HomeMy Public PortalAbout06 June 20, 2005 Technical AdvisoryTIME:
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
" R I V E R S I D E C O U N T Y T R A N S P O R T A T I O N C O M M I S S I O N
"
T E C H N I C A L A D V I S O R Y C O M M I T T E E M E E T I N G A G E N D A *
* A c t i o n s m a y b e t a k e n o n a n y i t e m l i s t e d o n t h e a g e n d a .
. T I M E : 1 0 : 0 0 A . M .
D A T E : J u n e 2 0 , 2 0 0 5
L O C A T I O N : B a n n i n g C i t y H a l l C i v i c C e n t e r
L a r g e C o n f e r e n c e R o o m
9 9 E a s t R a m s e y S t r e e t
B a n n i n g , C A
I n c o m p l i a n c e w i t h t h e A m e r i c a n s w i t h D i s a b i l i t i e s A c t a n d g o v e r n m e n t C o d e S e c t i o n 5 4 9 5 4 . 2 , i f
y o u n e e d s p e c i a l a s s i s t a n c e t o p a r t i c i p a t e i n a C o m m i t t e e m e e t i n g p l e a s e c o n t a c t R i v e r s i d e C o u n t y
T r a n s p o r t a t i o n C o m m i s s i o n a t ( 9 5 1 1 7 8 7 - 7 1 4 1 . N o t i f i c a t i o n o f a t l e a s t 4 8 h o u r s p r i o r t o m e e t i n g
t i m e w i l l a s s i s t s t a f f i n a s s u r i n g t h a t r e a s o n a b l e a r r a n g e m e n t s c a n b e m a d e t o p r o v i d e a c c e s s i b i l i t y
a t t h e m e e t i n g .
1 . C A L L T O O R D E R
2 . S E L F - I N T R O D U C T I O N
3 . A P P R O V A L O F M I N U T E S M a y 1 6 , 2 0 0 5
4 . P U B L I C C O M M E N T S ( T h i s i s f o r c o m m e n t s o n i t e m s n o t l i s t e d o n a g e n d a .
C o m m e n t s r e l a t i n g t o a n i t e m o n t h e a g e n d a w i l l b e t a k e n w h e n t h e i t e m i s
b e f o r e t h e C o m m i t t e e . )
5 R A I L S T A T I O N E V A L U A T I O N C R I T E R I A ( A t t a c h m e n t )
6 . 2 0 0 4 R E G I O N A L T R A N S P O R T A T I O N P L A N U P D A T E ( P r e s e n t a t i o n )
7 . S T I P U P D A T E
2 0 0 6 S T I P D E V E L O P M E N T { O r a l P r e s e n t a t i o n )
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.
"
A G E N D A I T E M 6
A p r e s e n t a t i o n w i l l b e m a d e b u t
t h e r e i s n o a t t a c h m e n t t o t h e
a g e n d a f o r i t e m 6 .
AGENDA ITEM 7
A presentation will be made but
there is no attachment to the
agenda for item 7.
•
"
i
A G E N D A I T E M 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.
"
A G E N D A I T E M Z O
A p r e s e n t a t i o n w i l l b e m a d e a t t h e
m e e t i n g . A d d i t i o n a l i n f o r m a t i o n
f o r i t e m 1 0 i s a t t a c h e d .
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