Loading...
06 June 20, 2005 Technical advisory committeeTIME: DATE: LOCATION: TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITT MEETING AGENDA*/ 10:00 A.M. June 20, 2005 Banning City Hall Civic Center Large Conference Room 99 East Ramsey Street Banning, CA Records 72828 'By request, agenda and minutes may be available in alternative format; i.e. large print, tape. COMMITTEE MEMBERS Ahmad Ansari, City of Perris Dave Barakian, City of Palm Springs Bill Bayne, City of Cathedral City Tom Boyd, City of Riverside Bill Brunet, City of Blythe Chris Gallanes, RTA John Gerardi, City of Calimesa Mike Gow, City of Hemet Mark Greenwood, City of Palm Desert Bruce Harry, City of Rancho Mirage Bill Hughes, City of Temecula George Johnson, County of Riverside Tim Jonasson, City of LaQuinta Jim Kinley, City of Murrieta Eldon Lee, City of Coachella Wendy Li, Caltrans District 8 Eunice Lovi, SunLine Transit Amir Modarressi, City of Indio Habib Motlagh, Cities of Canyon Lake, Perris and San Jacinto Les Nelson, PVVTA Craig Neustaedter, City of Moreno Valley Kahono Oei, City of Banning Dan Patneaude, City of Desert Hot Springs Juan Perez, County of Riverside Amad Qattan, City of Corona Ken Seumalo, City of Lake Elsinore Ruthanne Taylor Berger, WRCOG Bill Thompson, City of Norco Allyn Waggle, CVAG Tim Wassil, City of Indian Wells John Wilder, City of Beaumont Cathy Bechtel, Division Head, Planning 11.36.2 • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION • TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA* *Actions may be taken on any item listed on the agenda. .TIME: 10:00 A.M. DATE: June 20, 2005 LOCATION: Banning City Hall Civic Center Large Conference Room 99 East Ramsey Street Banning, CA In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act and government Code Section 54954.2, if you need special assistance to participate in a Committee meeting please contact Riverside County Transportation Commission at (9511 787-7141. Notification of at least 48 hours prior to meeting time will assist staff in assuring that reasonable arrangements can be made to provide accessibility at the meeting. 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. SELF -INTRODUCTION 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES — May 16, 2005 4. PUBLIC COMMENTS (This is for comments on items not listed on agenda. Comments relating to an item on the agenda will be taken when the item is before the Committee.) 5 RAIL STATION EVALUATION CRITERIA (Attachment) 6. 2004 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN UPDATE (Presentation) 7. STIP UPDATE 2006 STIP DEVELOPMENT {Oral Presentation) Technical Advisory Committee Meeting June 20, 2005 Page 2 8. PROJECT MILESTONE REPORTS (Attachment) 9. LOCAL ASSISTANCE REPORT (Oral Presentation) 10. CETAP UPDATE (Oral Presentation) 11. JUNE 2, 2005 COMMISSION HIGHLIGHTS (Oral Presentation) 12. OTHER BUSINESS/ANNOUNCEMENTS 13. ADJOURNMENT (The next meeting will be July 18, 2005, 10:00 A.M. in Riverside.) MINUTES TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES Monday, May 16, 2005 1. Call to Order The meeting of the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) was called to order at 10:00 A.M., at Riverside County Transportation Commission, Riverside, CA. 2. Self -Introductions Members Present: Others Present: Amad Ansari, City of Perris Dave Barakian, City of Palm Springs Bill Bayne, City of Cathedral City Tom Boyd, City of Riverside Bill Brunet, City of Blythe Mike Gow, City of Hemet Mark Greenwood, City of Palm Desert Tim Jonasson, City of LaQuinta Jim Kinley, City of Murrieta Eldon Lee, City of Coachella Eunice Love, SunLine Amir Modarressi, City of Indio Habib Motlagh, Cities of Canyon Lake, Perris and San Jacinto Russ Napier, City of Murrieta Craig Neustaedter, City of Moreno Valley Kahono Oei, City of Banning Dan Patneaude, City of Desert Hot Springs Juan Perez, County of Riverside Amad Qattan, City of Corona Ken Seumalo, City of Lake Elsinore Bill Thompson, City of Norco Tim Wassil, City of Indian Wells Cathy Bechtel, RCTC Brian Cunanan, RCTC J. D. Douglas, Kimley-Horn & Assoc., Inc. Shirley Gooding, RCTC Ken Lobeck, RCTC Shirley Medina, RCTC Technical Advisory Committee Meeting May 16, 2005 Page 2 Tony Rahimian, RMC, Inc. John Standiford, RCTC Randy Viegas, City of Rancho Mirage Stephanie Wiggins, RCTC 3. Approval of Minutes No objections. 4 Public Comments There were no public comments. 5. CALCULATION OF ADJACENT INTERSECTION DELAY FOR RAIL CROSSING GRADE SEPARATION PRIORITY LIST Stephanie Wiggins, RCTC, introduced J. D. Douglas, RMC, Inc., who stated that there are 2 considerations regarding potential rail delays that are not associated with vehicles crossing the tracks. One is, depending on the signal pre-emption, if a signal pre-emption goes into an all red flashing mode the through traffic parallel to the rail line would experience more delay than if the signal went into a solid green. The second type situation is where vehicles queue up to make a left turn to cross the rail line immediately adjacent to the street and if the queue gets long enough to back up out of the left turn pocket and delay through traffic, that could be another source of delay. To evaluate that, the length of queue based on the down time of the gates would have to be considered. The proposal is to consider both those types of situations, get the data from the local agencies on what the signal pre-emption does, what the turning movement volumes are, and evaluate using highway capacity manual methodologies if either of those situations occurs. He referred to the Proposed Intersections for Calculation of Intersection Delay, which was attached to the agenda item, and stated that they will be viewed in consultation with staff. He requested that if there are others that should be considered, agencies should let him know. 6. STIP UPDATE — GOVERNOR'S MAY REVISION Shirley Medina, RCTC, provided a May 11, 2005 release, "Gov. Schwarzenegger Announces Full Funding of Proposition 42 Transportation • • Technical Advisory Committee Meeting May 16, 2005 Page 3 Funds." She highlighted the distribution of $1.3 billion of transportation funding outlined in the release and announced the California Transportation Commission workshop scheduled for June to review prioritization of projects. John Standiford, RCTC, recapped that the Governor issued a budget in January and that after determining revenues statewide, revisions to the funding are made in May. He said that the state has about $4 billion more than expected. It is anticipated that the legislature will pass the budget by the middle of June and the Governor is expected to sign it by July. Regarding federal reauthorization, the Senate should pass their version of HR 3 on Tuesday. It is expected to have about $1 1 billion more in it than the House version. 7. DRAFT 2005 TRANSPORTATION ENHANCEMENTS (TE) CALL FOR PROJECTS Ms. Medina provided a Draft 2005 Transportation Enhancements Call for Projects and emphasized that the subcommittee reviewed the criteria. It is hoped that the Commission will approve the Call for Projects at the June, 2005 meeting and it should be out the end of June. The Call would be open for 60 days with project submittals in August and evaluation in September. There will be a limit of 4 projects per agency and the County can have 4 per district. The minimum local match requirement is 11.47 with more points given for contributing additional local funds. The local match commitment should be given in the form of a budget line item or council resolution. That can be provided with the application or within 60 days afterwards. In addition, all projects must go through the Public Works Department. The projects will be broken up into the 4 divisions that capture the 12 categories that are first cited for eligibility. The projects will all have to answer questions 1 through 4, with 2 questions under each division. The scoring will be 0 to 5 points. Cathy Bechtel indicated that comments regarding the Call for Projects should be submitted by May 20 so that it can be taken to the Plans and Programs Committee meeting May 23 for approval. M/S/C (Neustaedter/Perez) for a minimum of $350,000 and a cap of $1.5 million per project for a total submittal of 3 projects per agency or 4 for the County. Technical Advisory Committee Meeting May 16, 2005 Page 4 8. PROJECT DELIVERY ASSISTANCE Shirley Medina reported that the Project Delivery Assistance subcommittee met again on May 2. She shared the discussion with Cathy Bechtel who indicated that the RCTC management believed that the local agencies should fund the position. Mr. Wassil reminded the TAC that Wendy Li indicated that Caltrans would try to make the project delivery process better and that perhaps the agencies should allow Caltrans to improve as a consultant is sought. A request was made for RCTC to solicit consultant candidates, a group of 4 or 5 consultants, which they would recommend to assist cities with project delivery. 9. CALTRANS LOCAL ASSISTANCE There was no Caltrans Local Assistance report. 10. CETAP UPDATE Cathy Bechtel indicated that technical studies for the Mid County Parkway are ongoing and will continue through the end of this year. Local meetings are being held as needed. The Riverside County to Orange County Major Investment Study is still on schedule. The Project Development Team meets the first Wednesday of each month and Ms. Bechtel encouraged TAC involvement in the meetings. Alternatives should ,be narrowed in the July timeframe with a locally preferred_ strategy for a new corridor between Riverside and Orange Counties by December of this year. The Metropolitan Water district (MWD) is moving forward with their central pool augmentation project and they want to form a new joint powers agency to include MWD, locally affected cities, OCTA, RCTC, County of Orange and County of Riverside to consider the possibility of a joint use utility tunnel. 11. RTIP/FTIP UPDATE Ken Lobeck, RCTC, stated that a major amendment to the RTIP has been completed. There are 96 projects, most of which are transit from the new SRTP. Most are formal which will take the normal 3-4 months for approval. Approval of the amendment is expected in late July. It is anticipated that SCAG will call for another amendment sometime in August. With • Technical Advisory Committee Meeting May 16, 2005 Page 5 Proposition 42 not being suspended and the STIP looking better, the possibility of a lockdown may be avoided. 12. RTP UPDATE Mr. Lobeck reported that project lists will be sent out in the beginning of June for review. 13. MAY 11, 2005 COMMISSION HIGHLIGHTS Ms. Bechtel reported that there were 2 main discussion items, the first being the freeway study that RCTC will be conducting in the western county at the request of the City of Temecula and the County of Riverside. The City of Temecula was suing the County of Riverside dealing with a number of development approvals and the additional traffic being generated from that development. The lawsuit was settled and one of the points was that a freeway study would be conducted to determine the best way to address additional congestion that might be generated by new development. The City and the County have requested that this be completed within 4 months. The County and the City of Temecula are funding it and it will encompass all of the western county facilities. 14. OTHER BUSINESS/ANNOUNCEMENTS Ms. Medina reported Wendy Li, Caltrans, said that Local Assistance was at the Local Assistance Academy, which is why some engineers have not been in their office this week. She further reported that Ms. Li had met with federal highway staff and indicated that changes were .being made in Local Assistance, having the environmental staff, and the fact that she will sign off on the programmatic categorical exclusions. FHWA is supportive of these changes. Ms. Bechtel announced that Patty Romo, Chief of Design, District 8, has been named the Interim District 8 Director and that it will be a few months before they get a new Director. She said that Steven Keel is leaving Caltrans. Eldon Lee, City of Coachella, stated that the District 8 Local Assistance moved back to the State building (464 W. Fourth Street, San Bernardino). Technical Advisory Committee Meeting May 16, 2005 Page 6 15. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business for consideration by the Technical Advisory Committee, the meeting was adjourned at 11:05 A.M. The next meeting is scheduled for June 20, 2005, 10:00 A.M., Banning City Hall Civic Center, 99 East Ramsey Street, Banning, CA. Respectfully submitted, ' //7bi Shirley Mea Program Manager AGENDA ITEM 5 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMM/SS/ON DATE: June 20, 2005 TO: Technical Advisory Committee FROM: Stephanie Wiggins, Rail Department Manager THROUGH: Hideo Sugita, Deputy Executive Director SUBJECT: Rail Crossing Priority Preliminary List STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Technical Advisory Committee to receive and file the Rail Crossing Priority Preliminary List. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: In March of this year, the Commission began the process of updating the 2001 Rail Crossing Priority List. At its March 18t' meeting, the Commission approved the evaluation criteria for the Priority List and directed staff to distribute a preliminary priority list to the local jurisdictions, prior to receiving input on the Local Preference criteria. JD Douglas of Kimley-Horn and Associates will present the information to the TAC for review and comment. • AGENDA ITEM 6 A presentation will be made but there is no attachment to the agenda for item 6. AGENDA ITEM 7 A presentation will be made but there is no attachment to the agenda for item 7. • • i AGENDA ITEM 8 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMM/SS/ON DATE: June 20, 2005 TO: Technical Advisory Committee FROM: Ken Lobeck, Staff Analyst THROUGH: Cathy Bechtel, Division Head, Planning SUBJECT: Project Milestone Reports — July 2005 Update STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is to notify TAC members of the July 2005 Update for Project Milestone Reports I BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Updates to Project Milestone Reports will be sent out to TAC members around June 20th and are due back to RCTC by July 8th. Updated Project Milestone Reports are required for unobligated CMAQ, DEMOT21, STIP, STPL, and TEA funded projects. Milestone reports from the new 2005 STPL Rehab Call will be included. The milestone report format has changed slightly to include a self -calculating Programmatic CE environmental document date field once the PA&ED end date is entered. For projects with an environmental document other than a Programmatic CE, the estimated environmental document sign -off date will need to be entered manually. Clarifying notes to complete the project schedule start and end dates have been included at the bottom of the report to improve reporting standardization. Clarified project phases include: - PA&ED End Date: The PA&ED end date is now defined as the date the Preliminary Environmental Study (PES) package is submitted to Caltrans Local Assistance. Obligation Date: The estimated obligation date has been modified to be the date when the obligation request is submitted to Caltrans Local Assistance. - Construction Start Date: The construction start date is now defined as the date when construction will actually begin after the fund obligation has been approved and all required pre -construction activities have been completed. The clarification was needed due to the varying interpretations being used that included pre - construction activities as the basis to define the construction start date (e.g. needed board resolutions, required advertising, contractor award, etc.). The updated July 2005 Project Milestone Reports will be used to develop the annual project status report provided to the RCTC Board. The annual report is anticipated to be provided to Commission members during the September, 2005 RCTC Board meeting. AGENDA ITEM 9 A presentation will be made but there is no attachment to the agenda for item 9. • AGENDA ITEM ZO A presentation will be made at the meeting. Additional information for item 10 is attached. AGENDA ITEM 11 A presentation will be made but there is no attachment to the agenda for item 11. 2007 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) Plan Section Projects Review and Update Overview Regional Transportation Plan RTP: — Long-range multi -modal plan — Represents the region's growth vision — Provides transportation system planned improvements — SCAG coordinates development — Updated every 3 years — Key document for the region to receive federal funds Regional Transportation Plan RTP: — Must conform to air quality standards — Must be financially constrained — Without a conforming and financially constrained RTP, can't implement the Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP/FTIP) — RTIP/FTIP = Short-range first 6 year program of the RTP. 1 Include Project in the RTP? • Include in RTP project is: — On State Highway System — Federally funded — Regionally significant or capacity enhancing • In addition, assists with financial constraint • Provides option to commit later federal funds: — If not in the RTP, can't be added to the RTIP/FTIP: — Not in RTIP/FTIP = No NEPA sign -off + no federal fund obligations "Plan" Projects Review & Update • 2004 RTP projects sent to agencies to review and update: — Project limits — Capacity improvement/scope — Total cost estimate — Identify the funding source: • TUMF, Measure A, Local city funds, etc.) • (Federally funded projects in Baseline or Tier 11 in RTIP/FT/P) - Construction start and end years: • If unsure of construction years — push them out to later RTP years (e.g. start = 2025, end = 2030). Plan Projects Review & Update • Updated Plan Section project lists are due back to RCTC by: July 28, 2005 • Except for transit agencies: — Applicable project lists will be sent during July 3 Changes for 2007 RTP 2007 RTP will include an Unconstrained project section: - For projects needed to be in the RTP; but do not have a committed funding source — Add as a new project to the Plan - Main, Arterial, or Grade Crossing section — Cite the funding source as "Unconstrained Project" — Unconstrained projects will be moved to the unconstrained list Sample Project Listing MUM.. CM e,v Lp-M,InM•Pim Repcb a S. ti v� ....... i PTS A ...�� .�.-.. 5 Report Due Date 7/8/05 Report Sent Date 6/17/05 Lead Agency Fund Type Description SAMPLE Revised Project Milestone Report for PCE Projects July 2005 Update Your Agency STPL (2005 STPL Rehab Call) PM Begin: N/A PM End: N/A RTIP References RTIP: 2004 RTIP versideCounty Transportation Commission TCM Project: No Conformity Cat: Exempt EA #. N/A ID #: RIV031223 Environmental Doc: Programmatic CE PPNO #: N/A Page: Local29 Emission Calc: Not applicable Rehab Sample Project from Limit A to Limit _B_- ROTC ID: 1082_ Approval:: 10/4/2004 Federal Number: PA&ED End Date = the date the PES package is submitted to Ca[trans Local Assistance Schedule Milestone Dates (mm/dd/y'1) Fund Obligations Construction Project Phase Programming Summary (000s) Project Start End PCE Oblig. Actual Award Complete Percent Complete Phase Previous Revised Previous Revised Est. Approval Package Submittal Obligation natp Target Target natal_ t/4 ". Previous _ Revised Fund Type FY Amount PA & E® 11/28/05 New env doc sign -off date column added. Self calculates for PCE env a PA&ED CITY 04/05 $ _ Project Approval& Environmental Doc 1/1/05 6/1/05 6/1/05 / docs (Revised PA&ED + 180). Enter PS & E Plans, Specs, & 7/1/05 12/1/05 manually for all other env doc types PS&E CITY 05/06 $ 30 Estimates RION N/A N/A N/A N/A Obligation date now equals the date RNV acquisition + the obligation package is submitted to utility relocation Local Assistance Rural STPL CITY 05/06 05/06 $ 280 $ 690 Construction 3/1/06 5/15/06 �:. 12/15/05 Local Assistance. may need 30 days or more to approve the obligation request. PA&ED End = The PES foam submission date. PCE Approval = RevisedlPA&ED End + 180. Obligation su mitta Quid not a ear er acid < . mate. Contact Name Telepbppe Fax Email Construction Start = The estimated (951) 787-2920 contacts rctc.orq TAC: _ Other: date you break ground/implement the Reason for Initial above s obligation. Re project. The date entered needs to consider the time to complete pre - construction activities after fund obligation. s and adjustments made based on a six month time frame to obtain a PCE environmental doc to develop Cycle 6 Instructions to complete. Do not complete shaded cells. Update only the blank white cells as follows. (1) Provide start and end dates for applicable project phases. If a phase does not apply (e.g. RNVV list as "NIA' (2) List target Obligation dates and estimated percent complete for the four phases. (3) Update the project contact section as needed. (4) Provide sufficient remarks to explain any revisions resulting in project delays. (5) Email the updated report back to smedina@rctc.org by the requested return date. Issue No. 23 — June 10, 2005 RCTC Sets Guidelines on Joint Development at Rail Stations The Riverside County Transportation Commission has adopted a comprehensive program of planning guidelines in considering joint development proposals at RCTC-owned rail stations. The Commission currently owns and operates five stations including Riverside -Downtown, Riverside -La Sierra, North Main Corona, West Corona and Pedley. Developers have expressed interest in pursuing joint residential or commercial projects with the Commission at some of the station sites. This mirrors a trend throughout Southern California where some rail stations have attracted large-scale transit -oriented developments of various types. When done in cooperation with a transportation agency such as RCTC, a successful project can enhance the rail station and surrounding area as well as provide additional revenue for station and service improvements. Operating a rail station can result in significant maintenance and 24-hour security costs. The issue will become increasingly important when the Commission proceeds with its Perris Valley Line expansion in 2008 resulting in the development of additional stations. The North Main Corona Station is an attractive location for future development. to the Commission based on a fair maket Ensuring that a proposal meets the Commission's expectations requires effective guidelines. As a result, RCTC has approved goals that seek to: 1) Promote and enhance rail ridership, 2) Enhance and protect the rail stations and corridors, 3) Encourage comprehensive planning and development around RCTC-owned rail stations, 4) reduce auto use and congestion, and 5) Demonstrate a fiscal benefit return on public investment. Along with the guidelines, the Commission also approved a competitive process to evaluate development proposals that would involve the issuance of a Request for Qualifications (RFQ) and the eventual issuance of a Request for Proposals (RFP). All projects would be done in close cooperation with the local jurisdiction and will require local approval along with approvals from the entire Commission. Governor Supports Proposition 42 In his May revision of the budget proposal for Fiscal Year 2005/06, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger announced his intention to fully fund and implement Proposition 42. The decision ensures that approximately $1.3 billion in transportation funding will actually flow to transportation projects instead of reverting to the state's General Fund. It's good news for Riverside County and makes funding much more likely for needed projects such as the widening of Route 60 in Mira Loma and the expansion of the Green River/Route 91 Interchange in Corona. Another positive impact is that 40 percent of Proposition 42 funding is returned to cities and counties throughout the state for road maintenance. This year it is estimated that the maintenance returns from Proposition 42 will amount to approximately three dollars per capita which will be welcomed by local governments that are continuing to repair roads impacted by last winter's rains. Proposition 42 was approved by 70 percent of the state's voters in 2002, and allocated the sales tax revenue from the sale of gasoline to transportation projects. It can be suspended in cases of fiscal emergency which has happened repeatedly since its approval. More than $2 billion in Proposition 42 funding has been impacted since 2002 and over $5 billion has been taken out of state transportation accounts during the last five years. RCTC's summer Beach Train service is making a major transition; the Beach Train will now be known as Summer Link and will celebrate its 10th year of service. SummerLink will become a regular part of Metrolink service offering a total of three round trip trains on Saturday and Sunday. What it means for riders is added convenience. The added trains will provide customers a choice of when to leave and return and can even be used for an overnight trip. Tickets will no longer have to be verside County nsportation Commission P.O. Box 12008 Riverside, California 92502-2208 Beach Train Begins Service on July 16 ordered in advance; instead riders will be able to purchase tickets on the day of their trip from the automated ticket vending machines at the station. The train will provide service to stations in Rialto, San Bernardino, Riverside and Corona with Orange County stops in Anaheim, Orange, Santa Ana, Irvine, Mission Viejo and the beach destinations of San Juan Capistrano, San Clemente (2 stops) and Oceanside. For more information, please go to www.takethebeachtrain.com. Upcoming Meetings and Information The Riverside County Transportation Commission will hold its next meeting on Wednesday, July 13, at the Riverside County Administrative Center, Board of Supervisors Meeting Room, First Floor, 4080 Lemon Street, Riverside at 9:00 a.m. RCTC also maintains a speaker's bureau that actively makes presentations throughout the county on transportation issues. If you are interested in scheduling a presentation for your service club, community group or any other organization, please contact John Standiford at (951) 787-7141 or e-mail him directly at jstandiford@rctc.org. Riverside County Regional Complex • 4080 Lemon Street, 3rd Floor • Riverside, California 92501 Mailing Address: P.O. Box 12008 • Riverside, California 92502-2208 • (951) 787-7141 • Fax (951) 787-7920 • www.rctc.org RCTC Adopts Budget The Riverside County Transportation Commission formally adopted its FY 2005/06 budget at its meeting on June 2. All told, the budget projects revenue of more than $245 million that includes Measure A, TUMF and state and federal sources. Of that, $191.7 million will be spent for highway, rail and TUMF capital expenditures highlighted by the completion of construction on State Route 74 between Perris and Lake Elsinore. Other projects include the expansion of parking at the Metrolink station in downtown Riverside, project work on the Mid County Parkway, realignment of State Route 79, the widening of State Route 91 through downtown Riverside and the extension of Metrolink along the Perris Valley Line. EVALUATION CRITERIA FOR RCTC RAIL CROSSING PRIORITY STUDY Safety: Accident history for each crossing over a 10-year period (1995-2004) is obtained using historical data from the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) and from local jurisdictions. An overall accident rate is developed for each rail crossing taking into account both frequency (number of accidents per million vehicles) and severity (property damage only, injury accident, fatality). The overall calculated accident rating is weighted according to the total number of injury and fatality accidents. Delay (Present and Future): Existing and future (2005 and 2030) vehicle hours of delay are estimated for each grade crossing, including consideration of delays to vehicles on parallel roads adjacent to the rail line. This produces the total crossing -gate down- time and vehicle -hours of delay experienced by roadway traffic at each grade crossing location in addition to an estimate of the length of roadway traffic queue: Vehicle Emissions: Vehicle emissions resulting from grade crossing delays are calculated for both existing and future years by multiplying the estimated daily delay by the idling vehicle emissions established by the USEPA and published in the April 1998 EPA Emission Facts (http://www.epa.gov/otaq/consumer/f98014.ndf, February 2004). Vehicle classification and corresponding emission levels are broken down in proportion to the 2004 estimated total vehicles for the state of California as published in the Caltrans November 2004 Motor Vehicle Stock, Travel and Fuel Forecast. The total vehicle emissions resulting from grade crossing delay is obtained by summing the emissions for each vehicle classification type. Noise Impacts: Noise impacts resulting from mandatory whistle blowing at grade crossings are determined by plotting whistle noise profiles as concentric rings corresponding to estimated decibel levels. Noise profiles are based on a whistle noise level of 108 dBA at 100 feet from the source (FRA, Determination of a Sound Level for Railroad Horn Regulatory Compliance, Final Report, October 2002), extending '/e mile on either side of the subject crossing, and is consistent with the upper portion of the allowed maximum range of whistle levels and the maximum warning distance prescribed in the December 18, 2003 FRA Interim Final Rule for Use of Locomotive. Horns at Highway -Rail Grade Crossings. Each subsequent concentric ring corresponds to a 15 dBA reduction until an insignificant noise level of 55 dBA is reached. Adjacent Grade Separations: The distance to the nearest adjacent grade separation for each crossing is measured using map and field information. A score is allotted based on the distance. Local Priority Ranking: This information obtained through a survey of affected local agencies will be requested after other criteria have been evaluated. esrP:°414°(- kk PRELIIV1INARY 2005 Accidents 1995-2004) Overall Accident Rate 2005 Delay Emissions PMio (g/day) 2005 Delay Emissions NOx (g/day) 2005 Delay Emissions VOC (g/day) 2005 Delay Emissions CO (kg/day) Ref. No. Total Gate Time in Mins. Vehicle Hrs. of Delay per Day Peak Queue Length in Ft. Non -Injury Accidents Injury Accidents Fatal Accidents Total Accidents Train dine Location Jurisdiction 1 UP (LA SUB) Bel'grave Av " Riverside County 36.0 3.2 179.7 3 0 0 3 0.13 0.42 19.92 54.51 0.78 2 UP (LA SUB) Rutile St Riverside County 36.0 - 3.4 190.7 0 - 0 0 0 0.00 0.45 21.40 58.55 0.84 3 UP (LA SUB) Jurupa Rd Riverside County 36.1 3.3 130.0 3 2 1 6 0.25 0.43 20.49 56.08 0.80 4 UP (LA SUB) Clay St Riverside County 36.1 7.5 204.9 0 1 0 1 0.02 0.99 46.91 128.35 1.83 5 UP (LA SUB) - Mountain View Av Riverside 37.6 0.8 43.8 1 0 0 1 0.14 0.09 4.90 14.10 0.20 6 UP (LA SUB) Streeter Av Riverside 41.7 6.1 133.9 0 0 1 1 0.03 0.80 37.91 103.73 1 A8 7 UP (LA SUB) Palm Av Riverside 39.5 4.6 109.0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.61 28.92 79.14 1.13 8 UP (LA SUB) Brockton Av Riverside 39.5 6.3 149.5 0 1 0 1 0.02 0.66 36.89 106.26 1.52 9 UP (LA SUB) Magnolia Av Riverside 39.6 9.0 168.3 1 0 0 1 0.02 0.95 53.00 152.66 2.19 10 UP (LA SUB) Riverside Av Riverside 41.6 7.2 206.7 1 0 1 2 0.05 0.75 42.01 121.02 1.73 11 UP (LA SUB) Panorama Rd Riverside 41.6 2.8 125.4 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.291 16.42 47.28 0.68 12 BNSF (SB SUB) Auto Center Dr Corona 158.0 21.4 142.6 1 0 0 1 0.03 1.64 116.65 355.30 5.10 13 BNSF (SB SUB) Smith Av Corona 158.0 34.2 213.7 0 0 0 0 0.00 3.58' 200.19 576.61 8.26 14 BNSF (SB SUB) Railroad St Corona 158.0 18.2 123.2 0 0 0 0 0.00 1.90 106.45 306.61 4.39 15 BNSF (SB SUB) Cota St Corona 157.5 10.0 134.5 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.49 50.38 163.12 2.35 16 BNSF (SB SUB) Sheridan St Corona 157.5 4.8 62.6 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.50, 28.03 80.74 1.16 17 BNSF (SB SUB) Joy St Corona 157.5 10.8 144.8 0 0 0 0 0.00 1.13 63.55 183.03 2.62 18 BNSF (SB SUB) Radio Rd Corona 157.5 8.2 112.7 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.63 44.80 136.45 1.96 19 BNSF (SB SUB) McKinley St Corona 158.0 107.4 457.9 2 0 1 3 0.03 8.24' 585.94 1784.65 25.63 20 BNSF (SB SUB) Magnolia Av Riverside County 158.0 20.7 127.3 2 3 1 6 0.20 1.58 112.65 343.10 4.93 21 BNSF (SB SUB) Buchanan St Riverside 157.5 7.5 95.1 0 0 3 3 0.37 0.57 40.74 124.10 1.78 22 BNSF (SB SUB) Pierce St Riverside 157.8 19.5 156.2 1 0 0 1 0.03 2.58 122.08 334.06 4.77 23 BNSF (SB SUB) Tyler St Riverside 158.0 29.2 165.8 1 0 0 1 0.02 3.87 183.03 500.83 7.16 24 BNSF (SB SUB) Harrison St Riverside 157.5 11.9 144.6 0 0 0 0 0.00 1.58 74.42 203.65 2.91 25 BNSF (SB SUB) Gibson St Riverside 157.5 5.0 65.4 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.66 31.41 85.95 1.23 26 BNSF (SB SUB) Jackson St Riverside 158.0 13.2 77.3 1 0 0 1 0.05 0.64 66.53 215.42 3.10 27 BNSF (SB SUB) Adams St Riverside 158.0 67.1 334.7 1 0 0 1 0.01 3.27 338.60 1096.31 15.79 28 BNSF (SB SUB) Jefferson St Riverside 157.5 15.1 177.8 1 0 0 1 0.04 0.73 76.05 246.24 3.55 29 BNSF (SB SUB) Madison St Riverside 158.0 25.4 146.7 1 0 1 2 0.05 1.95 138.52 421.90 6.06 30 BNSF (SB SUB) Washington St Riverside 157.5 17.9 197.8 0 0 0 0 0.00 1.37 97.72 297.63 4.28 31 BNSF (SB SUB) Mary St Riverside 158.0 22.7 132.9 0 1 0 1 0.03 1.74 123.87 377.27 5.42 32 BNSF (SB SUB) Jane St Riverside 157.5 8.6 103.9 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.42 43.52 140.92 2.03 33 BNSF & UP (RIV) Cridge St Riverside 199.1 17.1 176.1 0 0 0 0 0.00 2.26 107.01 292.81 4.18 34 BNSF & UP (SB SUB) lth St Riverside 184.4 17.3 92.6 0 0 0 0 0.00 1.81 101.57 292.55 4.19 35 BNSF & UP (SB SUB) 3rd St Riverside 184.4 30.3 166.5 1 0 0 1 0.03 4.02 190.02 519.97 7.43 36 BNSF & UP (SB SUB) Kansas Av (BNSF) Riverside 152.5 13.8 182.0 1 0 0 1 0.05 1.83 86.30 236.14 3.37 37 BNSF & UP (SB SUB) Spruce St (UP) Riverside 41.8 0.8 22.0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.10 4.85 13.28 0.19 38 BNSF & UP (SB SUB) Kansas Av (UP) Riverside 41.8 3.4 91.3 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.45 21.27 58.21 0.83 39 BNSF & UP (SB SUB) Spruce St (BNSF) Riverside 152.9 2.9 22.0 1 0 0 1 0.20 0.39 18.35 50.22 0.72 40 BNSF & UP (SB SUB) Iowa Av (UP) Riverside 41.8 9.3 221.5 1 0 0 1 0.02 0.97 54.32 156.47 2.24 41 BNSF & UP (SB SUB) Chicago Av (BNSF) Riverside 152.9 22.0 137.3 3 1 0 4 0.11 2.30 128.72 370.77 5.31 42 BNSF & UP (SB SUB) Columbia Av (BNSF) Riverside 152.9 22.6 152.9 1 0 0 1 0.03 3.00 141.64 387.59 5.54 43 BNSF & UP (SB SUB) Columbia Av (UP) Riverside 41.8 6.0 152.9 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.80 37.60 102.88 1.47 44 BNSF & UP (SB SUB) Palmyrita Av (BNSF) Riverside 152.5 3.7 54.3 0 _ 0 0 0 0.00 0.49 23.11 63.23 0.90 45 BNSF & UP (SB SUB) Palmyrita Av (UP) Riverside 41.6 1.0 54.3 0 0 1 1 0.21 0.13 6.11 16.72 0.24 46 BNSF & UP (SB SUB) Iowa Av (BNSF) Riverside 152.9 34.6 203.0 0 0 0 0 0.00 3.62 202.46 583.16 8.36 .. @@. •.,,. , -. , �..._ • � �:' �?~.2�. .,. .. s .,.. , i �A2' ,. . Y,pi, :.n•r ; � .:. r. .,. .. .., �rra`� @ m d: • : .. .. a«.arc y„ .. w , .... ,. � - ,... _...:+: n n „. .3F. f 48 BNSF & UP (SB SUB) Main St - Riverside County- - - 183.9 - 6.5 77.3 - 0 -- 0 0 0 0.00 0.86 40.78 111.59 1.59 6/20/2005 SOOZ/OZ/9 8Z'0 96'0 8VO 1.V'Z 81' 1. (AeP/6)1) 00 suolsslw3 Aelea 900Z 99'6I• L6'S9 8£'Z1. 0171.91. 8g'EZ l 69"98£ 9V-L6Z 09' 1.9£ 96'E9£ . 99.0V ZVE6 98' 1• (Aep/6) 00A suolsqw3 )(emu 900Z AtIVNIIN173Nd VO*9 LE'OZ Z8'£ 0E1.9 L L "8E ZO' 141. 6L"80`l 69'81, 6 09'61.1. 9014 . £V"ZE 99'0 (Aep/6) XON suopslua3 Aejea SOOZ 90'0 OZ'0 VO"0 09'0 LE'0 96'Z 0E7 L9' 1. 89' I. 9Z'0 8g'0 1.0'0 �"�""'2 oi9-n-Y it �� 90'0 V£' 6 00'0 00'0 L0'0 ZO'0 EO'0 00'0 Z0"0 00'0 00'0 £9'9 E 0 0 area stueppoy Haman • Z'6 0'tr 9'0 Z'01. 9'L S'ZZ V'L I. 8' 4 Z 6' 1.Z 17"Z 9'9 6'0 0 0 0 sweplooy lelea 1700Z-s66 0 0 0 8"9£ V*96 6 6' 14 17"601. 0'SL£ E'01.£ V9ZE L' 1.VZ 9.617 O'601• V'Z quappod s;ueplaoy ul tn6uei funful; funful-uoN anen° plead sweppoy V'09 V.09 9'09 9'09 9'09 1716 1716 fi'L6 916 1716 V16 V16 •sulyi ul mill a=eO le;ol kuno0 eplsiem8 Aiuno0 eplsianw ellapeoo. eiteLpeo0 egayoeoo/oipui 6upue8 6uiuueg 6upue8 6upue8 luownees luownea8 wownee8 uol;olpslanr 99 anuany p.renalno9 podny •frg anuany Zg anuany p� uoma anuany 1S aner6ieH ny quo6ao9 ues 1<S PuZZ ny iasuns ny quenlicsuued Ay quaone0 ny eietA uoneool (Npevg HWn,k) do (NyW voin)J do (N1yW ` oinA) do tNIdW vvinA) do (Nlb'W yW(Uv do iNlb'W ywnA) do (NIyW vvInA) do (win' ` vvnA) do (NIyW MAMA) do (NIyW vvgni) do (mvil dwnA) do — (wins do eun ule.�l £9 Z9 1.9 09 69 99 99 •17S ES Z9 1•9 Og r