Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My Public Portal
About
10 October 24, 2005 Plans and Programs
" R I V E R S / D E C O U N T Y T R A N S P O R T A T I O N R E C O R D S 7 4 5 7 7 P L A N S A N D P R O G R A M S C O M M I T T E E M E E T I N G A G E N D A T I M E : 1 2 : 0 0 P . M . D A T E : O c t o b e r 2 4 , 2 0 0 5 L O C A T I O N : B o a r d C h a m b e r s , 1 " F l o o r C o u n t y o f R i v e r s i d e A d m i n i s t r a t i v e C e n t e r 4 0 8 0 L e m o n S t r e e t , R i v e r s i d e * * * C O M M I T T E E M E M B E R S * * * M i c h a e l H . W i l s o n / G e n e G i l b e r t , C i t y o f I n d i o , C h a i r m a n D a r y l B u s c h / M a r k Y a r b r o u g h , C i t y o f P e r r i s , V i c e C h a i r m a n S h e n n a M o q e e t / J o h n C h l e b n i k / J o n W i n n i n g h a m , C i t y o f C a l i m e s a M a r y C r a t o n / J o h n Z a i t z , C i t y o f C a n y o n L a k e J e f f M i l l e r / K a r e n S p i e g e l , C i t y o f C o r o n a M a r y R o c h e / R o b e r t B e r n h e i m e r , C i t y o f I n d i a n W e l l s F r a n k W e s t / C h a r l e s W h i t e , C i t y o f M o r e n o V a l l e y F r a n k H a l l / H a r v e y S u l l i v a n , C i t y o f N o r c o D i c k K e l l y / R o b e r t S p i e g e l , C i t y o f P a l m D e s e r t R o n a l d O d e n / G i n n y F o a t , C i t y o f P a l m S p r i n g s R o n R o b e r t s / J e f f C o m e r c h e r o , C i t y o f T e m e c u l a B o b B u s t e r , C o u n t y o f R i v e r s i d e , D i s t r i c t I R o y W i l s o n , C o u n t y o f R i v e r s i d e , D i s t r i c t I V M a r i o n A s h l e y , C o u n t y o f R i v e r s i d e , D i s t r i c t V * * * S T A F F * * * E r i c H a l e y , E x e c u t i v e D i r e c t o r C a t h y B e c h t e l , D i v i s i o n H e a d , P l a n n i n g * * * A R E A S O F R E S P O N S I B I L I T Y * * * S t a t e T r a n s p o r t a t i o n I m p r o v e m e n t P r o g r a m R e g i o n a l T r a n s p o r t a t i o n I m p r o v e m e n t P r o g r a m N e w C o r r i d o r s I n t e r m o d a l P r o g r a m s ( T r a n s i t , R a i l , R i d e s h a r e ) A i r Q u a l i t y a n d C l e a n F u e l s R e g i o n a l A g e n c i e s , R e g i o n a l P l a n n i n g I n t e l l i g e n t T r a n s p o r t a t i o n S y s t e m P l a n n i n g a n d P r o g r a m s C o n g e s t i o n M a n a g e m e n t P r o g r a m 1 1 . 3 6 . 1 5 T h e C o m m i t t e e w e l c o m e s c o m m e n t s . i f y o u w i s h t o p r o v i d e c o m m e n t s t o t h e C o m m i t t e e , p l e a s e c o m p l e t e a n d s u b m i t a T e s t i m o n y C a r d t o t h e C l e r k o f t h e B o a r d J 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, October 24, 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 October 24, 2005 Page 2 6. FY 2005/06 SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN AMENDMENT: RIVERSIDE TRANSIT AGENCY — TRANSIT CENTERS Overview This item is for the Committee to: Pg. 1 1) Amend the FY 2005/06 Short Range Transit Plan for the Riverside Transit Agency to include the Program of Projects for the continued development of transit centers located in Riverside County; 2) Direct staff to program funding in the amount of $1,963,097 in Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fees administered through Western Riverside Council of Governments and $96,140 in Federal Transit Administration's Section 5309 funds; 3) include the projects in the Regional Transportation Improvement Program, and 4) Forward to the Commission for final action. 7. RIVERSIDE COUNTY COMMUTER RAIL FEASIBILITY STUDY Overview This item is for the Committee to: Pg.4 1) Receive and file the draft Commuter Rail Feasibility Final Report; 2) Advance Scenario 3 (Perris Valley Line/Commuter/San Jacinto) and Scenario 7 (I-215/Commuter/Temecula) as optimal routes warranting future study for inclusion in the next RTP update, and 3) Forward to the Commission for final action. 8. EXPANSION OF COMMUTESMART.INFO TRAFFIC MAP Overview This item is for the Committee to: Pg. 20 1) Receive and file this report on the real time traffic information map expansion project as hosted on the regional rideshare website, vvww.CommuteSmart.info, and 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. Plans and Programs Committee Agenda October 24, 2005 Page 3 9. STATUS REPORT ON THE MID COUNTY PARKWAY Overview This item is for the Committee to: Pg. 22 1) Receive and file a status report on the Mid County Parkway project, and 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. 10. COMMUTER RAIL PROGRAM UPDATE Overview This item is for the Committee to: Pg. 24 1) Receive and file the Commuter Rail Program Update as an information item, and 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. 11. 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. 12. ADJOURNMENT The next Plans and Programs Committee meeting is scheduled to be held at 12:00 P.M., Monday, November 28, 2005, Board Chambers, 1st Floor, County Administrative Center, 4080 Lemon Street, Riverside. MINUTES RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION PLANS AND PROGRAMS COMMITTEE Monday, August 22, 2005 MINUTES . CALL TO ORDER The meeting of the Plans and Programs Committee was called to order by Chairman Michael Wilson at 12:00 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 Members Absent Marion Ashley Daryl Busch Bob Buster Mary Craton Frank Hall Dick Kelly Jeff Miller Shenna Mogeet Ron Roberts Frank West Michael H. Wilson Ronald Oden Mary Roche Roy Wilson PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no requests from the public to speak. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - June 27, 2005 M/S/C (Busch/Roberts) to approve the June 27, 2005 minutes as submitted. Abstain: Moqeet • Plans and Programs Committee Minutes August 22, 2005 Page 2 5. ADDITIONS/REVISIONS There were no additions or revision to the Agenda. 6. ALLOCATION OF CMAQ FUNDING FOR THE INLAND EMPIRE TRANSPORTATION MANAGEMENT CENTER PROJECT Marilyn Williams, Director of Regional Programs and Public Affairs, provided background information and status of the development of an Inland Empire Transportation Management Center, including funding allocations for the project. Tom Ainsworth, Caltrans District 8, presented an overview of the TMC project highlighting the following topics: • Function of a TMC • Tools Used by a TMC • Effects of a TMC on Congestion • Proposed Inland Empire Facility In response to Commissioner Mogeet's concern regarding utilization of space based on preliminary plans received for the Transportation Management Center (TMC), Anne Mayer, Division Head • of Programming and Administration, responded that consolidation of CHP and Caltrans into one location is a substantial improvement over the existing situation. Also, obtaining approval from the Department of Finance and Department of General Service was a monumental task as part of their charge is efficiency of space. Commissioner Jeff Miller updated the Committee on the City of Corona's Automated Transportation System project and expressed the imperativeness of having a system in which the cities and Caltrans can communicate well. The City of Corona has achieved synchronization on bridges and lights but needs better communication with on -ramp meters. Commissioner .Miller indicated that the necessary level of communication has not been reached with Caltrans and requested direction on how this can be achieved. Tom Ainsworth identified issues related to Commissioner Miller's concern and •concurred with the need for improved communication and believes Caltrans is moving in that direction. He assured the Committee that the TMC project will enhance coordination with the cities. " " P l a n s a n d P r o g r a m s C o m m i t t e e M i n u t e s A u g u s t 2 2 , 2 0 0 5 P a g e 3 C o m m i s s i o n e r M i l l e r t h e n r e q u e s t e d d i r e c t i o n o n h o w t o a c h i e v e c o o p e r a t i o n f r o m C a l t r a n s . C o m m i s s i o n e r R o n R o b e r t s c o n c u r r e d w i t h C o m m i s s i o n e r M i l l e r ' s c o m m e n t s r e g a r d i n g t h e n e e d f o r i m p r o v e d c o m m u n i c a t i o n s w i t h C a l t r a n s o n s y n c h r o n i z a t i o n o f t r a f f i c l i g h t s a n d m e t e r s . C o m m i s s i o n e r B o b B u s t e r a s k e d t h e i n v o l v e m e n t o f t h e T M C i n t h e r o a d , r a i l , a n d b u s n e t w o r k t o c o o r d i n a t e t r a f f i c i n a n e m e r g e n c y s i t u a t i o n a n d T o m A i n s w o r t h r e s p o n d e d t h a t i n i t i a l l y t h e T M C w i l l n o t b e s e t u p t o d e a l w i t h a r t e r i a l s , o n l y t h e f r e e w a y s y s t e m . A s t h e T M C m a t u r e s , t h e s c o p e o f t h e T M C w i l l i n c l u d e a r t e r i a l s . I n r e s p o n s e t o C o m m i s s i o n e r M o g e e t ' s c o n c e r n r e g a r d i n g t h e e f f e c t i v e n e s s o f t h e T M C w i t h o u t i n c l u s i o n o f a r t e r i a l s , T o m A i n s w o r t h r e s p o n d e d t h a t t h e g o a l f o c u s i s t o k e e p m o t o r i s t s o n t h e f r e e w a y s y s t e m b y d i v e r t i n g t h e m o n t o o t h e r s t a t e h i g h w a y s a n d r o u t i n g t h e m a r o u n d t r a f f i c w i t h t h e u s e o f c h a n g e a b l e m e s s a g e s i g n s . E r i c H a l e y , E x e c u t i v e D i r e c t o r , e n c o u r a g e d t h e C o m m i t t e e ' s p o s i t i v e c o n s i d e r a t i o n f o r t h i s i t e m . M / S / C ( B u s c h / W e s t ) t o : 1 ) A l l o c a t e a n d p r o g r a m $ 6 m i l l i o n i n C o n g e s t i o n M i t i g a t i o n a n d A i r Q u a l i t y P r o g r a m f u n d s ( S A F E T E A L U ) f o r c o n s t r u c t i o n o f t h e I n l a n d E m p i r e T r a n s p o r t a t i o n M a n a g e m e n t C e n t e r ; a n d , 2 ) F o r w a r d t o t h e C o m m i s s i o n f o r f i n a l a c t i o n . A D O P T I O N O F R E S O L U T I O N N O . 0 5 - 0 1 2 , ' A R E S O L U T I O N O F T H E R I V E R S I D E C O U N T Y T R A N S P O R T A T I O N C O M M I S S I O N S U P E R C E D I N G R E S O L U T I O N 9 1 - 0 0 2 A N D A D O P T I N G A N U P D A T E D P O L I C Y D E S I G N A T I N G O F F I C I A L S A U T H O R I Z E D T O E X E C U T E A G R E E M E N T S , O R D I N A N C E S A N D R E S O L U T I O N S " M / S / C ( B u s c h / M i l l e r ) t o : 1 ) A d o p t R e s o l u t i o n N o . 0 5 - 0 1 2 , ' A R e s o l u t i o n o f t h e R i v e r s i d e C o u n t y T r a n s p o r t a t i o n C o m m i s s i o n S u p e r c e d i n g R e s o l u t i o n 9 1 - 0 0 2 a n d A d o p t i n g a n U p d a t e d P o l i c y D e s i g n a t i n g O f f i c i a l s A u t h o r i z e d t o E x e c u t e A g r e e m e n t s , O r d i n a n c e s a n d R e s o l u t i o n s ' ; a n d , 2 ) F o r w a r d t o t h e C o m m i s s i o n f o r f i n a l a c t i o n . Plans and Programs Committee Minutes August 22, 2005 Page 4 8. ANNUAL LOCAL TRANSPORTATION FUND PLANNING ALLOCATIONS TO CVAG AND WRCOG Cathy Bechtel, Division Head of Planning, reviewed the allocation of Local Transportation Fund transportation planning and programming funds to CVAG and WRCOG as specified in the Transportation Development Act. M/S/C (Miller/Busch) 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. 9. FISCAL YEAR 2005-2006 AMENDMENT TO SUNLINE TRANSIT AGENCY'S SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN — REVISED PROGRAM OF PROJECTS FOR SECTION 5307 FUNDS Tanya Love, Program Manager, reviewed the process SunLine Transit Agency to access Section 5307 operating funds in Improvement Plan (RTIP). M/S/C (Ashley/Kelly) to: necessary to allow Federal Transit Administration (FTA) the 2002 Regional Transportation 1) Approve the addition of 51,941,392 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 14, 2005 Commission meeting; and; 5) Forward to the Commission for final action. Plans and Programs Committee Minutes August 22, 2005 Page 5 10. FISCAL YEAR 2005-2006 STATE TRANSIT ASSISTANCE FUNDS Tanya Love reviewed the revised estimate of FY 2005-06 State Transit Assistance funds to be allocated to Riverside County and the notification process for the transit operators. M/S/C (Busch/West) 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. 11. RIVERSIDE TRANSIT AGENCY'S REQUEST FOR LOCAL TRANSPORTATION• FUNDS PENDING RECEIPT OF FISCAL YEAR 2004-2005 FTA SECTION 5307 FUNDS Tanya Love briefly reviewed Riverside Transit Agency's request for Local Transportation Funds. M/S/C (West/Craton) 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. 12. APPROVAL OF ALAMEDA CORRIDOR EAST (ACE) TRADE CORRIDOR RAIL CROSSING GRADE SEPARATION PRIORITY LIST Stephanie Wiggins, Rail Department Manager, briefed the Committee on the process for updating the rail crossing grade separation priority list. Commissioners Mike Wilson and Dick Kelly were concerned about the changes in the priority list as it relates to the grade separation projects in Coachella Valley. Because of the significant change in the standing of the projects from the previous priority list, they strongly encouraged staff to work with the cities to review the daily traffic counts. • Plans and Programs Committee Minutes August 22, 2005 Page 6 M/S/C (Miller/Buster) to: 1) Direct staff to review the Average Daily Traffic counts for the Avenue 48/Dillon Road Crossing; 2) Approve the Alameda Corridor East (ACE) Trade Corridor Rail Crossing Grade Separation Priority List; and, 3) Forward to the Commission for final action. 13. APPROVE THE LIST OF PRE -QUALIFIED FIRMS AND AWARD OF AGREEMENT NOS. 06-25-526, 06-25-527, AND 06-25-528 FOR ON -CALL GOODS MOVEMENT CONSULTANT SERVICES M/S/C (Busch/Craton) to: 1) Approve the list of pre -qualified firms for on -call goods movement consultant services: Cambridge Systematics, Kimley-Horn and Associates, and Parsons Brinckerhoff; 2) Award Agreement No. 06-25-526 to Cambridge Systematics, Agreement No. 06-25-527 to Kimley-Horn and Associates, and Agreement No. 06-25-528 to Parsons Brinckerhoff 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 M/S/C (Roberts/Busch) to: 1) Receive and file the Quarterly Goods Movement Update; and, 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. 15. COMMUTER RAIL PROGRAM UPDATE Sheldon Peterson, Staff Ana►yst, updated the Committee on status of on -time performance issues and its impacts on ridership. Arbitration has been initiated by Southern California Regional Rail Authority (SCRRA) with Union Pacific Railroad on their contract and agreement for the Riverside Line. He then reviewed the SummerLink and Beach Train services. Plans and Programs Committee Minutes August 22, 2005 Page 7 In response to Eric Haley's question regarding how to increase ridership in the Riverside Line, Sheldon Peterson responded that staff is working with Metrolink on focused marketing efforts to improve ridership on all Riverside lines. M/S/C (Miller/Mogeet) to: 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 There were no comments from Commissioners or staff. 17. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business for consideration by the Plans and Programs Committee, the meeting adjourned at 1:09 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Jennifer Harmon Deputy Clerk of the Board AGENDA ITEM 6 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: October 24, 2005 TO: Plans and Programs Committee FROM: Tanya Love, Program Manager THROUGH: Cathy Bechtel, Division Head, Planning SUBJECT: FY 2005/06 Short Range Transit Plan Amendment: Transit Agency - Transit Centers Riverside STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Committee to: 1) Amend the FY 2005/06 Short Range Transit Plan for the Riverside Transit Agency to include the Program of Projects for the continued development of transit centers located in Riverside County; 2) Direct staff to program funding in the amount of $1,963,097 in Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fees administered through Western Riverside Council of Governments and $96,140 in Federal Transit Administration's Section 5309 funds; 3) Include the projects in the Regional Transportation Improvement Program, and 4) Forward to the Commission for final action. j BACKGROUND INFORMATION: In June 2004, the Riverside Transit Agency's (RTA) Board adopted a Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) Program of Projects (POP) that included an expenditure plan for the use of TUMF revenue during the FY 2003/04 through FY 2008/09 time period. Per the adopted TUMF Administrative Plan, RTA is required to prepare a POP update that reflects changes in estimated project costs, project schedules, and updated TUMF revenue forecasts. As a result, RTA is requesting approval to amend its FY 2005/06 Short Range Transit Plan (SRTP) to reflect the updated POP for the development of transit centers. The transit TUMF funds are administered through the Western Riverside Council of Governments. RTA is requesting approval to program $96,140 in Federal Transit Administration's Section 5309 funds for the Temecula Transit Center and $1,963,097 in TUMF funds for transit centers in Corona, Moreno Valley, Perris and Riverside. Status Report on RTA's Transit Centers: The following chart provides transit center configurations and specific features for each of the transit centers identified in RTA's POP together with estimated costs, for developing each transit center: SUMMARY OF TRANSIT CENTER DATA Location Classification Amenities Development Cost Corona Transit Center Multi -modal transit center Bus transfer station, 10 - 15 bays, shelters, parking, mixed -use retail $7.2M Riverside Multi -modal Transit Center Bus transit center Bus transfer station, 8 - 10 bus bays, shelters, parking $4.5M Perris Transit Center Phase 1 of future multi- modal transit center Bus transfer station, 8 - 10 bus bays, shelters, parking $4.OM Hemet Transit Center Bus transit center Bus transit center $4.5M1 Temecula Transit Center Future transit center2 Future transit center $6.OM Moreno Valley Transit Center Future multi- modal transit center Bus transfer station, park-n-ride, mixed -use retail, 8 -10 bus bays, shelters, parking $6.OM Multi -modal Transit Centers are transit centers that include bus transit operations, existing or proposed future commuter rail transit operations and/or adjoining existing commuter rail transit centers. The transit centers will serve as regional connection hubs for commuters traveling by rail to surrounding counties, i.e. Orange, San Bernardino, Los Angeles, and San Diego counties. The cost for this category of transit center is estimated at $6M, including land acquisition. When the multi -modal transit centers include attached commercial retail, the cost increases to $7.2M. $1.4M in funding currently available for the development of the Hemet Transit Center. 2 Classification of facility will be either a Bus Transit Center or a Multi -modal Transit Center. Classification dependent on availability of commuter rail services to the Temecula area. Bus Transit Centers are transit centers developed for bus transit operations only. They serve as sub -regional hubs that will provide bus commuter services and connections to adjoining communities. The cost for this category of transit center is estimated at $4.5M, including land acquisition. In addition to the six transit center projects identified, additional centers will be developed outside the current POP time period and will include the areas of Norco/Eastvale, Lake Elsinore/Murrieta, Menifee and Banning/Beaumont. Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: N/A Year: FY 2005/06 Amount: $2,059,237 Source of Funds: Sect on 5309 ($96,140) and WRCOG TUMF ($1,963,097) Budget Ad ustment: No GLA No.: N/A Fiscal Procedures Approved: \,, Date: 10/17/05 3 AGENDA ITEM 7 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: October 24, 2005 TO: Plans and Programs Committee FROM: Stephanie Wiggins, Rail Department Manager THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Division Head, Programming and Administration SUBJECT: Riverside County Commuter Rail Feasibility Study STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Committee to: 1) Receive and file the draft Commuter Rail Feasibility Final Report; 2) Advance Scenario 3 (Perris Valley Line/Commuter/San Jacinto) and Scenario 7 (1-21 5/Commuter/Temecula) as optimal routes warranting. future study for inclusion in the next RTP update, and 3) Forward to the Commission for final action. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: i Planning activities for the Southern California basin will result in identification of passenger and freight rail capacity improvements that will require some form of public subsidy. In order to more proactively participate in these studies, the Commission approved a contract with R.L. Banks & Associates for the Western Riverside County Commuter Rail Feasibility Study at its January 2005 meeting. This Feasibility Study will allow the Commission to determine if additional commuter rail extensions, beyond the Perris Valley Line (PVL) Project, should be assessed in current regional long term Metrolink and goods movement study efforts. A total of five commuter rail and three intracounty rail service scenario alternatives are evaluated in this Study. Commuter Rail Scenarios: • Scenario 1 envisions commuter rail service between Banning and Riverside via UP railroad and BNSF railroad tracks, continuing westward on one of the existing Metrolink lines serving Riverside; • Scenario 2 envisions commuter rail service between Indio and Riverside via the UP and BNSF railroad tracks, continuing westward on one of the existing Metrolink lines serving Riverside; • Scenario 3 envisions commuter rail service between San Jacinto and South Perris via the RCTC-owned SJBL, extending the PVL currently planned to terminate at South Perris; • Scenario 5 envisions commuter rail service between Temecula and South Perris via SJBL and an alignment paralleling Winchester Road, extending the PVL, currently planned to terminate at South Perris; and • Scenario 7 envisions commuter rail service between Temecula and South Perris via the 1-215 corridor, extending the PVL, currently planned to terminate at South Perris. 4 Intracounty Rail Scenarios: • Scenario 4 envisions intracounty Scenario 3 above; • Scenario 6 envisions intracounty Scenario 5 above; and • Scenario 8 envisions intracounty Scenario 7 above. rail service along rail service along rail service along the same route as the same route as the same route as Evaluation Criteria Each service alternative scenario is evaluated based., upon eight criteria that measure its feasibility to satisfy the goals of the study. The matrices developed to rank and compare each alternative are based upon the following approved evaluation criteria: • Ridership - Passenger Trips • Right -of -Way Issues. • Operating Cost Per Passenger- Mile • Capital Cost .(Track, Stations & Equip) • Farebox Recovery Ratio • Mobility Improvements Daily Trip Time Savings • Mobility Improvements - . Access to Low Income Households • Capital Cost Per Passenger In order to provide an objective assessment of the eight scenarios that results in a clear explanation of Study recommendations, the criteria were proposed, discussed and agreed upon before any results were developed. The results of the evaluation are summarized on pages 12 and 13 of the attached Executive Summary. Stakeholder Involvement As part of the study development process a Rail Feasibility Technical Advisory Committee (RTAC) was established to receive information from the consultant team and provide input on the evaluation criteria, data collection, and ranking of the service extensions. The RTAC is comprised of more than 30 members representing local governments, transit agencies, Native American tribes, and social service groups. Given the increased population growth and transit needs, RTAC members representing the Pass Area and Coachella Valley expressed concern regarding the recommendation not to advance Scenario 2 (Union Pacific/Indio/Commuter Rail) due to capital improvements needed and right-of-way issues. As summarized in the Executive Summary and detailed in the Final Report, Scenario 2 envisions operations in a shared, congested goods movement corridor, Union Pacific's Yuma Main Line. Due to thesignificant amount of congestion experienced by UP freight trains on their own corridor, additional peak -period commuter rail service would necessitate construction of a third main trackadjacent to existing UP main tracks. Consequently, to address peak -period capacity issues in this Scenario, large capital expenditures are assumed to be required, which are significantly higher than the other commuter rail scenarios. In addition to these issues, the lack of a shared use agreement orrights to operate Metrolink service, also result in the "Less Feasible" rank under the "Right -of -Way Issues" criterion. • 5 It is worth emphasizing that the forecast reflects only a very narrow rail passenger market, i.e. the peak -period commuter market serving only work trips. The intercity market is different in that it offers riders travel options throughout the day, like the State -subsidized Pacific Surfliner service along the Coast. The result of this forecast in no way compromises the potential benefits of intercity service from and to the Coachella Valley. Furthermore, required capacity improvements on the BNSF and UP lines likely would be less in the event of intercity service than in the case of commuter rail options since trains would not be concentrated during the peak - period. Scenario Rankings Strong indicators of Feasible Passenger Rail service include the following: • High Mobility (Daily Trip Time Savings); • High Farebox Recovery Ratio; and • Limited Right -of -Way Issues. The analysis supports advancing two scenarios for inclusion in the next RTP update: Scenario 3 (Perris Valley Line/Commuter/San Jacinto) and Scenario 7 (I- 215/Commuter/Temecula) as optimal routes warranting future study. Specifically, based on the eight approved evaluation criteria, both scenarios offer a viable and effective commuter rail extension as part of a multi -modal transportation system to maintain or enhance mobility and contribute to improving the quality of life. Attachment: Draft Commuter Rail Feasibility Study Executive Summary • Riverside County Transportation Commission Commuter Rail Feasibility Study (Draft) l Executive Summary Introduction A consultant team led by R.L. Banks & Associates, Inc. was retained by the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) to conduct a Commuter Rail Feasibility Study. RCTC is Riverside County's primary transportation agency charged by state law with the responsibility of planning and funding transportation improvements. The primary purpose of the study is to compare and contrast the feasibility of introducing in the year 2030, eight, alternative, prospective passenger rail service extensions, each of which would operate to or through the Riverside -Downtown Metrolink station in the City of Riverside. The service alternative scenarios are characterized and distinguished on the basis of three elements: 1) the route(s)/right(s)-of-way or alignment(s) which would host the prospective services; 2) the endpoint city from which trains would depart in the a.m. peak direction and 3) the type of service frequency, "commuter rail" or "intracounty rail." The extensions/service alternatives evaluated in this Study are as follows: • Commuter Rail from Banning and Beaumont to Riverside and points west; • Commuter Rail from Indio (Coachella Valley) to Riverside and points west; • Commuter Rail and Intracounty Rail from San Jacinto, Hemet and Winchester, to South Perris and points west; • Commuter Rail and Intracounty Rail from Temecula to South Perris via Winchester Road and • Commuter Rail and Intracounty Rail from Temecula and Murrieta to South Perris via the 1-215 corridor. This study examines operations, ridership, and costs to determine the feasibility of implementing the services listed above, including the physical, operational, and financial feasibility of each major capital investment and its operating subsidy projections. Background Commuter rail service has been a growing success in Riverside County since its inception in 1993 with the Riverside Line to Los Angeles. In 1995, the Inland Empire - Orange County (IEOC) Line began providing service to Orange County, followed most recently by the start of peak -period service on the Riverside -Fullerton -Los Angeles 91 Line in 2002. Also in 1993, the Commission acquired the San Jacinto Branch Line (SJBL) with the eventual goal of providing passenger rail service. Upon completion of a commuter rail feasibility study in 2000, the Commission authorized staff to develop commuter rail service on the SJBL to Perris, known as the Perris Valley Line (PVL) Project. .Currently, the PVL Project is in the environmental review phase awaiting FTA • 7 Riverside County Transportation Commission Commuter Rail Feasibility Study (Draft) 2 approval to advance to Preliminary Engineering once acceptable modeling forecasts are produced. As part of a Southern California regional effort, RCTC is participating in the development of three separate five -county strategic planning efforts that will impact passenger and freight rail capacity in our region: • Mefrolink Commuter Rail Strategic Assessment A 30-year commuter rail strategic plan for expanding our current service, the timeline for completion is December 2005. The Riverside County services included are the Riverside, IEOC, and 91 Lines and the planned PVL extension; • Multi -County Goods Movement Action Plan A 30-year plan that reflects regional agreement on a phased strategy to maintain mobility for freight movement to, from, and within Southern California, and determine how best to minimize the impacts of freight movements by truck, train and air on local communities, the existing transportation system and the environment. The timeline for completion is Fall 2006. The Riverside County network scope includes, at a minimum, the following freeways — 1-10, 1-15, SR60, SR91, SR86 and corresponding freight rail lines and related cargo airports and • Five -County Los Angeles Economic Development Corporation (LAEDC) Joint Venture A joint advocacy effort with Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) and Union Pacific (UP) railroads to develop new short-term federal funding and long- term public -private financing mechanisms for port -generated rail and truck capacity improvements in the SCAG region. The Riverside County network includes Alameda Corridor East grade separation projects and rail capacity improvements on the BNSF and UP main lines that parallel the SR91 and 1- 10 freeways. These planning activities for the Southern California basin will result in an identification of passenger and freight rail capacity improvements that will require some form of public subsidy. This Feasibility Study will allow the Commission to determine if additional extensions, beyond the PVL Project, should be assessed in these regional study efforts. Goals and Objectives of the Study The goals of this Feasibility Study are to answer the following major policy questions for each geographic area: • Is a commuter rail extension viable and effective, as part of a multi -modal transportation system, to maintain or enhance mobility and contribute to improving the quality of life? If viable, 8 Riverside County Transportation Commission Commuter Rail Feasibility Study (Draft) o Are the railroads willing to share their corridors? If so, what are their likely requirements? o What service levels are appropriate to meet forecasted demand? o How much will it cost (capital and operating) to provide potential rail service levels? Alternative Service Scenarios A total of five commuter rail and three intracounty rail service scenario alternatives are evaluated in this Study: Commuter Rail: • Scenario 1 envisions commuter rail service between Banning and Riverside via UP railroad and BNSF railroad tracks, continuing westward on one of the existing Metrolink lines serving Riverside; • Scenario 2 envisions commuter rail service between Indio and Riverside via the UP and BNSF railroad tracks, continuing westward on one of the existing Metrolink lines serving Riverside; • Scenario 3 envisions commuter rail service between San Jacinto and South Perris via the RCTC-owned SJBL, extending the PVL, currently planned to terminate at South Perris; • Scenario 5 envisions commuter rail service between Temecula and South Perris via SJBL and an alignment paralleling Winchester Road, extending the PVL, currently planned to terminate at South Perris; • Scenario 7 envisions commuter rail service between Temecula and South Perris via the 1-215 corridor, extending the PVL, currently planned to terminate at South Perris. Intracounty Rail: • Scenario 4 envisions intracounty rail service along the same route as Scenario 3 above; • Scenario 6 envisions intracounty rail service along the same route as Scenario 5 above; • Scenario 8 envisions intracounty rail service along the same route as Scenario 7 above. A graphic depiction of the service alternative scenarios appears as Map ES-1 (Executive Summary-1) on the following page. • " " R i v e r s i d e C o u n t y T r a n s p o r t a t i o n C o m m i s s i o n C o m m u t e r R a i l F e a s i b i l i t y S t u d y ( A d m i n i s t r a t i v e D r a f t ) J n i y , L i i i , V a h e y L a n e e r l i n L i n e i n s t e n d E r s p r ; r ^ r a n g e C o a t s t i r e R i v o . v v U : 4 0 . 1 0 , L . r . ' Y t h d W i u 1 j r e F a r r V a l l e y . ' % i e 4 i 5 i �� S E R V t � A i i E R N A T I V E S t . t ; p m r t a b e r R a i l , U P R R �� R i v e r ' , s k 1 s I t 6 * r r n i n g r R d I l , U P R R , R I V e r 6 I 4 4 t p , l d b , . . 8 : C b m Y a + r t s r a R e l l . P V L , P e r i l s t o S a n J e o h t o , , 4 " I n t r a c � u n t y R * t i P V L , R i v e r s l a s t o S a n J A c u i * ' G o m r i i r i i e r R a i l ; W h o h e s t e r ; P i s t 0 T e r i e i u l a i : I n t r ' a c o u n t y ; R a i , _ W i r t d l a s t e ( R i v e r s i d e t o . T e m e c d a ' 7 . ' G ' o m r n U t n f f l a i l ; 1 - Y 1 , 5 , P e g l e " t o T e m e c u l a " - ' ' : - t 3 . I n l r a i z ? u i n t y , R a d , f - 2 1 5 ; f l l v a F s k l e d i T o m a o u l a ' ��' ; r M a p E S - 1 1 0 Riverside County Transportation Commission Commuter Rail Feasibility Study (Administrative Draft) 5 There are two key differences between the commuter rail and the intracounty rail service scenarios examined: 1) the level of service assumed and 2) the easternmost station assumed to be served: • All five commuter rail service scenarios reflect the assumption of six peak - period, peak -period direction trains in the morning and an identical volume and pattern of trains in the reverse direction in the afternoon and evening, along with two off-peak trains in each direction. Trains in the a.m. peak direction would operate between stations east or south of the Riverside Downtown station, through that station, terminating west, south or north of that location, as if current Metrolink service were extended to originate at points deeper into Riverside County. • In contrast, all three intracounty rail service scenarios are assumed to run at thirty -minute intervals in both directions between 6 a.m.: and 10 p.m. and are assumed to operate to and from the Downtown Riverside station, with Riverside being the farthest west the service would reach, though efficient transfers to some Metrolink trains would be possible at Riverside. Intracounty rail service has more in common with excellent bus service than commuter rail service insofar as it would operate both frequently and throughout the day, not just during peak periods. However, such a level of service necessarily would require a substantial amount of both right-of-way and infrastructure investment to create the capacity needed to accommodate the higher service levels/greater number of trains. Therefore, the decision was made that intracounty service scenarios are examined only in corridors where the public sector owns the right-of-way which would host all assumed service scenario trains. To the extent that intracounty rail service scenarios are examined in the same three corridors as commuter rail service scenarios, a comparison of their respective performance results can be viewed as helping to answer the question as to whether the higher service 'levels assumed to be provided in the intracounty scenarios attracted enough incremental ridership and revenue to justify the additional capital and operating costs necessary to attract the incremental ridership. Evaluation Criteria Each service alternative scenario is evaluated based upon eight criteria that measure the feasibility of each scenario to satisfy the goals of the study. The matrices (see Tables ES-1 and ES-2) developed to rank each alternative and compare alternatives to one another, is based upon the following approved evaluation criteria: • Ridership — Passenger Trips (Daily) • Farebox Recovery Ratio • Right -of -Way Issues • Mobility Improvements —Daily Trip Time Savings • Mobility Improvements —Access to Low Income Households • Operating Cost per Passenger -Mile • 11 Riverside County Transportation Commission Commuter Rail Feasibility Study (Administrative Draft) 6 • Capital Cost (Track, Stations and Equipment) and • Capital Cost Per Passenger. As appropriate to a process of developing an objective assessment of the eight scenarios, and RCTC's interest in developing a process that results in a clear explanation of Study recommendations, the criteria were proposed, discussed and agreed upon before any results were developed. KEY RIDERSHIP ASSUMPTIONS The ridership forecasting methodology reflects the assumption that people are drawn to commuter rail if they must make longer trips, especially if there are frequent trains available to encourage and support convenient trip -making. In other words, the longer the trip and the more frequent the headways,the more riders find commuter rail an attractive option. Metrolink mode splits are assumed in the commuter rail scenarios. Ridership forecasts were adjusted upward where forecasted worsening congestion on parallel highway systems was assumed to lengthen auto commutes. Preliminary total weekday ridership forecasts were adjusted to reflect the operation of off-peak trains in addition to peak - period trains based on the experience that Metrolink off-peak trains generate about ten percent of total weekday ridership. . The intracounty rail forecast methodology shares many of the same elements with the commuter rail forecast approach. But rather than employing Metrolink experience to predict mode split, this forecast draws on the experience of Caltrain, the commuter rail service on the San Francisco Peninsula, which is characterized by bi-directional service every 30 minutes. Both the commuter rail scenario and the intracounty rail scenario ridership forecasts in this study measure the incremental weekday ridership over and above the commuter ridership assumed to be generated by extension of 91 Line service to South Perris. To improve clarity of the ridership forecasts, a column labeled "Passenger Trips per Train (Daily)" shown in both Tables ES-1 and ES-2, is added to measure the average number of riders on all trains. The "Passenger Trips per Train (Daily)" figures may well be a more meaningful metric because there is a large difference between the sixteen daily commuter trains in each commuter rail scenario and the 64 daily intracounty trains in each intracounty rail scenario. KEY FINDINGS The key findings presented in this Executive Summary depict an overview of the detailed information that is available in the body of the final report. The detailed information includes specific calculations and background information relevant to each scenario. 12 Riverside County Transportation Commission Commuter Rail Feasibility Study (Administrative Draft) 7 Scenario 1: Union Pacific/Banning/Commuter Rail This Scenario reflects growing interest from Pass Area residents in passenger rail transit. The Scenario envisions operations in a shared, congested goods movement corridor, UP's Yuma Main line. As shown in Table ES-1, this option generates a total weekday commuter rail passenger trips of 768, the lowest forecast of all scenarios. Of this amount, 344 are a.m. peak -period riders, who return in the evening. Major destinations of riders include Riverside, Loma Linda (including Loma Linda University and Medical Center), East Ontario and Los Angeles. The largest origin is Beaumont. Despite the "Feasible" Access to Low Income Households ranking, the Passenger Trips (Daily) forecast and Mobility Improvements - Daily Trip Time Savings, both result in a "Less Feasible" ranking. The significant freight congestion on this corridor would require a substantial capital cost to implement peak -hour commuter rail service which, coupled with the low commuter Passenger Trips (Daily) forecast, results in a Capital Costs Per Passenger rank of "Less Feasible". Scenario 2: Union Pacific/Indio/Commuter Rail Over the last decade, the Coachella Valley has expressed interest in passenger rail -- both State -subsidized Amtrak intercity and locally -subsidized commuter rail service -- given its increased population growth and transit needs. Similar to Scenario 1, this Scenario also envisions operations in a shared, congested goods movement corridor, UP's Yuma Main line. However, the route in this Scenario is double the length of Scenario 1 due to its assumed eastern terminus in Indio. As shown in Table ES-1, this option generates a total weekday commuter rail passenger trips of 2,174. Of this amount, 982 are a.m. peak -period riders, assumed to return in equal numbers in the evening. The largest destination stations are Agua Caliente (Rancho Mirage) and Palm Springs. The largest origin is Indio. One relevant issue encounteredin the development of this forecast is with regard to special destinations such as casinos at Cabazon, Agua Caliente (Rancho Mirage), and Indio. The hours and directions of the trains in this Scenario are not really attractive to casino patrons on a day trip, as the traveler would most likely have to spend the night. While such a trip is possible, the inherent travel time limitations likely would dissuade many riders. Thus, this forecast conservatively assumes that special destination traffic would not materially enhance total commuter ridership on the line and that this Scenario experiences the same percent of off-peak riders to total riders as the other four commuter rail options. Similar to Scenario 1, due to the significant amount of congestion experienced by UP freight trains on their own corridor, additional peak -period commuter rail service would necessitate construction of a third main track adjacent to existing UPmain tracks. Consequently, to addresspeak-period capacity issues- in Scenarios 1 and 2, large capital expenditures are assumed to be required, which are significantly higher than the other three commuter rail scenarios. In addition, the significant UP corridor issues, such as the lack of a shared use agreement or rights to operate Metrolink service, also result 13 Riverside County Transportation Commission Commuter Rail Feasibility Study (Administrative Draft) in the "Less Feasible" rankings for Scenarios 1 and 2 under the "Right -of -Way Issues" criterion. It is worth emphasizing that this forecast reflects only a very narrow rail passenger market, i.e. the peak -period commuter market. The intercity market is different from the commuter rail market. Rather than focusing on serving work trips, intercity rail offers riders travel options throughout the day, as the State -supported Pacific Surfliner service (San Luis Obispo -Los Angeles -San Diego) does now. The ridership potential of a commuter rail option between the Coachella Valley, Riverside and Metrolink destinations west of Riverside in no way compromises the potential benefits of intercity service fromand to the Coachella Valley. Furthermore, required capacity improvements on the BNSF and UP lines likely would be less in the event of intercity service than in the case of commuter rail options, as commuter trains are concentrated during peak periods, which concentration tends to constrain freight rail operations. Scenario 3: Perris Valley Line/San Jacinto/Commuter Rail Strong public support of commuter rail service to San Jacinto is expressed in the Measure "A" voter approved initiatives passed in 1988 and 2002. Scenario 3 envisions operations on the RCTC-owned SJBL. As shown in Table ES-1, this option generates a total weekday commuter rail passenger trips of 1,338. Of this amount, 612 are a.m. peak -period riders, assumed to return in the evening. The largest origin is Hemet Airport. With over 85% of the riders traveling within Riverside County, major destinations in this Scenario include Alessandro Boulevard, Downtown Riverside, Spruce Street and Ramona Expressway. Scenario 3 garners the "Feasible" ranking under the Right -of -Way Issues criterion because the rail right-of-way is owned by RCTC, there is limited freight service, and a shared use agreement exists governing the freight operation. Correspondingly, this Scenario also ranks "Feasible" with respect to Capital Costs: Track, Stations and Equipment and Capital Costs Per Passenger since right-of-way is currently available. Coupled with the "Feasible" rank for Operating Costs Per Passenger -Mile and Farebox Recovery Ratio, this Scenario receives more "Feasible" ranks than any other. Scenario 4: Perris Valley Line/San Jacinto/Intracounty Rail Following the same route as Scenario 3, Scenario 4 is an effort to explore the feasibility of short trip transit options with high frequency service. Similar to Scenario 3, this Scenario also envisions operations along the SJBL. As shown in Table ES-2, this option generates a total of 2,162 weekday rail passenger trips. Of this amount, 823 are a.m. peak -period riders, assumed to return in the evening. The largest a.m. destination station is Van Buren Boulevard. The largest a.m. origin sites are San Jacinto, Florida and Sanderson Avenues in Hemet. To the extent that the SCAG data includes trips to the casino, some of those trips are reflected in the forecast. However, this forecast conservatively excludes any induced A pattern of two or three intercity round trips between Los Angeles and Indio likely would attract special destination travel at the area's casinos. 14 Riverside County Transportation Commission Commuter Rail Feasibility Study (Administrative Draft) 9 ridership which might be generated by casino marketing. While the Passenger Trips (Daily) in this Scenario receives a "Feasible" rank, the Farebox Recovery Ratio and Operating Costs per Passenger -Mile receive a "Less Feasible" rank due to the high frequency of trains. Consequently, the short trip demand can be met with commuter rail frequencies in Scenario 3 at a more cost effective rate than in this Scenario. Scenario 5: Perris Valley Line - Winchester Road/Temecula/ Commuter Rail Significant population growth and freeway congestion on routes serving Southwest Riverside County necessitate an evaluation of transit options including commuter rail. As part of its planning effort, the County of Riverside has reserved a strip of land on either side of Winchester Road to accommodate a potential transit corridor. Scenario 5 envisions both construction of a new corridor along Winchester Road and operations on the SJBL between Winchester Road and Downtown Riverside Station. As shown in Table ES-1, this option generates a total weekday rail passenger trips of 1,292. Of this amount, 591 are a.m. peak -period riders, assumed to return in the evening: The largest destination is Alessandro Boulevard, followed by South Perris, Downtown Riverside, Los Angeles and Ramona Expressway. • The largest origin stations are Winchester Road in Temecula and Winchester Road at Benton Road. The forecast reflects the assumption that, for the most part, work trips bound to destinations west of Corona would be made by commuter rail according to the same mode splits observed elsewhere, even though trips by car via 1-15 may be a shorter distance. The reason is that 2030 congestion on 1-15, SR-91 and SR-60 may be so bad as to render_ more attractive a longer distance but faster commuter rail trip. No rail trips to Corona itself are reflected in the ridership forecast because of the assumed shorter travel times to that destination by highway. While the Farebox Recovery Ratio and the Operating Costs per Passenger -Mile receive the "Feasible" rank, this Scenario ranks as "Moderately" Feasible" in the rest of the evaluation criteria. Scenario 6: Perris Valley Line - Winchester Road/Temecula/ Intracounty Rail Following the same route as Scenario 5, Scenario 6 is an effort to explore the feasibility of short trip transit options with high frequency service. As shown in Table ES-2, this option generates a total weekday rail passenger trips of 2,093. Of this amount, 791 are a.m. peak -period riders, assumed to return in the evening. The largest a.m. destination stations are Winchester Road in Temecula and Van Buren in Riverside. • The largest a.m. origin stations are Winchester Road in Temecula and Winchester Road at Benton Road. To the extent SCAG data includes trips to existing or planned casinos in Temecula and Winchester, some of those trips are reflected in this forecast. While the forecast of Passenger Trips (Daily) merits a °Feasible" ranking, the Scenario ranks "Less Feasible" in the Farebox Recovery Ratio and Operating Costs Per Passenger -Mile evaluation criteria, primarily due to the high frequency of trains in this Scenario. 15 Riverside County Transportation Commission Commuter Rail Feasibility Study (Administrative Draft) 10 Scenario 7: Perris Valley Line/I-215/Temecula/Commuter Rail While significant population growth and freeway congestion for routes serving Southwest Riverside County necessitate an evaluation of transit options, there are two major route options, Winchester Road (Scenarios 5 and 6) and 1-215 (Scenarios 7 and 8). Caltrans and the Commission have been examining the widening of 1-215 along a portion of the corridor between South Perris and Temecula. The rail corridor conceptually is assumed to be located generally on the east side of the 1-215, at places beyond view of the freeway itself and at other locations quite close to the freeway. No specific study has been conducted to determine if both highway and rail needs can be accommodated within a widened freeway corridor. Scenario 7 envisions both construction of a new corridor along 1-215 and operations on the SJBL from South Perris to Riverside. As shown in Table ES-1, this option generates a total weekday rail passenger trips of 2,166. Of this amount, 988 are a.m. peak -period riders, assumed to return in the evening. With over 70% of the riders traveling within Riverside County, the largest destination is Alessandro Boulevard. As in Scenario 5, this forecast excludes trips made by Temecula commuters to Corona destinations because of the probable shorter elapsed travel times to that destination compared to rail. For trips towards Riverside or beyond Corona the rail option is superior. This Scenario rates a "Feasible" Farebox Recovery Ratio, Mobility Improvements - Daily Trip Time Saving and Operating Costs Per Passenger -Mile ranking. Coupled with the "Feasible" rank for Passenger Trips (Daily) and the corresponding Passenger Trips per Train (Daily) measures, this Scenario receives the second highest number of "Feasible" scores. Although the assumed alignment in Scenario 5 along Winchester Road is longer by approximately four miles than the alternative route assumed in this Scenario, estimated Capital Costs: Track, Stations and Equipment are less (more "Feasible") in that Scenario because the Scenario 5 route requires significantly less assumed capital costs associated with the construction of structures. However, Operating Costs Per Passenger -Mile in this .Scenario are lower (more "Feasible") than in Scenario 5 due to the shorter route in this Scenario while Capital Costs Per Passenger in this Scenario are also lower than in Scenario 5 because the estimated number of Passenger Trips (Daily) are so much higher. Scenario 8: Perris Valley Line/I-215/Temecula/Intracounty Rail Following the same route as Scenario 7, Scenario 8 is an effort to explore the feasibility of short trip transit options with high frequency service. As shown in Table ES-2, this option generates a total weekday rail ridership of 3,532, the most feasible of all scenarios. Of this amount, 1,363 are a.m. peak -period riders, assumed to return in the evening. The largest a.m. destination stations are Winchester Road in Temecula, and Van Buren in Riverside. The largest a.m. origin stations are Clinton Keith, Newport Road, and Temecula. To the extent SCAG data included trips to a casino in Temecula, some of those trips are reflected in this forecast. 16 Riverside County Transportation Commission Commuter Rail Feasibility Study (Administrative Draft) 11 While the Capital Cost per Passenger receives the "Feasible" rank, the Farebox Recovery Ratio and the Passenger Trips per Train receive the "Less Feasible" rank due to the high frequency of trains. Consequently, the short trip demand can be met with commuter rail frequencies in Scenario 7 at a more cost effective rate than with this Scenario. As is the case with respect to the relationship between Scenarios 5 and 7, this Scenario, via 1-215, results in higher estimated Capital Costs: Track, Stations and Equipment although the route is shorter than the alignment assumed in Scenario 6. The route in Scenario 8 includes significantly more capital costs associated with the construction of structures to bridge the many significant arterial roads which connect with 1-215 although the Capital Costs Per Passenger and Operating Costs Per Passenger -Mile in Scenario 8 are lower than in Scenario 6, owing to more projected Passenger Trips (Daily), in the case of the former and a shorter route in the case of the latter criterion. Stakeholder Involvement As part of the study development process, a Rail Feasibility Technical Advisory Committee (RFTAC) was established to receive information and provide input on the evaluation criteria, data collection and ranking of the alternative service scenarios. The RFTAC is comprised of more than 30 members representing local governments, transit agencies, Native American tribes and social service groups. Recommendation Strong indicators of Feasible Passenger Rail Service include the following: • High Mobility (Daily Trip Time Savings); • High Farebox Recovery Ratio and • Limited Right -of -Way Issues. The analysis supports advancing two scenarios for inclusion in the next RTP update: Scenario 3 (Perris Valley Line/Commuter/San Jacinto) and Scenario 7 (I- 215/Commuter/Temecula) as optimal routes warranting future study. Specifically, based on the eight approved evaluation criteria, both scenarios • offer a viable and effective commuter rail extension as part of a multi -modal transportation system to maintain or enhance mobility and contribute to improving the quality of life. 17 86 •suogelnoleo pue elep 900HM Pue HSM'H912i :eamoS •sonuanaa xogweL leowwoe! 'palewllsa g5noRgl patanooar slsoo 6ugelado iewewenui 'pelewpse a6elueoaad ayl salnseaw uouelpo lBeueq-lsoo a of aeliwls *� 'sl»ed LIMOS of pepuelxe sl eapues eun L6 sMugogeh 6quinsse 'spied ylnos;o gpnos lsee segue elnou ieluewenul 4 S89'LS l$ 9'EOZ$ e a SZ'0$ %9L'L£ e SHIN get, Oalglseaseal %ES 1.8 algisee6ialerapow a aniseed Z6Z't 9'0Z elnoewal papnwwoo/ peon JelseyowM EEE'E8$ 51.1.1,$ • 4Z'0$ %ZE'44 e smog glS %l9 48 8££'L 9'9 L oluloep ues pelnwwoo/ eun AelleA swag O O 4l4'09Z9 41,b9$ o • E9 0$ %96-Zb O smog 4Zt %ZZ • 981. S'9L oipul palnwwoo/ pemea ai,;iaed uolun O C 964'06ES 6-66Z$ ZI • 89'OS • %96'E4 smog 9LL O 84 O 89L eopues Ja;nwwoo-epepio uogenlen3;o uopeollddy pue 6uweenS !emu' 4 S3 elgel 9'4£ item elgel CD' 'S C' luownees-6upues O_"! pelnwwoo/ peo4eH ollped uolufl L Aims ifgmisuad- Ely iamururop uoissiururgd uogniodsumg dumod amsaanig Riverside County Transportation Commission Commuter Rail Feasibility Study Table Key Perris Valley Line llntracounty/ San Jacinto Winchester Road llntracounty/ Temecula -215 /Intracounty/ Temecula Feasible • Table ES-2 Initial Screening and Application of Evaluation Criteria-Intracounty Service Moderately Feasible Q Less Feasible O 320 hours 0 133 hours er?'t Yo i itidfiFFi .. t I 44.32% $2.85 $125.2 $57,909 • o • • 37.76% $2.92 $248.0 $118,490 o O C C * Incremental route miles east or south of South Perris, assuming Metrolink's 91 Line service is extended to South Perris. . ** Similar to a cost -benefit ratio, this criterion measures the percentage of estimated, incremental operating costs recovered through estimated, incremetal farebox revenues. Source: RLBA, WSA and WRCOG data and calculations. $287.0 13 AGENDA ITEM 8 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMM/SS/ON DATE: October 24, 2005 TO: Plans and Programs Committee FROM: Robert Yates, Program Manager THROUGH: Marilyn Williams, Director of Regional Programs and Public Affairs SUBJECT:. Expansion Of CommuteSmart.info Traffic Map STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Committee to: 1) Receive and file this report on the real time traffic information map expansion project as hosted on the regional rideshare website, www.CommuteSmart.info, and 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: On January 24, 2005, www.CommuteSmart.info was unveiled to the public as the regions' one stop shopping center on the internet, for regional rideshare and commute information. The Commission, acting as the Regional Ridesharing Agency, took the lead in contracting the design and development of the website and is currently hosting it on behalf of the five county transportation commissions. By leveraging the use of pre-existing services and products, the Commission was able to place many different rideshare and commute information services on the website for a relatively low start-up cost. One of these services is the incorporation of a real time traffic information map. This map was originally developed by the Los Angeles County Department of Public Works (LACoDPW) for a project located in the City of El Segundo. The map was provided to the Commission for incorporation into the CommuteSmart website at no charge by the LACoDPW. While already serving a relatively large area of Southern California, the traffic map was limited in its service of the Inland Empire. The Commission at its meeting of February 9, 2005 noted the lack of complete Inland Empire map coverage and directed staff to investigate the matter. Based on the Commission's approval of a staff recommendation at its March 18, 2005 meeting, staff entered into a contract with Iteris Inc. Iteris was the LACoDPW's original contractor for the map and the most qualified to perform the modifications necessary to increase the coverage and better serve the Inland Empire. 20 " S t a f f w o r k e d c l o s e l y w i t h I t e r i s t o e n h a n c e t h e g e o g r a p h i c c o v e r a g e a s w e l l a s s i t e f u n c t i o n a l i t y a n d o n S e p t e m b e r 1 9 , 2 0 0 5 , i m p l e m e n t e d t h e e n h a n c e d m a p l i v e o n t o t h e w w w . C o m m u t e S m a r t . i n f o w e b s i t e . A s d e l i v e r e d , t h e e n h a n c e d m a p i n c l u d e s t h e f o l l o w i n g u p g r a d e s : 1 . E x p a n d e d f u n c t i o n a l i t y i n t o t h e s o u t h R i v e r s i d e C o u n t y a r e a s t h r o u g h t h e 1 - 1 5 c o r r i d o r p a s t t h e c o u n t y l i n e a n d i n t o t h e S a n D i e g o m e t r o p o l i t a n a r e a . " 2 . E x p a n d e d f u n c t i o n a l i t y e a s t t h r o u g h t h e 6 0 a n d 1 - 1 0 c o r r i d o r s t o i n c l u d e t h e P a s s C i t i e s a n d t h e C o a c h e l l a V a l l e y w h i l e a l s o e x t e n d i n g t o t h e A r i z o n a / N e v a d a s t a t e l i n e s . 3 . E x p a n d e d f u n c t i o n a l i t y n o r t h w a r d f r o m t h e C o a c h e l l a a r e a , t h r o u g h 2 9 P a l m s , Y u c c a V a l l e y t o t h e 1 - 1 5 c o r r i d o r a n d t h e n n o r t h w a r d t o t h e C a l i f o r n i a / N e v a d a s t a t e l i n e . 4 . E x p a n d e d f u n c t i o n a l i t y f o r t h e m o u n t a i n a r e a s o f B i g B e a r w e s t e r l y t o W r i g h t w o o d w i t h c o v e r a g e o f t h e C a j o n P a s s , a n d H i g h w a y 1 3 8 t o t h e 1 4 . 5 . U p g r a d e d n a v i g a t i o n f u n c t i o n a l i t y f e a t u r i n g a r r o w s e m b e d d e d d i r e c t l y i n t o e a c h a r e a m a p a l l o w i n g a u s e r t o p a g e s e a m l e s s l y b e t w e e n a d j a c e n t m a p s . M a p f u n c t i o n a l i t y o f t h e e x p a n s i o n a r e a s r e l a t e s c l o s e l y t o t h e o r i g i n a l m a p w h e r e v e r p o s s i b l e a n d t h e n a v i g a t i o n t i l e p a g e h a s b e e n i m p r o v e d f o r e a s e o f u s e . I n a r e a s w h e r e n o c o n g e s t i o n a n d s p e e d d a t a s o u r c e s ( i . e . r o a d w a y d e t e c t i o n ) a r e a v a i l a b l e f r o m C a l T r a n s , t h e m i n i m u m m a p f u n c t i o n a l i t y i s t h e C H P i n c i d e n t r e p o r t i n g s y s t e m a n d C a l T r a n s c h a n g e a b l e m e s s a g e s i g n d i s p l a y s y s t e m . S t a f f w o u l d a l s o l i k e t o n o t e t h a t t h e e x p a n s i o n w a s d e l i v e r e d t o t h e C o m m i s s i o n o n t i m e a n d w i t h i n b u d g e t . S t a f f f u r t h e r n o t e s t h a t u p g r a d e i t e m s 3 a n d 4 a s i d e n t i f i e d a b o v e , w e r e f u n d e d b y t h e s i s t e r r i d e s h a r e p r o g r a m o f t h e S a n B e r n a r d i n o A s s o c i a t e d G o v e r n m e n t s a n d c o n t r a c t e d t h r o u g h t h e C o m m i s s i o n f o r d e v e l o p m e n t a n d i m p l e m e n t a t i o n . A l i v e d e m o n s t r a t i o n o f t h e e x p a n d e d m a p c a p a b i l i t i e s w i l l . a c c o m p a n y t h i s r e p o r t . 2 1 AGENDA ITEM 9 RIVERS/DE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: October 24, 2005 TO: Plans and Programs Committee FROM: Cathy Bechtel, Division Head, Planning THROUGH: Hideo Sugita, Deputy Executive Director SUBJECT: Status Report on the Mid County Parkway ; STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Committee to: 1) Receive and file a status report on the Mid County Parkway project, and 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The Mid County Parkway (MCP) engineering and environmental studies continue to move forward. RCTC and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), as the lead local and federal agencies, are in discussions with the federal resource agencies regarding the alternatives to be studied in the environmental document. As we reported in September, due to safety concerns and alignment prohibitions outlined by the Metropolitan Water District and the State Department of Water Resources, the alignments in front of the dams at Lake Mathews (north end) and Lake Perris are fatally flawed. The alignment in front of the dam at Lake Perris was previously identified by the City of Perris as their locally preferred alternative. Given that this alignment is fatally flawed, RCTC staff is working with the City of Perris to resolve this issue and discuss the other alignments through the city. FHWA is sending a formal request to the federal resource agencies to delete these two alignments and to add the Far South alignment (south of Cajalco Road), as well as the design variations, to the suite of alternatives to be studied in our environmental document. The agencies have 45 days to respond. The preliminary discussions we have had with the agencies have been positive and we will report back to the Commission upon receipt of their response. Coordination with the County Transportation Department RCTC is coordinating with the County of Riverside Transportation Department to ensure that any local improvements along the Mid County Parkway proposed 22 alignments are planned and designed to minimize any throw away pavement when the parkway is ultimately constructed. In the area east of Lake Perris near Lakeview, the County has set up a workgroup (the Ramona Mobility Group) which includes RCTC and the developers in the area to master plan transportation improvements. The Mid County Parkway Teamis actively participating to ensure that the County's planned improvements on the portion of Ramona which overlaps with the planned alignment for the MCP will be compatible. RCTC staff is also working with the County to determine if any of the MCP improvements can be performed as part of these planned improvements to provide early delivery while reducing the throwaway costs of the County Transportation improvements to zero. Schedule and Budget As previously reported, both schedule and budget will be impacted by the new alignments due to the need to conduct the required environmental and engineering studies. We have received the required rights of entry for parcels along the new alignments and the environmental surveys are being scheduled to start in these new areas. The revised schedule assumes an additional year of work and now has the draft EIS/EIR projected for completion in 2007, the final EIR/EIS in 2008, final design and right-of-way acquisition in 2009-10 and construction beginning as early as 2011. RCTC staff is currently reviewing the amended scope of work submitted by Jacobs Engineering which outlines the increased budget covering the environmental surveys and engineering required for the new alignments, costs associated with gaining rights of entry from property owners, and the additional Project Management required due to the extended schedule. Once we are satisfied that all costs have been justified, we will bring an amendment to the Commission for your consideration. 23 AGENDA ITEM 10 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMM/SS/ON DATE: October 24, 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: 5,200 5,000 a 4,800 'i �- 4,600 0 4,400 4,200 4,000 Passenger Trips Riverside Line OC` Off` ,O� CP' O� O� O) O� O� p� ,O� O4D O<0 Month 24 Passenger trips on Metrolink's Riverside Line for the month of September averaged 4,580 which is up 263 (+6%) from the month of August. The Line has averaged an overall decrease of (-5%) from a year ago September 2004. 100 m 95 90 c 85 a, 80 n. 75 70 On Time Performance (95% Goal Riverside Line 4., 4, O)` Oh Oh 0 0 0 0 0 4h Oh c", Oo� moo, O lac Fti� ��� PQ� 4?)- �J� ��\ PJ� cow Month September on -time performance averaged 91 % inbound (-7% from August) and 96% outbound (-3% from August). There were 14 delays greater than 5 minutes during the month of September, a 9 point increase from the month of August. The following were the primary causes: Signals/Track/MOW Dispatching Mechanical Other Riverside Line On Time Performance Follow Up The Riverside Line has improved due to improved dispatching from the UPRR. The Line On Time Performance was 71 % in April, improved to 99% in August, and slid to 94% in September. The September performance, although below the target of 95%, is still a major improvement compared to earlier in the year. It appears that the recent performance meetings with UPRR have made a difference. It is important to wait and see if the improved performance can be sustained. • 25 " " P a s s e n g e r T r i p s I n l a n d E m p i r e O r a n g e C o u n t y L i n e 4 , 2 0 0 4 , 0 0 0 0 3 , 8 0 0 L 3 , 6 0 0 3 , 4 0 0 3 , 2 0 0 3 , 0 0 0 o < ' ) 0 � o ` D o ` ' o ` ' o ` ) o ` ' c o 0 Q 0 0 �� \ 4 o , 0 ��a �� < ' z ' e ��" a s o - �� P Q �� ��` ���� ��o �� ���� P ' 4 5 5 ��Q M o n t h P a s s e n g e r t r i p s o n M e t r o l i n k ' s I n l a n d E m p i r e - O r a n g e C o u n t y ( I E O C ) L i n e f o r t h e m o n t h o f S e p t e m b e r a v e r a g e d 3 , 9 4 3 a n i n c r e a s e o f 1 6 2 r i d e r s o r ( + 4 % ) c h a n g e f r o m t h e m o n t h o f A u g u s t . T h e l i n e h a s i n c r e a s e d 1 1 % f r o m a y e a r a g o S e p t e m b e r 2 0 0 4 . O n T i m e P e r f o r m a n c e ( 9 5 % G o a l ) I n l a n d E m p i r e O r a n g e C o u n t y L i n e 1 0 0 9 5 a �� 9 0 w . r 8 5 a �� 8 0 a 7 5 7 0 O � ` o � ` O } " ` O �� O O O ' D o ` o O �� O o O p O D ( I D 5 ��Q O ��0 J O e G , ����, ��0 �� ������ P Q t 4 7 , , J c . s P J �� s e , M o n t h S e p t e m b e r o n - t i m e p e r f o r m a n c e a v e r a g e d 8 6 % s o u t h b o u n d ( - 9 % f r o m A u g u s t ) a n d 9 4 % n o r t h b o u n d ( - 1 % f r o m A u g u s t ) . T h e r e w e r e 2 4 d e l a y s g r e a t e r t h a n f i v e m i n u t e s d u r i n g t h e m o n t h o f S e p t e m b e r , a n i n c r e a s e o f 1 0 f r o m t h e p r e v i o u s m o n t h . 2 6 The primary causes were: Passenger Trips 91 Line 2,200 2,000 1,800 1,600 1,400 1,200 1,000 Off` OIx Off` Off` O<`) O� O� O� ,O� Ob O� O< O< 566 O°� rp� Q°� CV? PQC' ‘,VW << �J SZ 5�4 Month Passenger trips on Metrolink's 91 Line for the month of September averaged 1,874, a decrease of 32 riders or (-2%) from the month of August. The line has averaged a decrease of -5% from a year ago September 2004. 100 95 am cca 90 r aa) • 85 a� 80 a 75 70 On Time Performance (95% Goal) 91 Line Otx `,p� Jp� ODD Oh Oh tOh �h Oh Oh �Oh ( Oh " S e p t e m b e r o n - t i m e p e r f o r m a n c e a v e r a g e d 9 5 % i n b o u n d ( 0 % f r o m A u g u s t ) a n d 9 3 % o u t b o u n d ( - 4 % f r o m A u g u s t ) . T h e r e w e r e 1 1 d e l a y s g r e a t e r t h a n f i v e m i n u t e s d u r i n g t h e m o n t h o f S e p t e m b e r , a n i n c r e a s e o f 3 f r o m A u g u s t . T h e p r i m a r y c a u s e s w e r e : S i g n a l s / M O W / T r a c k D i s p a t c h i n g M e c h a n i c a l O t h e r T O T A L M e t r o l i n k T h a n k s g i v i n g D a y I E O C S e r v i c e 0 6 2 3 0 % 5 5 % 1 8 % 2 7 % M e t r o l i n k T h a n k s g i v i n g D a y t r a i n s e r v i c e i s b a c k f o r t h e 3 r d y e a r . T h e s e r v i c e w i l l a s s i s t w i t h t r a v e l t o f a m i l y a n d f r i e n d s o n o n e o f t h e b u s i e s t t r a v e l d a y s o f t h e y e a r . S e r v i c e w i l l b e a v a i l a b l e t o p a s s e n g e r s b o t h t o a n d f r o m t h e I n l a n d E m p i r e . T h i s y e a r M e t r o l i n k h a s a d d e d a n a d v a n c e t i c k e t f e a t u r e s o r i d e r s c a n b u y t h e i r t i c k e t s e a r l y a t t h e s t a t i o n s . U p t o t h r e e c h i l d r e n ( 1 7 & u n d e r ) c a n r i d e f o r f r e e w i t h a f a r e p a y i n g a d u l t . A l s o a d u l t s w i l l g e t 2 5 % o f f t h e w e e k d a y f a r e a n d t i c k e t s p u r c h a s e d o n T h u r s d a y c a n b e u s e d f o r a F r i d a y r e t u r n . B e l o w i s a m o d i f i e d s c h e d u l e f o r t h e t r a i n s e r v i c e o n t h e I E O C l i n e . T h e r e i s a l s o o n e r o u n d t r i p t o f r o m D o w n t o w n R i v e r s i d e t o L o s A n g e l e s o n t h e S a n B e r n a r d i n o L i n e . O n F r i d a y , N o v e m b e r 2 5 ` h , a n a d j u s t e d s c h e d u l e w i l l r u n o n a l l M e t r o l i n k R o u t e s . R C T C i s w o r k i n g w i t h O C T A o n a j o i n t m a r k e t i n g p r o j e c t t o i n c r e a s e p a t r o n a g e f o r t h e T h a n k s g i v i n g D a y s e r v i c e . I N L A N D E I P P I R E - O R A N G E C O i J N 1 Y 0 E 0 C ) L I N E T h a n s k g W i n g D a y S c h e d u l e N o v e m b e r 2 4 t h , 2 0 0 5 S o r t h b o u n d - R E A D D O W N S T A T I O N S N o r t h b o u n d - R E A D U P 8 6 1 8 6 3 8 6 5 8 6 7 8 6 9 8 7 1 8 6 2 8 6 4 8 6 6 8 6 8 8 7 0 8 7 2 : 9 : 0 0 1 0 : 3 0 1 2 : 0 0 1 : 3 0 4 0 0 6 : 0 0 R I V E R S I D E - D O W N T O W N 1 1 : 4 5 1 : 1 5 2 : 4 5 4 1 5 - 6 : 4 5 8 : 4 5 9 : 1 0 1 0 : 4 0 _ 1 2 : 1 0 % 1 : 4 0 4 1 0 ' 6 : 1 0 R I V E R S I D E - L A S I E R R A L 1 1 : 2 3 L 1 2 : 5 9 L 2 : 2 9 L 3 : 5 9 L 6 : 2 9 L 8 : 2 9 9 : 1 7 1 0 : 4 7 ' 1 2 : 1 7 1 : 4 7 4 1 7 6 : 1 7 N O R T H M A I N C O R O N A L 1 1 : 2 1 L 1 2 : 5 1 L 2 : 2 1 L 3 : 5 1 L 6 : 2 1 L 8 : 2 1 9 : 2 4 ` ' 1 0 : 5 4 1 2 : 2 4 . ' 1 : 5 4 - 4 2 4 6 : 2 4 W E S T C O R O N A L 1 1 : 1 5 L 1 2 : 4 5 L 2 : 1 5 L 3 : 4 5 L 6 : 1 5 L 8 : 1 5 L 9 : 4 3 L 1 1 : 1 3 L 1 2 : 4 3 ' - L 2 : 1 3 L 4 : 4 3 L 6 : 4 3 A N A H E I M C A N Y O N L 1 0 : 5 5 _ L 1 2 : 2 5 L 1 : 5 5 L 3 : 2 5 L 5 : 5 5 L 7 : 5 5 1 _ 9 : 5 1 L 1 1 : 2 1 L 1 2 : 5 1 L 2 : 2 1 L 4 : 5 1 ' L 8 : 5 1 O R A N G E 1 0 : 4 8 1 2 : 1 8 1 : 4 8 M 8 5 : 4 8 7 : 4 8 : L 9 : 5 0 L 1 1 : 2 3 L 1 2 : 5 6 L 2 : 2 6 L . 5 6 L 6 : 5 6 S A N T A A N A 1 0 : 4 3 1 2 : 1 3 1 : 4 3 1 1 3 5 : 4 3 7 : 4 3 L 1 0 7 0 3 ' L 1 1 : 3 3 L 1 : 0 3 ' - L 2 : 3 3 L 5 : 0 3 - L 7 : 0 3 T U S T I N 1 0 : 3 7 - 1 2 : 9 7 1 : 3 7 1 0 7 5 : 3 7 7 : 3 7 1 0 : 1 5 1 1 : 4 5 1 : 1 5 ` 2 : 4 6 3 e 1 3 7 : 1 6 I R V I N E 1 0 : 3 0 1 2 : 0 0 1 : 3 0 1 0 0 ' 5 : 3 0 7 : 3 0 B O L D = P . M . L = M a y l e a v e u p t o 5 m i n u t e s e a r l y : A t t a c h m e n t : M e t r o l i n k P e r f o r m a n c e S u m m a r i e s ( S e p t e m b e r 2 0 0 5 ) 2 8 500Z aaquia}tiaS S3111VIAIIMIS 30NVINII031:13d NN1101:113U11 NCISSIu fO10D 3Ci Slaia N�11 Cffi 500Z V Y 100 QII5� � IME-©E djde.i euri peg stem depnteem My so -des so'se so-mr 09C'SC 50wnr CO-xtd L£416£ V55'6£ awo, n-s- rovtimnHEC=1 w 90ged e42'e£ 9Q-uar to-oe0 WWI 40-120 40-deS 4sz'L£ 54L'4C Shcbl 2139N3SStld AVI 133M 30Vt13AV }IN1101:1131111 era's£ 0C9'B£ 000'oz aoo'zz — 000'4Z 000'92 000' B2 000'0C 000'4e 000'9C 000'9c zse'Lc - 000'o4 000'Z4 110.P111 — .. .___ .. _ . _ . ___. %d.I.0 ul9J.LO %d.I.0 ./aDuassod 0 . _ _ say.las pumpom cappui sloPetloS JO 11014W-S tg91!gn . • sodas so my sort so km go kw 91:01V TI Atry 9.0 qa. 90 or tc. lei to Aorg IR) CO op.des 48 ...,.. ?s:.!Ste' , ...* lb 02 . , . ,% ., IN ,,... :. igg PlZ 4; Qfkt 0:6,3.x ,.,. -,..,fi ), —.--4 a 'R. PA 3'0 OS'''. 4,4 ,,,. .: A; o ' .2.:'1. , ', A ..„. ml.•.4 :. . , 1.$• . „ - - — •.• ''' .„....% - ''tkbl yx, eiii .:.,-.:......; A „„...„ ..,..w, ,.,.V .:., .,s..k . . ,.*,; .„: .., •,...4. ,..x :.,?„ x•••- ,A- 1•i:: 0.... ..41; <-- ,,, .m ,.„,,,,..x. .58 go if! 0.';.i•i. m 1g.' -", •,.:11 1. -, • ...4.r. . , ;A: ..w 1.;,,,Wil y , , "ilii - V , . , w. ?, ...A, ,,,,. • :.,••e• ,i�h n , .• ,, ...,•.,. - • ,.,. !: „ . „,.„ .: .:.,0 :: :,• :i , ,., .,. ,•„„•,„ ..1s,, , , 1. g , .„: II. k,.'. . ;'.p :,k? N ,m.•,... .K..,; m t 1:Pa it ..*?, e:- -,,-0sS. . ........._ .4:::F, pt,,,.. ,..„ .0. - 4.w,.. t 1; .;.- <, _b....0* ' , ,.i. t A . :...;• ., , . , , IDS It : . * • .'. ti ...: --, -',, g g 1 ,. 3... :. 1 4, SE gg.: fa 4i.,,.. ,!,8 ,7P:.5 ;;;:: ,1..._,,,,if, tM n ...it .iM •.% '4.f.4 C4`V 44: tli,i., !,.,,i-s:i k4i A::.4.;1 t:N; Vi: <,.-: 31,§i,., ' ,....„ 1,•7 •:,: .4 ...m •:, ,6,1.5. ..• %CFCS — %O'S9 — eSATI6 ..11 ..tv :14 .% :. . m. 4:: ..,... ,,„,?: , .:. ':'': ih ' t• ,,_t2.1.: 0: , . :.,N1 %,Ni :.,,,.. 40 ' :.4•0 .1.i.o:: ,' eo. .,44.1. fo 1.4' .. ,-,5 •>.:* 44 ,..J.,, 04 k" , 4. ,. -t,: 'g• . sti va :-...,..--. .67..:.4.-y,—..--6.7..,...4K :0:.,.__. r., 1 t:,, 4.- :* ..g-1 %0' 00 I, • 4. 311111JL-NO SNIVI4J. SA MAILL-NO Si3ON3SSVd IN3Ol13d • • • emeNoW£L-10 awl' PelnPeUoS 10 sslnulW-5 uIEpIM BulAIW %IS SO des 40 Ony SO Hof SO Amry SO J0H SO yew SO 9Ad SO ua f 00 pea 40 AaN VO LSO h0 das %£6 = %£6 1 %Y6 %0'OOL (SywoW £ sups Aep seem 33NYWIJOAUBld 30111-NO Ws111O1:11311V °miming' se}nu1W-9 u1 pm&, S 64 9 66/ El 99/ 11 olsJ4 ci ,{aO cy�o� c�vsq- ye MOCINIM H1NOW-E6 33NVIAIN0A13d 3N1l1`NO 33IA113S GRAMS WALLINVi - %Oros. - WYSS - %0'06 - %0'B6 %0'00 C • %2t . ONI833NION3 nog kMON'u'flWO9 %st dSN9 %Pt SNOLLY613160 N31110 %z %sl A110a31N1•MRl1WV%0 LMdn X3NN00 SOOE aequaeades 6u!Ru3 Polaed y;uoy� EL Al!!lglsuodsa» Jig sAelea uleal;o % oWNGS PPWOOM SOMPW %6 •ratiOS %0 8NOS %0L N310MN9W08 %Ol ONIL133NION3 %cF 3SN9 %0Z SNOI1VM3d0 %0 %6 %L X3NN00 -68c11 A110 b31N1-NY61WV 500E Aogweu!eS Aill!q!suodsea AB sAelaa immix) % GoNVS PoPMavM %Moroi ) Nno11111 i . dn-Nova SJ. RMO 3ONVW1:10And INGS NR7Ak°la Mil CAM 6tY %9 %lL %6 %5- %0 %6 %6 %0 40 deS SA SO des 900640 % %£ VoZ- %4 %9 %4- %4 %Z "/o£ 90 Orb' sn SO deS e0ue115 % °h£ 910'09 4L9'l £46'£ 89Z'9 09S'4 6Z9 £48'LL Z2.6'9 696'£ SO deS 9SZ SOX 906'4 LSL'E SZE'S 1.LE'4 259 48E'L4 4S8`9 S88`£ SO 6ny %Z- 08£'9E ES6'4 455'£ 04£'9 ELE'4 Z49 PPE' L4 9E£'9 898$ SO hP %4- 1,00'6£ 42.63 509'E L96'S S44'4 OM 4Z2`44 9L8'9 466'£ SO Fier %0 L£4'6S 9LO'Z 018'£ 64L'9 600. 149 E09'4I. 0149 E00'4 SO &eW %l i56'6£ L46`4 96L'E 590'9 S64'4 149 LSL'4.4 ££L9 4Ll_4 SOgiV %Z sate 888'L OZ8'£ 696'S 6L£'4 Z99 L£O'ZL ELS`9 6L6'E 00JEW %E BZ4`9E 068'4 LZ6'E SEWS 44S'4 ZSS COO' 44 644'9 8Z8'£ SO gad 1 %1 Stint 808'4 8£L'£ Zl6'S En'4 SO9 LEZ'L4 £S6'5 SL£'£ SOueP %Ll- 64L'i£ 4S9`1, 094'E 80Z'2 Ll4'S. S6S Z90.04 L84'9 994`£ PO *NI %4 64911C Z99'l 649'£ 1.00'9 968'4 4L9 Z06'04 SOL'S 660b POAoN %Z 9£9`86 E89'L L49`£ £L6'S SL5'4 1709 LZZ'4L OK'S EPL'4 OO130 %Z morn 4L6'4 SSS'£ SSL'S, 6Z8'4 ZE9 E46'OL OLE'9y� *WE deS �x ��� �Q/ ��goi:i .'-%i{F y� '�YI'` a F i r #' }iq 9 + s J(}��, ©$t J ������#� » 0'[<���iY i..4 u�i,�'�w .�.'�Y�T'v1��S.��.�5 vh.f (y sB,J's��� n.} #n t ��[�:'}F�r^FYT"W. e t �#i p1Ral )} ss �j'{�('y{},,�(�)��.{�Y�, y« y VDU 4-9:'' , .[ I 5. /s �i�]�}"['4r<� Ga�.'}�ILy•.�.� v6y�+p4a ��yy�1ar F: �r�.•.} i^?^���:r:R.)"' .: y�pp bY'Tw 3 f�i �i� :Ci`... cann IVY AVOIIOH • MOONIM H1NOIN N33.1X1H1 SdRll a30N3SSad At/Q)333M 3l: vaanv MNI1ONI AI SPOE'voLE1106 Z e1001-10111n+wa %l4 %P t- 6 .. IPInc* ABPNIV 01 P•P•p4 Le- *.AMOe 44%am, Apo wow.. oftNa+v -Nwary 01 •M, YI10 W04 0014 Ab Le 1100100 01Tnp1 o 0191 Ae010epr e4garr oewa. A•FN•4 0 AIN I' ou!Mpko New L£ Aory 0420pm 00en•AN 1/00.NN 0 oArp rpetpu 06 WnY '1,1'0,l1 YI104PMr Pre 9Wyt nue Y110 1.3101J O!Ner LULL uo p4N4pwep e10np 104g4 0P4•01.00-000t 4 310N '0401404 A 014n00 00N Z INN 4 P0PN011010g011000 4101001'00'LLOL Y1 le 41104 04104.1013 01100 pe4013 310N 1Y1 '4r0W Pre 1••min Kap'u!w1 eNinedeu 0414e1 WN011040.004 mow 'ZODZ'L JnweLnw num 41•00wd •angq A0P0Npvn Ne.4NY u0 poop Awo no. W W ewd WL-tle14 •� %8P %8S %4 Z 40Z L- %9L %BB %55 %LS %C4 10608 aL 90 deg 004e40 % %9 448t• °hs- %ES- %0 %9 %0L- %9- 90 BnY'00 90 046 e6 rem % 64 tEL %9 %8L• %9• WE - 99C 409'L ZZ LE t9Z 60E 6ZE Lrel 8090•6e8 a Acromm+moom LEZ 9:L. %LS %9 ZLE JZ6Z 444 680. LZ BL ESE Da SDC LEVI, SO-EPLY LS BLZ %CZ- %LZ• %l• OtE Wel 9Z SE 698 ' LW SOS EOZ'L (PS 90-Inf SS SZ1 %6L %L• %Z• LLB 994 P64'1. PP 68 448 S£C 6LE 09Z'1. SO-unf B9 ESl %St %el %6 816 6L4 6141. Z9 46 EZZ 9SZ 0££ LBe I. In)S0•Ae4y 89 84l %CZ- %Sr %4 9LZ ZOP 449'1 ee 94 LEZ £SZ LPS eon. 90-Av OS 69 %PE %LIL %9 9SS £39 LW LE DP 91.Z 61£ E94 Seel. SiNen O£ 89 %LE %Ll %I- La 8tZ Lel 19 ZL 6L4 9CE BEZ Z61'L (LL)90-qa: 8P EDI %L• %Or- %t 61Z ZLZ see" OZ u 89Z 661 061 Stt'L - 60ee-wef et 99 %5Z• %81- %S• LZZ t9Z 9£E1 4Z CL ZI.Z L61 19Z EZL'l CO 40-390 et E9 %91 %B %e 96Z Ea 9661. 0 LZ ZS4 OLZ 96Z Wel (t)40•nON 98 %4l %68 %OL 9SZ BIZ 69V1 61 EP LE L£Z SSZ ZZZ'L OIL 40•000 £6 %9Z- 910E- %0 la LSZ PPE.t SZ lZ 9E1 661 DLZ 90VL lel sodas rR2] _ , � , 1LOrlgi :f �-^.... n N 3.^0 . Fi J '.'°Ei:f,g# ,;"1 .. �. R:. • fs $' '` ei a �$ � " :...Lpd. ' E.BaF�.i W s .. v�f1 nflss ,w4, i° •,4 tt` a u„,7,orrh41....as "•Gd is .i MOONIM N1NON N331111H1 WALLINV NO SN30'IONSSVd AlHINOIN 31N1101LL3W A91V0 3OVN3AV asowitnW Pue eteel ese9M QMI unt Aelry Jew qaJ ue� oep noN lop deg, s Orly In(' 000'9 000'9 000'01. 000'Zt 000'44 ` 46!£6 Ad 000491, 96/b6 AdX X X— -�'—e 000'9 L 000'0Z 96/96 Ad F X000.22 L6/96 AdX—"�C—'� � erg"_ ��.' 00011 86/L6 000'92 ..-. .�.rwy' ✓ +� TT r 00/66 Ago ---- — Loroo Ad 2040 £0/20 Ad 40/£0 60140 Ad7-----4' n5N f 935•• •.• AtOi^�.'IN'.%(S:tY'-0�MW1WN.f!Y. 90/90 Ad 31ba 01 N01.143ON1 amsneav AVOI-10H - Sd1a L a3ON3SSYcl AVCD133M 30 2i3AV >1N110a1.31N 000'0£ 000'Z£ own oUQ'JL 000'9£ 000'04 000'24 monwefw50e0 4L mr ��r cew ,cv Rw asp uer saw. JeBuessed Alma eseJoAy avueg Aepung eun ouipsewes ueg 0 -00S -000L -wee -000Z - 00sz slap lA AIRG 6AV MelmmnI eSeen 81. so -des Bnv sdul iavueesed Apo e6eueny eolmes ABPLMs 0031 gsles 90-Inr D 005 co v d 000 t .7 so -des Sny 90•10r edJe6uassed a6atenv eelnles it epmieS 0031 One Inr unr ,aw Jev ,tev ae4 uer 200 AoN PO a0-eas —000z sdulJeauassed Apo a6eJenv °owes ltepatijes Gun iteileA edolelud 0 009 000t 009t 000Z oast 000E y00se r. s�apia Al!ea 6ny meNoV151.10 •uone€noleo mutt-uo ayt uI pspnpul lou e,e suleq pepnuuy 000eupwe0l0 plod to eL09-uo 01W Ast p 10 001ORSuaa eye some peleuiwial •sAsiep ergeneper m} spew Deal enel stuaugsn(pe oN %E6 I%SG %L6 %56 %86 %96 %E9 %86 %BO %96 %LB %66 %96 %96 %56 %£6 %ZS %16 %LB sou. P°usd 'lead tS<iel: Jlpgt nt33a1: ?L9ol }.k6 .v,;: .e=LR1;:OOM7ut�t0l <;w �ti0 a{hob`J�€<;. , < 111?Ct9 ' ;:: s :;einD�JB r r.>2etO4!=et$�xs 8t0eLtt3hE•'ia: so�v ewll pelnpe4oS;o setnulsp g LISOIM Esiti .ni poNed Aid %£6 %66 %Z6 %EB %56 %66 %99 %96 %69 %96 %LB %L6 %L6 %96 %96 %06 %1.6 %Lfi %69 50 d88 OW %BS %96 %96 %LB %56 %56 °%96 %96 %56 %fifi %BB %116 %OaL %96 1/496 1/469 %56 %SO %96 %CB °%l6 %96 %L6 %96 %LB %/6 %46 00%Le %L9 %06 %66 %00L %56 %SS %LB %BB %Lfi %56 5DInf %46 %66 %96 %96 %46 %46 %96 %96 %96 %Z9 %Z6 %fifi %OOl %£6 %Lfi %L9 °%L6 %£6 796 SO unP %£6 %Z6 %46 %96 %Z6 %S6 %46 %56 %L6 %St %se %66 %86 %96 %Lfi %99 %l6 %ae %Lfi 50 Aery %46 %EB %46 %06 %Z6 %De %96 'Vote %56 %L9 %9L %00t %66 %96 %46 %96 %BB %96 %56 50idd %66 % %EB 5696 %LS %Z6— %el % re— %re %se— %rr—%e9! %66 %e6d %fifi Yot.6— %56'9686 %E6 %86 90 JeW %LB %DS %Z6 %96 %96 %98 %69 %LB 00%68 %BS %LB %L6 %96 %Z6 °%56 %LB °°%De %69 %06 504ej %69 %LB %06 %46 %19 %69 %L6 %LB %59 %0L %Z9 %96 %Lfi %46 °°%96 %LL %L9 %LB %89 90 Der %96 %56 %46 %L6 %96 %46 %E6 %96 %Z6 %L9 %L8 %66 %66 %L6 %96 %EB °%46 %96 °%66 40000 9;46 %46 %46 %Z6 %46 %t8 %36 %t6 %06 %CB %69 %96 %96 %96 %96 %96 %46 %Lfi %96 40 ^ON °%£6 %Z6 %£6 %46 %06 %£6 %D6 %46 %L6 %Z9 %99 %B6 %96 MB %46 %E6 %96 %BB %66 40 too %Epp6 %£6 %46 %6y9f %56 °%LB %t6 %t6p %6BB{ %69 %99�{{ %O��OL %96��yy %LB %46ryp %56 %96 %Se %66 v0c,las fiy-0916�Q '�:: F41:4 i �j 3 FYI ex . j; I k =1 d .:. Q`ll•Iil 1� , i t ''r�k•(r _ ,Q ..f a Oil ? Q f F f 6i ' (� � tS q {t' Tl� i 55� f 63 &lit 1{ �6 5Y k'k`��if x k v .� � 4 f.U3nl f„ <x Y/. )5Y- '. dtsl' N): '1: TL.53<y':� � g Ogiii Y t s��l�a1t•44.K. , . F fx u(<<: I L�ztss�0l4ua 9HINOIN EL 1sarvi emu pelnpe4a8 pa somusn S mum 6umuy sulell;o af5epueamd 30IAH3S AVON33N1 AHVINIA tMS 30N32131-IaV 37namoS MNI1C*113IN L 0 L 0 0 0 0 t 0 0 0 0 0 0 D031 AepunS 0 0 L 0 0 0 0 0 0 9N5 reepun$ 0 0 D D D 0 0 0 0 0 0031 iSepugeg 0 0 D 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 i D 0 0 0 0 0 8NS AePAWS 1t %DM OLZ LL 4E l£ N. 1 S£ 84 04 - -0101 %L Z 0 0 0 L 0 0 L 0 3 QN71-Sd0 %9L %9 %6Z %ZZ %9t %L %9 %L %0 4£ ZL 09 L4 b£ Z LL Z 0 L 0 Z 9 Z 0 0 0 0 £ 0 0 L l 0 0 0 S S S 0 £t £t L 0 L OL 0 S 0 0 0 0 I. Z 0 L 0 _ L L 0 0 0 0 0 0l L 8 L EL 0 E 0 0 St 0t S S £ L 9 0 0 4 0 OE Z L L Z .... 0 0 V!l2PJS-9d0 2139N399Vd-Sd0 N31-LL0-Sd0 H01VdS10'Sd0 H0311 N0V1:11-U9N3 DVS-219N3 213H10-210N3 1SNO3l1N31613AO8dWl-2i9N3 101. W % 111101 V1-1.6 OOIINI DO AM HIM SNS 1AV N3A 13Sf1VD 631.11NIW 9 NM{1 U31V3110 SAV130 Wild d0 novo AUVNRJd Noy Jegwa;deg SAV 130 m' oviaw d0 83Sfltl0' 0-31d9000 54 %V/. 04Z 44 bZ 4£ tr4 L SE 8tr OP JIB S K 03W190 SW -all %VOL 99S 14 OS 8L L£ trZ 80L 814 Z8 uIw 0‹ ❑akfla❑ SNIb'al %004 ZS6`Z Le 817Z 86£ £SZ 4£Z SU KIS 94b 01d0 SNIVaL 1V101 %b'0 Z4 E b 4 0 Z 0 0 Z 031-InNNb %Z'0 S 0 0 Z 0 0 Z 0 L NIW 0£ NVH1 a31VM:19 %9'L Lb E 9 L £ 0 44 S Z4 NIWO£ -NIW 4Z %8'Z £8 tr OL 8 8 9 94 94 LL NIWOZ-NIW LL %9'Z SL b 8 b4 E Z 9 8Z 04 NM 04 - NUN 9 %0'Z4 SSE £ 9Z Ltr LL LL EL 0£4 Ztr NIW9-NMI 4 %6'08 Len ELL 864 OZ£ ZZZ LOZ L09 9ZE b££ . 130ON 101P% 11l101 lndlnla. 30131 00 Ala tins 8MS lAH N3A a31t/1S3111NILII S00z aeciweidag Nouyana SAt-3a NMI A3N3110321A