Loading...
01 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 • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION www.rctc.org AGENDA* *Actions may be taken on any item listed on the agenda 9:00 a.m. Wednesday, January 11, 2006 BOARD ROOM County of Riverside Administrative Center 4080 Lemon Street, First Floor, Riverside In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act and Government Code Section 54954.2, if special assistance is needed to participate in a Commission meeting, please contact the Clerk of the Commission at (951) 787-7141. Notification of at least 48 hours prior to meeting time will assist staff in assuring that reasonable arrangements can be made to provide accessibility at the meeting. 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 3. ROLL CALL 4. PUBLIC COMMENTS (Items not listed on the agenda) 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - December 14, 2005 6. ADDITIONS/REVISIONS (The Commission may add an item to the Agenda after making a finding that there is a need to take immediate action on the item and that the item came to the attention of the Commission subsequent to the posting of the agenda. An action adding an item to the agenda requires 2/3 vote of the Commission. If there are less than 2/3 of the Commission members present, adding an item to the agenda requires a unanimous vote. Added items will be placed for discussion at the end of the agenda.) Riverside County Transportation Commission Agenda 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). •. • • • • Riverside County Transportation Commission Agenda January 11, 2006 Page 3 7C. AUTHORIZATION TO ADVERTISE FOR CONSTRUCTION BIDS FOR THE RIVERSIDE DOWNTOWN METROLINK STATION EAST SIDE PARKING LOT Page 7 Overview This item is for the Commission to authorize staff to advertise to receive bids for the •construction of the Riverside Downtown Metrolink Station East Side Parking Lot. 7D. FISCAL YEAR 2005-2006 SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN AMENDMENT FOR THE PERRIS VALLEY LINE AND RIVERSIDE - DOWNTOWN STATION Page 9 Overview This item is for the Commission to: 1) Allocate $520,538 in State Transit Assistance (STA) funds to RCTC's Commuter Rail program for additional analysis of noise and vibration impacts needed to obtain the environmental clearance and associated tasks on the Perris Valley Line; 2) Approve reprogramming $2,845 in Local Transportation Funds (LTF) from operating to capital for the Riverside -Downtown Station Parking Lot Expansion; and 3) Amend the Commuter Rail Program's FY 2005-06 Short Range Transit Plan (SRTP) to reflect these changes. 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 • AGENDA ITEM 5 MINUTES 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. • • • Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes December 14, 2005 Page 3 7D. APPROVAL OF AGREEMENT NO. 06-71-001-00 FOR ADVANCE TO THE CITY OF BLYTHE 1) Approve Agreement No. 06-71-001-00, "Agreement for Advancement of 2009 Measure "A" Local Streets and Roads Funds," to advance up to $1,500,000 of new Measure "A" funds to the City of Blythe (Blythe) utilizing proceeds from the commercial paper program; and, 2) Authorize the Chairman, pursuant to Legal Counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission. 7E. QUARTERLY INVESTMENT REPORT Receive and file the Quarterly investment Report for the quarter ended September 30, 2005. 7F. 2006 STATE TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT Receive and file the draft 2006 State Transportation Improvement Program. 7G. AWARD AGREEMENT NO. 06-15-008-00 FOR COMMUNICATIONS AND GRAPHIC DESIGN CONSULTANT SERVICES 1) Award Agreement No. 06-15-008-00 to Geographics for a three-year consultant agreement with two one-year term extension options for communications and ` graphic design services on an as needed, time and materials basis pursuant to the hourly rates stated in its proposal; and, 2) Authorize the Chairman, pursuant to Legal Counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission. 7H. TRANSTRACK: TRANSIT PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT SOFTWARE 1) Allocate $153,000 in Local Transportation Funds (LTF) to TransTrack Systems LLC (TransTrack) for the implementation of a Transit Performance Manager software application and training package; 2) Approve Agreement No.. 06-62-007-00 with TransTrack for $153,000 in LTF funds; 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 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. • • • • Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes December 14, 2005 Page 9 In talking about the tunnel, everybody is concerned about earthquake faults and the water. They have more earthquakes and water in Japan then we have here. Metropolitan Water District has built 28 miles of tunnels for the inland feeder it went under communities and through earthquake areas and it was challenging but it's possible. Then the same companies that actually dug the tunnel over in Ransom, England is doing this work for Met its there it's not even a real challenge anymore this technology- is here. So share Supervisor Stone's concern that we have to figure out a way to speed this up and make this faster and I think we should ask our staff to explore ways that we can do that and reach out it might even need special legislation on parts of it but we have to try and move this along. At this point I'd like to move for approval of this and in accordance with the staff's recommendation. I think this is really a land mark action we are about to take. Commissioner Jeff Miller: On Corridor B if we use design sequencing/design build won't that take, .will it take 10 -15 years off the time frame? Tony Rahimian: Absolutely. There are ways to reduce the initial schedule that we put up here for Corridor B. One approach will be during the preliminary engineering phase to really try to minimize the environmental impacts by this potential tunnel by minimizing that that will hopefully reduce the five (5) years that we've set aside for the environmental documentation and clearance of the project that's one area that we clearly have been very conservative in our estimation of the duration of this implementation of this project so that's one area. The second as :you :mentioned by design sequencing or design build you can reduce .the three (3) years and the (6) years that we've set aside for the final design as shown in green and the construction shown in blue. By rather.: performing those tasks in parallel rather than in series, you can reduce the time significantly so there are ways that this duration could be reduced very significantly. byagain thinking out of the box and implementing the latest technology that was mentioned is available to us now. Commissioner Ron Roberts: There are two things I'd like to bring up. The first thing is something I've talked about a couple 'times in :the past and that's not forgetting dedicated truck lanes. I've talked about that in the past: It is in our regional transportation plan it doesn't specify exactly where they are going to go. We need to continue to look at it the truck traffic is not going to get better it's going to: get worse and if we have a dedicated truck lane with all these lanes or two dedicated truck lanes thismay work for us and not against us. So don't forget that as we go through this 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 • Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes December 14, 2005 Page 19 County Transportation; Authority, Transportation Corridor Agencies; Metropolitan Water District, and other interested agencies. 5) Continue to monitor . the Cal -Nevada Super Speed Train Commission on Anaheim to Ontario Maglev alignments in the Santa Ana Canyon or alternate corridors as appropriate. - 6) Eliminate Strategic Alternative 1'B (Corridor A with the SR 55 widening) from further analysis due to high number of residential right-of-way impacts adjacent to the SR 55. 7) Eliminate from further analysis the Ortega Highway (SR 74) widening and realignment concept due to high cost and environmental impacts, and direct staff to focus on Ortega Highway operational improvements. ? Commissioner Jeff Stone stated that the 91 toll road advisory committee is "going to take up the discussion of continuing an MIS like committee that would include five members of the Commission that is scheduled in March -2006and suggested addressing the issues at this Committee. Commissioner Ashley concurred with using the MIS Committee to perform all these functions. 10. APPROVAL OF AGREEMENT 05-31-561-01, AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO FISCAL YEAR 2005-2006 BECHTEL INFRASTRUCTURE AGREEMENT NO. 05-31-561, TO PROVIDE AN ASSESSMENT ON THE COMPLETION OF THE 1989 MEASURE "A" WESTERN COUNTY HIGHWAY PROGRAM AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE rINITIAL 2009 MEASURE "A" WESTERN 'COUNTY HIGHWAY PROGRAM 10-YEAR DELIVERY PLAN Hideo Sugita; Deputy Executive Director, provided an overview of the scope and cost for the development of the 2009Measure "A" Western County Highway Program 10-Year Delivery Plan and an update the delivery status of the 1989 Measure was presented. M/S/C (Busch/Stone) to: 1) Approve Agreement No. 05-31-561-01, Amendment No. 1 to the FY 2005-06 Bechtel. Infrastructure Agreement No. ` 05-31- 561, in the amount of;$603,244 with $96,756 contingency for a total of $700,000 to ,support the development of the status and deliverability of the 1989 Measure "A" Western County Highway Program of Projects and the development of the initial 10-year delivery plan for the 2009 Measure "A" Western County Highway; program; and, 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 • AGENDA ITEM 7B • • RIVERS/DE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: January 11, 2006 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Ken Lobeck, Staff Analyst Shirley Medina, Program Manager THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Programming and Administration Director SUBJECT: Transportation Control Measure (TCM) Project Substitution STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Approve the new Corona Park -and -Ride for the City of Corona's past planned buses; and, 2► Program the Park -and -Ride Lot into Improvement Program (RTIP). BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The Transportation Control Measure (TCM) Process Lot as a suitable substitution purchase of three expansion the Regional Transportation The RTIP is the project implementation document for the SCAG region that represents the first six years of the approved Regional Transportation Plan. The RTIP contains all federally funded and regionally significant projects. The RTIP is the key conformity validation tool that allows federally funded projects to be obligated. Riverside County's portion to the current 2004 RTIP consists of over 200 projects and represents a transportation improvement investment of $2 billion over the six -year period. Projects that provide the best air conformity benefits are identified in the RTIP as TCM projects. These projects are subject to close monitoring by Federal. Highway Administration (FHWA), Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), California Air Resources Board (CARB) plus the Southern California Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD), and must show adequate progress towards delivery. TCM projects are considered to have priority funding in the RTIP and FHWA expects TCMs to be completed as programmed in the RTIP. In the event that an identified TCM project can not be implemented and delivered in a timely fashion, a suitable substitute must replace it. Agenda Item 7B 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-to-1 advantage of passenger trips savings over the three expansion buses, SCAG completed a further detailed evaluation that included the following factors: 1) Interagency consultation, 2) equivalent emission reductions, 3) geographic similarity, 4) funding, 5) implementation time frame, 6) timely implementation, and 7) legal authority for implementation. SCAG's analysis further supported that the Park -and -Ride Lot would provide significantly greater emission reductions than the three expansion buses. SCAG Approval Status The proposed Park -and -Ride Lot TCM substitution was brought before the SCAG Transportation Conformity Work Group (TCWG) as part of the Interagency Consultation requirement on December 20, 2005. TCWG members from FHWA, SCAQMD, CARB, and EPA provided a detailed critique of the Park -and -Ride Lot as a viable TCM substitution. One concern raised was the potential temporary nature that a leased Park -and- Ride Lot could provide over a dedicated constructed Park -and -Ride Lot. As an approval condition, FHWA staff asked RCTC to provide a letter of commitment to maintain and operate a Park -and -Ride Lot in the same area over future years in the event Faith Bible Church chooses not to renew their annual lease. The commitment letter will provide SCAG the final documentation to complete the Park -and -Ride Lot's TCM substitution review and approval. However, final approval for the TCM substitution will be from EPA. Assuming no further obstacles emerge, SCAG staff will present the Corona Park -and -Ride TCM substitution to their Transportation and Communications in February 2006 with Regional Council review and adoption in March 2006. The project will be added to the 2004 RTIP. Once programmed in the RTIP as a TCM, RCTC staff will provide regular monitoring updates as required by FHWA. Agenda Item 7B 6 AGENDA ITEM 7C • • RIVERS/DE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: January 11, 2006 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Bill Hughes, Bechtel Program Manager Karl Sauer, Bechtel Construction Manager THROUGH: Hideo Sugita, Deputy Executive Director SUBJECT: Authorization to Advertise for Construction Bids for the Riverside Downtown Metrolink Station East Side Parking Lot STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to authorize staff to advertise to receive bids for the construction of the Riverside Downtown Metrolink Station East Side Parking Lot. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: At its May 9, 2001 meeting, the Commission approved the establishment of an Ad Hoc Committee to address policy issues identified in the draft Station Management Plan submitted separately to the Commission at that same meeting. One of the main findings of the draft Station Management Plan was that by 2010, four out of the five, existing and proposed, Metrolink stations were forecasted to have parking deficits. In conjunction with direction from both the Commission and the newly formed Ad Hoc Committee, staff moved forward to develop plans for the construction of the new North Main Corona Metrolink Station and the expansion of the existing Riverside -Downtown and Riverside -La Sierra Metrolink commuter rail stations. The new North Main Corona Station can accommodate approximately 625 vehicles. The Riverside -La Sierra Metrolink Station has been expanded from approximately 350 parking spaces to approximately 1000 parking spaces. The Riverside -Downtown station has been initially expanded from approximately 700 parking spaces to approximately 825 parking spaces, with the construction of the new Vine Street parking lot, across from the main parking lot. For the past year, staff has been working with Engineering Resources, under contract with the Commission, to develop the plans and gain approval from the City of Riverside, for the new Riverside -Downtown Metrolink Station East Side Parking Lot, located on Commerce Street, between 9' and l it Streets, in the City of Riverside. The new parking lot will accommodate approximately 325 vehicles. The plans are in the initial stage of review and approval by the City of Riverside. It is anticipated that the plans will be ready to advertise for receipt of construction bids by the end of January or early February of 2006. The engineer's estimate for this work is between $1,450,000 and $1,650,000. Agenda Item 7C 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 • 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: Fiscal Year 2005-2006 Short Range Transit Plan Amendment for the Perris Valley Line and Riverside -Downtown Station STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Allocate $520,538 in State Transit Assistance (STA) funds to RCTC's Commuter Rail program for additional analysis of noise and vibration impacts needed to obtain the environmental clearance and associated tasks on the Perris Valley Line; 2) Approve reprogramming $2,845 in Local Transportation Funds (LTF) from operating to capital for the Riverside -Downtown Station Parking Lot Expansion; and, 3) Amend the Commuter Rail Program's FY 2005-06 Short Range Transit Plan (SRTP) to reflect these changes. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The Commuter Rail Program is requesting approval to amend its FY 2005-06 Short Range Transit Plan as follows: 1) Perris Valley Line: An additional STA allocation of $520,538 is being requested to fund the completion of the environmental document, pipeline risk assessment and Extra Work Tasks (i.e. Alessandro Station site concept) for this phase of the project; and, 2) Riverside -Downtown Station Parking Expansion on Vine Street: This project was originally approved in the FY 2001-02 SRTP and has resulted in the addition of 120 new surface parking spaces. Staff is requesting approval to reprogram $2,845 in excess capital funds - available in the commuter rail budget -to close out the design and construction costs for this project. Agenda Item 7D 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 • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMM/SS/ON DATE: January 11, 2006 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Tanya Love, Program Manager THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: RTA's Request for Allocation of Local Transportation Funds and Fiscal Year 2005-2006 Short Range Transit Plan Amendment STAFF RECOMMENDATION: 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, 31 Amend RTA's FY 2005-06 Short Range Transit Plan to reflect service . changes. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: In May, 2005, RTA's Board of Directors adopted the FY 2005-06 operating and capital budget of $42,073,089 based on the agency's Short Range Transit Plan (SRTP). The budget supported RTA's goals of increased ridership, reduction of, job related injuries, excellent customer service and cost reduction through improved efficiencies. It also reflected'a strategy for conservative service growth and future bus service planning, while being sensitive to forecasted fiscal constraints. RTA's FY 2005-06 budget provided resources to support a five percent increase in revenue service hours and a six percent increase in revenue services" miles over FY 2004-05 service level projections. A major feature of the planned services was the implementation of Route 1 limited - the precursor to the Bus Rapid Transit initiative on the Magnolia Corridor. Other service increases were also planned for connections on feeder routes. Implementation of these service changes was contingent upon the sustainability of service in future fiscal years. Sustainability was "based in part on increased farebox revenues that were projected as a result of RTA's fare modification implemented in April 2005. Agenda Item 7F 12 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 • $ 1,710,362 ($ 1,521,880) $ 188,482 Total additional funds required Less excess operating funds identified in RTA's 6/30/05 financial audit Additional allocation required Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: N/A Year: FY 2005-06 Amount: $188,482 Source of Funds: Local Transportation Funds Budget Adjustment: N/A GLA No.: 601 62 86101 P2210 Fiscal Procedures Approved: \14,44,4,1 Date: 12/21 /2005 Attachment: RTA Planned Services Agenda Item 7F 14 • Riverside Transit Agency Comparative. Statistics: FY 2005/06 Adopted vs. Midyear Revisions Non -implementation (bv Route) of Planned Services Unlinked Passengers Revenue Hours Revenue Mlles Fare Revenue (ES) Operating Expenses (SS) Midyearto ear Midyear Midyear. Midyear Route Adopted. Revision Change Adopted Revision Change Adopted Revision Change Adopted Revision Change Adopted Revision Change 1 Limited 147,233 - (147,233) 5,077 - (5,077) 127.388 - (127,388) 151,463 (151,463) 412,599 -- (412,599) 10 338,685 282,556 (56.129) 17.845 15,138 (2.709) 226,882 195,150 (31,732) 327,745 240,589 (87,156) 1,450,232 1,355,018 (95,214) 13 362,188 297,802 (64,386) 17,181 14,557 (2,624) 206,347 199,800 (6,547) 316,661 247,781 (68,880) 1,396,270 1,303,185 (93.085) 15 568,174 467,955 (100,219) 23,148 19,185 (3,963) 260,508 228,614 (31,894) 536.184 418,747 (117.437) 1,881.198 1,717,496 (163.702) 23' 70,672 63,843 (7,029) 15,119 13,401 (1,718) 240,259 211,871 (28,388) 75,484 58,041 (17.443) 749,142 744,120 (5,022) 24' 53,674 47,533 (6,141) 11.145 9,728 (1.417) 154,216 133,584 (20,632) 64,227 43,571 (20,656) 552.232 484,796 (67,436) 49 355,874 296,575 (59.299) 12,756 10,836 (1,920) 187,481 182,895 (4,586) 296,944 241,327 (55,617) 1,036,659 970,070 (66,585) 74 44,227 35,991 (8,2313) 7,769 6,266 (1,503) 210,966 171,363 (39,603) 35,426 35,897 471 555.637 473,651 (81,986) 79 40,108 33,424 (6,684) 7,913 6,381 (1,532) 219.889 177,330 (42,559) 30,480 29,667 (813) 566,015 458,252 (107,763) TOTAL 1,980,836 1,526,479 (455,357) 117,953 95,490 (22,463) 1,833,936 1,500,607 (333,329) 1,834,614 1,315,620 (515,994) 8,599,984 7,506,588 (1,093,396) 'Routes 23 and 24 will continue. to provide the planned tripper service to Murdeta and Temecula Valley High School 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 • • Riverside Transit Agency FY 2005/06 Adopted vs. Midyear Revision: Dial•A-Ride Services Route Banning/Beaumont Calimesa Lake Elsinore Grand Terrace Hemet & Homeland Jurupa Moreno Valley Murrleta Norco Perris Riverside Sun City Taxicab TOTAL • Unlinked Passengers Revenue Hours Revenue Miles Fare Revenue($$) Operating Expenses OE) Midyear Midyear Midyear Midyear Midyear Adopted Revision Change Adopted Revision Change Adopted Revision Change Adopted Revision Change Adopted Revision Change , 124 124 0 103 103 0 1,698 1,698 0 215 518 303 4,540 3,427 (1,113) 147 141 \ (6) 90 90 0 1,556 1,556 0 312 489 177 3,963 3.935 (28) 15,299 15,424 125 9,761 9,761 0 156,105 156,105 0 26,413 35,467 9,054 431,810 432,858 1,048 2,623 2,710 87 1,700 1,700 0 27,209 27,209 0 6,578 6,876 298 75,197 80,847 5,650 44,823 45,934 1,111 28,295 28,295 0 450,530 450,530 0 75,874 113,111 37,237 1,251,750 1,273,643 21,893 10,464 10,385 (79) 7,274 7,274 0 115,318 115,318 0 19,076 26,816 7,740 321,781 309,051 (12,730) 32,339 33,343 1,004 20,808 20,808 0 331,102 331,102- 0 61,432 74,004 12,572 920.540 931,471 10,931 15,830 16,252 422 10,746 10,746 0 171,538 171,538 0 31,063 41,323 10,260 475,415 478,623 3,208 14,706 15,210 504 10,276 10,276 0 163,034 163,034 0 30,395 42,311 11,916 454,612 459,831 5,219 19,969 20.470 501 12,846 12,846 0 204,823 204,823 0 39.746 51,723 11.977 568.309 587,408 19,099 35,374 36,192 818 23,393 23,393 0 373,606 373,606 0 68.761 89,468 20,707 1,034,882 1,043,998 9,116 10,783 10,992 209 6,826 6,826 0 108,606 108,606 0 22,196 26,084 3,888 301.979 333,712 31,733 23,931 19,184 (4,747) 7,824 7,824 0 242,856 242,856 0 15,508 36,628 21,120 553,937 474,872 (79,065) 226.412 226,361 (51) 139,942 139,942 0 2.347,980 2,347,981 0 397,569 544,818 147,249 6,398,715 6,413,676 14,961 GRAND TOTAL 7,922,935 7,381,949 (540,986) 638,250 615,787 (22,463) 10,252,295 9,918,965 (333,331) 7,875,823 7,220,451 (655,372) 42,073,089 43,167,763 1,094,674 Decrease In Passengers -6.83% Decrease in Revenue Hours -3.52% Decrease in Revenue Miles -3.25% Decrease in Fare Revenue -8.32% Increase In Operating Costs 2.60% 17 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 • AGENDA ITEM 7H • RIVERS/DE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: January 11, 2006 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Jerry Rivera, Program Manager THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Programming and Administration Director SUBJECT: Fiscal Year 2005-2010 Measure "A" Five Year Capital Improvement Plan for Local Streets and Roads for the City of Coachella STAFF RECOMMENDATION.. 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. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The Measure "A" Ordinance requires each recipient of local streets and roads monies to annually provide to the Commission a five-year plan on how those funds are to be expended in order to receive its Measure "A" disbursements. In addition, the Cities in the Coachella Valley and the County (representing the unincorporated area of the Eastern County) must be participating in CVAG's Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) program. The agencies are required to submit the annual certification of Maintenance of Effort (MOE) along with documentation supporting the calculation. On March 31, 2005, RCTC staff provided the local agencies with Measure "A" revenue projections for local streets and roads to assist them in preparation of the required Five -Year Capital Improvement Plan (CIP). The agencies were asked to submit their plans by June 15, 2005 for submission to the Commission on July 13, 2005. The required Five -Year Plan, MOE certification and supporting documentation have been received from the City of Coachella for FY 2005-09 and FY 2006-10. The City of Coachella had not submitted its FY 2005-09 Measure "A" Five -Year Plan required in the prior year and, therefore, its Measure "A" funds for local streets and roads have been held on its behalf in the Commission's funds. Attachment: Measure "A" Capital Improvement Plans for City of Coachella Agenda Item 7H 19 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 • • DRAFT UDPATE G. Seek a New Starts full funding grant agreement for the Perris Valley Line extension of Metrolink via the Commission -owned San Jacinto Branch Line. H. Support local agencies seeking federal transportation funding in a coordinated manner in order to maximize project funding from Federal legislation. 2. Protect and enhance flexibility in use of transportation revenue. Formatted: Indent: Left: 0.5" 1 A. Support funding allocations for the "Small Starts" category within the Deleted: the proposed new highway authorization bill for projects seeking less than $100 million to enhance the opportunities for funding of the Perris Valley Line extension project. B. Support tax benefits and/or incentives for transportation demand management programs and alternative fuel programs to promote the use of alternate modes of transportation. C. Support increased federal funding for Alameda Corridor East improvements with a special emphasis on ensuring funding for Riverside County rail grade separations. D. Support legislation that ensures coordination of transportation and social service agency funding (i.e. Departments of Aging, Rehabilitation, and Welfare). E. Support legislative or administrative policies that promote a "regional" approach to airport development and usage of March Air Reserve Base, Southern California Logistics, Palm Springs International Airport, San Bernardino International, and Ontario International airports. 3. Reduce or eliminate costly and duplicative administrative and regulatory requirements. A. Support administrative or legislative action to ensure consistency among the Federal congestion management and the State's Congestion Management Program requirements. B. Monitor market -based pricing measures regarding their effectiveness to relieve traffic congestion, improve air quality and/or fund transportation alternatives. 27 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 • • • 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: Status Report on the Mid County Parkway STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to receive and file a status report on the Mid County Parkway (MCP) project. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Update on Alternatives In previous updates, staff has shared the numerous technical, operational, and environmental issues encountered with two of the alternatives near the Lake Mathews and Lake Perris Dams. Staff has been working with the federal and state partners to receive the needed approval to drop these two alternatives from further consideration. Staff has received written concurrence from the federal resource agencies to modify the slate of a►ternatives which includes dropping the parkway alignments north of Lake Mathews and next to Lake Perris dam and adding the new Far South alignment and the Perris Drain and San Jacinto South design variations. However, the City of Perris still has a resolution designating the alignment in front of the Lake Perris dam as its locally preferred alternative. RCTC is discussing with city staff the possibility of removing their designation of the North Perris Alternative as their locally preferred alternative since the problems with the dam preclude a parkway alignment in this area. Staff understands the Perris City Council will take this under discussion in late January. RCTC will hold off on officially removing this segment of the North Perris alternative pending Council action. RCTC is working with the City of Perris and Caltrans to address the City's concerns, within Caltrans design criteria, on access to the Mid County Parkway and the 1-215 at Placentia Street and Perris Boulevard. Agenda Item 8 29 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 • AGENDA ITEM 9 • • 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 PLANS AND PROGRAMS COMMITTEE AND 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 Ca!trans 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 I-10 Interchanges at Bob Hope/Ramon Road, Gene Autry Trail/Palm Drive, and Date Palm Drive; Agenda Item 9 31 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 Maintain the Commission's commitment to fund the SR 91 HOV lane project by programming $7.349 million of STIP funds from the AB 3090 agreements on SR 60 and the SR 91/Green River Interchange projects to the SR 91 HOV 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 HP funds from the MSHCP to the 60/215 East Junction since the 60/215 East Junction is eligible for 1IP 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 35 #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 • • • 2006 STIP Intra-County Formula for New Program Capacity Target Scenario (County Share period ending 2010-2011) New capacity available for 2006 STIP programming 2004 STIP Unprogrammed County Share Balance 2% Planning, Programming & Monitoring Formula Breakdown: Western County 74.45% $ Coachella Valley 24.76% $ Palo Verde Valley 0.79% $ Total PPM Available $ STIP Funds Available for New Program Capacity Formula Breakdown: Western County 74.45% $ Coachella Valley 24.76% $ Palo Verde Valley 0.79% $ Total New Programming Capacity $ 2,488,030 827,449 26,401 3,341,880 121,913,453 40,545,025 1,293,642 163,752,120 $ 68,375,000 $ 96,719,000 $ 167,094,000 $ 3,341,880 `2004 STIP Adjustment $ (612,743) $ $ 591,875 $ $ 20,868 $ 163,752,120 121,300,710 41,136,900 1,314,510 163,752,120 ATTACHMENT 1 "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. 38 • • • 2006 STIP Intra-County Formula for New Program Capacity Minimum Scenario (County Share period ending 2007/08) New capacity available for 2006 STIP programming 2% Planning, Programming, & Monitoring Formula Breakdown: Western County 74.45% $ Coachella Valley 24.76% $ Palo Verde Valley 0.79% $ Total PPM Available $ Unprogrammed Share for Project Programming: Formula Breakdown: Western County 74.45% $ Coachella Valley 24.76% $ Palo Verde Valley 0.79% $ Total New Programming Capacity $ 678,120 225,524 7,196 910,840 *2004 STIP Adjustment 33,227,899 $ 11,050,675 $ 352,586 $ 44,631,160 $ 45,542,000 $ 910,840 (612,743) $ 591,875 $ 20,868 $ 44,631,160 32,615,156 11,642, 550 373,454 44,631,160 ATTACHMENT 1 '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. 39 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 • • • 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 $ 7,349 from 60 HOV and 91/Green River AB 3090 agreements 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 $ 24,529 SAFETEA LU Total Cosh $ 60/215 East Junction Connector Fund Source 205,000 $ (000's Comment STIP/IIP $ 8,000 MSHCP reprogramming STIP/IIP $ 23,483 AB 3090 reprogramming CMAQ $ 1,849 SAFETEA LU Total Cost 33,332 41 Attachment 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