Loading...
03 March 27, 2006 Plans and Programs76237 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMM/SS/ON TIME: DATE: LOCATION: PLANS AND PROGRAMS COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 12:30 P.M. March 27, 2006 Board Chambers, 1" Floor County of Riverside Administrative Center 4080 Lemon Street, Riverside RECORDS *** COMMITTEE MEMBERS *** Daryl Busch/Mark Yarbrough, City of Perris, Chairman Mary Roche/Robert Bernheimer, City of Indian Wells, Vice Chairman John Chlebnik/Shenna Moqeet/ Bill Davis, City of Calimesa Mary Craton/John Zaitz, City of Canyon Lake Jeff Miller/Karen Spiegel, City of Corona Robin Lowe/Lori Van Arsdale, City of Hemet Michael H. Wilson/Gene Gilbert, City of Indio Frank West/Charles White, City of Moreno Valley Frank Hall/Harvey Sullivan, City of Norco Dick Kelly/Robert Spiegel, City of Palm Desert Ronald Oden/Ginny Foat, City of Palm Springs Ron Roberts/Jeff Comerchero, City of Temecula Bob Buster, County of Riverside, District I Roy Wilson, County of Riverside, District IV *** STAFF *** Eric Haley, Executive Director Cathy Bechtel, Project Delivery Director *** AREAS OF RESPONSIBILITY *** State Transportation Improvement Program Regional Transportation Improvement Program New Corridors Intermodal Programs (Transit, Rail, Rideshare) Air Quality and Clean Fuels Regional Agencies, Regional Planning Intelligent Transportation System Planning and Programs Congestion Management Program The Committee welcomes comments. if you wish to provide comments to the Committee, please complete and submit a Testimony Card to the Clerk of the Board. 11.36.15 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION PLANS AND PROGRAMS COMMITTEE www.rctc.org AGENDA* *Actions may be taken on any item listed on the agenda 12:30 P.M. Monday, March 27, 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 you need special assistance to participate in a Committee meeting, please contact the Clerk of the Commission at (951) 787-7141. Notification of at least 48 hours prior to meeting time will assist staff in assuring that reasonable arrangements can be made to provide accessibility at the meeting. 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL 3. PUBLIC COMMENTS 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 5. ADDITIONS/REVISIONS (The Committee may add an item to the Agenda after making a finding that there is a need to take immediate action on the item and that the item came to the attention of the Committee subsequent to the posting of the agenda. An action adding an item to the agenda requires 2/3 vote of the Committee. if there are less than 2/3 of the Committee members present, adding an item to the agenda requires a unanimous vote. Added items will be placed for discussion at the end of the agenda.) • Plans and Programs Committee Agenda March 27, 2006 Page 2 6. CONSENT CALENDAR - All matters on the Consent Calendar will be approved in a single motion unless a Commissioner(s) requests separate action on specific item(s). Items pulled from the Consent Calendar will be placed for discussion at the end of the agenda. 6A. 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 Pg. 1 Overview This item is for the Committee to: 1) Allocate $21,844 in Local Transportation Funds (LTF) to SunLine Transit Agency as an additional 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; 3) Amend SunLine's Short Range Transit Plan (SRTP) to reflect these changes; and 4) Forward to the Commission for final action. 6B. COMMUTER RAIL PROGRAM UPDATE Overview This item is for the Committee to: Pg. 3 1) Receive and file the Commuter Rail Program Update as an information item, and 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. • • • Plans and Programs Committee Agenda March 27, 2006 Page 3 7. AWARD OF ALAMEDA CORRIDOR EAST (ACE) SAFETEA-LU EARMARK Pg. 8 Overview This item is for the Committee to: 1) Allocate $21 Million of the $31.25 Million of RCTC SAFETEA-LU ACE Earmark funds as presented in Table A which represents the amount requested by the local agencies; 2) Condition the allocation of $6 Million to the city of Riverside for Jurupa Avenue contingent upon the reallocation of $6 Million in Local Funds towards the design and construction of other railroad grade separation projects in their city; 3) Authorize a 10-year loan from the commercial Paper Program for up to $1.5 Million for the Sunset Avenue Grade Separation Project which represents the maximum Commercial Paper amount available to the city of Banning; 4) Designate the remaining unprogrammed balance of $10.25 Million for construction funding for a Tier 1 or Tier 2 crossing(s) to be made available on a rolling "first come/first serve" basis; and 5) Forward to the Commission for final action. 8. CITY OF RIVERSIDE JURUPA AVENUE GRADE SEPARATION CPUC SECTION 190 10% LOCAL MATCH REQUEST Overview This item is for the Committee to: Pg. 13 1) Allocate $500,000 in available Rail Local Transportation Funds to provide a non-federal match to the city of Riverside for the Jurupa Avenue Grade Separation Project, and 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. Plans and Programs Committee Agenda March 27, 2006 Page 4 9. CALIFORNIA STATE RAIL PLAN 2006/06 TO 2015/16: LOS ANGELES TO INDIO (COACHELLA VALLEY) Overview This item is for the Committee to: Pg. 15 1), Endorse the summary of the California State. Rail Plan as it relates to intercity rail service to and through the Pass and the Coachella Valley areas, 2) • Formally request that the Draft California State Rail Plan amend the section on Potential New Service for the Los Angeles to Indio route to include a proposed train station in the Pass Area, (Banning or Beaumont), 3) Approve a Resolution of Support for the Los Angeles to Indio service and request adoption by the local cities; and 4) Forward to the Commission for final action. 10. FY 2006/07 FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION'S SECTION 5310 PROGRAM Pg. 31 Overview This item is for the Committee to: 1) Adopt the FY 2006/07 Federal Transit Administration's Section 5310 Riverside County project rankings as recommended by the Local Review Committee; 2) Include the projects in the Regional Transportation Improvement Plan; 3) Certify by Resolution No. 06-003 that the projects are consistent with the local area regional transportation plan; and 4) Forward to the Commission for final action. Plans and Programs Committee Agenda March 27, 2006 Page 5 11. AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO THE SR 91 COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT #08-1152 IRCTC #05-31-527) BETWEEN CALTRANS AND THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION TO PREPARE PROJECT APPROVAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTS FOR THE SR 91 HOV LANE PROJECT (ADAMS TO 60/91/215 IC) Pg. 36 Overview This item is for the Committee to: 1) Approve Agreement No. 05-31-527, Amendment No. 2, to the SR 91 Cooperative Agreement No. 8-1152 to increase the Caltrans oversight costs by $100,000 that will be funded from the current Traffic Congestion Relief allocation; 2) Authorize the Executive Director to execute the Amendment No. 2 subject to legal counsel review; and 3) Forward to the Commission for final action. 12. COMMISSIONERS / STAFF REPORT Overview This item provides the opportunity for the Commissioners and staff to report on attended and upcoming meetings/conferences and issues related to Commission activities. 13. ADJOURNMENT The next Plans and Programs Committee meeting is scheduled to be held at 12:30 P.M., Monday, April 24, 2006, Board Chambers, 1st Floor, County Administrative Center, 4080 Lemon Street, Riverside. ATTENDANCE ROSTER PLANS AND PROGRAMS COMMITTEE MEETING MONDAY, MARCH 27, 2006 — 1:00 P.M. 1� I t,Oreo - 'e'" I c 3? NA 0�14_1--a J CLE cni NA\ e t-{ q, L- Li) Wed REPRESE G TELEPHONE OR E-MAIL /2c2.-1-49 3/9 = A/oRG 0 �} 1im Oeset,-t— ECG cm- ��e.:,-, Ye/4/ Cam,,-7G -1 � yr CA -Li MESA `1g-Im, )41'( n --g' (957) ?ss--�./90 eijoo)3q�a4 y /3- 3 ov 6 ��n , 323--e-2Oa MINUTES • RIVERS/DE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMM/SS/ON PLANS AND PROGRAMS COMMITTEE Monday, January 23, 2006 MINUTES 1. CALL TO ORDER The meeting of the Plans and Programs Committee was called to order by Chair Michael Wilson at 1:13 p.m., in the Board Room at the County of Riverside Administrative Center, 4080 Lemon Street, First Floor, Riverside, California, 92501. 2. ROLL CALL Members/Alternates Present Daryl Busch Bob Buster John Chlebnik Mary Craton Frank Hall Dick Kelly Ronald Oden Ron Roberts Mary Roche Frank West Michael Wilson Roy Wilson Members Absent Robin Lowe Jeff Miller 3. PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no requests from the public to speak. 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES — November 28, 2005 M/S/C (Busch/West) to approve the November 28, 2005 minutes as submitted. Abstain: Buster, Chlebnik, and Oden • Plans and Programs Committee Minutes January 23, 2006 Page 2 5. ADDITIONS/REVISIONS There were no additions or revision to the Agenda. 6. PRESENTATION ON CAJALCO ROAD IMPROVEMENTS George Johnson, Riverside County Transportation Director, presented an update of Riverside County's (County) planned safety and pavement improvements on Cajalco Road between the 1-15 and 1-215 freeways noting traffic volumes and accident rates. He recommended that the RCTC, County and WRCOG staffs work together to develop a funding strategy and schedule to program the three stages of Cajalco Road and present to the Committee at a future date. Eric Haley, Executive Director, stated that RCTC staff is more than willing to work with the County to map out potential funding packages. Commissioner Bob Buster expressed appreciation for the Cajalco Road update and suggested that the map be updated to reflect that Washington Street connects southerly of Van Buren Boulevard and to Harley John Road near Scottsdale Road. He requested a review of the possibility of alternate access from Cajalco Road or the far south alternative to the County's landfill to provide more efficient access for mid county areas. He then asked if any of these improvements need specific coordination with the Mid County Parkway project far south alternative and where the far south alternative connects to Cajalco Road. Cathy Bechtel responded that if the far south alignment was selected as the locally preferred alternative, it would connect with Cajalco Road at the southwest area of Lake Mathews. She also indicated that there are opportunities for Cajalco Road improvements to move forward in the short run and noted that monthly meetings are held with the County to ensure coordination. In response to Commissioner Buster's concern regarding environmental constraints that would impact the straightening of sharper curves around Lake Mathews area and expansion to four lanes, George Johnson responded that in the Multi Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP), Cajalco Road is shown as a general plan road with coverage for four lanes south of Lake Mathews, noting potential challenges with the Metropolitan Water District's habitat conservation area. Plans and Programs Committee Minutes January 23, 2006 Page 3 In response to Commissioner Daryl Busch's request for additional detail on the heavier traffic flow at the 1-215 side of Cajalco Road compared to the 1-15 side, George Johnson responded that traffic counts stopped at Temescal Canyon Road. Commercial development between Temescal Canyon Road and 1-15 would result in higher traffic counts for the 1-15 side. Higher traffic volumes in the Mead Valley area are due to the concentration of existing development. Also, traffic splits at El Sobrante and Cajalco Roads, reducing the traffic volumes for the 1-15 side. Cathy Bechtel added that for the Mid County Parkway traffic volume forecast for 2035, the area with the highest projected traffic volumes is the area from Perris to just east of El Sobrante Road. 7. RIVERSIDE TRANSIT AGENCY'S REQUEST FOR LOCAL TRANSPORTATION FUNDS FOR CAPITAL PROJECTS Tanya Love, Program Manager, presented Riverside Transit Agency's request to reprogram funds for the purchase of capital equipment. M/S/C (Oden/Craton) to: 1) Approve the Riverside Transit Agency's (RTA) request to reprogram federal and local funds for the purchase of capital equipment; 2) Allocate $111,589 in Local Transportation Funds (LTF) reserve funds as the local match to the federal funding contingent upon the Federal Transit Administration's (FTA) approval to reprogram the federal funds; 3) Amend RTA's Short Range Transit Plan to include the capital projects (once approved by FTA); and 4) Forward to the Commission for final action. 8. REQUEST FROM EXCEED FOR MEASURE A SPECIALIZED TRANSIT FUNDS AS MATCH FOR FY 2002/03 AND FY 2003/04 SECTION 5310 PROGRAM Tanya Love provided a brief overview of the transit assistance provided by Exceed and the request for allocation of the Measure A specialized transit funds. • Plans and Programs Committee Minutes January 23, 2006 Page 4 M/S/C (Busch/Oden) to: 1) Allocate $91,600 in Measure A Specialized Transit Funds to Exceed to provide the required local match for the purchase of 10 vehicles; 2) Approve Agreement No. 06-26-015-00 with Exceed for $91,600 in Measure A Specialized Transit Funds available in western Riverside County; 3) Authorize the Chairman, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission; and 4) Forward to the Commission for final action. 9. RIVERSIDE TRANSIT AGENCY'S REQUEST FOR LOCAL TRANSPORTATION FUNDS PENDING RECEIPT OF FY 2005/06 SECTION 5307 FUNDS Tanya Love presented Riverside Transit Agency's (RTA) request for allocation of Local Transportation Fund (LTF) funds pending receipt of FY 2005/06 Section 5307 funds. M/S/C (Craton/Oden) to: 1) Allocate $4,800,000 in Local Transportation Funds (LTF) to the Riverside Transit Agency (RTA) pending receipt of FY 2005/06 Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Section 5307 funds; 2► Approve the reimbursement of the $4,800,000 in funding upon RTA's receipt of the federal funding; and 3) Forward to the Commission for final action. 10. WRCOG'S TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT STUDY: REQUEST FOR FUNDING PARTICIPATION Tanya Love presented RTA's request for allocation of an additional $1.2,500 in LTF funds as its contribution to expand the Western Riverside Council of Governments' (WRCOG) scope of work to study transit oriented development as well as a similar allocation as RCTC's contribution. • • Plans and Programs Committee Minutes January 23, 2006 Page 5 M/S/C (Busch/Buster) to: 1) Allocate an additional $12,500 in Local Transportation Funds (LTF) to the Riverside Transit Agency (RTA) to be used as its contribution to expand the Western Riverside Council of Governments' scope of work to study transit oriented development and amend RTA's FY 2005/06 Short Range Transit Plan to reflect this change; 2) Allocate $12,500 in LTF Planning Funds to WRCOG as RCTC's contribution towards the transit oriented development study; and 3) Forward to the Commission for final action. 11. COMMUTER RAIL PROGRAM UPDATE M/S/C (Roberts/West) to: 1) Receive and file the Commuter Rail Program Update as an information item; and 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. 12. ELECTION OF OFFICERS Chair Michael Wilson opened the nominations for the 2006 Plans and Programs Committee Officers. Commissioner Ron Roberts nominated Commissioner Busch as Chair. M/S/C (Roberts/West) to elect Commissioner Daryl Busch as the Committee's Chair for 2006. Commissioner Frank Hall nominated Commissioner Mary Roche as Vice Chair of the 2006 Plans and Programs Committee. M/S/C IHall/Oden) to elect Commissioner Mary Roche as the Committee's Vice Chair for 2006. 13. COMMISSIONERS / STAFF REPORT There were no reports from Commissioners or staff. Plans and Programs Committee Minutes January 23, 2006 Page 6 14. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business for consideration by the Plans and Programs Committee, the meeting adjourned at 1:43 p.m. Respectfully submitted, H�,0\z„ Jennifer Harmon Acting Clerk of the Board AGENDA ITEM 6A • • RIVERS/DE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMM/SS/ON DATE: March 27, 2006 TO: Plans and Programs Committee FROM: Tanya Love, Program Manager THROUGH: Stephanie Wiggins, Regional Programs 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 Committee to: 1) Allocate $21,844 in Local Transportation Funds (LTF) to SunLine Transit Agency as an additional 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; 3) Amend SunLine's Short Range Transit Plan (SRTP) to reflect these changes; and 4) Forward to the Commission for final action. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: At the January 2006 Commission meeting, SunLine Transit Agency was approved to receive $87,379 in LTF funds as the local match to $436,894 in FTA Section 5309 funds to expand the Clean Fuels Mall and Hydrogen Infrastructure Facility at its Thousand Palms facility. Subsequent to that action, SunLine staff submitted the grant application to the FTA; however, they were recently notified that the local match was insufficient. Based on further discussions with FTA, it has been determined that an additional $21,844 in funding is needed. There are adequate LTF funds available in the Coachella Valley apportionment area to meet this request. 1 IF AGENDA ITEM 6B • I • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: March 27, 2006 TO: Plans and Programs Committee FROM: Sheldon Peterson, Rail Programs Manager THROUGH: Stephanie Wiggins, Regional Programs Director SUBJECT: Commuter Rail Program Update STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Committee to: 1) Receive and file the Commuter Rail Program Update as an information item, and 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Riverside Line 5,200 5,000 4,800 4,600 a. 4,400 4,200 0 4,000 3,800 3,600 3,400 3,200 3,000 Passenger Trips Riverside Line o �cp Q`oh a�ph J o Jp oh ��h G�ph o ph �h ono Ago .0 coo O � O� ��S Qua Month Passenger trips on Metrolink's Riverside Line for the month of February averaged 3,111 which is down 1,407 (-31 %) from the month of January. The Line averaged an overall decrease of (-32%) from a year ago February 2005. This was due to the extensive Union Pacific track restoration project and most of the riders still utilized Metrolink on either the 91 Line or San Bernardino Lines. 3 100 a� 95 w 90 85 80 a 75 70 On Time Performance (95% Goal) Riverside Line e,) ph o`' o' 0(° oh o0 oh oh 0 oo so �a� P`a ��� Q ��tf oo�" �o3 06) a\ peso Month February on -time performance averaged 83% inbound (+7% from January) and 67% outbound (-9% from January). There were 57 delays greater than 5 minutes during the month of February. The following were the primary causes: Signals/Track/MOW Dispatching Mechanical Other Riverside Line On Time Performance Follow Up The Union Pacific major track replacement program has significantly impacted train service on the Riverside Line in February and March causing a temporary migration in ridership to other routes and a drop in on time performance. Train service was disrupted between Riverside and Los Angeles for about 20 service days over the two months. Metrolink's plan to accommodate the passengers with bus bridges and additional cars on parallel service along the 91 Line was successful which helped to minimize disruption for the passengers. The bus connections carried only a handful of riders and most people drove to alternative stations. The on time performance was poor for March at 75% and on one day there were significant delays of up to two hours due to the UP congestion and track work. Metrolink's Quality Service Pledge provided compensation for those riders who endured the multiple hour delay. Metrolink will also discount future monthly passes for Riverside Line users once the project is complete. 4 • • Inland Empire -Orange County Line 4,600 4,400 4,200 a_ it 4,000 0 3,800 at 3,600 3,400 3,200 Passenger Trips Inland Empire Orange County Line oh o`' oh oo`' o`? o`' <esS �`�� PQ� �`�� °� �o� P°�' S�Q 06- Month Passenger trips on Metrolink's Inland Empire -Orange County (IEOC) Line for the month of February averaged 4,575 an increase of 294 riders or (+7%) change from the month of January. The line has increased 17% from a year ago February 2005. On Time Performance (95% Goal) Inland Empire Orange County Line 100 95 cu 90 Y 85 u a 80 75 70 (< 1 PQ ��� �Jo )J POD gzQ O ‘46% 06' Month February on -time performance averaged 90% southbound (-2% from January) and 89% northbound (+3% from January). There were 33 delays greater than five minutes during the month of February. 5 The primary causes were: Signals/MOW/Track Dispatching Mechanical Other 91 Line Passenger Trips 91 Line 2,600 2,400 a 2,200 a H 2,000 0 1,800 1,600 - 1,400 1,200 Few e�`a� PQ� �a� �J� �J\ QJo' god O°�°, QeG lac Fed Month Passenger trips on Metrolink's 91 Line for the month of February averaged 2,483 an increase of 492 riders or (+25%) from the month of January. The line has averaged an increase of 31 % from a year ago February 2005. Most of the increase was the conversion of the Riverside Line riders to the 91 Line due to the UP construction. 100 95 m c3) 90 m 85 V a`) 80 a 75 70 On Time Performance (95% Goal) 91 Line Fie $Zt PQ vat �J� �J PJ14 �,0 0 �° p`�' �a� �6a Month • • February on -time performance averaged 94% inbound (+4% from January) and 92% outbound (+2% from January). There were 13 delays greater than five minutes during the month of February. The primary causes were: Signals/MOW/Track Dispatching Mechanical Other Contract Award for Metrolink Commuter Rail Cars At the February 24, 2006 Metrolink Board Meeting the contract for 87 new rail cars was awarded to Rotem Company. Rotem, a based Korean Company, was the lowest price, responsive, responsible bidder with a bid amount of $305,974,486. The other bids were from Bombardier Transit Corporation at $388,759,334 and Kawasaki Rail Car, Inc. at $556,530,762. There were no protests filed from the other bidders by the March 14, 2006 deadline, which means the process can move forward. This is a major milestone to ensure the delivery of much needed equipment for the growing Metrolink system. The new cars will also incorporate the latest Crash Energy Management requirements with added safety features including energy absorbing couplers, deformable anti -climbers (which prevents cars from climbing over one another in an accident), and an energy absorbing front end structure. The base order is for 54 trailer cars and 33 cab cars, with additional options for up to 26 more trailer cars and 24 more cab cars. The action also authorized the staff to issue a notice to proceed in March 2006 and the delivery base order trailer cars will begin in December 2008 and cab cars in February 2009. 7 • AGENDA ITEM 7 RIVERS/DE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMM/SS/ON DATE: March 27, 2006 TO: Plans and Programs Committee FROM: Stephanie Wiggins, Regional Programs Director THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Programming and Administration Director SUBJECT: Award of Alameda Corridor East (ACE) SAFETEA-LU Earmark STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Committee to: 1) Allocate $21 million of the $31.25 million of RCTC SAFETEA-LU ACE Earmark funds as presented in Table A which represents the amount requested by the local agencies; 2) Condition the allocation of $6 million to the city of Riverside for Jurupa Avenue contingent upon the reallocation of $6 million in Local Funds towards the design and construction of other railroad grade separation projects in their city; 3) Authorize a 10-year loan from the Commercial Paper Program for up to $1.5 million for the Sunset Avenue Grade Separation Project which represents the maximum Commercial Paper amount available to the city of Banning; 4) Designate the remaining unprogrammed balance of $10.25 million for construction funding for a Tier 1 or Tier 2 crossing(s) to be made available on a rolling "first come/first serve" basis; and 5) Forward to the Commission for final action. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: In July 2005, Congress approved the reauthorization of the Federal Transportation Bill which is now known as SAFETEA-LU. Among the categories of earmarks are the "Projects of National and Regional Significance." The Commission joined with others in seeking an earmark for the Alameda Corridor East (ACE). The funds will be split evenly between Riverside, San Bernardino, Orange and Los Angeles Counties and used to mitigate the impacts of ever-increasing freight traffic. The Commission anticipates $31.25 to be available for allocation to address immediate grade separation needs. 8 Call for Projects Guidelines At its December 2005 meeting, the Commission authorized the release of a Call for Projects and approved the evaluation criteria for the Call. The guidelines for the Call for Projects are as follows: • Eligible Projects encompass Tier 1 and 2 grade crossings (approved in October 2005) with an allowance for additional crossings substantially impacted by switching activities: BNSF (SB SUB) Magnolia Av Riverside County BNSF & UP (SB SUB) Chicago Av Riverside BNSF & UP (SB SUB) 3rd St Riverside BNSF & UP (SB SUB) Columbia Av (BNSF) Riverside BNSF (SB SUB) McKinley St Corona BNSF & UP (SB SUB) Iowa Av (BNSF) Riverside BNSF (SB SUB) Adams St Riverside BNSF (SB SUB) Smith Av Corona UP (YUMA MAIN) Sunset Av Banning BNSF (SB SUB) Tyler St Riverside BNSF (SB SUB) Mary St Riverside UP (LA SUB) Jurupa Rd Riverside County BNSF (SB SUB) Auto Center Dr Corona UP (YUMA MAIN) Hargrave St Banning UP (LA SUB} Magnolia Av Riverside BNSF (SB SUB} Madison St Riverside UP (YUMA MAIN) Avenue 48/Dillon Road Indio/Coachella BNSF & UP (SB SUB) Center St Riverside County UP (LA SUB) Clay St Riverside County BNSF & UP (SB SUB) 7th St Riverside UP (LA SUB) Jurupa Ave Riverside UP (LA SUB) Streeter Ave (due to switching) Riverside UP (LA SUB) Riverside Ave (due to switching) Riverside • Evaluation criteria of submittals emphasizes Project Delivery; • Maximum award. of $7.5 million (federal) per grade separation project with an additional allowance of $7.5 million from the Commercial Paper Program via a 10-year loan per project, if requested by applicant in accordance with Commission policy; and • Application submissions limited to 2 per jurisdiction. 9 • • • Local agency staff actively participated in the Call development process. Their input was constructive and led to effective collaboration in designing the Call. The process was initiated by performing a switching analysis on four Tier 3 crossings (Streeter Avenue, Brockton Avenue, and Riverside Avenue in the city of Riverside and 22"a Street in the city of Banning) to determine if there was a substantial impact on delay from switching activity that would impact their total score. The incorporation of switching delay substantially increased the total scores of the Streeter Avenue and Riverside Avenue crossings so as to move their Priority Group up from Tier 3, thereby making them eligible for the Call for Projects. While the total scores of the Brockton Avenue and 22nd Street crossings did increase, it was not significant enough to move them out of Priority Group 3. A Constraint Analysis was performed on the 23 eligible crossings by Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade & Douglas, Inc (PB). The purpose was to identify right-of-way impacts, aesthetics, community impacts, and constructability of a grade separation at each crossing. PB then developed general cost estimates for each crossing in conjunction with the local agencies. The total cost estimates for the 23 crossings is $918 million. Given that $31 million is available for the Call, the application submittals focused on Project Readiness. Award Recommendation of $21 Million A total of 6 projects from 5 agencies requesting $21 million were received: Table A: SAFETEA LU Award Recommendation Crossing Jurisdiction SAFETEA- LU Request Commercial Paper Request Total Project Cost Est Completion Date Construction Ave 48/Dillon Rd Coachella/Indio $2,500,000 $0 $16,107,000 June 2007 Jurupa Ave* Riverside $6,000,000 $0 $21,740,000 June 2008 Sunset Ave Banning $7,500,000 $1,500,000 $21,000,000 July 2008 Subtotal $16,000,000 $1,500,000 $58,847,000 Project Development Auto Center Dr Corona $1,500,000 $27,000,000 Clay St Riverside County $2,500,000 $22,920,000 McKinley St Corona $1,000,000 $109,200,000 Subtotal $5,000,000 $159,120,000 TOTALS $21,000,000 $1,500,000 $217,967,000 *The city of Riverside allocation request is contingent upon City Council approval for reallocating $6 million in Measure A funds from the Jurupa Avenue Underpass project towards the design and construction of other railroad grade separation projects in the city. 10 The Constraint Analysis and Cost. Estimates were useful in outlining project delivery challenges. Specifically, the general cost estimates outlined in the Attachment indicate that the award should support projects that are further along in the development process, while also recognizing the need to support project development for affordable and deliverable priority projects. The project benefits of these crossings are outlined below: Table B: Project Benefits Crossing 2005 Gate Down Time er Da p y 2030 Gate Down Time Da p er y Accidents (last 10 yrs) 2030 Emissions (tonslyr) 8 Ave 48/Dillon Rd 1 hr, 14 min 2 hrs, 21 min 2 Jurupa Ave 1 hr, 23 min 2 hrs, 42 min 2 5 Sunset Ave 1 hr, 41 min 3 hrs, 21 min 1 19 Auto. Center Dr 1 hr, 53 min 3 hrs, 30 min 1 20 Clay St 1 hr, 24 min 2 hrs, 42 min 1 12 McKinley St 1 hr, 45 min 3 hrs, 21 min 3 27 TOTALS 9 hrs, 20 min 17 hrs, 57 min 10 92 Unprogrammed Balance of $10. 25 Million Staff and the local agencies recognize the need for timely use of funds for project delivery. Therefore, the recommendation is that the remaining unprogrammed balance of $10.25 million be designated for construction of eligible projects designated as Tier 1 and 2 Crossings. Jurisdictions are able to submit their application for these funds whenever the project is shelf ready and the jurisdiction has a funding plan for delivery. Attachment: Draft General Cost Estimates, February 24, 2006 11 ACE Funding Plan • Final Grade Separation Cost Estimates 24-Feb-06 Cross Street Jurisdiction Grade Separation Alternative Considered Construction Cast Estimated Right -of -Way Cost Planning Design g Construction Management g Agency Management 9 2006 Total Cost 2001 Estimate (Provided by RCTC)I d,.4 r Fe 2005 Estimate (,provided by eC ., ounty) v s o 10/0 0 6 /0 0 5 /a Magnolia Ave Riverside County Overhead $ 76,000,000 $ 1,000,000 $ 7,700,000 $ 3,850,000 $ 3,850,000 $ 92,404 apr� u, .,r y`� r m" "ysrl1-6VQ Ale Chicago Ave' 3rd St' Riverside Riverside Overhead Underpass $ 15,000,000 $ 20,000,000 $ 30,000,000 $ 8,000,000 $ 2,500,000 $ 2,500,000 $ 1,000,000 $ 1,000,000-' $ ,?�$,.8„,op, $ 4`�.4s ` .•+$ "� ,e'48 Y • y�. S A1,7034017 RA �',rt�fS�`4 lx a 0 U 1�1tt14�007 21,820,000 not available Columbia Ave (BNSF) McKinley St Riverside Corona Overhead Overhead / Trench $ 15,000,000 $ 60,600,000 $ 4,000,000 $ 30.400,000.� $ 1,000,000 ,$ "9,100,000 $ 70)01 $ 4,55013 � , ,000 e$ 4.;55D,000 '$ `" 21,000,000 $ 109,200,000 r $ r{$", A,40 $ o�_1101 $ 21,000,000 not available Iowa Ave (BNSF)• Adams St' Riverside Riverside Underpass Underpass $ 15,000,000 $ 30,000,000 '• 2,Q0p,,®re $ 15,Q(D;�04L{ $ t$00,000 $ ,.�3i:'s0,000 $ 7 ei 4 $ 1000;1106g. 250,.o. , $.( -Qsz.'asa ,,,, 19,000,000 x' 48,750,000 $ 1,�1;7�7�,!ar $ G'FQ ;a{g;,0'i ] $ 23,819,000 $ 24,000,000 Smith St Sunset Ave Tyler St' Mary Sr JAtitg'Cker ttupa-Rd i, HS.r&04EttSP Magtiotta Ave' Medrsog,Sr Av6Wde-181Dillon Rd Center,St Clay St 7thSt',; Corona Banning Riverside Rlva>ystde aunty Setip't�2`. a A6vel 1 I*10t*-... `. lndiPiei641iella u R5€ ounty RdyrketfeCounty i±VAide Underpass U�1dar l t,e U iiiffir�$ l u U id4 13'' Oertleatu U U Li7Tlerpass $rt , 'Ir ? ..w�$` `# efp # a 11 & t'`2 � . PEOpB « pt±se -:' 5A8,0,000 � `f r�1"0't'54000 ,r p00WO $ ax! ; ;0O'Q;000 $tom r ,500,000 r } 1#.500,000 $ ;;' iy0QQ;000 $ ,t E4$t li6,goo $ f SOMR). $ `'12,400,000 $ 18,100,000 $ 19,000,000 9 $ ,,(?4t1, i0t1 $ T1,400400. $ 54`00,000 $ e $ OQ0;000 $ 1 go, -,000 $ 654kb0f� $ 10 000,000 $, '; 7000,000 $ 3,700,000 $ 7,900,000 $ 1,000,000 $ 2,000,000 9 ' $ 20,000 $ t fS6A00 $ ""A, OO}pA0 $' t.'R00.400 $ 2, $0 k300 $ `ziO4Q9ii $ 2,*�)0900 $ 1,500,000 $ 1,420,000 $ 3,030,000 $ 1,910,000 $ 1,000,000 $ taro; $ agto $ 1004O. $ 1 omb'4`A'', =$ 1 1'Z;d. II ,.; 1050,$00� $ 1,000,000 $ 1,000,000 $ 710,000 $ 1,515,000 $ 955,000 $ 750,000 1 tO s eQ;i '895,000 250,000 $ °, 250,000 $ ,5,525,o00 $ 1,050,000 $ 250,000 $ 250,000 $ 710,000 $ 1,515,000 $ 955,000 $ 250,000 g 31,440,000 $ 21,480,000 $ 38,750,000 $ 27,250,000 $ 127,000,000 $ 25,200,000 $ 33,750,000 $ 27,750,000 $ 17,040,000 $ 36,360,000 $ 22,920,000 $ 23,000,000 $ d ®,4?0 $ �,4��$}3„Op $ �14y'i9 ,Mlit) $ - 1'5,700,000 $ 15,700,000 $ 13.800,000 not available $ 14,700,000 $ 6,400,000 $ 15,300,000 $ 14,700,000 $ 15,300,000 not available not available $ 27,000,000 not available not available not available not available $ 19,000,000 not available not available not available not available Rlverside Ave < $6:00leiaAve ' Riverside Riverside Underpass Underpass $ 20,000,000 $ 18,000,000 $ 5,000,000 $ 12,000,000 $ 1,500,000 $ 2,500,000 $ 250,000 $ 1,000,000 $ 250,000 $ 250,000 $ 27,000,000 $ 33,750,000 not available not available $ 17,732,000 $ 31,050,000 ' Estimate provlded by the City of Riverside 12 $ 896,260,000 AGENDA ITEM 8 • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: March 27, 2006 TO: Plans and Programs Committee FROM: Stephanie Wiggins, Regional Programs Director THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Programming and Administration Director SUBJECT: City of Riverside Jurupa Avenue Grade Separation CPUC Section 190 10% Local Match Request STAFF RECOMMENDATION; This item is for the Committee to: 1) Allocate $500,000 in available Rail Local Transportation Funds to provide a non-federal match to the city of Riverside for the Jurupa Avenue Grade Separation Project, and 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: At the September 10, 2001 meeting, the Commission approved the policy to support successful California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) Section 190 Grade Separation projects that are included in the RCTC approved Alameda Corridor -East (ACE) Grade Crossing Priority List by funding the 10% local share match requirement of the CPUC if funding sources are available. The first RCTC award under this policy was made to the city of Coachella for the Avenue 50 Grade Separation Project for $500,000. The city of Riverside has submitted an application to RCTC for the 10% local share of the Jurupa Avenue Grade Separation Project, located on the Union Pacific Railroad's Los Angeles Subdivision. The Jurupa Avenue Underpass Grade Separation Project does meet RCTC's eligibility requirement of having been awarded CPUC funds and listed in the RCTC approved ACE Grade Crossing Priority List. The CPUC award is $5,000,000 so the RCTC staff recommendation is to award $500,000. Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: NIA Year: FY 2007/08 Amount: $500,000 Source of Funds: LTF Rail Capital Funds Budget Ad ustment: N/A GLA No.: 221-33-81301 P4008 Fiscal Procedures Approved: v/, u,„,, Date: 3/22/06 14 AGENDA ITEM 9 • • • RIVERS/DE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: March 27, 2006 TO: Plans and Programs Committee FROM: Pass to Desert Rail Ad Hoc Committee Sheldon Peterson, Rail Program Manager THROUGH: Stephanie Wiggins, Regional Programs Director SUBJECT: California State Rail Plan 2005/06 to 2015/16: Indio (Coachella Valley) Los Angeles to STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Committee to: 1) Endorse the summary of the California State Rail Plan as it relates to intercity rail service to and through the Pass and the Coachella Valley areas, 2) Formally request that the Draft California State Rail Plan amend the section on Potential New Service for the Los Angeles to Indio route to include a proposed train station in the Pass Area, (Banning or Beaumont), 3) Approve a Resolution of Support for the Los Angeles to Indio service and request adoption by the local cities; and 4) Forward to the Commission for final action. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: In October 2005, the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) released the draft California State Rail Plan: 2005/06 to 2015/16. This plan analyzes the State's existing intercity rail passenger program and recommends both capital and operating improvements to the three current state -funded rail services: 1) the Pacific Surfliner between San Diego, Los Angeles, Santa Barbara and San Luis Obispo; 2) the San Joaquin between Bakersfield, Stockton, Sacramento and Oakland; and 3) the Capitol Corridor between San Jose, Oakland and Sacramento. In addition, the State's rail plan also proposes to add several new intercity rail routes in the period 2005/06 to 2015/16. The Los Angeles to Indio (Coachella Valley) route is listed as a potential new service. The other routes include San Francisco to San Luis Obispo via the Coast Route, Sacramento to Reno, Sacramento to Redding, San Francisco to Monterey, and Los Angeles to Las Vegas. 15 In its report Caltrans notes that "there has been strong local interest" in rail service along this route. While there is no state -supported service in that region presently, Amtrak does operate a thrice weekly service between Los Angeles, Pomona, Ontario and Palm Springs on its long distance route to New Orleans. In addition, Caltrans has linked this region with its San Joaquin train service between Bakersfield and the Bay Area. Commencing with the October 2005 Amtrak schedule change, there are now two daily Amtrak bus round trips between Beaumont and Bakersfield, connecting directly with the San Joaquin trains. Passengers in the Pass area can purchase a single Amtrak through ticket combining the bus portion from Beaumont to Bakersfield with the train portion of the trip commencing at the Bakersfield train station. In the prior fiscal year of 2004/05 when only a single round trip operated between and through the Pass to the Bakersfield train station, there were 32,000 passengers carried on the dedicated Amtrak bus link which served the following stations: La Crescenta, Pasadena, Claremont, San Bernardino Metrolink station, Beaumont (the Pass area station), Palm Springs, Palm Desert and Indio. The Caltrans operating plan reflects the recommendations of a 1999 study prepared by the Coachella Valley Association of Governments (Coachella Valley Passenger Rail Feasibility Study) to operate a state -funded intercity rail passenger service between Los Angeles and the Coachella Valley, via Fullerton, Riverside, the Pass, and terminating in Indio in the Coachella Valley. The intercity service would operate over the Burlington (Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) route between Los Angeles, Riverside and Colton, at which point it would use the tracks of the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) from Colton to Indio. According to Caltrans, the anticipated date for beginning new state -supported rail services changes each time the State Rail Plan is updated to reflect the fact that a number of obstacles must be overcome before new rail services can be initiated. For each rail corridor, where new state -supported rail services are proposed, additional rail cars and locomotives must be acquired, an agreement with the rail line owner must be reached and a source of operating funds must be secured. Until these issues can be resolved, the anticipated start dates for new rail service are delayed. Of all of these issues, the most significant in this case is the "Union Pacific Railway's recent decision not to consider operation of new passenger train corridors at this time." POTENT/AL NEW SERVICE OPERATION PLAN The draft California State Rail Plan 2005/06 to 2015/1.6 includes one daily round- trip between Los Angeles and Indio in 2010/11 and a second daily round trip in 2013/14. The plan currently lists the following proposed stations: Los Angeles, 16 • Fullerton, Riverside, Palm Springs, Palm Desert, and Indio. The Pass to Dessert Rail Ad Hoc committee recommended that an additional station be included for the Pass Area, in either Banning or Beaumont and request that the Draft State Rail Plan be amended to include this stop. This project has been part of the State Rail Plan for a number of years but has not been able to move forward due to the inability to overcome the issues with the Union Pacific. In the 2001 /02 State Rail Plan, the goal was to implement one train LA -Coachella in 2006/07 and a second in 2008/09. In the 2003/-04 State Rail Plan the goal was to implement one train LA -Coachella in 2008/09 and a second in 2010/ 11. Caltrans lists three reasons why it believes this route is a good candidate of intercity passenger service: 1) "There is existing Amtrak intercity rail service on a good part of the route, and all but one station already exists." 2) "There is strong local support and financial commitment." 3) "There is existing moderate bus ridership on the route, with a growing population." Resolution of Support After further discussions on the topic, staff recommends that RCTC approve a Resolution of Support for the Los Angeles to Indio Intercity Service. This proposed service was identified in the 2001 /02 California State Rail but has not been able to move forward primarily due to concerns of the Union Pacific. However, the service also has not received sufficient funding support or political awareness either. Therefore, the recommendation is to approve a Resolution of Support Letter that the local cities can adopt and forward to their state representatives. This will provide a clear opportunity for the communities to promote their desire for intercity passenger rail service in their areas. Attachment: Excerpt from draft California State Rail Plan 2005/06 to 2015/16 Resolution of Support 17 October 2005 California Department of Transportation J. men,t,of ?rr 2005-06 - 2015-16 California State Rail Plan Figure 10A / • T." 7. / -ts=, Reddiritj ' Route • ,t Reno_Eittitsion burnr-/ Sactunent;'''..11):1 - SanFrandsco - sa Monterey . - Route s---.1% Gaul --' Mont Bay oast R ute " Santa resno oi Angeles . Extension. Options Potential New Intercity Routes in California Legend, Pcitentialpleih I tritircityRout6s" • Existing State - Supported Routes Las Vegas las Vegas SanBernardino R.°U!.e. , Incho C b fJ j RoOteU e 1 24 • 19 • Chapter X - Potential New Services CHAPTER X POTENTIAL NEW SERVICES This Chapter contains a discussion on six potential intercity passenger rail routes, four of them proposed by the Department for service in the 10-year period. Also high-speed rail, and magnetic levitation projects in Califomia are discussed. Chapter IX — Commuter Rail Services discusses proposed extensions of existing commuter rail services as well as proposed new commuter rail services. PROPOSED INTERCITY RAIL ROUTES This section includes a description of the four new routes that the Department proposes for service in this 10-year plan. Figure IOA displays potential intercity passenger rail routes. The routes are discussed in order of potential implementation by year: San Francisco to San Luis Obispo (Los Angeles); Sacramento to Reno; Sacramento to Redding; and Los Angeles to Indio. Included for each route is a summary of current service to the area, recent studies of the route, and the Department's current service proposal. The implementation of all new service is subject to demonstrated ridership demand, approval from Amtrak and the relevant railroad(s), availability of operating and capital funding and equipment, and completion of necessary capital projects. This section also includes a discussion of two routes where funding is not proposed in the time period of this plan: San Francisco to Monterey and Los Angeles to Las Vegas. SAN FRANCISCO TO SAN LUIS OBISPO (AND LOS ANGELES) VIA COAST ROUTE The extension of the Pacific Surfliners from San Luis. Obispo to San Francisco would close a key gap in the state -supported intercity rail system by providing direct train service from San Francisco to Los Angeles. However, regional transportation planning agencies have led the planning for this extension and will continue to provide an important role in the planning and operation of this extension. Background Currently only one daily round-trip Coast Starlight train connects Oakland and San Jose with Los Angeles via the Coast with intermediate stops including Salinas, Paso Robles, San Luis Obispo and Santa Barbara on its route from Seattle. Also a round-trip Amtrak Thruway bus from San Luis Obispo to San Francisco started on November 17, 2004 with the inauguration of the second Los Angeles - San Luis Obispo Pacific Surfliner. Ridership on this entire bus route was over 18,000 in 2004-05. Additionally, one round-trip Amtrak Thruway bus from 125 20 2005-06-2015-16 California State Rail Plan San Jose to Santa Barbara connects the Capitol Corridor to Santa Barbara: Ridership on this bus route was 12,000 in 2004-05. There has been interest for many years in providing additional Coast Route service to better link California's two largest metropolitan areas. In 1992, H.R. 39 was passed requesting a Coast Corridor intercity rail corridor upgrade study be conducted by the regional transportation planning agencies along the Corridor in cooperation with the Department. As a result, concemed local agencies formed the Coast Rail Coordinating Council (CRCC) that is staffed by the San Luis Obispo Council of Governments. The Coast Rail Improvement Study issued in the fall of 1994 resulted from H.R. 39. Then, in 1996 the Coast Route Infrastructure Assessment Report was completed. One of the main goals of the CRCC is to "close the gap" in state -supported train services by connecting downtown Los Angeles and downtown San Francisco with daily train services. In 2000, the Coordinating Council issued a Coast Daylight Implementation Plan that envisions daily service operating on Caltrain trackage from San Francisco. to San Jose, and then on UP trackage to Moorpark, and then on Metrolink trackage to Los Angeles. Stations are planned in San _Francisco, Millbrae, Palo Alto, Mountain View, Santa Clara, San Jose, Gilroy, Pajaro, Salinas, King City, Paso Robles, San Luis Obispo and south to Los Angeles stopping at existing Pacific Surfliner stations. The study includes operating costs, but no capital costs_ In Fall 2004, the CRCC released the Capacity Analysis for the "Coast Daylight" service. The analysis identified several capital improvements that would be helpful in order to increase train frequencies on the Coast Route. The CRCC is now working with Amtrak, Union Pacific, and the Department to identify how to move forward since capital funding for the improvements is extremely limited. Additionally at this time the Union Pacific is not considering new passenger routes due to an increase in freight traffic and their need to accommodate this demand. Operating Plan The Department's 10 year operating plan includes one round-trip train between San Francisco and San Luis Obispo, starting in 2007-08, with a second train in 2013-14. The first train would be operated from San Luis Obispo to Los Angeles as an extension of the new Pacific Surfliner train added in November 2004 and would provide through train service between San Francisco and Los Angeles. The second train would operate as an extension of the planned third Los Angeles - San Luis Obispo round-trip. Direct train connections to San Diego at Los Angeles would be available on most trips. 126 21 • • Chapter X - Potential New Services The Department believes this extension is a good candidate for rail service because: • It would be the only state -supported route to provide direct train service between the two major population centers of the State, thus closing a key gap in the system. • There is strong ridership on the one daily Coast Starlight round-trip and on the three daily Amtrak Thruway buses. • An existing local organization the CRCC, is actively planning the' service, and implementation plans have been completed. SACRAMENTO TO KENO The extension of intercity rail service from Sacramento to Reno would bring state - supported rail service to the Truckee/Tahoe and Reno/Sparks tourist areas as well as provide relief to the highly congested 1-80 —Bay Area to Reno corridor. Background Amtrak's California Zephyr and connecting buses to the Capitol Corridor and San Joaquins serve Reno and intermediate 1-80 Corridor points. The California Zephyr makes stops at Reno,. Truckee, Colfax, Roseville and Sacramento once daily in each direction on its route to Chicago. Also, Amtrak buses connect to three San Joaquins and four Capitol Corridor trains and serve Reno/Sparks, Truckee, Soda Springs, Colfax, Auburn, Rocklin, Roseville and Sacramento. Ridership on this bus route was 37,000 in 2004-05. In 1995 the Department and the Nevada Department of Transportation published the Sacramento -Tahoe -Reno Intercity Rail Study that examined the feasibility of expanding passenger rail service along the I-80/Tahoe corridor from Sacramento to Truckee and Reno/Sparks on the UP line on which the California Zephyr currently operates. A number of scenarios were studied involving extending varying numbers of Capitol Corridor trains from Sacramento to Reno/Sparks, and all scenarios were determined to be feasible. In 2002, the Capitol Corridor Joint Powers Authority and the Placer County Transportation Planning Agency initiated a study to extend the Capitol Corridor to Reno. The study was intended to provide current ridership, revenue, and train operating cost estimates for the train extension and the capital costs for necessary station and track improvements. However, the study was suspended in March 2005 as a result of the UP's decision to not conduct additional network modeling or consider operation of new passenger train service to Reno at this time. The UP has experienced a significant increase in freight traffic and has made a business decision to focus its efforts at this time on addressing additional freight demand. 127 22 2005-06 — 2015-16 California State Rail Plan Operating Plan The Department's 10-year operating plan includes the extension of one Capitol Corridor round-trip from Auburn to Reno/Sparks in 2008-9,: and a second round-trip in 2010-11. This rail service would be supplemented by continued operation of existing bus service that runs over the same route as the train, but at other times of the day. This service would require an appropriate level of financial participation from the State of Nevada (and potentially Nevada business interests). The Department believes this corridor is a good candidate for rail corridor service because: • Amtrak currently operates the Califomia Zephyr on the route so that stations at the major destination points already exist. • I-80 is extremely congested at tourist peak periods and there is a very strong gaming, skiing and general recreation market in the Reno/Truckee area. + Current bus ridership on this route is strong. SACRAMENTO TO REDDING Operation of intercity rail service from Sacramento to Redding would, extend state -supported intercity rail service to a fast growing northern Califomia area not presently served by the state -supported intercity passenger rail network. Background Connecting buses to the San Joaquin and Capitol Corridor trains currently serve the northem Sacramento Valley. Buses connect to three of the San Joaquins in Stockton, and one in Sacramento, and travel north through Sacramento, Marysville, Chico and Redding. Four Capitol Corridor trains in Sacramento also have a bus connection to Redding. Ridership on this bus route is the second highest of all California dedicated bus routes after Los Angeles -Bakersfield, with 82,000 riders in 2004-05. Additionally, the single daily round-trip of the Coast Starlight connects Redding and Chico with Sacramento, the Bay Area and Los Angeles on its route from Seattle. The most recent study on the Sacramento -Redding corridor is the Northern Sacramento Valley Intercity Passenger Rail Study, Interim Findings Report, produced in 1995 for the Butte County Association of Governments. The Department in 2005 had planned a further study on this Route, which was deferred due to the Union Pacific Railway's decision not to consider operation of new passenger trains corridors at this time. 23 • Chapter X - Potential New Services Operating Plan The Department's 10-year operating plan includes one daily round-trip between Sacramento and Redding in 2009-10 with a second round-trip starting in 2013-14. This rail service would be supplemented by bus service that would run over the same route as the train, but at other times of the day. The Department believes this extension is a good candidate for rail service because: • Amtrak currently operates the Coast Starlight on this Route, with existing stations at Sacramento, Chico and Redding. • The demographics of the Route are positive: the northern Sacramento Valley has a fast growing population; Redding represents the urban hub for the northern part of the State; and the California State University at Chico is a focus of activity and population, • Current ridership on this bus route is the second highest of all California dedicated bus routes after Los Angeles -Bakersfield. LOS ANGELES TO INDIO (COACHELLA VALLEY) State -supported intercity passenger rail service from Los Angeles to Indio would extend rail service to a fast growing population center in the southeast of the State. Background Currently Amtrak's Sunset Limited provides three -times per week service from Los Angeles to Pomona, Ontario and Palm Springs on its route to New Orleans. San Joaquin trains provide once a day connecting buses to the Coachella Valley. Ridership on this route was 32,000 in 2004-05. There has been strong local interest in rail service to the Coachella Valley since 1991 when the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) published the Los Angeles -Coachella Valley -Imperial County Intercity Rail Feasibility Study that evaluated the feasibility of operating three daily round-trip State -supported intercity trains on the route. In 1995, the Department published the Calexico - Coachella Valley -Los Angeles Rail Corridor Study for the California Transportation Commission. The most recent study titled the Coachella Valley Passenger Rail Feasibility Study was prepared for the Coachella Valley Association of Governments in 1999. The study includes operating and capital cost estimates for the route and proposes two daily intercity round-trip trains. The study proposes operating from Los Angeles to the Coachella Valley using the BNSF route between Los Angeles and Colton, and the UP route eastward to Indio. Stations are proposed at Los Angeles, Fullerton, Riverside, Palm Springs, Palm Desert and Indio. The study estimates $9.3 million in capital costs, not including rolling stock. The study 129 24 200S-06 — 201S-16 California State Rail Plan proposes local funding for the new station at Palm Desert. The City of Indio received a State -matching grant of $1.5 million to construct its new station. The RCTC has undertaken in late 2004, a commuter rail assessment of its entire region and is specifically looking at a route that would link Indio with Riverside and Los Angeles. This RCTC study is examining potential ridership and revenues for a peak -hour commuter service. The results of this region wide study will be used by RCTC to determine potential future corridors for commuter service. A serious impediment to intercity rail service between Los Angeles and Indio is the Union Pacific Railway's recent decision not to consider operation of new passenger train corridors at this time. This route has heavy freight traffic that makes the operation of passenger service difficult. Operating Plan The Department's 10-year operating plan includes one daily round-trip between Los Angeles and Indio in 2010-11 and a second daily round-trip in 2013-14. The Department believes this extension is a good candidate for intercity rail service because: • There is existing Amtrak intercity rail service on a good part of the route, and all but one station already exists. • There is strong local support and financial commitment. • There is existing moderate bus ridership on the route, with a growing population. SAN FRANCISCO TO MONTEREY State -supported intercity rail service from San Francisco to Monterey would connect the San Francisco Bay Area to an important tourist and population center of the State that currently has very inadequate intercity transportation. Background Currently, the only Amtrak service existing between Monterey and San Francisco is via the Coast Starlight, which provides one daily round-trip from Oakland to Salinas, with bus connections to San Francisco from Oakland and to Monterey from Salinas. In June 2005, Caltrans discontinued Capitol Corridor feeder bus service from San Jose to Monterey due to low ridership. The Transportation Agency for Monterey County (TAMC) has conducted a number of studies on tram service options between San Francisco and Monterey. The San Francisco -Monterey Intercity Rail Service Implementation Plan was completed in 1998. In 2003, TAMC completed the Monterey Intercity Rail Project Study, which included conceptual engineering, initial cost estimates and environmental screening for the project. 130 25 Chapter X - Potential New Services In the near -term, TAMC is planning a new service to link Monterey to San Francisco through a combination of local service and Caltrain commuter rail service. Starting in 2009, local light rail or bus rapid transit service is planned to connect Monterey and Marina, and later extend to Castroville and possibly Salinas. TAMC is concurrently working with Caltrain to extend commuter rail service in 2009 to Salinas from its current terminus in Gilroy. The extension of Caltrain commuter rail service to Monterey County would serve new stations in Pajaro and Castroville and end in Salinas. TAMC is working to ensure that the local service would connect with the Caltrain service via cross -platform transfers in Castroville. Bus connections to work and visitor destinations, as well as transit - oriented developments, are planned at key locations along the way in Monterey County to maximize the usage of both services. (See Chapter IX — Commuter Rail Services for more detail on this proposed Caltrain extension.) In the longer term, TAMC is planning intercity rail service between Monterey and San Francisco. The intercity service would have stops in Monterey, Marina, Castroville, Pajaro, San Jose, San Francisco Airport (at Millbrae) and downtown San Francisco, with a possible stop in Palo Alto. TAMC envisions two round trips on weekdays and three on weekends for the Monterey to San Francisco service. The proposed intercity route would use the current Caltrain owned right-of-way between San Francisco and San Jose. The route between San Jose and Castroville is owned by Union Pacific Railroad and used for passenger service by Caltrain to Gilroy and by the Coast Starlight to Castroville (and beyond to Los Angeles). TAMC purchased the Monterey Branch Line between Castroville and the Seaside City limits from Union Pacific Railroad in 2003; the portion from Seaside to Monterey is already owned by these cities. Currently there is no rail passenger service on this branch line. - The Monterey Branch Line requires substantial capital rehabilitation. Approximately $4.0 million remains in Proposition 116 funds that can be used for the Monterey Branch line rehabilitation construction activities. TAMC has previously secured $2.2 million in state and federal funds, and estimates total project capital costs including capital equipment costs at $75-$230 million depending on the type of service and equipment chosen. TAMC plans to utilize TCRP funding, STIP funding, and future transportation sales tax to match federal new starts funding to pay for the remainder of the capital costs. Operating Plan The Department proposes, contingent on the start of local service in 2009, two intercity rail weekday round -trips and three weekend round -trips between San Francisco and Marina, Seaside, the former Fort Ord and continuing on to Monterey. No funding for this service is included in the 10-year operating plan, as the start date of this route is uncertain at this time. 131 26 2005-06-2015-16 California State Rail Plan The Department believes there are several advantages to this intercity rail service, including:. Monterey is an important tourist destination that currently has very inadequate access via intercity mass transportation. • TAMC has strong local support for rail service and is working to secure a local transportation sales tax to help support rail projects and Chapter 103, Statutes of 1999 (SB 886, McPherson) allows TAMC to be a party in an operations contract between the Department and Amtrak.. • $14 million in Proposition 116 capital funds were earmarked for intercity rail service on this Route. LOS ANGELES TO LAS VEGAS In 1997, Amtrak discontinued tri-weekly Desert Wind that ran from Los Angeles to Chicago via Las Vegas. Currently, San Joaquin trains provide connecting buses from Bakersfield to Las Vegas via Lancaster. Ridership on this route was 15,000 in 2004-05. In 1998, Amtrak announced plans to start service from Los Angeles to Las Vegas with one daily round-trip. However, due to continuing funding shortfalls and increased capital requirements to initiate service, the new service was not implemented. The Regional Transportation Commission of Southern Nevada began a feasibility study on multi -frequency rail service between Las Vegas and the Los Angeles area in early 2005. This study is being funded equally by the Federal Railroad Administration and the State of Nevada. The Department will be working with the Commission on the study that will include ridership, cost and revenue projections; track, station, maintenance facility and property acquisition needs; equipment recommendations; and schedules for planning purposes. The Department presently includes no operating or capital costs for this service in its 10-year plan because costs and implementation schedules are dependant on the results of the Nevada study as well as agreement between California and Nevada on cost sharing. HIGH-SPEED RAIL BACKGROUND High-speed rail has been studied in California for over a decade. The Department participated in a number of studies in the late 1980s and early 1990s. The Department was a member of the Los Angeles -Fresno -Bay Area/ Sacramento High -Speed Rail Corridor Study Group. The group published its report in 1990 as required by Chapter 197, Statutes of 1988 (AB 971 - Costa). Under Chapter 1104, Statutes of 1990 (SB 1307 - Garamendi), the Department in 132 27 i i :Chapter X - Potential New Services 1991, completed a work plan for a feasibility study for the development of an integrated public, private, or combined public/private high-speed intercity and commuter rail system. Under Proposition 116; the Department completed a preliminary engineering and feasibility study on high-speed service between Bakersfield and Los Angeles. Senate Concurrent Resolution 6 (1993) establisheid the California Intercity High - Speed Rail Commission. This Commission, while using some Department staff resources, was not part of the Department. The Final Report of the Commission was sent to the Legislature at the end of 1996 and! indicated that high-speed rail is technically, environmentally, and economically feasible, and once constructed, could be operationally self-sufficient. The !Commission recommended a San Francisco/San Jose/Sacramento-Central Valley -Los Angeles -San Diego alignment. The commission also recommended using either very high-speed technology of steel -wheel -on -steel -rail or magnetic levitation (maglev). CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY The California High -Speed Rail Act, enacted byl Chapter 796, Statutes of 1996 (SB 1420 - Kopp and Costa), established the California High -Speed Rail Authority (CHSRA) to direct the development and implementation of intercity high-speed rail service. The act defined high-speed rail as "intercity passenger rail service that utilizes an alignment and technology that make it capable of sustained speeds of 200 miles per hour or greater." Chapter 791, Statutes of 2000 (AB 1703 - Florez), modified the CHSRA's exclusive authorization and responsibility for planning, construction, and operation of high-speed passenger train service to cover speeds exceeding 125 miles per hour. Previously, the CHSRA had such authorization and responsibility for speeds exceeding 100 miles per hour. AB 1703 also extended the tenure of the CHSRA through 2003. Then in Chapter 696, Statues of 2002 (SB 796 - Costa) repealed the sunset date for the CHSRA, making it a permanent authority. The CHSRA is composed of nine members. The Governor appoints - five members, the Senate Committee on Rules appoints two members, and the Speaker of the Assembly appoints two members. I In 2000, the CHSRA completed its Business Plan, Building a High -Speed Train System for California. The Business Plan found that a high-speed train system is a smart investment in mobility, an evolutionary step; for transportation, and a project in keeping with California's standards for environmental quality and economic growth. The Business Plan determined that the next project step is to initiate a formal environmental clearance process with the development of a State -level program environmental impact report (EIR). To implement the environmental process, the CHSRA prepared a Draft Program California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Program Environmental Impact 133 28 2005-06 — 2015-16 California State Rail Plan Report (DR) and a National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). The CHSRA is the state lead agency for CEQA and the FRA is the federal lead agency for NEPA. The draft program -level EIR/EIS was released on January 27, 2004. After extensive review, the Final EIR/EIS was posted on the Federal Register on September 23, 2005. The Authority will consider certification of the Final EIR/EIS on November 2, 2005. The EIR/EIS describes the potential environmental impacts of three transportation system alternatives and compares how well they would meet California's current and future transportation needs. The alternatives that were studied are: • The "No Project/No Action" alternative, examining the state's current transportation system, including highway and airport improvements planned to be operational by 2020. • High -Speed Trains: a proposed new network of electrically powered trains, at least 700 miles long, connecting California's major metropolitan areas and traveling 220 miles per hour. • The "Modal" alternative, evaluating additional improvement to existing highways and airports that could serve the same travel demand as the proposed high-speed train system. Based on the analysis, the California High -Speed Rail Authority and the Federal Railroad Administration have identified the high-speed train system as the preferred system altemative to meet California's future intercity travel demand. Service to urban centers would be on shared tracks with other passenger rail services at moderate speeds. Stations would be in close proximity to most major airports, and there would be station connections with major transit hubs in metropolitan areas. The EIR/EIS identifies preferred alignments, as follows: • Northern Mountain Crossing — a broad corridor containing a number of feasible route options have been identified for further study. The corridor is bounded by Pacheco Pass (SR-152) to the south, Altamont Pass (I-580) to the north, BNSF corridor to the east, and Caltrain to the west. • Southern Mountain Crossing — through the Techachapi Mountain Range between Los Angeles and Bakersfield via a crossing through Palmdale and the Antelope Valley. • Bay Area — service on the Peninsula and in the East Bay • Central Valley - Highway 99 corridor (mostly BNSF alignment) • San Diego — via I-215/ I-15 corridor to downtown • Orange County - Los Angeles to Orange County via Pacific Surfliner Route. 29 • Resolution In Support of Intercity Rail Service from Los Angeles to Indio WHEREAS potential new intercity passenger rail service from Los Angeles to Indio is part of the California Department of Transportation's California State Rail Plan 2005-06 to 2015-16; and WHEREAS there is strong local support to establishing new intercity rail passenger service in the Coachella Valley and the Banning Pass area; and WHEREAS bus ridership along the proposed route and ridership on Amtrak's Sunset Limited route, serving Los Angeles, Pomona, Ontario, and Palm Springs, demonstrate local demand for Los Angeles to Indio service; and WHEREAS the Coachella Valley and the Banning Pass area are experiencing rapid population growth and therefore demand on this route will continue to increase; and WHEREAS Amtrak intercity rail service exists on most of the proposed route and most of the train stations already exists; and WHEREAS the City of Indio has already received a State -matching grant of $1.5 million to construct a new station; and WHEREAS new service to the Coachella Valley would use the BNSF Route between Los Angeles and Colton, and the Union Pacific route from Colton to Indio; and WHEREAS Los Angeles to Indio intercity passenger rail service has been prevented from moving forward since 2001-02 primarily due to Union Pacific's decision not to consider operation of new passenger train corridors; and WHEREAS new intercity passenger rail service to the Coachella Valley will ease congestion on local roads and freeways, improving mobility and the quality of life in the Inland Empire; and NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Riverside County Transportation Commission does hereby endorse and support the Califomia Department of Transportation's California State Rail Plan 2005-06 to 2015-16 and the establishment of intercity passenger rail service between Los Angeles and Indio; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this resolution be transmitted to the Inland Empire's legislative delegations in Washington D.C. and Sacramento. 30 AGENDA ITEM 10 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: March 27, 2006 TO: Plans and Programs Committee FROM: Tanya Love, Program Manager THROUGH: Stephanie Wiggins, Regional Programs Director SUBJECT: FY 2006/07 Federal Transit Administration's Section 5310 Program STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Committee to: 1) Adopt the FY 2006/07 Federal Transit Administration's Section 5310 Riverside County project rankings as recommended by the Local Review Committee; 2) Include the projects in the Regional Transportation Improvement Plan; 3) Certify by Resolution No. 06-003 that the projects are consistent with the local area regional transportation plan; and 4) Forward to the Commission for final action. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The Federal Transit Administration's (FTA) Section 5310 program provides capital grants for the purpose of assisting private nonprofit corporations and public agencies in providing transportation services to meet the needs of seniors and persons with disabilities for whom public transportation services are otherwise unavailable, insufficient, or inappropriate. For FY 2006/07, the program provides funding for approved projects on an 88.53% federa1/11.47% local match basis. Section 5310 funds are awarded through a statewide competition with approximately $1 1 .8 million available for programming during the FY 2006/07 grant cycle. A Local Review Committee (Committee) in each County quantitatively evaluates all applications submitted for their area, ranks them using State -mandated criteria, and submits the scores to Caltrans Headquarters for the statewide competition. For FY 2006/07, the Commission utilized a sub -committee of our Citizens' Advisory Committee/Social Services Transportation Advisory Council (CAC/SSTAC) as 31 the Committee for Riverside County. The Committee was comprised of, Andrea Puga and Mary Venerable. In addition, Fortunato Penilla, former transportation coordinator for the Inland Regional Center, as well as myself reviewed the applications. A total of five agencies located in Riverside County submitted grant applications requesting $528,002 in funding for 35 projects consisting of four replacement vehicles, five expansion vehicles and 26 pieces of equipment. The Committee met and scored the projects on March 14, 2006. The Proposed Regional Priority List for Riverside County listing the final scores is attached. All applicants have been notified of the project scores and given the opportunity to appeal by April 3, 2006. The time line for this process is tight since Commission approved scores must be submitted to Caltrans by May 5, 2006. Since the Commission's May meeting is after that date, all approvals must be completed at our April 12`h Commission meeting. It is anticipated that the California Transportation Commission will adopt the final list of projects in August 2006. The Commission is also required to include the awarded projects in the Regional Transportation Improvement Plan (RTIP) and certify by resolution that the projects are consistent with the local area regional transportation plan. Attachment: Resolution No. 06-003 Proposed Regional Priority List (Excel) 32 • RESOLUTION NO. 06-003 RESOLUTION OF THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION CERTIFYING PROJECT CONSISTENCY WITH REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN WHEREAS, the Local Review Committee of Riverside County ("Committee") is charged with reviewing applications for Federal Transit Administration's Section 5310 funding for transportation services to meet the needs of seniors and persons with disabilities for whom public transportation services are otherwise unavailable, insufficient or inappropriate; and WHEREAS, the Committee has received requests for 35 projects from five agencies in Riverside County; and WHEREAS, the Committee has scored and ranked each such request; and WHEREAS, the Riverside County Transportation Commission ("Commission"), as the Regional Transportation Planning Agency ("RTPA"), adopted the scores and ranking of the applications as determined by the Committee; and WHEREAS, the Section 5310 process, as interpreted in Federal Transit Administration Circular 9070.1 E, Section 5, requires the RTPA to include in the Regional Transportation Improvement Program each request awarded Section 5310 funding by Caltrans and to certify by resolution that the locally evaluated projects are consistent with the local area regional transportation plan. NOW, THEREFORE, the Commission does hereby certify and resolve as follows: Section 1. The Commission has determined that the locally evaluated projects approved by the Committee for Section 5310 funding are consistent with the Riverside County regional transportation plan. 33 Section 2. Each of the projects awarded Section 5310 funding by Caltrans will be included in the Regional Transportation Improvement Program adopted for Riverside County. APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 12t' day of April, 2006. Marion Ashley, Chair Riverside County Transportation Commission ATTEST: Jennifer Harmon, Acting Clerk of the Board Riverside County Transportation Commission 34 • FORM 1 SECTION 5310 - FY 2006/07 PROPOSED REGIONAL PRIORITY LIST FOR RIVERSIDE COUNTY APPLICANT Angel View Peppermint Ridge Peppermint Ridge Peppermint Ridge Peppermint Ridge SunLine Transit SunLine Transit SunLine Transit SunLine Transit SunLine Transit Foundation for the Retarded of the n� e� Foundation for the Retarded of the Peppermint Ridge Peppermint Ridge Care Connexxus,Inc. PROJECT Medium Bus Base Station Mobile Radio Computer Equipment Computer Software Medium Bus Medium Bus Medium Bus Mobile Radio Computer Equipment Modified Van Larger Bus Type III Modified Van Modified Van Modified Van TYPE' R OE OE OE OE R R R OE OE S/E S/E S/E S/E S/E VIN 62943 N/A N/A N/A N/A 18565 57950 57954 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 'TYPE: "S/E" - Service Expansion; "R: • Replacement; and "OE" - Other Equipment QTY 1 2 16 1 1 1 1 1 3 3 1 1 1 1 SECTION 1 SCORE 18 20 20 20 20 20 16 14 20 15 20 20 13 13 13 SECTION 2 SCORE 27 21 21 21 21 20 20 20 20 20 21 21 21 21 9 SECTION 3 SCORE 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 SECTION 4 SCORE 28 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 26 26 30 30 28 SECTION PROJECT 5 SCORE SCORE COST 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 8 8 10 10 10 $56,000 $7,400 $24,000 $1,992 $1,610 $56,000 $56,000 $56,000 $4,500 $4,500 $50,000 $60,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 Total Funds Requested $528,002 35 AGENDA ITEM 11 • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: March 27, 2006 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Shirley Medina, Program Manager THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Director of Programming and Administration SUBJECT: Amendment No. 2 to the SR 91 Cooperative Agreement #08-1152 (RCTC #05-31-527) Between Caltrans and the Riverside County Transportation Commission to Prepare Project Approval and Environmental Documents for the SR 91 HOV lane project (Adams to 60/91 /215 IC) STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Approve Agreement No. 05-31-527, Amendment No. 2, to the SR 91 Cooperative Agreement No. 8-1152 to increase the Caltrans oversight costs by $100,000 that will be funded from the current Traffic Congestion Relief allocation; 2) Authorize the Executive Director to execute the Amendment No. 2 subject to legal counsel review; and 3) Forward to the Commission for final action. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The SR 91 High Occupancy Vehicle lane project from Mary Street to the Interchange was allocated $3.7 million of Traffic Congestion Relief (TCR) funds for the Project Approval/Environmental Document (PA&ED) phase. The SR 91 Cooperative Agreement No. 08-1152 between Caltrans and the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) allows Caltrans to charge up to $370,000 (or 10 percent of the project allocation) for project oversight responsibilities. The 10 percent is an arbitrary estimate that was established by legislation; however, project oversight activities can be as low as 5 percent and up to 35 percent or higher depending on the scope and requirements of each project. In December 2004, the Commission approved increasing the oversight cost from $370,000 to $604,000 to cover expenses incurred by Caltrans in preparing a Value Analysis (VA) and Right of Way (R/W) Data Sheet. These expenses were above and beyond typical oversight services. This action also assumed that the PA&ED phase would be completed in June 2005. The latest estimate for 36 ADDITION TO AGENDA RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: March 27, 2006 TO: Plans and Programs Committee FROM: Anne Mayer, Programming and Administration Director THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: 2006 State Transportation Improvement Program Priorities PLANS AND PROGRAMS COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Committee to approve prioritization of projects included in the 2006 State Transportation Improvement Program submittal for Riverside County. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The 2006 State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) is scheduled for adoption at the April California Transportation Commission (CTC) meeting. In January 2006, the Commission submitted a recommendation to the CTC for review and earlier this month Commissioner Steve Adams testified on behalf of the Commission's program at the Southern California STIP hearings. CTC staff is in the process of reviewing submittals and testimony and will be finalizing their recommendations by April 7, 2006. In recent discussions, CTC staff has indicated that minimal funding will be available for programming therefore it is essential that the Commission prioritize projects included in the proposal. CTC staff has also recommended that the Commission provide the prioritization as soon as possible. As you may recall from staff's earlier presentations, there were three funding scenarios that were presented in the fund estimate to utilize for programming: • Target Scenario — $167 million new programming capacity. This scenario assumes programming of county shares through 2010/201 1 . • 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. The Commission's submittal was based on the Target Scenario. CTC staff is now indicating that programming levels on average are likely to be less than 20% of target scenario capacity due to the lack of available highway funds. The only exceptions will be in the counties, such as Riverside, with higher minimum amounts. CTC staff has indicated that the funding requested for the Perris Valley Line project is likely to be allocated because it is eligible for Public Transportation Account (PTA) funding. Staff recommends submitting the following priorities to CTC staff: 1. $12.635 million to the State Route 60 HOV lanes from Interstate 15 to Valley Way. 2. $15 million to Coachella Valley priority project. 3. $23.1 million to SR-91 HOV project for right-of-way acquisition. 4. $7.349 million to SR-60/I-15 East Junction Connector. Attachment: January 11, 2006 Agenda Item for 2006 STIP REVISED AGENDA ITEM 9 Additions are noted by Bold Italics, Deletions are noted by Strikcthrough RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMM/SS/ON 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 (NOV) 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 S23.483 $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 lane 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 lIP 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 9 111 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 $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 1 (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 Coachella Valley Palo Verde Valley 74.45% $ 2,488,030 24.76% $ 827,449 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. 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 33,227,899 11, 050,675 352,586 44,631,160 $ 45,542,000 $ 910,840 *2004 STIP Adjustment $ (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. Attachment 2 2006 STIP Proposed Programming - Target Scenario Current Proiects $ (000's Agency ' Rte Project Total RIP FY 06/07 FY 07/08 FY 08/09 FY 09/10 FY 10/11 Phase RCTC PPM Planning, Programming, and Monitoring $ 1,105 $ 105 $ 500 $ 500 Con Caltrans 10 Ramon Rd/Bob Hope Interchange $ 19,022 $ 19,022 Con Caltrans 10 Jefferson Street Interchange $ 10,560 $ 10,560 Con Caltrans 10 Indian Ave Interchange $ 15,112 $ 2,000 $ 13,112 R/W, Con Caltrans 15 Calif Oaks/Kalmia Interchange $ 7,366 $ 2,324 $ 5,042 RAN, 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, New Proiect Proarammin 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/1N, 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 completion of the environmental document is June 2006. Caltrans has incurred additional costs and has estimated that an additional $100,000 would be needed to cover expenses incurred through June 2006. A summary of the oversight expenditures is as follows: Oversight at 10% $370,000 Value Analysis and Right of Way $234,000 Additional Funds Needed June 2005 through June 2006 $100,000 Total 91 HOV PA&ED Oversight S704,000 Staff is recommending approval of an additional $100,000 for Caltrans oversight activities to complete the environmental phase. The current TCR allocation is $3.7 million, which to date over $1 million, remains unexpended. Upon completion of the environmental phase, unexpended funds will be transferred to the right of way or construction phase. • 37