Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout06 June 18, 2001 Technical AdvisoryRIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION` 055671 TIME: DATE: LOCATION: TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING MEETING AGENDA* 10:00 A.M. June 18, 2001 Riverside County Transportation Commission 3560 University Avenue, Suite 100 Conference Room A Riverside, California 92501 PLEASE DO NOT PARK IN RCTC'S PARKING LOT. PARKING IS AVAILABLE IN THE PARKING GARAGE ACROSS FROM THE POST OFFICE ON ORANGE STREET. *By request, agenda and minutes may be available in alternative format; i.e. large print, tape. COMMITTEE MEMBERS Bill Bayne, City of Cathedral City Bill Brunet, City of Blythe Dan Clark, City of Murrieta 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 Rick McGrath, City of Riverside 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 Nuestaedter, 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: June 18, 2001 LOCATION: Riverside County Transportation Commission 3560 University Avenue, Suite 100 Conference Room A Riverside, California 92501 PLEASE DO NOT PARK IN RCTC'S PARKING LOT. PARKING IS AVAILABLE IN THE PARKING GARAGE ACROSS FROM THE POST OFFICE ON ORANGE STREET. 1. CALL TO ORDER. 2. SELF -INTRODUCTION. 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - May 14, 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. CONTINUATION OF STIP DISCRETIONARY PROJECT EVALUATION CRITERIA (Attachment) 6. 2001 RTP UPDATE (Attachment) 7. RTIP UPDATE AND NEW PROJECT SUBMITTAL FORMS (Attachment) 8. CETAP UPDATE (Attachment) 9. AB 1012 OBLIGATION PLAN 10. JUNE 13, 2001 COMMISSION MEETING UPDATE TAC Committee Meeting June 18, 2001 Page Two 11. TUMF UPDATE 12. OTHER BUSINESS 13. ADJOURNMENT (The next meeting will be July 16, 2001 in Banning.) MINUTES TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES Monday, May 14, 2001 1. Call to Order Chairman Bob Mohler called the meeting of the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) to order at 10:00 a.m., at Banning City Hall, Civic Center, 99 East Ramsey Street, Banning, CA. 2. Self -Introductions Members Present: Others Present: Bill Bayne, Cathedral City Tom Boyd, City of Riverside Mark Greenwood, City of Palm Desert Terry Hagen, Indio Bruce Harry, City of Rancho Mirage George Johnson, County of Riverside Elroy Kiepke, Calimesa Eldon Lee, Coachella Cis Leroy, RTA John Licata, City of Corona Bob Mohler, Palm Springs Tom Rafferty, Cities of Perris, San Jacinto and Canyon Lake Linda Nixon, City of Hemet Craig Nuestaedter, City of Moreno Valley Ray O'Donnell, City of Lake Elsinore Kahono Oei, City of Banning Tim Wassil, City of Indian Wells Dale West, WRCOG John Wilder, City of Beaumont Cathy Bechtel, RCTC Ken Lobeck, RCTC Shirley Medina, RCTC Juan Perez, County of Riverside Technical Advisory Committee Minutes May 14, 2001 Page 2 3. Approval of Minutes M/S/C (Wassil/Boyd) approve the minutes dated April 16, 2001. 4. Public Comments There were no comments from the public. 5. SB821 SELECTION OF EVALUATION COMMTTEE Eldon Lee, City of Coachella, Dale West, WRCOG, volunteered to serve on the SB 821 Evaluation Committee. Cathy Bechtel, RCTC staff, said that RCTC will inquire at Caltrans and CVAG for another volunteer. 6. AB 1012 "USE IT OR LOSE IT" UPDATE Shirley Medina, RCTC staff, reported that as of March 30, 2001, Caltrans shows that in CMAQ funds, we still have $12.8M that still needs to be obligated. For Transportation Enhancement Activities, about $700,000 to be obligated as well. Ms. Medina handed out a TEA Obligation Progress Milestones Summary Report and indicated that it looks like we will meet the $700,000 by September 30th. She further stated that regarding CMAQ, there will still be a balance of $4.5M that will not be obligated by September 30th and that it must be reported to Caltrans the beginning of June. If an extension is requested, Caltrans will make a recommendation to the California Transportation Commission (CTC) whether or not RCTC can continue to obligate the fund balance. If the CTC denies the request, the balance can be reprogrammed throughout the state. Ms. Medina indicated that RCTC needs to have Project Progress Milestones data in writing (month and year) by the end of this week. Shirley Medina also reported that the LNG Locomotive Prototype on the CMAQ spreadsheet is being dropped and that RCTC will request a recommendation from the TAC to request approval from the RCTC Commission to reprogram the $300,000 earmarked in 1998 for TEA 21 funding. Technical Advisory Committee Minutes May 14, 2001 Page 3 One of two actions is requested of the TAC: 1) Put the $300,000 back into the CMAQ pot for the next CMAQ call; or 2) Reprogram the $300,000 for one of the number 8 projects listed on the unfunded project list from the 1999 CMAQ call for projects. M/S/C (Johnson/Kiepke) to put the $300,000 back into the CMAQ pot. [The TAC members agreed to reverse agenda items 7 and 8.] 7. The Commission Connection was handed out and Cathy Bechtel updated the TAC members regarding the May 9, 2001 Commission meeting. 8. REVIEW OF DRAFT PROJECT EVALUATION CRITERIA Shirley Medina suggested reviewing each criterion individually. 1) Emphasis on Measure A Proposed Modification: Named projects identified in the Measure A ballot. Motion by George Johnson, County of Riverside, seconded by Bill Bayne, City of Cathedral City to amend wording in Proposed Modification of Draft Evaluation Criteria number 1, Emphasis on Measure A. Motion revised to include scoring of 5 points if ballot named project, or 0 points if not on ballot. M/S/C Johnson/Bayne to amend wording. The TAC agreed to switch criteria numbers 2 and 4 making the next item, number 2, Regional Significance: 2) Regional Significance Proposed modification: Projects which are regional, multi - jurisdictional and identified on the CMP network or the CETAP Technical Advisory Committee Minutes May 14, 2001 Page 4 network in Western Riverside County and Regional Arterial Program in the Coachella Valley. It was also recommended that in defining regional significance, projects must meet 4 of the following 6 criteria to be regionally significant projects to be consistent with the definition CVAG uses for their TUMF program: • At least 5 miles in length • Planned for at least 4 lanes • Must cross/share city boundaries • Cross river, stream or flood channel • Connect/cross State Route or Interstate • On city's/county's general plan, or SRTP for transit projects Rail projects will automatically qualify as regionally significant. Points will be applied for regional significant projects as follows for 2020 ADT 5 Points = 50,000 or greater ADT 4 Points = 40,000-49,999 ADT 3 Points = 30,000-39,999 ADT 2 Points = 20,000-29,999 ADT 1 Points = 10,000-19,999 ADT 0 Points = Less than 10,000 ADT A recommendation will be made on how this breakout will affect transit. M/S/C Wassil/Johnson to meet the above criteria for regional significance. 3) Economic Development Projects resulting in retention or expansion of the job base in Riverside County. Proposed Modification: None Technical Advisory Committee Minutes May 14, 2001 Page 5 The TAC recommended the following types of data to be provided by project applicants: 1) Description of current and/or proposed job activity 2) Description of the nexus between the proposed project and job base. It was also recommended that the scoring of this criterion remain subjective (0 to 5 basis) and each applicant will have to make its case on the benefit of their project(s) on retention and/or expansion of the job base. M/S/C Johnson/Boyd to approve Economic Development criteria 4) Project Readiness The TAC recommended the following scoring delineation under Project Readiness: 1 = Council or board resolution 2 = Demonstration of work in progress 3 = Completion of at least one of the following: 1) PSR/PSRE/PS&E, Environmental Document 4 = Completion of all PSR/PSRE (CEQA or NEPA), Environmental Document P S & E 5 = Ready for construction, has right of way certification M/S/C Licata/Miller to approve this criteria. 5) Air Quality M/S/C O'Donnell/Leroy to retain the Air Quality criteria, look at the projects with the least negative impact on emissions and recommend that the consultant, Ray Gorski, suggest how the 5 point spread will be done looking at per dollar of improvement per capita evaluation and the consultant would provide the input for the next meeting. Technical Advisory Committee Minutes May 14, 2001 Page 6 Geographic Balance The TAC members agreed that at the last TAC meeting an action was taken that at the end of the initial review process, the TAC use a map of the County and plot where the proposed projects are and have a second TAC vote to see if any adjustments should be made based on geographic balance or if recommendations are considered to be balanced at that time. In addition, it was agreed that Geographic Balance would be the last item, criteria number 10. 6) Safety The TAC agreed to form a subcommittee to recommend data needed to evaluate safety projects. The subcommittee will bring back its recommendation to the June TAC meeting. M/S/C Neustaedter/Boyd to encourage provision of technical collision data by making sure applicants get one additional point for providing data. It is not mandatory to provide the collision data, but a description of the problem is mandatory, including how the project is going to mitigate the problem. RCTC staff will provide the index calculation to show which projects scored higher. 7) Congestion Mitigation M/S/C Hughes/Bayne that RCTC will make scoring recommendations. The criteria will be congestion mitigation projects that will result in congestion reduction and total delay with a cost analysis factor. The point spread will be 0 to 5 points and the specific breakout of that will be recommended to the TAC by a subcommittee of the TAC. Volunteers to develop an input form/table to evaluate congestion mitigation are: Mark Greenwood Bruce Harry Bill Hughes Craig Neustaedter Juan Perez Technical Advisory Committee Minutes May 14, 2001 Page 7 8) Matching Funds Tom Boyd made a motion to go with Option 1, which is 25% match for 5 points, and that all hard costs incurred by the agencies are counted towards the match. Bruce Harry seconded that motion. M/S/C Boyd/Harry to accept Option 1 for scoring. 9) System Continuity — Gap closures/Elimination of Bottle -necks A modification to the definition was made as follows: "Project that will complete the continuity of an existing road system or transit system." M/S/C Boyd/Bayne for the following volunteers to look at the subject of system continuity and report back to the TAC are: Mark Greenwood Bill Hughes Craig Neustaedter Juan Perez Shirley Medina went back to the subject of matching funds to clarify that match of 25% and above be given 5 points. George Johnson, County of Riverside, moved to increase the weighting of safety and regional significance to give them double weight. M/S/C Johnson/Licata to increase the weighting of safety and regional significance to give them double weight. Technical Advisory Committee Minutes May 14, 2001 Page 8 9. Other Business Cathy Bechtel, RCTC staff, said that in the near future, RCTC will once again do a survey for information regarding the blackouts and signal battery back-ups since all jurisdictions did not respond earlier. 10. Adjournment There being no further business for consideration by the Technical Advisory Committee, the meeting was adjourned at 2:35 P.M. The next meeting is scheduled for June 18, 2001, 10:00 a.m., at Riverside County Transportation Commission, 3560 University Avenue, Riverside, CA. M/S/C Wassil/Boyd to adjourn meeting. Respectfully submitted, /"2 Shirley Medina Program Manager DRAFT 2002 STIP DISCRETIONARY FUNDS CALL FOR PROJECTS RCTC Release Date: ?A gut 17, 2001 Project Applications Due to RCTC TABLE OF CONTENTS Page # 1. Call for Projects 1 2. Eligible Projects/Programs 2 3. Project Evaluation Criteria 2 4. Proposal Due Date 6 5. Proposal Format 6 6. Programming Process 7 7. Schedule 8 8. Checklist 9 LIST OF APPENDICES 1. Project Application Form 2. STIP Guidelines 3. PSR Guidelines 4. Sample PSRE Form Appendix A Appendix B Appendix C Appendix D DATE: June 26, 2001 TO: Riverside County Riverside County Local Jurisdictions Interested Organizations FROM: Eric A. Haley, Executive Director Riverside County Transportation Commission SUBJECT: Call For Projects for 2002 STIP Discretionary Funds CALL FOR PROJECTS The Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) is announcing a Call for Projects to program approximately $25 million of 2002 State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP)/Regional Improvement Program (RIP) funds. Projects approved for funding from this call for projects will be forwarded to the California Transportation Commission (CTC) for inclusion in the 2002 STIP in December 2001. Funding is available for programming in fiscal years 2001/02 through 2004/05. The CTC is scheduled to approve the 2002 STIP at their April 2002 meeting. Due to statewide programming of projects, funding availability per fiscal year may vary. Funding for STIP projects shall include state and federal funding which requires all projects to adhere to federal provisions for implementation. Per the STIP Guidelines (Appendix B), all projects funded with RIP dollars must have a completed Project Study Report (PSR) or Project Study Report Equivalent (PSRE) prior to programming in the STIP. Due to the costs associated in the preparation of PSR's and the uncertainty of projects being funded, we are not requiring projects to have a completed PSR/PSRE for this call for projects. We are requesting project sponsors to either attach their completed PSR/PSRE or provide a status on the development and the estimated completion date. PSR preparation guidelines are included in this package (Appendix C). Project applications are due at the RCTC offices by August 17, 2001 at 5:00 p.m. Proposals are required to include project information as specifically requested in this package. 1 ELIGIBLE PROJECTS/PROGRAMS STIP/RIP funding generally may include, but are not limited to, improving the following transportation systems: 1. State highways 2. Local roads 3. Public Transit (buses, etc.) 4. Intercity rail 5. Pedestrian and bicycle facilities 6. Grade Separations 7. Transportation System Management 8. Transportation Demand Management 9. Soundwalls 10. Intermodal facilities 11. Safety PROJECT EVALUATION CRITERIA The following project evaluation criteria was approved by the RCTC on June 13, 2001. Project Sponsors are required to address how the proposed project meets or does not meet each of the ten criteria. The criteria is not listed in priority order. Double weighting will be applied to criteria #2 Regional Significance and criteria #6 Safety. I. Emphasis on Measure A Program Projects in the RCTC Strategic Plan not expected to be funded from anticipated revenues. Scoring: 5 points, 0 if not applicable II. Regional Significance Projects which are regional, multi -jurisdictional, identified on the Congestion Management Program (CMP) network or CETAP network in Western Riverside County and Regional Arterial Program in the Coachella Valley, and transit capital. In order for projects to be considered for scoring under this criteria, the project must 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 2 3. Must cross or share jurisdictional boundaries 4. Must cross a stream, river, or flood/storm channel 5. Connects or crosses an Interstate or State Route 6. On city's/county's General Plan, or Short Range Transit Plan (SRTP) for transit projects Note — Rail projects will automatically qualify as regionally significant. III. Economic Development Projects resulting in retention or expansion of the job base in Riverside County. Project applicants are to describe the nexus between the proposed project and job base, and provide a description of the current and/or proposed job activity the project would serve. Scoring: 0-5 points Scoring for this project will be subjective and each applicant will have to make its case on the benefit of the project on retention and/or expansion of the job base. IV. Project Readiness Projects ready and as close to construction as possible (e.g. completing engineering and design, environmental and right of way clearance). The scoring delineation is as follows: Level of Project Readiness Points Ready for construction, right of way certification 5 Completion of PSR/PSRE, CEQA, or NEPA, and PS&E documents 4 Completion of at least one of the following: PSR/PSRE, CEQA/NEPA, and PS&E Demonstration of work in progress Council or Board resolution supporting project 3 2 1 3 V Air Quality Projects that will result in improving air quality. In addition to providing detailed information on how the project will improve air quality, Project Applicants must complete and submit air quality data using the template provided in Appendix A. RCTC will provide the results of the air quality analysis to the evaluation committee to determine the scoring delineation. Scoring: 0-5 points Scoring delineations will be done after the air quality analysis is completed. The Evaluation Committee will determine the range based on the benefit the project will have on air quality. VI. Safety Projects that will improve safety. In addition to providing detailed information on how the project will improve safety, Project Applicants must complete and submit traffice safety data using the template provided in Appendix A. RCTC will provide the results of the safety analysis to the evaluation committee to determine the scoring delineation. Scoring: 0-5 points x 2 This criteria is double weighted. Maximum points given is 10. VII. Congestion Mitigation Projects that will result in congestion reduction. In addition to providing detailed information on how the project will improve congestion, Project Applicants must complete and submit traffic data using the template provided in Appendix A. RCTC will provide the results of the traffic data to the evaluation committee to determine the scoring delineation. Scoring: 0-5 points Traffic analysis will be based on improving delay. 4 VIII. Matching Funds Projects that meet or contribute above the minimum requirement for local match. (No minimum match is required for STIP funding.) Scoring: 0-5 points Projects will receive the following points for local match: Points Percent Match 5 25% and above 4 20-24% 3 15-19% 2 10-14% 1 5-9% 0 0-4% IX. System Continuity Projects that will complete the continuity of an existing road system or transit service. 1) elimination of bottle -necks (widening from 2 to 4 lanes); 2) gap closures (new connections); 3) elimination of obstruction (grad separation, bridge over roadway, river, storm channel, etc.; and 4) transit service that will improve headways, improvements in service to existing areas, or provide new service in areas not currently served. Scoring: 0 - 5 points Points will be given for each indicator if applicable. Indicator Points Multijurisdictional (project benefits more than one jurisdiction) 2 Full elimination of obstruction 2 Four lane or more facility 2 Partial elimination of obstruction 1 Two lane facility 1 If the project meets more than one of the indicators, the points will be added. X. Geographic Balance 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 may be applied at the discretion of the Commission. Scoring: Not applicable 5 PROPOSAL DUE DATE Proposals submitted under this announcement must be received by the Commission at its office located at 3560 University Avenue, Suite 100, Riverside, CA 92501 by 5:00 p.m., August 17, 2001. No exceptions to the place, date, and time will be made. No FAXes or Electronic -Mail of proposals will be accepted. PROPOSAL FORMAT Proposers are required to provide one (1) original proposal and 32 copies for a total of 33. The original proposal should be submitted on white, 8 1/z" x 11" paper and stapled. Agencies submitting more than one proposal shall submit each proposal separately (do not combine projects in a spiral bind or include in three -ring notebooks). When possible, any charts, illustrations, pictures, etc., should be affixed to the standard size paper for easy reproduction as may be required. Each project submittal is required to include the following: 1) COVER LETTER - Must include the contact name, address, telephone, FAX number, and e-mail address of the applicant and be signed by an individual authorized to act on behalf of the entity submitting the proposal. 2) WORK STATEMENT - Describe the project in detail. Define the goals and objectives of the project. Include project vicinity map. 3) FUNDING REQUEST - State the total project cost. Specify the amount of STIP funding requested and for which phase(s) the STIP funds will be used for (e.g. engineering, right-of-way, or construction). While no match is required, describe which phase(s) other committed fund source(s) will be used to support the project, if applicable. 4) PROJECT SCHEDULE - Describe the proposed project schedule and milestone dates. Include time line or chart to describe each applicable phase and its status (e.g. completed, estimated completion, etc.). Indicate whether or not the project is included in the current RTIP. Please note —approved projects will be included in the 2002 STIP scheduled for CTC adoption in May 2002 only if the requisite project information is completed (e.g. PSR or PSRE and project nomination forms) and submitted to RCTC by December 5, 2001. Projects that are approved for funding but do not have a completed PSR/PSRE and project nomination forms will be included in the 2002 STIP through the amendment process upon completion of the requisite project information. 6 Further, projects must be included in the Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP) prior to local agency request of fund allocations. Capacity enhancement projects not currently included in the RTIP will be included in the 2002 RTIP scheduled for federal approval in Fall 2002. Non capacity enhancement projects not currently included in the RTIP will be included in amendment #3 to the 2001 RTIP estimated for federal approval in May 2002. 5) PROJECT STUDY REPORT (PSR) OR EQUIVALENT - If a PSR/PSRE has been completed for the proposed project, please attach two (2) copies to the original project application. If not, describe the status of the PSR/PSRE, and when it is estimated to be complete. A copy of the Caltrans PSR preparation guidelines is included in Appendix C. 6) PROJECT APPLICATION PACKET - Project Applicants are to refer to Appendix A and fill out the data forms for each of the criteria including templates provided for RCTC to conduct Air Quality, Safety and Traffic analysis. PROGRAMMING PROCESS In order for an eligible project to be approved for funding and begin implementation, it must go through the following process: Step 1. Project Proposal(s) is submitted by eligible local entities. Step 2. Project Proposals are reviewed and rated by the Commission's Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) based on established, Commission approved criteria. Step 3. Project Proposals are reviewed and recommended for approval by the RCTC Plans and Programs Committee. Step 4. RCTC Board approves 2002 STIP Discretionary projects. Step 5. RCTC staff meets with Project Sponsor to accurately program project in the STIP. Step 6. Project Sponsors complete PSR/PSRE and nomination sheets and submits to RCTC. Step 7. RCTC submits projects and requisite information (completed PSR/PSRE and nomination sheets) to the CTC for inclusion in the 2002 STIP. 7 Step 8. Step 9. Step 10. Projects are included in the RTIP. Local agencies will be notified upon federal approval of the RTIP. Project Sponsor submits request to CTC for fund allocation. Project applicants must notify RCTC when they anticipate requesting the fund allocation. Fund allocations are required to have RCTC concurrence. Project Sponsor contacts Caltrans District 8 Office of Local Assistance to obtain federal obligation authority. Project Sponsor may not incur charges intended for STIP funding until receipt of a Notice to Proceed from Caltrans. CALL FOR PROJECTS SCHEDULE June 26, 2001 RCTC Releases Call for Projects for 2002 STIP Discretionary funding. August 17, 2001 Deadline for project submittal, 5:00 p.m. October 1, 2001 Evaluation of Projects October 22, 2001 Plans and Programs Committee Recommends Projects for Approval November 14, 2001 RCTC Approves 2002 STIP Discretionary Projects December 14, 2001 Submit projects to CTC for inclusion in the 2002 STIP. December 17, 2001 RCTC submits capacity enhancement projects for inclusion in the 2002 RTIP. May 2002 CTC approval of projects that have completed PSR/PSRE's and project nomination sheets for inclusion in the 2002 STIP. May 2002 Estimated date of 2001 RTIP Amendment #3 federal approval of non capacity enhancing projects. October 2002 Estimated date of 2002 RTIP Update federal approval for capacity enhancing projects. If you have any specific questions regarding this Call for Projects, please call Cathy Bechtel or Shirley Medina at (909) 787-7141. 8 PROJECT APPLICATION CHECKLIST The following items are to be included in the Project Application: Cover Letter Work Statement Project Vicinity Map Funding Request Project Schedule PSR/PSRE-if completed provide only two(2) copies. Application Packet: Project Programming Summary Criteria Discussion I Emphasis on Measure A- identification of project in RCTC Stategic Plan not expected to be funded from anticipated revenues. II Regional Significance - identification of regional significance criteria applicable to project. Identification of source of transportation model (e.g. SCAG, CVATS, local agency model) used to obtain 2020 ADT. Supplemental ADT information if applicable. III Economic Development - Description of current and future job activity and how project contributes to expansion of retention of job base. IV Project Readiness - Documentation on status of project development (ROW, Env. Doc (CEQA/NEPA), PS&E, PSR/PSRE, Work in progress, Board or council support of project (minute action, resolution, certification). V Air Quality - Provide qualitative information and completed template provided in Application Packet. 9 VI Safety - Provide qualitative information and completed template provided in Application Packet. VII Congestion Mitigation - Provide Total Vehicle Delay before and after improvement using recommended methodologies. VIII Matching Funds - Identification of local match. IX System Continuity - Description of facility, adjacent roadways, how project fully or partially eliminates obstruction, continues road or transit system. Geographic Balance - RCTC staff will prepare a map displaying the proposed projects in Riverside County and provide to the Evaluation Committee prior to final recommendations moving forward to Committee/Commission. Note - RCTC Staff will prepare a summary table of the criteria and provide to the Evaluation Committee. 10 APPENDIX A PROJECT APPLICATION FORM iverside Co,►t}, ransportatio„ Conu►tissio,, RCTC 2002 Discretionary STIP Project Application Form Section A: Applicant & Lead Agency 1 Date Submitted: 2 Project Lead Agency: (Responsible for project delivery) 3 Sponsoring Agency: (If different from Lead Agency) 4 Address: 5 Contact Person: Title: 6 Telephone: Fax: 7 Email Address: 8 If Joint Project, include partner agency name, contact person and telephone: Agency: Contact: Telephone: 9 District: 08 MPO: SCAG County: RIVERSIDE Section B: Project Title and Description Elements 10 Project Title 11 Project Description 12 Project Limits 13 Route: (If applicable) Urban or Rural: 14 Post Mile: (If applicable) Beg PM End PM 15 Environmental Document Type: Environmental Document Date: 16 PSR/PSRE Completion Date or Estimated Completion Date: 1 ' RiversideConnty ransportation Commission RCTC 2002 Discretionary STIP Project Application Form — Page 2 Section C: Project Component Costs 17 STIP FUNDS REQUESTED FOR PROJECT: STIP Funds Requested Other Funds Contributing to Project Other Funds Contributing to Project Total Project Cost ($000's) Fund Type Federal FY YY/YY $ Amount ($000's) Component Federal FY YY/YY $ Amount ($000's) Fund Type Federal FY YY/YY $ Amount ($000's) E&P/PA&ED PS&E RPM SUP" CON SUP` RIW CON TOTALS: Notes: • E&P/PA&ED: Environmental Studies and Permits(E&P)/Project Approval and Environmental Document(PA&ED) • PS&E: Plans Specifications and Estimates • R/W SUP: Right of Way Support — Used only for projects implemented by Caltrans • CON SUP: Construction Support — Used only for projects implemented by Caltrans • RNV: Right of Way • CON: Construction 18 Estimated Project Start Date: Estimated Project Completion Date: Section D: Project Demographics (List Supervisorial district & subregional area) 19 Supervisorial District: 20 County Subregional Area: County Subregional Areas: Central Northwest APD Southwest APD Coachella Valley Pass APD Countywide March AFB APD Palo Verde Valley Eastern County Mountain APD San Jacinto APD Western County Section E: Project Eligibility 21 22 Transportation System: (Select at right) Statutory Sequence of Priorities for Programming from the State Highway Account proposed project falls under: (Select at right) 1. State Highways 2. Local Roads 3. Public Transit 4. Intercity Rail 5. Pedestrian and bicycle facilities 6. Grade Separations 7. Transp. System Mgmt. 8. Transp. Demand Mgmt. 9. Soundwalls 10. Intermodal Facilities 11. Safety 1. Safety Improvements (reducing fatalities injuries) 2. Transportation Capital Improvements (capacity expansion/congestion reduction) 3. Environmental Enhancement and Mitigation (including TEA projects and soundwalls) Version 2-061201 2 APPENDIX D SAMPLE PROJECT STUDY REPORT EQUIVALENT (PSRE) ;;:y.:11 Lr7.14 W ,; 4LL CRITERIA DISCUSSION I. Emphasis on Measure A Program Projects in the RCTC Strategic Plan not expected to be funded from anticipated revenues. Scoring: 5 points, 0 if not applicable Identify project not expected to be funded and included in the RCTC Strategic Plan: II. Regional Significance Projects which are regional, multi -jurisdictional, identified on the Congestion Management Program (CMP) network or CETAP network in Western Riverside County and Regional Arterial Program in the Coachella Valley, and transit capital. In order for projects to be considered for scoring under this criteria, the project must 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 an Interstate or State Route 6. On city's/county's General Plan, or Short Range Transit Plan (SRTP) for transit projects Note — Rail projects will automatically qualify as regionally significant. Upon a project's determination of regional significance, the projected Average Daily Traffic (ADT) for the year 2020 will be provided by the local agency. Project Applicants are required to submit 2020 ADT using a 1 transportation computer model. It is recommended that project applicants use the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) regional transportation model or a model found to be consistent with the SCAG model. Project applicants have the option to provide supplemental information if model results show 2020 ADT to be unrealistic (e.g. model results for the year 2020 are at or near current traffic conditions). The Evaluation Committee will consider the supplemental information; however, it is not guaranteed that the information will be used to substitute model information. Scoring: The scoring delineation for ADT in the year 2020 is as follows: 2020 ADT Points 50,000 and above 5 40,000 — 49,999 4 30,000 — 39,999 3 20,000 — 29,999 2 10,000 —19,999 1 under 10,000 0 A. Indicate the above regional significance criteria the project meets: B. Indicate the source of the ADT for 2020 and the projected ADT: C. If submitting supplemental information, please attach and provide source of data. In addition, provide explanation of why this information should be used instead of model data. III. Economic Development Projects resulting in retention or expansion of the job base in Riverside County. Project applicants are to describe the nexus between the proposed project and job base, and provide a description of the current and/or proposed job activity the project would serve. Scoring: 0 to 5 points Scoring for this project will be subjective and each applicant will have to make its case on the benefit of the project on retention and/or expansion of the job base. A. Provide nexus between the proposed project and job base: B. Describe current and/or proposed job activity the project will serve: 3 IV. Project Readiness Projects ready and as close to construction as possible (e.g. completing engineering and design, environmental and right of way clearance). The scoring delineation is as follows: Level of Project Readiness Points Ready for construction, right of way certification 5 Completion of PSR/PSRE, CEQA or NEPA, and 4 PS&E documents Completion of at least on of the following: PSRIPSRE, CEQA/NEPA, and PS&E Demonstration of work in progress Council or Board resolution supporting project 3 2 1 A. Check the following that applies to this project application: Ready for construction, right of way certification Completion of PSR/PSRE, CEQA or NEPA, and PS&E documents Completion of at least on of the following: PSR/PSRE, CEQA/NEPA, and PS&E Demonstration of work in progress Council or Board resolution supporting project B. Describe the project status: C. Attach documents supporting the above. 4 V. Air Quality Projects that will result in improving air quality. In addition to providing detailed information on how the project will improve air quality, Project Applicants must complete and submit air quality data using the template provided in Appendix A. RCTC will provide the results of the air quality analysis to the evaluation committee to determine the scoring delineation. Scoring: 0 — 5 points. Scoring delineation will be done after the air quality analysis is completed. The Evaluation Committee will determine the range based on the benefit the project will have on air quality. [INSERT APPROPRIATE AIR QUALITY TEMPLATES HERE] VI. Safety Projects that will improve safety. In addition to providing detailed information on how the project will improve safety, Project Applicants must complete and submit safety data using the template provided in Appendix A. RCTC will provide the results of the safety analysis to the evaluation committee to determine the scoring delineation. Scoring: 0 to 5 points x 2. This criteria is double weighted. Maximum points given = 10. A. Provide a qualitative description of how the project will improve air quality: Attach Safety Data (complete Safety Data Template) 5 VII. Congestion Mitigation Projects that will result in congestion reduction. In addition to providing detailed information on how the project will improve congestion, Project Applicants must complete and submit traffic data using the template provided in Appendix A. RCTC will provide the results of the traffic data to the evaluation committee to determine the scoring delineation. Scoring: 0 to 5 points Traffic analysis will be based on improving delay. In order to measure Congestion Mitigation, projects must provide Total Vehicle Delay based on current peak hour or worse condition. Project Applicants must provide delay analysis using the following recommended software programs per project type: Type of Project Intersection Analysis Segment Analysis Recommended Software/Methodology Highway Capacity Software (HCM), Synchro, Passer, or other program consistent with HCM Florida Tables, Floating Car Method, etc., (Volume to Capacity ratios can be used if agency can not measure or convert data in terms of delay. If the project is a gap closure, provide information from parallel facilities that will be relieved by the implementation of a gap closure project. For other project types not mentioned above, provide analysis that would demonstrate the total vehicle delay for current worse case conditions. RCTC staff will summarize data from all projects submitted and provide a summary to the Evaluation Committee. The Evaluation Committee will determine the scoring delineation based on total vehicle delay. Indicate Methodology Used: Total Vehicle Delay Before Improvement Total Vehicle Delay After Improvement 6 VIII. Matching Funds Projects that meet or contribute above the minimum requirement for local match. (No minimum match is required for STIP funding.) Scoring: 0 to 5 points Projects will receive the following points for local Match: Local Match 25% and above 20 -24% 15 -19% 10 -14% 5-9% 0-4% Points 5 4 3 2 1 0 Project Total Cost: $ Amount of Local Match: $ Percentage of Local Match: ok Source of Match: IX. System Continuity Projects that will complete the continuity of an existing road system or transit service. Examples of projects under System Continuity include: 1. Elimination of bottle -necks (widening from 2 to 4 lanes); 2. Gap closures (new connections); 3. Elimination of obstruction (grade separation, bridge over roadway, river, storm channel, etc.; and 4. Transit service that will improve headways, improvements in service to existing areas, or provide new service in areas not currently served. Scoring: 0 to 5 points Points will be given for each indicator if applicable Indicator Points Multijurisdictional 2 (project benefits more than one jurisdiction) Full elimination of obstruction 2 Four lane or more facility 2 Partial elimination of obstruction 1 Two lane facility 1 7 If the project meets more than one of the indicators, the points will be added. A. Describe the project and how it meets the System Continuity definition: B. Number of proposed lanes: C. If project is a gap closure or bottleneck, is this project fully or partially eliminating the gap closure/bottle-neck? D. If project is a gap closure, describe adjacent roadways the project is relieving: X. Geographic Balance Balancing the number of projects an agency or sub -area would receive funding for within the County. Project distribution is not necessarily based upon population equity. This may be applied at the discretion of the Commission. Scoring: Not applicable 8 APPENDIX C PREPARATION GUIDELINES FOR COMBINED PROJECT STUDY REPORT/PROJECT REPORT AIR QUALITY ASSESSMENT INPUT DATA (Return applicable page(s) as part of your STIP application) A. PROJECT AIR QUALITY BENEFIT DESCRIPTION: In the space below, please provide a concise description of how the proposed STIP project will contribute to air quality improvement. A separate sheet can be attached if desired. Please label the attached sheet "Air Quality Assessment". B. QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS: The RCTC Staff will calculate the emissions reductions attributable to each proposed STIP project. Proposers do not need to submit arithmetic calculations as part of their proposal. However, to assist RCTC and the Technical Advisory Committee members in accurately assessing the air quality benefits of your proposed project please provide all requested input data, as applicable to your project category. The RCTC Staff will analyze each proposed project using emission calculation methodologies recommended by Caltrans and the California Air Resources Board. Input data templates are provided for the following project categories: 1. State Highway/Local Roads — Capacity Increasing 2. State Highway/Local Roads — Traffic Congestion and Delay Reduction 3. State Highway/Local Roads — Traffic Signal Installation/interconnect 4. Public Transit — Purchase of Buses 5. Public Transit — Operation of New Transit Bus Service 6. Inter -city Rail Service 7. Bicycle Facilities 8. Pedestrian Facilities 9. Grade Separations 10. Transportation Demand Management 11. Intermodal Facilities AIR QUALITY ASSESSMENT INPUT DATA — Continued PLEASE RETURN THE APPLICABLE EMISSIONS REDUCTION DATA INPUT FORM(S) WITH YOUR PROPOSAL. The above categories do not encompass all eligible STIP project categories. Should your project fall outside of the above listed categories, please provide the necessary air quality improvement input data as a separate attachment. Please label this attachment "Supplemental Air Quality Assessment Input Data". Please note that proposers are not precluded from submitting their own emissions reduction calculations. Any calculations submitted will, however, be reviewed by the RCTC Staff and are subject to revision to insure consistency in evaluation among all candidate projects. PROJECT CATEGORY 1. STATE HIGHWAY/LOCAL ROADS — CAPACITY INCREASING Category Definition: This category includes projects that increase the carrying capacity of a state or local roadway. This includes, but is not limited to, HOV lane construction, mixed -flow lane construction, roadway widening, etc. Please Provide the Following Input Data for the Road Segment Affected by the Proposed Capacity Enhancement Project Length of Roadway Segment (miles) Traffic Volume — "Before Project" Traffic Count Data OR Before Project Average Daily Traffic (ADT) Traffic Volume — "After Project" Traffic Count Data OR After Project Average Daily Traffic (ADT) "Before Project" Average Vehicle Speed (determined by "floater car" data or other measurement) "After Project" Estimated Average Vehicle Speed (determined by transportation simulation, volume/capacity ratios, Level of Service (LOS) tables, or other methods) PROJECT CATEGORY 2. STATE HIGHWAY/LOCAL ROADS — TRAFFIC CONGESTION AND DELAY REDUCTION (NON -CAPACITY INCREASING) Category Definition: This category includes projects that improve traffic flow by reducing delays at intersections, on ramps, etc. This includes, but is not limited to: auxiliary lanes between adjacent intersections, intersection reconstruction, two-way left turn lanes, channelization, ramp reconstruction, roadway realignments, etc. AIR QUALITY ASSESSMENT INPUT DATA — Continued Please Provide the Following Input Data for the Road Segment and Congested Period (i.e., AM Peak Hours and PM Peak Hours) Affected by the Traffic Congestion/Delay Reduction Project Traffic Volume — "Before Project" Traffic Count Data OR Before Project Average Daily Traffic (ADT) Traffic Volume — "After Project" Traffic Count Data OR After Project Average Daily Traffic (ADT) Duration of Congested AM Peak Period (number of a.m. hours that significant delay occurs) Duration of Congested PM Peak Period (number of p.m. hours that significant delay occurs) "Before Project" Average Vehicle Delay (average vehicle delay at intersection, turning lane queuing, onramp, etc.) "After Project" Estimated Average Vehicle Delay (average vehicle delay at intersection, turning lane queuing, onramp, etc.) PROJECT CATEGORY 3. STATE HIGHWAY/LOCAL ROADS — TRAFFIC SIGNAL INSTALLATION/ INTERCONNECT Category Definition: This category includes projects that propose to: a) replace an existing stop sign or four-way stop with a traffic signal; b) interconnect and coordinate newly implemented traffic signals with other signals along the corridor; and c) improvements to signal timing that reduce overall vehicle stops and delays. NOTE: Signal timing and other actions that increase traffic speeds and flows to the detriment of overall traffic performance or that offer a significant inducement to travel by automobile are not air quality beneficial. Speed improvements to greater than 30 mph increase NOx emissions and may be counterproductive to improving air quality. Emissions reductions in Reactive Organic Gases (ROG) and NOx are associated with increasing average traffic speeds to up to 30 mph. • NOx emissions start increasing when average vehicle speeds are greater than 30 mph • Carbon monoxide emissions start increasing when average vehicle speeds are greater than 45 mph • ROG emissions start increasing when average vehicle speeds are greater than 50 mph AIR QUALITY ASSESSMENT INPUT DATA — Continued Please Provide the Following Input Data for Each Road Segment and Congested Period (i.e., AM peak and PM peak) Affected by the Proposed Signalization/Signal Interconnect Project Length of Roadway Segment (miles) Traffic Volume During Congested Period - "Before Project" Traffic Count Data OR Before Project Average Daily Traffic (ADT) Traffic Volume During Congested Period - "After Project" Traffic Count Data OR After Project Average Daily Traffic (ADT) "Before Project" Average Vehicle Speed During Congested Period (determined by "floater car" data or other measurement) "After Project" Estimated Average Vehicle Speed During Congested Period (determined by transportation simulation, volume/capacity ratios, Level of Service (LOS) tables, or other methods) "Before Project" Average Vehicle Delay (average vehicle delay due to stop sign queuing, etc.) "After Project" Average Vehicle Delay (average vehicle delay due to stop sign queuing, etc.) PROJECT CATEGORY 4. PUBLIC TRANSIT — PURCHASE OF BUSES Category Definition: The purchase of transit buses that are certified to be less polluting than a typical new bus or an engine replacement that converts the bus into a less polluting vehicle (cleaner re -power). For emissions reductions to be credited to the project, the vehicle(s) purchased must emit less pollution than conventional new diesel buses meeting current emissions standards. Please Provide the Following Input Data for Each New or Re -powered Transit Bus Proposed Vehicle Type, Make, and Model New Engine Make and Model Old Engine Make and Model (if re -power) New Engine Fuel Type (CNG, LNG, LPG, etc.) Old Engine Fuel Type (if re -power) Estimated Vehicle Life (years) Annual Vehicle Miles Annual Vehicle Hours of Operation AIR QUALITY ASSESSMENT INPUT DATA — Continued PROJECT CATEGORY 5. OPERATION OF NEW TRANSIT BUS SERVICE Category Definition: New, extended, and increased -frequency provide additional hours of bus service per year and serve additional people. These are fixed -route services implemented by transit agencies. (Cleaner, alternative -fuel buses should be used in the bus service expansions in order to offset the additional emissions created from the new transit service and achieve an overall project net emissions reduction.) Please Provide the Following Input Data for Each New Transit Service Route Proposed Number of Operating Days per Year Average Daily Ridership of New Service Average Length of Automobile Trips Replaced (miles) Percent of Riders Who Drive to the Bus Service Annual Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) for the New Transit Service Percent of Riders Who are Transit Dependent PROJECT CATEGORY 6. INTER -CITY RAIL SERVICE Category Definition: New, extended, and/or increased -frequency of commuter rail services. Please Provide the Following Input Data for Each New Transit Service Route Proposed Number of Operating Days per Year Average Daily Ridership of New Service Average Length of Automobile Trips Replaced (miles) Percent of Riders Who Drive to the Rail Station . Percent of Riders Who are Transit Dependent PROJECT CATEGORY 7. BICYCLE FACILITIES Category Definition: Bicycle paths (Class 1) or bicycle lanes (Class 2) are targeted to reduce commute and other non -recreational automobile travel. Class 1 facilities are paths that are physically separated from motor vehicle traffic. Class 2 facilities are striped bicycle lanes giving preferential or exclusive use to bicycles. Bicycle lanes should meet Caltrans' full -width standard depending on street facility type. AIR QUALITY ASSESSMENT INPUT DATA — Continued Please Provide the Following Input Data for Each New Bicycle Facility Proposed Type of Bicycle Facility (Class 1 or Class 2) Length of Bicycle Path or Lane (miles) Average Length of Bicycle Trip (miles) Average Daily Traffic Volume on Roadway Parallel to Bicycle Facility (ADT) City Population (number of residents) List Types of Activity Centers in the Vicinity of the Bicycle Facility (e.g., bank, church, hospital, park & ride lot, office park, light rail station, post office, public library, shopping center, grocery store, university, community college, elementary school, etc.) PROJECT CATEGORY 8. PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES Category Definition: Pedestrian facilities replace automobile trips by providing or improving pedestrian access. An example is a pedestrian over crossing over several lanes of heavy traffic providing a safe walking access to adjacent activity centers. Please Provide the Following Input Data for Each New Pedestrian Facility Proposed Estimated Number of Weekly One -Way Automobile Trips Eliminated PROJECT CATEGORY 9. GRADE SEPARATIONS Category Definition: Includes construction of rail or roadway over crossings, under crossings, etc. to eliminate traffic flow interruptions at grade crossings. Please Provide the Following Input Data for Each Grade Separation Proposed Traffic Volume — "Before Project" Traffic Count Data OR Before Project Average Daily Traffic (ADT) Traffic Delays — "Before Project" Average Daily Delay (i.e., average amount of time, on a daily basis, that trains block the roadway) AIR QUALITY ASSESSMENT INPUT DATA - Continued PROJECT CATEGORY 10. TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGENENT Category Definition: Programs that reduce and/or eliminate automobile trips and vehicle miles traveled (VMT). Please Provide the Following Input Data for the Proposed Transportation Demand Management Project Number of Weekly One -Way Automobile Trips Eliminated Average Length of Automobile Trips Eliminated PROJECT CATEGORY 11. INTERMODAL FACILITIES Category Definition: Facilities that support the movement of goods into and through the region, including transfer facilities, cargo terminals, freight distribution facilities, etc. Intermodal facilities can improve the efficiency and effectiveness of goods movement and result in a net reduction in vehicle miles traveled. Please Provide the Following Input Data for the Proposed Intermodal Facility Project Estimated Total Annual Reduction in Truck Vehicle Miles Traveled (e.g., truck VMT eliminated by using rail for goods movement) SAFETY DATA A. B. C. D. List Type of Collision (Refer to "Switters" Collision Types) # of Propert Damage # of # of Injuries Fatalities Total Total Average Daily Traffic: Three year peiod (e.g. 1997, '98, '99) Accident Rate: 1) Sum Column A 2) (Sum Column B + Sum Column C) x 24 3) Subtotal 4) Divide Subtotal by 3 5) ADT x.365 6) Line 4 Divided by Line 5 Notes: Collision type should correlate directly to safety problem. Most recent three-year period for which data is available. TRAFFIC DATA In order to measure Congestion Mitigation, projects must provide Total Vehicle Delay for current conditions based on peak hour or worse condition. Project Applicants must provide delay analysis using the following recommended software programs: For Gap Closure projects and othe project ty Type of Project Intersection Analysis Segment Analysis Recommended Software Program/Methodology HCM, Synchro, Passer Florida Tables, Floating Car AGENDA ITEM 6 Lu6 o, riv r v. Vl-tL • L/ I L SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION of GOVERNMENTS Main Office 818 West Seventh Street izth Floor Los Angeles. California 90017.3435 (223) 2360800 fi2a3) 236-2825 www,scag,ca.gov OLDaa.. ^r.uden: aupervl.err 1'.' Mlkeh. Cou uy : + B ',no • Flial Vlen Nesldent: ,cuua,ln,rn+hrr 1.a; Berns0A. Le, Annie% • ic:cnd alt: Prcadrn,: Costndhnenalra L- Perry, :,1•4 • 1mme3•.m Put I•.rsgent. Mryor Pn• IFrn Los Ala•Art•:• •n+Prrial County Haue Yntper. imperial Couo:y .3a Asgrle. coaary: Y•tiwr O,„h.'a:te Burie, .1ugr ks Coo n y • 2e• Yaru•ia-. ry lop Angeles H.rry buld••'In. San C Marl • Bruce ▪ Cram, • ;Horse R..., Item • Hal Loc Anti-• •µ.Den 3nicmly in.emead • gun China, Li,. Angeles • Gen. Daniel,, .•rn,•mt • 10 A.ne Dairy. Sant. CLr1ta • Both C.Isr,rc. ion Mgeln • Ray Gtab,nsil, Long Reaala :lee !larch:on• :'Irransr • Mike Hecna.da, :r.. '..i,•dc. • vale Hoiden. Cu. +rifle% • Sandra L:oln. 31 Srgund3 • Lasaelace Rark:ry. inelewerd MtCan'ry, i:ewney • Cudr MI•clkowskt wr.ye:ea _ S•.:oy Murphy Burh•nk • Yam G a3n3os, Mot. M'mica • Nick Park -to. Los + n;e:es • Aka Pn:•1:a, 1 a. Angela • Bca VIPT Noe, ^r..1 Ri•eca • Mack Aidlrr•llitamaa. Loc Augrlr. Ai:hasd R.trdaa Lni Augcle• • ,rem ReserU.4 C:annieat • Marc:re 31uw, Compton • Dlek Sir en, Aa,..a • ltudv Svorinlch, Loa Angela • '1.31 5yaes. W.P:uul • Pnnd Ta:Doi, Adurba • Cldney yasadena • inri wachs. toc Mgaru • Rau W.:.rr., Los Ange:a•. • Drnn,.wa.ubun•, CaLhau. • Rao V .hh. Long Beach Cnisge Gnnuy. Clurka S.nuh, Orange Cmuur • nv. S.,ra. !cr Alamitos • Ralph aauer. Hwauogu•n ecach - Ar, %n•••, nuena Park • Lo. Done, noun • L:alaralt C. —an. Casa Mcu • C.thryn DeTDuns. :a:ur , Niguel • Richard Dison, Laic Forest • Alta Duke. Lc Pans. • Snvley He etelen, Anaheim • -+-+ %errA Bra • 7iarf hidgraiay. Newport Beajt R•.enldt CouA y 3 .1 Bt+ater. R••er.dr C unty • r.,:. l.••vridge. A.•en:dr • C+ee Peuia, C.Wedn1 ,• k':n Rot ern, nuorrsna • Jan Rudman, ail• • f.:+arle> w;,•te. M.,rnn Valley -au Bernardino County: bin Mikes. Sao a+rd•no Ccun.y • Bdl nka.ndn. 321.110 .r r1Ji17a • D. -ill Rah:eman. Foui.n • 1+e Ann Lucia, Grand Tetra:e • Anb Rumer, Vlnnr.tli. • :�cnu N:rr--n-Petri U•Wn Hlii. • 103111: Ville , .•.,. 2etnartu.n taclu'. VenDua C,"amy - .:k1, aeon, Soy aalky - Aunt. De Pao:., San a u.aa•einu• a • rani To003, ww Hueneme :L•eeelde Gtsancy Ttaaperu.Lnn Conau•r+.z 1. 11 :.rr••e, Hemet +'entl{ra C3une, Tran&po:laalon Cnmml..1nr1 June 11, 2001 To: From: Subject: Interagency Memorandum Distribution List ./f Mark Pisano, ]✓4ce e ctof Transportation Conformity Lapse in the San Bernardino County Portion of MDAB and Coachella Valley Portion of SSAB with Schedule to Remedy the Lapse On June 8, 2001, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) issued a joint transportation and air quality conformity determination for SCAG's 2001 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). The joint FHWA / FTA Letter indicates that the 2001 RTP has met the federal requirements for conformity findings for all areas with the exception of the San Bernardino County portion of the Mojave Desert Air Basin (MDAB) and the Coachella Valley portion of the Salton Sea Air Basin (SSAB). Also, on June 7, 2001, through a joint letter, FHWA / FTA have communicated this matter to Governor Davis. Copies of the both letters are attached. SCAG's 2001 RTP replaces the 1998 RTP, whose conformity lapsed or,. June 9, 2001. The method of demonstration for the construction -related PM10 conformity finding approved in the 1998 Regional Transportation Plan is not being approved in the 2001 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). While no guidance exists, verbally the federal agencies have instructed SCAG that in a build / no - build analysis the construction -related PM10 emissions be added to the PM10 emissions generated by the transportation system to demonstrate conformity. This is a technical adjustment and does not affect the 2001 RTP's policies, programs, and projects as approved by the Regional Council and submitted to the federal agencies. The federal agencies, including the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), have committed to work with SCAG to conclude the analysis and re-establish the conformity status for these two areas in a fast -track and simultaneous approval approach. err.n.e0 w Rca.aird raw 559.5 nu 1. 20C1 C: 1 3PVM SCAG UC. S 42 r. 3/12 Schedule to Remedy Conformity Lapse Late last week, SCAG discussed a schedule to remedy this situation and to obtain a positive conformity status for these two areas with the federal, state, and local transportation and air agencies. This process will be completed within a 60 -day period as follows: • June 15, 2001 - Completion of the Technical Analysis (Draft) • June 19, 2001 - Publication and dissemination of the Technical Analysis (Draft) for a 30 -day public review and comment period • July 20, 2001 - Deadline for public review and comment • July 23, 2001 - SCAG's responses to written comments (if any) • July 24, 2001 - Transportation Conformity Working Group meeting (Interagency Consultation) • August 2, 2001— Regional Council action - Resolution on conformity findings for the PMI O regional emission analysis of the 2001 RTP for the San Bernardino County portion of MDAB and the Coachella Valley portion of SSAB • August 2, 2001 — Submittal to federal agencies for approval of conformity finding for the San Bernardino County portion of the Mojave Desert Air Basin (MDAB) and the Coachella Valley portion of the Salton Sea Air Basin (SSAB) portions of the 2001 RTP Projects Affected by Conformity Lapse The agencies affected by this conformity lapse are Caltrans District 8, RCTC, CVAG, SANBAG, the counties of Riverside and San Bernardino, and the cities and transit agencies operating within the San Bernardino County portion of the Mojave Desert Air Basin (MDAB) and the Coachella Valley portion of the Salton Sea Air Basin (SSAB). Under federal regulations, during a conformity lapse certain types of projects can not be implemented. The transportation projects listed in fiscal years 2000 / 01 and 2001 / 02 of the 2000 Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP) were reviewed to identify potential projects affected by the conformity lapse. A copy of the Draft project listing is attached for the affected areas. SCAG staff is working with Caltrans (Headquarters and District 8), RCTC, CVAG, and SANBAG to identify from the attached lists those projects that could potentially be affected within the next 60 days. SCAG will work with the affected project sponsor agencies to minimize any disruption in project implementation. 2 r MA NU. NU, "),+L r. +/ I LQ2/03 4 U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration Federal Transit Administration Mark A. Pisano Executive Director Southern California Association of Governments 818 West Seventh Street 12th floor Los Angeles, California 90017 Las An gela5 Metropolitan Oflcs 201 N. Figueroa AURA 1450 Los Angeles, CA 90012 213-202-3960 213402.3901 (Ysx) June 8, 2001 SUBJECT: CONFORMITY DETERMINATION FOR SCAG's FY 2001-2025 REGIONALTRANSPORTATION PLAN The Federal Highway Adminictrat'u,n (FH'WA) and the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) have completed their review of the conformity determination for the Southern California Association of Governments' (SCAG's) 2001-202S Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). A joint TTA/T11WA air quality conformity determination for the RTP is required by Section 93.104 of the Environmental Protection Agency's August 15, I997, T anspor/ar;on Conformity Rule, 40 CPR Part 51 and 93 (T ransporrazjon Conformity Rule) and Section 450.326 of the FHWAJFTA Metropolitan Planning Rule. SCAG submitted the conformity determination on May 9, 2001 to FHWA and FTA. The conformity analysis provided by SCAQ indicates that air quality conformity requirements for all areas have Neon met with the exception of the Coachella Valley and the San Bernardino portion of the Mojave Dese t PM10 non - attainment areas. The SCAG conformity analysis indicates that the Coachella Valley and the San Bernardino portion of the Mojave Desert non-attaituttent areas did not meet the conformity tests for PM 10 required by section 93.119 of the Transportation Conformity Rule. The combination of PMl0 construction emissions and operational emissions resulted in a build Reenarin that is greater than the no -build scenario in the year 2010 for Coachella Valley and in 2010 and 2020 for the Mojave Desert non -attainment area. Thus, a conformity lapse will go into effect on June 9, 2001 for the Coachella Valley non -attainment area, and the Mojave Desert non -attainment area. A conformity lapse continues to be in effect for the Searles Valley non-4ttainmont area. A conformity lapse in the Coachella, Mujavo Desert and Searles Valley non -attainment areas means no federal approvals on projects may be made except for exempt projects, transportation control measures approved in an air quality plan, or projects which have federal approvals for construction prior to June 9. 2001. In addition, a conformity lapse prohibits an approval of non-federal projects that are regionally significant and are sponsored by agencies that are recipients of federal transportation funds. The U.S, Department of Transportation and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency believe that a better representation of the timing of construction impacts of individual projects in the PM10 cr,natrltrtion emissions analysis subject to SCAG's public involvement and eonsuhation process, may allow a conformity finding by the U.S. Department of Transportation in the near future. Nevertheless, according to Suction 22 011' 6:'�tPM�4. 4 SCAG gnu v FAX NO. NU. a�42 r. D/1203703 450.316 (b) (viii) of the Metropolitan Rule, Appendix H of the RTP must be made available to the public with the Coachella and Mojave Desert conformity analysis portion subject to public comment. We are committed to working with the transportation and air quality agencies in the SCAC; region to expedite a conformity determination in the Coachella and Mojave Desert areas. Based on our review, we find that the 2001 RTP conforms to the applicable state implementation plans in the other areas covered by the RTP, in accordance with the provisions of 40 CFR Parts 51 and 93 and in accordance with USDOT's June 18, 1999, guidance, Additional Supplemental Guidance for the Implementation of the Circuit Court Derision Affeering Transportation Conformity and subsequent questions and answers which can be found on the FHWA website at letp://www.fhwa.duLgov/envfronmenr/conformity/con guid.hrtn. This conformity determination has been made consistent with the recent federal guidance on planning rssumptiors. All of the relevant conformity tests required by sections 93.11S and 93.119 have been met exclusive of Coachella Valley and the Mojave Desert, and Searles Valley non -attainment areas, and this conformity determination ensures that all transportation control measures have been implemented consistent with section 93.113. We have determined that SCAG has carried out an interagency consultation process and public involvement consistent with their procedures and with section 93.105. The procedures used by SCAG for determining regional transportation emissions is consistent with the regitirennnnte of section 91122. Thin approval was made after consultation with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) pursuant to the Inter Agency Consultation process far the Southern California Association of Governments, This letter constitutes the joint FHWA/FTA air quality conformity determination for SCAG's 2001 RTP. If you have any queatiuua peitniaing to this conformity finding, please do not hesitate to contact Sandra A. Balnur at (213)202-3953. Sincerely, /s/Ery Poka For Leslie T. Rogers Regional Administrator Federal Transit Administration Enclosure cc: Doug Thompson, ARB Mark Brucker, EPA Ray Sukys, FTA. Region 9 (o-niail) Dennis Scovill, FHWA (e-mail) Cale-ans. Sincerely, /s/Sandra Balntlr For Michael G. Ritchie Division Administrator Federal Highway Administration Dick Petrie, Federal Resources Branch Terry Abot; Office of Local Programs Sharon Soheerzinger, Chief, Office of Regional & Interagency Planning Stan Rubenbenstein, Associate Transportation Planner, Office of Regional & Interagency Planning Rambabu Bavirisetty, Senioor Engineer, Transportation Programming 6:15PMi CAC ---- ...._� NO. x'742 P. 7/12- U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERRAI. I-ailRAY ADMINISTRAnON CALIFOFNIA DIVISION 980 Ninth Street Suite 4W Sacramento. CA. 95814-2724 The Honorable Gray Davis Governor of California State Capitol Building Sacramento, CA 95814 Dear Governor Davis: MI 7 2E01 Rd REPLY CEFER TO - HDA-CA DOcument: S-35786 The purpose of this letter is to provide you with notification of an imminent lapse of conformity on the Southern California Association of Government; (SCAG) 1998 Regional Transportation Plan for the Coachella Valley and San Bernardino portion of the Mojave Desert air quality non - attainment areas for particulate matter (PM -10). Federal regulations require that a new Regional Transportanon Plan (RTP) be adopted and found to conform with Clean Air Act rent li rements every three years. The 1998 SCAG RTP was accepted and found to conform by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) on June 9, 1998 and will lapse on June 9, 2001. SCAG had submitted their 2001 Regional Transportation Nan and A conformity determination to the Federal Highway Administration and the Federal Transit Administration on May 9, 2001. We have determined that the conformity determination fully met the requirements of the Clean Air ACt in the SCAG region except for the Coachella Valley and the San Bernardino portion of the Mojave Desert non -attainment areas. A conformity lapse may impact the State's ability to advance the federal highway and transit programs in the Coachella and Mojave non -attainment areas depending on the length of Lima these areas ore under a conformity Ispse. During a transportation conformity lapse, Title 23 and 49 funding and approvals are limited to three categories of projects: I) Exempt projects, as defined in the Environmental Protection Agency's Transportation Conformity Rale (40 CFR 93.126 and 93,11'/); 2) Transportation control measures in approved SIPs; and 3) Transportation projects with FHWA/FTA construction approvals prior to the lapse. For all other projects,: FHWA and FTA may not make any new project approvals and must suspend Federal -aid funds on active design and right-of-way acquisition activities in accordance with the FHWAiFTA,'s June 18, 1999, guidance and subsequent questions and answers which can be found at wvemfhwa,dotienvirortment!conformity/c2Rguid.iltm . Similar funding and project development restrictions would he placed on regionally significant, non -Federal projects within the Coachella and Mojave non -attainment areas where the project sponsors are recipients of tederal transportation fund. .\ . 1 . LV.2, I b: ��IVI UI nU iV U. O i 4 L 1 L AREAS AFFECTED BY POTENTIAL CONFORMITY LAPSE IN SCAG AREA DUE TO CONSTRUCTION PM10 ISSUE Mojave Desert (San Bernardino CO. portion of Mojave Desert Planning Area) 616101 Valley Planning Area Co. portion of Salton Sea Air Basin) . ' 2U J 1 5: 15rlvi IVv. 07`+L r. 0/ 1L" 2 W_e recognize that it would have been advantageous to provide earlier notification of the potential lapse. However, we have Feen working with the -affected agencies in -an attempt to •- resolve the issue without impacting planned transportation improvements in the SCAG Region. We do believe there is potential to resolve the conformity issues in the Coachella Valley and Mojave Desert non-attazrunent areas in the near future, and commit to work with SCAG and the air quality and transportation agencies in the SCAG region to resolve the conformity lapis; as quickly as possible. This information ha3 been coordinated with impacted local, state, and federal agencies, and we will continue to work with these agencies to reestablish conformity. Once conformity is reestablished for the Coachella and Mojave ruler -attainment areas, federal -aid projects may proceed in those areas consistent with normal federal -procedures. If you have any questions please =tact Mr. Dennis Scovill, FHWA, at (915) 498-5034 or Mr- Ray Sukys, FTA at (415) 7443133, L slie Rogers Regional Administrator Federal Transit Administration Sincerely, ��,Driichael G. Ritchie Division Administrator Federal Highway Administration DRA FF ADOPTED 200(1 REGIO NAL TRANSPORTATI ON IMPROVEMENT PROGRA M PROJECTS IN RIVERSIDE COUNTY IN THE SALTON SEA AIR BASIN NON-EXEMPT PROJECT LIS TING __ _ - GRO01' -•- ..o. .., rx4At6CT AIR M ODEL LGBN CY ID P ROG RAM R TB P061 NI LES • DESCRIPTION 0Il)OJ TEAR ENG RO W GUNS TOT AL 7000/01 R- RIV BASI N NO L CA 7HEDIRO AL RIV)2595 0006 BE G R ED 2001/02 IM EN 1$000'6) ($00D'B) Exem pt N an RIV &SAE R204 CITY L CJIIES L RIV)26D0 HE13 0 ,0 DATE P AIN PROM ROUTE 10 TO VARNER ROA D - WIDEN PRO M 1740 TO SIX LANES CI TY 00/01 264 0 1054 1330 1710 0 Ex Non- R1V SSA2 8202 COITY L COACH ELL\ HS1) a .0 FRED WARING DR IVE P RC81 FA11RHAVENI TO JEFFERSON - WI DEN FROM TWO 70 SIX LANES CITY CITY 00/01 07/02 100D 0 a090 0 0 9696 9000 9696 9000 9696 Exempt Non - RV L COACMBLLA HU/62003 SEAS 8205 RE1] 0 .D .0 0)7 D1LLGW ND FR OM 4477( AVE TO 1-10 WIDER PROM 2 TO 4 LANES CITi 00/01 XRIV 00/01 20 19 0 0 177 170 797 197 ]94 0 L lce4lpt Non - R1V L ]ND 16 RIV62009 SEAR R1V620111 N813 0 .0 -0 IN C OAC HELLA A701 CDO NIY ON AVENUE 96 PROM SPRR TO 0 SID E OF BRIDGE OVER C3) AC71 V AL ST OR M C HAAWL WI DEN BRIDGE FROM 2 TO 4 LAN ES CITY O0/07 XRTV 00/07 351 192 14 328 7415 766 1762 1266 3060 } mp4 N an- RIV L 16020 6 SAD - R C1) 0 81962012 .0 .000 V ARNIBR RD FROM MADISON 70 MO NR OE HIDER FRO M 2 TO 4 LANES CITY 00 01 XRIV OD/01 02 82 82 81 -178 779 502 1004 0 Ex em pt N on- RIV I. PADESOR7 W 8595 ■I1EIJ 0 .D .O ON •/ARN17l 1117 i-AC84 JAOC SON TO VAN BOREN WIDEN PROM 2 TO 4 LANES CITY 00 O/ XAI9 00/01 R7 02 01 02 .502 710 7)9 902 907 7005 0 Exempt Non- RIV L PA IN R12192012611131.,920126 SEAR 0206 11131., .0 ,O x D] EN BRI DGE AT FRED WARIN G DR ANT P AIN VALLEY C HAN NEL FROM 4 70 6 LANES - CITY 00/01 STPL 00/01 215 0 20D 0 ,"2 .89 2001 2316 289 2605 p Ex emptSo01 ti0n- RIV SP RINGS L PAL M 58 91IX:S 919 900303 SSA R HE11D 0 .0 .0 CONS TRUCT BIIAR DD RD ERI DCE AND MISSI NG GAP, PA RKIN G LOT A88'D AMENITIES FOR I NDIAN IN TERPRETIVE CE NTER AT TAHO UITZ C9190 06 AGEN CY 00 01 CITY 00/02 PLE 00/al PV T 00/01 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 600 200 728) 1000 600 200 320) 1000 0 Exempt Nan - RIV L PALM SP RINGS RIV)2596 68AB 1)04 11E13 a .0 .0 RA14UNN ROAD FROM 51)04158 W AY TO EL CIELO - WIDEN FROM T110 TO PO UR LANES CITY 00/01 •]74 0 11497 1871 t 1871 0 Exempt R1V990727 SEAR NB4C 0 .0 .0 WIDEN INDIAN C ANY ON Da RV6 ?RCM 2 TO 4 1 .141185 FROM DP RAI LROA D R8]D GE TO GARNET RD AT I-10 CITY 00 01 STP L 00/01 l 11 0 0 22 166 2) 177 200 p Ncg1- RIV L RAN CHO M IRAG E 81132592 SSAB )]00 H217 D 00 0(41t licz,- RIV 2 1ND 70 .0 .0 RAMONN R OAD PROM LOS ALAMOS DRI VE TO BOB HOPE DRIVE - 14)D E11 PR OM TWO TO SIX LANES CIT Y 00/02 1304 0 5216 6520 6520 0 Exempt Non - R 11 S C ALT3WIS RIV62O32 SSA B 7600 HEl3A 10 5),7 -O C ONSTRUCT NEW IC AT MADISON CITV OON01 XA1V DO/01 CI TY 01/02 XRT1• 01/02 950 ,0 950 0 a 0 950 0 0 950 0 2647 7641 0 2642 2682 1500 5282 Exemp t 42814 SERB 0.208 RE 14 06 3. 2 5. 2 AVB R OADS NEAR COACHELLA 0 .1 61118 8/0 MII 67ST AVE TO 0,1 NILE H/0 78TH NN CONSTRUCT 2 LANE M ORT AL'S OR EITHER SIDE OT RTE 66 - 0O 01 439 01/02 324 0 0 439 17 2120 253) 4)9 25)7 M5479] V4 06/11/01 DRAFT ADOP TED 2001J REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION IM PROVEMENT PROGRAM PROJ ECTS IN RIVERSIDE COUNTY IN T HE SALTON SEA AIR BASIN NON-EXEMPT PROJECT LISTING • - . 0 ors LEAD PR OJECT AIR )ODIL PROOR AII GR OUP AG ENCY 1D POET )QLSS DebCR7P Ti OR P OND TBA A 1:111112:31CURS RAISIN KO .■ C00E 184 Dm T OT AL 2000/D1 2001/02 7N IN (1000' 6) Non. RJV 5 RI VERSIDE 45580 ex empt CW)rrY SS AD F.2G1 H114 NP 10 76.1 .0 ON GENE AUT RY TRAIL PALM DRI VE FECW I 1 I NTSRCR ANGE S OUTH 1O SAL VIA ROAD; WIDE N FROM 2 TO 4 LA NES, 1-10 IC• 1MPRO NS. MOO]FY RAMPS FR OM 1 CO(5000.5) 1CR-S 00 01 01/02 1000 0 O 750 0 0 250 150 1a0o 150 Non RSV S TO 2 L ANESAIVER SIUF . 45590 SSAB HS4NT Eacwpt CaW7l 'Y 10 39 .5 .O N OISG OAT -C PALM IC MI DiQ4 OVER CR( SSZNG FROM 2 TO 4 1040 CO CO 00 01 01/02 1350 0 0 120 0 9650 1)50 9770 1750 6770 Non R] V 6 INDIO 47520 47520 RAMPS FR OM I TO 2 1N5 Exempt SSAP . HEANF 10 52 .) .0 AT I-10 A ND .79PPFRSON ST 1 C, MODITY/1410614 EXISTI NG IC FRO M 2 TO 6 lAHES AGENCY 13614OL21 AOEMCY 00/01 00/02 01/02 2900 990 0 2900 0 0 0 0 4200 5600 990 1200 079 0 1200 _ Eon- R1V T IND IO R5959 A Ex empt.0 SSAB T70C TH21 0 .0 INDIO INT6R HOOAL TRANSPORTA TI ON CD•/THR AT 1WT EJ(SHCTIOF OF INDIO L CIVI C CE NTER DR. - ACa01I3 0 RI GH T or LTP TPD 00/01 00/01 181 381 a 0 )61 361 76") p -__ NAY A ND C ONSTRU CT STAT1091 GRAND 1b7AL ET FISCAL TE AR GRAND T OT AL BOTH YE ARS 545 ,909 5)0,6)0 576,539 154793 V4 ON)I/01 c c DRAFT ADOPTED 20410 REGIONAL TRA NSPORTAT ION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PR OJECTS IN SAN BERNARDIN O COUNTY P ORTION OFTHE MOJAVE DESERT AIR BASIN NON- EXEMPT PROJE CT LISTING PROJ CC T 1 CN7Y 1 SYE GROOT - AGENCY -•----�. ..... .. .awnnn WTE POS T NILES DESCRIPTIO N rD1m YEAR E NO RO W CONS TOTAL 2004/01 ID BASI N NO CODE BB P. !MID 2001/02 IN IN 95444'1 4 11000'5► N on- SBD L A!)ELs TO sBD)3737 1Q/ AY Exempt NMI- S60 L APPLE VALLEY 4250 HE7) 0 .0 .4 ALP. B ASE R OA D EAS T CITY LIMITS TO STATE ROUT E 795 WID EN ram 2 TO 4 LANES CIT Y 00/CJ IS 0 7E5 300 )4 0 Exempt Nan- 51411 L APPLE VALLEY 5/4041211 EDAM 4551 11614 0 .0 .0 APPLE VALLEY ROAD EXTENSIO N PRC4 NORTHERN TERMIN US OF APPLE VALLEY RD . TO 1711.C7i1 011 RD . CONSTRUCT 4 LANE NEW R OAD CI TY 00/01 100 0 2200 3300 2300 0 Ex empt0 Ncn - SEW L APPLE V ALLEY SB D55001 MA0 4476 NEIL 0 .0 .0 CO RMIN ROAD AT HI GHW AY 16 I NTERSECTIO N. (RRALI©MENT) CONNECTI NG SR IS AND CORWIN ROAD INTN CONN ECTOR! A ND T RA FFIC SIGNAL CIT Y CA 06/07 01/02 0 0 55 D O 55 900 900 PS5 dexpt Nen- SBD L SANFERNAA 0180 6/3055071 M OAB 4677 NCI) 0 .0 .0 YUC CA LAMA RD . 111014 APPLE VALLEY RD. TO NAVAJO RD. WIDE N EXISTING 2 LANE R D. TO 4 LANE RD. 12 LANES 1N EAC H DJ R8C7IO N1 13 MIL861 XSBD 01/CI 150 0 7000 2150 0 2150 E xempt E xe� t CO bon- 5 80 L SAN YERNARD140 SAD 717)0 MDA9 4671 14E14 4 .0 /1E000176 R OAD FROM M ARIP OSA A ROA D TO M ESA LIND A STREET CONSTRUCT 2 L A118 R OA D CO FEE 01 02 , 0 0402 C 0 0 2 0 6 0 a Exempl CT Non - SSD 1. VICTGRVILLE 690)9746 MOAB 4675 HEM 0 .0 .0 SUMMIT TRUCK DRIVE FROM NH1TEXA VEN ST REET TO DUXEII RY STREE T C ONS TRUCT N EW 2 LA NE ROA D rEr FEE 00/01 1) 01 /07 0 0 0 D 16 56 74 ]6 96 N on - SAD L VIC7CRVILLE 580031396 /CAB 11E1) 0 .0 ALA PAL DRIVE MOJAVE DRIVE TO NOOK RO ULE VAS D WID EN FROM 2 LANES TO 4 LANES CIT1 00/01 C 0 400 400 400Exempt 0 Ex empt0 Ne 'n- SAD L V7CT ORVILI.E SBD032400 MDAB 61614 0 .0 .0 CIVI C DRI VE ROY 6 0DGERS MUSEON TO R OY 90 002 45 DRIVE C ONSTR UCT 4 LANE ROAD CITY 01/0) 0 O 210 410 210 Exe mpt Non- SAD L V)C10RVILL E 500 031414 1011 E N EI3 0 .0 .0 NISQD ALLI ROAD HESPERIA ROAD TO INDUSTRIAL BOU LEV ARD WI DEN mom 2 LANES TO 4 LANES TEITY 01/C2 C 0 400 400 0 400 Ex em pt Non. S14D 'JICIC11VILLE 580 40140 MDSE 45E1 14E1? u .0 .0 N ATIONAL TR AILS R OAD BETW EEN INTERSTA TE 1S 6 A/BRAS[ RD. WIDE N 09 6M 2 LANES 7D 4 LA NES 01 7Y 01/02 200 0 1000 120u 0 1200 - ExemptS OC 200076 MOL E 5225 H86A ' 15 .0 .0 1.15 )00 PARR -N -RIDE L OT EXPA NSION AND ICITY FACI LITIES AT BE AR VA LLEY RD 6 (70 8X)S T1NG SPACES TO SPACE S) O1 00/01 00/01 5_7 0 1_ U p 57 400 44) p Nan - S 8D 5 C ALTRANS 01724 1011 6 Exempt 11144x0 IS 33.5 )4-5 N SSP59JA RECONSTRUCT IN7IA CNANGB AT MAIN ST REE T NA1 N ST REET TO PARTIAL DE NOL21 STP 062401.21 00/01 00/01 0 0 55 5616 3300 3300 D 5673 1100 1100 6173 1747 01/02 0 0 1150973 V6 0&11101 • PROJ ECT GROUP' OITY $YS LEAD I.On- ERempt ifon- /ion- EbtenLpt SND SEX) S0D Mao - Exempt Nno- ExempL SED 51113 S 11 AGEN CY VIC TORVI LLE CAL7RA N5 CAL7RAIGE PROJEC T ID DR AFT ADOPTED 2000 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATI ONIMPROVEMENT PR OGRAM PROJECTS IN SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY PORTION OF THE MOJAVE DESERT AIR B ASIN N ON- EXEMPT PROJECT LISTIN G AIR SASIN P10 01L 11 0 P AOGAAM CODs A TE POST WILES 8ZG ED® 34170 MAD 1907 II E11D DESC RIPTIO N CL06ERLEAF 5 WIDE N OVER CA0051 N0 FROM 2 70 6 LANES 3K VICTCIVILLE AT LA M ESA R1 AD/NI SDUALLI ROA D CO NSTRUCT OVERCR OSSIN G r am' 67116 RON 120091 TOT AL 2000/01 IM 15000'$) 2001/07 1N ($000'6) STY 01/02 447 0 647 15 30 .4 39.2 35510 15557 C. /41'7Rv'S 135077 VIC7O svlLLE NVn - n empt Hon - L34empt SAD SDD S CA1.TRA )7? CA LT RA N6 S6D42445 MO A8 -1MDA0 6101.8 MDAD 0603 4603 4613 4606 NE1] 41E13 N01) 15 42 4 0 .0 70.1 OJAVE CR 191 VICTORVILL E TO .ICT ATE SE IN HAYMOW - ADD N/5 12617510E M1XE0 FLOW LA NE CI TY 03102 200 2500 0 2700 2700 70.1 NEAR AAR ST OW FR OM mown DA. )/C 791 VICTO.VILLE TO JCT. RTC Si 196 BARSTOW TO WIL DWASH BRIDGE ADD S/8 MIXED F LOW (11AS EA ISIS); 74 .9 111 BARSTOW AT ROUTE 15 - WIDEN DEMOS 114 16 00101 01/02 4350 1069 11)0 512 O 6335 O 1642 6319 2642 111 00/03 6967 4119 O 11171 51172 15 69.3 FIT 14 4 351 MOAN 4677 NE)4 15 85.0 Se 22.4 110.0 76631 NDA E 4025 NE14 130 16 .3 FRO M. 2 LAMES TO ) LANES NORTHEr-j. , 0.5 MILES NOR TH OF LL N11 0CC Ft:. OVERCRoSSING TO 0.] MILES SOUTH 0? UST MAIN ST. OVICA OS SING EASTIWES 7 NIGH DES ERT CORRIDOR PALO/ION/RANCHO - 1-15 I NTERCY.92) GE CONS TRUCT 4 L ANE EXPRESSWAY 1 1-15 1/C LNEIl 2 LANES IN E A. DIk. ST ANDARD I/C CONFI G.INLt4 RD .) 3) .1 0.5 M1 WES T 01 V ALLEY VIEW RD NN 70 P 0636 RC )G EAR H I NKLEY -- NH REALIGN AND 61 0219 2 LA NE CONVEKT)ONAL N1 GNM AY TO 4 LA KE 5X PRE5E10%Y 29-7 NEAR . CAJO N, IRO* 1 MI LE EAST C17Y 00/01 2400 970 9607 1257] 12973 06940 021(00/01 DEM OL21 01/02 79600 1210 0 2960 1210 2950 3210 /0 4973W 1OAA9m TOTAL 14 0271 YEARS OF ROCTE 1S TO 51.1411T POS T OFFICE RO1. ^ - 4 LANE CONTSOLLED ACCESS HI GHWAY GRA ND TOT AL DY FLSCAL YEA R 00/0) 01/02 3 776 4350 0 727 0 O 7771 5077 1776 501 '1 00/01 0 300 30000 10300 10100 0 557,009 117,)95 574,404 2 0661110) c C ✓ 2 AGENDA ITEM 7 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: June 18, 2001 TO: Technical Advisory Committee Members FROM: Ken Lobeck, Staff Analyst THROUGH: Cathy Bechtel, Director of Planning and Programming SUBJECT: RTIP Update and New Project Submittal Forms STAFF RECOMMENDATION: That the TAC receive an update on the SRTP update to the RTIP and an overview of the use and purpose of the RTIP New Project Submittal forms for transit and non transit lead agencies to utilize BACKGROUND INFORMATION: SRTP Update to the RTIP: During May 2001, new Short Range Transit Plans (SRTP) Table 8 Projects for FY 2001/2002 and FY 2002/2003 were submitted to SCAG for inclusion in the current 2000 RTIP. Approximately 50 projects were submitted. SCAG allowed only adjustments to FY 2001/2002 and FY 2002/2003 years. Out year periods will be updated during Amendment 01 to the 2001 RTIP. Amendment 01 to the 2001 RTIP will be occurring this summer. RCTC's submission to SCAG is scheduled for late August. Amendment 01 to the 2001 RTIP is anticipated to contain a large amount of project adjustments. This "clean-up" amendment will update SRTP project out -years (FY 2003/2004 - 2006/2007) and review older projects in the RTIP that require status updates. Amendment 01 to the 2001 RTIP may exceed 100 projects amendments. New Project Submittal Forms: If a new project emerges that is required to be in the RTIP and is not part of a standard RCTC project call, or is an amendment to an agency's SRTP, agencies should submit the new project using the RTIP New Project Submittal Form. Two versions exist. One is transit related and the other is for roadway improvement projects. This new form is an expanded and revised version of an older form to help minimize potential problems from emerging when submitting a project into the RTIP. The version for roadway improvement projects is based upon a bridge construction/IC reconstruction type project. This is the one project type that generates the most project questions from SCAG and requires the greatest details for modeling purposes. If sections of the form are not applicable to your specific project, write "N/A" in the section. Please do not leave a section blank. The transit agency version contains additional funding blocks to identify multiple fund types. Also included is a special section to identify the match and match source. Transit agencies need to ensure they provide a copy of their SRTP amendment request and agency board action with the New Project Submittal form. Agencies also are suggested to submit or identify early as possible to RCTC their need to submit a new project into the RTIP. With each RTIP amendment completed over the last year, the level of project details required to be submitted has steadily been increasing. Missing project details (e.g. an environmental doc date) that in the past were considered minor, now are stopping a project from proceeding through the RTIP approval process. Submitting a new project as early as possible enables RCTC staff and the agency staff to review the project and eliminate potential problems from emerging as the project proceeds through the RTIP approval process. iv ersideCounty i ansportation Commission RTIP New Project Submittal Form Roadway Improvement Projects Purpose For project lead agencies (or responsible for project implementation) to complete enabling their project(s) to be included or amended in the Regional Transportation Improvement Program/Federal Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP/FTIP). Project Types The agency's project is required to be in the RTIP/TIP if it meets one or more of the following: (1) The project is on the State Highway System regardless of funding type. (2) The project is federally funded. (3) The project is a regionally significant locally funded project. Or, (4) the local project requires any form of federal approval. Exception Do not complete this form if your project is part a specific Caltrans Local Programs lump sum (e.g. HES), or part of a RCTC "call -for -projects" (e.g. CMAQ, STIP, etc.). Caltrans will provide RCTC the information to submit for their lump sum projects. Information contained in your Commission approved project application is sufficient for RCTC to submit. Steps 1. New Projects: Complete sections A -F (items 1-11) on the following pages. 2. Attach a project map that shows the project location and basic project details. 3. Return this form and project map to RCTC via fax or mail, attention Shirley Medina. 4. New project submissions or project amendments may be submitted any time to RCTC. However, RCTC can only be submitted to SCAG for TIP inclusion when the appropriate amendment cycle occurs. RCTC Fax: (909) 787-7920 Section A: Project Title and Lead Agency Information Date Submitted: 1. Project Lead Agency: 2. Project Title: 3a Project Limits: (State cross streets and distance project covers. If project is segmented, list all segments with applicable cross streets and their distances): 3b Route and PM/KP for All State Highway (Provide route and post mile or kilo post mile "Begin" Projects: and "To" limits) Route PM/KP Begin PM/KP To 4. Section B: Project Description Briefly describe the existing problem and proposed improvements (Note: This section provides a general description of the project. The following section will address existing conditions and the proposed improvements in specific detail that are needed for project modeling purposes). 1 Section C: Existing Conditions versus Proposed Improvements 5 Answer questions as they apply below. The questions below are based on construction/reconstruction scenario that requires the most modeling details. state N/A if the item does not apply. Please do not leave an item blank. (You can that the item you leave blank will be the one that results in a clarification question • ro'ect im •rovement information ou • rovide will be used in the modelin • . rocess. Existing Item Conditions the an IC/bridge For other projects, almost guarantee from SCAG.) The Proposed Im •rovement 5a Lanes and Turn Lanes Improvements Within Project Limits How many lanes each way in the project area limits (e.g. on the IC, bridge, or roadway) How many lanes total within the project limits? How many dedicated left turn lanes each way within the project limits? How many dedicated total left turn lanes within project the limits? How many dedicated right turn lanes each way within project limits? How many total dedicated right turn lanes are there within the project limits? 5b The Number of Lanes Before and After Project How many lanes are there each way before and after the project limits? How many total lanes are there before and after the project limits? 5c Ramp Lanes and Ramp Turn Lanes List existing ramp lanes, turn lanes, and proposed improvements in the format below for all ramps AND state if an HOV lane is planned for any of the on ramps as part of the project. Example - NB Off: Existing - 2 lanes, 1 left and 1 right turn lane — Improvements: Widen ramp to add one additional lane (3 total) and 1 additional left turn lane. Length of ramp widening is approximately 1000 feet. Ramp 1 Ramp 2 Ramp 3 Ramp 4 Is there a dedicated right -through lane planned as part of the project (yes or no) If Yes, state distance of the through lane an if it becomes a permanent lane on the cross street 5d Auxiliary Lanes Will an auxiliary lane be included (yes or no) If Yes, what is the distance of the auxiliary lane and where will it end? 2 Section D: Project Completion Date and Environmental Document/Date 6 7 8 What is the Estimated Project Completion Date: Environmental Document Type: Select one of the following: CE: Categorically Exempt DCE: Draft Categorically Exempt DEIR: Draft Environmental Impact Report DEIS: Draft Environmental Impact Statement DND: Draft Negative Declaration Environmental Document Date: (Do not leave this item blank) FEIR: Final Environmental Impact Report FEIS: Final Environmental Impact Statement FONSI: Finding of No Significant Impact ND: Negative Declaration SE: Statutory Exempt Section E: State New Project amounts in Funding (000s of dollars) Information 9a 9b. 9c. Fund Type (Local, CMAQ, STP etc.) Year Eng. Cost R/W Cost Cons. Cost Fund Total 2001/2002 2002/2003 2003/2004 2004/2005 2005/2006 2006/2007 2007/2008 Fund Fund T •e Totals: 2001/2002 2002/2003 2003/2004 2004/2005 2005/2006 2006/2007 2007/2008 Fund Fund T •e Totals: 2001/2002 2002/2003 2003/2004 2004/2005 2005/2006 2006/2007 2007/2008 Fund Totals: 10. Project Totals: Note: If additional funding exists, attach another "page 3" with the stated fund types. 3 11. Section F: Project Point of Contact and Signature Project Point of Contact Name: Title: Telephone: Fax: Email address: Project Authorization for Submission into the RTIP Name: Title Signature: Date: Internal RCTC Staff Review Actions 12. Review by Planning and Programming Department Req Position Initials Date X Staff Analyst Comments: Rail Program Manager Comments: Transit Program Manager Comments: X Programming Program Manager Comments Director of Planning & Programming Comments: Input in the next RTIP: Additional Staff Comments: 4 RTIP New Transit Project Submittal Form Transit Improvement Projects ioersideCounry ransportation Commission Purpose For Transit operators to complete enabling their project(s) to be included in the Regional Transportation Improvement Program/Federal Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP/FTIP). Project Types The transit operator's project is required to be in the RTIP/TIP if it meets one or more of the following: (1) The project is on the State Highway System regardless of funding type. (2) The project is federally funded. (3) The project is a regionally significant locally funded project. Or, (4) the local project requires any form of federal approval. Exception Do not complete this form if your project is part of a RCTC "call -for -projects" (e.g. CMAQ, STIP, etc.). Information contained in your project application is sufficient for RCTC to enter the project into the RTIP. Once the project is approved by the Commission, it will be submitted for inclusion into the RTIP when the next appropriate amendment cycle occurs. Steps 1. New Projects: Complete all sections on the following pages. 2. Return this form and supporting documents to RCTC via fax or mail, attention Shirley Medina. 3. Include with this form the local agency's approved Board action, SRTP amendment request, and funding source documentation (if applicable). Note: New project submissions or project amendments may be submitted any time to RCTC. However, RCTC can only be submitted to SCAG for TIP inclusion when the appropriate amendment cycle occurs. RCTC Fax (909) 787-7920 Section A: Project Title and Transit Lead Agency Information Date Submitted: 1. Project Lead Agency: 2. Project Title: 3a Project Limits/Address: (State cross streets and distance project covers if applicable. location address is required): If project is a facility, the facility's Section B: Project Description 4, Briefly describe the existing problem and proposed improvements (Note: This section provides a general description of the project. The following section will address existing conditions and the proposed improvements in specific detail that are needed for project modeling purposes). 1 Section C: Su • • ort Documentation 5 Include the following with this form: a. Approved local agency Board action (copy of agenda item) b. Copy of SRTP amendment request sent to RCTC c. Funding source documentation (if applicable — e.g. page from Federal Register) 6 Match Requirement a. Do the appropriated funds require a match? b. If yes, what is the match percent required? c. What source of funds will be used as the match? Yes No Section D: Project Completion Date and Environmental Document/Date Note: Many transit projects will not require an environmental document. If not applicable, state N/A for items 7-9 below. If the project requires an environmental document, complete sections 7-9 below. If an environmental document is required, do not submit this form with out sections 7-9 completed. 7 What is the Estimated Project Completion Date: 8 Environmental Document Type: the following: Select one of CE: Categorically Exempt FEIR: Final Environmental Impact Report DCE: Draft Categorically Exempt FEIS: Final Environmental Impact Statement DEIR: Draft Environmental Impact Report FONSI: Finding of No Significant Impact DEIS: Draft Environmental Impact Statement ND: Negative Declaration DND: Draft Negative Declaration SE: Statutory Exempt 9 Environmental Document Date: Section E: New Project Funding n orma ion State amounts in (000s of dollars) 9a. Fund Type (TDA4, TSTA, CMAQ etc.) Year Eng. Cost R/W Cost Cons. Cost Fund Total 2001/2002 2002/2003 2003/2004 2004/2005 2005/2006 2006/2007 2007/2008 Fund Fund T • e Totals: 9b. 2001/2002 2002/2003 2003/2004 2004/2005 2005/2006 2006/2007 2007/2008 _ Fund Totals: 2 9c. 9d. 9e 9f. Fund Type Year Eng. Cost R/W Cost Cons. Cost Fund Total 2001/2002 2002/2003 2003/2004 2004/2005 2005/2006 2006/2007 2007/2008 Fund T •e Fund Totals: 2001/2002 2002/2003 2003/2004 2004/2005 2005/2006 2006/2007 2007/2008 Fund T •e Fund Totals: 2001/2002 2002/2003 2003/2004 2004/2005 2005/2006 2006/2007 2007/2008 Fund T •e Fund Totals: 2001/2002 2002/2003 2003/2004 2004/2005 2005/2006 2006/2007 2007/2008 Fund Totals: 10. Project Totals: 3 11. Section F: Project Point of Contact and Signature Project Point of Contact Name: Title: Telephone: Fax: Email address: Project Authorization for Submission into the RTIP Name: Title Signature: Date: Internal RCTC Staff Review Actions 12. Review by Planning and Programming Department Req Position Initials Date X Staff Analyst Comments: Rail Program Manager Comments: X Transit Program Manager Comments: X Programming Program Manager Comments Director of Planning & Programming Comments: Input in the next RTIP: Additional Staff Comments: 4 AGENDA ITEM 8 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: June 13, 2001 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Cathy Bechtel, Director of Planning and Programming THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: CETAP Update and List of Recommended Internal Corridor Alternatives from the Federal Resource Agencies STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is to seek Commission approval to receive and file the CETAP Update including the list of recommended internal corridor alternatives to carry forward for full environmental documentation from the Federal Resource Agencies as presented on the attached exhibits. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Subsequent to the May 21' Plans and Programs Committee, a number of key discussions were held with the Federal Resource Agencies and our partners regarding CETAP. The following provides a summary of these communications. Internal Corridors: The environmental process is proceeding for the Banning/Beaumont to Temecula Corridor and the Hemet to Corona/Lake Elsinore Corridor. On May 24, 2001 we had a meeting of the Small Working Group which includes managers and line staff from each of the Federal Resource Agencies, State Fish and Game, Caltrans, Supervisors Mullen and Venable, and the members of the Integrated Project Team. We have been working with the Resource Agencies to receive formal concurrence on Purpose and Need, Evaluation Criteria and Alternatives to allow us to move forward on the CETAP environmental documents. At our meeting we did make significant progress on the Purpose and Need Statements for the two internal corridors and received verbal concurrence from each of the Agencies. The following wording was agreed to for the Need Statement for the Hemet to Corona/Lake Elsinore corridor (the statement is similar for the Winchester to Temecula corridor): Given the projected growth and development in Western Riverside County, there will be inadequate access to the regional transportation systems, unacceptable local and regional traffic congestion, and inadequate mobility on existing facilities including regional highways and local arterials, within the study area in the next 20 years. There is a lack of an efficient east -west connection between the Interstate freeways and Hemet to address the projected movement of people and goods across the interior of Western Riverside County. The Resource Agencies are still refining a set of criteria for environmental screening of alternatives. The criteria focuses on natural resources in order to identify the least environmentally damaging alternatives and is being used to assist in the determination of alternatives to carry forward in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS). As you will recall, back in November 2000, the Commission approved seven alternatives to carry forward for full environmental documentation in the CEQA/NEPA process for each of the corridors. The list of recommended alternatives was forwarded to the Federal and State agencies to render their concurrence or non -concurrence with the local recommendations. The Commission was informed that the agencies could approve the recommendations as presented, suggest other alternatives, variations of the alternatives, or elimination of alternatives. We have been working with the Resource Agencies over the last six months to provide them additional requested information to assist them in providing the needed concurrence (aquatic and biological resource information, traffic and demographic data, etc.). In order to streamline the EIR/EIS process we have been encouraging the Resource Agencies to narrow the number of alternatives included in the formal environmental process to those most likely to be found as a least environmentally damaging, practicable alternative. At our meeting on the 24th, we did receive feedback from the Agencies on some of the alternatives they would like us to carry forward for evaluation in the DEIS and some that they would like to see dropped; unfortunately there was not consensus from all of the agencies, including RCTC and the County. The attached exhibits outline the initial set of alternatives that were considered, the recommended set from RCTC and the County (with the understanding that we desired a pared down listing), and the comments from the Resource Agencies on which to carry forward/eliminate. In the interest of the overall project schedule, the consultants have been directed to move forward with field analysis for those alternatives which we are all in agreement. Inter -County Corridors: In April, RCTC and SANBAG jointly sponsored two public meetings to receive comments on the various transportation alternatives being considered for the Moreno Valley -San Bernardino County corridor. We had approximately 65 people attend the meeting in Moreno Valley and 120 at the San Bernardino County Museum. Information was provided at the workshops describing eight possible alternatives. A brochure and fact sheet were distributed describing the Two -County Corridor Study, a presentation was given explaining the study process and the alternatives, and an opportunity to break into discussion groups was provided to allow maximum opportunity for individuals to voice their views and concerns. We received a wide array of comments; many folks were quite vocal about the need to look for solutions other than new roadways while others acknowledged the need for improvements and offered their opinions on alternatives. The Two County Policy Committee will be meeting on June 14 to review the comments and determine a list of alternatives to recommend for inclusion in the EIR/EIS document for this corridor. Unfortunately our work efforts on the Orange County to Riverside County Corridor are moving slowly. We had hoped to have a Bi-County Policy Ad Hoc Committee meeting to receive a report from OCTA on the outcome of their public outreach surveys and to discuss the next steps for work on this corridor, but the meeting date did not work out. There have been many newspaper articles regarding this corridor in the last month and public interest appears to be high. Unfortunately, many of the articles are reporting incorrectly that RCTC has already decided on a preferred alternative through the Santa Ana Mountains. As you know, the decision on a preferred alternative cannot be decided until we forge a partnership with Orange County and work through the required public process to identify the alternatives to be studied in the EIR/EIS process. We will keep you apprized of any movement on this corridor. EXHIBIT 1. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE CETAP BANNING/BEAUMONT TO TEMECULA CORRIDOR Alternative Number and Name Description RCTC Initial Recommendations Rationale Resource Agency Recommendations 1. SR -79/ Scott Rd. Build SR -79 as a freeway from Domenigoni Parkway south to Scott Road with connection to 1-215 via Scott Road. The transit alignment would continue from Scott Road along current SR -79 into Temecula. Carry Forward One of major options to divert through traffic to 1-215 . Avoids most habitat impacts . Eliminate (RCTC staff concur with this recommendation given need to narrow alt ernatives) 2. SR -79/ Clinto n Keith Build SR -79 as a freeway from Domenigoni Parkway south to Clinton Keith Road with connection to 1-215 via Clinton Keith Road. The transit alignment would continue from Clinton Keith Road along current SR -79 into Temecu la. Carry Forward Crosses a possible core reserve area for MSHCP . Clinton Keith Road may still be considered as part of General Plan circulation network . Eliminate (RCTC staff concur with this r ecommendtion given need to narrow alternatives and other alternatives to be considered). 3. SR -79/ Keller Build SR -79 as a freeway from Domenigoni Parkway south to Keller Road with connection to 1-215 via Keller Road. The transit alignment would continue from Keller Road along current SR -79 into Temecula . Eliminate Crosses a possible cor e reserve area for MSHCP. Keller Road may still be considered as part of General Plan circulation network, depending on traffic analysis . Eliminate 4. SR -79/ Date Build SR -79 as a free way from Domenigoni Parkway south to Date Street with connection to 1-15 via Date Street. The transit alignment could be included along Date Street or could continue along cu rrent SR -79 into Temecula. Eliminate However, continue to promote Date St. as an arterial street connecting SR-79/Murrieta Hot Springs Road with 1-15 at a new interchange north of Winchester Rd . Eliminate 5a. Eastern bypass/ Pourroy/79 Build SR -79 as a freeway from Domenigoni Parkway to 1-15, bypassing Temecula to the east via Pourroy Road/Butterfield Stage Road. The transit alignment would continue along current SR -79 into Temecula. For co nnection to 1-15, follow the existing SR -79 alignment (south segment) from Butterfield Stage Road west to 1-15 Carry forward as a limited access expressway, not a freeway Provides moderate traffic relief to 1-15 and SR -79 . The south segment of SR -79 would be difficult to convert to freeway status . Carry forward as a limited access expressway, not a freeway 5b. Eastern bypass/ Pourroy/ Rainbow Same as 5a but for connection to 1-15, a new alignment would proceed south of existing SR -79 along the County proposed extension of Butterfield Stage Road to Anza Road, continuing west on Anza Road to Pala Road (County Route S-16). The alignment then would follow the base of the mountains on the southwest side of the Pechanga Indian Reservation Entertainment Center. It would proceed around the north end of the mountain to Rainbow Canyon Road and continue to the Rainbow Valley Boulevard interchange. Carry forward Would allow San Dieg o -b ound traffic to avoid 1-15 in Murrieta and Temecula . Provides moder ate amount of traffic relief to 1-15 and SR -79 . Carry f orward 6a. Eastern bypass/ Washington/ 79 Build SR -79 as a freeway from Domenigoni Parkway to 1-15, bypassing Temecula to the east via Washington Street to Auld Road to Butterfield Stage Road . For connection to 1-15, follow the existing SR - 79 alignment (south segm ent) from Butterfield Stage Road west to 1-15. The transit alignment would continue along current SR -79 into Temecula . Eliminate Alternative 5a is a more preferable alignment at the north end. Eliminate 6b. Eastern bypass/ Washington/ Rainbow Build SR -79 as a freeway from Domenigoni Parkway to 1-15, bypassing Temecula to the east via Washington Street to Auld Road to Butterfield Stage Road. For co nnection to 1-15, see description under 5b. The transit alignment would continue along current SR -79 into Temecula. Eliminate Alternative 5b is a more preferable alignment at the north end . Eliminate 7a. Domenigoni/ Leo n Extend Domenigoni Parkway west as a freeway from SR -79 to 1-215. The alignment would proceed west from SR -79 / Domenigoni Parkway to Leon Road, continuing south along Leon Road, turning west near Holland Road and connecting to Garboni Road on the south side of Rose Mountain. The transit alignment would co ntinue along current SR -79 into Temecula . Eliminate Alternative 7b, providing a connection to Scott Road, is more direct and can tie into 1-215 at the existing interchange location . Carry F orward (RCTC staff concur given minor additional work required to include this alternative in document) 7b. Dome nigoni/ Scott Follow same alignment as in 7a, but continue south, connecting to Scott Road and then to 1-15. The transit alignment would continue along current SR -79 into Temecula. Carry forward Provides moderate amount of traffic relief to SR -79, and is north of most of the environmentally sensitive areas . Carry forward Transit from Hemet to Temecula 1. Provide rail service or busway within one of the defined highway alignments listed abo ve along the SR -79 right-of-way, connecting to the San Jacinto Branch line, which would provide transit service between Hemet and Riverside. Provide transit stations at least in Temecula/Murrieta, French Valley, Diamond Valley Lake area, and Winchester. Carry forward Assume that transit alignment will continue along SR -79 into Temecula. Carry forward Transit from Hemet to Temecula 2. Provide express bus service between Banning/Beaumont, Hemet/San Jacinto and Temecula/Murrieta Carry forward Assumes express service would run on SR -79, no exclusive transit facility, but would include preferential treatment at intersections . Carry forward Hybrid Alternative The Resource Agencies have requested that we include an alternativ e looking at improvements to existing facilities including 1-215, 1-15, and local arterials. Project limits to be determined w/FHWA. New Carry forward (RCTC staff c oncur with additi on of this alternative) - EXHIBIT 2. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE CETAP HEMET TO CORONA/LAKE ELSINORE CORRIDOR Alternative Number and Name Description RCTC Initial Recommendations Rationale Resource Agency Recommendations 1. Ramona/ Cajalco (a, b, and c) Build Ramona Expressway as a freeway from SR -79 to 1-215 and build Cajalco Road as a freeway from I- 215 to El Sobrante Road . Continue along El S obrante Road north of Lake Mathews and back to Cajalco Road continuing to an interchange at 1-15 . There are three variations in alignments to be considered linking the intersection of La Sierra Ave./EI Sobrante Road with the Cajalco Road/I-15 interchange, as shown in on the map. These will be termed the north, central, and south segments of the Cajalco alignment, or alternatives 1a, 1b, and 1c a. Eliminate b. Carry forward c. Eliminate More circuitous and difficult from an engineering perspective . Alternative 1 provides an important improved connection between 1-15, 1-215, and Hemet/San Jacinto . Also consider adding a connection from this alignment north to the 91 between La Sierra and 1-15 . Not realistic to add lanes across the dam at Lake Mathews . a. Eliminate b. Carry forward c. Eliminate 2. Ramona/ Cajalco/ Mockingbird Cyn. Build Ramona Expressway as a freeway from SR -79 to 1-215 and build Cajalco Road as a freeway from I- 215 to El Sobrante Road. Continue along Mockingbird Canyon Road to Van Buren Boulevard connecting to SR -91. Eliminate Too much of an impact along Mockingbird Canyon Rd. and Van Buren Blvd ., and too difficult to convert into limited access facility in those areas. No Consensus (FWS would like this alternative to remain. Corp and RCTC want to eliminate) 3. Van Buren Upgrade Van Buren Blvd. to a limited access facility from 1-215 to SR -91. Eliminate May be difficult to convert into limited access facility, h owever critical link for March Air Reserve Base. No C onsensus (FWS would like this alternative to r emain . Corp and RCTC want to eliminate) 4a. SR -74/ Ethanac, following SR -74 to 1-15 Realign SR -74 on the west side of 1-215 to connect directly with SR -74 on the east side of 1-215 using the Ethanac Road connection. Continue as a freeway on existing SR -74 to new SR -79 alignment (the SR -79 alignment is being determined as part of a separate study by RCTC and Caltrans). For connection to 1-15, upgrade SR -74 between Ethanac Road and 1-15 along the existing SR -74 alignment. Eliminate Alternative 5, connecting to Domenigoni Parkway, is preferred to Alternative 4, along existing SR -74 . Alt . 4 has too much of an impact along SR -74 east of 1-215, and will be too difficult to convert into limited access facility in those areas. See comments on Alternatives 5a, 5b, 5c, 5d, and 5e regarding options to carry forward for Alternative 5. Eliminate 4b. SR -74/ Ethanac, following northern route to Lake Street at 1-15 Same as 4a but for the conn ection to 1-15 build a new alignment from the Ethanac Road/SR-74 junction to the north of existing SR -74, joining Lake Street at 1-15 . Continue westward across 1-15 to the Cleveland National Forest, where the alignment would potentially link up with a future Riverside County to Orange County alignment . Eliminate See discussion under 4a Eliminate 4c. SR -74/ Ethanac, following Nichols Rd. to 1-15 Same as 4a but for the connection to 1-15, from the Ethanac Road/SR-74 junction, follow SR -74 to the El Toro Cut Off Road and then follow the Nichols Road alignment due west to the Nichols Road/I-15 interchange. Continue westward across 1-15 to the Cleveland National Forest, where the alignment would potentially link up with a future Riverside County to Orange County alignment. Eliminate See discussion under 4a Eliminate 4d. SR -74/ Ethanac, following new alignment south of SR -74 to 1-15 Same as 4a but for the connection to 1-15 build a new alignment to the south of existing SR -74 . The southerly alternative would extend from 1-15 s outh of North Main Street to the Ethanac Road extension near the San Jacinto River crossing. Eliminate See discussion under 4a Eliminate 4e. SR -74/ Ethanac, following new alignment to south of SR -74 to Nichols Rd. to I- 15 Same as 4a but for the connection to 1-15, from Ethanac Road extension near San Jacinto River Crossing, build new alignment south to Riverside Street, continue west on Riverside Street to El Toro Cut Off Road / Nichols Road. Follow Nichols Road alignment west to 1-15 interchange. Continue westward across 1-15 to the Cleveland National Fo rest, where the alignment would potentially link up with a future Rive rside County to Orange County alignment. Eliminate See discussion under 4a Eliminate 5. Domenigoni/ Ethanac/ SR -74 (a, b, c, d, and e) Extend Domenigoni Parkway as a freeway to the northwest, along the San Jacinto Branch Line, to Ethanac Road. Extend Ethanac Road westward and connect to 1-15 using one of the alignments (a, b, c, d, or e) identified in alternative 4 above. a. Connects from Ethanac Road to 1-15 along existing SR -74. a. Carry forward Need to carry forward as an option that minimizes environmental impacts, ev en though it does not serve as a good linkage across 1-15 to any possible future alignment to Orange County. a. Carry Forward b. Eliminate b. Connects from Ethanac Road to a northerly alignment, connecting to Lake Street at 1-15 . c. Connects from Ethanac Rd. to SR -74 to Nichols Rd. d. Connects from Ethanac Rd . to 1-15 via southern alignment e. Connects from Ethanac Rd . to 1-15 via partial southern alignment, crossing SR -74, connecting to Nichols Rd. and an interchange at 1-15 . b. Carry forward c. Carry forward d. Eliminate e. Carry forward Still has environmental impacts, but may be less objectionable than options along existing SR - 74 . Aligns well with possible future connection to Orange County . Has some of the greater environmental impacts of the five options, and does not connect well with possible future alignment to Orange County . Avoids most of impacts to existing development along SR - 74 and aligns well with possible future connection to Orange County . Still has environmental impacts . (RCTC staff concur given other alternatives to be considered) c. Carry forward d. Eliminate e. Carry forward 6. Domenigoni /Newport/ RR Canyon Rd. (a and b) Extend Domenigoni Parkway as a freeway from SR -79 to 1-15. From Domenigoni Parkway proceed west connecting to Newport Road continuing to Railroad Canyon Road/Goetz Road. For connection to 1-15 two variations exist: a) Follow Railroad Canyon connecting to 1-15 or b) New alignment to the south of Railroad Canyon Road bypassing Canyon Lake area connecting to 1-15. a. Eliminate b. Eliminate Would have significant impact to communities along Newport Road and Railroad Canyon Road . Does not connect well with possible future alignment to Orange County . Would have significant impact to communities along Newport Road . Does not connect well with possible future alignment to Orange County . a. Carry forward (Specific request by Army Corp of Engineers. RCTC staff concur) b. Carry Forward (Sp ecific request by Army Corp of Engineers . RCTC staff concur) Rail or bus service along one of above alignments Provide rail or bus service within one of the defined highway alignments listed above, connecting to no rth- south transit routes at 1-15, 1-215, and SR -79. Major transit stops would be located at those junctions, plus the cities of Hemet, San Jacinto, and Perris, as appropriate for the alignment. Carry forward Assumed to be on all alignments recommended for carrying forward . Carry forward Transit service along San Jacinto Branch Line Implement commuter rail service on the existing San Jacinto Branch Line to downtown Riverside and provide stations at San Jacinto, Hemet, Winchester, a location east of Perris, Perris, and March ARB. Carry forward Should include evaluation of transit options other than commuter rail as well . Carry forward Hybrid Alternatives The Resource Agencies have recommended three hybrid alternatives that are variations of the proposed alternatives combines with improvements to existing facilities, such as 1-215, Van Buren and La Sierra Ave. New No Consensus (RCTC disagrees with alternatives to Van Buren and La Sierra as they are infeasible).