Loading...
11 November 9, 2005 CommissionRECORDS RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA TIME: 9:00 a.m. DATE: Wednesday, November 9, 2005 LOCATION: BOARD ROOM County of Riverside Administrative Center 4080 Lemon Street, First Floor, Riverside Commissioners Chairman: Robin Lowe 1" Vice Chairman: Marion Ashley 2"d Vice Chairman: Terry Henderson Bob Buster, County of Riverside John F. Tavaglione, County of Riverside Jeff Stone, County of Riverside Roy Wilson, County of Riverside Marion Ashley, County of Riverside Barbara Hanna / Art Welch, City of Banning Roger Berg / Jeff Fox, City of Beaumont Robert Crain / George Thomas, City of Blythe Shenna Moqeet / John Chlebnik / Jon Winningham, City of Calimesa Mary Craton / John Zaitz, City of Canyon Lake Gregory S. Pettis / Charles England, City of Cathedral City Juan M. DeLara / Richard Macknicki, City of Coachella Jeff Miller / Karen Spiegel, City of Corona Matt Weyuker / Henry "Hank" Hohenstein, City of Desert Hot Springs Robin Lowe / Lori Van Arsdale, City of Hemet Mary Roche / Robert Bernheimer, City of, Indian Wells Michael H. Wilson / Gene Gilbert, City of Indio Terry Henderson / Don Adolph, City of La Quinta Bob Magee / Robert L. Schiffner, City of Lake Elsinore Frank West / Charles White, City of Moreno Valley Kelly Seyarto / Rick Gibbs, City of Murrieta Frank Hall / Harvey Sullivan, City of Norco Dick Kelly / Robert Spiegel, City of Palm Desert Ronald Oden / Ginny Foat, City of Palm Springs Daryl Busch / Mark Yarbrough, City of Perris Ron Meepos / Harvey Gerber, City of Rancho Mirage Anneal Moore / Steve Adams, City of Riverside Chris Buydos, City of San Jacinto Ron Roberts / Jeff Comerchero, City of Temecula Vacant, Governor's Appointee Eric Haley, Executive Director Hideo Sugita, Deputy Executive Director 74702 11.36.0 Comments are welcomed by the Commission, if you wish to provide comments to the Commission, please complete and submit a Testimony Card to the Clerk of the Commission. RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION www.rctc.org AGENDA* *Actions may be taken on any item listed on the agenda 9:00 a.m. Wednesday, November 9, 2005 BOARD ROOM County of Riverside Administrative Center 4080 Lemon Street, First Floor Riverside /n compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act and Government Code Section 54954.2, if special assistance is needed to participate in a Commission 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_ PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 3. ROLL CALL 4. PUBLIC COMMENTS (items not listed on the agenda) 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - October 12, 2005 ADDITIONS/REVISIONS (The Commission may add an item to the Agenda after making a finding that there is a need to take immediateaction on the item and that the item came to the attention of the Commission subsequent to the posting of the agenda. An action adding an item to the agenda requires 2/3 vote of the Commission. If there are less than 2/3 of the Commission 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.) Riverside County Transportation Commission Agenda November 9, 2005 Page 2 7. CONSENT CALENDAR - All matters on the .Consent Calendar will be approved in a single motion unless a Commissioner(s) requests separate action on specific item(s). Items pulled from the Consent Calendar will be placed for discussion at the end of the agenda. 7A. QUARTERLY FINANCIAL STATEMENTS Page 1 Overview This item is for the Commission to receive and file the Quarterly Financial Statements for the period ended September 30, 2005. 7B. SINGLE SIGNATURE AUTHORITY REPORT. Overview Page 6 This item is for the Commission to receive and file the Single Signature Authority Report for the first quarter ended September 30, 2005. 7C. INTERFUND LOAN ACTIVITY REPORT Page 8 Overview This item is for the Commission to receive and file the Interfund Loan Activity Report for the month ended September 30, 2005. 7D. 2005 TRANSPORTATION ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS Overview This item is for the Commission to: Page 10 1) Allocate Transportation Enhancement (TE) funds as presented in the Technical Advisory Committee funding recommendations listing; and, - 2} Submit proposed TE funding recommendations to Caltrans Headquarters. Riverside County Transportation Commission Agenda November 9, 2005 Page 3 7E. DEVELOPMENT OF PROJECT MANAGEMENT DATABASE Overview This item is for the Commission to: 1) Approve the development and implementation of a Project Management Database to be funded by Local Transportation Funds; and, 2) Issue a Request for Proposal for the development and implementation of a Project Management Database. 7F. TUMF REGIONAL ARTERIAL PRIORITY PROJECT RECOMMENDATION FOR THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE Page 17 Page 42 .. Overview This item is for the Commission to: 1) Approve the City of Riverside's Van Buren Boulevard Widening project from Andrew to Garfield Streets as eligible for TUMF Regional funding pursuant to the Commission's call for projects; and, 2) Program $905,000 in TUMF Regional funds for construction of the project in FY 2006 plus up to 10% in construction contingency costs ¢$90,500) pursuant to the TUMF Nexus Study. 7G. EXPANSION OF COMMUTESMART.INFO TRAFFIC MAP Overview This item is for the Commission to receive and file this report on the real time traffic information map expansion project as hosted. on the regional rideshare website, www.CommuteSmart.info. Page 44 Riverside County Transportation Commission Agenda November 9, 2005 Page 4 7H. FISCAL YEAR 2005-2006 SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN AMENDMENT: RIVERSIDE TRANSIT AGENCY - TRANSIT CENTERS Page 46 Overview This item is for the Commission 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; and, 3) • Include the projects in the. Regional Transportation Improvement Program. 71. FISCAL YEAR 2006-2010 MEASURE "A" FIVE YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT :PLAN. FOR LOCAL STREETS AND ROADS FOR THE CITIES OF BEAUMONT AND INDIO Page 49 Overview This item is for the Commission to approve the FY 2006-10 Measure "A" Five Year Capital Improvement Plan for Local Streets and Roads for the Cities of Beaumont and Indio. 7J. AMENDMENT TO MEASURE "A" CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN FOR LOCAL STREETS AND ROADS FOR THE CITIES OF DESERT HOT SPRINGS AND PALM SPRINGS Page 56 Overview This item is for the Commission to approve the amendment to the: 1) FY 2005 Measure "A" Capital Improvement Plan for Local Streets and Roads for the City of Desert Hot Springs; and, 2) FY 2006 Measure "A" Capital Improvement Plan for Local Streets and Roads for the City of Palm Springs. Riverside County Transportation Commission Agenda November 9, 2005 Page 5 7K. FUND TRANSFER AGREEMENT NO. 06-45-550 FOR OPERATION OF A FREEWAY SERVICE PATROL PROGRAM IN RIVERSIDE COUNTY Page 67 Overview This item is for the Commission to: 1) Approve the Fund Transfer Agreement No. 06-45-550 with the State of California Department of Transportation for the Riverside County Freeway Service Patrol program in the amount of $1,175,933 in State funding for FY 2005-06; and, 2) Authorize the Chairman, pursuant to Legal Counsel review, to execute the Agreement on behalf of the Commission. 7L. REQUEST FROM THE CITY OF BANNING TO REPROGRAM FISCAL YEAR 2004-2005 SB 821 BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES PROGRAM FUNDS Overview Page 76 This item is for the Commission to approve the request from the City of Banning to reprogram FY 2004-05•SB 821 funds. 7M. COMMUTER RAIL PROGRAM UPDATE Page 81 Overview This item is for the Commission to receive and file the Commuter Rail Program Update as an information item. 7N. STATE AND FEDERAL LEGISLATIVE UPDATE Overview This item is for the Commission to: Page 101 1) Approve the following change in state bill position: SB 1024 (Perata D-Oakland) — Change from OPPOSE to SUPPORT WITH AMENDMENTS; and, 2) Receive and file the State and Federal Legislative Update as an information item. Riverside County Transportation Commission Agenda November 9, 2005 Page 6 8: PRESENTATION — INLAND EMPIRE TRANSPORTATION COALITION Overview This item is for the Commission to receive a presentation on the Inland Empire Transportation Coalition from Bob Wolf. 2009 MEASURE "A" WESTERN COUNTY HIGHWAY PROGRAM TEN-YEAR STRATEGIC PLAN DEVELOPMENT AND NEGOTIATION OF BECHTEL INFRASTRUCTURE CONTRACT AMENDMENT Page 109 Overview This item is for the Commission to authorize staff to negotiate a contract amendment to Agreement No. 05-31-561 with Bechtel Infrastructure to provide a scope, schedule and cost to support the Commission's effort to develop a 2009 Measure "A" Western County Highway Ten -Year Strategic Plan including: a) An assessment on the status and issues of completing delivery of the Western County Highway Program for the 1989 Measure "A"; and, b) An objective based assessment of the Western County 2009 Measure "A Highway Program (including the Mid County Parkway) as generally described in the agenda item. 10. STRATEGIC PARTNERSHIP ADVISOR REQUEST FOR QUALIFICATIONS AND REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS Page 113 Overview This item is for the Commission to approve the release of a request for qualifications (RFQ) and request for proposals (RFP), if necessary, for Strategic. Partnership Advisor services. _ Riverside County Transportation Commission Agenda November 9, 2005 Page 7 11. MID COUNTY PARKWAY PROJECT — APPROVAL OF AGREEMENT NO. 06-72-555 WITH JACOBS CIVIL INC. TO REVISE THE SCOPE OF WORK FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF A PROJECT REPORT AND ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT Page 115 Overview This item is for the Commission to: 1) Approve Agreement No. 06-72-555, Amendment No. 2 to Agreement No. 04-31-018 to Jacobs Civil Inc. for incorporation of the three new alternatives identified during the Value Analysis Study process for the Mid County Parkway (MCP) project for an amount of. $4,845,385; 2) Authorize the use of $4,845,385 of commercial paper until such time as additional TUMF funding is approved for the MCP project, at which time the TUMF funding will replace commercial paper to the extent that it is available; and, 3) Authorize the Chairman, pursuant to Legal Counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the. Commission. 12. RIVERSIDE COUNTY COMMUTER RAIL FEASIBILITY STUDY Overview This item is for the Commission to: Page 217 1) Receive and file the draft Commuter Rail Feasibility Final. Report; and, 2) Advance Scenario 3 (Perris Valley Line/Commuter/San Jacinto) .and Scenario ` 7 (I-215/Commuter/Temecula) as optimal commuter rail routes warranting future study for inclusion in the next. RTP update. 13. PRESENTATION — TUMF UPDATE Overview This item is for the Commission to receive. a TUMF Update from Rick Bishop, WRCOG Executive Director. 14. ITEMS PULLED FROM CONSENT CALENDAR AGENDA Riverside County Transportation Commission Agenda November 9, 2005 Page 8 15. COMMISSIONERS./ EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S REPORT Overview This item provides the opportunity for the Commissioners and the Executive Director to report on attended meetings/conferences and anyother items related to Commission activities. Boards/Committees/Conferences • 91 Toll Road Advisory Committee • Major Investment Study (MIS) Committee • Mobile Source Review Committee (MSRC) • Regional Transportation Agencies Coalition (RTAC) • SCAG Regional Council • SCAG Transportation and Communications Committee • Southern California Regional Rail Authority (SCRRA) 16. CLOSED SESSION ITEM A. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL: EXISTING LITIGATION Pursuant to Subdivision (a) of Government Code Section 54956.9 Case Nos. RIC 386647 and C-05-01525 JSW B. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL: ANTICIPATED LITIGATION Pursuant to Subdivision (b) of Government Code Section 54956.9 C. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8- Item - APN Property Ownerls) - 1 571-170-002 571-270-006 571-320-008 Cordova Property 2 580-080-012 580-090-001 580-090-005 580-090-006 581-100-066 581-130-001 581-130-002 581-140-001 581-140-003 581-140-005 581-140-008 Jalem Productions Riverside County Transportation Commission Agenda November 9, 2005 Page 9 17. ADJOURNMENT The next Commission meeting is scheduled to be held at 9:00 a.m., 'Wednesday, December 14, 2005, Board Room, County of Riverside Administrative Center, 4080 Lemon Street, Riverside. 1 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION ROLL CALL November 9, 2005 ent Absent iverside Drstnct I County of Riverside, District II unty of Riverside, District, Ifl County of Riverside, District IV untyof Riverside; District City of Banning aumont City of Blythe im'esa City of Canyon Lake ry _of Cathedral City of Coachella of Cororia City of Desert Hot Springs et City of Indian Wells of Indio City of La Quinta e, Elsinore City of Moreno Valley of Murrieta City of Norco ty of. Palm Desert City of Palm Springs City of Ferris City of Rancho Mirage 3iverside City of San Jacinto City of Temecula Governor's Appointee, Caltrans District 8 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION COMMISSION MEETING COMMISSIONER SIGN -IN SHEET NOVEMBER 9, 2005 NAME AGENCY CONTACT # hPeie9P-2— At lAig r-1) ii //" p / 0 .371� ,Z5V d `) P\v\vA�_ 9 Z2 - On a, �,/\ t,\� 34 M e 6;; (- / e49k-e g.- -7 Ai / 'i`C�& a�), 7,c 0 7"79 -9� 5 Gv.-.5.�-- AIXFAV � 6 e//3- 3®0 /,‹ 4 ,� Naeao 755-2 /90 �� / i t,S 2-1 l- ri v"fL 1/72/92e1 46-/� ��1‘ /' ?j r ! " �tG > e II F I N2 6CSer�� Cv 9 3�'si / f --f� IP2 r®�,�,4--- � /�- tt3 � Mlc<t�A L r�Rovsc,I,1 (5� 3g9� +0:5,5 G L7-RAN Sieu�v� U �� G� , v q0 gz6-- $2, o ) ,� / 4,�/ rc� C�rs/�7g� �.�i ---(„6,i___ V 210del1 4f1L�7 L G MPJ — /Il(/7 � �(` 0S-1) c(,��---lo, v ,/1� „ -,‘„,8' (�v , ,o0� ��� c 0 15 t-Q1�-xd� ( 4/115 &(yam �( n A (s\� Ra ' Gj 'ue � Or% 7- Ci7YY Of 1 LigiiC04/9- g��� gi:A cn --A43 ?. - t,� ��i r p � '� )3 �_. L, � tb\)�J ;-�S -74 �{ -- g 5 Zb Wes- '� C� Spa e(St-Z i-dR- ��rJ ne4 "-��� v� S 7�0-323-$2C���, / - � � �"1 -z/ V- 7 ‘�� .'�1YL. s7. ' ���z2 C9% L C�jY t�6°�77 -0392 j�i�giji n � , r r(1 e©��ella ,9�s �(�ci)5n'-/ 47 7.6o) 3zg l 4- 1"1� �C Speakers shall complete the following: DETACH AND SUBMIT TO THE CLERK OF THE BOARD Q A,. DATE: WM/ 1, Zed PUBLIC COMMENTS: X, AGENDA ITEM NO.: (AS LISTED ON THE AGENDA) SUBJECT OF PUBLIC COMMENTS: SUBJECT OF AGENDA ITEM: K/Gt/GRvtfE inEmorprit 51.20Tha NAME: fit t7, 419441insi MIArerr TEL. NO.: 9:6 r (p s3^ �9/T ADDRESS: 'V- 7 V- Ara.. Pe-7; crilcileva' Ci. a-.s-ar Street City Zip Code REPRESENTING: (G1lGIQavW- Name of Group BUSINESS ADDRESS: %Si4tit e- TEL. NO.: RCTC/nk 10/03 Nov. 9, 2005 Ktt _r \ l_ Sat i.: j i:igii Dear .: On Oct. 25, 2005 the Grand Terrace City Manager, Tom Schwab, Assistant City Manager Sieve Berry and I met. with ROTC staffto disc iss t1*_e location of the Metrolink station stops on the Perris Valley Line. In attendance from RCTC staff, were Stephanie Wiggins, Bill Hughes and Hideo Su2ita I -reminded them that residents who live near the University are opposed to having 2 stations so clip,: together and showed them the proposal forth. £a3i -l`nd II R student :housing facility that is planned near the proposed UCR Metrolink stationthatwill contribute to the limited panting in the area They explained that there would not be 2 stations close together because UCR will just be a "stop" that will not have parking instead of a "station". Highgrove wants and needs a Metrolink station. I showed them my- transportation plan for a- neu station off the existing II 3 main lime in Highgrove 'where R Metrolink trains currently pass by but do not stop. They explained that access should be from both sides of the tracks with'a pedestrian overpass, in case Metrolink trains need to use the # 1 main line instead of the # 3 main line for train dispatching efficiency. On Nov 1, 2005 l iisnd a hand wheel measuring devise to measure for platforms mix/di sides of the tracks at the Highgrove location. On the east side of the 3 BNSF main lines is 35 ams &vacant land with no structums of any kind from Villa' t. southward to Citnis Ave,; with an arroyo in between. The eastsideof the BNSF main line has more than enough room for a ivletrolink stop on straight track off the # 3 13NSSFmain line. . The area on the west side of the 3 BNSF main lines also has room for a platform of approximately 1 MOO foot on straight track off the # 1 RNSI~ main lint; between two otltv_r existing structures on the west side, but may encroach on one small house at the corner of Villa St_ and Ilighland Avenue Neither of the two planned proposals for the Perris Valley Line would result in a station stop in Highgrove., Figure ES-5: Citrus Avc. Connection Alternative Alignment ami Stations dated July 2004 (page E-18), would make a U shaped curve from the Perris Valley line into this 35 acre area on the north side of the arroyo and connect to the BNSF # 3 main line or a new It 4 main line for train movements between Perris and Riverside but would not include a stop in Highgrove (just like the existing commuter trains on the BNSF inain lines near by). The other option: taking the I TP.railmad route near Misfit) Ave. into Riverside, Alternative E: Commuter Rail with New Connection to UP RIL at Rustin Avenue also would not result in a station stop in Cighgr+z ve, Trains operating between Perris and Riverside would by --pass Highgrove if either f the two plans were adopted. Recommendation: 1. Pursue the agreement for commuter trains to run on the Union Pacific tracks between %Min Ave: and Riverside off the Perris Valley'Line. 2. Purchase the property shown on the map bordered by Villa St. on the North, Citrus St. on the South, the Perris Valley Line on the East and the BNSF Main -:Lines on ti`:\a'-.West. 3. Build a Metrolink station on the 1917 acres north of the arroyo with a pedestrian S bkri"ra�-` tft the 6`-Yt'Frin4tte gide and take the exist"iny— a r.ettunter trains rt. the BNSF Main Lines for service between Riverside (and beyond) and San Bernardino. 4. This significant location would be an ideal location for a station stop in Highgrove. western 'Frer466ersri'"e'y is the >r cvNSc^^i-Farn lines i1lE}t already [s[£ve ek:Mil`6(tti'F' servk€'.€_:- and the eastern boundary is the Perris Valley Line that is already owned by RCTC. Als l.,-grad:r g is well underway for 7,1 I i 31L'w i'�iiornes that are being built just 'ei3*'t of this location straight eastward along Spring Street. By closing Villa St. and opening a- new Spring St grade crossing=. wind ettahle direct weess into the 35 acres for residents east of the BNSF railroad including Highgrove residents, Grand Terrace residents, Spring Mt. Ranch and Springbrook Estates residents; where a Met.rnlink station, park and ride facility, RTA bus service; shops, and ample parking would be provided. By Spring St being extended to Citrus St., through traffic wettld alscrltave= access to the I-215 via Columbia Ave. without having to cross the BNSF main lines when trains block. Main fit., Center Street, or Iowa Avenue. What we need is co-operation between the two county agencies (RCTC and SANBAG) to work together for the contnton good of the wltrrlr area-si lase to- the R iversidetSa€n Bernardino_ county line at Main Street. On Oct. 25, 2005, T was advistxl.that the letters ,T wrote do cad] of the Riverside County CommissionersdatedAug. 15, 2004have been held by RCTC staff and not sent to the commissioners. T was informed that all pertinent information would be sent at the same tip to the Commissioners when other documents and reports are completed by RCTC staff, This letter is an updated proposal of that original litter, I believe that planning for the future is absolutely necessary and the purchase of this property is the key to proper planning`frw our fixture transportation needs, Hopefully, all ir[for€ttation' and suggestions will be carefully examined by RCTC commissioners before final decision i$ made. If careful consideration to this plan or other community involved proposals, is not taken seriously, then future development of this vacant land will fall to other uses that may not he in the; best interests of the -surrounding con m mities and we will be facing even :greater frustration from gridlock. Location, location, location are the three most important items in Real Estate. This location should not be overlooked. R.14.et3 R. A. "Barney" Barnett � . „ Ave,r.Os�"ti�cPaF.. Highgrove, Ca. 92507 (951) 683 4994 (951) 68'3.72_58Fax iiigFrgrn'i'vci'iews;rauc'[tna[a.tsvt 500Z -6 'AON warm --' -II Xg �I� Id NOL VINOrISNV2I,I AAMIOIOIH Dli ISDALn aws 11/11.1VD LN3W1S3AN1 31V1S3 1V3e tl 10 1 • 43uea umunow 6uuds >e equeo ueiesenb3 pue Joys \ sulk) toms ;spiv I sAennaaad 09-1 pue 9�Z l ay;o;ssaaae;ualuanuo0 sa1;111aed leuol;eanaa and;oy;o saaaytrE sllea; uep;sanba pue ueu;sapad asodindwnw leuoi6ai;o sailw (76 aanp Ted leuol6ab • Awe° uep;sanb_ looyoc Rae;uawalp 9-H pasodoac slaec pue aoedg uadp;o sany 05f ds 000'0l • o; dg 000'17 woa; sazlg;o • S911101-I .sa;e;s3 looag6upds pue yaue l ule;unoW 6uudg 'easy anol6g6l1 ay; o; salllunwwoo pauueld ia;seH pa;uapo uol;eana l amµ 6upq o; paseald ale oil 'saan;uaA pue dnoag godoyg a -:,oasoaaad 13321. S 21=3TN Alternatives Figure ES-5: Citrus Avenue Connection Alternative Alignment and Stations BTA Bus _',l 'Terminal A.., a Nversiry Avenue Riverside Metrolink Station LEGEND O Potential Station . � ON Alignment 0 0.5 1 Van Buren e oV/avard Cajalco Road 2 3 4Miles CIO 17 San Bernardino County Riverside County Highgrove SPRUCE STATION UCR STATION Imnwuod Avenue Cononwoosi Avenue Moreno Valley ALESSAND__.. STATION Av�nuel \cactus EN STATION E RAMONA STATION PERRIS STATION Ramona_ Expresswsy Perris Nuevo Road PERRIS SOU STATION Sources: Southern California Association of Governments, 2001; U.S. Census Bureau TIGER Data, 1995; Myra L. Frank / Jones 8 Stokes, 2004. Perris Valley Line Environmental Assessment page E- 18 July 2004 Exhibit 17: Alternative E - Overview Map San Jacinto Branchline / 1-215 Corridor Study Alternative E: Commuter Rail with New Connection to UP RIL at Rustin Avenue Overview Map •67)).„.• RTA Terminal '1 2. Station . POTENTIAL --- ROAD STATION ALIGNMENT --- RAILROAD 1 2 Miles A Riversi‘ae °way Trunsiwritiliata ComMISS10)1 2111.' l000roorated Sol ride: SCAC HIGHGR6VE CEIYI B_ST SPRUCE STATION -STATION ALESSANDRO STA-TID N — • • . . ' .MARCH \ - AIR RESERVE BASE 7 4-* _MAPES 4e1 to,six52.,, San Bernardino County Riverside County -121-1 60AV r • I UNA UNIVERSITY NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION October 21, 2005 John Standiford Riverside County Transportation Commission 4060 Lemon St. r Floor Riverside CA 92502-2208 Dear Mr. Standiford RE: Perris Valley Line. I am writing to update you on the results of a discussion about Metrolink at our October 1316 meeting. As you know, there is a great deal of interest about the locations of the Metrolink train stops planned for our area. While there is great community support for high quality public mass transit, there is also a growing resistance to having a stop at UCR on Watkins Dr. We believe a better location for a second -stop would be in Highgrove where there is more room for parking and would provide a significantly smaller impact to existing residential areas. Our meeting was standing room only and by a unanimous show of hands, we. voted to support a train stop in Highgrove. We remain committed to the Perris Valley Line setting the standard for a workable transportation solution and to enhancing our community's assets. 1 offer this feedback for your consideration. Sincerely, Gurumantra Khalsa Co Chair UNA • 4108 Watkins Dr. • Riverside, CA92507-47t11 • 951-784-7500 Riverside Land Conservancy nS.RVM- 3EDUTIM4A..SA.L-MOP-5RA fiber l g, 2005 ' WARP or untscrune PreenmaJans tom: V. rnseiomf-Frml;Heymmg aserse ry bck Lawn Treemirer-rulli Nook Almbera del Ores HWmer Kississiy uavadsoeri ierges ,e • Feave Rot Hew;a Psalm -laaa,eoe Use laseqoan) Mary Leo Mantles Robert Nelson Ratioifo Railed :am bis ▪ screw Wolf SwisssY wri' STAFF Nei r esisor -1 ties Ne ester Donne eenn;va„t 1%il FreeCoonnaanor The iNveividy Conservancy Is dedfoated so the presentation ajopen spaceiayseeriag m Eric Daley, General Maragea Ri rasiiie County Ttansportatioa Commission P.O. Box 12008 Riverside, CA 92502 Dear Mr. flaky, The Riverside Land Conservancy (RLC) is aware that there is interest and discussions on potential development of a. fligbgrovelMetrnlink station or. a 35 as 'E tria`n`g lwx p..." el of op= lard jai h of Citra6 Street, within the Riverside Chy limits, adjacent to the con►munity of Highgrove, This parcel is bisected by the Springbrook Wish Arroyo; airy development fUT"1hispurpose WOUkt alr[l6St =tan j` requffC crossings of the arroyo with a rail spur, pedestrian Crossing from a Viking area andlor new street acees& We arc writing to maize you aware ofeXtenStve planning as d coordination efforts the RLC has been doing with the City of Riverside, D.«terskte County, ttte.Deparment of Fishaond C-am , sWothers in Irving the Spri gbr ok Arroyo for long term 0—res Space Habitat aaa Regional Treii uses. At this time, we see no objection to development of this parcel for such a Ailetiolink Station, but want you to be aware early on, that the development and any crossings of the Springbrook Arroyo should provide reasonable protectnon of the natural habitat and an under- astog for the Regional Trail ea well as for habitat usage. ;iirii;A;.prigr•. an Thank you for yourcomidmation. .s to F. tuts raf avne and hatria ayned species, nanny) lanth, Sincerely, - 47/0 owl odder sensitive � sites drrarrghont the ,1? 1; rniathiSoaaiierit �-k ^o;�ia a 0 / RivQnide Land Conservancy 4095 kissuon lee Ave. g v'sto4e: CA 92301- 1971)7894570 Fax (951) 781-0579 rk 0670*beglonal,*a fiwv.a> 1.:C4$ Plop-Pteni Ces aseasa Session 545l (r) 43) Rob rt A. Nelson Sp:,,ightiook Wash Trail Subcomminte Chairman /Jam Block,President tr;vareme Land Cons�•.ssy CC: Keit GUtterreZ, City of Riverside Planning Director AGENDA ITEM 5 MINUTES RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MINUTES Wednesday, October 12, 2005 1. CALL TO ORDER The Riverside County Transportation Commission was called to order by Chair Robin Lowe at 9:10 a.m., in the Board Room at the County of Riverside Administrative Center, 4080 Lemon Street, Riverside, California, 92501. 2 PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE At this time, Commissioner Chris Buydos led the Commission in a flag salute. 3. ROLL CALL Commissioners/Alternates Present Marion Ashley Daryl Busch Bob Buster Chris Buydos Mary Craton Juan M. DeLara Frank Hall Barbara Hanna Terry Henderson Hank Hohenstein Robin Lowe Dick Kelly Bob Magee Ron Meepos Jeff Miller Ameal Moore Shenna Moqeet Ronald Oden Mike Perovich Ron Roberts Mary Roche John F. Tavaglione Frank West Roy Wilson Commissioners Absent Roger Berg Robert Crain Gregory S. Pettis Kelly Seyarto Jeff Stone Michael,H. Wilson` Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes October 12, 2005 Page 2 4. PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no requests to from the public to speak. 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - September 14, 2005 M/S/C (Ashley/Henderson) to approve the September '14, 2005 minutes as submitted. 6. ADDITIONS/REVISIONS Eric Haley, Executive Director, noted additions/revisions to the following agenda items: • Agenda Item 7A, `Request for Proposal to Update Measure "A" Revenue Forecast". • Agenda Item 9, "Approval of Agreement No. 06-33-548, Amendment No. 2 to Agreement No. 03-31-014, with Chong Partners Architecture to Prepare Construction Plans for a Parking Structure for the North Main Corona Metrolink Station". • Agenda Item 10, "Approval of Alameda Corridor East (ACE) Trade Corridor Rail. Crossing Grade Separation Priority List". 7. CONSENT CALENDAR Eric Haley commented on Agenda Item 7A, "Request for Proposal to Update Measure "A" Revenue Forecast", noting current revenues exceed adjusted forecasts for 2008,' which reinforces the need to update revenue forecasts. Commission Mary Craton requested clarification of the trip cost for. Agenda Item 7E, "Western Riverside Measure "A" Specialized Transit Program: Inland AIDS Project". Tanya Love, Program Manager, responded the FY 2005-06 cost per trip was $1 15, noting that this service is highly specialized due to the needs of the riders. M/S/C (Henderson/Oden) to approve the following ConsentCalendar items: Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes October 12, 2005 Page 3 7A. REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL TO UPDATE MEASURE "A" REVENUE FORECAST Approve the release of a request for proposals (RFP) to update the Measure "A" revenue forecast. 78. APPROVAL OF AGREEMENT NO. 06-31-518 FOR ADVANCE TO THE CITY OF INDIO 1) Approve Agreement No. 06-31-518, "Agreement for Advancement of 2009 Measure "A" Local Streets and Roads Funds," to advance up to $4,000,000 of new Measure "A" funds to the City of Indio )Indio) utilizing proceeds from the commercial paper program; and, 2) Authorize the Chairman, pursuant to Legal Counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission. 7C. INTERFUND LOAN ACTIVITY REPORT Receive and file the Interfund Loan Activity Report for the month ended August 31, 2005. 7D. FISCAL YEAR 2005-2006 SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN AMENDMENT AND ALLOCATION OF LOCAL TRANSPORTATION FUNDS TO PALO VERDE VALLEY TRANSIT AGENCY Amend Palo Verde Valley Transit Agency's Short Range Transit Plan (SRTP) and allocate $34,142 in Local Transportation Funds (LTF) for payment on a trolley purchase. 7E. WESTERN RIVERSIDE MEASURE "A" SPECIALIZED TRANSIT PROGRAM: INLAND AIDS ° PROJECT 1) Allocate $11,000 in Western Riverside Measure "A" Specialized Transit funding to Inland AIDS Project; and, 2) Approve Agreement No. 06-26-545, Amendment No. 1 to Agreement No. 04-26-511, with Inland AIDS Project for provision of specialized transit services in Western Riverside County. Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes October 12, 2005 Page 4 7F. FISCAL YEAR 2006-2010 MEASURE "A" FIVE-YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN FOR LOCAL STREETS AND ROADS FOR THE CITY OF CATHEDRAL CITY Approve the FY 2006-2010 Measure "A" Five -Year Capital Improvement Plan for Local Streets and Roads for the City of Cathedral City. 7G. SURPLUS MADISON STATION GROUNDS 1) Declare the property identified as the former Madison Station Grounds (4.15 acres) located on Railroad Avenue between Madison Street and Jefferson Avenue in Riverside, APN Nos. 230-233-013, 230-245-013, 230-245-015, 230-253-010 as surplus; and, 2) Authorize staff to initiate the sixty (60) day public agency notification period and, if no interest is expressed, authorize the Executive Director to offer the parcel for sale. 7H. COMMUTER RAIL PROGRAM UPDATE Receive and file the Commuter Rail Program Update as an information item. 8. REPORT ON PLANNING AND PROGRAMMING ISSUES Anne Mayer, Division Head, Programming and Administration, provided an overview of the development of a project delivery plan to address planning and programming issues for the 2009 Measure "A" program and a summary of key decisions that will impact plan development and implementation. 9. APPROVAL OF AGREEMENT NO. 06-33-548, AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO AGREEMENT NO. 03-31-014, WITH CHONG PARTNERS ARCHITECTURE TO PREPARE CONSTRUCTION PLANS FOR A PARKING STRUCTURE FOR THE NORTH MAIN CORONA METROLINK STATION Stephanie: Wiggins, Rail Department Manager, provided background information that led to the planning effort of a parking structure at the North Main Corona Metrolink Station. She reviewed how the facility would be utilized and the number parking spaces that would be added. In referencing the revision to the agenda item, she noted that staff is only requesting design phase approval at this point. The report provides an estimate of the Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes October 12, 2005 Page 5 construction costs. Staff is working towards ensuring that the State will be able to allocate the money for construction, prior to requesting Commission approval of the total design and construction project budget. M/S/C (Tavaglione/Henderson) to: 1) Approve Agreement No. 06-33-548, Amendment No. 2 to Agreement No. 03-31-014 to prepare the plans, specifications and cost estimate IPS&E) for the amount of`$900,665 and a total not to exceed amount of $1,294,853; and, 2) Authorize the Chairman, pursuant to Legal. Counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission. 1-0. APPROVAL OF ALAMEDA CORRIDOR EAST (ACE) TRADE CORRIDOR RAIL CROSSING GRADE SEPARATION PRIORITY LIST Stephanie Wiggins briefed the Commission on the purpose and process for updating the rail crossing grade separation priority list. She reviewed current and forecasted gate down times including cause and impact." She then addressed the concern expressed at the Plans and Programs Committee regarding the change in priority for the Avenue 48/DiIlion Road crossing. Commissioner John Tavaglione asked if the impact of traffic diverting off freeways onto parallel routes was factored into the evaluation criteria and, if the gate down time included train switching movements onto spurs. J.D. Douglas, Kimley-Horn and Associates, responded that the forecasts used for 2030 traffic are based on congested speeds on freeways that divert onto arterials: With respect to gate down time, it was not possible to obtain enough field data to include any switching movements. Commissioner Tavaglione spoke on the importance on having an accurate data and how it impacts other data in prioritizing the grade separation priority list, and proposed that the Commission take the necessary steps to obtain accurate data. Commissioner Barbara Hanna commented that Banning city staff is looking at other funding mechanisms for the Sunset Avenue grade crossing and the possibility of replacing it with the Hargrave grade crossing. It was the determination of the Commission that Riverside County projects remain on the priority list. Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes October 12, 2005 Page 6 Eric Haley added that based on a precedent by the City of Riverside, it is within bounds for a city, with sufficient justification, to change their project priorities. Also, if there is intent to use the congressional earmark, it would require language in the federal bill to adjust those dollars. Commissioner Bob Buster noted increasing dependence on local funding for grade separation projects and suggested seeking other sources of funding such as a bond issue or increasing the percentage of sales tax that he believes would be supported by the voters based on projects that would be accomplished. Grade separations can no longer be treated as an elective program. In response to Commissioner Shenna Moqeet's question regarding the frequency of the updating the priority list, Stephanie Wiggins responded that an update will be conducted every three to four years. Eric Haley, in response to some of the comments and questions raised during the discussion, noted that data development during the 2001-2002 timeframe produced a response that support for grade separations was locally and geographically focused with narrow interest levels.. ,However, he believes this is rapidly changing. Also;, the federal bill should ,produce between $31 and $39 million for grade separation projects that the Commission will need to determine the, allocations. Lastly, he concurred that the Commission needs to identify and seek other sources of local funds. . In response to Commissioner Tavaglione's question regarding information collected .from the railroads, Stephanie Wiggins responded that the railroads provided the average daily number of trains, which was confirmed with Metrolink_ She also noted that staff is requesting approval of the list based upon group tiers as they reflect the priority and ,the overall project rankings are not anticipated to change. Commissioner Tavaglione requested that in future data collection, , physical counts are taken for areas known for frequent offloading as accurate data is not being received from the railroads. Accurate data is required when setting priorities on grade crossings. Commissioner Roy Wilson concurred with Commission Buster's comments to address funding, sources. This issue needs to be elevated to a high priority for an ad hoc committee. Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes October 12, 2005 Page 7 Chair Lowe agreed with the formation of an ad hoc committee to include appropriate stakeholders such as WRCOG, CVAG, and SanBAG. She noted there may need to be a refocusing of priorities: She encouraged the Commission to convey this information to their respective councils as well as the development community and advocate aggressively on this issue. The Commission concurred with the recommendation to form an ad hoc committee. Eric Haley indicated that staff will look at the collection of physical counts of switching movements due to the reluctance of the railroads to provide any operationalinformation. Also, staff will bring the topic of frequency of review to the ad hoc committee as bi-annual updates would have statically valid information. M/S/C (Busch/Ashley) to: 1) Review the Average Daily Traffic counts for the Avenue 48/ Dillon Road Crossing; and, 2) Approve the Alameda Corridor East (ACE) Trade Corridor Rail Crossing Grade Separation Priority List based on Group Tiers. 11. ITEMS PULLED FROM CONSENT CALENDAR AGENDA There were no items pulled from the Consent Calendar. 12. COMMISSIONERS / EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S REPORT A. Commissioner Jeff Miller notified the Commission of a tour set up by SCAG and WRCOG of the L.A. Harbor and Alameda Corridor on October 27r" related to goods movement. He also recommended as a topic for the ad hoc committee to look at forming an advocacy group comprised of public agencies, fire and police associations, chambers of commerce, and business community. B. Eric Haley announced: • A $7 million allocation from the California Transportation Commission (CTC) for the SR 60 HOV project. • A $17 million reallocation of Traffic Congestion Relief Program (TCRP) funds for the 60/91 /215 interchange project. Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes October 12, 2005 Page 8 The appointment of Mike Perovich as Caltrans .Director of District 8 and welcomed him to the Commission. The retirement of Marilyn Williams, Director of Regional Programs and Public Affairs, highlighting her contributions to the agency and the region. 13. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business for consideration by the Riverside County Transportation Commission, the meeting adjourned at 10:22 a.m. The next Commission meeting is scheduled to be held at 9:00 a.m., on Wednesday, November 9, 2005, at the County of Riverside Administrative Center, 4080 Lemon Street, Board Room, Riverside, California, 92501. Respectfully submitted, Naty Kopenhaver Clerk of the Commission AGENDA ITEM 7A RIVERS/DE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMM/SS/ON DATE: November 9, 2005 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Budget and Implementation Committee Michele Cisneros, Accounting Manager THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Division Head, Programming and Administration SUBJECT: Quarterly Financial Statements BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to receive and file the Quarterly financial Statements for the period ended September 30, 2005. , BACKGROUND INFORMATION: I During the first three months of the fiscal year, staff has monitored the revenues and expenditures of the Commission. The first quarter of the year is primarily directed toward completing end of the year activities. Staff expects most of the categories to present a more realistic outlook by the end of the second quarter. The operating statement shows the sales tax revenues for the first quarter at 8% of the budget: This is a result of the Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) Statement No. 33. GASB 33 requires sales tax revenue to be accrued for the period in which it is collected at the point of sale. The State Board of Equalization collects the Measure "A" funds and remits them to the Commission after the reporting period for the businesses. This creates a two -month, lag in the receipt of revenues by the Commission. Accordingly, these financial statements reflect the revenues related to collections for July 2005. On a cash basis, the Measure "A" and LTF sales tax revenues are 17% higher than the same period last fiscal year. Federal, state and local government reimbursements and other revenues are on a reimbursement basis, and the Commission will receive these revenues as the projects are completed and invoiced to the respective agencies. Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) revenues are slightly under budget. This resulted from the receipt of the September 2005 revenues of $4,574,497 from Western Riverside Council of Governments (WRCOG) on October 10, 2005. Agenda Item 7A The expenditure categories are in line overall with the expectations of the budget. General administrative expenditures are higher due to one-time payments in September for the Commission's FY 2005-06 membership dues with Self Help Counties Coalition, California Council of Governments (CALCOG), and Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). Office Tease and utilities are slightly over as a result of the rent payment due by the. 1st of each month. The October rent. was paid on September 29, 2005. Highway construction and rail engineering report negative actual amounts. This resulted from the . estimated expenditure accrual adjustments made at June 30, 2005 for goods and services received but not yet invoiced: The adjustment is then carried over to, the new fiscal year as a reversal awaiting the offsetting actual invoice from the vendor. The Commission expects to receive the original invoice during the 2"d quarter of the fiscal year. The Coachella Valley regional arterial program provides reimbursement to the cities for projects they have completed. This program is administered by Coachella Valley Association of Governments (CVAG) and requests reimbursement from the Commission based on available funds and sufficient budget authority. This category is slightly over due to claims submitted by CVAG during the 1st quarter. Intergovernmental distributions are expended as one-time LTF payments madeat the beginning of the fiscal year based on claims submitted by CVAG, and WRCOG._ Staff will continue to monitor the revenues and expenditures; and notify the Commission of any unusual events. Attachments: 1) Quarterly Financial Statements — September 2005 2) Highway and Rail Construction Status Summary Agenda Item'7A 2 DESCRIPTION RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION QUARTERLY BUDGET VS ACTUAL 1ST QUARTER - FOR THREE MONTHS ENDED 9/30/05 ATTACHMENT REMAINING PERCENT BUDGET ACTUAL BALANCE UTILIZATION Revenues - Sales tax - $ 144,629,700 $ 11,514,700 $ (133,115,000) 8% Federal, state & local government reimbursements 43,608,200 118,302 (43,489,898) 0% Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) 45,825,000 7,093,264 (38,731,736T • 15% Other revenues - 8,055,752 _ 128,504 (7,927,248) 2% Interest 5,453,600 337,857 (5,115,743) 6%. Total revenues 247,572,252 19,192,627 (228,379,625) 8% Expenditures Administration Salaries & benefits 1,608,000 383,819 1,224,181 24% General legal services 98,500 5,459 - 93,041 6% Professional services 1,068,200 139,508 928,692 13 Office lease & utilities 375,000 105,915 269,085 28% General administrative expenses 1,128,200 439,919 688,281 ' 39% Total administration 4,277,900 1,074,620 3,203,280. 25% Programs/projects Salaries & benefits 2,087,500 458,986 1,628,514 - 22% General legal services 1,397,300 103,892 1,293,408 7% .. Professional services 1,316,700 200,881 1,115,819 _ 15%_ General projects 2,505,200 128,507 2,376,693 - 5% Highway engineering 30,871,000 548,049 30,322,951' 2% Highway construction 26,720,800 (842,635) 27,563,435 3% 'Highway right of way/land 55,572,700 633,189 - 54,939,511 1% Rail engineering 7,660,000 (1,505) 7,661,505 0% Rail construction 2,089,000 158,805 1,930,195 8%' Rail right of way 5,050,000 - 5,050,000 0% TUMF engineering 21,280,000 751,958 20,528,042 4% TUMF construction 12,102,000 - 12,102,000 0% TUMF right of way. _ 26,120,000 2,298,146. - 23,821,854 9% , Local streets &.roads 49,465,500 3,372,262 46,093,238 - 7% .Regional arterial 8,569,900 2,398,632 6,171,268 28% Special studies 1,671,600 271,436 1,400,164 16% -. FSP towing 1,355,580 228,964 1,126,616 17% Commuter assistance 2,765,000 605,679 2,159,321 22% Property management 80,300 3,423 76,877 4% Motorist assistance. 2,158,144 77,425 2,080,719 4% Rail operations & maintenance 6,587,900 1,439,126 5,148,774 22% STA distributions 5,617,000 874,568 4,742,432 16% Specialized transit 5,036,500 1,111,171 3,925,329 22% Planning & programming services 43,300 - 5,907 37,393 - 14% Total programs/projects - 278,122,924 14,826,866 263,296,058 5% Intergovernmental distribution Capital outlay 1,191,400 855,673 335,727 72% 855,000 34,569 820,431 ' 4% Debt service Principal - 28,669,500 - 28,669,500 0% Interest 8,345,200 171,491 8,173,709 2% Cost of issuance 400,000 - 400,000 0% - Total debt service 37,414,700-171,491 37,243209. 0% Total expenditures - 321,861,924 16,963,219 304,898,705 5% . Excess of revenues over (under) expenditures Other financing sources/uses Operating transfer in Operating transfer out Bond proceeds Total financing sources/uses (74,289,672) 2,229,408 76,519,080 -3% 46,551,700 8,509,091 (38,042,609) 18% 46,551,700 8,509,091 38,042,609 18% 55,000,000 - (55,000,000) - 0% 54,600,000 (54,600,000) 0% Net change in fund balances - 09,689,672) 2,229,408 21,919,060 -11 % Fund balance July 1, 2005 230,537,100 279,262,635 48,725,535 121% Fund balance September 30, 2005 $ 210,847,428 - $ 281,492,043 $ 70,644,615 134% web 3 E60'ZBb'lBZ $ B6S'989'9E $ 062'87.L'£&', $ Z09'908- $ ZLO'99SL9 $-9Z9'990'£ $ 866'9994 $ 669'69 $ 118998'Z£l- $ L19'960'P 4 9E8'Z5L'L 4 580 292'BLZ ZL9`896'82 699'994'9Z 899'008 SS 8'489'89 9ZE'9Z6'£ O60'L9E'9 OCE'66 909'6ZZ'Z 9E8'909'9 (89£'96L.0 1SOE EL6'. 196'E - (L69'0L9) (660'OL'El -en EICC E05'e 9:19'W - (L999259) - 860'609'8 09 - - 409'9L6'8 - 899'9E8'9 - 9Z'S 860'608'8 858'808'8 - LOL - - - 9ZB'S 806'62Z'2 960'208 (69E'SEL'8) 9967 El6'1.46'E (L69'0L9) (560'5E6'8)BZL EPP96L'E (COL'95Z) (949'L90 6 L2'696'98 - Z9L'EL9'8 .. L96'9(.8C E89'9L8 909 ZO89. 096 09 98995LZ - 854T GO 56G (0) 869'LL8 8898L8 169 8L1 - 869'81.8 699'9C CL9'999 99(09Z9'6L - 8SZ'LOC.'8 CO6'S LLL'lll'L 999'9L8 92 C6E9' V 529LL CZPL 6L9'509 9969ZZ 9E9'1LZ ZE9'96E'Z - Z9Z'ZLE'E' 998'96n - - 896'15L 909'99L (909'() 681'EE9 - 000'00L'L (S PEPS) - 690'999 L09'8ZL l8B'00Z 268'£08 - 89Z'8 996'939 029'9E0' 8 6 L6'689 9L6'SOL 805'6EL 6599 6 L9'£8E LOL - L96'9LL'E 99V'86Z'Z 996'L9L 99 Elb L2L'61 999'99 E89'9L9 909E08'9 895'bL8 99 6ZZ'196 ZE9'96£'Z IAZ99L 9bE'9 (34Z'966'64l 00E'EDE'4 MOM (BE6'OBL'Z) (EBL'95Z) (995'L9L) 895'ZL Isn't) (S9l'9E) 8L9'S58 096'09 99'Z99'Z LLVVEE 9E9'896'1 L06'5 Z68'691 - - 9E8'6E4'8 SZ9LL EZ9'E 6L9'509 58Z 6L9'9ZZ - - LOL'06 6Z2'0e1. 096'09 101'£99'2 - 909'95l - (s65'L) l ue'ss6'L) (9E9'Z98) 690'999 6E98E1 &PPEL 99 • 099.99 21.9'08 999'9 999'91. l V9'49V 69E2 LOl'£92 91179 EOS'ZZO'L ELOLZ 9999914 91 L'9 66L'00 8EL9 OUZEL 492 S6L'S 9Z6138 p08'99E Am599v W 4O*9 GOOZ'0EJD90991GE swamp pond 900Z' L AInE osupeg pund sesuepqpunt ul eBuegolery seen/wonws 6upueu01e1s1 Bpsexid puss oo ielsusp Boomed° DI J9198851 Bupe,ad0 sesrysa0mos Bulsueso(a410 se(rApuodza(lopun) IRLO 9.4866941 91095 samlko90190 19101 eouwe9(GOP knot aouensp Lo1800 IGe(s/ul ledpupd =W081800 LelLw lalldao sop0M081$19ZUOS WBAOBIeso spa(mdr9wec6e(d Rol sevues BulwweiBwd g 8NUU61d IVUE4 peillepadS euspnplApp V1S eousualulew g suspends Bey aouelelseepooloW pae(aBeuew Ayedosd aouelsnse oEnultuo0 60490 dSd spools IspodS 189e8,eleu0188y .. spew g Shags Iwo 46,a1014Su iWnl uoponAouoo iWnl 6upo9u18uedWpl .. AeM1914a1 II9S u0119nA9u00Iley Suuaep6uo 898 puepAsm)o 706p ABmNBIN uopoMsuso E898008{ 9808a8llso AarmISH 919e(adluaue0 903IN98 leuOisseyom ., sa0wes legal paua0 91008,951 g 95pe195 9pelad/owe(60(d uo9eopulwpe Igol seauatlxe anpvplupupe 19re890 119OIIM S 99e8198843 seslnles 19u0psa10,4:1 9801Nas Ie9e11eLeueo poeueq g 9opeles - u0pepopup9 aunllpusd93 (99768'68 8b0701. E6£'LEl 6987 098'850'L. • 986'E • 886'99 VZ 690'19 8L9'E05'9 SL9'LZl E60'9Z0'£ Genoese( lslol LSB'LCE 990708. E6E'LEL 9667- (SEICOD) 986'E EZ9 6EL. 406'6l1 6484 9E9 '199ID1u1 009'9Zl - - 109'9 L96'ZZ8 - senuesm s$410 994'E60'L - - - 99Z'£60'L - - - - - - - (dWn1) Dad uepe891W uscon uonepods084 NE'SL1 - - - - - (58PP 9Z80ZZL L sluswssmgwl911uawWano61Gop g elel99eloped OOL'PLB'LL 8 $ - $ - $ $ - $ 98Z'99l'Z $ D06'09 $ Z9L79E'9 S - $ 00L'406'L $ 8919e19S ' senues•y 19101 301/Ly3s WVILOOLId N011onylsNoo mru 3omusI48V A311VA 931190 A.1Nnoo MIVS ONnd N01141110S30 CIMISW00 IMO y3dtld AINOOO 33i N011V0111W • 11SNVy1 V113140VOO 30y3A N)131S3M /dSA 1W3N30_ - 1V3MILO 100 Ny31E3M. W30do4n N011V1110dSNVyl 311/18 01V4 1.1N3WHOV11V V 3ynSV3W 50/0El6 030N3 SH1N010(1 M114112104 aanrento ONnd AEI SlVnloV Aly3lytlno NOISSIWW00 NOLLV1yOdSNVy1 A1Nnoo 301Sy3Aly October 15, 2005 • Riverside County Transportation Commission Highway and Rail Construction Status Summary ATTACHMENT 2 Project Contractor Status Advertise Open Bids Award Start Const Finish Const SR 60, Moreno Valley HOV SEMA Construction 12-May-03 12-Jun-03 18-Jun-03 8/25/2003A (Agreement No. 03-31-052) Lake Forest, CA HOV Lanes Operational 3/18/2005A 1 Yr Landscape Plant Estab Started 6/9/2005A 6/9/2006F Notes: Contractor is completing remaining Punch Item Work 12/1/2005F Staff continues to negotiate with Contractor to settle remaining CCO's & Claims SR 74, Segment II Riverside Const Co., Inc. 3-Nov-03 20-Jan-04 11-Feb-041 (Agreement No. 04-31-031/032) Riverside, CA Project "A" SR 74 Seg II Mainline 5/17/2004A 9/30/2006F Project "B" SR 74 & Greenwald intersection 6/21 /2004A 12/1/2005F Notes: Significant Project delays due to weather & Utility Relocation Staff negotiating with Contractor for material cost increases Riv-Dwntwn Temp Lot Upgrades Hilicrest Contracting, Inc. Finalizing Contract 15-Nov-04 16-Dec-04 12-Jan-05 5/31/2005A 9/8/2005A (Agreement No, 05-33-523) Corona, CA Bonds & Insurance 1 Yr Landscape Plant Estab Started 6/19/05A 6/19/06F Note: Project was completed on schedule and within budget AGENDA ITEM 7B RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: November 9, 2005 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Budget and Implementation Committee Michele Cisneros, Accounting Manager THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Division Head, Programming and Administration SUBJECT: Single Signature Authority Report BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to receive and file the Single Signature Authority Report for the first quarter ended September 30, 2005. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The attached report details all professional services and administrative contracts that have been executed for the first quarter ended September 30, 2005 under the Single Signature Authority granted to the Executive Director by the Commission. The unused capacity at September 30, 2005 is $438,765. Attachment: Single SignatureAuthorityReport — September 30, 2005 Agenda Item 7B 6 L6'96L'84 60'8£4`ZL 1Nf1OWV 1OV211N00 1Nf1OWV O1tld ONINIVIN321 • 00'S9L`8£4$ 00'S£Z`o 00'S£Z'L9 00'000'OO9S 1Nf3OWV 1OV2111,1OO 1VNI0I21O L •Jayenb 3s.q; ay; ul pais0 spei;uoo mau e;uesaadei ease pepeyS :030N (q pemelnaa 6q paiedald saeus'O eieyom S3O1A213S d0 NOIld1210S3O SOOZ'0£ 21391A131d3S d0 SV AlI2ioainv aan NOIS 310NIS Isgmea-pageea emol SOOZ'OC lagwe;des yBnay; ONINIVINSLI f1OWV s;uew;snjpe;o;au'03Sn 1Nf1OWV :uoge.lIdxa o; enp amen;oe.;uoo fiuluieweJ 10 seal O3Sp 114f1OWV SOOL'L maniVAV 1Nf1OWV 1NVl1R1SNOO AGENDA ITEM 7C I RIVERS/DE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMM/SS/ON DATE: November 9, 2005 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Budget and Implementation Committee Michele Cisneros, Accounting Manager THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Division Head, Programming and Administration SUBJECT: Interfund Loan Activity Report BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to receive and file the Interfund Loan Activity Report for the month ended September 30, 2005. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: On April 14, 2004 the Commission approved the Interfund Loan Policy and adopted Resolution No. 04-009 "Resolution of the Riverside County Transportation Commission to Authorize Interfund Loans". The Commission requested that the interfund loan .activity be reported on a monthly basis. The attached report details all interfund loan activity through September 30, 2005. The total outstanding interfund loan amounts as of September 30, 2005 are $575,000. Note: The report will be presented to the Committee/Commission when new activities occur. Attachment: Interfund Loan Activity Report — September 30, 2005 Agenda Item 7C 8 • Riverside County Transportation Commission Interfund Loan Activity Report For period ended September 30, 2005 Date of Loan April 2, 2003 $ 300,000 July 1, 2006 Measure A - WC Highway (222) Measure A - WC LSR (227) March 4, 2004 Amount Maturity of Loan Date - Lending Fund Borrowing Fund Purpose of Loan Advance to make repairs and improvements to Railroad Canyon Road 275,000 July 1, 2009 Measure A - WC Commuter Measure A - WC Highway (222) Additional local match for the SR71 Assistance (226) Widening/Animal Crossing Project Total $ 575,000 9 Date Commission Approved March 12, 2003 December 10, 2003 AGENDA ITEM 7D RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: November 9, 2005 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Budget and Implementation Committee Shirley Medina, Program Manager THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Division Head, Programming and Administration SUBJECT: 2005 Transportation Enhancement Program Funding Recommendations BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE, TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Allocate Transportation Enhancement (TE) funds as presented in the Technical Advisory Committee funding recommendations listing; and, 2) Submit proposed TE funding recommendations to Ca!trans Headquarters. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The Transportation Enhancement (TE) program provides federal funds for transportation related projects that enhance the quality of life, in or around transportation facilities. Projects must be over and above required mitigation and must be directly related to the transportation system in order to be eligible for TE funds. TE funds are apportioned to the State and are included in the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP). All project delivery timelines that apply to STIP projects will be applied to TE projects. At its June 8, 2005, the Commission approved the evaluation criteria that was developed and approved by the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC), and the release of a Call for Projects for TE funds. The STIP Fund Estimate was adopted on September 29, 2005 indicating a TE target amount of $18.8 million for Riverside County: It is important to note that of the $18.8 million available for TE programming in the STIP, there are three outstanding TE projects from the previous transportation bill (TEA 21) that have not been obligated totaling approximately $1.2 million. Therefore, the amount of available programming capacity for this TE Call for Projects is $17.6 million. Agenda Item 7D 10 RCTC staff worked closely with the TAC in developing the evaluation criteria (Attachment 2) to ensure consistency with statewide TE criteria and federal eligibility requirements. The TAC was also designated as the Evaluation Committee to score the project applications and develop a recommended list of projects for the Commission's consideration. The Call for Projects stated that agencies were allowed to submit up to 3 projects (5 for the County of Riverside) with the minimum TE request per project set at $350,000 and maximum set at $1.5 million. A total of 32 project applications requesting $32 million in TE funds were received. The TAC convened on October 3, 2005 to evaluate the .project applications. All local agencies were given the opportunity to summarize theirrespective projects and answer questions. All projects were evaluated using the Commission's approved evaluation criteria and scoring was done on a consensus basis by the TAC. TAC Funding Recommendation Attachment 1 'presents the TE funding recommendations. All projects are grouped by score and listed in alphabetical order. The TAC recommended funding those projects that scored 17 through 25 points. The TAC also recommended funding those projects that scored 16 points if the local agency did not have another project that scored 17 points and above. Therefore, only three of the six projects that scored 16 points (Cathedral City, Indio, and Palm Springs) are recommended for funding. The City of Banning's project application was not scored due to the TE request exceeding the maximum amount and discrepancies with the local match. In order to fund as many projects as possible (at $17.6 million), the TAC recommends a 5.58% decrease for those projects that are recommended for funding (projects #1 through #18 on the project listing). Caltrans Approval of Recommended TE Project Listing Caltrans is responsible for final approval of TE projects. Upon approval by the Commission, the projects will be submitted to Caltrans Headquarters for review and final approval. The State will review the projects to ensure consistency with state and federal eligibility requirements. If Caltrans determines projects or portions of projects as ineligible for federal reimbursement, staff will report back to the TAC and Commission. Agenda Item 7D 11 Programming TE projects in the 2006 STIP The estimated timeline for programming TE projects will be as follows: November 8, 2005 November 9, 2005 December 9, 2005 Dec 9 — Jan 9 January 30, 2006 April 27, 2006 RCTC Approval Submit projects to Caltrans Headquarters Receive Final Approval from Caltrans Review Project Schedule/Determine Programming Years Submit 2006 STIP CTC STIP Adoption Once final approval of the TE projects is received from Caltrans Headquarters, staff will review the project schedules with the lead agencies and Caltrans Local Assistance to determine the appropriate programming years consistent with the funding targets identified in the 2006 STIP Fund Estimate. TE funding targets are distributed over the five years of the 2006 STIP as follows: Fiscal Year (000's) 2006-07 $ 5.705 2007-08 $ 4.091 2008-09 $ 3.245 2009-10 $ 3.230 2010-11 $ 2.544 Total * $18.815 *Total includes: 1)$1.2 M for TEA 21 carryover projects; and 21$17.6 Recommendations. Only a few projects will be able to proceed beginning July RCTC staff will work with the California Transportation possibility of advancing projects that are ready to proceed. M for 2005 TE Funding 1, 2006. However, Commission on the In early 2006, we will work with Caltrans to provide a TE training course. This training course will be mandatory for all lead agencies receiving TE funds to ensure that they understand the process and timelines for: 1) allocating funds through the California Transportation Commission; 2) obligating funds through Caltrans Local Assistance; and 3) invoicing and final close out procedures. The intention of the training course is to prevent funds from lapsing, ensure projects are reimbursed, and maintain project schedules. Attachments: 1) TE Funding Recommendations Listing 2) RCTC Adopted TE Evaluation. Criteria i Agenda Item 7D 12 s 2005 Transportation Enhancement (TE) Funding Recommendations 1 Riverside County Santa Ana River Blke Tr - Hidden Valley Wildlife Reserve Segment 2 Perris Penis Gateway Project 3 Beaumont Historic San Timoleo Canyon Bike and Pedestrian Faciltities Project 4 Corona Downtown Enhancement and Beautification Project - Sixth St and Main St Enhancement 5 Moreno Valley Sunnymead Blvd Median Beautification and Enhancement Project 6 Corona East Sixth Street 7 Palm Desert Monterey Ave/I.10 On/Off Ramp Landscaping Project 8 Riverside Alessandro Blvd Median Construction and Landscaping 9 Riverside- SR60/Market St IC Landscaping 10 RTA 11 Temecula • Total -' Tier ll Division. Points (30 Poss) 1,500,000 $ 3,784,000 $ 5,284,000 25 $ 450,000 $ 1,300,000 $ 1,500,000 $ 1,500,000 $ 1,500,000 $ 1,500.000 $ 400,000 $ 1,000.000 $ 500,000 Penis Multi -modal Transit Center- Phase 1 $ 1,432,400 Winchester Rd/SR79 North Corridor Beautification Project $ 1,200,000 12 Palm Desert Monterey Ave/Dinah Shore Dr Landscaping Project 13 RCTC Greenway Corridor Project for the Perris Valley Line - 14 San Jacinto 15 La Ouinta 16 Cathedral City 17 Indio 18 Palm Sprin•s Francisco Estudlllo Heritage Park Transportation Enhancement Jefferson St Beautification Cathedral Canyon Dr/Terrace Rd Bikeway and Pedestrian Facilties Highway 111 Enhancement Project Gene Aut Tr Gateway Landscapinglm•rovements f a g :. a�#$04$7,' .cow t ( i• n78dn: $ 600,000 $ 1,179,000 $ 500,000 $ 471,500 $ 471,643 $ 1.500,000 $ 1,102,613 $ 5,400,000 $ 2,590,000 $ 1,500,000 $ 400,000 $ 1,000,000 $ 500,000 $ 1,516,200 $ 1,185,000 $ 1,750,000 22 $ 2,602,613 20 $ 6,900,000 20 $ 4,090,000 20 $ 3,000,000 19 $ 800,000 19 $ 2,000,000 19 $ 1,000,000 19 $ 5,265,700 19 $ 2,385,000 19 $ 1,200,000 18 $ 1,179,000 $ 2,358,000 18 $ 150,000 $ 650,000 18 $ 172,110 $ 643,610 17 $ 125,374 $ 600,000 $ 1,456,000 I $ 764,000- �•;t16 d $ 597,017 16 $ 2,100,000 16 $ 2,220,000 $15 $,POke'e e 32 projects - - " - Totals: $32,030,915 - $ 28,429,664 $ 62,777,679 Notes: 1. Projects it 1-18 are recommended for TE funding. Projects #19-32 are not recommendedforTE funding. 2. Geographic Funding Balance: Westem County funded projects total $12,993,514 or 73.75%, Eastern County funded projects total $4,625,771 or 26.25%. 3. Projects #16, 17, and 18 scored 16 points and were recommended for funding since these local agencies did not have another project that scored 17 points and above. 16 Running =Total $ 1,500,000 $ 1,950,000 $ 3,450,000 $ 4,950,000 $ 6,450,000 $ 7,950,000 $ 8,350,000 5 9,350,000 $ 9,850,000 $ 11,282,400 $ 12,482,400 $ 13,082,400 $ 14,261,400 $ 14,761,400 $ 15,232,900 $ 15,704,543 $ 17,204,543 $ 18,660,543 tt Pam,+ " k� 4t . 43`s' Proposed TE Funding Adjestmenls Rego T4304.1101'91 '.,`7rfOKA TE, " Rdchf09 $ 1,500,000 $ 33,700 $ 450,000 $ 1,500,000 $ 1.500,000 $ 1.500.000 $ 1,500,000 $ 400,000 $ 1,000,000 $ 500,000 $ 1,432,400 $ 1,200,000 $ 600,000 $ 1.179.000 $ 500,000 $ 25,110, $ 83,700 $ 83,700 $ 83,700 $ 83,700 $ 22,320 $ 55,800 $ 27,900 • Attachment 1 . Revised .�_ Tolal..e TE Request- ,418.300-: -1',416,300' 1$40:1I4116 300" 377:t38U; '.94;4200; 47 00 $ 79,923 rit,352,472,1 $ 66, 950 ?$1'.-';1,133,04U.. $ 33,480 $ 65,788 $ 27,900 $ 471,500 $ 26,310 $ 471,643 $ 26,318 $ 1,500,000 $ 83,700 sssszo:. 1j113i212! $7$,160 1,416,300 $ 1,456,000 $ 81,245 -.$ 1,374,755 $ 18,660,543 $ 1,041,258 $ 17,619,285 Agency Project HCathedral City Ramon Rd Corridor 8; Hemet State St Bicycle/ Ped Path Santa Ana River Trail Total Total Projected TE Apportionments Less TEA21 Unobligated Carry Over Revis6{I'TE' '" RurtniggTola�. $ 1,416,300 $ 1,841,190 $ 3,257,490 $ 4,673,790 $ 6,090,090 $ 7,506,390 $ 7,884,070 $ 8,828,270 $ 9,300,370 $ 10,652,842 $ 11,785,882 $ 12,352,402 $ 13,465,614 $ 13,937,714 $ 14,382,904 $ 14,628,230 $ 16,244,530' $ 17,619.285 <•- Totals Amount $ 311,571 $ 519,571 $ 364,174 $ 1,195,316 S 18,815,000 $ 1,195,31E Revised TE Available Projection: $ 17,619,684 13 1, $18.815 million total TE projected available 2. $1,195,316 TEA21 TEA =obligated carry over 3. TE available for 2005 Call for Projects is 517,619,684 4. To fund down to #18 (Palm Springs Gene Autry project) requires a 5.58% reduction to all above original TE requests Attachment 2 RCTC Adopted TE Evaluation Criteria June 8, 2005 Proiect Evaluation and Scoring Criteria Once projects are submitted, they will be evaluated in two Tiers. Tier I establishes a "Project Screening" to ensure that the project is eligible for TE funds. If any of the applicable screening criteria are not met, the proposal will not be ranked or evaluated any further. RCTC staff will conduct the project screening and notify the agencies if their project proposal(s) does not meet the Tier 1 criteria. Tier 1- Project Screening - Project proposals must address the following: 1) Project's direct relationship to transportation system 2) Describe how proposed project is over and above a normal project (for environmental mitigation projects, proposed project must not be in lieu of standard mitigation requirement) 3) Consistency with federal, state, regional or local land use and regional transportation plans, goals, and policies 4) Financial viability — complete the funding schedule provided. 5) Proposed project must be well-defined, well -justified, and ready -to - go in the year proposed — complete the project schedule provided. 6) If the project requires on -going maintenance, the maintenance program must be described. 7) Describe air quality impact, if applicable. If projects pass the above screening criteria, Tier II will be applied. The Tier II criteria will be applied by the Technical Advisory Committee/Evaluation Committee. Tier II — Project Evaluation/Scoring Criteria The following four (4) Divisions encompass the twelve (12) project eligibility . types. Projects must apply under one Division. If a project proposal is a combination of more than one Division, the Division that fits the majority of the project should be selected. Division A: Bicycle, Pedestrian, Abandoned Rail Right -of -Way Division B: Historic/Archaeological Division C: Transportation Aesthetics and Scenic Values Division D: Environmental Mitigation 14 All project submittals must answer questions #1 through #4: #1. Describe how the project improves overall quality of life, community and/or environment and the nexus with the transportation system (mode(s) of transportation). (0 - 5 points) #2 Describe the degree of regional and/or community support for the project: Provide supporting documentation. (0 5 points) #3 What percent of the total project cost is the local match? Match Points 15 — 19% = 1 20 — 29% = 2 30 — 39% = 3 40 — 49% = 4 50% and up =5 Describe the level of project readiness and provide supporting documentation. In addition, include the level of coordination required with affected agencies. (0 — 5 points) Level of Readiness Points Council or Board Resolution supporting project 1 Demonstration of work in progress (env. doc., PSR/PSRE) 2 State/Federal Approval of the environmental document:. CEQA/NEPA 3 State/Federal Approval of CEQA/NEPA and PS&E documents 4 Right of way certified, ready for construction 5 Answer the two (2) questions that correspond to the Division the project is applying under. Division A: Bicycle (Class 1), Pedestrian, Abandoned Rail Right -of -Way Projects 1) What is the need for the proposed facilities or programs and is it consistent with local plans? (0 — 5 points) 2) Describe the regional significance of the project and its connectivity with regional pedestrian and bike trails/transportation system. (0 — 5 points) 15 • • Division B: Historic/Archeological Projects 1) Specify the current recognition of historical or archeological significance. Please indicate whether the recognition is federal, state, local or other measure of significance. (0 — 5 points) Recognition ID No. (if applicable) Points Local Landmarks Program 1 Regional Archaeological Information Ctr. 2 California Register of Historical Resources 3 State Points of Historical Interest 3 State Historical Landmark 4 National Register of Historic Places 5 Note: Projects will receive points from one recognition category only. 2) Will the project enhance, preserve, or protect a historic archaelogical resource and what agencies are impacted or involved? (0 — 5 points) Division C: Transportation Aesthetics and Scenic Values Projects 1) How are the scenic or aesthetic resources rare, unique, or regionally significant, or how does the potential exist for landscaping or scenic beautification improvements? (0 — 5 points) 2) How does the project preserve, rehabilitate, or develop scenic or aesthetic resources? (0 —5 points) Division D: Environmental Mitigation 1) What is the regional significance of the environmental problem(s) associated with the transportation project? (0 — 5 points) 2) How does the proposal solve the problem and how is it over and above standard mitigation requirements? (0 — 5 points) 16 AGENDA ITEM 7E RIVERSIDECOUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: November 9, 2005 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Budget and Implementation Committee Shirley Medina, Program Manager THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Division Head, Programming and Administration SUBJECT: Development of Project Management Database BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Approve the development and implementation of a Project Management Database to be funded by Local Transportation Funds; and, 2) Issue a Request for Proposal for the development and implementation of a Project Management Database. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Currently, RCTC staff monitors nearly 400 transportation projects funded with state, federal, and local Measure "A" funds. Purposes for monitoring and tracking projects are as follows: • Project delivery (project status) • Reimbursement of state and federal funds • Reporting emissions reductions • Maintaining consistency with state and federal transportation plans and programs • Reporting Timely Use of Funds (AB 1012) Staff "currently utilizing Excel spreadsheets, Access databases, and other project scheduling software to accomplish the many needs for reporting and monitoring projects. However, having multiple databases set up for different purposes- is causing a significant amount of time spent on contacting appropriate staff to obtain the necessary information. For example, if a change in description is made during the environmental document phase on a>Measure "A" project, the project manager needs to make sure the change is consistent with the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP), Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP), and the State Transportation improvement Program (STIP) if it is a STIP project. Agenda Item 7E 17 Currently, the project manager must consult withthree different staff persons review and update this information. This same process must be followed by our local agencies when requesting project information. Staff is proposing the consolidation of all relevant project information into one "Project Management Database". The database is envisioned to be web -based and include Geographic Information System (GIS) capabilities as well as graphical displays and/or digital photos. A key component of a web -based; database is to . allow the users to obtain up-to-date project status on individual projects or project categories. It is intended for that this database to be available and accessible to each local agency' and .the County, subregional agencies, transit operators, and Caltrans to review projects and update project information. This will significantly reduce the time it takes to update and verify project information. The database will also be developed to provide customized report modules for the various users such as Commissioners, project managers, and RCTC programming staff. Attached is a Draft Request for Proposals (RFP) for review and approval. Currently, $30,000 of Local Transportation Funds (LTF) is programmed in this year's budget. It is anticipated that the bid amount will .be approximately, $50,000 or higher. Additional funding would be budgeted in the.2006-07 budget. The estimated timeline for the RFP is as follows: November 9, 2005 November 16, 2005- January 27, 2006 February 10, 2006 March 8, 2006 Commission Approves RFP Staff Releases RFP Proposals Due' Consultant Selection Contract Award Staff estimates that the Project Management Development would occur over a 6- month timeframe. _On -going maintenance costsand the ability to'update/upgrade the database are also a component of the RFP. Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: Y Year: FY 2005-06 Amount: $30,000 Source of Funds: Planning - Local Transportation Funds Budget Adjustment: No GLA No.: 106-65-65520 Fiscal Procedures Approved: \,y,,"14, b Date: 10/18/05 Attachments: Draft Request for Proposals Agenda Item 7E 18 i Attachment 1 November 16, 2005 Subject: Request for Proposal (RFP) to Develop a Web -based_ Project Management Database Dear Planning and Information Technology Professionals: The Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) is seeking proposals from qualified professionals to develop a web -based project management database. The successful bidder will provide RCTC with a fully tested project management database that will allow multiple users with the capability of generating a variety of reports. The database will include, at a minimum, 500 projects and will include GIS mapping and other graphical features. This effort will be funded with local funds and is expected to be complete within six months. General submission requirements are listed in Attachment "A". The Scope of Work (SOW) is described in Attachment `B". In addition to the attached requirements, please be aware of the following: 1. Technical Proposals must be received prior to 2:00 p.m. on the designated date below in the Calendar of Events; 2. Eight (8) copies of your Technical Proposal shall be submitted; 3. The Technical portion of the Proposal will be considered public information; 4. In addition to the Technical Proposal, each firm shall submit one (1) copy of your cost proposal in a separate sealed, self-addressed envelope; 5. If you are selected, RCTC intends to enter into a contractual agreement with your firm to become an integral part of the contract documents.. See Attachment "C" for the Model Consultant Agreement; 6. Any contract awarded as a result of this RFP will be awarded without discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin; 7. The Conflict of Interest Disclosure Form must be completed, see Attachment "D". If the Conflict of Interest Form is not submitted with the RFP, the RFP will be rejected; and 8. Based on the evaluation of the submitted proposals, a short list of films may be established to be interviewed by the Evaluation Committee. The Committee will select the top ranked firms and negotiations will begin immediately to finalize the personnel, hours, hourly rates; use of sub - consultants, and other direct costs that will be required to complete the agreement between RCTC and the selected firm. If agreement cannot be reached with the top ranked firms, the Evaluation Committee will identify. the next most responsive and qualified firm and the negotiation phase will 19 be repeated. This process will be continued until agreement is reached with a qualified firm(s) that can provide the required services identified in the Scope of Work. The estimated timeline for the selection process is as follows: Calendar of Events Distribution of RFP Nov 16, 2005 Proposals are delivered to RCTC prior to 2:00 p.m. Jan 27, 2006 Short List of proposals by Selection Committee (if necessary) Feb 3, 2006 Interviews of Short List Firms by Evaluation Committee (if necessary) Feb 10, 2006 Award of Contract by Commission Mar 8, 2006 Eligible proposals will be evaluated based on the following criteria: 1. Experience and qualifications of the firm 10% 2. Experience and qualifications of key staff 20% 3. Work Plan/Project Approach 25% 4. Knowledge of transportation project management and implementation. 5. Cost Effectiveness 1. Experience and qualifications of the firm — • Specialized experience or knowledge of firm in developing similar project management databases. • Demonstrated competence of the firm, including sub -contractors) to perform SOW requirements • Demonstrated experience in working with the public sector • Knowledge of project implementation and funding programs 2. Experience and qualification of key staff — • -Professional qualifications and experience of key project, personnel • Relevant experience of the project team in developing web -based databases • • Proposed team/personnel's experience appropriate for technical and management requirements of the project • Staff with knowledge of project implementation and funding programs 30% 15% 3. Work Plan/Project Approach • Appropriateness of technical approach to the project as it relates to the SOW • Understanding of the project goals and objectives • - Understanding of the project issues and potential conflicts including user rights and control of data input 20 i 4. Knowledge of transportation project management and implementation • Understanding transportation fund cycle from programming to obligation and expenditure of funds • Understanding project monitoring requirements including schedules and fund timelines • Understanding project life cycle from environmental to construction phase 5. Cost Effectiveness — • Proposal must meet the SOW requirements and provide RCTC with a database that is affordable and manageable to maintain. Cost score for each proposal will be determined by using the formula below: Low Proposer's Cost/Price x Weight for Cost/Price = Cost Effectiveness Score Proposer's Cost/Price The full content of this RFP, including attachments, will be made available on the RCTC web page located at www.rcta.org. Any firm obtaining the information through the RCTC web page, and who is anticipating submitting a proposal, is asked to send a letter acknowledging the receipt of the RFP to the address below, so that the firm can be added to the notification list and receive any addendums or changes to the scope of work. Prospective firms are encouraged to promptly notify RCTC of any apparent major inconsistencies, problems, or ambiguities in the Scope of Work. All inquiries and responses to this request for proposals should be submitted to: Riverside County Transportation Commission Attn: Shirley Medina 4080 Lemon Street, 3`d Floor Riverside, CA 92502-2208 (951)787-7141 Sincerely, Anne Mayer Division Head, Programming and Administration Attachments: A. RFP Submission Requirements B. Scope of Work C. Model Consultant Agreement D. Conflict of Interest Disclosure Form 21 ATTACHMENT "A" RFP Submission Requirements 1. Technical Proposals must not be more than the equivalent of 25 single sided 8 '/z by 11-inch pages in length (not counting the front and back covers of the proposal or section dividers that contain no information). The font size should be no smaller than 11 pt. 2. Name the prime and sub -consultants that will comprise the team and identify the executive officer of each company. 3. Identify the proposed Project Manager for the team who will be the sole point of contact to RCTC day to day operations. 4. List the key personnel who will participate in performing the scope of work. Provide a resume for each listed team member. (Include sub -consultants key personnel who will be completing a portion of the scope of work). 5. Provide an organizational chart depicting the relationships between the team members and agencies. 6. List recently performed, relevant projects that indicate the past performances and abilities of the proposed team. Include a key client contact person with . their current daytime phone number. 7 The Technical Proposal shall include a cost proposal provided in a separate sealed envelope. The cost proposal shall include a cost analysis for each task identified in Item 7 above. A manpower analysis table must be included that lists the job classifications, compensation level, and proposed hours of personnel assigned to the various Project tasks. 22 ATTACHMENT `B" Scope of Work The Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) is seeking to contract with a consultant firm to develop and implement a web -based project management database system that will include Geographic Information System (GIS) capabilities. The consultant will also include a database maintenance plan in the proposal. BACKGROUND The Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) currently monitors transportation projects including project schedules, funding, and expenditures through a variety of methods including, Excel spreadsheets, Access databases, and other project. scheduling software. RCTC has experienced difficulties in coordinating the various schedules, funding, and reports due to the large number of projects, complexity of issues related to various deadlines, and lack of a uniform and centralized database accessible to the users of this information. The various users include programming and planning staff, engineers, and executive management. A key component of an improved project management database is to allow the users to obtain up-to-date project status on individual projects or project categories. Further, the project management database would also provide for future expansions or modifications beyond the initial set up of the system. A web -based database system that has already. been developed, tested, and implemented is preferred to accommodate at least 500 projects that would also include mapping capabilities. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS The Scope of Work includes the development of a web -based database that will accommodate at least 500 projects and their associated implementation phases, funding, programming documentation, construction activities, mapping, and other pertinent data. Currently, project information is available using Excel and Access software programs. Updated infotmation is provided to programming staff via email, paper copy, or verbally. This information and other project information will be provided to the successful bidder for incorporation into the new project management database system. Multiple users will access the project management database, via the web, which will require different user rights. It is envisioned that project information would be updated by Project Managers from each local, agency in the County, subregional agencies, transit operators, and Caltrans. This would require a specific report module that would be updated and then reviewed by RCTC staff for completeness and accuracy prior to accepting the updated information. Other inputs would be performed by RCTC programming staff and Project Managers/Engineers. The database must be "user friendly". For example, as the user logs into the database various menus or tabs should be displayed in a neat and organized fashion so that the user can easily pull up the project information that they are interested in without spending too much time searching for the information. The database must also allow for customized 23 reports based on specific information such as fund source, local agency, construction year, etc. ,Mapping capabilities should also be included allowing the user to view the project location(s) as well as digital photos or other visual displays. TASKS AND DELIVERABLES RCTC proposes the following tasks and deliverables for consideration. 'If the Bidder chooses a different approach that meets the Scope of Services, the Bidder may submit a .. complete description of the approach (tasks, deliverables, and schedule) as a proposal submittal. TASK 1: Project Management Planning and Reporting The successful firm will designate a single point of contact, a project manager, for the web -based project management system. The successful Firm will review, at a minimum, the following documentation: • A logical approach to solve RCTC's requirement • A Work Breakdown Structure, Dictionary, and Index, which decomposes the scope of work. • A project plan using a scheduling tool indicating who is responsible for each task. • An assessment of the critical path and resources, to ensure the completion of the scope of work on time and within budget. • A Resource Matrix indicating human and capital requirements including personnel assigned and number of hours per task. The successful firm will identify all tasks in sufficient detail to permit task -by -task assessment of progress based on milestones, deliverable accountability, resource identification and allocation. TASK 2: Requirements Definition and Acceptance The Bidder must provide an analysis and a recommendation of the best approach to meet the overall goals of the project management system including user rights and associated costs. TASK 3: Database Design, Documentation, and Acceptance The Bidder will furnish the elements necessary to depict the project management system application data entry, database and user information output design. TASK 4`: Database Dictionary The Bidder will integrate existing. project information and allow for the incorporation of additional information that the user may enter on the project management system. 24 TASK 5: Internal Data Integration The web -based database will allow for readable and efficient report display and generation including GIS map displays. TASK 6: Web Based Data Entry The Bidder will develop a Data Entry graphical user interface that meets the needs of. programming and project monitoring requirements. TASK 7: Web -Based User Query/Reports The Bidder will develop the capability of generating reports and queries to integrate the display of various data sources allowing for a readable and efficient report display including GIS map displays. The database will also be designed to accommodate future report modifications or new reports. TASK 8: Data Security The Bidder will provide RCTC with assurances that the sensitive data will be safely and securely stored off -site. TASK 9: GIS Capability The Bidder will integrate a GIS capability into the project management system and determine the best integration methodology. TASK 10: Project Management System Test Plan The successful firm shall test the delivered system for RCTC's acceptance based on RCTC's approval of the system test plan. TASK 11: Trainine and User Guide The Bidder will provide training to all designated users on how to optimize the project management system for their purposes. Separate training sessions will be provided for ' the different types of users. The consultant will also prepare a user manual with detailed instructions for data entry, information access, and report generation and printing procedures. TASK 12: Database System Expandability The database is expected to allow for future expandability of additional projects and data fields. The Bidder must indicate how the databasewould allow for these provisions. TASK 13: Maintenance Plan A maintenance plan must accompany the RFP and identify post -implementation maintenance/updates and associated (monthly and/or annual) costs. 25 CONSULTANT QUALIFICATIONS The consultant should have extensive knowledge and experience with building and developing transportation project management databases. The consultant should be familiar with transportation project management, funding, and reporting processes as Well as current technologies in system development. Knowledge and expertise in Geographic Information System (GIS) and integration of GIS with transportation data is important. PROJECT BUDGET AND SCHEDULE The total project budget for development, implementation; and testing is $50,000. Maintenance of the system must also be identified in the bid including a detailed description of the maintenance effort and associated cost (monthly or annual fee). The project is expected to be completed within six (6) months upon receiving a "Notice to Proceed" from RCTC, which includes the development, implementation and testing' period. 26 Agreement No. _-_-_ RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION AGREEMENT FOR r DESCRIPTION OF SERVICES 1 SERVICES WITH ( CONSULTANT j PARTIES AND DATE. This Agreement is made and entered into this _ day of 200_, by and between the RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMIS- SION ("the Commission") and ( NAME OF FIRM j ("Consultant'), a ( LEGAL STATUS OF CONSULTANT e.g., CORPORATION j. 2. RECITALS. 2.1 Consultant desires to perform and assume responsibility for the provision of certain professional consulting services required by, Commission on the terms and conditions set forth in this Agreement. Consultant represents that it is a professional consultant, experienced in providing ( INSERT TYPE OF SERVICES 1 services to _public clients, is licensed in the State of California, and is familiar with the plans of Commission. 2.2 Commission desires to engage Consultant to render certain consulting services for the ( INSERT PROJECT NAME j Project ("Project') as set forth herein. 3. TERMS. 3.1 General Scope of Services. Consultant promises and agrees to furnish to Commission all labor materials, tools, equipment, services, and incidental and customary work necessary to fully and adequately provide professional consulting services and advice on various issues affecting the decisions of Commission regarding the Project and on other programs and. matters affecting Commission, hereinafter referred to as "Services". The Services are more particularly described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. All Services shall be subject to, and performed in accordance with, this Agreement, the exhibits attached hereto and 27 incorporated herein by reference, and all applicable local, state, and federal laws, rules and regulations. 3.2 Term. The term of this Agreement shall be from to , unless earlier terminated as provided herein. Consultant shall complete the Services within the term of this Agreement and shall meet any other established schedules and deadlines. 3.3 Schedule of Services. Consultant shall perform the Services expeditiously, within the term of this Agreement, and in accordance with the Schedule of Services set forth in Exhibit "B".attached hereto and, incorporated herein by reference. Consultant represents that it has the professional and technical personnel required to perform the Services in conformance with such conditions. In order to facilitate Consultant's conformance with the Schedule, the Commission shall respond to Consultant's submittals in a timely manner. Upon request of the Commission, Consultant shall provide a more detailed schedule of anticipated performance to meet the Schedule of Services. 3.4 Independent Contractor: Control and Payment of Subordinates.. The Services shall be performed, by Consultant under its supervision. Consultant will determine the means, method and details of performing the Services subject to the requirements of this Agreement. Commission retains Consultant on an independent contractor basis and Consultant is not an employee of Commission. Consultant retains the right to perform similar or different services for others during the term of this Agreement. Any additional ` personnel performing the Services under this. Agreement on behalf of Consultant shall not be employees of Commission and shall at all times be under: Consultant's exclusive direction and 'control. Consultant shall pay all wages, salaries, and other amounts due such personnel in connection with their performance of Services under this Agreement and as required by law. Consultant shall be responsible for all reports and obligations respecting such additional personnel, including, but not limited to: social security taxes, income tax withholding, unemployment insurance, and workers' compensation insurance. 3.5 Conformance to Applicable Requirements. All work prepared by Consultant shall be subject to the approval of Commission. 3.6 Substitution of Key Personnel. Consultant has represented to Commission that certain key personnel will perform and coordinate the Services, under this Agreement. Should one or more of such personnel become unavailable, Consultant may substitute 'other personnel of at least equal competence and experience, upon written approval of Commission. ,In the event that Commission and Consultant cannot agree as to the substitution of key personnel,_ Commission shall be entitled to terminate; this Agreement for cause; pursuant to provisions of Section 3.16 of this Agreement. The key personnel for performance of this ' Agreement are as follows: 28 3.7 Commission's Representative. Commission hereby designates [ INSERT NAME OR TITLE ], or his or her designee, to act as its representative for the performance of this Agreement ("Commission's Representative"). Commission—s representative shall have the power to act on behalf of Commission for all purposes under this Agreement. Consultant shall not accept direction from any person other than Commission=s Representative or his or her designee. 3.8 Consultant's Representative. Consultant hereby designates [ INSERT NAME OR TITLE ] or his or her designee, to act as its representative for the performance of this Agreement ("Consultant's Representative"). Consultant's Representative shall have -full authority to represent and act on behalf of the Consultant for all purposes under this Agreement. The Consultant's Representative shall supervise and direct the Services, using his or her best skill and attention, and shall be responsible for all means, methods, techniques, sequences and procedures and for the satisfactory coordination of all portions of the Services under this Agreement. 3.9 Coordination of Services. Consultant agrees to work closely with Commission staff in the performance of Services and shall be available to Commission's staff, consultants and other staff at all reasonable times. 3.10 Standard of Care; Licenses. Consultant shall perform the Services under this Agreement in a skillful and competent manner, consistent with the standard generally recognized as being employed by professionals in the same discipline in the State of California. Consultant represents and maintains that it is skilled in the professional calling necessary to perform the Services. Consultant warrants that all employees and subcontractors shall have sufficient skill and experience to perform the Services assigned to them.: Finally, Consultant represents that it, its employees and subcontractors have all licenses, permits, qualifications and approvals of whatever nature that are legally required to perform the Services and that such licenses and approvals shall be maintained throughout the term of this Agreement. Consultant shall perform, at its own cost and expense and without reirnbursement from Commission, any Services necessary to correct errors or omissions which are caused by the Consultant's failure to comply with the standard of care provided for herein, and shall be fully responsible to the Commission for all damages and other liabilities provided for in the indemnification provisions of this Agreement arising from the Consultant's errors and omissions. 3.11 Laws and Regulations. Consultant shall 'keep itself fully informed of and in compliance with all local, state and federal laws, rules and regulations in any manner affecting the performance of the Project or the Services, including all Cal/OSHA requirements,: and shall give all notices required by law: Consultant shall be liable for all violations of such lawsand regulations in connection with Services: If the Consultantperforms any work knowing it to be contrary to such laws, rules and regulations and _without giving written notice to Commission, Consultant shall be solely responsible for all costs arising 29 therefrom. Consultant shall defend, indemnify and holdCommission, its officials, directors, officers, employees and agents free and harmless, pursuant to the indemnification ,provisions of this Agreement, from any claim or liability arising out of any failure or alleged failure to comply with such laws; rules or regulations. 3.12 Insurance. 3.12.1 Time for Compliance. Consultant shall not commence work under this Agreement until it has provided evidence satisfactory to the Commission that it has secured all insurance required under this section: In addition, Consultant shall not allow any subcontractor to commence work on any subcontract until it has secured all insurance required under this section. 3.12.2 Minimum Requirements. Consultant shall, at its expense, procure and maintain for the duration of the Agreement insurance against claims for injuries to persons or damages to property which may arise from or in connection with the performance of the Agreement by the Consultant, its agents, representatives, employees or subcontractors. Consultant shall also require all of its subcontractors to procure and maintain the same insurance for the duration of the Agreement. Such insurance shall meet at least the following minimum levels of coverage: (A) Minimum Scope of Insurance. Coverage shall be at least as broad as the latest version of the following: (1) General Liability: Insurance Services Office Commercial General Liability coverage (occurrence form CG 0001); (2) Automobile Liability: Insurance Services Office Business Auto Coverage form number CA 0001, code 1 (any auto); and (3) Workers' Compensation and Employer's Liability: Workers' Compensation insurance as required by the State of California and Employer's Liability Insurance. (B) Minimum Limits of Insurance. Consultant shall maintain limits no less than: (1) General Liability: $1,000,000 per occurrence for bodily injury, personal injury and property damage.' If Commercial General Liability` Insurance or other form with general aggregate limit is used, either the general aggregate limit shall apply separately to this Agreement/location or the general aggregate limit shall be ,twice the -required occurrence' limit; (2) Automobile Liability: >$1,000,000 per accident for bodily injury and property damage; and (3) if Consultant has an employees, Workers' Compensation and Employer's Liability: Workers' Compensation limits as required by the Labor Code of the State of California. Employer's Practices Liability limits of $1,000,000 per accident. 3.12.3 Professional, Liability. [ INCLUDE ONLY IF APPLICABLE DELETE OTHERWISE l Consultant shall procure and maintain, and require its sub -consultants to procure and maintain; for a period ,of five (5) years following completion of the Project; errors and omissions liability insurance appropriate to their profession. Such insurance shall be in an ,amount not less than $1,000,000 [ INCREASE IF NECESSARY - OTHERWISE LEAVE AS IS AND DELETE THIS NOTE ] per claim. 30 3.12.4Insurance Endorsements. The insurance policies shall contain the following provisions, or Consultant shall provide endorsements on forms approved by the Commission to add the following provisions to the insurance policies: (A) General Liability. The general liability policy shall be endorsed to state that: (1) the Commission, its directors, officials, officers, employees and agents shall be covered as additional insureds with respect to the Services or operations performed by or , on behalf of the Consultant, including materials, parts or equipment furnished in connection with such work; and (2) the insurance coverage shall be primary insurance as respects the Commission, its directors, officials, officers, employees and agents, or if excess, shall stand in an unbroken chain of. coverage excess of ,the Consultant's scheduled underlying coverage. Any insurance or self-insurance maintained by the Commission, its directors, officials, officers, employees and . agents shall be excess of the Consultant's insurance and shallnotbe called_ upon to contribute with it in any way. (B) Automobile Liability. The automobile liability policy shall be endorsed to state that: (1) the Commission, its directors, officials, officers, employees and agents shall be covered as additional insureds with respect to the ownership, operation, maintenance, use, loading or unloading of any auto owned, leased, hired or borrowed by the Consultant or for which the Consultant is responsible; and (2) the insurance coverage shall be primary. insurance as respects the Commission, its directors, officials, officers, employees and agents, or if excess, shall stand in an unbroken chain of coverage excess of . the Consultant's scheduled underlying coverage. Any insurance or self- insurance maintained by the Commission, its directors, officials, officers, employees and agents shall be excess of the Consultant's insurance and shall not be called upon to contribute with it in any way. (C) Workers' Compensation and Employers Liability Coverage. The insurer shall agree to waive all rights of subrogation against the Commission, its directors, officials, officers, employees and agents for losses paid under the terms of the insurance policy which arise from work performed by the Consultant. (D) All Coverages. Each insurance policy required by this Agreement shall be endorsed to state that: _ (A) coverage shall not be suspended, voided or canceled except after thirty (30) days prior written notice by certified mail, return receipt requested, has been given to the Commission; and, (B) any failure to comply with reporting or other provisions of the policies, including breaches of warranties, shall not : affect coverage provided to the Commission, its directors, officials, officers, employees and agents. 3.12.5 Deductibles and Self -Insurance Retentions. Any deductibles or self -insured retentions must be declared :to and approved by the Commission. If the Commission does not approve the deductibles or self -insured 31 retentions as presented, Consultant shall guarantee that, at the option of the Commission, either: (1) the insurer shall reduce or eliminate such deductibles or self -insured retentions as respects the Commission; its directors, officials, officers, employees and agents; or; (2) the Consultant shall procure a bond guaranteeing payment of losses and related investigation costs, claims and administrative and defense expenses. 3.12.6 Acceptability of insurers. Insurance is to be placed with insurers with a current A.M. Best's rating no less than A:VIII, licensed to do business inCalifornia, and satisfactory to the Commission. 3.12.7 Verification of Coverage. Consultant shall furnish Commission with original certificates of insurance and endorsements effecting coverage required by this Agreement on forms satisfactory to the Commission. The certificates and endorsements for each insurance policy shall be signed by a person authorized by that insurer to bind coverage on its behalf. All certificates and endorsements must be received and approved by the Commission before work commences. The Commission reserves the right to requirecomplete, certified copies of all required insurance policies, at any time. 3.13 Safety. Consultant shall execute and maintain its work so as to avoid injury or damage to any person or property. 1n carrying out its Services, the Consultant shall at all times be in compliance with all applicable local, state and federal laws, rules and regulations, and shall exercise all necessary precautions for the safety of employees appropriate to the nature of the work and the conditions under which the work is to be performed. Safety 'precautions as applicable shall include; but shall not be limited to: (A) adequate life protection. and life saving equipment and procedures; (B) instructions in accident prevention for all employees and subcontractors, such as safe 'walkways, scaffolds, fall protection ladders, bridges, gang planks, confined space procedures, trenching and shoring, equipment and other 'safety devices, equipment and wearing apparel as are necessary or lawfully required to prevent accidents or injuries; and (C) adequate facilities for the proper inspection and maintenance of all safety: measures: 3.14 Fees and Payment. 3.14.1 Compensation. Consultant shall receive compensation, 'including authorized reimbursements, for all .Services rendered under this Agreement at the rates set forth in Exhibit"C" attached hereto. The total compensation shall not exceed - f INSERT WRITTEN DOLLAR AMOUNT 1' ($f INSERT' NUMERICAL "DOLLAR AMOUNT 1) without' written approval of Commission's Executive Director ("Total' Compensation") Extra Work may be authorized; as described' below, and if authorized, will be compensated at the rates and manner set forth in this Agreement. 3.14 2 Payment of Compensation.. Consultant shall submit to Commission a monthly statement which indicates work completed and hours of Services rendered by Consultant. The statement shall describe the amount of 32 Services and supplies provided since the initial commencement date, or since the, start of the subsequent billing periods, as appropriate, through the date of the statement. Commission shall, within 45 days of receiving such statement, review the statement and pay all approved charges thereon. 3.14.3 Reimbursement for Expenses. Consultant shall not be reimbursed for any expenses unless authorized in writing by Commission. 3.14.4 Extra Work. At any time during the term of this Agreement, Commission may request that Consultant perform Extra Work. As used herein, "Extra Work" means any work which is determined by Commission to be necessary for the proper completion of the Project, but which the parties did not reasonably anticipate would be necessary at the execution of this Agreement. Consultant shall not perform, nor be compensated for, Extra Work without written authorization from Commission's Executive Director. 3.15 Accounting Records. Consultant shall maintain complete and accurate records with respect to all costs and expenses incurred and fees charged under this Agreement. All such records shall be clearly identifiable. Consultant shall allow a representative of. Commission during normal business hours to examine, audit, and make transcripts or copies of such records and any other documents created pursuant to this Agreement. Consultant shall allow inspection of all work, data, documents, proceedings, and activities related to the Agreement for a period of three (3) years from the date of final payment under this Agreement. 3.16 Termination of Agreement. 3.16.1 Grounds for Termination. Commission may, by written notice to Consultant, terminate the whole or any part of this Agreement at any time and without cause by giving written notice to Consultant of such termination, and specifying the effective date thereof. Upon termination, Consultant shall be compensated only for those services which have been fully and adequately rendered to Commission through the effective date of the termination, and Consultant shall be entitled to no further compensation. Consultant may not terminate this Agreement except for cause. 3.16.2 Effect of Termination. If this Agreement is terminated as provided herein, Commission may require Consultant to provide all finished or unfinished Documents and Data, as defined below, and other information of any kind prepared by Consultant in connection with the performance of Services under this Agreement. Consultant shall be required to provide such document and other information within fifteen (15) days of the request. 3.16.3 Additional Services. In the event this Agreement is. terminated in whole or in part as provided herein, Commission may procure, upon such terms and in such manner as it may determine appropriate, services similar to those terminated. 33 3.17 Delivery of Notices. All notices permitted or required under this Agreement shall be given to the respective parties at the following address, " or at such other address as the respective parties may provide in writing for this purpose: CONSULTANT: Commission Floor 92501 Attn: COMMISSION: Riverside County Transportation 4080 Lemon Street, 31. Riverside, CA Attn: Executive Director Such notice shall be deemed made when personally delivered or when mailed, forty-eight (48) hours after deposit in the U.S. Mail, first class postage prepaid and addressed to the party at its applicable address. ` Actual notice shall be deemed adequate notice on the date actual notice occurred, regardless of the method of service. 3.18 Ownership of Materials/Confidentiality. 3.18.1 Documents & Data. This Agreement creates an exclusive and perpetual license for Commission to copy, use, modify, reuse; or sub -license any and all copyrights and designs embodied in plans, specifications, studies, drawings, estimates, materials, data and other •documents or works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression, including but not limited to, physical drawings or data magnetically or otherwise recorded on computer diskettes, which are prepared or caused to be prepared by Consultant under this Agreement ("Documents & Data"). Consultant shall require all subcontractors to agree in writing that Commission is granted an exclusive and perpetual license for: any Documents & Data the subcontractor prepares under this Agreement. Consultant represents and warrants that Consultant has the legal right to grant the exclusive and perpetuallicense for all such Documents & Data. Consultant makes no such representation and warranty in regard to Documents & Data which were prepared by design professionals other than Consultant or provided to Consultant by the Commission. Commission shall not be limited in any way in its use of the Documents & Data at any time, provided that any such use not within the purposes intended by this Agreement shall beat Commission's sole risk. 3.18.2Intellectual Property. In addition, Commission" shall have and retain all right, title and interest (including copyright; patent, trade secret and other proprietary rights) in all plans, specifications, studies,' drawings, 34 estimates, materials, data, computer programs or software and source code, enhancements, documents, and any and all works of authorship„ fixed in any tangible medium or expression, including but not limited to, physical drawings or other data magnetically or otherwise recorded on computer media (`Intellectual Property") prepared or developed by or on behalf of Consultant under this Agreement as well as any other such Intellectual Property prepared or developed by or on behalf of Consultant under this Agreement. The Commission shall have and retain all right, title and interest in Intellectual Property developed or modified; under this Agreement whether or not paid for wholly or in part by Commission, whether or not developed in conjunction with Consultant, and whether or not developed by Consultant. Consultant will execute separate written assignments of any and all rights to the above referenced Intellectual Property upon request of Commission. Consultant shall also be responsible to obtain in writing separate written assignments from any subcontractors or agents of Consultant of any and all right to the above referenced Intellectual Property. Should Consultant, either during or following termination of this Agreement, desire to use any of the above -referenced Intellectual Property, it shall first obtain the written approval of the Commission. All materials and documents which were developed or prepared by the Consultant for general use prior to the execution of this Agreement and which are not the copyright of any other party or publicly available and any other computer applications, shall continue to be the property of the Consultant. However, unless otherwise identified .and stated prior to execution of this Agreement, Consultant represents and warrants that it has the right to grant the exclusive and perpetual license for all such Intellectual. Property as provided herein. Commission further is granted by Consultant a non-exclusive and perpetual license to copy, use, modify or sub -license any and all Intellectual Property otherwise owned by Consultant which is the basis or foundation for any derivative, collective, insurrectional, or supplemental work created under this Agreement.' 3.18.3 Confidentiality. All ideas, memoranda, specifications, plans, procedures, drawings, descriptions, computer program data, input record data, written information, and other Documents and Data either created by or provided to Consultant in connection with the performance of this Agreement shall be held confidential by Consultant. Such materials shall not, without the prior written consent of Commission, be used by Consultant for any purposes other than the performance of the Services. Nor shall such materials be disclosed to any person or entity not connected with the performance of the Services or the Project. Nothing furnishedto Consultant which is otherwise known to Consultant or is generally known, or has become known, to the related industry shall be deemed confidential. Consultant shall not use Commission's name or insignia, photographs of the Project, or any publicity pertaining to the 35 Services or the Project in any magazine, trade paper, newspaper, television or radio production or other similar medium without the prior written consent of Commission. 3.19 'Cooperation; Further Acts. The Parties shall fully cooperate with one another, and shall 'take any additional acts or sign any additional documents as may be necessary, appropriateor convenient to 'attain the purposes of this Agreement. 3.20 Attorney's Fees. If either party commences an action against the other party, either legal, administrative or otherwise, arising out of or in connection'with this Agreement, the prevailing party in such litigation shall' be entitled to have and recover from the losing party reasonable attorney's'fees and costs of such actions. 3.21 Indemnification. Consultant shall defend, indemnify and hold Commission, its directors, officials, officers, employees, consultants, agents and volunteers free and harmless from any and all claims, demands, causes' of action, costs, expenses, liability, loss, damage or injury, in law or equity, to property or persons; including wrongful death, in any manner arising out of or incident to any alleged negligent acts, omissions or willful misconduct of Consultant, its officials, officers, employees, agents, consultants and contractors arising out of or in connection with the performance of the Services, the Project. or this Agreement, including without limitation the payment of all consequential damages and attorneys fees and other related costs and expenses. Consultant shall defend, at Consultant=s own cost, expense and risk, any and all such aforesaid suits, actions or other legal proceedings of every kind that may be brought or instituted against Commission or its directors, officials, officers, employees, consultants, agents and volunteers. Consultant shall pay and satisfy any judgment, award or decree that may be rendered against Commission or its directors, officials, officers, employees, consultants, agents and volunteers, in any such suit, action or other legal proceeding. Consultant shall reimburse Commission and its directors; officials, officers, employees, consultants, agents and/or volunteers, for any and all legal expenses and costs incurred' by each of them in connection therewith or in enforcing the indemnity herein provided. Consultant=s obligation to indemnify shall not be restricted to insurance proceeds, if any, received by Commission or its directors, officials, officers, employees, consultants, agents and volunteers. 3.22 Entire Agreement. This. Agreement contains the entire Agreement of the , parties with respect to the subject matter hereof, and supersedes all prior negotiations, understandings or agreements. This Agreement may only be modified by writing signed by both parties. 3.23 Governing Law. This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of California. Venue shall be in Riverside County. 36 3.24 Time of Essence. Time is of the essence for each and every provision of this Agreement. 3.25 Commission's Right to. Employ Other Consultants. The Commission reserves the right to employ other consultants in connection with this Project. 3.26 Successors and Assigns. This Agreement shall be binding on the successors and assigns of the parties, and shall not be assigned by Consultant without the prior written consent of Commission. 3.27 Prohibited Interests. 3.27.1 Solicitation. Consultant maintains and warrants that it has not employed nor retained any company or person, other than a bona fide employee working solely for Consultant, to solicit or secure this Agreement. Further, Consultant warrants that it has not paid nor has it agreed to pay any company or •person, other than a bona fide employee working solely for Consultant, any fee, commission, percentage, brokerage fee, gift or other consideration contingent upon or, resulting from the award or making of this Agreement. For breach or violation of this warranty, Commission shall have the right to rescind this Agreement without liability. 3.27.2 Conflict of Interest. For the term of this Agreement, no member, officer or employee of Commission, during the term of his or her service with Commission, shall have any direct interest in ;this Agreement, or obtain any present or anticipated material, benefit arising therefrom. 3.28 Equal Opportunity Employment. < Consultant represents that it is an equal opportunity employer and it shall not discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of race, religion, color, national origin, ancestry, sex or age. Such non-discrimination shall include, but not be limited to, all activities related to initial employment, upgrading, demotion, transfer, recruitment or recruitment advertising, layoff or termination. Consultant shall also comply with all relevant provisions of Commission's Disadvantaged Business Enterprise program, Affirmative _Action Plan or other related Commission programs or guidelines currently in effect or hereinafter enacted. 3.29 Subcontracting. Consultant shall not subcontract any portion of the work or Services required by this Agreement, except as expressly stated herein, without prior written approval of the Commission. Subcontracts, if any, shallcontaina provision making them subject to all provisions stipulated in this Agreement. 3.30 Prevailing Wages. By its execution of this Agreement, Consultant certified that it is aware of the requirements of California Labor Code 37 Sections 1720 et seq. and 1770 et seq., as well as California Code of Regulations, Title 8, Section 16000 et seq. ("Prevailing Wage Laws"), which require the payment of prevailing wage rates and the performance of other requirements on certain "public works" and "maintenance" projects: If the Services are being performed as part of an applicable "public works or "maintenance" project, as defined by the Prevailing Wage Laws, and if the total compensation is $1,000 or more, Consultant agrees to fully comply with such Prevailing Wage Laws. The Commission shall provide Consultant with a copy of the prevailing rate of per diem wages in effect at the commencement of this Agreement. Consultant shall make copies of the prevailing rates of per diem wages for each craft, classification or type of worker needed to execute the Services available to interested parties upon request, and shall post copies at the Consultant=s principal place of business and at the project site.. Consultant shall defend, indemnify and hold' the Commission, its elected officials, officers, employees and agents free and harmless from any claims, liabilities, costs, penalties or interest arising out of any failure or alleged failure to comply with the Prevailing Wage Laws. 3.31 Employment of Apprentices. This Agreement shall not prevent the employment of properly indentured .apprentices in accordance with the California Labor Code, and no employer or labor union shall refuse to accept otherwise qualified employees as indentured apprentices on the work performed hereunder solely on the ground of race; creed, national origin, ancestry, color or sex. Every qualified apprentice shall be paid the standard wage paid to apprentices under the regulations of the craft or trade in which he or she is employed and shall be employed only in the craft or trade to which he or she is indentured. If California labor Code Section 1777.5 applies to the Services, Consultant; and any subcontractor hereunder who employs workers in any apprenticeable craft or trade shall apply to the joint apprenticeship council administering applicable standards fora certificate approving Consultant or any sub -consultant for the employment and training of apprentices. Upon issuance of this certificate, Consultant and any sub -consultant shall employ the number of apprentices provided for therein, as well as contribute to the fund to administer the apprenticeship program in each craft or trade in the area of the work hereunder. The parties expressly understand` that the responsibility for compliance with provisions of this Section and with Sections 1777.5, 1777.6 and 1777.7 of the California Labor Code in regard to all apprenticeable occupations lies with Consultant. 3.32 No Waiver. Failure of Commission to insist on any one occasion upon strict compliance with any of the terms, covenants or conditions hereof shall not be deemed a waiver of such term, covenant or condition, nor shall any waiver or relinquishment of any rights or powers hereunder at any one 38 time or more times be deemed a waiver or relinquishment of such other right or power at any other time or times. 3.33 Eight -Hour Law. Pursuant to the provisions of the California Labor Code, eight hours of labor shall constitute a legal day—s work, and the time of service of any worker employed on the work shall be limited and restricted to eight hours during any one calendar day, and forty hours in any one calendar week, except when payment for overtime is made at not less than one and one- half the basic rate for all hours worked in excess of eight hours per day. Consultant shall forfeit to Contractor as a penalty, $50.00 for each worker employed in the execution of this Agreement by him, or by any sub -consultant under him, for each calendar day during which such workman is required or permitted to work more than eight hours in any calendar day and forty hours in any one calendar week without such compensation for overtime violation of the provisions of the California Labor Code. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Agreement was executed on the date first written above. RIVERSIDE COUNTY CONSULTANT TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION By: By: Chairman Signature Approved as to Form: By: Best, Best & Krieger LLP General Counsel 39 Name Title RIVERS/DE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMM/SS/ON DISCLOSURE OF CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS TO COMMISSIONERS Government Code Section 84308, 2 California Code of Regulations.18438.1, Et Seq No Commissioner of the Riverside County Transportation Commission shall receive or solicit a campaign contribution of more than $250 from Bidder, or Bidder's agent, during the time of: 1) Bid solicitation; 2) Consideration of Bids received; and, 3) Awarding of a contract based of a Bid (collectively referred to as the "Proceeding"), and for three (3) months following the conclusion of the Proceeding. This prohibition does not apply to the awarding of contracts that are competitively bid. In addition, Commissioners cannot participate in any such matters if they have received more than $250 in campaign contributions within the last year from anyone financially interested in the Proceeding, such as Bidder and/or Bidder's agent. Pursuant to these requirements, Bidder shall disclose any campaign contribution in an amount of more than $250 made by Bidder, and/or Bidder's agent, to any Commissioner within 12 months from the date of these Bid Documents/Request For Proposals (as applicable). For the purposes of this disclosure obligation, contributions made by Bidder within the preceding 12 months shall be aggregated with those made by Bidder's agent within the preceding 12 months or the period of the agency relationship between Bidder and Bidder's agent, whichever is shorter. In addition, Bidder and/or Bidder's agent shall not make a contribution of more than $250 to a Commissioner during the Proceeding and for three (3) months following the conclusion of the Proceeding. The disclosure by Bidder, as set forth, herein, shall be incorporated into the written record of the Proceeding and shall -be made available to the public for inspection and copying. The following is a list of the Commissioners of the Riverside County Transportation Commission: Barbara Hanna / Art Welch, City of Banning Roger Berg / Jeff Fox, City of Beaumont Robert Crain / George Thomas, City of Blythe Shenna Moqeet / John Chlebnik / Jon Winningham, City of Calimesa Mary Craton / John Zaitz, City of Canyon Lake Gregory S. Pettis / Charles "Bud" England, City of Cathedral City Juan DeLara / Richard Macknicki, -City of Coachella Jeff Miller / Karen Spiegel, City of Corona Matt Weyuker / Henry "Hank" Hohenstein, City of Desert Hot Springs Mary Roche / Robert Bernheimer, City of Indian Wells Robin Lowe / Lori Van Arsdale, City of Hemet Michael H. Wilson / Gene Gilbert, City of Indio Terry Henderson / Don Adolph, City of La Quinta 40 Bob Magee /Robert Schiffner, City of Lake Elsinore Frank West / Charles White, City of Moreno Valley Kelly Seyarto / Rick Gibbs, City of Murrieta Frank Hall / Harvey Sullivan, City of Norco Dick Kelly / Robert Spiegel, City of Palm Desert Ronald Oden / Ginny Foat, City of Palm Springs Daryl Busch / Mark Yarbrough, City of Perris Ron Meepos / Harvey Gerber, City of Rancho Mirage Ameal Moore / Steve Adams, City of Riverside Chris'Buydos, City of San Jacinto Ron Roberts / Jeff Comerchero, City of Temecula Bob Buster, County of Riverside - District John Tavaglione, County of Riverside - District 11 Jeff Stone, County of Riverside District III' Roy Wilson, County of Riverside - District IV Marion Ashley, County of Riverside -'District V I/We hereby disclose the following political contributions of more than $250 made within the preceding 12 months to any Commissioner: Date of Contribution Amount of Contribution Recipient (Attach Additional Sheet, If Necessary) Date of Disclosure (Same As Bid Date) BIDDER: Signature of Bidder Name Title 41 AGENDA ITEM 7F RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMM/SS/ON DATE: November 9, 2005 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Budget and Implementation Committee Marilyn Williams, Director of Regional Programs and Public Affairs THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Division Head, Programming and Administration SUBJECT: TUMF Regional Arterial Priority Project Recommendation for the City of Riverside BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Approve the City of Riverside's Van Buren Boulevard widening project from Andrew to Garfield Streets as eligible for TUMF Regional funding pursuant to the Commission's call for projects; and, 2) Program $905,000 in TUMF Regional funds for construction of. the project in FY 2006 plus up to 10% in construction contingency costs ($90,500) pursuant to the TUMF Nexus Study. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The Commission took action at its September 8, 2004 meeting to establish a five-year Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) Regional Arterial Program for the period FY 2005 to FY 2009. In response to the Commissions' Regional Arterial Improvements Call for Projects process, 24 local jurisdiction projects were approved as eligible to receive funding. To date, the Commission has allocated $46.7 million in TUMF Regional funds to local jurisdictions and $25 million has been set aside for the Mid County Parkway and SR 79 realignment projects. While the 24 projects were approved as eligible, a "first come, first serve" funding approach was put in place as an inducement to complete project development (PA&ED) and design (PS&E) phases. Within that context, the Commission did not allocate funding for right-of-way or construction phases programmed in FY 2007 through 2009. The City of Riverside has ,submitted a request that the Commission authorize construction funding in the amount of $905,000 for FY 2006. The original request ' sought funding in FY 2007 for the Van Buren Boulevard widening project from Agenda Item 7F 42 Andrew to Garfield Streets. The City's right-of-way acquisition process is moving forward more quickly than anticipated and construction of the project is expected to begin in early 2006. In addition, staff is seeking authorization to allocate up to 10% of the maximum eligible construction costs pursuant to the current Nexus Study as approved by the . Western Riverside Council of Governments. The 10% represents a contingency amount of $90,500 allowable under the TUMF, program and would only be authorized upon completion of the project and submittal of appropriate. documentation by the City. Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: No Year: FY 2005-06 Amount: $995,500 Source of Funds: TUMF Regional Arterial Budget Ad ustment: Yes GLA No.: 210-72-81301 P5122 Fiscal Procedures Approved: \44"4„:4,1 Date: 10/17/05 Agenda Item 7F 43 AGENDA ITEM 7G RIVERS/DE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: November 9, 2005 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Plans and Programs Committee Robert Yates, Program Manager THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Division Head, Programming and Administration SUBJECT: Expansion of CommuteSmart.info Traffic Map PLANS AND PROGRAMS COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to receive and file a report on the real time traffic information map expansion project as hosted on the regional ridesh'are website, www.CommuteSmart.info. 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. Agenda Item 7G 44 Staff worked closely with Iteris to enhance the geographic coverage as well as site functionality and on September 19, 2005, implemented the enhanced map live onto the www.CommuteSmart.info website. As delivered, the enhanced map includes the following upgrades: 1. Expanded functionality into the south Riverside County areas through the I-15 corridor past the county line and into the San Diego metropolitan area. 2. Expanded functionality east through the SR 60 and I-10 corridors to includethe Pass Cities and the Coachella Valley while also extending to the Arizona/Nevada state lines. 3. Expanded functionality northward from the Coachella area, 'through Twentynine Palms, Yucca Valley to the 1-15 corridor and then northward to the California/Nevada state line. 4 Expanded functionality for the mountain areas of Big Bear westerly to Wrightwood with coverage of the Cajon Pass, and SR 138 to the SR 14. 5. Upgraded navigation functionality featuring arrows embedded directly into each area map allowing a user to page seamlessly between adjacent maps. Map functionality of the expansion areas relates closely to the original map wherever possible and the navigation tile page has been improved for ease of use. In areas where no congestion and speed data sources (i.e. roadway detection) are available from Caltrans, the minimum map functionality is the CHP incident reporting system and Caltrans changeable message sign display system: Staff would also like to note that the expansion was delivered :to, the Commission on time and within budget. Staff further notes that upgrade items 3 and 4 as identified above, were funded by the sister rideshare program of the San Bernardino Associated Governments and contracted through the Commission for development and implementation. Agenda Item 7G 45 AGENDA ITEM 7H RIVERS/DE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: November 9, 2005 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission - FROM: Plans and Programs Committee Tanya Love, Program Manager THROUGH: Cathy Bechtel, Division Head, Planning SUBJECT: Fiscal Year 2005-2006 Short Range 'Transit Plan Amendment: Riverside Transit Agency - Transit Centers PLANS AND PROGRAMS COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Amend the FY 2005-06 Short Range Transit Plan for the Riverside Transit Agency to include the Program of Projectsfor 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; and, 3) Include the projects in the Regional Transportation Improvement Program. 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 (WRCOG). 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. Agenda Item 7H 46 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 ` $4.0M Hemet Transit Center Bus transit center Bus transit center $4.5M' Temecula Transit Center Future transit center z Future transit center $6.0M Moreno Valley Transit Center Future multi -Bus modal transit center transfer station, park-n-ride, mixed -use retail, 8 -10 bus bays, shelters, parking $6.0M 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 tosurrounding 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. ' $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. Agenda Item 7H 47 When the multi -modal transit centers include attached commercial retail, the cost increases to $7.2M. 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 WRCOG TUMF - $1,963,09,7 Budget Ad ustment: No GLA No.: N/A Fiscal Procedures Approved: \14.24,4,43d Date: 10/17/05 i Agenda Item 7H 48 AGENDA ITEM 71 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: November 9, 2005 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Budget and Implementation Committee Jerry Rivera, Program Manager THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Division Head, Programming and Administration SUBJECT: Fiscal Year 2006-2010 Measure "A" five Year Capital Improvement Plan for Local Streets and Roads for the Cities of Beaumont and Indio BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to approve the FY 2006-10 Measure "A" Five Year Capital Improvement Plan for Local Streets and Roads for the Cities of Beaumont and Indio. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The Measure "A" Ordinance requires each recipient of streets and roads monies to annually provide to the Commission a five-year plan on how those funds are to be expended in order to receive its Measure "A" disbursements. In addition, the cities in the Coachella Valley and the County (representing the unincorporated area of the Eastern County) must be participating in CVAG's Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TU'MF) program. The agencies are required to submit the annual certification of Maintenance of Effort (MOE) along with documentation supporting the calculation. On March 31, 2005, RCTC staff provided the local agencies with Measure "A" revenue projections for local streets and roads to assist them in preparation of the required Five -Year Capital Improvement Plan (CIP). The agencies were asked to submit their Plans by June 15, 2005 for submission to the Commission on July 13, 2005. The required Five -Year Plan, MOE certification and supporting documentation have been received from the cities of Beaumont and Indio, two of the four citiesthat have not yet submitted their plans. The remaining two cities, Coachella and Norco, have been informed that no disbursement of Measure "A" funds for local streets and roads will be made until all of the required documents have been received and approved by the Commission. Attachments: 1) City of Beaumont - Measure "A" Capital Improvement Plan 2) City of Indio -'Measure "A" Capital Improvement Plan Agenda Item 71 49 • RIVERSIDE. COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE "A" LOCAL FITNDS PROGRAM FY 2006-2010 Agency: City of Beaumont Prepared by: Public Works Department Date: October 4, •2005 Page Z of l Fiscal Year PROJECT NAME/LIMITS PROJECT TYPE TOTAL COST STATUS MEASURE «A,, 2006 Palm Avenue, 6'h Street to Oak Valley Parkway Rehabilitation $650,000 Design Phase $475,000- 2007 8th Street, Elm Avenue to Highland Springs Avenue Rehabilitation $950,000 Pending Design $500,000 2008 Oak Valley Parkway, Beaumont Avenue to Cherry Avenue Widening and Rehabilitation $1,200,000 Pending Design $525,000 2009 Pennsylvania Avenue, 6th Street to Oak Valley Parkway Rehabilitation $700,000 Pending Design $550,000 2010 . Beaumont Avenue, 6 h Street to Brookside Avenue Rehabilitation $750,000 Pending Design $575,000 50. • • RIVERSIDE-GO3NTY TRANSPORTATION-GOMMISSION MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM FY 2006-2010 Agency: CITY OF INDIO Prepared by: AMER H. MODARRESSI Date:, ,September 23.2005 Item Pro iectName/Limits Page 1 of 5 Proiect e Total Cost Measure "A" No. ($1,000's) funds ($1,000's) 1 Monroe St.(52 Ave to I.10) Preliminary engineering, final design, R.O.W., Construction engineering and $ 8,500 $4,250 Construction 2 Jefferson Street (Highway 111 to Indio Blvd..) Final design, R.O.W Construction $ 9,200 $1,100 Engineering, Construction 3 Jefferson /I-10Interchange Preliminary engineering, final design, R.O.W $20,000 $1,841 Construction engineering and Construction 4 Highway 111(Jefferson St. to Madison St.) Preliminary engineering,final design, R.O.W., Construction engineering and $ 5,592 $ 2, 3n Construction 5 Varner Road (Adams St. to Jefferson St.) Preliminary engineering, final design, R.O.W $ 4,000 $2,000 Constriction engineering and Construction GRAND TOTAL S 47,292 SI1,583 51 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION--- -- • • MEASURE "A" FOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM FY 2006-2007 Agency: CITY OF INDIO Prepared by: AMIR H. MODARRESSI Date: Sept. 23.2005 Item Project Name/Limits Page 2 of 5 Project Type Total Cost Measure "A" No. - ($1,000's) funds ($1,000's) 1 Monroe St.(52 Ave to I-] 0) Preliminary engineering; final design, R.O.W, Construction engineering and $4,000 $ 2,125 Construction 2 Jefferson Street (highway 111 to Indio Blvd.) Final design, R.O.W Construction $4,000 $ 1,000 Engineering, Construction 3 Jefferson /1-10 Interchange Preliminary engineering, final design, R.O.W $2,000 $ 200 4 Highway 111(Jefferson St, to Madison St.) Construction engineering and Construction, Preliminary engineering, final design, R.O.W., Construction engineering and $ 1,200 $ 200 Construction 5 Varner Road (Adams St. to Jefferson St.) ?reliminary engineering, final design, R.O.W $ 4,000 $ 2,000 Construction engineering and Construction GRAND TOTAL $15,200 $5,525 £9 001`11 00VLI$ 'Pain, (11 11J • uopannsuo0 pue autaaautaua uoganasuop "Ncyg - 000`Z S 000`4 'S 'ItSpap pug `$upaau!Sua SmutRunala uoganu;suo0 pue 8nuaatn8ua uouamsuop Os uosTew of -lg uasianaf)I T I denvq2111 4 00S $ 000`S$ h1'O'll VgIsap Pug ttitaaultua,Szsuttutlaad uatlatulsuo0 lupaaut8ag aSuegaaarg 0I-If tuosaa,Uat £ 001 $ 00Z`S$ uouannsuop m,•p•a tg•pap Ieuu uopatulsuao ptre Euuaaugina uopotulsuo0 '•i On (Pnta olpuI of T IT rtantEr2TH) ;aag.s 110532132f Z 00S'IS 000`£ $ ' 22Isap Ieuu'8uuaaui8ua krauraztlaid (0I-I of any ZS)•lS aoiuow 1 (s,000`IS) sPurd (s,000`IS) _ 'otz <,v„ atnssayni lso0 ploy adAi, laafoad S 3o i aged slltsn'I/autEN TOO Old u�11 sou 1daS :attiQ ISSd2 IVCEOW 111111W :Aq pa.tedaad 800Z-L00Z A.I I J02Id SQN113'I1'30`1 uVs, ailf1StlaW NOISSINNIOO NOIDAPIOEISNIVIIL MINT OD _-• °Km d0. yIO :szuo2v _ LTV Z68`6$ '1V,LO,L aNIVIID nopont;suo0 pue Sulzaau!Sua uoponmsaoo "Norm • Z61 S Z6£ $ 'uSlsap pug IuuaaaI2uo Antultnlla•41 aoponnsuo0 pus SnuaaalSua uogon.osno0 (is uoslpey,I of is uos.roN0I)I I I hmtl3l1-1 q 000`I $ 000`8$ WO'8 `uSlsaP [mu litilizatrpua Aaeu!u[lIolci uollontlsuo0 pus SnuoaalSua uo1lona lsuo0 `•Al'cra aSustlozawl01-UuosPRof • £ SZ9 $ 005` I $ `uSlsap Ism3 `Suuaaul$ua ii nuluip.td (ON of 0AV ZS)'3S aozuoNI 1 (st000`I$) MIT (sc000`IS) 'ON Ofs, aanseayq lso0 MO" add laafozd 5 Jo q aSed slgunmu elf loafazd Mall •500Z '£Z 'laaS :a1sQ ISSallITVQOIAT 'Ii d :Xq PalixaId 600Z-800Z A,I NOISSIZIMOD-MOILVAMOdSNIVII,L 111N1103 atais €anni OM II dO LLD :XouogV 99 01 $ Ibl $ 000`SS 000`SS Taal CiuVIIJ uopotutsuop puu SuuaaulSua uogon.gsuop 16'011 tfitsap tuug tuuaaut2ua Aruutuutard aSusgaraaur OI-l/ uoStajjaI £ (S,0004$) SPLIT 0,000'iS) 'ON ,SFr„ amseayq xso� MOI acikl pa ford S jog aazd sazun vouruR loaloxd �ualI SOOZ '£Z 'Wag :0113Q I5salruvaonraradaaa 0TOZ-600Z 1C3 b1lYaDolId SCIN1 4 IVD01.ccYr,'a2 fIS'V'.IItl SIOISSIIN3KODwod-,LvoiOdStstylI; iutsuioa-aarimmA,RI :• ()Jam do X LIB tkow8y AGENDA ITEM 7J RIVERS/DE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMM/SS/ON DATE: November 9, 2005 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Budget and Implementation Committee Jerry Rivera, Program Manager THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Division Head, Programming and Administration SUBJECT: Amendment to Measure "A" Capital Improvement Plan for Local Streets and Roads for the Cities of Desert Hot Springs and Palm Springs BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to approve the amendment to the: 1) FY 2005 Measure "A" Capital Improvement Plan for Local Streets and Roads for the City of Desert Hot Springs; and, 2) FY 2006 Measure "A" Capital Improvement Plan for Local Streets and Roads for the City of Palm Springs. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The Measure "A" Ordinance requires each recipient of streets and roads monies to annually provide to the Commission a five-year plan on how those funds are to be expended in order to receive their Measure "A" disbursements. In addition, the cities in the Coachella Valley and the County (representing the unincorporated area ' of the Eastern County) must be participating in CVAG's Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) program. The agencies are required to submit the annual certification of Maintenance of Effort (MOE) along with documentation supporting the calculation. The Measure "A" plan for the City of Palm Springs was approved by the Commission at its July 14, 2004 meeting. Any revisions to the adopted plan must be returned to the Commission for approval. The City of Palm Springs is requesting to amend its FY 2005 Measure "A" plan to include FY 2003-04 projects continued to FY 2005 and to add six (6) new projects to FY 2005. The Measure "A" plan for the City of Desert Hot Springs was approved by the Commission at its July 13, 2005 meeting. The City of Desert Hot Springs is requesting to amend its FY 2006 Measure "A" plan to move the Hacienda Avenue project from FY 2007-08 to the current year and transfer the Mesquite Avenue Agenda Item 7J 56 improvements to FY 2007-08. Thedeveloper adjacent to the Hacienda Avenue project has startedconstruction of their off site improvements. This revision will allow the city to do the other half of the improvements to this section of roadway at the same time to eliminate the bottle necking at this location and improve the safety of the, school crossing at the entrance to the school. Attachments: 1) City of Desert Hot Springs - Letter and Revised Schedule 2) City of Palm Springs - Letter and Revised Schedule Agenda Item 7J. 57 74088 JR City of Desert HotSprings September 22, 2005 Jerry Rivera, Program Manager Riverside County Transportation Commission P.O. Box 12008 Riverside, California 92502-2208 a[EIC aWE: SEP 3 0 2005 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION Subject: City of Desert Hot Springs Measure "A" Five Year Capital 2005-2006 — 2006-2010 Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) Dear Mr. Rivera: The City of Desert Hot Springs is requesting a transfer of the Mesquite Avenue Project FY 05-06 with the Hacienda Avenue Project FY 07-08 within the City's current Measure A Program. The Developer adjacent to the Hacienda Avenue Project has begun to construct their off site improvements and this is an good opportunity for the City to do the other half of the improvements to this section of roadway at the same time to eliminate the bottle necking at this location and improve the safety of the school crossing at the school entrance. Please find the attached program revisions. Thank you for your consideration of this request. Please don't hesitate to contact me at 760-329-6411, Ext. 243, if you have any questions or if you require additional documentation. Sincerely, cZ'+r an Patneaude Assistant City Engineer Enclosures Cc: Corky Larson John Soulliere Linda Kelly X.29.23 65950 Pierson Blvd. • Desert Hot Springs, CA 92240 • Telephone (760) 329-641 1 • www.desert-hot-springs.us 58 Agency: Prepared By: Phone 9: Date: • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE"A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM FISCAL YEAR 2005 - 2006 City of Desert Not Springs Dan Patneaude, Assistant City Engineer 760-329-6411, extension 243 May 23, 2005 Item No. Project Name/Limits Project Type Total Cost Measure "A" $ 56-1 City Wide Striping Improvements New striping and reflective paint imprv. $25,000.00 -$25,000.00 56-2 Mesquite Avenue Improvements - Ocotillo to Ironwood Pulverization and Reconstruction $200,000.00 $100,000.00 56-3 Pierson Blvd. Reconstruct - Miracle Rd to L. Morongo Street Improvement $2,900,000.00 $315,000.00 56-4 MSWD Sewer Projects - Joint Projects City Street Imprv, Sewer Assessments $500,000.00 $250,000.00 56-5 Two Bunch Palms AC Pavement Cap Cap out Two Bunch from Cuando to Verbena $100,000.00 $50,000.00 56-6 City Wide Slurry Seat Improvements Slurry Seal and Crack Seal Misc. Streets $250,000.00 $100,000.00 Totals $3,975,000.00 $840,000.00 59 Agency: Prepared By: Phone #: Date: RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM FISCAL YEAR 2007 - 2008 City of Desert Hot Springs Dan Patneaude, Assistant City Engineer 780-329-6411, extension 243 May 23, 2005 Item No. Project Name/Limits Project Type Total Cost Measure "A" $ 78-1 Hacienda Avenue - Mtn. View to McCarger Street/Storm Drain improvements $1,500,000.00 $50,000.00 78-2 Palm Drive - Pierson to Aventura Slurry Seal Slurry Seal and Crack Seal Improvements $300,000.00 $25,000.00 78-3 City Wide Slurry Seal Improvements Slurry Seal and Crack Seal Misc. Streets $250,000.00 $50,000.00 784 Multiple Streets - Club Circle, Catalpa, Acacia, etc Street Improvements - Reconstruction $1,100,000.00 $50,000.00 78-5 West Drive Slurry Seal - Pierson to Two Bunch Slurry and Sealing Improvements $150,000.00 $38,000.00 78-6 Streets with MSWD Street and Sewer Improvements $500,000.00 $125,000.00 78-7 City Wide Striping Improvements New striping and reflective paint imprv. $25,000.00 $25,000.00 Totals $3,825,000.00 $363,000.00 Agency: Prepared By: Phone #: - Date: • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM FISCAL YEAR 2005 - 2006 City of Desert Hot Springs Dan Patneaude, Assistant City Engineer 760-329-6411, extension 243 September 22, 2005 Item No. Pro act Name/Limits Pro'ect T pe Total Cost Measure "A" $ Wide Stri•ine Im•rovements i .yg.[urscahxyu�uaainums � $(25,000.00 dQO 8@ ski $2y5�,000.00 (- u, CD OM :�$5.x._. '��5.776yy-1 'Frh7;.�`_,irv9�"�ob (Cyiit �g - op 4IYT • - q rAl. - ,Le .tlllo t5/!_.�[awo•.drtil�IIIMA, t' }jury 6 't VI >iSf if. o dM'kx b�K. .-:,£ .. S:H.9i�&iL 56-3 ;Pierson Blvd. Reconstruct- Miracle Rd to L. Moron•o ;Street Im•rovement $2,900,000.00 $315,000.00 56-4 MSW D Sewer Pro'ects - Joint Pro ects Cit Street Im • rv. Sewer Assessments $500,000.00 $250,000.00 56-5 Two Bunch Palms AC Pavement Ca. • . .: • Ng. . . - • $100,000.00 $50,000.00 56-6 Cit Wide Slur Seal Im•rovements Slur Seal and Crack Seal Mist. Streets $250,000.00 $100,000,00 ADD FROM 2007--2008 -1111 $50,000.00 78-1 Hacienda Avenue - Mtn. View. to McCar•er Street/Storm Drain Im•rovements $1,500,000.00 ... 1. � � � (c a04 �.T.0- tJ 1�a) ri iit, o�® � .,._ i ». iMF�A..,%. ._1r— P t - PROJECT "ADD I i MOVE Totals 5,675,000.00 $990,000.00 61 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM FISCAL YEAR 2007 - 2008 Agency: City of Desert Hot Springs Prepared By: Dan Patneaude, Assistant City Engineer Phone #: 780-329-841 f, extension 243 DaterSeptember 22, 2005 Item No. , . Pro ect Name/Limits ., Pro ect T • e _ Total Cost IKEZEMILEM -MUM -a r_i E_W I 1 78-2 Pr° — -'�- e&_,' nl.:�`� ellar. `i° ... ' fa):% 7t. _' Slur Seal and Crack Seal Im.rovements .`, $` : .69ANNE $300,000.00 CriaTir gl s a a o a $25,000.00 Palm Drive- Pierson to Aventura Slur Seal 78-3 Ci Wide Slurr -Seal Im •rovements Slur Seal and Crack Seal Misc. Streets ! $250,000.00 $50,000.00 78-4 Multi•le Streets -:Club Circle; Catai.a, Acacia, etc Street Im•rovements -'Reconstruction $1,100,000.00 $50,000.00 78-5 . . West- Drive 'Sill Seal - Pierson to Two Bunch Slur; and Sealin. Im.rovements $150 000.00 $38,000 00 78-6 _ Streets with MSWD Street and Sewer im•rovements $500,000.00 _ $125,000.00 78-7 _ Ci Wide Stri.i . lm•rovements aliklillaltrilailkilubdiElli $25,000.00 $25,000.00 ADD FROM 20054008 56-2 r- tFJ Mes•uite AvenueIm-ce—rfovVemen_ts-.O�.c,o'attil.loto lro.nwoo Pulverization a°-nd Retc...o—n_struction 0 .._$_100,000.0_0 1 ..: r_ - Jar ''vss r� — . I - . I�,c Y.Yi7A2rI:et6 A'+L7A"} r � �Fi r- wJ,il:lU�M.U�.J _.. �$200,000,0 [AG O O O I _.,_ �4�A�7JwOO'Q'"� [ ,' -.. -71 PROJECT ADD r, -. !MOVE I Totals 5,525,000.00 513,000.00 i I 73359 JR City of Palm Springs Department of Public Works and Engineering 3200 E. T.hyuitz Canyon Way • Palm Springs, California 92262 Tel: (760) 323-8253 • Fax: (760) 322-8360 • Web: www.ci.palm-springs.ca.us August 17, 2005 Mr. Jerry Rivera Measure "A" Program Manager Riverside County Transportation Commission 4080 Lemon Street. 3rd Floor Riverside, CA 92502-2208 91 AUG 24 2.005 MAISPOR MIONSOE OCOM�SSION Re: Approved FY 2005-09 5-year Local Measure "A" Local Streets Se Roads Program -REVISION Dear Mr. Rivera: I am enclosing a second revision to the revised Measure A lists for funds that were to be included on the "2003/2004 continued to 2004/2005" table and the "2004/2005" table for FY 2005-2009.5-Year Plan. There were additions made to the table that was sent to you with our letter dated July 20, 2005 and notations to additional projects were included per your request. Please replace the previous pages referenced above that were sent to you earlier. Measure A Fund balances are as of 08/25/04. Please review and call to let us know how to best organize this clarification or if you have any questions. I presume it is better to clarify this now rather than trying to re-create it and explain during an audit. Sincerely, David J. Barakian Director of Public Works/City Engineer DJB/clr Attachments: FY 2005-2009 5-Year Plan - 2003/2004 continued to 2004/2005 table correction (pg 1 oft) FY 2005-2009 5-Year Plan - 2003/2004 continued to 2004/2005 table correction (pg 2of2) FY 2005-2009 5-Year Plan - 2004/2005 table correction (pg lofl) xc: David H. Ready, City Manager Troy Butzlaff, Assistant City Manager Craig Graves, Director of Finance/Treasurer Nancy Klukan, Accounting Manager Post Office Box 2743 • Palm ngs, California 92263-2743 X.29.15 RIVERSI ON MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM -REVISED Agency: City of Palm Springs Preparedby: David J. Barakian, Director of Public Works/City Engineer(byMarcus L. Fuller, Senior Civil Engineer) Date: June 14, 2004 FY2005-2009, 5-Year Measure "A" Local Street & Roads Program (FY 2003/2004 continued to 2004/2005)-REVISED ITEM NO, __ PROJECT NAME/LIMITS PROJECT TYPE TOTAL COST MEAS. "A" FLTNDS I. Amado Rd, Calle Alvarado & Ave Caballeros (near Cony. Center) Street Improvements 175,000 175,000 2. Gene Autry Trail RR Bridge WW Wash Design Phase (NEPA Environmental) 2,481,000 61,000 3. Indian Canyon Drive a WW Wash Design Phase 2,000,000 141,000 4. Traffic Safety Projects Various Locations 40,000 22,806 5. North Indian Canyon Drive (Side Street Closures) Street Reconstruction 75,000 75,000 ♦ 6. Annual SB-821 Sidewalk Project (FY 03/04) * Install Sidewalks -Ramon Road 51,000 3,711 ♦ 7. Gene Autry/Ramon Median Landscape * 2000/01 TEA Grant (Local Match) 1,152,000 53,000 ♦ 8. • Slurry Seal Program Various Locations (Contract Crews) 200,000 156,782 ♦ 9. Bridge Repairs Various Bridges 02/03 Plan 37,000 37,000 ♦ 10. Belardo Road Bridge # Federal PLH-D Grant (Local Match) 03I04 Plan 4,083,00.0 236,000 ♦ 11, Indian Canyon Drive - Widening # Widening from 2 to 4 lanes (thru wash) 02/03 Plan 200,000 33,000 ♦ 12. Mesquite/Desert Way # Street Widening 03/04 Plan 525,000 522,750 • 13...-PM-10 PavingMatch -.... ._._. __.... _.-P-M-10-Dust- Control -Measures •..--- .. — 11,150 11,150 ♦ 14. Indian/I-10 Interchange New 6-lane interchange 03/04 Plan 1,600,000 200,000 ♦ 15. Gene Autry/I-10 Interchange New 6-lane interchange 03/04 Plan 12,228,000 494,817 ♦ 16. Indian Avenue UPRR Bridge # Construct 6-lane Railroad Crossing 03/04 Plan 2,000,000 40,000 Page 1 of 2 64 Revised -August 17, 2005 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM-REV/SED Agency: City of Palm Springs Prepared by: David J. Barakian, Director of Public Works/City Engineer (by Marcus L. Fuller, Senior Civil Engineer) Date: June 14, 2004 FY2005-2009, 5-Year Measure "A" Local Street & Roads Program (FY 2003/2004 continued to 2004/2005)-REVISED ITEM NO. . PROJECT NAME/LIMITS _ _ PROJECT_TYPE _ TOTAL COST MEAS. "A" FUNDS • 17. Traffic Signal Flow Improvements * Signal Modifications 7,453 7, 453 • 18. Traffic Signal at Racquet Club & Caballeros * New Traffic Signal 150,000 8,732 • 19. S8821 Sidewalk FY 02/03 * Install Sidewalk.s behind curbs -Racquet Clb 40,000 30,704 . 20. AREpvi Overlay Various Locations (Contract Crews) 03/04 Plan 200,000 198,384 Previous 03/04 Continued to 04/05 TOTALS $4,771,000 $492,000 Amended 03/04 Continued to 04/05 TOTALS $27,255,603 $2,508,289 , 02/03 Plan - Was approved in previous 02/03 five year plan 03/04 Plan - Was approved in previous 03/04 five year plan * - Project complete and funds remaining # - Banking funds for future • - Additional project Per our conversation and the attached letter, Items #6-#20 are being added to this table, Note: These are current RCTC approved FY2003/2004 Projects that need to be "continued" to FY 2004/2005 • Page 2 of 2 65 • • Revised -August 17, 2005 • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRA.ORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM -REVISED_ Agency: City of Palm Springs Prepared by: David J. Barakian, Director of Public Works/City Engineer (by Marcus L. Fuller, Senior Civil Egineer) Date: June 14, 2004 FY2005-2009, 5-Year Measure "A" Local Street & Roads Program (FY 2004/2005)-REVISED ITEM NO. PROJECT NAME/LIMITS PROJECT TYPE TOTAL . COST, MEAS. "A" FUNDS 1. Annual Street Slurry Seals (Contract) Various Locations (Contract Crews) 600,000 600,000 2. ARHM Rubber Asphalt Street Overlays (Contract) Various Locations (Contract Crews) 173,578 173,578 3. Annual SB-821 Sidewalk Safety Project (1) Install Sidewalks behind curbs -Farrell Drive 125,947 85,947 4. Gene Autry Widening across Whitewater Wash Widen from 2 to 4 lanes 3,180,000 796,000 5. Mid -Valley Parkway Reimbursement - CVAG Street Improvements 10,422 10,422 6. Traffic Safety Projects Various Locations 40,000 40.000 ♦ 7. Belardo Road Bridge Federal PLH-D 4,083,000 73,456 ♦ 8. Indian Canyon Drive Widening RCTC STP 99/00 Grant (Local Match) 200,000 73,609 ♦ 9. Indian/I-10Interchange New Interchange (City Share of Joint.Project) 1,300,000 127,913 ♦ 10. Indian Avenue UPRR Bridge HERR Federal Grant 200,000 30,720 ♦ 11. Indian Canyon @ WW Wash Design Phase 2,000,000 9,000 ♦ 12. Bridge Repairs Various Bridges 42,000 5,642 Previous FY 2004/2005 TOTALS $4,054,000 $1,630,000 Amended FY 2004/05.TOTALS $11,954,947 $2,026,287 (1) Includes remaining funds of $45,243 from Item #7 and funds of $30,704 from Item #19 of the 2005-2009 5-Year Plan, 2003/2004 cont to 2004/2005 Project Table, for a total of $75,947 in shifted funds. _Additional project Per our phone conversation and the attached. letter, Items #7-#12 are being added to this table. Page 16(gf Revised August 17, 2005 AGENDA ITEM 7K RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: November 9, 2005 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Budget and Implementation Committee Jerry Rivera, Program Manager THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Division Head, Programming and Administration SUBJECT: Fund Transfer Agreement No. 06-45-550 for Operation of Freeway Service Patrol Program in Riverside County a BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Approve the Fund Transfer Agreement No. 06=45-550 with the State of California Department of Transportation for the Riverside County Freeway Service Patrol program in the amount of $1,175,933 in State funding for FY 2005-06; and, 2) Authorize the Chairman, pursuant to Legal Counsel review, to execute the Agreement on behalf of the Commission. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The Riverside County Freeway Service Patrol (FSP) program has been in operation for over ten years and provides roving tow truck service on five beats on SR 91, I-215(SR 60, and 1-15 during the morning and afternoon commute hours. The FSP program is funded by the State of California (80%) and local SAFE fees (20%). Funds are allocated to participating agencies through a formula based on population, urban freeway lane miles, and levels of congestion. The agreement for FY 2005-06 provides for continued State funding in the amount of $1,175,933 and requires a local match of $293,984. This is an increase of $104,565 in State funds over the funding level for FY 2004-05. The, Commission's FY 2005-06 budget for the Motorist Assistance Program includes $1,009,200 in State funding and $252,300 in local matching funds. The additional State and local match funds are not being requested at this time. Staff, along with the CHP and Caltrans, will review the hours of operation and service level to determine if any additional service is warranted. Any State funds not claimed in the current fiscal year may be carried over and claimed in FY 2006-07. Agenda Item 7K 67 Annually, the program provides approximately 32,500 assists to stranded motorists along Riverside county freeways. The Commission contracts with three tow truck operators to provide thirteen tow trucks to patrol these routes Monday through Friday during the peak commute hours, 5:00 a.m. to 8:30 a.m. and 3:00 p.m to 7:00 p.m. The programs day to day field supervision is handled by the California Highway Patrol. Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: Yes ' Year: FY 2005-06 Amount: $1,009,200 Source of Funds: State of California Budget Ad ustment: No GLA No.: 201-45-41505 Fiscal Procedures Approved: \14 Date: 10/17/05 Attachment: FSP Program Fund Transfer Agreement No. 06-45-550 Agenda Item 7K 68 FREEWAY SERVICE PATROL PROGRAM FUND TRANSFER AGREEMENT (Non Federal) Agreement No.. FSP08-6054(043) Location: 08-RIV-Var-RCTC Project No. FSP06-6054(043) EA: 08-924922L THIS AGREEMENT, effective on July 1, 2005, is between the State of Califomia, acting by and through the Department of Transportation, hereinafter referred to as STATE, and the Riverside County Transportation Commission, a public agency, hereinafter referred to as 'ADMINISTERING AGENCY." WHEREAS, Streets and Highways Code (S&HC) Section 2560 et seq., authorizes STATE and administering agencies to develop and implement a Freeway Service Patrol (FSP) program on traffic -congested urban freeways throughout the state; and WHEREAS, STATE has distributed available, State Highway Account funds to administering agencies participating in the FSP Program in accordance with S&HC Section 2562; and WHEREAS, ADMINISTERING AGENCY has applied to STATE and has been selected to receive funds from the FSP Program for the purpose of Freeway Service Patrol for FY 2005-2006, hereinafter referred to as "PROJECT"; and WHEREAS, proposed PROJECT funding is as follows: I Total Cost $1,469,917.00 State Funds $1,175,933.00 Local Funds $293,984.00 ; and WHEREAS, STATE is required to enter into an agreement with ADMINISTERING AGENCY to delineate the respective responsibilities of the parties relative to prosecution of said PROJECT; and WHEREAS, STATE and ADMINISTERING AGENCY mutually desire, to cooperate and jointly participate in the FSP program and desire to specify herein the terms and conditions under which the FSP program is to be conducted; and, WHEREAS, ADMINISTERING AGENCY has approved entering Into this Agreement under authority of Resolution No. approved by ADMINISTERING AGENCY. on a copy of which is attached:. For Caftans Use Only 1 hereby Certify upon my own personal knowledge that budgeted funds are available for this encumbrance Officer 1 Da I $1,175,933.00. Chapterl Statutes) Hen, 1 Fiscai Y ram I tic 'category Fund Source I $ 38 12005 l 2660-102-042 l 2005/2006 l 20.30.010.600 I C 1262040 1114-042 T 11175 q3 3.00 I 1 I l/ / Page 1 of 7 69 Non -Fed FSP NOW, THEREFORE, the parties agree as follows: SECTION I STATE AGREES: li. To define or specify, in cooperation with ADMINISTERING AGENCY, the limits of the State Highway segments to be served by the FSP as well as thenatureand amount of the FSP dedicated equipment, if any, that is to be funded under the FSP program. 2. To pay 'ADMINISTERING AGENCY the STATE's share, in amount not to exceed $1,175,933.00, of eligible participating PROJECT costs. - 3. ToDepositwith. ADMINISTERING AGENCY, upon ADMINISTERING AGENCY's award of a contract for PROJECT services and receipt of an original and two signed copies of an invoice in the proper form, including identification of this Agreement Number and Project Number, from ADMINISTERING AGENCY, the amount of $188,149.28. This initial deposit represents STATE's share of the estimated costs for the initial two months of PROJECT. Thereafter, to make reimbursements to ADMINISTERING AGENCY as promptly as state fiscal procedures will permit, but not more often than monthly in arrears, upon receipt of an original and two signed copies of invoices in the proper form covering actual allowable costs incurred for the prior sequential month's period of the Progress Payment Invoice: (The initial deposit will be calculated at 16% of the STATE's total share.) _ 4. When conducting an audit of the costs claimed by ADMINISTERING AGENCY under the provisions of this'Agreement, STATE will rely to the maximum extent possible on any prior audit of ADMINISTERING AGENCY performed pursuant to the provisions of state and federal laws: In the absence of such an audit, work of other auditors will be relied upon to the extent that work is acceptable to STATE when planning and conducting additional audits: SECTION II: ADMINISTERING AGENCY AGREES: 1. To commit and contribute matching funds from ADMINISTERING AGENCY resources, which _ shall be an amount not less than 25 percent of the amount provided by STATE from the State Highway Account. 2: The ADMINISTERING AGENCY's detailed PROJECT Cost Proposal which identifies all anticipated direct and indirect PROJECT costs which ADMINISTERING AGENCY may invoice STATE for reimbursement under this Agreement is 'attached hereto and made an express part of this Agreement. The detailed, PROJECT Cost Proposal reflects the provisions and/or regulations of Section III, Article 8, of this Agreement. • Page 2 of 7 70 Non -Fed FSP _ • 3. To use all state funds paid hereunder only for those transportation related PROJECT purposes that conform to Article XIX of the California State Constitution. 4! STATE funds provided to ADMINISTERING AGENCY under this Agreement shall not be used for administrative purposes by ADMINISTERING AGENCY. 5. To develop, in cooperation with STATE, advertise, award and administer PROJECT contracfs) . in accordance with ADMINISTERING AGENCY competitive procurement, procedures. 6. Upon award of a contract for PROJECT, to prepare and submit to STATE an original and two Signed copies of invoicing for STATE's initial deposit specified in Section I, Article 3. Thereafter, to prepare and submit to STATE an original and two signed copies of progress invoicing for STATE's share of actual expenditures for allowable PROJECT costs. 7. Said invoicing shall evidence the expenditure of ADMINISTERING AGENCY's PROJECT participation in paying not less than 20% of all allowable PROJECT costs -and shall contain the information described in Chapter 5 of the Local Assistance Procedures Manual and shall be mailed to the Department of Transportation, Accounting Service Center, MS 33, Local Program Accounting Branch, P.O. Box 942874, Sacramento CA, 94274-0001. 8. Within 60 days after completion of PROJECT work to be reimbursed under this Agreement, to prepare a final invoice reporting all actual eligible costs expended, including all costs paid by ADMINISTERING AGENCY and submit that signed invoice, along with any refund due STATE, to the District Local Assistance Engineer. Backup information submitted with said final invoice shalt j include all FSP operational contract invoices paid by ADMINISTERING AGENCY to contracted operators included in expenditures billed for to STATE under this Agreement. 9: COST PRINCIPLES A) ADMINISTERING AGENCY agrees to comply with, and require all project sponsors to comply with, Office of Management and Budget Circular A-87, Cost Principles for State and Local Government, .and 49 CFR, Part 18, Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants and Cooperative Agreements to State and Local Governments. B) ADMINISTERING AGENCY will assure that its Fund' recipients will be obligated to agree that 1., Contract Cost Principles and Procedures, 48 CFR, Federal Acquisition Regulations` System, Chapter 1, Part 31, et seq., shall be used to determine the allowability of individual PROJECT cost items and 2., those parties shall comply with Federal administrative procedures in accordance with 49 CFR, Part 18, Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants and Cooperative Agreements to State and Local Govemments. Every sub -recipient receiving Funds as a contractor or subcontractor under this Agreement shall comply with Federal administrative procedures in accordance with 49 CFR, Part 18, Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants and Cooperative Agreements to State and Local Governments. Page 3 of 7 71 Non -Fed FSP • C) Any Fund expenditures for costs for which ADMINISTERING AGENCY has received payment or credit that are determined by subsequent audit to be unallowable under Office of Management and Budget Circular A-87, 48 CFR, Chapter 1, Pad 31 or 49 CFR, Part 18, are subject to repayment by ADMINISTERING AGENCY to STATE. Should ADMINISTERING AGENCY faillo reimburse Fund moneys due STATE within 30 days of demand, or within such other period as ,may be agreed in writing between the Parties hereto, STATE is authorized to intercept and withhold future payments due ADMINISTERING AGENCY from STATE or any third -party source, including, but not limited to, the State Treasurer, the State Controller and the California Transportation Commission. 10. THIRD;PARTY CONTRACTING A) ADMINISTERING AGENCY shall not award a construction contract over $10,000 or other contracts over $25,000 [excluding professional service contracts' of the type which, are required to be procured in accordance with Government Code Sections 4525 (d), (e) and Oil on the basis of a noncompetitive negotiation for work to be performed using Funds without the prior written approval of STATE. B) Any subcontract or agreement entered into by ADMINISTERING AGENCY as a result of Ai disbursing F,unds received pursuant to this Agreement shall contain all of the fiscal provisions of MP this Agreement and shall mandate that travel and per diem reimbursements and third -party contract reimbursements to subcontractors will be allowable as project costs only after those costs are incurred and paid for by the subcontractors. C) In addition to the above, the preaward requirements of third party contractor/consultants with ADMINISTERING AGENCY should be consistent with Local Program Procedures as published by STATE. 11. ACCOUNTING SYSTEM ADMINISTERING AGENCY, its contractors and subcontractors shall establish and maintain an accounting systemand records that properly accumulate and segregate Fund expenditures by line item. The accounting system of ADMINISTERING AGENCY, , its contractors and all subcontractors shall conform to Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP), enable the determination of incurred costs at interim points of completion, and provide support for reimbursernent payment vouchers or invoices. Page 4 of 7 72 Non -Fed FSP • • • 12. RIGHT TO AUDIT For the purpose of determining compliance with this Agreement and other matters connected with the performance of ADMINISTERING AGENCY's contracts with third parties, ADMINISTERING AGENCY, ADMINISTERING AGENCY's contractors and subcontractors and STATE shall each Maintain and make available for inspection all books, documents, papers, accounting records, and other evidence pertaining to the performance of such contracts, including, but not limited to, the costs of administering those various contracts. All of the above referenced parties shall make Such materials available at their respective offices at all reasonable times for three years from the date of final payment of Funds to ADMINISTERING AGENCY. STATE, the California State Auditor, or any duly authorized representative of STATE or the United States Department of Transportation, shall each have access to any books, records, and documents that are pertinent for audits, examinations, excerpts, and transactions, and ADMINISTERING AGENCY shall furnish copies thereof if requested. 113. TRAVEL AND SUBSISTENCE Payments to only ADMINISTERING AGENCY for travel and subsistence expenses of ADMINISTERING AGENCY forces and its subcontractors claimed for reimbursement or applied as local match credit shall not exceed rates authorized to be paid exempt non-representedState employees under current State Department of Personnel Administration (DPA) rules. If the rates invoiced are in excess of those authorized DPA rates, ,then ADMINISTERING AGENCY is responsible for the cost difference and any overpayments shall be reimbursed to STATE on demand. 14. SINGLE AUDIT ADMINISTERING AGENCY agrees to include all state (Funds) and federal funded projects in the schedule of projects to be examined in ADMINISTERING AGENCY's annual audit and in the schedule of projects to be examined under its single audit prepared in accordance with Office of Management and Budget Circular A-133. SECTION III. IT IS MUTUALLY AGREED: 1. Ali obligations of STATE under the terms of this Agreement are subject to the appropriation of resources by the Legislature and the encumbrance of funds under this Agreement. Funding and ' reimbursement is available only upon the passage of the State Budget Act containing these STATE funds. The starting date of eligible reimbursable activities shall be July 1, 2005. 2. All obligations of ADMINISTERING AGENCY under the terms of this Agreement are subject to authorization and allocation of resources by ADMINISTERING AGENCY. Page 5 of 7 73 Non -Fed FSP 3'. ADMINISTERING AGENCY and STATE shall jointly define the initial FSP program as well as the appropriate level of FSP funding recommendations and scope of service and equipment 410 required to provide and manage the FSP program_ No changes shall be made in these unless mutually agreed to in writing by the parties to this Agreement. 4. Nothing in the provisions of this Agreement is intended to create duties or obligations to or rights in third parties not parties to this Agreement or affect the legal liability of either party to this Agreement by imposing any standard of care with respect to the maintenance of State highways different from the standard of care imposed by law. 5. Neither STATE nor any officer or employee thereof is responsible for any injury, damage or liability occurring or arising by reason of anything done or omitted to be done by ADMINISTERING AGENCY under or in connection with any work, authority or jurisdiction delegated to ADMINISTERING AGENCY under this Agreement. It is understood and agreed that, pursuant to Government Code Section 895.4, ADMINISTERING AGENCY shall fully defend, indemnify and save harmless the State of California, its officers and employees from all claims, suits or actions of every name, kind and description brought for or on account of injury (as defined in Govemment Code Section 810.8) occurring by reason of anything done or omitted to be done by ADMINISTERING AGENCY under or in connection with any work, authority or jurisdiction delegated to ADMINISTERING AGENCY under this Agreement_ 6_ Neither ADMINISTERING AGENCY nor any officer or employee thereof is'responsible 'for any injury,damage or liability occurring or arising by reason of anything done or omitted to be done by STATE_ under or in connection with any work, authority or jurisdiction delegated to STATEunder this Agreement. It is understood and agreed that, pursuant to Govemment Code Section 895.4, STATE shall fully defend, indemnify and save harmless ADMINISTERING AGENCY, its officers and employees from all claims, suits or actions of every name, kind and description brought for or on account of injury (as defined in Govemment Code Section 810.8) occurring by reason of anything done or omitted to be done by STATE under or in connection with any work, authority or jurisdiction delegated to STATE under this Agreement. 7. ADMINISTERING AGENCY will maintain an inventory of all non -expendable PROJECT equipment, defined as having a useful life of at least two years and an acquisition cost of $500 or more, paid for with PROJECT funds. At the conclusion of this Agreement, ADMINISTERING AGENCY may either keep such equipment and credit STATE its share of equipment's fair market value or sell such equipment at the best price obtainable at a public or private sale (in accordance with established STATE procedures) and reimburse STATE its proportional share of ,the sale price. 8. ADMINISTERING AGENCY and its sub -contractors will comply with all applicable: Federal and State laws and regulations, including but not limited to, Office of Management and Budget Circular A-97, Cost Principles for State and Local Govemments 09 CFR, Part 18, Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants and Cooperative Agreements to State and Local Governments). 9. In the event that ADMINISTERING AGENCY fails to operate the PROJECT commenced and reimbursed under this Agreement in accordance with the terms of this Agreement or fails to comply with applicable Federal and State laws and regulations, STATE reserves the right to terminate funding for PROJECT, or portions thereof, upon written notice to ADMINISTERING AGENCY. Page 6 of 7 74 Non -Fed FSP 10. This Agreement shall terminate on June 30, 2007. However, the non -expendable equipment and liability clauses shall remain in effect until terminated or modified in writing by mutual agreement. STATE OF CALIFORNIA Riverside County Transportation Commission. Department of Transportation By: By: Office of Project Implementation, South - Title: Division of Local Assistance Date: Date: Page 7 of 7 75 Non -.Fed FSP AGENDA ITEM 7L RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMM/SS/ON DATE: November 9, 2005 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Budget and Implementation Committee Jerry Rivera, Program Manager THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Division Head, Programming and Administration SUBJECT: Request from the City of Banning to Reprogram Fiscal ` Year 2004-2005 SB 821 Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities Program Funds BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to approve the request from the City of Banning to reprogram FY 2004-05 SB 821 funds. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The City of Banning was allocated $202,500 in FY 2004-05 SB 821 funds for construction of six (6) sidewalk improvement projects. The City will provide a 50% match of $202,500 for the six projects. The construction contract for Project No. 2005, "A.C. Overlay, Pavement Rehabilitation and .Sidewalk Improvements on Various Streets and Site Improvement at the City Yard" was awarded by the City Council on September 27, 2005. The six projects were included in the award. As indicated in the city's letter dated September 28, 2005, one of the projects came in under the estimated cost by $11,959 and four (4) of the projects came in over the estimated cost by $15,444. The city is requesting to reprogram the unused portion of SB 821 funding ($5,979.50 or 50%) from the one under -spent project to the four over -spent projects. Should the Commission approve the city's request, there would be no additional cost to the Commission, and these funds have not been made available to any other agency. Agenda Item 7L 76 Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: N/A Year: FY 2005-06 Amount: N/A Source of Funds: Local Transportation Funds Art. 3 Budget Ad ustment: N/A GLA No.: A601-62-86106 P 2210 Fiscal Procedures Approved: \41.4,14403/ Date: 10/17/05 Attachment; Letter from City of Banning Agenda Item 7L 77 ESTABLISHED 1913 PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT September 28, 2005 74084 CB/JR CITY of BANNING 99 E. Ramsey St. • P.O. Box 998 • Banning, CA 92220-0998 • (909) 922-3130 • Fax (909) 922-3141 Ms. Cathy Bechtel, Assistant Director of Planning Riverside. County Transportation Commission 3560 University Avenue, Suite 100 Riverside, CA 92501 _ u SEP'e2:1 RIVERSID TY TRANSPORTATION r al,! IS iON Attn: Jerry Rivera, Program Manager Re: Request to Reprogram FY 2004-05 SB-821 Program Funds for Nicolet Middle School, Nicolet Street, Williams Street, 20t Street, George Street and Hoffer Street Sidewalk Projects . ;Gentlemen: The City of Banning received six S13-821 Grants in Fiscal Year 2004-05 for the following sidewalk improvements: 1. Nicolet Middle School, on Alessandro Road from Wilson Street to George Street, and on George Street, from Alessandro Road to Florida Street, in an amount of 2. Nicolet Street, from San Gorgonio Avenue to Hathaway Street, in an amount of 3. Williams Street, from Sunset Avenue to Sunrise Avenue, in an amount of 4. 20`h Street, from Wilson Street to Nicolet Street, in an amount of 5. George Street, from Sunset Avenue to Sylvan Avenue, in an amount of 6. Hoffer Street, from Phillips Avenue to Hargrave Street, in an amount of Total Amount: $33,500.00 $55,000.00 $36,500.00 $18,000.00 $14,500.00 $45,000.00 $202,500.00_ The construction contract for Project No. 2005-01, "A.C. Overlay; Pavement Rehabilitation and Sidewalk Improvements on Various Streets, and Site improvements at the City Yard," includes the ;above listed sidewalk improvements as part of Bid Schedules III, IV, V, VI, VII, and VIII, respectively. The contract was awarded by the City Council to Silvia Construction, Inc., on September 27, 2005. 'Attached as Exhibit "A" is a table of the SB-821 Grant, estimated cost, actual bid price, and reprogramming request for each Bid Schedule. 78 Due to the underrun. on Bid Schedule VIII (unused $5,979.50 in SB-821 funding or $11,959.00 in total funding) and the overruns on Bid Schedules IV, V, VI, and VII (short of $7,722.00 in SB-821 funding or $15,444.00 in total funding), the City would like to request the reprogramming of the extra funds available in Bid Schedule VIII ($5,979.50) to Bid Schedules IV, V, VI, and VII. Please note that Nicolet Middle School (Bid Schedule III) is the only project with funding that matches the original Grant amount of $33,500.00. Tliis would ensure that the City of Banning receives the total available. SB-821 grant funding of $2,02,500.00, which was awarded previously. Note that the estimated six SB-821 project costs were $405,000.00 and the actual total bid amount submitted by Silvia Construction, Inc. is, $411,280.00. Thank you for your consideration in this matter and should you have any questions; please contact me at •'(951) 922-3130. Sincerely, anw, f Jo,LLAL Ann MarieLoconte Associate Engineer Attach. 4-occ-A1M— Copy: Duane Burk, Public Works Director Kahono Qei City Engineer Bonnie Johnson, Finance Director 79 Bid • EXHIBIT "A" SB-821 Estimated Actual Schedule Location Grant Cost Bid III Nicolet $33,500.00 $67,000.00 $69,795.00 NIA Middle School IV Nicolet $55,000.00 $110,000.00 $118,555.00 Street V Williams $36,500.00 $73,000.00 $76,422.00 Street VI 20t Street $18,000.00 $36,000.00 $37,067.00 VII George $14,500.00 $29,000.00 $31,400.00 Street VIII Florida Street Total Amount Total Balance of Funding $8,555.00 $3,422.00 $1,067.00 $2,400.00 $45,000.00 $90,000.00 $78,041.00 $11,959.00 $202,500.00 $405,000.00 $411,280.00 80 Reprogramming of SB-821 Grant $0.00 $2,535.00 $1,711.00 $533.50 $1,200.00 $<5,979.50> $0.00 AGENDA ITEM 7M RIVERS/DE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: November 9, 2005 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Plans and Programs Committee Sheldon Peterson, Staff Analyst Stephanie Wiggins, Rail Department Manager THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Division Head, Programming and Administration SUBJECT: Commuter Rail Program Update PLANS AND PROGRAMS COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to receive and file the Commuter Rail Program Update as an information item. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Riverside Line 5,200 5,000 fl. 4,800 .c 4,600 O 4,400 4,200 4,000 Passenger Trips Riverside Line 54; ck Ah Ah 0 oh Qh ob oh oh Month 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. Agenda Item 7Nl 81 100 d 95 c 90 d 85 u m 80 a 75 70 . On Time Performance (95% Goal) Riverside Line oh po oh oh ,00 ,off o`' oh o`o Oo� �o, oe' ��� ��� ,v§ PQ� 4,, P.0 ��cl 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 TOTAL 1 7 0 7% 50% 0% 43 % • 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. Agenda Item 7M 82 Inland Empire Orange County Line 4,200 4,000 e. 3,800 3,600 3,400 3,200 3,000 Passenger Trips Inland Empire Orange County Line p° O° A° 0 A(' od) oOA`' co 0 N4 0 Sao (<�� lac QP� �,V �JO , �J Poo g¢� Month Passenger trips on Metrolink's Inland Empire -Orange County (IEOC) Linefor the month of September averaged 3,943 an increase of 162 riders or (+4%) change from the month of August. The line has increased 1 1 % from a year- ago September 2004. On Time Performance (95% Goal) Inland Empire Orange County Line 100 95 90 85 80 75 70 4, Op` 4. 4 ., O� O� O� O� O`O Oy O Oy 5090� °, Off, )a� Qom 4` •%.\*a� �o�Ov PEA c,& Month September on -time performance averaged 86% southbound (-9% from August) and 94%' northbound (-1 % from August). There were 24 delays greater than ,five minutes during the month of September, an increase of 10 from the previous month. Agenda Item 7M 83 The primary causes were: Dispatching Mechanical Other 91 Line Passenger Trips 91 Line 2,200 2,000 p 1,800 .c 1- 1,600 qt 1,400 1,200 1,000 4% 54% 4% 38%_ PP` pt'` ob cAh\oh 0/ 0"- oJ" �d� 6s .0 e1 Os 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 90 85 80 75 70 On Time Performance (95% Goal) 91 Line O� `N J,dx ,CP` _Qd Oh h spy p� ph �md �° p� �� Q�� Q9 41 s.> Month Agenda Item 7M 84 i September on -time performance averaged 95% inbound (0% from August) and 93% outbound (-4To from August). There were 11 delays greater than five minutes during the month of September, an increase of 3 from August. The primary causes were: Signals/MOW/Track Dispatching Mechanical Other Metrolink Thanksgiving Day IEOC Service Metrolink Thanksgiving Day_ train service is back for the 3rd year. The service will assist with travel to family and friends on one of the busiest travel days of the year. Service will be available to passengers both to and from the Inland Empire. This year Metrolink has added an advance ticket feature so riders can buy their tickets early at the stations. Up to three children (17 & under) can ride for free with a fare paying adult. Also adults will get 25% off the weekday fare and tickets purchased on Thursday can be used for a Friday return. Below is a modified schedule for the train service on the IEOC line. There is also one round trip to from Downtown Riverside to Los Angeles on the San Bernardino Line. On Friday, November 25th, an adjusted schedule will run on all Metrolink Routes. RCTC is working with OCTA on a joint marketing project to increase patronage for the Thanksgiving Day service. 861 9:10 9.17 < 9:24 L9:43< L9.51 L956 L10133 1015 INLAND - ORANGE COUNTY/1E0C) LINE Thanskgkimg Da Schedule November 24th, 2003 Southbound -READ DOWN Northbound - READ UP 863 ;' 865 867 869 871: STATIONS 862 864 866 868 '870 872 L11.21 L11:26 L1133 BOLD =PM. L12.51 RIVERSIDE -DOWNTOWN RMERSIDE-LA SIERRA NORTH MAIN CORONA UUESTCORONA ANAHEIM CANYON L6 59 L7 03 7:16 L=May leave up to 5'minutes early. L11:21 Attachment: Metrolink Performance Summaries - September 2005 Agenda Item 7M 85 NN11021131Nll i CD CO 900z aegweplas S3Ibt/WWf1S 33NVIA1/10dt13d )1N 10):113`W NOISSIMOO NOI1V1110dSNVE Ofi033GiS0 811id SOU V 1130 l k t13 3 eurl-mel siaPIN �SePleeNt Bny EnvlPeunt ID /04iPH®l SO•deS SO.6nV SOinf-SDrunf 90-412Ytl 90-AV 90•J411 .. \\\\: \\\\\ 04 400.6E 50-uvf 40-3a0 40•+oN to -PO 40-6e9 000.0Z 000'ZZ 000'4Z 000'9Z 000'n ODO'Of 000.4£ 000'9£ 000'sf 649'B£ L£4'6£ 49S'6£ -' �- - 000'04 9£9.9£. Z86'L£ SciaL 213JN3SSbd AVCD133M 30Y83Ad )1N1102113111 000'Z4 I 1 1 oTr .4raa .. 'd f �+ 1.Z11'o'r:. •. §.1* „v i5ir!n kti A» 2f 3, at, o :, <v aTU �9 oT9 4'•3�'Q`r' ,�<�Ly. .v aJ 7xfC� »w4 ay..c . },-Av:xvP+roY..I. •3L�n bf` 1 S' N 1 kz..v �\'-' ''.'n� vY." t »^S%P3C' <.,.- -kw gt a ,M,,,,.t,h ,n Y>,SF,iF $ ..xo 2t:M e\iv�L..\ p Q 1 I n.P' ,r az+atY2FR44SZ.:J L4r3h a h A�n----- - db. -- Y4 ;r' ix - NO . it WW 4 1 ! nv7 `�k ,�''' fEYL*,Cv'i1..t�x'A?t'],,+t.A e." r.' !6 v^ 2 %,ERAA%. ,,,,/ Yv li \[>/T3dA YC b \%. f, r-`<R AYj',CT Vjfa x»).Fib s'.%'XN? �x�,rt•,�4F A+Y 6..0. ' 1 Z I. O�/� I V/ "'E:'a ibA roSAxCY)i)aa a »St rnnfiTn.xM� C?fiS MS MP J'C 'Zwf\V SOF`Snr"++K.(RN?rT Jta.Yi Wt O 4 i 1 1 I _ d . U) I )t?. C'ff 2T FX-T-YI.Ct i Yr iiT r Px r �f' E).V`%>4S f-a� £G }f rCY f<X +M%'.n l4 p.Y2 % f{T Y {"' O O : > W 1 < C 1I 2 1 • 1 L f—� 1 •c.a N^`^?v:.voQ.tF'}'jfY,ro Y4Y" {`$W`S .:i T C ,f iYc ttJ., l .n <as fY t.J fslft FA+yi,Cx \Cix v'C .. Y la'- pA,<4,04.- hOha( �<...�w ... y.2 F�i t.... N �+%,fi0f Ar\ UT'V >., . . I CO -' ; -: 1 1 a t—i' Ce1 �L. ■L F 1 x:$'P xy o`er 24F.fY X,{ tS+�,i blYi S<'s atP oaiRY'N fIXk fiafMtaitRNYaR'#1 ` ,v ..' ii. < Sbih p .� i s -,ws.; N_:J Y P iPr W IX,',+fet , ` ^v.T,,{S.) v yr s O pl '. •'�^� V I I 0 LL 0. I m. W I i i I I l VI I um a.1 Gt) t 1 ''t. ;r C Y Yh. Y t N Y i a G Y 4'L+[ Y.X L .Y&,3u Pa2sK!:Y'rs+r �.q 1, +p < ] p �' fA V) CN a E I 1 I i f I x.. .eJ-ca � �ee,R9 c�i "ar"ii,�vaex ,a�x Uxaa azJ, ts'TaSYsa�x, b..v. �",-.Re?$3 ''' . g .i I UN „ I re I 1 I - W• Li 1 i� r ,f- `FN' SSSa R65sixh wG?o Y u; 9�y"'''' U fi , A t cyt� <.Y JaXroc - '£\wk,U a"t rl� tar a� "3 S,H'" H��P AY^..�L.. .. Y10.5.,�. <-. . c�• t i Z 1 1 ii ® : -8 g 1 ft b• {i)G IP lt.. x.1.. '>qve .a... '.5,.n • 3- titI 1 75N I ei Y I - I I - C I I - LityG F,c%f<• µ./ yy y4. :.,i ' • 4.x )XFj j&Tu W.X CNr'«; u. kts,K,,..(.LFv,X'`t kwW,nF %xa ) c.f H5 >" t{ -J d k[N»' b�>k.F0 l'u�t-:, arT rao/�lt$N•".4. 3 t $',C*T Y:..s.' ntv.�x,v. ,, <, ...N..... Yam'.., p V Y; 9Q A g ' .1 I co 3 '5 o o. _ g w Brt ? o 0 o g m to I awa pahp940S.0 se}nuiwg Buinwy %c M 50 deS 50 env 50 unf 50 6eW 50 �dy go _rev) SO Qaj SO uep 70 08a 70 MN 70 PO 70 deS w[wonun..reae sw...: e;�,n Ll go xl-...w..,v.,,.�. ,. ....,,�..,.. _. ......_ l00:06c0 %£6 /In.'' %£6 %176 " °%0'00l (sipow supi AepieeM 33NVIWRIOdN3d 3IN11-NO YIN110H131N 66L 99L MOQNIM 1-I1.NOW-E4 3ONbIAIaOdNad 31N1l=NO 331A?S3S ®321VHS y1VH.LINV appeyas do selnunks mum %0.09 - %0'99 - %0.09 - %0•99 %0'OL - %0'O8 - %0.98 - %0'06 - %0'96 %0'00 • %l t 9NI2:133NION3 %01 a310ab'9W09 %9t a3108V9W08 %9t dSN9 %l %SF A110a31N1-Nda1Wtl %0. aadn X3NN00 son Jequaa;das eulPU3 Polled 4;uoW Zl Amic lsuodsea As sAelap wi13o % %01 ONI133NION3 %IL 3SNB SN011Va3d0 %0 %9 %t X3NN00 aadn ki.13 a31NI-NY811AV SOOZ quaa;d Alleglsuodsaa A(lag s�telaaes ulell10 "/0 %0 vaaOS %0 aNOS %8 e'aaas %0 aNOS Pimlef eePnPuI do-)13da 33NVUV1lQd1:l3d • `A-IInW twangy mow MV %9 %S- %0 61 %6 %0 %6 %6 %0 40 deS SA sO des 'Bunt* % %£ %Z• %b %1- %9. ......: %4- %4 %Z %£ 50 env SA SO des eBuet49 % %£ 8L0`04 4L8' 1 e46'£ 89Z`9 095'4 6l9 spa' LL Z/6'9 696'£ SO des %Z 490'6£ 906' 1 l8L'£ 5ZE'9 L lE'4 999 48£'11 498`9 4£8'£ SO env %Z- OS£'8£ £56' 1 459'£ 04£`9 £L£'4 Z19 44£`L L 9E£'9 899'£ SO hP %1- 400'6£ 1L6'1 909'£ L96'5 OZ9 4Z9`L 1 9L9'9 466'£ So Lnf %0 L£4'6£ 9L0'Z 018'£ 6.01'9 60E`4 L49 £09'Ll 048'9 £00'4 SO LgW %1 4S8'6£ L16'L 96L'£ 990'9 2641 L19. LSL'LL aai'g 4,LL®4 So Ay _ %Z 961'6£ £9e' 1 OZ9'e 696'9 BL£'4 Z99 L£o'z1 EL5'9 6L6'£ SO JeW %S wee 069'1 LZ6'£ Se8`5 449'4 Z99 £0141 644'9 SU'£ 50 qeA %L 4SZ`L£ 909' 1 8£L'e Z46`5 eZ9`4 909 LeZ'LL £56'S 8L£'£ SO ue f %I. V 54L'4£ 199' 1 091'£ eoz'S 569 Z90'OL /91'9 994'£ 40 O80 %L 648`8£ Z99'l 649'£ 100'9 1L9 Z06'01 69L'9 660'4 • 40 AeN %Z 9£8`8e £69' 1 L49'£ £L6'9 SL9`b 449 1ZZ'11 04S'9 £4l'4 POPO %Z Z86'Le 4L6'l 9SL'S 6Z8'4 Z£9 e16'01 OLE'9 496'£ 40 deg a313[IPOd Avon OH - MOONIM H1NOW N331211H1 Sdnii U3ON3SSVd AVON33M 3OVEIR V MNI1ON.L3W S00Z79/01Z11e11 Z tlelPWwns load %CO- B • qunm Aron w Pepnpul LE • 'mouse Lope eAep ANo meow o0sieny 'ems m enp Y1 W two Pqd Ae0 vaunt.* EWpnr+m oeel 4e0 Fogel INIFnptEe Grew. AePAW 4Ain reu rote pest to Aery strum to crews♦ 'soWx p sAsp spedw sreteny en.-Zl/l YI io Lines pus 90B/1 wW Y710 yliou ml/ues E L NZl up iueurCaep g we ARON see wpe00.400Z 01310N •ENPeo4 A %Lon= Hoe Z MFl u Pepnpol swgeyseed A1Lpuoul IOC 4141 Y110 400u sups ulna *Poo pNw3S 310N NE NW=pue deeoAo Asp 'unto ptupedcet ate eolNmo PoVApW mewl ' ZOOL'L wgweLNS peoep =gold Iporp Avowem}legwy uo poor Apo MA urvrad dn-dsFS 61, %94 °kB5 %4Z %Z L- %91 %99 %9S %IS %£4 W dGS srt 90 do9 e9uey0q(, %9 %8l- %S. %£9• %0 %9 %64. %9- pp rroe -so SO Pas erueu.'F 9f. 64 IEI 8/89 %8l- %S. LEE 99E LOS'I. ZZ LE - LSZ 60E 6ZE - Ln'l (EdSO•deg L9 4EZ %2 YoLE %8 ZIE 444 4SS'L LZ fiL ESZ 99Z _49E LEE 90-6ny . LS 94Z %EZ- %LZ• %l• Z6Z 04£ Z114 9Z 9£ 89Z L9Z ROE £OZ'4 60SO•Id9 95 9Z4 %64 %4• %Z• LLE 994 469L. 44 fig 44Z SCE 6LE OSZ`4 90•unr 99 ESl %SI %9l %0 8l£ S14- 6I5'L Z9 46 EZZ 99Z 69£ LE'l (et/SO-LeW 84 ell %EZ- %EZ• %4 9LZ Z04 PIS' I £Z 99 lZZ ESZ L4£ £6Z'4 90•AOV OS 88 %LC %4l4 %9 95£ £ZS 4SVL LE 01, 94Z 649 £87 5£Z'4 90•AaW OE 89 %l£ %LI %I- L9Z 94Z LL£'1 45 Zl 8L4 9EZ 9EZ Z64'4 04)50-qed 84 co" %I- %02- %ab 61,Z ZIZ 696'4 OZ ZZ 99Z 66l 06I Sll'l (e190-uer 64 SS %SZ• %O4- %S• 4ZZ 49Z S£E`L 4Z EL ZLZ L64 49Z EZ4'4 (9)40•390 B4 £9 %9L %8 %E 98Z £Z£ 86E'I. 9Z LZ Z9I OLZ 96Z 9trZ'4 (4)40-noN 98 MI. %6Z %04 99Z - 86Z 6SE'I 6l E9 LEI LEZ SSZ ZZZ'I WO40-P0 £8 %8Z- %OE• %0 4ZZ IEZ L4Z'L SZ 4Z 9£F 884 01Z 904'4 (s)Wog �fL!SF�0. .. `' ...li ' c.7W rrY' r} . _ .„ rFL t.., £`. Y `�rl�.�+Y!ia .:.. .: E'" ti .' %)) 'L [�Y[� .- � � ^ > :.HQ[ NiS yy'-\S` k�.�...-" 7 Y }. a�. - t w....d Si qff ,c 'ini tra'Yrb.tdxr06.ut',;tt >K ^-[ eR 7, .p j3rr M' . .. Vbas£iRQ9rf:3, 3S R4 r 9y� .( h.. ..h pr>lk�d d` g t n;[lJ3'Y.S v`-,;- Ta v "$. 3-S`i' .?i[L r YQ <: ' /;+. 3F' ; qq.22 4�£ x xx,j�q�p A. 4 }W64•'fgniYG a.t o_tyt .Z,.. x _ x}S' '.`.. n. n Nq - [0 %..:. 31: Y Eea a A. F E 11.�. P)»M!M� MOCINIM H1NOBtl NMINIH1 NVMIWV NO SM3O1OHSSVd AlHINOIN NNI1OMiBW Aiwa 3OV2l3AV • On,A•iu"w wB e19g1 a eRN MAY 06/£6 Ad 96/46 AAX 96/96 AA L6/96 AA X 96/L6 Ad 66/96 Ade— — � 00/66 A 1.0/00 Ad Z0/l0 AA" £020 Ad V V X )lc -XC Inr 000'9 000.9 000`0 t 000` l 000`b6 000'91. 000'9 G 000`0Z 000'ZZ 000'4Z 000'9Z t: --- 000'9Z 000`OE x% co%j:,acwn.Myyn»ovib :N''. 000'9£ 90/90 AA 31t/a 01 N0I�d39N1 a31Sf1f av AvanoM - Shcal 2139N3SSVd AVaH33M SOVHSAa NN110H13W 000'9£ oont, maNPuaHN9060 50•deS Bny �+r unr Repr sdpi aa6uessed Alpo a6eaany eovues Aepuns aug-y oulpaeuieg ues 50•daS 6ny inr unr 6eW scipi aa6uessed Aliep a6eaany eopues Aepimes eun ouipiewee ues • 100/4u90 ua8e9 Dolmas /ayunS :010N 009 000 { 0051. m • 000Z71 a 005Z 5 000£ J009£ nej puno0 V'j gePnloul leisS :110N noN l00 60•daS m _ i0 005 d 0001. 5 005 sdul mBuessed 6pe❑ e6eieny eollueS AepunS ooal go -des 6ny sdp1 Jobuessed Alma 080,18AV aoInaaS AepanneS ooal 90-0sS env Inr unp qed uef - 00Q sdui leBuassed Apea aBeJany animas /Wpmles sun AalleA adolawy NINWN4t•10 'uonelnoleo awl-uo aL9 ul pepnpul Lou ale SUM; peunuuy •uopeuluuel Jo lulod le awp-uo Euem itat9 10 parappuoo aye Suleq peleuluual •slelep algeneller JOJ spew ueaq eneq slueugsntpe oN %E6 i S 401 %S6 %46 P0900 0 pSPIAl %S6 %86 -l6 %56 %£8' Ar/114:£0 1194l3aul %86. %99 ;alrusti 3D.:;: r . %S6 %Le %66 %S6 311.0 .Asti %S6 %96 ov:eiNS %E6 %ZB 4 a10.0.1 FAV %L6 %L9 amoausakl eulail Penad dead gp Bny aulll pelnp®4o5 Jo salnuop S LIN 1M 6121^1AIV soled Polaed ?lead %£8 °%46 %Z6 %£6 %GB 1%46 %99 %96 %69 %96 %16 %L6 %16 %56 %96 - %06 %46 %l6 - 0469 SO des %96 %96 %96 %L6 %96 %56 %96 °%86 %96 %66 %96 %66 %00L %OS %96 %68 %96 9696 %96 50 6ny . %E6 %L6 %56 %LB %96 %Z6 %L6 %46 %L6 %Le %06 %66 °%OOL %56 °%66 %46 %96 %46 %£6 . . SO lnf 9546 %Z6 %96 %86 1%46 %46 %86 %SS %56 %Z8 %Z6 %66 %OOL %£6 %L6 %L8 %46 %£6 %86 50 unP %£6 %Z6 %46 %96 %Z6 14.66 %46 ' %96 %L6 %SL %98 %66 %96 11496 %L6 %98 %46 %46 %L6 50Sepq 0,546 %E6 %46 %06 %Z6 °%06 %96 %46 %056 %L9 °%SL %OOL %66 %96 %L6 %56 %86 %96 %56 SOidy c %46 %E6 %96 %Le %Z6 °%62 %'£6— %E6 %56 %II %BS %66 %66 %66 %66 %56 %as 94E6 MI650.1eW'a %46 °%06 %Z6 %S6 %96 %98 %69 %19 %68 %88 °%Le %L6 %96 %Z6 °%56 %Le 0%06 %69 %06 50 (red %68 %L8 %06 %46 %L8 %88 %46 %LB %98 %OL %Z9 %86 %L6 %46 %96 %LL %L9 %LB %99 50 uef %56 %S6 %46 %L6 %96 %46 %E6 %96 %Z6. %LB %L8 %66 %66 %L6 %56 %ES %46 %SS %86 40 oea %46 %46 9'046 %Z6 %46 %l6 %Z6 %L6 %06 %ER %68 %B6 %86 %56 %IN %96 %46 %L6 %96 40 ^oN %E6 %Z6 %E6 946 %06 %E6 %06 9,046 %46 %ZB %S8 %86 %86 %68 %46 %£6 %S6 %96 %66. 40100 0/46 %E6 9546 %68 %E6 %LB %LB %L6 Me %613 %919 %OOL %96 %LS %46 %S6 %96 %86 %66 40 dos IaLQL m: F A s t1P1.1 .1 ors : > ; BN : d1�4 ily� � 81uf �il hj11 i ut ...(4 ;; m Nx�d f H S 4; ap�s� 1. : } P. . { 4 ry 4wrLi:� 000)4 : v t 6 0, �i# t>F '. F u* At*1 i �4 10! �l7(� } r l i%t R � t1r1� ..... "':..:> SH1N04/1 EL 1S31Y1 °WU pompanos )o septum 9 intim Bumply suivJl;o aBewooJed 33IA213S A`dON33M - A2 vinuni ES 33N32131-10V 3ina3HOS N11OHIMAI • t 0 4 0 0 0 0 0. 4 0 0 0 L 0 0 0 0 0 0 0031 AepunS 0 0 l 0 0 0 0 0 0' EMS AepunS 0 0' 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0031 AepmleS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 lAY AepinleS 0 D 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 (MS 1epsnleS %004 OLZ 44 4Z 4£ 44 L 5£ 94 04 1V101 %4 Z 0 0 0 t 0 0 L 0 3 ONV 1-Sdg %94 4£ 4 E 0 0 t 04 54 4 V81:10S-Sd0 %9 Z4 0 4 0 0 0 4 04 0 H3ON3SSVd-Sd0 %6Z 09 Z 5 5 5 0 9 5 0£ 213H10-Sd0 %ZZ L4 9 £t EL L 0 4 5 Z HOlVdSIO-Sd0 %94 4£ Z 4 04 0 5 Z4 £ 4 Hon IN %I. Z 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 4 MOVa1-NON3 %9 Ll 0 t Z 0 4 £ 9 Z .;. 0113-80N3 %4 Z 0 0 4 4 0 0 0 0 83H101:10N3 %0 0 0 0 0 0 0, 0 0 0 1SNOa/1N3113A0Nd111-NON3 10t10'% 7V101 V1-46 00/1NI 00 ; AR1 21118 ENS _ lAV — N3A - :331I1/0 S31f1NIVY 9 NVH1 Lf3LVTd5 SAV'130 NIYM1,l0 3SnV0 AMVNIRid - SOOZ legweldeg SA1 iaa )111110211.314110 sasn /0 CaLUS000 46 %b'L OlZ LL trZ L£ N. L 5E 84 OV JIB 9 < 0310d130 SNIVal. %L'61. 999 trl. 09 EL LE 17Z 901. ELI. Z8 LIP 0<03AV130 SNIVal. %OOL Z96'Z LEI. 817Z 86£ E9Z LEZ SLL b09 9117 Old° SNItre 11V1.01 %17'0 ZL E 17 I. 0 Z 0 0 Z 0311f1NNV %Z'O 9 0 0 Z 0 0 Z 0 I. NIW OE NVH12131H3?:1J %9' I. Lb E 9 L £ 0 1.1. 9 ZL NIW OE - NUN LZ %8'Z £8 17 OL 8 8 9 91. 9L LL NMIOZ-Nth LL %9'Z Si ti 8 tiL £ Z 9 8Z OL NUN OL - NUN 9 %0'ZL 99£ £ 9Z Lti LL LL Si. OE I. Z17 NIN 9- NIh L %6'08 LEVZ ELL 861. OZE ZZZ LOZ L09 9Z£ b£E AY130ON 101 do % 11,101 1113lA1N 00/31 00 ARI sne 8NS lAV N3A :31Y1 S31f1NIW • 900z aagwKcies NolivNna AS SAviaa N1VI:11 AO AON311031MA • AGENDA ITEM 7N RIVERS/DE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: November 9, 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) Approve the following change in state bill position: SB 1024 (Perata D-Oakland) — Change from OPPOSE to SUPPORT WITH AMENDMENTS; and, 2) Receive and file the State and Federal Legislative Update as an information item. BACKGROUND INFORMATION; Federal Update "Operation Offset" Looks at Transportation Earmarks Senator Everett Dirkson was once quoted as saying, . A billion here, a billion there, and pretty soon you're talking about real money." In the face of a major natural disaster and an ongoing war, the previous quote, uttered more than five decades ago still has relevance. As a'result, the Republican Study Committee, a group of conservative Congressman recently issued a report titled, "Operation Offset" which attempts to identify potential cuts or offsets in federal funding to pay for some of the expenditures that are being made in response to Hurricane Katrina. The report recently garnered considerable media attention because one of the possible budget offsets identified in the report 'would be to eliminate the highway earmarks in the recently -approved federal transportation bill. Agenda Item 7N 101 It is important to note that the report by the Study Committee did not make specific recommendations on what offsets to pursue. Its purpose was to look at the entire federal budget and identify potential areas for savings. Not surprisingly, with soundbites, such as "The Bridge to Nowhere" and the fact that H.R. 3 was recently approved, made transportation projects irresistible to the national media. However, the report takes on many more subjects besides transportation including funding changes in programs such as Medicaid and Medicare, reducing funding for some programs such as Foreign Aid and the District of Colombia, and the elimination of funding for some items such as the , Corporation for Public Broadcasting and compensation to citrus farmers for citrus canker.. All told, there are more than 100 potential budget offsets identified in the report that could reduce federal expenditures by more than a trillion dollars, if they were all carried out. Also, in addition to the elimination of the highway earmarks which garnered all of the media attention, the report identifies other transportation savings. possibilities including the elimination of the New Starts Transit Program, high-speed rail studies and the hydrogen fuel initiative. The bottom line is that no decisions to make any cuts, have been made and significant cuts to needed transportation projects that create jobs will be met with a great of deal of political opposition. Most Congressional observers believe that transportation cuts are unlikely under the current House Leadership of Speaker Hastert who obtained significant funding for his home state. So far, Congress has yet to approve a number of Appropriations bills for the current fiscal year that began on October 1. As these bills are considered Congress will be faced" with a number of fiscal challenges and it will,- be - important for the Commission to continue voicing the need for continued transportation investments in Riverside County, especially on items such as grade separations and other goods movement projects. Staff will keep the ,Commission apprised of new developments in Washington and will schedule Washington visits, in the coming months with Commissioners to keep transportation as an important federal priority. State Update By the time the full Commission meets on November 9, the special election will be in the history ;books and depending on the outcome of Proposition 76, the electorate may have approved state spending restrictions that would provide -a long-term "fix" to eliminate suspensions of Proposition 42 funding. Agenda Item 7N 102 1 Unfortunately, no matter what the outcome of the special election, the Proposition 42 "fix" contained in Proposition 76 doesn't take effect until FY 2007-08. This means that the Governor and the Legislature could still take action to suspend Proposition 42 in the upcoming budget cycle. Last year, RCTC staff took an active role with a committee of transportation, labor and business interests in a coalition to . protect Proposition 42 which resulted in its implementation. That same fight is a possibility for the coming year. Currently, the Legislature is in recess until January but transportation will likely be a prime target of discussion when legislators go back to work. In addition to the Proposition 42 issue, the Legislature will have to consider the Governor's Go California package which would provide transportation agencies greater flexibility in seeking partnerships with the private sector and in using innovative construction and delivery techniques such as design -build. The Commission has taken a SUPPORT position on these bills and will take an active role in the coming months. Some Sacramento observers believe that the Governor will work closely with the Legislature to craft a deal on transportation that would provide legislative support for Go California which would also depend on gubernatorial support for a statewide transportation bond measure. The legislative vehicle for the bond measure is Senate Bill 1024 by Senate President Pro Tem Don Perata. The current bill is titled, the "Safe Facilities, Improved Mobility and Clean Air Bond Act of 2005." The price tag is $10.275 billion and will be allocated to a wide range of infrastructure projects that include grade separations and other goods movement improvements, flood control facilities and other items including housing rehabilitation and regional planning dollars. Last year, the Commission took an OPPOSE position on this bill because at that time, the Legislature and the Governor were at odds with each other regarding transportation funding. It was an either-or battle that was never resolved and eventually put on hold because of the special election. Another problem with the bond measure as originally envisioned was that it dedicated a significant amount of money to the Bay Bridge project. Since the Bay Bridge issue has been resolved and opportunity exists for a situation for the Legislature to approve a bond measure for voter consideration while the Governor receives approval for needed changes in state law such as the. authorization to use design -build and seek private sector funding. Agenda Item 7N 103 That does not mean that SB 1024 is without problems but it does provide the Commission with the opportunity to work with the author and relevant committees to ensure the state makes a needed investment in transportation issues in the region, and most specifically regarding goods movement. Staff recommends a SUPPORT WITH AMENDMENTS position to provide an opportunity to work with the author and the Legislature to craft final language that will benefit the area. Attachment: Legislative Matrix Agenda Item 7N 104 • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION POSITIONS ON STATE AND FEDERAL LEGISLATION - UPDATED October 17, 2005 ter° w.....Y.lw..... 1ni .... Mw�...«..«........... , x _ A 0 B 0 STATE LEGISLATION ........ ...r. , AB 426 (Bogh) This bill would require Caltrans to convert all HOV lanes on state highways in Riverside County that currently operate on a 24-hour basis into part-time HOV lanes that operate as mixed -flow lanes except during peak periods,, subject to any required approvals of the federal government. 5/25/05 - In Committee on Appropriations. Set second hearing. Held under submission. SUPPORT IN CONCEPT 4/13/05 AB 453 (Benoit) This bill would extend the time limit that is currently in place under state law for state funding of railroad grade crossings. 9/22/05 - Signed by Governor. SUPPORT 4/13/05 AB 850 (Canciamilla) This bill would authorize the Department of Transportation to enter into comprehensive development franchise agreements with public and private entities for specified types of transportation projects subject to certain requirements and conditions. The bill would require a franchise agreement to allow the department to acquire by condemnation or negotiation the financial value of a competing toll facility if it opens a competitive state facility in the same corridor. 5/25/05 - In Committee on Appropriations. Set second hearing. Held under submission. . SUPPORT WITH AMENDMENTS 4/13/05 AB 1266 (Niello) This bill would generally authorize the Department of Transportation to award contracts for projects using the design -sequencing contract method, if certain requirements are met. 5/25/05 - In Committee on Appropriations. Set second hearing. Held under submission. SUPPORT 4/13/05 AB 1699 (Frommer) This bill would state the intent of the Legislature to authorize certain transportation authorities to use a design -build process for bidding on one highway construction project within the jurisdiction of the applicable transportation authority. 7/5/05 Hearing postponed by Senate Trans-& Housing Committee. SUPPORT IN CONCEPT 5/11/05 AB 1714 (Plescia) This bill would require the construction of the more affordable skyway structure and would limit the use of additional toll revenue to seismic retrofit projects such as the Bay Bridge repair. The state's responsibility of $300 million will be for the demolition of the old bridge. The rest of the money needed to complete the new bridge would have to be raised from a combination of increased tolls, local bond sales and existing state and federal highway appropriations. AB 1714 reflects the Governor's position on the Bridge issue. 5/25/05 Re -referred to Committee on Appropriations. Held, SUPPORT 5/11/05 105 ACA 4 (Plescia) This measure would delete the provision authorizing the Governor and the Legislature to suspend the transfer of revenues from the General Fund to the Transportation Investment Fund for a fiscal year during a fiscal emergency, specific to Proposition 42. Re -referred to Committee on Transportation and Appropriations with author's amendments 5/10/05. SUPPORT 1 /1 2/05 ACA 9 (Gogh) This measure would change the vote requirement to 4/5 of the membership of each house of the Legislature in order to enact a stature suspending in whole or in part the transfer of motor vehicle tax revenue from the General Fund to the Transportation Investment Fund, specific to Proposition 42. Referred to Committee on Transportation and Appropriations 4/21 /05. SUPPORT 3/18/05 ACA 11 (Oropeza) This measure would delete the provisions authorizing the transfer of revenues ,from the General Fund to the Transportation investment Fund to be suspended. The measure would authorize the Legislature to loan funds in the Transportation Investment Fund to the General Fund or any other state fund or account, or to local agencies, under conditions that are similar to conditions applicable to loans of revenues under Article XIX of the California Constitution, and would require interest to be paid on a loan that is not repaid within the same fiscal year as it was made, specific to Proposition 42. Referred to Committee on Transportation 4/21 /05. SUPPORT 3/18/05 ACA 22 (LaMalta) Proposed Constitutional Amendment would severely restrict the use of eminent domain. May be heard in Committee August 13. SEEK AMENDMENTS 9/14/05 ACA X 1 4 (Keene) - This measure would, on and after July 1, 2006, prohibit the transfer of funds from a special fund to the General Fund as a loan, with specified exceptions. Any funds that were transferred prior to that date from a special fund for the purpose of making a loan to the General Fund and that have not been repaid would be required to be repaid over the next 15 years. In exchange, Proposition 42 would be permanently protected in the future.. Amended. Re -referred to Committee on Budget; Process 4/12/05. WATCH 4/13/05 SB 371 (Torlakson) This bill would allow state, regional, and local transportation authorities to try design -build contracting under specific criteria and for these projects to be audited to determine the success or failure of use of design -build by these transportation entities. 5/26/05 Set first hearing in Appropriations Committee. Held under submission. SUPPORT IN CONCEPT 5/11 /05 SB 427 (Hollingsworth) This bill would exempt from CEQA requirements the construction of any overpass, oframp, or offramp that is built on an existing State Department of Transportation (CAL -TRANS) right -of- way. Referred to Senate Environmental Quality Committee. Set for hearing 4/25/05. Hearing canceled at request of author. SUPPORT 4/13/05 SB 561 Runner & Torlakson) This bill would provide additional transportation options in allowing for toll facilities, but does so in a manner that eliminates the inherent unfairness to the public from the imposition of non -compete clauses, Read second time. Amended. Re -referred to Senate Committee on Appropriations 5/24/05. SUPPORT 7/13/05 SB 705 (Runner) This bill would authorize the Department of Transportation to contract using the design -build process for the design and construction of transportation projects. The bill would require the director of the department to establish a prequalification and selection process. Set for hearing 4/19/05 in the Senate Transportation and Housing Committee. Hearing canceled at request of author. SUPPORT 4/13/05 SB 1024 Torlakson & Perata) This bill would enact the Safe Facilities, Improved Mobility, and Clean Air Bond Act of 2005 to authorize $7,688,000,000 in state general obligation bonds for specified purposes, including the seismic retrofit of toll bridges, levee improvements, restoration of Proposition 42 transportation funds, port infrastructure and security projects, trade corridors of significance, emissions reduction projects, environmental enhancement projects, and transportation needs in cities, counties, and cities and counties that meet certain requirements relative to provisions of housing needs in their communities, subject to voter approval. - 9/8/05 In Senate Appropriations Committee for third reading. Read third time and amended. Staff recommends: CHANGE POSITION FROM OPPOSE TO SUPPORT WITH AMENDMENTS SCA 15 (McClintock) Proposed Constitutional Amendment would severely restrict the use of eminent domain. 8/30/05 Set first hearing. Failed passage in Committee 3-2. Reconsideration granted. SEEK AMENDMENTS 9/14/05 107 FEDERAL LEGI SLATION H.R. 3 (Young) The U.S. House of Representatives approved H.R. 3 authored by Alaska Republican. Don Young which provides a six -year renewal of the Federal Transportation Act. Known as SAFETEA-LU (Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users), H.R. 3 authorizes the expenditure of $284 billion over six years on federal transportation programs and also sets a number of federal transportation policies. Signed by the President on Aug. 10 SUPPORT 4/13/05 108 AGENDA ITEM 8 PRESENTATION INLAND EMPIRE TRANSPORTATION COALITION AGENDA ITEM 9 RIVERS/DE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: November 9, 2005 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission ,. FROM: Budget and Implementation "Committee as Whole" Hideo Sugita, Deputy Executive Director THROUGH: Eric Haley, Deputy Executive Director SUBJECT: 2009 Measure "A" Western County Highway Program Ten -Year Strategic Plan Development and Negotiation of Bechtel Infrastructure Contract Amendment BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION "COMM/TTTEE AS A WHOLE" AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to authorize staff to 'negotiate a contract amendment to Agreement No. 05-31-561 with Bechtel Infrastructure to provide a scope, schedule and cost to support the Commission's effort to develop a 2009 Measure "A" Western County Highway Ten Year Strategic Plan including: a) An assessment on the status and issues of completing delivery of the Western County Highway Program for the 1989 Measure; and, b) An objective based assessment of the Western County 2009 Measure "A" Highway Program (including the Mid County Parkway) as generally described in the agenda item. " BACKGROUND INFORMATION: At the June,2, 2005 Commission Workshop in La Quinta staff was provided with; general direction to develop the information necessary to assess the delivery status of the 1989 Measure "A" Western County Highway Program (including the Mid County Parkway), as well as, develop an objective set of 'project, measurements, including State recognized performance measures, to support the Commission in establishing priorities for the first 10 years of the 30 year Measure "A„ program. This effort will require the involvement of an Ad Hoc Committee to be established, by the Chairman to receive and assess project information, provide direction to staff and make recommendations to the Commission on project priorities for the development of this Strategic Plan. Agenda Item 9 109 Over the next 6-9 months there. will be several related activities the Commission will be involved in or receive information on such as, an updated Measure "A revenue forecast and an assessment of the possible use of tools such ;as public/private partnerships in financing and delivering capital project improvements. This work effort, leading to the identification of project priorities, will take place while the Commission considers the: Development of the 2006 STIP; Recommendation(s) emerging from the Route 91 Major Investment Study (MIS); Expected completion by Ca!trans District 08 of major Project Study Reports (PSRs) on several projects contained in the 2009 Measure "A" highway program. The PSRs are anticipated to be completed in January and June 2006. Additionally, the Commission directed staff to administer the Western County Freeway Strategic Study which is to establish whether or not there exists -a quantifiable relationship between new population growth and highway capacity to establish a fee on new development to support highway capacity improvements. With respect to the Coachella Valley Highway Program, development for the 2009 Measure "A" Program, the Coachella Valley Association of Government's project prioritization process is underway and is anticipated to be completed in January 2006. DISCUSS/ON• The 2009 Measure "A" Program includes nearly every stretch of the state highway system in Western Riverside County. For the routes included in the program, project data sheets, including an initial scope and cost were developed by Ca!trans District 08 and were used as the basis for inclusion in the Measure "A" 2009 extension program. The estimated cost of the highway program at that time (April 2002) was $1.66billion with the Measure providing an estimated $1.02 billion and state and •federal sources providing $640 million. Since 2002, the State has been diverting transportation funds to support other State priorities, and we will have an opportunity in January during the 2006 STIP development process to obtain useful insight on the relative health of the federal and state transportation funding condition: At that time we will also see if a portion of the proposed "pay back" of transportation funds will be secured for project commitments in the 2006 STIP. Agenda Item 9 110 • Additionally, since the cost estimates for the 2009 Measure "A" highway program are 3 years old, we need to update the estimated cost to deliver because of the rapid rise in land valuations and the relatively recent price escalation of material costs (concrete, asphalt, aggregate base, steel, wood, etc). Since seven of the 2009 Measure "A" projects have cost estimates which are in excess of $100 million and with the MCP _having an estimated $1.5 billion construction value, a thorough assessment of each project will be required. The assessment will include an analysis of the potential for segmenting projects and will be accompanied by a determination of what level of environmental document would be required in order to clear the entire project or a segment of a project for early delivery consideration. As was mentioned previously, Caitrans is currently working on several PSRs for the following 2009 Measure "A" projects: • State Route 91 — Pierce Street to State Route 241 includes State Route 91 westbound to northbound connector to State Route 71 • . I-15/State Route 91 — 1-15 northbound to State Route 91 westbound • 1-215 from State Route 74 east to the 1-15/1-215 split • 1-15 from 1-15 /1-215 split south to the San Diego County line The above PSRs are scheduled to be completed in draft in January 2006 and there are two additional PSRs under development which are anticipated to be complete in June 2006, which will examine the entire 1-15 and 1-215 within Riverside County to determine where logical project lane segments can be added in existing Caitrans right-of-way with minimal impact to structures. The assessment of the 2009 Western County Highway program will require establishing project scope, provide corridor and segment level traffic analysis, environmental screening, cost/benefit analysis, coordination with Caitrans, coordination with local agencies and the other activities aptly named "the moving parts" which are necessary for the Commission to consider before making project priority decisions. In summary, the "moving parts" include a new revenue forecast, 2006 STIP development, MIS alternative(s) decision, identification of projects that may be appropriate for consideration in public/private finance/delivery partnerships, whether or not design/build legislation will be forth coming, and who knows what will become our next issue(s). Agenda Item 9 111 Staff recommends that the Commission use Bechtel Infrastructure to provide an objective assessment of the scope, cost, issuesand challenges related to the 2009 Measure "A" .Western County Highway Program of projects and update the delivery status of the 1989 Measure. Staff estimates that the cost to support this effort will be between $400,000 and $700,000 and will likely be funded through the Commission's commercial paper program. Once scope and cost have been determined, staff will return an agreement to the Commission' for approval. Staff recommends that this work be undertaken by Bechtel Infrastructure because: 1) Bechtel previously performed similar work for the original 1989 Measure "A" Program: 2) Bechtel has almost 18 years of successful project delivery oversight experience serving as the Commission's Manager of Project Delivery for all capital projects; 3) Bechtel staff has a clear working knowledge of the Commission's policies and relationships with Caltrans, the California Transportation Commission, and local agencies; 4) Bechtel has a broad array of internal experience and skills which can provide the Commission professional advisement on all aspects of engineering; 5) Placing this work with Bechtel will allow Bechtel to serve as an informed delivery oversight agent for the Commission's capital delivery program. Furthermore Bechtel has not, and will not, due to the Program Management relationship with the Commission, compete for Commission authorized project development contract work. Agenda Item 9 112 AGENDA ITEM 10 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: November 9, 2005 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Public/Private Financing Ad Hoc Committee Anne Mayer, Division Head, Programmingand Administration THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Strategic Partnership Advisor Request for Qualifications and Request for 'Proposals PUBLIC/PRIVATE FINANCING AD HOC COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to approve the release of a request for qualifications (RFQ) and request for proposals (RFP), if necessary, for Strategic Partnership Advisor services. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: At the October 12, 2005 Commission meeting,' staff provided a report on planning and programming issues impacting RCTC programs in the coming months, including' the development of a 10-year project delivery plan. It is likely that the 10-year delivery plan will identify a significant gap between funding readily available through conventional governmental finance techniques and project needs. Private and public financing, including the development of Strategic .Public/Private Partnerships, could allow a significant portion of the funding gap to be bridged in order to construct the needed projects. Use of innovative financingmechanisms to fund transportation projects and programs is expanding throughout the country in lieu of the traditional methods based on more standard governmental revenue bond or "pay as you go" financing; or funding. Both public and private innovative financing mechanisms are available. A significant component of Public/Private Strategic Partnerships is the provision' by the Strategic Partner of "equity" financing, allowing the debt financing traditionally used by the Commission to remain available for individual projects and improvements not amenable to Strategic Partnerships. Although increasingly utilized in other regions of the United States and in other countries, these methods have not been evaluated and implemented broadly in California. Assessment of methods and applicability is essential prior to implementation and will require the assistance of experts, knowledgeable in the area of transportation Agenda Item 10 113 economics, federal transportation funding tools ,and corporate equity investment evaluation: In the development of a partnership with 'a private 'business, it is essential that the Commission ensure that the economic basis of the relationship allow for the development of needed improvements but also provides for a fair rate of return on investment to the strategic partner. Staff is requesting the Commission's approval to issue a RFQ and subsequent RFP; if necessary, for Strategic Partnership Advisor services. The services are expected to be provided on an on -call basis. The purpose of the RFQ is to identify qualified firms interested in providing these services to the Commission. The Committee may establish a pool from which specific Strategic Partnership Advisors may be selected for individual projects or proposals. Issue Request for Qualifications 11/10/05 Due Date for Qualifications 12/09/05 Complete Review of Qualifications 12/16/05 Present Recommendations to Committee 01 /30/06 Commission Approves Consultant or Pool Selection 02/08/06 Staff anticipates that the RFQ will be sent out to selected firms (i),with known experience and history evaluating private investments in transportation improvements or (ii) who have expressed interest in providing infrastructure financing services and it will be posted on the Commission's website for other interested firms. Interviews are not currently expected but may be scheduled depending on the number of statements. This would likely extend the calendar by one month. Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: No Year: FY 2005-06 Amount: $150,000 Source of Funds: Commercial Paper Proceeds Budget Adjustment: Yes GLA No.: A303-66-65302 P$100 80 Fiscal Procedures Approved: \Paudiit, Date: 10/14/05 Agenda Item 10 114 AGENDA ITEM 11 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMM/SS/ON DATE: November 9, 2005 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Cathy Bechtel, Division Head, Planning Bill Hughes, Bechtel Project Manager Gustavo Quintero, Bechtel Project Coordinator THROUGH: Hideo Sugita, Deputy Executive Director SUBJECT: Mid County Parkway Project — Approval of Agreement No. 06-72-555 with Jacobs Civil Inc. to Revise the Scope of Work for the Development of a Project Report and Environmental Document STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Approve Agreement No. 06-72-555, Amendment No. 2 to Agreement No. 04-31-018 to Jacobs Civil Inc. for incorporation of the three new alternatives identified during the Value Analysis Study process for the Mid County Parkway (MCP) project for an amount of $4,845,385; 2) Authorize the use of $4,845,385 of commercial paper until such time as additional TUMF funding is approved for the MCP project, at which time the TUMF funding will replace commercial paper to the extent that it is available; and, 3) Authorize the Chairman, pursuant to Legal Counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission. BACKGROUND INFORMATION. ' At its December 13, 2003 meeting, the Commission approved Agreement No. 04-31-018 for a total amount of'$5,030,501 for Phase I work to Jacobs Civil Inc., the selected firm for the development of the Project 'Study Report/Project Development Study (PSR/PDS) and preliminary phases of the Project Report and Environmental Document (PR/ED) for what is now called the Mid County Parkway (MCP) project. The MCP project is a proposed new 32 mile transportation corridor to relieve traffic congestionbetween Corona and San Jacinto, roughly along or near Cajalco Road/Ramona Expressway between 1-15 and SR 79. Agenda Item 11 115 At its .January 12, 2005 Commission meeting, the Commission , approved Agreement No. 05-31-530, Amendment No. 1 for Phase II, of the project, which is development and completion of the PR/ED. Phase II was estimated to take approximately 3.5 years, from February 2005 through June 2008, and would get . the project through completion of a -Record of Decision from the Federal Highway Administration and receipt of a Section 404 permit from the Army Corps of Engineers. The Commission continues to have the CETAP effort recognized under President Bush's Executive, Order 13274 for Environmental Stewardship and Transportation Infrastructure Reviews. This recognition has resulted in excellent staff support from all involved federal agencies during the early phases of the project. The 3.5 years identified for Phase II recognizes a significantly accelerated schedule that was agreed to by all of the partner agencies. The cost proposal from Jacobs Civil Inc. to deliver the Phase II, PR/ED, was for a base amount of $22,025,928 and a contingency amount of $4,108,456, for a not to exceed amount of $26,134,384. This brought the total project cost for Phase l and Phase II of the Mid County Parkway project to $31,164,885. During the execution of the necessary engineering and technical studies, the project team identified major issues with several alternatives that were being considered for the Mid County Parkway in relation to the Lake Mathews Dam owned by Metropolitan Water District (MWD) and the Lake Perris Dam owned by the State Department of Water Resources (DWR). As staff moved forward' in the process, both agencies, .MWD and DWR, expressed significant issues with having the Mid County Parkway near the two dams. MWD also identified a concern with impacting, the Lake. Mathews Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) area. An impact to this area would require MWD to modify its HCP, which would require an additional environmental approval process should the MCP preferred alternative be one that impacts the Lake Mathews HCP. MWD sent RCTC a letter stating that the Parkway must not touch the dam or the natural . buttress of the dam. Subsequently, MWD has written .RCTC objecting to any facility adjacent to the dam and have expressed that they do not want the facility within 1000 feet of the dam. DWR has also been expressing concern with the MCP's alignment near the toe of the Lake Perris Dam due. to conflicts with operational facilities, pipelines and reserve land. After months of trying to elicit a formal response from DWR, they informed RCTC that a seismic study of Lake Perris Dam was, underway. Prior to and following the public release of the draft results of this seismic study, DWR met with RCTC staff :and expressed opposition to :any alignments between the Lake Perris Dam and 'Ramona -Expressway. Subsequently, DWR notified the public that an emergency drawdown of the Lake Perris Darn of 25 feet was required immediately, due to earthquake liquefaction issues below the dam. DWR is to begin a feasibility study soon to determine needed infrastructure improvements, but Agenda Item 11 116 has stated that they do not expect to know exactly the type of repair will need to be performed on the dam for several years. It is anticipated that any repair work as well as future operational activities such as seepage monitoring efforts and safety release systems will require the area between the present toe of the dam and Ramona Expressway. DWR has sent a letter to RCTC stating that the MCP facility must not be within its right ,of way to allow these safety improvements and operational activities to occur both now and in the future. Additionally, due to the size of and magnitude of the MCP project, a Value Analysis (VA) review was required to meet Federal requirements. A Caltrans Value Analysis team of independent experts examined the proposed alternatives for weaknesses that could either stop the project from moving forward or that would add significant cost to the project if solutions were not found. This input from the VA team resulted in three new alignments to try and address some of the major concerns heard from the public and some engineering issues staff and the consultant team were encountering due to potential impacts to the Lake Mathews MWD HCP reserve as well as the proximity to both the Lake Mathews and Lake Perris Dams. The VA team considered these engineering issues as well as concerns raised by the public and several new alignments were identified as possible options to the existing alternatives. Three alignments in particular rose to the top of the VA study. The three new alignments are shown in Attachment 1: 1) The Far South alignment between 1-15 and 1-215 that avoids the Lake Mathews Dam and also would be the only alternative that did not impact the MWD HCP reserve area; 2) The Perris Drain alignment that would avoid the Perris Dam area but still connect to the 1-215 at. the current location of the Ramona Expressway/Cajalco Interchange; and 3) A new alignment for the most eastern end of the project that parallels the Colorado River aqueduct between Warren Road and. Sanderson Ave in the City of San Jacinto. Staff has carefully reviewed the suggestions from the VA team and further refined' the VA proposals such that staff can now concur with the VA recommendations. In order to include the VA recommendations, the current contract with Jacobs must be re-scoped to incorporate the additional options for the alignments being studied. As reported at previous Commission meetings, both schedule and budget; will be impacted by the new alignments due to the need to conduct the required environmental and engineering studies. 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. Agenda Item 11 117 Early estimates for the cost to incorporate this increase in scope are approximately $5 million. Because the VA alternatives provide a sound solution to the safety issues that result from the close proximity of several of the alignments with the Lake Mathews and Lake Perris Dams, staff is also working with the resource agencies to eliminate the original alternatives that impact the dams. The only concern to removing these alternatives from further study is with the City of Perris: The City of Perris's locally preferred alternative is the alignment adjacent to the Lake Perris Dam. Staff has made several presentations to the Perris City Council to explain the safety issues related to the Perris Lake Dam and is planning additional meetings with city staff to make sure that they have all of the information needed to make decisions regarding reconsideration of their locally preferred alternative. Until the Perris City Council rescinds their resolution that the alignment adjacent to the dam is their locally preferred alternative, staff is reluctant to remove the alignment.from further study. FHWA has indicated that both dams should be treated equally. This means that if the Perris Lake Dam is not removed from further consideration, then they would have difficulty supporting removal of the Lake Mathews Dam alignment from the alternatives being studied. As stated earlier, at the January 12, 2005 Commission meeting, ,approval was granted for a base amount of $22,025,928 and a contingency ' amount of $4,108,456 for a total not to exceed amount of $26,134,384 for the PR/ED of the MCP project. As of September 30, 2005, total expenditures on the .project have been $4,155,530 leaving a balance of $21,978,854. Staff now recommends Commission approval to re -scope the project and add $4,845,385 to the authorized budget. The $4,108,456 of contingency will remain as before. Staff is recommending that the additional funding for this amendment be taken from commercial paper until such time that additional TUMF funding is made available for the MCP project -- at which time TUMF funds will replace commercial paper funding. Staff will continue to update the project budget status to the Commission on a quarterly basis. This new amendment will require an audit of the proposed scope of work. Staff will continue to work with the auditors and the consultant team on the new scope of work for the project; to assure that it is consistent with the Commission objectives. Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: N Year: FY 2005-06 Amount: $4,845,385 Source of Funds: Commercial Paper Proceeds Budget Ad ustment: Y GLA No.: A303-72/73-81101 P8100 80 Fiscal Procedures Approved: \144440�r,,, Date: 11 /01 /05 Agenda Item 11 118 Attachments: 1) Mid County Parkway Project New Alignment Options Map 2) Scope of Work for Amendment 2 3) Schedule for Amendment 2 4) Cost Sheets for Amendment 2 Agenda Item 11 119 O010I1100V UNe 01NONN011Y AYM71NVd AINOOD GIN Satkftra L 1N3WHOVIId ...F:asNoleanoaia Noa I „i. e own • ,• - 1u•muelle 1•e611ICVV _ 10•10Ye11t •1011 wort N ATTACHMENT 2 MID COU1s,ITY PARIWAY PROJECT ' SCOPE OF SERVICES / MANHOUR FEE ESTIMATE OUT OF SCOPE / AMENDMENT 2 REQUEST MID COUNTY PARKWAY PHASE 2 SERVICES ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION AND BASIC ENGINEERING OCTOBER 26, 2005 MID COUNTY PARKWAY CORRIDOR -ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION AND BASIC ENGINEERING In the fall of 2005, as a result of public meeting input, Ca!trans Value Analysis and discussions with Metropolitan Water District and Department of Water Resources, an alternative and design variations were added to the suite of alternatives. Amendment 2 increases the scope and budget and revises the schedule to accommodate these additions. As a result of Amendment 2, the current suite of alternatives under consideration is as follows: Altemative 1A— No Project / No Action— Existing / Ground Conditions Alternative 113 — No Project / No Action — General Plan Circulation Element . Conditions Alternative 2 — North Lake Mathews / North Perris (Adjacent to the Lake Perris Dam, with a design variation at Perris Drain) Alternative 3 — North Lake Mathews / South Perris (Rider Street) Alternative 4 — South Lake Mathews / North Perris (Adjacent to the Lake Perris Dam, with a design variation at Perris Drain) Alternative 5 — South Lake Mathews / South Perris (Rider Street) Alternative 6 — General Plan Hybrid / North Perris (Adjacent to the Lake Perris Dam, with a design variation at Perris Drain) Alternative 7 — General Plan Hybrid / South Perris (Rider Street) Alternative 8 — Renumbered to Alternative 1 B Alternative 9 — Full MWD Avoidance Alternative - Far South / South Perris (Rider Street, with design variation at Placentia Street) All build alternatives, Alternatives 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 9, have a design variation from Warren Road to SR-79. There are two no build alternatives, seven build alternatives, and three design variations — Perris Drain, Placentia Street, Warren to SR-79. 122 i TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 PROJECT MANAGEMENT 2.0 PUBLIC OUTREACH 3.0 SURVEY / RIGHT OF ENTRY / RIGHT OF WAY 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL 5.0 TRAFFIC ENGINEERING 6.0 ENGINEERING 7.0 GIS DATA BASE SERVICES BUDGET SCHEDULE 123 SCOPE OF SERVICES FOR TASK NO. 1 PROJECT MANAGEMENT MID COUNTY PARKWAY CORRIDOR —ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION AND BASIC ENGINEERING 1.0 PROJECT MANAGEMENT 1.1 Project Management This task includes overall project management, Project Development Team (PDT) leadership, progress monitoring, and maintenance of project files from February 1, 2005 through June 30, 2009. Jacobs Civil Engineering (Jacobs) will supervise, coordinate, monitor, and review the project report and Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIS/EIR) for conformance with the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), the CaliforniaDepartment of Transportation (Ca'trans), and local agency standards, policies, and procedures. Monthly progress reports will be prepared to document progress on the project. This task will also include coordination and preparation of several documents anticipated to be required by Ca!trans based on the Final Project Report and Environmental . Document. This task also incorporates the management and project integration required for each of the subconsultants on this very large and complicated project. The consultant will provide Quality Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC) for the project. The job -specific QA/QC plan used for. Phase 1 will be updated for the project, which includes the type and timing of checks and reviews, the designation of personnel involved, and specific procedures. These procedures apply to all team members and will be regularly audited by our designated QA/QC manager to ensure compliance. All documents and papers for external use will be reviewed for completeness and consistency. A technical editor will be used for all external documents. Jacobs will complete the QA/QC plan no later than one month after Notice to Proceed. The purpose of the document is to verify that: • All environmental and design attributes meet established: industry or agency standards and comply with all applicable jurisdictional codes and requirements; 124 • Multidisciplinary data acquisition and design efforts are coordinated and addressed; and • Design is sufficiently complete to produce a reliable cost estimate for the purposes of project funding and supporting the assessments in the Draft EIS/EIR. 1.2 Project Scheduling and Project Controls Jacobs will prepare a detailed work breakdown structure (WBS) and integrate project milestones in the critical path schedule. All activities will be resource loaded for the team. The schedule will be updated bimonthly or more frequently as required, and a variance analysis will be provided in our monthly report. Primavera Scheduling Software, tied into the Jacobs Accounting System, will be used for this task. Jacobs will provide the Project Controls for this project to ensure proper financial controls to the project. Earned value will be used along with schedule updates to maintain project budget and schedule. 1.3 Project Meetings The Jacobs Team will organize and attend a number of meetings as specified below: Project Development Team (PDT) The PDT and Jacobs will meet monthly. These progress meetings will be used to coordinate the work effort and resolve: problems and will be conducted by the Consultant. The Jacobs Team will meet with RCTC and others, including Ca!trans, Riverside County, and the affected cities (Corona, Hemet, Moreno Valley, Norco,' Perris, Riverside and San Jacinto) as necessary. Jacobs will provide discussion materials and agendas and will prepare and distribute meeting notes. Jacobs will develop an action item matrix, document all project decisions, and distribute correspondence copies to all project team members as appropriate. The meetings will also review the following: 1. Activities completed since the last meeting 2. Problems encountered 3. Anticipated strategic problems and possible solutions 4. Information or items required from other cities or the agencies 5. Schedule "look -ahead" discussion 125 Small Working Group (SWG) Meetings Small Working Group meetings will continued to be scheduled quarterly for the SWG, including representatives of local government and private sector agencies along the corridor, along with the FHWA, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), Caltrans, California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG), Metropolitan Water District (MWD), Riverside County, and RCTC. This group will meet to provide environmental and engineering technical input in order to move the environmental process forward and to gain concurrence on a least environmentally damaging practicable alternative (LEDPA). The consultant will prepare the agenda and meeting notes and conduct a pre -meeting with RCTC to prepare for the monthly meeting. Trend Meetings The Jacobs Team will organize and attend the monthly "Trend" meetings to discuss strategic technical issues, scope of services, schedule, cost, and other issues as required for coordination. County — RCTC Development Meetings The Jacobs Team will attend County development meetings monthly to coordinate alignments, right-of-way, developer tracts, etc., with RCTC, Riverside County, and developers as needed. These meetings are to facilitate a means of communication between the County, developers and RCTC in order to minimize impacts to the alignment. Developer Meetings The Jacobs Team will attend developer meetings estimated as occurring approximately two times per month to coordinate alignments, right-of-way, development tracts, etc., with RCTC, the County, and specific developers as needed. These meetings are to facilitate a means of communication between the developers and RCTC in order to minimize impacts to both throughout the Phase 2 schedule. Caltrans Monthly Workshop Meetings The Jacobs Team will attend monthly Caltrans workshop meetings to review and resolve engineering issues, share information, seek input, provide interim reviews of data, etc. Internal Team Meetings The Jacobs Team will run and attend semi-monthly internal team meetings to develop, discuss, review, and implement task assignments and coordinate tasks. 126 Other Agency Meetings Other agency meetings include anticipated meetings with federal, State, and local agencies. These include coordination and support for the environmental streamlining process, the Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) integration process, Special Area Management Plan (SAMP) development, and coordination between the Orange'; County/Riverside County Major Investment Study (MIS) and SR-79 realignment projects. These agency meetings are anticipated as an average of one per month. Assumption: This scope of services covers the period of February 1, 2004, through June 30, 2009. As a result of the Value Analysis done by Caltrans, new alternatives have been added to the project. Portions of these new alternatives are outside of the initial study area identified in Phase 1 and will result in additional field surveys to be done in 2006. Due to the scheduling requirements of these surveys, it has been identified that the length of our contract will be extended by approximately one year. Based upon that, the contract is extended by 12 months for an additional period of one year, from July 1, 2008 through June 30, 2009. 127 SCOPE OF SERVICES FOR TASK NO.2 — PUBLIC OUTREACH MID COUNTY PARKWAY CORRIDOR —ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION AND BASIC ENGINEERING 2.0 PUBLIC OUTREACH 2.1 Support for Public Meetings Attend two team meetings per month for five months around the time of each of two rounds of public meetings; attend two trend meetings before each round of public meetings. Provide support materials in the form of maps, handouts and powerpoints for meetings with stakeholders. Assumption: 24 meetings each for one person each from GEO, MIG, and OPR. Provide written responses to all a -mails sent to the MCP web site or to RCTC re: the MCP; coordinate consultant team and RCTC approval of responses; e-mail responses via web site tool provided by RBF. Assumption: 200 e-mail responses, 210 hours, CONTIGENCY SCOPE OF WORK ITEM 2.2 Intergovernmental Communications Z2.1 Second round of route tours (OPR, JE) Tour MCP route with RCTC commissioners, Supervisors, Mayors, and City Council members, providing updated alignment information and addressing key issues. Assumption: 35 tours 2.2.2 Elected official briefings (RCTC, JE, OPR) Conduct targeted briefings with key elected officials to address key project issues and provide information on MCP timeline. Assumption: 20 briefings Products for all 2.2 tasks: • Tour tracking/key issues matrix document (updated throughout) • Tour script 128 • Briefing script • Updated project fact sheet • Ongoing coordination of tours and briefings • Attendance at tours and briefings 2.3 Message Development 2.3.1 Key Messages (OPR) Update key message document to reflect new project issues (environmental documents, project design, final route selection) Product: • Updated message document CONTIGENCY SCOPE OF WORK ITEM 2.4 Stakeholder Communications 2.4.1 Opinion leader route tours (OPR, JE) Tour MCP route with key Western Riverside County opinion leaders to raise awareness of project and measure community concerns. Assumption: 20 tours 2.4.2 Stakeholder/Opinion Leader briefings (RCTC, OPR, JE) Meet with key stakeholder groups (i.e., School Districts, Homeowners Associations, . Chambers of Commerce) to address key project issues and provide timeline updates. Assumption: 25 briefings Z4.3 Monitor stakeholder web postings (OPR) Monitor web posting of key stakeholder groups to measure community concerns and issues regarding the MCP. Assumption: Monitor weekly and provide written updates to RCTC and JE, as needed 2.4.4 Attend stakeholder group meetings (OPR) Attend meetings of key stakeholder groups to measure community concerns'and issues regarding the MCP. 129 Assumption: Attend one meeting per quarter. Products for all 2.4. tasks: • Stakeholder/community leader briefing target list • Tour tracking/key issues matrix document (updated throughout) • Opinion leader tour script • Stakeholder briefing script • Ongoing coordination of tours and briefings • Attendance at tours and briefings • Monthly update memos on stakeholder group web postings referencing MCP. • Quarterly update memos on stakeholder group meetings where MCP is discussed i 2.5 Media Relations i 2.5.1 Media calendar (OPR, JE, RCTC) Develop a calendar of key project milestones at which media coverage will be sought and/or must be addressed. 2.5.2 Media briefings (OPR, RCTC) Conduct briefings with local and regional transportation reporters prior to public meetings, release of Draft EIS/EIR, announcement of locally preferred alternative,. and other project milestones. Assumption: 12 briefings 2.5.3 Media Kit (OPR; JE) Develop an MCP media kit for distribution to local and regional transportation reporters, with draft and pitch media releases timed to project milestones and wins Assumption: 12 media releases 2.5.4 Opinion -Editorials (RCTC, OPR, JE) Draft Op -Editorials to communicate key project messages,; coinciding with critical project milestones (i.e., locally -preferred alternative announcement, Draft EIS/EIR), signed by RCTC leadership, city leaders, and/or community leaders. Assumption: 5 Op -Editorials 130 Products for all 2.5 tasks: • Media calendar document Media briefing, script/talking points, and a question -and -answer (Q&A) document. • Key issue media talking points (i.e., Perris route, Lake Mathews route, right- of-way/legal issues) • Media briefing rehearsals (3) • Media releases (12) • Op -Editorials (5) • :Media kit o Media fact sheet o Media Q&A o Project map/parkway renderings o Project timeline o Relevant news clips 2.6 Public Informational Meetings (3 Total) Assumptions: One round of meetings at three locations; one newsletter, including mailing 2.6.1 Support (ALL) Review and provide comments on display materials, newsletters, and draft PowerPoint presentations. Attend public informational meetings. 2.6.2 Communications (GEO, OPR) Draft talking points for RCTC spokesperson at public meetings. Draft a question - and -answer (Q&A)-document to help RCTC spokespersonprepare for public questions during meeting. 2.6.3 Logistical and Public Information Support (GEO) Coordinate site locations and provide logistical support for up to three informational meetings. Prepare exhibits, newsletters, direct mailing, PowerPoint presentation, and advertising; place advertising. 2.6.4 Hold Meetings (MIG) Design meeting formats to convey and gather input at this stage of the process. For each meeting, create handouts and facilitate and graphically record the meeting. Prepare Excel lists of attendees and prepare 3-5 page summaries of facilitated 131 discussion, including breakout group flipchart transcriptions as applicable. Prepare 11 x 17 camera-ready photographic reproductions of one wall graphic for each meeting for posting on the Web site and reproduction by RCTC. 2.6.5 Web site (GEO, RBF) Update Web site for public meeting plus monthly postings for 48,months. Products for all 2.6 tasks: • Talking points document • Q&A document products • Comments and reviews on materials, newsletters, and PowerPoint presentations • Meeting exhibits • Newsletters • Direct mailing • PowerPoint • Advertising in newspapers • Meeting design • Meeting handouts, directional signs, sign -in sheets • Meeting summary • Meeting wall graphic reproduction in electronic format • Meeting attendance list in Excel format • Web site update 2.7 Draft EIS/EIR Hearings Assumption: One round of meetings at three locations 2.7.1 Support (ALL) Review and provide comments to display materials, newsletters, and draft PowerPoint presentations. Attend hearings. 2.7.2 Communications (GEO, OPR) Draft talking points for RCTC spokesperson at public meetings. Draft Q&A document to help RCTC spokesperson prepare for public questions during meeting. 132 2.7.3 Logistical and Public Information Support (GEO) Coordinate site locations and provide logistical support for up to 3 informational. meetings. Prepare exhibits, newsletters, direct mailing, PowerPoint presentation, and advertising; place advertising. 2.7.4 Hold Meetings (MIG) Design meeting formats to convey and gather input at this stage of the process. For each meeting, create handouts and facilitate and graphically record the meeting. Prepare Excel lists of attendees and prepare 3-5 page summaries of facilitated discussion, including 'breakout group flipchart transcriptions as applicable. 'Prepare 11 x 17 camera-ready photographic reproductions of one wall graphic for each meeting for posting on the Web site and reproduction by RCTC. Products for all 2.7 tasks: • Talking points document • Q&A document products • Comments and reviews on materials, newsletters, and PowerPoint presentations • Meeting exhibits • Newsletters • Direct mailing • PowerPoint • Advertising in newspapers • Meeting design • Meeting handouts, directional signs, sign -in sheets • Meeting summary • Meeting wall graphic reproduction in electronic format • Meeting attendance list in Excel format • Web site update 133 SCOPE OF SERVICES FOR TASK NO. 3 — SURVEY, RIGHT -OF -ENTRY (ROE), AND RIGHT-OF-WAY (ROW) MID COUNTY PARKWAY CORRIDOR —ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION AND BASIC ENGINEERING 3.0 SURVEY, RIGHT -OF -ENTRY (ROE), AND RIGHT-OF-WAY (ROW) 3.1 Survey and Mapping 3.1.1 Record Data Search Consultant shall conduct records research with Caltrans, MWD, and the County of Riverside to assemble record maps, field notes, and other survey records within the project limits. Record data will be reviewed and catalogued for future reference. 3.1.2 Additional Topography and Aerial Photography The consultant will provide surveying and mapping services for the additional studies along the 1-15 from El Cerrito to SR-91 and from Weirick to Temescal Canyon. All work will be completed in conformance with Caltrans standards and specifications. For this corridor along the 1-15 from El Cerrito to SR-91 and from Weirick to Temescal Canyon our mapping needs to be ortho-rectified requiring ground control tied to the panel points on the ground with both coordinates and elevation. 1:500 ortho-rectified photography with a digital elevation model suitable for 'A meter contour intervals will be provided. The engineering team will provide a boundary on a strip map that describes the limits of the survey. Consultant will provide aerial topographic mapping for the Far South alignment between 1-15 and 1-215, south and north on 1-215, and west of 1-15 on the MCP west extention. Product: • Flight layout with control schematic. • One set of 9"x9" contact prints for each flight. • DTM (Mass points & breaklines) in Microstation V8 and AutoCAD formats. • Topographic & Planimetric mapping in Microstation V8and AutoCAD 2000 formats. • Clipped Inroads DTM surfaces/ • Digital Orthophotography (Rectified Photo) in .TIF, .HMR, and .COT formats. • Encroachment permits will be obtained so that all survey monumentation required for aerial surveys can be established. All surveys establishing control will adhere to current Caltrans Standards. 134 3.1.3 Geotechnical Boring Location. Field Survey Consultant shall conduct field surveys to locate all of the Geotechnical borings for soil exploration by GPS survey. There are approximately 80 borings.. proposed by the Geotechnical team for this phase of the project. Product:' Microstation GADD drawing with the coordinates and elevations of each boring. CONTINGENCY SCOPE OF WORK ITEM 3.1.4 Field Surveys Consultant shall conduct field surveys as requested by the Engineering Team. This shall include up to 25 days of field surveys with a 2-man crew for any, additional information the Engineering Team will need during this phase of the project. Encroachment permits will be obtained. All surveys establishing control will adhere to current Caltrans standards. 3.2 Right -of -Entry (ROE) Completion ROE Permits for the purpose of performing environmental surveys will be conducted on those parcels identified as necessary to achieve the goals of this phase of work. Ongoingdatabase support and coordination for tracking ROE permit parcels for environmental and legal. Phone support for owner contacts after legal notices_ have been sent. Update database for ownership changes, voluntary signing, access limitations and court ordered ROE's. Obtain additional ROE permits as necessary that have been identified by environmental' or that have had ownership' changes. This task includes ongoing public agency rights -of -entry renewal and; ongoing litigation supports Additional work has been required to be performed on right -of -entry coordination due to: a) Expansion of original buffer area from 10,600 acres to 12,800 acres b) Extensive work required on right -of -entry coordination with property owners and support to BBK and the need to develop and maintain a database tracking the number of visits to court ordered parcels. Assumption: Approximately 3,000 parcels in database Products: Signed ROE for access to parcels needed for environmental studies and database tracking 3.3 Early ROW Studies The following tasks will be performed: 135 • Perform a field inspection of each short-listed alternative. Ascertain number of parcels, types of improvements, and possible problem areas (i.e., mobile homes, functional replacements, historical sites, etc.). Estimate family sizes on residential relocations. • Using city surveys, courthouse records, and real estate listings, compile information on neighborhood characteristics, price ranges for land and improvements, housing available, minority; percentages, etc. • Compile a ROW cost estimate for each alignment. • Prepare a conceptual relocation study. • Identify potential problem areas. • Prepare a land use map that identifies land usage along each alignment. The parcel use categories shall utilize appropriate categories. Due to the increased number of parcels to be addressed in the right-of-way studies (an increase of almost 100%); this has increased the number of GIS support hours to assist in preparing the right-of-way studies. Assumption: Short-listed alternative is defined as alternative going into the scoping process. Products: Data for Draft Relocation Impact Report and ROW Data Sheets 3.4 Prepare Draft Relocation Impact Report The Consultant will prepare the report in accordance with Ca!trans guidelines and the "Uniform Act." This task includes a site visit and research in preparation of the report; no interviews or surveys of the potential displacees will be conducted at the draft stage. The report will include the number and type of: • Residential displacements • Multifamily displacements • Business/nonprofit displacements • Farms/agriculture displacements. The report will discuss the potential for last resort housing and the current and anticipated availability of, relocation resources. 136 The report will include a discussion of any relocation problems specific to this project and the alternatives, along with suggested solutions/mitigation solutions to those problems. The report will also include potential sequencing or foreseeable relocation difficulties of unusual or difficult displacees. This report will use existing available information in the market including but not limited to professional services, real estate brokers, publications, studies, and government resources. Due to the increased number of parcels to be addressed in the right-of-way studies (an increase of almost 100%); this has increased the number of GIS support hours to assist in preparing the relocation impact report. Assumption: For purposes of this scope of services, this includes one Draft Relocation Impact Report and one Final Relocation impact Report. Any substantial changes in scope of services that require interim reports to be generated are not included in this scope of services. Product: Draft Relocation Impact Report and Final Relocation Impact Report for. each alternative (10 copies of each report). 3.5 Prepare ROW Data Sheets The Consultant shall complete the following: Prepare tight -of -way data sheets as required by Ca!trans thatwill be updated . annually if there are major scope changes, or after final alternative has been selected. Number of data sheet parcels estimated_ 3,000 for preliminary studies and. 1,500 upon final alignment selection. This analysis will identify the property acquisitions and relocations required for each of the final alternatives based on the ROW requirement map prepared previously. Typically, depending on the alternative, property may be required for highway widening, interchanges, fixed guideways, stations, parking, maintenance facilities, and/or ancillary structures. The work tasks will include the following: • Perform a field inspection of each alternative. Ascertain number of parcels, types of improvements, and possible problem areas (i.e., mobile homes, functional replacements, historical sites, etc.). Estimate family sizes on residential relocations. • Using city surveys, courthouse records, and real estate listings, compile information on neighborhood characteristics, price ranges for land and improvements, housing available, minority percentages, etc. 137 • Compile a ROW cost estimate for each alignment. • Prepare a conceptual relocation study. • Identify potential problem areas. • Prepare a property ownership map based on railroad right-of-way maps and on tax records that identify ownership for each alignment. • Prepare a land use map that identifies land usage along each alignment. The parcel use categories shall utilize appropriate categories, including: o Land in public ownership: specific use and responsible agency/jurisdiction o Commercial: retail, wholesale, industrial, other commercial o Residential: single-family or multifamily o Vacant o Mixed uses o Other (specific) The Consultant shall complete the following: 1. Review the impact of each proposed alignment on existing and known future land uses. 2. Prepare a ROW report that summarizes the findings and includes: (1) a cost estimate for each alignment; (2) a relocation evaluation for each alignment; (3) identified problem areas; (4) ownership map; and (5) a land use map (6) include costs provided by engineers from Task 6.3.3 covering utility relocation estimate costs and railroad construction costs. 3. Prepare right-of-way data sheets as required by Caltrans. Due to the increased number of parcels to be addressed in the right-of-way studies (an increase of almost 100%); this has increased the number of GIS support hours to assist in preparing the right-of-way data sheets. Assumption: For purposes of this scope of services, this includes one set of Right - of -Way Data Sheets and one Final updated Right -of -Way Data Sheet for each selected alternative. Any substantial changes in scope of services that require interim reports to be generated are not included in this scope of services. Product: ROW Data Sheets (estimated total parcels: 1,500) per Caltrans standards for inclusion in the Project Report. CONTINGENCY SCOPE OF WORK ITEM 138 3.6 Property Acquisition and Displacement Hardship and Protection (Right of Way) The work task will include advance purchases for hardship and/or protection parcels. Advance acquisition on adopted roadway routes (except for other compelling circumstances) is made prior to freeway agreement or in advance of the year in which it is programmed. The Streets and Highways Code Section 100.21 prohibits acquisition prior to freeway agreement except for hardship or protection reasons. Advance acquisition may include the voluntary gift or a donation of property. Product: Parcels acquired for hardship and protection 139 SCOPE OF SERVICES FOR TASK NO.4 — ENVIRONMENTAL MID COUNTY PARKWAY CORRIDOR —ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION AND BASIC ENGINEERING 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES 4.1 Complete Scoping Process The public scoping process includes three public scoping meetings and the distribution of a Notice of Intent to prepare an EIS and a Notice of Preparation to prepare an EIR. These efforts will be accomplished during Phase 1 of the MCP. study. Phase 2 scoping tasks are described below. 4.1.1 Draft Scoping Summary Report A Draft Scoping Summary Report will be prepared to document FHWA and RCTC's efforts to identify key issues related to the scope of the environmental issues that should be addressed in the EIS/EIR for the project, as well as the range of project alternatives. The scoping efforts to be documented will include public meetings and a summary of the issues raised in responses to the Notice of Intent to prepare an EIS and the Notice of Preparation to prepare an EIR. The scoping outreach efforts, including efforts to reach all affected populations —and the resulting input and comments received from public agencies, organizations, and citizens —will be included and summarized in the Draft Scoping Summary Report. The Draft Scoping Summary Report will be submitted to RCTC, Caltrans, and FHWA for concurrent review. Product: Draft Scoping Summary Report 4.1.2 Final Scoping Summary Report The Draft Scoping Summary Report will be revised pursuant to comments received from RCTC, Caltrans, and FHWA, and a final Scoping Summary Report will be prepared. The final Scoping Summary Report will be prepared by LSA and distributed to key team members. The information received during the scoping process will be incorporated into the environmental review and analysis of the project in a manner consistent with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Product: Final Scoping Summary Report 140 Task 4.1.3 Final Evaluation Criteria Draft Evaluation Criteria will be completed and circulated for NEPA/Section 404 agency review in Phase 1. In this task for Phase 2, Final Evaluation Criteria will be< prepared following the completion of the scoping phase and receipt of agency comments on the Draft Evaluation Criteria. The Final Evaluation Criteria will be submitted to the NEPA/Section 404 agencies for formal concurrence. Product: Final Evaluation Criteria 4.2 Draft Technical Studies Draft technical studies will be prepared for the following topics described below. Each technical study will include a discussion of the applicable regulatory setting and existing conditions/affected environment. Existing conditions/affected environmental conditions will be documented based on a review of existing literature, mapping (including relevant portions of CETAP Tier1-data), and field surveys as required. For any surveys on private property, LSA will confirm the availability of an approved Right of Entry Agreement, and will contact the property owner in advance as may be required by the Right of Entry Agreement. Relevant evaluation criteria will be highlighted and addressed for each topic. Thresholds of significance under CEQA will also be identified. 'Both short-term construction -related and long-term operational effects will be analyzed: Avoidance and minimization measures will be identified, as well as mitigation measures where avoidance and minimization are not feasible. Cumulative impact analysis will focus on those topics where cumulative, pressures on resources are a concern (e.g., aquatic resources, biological resources). The addition of the Far South, Perris Drain and other refinements has increased the physical study area, as well as adding new alternatives that will need to be mapped, analyzed, and discussed in each of the project technical' studies. Additional detail is provided below for the biological resource and cultural resource studies. 4.2.1 Biological Resources Technical' Reports (NES/JD) Biological resource studies for the MCP will be conducted in accordance with those required by the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) for the Cajalco Road Realignment and Widening Project (MSHCP Section 7.2.3). The Cajalco Road Realignment and Widening Project represents a four -lane divided roadway south of Lake Mathews. In accordance` with the MSHCP; if an alternative alignment south of Lake Mathews is selected as the Preferred Alternative, an equivalency analysis will be prepared to compare the effects and benefits of the alignment with the "northerly" (north of Lake Mathews) CETAP alignment. Biological studies for the MCP will be conducted to satisfy CEQA, the NEPA/Section 404 integration process, and the MSHCP (for"Covered Activities" and for the MSHCP consistency analyses). Covered activities are those development 141 projects that were considered and evaluated in the MSHCP or for which "take authorization" under the Section 10(a) Permit and the NCCP permit has been authorized. The biological resource studies will also consider the requirements regarding covered species and covered activities identified in HCPs potentially affected by the MCP, including the Lake Mathews Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan and Natural Community Conservation Plan (MWD/RCHCA, July 1995) and the Habitat Conservation Plan for the Stephens' kangaroo rat (SKR) in Western Riverside County, California (RCHCA, March 1996). In general, these various requirements overlap, and satisfying the multiple requirements of the various documents will not require substantial additional work. It is essential, however, to assemble a data base at the outset of the Phase 2 effort that incorporates the requirements of all of these documents to ensure that the various NEPA/Section 404 analyses, MSHCP consistency analyses, and HCP amendments analyses can be undertaken and processed in a timely manner. The biological studies for the MCP project will be conducted to meet the following objectives: 1) Completion of a technical study analyzing the effects of the project on biological resources. The study results will be documented in a Natural Environment Study (NES) consistent with Ca[trans guidelines. 2) Assess the need for amendments to the HCP for the SKR and to the Lake Mathews HCP/NCCP. 3) Conduct an MSHCP consistency analysis at two levels: (1) a generalized consistency analysis for CEQA/NEPA purposes, and (2) more detailed consistency and equivalency analyses as required under Section 7.0 of the MSHCP, following the identification of a Preferred Alternative. 4) Follow a process to meet specific milestones that, in the event that a southerly alignment around Lake Mathews is selected as the Preferred Alternative, •will provide for the timely completion of the MSHCP equivalency analysis. Following are the milestones to meet the potential requirement for an equivalency analysis: a.• Summarize existing data on habitats, covered species, core areas, linkages, constrained linkages, conservation areas, ecotones, and consistency with existing HCPs and NCCPs. The baseline data on habitats and species distribution will be completed during the first one, 142 to two months of the contract for use in establishing future milestone dates. b. Coordinate with wildlife agencies regarding sufficiency of existing baseline data for ultimate use in equivalency analysis "and to identify any "gaps" in existing data that require further data collection (e.g., field surveys for covered species). This milestone is to be completed with sufficient time to conduct any additional field surveys that maybe required during the winter/spring/early summer 2005 and 2006 field season. c. Conduct an iterative review of project design elements with wildlife agencies to ensure that any alternative south of Lake Mathews will be designed to facilitate movement of avian species and; minimize existing reserve fragmentation, and that any stream crossings will be designed to facilitate the movement of mammal species. This process will be initiated as soon as possible during project design. d. Through coordination with the wildlife agencies, establish a set of parameters and a procedure for establishing the replacement ratio and evaluating the adequacy of additional lands to be acquired and conserved. Please see Section 4.11 for more information regarding-HCP Amendments and the Western Riverside County MSHCP Consistency Determination: Following are the proposed tasks to meet the objectives for the biological studies. Literature "Review The Environmental Team will review existing literature, GIS data, and other data sources to compile reported' information on the distribution of sensitive habitat types, species that require focused surveys in accordance with the MSHCP, and MSHCP- covered species in the vicinity of the alignment south of Lake Mathews. The distributioninformation will help determine the likelihood of sensitive resources being present within given portions of the study area and,will help to focus. the survey efforts.' Additionally, the distribution information' will provide data regarding known locations of sensitive plants that will be used as "reference populations" to verify that species are detectable as of the time of focused surveys. The literature review will provide information regarding the MSHCP and the associated Criteria Area that may. be affected by the project. ' The following literature sources will be reviewed. 143 • i • Biological Resources Technical Report for Hemet to Corona/Lake Elsinore Corridor Draft Tier 1 El$/EIR • Existing available Lake Mathews HCP and SKR HCP data (as obtained from MWD, USFWS and/or Lake Mathews Reserve Managers Committee) • Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSCHP) • California Natural Diversity Database • California Native Plant Society's Electronic Inventory • Current aerial: photographs (Eagle Aerial 2004) • Western Riverside County SAMP • Other data sources as appropriate The Environmental Team will use information generated as part of the Hemet to Corona/Lake Elsinore (HCLE) Tier 1 environmental studies to the greatest extent feasible. for instance, where the alignment is unchanged from that surveyed for the HCLE study, the previous study data will be utilized to assess habitat suitability for sensitive plant species requiring surveys under the MSHCP. If the previous data show the habitat to be unsuitable for the subject plant species, it may be appropriate to conclude that focused surveys for such species are not necessary. We anticipate that it will be necessary to obtain approval for this approach from the Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority (RCA). The Environmental Team will review and interpret aerial photographs to update the HCLE vegetation maps for purposes of identifying any land use changes that may affect habitat suitability for subject species. The vegetation map update will focus on identifying developed or agricultural lands that were previously mapped as natural habitat. Further refinement of the HCLE vegetation maps will be conducted as part of the field surveys. Using the information generated through the literature review, we will compile records on locations of sensitive species within a 5-mile radius of the project and alternative alignments. We will review the MSHCP to identify areas of public -quasi public lands, habitat cores and blocks, and habitat linkages that may be affected by the project. _ Existing data from the HCLE studies will be used to refine MSHCP study areas and exclude, where feasible, areas of development or agriculture that are unsuitable as habitat for subject species. Locations where alternative alignments traverse the MSHCP Criteria Area will be ' reviewed and summarized. The summary will follow the approach for the criteria 144 consistency review process outlined in Section 3.3.1 of the MSHCP, Volume I. The purpose of this summary will be to outline the MSHCP goals for the particular portion of the Criteria Area affected by the alignment under consideration. The purpose of, this summary will not be to perform the MSHCP consistency analysis for a particular alignment but rather to establish some of the baseline framework upon which later - consistency analyses will be conducted as appropriate. This will be particularly important for alternatives that involve alignments south of Lake Mathews. The MSHCP and other relevant documents such as the Habitat Conservation Plan for the SKR will also be reviewed to identify lands under public or quasi -public ownership that are currently managed for conservation values. Conservation_ objectives, biological resource data, and related information conservation areas will be summarized. Field Surveys Field surveys will be conducted in accordance with the requirements of the MSHCP and applicable survey protocols of the USFWS and CDFG. Field data will be collected using GPS equipment and current aerial photographs. Standard field data forms will be prepared for use with the various surveys. Where feasible, surveys will be combined. Typically, survey results are valid for one year; thus, additional surveys may be required prior to the commencement of construction activities. The proposed scope of services is based on the assumption that surveys will not be required for MSHCP "covered species." Should the wildlife agencies determine through the Equivalency Analysis process that focused surveys for covered species are required, an amendment to the scope of services and budget will be needed to complete the necessary surveys. Reconnaissance -Level Mapping Update Areconnaissance-level survey will be conducted by driving the proposed alignments to update and refine existing MSHCP and HCLE vegetation maps. This refined data will be used for planning the various field surveys and for general analysis of impacts to vegetation types and Criteria Area. As part of this effort, the Environmental Team will coordinate with MSHCP monitoring program staff to assess the status of the Vegetation Rapid Assessment Protocol being undertaken by CDFG as described in Section 5.3.5 of the MSHCP.: Those data will be incorporated into the analysis to the maximum extent possible. Sensitive Plants Where necessary, habitat suitability assessments will be performed to identify those portions of the alignment in which additional focused surveys will be required or to 145 identify areas in which focused surveys will not be needed. The MSHCP requires that habitat assessments for several of the species be conducted during the rainy season (generally November through April); assessments for other species can be conducted year-round. For purposes of labor efficiency and to meet the project schedule, the Environmental Team proposes to conduct all required habitat suitability assessments during the rainy season. Per the MSHCP, habitat assessments and focused surveys (if suitable habitat is present) will be required for the following species: NEPSSA — Narrow Endemic Plant Species Survey Area Munz's onion (Allium munzii) San Diego ambrosia (Ambrosia pumila) Slender -horned spineflower (Dodecahema leptoceras) Many -stemmed dudleya (Dudleya multicaulis) Spreading navarretia (Navanetia fossalis) California Orcutt grass (Orcuttia califomica) Brand's phacelia (Phacelia stellaris) San Miguel savory (Satureja chandlers) Hammitt's clay -cress (Sibaropsis hammittii) Wright's trichocoronis (Trichocoronis wrightii wrightii) , CASSA — Criteria Area Species Survey Area Ban Jacinto Valley crownscale (Atriplex coronata var. notatior) Parish's brittlescale (Atriplex parishii) Davidson's saltscale (Atriplex serenana var. davidsonii) Thread -leaved brodiaea (Brodiaea filifolia) Smooth tarplant (Centromadia pungens) Round -leaved filaree (Erodium macrophyllum) Coulter's goldfields (Lasthenia glabrata ssp. Coulters) Little mousetail (Myosurus minimus ssp. Apus) Mud nama (Name stenocarpum) Focused surveys will be conducted during the blooming season for the subject plant species; Generally, spring (March through June) is the blooming season for most of the species; however, some species bloom earlier or later and the overall blooming season may vary depending on the timing and quantity of winter rains. Within areas of suitable habitat, two survey visits will be conducted for the subject species; however, due to blooming season variations for the involved species, ;up to five visits may be required in those areas that provide suitable habitat for multiple species. Where possible, the Environmental Team will visit nearby reference populations of the subject species to verify the species are blooming and detectable and to therefore confirm that that the survey timing is appropriate. 146 Surveys will be conducted by LSA and Dudek biologists who are fully familiar with the habitat requirements and techniques for field identification of the subject species. Small Mammals The portion of the study area in the vicinity of Lake Perris and the San Jacinto River is within the survey area for the Los Angeles pocket mouse (LAPM). The Environmental Team will conduct small mammal trapping surveys for the LAPM within the survey area. Additionally, the CDFG staff has identified concerns about potential habitat fragmentation effects where an MCP alternative alignment traverses the edge of the SKR San Jacinto Core Reserve in the vicinity of take Perris. focused walkover surveys or small mammal trapping may be necessary in the vicinity of the Core Reserve to assess habitat fragmentation issues in this area. It is anticipated that a single survey at a rate of 50 acres per day to cover the entire subject area will be sufficient for a walkover survey. If small mammal trapping is necessary, it is anticipated that three trapping efforts (five consecutive nights of trapping per effort) will be sufficient. The Environmental Team will coordinate with the RCA and CDFG to determine appropriate survey methodologies in this area. Walkover and trapping surveys will be conducted by qualified biologists under USFWS and CDFG permits for working with the SKR and other subject species. It is likely that a single small mammal trapping, survey will suffice to collect information regarding both the LAPM and the SKR: Burrowing Owl The burrowing owl is a covered species under the MSHCP, and specific conservation objectives for this species are incorporated in the MSHCP. Among the conservation objectives are requirements to conduct surveys during the early planning stages of projects to`identify 'occupied areas that may be desirable for acquisition for the MSHCPConservationArea. The MSHCP also includes requirements to conduct preconstruction surveys to allow for passive relocation and avoid direct impacts to owls. As part of this scope of services, the early planning stage surveys will be undertaken. Figure 6-4 of the MSHCP identifies aburrowing owl survey area within which suitable habitat is to be identified. and surveys conducted within identified suitable habitat. The survey area encompasses essentially the entire study area for the MCP, approximately 17,000 acres. Of the 17,000 acres, 10,600 was the initial acreage, 2,200 acres were added due to agency and engineering refinements of the survey "buffer" area, and 4,200 acres were added as a result of new alignments (Far South, Perris Drain, Placentia, Avenue, and expanded MCP/SR-79 interchange' area). For budgeting purposes, it is, assumed 147 that approximately 60% of the study area, or 10,200 acres, will be determined to include suitable habitat for burrowing owl. Pursuant to the MSHCP and the Survey Protocol for burrowing owls endorsed by both the CDFG and ,USFWS, an assessment will be conducted to determine habitat suitability for the portion of the MCP alternatives that is within the MSHCP-mapped burrowing owl survey area. Data from the literature review on the known distribution of the owl in the vicinity of the MCP alternatives will be summarized to identify areas of known or potentially occupied habitat. Areas of suitable habitat will be surveyed for the presence of burrows that may be suitable for use by the burrowing owl. Surveys will be conducted at transect intervals sufficient to provide 100 percent coverage of all potential habitat on site. Riparian Birds Habitat suitability assessments are required by the MSCHP for the following riparian bird species: least Bell's vireo (Vireo bellii pusil/us) (LBV), southwestern willow flycatcher (Empidonax traillii extimus) (SWF), and Califomia yellow -billed cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus occidentalis) (cuckoo). A habitat suitability assessment will be conducted on all areas that have been mapped as riparian habitat in the updated vegetation map. Riparian habitats include riparian forest; southem sycamore/alder- riparian woodland, riparian woodland, riparian scrub, open water, and marsh. Focused surveys will be conducted for those portions of the study area that support potential habitat (dense riparian vegetation) for the species. Surveys will be conducted according to the latest USFWS.protocol for the LBV and SWF. There is no protocol for the cuckoo; however, surveys will be conducted for all three species. The survey results will be valid for a period of at least one year. Focused surveys will be conducted eight times, with a minimum of 10-day intervals, during the period from May 20 to July 31. Jurisdictional Waters of the U.S. and State Literature review data will be used to identify those areas of the alignment that may qualify as jurisdictional waters, including the Planning -Level Delineation (Lichvar, 2002; 2004). To identify jurisdictional wetlands, a three parameter delineation will be conducted according to the 1987 Corps Wetland Delineation Manual, and to delineate the jurisdictional limit of non -wetland waters of the U.S. following the procedures set forth in'33 CFR 328.3(e). The wetlands delineation and jurisdictional determination will be conducted for all proposed alternatives evaluated within the Draft EIS/EIR within the study area. It is anticipated that aRoutine Delineation (as defined by the Corps), tailored to the site characteristics, will be adequate. Further, the extent of any streambed and associated riparian areas subject to review by the . . CDFG under Section 1602 of the Fish and Game Code will be determined, 148 The results of the draft jurisdictional delineation/determination will require verification and approval by the Corps and CDFG. Fairy Shrimp If suitable habitat is found in the biological resources study area, the Environmental Team will conduct a focused wet -season fairy shrimp survey of all seasonal pools believed to provide suitablehabitat. The survey will be. conducted according to USFWS guidelines (Interim Survey Guidelines to Permittees for Recovery Permits under Section 1 D(a)(1)(A) of the Endangered Species Act for the Listed Vernal Pool. Branchiopods, April 19, 1996), as appropriate. For vernal pool fairy shrimp (Branchinecta lynchi), the MSHCP states that a single -season dry or wet season survey for this species shall be conducted by a qualified biologist in accordance with accepted protocol. A wet season survey is generally considered to provide more comprehensive data; therefore, the Environmental Team will conduct a wet season survey during the 2004-2005 rainy season. A wet season survey consists of several site visits for seasonal pool sampling. The . first site visit must occur no later than two weeks after pools are initially inundated to a depth of at least 3 centimeters (cm) for 24 hours after a storm event. Additional site visits occur every two weeks for 120 days, or until the pools are no longer inundated. If the pools dry and then refill within the wet season, sampling must be reinitiated within eight days of refilling. If seasonal pools do not have standing water at the time of the habitat suitability assessment, and suitable habitat is determined to exist, LSA or Dudek biologists will briefly visit the site after each storm event to determine when initial sampling must begin. It is estimated that no more than six site visits will be required to check for each pool filling/refilling after storm events and that no more than eight additional site visits will be required for pool sampling. In addition to the species noted above, the Lake Mathews HCP identifies a number of target species that are not included on the MSHCP Covered. Species, list. These species are listed below. Consideration of these species will be included in the analysis of effects of the MCP project on the Lake Mathews HCP and in preparation and processing of any Lake Mathews HCP amendment. Plants: great valley (or clay) phacelia (Phacelia ciliaae), large -leaved filaree (Erodium macrophyllum), Braunton's milkvetch (Astragalus brauntonii). Amphibians and Reptiles: San Bernardino ring -neck snake (Didiphis punctatus modestus) Birds: bank swallow (Riparia riparia), blue grosbeak (Guiraca caerulea) long-eared owl (asio otus), red -shouldered hawk (Bute° lineatus), rough -legged hawk (Buteo lagopu). 149 Mammals: American badger (Taxidea taxus), big or picketed free -tailed bat , (Nyctinomops femorosaccus or macroti), little brown bat (Myotis spp.), pallid bat (Antrosous pallidus), western mastiff bat (eumpos perotis), western pipistrelle (Pipistrellus Hesperus). Little is known about a number of these species, particularly the bats. Using existing available information, suitable habitat for these species will be identified within the Lake Mathews HCP portion of the study area. For species for which survey protocols are available, focused surveys will be conducted. Anecdotal observations of these species during other field efforts will also be recorded. Wildlife Movement and Habitat Connectivity As identified above for small mammals, and using existing available information, including MSHCP biological cores and linkages and biological considerations within affected portions of the MSHCP Criteria Area, existing wildlife movement and habitat connectivity and fragmentation issues in the project study area will be identified and summarized. This information will provide a baseline for analysis of impacts in the Natural Environment Study (NES). Report Preparation NES The Environmental Team will prepare a Natural Environment Study (NES) report in accordance with the Caltrans template dated April 24, 2003, as modified for purposes of analysis under the MSHCP, or other format as directed and approved by RCTC and Caltrans, the proposed scope of services is based on the MSHCP, which precludes the need to survey for certain species, and limits the analysis required for impacts to such species. This approach represents a departure from the standard Caltrans NES methodology and format. -Therefore, the project team , will coordinate with Caltrans at the beginning of the project to confirm that the proposed approach will be sufficient for Caltrans purposes. The NES will include: • A description of study methodologies • A summary of the results of the literature review • A discussion of the results of each of the various field surveys • Maps depicting field survey results • Maps of MSHCP Criteria areas • Maps of designated or proposed critical habitat 150 • A review of MSHCP requirements and consistency of each alternative with the MSHCP • A table describing sensitive species that are present or potentially present for each alternative • A summary of the results for each alternative of the delineation of waters subject to jurisdiction of the Corps, California Department of fish and Game, and Regional Water Quality Control Board • An,assessment of project impacts to biological resources, including, sensitive plants, small mammals, burrowing owl, riparian birds, fairy shrimp, jurisdictional waters, sensitive habitats, and habitat connectivity • A list of all plant and animal species observed or otherwise detected • Recommendations for mitigation (such measures will be included upon completion of coordination with the project team, including_Ca!trans representatives; these mitigation measures will not include construction -level documents such as specific restoration plans) The NES will identify the need for any additional biological surveys (i.e., focused surveys that may need to be updated at the time of construction). The NES will also identify regulatory permits that may be required for project approval and construction (i.e. a.Corps Section 404 permit, CDFG 1602Agreement, and Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) Section 401 Certification.. The processing, of required permits is not included within this scope of services. Product: 20 copies of Draft NES Jurisdictional Waters Delineation Report A technical report will be prepared presenting the results of the jurisdictional delineation. The report will be suitable for submittal to the involved agencies for. purposes of permit application and for inclusion as a technical appendix in the Draft EIS/EIR. Accordingly, the report will identify and quantify jurisdictional areas and features by alternative, including a breakdown of wetlands and non -wetland waters of the U.S., as well as an estimate of permanent and temporary impacts>resulting from the discharge of fill material into jurisdictional. waters of the U.S. In addition, data and findings from the ERDC's baseline Functional Assessment and impact analysis will be incorporated into the report. The jurisdictional delineation report will include_ • A description of study methodologies 151 • Background information of the Corps, CDFG, and RWQCB pertaining to regulating impacts to drainages • A description of vegetation, soils, and hydrology present within the alignment • Maps depicting field survey results (including locations of wetlands, non - wetland waters of the U.S., and CDFG jurisdictional streombeds) • A table summarizing acreage of impacts to potential jurisdictional areas • Field data sheets at sample plot locations Product: 20 copies of Draft Jurisdictional Waters Delineation Report Focused Survey Reports A stand-alone report will be prepared for the results of each focused survey effort: " Reports will be prepared in accordance with the requirements of the MSHCP and USFWS permits for conducting surveys for threatened and endangered species. Reports will be prepared for the following issues: • Habitat suitability assessment for NEPSSA and CASSA plants: This report will be submitted to RCTC upon completion of the field surveys for concurrence with the survey results prior to the initiation of focused plant surveys. • Functions and values assessment for vernal pools that may be affected. This information will be generated from data gathered during the delineation and NEPSSA, CASSA, and fairy shrimp surveys: • Habitat suitability for fairy shrimp. • Functions and values assessment for riparian habitat that may be affected. This " information will be generated from data gathered during the delineation and riparian bird surveys. • Survey results for riparian birds. • Survey results for fairy shrimp: • Survey results forNEPSSAand CASSA plants. Product: 10 copies of each draft survey report 4.2.2,Cultural, Resources Technical Reports (HPSR/ASR/hIRER) LSA will be the lead consultant on the cultural resources technical studies, with support from Applied Earthworks (archaeological studies) and MFNJSA (historic architectural evaluations): 4.2.2.1 Identification. 152 Agency Coordination. LSA will coordinate with Caltrans, FHWA, and the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) throughout the execution of this task. This consultation will focus on ensuring that work completed under this scope of services complies with the requirements of these agencies for reporting, researcher qualifications, documentation, etc., while adhering to the proposed schedule. Where appropriate, the work plan and reporting detailed in the Caltrans Environmental Handbook (Volume 2), Cultural Resources (Draft January, 2004), as well as updates posted on the Caltrans Web site will be used to direct the work effort. In addition, work will be conducted in accordance with the January 2004ProgrammaticAgreement Among the Federal Highway Administration, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, the California State Historic Preservation Officer, and the California Department of Transportation, Regarding Compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, as it Pertains to the Administration of the Federal -Aid Highway Program in California (PA).. Caltrans District 8 cultural resources staff concur that the PA applies to the MCP project. APE/Study Area Map Development. Project engineering will be available in January 2005. These design drawing will be used to develop the project Area of Potential Effect (APE)/Study Area map for the undertaking. LSA will coordinate with District 8 staff in the development of appropriate APE limits for both the area of direct impact and the indirect impact area for the project. All elements of this SOW and Budget are based on the preliminary study area defined on September 27, 2004. If any variations to this study area occur, a budget and scope adjustment may be necessary. As discussed with Caltrans, a project specific APE will be developed where engineering is suitably advanced to allow this level of analysis. In areas where current design is not specific (for example, in the area surrounding Lake Mathews), a "study area" encompassing a wider bandwidth will be used. Under the terms of the PA, Caltrans will approve this map. As the project APE is defined in these Study Areas, the refined APE maps will be developed in consultation with District 8 staff. Native American and Interested Parties Consultation. LSA recognizes that the federal government has a unique relationship with federally recognized tribes and that Caltrans/FHWA has the ultimate responsibility in Native American consultation. LSA will coordinate with Caltrans%FHWA to determine the level of involvement LSA will have in the Native American consultationprocess. LSA will also consult with other interested parties, including non -federally recognized Native American groups and local historical and archaeological societies. In consultation with District 8, LSA will contact the tribal entities identified in the NAHC letter, and through prior efforts for the CETAP project, to solicit their concerns and input into the cultural resource management program for this project. This initial contact will be made through a verifiable letter system (e.g., 153 Certified Letter). Subsequently, LSA will contact those entities by up to two phone calls to ensure each group has an opportunity to comment on the project. LSA will then coordinate up to 10 meetings with such groups (as needed)„ documenting comments provided during those meetings, and developing responses to comments as appropriate. Consultation will continuethroughout the Section 106 compliance effort. Archival and Historic Research. LSA will conduct an archaeological and historical records review and literature search through the Eastern Information Center (EIC) of the California Historical Resources Information System, located at the University of California, Riverside. The EIC houses the pertinent archaeological and historic site and survey information necessary to determine whether previously recorded cultural resources are known to exist within the property. The objectives of this archival research will be: (1) to establish the extent and status of cultural resources previously documented within the project area; and (2) to note what site types might be expected to occur within the project area based on the existing data from known cultural resource sites located within a one -mile radius. In addition, LSA will obtain, previous cultural resource reports for sites whose National Register or California Register eligibility has been evaluated. For the builtenvironment, LSA will obtain from the EIC the most current listing of the Historic Resources Inventory, which reports previous survey findings for buildings and structures along the proposed project. These prior evaluations may reduce the need for new evaluations for the MCP project (See Task 4.2.2.2 of this scope of services for more information).' Research for the MCP will be conducted in order to provide a,prehistoric and historic contexts for the region. This research and context will guide the evaluation of all cultural resources. Research will be conducted in repositories in Riverside County, including the offices of the Riverside County Assessor, Recorder, and Department of Public Works; the University of, California, Riverside; California History Room, City of Riverside Public Library; Riverside County Historical Commission; Riverside County Archives Commission; the San Jacinto Valley Museum; and any others. In addition, research will be conducted in the California Room, California State Library,. Sacramento (census records, city directories, newspapers, and many maps and histories); and by contacting local historians and local agency staff. Caltrans District 8 staff will be contacted to obtain any pertinent Caltrans records of early road construction or historic aerial maps that may help identify the construction history of the built ' environment. Archaeological and Architectural Field Survey of the Study Area. LSA will survey the portions of the study area that have not been recently surveyed. For areas that have been previously surveyed, LSA will work with District 8 staff to 154 determine if additional survey work will be necessary. The total study area for the original six "build" alignments was originally estimated at 10,600 acres, of which 4,300 acres have been previously surveyed adequately. It was estimated that 6,300 acres will require pedestrian surveys for both prehistoric and historic archaeological resources and the built environment. Since the preparation of the original scope and budget, the study area expanded by an additional'2,200 acres due to expansion of the buffer area through engineering. refinements and resourceagency requests. In addition, inclusion of the Far South, Perris Drain, and Placentia Avenue alignments, as well as expansion of the study area at the _ 1-15 and SR-79 interchanges has resulted in an additional 4,200 acres to the study area. The original scope and budget were based on finding up to 188 archaeological resources. The field survey resulted in in the identification of 204 archaeological resources which require documentation. This SOW and Budget is based on this assumption. In previously unsurveyed areas, a team of archaeologists will walk a series of parallel transects spaced at 10-15 meter intervals across the study area until' it has been completely surveyed. All sites within the study area will be mapped using sub -meter GPS equipment and recorded digitally for input into the project GIS database. Since the majority of these archaeological sites will be evaluated during the next task, LSA recommends that only Primary Forms of the State" Department of Parks and Recreation Forms (DPR 523 Series) be completed at this time to initially record the sites, with additional forms (e.g., Archaeological Site Records, Milling Station Records,' Linear Feature Records, etc.) completed during the evaluation phase. For previously surveyed areas, LSA will revisit and update site records of known resources as necessary. LSA historians/architectural historians will survey the study area by vehicle, to identify elements of the built environment that are between 30 and 45 years in age. In accordance with the PA, a Professionally Qualified Staff person will determine whether any of these resources may be exempt from evaluation. The level of effort expended on research for the architectural resources that require evaluation will be commensurate with their potential for significance. Since built environment resources are evaluated in this task, all evaluated buildings will be recorded on DPR 523 forms (Primary and Building,' Structure, Object Records), except for those that have been so altered as to appear less than 30'-years of age, or those that have been moved within the past 50 years:' The only properties less than 50 years of age to be recorded will be those that have ` achieved exceptional significance within the last 50 years. Based on prior research, there are approximately 118 previously recorded cultural resources within the area affected by the six build alternatives. The majority of these resources are prehistoric archaeological sites (n=78). These ' 155 include 47 milling slicks with no surface component, at least 5 rock art sites. Historic archaeological sites (n=15) consist primarily of building foundations; abandoned irrigation systems, and historic refuse dumps/scatters. The majority of the previously recorded built environment resources (n=24) appear to be residential in nature, constructed in the early to mid 1900s. Most of these resources are concentrated in the communities of Mead Valley and Lakeview;, however, there are several dairies in the San Jacinto Valley and other pockets of roadside commercial enterprises. There is one site that contains prehistoric and: historic archaeological resources as well as elements of the built environment. Extended Phase 1 Archaeological Survey. There are 47 previously recorded prehistoric archaeological sites that are classified as prehistoric milling slicks without any associated surface artifacts (60% of total known prehistoric archaeological sites). Millings slicks without an associated surface component typically indicate that use of the site was not intense and that the site does not have a,strong potential for significance. for these 47 archaeological sites, and. any similar sites identified during the archaeological survey, LSA will conduct an Extended Phase I Archaeological Survey (XPI). The purpose of the survey will be to determine whether or not a subsurface component of the site is present or absent. If there is a subsurface component of the site, then it will need to be evaluated (as described in Task 4.2.2.2 of this scope of services); if there is no subsurface component of the, site, then further evaluation will not be necessary. Prior to the XPI, an Extended Phase 1 Proposal will be completed and approved by Caltrans/FH1NA pursuant to the PA. Shovel test pits (STPs) are the most likely method of determining the presence/absence of a sub -surface archaeological deposit. For the purposes of this proposal, 47 sites requiring an XPI are assumed and will be investigated through the placement of. approximately 4 STPs at each site. 4.2.2.2 Evaluation Based on known resources within the study area (n=118), LSA has assumed that no more than 188 archaeological resources will be identified on the alternatives considered. This estimate assumes 156 prehistoric archaeological sites, 30 historic archaeological sites, and two sites that contain elements of both disciplines. Based on known resources, LSA has assumed that approximately 60% of the prehistoric archaeological sites (n=96) are milling slicks without surface or sub -surface components and will be investigated through the Extended Phase I program. The remaining sites will undergo evaluation as described below. 156 Continuing Agency Coordination. LSA will provide on -going coordination with Caltrans, FHWA, and SHPO throughout the execution of the evaluation process. This consultation will focus on ensuring that work completed under this scope of services complies with the requirements of these agencies for reporting, researcher qualifications, documentation, etc. Native American and Interested Parties Consultation. LSA will continue its role to ensure that Native American and interested parties consultation for the project continues in compliance with the requirements of Section 106. This will include coordinating and attending up to five meetings with such groups, documenting comments provided during those meetings, and developing responses to comments as appropriate. Archaeological Evaluation Proposal/Testing Plan. Upon completion and acceptance of the survey and extended survey effort, LSA will develop an Archaeological Evaluation Proposal. This report will state the goals of the study and clearly establish the field and laboratory methods that will complete this evaluation. It will include a realistic and site -specific research design, background information, and.a discussion of the regional research issues. Curation plans, permits, time requirements, and personnel will also be addressed. Archaeological Evaluation. This task involves completing suitable evaluation excavations to allow characterization of the horizontal and vertical extent of each investigated site, as well as characterization of the site contents and development of a recommendation as to the National Register eligibility of the site. The evaluation program will include a discussion of the significance, integrity, and mitigation recommendations for subsequent work. Prior work . conducted within the APE will be used where possible to minimize required excavation. The extent that prior evaluation work can be used will be assessed in Task 4.2.2.1. Geomorphological Trenching. In order to determine the stratigraphic integrity of the archaeological sites, LSA proposes to excavate a series of trenches at the various sites (as determined appropriate in the Archaeological Evaluation Proposal) to evaluate the geomorphology of site deposits. To do this, LSA will analyze and interpret the depositional history of the project area. This analysis will focus on determining whether each site is intact; and, if so, developing accurate horizontal and vertical boundaries for the resource. This task will be critical to determining the significance of a site. STPs. LSA proposes to use STPs to determine the presence/absence of subsurface deposits at each site location and to help define the horizontal and 157 vertical boundaries of each site. STPs will also help characterize the contents of each site and will be used to develop information on artifact/ecofact densities within each site. The STPs do not focus on statistical samples, but help to characterize the nature and extent of each deposit. If an archaeological site is present within project boundaries, additional excavation will be necessary to evaluate each site. An STP is approximately 35 cm in diameter and is excavated at 20 cm intervals. Each discrete interval is then screened to identify the presence/absence of cultural remains. If cultural remains are identified, the site is considered to be present in the area of the STP, If remains are absent in several consecutive STPs; the site is not considered to extend to that area. For the purposes of this proposal, midden depth within the site is assumed to be no more than 60 cm. Unit Excavation. At each site located within the APE where STPs and/or trench excavations have identified a subsurface deposit, LSA will hand -excavate 1 x 1 meter units. If the STPs and/or trenching at any site do not identify a subsurface deposit, LSA will not excavate 1 x 1 meter units at that site. Each unit is excavated in 10 cm increments until the: bottom of the. archaeological deposit is reached. The purpose of unit excavation is to allow -fora large enough sample of the subsurface deposit to be obtained in stratigraphic context, allowing LSA to ascertain the site type and any intrasite variation. Each unit will be placed based on information obtained from the STP and/or trench excavations. The proposed number of units per site will be determined in the Archaeological Evaluation Report. For the purposes of this scope of services, midden depth within each; site . is assumed to be no more than 60 cm deep. If in situ features are identified during excavation, additional budget may be necessary to account for additional excavation time. Site Mapping. LSA will map the site boundaries; STP, trench, and unit locations; surface artifacts, including artifact clusters/features; and other notable features. To complete this mapping, LSA will utilize sub -meter accuracy GPS equipment. . Database/Cataloging. LSA will create a database that will be used for cataloging and analytical purposes. This database will have provenience information, including the STP/unit number, level, artifact class, artifact identification, material type, measurements, and other variables where appropriate. All items that come to the lab will be entered into the database. The database will be the basis for the catalog that will follow the collection. General Sorting. Materials collected during the excavation program will be dry screened in the field and the residual will be transported to the LSA Cultural/Paleontological Resources Laboratory, for analysis. The first step is to sort materials into general categories based on artifact class (Flaked. Stone, 158 Ground Stone, Faunal Remains, Ceramics, Histories; and Artifact Analysis). All material will be sorted and cataloged, and then a technical analysis will be conducted. Technical Analyses. Technical studies will be competed for each artifact class: flaked stone, ground stone, faunal, ceramics, historic material, and artifact analysis. If suitable materials are collected, specialized analysis will be conducted on those materials. Materials that would undergo specialized analysis include, but are not limited to, bone/shell/charcoal (carbon-14 dating), obsidian (hydration and sourcing), and projectile points and grinding stones (blood residue' tests). Products: 15 copies of Draft AER, Determination of Eligibility and Finding of Effect 4.2.2.3 Documentation And Reports LSA will develop a Historic Property Survey Report (HPSR), which is the Caltrans/FHWA master document for the identification effort. Attached to the HPSR will be the Archaeological Survey Report (ASR), the Extended Phase 1 Survey Report (XPI Report), and a Historic Resources Evaluation Report (HRER) that documents the results of the survey efforts. The contents of the report will be coordinated with"Caltrans/FHWA. HPSR. Upon completion of the research and consultation described above, LSA will complete an HPSR: The HPSR is the summary document used by Caltrans/FHWA for consultation and decision -making, and serves as the supporting documentation for NEPA and CEQA compliance. The HPSR documents completion of the identification phase, completion of the National Register eligibility evaluation of resources within the APE, and, as appropriate, a Finding of No Historic Properties Affected or No Adverse Effect with Standard Conditions. The HPSR will present a summary of findings,- document public participation, describe properties identified and their significance/eligibility for the National Register and under CEQA, and the findings for the undertaking as a whole. The HPSR will include a location" map, project vicinity map, and APE map as exhibits, as well as photographs,. plans, and other graphics. The HPSR will contain the following attachments: as appropriate: Archaeological Survey Report, Extended Survey Report,' Historic Resource Evaluation Report, Bridge Evaluation, Test Excavation Report, and letters from any concerned or interested parties.. ASR. The ASR will document identification and recordation efforts for prehistoric archaeological resources. The ASR will contain documentation of the research and field methods, an overview of the existing environment, 159 ethnography, and prehistory of the study area, a description of identified prehistoric archaeological resources, and findings and conclusions. The ASR will also contain a bibliography, preparer's qualifications, maps, DPR 523 forms (initially limited to Primary Forms during this stage); and any other documents that may be necessary, such as maps, figures, previously prepared resource records, and archaeological site records. XPI Report. The XPI Report will document efforts of the XPI. The XPI Report will contain documentation of the research and field methods; a brief overview of the environment, ethnography, and prehistory; description of the prehistoric archaeological resources; and findings and conclusions. The XPI Report will also contain a bibliography, preparer's qualifications, and any other documents that may be necessary such as maps, figures, previously prepared resource records, and archaeological site records. For sites that do not contain intact sub -surface elements, additional DPR forms, completing the recordation of these sites, will be prepared. HRER. The HRER will document identification, recordation, and evaluation efforts for the built environment and historical archaeological resources. The preparer(s) of the HRER will meet the Architectural Historian Qualifications Standards set forth in Attachment 1 of the 2004 PA. The HRER will follow the format set forth in Exhibit 6.2 of Caltrans Environmental Handbook Volume 2. The HRER will contain documentation of the research and field methods, a historical overview, the description and significance of identified historic archaeological and built environment cultural resources (if applicable), and findings and conclusions. The HRER will also contain a bibliography, preparer's qualifications, maps, DPR 523 forms for properties not exempted under Attachment 4 of the PA, and any other documents that`may be necessary such as maps, figures, previously, preparedresource records, and historical archaeological site records. Preparation of one HRER is anticipated however, the complexity of resources, degree of effect, and evaluation of. resources may require multiple HRERs. Archaeological Evaluation Report. LSA will develop an Archaeological Evaluation Report (AER). The AER will provide the basis for determining whether sites within the APE are eligible or ineligible for the National Register. It will also discuss the potential for sites to be impacted by the MCP Alternatives. The report will document the fieldwork and data analysis required to draw conclusions as to the National Register eligibility of the sites.' If appropriate, a Preliminary Archaeological Evaluation Report will be developed that will briefly summarize the results of the evaluation effort. 160 Development of a Determination of Eligibility and Finding of Effect for the Studied Resources. LSA will work with FHWA/Caltrans to develop a Determination of Eligibility and Finding of Effect, for the resources studied in Task 4.2.2.2. The Determination of Eligibility is typically reported in the HPSR. The Finding of Effect is prepared for only those properties listed in or determined eligible for listing in the National Register: The specific format for the Finding of Effect will follow the format set forth in the Caltrans Environmental Handbook, Volume 2, presuming Caltrans has completed that format before the draft work product is due. These eligibility and effects recommendations will be subject to FHWA/Caltrans and SHPO review and comment. Products: 15 copies of Draft HPSR, ASR, XPI Report, FIRER, AER 4.2.3 Paleontological Evaluation Report LSA will prepare a Paleontological Evaluation Report that addresses the potential for paleontological resources along the proposed right-of-way for each alternative and provides measures to mitigate impacts to significant, nonrenewable paleontological resources that may be encountered and impacted during construction excavation. A report will be developed that conforms to Caltrans requirements and County of Riverside guidelines. Specific tasks to be performed include the following:' . • Paleontological literature review and records search through appropriate institutions that maintainrecords of paleontological resources within Riverside County. • Field assessment of sensitive sediments along the right-of-way to confirm potential for paleontological resources. • Development of a report that describes what ages and types of paleontological resources might' be encountered by construction excavation and that describes project -specific methods to mitigate impacts to nonrenewable' paleontological resources. Recommendations will be made for curation of specimens in an accredited Riverside County museum. • Compilation of a paleontological resource sensitivity map that indicates which rock units along the route might contain paleontological resources and where construction monitoring for resources should focus. Product: 10 copies of Draft Paleontological EvaluationReport 4.2.4 Noise Technical Report The noise impact analysis will address the noise requirements of RCTC, FHWA, Caltrans, the County of Riverside, and the cities of Corona, Perris, and San Jacinto, where applicable. LSA will prepare a technical noise impact analysis consistent with 161 all applicable procedures and requirements. Projected vehicular traffic volumes on the corridor and adjacent affected street segments will be used in preparing the technical noise impact analysis for each alternative. Additional information required is identified in the discussion below. The report will be prepared to respond to all applicable CEQA and NEPA evaluation criteria, as well as to meet Caltrans and FHWA requirements. Baseline Noise Conditions. LSA will review applicable federal (FHWA), State (Ca!trans), County of Riverside (County), and the cities of Corona, Perris, and San Jacinto land use and noise compatibility criteria for the project area. Noise abatement criteria (NAC) required by Ca!trans and FHWA will be identified and used in the analysis. Noise standards regulating noiseimpacts in the Noise Element and Noise Ordinance of the County of Riverside and the cities of Corona, Perris, and San Jacinto will be discussed for land uses on and adjacent to the project site. The areas with potential future noise impacts will be identified using land use information, aerial photographs, and field reconnaissance. A discussion of existing sensitive uses along the, project corridor will be included. Existing roadway traffic noise will be calculated as baseline conditions, using traffic data included in the traffic study for the proposed project. A survey of existing ambient noise levels will be conducted to establish the character of the noise environment at the identified sensitive receptor locations along the corridor. Noise measurements will be taken at up to 90 locations. Observations of noise sources and other noise correlates will be noted during each measurement period. Construction Impacts. Construction would occur during implementation of the proposed project. Noise impacts from construction sources will be analyzed for each altemative based on the available project -specific information, such as the equipment expected to be used, length of a specific construction task, equipment power type (gasoline or diesel engine), horsepower, load factor, and percentage of time in use. EPA -recommended noise emission levels will be used for the construction equipment. Blasting or pile -driving may be required for the project construction. The construction noise impact will be evaluated in terms of maximum levels (Lax), and hourly equivalent continuous noise levels (Leg), and the frequency,' of occurrence at adjacent sensitive locations. Analysis requirements will be based on, the sensitivity of the area and the noise control ordinance specifications of the County of Riverside and the cities of Corona, Perris, and San Jacinto. Mobile Source Noise Impacts. The proposed project is expected to accommodate projected future growth in intracounty traffic trips and is not expected to generate new vehicular traffic trips. It is anticipated that most of the alternatives would improve circulation within the County and reduce congestion along other roadways. 162 However, there is a possibility that some traffic currently utilizing other area roadways would be attracted to use the improved transportation corridor: Furthermore, the proposed MCP may bring the vehicular traffic closer to noise - sensitive receptors. Noise impacts from vehicular traffic will be assessed for each alternative using the current traffic noise model requiredby Caltrans and FHWA as of February 1, 2005,. Model input data needed include peak hour traffic levels; percentages of autos and medium and heavy trucks; vehicle speeds; ground attenuation factors; and roadway widths. Peak -hour Continuous Equivalent Noise Level (Leg) along the project corridor and area roadways that would be potentially affected will be tabulated. Traffic parameters necessary for the model input will be obtained from the traffic study prepared for this project. Noise Abatement Measures. Noise abatement measures designed to reduce short and long-term impacts to acceptable noise levels in the vicinity of the MCP corridor alternatives will be determined where necessary. Both an evaluation of the potential mitigation measures and a discussion of their effectiveness will be provided. Feasibility and Reasonableness Analysis. A feasibility and reasonableness . analysis will'be provided for all noise abatement measures' identified, based on. Caltrans Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol for Highway Construction and Reconstruction Projects (Caltrans, October 1998). Noise Contour Map. Projected traffic noise contours for the 67 dBA Leg, which represents the noise abatement criteria for Activity Category B sensitive receptors (as defined in 23 CFR 772) such as residences, will be plotted on'a map for each alternative. Product: 15 copies of Draft Noise Technical Report 4.2.5 Air Quality Technical Report The air quality impact analysis will address local and regional impacts on sensitive land uses in the vicinity of the: project site. The air quality analysis will place particular emphasis on delineating the issues specific to RCTC, the County, the cities of Corona; Perris, and San Jacinto, and the South Coast Air Quality Management District (AQMD) air quality requirements. LSA will prepare an air quality technical report for the proposed project. The report will be prepared to respond to all applicable CEQA and NEPA evaluation criteria, as well as to meet Caltrans and FHWA requirements. Baseline Air Quality Conditions. Baseline and project setting meteorological and air quality data developed through the California Air Resources Board (ARB) and 163 climatological and air quality profile data gathered by the AQMD will be utilized for the description of existing ambient air quality along the project corridor. Air quality data from the Norco, Perris, and Hemet Air Quality Monitoring Stations published for the past three years will be included to help highlight existing air quality local to the proposed project corridor. Other sources such as regulatory documents, professional publications, and LSA experience in the project area will supplement background information. A summary of current air quality management efforts that may be related to the proposed project will be provided. A brief overview of the nature and location of existing sensitive receptors will be provided to set the context for how such uses may be affected by the proposed project. Short -Term Construction Emissions. Construction would occur during implementation of the proposed project. Air quality impacts from grading and construction sources will be analyzed for each of the alternatives based on available project information, such as the equipment used, length of time for a specific construction task, equipment power type (gasoline or diesel engine), equipment emission factors approved by the EPA (AP-42 Handbooks), horsepower, load factor, and percentage of time in use. Exhaust and dust emissions from worker commutes and equipment travel will be calculated based on available information regarding these activities. Fugitive dust emissions would result from wind erosion of exposed soil and soil storage piles, grading operations, and vehicles traveling on paved and unpaved roads. Emissions associated with asphalt paving will be calculated when specific data are available. Emission factors included in the AQMD's CEQA Air Quality Handbook will be used for construction dust emission estimates.These emissions will be calculated based on construction information available and provided to LSA. Long -Term Mobile and Stationary Source Emissions. The proposed project is planned to accommodate projected future growth in intracounty traffic trips and is not expected to generate new vehicular traffic trips. It is anticipated that most of the project alternatives would improve circulation within the County and reduce congestion along other roadways. The daily vehicle miles traveled (VMT) may be reduced as well. Project -related changes in the VMT and average speed included in the traffic study for each of the alternatives will be used in the air quality analysis. Emissions will be calculated with the ARB's EMFAC 2002 air quality model and the SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook. It is not expected that there will be stationary source emissions as a result of the proposed project. Long -Term CO Hot Spot Impact Analysis. Vehicular traffic on area roadways is expected to increase due to area growth with population expansion. Furthermore, the project alternatives would bring the vehicular traffic closer to receptors along the road. A screening analysis will be conducted for carbon monoxide (CO) hot spot analysis based on the guidelines provided in Ca!trans Transportation Project -Level 164 Carbon Monoxide Protocol (May;1996). If potential impacts would occur, a detailed CO hot spot analysis will be conducted based on the projected peak hour traffic along the corridor and turn volumes projected at key affected interchanges along the corridor in the project vicinity that would be affected by the project. The Caline4 model will be used for the CO hot spot analysis. Screening Level Health Risk Assessment. LSA will conduct a screening -level health risk assessment (HRA) for sensitive receptors along the proposed corridor for each alternative.' The screening level HRA will be conducted based on the projected future traffic volumes, fleet mix, and associated diesel particulate exhaust. The calculated levels will be compared to applicable health -based criteria. Conformity Analysis. The project's conformity with the current version of the approved RTP and'RTIP will be discussed, using SCAG's regional air quality modeling for the RTP and RTIP as a basis. Any differences between alternatives will be noted. Mitigation Measures.'LSA will work with'RCTC and Caltrans to incorporate feasible mitigation measures for air quality into the report. The cities of Corona, Perris, and San Jacinto and AQMD may also be consulted to identify feasible mitigation measures. Product: 15 copies of Draft Air Quality Technical Report 4.2.6 Community Impact Assessment (including Environmental Justice and Farmlands) A Community Impact Assessment (CIA) will be prepared in accordance with the guidelines found in the FHWA Technical Advisory T6640.8A (Guidance for Preparing and Processing Environmental and Section 4(f) Documents, October 30, 1987) and the Caltrans Community Impact Assessment Handbook (June 1997). A windshield' survey will be conducted initially to determine the affected socioeconomic environment (study area) for the proposed action:. The study area will be reviewed with Caltrans and local agency staff, utilizing the boundaries and locations of local community facilities, school districts, census tracts,,and community planning areas. After the study area has been agreed upon by the participating agencies, the following socioeconomic topics will be evaluated in the CIA for each of the alternatives under consideration: Land Use Impacts and Growth, Inducement, Farmland' Impacts, Social Impacts, Relocation Impacts, and Economic Impacts Specific issues to be addressed' within each topic are discussed in further detail. below. Recommendations to avoid, minimize, or mitigate potential` socioeconomic impacts related to each topic shall be identified in the CIA where feasible. 165 Land Use Impacts and Growth Inducement. The CIA will provide a description of existing and planned land uses within.the study area (utilizing the most current GIS data), current development trends, and a description of all developable ,lands that would be made more accessible by the proposed action. Each alternative will be evaluated for its compatibility with and impacts to the existing and planned land uses within the study area. The discussion will assess the consistency of each alternative with relevant local, regional, and State regulations and plans related to land use and growth. This analysis will include projections of housing stock within the study area and a description of housing policies and programs related to each affected jurisdiction. This discussion will include an analysis of each alternative's impact on the jobs and housing balance based upon the interrelationship of commuting patterns with the location of future housing andemployment centers within the study area. The CIA will ,consider the ways that each alternative could foster economic or population growth or the construction of additional housing (either directly or indirectly) within the study area. Planned growth relative to the highway infrastructure capacity throughout the study area will be considered to determine the potential for growth -inducing impacts of the proposed action. This discussion will include a consistency analysis of the proposed project with relevant air quality and congestion management plans, as well as regional/local land use plans and their incorporated population and employment projections. The potential for growth inducement will be evaluated based upon the potential for exceeding roadway capacity, levels of services, and increases (or decreases) in accessibility to vacant parcels, underutilized land, and agricultural land. The discussion will also include an evaluation and comparison of direct and indirect impacts of growth inducement. Farmland Impacts. The CIA will include a farmland impacts analysis, including an evaluation of impacts to all four types of farmland, including: (1) prime, (2) unique, (3) farmland of statewide importance, and (4) farmland of local importance. Early consultation will be initiated with the Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) and, as appropriate, the California Department of Conservation, Office of Land Conservation, and the Riverside County Agricultural Commission. A map will be prepared identifying the location ,of all four types of farmlands within the study area. The Land Evaluation and Site Assessment (LESA) model will be used to prepare Form AD 1006 (Farmland Conversion Impact Rating) in order to determine the merits of retaining parcels proposed for conversion from agricultural use: Based upon the results of Form AD 1006, the CIA will: (1) discuss and summarize the impacts to farmlands from each alternative under consideration, (2) identify the status and summarize the potential impacts to Williamson Act contract lands, and (3) identify measures to avoid or reduce impacts to farmlands. 166 Social Impacts.. The CIA will include a summary of the public outreach efforts conducted for the MCP project, including public input received from meetings/ workshops, scoping meetings, newsletters, mailings, and additional community outreach efforts. The CIA will establish the social settingof all jurisdictions within the study area that would experience socioeconomic impacts by identifying the existing and projected population and the relevant demographic characteristics of the study area, including: • Ethnicity, • Age • Income • Low -mobility status (i.e., elderly and/or handicapped) This information will be drawn from the latest available demographic and socioeconomic information from State, regional, and local sources (e.g., ;U.S. Census 2000 and current SLAG projections). Demographic information for Riverside County will be utilized to the extent feasible from the CIA prepared for the: HCLE Corridor Draft Tier 1 EIS/EIR (2002). The setting will identify communities (communities recognized by and practice by local residents and officials) and immediate neighborhoods in the study area that may be affected by the project. This discussion will identify any substantial population changes that have recently occurred in ethnic, elderly, poor, or other demographic groups within the study area. ; The CIA will discuss the following items for each alternative under consideration_ • Evaluate potential neighborhood -level disruptions or community cohesion of the various social groups as a result of the proposed action. • Properties that may become restricted in access or landlocked. • A description of transit facilities,' highways, streets, and 'bicycle and pedestrian facilities within the study area and changes in travel patterns and accessibility' (e.g., vehicular;commuter, bicycle, or pedestrian) as aresult of the proposed . action. Commuting patterns within Riverside County will be taken from the CIA prepared for the HCLE Corridor Draft Tier 1 EIS/EIR`(2002): ; • A description,; location, and impact analysis of community services and facilities within the study area, including schools, recreation areas, churches,' hospitals, police and fire protection facilities, etc: • Availability of parking facilities and any lots or parking spaces that would be affected by the proposed action. 167 Impacts to minority populations and low-income populations will be evaluated in compliance with Executive Order 12989, Environmental Justice for Minority Populations and Low -Income Populations. The effects of the project on age -related, transit -dependent, minority, and low-income populations will be analyzed at the tract level to determine whether any social group is disproportionately impacted. Potential mitigation measures to avoid or minimize any adverse impacts to these populations will also be identified. Changes in low-income and minority employment opportunities will be discussed, and the relationship of the project to other federal actions that may serve or adversely affect the low-income or minority population will be identified. Relocation Impacts. The CIA will include a summary of displacements (residential and commercial), the availability of replacement housing, and relocation assistance as identified in the Draft Relocation Impact Report (see Task 3.5). The CIA will also include an evaluation of potential impacts to the local housing stock and employment centers within the study area based upon the proposed displacements. Economic Impacts. The CIA will include a profile of economic conditions within the study area, including the most recent employment and income data. Data for Riverside County will be taken from the CIA prepared for the HCLE Corridor Draft Tier 1 EIS/EIR (2002), unless more recent economic data is available at the time of preparation. The CIA will discuss the following for each alternative under consideration: • Economic impacts on the regional and local economies, including the effects of the proposed action on development, local property and sales tax revenues, City expenditures, job opportunities, accessibility, and retail sales. (It is assumed that the most recent property tax information for each potentially displaced parcel will be obtained directly from the Riverside County Office of the Treasurer -Tax Collector or via Metroscan data provided by the project engineer.) • Impacts to the economic vitality of existing and future highway -related businesses (e.g., gasoline stations, motels, etc.) and the resultant impact, if any, on the local economy. • Impacts of the proposed action on established business districts and any opportunities to minimize or reduce such impacts by the public and/or private sectors. Product: 15 copies of Draft Community Impact Assessment 4.2.7 Floodplain Evaluation LSA will prepare a Floodplain Evaluation Report in accordance with Caltrans guidelines (Environmental Handbook, Volume I, Chapter 17) based on the Location Hydraulic Study prepared by the engineering team. The report will discuss potential 168 impacts and mitigation measures related to floodplain encroachment, flood -related hazards, natural or beneficial floodplain values, access interruption, and the community floodplain development plan. Product: 15 copies of Draft Floodplain Evaluation 4.2.8 Hazardous Waste Initial Site Assessment LSA will prepare an ISA in accordance with the Caltrans Hazardous Waste Handbook and in general accordance with the American Society of Testing and Materials (ASTM) Designation E 1597-00, Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessments: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Process. The following tasks will be conducted as part of this evaluation: • LSA will conduct an agency records database search to identify hazardous waste sites located within one -quarter mile of each alternative (study area) and classified as hazardous waste under State law. The records search will also identify business types located within the study area that store, transfer, or utilize large quantities of hazardous materials. This information will be obtained from records maintained by federal, State, and local agencies. LSA will utilize a databaseservice to perform this search. • LSA will request air quality records of violations from the local air quality management district for suspect sites within or directly adjacent to the parkway bandwidths. • Historic land use information for the study area will be reviewed to determine whether previous uses in the study area may have resultedinhazardous waste contamination. This information includes historic aerial photographs,' historic USGS maps, oil and gas maps, available groundwater depth/flow data, City directories, County Assessor's data, and building permits. LSA will conduct a visual survey of the study area to identify any obvious area of hazardous waste contamination. Access to private property or Caltrans right-of-way shall be provided by RCTC. • . LSA will conduct a visual survey of the study area to identify any obvious area of hazardous waste contamination. Access to private property or Caltrans right-of- way shall be provided by ROTC. • If hazardous waste sites are identified within the study area (via governmental records and/or the visual survey), LSA will review available public records at the appropriate oversight agency to determine the potential impact to the project. • LSA will prepare a report that presents findings and recommendations for each alternative based on the site survey and historical records review. - Recommendations may include site investigations for sites that are considered contaminated sites by the applicable oversight agency: 169 This scope of services does not include: • Review of private records or interviews with private property owners • Sampling for asbestos or aerially deposited lead, or other soil sampling • Conducting Preliminary Site Investigations (PSIs) involving soil or groundwater sampling These activities are not recommended until the design phase for the selected alternative due to the potentially large number of properties requiring evaluation (resulting in significant costs to RCTC) and the likelihood that presence or absence of hazardous waste contamination will not influence the selection of a Preferred ! Alternative. Product: 15 copies of Draft ISA 4.2.9 Visual Impact Assessment (VIA) LSA will prepare a VIA that evaluates the visual impact of each alternative consistent with FHWA's Visual Impact Assessment for Highway Projects (1988). This assessment shall define the existing project setting and viewshed of the study area and analyze significant visual resources. The potential visual impacts from project construction will be evaluated through the use of ground -level photographs from key views in the project study area and up to 30 view simulations of the project improvements. The improvements to be shown in the view simulations will be determined by LSA in with the engineering team, RCTC, and Ca!trans. Visual conditions and project impacts will be discussed from a qualitative perspective, but will be quantified similar to the scoring system used in the State Route 91 HOV Lane VIA (LSA, 2004). To assist in the assessment of potential visual impacts associated with the alternatives proposed within the MCP study area, existing viewsheds and visual resources will be characterized using three, principles: (1) establish three basic viewing distance zones from identified vantage points; (2) identify and locate sensitive viewer groups, including viewers on the roadway; and (3) describe and characterize the visual character and quality oftheproject area. A description of these principles and their utilization will serve as the base for determining the severity of visual impacts associated with each of the proposed altematives within, the MCP study area. Mitigation measures shall be recommended, if necessary, to reduce significant visual impacts. The Engineering Team will provide input to the preparation of the view simulations to show landscape and hardscape treatments that can mitigate adverse visual impacts. Product: 15 copies of Draft VIA 170 4.2.10: Section 4(f) Evaluation Section 303(c) of the Department of Transportation Act of 1966, 49 U.S.C. 303 ("Section 4(f)"), requires agencies of the U.S. Department of Transportation, when. carrying out transportation programs or projects, to avoid impacts to certain parklands, recreation areas, historic sites, and wildlife refuges of national, State, or local significance. Specifically, Section 4(f) provides that the Secretary of Transportation may approve a transportation program or project `requiring the use of publicly owned land of a public park, recreation areas or wildlife and waterfowl refuge, or land of an historic site of national, State, or local significance only if there is no prudent and feasible alternative to using that land, and the program or project includes all possible planning to minimize harm to the resource resulting`from the use." Additionally, parks that received federal funds through Section 6(f) of the Land and Water Conservation Fund may not be converted from recreational use without specific approval from the U.S. Department of Interior. Section 4(f) resources may be subject to either direct impacts, also known as "direct use," such as resource land acquisition, or indirect impacts, also known as proximity impacts to, or "constructiveuse" of the resource. Resources within the right-of-way under consideration for each alternative may be subject to either direct or constructive use. Resources outside the right-of-way may be subject to constructive use. The identification of potential resources was based on Section 4(f) guidelines published in the FHWA Section 4(f) Policy Paper, September 24, 1987 (Revised . June 7, 1989) ("FHWA Policy Paper"). GIS mapping'will be used to provide graphical representations of each of the alternatives, withmaps identifying the relationship of each 4(f) resource with regard to the location of the proposed alternatives. Recreational resources, consisting of parks, reserves, and trails will be identified. through research and grouped according to jurisdiction. Recreation and wildlife resources located within the study area will be identified using several GIS databases, including the existing MCP constraints, database, the'RCIP Existing Setting Report (LSA 1999), and the Thomas Brothers Map Guide GIS database` (2001). In addition, parklands, schools, and recreational trails within individual incorporated cities were identified using City General Plans and the Riverside ' County Regional Trails Map. Since public school playgrounds may also serve public recreational purposes, existing and planned public school sites will also be considered'.' Recreation facilities' within the study area will be mapped; specifically, resources within the right-of-way for each alternative and within approximately 500 feet of the right-of-way (areas that may be subject to constructive use) of each alternative. Reserve areas proposed, as part of the MSHCP' and recreational resources identified in the City and County General Plans will be addressed. 171 Avoidance alternatives and measures to minimize harm will be a key part of the evaluation. The Section 4(f) Evaluation will document how Section 4(f) resources were identified as early as possible in the study process so that avoidance options could be fully considered during alternatives development. Product: 20 copies of Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation 4.2.11 Public Services and Utilities Existing public services and facilities conditions, as well as the ability of public service agencies and their facilities to support projected, growth, will be documented based on review of existing literature and mapping (including relevant portions of CETAP Tier1 data) and field surveys as required. In Task 6.0, the Engineering Team will document the presence of existing utilities, such as waterlines, sewer lines, natural gas pipelines, aqueducts, and electrical, cable, and cell phone infrastructure. The Engineering Team will contact utility_ service providers for additional information regarding any planned expansion of service and/or capital improvements. The Engineering Team will also identify the potential impacts of each alternative on existing and planned infrastructure. LSA will document the existing public service providers in the study area, including fire and emergency medical services, police/sheriff services, landfill capacity, hospitals, schools, and libraries. LSA will contact service providers for additional information regarding any planned expansion of service and/or capital improvements, and will identify the potential impacts of each alternative on existing and planned public services. Appropriate mitigation measures will be proposed, if needed. Product: 10 copies of Public Services Technical Report 4.2.12 Water Quality Assessment Report LSA will prepare a Water Quality Assessment Report in accordance with Caltrans guidelines that discusses watershed characteristics, groundwater hydrology, regulatory requirements, pollutants of concern, and receiving waters conditions, impairments, objectives, and beneficial uses. The report will also discuss Design Pollution Prevention BMPs, Construction Site BMPs, and Treatment BMPs that are applicable to the project alternatives per Caltrans requirements. Each alternative's potential impact on water quality will be evaluated and the mitigation measures necessary to prevent adverse water quality impacts will be identified. For this study, LSA will use the Storm Water Data Report (SWDR) to be prepared by the engineering team in Task 6.0. Product: 15 copies of Draft Water Quality Assessment Report 172 4.2.13 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) LSA will prepare a draft MMRP in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15097 for use in ensuring implementation of the mitigation measures for the project. The MMRP will be used in the design and construction of improvements for the selected MCP alternative. For each mitigation measure the MMRP will include a list of the following items: a description of the mitigation measure, the timing of implementation, the performance objectives, the requirements for verification of compliance, the party responsible for verifying compliance, and a summary of the potential impacts of the Mitigation measures Potentialenvironmental effects of proposed mitigation measures include indirect traffic effects, and the impacts of land acquisition, among others. Product: 10 copies of Draft MMRP THIS ITEM REMOVED FROM SCOPE OF WORK 173 Task 4.4 Final Technical Studies In this task, the technical studies and documents prepared in Task 4.2 will be revised in response to RCTC, Caltrans, and FHWA comments. Final technical. studies will be prepared that will accompany the submittal of the Draft EIS/E1R for approval to circulate. The ability to secure Caltrans and FHWA approval of technical studies on this second and final submittal is predicated upon: 1) the draft reports in Task 4.2 being submitted as complete reports with no contingencies or placeholders based upon information pending from the Traffic, Engineering, or Right -of -Way tasks, and, 2) a rigid review process involving the Consultant, RCTC, and Caltrans to meet to discuss and agree upon report changes, with no additional comments being made by Caltrans or FHWA once the revisions are agreed to at these meetings (Thirty copies of each for use during ,public review period.) The addition of the Far South and Perris Drain alternatives as well as other refinements (SR-79 variation, 1-215 variations, etc..) have increased the number of segments and alternatives that will need to be discussed in the final technical studies. For budget purposes, we have assumed that a maximum of 32 sites will require the level of evaluation described in 4.2.2, with a contingency budget provided under , this task for evaluation of 16 additional sites. 4.5 Administrative Draft EIS/EIR 4.5.1 Prepare Administrative Draft EIS/EIR LSA will prepare and circulate a Revised Notice of Preparation (NOP) to various interested parties as required under CEQA and will prepare a Revised Notice of Intent (NOI) for publication in the Federal Register for NEPA compliance. The results of the technical studies will be presented in an Administrative Draft EIS/EIR. LSA will prepare the administrative Draft EIS/EIR, incorporating the findings of the •technical studies for submittal to RCTC, FHWA, and Caltrans for review The EIS/EIR will be prepared in accordance with the requirements of NEPA and CEQA, as well as the most current document formats and guidance posted on Caltrans Standard Environmental Reference Web site. The Executive Summary will not be included in the Administrative Draft EIS/EIR in order to reduce duplicative ` revisions within the document. Both short-term construction and long-term operational effects of each altemative will be considered. The Administrative Draft EIS/EIR will also address indirect and 174 cumulative effects of each of the alternatives, CEQA considerations of level of significance of impacts, and the mitigation monitoring and reporting program. The EIS/EIR will be organized in a manner intended to reduce the presentation of duplicative information to the extent feasible for areas where the alternatives overlap. The addition of the Far South, Perris Drain, and other design variations has increased the number of alternatives that will need to be discussed in the Administrative Draft EIS/EIR. Assumption: 20 copies of Administrative Draft EIS/EIR 200 copies of Revised NOP 1 master copy of Revised NOI Product: Administrative Draft EIS/EIR, Revised NOP, and Revised NOI 4.5.2 Prepare Second Administrative Draft EIS/EIR LSA will revise the Administrative Draft EIS/EIR based on comments received from ROTC, FHWA, and Caltrans, as well as other members of the consultant team as appropriate, and will submit the revised Draft EIS/EIR to:RCTC, Caltrans, and ` FHWA (via Caltrans) for review. The second Administrative Draft EIS/EIR will include all information described above, as well as the Executive Summary. The addition of the Far South, Perris Drain, and other design variations has increased the number of alternatives that will need to be discussed in the Second Administrative Draft EIS/EIR. Assumption: 20 copies of Second Administrative Draft EIS/EIR Product: Second Administrative Draft EIS/EIR Task 4.6 Prepare Draft EIS/EIR Task 4.6.1 Prepare Draft EIS/EIR for Approval to Circulate (One Copy for Signature) LSA will revise the Draft EIS/EIR per comments received from RCTC, FHWA, and Caltrans on the Second Administrative; Draft EIS/EIR and will prepare one copy of the EIS/EIR for ROTC, Caltrans, and FHWA signature for approval to circulate the document for public review. 175 • i The addition of the Far South, Perris Drain, and other design variations has increased the number of alternatives that will need to be discussed in the Draft EIS/EIR. Assumption: 5 copies of Draft EIS/EIR for approval 200 copies of Draft EIS/EIR to be prepared for distribution Product: Draft EIS/EIR Task 4.6.2 Public Review LSA will prepare a draft public distribution list with input from RCTC, Caltrans, and FHWA. The Draft EIS/EIR will be circulated for public review once the list has been approved by the RCTC, Caltrans, and FHWA. LSA will prepare a draft Notice of Availability and Public Hearing for publication by the public outreach team. LSA will prepare and file a Notice of Completion with the State Clearinghouse in accordance with the requirements of CEQA. This scope of services includes attendance at three public hearings during the public review period for the Draft EIS/EIR. Products: Notice of Availability, Notice of Completion, Public Distribution List Task 4.7 Prepare Response to Comments The Draft Response to Comments document will be prepared for submittal to RCTC, Caltrans, and FHWA LSA will prepare responses for its areas of responsibility and will coordinate with other consultant team members, RCTC, Caltrans, and FHWA to prepare responses for their respective areas of responsibility. The comments will be scanned into a ".pdf format to facilitate integration into the Draft Final EIS/EIR. The responses will be prepared in a tabular format similar to that included in the Winchester to Temecula Corridor Tier 1 Final EIS/EIR, and will include both general responses to broad (often repeated) topics of concern as well as specific responses to specific comments. Budgeting for responses to comments is difficult to project, since the scope of public and agency comments/concerns is not entirely known at this time. For preliminary budgeting purposes, we estimate that a total of 1,200 letters will be received. Each comment letter will be numbered and scanned. It is estimated that there will be a total of 3,600 comments within these letters. Each individual comment will be labeled on the letter and listed in the Response to Comments table. Each response will be included in the table as well. It is also estimated that 100 of the 3,000 comments will require detailed responses as specific comments. We have estimated the need for 1,280 professional staff hours and 280 support staff hours (Graphics, Word Processing/Editing, and Clerical) to complete this task. These 176 specifications and any necessary adjustments to the Response to Comments budget will be reviewed with RCTC prior to initiating this task. Assumption: 30 copies of Draft Response to Comments. 4.8 Draft Final EIS/EIR Following review of the Draft Responses to Comments, LSA will prepare a Draft Final EIS/EIR, which will incorporate changes to the EIS/EIR sections consistent with the responses to comments. The Draft Final EIS/EIR will be prepared for submittal to RCTC, Caltrans, and FHWA. Assumption: 30 copies of the Draft Final EIS/EIR. 4.9 Final EIS/EIR Based on comments received on the Draft Final EIS/EIR, LSA will prepare the Final EIS/EIR, including a Notice of Determination (NOD) in accordance with CEQA requirements,including an $850 California Department of Fish' and Game -filing fee. LSA will produce copies of the Final EIS/EIR for distribution to commenting agencies prior to certification of the Final EIS/EIR by RCTC.: With assistance from LSA, RCTC legal counsel (BB&K) will have primary responsibility for preparing Findings and a Statement of Overriding Considerations, which will be adopted by RCTC as part of the Commission's action to certify the final EIR. Assumption: 150 copies of Final EIS/EIR Product: Final EIS/EIR 4.10'Prepare Record of Decision LSA will prepare a Draft Record of Decision (ROD) for submittal to RCTC, Caltrans, and FHWA for review. Based on comments received, a Final ROD `will 'be prepared for submittal to FHWA for review and approval. FHWA will publish the ROD in the Federal Register. Assumption: '10'Copies of the Draft ROD 177 4.11 HCP Amendments and MSHCP Consistency Determination The consistency analysis with the Western Riverside County MSHCP (MSHCP) will be undertaken at two levels. The first level of analysis will be for CEQA/NEPA purposes and will analyze in general terms the relationship of the various alternatives under consideration in the EIS/EIR to the goals, objectives and biological considerations in the MSHCP and other relevant HCPs. The second level of analysis will occur following identification of a Preferred Alternative and will incorporate the detailedconsistency analysis called for in Section 7.0 of the MSHCP. Scopes of services for both levels of analysis are provided below. Relationship of MSHCP and Other Relevant HCPs to Alternatives Considered in the EIS/EIR During this task, all of the alternatives considered in the Draft EIS/EIR will be analyzed with respect to the goals, objectives, and biological considerations in the MSHCP and other relevant HCPs: ,The focus of this analysis will be to provide complete CEQA/NEPA documentation for all of the alternatives addressing the potential effects of the various alternatives on regional resource -conservation -plans and processes, including the Western Riverside County MSHCP, the Lake Mathews HCP/NCCP, and the SKR HCP. This analysis will outline the goals, objectives, and . biological considerations of these regional resource conservation plans and describe the effects of the proposed alternatives on the ability to achieve the identified goals and objectives. For example, a particular alternative alignment may traverse an area desirable for conservation under the MSHCP or relevant HCPs.. The analysis will identify whether or not the particular alternative would interfere with the biological , goals identified in the MSHCP or relevant HCP with respect to specific species considerations or broader reserve design considerations such as wildlife movement, connectivity, or habitat fragmentation. The analysis will consider features incorporated in the design of the particular alternative that may avoid or minimize impacts and will identify significant impacts that may not be able to be avoided or minimized. If determined to beappropriate, the relative merits of the various alternatives with respect to their relationship to the MSHCP and relevant HCPs can be summarized in matrix format in the analysis. The product of this task will be a Technical Memorandum prepared in a format suitable for incorporation in the Draft EIS/EIR. Additional Analysis for Far South Alignment Additional costs are associated with the consistency analysis for the Far. South Alignment because it is not discussed in the MSHCP as;a "covered. activity", and we believe that a substantial amount of additional analysis will be required to obtain coverage for this alignment under the MSHCP without causing an amendment to the 178 Plan. Section 72.3 of the MSHCP describes the proposed souther alignment as follows: The road improvements will follow the CETAP alternative alignment from 1-215 westerly to a location approximately 9 miles east of 1-15, at roughly the intersection of existing Cajalco Road and El Sobrante Road. At that location the proposed Cajalco Road Option alignment will continue in a 'southand westerly direction; while the CETAP alternative alignment travels northwesterly. The greatest distance between the two alignments is approximately three miles, at a location that is south of the western end of Lake Mathews: The Cajalco Road Option joins the CETAP Alternative alignment again approximately 1. mile east of 1-15. The Far South alignment deviates substantially from this description,, and traverses an extensive portion of the Criteria Area of the MSHCP: 'Therefore, in addition to discussing' the effects of the project in terms of the requirements of Section7.2.3,' Dudek will also need to analyze and discuss how the facility will relate to conservation proposed within the Criteria Area, and what effects the facility will have on areas' that were assumed for conservation' within Proposed ` Linkage 3 in the MSHCP. From a biological perspective, both the Far South alignment and; the southern alignment impact the Lake Mathews reserve area. Even though the far South alignment avoids impacts to the MWD reserve 'boundaries, :it still would cause' habitat fragmentation within areas identified as Public/Quasi-Public Lands (including RCHCA lands) in the MSHCP. Therefore, while an amendment to the MWD. plan and permit may be avoided with the far South alignment, RCTC is not relieved of the responsibility to evaluate the facility's effects,on habitats and species that are afforded protection under existing conservation mechanisms. In addition, as noted above, the Far South alignment also results in impacts to areas proposed for conservation within the Criteria Area, in Proposed Linkage 3. This impact was not ` contemplated in the MSHCP and will need to be thoroughly evaluated, particularly since the Far South alignment was not described for coverage in the MSHCP. Therefore, while the Far South alignment is considered to be . superior to the southerly alignment from a biological perspective, the process for demonstrating coverage under the MSHCP will likely be more difficult, because it will require analysis ofimpacts that were not contemplated in the MSHCP, and it will require substantial rationale for why the facility should be considered covered without requiring an amendment to the MSHCP. 179 MSHCP Consistency Analysis This task will include a thorough and comprehensive MSHCP consistency: analysis of the identified Preferred Alternative. The content and format of the analysis will be dependent upon the Preferred Alternative selected. If the selected Preferred Alternative is south of Lake Mathews, the MSHCP consistency analysis will proceed in accordance with the "Cajalco Road Realignment and Widening process described in Section 7.2.3 of the MSHCP. It should be noted that Section 7.2.3 of the MSHCP states that this process may be considered at the time it is determined that an alignment north of Lake Mathews is not feasible. It is assumed that the feasibility determination will be documented by the Jacobs Engineering Team under this scenario. Key features of the consistency analysis process under both the Section 7.3.5 and Section 7.2.3 approaches include analysis of the project with respect to the following: Effects on Habitat, Effects on Covered Species, Effects on Core Areas, Effects on Linkages and Constrained Linkages, Effects on MSHCP Conservation Area Configuration and Management, Effects on Ecotones, and Effects on and Consistency with existing HCPs and/or NCCPs. In addition, the analysis will consider the degree to which the proposed alternative incorporates the siting and design criteria incorporated in the MSHCP, including guidelines for wildlife crossings,, siting guidelines, construction guidelines, and BMPs. The consistency analyses will also incorporate biological equivalency determinations. Under the Section 7.2.3 process, the consistency analysis will be subject to review and concurrence by the Wildlife Agencies. The Section 7.2.3 process is considered to be more comprehensive and time-consuming than the Section 7.3.5 process and for budgeting purposes, the level of effort required for the Section 72.3 process is assumed. As described in Section 7.2.3 of the MSHCP, it is assumed that approval and implementation of an alignment south of Lake Mathews will require identification and acquisition of biological lands for mitigation purposes in addition to the 153,000 acres of Additional Conservation Lands identified in the MSHCP. The scope of services for this task includes examination of up to 3,000 acres of additional lands that could be considered for this purpose. As part of this task, we will initially identify potential areas to be considered for acquisition for review by the client and Wildlife Agencies as appropriate. Biological information for these areas will be assembled based on existing available information and ground-truthing/survey data subject to I access permission. Information obtained during the analysis will be assembled in the form of a mitigation package for consideration by RCTC and the Wildlife Agencies. Not included in the scope of services are specific tasks needed for acquisition of these lands, including appraisals, etc. 180 As stated in the MSHCP, if the Wildlife Agencies' concurrence is not obtained during. the Section 7.2 3process, a major amendment to the MSHCP will be required for development of a project alternative south of Lake Mathews. Such a major amendment is not included in the scope of services. The product of this task will be an MSHCP consistency analysis report, including text, graphics, and appendices suitable for inclusion in the Appendix to the Draft EIS/EIR if appropriate and suitable for independent review and consideration by RCTC and the Wildlife Agencies. It is assumed that this task will include considerablemeetings and interaction with numerous parties, including RCTC, the Wildlife Agencies, RCA, County and City staff, MWD, and others, and a substantial level of effort for such consideration is included in the scope of services and budget. It should be noted that the Section 7.2.3 consistency analysis allows 60 days for formal Wildlife Agencies concurrence and review of the MSHCP consistency findings for an alternative alignment south of Lake Mathews. Considerable interaction with the Wildlife Agencies and RCA staff will be necessary prior to beginning this 60-day clock in order to increase the chances of a positive outcome, and a substantial level of effort for this interaction is incorporated in the scope of services. Lake Mathews HCP/NCCP Amendment It is anticipated that an amendment to the Lake Mathews HCP/NCCP will be required regardless of which alternative is selected, as called for in Section 3.G.4 of the HCP/NCCP, Changes in Projects and Activities in the Plan Area. Section 3.GA states that such amendments "must comply with the impact minimization measures specified in the Lake Mathews Plan and will be accomplished in coordination with the Lake Mathews Reserve' Management Committee. Mitigation will be required as discussed in the Lake Mathews Plan for these changes." Mitigation guidelines are generally contained in Section 3.0 of the HCP/NCCP but discussion with MWD and the Lake Mathews Reserve Management, Committee will likely be needed to determine how those might apply to the proposed project. Specific procedures for amendments are not identified in the Lake Mathews HCP/NCCP. However, Chapter 6, Section G of the USFWS HCP'Handbook (November 1996) states that HCP amendments will generally "be treated in the same way as the original permit application." This typically involves a public review process and associated NEPA documentation. Based on the understanding that both MWD and the RCHCA are preparers of and signatories to the HCP/NCCP, it is unclear whether it would be necessary for one or both of those entities to `initiate an amendment to the HCP/NCCP, or if an amendment could be initiated by another entity. These issues will be considered and resolved in consultation with MWD, RCHCA, and the Wildlife Agencies. 181 While much of the work needed for the MSHCP consistency analysis described in the MSHCP Consistency Analysis will likely be directly transferable to the Lake Mathews HCP/NCCP amendment process, the degree to which additional work will be needed for the Lake Mathews HCP/NCCP amendment process cannot be determined at this time. Every effort will be made to make maximum use of the MSHCP Consistency Analysis work to avoid duplication of effort for the Lake Mathews HCP/NCCP amendment work. SKR HCP Findings and/or Amendment The degree to which an amendment to the SKR HCP will be required is uncertain at this time, given uncertainties regarding the selected alternative and specific interpretations of various components of the existing HCP. Chapter 5, Section C.1.s of the SKR HCP identifies circumstances under which public facility improvements such as roadway improvements that implement an adopted Circulation Element are covered by the HCP. Chapter 5, Section E.5 of the HCP describes the various amendment processes, including administrative amendments. At a minimum," findings will be required demonstrating consistency of the proposed project with the SKR HCP. The possibility exists that an amendment to the HCP will be needed. As with the Lake Mathews HCP/NCCP amendment process, the scope, nature, and extent of any HCP amendment cannot be determined at this time but may involve a" public review process and associated NEPA documentation. It is assumed that much of the MSHCP consistency analysis work will be applicable to any SKR HCP findings or amendments that are required and every effort will be made to avoid duplication of work. It is also assumed that RCHCA would be a willing applicant for an amendment if such an amendment is needed. Report Preparation Relationship of MSHCP and Other Relevant HCPs to Alternatives Considered in the. EIS/EIR The results of the analysis of the results of the project alternatives and their relationship to the MSHCP and other relevant HCPs will be compiled in a Technical Memorandum prepared in a format suitable for incorporation in the EIS/EIR. MSHCP Consistency Analysis The content and format of the comprehensive MSHCP consistency analysis will be dependent upon the Preferred Alternatives selected. If the selected. Preferred Alternative is not south of Lake Mathews, the MSHCP consistency analysis will proceed as a "standard" Covered Activity in the MSHCP and will proceed generally 182 as outlined in Section 7.3.5 of the MSHCP. If the selected Preferred Alternative is south of Lake Mathews, the MSHCP consistency analysis will proceed in accordance with the "Cajalco Road Realignment and Widening" process described in Section 7.2.3 of the MSHCP. The product will be an MSHCP consistency analysis report including text, graphics, and appendices suitable for inclusion in the Appendix to the Draft EIS/EiR if appropriate and suitable for independent review and consideration by RCTC and the Wildlife Agencies. PARTIAL CONTINGENCY SCOPE OF WORK ITEM Lake Mathews HCP/NCCP Amendment Specific procedures for amendments are not identified in the Lake Mathews HCP/NCCP. Therefore, it is unclear at this time as to the exact type of documentation that will be acceptable for the amendment. However, Chapter 6, Section. G of the USFWS HCP Handbook (November 1996) states that HCP amendments will generally "be treated in the same way as the original: permit application. This typically involves a public review process and associated NEPA documentation: CONTINGENCYSCOPE OF WORK ITEM SKR HCP Findings and/or Amendment It is unclear at this time as to the exact type of documentation that will be needed for the SKR HCP amendment. However, Chapter 6, Section G of the USFWS HCP Handbook (November 1996) states that HCP amendments will generally "be treated in the same way as the original permit application." This typically involves a public review process and associated NEPA documentation. 183 i SCOPE OF SERVICES FOR TASK 5 — TRAFFIC ENGINEERING SERVICES MID COUNTY PARKWAY CORRIDOR —ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION AND BASIC ENGINEERING 5.0 TRAFFIC ENGINEERING 5.1 Detailed Traffic Forecasts New model runs will be prepared to reflect changes in the design concept for the, Mid County Parkway that have occurred since the original model runs were prepared in Phase 1. Average Daily Traffic (ADT) forecasts resulting from these model runs will be refined to produce AM and PM peak -hour forecasts for use in the detailed traffic engineering, environmental analysis, and engineering design tasks in Phase 2., It is assumed that separate traffic forecasts will be prepared for 2035 conditions for each of nine project alternatives. In addition, traffic forecasts will be prepared for a'limited study area for three design variations. Detailed traffic forecasts will be prepared as described below. 5.1.1 System Interchanges AM and PM peak -hour traffic forecasts will be prepared for the MCP system interchanges at Interstate 15 (1-15), Interstate 215 (1-215), and State Route 79 (SR- 79). In addition, the system interchange at I-15/State Route 91 (SR-91) will be analyzed to determine the impact of the project on this interchange. Traffic forecasts for all mainline segments, ramps, and collector -distributor roads in the interchange areas will be included. 5.1.2 Parkway/Freeway Mainline Directional AM and PM peak -hour traffic forecasts will be prepared for the MCP mainline and all auxiliary and collector -distributor roads, if any, between 1-15 and SR-79. Trafficforecasts will be prepared at a similar level of detail for crossing freeways (referenced below) that are directly affected by the project;' • 1-15, SR 91 to Temescal Canyon • 1-215, Van Buren to Nuevo • SR-79, Gilman Springs Road to MCP 5.1.3 Arterial Streets , Arterial street segments will be analyzed based on ADT conditions. The new traffic model runs prepared in Phase 2 of the project will be the source of data for the 184 arterial street traffic forecasts, with selected post -processing .of the model results. For the purposes of this scope of services, it is assumed that ADT forecasts will be prepared for the nine project alternatives for 200 arterial roadway segments. For the three design variations that will be analyzed, up to 20`arterial roadway segments will be analyzed for each design variation. 5.1.4 Intersections For the purposes of this scope of services, it is assumed that AM and PM peak -hour intersection turning movements will be prepared for the nine project alternatives for 130 intersections. The study area will include the following: • MCP service interchanges with crossing arterial streets (two intersections per interchange) and one key intersection north and south of the MCP service interchange + 1-215 service interchanges with Van Buren, Oleander, the existing Cajalco Expressway/Ramona Expressway, Placentia, and Nuevo (two intersections per interchange) and one key intersection east and west of the I-215 service interchange • 1-15 service interchanges with Magnolia, Ontario, El Cerrito, existing Cajalco Road, Weirick, and Temescal Canyon (two intersections per interchange) and one key intersection east and west of the 1-15 service interchange • SR-79 service interchange at Gilman Springs (two intersections) • MCP intersections with local streets (for alternatives in which MCP has at -grade, intersections with local streets) and one key intersection north and south of the MCP intersection • Additional intersections as necessary to analyze project impacts to be determined during the course of the study, up to a total of 130 For the three design variations that will be analyzed, up to 10`intersections will be analyzed for each design variation. Assumptions: • Four system interchanges, 130 intersections, and 200 street segments will be included in the study area for the analysis of the nine project alternatives • The study area will also include the mainline segments of the MCP from 1-15 to SR-79, 1-15from SR 91 to Weirick, 1-215 from Oleander to Placentia, and SR-79 from Gilman Springs to the MCP • Nine project alternatives will be analyzed 185 • The study area for the three design variations will include up to 20 arterial street segments and 10 intersections per design variation. Products: • AM peak -hour, PM peak -hour, and ADT traffic forecasts for a study area to include 4 system interchanges; 130 intersections, 200 street segments, for 9 project alternatives • AM peak -hour, PM peak -hour, and ADT traffic forecasts for a study area to include 10 intersections, and 20 street segments, for three design variations 5.2 Traffic Technical Report A traffic technical report will be prepared to document the traffic engineering analysis: for inclusion in the project environmental documents. The study area will be the same as the study area defined in Task 5.1. The report willinclude the components described below. 5.2.1 Traffic Engineering Methodology The methodology for the preparation of the traffic analysis will be described, including the following: • Definition of alternatives • Travel demand modeling process • Study area • Detailed traffic forecasts. • Capacity analysis • Significance thresholds for traffic impacts • Recommended improvements/mitigation • Level of significance after mitigation 5.2.2 Roadway Capacity Analysis Roadway capacity analysis will be conducted using methods outlined in the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) for the MCP mainline, system interchanges, and intersections. Arterial street segments will be analyzed using daily street segment capacities documented in the Riverside County Integrated Project (RCIP). 5.2.3 Recommended Improvements/Mitigation The project team will work with Caltrans, RCTC, Riverside County, and local cities to establish significance thresholds for the analysis of traffic impacts. Wherever these 186 thresholds are exceeded, roadway and intersection improvement strategies and/or mitigation measures will be recommended. The roadway improvements/mitigation measures will be described in sufficient detail to provide a clear understanding of the necessary improvements and their feasibility at a preliminary level. In some cases, sketches will be provided for clarification. Scaled drawings will not be prepared. In the analysis of recommended roadway improvements/mitigation, the base case for lane geometry assumptions will be the General Plans of Riverside County and the cities within the study area. The roadway lane geometry specified as the General Plan Buildout will form the basis for the No Project traffic analysis. 5.2.4 Administrative Draft Traffic Technical Report The analysis described above will be documented in a technical report. The administrative draft will be prepared for review by FHWA, Caltrans, RCTC, and project consulting team members. Assumption: 50 copies of the Administrative Draft Traffic, Technical Report will be needed. Product: Administrative Draft Traffic Technical Report 5.2.5 Draft Traffic Technical Report A second draft of the traffic technical report will be prepared to respond to comments on the administrative draft. Assumption: 50 copies of the Draft Traffic Technical Report will be needed. Product: Draft Traffic Technical Report 5.2.6 Final Traffic Technical Report The final traffic technical report will be included as an Appendix to the project environmental documents. It is assumed that 50 copies will be needed for distribution to FHWA, Caltrans, RCTC, and project consultant team staff. One original, will be prepared for copying and distribution to the public by other members of the project team. Assumption: 50 copies of the Final Traffic Technical Report will be needed. Assumptions: • The study area for the traffic technical report will be as described in Task 5.1 187 • The basis for the capacity analysis will be the latest version of the HCM Manual for the MCP and crossing freeway mainlines, system interchanges, and intersections, and the RCIP for roadway segments • 50 copies of the Administrative Draft Report, Draft Report, and Final Report will be needed Products: • Administrative Draft Report, Draft Report, and Final Report 5.3 Project Staging: 2020 Analysis The development of detailed traffic forecasts, performance of capacity analysis, and the preparation of recommended improvements, as described above, will be repeated to analyze project staging for the interim 2020 conditions. The traffic engineering consulting team will work with the engineering design team to develop base conditions and assumptions for each of the horizon years listed above. The resulting traffic analysis will determine whether these base conditions will be adequate to handle traffic demands for each of the respective future year conditions. If it is determined that the base assumptions are not adequate, the traffic team will make recommendations to the Engineering Team for necessary geometric or system modifications. The study area will be limited to the areas that are directly affected by the project, as detailed below: • MCP system interchanges at 1-15, 1-215, and SR-79 • Mainline segments of the MCP from 1-15 to SR-79, 1-15 from SR 91 to Temescal Canyon, 1-215 from Van Buren to Nuevo, and SR-79 from Gilman Springs to the MCP • MCP service interchanges with crossing arterial streets (two intersections per interchange) • 1-215 service interchanges with Van Buren, Oleander, Existing Cajalco Expressway/Ramona Expressway,Placentia, and Nuevo (two intersections per interchange) • 1-15 service interchanges with El Cerrito, Existing Cajalco Road, Weirick, and Temescal Canyon (two intersections per interchange) • SR 79 service interchange at Gilman Springs (two intersections) • MCP intersections with local streets (for alternatives in which MCP has at -grade intersections with local streets) 1as For the purposes of this scope of services, it is assumed that the study area will include three system interchanges, mainline segments of the MCP, 1-15, 1-215, and SR-79 (as defined above), 50 intersections, and 50 street segments. 5.3.1 Project Staging —Model Runs In order to prepare project staging analysis, traffic forecast model runs will be needed for interim 2020 conditions, as described below. 5.3.1.1 Definition of Alternatives The traffic technical team will work with the project team to develop clear definitions for the project alternatives, including geometric assumptions for the MCP for the interim horizon year condition. 5.3.1.2 Land Use Forecasts The traffic team will develop zonal socioeconomic data for the focused project area and will develop assumptions for the interim facility at 2020. This will be done through the review and analysis of existing and 2030 socioeconomic data and evaluation of development trends in the study area from available information. The. project team will coordinate with RCTC, Riverside County, and local jurisdictions to the extent possible for this task. The socioeconomic data for outside the focused study area will be developed through a generalized approach of coordination with the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) and other agencies and possible factoring between existing and 2030 conditions and available regional data for prior RTP efforts for the interim conditions. 5.3.1.3 Network Revisions The traffic technical team will work with the project team to develop clear definitions for the geometric assumptions for the MCP mainline (facility type and number of lanes, mainline and HOV, etc.), as well as all its access points and the connecting arterial system for each of the project alternatives for each interim horizon year condition: This will be based on assumptions from the previous forecasts and the engineering and planning judgment of the team members, as agreed by the local jurisdiction staffs. The team will code the appropriate network details and will develop highway networks for each of the scenarios. 5.3.1.4 Model Run Preparation The traffic team will prepare all coded, networks for; all alternatives for each of the interim years and wilt prepare the zonal socioeconomic input data for the project .. focus area and the region. These input data will be submitted to SCAG for the development of the assignment trip tables for each of tl a interim years. The traffic 189 • team will obtain the trip tables from SCAG to perform the traffic assignment forecasts for the alternatives. 5.3.1.5 Model Run Quality Control The traffic team will work closely with SCAG to ensure the quality of the input data and the output trip tables for model assignments. The team will perform appropriate` levels of quality control at each step of the modeling process and specifically once the model assignments are completed to ensure the accuracy and reasonableness of the model forecasts and will adjust as necessary. 5.3.2 Project Staging —Detailed Traffic Forecasts Traffic forecasts will be prepared for AM peak -hour, PM peak -hour, and ADT traffic: conditions for three system interchanges, mainline segments of the MCP, 1-15, I- 215, and SR-79 (as defined above), 50 intersections, and 50 street segments for each of the six project staging alternatives. 5.3.3 Project Staging —Roadway Capacity Analysis Capacity analysis will be conducted as described in Subtask 5.2.2 for three system interchanges, mainline segments of the MCP, I-15, 1-215, and SR-79 (as defined above), 50 intersections, and 50 street segments for each of the six project staging alternatives. 5.3.4 Project Staging —Recommended Improvements In cases where the roadway capacity analysis indicates the need for improvements beyond those assumed in the base case for each alternative, roadway improvements will be recommended using the methodology described in Subtask 5.2.3. 5.3.5 Project Staging -Technical Report The project staging analysis will not be included in the project environmental documents. Instead, a stand-alone report will be prepared: to assist RCTC, the project team, and various review agencies in making decisions regarding project staging. Development of the staging technical report will include an administrative draft report, a draft report, and a final report, which will include responses to comments from the, previous drafts. It is assumed that 50 copies of each will be needed. Assumptions: • Project staging analysis will be conducted for the preferred alternative for'2020 • The study area for the project staging analysis will consist of three system interchanges, mainline segments of the MCP, 1-15, 1-215, and SR-79 (as defined above), 50 intersections, and 50 street segments 190 • The basis for the capacity analysis will be the latest version of the HCM for .'. system interchanges and intersections and the Riverside County Integrated Project for roadway segments • 50 copies of,the Administrative Draft Report, Draft. Report, and Final Report will be needed` Products: • Administrative Draft Project Phasing Report, Draft Report, and Final Report CONTINGENCY SCOPE OF WORK ITEM 5.4 Traffic Simulation An operational and traffic flow simulation of the MCP corridor will be prepared for the selected project alternative. This will include preparation of simulation models, analysis of the results, and preparation of an animation feature that could be used for technical and public meetings. For the purpose of this scope of services, it is assumed that the operational results of the traffic simulation model(s) will not be used for geometric design purposes. 5.4.1 Study Area Definition The study area for the traffic simulation will be defined. For the purposes of this scope of services, it is assumed that the study area will consist of one system interchange, and two local interchanges to be selected during the, course of the project. 5.4.2 Model Selection A simulation model or models will be selected, based on discussions with the project " team, RCTC, FHWA, Ca/trans, and other interested agencies. For the purposes of this scope of services, it is assumed that the simulation wiN be prepared using the CORSIM model for system interchanges and the Sim -Traffic model for local interchanges. 5.4.3 Data Collection Most simulation models require input data that goes above and beyond the data needed for traditional traffic engineering analysis. Additional data will be collected to. support the operation of the selected traffic simulation model(s). 5.4.4 Preliminary Model Preparation Preliminary simulation models will be prepared for the study areas defined in Subtask 5.4.1. 191 • 5.4.5 Model CalibrationNalidation The simulation models will be checked for accuracy using the project team's judgment and comparisons to other traffic engineering analyses conducted for the project. 5.4.6-Final Model Preparation The revised simulation models resulting from Task 5.4.5 will be prepared for presentation at technical and/or public meetings. For the purposes of this scope of services, it is assumed that the simulation models will be presented at up to six technical meetings and six public meetings, outside, of the meetings documented elsewhere in this scope of services. Assumptions: • The study area for traffic simulation will include one system interchange and two service interchanges to be selected during the course of the project • The CORSIM traffic simulation model will be used for system interchanges and the Sim -Traffic model for local interchanges • The simulation models will be presented at six technical meetings and six public meetings, outside of the meetings documented elsewhere in this scope of services • The simulation models will not be used for geometric design purposes Products: •. Traffic simulation models for one system interchange and two service interchanges to be selected during the course of the project 5.5 Coordination With the Riverside County/Orange County Project and.SR-79 Project During the MCP project, studies will be ongoing by separate consulting teams for the adjacent Riverside County/Orange, County Major Investment Study (RC/OC Project) and the State Route 79 Corridor Study (SR-79 Project). Coordination will be required with the traffic engineering project teams for these projects. Coordination will be necessary for consistency of traffic forecasts as well as traffic analysis inputs to geometric design and assumptions of connecting facilities between the MCP Project and RC/OC Project and the MCP Project and SR-79 Project: Specific assumptions to insure consistency are listed below. 5.5.1 Adjoining Project Meetings This task assumes attendance at 12 staff -level meetings to provide coordination between the project teams .for the RC/OC and SR-79 projects. 192 • 5.5.2 Provide Data To RC/OC and SR-79 Project Teams Technical reports, traffic data; traffic forecasts, and other data will be provided to the RC/OC and SR-79 project teams, as requested and approved by ROTC. 5.5.3 Review RC/OC and SR-79 Project Team Interim Products This task includes time to review interim products prepared by the'RC/OC and SR- 79 project teams. Assumptions: • Coordination with the'RC/OC and SR-79 project teams will require: attendance at 12 staff -level meetings Products: • Attendance at 12 staff -level meetings • Provision of technical data to RC/OC and SR-79 project teams • Review of interim products prepared by RC/OC and SR-79 project teams 5.6 Traffic Analysis of the Deletion of the 1-15/EI Cerrito Road Interchange At the request of the City of Corona, a detailed analysis will be conducted to determine the traffic effects of deleting all or a portion of the 1-15/EI Cerrito Road interchange. 5.6.1 Define Study Area A study area will be defined in order to analyze future traffic conditions with and without the 1-15/EI Cerrito Road interchange. The study area will generally include major roadways and intersections in the area bounded by Ontario Avenue, Temescal Canyon Road, Cajalco Road, Bedford Canyon Road, Foothill Parkway,_ and California Avenue: The following street segments and intersections will be included: Intersections: Ontario Ave/California Ave Ontario Ave/1-15 SB'Ramps Ontario Ave/I-15 NB Ramps Foothill Pkwy/California Ave El Cerrito Rd/Bedford Canyon Rd El Cerrito Rd/ 1-15 SB Ramps El Cerrito Rd/I-15 NB Ramps 193 El Cerrito Rd/Temescal Canyon Road Cajalco Rd/Bedford Canyon Rd Cajalco Rd/ I-15 SB Ramps Cajalco Rd/1-15 NB Ramps Cajalco Rd/Temescal Canyon Road Street Segments: Ontario Ave, California to I-15 California Ave, Ontario to Foothill Foothill Pkwy, California to Bedford Canyon El Cerrito Rd, Bedford Canyon to 1-15 El Cerrito Rd, 1-15 to Temescal Canyon Temescal Canyon Rd, 1-15 to El Cerrito Temescal Canyon Rd, El Cerrito to Cajalco Bedford Canyon Rd, El Cerrito to Cajalco Cajalco Rd, Bedford Canyon to 1-15 Cajalco Rd, 1-15 to Temscal Canyon 5.6.1 Develop Methodology i VRPA will document the methodology to be used in the study. For the purposes of this proposal, the methodology is assumed to be the following: ♦ Existing traffic counts will be obtained from the Mid County Parkway traffic analysis or City of Corona files. ♦ Intersection capacity analysis will be conducted using the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual. ♦ Street segment capacity analysis will be conducted using the Riverside County Integrated Plan roadway segment capacity analysis table, or equivalent table used by the City of Corona. ♦ Future traffic conditions will be analyzed in the Year2035. The source of the traffic forecasts will be the Mid County Parkway traffic analysis and traffic forecasts from the City of Corona General Plan travel forecasting model. Where necessary,,,a growth factor of 1.9% per, year will be used to convert from 2030 traffic conditions to 2035 traffic. conditions. ♦ Future lane geometry will be initially assumed to consist of existing, lane geometry plus through lanes as, specified in the City of Corona General Plan Circulation Element. In cases where this assumed lane geometry is 194 insufficient to provide level of service 'D operating conditions, suggestions for additional lanes will be provided to achieve level of service D. 5.6.3 Existing Traffic Conditions Analysis Existing traffic conditions will be documented for the study area identified in 5.6.1 • using the methodology described in 5.6.2. 5.6.4 Future Traffic Conditions Analysis Future traffic conditions will be documented for the 'study ;area identified in 5.6.1 using the methodology described in 5.6.2. The following alternatives will be analyzed:. ♦ 'Full Access at 1-15/EI Cerrito Interchange ♦ Partial Access at 1-15/EI Cerrito Interchange (1-15 SB On Ramp and 1-15 NB Off Ramp Deleted) ♦ No 1-1.5/EI Cerrito Interchange Each of the alternativeslisted above will be analyzed consistent with the Mid County Parkway Lake Mathews South/Perris South alternative. 5.6.5 Roadway Improvement. Recommendations For any locations where level of service E or F traffic conditions are indicated by the analysis conducted in 5.6.4, VRPA will recommend improvements that will provide level of service D or better conditions. 5.6.6 Documentation VRPA will provide a'traffic technical report that will include the results of the analysis described above. A draft of the report will be circulated review and comment prior to the preparation of a final version. 5.6.7 Meetings VRPA staff will attend regularly scheduled Mid County Parkway project meetings, as necessary, to discuss the results of the study. No public meetings are expected to be necessary. 5.7 Traffic Analysis of the Effect of the Far South Alternative Design Variations on the City of Perris General Plan 195 At the request of the City of Perris, a detailed traffic analysis will be conducted to determine the effect of the Far South Alternative Placentia Avenue design variation on the City of Perris General Plan. This analysis will include consideration of separate design variations, one of which includes a Mid County Parkway interchange at Perris Boulevard; and one of which includes a Mid County Parkway interchange at Redlands Avenue. Traffic analysis will be conducted to determine the changes that would be necessary in the City of Perris General Plan Circulation - Element in order to accommodate either of these design variations. 5.7.1 Define Study Area A study area will be defined in order to analyze: future traffic conditions with implementation of the Mid County Parkway Placentia Alignment Design Variations. The study area will generally include all City of Perris Circulation Element roadways in the area bounded by Ramona Expressway on the north; Nuevo Road on the south, Harvill Avenue on the west, and Evans Road on the east. Within this study area, traffic conditions will be analyzed for the Year 2030 for the following alternatives: ♦ Current Circulation Element ♦ Far South Alternative, Placentia Alignment, Interchange at Perris Boulevard ♦ Far South Alternative, Placentia Alignment, Interchange at Redlands Avenue 5.7.2 Future Traffic Forecasts Average daily traffic forecasts will be prepared for 2030 conditions far the studyarea and scenarios documented above." Traffic forecasts will be prepared using manual adjustments to the Perris Circulation Element traffic forecasting model, in consideration of traffic forecasts from the Mid County Parkway traffic forecasting model. No new model runs will be prepared. 5.7.3 Roadway Capacity and Circulation Analysis Roadway capacity analysis and circulation analysis will be conducted for the three alternatives analyzed in '5.7.2. The roadway system will be analyzed in consideration of roadway capacity as well as the need to provide reasonable access to all areas of the City of Perris. Capacity analysis' will' be conducted using the methodology used for the Perris Circulation Element. The capacity analysis for the Circulation Element alternative will be obtained from the current Circulation Element 196 with no changes necessary. The capacity analysis for the Mid County Parkway alternatives will be prepared using the traffic forecasts from Task 5.7.2. 5.7.4 Draft Revisions to Circulation Element Based on the results of 5.7.3, VRPA will prepare draft recommendations for revisions to the Perris Circulation Element for the two Mid County: Parkway design variations. These revisions to the Circulation Element will include new roadways, upgrading . of planned roadways, and/or deletion of planned roadways, as appropriate. For the two Mid County Parkway design variations, VRPA will prepare resulting traffic forecasts with the recommended revisions to the Circulation Element. 5.7.5 Recommended Revisions to Circulation Element VRPA will provide the results of 5.7.4 to RCTC, the Mid County Parkway project team, and the City of Perris for review. Following receipt of comments, VRPA will revise the recommended revisions to the Circulation, Element to reflect a consensus of the interested parties. 5.7.6 Documentation VRPA will provide a technical memorandum or report that will document the results of the analysis described above. The technical memorandum that will result from this task will not be a formal revision to the Perris Circulation Element. The technical memorandum could form the . technical basis for a revision to the Circulation Element, but the formal adoption and approval by the City Council would be part of a separate process that would be undertaken when and if the Mid County Parkway Placentia Avenue design variations were to be adopted. However, City Council review of the proposed Circulation Element revisions would be encouraged in order to provide a consensus on the changes in the Circulation Element that would be needed along with implementation of the proposed Mid County Parkway design variations. 5.7.7 Meetings VRPA staff will; attend regularly scheduled, Mid County Parkway project meetings, as necessary, to discuss the results of the study. In addition, this task will .include attendance at up to two meetings with City of Perris staff and one meeting with the Planning Commission and/or; City Council to diSCUSS the results of the analysis. . 197 SCOPE OF SERVICES FOR TASK NO. 6 — ENGINEERING MID COUNTY PARKWAY CORRIDOR —ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION AND BASIC ENGINEERING 6.0 ENGINEERING 6.1Preliminary Engineering Based on the original six build alternatives, the Consultant will further refine the horizontal and vertical alignments to minimize environmental impacts and reduce construction costs. The Value Analysis processes, which was conducted in April- 2005 for the mainline studies, resulted in an additional alternative alignment"Far South" that is approximately one to 1 '/2 miles south of Cajalco Road and west of I- 215. The Far South alignment, however, is not compatible with the `Perris North" alternative. In order to provide an efficient transportation corridor to meet the Need and Purpose Criteria, the Team identified Placentia Avenue as a new option to connect the "Far South" alignment and the "Perris South" alignment. The same Value Analysis also identified a new option along the Perris Drain to provide an avoidance alternative to the issues on the Perris North Alternative in front; of Perris Dam. As such, this "Perris Drain" option is designated a Design Variation of the "Perris North" Alternative. The consultant will prepare a preliminary alignment plan for each of the original six build alternatives including "Perris Drain" variation plus the new "Far South" i alternative in metric units at 1:2000 scale for agencies' review. Once the alignment plan is reviewed and accepted by RCTC, County of Riverside, the involved local city jurisdictions, FHWA and other regulatory agencies, it is important that the alignment for each alternative be frozen at this stage. Based on the frozen alignments, the consultant will assess the area of impact for the environmental processing and documentation, the right-of-way requirements, and utility conflicts. 6.1.1 Ultimate Buildout Based on the approved alignment plans, the consultant will prepare preliminary layout plans, profiles, and typical sections for each alternative in metric units at 1:2000 scale. The preliminary plans will be prepared to meet 2035 traffic demand as the ultimate buildout condition including number of lane on the mainline and interchange configurations. These preliminary plans will be developed based on Ca!trans. Highway Design Manual 5th Edition, American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) standards, and other applicable county and cities design 198 standards. Any nonstandard features will be identified and discussed at the PDT meetings to assess options for eliminating the nonstandard features and gain concurrence for requesting design exceptions. All proposed nonstandard features. will be defined for documentation in design exception fact sheets for Caltrans review and approval. Products: Layouts, profiles, and typical sections at 1:2000 Scale 6.1.2 Stage 1 Construction The interim buildout condition is defined to meet 2020 traffic demand. It is assumed that the interim buildout will be at the same horizontal and vertical alignment as the ultimate buildout but with modifications at the system -to -system interchange areas and at the local arterial crossing areas. The initial stage buildout plans will be developed only for the preferred altemative. The preliminary layout, profile and typical section will be developed for each alternative based on the interim condition in metric units at 1:2000scale. These preliminary plans will meet Caltrans Highway Design Manual 5th Edition, American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO)'standards, and other applicable County and cities design standards. Any nonstandard features will be identified and discussed at the PDT meetings to assess options for eliminating the nonstandard features and gain concurrence for requesting design exceptions. All proposed nonstandard features will be defined for documentation in design exception fact sheets. Products: Layouts, profiles, and typical sections at 1:2000 Scale 6.2 Value Analysis A formal Value Analysis (VA) will be required in accordance with FHWA policies; that is, any project costing in excess of $25 million shall be subject to a formal VA study: The priority of the VA would be the system interchanges, service interchanges, and alignment. Subsequent to this study and following delivery of the pertinent technicalinformation required for a VA study, the formal study will be scheduled utilizing Caltrans on -call VA study facilitators. This effort is estimated to take one to two weeks to complete, not including the report -and follow-up responses to the study. It is anticipated that the resulting VA will satisfy the requirements of the FHWA for this project: The formal VA study will consist of a team of reviewers who have not participated in the project yet are familiar with therequirementsof the design for the project. The members of the VA study team will be determined by RCTC and Caltrans: 199 To initiate the process, the Consultant shall prepare a document for distribution to the VA team consisting of the following: • Conceptual alignment plans • Traffic study information with peak hour and directional movements for each interchange • Utility mapping • Right -of -Way information The VA team will review this information with the project team to discuss options for improving the quality of the project, resolve conflicts with stakeholders on the project, provide alternative solutions to difficult transportation issues, and identify, cost -saving alternatives to the project. The Consultant shall prepare responses to the comments received from the VA Studies and deliver a report identifying those if any of the recommendations that should be implemented or should be further evaluated for consideration. Discussion for each of the alternative solutions offered is required to completely address each option. II At the conclusion of the VA study, the Consultant shall be prepared to identify the i final geometry for the project alternatives and include them as appropriate in the Project Report. Products: Formal VA Study Reports 6.3 Engineering Technical Studies/Reports Engineering technical studies/reports will be prepared for each alternative based on the preliminary plans to address the potential engineering issues and support the Project Report. Draft reports will be prepared for review by Caltrans, the County, cities, and other regulatory agencies where applicable. Final reports will, be included in the Draft Project Report and Final Project Report. 6.3.1 Utilities The Consultant shall locate rnajor utility features using collected utility data such as utility company as -built plans and Caltrans utility maps. Once the utility information is plotted on the preliminary layout plans, the plans will be sent to the utility companies to verify the existing utility locations. With all the utility locations confirmed, the Consultant will contact all affected utility companies to identify the utility conflicts. During this phase, the Consultant will coordinate with the utility company for potential relocation and to determine role and responsibility in the next phases. 200 Product: Utility Maps, Utility Cost Estimates 6.3.2 Right -of -Way Engineering Support Based on the geometric plans developed in Task 6.1 Preliminary Engineering for each of the seven build alternatives and one design variation and a thorough review of the existing right-of-way maps, parcel maps, tract maps, records of survey and assessor's maps, we will prepare right-of-way requirement drawings that clearly delineate the proposed right of way lines and the additional rights of way that would be required. The right of way requirements will include full and partial acquisitions, temporary construction easements and permanent easements. In addition, we will obtain the known future development information along the proposed alignments, and convert the tentative tract maps to Metric Units and include them in the right of way base map. Although the Right of Way Base Map was established in the Phase 1 effort, several spot field • survey may be required to further evaluate the right of way impact. Once the Right of Way Requirement Plans are completed, the plans will be used to evaluate right of way impact and prepare cost estimates for each alternative. The appropriate data will be assembled and reported in Right -of -Way Data Sheet format as defined in Exhibit 01-01-01 of Caltrans Project Development Manual. Products: Right=of-VVay Requirement Plans at 1:2000 Scale 6.3.3 Cost Estimates The Consultant will prepare preliminary construction cost estimates for each build alternative. The estimates will follow the format defined in the Caltrans Project Development Procedures Manual and will address the major cost items such as roadway, structures (on a cost per square meter basis), retaining walls, maintenance of traffic, potential environmental mitigation, and right-of-way (per ROVV Data Sheets): Costs will be based on accepted planning estimate unit prices: Products: Cost Estimate for each of the seven build alternatives 6.3.4 Structures Advance Planning Studies The Structures Advance Planning Studies (APS) will be prepared in accordance with the Caltrans practice for such studies and will depict the most feasible bridge alternative and layout for the proposed crossings' The APS will include a cost estimate to give an order of magnitude cost for the bridge structure. Multiple alternatives for the bridge type are not required for the APS.We assume that the ' APS will be prepared only for the Preferred Alternative. Non Standard walls are not included at this time. Products: Structures APS Reports (General Plans and APS Checklists) 201 6.3.5 Drainage Report The Consultant shall prepare a conceptual drainage report for the project. The report shall include the identification of the primary watercourses required to be conveyed through the project. The identification of the design discharge for each of these watercourses shall be provided for by consulting with the Riverside County Flood Control and Water. Conservation District and retrieving their current ultimate design discharge for these facilities. A separate hydrology study for these watercourses is not a part of this scope of services. Once the design discharges have been identified, the Consultant shall prepare a preliminary hydraulic analysis of the bridge and/or culvert crossings as may be proposed by the Consultant for the project. This analysis shall be prepared incorporating acceptable engineering software (NEC-RAS, WSPG, etc.) to demonstrate the appropriate conveyance facility for the various crossings. The hydraulic analysis shall be complete enough to identify those impacts to the existing floodplain as may a result of the proposed project crossing. Analysis excludes determination of channel stability, scour and erosion analysis for each stream crossing. On -site drainage facilities for the corridor shall be evaluated and identified in a qualitative manner. Detailed hydrologic and hydraulic analysis is not required for this. phase of the work. For determining the extent of on -site drainage improvements, the Consultant shall identify sump locations (if any) and the appropriate conveyance facility for the sumps. The Consultant shall identify dischargelocations for the on -site drainage features, incorporating them into the applicable best management practices (BN1P) facilities to design along with this project. Rough estimates of design discharges will be developed on gross acreage determination (i.e., total area tributary to a concentration point multiplied by an applicable yield factor [cfs per acre]). These values will be used to provide preliminary sizing of the drainage system within the project site. Products: Drainage Report 6.3.6 Storm Water Data Report(SWDR) The Storm Water Data Report for Project Report (PR) level will be prepared in accordance with the criteria and requirements set forth by Caltrans for such a document. Current guidelines for the preparation of the SWDR are contained within Appendix E of the Caltrans Project Planning and Design Guide. A separate on -site conceptual drainage report shall be prepared as supplemental information for Caltrans for review and approval of the SWDR (See tasks as described in Task 6.3.5). Preparation of the Storm Water Data Report will be coordinated with the preparation of the Storm Water Quality Assessment document prepared by the Environmental .Team for the project and made a part of the CEQA and NEPA documentation for the project. 202 The extent of the work involved in this task will require review of the existing Regional Water Quality Control Board agreementswith the local jurisdictions; review . of Caltrans BMP requirements; identification of expected pollutants; and identification of the necessary BMP sites within the project to treat runoff before discharging into existing watercourses. The draft SWDR is based on the seven Build Alternatives, the final SWDR is only for the preferred Alternative. Product: Storm Water Data Report (PR Level) 6.3.7 Conceptual Stage Construction & Traffic Management Plan (TMP) The Consultant shall develop a construction staging concept for each build alternative. The concept will illustrate with schematic drawings to note the major features and stages of construction. At this stage we are concerned with identifying construction issues that influence the viability of the build. alternatives. For example, it is anticipated that the need for such a plan for the interchanges will be required to demonstrate the impacts to the mainline freeway facilities. This plan shall, depict the various stages of the work in the construction of the ultimate interchange and identify any future conflicts if the interchange is not built to its proposed ultimate configuration. This plan shall accommodate the existing traffic movements during construction and identify any required detour roads that would need to be constructed. The Stage Construction plan shall be a conceptual layout at 1:2000 scale and does not include a specific Traffic Handling Plan. . A conceptual TMP will also be prepared for the project that discusses the overall traffic impacts to the surrounding area for the preferred alternative. The need to discuss the impacts to the local arterial roadway system and how the traffic will be handled shall be developed,depicting alternative routes along the local roads as well as identifying any necessary detour roads that would need to be constructed'. Products: Stage Construction Conceptual Plans at 1:2000 scale; TMP` Checklists' 6.3.8 Traffic Warrants Certain key intersections needing traffic signals on opening day and in the future. will " be identified and substantiated using the Caltrans traffic warrant forms for future ' intersections. The warrants for the intersections identified will be included" in the Project Report. Product: Traffic warrant for each proposed intersection 6.3.9 Design Exception Report As part of the Project Report, it will be necessary to identify those elements of the design that are not in conformance with either the advisory or mandatory design 203 requirements of the Caltrans Highway Design Manual. These exceptions to the design requirements will need to be specifically discussed in a Caltrans formatted Design Exception Report. Products: Fact Sheet for Advisory Non -Standard Features; Fact Sheet for Mandatory Non -Standard Features 6.4 Preliminary GDR and Foundation Investigation Consultant shall prepare a preliminary Geotechnical Design Report (GDR) for the project that shall include pavement recommendations for both asphalt concrete sections and Portland cement concrete sections. The preliminary GDR shall also provide general design information for standard retaining wall design, slope stability requirements, and surface drainage and permeability requirements, of the subgrade material anticipated to be encountered with this project. In addition, the Consultant shall perform a Preliminary Foundation Investigation for the preferred alignment at the various bridge sites to support Advance Planning Study. We plan to evaluate any major geotechnical elements that could influence the design of the bridges and will prepare a Preliminary Foundation Report to provide basic bridge design parameters. Phase 2 tasks to support the preliminary GDR and Foundation Investigation are presented below. 6.4.1 Exploration Plan, Permits, and Site Reconnaissance An exploration plan will be prepared and will include borings at bridges, interchanges, and widely spaced intervals along the corridor. The plan will be submitted to Jacobs for distribution to various agencies for approval. This task will also include obtaining any. encroachment or well permits required by Caltrans or other agencies to drill soil and rock borings or install wells. A reconnaissance of the new Far South and Perris Drain alignments, identified as part of the VA study, will,also be performed to evaluate geologic and geotechnical constraints, and plan for additional subsurface site and foundation investigations. Preliminary engineering geotechnical boring associated with the Mid County Parkway is an impacting activity and is considered part of the federal undertaking. For this level of study, LSA assumes that all disturbing activities including development of any staging areas, grading associated with access roads, and, borings will be within the project APE. LSA will conduct compliance efforts to a Section 106 standard. If all geotechnical boring (including access roads, if required), will be done after the Determination of Eligibility and Finding of Effect (DOE/FOE), then the HPSR and other studies will be adequate to address Section 106 compliance for the geotechnical investigation program. if the boring program is conducted after the DOE/FOE there will be no compliance related delays; however a 204 qualified archaeologist, and possibly Native American will be needed to monitor ground disturbing activities. 6.4.2 Site Investigations Site investigations will be limited to not more than 45 borings identified at specific locations within public right-of-way and representative of the preferred alignment. This information, along with the data retrieved from the bridge site investigations, shall comprise the extent of the geotechnical recommendations at this phase of the work. It is anticipated that the final design phase of the project will require additional and more extensive geotechnical investigation. Of the 45 borings planned, approximately 15 are added for evaluation of the new Far South and Perris Drain alignmentsidentified as part of the VA. study. Following approval of the proposed boring locations, the Consultant will mark the proposed boring locations in the field and contact Underground Service Alert (USA) to identify the potential conflicts between planned exploration locations and existing undergroundutilities. Available documents pertaining to utilities and other underground obstructions' will also be reviewed: 6.4.3 Foundation' Investigation The Consultant will perform limited subsurface exploration for planned bridge structures along the preferred alignment. For preliminary planning, one boring is planned for a select number of bridge and interchange sites except for bridge structures at the system -to -system interchanges (1-15, 1-215, and SR-79) where up to four borings, one in each quadrant; may planned. For this scope of services, no more than 32 deep soil borings of not more than 80 feet in depth are estimated." Up to four borings may also be converted to monitoring wells where shallow groundwater is anticipated. Wells will be capped and properly abandoned after use. The borings will be used to provide preliminary geotechnical analysis for foundation selection and bridge design. Of the 32 borings planned for the foundation investigation; approximately 12 are added for evaluation structures associated with ; the Far South and Perris Drain alignments identified as part of the VA study. , Cone' penetration testing (CPT) may also be provided to supplement foundation information for a select number of locations including the San Jacinto River crossing. The Consultant will provide preliminary seismic design recommendations, including recommended acceleration response spectra in accordance with the current Caltrans Seismic Design Criteria. More detailed design -level investigation will be performed at a later date. 6.4.4 Borrow Site Investigations Up to five areas identified as potential borrow sites will be evaluated. The evaluation will focus on the suitability of excavated materials for use as engineered fill as well. 205 as future borrow site slopes and fills. The evaluation may include subsurface exploration, geophysical surveys, and laboratory testing. 6.4.5 Laboratory Testing Laboratory testing will be performed on selected samples obtained during field exploration to assess the physical characteristics of the subsurface materials. It is anticipated that the testing will include moisture/density, gradation, plasticity index, sand equivalent, consolidation, collapse potential, direct shear, maximum density/optimum moisture content, expansion, corrosion, R-value potential, and durability. The testing program may be modified based on the actual subsurface materials encountered during exploration. 6.4.6 Preliminary Pavement Design Recommendations Preliminary pavement design recommendations will be provided for the eastern, and western corridor preferred alignments, and the Far South and Perris Drain alignments. Preliminary pavement design will be based on subsurface exploration, laboratory testing, and traffic indices provided by the client. 6.4.7 Preliminary Geotechnical Design Report A Preliminary Geotechnical Design Report will be prepared that will present the data obtained during field explorations and laboratory testing, as well as conclusions and recommendations pertaining to the following: • Project description, including proposed improvements, climatic conditions, terrain and surface drainage, and land use. • Discussion of geotechnical setting, including regional geology, subsurface soil, and groundwater conditions. • Discussion of regional faulting and seismicity and geologic hazards, including the potential for surface fault rupture, seismic -induced ground deformation or settlement related to liquefaction, seismic compaction, or lateral spreading. • Preliminary recommendations for construction of roadway and embankment foundations. • Preliminary evaluation of gross and surficial stability of the proposed fill slopes. • Preliminary earthwork considerations; including excavation characteristics, erosion controls, and estimates for shrinkage and bulking. • Preliminary collapse, expansive, and corrosion potentials of the subgrade soils and recommended mitigation measures, if necessary. • Preliminary recommendations for pavement structural design based on traffic indices assumed or provided by the client. • Recommendations for borrow sites. 206 Discussion of materials available, including local and commercial.sources and materials specifications. The findings, conclusions, and recommendations will be presented in a Preliminary Geotechnical Design Report and will include logs of the borings and laboratory test results. 6.4.8 Preliminary foundation Report A separate Preliminary Foundation Report will be prepared for bridge design and foundation selection. The Preliminary Foundation Report will present• prelim►nary information and recommendations for foundation types, design of embankments, seismic data (including recommended acceleration response, spectra in accordance with the current Caltrans Seismic Design Criteria), and other information to evaluate ` the bridges. 6.4.9 Geology/GeotechnicalSupport for Environmental/Engineering. Services We anticipate that geologic and geotechnical services will be provided to the Environmental and Engineering Teams as needed to support environmental documentation and basic engineering at this phase of the work. It is anticipated that the final design phase of the project will require additional and more extensive geotechnical investigation. Following approval of the proposed boring locations, the. Consultant will mark the proposed boring locations in the field and contact Underground Service Alert (USA) to identify the potential conflicts between planned exploration locations and existing underground utilities. Available documents pertaining to utilities and other underground obstructions will also be reviewed. 6.5 Project Report 6.5.1 Draft Project Report The Consultant will prepare a Draft Project Report (DPR) according to the Caltrans" Project Development Procedures Manual, incorporating City and County requirements' and Caltrans design standards. The DPR will include all the engineering technical studies and individual reports to support all the build and no - build alternatives. This document will be used as a%reference for the environmental documentation for the project. The approval of the DPR will authorize the DED to be circulated to the publics Assumption: 70 copies of the Draft Project Report will be, needed' Products: Draft Project Report 207 6.5.2 Final Project Report As a result of the environmental evaluation and the public comments, a Preferred Alternative will be selected for the project. The Consultant will incorporate comments from the DPR and prepare the Final Project Report (Final PR) based on the Preferred Alternative. The Final PR will also address any changes in the Preferred Alternative and cost estimates arising from the environmental studies, such as any environmental mitigations or avoidances. It is expected that more specific funding sources will be identified before or during the Final PR stage. Pursuant to RCTC's direction, the consultant will develop a Final Preferred Alternative that is modified from the Preferred Alternative in the Final PR:. Assumption: 70 copies of the Final Project Report will be needed Product: Final Project Report 6.6 New Connection Report (NCR) / Modified Access Report(MAR) To satisfy FHWA requirements, a Modified Access Report (MAR) and a New Connection Report (NCR) will be required for the project. These documents are necessary for FHWA to provide its approval to the proposed geometry of the interchange and the manner in which the ties to the existing interstate freeways are to occur. To meet the schedule requirement and to expedite the review processes, the draft NCR/MAR's will be submitted to FHWA before a Preferred Alternative is selected. As such, three separate NCR/MARs will be required: one at the Cajalco interchange with 1-15, one at the interchange of Ramona Expressway and 1-215 (northern option) and one at the interchange with 1-215'south of Ramona Expressway (southern` option.) Each report shall be based on much of the same information in the draft" Project Report and will address the information requested in the "FHWA PSR/PR Tidbits (8/27/02)," which requests information on the ultimate facility configuration, the financially constrained model for the freeway, and other programming issues related to the Regional Transportation Program. Exhibits for the NCR/MAR shall include the Conceptual Alignment Plans from the previous section of this scope of services and a full discussion of the various alternatives evaluated to this point in the project approval process. Assumption: 30 copies of the NCR/MAR will be needed Products: NCR/MAR 208 CONTINGENCY SCOPE OF WORK ITEM 6.7 Geometric Approval Drawings (GAD) The GADs, also referred to as Geometric Base Maps, shall be prepared for the Preferred Alternative as designated by the client in metric units at 1:500 scale based on the current topographic information developed in Phase 1 of the project. No work on the preparation of the GADs will occur until the designation of the Preferred Alternative has been made. The GADs shall include the following items of information: • Forecasting data, including directional movements • Operational analysis of the mainline and affected intersections • Typical sections for each of the facilities within the GAD • Plan view of the facility showing the existing topography, the basic striping, and the major structures • Profile and superelevation diagrams for each of the facilities depicted within the GAD. • Design Exception Reports applicable to the GAD • Design Information Bulletin Checklist 77 completed and prepared in discussion format as necessary. The GADs shall be prepared according to the Caltrans District 8 GAD Requirements dated December 11, 2002. Assumption: 70 copies of the Geometric Approval Drawings will be needed for the Preferred Alternative Product: GAD for the Preferred Alternative 209 i SCOPE OF SERVICES FOR TASK ORDER NO. 7 — GIS DATA BASE SERVICES MID COUNTY PARKWAY CORRIDOR —ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION AND BASIC ENGINEERING 7.0 GIS DATA BASE SERVICES For this project, the Geographic Information System (GIS) will provide the base structure for data collection and organization from February 1, 2005 through February 1, 2009. The GIS Team will continue to provide data organization,' dissemination, and support for the PDT. There are six main tasks that the GIS team will address: 1. Development and maintenance of data library functionsand distribution system 2 Update and publish base data and alignment layer; data standards to be used by project teams 3. Data needs assessment, acquisition, review, and maintenance 4. Analysis utilizing the GIS system as required to support general project needs 5. Generate maps, tables, reports, presentation graphics, and online GIS resources 6. Data archive, documentation, delivery, and training 7.1 Setup, Development, and Maintenance of Data Library and Distribution System A Project Data Control and Management Library has been established in Phase 1` that contains the data collected or generated for the project: RBF will continue to maintain and update this system as necessary for this phase of the project work: This system, which will be maintained and operated in conjunction with the project and document management collaboration site, will serve as a central online repository for project data. Data stored at the site will be registered to the project alignment layer developed by the Survey and Mapping Team; and meta data will be made available to provide users with pertinent information relating to the data's source, level of accuracy, date of completion, and any specific limitations in the use of the data. Additional functionality of the site will maintain 'alist of data downloads for notification of modifications by data originator. Base data and data sets too large for distribution from the FTP site will be made available by CD: CD updates will be distributed as warrantedthroughout the Phase 2 project life. 210 7.2 Publish Base Data and Alignment Layer; CreateData Standards to be Used by Project Teams Meetings will be held with all teams and individuals working on the project to provide information on how to access data and to describe the data standards that have been set for graphics, feature attributes, symbology, and meta data. The GIS team will provide support to other production teams to assist in maintaining the standards in their data generation and utilization. The data standards created for the project GIS will conform to the data standards currently in use on County systems. Data standards will be determined and established per the data dictionaries provided by the governing agencies and their GIS departments. A base data set has been established and will be maintained and updated by the GIS team in conjunction with the work to be completed by the survey and mapping. team, which will be used by the other team members for convergence of data sets. This base data layer will be referred to as the "Data Alignment Layer." The Data Alignment Layer will consist of points, lines, and polygons taken from various data sources at various scales and levels of accuracy. Meta data relating to these geographic features will be of primary importance and will be maintained throughout the life of the project. The datum and projection of the Data Alignment Layer will be based on the County Parcel Data, which is NAD83 California State Plane Zone 6. As new data enters the project in this phase, the project team responsible for the new data will develop the appropriate meta data attributes and align the data to the Data Alignment Layer prior to requesting that the data be placed in the project data library. Data in the project data library will be available for access by other project team members but may only be modified by the responsible team.' The GIS team will be responsible for the maintenance of the data library and will provide assistance to the other project teams if required to align and register new data sets. The goal of this task is to have each final data set delivered to the client, whether engineering, planning, or environmental based, to fit the constraints of the overall project coordinate control to make it most useful for future use and assure project quality between disciplines. 7.3 Data Needs Assessment, Acquisition, Review, and Maintenance Data will be :the core of all of the project tasks for each of the project teams. This task simply defines how the data will be providedand the basic format and alignment to other data. The data itself is going to be the most important component of the GIS coordination. Whether existing data is received from other sources or new data is developed during the project tasks, most of the project data will be utilized for many disciplines and all segments of the project. Therefore, the timing and availability of each data set will be important to project team managers. To 211 address this need, the GIS team will coordinate with each project team for identification of required data, adequacy of the available data, and acquisition of the required new data layers. This task will contain the following three components: 7.3.1 Establish the anticipated additional data needs, potential new sources as requested by the other project teams, and availability of the required data sets. 7.3.2 Develop a thorough list, presenting the identified data sets, the anticipated source for the data, any additional work that must be completed prior to use of the data, and the schedule for availability of the data. 7.3.3 Collect data from its source. If the data isamong the available data sets at the County or other global project sources, the data will be acquired, checked, and moved to the project data library for use. Other data sets requiring additional work will be acquired by the responsible project team and modified as necessary prior to being forwarded to the GIS team for checking and placement in the project data library. 7.4 Analysis Utilizing the GIS System Once the project data is available in the project data library, the analysis of this data by each of the project teams will be undertaken. The analysis will be completed using the GIS system as a tool for evaluation of data and for the development of new data sets. New GIS data sets and resulting analyses will be maintained in the project data library and available for the other project teams to utilize. Where necessary, the GIS team will provide GIS analysis services to the other project team members. The budget for such analyses is contained in the budget provided for the individual task item by the individual project team. Analysis will be performed using Arc/Info, ArcView, or other GIS, CAD, or modeling software as necessary to achieve the desired results. Data created through this process will follow the same rigorous testing and quality checking as original data before documentation, meta data attribution, and placement in the project data library. A specific budget has been assigned for analysis requested at the specific direction of the project director or the client. Work under this task will be performed only under such specific direction. A summary of the budget expended and remaining will be provided with each monthly progress billing. 7.5 Generate Map, Tables, Reports, Presentation Graphics, and Online GIS Resources Mapping standards, including global project symbol libraries, line styles, color palettes, and standard map layout at various scales will be provided to the project team members for the generation of their GIS map products. These templates will 212 be provided online with the project data library. Where necessary, the GIS team will provide GIS map design and creation services to the other project teams.. The budget for such map generation is contained in the budget provided for the individual task item by the project team. Map generation will be performed using Arc/Info, ArcView, or other software as necessary to achieve the desired results. Maps created through this process will follow rigorous quality checking procedures for accuracy and completeness. Digital versions of the final map products will be made available to the other team members in the project data library where appropriate. A specific budget has been assigned for map making requested at the specific direction of the project director or the client. Work under this task will be performed only under such specific direction. A summary of the budget expended and remaining will be 'provided with each monthly progress billing., 7.6 Data Archive, Documentation, Delivery, and Training 7.6.1 Following completion of the project, the project data collected and generated by theprojectteam members will be archived for delivery to the client to support future work. This archiving process will include the verification and documentation of the data structures and meta data for each data set. The data archive will consist of the creation of a permanent data backup such as DVD'or CD-ROM. 7.6.2 .Agency staff will be provided with training from the project GIS team with up to four two-hour training sessions. This training is to include an introduction and demonstration of the expanded GIS database, the new data structures, and uses identified in the project. Assumptions: 1. All data required for this project that originates from County government or Transportation Agencies will be provided free of charge to the Consultant within the time constraints provided in the approved schedule. Such data will be complete; current, and accurate as required for the analysis and mapping purposes designated for this project. Also, it is assumed that the data sets will have been previously registered to each!County's parcel land base or the project data alignment layer. Data layers specified in the RFP to be updated as part of this project are specifically excluded from this assumption. 2. Data requiring acquisition through purchase will be reimbursed by the client. 3. The client and the Consultant will enter into a reciprocal confidentiality agreement concerning the creation, transfer, and use of GIS data specifically pertaining to this project. Product: GIS Database 213 ATTAILENT 3 Purpose and Need/404 Project Purpose HCP/MSHCP/SAMP Coordination Public Outreach Meetings NOI/NOP Project Cc m • lotion Project Complete Public Outreach Meetings Devalue Project Alternatives (PR/DEIS/DEIR) Develop Eval Criteria for Alts Analysis Prepare/Publish NOI/NOP and Scoping Meetings Prepare/Publish NOI&NOP Issue Revised NOP/NOI Task 4.2 • Environ. Analysis/Draft Tech.Studies Draft Jurisdictional Delineation of Waters Agencies CompleteReview Draft Tech Studies Task 4.4 • Final Technical Studies (Summary) Corps/CDFG Verifies Jurisd. Delineat.ot Waters Revisit Concept of Preferred Alt. in DEIS/DEIR Prepare Admin. Draft EIS/EIR Agency Review Admin.Draft EIS/EIR Draft EIS/EIR and Public Hearings (Summary) Draft EIS/EIR Public Review & Public Hearings 1 6 Corps Evaluates Comments on Prelim.Pub.Notice Response to Comments Agency Review of Draft EIS Comments & Responses Preliminary Agreement on Preferred Alternative Prelim Agree.of Pref.Altern.-FWS/Corps Mit, Plan Prepare Biological Assessment FWS/FHWA Consultation -Section 7 O1JUL03A 01 NOV03A 21SEP04A 10MAY09 03AUG05A 12JUL04A 10AUG04A 28SEP04A 28SEP04A 01APR06 01APR05A 01APR05A 02NOV06 12APR06 02NOV06 17DEC06 16JAN07 29APR07 07SEP07 22SEP07 06NOV07 22NOV07 06JAN08 05FEB08 05FEB08 06MAR08 . 20APR08 31JAN04A 28FEB05A 23SEP04A 30JUN09 30JUN09 15JUL06 15DEC04A 15DEC04A 14DEC04A 12NOVO4A 01 APR06 Purpose and Need/404 Prolec HCP/MSH !Public Outreach ®pevelop Pre. Milbevelop Eval 1®Prepare/Publi ®Prepare/Pubss urpose P/SAMP Coordination etirigs NOUNOP. Public Outreach Meetings . Alternatives (PR/Das/DEIFD Mena for Ails Analysis h NOI/NOP and Scoping Meetings NOI&NOP • Issue Revised NOPfNOI =Project Complefion OProleat Complete 16DEC06 resit- 4.2: Envlren. Analysts/Draft Tech:Studles 12JUN06 DraltJuriadietionalDelineetion,ofWaters . 16DEC06 :encies:CompleteRevleviDraft Teen Studies 15NOV07 iiiiimmomTask 4.4 - Final Technical Studies (Sum. Mary 16DEC06 .. ® tor es/CDFG Verifies Jurisd.: Dalineat:of Waters • 15JAN07 ■Revisit Concept of Preferred Alt.7n DOS/DER! 17APR07 �PrepareAdmin. Draft EIS/E1R' 28MAY07•. ' I•Agenc Review Admin.DraftelS/E/R 05NOV07 05NOV07 21 NOV07 05JAN08 04FEB08 05MAR08 05MAR08 19APR08 o1SEP08 ®Draft EIS/E/R and Public Hearings (Summaryl ODraitE/S/E/R Public Review & Public Hearin •s • 1 Corps Evaluates Comments on PrellT.Pub.Notice OResponee, to Comments • YA . enc ' Review of Draft EIS,' Comments & Res • ones Mid County Parkway Project Schedule October, 2005 :1•PreliminaryAgreement on Preferred•Alternative • 1 Prellm Agree:o/ Pref.Altern•-FWS/Corps. Mit. Plan ;11111Prepake Sieloglca/Asaassmant FWS/FHWA Consultation-Sectien 7 ' Date 190CT05 Rev,1 Revision Checked A..rove Prepare Final EIS/EIR ' Agency Rvw,& Aprv.Final EIS/EIR FEIS/FEIR Circ./Sec.404 Public Notice Issued FHWA Reviews Draft ROD Corps Evaluates Comments on Public Notice Corps ROD Obtain Sec.401•Certification from RWQCB Corps Permit Decision MSHCP/HCP/EI,Sobr. Analysis & Amend.(Part.Cont.), Preliminary Admin. Draft Project Report Task 6.6 • NCFVMAR (Summary Activity) MAR Preliminary Acceptance 14JUL08 12SEP08 120CT08' 1200708 11 NOV08 11DECD8 10JAN09 11 MAR09 01 MARO5A 16NOV06 11SEP08 110CT08 10NOV08 10NOV08 10DEC08 09JAN09 10MAR09 09MAY09 30SEP08 28APR07 M.§/FFJR Clro./See,404 Public No flr ama- Male ®Prepare Final eiszI; iliAoency IS/EIR ce issued" ®FHWA Reviews Draft ROD Corps Evaluates Coian7ent§ on Public HatiCia : ■$orpa ROD 'Obtain 5ec.401Certlflcatlonfrom RWQCI5111' - • liCorps Perrnit Decision • MSHCP/HCP/EI Sabr. Analysis & Amend.(Part. 111C111111PrellinIna . Adman Draft Project Re '• art • 02MAR06 29NOV06 IIIIIMEMENIERTask 6.6r NCR/MAR (SummaryActivity) 29NOV06. ♦MARPreliminaryAcceptance; . Mid County Parkway Task Estimate: Summary Total Project Phase 2 ATTACHMENT Date:10_25.05 Atitendlnenl 1.Basn Roject S:Budget _ Hours Cost PA an„- r- AmendgrcntyRequesbPor Tala4ConlractBpdgef�Pdase 2?; Hours Cost Hours Cost 1,0 Project Management 1.1Projeel Management '4.2PrOeet SeheduGag and puntTots 2-A Agency 6 PubllcAnvolve(nent Process 24k.Patf�6,QLtr4§df _S:_-a"Cs.��«:a_ . 2:21,ntergovemmenli_FC9MInI,iniOtitait=:_; 8,,3MS4489e48!4vk168-8le84F„ .tl:.Slaken.9k1S4 P.A0-8,8 c4hons �- $ ,48; j4ltelg0ons ._..'; ;6P6bGEOihamation- - - ,713ra14E18/EIR1-e48ntie- 3.6 !iyeyp RTSE,ROW 3;1:8urij!eit84,44PPi^9=' €. SZ ROE£a{nPM1iO4y{:, 6 : 3.5,Earjy.RflW,3)udieS "' 3'.W«,'P'repaie',WaRjReMcaGun.ImpadRepar[. at 31phe88rj3 0 [lpla 38;PIot?gdschawisithrtami gsPlac'giii@M-_ 5:O4Tiaflic'Englneedn§: ".1';1�IP9eJATYaryIg;Ftiiac4sts"-: `It .�? S.iT$r3fKc.TtWihrcaERePalf` ' �-. � A1goottstaoy 2,tpopalysla w 9,339 $1,263,791 6,520 $1,077,713 9,306 $1,452,731 s.:.1 5 $138,159 $76,904 $99,394 $199,488 $84,153 $136,585 $0 3,042 1,500 1,462 t $415,599 $247,940 $230,997 M 12,381 $1,679,390 8,020 $1,325,653 10,768 $1,683,729 $156,435 $0 $7,293 $0 $34,146 $385,751 $177,358 $54,515 $54,515 24,733 tr t��� ®$137,818 396 843,053 0 396® 2,343 $314,021®®$523.366 1,264 4,644 3,186 0 4550,197 So ®' 80 1,344® 2,920 $330,723 978 0 40 97,514 m® 4,991 $0 o 0 680 180 260 720 1,260 160 0285 830 228 326 900 1,545 200 r:a 1 $162,003 Total Engineering 00Ce Subtotal 169,080 $18,671,407 $1,497,201 1311,855 213,329 23,204,937 11,809,056 $4 IT14;953,£ Vilre137eW1W1 Prepared by Jacobs Civil, Inc. 11/1/2005 AGENDA ITEM 12 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: November 9, 2005 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Plans and Programs Committee Stephanie Wiggins, Rail Department Manager THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Riverside County Commuter Rail Feasibility Study PLANS AND PROGRAMS COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Receive and file the draft Commuter Rail Feasibility Final Report; and; 2) Advance Scenario 3 (Perris Valley Line/Commuter/San Jacinto) and Scenario 7 (1-215/Commuter/Temecula) as optimal commuter rail routes warranting future study for inclusion in the next RTP update. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: 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 regionallong 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; Agenda Item 12 217 • Scenario 5 " envisions 'commuter rail service between Temecula and South Perris via SJBL and an alignment paralleling VVinchester. 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. intracounty Rai/ Scenarios: • Scenario 4 envisions intracounty rail service along the Scenario 3 above; • Scenario 6 envisions intracounty rail service along the Scenario 5 above; and • Scenario 8 envisions intracounty rail service along the Scenario 7 above. Evaluation Criteria same same route as route as same route as 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 • Farebox Recovery Ratio • Right -of -Way Issues • Mobility Improvements Daily Trip Time Savings • Operating Cost Per Passenger- Mile • Mobility Improvements Access to Low Income Households • CapitalCost(Track, Stations'& Equip) • Capital Cost Per. Passenger In order to provide an objective assessment of the eight scenarios -that -iresults 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 teams 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. Agenda Item 12. 218 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 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 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 or rights to operate Metrolink service, also result in the "Less Feasible" rank under the "Right -of -Way Issues" criterion. 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. The intercity rail service to Coachella Valley is currently included in the adopted in the SCAG RTP. 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 SCAG RTP- update: Scenario 3 (Perris Valley Line/Commuter/San Jacinto) and Scenario 7 (I- 215/Commuter/Temecula) as optimal routes warranting future study. Scenario 3 envisions commuter rail operations on the RCTC-owned tracks to San Jacinto. Strong public support of commuter rail service to San Jacinto is experessed in the Measure "A" voter approved initiatives passed in 1988 and 2002. For Scenario 3, the largest origin is Hemet Airport. Of the 1,338 passenger trips, over 85% of the riders travel within Riverside County; major destinations in this scenario include Alessandro Boulevard, Downtown Riverside, Spruce Street, and Ramona Expressway. Agenda Item 12 219 Scenario 7 envisions both construction of a new corridor from Temecula along l- 215 and operations on the SJBL from South Perris to Riverside. For Scenario 7, of the 2,166 passenger trips, over 70% of the riders travel within Riverside County; the largest destination is Alessandro Boulevard. 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 NOTE: The Commuter Rail Feasibility Study Draft Final Report is available on the RCTC website at www.rctc.org. Agenda Item 12 220 Riverside County Transportation Commission Commuter Rail Feasibility Study (Draft) ] 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 Murneta 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 221 Riverside County Transportation Commission Commuter Rail Feasibility Study (Draft) 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. 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: • Metrolink 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. 222 i Riverside County Transportation Commission Commuter Rail Feasibility Study (Draft) 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 rife? If viable, 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 _I-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. 223 b • bZZ 6-S3 dew (odaanymosmuipv) dpntsd'my?sna !Ivy-Jamutwo,9 uogssfwuro3 uozpvuodsuvas Juno,) ap:sdan:g • • Riverside County Transportation Commission Commuter Rail Feasibility Study (Administrative Draft) 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 altemative 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 " 225 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 ridershipforecasts in this study measure the incremental weekday ridership over and above the commuter ridership assumed to be generated by extension of 99 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 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_ 226 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 Mainline. 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 encountered in 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-peakriders 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 UP main tracks. Consequently, to "address peak -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 227 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 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, ,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 Valleytine/San Jacinto/lntracounty 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. 228 ;.6, 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 anew 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 6, 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. 229 Riverside County Transportation Commission Commuter Rail Feasibility Study (Administrative Draft) 70 Scenario 7: Perris Valley Line/1-215/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). Ca!trans 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 I-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 Tail 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, estimatedCapital 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/1-215/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, 1363 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: 230 Riverside County Transportation Commission Commuter Rail Feasibility Study (Administrative Draft) II 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. 231 • • Riverside County Transportation Commission Commuter Rail Feasibility Study Table ES-1 Initial Screening and Application of Evaluation Criteria -Commuter Service • 12 Union Pacific Railroad - /Commuter/ Banning -Beaumont Union Pacific Railroad /Commuter/ Indio Perris Valley Line /Commuter/ San Jacinto Winchester Road /Commuter/ Temecula 1-215 /Commuter/ Temecula 34.5 76.5 16.5 20.5 16.5 768 0 2,174 1,338 1,292 2,166 • 48 0 136 411 84 81 135 19% 22% Q 61% 53% 109% 176 hours 124 hours 0 518 hours 486 hours 111111, 932 hours 43.96% 42.96% 1111, 44.32% 37.76% 37,23% $0.68 $0.63 $0.24 $0.25 $0.12 $299.9 $544.4 0 $203.6 $249,4 $390,495 0 $250,414 0 $83,333 $157,585 $115,143 Table Key Feasible . • Moderately feasible Q LessFeasible0 " Incremental route miles east or south of South Perris, assuming. Metrolink's 91 Line service is extended to South Perris. "" Similar to cost -benefit ratio, this criterion measures the percentage of estimated, incrementaloperatingcosts recovered through estimated,.incremetal farebox revenues. Source: RLBA, W SA and W RCOG data and calculations. 232 Riverside County Transportation Commission Commuter Rail Feasibility Study Table ES-2 Initial Screening and Application of Evaluation Criteria-Intracounty Service 13 8. Perris Valley Line /Intracounty/ San Jacinto Winchester Road /Intracounty/ Temecula 1-215 /Intracounty/ Temecula 39.5 43.5 39.5 2,093 3,532 • 34 0 33 0 55 0 8% 0 7% 0 12% 0 320 hours 133 hours 0 226 hours 44.32% ID - 37.76% 37.26% $2.85 0 $2.92 0 $1.92 $125.2 $248.0 $287.0 $57,909 5118,490 $81,257 Table Key-- - - - - Feasible -.Moderately Feasible Q Less Feasible 0 " 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. 233 AGENDA ITEM 13 PRESENTATION TUMF UPDATE • RECORDS RCTC Commuter Rail Feasibility Study FT Final Report Submitted To The =Riverside County Transportation Commission inn Submitted By pay 011 R.L. Banks & Associates, Inc. b Economics • Engineering • Service Planning Washington, DC and Tiburon, CA In Association With .,.Rift. ...... 111111111111110 'W % Wilbur Smith Associates ENGINEERS PLANNERS ECONOMIST November 9, 2005 00000000000000000000000000009000000000000009 RCTC Commuter Rail Feasibility Study Final Report Table of Contents Page Executive Summary ES-1 Task 1 Project Management/Coordination/Administration 1-1 Task 2 Define Service Alternatives 2-1 Subtask 2.1 Evaluation Criteria 2-1 Subtask 2.2 Description of Service Alternatives 2-11 Subtask 2.3 Levels of Service 2-17 3-1 Task 3 Ridership Forecast Methodology and Results Task 4 Evaluation of Service Alternatives 4-1 Subtask 4.1 Conceptual Capital Costs 4-1 Subtask 4.2 Operating and Maintenance Costs 4-36 Subtask 4.3 Initial Screening 4-38 i Appendix: Rail Ridership Summary Tables 1 ES-1 Initial Screening and Application of Evaluation Criteria -Commuter Service ES-12 ES-2 Initial Screening and Application of Evaluation Criteria-Intracounty Service ES-13 2-1 FTA New Starts - Project Justification Criteria 2-2 2-2 Proposed RCTC Commuter Rail Feasibility Study - Project Evaluation Criteria 2-8 2-3 Proposed Evaluation Matrix 2-10 2-4 Scenario 1: UP/Banning/Commuter Rail Stations 2-13 2-5 Scenario 2: UP/Indio/Commuter Rail Stations 2-13 2-6 Scenario 3: PVL/San Jacinto/Commuter Rail Stations 2-14 2-7 Scenario 4: PVL/San Jacinto/Intracounty Rail Stations 2-14 2-8 Scenario 5: Winchester Road/CETAP/Commuter Rail Stations 2-15 2-9 Scenario 6: Winchester Road/CETAP/Intracounty Rail Stations 2-15 -i- 000000eeeeee0eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee$00000000900e4 2-10 Scenario 7: I-215/Temecula/Commuter Rail Stations 2-16 *e00e000000•00eeeeeeeeeee49eeee0e000000eee0ee RCTC Commuter Rail Feasibility Study Final Report Table of Contents (continued) Page Tables 2-11 Scenario 8: I-215/Temecula/Intracounty Rail Stations 2-16 2-12 Service Levels and Other Characteristics of Evaluated Commuter and Intracounty Rail Service Scenarios 2-19 3-1 Commuter Rail Work Trip Mode Splits (Assuming Six Peak -Period Trains) 3-4 3-2 Incremental Passenger Rail Ridership Forecasts 3-8 3-3 Incremental Rail Ridership Forecast West of Riverside In Banning and Indio Commuter Rail Scenarios 3-9 3-4 Scenario 1: UP/Banning/Commuter Rail Stations 3-13 3-5 Scenario 2: UP/Indio/Commuter Rail Stations 3-13 3-6 Scenario 3: PVL/San Jacinto/Commuter Rail Stations 3-14 .3-7 Scenario 4: PVL/San Jacinto/Intracounty Rail Stations 3-14 3-8 Scenario 5: Winchester Road/CETAP/Commuter Rail Stations 3-15 3-9 Scenario 6: Winchester Road/CETAP/Intracounty Rail Stations 3-15 3-10 Scenario 7: I-215/Temecula/Commuter Rail Stations 3-16 3-11 Scenario 8: I-215/Temecula/Intracounty Rail Stations 3-16 4-1 Total Conceptual Capital Costs — All Scenarios 4-10 4-2 Conceptual Capital Costs — Scenario 1 4-28 '4-3 Conceptual Capital Costs — Scenario 2 4-29 4-4 Conceptual Capital Costs — Scenario 3 4-30 4-5 Conceptual Capital Costs — Scenario 4 4-31 4-6 Conceptual Capital Costs — Scenario 5 4-32 4-7 Conceptual Capital Costs — Scenario 6 4-33 4-8 Conceptual Capital Costs — Scenario 7 4-34 4-9 Conceptual Capital Costs — Scenario 8 4-35 4-10 Estimated Annual Operating and Maintenance Costs 4-37 4-11 Initial Screening and Application of Evaluation Criteria -Commuter Service 4-40 4-12 Initial Screening and Application of Evaluation Criteria-Intracounty Service 4-41 seeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeaeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeao RCTC Commuter Rail Feasibility Study Final Report Table of Contents (concluded) Page Tables 4-13 Farebox Recovery Ratios 4-43 4-14 Mobility Improvement — Low Income Household Analysis 4-46 4-15 Operating Costs Per Passenger -Mile 4-47 '4-16 Capital Costs Per Passenger 4-48 Figure 4 - One Typical Layover Yard 4-16 Map ES-1 RCTC Commuter Rail Feasibility Study Map ES-4 1 RCTC Commuter Rail Feasibility Study Map 1-1 -iv- 0 0 O Riverside County Transportation Commission Commuter Rail Feasibility Study (Draft) l O O Executive Summary O o Introduction O A consultant team led by R.L. Banks & Associates, Inc. was retained by the Riverside O County Transportation Commission (RCTC) to conduct a Commuter Rail Feasibility O 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 O !which would operate to or through the Riverside -Downtown Mefrolink station in the City of Riverside. The service alternative scenarios are characterized and distinguished on the basis of three elements: 0 O • 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 ID Line in 2002. Also in 1993, the Commission acquired the San Jacinto Branch Line o (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 0 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 0 9eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee 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: • Metrolink 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 I- 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, 909000000000eeaeee000000000.00000000eeeaeea6 Riverside County Transportation Commission Commuter Rail Feasibility Study (Draft) 3 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. • • • • O. Oft • • • • 41 • • Ilk 41b• WO 411•• • • • 1110•• • 110• Riverside County Transportation Commission Commuter Rail Feasibility Study (Administrative Draft) 4 Map ES-1 METROLINK LINES Ventura County Lire Anielope Valley Line San Bernardino Line Riverside Line Orange County Line Inland Emplre/Orange County Line 91 Line ravorsdo. FoBerton. Downtown LA) Future Perris Valley Extension SERVICE ALTERNATIVES s Angeles Union Station 1. Commuter Rail, UPRR, Riverside to Banning 2. Commuter Rail, UPRR, Riverside to Indio 3. Commuter Rail, PVL, Perris to San Jacinto 4. Intracounty Rail, PVL, Riverside to San Jacinto 5. Commuter Rail, Winchester, Perris to Temecula 6. Intracounty Rail, Winchester, Riverside to Temecula 7. Commuter Rail, 1-215, Perris to Temecula 8. Intracounty Rail, 1-215, Riverside to Temecula arming/13-eaurrcont *N4 n Jacinto Perris 3. Ir 7. 4 RIVERSIDE 8, 6.g COUNTY San Juan Capistrano Oceanside SAN DIEGO COUNTY eoeeooeea000•040960$00aeeooaa000000eaoeoe000 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 ofsix 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 altemative 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 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. •!•®••®#•®••i•i•r•`r•••••00000000000004110040* aeeeoe*eQ00000.000oaoaao000e00coee00o0.00**o 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 encountered in 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 UP main tracks. Consequently, to address peak -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 Riverside County Transportation Commission Commuter Rail Feasibility Study (Administrative Draft) 8 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 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, 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 retum 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. 0000.00000Oi000000000000000000000000000.0000 aeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeoeeeeeeeeeoeo 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 SLAG 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. 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. M•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••,•••••••••• d 0 O Riverside County Transportation Commission Commuter Rail Feasibility Study (Administrative Draft) Il 041 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 Q commuter rail frequencies in Scenario 7 at a more cost effective rate than with this O Scenario. O As is the case with respect to the relationship between Scenarios 5 and 7, this 0 Scenario, via 1-215, results in higher estimated Capital Costs: Track, Stations and O 1 Equipment although the route is shorter than the alignment assumed in Scenario 6. 41 construction route in Scenario 8 includes significantly more capital costs associated with the construction of structures to bridge the many significant arterial roads which connect O with 1-215 although the Capital Costs Per Passenger and Operating Costs Per O Passenger -Mile in Scenario 8 are lower than in Scenario 6, owing to more projected a Passenger Trips (Daily), in the case of the former and a shorter route in the case of the j latter criterion. O Q Q O Q 0 0 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 4) l • Limited Right -of -Way Issues. 0 I The analysis supports advancing two scenarios for inclusion in the next SCAG RTP 4 update: Scenario 3 (Perris Valley Line/Commuter/San Jacinto) and Scenario 7 (1- 215/Commuter/Temecula) as optimal routes warranting future study. Scenario 3 0 envisions commuter rail operations on the RCTC-owned tracks to San Jacinto. O Strong public support of commuter rail service to San Jacinto is expressed in the Measure "A" voter approved initiatives passed in 1988 and 2002. For Scenario 3, 41 the largest origin is Hemet Airport. Of the 1,338 passenger trips, over 85% of the Q riders travel within Riverside County; major destinations in this scenario include Alessandro Boulevard, Downtown Riverside, Spruce Street, and Ramona Expressway. 41 0 p 0 Q Scenario 7 envisions both construction of a new corridor from Temecula along I- 215 and operations on the SJBL from South Perris to Riverside. For Scenario 7, of the 2,166 passenger trips, over 70% of the riders travel within Riverside County; the largest destination is Alessandro Boulevard. 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. P••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• Riverside County Transportation Commission Commuter Rail Feasibility Study Table ES-1 Initial Screening and Application of Evaluation Criteria -Commuter Service 12 Scenario CorridorTrack, /Service Type/ End Point Route * Miles Passenger Trips In 2030 (Daily) Passenger Trips Per Train (Daily) Farebox Recovery ** Ratio Right- 9 of- Way Issues Mobility Improvements- Daily Trip Time Savings Access to Low Income Households (Percent) Operating Costs Per Passenger - Mile ($) Capital Costs: Stations & Equipment ($ millions) Capital Costs Per Passenger ($) 1. aBanning Union Pacific Railroad /Commuter/ -Beaumont 34.5 768 O 48 O 19% Q O 176 hours Q 43.96% • $0.68 Q $299.9 Q $390,495 O 2• 2 co/Commuter/ 1- Union Pacific Railroad Indio 76.5 2� � 2Q2% O 124Ohours 4% • $OQ.63 $5044.4 $2500,414 3• U c a) Perris Valley Line /Commuter/ San Jacinto 16.5 1,338 84 61% • • 518 hours • 44.32% • $0.24 • $111.5 • $83,333 • _ 5. crWinchester L Road /Commuter/ Temecula 20.5 1,292 Q 81 i-1' 53% • Q 486 hours • 37.76% Q $0.25 • $203.6 C. $157,585 Q 7. S. E 0 I-215 /Commuter/ Temecula 16.5 2,166 • 135 • 109% • C 932 hours • 37.23% C. $0.12 • $249.4 C. $115,143 C Table Key Feasible • Moderately Feasible Less Feasible O Incremental route miles east or south of South Perris, assuming Metrolink's 91 Line service is extended to South Perris. ** Similar to a cost -benefit ratio, this criterion measures the ratio of farebox revenue to total expenses, net of rolling stock lease expenses. In the fiscal year 2005-2006, the Metrolink systemwide farebox recovery ratio is estimated at 43.2% with the Riverside, Inland Empire Orange County and 91 Line farebox recovery ratios estimated at 48.9, 45.6 and 57.2%, respectively. Source: RLBA, WSA and WRCOG data and calculations. •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• Riverside County Transportation Commission Commuter Rail Feasibility Study Table ES-2 Initial Screening and Application of Evaluation Criteria-Intracounty Service 13 Scenario Corridor /Service Type/ End Point Route * Miles Passenger Trips In.2030 (ly) -- Passenger Trips Per Train (Daily) Farebox Recovery ** Ratio Right- of- Way Issues Mobility Improvements- Daily Trip Time Savings Access to Low Income Households (Percent) Operating Costs Per Passenger - Mile ($) Capital Costs: Track, Stations & Equipment ($ millions) Capital Costs p Per Passenger ($) 4. >= c a) > = CT 0 N 11- Y as p ' 2 co .-c Perris Valley Line /Intracounty/ San Jacinto 39.5 2,162 • 34 O 8% O • 320 hours Q 44.32% • $2.85 O $125.2 • $57,909 • 6. Winchester Road /lntracounty/ Temecula 43.5 2,093 • 33 O 7% O Q 133 hours O 37.76% Q $2.92 O $248.0 Gii> $118,490 Q 8. I-215 /Intracounty/ Temecula 39.5 3,532 • 55 O 12% O Q 226 hours Q 37.26% Q $1.92 G.. $287.0 Q $81,257 • Table Key Feasible • Moderately Feasible Q Less Feasible O * 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 ratio of farebox revenue to total expenses, net of rolling stock lease expenses. In the fiscal year 2005-2006, the Metrolink systemwide farebox recovery ratio is estimated at 43.2% with the Riverside, Inland Empire Orange County and 91 Line farebox recovery ratios estimated at 48.9, 45.6 and 57.2%, respectively. Source: RLBA, WSA and WRCOG data and calculations. 909000e0410e0eeeee000,000.00000e.0000000e000* Drat Final Report, Nov 9, 2005 RCTC Commuter Rail Feasibility Study 1-1 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, "commuter rail" or "intracounty rail," as is summarized below. 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 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 efforts that will impact passenger and freight rail capacity in our region: • Metrolink Commuter Rail Strategic Assessment A 30-year commuter rail strategic plan for current service and planned extensions with a timeline for completion by December 2005. The Riverside Drat Final Report, Nov 9, zoos RCTC Commuter Rail Feasibility Study 1-2 County geographic scope is the Riverside, IEOC, and 91 Lines with 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 via truck, train and airplane 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 scope 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 activities in 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, 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? As outlined below, a total of five commuter rail and three intracounty rail service scenarios were evaluated. 11411•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• eee0000009000ee0000eee•a000e09000000eee006ea Drat Final Report, Nov v, zoos RCTC Commuter Rail Feasibility Study I-3 Commuter Rail- • Scenario 1 envisions commuter rail service between Banning and Riverside via Union Pacific (UP) railroads and Burlington Northern Santa Fe (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 BNSF and UP 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 San Jacinto Branch Line (SJBL), extending the Metrolink 91 Line, currently planned to terminate at South Perris. • Scenario 5 envisions commuter rail service between Temecula and South Perris via the PVL and an alignment paralleling Winchester Road, extending the Metrolink 91 Line, 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 Metrolink 91 Line, currently planned to terminate at South Perris. lntracounty 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 alternatives appears as Map 1-1 on page 1-5. Drat Final Report, Nov 9, 2005 RCTC Commuter Rail Feasibility Study I-4 Task 1: Project Management Coordination/Administration The consultant team was supported by the formation of a Rail Feasibility Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) comprised of more than 30 members representing local governments, transit agencies, Native American tribes, and social groups. Established to receive information and provide input on the evaluation criteria, data collection, and ranking of the alternative service scenarios, the TAC held three meetings with the consultant team during the study. Evaluation criteria were discussed and adopted by the TAC, Policy Committee and the full RCTC Board at the commencement of the project, as summarized in Subtask 2.1. Then, the service scenarios were analyzed in a series of subtasks spanning the remainder of Task 2, all of Task 3 and most of Task 4. Finally, the discrete analyses conducted were scored against the established evaluation criteria to yield an "Initial Screening" of the service scenarios in Subtask 4.3. More specifically, the study effort addressed the following Tasks and Subtasks: Task 1 Project Management/Coordination/Administration Task 2 Define Service Alternatives Subtask 2,1 Evaluation Criteria Subtask 2.2 Description of Service Alternatives Subtask 2.3 Levels of Service Task 3 Ridership Forecast Methodology and Results Task 4 Cost Estimation and Initial Screening Subtask 4.1 Conceptual Capital Costs Subtask 4.2 Operating and Maintenance Costs Subtask 4.3 Initial Screening Task 5 Final Report With the exception of Task 1, which was administrative in nature, each of the above -listed tasks is addressed in the following sections in the order in which it is displayed above. This entire document constitutes Task 5. ••••••®•••••••®•••®•••••••••••••••®•••®•®••• ••1004110041/•00.111.•000000•0•41,•••••••••••••••••00 Riverside County Transportation Commission Commuter Rail Feasibility Study 1-5 Map 1-1 Lancaster VENTURA COUNTY LOS ANGELES *Ventura COUNTY METROLINK LINES Ventura County Line • Antelope Varey Line • San Bernardino Line • Riverside Line • Orange County Line Inland Empire/Orange County Line 91 Line (Riorsida. Fullerton. Downtown LA) ▪ Future Perris Valley Extenston SERVICE ALTERNATIVES 1. Commuter Rail, UPRR, Riverside to Banning 2. Commuter Rail, UPRR, Riverside to Indio ' 3. Commuter Rail, PVL, Perris to San Jacinto 4. Intracounty Rail, PVL, Riverside to San Jacinto 5. Commuter Rail, Winchester, Perris to Temecula 6. Intracounly Rail, Winchester, Riverside to Temecula 7 _Commuter_Rail, 1,215, Perris to Temecula 8. Intracounty Rail, 1-215, Riverside to Temecula Los Angeles Union Stalion RCTC Commuter Rail Feasibility Study Map SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY San Bernardino iversid San Juan Capistrano Oceanside not/Beaumont San Jacinto RIVERSIDE COUNTY Temecula SAN DIEGO COUNTY Indio D0000000000000000040000000000000000004000e400 Draft Final Report, Nov 9, 2005 RCTC Commuter Rail Feasibility Study 2-I Task 2: Define Service Alternatives Task 2 is comprised of three subtasks: Evaluation Criteria, Description of the ;Alternatives and Level of Service Definition . Subtask 2.1: Evaluation Criteria Introduction The purpose of this task is to establish criteria to evaluate and screen eight service alternatives. The resulting criteria will include qualitative as well as quantitative factors. The Commission desires a process through which the selected criteria, as applied to the eight service alternatives, will result in a clear determination of the Study recommendations. Background Some criteria are objective, while others are subjective. The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) New Starts Evaluation Criteria provide a useful guideline for the Rail Feasibility Study evaluation criteria even if New Starts funding ultimately is not pursued. Common measures of performance and cost effectiveness also merit consideration. FTA New Starts Criteria The U.S. Congress and the FTA have developed criteria to prioritize projects through the intensely competitive process associated with seeking federal funding of New Starts capital projects. The term, New Starts Criteria, broadly describes a comprehensive and formal FTA several -year process including Alternatives Analysis and Preliminary Engineering, Project Justification (see table below) and Local Financial Commitment, all leading ultimately to the FTA's recommendation to Congress regarding the allocation of New Starts capital investment funding in a given year. The Commission's Perris Valley Line Metrolink extension project to Moreno Valley and Perris is currently progressing through the process. Although the RCTC Commuter Rail Feasibility Study will not include most of the detailed evaluations included in the several -year FTA process, it is generally deemed prudent at ' least to consider the FTA Project Justification Criteria, if for no other reason than they are utilized in measuring feasibility of large transit projects nationwide. The project justification criteria and their associated measures are set forth in Table 2-1 as follows: Draft Final Report, Nov 9, 2005 RCTC Commuter Rail Feasibility Study 2-2 TABLE 2-1 FTA New Starts Project Justification Criteria Criterion Measure(s) Mobility Improvements • Normalized Travel Time Savings (Transportation System User Benefits per Project Passenger Mile) • Low -Income Households Served • Employment Near Stations Environmental Benefits • Change in Regional Pollutant Emissions • Change in Regional Energy Consumption • EPA Air Quality Designation Operating Efficiencies • System Operating Cost per Passenger Mile L Cost Effectiveness • Incremental Cost per Hour of Transportation System User Benefit Transit Supportive Land Use and Future • Existing Land use Patterns • Transit Supportive Plans and Policies • Performance and Impacts of Policies Other Factors • Number of optional factors, including economic impact of the project Source: U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Transit Administration "Annual Report of New Starts" 2004, page 5. FTA states that the transportation system user benefits are the most significant project justification measures, in explaining its appearance under both Mobility Improvements and Cost Effectiveness criteria. Careful examination of FTA Project Justification Criteria reveals that all relate to potential ridership in one way or another. As an example, the FTA Mobility improvements criterion is measured by travel time savings, low-income households served and employment near stations. All relate to potential ridership. With regard to 1••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• ooeeeooeooe00000000e000eeeeeeeee000eeeeeeeee Draft Final Report, Nov 9, 2005 RCTC Commuter Rail Feasibility Study 2-3 travel time savings, commuter rail service must be automobile -competitive, providing travel time savings to attract riders. The more competitive, the more riders. Thus ridership is a reasonable surrogate for Mobility improvements. Ridership is also a reasonable surrogate for Environmental Benefits in that pollutant emissions and energy consumption are reduced when commuter rail ridership is increased. Operating Efficiencies also may be gauged by ridership, in that operating cost per passenger -mile declines as the passenger -mile denominator grows. Likewise, Cost Effectiveness, as measured by the user benefit of time savings, improves with an increasing number of riders. Although Land Use is not required by statute as a project justification criterion, FTA has included it because it is mentioned in the statute as a consideration) Transit supportive land use is a subject closely linked with sound transit planning, as it encourages use of public transit. Again, the link to ridership. This close relationship between the FTA project justification criteria and ridership is not surprising; a primary objective of any public transit initiative is to maximize ridership by providing a service which attracts people away from their main alternative, the automobile, thus providing a number of public benefits, environmental and otherwise. In summary, the FTA News Starts Project Justification Criteria provide an excellent perspective from which to establish evaluation criteria in this project. Even though the rigorous and lengthy FTA project development process cannot be replicated in this eight -month Study, the evaluation criteria inherent in the FTA process at least "points the way" and raises important considerations in this feasibility Study. Commuter Rail Feasibility Study Evaluation Criteria The goal of this task is to establish fair and objective evaluation criteria to be employed in this Study. It is important to establish the criteria at the initial stages of the Study to ensure that the framework for ranking the eight service alternatives is clear and transparent to stakeholders and reflects the Commission's priorities. The following eight evaluation factors are used to evaluate the eight service alternatives: 1. Ridership 2. Institutional Issues 3. Mobility Improvements — General 4. Mobility Improvements — Access to Low Income Households 5. Operating Cost per Passenger -Mile 6. Farebox Recovery 7. Capital Cost (Track, Stations & Equipment) and 8. Capital Cost Per Passenger. U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Transit Administration Annual Report on New Starts 2004, page 4. Draft Final Report, Nov 9, 2005 ROTC Commuter Rail Feasibility Study 2-4 1. Ridership This Study produces estimates of annual, morning peak period, off-peak and daily ridership. The number of daily riders is the measure with regard to this criterion. The ultimate objective of public transit is to capture riders. Automobile -competitive average train speed will be the greatest influence on ridership. This Study utilizes peak -period, work trip data between specific Study area Traffic Analysis Zones (TAZs) generated from Southern California Associated Governments (SCAG) for the years 2010, 2020 and 2030 (30-year forecast) in consultation with Coachella Valley Association of Governments (CVAG) and Western Riverside Council of Governments (WRCOG). The Study area includes conceptual stations along the route extensions and, based on review of the 2002 and 2004 Metrolink rider surveys, will determine origin and destination catchment areas and the number of work trips on a station -pair basis, applying mode splits to determine peak period ridership. Off-peak and special event, leisure, recreation and other markets are deemed very important in this Study and there is concern that SCAG data does not adequately capture those markets. One reason for this may relate to the rapid population growth in Riverside County. Therefore, a special effort was made to examine any available data regarding those markets. The RLBA consultant team also explored other-than-SCAG data in the assessment of those markets. The CVAG Board shared off-peak data with the Project Team for inclusion in this Study. However, the data was not applicable and it was necessary to predict off-peak and special event ridership as a function of peak ridership forecasts. The consultant team considered the amount of service on pre-existing commuter rail lines connecting to the proposed expanded service. Service levels play a big role in ridership. Current Metrolink services to the City of Riverside have different characteristics. It is understood that the three intracounty service alternatives will have higher service levels than the five commuter rail service alternatives. Ridership figures are presented for the years 2010, 2020 and 2030. Evaluation will be based on the 2030 figures. 2. Institutional Issues This factor focuses on issues which, while not easily quantifiable, can affect the ability of RCTC to implement a corridor. Four specific issues have been identified. The first is whether RCTC enjoys some form of a shared use agreement which might permit passenger service to operate. An example of such an agreement is the current agreement between UPRR and the Metrolink agencies to operate trains on the Riverside Line. 11••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• Qeeeeeeeoeeeeoeeoeeoe0000eoeeoeeeeeeeeeeeeee Draft Final Report, Nov v, 2005 RCTC Commuter Rail Feasibility Study 2-5 The second issue is whether RCTC has ownership interest in the right of way. Clearly, having ownership permits RCTC to initiate service more easily than where it does not have such ownership rights. The third issue is where Transit -Supported Corridors have been identified and government agencies have concluded studies confirming the acceptability of transit in such corridors. Examples of this include highway widening studies conducted by either RCTC or the County of Riverside in which the proposed widening might include provision for transit services such as rail. The fourth and final issue is the question of freight congestion. Corridors which might otherwise appear ideal for rail service could, in fact, be severely impacted by high numbers of freight trains on which the initiation or expansion of passenger rail service would pose a challenge. In response, investment in additional track or signals has been utilized to mitigate addition of passenger trains on heavily trafficked freight rail corridors in the Los Angeles Basin and elsewhere around the country. Notwithstanding that virtually all congestion issues can ultimately be mitigated with sufficient capital investment, a congested corridor poses more challenges to implementation than an uncongested corridor and this factor attempts to address that difference. The Institutional Issues factor is expressed qualitatively. This factor is the only recommended subjective criteria to be applied in the Study. 3. Mobility Improvements - General This factor recognizes the priority both the Commission and FTA attach to Mobility Improvements and acknowledges the crucial importance of convenience, time savings, and air quality benefits to any successful transit system. Most people will not consider commuter rail unless a trip on it is time -competitive with that achieved in their automobiles; that is, the person who otherwise would use an automobile must see an advantage in utilizing commuter rail. It is not surprising that travel time savings is the first -listed project justification measure relating to FTA's mobility improvements criterion. In any forecast of demand, time savings will be the biggest factor. Therefore two factors will be examined in making mobility judgments: average commuter train speed, which is an input to Task 3 (Ridership Forecasting) and predicted highway speed during the peak period. A comparison of passenger train speed and predicted highway speed is made, from station to station. With regard to the commuter rail alternatives, the average Metrolink train speed serves as the minimum acceptable commuter rail speed. This average train speed is compared to the forecast highway speed and a positive or negative number results from the comparison. For intracounty options, the consultant team considered average Caltrain speed, since Caltrain has similar station' spacing (every two or three miles). • Draft Final Report, Nov 9, 2005 RCTC Commuter Rail Feasibility Study 2-6 4. Mobility Improvements — Access to Low.lncome Households For many low income citizens of Riverside County, public transportation is their only mobility option. 5. Operating Cost per Passenger -Mile Operating Cost per Passenger -Mile provides a quantified indication of the cost of an alternative in a way where direct comparisons may be made with existing Metrolink commuter rail routes. The Operating Cost per Passenger -Mile, expressed in dollars per passenger -mile, is the measure used with regard to this factor. RLBA has performed these direct comparisons in previous commuter rail studies and found them especially helpful in assessing whether a particular alternative is feasible. The data utilized to develop this criterion is obtained from Tasks 3 (Ridership Forecasting) and 4.1 (Operating and Maintenance Costs). 6. Farebox Recovery In addition, farebox recovery ratio is a measure that is evaluated. Farebox recovery ratio is defined as the amount of fare revenue received from ridership to cover operating expenses. The farebox recovery ratio is an evaluation measure in order to capture the amount of revenue forecast to be generated and the resulting operating subsidy. While state transit funding requires a minimum farebox recovery ratio of 20%, the average Metrolink systemwide ratio approximates 43 percent. 7. Capital Cost Capital Cost is an important numerical quantification. The total estimated capital cost of the alternative, including track, stations, parking and equipment is the measure used with regard to this criterion. Parking is very important in successful implementation of any public transit system. Nationwide, there are many examples where parking limitations have constrained ridership significantly. It is incumbent, during the planning and implementation of any new service operations resulting from this Study, that RCTC and local jurisdictions plan for sufficient parking so as not to constrain ridership potential. Thus parking is a station development and capital cost issue. In this Study, it is assumed that sufficient parking will be available. 8. Capital Cost Per Passenger The capital cost per passenger, expressed in total capital cost divided by estimated daily ridership in 2030, provides another quantitative discriminator and assists in showing differences among alternatives. This factor has been added to differentiate corridors with similar capital costs (potentially) but different ridership estimates. Annualized Ridership for each corridor is presented and then further defined S • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • o0oeeoeoo0•0000eoo000900coo40eaeoo®oeeeeoe0ao Draft Final Report, Nov 9, 2005 RCTC Commuter Rail Feasibility Study 2-7 by relating the ridership to the total capital cost. Thus corridors of relatively similar capital cost can be differentiated from each other based upon proposed ridership. Other Considerations to addition to the eight formal evaluation factors, the Project Team considered whether there are any fatal flaws which might preclude the development of any corridor/service/end point altemative. Such fatal flaws could include Section 106 cultural or historic resources severely impacted by a project, or extraordinary environmental issues. There may well be other elements reflecting the expression of affected communities which merit consideration. The kickoff TAC meeting, as well as additional outreach efforts during the first month of the Study, identified desires of local jurisdictions and other stakeholders to have rail stations. Local support and land use should be considered by the Commission as they are also important factors. However, due to the subjectivity of this factor, it is recommended that the consideration take place at the completion of the evaluation analysis described above. Local support may be indicated if expanded commuter or intracounty rail and/or station development is included in the General Plan, and even stronger local support is evident where the local community has purchased or designated a passenger station site. A yet higher level of community support is indicated where agreement has been made regarding joint development financing opportunities. Further discussions will ensue with the TAC to define the parameters of these factors. In summary, Table 2.2 shows the proposed evaluation criteria. Proposed Evaluation Matrix and Weightings An Evaluation Matrix will be used to present in one simple graphic the data gathered in this Study. The issue of weighting merits discussion. Not all of the proposed evaluation measures are of equal importance. For example, ridership is listed first because it is considered the most important. However, there are problems with numerical weights because they are inherently subjective and therefore hard to defend. Further, because they are subjective, they suggest a degree of mathematical precision which does not exist. ' Finally, they are often unnecessary, as better and poorer performing corridors/scenarios tend to separate themselves from the pack. Draft Final Report, Nov 9, 2005 ROTC Commuter Rail Feasibility Study _ 2-8 TABLE 2-2 Proposed RCTC Commuter Rail Feasibility Study Project Evaluation Criteria Factor Measure Evaluation Ridership Quantitative: Daily riders (2030) Numerical ranking Institutional Issues Qualitative Environmental perspective, institutional agreements, and potential freight conflicts/capacity constraints Mobility Improvements - General • Quantitative: Travel time savings during the peak hour Variance between train speed & adjacent freeway from each station to each station Mobility Improvements — Low Income • TBD TBD Operating Cost • Quantitative: Operating cost per passenger -mile Numerical ranking Farebox Recovery Quantitative: Farebox recovery ratio Numerical ranking Capital Cost • Quantitative: Estimated capital cost of track, stations and equipment Numerical ranking Capital Cost Per Daily Rider • Quantitative: Capital cost per daily rider in 2030 Numerical ranking ®®.•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• eeeeoeeeeeeeeeoeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee Draft Final Report, Nov 9, 2005 RCTC Commuter Rail Feasibility Study 2-9 Table 2-3 is the Proposed Evaluation Matrix. Where the performance measure may be quantified (Ridership, Mobility Improvements -General, Mobility Improvements -Low Income, Operating Costs per Passenger -Mile, Farebox Recovery Ratio, Capital Costs and Capital Cost per Passenger), the appropriate number will be inserted. Within each measure column, the rankings from highest to lowest are "Feasible", "Moderately Feasible", and "Less Feasible." The level of feasibility markings present an overall picture of relative ranking of the alternatives. !••••••••!•••••••••••••••••••••••••a••• • Draft Final Report, November 9, 2005 RCTC Commuter Rail Feasibility Study TABLE 2-3 Proposed Evaluation Matrix 2-10 Corridor/Service/End Point Combination Ridership (Daily) Institutional Issues Mobility Improvements- General Mobility Improvements- Access to Low Income Households Operating Costs per Passenger- Mile ($) Farebox Recovery Ratio Capital Costs: Track, Stations & Equipment ($ millions) Capital Cost Per Passenger ($) 1. Union Pacific Railroad/commuter/ Banning/Beaumont 2. Union Pacific Railroad/commuter/Indio 3. Perris Valley Line/commuter/San Jacinto 4. Perris Valley Line/intracounty/San Jacinto 5. Winchester Road /commuter/Temecula 6. Winchester Road/intracounty/Temecula 7. I-215/commuter/Temecula 8. 1-215/i ntraco u nty/Te m ecu l a eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee0e®0eeeeeeee®eeeee®®a®0•0a0 Draft Final Report, November 9, 2005 RCTC Commuter Rail Feasibility Study Subtask 2.2: Description of Service Alternatives 2-11 A total of five commuter rail and three intracounty rail service scenarios are evaluated. All five commuter rail service scenarios reflect the assumption of six peak -period, perk - 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. Depending upon the trip origin and destination, potential users of commuter rail services to destinations west of Riverside would either take one train to their destination or would have to change trains in the City of Riverside. (The Ridership Methodology text provides more detail with respect to that issue.) All three intracounty rail service scenarios defined below are assumed to run at thirty - minute intervals in both directions all day long and are assumed to operate to and from tthe downtown Riverside station, with Riverside being the farthest west the service would 'reach. It is further assumed that locomotive -hauled trains, identical to ones currently used by Metrolink, are used to perform the above -mentioned services, though such an assumption is not critical. Intracounty rail service has more in common with excellent bus service than commuter rail service insofar as it operates both frequently and throughout the day, not just during peak periods. However, such a level of service necessarily requires 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 intracounty service scenarios only are examined in corridors where the public sector owns the right-of-way which would have to host all assumed service scenario trains. Intracounty service scenarios are not proposed in connection with the assumed extension of services along UP's main line, either in the case of service terminating at Banning or Indio, as: 1) expected capital cost expenditures are deemed too great; 2) all but four miles of the rail service scenarios involving BNSF and UP are on UP main line trackage and 3) the UP has made known its complete opposition to higher density passenger services on its lines which, presumably, would manifest itself in the carrier not being willing to even consider hosting an intracounty rail service. A brief description of the service scenarios examined follows. • Scenario 1 envisions commuter rail service between Banning and Riverside via Union Pacific (UP) railroads and Burlington Northern Santa Fe (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, extending the PVL, currently planned to terminate at South Perris. Draft Final Report, November 9, zoos RCTC Commuter Rail Feasibility. Study 2-12 • Scenario 4 envisions intracounty rail service along Scenario 3 above. • Scenario 5 envisions commuter rail service between Perris via Winchester Road, extending the PVL, terminate at South Perris. • Scenario 6 envisions intracounty rail service along Scenario 5 above. • Scenario 7 envisions commuter rail service between Perris via the 1-215 corridor, extending the PVL, terminate at South Perris. • Scenario 8 envisions intracounty rail service along Scenario 7 above. the same route as Temecula and South currently planned to the same route as Temecula and South currently planned to A graphic depiction of the service alternatives appears as Map 1-1. STATIONS the same route as Tables 2-4 through 2-11 depict all stations in all eight scenarios analyzed in this study as well as distances between stations along each route. Major roadway access routes to the stations are cited in the tables as well. Similarly, connecting transit services at all stations are assumed though not documented or analyzed. Some of the stations cited are included in ongoing planning of the PVL. The population and employment growth potential at the other stations are assumed to be high. Table 2-4 Scenario 1: UP/Banning/Commuter Rail Stations Conceptual Station Miles Access Banning 0.0 1-10 at South 22nd Street Beaumont 4.5 1-10 at Beaumont Avenue Redlands/Loma Linda' 18.0 1-10 at Mountain View Avenue Highgrove 8.5 1-215 at Center Street Riverside, Downtown 3.5 Existing Metrolink Station Estimated Route Length 34.5 The Redlands/Loma Linda station also could be at Anderson Street in Loma Linda. ••••••••/•/•••••1•••••••••••••••1•••• ••••1•• aeeeeoeeeeeaeeeeeeoeeeeeeeeeoeeeeeeeeeeeeeee Draft Final Report, November 9, 2005 RCTC Commuter Rail Feasibility Study 2-13 Table 2-5 Scenario 2: UP/Indio/Commuter Rail Stations Conceptual Station Miles Access Indio Downtown 0.0 1-10 at Jackson Street Agua Caliente 12.5 1-10 at Bob Hope Drive Palm Springs 10.0 1-10 at Indian Canyon Drive Cabazon 14.0 1-10 at Apache Trail Banning 5.5 1-10 at South 22nd Street Beaumont 4.5 1-10 at Beaumont Avenue Redlands/Loma Linda 18.0 1-10 at Mountain View Avenue Highgrove 8.5 1-215 at Center Street Riverside Downtown 3.5 Existing Metrolink Station Estimated Route Length 76.5 Table 2-6 Scenario 3: PVUSan Jacinto/Commuter Rail Stations Conceptual Station Miles Access San Jacinto 0.0 State Street (R3) at 7th Street Hemet Airport 4.5 Sanderson Avenue at Stetson Avenue Winchester Road 5.0 Winchester Road (79) at Asbury Street South Perris 7.0 Matthew Road (74) at 1-215 Perris 3.0 4th Street at Perris Boulevard Ramona Expressway 4.5 Ramona Expressway at I-215 Alessandro Boulevard 5.5 Alessandro Boulevard at 1-215 UCR/Blaine Street 6.0 Blaine Street at Watkins Drive Spruce Street/Rustin 2.0 Spruce Street/Rustin Riverside Downtown 2.0 Existing Metrolink Station Estimated Route Length 39.5 Draft Final Report, November 9, 2005 RCTC Commuter Rail Feasibility Study 2-I4 Table 2-7 Scenario 4: PVL/San Jacinto/Intracounty Rail Stations Conceptual Station Miles Access San Jacinto 0.0 State Street (R3) at 7th Street Hemet Downtown 2.5 State Street (R3) at Florida Avenue (74/79) Hemet Airport 2.0 Sanderson Avenue at Stetson Avenue Winchester Road 5.0 Winchester Road (79) at Asbury Street South Perris 7.0 Matthew Road (74) at 1-215 Perris 3.0 4th Street (74) at Perris Boulevard Ramona Expressway 4.5 Ramona Expressway at I-215 Van Buren Boulevard 3.0 Van Buren Boulevard at 1-215 Alessandro Boulevard 2.5 Alessandro Boulevard at 1-215 UCR/Blaine Street 6.0 Blaine St. at Watkins Drive Spruce Street/Rustin 2.0 Spruce Street/Rustin Riverside Downtown 2.0 Existing Metrolink Station Estimated Route Length 39.5 Table 2-8 Scenario 5: Winchester Road /Commuter Rail Stations Conceptual Station Miles Access Winchester Road Temecula 0.0 Winchester Road (79) at 1-215 Benton Road 5.5 Winchester Road (79) at Benton Road Winchester Road/Newport 7.0 Winchester Road (79) at Newport Road2 South Perris 8.0 Matthew Road (74) at 1-215 Perris 3.0 4th Street (74) at Perris Boulevard Ramona Expressway 4.5 Ramona Expressway at 1-215 Alessandro Boulevard 5.5 Alessandro Boulevard at 1-215 UCR/Blaine Street 6.0 Blaine Street at Watkins Drive Spruce Street/Rustin 2.0 Spruce Street/Rustin Riverside Downtown 2.0 Existing Metrolink Station Estimated Route Length 43.5 2 Assumes that Newport Road would be expanded to the east toward Winchester Road. 0••r••••1•••••i•il••••/••r••s••••••1•• !0l00.1 90090040009000eeeeeee00eeee0eeeeeeeeeee0ee00e Draft Final Report, November 9, 2005 RCTC Commuter Rail Feasibility Study 2-I5 Table 2-9 Scenario 6: Winchester Road/ Intracounty Rail Stations Conceptual Station Miles Access Winchester Road Temecula 0.0 Winchester Road (79) at 1-215 Murrieta Hot Springs Road 2.5 Winchester Road (79) at Murrieta Hot Springs Road Benton Road 3.0 Winchester Road (79) at Benton Road Scott Road 4.0 Winchester Road (79) at Scott Road Winchester Road/Newport 3.0 Winchester Road (79) at Newport Road' South Perris 8.0 Matthew Road (74) at 1-215 Perris 3.0 4th Street (74) at Perris Boulevard Ramona Expressway 4.5 Ramona Expressway at 1-215 Van Buren Boulevard 3.0 Van Buren Boulevard at 1-215 Alessandro Boulevard 2.5 Alessandro Boulevard at 1-215 UCR/Blaine Street 6.0 Blaine Street at Watkins Drive . Spruce Street/Rustin 2.0 Spruce Street/Rustin Riverside Downtown 2.0 Existing Metrolink Station Estimated Route Length 43.5 Table 2-10 Scenario 7: I-215/Temecula/Commuter Rail Stations Conceptual Station Miles Access Winchester Road Temecula 0.0 Winchester Road (79) at 1-215 Clinton Keith Road 5.5 Clinton Keith Road at 1-215 Newport Road 6.0 Newport Road at 1-215 South Perris 5.0 Matthew Road (74) at 1-215 Perris 3.0 4th Street at Perris Boulevard Ramona Expressway 4.5 Ramona Expressway at 1-215 Alessandro Boulevard 5.5 Alessandro Boulevard at 1-215 UCR/Blaine Street 6.0 Blaine Street at Watkins Drive Spruce Street/Rustin 2.0 Spruce Street/Rustin Riverside Downtown 2.0 Existing Metrolink Station Estimated Route Length 39.5 3 Assumes that Newport Road would be expanded to the east toward Winchester Road. Draft Final Report, November 9, 2005 RCTC Commuter Rail Feasibility Study 2-16 Table 2-11 Scenario 8: 1-215/Temecula/Intracounty Rail Stations Conceptual Station Miles Access Winchester Road Temecula 0.0 Winchester Road (79) at 1-215 Murrieta Hot Springs Road 2.5 Murrieta Hot Springs Road at 1-215 Clinton Keith Road 3.0 Clinton Keith Road at 1-215 Scott Road 3.0 Scott Road at 1-215 Newport Road 3.0 Newport Road at 1-215 McCall Boulevard 2.5 McCall Boulevard at 1-215 South Perris 2.5 Matthew Road (74) at I-215 Perris 3.0 4th Street (74) at Perris Boulevard Ramona Expressway 4.5 Ramona Expressway at 1-215 Van Buren Boulevard 3.0 Van Buren Boulevard at 1-215 Alessandro Boulevard 2.5 Alessandro Boulevard at 1-215 UCR/Blaine Street 6.0 Blaine Street at Watkins Drive Spruce Street/Rustin 2.0 Spruce Street/Rustin Riverside Downtown 2.0 Existing Metrolink Station Estimated Route Length 39.5 110••••••••••••••••001)110••••••••••••••••••••00 eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee Draft Final Report, November 9, 2005 RCTC Commuter Rail Feasibility Study 2-17 Subtask 2.3: Levels of Service Riverside County is currently served daily by 33 Metrolink trains. Of those 33 trains serving Riverside, twelve operate on the Inland Empire Orange County Line to central Orange County, twelve operate on the Riverside Line to Los Angeles via Ontario and Industry.and nine operate on the 91 Line to northern Orange County and Los Angeles. Six peak -period, peak -direction trips in both the AM and PM, as well as two round trips midday, are assumed in all five commuter rail scenarios. Existing Service Inland Empire -Orange County (1E0C) Line A total of twelve trains (six westbound and six eastbound) travel into or from Riverside via this route. There are four peak -hour trains in the morning, one heading to Irvine, one heading to Laguna Niguel/Mission Viejo, one heading to San Juan Capistrano one heading to Oceanside. There are four peak -hour trains to Riverside in the afternoon. A total of eight trains (four inbound and four outbound) originate in or continue on to San Bernardino. Riverside Line A total of twelve trains (six westbound and six eastbound) travel into or from Riverside via this route. There are five peak -period trains to Los Angeles in the morning and five peak -period trains to Riverside in the afternoon. 91 Line A total of nine trains (four westbound and five eastbound) travel into or from Riverside via this route. There are two peak -hour trains to Los Angeles in the morning and two peak -hour trains to Riverside in the afternoon. In addition to the regularly scheduled service on the 91 Line, the Perris Valley Line extension is expected to begin in 2008. By 2030, that service is projected to have a total of sixteen trains traveling to or from South Perris, with six of them during each peak period as well as two inbound and two outbound during the off-peak period. Proposed Service All commuter rail service scenarios are assumed to provide six trains in the peak direction during the peak period as well as two inbound and two outbound trains during the off-peak period. Currently scheduled trains were assumed to be extended to the various, new, proposed endpoints. In some instances, additional trains beyond those now running will need to be added to accommodate the above -mentioned service level if currently scheduled train service levels are not enhanced in the interim. However, potential service level increases are part of the effort being undertaken at the present time as part of the Metrolink Commuter Rail Strategic Assessment. Draft Final Report, November 9, 2005 RCTC Commuter Rail Feasibility Study 2-18 All intracounty service scenarios are assumed to provide 30-minute headways between 6 AM and 10 PM. Table 2-12 below illustrates service level and other key characteristics of the various proposed service scenarios evaluated. Table 2-12 Service Levels and Other Characteristics of Evaluated Commuter and Intracounty Rail Service Scenarios Corridor Outer End ill Point Service Type il Number of � Stations Average Station Spacing (miles) , Service Level 1. Union Pacific Railroad Banning Commuter 5 8.6 6 in AM peak, 2 midday round trips 6 in PM peak 2. Union Pacific Railroad Indio Commuter 9 9.6 6 in AM peak, 2 midday round trips 6 in PM peak 3. Perris Valley Line San Jacinto Commuter 10 4.4 6 in AM peak, 2 midday round trips 6 in PM peak 4. Perris Valley Line San Jacinto Intracounty 12 3.3 every 30 minutes, in both directions, 6:00 AM to 10:00 PM 5. Winchester Road Temecula Commuter 10 4.8 6 in AM peak, 2 midday round trips 6 in PM peak 6. Winchester Road Temecula Intracounty 13 3.6 every 30 minutes, in both directions, 6:00 AM to 10:00 PM 7. 1-215 Temecula Commuter 10 4.4 6 in AM peak, 2 midday round trips 6 in PM peak 8. 1-215 Temecula Intracounty 14 3.0 every 30 minutes, in both directions, 6:00 AM to 10:00 PM •••••••••••••••••••••••••a•••••••••••••••••• 00000000•9e00ee0400900000 0•000 0.100.41010411s000 Draft Final Report, November 9, 2005 RCTC Commuter Rail Feasibility Study 3-1 Task 3: Ridership Forecast Methodology And Results This task serves two -purposes. One is to outline the methodology used to forecast Year 2030 weekday ridership in the five commuter and three intracounty rail scenarios: 1. Union Pacific/Banning/Commuter Rail 2. Union Pacific/Indio/Commuter Rail 3. Perris Valley Line/San Jacinto/Commuter Rail 4. Perris Valley Line/San Jacinto/Intracounty Rail 5. Perris Valley Line -Winchester Road- Route 79/Temecula Commuter Rail 6. Perris Valley Line -Winchester Road- Route 79/Temecula Intracounty Rail 7. Perris Valley Line-I-215/Temecula/Commuter Rail and 8. Perris Valley Line-1-215/Temecula/Intracounty Rail. The other is to present the ridership forecasts associated with the eight passenger rail scenarios listed above. All commuter rail scenarios are .characterized by service primarily in the peak travel direction during morning and afternoon peak commute times and reflect the assumption of six peak -period trains in the peak -period direction 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. Typical ridership includes office workers employed in work centers near destination stations accessible by walking, transit, employer shuttles and station cars. As discussed later in this memorandum, Scenarios 1 and 2, featuring eastern endpoints in Indio and The Pass area examine how many riders would be attracted to those services were each of the existing three Metrolink routes linking downtown Riverside and points west extended to serve the endpoints (and intermediate stations). These routes are the Riverside Line, the IEOC and the 91 Line. The route achieving the best forecasted ridership was then selected as the primary through route with forecasted ridership reflecting transfers to/from the other two west of Riverside routes recalculated and included in ridership totals. The other three commuter rail scenarios, all of which are extensions of the PVL reflect the operation of both commuters boarding Metrolink's 91 Line trains east of the City of Riverside (hereafter "Riverside') and traveling through it to other destinations without having to change trains, as well as commuters boarding Metrolink's 91 Line trains east of Riverside and connecting at Riverside to trains operating on Metrolink's Riverside or IEOC Lines. Draft Final Report, November 9, zoos RCTC Commuter Rail Feasibility Study 3-2 Intracounty rail scenarios are envisioned as serving the commuter market exactly as described above but also offering service every 30 minutes throughout the day with the last departure leaving at approximately 10 p.m. Unlike the commuter rail scenarios, however, all intracounty rail scenarios reflect the assumption that trains would both originate and terminate in Riverside County, though efficient transfers to some Metrolink trains would be possible at Riverside. Such an operating pattern would serve a broader travel demand. Riders could include students, people going to medical appointments, school trips, etc., in the same way that all -day bus transit does. Both commuter rail and intracounty rail scenario ridership is expressed in both A.M. peak -period and total weekday terms in the year 2030, as shown in tables in the Appendix . The ridership forecasts are a means by which to rank the feasibility of the eight passenger rail options. COMMUTER RAIL RIDERSHIP The commuter rail ridership forecast is performed using a methodology developed originally to support the 2004 Commuter Rail Strategic Assessment commissioned by the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) and refined during the subsequent Metrolink Commuter Rail Strategic Assessment. Commuter rail ridership forecasts in both studies are based on estimates of the commuter market share or mode split which commuter rail reasonably could be expected to achieve, assuming various levels of train frequency, travel distance and congestion on parallel road systems. The 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. Those patterns were observed from the results of Metrolink's 2002 On -board Passenger Survey. Based on that survey, Metrolink predicted the number of commuters likely to use commuter rail between any two stations served by Metrolink, given: 1) a specific number of trains during the morning peak -period and 2) traveling specific distances. Metrolink validated those predictions against the Metrolink survey, making adjustments on a line and station basis as needed. Two additional key inputs are employed in the methodology to forecast ridership: • station catchment areas defining the origins and destinations of commuter rail trips are assumed and • the number of peak -direction, peak a.m. period trains between stations are assumed. The first input provides the universe of work trips for which commuter rail would be an eligible travel option. The Metrolink On -board Passenger Survey identified Southem D••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 0 O Draft Final Report, November 9, 2005 RCTC Commuter Rail Feasibility Study 3-3 California Association of Governments (SCAG) Travel Analysis Zones (TAZs) from Q which riders were arriving to board trains at each of its stations. The survey suggested O as a general rule an origin catchment area with a five -mile radius, although TAZ • catchment areas are larger at termini which tend to draw riders from farther distances. Destination catchment areas generally are smaller but can be expanded if superior 4 transit connections exist or if station cars are used. The universe of work trips can be identified by using forecasts of work trips between TAZs in five Southern Califomia counties, including Riverside, maintained by SCAG. Those forecasts then can be associated with specified TAZ origin and destination catchment areas to yield the total potential market associated with each station. The second input guides the forecast of the share or mode split of that universe of work • trips between stations that commuter rail likely would capture in a given, future year. All commuter rail scenarios are assumed to include six peak -period and two off-peak trains 40 each weekday, consistent with the projected level of service associated with the extension of Metrolink service onto the PVL between Riverside and South Perris before 2030, as set forth in RCTC's New Starts Application to the Federal Transit Administration, a related but completely separate effort being undertaken by other consultants. Commuter rail mode splits, assuming six frequencies during the peak period and trips of varying distances, appear in the Table 3-1 below. The mode splits were derived from Metrolink's experience which has shown that, the longer the trip, the more people ride the train. • • • • • • • • • • • • Table 3-1 Commuter Rail Work Trip Mode Splits (Assuming Six Peak -Period Trains) Miles Mode Split (Percent) 5 0.7 15 4.0 25 11.0 35 14.0 45 16.0 Employing the above -described inputs, the methodology predicts a base number of likely passenger work trips. To anticipate total passenger trips and to refine the future forecasts, two other inputs are needed: • future travel time by automobile between stations and • the likely contribution of off-peak service to total ridership. Draft Final Report, November 9, 2005 RCTC Commuter Rail Feasibility Study 3-4 The third input results in an upward adjustment of ridership forecasts in cases where congestion on parallel highway systems lengthens auto commutes. This forecasting effort included ridership adjustment factors that had the effect of boosting ridership based on assumed competing but worsening auto travel times. Those factors were then applied to station area work trips to reflect gains in ridership due to higher roadway congestion levels. The last input triggers an adjustment to the calculation of total weekday ridership, reflecting the operation of off-peak trains in addition to peak -period trains. As an example, Metrolink's off-peak trains generate about ten percent of total weekday ridership. Such a percent was used as a factor in forecasting total peak and off-peak train ridership for all the commuter rail scenarios. This forecast followed the methodology outlined above to identify work trips between aggregations of several TAZs around stations, apply appropriate mode splits based on train frequency and travel distance and adjust the results to reflect assumed, increased congestion on parallel highways in the future. It also considered the ridership impact of limited, off-peak service, and assumed connecting transit services at all stations. A complete list of all stations assumed in all eight scenarios appears at the end of this chapter. The forecast reflected the calculation of estimated A.M. peak -period and total weekday commuter rail ridership from Banning, Indio, Temecula, San Jacinto and intermediate stations to Riverside and beyond to stations on the 91, Riverside and IEOC Lines in the year 2030 in connection with each of the five commuter rail scenarios. The ridership forecasts projected in connection with the assumed extensions of commuter rail service beyond South Perris are incremental to the ridership forecasts associated with the extension of commuter rail service to South Perris, which are being developed by others in a related but separate effort. So, the forecasts in this study measure the incremental ridership associated with each of the extensions being studied, over and above that which will result from the extension of Metrolink's 91 Line service to South Perris. With respect to service from Banning and Indio, the forecast first reflected the assumption that through travel is possible to each of the three Metrolink lines west of Riverside. Then, as the ridership forecast numbers conveyed a clear preference associated with through travel on one line, ridership through Riverside to destinations on the other two Metrolink lines was adjusted downward to reflect the necessity of a transfer to/from connecting trains at Riverside. - INTRACOUNTY RAIL RIDERSHIP The intracounty rail forecast methodology shares many of the same elements with the commuter rail forecast approach. But rather than employing the Metrolink experience to predict mode split, this forecast drew on the experience of Caltrain, the commuter rail. service on the San Francisco Peninsula. In addition to frequent, bi-directional, peak- • • do • • • • • • • • to • • o • v • • • • s 0000000000e00004, 00009aea00ee0eea0/0000.410 Draft Final Report, November 9, 2005 RCTC Commuter Rail Feasibility Study 3-5 period service, Caltrain runs trains every 30 minutes during off-peak periods in both directions. Its stations average about two miles apart and, therefore, its ridership catchment areas are smaller. Like Caltrain, the intracounty rail options are characterized by bi-directional service every 30 minutes. They feature stations that are closer together on average than the stations in the commuter rail scenarios. For those reasons, Caltrain serves as a better model to predict ridership on an all -day, intracounty rail service than does the less frequent service offered by Metrolink. Mode splits of total trips, not just work trips, were calculated based on frequency and distance experienced on Caltrain trips to stations other than San Francisco and San Jose, which, like Los Angeles — in the case of Metrolink — generate higher than normal mode splits. Peak and off-peak ridership also are separated based on Caltrain experience. Station area catchment areas, made up of 'aggregations of TAZs, are smaller than in the commuter rail scenarios, as station spacing is closer. Connecting transit is assumed at all stations. A preexisting condition underlying the intracounty rail forecasts is the assumption that the PVL (South Perris -Riverside) will be operational by 2010, with Metrolink trains operating as an extension of the 91 Line, which currently terminates at Riverside. Consistent with the analysis of commuter rail ridership, forecasts of intracounty scenario ridership represent the incremental ridership attracted to an all -day service over and .above the commuter ridership generated by extension of 91 Line service to South Perris. Such forecasts of incremental ridership include trips to and from stations not 'served by the planned 91 Line extension, reverse direction trips that would result from service in both directions and off-peak trips that would be generated by the greater frequency of trips outside peak commuter periods. 'ISSUES Beyond the mechanics of forecasting ridership discussed above, there are four issues which merit discussion in presenting a clear picture of the year 2030 weekday ridership forecast: • Special Destinations Casinos near the rail stations may generate additional ridership. Currently, there are major casinos in Cabazon (Morongo) and in the Coachella Valley (Agua Caliente, Palm Spring, and Indio). Other Indian gaming establishments are located or proposed in the vicinity of potential commuter or intracounty stations in Temecula, San Jacinto and Winchester. The ridership analyses examined the extent to which each service alternative might serve customer or employee travel needs to/from those casinos. The commuter rail options are likely to generate only limited casino -related travel. However, the 30- minute service headways envisioned under the intracounty scenarios likely would provide increased travel opportunities utilizing the rail system. Draft Final Report, November 9, 2005 RCTC Commuter Rail Feasibility Study 3-6 • Western Terminus of Banning/Indio Commuter Trains As noted above, the initial forecasts assume that trains originating at those locations could run through to any of the three Metrolink lines west from Riverside. This assumption enabled an "apples to apples" comparison of the options to determine which Metrolink line generated the greatest ridership. Then, a second forecast iteration reflected the assumption that through service would be provided on just one line, requiring transfers at Riverside riders bound to/from stations on the other two lines. • Trips from Temecula to Metrolink Destinations The forecast reflected the assumption that, for, the most part, work trips bound to destinations west of Corona are made by commuter rail according to the same mode splits observed elsewhere, even though trips by car via 1-15 may be shorter. The reason is that 2030 congestion on 1-15, Highway 91 and Highway 60 may be so bad as to render more attractive a longer distance but faster commuter rail trip. • Overlap of Commuter and Intracounty Rail Services on the Perris Valley Line Between Riverside and South Perris Under the three intracounty rail scenarios, the 30-minute intracounty service overlaps the planned extension of Metrolink's 91 Line service between Riverside and South Perris during the peak period in the peak direction. By using the ridership forecast prepared by others in connection with the extension of the 91 Line commuter rail service, forecasters avoided double counting potential ridership from stations served by both systems. However, the intracounty forecasts do not reflect the greater convenience and attraction that would result from twelve peak -period, peak - direction options (six via commuter rail service and six via intracounty rail service). That adjustment should be made in conjunction with finalizing PVL commuter rail forecasts. The adjustment should only apply to peak -direction travel between stations served by both systems. FORECAST RESULTS The results of the weekday ridership forecasts of all eight passenger rail service scenarios appear in Table 3-2. All commuter rail scenarios reflect the assumption of six inbound trains during the morning peak and the same number of trains returning during the afternoon peak. In addition, two round trips would provide limited, off-peak service. Trips of less than five miles are not reflected in the forecast. The intracounty options reflect the assumption of half-hour frequencies in both directions during the day. Trips of any length are reflected in the forecast. As stated previously, the results are incremental. That is, by design only the commuter rail ridership between stations on the conceptual line extensions and between those stations and existing Metrolink stations are shown. Ridership between stations on the planned PVL and between those stations and existing Metrolink extension is not shown. The intracounty option forecasts exclude peak -period, peak -direction ridership between stations common to both the intracounty services and the planned PVL service. 100000••0•0000•000•000000•00••0000•000000000 e040•ee1100000e0.0000•e••ee•0000e0000009e00.00 Draft Final Report, November 9, 2005 RCTC Commuter Rail Feasibility Study - 3-7 Please note that the commuter rail station TAZ catchment areas were determined with an eye toward identifying riders whose commuter rail trips typically are long distance. The way in which the TAZs are drawn may serve to overstate trips between adjacent stations at the end of the lines. Table 3-2 Incremental Passenger Rail Ridership Forecasts Scenario A.M. Peak All -day 1. UP/Banning/Commuter Rail 344 768 2. UP/Indio/Commuter Rail 982 2,174 3. Perris Valley Line/San Jacinto/Commuter Rail 612 1,338 4. Perris Valley Line/San Jacinto/Intracounty Rail 823 2,162 5. Perris Valley Line [Temecula Commuter Rail 591 1,292 6. Perris Valley Line /Temecula Intracounty Rail 791 2,093 ' 7. Perris Valley Line/1-215/Temecula Commuter Rail 988 2,166 8. Perris Valley Line/1-215lTemecula Intracounty Rail 1,363 3,532 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 3-2, 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 retum in the evening. Major destinations of riders include Riverside, Loma Linda (includingLoma Linda University and Medical Center), East Ontario and Los Angeles. The largest origin is Beaumont. As previously stated, the preliminary forecast of this scenario assumes that all six inbound trains would run through Riverside to destinations on the Riverside, IEOC and 91 Lines. The purpose in doing so is to identify which Metrolink Line would generate the greatest ridership. As shown in Table 3-3, the most ridership to/from points west of Riverside in Scenarios 1 and 2 is generated by the Riverside Line. However, total differences between lines are comparatively small. This noted, the assumption of six frequencies through Riverside on all three lines in effect overstates total ridership somewhat in each scenario. The reason is that, in actuality, the service to Riverside from Banning would be a through service on just one line, not three. Trips to destinations on the other two lines would require riders to transfer at Riverside. The transfer triggers additional activity (getting off one train, waiting for and boarding the next and having to find a second seat), which is less Draft Final Report November 9, 2005 RCTC Commuter Rail Feasibility Study 3-8 attractive and serves to limit the number of trips through Riverside. The forecast in Table 3-2 corrects this overstatement, as it assumes that the through service from Banning would be on the Riverside Line. As Table 3-3 indicates, the greatest ridership would occur were through service extended on that "Metrolink Line." Riders bound to/from IEOC and 91 Line stations would transfer at Riverside. Table 3-3 Incremental Rail Ridership Forecast West of Riverside In Banning and Indio Commuter Rail Scenarios Metrolink Line Scenario 1: From Banning Scenario 2: From Indio Riverside 292 362 91 212 280 IEOC 158 220 It is worth emphasizing that this forecast reflects only a very narrow railpassenger market, i.e. the commute market. The study team is aware that Caltrans and RCTC have supported intercity rail service that would link Riverside with Banning and Beaumont. (Coachella Valley intercity service, which would pass through Banning and Beaumont, was discussed in the California Passenger Rail System Five-year Plan Summary Report of May 2000 and California State Rail Plan 2001-02 to 2010-11 of January 2002.) The intercity market is different than that of commuter rail. Rather than focusing on serving work trips, intercity rail offers riders travel options throughout the day, as the Pacific Surfliner service (San Luis Obispo -Los Angeles -San Diego) does now. The ridership potential of a commuter rail option between Banning, Riverside and Metrolink destinations west of Riverside in no way compromises the potential benefits of intercity service from and to Banning. Required capacity improvements on the BNSF and UP lines may well be less than in the case of commuter rail options, as commuter trains are concentrated during peak periods and that concentration tends to constrain freight rail operations. 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 3-2, 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 retum in DO.0011000004)11•000000041000000000000000•400400•!• de00ee0000ea0000.00e00eeae00e�00000.004000*a0 Draft Final Report, November 9, 2005 RCTC Commuter Rail Feasibility Study 3-9 equal numbers in the evening. The largest destination stations are Agua Caliente '(Rancho Mirage) and Palm'Springs. The largest origin is Indio. The forecast in Scenario 2 reflects the assumption of through service only on the Riverside Line. Riders bound to/from IEOC and 91 Line stations would transfer at ;Riverside. As is the case with Scenario 1, 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 from and to the Coachella Valley. One relevant issue encountered in the development of this forecast is with regard to special destinations. The route between Indio and Riverside on the Union Pacific runs past or nearby casinos at Cabazon, Agua Caliente and Indio. Conceivably, passenger trains operating between the Los Angeles Basin/Orange County and Indio could be a 'means of transporting people intent on visiting the casinos. However, the hours and 'directions of the trains in this scenario are not really attractive to casino patrons. For example, an Indio casino -bound traveler boarding an afternoon peak Metrolink train in Riverside would arrive in Indio in the late afternoon/early evening; the return options !would be by one of two off-peak trips the next day. (The traveler would have to. spend 'the night.) While such a trip is possible, the inherent travel time limitations likely would dissuade many riders. Options to take the very early morning westbound commuter train would be even less attractive. Thus, this forecast conservatively assumes that special destination traffic would not materially enhance total 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. 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 3-2, this option generates 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 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 3-2, 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. Draft Final Report, November 9, 2005 RCTC Commuter Rail Feasibility Study 3-.10 Ridership from and to UC Riverside is the lowest of all stations. This result is a function of the catchment area around the university and the rail mode split or capture rate applied to trips from and to the university. While other stations' catchment areas are composed of multiple TAZs, the UC Riverside catchment area is just one TAZ. The model uses SCAG data to identify all trips made for all purposes during the day between station catchment areas along the route in 2030, and then assigns a portion of them to the intracounty rail option, consistent with observations made on the Caltrain commuter rail service, which offers the same level of service. It is possible that the model understates the ridership potential that could be generated by students and workers at UCR. Nevertheless, it conservatively estimates the potential by applying a rail transit mode split observed elsewhere. To the extent that the SCAG data includes trips to the casino, some of those trips are reflected in the forecast. However, to the extent that some potential ridership associated with the San Jacinto casino could be induced by targeted marketing efforts by the casino, this forecast may understate total ridership. However, it is difficult to know the extent of understatement, as the induced ridership would be a function of how the casino "markets its product" in conjunction with the intracounty rail option to Riverside County residents. Thus, this forecast conservatively excludes any induced ridership in this option which might be generated by the casino. One issue relevant to this forecast and all forecasts associated with the other intracounty rail options regards the overlap of commuter and intracounty rail services on the PVL between Riverside and South Perris. Under this and the two other intracounty scenarios, the introduction of 30-minute intracounty service would overlap the planned extension of Metrolink 91 Line service between Riverside and South Perris. As noted previously, the intracounty forecasts by design do not reflect the greater convenience and attraction that would result from twelve peak -period, peak -direction options (six via commuter rail service and six via intracounty rail service). However, the impact of such an adjustment would be small and thus immaterial to this analysis, as it only would affect inbound a.m. peak trips from South Perris, Perris and Ramona to Van Buren, since Van Buren is the only station between South Perris and Riverside which is assumed to be served only in intracounty service scenarios. As stated before, inbound a.m. peak trips between stations that are common to commuter and intracounty rail services are excluded from the forecast in this study. The adjustment should be coordinated with finalizing the PVL commuter rail forecast, which should consider the ridership induced by twelve inbound peak trips through its entire service area, including the intracounty rail stations. Lastly, the forecast excludes a.m. peak commuters traveling to Riverside and transferring to IEOC, Riverside and 91 Lines. While it is possible that such riders could t Prior analysis of Metrolink ridership suggests that a peak direction frequency of twelve trains would generate about 35 percent more riders than six trains, so an increase of 35 percent above the ridership generated by the commuter service alone could be anticipated as a result of the additional intracounty trips frequencies. 100000000••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 000000,000eeee0000e000000ee000000000e0000000 Draft Firm! Report, November 9, 2005 RCTC Commuter Rail Feasibility Study 3-11 take intracounty rail service and transfer at Riverside to Metrolink trains, the complexity of those trips (more stations, longer transit times and more transfers) argues against the probability of those trips. The forecast reflects the assumption that commuters destined beyond Riverside, instead, will board a commuter train. Scenario 5: Perris Valley Line/Rt 79/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 3-2, 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. One issue relevant to this forecast regards trips from Temecula to Metrolink destinations at Corona and points west. Trips by car may be shorter in terms of miles, but congestion may be so heavy in 2030 on 1-15 and Highways 60 and 91, which connect the Temecula area more directly to these destinations than a rail routing through Riverside, that a rail routing may take less time. The forecast has assumed that this will be the case for the most part and that Temecula residents would elect to ride commuter rail according to the same mode splits as assumed elsewhere. The exception will be assumed trips to Corona. As a result, trips from Temecula to Corona have been excluded from the forecast. Scenario 6: Perris Valley Line/Rt 79/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 3-2, 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. 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 Draft Final Report, November 9, 2005 RCTC Commuter Rail Feasibility Study 3-12 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 3 -2, 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. Scenario 8: Perris Valley Line/1-215/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 3-2, 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. RIDERSHIP SUMMARY Appendix 1 `Rail Ridership Summary" includes origin and destination ridership forecasts for all eight scenarios. Refer to Task 2.2 for access information for all conceptual stations. w••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• e00eee•eee000000**eee00000000eeee0000000•000 Draft Final Report, November 9, 2005 RCTC Commuter Rail Feasibility Study 4-1 Task 4: Evaluation of Service Alternatives Task 4 is comprised of three subtasks: conceptual capital costs, operating costs, and summary analysis of scenarios. Subtask 4.1: Conceptual Capital Costs Capital costs at a conceptual level are estimated in connection with each of the eight separate scenarios and are discussed below. Total estimated costs are built up employing similar unit capital costs also reflected factors unique to each level of service and service corridor. Following is a brief description of existing track and related (to the extent known) infrastructure as well as an estimated level of new construction associated with each scenario. Existing Corridor Infrastructure Scenario 1: Union Pacific/Banning/Commuter Rail The Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) and Union Pacific (UP) main tracks between Riverside and Banning are typical of heavy -haul Class 1 railroads, consisting of continuous welded rail (CWR), good tie and ballast conditions along with sufficient other track materials (OTM) to support the class of track in that area. It is understood that track is maintained to support passenger train speeds for of up to 79 miles per hour (MPH) by Amtrak between Colton and Banning and at least 60 MPH by Metrolink between Riverside and the Mount Vernon connection track at Colton. To get a better understanding of the landscape and gain an overview of the existing infrastructure, an inspection was made over the UP Sunset route on April 6, 2005 between Union Station in Los Angeles and the existing Amtrak station at Palm Springs. Due to the significant amount of congestion experienced by UP on this corridor, it is believed that construction of a third main track adjacent to existing UP main tracks between Colton and Banning would likely be required by UP were commuter passenger service to be extended beyond Colton on the UP main track. As discussed later, in this scenario it was assumed that an additional main track would be constructed on the south side of the existing UP right-of-way (ROW) where possible. Some shifting of UP main tracks to the north may be required near existing overhead bridges to eliminate construction of new overpasses. Trains in this scenario would traverse BNSF tracks from Riverside to Colton and enter UP tracks via the Mount Vernon connection track. Mount Vernon Connection Track (looking east) Draft Final Report, November 9, 2005 RCTC Commuter Rail Feasibility Study 4-2 Scenario 2: Union Pacific/Indio/Commuter Rail The route employed in Scenario 2 simply is an extension of that proposed in Scenario 1 beyond Banning to Indio. It is anticipated that UP will request a third track to be constructed were commuter service to begin in this corridor between Riverside and Indio, at least on UP property between Colton and Indio. Many locations along the UP main track have sufficient room to accommodate the addition of another track, as seen in the photo below illustrating typical track structure east of Loma Linda. UP track east of Loma Linda (looking east) In locations where sufficient UP right-of-way (ROW) is on the north side of existing tracks, new track possibly could be constructed on the north side and swapped for the most southern track. Alternately, tracks could be realigned to accommodate construction of an additional track or sufficient land purchased on the south side to accommodate the construction of a third main track. •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 000000000000eeeee00eeeeeeeeeee00000000e0ee0e Draft Final Report, November 9, zoos RCTC Commuter Rail Feasibility Study 4-3 Scenario 3: Perris Valley Line/San Jacinto/Commuter Rail It is understood that in the previous PVL study, commuter rail service to South Perris is planned. Therefore, the remainder of the track, between South Perris and San Jacinto was spot checked. The track structure east of the out of service sign (seen in the photo to the left) located just west of Ethanac Road (State Route 74), consists of 90 pounds per yard ("pound") jointed rail, single shoulder plates, four hole joint bars and standard wood crossties with sufficient other track material (OTM) to hold track structure together. It is understood that during each Fall harvest, BNSF inspects and repairs the track some agriculture -related shipping by rail. of Palomar Lane are three short bridges at Track out of service sign (looking east) sufficiently to get trains to San Jacinto for Between the out of service sign and just east about milepost (MP) 23.7, 23.9 and 24.0. All of the bridges are rail girder type, supported by either wooden or steel piling and caps which are open deck. The bridge at MP 24.0 features a steel walkway on both sides as seen in the photo to the right and is quite short. The low clearance available beneath the bridge warrants use of rail as a means to support the bridge ties. Farther east on the SJBL is a hand -thrown, right-hand (RH) switch to an electrical substation. The switch features 90 pound rail, sixteen foot, six inch, plane switch points and a #10 rail bound manganese (RBM) frog. The industry track to the substation has been paved over and appears to be out of service. General track alignment heads southeast until it nears Winchester at which point it turns due east and then after proceeding through town, turns in a northeastern direction toward Hemet. The siding at Winchester is accessed via a RH switch on the west end and by a left-hand (LH) switch on the east end. A general view of the Winchester siding area can be seen in the photo Draft Final Report, November 9,1005 RCTC Commuter Rail Feasibility Study to the right and is near a proposed station location. Both switches are hand operated and contain 90 pound rail, sixteen foot, six inch, plane switch points along with a #8 RBM frog. 4-4 Existing roadbed beyond Winchester is open and similar in construction to that noted previously. The track alignment is PVL, south of California Ave. (looking east) materials as previously discussed. as seen in the next photo. generally east to Hemet and apparently has enough ROW to support expansion without the purchase of additional land, as seen in the photo of an area east of California Avenue, approximately MP 31.1, to the left. Proceeding through Hemet toward San Jacinto, seven switches are in various stages of retirement. Alignment from Hemet is generally north to San Jacinto with a LH switch providing access to a concrete batch plant located near 17th Street and is of similar The track ends just east of 7th Street in San Jacinto r•••••••••• ••• •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 000000000a0000000000000000000000000000000000 Draft Pint Report, November 9, zoos RCTC Commuter Rail Feasibility Study 4-5 Scenario 4: Perris Valley Line/San Jacinto/Intracounty Rail Scenario 4 is similar in existing infrastructure to Scenario 3 as they both travel the same line and only differ in the level of passenger service assumed, .resulting in additional stations and supporting facilities. Scenario 5: Perris Valley Line/Winchester Road - Route 79/ Temecula/Commuter Rail Again, building upon the prior PVL study in that for purposes of this study passenger service is assumed to be already extended to South Perris and the existing track infrastructure at issue begins in Scenario 5 near Romoland. However, in the Winchester area, Scenario 5 would branch from the existing PVL line and take a generally south direction toward Temecula along State Route 79 (Winchester Road). After field review, it was determined that due to existing and future home construction, Scenario 5 likely would exit the PVL line near the ball field located in Winchester or further west where the track curves before entering into town, as viewed below. As seen in the photo, relatively flat land exists before arriving at a rolling hill area proceeding south. Scenario 5 is assumed to traverse new construction along an alignment that would depart from the existing PVL line west of Winchester and proceed across the flat area and curve to the south as it approached Winchester Road south of the town. PVL, west of Winchester Road (looking east) State Route 79, south of Winchester (looking south) Draft Final Report, November 9, 2005 RCTC Commuter Rail Feasibility Study 4-6 It is believed that Scenario 5 would shadow Winchester Road to the south and that the most likely route would be located on the west side of the road. Choosing this alignment would eliminate the need for an expensive overpass over Winchester Road. When proceeding south, both sides of Winchester Road are in sometimes heavy cut/fill areas that may require substantial earthwork to achieve proper alignment and grade to support passenger operations. The new rail line preferably would be built at a sufficient distance from the roadway to reduce cuts or fills. Winchester Road has substantial cut areas as illustrated in the photo to the right. This road is a two lane highway in the Winchester area. As the proposed rail line would approach Temecula, route alignment will become more difficult. To gain access deep into Temecula will be difficult but was assumed to be accomplished by following a routing currently occupied by a bike/hike trail located on the west side of State Route 79, as seen in the photo below or possibly circling northwest and approaching 1-215 between Temecula and Murrieta Hot Springs Road. Were rail service to be provided to Temecula via this route, the bike/hike trail may have to be relocated and some ditch realignment might be required. This area of new construction between Winchester and Temecula would drive this and similar scenarios to require much higher capital costs per mile than some other options. Bike/Hike trail west of State Route 79 (looking north) •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• ee0O0000e0000000.900e0000ee400e00400eaee000ee0 Draft Final Report, November 9, 2005 RCTC Commuter Rail Feasibility Study 4-7 Scenario 6: Perris Valley Line/Winchester Road - Route 79/ Temecula/Intracounty Rail Scenario 6 is similar in existing infrastructure to Scenario 5 as they initially would traverse an upgraded PVL line, then exit the PVL line at the same location and follow the same routing. The major capital cost difference between Scenarios 5 and 6 lies in . the greater number of stations required in Scenario 6 to support the assumed level of service and supporting facilities. Scenario 7: Perris Valley Line-1-215/Temecula/Commuter Rail Scenario 7 likely would diverge from the existing PVL near Romoland, just east of South Perris. An actual exit point would have to be determined during a survey analysis but probably would be east of the lumber yard on the east side of 1-215. The photo to the right illustrates such a possible exit point. Route alignment likely would be chosen to the right of the most right hill in the photo or between the first and second mound. This corridor most likely would shadow 1-215 to the south and given that both sides of the Interstate today are equally developed, as seen below, allowing the proposed corridor to exit the PVL on the east side of 1-215 would eliminate the need to construct a costly overpass close to Possible I-215 Corridor exit from PVL at Romoland (looking Romoland. Some portions of the rail corridor may I-215 Corridor, east side at Murrieta Hot Springs exit (looking south) be constructed within 1-215 ROW or the entire line may be constructed some distance to the east of the Interstate. This decision ultimately would be based on an economic analysis of land acquisition, capital costs and markets served among other factors. Draft Final Report, November 9, 2005 RCTC Commuter Rail Feasibility Study 4-8 The conceptual capital cost estimate reflects the assumption that RCTC would require all major crossings to be grade separated with the possible exception of Ethanic Road. Depending on the PVL exit location, Ethanic Road could be an at -grade, highway -rail crossing or an overpass. The 1-215 corridor would shadow the Interstate to the east and, depending upon routing, possibly even be visible from the Interstate. Based on a limited reconnaissance of the area, while Potential parking area at Temecula (looking north) located near a current parking extremely congested, a continuous, new alignment could be stitched together, with a possible station area near Temecula, as seen in the photo to the left. Scenario 8: Perris Valley Line - I-215/Temecula/Intracounty Rail Scenario 8 is similar in existing infrastructure to Scenario 7 as they both travel the same route and only differ in the proposed level of passenger service, resulting in additional stations and supporting facilities. Proposed Track Construction Table 4-1 on the following page illustrates the breakdown and total estimated capital costs associated with each scenario. Those items which are consistent across all scenarios are briefly described below. •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• oo•o©ooaeoeoeeeooeae0®eeeeeeeo0e,oeeeoee®eee Draft Final Report, November 9, 2005 RCTC Commuter Rail Feasibility Study 4-9 Table 4 - 1 Total Conceptual Capital Costs - $ in Millions (includes engineering and contingencies) Scenario and Length (mi es) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Cost Element (34.5) (76.5) (39.5) (39.5) (43.5) (43.5) (39.5) (39.5) Track $32.2 $70.8 $12.6 $13.2 $18.0 $19.5 $15.6 $16.7 Turnouts 4.6 9.5 0.6 1.4 0.7 3.2 0.7 2.3 At -grade, highway rail crossings 0.6 0.7 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 Structures 44.2 57.1 0.2 0.2 35.9 35.9 69.8 69.8 Drainage 0.5 1.1 0.1 0.1 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.5 Stations 32.0 58.3 24.0 20.0 24.0 24.0 24.0 28.0 Signals 49.9 97.8 22.7 23.6 26.1 28.6 18.7 20.4 Earthwork 1.7 3.8 0.0 0.0 4.6 5.1 5.8 6.2 Right-of-way 29.6 63.1 3.4 5.5 17.5 21.1 21.3 25.5 Specialty Items 0_6 2_1 2.1 0_6 2_1 0_6 4_6 1_6 Estimated Construction Costs $195.9 $364.3 $66.0 $64.8 $129.5 $138.7 $161.1 $171.0 EMDCM* (15%of Construction) 29.4 54.6 9.9 9.7 19.4 20.8 24.2 25.7 Subtotal 225.3 418.9 75.9 74.6 148.9 159.5 185.2 196.7 Contingencies (30% of Subtotal) 58.8 109.3 19.8 19.5 38.8 41.6 48.3 51.3 Total Estimated Construction Costs** $284.1 $528.2 $95.7 $94.0 $187.8 $201.2 $233.6 $248.0 Equipment 15.8 15.8 15.8 31.2 15.8 46.8 15.8 39.0 Total Estimated Capital Costs $299.9 $544.0 $111.5 $125.2 $203.6 $248.0 $249.4 $287.0 Scenario 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Description UP/Banning/Commuter Rail UP/Indio/Commuter Rail PVL1San Jacinto/Commuter Rail PVL/San Jacinto/Intracounty Rail Winchester Road/ Commuter Rail Winchester Road/ Intracounty Rail I-215/Temecula/Commuter Rail 1-215/Temecula/Intracounty Rail Notes: *EMDCM = Engineering/Mobilization/Demobilization/Construction Management **Includes Engineering/Mobilization/Demobilization/Construction Management and Contingencies. Subtotals reflect rounding which may cause some variance. Source: RLBA. ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••d•••e••••ee®•• Draft Final Report, November 9, zoos RCTC Commuter Rail Feasibility Study 4-10 New and Upgraded Track Construction New main track is likely to be constructed of 141 pound rail, concrete ties, new rail anchorage, sufficient ballast and other OTM to achieve the desired FRA Class track (likely FRA Class 4) estimated to cost about $174 per track foot. Upgrading existing track such as that of the PVL consists of replacing existing rail with new 141 pound rail, concrete ties, new rail anchorage, sufficient ballast and other OTM is estimated to cost ,$139 per track foot. All proposed layover yards are assumed to have a layout similar to that pictured on the next page, consisting of four tracks with a minimum of 600 feet each and are considered new track construction. Turnouts There are basically three types of turnouts whose capital costs are reflected in the different scenarios. The largest expense ($406,000 per switch location) is that !associated with a remotely controlled, power switch used to gain access to passing 'sidings. Those turnouts are #20 type (measure of angularity) and consist of similar itrack materials as the new or upgraded tracks to which they will connect. Replacement ;of existing switches to freight users is assumed to be accomplished by installing a new #10 switch along with an electric -lock signal protection system, estimated to cost about $158,000. Layover yard track switches are built of #10 hand -operated switches 'estimated to cost $53,000 each. At -Grade, Highway -Rail Crossings Capital cost estimates reflect the replacement or new installation of all new ties, freshly 'surfaced track along with full depth concrete panels, public at -grade, highway -rail crossings, and costing $359 per track foot. Structures 'Estimating overhead bridge structure costs is one area where figures could vary !significantly and are difficult to estimate at this conceptual stage as each is highly dependant on the route alignment chosen. A minimum of 100 track feet at a unit cost of !$106,000 per track foot is assumed to clear the road overhead. That figure could vary drastically and should be recognized as preliminary. Construction of new bridges 'associated with entirely new track construction is considered major, requiring an estimated $13,000 per track foot to build. Replacement of existing bridges such as that on the PVL near Romoland can be accomplished less expensively and are estimated to cost about $3,500 per foot replaced. Drainage New track construction will require new culvert installation estimated to cost about $7,500 per location while the extension of existing culverts is estimated to cost $3,500 per location. Without a complete culvert inspection of all the existing lines, capital costs reflect an assumption of completely replacing one culvert in every two miles of existing track. In contrast, four culverts are estimated as being needed per mile of new construction. Draft Final Report, November 9, 2005 RCTC Commuter Rail Feasibility Study 4-11 Stations Two distinct types of stations are estimated in this study and are considered either a commuter or Intracounty style. Commuter stations are estimated to cost about $8,000,000 each, while Intracounty stations are estimated to cost about half or $4,000,000 each. These figures were developed from RCTC-furnished information pertaining to the Perris downtown station currently in design and include additional expenses associated with the construction of a second platform, an over/under pedestrian crossing (assumed at each new station location) and elevator service. In Scenario 2, another cost was estimated reflecting possible upgrades to the current Palm Springs Amtrak station, costing about $100,000. All stations are assumed to be complete with all amenities. Station parking for a minimum of 500 vehicles is included in the standard station cost with additional required spaces addressed later as a specialty item. Signals Signals easily constitute the most or second most expensive portion of each scenario. All tracks are considered to receive new centralized traffic controlled (CTC) signals. The capital costs of new signalization were estimated at $1,000,000 per mile. At each new control point, such as the entrance or exit from a passing siding, a $422,000 amount is estimated to reflect all necessary signal -related expenses. A $100,000 figure is allotted at each electric -lock switch location and a $211,000 amount is allocated at each at -grade, highway -rail crossing, reflecting new installation or upgrades to existing systems. Earthwork Earthwork cost estimates are again very subjective at this conceptual stage and will vary drastically by the route chosen on which new track will be constructed. At this preliminary stage, a lump sum figure is estimated per mile of new construction ($350,000) and another per modification/addition to roadbed where passing sidings or new track construction on Class 1 carrier -owned ROW are required in existing tracks ($50,000 per mile). Right-of-Wav Right-of-way related costs again can be expected to vary significantly depending on the location. Cost estimates reflect the RCTC-furnished dollar amount of $4.11 per square foot of real estate purchased. Union Pacific's line between Riverside and Indio is part of the carrier's Yuma Subdivision, which territory constitutes the west end of UP's Sunset Route, linking the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach with Phoenix, El Paso, Houston and New Orleans. That route has experienced very high freight growth since Union Pacific acquired the Southern Pacific Transportation Company in 1996 and now regularly hosts more than 45 trains each day. According to a June 30, 2005 news release of the carrier, "marine containers stacked two high on `double -stack' trains dominate the route, but construction materials including lumber, plywood, steel and cement ... package express business ... [G]asoline additive ethanol ... automobiles and automobile parts l••r•••i••••l••s••••l•l•r•••••1•••••••••r•0! •.•.•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• Draft Final Report, November 9, zoos RCTC Commuter Rail Feasibility Study 4-12 moving through the Mexico gateways at Nogales, Ariz. and Calexico, Calif. ... in addition to Midwest grain for feedlots in Southern Califomia ... are important to the region's growth." Though it "has built more than 100 miles of new main line double - track on the Sunset Route," the vast majority of that Route, including portions of the Yuma Subdivision main line, feature single-track segments which are not sufficiently robust to handle current volumes. Continuing strong growth in demand, combined with limited investment on the supply side (infrastructure), have resulted in severe capacity problems in recent years on both the Yuma Subdivision and the balance of the Sunset Route. The territory between West Palm Springs and West Colton Yard (west of Riverside), encompasses all of the hypothetical service scenario from Banning and most of the commuter rail scenario extending as far as Indio. It is equipped with both two main tracks and a sophisticated traffic control/signal system (CentralizedTraffic Control), theoretically resulting in a high capacity main line. However, the theoretical benefit of that robust infrastructure is constrained by four factors. First, as previously discussed, east of West Palm Springs there are numerous locations where the UP main line reduces to only a single track. UP plans to extend that double - track section east to Thermal by 2007 but no matter how many tracks are built between Colton and West Palm Springs, inadequate railroad infrastructure east of there will limit how fast, how much and how reliably UP can move trains between those two points. In other words, the congestion experienced by UP within the study territory is greatly affected by inadequate infrastructure beyond it. For the record, it should be noted that UP's "ultimate goal is to double -track the entire route" but with trade between the US and Asia expected to double by 2020, it is difficult to see how congestion on the line will get better or even maintain the status quo if the pace of UP's investment in capacity - enhancing track structure does not significantly increase. Meanwhile, the ability of UP to generate enough profits to yield the cash flow to fund required capital investments is questionable, given that the carrier, by its own admission, is not generating enough profit to earn its cost of capital. In other words, it is not earning enough profit to replace all of its current assets as they wear out, let alone additional assets that may be desirable from the carrier's or agencies' perspectives. 'Second, the impact of the first factor is exacerbated by the fact that the UP is constrained by the presence of West Colton Yard, just north of Riverside. West Colton is a big and relatively new yard by railroad standards. But the fact that it serves as a hub for UP business moving to and from the greater Los Angeles Basin in all directions results in significant congestion, as trains move in and out of there constantly. The existence of West Colton, west of the west end of the study area serves to constrain operations within it in much the same way as the territory east of West Palm Springs does at the other end of the study area, though for different reasons. Third, there is a large hill, rising out of the Coachella Valley and cresting at Beaumont that impacts capacity in two ways. First, the gradient causes most westbound trains to operate at reduced speeds. Second, the gradient is so steep as to require UP to add Draft Final Report, November 9, 2005 'RCTC Commuter Rail Feasibility Study - 4-13 locomotives to its heavily loaded westbound trains (at Indio) to help shove them over the hill. Because the operation is performed so frequently, it is handled quite efficiently. But, it still requires westbound trains to come to a complete standstill to link up with their "helper units" and then regain speed slowly in a fashion that gobbles up capacity. Fourth, there is a huge amount of local railroad freight business originating and terminating in the Los Angeles Basin. That business contributes greatly to the strength of the local economy but servicing it requires the UP to devote resources and assets which also tax its theoretical capacity. As but one example, hundreds of flatcars to support Port intermodal business are often stored on distant sidings in the study territory, absorbing capacity that might, otherwise, allow UP's Sunset Route to be more fluid. As but one indication of how much local business UP handles in the Basin, the railroad's operations span over 32,616 miles. Yet, 24 percent of all the carloads that UP originates or terminates over its entire system are handled on its relatively few miles of track within Southern California. The combination of the above -listed factors has resulted in UP being unable in recent years to provide consistent service on the subject corridor to its own freight customers, let alone customers of Amtrak's intercity passenger trains or Metrolink commuter trains which access UP trackage only via limited rights no greater than tenants enjoy with landlords. The barriers to passenger service encountered today begin to suggest the institutional barriers to initiating an even higher level of service east of Riverside on UPRR trackage. For the above reasons, right-of-way capital cost estimates in Scenarios 1 and 2 reflect the assumed cost of easements, not acquired land, based on the assumption that BNSF and UP would not be willing to allow even a commuter level of service on their existing tracks east or north of the City of Riverside nor would they be willing to sell land within their rights of way at any affordable price. Instead, more likely, the carriers would be willing to sign along term lease with RCTC which would allow commuter (and intercity) authorities to operate trains over a "primarily" passenger track to which the freight carriers would have access when not required to support passenger operations. Because the land underlying the respective railroads' tracks would remain assets of the freight railroads, public officials would argue that they should pay no more than half the value of comparable real estate, the normal discount applied to easements. In contrast, the freight carriers would argue that installation of the passenger track effectively would deprive the carriers of all but limited use of same and, therefore, the carriers should receive at least 100 percent of the comparable, neighboring value. For purposes of this conceptual cost estimation, a figure of 75 percent of the assumed purchase price was applied, splitting the difference between the perspectives of the parties. In addition, regardless of whether the primarily passenger track were built north or south of the existing BNSF and UP tracks, some switches would have to be built to allow the freight railroads to access their existing and future customers by crossing any primarily passenger tracks constructed. The freight railroads would take the position that "but for" •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• Daodaeeeeeee00.000eeceee000000eeoeeaae0ea0ee Draft Final Report, November 9, 2005 RCTC Commuter Rail Feasibility Study 4-14 the construction of the primarily passenger track, the costs of gaining access to their customers had already been borne by the carriers and that, therefore, any costs associated with having to reconnect the freight railroads with their customers in order to accommodate the installation of a new, primarily passenger track should be borne by the public sector. Five percent of RCTC-proyided land cost per foot was added to the seventy-five percent figure previously discussed to arrive at a right of way easement total cost of eighty percent of the acquisition costs per square foot employed in the other scenarios. Specialty Items This area serves as a catch-all for items unique to an individual scenario as well as to capture the costs of parking area requirements. Station capital costs reflect the inclusion of a minimum of 500 parking spaces at each location, with additional spaces (as appropriate to projected ridership) estimated at $5,000 each. Another lump sum amount was estimated and employed in connection with layover yard facilities and improvements to support overnight train storage as well as light servicing and cleaning. Those estimates include the costs of: • 480 volt standby power (required to maintain train heat and cooling and operate lights and doors without running the train's locomotive); • a crew and maintenance building; • fencing and security; • lighting; • a long enough lead track to be able to change consists without entering the main track; • level storage tracks with locomotive drip pans and • roadway vehicle access to all tracks. A schematic of the layover facilities assumed in the eight Scenarios appears in Figure 4 —1 For a complete breakdown of each scenario's cost estimate, refer to Table 4 2 through Table 4 — 9 found at the end of this Section. wall; :aaanos •uot;aaaip .fun ui map) pimp •ainas o;;ou •sopnuaas iiu ui paambaa aq ;ou Snuff Diana; q;ano3 •uiooa anaia 3o ;aa,; 005 aapthaa slang; il�d �iaua i utuiv **Jan 0053o u[nuiiuiur = 1[12uai 113u11, pxuA AanoSul FaidSi 4 00o40ooaQoo000.6 o• 0el late •i��� sec000eoeeeoeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee Draft Final Report, November 9, 2005 RCTC Commuter Rail Feasibility Study - 4-I6 Equipment All equipment assumed to be used in the different scenarios is similar or identical to existing Metrolink equipment. It is deemed beyond the scope in this effort to attempt to estimate how much equipment might be necessary to add beyond that which might be already in use in 2030. In recognition of the fact that some equipment contribution would be appropriate, the Project Team assumed that the exact same single train set consist would be utilized in all five commuter rail scenarios. Intracounty service scenarios varied in the number of train sets required, depending uponthe distance of the service being examined. Individual equipment unit costs employed are as follows: Locomotive $3.5 Million Cab Car 2.3 " Bi-Level Coach 2.0 " The dollar estimates are consistent with those being employed in other Metrolink-long- range planning studies. It is assumed that each individual commuter train set would consist of one locomotive, one cab car and five, bi-level coach cars. So, the total equipment cost of a commuter train set approaches $15.8 million. Alternatively, intracounty train sets would consist of one locomotive, one cab car and one, bi-level coach, making its estimated cost $7.8 million per set. Scenario 1: Union Pacific/Banning/Commuter Rail As stated previously, were commuter rail service extended beyond Riverside toward Banning, UP almost assuredly would request construction of an additional main track over the entire length of the corridor to prevent adding further congestion to an already full, heavy -haul rail corridor. Similarly, capital cost estimates reflect the assumption that BNSF would require a new track between Riverside and Colton. BNSF and UP likely would require that any new track be composed of heavy rail (for example, 141 pound per yard), concrete ties, new rail anchorage, sufficient ballast and other OTM to achieve the desired FRA Class track (most likely Class 4). For estimation purposes, a power switch was assumed to exit the eastern BNSF track just north of the current Riverside station providing access to the new main track proceeding north toward Colton. The new track would curve east toward Banning and shadow the existing UP main tracks. Two double crossovers are assumed to be installed between Colton and Banning to facilitate track maintenance and/or emergencies. While this may not be required, it is always prudent to plan for contingences. It is assumed that the newly constructed main track would reconnect with the UP main east of the layover yard switch which is assumed to be built east of Banning. Certain drainage structures (culverts) would need to be extended, in kind, while others may require entirely new construction, such as new bridge spans. Bridge construction in this scenario is significant due to having to cross the Santa Ana River twice with estimated bridge length being about one -quarter and three -eighths of a mile. Also Draft Final Report, November 9, zoos RCTC Commuter Rail Feasibility Study 4-17 - included is the cost of another bridge assumed to be constructed just east of Banning over the San Gorgonio River. Four culverts per mile are assumed to need extension. Passing sidings would not be required under this scenario to meet trains as this new main would be dedicated to passenger service and the proposed level of service is sufficiently modest that commuter trains would not be moving in opposing directions at the same time. At -grade, highway -rail crossings are assumed to be completely upgraded and under this scenario, about 124 lane -widths of crossings would be upgraded. Along with this new track and bridge construction, station -associated costs are a major factor in estimating capital costs in each corridor. The level of service will determine the number of stations required along with the complexity of that station. Under this scenario, four new stations would be constructed at Highgrove, Redlands/Loma Linda, Beaumont and Banning. The stations would be complete commuter stations; including a second platform, pedestrian overpass, elevators, all the amenities associated with new construction and a minimum of 500 parking spaces. A newly constructed layover yard accessed by a power -operated switch consisting of a lead and four tracks of sufficient length to handle five cars and an engine is assumed to be built just west of Banning including all the support facilities and improvements. Some earthwork is expected to be required over the entire length of the new track which is assumed to require approximately $50,000 per mile. This dollar estimate could vary depending on the width and availability of existing BNSF and UP right-of-way. Purchase of real estate, or in this case possibly an easement, right-of-way costs are significant and must be estimated. It is anticipated that BNSF and UP will not sell their ROW, but will grant an easement to allow for passenger train operations. An estimate of five acres per new station and a four acre, proposed layover yard is considered purchased and a lump sum allocation to reflect the cost of realigning is made in the vicinity of existing overpasses for realignment of existing main track. As stated previously, a minimum of 500 (RCTC standard) parking spaces are estimated at each station and where projected ridership exceeded 500 an amount reflecting projected ridership is used to determine the number of additional spaces required and associated cost. A lump sum amount is estimated to cover the cost associated with the layover yard facilities and improvements. After including an engineering, mobilization, demobilization and construction management allowance of fifteen percent and a contingency estimate of 30 percent to track estimates, along with an estimated equipment cost of $15.8 million, the estimated capital cost of Scenario 1 is $299.9 million dollars. i••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 6aaaaaaaaaaoaaaaaaaoaaaaoeaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa Draft Final Report, November 9, zoos RCTC.Commuter Rail Feasibility Study 4-I8 Scenario 2: Union Pacifidlndio/Commuter Rail Under Scenario 2, commuter rail service would be extended beyond that of Scenario 1 all the way from/to Indio. The same infrastructure would be required between Riverside and Banning. Beyond Banning, new track, bridge and culvert construction would be similar to that of Scenario 1 as UP would likely require an additional main track over the entire length of the corridor. In addition to the double crossovers proposed in Scenario 1, the Scenario 2 capital cost estimate includes a total of five double crossovers spaced about fourteen to fifteen miles apart. In addition, a total of 140 lanes of traffic would be encountered by at -grade, highway -rail crossings under this scenario. The costs associated with five minor and one major additional bridges likely required in this scenario, were reflected in the estimate. Additional station construction above that required in Scenario 1 would result in three new stations built at Cabazon, Aqua Caliente and downtown Indio. Since the existing Palm Springs station is located on the south side of the UP main, all stations are assumed to be located on the same side to reduce/eliminate numerous crossover moves to service station facilities. As previously stated, some minor modification was anticipated to the current Palm Springs Amtrak station and reflected in the capital cost estimates. Again, each of the new stations would be complete with all the amenities. Similarly, the costs of a new four track layover yard constructed east of Indio were reflected in the cost estimates. However, it should be noted that UP may currently have underutilized yard capacity on the north side of the tracks at Indio that might be available to use as the layover yard at a lower cost than new construction. Adding the track -related cost to the equipment cost associated with this scenario of $15.8 million, the conceptual capital costs in this scenario approached $544.0 million , dollars, as illustrated in Table 4-2. Scenario 3: Perris Valley Line/San Jacinto/Commuter Rail Scenario 3 assumes the extension of commuter rail service beyond South Perris to San Jacinto via the existing PVL alignment. Existing track infrastructure would be upgraded in a manner similar to that previously described to accommodate desired speeds. Given the level of service specified in this scenario, no passing sidings would ,be required and were not included in capital cost estimates. A layover yard consisting of four tracks constructed just north of the 7th Street crossing would be located in San Jacinto. Switch installation/replacement would consist of three new switches at the proposed layover yard and replacement of existing switches at each end of Winchester siding, as well as providing access to the concrete plant at San Jacinto. Draft Final Report, November 9, zoos RCTC Commuter Rail Feasibility Study 4-19 A total of 28 at -grade, highway -rail crossings would be upgraded, most likely with new ties and OTM, full -depth concrete panels as well as crossing signal protection upgrades and/or new installations. The three wooden trestles east of Romoland would be replaced with either concrete ballast deck bridges or pre -stressed concrete box culverts. Capital cost estimates reflect the assumption that about one culvert would need to be replaced every two miles. A complete, physical culvert inspection would refine this estimation; however, it is beyond the scope of this conceptual level analysis. Station construction would consist of three new locations at Winchester Road, Hemet Airport and San Jacinto. Complete new commuter style stations with all the amenities would be required. The entire line would receive new centralized traffic control (CTC) signals and each switch on line would have an electric -lock mechanism, not including the three switches associated with the layover yard. No earthwork is expected in connection with this scenario as no sidings are required and the track already exists. Since RCTC already owns the PVL, the only real estate cost is that of stations. New stations would receive the minimum 500 parking spaces with the exception of Hemet Airport, which would be allotted 800 spaces. After adding in the standard equipment cost estimate associated with commuter scenarios of $15.8 million, cost estimates in this scenario approached $111.5 million dollars. Scenario 4: Perris Valley Line/San Jacinto/Intracounty Rail Alternately, in Scenario 4 an Intracounty level of passenger rail service would be provided between Riverside and San Jacinto via the existing PVL track. Similar to Scenario 3, existing track infrastructure would be upgraded to handle desired speeds. Given the assumed level of service in this scenario, three total passing sidings would be required between Riverside and San Jacinto. Since the PVL proposes construction of two passing sidings between Riverside and South Perris, those same two sidings are assumed to be available to support the introduction of intracounty service, resulting in the construction of one additional 3,000 foot siding between Romoland and San Jacinto. The 3,000 foot siding length is assumed to be consistent with previous studies. Determining the exact location of the siding is not required at this juncture, only the capital costs that would be associated with its construction, which are included in this study. Location of the siding, however, could be critical to making running meets with opposing movements to maximize ridership attraction and retention through minimizing transit times. As in Scenario 3, a layover yard would be constructed just north of the 7t Street crossing in San Jacinto, consisting of four tracks. • • • • • • • 0600•00oaoa00000e®®veeooaeeoeo•00000e®000ceo Draft Final Report, November 9, 2005 RCTC Commuter Rail Feasibility Study 4-20 At -grade, highway -rail crossing, bridge and culvert estimates are the same as in Scenario 3. Scenario 4 would require the same station locations at Winchester Road, Hemet Airport and San Jacinto as in Scenario 3. In addition to those three locations, other stations would be constructed at Hemet (Downtown) and Van Buren Boulevard, bringing the total of newly constructed stations to five. The stations associated with this scenario would be of intracounty style at approximately half the cost of a commuter station but still complete with all the amenities. Again, the entire line would receive new CTC signalization and electric -lock switches would be at each end of Winchester siding as well as the concrete plant switch. Access to/from the new passing siding would be accomplished by traversing a new #20 type power turnout. Earthwork costs associated with the construction of a 3,000 foot passing siding are also included in this scenario. Purchase of an additional 25 feet of ROW is estimated in conjunction with the passing siding. The minimum amount of parking spaces per station is sufficient given projected ridership, which cost is included in standard station costs. Equipment costs in Scenario 4 are based on the estimated unit cost per train set of $7.8 million times the number of train sets required, which in this case is four, to arrive of an equipment total of $31.2 million, bringing the total estimated cost of Scenario 4 to about $125.2 million. Scenario 5: Perris Valley Line/Winchester Road - Route 79/ Temecula/Commuter Rail In Scenario 5 commuter rail service would be extended beyond South Perris toward Temecula via the existing PVL track between South Perris and Winchester along with totally new track constructed between Winchester and Temecula. Existing track infrastructure would be upgraded in a manner similar to that previously described to handle desired speeds. Given the assumed level of commuter service in Scenario 5, no passing sidings would be required and were not included in capital cost estimates. A layover yard consisting of four tracks constructed as near the end of track in Temecula as possible would be required. Depending on the location chosen for the layover yard, switch installation would consist of three or four new switches. Four switches are reflected in the layover yard capital cost estimates due to the growth projected to occur at Temecula and the potential difficulty of locating the layover yard near the end of track. One electric -lock switch is estimated to be required where the track curves toward the south away from the existing PVL with the straight side being oriented toward Temecula. One #20 power switch providing access to the layover yard is included in capital cost estimates. Draft Final Report, November 9, zoos RCTC Commuter Rail Feasibility Study _ 4-21 Twenty four at -grade, highway -rail crossings are estimated to need upgrading utilizing previously described components along with crossing signal protection upgrades and/or new installations. Capital costs reflect the construction of three overpasses at Scott Road, Briggs Road and Murrieta Hot Springs Road. The three wooden trestles east of Romoland are assumed to be replaced as in other scenarios with ballast deck bridges or pre -stressed concrete box culverts. In the area of entirely new track construction, it appears new bridge construction likely would occur over the San Diego Aqueduct (twice), twice over small streams and once over a large stream. Given the preliminary nature of this conceptual level initial study, major bridge construction estimates reflected the assumption 100 foot in connection with crossing the San Diego Aqueduct, 50 foot in connection with crossing a large stream and 25 feet in connection with crossing a small stream. Exact bridge dimensions would require further significant study and are beyond the scope of this project. Capital cost estimates reflect one culvert replaced every two miles in existing track. Four culverts per mile are estimated in connection with entirely new track construction. A complete, physical culvert inspection would be required to refine these estimates. Station construction would consist of three new locations at Winchester Road/Newport Road, Benton Road and Winchester Road/Temecula. Complete, new commuter style stations with all the amenities would be constructed. The entire new portion (non-PVL) 20.5 mile line would receive new centralized traffic control (CTC) signals as in Scenario 3 and 4. The switch diverging from the existing PVL would have an electric -lock mechanism while the switch providing access to the layover yard would be remotely controlled. Significant earthwork is expected in connection with this scenario as new track construction would diverge from the existing PVL track west of Winchester, cut across the flat area and shadow State Route 79 toward Temecula. The route alignment chosen will affect greatly the amount of required earthwork along with the culverts and bridges associated with the optimal alignment. Recognizing these constraints, capital costs reflect an estimate of $350,000 per mile of earthwork in connection with new track constructed. The real estate assumed to be purchased in this scenario is expected to approach 98 acres including fifteen acres related to station construction and four acres hosting the layover yard. Winchester Road station utilized the minimum 500 parking spaces while Benton Road required 100 additional spaces and Temecula is estimated to need 200 spaces above the standard 500 spaces. Equipment costs are estimated at $15.8 million, making the total estimated capital costs in this scenario approximately $203.6 million. 11•••••i•i•••••••••••••••1•••••••••••••••••i• 000:0e040eo00e0o0e4104eoe9e0009004400eoee000005e Draft Final Report, November 9, 2005 RCTC Commuter Rail Feasibility Study 4-22 Scenario 6: Perris Valley Line/Winchester Road - Route 79/ Temecula/lntracounty Rail Conversely, Scenario 6 proposes an intracounty level of rail service be provided between Riverside and Temecula via the existing PVL track between South Perris and Winchester as well as on totally new track constructed between Winchester and Temecula. Existing track infrastructure would be upgraded similar to that previously described to handle desired speeds. Given the assumed level of intracounty service in Scenario 6, five passing sidings would be required, of which three are included in the capital cost estimates. As previously mentioned, it is assumed that the two sidings proposed in the PVL would be utilized to reduce the amount of new siding construction. A layover yard consisting of four tracks constructed at or near the end of track in Temecula also would be required, as in Scenario 5. Again, four switches were accessed via a #20 power switch at the layover yard are included in the capital costs due to the potential difficulty of locating the layover yard near the end of track. Similar to Scenario 5, one electric -lock switch is assumed to be required where the track curves toward the south away from the existing PVL line toward Temecula. Scenarios 5 and 6 include the same at -grade, highway -rail crossing, bridge and culvert estimates as the alignment, upgrades and new construction are identical.. Five new station locations at Winchester Road/Newport Road, Scott Road, Benton Road, Murrieta Hot Springs Road and Winchester Road/Temecula would be constructed between South Perris and Temecula. One new additional station would be constructed between South Perris and Riverside at Van Buren Boulevard, bringing the total to six new intracounty style stations with all amenities. The entire new portion (non-PVL) 20.5 mile line would receive new centralized traffic control (CTC) signals as in Scenario 5. Significant additional signal expense is associated with turnouts at each end of the three additional sidings. Although not finalized at this conceptual study, level it is believed that two of the three sidings would be constructed between South Perris and Temecula with the third constructed between South Perris and Riverside. As in Scenario 5, significant earthwork is expected to be required in this scenario because new track construction would diverge from the existing PVL track west of Winchester, cut across the flat area as previously discussed and shadow State Route 79 toward Temecula. The route alignment chosen will affect greatly the amount of required earthwork along with the culverts and bridges associated with the optimal alignment. Similar earthwork estimates are made with respect to Scenario 6, with the addition of the earthwork associated with the construction of three additional passing sidings, necessary to accommodate trains operating in opposing directions. The only difference in right-of-way issues and costs as between Scenario 5 and 6 is an allotment of 25 additional feet for the passing sidings in Scenario 6. Draft Final Report, November 9, 2005 RCTC Commuter Rail Feasibility Study 4-23 All proposed stations again utilize the standard 500 minimum parking spaces that are included in station capital costs. Scenario 6 would require six train sets and, as such, equipment costs are estimated at approximately $46.8 million dollars. Scenario 6 estimated capital costs totalled $248.0 million dollars. Scenario 7: Perris Valley Line-1-215/Temecula/Commuter Rail In Scenario 7, commuter rail service would be extended beyond South Perris toward Temecula via the 1-215 corridor, exiting the PVL track just east of Romoland with totally new track being constructed the entire length to Temecula. Depending on the point of exit from the existing PVL track up to one -quarter mile, of existing track infrastructure would be upgraded in a manner similar to that previously described to handle desired speeds between that point and South Perris. All new track would be constructed as previously described. Given the assumed level of commuter service in Scenario 7, no passing sidings would be required nor were included in capital cost estimates. A layover yard consisting of four tracks constructed as near the end of track in Temecula as possible would be furnished. Switch installation again was assumed to consist of four new switches at the proposed layover yard. One electric -lock switch was assumed to be required where the track curves south toward Temecula with the straight side being oriented toward Temecula (if possible) and a power switch providing access to the layover yard. Recognizing that Scenario 7 utilizes a conceptual alignment, at -grade, highway -rail crossings were estimated and the actual route alignment may dictate that what is assumed to be a road crossing may actually, ultimately, be an overpass. Specifically, Ethanic Road is in the vicinity of where any new track would veer toward Temecula away form the existing PVL track and may or may not be an actual at -grade crossing. The capital costs reflect that the new track will exit the PVL shortly after crossing Ethanic Road and therefore are shown as an at -grade crossing. For estimation purposes, the alignment was assumed to proceed south just east of the hospital on McCall Boulevard. Choosing this route limits to two the number of existing roads that must be crossed between the PVL exit switch and McCall Boulevard. It is estimated that after going over McCall, the route alignment would veer southeast shadowing 1-215 to the east of the major development around Menifee. Utilizing this alignment, possibly only one other at -grade crossing may be necessary before reaching Newport Road where, again, an overpass would be constructed. Were the route alignment to stay to the west of Briggs Road, track may be constructed that would veer southwest, skirting some development to the west and after crossing Garboni and Haleblian Roads could approach the 1-215 and either be constructed in its right-of-way or at least be seen from the road. Scott Road is the next major road encountered and an overpass would need to be constructed to traverse it. Were the new track tucked into the 1-215 ROW envelope, Antelope Road would have to be traversed. Optimally, both Antelope and Scott Roads could be bridged also at the same time so the capital cost reflects a slightly longer overpass at this location. Clinton Keith Road would be the next road crossing e••••••••••••••••►006••••••••••••••••f••••••• e0ao0000000000000a0Q0e0©ooeo0000000000e00eoo Draft Final Report, November 9, 2005 RCTC Commuter Rail Feasibility Study 4-24 encountered and it too would need an overpass. The cost of additional overpasses at Los Alamos Road and Murrieta Hot Springs Road are also estimated in this scenario and Scenario 8. The capital costs reflect new track being built in the 1-215 ROW between about Scott Road and where it would veer off the ROW to end near Temecula. Capital cost estimates reflect 18 lanes of at -grade, highway -rail crossing expenses. The three wooden trestles east of Romoland may have to be replaced, depending on the exit point from the PVL and are estimated to be replaced with ballast deck bridges or pre -stressed concrete box culverts. In the area of entirely new track construction, it appears new bridge construction would be necessary near Temecula over the Warm Spring Creek and estimated to require a 50 foot crossing. Exact bridge dimensions would require further significant study and are beyond the scope of this conceptual approach. Capital cost estimates reflect four culverts per mile estimated in connection with entirely new track construction. Station construction would consist of three new locations at Newport Road, Clinton Keith Road and Winchester Road/Temecula. Complete, new commuter style stations with all amenities would be constructed. The entire new 16.5 mile line would receive new centralized traffic control (CTC) signals. The switch diverging from the existing PVL east of Romoland would have an electric -lock mechanism. Significant earthwork is expected in connection with this scenario as new track construction would diverge from the existing PVL track east of Romoland, follow a route similar to that described above; approach 1-215 and shadow 1-215 toward Temecula. The route alignment chosen will affect greatly the amount of required earthwork along with the culverts and bridges associated with the optimal alignment. Recognizing those constraints, capital costs reflected an earthwork estimate of $350,000 per mile of new track constructed. The Scenario 7 real estate purchase was expected to approach 119 acres, based upon an assumed 50 foot roadbed construction right-of-way, five acres per station location and four acres allotted to the layover yard. Scenario 7 capital costs include the provision of 800 additional parking spaces above the 500 spaces estimated at each new station location, consistent with projected ridership estimates. The Temecula station would require 100 additional spaces, 200 extra spaces at Clinton Keith and 500 spaces above the standard estimated at Newport Road station. Scenario 7 equipment requirements were assumed to equal the standard cost estimate of a commuter train set, $15.8 million. The total estimated cost or Scenario 7 is $249.4 million. Draft Final Report, November v, 2005 RCTC Commuter Rail Feasibility Study 4-25 Scenario 8_ Perris Valley Line - 1-215/Temecula//ntracounty Rail Scenario 8 follows the same route as Scenario 7 and many items are similar. Main track construction and the PVL switch exit point would be the same as in Scenario 7. The obvious difference is that Scenario 8 requires more infrastructure to accommodate the higher level of train operations assumed in intracounty service, requiring a total of four passing sidings. Capital cost estimates reflect the construction of two additional sidings above that proposed in the PVL. The proposed layover yard, consisting of four tracks constructed as near the end of track in Temecula as possible would be fumished, as in Scenario 7. Switch installation again consists of four new switches in connection with the proposed layover yard along with one electric -lock switch where the track curves south toward Temecula. Four additional #20 type switches providing access to the two additional passing sidings were included in this scenario as well as the same entrance switch to the layover yard. Similarly, Scenario 8 utilized the same at -grade, highway -rail crossings as in Scenario 7 Capital cost estimates reflected 18 lanes of at -grade, highway -rail crossings. Bridge and culvert capital costs were the same in Scenario 8 as they were in Scenario 7. Station construction would consist of seven new locations at Van Buren Boulevard, McCall Boulevard, Newport Road, Scott Road, Clinton Keith Road, Murrieta Hot Springs Road and Winchester Road/Temecula. Complete, new intracounty style stations with all amenities were assumed to be constructed. The entire new portion (non-PVL) 16.5 mile line would receive new centralized traffic control (CTC) signals. The switch diverging from the existing PVL east of Romoland would have an electric -lock mechanism and the switches providing access to the two new passing sidings would be #20 type power switches as well as the entrance to the layover yard. Significant earthwork is expected in this scenario, similar to that in Scenario 7 and would follow the same route alignment. Additional ROW is considered to be necessary to construct the passing sidings and following the same methodology utilized in the other scenarios, five acres per new station constructed and 25 foot of additional ROW were assumed to be required in conjunction with each passing siding. All stations are assumed to utilize the 500 parking spaces estimated in station capital costs with the exception of Temecula which was assumed to require 200 additional spaces beyond the norm. S•••••••••••••••`s••••••••••••••••••••••••••• oeoeeeeeee000eeoeeseeeeeeeeeeeeeeeooeeeeeeee Draft Final Report, November 9, 2005 RCTC Commuter Rail Feasibility Study 4-26 Given that five train sets are required to accomplish this scenario at a unit cost of $7.8 each, the total equipment capital requirement was estimated at $39.0 million. Total capital costs in Scenario 8 are estimated at about $287.0 million. 0000 1000000000000090000000000e00000ev( Scenario 1 Table 4 - 2 Conceptual Capital Costs Commuter Rall Service between Banning and Riverside Banning to Riverside 34.50 Miles 182,160 Feet Category Item Unit Unit Price Quantity Cost Track work Construct main track TF $174 182,160 $31,696,000 (note 1) Construct side track TF 174 3,000 522,000 Upgrade existing track TF 139 0 Total track 32,218,000 Turnouts Construct #20 tumout EA 406,000 11 4,466,000 (note 2) Construct #10 tumout EA 158,000 Construct# 10 tumout (yard) EA 53,000 3 159,000 Total turnouts 4,625,000 At -grade, highway -rail crossings Concrete panel crossing members TF 359 1,637 588,000 (note 3) Total at -grade, highway -rail crossings 588,000 Structures Construct overhead bridge at TF 106,000 0 (note 4) Construct railroad bridge (major) TF 13,000 3,400 44,200,000 Construct railroad bridge (minor) TF 3,500 0 Total structures 44,200,000 Drainage Install culverts EA 7,500 0 (note 5) Extend culverts EA 3,500 138 483,000 Total drainage 483,000 Stations Construct new station (Commuter style) EA 8,000,000 4 32,000,000 (note 6) Construct new station (Intracounty style) EA 4,000,000 0 Renew existing station EA 100,000 0 Total stations 32,000,000 Signal work Signal track Mile 1,000,000 34.5 34,500,000 (note 7) Control point signaling EA 422,000 11 4,642,000 Electric -lock for switch EA 100,000 At -grade, highway -rail crossing signaling EA 211,000 51 10,761,000 Total signal 49,903,000 Earthwork Embankment/foundation work (new) LS/Mile 350,000 0 (note 8) Embankment/foundation work (existing) LS/Mile 50,000 34,5 1,725,000 Total earthwork 1,725,000 Right-of-way Purchase Acre 179,000 24 4,296,000 (note 9) Easements Acre 143,000 167 23,881,000 Relocation LS 100,000 14 1,400,000 Total right-of-way _ - 29,577,000 Specialty Items Parking areas at stations (greater than 500 spaces) EA 5,000 0 0 (note 10) Layover Yard facilities and Improvements LS 600,000 1 600,000 Total specialty items - 600,000 Estimated Construction Costs - 195,919,000 Engineering/Mobilization/Demobilization/Construction Management (% of Construction) 15 % 29,388,000 Total Construction 225,307,000 Contingencies (% of Construction) 30% 58,776,000 Total Estimated Construction Costs (Including Engineering, Construction Management and Contingencie 284,083,000 Note 1: Assume a new main track is built the entire length of the route as well as a layover facility with four tracks east of Banning. Note 2: One entrance switch just north of current Riverside station, 2 - double crossovers between Colton and Banning (4 switches each), one switch providing entrance to a layover yard and . one power switch tying in the commuter track with the UP main. Three yard track switches in the layover yard. Note 3: Rebuild/upgrade all crossings between Riverside and Banning. Using FRA crossing data, 124 lanes (12 feet each assumed) plus 10% for sidewalks and variances. Note 4: Construct two major bridges over Santa Ana River (0.25 and 0,375 miles long) and one malor bridge over San Gorgonio River lust east of Banning. Note 5: Assume 4 culverts per mile are extended. Note 6: Build four new commuter -style stations. Note 7: Assume new signal system over entire 34.5 miles, power switches at the entrance to the new track just north of Riverside, 2 new double crossovers, the entrance to a layover yard and where the new commuter track ties back Into UP main, east of Banning. New crossing signals/upgrades at each public crossing. Note 8: Minor earthwork could be required over the entire length of this scenario. Note 9: Assume 40 foot of right-of-way easements rights. One lump sum relocation amount per over/under crossing. Assume five acres purchased per station and four acres at the layover Note 10: Assume 500 parking spaces per station location Included in station estimate above (per RCTC) and one lump sum amount for layover yard facilities and improvements:. - 000000 Table 4.3 Conceptual Capital Costs Commuter Ral(Service between Indio and Riverside Scenario 2 Indio to Riverside 76.50 Miles 403.920 Feel Category . - --`- Item Unit Unit Price Quantity Cost Track work Construct main track TF $174 403,920 $70,283,000 (note 1) Construct side track TF 174 3,000 522,000 Upgrade existing track • TF 139 0 Total track 70,805,000 Turnouts Construct it 20 tumout EA 406,000 23 9,338.000 (note 2) Construct it 10 tumout EA 158,000 _ 0 Construct# 10 tumout (yard) EA 53,000 3 159,000 Total turnouts 9,497,000 At -grade, highway -rail crossings Concrete panel crossing members TF 359 1,848 664,000 (note 3) Total at -grade, highway -rail crossings 664,000 Structures Construct overhead bridge at TF 106,000 100 10,600,000 (note 4) - Construct railroad bridge (major) TF 13,000 3,575 46,475,000 Construct railroad bridge (minor) TF 3,500 0 Total structures 57,075,000 Drainage Install culverts EA 7,500 0 (note 5) Extend culverts EA 3,500 306 _ 1,071,000 Total drainage 1,071,000 Stations Construct new station (Commuter style) EA . 8,000,000 7 • 56,000,000 (note 8) Construct new station (Intracounty style) EA 4,000,000 0 Add second platform and pedestrian overpass EA 2,183,000 1 2,183,000 Renew existing station EA 100,000 1 100,000 Total stations 58,283,000 Signal work Signal hack - Mile 1,000,000 76.5 76,500,000 (note 7) Control point signaling EA 422,000 23 9,706,000 Electric -lock for switch EA 100.000 0 At -grade, highway -rail crossing signaling EA 211,000 55 11,605,000 Total signal 97,811,000 Earthwork Embankment/foundation work (new) LS/Mile 350,000 0 (note 8) Embankment/foundation work(existing) LS/Mile 50.000 76.5 3,825,000 Total earthwork 3,825,000 Right-of-way Purchase Acre 179,000 44 7,876,000 (note 9) Easements Acre • 143,000 371 53.053.000 Relocation LS 100,000 22 2,200,000 Total right-of-way 63,129,000 Specialty Items Parking areas at stations(greater than 500 spaces) LS/EA 5,000 300 1,500,000 (note 10) Layover Yard facilities and Improvements LS 600,000 1 600,000 Total specialty Items 2,100,000 Estimated Construction Costs 364,260,000 Engineering/Mobilization/Demobilization/Construction Management(% of. Construction) 15% 54,639,000 Total Construction 418,899,000 Contingencies(% of Construction) 30% 109,278,000 Total Estimated Construction Costs (Including Engineering, Construction Management and Contingencies) 528,177,000 Note 1: Assume a new main track is built the entire length of the route as well as a layover facility with four tracks east of Indio. Note 2: One entrance switch Just north of current Riverside station, 5 • double crossovers between Colton and Indio (4 switches each), one switch providing entrance to a layover yard and one power switch tying in the commuter track with the UP main. 'Three yard track switches in layover yard. Note 3: Rebuild/upgrade all crossings between Riverside and Indio. Using FRA crossing data, 140 lanes (12 feet each assumed) plus 10% for sidewalks and variances. Note 4: Construct two major bridges over Santa Ana River (0.25 and 0.375 miles long) and one major bridge over San Gorgonio River just east of Banning. Install five minor bridges and one major length bridge between Banning and Indio. Rebuild one overhead bridge at Jefferson Street at Indio. - Note 5: Assume 4 culverts per mile are extended, _ Note 6: Build seven new commuter -style stations and upgrade existing Amtrak station at Palm Springs along with adding second platform and pedestrian overpass (complete). Note 7: Assume new signal system over entire 76.5 miles, power switches at the entrance to new track Just north of Riverside, 5 new double crossovers, the entrance to a layover yard and where the new commuter track ties back into UP main, east of Banning. New crossing signals/upgrades at each public crossing. Note 0: Minor earthwork could be required over the entire length of this scenario. Note 9: Assume 40 foot of right-of-way easements rights. One lump sum relocation amount per over/under crossing. Assume five acres purchased per station and four acres at the layover Note 10: Assume 500 parking spaces per station included in station cost above with the exception of Indio, which has an additional 300, and one lump sum amount for layover yard facilities and improvements. Table 4 -4 Conceptual Capital Costs - Commuter Rail Service between San Jacinto and Riverside - enano 3� ' San Jacinto to Riverside 39.50 Miles 208,560 Feet Category _ Item Unit Unit Price - Quantity Cost Track work Construct main track TF $174 $0 (note 1) Construct side track TF 174 3,000 522,000 Upgrade existing track TF 139 87,120 12,110,000 Total track 12,632,000 Turnouts Construct # 20 turnout EA 406,000 0 (note 2) Construct # 10 turnout EA 158,000 3 474,000 Construct # 10 turnout (yard) EA. 53,000 3 159,000 Total turnouts 633,000 At -grade, highway -rail crossings Concrete panel crossing members TF 359 792 285,000 (note 3) Total at -grade, highway -rail crossings 285,000 Structures Construct overhead bridge at TF 106,000 0 (note 4) - Construct railroad bridge (major) TF 13,000 0 Construct railroad bridge (minor) TF 3,500 60 210,000 Total structures 210,000 Drainage Install culverts EA 7,500 8 60,000 (note 5) Extend culverts EA 3,500 0 Total drainage 60,000 Stations Construct new station (Commuter style) EA 8,000,000 3 24,000,000 (note 6) Construct new station (Intracounty style) EA _ 4,000,000 0 Renew existing station EA 100,000 0 Total stations 24,000,000 Signal work Signal track Mile 1,000,000 16.5 16,500,000 (note 7) Control point signaling EA 422,000 0 Electric -lock for switch - EA 100,000 3 300,000 At -grade, highway -rail crossing signaling EA 211,000 28 5,908,000 Total signal 22,708,000 Earthwork Embankment/foundation work (new) LS/Mile 350,000 0 (note 8) Embankmentlfoundation work (existing) LS/Mile 50,000 0 Total earthwork 0 Right-of-way Purchase Acre 179,000 19 3,401,000 (note 9) Easements Acre 143,000 - 0 Relocation Acre 100,000 0 Total right-of-way 3,401,000 Specialty Items Parking areas at stations LS/EA 5,000 300 1,500,000 (note 10) Layover Yard facilities and Improvements LS 600,000 1 - 600,000 Total specialty items _ 2,100,000 Estimated Construction Costs - 66,029,000 Engineering/Mobilization/Demobilization/Construction Management(% of Construction) 15% 9,904,000 Total Construction 75,933,000 Contingencies (% of Construction) 30% - - 19,809,000 Total Estimated Construction Costs (Including Engineering, Construction Management and Contingencie 95,742,000 Note 1: Upgrade 16.5 miles of track between South Perris and San Jacinto. Construct four side tracks at the layover facility. Note 2: Construct three switches to a layover yard just north of 7th Street, one switch at each end of Winchester siding and one switch at a San Jacinto concrete plant. Note 3: Rebuild/upgrade all crossings between 1-215 (Romoland) and 7th Street (San Jacinto). Using FRA crossing data, 60 lanes (12 feet each assumed) plus 10% for sidewalks and variances. Note 4: Construct three minor bridges at MP 23.7 (one span), MP 23.9 (one span) and MP 24.0 (four span). Note 5: Assume complete replacement of one culvert every two miles. Note 6: Build three new commuter -style stations. Note 7: Assume new signal system over entire 16.5 miles, electric -lock switches to the concrete plant and at both ends of Winchester siding as well as new crossing signals/upgrades at all public crossings. Note 8: No earthwork should be required in this scenario. - Note 9: RCTC already owns the PVL. Assume five acres purchased at each station and four acres at the layover yard. Note 10: Assume one lump sum amount for layover yard facilities and improvements and 500 parking spaces at the Winchester station and at San Jacinto (included instation costs above) and 300 additional spaces at Hemet Airport (above the 500 minimum required spaces). .. ..:._ 000000 0 0A00000000000 e 5 r 00000 Conceptual Capital Costs Intracounty Rail Service between San Jacinto and Riverside San Jacinto to Riverside 39.50 Miles 208,560 Feet Category--- - Item - - Unit -Unit. Price_ . Quantity.. Cost Track work (note 1) Construct main track Construct side track Upgrade existing track Total track TF TF TF $174 174 139 6,000 87,120 $0 1,044,000 12,110,000 13,154,000 Turnouts (note 2) Construct # 20 turnout Construct # 10 turnout Construct # 10 turnout (yard) Total turnouts EA EA EA 406,000 158,000 53,000 2 3 3 812,000 474,000 159,000 1,445,000 At -grade, highway -rail crossings (note 3) Structures (note 4) Concrete panel crossing members _ Total at -grade, highway -rail crossings Construct overhead bridge at Construct railroad bridge (major) Construct railroad bridge (minor) Total structures TF TF TF TF 359 106,000 13,000 3,500 792 60 285,000 285,000 0 0 210,000 210,000 Drainage (note 5) Install culverts Extend culverts Total drainage EA EA 7,500 3,500 8 60,000 0 60,000 Stations (note 6) Construct new station (Commuter style) Construct new station (Intracountystyle) Renew existing station Total stations EA EA EA 8,000,000 4,000,000 100,000 5 0 20,000,000 0 20,000,000 Signal work (note 7) Signal track Control point signaling Electric -lock for switch At -grade, highway -rail crossing signaling Total signal Mile EA EA EA 1,000,000 422,000 100,000 211,000 16.5 2 3 28 16,500,000 844,000 300,000 5,908,000 23,552,000 Earthwork (note 8) Embankment/foundation work (new) Embankment/foundation work (existing) Total earthwork LS/Mile LS/Mile 350,000 50,000 0.6 0 29,000 29,000 Right-of-way (note 9) Purchase Easements Relocation Total right-of-way Acre Acre Acre 179,000 143,000 100,000 31 5,500,000 0 0 5,500,000 Specialty Items (note 10) Parking areas at stations Layover Yard facilities and Improvements Total specialty items LS/EA LS 5,000 600,000 0 1 0 600,000 soo,o0o Estimated Construction Costs 64,835,000 Engineering/MobilizationlDemobillzation/Construction Management (Vo of Construction) 15% 9,725,000 Total Construction 74,560,000 Contingencies (% of Construction) 30% - 19,451,000 Total Estimated Construction Costs (Including Engineering, Construction Management and Contingencies) 94,011,000 Note 1: Note 2: Note 3: Note 4: Note 5: Note 6: Note 7: Note 8: Note 9: Note 10: Upgrade 16.5 miles of track between South Perris and San Jacinto. Construct four side tracks at a layover facility plus one 3,000 foot passing siding. Construct three switches to a layover yard Just north of 7th Street, one electric -lock switch at San Jacinto concrete plant and each end of Winchester siding. One power switch is required at each end of the new passing siding. - Rebuild/upgrade all crossings between 1-215.(Romoland) and 7th Street (San Jacinto). Using FRA crossing data, 60 lanes (12 feet each assumed) plus 10% far sidewalks and variances. Construct three minor bridges at MP-23.7 (one span), MP 23.9 (one span) and MP 24.0.(four span). Assume complete replacement of one culvert every two miles. Build five new Intracounty-style stations. Assume new signal system over the entire 16.5 miles, control point access at each end of new passing siding, electric -lock switches at the concrete plant and both ends of Winchester siding as well as new crossing signals/upgrades at all public crossings. Only earthwork in this scenario is associated withconstruction of a 3,000 foot siding. RCTC already owns the PVL. Assume five acres purchased at each station and four acres at layover yard. Assume purchase of additional 25 foot ROW for passing siding. Assume 500 parking spaces per station location (included In station cost above) and one lump sum amount for layover yard facilities and Improvements. 1004040------ - - 000000.0 - Table--6 Conceptual Capital Costs Commuter Rail Service between Temecula and Riverside via Winchester Road ,Sc :rio , Temecula to Riverside 43.50 Miles 229,680 Feet Category----, ---------- ----- Item-------- ----- - --- ---- - - - - Unit - Unit Price --Quantity - - - - - Cost -_ Track work Construct main track TF $174 68,640 $11,944,000 (note 1) Construct side track TF 174 3,000 522,000 Upgrade existing track TF 139 39,600 5,505,000 Total track 17,971,000 Turnouts Construct # 20 tumout EA 406,000 1 406,000 (note 2) Construct # 10 turnout EA 158,000 1, 158,000 Construct # 10 turnout (yard) EA 53,000 3 159,000 - Total turnouts 723,000 At -grade, highway -rail crossings Concrete panel crossing members TF 359 634 228,000 (note 3) Total at -grade, highway -rail crossings 228,000 Structures Construct overhead bridge at TF 106,000 300 - 31,800,000 (note 4) Construct railroad bridge (major) TF 13.000 300 3,900,000 Construct railroad bridge (minor) TF 3,500 60 210,000 Total structures 35,910,000 Drainage Install culverts EA 7,500 56 420,000 (note 5) Extend culverts EA 3,500 0 Total drainage 420,000 Stations Construct new station(Commuter style) _ EA 8,000,000 3 24,000,000 (note 6) Construct new station (Intracounty style) EA 4,000,000 0 Renew existing station EA 100,000 0 Total stations 24,000,000 Signal work Signal track Mile 1,000,000 20,5 20,500,000 (note 7) Control point signaling EA 422.000 1 422,000 Electric -lock for switch EA 100,000 1 100,000 At -grade, highway -rail crossing signaling EA 211,000 24 5,064,000 Total signal 26,086,000 Earthwork Embankment/foundation work (new) LS/Mile 350.000 13 4,550,000 (note 8) Embankment/foundation work (existing) LS/Mile 50,000 0 Total earthwork 4,550,000 Right-of-way Purchase Acre 179,000 98 17,505,000 (note 9) Easements Acre 143,000 0 Relocation Acre 100,000 . 0 Total right-of-way 17,505,000 Specialty Items Parking areas at stations LS/EA 5,000 300 1,500,000 (note 10) Layover Yard facilities and Improvements LS 600,000 1 600,000 _ Total specialty Items - 2,100.000 Estimated Construction Costs 129.493,000 Engineering/Mobilization/Demobilization/Construction Management (% of Construction) 15% 19,423,950 Total Construction 148,916,950 Contingencies (%of Construction) 30% - 38,847,900 Total Estimated Construction Costs (Including Engineering, Construction Management and Contingencie: 187,764,850 Note 1: Upgrade 7.5 miles of track between South Perris and Winchester. Construct 0.5 miles of new track to approach St. Rt 79 and then 12.5 miles of new track shadowing St. RI.79. Construct four side tracks at a layover facility. Note 2: Construct three switches at layover yard as near the end of track as possible in Temecula and one electric -lock switch where track would branch toward Temecula (straight side toward Temecula). One power switch Is estimated to provide access to a layover yard. Note 3: Rebuild/upgrade all crossings between 1.215 (Romoland) and Winchester. Using FRA crossing data, 141anes (12 feet each assumed) on existing railroad track, plus 34 additional lanes toward Temecula plus 10% for sidewalks and variances. Note 4: Constrict three minor bridges at MP 23.7 (one span), MP 23.9 (one span) and MP 24.0 (four span) on existingPVL track. Construct new bridges over the San Diego Aqueduct (2), small stream (2) and one large stream. Routing will determine bridge requirements. Build three overpasses over Scott Road, Briggs Road and Munieta Hot Springs Road. , Note 5: Assume complete replacement of one culvert every two miles of existing track and an average of four culverts per mile of new constructor Note 6: Build three new commuter -style stations - Note 7: Assume new signal system over the entire 20.5 miles, electric4ock at the switch heading toward Temecula. New crossing signals/upgrades at all public crossings. Assume one control poir for access into layover yard, Note 8: Earthwork in this scenario is associated with construction of 13.0 miles of new track Note 9: Assume five acres purchased at each station and four acres at the layover yard. Assume 50 foot width ROW necessary for new construction Note 10: Assume 100 additional parking spaces at the Benton Road station and 200 additional at the Temecula station above the standard 500 parking spaces that is included in station cost above. One lump sum amount for layover yard facilities and. improvements Is provided t QO000 Table 4 • 7 Conceptual Capital Costs Intracounty Rail Service between Temecula and Riverside via Winchester Road -Scenario - Temecula to Riverside 43.50 Miles 229,680 Feet Category_______ ________ _- .._..Item_ _ ____-___. - -. __ ___.-_ __ -- .Unit- Unit Price- -Quantity ._.__. .__.Cost'- Track work Construct main track TF $174 68,640 $11,944,000 (note 1) Construct side track TF 174 12,000 2,088,000 Upgrade existing track TF 139 39,600 5,505,000 Total track 19,537,000 Turnouts Construct # 20 turnout EA 406,000 7 2,842,000 (note 2) Construct # 10 turnout EA 158,000 1 158,000 Construct # 10 turnout (yard) - EA 53,000 3 159,000 Total turnouts 3,159,000 At -grade, highway -rail crossings Concrete panel crossing members TF 359 634 228,000 (note 3) Total at•grada, highway -rail crossings 228,000 Structures Construct overhead bridge at TF 106,000 300 31.800,000 (note 4) Construct railroad bridge (major) TF 13,000 300 3,900,000 Construct railroad bridge (minor) TF 3,500 60 210,000 Total structures 35,910,000 Drainage Install culverts EA 7,500 56 420,000 (note 5) Extend culverts EA 3,500 0 Total drainage 420,000 Stations Construct new station (Commuter style) EA 8,000,000 0 (note 6) Construct new station (Intracounly style) EA 4,000.000 6 24,000,000 Renew existing station EA 100,000 0 Total stations 24,000,000 Signal work Signal track Mlle 1,000,000 20.5 20,500,000 (note 7) Control point signaling EA 422,000 7 2,954,000 Electric -lock for switch EA 100,000 1 100,000 At -grade, highway -rail crossing signaling EA 211,000 24 5,064,000 Total signal 28,618,000 Earthwork Embankment/foundation work (new) LS/Mile 350.000 14.7 5,147,000 (note 8) Embankment/foundation work (existing) LS/Mile 50,000 0 Total earthwork - 5,147,000 Right-of-way Purchase Acre 179,000 118 21,114,000 (note 9) Easements Acre 143,000 0 Relocation Acre 100,000 _ 0 Total right•of•way 21,114,000 Specialty Items Parking areas at stations LS/EA 5,000 0 0 (note 10) - Layover Yard facilities and Improvements LS 600,000 1 600,000 _ Total specialty items 600,000 Estimated Construction Costs 138,733,000 EngineeringlMobillzatlonlDemobilization/Constructlon Management (% of Construction) 15% 20,809,960 Total Construction 159,542,950 Contingencies (%. of Construction) 30% 41,619,900 Total Estimated Construction Costs (Including Engineering, Construction Management and Contingencie: 201,162,850 Note 1: Upgrade 7,5 miles of track behveen South Perils and Winchester. Construct about 0.5 miles of new track to approach St. Rt. 79 and then 12.5 miles of new track shadowing St. Rt. 79. Construct four side tracks at a layover yard. Construct 3 passing sidings of 3,000 feet each. Note 2: Construct three switches at layover yard as near the end of track as possible in Temecula and one electric -lock switch where track would branch toward Temecula (straight side toward Temecula). One power switch provides access to a layover yard and each end of the three passing sidings. Note 3: Rebuild/upgrade all crossings between 1-215 (Romoland) and Winchester. Using FRA crossing data, 141anes (12 feet each assumed) on existing railroad track, plus 34 additional lanes toward Temecula plus 10% for sidewalks and variances. Note 4: Construct three minor bridges at MP 237 (one span), MP 23.9 (one span) and MP 24.0 (four span) on existing PVL track. Construct new bridges over the San Diego Aqueduct (2), small stream (2) and one large stream. Routing will determine bridge requirements. Build three overpasses over Scott Road, Briggs Road and Murrleta Hot Springs Road.. Note 5: Assume complete replacement of one culvert every two miles of existing track and an average of four culverts per mile of new constructior Note 6: Build six new Intracounty-style stations Note 7: Assume new signal system over the entire 20.5 miles, electric -lock at the switch heading toward Temecula. New crossing signals/upgrades at all public crossings. Assume one control poir at each end of the three passing sidings and entrance into layover yard; Note 8: Earthwork in this scenario is associated with construction of 13.0 miles of new track and three, 3,000 foot passing sidingi Nate 9: Assume five acres purchased for each station and four acres at the layover yard. Assume 50 foot width ROW necessary for new construction. Assume additional 25 foot ROW required for • passing sidings. - Note 10: Assume 500 parking spaces at all new stations included In station costs above. One lump sum amount for layover yard facilities and improvements is provided. Table 4. 8 Conceptual Capital Costs Commuter Rail Service behveen Temecula and Riverside via l-215 Corridor Scenario 7 Temecula to Riverside. 39,50 Miles 208,560 Feet Category-: -- " - - ""- - - - - Item-- - -- - - -- - _ _ _ Unit-- -Unit Price- Quantity',---- - - -- Cost- --- ---- Track work Construct main track TF $174 85,800 $14,930,000 (note 1) Construct side track TF 174 3,000 522,000 Upgrade existing track TF 139 1,320 184,000 Total track 15,636,000 Turnouts Construct # 20 turnout EA 406,000 1 406,000 (note 2) Construct # 10 turnout EA . 158,000 1 158.000 Construct # 10 turnout (yard) FA 53,000 3 159,000 _ Total turnouts 723,000 At -grade, highway -rail crossings Concrete panel crossing members TF 359 238 86,000 (note 3) Total at -grade, highway -rail crossings 86,000 Structures Construct overhead bridge at TF 106,000 650 68,900,000 (note 4) Construct railroad bridge (major) TF 13,000 50 650,000 Construct railroad bridge (minor) TF 3,500 60 210,000 Total structures 69,760,000 Drainage Install culverts E4 7,500 65 488,000 (note 5) Extend culverts EA 3,500 0 Total drainage 488,000 Stations Construct new station (Commuter style) FA 8,000,000 3 24,000,000 (note 6) Construct new station (Intracounly style) FA 4,000,000 0 Renew existing station EA 100,000 0 - Total stations 24,000,000 Signal work Signal track Mile 1,000,000 16.5 - 16,500,000 (note 7) Control point signaling EA 422,000 1 422,000 Electric -lack for switch EA 100,000 1 100,000 At -grade, highway -rail crossing signaling FA 211,000 8 1,688,000 Total signal 18,710,000 Earthwork Embankment/foundation work (new) LS/Mlle 350,000 16.5 5,775,000 (note 8) Embankment/foundation work (existing) LS/Mile 50,000 0 Total earthwork 5,775,000 Right-of-way Purchase Acre 179,000 119 27,301,000 (note 9) Easements Acre 143,000 0 Relocation Acre 100,000 0 Total right-of-way 21,301,000 Specialty Items Parking areas at stations LS/EA 5,000 800 4,000,000 (note 10) Layover Yard facilities and Improvements LS 600,000 1 600,000 Total specialty Items 4,600.000 Estimated Construction Costs - 161,079,000 Engineering/MobilizationlDemobllization/Constructlon Management (% of Construction) 15 % 24,161.850 Total Construction 185,240,850 Contingencies (%of Construction) 30% 48,323,700 Total Estimated Construction Costs (Including Engineering,. Construction. Management and Contingencies) 233,564,550 Note 1: Upgrade up to 0.25 miles of track between South Perris and Winchester. Construct about 16.25 miles of new track to approach 1-215 toward Temecula. Construct four side tracks at a layover yard. Note 2: Construct three switches at a layover yard as near the end of track as possible in Temecula and one electric -lock switch where track would branch toward Temecula (straight side toward. Temecula). One power switch is estimated to provide access to a layover yard. Note 3: Upgrade up to three road crossings between 1-215 (Romoland) and Winchester depending on PVL exit point. Using FRA crossing data and new construction estimates, 18 lanes (12 feet each assumed) on existing railroad track in addition to new track constructed toward Temecula plus 10%for sidewalks and variances. Note 4: Construct three minor bridges at MP 23.7 (one span), MP 2319 (one span) and MP 24,0 (four span) on existing PVL track. Construct new bridge over the Warm Spring Creek estimated to approach 50 feet long. Routing will determine bridge requirements. Build six overpasses over McCall Boulevard, Newport Road, Scott Road, Clinton Keith Road, Los Alamos Road and Murrieta Hot Springs Road. The Scott Road overpass will cross Antelope Road with the same span. Note 5: Assume complete replacement of one culvert every two -miles of existing track and an average of four culverts per mile of new construction. Note 6: Build three new commuter -style stations. Note 7: Assume new signal system over the entire 16.5 miles, electric4ock at the switch heading toward Temecula. New crossing signals/upgrades at all public crossings. Assume one control point at access Into layover yard. Note 8: Earthwork in this scenario is associated with construction of 16.5 miles of new track. • Note 9: Assume five acres purchased at each station and four acres at the layover yard. Assume 50 foot width ROW necessary for new construction. Note 10: Assume 600 parking spaces at the Temecula station, 700 at Clinton Keith station and 1,000 at Newport Road stetion (500 spaces included in station cost estimate above). One lump sum amount for layover yard facilities and Improvements is provided. _. 000000000 0000 O O)00000000 0000 00000000000 On48000 Table 4-9 Conceptual Capital Costs Intracounty Rail Service between Temecula and Riverside via 1.215 Corridor .Temecula to Riverside 39.50 Miles 208,560 .Feel Category- -------- - - --:- -- -Item ---- -- - - -- ---- -- - Unit -.. Unit Price. _Quantity_ - -- -_-Cost___-_._. _ Track work Construct main track TF $174 85,800 $14,930,000 (note 1) Construct side track TF 174 9,000 1,566,000 Upgrade existing track TF 139 1,320 184,000 Total track 16,680,000 Turnouts Construct ft 20 turnout EA 406,000 5 2,030,000 (note 2) Construct #10 turnout EA 158,000 1 158,000 Construct it 10 turnout (yard) EA '53,000 3 159,000 Total turnouts 2,347,000 At -grade, highway -rail crossings Concrete panel crossing members TF 359 238 86,000 (note 3) - Total al -grade, highway -rail crossings 86,000 Structures Construct overhead bridge at TF 106,000 650 68,900,000 (note 4) Construct railroad bridge (major) TF 13,000 50 650,000 Construct railroad bridge (minor) TF 3,500 60 210,000 Total structures - 69.760,000 Drainage Install culverts EA 7,500 65 488,000 (note 5) Extend culverts FA 3,500 0 Total drainage 488.000 Stations Construct new station (Commuter style) EA 8,000,000 0 (note 6) Construct new station (Intracounty style) EA 4,000,300 7 28,000,000 Renew existing station EA 100,000 0 Total stations 28,000,000 Signal work Signal track Mile 1,000,000 , 16.5 16,500,000 (note 7) Control point signaling EA 422,000 5 2,110,000 Electric -lock for switch EA 100,000 - 1 100,000 At -grade, highway -rail crossing signaling EA 211,000 8 1,688,000 - Total signal 20,398,000 Earthwork Embankment/foundation work (new) LS/Mile 350,000 17.6 6,173,000 (note 8) Embankment/foundation work (existing) LS/Mile 50,000 0 Total earthwork 6,173,000 Right-of-way Purchase Acre 179,000 142 25,498,000 (note 9) Easements Acre 143,000 0 Relocation Acre 100,000 0 - - Total right-of-way 25,498,000 Specialty Items _ Parking areas at stations LS/EA 5,000 200 1,000,000 (note 10) Layover Yard facilities and Improvements LS 600,000 1 600,000 . Total specialty Items 1,600,000 Estimated Construction Costs 171,030,000 Engineering/Mobilization/Demobilization/Construction Management(% of Construction) 15% 25,654,500 Total Construction 196,684,500 Contingencies (%of Construction) 30% 51.309.000 Total Estimated Construction Costs (Including Engineering, Construction Management and Contingencies) 247,993,500 Note 1: Upgrade up to 0.25 miles of track between South Penis and Winchester. Construct about 16.25 miles of new track to approach 1.215 toward Temecula. Construct four side tracks et a layover yard. Construct two 3,000 foot passing sidings. Note 2: Construct three switches at layover yard as near the end of track as possible in Temecula and one electric -lock switch where track would branch toward Temecula (straight side toward Temecula). One power switch is estimated to provide access to layover yard as well as each end of the two passing sidings. Note 3: Upgrade up to three road crossings between 1-215 (Romoland) and Winchester depending on PVL exit point. Using FRA crossing data and new construction estimates, 18 lanes (12 feet each assumed) on existing railroad track in addition to new track constructed toward Temecula plus 10%for sidewalks and variances. Note 4: Construct three minor bridges at MP 23.7 (one span), MP 23.9 (one span) and MP 24.0 (four span) on existing PVL track. Construct new bridge over the Warm Spring Creek estimated to approach 50 feet long. Routing will determine bridge requirements. Build six overpasses over McCall Boulevard, Newport Road, Scott Road, Clinton Keith Road, Los Alamos Road and Murriela Hot Springs Road. The Scott Road overpass will cross Antelope Road with the same span. Note 5: Assume complete replacement Of one culvert every two -miles of existing track and an average of four culverts per mile of new construction. Note 6: Build seven new Intracounty-style stations. Note 7: Assume new signal system over entire 16.5 miles, electric -lock at the switch heading toward Temecula. New crossing signals/upgrades at all public crossings. Assume one control point at access Into the layover yard end each end of passing sidings. Note 8: Earthwork in this scenario is associated with construction of 16.5 miles of new track and construction of two passing sidings. • - Note 9: Assume five acres purchased at each station and four acres at the layover yard. Assume 50 foot width ROW necessary for new construction. Assume additional 25 foot ROW required for passing sidings. - Note 10: Assume all stations have 500 parking spaces (included In station costs) with the exception of Temecula which has an additional 200 spaces. One lump sum amount for layover yard facilities and improvements Is provided. •.. _ e00e00000000e00ee00e00e00000000000000*oee0e0 Draft Final Report, November 9, 2005 RCTC Commuter Rail Feasibility Study 4-27 SubTask 4.2: Operating and Maintenance Costs Annual „operating costs were estimated in connection with each of the eight service scenarios as shown on Table 4-10. Estimated operating costs were calculated by multiplying estimated train -miles operated in each of the eight service scenarios by $41.31 per train -mile, the current unit cost supplied by Metrolink. Key assumptions underlying the estimated train -miles included: • service only provided on weekdays; • sixteen daily trains in commuter service (six in the morning peak, six in the afternoon peak and two each direction in between peak periods); • sixty-four daily trains in intracounty service (two per hour in each direction between 6 AM and 10 PM); • 255 days of operation each year and • annual operating costs of commuter rail service on the Perris Valley Line (Scenarios 3,5 & 7).are incremental showing costs only associated with operations between the non -Riverside terminal and South Perris, based on the assumption that commuter service already will be extended to South Perris. Of the commuter services, Scenarios 3 and 7, from/to San Jacinto and from/to Temecula by way of the Perris Valley line, had the lowest annual operating cost, $2,949,534, while Scenario 2, using the Union Pacific line from/to Indio was the highest at $12,893,677. The lowest intracounty service operating cost was $26,630,078, in both Scenarios 4, the Perris Valley Line from/to San Jacinto and Scenario 8, using the Perris Valley line and I- 215 from/to Temecula, as both are the same in length and the number of trains operated. Scenario 6, intracounty service on the Perris Valley Line via the Winchester Road -corridor generated the highest operating cost, $29,326,795. eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee Draft Final Report, November 9, 2005 RCTC Commuter Rail Feasibility Study Table 4-10 Estimated Annual Operating and Maintenance Costs 4-28 Scenario 1 2 *3 4 *5 6 *7 8 Endpoint (Non -Riverside) Banning Indio San Jacinto San Jacinto Temecula Temecula Temecula Temecula Route UP/BNSF UP/BNSF PVL PVL PVU1Ninchester Rd. PVLNVinchester Rd: PVUI-215 PVUI-215 Service type Commuter Commuter Commuter Intracounty Commuter Intracounty Commuter Intracounty Route -miles 34.5 76.5 16.5 39.5 20.5 43.5 16.5 Days operated per week 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 Daily trains (inbound and outbound) 16 16 16 64 16 64 16 64 Daily train•miles 552 1224 264 2528 328 2784 264 2528 Annualtrain-miles* 140,760 312,120 67,320 644,640 83,640 709,920 67,320 644,640 Estimated annual operating cost** $5,814,796 $12,893,677 $2,780,989 $26,630,078 $3,455,168 $29,326,795 $2,780,989 $26,630,078 Sources: Metrolink and RLBA calculations Notes' *Annual operating costs on the Perris Valley Line are incremental ** 255 operational days used in determining annual train -miles *** Metrolink operating cost/train-mile of $41.31 used in calculation 39.5 0eeeeeeeeeee0eee0ee0eee41e00e000.0000000000e0 Draft Final Report, November 9, 2005 RCTC Commuter Rail Feasibility Study 4-29 Subtask 4.3: Summary Analysis of Scenarios Introduction Working in close coordination with the (TAC), the Policy Committee of the Board and the full RCTC Board established criteria by which to evaluate and screen the eight service alternatives that are the subject of the study effort. Eight evaluation criteria ultimately were selected. In addition, another metric labeled "Passenger Trips Per Train (Daily)" is added to improve the utility of the ridership forecasts. That measure, the average number of riders on all trains, may well be a more meaningful metric than the absolute total number of forecasted train riders in each scenario because there is a large discrepancy between the sixteen daily commuter trains in each commuter rail scenario and the 64 daily intracounty trains in each intracounty rail scenario. So the nine criteria against which each of the scenarios are evaluated are: 1. Passenger Trips In 2030 (Daily); 2. Passenger Trips Per Train (Daily); 3. Farebox Recovery Ratio; 4. Right -of -Way Issues; 5. Mobility Improvements — Daily Trip Time Savings; 6. Mobility Improvements — Access to Low Income Households; 7. Operating Cost Per Passenger -Mile; 8. Capital Cost (Track, Stations and Equipment) and 9. Capital Costs Per Passenger. There were a total of eight corridor/service type/endpoint alternatives, including five commuter and three intracounty rail scenarios, to which the above evaluation criteria are applied: 1. Union Pacific/Commuter Rail/Banning - Beaumont; 2. Union Pacific/Commuter Rail/Indio; 3. Perris Valley Line/Commuter Rail/San Jacinto; 4. Perris Valley Line/lntracounty Rail/San Jacinto; 5. Perris Valley Line - Winchester Road/Commuter Rail/Temecula; 6. Perris Valley Line - Winchester Road/Intracounty Rail/Temecula; 7. Perris Valley Line I-215/Commuter Rail/Temecula and 8. Perris Valley Line -1-215/Intracounty Rail/Temecula. The evaluation criteria applied below were the subject of a separate memorandum which was approved by the TAC, Plans and Programs Committee of the Board and the full Board. The criteria include qualitative as well as quantitative factors. As appropriate to a process of developing an objective assessment of the eight scenarios, and RCTC's objective of developing a process that results in a clear determination of Study recommendations, the criteria were proposed, discussed and agreed upon before any of the numbers subjected to the criteria were developed. Draft' Final Report, November 9, 2005 RCTC Commuter Rail Feasibility Study 4-29 This section is designed to serve two primary purposes. The first is to illustrate how the various scenarios fared when measured against each of the evaluation criteria. The second objective is to bring together into two tables, one addressing all commuter rail scenarios and one addressing all intracounty rail scenarios, all of the scenarios measured against all of the criteria in a fashion that would facilitate comparisons across the scenarios. Application of Individual Evaluation Criteria 1. Passenger Trips In 2030 (Daily) The ultimate objective of public transit is to capture riders. This study produced estimates of annual, morning peak -period, off-peak and daily ridership utilize peak -period, work trip data between specific study area Traffic Analysis' Zones (TAZs) generated from Southern California Associated Governments (SCAG) for the years 2010, 2020 and 2030 (30-year forecast). The number of daily riders in 2030 was the measure recommended and employed with regard to this criterion. The number of daily riders in the ridership column of Tables 4-11 and 4-12 is sourced from Table 3-2 in the Task 3, Ridership Forecast Methodology and Results section. Five scenarios, Scenarios 2, 4, 6, 7 and 8, stood out favorably with regard to the number of daily riders and, therefore, in Tables 4-11 and 4-12 were rated "Feasible" as depicted by a completely filled in "Harvey Ball. Two scenarios, Scenarios 3 and 5, received a "Moderately Feasible" ranking with regard to the number of daily riders and, therefore, in Tables 4-11 and 4-12 are depicted by a half-filled Harvey Ball. Finally, one scenario, Scenario 1, Union Pacific Railroad/commuter/Banning-Beaumont, was found to generate relatively low, "Less Feasible," ridership and so the number of daily riders in that Scenario is shown and depicted as a completely empty Harvey Ball in Table 4-11. 2. Passenger Trips Per Train (Daily) As noted earlier, the above measure was added because it assists in the explanation of how the intracounty rail service scenarios, ranked "Feasible" with respect to total estimated "Passenger Trips In 2030 (Daily)" but other than "Feasible" with respect to the following evaluation criteria, "Farebox Recovery Ratio," by "leveling the playing field" with respect to the different number of trains in all commuter rail scenarios as compared with all intracounty rail scenarios. The performance of all commuter rail scenarios with respect to this metric was identical to the performance achieved with respect to total Passenger Trips In 2030 (Daily); that is two "Feasible" Scenarios (Scenarios 2 and 7), two "Moderately Feasible" Scenarios (Scenarios 3 and 5) and one "Less Feasible" Scenario (Scenario 1). • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Ce04000e0eeeeae00.0*0eeeOe00e00000ee0 000000 Draft Final Report, November 9, 2005 RCTC Commuter Rail Feasibility Study 4-30 Table 4-11 Initial Screening and Application of Evaluation Criteria -Commuter Service q i ��.� Y 1 rre �. - �.... i.P V .3{P'ki 9tk5' 1.-.. a,k rt`cf' s ;Y ` ,a i'I I�'yE) ✓>~ t -ItB .r1. $„ _a:� s= ,•: .k �-Y. d'' Y iluY r � °# ,. ... :. - µvk' 1 i? 'a .._ :i� i '',.�'%1' ".yy" :Mk 4 (4Fi�'.Ys ki phi...1. , r«.rwr iroe±rarn'arnl ,i a i . r. `` _ ( ( Iix M1T�=aI 1F`�y�ll,() l,�i y3m''y.r N ': (� lilnl �', .' § g r.:r.,?�'L i" F ii i.. ,� l L fYt}� iTT`"' 171 "_- �,. 4 1 {�,ir li ins, a `w� �. Jh � srw .'��{{� �` �,.. raW { °,'„r.ir �k `�, i, •'� 8 .i =I ,$ p . r e,iiiii) ii.ia �'py' ��� 1 ___ z$4$" i41 (i riJt a �) y, rf' J „,C pit�t';7��Ci�i JJ kI}tGl I'1 i�,M.��ii' '�i t j_ ,. .."a t1,t '� r� >M 1 1 w1 tAt j.�>E` �i di yr t il�lT.r,�,L+ �`r i {: i gn o- i.l alp kY''&rt .x1a w F � bids } >> : e �! m>s n -- 1iek 1� t 1111j1"�t;� is ," > FuS, t ,.a IP aL 1 Union Pacific Railroad 34.5 768 48 19% 176 hours 43.96% $0.68 $299.9 $390,495 _ !Commuter/ O O (1'4' O Q • Q O Q aBanning -Beaumont 2. c Union Pacific Railroad 76.5 2,174 136 22% 124 hours 42.96% $0.63 $544.4 $250,414 .m /Commuter/ • • Q Q O0 Q O Q FL Indio 3' cp Perris Valley Line 16.5 1,338 84 61 % 518 hours 44.32% $0.24 $111.5 $83,333 0 /Commuter/ Q Q e e e e 411 C N San Jacinto _ 5' c Road 20.5 1,292 81 53% 486 hours 37.76% $0.25 $203.6 $157,585 eiNli Winchester !Commuter/ 411 • L Temecula a) _ 16.5 2,166 135 109% 932 hours 37.23% $0.12 $249.4 $115,143 E , 0 /Commuter/ Temecula Table Key Feasible Moderately Feasible Q Less Feasible O * Incremental route miles east or south of South Perris, assuming Metrolink's 91 Line service is extended to South Perris. ** Similar to a cost -benefit ratio, this criterion measures the ratio of farebox revenue to total expenses, net of rolling stock lease expenses. In the fiscal year 2005-2006, the Metrolink systemwide farebox recovery ratio is estimated at 43.2% with the Riverside, Inland Empire Orange County and 91 Line farebox recovery ratios estimated at 48.9, 45.6 and 57.2%, respectively. Source: RLBA, WSA and WRCOG data and calculations. 'suolleinoleo pue e}ep 0008M pue dsm 1vg-Li :aomos v(lanRoadsai '%Z'L9 pue 9'9b16'8ti le pelewl}se s0l}w /van000a xogam sun }g pue /luno0 061.1ei0 941113 puelul 'aplsJanN eq; 44m %Z'£4le pa}ewgse sl op.! /Uanooaa xogasej. apinnwalsls xuilalan 941'90(2-900Z lean 1e0s1; a4l ul •sasuedxa aseal Tools 6wpou to lau 'sasuadxa lelol of anuanai xogam to opei ay} samseaw uopeipo sly} 'op.! }gaueq-lsoo a o} vellwls 4* 'spied Loos of papualxa sl eawas eun l6 sAuyalaW 6ulwnsse 'shied 4}nos l0 4lnos Jo }sea saliw anal leluawaJoul O°mead ssa-1 alglsead /la}alepon • elglseed AaN ape' e L9Z`1•9$ 018Z$ l!!' Z612 %9Z'LE (!, smo49ZZ O %Z1 99 ZE9'£ 9'6E elnoawal Aunooe4ull 92-1 �Y 8 0617'81.2 0'84Z$ O Z6'Z$ 1!1" %9L'LE O 8no4 SS I.. 1!!' O %L O E£ • £60'Z 9'£b elnoawal Aunooeilul/ pe0ii Japetpum , � 9 • 606'L9$ e Z•9Z1.$ O 98'Z$ • %ZE'44 '!1.!' sing OZ£ • O %8 O 4£ • Z91•'Z 9'6E o}upap ues p(lunooe.qul/ eun Rapes suaad xB .' _ q lid 'rcy; mt 'rr T 1r X 1i t 'tt:,19 Ye rB.i re 11 .�«.— u -4ssm w 'F"i.Nn1y... v.io-aa .. a re 'r, i?1 ?'7 "t >t b. rt t �t'io4t}' ,r��.T�,;i,�„� 1 '�BdYJs1a i4°r %�41"` .'�� t• �� aiu, i. nw�{'i 't T .: "=`'-!, Y °it r.*.. 1��:7 rat = 'I� l,'IC�hI -"` -:: ;... .. �{d.. iy � ita�� � ( I�*-- .. 'u* ,-ry':. {III —.—..W S.Y M1e. 1 a� � ° ., ._ ... t :. r flrl f jj1 le iT �i2., :.,. k .� ,ip�1a ' �'11k ' `N�dh rk bn4i3Jarxi:- t�1 �i«rgb z �� l�iT ��P ., <.�yQ P 7 _ ",t�! i` i [!.47 &`3S`; i^" r® - FIC Y.'TM 1 -• ,s #> �.Pi� ��,� ., �" r Xt 1:11 iY ux 9iie t ®. d##..f.: .a 1 ., ci.€7b Kk t yJ`� lly' 4`�.`i fYl �` lYm �r"%2+"lN"�pY-.• I Ill �� �i1! •7:9t i6+ a r - 1 ,u " , . l (�.,n,.i '.. ,�i����p. "1. C1 t ally ill Ff, a�E t� A �..t..:,.. 1^,. : �"" r 7 I ��4�� -d r� 1 '.'e : lll�' s ;}.� Ixl`z' � i I, Y:X� r� i eovues fklunooe.qui-epelpo uonenuen3;o uopouddd pue Buiueens !emu! S6-t °Nei 0£-Y dprus Ifi1?4?svaj pvy damututo,) jidy soot `6 aagwanopr 'parlay mum- ijimQ oeeeeeoe000000000000eeooemieeeoeee000000m Q00e00e000ee0eee00eee0e0eeeeee0eeeee000009e0 Draft Final Report RCTC Commuter Rail Feasibility Study 4-32 In contrast, the three intracounty scenarios, all three of which had been ranked "Feasible" with respect to "Passenger Trips In 2030 (Daily)" drop to a "Less Feasible" ranking when the raw number of estimated riders is averaged over the much higher number of train operations in the intracounty rail scenarios. 3. Farebox Recovery Ratio Farebox recovery ratio is defined as the percentage of operating expenses that is recovered through the farebox by transit users paying fares for services rendered. While state transit funding effectively requires a minimum farebox recovery ratio of 20%, the average Metrolink systemwide ratio approximates 43 percent. A Farebox recovery ratio was determined in connection with each scenario by dividing estimated annual rail passenger service revenue by estimated annual rail passenger service operating cost, both of which are shown in the table below. Estimated annual revenue reflected current Metrolink experience and distribution across various ticket types sold at a discount from single fares, such as ten -trip tickets and monthly passes. A fare discount percentage of 74.5 percent, which takes into account both the ,final phase of Metrolink's currently -authorized change in fare policy and the percentage and impact of patrons buying discounted tickets, is applied to annual revenue, yielding annual effective revenue. "Farebox Recovery Ratios" in Scenarios 3, 5 and 7 are rated "Feasible." Their performance requires some explanation. Similar to a cost -benefit ratio, the criterion as used in this study measures incremental revenue against incremental cost; it is not a stand-alone or system measure. The three scenarios that are ranked "Feasible" perform well at least in part because they do not reflect any operating costs associated with operating commuter rail service beyond South Perris though they do reflect revenues charged to travelers assumed to commute west or south of South Perris from hypothetical, new stations assumed in this Feasibility Study. The exclusion of incremental operating costs beyond South Perris is reasonable based on the assumption that the assumed number of trains can be assumed to be operating by 2030 between South Perris and points west and so Metrolink would not be incurring any additional operating costs west of South Perris. However, all revenues generated by newly attracted riders using the Metrolink system only because they would have nearby access to a Metrolink station assumed in this Feasibility Study clearly are revenues that would be incremental to the revenues the Metrolink system otherwise would earn. The estimated farebox recovery ratios in those three scenarios is not strictly comparable to the ratios calculated with respect to the other scenarios or consistent with that term as it is generally understood. Aside from the three commuter rail scenarios that eam a "Feasible" rating with respect to the "Farebox Recovery Ratios, the two remaining commuter rail scenarios, Scenarios 1 and 2 are rated "Moderately Feasible" while all three intracounty rail scenarios earn a "Less Feasible" ranking. In other words, although all three intracounty scenarios attract a large number of estimated daily riders, not enough additional riders are attracted to warrant the number of daily trains (64) assumed to operate in those scenarios as compared with the more limited number of trains assumed to operate in the similar commuter rail scenarios. Draft Final Report RCTC Commuter Rail Feasibility Study Table 4-13 Farebox Recovery Ratios Scenario Annual Revenue ($ millions) Annual Operating Cost ($ millions) Farebox Recovery Ratio (oho 1 1.1 5.8 19 2 2.8 12.9 22 3 1.6 2.8 61 4 2.0 26.7 8 5 1.8 3.5 53 6 2.0 29.3 7 7 3.0 2.8 109 8 3.2 26.7 12 ource: RLBA calculations. 4. Right -of -Way Issues 4-32 This sole, qualitative measure focuses on issues which, while not easily quantifiable, test the feasibility of the various scenarios insofar as they affect the ability of RCTC to implement passenger rail service within a corridor. Four specific issues were identified. The first is whether RCTC enjoys some form of a shared use agreement which would facilitate the establishment of passenger service installation. An example of such an agreement is the current agreement between Union Pacific Railroad and Metrolink to operate trains constituting the Riverside Line. The second issue is whether RCTC has ownership interest in the right-of-way. Clearly, having ownership permits RCTC to initiate service more easily than where it does not enjoy such ownership rights. The third issue is where transit -supported corridors have been identified and government agencies have concluded studies confirming the acceptability of transit in such corridors. Examples of this include highway widening studies conducted by either RCTC or the County of Riverside in which the proposed widening might include provision of transit services such as rail. The fourth and final issue is the question of freight congestion. Corridors which might otherwise appear ideally situated to host passenger rail service could, in fact, be severely impacted by high numbers of freight trains in addition to which the initiation or expansion of passenger rail service would pose a challenge. In response, investment in additional track or signals has been utilized to mitigate the addition of passenger trains on heavily trafficked freight rail corridors in the Los Angeles Basin and elsewhere around the country. Although virtually all congestion issues ultimately can be mitigated with sufficient capital investment, a congested corridor poses more challenges to implementation than an uncongested corridor and this factor attempts to address that difference. i••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••i•• 0ooaao0000000000000000000ee000000440eaae•eoe Draft Final Report RCTC Commuter Rail Feasibility Study 4-32 The Right -of -Way Issues measure can be expressed only qualitatively and is the only subjective criterion applied in the Study. Each of the eight scenarios is rated initially with regard to the four specific issue elements (shared use agreement, RCTC ownership interest, transit -supported corridors and freight congestion). Each scenario then is given an aggregate rating — "Feasible," "Moderately Feasible" or "Less Feasible," based upon consideration of those four issues. Shared use agreements do not exist with regard to the Union Pacific Railroad east of the City of Riverside and limit the number of additional passenger trains permitted over BNSF north of that location. Therefore, Scenarios 1 and 2 (Union Pacific Railroad/commuter/Banning - Beaumont and Union Pacific Railroad/commuter/Indio) are considered "Less Feasible" while Scenarios 3 and 4 (using the Perris Valley Line scenarios) would benefit from the existence of shared use agreements and are considered "Feasible." The remaining scenarios are considered "Moderately Feasible" in regard to this issue element. With regard to RCTC ownership interest in the rights -of -way, there is no current ownership interest in Scenarios 1 and 2 (Union Pacific Railroad scenarios) or in Scenarios 5 through 8 (Winchester Road and 1-215 scenarios) and, therefore, all are considered "Less Feasible." The RCTC ownership interest in Scenarios 3 and 4 (Perris Valley Line) results in those receiving a "Feasible" evaluation with regard to this issue element. All but Scenarios 7 and 8 receive a "Feasible" rating with respect to the transit -supported corridors aspect while those scenarios are rated "Less Feasible." [Note: RCTC please review the previous sentence carefully; I'm not sure it is right.] Freight congestion is an issue of considerable importance affecting Scenarios 1 and 2, insofar as access to/passage of prospective commuter trains over the main lines of the Burlington Northern Santa Fe and Union Pacific railroads is required and, therefore, those scenarios are rated "Less Feasible" with regard to this element. All other corridors are deemed "Feasible." Ratings of "Feasible," "Moderately Feasible" and "Less Feasible" in the "Right -of -Way Issues" column of Tables 4-11 and 4-12, result from consideration of the four issue elements and the award of an aggregate Right -of -Way Issues rating with respect to each scenario. 5. Mobility Improvements — Daily Trip Time Savings This factor recognizes the priority both the Commission and the Federal Transit Agency (FTA) attach to Mobility Improvement and acknowledges the crucial importance of convenience, time savings and air quality benefits to any successful transit system. Most people will not consider regularly riding a passenger rail service unless a trip on it is time - competitive with that achieved in their automobiles; that is, people who otherwise would use an automobile must see an advantage in utilizing a rail system. Therefore, it is not surprising that travel time savings is the first -listed project justification measure relating to FTA's mobility improvements criterion. In any forecast of demand, time savings will be the Draft Final Report RCTC Commuter Rail Feasibility Study 4-32 biggest factor. To assess the potential to improve mobility as a result of implementing the various scenarios examined in this Study, passenger train speed and predicted highway speed in the year 2030 were compared, from all stations at which passengers were forecast to originate to all stations at which they were forecast to terminate, with the positive or negative number of minutes saved between all origins and destinations weighted by the number of passengers predicted to choose the rail mode between each origin -destination combination. Appendix B contains the detailed data from which the summary results were derived. Looking at the Mobility Improvements - General column in Tables 4-11 and 4-12, one may question why, in comparing Scenarios 3 and 4, and even more so in Scenarios 7 and 8, the time savings is smaller in the intracounty scenario, compared with the commuter scenario, while in both cases ridership is higher in the intracounty scenario. This counterintuitive outcome arises because the commuter scenarios, since they extend west of Riverside, result in longer travel distances over more highly congested corridors and, thus, the time savings are quite appreciable. Not surprisingly, then, three commuter rail scenarios, Scenarios 3, 5 and 7, rank "Feasible" with respect to this criterion while one commuter rail scenario, Scenario 1, and two intracounty rail scenarios, Scenarios 4 and 8, rank "Moderately Feasible." The remaining, commuter rail scenario, Scenario 2, and the remaining intracounty rail scenario, Scenario 6, rank "Less Feasible." 6. Mobility Improvements — Access to Low,lncome Households The comparative impact of each of the eight scenarios on low income households was measured by reference to income levels of residents located in catchment areas within five miles of proposed stations. More specifically, catchment areas associated with each existing and proposed rail station were plotted and put into a GIS system. Included were all census blocks partially or wholly within the five -mile radii and additional blocks beyond five miles but within a TAZ that had been separately selected for purposes of the study. Income level analyses were based on U.S. Bureau of the Census data. Household incomes based on 1999 annual data were derived from Summary file SF3, which provides data at the block group level. SF3 file Table P52 disaggregates household income levels into 17 ranges, which were consolidated to four for purposes of this analysis, reflecting less than 50 percent of median ("VERY LOW"), 50 to less than 80 percent of median ("LOW"), 80 to less than 120 percent of median ("MODERATE") and over 120 percent of median ("HIGH"). In the first two columns of Table 4-14 are displayed year 2000 population and the number of households served using the five -mile criterion. In the four, right-hand columns, served households by income levels are shown both as an absolute number of households and as a percentage of households served. Little difference in resident affluence was found between those areas served in Scenarios 1 through 4, versus those served in Scenarios 5 through 8. However, the first four scenarios are seen to serve a marginally greater proportion of low-income residents than are the last four and, therefore, are rated "Feasible" whereas the last four scenarios are rated "Moderately Feasible." 1b000e••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• aee00o0o®eeo*a0®®6aae00•00000000•0oa®eeoee®e Draft Final Report RCTC Commuter Rail Feasibility Study 4-32 Table 4-14 Mobility Improvements - Low Income Household Analysis Household Income Characteristics Total Population Total ``+�'( 11-.5QJ , LO @D4D 0% MODERATE ! `120% KM >1.20% by Census Q� 7`�T CD `($34,311 ` 151.uQafQaElil Scenario Block Groups Households c 20,ran $34 310) $51,4664 $51,465) Scenario 1 514,495 168,378 40,983 33,031 41,740 52,624 Banning 100.00% 24.34% 19.62% 24.79% 31.25% Scenario 2 I 861,806 295,260 69,284 57,536 72,576 95,864 Indio 100.00% 23.47% 19.49% 24.58% 32.47% Scenario 3 I 655,383 215,544 51,761 43,785 55,349 64,649 San Jacinto (Commuter) 100.00% 24.01% 20.31% 25.68% 29.99% 'Scenario 4 I 655,383 215,544 51,761 43,785 55,349 64,649 San Jacinto (Intracounty) 100.00% 24.01% 20.31% 25.68% 29.99% 'Scenario 5 1 670,697 211,539 41,608 38,269 55,176 76,486 Temecula (Commuter) 100.00% 19.67% 18.09% 26.08% 36.16% 'Scenario 6 1 670,697 211,539 41,608 38,269 55,176 76,486 Temecula (Intracounty) 100.00% 19.67% 18.09% 26.08% 36.16% 1Scenario 7 I 679,573 214,109 41,445 38,266 55,923 78,475 Temecula 1-215 (Commuter) 100.00% 19.36% 17.87% 26.12% 36.65% 'Scenario 8 I 684,075 214,997 41,637 38,460 56,180 79,318 Temecula 1-215 (Intracounty) 100.00% 19.37% 17.89% 26.13% 36.89% Median Household Income for: Riverside County $42,887 San Bernardino County $42,066 Note: Only Census Blocks within 5 miles of proposed stations were selected. Median Household Income for San Bernardino Co. is used to calculate portions of Scenario 1 & 2. Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census - 2000 Census Data 7. Operating Cost Per Passenger -Mile "Operating Cost Per Passenger -Mile" provides a quantified indication of the cost of a scenario in a way where direct comparisons may be made with existing Metrolink commuter rail routes. The data utilized to develop this criterion were obtained from Tasks 3 (Ridership Forecast Methodology and Results) and 4.1 (Operating and Maintenance Costs). Draft Final Report RCTC Commuter Rail Feasibility Study 4-32 Annual operating costs per passenger mile were determined in each scenario by dividing estimated annual operating costs by the number of annual passenger -miles, as shown Table 4-15 below. Annual passenger -miles were determined by obtaining the daily passenger miles in each scenario and multiplying them by the number of annual operating days, which was assumed to be 255. Daily passenger -miles were determined by multiplying the number of daily passengers by the number of miles they traveled. Annual operating costs of commuter rail services on the Perris Valley Line (Scenarios 3, 5 and 7), are incremental, showing costs only associated with operations between the non -Riverside terminal and South Perris, based on the assumption that commuter service already will be extended to South Perris. When those costs are linked with passenger -miles extending beyond South Perris, it is not surprising that operating costs per passenger -mile in those three scenarios are by far the best performers, meriting a "Feasible" ranking, while both remaining commuter rail scenarios, Scenarios 1 and 2, as well as one intracounty rail scenario, Scenario 8, rank "Moderately Feasible." The remaining two intracounty rail scenarios, Scenarios 4 and 6, rank "Less Feasible." Table 4-15 Operating Costs Per Passenger -Mile Scenario Annual Operating Cost ($ millions) Annual Passenger- Miles Operating Cost Per Passenger- Mile ($) 1 5.8 8,524,650 0.68 2 12.9 20,549,430 0.63 3 2.8 11,593,320 0.24 4 26.7 9,329,865 2.85 5 3.5 13,955,130 0.25 6 29.3 10,029,784 2.92 7 2.8 22,635,330 0.12 8 26.7 13,875,384 1.92 Source: WSA, Metrolink and RLBA calculations 8. Capital Cost (Track, Stations and Equipment) Total estimated capital costs associated with each scenario, including track, stations, parking and equipment was sourced from Table 4-2 in the Task 4.1 section addressing Conceptual Capital Costs. Scenarios 3 and 4 are the only ones rated "Feasible," primarily reflecting the fact that right-of-way is available to be built on all the way between San Jacinto and South Perris. Scenarios 1 and 2 are the only ones rated "Less Feasible," primarily because of the assumed need to construct additional infrastructure within existing railroad right-of-way due to the congested nature of the heavily used freight lines owned by Burlington Northern Santa Fe and Union Pacific over which access would be needed. All the scenarios connecting South Perris or Riverside with Temecula were rated "Moderately Feasible." ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••`••••••••••••••• eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee Draft Final Report RCTC Commuter Rail Feasibility Study 4-32 9. Capital Costs Per Passenger "Capital Costs Per Passenger," expressed in total capital costs divided by estimated daily ridership in 2030, provides another quantitative measure commonly employed. In Table 4- 16 below, the estimated capital costs in Table 4-2 are shown, by scenario, in the first column of figures. The next column displays Daily Ridership, sourced from Table 3-2. The last column shows the resulting division of the first column (Capital Cost) by the middle column (Daily Ridership), as reproduced in the last column of Tables 4-11 and 4-12 as the Capital Cost Per Passenger. Table 4-16 Capital Costs Per Passenger Scenario Capital Cost ($ millions) Daily Ridership Capital Cost/ Passenger($) 1 299.9 768 390,495 2 544.4 2,174 250,414 3 111.5 1,338 83,333 4 125.2 2,162 57,909 5 203.6 1,292 157,585 6 248.0 2,093 118,490 7 249.4 2,166 115,143 8 287.0 3,532 81,257 Source: RLBA data and calculations. Three scenarios merit a "Feasible" rating with respect to this criterion, Scenarios 3, 4'and 8, while Scenarios 5, 6 and 7 score "Moderately Feasible" and the remaining scenarios, Scenarios 1 and 2 rank "Less Feasible" primarily due to the assumed capital requirement consequences of the reason advanced above. The performance in this evaluation criterion is identical to the performance in the previous criterion across all scenarios except Scenario 8, where high estimated ridership is sufficient to improve the performance from "Moderately Feasible" in the previous criterion to "Feasible" in this one. 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 since they result in the Draft Final Report RCTC Commuter Rail Feasibility Study 4-32 greatest number of "Feasible" findings. 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. • • to • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Ali Alh Aft AO' Ilk Mk Aft Aka' IA AIL m Aft 011 All Agh Ali 41k Aft ilk AIL 41k Aft dik 410 Aft ilk Alk All Aft 4111 AM' 410 Alb Oh w MP III III IMF IMF IMF mor IMP W mer 111, ‘Mr lOr MIP ge. NIP Igir INF W w Inv lor ler w mor 14. Imp gm, mop Scenario 1 Banning Commuter Rail Extension 2030 Weekday Patronage HOME [EST 2. 0) c .E c -E. 0 E , co 0 -0 c as =6") c,6) 0 " 07 -c a) -0 67) ,_ w >. a) -7.1 o __ ,_ 2 c 0 as c o E --a." ci, = 1:3 o 71:5 SD .2,) = 0 GO D < (I) ro c 2 o 0 ...' to o (15 -c m C a) cr) c m " (a c < c = co M 0 .0 737) z o) 2 co c cD) CO E .- 0 -C CI) C c o -c a) - La (1) 7 (73 0 a) 2 a) E E 0 i- CIO CO Cr ± E. o_ ui a. M ....1 J ± 5 < 0 Cri I- - -J < LL CO Z 0 Banning Beaumont Redlands Highgrove Total 148 0 0 34 14 44 6 12 2 2 0 10 4 316 0 0 96 38 82 12 24 2 4 0 14 8 220 0 0 0 14 10 8 62 4 8 0 68 2 84 0 0 0 0 0 2 16 2 4 0 30 0 768 0 0 130 66 136 28 114 10 18 0 122 14 2 4 2 2 2 4 2 4 6 0 2 2 8 4 2 4 2 4 4 14 4 0 0 2 4 2 8 4 8 14 6 12 10 34 14 Notes: Numbers include both peak and off-peak trips from home to destination and return trips from destination to home. Brown color indicates transfers at Riverside to 1E0C and 9/ line trains. Banning Commuter Rail Extension 2030 AM Peak Period Patronage 0 0 2 0 4 2 2 0 4 0 0 0 4 2 4 0 14 4 2 2 2 6 0 2 2 4 HOME DEST "E• 0.) ? w o © a) c C co 0 (13 c Ty z 0) 2 -' , ca 0 2 c .a- E c CO " CS) (7) >, 0 41,3 C 0 V) 41,2 (J) T.) •E RS ,.._ 0 •,7, w 0) CI) C C t ° E .3 o i".• c as CO 0 co a) CO -T3 a) 11 -c =c” ± 1.- cu ._ ,?. IlL fi as a. 0 LLI E o CL c "0 c 0 D < -1 - '(O cts -I 2 Z c) ....: 5 fa c < 2 ,- 0 - c CO (f) .--- u) 7 I- w .c -. = cm co -I CX1 C < w ,_— 0 LL c a) 7 CO 0 Z E 0 0 Banning Beaumont Redlands Highgrove Total 66 0 0 16 7 20 2 5 141 0 0 43 17 37 6 11 101 0 0 0 7 5 4 28 36 0 0 0 0 0 1 7 344 0 0 59 31 62 13 51 1 1 2 1 5 1 2 3 2 8 0 4 0 7 0 31 0 13 0 55 2 3 1 0 6 1 1 1 0 1 2 1 1 3 0 1 1 3 1 1 2 1 2 2 6 2 0 0 1 1 1 3 2 3 6 3 4 5 14 6 0 1 1 0 2 1 2 2 2 7 0 1 1 1 3 o= m can 0 Do m CO s io a d a C N N a N cn n N 7 'O N Co' CDca cn COmtn Da cn cn -o W Na N N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 i sO0o0000� QDO CD O000 COON � 00000 N4O CO -+ CJ N N 000ON OD V cn .4 0000-4 NA -awrnsa Oo0-4 Pa 3 ->ea��-4-*a,wN --04C3cnvoNCDt»rn i V->ACnNON- a— CO�w aCD000NN CD N-a -+0000 a ->Nw N- ->O-=a G O O O O O O O O N co V f+ cn 4. V t0O-,W NO- y Total Indio CD A O --� O CD -1 CD O O CD O 07 -‘ N.) NJ CD COCD CD NJ CD NJ NJ 4) NJ N CD •-k �. N CD j 0 0 0 0 O O � 0 O O N o, -4_�oo�' o _ a md �a . fo.—C C o aT.- 8 c Q aaa al co m to 0 5' 0 m 4 U�t �C,, 1........4.1 �' PO Ca) .4..4. A .4`z pppp N j A N CO lJ O A AOC'iO NOOlCO O N 7? m c0000o000 M 0 N N CO 3 CO OOOOOOOCO 4 .p -• N Zt CO 0 0 0 0 0 0 N cn tS m DC No0000AbCO E CO 04 •su1ei; cur] 66 pug' 0031 W ems.' 0 3 3 {.pa. CD CO A CO N m A O O Q> 4. CO N CO m 0 co co C� Co to CO ND CD CD 4. A N Q a CD COONA N06D 4, 4. O ND 4, NNO000 b' y N AACD .pNOIV NJ NJ t1 'DO000CD000 ccC3cn CO CD a N O Co 4, O 3 O g? 3 (D CO NOOOOI,oNo0i rn o 0 0 0 N rn COD O A OD .D• N CO CD 07 i O O..ppON iP AOON SS34 3@VOH Total O s' O a 3 N d � w 00 co. m m co r0 7 m O Indio N N O D1 Agua Caliente Palm Springs Cabazon COO? CD.1,ONON W N N O N O O O O ? N N O N N N W ND A N N O N N A Obi Co A Co ? O A A A Banning Beaumont Redlands Highgrove Riverside Pedley O A?? N O N N N E. Ontario Pomona Industry A O N N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 O A A A N O N N N Montebello LAUS La Sierra 4. N CD N O O'O O O cn N N N 0 0 0 0 0 ANN o0o0CD N. Main W, Corona Anaheim Can. Orange Santa Ana Tustin Irvine Laguna Niguel Anaheim Fullerton Buena Park Norwalk Commerce 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 40 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 40 /, 0 '0 0 0 0 0 0 41 • • 40 0 0 11 1► 1► 0 40 1► 4/ 0 0 0 40 0 0 /► /► /► 40 0 rr�r 0 4/ 1► 0 40 1an61N eunbei A Pad smn ao1awwo0 >ileivuoN >ped euang ct CO C7 tN7 0 0 0 0 0 N 0 N E '0 N 0 N uopalind euoloo 'M ulen 'N I" COC '4' comvcD r N IC' CO N •r enais e� 0 .4- cJ CO ✓ N M apls�eAN ;M hO"N upnwaoructs auleleilion 0.1puessaly euoweH S.piad O y 2& O o° cU m M C Ts E 'V 2 a, c7 9 U ) ub N suiad `S ialsayouvo �od.tiy �awaH Mai y` w 0 w d x home. Numbers excludes peak p rp 0 [hCet2� CD y ✓ m N T m �Cs 412 x f('8 S 0 0CO CO • N03 Qrcoa� 0 0 0 0 CO CSJ S t0 P o c om �' o� o �y Cy �a C 0 3 .E .� 0 Z Q Brown color indicates transfers at Riverside to IEQG and 91 line w;ayeuy A N lent N eunbei auvui ugsnl euv ewes abuelo ueo wiayeuyi ollagaluoyy lulsnpul euowod ouew) -3 Aalpad snvn aolawwo0 )llerruoN Ted euene uopallnd euoloa 'M (lien 'N eisas ei aplsianN ugsnwaon.dS aulelBMnn oipuessaw euowe�j shied slaved 'S .181sayaulM 1.10d1IV lawaH lelol 7lo r r N N N cD h [7 N ✓ Cl r 1n 0 0 0 0 c7 h N N NO cr O 00 Ca o.—or 0 t— CO CO N M r NM. — CD 'Cr r N 11, r r to Lo(oP ✓ M tO LO N CO 0 N cf) CO CO 0")N. N h CO CO M N N CD CO I,- 0 N CO0 0 'T 0 0 0 1� M N N 1— CO tr CO ••••Sri••d!•i!••••••.•••i••••i•••i•i�►!•i�!•ii•• Scenario 4 San Jacinto Intracounty Rail Service 2030 Weekday Patronage oJo c co � ai c v o -v w FROM TO 1— o to co iJ.. � to o jS S s co u d o cc m C > as N Q rr D c 2 tli � m ie San Jacinto Florida Sanderson Winchester South Perris Perris Ramona Van Buren Alessandro UCR Spruce Riverside Total 278 266 273 119 108 156 178 265 144 55 112 208 2162 0 43 67 12 14 17 32 33 18 10 11 22 278 43 0 25 17 22 24 32 35 18 14 12 25 266 67 25 0 19 22 22 31 31 16 7 12 21 273 12 17 19 0 8 9 13 16 7 1 6 10 119 14 22 22 8 0 3 6 19 4 1 3 6 108 17 24 22 9 3 0 15 33 10 2 7 14 156 32 32 31 13 6 15 0 10 8 2 10 20 178 33 35 31 16 19 33 10 0 13 4 26 45 265 18 18 16 7 4 10 8 13 0 4 16 31 144 11 12 12 6 3 7 10 26 16 2 0 8 6 55 112 10 14 7 1 1 2 2 4 4 0 2 Note: Numbers include both peak and off-peak trips from destination to home. Numbers excludes peak period, peak direction trips served by South Perris commuter rail extension. San Jacinto Intracounty Rail Service 2030 AM Peak Period Patronage 22 25 21 10 6 14 20 45 31 8 6 0 208 _ o c C c p m to C co c `I 2 m FROM TO _ o co a`) .c _c cn 0 CO u) � �+ hQ- c co O u_ c tin c i 5 u) d E ir c > m Q CC t? = 2 cn tr San Jacinto Florida Sanderson Winchester South Perris Perris Ramona Van Buren Alessandro UCR Spruce Riverside Total 149 127 128 65 48 57 41 42 33 7 44 82 823 0 21 29 13 0 9 25 11 0 6 8 9 7 12 12 7 12 11 5 8 8 2 4 4 4 4 4 0 0 0 2 2 2 3 3 3 74 85 90 4 4 6 20 5 5 7 18 6 6 7 17 0 3 4 8 3 0 0 0 3 2 0 0 3 3 9 0 2 2 5 2 1 2 6 5 0 0 1 1 1 2 3 6 1 2 6 10 30 31 54 87 24 10 8 7 24 10 11 8 21 9 5 7 11 5 1 4 13 0 0 0 22 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 3 1 6 12 8 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 15 10 1 0 0 24 19 6 4 0 170 68 34 36 64 15 17 14 7 0 0 0 0 0 41 vewedeueng N (01 N 3 -, Rs 8. 40 6 0 0 0 N N -g 40 N F 4 N :,,O, o x 40 ..., I?Q, elie!S el ,-.41. 04c‘i " coc° E 40 z z 2 4 ' 2 o 6 40 g , g tijisn,,aonids . s v_ Ls 40 . 0 c CO N CO CO TY.* N 0 — 2 • , ,q 113 ',-7., :8 oipuessalV ,... fulsnpui a cD 40 N EUOW0d it .1- 4 41 AelPed co 00 co r- 40 CD N CO TY N CO ao.laumoo 0 N0 " N N 0 TlY 6 ij N ,cr co co o, abueJo o TY 0 TY T- T- 411 CO 0') w T- 41 oilageo. 0 40 41 40 4111 payeuv pen6N eun6ei aum upsni Pik e4UeS TY N N N c0 N N N CO TY Tt N CO CO c0 7 CD CV N lreo urpiouv Qum° '3 smn NlervuoN uopaiind euwoo uieVst 'N app.renod 4eu!e18/80fl .SQ.) . ._ 40 Nc...,esi..... ID • _ ., . x 4) 1Z euourej c,9 Pt 0 it' E '''''. '2 0 R 2 ott v) IR o 0 S P.lad C \I CC" \ i 4. ,ty E z 0 Ce) Z 14 40 sp,ad 'S C \iro et CO r 0 CO CO .r. E 8. <„ 03 8 o o 41 podmewuim 0 a ct a. 'E :1)- o 0 Q_ ,... o tn • 40 ,o c UOlUael'UNa a a a cl44 ) Fri -0 6 0 11 To' co crc c o 8 cn 432 V c 1.0. 40 'oewell'uy‘A 0 0 0 ° o_ S Q ›., x b co 41 ,e10.1. 03.- 01 01 0) IP N -0 (L) •Dit 0 OD N -C10., • (-) ,p.., .r O. »2 c2 2 •e- Z CI 0) 40 r., . m ® '5 .s..a. ..2 .5 D- E et' Q E 1 E '0 ti .c o LI o li ;c : g ct E t o 41 4 5 'a- c • co z (1) OD OD Z -6 a. ez ).- 0 '6 ic_ g 1...< 0 e e e '. 40 co o N 8 w 2 g g g 1— z CL CO (2 c4 O o 4,-; e 2 w eUV lenbiN eurtei e U ON) ugsni euv Blues e6ue.10 .ueo wiatieuv olleqewon kesnpui euound ocreiurD '3 AelPed SrTorl aarewwoo mentuoN Nied euang umelind ett0.100 uRvi 'N e�ae!S 9PfSJ aA ugsnH/aorucls ec.ijeiEvaon 0 1,- N OD CD4 oipuessely euourei sPied sued 'S p odmaNrulAR HOME DEST r- o TY o 0 CD U01 U egr U VD,At HOME DEST o CQ N- CO 0 OCO N N g tood gggi 0 0 Scenario 6 CETAP Intracounty Rail Service 2030 Weekday Patronage FROM TO M 0 _ CO m f a g o mm m o NV .4 O t w o al N U U m O. O i M m u) Z cr) d cc > 2 CO M Temecula Murrieta HS Road Benton Road Scott Road Newport Road South Perris Perris Ramona Van Buren Alessandro UCR Spruce Riverside Total 437 130 242 55 17 127 187 173 246 140 38 109 193 2093 0 27 95 23 5 56 64 54 39 27 8 16 28 443 27 0 11 3 1 13 17 16 16 8 3 6 10 130 95 11 0 3 1 12 17 24 31 14 3 11 19 242 23 3 3 0 0 3 4 5 6 3 1 2 3 55 5 1 1 0 0 1 1 2 2 1 0 1 1 17 56 13 12 3 1 0 3 6 20 4 1 3 6 127 64 17 17 4 1 3 0 15 33 10 2 8 14 187 54 16 24 5 2 6 15 0 10 8 2 11 20 173 39 16 31 6 2 20 33 10 0 13 4 27 46 246 27 8 14 3 1 4 10 8 13 0 4 16 31 140 8 3 3 1 0 1 2 2 4 4 0 2 9 38 Note: Numbers include both peak and off-peak tops from destination to home. Numbers excludes peak period, peak direction trips served by South Perris commuter rail extension. CETAP Intracounty Rail Service 2030 AM Peak Period Patronage 16 6 11 2 1 3 8 11 27 16 2 0 6 109 22 10 19 3 1 6 14 20 46 31 9 6 0 187 FROM TO X _ co CX c © o: '0-0 m O N n o a m a) 7 y O ... a Y ` N 2 ` N (� n ' ° F m in z r a cc > ¢ 2 u> Q Temecula Murrieta HS Road Benton Road Scott Road Newport Road South Perris Perris Ramona Van Buren Alessandro UCR Spruce Riverside Total 153 71 164 32 8 49 62 45 43 32 7 44 82 791 0 7 14 0 60 6 13 1 2 0 28 5 30 5 20 4 8 2 8 2 1 0 4 1 6 1 195 33 0 1 0 2 2 2 1 1 0 0 1 29 5 1 9 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 12 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 b 17 6 8 1 0 0 2 3 2 2 0 2 21 9 11 2 1 0 0 9 5 6 1 4 2 6 45 74 23 9 18 3 1 0 0 0 2 5 1 6 10 79 24 11 24 4 1 13 22 5 0 8 2 16 25 155 14 5 11 2 0 0 0 0 3 0 2 10 19 65 6 2 3 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 6 20 9 4 8 1 1 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 4 33 10 7 14 2 1 0 0 0 12 0 0 0 0 46 Ak Alk Ak Ak Alai ilk MAI\ MA\ ailk al Al Alk 711, MIFF MI 1111, 111. 1W NW NY NIP \II 11/ MIF 111. II. MP ‘11I miiir Scenario 7 1-215 Commuter Rail Extension .. VVin./Temec. 1-215/Clinton Keith I-215/Newport Road Total 566 24 18 42 32 26 228 4 0 38 14 12 0 12 2 606 0 38 10 8 40 126 4 56 46 22 24 0 20 4 994 0 0 32 24 18 312 4 132 96 34 24 38 20 4 2166 24 56 84 64 84 666 12 188 180 TO 60 38 52 10 2 2 54 4 2 72 8 4 152 Notes: Numbers include both peak and off-peak trips from destination to home. Numbers excludes peak period, peak direction hips served by .South Perris commuter rail extension. Brown color indicates transfers at Riverside to lEOC and Riverside Line trains. 1-215 Commuter Rail Extension 10 16 32 26 26 66 2 2 6 6 a 18 10 12 28 14 20 44 16 18 42 40 as 108 16 16 40 2 8 4 10 8 22 _ _ PEST DEST -4 0 I— _c ,-• a) Y 2 C 0 i-0-- '& ___ ' u as o DC .t '3.- 0 Z i:"0- C. 7, -1 _ ' 'g 0 u) ,S2, "a. Zti a_ (.0 c 0 E (II cc f.:.,) -o C as 0 0 a) 7:-c 0 .c — .L..a M Gr 0 o c 0 a sx ---- 0 0 2 Ct. u) a) -o L- 0 ?:. 'W as L- .— U) 0 -J Z as a 2 o C.) g -a a> -5 LI- ,e 'cii cl- 0 2 = 03 Z 8 tti E E 0 0 cn D <dr _3 >. a) -o 0 a_ , 0 Ili 03 c o E 0 a a,,,, in D -0 _S. o raj ..0 a) c 0 2 a (,) E ,_ 2 co C < ,D tz al ,— 0 as c < co c (13 u) _0_ 7.;) = i-- _ _ 7,13 or nZ co c = co 0 _,J E — 0 -c co C < _ VVin./Temec. 1-215/Clinton Keith 1-215/Newport Road Total 258 11 8 19 14 12 104 278 0 17 5 4 19 58 452 0 0 15 10 8 142 9 11 25 39 28 39 304 2 0 17 7 6 0 5 2 26 21 10 11 0 9 2 60 44 15 11 18 9 6 86 82 32 28 18 23 1 1 0 11 2 1 1 25 4 12 2 2 1 32 7 12 5 4 2 68 14 30 1 2 0 4 7 7 18 7 1 4 1 3 0 6 9 8 21 8 2 4 3 7 0 13 20 19. 49 19 4., 10 Scenario 8 1-215 Intracounty Rail Service 2030 Weekday Patronage ,a as rr c0 - a m FROM TO �- 3 I- opr U m z aC 2 a ux n. m rr m > c a+ U m a rn v m 2 .cc Temecula Muniela HS Road Clinton Keith Scott Road Newport Road McCall Road South Penis Penis Ramona Van Buren Alessandro UCR Spruce Riverside Toad 625 241 352 218 351 287 113 180 220 299 181 43 146 276 3532 0 40 40 0 121 22 66 18 119 41 72 24 36 12 43 17 38 18 29 17 20 9 7 3 13 7 22 12 625 241 121 22 0 10 22 14 11 18 29 41 18 4 15 27 352 66 18 10 0 7 12 9 13 19 26 12 2 9 17 218 119 41 22 7 0 9 7 12 25 38 17 2 14 40 351 72 24 14 12 9 0 8 15 26 38 20 3 17 29 287 36 12 11 9 7 8 0 3 8 6 4 1 3 6 113 43 17 18 13 12 15 3 0 15 12 10 2 7 14 180 38 18 29 19 25 26 8 15 0 4 8 2 10 20 220 29 17 41 26 38 38 6 12 4 0 13 4 26 45 299 20 a 18 12 17 20 4 10 8 13 0 4 16 31 181 Note: Numbers include both peak and off-peak trips from destination to home. Numbers excludes peak period, peak direction trips served by South Perris commuter rail extension. 1-2151ntracounty Rail Service 2030 AM Peak Period Patronage 7 3 4 2 2 3 1 2 2 4 4 0 2 8 43 13 7 15 9 14 17 3 7 10 26 16 2 0 6 146 22 12 27 17 40 29 6 14 20 45 31 8 6 0 276 v - m 0 _. _ _ W --E.Q v D. FROM TO = lb Y Fa p ft a 0 N 0 a as clsE. °a m m fa) o m 0 0gg1 e i 1- 1-' 2 5 cg to a3i z cVi 2 o co a m rr A > m ¢ U D a rn it Temecula Murrieta HS Road Clinton Keith Scott Road Newport Road McCall Road South Perris Perris Ramona Van Buren Alessandro UCR Spruce Riverside Total 175 113 246 130 193 171 33 41 43 47 34 7 46 85 1363 0 21 84 41 61 44 18 21 15 6 6 0 3 5 325 12 0 13 8 12 12 5 5 5 3 2 0 1 2 80 i2 5 0 2 3 4 2 2 2 1 1 0 1 1 36 12 6 6 0 3 4 3 3 3 2 1 0 0 1 45 34 21 15 3 0 4 2 3 3 1 1 0 1 1 88 13 7 8 5 4 0 3 4 4 3 2 0 2 3 58 11 5 7 5 3 4 0 2 3 2 2 0 2 2 48 14 8 12 7 8 8 0 0 9 5 8 1 3 6 85 16 10 21 12 17 18 0 0 0 2 5 1 8 10 117 17 11 31 19 29 27 0 0 0 0 8 2 15 24 184 10 6 13 8 12 13 0 0 0 3 0 2 10 19 96 5 7 2 4 3 12 1 7 1 10 2 12 0 0 O 0 O 0 1 6 O 0 O 0 1 0 6 4 24 62 12 8 20 12 31 21 0 0 0 12 0 0 0 0 116 CALIFORNIA WASHINGTON, DC 6 Beach Road, #250 Tiburon, CA 94920-0250 T 415.789.5061 F 415.789.5019 rlbasf@aol.com 1717 K Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20036-5331 T 202.296.6700 F 202.296.3700 transport@rlbadc.com • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • A • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Speakers shall complete the following: SUBJECT OF PUBLIC COMMENTS: X, PUBLIC COMMENTS: AGENDA ITEM NO.: SUBJECT OF (AS LISTED ON THE AGENDA) NAME: ADDRESS: AGENDA ITEM: DETACH AND SUBMIT TO THE CLERK OF THE BOARD p n �,. DATE: I Y/ 01/ l J l.v K/GWa410VOE Err1 e:a/WiC Sr"IPA R. A 484/uler IMRArerr TEL. NO.: %Jf aPs- 4970)4 *7 45z- nosPe�.7- f%l clC�avte' Ci. 9 �► Street j City Zip Code REPRESENTING: /d ! GlfGRav1 E' BUSINESS ADDRESS: s14yste' RCTC/nk 10/03 Name of Group TEL. NO.: