Loading...
08 August 22, 2005 Plans and Programsi i RECORDS • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION C PLANS AND PROGRAMS COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA TIME: 12:00 P.M. DATE: August 22, 2005 LOCATION: Board Chambers, 1" Floor County of Riverside Administrative Center 4080 Lemon Street, Riverside *** COMMITTEE MEMBERS *** Michael H. Wilson/Gene Gilbert, City of Indio, Chairman Daryl Busch/Mark Yarbrough, City of Perris, Vice Chairman Shenna Moqeet / John Chlebnik / Jon Winningham, City of Calimesa Mary Craton/John Zaitz, City of Canyon Lake Jeff Miller/Karen Spiegel, City of Corona Mary Roche/Robert Bernheimer, City of Indian Wells Frank West/Charles White, City of Moreno Valley Frank Hall/Harvey Sullivan, City of Norco Dick Kelly/Robert Spiegel, City of Palm Desert Ronald Oden/Ginny Foat, City of Palm Springs Ron Roberts/Jeff Comerchero, City of Temecula Bob Buster, County of Riverside, District I Roy Wilson, County of Riverside, District IV Marion Ashley, County of Riverside, District V *** STAFF *** Eric Haley, Executive Director Cathy Bechtel, Division Head, Planning *** 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 73513 11.36.15 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 TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION PLANS AND PROGRAMS COMMITTEE www.rctc.org AGENDA* *Actions may be taken on any item listed on the agenda 12:00 P.M. Monday, August 22, 2005 BOARD ROOM County of Riverside Administrative Center 4080 Lemon Street, First Floor, Riverside 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 the Clerk of the Commission at (951) 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. ROLL CALL 3. PUBLIC COMMENTS 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 5. ADDITIONS/REVISIONS (The Committee may add an item to the Agenda after making a finding that there is a need to take immediate action on the item and that the item came to the attention of the Committee subsequent to the posting of the agenda. An action adding an item to the agenda requires 2/3 vote of the Committee. if there are less than 2/3 of the Committee members present, adding an item to the agenda requires a unanimous vote. Added items will be placed for discussion at the end of the agenda.) • Plans and Programs Committee Agenda August 22, 2005 Page 2 6. ALLOCATION OF CMAQ FUNDING FOR THE INLAND EMPIRE TRANSPORTATION MANAGEMENT CENTER PROJECT Overview This item is for the Committee to: Pg. 1 1) Allocate and program $6 million in Congestion Mitigation and Air. Quality Program funds (SAFETEA LU) for construction of the Inland Empire Transportation Management Center, and 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. 7. RESOLUTION NO. 05-012 DESIGNATING SIGNATORIES TO CALTRANS' AGREEMENTS Overview This item is for the Committee to: Pg. 6 1) Approve Resolution No. 05-012 designating the Executive Director to execute master agreements, program supplemental agreements, fund exchange agreements and/or fund contribution/transfer agreements with the California Department of Transportation, and 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. 8. ANNUAL LOCAL TRANSPORTATION FUND PLANNING ALLOCATIONS TO CVAG AND WRCOG Overview This item is for the Committee to: Pg. 9 1) Approve allocations of Local Transportation Planning Funds totaling $284,355 to the Coachella Valley Association of Governments (CVAG) and $521,318 to the Western Riverside Council of Governments (WRCOG) to support transportation planning programs and functions as identified in the attached work programs, and 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. • Plans and Programs Committee Agenda August 22, 2005 Page 3 9. FISCAL YEAR 2005/06 AMENDMENT TO SUNLINE TRANSIT AGENCY'S SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN — REVISED PROGRAM OF PROJECTS FOR SECTION 5307 FUNDS Pg. 16 Overview This item is for the Committee to: 1) Approve the addition of $1,941,392 in operating funds to the Indio/Cathedral City/Palm Springs urbanized area Program of Projects; 2) Direct staff to include the operating funds in the 2004 Regional Transportation Improvement Plan; 3) Amend SunLine Transit Agency's FY 2005/06 Short Range Transit Plan to reflect the change; 4) Direct staff to schedule a public hearing at the September Commission meeting, and 5) Forward to the Commission for final action. 10. FY 2005/06 STATE TRANSIT ASSISTANCE FUNDS Overview This item is for the Committee to: Pg. 19 1) Receive and file the revised estimate of FY 2005/06 State Transit Assistance Funds; 2) Notify the Riverside County Transit Operators of the revised estimate, and 3) Forward to the Commission for final action. 11. RIVERSIDE TRANSIT AGENCY'S REQUEST FOR LOCAL TRANSPORTATION FUNDS PENDING RECEIPT OF FY 2004/05 FTA SECTION 5307 FUNDS Pg. 22 Overview This item is for the Committee to: 1) Allocate $590,000 in Local Transportation Funds (LTF) to the Riverside Transit Agency (RTA) pending receipt of FY 2004/05 Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Section 5307 funds, and 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. Plans and Programs Committee Agenda August 22, 2005 Page 4 12. APPROVAL OF ALAMEDA CORRIDOR EAST (ACE) TRADE CORRIDOR RAIL CROSSING GRADE SEPARATION PRIORITY LIST Overview This item is for the Committee to: Pg. 24 1) Approve the Alameda Corridor East (ACE) Trade Corridor Rail Crossing Grade Separation Priority List, and 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. 13. APPROVE THE LIST OF PRE-QUALITIED FIRMS AND AWARD OF CONTRACT #06-25-526, #06-25-527, AND #06-25-528 FOR ON -CALL GOODS MOVEMENT CONSULTANT SERVICES Pg. 30 Overview This item is for the Committee to: 1) Approve the List of Pre -Qualified Firms for On -Call Goods Movement Consultant Services: Parsons Brinckerhoff, Cambridge Systematics, and Kimley-Horn and Associates; 2) Award Contract #06-25-526, #06-25-527, and #06-25-528 to the respective firms identified in the above recommendation for On -Call Goods Movement Consultant Services; 3) Authorize the Chairman, pursuant to Legal Counsel review, to execute the Agreements on behalf of the Commission, and 4) Forward to the Commission for final action. 14. QUARTERLY GOODS MOVEMENT UPDATE Overview This item is for the Committee to: 1) Receive and file the Quarterly Goods Movement Update, and 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. Pg. 32 • Plans and Programs Committee Agenda August 22, 2005 Page 5 15. COMMUTER RAIL PROGRAM UPDATE Overview This item is for the Committee to: Pg. 35 1) Receive and file the Commuter Rail Program Update as an information item, and 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. 16. COMMISSIONERS / STAFF REPORT Overview This item provides the opportunity for the Commissioners and staff to report on attended and upcoming meetings/conferences and issues related to Commission activities. 17. ADJOURNMENT The next Plans and Programs Committee meeting is scheduled to be held at 12:00 P.M., Monday, September 26, 2005, Board Chambers, 1st Floor, County Administrative Center, 4080 Lemon Street, Riverside. MINUTES RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION PLANS AND PROGRAMS COMMITTEE Monday, June 27, 2005 MINUTES 1. CALL TO ORDER The meeting of the Plans and Programs Committee was called to order by Chairman Michael Wilson at 12:33 p.m., in the Board Room at the County of Riverside Administrative Center, 4080 Lemon Street, First Floor, Riverside, California, 92501. ROLL CALL Members/Alternates Present Marion Ashley Daryl Busch Bob Buster Mary Craton Ginny Foat Frank Hall Jeff Miller Ron Roberts Frank West Michael H. Wilson Roy Wilson Jon Winningham Members Absent Robert Bernheimer Dick Kelly 3 PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no requests from the public to speak. 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - May 23, 2005 M/S/C (Busch/Roberts) to approve the minutes. Abstain: R. Wilson, Winningham Plans and Programs Committee Minutes June 27, 2005 Page 2 5. ADDITIONS/REVISIONS Chairman Wilson announced Agenda Item 8, "Authorization for Development and Release of a Request for Proposal for Public Outreach Consultant Services for the Perris Valley Line Project', would be pulled from the Agenda and would be delegated to the Ad Hoc Committee to be addressed. 6. FISCAL YEAR 2005-2006 ALLOCATION OF FUNDING FOR RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSIT SERVICES Tanya Love, Program Manager, reviewed the total estimates cost required to support the operating and capital thresholds for FY 2006 for transit operators, noting that the Triennial Performance Audit identified escalating operating cost and minimal increases in ridership. She updated the Committee on the status of the Productivity Improvement Program (PIP) and reviewed federal, state, and local funding for the transit and funding requests from the transit operators noting that costs are exceeding revenues. In response to Commissioner Buster's question regarding the impact of the implementation of Proposition 42, Tanya Love responded that STA funds will increase with a local transit impact of approximately $5-6 million and is being incorporated into planning. . In response to Commissioner Jeff Miller's concern for the escalating costs and the minimal ridership, Eric Haley explained that while some of the costs are due to uncontrollable variables, the Productivity Improvement Program (PIP) needs to be implemented to establish objective criteria for assessing productivity improvement opportunities including cost efficiencies. Commissioner Ron Roberts concurred with Commissioner Miller's concerns and expressed urgency in addressing this issue. Tanya Love stated thatas a result of the Triennial Performance Audit, the Commission has been directed to take an active role in overseeing transit. In response to that direction, the Commission developed the Transit Policy Committee (TPC), which has been working since October to reaffirm the PIP but has been unsuccessful. She then reviewed the other outstanding issues to be addressed by the TPC. Commissioner Miller recommended referring this item to the TPC for review. Tanya ,Love indicated that as part of the Short Range Transit Plans, the transit operators were asked to identify compliancewith the performance indicators. SunLine Transit Agency and Commuter Rail are in compliance. She indicated that a full analysis can be provided. Plans and Programs Committee Minutes June 27, 2005 Page 3 Chairman Wilson asked about funding timelines and Tanya Love provided the allocation options. At Commissioner Daryl Busch's request regarding the increase in operating cost related to new service, Tanya Love said that many transit operators have implemented new services, noting that ridership is included in the projected increases. Eric Haley encouraged support of the staff recommendation and reinforced staff's commitment to address these issues at the TPC. Commissioner Frank Hall requested the transit operators make a presentation to the TPC to address these concerns. He then concurred with Eric Haley's recommendation. Commissioner Jon Winningham also concurred with Eric Haley's recommendation and suggested staff provide a component view for each operators' costs. Commissioner Roy Wilson recommended an addition to the staff recommendation to direct staff to prioritize analysis and discussion of the disparity between ridership and operating cost at the . Transit Policy Committee. M/S/C (R. Wilson/Busch) to: 1) Conduct a public hearing at the July 13, 2005 Commission meeting on the proposed Program of Projects; 2) Approve the FY 2005-06 Federal Transit Administration's Section 5307 and 5311 Program of Projects for Riverside County; 3) Direct staff to add projects into the Regional Transportation Improvement Plan; 4) Approve the FY 2005-06 Local Transportation Fund and State Transit Assistance fund allocations for transit; 5) Adopt Resolution No. 05-011, "Resolution of the Riverside County Transportation Commission to Allocate State Transit Assistance Funds"; 6) Direct staff to .prioritize analysis and discussion of •the disparity between ridership and operating cost at the Transit Policy Committee; and, 7) Forward to the Commission for final action. Plans and Programs Committee Minutes June 27, 2005 Page 4 7. MEASURE "A" SPECIALIZED TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL: NON -EMERGENCY MEDICAL TRANSPORTATION M/S/C (Busch/West) to: 1) Authorize staff to enter into a professional services agreement with A-M-M-A to: a) Develop a Request for Proposal for Non -Emergency Medical Transportation services; b) Provide technical assistance to develop community outreach opportunities; and, c) Review existing Measure "A" specialized transportation programs; 2) Allocate up to $20,000 in Western Riverside Measure "A" Specialized Transportation funds to cover A-M-M-A's services; 3) Amend the Measure "A" Specialized Transit Budget to reflect the allocation of funds; 4) Authorize the Chairman, pursuant to Legal Counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission; and, 5) Forward to the Commission for final action. 8. AUTHORIZATION FOR DEVELOPMENT AND RELEASE OF A REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL FOR PUBLIC OUTREACH CONSULTANT SERVICES FOR THE PERRIS VALLEY LINE PROJECT This item was pulled from the Agenda. 9. FISCAL YEAR 2005-2006 MEASURE "A" COMMUTER ASSISTANCE BUSPOOL SUBSIDY FUNDING CONTINUATION REQUESTS M/S/C (Busch/Miller) to: 1) Authorize payment of $1,645/month per buspool for the period July 1, 2005 to June 30, 2006 to the existing Riverside, Moreno Valley, Corona, and Mira Loma buspools; 2) Require subsidy recipients to meet monthly buspool reporting requirements as support documentation . to receive payments; and, 3) Forward to the Commission for final action. • • Plans and Programs Committee Minutes June 27, 2005 Page 5 10. COMMUTER RAIL PROGRAM UPDATE Sheldon Peterson, Staff Analyst, updated the Committee on the status of the on -time performance issues for the Riverside line, noting the Southern California Regional Rail Authority (SCRRA) filed a notice to cure to Union Pacific Railroad. M/S/C (Miller/Oden) to: 1) Receive and file the Commuter Rail Program Update as an information item; and, 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. 11. ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION NO. 05-010, "A RESOLUTION OF THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION AMENDING AND ADOPTING LOCAL GUIDELINES FOR IMPLEMENTING THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT" M/S/C (Busch/Ashley) to: 1) Adopt Resolution No. 05-010, "A Resolution of the Riverside County Transportation Commission Amending and Adopting Local Guidelines for Implementing the California Environmental Quality Act."; and, 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. 12. COMMISSIONERS / STAFF REPORT There were no comments from Commissioners or staff. 13. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business for consideration by the Plans and Programs Committee, the meeting adjourned at 1 :09 p.m. Respectfully submitted, xY�oti--- Jennifer Harmon Deputy Clerk of the Board • AGENDA ITEM 6 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: August 22, 2005 TO: Plans and Programs Committee FROM: Marilyn Williams, Director of Regional Programs and Public Affairs THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Division Head, Programming and Administration SUBJECT: Allocation of CMAQ funding for the Inland Empire Transportation Management Center Project STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Committee to: 1) Allocate and program $6 million in Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Program funds (SAFETEA LU) for construction of the Inland Empire Transportation Management Center, and 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Over the last several years, significant progress has been made towards the development of an Inland Empire Transportation Management Center (TMC) by the staffs of Caltrans District #8, San Bernardino Associated Governments (SANBAG) and the Commission. The three agencies have been working collectively to select a site, environmentally clear, design, fund, and ultimately build a TMC. The Inland Empire is the last of the Caltrans Districts in Southern California to develop an "essential services" facility that meets state standards to provide emergency response during times of disaster, highway incidents and non -recurrent traffic congestion. The proposed TMC facility will be located at the southeast quadrant of the 1-15 and SR 210 interchange in the City of Fontana. While a number of sites throughout the Inland Empire have been evaluated in the past, the I-15/SR 210 location was finally selected based on several factors including; 1) the property was owned by Caltrans as excess right of way, 2) microwave communication paths were unobstructed, 3) Caltrans fiber optic lines could be easily accessed, and 4) there was low environmental risk given that the property had been partially cleared as part of the interchange project. Progress made towards development of the proposed TMC has periodically been reviewed with the Commission with the understanding that ultimately, both the Commission and SANBAG would each become funding partners in an amount not to exceed $6 million for construction of the facility. The new facility is currently projected to cost $37.4 million. SANBAG has committed an addition $1 million to support the construction of a park and ride lot in the vicinity of the TMC. In addition, Commission and SANBAG staffs worked to secure funding through the federal ,legislative process and secured an additional $1.2 million for the project. The balance of funds to construct the facility will be provided by the state through its State Highways and Operations Protection Program (SHOPP). The Project Report and Environmental Document for the proposed TMC were approved in March of this year. In May, the California Transportation Commission took action to approve $1.65 million in SHOPP funds for the first phase of project design. Prior to this action, Caltrans District #8 staff worked with the Department of Finance (DOF) for over two years to seek their approval to .move the project forward. The DOF spent considerable time in challenging all .aspects of the proposed facility to ensure its reasonableness in scope and cost effectiveness. In June, the Department approved the transfer of SHOPP funds to the Department of General Services (DGS) who will be managing the design and construction of the facility. Caltrans and DGS are currently in the process of selecting a consultant to design the facility. Given the current schedule, the Plans, Specifications and Estimates (PS&E) is expected to be completed by July 2006 with construction beginning in October 2006. In order for Caltrans District #8 to continue its efforts in securing SHOPP funds for the ultimate construction of the facility, action by the Commission is required to formalize its support position of the project over the past decade. Action is also required in order for Staff to program any Commission funding in the upcoming 2006 Federal Transportation Improvement Program to ensure the funds are available at the start of construction. Staff is recommending that the Commission approve the allocation of up to $6 million dollars in Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Program funds recently made available to the Commission with the approval of the federal highway bill, SAFETEA LU (HR3). The RCTC allocation shall be restricted to construction costs only and contingent upon Caltrans securing full funding for the proposed TMC prior to beginning construction of the project. 2 • • Ca!trans District #8 staff will be present at the Plans and Programs Committee to present a brief overview of the TMC project and answer any questions the Committee may have. Attachments: Fact Sheet Vicinity and Project Location Map Fact Sheet Inland Ernpire Transportation Management Center This Fact Sheet provides an overview of the current status of the project to construct the District's Transportation Management Center also known as "The Inland Empire Transportation Management Center (IETMC)" Background The District's Transportation Management Center has evolved over the last decade from a primitive joint traffic operations center established in 1991 at the Inland Division CHP facility, to the existing interim TMC facility housed in the basement of the Government Center Building in downtown San Bernardino, since February of 1999. Existing Facility: The existing interim TMC is the command and control center for the District's traffic management system with supporting functions scattered throughout the District Office and offsite locations. The TMC houses Maintenance Dispatch staff, TMC Operations staff, CHP Liaison Officer, and District Traffic Management staff. The existing TMC operates 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. The Government Center Building is not an "Essential Services Facility", and therefore continuous operation at this location under a serious natural disaster is uncertain. The Inland Communication Center (ICC) is the CHP's dispatch and 911 call center and is currently located within the Inland Division office building in San Bernardino. The Inland Division building was constructed in 1985 and is not an Essential Services Building. The ICC occupies approximately 3,000 square feet of the 20,000 square foot Inland Division office building. The CHP and the District currently operate separate dispatch centers. Proposed Facility: The proposed TMC facility would be located at the S-E quadrant of the I-15/SR-210 Interchange in the City of Fontana. The structure would have a total floor space area of approximately 45,000 sq. ft, and be able to withstand large magnitude earthquakes. The TMC complex will occupy approximately 8 acres within a 35-acre state-owned parcel adjacent to the interchange. The facility will be designed to meet the requirements of the Essential Services Act of 1986. The facility will accommodate a future workforce of approximately 175 employees, which includes staff from the CHP and Caltrans. The main control room will house the dispatch functions of both agencies to better manage traffic on the state highway system. The proposed facility will also bring together the separate Caltrans functions, which are currently housed throughout the District. See attached site plan for project location. Funding Partnerships: The San Bernardino County Associated Governments (SANBAG) and the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) have expressed support for the development of the IETMC. SANBAG and RCTC have each committed to fund 1/6 of the project up to $6 million. SANBAG has also committed an additional $1 million for the development of a park -and -ride facility in the vicinity of the proposed TMC. Project Schedule/Cost/Funding: Proposed project schedule, cost, and funding sources are as indicated below. The Department of General Services will design and construct the building. Milestone Date SSPSR 10/01 PA/ED 3/05 PS&E 7/06 Begin Construction 10/06 Complete project 6/08 = Complete Element Preliminary Plans Working Drawings Construction/Sup. Total Cost $ 1,647,000 $ 2,349,000 $ 33,408,000 $37,404,000 4 • • AGENDA ITEM 7 RIVERS/DE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMM/SS/ON DATE: August 22, 2005 TO: Plans and Programs Committee FROM: Shirley Medina, Program Manager THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Division Head, Programming and Administration SUBJECT: Resolution No. 05-012 Designating Signatories to Caltrans' Agreements STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Committee to: 1) Approve Resolution No. 05-012 designating the Executive Director to execute master agreements, program supplemental agreements, fund exchange agreements and/or fund contribution/transfer agreements with the California Department of Transportation, and 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: This is a housekeeping item to update the Authorizing Resolution that is required for executing Caltrans' agreements. Specifically, the authorizing resolution designates the Executive Director to execute Master Agreements, Program Supplemental Agreements, Fund Exchange and/or Fund Transfer/Contribution agreements. The authorizing resolution also identifies the Deputy Executive Director to sign in the absence of the Executive Director, and the Clerk of the Commission or designee to attest the authenticity of the executed signature. The agreement that has been used to date is dated March 13, 1991. Caltrans Headquarters staff requested that we update our resolution. Staff concurs with this request. Attachment: Resolution No. 05-012 RESOLUTION NO. 05-012 RESOLUTION OF THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DESIGNATING THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR TO EXECUTE MASTER AGREEMENTS, PROGRAM SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENTS, FUND EXCHANGE AGREEMENTS AND/OR FUND CONTRIBUTION/TRANSFER'AGREEMENTS WITH THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION WHEREAS, the Riverside County Transportation Commission is eligible to receive Federal and/or State funding for certain Transportation Projects, through the California Department of Transportation; and WHEREAS, Master Agreements, Program Supplemental Agreements, Fund Exchange Agreements and/or Fund Contribution/Transfer Agreements need to be executed with the California Department of Transportation before such funds could be claimed; and WHEREAS, the RCTC wishes to delegate authorization to execute these agreements and any amendments thereto to the Executive Director be authorized to execute all Master Agreements, Program Supplemental Agreements, Fund Exchange Agreements, Fund Contribution/Transfer Agreements and any amendments thereto with California Department of Transportation. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The Executive Director shall be authorized to sign agreements such as Master Agreements, Program Supplemental Agreements, Fund Exchange Agreements and/or Fund Contribution Transfer Agreements with the California Department of Transportation. When the Executive Director is not available, the Deputy Executive Director shall be so empowered. 7 Section 2. Where it is necessary for the signature of the Executive Director to be attested, the Clerk of the Commission or her designee is authorized to attest as to the authenticity of such signature. APPROVED AND ADOPTED this day of , 2005. C. Robin Lowe, Chair Riverside County Transportation Commission ATTEST: Naty Kopenhaver, Clerk of the Board Riverside County Transportation Commission • AGENDA ITEM 8 • RIVERS/DE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMM/SS/ON DATE: August 22, 2005 TO: Plans and Programs Committee FROM: Cathy Bechtel, Division Head, Planning THROUGH: Hideo Sugita, Deputy Executive. Director SUBJECT: Annual Local Transportation Fund Planning Allocations to CVAG and WRCOG STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Committee to: 1) Approve allocations of Local Transportation Planning Funds totaling $284,355 to the Coachella Valley Association of Governments (CVAG) and $521,318 to the Western Riverside Council of Governments (WRCOG) to support transportation planning programs and functions as identified in the attached work programs, and 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. •BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Pursuant to the Transportation Development Act (TDA), Code of Regulations, 99233.2, up to 3 percent of the annual revenues shall be allocated for the transportation planning and programming process. The Code further states that one-half of these funds shall be for planning work within the Western Riverside County and the Coachella Valley areas, as determined by the Commission. On an annual basis the Commission, CVAG and WRCOG develop transportation planning programs. The Commission's planning program is identified in the annual budget that was approved on June 2, 2005. Staff has reviewed the attached FY 2005/06 transportation planning and administrative work programs submitted by CVAG and WRCOG and finds them consistent with the overall RCTC transportation program and planning objectives. The funding requested is consistent with the approved FY 2005/06 Commission budget. 9 Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: Y Year: FY 2005/06 Amount: $284,355 CVAG $521,318 WRCOG Source of Funds: Local Transportation Funds Budget Ad ustment: N GLA No.: 106-65-86205 Fiscal Procedures Approved: •\_lx,,vd„,, Date: 8/16/05 Attachments: CVAG FY 2005/06 Program Objectives WRCOG FY 2005/06 Program Objectives 10 611A6 `s (4. b TRANSPORTATION FISCAL YEAR 2005/06 PROGRAM OBJECTIVES The Work Plan for 2005/06 is separated into eight main program areas: Transportation Department Operations . Transportation Program Administration . Monitor Implementation of Transportation Project Prioritization Study (TPPS) . Capital Improvement Program (CD) Update . Other Transportation Planning . Operations Management and Administration This program area performs primarily administrative functions which consist of general transportation program administrative activities and various transportation planning duties in support of the Transportation Department. (Funded from Measure A and TUMF) Project Management and Contract Administration . Financial Cash Flow • Project Status Tracking . Preparation and Monitoring Agreements Includes staff time to conduct project oversight (design, environmental, construction and close-out), preparation of reimbursement agreements for regional arterial projects, review and approval of projectbillings in accordance with project scope of work and participation in project development, team meetings and associated staff reports: (Funded from Measure A, TUMF and TEA-21) Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) Programs . State highway Routes in the Coachella Valley • Congestion Management Program/System (CMP/CMS) . RCTC Technical Advisory Committee . State Highway Measure A Discussions Includes staff time to, (i) support the Riverside County Congestion Management Program through building permit analysis of the one non-TUMF jurisdiction and analysis of traffic pattern's through the traffic count program, (ii) participation in the Surface Transportation Program/Congestion Management Air Quality (STP/CMAQ) project selection for CVAG and western County areas, (iii) assist RCTC staff in the 11 I selection of SB 821 bicycle and pedestrian projects for the Coachella valley and westem County areas, (iv) provide RCTC staff regional transportation project information for the State Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP), and (v) support the RCTC Technical Advisory Committee. (Funded from CMAQ, TUMF and State Highway Measure A) Planning, Programmine and Monitoring Program . Regional Transportation Improvement Program/State Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP/STIP) This area includes staff time in support of the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) and Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP), support in implementation and updating of the CVAG Transportation Project Prioritization Study (TPPS), coordination of updates to the Capital Improvement Plan (CIP), and monitoring and examining impacts of implementing SB 45. TPPS activities support the regional project construction program which includes staff time to develop an annual prioritized list of construction projects and required financial resources.. (Funded from TEA-21. PP&M, LTF and Measure A) Miscellaneous Programs • GIS Information Services . Maintain Transportation Model . Regional Arterial Traffic Count Program . I-10 Corridor This area involves support to multiple programs with a focus on key project areas. . These areas include staff time and project management to, (i) GIS Information Services, (ii) the regional transportation' model (CVATS), (iii) the regional arterial traffic count program, and (iv) transportation legislation review and analysis. GIS Information Services includes staff time to provide regional land use information to CVAG jurisdictions, developers, SCAG and Caltrans. The Coachella Valley Area Transportation Study (CVATS) regional transportation model involves support to update the current transportation model to the year 2030 and add the proposed 2030 land use plus socio-economic data for forecasting projected transportation system needs. (Funded from Measure A, TUMF, CMAQ and Special Program Funds) Support Congestion Management /Air Ouality Programs . SB 821 Program . Conformance with SIP requirements Involves Transportation Department staff supportto CMAQ program areas. Support 12 will focus on the SB 821 program. Also includes implementation of State Implementation Plan (SIP) conformance to CVAG.regional projects. (Funded from TEA-21, Measure and SB 821) Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) Program . TUMF Program Administration . TUMF/GIS Interface Includes staff time in support of the TUMF program and TUMF/GIS Interface program. TUMF program activities include staff time to .(i) monitor the implementation of the TUMF program in member jurisdictions, (ii).perform annual fiscal reviews of building permits and TUMF collections, (iii) research, analyze and prepare reports for TUMF appeals, (iv) enter TUMF collections in the TUMF data . base, (v) meet with developers on request to review potential TUMF assessments, and (vi) perform special TUMF analysis on request. The TUMF/GIS Interface program requires support for continuing the development of integrating the TUMF collection process with electronic transmission of new development information for land use coverages. (Funded from TUMF) Governmental and Special Projects . Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) Overall Work Program The SCAG OWP program includes staff time to coordinate the CVAG sub -region SCAG Overall Work Program needs, develop annual growth projections, collect annual Highway Performance Monitoring System data, provide input to the Federal Regional .Transportation Plan, and assist SCAG with transportation modeling refinements. Additionally, staff performs specific transportation project work for SCAG through their Overall Work Program. SCAG OWP projects for GIS support, Growth Visioning and the Southeast Bypass Routing Study will be part of the 2005/06 fiscal year program. (Funded from SCAG OWP funds) . Special Projects Some proposed projects may involve general fund money or special grants. Any project not already a part of the regular work programs, will be brought through the committee process for approval of the proposed work. A Caltrans grant, the "Coachella Valley Design for Healthy Living", will be part of the 2005/06 fiscal year program. (Funded from Special Grant funds and General Funds) 13 • WRCOG Fiscal Year 2005-2006 Local Transportation Funds Program Objectives The Work Plan for FY2005-06 is divided into 3 key program areas: Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) Overall Work Program (OWP) The SCAG OWP includes staff time to: coordinate the WRCOG sub -regional priorities/needs into the OWP; participate in the SCAG Technical Advisory Committees; work with our Policy Committee members to assist SCAG with the performance of specific transportation, air quality, planning and GIS work for SCAG as part of their Overall Work Program; work with SCAG and our partners regarding goods movement, population and employment issues; conduct outreach on air quality, transportation, and planning issues with the public, member jurisdictions and regional agencies. Air Quality and Planning Programs Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) projects/programs Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and California Air Resources Board Caltrans Department of Energy (DOE) and California Energy Commission South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) Riverside Conservation Agency (RCA) Air Quality: These programs include staff time to: support the Air Quality Task Force and the Clean Cities Program; expand of the Coalition to include the entire WRCOG sub region; continue the Clean Cities Interactive Middle School Program; participation in the National Clean Cities Conference and DOE Peer Review sessions; . continue to develop emission reduction strategies; assist in the purchase of alternative fuel vehicles and development of infrastructure; continue to apply for and administer grants; attend and participate in regional air quality meetings; attend and participate in EPA and Air resources Board hearings and workshops and conferences, to provide sub regional input. Participate in outreach to our jurisdictions regarding SCAQMD rule making; Planning: These programs include: staff time to coordinate with the grant partners to analyze, develop strategies and implement the Caltrans 1-15 Interregional Partnership, and the issues, the Transit Oriented Development grant legislative review and analysis; and support to the Multi Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) as determined by the RCA Board. 14 Regional Transportation Programs Riverside Transit Agency Riverside and San Bemardino County Transportation Commissions TUMF: This program includes staff time to administer the TUMF Program which includes but is not limited to: program contract/agreement administration; TUMF Zone TIP development and amendments; develop an investment policy and program for TUMF revenue; annual fiscal audit; preparation of annual adjustment for construction costs; maintain TUMF data base of fee collections and disbursements; work with developers on credit and reimbursement agreements; develop and maintain a GIS database to support the Program. Miscellaneous and GIS: This area includes staff time to and project management to: with the County of Riverside and the RCA review the criteria cells and other coverage analysis; develop databases and provide analysis and mapping to support RCTC's rail, STIP, TUMF and transit programs and projects; provide land use, population and employment and other GIS information to local and regional agencies, Cabans, and other state agencies; legislative review and analysis_ RiversideTransportation Commission Programs: These programs include staff time and project management to assistance in transportation planning and air quality programs to include: participation in the Regional TUMF project evaluations, TUMF credits and reimbursements agreements and other TUMF Program tasks as needed to assist RCTC in the implementation of the Regional TUMF Program; participate in evaluation committees as requested; CETAP and other planning related tasks as determined in consultation with the RCTC Executive Director. 15 AGENDA ITEM 9 RIVERS/DE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: August 22, 2005 TO: Plans and Programs Committee FROM: Tanya Love, Program Manager THROUGH: Cathy Bechtel, Division Head, Planning SUBJECT: Fiscal Year 2005/06 Amendment to SunLine Transit Agency's Short Range Transit Plan - Revised Program of Projects for Section 5307 Funds i STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Committee to: 1) Approve the addition of $1,941,392 in operating funds to the Indio/Cathedral City/Palm Springs urbanized area Program of Projects; 2) Direct staff to include the operating funds in the 2004 Regional Transportation Improvement Plan; 3) Amend SunLine Transit Agency's FY 2005/06 Short Range Transit Plan to reflect the change; 4) Direct staff to schedule a public hearing at the September Commission meeting, and 5) Forward to the Commission for final action. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: In FY 2003/04, SunLine Transit Agency was approved to receive $1,941,392 in Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Section 5307 operating funds. The operating funds were subsequently added to the 2002 Regional Transportation Improvement Plan (RTIP). Unfortunately, an FTA grant application was not submitted during the 2002 approved RTIP timeframe. In order for SunLine to access the funds, the Commission must: 1) Add the operating funds to the FY 2005/06 Program of Projects for Indio/Cathedral City/Palm Springs; 2) Amend the FY 2004 RTIP; and 3) Conduct a public hearing at the September 14, 2005 Commission meeting. 16 If approved, SunLine will submit its FY 2005/06 grant application as soon as the federal budget is signed. Attachment: Fiscal Year 2005/06 Program of Projects 17 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION PROGRAM OF PROJECTS FTA SECTION 5307 FY 2005/06 URBANIZED AREA: INDIO/CATHEDRAL CITY/PALM SPRINGS RECIPIENT: SUNLINE TRANSIT AGENCY Total Apportionment (Projected) Apportionment $2,916,283 l Carryover-$833,657 Carryover (FY 2003/04 Operating Assistance) $1,941,392 Transfer of Funds (CMAQ) $0 ! Total Funds Available $4,024,018 I ! 1 Less Current Requests $4,024,D18 Balance (Projected) $0 i TOTAL FEDERAL PROJECT DESIGNATED NUMBER PROGRAM OF PROJECTS AMOUNT SHARE TYPE RECIPIENT 1!) Capitalized preventive $1,000,000 $800,000 Operating/ SCAG maintenance (RIV 041042) Capital 2.) ; Fixed route buses - 16 $6,505,655 $776,626 Capital SCAG ' I replacement (RIV 050546) 3) Varner Road property - $102,000 $80,837 Capital SCAG installment payment (RIV 010502) 4) Transit enhancements: Bus $35,000 $29,163 Capital SCAG stop amenities (RIV 050547) 5) ; 6) TOTAL: DAR vehicles - 9 replacement (RIV 050549) Operating Assistance' (RIV 21241) $495,000 $396,000 Capital SCAG $17,208,500 $1,941,392 Operating SCAG $25,346,155 $4,024,018 11,849,608 available to use as operating funds per FTA's FY 2003 Apportionments, Allocations and Program Information (Table 15). $91,784 is balance of Palm Springs UZA funds. Approved: 7/13/2005 Revised: 9/14/05 (Pending Commission Action) Indio/Coachella/Palm Springs UZA FY 2005/06 8/16/2005 18 AGENDA ITEM 10 • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: August 22, 2005 TO: Plans and Programs Committee FROM: Tanya Love, Program Manager THROUGH: Cathy Bechtel, Division Head, Planning SUBJECT: FY 2005/06 State Transit Assistance Funds STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Committee to: 1) Receive and file the revised estimate of FY 2005/06 State Transit Assistance Funds; 2) Notify the Riverside County Transit Operators of the revised estimate, and 3) Forward to the Commission for final action. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: In January 2005, RCTC was notified by the California State Controller's Office that the amount of State Transit Assistance (STA) funds to be allocated to Riverside County was $3,891,704. Recently, RCTC received a revised estimate reflecting the amount of State Transit Assistance funds approved by the Governor in the State Budget for FY 2005/06. The revised estimate for Riverside County is $5,913,556, an increase of $2,02.1,852 over the State's original projection. Commission staff believes the increase is due in large part to the Proposition 42 funds which in FY 2005/06 will be used for transportation projects. The following chart represents the revised allocations, by apportionment area, as a result of the revised estimate: 19 STA Fund Type Section 99913 (Discretionary) Section 99314 (Non -Discretionary) Total Available $ 5,114,805 Bus* Raiff* $ 798,751 Banning* Beaumont* Corona* Riverside* RTA* Rail* $ 5,913,556 Western County Apportionment Areas Coachella Valley Palo Verde Valley $ 3,971,646 $ 1,059,788 $ 83,371 3,097,884 873,762 $ 574,022 $ 222,982 $ 1,747 3,756 2,590 7,540 8,356 200,598 351,182 TOTAL $ 4,545,668 $ 1,282,770 $ 85,11.8 *Amounts included in sub totals; breakdown provided as additional information. Upon Commission approval, staff will formally notify the Riverside County Transit Operators of the revised STA estimate via an up -date to the Transit Revenue Estimates which was originally provided to the transit operators in January 2005. Requests for additional_ funding, if any, will be presented to the Commission for . review through the Short Range Transit Plan amendment process. Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: No Year: 2005/06 Amount: $2,021,852 Source of Funds: State Transit Assistance Funds Budget Adjustment: Yes GLA No.: 241-62-42301: $1,743,802 241-62-42303: $ 278,050 Fiscal Procedures Approved: \iiiy,4Ly .. Date: 8/22/05 Attachment: Transit Revenue Estimates for FY 2005/06 20 i RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION TRANSIT REVENUE ESTIMATES FOR FY 2005106 (Includes Prior Year Projected Carry Over and Mid -Year Budget Adjustments) Date Prepared: 1/05 Revised: 8105 I Western Riverside Coachella Palo Verde LOCAL TRANSPORTATION FUNDS Bus Rail Valley Valley _ FY 2005106 Estimated Apportionments (Net of reserves) $ 32.299.034 $ 9,109,984 $ 11,052,096 $ 669.896 FY 20D4/0511441-Year Budget Adios Latent (Attachment 3) $ 7.285.395 $ 2,055,137 $ - 2,510,169 $ 198,235 FY 2003f04 Estimated Carry Over (Apportioned/Unallocated) 3.744,531 10,067,152 - 143.558 61,122 Projected Sub Total: - _ 43,379,960 21,232,273 13,705,823 1.12E1,255 FY2003/64 Estimated Carry Over (Apportioned:Unclaioed) Prepaid Amounts (pending receipt of federal dollars) Projected Sub Total: Projected Total: Banning 161,442 Beaumont 140,320 Corona 77,000 RSS RTA 3,525,197 Rail RTAfSunLine . 4,300,000 8,203,959 250.000 1,400,000 250,000 1,400000 $ 51,583,919 $ 21,482,273 $-15,105,823 $ 1,129,255. STATE TRANSIT ASSISTANCE FUNDS - 99313 FUNDS FY 200SA16 Estimated Apportionments 3,097,884 $ 873,762 $ 1,059,788 $ 83,371 FY 2003/04 Estimated Carry Over(Apportioned/Unallocated) FY 2003/04 Estimated Carry Over (Allocated/Unclaimed) Projected Total: 717,996 RTA/SunLine 521,770 156,855 528,307 43,296 $ 4,337,650 $ 873,762 $ 1,744,960. -.$ 126,667 STATE TRANSIT ASSISTANCE FUNDS - 99314 FUNDS l IY 2005106 Estimated Apportionments - Banning $ 3.756 $ Beaumont 2,590 Corona 7,590 RS5 8,356 RTA 200,598 Rail 351,182 222,982 $ 1,747' F,l( 2003/04 Estimated Carry Over (Apportioned/Unallocated) rojected Total: Banning Beaumont Corona RS3 RTA Rao 14,697 1,293 2.896 4,058 575,446 $ 245,784 $ MEASURE "A" SPECIALIZED TRANSIT FUNDS EY 2005/06 Estimated Apportionments $ - $ • FY 2004/05 Mid -Year Budget Adjustment (Attachment 2A) FY 2003/04 Estimated Carry Over (ApportionedlUnallocaled) Projected Total: 926,628 $ 222,982 ..$ 1,747 3,153,00D $ 263,000 348,919 - - $ 3,764,919 $ SECTION 5307 FEDERAL FUNDING .Nanel/San Jacinto $ 1.640049 $ - $ Riverside/San Bernardino 7.523.685 14,902,294 Temecula-Murrieta 1,574.070 - 'Indio -Coachella - Projected Total: 2.082,626 10,737,804 $ 14,902,294 $ - Z082,626 $ SECTION 5309 FEDERAL FUNDING (Fixed Guide Way) $ $ 9,396,012 $ - $ Projected Total: - $ $ 6,396,012 $ - $ SECTION 5311 FEDERAL FUNDING Projected Total: GRAND TOTAL (PROJECTED) $ 169.419 $ - $ 113,520 $ - $ 189,419 $ - $ 113,520 $ $ 67,094,576 $ 44,580,969 $ 23,034,830 $ 1,257,669 Reserves (Not Included In Grand Total (Above)) $ 3,588,781 $ 1,012,220 $ 1,228,011 ..$ 96,655 Total (Above - Includes Reserves) Discretionary Funds (Section 5309) GRAND TOTAL: $ 141.893;711 • 56,594,489 $ 148ALL8,200 8/15/2005 FY 2005/06 Revenue Estimates Plus Prior Year Carry Forward 21 AGENDA ITEM 11 i RIVERS/DE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMM/SS/ON DATE: August 22, 2005 TO: Plans and Programs Committee FROM: Tanya Love, Program Manager THROUGH: Cathy Bechtel, Division Head, Planning SUBJECT: Riverside Transit Agency's Request for Local Transportation Funds Pending Receipt of FY 2004/05 FTA Section 5307 Funds STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Committee to: 1) Allocate $590,000 in Local Transportation Funds (LTF) to the Riverside Transit Agency (RTA) pending receipt of FY 2004/05 Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Section 5307 funds, and 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: RTA is requesting an advance of $590,000 in LTF funds pending receipt of the FTA Section 5307 funds for FY 2004/05. At its July 2004 meeting, the Commission approved a total of $10,948,312 in FTA Section 5307 funds for RTA through the FY 2004/05 Short Range Transit Plan allocation process. Although the funds were allocated, due to the pending reauthorization of the transportation bill, federal funding has only been available to transit operators in incremental amounts. As a result, in February 2005, the Commission approved an advancement of approximately $5.8M to RTA to cover a projected operating shortfall. The request for $590,000 is for capital. RTA received approval for a total of $2,070,075 in federal and state funding to cover their debt service related to the purchase of 57 transit buses and miscellaneous equipment. The October 2005 debt service payment is $1,826,000; RTA has $1,236,000 available and is seeking the balance of $590,000 in order to meet the obligation. 22 There are adequate LTF funds available to cover this request. Staff is in support of the advancement of funds and recommends that upon receipt of the federal funding, LTF payments to RTA be decreased by the same dollar amount. Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: N/A Year: N/A Amount: N/A Source of Funds: Local Transportation Funds Budget Ad ustment: No GLA No.: N/A Fiscal Procedures Approved: \i_t/,,a,oz,34,_vm Date: 8/22/05 • 23 AGENDA ITEM 12 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: August 22, 2005 TO: Plans and Programs Committee FROM: Stephanie Wiggins, Rail Department Manager THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Division Head, Programming and Administration SUBJECT: Approval of Alameda Corridor East (ACE) Trade. Corridor Rail Crossing Grade Separation Priority List i STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Committee to: 1) Approve the Alameda Corridor East (ACE) Trade Corridor Rail Crossing Grade Separation Priority List, and 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The Alameda Corridor is a 20-mile freight line that connects the ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles to intermodal facilities near downtown Los Angeles and generally parallels Alameda Street along most of its route. Throughout the corridor, the rail line is separated from surface street traffic, so the high volume of freight trains will not delay street traffic. After leaving the Alameda Corridor, the majority of trains turn east, destined to intermodal terminals in the Inland Empire or to other parts of the country. This area is known as the Alameda Corridor East (ACE) Trade Corridor. The rail lines of the ACE Trade Corridor pass through the San Gabriel Valley, Orange County, San Bernardino County, and Riverside County. UMW> FYI! RgasmormRtamom utfou. UNIMORMS WAWMpBC 441 M1,TR At its March 2001 meeting, the Commission established the Riverside County ACE Trade Corridor Rail Crossing Grade Separation Priority List based on seven factors: • Existing Vehicle Delay (1999) — weighted 20% • Future Vehicle Delay (2020) — weighted 20% • Accident Reduction/Safety (accident rate past 10 years) — weighted 20% 24 • Distance from other grade separations • Local Ranking • Emission Reduction, and • Noise Reduction (Impact on nearby residential areas). Purpose for 2005 Update Since March 2001, freight growth and population growth have increased. In addition, Commissioners have expressed a desire to update the data used in the criteria. At its. March 2005 meeting, the Commission approved the use of the same evaluation criteria for the Update with current data sources for all of the factors. 2001 Approved Evaluation Criteria 2005 Approved Evaluation Criteria Criteria Weight Criteria Weight Max Score Existing Vehicle Delay (1999) 20% Existing Vehicle Delay (2004) 20% 1000 Future Vehicle Delay (2020) 20% Future Vehicle Delay (2030) 20% 1000 Accident Reduction/Safety 20% Accident Reduction/Safety 20% 1000 Distance from other Grade Separations 10% Distance from other Grade Separations 10% 500 Local Ranking 10% Local Ranking 10% 500 Emission Reduction 10% Emission Reduction 10% 500 Noise Reduction 10% Noise Reduction 10% 500 . TOTAL 100% TOTAL 100% 5000 Results of the 2005 Update The update reaffirms the significant delay at main line freight rail crossings within Riverside County. Attachment A provides a list of the preliminary ranking of the at - grade crossings. The local ranking for the crossings within the cities of Beaumont and Coachella are based upon the 2001 input and will be updated once input is received. Below are summary measures of delay designed to illustrate the impact to Riverside County. Gate down time is a measurement that depends on the number, length, and speed of trains passing through the crossing. Therefore, the number is the same at each crossing of each subdivision due to the assumption that trains are traveling the speed limit on each segment. 25 Gate Down Time Rail Line Gates Down (2001) Gates Down (2005) Gates Down (2030) BNSF + UP (SB SUB) 1 hr 54 min per day 3 hrs 34 min per day 8 hrs 20 min per day BNSF (SB SUB) 1 hr 17 min per day 2 hrs 26 min per day 5 hrs 29 min per day Yuma Main 1 hr 12 min per day 1 hr 26 min per day 3 hrs 33 min per day UP (LA SUB) 48 min per day 1 hr 23 min per day 3 hrs 37 min per day Another measurement of impact is the length associated with the cars or traffic volume queuing at the grade crossings while the gates are down. Total Vehicle Queuing in Riverside County ; The sum of all vehicle queues at all crossings for a typical day: 2001 2005 2030 44.5 miles 81.4 miles 290.8 miles The gate down time and vehicle queuing length for each crossing is identified in Attachment B. Total Vehicle Delay in Riverside County Total daily delay for all crossings is equivalent to the following: 2005 2030 A line of vehicles 4.5 miles long sitting (idling) for an hour. A line of vehicles 24.8 miles long sitting (idling) for an hour. Attachments: (A) 2005 Rail Crossing Priority List Update (preliminary) (B) 2005 Gate Down Time & Length of Queue Waiting for Train Crossings (C) 2005 vs. 2001 Priority List Comparison (preliminary) 26 PRELIMINARY Attachment A 2005 Rail Crossing Grade. Separation Priority List (Prelim)* Overall Group Rail Cross _ Weighted Line Street Jurisdiction Score BNSF(SB SUB) is NSF & UP (SB SUB : k • • ( : Magnolia Av Chicago Av 3rd St Riverside County Riverside Riverside 4850 4380 4060 1 1 1 Columbia Av (BNSF) Riverside .4000 1 BNSF (SB SUB) McKinle St Corona 3950 1 : NSF & UP SB SUB Iowa Av (BNSF) Riverside • 3820 1 1 BNSF (SB SUB) Adams St. Riverside 3665 BNSF (SB SUB) Smith Av Corona 3613 2 UP (LA SUB) Jurupa Rd Riverside County 3580 2 UP (YUMA MAIN) Sunset Av Banning 3500 2 BNSF (SB SUB) Tyler St Riverside 3500 2 BNSF (SS SUB) .i Mary St Riverside 3465 2 NZF & UP (SB SUB Center St Riverside County 3523 2 UP (YUMA MAIN) Hargrave St Banning 3425 2 ; BNSF (SB SUB) Auto Center Dr.' Corona 3388 2 BNSF (SB SUB) Madison St Magnolia Av Riverside 3340 2 . UP (LA SUB) Riverside 3330 2 :NSF & UP (SB SUB Kansas Av (BNSF) 7th St Riverside 3220 2 -NSF & UP (SB SUB Riverside 3135 2 BNSF (SB SUB) Pierce St Riverside 3090 . 3 i= F : P ( liyB Palmyrita Av (UP) Riverside 3010 3 • Q Railroad St Corona 2925 3 F : • (y4t • Spruce St (BNSF) Riverside 2845 3 UP LA SUB) Riverside Av Riverside 2810 3 . BNSFOB SUB) BNSF & UP (RIV) Buchanan St Riverside 2800 3 Cridge St Riverside 2650 3 UP (LA SUB) Clay St Riverside County 2614 3 UP (YUMA MAIN) Avenue 481Dillon Road Indio/Coachella 2550 3 UP (LA SUB Streeter Av Riverside 2540 3 BNSF (SB SUB) Washington St Riverside 2530 3 UP (LA SUB) Brockton Av Riverside 2400 3 BNSF SB SUB) Jefferson St Riverside 2380 3 UP (YUMAMAIN)San Gorgonio Av Banning 2375 3 UP (YUMA MAIN) 22nd St Banning 2375 3 , UP (YUMA MAIN) Avenue 52 Coachella 2233 4 UP YUMA MAIN) San Timoteo Canyon Rd Calimesa 2175 4 Corona 2113 4 BNSF (SB SUBL Cote St Riverside County 2091 4 UP (YUMA MAIN) Avenue 66 UP (YUMA MAIN) Viele Av Beaumont 1983 4 UP (LA SUB) Bellgrave Av Riverside County 1984 4 UP (LA SUB) _ _ Palm Av Riverside 196,5 4 UP (YUMA MAIN) Broadway RiversideCounty 1786 4 BNSF (SB SUB) `, Jackson St Riverside 1805 4 UP (YUMA MAIN A. ache Trail Riverside Coun 1695 4 UP (LA SUB) Ruffle St Riverside County 1668 4.. NSF & UP SB SUB Main St Riverside County 1727 4 UP (YUMA MAIM Airport Drive Riverside County 1682 4 BNSF (SB SUB)_ Harrison St Riverside__ 1495 4 BNSF (SB SUB) Joy St Corona 1475 4 UP MA MAIN v California Av Beaumont 1450 4 UP(LA SUB) Mountain View Av Riverside 1400 4 BNSF SB SUB) Radio Rd Corona 1400 4 UP (LA SUB) Panorama Rd Riverside 1265 4 BNSF (SB SUB) Jane St Riverside 1210 5 UP (YUMA MAIN) _ Tipton Rd _ Palm Springs — 1100 5 UP (YUMA MAIN) . Pennsylvania Av Beaumont 917 5 _ BNSF (SB SUB) Sheridan St Corona 813 5 UP (YUMA MAIN) Avenue 54 Coachella 767 5 BNSF (SB SUB) Gibson St Riverside 695 5 'Local priority ranking for cities of Coachella a Beaumont is based upon 2001 submission. SW.Attachment A to Rail Crossing Priority List.xls;Priority 9rpupings; 8/1'7/2005 ATTACHMENT B - Train Line - Location Jurisdiction Gates Down Time Per Day 2005 Gates Down Time Per Day 2030 Total Daily. Queue Length (miles) 2005 - TotaLDaily Queen Length (miles) ,. 2030 UP (LA SUB) Bel!grave Av Riverside County 1 hr 23 min 3 hrs 37 min 1-.11 4.64 - , UP (LA SUB) - Rutile St Riverside County 1 hr 23 min 3 hrs 37 min 1.18 - 3.74 UP (LA SUB) - Junnpand Rlverside.County 1 hr 2_3 min 3 hrs 37 min 1.57 6.98 - UP (LA SUB) _ Clay St Riverside County _ 1 hr 23 min 3 hrs 37 min - -1.26 4.02 UP (LA SUB) Mountain View Av. Riverside 1 hr 23 min 3 hrs -37min 0.27 1.06 UP (LA SUB) Streeter Av Riverside 1 hr 23 min 3 hrs 37 min 0.81 2.88 UP (LA SUB) Palm Av Riversde 1 hr 23 min 3 hrs 37 min 1.33 .. 4.03 i UP (LA SUB) Brockton Av Riverside 1 hr 23 min 3 hrs 37 min 0.91 ' 2.73 I UP (LA SUB). Magnolia Av Riverside 1 hr 23 min 3 hrs 37 min ' 1.28 - 4.20 - - I UP (LA SUB) ' Riverside Av Riverside 1 hr 23 min 3 hrs 37 min 1.88 5.20 : I UP (LA SUB) Panorama'Rd Riverside 1 hr 23 min 3hrs 37 min 0.76 2.52 - BNSF (SB SUB) Auto Center Dr Corona 2 hrs 26 min 5 hrs 29 min 1.44. • 12.42 .BNSF (SB SUB) Smith Av Corona - 2 hrs 26 min 5 hrs 29 min - 2.15 - - . 9.60 BNSF (SB SUB) - Railroad St - Corona . ._ 2 hrs 26 min 5 hrs 29 min 1.24 - 7.65 _ :BNSF (SB SUB) Cola St.. Corona 2 hrs 26 min 5 hrs 29 min 1.35 6.50 - 'BNSF (SB SUB) Sheridan St Corona 2 hrs 26 min. 5 hrs 29 min 0.63 - 1.76 " BNSF (SB SUB) Joy St Corona 2 hrs 26 min 5 hrs 29 min 1.46 5.72 BNSF (SB SUS Radio Rd Corona 2 hrs 26 min 5 hrs 29 min, 1.13 - 3.16 BNSF (SB SUB) . McKinley St Corona 2 hrs 26 min 5 hrs 29 min _ 4.61 13-80 -BNSF (SB SUB) Magnolia Av Riverside County 2 hrs 26 min • 5 hrs 29 min.. 2.40 . - 7.77 BNSF (SB SUB) Buchanan St Riverside . 2 hrs 26 min 5 hrs 29 min 0.96 - - 4.27 - BNSF (SB SUB) Pierce St Riverside 2 hrs 26 min 5 hrs 29 min 2.35 • 7.68 - BNSF (SB SUB) Tyler St Riverside Riverside 2 hrs 26 min 5 hrs 29 min 1.67 - 6.27 BNSF (SB SUB) Harrison St 2 hrs 26 min - 5 hrs'29 min 1.45 - .' 4.32 - BNSF (SB SUB) Gibson St Riverside 2 hrs 26 min 5.hrs 29 min 0.66 1.84 BNSF (SB SUB) Jackson St Riverside 2 hrs 26 min 5 hrs 29 min 0.78 1.97 BNSF (SB SUB) Adams St Riverside 2 hrs 26 min 5 hrs 29 min 3.37 8.36 (SB SUB) Jefferson St Riverside 2 hrs 26 min 5 hrs 29 min - 1.79 . 4.99 _BNSF BNSF (SB SU 3) - Madison St Riverside 2 hrs 26 min 5 hrs 29 min 1.48 • 3.37 - . BNSF (SB SUB)- - ' Washington St _ Riverside 2 hrs 26 min 5 hrs 29 min 1.99 - -5.87 BNSF (SB SUB) Mary St Riverside 2 hrs 26 min .- 5 hrs 29 min. 1.34 4.19 . - BNSF. (SB SUB) Jane St Riverside 2 hrs 26 min 5 hrs 29 min . 1.04 - 2.91 BNSF & UP (RIV) Cridge. St • Riverside - 3 hrs 54 min 3 hrs 53 min - 2.83 - 7.93 BNSF & UP (SB SUB) 7th St Riverside 3 hrs 34 min 8 hrs 20 min 1.30 6.84 BNSF & UP (SB SUB) 3rd St Riverside 3 hrs 34 min 8 hrs 20min. 2.34 7.49 - __ BNSF & UP (SB SUB) Kansas Av Riverside 3 hrs 34 min 8 hrs 20 min 2.56 8.28 BNSF & UP (SB SUB) Spruce St Riverside 3 hrs 34 min 8 hrs 20 min 0.31 3.08 - BNSF & UP(S0 SUB) Chicago Av - _ Riverside 3 hrs 34 min . 8 hrs 20 min 1.93 7.68 BNSF &- UP (SB SUB) : Columbia Av. Riverside 3 hrs 34 min 8 hrs 20 min 2.15 7.39 BNSF & UP (SB SUB) Palmyrita Av - Riverside 3 hrs 34 min 8hrs 20 min 0.76 . 5.29 - BNSF & UP (SB SUBL Iowa Av Riverside • 3 hrs 34 min 8 hrs 20 min 2.86. 10.59 BNSF & UP (SB SUB) Center St - Riverside County 3 hrs 34 min 8 hrs 20 min - - 2.00 6.66 BNSF. & UP (SB SUB) - Main St Riverside Counly. 3 hrs 34 min 8 hrs 20 min 1.09 - 3.46 UP (YUMA MAIN) San Timoleo Canyon Rd Calimesa 1 hr 26 min 3 hrs 33 min ' 1.02 - 3.44 UP (YUMA MAIN) Viele Av _ Beaumont 1 hr 26 min. 3 hrs 33 min 0.01 • - -0.04 • UP (YUMA MAIN) California Av Beaumont 1 hr 26 min 3 hrs 33 min - 0.62 2.93 - UP (YUMA MAIN) Pennsylvania Av Beaumont 1 hr 26 min 3 hrs 33 min 0.28 - 2.01 __ UP (YUMA MAIN) Sunset Av Banning hr 26 min 3 hrs 33 min 2.06 7.25 UP (YUMA MAIN) ' 22nd St Banning _1 1 hr 26 min 3 hrs 33 min - 1.87 - • 4.56 UP (YUMA MAIN) - - San Gorgonio Av Banning 1 hr 26 min 3 hrs 33 min 1.77.. 5.45 . UP (YUMA MAIN) Hargrave St Banning 1 hr 26 min 3 hrs 33 min 2.13.. -. 10.76 UP (YUMA MAIN) Apache Trail Riverside County 1 hr 26 min 3 hrs 33 min : 0.15 - -- 5.83 - UP (YUMA MAIN) Broadway Riverside County . 1 hr 26 min 3 hrs 33 min D.35 - 1.08 UP (YUMA MAIN) Tipton Rd Palm Springs 1 hr 26 mkt 3 hrs 33 min . 0.01 0.04 - UP (YUMA MAIN) - Avenue 48/Dillon Rd Indio/Coachella 1 hr 26 min 3.hrs 33 min , - 0.62 1.90 UP (YUMA MAIN) Avenue 52 - - Coachella 1 hr 26 min 3 hrs 33 min 0.82 2.50 • UP (YUMA MAIN) Avenue 54 - Coachella 1 hr 26 min 3 hrs 33 min 0.07 0.21 -. UP (YUMA MAIN) Airport Boulevard Riverside County 1 hr 26 min. 3 hrs 33 min 0.66 1.02 - UP (YUMA MAIN) Avenue.66. Riverside County 1 hr 26 min 3 hrs 33 min 1.15 - 0.64 '. TOTALS 61.37 290.76 28 Attachment C 2005 Update (prelim)* vs 2001 Priority Lis( 1 Jurisdiction 'Iry 2001 :„1 Final Group BNSF (SB SUB) BNSF & UP (SS SUB) BNSF &UP(S5 SUB) Magnolia Av • Chicago Av 3rd St -Iverside County Riverside Riverside 4850 4380 4060 'T --- 1 1 ' BNSF'& UP (SB SUB) Colembla Av (BNSF) • Riverside 4000 1 BNSF SB SUB McKinle St Corona 3950 1 BNSF & UP (SS SUB) Iowa AY (BNSF) Rverside 3820 1 BNSF(S8 SUB) Adams St Riverside 3665 1 BNSF (SS SUB) Smith Av Corona 3613 2 UP (LA SUB) Jurupa Rd Riverside County 3580 2 UP (YUMA MAIN) Sunset Av Banning 3500 2 BNSF (SB SUB) Tyler St Riverside 3500 2 BNSF (SB SUB) Mary St Riverside 3465 2 BNSF & UP LB SUS) Center St Riverside Count 3623 2 UP YUMA MAIN) Hargrave St Banning 3425 2 BNSF(SB SUB) Auto Center Dr Corona 3388 2 BNSF (SB SUB) Madison St Riversitle 3340 2 UP (LA SUB) Magnolia Av Riverside 3330 2 BNSF &UP(SBSUB) Kansas Ay (BNSF Riverside 3220 2 BNSF & UP (58 SUB) 71h St Riverside 3135 2 BNSF SB SUB) Pierce 5l Riverside 30g0 3 BNSF & UP (SS SUB) Palmyrita Av (Lip) •Rwerside 3010 3 BNSF SB SUB Railroad St Corona 2925 3 BNSF & UP (SB SUBL Spruce St (BNSF) Riverside 2845 3 UP (LA SUB) - Riverside. Av Riverside 2810 3 i BNSF SB SUB Buchanan 5l Riverside - 2800 3 BNSF&UP(RIV) Cridge St Riverside 2650 3 UP LA SUB Cla St Riverside CountL 2614 3 UP (YUMA MAIN)_ UP (LA SUB) Avenue 421/13illon Road Indio/Coachella 2550 3 Streeter Av Riverside 2540 3 BNSF (SB SU8) Washington St Riverside 2530 3 UP (LA SUB) Brockton Av Riverside 2400 3 BNSF (SB SUB) Jefferson St Riverside 2380 3 UP (YUMA MAIN) San Gorgonio Av Banning 2375 3 UP (YUMA MAIN) 22nd St Banning 2375 3 UP YUMA MAIN Avenue 52 Coachella 2233 4 UP (YUMA MAIN) San Timoteo Canyon Rd Celimesa 2175 4 BNSF (SS SUB) Cote St Corona 2113 4 UP (YUMA MAIN) Avenue 66 Riverside County. 2091 4 UP YUMA MAIN Viele Av Beaumont 1983 4 UP (LA SUB) Bellgrave Av Riverside County. 1964 4 { UP (LA SUB) Palm Av Riverside 1265 4 -UP (YUMA MAIN) Broadway Riverside County 1786 4 BNSF (SB SUB) Jackson St Riverside 1805 4 'UP (YUMA MAIN) Apache Trail Riverside County 1695 4 UR(LA SUB) Rutile St Riverside County 1666 4 BNSF 8 UP (SB SUB) Main St Riverside County 1727 4 UP (YUMA MAIN Airport Drive Riverside County 1682 4 BNSF (SB SUB) Harrison St Riverside 1495 4 BNSF (SB SUB) • Joy St Corona 1475 4 UP (YUMA MAIN) California Av - Beaumont 1450 4 UP (LA SUB) Mountain View Av Riverside '1400 4 BNSF (SB SUB) • Radio Rd Corona 1400 1 UP (LA SUB) Panorama Rd Rverside 1265 4 BNSF(SB SUB) Jane St Riversides 12/0 5 ' VP (YUMA MAIN) Tipton Rd Patin Springs 1100 5 UP YUMA MAIN Pennsylvania Av Beaumonl 917 5 BNSF (5B SUB) Sheridan St Corona 813 5 UP (YUMA MAIN) Avenue 54 Coachella 767 5 BNSF (SS SUB) Gibson St Riverside 695 5 'local pnorily ranking for cal as of Coachella & Beaumont Is based upon 2001 submission SW.AttachmentC 2005 vs 2001 update prelilnx s;Prionty Groupings; _ 29 2 1 1 2001 %Score Reasons for Net Score Change Score Change (VHS vehicle hours of delay) 3600 34.7% T accident & local rank 3440' 27.a% T VHD 2005, accident, noise, local rank 4263 -4.7 % 4. VHO 2030 & accident 2940 36,1 % T VHO 2030, accident air quality, local rank 3600 9.7% T accident 3880 -1.5% 4. accident 2400 52,9% T all factors except nearby Gasps 1 2 3 2 4 1 1 2 3 4 4 4 2 2750 -15.B% 4, accident 3 2226 -2.2% 4, VHD 2030, air quality & noise 4 1713 23.3% 1, local rank 5 950 120.1% T accident 4 1133 761% T accident 4 1700 16.7% T air qualify 3 1020 8.0Y T air quality 3 1950 6.4% 4., VHD 2030 4 1755 2.8% T local rank 5 800 111.9% T VHD 2030 & air quality 4 1350 23.6% T VHD 2030 & air quality 4 1350 27.9% T air gustily & noise 4 1450 16.0% T local rank 4 1740 -14,1% 4-VHD 2005 & 2030 & air quality 3 1850 -20.3% 4 accidenl 3 2203 -34,1% 4, VHD 2030 Si air quality • 5 1000 40,0% T accident 5 563 148.7% T VHD 2205 & 2030 4 1060 .19.3% T air quality 4 1200 0.8% no change not rated not rated 4 1667 4 1125 5 825 4 1220 2113 71.0% T VHD 200a & 2030 & air quality • 2650 35.1% T VHD 2030, accident, air quality, & local ran) 2675 30.8% T VHD 2005, air quality & local rank • 2460 42.3% T VHO 2005 & 2030 & accident 3320 4 4% T local rank 2500 40.9% 'h all factors except nearby Gsepe 2500 37.0% T VHD 2005 & 2030 & accident 2738 23.7% T VHO 2030 & accident 2240 49,1% 4, VHD 205, accident, & air quality 3060 8.8% 1' local rank 2480 296% T VHD 2005, noise, & local rank 2000 56,6% T VHO 2005, alr ovallty & local rank 1885 63.9% T VHD 2205 & 2030, air quakly, & local rank 1020 195.1 % T accldenl & air quality & local rank 1975 40,1% T VHD 2030 & air quality & local rank 3180 -10,5% 4- VHD 2030 & air quality 3060 -62% y VHD 2005 1880 48.6% T accident and local rank, . 2820 -6,0% 4, VHD 2030 & accident 1700 53.7% T VHD 2005, accident, &air quality 3775 32.5 % y VHD 2005, 2030 & air quality 3000 -15.3% 4 VHD 2005 & accident 2520 0,4% no change 2450 -3.2% 4 VHO 2005 & 2030 1740 38.8% T local rank 1625 46.2% T VHD 2030 & air quality 1750 35,7% T VHD 2005 not rated N/A -45.0% y VHD 2030 &air quality -27,8% d% VHD 2005 &.2030 & air quality -7.1% J' air quality -43.0% 4 accident PREL RY 8/17/2005 AGENDA ITEM 1.3 • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: August 22, 2005 TO: Plans and Programs Committee FROM: Stephanie Wiggins, Rail Department Manager THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Division Head, Programming and Administration SUBJECT: Approve the List of Pre -Qualified Firms and Award of Contract #06-25-526, #06-25-527, and #06-25-528 for On -Call Goods Movement Consultant Services STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Committee to: 1) Approve the List of Pre -Qualified Firms for On -Call Goods Movement Consultant Services: Parsons Brinckerhoff, Cambridge Systematics, and Kimley-Horn and Associates; 2) Award Contract #06-25-526, #06-25-527, and #06-25-528 to the respective firms identified in the above recommendation for On -Call Goods Movement Consultant Services; 3) Authorize the Chairman, pursuant to Legal Counsel review, to execute the Agreements on behalf of the Commission, and 4) Forward to the Commission for final action. BACKGROUND INFORMATION_ Goods movement planning has become a critical function for the Commission as goods movement issues in Southern California have become more visible in regional transportation, environmental, and community planning discussions. Today, the Commission participates at both the technical and management levels in a number of regional goods movement efforts, which include, but are not limited to, the West Coast National Freight Gateway, Southern California Regional Strategy for Goods Movement, the Statewide Goods Movement Action Plan, and the Multi -County Goods Movement Action Plan. Involvement in these efforts allows the Commission to help shape solutions and improvement programs that address major infrastructure needs of the region while addressing the unique goods movement issues in Riverside County. 30 The development of a pre -qualified list of goods movement consultants will provide various types of support to staff in order to meet goods movement planning challenges. The types of support anticipated through this award include: • Development, technical review, and analysis of goods movement policy recommendations and projects; • Support for project prioritization and analysis; • Public outreach and education; • Financial and economic impact analysis of goods movement options; and • Environmental and community impact analysis. Selection Process The RFP was released on July 1, 2005 with a mailing to 20 firms. The RFP was also posted on the agency website. The Commission received five proposals by the deadline of August 4, 2005. The proposals were reviewed by the Evaluation Committee comprised of representatives from San Bernardino Associated Governments and RCTC. Three firms were interviewed on August 16, 2005. The three firms represent various strengths of benefit to the Commission therefore all three firms are recommended for the pre -qualified list: Parsons Brinckerhoff Cambridge Systematics Kimley-Horn & Associates Funding for the Study Currently, $250,000 in Local Transportation Funds is budgeted. This is a multiple - award, on -call service contract, therefore no funds are guaranteed to any consultant. Pre -qualified consultants will be selected for specific tasks based on information contained in their proposal. Services will be provided through issuance of a Contract Task Order (CTO). The maximum amount of a CTO is $50,000. Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: Y Year: FY 05/06 Amount: $250,000 Source of Funds: LTF Budget Ad ustment: N GLA No.: 103-25-81501 P4008 Fiscal Procedures Approved: ,,,14,,, Date: 8/16/05 • 31 AGENDA ITEM 14 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: August 22, 2005 TO: Plans and Programs Committee FROM: Stephanie Wiggins, Rail Department Manager THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Division Head, Programming and Administration SUBJECT: Quarterly Goods Movement Update STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Committee to: 1) Receive and file the Quarterly Goods Movement Update, and 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Southern California is the gateway to much of the world, as goods move through the Ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles, the busiest ports in the nation. While the movement of goods is critical for business and the creation of jobs, it has an increasingly severe impact on the quality of life in Southern California as more and more goods are shipped through our local ports. In addition, Eastern Riverside County also serves as a NAFTA corridor and will also face increasing truck traffic. The Goods Movement Update provides the Committee with information on current activities to provide trade congestion relief. Trade congestion relief includes capacity improvements to the rail and highway corridor as well as mitigation of community impacts such as grade separation projects. • Award of Multi -County Goods Movement Action Plan Contract to Wilbur Smith and Associates At its May meeting, the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority approved the award of the Multi -County Goods Movement Action Plan (MCGMAP) consultant contract to the team lead by Wilbur Smith and Associates. MCGMAP is a multi -agency effort to establish a framework to meet the growing demand for freight movement by ensuring prudent investment of public and private resources and minimizing the impacts of goods movement on existing infrastructure, nearby communities, and the environment. The Action Plan will develop feasible solutions/strategies for the short term (0-5 years), mid term (6-15 years) and long term (15+ years) that will ultimately lead to implementation. The Commission is contributing $125,000 towards this $1,000,000 effort. 32 There will be multiple opportunities for stakeholders and the community to provide input to the Action Plan, the foremost being meetings of the Stakeholder Advisory Group. Held every other month, these open meetings, with a broad cross-section of stakeholders represented, will include private interests and public and quasi- public entities. • PierPASS Exceeds Expectations in First Two Weeks , OffPeak is the off-peak hours program created by PierPASS, . a not -for -profit organization created by marine terminal operators to reduce congestion and improve air quality in and around the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach. OffPeak provides an incentive for cargo owners to move cargo at night, and on weekends, in order to reduce truck traffic and pollution during peak daytime traffic hours and to alleviate port congestion. Prior to OffPeak's launch on July 23'd, PierPASS had set a goal of moving 15. to 20 percent of cargo during Off Peak shifts after the first 12 months of operation. But during the first two weeks of the program, OffPeak shifts were typically handling nearly 30 percent of daily cargo traffic, resulting in a noticeable reduction in congestion during peak traffic times on freeways leading to the ports, and relieving congestion inside the terminals. More than 88,000 truck trips were shifted out of peak -hour traffic during the program's first two weeks. Alameda Corridor East Trade Corridor Definition and Earmarks in Reauthorization Bill The reauthorization of the Federal Transportation Bill was signed by President Bush earlier this month. The Bill includes earmarks for specific grade separation projects: • SR 86 & Avenue 66 highway grade separation: $3.6 million • Grade Separation at Sunset Avenue in Banning: $1`.6 million • SR 86 and Avenue 50 highway grade separation: $800,000 • Riverside Highway Grade Separation (exact wording): $5 million The Commission joined with others in seeking a $900 million earmark for the Alameda Corridor East. The money would be split .evenly between Riverside, San Bernardino, Orange and Los Angeles Counties and would be used to mitigate the impacts of ever-increasing freight traffic. A deal was eventually brokered in Congress with Bakersfield Representative Bill Thomas playing a key role not only with this bill but also with the approval of the Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA). Thomas is also. the Chairman of the powerful House Ways and Means Committee. Unfortunately, the sought after $900 million earmark was reduced to $125 million. The good news isthat needed wording in the bill to ensure that Riverside County is defined as part of the Alameda Corridor East was included, which means that Riverside County will be able to receive at least a quarter of this money and will be in line for future funding. 33 • Of all the projects in the Project of National and Regional Signficance category, the Alameda Corridor project received one of the largest amounts of funding and it has been designated as a high priority corridor for future funding. 34 AGENDA ITEM IS RIVERS/DE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMM/SS/ON DATE: August 22, 2005 TO: Plans and Programs Committee FROM: Sheldon Peterson, Staff Analyst Stephanie Wiggins, Rail Department Manager THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Division Head, Programming and Administration SUBJECT: Commuter Rail Program Update STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Committee to: 1) Receive and file the Commuter Rail Program Update as an information item, and 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Riverside Line Passenger trips on Metrolink's Riverside Line for the month of July averaged 4,373 which is down 72 (-2%) from the month of June. The line has averaged an overall decrease of (-5%) from a year ago July 2004. ;July on -time performance averaged 90% inbound (-2% from June) and 87,% 'outbound (+5% from June). There were 28 delays greater than 5 minutes during !the month of July, a 7 point decrease from the month of June. Union Pacific Icontinues to be the primary cause of delays; Metrolink staff is working directly with ;the railroad to try to improve performance. The following are the primary causes: Signals/Track/MOW Dispatching Mechanical Other Riverside Line On Time Performance Follow Up The on time performance has improved from 71 % April to 88.5% in July, but is still below the target 95%. On August 3rd, senior SCRRA staff met with Dennis Duffy, Executive Vice -President of Operations for Union Pacific, and other Omaha and Roseville -based Union Pacific staff to discuss Metrolink's many concerns over the 35 operational delays encountered on the Riverside Line. This is a good first step but more follow up will be needed. Inland Empire -Orange County Line Passenger trips on Metrolink's Inland Empire -Orange County (IEOC) Line for the month of July averaged 3,554, a decrease of 51 riders or -1 % change from the month of June. The line has increased 4% from a year ago July 2004. July on -time performance averaged 97% southbound (-1 % from June) and 92% northbound (-2% from June). There were 14 delays greater than five minutes during the month of July, an increase of 3 from the previous month. The primary causes are: Signals/MOW/Track Dispatching Mechanical Other 91 Line Passenger trips on Metrolink's 91 Line for the month of July averaged 1,953, a decrease of 18 riders or (-1 %) from the month of June. The line has averaged an increase of 8% from a year ago July 2004. July on -time performance averaged 96% inbound (+2% from June) and 97% outbound (-1 % from June). There were 6 delays greater than five minutes during the month of July, a decrease of 1 from June. The primary causes are: Dispatching Mechanical Other 20% 50% 0 % 30% SummerLink / Beach Trains The 2005 Beach Trains have with the help of OCTA and SANBAG into a new service called "SummerLink." This year there are three round trips from Rialto to Oceanside making all of the stops along the Inland Empire Orange County. route. The expansion is an effort to transition the Beach Trains to regular weekend Metrolink service during 36 the summer months. This year all of the ticketing is handled at the ticket vending machines and the pricing follows Metrolink's distance based pricing structure. To address some of SummerLink's special needs, Metrolink established advance ticket sales at the ticket machines and created a unique group ticket sales program. The trains started running every Saturday and Sunday on July 16`h and will continue until October 9`h, (except Sept 3`d & 4`h). The San Clemente Downtown Business Association stepped forward this year to help support the local San Clemente Shuttle service which was not available last year. As of August Th, over 7,000 trips were taken on the new SummerLink service. This number is less than last year's Beach Train at this point in the season, yet is still comparable to ridership on the other Metrolink Weekend Services. RCTC will continue to provide additional marketing to encourage ridership. Special promotions are in place with the Press Enterprise, KFRG, Wild 96, and the Inland Empire News Radio. Overall, the SummerLink does show promise and staff will continue to monitor the performance. Attachment: Metrolink Performance Summaries (July 2005) 37 I s31tidwwns 'ao-Ndwuodli3d )11411o_t qw 42,000 40,000 — 35,000 — 3F,237 36,000 — 34,000 — 32,000 — 30,000 — 28,000 26,000 — 24,000 — 22,000 — 20,000 Jul-04 37,086 METROLINK . AVERAGE WEEKDAY PASSENGER TRIPS 38,636 37,982 38,849 Sep-04 Oct-04 Nov-04 34,745 Dec-04 37,254 Jan-05 ®Hdidey Adj—i--Unadj Avg 939 39,198 38,248 39,554 39,437 39,004 Feb-05 Mar-05 Apr-05 May-05 Jun-05 Jul-05 Passengers On -Time vs. Trains On -Time not available due to.the Maximus system transition. METROLINK ON -TIME PERFORMANCE Weekday Trains (Latest 13 Months) Jul 04 Aug 04 Sep 04 Oct 04 Nov 04 Dec 04 Jan 05 Feb 05 Mar 05 Apr 05 May 05 Jun 05 Jul 05 tS % Arriving Within 5-Minutes Of Scheduled Time 1 441 Cr.ti ntAnNaw i oo.o% 95.0% 90.0% - 85.0% - 80.0% - 75.0% 70.0% - 65.0°% 60.0% 55.0% 50.0% AMTRAK SHARED SERVICE ON -TIME PERFORMANCE 13-MONTH WINDOW 77% 77°/ *Within 5-Minutes of Schedule IS 768 0 799 s Includes Weekend SeNce % of Train Delays By Responsibility --- July 2005-- - -- --- AMTRAK•INTER CITY 0% OPERATIONS 35% BNSF 17% BOMBARDIER 10% ENGINEERING 15% % of Train Delays By Responsibility 12 Month Period Ending July 2005 UPRR 19% SDNR 0°/s SCRRA 12% Includes Weekend Service OTHER 21% • AMTRAK-INTER CITY 2% OPERATIONS 7% BNSF 17% BOMBARDIER 10% ENGINEERING 12% g43 PERFORMANCE CHARTS BACK-UP 11►�LIMEfROl1NK r`� Jul 04 Yerltura �ountY .: 3,829 .METROLINK AVERAGE_WEEKDAY PASSENGER TRIPS THIRTEEN MONTH WINDOW - HOLIDAY ADJUSTED i'3.14,0000.14 6,384 811a6:lino: 10,674 615 4,606 range- ?unty 5,900 Irtl E1Tr;? 4�G 3,427 1,802 37,237 4iphahgt 8. P0Of! 40.: -10/0 Aug 04 Sep 04 Oct 04 3,822 3,954 4,143 6,327 6,370 6,540 10,456 10,913 11,221 613 632 644 4,676 4,829 4,575 5,943 5,755 5,973 3,468 3,555 3,647 1,781 1,974 1,893 37,086 37,982 38,636 0°% 2% 2% Nov 04 4,099 6,769 10,902 671 4,896 6,001 3,649 1,862 38,849 1% Dec 04 3,465 6,187 10,062 595 4,417 5,208 3,160 1,651 34,745 Jan 05 3,378 5,953 11,237 605 4,623 5,912 3,738 1,808 37,254 7% Feb 05 3,828 6,449 11,403 552 4,544 5,835 3,927 1,890 38,428 3% Mar 05 Apr 05 May 05 3,979 4,174 4,003 6,573 6,733 6,840 12,031 11,757 11,603 562 617 647 4,379 4,495 4,309 5,969 6,065 6,149 3,820 3,796 3,810 1,883 1,917 2,076 39,196 39,554 39,437 2% 1% 0% Jun 05 3,994 6,878 11,524 620 4,445 5,967 3,605 1,971 39,004 -1% Jui 05 3,868 6,336 11,344 612 4,373 6,340 3,554 1,953 38,380 -2% °% Change Jul 05 v5 Jun 05 -3% -8% -2% -1% -2% 6% -1% -1% -2% % Change Jul 05 vs Jul 04 1°% -1% 6% 0°% -5°% 7% 4°% ' 8°% 3% 845 a t.lv---. Au,%•••••4. AVERAGE DAILY METROLINK MONTHLY PASSHOLDERS ON AMTRAK THIRTEEN MONTH WINDOW ..::::.:{.:✓: n:l �: >:Ip,H 'ap fi 's:a fi {r� kFt�d'S3!a ° i f £ , t t.k{..;{ Jul 040) .. ..... :� � %dp\'>Y 1FMt'K' »«to oa� yr - x, ' ,..::.� �!r.:-..y.;.,.......: 9 u0.k ,k r IJeLID�a n':v •%' $ 1: 13..{.. .,{:. � & � t r°�Y£i .ti > ?l.L'F kh`�:c0. j Y a�' nS; ,i •ss� �� RC<; �' V i <kth S,.Y. fi <1,i6. # � >r t <£. f t �'' 3S3 'S. mil k .. Q/,� S Zi $ali&d > giros_. ;i, r1 �. $ e{ : i �' s,; �110a'1�%�'� t.N >ws 3, t fi 'v .9T ,�{sxae .Xx��I�� :,.3 Sc . T• y# Ox' �11" ���K' "1�3�vn' �{ ��,��gg )1, �k •, 134/(1�9k?➢i p 1:K 7 T .�, • , Gt.. .,a.� 33•.`bb .car : w'{Y(bR.ik;, 1 , , ,.,,emss1r.�, 1,110 247 230 128 37 26 1,238 284 • 256 1% -10°% 4% 118 Aug04 1,110 244 275 128 88 34 1,238 330 309 0% " 18% 21% 91) Sep-04(9) , 1,106 210 199 135 21 25 1,241 �231 224 0% -30% -28% 93 Oat-04(to) 1,222 255 237' 137 43 .19 1,359 298 256 10°% 29°% • 14% • 85 NDv-04 (4) 1,246 296 270 152 27 28 1,398 323 296 3% 8°% 16°% 83 48 Dec-04(5) 1,123 251 197 212 13 24 1,335 264 221 -5% •18°% -25°% 85 49 ,Jan-05(6) 1,115 190 199 288 22 20 1,383 212 • 219 4°% -20% -1% 103. 48 Feb-05(11) - 1,192 238 236 179 12 51 1,371 248 287 -1% 17°/° 31% 68 30 Mar45 1,235 483 319 216 40 37 1,451 523 356 6% 111% 24% .89 50 Apr-05 1,293 347 253 221 56 23 1,314 402 276 4% -23% -23% 148 48 May-05 (12) 1,297 380 256 223 94 62 1,519 475 318 0% 18% 15% 153 68 Jun-05 1,250 379 333 244 89 44 1,494 468 377 •2%. -1% 19% 125 56 Jul-05.0) -1,203 305 287 269 35 26 1,472 . 340 292 -1% -27a% -23% 216 57 Lnange_ Jul 05 vs Jun 03 -4% -19%. -20% 10% -61 % -42°% -1% -27% -23% %Change Jul 05vs Jul 04 8% 24% 18% 110°% -e% -2% 19% 20% 14% (1) Prlor ro Raii 2 Rall, Amtrak Step-Up/No step -UP Vagrant Was only good:on Amtrak weekday trains. (2) Rau 2 Ret Program stared September 1, 2002 • (3) Misaing data has been adluaied by using the lowest ridership COUht for ale respective train; day of week and month. (4) Average orb/at 3 weeks of month only as bladeoul In place lot the Thanksgiving Week. NOTE: Started Code Share trains north of LA 11/17/01, monthly peasnofders Included in Rail mall counts (6) Average excluding Christmas and New yeah Day holidays. NOTE In 2004 • Coaster Os higher due to derailment on 12/17. (5) Average excluding January s eml MU( holiday. In 2005 no Amtrak swine north of LA after 1r9/05 and aoutl of to 1/12.14. Average reflects days of service. (7) Mews excluding May 31 ' (a) Average excluding July 4 holiday (9) Avenge excluding Labor Day: (9)1Average excluding Columbus Day. 11111n January and Febreary 2005,seMce Interrupted north of LA due to storms. Average reflects only days Wilt service. 0.21 May 31 Included in Sunday counts, • 73% 2% 83% pad surom-Rall2 Ra1128/3/2006 • 9CrInr unr ,teal ldy levy qe uer aao noN �0 sdul a9611essed Allea 96eleAV eovues Aepuns eun ouupieweg ues deg cogyiso ueDeg eowes /epuns AgoN Bny 005 000E 005 i 000Z 005Z 000E 005E sJapN Alyea find g01nf unp SEW i idy ,EjN qe� uer aao ION _._ sdul aa6uessed rhea a6eJany-_ - — le3vues nepannes aun ouopaeweg ues Ieiepng nej punop'yl sapnPU1 Kin 'eloN -1009 -000E DOSE 000Z 009Z -000£ 009£ slam Allea find CO • • ^ • 42,000 METROLINK AVERAGE WEEKDAY PASSENGER TRIPS - HOLIDAY ADJUSTED INCEPTION TO DATE 40,000 1. FY 05/06 16' FY 04/05 38,000 . 03/04 36,000 FY 02/03 34;000 01/02 *FY 00/01 ..„.,00•4`4#°.°°'.1' 4+. 32,000 30;000 28,000 26,000 % 24,000 22,000 20000 18,1)00 16,000 14,000 12,000 10,000 8,000 1:3 ❑ 6,000 • Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Y 99/00 98/99 FY 97/98 FY 96/97 FY 95/96 94/95 FY 93/94 • Apr May Jun co 3500 3000 12 2500 N 2000 >. p 1500 tT <C 1000 500 0 Jul-04 Aug Note: Sept Includes L.A, County Fair Riders) a g Daly Passenger Trips San Bernardino Line Saturday Service' - -Average Daily Passenger Trips Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul-05 San Bernardino Line Sunday Service Average Daily Passenger Trips 3500 3000 �- 2500 a) 70 CL 2000 p 1500 as 1000 500 Note: Sunday Service Began 08J25l00 •