HomeMy Public PortalAbout10 October 29, 2001 Plans and ProgramsRIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION C
PLANS AND PROGRAMS COMMIT
MEETING AGENDA
TIME: 12:00 NOON
DATE: Monday, October 29, 2001
RECORDS
LOCATION: Riverside County Transportation Commission Office
3560 University Avenue, Conference Room A
Riverside, CA 92501
O57:10
• • • COMMITTEE MEMBERS • • •
Percy L. Byrd/Robert Bernheimer, City of Indian Wells, Chairman
Gregory V. Schook/John Chlebnik, City of Calimesa Vice Chair
Robert Crain/Gary Grimm, City of Blythe
Alfred "Bill" Trembly/Jack Wamsley, City of Canyon Lake
Janice L. Rudman/Jeff Miller, City of Corona
Greg Ruppert/Matt Weyuker, City of Desert Hal. springs
Robin ReeserLowe/Lori Van Arsdale, City of Hemet
Jack van Haaster/W .. iie Enochs, City of Murrieta
Frank I-Iali/Harvey Sullivan, City of Norco
Lick Kelly/Robert Spiegel, City of Palm Desert
Daryl Busch/Mark Yarbrough, City of Perris
Bob Buster, County of Riverside, District 1
Roy Wilson, County of Riverside, District IV
Tom Mullen, County of Riverside, District V
••• STAFF •••
Eric Haley, Executive Director
Cathy Bechtel, Director, Planning and Programming
• • • AREAS OF RESPONSIBILITY • • •
State Transportation Improvement Program
Regional Transportation Improvement Program
New Corridors
Intermodal Programs (Transit, Rail, Rideshare)
Air Quality and Clean Fuels
Regional Agencies, Regional Planning
Intelligent Transportation System Planning and Programs
Congestion Management Program
The Committee welcomes comments. If you wish to provide comments to the
Committee, please complete and submit a Testimony Card to the Clerk of the Board.
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION
•
•
•
PLANS AND PROGRAMS COMMITTEE
http://www.rctc.org
MEETING LOCATION
3560 UNIVERSITY AVENUE, SUITE 100, RIVERSIDE 92501
CONFERENCE ROOM A
PARKING IS A VAILABLE IN THE PARKING GARAGE
ACROSS FROM THE POST OFFICE ON ORANGE STREET
MONDAY, OCTOBER 29, 2001
12:00 NOON
AGENDA*
* Action may be taken on any items listed on the agenda.
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. ROLL CALL
3. PUBLIC COMMENTS
4. MINUTES (SEPTEMBER 24, 2001)
5. 2002 STATE TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
DISCRETIONARY FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS
Pg.
This item is to seek Committee approval to:
TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION:
1) Approve projects with a score of 35 and above
totaling $21 million of 2002 STIP Discretionary funds
with an additional local agency match of 25.5%; and
Plans and Programs Committee
October 29, 2001
Page 2
2) Forward to the Commission for final approval.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
OPTION A:
1) Approve projects with a score of 31 and above for
2002 STIP Discretionary funds utilizing "4th year"
funding option to increase available programming
capacity from $21 million to $41 million with an
additional local agency match of 20%; and
2) Approve $3.889 million of 2002 STIP Discretionary
funds for the SR 91 /Green River Road Interchange
project to provide a local contribution toward
Interregional Transportation Improvement Program
(ITIP) funds; and
3) Forward to the Commission for final approval.
OPTION B:
1) Approve projects with a score of 31 and above for
2002 STIP Discretionary funds utilizing "4th year"
funding option to increase available programming
capacity from $21 million to $41 million with an
additional local agency match of 11.8%;
2) Approve $3.889 million of 2002 STIP Western County
Formula funds for the SR91/Green River Interchange
project to provide a local contribution toward
Interregional Transportation Improvement Program
(ITIP) funds;
3) Approve a reduction of $3.889 million of pre -
committed 2002 STIP Western County Formula funds
from the SR 91 HOV project from Mary Street to
Seventh Street; and forward to the Commission for
final approval.
•
•
•
•
Plans and Programs Committee
October 29, 2001
Page 3
6. 2002 STIP FORMULA FUNDS — PALO VERDE VALLEY
Pg. 26
This item is to seek Committee approval to:
1) Approve 2002 STIP Formula funds for the Palo Verde
Valley in the amount of $810,036 for the Defrain
Boulevard resurfacing project; and
2) Forward to the Commission for final approval.
7 RESOLUTION #02-006 AUTHORIZING AN AGREEMENT WITH
THE STATE AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR TO
EXECUTE THE MASTER AGREEMENT, PROGRAM SUPPLEMENTS
FOR STATE FUNDS AVAILABLE THROUGH THE STATE
TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (STIP)
Pg. 27
This item is to seek Committee approval to:
1) Approve Resolution #02-006 authorizing the Executive
Director to execute the Master Agreement and
Program Supplements for STIP funds identified as
state -only that are available to the Riverside County
Transportation Commission; and
2) Forward to the Commission for final approval.
8. REQUEST TO CHANGE THE SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN
PROVESS AND FORMAT Pg. 29
This item is to seek Committee approval to:
1) Change the Short Range Transit Plan format and
process; and
2) Forward to the Commission for final action.
Plans and Programs Committee
October 29, 2001
Page 4
9. REQUEST TO AMEND SUNLINE'S SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN
AND ALLOCATION OF MEASURE A SPECIALIZED TRANSIT
FUNDS Pg, 43
This item is to seek Committee approval to:
1) Amend SunLine's Short Range Transit Plan;
2) Allocate $30,380 in Measure A Funds to cover the
cost of equipment modifications; and
3) Forward to the Commission for final action.
10. REQUEST FOR MEASURE A SPECIALIZED TRANSIT FUNDS AS
MATCH FOR FY 00/01 SECTION 5310 PROGRAM — CARE -A -
VAN TRANSIT INC. Pg. 44
This item is to seek Committee approval to:
1) Allocate $8,088 in Measure A Specialized Transit
Funds to Care -A -Van Transit, Inc., to provide the
required local match for the purchase of a seven
passenger van; and
2) Forward to the Commission for final action.
11. REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL (RFP) FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
TO PROVIDE CONSULTANT SERVICES TO SUPPORT THE RAIL
PROGRAM Pg, 45
This item is to seek Committee approval to:
1) Authorize the release of a Professional Services RFP to
provide consultant services to support the Rail
Program;
2) Form a selection/evaluation committee, comprised of
two Commissioners from the Plans and Programs
Committee, representatives from SCRRA, SANBAG
•
•
s
•
•
Plans and Programs Committee
October 29, 2001
Page 5
and RCTC staff, to review, evaluate, and rank all RFP's
received; interview short listed consultants; and
recommend a consultant; and
3) Forward to the Commission for final approval.
12. LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE SERVICES — REQUEST FOR
PROPOSAL Pg. 47
This item is to seek Committee approval to:
1) Authorize staff to release an RFP for Landscape
Maintenance Services at the four Metrolink Stations in
Riverside County and the Office Building located at
1746 Spruce Street, Riverside, which RCTC currently
owns;
2) Appoint two Commissioners from the Plans and
Programs Committee to sit on the selection panel; and
3) Forward to the Commission for final approval.
13. RAIL PROGRAM UPDATE Pg. 61
This item is to seek Committee approval to:
1) Receive and file the Rail Program Update as an
information item; and
2) Forward to the Commission for final action.
14. ADJOURNMENT - The next Plans and Programs Committee
meeting will be at noon, Monday, November 26, 2001 at the
RCTC offices.
•
•
MINUTES
•
•
•
•
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION
PLANS AND PROGRAMS COMMITTEE
Monday, August 27, 2001
MINUTES
1. CALL TO ORDER
The meeting of the Plans and Programs Committee was called to order by
Chairman Percy Byrd at 12:02 p.m., at the offices of the Riverside County
Transportation Commission, 3560 University Avenue, Suite 100, Riverside,
California, 92501.
2. ROLL CALL
Members/Alternates Present Members Absent
Daryl Busch
Bob Buster
Percy Byrd
Frank Hall
Richard Kelly
Robin Lowe
Janice Rudman
Greg Ruppert
Alfred W. Trembly
Jack van Haaster
Roy Wilson
3. PUBLIC COMMENTS
Robert Crain
Tom Mullen
Gregory Schook
There were no requests from the public to speak.
Eric Haley, Executive Director, reminded Commissioners who were members
of the Sales Tax Ad Hoc Committee that the next meeting will be at 9:00
a.m., on Friday, September 7, 2001, at the RCTC offices.
4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES — June 25, 2001
M/S/C (Wilson/Byrd) to approve the June 25, 2001 minutes as
submitted.
Plans and Programs Committee Minutes
August 27, 2001
Page 2
5. CETAP UPDATE: ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTS AND CORRIDOR
ALTERNATIVES; PUBLIC SCOPING MEETINGS
Cathy Bechtel, Director of Planning and Programming, presented the CETAP
update. She reviewed the list of alternatives the Commission recommended
in November 2000 and the additional alternatives being required for analysis
that resulted from the July 18th Small Working Group meeting with the
Federal Resource Agencies. She indicated greater costs will be incurred due
to the greater number of alternatives to be studied. This list will be
presented at the public scoping meetings held this evening and on
Wednesday, August 29, 2001.
Commissioner Bob Buster stated he supports improving existing routes due
to less environmental impacts and greater transportation benefits for the
cost.
Commissioner Robin Lowe explained how the alternatives previously
removed by the Commission were returned to the list to be studied by the
resource agencies.
Commissioner Jack van Haaster asked if the Commission was required to
accept the resource agencies' modifications to the list. Cathy Bechtel
indicated that in order to obtain a record of decision from the Federal
Highway Administration, which must be reviewed and concurred on by the
Federal Resource Agencies, the NEPA 404 Integration Process needs to be
followed.
Chairman Percy Byrd asked how this affects the completion of the projects
with regards to budget and timeframe. Cathy Bechtel noted that all agencies
are very aware of the timeline and the need to complete this part of the
process by next year. She will bring back to the committee the specific
additional cost for the environmental portion of the project.
Commissioner Al Trembly stated his opposition to alternatives 5a, 5b, 6a,
and 6b for the Hemet to Corona/Lake Elsinore Corridor.
Cathy Bechtel indicated staff is moving forward to reach an agreement with
the resource agencies on evaluation criteria at the next Small Working Group
meeting which may eliminate some alternatives prior to full analysis.
Commissioner Jack van Haaster recommended that a differentiation be made
between the Commission's recommended alternatives and the alternatives
being required for study by the resource agencies at the public scoping
meetings.
Plans and Programs Committee Minutes
August 27, 2001
Page 3
•
•
Commissioner Lowe indicated that she supported Commissioner van
Haaster's recommendation.
Cathy Bechtel clarified that all of the alternatives resulting from the July 18`h
meeting with the resource agencies will be studied, however, the Committee
could reaffirm the action taken by the Commission in November 2000.
M/S/C (van Haaster/Kelly) to:
1. Reaffirm the November 2000 list of alternatives to carry
forward into the environmental documents while acknowledging
the additional alternatives being required for analysis by the
Resource Agencies; and,
2. Forward this item to the Commission for final action.
6. CALIFORNIA PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION (CPUC) GRADE SEPARATION
FUND FOR RIVERSIDE COUNTY
Stephanie Wiggins, Program Manager, reviewed the California Public Utilities
Commission (CPUC) Grade Separation Fund for crossings along the Alameda
Corridor East. Current statute requires that $15 million be included in each
annual state budget for grade crossing separation projects under the CPUC
program. State participation per project is limited to $5 million or 80% of
the project cost, whichever is less. There is also a matching requirement of
10% from the local jurisdiction and 10% from the railroad. This provides an
opportunity to support local jurisdiction in applying for limited funds by
funding the 10% local share, contingent upon the availability of funds.
M/S/C (Lowe/Kelly) to approve:
1. Supporting successful CPUC Grade Separation projects that are
included in the RCTC approved ACE Grade Crossing Priority by
funding the 10% local share, if funding sources are available;
and,
2. Forwarding of this item to the Commission for final action.
7 REPROGRAMMING AVAILABLE CONGESTION MITIGATION AND AIR
QUALITY PROGRAM FUNDS
M/S/C (Lowe/van Haaster) to approve:
1. Reprogramming available CMAQ funds to two projects - Moreno
Valley, Signal Installation at Iris Avenue/Indian Street,
Plans and Programs Committee Minutes
August 27, 2001
Page 4
$146,000; and Murrieta, Signal Installation at California Oaks
Road/Hancock Avenue, $82,582; and,
2. Forwarding of this item to the Commission for final action.
8. ANNUAL LOCAL TRANSPORTATION FUND PLANNING ALLOCATIONS TO
CVAG AND WRCOG
M/S/C (Lowe/Ruppert) to approve:
1. Allocating Local Transportation Funds totaling $197,850 to the
Coachella Valley Association of Governments and $362,725 to
the Western Riverside Council of Governments to support
transportation planning programs and functions as identified in
the attached work programs; and,
2. Forwarding of this item to the Commission for final action.
9. CHANGE OCTOBER COMMITTEE MEETING SCHEDULE
•
M/S/C (Lowe/Byrd) to approve moving its October meeting from
Monday, October 22nd to Monday, October 29"'
10. 2002 STATE TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (STIP) FUND •
ESTIMATE
Shirley Medina, Program Manager, reviewed the adopted 2002 STIP Fund
Estimate. The call for projects received 39 projects requesting over $100
million of Regional Improvement Program funds. According to the intra-
county formula, $30.8 million is available for the discretionary pot. The
Commission has already earmarked $9.2 million for other projects leaving
approximately $21.6 million for new projects. The Technical Advisory
Committee will evaluate the projects on October 1.
M/S/C (Ruppert/Lowe) to:
1. Receive and file a report on the adopted 2002 STIP Fund
Estimate; and,
2. Forward this item to the Commission for final action.
11. RIDESHARE WEEK
John Standiford, Public Information Officer, reviewed the invitation for the
annual awards luncheon for area employers that go above and beyond in
providing rideshare services. This year, 14 employers from various cities in
the county will be honored. Commissioners are welcomed to attend.
•
Plans and Programs Committee Minutes
August 27, 2001
Page 5
•
•
•
M/S/C (Lowe/R. Wilson) to:
1. Receive and file the report on Rideshare Week as an information
item; and,
2. Forward this item to the Commission for final action.
12. STATION AD HOC COMMITTEE UPDATE
Eric Haley, Executive Director, presented an update from the Station Ad Hoc
Committee that toured Metrolink stations today discussing expansion,
parking and security needs, and long term maintenance obligations. The
Committee has authorized staff to move forward with discussions to acquire
additional land for parking. Also, discussions about long term maintenance
included scenarios of cost sharing with communities where the stations are
located to pick up 25-50% of the cost beginning as early as 2007.
Commissioner Lowe asked which committee has oversight on the Park and
Ride program. She attended a TDM meeting at SCAG where Caltrans gave a
presentation indicating funding was coming forward for the agencies that
had plans in place. Eric Haley responded that it would either be the
Property Committee or the Plans and Programs Committee that would look at
park and ride issues.
Commissioner Dick Kelly asked the process to follow to explore Park and
Ride opportunities in the Coachella Valley. Marilyn Williams, Director of
Regional Issues and Communications, informed the Committee that the
Western County Park and Ride program is funded by Measure "A" and that
the program is in coordination with Caltrans District 8. Properties are leased
for park and ride purposes.
Eric Haley recommended that Commissioner Kelly meet with Anne Mayer,
Director of Caltrans District 8. Commissioner Robin Lowe offered to take the
issue to the TDM committee at SCAG.
M/S/C (van Haaster/Busch) to receive and file the Station Ad Hoc
Committee update.
13. RAIL PROGRAM UPDATE
M/S/C (van Haaster/Lowe) to:
1. Receive and file the Rail Program Update as an information item;
and,
2. Forward this item to the Commission for final action.
There being no further business for consideration by the Plans and Programs
Committee, the meeting was adjourned at 1:15 p.m. The next meeting will
be at 12:00 p.m., on Monday, September 24, 2001, at the RCTC offices.
•
AGENDA ITEM 5
•
•
•
•
•
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION
DATE:
October 29, 2001
TO:
Plans and Programs Committee
FROM:
Shirley Medina, Program Manager
THROUGH:
Cathy Bechtel, Director of Planning and Programming
SUBJECT:
2002 State Transportation Improvement Program
Funding Recommendations
Discretionary
This item is to seek Committee approval to:
TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION:
1) Approve projects with a score of 35 and above totaling $21 million of
2002 STIP Discretionary funds with an additional local agency match
of 25.5%; and
2) Forward to the Commission for final approval.
STAFF RECOMMENDA TION:
OPTION A:
1) Approve projects with a score of 31 and above for 2002 STIP
Discretionary funds utilizing "4th year" funding option to increase
available programming capacity from $21 million to $41 million with
an additional local agency match of 20%; and
2) Approve $3.889 million of 2002 STIP Discretionary funds for the SR
91 /Green River Road Interchange project to provide a local
contribution toward Interregional Transportation Improvement Program
(ITIP) funds; and
3) Forward to the Commission for final approval.
OPTION B:
1) Approve projects with a score of 31 and above for 2002 STIP
Discretionary funds utilizing "4th year" funding option to increase
available programming capacity from $21 million to $41 million with
an additional local agency match of 11.8%;
2) Approve $3.889 million of 2002 STIP Western County Formula funds
for the SR91/Green River Interchange project to provide a local
contribution toward Interregional Transportation Improvement Program
(ITIP) funds;
000001
3) Approve a reduction of $3.889 million of pre -committed 2002 STIP
Western County Formula funds from the SR 91 HOV project from
Mary Street to Seventh Street; and forward to the Commission for
final approval.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
On June 26, 2001, the Commission released a Call for Projects to program
approximately $25 million of 2002 State Transportation Improvement Program
(STIP)/Regional Improvement Program (RIP) funds made available through the RCTC
Intra-county Formula Discretionary pot. Project applications were due on August
17, 2001. A total of 39 projects were received by the deadline with STIP/RIP
requests totaling $130 million.
Criteria Development
In March 2001, the Commission directed staff to work with the Technical Advisory
Committee (TAC) to further refine the criteria as a result of issues raised from the
2000 STIP Discretionary call for projects process. The TAC began its review of the
criteria in April 2001 and worked on recommended changes for three consecutive
TAC meetings. The TAC's work on the criteria should be commended as each
meeting was three to four hours long and included the creation of a subcommittee
to discuss the more technical aspects of the criteria. The TAC presented to the
Commission its recommended changes to the criteria and process on June 13,
2001 (Attachment A). The Commission approved the TAC's recommended
changes, with the exception of criteria #1, "Emphasis on Measure A", which the
Commission directed to remain as follows: "Projects in the Strategic Plan not
expected to be funded from anticipated revenues".
The focus of the refinements consisted of providing as much objectivity to the
evaluation of projects as possible. At the direction of the Commission, two criteria,
Regional Significance and Safety, were double weighted.
2002 STIP Fund Estimate
Caltrans' development of the STIP Fund Estimate was rather fluid during the period
the Call for Projects was open. The initial county share information was released in
May 2001. The Riverside County share was identified as $147 million. The call for
projects released on June 26, 2001, stated that the funding available for the
Discretionary call for projects was approximately $25 million.
In July 2001, the California Transportation Commission (CTC) and Caltrans
released the Draft 2002 STIP Fund Estimate. The Riverside County share was
identified as dropping to $117 million, which resulted in $18 million available for
the discretionary program. Finally, on August 22, 2001, the CTC/Caltrans released
new funding projections that identified Riverside County's share at $130 million.
The CTC adopted the 2002 STIP Fund Estimate on August 23, 2001. The
following table was presented at the September 10, 2001 Commission meeting.
000002
•
•
•
ADOPTED 2002 STIP
RIVERSIDE COUNTY INTRA-COUNTY FORMULA
2002 STIP Fund Estimate Available for Programming $130,115,000
Less 2% for Planning, Programming, & Monitoring $ 2,602,300
Discretionary: 24.20% $ 629,757
Formula: 75.80% $ 1,972,543
Available for Project Programming $127,512,700
Discretionary: 24.20%
Formula: 75.80%
Formula breakdown:
Western County 72.08%
Coachella Valley 26.91 %
Palo Verde Valley 1.01%
$ 30,858,073
$ 96,654,627
$ 69,668,655
$ 26,009,760
$ 976,212
It was also noted that at the March 2001 Commission meeting, the Commission
committed to fund the following projects from 2002 STIP Discretionary funds:
Newport Road reconstruction, widening
SR 60 HOV lanes, Valley Way to 1-15
Total Committed Funds
$6.000 million
$3.261 million
$9.261 million
The lead agency for the Newport Road project is the County of Riverside. This
project was one of the top ranked projects from the 2000 STIP Discretionary call
for projects. The County of Riverside agreed to program their project with 2002
STIP funding to allow additional projects to be funded from the 2000 STIP
Discretionary round since the funding available was limited to $11.8 million. The
$3.261 million for the SR 60 HOV lanes was a request from Caltrans to provide a
local contribution towards the Governor's Traffic Congestion Relief Program
project, thus matching $9.785million of 2000 ITIP funds and $25 million from the
Governor's program. This project was submitted in the call for projects and was
the number 1 ranked project. RCTC staff also recommended earmarking this
project from the 2002 STIP Discretionary round to allow additional projects to be
funded from the 2000 STIP Discretionary pot.
As a result of the earmarking in March 2001 and the adopted 2002 STIP Fund
Estimate in August 2001, the available funding for the 2002 STIP Discretionary call
for projects is $21,597,073.
000003
"4th year" Funding Programming Option
The 2002 STIP Guidelines and Fund Estimate, adopted on July 11th and August
23`d, respectively, also included, for the first time, language on the option to
program funding that would be available in the 2004 STIP. These funds, referred
to as "4th year", are the 4th year of the current 4 -year county share period that is
not included in the 2002 STIP period (FY 2002/03 — 2006/07). The use of this
option is at the discretion of each county. The CTC intends to provide fiscal
capacity to counties with projects that would be programmed in the 2002 STIP
period rather than waiting two more years for the 2004 STIP cycle.
The CTC has clarified that the "4th year" funds may not be available should all the
counties fully program their 2002 STIP county shares. However, it is anticipated
that some counties may not fully program their 2002 STIP share as counties may
reserve funding for future high cost projects.
The agenda item for the September 10, 2001 Commission meeting included
information on the option of programming "4th year" funds. The item stated that
staff would review the advantages and disadvantages of "4th year" funds and bring
back a recommendation prior to the 2002 STIP submittal in December 2001.
2002 STIP Discretionary Project Evaluations/TAC Recommendation
On October 1, 2001 the TAC convened to evaluate the 39 project applications.
Project applications were sent to the TAC on August 23, 2001 for their review
prior to the evaluations. In addition, one -page summaries for each project were
prepared by RCTC staff to help facilitate the evaluation process by highlighting how
the project met the criteria. The one -page summaries were provided to the TAC
the week prior to the evaluations.
Each project sponsor provided a brief 2 -minute presentation summarizing the
project. Once the results of the scores were distributed, the TAC deliberated for an
hour on how to best distribute the STIP funds. Staff reminded the TAC of the
option to program the "4th year" funds. The TAC discussed this option and a
majority of the TAC members expressed concern over pre -committing funding from
the next STIP funding cycle thereby reducing the amount of funding available from
the 2004 STIP. The TAC recommended that the Commission not program the 4th
year funds. The motion was approved with 20 votes supporting the motion and 5
votes opposing.
The TAC recommended approving 9 projects that scored 35 and above with an
additional local match of 25.5% (Attachment B). Each agency scoring 35 and
above was asked if they felt comfortable with increasing their local match by
25.5% or slightly modifying their project thereby reducing the costs by 25.5% with
the condition that they do not alter the project scope and merit of the project.
000004
•
•
In summary, the evaluation process went well and was a significant improvement
to the previous evaluation. As with previous calls for projects, the criteria will be
reviewed prior to the release of the next call for projects to look for ways to
improve and refine the process.
Interregional Transportation Improvement Program (ITIP)
With the passage of SB 45, the STIP is divided into two programs, Regional
Improvement Program (RIP) and Interregional Transportation Improvement Program
(ITIP). The RIP, programmed by each county, receives 75% of the funding, and the
ITIP, programmed by Caltrans, receives 25%.
The SR 91 /Green River Interchange Improvement project in Riverside County is one
of the top priority projects identified on the Draft District 8 ITIP list. Currently, the
project is under funded by approximately $7.8 million dollars. Recently, Caltrans
requested that RCTC provide a local contribution in the amount of $3.889 million
(50% of the shortfall) to strengthen our local commitment toward approval and
inclusion of this project in the 2002 ITIP. Caltrans is proposing to program the
remaining funds from the 2002 ITIP. The total cost of the project is $19.2 million.
The advantage of programming $3.889 million of 2002 RIP funds would be that
Riverside County would benefit from a fully funded regional project on the most
congested corridor in the county. It would also demonstrate a cooperative
approach with Caltrans on targeting funds on the State highway system.
Further, considerable discussion has taken place with Caltrans regarding additional
investments in the 2002 ITIP for several major highway, transit and rail projects in
Riverside County. It is felt that the Commission's participation on the Green River
Interchange will be helpful in securing ITIP funding for these projects.
RCTC Staff Recommendation for 2002 STIP Discretionary Funds
Given the recent events in the country and state of the economy, staff feels that
future STIP funding levels may be negatively impacted. Therefore, staff is
recommending that Riverside County take a proactive approach in programming
available funding. The 4th year funding, discussed above, is an opportunity to
secure available funding in light of an uncertain economic climate. This
programming option has not been available in previous STIP cycles and has evolved
over the past few months. The 4th year funding is anticipated to be available for
programming and allocation in the 2002 STIP period.
Staff is recommending programming 14 projects that scored 31 and above with an
additional local agency match of 20%. Compared with the TAC's
recommendation, the additional local match required is a modest decrease (from
25.5% to 20%). The TAC's recommendation approves funding at $21.5 million.
Including the 4th year Discretionary funds at $20.2 million, staff's recommendation
approves funding at $41 million.
00000:
As previously discussed, the availability of the 4th year funds will be known after
the STIP submittal deadline of December 14, 2001. The CTC and Caltrans
indicated that programming capacity would be on a "first -come first -serve" basis.
Therefore, staff feels it would be prudent to program projects as soon as possible
from the 2002 STIP Discretionary ranked project list.
Lastly, staff is also recommending programming the SR 91/Green River Interchange
project from either the 2002 STIP Discretionary pot (Attachment C), or Western
County Formula pot (Attachment D). The affect on the Discretionary project list for
projects scoring 31 and above would be an additional local agency match of 20%.
Should the Commission approve funding from the Western County Formula pot, the
additional local match from the Discretionary project list would drop to 11.8%.
In summary, staff's recommendation is as follows:
1) Approve projects scoring 31 and above utilizing the 4th year funding option
to increase available programming capacity from $21 million to $41 million;
2) Approve funding $3.889 million of 2002 STIP Discretionary funds for the SR
91/Green River Interchange and requiring an additional local match of 20%.
Or
Approve funding of $3.889 million of 2002 STIP Western County Formula
funds for the SR 91/Green River Interchange and requiring an additional local
match of 11.8% and reduce the pre -commitment of 2002 STIP Western
County formula funds by $3.889 million from the SR91 HOV project from
Mary Street to Seventh Street.
As a reminder, on January 11, 2000, the Commission approved committing 2002
through 2008 STIP Western County Formula funds on the Measure "A" SR 91
HOV project. The total project cost of the SR 91 HOV project is identified at $170
million.
000006
•
•
•
ATTACHMENT A
•
•
000007
[RIVERSIDE
COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMM/SS/ON
TE:
June 13, 2001
TO:
Riverside County Transportation Commission
FROM:
Plans and Programs Committee
Shirley Medina, Program Manager
THROUGH:
Eric Haley, Executive Director
SUBJECT:
2002 STIP Discretionary CaII for Projects
PLANS AND PROGRAMS AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
This item is for the Commission to:
1) Release a call for projects for 2002 State Transportation Improvement
Program (STIP) Discretionary funding;
2) Approve the revised criteria to be used for the 2002 STIP project
evaluations; and,
3) Retain a consultant to perform air quality analysis.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
•luation Criteria
At the March 2001 Commission meeting, the Commission directed staff and the
Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) to review and refine the project evaluation
criteria used for STIP project funding. This was in response to concerns raised by
Commissioners and local agencies regarding the scoring of projects for the 2000 STIP
Discretionary Call for Projects.
The last three TAC meetings, each lasting three to four hours long, were spent
reviewing the ten criteria to consider those that required quantifiable data, those that
should remain subjective, and clarifications to the evaluation process. Following is the
TAC's recommended changes to the criteria and process:
Process
1. Maintain the TAC as the evaluators of the STIP discretionary projects.
2. Each TAC member will be allowed to vote for their own project.
This will allow each agency to officially support their project(s) or joint
project(s).
•
000008
3. Individual votes of the TAC members will not be recorded.
The TAC felt it was unnecessarily burdensome to record votes.
Recording of votes would require more time in the evaluation process,
which already lasts approximately 10 hours.
4. Point system for scoring will be zero to five.
The point system is being modified from 0 to 3 points to 0 to 5 points to
provide a broader spread of points and reduce the number of projects that
score the same number of points.
5. Agencies will be encouraged to limit their number of projects to 2 or 3. (The
TAC will reconsider this prior to the release of the call for projects.)
Limiting the number of projects will help facilitate the evaluation process
and require project applicants to submit top priority projects when
applying for limited amount of funds. Joint projects will be
allowed/encouraged.
6. Projects will be reviewed by lottery as opposed to alphabetically.
This will provide for an equitable project evaluation order.
Revised Evaluation Criteria
1. Emphasis on Measure "A"
Current Definition:
Projects in the RCTC Strategic Plan not expected to
be funded from anticipated revenues.
Modified Definition: Named projects identified in the Measure "A" ballot.
Modified Definition clarifies projects eligible to receive points under this criteria.
Projects that meet this criteria will receive 5 points.
2. Regional Significance
Current Definition:
Modified Definition:
Projects which are regional, multi jurisdictional,
identified on the CMP network or CTP network in
Western Riverside County and Regional Arterial
Program in the Coachella Valley.
Projects which are regional, multi -jurisdictional,
identified on the CMP network or CETAP network in
Western Riverside County and Regional Arterial
Program in the Coachella Valley, and transit capital.
•
s
•
000000
This change eliminates the CTP network, which is not an officially adopted
network. The four CETAP corridors represent large geographic areas in
Western Riverside County that are recognized as priority corridors.
Scoring of this criteria will be double weighted (e.g. projects receiving a score
of 4 will be multiplied by 2). The definition of regional significance was
recommended to be consistent with how the Coachella Valley Association of
Governments (CVAG) defines regionally significant projects in their TUMF
Program. Therefore, in order for projects to be considered for scoring under this
criteria, the project must first meet four or more of the following to be deemed
regionally significant:
1. At (east 5 miles in length
2. Planned for at least 4 lanes
3. Must cross or share jurisdictional boundaries
4. Must cross a stream, river, or flood/storm channel
5. Connects or crosses Interstate or State Route
6. On city's/county's General Plan, or SRTP for transit projects
Rail projects will automatically qualify as regionally significant.
The second tier of scoring for those projects that are deemed regionally
significant based on the above indicators, will be based on Average Daily Traffic
(ADT) growth on the roadway. Projected ADT will be forecasted for the year
2020 using a transportation computer model approved by the Southern
California Association of Governments (SCAG) as consistent with the SCAG
Regional Mode!. The scoring will be applied as follows:
5 points = over 50,000 ADT
4 points = 40,000 - 49,999
3 points = 30,000 - 39,999
2 points = 20,000 - 29,999
1 point = 10,000 - 19,999
0 point = under 10,000
Rail and transit projects will provide for conversion of passenger trips to ADT.
Transit agencies will review this criteria in applying it to transit projects and
suggest comparable scoring delineations.
000010
3. Economic Development
Current Definition: Projects resulting in retention or expansion of the job
base in Riverside County.
Modified Definition: None.
Projects will be required to provide nexus between the proposed project and its
ability to retain or expand the job base in Riverside County. Suggested
supporting data for this criteria would include the number of current and/or
projected employees the project will directly have an impact on, the description
of current and/or proposed job activity, etc. Scoring will be applied subjectively
based on data provided.
4. Project Readiness
Current Definition:
Projects ready and as close to construction as
possible (e.g. completing engineering and design,
environmental and right of way clearance).
Modified Definition: None.
Scoring will be applied based on completion of required documents that lead to
construction.
5. Air Quality
Current Definition: Projects that will result in improving air quality.
Modified Definition: None.
The TAC is recommending that an air quality consultant analyze the impacts
projects have on air quality (as was done for the previous CMAQ call for
projects). The benefits of having an air quality expert perform the analysis will
provide for consistency and accuracy of the analysis that will determine the
impacts of air quality for each of the projects. The consultant would
incorporate the methodologies approved by the South Coast Air Quality
Management District (SCAQMD) and the California Air Resource Board (CARB).
Most importantly, having a consultant perform the analysis will reduce the
burden on the project applicants.
Scoring will be based on projects that reduce the highest net emissions
reductions. Since STIP funded projects are not required to reduce emissions,
projects that negatively impact air quality will not be penalized by way of loss
•
•
•
00001.1
•
•
of points. Included in the call for projects will be templates provided by the air
quality consultant categorized for project types. The project applicants will be
required to submit required data in order for the air quality analysis to be
performed for the project.
6. Safety
Current Definition: Projects that will improve safety.
Modified Definition: None.
Project applicants will need to clearly identify the safety problem and
demonstrate how the project will mitigate it. In addition, project applicants will
be encouraged to provide as much technical data as possible to support that the
project will in fact improve. A Subcommittee of the TAC was formed to work
on establishing the scoring delineation for this criteria. Due to the importance
of this criteria, it is recommended that it be double weighted (e.g. projects
receiving a score of 4 will be multiplied by 2).
7. Congestion Mitigation
Current Definition: Projects that will result in congestion reduction.
Modified Definition: None.
Project applicants will be required to submit data that will be applied in a
methodology for calculating delay in seconds per vehicle as recommended in the
Highway Capacity Manual. The TAC subcommittee will develop a form that
would outline how project applicants would perform the calculation of delay,
and develop tr•e 0 to 5 point scoring range.
8. Matching Funds
Current Definition: Projects that meet or contribute above the minimum
requirement for local match.
Modified Definition: None.
Project applicants will be required to identify the source of matching funds.
Certification that the match funds have been approved by the council will be
provided by the local agency in the form of a minute action, council or board
resolution, or signature of the agency's staff person authorized to certify the
commitment of local match funds. Scoring of this criteria will range from 0 to
5 points with projects participating in 25% or more of the total project cost
•
004012
receiving 5 points. For joint project submittals, the financial contribution of
each of the agency's will be determined among them. Further, the agency will
be allowed to include in the match the amount of "hard costs/real dollars" spent
on the project including staff time.
9. System Continuity
Original Definition: Projects that provide for system continuity i.e. gap
closures.
Modified Definition: Projects that will complete the continuity an existing
road system or transit service.
Projects must demonstrate how they provide for system continuity and the
importance of the facility as it relates to the operations of the facility, volume
of traffic, congestion relief of the facility and/or parallel facility, and number of
person trips associated with a transit service. Scoring will be subjective based
on the need for the facility based on the above factors.
10. Geographic Balance
Original Definition:
Balancing the number of projects an agency or
subarea would receive funding for within the County.
Project distribution is not necessarily based upon
population equity. This could be applied at the
discretion of the Commission.
Modified Definition: None.
This criteria is iptended to be used at the discretion of the Commission. A map
will be prepared and provided to the TAC, Plans and Programs Committee, and
Commission identifying project locations of the proposed projects.
2002 STIP
The Draft 2002 State Transportation Implementation Plan (STIP) Fund Estimate was
released by the California Transportation Commission (CTC) last month. The Riverside
County share is $ 147 million. Please note that the numbers are only an estimate. The
final Governor's budget could increase or decrease our County share. The Riverside
County STIP inter -county formula is applied as follows:
•
•
•
000013
DRAFT 2002 STIP FUND ESTIMATE
•
2002 STIP Available Funding
$ 147,056,000 1
Less 2% for Planning
2,941 ,000
Discretionary 24.20%
711,722
Formula: 75.80%
2,229,278
Western County 72.08%
1,606,864
Coachella Valley 26.91 %
599,899
Palo Verde Valley 1.01%
22,515
Available for Project
Programming
144,1 15,000
Discretionary 24.20%
34,875,830
Formula: 75.80%
109,239,170
Western County 72.08%
78,739,594
Coachella Valley 26.91 %
29,396,261
Palo Verde Valley 1.01%
1,103,315
n
order to release a call for projects for the discretionary funds and meet the deadline
for submittal to the CTC in December 2001, it will be necessary to issue the call for
projects by June 30, 2001. Releasing the call for projects by the end of June would
allow sufficient time for agencies to prepare and submit project applications to RCTC
on August 17, 2001.
The 2002 STIP Discretionary Project funding available, as noted above, is
534,875,830. At the March 2001 Commission meeting, the Commission approved
an earmark of 59.261 million for the following two projects in order to fund additional
projects in the 2000 STIP Augmentation:
Agency Project Description RIP Funds
1. RCTC On SR 60, from Valley Way to the S 3.261 M
San Bernardino County line, add 2 HOV
lanes and 2 mixed flow lanes.
2. County On Newport Road from Menifee Rd.
to Winchester Rd., construct 4 lane road
and widening.
•
$ 6 M
000014
Therefore, the available funding for the call for projects for 2002 discretionary funds,
based on the Draft 2002 fund estimate is $25,614,830 million.
Projects eligible for STIP funding per the STIP Guidelines may include, but are not
limited to, improving the State highways, local roads, public transit (including buses),
intercity rail, pedestrian and bicycle facilities, grade separations, transportation system
management, transportation demand management, soundwalls, intermodal facilities,
and safety. Non -capital costs for transportation system management or cost-effective
substitute for capital expenditures. Other non -capital projects (e.g. road and transit
maintenance) are not eligible.
Road projects must be identified on the Federal Functional Classification System since
STIP funded projects are anticipated to be funded with federal funds, with the
exception of projects that qualify for state only funding (e.g. projects less than
$750,000). Project Study Reports (PSRs) or equivalent will not be required at the time
of the application submittals. However, the CTC will not program the project in the
2002 STIP unless a completed PSR is included with the programming request.
Upon the Commission's approval of the 2002 STIP Discretionary projects, RCTC staff
will meet with agency's approved for STIP funding and review the STIP programming
requirements. Agencies will be required to complete the requisite project information
(nomination fact and funding sheets along with the PSR or equivalent) and submit to
RCTC. RCTC will formally submit the request for programming projects into the 2002
STIP by the December 15, 2001 deadline. Projects that do not provide the requisite
project information by December 15, will be added to the 2002 STIP through the
amendment process.
•
•
00001.)
•
•
Attachment B: 2002 Discretionary STIP - TAC Funding Recommendation
Total Available 2002 Discr etionary STIP Funds:
To tal 2002 Discretionary STIP Funds Requested:
$21,597,073 Number of Projects TAC Recommend ed Option: Projects Scoring 35 and above
$130,016,600 Submitted: 39 ar e fu nd ed with a 25 .5% reduction of original request
Rank
Lead
Agency
Pr oject Ra nki ng and Description
Pr oject
Title
PALM DESERT
2 RIVERSIDE COUNTY
3 CO RO NA
3 CO RONA
5 PA LM SPRINGS
6 COACHELLA
6 MORENO VALLEY
6 RIVERSIDE COUNTY
6 BEAUMONT
Monterey Ave Widening
Van Buren Blvd Ra ised Median/Bus Turn outs
Corona Advanced Traffic Management Syst em (ATMS)
Magnolia Ave Corridor - Rimpau to 6th St
India n Canyon Dr Widening at Whitewater Wash
Dillon Rd G rade Separa tion Project
Pe rris Blvd Improveme nts - Ramona to Pe rris VSD
Limo nite Ave Widening/Reconstruction
Sixth St M ulti -Modal Wide ning/Rehab - Phase II
Note: Projects listed on the first page are recommended for funding
Agency Appli cati on Req ue st
STIP
Fu nds
R eq
$2,409,200
$1,500,000
$2,256,000
$7,276,500
$2,493,000
$5,168,500
$3,610,000
$3,580,000
$675,000
Total
Agency Age ncy Project
Match Mat ch % C ost
$800,000
$794,000
$752,000
$3,118,500
$831,000
$5,535,000
$1,204,000
$2,055,000
$711,997
25%
35%
25%
30%
25%
52%
25%
36%
51%
$3,209,200
$2,294,000
$3,008,000
$10,395,000
$3,324,000
$10,703,500
$4,814,000
$5,635,000
$1,386,997
43
41
38
38
36
35
35
35
35
25.5%
Additional
Local Match
Funds
Recommend
for Project
•
r'r Riv erside Iffy
Tra nspo rtatio n Commissio n
Print Date: M ond ay, Octob er 22, 2001
$1,794,854
$1,117,500
$1,680,720
$5,420,993
$1,857,285
$3,850,533
$2,689,450
$2,667,100
$502,875
Adjusted
Agency
Match
$1,414,346
$1,176,500
$1,327,280
$4,974,007
$1,466,715
$6,852,967
$2,124,550
$2,967,900
$884,122
56%
49%
56%
52%
56%
36%
56%
47 %
36%
$1,794,854
$2,912,354
$4,593,074
$10,014,067
$11,871,352
$15,721,885
$18,411,335
$21,078,435
$21,581,310
Page 1 of 4
Rank
Project Ranking and Descripti on
Lead Project
Agency Title
10 RIVERSIDE
10 CALTRANS
12 CO ACHELLA
13 MORENO VALLEY
14 MURRIETA
15 MURRIETA
15 TEM ECULA
15 RIVERSIDE
15 PALM SPRINGS
19 RIVERSIDE COUNTY
19 LA QUINTA
19 LA QUINTA
22 RTA
Van Buren Bvd Widening - Jackson to SAR
Rte 79 Segment Widening - Keller to Domenigoni Pkwy
Dillon Rd Wideni ng - Hwy 86 Expressway to 1-10
Reche Vista Dr RealignmenUlnstall Multiple Signals
California Oaks Rd IC Ultimate Impr ov ements
Clinton Keith Rd/I-215 IC Ultimate Improvem ents
I-15/Cherry St S/B Off -Ramp Impr ovement Pr oject
La Sierra Avenue Widening
Gene Autry Trail Improvement Project
Ramona Expressway Missing Link Construction
Fred Waring Drive WEST Phase Improvement Project
Fred Waring EAST Phase Improvement Project
ATIS/ITS at Corona North Main Metrolink Station
Note: Projects listed on the first page are recommended for funding
Ag ency Applicatio n Request
STIP Total
Funds Agency Agency Project
Req Match Match % Cost
$3,928,000 $1,308,000 25% $5,236,000
$1,500,000 13,522,000 90% $15,022,000
$2,400,000 $800,000 .25% $3,200,000
$2,230,000 $743,000 25% $2,973,000
$8,351,000 $2,784,000 25% $11,135,000
$5,700,000 $1,900,000 25% $7,600,000
$750,000 $3,150,000 81% $3,900,000
$2,548,500 $849,500 25 % $3,398,000
$3,000,000 $1,300,000 30 % $4,300,000
$2,500,000 $1,731,000 41% $4,231,000
$2,400,000 $900,000 27% $3,300,000
$2,400,000 $800,000 25% $3,200,000
$100,000 $1,000,000 91% $1,100,000
•
S
c
0
R
E
)iddltlofia
%scal Match
c FririclS i- Adjusted
Reconiniend ° Agency
; .for Projabt t Match
New
Match
STIP
Funds
Running
Total
34
34
33
32
31
30
30
30
30
29
29
29
28
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$5,236,000
15,022,000
$3,200,000
$2,973,000
11,135,000
$7,600,000
$3,900,000
$3,398,000
$4,300,000
$4,231,000
$3,300,000
$3,200,000
$1,100,000
0% $21,581,310
0% $21,581,310
0% $21,581,310
0% $21,581,310
0% $21,581,310
0% $21,581,310
0% $21,581,310
0% $21,581,310
0% $21,581,310
0% $21,581,310
0% $21,581,310
0% $21,581,310
0% $21,581,310
�2of4
•
Rank
Lead
Agency
Pr oject Ranki ng and Descriptio n
Project
Title
22 SUNLINE
22 M URRIETA
25 INDIO
25 BANNING
25 PALM DESERT
28 MURRIETA
29 HEMET
30 CORONA
30 RIVERSIDE COUNTY
30 SUNLINE
33 CORONA
34 HEMET
34 RIVERSIDE COUNTY
SunLin e ITS Deployment Project
Los Alamos Ave IC Ultimate Improv ements
Monroe St Widening - 1-10 to Miles Ave
Wilson St Rehab - Highland Springs Ave to Omar St
Porto la Ave Bridge Over the Whitewater Channel
M urrieta HS Rd at 1-215 N/B Ramps "Bottleneck R elief'
Sanderso n Avenue Widening
State Route 91/Lincoln Ave Interchange
Scott Road Widening/Reconstruction
Zero Emissions Fleet Expansion Projec t
EL Cerrito Rd/I-15 IC M odification Pro ject
Stetson Avenue Realignment
Jefferson/Pa lomar/Washington Streets Re alignment
Note: Projects listed on the first page are recommended for funding
Con
Agency Application Req uest
STIP
Funds
Req
$850,000
$5,707,500
$4,250,000
$410,000
$4,243,300
$1,355,000
$3,024,000
$1,938,800
$4,000,000
$1,200,000
$2,350,000
$1,360,000
$1,050,000
Total
Agency Agency Project
Match Match % Cost
$1,147,000
$1,902,500
$4,250,000
$410,000
$5,000,000
$452,000
$336,000
$646,200
$8,560,000
$4,490,000
$1,190,000
$340,000
$360,000
57%
25%
50%
50 %
54%
25 %
10%
25%
68%
79%
34 %
20%
26%
$1,997,000
$7,610,000
$8,500,000
$820,000
$9,243,300
$1,807,000
$3,360,000
$2,585,000
$12,560,000
$5,690,000
$3,540,000
$1,700,000
$1,410,000
S
c
0
R
E
25 .B% ;:,
Additional
ocal Match
=- Funds Adjusted New
Recom mend Agency Match i
for Project Match %
STIP
Funds
Running
Total
28
28
27
27
27
25
24
23
23
23
21
20
20
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$1,997,000
$7,610,000
$8,500,000
$820,000
$9,243,300
$1,807,000
$3,360,000
$2,585,000
12,560,000
$5,690,000
$3,540,000
$1,700,000
$1,410,000
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
$21,581,310
$21,581,310
$21,581,310
$21,581,310
$21,581,310
$21,581,310
$21,581,310
$21,581,310
$21,581,310
$21,581,310
$21,581,310
$21,581,310
$21,581,310
Page 3 of 4
Ran k
Project Ranking a nd Descripti on
Lead Protect
Agency Title
36 PALM DESERT
37 LAKE ELSINORE
38 LA QUINTA
39 PALM DESERT
Dinah Shore Drive Extension
Casino Dri ve Bridge Widening Proj ect
Eisenhower Driv e Bridge Improvements
Portola Ave Overpass of 1-10
Note: Ps listed on the first page are recommended for funding
Age ncy Application Req uest
STIP Total
Funds Age ncy Age ncy Project
Req M atch Match % Cost
$5,773,600
$2,700,000
$1,797,000
$21,231,700
•
$600,000
$300,000
$843,000
$1,100,000
9% $6,373,600
10 %
32%
5%
$3,000,000
$2,640,000
$22,331,700
25.5%
Additional
.Locai Match
--Funds--
Recommend
for Project
19
18
17
13
$0 $6,373,600 0% $21,581,310
$0 $3,000,000 0% $21,581,310
$0 $2,640,000 0% $21,581,310
$0 22,331,700 0% $21,581,310
4 of 4
•
•
Attachment C: 2002 Discreti onary STIP - 4th Year Funding Opti on with Green River IC
A pplications Summary
Proje cts Submitted: 39
STIP Funds
Requeste d
by Agencies:
$130,016,600
4th Year Opti on Summary
2002 Discretionary STIP Funds:
4th Year STIP Funds Additi on:
Available Discretionary STIP Funds Subtotal
Green River IC Reduction:
Available STIP Funds:
$21,597,073
$20,204,609
$41,801,682
$3,889,000
$37,912,682
Rank
Le ad
Agency
Project Ranking and Description
Project
Title
1 PALM DESERT
2 RIVERSIDE COUNTY
3 CO RONA
3 CORONA
5 PALM SPRINGS
6 COACHELLA
6 M ORENO VALLEY
6 RIVERSIDE COUNTY
6 BEAUMONT
10 RIVERSIDE
10 CALTRANS
12 COACHELLA
13 MORENO VALLEY
14 MURRIETA
Monterey Ave Widening
Van Buren Blvd Raised Median/Bus Turn outs
Corona Advanced Tra ffic Management System (AT MS)
Magnolia Ave Co rridor - Rimpau to 6th St
Indian Canyon Dr Widening at Whitewater Wash
Dillon Rd Grade Separation Project
Perris Blvd Improvements - Ramo na to Perris VSD
Limonite Ave Widening/Reconstruction
Sixth St M ulti -Modal Widening/Rehab - Phase II
Van Buren Bvd Widening - Jackson to SAR
Rte 79 Segme nt Widening - Keller to Dome nigoni Pkwy
Dillon Rd Widening - Hwy 86 Expressway to 1-10
Reche Vista Dr Realignment/Install M ultiple Signals
California Oaks Rd IC Ultimate Improvements
Note: Projects listed on the first page are recommended for funding
4th Year Option: The 4th year option would commit an additional $20,204,609
of STIP funds incr easing the available Discretionary STIP funds to
$41,801,682 . $3,889,000 would be subtracted from this amount and c ommitted
to th e Green River IC Proj ect. This would leave $37,912,682 availabl e to fund
submitt ed 2002 Discretionary STIP projects.
The 4th Year option with the Green River IC commitment enables proj ects
scoring 31 and abo ve to be funded at about 80% of their original request .
Age ncy Application R equ est
Total
STIP Funds Agency Agency Project
R equested Match Match % C ost
$2,409,200
$1,500,000
$2,256,000
$7,276,500
$2,493,000
$5,168,500
$3,610,000
$3,580,000
$675,000
$3,928,000
$1,500,000
$2,400,000
$2,230,000
$8,351,000
$800,000
$794,000
$752,000
$3,118,500
$831,000
$5,535,000
$1,204,000
$2,055,000
$711,997
$1,308,000
13,522,000
$800,000
$743,000
$2,784,000
25%
35%
25%
30%
25%
52%
25%
36%
51%
25 %
90%
25%
25%
25%
$3,209,200
$2,294,000
$3,008,000
$10,395,000
$3,324,000
$10,703,500
$4,814,000
$5,635,000
$1,386,997
$5,236,000
$15,022,000
$3,200,000
$2,973,000
$11,135,000
43
41
38
38
36
35
35
35
35
34
34
33
32
31
20% 4th Yea
Additional
Local Match
— Funds Adjusted
Recomtnend ' Agency
for Project Match
$1,927,358
$1,199,999
$1,804,798
$5,821,193
$1,994,398
$4,134,795
$2,887,996
$2,863,996
$539,999
$3,142,396
$1,199,999
$1,919,998
$1,783,998
40%
$1,281,842
$1,094,002
$1,203,202
$4,573,807
$1,329,602
$6,568,705
$1,926,004
$2,771,004
$846,998
$2,093,604
$13,822,002
$1,280,002
$1,189,002
$6,680,792 $4,454,208
•
RO wr xidr C',. nty
T n .,po ta un n (j,mmis.don
Report Print Date
Mond ay, October 22, 2001
48%
40 %
44%
40%
61%
40 %
49%
61%
40%
92%
40%
40%
40%
$1,927,358
$3,127,356
$4,932,154
$10,753,347
$12,747,744
$16,882,539
$19,770,535
$22,634,532
$23,174,531
$26,316,927
$27,516,926
$29,436,923
$31,220,921
$37,901,713
Page 1 of 3
Rank
Lead
Agency
Project Ranking a nd Descripti on
Project
Title
15 MURRIETA
15 TEMECULA
15 RIVERSIDE
15 PALM SPRINGS
19 RIVERSIDE CO UNTY
19 LA Q UINTA
19 LA QUINTA
22 RTA
22 SUNLINE
22 MURRIETA
25 INDIO
25 BANNING
25 PALM DESERT
28 MURRIETA
29 HEMET
30 CORONA
30 RIVERSIDE COUNTY
30 SUNLINE
33 CORONA
34 HEM ET
Clinton Keith Rd/I-215 IC Ultimate Improvem ents
I-15/Ch erry St S/B Off -Ramp Improvement Project
La Sierra Avenue Widening
Gene Autry Trail Improvement Pr oject
Ramona Expressway Missing Link Constr uction
Fred Waring Drive WEST Phase Impr ovem ent Project
Fred Waring EAST Phase Improvement Project
ATIS/ITS at Corona North Main Metrolink Station
SunLine ITS Deployment Project
Los Alamos Ave IC Ultimate Improvements
M onroe St Widening - 1-10 to Miles Ave
Wilson St Rehab - Highland Springs Ave to Omar St
Portola Ave Bridge Over the Whitewater Cha nnel
Murrieta HS Rd at 1-215 N/B Ramps " Bottleneck Relief'
Sanderson Avenue Widening
State Route 91/Lincoln Ave Interchange
Scott Road Widening/Reco nstructio n
Zero Emissions Fleet Expansion Project
EL CerritoRd/I-15 IC Mo dification Pro ject
Stetso n Av enue Realignment
Note: Pro' cts listed on the first page are recommended for funding
Agency Application Request
STIP Funds Age ncy
Requ ested Match
Total
Agency Project
Match % Cost
$5,700,000 $1,900,000 25% $7,600,000
$750,000 1$3,150,000 81%
$2,548,500
$3,000,000
$2,500,000
$2,400,000
$2,400,000
$100,000
$850,000
$5,707,500
$4,250,000
$410,000
$4,243,300
$1,355,000
$3,024,000
$1,938,800
$4,000,000
$1,200,000
$2,350,000
$1,360,000
•
$849,500
$1,300,000
$1,731,000
$900,000
$800,000
$1,000,000
$1,147,000
$1,902,500
$4,250,000
$410,000
$5,000,000
$452,000
$336,000
$646,200
$8,560,000
$4,490,000
$1,190,000
$340,000
25%
30%
41%
27%
25%
91%
57%
25%
50%
50 %
54%
25%
10%
25%
68%
79%
34%
20%
$3,900,000
$3,398,000
$4,300,000
$4,231,000
$3,300,000
$3,200,000
$1,100,000
$1,997,000
$7,610,000
$8,500,000
$820,000
$9,243,300
$1,807,000
$3,360,000
$2,585,000
$12,560,000
$5,690,000
$3,540,000
$1,700,000
s
c
0
R
E
4th Year Option
e .STIP
ew' Funds
Match ' Running
�o
30
30
30
30
29
29
29
28
28
28
27
27
27
25
24
23
23
23
21
20
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$o
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$7,600,000
$3,900,000
$3,398,000
$4,300,000
$4,231,000
$3,300,000
$3,200,000
$1,100,000
$1,997,000
$7,610,000
$8,500,000
$820,000
$9,243,300
$1,807,000
$3,360,000
$2,585,000
$12,560,000
$5,690,000
$3,540,000
$1,700,000
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100 %
100%
100%
$37,901,713
$37,901,713
$37,901,713
$37,901,713
$37,901,713
$37,901,713
$37,901,713
$37,901,713
$37,901,713
$37,901,713
$37,901,713
$37,901,713
$37,901,713
$37,901,713
$37,901,713
$37,901,713
$37,901,713
$37,901,713
$37,901,713
$37,901,713
Page 2 of 3
•
•
Rank
Project Ranki ng a nd Description
Lead Project
Agency Title
34 RIVERSIDE COUNTY Jefferson/Palomar/Washington Str eets R ealignment
36 PALM DESERT
37 LA KE ELSINORE
38 LA QUINTA
39 PALM DESERT
Dinah Shore Drive Extensi on
Casino Drive Bridge Widening Project
Eisenho wer Drive Bridge Impr ov ements
Portola Ave Overpass of 1-10
Note: Projects listed on the first page are recommended for funding
• •
Agency Applicatio n Req uest
Total
STIP Funds Ag ency Agency Project
Requ ested M atch Match % Cost
$1,050,000 $360,000 26%
$5,773,600 $600,000
$2,700,000
$1,797,000
$21,231,700
$300,000
$843,000
$1,100,000
9%
10%
32%
5%
$1,410,000
$6,373,600
$3,000,000
$2,640,000
$22,331,700
20
19
18
17
13
20%
Additional
Local Match
Funds
Recommend
for Protect
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
4th Year Optio n
Adjusted New
Agency Match
Match %
$1,410,000
$6,373,600
$3,000,000
$2,640,000
$22,331,700
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
STIP
Funds
Running
Tot al
$37,901,713
$37,901,713
$37,901,713
$37,901,713
$37,901,713
Page 3 of 3
•
•
Attachment D: 2002 Discretionary STIP - 4th Year Funding Opti on w/out Green Ri ver IC
Applications Summary
Pro jects Submitted: 39
STIP Funds
Requested
by A ge ncies:
$130,016,600
4th Year Optio n Summary
2002 Discretionary STIP Funds:
4th Year STIP Funds Addition:
A vailable Discretionary STIP Fu nds:
$21,597,073
$20 ,204,609
$41,801,682
Rank
Lead
Agency
Pro ject Ranking and Description
Project
Title
PALM DESERT
2 RIVERSIDE CO UNTY
3 CORONA
3 CO RONA
5 PALM SPRINGS
6 COACHELLA
6 MORENO VALLEY
6 RIVERSIDE COUNTY
6 BEAUM ONT
10 RIVERSIDE
10 CALTRANS
12 COACHELLA
13 MORENO VALLEY
14 M URRIETA
Mo nterey Ave Widening
Van Buren Blvd Raised M edian/Bus Turnouts
Coro na Advanced Traffic Management System (ATMS)
Magnolia Ave Corridor - Rimpau to 6th St
India n Canyon Dr Widening at Whitewater Wash
Dillon Rd Gra de Separatio n Project
Pe rris Blvd Improvements - Ramona to Perris VSD
Limo nite Ave Widening/Reconstruction
Sixth St Multi -Moda l Widening/Rehab - Phase II
Van Buren Bvd Widening - Jackson to SAR
Rte 79 Segme nt Widening - Keller to Do menigo ni Pkwy
Dillo n Rd Widening - Hwy 86 Expressway tot -10
Reche Vista Dr Realignment/Install Multiple Signals
Ca lifornia Oaks Rd IC Ultimate Improvements
Note: Projects listed on the first page are recomme nded for funding
4th Year Funding Option:
The 4th year option would commit an additional $20,204,609 of
STIP funds increasing the available Discretionary STIP funds to
$41,801,682.
Projects scoring 31 and ab ove are recommended f or funding enabling
14 pr ojects to be funded at 88.2% of their requested STIP funds .
Agency Applicati on Request
STIP Funds Agency
Requested Match
$2,409,200
$1,500,000
$2,256,000
$7,276,500
$2,493,000
$5,168,500
$3,610,000
$3,580,000
$675,000
$3,928,000
$1,500,000
$2,400,000
$2,230,000
$8,351,000
$800,000
$794,000
$752,000
$3,118,500
$831,000
$5,535,000
$1,204,000
$2,055,000
$711,997
$1,308,000
13,522,000
$800,000
$743,000
$2,784,000
T otal
Agency Project
Match % Cost
25%
35%
25%
30%
25%
52%
25%
36%
51%
25%
90%
25%
25%
25%
$3,209,200
$2,294,000
$3,008,000
$10,395,000
$3,324,000
$10,703,500
$4,814,000
$5,635,000
$1,386,997
$5,236,000
$15,022,000
$3,200,000
$2,973,000
$11,135,000
•
caD
Riv era e.C„n nr,,
'trnr nsportnllo n C,,mmisslon
R eport Pri nt Date
M onday, Octob er 22, 2001
S
c
0
R
E
11.8%
Additional
Local Match
-- Funds --
Rec ommend
for Protect
4th Year Opti on
Adjust ed
Agency
Match
New
Match
STIP
Funds
Running
T otal
43
41
38
38
36
35
35
35
35
34
34
33
32
31
$2,124,914
$1,323,000
$1,989,792
$6,417,873
$2,198,826
$4,558,617
$3,184,020
$3,157,560
$595,350
$3,464,496
$1,323,000
$2,116,800
$1,966,860
$7,365,582
$1,084,286
$971,000
$1,018,208
$3,977,127
$1,125,174
$6,144,883
$1,629,980
$2,477,440
$791,647
$1,771,504
$13,699,000
$1,083,200
$1,006,140
$3,769,418
34%
42%
34%
38%
34%
57%
34 %
44%
57%
34%
91%
34%
34%
34%
$2,124,914
$3,447,914
$5,437,706
$11,855,579
$14,054,405
$18,613,022
$21,797,042
$24,954,602
$25,549,952
$29,014,448
$30,337,448
$32,454,248
$34,421,108
$41,786,690
Page 1 of 3
Rank
Lead
Agency
Pr oject Ranking and Descriptio n
Project
Title
15 MURRIETA
15 TEMECULA
15 RIVERSIDE
15 PALM SPRINGS
19 RIVERSIDE COUNTY
19 LA QUINTA
19 LA QUINTA
22 RTA
22 SUNLINE
22 M URRIETA
25 INDIO
25 BANNING
25 PALM DESERT
28 MURRIETA
29 HEMET
30 CO RONA
30 RIVERSIDE COUNTY
30 SUNLINE
33 CORONA
34 HEMET
Clinton Keith Rd/I-215 IC Ultimate Improvements
I-15/Cherry St S/B Off -Ramp Improvement Project
La Sierra Avenue Widening
Gene Autry Trail Improvement Project
Ramona Expre ssway Missing Link Construction
Fred Waring Drive WEST Phase Improvement Project
Fred Waring EAST Phase Improvement Pr oject
ATIS/ITS at Corona North Main Metrolink Station
SunLine ITS Deployment Project
Los Alamos Ave IC Ultima te Impro ve ments
Monroe St Widening - 1-10 to Miles Ave
Wilson St Rehab - Highland Springs Ave to Omar St
Portola Ave Bridge Over the Whitewater Channel
Murrieta HS Rd at 1-215 N/B Ramps "Bottleneck Relief"
Sanderson Avenue Widening
State Route 91/Linco ln Ave Interchange
Scott Road Widening/Reconstruction
Zero Emissions Fleet Expansion Project
EL CerritoRd/I-15 IC Modification Project
Stetson Avenue Realignment
Note: Pro'ects listed on the first page are recommended for funding
00
Age ncy Applicati on Request
STIP Funds
Req uested
T otal
Agency Agency Project
Match Match % Cost
$5,700,000 $1,900,000 25% $7,600,000
$750,000 $3,150,000 81% $3,900,000
$2,548,500 $849,500 25% $3,398,000
$3,000,000 $1,300,000 30% $4,300,000
$2,500,000 $1,731,000 41% $4,231,000
$2,400,000 $900,000 27% $3,300,000
$2,400,000 $800,000 25% $3,200,000
$100,000 $1,000,000 91 % $1,100,000
$850,000 $1,147,000 57% $1,997,000
$5,707,500 $1,902,500 25% $7,610,000
$4,250,000 $4,250,000 50% $8,500,000
$410,000 $410,000 50% $820,000
$4,243,300 $5,000,000 54% $9,243,300
$1,355,000 $452,000 25% $1,807,000
$3,024,000 $336,000 10% $3,360,000
$1,938,800 $646,200 25% $2,585,000
$4,000,000 $8,560,000 68% $12,560,000
$1,200,000 $4,490,000 79% $5,690,000
$2,350,000 $1,190,000 34% $3,540,000
$1,360,000 $340,000 20% $1,700,000
•
S
c
0
R
E
" i18
Additional
Local Match
Pundd3 Adjusted
`ite Comniend r`" Agency
for Project Match
100 %
30
30
30
30
29
29
29
28
28
28
27
27
27
25
24
23
23
23
21
20
$0 $7,600,000
$0 $3,900,000
$0 $3,398,000
$0 $4,300,000
$0 $4,231,000
$0 $3,300,000
$0 $3,200,000
$0 $1,100,000
$0 $1,997,000
$0 $7,610,000
$0 $8,500,000
$0 $820,000
$0 $9,243,300
$0 $1,807,000
$0 $3,360,000
$0 $2,585,000
$0 $12,560,000
$0 $5,690,000
$0 $3,540,000
$0 $1,700,000
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100 %
100 %
100 %
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100 %
100%
$41,786,690
$41,786,690
$41,786,690
$41,786,690
$41,786,690
$41,786,690
$41,786,690
$41,786,690
$41,786,690
$41,786,690
$41,786,690
$41,786,690
$41,786,690
$41,786,690
$41,786,690
$41,786,690
$41,786,690
$41,786,690
$41,786,690
$41,786,690
Po2of3
Rank
Pr oject Ranking and Descripti on
Lead Protect
Agency Title
34 RIVERSIDE COUNTY
36 PALM DESERT
37 LAKE ELSINORE
38 LA QUINTA
39 PALM DESERT
Jefferson/Palomar/Washington Streets Realignm ent
Dinah Shore Drive Extension
Casino Drive Bridge Wid ening Project
Eisenhower Drive Bridge Impr ov ements
Portola Ave Overpass of 1-10
O
:V
CJj Note: Projects listed on the first page are recommended for funding
• •
Agen cy Application Request
T otal
STIP Funds Ag ency Age ncy Project
R equested Mat ch Mat ch % C ost
$1,050,000
$5,773,600
$2,700,000
$1,797,000
$21,231,700
$360,000
$600,000
$300,000
$843,000
$1,100,000
26% $1,410,000
9% $6,373,600
1Q% $3,000,000
32% $2,640,000
5%
$22,331,700
S 11 .8%
Additional
C ?" Local Match
- kinds
R Recommend
E for Project
4th Year Option
Adjusted New
Agency Match
Match %
STIP
Funds
Running
Total
20
19
18
17
13
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$1,410,000
$6,373,600
$3,000,000
$2,640,000
$22,331,700
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
$41,786,690
$41,786,690
$41,786,690
$41,786,690
$41,786,690
Page 3 of 3
AGENDA ITEM 6
•
•
•
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION
DATE:
October 29, 2001
TO:
Plans and Programs Committee
FROM:
Shirley Medina, Program Manager
THROUGH:
Cathy Bechtel, Director of Planning and Programming
SUBJECT:
2002 STIP Formula Funds - Palo Verde Valley
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
This item is to seek Committee approval to:
1) Approve 2002 STIP Formula funds for the Palo Verde Valley in the
amount of $810,036 for the Defrain Boulevard resurfacing project;
and
2) Forward to the Commission for final approval.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
The 2002 STIP Formula share for Palo Verde Valley is $976,212. In the 2000
STIP programming cycle, Palo Verde Valley overprogrammed their formula share by
$166,176. Therefore, a reduction has been made to their 2002 Formula leaving
$810,036 available for programming in the 2002 STIP.
The City of Blythe and the County are submitting a resurfacing project on Defrain
Boulevard. Staff will work with city and County to coordinate the requisite project
information (Project Study Report Equivalent and STIP nomination sheets) to submit
to the California Transportation Commission (CTC) and Caltrans by the December
15, 2001 deadline.
000026
•
AGENDA ITEM 7
•
•
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION
DATE:
October 29, 2001
TO:
Plans and Programs Committee
FROM:
Shirley Medina, Program Manager
THROUGH:
Cathy Bechtel, Director of Planning and Programming
SUBJECT:
Resolution #02-006 Authorizing an Agreement with the State
Authorizing the Executive Director to Execute the Master
Agreement, Program Supplements for State Funds Available
Through the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP)
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
This item is to seek Committee approval to:
1) Approve Resolution #02-006 authorizing the Executive Director to
execute the Master Agreement and Program Supplements for STIP
funds identified as state -only that are available to the Riverside County
Transportation Commission; and
2) Forward to the Commission for final approval.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
In order to receive state -only funds programmed in the State Transportation
Improvement Program (STIP), a resolution is required to authorize the Executive
Director to execute a Master Agreement and Program Supplements. This resolution
is similar to a resolution the Commission has in place for receiving federal funds.
Currently, eligible state -only funded projects programmed in the STIP are Rideshare,
and 2% Program, Planning, and Monitoring activities.
000027
RESOLUTION NO. 02-006
•
•
•
A RESOLUTION OF THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
AUTHORIZING AN AGREEMENT WITH THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR FUNDING
FROM THE STATE TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM AND
AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR TO EXECUTE THE MASTER
AGREEMENT, PROGRAM SUPPLEMENTS FOR FUNDS AVAILABLE TO THE
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION.
WHEREAS, the Riverside County Transportation Commission desires to
obtain funds from the State Transportation Improvement Program for use on local
transportation facilities as local administered project(s); and
WHEREAS, the Legislature of the State of California has enacted legislation
by which certain state funds are available for use on local transportation facilities
and the Riverside County Transportation Commission has applied to the California
Transportation Commission and/or as defined in the Local Assistance Program
Guidelines for use on these local transportation facilities as local administered
project(s); and
WHEREAS, as provided by State policy, said project(s) will not receive any
federal funds; and
WHEREAS, the State is required to enter into an agreement with the
Riverside County Transportation Commission to delineate those certain obligations
placed upon the Riverside County Transportation Commission relative to said State
funding and the prosecution of said project(s) by the Riverside County
Transportation Commission.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Riverside County
Transportation Commission as follows:
That the Executive Director is hereby authorized to execute the State Master
Agreement and Program Supplement, and any amendments thereto for this
program supplement and all future program supplements for state only funded
projects.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at the regular meeting of the Riverside
County Transportation Commission this 14th day of November 2001.
ATTEST:
William G. Kleindienst, Chairman
Naty Kopenhaver, Clerk of the Board
000028
•
AGENDA ITEM 8
•
•
•
•
•
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION
DATE:
October 29, 2001
TO:
Plans and Programs Committee
FROM:
Tanya Love, Program Manager
THROUGH:
Cathy Bechtel, Director of Planning and Programming
SUBJECT:
Request to Change the Short Range Transit Plan Process and
Format
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
This item is to seek Committee approval to:
1) Change the Short Range Transit Plan format and process; and
2) Forward to the Commission for final action.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
In cooperation with the eight public transit providers in Riverside County, staff
developed the attached format for the Short Range Transit Plan (SRTP). (See
Attachment 1). Proposed changes consist of the following:
1) To ensure that information submitted by the eight public operators is
consistent, information that should be included in the SRTP has been
identified on the plan document. For example, under the
"INTRODUCTION" section, transit operators will include, as a minimum,
information on: 1) service area, 2) fixed and paratransit services; 3) fare
structure; 4) size and characteristics of fleet, 5) characteristics of
population and 6) facility information. There is also a section for "Other"
information which enables the transit operator to highlight additional
characteristics of their services;
2) Previous SRTPs were submitted as a seven year planning document.
However, only three years of capital purchase information was required
to be included in the Regional Transportation Improvement Plan (RTIP)
database. Information contained in years 4, 5, 6 and 7 of the plan were
projected but not utilized for RTIP purposes. As a result, it is
recommended that the SRTP be changed to a three year planning
document. (Note: Table 4 was designed so that operators making large
capital purchases can project the funds needed in years 4 and 5 but the
over all plan will be for three years). This change is consistent with
Public Utilities Code (PUC) Section 130303;
000029
3) The current SRTP format requires that information be duplicated
throughout the document. Information contained in the tables is also
required in the text. Given the timing of the SRTP process, last minute
changes were not always made throughout the document resulting in
tables and text containing different information. Inconsistent information
requires staff to follow-up with not only the transit operators but
Southern California Associated Governments' staff as well. The proposed
revised format reduces the number of tables and eliminates the need to
provide the same information in the table and text portions of the
document; and
4) Currently, the SRTP is submitted annually. Staff is recommending that
the text portion be up -dated on a biennial basis. Since funding allocations
are made based on information contained in the Tables, they would
continue to be up -dated on an annual basis.
Additionally, it is staff's intent and the transit operators' preference, to have the
majority of the tables developed as an access database so that information
contained in the SRTP can be transferred into other documents such as the
National Transit Database (previously known as Section 15).
To ensure that the proposed changes to the SRTP are consistent with the intent of
the PUC as well as the Triennial Performance Audit requirements, staff requested
that Mary Sue O'Melia review the proposed changes. The Commission may recall
that Ms. O'Melia was the consultant that conducted the last two Triennial
Performance Audits as well as the development of the Productivity Improvement
Program. Recommendations made by Ms. O'Melia were incorporated into the
proposed SRTP format.
•
•
000030
Attachment 1
•
•
Riverside County Transportation Commission
Proposed Contents of Short Range Transit Plan
EACH PLAN SHOULD INCLUDE:
Agency Name
FY 03— FY 05
Short Range Transit Plan
Cover Page
Table of Contents
INTRODUCTION
Describe service area. Include map of service area
Describe fixed and paratransit services
Describe fare structure (what is it, when was the last increase, when will
next increase be proposed {if at all))
Describe population that has the potential to be served
Describe number of vehicles in fleet (include fleet characteristics,
alternative fuels, aging, issues,)
Describe facility/facilities
OTHER
SERVICE CHARACTERISTICS
Current level of service
Number of passengers served by fixed route
Number of passengers served by paratransit
Projected growth over next two years
Equipment: type, number, etc.
OTHER
000031
RIDER CHARACTERISTICS
Rider profile: age, employment/income characteristics, transit
dependency. This information could be provided in a pie chart format and
could be obtained based on fare structure/revenue.
Major destinations: employment centers, etc.
Trip purpose
OTHER
PASSENGER AMENITIES
Describe bus stop amenities (include what improvements are planned)
SERVICE RELATED ISSUES
Service related issues (what is causing service issues?) Is it the need for
improved frequencies, communication/coordination issues, etc? What
steps will be implemented to resolve issues?
OTHER
REGIONAL SERVICES AND ADJACENT TRANSIT SYSTEMS
Describe how your agency interacts to improve coordination and
passenger connections to other service providers
OTHER
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
Describe what steps your agency takes to involve the public in your
agencies' service levels/route coverage
OTHER
KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS
Provide information on performance (ties to quarterly report/productivity
improvement requirements). Provide information in a table format.
Include percentage of increase/decrease. Include audited figure plus
three years.
00003::.
2
•
•
•
Include: Annual boardings for fixed route and paratransit
Cost per Revenue Hour
Farebox Recovery Ratio
Subsidy per Passenger
Subsidy/Passenger Mile
Subsidy/Revenue Hour
Subsidy/Revenue Mile
Passengers/Revenue Hour
Passengers/Revenue Mile
0 THER
NEW SERVICE IMPLEMENTATION AND EVALUATION
Describe new service (if any)
When will it be implemented?
What area will it cover?
Projected ridership
How will your agency evaluate whether performance is adequate
O THER
REGULATORY AND COMPLIANCE REQUIREMENTS
Describe your agency's responsibilities as they relate to:
ADA
Title VI
Alternatively fueled vehicles (RCTC policy)
If using STA funds, provide information that cost per hour will be less
than CPI
0 THER
000033
•
TABLE 1 - FLEET INVENTORY
Agi Name
FY 2003-2005
Short Range Transit Plan
•
Year
Built
Manufacturer
M odel
Seats
Lift-
Equip?
Type
of
Fuel
Own
or
Lease
FR
Vehicle
D AR
Vehicle
Active/
Reserv e/
Rehab *
T otal
Vehicle
Mil es* *
Total
Veh. Sys.
Failures
Year to
Replac e
* A _ Arfivo Q C)"nr..,..-, RAM RA..:.,_ n_L_L
• .�+• � • , ,� ..� a., , vc, Ivll - .
** Use NTD Data fro m prior year
Revise 10/19/01
Table 1 Fleet Inventory.xls
Agency Name
FY 2003 - 2005
Short Range Transit Plan
W
TABLE 2A - FIXED ROUTE TRANSIT SERVICE
Excludes Exempt (New) ser vic e
FY 2001
Audited
FY 2002
Estimated
FY 2003
Planned
FY 2004
Planned
FY 2005
Planned
FLEET CHARACTERISTICS
Peak -Hour Fleet
Spare Vehicles
Spare Ratio
Energy Contingency Reserve
New Expansion Vehicles Delivered
New Replacement Vehicles Delivered
FINANCIAL DATA
Fare Revenue
Operating Cost
Net Operating Cost
OPERA TING CHARACTERISTICS
Revenue Vehicle Miles
Total Vehicles M iles
Revenue Vehicle Hours
Total Vehicle Hours
Linked Passengers
Unlinked Passengers
Full -Time Employee Equivalent
PERFORMANCE CHARACTERISTICS
Revenue/Unlinked Passenger
Cost/Unlinked Passenger
Subsidy/Unlinked Passenger
Cost/Revenue Vehicle Ho ur
Passenger/Re venue Vehicle Hour
Cost/Revenue Vehicle M ile
Passsenger/Revenue Vehicle Mile
Operating Ratio (Fares/Cost)
•
10/19/01
Table 2 Tril'Services
• • •
Agency Name
FY 2003 - 2005
Short Range Transit Plan
O
O
O
CAD
C)
TABLE 2B - ADA-P ARATRANSIT SERVICE
Excl udes Exempt (New)
ser vice
FY 2001
Audited
FY 2002
Estimated
FY 2003
Planned
FY 2004
Planned
FY 2005
Planned
FLEET CHARACTERISTICS
Peak -Hour Fleet
Spare Vehicles
Spare Ratio
Energy Contingency Reserve
New Expansio n Vehicles Delivered
New Replacement Vehicles Delivered
FINA NCIAL DATA
Fare Revenue
O perating Cost
Net Ope ra ting Cost
OPERATING CHARACTERISTICS
Revenue Vehicle Miles
Total Vehicles M iles
Revenue Vehicle Hours
Total Vehicle Hours
Linked Passengers
Unlinked Passengers
Full -Time Employee Equivalent
PERFORMANCE CHARACTERISTICS
Revenue/Unlinked Passenger
Cost/Unlinked Passenger
Subsidy/Unlinked Passenger
Cost/Revenue Vehicle Hour
Passenger/Revenue Vehicle Hour
Cost/Revenue Vehicle Mile
Passsenger/Revenue Vehicle Mile
Operating Ratio (Fares/Cost)
10/19/01
Table 2 Transit Ser vices
CD Agency Name
cD FY 2003 - 2005
O
Short Range Transit Plan
CAD
TABLE 2C - SYSTE M -WIDE TRANSITSERVICE
Excludes Exempt (New) service
FY 2001 FY 2002
Audited Estimated
FY 2003
Planned
FY 2004
Planned
FY 2005
Planned
FLEET CHARACTERISTICS
Peak -Hour Flee t
Spare Vehicles
Spare Ratio
Energy Contingency Reserve
New Expansion Vehicles Delivered
New Replacement Vehicles Delivered
FINANCIAL DATA
Fare Revenue
Operating Cost
Net Operating Cost
OPERA TING CHARACTERISTICS
Revenue Vehicle M iles
To tal Vehicles Miles
Revenue Vehicle Hours
Total Vehicle Hours
Linked Passengers
Unlinked Passengers
Full -Time Employee Equivalent
PERFORMANCE CHARACTERISTICS
Revenue/Unlinked Passenger
Cost/Unlinked Passenger
Subsidy/Unlinked Passenger
Co st/Revenue Vehicle Hour
Passenger/Revenue Vehicle Hour
Cost/Revenue Vehicle M ile
Passsenger/Reve nue Vehicle M ile
Operating Ratio (Fares/Cost)
•
•
10/19/01
Table 2 Trervices
• • 1
O
O
O
W
CO
Agency Name
FY 2003 - 2005
Short Range Transit Plan
TABLE 2D - EXEMPT TRANSITSERVICE
Audited information
required if second year of
servic e
Indicate date new service
started (or will start). Identify
service i .e. route
number/area
FY 2001
Audit ed
FY 2002
Estimated
FY 2003
Planned
FY 2004
Planned
FY 2005
Planned
FLEET CHARACTERISTICS
Peak -Hour Fleet
Spare Vehicles
Spare Ratio
Energy Contingency Reserve
New Expansion Vehicles Delivered
New Replacement Vehicles Delivered
FINANCIAL DATA
Fare Revenue
Operating Cost
Net Operating Cost
OPERATING CHA RACTERISTICS
Re venue Vehicle Miles
Total Vehicles M iles
Re venue Vehicle Hours
Total Vehicle Hours
Linked Passengers
Unlinked Passengers
Full -Time Employee Equivalent
PERFORMANCE CHARACTERISTICS
Revenue/Unlinked Passenger
Cost/Unlinked Passenger
Subsidy/Unlinked Passenger
Cost/Revenue Vehicle Hour
Passenger/Revenue Vehicle Hour
Cost/Revenue Vehicle Mile
Pa sssenger/Revenue Vehicle M ile
Operating Ratio (Fares/Cost)
10/19/01
Table 2 Transit Services
Report Print
Date
10/19/01
03:22 PM
FY 2002/03 - 2004/05 SRTP
Table 4 - Transit Projects
RCTC (Commuter Rail)
_ �" Riverside County
Transportation Commission
Reference Information
Project Description and Yearly Procurement
RTIP ID#: RIVTEST01
Project Status:
In Previous SRTP?
Specific SRTP:
Change Reason:
Existing - Roll Over
2002 SRTP
Cost Increase
Project Description:
Purchase 12 intermediate sized service expansion buses for
the City of ABC to provided service for fixed routes
Project Justification:
ABC currently is responsible for the daily transit
operation and maintenance of a 30,000
population, small UZA Section 5307 fixed route
and dial -a -ride service.
Key Changes since Last SRTP:
Increasing purchase number of transit coaches from 6 to 12
Yearly Procurement Summary:
Fiscal Size
Year Qty (Feet) Pax
Procumement Alt Fuel
Type Fuel Type
02/03
03/04
04/05
05/06
06/07
3
3
0
0
0
25 16 Service Expansion f CNG
25 16 Service Expansion 0 CNG
Total: 6
Fund
Description or
Current
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
Fund Totals
Program RTIP Equivalent
FEDERAL
5307 FTA UZA Formular
FY 01/02
$180
02/03
$90
03/04
$90
04/05
$0
05/06
$0
06/07
$0
02/03-06/07
5180
5309A FTA Fixed Guideway
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
50
5309B FTA New Rail Starts
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
5309C FTA Bus Discretion.
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
50
5310 FTA Elderly/Disabled
50
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
5311 FTA Rural
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
CMAQ CMAQ
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
SO
STIP STP
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
DEMOT21 Tea 21 Demo
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
Other
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
Federal Yearly Totals:
STATE
AB2766 AB2766
5180
$0
590
$0
$90
$0
$0
_$0
$0
$0 ,
$0
$180
SO
$0
$0
SPR _ _ _ St. Plan/Rsrch
STA STA (St. Transit)
$0
$0
_
$0
$0
$0
$0
$40
$20
$20
_
$0
$0
$0
$40 '
ST -CASH State Only Funds
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
Other
$0
$0 •
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0 '
State Yearly Totals:
LOCAL
AGENCY AGENCY
$40
$0
520
$0
520
$0
$0
$0
SO
$0
50
$0
540
SO
CITY CITY
COUNTY CO
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
SO
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
SO i
FARE FARE
LTF TDA4 (TDA Art. 4)
$20
$10
$10
$0
$0
$0
$20
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
SO
Measure A XRIV
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0 .
$0
SO
Other
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0 •
$0
SO
Local Yearly Totals:
520
510
510
50
50
' $0
$20
ProjectTotals:
5240
5120 I $120
so 50
50
00003;
5240
Page 2 of 7
•
TABLE 3 - INDIVIDUAL ROUTE INFORMATI ON
AO Nam e
FY 2003-2005
Short Range Transit Plan
Complete Table 3 for year that
funding is being requested
•
Data Elements
Line 1
Line 2
Line 3
Line 4
Line 5
Line 6
Line 7
Total Fixed
R oute *
T otal
Paratransit'
Total -
System
Wide*
Unlinked Passe nger Trips
Passenger M iles
Total Actual Vehicle Revenue Hours
Total Actual Vehicle Revenue M iles
Total Actual Ve hicle M iles
Total O perating Expenses
Total Passenger Fare Revenue
Net Operating Expenses
Performance Indicators
Operating Cost Per Revenue Hour
Farebox Recovery Ratio
Subsidy Per Passenger
Subsidy Per Passenger M ile
Subsidy Per Hour
Subsidy Per Mile
Passengers Per Revenue Hour
Passengers Per Revenue Mile
'Information EXCLUDES New Service(s) which are EXEMPT for two years
Revise 10/19/01
Table 3 Individual Route Informati on.xls
TABLE 5 — PROGRESS TO IMPLEMENT PRIOR AUDIT
RECOMMENDATIONS
Prior Audit Recommendation
Action(s) Taken And Results (a)
(a) If no action taken, provide schedule for implementation or explanation of why the
recommendation is no longer relevant.
00004 _
•
TABLE 6 - AB 120 ACTION PLAN UPDATE
(Only RTA a nd Sunline need to complete this Table)
•
Actions Specified in last AB 120
Plan Update including Schedule
Actions Taken By Operator
including Implementati on Date
Future Actions Pla nned including
Implementation Date
10/18/01 12:51 PM
AGENDA ITEM 9
•
•
•
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION
DATE:
October 29, 2001
TO:
Plans and Programs Committee
FROM:
Tanya Love, Program Manager
THROUGH:
Cathy Bechtel, Director of Planning and Programming
SUBJECT:
Request to Amend SunLine's Short Range Transit Plan
Allocation of Measure A Specialized Transit Funds
and
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
This item is to seek Committee approval to:
1) Amend SunLine's Short Range Transit Plan;
2) Allocate $30,380 in Measure A Funds to cover the cost of equipment
modifications; and
3) Forward to the Commission for final action.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
SunLine Transit Agency is requesting an amendment to their FY 02 Short Range
Transit Plan to cover the capital costs of modifying four SunLink buses. The cost
of the additional modifications is $30,380 and includes changes required by the
Americans with Disabilities Act. The request for additional funds was approved by
SunLine's Board of Directors on September 26, 2001, and there are sufficient
Measure A funds available in the Coachella Valley to meet this request.
Financial Information
In Fiscal Year Budget: Y Year: 01/02 Amount: $30,380
Source of Funds: Measure A Budget Adjustment:
GLA No.: 224-26-86102
Fiscal Procedures Approved: Date: 10/22/01
000043
•
•
•
AGENDA ITEM 10
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION
DATE:
October 29, 2001
TO:
Plans and Programs Committee
FROM:
Tanya Love, Program Manager
THROUGH:
Cathy Bechtel, Director of Planning and Programming
SUBJECT:
Request for Measure A Specialized Transit Funds as Match for FY
00/01 Section 5310 Program — Care -A -Van Transit, Inc.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
This item is to seek Committee approval to:
1) Allocate $8,088 in Measure A Specialized Transit Funds to Care -A -
Van Transit, Inc., to provide the required local match for the purchase
of a seven passenger van; and
2) Forward to the Commission for final action.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
Care -A -Van Transit Inc. (Care -A -Van) was recently notified by Caltrans that they
were approved for $40,441 in funding under the Federal Transit Administration's
Section 5310 program. Funding was approved to purchase a seven passenger van.
The Section 5310 program provides 80% of the cost of the capital project. Care -
A -Van is requesting that the required 20% match ($8,088) be funded from
Measure A Specialized Transit funds available in western Riverside County.
Measure A Specialized Transit funds are specifically set aside, on an annual basis,
to provide local match to non-profit operators located in western Riverside County
participating in the Section 5310 program. Care -A -Van provides transit assistance
to seniors and disabled clients of the Inland Regional Center. Care -A -Van closely
coordinates their services with the Riverside Transit Agency, Prime of Life and
Valley Resources.
Operating funds are provided by Measure A Specialized Transit funds, Department
of Public Social Services and Community Development Block Grants through the
cities of Hemet and San Jacinto.
Financial Information
In Fiscal Year Budget: Y Year: 01/02 Amount: $8,088
Source of Funds: Measure A Budget Adjustment:
GLA No.: 222-26-86103
Fiscal Procedures Approved:
Date: 10/22/01
000044
AGENDA ITEM 11
•
•
1
•
•
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION
DATE:
October 29, 2001
TO:
Plans and Programs Committee
FROM:
Stephanie Wiggins, Program Manager
THROUGH:
Cathy Bechtel, Director of Planning and Programming
SUBJECT:
Request for Proposal (RFP) for Professional Services to Provide
Consultant Services to Support the Rail Program
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
This item is to seek Committee approval to:
1) Authorize the release of a Professional Services RFP to provide
consultant services to support the Rail Program;
2) Form a selection/evaluation committee, comprised of two
Commissioners from the Plans and Programs Committee,
representatives from SCRRA, SANBAG and RCTC staff, to review,
evaluate, and rank all RFP's received; interview short listed
consultants; and recommend a consultant; and
3) Forward to the Commission for final approval.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
The Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) has funded the
professional services of a rail consultant since the inception of the Rail Program in
1989. The consultant performs specific functions on a continuing basis as
opposed to the completion of a clearly specific scope of work or preparation of a
discrete work product. Key Rail Program issues facing the Commission over the
next five years include:
• Implementation of peak -period service on the Riverside -Fullerton -Los
Angeles Line;
• Re -negotiation of additional train movements on the BNSF San Bernardino
Subdivision which impacts the future growth of IEOC & Riverside -
Fullerton -LA service;
• Parking capacity issues at the Riverside County Metrolink Stations; and
• Capital & Operating Funding for the start-up of commuter service from
Riverside to Perris via the San Jacinto Branch Line.
000045
Accordingly, the successful consultant will be responsible for the following
activities:
• Providing assistance in evaluating commuter rail operating and capital
subsidy calculations as they relate to the Commission;
• Providing assistance in developing recommended priorities for commuter
rail operating (including ridership and passenger revenue estimates) and
capital projects;
• Providing assistance in developing commuter rail operating & capital grant
applications;
• Representing the interest of the Commission in the absence of
Commission staff in commuter rail technical and planning meetings; and
• Providing technical support as identified by the Commission in the area of
commuter rail, intercity rail, high speed rail, and special trains (i.e. Beach
Trains).
The contract will be awarded on the basis of demonstrated competence and on the
professional qualifications necessary for the satisfactory performance of the
services at a fair and reasonable price to RCTC. Such selection shall take into
consideration prior experience of the consultant, understanding of work to be
completed, knowledge of the working environment, and particular skills and
expertise of the consultant proposed for the function. The term of the contract is
for three years with two additional one-year options. The professional services
contract is funded through Western Riverside County -Rail Local Transportation
Funds and is not a low bid contract.
SCHEDULE
The schedule for the selection process is as follows:
CALENDAR OF EVENTS
RCTC Authorizes Request for Proposal
Nov 14, 2001
Advertise Request for Proposal
Nov 1 5, 2001
Proposal Submittal Deadline
Jan 4, 2002
Short List Interviews by Evaluation Cmte
Jan 17, 2002
Plans & Programs Committee
Recommends Selection
Jan 28, 2002
RCTC Approval of Selection
Feb 13, 2002
000046
•
•
•
AGENDA ITEM 12
•
•
•
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION
DATE:
October 29, 2001
TO:
Plans and Programs Committee
FROM:
Claudia Chase, Property Agent
THROUGH:
Hideo Sugita, Deputy Executive Director
SUBJECT:
Landscape Maintenance Services — Request for Proposal
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
This item is to seek Committee approval to:
1) Authorize staff to release an RFP for Landscape Maintenance Services at
the four Metrolink Stations in Riverside County and the Office Building
located at 1746 Spruce Street, Riverside, which RCTC currently owns;
2) Appoint two Commissioners from the Plans and Programs Committee to
sit on the selection panel; and
3) Forward to the Commission for final approval.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
The Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) is the owner of four
Metrolink Stations in Riverside County and an office building located at 1 746 Spruce
Street, Riverside. Complete landscape services have been necessary since 1993 when
the first two Metrolink Stations, the Riverside Downtown Station and the Pedley
Station, were constructed. Consecutively, the RCTC acquired an office building and
completed the construction of the La Sierra and the West Corona Metrolink Stations
in 1995.
Landscape services are an important component in attracting the Metrolink riders as
well as preserving the property investments of the Commission. As part of the
recurring service contracts it is now time to go out for a formal bid. Attached is the
scope of services outlining the required tasks of the successful bidder. The schedule
for the selection process is as follows:
RCTC Authorizes release of RFP:
Deadline for Bid Package Submittal:
Short List Interviews:
Consideration by Plans & Programs:
RCTC Approval of Selection:
Wednesday, November 14, 2001.
Friday, January 4, 2002.
Wednesday, January 16, 2002.
January 28, 2002.
Wednesday February 14, 2002.
00004'7
The Evaluation/Selection Committee will be comprised of two RCTC Commissioners,
a representative from SCRRA, a representative from the Station City Park &
Recreation, and two RCTC Staff. The evaluation criteria will be based on the
qualifications of the vendor, experience with like properties, and cost.
000045
EXHIBIT "A"
•
•
•
SCOPE OF SERVICES
LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE SPECIFICATIONS
The Contractor shall provide at his own risk and cost all labor, materials,
tools, equipment, transportation, hauling, dumping, fertilizers, insecticides,
chemicals and other items needed to do landscape maintenance work as
directed herein.
The Contractor shall provide complete landscape maintenance of the
properties owned and managed by the Riverside County Transportation
Commission, including the Riverside Downtown Station, the La Sierra
Station, the West Corona, the Pedley Station and an Office Building (referred
to as the Annex). The maintenance shall include, but not be limited to
pruning, mowing, shaping and training of trees, shrubs, and ground cover;
removing and controlling weeds. The maintenance shall also include
controlling plant diseases and pests; irrigation material; maintaining and
repairing irrigation systems; removing trash and debris; and other
maintenance required to maintain the work sites in a safe, attractive and
useable condition. The Contractor shall maintain all plant material in good
condition with horticultural accepted standards for growth, color, and
appearance.
A. SCHEDULING OF WORK
1) The Contractor shall accomplish all routine landscape
maintenance required under this contract between the hours of
6:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. Monday through Friday. The Property
Manager may grant, on an individual basis, permission to
perform maintenance at other hours. No maintenance functions
that generate excess noise, which would cause annoyance to
residents of any area, shall be commenced before 8:00 a.m.
The Contractor shall establish a schedule of routine work to be
followed in the performance of this contract. A copy of this
schedule shall be provided to and approved by the Property
Manager prior to the performance of any work required by these
specifications, and any changes in scheduling shall be reported
in writing, to the Property Manager.
000049
2) The Contractor shall conduct the work at all times in a manner,
which will not interfere with pedestrian traffic on adjacent
sidewalks or vehicular traffic on adjacent streets. In addition, a
special notification listing exact starting date for renovation,
pruning and other infrequent operations shall be furnished to the
Property Manager at least five (5) working days in advance of
performing these operations.
B. WORK FORCE
1) The Contractor is expected to improve upon the appearance of
the landscaped areas.
2) The Contractor shall insure that all work is supervised by
Contractor employed supervisory personnel who are technically
qualified and possess management skills.
3) The Contractor shall insure that all work is performed by fully
qualified, experienced personnel, directly employed by the
Contractor.
4) The Contractor shall be responsible for the skills, methods,
appearance and action of Contractor's employees and for all
work done. The Contractor's employees shall be U.S. Citizens
or legal residents.
5) The Contractor shall perform the work provided for in this
contract under the direction of the Property Manager or her
designated representative. The Property Manager or her
representative may make inspections at any time and may
request that the Contractor perform additional work or services
to bring Contractor's performance to the level required by the
agreement.
C. MATERIALS
1) The Contractor shall submit a list to the Property Manager of all
materials that the Contractor proposes to use in the execution
of this work. The list shall include the chemical analysis,
recommended usage and any other pertinent data by the
000030
•
•
•
•
•
•
manufacturer of the material. The Property Agent before use of
any product shall approve such list.
2) The following shall apply to the material indicated:
a. Fertilizers shall be complete, furnishing the required
percentage of nitrogen, phosphoric acid and potash to
keep lawns, trees, shrubs and other plants in a healthy
and vigorous growing condition.
b. Insecticides, fungicides, herbicides and rodenticides shall
be of the best quality obtainable, properly labeled with
guaranteed analysis, and brought to the job site in the
manufacture's original container.
c. Tree stakes, tree ties and guy wires shall be of materials
matching those existing in the work site or as specified
by the Property Manager.
d. Replacement trees, shrubs, ground cover and other plants
shall be of a size, condition and variety specified by the
Property Manager.
e. The Property Manager prior to planting shall approve
replacement plant materials.
ROUTINE MAINTENANCE
All routine maintenance shall be performed to the satisfaction of the Property
Manager. Routine maintenance shall include but not be limited to the
following services.
A. GROUND COVER CARE
1) Edging and detailing
a. Ground cover beds shall be maintained within their
intended bounds, and edged or detailed every two -
(2) weeks.
00005
b. Ground covers shall not be permitted to encroach
into lawns, shrubs, adjacent desirable bare areas,
wall fixtures, furniture, etc. All sites shall be
cleaned following each edging/detailing, including
streets (when applicable).
2) Fertilization
All ground cover beds shall be fertilized using a complete
or approved fertilizer (such as, 16-6-8 Turf Supreme) four
(4) times per year. The rate of application shall be two
(2) pounds of actual nitrogen per 1,000 square feet. The
Property Agent may request proof of application in the
form of empty fertilizer bags at any time.
3) Renovation
All ground cover beds shall be thinned and pruned for the
health of the planting and the appearance of the site, and
at such other times when directed by the Property
Manager.
4) Cultivation or Mulch
All bare soil or open areas shall be either cultivated every
two- (2) weeks or covered by a minimum of two (2)
inches of mulch.
5) Replanting
The Contractor shall be responsible for the complete
removal and replacement of ground cover when
necessary, as determined by the Property Manager.
6) Watering
All ground cover shall be properly irrigated to maintain a
healthy condition as determined by Property Manager.
B. SHRUB CARE
000052
•
•
•
1) All shrubs growing in the work areas shall be pruned as
required, to maintain plants in a healthy growing
condition and to maintain plant growth within reasonable
bounds to prevent encroachment of passageways, walks,
streets, view of signs or in any manner deemed
objectionable by the Property Manager. Dead or
damaged limbs or branches shall be made clean with
sharp pruning tools with no projections or stubs
remaining. Pruning shall be done in a manner to permit
plants to grow naturally in accordance with their normal
growth characteristics except box hedging may be
required on some shrubs, as designated by the Property
Manager. Shear hedging or severe pruning of plants,
unless authorized by the Property Manager, shall not be
permitted. Should the Contractor shear hedge or severely
prune plants and disfigure or damage the plants, the
Contractor shall be responsible to replace those plants
with like kind and size as determined by the Property
Manager.
2) Fertilization
All shrubs shall be fertilized using a complete or approved
fertilizer (such as, 16,6,8) four- (4) time per year. The
rate of application shall be two (2) pounds of actual
nitrogen per 1 ,000 square feet.
3) Watering
All shrubs shall be properly irrigated to maintain a health
condition as determined by the Property Manager.
4) Replanting
The Contractor shall be responsible for the complete
removal and replacement of shrubs lost when necessary,
as determined by the Property Manager.
C. TREE CARE
Note: All trees up to fifteen (15) feet in height are included in routine
maintenance.
000053
1) Pruning
a. All trees within the scope of work shall be maintained to
keep the natural integrity and shapes of the trees. This
work shall be accomplished in a manner, which will
ensure that each individual tree is pruned.
b. Regarding Rail Stations all trees should be pruned clear of
the Rail right-of-way.
c. In addition, the Contractor shall remove or prevent
encroachment where it blocks vision or is considered
undesirable by the Property Manager. Low branches
overhanging sidewalks, shall be removed to a height of
nine (9) feet above grade. Young trees needing pruning,
training, and shaping to develop caliper and a strong
structural framework shall allow low branching laterals
and or appropriate sucker growth to remain on a
continuing basis as needed according to the Property
Manager.
2) Staking, Tying and Guying
All trees requiring staking shall be securely staked at all times
with approved stakes and rubber cinch ties. Robber hoses and
wire will not be permitted. All stakes shall be set perpendicular
to prevailing winds unless designated otherwise by the Property
Manager. Tree stakes shall also be set a consistent distance
away from the trunk of the tree (minimum six (6) inches) to
reduce abrasion and cell elongation. The tops of all tree stakes
shall be removed approximately three (3) inches above the
highest tie to reduce abrasion of main or lateral branches of the
tree.
3) Fertilization
All trees shall be fertilized using a complete or approved
fertilizer a minimum of one (1) time per year.
4) Watering
•
•
•
000051
•
•
•
All trees shall be properly irrigated to maintain a healthy
condition as determined by the Property Manager.
5) Safety Hazard
The Contractor shall bring to the attention of the Property
Manager within twenty-four (24) hours any tree displaying, root
heaving or girdling (either by roots or a foreign material),
leaning, broken or hanging limbs, or any other reason posing a
potential safety hazard.
6) Replanting
The Contractor shall be responsible for the complete removal
and replacement of any and all trees as necessary, as
determined by the Property Manager, including but not limited
to, girdling trees with string trimmers or tree ties, improper
planting of new trees improper pruning techniques which
disfigure or destroy the trees natural integrity and shape, or
failure to detect and prevent treatable diseases and insect
infestations. Replacement shall be made by the Contractor in
the kind and size of trees determined by the Property Manager.
D. WEEDS, DISEASE AND PEST CONTROL
1) Weed Control
All landscape and hardscape areas within the specified scope of
work (including, but not limited to, shrub and ground cover,
planters, tree wells, ornamental bark or rock areas, asphalt or
concrete areas) shall be kept free of weeds at all times. The
complete removal of all weed growth shall be accomplished on
a continuing basis. Weeds shall be controlled by hand and
approved mechanical or chemical methods.
2) Disease and Pest Control
a. The Contractor shall regularly inspect all landscaped areas
for presence of disease, insect or rodent infestation. The
Contractor shall advise the Property Manager within four
(4) days of disease when insect or rodent infestation is
found, and the action to be taken. Upon approval of the
000055
Property Manager, the Contractor shall implement
approved control measures, following all federal, state,
county, and municipal laws, regulations and ordinances
required for the approved work.
b. Approved control measures shall be continued until the
disease, insect or rodent is controlled to the satisfaction
of the Property Manager. The Contractor shall utilize all
safeguards necessary during disease, insect or rodent
control operations to ensure safety of the public and the
employees of the Contractor.
E. IRRIGATION SYSTEM MAINTENANCE
1) General Responsibilities
a. Irrigation shall be done by the use of automatic or
mechanical sprinkler systems where available and
operable; however, failure of the existing irrigation
system to provide full and proper coverage shall not
relieve the Contractor of the responsibility to provide
adequate irrigation with full and proper coverage to all
areas in the work site.
b. Newly planted -trees, shrubs, and ground cover shall
receive special attention until these plants are
established. Adequate water shall be applied to promote
normal healthy growth. Proper berms or basins shall be
maintained during the establishment period.
c. Any damages to public or private property resulting from
excessive irrigation water or irrigation water runoff shall
be charged against the Contractor's payment unless
immediate repairs are made by the Contractor to the
satisfaction of the Property Manager.
2) Operation of Automatic Irrigation Controllers
Where the operation of automatic irrigation controllers is
required, the Contractor shall:
a. Not duplicate any code key furnished for access and
operation of the controller.
00005i�
•
•
•
b. Surrender all keys at the end of the Contract period, or at
any time deemed necessary by the Property Manager.
c. Protect the security of the property by keeping controller
cabinet and building doors locked at all times.
d. Not use premises behind locked areas for storage of
materials, supplies or tools, except as approved by the
Property Manager.
e. Program normal irrigation between the hours of 10:00
p.m. and 4:00 a.m.
3) Water Conservation
The Contractor shall turn off irrigation system during periods of
rainfall and times when suspension of irrigation is desirable to
conserve water while remaining within the guidelines of .good
horticulturally acceptable maintenance practices. When the
Property Manager acknowledges the necessity to turn on the
water once again, all controllers shall be activated within
twenty-four (24) hours. Contractor shall perform all services in
a manner which conserves the use of water whenever possible
to the extent that such conservation does not interfere with the
Contractor's maintenance obligations.
4) Inspection and Reporting
a. The Contractor shall physically inspect (by manual or
semi -automatically running the Controller) the operation
of all systems one (1) time per month. The Contractor
shall maintain all sprinkler systems in such a way as to
guarantee proper coverage and full working capability,
and make whatever adjustments necessary to prevent
excessive overspray/runoff into street right-of-ways or
other areas not intended to receive irrigation
overspray/runoff.
b. A visual inspection of all irrigated areas shall occur, more
often, but not less than one (1) time per week. All areas
receiving marginal coverage shall be irrigated by a
portable irrigation method. The Contractor shall furnish
000057
all hoses, nozzles, sprinklers, etc., necessary to
accomplish this supplementary irrigation. Care shall be
exercised to prevent a waste of water, erosion, and/or
detrimental seepage into existing underground
improvements or structures.
F. GENERAL MAINTENANCE AND CLEAN-UP
1) The Contractor shall collect all clippings, trimmings, cuttings,
rubbish and debris at all work sites and dispose of same in a
lawful manner at the Contractor's expense.
2) All trash and debris shall be removed from all work sites as
work is being performed.
3) The Contractor shall rake, hand remove, or vacuum leaves that
are not absorbed by planting. This shall be done as often as
required to maintain a neat appearance, or prevent plants from
being smothered by seasonal leaf drop.
4) After heavy windstorms, the entire area shall be cleaned of
litter, fallen branches, etc., which are in excess of normal
amounts.
5) The Contractor shall keep sidewalks and paved areas in the
medians swept and cleaned of any dirt or soil that might be
washed from adjacent slopes or planted areas.
D. OTHER REQUIREMENTS
1) Replacement of Plant Material
a. The Contractor shall notify the Property Manager within
four (4) days of the loss of plant material due to any
cause.
b. The Contractor shall remove shrub or ground cover,
which is damaged or lost due to any cause at no cost.
The size and species of replacement shrubs or ground
cover plants shall be consistent with the original
landscape plan. The Property Manager shall approve any
exceptions.
000053
•
•
•
c. In order to ensure maximum healthy growth and overall
aesthetic appearance of planting in the work area, it may
be desirable to replace certain plants. The Property
Manager shall determine the necessity or desirability of
such plant replacement.
d. The Contractor shall replace, at Contractor's own
expense, any ground cover, trees, shrubs, or other plant
material requiring replacement through normal attrition or
due to infestation or to negligence resulting from
Contractor's failure to provide maintenance in accordance
with the provisions of this agreement. It is the intention
of the Property Manager to require a high level of quality
in landscape maintenance compatible with standard
practice.
2) Inspection
The Property Manager or her designee shall inspect the work
area to ensure adequacy of maintenance and that methods of
performing the work are in compliance with the contract.
However, this shall not be construed to relieve the Contractor
of the duty to provide continuous inspection of the work area.
The Contractor shall correct discrepancies and deficiencies in
the work immediately as determined by the Property Manager.
3) Emergency Service
Twenty-four (24) hours per day, seven (7) days per week, the
Contractor shall be able to receive and respond to the Property
Manager or her designee's call for emergency service.
Response time shall be less than two (2) hours to remove or
eliminate a public safety hazard. Contractor shall provide the
Property Manager with a local telephone number where
Contractor can be contacted twenty -our (24) hours per day,
seven (7) days per week.
4) New maintenance Areas
Additional routine maintenance may be required as set forth in
the contract. Payment for add-on maintenance shall be based
on the square footage of added area.
000059
EXTRAORDINARY MAINTENANCE
Extraordinary maintenance may be required pursuant to the terms of
the contract for landscape maintenance services.
000060
•
•
•
AGENDA ITEM 13
•
•
•
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION
DATE:
October 29, 2001
TO:
Plans and Programs Committee
FROM:
Karen Leland, Staff Analyst
Stephanie Wiggins, Program Manager
THROUGH:
Cathy Bechtel, Director of Planning and Programming
SUBJECT:
Rail Program Update
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
This item is to seek Committee approval to:
1) Receive and file the Rail Program Update as an information item; and
2) Forward. to the Commission for final action.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
Riverside Line
Weekday Patronage: Passenger trips on Metrolink's Riverside Line for the month of
September averaged 4,566, a decrease of 2% from the month of August. The Line
has averaged an overall increase of 1 1 % from a year ago, August 2000.
Saturday Patronage: Passenger trips on the Riverside Line Saturday Service
decreased during the month of September to an average of 229 trips per Saturday,
a 21 % decrease from the month of August. The service began June 2000 and
ridership numbers have been below expectations. The target ridership number for
this service is 652. An evaluation of the cost-effectiveness of this service will be
included as a future agenda item.
Inland Empire -Orange County Line (IEOC)
Weekday Patronage: Ridership on Metrolink's Inland Empire -Orange County (IEOC)
Line for the month of September averaged 2,923; a 3% increase from the month
of August. The Line has averaged an overall increase of 12% from a year ago,
September 2000.
000061
Riverside/Fullerton/L.A. Line
Last week we received the fully executed amendment to our interagency
agreement with the Orange County Transportation Authority, which governs the
funding and operation of the IEOC and Riverside/Fullerton/L.A. trains. This latest
amendment provides for a cost -sharing of the new Riverside/Fullerton/L.A. line.
Special Trains
Beach Trains — Over 10,000 tickets were sold during the Beach Train season. The
charter service this season proved to be a successful one. A report and
presentation of the Beach Train will be included as future agenda item.
000064
• •
•
057039
METROLINK PERFORMANCE SUMMARIES
September 2001
II[ 111 METROLINK
•
METROLINK
34,000 AVERAGE WEEKDAY PASSENGER TRIPS 31,712 33,864
31,994
32,000
30,000
28,000
26,000
24,000 -
22,000
20,000
18,000
16,000
31,169
30,190 \\\\\\\
Sep -00
Ocl-00 Nov -00
29,460
32,404
32,226
Dec -00 Jan -01 Feb -01
32,786
M ar -01
32,684
Apr -01 M ay -01
IMMO Holida y Adj — ♦— Unadj Avg
Jun -01
32,682
Jul -01
32,341
Aug -01
32 55
Sep -01
ADR.xIs
100.0%
PERCENT PASSENGERS ON -TIME vs TRAINS ON -TIME *
95.0% -
90.0% -
85.0%
80. 0%
75.0%
70. 0%
65.0%
60.0%
t
Se p '00
li
•
•
t.
Oct Nov Dec Jan '01 Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep '01
• Within 5 -Minutes Of Schedule
Wee kday Service Only
❑ Passenger OTP% ❑ Train OTP% I
•
Oct 00 No v 00
Of Trains Delayed By Responsibility
September 2001
SIG -Contractor
3% TRK-Contr actor
1%
Passenger
3%
Other
2%
OP Agree
3%
Law -E nt
1%
Impr ov (SCRR A)
2%
Includes Wee kend Service
BNSF
36%
V andalism
3%
BMTC-MCH
8%
•
% Of Trains Delayed By Resp onsibility
12 Month Period Ending September 2001
TRK-Con tra ctor
1%
SIG -Contractor
7%
SCRRA
6%
Passenger
2%
Other
5%
OP Agree
2%
Law -Ent
1%
Improv (SCRRA)
1%
Includes Weekend Service
UPRR
25%
BNSF
Vandalism
6%
BMTC-MCH
9%
• •
PERFORMANCE CHARTS - BACK-UP
II 111 M ETROLINK
METROLINK AVERAGE WEEKDAY PASSENGER TRIPS
THIRTEEN MONTH WINDOW - HOLID AY ADJUSTED
,:
ROUTE,
Ventura__;.
County:;:.
:';'!fin#elope
Vall ey:; :
-. San
Bernardino
Burfa nk
:Turns:; . .
Riverside
D,J.,:0000.
County
En) Em L :.:
P
:, OG
Ri fFiil#r::
LA
TQTA
.SYSTEM::
////� { /�
n e.
Vs:Priaor MIo
Sep 00
3,920
4,506
8,867
544
4,100
5,553
2,616
84
30,190
-4%
Oct 00
3,865
4,669
9,103
577
4,297
5,655
2,907
96
31,169
30/
Nov 00
3,697
4,661
9,599
521
4,678
5,894
2,844
100
31,994
3°/
Dec 00
3,365
4,450
8,694
462
4,341
5,362
2,697
89
29,460
-8%
Jan 01
3,736
5,039
9,690
446
4,572
5,968
2,862
91
32,4C4
10°/
Feb 01
3,612
5,170
9,762
437
4,669
5,668
2,817
91
32,226
-1%
Mar 01
3,697
5,215
9,909
427
4,597
5,978
2,866
97
32,786
2°/
Apr 01
3,545
5,421
9,785
420
4,682
5,925
2,804
102
32,684
0°/
May 01
3,702
5,551
10,117
457
4,802
5,999
2,974
110
33,712
3°/
Jun 01
3,493
5,862
10,244
482
4,799
5,896
2,983
105
33,864
0%
Jul 01
3,416
5,489
9,848
456
4,690
5,853
2,838
92
32,682
Aug 01
3,315
5,423
9,679
469
4,638
5,879
2,833
105
32,341
-3%
-1%
Sep 01
3,323
5,463
9,503
435
4,566
5,940
2,923
102
32,255
0°/
% Change
Sep 01 vs Aug 01
0%
1%1
-2%
-7%
-2%
1%
3%
-3%
0%
% Change
• Sep 01 vs Sep 00
-15%
21%
7%
-20%
11%
7%
12%
21%
7%
•
•
•
•
•
•
ADR_MoNew.xis
San Bernardin o Line Sunday Service
Average Daily Passenger Trips
Avg Daily Riders
Sep -00 Oct Nov Dec Jan -01 Feb
Note: Sunday Service Began 06125/00
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
0?
•
O
O
Avg Daily Riders
350(V7--
3000
2500-
2000-
1500
1000 -
Antelope Valley Line Saturday Service
Average Daily Passenger Trips
Sep -00 Oct Nov Dec Jan -01 Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep -01
No te: Sept Inclu des L.A. County Fa ir Riders
/b
Riverside Line Saturday Service
Average Daily Passenger Trips
Sep -00 Oct Nov Dec Jan -01 Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep -01
nin9W1(o nrINPw .ic
METROLINK SCHEDULE ADHERENCE SU MMARY
Perc entage of Trains Arriving Within 5 Min utes of Scheduled Time
LATEST 13 MONTHS
[�'
f'SOute-_> :.
_lfentur. 03.ti . l�
in ' QU .
� . t
A ielope• Vatiey'
,1 ' ,..
:: , . rt .• .;Cktt •:•
t;Sen 8 i nardlna:
•:1;
:• .Ire' ` ,::; Qut.;;
gL laankTtttns
. ... -.
4: In:9..: .-ptit .
.:Riverside i..
t':
.•:�.- .In . :::-::Qu[ •,
Or ge C�1:lnfa
,. Its ; : .: CJt�i:'
d: ,Er*Qi0_
-:8 .0::'
: So ;iota.
...: Riy./.E:'ILA ::.-: . ._
�- tFl. .,.:�: 0u�: ?
Tatat 5 stein
Y
xr}r:�. •:•fl>_ifi
•:<Toial
Sep 00
99%
97%
96%
94 %
98%
99%
99%
99%
88 %
74%
95 %
89 %
92%
96 %
90%
88%
96 % 93%
95
Oct00
98%
97%
98%
98 %
96%
97%
100 %
100%
92%
83%
84%
81%
86%
92%
82%
86 %
94 %
93%
93
Nov 00
99%
96%
97%
99%
98%
99%
100 %
98 %
77%
83 %
90 %
92%
93%
96%
100 %
95%
95%
96%
95
Dec 00
100%
99%
98%
97%
96%
96%
98%
99%
92 %
88 %
96%
93%
98%
97%
100 %
95%
97%
96%
96
Jan 01
98%
98%
100%
98%
93%
95%
100%
99%
82%
78%
90%
89 %
91 %
97%
77%
89%
93 %
94 %
94
Feb 01
99%
98%
96%
97%
97%
97%
100%
98%
91%
93 %
85 %
89%
95%
98%
75 %
95%
94%
96%
95
Mar 01
97%
99%
98%
99%
98%
99%
100%
98%
95%
89 %
88%
89 %
92%
92%
82%
98 %
95%
96 %
96
Apr01
100%
98%
97%
98%
96%
95%
99%
99%
93%
91%
91%
93 %
98%
99 %
90 %
100 %
96%
96%
96
May01
98%
98%
98%
96%
98%
97%
100 %
100%
94%
90 %
86%
94%
95 %
95 %
91 %
93 %
96%
96%
96
Jun 01
100%
99%
99%
97%
97%
97%
98%
99%
97%
89%
87%
88 %
92%
94%
90%
98%
96%
95%
95
Jul01
97%
99%
99%
100%
96%
94%
99%
98%
94 %
83%
93 %
94 %
95%
96 %
95%
95%
96%
95%
96
Aug 01
99%
98%
98%
97%
98%
96%
100%
99%
89%
83%
91 %
92 %
95 %
94 %
96 %
91 %
96%
95%
95
Sep 01
99%
99%
99%
99%
99%
98%
100%
100%
91%
87 %
88%
83%
93%
92%
89%
95%
96 %
95%
95
Peak Perio d Train s Arriving Within 5 M inutes of Scheduled Time
Sep 01
Peak Period Trains
100% 100%
100% 99%
-SAJB:FbUt6'
100% 98%
100% 100%I 97% 87%
91 % 79 %
Inl:En1p1OG;Ro i
91% 92 %
0% 0%
TOt fnbd,';: Tbt outbd
97% 93%
TotSyst
95
No adjustments have been made for relievable delays.
Terminated trains are co nsidered OT if they were on -time at point of termination.
Annulled trains are not included in the on -time calculation.
•
•
•
•
•
CAUSES OF METROLINK DELAYS
SEPTEMBER 2001
PRI MARY CAUSE OF TRAIN DELAYS GREATER THAN 5 MINUTES
CAUSE:
VEN
AVL
SNB
BUR
RIV
OC
INL/OC
R/F/L
TOTAL
% of TOT
Signals/Detectors
0
0
1
0
1
1
1
0
4
3%
Slow Orders/MOW
0
0
0
0
4
1
0
0
5
4%
Track/Switch
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
1%
Dispatching
1
0
0
0
11
28
12
3
55
47 %
Mechanical
0
3
0
0
2
5
2
1
13
11 %
Freight Train
0
2
1
0
6
0
1
0
10
9%
Amtrak Train
0
0
0
0
0
6
0
0
6
5%
Metrolink Meet/Turn
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
1%
Vandalism
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
2
2%
Passenger(s)
1
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
4
3%
SCRRA Hold Policy
0
1
1
0
1
0
0
0
3
3%
Other
0
0
6
0
0
6
0
0
12
10%
TOTAL
2
6
11
0
25
51
17
4
116
100%
Saturday
SNB
1
0
2
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
5
Saturday
AVL
0
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
6
Saturda
RI'
2
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0109CAUS.xis
FREQUENCY OF TR AIN DELAYS BY DURATION
SEPTEMBER 2001
MINUTES LATE:
VEN
AVL
SNB
BUR
RIV
OC
IE/OC
RIV/FUL
TOTAL
% of TOT
NO DELAY
330
397
472
215
180
260
195
49
2098
86.4 %
1 MIN - 5 MIN
10
15
85
13
22
49
16
4
214
8 .8 %
6 MIN - 10 MIN
1
4
6
0
12
20
9
1
53
2.2%
11 M IN - 20 MIN
0
2
1
0
8
22
6
0
39
1 .6 %
21 M IN - 30 MIN
1
0
0
0
2
4
1
2
10
0.4%
GREATER THAN 30 MIN
0
0
4
0
3
5
1
1
14
0.6%
ANNULLED
0
0
3
0
2
2
0
0
7
0.3%
TOTAL TRAINS OPTD
342
418
568
228
227
360
228
57
2428
100 %
TRAINS DELAYED >0 min
12
21
96
13
47
100
33
8
330
13.6%
TRAINS DELAYED > 5 mir
2
6
11
0
25
51
17
4
116
4.8 %
This summary excludes Saturday & Sunday Service.
•
•
/3
•
0109rRE0 xis