Loading...
11 November 28, 2005 Plans and ProgramsRECORDS RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATIOI PLANS AND PROGRAMS COMMITTEt-- MEETING AGENDA TIME: 12:00 P.M. DATE: November 28, 2005 LOCATION: Board Chambers, 1" Floor County of Riverside Administrative Center 4080 Lemon Street, Riverside *** COMMITTEE MEMBERS *** Michael H. Wilson/Gene Gilbert, City of Indio, Chairman Daryl Busch/Mark Yarbrough, City of Perris, Vice Chairman Shenna Moqeet / John Chlebnik / Jon Winningham, City of Calimesa Mary Craton/John Zaitz, City of Canyon Lake Jeff Miller/Karen Spiegel, City of Corona Mary Roche/Robert Bernheimer, City of Indian Wells Frank West/Charles White, City of Moreno Valley Frank Hall/Harvey Sullivan, City of Norco Dick Kelly/Robert Spiegel, City of Palm Desert Ronald Oden/Ginny Foat, City of Palm Springs Ron Roberts/Jeff Comerchero, City of Temecula Bob Buster, County of Riverside, District I Roy Wilson, County of Riverside, District IV Marion Ashley, County of Riverside, District V *** STAFF *** Eric Haley, Executive Director Cathy Bechtel, Division Head, Planning *** AREAS OF RESPONSIBILITY *** State Transportation Improvement Program Regional Transportation Improvement Program New Corridors Intermodal Programs (Transit, Rail, Rideshare) Air Quality and Clean Fuels Regional Agencies, Regional Planning Intelligent Transportation System Planning and Programs Congestion Management Program 74918 The Committee welcomes comments. If you wish to provide comments to the Committee, please complete and submit a Testimony Card to the Clerk of the Board. 11.36.15 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION PLANS AND PROGRAMS COMMITTEE www.rctc.org AGENDA* *Actions may be taken on any item listed on the agenda 12:00 P.M. Monday, November 28, 2005 BOARD ROOM County of Riverside Administrative Center 4080 Lemon Street, First Floor, Riverside In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act and Government Code Section. 54954.2, if you need special assistance to participate in a Committee meeting, please contact the Clerk of the Commission at (951) 787-7141. Notification of at least 48 hours prior to meeting time will assist staff in assuring that reasonable arrangements can be made to provide accessibility at the meeting. 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL 3. PUBLIC COMMENTS 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 5. ADDITIONS/REVISIONS (The Committee may add an item to the Agenda after making a finding that there is a need to take immediate action on the item and that the item came to the attention of the Committee subsequent to the posting of the agenda. An action adding an item to the agenda requires 2/3 vote of the Committee. If there are less than 2/3 of the Committee members present, adding an item to the agenda requires a unanimous vote. Added items will be placed for discussion at the end of the agenda.) Plans and Programs Committee Agenda November 28, 2005 Page 2 6. 2006 STATE TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT. Pg. 1 Overview This item is for the Committee to: 1) Receive and file the Draft 2006 State Transportation Improvement Program, and 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. 7. ALAMEDA CORRIDOR EAST (ACE) SAFETEA-LU CALL FOR PROJECTS Pg. 9 Overview This item is for the Committee to: 1) Authorize the Release of a Call for Projects for the SAFETEA-LU ACE Earmark; 2) Approve the Evaluation Criteria for the ACE Earmark Call for Projects; 3) Authorize the use of the Commercial Paper Program for up to $7..5 million 10-year loan per successfully approved application; and 4►) Forward to the Commission for final action. 8. COMMUTER RAIL PROGRAM UPDATE Pg. 12 Overview This item is for the Committee to: 1) Receive and file the commuter Rail Program • Update as an information item, and 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. Plans and Programs Committee Agenda November 28, 2005 Page 3 9. TRANSTRACK: TRANSIT PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT SOFTWARE Overview This item is for the Committee to: Pg. 32 1) Allocate $ 153,000 in Local Transportation Funds (LTF) to TransTrack Systems LLC (TransTrack) for the implementation of a Transit Performance Manager software application and training package; 2) Authorize the Chairman, pursuant to Legal Counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission; 3) Approve Agreement No. 06-62-007-00 with TransTrack for $ 153,000 in LTF funds; and 4) Forward to the Commission for final action. 10. DESIGNATED RECIPIENT FOR THE FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION'S SECTION 5307 PROGRAM - SMALL URBANIZED AREA FUNDING Pg. 36 Overview This item is for the Committee to: 1) Name the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) as the Designated Recipient (DR) for planning and programming of Section 5307 funds for the Hemet urbanized area (UZA); 2) Adopt Resolution No. 05-013, "A Resolution of the Riverside County Transportation Commission Recommending that it be Identified as the Designated Recipient of Federal Urbanized Area Formula Funds for the Hemet UZA;" and 3)• Forward to the Commission for final action. Plans and Programs Committee Agenda November 28, 2005 Page 4 11. REQUEST FROM FRIENDS OF MORENO VALLEY FOR MEASURE "A" SPECIALIZED TRANSIT FUNDS AS MATCH FOR FY 2004/05 SECTION 5310 PROGRAM Pg. 39 Overview This item is for the Committee to: 1) Allocate $9,800 in Measure "A" Specialized Transit Funds to the Friends of Moreno Valley (Friends) to provide the required local match for the purchase of an accessible modified van; 2) Authorize the Chairman, pursuant to Legal Counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission; 3) Approve Agreement No. 06-26-002-00 with Friends for $9,800 in Measure "A" Specialized Transit Funds available in western Riverside County; and 4) Forward to the Commission for final action. 12. REQUEST FROM THE PARTNERSHIP TO PRESERVE INDEPENDENT LIVING FOR SENIORS AND PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES FOR MEASURE "A" SPECIALIZED TRANSIT FUNDS Pg. 41 Overview This item is for the Committee to: 1) Allocate an additional $50,000 in Measure "A" Specialized Transit Funds to the Partnership to Preserve Independent Living for Seniors and .Persons with Disabilities for its Transportation Reimbursement and Information. Project; 2) Authorize the Chairman, pursuant to Legal Counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission; 3) Approve Agreement No. 05-26-517-01, . Amendment No. 1 to Agreement 05-26-517 with the Partnership to Preserve Independent Living for Seniors and Persons with Disabilities in an amount not to exceed $50,000; and 4) Forward to the Commission for final action. Plans and Programs Committee Agenda November 28, 2005 Page 5 13. COMMISSIONERS / STAFF REPORT Overview This item provides the opportunity for the Commissioners and staff to report on attended and upcoming meetings/conferences and issues related to Commission activities. 14. ADJOURNMENT The next Plans and Programs Committee meeting is scheduled to be held at 12:30 P.M., Monday, January 23, 2006, Board Chambers, 1st Floor, County Administrative Center, 4080 Lemon Street, Riverside. ATTENDANCE ROSTER PLANS AND PROGRAMS COMMITTEE MEETING MONDAY, NOVEMBER 28, 2005 - 12:00 P.M. j >s `(e/L____ F9b. REPRESE G TELEPHONE OR E-MAIL 4-41,QD cf i c) � �oJ --- D�- �.5 Tsl ��T<.5-- � oS grVer 9S/ - q4-1 3K--s yf �� gr/- 2.s--,5=i1'/0 • MINUTES RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION PLANS AND PROGRAMS COMMITTEE Monday, October 24, 2005 MINUTES 1. CALL TO ORDER The meeting of the Plans and Programs Committee was called to order by Vice Chairman Daryl Busch at 12:03 p.m., in the Board Room at the County of Riverside Administrative Center, 4080 Lemon Street, First Floor, Riverside, California, 92501. 2. ROLL CALL Members/Alternates Present Marion Ashley Daryl Busch Bob Buster Mary Craton Frank Hall Dick Kelly Jeff Miller Shenna Moqeet Ronald Oden Ron Roberts Mary Roche Frank West Roy Wilson Members Absent Michael H. Wilson 3. PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no requests from the public to speak. 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES — August 22, 2005 M/S/C (Hall/Ashley) to approve the August 22,. 2005 minutes as submitted. Abstain: Roche, R. Wilson Plans and Programs Committee Minutes October 24, 2005 Page 2 5. ADDITIONS/REVISIONS There were no additions or revision to the Agenda. 6. FISCAL YEAR 2005-2006 SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN AMENDMENT: RIVERSIDE TRANSIT AGENCY - TRANSIT CENTERS Tanya Love, Program Manager, presented Riverside Transit Agency's request to amend its Short Range Transit Plan for the continued development of transit centers. M/S/C Miller/Craton) to: 1) Amend the FY 2005-06 Short Range Transit Plan for the Riverside Transit Agency to include the Program of Projects for the continued development of transit centers located in Riverside County; 2) Direct staff to program funding in the amount of $1,963,097 in Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fees administered through Western Riverside Council of Governments and $96,140 in Federal Transit Administration's Section 5309 funds; 3) Include the projects in the Regional Transportation Improvement Program; and, 4) Forward to the Commission for final action. 7. RIVERSIDE COUNTY COMMUTER RAIL FEASIBILITY STUDY Stephanie Wiggins, Rail Department Manager, briefly reviewed the major regional study efforts underway related to freight capacity improvements. The feasibility study will allow the Commission to determine if additional commuter rail extension beyond the Perris Valley Line project should be assessed in these study efforts. Charles Banks, R.L. Banks and Associates, reviewed. the scenario alternatives evaluated in the feasibility study. Commissioner Shenna Moqeet expressed concerns regarding data used in the study, consideration of increasing truck traffic, future population growth of the Pass Area, and exclusion of Scenario 1 that would provide service to this area. She stated that this scenario should to be advanced as the need is significant. Plans and Programs Committee Minutes October 24, 2005 Page 3 Charles Banks responded that the SCAG model for the year 2030 was used for a consistent data set. He noted mobility improvement is one of the evaluation criteria. In response to Commissioner Moqeet's concerns regarding the accuracy of the SCAG data, Justin Fox, R.L. Banks and Associates, indicated that the data is the latest iteration of information provided by each jurisdiction in terms of planning new homes and employment, which is updated yearly. Commissioner Moqeet requested that the Commissioners be provided with the SCAG model data used for the study. Commissioner Mary Roche concurred with Commission Moqeet's concerns and stated that Scenarios 1 and 2 need to be advanced. She then asked when scenarios not included for advancement would be reviewed for future consideration. Stephanie Wiggins clarified that Scenarios 1 and 2 are included in SCAG's Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) as an intercity rail route, in the State approved rail plan, and the Caltrans rail plan update. The feasibility study looked at commuter rail and intracounty and its results do not preclude the intercity rail route. The RTP is updated every three years. At Commissioner Ron Oden's request, Carl Schiermeyer, Schiermeyer 'Consulting Services, defined intercity, intracounty, and commuter rail. Charles Banks briefly reviewed the evaluation criteria and presented the analysis of the scenarios and the recommendation to advance Scenario 3, commuter rail service between San Jacinto and South Perris, and Scenario 7, commuter rail service between Temecula and South Perris. At Commissioner Moqeet's request, Charles Banks explained how trip time savings are calculated. At the request of Eric Haley, Executive Director, Charles Bank identified the location of the terminus in Temecula for Scenario 7. Commissioner Ron Roberts noted he believes a rail station is feasible in that area. Plans and Programs Committee Minutes October 24, 2005 Page 4 Commissioner Bob Buster suggested that existing rail lines be included on the scenario comparison table to assist in gauging alternatives under study. He noted that trains are following land use and more intensive work should be done to make them work together. He then asked for clarification of the basis of the study. Charles Banks responded that the basis of the study was to leverage to the greatest extent possible on existing rights -of -way. Also, the 'farebox recovery ratio is closest for comparative purposes to existing lines. Commissioner Buster then suggested that the expense of commuter rail service may be a desired investment to improve quality of life. Stephanie Wiggins highlighted that for both Scenarios 3 and 7, ridership forecast show the largest destination points are in Riverside County, specifically Alessandro Boulevard. Commissioner Buster recommended reinforcing that information in planning and land use and other improvements. Charles Banks added that the origin and destination forecasts for each scenario are in the final report. M/S/C (West/Oden) to: 1) Receive and file the draft Commuter Rail Feasibility Final Report; 2) Advance Scenario 3 (Perris Valley Line/Commuter/San Jacinto) and Scenario 7 (I-215/Commuter/Temecula) as optimal routes warranting future study for inclusion in the next RTP update; and, 3) Forward to the Commission for final action. No: Moqeet 8. EXPANSION OF COMMUTESMART.INFO TRAFFIC MAP Robert Yates, Program Manager, and Brian Cunanan, Staff Analyst, demonstrated the expansion of the real time traffic information map and new functionality of the regional rideshare website, CommuteSmart.info. Plans and Programs Committee Minutes October 24, 2005, Page 5 9. M/S/C (R. Wilson/Oden) to: 1) Receive and file this report on the real time traffic information map expansion project as hosted on the regional rideshare website, www.CommuteSmart.info; and, 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. STATUS REPORT ON THE MID COUNTY PARKWAY Cathy Bechtel, Division Head of Planning, updated the Commission on the status of the Mid County Parkway project, including concerns with the alignments in front of the dams, coordination with the Riverside County Transportation Department, and impacts on schedule and budget. M/S/C (R. Wilson/Oden) to: 1) Receive and file a status report on the Mid County Parkway project; and, 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. ' 10. COMMUTER RAIL PROGRAM UPDATE M/S/C (Busch/Roberts) to: 1) Receive and file the Commuter Rail Program Update as an information item; and, 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. 11. COMMISSIONERS / STAFF REPORT Commissioner Jeff Miller notified the Committee of a tour set up by SCAG and WRCOG of the L.A. Harbor and Alameda Corridor on October 2Th related to goods movement. Interested Commissioners are to notify WRCOG. Plans and Programs Committee Minutes October 24, 2005 Page 6 12. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business for consideration by the Plans and Programs Committee, the meeting adjourned at 1:16 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Jennifer Harmon Deputy Clerk of the Board AGENDA ITEM 6 • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMM/SS/ON DATE: November 28, 2005 TO: Plans and Programs Committee FROM: Shirley Medina, Program Manager THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Division Head, Programming and Administration SUBJECT: 2006 State Transportation Improvement Program Development STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Committee to: 1) Receive and file the Draft 2006 State Transportation Improvement Program, and 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The development of the 2006 State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) is well underway. The 2006 STIP Fund Estimate (FE) was adopted at the September 29, 2005 California Transportation Commission (CTC) meeting. The 2006 FE provides five-year estimates (fiscal years 2006/07 through 2010/1 1) for the State Highway Account (SHA), the Public Transportation Account.. (PTA), the Transportation Investment Fund (TIF), and the Transportation Deferred Investment Fund (TDIF). The condition of the STIP continues to be unstable largely because the FE must be consistent with existing law, which includes revenues from Proposition 42 and Tribal Gaming Bond proceeds. Given that there is no certainty that Proposition 42 funding will be continued and that receipt of Tribal Gaming Bond proceeds are dependent upon the outcome of ongoing litigation, it is very possible that the programming scenarios included in the FE may not materialize. If this is the case, the 2006 STIP may result in a zero STIP, where no new funding is available for programming, or, in a worse case scenario, regional agencies may. have to deprogram projects from the STIP. However, there is a strong statewide momentum among transportation agencies and the legislature to - support the continuance and protection of Proposition 42 that could prove to be apositive impact on the 2006 STIP. Although the funding picture is unclear, we are required to prepare and submit a STIP in accordance with the adopted FE. There are three funding scenarios that are presented in the fund estimate: 1 • Target Scenario - $167 M new programming capacity. This scenario assumes programming of county shares through 2010/201 1. • Minimum Scenario - $45.5 M new programming capacity. This scenario assumes programming of county shares through 2007/08. • 'Maximum Scenario - $197.3M new programming capacity. This scenario assumes county shares through _201 1-2012. Staff has prepared draft proposals for the Target and Minimum Scenarios only since the likelihood of the CTC adopting the Maximum Scenario is extremely low. Attachment A reflects the Commission's adopted STIP Intra-county Formula for the Target and Minimum Scenarios. In addition, Attachment B identifies Regional Improvement Program (RIP) project programming associated with the Target and Minimum Scenarios. Target Scenario CTC staff has recommended that the regional agencies focus : on the Target Scenario for their respective STIP submittals. However, the likelihood of achieving this scenario is largely dependent upon a STIP submittal that proposes a large amount of funds that would qualify for PTA funds, which are transit and rail type projects. It is our understanding that the SR 91 High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lane project, from Adams Street to the 60/91 /215 Interchange, qualifies as a PTA eligible project due to the usage of the HOV lane by Bus Rapid Transit or Express Bus services.: Therefore, our proposed Target Scenario would stand a good chance to be funded if funding is available in the 2006 STIP. Western ; Riverside County formula funds were previously approved by the Commission for the SR 91 HOV project. Another commitment, approved by. the Commission over the last year was to fund the 60/215 East Junction Connectors project as the last or seventh segment of the 215 Corridor project, which is currently under construction. This commitment was included in . the AB . 3090 Agreements that indicated -the RIP funds from the SR 60 HOV and SR 91/Green River interchange projects be reprogrammed on to the 60/215 East Junction Connectors project. Coachella Valley Formula funds are proposed for funding cost increases on .the Interstate 10 Interchange projects on Indian, Bob Hope/Ramon, and Jefferson due to the rise in price of construction materials. The Coachella Valley Association of Governments (CVAG) is currently reviewing the •cost increases for these projects and will provide the final project estimates soon. The updated project costs along_ 2 with CVAG's final proposal will be included in the final recommendation to the Commission at the January 11, 2006 meeting. The Target Scenario also proposes the deletions of projects currently programmed in the 2004 STIP. The reason why we are proposing to delete these projects is because they are all local arterial projects. Over the past three years, when STIP allocations are limited due to lack of sufficient funds, allocation plans are developed. These allocation plans rank categories of projects in priority order. Local arterial projects tend to be ranked very close to the bottom, and therefore, these projects stand a good chance of being delayed if they stay in the STIP and the State continues to have funding problems. Staff is proposing to replace the STIP funds with other federal funds as noted. Should the Commission approve this action, we will follow up with changing the fund sources in the Federal Transportation Improvement Program (FTIP). Palo Verde Valley Formula funds historically have been programmed on local arterials. Given the problem cited above with local arterial projects, we will continue to work with the County and Blythe on their 2006 STIP proposal. Palo Verde Valley's proposal will be included in the final recommendation to the Commission at their January 11, 2006 meeting. Minimum Scenario The Minimum Scenario identifies a very minor amount of new programming capacity. Staff would recommend the deletion of the local arterials for the same reason cited in the Target Scenario (arterials are historically ranked low by CTC when funding is limited). Staff would propose that Western County funds be programmed on 1) the SR 91 HOV lane project right-of-way phase; and 2) the 60/215 East Junction construction phase. Funding identified for Coachella Valley would be proposed for covering cost increases along the Interstate 10 interchange projects. Both scenarios also include AB 3090 Cash Reimbursements that were approved for the 60/91/215 Interchange and corridor improvement projects and for Planning, Programming, and Monitoring funds programmed in fiscal year 2003/04. The cash reimbursement for the 60/91 /215 in the amount of $26,625 is proposed for the 91. HOV project and will be reimbursed in fiscal year 2006/07. The PPM reimbursement of $166,000 will be received in fiscal year 2007/08 and will be reprogrammed to support future PPM activities. Staff will continue working with CVAG and Palo Verde Valley (County of Riverside and Blythe) on finalizing the 2006 STIP proposals for the respective subregions. The Draft STIP proposal is being presented in December for purposes of discussion and. allowing sufficient time to adjust the proposal should new information become 3 available regarding funding or project changes. Staff will bring back the final 2006 STIP proposal for approval at the Commission's January 11, 2006 meeting. The deadline for 2006 STIP submittals from the regional agencies and Caltrans is January 30, 2006. Staff will report to the Commission on any state or federal issues that may impact our proposed 2006 STIP submittal. Attachments: Attachment A - 2006 STIP Intra-County Formula for New Program Capacity Attachment B - 2006 STIP Proposed Programming ATTACHMENT A 2006 STIP Intra-County Formula for New Program Capacity Target Scenario (PTA heavy/County Share ending 2010-2011) New capacity available for 2006 STIP programming 2004 STIP Unprogrammed County Share Balance 2% Planning, Programming & Monitoring Formula Breakdown: Western County 74.45% $ 2,488,030 Coachella Valley 24.76% $ 827,449 Palo Verde Valley 0.79% $ 26,401 Total PPM Available $ 3,341,880 $ 68,375,000 $ 98,719,000 $ 167,094,000 $ 3,341,880 STIP Funds Available for New Program Capacity $ 163,752,120 Formula Breakdown: *2004 STIP Adjustment Western County 74.45% $ 121,913,453 $ (612,743) $ 121,300,710 Coachella Valley 24.76% $ 40,545,025 $ 591,875 $ 41,136,900 Palo Verde Valley 0.79% $ 1,293,642 $ 20,868 $ 1,314,510 Total New Program Capacity $ 163,752,120 $ 163,752,120 *Programming for Coachella Valley and Palo Verde Valley funds was not determined at the time of the 2004 STIP submittal. Therefore, the $612,743 of Formula funding was programmed in the Western County (SR 91 HOV) to protect funds from being reprogrammed outside of Riverside County. ATTACHMENT A 2006 STIP Intra-County Formula for New Program Capacity Minimum Scenario (County Share period ending 2007/08) New capacity available for 2006 STIP programming 2% Planning, Programming, & Monitoring Formula Breakdown: Western County 74.45% $ 678,120 Coachella Valley 24.76% $ 225,524 Palo Verde Valley 0.79% $ 7,196 Total PPM Available $ 910,840 45542,000 910,840 Unprogrammed Share for Project Programming: $ 44,631,160 Formula Breakdown: *2004 STIP Adjustment Western County 74,45% $ 33,227,899 $ (612,743) $ 32,615,156 Coachella Valley 24.76% $ 11,050,675 $ 591,875 $ 11,642,550 Palo Verde Valley 0.79% $ 352,586 $ 20,868 $ 373,454 Total Unprogrammed Share for $ 44,631,160 Programming $ 44,631,160 *Programming for Coachella Valley and Palo Verde Valley funds was not determined at the time of the 2004 STIP submittal. Therefore, the $612,743 of Formula funding was programmed in the Western County (SR 91 HOV) to protect funds from being reprogrammed outside of Riverside County. DRAFT 2006 STIP Proposed Programming -Target Scenario Current Projects ATTACHMENT B $ (000's Agency Rte Project Total RIP FY 06/07 FY 07/08 FY 08/09 FY 09/10 FY 10/11 Phase RCTC PPM Planning, Programming, and Monitoring $ 1,105 $ 105 $ 500 $ 500 Con Caltrans 10 Ramon Rd/Bob Hope Interchange $ 19,022 $ 19,022. Con Caltrans 10 Jefferson Street Interchange $ 10,560 $ 10,560 Con Caltrans 10 Indian Ave Interchange $ 15,112 $ 2,000 $ 13,112 R/W, Con Caltrans 15 Calif Oaks/Kalmia Interchange $ 7,366 $ 2,324 $ 5,042 R/W, Con Caltrans 91 Van Buren Interchange $ 3,465 $ 3,465 Con Caltrans 95 Intake Blvd Widen/Signal $ 1,875 $ 1,875 Con Caltrans 60/215 IC AB 3090's (60/215 E Jct connectors) $ 7,349 $ 7,349 Con Sub -total Current Projects $ 65,854 $ 4,429 $ 53,576 $ 7,849 $ $ New Protect Programmin Caltrans - 91 HOV lanes, Adams to 60/91/215 IC $ 138,182 $ 22,000 $ 116,182 R/W, Con CVAG 10 Cost increases for I-10 interchanges $ 41,137 $ 41,137 Con Palo Verde Valley TBD $ 1,315 TBD RCTC PPM Program Years TBD $ 3,342 Con Sub -total New Projects $ 183,976 $ 22,000 $ 41,137 Total Current and New Projects $ 249,830 $ 24,429 $ 94,713 - $ 116,182 $ 7,849 $ 101,301 $ STIP Programming Targets Per FY: AB 3090 Cash Reimbursements $ 25,763 $ 45,175 $ 11,798 Caltrans 91 HOV lanes, Adams to 60/91/215 IC $ 26,625 RCTC PPM Planning, Programming, and Monitoring $ 166 Projects Proposed to Be Deleted from STIP Total RIP Replacement Funds Proposed Programming Blythe Lovekin Blvd Rehabilitation $ - RSTP FY 07/08 Cathedral City Ramon Road Improvements $ 1,385 RSTP FY 06/07 Coachella Dillon Road Grade Separation $ 4,559 CMAQ FY 05/06 Coachella Dillon Road Widening $ 2,117 RSTP FY 05/06 Moreno Valley Perris Blvd Improvements $ 3,184 RSTP FY 06/07 Moreno Valley Reche Vista Dr Realignment, signal $ 1,967 RSTP FY 06/07 Riverside County Miles Ave/Clinton St Widening $ 2,040 RSTP FY 06/07 Riverside County De Frain Blvd Reconstruction $ 810 RSTP FY 07/08 RCTC Rideshare Activities $ 820 RSTP FY 05/06-08/09 Total Deletions from STIP $ 16,882 7 ATTACHMENT B DRAFT 2006 STIP Proposed Programming - Minimum Scenario Current Protects 000's Agency Rte Project Total RIP FY 06/07 FY 07/08 FY 08/09 FY 09/10 FY 10/11 Phase RCTC PPM Planning, Programming, and Monitoring $ 1,105 $ 105 $ 500 $ 500 Con Caltrans 10 Ramon Rd/Bob Hope Interchange $ 19,022 $ 19,022 Con Caltrans. 10 Jefferson Street Interchange $ 10,560 $ 10,560 Con Caltrans .10 Indian Ave Interchange $ 15,112 $ 2,000 $ 13,112 R/W, Con Caltrans 15 Calif Oaks/Kalmia Interchange $ 7,366 $ 2,324 $ 5,042 R/W, Con Caltrans 91 Van Buren Interchange $ 3,465 $ 3,465 Con Caltrans 95 Intake Blvd Widen/Signal $ 1,875 $ 1,875 Con Caltrans 60/215 IC AB 3090's (60/215 E Jct connectors) $ 7,349 $ 7,349 Con Sub -total Current Projects $ 65,854 $ New Protect Proorammin 4,429 $ 53,576 $ 7,849 $ Caltrans 91 HOV lanes, Adams to 60/91/215 IC $ 22,000 $ 22,000 $ - R/W Caltrans 60/215 IC Connectors $ 10,615 $ 10,615 Con CVAG 10 Cost increases for 1-10 interchanges $ 11,643 $ 11,643 Con Palo Verde Valley TBD $ 373 TBD RCTC • PPM Program Years TBD $ 911 Con Sub -total New Projects $ 45,542 $ 22,000 $ 11,643 $ 10,615 $ Total Current and New Projects $ 111,396 $ 24,429 $ 94,713 $ 7,849 $ 101,301 $ - STIP Programming Targets Per FY: $ 25,763 $ 45,175 $ 11,798 AB 3090 Cash Reimbursements Caltrans ' 91 • HOV lanes, Adams to 60/91/215 IC 26,625 RCTC PPM $ 166 Projects Proposed to Be Deleted from STIP .. Total RIP .Replacement Funds Proposed Programming Blythe Lovekin Blvd Rehabilitation $ - RSTP FY 07/08 Cathedral City Ramon Road Improvements $ 1,385 RSTP FY 06/07 Coachella Dillon Road Grade Separation $ 4,559 CMAQ FY 05/06 Coachella Dillon Road Widening $ 2,117 RSTP FY 05/06 Moreno Valley Perris Blvd Improvements $ 3,184 RSTP FY 06/07 Moreno Valley Reche Vista Dr Realignment, signal $ 1,967 RSTP FY 06/07 • Riverside County Miles Ave/Clinton St Widening $ 2,040 RSTP FY 06/07 Riverside County De Frain Blvd Reconstruction $ 810 RSTP FY 07/08 RCTC Rideshare Activities $ 820 RSTP FY 05/06-08/09 Total Deletions from STIP $ 16,882 AGENDA ITEM 7 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: November 28, 2005 TO: Plans and Programs Committee FROM: Stephanie Wiggins, Rail Department Manager THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Division Head, Programming and Administration SUBJECT: Alameda Corridor East (ACE) SAFETEA-LU Call for Projects STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Committee to: 1) Authorize the Release of a Call for Projects for the SAFETEA-LU ACE Earmark; 2) Approve the Evaluation Criteria for the ACE Earmark Call for Projects; 3) Authorize the use of the Commercial Paper Program for up to $7.5 million 10-year loan per successfully approved application; and 4) Forward to the Commission for final action. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: On July 2005, Congress approved the reauthorization of the Federal Transportation Bill which is now known as SAFETEA-LU. Among the categories of earmarks are the "Projects of National and Regional Significance." The Commission joined with others in seeking an earmark for the Alameda Corridor East (ACE). The money will be split evenly between Riverside, San Bernardino, Orange and Los Angeles Counties and will be used to mitigate the impacts of ever-increasing freight traffic. The Commission anticipates $31.25 - $38.75 million to be available for allocation to address immediate grade separation needs. The allocation of the funds will be determined by a Call for Projects. In October 2005, the Commission approved the updated ACE Grade Separation Priority List. (See Attachment #1). The prioritization of crossings is weighted in favor of safety and current and forecast delay. Additional factors in prioritization include air quality, noise, nearby grade separations, and local jurisdiction preference. As part of the approval of the updated list, a request was made to analyze whether switching activity has a substantial impact on the List for Priority Tiers 1 & 2. According to the Federal Railroad Administration database, none of the crossings in Tier 1 are affected by daily switching; 6 crossings in Tier 2 are affected by switching; and 4 crossings in Tier 3 are affected by switching. Therefore, the additional crossings that may be eligible for the Call for Projects based upon the switching analysis results include: • Streeter Avenue, Riverside • Brockton Avenue, Riverside • Riverside Avenue, Riverside • 22nd Street, Banning The analysis of the switching activity on the Tier 1 — 3 crossings will be complete by December 12, 2005. Call for Projects Guidelines The guidelines for the Call for Projects are as follows: • Eligible Projects encompass Tier 1 and 2 grade crossings (see Attachment #1) with an allowance for additional crossings substantia►ly impacted by switching activities; • Evaluation criteria of submittals emphasizes Project Delivery: *50% Project Readiness *25% Local Funds Available (documented by formal resolutions) *25% Benefit/Cost Ratio (performed by RCTC) • Maximum award of $7.5 million (federal) per grade separation project with an additional allowance of $7.5 million Commercial Paper 10-year loan per project, if requested by applicant in accordance with Commission policy. • Application submissions limited to 2 per jurisdiction The schedule for the Call for Projects is proposed as follows: • Release Date: • Submission Deadline: • Policy Committee: • Commission Approval: December 19, 2005 February 20, 2006 March 27, 2006 April 12, 2006 Attachment: 2005 Grade Separation Priority List 10 ATTACHMENT#1 2005 Rail Crossing Grade Separation Priority List Overall Rail Cross Weighted Line Street Jurisdiction _ Score Group BNSF (SB SUB) Magnolia Av Riverside Count 4525 1 BNSF & UP (SB SUB) Chicago Av Riverside 4380 1 BNSF & UP (SB SUB) 3rd St Riverside 4060 1 BNSF & UPASB SUB) Columbia Av (BNSF) Riverside 4000 1 BNSF (SB SUB) McKinley St Corona 3950 1 BNSF & UP (SB SUB) Iowa Av (BNSF) Riverside 3820 1 BNSF (SB SUB) Adams St Riverside 3665 1 BNSF (SB SUB) Smith Av Corona 3613 2 UP (YUMA MAINL Sunset Av Banning 3500 2 BNSF (SB SUB) Tyler St Riverside 3500 2 BNSF (SB SUB) Mary St Riverside 3465 2 UP (LA SUB) Jurupa Rd Riverside Count 3462 2 BNSF (SB SUB) Auto Center Dr Corona 3438 2 UP (YUMA MAIN) Hargrave St Bannin. 3425 2 UP (LA SUB) Magnolia Av Riverside 3380 2 BNSF (SB SUB) Madison St Riverside 3340 2 UP (YUMA MAIN) Avenue 48/Dillon Road Indio/Coachella 3325 2 BNSF & UP (SB SUB) Center St Riverside Coun 3283 2 UP (LA SUB) Clay St Riverside Count 3235 2 BNSF & UP (SB SUB) 7th St Riverside 3135 2 BNSF (SB SUB) Pierce St Riverside 3090 3 BNSF & UP (SB SUB) Palmyrita Av (UP) Riverside 3010 3 BNSF (SB SUB) Railroad St Corona 2925 3 BNSF & UP (SB SUB) Spruce St (BNSF) Riverside 2845 3 UP (LA SUB) Riverside Av Riverside 2810 3 BNSF (SB SUB) Buchanan St Riverside 2800 3 BNSF & UP (RIV) Cridge St Riverside 2650 3 BNSF (SB SUB) Washington St Riverside 2580 3 UP (YUMA MAIN) Avenue 62 Riverside Coun 2525 3 UP (LA SUB) Streeter Av Riverside 2515 3 . UP (LA SUB) Brockton Av Riverside 2400 3 BNSF (SB SUB) Jefferson St Riverside 2380 3 UP (YUMA MAIN) 22nd St Bannin. 2375 3 UP (YUMA MAIN) San Gorgonio Av Bannin. 2300 3 UP (YUMA MAIN) Avenue 66 Riverside Count 2265 4 UP (YUMA MAIN) Avenue 52 Coachella 2233 4 BNSF (SB SUB) Cola St Corona 2113 4 UP (YUMA MAIN) San Timoteo Canyon Rd Calimesa 2100 4 UP (LA SUB) Bellgrave Av Riverside County 2048 4 UP (YUMA MAIN) Viele Av Beaumont 1983 4 UP (LA SUB) Palm Av Riverside 1965 4 UP (YUMA MAIN) Airport Drive Riverside Coun 1892 4 BNSF (SB SUB) Jackson St Riverside 1805 4 UP (LA SUB) Rutile St Riverside County 1746 4 UP (YUMA MAIN) Apache Trail Riverside County 1727 4 BNSF & UP (SB SUB) Main St Riverside Coun 1681 4 UP (YUMA MAIN) Broadway Riverside Count 1604 4 BNSF (SB SUB) Harrison St Riverside 1545 4 BNSF (SB SUB) Joy St Corona 1525 4 UP (YUMA MAIN) Califomia Av Beaumont 1500 4 UP (LA SUB) Mountain View Av Riverside 1450 4 BNSF (SB SUB) Radio Rd Corona 1450 4 BNSF (SB SUB) Jane St Riverside 1310 4 UP (LA SUB) Panorama Rd Riverside 1290 4 UP (YUMA MAIN) Tipton Rd Palm Springs 1100 5 UP (YUMA MAIN) Pennsylvania Av Beaumont 917 5 BNSF (SB SUB) Sheridan St Corona 813 5 UP (YUMA MAIN) Avenue 54 Coachella 767 5 BNSF (SB SUB) Gibson St Riverside 695 5 UP (YUMA MAIN) Avenue 58 Riverside Count 638 5 ' Crossings in BOLD ITALIC denote switching activity to be analyzed by December 12, 2005 11 as of 10/12/05 AGENDA ITEM 8 • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: November 28, 2005 TO: Plans and Programs Committee FROM: Sheldon Peterson, Staff Analyst Stephanie Wiggins, Rail Department Manager THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Division Head, Programming and Administration SUBJECT: Commuter Rail Program Update STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Committee to: 1) Receive and file the Commuter Rail Program Update as an information item, and 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Passenger Trips Riverside Line 5,200 5,000 c. 4,800 L �— 4,600 w 0 4,400 4,200 4,000 oG�541g d�' 0C1 ��h 2�0� �§' 4 k' a�0�' J�ph,J\�h J� h oG��h Month 12 Passenger trips on Metrolink's Riverside Line for the month of October averaged 4,688 which is up 108 (+2%) from the month of September. The Line has averaged an overall increase of +2% from a year ago October 2004. 100 d 95 a 90 85 80 a 75 On Time Performance (95% Goal) Riverside Line 70 O° �° 0 lac °° fat Pic �.a� ��S ��� V- co . Month October .on -time performance averaged 96% inbound • (+5% from "September) and 93% outbound (-3% from September). There were 14 delays greater than 5 minutes during the month of October, same as the month of. September. The following were the primary causes: Dispatching Mechanical Other Riverside Line On Time Performance Follow Up The Riverside Line has improved due to improved dispatching .from the UPRR. The Line On Time Performance was 71 % in April, improved to 99% in August, and remains above goal for October at 96%. 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, but the railroad is off to a good start. 13 • Passenger Trips_ Inland Empire Orange County Line 4,400 4,200 v, 4,000 o. • 3,800 c 3,600 3,400 3,200 3,000 A°` o°` cP` �FA('�oh d) mo�cea �P� O �op�� P0A�' GS O Month Passenger trips on Metrolink's Inland Empire -Orange County (IEOC) Line for the month ' of October averaged 4,237 an increase of 294 riders or (+7%) change from the month of September. The line has increased 16% from a year ago October 2004. On Time Performance (95% Goal) Inland Empire Orange County Line 100 95 c • 90 d 85 d 80 a 75 70 ots oD o?` O3 o`o 0`3 A`' A`o A`' o`o o`o A`o 0`3 Off` �o� �� �a� (<o� jai QQc ��� y��• �� QJo, g0. Month October on -time performance averaged 95% southbound (+9% from September) and 94% northbound (+0% from September). There were 14 delays greater than five minutes during the month of October, a decrease of 10 from the previous month. 14 The primary causes were: Passenger Trips 91 Line 2,200 2,000 La 1,800 'i 1,600 • 1,400 1,200 1,000 p� o<' gyp`' `o� o`' o\off ph o� soh O� °J" oe, �a� lei 4, PQ" ,er s�o �J Q). Q O° Month Passenger trips on Metrolink's 91 Line for the month of October averaged 2,002, an increase of 1.28 riders or (+7%) from the month of September. The line has averaged an increase of +6% from a year ago October 2004. On Time Performance (95% Goal) 91 Line 100 95 am R 90 Y ca • 85 d 80 a 75 70 G`0 o�pD,0� O�h O�h t�h c�h 0h O° \0° ph o° `0° p off' �a �e 4� P9 �a� ��o �J Poi �w po Month • • October on -time performance averaged 89% inbound (-6% from September) and 93% outbound (+0% from September). There were 16 delays greater than five minutes during the month of October, an increase of 4 from September. The primary causes were: Signals/MOW/Track Dispatching Mechanical Other Metrolink Holiday Toy Trains Events The Holiday Toy Train will be decked out with thousands of twinkling lights, tinsel and animated decorations. Santa will be making stops at the local Metrolink stations for a fun show and sing -along event. Kids will be able to play in real snow at the Pedley, La Sierra, and North Main Corona stations. Music, food, and fun will be part of the festivities. Also, the Annual Spark of Love Toy drive sponsored by the firefighters will be collecting toys to distribute to needy kids in the community. In addition, RCTC is sponsoring a school contest that will provide up to 8 Metrolink field trips to local elementary school classes that have at least 5 students attend one of the events. Event Dates Date Dec 3 Dec 11 Dec 11 Dec 11 Train Time 5:20 pm 5:15 pm 6:05 pm 6:55 pm Metrolink Station Pedley Riverside Downtown Riverside La Sierra North Main Corona Address 6001 Pedley Rd. 4066 Vine St. 10901 Indiana Av. 250 E. Blaine St Attachment: Metrolink Performance Summaries (October 2005) 16 80170' 1- NN NN11021131N V l SOO? Aag0100 S3nivunkinS 33NVINIJOAH3d NNI101:113UiV NOISSIMOO NOUVIAiOdSNYIEL AIN/100 30ISa3AIS O500Z I AON OE OE N w Owe su!i-Jeg,sl®PRI AeP»I99M BAtl 9o-u0 sodea CO +v 5015f SO+unf so -MIN L90'8£ 400'6£ Z aW IbsWl—•— IVY hi/mmt�' so-+dv L£b'6£ 46'S'6£ So-eW 964'6£ 90Qe90iief 40-5e0 pp./ON P0150 One b9Z'L£ Sd12112130MISSVd AtJ®D133M 3011113AV NM-1O21131AI OR'9£ 000.0Z 000'n o0o'bz 000'9Z 000'9Z 000'0£ Note 000'4£ ODO'9E on' BE 9£9'9£ _ 000'ob 000'Zb 90 PO anlrun PumleeM sePnPul ahPa4oS !O'salnulW-S ul411M , 90 des 90 &IV 90 Mr %d10 %d10 JeBuasSed ❑ SO u^I' 90 Aen 90 dy 90+ePo * 31N11-NO SNIVNI. SA 31/1111-NO S21391+13SSVd 1.N3ON3d 044P -10 4 ewll Pe pe4os 30 samunry-g umm BulNphf %® (syluoW Aepaam 30NVINNOA1:13d 31/1111-NO SiNnotu ri 0.‘ oSS 66L 99L MO®NIM H1NO1111-S6 3ONd1111aOAa3d 31N11-NO 331n113s ®abHs NW:11wa elnpoups;o sa}wSW9 ugnim. - %0.99 - %0.09 - %0.99 - %O'OL A£` %O.Si - %0•09 - WY99 - %0-06 - %CGS %VOW. 9 WAS OueMeaM s Onpul %ZL ONI1:133NION3 %4L 9NOIltla3d0 %BL a3H10 %04 a3laatlEwo9`� _ ..:_ _. ...:„ .. ;� _. �a.;,"�-�'(si,. �i �. �i i°�V1:a0$ LINOS Ya94 ASN9 °bZ /J.10 a31N1-NVLLLotto XINN00 SOOZ Ja9oPO SulPu3 Pol18d 43u011 Z6 Aminsuodsea AEI sAelea u eiiJo % %94 aadfl %9L a31aaHSW09 %44 ONIa33N1ON3 %n dSN9 %L ALION31N1-X'da1WF! %0 X3NN00 %4E SNOIltla3d0 %L L aadfl SOOZ Jego1.0O i!IlQlsuodseb sdelep % %Z %4 vaa0S %4 213H10 aNas mynas puaysem eaprRaul • NN11021J3W i l i1 do -Nods - 33Nt1W1:1431:13d uavownu IIIVIP +ORti"Peiar 9 %L %9 . %94 %04 %Z %9' %9 %6 %Z_ 40 300 sA 90 430 e6ue40 % %E %L %L %5 %Z %E- %0 %Z %E 90 deg SA 90 100 860040 % °A£ °/uE %Z %Z- %L- %0 %Z %i %L %44- %4 %Z LL 4' 44 8L0'O4 L90'6£ ORE 8£ 400'6£ LE4'6E 459'6£ 964.'BE 8Z4'BE 9414E 64B'B£ 9£9'8£ Z00'Z bL9't 90644 E56' 4 4L6' 4 9L0'Z L46'4 EBB' 4 06B'4 BM' L 4991 Z99' 4 £69' L L£Z'4 £b6'£ 49L`E 495`£ 909'E 96L'£ OZB'E LZ6'£ BEL'£ 09L`£ 6b9'E Lb9`E 999'9 B9Z'9 SZE'9 04E`9 6'64`9 990`9 696'9 9E8 9 Z46'S 90Z`5 400 9 £L6'S 999'4 089' 0 LLE'b ELE'4 944'4 60E't4 964`4 6L£ b 449'4 EZ9'4 LL4'4 968'b 9L9'4 E49 6Z9 599. Z49 OZ9 L49 L49 Z99 Z95 909 969 4L9 449 LLB' 4 4 £48' l 4 49£'Ll 44£' I. l 4Z9' 4 4 E09' 4 4 L9L'44 4£0'Z4 EDP' 44 LEVI. Z90 04 ZO6'04 4ZZ'44 £0l`L ZL6`9 458 9 9££'9 9L8`9 049'9 £EL'9 EL9'9 644 9 £96'9 L94'9 69L'9 049'9 4LD'4 696' £ 9E9'£ 999'£ 466'E £00`4 41 L`4 6LS 9L£'E 994'£ 660'4 £44'b 50 PO 90 doS 50 nV so Inr 90 unr . 50 JEw so clod 90 uer 40 Pea 40 AoN 4D PO ansnt'Ob' AvanoH - MOONIM H1NOIN NM-1 11ft Sd1211 N3JN3SSVd A114m3M 30V213Ad Nt11102113W • %98 %0 %lZ • . slum &Mee el Penske is &la (L) •eotnwe Lawn step Apo speµer seamy lone 07 enP YIP 41wu pe7dwelet ea4vet 100E RleluQed Due keeper ul (41,1 -- _ - - . Reo sequins° Bueesaxa seamy (0 . Rea Mei !Melva eeeetny (ei Reele4 ►Rlnr asleep* *Seamy Cs) se Res$ PulPnlexe'Benny (LI •a wasp e(ep mese/ *Benny..'Yl-Zt11 y7lo was pue sNel t RueY11s twee Muse 11elluty eu Seee el 'LaP➢W N7W eue I. Ammer' &Vela* eBa:eny (S) LIAt tm lueupenp W enp Again Be Rom • We u! e10N '0 W e Rea.%JBSA!'�N DR seueslMO BispMme eealeny (S) SUMO flea Z not t4 PeDnIa i S:EPIWesed RplWow'40/Ltlt I Y1 le 4 10u eiele-0 QnslS epo0 meets :aloe -horn eupyele eY1 eta xi weld si ravels es Rluo swow p. esseAS psi as ellmny (Y) .. 'Ilwew Pus Seem le ReP'014 Mime ei e41 s7lunm *SAW. 7ee4'440V ewen.t4 Peteome oast ee4 am enroll (e) . _ .. 'ZeBZ'4 legwe das Pees u seotd nell Z lea (Z) 'sups Repseenm uo pose) lyus sent weRotd dMeis aNslo-dete stow •Bew Z Betl 01 topd 4) %8E %E4 %ZL °k4Z4 • %6 %98 %4E %84 %4- 60 PO en SO 300 eeuet(O % %9 Ys9l %L %46 %LZ %0 %0 %S I %Z SO des •sn SO 100 'Bust» wti 64 854 %9 %94 9‘1 ZSe SZ4 LZ9`1 Z4 L4 ESZ OLE 8L£ 89Z'4 SO-100 64 4£4 %9 %94- %S• ME. 99e WWI ZZ L£ 15Z 60E 6Z£ Lt'e4 (e)SO-des LS LEZ %L %Le %8 ZI.E 444 68S`L LE 6L ESZ SOZ S9E 4EV4 99-eaV IS 91Z %eZ- %LZ- %4- Z6Z OPE UV I. 9Z SE 89Z L9Z SO£ £OZ'4 (e)SO-Inr 99 SZI %64 %4- %Z- LL£ 994 46C'1 44 69 412 ESE 6L£ 02Z'1 SO•uor 99 £91 %St %a4 %0 8t£ SL4 649'4 Z8 46 EZZ 99Z OBE L8V4 (ZUSO- 0191 94 et %EZ- %EZ- %4 9LZ Z04 414`L £Z 92 4ZZ ESZ L4E EBZ'4 SO- V 05 Be %II %114 %9 92£ EZS 1434 LE 04 94Z file £94 SEZ'4 90•le191 0£ 89 %It %Ll %4- L9Z 94Z LLE`t 12 Z4 6L4 9EZ L 9EZ , Z64'4 (II)90.48d 84 SOL %V %0Z• %4 612 ZI.Z £80. OZ ZZ 99Z 664 064 944'4 (9)SO-4ef 64 Se %SZ- %84• %9- 4ZZ 49Z Seel. PZ E4 Z1Z L61 15Z EZV4 (s)40-0e0 - 84 E8 %91 %8 %£ 96Z EZE 86£'1 9Z LZ Z5l OLZ 96Z 94Z'4 el40-AON 99 %41 %6Z %04 99Z 86Z 69E'1 64 £, L£L. LEZ 59Z ZZZ'4 WO 40130 aN RI h!e!! ,:t,ae: ;!!Mh:.....„...1::.:.:.:::::i:.;,:y;•?1..:ep::::;:;::::: t . t,�wlrf.l:....... •: alt!s!EA:JlIiK:i ...4+ i... �; M�4!alp... �. . 'UD''•. ..:. it iyvi il!i j:� tl 'i' 4 :li 4@ •iE EI:P;,jg 71tt ':;:: pit ::E :f,fX ... .. Ei! FE:i:' 4 ':: ::::± :::::pI:..... 4 nrf:.. :Mil..iMI•i.., . ......1tF!:? ; ........0 M , .. !9 i 1!5..: �:Ei$?eMP3 o-osr>::::o-:a.•:.........:..:.:�:<::i::a•,•::.a.:.:.::;.s•.�•:.:.:.:::<::is::::?::ia:i:i::::a:.:......: .....,.. ... ep is .:.::: ......:: ::::7 :; :€ ....::.sv:.... ,:.: ..:: ._.. , :?I,::.::, 9i:.::a¢9 .::................:.. .....Y. . ' �::: :..::.:..._... is :is::!tFiii i:a�.: : �.: :.::e.:.:,. . - .:..i.....:.: �•.:.........•...........::-:. , .. Ei �ii;i; 4RleE :elk+s��. .�iiiiiEi:i �i� iEiiiiiiiii �: ...::::::::�::: i:::::::: ::::� :.:...;I!...:.::1M....:::.•......:.............:::......:...i.........:.........::.............:A,J�k1. � i ,, ,.: :ii ........:.:...: :.....:.::.. . ..: :.:...::.:. r: e.:.o-:.:.: :a.:. h.a.:.:.>.::: _.::.:.:.:iliN.:,iiiiiiii ... . !#i;i iii �H �..} /; :.:•;: ':E:ir:i::..:<:: :.:• .: ,.>:. ,.....:::..Ka9Gftfklii MOONIM NINON N331WHl )IM21lWb' NO S213010HSSYd A'1H1NOW NM-1021131N A'UtlO 301/213A1J ono e+n �A auNV aw sign *»aril and 04- unr b6/ES Ad S6/b6 AdX 96/98 Ad L6/96 Ad 28/L6 Ad 68/96 00/66 Ad, • fen L0/o0 Ado z ZO/LOAd°""'��+�.,� EOFLO Ad �►;;,..`—"'"--",;' X xdy r'i qed uer On .,..,•'"4.l' 1: � - 000'9Z x - �` _._....- ,-- _....,..r4 __.._...._ . • 000'Z£ 4. -"' AoN LSO dag tiny I 000'9 000'9 000'04 000'Z4 000'44 000'94 000'9 4 000`OZ 000'ZZ 90/S0 Ad • %IINF/RY•'•d`%f4N.W% ffi 000 be 31VC101 NOI1d33N1 ansnf ®V AVOnoH - Sc118121301•13SSVd AVa>133M 3OV213AV }!NI"IOtIi3W 000'9£ 000'9£ 000'04 000'Z4 • �weNP 45IIMOO I km° das 0ny Int Mt Ae{ni Ay nip qej uet sdui ieSuessed AHea a6eleAV Gown t(epung eun ouipieweg ueg 00157./90 ueBee nWeS NPLMS MON N 50in0 des Int nw q94 uet sdulJeuessed Apo a6eleny °owes Aep.ines eun ou!roeuJeg ueg slePni d A LM Yl seP7dn =AN hdN 40.100 0 004 OOOt 008I. 000z o0sz 000E -00eE 0004 moNPMAM19301 Z4 sdpi 1a6uessed a6eJany aop ues Aepimeg eun �(aplen edoiewv •uopelnoleo ewp-uo law ul pepnpul lou aye suleA pepnuuy •uopeupwsuo.opod ie ewp-uo meta Astp.p 1O pataplsuoo eie sulell'pepeulw ei •edelep emenapa»ot spew uaeq meg swsupen{pe ow %Z6 %E6 %ZS %£6 %E6 %46 %E6 %Be %69 %£B %96 %96 %66 >wx gltl¢ OE#..{......,:.:wp10*At1€s;.d1,`a10:giSilatMni %E6 %96 g ONI3tekt 3M %06 %06 ftweliNOM{?: %S9 %9B �b fdfficA€> 3: ' swell P PM Mend % w0 ewll pelnpe4os to serulW 9 upoim polled deed %C6 %Z6 %£6 %£B 4469 %46 %56 %L6 %06 %f6 r ' %96 ' %L6 %96 %96 %96 %48 %OB' %06 %BB 90 PO %E6 %46 %Z6 %£6 .%S6 %46 ` %99 ,. %96 %69 %96 " -%l6 %L6 ..%ZS %56 .- %96 %06 %la - %l6 %BB , 90 deg %96 %96 %96 %L6 %56 %56 %56 - %96 %Se %66 %BS %96 %001 %96 %96 %69 %96 %96 . %96 SO 6ny %£6 %l6 %96 %L6 %96 %Z6 %L6 %413 %L6 %LB %06 %66 %OM.' %96 %66 • 9619 %Be %l6 %£6 90ler %46 %ZS %96 %96 %ft %46 %96 %96 %96 %Z6 %Z6 %66 %OOl %C6 %L6 - %19 %1.6 %E6 %96 90 unf %£6 %Z6 %46 %SO °/nZ6 %96 %46 %S6 %l6 %9L %S8 %66 %96 %96 %L6 %99 %t6 %46 %L6 ' 90 Cell %46 %E6 %II %06 - %26 %O6 %96 %46 %96 %L9 %91 %OOL %66 %5B %L6 %96 %66 %96 %96 50AV %46 %£6 %96 . %L6 %Z6 %61 %t6 %E6 %96 %lL %69 %66 %66 %66 %66 %96 %8B %E6 %96 90 AIN 1E46 . %06 %Z6 %96 %96 %99 %69 %L9 %69 %99 %L8 %L6 %96 1,02.6 • %96 %19 %06 %69 %06 90 404 %69 %C9 %06 %46 %L9 %99 %16 %L9 %Se %EU %Z9 °%96 %Le %VS' %96 %L1 %L9 %1.9 %99 90uer %S6 %46 %Se %L6 %SB %46 %CB %96 %Z6 %LB %L9 %66 %66 %LB %96 %E6 %46 %96 %66 40 oed %46 %Pe %46 %Z6 %46 %le %Z6 %le %06 %EB %69 %BB %96 %SB %96 %96 %Pe %L6 %96 40 neN %£B %Z6 %£6 %MS %06 %E6 %OS %SS %LB %ZS %99 %96 %96 %69 %46 %£6 %Se . %86 %66 6010O .;l ii . � qq Mr H :. �.. ;;, 1.1x ,�{}pS'fi�jjj:.��°3 i. .. z d.. .. ' . a8 , �4,> .'l3` �5�ep�si$�{ •.3 `> fi S :b�v , ,, .-. *. trvi �yyj�?�jwi1y"Y4 $ a lay .Ai�ifAR:4�F� NC.7i.I.FTI .,K. :. ,.> > s' a$l L C. bh* �'�i ...::.. •..G'.Y. �. s•�t�> :. H �$�p�y� #^�. Ja?4. 3. t ', DE 5�� f <3 d'..s{.Q :.: , .. «�'e c; �y, SJ#'}[9 n { oy�y"ybi+ff ... .c�..:... , � .... :.�s� n� xny �, ¢ s4.�. �%4`� «mow r W t3 004Ni .)ia. .*.r 8H1NOW El 11331V1 etua pompon{oS;o se;num g %INN/ q Bu{n{uy sup.' j. aeewmad 30IA213S Avamaam - Aavvonns 3aN3213Ha11 aina3HaS )IN11021131N N 9nY9➢001 0 0 0 t 0 0 0 0 0 Z 0 0 0 l 1 0 0 0 0 0 9NS AepunS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0031 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 lAV depurigS £1 0 0 G 0 0 £ 0 SINS 41' S31f1NIW 9 NV H12i31Y3 10 SAY130 NIVi11 d0 asnvo ABYWI ldd %001 OZZ 91 41 9Z 41 6 1£ S9 94 1V101 %Z 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 4 3 4NV 1-9d0 %OZ 44 Z 0 1 0 £ 9 ZZ 11 V212199-9d0 %9 Ll 1 0 0 0 0 4 01 Z 1130N399Vd-9d0 %L 91 Z 1 1 E 0 9 E 0 2i3410-9d° %Z£ 11 9 8 61 11 1 Z 8 41 HO1VdS10-9d0 %Ll LE £ £ 9 0 0 £1 8 S HO3tN %1 Z 0 0 0 0 0 0 b Z NOV2d LiieN3 %£l 6Z 0 Z 0 0 9 Z £1 L 09S-LIONS %0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a3H1A-HON3 %0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 19N0013AOLId1,41- 1 N3 10140 % Tdlol V1-16 0011NI 00 AM ape SNS 1AV NSA aSf1V0 swell AepleeM sooz Jsaopo S w-ma NNI1Oa13W ao sasn o • O M illiadSOOL °I°4'L OZZ 94 4l 9Z 41. 6 LE 99 94 - U 9 < o3AV'13a SNIVal %L'OZ l49 bZ 4£ 46 LE OE 9El 4Ll 99 UIUr0<Q3>ltnaCISNIV211 %004 L96'Z 89/ Z9Z 86£ Z9Z 4£Z ZLL E09 LZ4 MAO SNIVa11V101 %El) 6 / 0 4 0 0 Z_ 4 I. CI3171NNV %t0 9 0 0 0 0 0 L. E l NUN OE NVH.1. a31V3aJ %9'L L4 9 4 £ L Z 8 EL 4 NIW OE-NIW LZ %Z'Z 99 9 4 41, 9 E 9 LL ZL NIINOZ-NIW 4L %9'E COL 9 9 ZL Z 4 44 Z£ 8Z NIW OL - NUN 9 %Z'£L WE S LL 89 £Z 2 LOL 60L L4 NMI 9-NIUntl %E.6L 94E'Z L94 LZZ 40E 9LZ LOZ 4L9 6ZE 9E£ Ati13t70N 101Jo % 1V101 111d/Ala 00/31 30 Ala lin8 9NS lAV N3A :31V1 S31f1MIN 900Z aag0400 NOII'd IO A9 SAviaa NMI AO A3N3P113321d AGENDA ITEM 9 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMM/SS/ON DATE: November 28, 2005 TO: Plans and Programs Committee FROM: Tanya Love, Program Manager THROUGH: Cathy Bechtel, Division Head, Planning SUBJECT: TransTrack: Transit Performance Management Software STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Committee to: 1) Allocate $153,000 in Local Transportation Funds (LTF) to TransTrack Systems LLC (TransTrack) for the implementation of a Transit Performance Manager software application and training package; 2) Authorize the Chairman, pursuant to Legal Counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission; 3) Approve Agreement No. 06-62-007-00 with TransTrack for $153,000 in LTF funds; and 4) Forward to the Commission for final action. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: In September 2005, the Commission reaffirmed its commitment to the Productivity Improvement Program (PIP) as part of a comprehensive effort to work with the county's eight public transit operators to provide better service and improve efficiency. The PIP was designed to meet Public Utilities Code (PUC) Section 99244 which requires the Commission to annually identify, analyze and recommend potential productivity improvements for transit operations (public bus and commuter rail) through the annual Short Range Transit Plan (SRTP) process. This process requires the transit operators to address recommendations made through the triennial performance audit as well as compliance with PUC requirements for State -mandated fare box recovery and cost efficiency. While reviewing and analyzing individual route productivity should remain with the transit operators and their governing boards, the Commission has a fiduciary responsibility to ensure that transit operators are utilizing Transportation Development Act (TDA) funds efficiently and effectively. Historically, Riverside County transit operators utilize TDA funding for well over 50% of their operating and capital budgets. Currently, reporting of transit operator performance is done 32 through an Excel spreadsheet format and is provided at a systems level for dial -a - ride and fixed route operations. Computerized Tracking of Operator Performance Data: Commission staff and the transit operators spend a significant amount of time. compiling, tabulating and reporting transit operating information for use in the SRTP, monthly management reports, quarterly transit operator reports as well as annual reports to external agencies (e.g., State Controller and National Transit. Database reports). This information assists the Commission's policy board in complying with both the PUC and State -mandated requirements. One of the recommendations made in RCTC's triennial performance audit was that the Commission needed to strengthen its analytical capabilities to oversee operator performance. Further, it was recommended that: "RCTC should develop a computer -based program that displays useful interpretations of performance data. The program should be able to directly interface with the information submitted on a quarterly basis by each operator, and provide linkages to previous data to form trends." At the September 2005 Commission meeting, staff was directed to pursue the development of a computer -based program to assist with data analysis. Since that time, a meeting was held with a representative of TransTrack, a computer tracking software program, which Commission staff believes will improve the data collection capabilities and reduce the time commitment that is currently required in data analysis. The TransTrack system was presented to the Riverside County transit operators for their review and feedback. The presentation(s) were well received as both Commission and transit operator staffs believe that the computerized tracking program and the PIP will provide the analytical tools necessary to assist with the issue of productivity as it relates to the disparity between ridership and operating costs previously reported. Staff is requesting approval to allocate $153,0001 in. Local Transportation Funds to TransTrack Systems, LLC for the implementation of TransTrack, the Transit Performance Managers software application and training package described more fully in Attachment 1. If approved, the initial implementation of TransTrack will be at a summary data collection level. However, included in the $153,000 funding request is $18,000 for Phase 1-a Business Process Review -which will consist of If approved, $20,000 of the $153,000 funding will be placed on reserve for the development of various computer reports. .., 33 • TransTrack representatives conducting a systems review (at all eight public operator sites) to identify the various types of data currently being collected. The intent behind the Business Process Review is to identify data elements that may be able to be integrated and consolidated at the transit operator level in order to streamline the data collection requirements and provide more detailed reports. The completion of the Business Process Review will highlight what additional data tracking elements can be performed through TransTrack. At the time of writing this agenda item, staff from both the Riverside Transit Agency (RTA) and SunLine Transit Agency (SunLine) have indicated an interest in tracking more detailed level information (versus summary level data), however, they were unsure of the level of additional tracking they were interested in. Given RTA and SunLine's operating complexities, staff believes that more detailed level reporting may be beneficial to their operations. Once Phase 1 is completed, it is anticipated that additional funding may be requested to implement a more detailed level data collection system at both RTA and SunLine. Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: N/A Year: FY 2005/06 Amount: $153,000 Source of Funds: Local Transportation Funds Budget Ad ustment: No GLA No.: 601-62-90101 - 2210 $95,625 601-62-90101 - 2211 $19,125 601-62-90101 - 2212 $19,125 601-62-90101 - 2213 $19,125 Fiscal Procedures Approved: \l /pv,u4av,.4a4n4. Date: 1 1 /21 /05 Attachment: TransTrack: Schedule of Fees and Costs 34 Attachment 1 TransTrack: Transit Performance Management SCHEDULE OF FEES AND COSTS — PAYMENT SCHEDULE Deliverables (a) Amount Payment Due Basic Software Application License Fee $40,000 Contract Signing Phase I: Business Process Review $18,000 Completion of Phase I Draft Report (Estimated 45 Days from Contract Signing) Phase II: Set -Up & Training Services, Including Six Week Follow -Up Training $43,000 Due Upon Completion of the Follow -Up Training (Estimated within 90 Days From Contract Signing) Annual Maintenance & Support Services Agreement and Annual Escrow Materials Fee (July 1, 2005 to June 30, 2006) Rate based on 250 or fewer active transit vehicles and modular functionality defined in Exhibits A, C, and D. If there are any changes either requested by Licensee or required to be implemented by Licensor (i.e., government mandated changes) then the rate shall be increased in accordance with Licensor's then current published price list. With no changes in functionality, the annual Maintenance and Support fees for continued • on-line service shallnot increase by more than 15% per year. In the event that the Licensee commences use of the Escrowed 'Materials defined in Article IV, Paragraph 7.A, it shall require that the Licensee procure third -party software at the expense of the Licensee. Transit Performance ManagerTM utilizes SQL Server 2000 for the database and Crystal Reports Version 8.5 for all reports. $32,000 120 Days From Contract Signing Customized Reports (at the discretion of Licensee) $20,000 To Be Determined During First Full Year of Implementation Total $153,000 (a) Deliverables are contingent upon the availability of Licensor and Licensee representatives for training and set-up, based on a mutually agreeable schedule, as well as data for the first six months of FY 2006. Hourly rates for additional services available on a time and material basis: Training and process review $150; Software Engineering $125; and Data Entry $45 35 AGENDA ITEM 10 ATTACHMENT TO AGENDA ITEM 10 RESOLUTION NO.05-013 A RESOLUTION OF THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION RECOMMENDING THAT IT BE IDENTIFIED AS THE DESIGNATED RECIPIENT OF FEDERAL URBANIZED AREA FORMULA FUNDS FOR THE HEMET URBANIZED AREA WHEREAS, on May 21, 2002, the Bureau of the Census released the urbanized area designations for the 2000 Census; and WHEREAS, the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) uses this data to allocate federal funds from its Urbanized Area Formula Fund program to the Governor for urbanized areas with populations under 200,000 under 49 U.S.C. 5336; and WHEREAS, the Hemet urbanized area is within the planning area of RCTC and was identified by the Bureau of Census as having a population of under 200,000; and WHEREAS, under FTA Circular 9030.1 C Section II 1(d) the Governor or his designee may elect to relinquish control of these funds and approve another agency to be the Designated Recipient; and WHEREAS, the Riverside County Transportation Commission ("RCTC") has received a letter from the California Department of Transportation requesting that RCTC or the Southern California Association of Governments ("SCAG") be recognized as the Designated Recipient of FTA funds; and WHEREAS, SCAG and the Riverside County Transportation Commission ("RCTC") desire that RCTC be identified as the Designated Recipient of FTA Urbanized Area Formula funds for the small urbanized area of Hemet; and WHERAS, RCTC is a regional public transportation authority created under Section 13050 of the California Public Utilities Code; and WHEREAS, the naming of RCTC as the Designated Recipient of FTA Urbanized Area Formula funds for the Hemet urbanized area will foster an effective planning process that promotes efficient overall transportation investment strategies; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Commissioners of the Riverside County Transportation Commission hereby recommends that the Governor of the State of California identify RCTC as the Designated Recipient for the Hemet small urbanized area. RVPUBTSK\704027.1 NOW BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Commissioners of the Riverside County Transportation Commission directs staff to work with the Office of the Governor to formalize the recognition of RCTC as the Designated Recipient with the FTA. APPROVED AND ADOPTED this day of , 2005. C. Robin Lowe, Chair Riverside County Transportation Commission ATTEST: Naty Kopenhaver, Clerk of the Board Riverside County Transportation Commission RVPUBTSK1704027.1 RIVERS/DE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMM/SS/ON DATE: November 28, 2005 TO: Plans and Programs Committee FROM: Tanya Love, Program Manager THROUGH: Cathy Bechtel, Division Head, Planning SUBJECT: Designated Recipient for the Federal Transit Administration's Section 5307 Program — Small Urbanized Area Funding STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Committee to: 1) Name the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) as the Designated Recipient (DR) for planning and programming of Section 5307 funds for the Hemet urbanized area (UZA); 2) Adopt Resolution No. 05-013, "A Resolution of the Riverside County Transportation Commission Recommending that it be Identified as the Designated Recipient of Federal Urbanized Area Formula Funds for the Hemet UZA;" and 3) Forward to the Commission for final action. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: In October 2003, Caltrans announced a two-year pilot program to transfer designated recipient status to Transportation Planning Agencies (TPA) for the Federal Transit Administration's (FTA) Section 5307 program for small urbanized areas (population under 200,000 in the Governor's apportionment). A recent survey of TPAs and transit operators that participated in the pilot program found that the delegation streamlined the FTA Section 5307 grant application process and recommended its continuance. In June 2004, the Business, Transportation and Housing Agency launched a Performance Improvement Initiative (PII) to improve efficiency of operations for departments under its purview. One of the recommendations of the PII relative to Caltrans was to permanently delegate the administration of the Section 5307 program. Consistent with the PII recommendation and the subsequent success of the pilot program, Caltrans is requesting the permanent delegation of the small UZA , program to TPAs that are legislatively authorized to program and administer funds for public transportation projects. RCTC, created under Section 13050 of the California Public Utilities Code, is the TPA for Riverside County. 36 In order for RCTC to be named the DR for the Section 5307 program currently administered by Caltrans, the following three documents are required: 1) An opinion of legal counsel certifying the agency's legal capacity to perform this function; 21 A~ letter from the Executive Director or agency head, acknowledging ' that the agency is the DR for specified small UZAs in its planning area; and 3) A letter of support from the Metropolitan Planning Organization SCAG The attached Resolution No. 05-013 was developed by RCTC's legal counsel and recommends that the Commission be identified as the DR for the Hemet UZA. At the time of writing this staff report, SCAG's legal counsel was in the process of drafting a letter in support of RCTC being named the DR. It is anticipated that the letter of support will; be received in the near future. Upon Commission approval and subsequent receipt of the required documentation, RCTC will request that Caltrans notify FTA of the delegation of the 'DR status to RCTC. At that time, for planning purposes, Caltrans will identify the current fund balance of the Hemet UZA. Staff is in support of the request for the Commission to act as the DR for small urbanized area Section 5307 funding as it .will facilitate transit planning for Riverside County. At this time, SCAG will continue to act as the DR for the large UZAs in Riverside County which consist of 1) Indio/Cathedral City/Palm Springs; 2) Riverside/San Bernardino and 3) Temecula/Murrieta. Tasks Associated with the Planning Process Including the Role of the DR: The following .tasks are associated with the transit planning process including the role of the DR: 1) Identifies funding level available for transit projects; 2) . Notifies the transit operator of available funds 3) Plans for projects through the Short Range Transit Plan process; 4) Programs the projects in the Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP); 37 5) Maintains an ongoing history of grant application amounts; and 6) Once the transit operator applies for the FTA funding, the DR reviews the electronic grant application to ensure grant amount is equal to or less than funding available. Additionally, the information is reviewed for consistency with the RTIP. If correct, DR pins a supplemental agreement which enables the transit operator to access the grant funds. If incorrect, the DR works with the transit operator to resolve any discrepancies. In reality, the role of the DR is a formality as the transit operator will continue to receive funding directly from FTA. Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: N/A Year: FY 2005/06 Amount: N/A Source of Funds: FTA Section 5307 Funds Budget Ad ustment: No GLA No.: N/A Fiscal Procedures Approved: v,vilm/7/,1 Date: 11/18/05 38 AGENDA ITEM 11 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: November 28, 2005 TO: Plans and Programs Committee FROM: Tanya Love, Program Manager THROUGH: Cathy Bechtel, Division Head, Planning SUBJECT: Request from Friends of Moreno Valley. for Measure "A" Specialized Transit Funds as Match for FY 2004/05 Section 5310 Program STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Committee to: 1) Allocate $9,800 in Measure "A" Specialized Transit Funds to the Friends of Moreno Valley (Friends) to provide the required local match for the purchase of an accessible modified van; 2) Authorize the Chairman, pursuant to Legal Counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission; 3) Approve Agreement No. 06-26-002-00 with Friends for $9,800 in Measure "A" Specialized Transit Funds available in western Riverside . County; and 4) Forward to the Commission for final action. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Friends was recently notified by Caltrans that they were approved for $49,000 in funding under the Federal Transit Administration's Section 5310 program for the purchase of one eight -passenger, wheelchair accessible modified van. The Section 5310 program provides 80% of the cost of capital projects. Friends is requesting that the required 20% match ($9,800) be funded from Measure "A" Specialized Transit funds available in western Riverside County. These funds are specifically set aside, on an annual 'basis, to provide local match to non-profit operators located in western Riverside County participating in the Section 5310 program. Staff is in support of this request as Friends has been a long time recipient of Measure "A" Specialized Transit funding to provide transit services to seniors and persons with disabilities for residents of Moreno Valley. If approved, the funds will be placed on deposit directly with Caltrans. 39 Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: Yes Year: FY 2005/06 Amount: $9,800 Source of Funds: Measure "A" Specialized Transit Funding: Western Riverside Budget Ad ustment: No GLA No.: 225-26-86103 Fiscal Procedures Approved: Date: 1 1/18/05 40 AGENDA ITEM 12 RIVERS/DE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMM/SS/ON DATE: November 28, 2005 TO: Plans and Programs Committee FROM: Tanya Love, Program Manager THROUGH: Cathy Bechtel, Division Head, Planning SUBJECT: Request from the Partnership to Preserve Independent Living for Seniors and Persons with Disabilities for Measure "A" Specialized. Transit Funds STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Committee to: 1) Allocate an additional $50,000 in Measure "A" Specialized Transit Funds to the Partnership to Preserve Independent Living for Seniors and Persons with Disabilities for its Transportation Reimbursement and Information Project; 2) Authorize the Chairman, pursuant to Legal Counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission; 3) Approve Agreement No. 05-26-517-01, Amendment No. 1 to Agreement 05-26-517 with the Partnership to Preserve Independent Living for Seniors and Persons with Disabilities in an amount not to exceed $50,000;and 4) Forward to the Commission for final action. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The Transportation Reimbursement and Information Project, known as the TRIP program, is provided through the Partnership to Preserve Independent Living for. Seniors and Persons with Disabilities. TRIP provides information to seniors and. persons with disabilities on the availability of transportation, including brochures,. and schedules for all specialized transit services. In addition, TRIP provides mileage reimbursement to volunteer drivers of people unable to use other transportation services. Through the Commission's FY 2004/05 and FY 2005/06 Measure "A" Specialized Transit Program's Call for Projects, $290,698 in Measure "A" funding was 41 allocated to the TRIP program for FY 2005/06 services'. Based on first quarter performance (July through September), the TRIP program has experienced a 30% increase in Measure "A" participants with 51 new Measure "A" riders added during the quarter. As a result, expenses in the first quarter exceeded the Measure, "A" funding disbursement by $5,575. For the second quarter of FY 2005/06, the level of demand for TRIP services has continued to exceed program resources. As a result, TRIP is requesting additional Measure "A funding in the amount of $50,000. If approved, $35,000 of the funds will be allocated so that the TRIP program can continue to provide monthly mileage reimbursements for the remainder of the fiscal year. The remaining $15,000 will be placed in reserve and will be' made available: to cover expenses should demand exceed the TRIP Program's projection. PROGRAM OVERVIEW: The TRIP program has been in existence in Riverside County since 1993. It complements publicand private transportation services by reimbursing volunteers to transport individuals where no transit service exists or, when the individual is too frail or elderly to use other transportation. During the past fiscal year, the western Riverside County TRIP program reimbursed 24,393 one-way vehicle trips for 277 riders traveling approximately 495,200 miles. A typical candidate for TRIP assistance has generally outlived, his or her family and friends and is now suffering from debilitation. As health issues multiply, seniors decrease their social involvement in the community and typically end up isolated and alone. The overall goal of the TRIP program is to work to improve and maintain the independence and dignity of the elderly and persons with disabilities through programs that educate and empower. Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: No Year: FY 2005/06 Amount: $50,000 Source of Funds: Measure "A" Specialized Transit Funding — Western Riverside County Budget Ad'ustment: Yes GLA No.: 225-26-86101 Fiscal Procedures Approved: \i/?eud lue Date: 11/18/05 ' $72,675 in Measure "A" funding is disbursed on a quarterly basis. First quarter expenses for the TRIP Program were approximately $78,250. 42