feedback STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is to seek TAC approval to: 1) Receive and file a report on the Amendment 01 to the 2001 RTIP. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Over the last year, projects in the RTIP have come under far greater scrutiny than ever before. This scrutiny has also emerged in the RTIP amendment process. FHWA and FTA are closely examining projects to ensure SCAG complies with their federal amendment rules, the RTIP remains fiscally constrained, and it maintains conformity. Although the past amendment process had a degree interpretation allowing some borderline changes to occur through an amendment, recent clarified guidance has quickly eliminated many areas subject to interpretation. This clarified guidance resulted in over 35% of the submitted projects in Amendment 01 to be initially rejected. However, after a second review of the projects by SCAG and staff, several of requested changes will be allowed. Most of the problem areas surround proposed timing changes to Transportation Control Measure (TCM) projects, timing changes to modeled projects, possible project scope changes from description changes to TCM and modeled projects, and environmental document and document date proposed changes. Additionally, an issue to ensure transit project categorical exemption status is stated on TIP sheets also emerged. Along with these areas, SCAG experienced a formal challenge to projects listed in the 2001 RTIP. Because of the above noted issues with the RTIP, lead agencies can expect a far more conservative viewpoint from FHWA/FTA and SCAG concerning project changes deemed eligible through an RTIP amendment. To a degree, the specific changes that are eligible through an amendment are still based on the project type and its timing in the RTIP. However, because of the conservative view towards amendment changes, staff has been developing a summary guideline to assist lead agencies during their TIP sheet reviews. The guideline describes the range of eligible changes in an RTIP amendment and will be provided to TAC members at the meeting.