HomeMy Public PortalAbout01 January 11, 2006 CommissionRECORDS
•
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
MEETING AGENDA
TIME: 9:00 a.m.
DATE: Wednesday, January 11, 2006
LOCATION: BOARD ROOM
County of Riverside Administrative Center
4080 Lemon Street, First Floor, Riverside
Commissioners
Chairman: Marion Ashley
1' Vice Chairman: Terry Henderson
2nd Vice Chairman: Jeff Stone
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
John Chlebnik / Shenna Moqeet / 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
Alex Bias / Yvonne Parks, 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
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 / Alan Seman, City of Rancho Mirage
Ameal Moore / Steve Adams, City of Riverside
Chris Buydos, City of San Jacinto
Ron Roberts / Jeff Comerchero, City of Temecula
Mike Perovich, Governor's Appointee
Eric Haley, Executive Director
Hideo Sugita, Deputy Executive Director
75304
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_
11.36.00
"
R I V E R S I D E C O U N T Y T R A N S P O R T A T I O N C O M M I S S I O N
w w w . r c t c . o r g
A G E N D A *
* A c t i o n s m a y b e t a k e n o n a n y i t e m l i s t e d o n t h e a g e n d a
9 : 0 0 a . m .
W e d n e s d a y , J a n u a r y 1 1 , 2 0 0 6
B O A R D R O O M
C o u n t y o f R i v e r s i d e A d m i n i s t r a t i v e C e n t e r
4 0 8 0 L e m o n S t r e e t , F i r s t F l o o r , R i v e r s i d e
I n c o m p l i a n c e w i t h t h e A m e r i c a n s w i t h D i s a b i l i t i e s A c t a n d G o v e r n m e n t C o d e S e c t i o n
5 4 9 5 4 . 2 , i f s p e c i a l a s s i s t a n c e i s n e e d e d t o p a r t i c i p a t e i n a C o m m i s s i o n m e e t i n g , p l e a s e
c o n t a c t t h e C l e r k o f t h e C o m m i s s i o n a t ( 9 5 1 ) 7 8 7 - 7 1 4 1 . N o t i f i c a t i o n o f a t l e a s t 4 8 h o u r s
p r i o r t o m e e t i n g t i m e w i l l a s s i s t s t a f f i n a s s u r i n g t h a t r e a s o n a b l e a r r a n g e m e n t s c a n b e
m a d e t o p r o v i d e a c c e s s i b i l i t y a t t h e m e e t i n g .
1 . C A L L T O O R D E R
2 . P L E D G E O F A L L E G I A N C E
3 . R O L L C A L L
4 . P U B L I C C O M M E N T S ( I t e m s n o t l i s t e d o n t h e a g e n d a )
5 . A P P R O V A L O F M I N U T E S - D e c e m b e r 1 4 , 2 0 0 5
6 . A D D I T I O N S / R E V I S I O N S ( T h e C o m m i s s i o n m a y a d d a n i t e m t o t h e A g e n d a
a f t e r m a k i n g a f i n d i n g t h a t t h e r e i s a n e e d t o t a k e i m m e d i a t e a c t i o n o n t h e
i t e m a n d t h a t t h e i t e m c a m e t o t h e a t t e n t i o n o f t h e C o m m i s s i o n s u b s e q u e n t
t o t h e p o s t i n g o f t h e a g e n d a . A n a c t i o n a d d i n g a n i t e m t o t h e a g e n d a
r e q u i r e s 2 / 3 v o t e o f t h e C o m m i s s i o n . I f t h e r e a r e l e s s t h a n 2 / 3 o f t h e
C o m m i s s i o n m e m b e r s p r e s e n t , a d d i n g a n i t e m t o t h e a g e n d a r e q u i r e s a
u n a n i m o u s v o t e . A d d e d i t e m s w i l l b e p l a c e d f o r d i s c u s s i o n a t t h e e n d o f t h e
a g e n d a . )
Riverside County Transportation Commission Agenda
January 11, 2006
Page 2
7. CONSENT CALENDAR - AU 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. RIVERSIDE COUNTY -ORANGE COUNTY CETAP CORRIDOR
PHASE 2: AMENDMENT TO COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT BETWEEN
THE ORANGE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY AND RCTC
AND APPROVAL OF A PROJECT MANAGEMENT SERVICES
CONTRACT WITH RAHIMIAN MANAGEMENT AND CONSULTING
Page 1
Overview
This item is for the Commission to:
1) Approve Agreement No. 04-65-041-03, Amendment No. 3 to
Cooperative Agreement 04-65-041, between the Orange
County Transportation Authority and RCTC for the next phase
of work for the project management services consultant
assisting with the Riverside County -Orange County CETAP
Corridor that will include equal funding participation;
2) Approve Agreement No. 06-65-014-00 between RCTC and.
Rahimian Management and Consulting, Inc, in an amount not
to exceed $200,000, for project management services on the.
Riverside County -Orange County CETAP Corridor project; and
3) Authorize the Chair, pursuant to Legal Counsel review, to
execute the agreements on behalf of the Commission.
7B. TRANSPORTATION CONTROL MEASURE (TCM) PROJECT
SUBSTITUTION
Overview
This item is for the Commission to:
Page 4
1) Approve the new Corona Park -and -Ride Lot as a suitable
substitution for the City of Corona's past planned purchase of
three expansion buses; and
2) Program the Park -and -Ride Lot into the Regional
Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP).
•.
•
"
"
"
R i v e r s i d e C o u n t y T r a n s p o r t a t i o n C o m m i s s i o n A g e n d a
J a n u a r y 1 1 , 2 0 0 6
P a g e 3
7 C . A U T H O R I Z A T I O N T O A D V E R T I S E F O R C O N S T R U C T I O N B I D S F O R
T H E R I V E R S I D E D O W N T O W N M E T R O L I N K S T A T I O N E A S T S I D E
P A R K I N G L O T
P a g e 7
O v e r v i e w
T h i s i t e m i s f o r t h e C o m m i s s i o n t o a u t h o r i z e s t a f f t o a d v e r t i s e t o
r e c e i v e b i d s f o r t h e " c o n s t r u c t i o n o f t h e R i v e r s i d e D o w n t o w n
M e t r o l i n k S t a t i o n E a s t S i d e P a r k i n g L o t .
7 D . F I S C A L Y E A R 2 0 0 5 - 2 0 0 6 S H O R T R A N G E T R A N S I T P L A N
A M E N D M E N T F O R T H E P E R R I S V A L L E Y L I N E A N D R I V E R S I D E -
D O W N T O W N S T A T I O N
P a g e 9
O v e r v i e w
T h i s i t e m i s f o r t h e C o m m i s s i o n t o :
1 ) A l l o c a t e $ 5 2 0 , 5 3 8 i n S t a t e T r a n s i t A s s i s t a n c e ( S T A ) f u n d s t o
R C T C ' s C o m m u t e r R a i l p r o g r a m f o r a d d i t i o n a l a n a l y s i s o f
n o i s e a n d v i b r a t i o n i m p a c t s n e e d e d t o o b t a i n t h e
e n v i r o n m e n t a l c l e a r a n c e a n d a s s o c i a t e d t a s k s o n t h e P e r r i s
V a l l e y L i n e ;
2 ) A p p r o v e r e p r o g r a m m i n g $ 2 , 8 4 5 i n L o c a l T r a n s p o r t a t i o n F u n d s
( L T F ) f r o m o p e r a t i n g t o c a p i t a l f o r t h e R i v e r s i d e - D o w n t o w n
S t a t i o n P a r k i n g L o t E x p a n s i o n ; a n d
3 ) A m e n d t h e C o m m u t e r R a i l P r o g r a m ' s F Y 2 0 0 5 - 0 6 S h o r t
R a n g e T r a n s i t P l a n ( S R T P ) t o r e f l e c t t h e s e c h a n g e s .
Riverside County Transportation Commission Agenda
January 11, 2006
Page 4
7E. SUNLINE TRANSIT AGENCY'S REQUEST TO AMEND ITS SHORT
RANGE TRANSIT PLAN TO PROGRAM FUNDS FOR EXPANSION OF
CLEAN FUELS MALL AND HYDROGEN INFRASTRUCTURE FACILITY
Page 11
Overview
This item is for the Commission to:
1) Allocate $87,379 in Local Transportation Funds (LTF) to
SunLine Transit Agency as the local match for the Federal
Transit Administration's (FTA) Section •5309 earmark for
expansion of SunLine's Clean Fuels Mall and Hydrogen
Facility;
2) Include the project in the Regional Transportation
Improvement Program; and
3) Amend SunLine's Short Range Transit Plan (SRTP) to reflect
these changes.
7F. RTA'S REQUEST FOR ALLOCATION OF LOCAL TRANSPORTATION
FUNDS AND • FISCAL YEAR 2005-2006 SHORT RANGE TRANSIT
PLAN AMENDMENT
Page 12
Overview
This item is for the Commission to:
1) Authorize the Riverside Transit Agency (RTA) to spend
$1,521,880 of excess operating funds identified in June 30,
2005 financial audit;
2) Allocate $ 188,482 in Local Transportation Funds (LTF) from
RTA's reserves; and
3) Amend RTA's FY 2005-06 Short Range Transit Plan to reflect
service changes.
•
•
•
Riverside County Transportation Commission Agenda
January 11, 2006
Page 5
7G. WHITESIDE MANOR'S REQUEST FOR MEASURE "A" SPECIALIZED
TRANSIT FUNDS FOR PURCHASE OF CAPITAL EQUIPMENT
Page 18
Overview
This item is for the Commission to allocate $17,845 in Measure "A"
Specialized Transit funding available in Western Riverside to
Whiteside Manor, Inc., for the payment of a 17-passenger,
wheelchair accessible van.
7H. FISCAL YEAR 2005-2010 MEASURE "A" FIVE-YEAR CAPITAL
IMPROVEMENT PLAN FOR LOCAL STREETS AND ROADS FOR THE
CITY OF COACHELLA
Page 19
Overview
This item is for the Commission to approve the FY 2005-09 and FY
2006-10 Measure "A" Five -Year Capital Improvement Plans for Local
Streets and Roads for the City of Coachella.
71. STATE AND FEDERAL LEGISLATIVE STATUS REPORT AND REVIEW
AND UPDATE OF LEGISLATIVE PROGRAM
Overview
This item is for the Commission to:
Page 20
1) Adopt the update of the 2005-2006 RCTC Legislative
Program; and
2) Receive and file thestate and federal legislative status report.
8. STATUS. REPORT ON THE MID COUNTY PARKWAY
Page 29
Overview
This item is for the Commission to receive and file a status report on the
Mid County Parkway (MCP) project.
Riverside County Transportation Commission Agenda
January 11, 2006
Page 6
9. 2006 STATE TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM •
DEVELOPMENT
Page 33
Overview
This item is for the Commission to approve the 2006 State Transportation
Improvement Program (STIP) as proposed in Attachment 2 including the
following recommendations:
1) Carryover 2004 STIP state highway projects into the 2006 STIP;
2) Delete $16.882 million of local arterialprojects from the 2004 STIP
and reprogram with federal funds, and reprogram the $16.882 million
of STIP funds on the SR 91 High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lane
project;
3} Maintain the Commission's commitment to fund the SR 91 HOV. lane
project by programming $91.3 million of 2006 STIP Western County
Formula funds;
4) Support Caltrans in reprogramming $8 million of STIP/IIP funding from
the Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) land
acquisition project and $23.483 million of STIP/IIP funding from the
AB 3090 agreements on the SR 60 HOV lane and SR 91/Green River
interchange improvement projects to the 60/215 East Junction
connector project;
5) Program $1.849 million of CMAQ funds on the 60/215 East Junction
connector project to complete funding on this project;
6) Maintain the Commission's commitment to fund the SR 91 HOV lane
project by reprogramming $7.349 million of STIP funds from the
AB 3090 agreements on the SR 60 HOV lane and SR 91/Green River
interchange improvement projects;
7) Program 2006 STIP Eastern County Formula funds as proposed by the
Coachella Valley Association of Governments to cover cost increases
on the 1-10 Interchanges at Bob Hope/Ramon Road, Gene Autry
Trail/Palm Drive, and Date Palm Drive;
8) Enter into an agreement with Palo Verde Valley on trading 2006 STIP
Palo Verde Valley Formula funds in the amount of $1.315 with
Commercial Paper and programming the STIP funds on the 91 HOV
lane project;
9) Program $30 million of STIP funds on the Perris Valley Line project in
exchange for local funds on the SR 91 HOV project;
•
Riverside County Transportation Commission Agenda
January 11, 2006
Page 7
10) Reprogram $3.465 million of STIP funds from the City of Riverside's
local arterial widening project on Van Buren Boulevard to the
SR 91/Van Buren Boulevard interchange project as proposed by the
City of Riverside; and
11) Work with Caltrans in programming an additional $4 million of STIP/IIP
funds to cover the cost increase on the North Main Corona Metrolink
Station Parking Structure project currently programmed in the STIP
with Interregional Improvement Program (IIP) funds.
10. ITEMS PULLED FROM CONSENT CALENDAR AGENDA
11. 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 any other items
related to Commission activities.
12. 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 72 199 Y 00108 03
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
13. ADJOURNMENT
The next Commission meeting is scheduled to be held at 9:00 a.m.,
Wednesday, February 8, 2006, Board Room, County of Riverside
Administrative Center, 4080 Lemon Street, Riverside.
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
ROLL CALL
January 11, 2006
Present Absent
Countyof. Riverside, District
O County of Riverside, District II
County of Riverside, District II,I
County of Riverside, District IV
County of Riverside, District V
City of Banning
City of Beaumont
City of Blythe
City of Calimesa
City of Canyon Lake
City of Cathedral City
City of Coachella
City of Corona
City of Desert Hot Springs
City of Hemet
City of Indian Wells
.......... ... ....
City ofIndio
City of La Quinta
City of Lake Elsinore
City of Moreno Valley
City of Murrieta
City of Norco
City of Palm Desert
City of Palm Springs
City of Perris
City of Rancho Mirage
City of Riverside
City of San Jacinto
City of Temecula
Governor's Appointee, Caltrans District 8
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
COMMISSIONER SIGN -IN SHEET
January 11, 2006
NAME
AGENCY
E MAIL ADDRESS
.�� V v\Awl c
c t1d f l�aiv,v\ t Lair
t/SQA4VleA--i',er),G
„- {¢r�T61)
%fr6 is rj�ycrw`Z-VYc&r6�vy.C:ec,i4%hE:
y�
:
ea__
f�,-/ C--/4,c,
�fsF Si
'170-,c- A/ems //c
�k,6/X K ',I-7%4?t.L.
G'iT4-' OAlOR,C0
F5Aal%1-eavl,COYti
R G/456,5 /4.1,e, //s7-P.c
R i c K G / 0 VS-
C /7/ a,- /YU-2 2147;0
60)
,6_,(2z4-zee
J
C� 6{-Y =
r-13Q_;-.4) i--,,Tr'Coo.-/ L . ,
/ C •
r ....
J -
<f7- Vl2 D$el.--f
trKell y@ci.raimoksvten
�P'74- r 1/*/L e
` e,2 r> "/.7.—
M 1 G141%E..-. Z{'�c9 V(e,{4,
eAt�iR R�1S
rt,�.V����+Ea&I:61; k.
+QUtn �ti
f
G,E';�� rau.4-L
Sevan.Ci-e4., ifi(Gw.ly
�-2 ,G /-//2G
A G,-;--- G 3- , , ,.:-;-,.„
.e be, ® ,2c.". Cie.
i\-A. AR t d /-4 /') J 0-Lr %
P, C 4.:,,f -- 7) Li _ S
J
7e,�, /1 e.,Vr.?,e;2sa,=✓
L.r4 �-�i�f�
Ur0-))6
----2K---)-k dot_\cam- .
�. \.) co -
� --vzc� D
r-.t _..
-
,\ 0�� C44,eeaK
GA- % �,4
/. /J 0 v
�e, ,r,/� iii
?.-� L/ � .7Yrf'
0-64-6.-
cwv1/ 1.4/ ee,
Atx,'.y7;e.ocl7t @ Qo/ Cz
—L
CAt eicTy
.te
RG
PS
r.J
m
"
A G E N D A I T E M 5
M I N U T E S
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
MINUTES
Wednesday, December 14, 2005
1. CALL TO ORDER
The Riverside County Transportation Commission was called to order by
Chair Robin Lowe at 9:05 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, Vice Chair Marion Ashley led the Commission in a flag salute.
3. ROLL CALL
Commissioners/Alternates Present Commissioners Absent
Marion Ashley
Roger Berg
Alex Bias
Daryl Busch
Bob Buster
Chris Buydos
John Chlebnik
Mary Craton
Juan M. DeLara
Rick Gibbs
Frank Hall
Barbara Hanna
Terry Henderson
Robin Lowe
Dick Kelly
Bob Magee
Ron Meepos
Jeff Miller
Ameal Moore
Ronald Oden
Mike Perovich
Ron .Roberts
Mary Roche
Jeff Stone
John F. Tavaglione
Frank West
Michael H. Wilson
Roy Wilson
Robert Crain
Gregory Pettis
Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes
December 14, 2005
Page 2
4. PUBLIC COMMENTS
There were no requests from the public to speak.
5. ADDITIONS/REVISIONS
Chair Lowe noted a revision to Page 13 of the November 9, 2005 minutes
6. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - November 9, 2005
M/S/C (Henderson/Stone) to approve the November 9, 2005 minutes
as submitted.
7. CONSENT CALENDAR
M/S/C (Buydos/Oden) to approve the following Consent Calendar
items:
7A. PROPOSED 2006 COMMISSION/COMMITTEES MEETING AND
UNMET TRANSIT NEEDS PUBLIC HEARING SCHEDULE
Adopt the 2006 Commission/Committees Meeting and Unmet Transit
Needs Public Hearing Schedule:
7B. AWARD AGREEMENT NO. 06-12-012-00 FOR COMPUTER
EQUIPMENT AND NETWORK MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR SERVICE
1) Award Agreement No. 06-12-012-00 for Computer Equipment
and Network Maintenance and Repair Services to Cybercom
Resources; and,
2) Authorize the Chairman, pursuant to Legal Counsel Review, to
execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission.
7C. AWARD AGREEMENT NO. 06-19-009-00 FOR MEASURE "A"
REVENUE FORECAST UPDATE TO THE UCLA ANDERSON FORECAST
OF THE UCLA ANDERSON SCHOOL OF MANAGEMENT
1) Award ,Agreement No. 06-19-009-00 to the UCLA Anderson
Forecast of the UCLA Anderson School of Management (UCLA
Anderson Forecast) to update the Commission's. Measure "A"
revenue forecast related to FY 2006-07 through FY 2038-39 at
a cost not to exceed $20,000; and,
2) Authorize the Executive Director, pursuant to Legal Counsel
review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission.
•
"
"
R i v e r s i d e C o u n t y T r a n s p o r t a t i o n C o m m i s s i o n M i n u t e s
D e c e m b e r 1 4 , 2 0 0 5
P a g e 3
7 D . A P P R O V A L O F A G R E E M E N T N O . 0 6 - 7 1 - 0 0 1 - 0 0 F O R A D V A N C E T O
T H E C I T Y O F B L Y T H E
1 ) A p p r o v e A g r e e m e n t N o . 0 6 - 7 1 - 0 0 1 - 0 0 , " A g r e e m e n t f o r
A d v a n c e m e n t o f 2 0 0 9 M e a s u r e " A " L o c a l S t r e e t s a n d R o a d s
F u n d s , " t o a d v a n c e u p t o $ 1 , 5 0 0 , 0 0 0 o f n e w M e a s u r e " A "
f u n d s t o t h e C i t y o f B l y t h e ( B l y t h e ) u t i l i z i n g p r o c e e d s f r o m t h e
c o m m e r c i a l p a p e r p r o g r a m ; a n d ,
2 ) A u t h o r i z e t h e C h a i r m a n , p u r s u a n t t o L e g a l C o u n s e l r e v i e w , t o
e x e c u t e t h e a g r e e m e n t o n b e h a l f o f t h e C o m m i s s i o n .
7 E . Q U A R T E R L Y I N V E S T M E N T R E P O R T
R e c e i v e a n d f i l e t h e Q u a r t e r l y i n v e s t m e n t R e p o r t f o r t h e q u a r t e r e n d e d
S e p t e m b e r 3 0 , 2 0 0 5 .
7 F . 2 0 0 6 S T A T E T R A N S P O R T A T I O N I M P R O V E M E N T P R O G R A M
D E V E L O P M E N T
R e c e i v e a n d f i l e t h e d r a f t 2 0 0 6 S t a t e T r a n s p o r t a t i o n I m p r o v e m e n t
P r o g r a m .
7 G . A W A R D A G R E E M E N T N O . 0 6 - 1 5 - 0 0 8 - 0 0 F O R C O M M U N I C A T I O N S
A N D G R A P H I C D E S I G N C O N S U L T A N T S E R V I C E S
1 ) A w a r d A g r e e m e n t N o . 0 6 - 1 5 - 0 0 8 - 0 0 t o G e o g r a p h i c s f o r a
t h r e e - y e a r c o n s u l t a n t a g r e e m e n t w i t h t w o o n e - y e a r t e r m
e x t e n s i o n o p t i o n s f o r c o m m u n i c a t i o n s a n d ` g r a p h i c d e s i g n
s e r v i c e s o n a n a s n e e d e d , t i m e a n d m a t e r i a l s b a s i s p u r s u a n t t o
t h e h o u r l y r a t e s s t a t e d i n i t s p r o p o s a l ; a n d ,
2 ) A u t h o r i z e t h e C h a i r m a n , p u r s u a n t t o L e g a l C o u n s e l r e v i e w , t o
e x e c u t e t h e a g r e e m e n t o n b e h a l f o f t h e C o m m i s s i o n .
7 H . T R A N S T R A C K : T R A N S I T P E R F O R M A N C E M A N A G E M E N T S O F T W A R E
1 ) A l l o c a t e $ 1 5 3 , 0 0 0 i n L o c a l T r a n s p o r t a t i o n F u n d s ( L T F ) t o
T r a n s T r a c k S y s t e m s L L C ( T r a n s T r a c k ) f o r t h e i m p l e m e n t a t i o n o f
a T r a n s i t P e r f o r m a n c e M a n a g e r s o f t w a r e a p p l i c a t i o n a n d
t r a i n i n g p a c k a g e ;
2 ) A p p r o v e A g r e e m e n t N o . . 0 6 - 6 2 - 0 0 7 - 0 0 w i t h T r a n s T r a c k f o r
$ 1 5 3 , 0 0 0 i n L T F f u n d s ; a n d ,
3 ) A u t h o r i z e t h e C h a i r m a n , p u r s u a n t t o L e g a l C o u n s e l r e v i e w , t o
e x e c u t e t h e a g r e e m e n t o n b e h a l f o f t h e C o m m i s s i o n .
Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes
December 14, 2005
Page 4
71. DESIGNATED RECIPIENT FOR THE FEDERAL TRANSIT
ADMINISTRATION'S SECTION 5307 PROGRAM — SMALL
URBANIZED AREA FUNDING
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);
and,
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."
7J. REQUEST FOR MEASURE "A" SPECIALIZED TRANSIT FUNDS AS
MATCH FOR FISCAL YEAR 2004-2005 SECTION 5310 PROGRAM
FROM FRIENDS OF MORENO VALLEY
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) Approve Agreement No. 06-26-002-00 with Friends for $9,800
in Measure "A" Specialized Transit Funds available in western
Riverside County; and,
3) Authorize the Chairman, pursuant to legal counsel review, to
execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission.
7K. REQUEST FOR MEASURE "A" SPECIALIZED TRANSIT FUNDS FROM
THE PARTNERSHIP TO PRESERVE INDEPENDENT LIVING FOR
SENIORS AND PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES
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) 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,
3) Authorize the Chairman, pursuant to Legal Counsel review, to
execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission.
•
Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes
December 14, 2005
Page 5
7L. FISCAL YEAR 2006-2010 MEASURE "A FIVE-YEAR CAPITAL
IMPROVEMENT PLAN FOR LOCAL STREETS AND ROADS FOR THE
CITY OF NORCO
Approve the FY 2006-10 Measure "A" Five -Year Capital Improvement
Plan for Local Streets and Roads for the City of Norco.
7M. AMENDMENT TO FISCAL YEAR 2006 MEASURE "A" CAPITAL
IMPROVEMENT PLAN FOR LOCAL STREETS AND ROADS FOR THE
CITY OF DESERT HOT SPRINGS
Approve the amendment to the FY 2006 Measure "A" Capital
Improvement Plan for Local Streets and Roads for the City of Desert
Hot Springs.
7N. RIVERSIDE COUNTY CALL BOX SYSTEM REDUCTION AND
MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT
1► Authorize staff to reduce the number of call boxes throughout
the Riverside County Call Box system by approximately 422
boxes;
2) Award Agreement No. 06-45-003-00 to Comarco Wireless
Technologies for the removal and installation of call boxes and
annual maintenanceservices for the Riverside County Call Box
Program; and,
3) Authorize the Chairman, pursuant to Legal Counsel review, to
execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission.
70. AWARD AGREEMENTS FOR FREEWAY SERVICE PATROL TOW
TRUCK SERVICE
1) Award Agreement No. 06-45-006-00, a three-year agreement
with two one-year options; to Hamner Towing for tow truck
service on Beat No. 2 of the Freeway Service Patrol program at
a cost of $47.75 per hour per truck;
2) , ; Award Agreement No. 06-45-005-00, a three-year agreement
with two one-year options, to Pepe's Towing for tow truck
service on Beat. No. 25 of the Freeway Service Patrol program
at a -cost of $48.50 per hour per truck;
3) Award Agreement No. 06-45-004-00, a three-year agreement
with two one-year options, to Hamner Towing for tow truck
service on Beat No. ;26 of the freeway Service !Patrol program
at a cost of $49.50 per hour per truck; and,
4) Authorize the Chairman, pursuant to Legal Counsel review, to
execute the agreements on behalf of the Commission.
Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes
December 14, 2005
Page 6
7P. APPROVAL OF AGREEMENT NO. 04-51-030-02, AMENDMENT
NO. 2 TO AGREEMENT . NO. " 04-51-030 WITH EPIC LAND
SOLUTIONS, INC., FOR PROPERTY MANAGEMENT SUPPORT
SERVICES
1) Enter into ,Agreement No. 04-51-030-02, Amendment No. 2 to
Agreement No. 04-51-030 with Epic Land Solutions, Inc., for
property management support services related to all
Commission owned parcels for a not to exceed amount of
$301,850; and,
2) Authorize the Chairman, pursuant to Legal Counsel review, to
execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission.
7Q. COMMUTER RAIL PROGRAM UPDATE
Receive and file the Commuter Rail Program Update as an information
item.
7R. STATE AND FEDERAL LEGISLATIVE UPDATE
Receive and file the State and Federal Legislative Update as an
information item.
8. PRESENTATION,- INLAND EMPIRE TRANSPORTATION COALITION
Bob Wolf made a presentation to the Commission on the :Inland Empire
Transportation Coalition.
9. RIVERSIDE COUNTY -ORANGE COUNTY MAJOR INVESTMENT STUDY
RECOMMENDATIONS
(At the Chair's request, transcription of this item is presented to the
Commission in a verbatim fashion.)
Commissioner Tavaglione: First and foremost, I want to compliment Tony
Rahimian and all the entire RCTC staff; Cathy Bechtel especially, for taking
the lead on this project on behalf of RCTC. This has been a long, long
process and very controversial in certain areas. Taking two counties and the
various cities within the two counties and bring them together to come to a
unanimous decision is not an easy thing to do. I want to compliment
Councilman Jeff Miller as well who was going against the grain and just
within his own council members in the city in the beginning and held his
ground and was able to convince them of what needed to be done and took
•
•
•
fiiverside County Transportation Commission Minutes
December 14, 2005
Page 7
a very strong lead in Orange County. This has been a tough project. If you
could go back to the phasing chart, I just want to point out that one of the
most challenging things for all of us was to convince everybody,, especially
the, Orange County side, that we needed an, Orange County corridor, a new
corridor. ,I don't think any one of us believed that we could just build out the
91 or add; to the 91 and think that we are going to get .through; what we
need to get through in the next 30 years. But as you look at Corridor B, and
I think that many of us felt that Corridor B was the likely alternative for a
new corridor, I believe everyone one of us on this side believes that we have
to do this, we have to have new corridor. But considering the. Corridor B
timeframe, we had to focus on the 91 and the improvements that were
already, approved by Measure "A" renewal and the very complicated and
controversial elevated structure over the 91. .As we looked at alternatives,
ideas were being thrown about a completely elevated structure over the 91
similar to the Nimitz Freeway in Oakland. They have come up with that "T"
shaped facility which ,is considerably less obtrusive to the community and
the :City of Corona. I think this is the right way to; go and. I am very proud to
have been a part of this project, most importantly because of RCTC and the
people involved and the elected, officials that committed to this. I>just want
to say thank you to Tony Rahimian and ROTCstaff andthe other cities that
were actively participating. This is a great project.
Commissioner Jeff Stone:. Congratulations on a report well -.done. About
two years ago, we had -a presentation by ;Mr. Vardou,lis about the tunnel
project.; I became a very strong -proponent ,of that idea knowing that double
decking the 91 freeway was not going to be a viable option. Having traveled
and still do travel the Ortega Highway, I understand the safety implications
and the environmental challenges and what it would take to straighten these
out. Commissioner Roberts ,suggested. I sit back and wait for the Major
Investment Study to be done before I took a position on the tunnel which I
kept my quiet until now. I think this is a major decision for Riverside County
as we have a vision to move forward and we have hundreds of thousands of
people that travel our freeways that are gridlocked. It's like a cancer that
has spread into Southwest Riverside_ County, Mr. Vardoulis; who was a
maverick at the time that he was proposing this bizarre idea about of putting
a hole through the Cleveland National Forest did his own studies -and -showed
that he would relieve a lot of pressure on the, 10 and on. the 60 Freeways
and most importantly on the 91 Freeway that my colleagues deal with every
single day. People that don't even live in .Corona have to deal with the
terrible traffic issues just like the City ;of Temecula. - In looking at the tunnel
project I want Dick Kelly to bearound when we complete this project and
Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes
December 14, 2005
Page 8
it shows that if we were to start today on the tunnel project, it would be
2023 when it would be completed. While I was a Temecula City Official we
had a sister City in Nacirema, Japan and Mr. Roberts and myself" made a
number of trips back there and in order to get to the Western Coast of
Naciama you had to travel through some extensive tunnels some of which
were probably five to 'six miles long. The technology exists so there has to
be away that we can fast track a project like this. Get the joint cooperation
between Orange County and Riverside County. There are firms in this
country because 1 attended a conference on the East Coast it was actually a
tunneling conference that my council sent me on when I was a Temecula
City Official The technology exists in this country today. 1t can be fast
tracked so there is no reason that we should have to wait 'almost two
decades to get this 'completed.` I stand ready and I'm a part of the coalition
partnership that Mr. Wolf was talking about. I think that with the help
private sector and the pushing of the public sector we can make some of
these improvements become a reality in our life times and that's certainly my
goal. The tunnel project is my number one priority. 'It's something I'm going
to continue to push and I hope it's something ` that this Commission
continues to push.' There are a number of large number engineering firms
that would love to have the honor of building a project of this magnitude in
the United States and have the testimony that they did it. I think when you
get these big companies competing we are going to be able to deliver this
sooner rather then much, much later. I would urge this Commission and I'm
not sure how we prioritize some of these recommendations but I think this
should be the number one 'priority that we : should jointly pursue • and work
diligently with Orange County Supervisors to continue to keep' their buy in
and keep their interests and work with our Federal Officials', both in Riverside
County and try to fast track funding so that we can 'pay for this. Mr.
Vardoulis showed that trucks would gladly pay' a hefty toll to come through
this tunnel and different tunnel remember he proposed a tri-tunnel. The
utilities would pay for one of the tunnels so that they can deliver some of the
utilities to Orange County most importantly Lake Matthews' water where
Orange County depends considerably on that water. Madam Chair I
recommend that we have some kind > of a sub -committee of this organization
be ' appointed " to focus on this, major decision this major amenity that
Riverside County has to have and I think it deserves our highest priority. I
hope the rest of the board feels the same way.
Co►nmissioner'Marion Ashley: I would like also to give compliments to the
MIS Policy Committee and that was Jeff Miller, Supervisor Taviglone,
Supervisor Buster, Bob IVlagee was on there and also Frank Hall` and Ameal
Moore because you do a good job. I think this is really a land mark action
that we are going to be taking today. I hope the vote is unanimous on that.
•
•
•
"
R i v e r s i d e C o u n t y T r a n s p o r t a t i o n C o m m i s s i o n M i n u t e s
D e c e m b e r 1 4 , 2 0 0 5
P a g e 9
I n t a l k i n g a b o u t t h e t u n n e l , e v e r y b o d y i s c o n c e r n e d a b o u t e a r t h q u a k e f a u l t s
a n d t h e w a t e r . T h e y h a v e m o r e e a r t h q u a k e s a n d w a t e r i n J a p a n t h e n w e
h a v e h e r e . M e t r o p o l i t a n W a t e r D i s t r i c t h a s b u i l t 2 8 m i l e s o f t u n n e l s f o r t h e
i n l a n d f e e d e r i t w e n t u n d e r c o m m u n i t i e s a n d t h r o u g h e a r t h q u a k e a r e a s a n d i t
w a s c h a l l e n g i n g b u t i t ' s p o s s i b l e . T h e n t h e s a m e c o m p a n i e s t h a t a c t u a l l y
d u g t h e t u n n e l o v e r i n R a n s o m , E n g l a n d i s d o i n g t h i s w o r k f o r M e t i t s t h e r e
i t ' s n o t e v e n a r e a l c h a l l e n g e a n y m o r e t h i s t e c h n o l o g y - i s h e r e . S o s h a r e
S u p e r v i s o r S t o n e ' s c o n c e r n t h a t w e h a v e t o f i g u r e o u t a w a y t o s p e e d t h i s
u p a n d m a k e t h i s f a s t e r a n d I t h i n k w e s h o u l d a s k o u r s t a f f t o e x p l o r e w a y s
t h a t w e c a n d o t h a t a n d r e a c h o u t i t m i g h t e v e n n e e d s p e c i a l l e g i s l a t i o n o n
p a r t s o f i t b u t w e h a v e t o t r y a n d m o v e t h i s a l o n g . A t t h i s p o i n t I ' d l i k e t o
m o v e f o r a p p r o v a l o f t h i s a n d i n a c c o r d a n c e w i t h t h e s t a f f ' s
r e c o m m e n d a t i o n . I t h i n k t h i s i s r e a l l y a l a n d m a r k a c t i o n w e a r e a b o u t t o
t a k e .
C o m m i s s i o n e r J e f f M i l l e r : O n C o r r i d o r B i f w e u s e d e s i g n s e q u e n c i n g / d e s i g n
b u i l d w o n ' t t h a t t a k e , . w i l l i t t a k e 1 0 - 1 5 y e a r s o f f t h e t i m e f r a m e ?
T o n y R a h i m i a n : A b s o l u t e l y . T h e r e a r e w a y s t o r e d u c e t h e i n i t i a l s c h e d u l e
t h a t w e p u t u p h e r e f o r C o r r i d o r B . O n e a p p r o a c h w i l l b e d u r i n g t h e
p r e l i m i n a r y e n g i n e e r i n g p h a s e t o r e a l l y t r y t o m i n i m i z e t h e e n v i r o n m e n t a l
i m p a c t s b y t h i s p o t e n t i a l t u n n e l b y m i n i m i z i n g t h a t t h a t w i l l h o p e f u l l y r e d u c e
t h e f i v e ( 5 ) y e a r s t h a t w e ' v e s e t a s i d e f o r t h e e n v i r o n m e n t a l d o c u m e n t a t i o n
a n d c l e a r a n c e o f t h e p r o j e c t t h a t ' s o n e a r e a t h a t w e c l e a r l y h a v e b e e n v e r y
c o n s e r v a t i v e i n o u r e s t i m a t i o n o f t h e d u r a t i o n o f t h i s i m p l e m e n t a t i o n o f t h i s
p r o j e c t s o t h a t ' s o n e a r e a . T h e s e c o n d a s : y o u : m e n t i o n e d b y d e s i g n
s e q u e n c i n g o r d e s i g n b u i l d y o u c a n r e d u c e . t h e t h r e e ( 3 ) y e a r s a n d t h e ( 6 )
y e a r s t h a t w e ' v e s e t a s i d e f o r t h e f i n a l d e s i g n a s s h o w n i n g r e e n a n d t h e
c o n s t r u c t i o n s h o w n i n b l u e . B y r a t h e r . : p e r f o r m i n g t h o s e t a s k s i n p a r a l l e l
r a t h e r t h a n i n s e r i e s , y o u c a n r e d u c e t h e t i m e s i g n i f i c a n t l y s o t h e r e a r e w a y s
t h a t t h i s d u r a t i o n c o u l d b e r e d u c e d v e r y s i g n i f i c a n t l y . b y a g a i n t h i n k i n g o u t o f
t h e b o x a n d i m p l e m e n t i n g t h e l a t e s t t e c h n o l o g y t h a t w a s m e n t i o n e d i s
a v a i l a b l e t o u s n o w .
C o m m i s s i o n e r R o n R o b e r t s : T h e r e a r e t w o t h i n g s I ' d l i k e t o b r i n g u p . T h e
f i r s t t h i n g i s s o m e t h i n g I ' v e t a l k e d a b o u t a c o u p l e ' t i m e s i n : t h e p a s t a n d
t h a t ' s n o t f o r g e t t i n g d e d i c a t e d t r u c k l a n e s . I ' v e t a l k e d a b o u t t h a t i n t h e
p a s t : I t i s i n o u r r e g i o n a l t r a n s p o r t a t i o n p l a n i t d o e s n ' t s p e c i f y e x a c t l y w h e r e
t h e y a r e g o i n g t o g o . W e n e e d t o c o n t i n u e t o l o o k a t i t t h e t r u c k t r a f f i c i s
n o t g o i n g t o g e t b e t t e r i t ' s g o i n g t o : g e t w o r s e a n d i f w e h a v e a d e d i c a t e d
t r u c k l a n e w i t h a l l t h e s e l a n e s o r t w o d e d i c a t e d t r u c k l a n e s t h i s m a y w o r k
f o r u s a n d n o t a g a i n s t u s . S o d o n ' t f o r g e t t h a t a s w e g o t h r o u g h t h i s
Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes
December 14, 2005
Page 10
process. The other think I'd dike to bring up and its something maybe Eric
can make a brief comment about and that's the proposedor maybe even
established JPA between Metropolitan Water District and two other water
districts right now. I'm very concerned about this and possibly taking some
of transportation funding for this project away. I don't mind working in
conjunction with the water district but I don't think we have the full story on
it yet whether it's even going to work or not. 1 don't want this to go to far
without us taking at least some type of a stand on it l know we haven't
discussed it in the past:
Eric Haley, Executive Director: There was a $15.8 million line item proposed
by Congressman Cox and supported by Congressman Calvert, Dryer and
others. In the Federal Bill, it was approved at point at this dais when the
AB 1010 committee the statutory committee from both counties that over
sees this process when they were meeting here a gentleman came up and
Supervisor Campbell from Orange County made it quite clear that he felt that
MWD should be a major player and we agreed that that could be positive.
He also indicated that there would be efforts to modify the language as it
went to a final conference committee tobe a little more ambiguous about
the make up of a new authority. Your direction to me both informally and in
the AB 1010 environment was that we didn't want to enter any agreements
prior to today's actions. We didn't want to pre -suppose an action of this
Commission nor did we feel that any water agency should have primacy over
the transportation bodies that the State sets up in Orange County and in
Riverside County. In other words, RCTC and OCTA and to a much lesser
degree the transportation corridor agencies are the transportation bodies
affected that have revenue streams and capability in delivering the projects.
The Federal money is Federal Transportation money there's an unmistakable
logic the transportation agencies with transportation funds should deal with
Federal transportation monies. All that said, MWD may have some cost
savings and some cooperative efforts which will work in our favor whether
they go to the level that Mr. Vardoulis has indicated is still to be seen. I
think there is need for some pretty active, diplomatic discussions with the
water agencies and it should be clear that under no circumstances should the
water agencies on both sides of the county line create :an institutional body
another layer of government to run these federal dollars in this federal
process. So we have not signed onto a JPA. There is a JPA which is solely
water agencies and there are Orange County parochial issues which led to
some of this coming about. We are unfortunately part of that discussion.
All the players should be working together with the $15.8 million. I did
comment to a reporter recently that the $15.8 million was about 1/10 of 1 %
of the total investment were talking, it's not quite that bad but it's in that
area. So this is not a nuclear issue from my perspective but we can work
this out.
•
•
•
Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes
December 14, 2005
Page 11
Commissioner Bob Magee: Thank you very much madam Chair. First of all I
want to thank you for allowing me to participate on this committee. I really
do appreciatethefact that you inserted me on there even though it was late
in the game. Also want to thank staff, both Mr. Rahimian and Ms. Bechtel
who were extremely polite, professional and responsive throughout this
entire process. Although I 'support recommendations 1 6, I'm going to
continue to take issue with recommendation '7. Recommendation 7 is
divided up into two sections the first is the one that I take exception to
which is the elimination of further study of the Ortega Highway for widening
and realignment due to high costs and environmental impacts. When I was
first appointed to the committee we started out with four (4) corridors, A, B,
C and D and my goodness 'how exciting two of those go through the
beautiful City of Lake Elsinore and we were ecstatic in at Lake Elsinore.
Now as one of my colleagues from Orange County puts it were left with an
estimate of $180 Million to add a .couple inches of pavement and a few
guard rails on Highway 74 over a period of time in excess of seven (7) years.
My colleagues from Canyon Lake, Murrieta and Temecula our constituents
are looking for a closer route and for those of you that joined me traveling
North on the 1-15 today you recognized that the back up today began before
we hit Indian Truck Trail There is a need for a corridor further south. In
Highway 74 we have an existing paved dedicated right-of-way and yet we
were told that the environmental mitigation costs there were going to be in
excess of $700 million. I can't get my arms around that cost, but what it
tells me is that we need Federal assistance in order to bring that cost down.
Congressman Issa is dedicated to help us do that to bring the cost down and
work on this alternative. It's one of the reasons why I don't want this
alternative to die. So when the motion goes forward and I believe: that it will
while I clearly support the second half of Item 7, which is to continue to
focus on operational improvements specifically safety improvements. I want
the record to show that -I do not support the first half of recommendation 7
and I would urge my colleagues from Southwest Riverside County to join me
on that. Thank you.
Commissioner Stone: Thank you and I certainly appreciate the comments of
Mr. Magee. I would agree whole heartedly with his assessment but 1 think
that if we can bring this tunnel route to, fruition I believe that the Ortega
Highway in its present condition what would satisfy some of the local traffic
that utilizes this route every single day. Again I want to stress that we
should probably have a sub -committee: maybe appointed by the -Chair to
work with water agencies to address the traffic lanes for the trucks which
think is, very, 'very important. We know that if this tunnel comes to fruition
especially if there's rail going through the . tunnel youare going to see
Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes
December 14, 2005
Page 12
significant truck traffic utilizing this corridor to the relief of the 91
Expressway. One other thing I do want to mention is that youall remember
that after the Northridge earthquake and the 10 Freeway fell the, Governor of
the State_ of California has broad powers and in a state of emergency he can
agate a lot of environmental work to get the infrastructure built and that's
how they got the 10-Freeway built again I think it was in nine (9) months.
believe that we are in a state of emergency in Riverside County at this time.
While there is no natural disaster we live in a time when there is Home Land
Security issues and if we did have some type of home security incident and
people needed to get out of Riverside County fast I think that weneed to
learn from the lessons of Katrina. That we aren't prepared for that kind
exodus of this county and we need to have this alternative in place in a
timely way and there maybe ways of which 1 mean I believe that
representatives of all the cities and the unincorporated areas of
Riverside County. 1 think RCTC as an organization is a very powerful one
and has.a very powerful voice and I think that by working with the
Governor's office and to show him that we do have a state of emergency
that exists today and working with our Federal Legislators maybe we can in
fact save at least 50%_ of the time off in getting some of these infrastructure
amenities built and delivered in a timely way. Because our residents are
suffering every single day and in looking at the long term we need to: prepare
ourselves for a national emergency that would allow ' us to save many
members of our constituents' lives by allowing them to have safe egress and
exodus .from this county in the event that there is some type of natural
disaster maybe resolution from, this board to the Governor maybe working
through the sub -committee, working with the "Governor's office, our Federal
Legislatures. I'm optimistic that we can shave significant time off of this
with the support and dedication of all the members of this commission.
Commissioner Buster:I appreciated the skill with which staff and Tony
Rahimian brought to life the amorphous concepts and gave them much more
definite form and order. There was a lot of skillful work done and well as
skillful negotiations in sensitivity from staff and elected officials dealing with
the concerns of both counties. This needs to bestressed.As Supervisor
Tavaglione pointed out, the effort resulted in a considerable achievement of
positing a new corridor from Cajalco Road moving south. We are going to
have to work closely with Orange County to make that happen.. 1 'want to
stress several issues. < The issue of possibly more traffic hitting 'central and
south Orange County has become a major political issue and most of the
responsible leadership there is trying to put it in proper perspective. Also,
Orange County faces its own Measure extension and are quite concerned
that the raw image of a new corridor with hundreds of thousands of cars a
day being injected into the midsection of their county from Riverside County
doesn't detract from the support for their Measure, which they need for
internal transportation improvements and make the important connections
Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes
December 14, 2005
Page 13
that our 91, Ortega Highway, and Mid County corridor improvements
suppose. There is also an internal debate in Orange County for continuing to
urge construction of more office buildings in Irvine that would just attract
more Riverside County traffic. So may there is an opening here to us to
change the dynamic around and in additional to expanding the 91 and
improving the Ortega Highway where we can. There's an opportunity here
to do more than begin an important transportation improvement effort but I
think there's an opportunity to join with Orange County to achieve some
other aims. We need to use everything in our power to attract more
industries to Riverside County and work with Orange County in a cooperative
fashion to do just that. Commissioner Roberts brought up the trucking issue
and I had asked if a separate truck lane was needed and the response was
that there was not enough truck traffic. Please explain.
Tony Rahimian: Based on our studies, we believe that at least on the 91
corridor having dedicated truck lanes is not warranted. The truck traffic is
not significant enough to have dedicated truck lanes on the 91.
Commissioner Buster: That's where the Inland Empire Transportation
Coalition and others come in. We need to go full tilt jn making the 60 with
separate truck lanes so that we channel the trucks off of the major vehicle
routes. I agree with the other speakers, it was a very positive effort and we
need to work cooperatively with Orange County and others to make this
happen.
Commissioner Tavaglione: It was difficult to get to this point and keep
another corridor, especially the tunnel corridor on the map and obtain Orange
County's unanimous support because of the strong political factors that are
taking place ;today, with the Measure and the differences; between cities in
the southern part of Orange. County. In the end, they realized our dilemma
and that they had to be a part of this and continue to study and look at the
future of a tunnel or tunnel/surface configuration. I don't think at anyone of
us here in Riverside County that wants to see that project move much
quicker than 18 years. If we can cut it in half, that would be great. We
can't operate in a box. We need to have Orange County on board in this
process ,and it's going to take baby steps to get them to realize that this
needs to happen sooner than later on the tunnel. While I applaud Supervisor
Stone's concerns to put together a subcommittee to expedite this process,
we can't do it with just Riverside County. We must have Orange County on
board in, terms of any further discussions that will take place on expediting
the new corridor. I encourage- everyone because to the work that has been
done in the: last 18 month and much of that work to get Orange County, we
want to keep them on the same page because we can't do itwithoutthem.
Our congressman who has the ability to bringlegislation forward to expedite
the tunnel now represents a good portion of southern Orange County. We
Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes
December 14, 2005
Page 14
must keep this as it has been recommended but make a very clear message
that ,all the priorities need to be expedited. I second the motion of
Supervisor Ashley.
Commissioner Terry Henderson: The recommendation we have before us are
the same ones that Orange County approved in the last 48 hours. My
concern is that tomorrow is never what we thought it was going to be
today. Tow years :ago when I originally heard about the tunnel, I was
extremely excited. 1 thought it was certainly the way to go. Now I'm
hearing that it has taken closeto 18 months to convince Orange County to
leave it in the study. Now that doesn't mean it's going to happen. What
frightens me somewhat at this point is that while we are leaving it in the
study, we are eliminating the possibility of the Ortega Highway. We could
find ourselves in future years as elections come and go and as the political
climate changes we could find ourselves at the end of a'tunnel without an
exit. Is there a compromise to the word 'eliminate'? I direct this question to
Supervisor Tavaglione and Cathy Bechtel.
Commissioner Tavaglione: 1 think one of the good things that was discussed
at the last meeting of the MIS Committee, made the decision to continue the
process and continue to meet and work with the consultant as the process
moves forward. As Measure "M" continues to receive' support in Orange
County from the business community and hopefully passes, we can make
further progress in moving these projects and other alternatives along. I
think where we are today is where we need to be but I think there needs to
be some without upsetting the apple cart in terms of the recommendations
today and allow those of us that have been involved continue to work and
move forward these projects. How we structure a recommendation different
that what we have a agreed to on both sides of the county line may set us
back a bit too much and do not recommend it.
Commission Henderson: Maybe we can come back at either that the annual
retreat or sooner and make a policy statement that the moment that we
sense any king of change in the wind, we bring these back for an
amendment and put the Ortega Highway back on the list. = I'm looking to
move this forward without having serious breakdown of cooperation.
Cathy Bechtel.: I want to highlight on the phasing chart the decision points.
1. think those decision points give us the opportunity to again take another
look at what we want to do and that's why they are there. We need to
complete some work and find out if we need to do additional improvements,
regroup or reconsider. I think those are build into the project phasing to
allow us to adjust as new information becomes available. There is always
the 'opportunity for the Commissioners and the Boards to adjust direction as
necessary.
Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes
December 14, 2005
Page 15
Commissioner Henderson: I think I've heard enough to feel comfortable
moving forward and I would hope that Commissioner Magee is comfortable
as well.
Commissioner Miller: I wanted to point out that ultimately we are going to
need Corridor A, B, C and D to accommodate all the growth but I think when
you look at the number of trips that Corridor D provided and I stepped out I
may have missed that slide. It's pretty minimal, Cathy Bechtel said 23,000.
Jeff Miller said 23,000 so I feel that we need to be in concert with Orange
County on this. We need to show a strong commitment that we are moving
forward together on these recommendations and ultimately down the road 1
think we need to look at another MIS or another study format evaluate
Southwest Riverside County traffic but from the purpose of this MIS it's
extremely important that we move forward in concert with Orange County
and recommend it the way it is.
Commissioner Buster: I just want to make sure what Orange County
approved. Eric just told me by 16 — 0 vote but after longer discussion was
these very same recommendations here.
Cathy Bechtel: That is correct.
Commissioner Michael Wilson: Hearing the arguments sometimes silent
language is golden and we find it all the time at the federal level. Maybe you
get a unanimous decision here maybe we just say direct staff to focus on
Ortega Highway operational improvements leave the language silent in the
other half of the recommendation and just a thought.
Commissioner Buster: You might be interested to hear some of the reaction
of Orange County. Originally we had safety improvements for Ortega and
then I think some where along the line it changed it to a more broader term
which was operational improvements and I' know Supervisor'Norby who we
had what three or four Supervisors at the decision making meetings there is
a lot of interest in this whole thing. Supervisor Norby was concerned that
operational improvements would lead to substantially increased` traffic flow
on the Ortega Highway which of course all the south in Orange County cities
are keenly aware of it and concerned about corresponding necessary
improvements to the 1-5 and so on and so forth and with all the adjacent
roads. So there is operational is a broader term and in fact if will if all these
$180 Million in improvements in Ortega go through it will provide for I think
much smoother, safer and probably a' higher volume of overall traffic with
today's for both counties as it should.
Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes
December 14, 2005
Page 16
Chair Lowe: There is a slide that you had listing these conditions and some
of theverbiage is different then what appears on my type written copy and it
has to do with the Cal -Neva High Speed Rail Maglev. It says continue to
coordinate, that does not appear in the staff report. So could you explain
exactly what we are voting on and what that means because I think we have
some tribes in our county that are going to want to know the answer to that.
Cathy Bechtel: It is staff recommendation number 5 we said "work" instead
of "coordinate" on the slide. This is not our project. It is the California -
Nevada High Speed Rail Super Speed Train Commission that is working on
the project. It is important that RCTC and OCTA and the MIS Policy
Committee coordinate with them because they are looking at where to locate
their facility. It is not our project but we need to coordinate on any plans
that they might have information that they need, information that we need
from them and so it's just to continue to move forward and assist them.
Chair Lowe: I personally see that as a vote of support for that line and I
don't want that miss interrupted by anyone.
Eric Haley: The commission has never taken that position.
Chair Lowe: That's correct we have taken a formal position. Mr. Roberts
knows what I'm referring to, I'm sure.
Ron Roberts: Yes I do:
Chair Lowe: I'm not trying to make light of this because we have some very
sensitive negotiations going on with the Riverside Tribes right now. In fact
it's going to happen on Friday and I am very concerned about this language.
Tony Rahimian: The intent is to just make sure that our widening of the 91'
and the double decking perhaps of the 91 with Corridor A does not preclude
a potential alignment for the Maglev through Santa Ana Canyon that's all we
are trying to do just to make sure our project doesn't preclude their project.
Chair Lowe: 1 don't want their project to preclude ours. That's why I don't
like this language.
Cathy Bechtel: We just need to keep the lines of communication open. You
are absolutely right, RCTC hasn't taken a position of support or otherwise.
Chair Lowe: I'm very concerned about it.
Eric Haley: The Commission has never taken a position on this viewing the
California High Speed Rail Authority the statewide system is of interest to us
•
Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes
December 14, 2005
Page 17
as well as the proposals in Southern California from SCAG. We have
maintained a neutral position but not advocating this project and there are
significant issues in the City of Corona and elsewhere should that project be
moved forward. We have no money on this project. I view this language
and maybe it should be conditioned this way is just staying on top of this
issue. I don't want this to get by us and 1 think that's the position that you
would be comfortable with that's my intent. I'd also want to point out one
thing this will change since and in some senses faster then any of us expect
if our public/private partnership initiatives that you move forward with last
month come forward. Virtually every investment party that's interested is
looking at the 9.1. looking at significant investments there will be other
Corridors covered.. This is a dynamic rapidly changing issue. Whoever said
that it could change tomorrow by 5:00 p.m. is much closer to the truth then
many others. I expect that we will have quit a bit to talk about as the spring
and summer move on in terms of the private play in this whole proposal and
that will change the timelines.
Chair Lowe: As I look back on this process I recall ' CETAP. As we
eliminated corridors and language I think some of it has been forgotten. I
share Commissioner Henderson's concern,, I share Commissioner Magee's
concern I think that some of what has been said today needs to be
translated verbatim. The comments that Eric Haley just made need to be
included directly in the minutes. So that future commissions are going to be
able to refer back to these statements and wherewe are at this sense of
time because I recall language of a Southern Corridor in Southwest County
that has not materialized and now we are talking about so called safety
improvements on Ortega but they don't seem to be the highest priority of
what they should be to me personally. So 1 would appreciate it if some of
the remarks if not all of them of this particular item on the agenda today is
transcribed verbatim because l think it's 'extremely important to the future of
this commission and the relationships that we have not only with our own
residents but with those in Orange County. Because l am old enough to
remember when Orange County was just developing and what their priorities
were to attract residence and now they would like to prohibit us from doing
that
Commissioner Roberts: Is the discussion on the Maglev done?
Chair Lowe: I think- as long as it's transcribed verbatim I won't have a
problem with it.
Commissioner Roberts: Maybe I should just point` out as part of the
committee that this particular item was 'so minor in the discussions in fact I
don't `even `remember it being brought up' by any member of the commission.
So the way I look at it because it is out of our control is that were not going
Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes
December 14, 2005
Page 18 •
to continue to work but continue the progress of the Maglev Corridor and I
think if you want to add that as a recommendation I don't think we are going
to get any hassle from the other side of the county. Chair Lowe said that's
fine.
Commissioner John Chlebnik: Chair, I agree with your concern regarding the
Maglev. I think by having the language that we have here it would at least
be interrupted by some as tacit approval or support for the. Maglev as
opposed to -being neutral. . I don't think that we should have any such
indication even in perception perhaps something like monitor the Cal -Neva
Super Train Commission activities but not necessarily that we are going to
work with them. By saying we are going to work with them were giving our
approval to it:
Commissioner Marion Ashley: I think that's a good suggestion. I
recommend we change that instead of continue to work with we say
continue to monitor the Cal -Neva Super Speed. I'll change my motion to
reflect that language.
Chair Lowe: Does the second, accept that?
Commissioner Roberts: Yes.
At this time, Chair Lowe called for a vote.
M/S/C (Ashley/Roberts) to:
1►; Establish SR 91 from SR 55 to Interstate 15 as a priority for
improving transportation between Riverside and Orange counties.
Emphasize SR 91 improvements between the, Foothill/Eastern
Transportation Corridor (SR 241) and 1-15 first, followed by
improvements between SR 55 and SR 241.
2) Continue to work with the Foothill/Eastern Transportation Corridor
Agency to develop a mutually acceptable plan to improve the
connection between the SR 241 and SR 91 corridors and
accelerate capacity improvements on SR 133, SR 241, and
SR 261 to optimize utilization of the toll roads to improve
transportation between Riverside and Orange counties.
3) Continue to evaluate costs and impacts with Corridor A within
the SR 91 right-of-way through a future preliminary -engineering
process in cooperation with other agencies. (This is a revised
recommendation based on the MIS Policy Committee direction.)
4) Continue to study the technical feasibility of the Corridor. B
concept including costs, risks, joint -use opportunities, benefits,
and potential funding options .in cooperation with the Orange
"
R i v e r s i d e C o u n t y T r a n s p o r t a t i o n C o m m i s s i o n M i n u t e s
D e c e m b e r 1 4 , 2 0 0 5
P a g e 1 9
C o u n t y T r a n s p o r t a t i o n ; A u t h o r i t y , T r a n s p o r t a t i o n C o r r i d o r
A g e n c i e s ; M e t r o p o l i t a n W a t e r D i s t r i c t , a n d o t h e r i n t e r e s t e d
a g e n c i e s .
5 ) C o n t i n u e t o m o n i t o r . t h e C a l - N e v a d a S u p e r S p e e d T r a i n
C o m m i s s i o n o n A n a h e i m t o O n t a r i o M a g l e v a l i g n m e n t s i n t h e
S a n t a A n a C a n y o n o r a l t e r n a t e c o r r i d o r s a s a p p r o p r i a t e .
-
6 ) E l i m i n a t e S t r a t e g i c A l t e r n a t i v e 1 ' B ( C o r r i d o r A w i t h t h e S R 5 5
w i d e n i n g ) f r o m f u r t h e r a n a l y s i s d u e t o h i g h n u m b e r o f r e s i d e n t i a l
r i g h t - o f - w a y i m p a c t s a d j a c e n t t o t h e S R 5 5 .
7 ) E l i m i n a t e f r o m f u r t h e r a n a l y s i s t h e O r t e g a H i g h w a y ( S R 7 4 )
w i d e n i n g a n d r e a l i g n m e n t c o n c e p t d u e t o h i g h c o s t a n d
e n v i r o n m e n t a l i m p a c t s , a n d d i r e c t s t a f f t o f o c u s o n O r t e g a
H i g h w a y o p e r a t i o n a l i m p r o v e m e n t s .
? C o m m i s s i o n e r J e f f S t o n e s t a t e d t h a t t h e 9 1 t o l l r o a d a d v i s o r y c o m m i t t e e i s " g o i n g
t o t a k e u p t h e d i s c u s s i o n o f c o n t i n u i n g a n M I S l i k e c o m m i t t e e t h a t w o u l d i n c l u d e
f i v e m e m b e r s o f t h e C o m m i s s i o n t h a t i s s c h e d u l e d i n M a r c h - 2 0 0 6 a n d s u g g e s t e d
a d d r e s s i n g t h e i s s u e s a t t h i s C o m m i t t e e .
C o m m i s s i o n e r A s h l e y c o n c u r r e d w i t h u s i n g t h e M I S C o m m i t t e e t o p e r f o r m a l l t h e s e
f u n c t i o n s .
1 0 . A P P R O V A L O F A G R E E M E N T 0 5 - 3 1 - 5 6 1 - 0 1 , A M E N D M E N T N O . 1 T O
F I S C A L Y E A R 2 0 0 5 - 2 0 0 6 B E C H T E L I N F R A S T R U C T U R E A G R E E M E N T
N O . 0 5 - 3 1 - 5 6 1 , T O P R O V I D E A N A S S E S S M E N T O N T H E C O M P L E T I O N O F
T H E 1 9 8 9 M E A S U R E " A " W E S T E R N C O U N T Y H I G H W A Y P R O G R A M A N D
D E V E L O P M E N T O F T H E r I N I T I A L 2 0 0 9 M E A S U R E " A " W E S T E R N ' C O U N T Y
H I G H W A Y P R O G R A M 1 0 - Y E A R D E L I V E R Y P L A N
H i d e o S u g i t a ; D e p u t y E x e c u t i v e D i r e c t o r , p r o v i d e d a n o v e r v i e w o f t h e s c o p e
a n d c o s t f o r t h e d e v e l o p m e n t o f t h e 2 0 0 9 M e a s u r e " A " W e s t e r n C o u n t y
H i g h w a y P r o g r a m 1 0 - Y e a r D e l i v e r y P l a n a n d a n u p d a t e t h e d e l i v e r y s t a t u s o f
t h e 1 9 8 9 M e a s u r e w a s p r e s e n t e d .
M / S / C ( B u s c h / S t o n e ) t o :
1 ) A p p r o v e A g r e e m e n t N o . 0 5 - 3 1 - 5 6 1 - 0 1 , A m e n d m e n t N o . 1 t o
t h e F Y 2 0 0 5 - 0 6 B e c h t e l . I n f r a s t r u c t u r e A g r e e m e n t N o . ` 0 5 - 3 1 -
5 6 1 , i n t h e a m o u n t o f ; $ 6 0 3 , 2 4 4 w i t h $ 9 6 , 7 5 6 c o n t i n g e n c y f o r
a t o t a l o f $ 7 0 0 , 0 0 0 t o , s u p p o r t t h e d e v e l o p m e n t o f t h e s t a t u s
a n d d e l i v e r a b i l i t y o f t h e 1 9 8 9 M e a s u r e " A " W e s t e r n C o u n t y
H i g h w a y P r o g r a m o f P r o j e c t s a n d t h e d e v e l o p m e n t o f t h e i n i t i a l
1 0 - y e a r d e l i v e r y p l a n f o r t h e 2 0 0 9 M e a s u r e " A " W e s t e r n
C o u n t y H i g h w a y ; p r o g r a m ; a n d ,
Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes
December 14, 2005
Page 20
2) Authorize the Chairman, pursuant to Legal Counsel review, to
execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission.
11. ALAMEDA CORRIDOR EAST (ACE) SAFETEA-LU-CALL FOR PROJECTS
Stephanie Wiggins, presented the request to release a Call for Projects for
the SAFETEA-LU ACE Earmark and the evaluation criteria for the Call for
Projects. She then addressed the impact of the analysis of the switching
activities.
M/S/C (Moore/Stone) 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; and,
3) Authorize the use of the Commercial Paper Program for up to
$7.5 million 10-year loan per successfully approved application.
12.. . ITEMS PULLED FROM CONSENT CALENDAR AGENDA
There were no items pulled from the Consent Calendar.
13. ELECTION ` OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
At this time, Chair Lowe opened nominations for the officers of the Riverside
County Transportation Commission.
Commissioner Roy Wilson and seconded ' by -. Commissioner -Roberts
nominated the slate of officers for 2006:
Marion Ashley for the Chair position; -
Terry Henderson for the Vice Chair position; and
Jeff Stone for the 2nd Vice Chair position
Chair Lowe called for and received no other nominations. At which time, the
Chair closed the nominations. Action was called for the nomination and the
Commissioners voted unanimously and elected Commissioners Ashley,
Henderson and Stone for the above mentioned officer --positions for 2006.
At this time, Vice Chairman Ashley presented Chair Lowe with a plaque to
commemorate her tenure as - Chairman, . expressing appreciation for her
distinguished and devoted service and recognizing her outstanding
leadership.
•
Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes
December 14, 2005
Page 21
Chair Lowe expressed her honor serving as Chair and praised the
Commission members and staff for their dedication and hard work.
14. COMMISSIONERS / EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S REPORT
A. Chair Lowe congratulated Stephanie Wiggins for her new position as
RCTC's Regional Programs Director.
B. Eric Haley reported on the:
1) Successful finance bond trip to New York with Chair Lowe and
Vice Chair Ashley.
2) Retirement of Naty Kopenhaver, Director of Administrative
Services, and acknowledged her contributions to the
Commission.
15. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business for consideration by the Riverside County
Transportation Commission, the meeting adjourned at 11:02 p.m. The next
Commission meeting is scheduled to be held at 9:00 a.m., on Wednesday,
January 11, 2006, at the County of Riverside Administrative Center,
4080 Lemon Street, Board Room, Riverside, California, 92501.
Respectfully submitted,
Jennifer Harmon
Acting Clerk of the Board
AGENDA ITEM 7A
•
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
DATE:
January,11, 2006
TO:
Riverside County Transportation Commission
FROM:
Cathy Bechtel, Project Delivery Director
THROUGH:
Eric Haley, Executive Director
SUBJECT:
Riverside County -Orange County CETAP Corridor -Phase 2:
Amendment to Cooperative Agreement between the Orange
County Transportation Authority and RCTC and Approval of a
Project Management Services Contract with Rahimian Management
and Consulting
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
This item is for the Commission to:
1) Approve Agreement No. 04-65-041-03, Amendment No. 3 to
Cooperative Agreement 04-65-041, between the Orange County
Transportation Authority and RCTC for the next phase of work for the
project management services consultant assisting with the Riverside "
County -Orange County CETAP Corridor that will include equal funding
participation;
2) Approve Agreement No. 06-65-014-00 between RCTC and Rahimian
Management and Consulting, Inc, in an amount not to exceed
$200,000, for project managementservices on the Riverside County -
Orange County CETAP Corridor project; and
3) Authorize the Chair, pursuant to Legal Counsel review, to execute the
agreements'on behalf of the Commission.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
At its December 14, 2005 meeting, the Commission approved the Riverside
County -Orange County Major Investment Study recommendations. Significant
work will be necessary to develop the work program to initiate the corridor
improvements as directed by the Commission and the Orange County
Transportation Authority (OCTA) Board. In order to allow work to progress as
expeditiously as possible, both OCTA and RCTC staff would like to continue
working with the current Project Management Services Consultant, Tony Rahimian.
Agenda Item 7A
1
Mr. Rahimian was an integral part of the success of the Major Investment Study
(MIS). He actively managed the MIS technical consultant team and worked closely
with the MIS Bi-County Policy Committee, local agencies, and the public to address
questions and concerns resulting from the work effort. Mr. Rahimian's expertise in
civil engineering, transportation planning and design, and construction and project
management on numerous large projects will be a significant asset for the next
steps on this CETAP corridor. His specific proficiency with the MIS will assist in
keeping momentum on the project and accomplishing key milestones on the
project.
If approved, staff anticipate having Mr. Rahimian provide early assistance, in the
development of scopes of works for the necessary preliminary engineering work
and geotechnical investigations outlined as part of the Locally Preferred Strategy.
This follow-on work will also include managing the teams working on these project
development efforts, and consultation with Resource Agencies on environmental
issues and processes.
Representative duties shall include:
• Actively managing continued corridor development efforts;
• Actively working with consultant teamsand public outreach firms in
an inclusive public outreach process;
• Giving presentations on the project to advisory groups, elected
officials, and supporting committees;
• Attending team meetings at OCTA and RCTC offices to review project
progress as well as resolve key issues and potential problems;
• Taking appropriate action to ensure timely and integrated production
of all work tasks;
• Preparing monthly progress reports to the agencies describing overall
progress of the work, discuss significant issues, and present proposed
next steps as appropriate.
As was done on the first phase of the project, the PMC will coordinate with OCTA
and RCTC staff to ensure a collaborative project. Funding of the Project
Management Services contract will be equally shared by both agencies and will be
outlined in a_Cooperative Agreement.. The Commission previously approved the use
of State Transportation Improvement Program Planning, Programming and
Monitoring funds for the CETAP corridors; these fundsare available to support our
share of this contract.
Agenda Item 7A
2
Financial Information
In Fiscal Year Budget:
No
Year:
FY 2005-06
Amount:
$200,000
Source of Funds:
$100,000 OCTA
$100,000 STIP PPM
Budget Adjustment:
Yes
GLA No.:
106-65-81501
Fiscal Procedures Approved:
\4:0`1
Date:
01/04/2006
Agenda Item 7A
3
"
A G E N D A I T E M 7 B
"
"
R I V E R S / D E C O U N T Y T R A N S P O R T A T I O N C O M M I S S I O N
D A T E :
J a n u a r y 1 1 , 2 0 0 6
T O :
R i v e r s i d e C o u n t y T r a n s p o r t a t i o n C o m m i s s i o n
F R O M :
K e n L o b e c k , S t a f f A n a l y s t
S h i r l e y M e d i n a , P r o g r a m M a n a g e r
T H R O U G H :
A n n e M a y e r , P r o g r a m m i n g a n d A d m i n i s t r a t i o n D i r e c t o r
S U B J E C T :
T r a n s p o r t a t i o n C o n t r o l M e a s u r e ( T C M ) P r o j e c t S u b s t i t u t i o n
S T A F F R E C O M M E N D A T I O N :
T h i s i t e m i s f o r t h e C o m m i s s i o n t o :
1 ) A p p r o v e t h e n e w C o r o n a P a r k - a n d - R i d e
f o r t h e C i t y o f C o r o n a ' s p a s t p l a n n e d
b u s e s ; a n d ,
2 �% P r o g r a m t h e P a r k - a n d - R i d e L o t i n t o
I m p r o v e m e n t P r o g r a m ( R T I P ) .
B A C K G R O U N D I N F O R M A T I O N :
T h e T r a n s p o r t a t i o n C o n t r o l M e a s u r e ( T C M ) P r o c e s s
L o t a s a s u i t a b l e s u b s t i t u t i o n
p u r c h a s e o f t h r e e e x p a n s i o n
t h e R e g i o n a l T r a n s p o r t a t i o n
T h e R T I P i s t h e p r o j e c t i m p l e m e n t a t i o n d o c u m e n t f o r t h e S C A G r e g i o n t h a t
r e p r e s e n t s t h e f i r s t s i x y e a r s o f t h e a p p r o v e d R e g i o n a l T r a n s p o r t a t i o n P l a n .
T h e R T I P c o n t a i n s a l l f e d e r a l l y f u n d e d a n d r e g i o n a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t p r o j e c t s . T h e R T I P
i s t h e k e y c o n f o r m i t y v a l i d a t i o n t o o l t h a t a l l o w s f e d e r a l l y f u n d e d p r o j e c t s t o b e
o b l i g a t e d . R i v e r s i d e C o u n t y ' s p o r t i o n t o t h e c u r r e n t 2 0 0 4 R T I P c o n s i s t s o f o v e r
2 0 0 p r o j e c t s a n d r e p r e s e n t s a t r a n s p o r t a t i o n i m p r o v e m e n t i n v e s t m e n t o f $ 2 b i l l i o n
o v e r t h e s i x - y e a r p e r i o d .
P r o j e c t s t h a t p r o v i d e t h e b e s t a i r c o n f o r m i t y b e n e f i t s a r e i d e n t i f i e d i n t h e R T I P a s
T C M p r o j e c t s . T h e s e p r o j e c t s a r e s u b j e c t t o c l o s e m o n i t o r i n g b y F e d e r a l . H i g h w a y
A d m i n i s t r a t i o n ( F H W A ) , E n v i r o n m e n t a l P r o t e c t i o n A g e n c y ( E P A ) , C a l i f o r n i a A i r
R e s o u r c e s B o a r d ( C A R B ) p l u s t h e S o u t h e r n C a l i f o r n i a A i r Q u a l i t y M a n a g e m e n t
D i s t r i c t ( S C A Q M D ) , a n d m u s t s h o w a d e q u a t e p r o g r e s s t o w a r d s d e l i v e r y .
T C M p r o j e c t s a r e c o n s i d e r e d t o h a v e p r i o r i t y f u n d i n g i n t h e R T I P a n d F H W A
e x p e c t s T C M s t o b e c o m p l e t e d a s p r o g r a m m e d i n t h e R T I P . I n t h e e v e n t t h a t a n
i d e n t i f i e d T C M p r o j e c t c a n n o t b e i m p l e m e n t e d a n d d e l i v e r e d i n a t i m e l y f a s h i o n , a
s u i t a b l e s u b s t i t u t e m u s t r e p l a c e i t .
A g e n d a I t e m 7 B
The TCM status report completed for the 2004 RTP identified approximately
78 project TCMs in the SCAG region were not making "satisfactory progress .
towards delivery. The primary reason for the TCM violations •resulted from the
State financial situation. After several TCM meetings and spirited discussions
among SCAG, the Commissions, Caltrans HQ, and FHWA, FHWA agreed not `to
revoke the conformity finding for the SCAG region. However, FHWA directed
SCAG to improve the TCM process.
SCAG has developed a TCM Substitution Process as required by FHWA. The
following summarizes the original proposed project and the substitution project
including a status of SCAG's evaluation and approval process:
Original Project - Corona's Three Expansion Buses TCM Project
In 2001 the City of Corona implemented the Green and Blue fixed route transit
lines with the intention of implementing a third "Red" line in 2003. Implementing
the third line would require three additional expansion buses. Corona added the
expansion bus procurement to their SRTP and the project was included in the RTIP
as a TCM project. (Note: All expansion bus procurements in the South Coast Air
Basin are identified in the RTIP as TCMs.) After seventeen months of service, the
Green line did not perform as expected and was discontinued in 2003. At the
same time, the better performing Red line was added. Additionally, Corona worked
with RTA to modify a couple of routes to provide added service. As of 2005, the
number of fixed routes in Corona had increased from the initial two to a total of
six. Through the coordinated effort with 'RTA, increased services has been
provided without incurring additional costs by purchasing the three expansion
buses. During development of the FY 2006 Short Range Transit Plan (SRTP);
Corona formally removed the three expansion bus purchase from their SRTP.
Proposed Park -and -Ride Lot TCM Substitution Project
RCTC will be implementing a leased 60-space Park -and -Ride Lot at the Faith Bible
Church at 1114 W. Ontario Avenue as of November 2005. An initial one-year
lease agreement has been completed to implement the Park -and -Ride , Lot about
February 2006. The lease agreement can be annually renewed for subsequent
one-year terms. RCTC and Corona agreed this ,would be a suitable TCM
substitution project: ,
SCAG Evaluation of the TCM Substitution
RCTC staff submitted to SCAG the Faith Bible Church Park -and -Ride Lot as `a TCM
substitution for Corona's three Expansion Buses in November 2005. Along with a
ridership evaluation that indicated the Park -and -Ride tot would provide almost
Agenda Item 7B
5
"
a 2 - t o - 1 a d v a n t a g e o f p a s s e n g e r t r i p s s a v i n g s o v e r t h e t h r e e e x p a n s i o n b u s e s ,
S C A G c o m p l e t e d a f u r t h e r d e t a i l e d e v a l u a t i o n t h a t i n c l u d e d t h e f o l l o w i n g f a c t o r s :
1 ) I n t e r a g e n c y c o n s u l t a t i o n , 2 ) e q u i v a l e n t e m i s s i o n r e d u c t i o n s , 3 ) g e o g r a p h i c
s i m i l a r i t y , 4 ) f u n d i n g , 5 ) i m p l e m e n t a t i o n t i m e f r a m e , 6 ) t i m e l y i m p l e m e n t a t i o n , a n d
7 ) l e g a l a u t h o r i t y f o r i m p l e m e n t a t i o n . S C A G ' s a n a l y s i s f u r t h e r s u p p o r t e d t h a t t h e
P a r k - a n d - R i d e L o t w o u l d p r o v i d e s i g n i f i c a n t l y g r e a t e r e m i s s i o n r e d u c t i o n s t h a n t h e
t h r e e e x p a n s i o n b u s e s .
S C A G A p p r o v a l S t a t u s
T h e p r o p o s e d P a r k - a n d - R i d e L o t T C M s u b s t i t u t i o n w a s b r o u g h t b e f o r e t h e S C A G
T r a n s p o r t a t i o n C o n f o r m i t y W o r k G r o u p ( T C W G ) a s p a r t o f t h e I n t e r a g e n c y
C o n s u l t a t i o n r e q u i r e m e n t o n D e c e m b e r 2 0 , 2 0 0 5 . T C W G m e m b e r s f r o m F H W A ,
S C A Q M D , C A R B , a n d E P A p r o v i d e d a d e t a i l e d c r i t i q u e o f t h e P a r k - a n d - R i d e L o t a s
a v i a b l e T C M s u b s t i t u t i o n . O n e c o n c e r n r a i s e d w a s t h e p o t e n t i a l t e m p o r a r y n a t u r e
t h a t a l e a s e d P a r k - a n d - R i d e L o t c o u l d p r o v i d e o v e r a d e d i c a t e d c o n s t r u c t e d
P a r k - a n d - R i d e L o t . A s a n a p p r o v a l c o n d i t i o n , F H W A s t a f f a s k e d R C T C t o p r o v i d e a
l e t t e r o f c o m m i t m e n t t o m a i n t a i n a n d o p e r a t e a P a r k - a n d - R i d e L o t i n t h e s a m e a r e a
o v e r f u t u r e y e a r s i n t h e e v e n t F a i t h B i b l e C h u r c h c h o o s e s n o t t o r e n e w t h e i r a n n u a l
l e a s e . T h e c o m m i t m e n t l e t t e r w i l l p r o v i d e S C A G t h e f i n a l d o c u m e n t a t i o n t o
c o m p l e t e t h e P a r k - a n d - R i d e L o t ' s T C M s u b s t i t u t i o n r e v i e w a n d a p p r o v a l . H o w e v e r ,
f i n a l a p p r o v a l f o r t h e T C M s u b s t i t u t i o n w i l l b e f r o m E P A . A s s u m i n g n o f u r t h e r
o b s t a c l e s e m e r g e , S C A G s t a f f w i l l p r e s e n t t h e C o r o n a P a r k - a n d - R i d e T C M
s u b s t i t u t i o n t o t h e i r T r a n s p o r t a t i o n a n d C o m m u n i c a t i o n s i n F e b r u a r y 2 0 0 6 w i t h
R e g i o n a l C o u n c i l r e v i e w a n d a d o p t i o n i n M a r c h 2 0 0 6 . T h e p r o j e c t w i l l b e a d d e d t o
t h e 2 0 0 4 R T I P . O n c e p r o g r a m m e d i n t h e R T I P a s a T C M , R C T C s t a f f w i l l p r o v i d e
r e g u l a r m o n i t o r i n g u p d a t e s a s r e q u i r e d b y F H W A .
A g e n d a I t e m 7 B
6
AGENDA ITEM 7C
"
"
R I V E R S / D E C O U N T Y T R A N S P O R T A T I O N C O M M I S S I O N
D A T E :
J a n u a r y 1 1 , 2 0 0 6
T O :
R i v e r s i d e C o u n t y T r a n s p o r t a t i o n C o m m i s s i o n
F R O M :
B i l l H u g h e s , B e c h t e l P r o g r a m M a n a g e r
K a r l S a u e r , B e c h t e l C o n s t r u c t i o n M a n a g e r
T H R O U G H :
H i d e o S u g i t a , D e p u t y E x e c u t i v e D i r e c t o r
S U B J E C T :
A u t h o r i z a t i o n t o A d v e r t i s e f o r C o n s t r u c t i o n B i d s f o r t h e R i v e r s i d e
D o w n t o w n M e t r o l i n k S t a t i o n E a s t S i d e P a r k i n g L o t
S T A F F R E C O M M E N D A T I O N :
T h i s i t e m i s f o r t h e C o m m i s s i o n t o a u t h o r i z e s t a f f t o a d v e r t i s e t o r e c e i v e b i d s f o r t h e
c o n s t r u c t i o n o f t h e R i v e r s i d e D o w n t o w n M e t r o l i n k S t a t i o n E a s t S i d e P a r k i n g L o t .
B A C K G R O U N D I N F O R M A T I O N :
A t i t s M a y 9 , 2 0 0 1 m e e t i n g , t h e C o m m i s s i o n a p p r o v e d t h e e s t a b l i s h m e n t o f a n
A d H o c C o m m i t t e e t o a d d r e s s p o l i c y i s s u e s i d e n t i f i e d i n t h e d r a f t S t a t i o n M a n a g e m e n t
P l a n s u b m i t t e d s e p a r a t e l y t o t h e C o m m i s s i o n a t t h a t s a m e m e e t i n g . O n e o f t h e m a i n
f i n d i n g s o f t h e d r a f t S t a t i o n M a n a g e m e n t P l a n w a s t h a t b y 2 0 1 0 , f o u r o u t o f t h e f i v e ,
e x i s t i n g a n d p r o p o s e d , M e t r o l i n k s t a t i o n s w e r e f o r e c a s t e d t o h a v e p a r k i n g d e f i c i t s . I n
c o n j u n c t i o n w i t h d i r e c t i o n f r o m b o t h t h e C o m m i s s i o n a n d t h e n e w l y f o r m e d A d H o c
C o m m i t t e e , s t a f f m o v e d f o r w a r d t o d e v e l o p p l a n s f o r t h e c o n s t r u c t i o n o f t h e n e w
N o r t h M a i n C o r o n a M e t r o l i n k S t a t i o n a n d t h e e x p a n s i o n o f t h e e x i s t i n g
R i v e r s i d e - D o w n t o w n a n d R i v e r s i d e - L a S i e r r a M e t r o l i n k c o m m u t e r r a i l s t a t i o n s . T h e n e w
N o r t h M a i n C o r o n a S t a t i o n c a n a c c o m m o d a t e a p p r o x i m a t e l y 6 2 5 v e h i c l e s .
T h e R i v e r s i d e - L a S i e r r a M e t r o l i n k S t a t i o n h a s b e e n e x p a n d e d f r o m a p p r o x i m a t e l y
3 5 0 p a r k i n g s p a c e s t o a p p r o x i m a t e l y 1 0 0 0 p a r k i n g s p a c e s . T h e R i v e r s i d e - D o w n t o w n
s t a t i o n h a s b e e n i n i t i a l l y e x p a n d e d f r o m a p p r o x i m a t e l y 7 0 0 p a r k i n g s p a c e s t o
a p p r o x i m a t e l y 8 2 5 p a r k i n g s p a c e s , w i t h t h e c o n s t r u c t i o n o f t h e n e w V i n e S t r e e t
p a r k i n g l o t , a c r o s s f r o m t h e m a i n p a r k i n g l o t .
F o r t h e p a s t y e a r , s t a f f h a s b e e n w o r k i n g w i t h E n g i n e e r i n g R e s o u r c e s , u n d e r c o n t r a c t
w i t h t h e C o m m i s s i o n , t o d e v e l o p t h e p l a n s a n d g a i n a p p r o v a l f r o m t h e C i t y o f
R i v e r s i d e , f o r t h e n e w R i v e r s i d e - D o w n t o w n M e t r o l i n k S t a t i o n E a s t S i d e P a r k i n g L o t ,
l o c a t e d o n C o m m e r c e S t r e e t , b e t w e e n 9 ' a n d l i t S t r e e t s , i n t h e C i t y o f R i v e r s i d e .
T h e n e w p a r k i n g l o t w i l l a c c o m m o d a t e a p p r o x i m a t e l y 3 2 5 v e h i c l e s . T h e p l a n s a r e i n
t h e i n i t i a l s t a g e o f r e v i e w a n d a p p r o v a l b y t h e C i t y o f R i v e r s i d e . I t i s a n t i c i p a t e d t h a t
t h e p l a n s w i l l b e r e a d y t o a d v e r t i s e f o r r e c e i p t o f c o n s t r u c t i o n b i d s b y t h e e n d o f
J a n u a r y o r e a r l y F e b r u a r y o f 2 0 0 6 . T h e e n g i n e e r ' s e s t i m a t e f o r t h i s w o r k i s b e t w e e n
$ 1 , 4 5 0 , 0 0 0 a n d $ 1 , 6 5 0 , 0 0 0 .
A g e n d a I t e m 7 C
SCHEDULE
The schedule for the bid process is as follows:
Calendar of Events
Advertise Request for Construction Bids
February 13, 2006
Pre -Bid Meeting
February 28, 2006
Request for Bids Deadline
March 16, 2006
Evaluate the Bids and Submit to the Commission
for Approval to Award Contract
April 12, 2006
Start Construction
May 15, 2006
Parking Lot Open
September 1, 2006
With this agenda item, staff is requesting the authorization of the Commission to
advertise for construction bids for the Riverside Downtown Metrolink Station East Side
parking lot. After the bids are received, staff will review and bring back to the
Commission a recommendation for award to the lowest responsive, responsible bidder.
Agenda Item 7C
AGENDA ITEM 7D
"
R I V E R S / D E C O U N T Y T R A N S P O R T A T I O N C O M M I S S I O N
D A T E :
J a n u a r y 1 1 , 2 0 0 6
T O :
R i v e r s i d e C o u n t y T r a n s p o r t a t i o n C o m m i s s i o n
F R O M :
T a n y a L o v e , P r o g r a m M a n a g e r
T H R O U G H :
E r i c H a l e y , E x e c u t i v e D i r e c t o r
S U B J E C T :
F i s c a l Y e a r 2 0 0 5 - 2 0 0 6 S h o r t R a n g e T r a n s i t P l a n A m e n d m e n t f o r
t h e P e r r i s V a l l e y L i n e a n d R i v e r s i d e - D o w n t o w n S t a t i o n
S T A F F R E C O M M E N D A T I O N :
T h i s i t e m i s f o r t h e C o m m i s s i o n t o :
1 ) A l l o c a t e $ 5 2 0 , 5 3 8 i n S t a t e T r a n s i t A s s i s t a n c e ( S T A ) f u n d s t o R C T C ' s
C o m m u t e r R a i l p r o g r a m f o r a d d i t i o n a l a n a l y s i s o f n o i s e a n d v i b r a t i o n
i m p a c t s n e e d e d t o o b t a i n t h e e n v i r o n m e n t a l c l e a r a n c e a n d a s s o c i a t e d
t a s k s o n t h e P e r r i s V a l l e y L i n e ;
2 ) A p p r o v e r e p r o g r a m m i n g $ 2 , 8 4 5 i n L o c a l T r a n s p o r t a t i o n F u n d s ( L T F )
f r o m o p e r a t i n g t o c a p i t a l f o r t h e R i v e r s i d e - D o w n t o w n S t a t i o n P a r k i n g
L o t E x p a n s i o n ; a n d ,
3 ) A m e n d t h e C o m m u t e r R a i l P r o g r a m ' s F Y 2 0 0 5 - 0 6 S h o r t R a n g e T r a n s i t
P l a n ( S R T P ) t o r e f l e c t t h e s e c h a n g e s .
B A C K G R O U N D I N F O R M A T I O N :
T h e C o m m u t e r R a i l P r o g r a m i s r e q u e s t i n g a p p r o v a l t o a m e n d i t s F Y 2 0 0 5 - 0 6 S h o r t
R a n g e T r a n s i t P l a n a s f o l l o w s :
1 ) P e r r i s V a l l e y L i n e : A n a d d i t i o n a l S T A a l l o c a t i o n o f $ 5 2 0 , 5 3 8 i s b e i n g
r e q u e s t e d t o f u n d t h e c o m p l e t i o n o f t h e e n v i r o n m e n t a l d o c u m e n t ,
p i p e l i n e r i s k a s s e s s m e n t a n d E x t r a W o r k T a s k s ( i . e . A l e s s a n d r o S t a t i o n
s i t e c o n c e p t ) f o r t h i s p h a s e o f t h e p r o j e c t ; a n d ,
2 ) R i v e r s i d e - D o w n t o w n S t a t i o n P a r k i n g E x p a n s i o n o n V i n e S t r e e t : T h i s
p r o j e c t w a s o r i g i n a l l y a p p r o v e d i n t h e F Y 2 0 0 1 - 0 2 S R T P a n d h a s
r e s u l t e d i n t h e a d d i t i o n o f 1 2 0 n e w s u r f a c e p a r k i n g s p a c e s . S t a f f i s
r e q u e s t i n g a p p r o v a l t o r e p r o g r a m $ 2 , 8 4 5 i n e x c e s s c a p i t a l f u n d s -
a v a i l a b l e i n t h e c o m m u t e r r a i l b u d g e t - t o c l o s e o u t t h e d e s i g n a n d
c o n s t r u c t i o n c o s t s f o r t h i s p r o j e c t .
A g e n d a I t e m 7 D
9
There are adequate STA funds available in the Western County apportionment for
the Commuter Rail program.
Financial Information
In Fiscal Year Budget:
No
Year:
FY 2005-06
Amount:
$350,000
Source of Funds:
State Transit Assistance Funds
Budget Adjustment:
Yes
241-62-86102 P 2204 - $350,000
GLA No.:
241-62-12201 P 2204 - $170,538 FY2004-05 Accrual`- STA
221-33-12201 P 3800 — $2,845 FY2004-05 Accrual - LTF
Fiscal Procedures Approved:
,`Ijean
Date:
12/13/05
Agenda Item 7D
10
AGENDA ITEM 7E
•
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
DATE:
January 11, 2006
TO:
Riverside County Transportation Commission
FROM:
Tanya Love, Program Manager
THROUGH:
Eric Haley, Executive Director
SUBJECT:
SunLine Transit Agency's Request to Amend its Short Range
Transit Plan to Program Funds for Expansion of its Clean Fuels Mall
and Hydrogen Infrastructure Facility
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
This item is for the Commission to:
1) Allocate $87,379 in Local Transportation Funds (LTF) to SunLine
Transit Agency as the local match for the Federal Transit
Administration's (FTA) Section 5309 earmark for expansion of
SunLine's Clean Fuels Mall and Hydrogen Facility;
2) Include the project in the Regional Transportation Improvement
Program; and,
3) Amend SunLine's Short Range Transit Plan (SRTP) to reflect these
changes.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
In FY 2003-04, SunLine Transit Agency, received an earmark of $436,894 in
FTA Section 5309 funds to expand the Clean Fuels Mall and Hydrogen
Infrastructure Facility at its Thousand Palms facility. Prior to the project being
programmed, a local match of 20% is required; as a result, staff is requesting an
allocation of $87,379 in LTF for this project.
There are adequate LTF funds available in the Coachella Valley apportionment area
to meet this request.
1 Financial Information
In Fiscal Year Budget:
No
Year:
FY 2005-06
Amount:
$87,379
Source of Funds:
Local Transportation Funds
Budget Adjustment:
No
GLA No.:
601 62 86102 P2211
Fiscal Procedures Approved:
\1464r4,:oate
Date:
12/21 /2005
Agenda Item 7E
11
AGENDA ITEM 7F
"
R I V E R S I D E C O U N T Y T R A N S P O R T A T I O N C O M M / S S / O N
D A T E :
J a n u a r y 1 1 , 2 0 0 6
T O :
R i v e r s i d e C o u n t y T r a n s p o r t a t i o n C o m m i s s i o n
F R O M :
T a n y a L o v e , P r o g r a m M a n a g e r
T H R O U G H :
E r i c H a l e y , E x e c u t i v e D i r e c t o r
S U B J E C T :
R T A ' s R e q u e s t f o r A l l o c a t i o n o f L o c a l T r a n s p o r t a t i o n F u n d s a n d
F i s c a l Y e a r 2 0 0 5 - 2 0 0 6 S h o r t R a n g e T r a n s i t P l a n A m e n d m e n t
S T A F F R E C O M M E N D A T I O N :
T h i s i t e m i s f o r t h e C o m m i s s i o n t o :
1 ) A u t h o r i z e t h e R i v e r s i d e T r a n s i t A g e n c y ( R T A ) t o s p e n d $ 1 , 5 2 1 , 8 8 0 o f
e x c e s s o p e r a t i n g f u n d s i d e n t i f i e d i n J u n e 3 0 , 2 0 0 5 f i n a n c i a l a u d i t ;
2 ) A l l o c a t e $ 1 8 8 , 4 8 2 i n L o c a l T r a n s p o r t a t i o n F u n d s ( L T F ) f r o m R T A ' s
r e s e r v e s ; a n d ,
3 1 A m e n d R T A ' s F Y 2 0 0 5 - 0 6 S h o r t R a n g e T r a n s i t P l a n t o r e f l e c t s e r v i c e .
c h a n g e s .
B A C K G R O U N D I N F O R M A T I O N :
I n M a y , 2 0 0 5 , R T A ' s B o a r d o f D i r e c t o r s a d o p t e d t h e F Y 2 0 0 5 - 0 6 o p e r a t i n g a n d
c a p i t a l b u d g e t o f $ 4 2 , 0 7 3 , 0 8 9 b a s e d o n t h e a g e n c y ' s S h o r t R a n g e T r a n s i t P l a n
( S R T P ) . T h e b u d g e t s u p p o r t e d R T A ' s g o a l s o f i n c r e a s e d r i d e r s h i p , r e d u c t i o n o f , j o b
r e l a t e d i n j u r i e s , e x c e l l e n t c u s t o m e r s e r v i c e a n d c o s t r e d u c t i o n t h r o u g h i m p r o v e d
e f f i c i e n c i e s . I t a l s o r e f l e c t e d ' a s t r a t e g y f o r c o n s e r v a t i v e s e r v i c e g r o w t h a n d f u t u r e
b u s s e r v i c e p l a n n i n g , w h i l e b e i n g s e n s i t i v e t o f o r e c a s t e d f i s c a l c o n s t r a i n t s .
R T A ' s F Y 2 0 0 5 - 0 6 b u d g e t p r o v i d e d r e s o u r c e s t o s u p p o r t a f i v e p e r c e n t i n c r e a s e i n
r e v e n u e s e r v i c e h o u r s a n d a s i x p e r c e n t i n c r e a s e i n r e v e n u e s e r v i c e s " m i l e s o v e r
F Y 2 0 0 4 - 0 5 s e r v i c e l e v e l p r o j e c t i o n s . A m a j o r f e a t u r e o f t h e p l a n n e d s e r v i c e s w a s
t h e i m p l e m e n t a t i o n o f R o u t e 1 l i m i t e d - t h e p r e c u r s o r t o t h e B u s R a p i d T r a n s i t
i n i t i a t i v e o n t h e M a g n o l i a C o r r i d o r . O t h e r s e r v i c e i n c r e a s e s w e r e a l s o p l a n n e d f o r
c o n n e c t i o n s o n f e e d e r r o u t e s . I m p l e m e n t a t i o n o f t h e s e s e r v i c e c h a n g e s w a s
c o n t i n g e n t u p o n t h e s u s t a i n a b i l i t y o f s e r v i c e i n f u t u r e f i s c a l y e a r s . S u s t a i n a b i l i t y
w a s " b a s e d i n p a r t o n i n c r e a s e d f a r e b o x r e v e n u e s t h a t w e r e p r o j e c t e d a s a r e s u l t o f
R T A ' s f a r e m o d i f i c a t i o n i m p l e m e n t e d i n A p r i l 2 0 0 5 .
A g e n d a I t e m 7 F
1 2
While systemwide ridership for FY 2005-06 was projected to be 7,922,935,
RTA has recently reported that ridership at the agency has decreased. As a result,
RTA has decreased its original projection to 7,381,949 — a decrease of 540,986
one-way passenger trips.
The decrease in ridership has adversely impacted RTA's farebox revenue projection
by $655,372. The original projection was $7,875,823; the revised farebox is
projected to be $7,220,451. Although a decrease is projected in passengers and
farebox revenue, RTA estimates that it will exceed the State -mandated farebox
recovery requirement of 17.73% for FY 2005-06.
Rising fuel costs have also negatively impacted RTA's operating budget in that fuel
costs are expected to exceed original calculations by $1,315,889.
Given the above events, RTA staff prepared a mid -year budget amendment that
reflects an adjusted service profile. Attachment 1 is a spreadsheet of planned
services that were adopted as part of the original FY 2005-06 budget together with
the mid -year revision and corresponding changes. Postponed : route changes
include Route 1 Limited and service improvements on Routes 10, 13, 15, 23, 24,
49, 74 and 79.1 As a result of the various changes to service provision, the
following summary is provided to reflect the over all impact to number of
passengers, revenue hours, revenue miles, farebox recovery and operating
expenses for FY 2005-06 services:
Unlinked Passengers
Midyear
Adopted Revision Change
7,922,935 7,381,949 (540,986)
-6.83%
Fare Revenue ($$)
Midyear
Adopted Revision Change
$7,875,823 $7,220,451 ($655,372)
-8.32%
Revenue Hours
Midyear
Adopted Revision Change
638,250 615,787 (22,463)
-3.52%
Operating Expenses ($$)
Midyear
Adopted Revision Change
$42,073,089 $43,167,763 $1,094,674
2.60%
Revenue Miles
Midyear
Adopted Revision Change',
10,252,295 9,918,965 (333,331)
-3.25%
In order to cover the increased operating costs, RTA is requesting an additional
allocation of $1,710,362 in LTF funds. If approved, the increased revenue, the
non -implementation of planned services coupled with the minor service adjustments
will enable RTA to continue service provision uninterrupted. Staff is in support of.
this request and recommends that the funding be provided as follows:
' Tripper service to Murrieta and Temecula Valley High School on Routes 23 and 24 will continue as
originally planned.
Agenda Item 7F
13
"
$ 1 , 7 1 0 , 3 6 2
( $ 1 , 5 2 1 , 8 8 0 )
$ 1 8 8 , 4 8 2
T o t a l a d d i t i o n a l f u n d s r e q u i r e d
L e s s e x c e s s o p e r a t i n g f u n d s i d e n t i f i e d i n R T A ' s 6 / 3 0 / 0 5
f i n a n c i a l a u d i t
A d d i t i o n a l a l l o c a t i o n r e q u i r e d
F i n a n c i a l I n f o r m a t i o n
I n F i s c a l Y e a r B u d g e t :
N / A
Y e a r :
F Y 2 0 0 5 - 0 6
A m o u n t :
$ 1 8 8 , 4 8 2
S o u r c e o f F u n d s :
L o c a l T r a n s p o r t a t i o n F u n d s
B u d g e t A d j u s t m e n t :
N / A
G L A N o . :
6 0 1 6 2 8 6 1 0 1 P 2 2 1 0
F i s c a l P r o c e d u r e s A p p r o v e d :
\ 1 4 , 4 4 , 4 , 1
D a t e :
1 2 / 2 1 / 2 0 0 5
A t t a c h m e n t : R T A P l a n n e d S e r v i c e s
A g e n d a I t e m 7 F
1 4
"
R i v e r s i d e T r a n s i t A g e n c y
C o m p a r a t i v e . S t a t i s t i c s : F Y 2 0 0 5 / 0 6 A d o p t e d v s . M i d y e a r R e v i s i o n s
N o n - i m p l e m e n t a t i o n ( b v R o u t e ) o f P l a n n e d S e r v i c e s
U n l i n k e d P a s s e n g e r s R e v e n u e H o u r s R e v e n u e M l l e s F a r e R e v e n u e ( E S ) O p e r a t i n g E x p e n s e s ( S S )
M i d y e a r t o e a r M i d y e a r M i d y e a r . M i d y e a r
R o u t e A d o p t e d . R e v i s i o n C h a n g e A d o p t e d R e v i s i o n C h a n g e A d o p t e d R e v i s i o n C h a n g e A d o p t e d R e v i s i o n C h a n g e A d o p t e d R e v i s i o n C h a n g e
1 L i m i t e d 1 4 7 , 2 3 3 - ( 1 4 7 , 2 3 3 ) 5 , 0 7 7 - ( 5 , 0 7 7 ) 1 2 7 . 3 8 8 - ( 1 2 7 , 3 8 8 ) 1 5 1 , 4 6 3 ( 1 5 1 , 4 6 3 ) 4 1 2 , 5 9 9 - - ( 4 1 2 , 5 9 9 )
1 0 3 3 8 , 6 8 5 2 8 2 , 5 5 6 ( 5 6 . 1 2 9 ) 1 7 . 8 4 5 1 5 , 1 3 8 ( 2 . 7 0 9 ) 2 2 6 , 8 8 2 1 9 5 , 1 5 0 ( 3 1 , 7 3 2 ) 3 2 7 , 7 4 5 2 4 0 , 5 8 9 ( 8 7 , 1 5 6 ) 1 , 4 5 0 , 2 3 2 1 , 3 5 5 , 0 1 8 ( 9 5 , 2 1 4 )
1 3 3 6 2 , 1 8 8 2 9 7 , 8 0 2 ( 6 4 , 3 8 6 ) 1 7 , 1 8 1 1 4 , 5 5 7 ( 2 , 6 2 4 ) 2 0 6 , 3 4 7 1 9 9 , 8 0 0 ( 6 , 5 4 7 ) 3 1 6 , 6 6 1 2 4 7 , 7 8 1 ( 6 8 , 8 8 0 ) 1 , 3 9 6 , 2 7 0 1 , 3 0 3 , 1 8 5 ( 9 3 . 0 8 5 )
1 5 5 6 8 , 1 7 4 4 6 7 , 9 5 5 ( 1 0 0 , 2 1 9 ) 2 3 , 1 4 8 1 9 , 1 8 5 ( 3 , 9 6 3 ) 2 6 0 , 5 0 8 2 2 8 , 6 1 4 ( 3 1 , 8 9 4 ) 5 3 6 . 1 8 4 4 1 8 , 7 4 7 ( 1 1 7 . 4 3 7 ) 1 , 8 8 1 . 1 9 8 1 , 7 1 7 , 4 9 6 ( 1 6 3 . 7 0 2 )
2 3 ' 7 0 , 6 7 2 6 3 , 8 4 3 ( 7 , 0 2 9 ) 1 5 , 1 1 9 1 3 , 4 0 1 ( 1 , 7 1 8 ) 2 4 0 , 2 5 9 2 1 1 , 8 7 1 ( 2 8 , 3 8 8 ) 7 5 , 4 8 4 5 8 , 0 4 1 ( 1 7 . 4 4 3 ) 7 4 9 , 1 4 2 7 4 4 , 1 2 0 ( 5 , 0 2 2 )
2 4 ' 5 3 , 6 7 4 4 7 , 5 3 3 ( 6 , 1 4 1 ) 1 1 . 1 4 5 9 , 7 2 8 ( 1 . 4 1 7 ) 1 5 4 , 2 1 6 1 3 3 , 5 8 4 ( 2 0 , 6 3 2 ) 6 4 , 2 2 7 4 3 , 5 7 1 ( 2 0 , 6 5 6 ) 5 5 2 . 2 3 2 4 8 4 , 7 9 6 ( 6 7 , 4 3 6 )
4 9 3 5 5 , 8 7 4 2 9 6 , 5 7 5 ( 5 9 . 2 9 9 ) 1 2 , 7 5 6 1 0 , 8 3 6 ( 1 , 9 2 0 ) 1 8 7 , 4 8 1 1 8 2 , 8 9 5 ( 4 , 5 8 6 ) 2 9 6 , 9 4 4 2 4 1 , 3 2 7 ( 5 5 , 6 1 7 ) 1 , 0 3 6 , 6 5 9 9 7 0 , 0 7 0 ( 6 6 , 5 8 5 )
7 4 4 4 , 2 2 7 3 5 , 9 9 1 ( 8 , 2 3 1 3 ) 7 , 7 6 9 6 , 2 6 6 ( 1 , 5 0 3 ) 2 1 0 , 9 6 6 1 7 1 , 3 6 3 ( 3 9 , 6 0 3 ) 3 5 , 4 2 6 3 5 , 8 9 7 4 7 1 5 5 5 . 6 3 7 4 7 3 , 6 5 1 ( 8 1 , 9 8 6 )
7 9 4 0 , 1 0 8 3 3 , 4 2 4 ( 6 , 6 8 4 ) 7 , 9 1 3 6 , 3 8 1 ( 1 , 5 3 2 ) 2 1 9 . 8 8 9 1 7 7 , 3 3 0 ( 4 2 , 5 5 9 ) 3 0 , 4 8 0 2 9 , 6 6 7 ( 8 1 3 ) 5 6 6 , 0 1 5 4 5 8 , 2 5 2 ( 1 0 7 , 7 6 3 )
T O T A L 1 , 9 8 0 , 8 3 6 1 , 5 2 6 , 4 7 9 ( 4 5 5 , 3 5 7 ) 1 1 7 , 9 5 3 9 5 , 4 9 0 ( 2 2 , 4 6 3 ) 1 , 8 3 3 , 9 3 6 1 , 5 0 0 , 6 0 7 ( 3 3 3 , 3 2 9 ) 1 , 8 3 4 , 6 1 4 1 , 3 1 5 , 6 2 0 ( 5 1 5 , 9 9 4 ) 8 , 5 9 9 , 9 8 4 7 , 5 0 6 , 5 8 8 ( 1 , 0 9 3 , 3 9 6 )
' R o u t e s 2 3 a n d 2 4 w i l l c o n t i n u e . t o p r o v i d e t h e p l a n n e d t r i p p e r s e r v i c e t o M u r d e t a a n d T e m e c u l a V a l l e y H i g h S c h o o l
Riverside Transit Agency
FY 2005/06 Adopted vs. Midyear Revision: Fhred Route (Directly Operated and Contracted Services)
Unlinked Passengers Revenue Hours Revenue Miles Fare Revenue 150 Operating Expenses ($6)
Midyear MI aaar Midyear Midyear Midyear
Route Adopted Revision Change Adopted Revision Change Adopted Revision Change Adopted Revision Change Adopted Revision Change
1 1,601,081 1,578,152 (22,929) 55,075 55.074 (1) 644,148 644,148 0 1,643,058 1,579,798 (63,260) 4,475,851 4,930,382 454,531
12 274,577 267,752 (6,825) 14,954 14,955 1 199,438 199,438 0 225,379 223,298 (2.081) 1.215,286 1.338,815 123,529
14 172,978 168,992 (3,986) 10,145 10,146 1 131,913 131,913 0 141,873 146,207 4,334 824,465 908,298 83,833
16 670,102 662,133 (7,969) 38,880 38,880 0 402,257 402.257 0 577,251 581,265 4,014 3,159,711 3,480,649 320,938
17 62,222 61,506 (716) 9,204 9,204 0 121,557 121,557 0 45,104 51,306 6202 747,993 823,969 75,976
18 113,750 114,778 1,028 9,882 9,882 0 112,426 112,426 0 101,480 108,103 6,623 803,093 884.665 81.572
18A 125246 127,030 1.784 10,120 10,121 1 138,967 138,967 0 142,018 120,898 (21,120) 822,435 906,061 83,626
19 364,296 352,357 (11,939) 14,518 14,518 0 206.568 206.568 0 340.654 343,601 2,947 1,179,853 1299,693 119,840
20 231,019 237,841 6,822 15,823 15,823 0 266,105 266.105 0 178.871 201,657 22.786 1.285,908 1.416.520 130.612
21 140,201 135,971 (4,230) 10,320 10,319 (1) 185,340 185,340 0 120,131 119,965 (166) 838,689 923,787 85,098
22 374.494 349.210 (25.284) 19.358 19.357 (1) 369,952 369,952 0 307,814 277,986 (29,828) 1,573,192 1,732,894 159,702
25 204.143 197,889 (6,254) 9,947 9,947 0 115,382 115.382 0 171.359 150,894 (20,465) 808,376 890,484 82,108
27 396,891 384,672 (12,219) 24,009 24,009 0 540,243 540,243 0 368.886 360,930 (7,956) 1,951,171 2,149,355 198.184
29 136,224 135,339 (885) 9,758 9,758 0 135,141 135,141 0 112,497 112,263 (234) 793,016 873,565 80,549
149 75.092 74,788 (304) 6.605 6,605 0 166,569 166,569 0 93,275 62,450 (30,825) 536,777 591,299 54,522
3 80,830 74,441 (6,389) 11,638 11,638 0 153,903 153,903 0 81.088 51,453 (29.635) 576.660 579.981 3.321
7 97,846 97,746 •100 7,535 7,535 0 137,138 137,138 0 104,003 78,951 (25.052) 373,358 375,508 2,150
8 77,038 77,573 535 7,711 7,711 0 173,421 173,421 0 85,227 66,268 (18,959) 382,078 384,270 2,200
30- 86,153 84.277 (1,876) 8.354 8.354 0 121,138 121,138 0 78,896 53,086 (25,810) 413,938 416,322 2,384
31 71,637 70,723 (914) 7,347 7,347 0 162,893 162,893 0 72,122 55,808 (16.314) 364.042 366,139 2,097
32 66,446 68,751 2,305 6,151 6,151 0 84,323 84,323 0 70,472 55,961 (14,511) 304,780 306,536 1,756
33 25.884 26,031 147 10.668 10,668 - 0 142,971 142,971 0 22,837 17,623 (5,214) 528,597 531,641 3,044
35 17,103 18,289 - (814) 3.561 3,581 0 107,175 107.175 0 14,255 10,209 (4,046) 176.446 177.463 1,017
36 16,092 15,869 (223) 5,921 5,921 0 152,377 152,377 0 13,171 9,790 (3,381) 293,384 295,074 1,690
38 14,091 14,552 461 6,104 6,104 0. 114,314 114,314 0 15,636 14,461 (1,175) 302,451 304,193 1,742
40 28,661 30,332 1,671 6,818 6,818 0 125.664 125,664 0 30,844 26,171 (4,673) 337.830 339,776 1,946
41 20.141 22,754 2,613 4.194 4,194 0 69,370 69.370 0 24,790 21,407 (3.383) 207.811 209,008 1,197
42 11,013 11,238 225' 3,748 3,748 0 39,435 39,435 0 8,865 7,075 (1,790) 185,713 186,782 1,069
50 46,077 58,435 12,358 4,336 4,336 0 29,971 29,971 0 207,006 195,061 (11,945) 214,848 216.085 1,237
61 10,118 10,112 (4) 2,719 2,719 0 47,127 47,127 0 6,415 6,767 352 194,462 195.238 776
202 11.782 -12.223 441 4,356 4,356 0 133,234 133,234 0 6,905 17,099 10,194 183,169 184,412 1,243
204 36,369 32,556 (3,813) 6,245 6,245 0 184,410 184,410 0 26,471 26,564 93 354,089 355,872 1,783
206 26,277 25,970 (307) 3,642 - 3,642 0 128,290 128,290 0 46,775 47,356 581 177,692 178,731 1,039
208 21,495 23,407" 1,912 6.836 6.836 0 203.358 203,358 0 26,334 42,096 15,762 302,149 304,100 1,951
Jurupa Sr. 2,205 2,307 102 1,286. 1,286 0 10,611 10,611 0 3,693 2,099 (1,594) 56,892 61,000 4,108
Harveston 6,113 6,113 0 2,587 2,587 0 13,248 13,248 - 0 128,185 114,087 (14,098) 128,185 128,924 739
TOTAL 5,715,687 5,630,109 (85,578) 360,355 380,355 0 6,070,379 6,070,377 (2) 6,643,640 5,360,013 (283,627) 27,074,390 29,247,499 2,173,109
16
•
"
R i v e r s i d e T r a n s i t A g e n c y
F Y 2 0 0 5 / 0 6 A d o p t e d v s . M i d y e a r R e v i s i o n : D i a l " A - R i d e S e r v i c e s
R o u t e
B a n n i n g / B e a u m o n t
C a l i m e s a
L a k e E l s i n o r e
G r a n d T e r r a c e
H e m e t & H o m e l a n d
J u r u p a
M o r e n o V a l l e y
M u r r l e t a
N o r c o
P e r r i s
R i v e r s i d e
S u n C i t y
T a x i c a b
T O T A L
"
U n l i n k e d P a s s e n g e r s R e v e n u e H o u r s R e v e n u e M i l e s F a r e R e v e n u e ( $ $ ) O p e r a t i n g E x p e n s e s O E )
M i d y e a r M i d y e a r M i d y e a r M i d y e a r M i d y e a r
A d o p t e d R e v i s i o n C h a n g e A d o p t e d R e v i s i o n C h a n g e A d o p t e d R e v i s i o n C h a n g e A d o p t e d R e v i s i o n C h a n g e A d o p t e d R e v i s i o n C h a n g e ,
1 2 4 1 2 4 0 1 0 3 1 0 3 0 1 , 6 9 8 1 , 6 9 8 0 2 1 5 5 1 8 3 0 3 4 , 5 4 0 3 , 4 2 7 ( 1 , 1 1 3 )
1 4 7 1 4 1 \ ( 6 ) 9 0 9 0 0 1 , 5 5 6 1 , 5 5 6 0 3 1 2 4 8 9 1 7 7 3 , 9 6 3 3 . 9 3 5 ( 2 8 )
1 5 , 2 9 9 1 5 , 4 2 4 1 2 5 9 , 7 6 1 9 , 7 6 1 0 1 5 6 , 1 0 5 1 5 6 , 1 0 5 0 2 6 , 4 1 3 3 5 , 4 6 7 9 , 0 5 4 4 3 1 , 8 1 0 4 3 2 , 8 5 8 1 , 0 4 8
2 , 6 2 3 2 , 7 1 0 8 7 1 , 7 0 0 1 , 7 0 0 0 2 7 , 2 0 9 2 7 , 2 0 9 0 6 , 5 7 8 6 , 8 7 6 2 9 8 7 5 , 1 9 7 8 0 , 8 4 7 5 , 6 5 0
4 4 , 8 2 3 4 5 , 9 3 4 1 , 1 1 1 2 8 , 2 9 5 2 8 , 2 9 5 0 4 5 0 , 5 3 0 4 5 0 , 5 3 0 0 7 5 , 8 7 4 1 1 3 , 1 1 1 3 7 , 2 3 7 1 , 2 5 1 , 7 5 0 1 , 2 7 3 , 6 4 3 2 1 , 8 9 3
1 0 , 4 6 4 1 0 , 3 8 5 ( 7 9 ) 7 , 2 7 4 7 , 2 7 4 0 1 1 5 , 3 1 8 1 1 5 , 3 1 8 0 1 9 , 0 7 6 2 6 , 8 1 6 7 , 7 4 0 3 2 1 , 7 8 1 3 0 9 , 0 5 1 ( 1 2 , 7 3 0 )
3 2 , 3 3 9 3 3 , 3 4 3 1 , 0 0 4 2 0 , 8 0 8 2 0 , 8 0 8 0 3 3 1 , 1 0 2 3 3 1 , 1 0 2 - 0 6 1 , 4 3 2 7 4 , 0 0 4 1 2 , 5 7 2 9 2 0 . 5 4 0 9 3 1 , 4 7 1 1 0 , 9 3 1
1 5 , 8 3 0 1 6 , 2 5 2 4 2 2 1 0 , 7 4 6 1 0 , 7 4 6 0 1 7 1 , 5 3 8 1 7 1 , 5 3 8 0 3 1 , 0 6 3 4 1 , 3 2 3 1 0 , 2 6 0 4 7 5 , 4 1 5 4 7 8 , 6 2 3 3 , 2 0 8
1 4 , 7 0 6 1 5 , 2 1 0 5 0 4 1 0 , 2 7 6 1 0 , 2 7 6 0 1 6 3 , 0 3 4 1 6 3 , 0 3 4 0 3 0 , 3 9 5 4 2 , 3 1 1 1 1 , 9 1 6 4 5 4 , 6 1 2 4 5 9 , 8 3 1 5 , 2 1 9
1 9 , 9 6 9 2 0 . 4 7 0 5 0 1 1 2 , 8 4 6 1 2 , 8 4 6 0 2 0 4 , 8 2 3 2 0 4 , 8 2 3 0 3 9 . 7 4 6 5 1 , 7 2 3 1 1 . 9 7 7 5 6 8 . 3 0 9 5 8 7 , 4 0 8 1 9 , 0 9 9
3 5 , 3 7 4 3 6 , 1 9 2 8 1 8 2 3 , 3 9 3 2 3 , 3 9 3 0 3 7 3 , 6 0 6 3 7 3 , 6 0 6 0 6 8 . 7 6 1 8 9 , 4 6 8 2 0 , 7 0 7 1 , 0 3 4 , 8 8 2 1 , 0 4 3 , 9 9 8 9 , 1 1 6
1 0 , 7 8 3 1 0 , 9 9 2 2 0 9 6 , 8 2 6 6 , 8 2 6 0 1 0 8 , 6 0 6 1 0 8 , 6 0 6 0 2 2 , 1 9 6 2 6 , 0 8 4 3 , 8 8 8 3 0 1 . 9 7 9 3 3 3 , 7 1 2 3 1 , 7 3 3
2 3 , 9 3 1 1 9 , 1 8 4 ( 4 , 7 4 7 ) 7 , 8 2 4 7 , 8 2 4 0 2 4 2 , 8 5 6 2 4 2 , 8 5 6 0 1 5 , 5 0 8 3 6 , 6 2 8 2 1 , 1 2 0 5 5 3 , 9 3 7 4 7 4 , 8 7 2 ( 7 9 , 0 6 5 )
2 2 6 . 4 1 2 2 2 6 , 3 6 1 ( 5 1 ) 1 3 9 , 9 4 2 1 3 9 , 9 4 2 0 2 . 3 4 7 , 9 8 0 2 , 3 4 7 , 9 8 1 0 3 9 7 , 5 6 9 5 4 4 , 8 1 8 1 4 7 , 2 4 9 6 , 3 9 8 , 7 1 5 6 , 4 1 3 , 6 7 6 1 4 , 9 6 1
G R A N D T O T A L
7 , 9 2 2 , 9 3 5 7 , 3 8 1 , 9 4 9
( 5 4 0 , 9 8 6 )
6 3 8 , 2 5 0 6 1 5 , 7 8 7
( 2 2 , 4 6 3 )
1 0 , 2 5 2 , 2 9 5 9 , 9 1 8 , 9 6 5
( 3 3 3 , 3 3 1 )
7 , 8 7 5 , 8 2 3 7 , 2 2 0 , 4 5 1
( 6 5 5 , 3 7 2 )
4 2 , 0 7 3 , 0 8 9 4 3 , 1 6 7 , 7 6 3
1 , 0 9 4 , 6 7 4
D e c r e a s e I n
P a s s e n g e r s
- 6 . 8 3 %
D e c r e a s e i n
R e v e n u e H o u r s
- 3 . 5 2 %
D e c r e a s e i n R e v e n u e
M i l e s
- 3 . 2 5 %
D e c r e a s e i n F a r e
R e v e n u e
- 8 . 3 2 %
I n c r e a s e I n O p e r a t i n g
C o s t s
2 . 6 0 %
1 7
AGENDA ITEM 7G
•
RIVERS/DE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
DATE:
January 11, 2006
TO:
Riverside County Transportation Commission
FROM:
Tanya Love, Program Manager
THROUGH:
Eric Haley, Executive Director
SUBJECT:
Whiteside Manor's Request for Measure "A" Specialized Transit
Funds for Purchase of Capital Equipment
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
This item is for the Commission to allocate $17,845 in Measure "A" Specialized
Transit funding available in Western Riverside to Whiteside Manor, Inc., for the
payment of a 17-passenger, wheelchair accessible van.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
Whiteside Manor, Inc. (Whiteside) is requesting $17,845 in Measure "A"
Specialized Transit Funds for the payment of a used 17-passenger, wheelchair
accessible van for use in its residential drug and alcohol treatment centers.
Whiteside operates four drug and alcohol treatment centers in western Riverside
County consisting of two-12 bed facilities for women, one-28 bed facility for men
and a dual diagnostic center -the Janet Street Facility -which houses 30 men and
women who are homeless, mentally ill and substance abusers. Primary funding for
the facilities consists of grants from the Department of Housing and Urban
Development in addition to Community Block Development Grant Funds.
Whiteside currently has funds available to operate the vehicle but needs assistance
with the purchase cost. If funding is approved, the vehicle will be used to
transport clients of the drug and alcohol treatment centers to medical, dental,
social service and court appointments.
There are adequate Measure "A" Specialized Transit funds available to meet this
request.
Financial Information
In Fiscal Year Budget:
NIA
Year:
FY 2005-06
Amount:
$17,845
Source of Funds:
Western Riverside Measure "A"
Specialized Transit Funds
Budget Adjustment:
Yes
GLA No.:
225-26-86102
Fiscal Procedures Approved:
�341,07 o
Dater
12/13/05
Agenda Item 7G
18
"
A G E N D A I T E M 7 H
"
R I V E R S / D E C O U N T Y T R A N S P O R T A T I O N C O M M I S S I O N
D A T E :
J a n u a r y 1 1 , 2 0 0 6
T O :
R i v e r s i d e C o u n t y T r a n s p o r t a t i o n C o m m i s s i o n
F R O M :
J e r r y R i v e r a , P r o g r a m M a n a g e r
T H R O U G H :
A n n e M a y e r , P r o g r a m m i n g a n d A d m i n i s t r a t i o n D i r e c t o r
S U B J E C T :
F i s c a l Y e a r 2 0 0 5 - 2 0 1 0 M e a s u r e " A " F i v e Y e a r C a p i t a l
I m p r o v e m e n t P l a n f o r L o c a l S t r e e t s a n d R o a d s f o r t h e C i t y o f
C o a c h e l l a
S T A F F R E C O M M E N D A T I O N . .
T h i s i t e m i s f o r t h e C o m m i s s i o n t o a p p r o v e t h e F Y 2 0 0 5 - 0 9 a n d F Y 2 0 0 6 - 1 0
M e a s u r e " A " F i v e Y e a r C a p i t a l I m p r o v e m e n t P l a n s f o r L o c a l S t r e e t s a n d R o a d s f o r
t h e C i t y o f C o a c h e l l a .
B A C K G R O U N D I N F O R M A T I O N :
T h e M e a s u r e " A " O r d i n a n c e r e q u i r e s e a c h r e c i p i e n t o f l o c a l s t r e e t s a n d r o a d s
m o n i e s t o a n n u a l l y p r o v i d e t o t h e C o m m i s s i o n a f i v e - y e a r p l a n o n h o w t h o s e f u n d s
a r e t o b e e x p e n d e d i n o r d e r t o r e c e i v e i t s M e a s u r e " A " d i s b u r s e m e n t s . I n a d d i t i o n ,
t h e C i t i e s i n t h e C o a c h e l l a V a l l e y a n d t h e C o u n t y ( r e p r e s e n t i n g t h e u n i n c o r p o r a t e d
a r e a o f t h e E a s t e r n C o u n t y ) m u s t b e p a r t i c i p a t i n g i n C V A G ' s T r a n s p o r t a t i o n
U n i f o r m M i t i g a t i o n F e e ( T U M F ) p r o g r a m . T h e a g e n c i e s a r e r e q u i r e d t o s u b m i t t h e
a n n u a l c e r t i f i c a t i o n o f M a i n t e n a n c e o f E f f o r t ( M O E ) a l o n g w i t h d o c u m e n t a t i o n
s u p p o r t i n g t h e c a l c u l a t i o n .
O n M a r c h 3 1 , 2 0 0 5 , R C T C s t a f f p r o v i d e d t h e l o c a l a g e n c i e s w i t h M e a s u r e " A "
r e v e n u e p r o j e c t i o n s f o r l o c a l s t r e e t s a n d r o a d s t o a s s i s t t h e m i n p r e p a r a t i o n o f t h e
r e q u i r e d F i v e - Y e a r C a p i t a l I m p r o v e m e n t P l a n ( C I P ) . T h e a g e n c i e s w e r e a s k e d t o
s u b m i t t h e i r p l a n s b y J u n e 1 5 , 2 0 0 5 f o r s u b m i s s i o n t o t h e C o m m i s s i o n o n
J u l y 1 3 , 2 0 0 5 .
T h e r e q u i r e d F i v e - Y e a r P l a n , M O E c e r t i f i c a t i o n a n d s u p p o r t i n g d o c u m e n t a t i o n h a v e
b e e n r e c e i v e d f r o m t h e C i t y o f C o a c h e l l a f o r F Y 2 0 0 5 - 0 9 a n d F Y 2 0 0 6 - 1 0 . T h e
C i t y o f C o a c h e l l a h a d n o t s u b m i t t e d i t s F Y 2 0 0 5 - 0 9 M e a s u r e " A " F i v e - Y e a r P l a n
r e q u i r e d i n t h e p r i o r y e a r a n d , t h e r e f o r e , i t s M e a s u r e " A " f u n d s f o r l o c a l s t r e e t s a n d
r o a d s h a v e b e e n h e l d o n i t s b e h a l f i n t h e C o m m i s s i o n ' s f u n d s .
A t t a c h m e n t : M e a s u r e " A " C a p i t a l I m p r o v e m e n t P l a n s f o r C i t y o f C o a c h e l l a
A g e n d a I t e m 7 H
1 9
0
9 1515 SIXTH STREET COACHELLA, CA 92236
November 30, 2005
Adrninistratlon 398-3502
Animal Control 398-49/8
Building 398-3002
City Clerk 398-3502
City Council 391-5009
Fax:(760) 398-9117 Code Enforcement 398-4878
Mr. Jerry Rivera, Program Manager
Riverside County Transportation Commission
P.O. Box 12008
Riverside, CA. 92501
Economic Develop. ___. 393-5110
Engineering 395-5744
Rnance 394-3502
Fire 398-3895
74902 J R
Care nt9 3985110
Housing .
Personnel 398-3502
Planning 398-3102
Public Works ............. _ 398-5744
Recreation 398-3502
Riverside Shenffs Office 883-8990
Sanitary 391-5008
Senior Svs. 393-0104
Utilities ...._.-_308-2700
-.6)EC:EITYLER
DEC 01 2005
RIVERSIDE COUNTY
TRANSPORTATION COmNlISSiON
RE: Measure "A" Capital improvement Plan for Local Streets
Dear Mr. Rivera:
Enclosed is the Five Year Capital Improvement Plan for Local Streets for the City of Coachella.
The plan is actually for two program years and the fixture years. It is for fiscal years 2004-2005,
2005-2006 and 2006-201.0.
Also enclosed is the City's Maintenance of Effect Certification along with a letter of explanation
of the year for the MOE calculation.
If you have any further questions, please contact me at (760) 398-5744.
Sincerely,
El Lee
Director of Public Works
EKLImd
attachments
X.29.24
Agency:
Prepared by;
Phone No.:
Date:
•
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMIISSION
MEASURE "A" --LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM --
FY 2004 - 2005
City of Coachella
Eldon K. Lee
760.398.5744
24-Oct-05
Page 1 of 1
ITEM TOTAL COST MEASURE A
NO. PROJECT NAME 1 LIMITS PROJECT TYPE ($000's) ($000'S)
1 Tyler Street from Avenue 52 to 160 feet North of Cale Mendoza Reconstruct $468 $200
2 5th Street Grapefruit Blvd to Vine St Reconstruct $88 $88
3 Avenue 51 from Harrison St to Mecca St ( north side only ) Reconstruct $91 $91
$ 647 $ 379
Agency:
Prepared by:
Phone No.:
Date:
•
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
MEASURE 'A' LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM
FY 2005 - 2006
City of Coachella
Eldon K. Lee
(760) 398-5744
24-Oct-05
Page 1 of 1
ITEM
NO.
PROJECT NAME / LIMITS
TOTAL COST MEASURE A
PROJECT TYPE ($000's) ($000'8)
1 Avenida Corta from Calle Limon Reconstruct $21 $21
2 Calle Limon from Hill Street to Avenue 52 Reconstruct $94 $94
3 Hill Street from Grapefruit Blvd to Genoa Street Recostruct $102 $102
4 Calle Pera from Hill Street to north end Reconstruct $24 $24
5 Genoa Street from Ave 52 to Bagdad Ave Overlay $79 $79
6 Nile Lane from Genoa St to West End Overlay $21 $21
7 Sylmar Land from Genoa St to West End Overlay $21 $21
8 Vineta Lane from Genoa St to West End Overlay $21 $21
9 Napoli Lane from Genoa St tp West End Overlay $21 $21
$404 $404
Agency:
Prepared by:
Phone No.:
Date:
•
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM
FY 2006 - 2010
City of Coachella
Eldon K. Lee
760.398.5744
9-Nov-05
Page 1 of 1
ITEM
NO.
PROJECT NAME / LIMITS
TOTAL COST MEASURE A
PROJECT TYPE ($000's) ($000'S)
1 Palm Street form First Street toSeventh Street Overlay $100 $100
2 Third Street form Grapefruit Blvd to West End Overlay $81 $81
3 Calle Avila from Ave 52 to Bagdad St Reconstruct $175 $175
4 Tyler Street from Avenue 48 to Vista del Sur Reconstruct $280 $280
5 Calle Techa from Avenue 52 to Calle Verde Reconstruct 5183 $183
6 Calle Avila from Avenue 52 to Calle Verde Reconstruct $155 $155
7 Calle Avila from Calle Zamora to Avenue 53 Reconstruct 76 76
8 Cairo Avenue from Date Avenue to Shady lane Reconstruct 312 312
9 Medina Avenue from Tripoli Way to Date Avenue Reconstruct 116 116
10 Shady Lane from Avenue 52 to Valley Road Reconstruct 152 152
11 Douma Street from Avenue 52 to Bagdad Street Reconstruct 175 153
TOTAL
$1,805 $1,783
AGENDA ITEM 71
RIVERS/DE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
DATE:
January 11, 2005
TO:
Riverside County Transportation Commission
FROM:
John Standiford, Public Affairs Director
THROUGH:
Eric Haley, Executive Director
SUBJECT:
State and Federal Legislative Status Report and Review and Update
of Legislative Program
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
This item is for the Commission to:
1) Adopt the update of the 2005-2006 RCTC Legislative Program; and,
2) Receive and file the state and federal legislative status report.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
Federal Update
Congress finally adjourned in mid -December after an extraordinary all-night session
to approve final legislation for the year and a five-year budget plan to cut spending.
The final session focused on issues such as spending cuts, the war in Iraq,
hurricane relief and oil drilling in the Alaskan Artic National Wildlife Refuge.
Support in the Senate for the spending plan was so tenuous that Vice President
Cheney was required to cut short a trip to the Middle East and Pakistan to possibly
cast the tie -breaking vote. This marked the latest that Congress stayed in session
at the end of the year since 1995 when President Clinton and Republicans in
Congress faced off and virtually shut down the federal government.
The focus on spending cuts by the Congress does not immediately impact
transportation projects but is indicative of a growing concern to reign in spending in
Washington. This reality, along with Riverside County's ongoing transportation
needs, should result in an increasingly proactive approach by the Commission in
working with Congress on funding needs. A total of two trips to Washington with
possibly a third to be considered during the coming year to communicate RCTC's
needs and concerns with Members of Congress and key Committee and Agency
staff.
Agenda Item 7f
20
RCTC staff will be working .to schedule a trip in early to mid -February for
Commission officers. The working dates for this trip are February 14 and 15.
In addition to this trip, the Southern California Association of Governments (SLAG)
is scheduling a region -wide lobbying trip for February 6 and 7 and the American
Public Transit Association (APTA) will host its annual legislative conference
March 5-7. Obviously, the SCAG date poses a few scheduling challenges but
these three trips will provide the Commission with an excellent opportunity to work
closely with Riverside County's federal delegation.
State Update
January is always quite busy in Sacramento and will include the Governor's State
of the State Address and budget proposal for the next fiscal year. Once again, a
big issue for RCTC and every transportation agency in the state will be the need to
fund Proposition 42. Another issue will be the potential of a major infrastructure
bond measure.
As a brief review of previous RCTC actions, the Commission has maintained long-
standing support for the full -funding and implementation of Proposition 42 since its
passage in 2002. RCTC is an active part of the Proposition 42 Coalition and has
actively worked to inform legislators, business and community groups of the need
for Proposition 42 funding. One bill that would eliminate the current loophole that
allows for the suspension of Proposition 42 is Assembly Constitutional
Amendment 9 by local Assemblyman Russ Bogh. The Commission took a
SUPPORT position on the bill early last year and staff will testify in support of the
bill at a Committee hearing that was scheduled to be held on January 9.
The Commission has also taken a SUPPORT WITH AMENDMENTS position on
SB 1024, which is the previously -referenced infrastructure bond.
On December 12, Anne Mayer and John Standiford attended a meeting hosted by
Senators Bob Dutton (R-Rancho Cucamonga) and Tom Torlakson (D-Antioch)
regarding the proposal. Torlakson is a co-author of the bill and Dutton is working
closely with the author to provide a Republican perspective and to ensure that local
projects in the Inland Empire be included in any legislative proposal. The meeting
was held at the Building Industry Association (BIA) office in Rancho Cucamonga
and attracted a. strong showing from business leaders, local officials and
representatives from every legislator in the area. Senator Dutton's participation in
the process is extremely important to the region and a bipartisan accord will be
necessary for Legislative approval. The other concern regarding the bill is, that it
will need to be positioned for the June ballot in order to gain statewide support
from a number of transportation agencies that intend to take sales tax measures to
the ballot in November.
Agenda Item 71
21
Legislative Program
Last year, RCTC adopted a two-year legislative program for 2005 and 2006 which
coincides with legislative calendars. While that action covers this year, staff has
provided minor updates to the program to make it more current. The updates do
not change actual policy positions. For example, last year's legislative program
references the ongoing MIS; given the completion of the MIS in December, the
language has been updated. The entire legislative program has been attached with
the proposed language changes clearly noted.
Attachment: DRAFT Updated 2005-2006 Legislative Program
Agenda Item 71
22
DRAFT UDPATE
Riverside County TransportationCommission
2005-2006 State Legislative Program
The following draft legislative program has been developed by the staff of the
Riverside County Transportation Commission and is intended to establish the
Commission's legislative priorities for the coming year legislative sessions.
OVERALL OBJECTIVES
1. Protect and enhance current funding levels for transportation programs
especially during a time of economic and budget uncertainty within the State
of California.
Support increases in transportation revenues and funding sources that
enhance the ability of RCTC to implement needed transportation plans and
ensures flexibility in the use of transportation revenue.
3. Streamline administrative and regulatory processes and work closely with
allied agencies to advance transportation programs and services.
STATE LEGISLATIVE PROGRAM
1. Protect and enhance current funding levels for transportation programs
especially during a time of economic and budget uncertainty within the State
of California.
A. Support California Transportation Commission allocations to fully fund
projects for Riverside County included in the State Transportation
Improvement Program and that would enable the timely delivery of
projects included in the Measure "A" Expenditure Plans of 1989 and
2009.
B. Oppose any proposal that could reduce Riverside County's opportunity
to receive transportation funds, including diversion of state
transportation revenues for other purposes. Fund sources include, but
are not limited to, the State Highway Account (SHA), Public Transit
Account (PTA), and Transportation Development Act (TDA) and any
ballot initiative sources. This includes taking a strong stance to
support full funding and implementation of Proposition 42.
23
DRAFT UDPATE
C. Require the timely repayment, withinterest, of all state transportation
funding that is diverted to the general fund and resist additional
shifting of transportation funds to non -transportation purposes.
D. Support the SB 45 regional programming process to provide for
regional determination and programming for the use of all current
funding sources and to provide total flexibility for all current and future
STIP programs.
E. Support state policies that assure timely allocation of transportation
revenue, including allocations of new funds available to the STIP
process as soon as they are available.
F. Continue to support AB 2766 vehicle license fee funding in the South
Coast Air Basin to local jurisdiction and the Mobile Source Air Pollution
Reduction Committee (MSRC); support MSRC's role as an independent
decision -making body.
G. Support legislation and/or budgetary actions to assure a fair share of
State revenues of intercity rail (provided by Amtrak, Metrolink or other
operators) funding for Southern California and Riverside County.
2. Support increases in transportation revenues and funding sources that
enhance the ability of RCTC to implement its transportation programs and
plans and ensures flexibility in the use of transportation revenue.
A. Support or seek legislation and administrative financing/programming
policies and procedures to assure an identified source of funding and
an equitable distribution of the funding for bus and rail services in
California.
Assure that dedicated state intercity rail funding is allocated to the
regions administering each portion of the system and assure that
funding is distributed on an equitable basis.
C. Support or seek legislation to close loopholes in Proposition 42 to
ensure funding for street and road maintenance and repairs.
24
Deleted: <N> Monitor legislative
and gubernatorial actions regarding
the Califomia Performance Review.
Most specifically, monitor proposals
in the CPR that impact
infrastructure investment and
delivery. - _
DRAFT UDPATE
D. Support legislation to ensure equitable funding to support call box
programs in Riverside County and throughout the state.
E Support legislation to provide funding for innovative,
intelligent/advanced transportation, goods movement, and air quality
programs which relieve congestion, improve air quality and enhance
economic development.
F. Seek a fair share for Riverside County of any state discretionary
funding made available for transportation grants or programs.
G. Support income tax benefits or incentives that encourage use of
alternative fuel vehicles and alternative modes of transportation
without reducing existing transportation funding levels.
H. Monitor market -based pricing measures on their effectiveness in
relieving traffic congestion, improve air quality or fund transportation
alternatives.
3. Streamline administrative and regulatory processes and work closely with
allied agencies to advance transportation programs and services.
A. Support legislation and/or administrative reforms to enhance Ca!trans
project delivery, such as simultaneous Environmental Impact Report
(EIR) and engineering studies, and a reasonable level of contracting out
of appropriate activities to the private sector.
B. Support regulatory and legislative efforts to speed approvals of new
corridors as part of Riverside County's national recognized efforts of
environmental streamlining.
C. Work closely with neighboring agencies in Orange County to assure
the timely jmplementation of the Major Investment Study ,
recommendation , for a new corridor between Riverside and Orange
County and improvements to State Route 91.
D. Continue close working relationship with the San Bernardino
Associated Governments on issues of mutual concern,especially in
terms of regional transportation matters including goods movement,
air pollution and aviation.
E. Support legislation to amend California Eminent Domain Law to more
fairly set awards in eminent domain lawsuits and protect the ability to
acquire needed right of way for transportation projects.
25
Deleted: completion
Deleted: o
DRAFT UDPATE
F. Participate in regional efforts to increase state funding and for goods
movement -related transportation projects.,
Riverside County Transportation Commission
2005-2006 Federal Legislative Program
OVERALL OBJECTIVES
1. Protect and enhance current funding levels for transportation programs.
2. Protect and enhance flexibility in use of transportation revenue.
3. Reduce or eliminate costly and duplicative administrative and regulatory
requirements.
FEDERAL LEGISLATIVE PROGRAM
1. Protect and enhance current funding levels for transportation programs.
A. Support efforts to bring transportation appropriations to authorized
levels.
B. Seek a fair share for Riverside County of any federal funding made
available for transportation programs and projects.
C. Seek a fair share and equitable rate of return for the State of California
of federal transportation funding. While California will likely remain a
"donor" county, every effort must be made to raise the current
percentage of return in federal tax revenues that are generated in the
state.
D. Support continued Federal commitment of funds to support public
transit, to assure that California and the western states receive a fair
share of the AMTRAK funding resources as compared to the North'
East Corridor.
E. Seek specialized funding for goods movement projects of international
and national significance that are beyond the funding ability or
responsibility of local and state transportation programs and budgets.
F. Seek funding for airport ground access and other airport development
needs in Riverside County.
26
"
"
D R A F T U D P A T E
G . S e e k a N e w S t a r t s f u l l f u n d i n g g r a n t a g r e e m e n t f o r t h e P e r r i s V a l l e y
L i n e e x t e n s i o n o f M e t r o l i n k v i a t h e C o m m i s s i o n - o w n e d S a n J a c i n t o
B r a n c h L i n e .
H . S u p p o r t l o c a l a g e n c i e s s e e k i n g f e d e r a l t r a n s p o r t a t i o n f u n d i n g i n a
c o o r d i n a t e d m a n n e r i n o r d e r t o m a x i m i z e p r o j e c t f u n d i n g f r o m F e d e r a l
l e g i s l a t i o n .
2 . P r o t e c t a n d e n h a n c e f l e x i b i l i t y i n u s e o f t r a n s p o r t a t i o n r e v e n u e .
F o r m a t t e d : I n d e n t : L e f t : 0 . 5 "
1
A . S u p p o r t f u n d i n g a l l o c a t i o n s f o r t h e " S m a l l S t a r t s " c a t e g o r y w i t h i n t h e D e l e t e d : t h e p r o p o s e d
n e w h i g h w a y a u t h o r i z a t i o n b i l l f o r p r o j e c t s s e e k i n g l e s s t h a n $ 1 0 0
m i l l i o n t o e n h a n c e t h e o p p o r t u n i t i e s f o r f u n d i n g o f t h e P e r r i s V a l l e y
L i n e e x t e n s i o n p r o j e c t .
B . S u p p o r t t a x b e n e f i t s a n d / o r i n c e n t i v e s f o r t r a n s p o r t a t i o n d e m a n d
m a n a g e m e n t p r o g r a m s a n d a l t e r n a t i v e f u e l p r o g r a m s t o p r o m o t e t h e
u s e o f a l t e r n a t e m o d e s o f t r a n s p o r t a t i o n .
C . S u p p o r t i n c r e a s e d f e d e r a l f u n d i n g f o r A l a m e d a C o r r i d o r E a s t
i m p r o v e m e n t s w i t h a s p e c i a l e m p h a s i s o n e n s u r i n g f u n d i n g f o r
R i v e r s i d e C o u n t y r a i l g r a d e s e p a r a t i o n s .
D . S u p p o r t l e g i s l a t i o n t h a t e n s u r e s c o o r d i n a t i o n o f t r a n s p o r t a t i o n a n d
s o c i a l s e r v i c e a g e n c y f u n d i n g ( i . e . D e p a r t m e n t s o f A g i n g ,
R e h a b i l i t a t i o n , a n d W e l f a r e ) .
E . S u p p o r t l e g i s l a t i v e o r a d m i n i s t r a t i v e p o l i c i e s t h a t p r o m o t e a " r e g i o n a l "
a p p r o a c h t o a i r p o r t d e v e l o p m e n t a n d u s a g e o f M a r c h A i r R e s e r v e
B a s e , S o u t h e r n C a l i f o r n i a L o g i s t i c s , P a l m S p r i n g s I n t e r n a t i o n a l A i r p o r t ,
S a n B e r n a r d i n o I n t e r n a t i o n a l , a n d O n t a r i o I n t e r n a t i o n a l a i r p o r t s .
3 . R e d u c e o r e l i m i n a t e c o s t l y a n d d u p l i c a t i v e a d m i n i s t r a t i v e a n d r e g u l a t o r y
r e q u i r e m e n t s .
A . S u p p o r t a d m i n i s t r a t i v e o r l e g i s l a t i v e a c t i o n t o e n s u r e c o n s i s t e n c y
a m o n g t h e F e d e r a l c o n g e s t i o n m a n a g e m e n t a n d t h e S t a t e ' s
C o n g e s t i o n M a n a g e m e n t P r o g r a m r e q u i r e m e n t s .
B . M o n i t o r m a r k e t - b a s e d p r i c i n g m e a s u r e s r e g a r d i n g t h e i r e f f e c t i v e n e s s
t o r e l i e v e t r a f f i c c o n g e s t i o n , i m p r o v e a i r q u a l i t y a n d / o r f u n d
t r a n s p o r t a t i o n a l t e r n a t i v e s .
2 7
DRAFT UDPATE
C. Support legislation and/or administrative reforms to enhance highway
project delivery, such as simultaneous Environmental Impact Report
(EIR) and engineering studies, and a reasonable level of contracting out
of appropriate activities to the private sector.
D. Support legislation and/or administrative reforms that result in cost
savings to environmental clearance processes for transportation
construction projects.
E. Continue to streamline federal reporting/monitoring requirements to
ensure efficiency and usefulness of data collected and eliminate
unnecessary and/or duplicative requirements.
28
Strategic Growth Plan Briefing Document
TRANSPORTATION
Governor Schwarzenegger has proposed the Strategic Growth Plan, part of which is a
historic comprehensive transportation investment package that incorporates GoCalifornia, a
plan designed to decrease congestion, improve travel times, and increase safety. The
Governor's Strategic Growth Plan for transportation is designed to reduce congestion below
today's levels while accommodating future transportation needs from growth in the
population and the economy. This will be done by both deploying demand -management
strategies, such as dedicated truck lanes and high occupancy toll lanes, and building new
capacity to increase "throughput" in the system. It will enable more traffic to move through
existing roadways, rehabilitate thousands of miles of roads, add new lanes, and increase
public transportation ridership. This effort will require innovation in transportation planning,
construction and management, sustained coordination among regional transportation
agencies and the state, and dedicated funding.
Over the next ten years, daily congestion (measured by daily hours of delay) is projected to
increase 35% from 558,143 hours in 2005 to 753,000 hours in 2016 (based on current
trends and 2003-04 amounts of investment). With the Governor's Strategic Growth Plan,
congestion levels are estimated to be 454,000 hours daily, a reduction of 104,143 hours
(18.7%) below today's levels. The capacity or "throughput" will increase by 15 percent.
In addition to congestion relief, the $107 billion investment also results in:
• 550 new HOV lane miles
• 750 new highway lane miles
• 9,000 lane miles rehabilitated
• 15 percent increase in throughput
• 600 miles new commuter rail lines
• 310,000 more transit passengers per day
• 37 percent increase in transit ridership
• 11 more inter -city rail round trips
• 150 percent increase in inter -city rail ridership
• 8,500 miles of separated bike and pedestrian paths
The ten-year growth plan consists of the following expenditure components:
• $21.2 billion for major projects on state interregional routes and to expand and
complete the High Occupancy Vehicle lane system
• $18.9 billion to expand trade corridors and regional priorities
• $18.9 billion for capacity expansion on major corridors of the highway system by
using strategies such as adding auxiliary lanes, using technology to assist drivers,
and improving interchanges
• $4.5 billion to expand existing transit rail and to add new urban commuter rail and
intercity passenger rail
• $28.9 billion for rehabilitation and preservation of the state highway system
• $7.9 billion for safety and operational improvements on the state highway system
• $3 billion for transportation technology and Intelligent Transportation Systems
• $2 billion for port improvements and environmental mitigation
Office of the Governor 7
Strategic Growth Plan Briefing Document
• $943 million to expand park and ride opportunities and bicycle and pedestrian routes
• $471 million to improve transit and rail services
• $297 million to expand the Freeway Service Patrol
Summary of 10 Year Transportation Spending Plan
Port Mitigation -
environmental improvements
Highways
Corridor Mobility Projects
Performance Projects (State
Inter -Regional Focus
Routes and Regional
Priorities)
Transit/Rail
Inter -City Passenger Rail
Pedestrian/Bike Paths and
Park and Ride Facilities
Technology — ITS
Safety and Preservation
Funding includes $47 billion in existing transportation funding sources such as the gas tax,
Proposition 42, and federal funds. A total of $48 billion in new funding is proposed from
leveraging existing funds and new bond funds to attract increased federal, private, and local
funding, as well as using revenue bonds repaid from state gas tax and federal funds. The
remaining $12 billion of need is proposed to be derived from GO bonds.
2006 transportation bond (2006-07 through 2010-11) — $6 billion
• $1.7 billion to increase highway capacity
• $1.3 billion for safety and preservation improvements to the state highway system
• $1 billion for port improvements, mitigation related to programs and projects that
reduce diesel emissions, and mitigation of other community impacts
• $1 billion for goods movement infrastructure, which will reduce related road
congestion
• $400 million for intercity rail expansion
• $300 million for corridor mobility improvements
• $200 million for Intelligent Transportation Systems
Office of the Governor 8
Strategic Growth Plan Briefing Document
• $100 million to expand park and ride opportunities and bicycle and pedestrian
improvements
2008 transportation bond (2011-12 through 2016-17) — $6 billion
• $3.6 billion for highway projects that provide congestion relief and meet or exceed
performance measures for improved corridor performance
• $2 billion for goods movement infrastructure, which will reduce related road
congestion
• $200 million for highway safety and preservation projects
• $100 million for additional intercity rail expansion
• $100 million to expand park and ride opportunities and bicycle and pedestrian
improvements
Proposition 42 Protection
The Administration proposes a constitutional amendment to permanently protect Proposition
42 funds for transportation and eliminate the option for future governors and legislatures to
suspend the allocation.
Project Delivery Improvements
The Administration is again proposing legislation to provide authority to deliver projects
more quickly and efficiently through the use of design -build contracting and
design -sequencing. Both of these techniques are standard practice in the private -sector
construction industry. Savings over ten years from these reforms is estimated to be almost
$1 billion.
The Administration is also proposing expanded authority to fund and deliver projects through
a variety of public -private partnerships. This approach is intended to be used where a
predictable stream of revenue can be generated to repay private capital investments (such
as toll roads or dedicated truck lanes).
Air Quality and Trade
The Strategic Growth Plan reflects $18.9 billion for major goods movement projects. Bond
funds totaling $4 billion are proposed for the state contribution to this overall effort. Most, if
not all, of the projects are to be accomplished through a variety of public -private
partnerships to provide significant matching funds to the bonds.
Office of the Governor 9
Strategic Growth Plan Briefing Document
Transportation Bond Fund Expenditure Summary
Category of Projects
Performance Projects
Regional Priority Routes
SR 99 Corridor Enhancement Master Plan
State Inter -Regional Routes
Corridor Mobility Management Program
Transportation Technology (ITS)
Inter -City Rail
Park -and -Ride Facilities, Pedestrian/Bike Paths
Air Quality Improvements -- Existing Impact Mitigation
Trade Corridors and Goods Movement Infrastructure
State Highway Operations and PreservationProgram(SHOPP)
Total
($ Billions)
3.3
1.0
1.0
0.3
0.2
0.5
0.2
1.0
3.0
1.5
Total Transportation and Air Quality Bond
12.0
Office of the Governor 10
Printed from pe.com
Page 1 of 2
Proposal hints at traffic relief
TRANSPORTATION: The governor's plan includes $1 billion for the region's busiest highways.
01:28 AM PST on Saturday, January 7, 2006
By PHIL PITCHFORD / The Press -Enterprise
Inland transportation officials say they see plenty to celebrate in Gov.
Schwarzenegger's preliminary proposals for the region's transportationsystem.
Much work remains to determine which bond issues are put before voters.
The public could decide, possibly as early as this summer, to reject the
governor's effort to spend more on roads and freeways, but the transportation
component already is causing a stir in the Inland area.
"This is the most significant statewide commitment that has been proposed in
half a century," said Eric Haley, executive director of the Riverside County
Transportation Commission.
The preliminary proposal calls for major improvements to Interstate 215 in
southwestern Riverside County and Interstate 15 in western San Bernardino
County, in addition to Highway 58 in the High Desert, sometimes referred to
as the Barstow -Bakersfield Highway.
The bond issue would "add rocket fuel to our program" of road projects that
has chugged along on the back of a half -cent sales tax paid by county
residents for the past five years, Haley said. The plan includes "a blockbuster
commitment to the 215," he said.
For example, Riverside County's transportation agency can carry about $500
million in bonded debt at any given time, he said, and the $265 million
Interstate 215 project alone would cost more than half that.
Riverside and San Bernardino counties typically finish far behind the larger
coastal counties in the race for public funds. But the Inland area's combined
funding would be almost three times that allotted to Orange County and
almost half that designated for massive Los Angeles County, transportation
officials said.
"I'm encouraged that the governor sees the need and recognizes the impact on
our drivers every day," said Kelly Chastain, a Colton city councilwoman who
is chairwoman of San Bernardino Associated Governments, the county's
transportation planning agency. "I'm happy to see that he is taking this
seriously."
Investment
in highways
Gov. Schwarzenegger's
proposals for .
transportation investment
could drastically increase
the amount of money
available for freeways in
Riverside and San
Bernardino counties. A
preliminary list of
proposed projects
includes money for:
Inland area
improvements
$65 million for
transportation -technology
improvements that would
allow for real-time traffic
monitoring in the Inland
area to help ease
congestion.
Riverside County
$265 million for
widening Interstate 215
from the Highway 215/60
interchange in Moreno
Valley to the Interstate
15/215 interchange in
http://vvww.pe.com/cgi-bin/bi/gold_print.cgi
1/11/2006
Printed from pe.com Page 2 of 2
Increasing traffic congestion driven by population growth, combined with an
increasing amount of goods shipped by train from the ports of Los Angeles
County through the Inland area has created "a perfect storm that has been
brewing for a long time," she said.
The widening of Interstate 215 between Moreno Valley and Murrieta would
be welcome relief for Randy Freeman, a kindergarten teacher who drives the
highway every day from his home in Menifee to his job in Mead Valley. He
said he once could avoid traffic by driving at off times or when most drivers
are headed in the other direction.
"It's getting to a point where there isn't that much of a difference anymore," he
said.
A recent trip up the freeway from his home off Newport Road to his Masonic
lodge off McCall Boulevard -- just one exit apart, or about three miles -- took
15 minutes.
"I should have known better," he said.
Also included for the two counties are increased funds for upgraded
technology, including cameras and below -ground sensors, which will help
Caltrans determine how many cars are using the freeway system at any given
time. The data could increase the efficiency of a new Transportation
Management Center being built near interstates 15 and 210 in Fontana.
Reach Phil Pitchford at (951) 368-9475 orRRitchford ape.com
Murrieta
$6 million for park -and -
ride facilities
San Bernardino County
$301 million for
improvements to
Highway 58 in the High
Desert
$250 million for
widening Interstate 15
and adding carpool,
possibly toll lanes
$70,000 for park -and -ride
facilities
Orange County
$320 million for
improvements to the
Highway 91 corridor
Online at: http://www_pe.com/localnews/inland/stories/PE News Local D iero_a_ds07 22b2ef1_b.html
http://www.pe.com/cgi-bin/bi/gold_print.cgi
1/11/2006
.: Print Version :.
•
Page 1 of 2
Editions of the North County Times Serving San Diego and Riverside Counties
Wednesday, January 11, 2006 Contact Us Arc
4
News Search Web Search Classified Search Advertising Home Delivery Reader Services Traffic Stocks We
Home News Sports Business Opinion Entertainment Features Columnists Communi
Subscribe Previous Issues Letters Obituaries
Place An Ad Send Feedback
Wednesday, January 11, 2006
Last modified Tuesday, January 10, 2006 11:25 PM PST
Tens of millions seen for local roads
By: CHRIS BAGLEY - Staff Writer
The budget that Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger proposed Tuesday afternoon could mean serious
relief for Riverside County commuters, local officials said.
The governor's budget calls for $11.5 billion in general funding for the California Department of
Transportation. It would also guarantee some $2.3 billion for a capital fund for transportation.
Area projects standing to benefit most immediately include an ongoing widening of Highway 91 in downtown Riverside
and improvements to Interstate 15 between Temecula and downtown San Diego, government officials in Riverside and
San Diego counties said.
The proposed budget for the July -to -June fiscal year follows the governor's announcement last week that he would
pursue massive investment in the state's roads and other infrastructure over the next 10 years. The $107 billion in
public -works spending would include two $12 billion in borrowing: The two $6 billion bonds would go before voters this
ye' r and next.
The budget proposal next goes to the Legislature.
Taken together, the two represent "the kind of proposal that happens once every half a century," said Eric Haley,
director of the Riverside County Transportation Commission.
Haley and other local officials were especially gratified at Schwarzenegger's pledge to restore $1.4 billion in projected
gasoline sales tax to a fund for construction and improvement of roads and other transportation, much of which had
been diverted from the fund in recent years.
Proposition 42, passed by voters in 2002, called for state sales taxes on gasoline to be used on transportation
projects. Citing fiscal emergency in 2003 and 2004, supermajorities in the state Legislature voted to divert most of the
money to other uses. Schwarzenegger and the Legislature put the full gasoline tax toward transportation projects in
the current fiscal year, which ends June 30; still, local officials said they weren't sure the governor would propose a
similar move this year.
"His decision to included full funding (from Prop. 42) in the budget is extraordinarily good news," Haley said.
The governor's budget proposal ties the money to few specific road projects. Those decisions are likely to come in the
next year from the California Transportation Commission, a state agency. The commission's formulas typically funnel
just under 5 percent of state -level funds to Riverside County, Haley said.
John Benoit, R-Palm Desert, the leading Republican on the state Assembly's subcommittee for transportation
budgeting, pledged Tuesday afternoon to keep other legislators from earmarking the budgeted money for specific
projects in their districts.
http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2006/01/11/news/californian/22_34 221_10_06.prt 1/11/2006
.: Print Version :. Page 2 of 2
Still, Haley said, the bureaucracy's budgetary formulas would probably result in at least $200 million funding for
improvements to the stretch of Highway 91 between Madison Street in downtown Riverside and the road's interchange
with Highway 60 and 1-215.
The $12 billion in bond measures, which Schwarzenegger proposed last week in his "State of the State" address,
might also mean $265 million to widen 1-215 between Temecula and Highway 60, $320 million in unspecified "corridor
improvements" to Highway 91 in Orange County and $100 million for unspecified improvements to 1-15 in San Diego
County. Those three projects and a range of others were suggested by the governor's office in a plan released last
week; the formal, binding proposals to go before voters could include more specifics.
The bond measures would bring a total of $600 million for San Diego County highway and transportation projects,
based on the governor's recommendations, including $250 million for Interstate 5 and $110 million for the 1-805/1-905
interchange near the Mexican border.
Gary Gallegos, executive director of the San Diego Association of Governments, a regional planning agency, said the
money is long overdue.
"It's no secret that California has been underinvested in infrastructure for close to 20 years," he said, adding that the
state money will allow the county to match local dollars with state and federal dollars and truly begin to provide some
relief to harried commuters.
"We will be able to build projects that are already approved or on the (drawing) board probably a decade sooner,"
Gallegos said.
State Sen. Dennis Hollingsworth, R-Murrieta, said that while a major infusion of cash in highways is a welcome
prospect, the state has a lot of catching up to do.
Despite the widespread agreement on a pressing need for more highways, others were more cautious.
The proposed $125.6 billion budget has grown some $8 billion from the current year. Though the state's higher
revenues are expected to cover that growth, the budget still remains in deficit.
While cautioning that he hadn't fully digested the hundred -page proposal released Tuesday, Benoit said he and other
legislators clearly faced tough choices. Schwarzenegger's proposed budget includes a $4.7 billion deficit, though that
compares with an annual $16.5 billion deficit when he took office, the governor said Tuesday afternoon.
"It's going to be an interesting year in Sacramento," Benoit said. "We've got some serious soul-searching to do."
The chairman of a grass -roots taxpayers organization was more blunt.
"Clearly what he is saying is 'let's spend a ton of money ---- it doesn't matter how inefficient it is or how expensive it
is,"' said Richard Rider, chairman of San Diego Taxpayers Association, an organization made up of individuals and
small businesses.
Before borrowing that kind of money, the governor must be tough in negotiations with contractors and construction -
workers unions, Rider said.
The $2.3 billion for the so-called Prop. 42 Fund, which would go largely to road construction, includes both the $1.4
billion in gasoline taxes projected for the coming fiscal year and $920 million in gas taxes that was collected but then
diverted into the state's general fund.
"We were hoping this is where the governor would go," said Gallegos, who sees an impact on 1-15 and a range of
transportation projects in San Diego County. "Without this early payback, the projects would have been delayed for at
least two years."
Staff writer William Finn Bennett contributed to this story. Contact staff writer Chris Bagley at (951) 676-4315, Ext.
2615, or cbagley@californian.com. To comment on this article, go to www.californian.com.
http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2006/01/11/news/californi an/22_3 4_2 21_1 0_06.prt 1/11/2006
Printed from pe.eom Page 1 of 3
Highway funding plan gets Inland area back on right road, officials
say
11:24 PM PST on Tuesday, January 10, 2006
By PHIL PITCHFORD / The Press -Enterprise
Gov. Schwarzenegger's spending plan for roads and highways, including his
aggressive bond package unveiled last week, represents more state funding for
transportation than the Inland area has seen in the past three years combined,
transportation officials said.
The governor's preliminary budget proposal unveiled Tuesday calls for fully
funding Prop. 42, which raises about $140 million a year for Inland area road
construction and maintenance. The move will help pay for the widening of
Interstate 215 through San Bernardino and add carpool lanes on two major
routes in Riverside County, among other projects, transportation planners
said.
Voters approved the measure in March 2002 to redirect money from the state's
sales tax on gasoline to fix roads and improve mass transit. But the
Legislature has in the past suspended the proposition in order to use the
money to balance the state budget.
The governor proposes to repay in the 2006-07
fiscal year about $920 million in Prop. 42
funds that were diverted to the state budget. If
history is any indicator, the Inland area could
receive more than $90 million of that,
transportation officials said.
Schwarzenegger said that paying back that
money will help "jump-start" the transportation
component of his $222 billion infrastructure plan.
Related
Highway funding plan gets
Inland area back on right
road, officials say
Revenue boost spurs_plan
"Everyone is in sync: that we need to rebuild California and we need to build
for the future," Schwarzenegger said.
The governor's budget proposal, however, faces an uncertain future in the
Legislature, and the bond issues still must go before voters. But combined,
they would create a windfall for transportation agencies that have largely
scraped by in the last few years.
'Momentum Swinging Back'
INLAND PROJECTS
FUNDED BY STATE
BUDGET
Riverside County
projects
carpool lanes on
Highway 91 in Riverside
between Adams Street
and the 60/91/215
interchange
improved interchange
at Highway 91 and Green
River Road in Corona
carpool lanes on
Highway 60 between
Valley Way and I-15
improved interchange
at Highway 60 and I-215
in Moreno Valley
engineering and
construction of the
Perris Valley line of
Metrolink
new interchanges along
I-10 at Bob Hope/Ramon
Road, Gene Autry
Trail/Palm Drive and
Date Palm Drive
http://www.pe.com/cgi-bin/bi/gold_print.cgi
1/11/2006
Printed from pe.com Page 2 of 3
"We've been so used to getting bad news from the state in terms of
transportation fording, it's good to see the momentum swinging back in the
other direction," said John Standiford, spokesman for the Riverside County
Transportation Commission.
"I don't think you can overestimate the magnitude of the new investment that
is being proposed here."
Traffic -weary Inland commuters welcomed the news. Mari Dunford, a file
clerk at a Costa Mesa law firm, avoids freeway driving as much as possible
and mostly uses Metrolink to commute from her home in Mira Loma in
northwest Riverside County. But she still gets stuck on Highway 91 between
Riverside and Orange counties a few times a month.
"It's just horrid," she said. "Getting home is just ridiculous. I don't understand
how people make it -- the ones who are driving in every day."
The governor proposes to include about $1.4 billion statewide in Prop. 42
funds in the 2006-07 budget, an increase of about $61 million over this year,
when the program was fully funded for the first time.
In addition to the $920 million in Prop. 42 money that was diverted to the
state budget in past years and would be repaid in 2006-07, the governor
expects to repay another $430 million in such funds in the 2007-08 budget,
according to the preliminary budget.
Protecting Future Funds
Schwarzenegger also is calling for a constitutional amendment that would bar
the Legislature from using Prop. 42 money to balance future state budgets.
Transportation officials said that would bring a degree of stability now lacking in the road -building process.
San Bernardino County
projects
widening of I-215
through San Bernardino
widening and signalS on
the Live Oak Canyon
Road interchange at I-10
in Yucaipa
railroad underpasses
and overpasses at Hunts
Lane in San
Bernardino/Colton, State
Street in San
Bernardino/San
Bernardino County,
Milliken Avenue in
Ontario and Monte Vista
and Ramona avenues in
Montclair.
Sources: Riverside
County Transportation
Commission, San
Bernardino Associated
governments
The issue is dear to many Inland voters, whose frustration over mounting traffic drove the approval rating for
Prop. 42 in the Inland area ahead of the rest of the state in the 2002 election.
About 76 percent of Riverside County voters approved the measure, and nearly 73 percent did so in San
Bernardino County. Statewide, the figure was roughly 69 percent.
Since then, however, the Inland area has missed out on several hundred million dollars in Prop. 42 money that
instead was used to balance the state budget, Standiford said. It is that money that the governor wants to begin
paying back in 2006-07.
Although Prop. 42 was fully funded this fiscal year for the first time, getting money to the Inland area was
tough because the funds had to be divided among a three-year backlog of projects, said Cheryl Donahue,
spokeswoman for San Bernardino Associated Governments, the county's transportation planning agency.
"We are hoping we will be closer to the front of the line this year, but there are a lot of projects and a huge
need across the state," she said.
Staff writer Jim Miller contributed to this report.
http://www.pe.com/cgi-bin/bi/gold_print.cgi 1/11/2006
Printed from pe.com Page 3 of 3
Reach Phil Pitchford at (951) 368-9475 or ppitchford@pe.com
Online at: http://www.pe.com/localnews/inland/stories/PE News Local D statebudside11.12e8b690.html
http://www.pe.com/cgi-bin/bi/gold_print.cgi 1/11/2006
AGENDA ITEM 8
•
"
"
R I V E R S I D E C O U N T Y T R A N S P O R T A T I O N C O M M I S S I O N
D A T E :
J a n u a r y 1 1 , 2 0 0 6
T O :
R i v e r s i d e C o u n t y T r a n s p o r t a t i o n C o m m i s s i o n
F R O M :
C a t h y B e c h t e l , P r o j e c t D e l i v e r y D i r e c t o r
T H R O U G H :
E r i c H a l e y , E x e c u t i v e D i r e c t o r
S U B J E C T :
S t a t u s R e p o r t o n t h e M i d C o u n t y P a r k w a y
S T A F F R E C O M M E N D A T I O N :
T h i s i t e m i s f o r t h e C o m m i s s i o n t o r e c e i v e a n d f i l e a s t a t u s r e p o r t o n t h e
M i d C o u n t y P a r k w a y ( M C P ) p r o j e c t .
B A C K G R O U N D I N F O R M A T I O N :
U p d a t e o n A l t e r n a t i v e s
I n p r e v i o u s u p d a t e s , s t a f f h a s s h a r e d t h e n u m e r o u s t e c h n i c a l , o p e r a t i o n a l , a n d
e n v i r o n m e n t a l i s s u e s e n c o u n t e r e d w i t h t w o o f t h e a l t e r n a t i v e s n e a r t h e
L a k e M a t h e w s a n d L a k e P e r r i s D a m s . S t a f f h a s b e e n w o r k i n g w i t h t h e f e d e r a l a n d
s t a t e p a r t n e r s t o r e c e i v e t h e n e e d e d a p p r o v a l t o d r o p t h e s e t w o a l t e r n a t i v e s f r o m
f u r t h e r c o n s i d e r a t i o n . S t a f f h a s r e c e i v e d w r i t t e n c o n c u r r e n c e f r o m t h e f e d e r a l
r e s o u r c e a g e n c i e s t o m o d i f y t h e s l a t e o f a �%t e r n a t i v e s w h i c h i n c l u d e s d r o p p i n g t h e
p a r k w a y a l i g n m e n t s n o r t h o f L a k e M a t h e w s a n d n e x t t o L a k e P e r r i s d a m a n d
a d d i n g t h e n e w F a r S o u t h a l i g n m e n t a n d t h e P e r r i s D r a i n a n d S a n J a c i n t o S o u t h
d e s i g n v a r i a t i o n s .
H o w e v e r , t h e C i t y o f P e r r i s s t i l l h a s a r e s o l u t i o n d e s i g n a t i n g t h e a l i g n m e n t i n f r o n t
o f t h e L a k e P e r r i s d a m a s i t s l o c a l l y p r e f e r r e d a l t e r n a t i v e . R C T C i s d i s c u s s i n g w i t h
c i t y s t a f f t h e p o s s i b i l i t y o f r e m o v i n g t h e i r d e s i g n a t i o n o f t h e N o r t h P e r r i s
A l t e r n a t i v e a s t h e i r l o c a l l y p r e f e r r e d a l t e r n a t i v e s i n c e t h e p r o b l e m s w i t h t h e d a m
p r e c l u d e a p a r k w a y a l i g n m e n t i n t h i s a r e a . S t a f f u n d e r s t a n d s t h e P e r r i s C i t y
C o u n c i l w i l l t a k e t h i s u n d e r d i s c u s s i o n i n l a t e J a n u a r y . R C T C w i l l h o l d o f f o n
o f f i c i a l l y r e m o v i n g t h i s s e g m e n t o f t h e N o r t h P e r r i s a l t e r n a t i v e p e n d i n g C o u n c i l
a c t i o n . R C T C i s w o r k i n g w i t h t h e C i t y o f P e r r i s a n d C a l t r a n s t o a d d r e s s t h e C i t y ' s
c o n c e r n s , w i t h i n C a l t r a n s d e s i g n c r i t e r i a , o n a c c e s s t o t h e M i d C o u n t y P a r k w a y
a n d t h e 1 - 2 1 5 a t P l a c e n t i a S t r e e t a n d P e r r i s B o u l e v a r d .
A g e n d a I t e m 8
2 9
Caltrans Coordination
RCTC has been working with Caltrans to facilitate approval of the engineering
design and concepts for the Mid County Parkway. Meetings havebeen held with
the District 8 Director and his staff to work through these issues. The first major
issues being tackled are those associated with the system -to -system interchanges
of the MCP at the I-15, 1-215 and SR-79. Non-standard design_ issues with these
interchanges have been identified and discussed with Caltrans. Fact Sheets
outlining each of these issues are scheduled to be submitted to Caltrans this month
for their review and input. The Fact Sheet process is a critical task which will lead
to approval of the final design concept for the interchanges at the 1-15„ 1-215, and
SR79. Staff is working with Caltrans to ensure that FHWA is participating in these
important decisions with regard to the 1-15 and 1-215 interchanges since they are
the final approval authority at these two system -to -system interchanges.
County of Riverside Coordination
Staff continues to meet on a monthly basis with County Transportation staff to
coordinate local roadway and developer plans with the Mid County Parkway
project. Staff has met with staff specifically to determine the most efficient way
to coordinate the County's planned improvements along Cajalco Road with work on.
the MCP. Due to the existing traffic and safety issues along Cajalco Road,
Riverside County has begun developing a project to widen existing Cajalco Road as
soon as possible. While both the Cajalco Road widening project and the Mid
County Parkway are parallel with each other and go through some of the same
environmentally sensitive areas, each project stands on its own and has
independent utility. RCTC and County Transportation are working together to
ensure that the projects are able to take advantage of their specific coverage within
the MSHCP while ensuring that the two projects do not conflict with each other or
the provisions of the MSHCP. A more focused discussion on plans/options forr the
widening of Cajalco Road is planned for the January 23, 2006 Plans and Programs
Committee as directed by the Commission.
Technical Studies
The environmental technical studies are continuing. Significant environmental field
work has been completed. The results are being analyzed and incorporated into the
design. Work is progressing on the waters and wetlands jurisdictional delineation.
Work on the new alignments is just beginning.
Schedule and Budget
There are no changes since the Commission took action extending the scope and
budget incorporating the new alignments including the Far South and design
variations.
Agenda Item 8
30
"
A G E N D A I T E M 9
"
"
R I V E R S I D E C O U N T Y T R A N S P O R T A T I O N C O M M I S S I O N
D A T E :
J a n u a r y 1 1 , 2 0 0 6
T O :
R i v e r s i d e C o u n t y T r a n s p o r t a t i o n C o m m i s s i o n
F R O M :
S h i r l e y M e d i n a , P r o g r a m M a n a g e r
T H R O U G H :
A n n e M a y e r , P r o g r a m m i n g a n d A d m i n i s t r a t i o n D i r e c t o r
S U B J E C T :
2 0 0 6 S t a t e T r a n s p o r t a t i o n I m p r o v e m e n t
R e c o m m e n d a t i o n s f o r P r o g r a m m i n g
P r o g r a m
P L A N S A N D P R O G R A M S C O M M I T T E E A N D S T A F F R E C O M M E N D A T I O N :
T h i s i t e m i s f o r t h e C o m m i s s i o n t o a p p r o v e t h e 2 0 0 6 S t a t e T r a n s p o r t a t i o n
I m p r o v e m e n t P r o g r a m ( S T I P ) a s p r o p o s e d i n A t t a c h m e n t 2 i n c l u d i n g t h e f o l l o w i n g
r e c o m m e n d a t i o n s :
1 ) C a r r y o v e r 2 0 0 4 S T I P s t a t e h i g h w a y p r o j e c t s i n t o t h e 2 0 0 6 S T I P ;
2 ) D e l e t e $ 1 6 . 8 8 2 m i l l i o n o f l o c a l a r t e r i a l p r o j e c t s f r o m t h e 2 0 0 4 S T I P
a n d r e p r o g r a m w i t h f e d e r a l f u n d s , a n d r e p r o g r a m t h e $ 1 6 . 8 8 2 m i l l i o n
o f S T I P f u n d s o n t h e S R 9 1 H i g h O c c u p a n c y V e h i c l e ( H O V ) l a n e
p r o j e c t ;
3 ) M a i n t a i n t h e C o m m i s s i o n ' s c o m m i t m e n t t o f u n d t h e S R 9 1 H O V l a n e
p r o j e c t b y p r o g r a m m i n g $ 9 1 . 3 m i l l i o n o f 2 0 0 6 S T I P W e s t e r n " C o u n t y
F o r m u l a f u n d s ;
4 ) S u p p o r t C a ! t r a n s i n r e p r o g r a m m i n g $ 8 m i l l i o n o f S T I P / I I P f u n d i n g f r o m
t h e M u l t i p l e S p e c i e s H a b i t a t C o n s e r v a t i o n P l a n ( M S H C P ) l a n d
a c q u i s i t i o n p r o j e c t a n d $ 2 3 . 4 8 3 m i l l i o n o f S T I P / I I P f u n d i n g f r o m t h e
A B 3 0 9 0 a g r e e m e n t s o n t h e S R 6 0 H O V l a n e a n d S R 9 1 / G r e e n R i v e r
i n t e r c h a n g e i m p r o v e m e n t p r o j e c t s t o t h e 6 0 / 2 1 5 E a s t J u n c t i o n
c o n n e c t o r p r o j e c t ;
5 ) P r o g r a m $ 1 . 8 4 9 m i l l i o n o f C M A Q f u n d s o n t h e 6 0 / 2 1 5 E a s t J u n c t i o n
c o n n e c t o r p r o j e c t t o c o m p l e t e f u n d i n g o n t h i s p r o j e c t ;
6 ) M a i n t a i n t h e C o m m i s s i o n ' s c o m m i t m e n t t o f u n d t h e S R 9 1 H O V l a n e
p r o j e c t b y r e p r o g r a m m i n g $ 7 . 3 4 9 m i l l i o n o f S T I P f u n d s f r o m t h e
A B 3 0 9 0 a g r e e m e n t s o n t h e S R 6 0 H O V l a n e a n d S R 9 1 / G r e e n R i v e r
i n t e r c h a n g e i m p r o v e m e n t p r o j e c t s ;
7 ) P r o g r a m 2 0 0 6 S T I P E a s t e r n C o u n t y F o r m u l a f u n d s a s p r o p o s e d b y t h e
C o a c h e l l a V a l l e y A s s o c i a t i o n o f G o v e r n m e n t s t o c o v e r c o s t i n c r e a s e s
o n t h e I - 1 0 I n t e r c h a n g e s a t B o b H o p e / R a m o n R o a d , G e n e A u t r y
T r a i l / P a l m D r i v e , a n d D a t e P a l m D r i v e ;
A g e n d a I t e m 9
3 1
8) Enter into an agreement with Palo Verde Valley on trading 2006 STIP
Palo Verde Valley Formula 'funds in the amount of $1.315 with
Commercial Paper and programming the STIP fundsonthe 91 HOV
lane project;
9) Program $30 million of STIP funds on the Perris Valley Line project ,in
exchange for local funds on the SR 91 HOV project;
10) Reprogram $3.465 million of STIP funds from the City of Riverside's'
local arterial widening project on VanBuren Boulevard to the
SR 91 /Van Buren Boulevard interchange project as proposed by the
City of Riverside; and
1 1) Work with Ca!trans in programming an additional` $4 million of STIP/IIP
funds to cover the cost increase on the North Main Corona Metrolink
Station Parking Structure project currently programmed in the STIP
with Interregional Improvement Program (IIP) funds.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
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 2010-11) for the State Highway
Account (SHA), the Public Transportation Account (PTA), the Transportation
Investment Fund (TIF), and the Transportation Deferred Investment Fund (TDIF)
(repayment of prior year TIF transfers). The SHA is primarily used for the state
mandated Safety Highway Operation Protection Program (SHOPP). The suspension
of the TIF and TDIF to address the state budget shortfall over the past few years
leaves the PTA as the most reliable fund source for the 2006 STIP. As a result,
PTA eligible projects are encouraged to be included in county STIP submittals.
The 2006 STIP FE includes three funding scenarios (Target, Minimum, and
Maximum) that assume Proposition 42 funding and receipt of Tribal Gaming Bond
proceeds. Given that there is no certainty that Proposition 42 funding will made
available and that receipt of Tribal Gaming Bond proceeds are dependent upon the
outcome of ongoing litigation, it is very possible ,that the programming scenarios
may not materialize. However, there is a strong statewide momentum among
transportation agencies and the legislature to support the continuance and
protection of Proposition 42 funds that could prove to be a positive impact on the
2006 STIP. Further, the SB 1024 "Infrastructure Mega Bond" proposal would also
shed light on the STIP if approved by the voters by providing another fund source
for projects currently seeking STIP funding. Although the funding picture is unclear
at this point, we are required to prepare and submit a STIP by January 30, 2006 in
accordance with the adopted FE.
Agenda Item 9
32
The three funding scenarios presented in the Fund Estimate are as follows:
• Target Scenario — $167 million new programming capacity.
This scenario assumes programming of county shares through
2010-2011 and includes unprogrammed reserves.
• Minimum Scenario — $45.5 million new programming capacity.
This scenario assumes programming of county shares through
2007-08.
• Maximum Scenario -- $197.3 million new programming capacity.
This scenario assumes county shares through 2011-2012.
CTC staff has recommended that the regional agencies focus on the Target
Scenario for their respective STIP submittals. Attachment 1 reflects the
Commission's adopted STIP Intra-county Formula for the Target Scenario, and the
Minimum Scenario is provided for comparative purposes. Attachment 2 represents
the project programming recommendations that will be submitted to the CTC. The
Target Scenario programming includes carryover projects from the 2004 STIP,
deletion of projects from the 2004 STIP, and five new projects. It should be noted
that the STIP Guidelines state that new projects added to the STIP will be
programmed in the last two years (fiscal years 2009-2010 and 2010-201 1).
However, the CTC may give consideration for programming new projects to
counties that have unprogrammed share balances, which includes Riverside
County. The CTC has the authority to reject our STIP submittal or reprogram our
projects according to the availability of funding statewide. Therefore, there is no
guarantee that any of our projects will be programmed as submitted.
Target Scenario
CTC staff has encouraged STIP submittals to include projects that qualify for PTA
funds, which are transit and rail type projects. On the other hand, CTC staff
encourages regions to submit their highest priority projects for inclusion in the
STIP. This places us in a peculiar situation in that our priority project for STIP
funding (Western County formula funds) is the SR 91 High Occupancy Vehicle
(HOV) lane project, which is not eligible for PTA funds. However, since Riverside
County has such a large unprogrammed county share balance ($98.7 million) it is
possible that the CTC would consider approving a STIP submittal that funds more
state highway projects then transit/rail projects.
Agenda Item 9
33
Target Scenario Recommendations (refer to Attachment 2):
#1 Carryover 2004 STIP state highway projects into the 2006 STIP`
Maintain the current state highway projects in the proposed fiscal
years.
#2 Delete local arterial projects from the 2004 STIP and reprogram with federal
funds.
Given that local arterial projects are a low priority when the state has
limited funding, staff is recommending trading STIP funds with other
federal funds (CMAQ or RSTP) to keep projects on schedule. Local
agencies will be required to provide a local match (11.47%).
#3 Maintain the Commission's commitment to fund. the. SR 91 High Occupancy
Vehicle lane project by programming $91.3 million of STIP Western County
Formula funds for the right-of-way and construction phases on the 91 HOV
project.
In. 1998, the Commission committed Western County STIP Formula
funds from 2000 through 2008 STIP cycles to fully fund the SR 91
HOV project.
#4 Support Caltrans in reprogramming $8 million of IIP funding from the Multiple
Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) land acquisition project and
S23.483 million from the AB 3090 agreements on SR 60 HOV and
SR 91 /Green River interchange projects to the 60/215 East Junction
Connector project.
Measure "A" funds will be used instead of the IIP funds to acquire the
required acreage for the MSHCP, which will allow the land purchase to
occur earlier than when Caltrans proposed in the STIP. .The 60/215
East Junction project is eligible for IIP funds and Caltrans will be
reprogramming the STIP/IIP funds from the AB 3090 agreements to
the 60/215 East Junction connector project that willbe fully funded
(refer to recommendation #5).
#5 Approve the programming of $1.849 million of CMAQ funds on the 60/215
East Junction connector project to complete funding on this project.
The total project cost for the 60/215 East Junction is`$33.332 million.
The CMAQ funds in addition to the IIP funds (refer- to item #4 and
Attachment 3) will complete the funding needs for this project.
Agenda Item 9
34
"
"
# 6 M a i n t a i n t h e C o m m i s s i o n ' s c o m m i t m e n t t o f u n d t h e S R 9 1 H O V l a n e p r o j e c t
b y p r o g r a m m i n g $ 7 . 3 4 9 m i l l i o n o f S T I P f u n d s f r o m t h e A B 3 0 9 0 a g r e e m e n t s
o n S R 6 0 a n d t h e S R 9 1 / G r e e n R i v e r I n t e r c h a n g e p r o j e c t s t o t h e S R 9 1 H O V
p r o j e c t .
I n M a r c h a n d M a y 2 0 0 5 , t h e C o m m i s s i o n a p p r o v e d t h e
r e p r o g r a m m i n g o f $ ' 7 . 3 4 9 m i l l i o n o f S T I P f u n d s a v a i l a b l e f r o m t h e A B
3 0 9 0 a g r e e m e n t s o n t h e S R 6 0 H O V a n d S R 9 1 / G r e e n R i v e r
i n t e r c h a n g e p r o j e c t s t o t h e 6 0 / 2 1 5 E a s t J u n c t i o n c o n n e c t o r s p r o j e c t .
S u b s e q u e n t l y , C a l t r a n s a n d R C T C a g r e e d t o r e p r o g r a m $ 8 m i l l i o n o f
H P f u n d s f r o m t h e M S H C P t o t h e 6 0 / 2 1 5 E a s t J u n c t i o n s i n c e t h e
6 0 / 2 1 5 E a s t J u n c t i o n i s e l i g i b l e f o r 1 I P f u n d i n g ( r e f e r t o
r e c o m m e n d a t i o n # 4 ) .
# 7 P r o g r a m 2 0 0 6 S T I P E a s t e r n C o u n t y F o r m u l a f u n d s t o c o v e r c o s t i n c r e a s e s
o n t h e 1 - 1 0 I n t e r c h a n g e s a t B o b , H o p e / R a m o n R o a d , G e n e A u t r y T r a i l / P a l m
D r i v e , a n d D a t e P a l m D r i v e .
T h e C o a c h e l l a V a l l e y A s s o c i a t i o n o f G o v e r n m e n t s - ( C V A G ) h a s
p r o p o s e d t h e p r o g r a m m i n g o f E a s t e r n C o u n t y S T I P f o r m u l a f u n d s o n
t h e a b o v e p r o j e c t s .
# 8 E n t e r i n t o a n a g r e e m e n t w i t h P a l o V e r d e V a l l e y o n t r a d i n g 2 0 0 6 S T I P P a l o
V e r d e V a l l e y F o r m u l a f u n d s w i t h C o m m e r c i a l P a p e r .
T r a d i n g P a l o V e r d e V a l l e y 2 0 0 6 S T I P F o r m u l a f u n d s f o r C o m m e r c i a l
P a p e r w i l l a l l o w P a l o V e r d e V a l l e y t h e a b i l i t y t o c o n t i n u e d e l i v e r i n g
p r o j e c t s o n t h e l o c a l a r t e r i a l s y s t e m , w h i c h i s t h e i r h i g h e s t p r i o r i t y a n d
n e e d .
# 9 P r o g r a m $ 3 0 m i l l i o n o f S T I P f u n d s o n t h e P e r r i s V a l l e y L i n e p r o j e c t i n
e x c h a n g e f o r l o c a l f u n d s o n t h e 9 1 H O V l a n e p r o j e c t .
T h e P e r r i s V a l l e y L i n e q u a l i f i e s f o r P T A f u n d s a n d p r o g r a m m i n g S T I P
f u n d s w i l l p r o v i d e S t a t e p a r t i c i p a t i o n o n t h e p r o j e c t , w h i c h w o u l d b e
l o o k e d u p o n f a v o r a b l y b y f e d e r a l a g e n c i e s . M o v i n g l o c a l f u n d s , f r o m
t h e P e r r i s V a l l e y L i n e t o t h e 9 1 H O V p r o j e c t w i l l m a i n t a i n t h e
C o m m i s s i o n ' s f u n d i n g c o m m i t m e n t .
# 1 0 R e p r o g r a m $ 3 . 4 6 5 m i l l i o n o f S T I P f u n d s f r o m t h e C i t y o f R i v e r s i d e ' s l o c a l
a r t e r i a l p r o j e c t o n V a n B u r e n B o u l e v a r d t o t h e S R / 9 1 . V a n B u r e n B o u l e v a r d
I n t e r c h a n g e p r o j e c t a s p r o p o s e d b y t h e C i t y o f R i v e r s i d e .
T h e C i t y o f R i v e r s i d e p r o p o s e d t h e r e p r o g r a m m i n g o f t h e V a n B u r e n
B o u l e v a r d W i d e n i n g p r o j e c t ( f r o m J a c k s o n t o t h e S a n t a A n a R i v e r ) t o
t h e S R 9 1 / V a n B u r e n B o u l e v a r d i n t e r c h a n g e p r o j e c t . T h e c i t y w i l l
f u n d t h e w i d e n i n g p r o j e c t w i t h l o c a l f u n d s .
A g e n d a I t e m 9
3 5
#11 Work with Caltrans in programming an additional $4 million of IIP funds to
cover the cost increase on the North Main Corona Metrolink Station Parking
Structure project currently programmed in the STIP with Interregional
Improvement Program (IIP) funds.
The North Main Corona Metrolink Station Parking Structure has
experienced a significant cost increase above $15 million. The initial
cost estimate of $1 1 million is programmed in the STIP with IIP funds.
The remainder of the cost increase is proposed to be funded with
Section 5307 funds.
In addition to meeting previous commitments to complete funding on the 91 HOV
lane (from Adams to the 60/91/215 interchange) and the 60/215 East Junction
Connector projects (refer to Attachment 3), the Target Scenario proposes the
deletions of local arterial projects currently programmed in the 2004 STIP. 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 (e.g. Regional Surface
Transportation Program (RSTP) and Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ))
as noted in Attachment 2. Should the Commission approve this action staff will
follow up with changing the fund sources in the Federal Transportation
Improvement Program (FTIP). Lastly, the STIP funds freed up from the deleted
local arterial projects ($16.882 million) would be reprogrammed on the 91 HOV
lane project.
Palo Verde Valley Formula funds historically have been programmed on local
arterials. It is proposed to delete one of the current STIP projects on. Lovekin
Boulevard and -reprogram the RIP funds on the other current STIP project on US
95/Intake Boulevard. Staff is recommending trading Palo Verde Valley Formula
funds in the amount of $1.315 million with commercial paper since the needs of
Palo Verde Valley are on the local arterials. A formal agreement will be developed
and presented to the Commission in the near future.
Given that PTA funds seem to be the most reliable fund source in the 2006 STIP,
staff reviewed existing transit/rail needs for consideration of STIP funds.
Therefore, it is recommended that we trade local funds on the Perris Valley Line
project with STIP funding so that the local funds can be used on the SR 91 HOV
project. This would also help meet the STIP programming needs of including PTA
eligible projects. Lastly, having STIP funding on the Perris Valley Line will provide
State participation, which should help secure future federal funds.
Agenda Item 9
36
The Target Scenario also includes working with Caltrans in programming an
additional $4 million of IIP funds for the North Main Corona Metrolink Station
Parking Structure. Caltrans programmed $11 million in the 2004 STIP as this
amount was the initial cost estimate. The parking structure is part of a bi-county
list of improvement projects proposed by Caltrans Districts 8 and 12 to alleviate
congestion on SR 91. The parking structure will address the current overflow at a
nearby park-n-ride lot by allowing an additional 500 designated parking spaces
(total planned parking structure spaces is 2,500). It is proposed to cap the
Caltrans IIP funding contribution at a total of $15 million with the remaining
balance proposed for Section 5307 funds. Construction of the parking structure is
scheduled in FY 2009-10.
Minimum Scenario
The Minimum Scenario identifies $45.5 million of new programming capacity. If
the Minimum Scenario is selected by the CTC, staff will bring back to the
Commission a revised 2006 STIP proposal for review and approval
AB 3090 Cash Reimbursements
The AB 3090 Cash Reimbursement approved for the 60/91/215 Interchange and
corridor improvement projects in the amount of $31,324,000 ($26,625,000 are
RIP funds, and $4,699,000 are IIP funds) will be paid back in FY 2006-07. These
funds will be programmed on the SR 91 HOV project. The AB 3090 Cash
Reimbursement for FY 2003-04 Planning, Programming, and Monitoring (PPM)
funds in the amount of $166,000 will be received in FY 2007-08 and will be
reprogrammed to support future PPM activities.
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:
1) 2006 STIP Intra-County Formula for New Program Capacity
2) 2006 STIP Proposed Programming — Target Scenario
3) Funding of SR 91 HOV Lane and 60/215 East Junction Connector Projects
Agenda Item 9
37
" " "
2 0 0 6 S T I P I n t r a - C o u n t y F o r m u l a f o r N e w P r o g r a m C a p a c i t y
T a r g e t S c e n a r i o ( C o u n t y S h a r e p e r i o d e n d i n g 2 0 1 0 - 2 0 1 1 )
N e w c a p a c i t y a v a i l a b l e f o r 2 0 0 6 S T I P p r o g r a m m i n g
2 0 0 4 S T I P U n p r o g r a m m e d C o u n t y S h a r e B a l a n c e
2 % P l a n n i n g , P r o g r a m m i n g & M o n i t o r i n g
F o r m u l a B r e a k d o w n :
W e s t e r n C o u n t y 7 4 . 4 5 % $
C o a c h e l l a V a l l e y 2 4 . 7 6 % $
P a l o V e r d e V a l l e y 0 . 7 9 % $
T o t a l P P M A v a i l a b l e $
S T I P F u n d s A v a i l a b l e f o r N e w P r o g r a m C a p a c i t y
F o r m u l a B r e a k d o w n :
W e s t e r n C o u n t y 7 4 . 4 5 % $
C o a c h e l l a V a l l e y 2 4 . 7 6 % $
P a l o V e r d e V a l l e y 0 . 7 9 % $
T o t a l N e w P r o g r a m m i n g C a p a c i t y $
2 , 4 8 8 , 0 3 0
8 2 7 , 4 4 9
2 6 , 4 0 1
3 , 3 4 1 , 8 8 0
1 2 1 , 9 1 3 , 4 5 3
4 0 , 5 4 5 , 0 2 5
1 , 2 9 3 , 6 4 2
1 6 3 , 7 5 2 , 1 2 0
$ 6 8 , 3 7 5 , 0 0 0
$ 9 6 , 7 1 9 , 0 0 0
$ 1 6 7 , 0 9 4 , 0 0 0
$ 3 , 3 4 1 , 8 8 0
` 2 0 0 4 S T I P
A d j u s t m e n t
$ ( 6 1 2 , 7 4 3 ) $
$ 5 9 1 , 8 7 5 $
$ 2 0 , 8 6 8 $
1 6 3 , 7 5 2 , 1 2 0
1 2 1 , 3 0 0 , 7 1 0
4 1 , 1 3 6 , 9 0 0
1 , 3 1 4 , 5 1 0
1 6 3 , 7 5 2 , 1 2 0
A T T A C H M E N T 1
" P r o g r a m m i n g f o r C o a c h e l l a V a l l e y a n d P a l o V e r d e V a l l e y f u n d s w a s n o t d e t e r m i n e d a t t h e t i m e o f t h e 2 0 0 4 S T I P s u b m i t t a l .
T h e r e f o r e , t h e $ 6 1 2 , 7 4 3 o f F o r m u l a f u n d i n g w a s p r o g r a m m e d i n t h e W e s t e r n C o u n t y ( S R 9 1 H O V ) t o p r o t e c t f u n d s f r o m b e i n g
r e p r o g r a m m e d o u t s i d e o f R i v e r s i d e C o u n t y .
3 8
" " "
2 0 0 6 S T I P I n t r a - C o u n t y F o r m u l a f o r N e w P r o g r a m C a p a c i t y
M i n i m u m S c e n a r i o ( C o u n t y S h a r e p e r i o d e n d i n g 2 0 0 7 / 0 8 )
N e w c a p a c i t y a v a i l a b l e f o r 2 0 0 6 S T I P p r o g r a m m i n g
2 % P l a n n i n g , P r o g r a m m i n g , & M o n i t o r i n g
F o r m u l a B r e a k d o w n :
W e s t e r n C o u n t y 7 4 . 4 5 % $
C o a c h e l l a V a l l e y 2 4 . 7 6 % $
P a l o V e r d e V a l l e y 0 . 7 9 % $
T o t a l P P M A v a i l a b l e $
U n p r o g r a m m e d S h a r e f o r P r o j e c t P r o g r a m m i n g :
F o r m u l a B r e a k d o w n :
W e s t e r n C o u n t y 7 4 . 4 5 % $
C o a c h e l l a V a l l e y 2 4 . 7 6 % $
P a l o V e r d e V a l l e y 0 . 7 9 % $
T o t a l N e w P r o g r a m m i n g C a p a c i t y $
6 7 8 , 1 2 0
2 2 5 , 5 2 4
7 , 1 9 6
9 1 0 , 8 4 0
* 2 0 0 4 S T I P
A d j u s t m e n t
3 3 , 2 2 7 , 8 9 9 $
1 1 , 0 5 0 , 6 7 5 $
3 5 2 , 5 8 6 $
4 4 , 6 3 1 , 1 6 0
$ 4 5 , 5 4 2 , 0 0 0
$ 9 1 0 , 8 4 0
( 6 1 2 , 7 4 3 ) $
5 9 1 , 8 7 5 $
2 0 , 8 6 8 $
4 4 , 6 3 1 , 1 6 0
3 2 , 6 1 5 , 1 5 6
1 1 , 6 4 2 , 5 5 0
3 7 3 , 4 5 4
4 4 , 6 3 1 , 1 6 0
A T T A C H M E N T 1
' P r o g r a m m i n g f o r C o a c h e l l a V a l l e y a n d P a l o V e r d e V a l l e y f u n d s w a s n o t d e t e r m i n e d a t t h e t i m e o f t h e 2 0 0 4 S T I P s u b m i t t a l .
T h e r e f o r e , t h e $ 6 1 2 , 7 4 3 o f F o r m u l a f u n d i n g w a s p r o g r a m m e d i n t h e W e s t e r n C o u n t y ( S R 9 1 H O V ) t o p r o t e c t f u n d s f r o m b e i n g
r e p r o g r a m m e d o u t s i d e o f R i v e r s i d e C o u n t y .
3 9
0
2006 STIP Proposed Programming - Target Scenario
Current Projects
$1000's
Attach
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
HOV lanes (2004 STIP deletions, see below)
$ 16,882
$ 16,882
Con
Caltrans
91
Van Buren IC (former widen. @ SA river)
$ 3,465
$ 3,465
Con
Caltrans
95
Intake Blvd Widen/Signal
$ 1,875
$ 1,875
Con
RCTC
91
AB 3090 Replacement Project, 91 HOV Ins
$ 7,349
$ 7,349
Con
Sub -total Current Projects $ 82,736 $ 4,429 $ 53,576 $ 500 $ 24,231 $ -
New Protect Prostrammin
RCTC
91
91 HOV lanes (Adams to 60/91/215 IC)
$ 91,300
$ 91,300
Con
RCTC
Perris Valley Rail Line
$ 30,000
$ 30,000
Con
CVAG
10
Bob Hope/Ramon IC (cost increase)
$ 24,508
$ 24,508
Con
CVAG
10
Date Palm Drive
$ 8,542
$ 8,542
Con
CVAG
10
Gene Autry Trail/Palm Drive
$ 8,087
$ 8,087
Con
Palo Verde Valley
Fund Trade on RCTC Project (91 HOV)
$ 1,315
$ 1,315
Con
RCTC PPM
Planning, Programming, and Monitoring
$ 3,342
$ 1,842
$ 1,000
$ 500
Con
Sub -total New Projects $ 167,094 $ 1,842 $ 25,508 $ 47,129 $ 92,615 $ -
Total Current and New Projects
AB 3090 Cash Reimbursements
$ 249,830 $ 6,271
$ 79,084 $ 47,629
$ 116,846
Caltrans
91
HOV lanes, Adams to 60/91/215 IC
$ 26,625
R/W, Con
RCTC
PPM
Planning, Programming, and Monitoring
$ 166
Con
Projects Proposed to Be Deleted from STIP
Total RIP
New Funds
Program
Year
Blythe
Lovekin Blvd Rehabilitation
$ -
Local
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
FY05/06
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 O6/07
Riverside County
De Frain Blvd Reconstruction
$ 810
RSTP
FY 07/08
RCTC
Rideshare Activities
$ 820
RSTP
FY 05/06-08/
Total Deletions from STIP
$ 16,882
40
" " "
P r o p o s e d F u n d i n g f o r 9 1 H O V l a n e p r o j e c t ( A d a m s t o 6 0 / 9 1 / 2 1 5 I n t e r c h a n g e )
a n d 6 0 / 2 1 5 E a s t J u n c t i o n C o n n e c t o r p r o j e c t
S R 9 1 H O V l a n e s
F u n d S o u r c e
$ ( 0 0 0 ' s
C o m m e n t
S T I P / R I P
$ 2 6 , 6 2 5
f r o m 6 0 / 9 1 / 2 1 5 I C A B 3 0 9 0 a g r e e m e n t
S T I P / R I P
$ 1 6 , 8 8 2
2 0 0 4 S T I P l o c a l a r t e r i a l d e l e t i o n s
S T I P / R I P
$ 9 1 , 3 0 0
2 0 0 6 S T I P W e s t e r n C o F o r m u l a
S T I P / R I P
$ 7 , 3 4 9
f r o m 6 0 H O V a n d 9 1 / G r e e n R i v e r A B 3 0 9 0 a g r e e m e n t s
S T I P / R I P
$ 1 , 3 1 5
t r a d e w P a l o V e r d e V a l l e y
M e a s u r e A / l o c a l f u n d s
$ 3 0 , 0 0 0
t r a d e w P e r r i s V a l l e y L i n e
C M A Q
$ 7 , 0 0 0
d e o b l i g a t i o n f r o m 6 0 H O V ( M o r e n o V a l l e y ) p r o j e c t
C M A Q
$ 2 4 , 5 2 9
S A F E T E A L U
T o t a l C o s h $
6 0 / 2 1 5 E a s t J u n c t i o n C o n n e c t o r
F u n d S o u r c e
2 0 5 , 0 0 0
$ ( 0 0 0 ' s
C o m m e n t
S T I P / I I P
$ 8 , 0 0 0
M S H C P r e p r o g r a m m i n g
S T I P / I I P
$ 2 3 , 4 8 3
A B 3 0 9 0 r e p r o g r a m m i n g
C M A Q
$ 1 , 8 4 9
S A F E T E A L U
T o t a l C o s t
3 3 , 3 3 2
4 1
A t t a c h m e n t 3
REVISED AGENDA ITEM 9
Additions are noted by Bold Italics, Deletions are noted by Strike -through
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
DATE:
January 11, 2006
TO:
Riverside County Transportation Commission
FROM:
Shirley Medina, Program Manager
THROUGH:
Anne Mayer, Programming and Administration Director
SUBJECT:
2006 State Transportation Improvement
Recommendations for Programming
Program
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
This item is for the Commission to approve the 2006 State Transportation
Improvement Program (STIP) as proposed in Attachment 2 including the following
recommendations:
1) Carryover 2004 STIP state highway projects into the 2006 STIP;
2) Delete $16.882 million of local arterial projects from the 2004 STIP
and reprogram with federal funds, and reprogram the $16.882 million
of STIP funds on the SR 91 High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lane
project;
3) Maintain the Commission's commitment to fund the SR 91 HOV lane
project by programming $91.3 million of 2006 STIP Western County
Formula funds;
4) Support Caltrans in reprogramming $8 million of STIP/IIP funding from
the Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) land
acquisition project and $23.1183 $15.483 million of STIP/IIP funding
from the AB 3090 agreements on the SR 60 HOV lane and
SR 91 /Green River interchange improvement projects to the 60/215
East Junction connector project;
5) Program $1.849 $2.5 million of CMAQ funds on the 60/215 East
Junction connector project to complete funding on this project;
6) Maintain the Commission's commitment to fund the SR 91 HOV lano
60/215 East Junction connector project by reprogramming $7.349
million of STIP/R/P funds from the AB 3090 agreements on the SR 60
HOV lane and SR 91 /Green River interchange improvement projects;
7) Program 2006 STIP Eastern County Formula funds as proposed by the
Coachella Valley Association of Governments to cover cost increases
on the 1-10 Interchanges at Bob Hope/Ramon Road, Gene Autry
Trail/Palm Drive, and Date Palm Drive;
Agenda Item 9
8) Enter into an agreement with Palo Verde Valley on trading 2006 STIP
Palo Verde Valley Formula funds in the amount of $1 .315 with
Commercial Paper and programming the STIP funds on the 91 HOV
lane project;
9) Program $30 million of STIP funds on the Perris Valley Line project in
exchange for local funds on the SR 91 HOV project;
10) Reprogram $3.465 million of STIP funds from the City of Riverside's
local arterial widening project on Van Buren Boulevard to the
SR 91 /Van Buren Boulevard interchange project as proposed by the
City of Riverside; and
1 1) Work with Ca!trans in programming an additional $4 million of STIP/IIP
funds to cover the cost increase on the North Main Corona Metrolink
Station Parking Structure project currently programmed in the STIP
with Interregional Improvement Program (IIP) funds.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
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)
(repayment of prior year TIF transfers). The SHA is primarily used for the state
mandated Safety Highway Operation Protection Program (SHOPP). The suspension
of the TIF and TDIF to address the state budget shortfall over the past few years
leaves the PTA as the most reliable fund source for the 2006 STIP. Of the $1.8
billion statewide total available for STIP programming, $1.35 billion will come from
the PTA. As a result, PTA eligible projects are encouraged to be included in county
STIP submittals.
The 2006 STIP FE includes three funding scenarios (Target, Minimum, and
Maximum) that assume Proposition 42 funding and receipt of Tribal Gaming Bond
proceeds. Given that there is no certainty that Proposition 42 funding will made
available and that receipt of Tribal Gaming Bond proceeds are dependent upon the
outcome of ongoing litigation, it is very possible that the programming scenarios
may not materialize. However, there is a strong statewide momentum among
transportation agencies and the legislature to support the continuance and
protection of Proposition 42 funds that could prove to be a positive impact on the
2006 STIP. Further, the SB 1024 "Infrastructure Mega Bond" proposal would also
shed light on the STIP if approved by the voters by providing another fund source
for projects currently seeking STIP funding. Although the funding picture is unclear
at this point, we are required to prepare and submit a STIP by January 30, 2006 in
accordance with the adopted FE.
Agenda Item 9
The three funding scenarios presented in the Fund Estimate are as follows:
• Target Scenario — $167 million new programming capacity.
This scenario assumes programming of, county shares through
2010-2011 and includes unprogrammed reserves.
• Minimum Scenario — $45.5 million new programming capacity.
This scenario assumes programming of county shares through
2007-08.
• Maximum Scenario — $197.3 million new programming capacity.
This scenario assumes county shares through 201 1-2012.
CTC staff has recommended that the regional agencies focus on the Target
Scenario for their respective STIP submittals. Attachment 1 reflects the
Commission's adopted STIP Intra-county Formula for the Target Scenario, and the
Minimum Scenario is provided for comparative purposes. Attachment 2 represents
the project programming recommendations that will be submitted to the CTC. The
Target Scenario programming includes carryover projects from the 2004 STIP,
deletion of local arterial projects from the 2004 STIP, and five new projects. It
should be noted that the STIP Guidelines state that new projects added to the STIP
will be programmed in the last two years (fiscal years 2009-2010 and 2010-201 1).
However, the CTC may give consideration for programming new projects to
counties that have unprogrammed share balances, which includes Riverside
County. The CTC has the authority to reject our STIP submittal or reprogram our
projects according to the availability of funding statewide. Therefore, there is no
guarantee that any of our projects will be programmed as submitted.
Target Scenario
CTC staff has encouraged STIP submittals to include projects that qualify for PTA
funds, which are transit and rail type projects. On the other hand, CTC staff
encourages regions to submit their highest priority projects for inclusion in the
STIP. This places us in a peculiar situation in that our priority project for STIP
funding (Western County Formula funds) is the SR 91 High Occupancy Vehicle
(HOV) lane project, which is not eligible for PTA funds. However, since Riverside
County has such a large unprogrammed county share balance ($98.7 million) it is
possible that the CTC would consider approving a STIP submittal that funds more
state highway projects then transit/rail projects.
Agenda Item 9
Target Scenario Recommendations (refer to Attachment 2):
#1 Carryover 2004 STIP state highway projects into the 2006 STIP
Maintain the current state highway projects in the proposed fiscal
years.
#2 Delete local arterial projects from the 2004 STIP and reprogram with federal
funds.
Given that local arterial projects are a low priority when the state has
limited funding, staff is recommending trading STIP funds with other
federal funds (CMAQ or RSTP) to keep projects on schedule. Local
agencies will be required to provide a local match (11.47%).
#3 Maintain the Commission's commitment to fund the SR 91 High Occupancy
Vehicle lane project by programming $91.3 million of STIP Western County
Formula funds for the right-of-way and construction phases on the 91 HOV
project.
In 1998, the Commission committed Western County STIP Formula
funds from 2000 through 2008 STIP cycles to fully fund the SR 91
HOV project.
#4 Support Caltrans in reprogramming $8 million of IIP funding from the Multiple
Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) land acquisition project and
$23.483 $15.483 million from the AB 3090 agreements on SR 60 HOV and
SR 91 /Green River interchange projects to the 60/215 East Junction
Connector project.
Measure "A" funds will be used instead of the IIP funds to acquire the
required acreage for the MSHCP, which will allow the land purchase to
occur earlier than when Caltrans proposed in the STIP. The 60/215
East Junction project is eligible for IIP funds and Caltrans will be
reprogramming the STIP/IIP funds from the AB 3090 agreements to
the 60/215 East Junction connector project that will be fully funded
(refer to recommendation #5).
#5 Approve the programming of $1 .849 million of CMAQ funds on the 60/215
East Junction connector project to complete funding on this project.
The total project cost for the 60/215 East Junction is $33.332 million.
The CMAQ funds in addition to the IIP funds (refer to item #4 and
Attachment 3) will complete the funding needs for this project.
Agenda Item 9
#6 Maintain the Commission's commitment to fund the SR 91 HOV lane project
by programming $7.349 million of STIP/R/P funds from the AB 3090
agreements on SR 60 and the SR 91 /Green River Interchange projects to the
SR 91 HOV 60/215 East Junction connector project.
In March and May 2005, the Commission approved the
reprogramming of $ 7.349 million of STIP funds available from the AB
3090 agreements on the SR 60 HOV and SR 91/Green River
interchange projects to the 60/215 East Junction connectors project.
Subsequently, Caltrans and RCTC agreed to reprogram $8 million of
IIP funds from the MSHCP to the 60/215 East Junction since the
60/215 East Junction is eligible for IIP funding (refer to
recommendation #4).
#7 Program 2006 STIP Eastern County Formula funds to cover cost increases
on the 1-10 Interchanges at Bob Hope/Ramon Road, Gene Autry Trail/Palm
Drive, and Date Palm Drive.
The Coachella Valley Association of Governments (CVAG) has
proposed the programming of Eastern County STIP formula funds on
the above projects.
#8 Enter into an agreement with Palo Verde Valley on trading 2006 STIP Palo
Verde Valley Formula funds with Commercial Paper.
Trading Palo Verde Valley 2006 STIP Formula funds for Commercial
Paper will allow Palo Verde Valley the ability to continue delivering
projects on the local arterial system, which is their highest priority and
need.
#9 Program $30 million of STIP funds on the Perris Valley Line project in
exchange for local funds on the 91 HOV lane project.
The Perris Valley Line qualifies for PTA funds and programming STIP
funds will provide State participation on the project, which would be
looked upon favorably by federal agencies. Moving local funds from
the Perris Valley Line to the 91 HOV project will maintain the
Commission's funding commitment.
#10 Reprogram $3.465 million of STIP funds from the City of Riverside's local
arterial project on Van Buren Boulevard to the SR/91 Van Buren Boulevard
Interchange project as proposed by the City of Riverside.
The City of Riverside proposed the reprogramming of the Van Buren
Boulevard Widening project (from Jackson to the Santa Ana River) to
the SR 91/Van Buren Boulevard interchange project. The city will
fund the widening project with local funds.
Agenda Item 9
#11 Work with Ca!trans in programming an additional $4 million of IIP funds to
cover the cost increase on the North Main Corona Metrolink Station Parking
Structure project currently programmed in the STIP with Interregional
Improvement Program (IIP) funds.
The North Main Corona Metrolink Station Parking Structure has
experienced a significant cost increase above $15 million. The initial
cost estimate of $11 million is programmed in the STIP with IIP funds.
The remainder of the cost increase is proposed to be funded with
Section 5307 funds.
In addition to meeting previous commitments to complete funding on the 91 HOV
lane (from Adams to the 60/91 /215 interchange) and the 60/215 East Junction
Connector projects (refer to Attachment 3), the Target Scenario proposes the
deletions of local arterial projects currently programmed in the 2004 STIP. 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 (e.g. Regional Surface
Transportation Program (RSTP) and Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ))
as noted in Attachment 2. Should the Commission approve this action staff will
follow up with changing the fund sources in the Federal Transportation
Improvement Program (FTIP). Lastly, the STIP funds freed up from the deleted
local arterial projects ($16.882 million) would be reprogrammed on the 91 HOV
lane project.
Palo Verde Valley Formula funds historically have been programmed on local
arterials. It is proposed to delete one of the current STIP projects on Lovekin
Boulevard and reprogram the RIP funds on the other current STIP project on US
95/Intake Boulevard. Staff is recommending trading Palo Verde Valley Formula
funds in the amount of $1.315 million with commercial paper since the needs of
Palo Verde Valley are on the local arterials. A formal agreement will be developed
and presented to the Commission in the near future.
Given that PTA funds seem to be the most reliable fund source in the 2006 STIP,
staff reviewed existing transit/rail needs for consideration of STIP funds.
Therefore, it is recommended that we trade local funds on the Perris Valley Line
project with STIP funding so that the local funds can be used on the SR 91 HOV
project. This would also help meet the STIP programming needs of including PTA
eligible projects. Lastly, having STIP funding on the Perris Valley Line will provide
State participation, which should help secure future federal funds.
Agenda Item 9
The Target Scenario also includes working with Caltrans in programming an
additional $4 million of IIP funds for the North Main Corona Metrolink Station
Parking Structure. Caltrans programmed $11 million in the 2004 STIP as this
amount was the initial cost estimate. The parking structure is part of a bi-county
list of improvement projects proposed by Caltrans Districts 8 and 12 to alleviate
congestion on SR 91. The parking structure will address the current overflow at a
nearby park-n-ride lot by allowing an additional 500 designated parking spaces
(total planned parking structure spaces is 2,500). It is proposed to cap the
Caltrans IIP funding contribution at a total of $15 million with the remaining
balance proposed for Section 5307 funds. Construction of the parking structure is
scheduled in FY 2009-10.
Minimum Scenario
The Minimum Scenario identifies $45.5 million of new programming capacity. If
the Minimum Scenario is selected by the CTC, staff will bring back to the
Commission a revised 2006 STIP proposal for review and approval
AB 3090 Cash Reimbursements
The AB 3090 Cash Reimbursement approved for the 60/91 /215 Interchange and
corridor improvement projects in the amount of $31,324,000 ($26,625,000 are
RIP funds, and $4,699,000 are IIP funds) will be paid back in FY 2006-07. These
funds will be programmed on the SR 91 HOV project. The AB 3090 Cash
Reimbursement for FY 2003-04 Planning, Programming, and Monitoring (PPM)
funds in the amount of $166,000 will be received in FY 2007-08 and will be
reprogrammed to support future PPM activities.
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:
1) 2006 STIP Intra-County Formula for New Program Capacity
2) 2006 STIP Proposed Programming — Target Scenario
3) Funding of SR 91 HOV Lane and 60/215 East Junction Connector Projects
Agenda Item 9
ATTACHMENT 1
2006 STIP Intra-County Formula for New Program Capacity
Target Scenario (County Share period ending 2010-2011)
New capacity available for 2006 STIP programming $ 68,375,000
2004 STIP Unprogrammed County Share Balance $ 98,719,000
$ 167,094,000
2% Planning, Programming & Monitoring $ 3,341,880
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
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 Programming 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 1
2006 STIP Intra-County Formula for New Program Capacity
Minimum Scenario (County Share period ending 2007/08)
New capacity available for 2006 STIP programming $ 45,542,000
2% Planning, Programming, & Monitoring $ 910,840
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
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 New Programming Capacity $ 44,631,160 $ 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.
2006 STIP Proposed Programming - Target Scenario
Current Proiects
$ (000's)
Attachment 2
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
HOV lanes (2004 STIP deletions, see below)
$ 16,882
$ 16,882
Con
Caltrans
91
Van Buren IC (former widen. @ SA river)
$ 3,465
$ 3,465
Con
Caltrans
95
Intake Blvd Widen/Signal
$ 1,875
$ 1,875
Con
RCTC
91
AB 3090 Replacement Project, 91 HOV Ins
$ 7,349
$ 7,349
Con
Sub -total Current Projects $ 82,736 $ 4,429 $ 53,576 $ 500 $ 24,231 $ -
New Proiect Proorammin
RCTC
91
91 HOV lanes (Adams to 60/91/215 IC)
$ 91,300
$ 91,300
Con
RCTC
Perris Valley Rail Line
$ 30,000
$ 30,000
Con
CVAG
10
Bob Hope/Ramon IC (cost increase)
$ 24,508
$ 24,508
Con
CVAG
10
Date Palm Drive
$ 8,542
$ 8,542
Con
CVAG
10
Gene Autry Trail/Palm Drive
$ 8,087
$ 8,087
Con
Palo Verde Valley
Fund Trade on RCTC Project (91 HOV)
$ 1,315
$ 1,315
Con
RCTC PPM
Planning, Programming, and Monitoring
$ 3,342
$ 1,842
$ 1,000
$ 500
Con
Sub -total New Projects $ 167,094 $ 1,842 $ 25,508 $ 47,129 $ 92,615 $ -
Total Current and New Projects $ 249,830 $ 6,271 $ 79,084 $ 47,629 $ 116,846 $ -
AB 3090 Cash Reimbursements
Caltrans
91
HOV lanes, Adams to 60/91/215 IC
$ 26,625
R/W, Con
RCTC
PPM
Planning, Programming, and Monitoring
$ 166
Con
Projects Proposed to Be Deleted from STIP
Total RIP
New Funds
Program
Year
Blythe
Lovekin Blvd Rehabilitation
$ -
Local
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/
Total Deletions from STIP
$ 16,882
Proposed Funding for 91 HOV lane project (Adams to 60/91/215 Interchange)
and 60/215 East Junction Connector project
SR 91 HOV lanes
Fund Source
$ (000's)
Comment
STIP/RIP
$ 26,625
from 60/91/215 IC AB 3090 agreement
STIP/RIP
$ 16,882
2004 STIP local arterial deletions
STIP/RIP
$ 91,300
2006 STIP Western Co Formula
STIP/RIP
$
$ 7,3/19
from an HOV 01/(goon River ors 3nan reem
aml a pt
STIP/RIP
$ 1,315
trade w Palo Verde Valley
Measure A/local funds
$ 30,000
trade w Perris Valley Line
CMAQ
$ 7,000
deobligation from 60 HOV (Moreno Valley) project
CMAQ
$ 31,878
$ 24,529
SAFETEA LU
Total Cosh $
60/215 East Junction Connector
Fund Source
205,000
$ (000's)
Comment
STIP/IIP
$ 7,349
$ 8,OOo
MSHCP reprogramming
STIP/IIP
$ 23,483
AB 3090 reprogramming
CMAQ
$ 2,500
$ 1,8,19
SAFETEA LU
Total Cost $
33,332
Attachment 3