Loading...
02 February 6, 2006 Technical advisory commitee75672 • • TIME: DATE: LOCATION: TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITT MEETING AGENDA* 10:00 A.M. February 6, 2006 Banning City Hall, Civic Center, Large Conference Room, 99 East Ramsey Street, Banning, CA. Records *By request, agenda and minutes may be available in alternative format; i.e. large print, tape. COMMITTEE MEMBERS RTA Ahmad Ansari, City of Perris Dave Barakian, City of Palm Springs Bill Bayne, City of Cathedral City Tom Boyd, City of Riverside Bill Brunet, City of Blythe Duane Burk, City of Banning City of Calimesa Mike Gow, City of Hemet Mark Greenwood, City of Palm Desert Bruce Harry, City of Rancho Mirage Bill Hughes, City of Temecula George Johnson, County of Riverside Tim Jonasson, City of LaQuinta Jim Kinley, City of Murrieta Eldon Lee, City of Coachella Caltrans .District 8 Eunice Lovi, SunLine Transit Amir Modarressi, City of Indio Habib Motlagh, Cities of Canyon Lake, (Perris) and San Jacinto Les Nelson, PVVTA Craig Neustaedter, City of Moreno Valley Dan Patneaude, City of Desert Hot Springs Juan Perez, County of Riverside Amad Qattan, City of Corona Ken Seumalo, City of Lake Elsinore Ruthanne Taylor Berger, WRCOG Bill Thompson, City of Norco Allyn Waggle, CVAG Tim Wassil, City of Indian Wells John Wilder, City of Beaumont Anne Mayer, Programming/Administration Director 11.36.02 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA* *Actions may be taken on any item listed on the agenda. TIME: 10:00 A.M. DATE: February 6, 2006 LOCATION: Banning City Hall, Civic Center, Large Conference Room, 99 East Ramsey Street, Banning, CA. In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act and government Code Section 54954.2, if you need special assistance to participate in a Committee meeting, please contact Riverside County Transportation 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. SELF -INTRODUCTION 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - January 9, 2006 4. PUBLIC COMMENTS (This is for comments on items not listed on agenda. Comments relating to an item on the agenda will be taken when the item is before the Committee.) 5. 2006 STIP SUBMITTAL (Attachment) • TE PROJECT PROGRAMMING 6. TAC SUBCOMMITTEE REPORT ON PROJECT DELIVERY ISSUES 7. 2006 FTIP UPDATE 8. JANUARY 11, 2006 COMMISSION HIGHLIGHTS Technical Advisory Committee Meeting February 6, 2006 Page 2 9. OTHER BUSINESS/ANNOUNCEMENTS 10. ADJOURNMENT (The next meeting will be March 20, 2006, 10:00 A.M. in Riverside.) TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES Monday, January 9, 2006 1. Call to Order The meeting of the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) was called to order at 10:00 A.M., at Riverside County Transportation Commission, 4080 Lemon Street, 'Riverside, CA. Self -Introductions Members Present: Dave Barakian, City of Palm Springs Bill Bayne, City of Cathedral City Tom Boyd, City of Riverside Bill Brunet, City of Blythe Mike Gow, City of Hemet Mark Greenwood, City of Palm Desert Bill Hughes, City of Temecula Eldon Lee, City of Coachella Mike McCoy, RTA Habib Motlagh, Cities of Canyon Lake, (Perris) and San Jacinto Russ Napier, City of Murrieta Nader Naquib, Ca!trans District 8 Craig Neustaedter, City of Moreno Valley Kahono Oei, City of Banning Dan Patneaude, City of Desert Hot Springs Juan Perez, County of Riverside Amad Qattan, City of Corona Anne Schneider, City of Calimesa Ken Seumalo, City of Lake Elsinore Randy Viegas, City of Rancho Mirage Tim Wassil, City of Indian Wells John Wilder, City of Beaumont Others Present: Shirley Gooding, RCTC Eric Haley, RCTC Ken Lobeck, RCTC Anne Mayer, RCTC Shirley Medina, RCTC Georgiena Vivian, VRPA Technologies Technical Advisory Committee Meeting January 9, 2006 Page 2 3. Approval of Minutes No objections. 4. Public Comments There were no public comments. 5. ELECTION OF OFFICERS Tom Boyd, City of Riverside, was unanimously nominated Chairman. Dave Barakian, City of Palm Springs, was unanimously nominated Vice- Chairman. 6. RCTC ORGANIZATION RESTRUCTURE Anne Mayer, RCTC, provided RCTC's interim organization chart effective January 3 through June 30, 2006 and stated that Marilyn Williams, Director of Regional Programs, and Naty Kopenhaver, Clerk of the Board, retired effective the end of 2005. She summarized the changes, e.g., 3 open Program Manager positions - Right of Way Program Manager, Capital Projects Program Manager and an Innovative Financing Program Manager as well as 3 open Staff Analyst positions - Government Relations Staff Analyst, Rail Department Staff Analyst and Transit Staff Analyst. 7. 2006 STIP Eric Haley, RCTC, offered a positive outlook regarding Proposition 42 when the state budget is released January 10. He is not as encouraged concerning Indian gaming, and the bond package is also variable. He further stated that Riverside County and the Inland Empire as a whole should do very well under the Governor's new infrastructure bond proposal. Shirley Medina, RCTC, highlighted the removal of the local arterial projects because they tend to get delayed in the STIP when there is a financial issue at the state level. The STIP funds on the local arterial projects will be replaced with federal funds, (Surface Transportation Program funding), but there is a required 11 %2 % match. Taking these projects out of the STIP will require less (in terms of process and paperwork) from the local agencies. Regarding #4, 5, and 6 of the STIP staff report, some of the numbers will be revised. Ms. Medina summarized the STIP item indicating that the California • • • Technical Advisory Committee Meeting January 9, 2006 Page 3 Transportation Commission may revise the programming of projects. Changes made to Riverside's STIP submittal will be brought back to the Commission and TAC. PROJECT DELIVERY Anne Mayer reported that the CTC has imposed delivery monitoring on all projects going through the CTC for funding allocations. They expect that if the funds are allocated to a project, the funds are spent. A 4-month warning report is in effect whereby if the funds are not spent within the 4 months, reports will be generated regarding progress. Shestressedthe importance of accuracy regarding programming and scheduling. 9. CONGESTION MANAGEMENT PROGRAM UPDATE Shirley Medina introduced Georgiena Vivian, VRPA Technologies, who updated the TAC regarding peak hour volume traffic counts in the Coachella Valley as requested in a previous TAC meeting. She said the counts were reviewed and that CVAG counts were used. Other questions focused on I- 15 and 1-215 and Ms. Vivian provided an overview of the maps attached to the staff report. M/S/C (Perez/Qattan) to request additional studies with Caltrans data and Alessandro data, 1-15-1-215 corridor, from San Bernardino County to San Diego and return to the TAC with updated information. 10. RTIP/FTIP UPDATE Ken Lobeck, ROTC, said the 2004 RTIP will expire in October 2006. A final amendment to the 2004 TIP will be done about February 2006. He indicated that he will update HBR projects, adding the new SAFETEA-LU earmarks (e.g. Riverside grade separation, CETAP project, 5310 updates, etc.) He stated that it will take 3-4 months for the approval of this amendment. Regarding the 2006 update, he is finishing the updates and sending out TIP sheets. 11. CALTRANS LOCAL ASSISTANCE UPDATE Nader Naquib, Caltrans, indicated that Wendy Li's position has been vacant since mid -December and that it is expected that the job will be filled by mid - February. Technical Advisory Committee Meeting January 9, 2006 Page 4 He stated that Caltrans met with local agencies to review projects that are in danger of lapsing. He further stated that 95% of the projects will be safe once the agencies submit progress or a final invoice on the projects. In the second round, Caltrans still has about 45 projects to review. FHWA will be at Caltrans the 17t of January. He stressed that agencies must submit a progress or final invoice to indicate that the projects have not stopped. Suggestions were made to reconvene the Project Delivery Subcommittee and Ms. Medina indicated that she will schedule it. 12. 2005/06 OBLIGATION PLAN Shirley Medina stated that information provided on the FY 2005/06 Obligation Plan was obtained from the July milestone report that indicated which quarter of the fiscal year 2005/06 the project will move forward. She further stated that projects listed in the first quarter should have been obligated by December 30 and if not, let Ms. Medina know. The obligation plan packages should be submitted within the next 60 days for those projects that were listed under the second quarter: 13. DECEMBER 14 2005 COMMISSION HIGHLIGHTS The December 22, 2005 Commission Connection was provided. 13. OTHER BUSINESS/ANNOUNCEMENTS There were no other announcements. 14. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business for consideration by the Technical Advisory Committee, the meeting was adjourned at 11:55 A.M. The next meeting is . scheduled for February 6 2006, 10:00 A.M., Banning City. Hall, Civic Center, Large Conference Room, 99 East Ramsey Street, Banning, CA. Respectfully submitted, Shirley Medina Program Manager • • • AGENDA ITEM 5 • RIVERSIDE COUNTY 2006 STIP SUBMITTAL SUMMARY (stows) PROJECTS CS/RRENTLY PROGRAMMED L � L.__ J. -J__L_ Pro ect Totals by Mace Year Project Totals Com, onent i Agency, Project Total Prior 06.07 07.08 08-09 09-10 10-11 R/W Const E 8. P PSBE row sup con sup Comments PRIOR COMMITMENTS NOT PART OF 2006 STIP TARGET - - Caltrans, GARVEE debt (Rt 215, El Cerrito - Rt 60I910RIP,85%) 156,707 43,654 22.611 22,610 22,610 22,611 22,611 156,707 unchanged Caltrans, 1.10 Jefferson St interchange, widen OC 150 450 150 150 Move from 05/0810 08/07 Caltrans, 1-10 Indian Av interchange, widen OC, ramps 150 454 150 150 Move from 05108 to 08/07 RCTC, AB 3090 Cash Reimbursement 166 166 166 unchanged RCTC, AB 3090 Cash Reimbursement - 26.625 26,625 26,625 Unchanged O 687 627 Allocation dented. Delete project, funded with RSTP RCTC, Rt 91, Adams St-Rt 60/215, HOV Lanes 13,070 13,070 3,213 9,857 9,970 3,100 Move PsaE to MN support and RNV capital 0 400 Delete projectreplace funds with RSTP RCTC GARVEE det service for 2011-12 22,611 22,611 Unchanged Total Non STIP Target Programming 219,479 1 52,749 32.633 22,610 22, 611 45,2221 9,970 183,498 0 300 3,100 Ofl IINON-TE SUBJECT TO REPROGRAMMING IN 2006 STIP Caltrans, I-10/Jefferson St Interchange, widen OC 10,560 10.560 8,840 1,720 unchanged Caltrans, 1.10/Ramon Rd/Bob Hope IC 19,022 19,022 19,022 16,628 2,394 Move from 08707 to 07/08 Caltrans, 1.10 Indian Av, widen OC, ramps 13,112 13,112 11,520 1,592 unchanged Caltrans, 1.15 Calif Oaks/Kalmla IC Improvs 5,142 100 5.042 4, 142 100 unchanged RCTC AB 3090 Replacement, 60/215 East Jot Connectors 3,889 3-884 3,889 3,889 Move from OMB to D8110 81y1pB-,kBvel in -Blvd O 844 Delete project Blythe, US 95 Intake Blvd 1,875 1,875 1,875 Increase RIP from $1031 to $1875 0 4;385 Delete project. . 0 4554 Delete project 0 27 Delete project 0 3484 Debteproject 0 1.967 Delete project Murdeta, Rt 15. Calif Oaks/Kalmie interchange improvs 2,224 2,224 2,224 unchanged . 0 3:465 Delete project, move funds to giNan Buren IC Riverside, SR 91 Van Buren IC 3,465 3.465 3,465 Funds from Van Buren arterial project 0 2;040 Debteproject 0 840 Debate project Riverside Co, Indian Av IC, widen OC, ramps 2,000 2,000 2,000 unchanged RCTC AB 3090 Replacement, 60/215 East Jct Connectors 3,460 3-460 3,460 3,460 Move from 0710810 08/10 - O 308 Ogg 424 Delete project RCTC, PPM 1,105 105 500 500 1,105 Unchanged '"` ___ "" RCTC, Rt 91, Adams St-Rt 60/215, HOV Lanes (RIP from deleted project 16,882 10,030 6, 852 10,030 6,852 Reprogram deleted projects to SR 01/H0V lane project Total Non-TE Sub act to Re r roe rammin • 82,736 7,894 60,141 500 14,201 01 17,719 58,311 0 100 0 5, 706 1 2006 STIP NEW CAPACITY PROJECT PROGRAMMING - RCTC, Rt 91, Adams St-Rt60/215, NOV Lanes 92,615 92,615 92,615 2000 STIP New Capacity programming for Construction Caltrans, 1-10 Bob Hope/Ramon Rd IC 24.508 24,508 24,508 Adel RIP to cover recent coat increase Caltrans, 1.10 Date Palm IC - 8,542 8,542 8,542 New STIP project Caltrans, 1.10 Palm Drive/Gene Autry IC 8.087 8,087 8.087 New STIP project Perris Valley Line, Commuter Rail Extension from Riverside to Perris 30,000 30,000 30,000 New STIP project RCTC,Planning, Programming and Monitoring. 3,342 1,842 1,000 500 3,342 - Adel RIP for PPM Total New Ca•act Pro•rammin• 167,094 842 25,508 47,129 92,515 0 041*t44#1 ff 0 0 0 0fl I I RCTC, TE Reserve 18.815 5,705 4,091 3,245 3,230 2,544 18,815 TE projects will bebprogremmed through STIP Amend. - Total TE 18,815 �■ �1 Total 2006 RIP only $ 4, Total 2006 RIP Including TE - $ 48888,124 124 1 � I 1 RIVERSIDE COUNTY 2006 STIP SUBMITTAL SUMMARY The summary identifies projects that will be carried over into the 2006 STIP. Projects that are proposed for deletion are in "strike -out'. Projects with programming changes are bolded. A comment field is provided to explain the status of each project. We are proposing to delete several local arterial projects and focus our RIP funding on state highway system improvements. RCTC has approved to replace the RIP funds on the local arterials with RSTP and CMAQ funding. Prior Commitments Not Part of 2006 STIP Target — This section includes only those projects that are being carried over to the 2006 STIP, with the exception of the two projects proposed for deletion (Desert Hot Springs, Pierson Blvd and Rideshare). The SR 91 HOV project is currently programmed in the 2004 STIP for design. Our 2006 STIP submittal includes moving the $13.07 million, currently programmed in the PS&E phase, to the right-of-way phase. Non-TE Subject to Reprogramming in 2006 STIP — This section includes the AB 3090 Replacement projects "placeholders". We have identified the replacement project for both AB 3090 agreements as the 60/215 East Junction Connector project. We are proposing to reprogram funds from the Van Buren Boulevard local arterial project to the SR 91Nan Buren Interchange improvement project. The SR 91 Van Buren interchange project is new to the STIP, but is listed in this section to show the funds being moved from the local arterial to the state highway on Van Buren Boulevard. The deletion of local arterial projects frees up $16.882 million. We are proposing to reprogram these funds to the 91 HOV lane project. 2006 STIP New Capacity Project Programming — This section includes existing and "new" projects to the STIP. The existing projects listed in this section are being proposed for additional funding from our new capacity. Existing projects — We are proposing additional RIP funds on the 91 HOV land project that will complete funding for the right-of-way and construction phases. We are also adding funding to the 1-10 Bob Hope/Ramon Road Interchange as this project has experienced a sharp increase in right-of-way and construction costs. Additional funding for Planning, Programming and Monitoring are also proposed. . New STIP projects — We are proposing to add three new STIP projects. The first is the Perris Valley Line, commuter rail extension project.,This project will extend the current Metrolink service that ends in the city of Riverside easterly into .the city of Perris. This project has received "new starts" federal funding in addition to other federal and local funds. The other two new projects are interchange improvement projects along Interstate 10 in the Coachella Valley. These projects will be environmentally cleared in March 2006 and are scheduled for construction in early 2008.. TE Reserve — We are proposing to program our TE funds as a "reserve" and will amend the STIP for each TE project as they become ready for allocation. RCTC completed a call for projects for TE funding and approved a total of 18 projects. These projects are currently being reviewed by Ca!trans Headquarters for eligibility. • AGENDA ITEM 6 • A presentation will be made but there is no attachment to the agenda for item 6. • Summary Project Delivery Subcommittee Meeting The Project Delivery Subcommittee met on January 31, 2006. The purpose of the meeting was to address concerns regarding project delivery for highway and local assistance projects. The meeting was attended by the following persons: Bill Mosby, Caltrans Craig Neustaedter, city of Moreno Valley Juan Perez, County of Riverside Bill Hughes, city of Temecula Anne Mayer, RCTC Shirley Medina, RCTC The group discussed and suggested short and long-term improvements that can be implemented among the local agencies, RCTC, Caltrans, and FHWA. Some of these can be implemented relatively simply and others would require additional coordination with Caltrans District 08, Caltrans Headquarters, and FHWA. These improvements are: Improvements In Process: • Accessibility of Project Tracking Database (via Internet) • Caltrans Local Assistance Staff Retention (elevating staff levels) • Self -Help Counties "Executive Partnership" formed to discuss and recommend improvements to statewide project delivery issues Short-term improvements (6 to 12 months) • Development of Conflict Resolutions (MOUs) • Ensuring Caltrans is adequately staffed to handle the high volume of projects that Riverside County will be undertaking (pay for additional staff at Caltrans?) • Development of a "pre -qualified" consultant listing • Regular project meetings between local agency and Caltrans (RCTC staff may serve as "ombudsman") Lonq-term Improvements (1 —2 years) • NEPA Delegation (NPRM approx. May 2006) • Grandfathering of projects (don't add new requirements after project has been submitted) • End chase of "perfect" environmental document It was also discussed that implementation of the Riverside County MSHCP should significantly reduce the amount of time preparing and approving the environmental document for state highway projects. The subcommittee did not take any action on the above items. The subcommittee is seeking feedback on the suggested improvements and would like the TAC to provide any additional input or ideas on improving project delivery. • • AGENDA ITEM 7 A presentation will be made but there is no attachment to the agenda for item 7. r AGENDA ITEM 8 • A presentation will be made but there is no attachment to the agenda for item 8. • BOARD OF DIRECTORS Chairman Kelly Seyarto City of Murrieta Vice Chairman Jeff Stone County of Riverside Marion Ashley County of Riverside William Batey City of Moreno Valley Dom Betro City of Riverside i Bob Buster County of Riverside Larry Dressel City of Beaumont Frank Hall City of Norco Robin Lowe City of Hemet John Machisic City of Banning Eugene Montanez City of Corona Shenna Moqeet City of Calimesa Robert Schiffner City of Lake Elsinore Dale Stubblefield City of San Jacinto John Tavaglione County of Riverside Chuck Washington City of Temecula Roy Wilson County of Riverside Mark Yarbiough City of Perris John 7.aitz City of Canyon Lake EXECUTIVE STAFF Tom Mullen Interim Executive Director Joseph Richards Deputy Executive Director Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority January 24, 2006 Mr. Rick Bishop, Executive Director Western Riverside County Council of Governments 4080 Lemon Street, 3rd Floor Riverside, CA 92502 RE: MSHCP Component of TUMF — Freeway Interchanges. Dear Rick: WRCOG's proposed TUMF update includes a five percent set aside for MSHCP funding as mitigation for improvements financed by the fee. As proposed, the MSHCP set aside formula takes into account the construction of freeway interchanges funded by TUMF funds. It is our understanding there is a question regarding the validity of including interchanges in the calculation of the set aside, given that CALTRANS, which maintains and operates freeways, is a Permittee, and responsible for a specific mitigation program under the Plan. In other words, by including interchanges, is there a "double counting" of mitigation. The MSHCP identifies three transportation related funding sources: 1. One hundred and twenty-one million dollars from Measure A. 2. Two hundred and fifty million dollars from new roads, a portion of which is to be generated through the TUMF program. 3. To mitigate for state freeway improvements, CALTRANS, under the MSHCP Implementation Agreement, is obligated to acquire 3,000 acres (estimated at 36 million dollars) and provide an endowment for the ongoing management of the conserved land (estimated at 9.6 million dollars). The applicable freeways are illustrated and described in the MSHCP. According to Section 7 of the Plan, state freeways, including interchanges that connect to highways and local roads, are "covered activities" and improvements to these facilities are mitigated by the CALTRANS conservation and management commitment. Therefore, the MSHCP portion the TUMF update should not include mitigation for interchanges. We believe, however, there may be instances when TUMF funds are used to expand an interchange beyond the original planned configuration. In those cases, the 5% set aside would be appropriate. Let me close by stating plainly that the RCA will never "double dip." On the other hand, the agency should receive all funds intended for the implementation of the MSHCP. I hope this letter addresses the issue at hand, and please feel free to contact Joe Richards or myself if you have any questions. Sincerely, om Mull Executive Director (Interim) cc: Michelle Ouellette 408o Lemon Street, 12tl' Floor, Riverside, California, 92501 • P.O. Box 1605, Riverside, California 9z5o2-1605 Phone: (951) 955-970o • Fax: (951) 955-8873 •14'ww.wrc-remorg