HomeMy Public PortalAbout10 October 3, 2005 Technical AdvisoryTIME:
DATE:
LOCATION:
r-�-
Records
TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITS 74096
MEETING AGENDA*,
8:30 A.M.
October 3, 2005
Riverside County Transportation Commission
Riverside County Regional Complex
4080 Lemon Street, Riverside, CA
Conference Room A, 3`d Floor
*By request, agenda and'minutes may be available in alternative format; i.e. large print, tape.
COMMITTEE MEMBERS
Augustus Ajawara, RTA
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
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, Ca[trans District 8
Eunice Lovi, SunLine Transit
Amir Modarressi, City of Indio
Bob Moehling, City of Lake Elsinore
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 Calimesa
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
'7
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA*
*Actions may be taken on any item listed on the agenda.
TIME: 8:30 A.M.
DATE: October 3, 2005
LOCATION: Riverside County Transportation Commission
Riverside County Regional Complex
4080 Lemon Street, Riverside, CA
Conference Room A, 3`d Floor
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act and government Code Section 54954.2, if
you need special assistance to participate in a Committee meeting, please contact Riverside County
Transportation Commission at (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 SELF -INTRODUCTION
3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES — July 18, 2005
4. PUBLIC COMMENTS (This is for comments on items not listed on agenda.
Comments relating to an item on the agenda will be taken when the item is
before the Committee.)
5. SAFETEA LU UPDATE (Attachment)
6. STIP UPDATE (Oral Presentation)
STATE/FEDERAL LEGISLATIVE UPDATE (Attachment)
Technical Advisory Committee Meeting
October 3, 2005
Page 2
8. PROJECT MILESTONE REPORTS (Oral Presentation)
9. 2007 RTP UPDATE (Oral Presentation)
10. 2006 FEDERAL/REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
(TIP) DEVELOPMENT (Attachment - 2006 TIP Update)
11. LOCAL ASSISTANCE REPORT (Oral Presentation)
- Inactive Projects
- FFY 04/05 Obligations
12. OTHER BUSINESS/ANNOUNCEMENTS
13. ADJOURNMENT (The next meeting will be October 17, 2005, 10:00 A.M. in
Banning.)
The Transportation Enhancement project evaluations will commence after the
adjournment of the October 3, 2005 Technical Advisory Committee.
(Evaluation members, please bring your copies of the applications.)
MINUTES
TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING
MINUTES
Monday, July 18, 2005
1. Call to Order
2.
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, 4080 Lemon Street, Riverside,
CA.
Self -Introductions
Members Present:
Others Present:
Augustus Ajawara, RTA
Dave Barakian, City of Palm Springs
Mike Gow, City of Hemet
Mark Greenwood, City of Palm Desert
Keith Haan, City of Calimesa
Bruce Harry, City of Rancho Mirage
Bill Hughes, City of Temecula
Ned Ibrahim, City of Corona
George Johnson, County of Riverside
Tim Jonasson, City of LaQuinta
Jim Kinley, City of Murrieta
Eldon Lee, City of Coachella
Wendy Li, Ca!trans District 8
Eunice Lovi, SunLine
Mike McCoy, RTA
Bob Moehling, City of Lake Elsinore
Habib Motlagh, Cities of Canyon Lake,
Perris and San Jacinto
Craig Neustaedter, City of Moreno Valley
Juan Perez, County of Riverside
Bill Thompson, City of Norco
Tim Wassil, City of Indian Wells
Mike Ainsworth, SCAG
Cathy Bechtel, RCTC
Brian Cunanan, RCTC
Shirley Gooding, RCTC
Eric Haley, RCTC
Ken Lobeck, RCTC
Technical Advisory Committee Meeting
July 18, 2005
Page 2
Shirley Medina, RCTC
John Standiford, RCTC
Marilyn Williams, RCTC
3. Approval of Minutes
No objections.
4. Public Comments
There were no public comments.
5. RTP MODELING
Mike Ainsworth, SCAG, provided a copy of his Power Point presentation and
stated that SCAG is completing one of its major model improvements. The
purpose of the improvement is to include travel survey information and the
2000 census into the existing model. Future model improvements include
network management, improving the freight model, time -of -day models and
software evaluation and conversion.
He outlined the program and responded to questions. He indicated that the
truck model should be completed by March 2006 and the validation done by
April to begin the 2007 RTP update modeling.
He further indicated that SCAG met with RCTC and they are working on
which projects should be included. Anything having federal funds should be
included. Projects that are regionally significant have not been defined. In
the past, that would include arterial level projects and above. When more
roads are added, the VMT will increase which is not a good thing for
conformity; however, speeds also increase, making it a wash as far as air
quality is concerned.
Ken Lobeck, RCTC, provided a written guideline outlining the projects that
need to be submitted to be included in the RTP. He stated that the lists will
be sent out for transit projects in about a week.
Shirley Medina, RCTC, suggested that anyone who needs the RIV-SAN
network should contact Mike Ainsworth at SCAG and advise RCTC as well.
Technical Advisory Committee Meeting
July 18, 2005
Page 3
UPDATED TUMF MODEL AGREEMENT
Marilyn Williams, RCTC, stated that staff has been working with the City of
Temecula and the City of San Jacinto. As a result of that work, some
changes have been made to the agreement format. She pointed out that the
2 areas that have been amended relate to right of way acquisitions and that
the various exhibits have been updated with more specificity.
7. CLOSE OUT OF TEA 21 TE PROGRAM/STATUS OF UNOBLIGATED TE
PROJECTS
Shirley Medina reported that TEA projects are not required to be incorporated
into the STIP. Since the new transportation bill is from FY 2003/04, there
will be an overlap and projects previously programmed in FY 2003/04 that
have not been obligated yet will have to be amended into the STIP. These
projects are: Cathedral City -Ramon Road; Calimesa-Calimesa Boulevard
landscaping; Hemet -Sidewalks on State Street; and Norco's Santa Ana River
Trail. Projects have already been programmed against FY 2003/04 but now
projects that have not been obligated will have to be put into the STIP.
8. 2005 TE CALL
Ms. Medina reminded the TAC that the TE Call for Projects was released on
June 29, 2005. The submittal deadline is August 29. The TE reserve has
been programmed in the 2004 STIP in FY's 2006/07, 2007/08 and 2008/09
and the amounts are indicated on the agenda item. There is a possibility that
the amounts may change with the 2006 STIP but she does not expect a
significant change.
Cathy Bechtel, RCTC, reported that at Wednesday's Commission meeting
the County of Riverside Planning Director gave a presentation on soundwalls,
a beautification program, and a transportation public art program. She
stated that the Commissioners were very interested and although soundwalls
would not be eligible under TE, soundwall beautification would be eligible.
9. STIP UPDATE
Ms. Medina indicated that allocations were made at the July 13, 2005
California Transportation Commission meeting. For Riverside County, 3
projects were submitted for allocation and since then an allocation priority
Technical Advisory Committee Meeting
July 18, 2005
Page 4
plan was put in place which indicated the projects to be allocated — capacity
enhancing projects, state highway and SHOPP projects. She further
indicated that Desert Hot Springs did not receive an allocation. The Corona
Metrolink Station parking structure and the planning, programming and
monitoring funds were approved for allocation.
To prepare for the Desert Hot Springs 'denial of their allocation request, the
RCTC Board approved to replace the STIP funds with Federal Surface
Transportation Program (STP) funds.
There is going to be a two -month delay in the 2006 STIP fund estimate due
to uncertainties with the federal transportation bill. There are 2 scenarios
proposed; one would bring about $2 Billion into the STIP and the other
scenario, which is tied to reliance on the gaming bond initiative for the STIP
that is currently in litigationcould result in a negative $3.7 Billion. Another
issue is that the state highway account used to fund part of the STIP, and
now the only reliable fund sources are from the public transportation
account, which funds transit oriented type projects. It is possible that the
STIP would include more transit projects rather than highway projects.
Legislation to allow for more flexibility for the use of Public Transportation
Account (PTA) funds is being reviewed but that would be a major effort.
She stated that even if projects were deprogrammed from the STIP, RCTC
staff will review other funding revenues to replace lost STIP funds
Eric Haley, RCTC, reported that the CTC accepted RCTC's offer of $13
Million and that the Green River project will move forward by spring, 2006.
The Route 60 project will go out to bid in the early fall with construction
mid -winter.
Mr. Haley stated that of the $1.3 Billion included in the 2005/06 State
budget, $570 Million will go to STIP highway commitments. He also said
the SHOPP program will be funded at $800 Million per year. Regarding
performance standards, that will burden many but organizations such as
RCTC with the CETAP program and updated data should be able to come up
with the vehicle miles traveled numbers, the accident data and those things
that are driven by underlying zoning.
The 2006 STIP will requireperformance measures for STIP projects. This
isn't a new requirement but one that will require more work and data such as
vehicle miles traveled, accident data, travel time, etc.
Technical Advisory Committee Meeting
July 18, 2005
Page 5
10. STATE/FEDERAL LEGISLATION
John Standiford; RCTC, provided Assembly Bill No. 462 and said that
Congress should have passed the multi -year bill close to 2 years ago.
Instead, they passed a number of short term extensions to keep things going
because when it lapses, they have to suspend all federal transportation
obligations. They've passed 8 short term extensions since the previous TEA
21 expired and the most recent one expires July 19, 2005. A bill has been
passed by the Senate and the House, H.R. 3. In a conference committee,
they will try to come up with a bill and hope to have it done by July 19. If
that does not happen, there may be another short term extension. The
major question is how much each state should be guaranteed from the
federal return.
Regarding Proposition 42, it has not been suspended this year. He provided
"Prop 42 Local Street and Road Improvements — Estimated City by City
Allocations," one page of a multi -page report, that shows what each city in
Riverside County will receive from the maintenance part of Proposition 42..
He said that the league of cities did an effective lobbying job to remind the
Governor of the local importance of Proposition 42. This whole process will
• have to be done again next year.
George Johnson, County of Riverside, said that his understanding regarding
Proposition 42 funding for local streets and roads is that for the first 3 years
funding was available and in FY 2006/07 there would not be any local
allocation. Further, in 2008 it would go back to the new formula amounts.
His query is that since the last 2 years of funding was not available, is there
a way to change the legislation so that the locals can be made whole over
the next 2 years. Mr. Standiford said he will look into it.
John Standiford provided a copy of Assembly bill No. 462, an act to amend
Section 4454 of the Government Code, relating to disability access, and
declaring the urgency thereof, to take effect immediately. It requires 2/3
vote.
11. LOCAL ASSISTANCE REPORT
Wendy Li said that Local Assistance is still working to achieve 100%
delivery of projects, with the exception of just 1 or 2. At the end of August,
2005 they expect to obligate about 92-95% of the obligation plan submitted
by RCTC in May.
Technical Advisory Committee Meeting
July 18, 2005
Page 6
The Local Assistance goal for 2006 is better planning of obligations and not
waiting until the last quarter. She reminded the TAC that regarding the ER
program, damage assessment forms are due August 26.
She further stated that the Office of the Inspector General performed several
reports last year and they are looking for inactive projects — projects that
have been obligated but have not shown any billing activity for the past 12
months. She said that in California there are approximately $800 Million of
inactive projects. She said that headquarters will send out base reports to
be sent to the agencies, and Local Assistance is looking for the projects that
have not shown activity for the past. 6 months. She said that she will e-mail
the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to the TAC members that proposes to
de -obligate funds automatically if a project does not have billing
(reimbursement) activity over a 12-month period.
Ms. Li said that as a result of the Project Delivery Subcommittee
recommendations, her office hired 3 staff members to process the
environmental NEPA documents. As of last week, Caltrans' management
and headquarters decided that in the best interest of the team, those
positions should go back to Environmental. She said that there will be a
written commitment for Local Assistance project delivery and give Local
Assistance project delivery the same importance as capital projects and go
through the same status reporting, thus giving them more accountability.
She is hopeful that her department will be able to keep one environmental
new hire as an expert.
Wendy Li introduced Suzanne Glasgow, Acting Environmental Deputy,
District 8, who reported that Caltrans is attempting to get projects obligated
as quickly as possible. In response to Cathy Bechtel's question regarding the
3 environmental staff members who are moving out of Local Assistance, Ms.
Glasgow said that the environmental staff should be in the environmental
division. She further stated that she is working closely with Wendy Li to
improve the project delivery process. She said that the database to monitor
progress of projects is advancing and that by September, agencies should be
able to get the environmental and right of way status on their projects.
Ms. Medina stated that currently most of the projects that are Programmatic,
Categorical Exempt projects are taking about 6 months to get an
environmental document sign off and that is unacceptable; therefore, it is
hoped that decreasing that amount of time for review will be forthcoming.
Technical Advisory Committee Meeting
July 18, 2005
Page 7
Ms. Glasgow indicated that although some PCEs require more work than
others, typically a PCE should not take 6 months.
12. CETAP UPDATE
Cathy Bechtel reported that a public meeting will be held August 3 at the
Columbia Elementary School in Perris, Old Elsinore Road and Rider Street,
6:30 p.m. to get feedback from the general public on a new alignment that is
being considered for the Mid County Parkway alignment: A newsletter will
be mailed the end of this week to notify the public of the meeting. On
Friday, there was a Major Investment Study policy committee meeting at
RCTC. The MIS has been narrowed down to 3 strategic alternatives for
further study. The committee is also looking at improvements to State
Route 91, possible improvements in the Santa Ana corridor right of
way, a new corridor extending westward from Cajalco to .133/241 and
improvements along Ortega Highway. The major change is that there was
agreement to drop Corridor C, which is the corridor that was being
considered from Lake Elsinore to 241/133. The committee expects to have
a recommendation going forward to RCTC and OCTA in December.
13. RTIP/FTIP AND RTP UPDATE
Ken Lobeck, RCTC, reported that there are several amendments at Caltrans
Headquarters under review. Some administrative amendments need Caltrans
Headquarters review prior to approval. Others will have to move onto
FHWA for formal approval. Amendment 9 includes the FY 2005/06 Short
Range Transit Plan projects. He is hopeful that by the end of July the
administrative amendments will be approved and that by early August
approval of Amendment 9 is received.
He suggested that if Local Assistance has questions regarding FTIP, Nader,
Eric or Steve should contact him, Mr. Lobeck directly.
14. JULY 13, 2005 COMMISSION HIGHLIGHTS
Cathy Bechtel said that the discussion items included the soundwall program
by the County and allocation of funds to the transit operators. She reported
that there will be a follow up Transit Policy Committee meeting this
afternoon with all the operators and the policy committee to review the
transit issues.
Technical Advisory Committee Meeting
July 18, 2005
Page 8
15. OTHER BUSINESS/ANNOUNCEMENTS
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA ITS REGIONAL ARCHITECTURE WEBSITE
This item is provided for information.
16. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business for consideration by the Technical Advisory
Committee, the meeting was adjourned at 11:40 A.M. Agreement was
reached to cancel the August 15, 2005 TAC meeting. The next meeting is
scheduled for September 19, 2005, 10:00 A.M., Riverside County
Transportation Commission, Riverside County Regional Complex, 4080
Lemon Street, Riverside, California, Conference Room A, 3rd Floor.
Respectfully submitted,
Shirley Med
Program Manager
AGENDA ITEM 5
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
DATE:
October 3, 2005
TO:
Technical Advisory Committee
FROM:
Ken Lobeck, Staff Analyst
THROUGH:
Cathy Bechtel
Division Head, Planning
SUBJECT:
SAFETEA LU Project Earmarks
f
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
This item is for the TAC to receive the list of project earmarks identified in SAFETEA LU.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
The passage of SAFETEA LU included several project earmarks for Riverside County.
Attached with this staff report is a table listing the earmarks. The table identifies the -
earmark, the funding award (which is expected to incur a small reduction by FHWA)
along with a comparison against the 2004 Federal/Regional Transportation Improvement
Pi-ogram (TIP) to determine if the project or a related project is already programmed.
Presently, FHWA is developing additional programming guidance concerning the new
earmarks. Further guidance needed from FHWA involves:
I
1. Required local match: Assumed for the time being to be 20% which is consistent
with past. DEMO earmarks.
2. Phase programming restrictions: Past DEMO earmarks have not restricted the
earmark from a specific project phase (e.g. engineering, R/W, or construction).
Initial feedback from FHWA indicates the new earmarks should not include any
major programming restrictions.
3. Fund code identification: The use of the "DEMO". fund code in the TIP may no
longer exist. MPOs throughout the state are waiting for the new fund code FHWA
will require MPOs to use when programming the earmarks in the TIP.
4. Obligation Authority (OA): No issues appear to be present concerning OA for the
earmarks. However, MPOs have not yet received a written confirmation from
FHWA.
5. Availability of funds: FHWA has allowed only a portion of the total available
earmark to be obligated each year for past earmarks. FHWA staff has indicated a
similar practice will probably occur. This may impact how the project is
programmed in the TIP.
6. Shelf -life of funds: Past DEMO earmarks have not included a fund lapse date if the
funds are not obligated within the designated time period with the exception of
the transit earmarks which fall under the use -it -or -lose -it provisions of the 5309c
fund type. The new earmarks are anticipated to follow the same practice.
Roadway improvement earmarks should not include a use -it -or -lose -it shelf -life
provision with the transit earmarks following FTA's rules established for 5309c
funds.
The approval of SAFETEA LU allows the earrilarks.to be programmed in the current .
2004 TIP beginning in federal fiscal year 05/06. Once MPOs and the CTCs receive the
requested further guidance from FHWA, the next applicable programming steps will
follow. Presently, lead agencies should review the earmark list and evaluate if the funds
can be programmed in an existing TIP project, or needs to be programmed as a separate
project.
HR4818 Earmark Notes: Two earmarks from HR4818 annual appropriation for federal
fiscal year 05 remain to be programmed in the TIP, They include a $3 million dollar
earmark for the Noble Creek Bridge in Beaumont and a $500,000 earmark for a grade
separation at the UPRR/Sunset Ave intersection in Banning. Both earmarks are required
to be programmed in an approved TIP before the funds can be obligated.
HR4818 FY 05 Earmarks Remaining to be Programmed
Project
Earmark
Conf Report
Page Ref
Fund
Type
Noble Creek Bridge, Beaumont, California
$3,000,000
1406
,
STP4818
UP/Sunset Avenue Grade Separation, Banning,
California
$500,000
1411
STP4818
Attachments:
1. SAFETEA LU High Priority Earmarks (roadway improvements)
2. SAFETEA LU Transit Related Earmarks
SAFETEALU
High Priority Project Listing (previously referred to as DEMO projects)
Riverside -County
H R3
HPP #
Description
Amount
Related
Project
In TIP?
TIP ID
Lead
Agency
122
1176
Study and construct highway alternatives between Orange and Riverside
Counties, directed by the Riverside Orange Corridor Authority working
with local government agencies, local trans. Authorities, and guided by
the current MIS
$3,200,000
Yes
RIV050301
RCTC
Programmed with FY 05
HR4818 earmark
132
1261
Establish new grade separation at Sunset Ave in Banning
$1,600,0001
No
To be Banning?
139
1316
Widen and improve County Line Road in Calimesa
$1,600,000
No
To be Calimesa?
270
2489
Upgrade essential road arterials, connectors, bridges and other road
infrastructure improvements in the Town of Desert Hot Springs, CA
P g ,
$1,600,000
Yes
RIV050304
Desert Hot Springs
Programmed with FY 04
Section 115 earmark
362
3336
Restoration of Victoria Avenue in the City of Riverside
$400,0002
Yes
RIV62046
TEA lump sum
Riverside
363
3339
Study and construct highway alternatives between Orange and Riverside
Counties, directed by the Riverside Orange Corridor Authority working
with local government agencies, local transp. Authorities, and guided by
the current MIS
$12,600,000
Yes
RIV050301
RCTC
390
3774
Riverside Highway Grade Separation
$5,000,0003
Yes
RIV050502
Riverside
Programmed for initial
PA&ED work with FY 05
HR4818 earmark
407
3792
Road and signage improvements southeast corner of Tahquitz Canyon
Way and Hermosa Drive Aqua Caliente Museum, Palm Springs
$500,000
?
RIV0001034
To be Palm Springs?
15
143
State Route 86S and Ave 66 highway safety grade separation
$3,600,000
No
To be Caltrans?
44
391
1-10 and Indian Ave Interchange, Palm Springs
$2,200,0005
Yes
RIV62036
Palm Springs
89
823
Construct Inland Empire Transportation Management Center in Fontana
to better regulate traffic and dispatch personnel to incidents
g p p
$1,200,000 s
No
To be Caltrans?
RTIP programming by
SanBAG
105
954
CA struct a new interchange where I-15 meets Cajalco Road in Corona
$8,000,0000
Yes
RIV010208
Corona
145
1369
Palm Drive & Interstate 10 interchange project
$2,200,000
Yes
45580
Riverside County
155
1421
Development and constructing of improvements to SR79 in San Jacinto
Valley
$2,400,000
Yes
RIV62024
46460
RCTC
Realignment Alternatives
Riverside County
Thompson to Domenigoni
Widening
167
1590
Interstate 15 and State Route 79 South Freeway Interchange and Ramp
Improvement Project
$1,600,000
Yes
RIV62031
Temecula
229
2153
Design and construct new interchange at Potrero Blvd and State Route
$1,600,000
Yes
RIV050535
Riverside County
SAFETEALU
High Priority Project Listing (previously referred to as DEMO projects)
Riverside County
side County
ivasportayon .( gmaplssloo
HR3
HPP #
Description
Amount
Related
Project
In TIP?
TIP ID
Lead
Agency
60 in Beaumont
243
2233
Interstate 15 and Winchester Road Interchange Project
$1,600,000
Yes
RIV0312157
Temecula
261
2402
Interstate 15, California Oaks Road Interchange Project
$1,600,000
Yes
RIV010204
Murrieta
277
2543
State Route 86S and Ave 50 highway safety grade separation
$800,000
No
To be Caltrans?
342
3140
Interstate 215, Los Alamos Road Interchange Project
$1,600,000
Yes
RIV62040
Murrieta
351
3209
Highway 74 and Interstate 215 Interchange Project
$800,000
Yes
RIV050501
RCTC
Notes:
1. The Sunset Ave grade separation also has a FY 05 earmark from HR4818 (#1411) for the amount of $500,000.
2. The project also received TEA21 TEA funds of $788,571. The new project will be programmed as a stand alone project. Reference to the TEA funds as
"prior year" obligated funds are may not be necessary and will depend upon the planned improvements for the new project.
3. A previous earmark of $1,000,000 from HR4818 was programmed for multiple grade separation locations.
4. Related to existing TIP project, RIV000103: "Construct Belardo Rd Bridge and Missing Gap, Parking Lot and Amenities for Indian Interpretive Center at
Tahquitz Canyon" with $3,283,000 of PLH funds?
5. Indian Ave IC also has a DEMOT21 earmark of $1,260,000 programmed in construction in FY 07/08.
6. RCTC Board previously has approved commitment of CMAQ funds to fund TMC as well. Assume SanBAG will program project for Caltrans in RTIP.
7. Improvements to Winchester Rd IC included as part of French Valley Pkwy project in RIV031215 in TIP.
HR3 = SAFETEA L.I
Section 3038:'Projects for Bus and;Bus=Reiafed Faclities�'
Pages 682-714 :.
Page
Pr #ect
Project
FFY 06
FFY 07
FY 08
Total
685
45
Palm Springs, California - SunLine Transit Bus Purchase
$ 160,000
$ 165,000
$ 175,000
'.$. .500,000
687
70
Palm Springs, California - SunLine Transit: CalStart-Weststart fuel cell bus
program
$ 320,000
$ 330,000
$ 350,000
$ 1,009,00Q'
695
171
Riverside, California - RTA Advance Traveler Information System
$ 160,000
$ 165,000
$ 175,000
$ 500,000
705
315
Temecula, California - Intermodal Transit Facility
$ 160,000
$ 165,000
$ 175,000
$ 50(0.0,0
Yearly Totals:
$ ° ' 800,000
;$ 815,O00'.
$ 875;000
$ 2,500,000
AGENDA ITEM 6
A presentation will be made but
there is no attachment to the
agenda for item 6.
AGENDA ITEM 7
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
DATE:
September 14, 2005
TO:
Riverside County Transportation Commission
FROM:
Budget and Implementation "Committee As A Whole"*
John Standiford, Director of Public Information
THROUGH:
Eric Haley, Executive Director
SUBJECT:
State and Federal Legislative Update
BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION "COMMITTEE AS A WHOLE"* AND STAFF
RECOMMENDATION:
This item is for the Commission to:
1) Adopt the following bill and associated policy position:
SEEK AMENDMENTS - SCA 15 (McClintock, R-Thousand Oaks)
SEEK AMENDMENTS - ACA 22 (LaMalfa, R-Richvale); and,
2) Receive and file the state and federal legislative update.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
Federal Update — President Signs H.R. 3
On July 29, the United States House of Representatives and Senate approved
H.R. 3, the reauthorization of the Federal Transportation Bill, which is now known
as SAFETEA-LU. Thetotal price tag for the six -year bill, which has been signed by
President George Bush, is $286.4 billion.
Overall, the bill represents a significant increase in transportation funding
throughout the nation and in California. A contentious point in negotiations
regarding the bill involved the amount of guaranteed return for each state from
federal gas taxes. Currently, "donor" states including California are guaranteed a
return of 90.5 cents from federal gas tax receipts collected within the state. The
new bill will gradually raise that percentage to 92 percent. Despite the current
90.5 percent guaranteed return, some states get less than that, while some get far
more. California gets back 91 cents for every gas -tax dollar it sends to
Washington. The State of Alaska, by comparison, gets $6.60 for every dollar.
Texas does the worst, earning a mere 86-cent return on its dollar. Other states
with low returns include Illinois, Ohio, Colorado, Florida, Michigan and Arizona.
'The Committees may function as a "Committee as a Whole" and forward their recommendations
to the Commission if a quorum is not attained. -
1
Agenda Item 9BB
The 92 percent reimbursement means an extra $500 million in road money for
California over what it would have received under the old formula, which translates'
into an additional $20 million to $25 million for Riverside County.
In addition to federal dollars that are returned on a formula basis, H.R. 3 also
contains funding for various federal transportation programs which include the
Congestion Mitigation Air Quality (CMAQ)• program, transit capital funding`
programs, and safety programs. Overall, California will receive $21.6 billion for
transportation investment during the life of the bill. This is about $7 billion more
than what was received in TEA-21.
The portion of the new bill that often gets the most notoriety is in its funding
authorizations for specific projects known as earmarks. One person's high priority
project can be viewed by another as pork, but this bill provides an opportunity for
Congressional representatives to receive funding for projects in their districts.
Congressional members with seniority or key committee assigments have been
known to use their clout to wrangle funding for more projects.
In terms of earmarks, specific projects are included in multiple sections of the bill.
The most common, spanning more than 300 pages, is the funding category known
as High Priority Highway projects. Riverside County's representatives were
successfulin obtaining funding for a number of projects highlighted by
$15.8 million for the soon -to -be -formed Riverside -Orange Corridor Authority for a
new corridor between Riverside and Orange County. Other earmark highlights
include $8 million for the I-15/Cajalco Interchange in Corona, mulitple earmarks
totalling $8.8 million for interchanges on 1-10 and SR 86 in the Coachella Valley,
and $1.2 million for a new Inland Empire Transportation Management Center.
When they passed the version of H.R. 3 earlier this year, staff presented a report to
the Commission on which projects had been included in the bill. All of the projects
that had previously appeared in the House version of H.R. 3 remained but the
funding authorization for all the High Priority Highway projects were cut by
20 percent. Two additional Riverside County projects were added to the original
list - $5 million for grade crossings in Riverside, and $400,000 for the restoration
of Victoria Avenue in the City of Riverside. Here is the full list of high priority
projects for Riverside County:
• SR 86 & Avenue 66 highway grade separation: $3.6 million
• 1-10 & Indian Avenue Interchange: $2.2 million
• Inland Empire Transportation Management Center: $1.2 million
• 1-15 Cajalco Interchange: $ 8 million
• Riverside Orange Corridor Project: $15.8 million
• Grade Separation at Sunset Avenue in Banning: $1.6 million
Agenda Item 9BB
" W i d e n a n d I m p r o v e C o u n t y L i n e R o a d i n C a l i m e s a : $ 1 . 6 m i l l i o n
" 1 - 1 0 &