Loading...
04 April 12, 2006 Commission76456 RECORDS RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA TIME: 10:00 a.m. PLEASE NOTE TIME CHANGE DATE: Wednesday, April 12, 2006 LOCATION: BOARD ROOM County of Riverside Administrative Center 4080 Lemon Street, First Floor, Riverside Commissioners Chairman: Marion Ashley 151 Vice Chairman: Terry Henderson 2"d Vice Chairman: Jeff Stone Bob Buster, County of Riverside John F. Tavaglione, County of Riverside Jeff Stone, County of Riverside Roy Wilson, County of Riverside Marion Ashley, County of Riverside Barbara Hanna / Art Welch, City of Banning Roger Berg / Jeff Fox, City of Beaumont Robert Crain / Joseph DeConnick, City of Blythe John Chlebnik / Shenna Moqeet / Bill Davis, City of Calimesa Mary Craton / John Zaitz, City of Canyon Lake Gregory S. Pettis / Charles England, City of Cathedral City Juan M. DeLara / Richard Macknicki, City of Coachella Jeff Miller / Karen Spiegel, City of Corona Alex Bias / Yvonne Parks, City of Desert Hot Springs Robin Lowe / Lori Van Arsdale, City of Hemet Mary Roche / Robert Bernheimer, City of Indian Wells Michael H. Wilson / Gene Gilbert, City of Indio Terry Henderson / Don Adolph, City of La Quinta Bob Magee / Robert L. Schiffner, City of Lake Elsinore Frank West / Charles White, City of Moreno Valley Rick Gibbs / Douglas McAllister, City of Murrieta Frank Hall / Harvey Sullivan, City of Norco Dick Kelly / Robert Spiegel, City of Palm Desert Ronald Oden / Ginny Foat, City of Palm Springs Daryl Busch / Mark Yarbrough, City of Perris Ron Meepos / Alan Semen, City of Rancho Mirage Steve Adams, City of Riverside Jim Ayres/Chris Buydos, City of San Jacinto Ron Roberts / Jeff Comerchero, City of Temecula Mike Perovich, Governor's Appointee Eric Haley, Executive Director Hideo Sugita, Deputy Executive Director Comments are welcomed by the Commission. if you wish to provide comments to the Commission, please complete and submit a Testimony Card to the Clerk of the Commission. 11.36.00 • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION www. rctc. org AGENDA* *Actions may be taken on any item listed on the agenda PLEASE NOTE TIME CHANGE 10:00 a.m. Wednesday, April 12, 2006 BOARD ROOM County of Riverside Administrative Center 4080 Lemon Street, First Floor, Riverside In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act and Government Code Section 54954.2, if special assistance is needed to participate in a Commission meeting, please contact the Clerk of the Board at (951) 787-7141. Notification of at least 48 hours prior to meeting time will assist staff in assuring that reasonable arrangements can be made to provide accessibility at the meeting. 1.. CALL TO ORDER 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 3. ROLL CALL 4. PUBLIC COMMENTS (Items not listed on the agenda) 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - March 8, 2006 6. ADDITIONS/REVISIONS (The Commission may add an item to the Agenda after making a finding that there is a need to take immediate action on the item and that the item came to the attention of the Commission subsequent to the posting of the agenda. An action adding an item to the agenda requires 2/3 vote of the Commission. if there are less than 2/3 of the Commission members present, adding an item to the agenda requires a unanimous vote. Added items will be placed for discussion at the end of the agenda.) Riverside County Transportation Commission Agenda April 12, 2006 Page 2 7. 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. 7A. APPROVAL OF AGREEMENT NO. 05-31-527-02, AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO THE STATE ROUTE 91 COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT NO. 08-1152 WITH CALTRANS TO PREPARE PROJECT APPROVAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTS FOR THE STATE ROUTE 91 HIGH OCCUPANCY VEHICLE LANE PROJECT (ADAMS STREET TO 60/91/215 INTERCHANGE) Overview This itemis for the Commission to: Page 1 1) Approve Agreement No. 05-31-527-02, Amendment No. 2 to the SR-91 Cooperative Agreement No. 8-1 152, to increase the Caltrans oversight costs by $100,000 that will be funded from the current Traffic Congestion Relief (TCR) allocation; and 2) Authorize the Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission. 7B. CITY OF RIVERSIDE TRANSPORTATION UNIFORM MITIGATION. FEE PROGRAMMING REQUEST FOR THE VAN BUREN BOULEVARD, SANTA ANA RIVER TO JACKSON STREET, WIDENING PROJECT Page 3 Overview This item is for the Commission to approve the city of, Riverside's request to program $845,000 of Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) funds on the Van Buren Boulevard, Santa Ana River to Jackson Street, widening project. Riverside County Transportation Commission Agenda April 12, 2006 Page 3 7C. AWARD AGREEMENT NO. 06-66-044-00 TO CIVIC RESOURCE GROUP FOR DEVELOPMENT OF A WEB -BASED PROJECT MANAGEMENT DATABASE Page 5 Overview This item is for the Commission to: 1) Award Agreement No. 06-66-044-00 in the amount of $48,510 to Civic Resource Group to develop a web -based Project Management Database; and 2) Authorize the Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission. 7D. FISCAL YEAR 2006/07 FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION'S SECTION 5310 PROGRAM Overview This item is for the Commission to: Page 7 1) Adopt the FY 2006/07 Federal Transit Administration's (FTA) Section 5310 Riverside County project rankings as recommended by the Local Review Committee; 2) Include the projects in the Regional Transportation Improvement Plan; and 3) Adopt Resolution No. 06-003, "A Resolution of the Riverside County Transportation Commission Certifying Project Consistency With Regional Transportation Plan', to certify that the projects are consistent with the local area regional transportation plan. • Riverside County Transportation Commission Agenda April 12, 2006 Page 4 7E. 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 Page 12 Overview This item is for the Commission to: 1) Allocate $21,844 in Local Transportation Fund (LTF) funds 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 (RTIP); and 3) Amend SunLine's Short Range Transit Plan (SRTP) to reflect these changes. 7F. APPROVAL OF RELEASE OF STATEMENT OF QUALIFICATIONS/ REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL FOR THE JOINT DEVELOPMENT OF THE RIVERSIDE -DOWNTOWN STATION Page 14 Overview This item is for the Commission to approve the release of the Statement of Qualifications (SOQ) followed by the Request for Proposals (RFP) for the Joint Development of the Riverside -Downtown Station. Riverside County Transportation Commission Agenda April 12, 2006 Page 5 7G. CALIFORNIA STATE RAIL PLAN 2005/06 TO 2015/16: LOS ANGELES TO INDIO (COACHELLA VALLEY) Page 25 Overview This item is for the Commission 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); and 3) Adopt Resolution No. 06-004, "A Resolution of the Riverside County Transportation Commission in Support for the Los Angeles to Indio Service." 7H. CITY OF RIVERSIDE JURUPA AVENUE GRADE SEPARATION CPUC SECTION 190 10% LOCAL MATCH REQUEST Page 42 Overview This item is for the Commission to allocate $500,000 in available Rail Local Transportation Funds (LTF) funds to provide a non-federal match to the city of Riverside for the Jurupa Avenue Grade Separation project. 71. COMMUTER RAIL PROGRAM UPDATE Page 44 Overview This item is for the Commission to receive and file the Commuter Rail Program update as an information item. • Riverside County Transportation Commission Agenda April 12, 2006 Page 6 7J. STATE AND FEDERAL LEGISLATIVE UPDATE Overview This item is for the Commission to: Page 49 1) Approve the following bill positions: SB 1812 (Runner; R-Palmdale) — SUPPORT AB 2630 (Benoit, R-Riverside) — SUPPORT 2) Direct staff to issue an Request for Proposal (RFP) for State Legislative Lobbyist Services; 3) Receive and .file the State and Federal Legislative update as an information item. 8. . AWARD OF ALAMEDA CORRIDOR EAST SAFETEA-LU EARMARK Overview This item is for the Commission to: Page 54 1) Allocate $21 million of the $31.25 million of RCTC SAFETEA-LU Alameda Corridor East (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; and 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. Riverside County Transportation Commission Agenda April 12, 2006 Page 7 9. 60/91/215 INTERCHANGE DESIGN -SEQUENCING PROJECT COST INCREASE Page 59 Overview This item is for the Commission to approve the: 1) Reprogramming of $16.3 million of Traffic Congestion Relief Program (TCRP) funds from the SR-91 High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lane to the 60/91/215 Interchange Corridor project to cover the 60/91/215 Interchange design -sequencing project cost increase; and 2) Allocation of $6.005 million of. Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) program and/or Surface Transportation Program (STP) funds to cover the 60/91/215 Interchange design -sequencing project cost increase. 10. REQUEST TO JOIN RIVERSIDE ORANGE CORRIDOR AUTHORITY Overview This item is for the Commission to: Page 62 1) Join the Riverside Orange Corridor Authority (ROCA), pursuant to legal counsel review; and 2) Authorize the Chair to appoint three members to serve on the ROCA Board of Directors. 11. 2006 STATE TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PRIORITIES Page 87 Overview This item is for the Commission to approve prioritization of projects included in the 2006 State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) submittal for Riverside County. 12. ITEMS PULLED FROM CONSENT CALENDAR AGENDA 13. COMMISSIONERS / EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S REPORT Overview This item provides the opportunity for the Commissioners and the Executive Director to report on attended meetings/conferences and any other items related to Commission activities. Riverside County Transportation Commission Agenda April 12, 2006 Page 8 14. CLOSED SESSION ITEM A. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL: EXISTING LITIGATION Pursuant to Subdivision (a) of Government Code Section 54956.9 B. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL: ANTICIPATED LITIGATION Pursuant to Subdivision (b) of Government Code Section 54956.9 C. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL: ANTICIPATED LITIGATION Pursuant to Subdivision (c) of Government Code Section 54956..9 Initiation of Litigation: Potential Number of Cases — 1 D. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8 Negotiating Parties: RCTC — Executive Director or Designee Property Owners - See List of Property Owners Item APN Property Owner(s) 279-030-003 279-030-004 279-030-005 279-030-006 Mike Kerr — Agent 279-030-008 Christine McMillan 279-190-034 Gary McMillan 279-240-001 Patricia McMillan 279-240-008 279-240-009 282-040-003 2 279-230-003 David Consani — Agent Liston Brick 15. ADJOURNMENT The next Commission meeting is scheduled to be held •at 10:00 a.m., Wednesday, .May 10, 2006, Board Room, County of Riverside Administrative Center, 4080 Lemon Street;First Floor, Riverside. RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION COMMISSIONER SIGN -IN SHEET APRIL 12, 2006 NAME AGENCY E MAIL ADDRESS -K ).- 6 b' Yi,t i. 6 t,1 ,M 4If p-J C�}�cA1 �� �nJ �/7�V J C/� GG1 i , 1�i�re ��- ������ ,iPAo� Gv.$ s'T /4/Grrre //k,./`Cj.-- 17//1-7ce/., �AvK --741-Lc - A.10. �v d°.i-e / .0,11;cv44- (MArri' c�a1e�ricAGLArYlcLt//f4Pi- � .T /-*!!(II(' Ilea.cd, 43-71-- TT-l..1) Mt) \--Vtt'4I'VU16 ,,,_ AlET-cv-r\ V Ste kil I-EZu vi C00AS4 I Sot-Ya,. 0IL" Gbi 1C14i... G',2 r C 7:14L. eat_ GT C__. S7-A9 ' �- A/1 "\n I cw P} 4 �----% 2 C /d os- o «r ��S c 4�icJ-t 1 �z // r-) 0/ e-s 69� /---r1 QD (iL).7-6 _ /e' l/ e,eseti&a � , •ifs 2 409). ✓gam Al d?,G -- S%G 6(1 *IA et!). LZ� ,(0Llivfil G_ M/ C1/4E2 t,u r i-Sv t•-/ A' P j o � �7)00ciile e-N � tie-N ,-, r; r.L - s 5)e 4-h S CA-C14-L--(J (L} 1 Ci 1usm Wuxi(. 0.ryx.ein 0 , la. J i¢lch,6_ IC' . r/, fry„ oL RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION ROLL CALL April 12, 2006 Present Absent County of Riverside, District I . County of Riverside, District II County of Riverside, District III County of Riverside, District IV County of ;Riverside, District V -; City of Banning City of Beaumont . City of Blythe City of Ca!mesa City of Canyon Lake City of Cathedral City City of Coachella City of. Corona City of Desert Hot Springs City of Hemet City of Indian Wells City of Indio City of La Quinta City of Lake Elsinore . City of Moreno Valley Cityof Murrieta City of Norco City of Palm Desert City of Palm Springs City of Perris City of Rancho Mirage City of Riverside City of San Jacinto City of Temecula Governor's Appointee, Ca!trans District 8 DETACH AND SUBMIT TO THE CLERK OF THE BOARD Speakers shall complete the following: DATE: y - / 2 — c!G AGENDA ITEM NO.: (AS LISTED ON THE AGENDA) SUBJECT OF RA405,0 Az+ev �i a(�, q F.`Da s �p✓ PUBLIC COMMENTS: g PUBLIC COMMENTS: SUBJECT OF AGENDA ITEM: NAME: 71g1/, ��%c✓',S 6 ADDRESS: 26Go(aS reet City TEL. NO.: 757 �0 l - Dfi--b ? zs-o7 Zip Code REPRESENTING: (/ rger.'i47 Iv ji-4 ov� ov� �SS. `$ s-+t4.t 4144lSL1wf -or Name of Group S„•— /' 001,14N. BUSINESS ADDRESS: RCTC/nk 10/03 TEL. NO.: DETACH AND SUBMIT TO THE CLERK OF THE BOARD Speakers shall complete the following: PUBLIC COMMENTS: 1/44 AGENDA ITEM NO.: IAS LISTED ON THE AGENDA) NAME: DATE: SUBJECT OF H t 6-)e-0 � m ean2 N/ PUBLIC COMMENTS: IkftNSPOR /DA✓ C€-N7Eie SUBJECT OF AGENDA ITEM: ADDRESS: 1-/7 174- M sFE� REPRESENTING: BUSINESS ADDRE RCTC/nk 10/03 2J Ogo %% TEL. NO. � �J� / 7- 2z5-237 Street City Name of Group TEL. NO.: J 'Zip Code DETACH AND SUL.diIT TO THE CLERK -OF -THE -BOARD Speakers shall complete the following: DATE: LA " `o �o SUBJECT OF PUBLIC COMMENTS: X PUBLIC COMMENTS: AGENDA ITEM NO.: O SUBJECT OF (AS LISTED ON THE AGENDA) 1 AGENDA I NAME: tI t er, 13 it ADDRESS: REPRESENTING: BUSINESS RCTClnk 10103 DRESS: e (O.n \eCd`f i cl 01� �Uri�ll Jt'ms, f\ TEL. NO.: Street City Zip Code anT- CrDUnt/U� n f�Gro5Varl-M 1 &\ i'1t(i 550 5. tY)l 61-TEL. NO.: C1105(00 -J 92,3 ar rlg-e , an* HIGHGROVE METROLINIUTRANSPORTATION CENTER April 12, 2006 Dear Riverside County Transportation Commissioner, Here is a 5 step plan I would like for RCTC to consider: 1. Pursue an agreement between RCTC and UPRR for the Perris Valley Line commuter trains to align onto the Union Pacific track between Marlborough Ave. and Riverside (instead of coming into Highgrove) to accommodate riders between Perris and Riverside. 2. RCTC purchase the 35 acres of vacant land between the Perris Valley Line and the BNSF main line for a Metrolink/Transportation Center and create a station stop in Highgrove by using the existina 8 commuter trains on the BNSF main line that presently pass through Highgrove but do not stop, to accommodate riders from the Highgrove/Grand Terrace area to Riverside or to San Bernardino. 3. Communicate with the City of Riverside so that their 35 acre portion of Hunter Park will be set aside for a future transportation center instead of constructing more large buildings. 4. Extend Spring St. westward into the 35 acres and make a new road (approx.'A mile long) parallel to the BNSF tracks and connect to Iowa Ave. near Palmyrita Avenue. This will allow I-215 freeway access without being blocked by trains. 5. Use funds planned for the proposed Spruce and Rustin station and instead purchase the larger property located in Hunter Park which is all vacant land and has existing tracks on both sides. The tracks intersect at Main St. in Highgrove. Note: I do not represent any Company, Developer or Real Estate Agent and 1 have no financial interest in the 35 acres mentioned I am a retired Santa Fe Conductor with over 41 years experience up and down these tracks. My goal is trying to encourage RCTC to purchase this land now. It is supported by the University Neighborhood Association near UCR (3-15-06), past resolutions from Highgrove (11-27-01), Grand Terrace (12-13-01), and Loma Linda (1- 24- 02) who all want a Metrolink Station in Highgrove. Please feel to contact me for further details or ifyou have any questions. Thank you very much, R. A. "Barney" Barnett (951) 683 4994 474 Prospect Ave. Highgrove; Est 92507 , 951=683-4994 (Home) ' • 9514:-683-725810ax) K,: ehairmuwa `t 95145543648' (Cell), heingroyenews6adelphia net Highgrove Metrolink/Transportation Center To San Bernardino (7 Miles) wa; To Riverside (3 Miles) April 12, 2006 40 Acres Vacant land 28 Acres Vacant land by: R. A. "Barney" Barnett (951) 683-4994 AGENDA ITEM 5 MINUTES RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MINUTES Wednesday, March 8, 2006 1. CALL TO ORDER The Riverside County Transportation Commission was called to order by Chair Marion Ashley at 9:02 a.m., in the Board Room at the County of Riverside Administrative Center, 4080 Lemon Street, Riverside, California, 92501. 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE At this time, Chair Ashley led the Commission in a flag salute. 3. ROLL CALL Commissioners/Alternates Present Commissioners Absent Steve Adams Marion Ashley Roger Berg Alex Bias Daryl Busch Bob Buster Mary Craton Juan DeLara Rick Gibbs Frank Hall Barbara Hanna Terry Henderson Richard Kelly Robin Lowe Bob Magee Jeff Miller Mike Perovich Gregory Pettis Mary Roche Ron Roberts Jeff Stone Frank West Michael H. Wilson Roy Wilson Jim Ayers John Chlebnik Robert Crain Ron Meepos Ronald Oden John Tavaglione* *Commissioner John Tavaglione assigned his proxy vote to Commissioner Jeff Stone. A letter has been filed with the Acting Clerk of the Board. Riverside "County Transportation Commission Minutes March 8, 2006 Page 2 4. PUBLIC COMMENTS Eric Haley, Executive Director, presented Ken Lobeck, Staff Analyst, with a five-year service award and commended him for his work. He then introduced the newly hired Commission staff members - Keasha Cooks, Senior Accounting Assistant; Marlin Feenstra, Program Manager; Aaron Hake, Staff Analyst; and Edda Rosso, Program Manager. APPROVAL OF MINUTES -February 8, 2006 MIS/C (M. Wilson/Stone) to approve the February 8, 2006 minutes as submitted. ADDITIONS/REVISIONS Steve DeBaun, RCTC Legal Counsel, requested the addition of the following to Agenda Item 13C Closed Session: C. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8 Negotiating Parties: RCTC — Executive Director or Designee Property Owners - See List of Property Owners Item APN Property Owner(s) 915-280-010 915-280-011 1 915-280-018 John Bell 915-280-022 915-280-023 This item arose after the agenda was posted and mailed, and there is a need for this item be addressed by the Commission at this time. He also noted a correction to Agenda Item 13B to correctly place Case No. C 05 1525 JSW under Agenda Item 13A. M/S/C (R. Wilson/Henderson) to approve the addition and revision. Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes March 8, 2006 Page 3 7. CONSENT CALENDAR Eric Haley commented on Agenda Item 7H, "New Year -Round Inland Empire — Orange County Weekend Service", highlighting the two-year effort to start year-round weekend service on the IEOC line and commended the involved agencies for their cooperation. M/S/C (Lowe/Henderson) to approve the following Consent Calendar items: 7A. FISCAL YEAR 2004/05 TDA AND MEASURE A AUDIT RESULTS Receive and file the Transportation Development Act (TDA) and Measure A audit results report for the Fiscal Year 2004/05. 78. TRANSPORTATION UNIFORM MITIGATION FEE (TUMF) FINANCING THROUGH STATEWIDE COMMUNITY INFRASTRUCTURE PROGRAM Approve in -concept the Commission's participation in the Statewide Community Infrastructure Program (SCIP). 7C. ANNUAL INVESTMENT POLICY REVIEW Adopt the Updated Investment Policy. 7D. QUARTERLY INVESTMENT REPORT Receive and file the Quarterly Investment Report for the quarter ended December 31, 2005. 7E. REQUEST FOR FUNDING ASSISTANCE FOR THE WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY SPECIAL AREA MANAGEMENT PLAN Allocate $133,000 in State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) Planning, Programming and Monitoring funds to assist in the completion of the Special Area Management Plan (SAMP). 7F. TRANSPORTATION UNIFORM MITIGATION FEE (TUMF) PROGRAMMING ADMINISTRATIVE POLICY Approve the TUMF Programming Administrative Policy. Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes March 8, 2006 Page 4 7G. CITIZENS' ADVISORY COMMITTEE/SOCIAL SERVICES TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE 1) Renew Sherry Thibodeaux, Andrea Puga and Mary Venerable's memberships to the Citizens' Advisory Committee/Social Services Transportation Advisory Committee (CAC/SSTAC); 2) Appoint Michelle Anglin as a new member to the CAC/SSTAC; and 3) Approve the membership roster for CAC/SSTAC effective January 2006. 7H. NEW YEAR-ROUND INLAND EMPIRE — ORANGE COUNTY WEEKEND SERVICE 1) Approve implementation of year-round Inland Empire -Orange County (IEOC) weekend service; 2) Amend the RCTC Commuter Rail SRTP to include the new IEOC weekend trains; 3) Allocate $120,000 in Local Transportation Funds for operations and promotion of the IEOC weekend service for FY 2005/06, and amend the Commuter Rail Budget by $120,000; and 4) Receive and file the Commuter Rail Program Update as an information item. 71. PUBLIC OUTREACH SERVICES CONTRACT FOR PERRIS VALLEY LINE METROLINK EXTENSION 1) Award three-year consultant Agreement No. 06-25-034-00 to O'Reilly Public Affairs in an amount not to exceed $140,000; and 2) Award three-year. consultant Agreement No 06-25-035-00 to Moore -lacofano Goltsman, Inc. in an amount not to exceed $140,000. 7J. STATE AND FEDERAL LEGISLATIVE UPDATE 1) Approve the following bill positions: AB 2025 (Niello, R-Fair Oaks) — SUPPORT AB 2028 (Huff, R-Diamond Bar) SUPPORT; and 2) Receive and file the update as an information item. Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes March 8, 2006 Page 5 8. PROPOSED POLICY GOALS AND OBJECTIVES FOR FISCAL YEAR 2006/07 BUDGET Michele Cisneros, Accounting Manager, highlighted the primary changes made to the policy goals and objectives set last year and provided an overview of the budget process and the new focuses for FY 2006/07. The final budget will be presented to the Commission for final adoption on June 14, 2006. M/S/C (Stone/Adams) to approve the proposed Commission Policy Goals and Objectives for the FY 2006/07 Budget. 9. APPROVE AGREEMENT NO. 02-31-043-03, AMENDMENT NO. 3 WITH CH2M HILL FOR THE PERFORMANCE OF PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING SERVICES FOR THE PREPARATION OF AN ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT PROJECT REPORT AND ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT FOR THE STATE ROUTE 79 REALIGNMENT PROJECT Hideo Sugita, Deputy Executive Director, provided background information on the SR-79 realignment project. He discussed the issues related to identifying alternatives to be studied in the environmental document and reviewed the alignment map. In response to Commissioner Bob Buster's question regarding the length of the new corridor, Hideo Sugita responded that the realignment project is approximately 19 miles. Commissioner Buster expressed his support for the realignment project and suggested that additional east -west alignments and a re-evaluation of demand forecasts will be needed. He then requested a review of the project schedule. Hideo Sugita responded that a draft environmental document should be completed by 2008 and reviewed the issues related to the document including the additional alignments, vernal pool complexes, and completion of wet season surveys. Commissioner Robin Lowe stated that flood control maps and sheet flow coverages presented at the Riverside Conservation Authority meeting on March 7`h appear to be different from the maps that the city of Hemet Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes March 8, 2006 Page 6 commissioned several years ago and different from the CH2MHill maps for the hydrology. Commissioner Lowe requested that as this project moves forward, a meeting is held with all entities involved to compare data and ensure accuracy and efficiency. M/S/C (Lowe/Stone) to: 1) Award of Agreement No. 02-31-043-03, Amendment No. 3, to CH2M Hill based on the negotiated project scope, schedule and cost that is attached to this agenda item for the Realignment of SR-79 in the vicinity of the cities of San Jacinto and Hemet for the development of an Administrative Draft Project Report and Environmental Document (PR/ED) (the Project). This Amendment will not increase the .currently approved not to exceed amount for this consultant services contract. The revised °scope of services will be funded by rescoping the Project back from the completion of a final PR/ED to the completion of the Administrative Draft PR/ED by taking the actions noted below in recommendations 2 and 3; 2) Authorize the use of the contingency funds in the amount of $1,807,873 that were established by Amendment No. 2, Agreement No. 06-31-516, to fund a portion of the attached newly defined scope of services that will be required to take the Project to the Administrative Draft level of the PR/ED; 3) Authorize the reallocation of the existing scope of services that are currently valued at $1,428,639 from approved Amendment No. 1, Agreement No. 05-31-532, to fund the remainder of the revised scope of services defined in Amendment, No. 3 to .take the Project to the Administrative Draft level of the PR/ED; 4) Authorize staff to work with the consultant team to develop a revised scope of work that will move the Project from the Administrative Draft level to the final PR/ED; and 5) Authorize the Chair, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission.: 10. SELECTION OF A REPRESENTATIVE TO THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE At this time, the Chair called for a recess for representatives of the following areas • to meet and determine their respective representative to the Executive Committee: Banning, . Beaumont, Calimesa, Canyon Lake, Hemet, Lake Elsinore, Murrieta, Norco, Perris, San Jacinto, Temecula. Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes March 8, 2006 Page 7 The Commission reconvened and Commissioner Lowe announced that the representative to the Executive Committee for the cities of Banning, Beaumont, Calimesa, Canyon Lake, Hemet, Lake Elsinore, Murrieta, Norco, Perris, San Jacinto, and Temecula is Commissioner Roger Berg. 11. ITEMS PULLED FROM CONSENT CALENDAR AGENDA No items were pulled from the Consent Calendar for discussion. 12. COMMISSIONERS / EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S REPORT A) Commissioner Ashley announced that there were two handouts for Commissioners/Executive Director's Report that include a report from Commissioner Ron Roberts regarding a SCAG conference and a Metrolink letter that Eric Haley will present. B) Eric Haley reported on the following items: • • • • The Washington DC legislative trip in February attended by Chair Ashley, 2' Vice Chair Stone, Eric Haley, and Anne Mayer, Programming and. Administration Director. The Women's Transportation Seminar (WTS) is honoring: "Woman of the Year" Commissioner Lowe, "Member of the Year" Stephanie Wiggins, Regional Programs Director, and "Organization of the Year" Riverside County Transportation Commission. The event will be held on March 29, 2006 at the Mission Inn including a reception for Tony Grasso, SANBAG Executive Director. Correspondence from David Solow, SCRRA Chief Executive Officer, on the UC Riverside Metrolink Pass. Future projects that will be discussed at the annual retreat to be held in September 2006. Suggestion from Commissioners Dick Kelly and Terry Henderson for a new start time for the Commissioner meetings possibly starting at 9:30 a.m. or 10:00 a.m. in an effort to reduce traffic congestion at peak hours. Jennifer Harmon, Acting Clerk of the Board, will conduct a survey to determine the Commissioners' preference. Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes March 8, 2006 Page 8 C► Commissioner Ron Roberts expressed concern for the cancellation of the SR-91 Advisory Committee and the increasing tolls. He stated that the Commission needs to ensure the constituents of the County are represented and ensure the Counties are working together. He also reported that SCAG's Regional Council approved the addition of Tribal Indian Nation voting members. D) Commissioner Bob Buster also expressed concern regarding the postponement of the SR-91 Advisory Committee and .; suggested exploring the toll rates and reduction of monthly fees. He also commented on the voter information for the extension of Orange County's Measure M and the importance of coordination between Riverside and Orange Counties. 12. CLOSED SESSION ITEM A. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL: EXISTING LITIGATION Pursuant to Subdivision (a) of Government Code Section 54956.9 Case No: RIC 393352 and C 05 1525 JSW B. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL: ANTICIPATED LITIGATION Pursuant to Subdivision (b) of Government Code Section 54956.9 No cases under this section. . CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8 Negotiating. Parties: RCTC — Executive Director or Designee Property Owners - See List of Property Owners Item APN Property Owner(s) 915-280-010 915-280-011 1 915-280-018 John Bell 915-280-022 915-280-023 There were no announcements for Closed Session items. Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes March 8, 2006 Page 9 - 13. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business for consideration by the Riverside County Transportation Commission, the meeting adjourned at 10:38 p.m. The next Commission meeting is scheduled to be held at a time to be determined by the Commission, on Wednesday, April 12, 2006, at the County of Riverside Administrative Center, 4080 Lemon Street, Board Room, Riverside, California, 92501. Respectfully submitted, Jennifer Harmon Acting Clerk of the Board AGENDA ITEM 7A • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: April 12, 2006 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Plans and Programs Committee Shirley Medina, Program Manager THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Programming and Administration Director SUBJECT: Approval of Agreement No. 05-31-527-02, Amendment No. 2 to the State Route 91 Cooperative Agreement No. 08-1152 With Caltrans to Prepare Project Approval and Environmental Documents for the State Route 91 High Occupancy Vehicle . Lane Project (Adams Street to 60/91 /215 Interchange) PLANS AND PROGRAMS COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Approve Agreement No. 05-31-527-02, 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 (TCR) allocation; and 2) Authorize the Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The SR-91 High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lane project from Mary Street to the 60/91/215 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 Agenda Item 7A 1 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 $704,000 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. Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: No Year: N/A Amount: S100,000 Source of Funds: State Traffic Congestion Relief Budget Ad ustment: No GLA No.: N/A Fiscal Procedures Approved: \4/� Date: 04/04/06 Agenda Item 7A 2 • AGENDA ITEM 7B • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: April 12, 2006 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Shirley Medina, Program Manager THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Programming and Administration Director SUBJECT: City of Riverside Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee Programming Request for the Van Buren Boulevard, Santa Ana River to Jackson Street, Widening Project STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to approve the city of Riverside's request to program $845,000 of Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) funds on the Van Buren Boulevard, Santa Ana River to Jackson Street, widening project. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: In 2004, the Commission approved funding 24 projects for a total of $71.7 million under a five-year TUMF Regional Arterial Program. The majority of funds were programmed for pre -construction phases. The city of Riverside's project on Van Buren Boulevard, Santa Ana River to Jackson Street, was approved under the Regional Arterial Program; however, the Commission deferred programming construction funds until the city was ready to begin the construction phase. The reason the construction funds were not programmed at this time was to allow the Commission to consider cash flow impacts as projects become ready for construction. Therefore, this "first come, first serve" concept would also serve as an inducement to lead agencies to deliver projects as quickly as possible. The city of Riverside is requesting the programming of construction funds for the Van Buren Boulevard project in FY 2006/07 as the project is estimated to begin construction in early 2007. Per the 2004 CCI Nexus adjustment, the project is eligible for $845,000 (including contingency) of TUMF funds. The subsequent Nexus Study update that is scheduled for final approval in July 2006 may also provide additional funding for this project beyond the $845,000. If this is the case, an adjustment will be made in accordance with RCTC's TUMF Programming Administrative Policy that allows RCTC to update the TUMF project amounts in accordance with the TUMF 10-year Strategic Plan and Nexus Study. Agenda Item 7B 3 Staff recommends approval of city of Riverside's request to program $845,000 of TUMF Regional Arterial Program funds for the construction phase of the Van Buren Boulevard, Santa Ana River to Jackson Street, widening project. Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: No Year: FY 2006/07 Amount: $845,000 Source of Funds: TUMF Regional Arterial Budget Ad ustment: No GLA No.: 210-72-81301 P5125 Fiscal Procedures Approved: \;a,14$vv, Date: 4/3/06 Agenda Item 7B 4 • AGENDA ITEM 7C • RIVERS/DE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: April 12, 2006 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Shirley Medina, Program Manager THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Programming and Administration Director SUBJECT: Award Agreement No. 06-66-044-00 to Civic Resource Group for Development of a Web -Based Project Management Database STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Award Agreement No. 06-66-044-00 in the amount of $48,510 to Civic Resource Group to develop a web -based Project Management Database; and 2) Authorize the Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: In November 2005, the Commission released a Request for Proposal (RFP) for the development of a web -based Project Management Database. The database will provide Commission staff with a consolidated database for the purpose of monitoring project funds and tracking project schedules. RCTC currently monitors over 400 transportation projects using different software programs (e.g. Microsoft Project, Access, and Excel) housed by different staff. A consolidated database will allow all staff to have easy access to project information. Additionally, the database will be web -based so that each local agency can also obtain project information as well as provide project updates in an expeditious manner. Selection Process The RFP was released on November 17, 2005 with a mailing to seven firms. The RFP was also posted on the agency website. Staff received a total of seven proposals by the January 27, 2006 deadline. The proposals were initially screened and the top four firms were interviewed by the Evaluation Committee, which was comprised of representatives from San Bernardino Associated Governments (SANBAG), Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), Bechtel and RCTC staffs. Agenda Item 7C 5 The Evaluation Committee selected Civic Resource Group (CRG). CRG's approach is based on a Microsoft integrated platform, which will provide for easy integration of the Commission's existing project files. This approach will also provide an efficient way for staff to provide project information to Caltrans and SCAG. For - example, staff is required to submit an Obligation Report on a quarterly basis to Caltrans and the report is provided as an Excel spreadsheet. SCAG's Regional Transportation Improvement Program/Federal Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP/FTIP) database utilizes Microsoft Access software. The ability to integrate current project databases into one consolidated database and provide project information to various local agencies and staff levels is a new and innovative use of technology. Staff is excited to embark on this project and perhaps become a model of data integration and information sharing among the Commission's local, regional, and state partners. Funding of Web -based Project Management Database This project is currently included in the Local Transportation Funds (LTF) budget for $30,000 in FY 2005/06, and $20,000 in the proposed FY 2006/07 budget for a total of $50,000 for the base contract. The project management database is initially planned to be hosted by CRG. Therefore, hosting fees, licensing, and maintenance of the database are separate costs and have been included ,in the FY 2006/07 RCTC budget. As this project progresses, staff will have a better idea of all of the needs including those that may not be accommodated in the $48,510 contract. CRG's proposal is designed to provide expandability for future enhancements and modules. Staff recommends awarding a contract to Civic Resource Group in the amount of $48,510 to develop RCTC's web -based project management database. Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: Y Year: FY 2005/06 FY 2006/07 Amount: $30,000 $20,000 Source of Funds: Local Transportation Funds Budget Ad ustment: N GLA No.: 106-66-81501 Fiscal Procedures Approved: \IQ,4,„n jvv, Date: 3/29/06 Agenda Item 7C 6 • AGENDA ITEM 7D • RIVERS/DE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: April 12, 2006 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Plans and Programs Committee Tanya Love, Program Manager THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Programming and Administration Director SUBJECT: Fiscal Year 2006/07 Federal Transit Administration's Section 5310 Program PLANS AND PROGRAMS COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Adopt the FY 2006/07 Federal Transit Administration's (FTA) Section 5310 Riverside County project rankings as recommended by the Local Review Committee; 2) Include the projects in the Regional Transportation Improvement Plan; and 3) Adopt Resolution No. 06-003, "A Resolution of the Riverside County Transportation Commission Certifying Project Consistency With Regional Transportation Plan', to certify that the projects are consistent with the local area regional transportation plan. 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 $11.8 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 the Citizens' Advisory Committee/Social Services Transportation Advisory Council (CAC/SSTAC) as the Committee for Riverside County. The Committee was Agenda Item 7D 7 comprised of Andrea Puga and Mary Venerable. In addition, Fortunato Penilla, former transportation coordinator for the Inland Regional Center, as well as Tanya Love, RCTC Transit Program manager, 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. Attachments: 1) Resolution No. 06-003 2) Proposed Regional Priority List Agenda Item 7D 8 • • Attachment 1 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 Ca!trans 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. 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 12th day of April, 2006. Marion Ashley, Chair Riverside County Transportation Commission ATTEST: Jennifer Harmon, Acting Clerk of the Board Riverside County Transportation Commission 10 FORM 1 SECTION 5310 - FY 2006/07 PROPOSED REGIONAL PRIORITY LIST FOR RIVERSIDE COUNTY • ATTACHMENT APPLICANT GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION OF APPLICANT PROJECT TYPE* VIN OTY SECTION 1 SCORE SECTION 2 SCORE SECTION 3 SCORE SECTION 4 SCORE SECTION 5 SCORE PROJECT SCORE COST Angel View Desert Hot Springs Medium Bus R 62943 1 18 27 10 28 10 '"'' $56,000 Peppermint Ridge Corona Base Station OE N/A 2 20 21 10 30 10 $7,400 Peppermint Ridge Corona Mobile Radio OE N/A 16 20 21 10 30 10 $24,000 Peppermint Ridge Corona Computer Equipment OE N/A 1 20 21 10 30 10 $1,992 Peppermint Ridge Corona Computer Software OE N/A 1 20 21 10 30 104 $1,610 SunLine Transit Thousand Palms Medium Bus R 18565 1 20 20 10 30 10 °`r-- $56,000 SunLine Transit Thousand Palms Medium Bus R 57950 1 16 20 10 30 10 $56,000 SunLine Transit Thousand Palms Medium Bus R 57954 1 14 20 10 30 10 $56,000 SunLine Transit Thousand Palms Mobile Radio OE N/A 3 20 20 10 30 10 $4,500 SunLine Transit Thousand Palms Computer Equipment OE N/A 3 15 20 10 30 10 $4,500 Foundation for the Retarded of the Desert Palm Desert Modified Van S/E N/A 1 20 21 10 26 8 $50,000 Foundation for the Retarded of the Desert Palm Desert Larger Bus Type ill S/E N/A 1 20 21 10 26 8 $60,000 Peppermint Ridge Corona Modified Van S/E N/A 1 13 21 10 30 10 $50,000 Peppermint Ridge Corona Modified Van S/E N/A 1 13 21 10 30 10 $50,000 Care Connexxus, Inc. Riverside Modified Van S/E NIA 1 13 9 10 28 10 - $50,000 Total Funds Requested $528,002 "TYPE: "S/E" - Service Expansion; "R: - Replacement; and "OE" - Other Equipment 11 AGENDA ITEM 7E RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: April 12, 2006 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Plans and Programs Committee Tanya Love, Program Manager THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Programming and Administration Director SUBJECT: SunLine Transit Agency's Request to Amend its Short Range Transit P►an to Program Funds for Expansion of its Clean Fuels Mall and Hydrogen Infrastructure Facility PLANS AND PROGRAMS COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Allocate $21,844 in Local Transportation Fund 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 (RTIP); and 3) Amend SunLine's Short Range Transit Plan (SRTP) to reflect these changes. 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. Agenda Item 7E 12 Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: No Year: FY 2005/06 Amount: $21,844 Source of Funds: Local Transportation Funds Budget Adjustment: No GLA No.: 601-62-86102 Fiscal Procedures Approved: \Azd,34,,ei Date: 3/20/06 Agenda Item 7E 13 • AGENDA ITEM 7F • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: April 12, 2006 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Property Committee Stephanie Wiggins, Regional Programs Director THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Programming and Administration Director SUBJECT: Approval of Release of Statement of Qualifications/Request for Proposal for the Joint Development of the Riverside -Downtown Station PROPERTY COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to approve the release of the Statement of Qualifications (SOQ) followed by the Request for Proposals (RFP) for the Joint Development of the Riverside -Downtown Station. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Commuter rail service has been a growing success in Riverside County since its inception in 1993 with the Riverside Line to Los Angeles. The Southern California Regional Rail Authority, known as Metrolink, is responsible for operating the commuter trains as well as maintaining the track right-of-way and related facilities while local agencies are responsible for building and maintaining Metrolink stations. In 1993, RCTC constructed two Metrolink stations, Riverside -Downtown and Ped/ey. Implementation of commuter rail service on the Inland Empire -Orange County (IEOC) line in 1995 brought the construction of two more stations to this region, Riverside -La Sierra and West Corona. In 2003, the Commission constructed the North Main Corona station to serve the IEOC and 91 lines. Today, RCTC owns and operates these five Metrolink stations located in western Riverside County. Joint Development and Transit Oriented Development Transit Oriented Development (TOD) and transit -adjacent development — terms referring to a form of urban planning that connects development with locations near public transportation properties — is growing in its popularity as transit systems take an increasingly active rote in the process along with developers and Agenda Item 7F 14 local governments.' Over the past five (5) years, public transit agencies have been stepping up efforts to capitalize on underused agency properties that can be used for TOD in an effort to boost ridership, revenues, or for other benefits. In an era of tightening budgets,_ the agencies are looking for greater non-farebox revenues, which may be TOD. Metrolink Station Area Development Activities Over the last three (3) years, the Metrolink system has begun to experience the trend in transit oriented and joint development interest as well. The following Metrolink station cities are engaged in various stages of planning for and implementing mixed use transit -supportive development projects that leverage the existing Metrolink rail station infrastructure, which fully integrates the train service into the revitalization and development plans.2 Anaheim Stadium Station Burbank Chatsworth Claremont Covina Downtown Pomona El Monte Fontana Impact to RCTC Fullerton Glendale Irvine Laguna Niguel/Mission Viejo Lancaster Los Angeles Union Station Montclair Newhall Norwalk/Santa Fe Springs Orange Palmdale Pomona North Riverside -La Sierra San Bernardino Santa Ana Tustin As the Metrolink system begins to prove attractive to developers who recognize the potential revenue stream that can be generated by locating their developments near rail stations, these developments may generate additional revenue potential for RCTC, provide benefit to existing passengers who frequent these stations, and encourage new transit ridership. At its June 2005 meeting, the Commission approved the Rail Station Joint Development Guidelines and authorized staff to develop and a SOQ/RFP for Joint Development of the La Sierra Station. Currently, the Joint Development solicitation is in the RFP phase. The evaluation process involves staff from the city of Riverside Redevelopment and Planning Agency as well as Metrolink staff and RCTC staff. It is anticipated that the results of the evaluation process will be presented to the Property Committee at its June meeting. American Public Transportation Association 2 Southern California Regional Rail Authority, March 2005 Agenda Item 7F 15 • • 1 The city of Riverside staff has notified RCTC staff of the interest in potential development projects adjacent to and/or on the Riverside -Downtown Station property. In order to provide an open competitive selection process, RCTC does not accept unsolicited proposals. Therefore, staff recommends that the Property Committee authorize the release of a SOQ followed by an RFP for the Joint Development of the Riverside -Downtown Station. j The goals of the Rail Station Joint Development Guidelines are to: I • Promote and enhance rail transit ridership; • Enhance and protect the commuter rail station and corridor; • Encourage comprehensive and complementary planning and development around RCTC-owned station sites; • Reduce auto use and congestion through encouragement of rail transit -linked development, consistent with Commission policy to pursue transportation alternatives that enhance or complement economic development; and • Demonstrate a fiscal benefit to the Commission based on a fair market return on public investment. Attachment: RCTC Rail Station Joint Development Guidelines and Joint Development Implementation Process Agenda Item 7F 16 RC.IL Rail Station Joint Development Guidelines, June 2005 Riverside County Transportation Commission Rail Station Joint Development Guidelines June 2005 PURPOSE These guidelines are issued under the authority of the Riverside County Transportation Commission (ROTC) which seeks to enter into joint development partnerships to enhance the financial return and overall patronage of the Commission's significant rail transportation infrastructure investment. For purposes of these guidelines, joint development is defined as a real property asset development and management program intended to secure the most appropriate private and/or public sector development on RCTC-owned property at and adjacent to Metrolink commuter rail stations and corridors. Joint development also includes coordination with local jurisdictions in station -area land use planning in the interest of establishing development that enhances rail transit use. It is the intention of the RCTC to realize the maximum benefits from and utilization of property owned and acquired by the Commission consistent with transportation mobility and community development objectives. The RCTC joint development guidelines seek to: 1. Promote and enhance rail transit ridership; 2. Enhance and protect the commuter rail station and corridor; 3. Encourage comprehensive and complementary planning and development around RCTC-owned station sites; 4. Reduce auto use and congestion through encouragement of rail transit -linked development, consistent with Commission policy to pursue transportation alternatives that enhance or complement economic development; and 5. Demonstrate a fiscal benefit to the Commission based on a fair market return on public investment. POLICIES The basic construct of joint developmentguidelines encourages comprehensive planning of station -area development. Thesepolicies are limited to solicited proposals. To facilitate coordinated transportation and land use decisions, RCTC will: 1 17 RCTC Rai! Station Joint Developmeni Guidelines, June 20105 1. Consult and work cooperatively with local jurisdictions, redevelopment agencies, developers,. and other public and private sector entities to facilitate land use policies and plans which encourage intensive, high quality development at current and planned RCTC-owned stations and surrounding properties; 2. In consultation with local jurisdictions, prepare conceptual development strategies specific to each joint development site that articulate the intensity and types of land use that the RCTC envisions for that 'site as well as any of the desired transit facility features; 3_ Encourage transit compatible land use plans that enhance RCTC's regional mobility; air quality, economic development, ridership and revenue goals; 4_ Consider joint development opportunities in the location of new station sites for future rail corridors, and construction of station:facilities; 5. Encourage and allow surrounding property owners/developers, ;at their expense, to construct direct connections to stations from their property/buildings, in particular, pedestrian connections which enhance the overall pedestrian flow of the project area; and 6. Any modifications of these guidelines may be made by the RCTC Property Committee. Additionally, the RCTC shall consider new joint development projects based on the following standards: 1. Projects shall be evaluated for consistency with development strategies as delineated in site -specific Request for Qualification/Proposals (RFQ/RFP) issued by the Commission; 2. Projects shall not negatively impact present or future public transportation_ facilities; 3. Projects shall be evaluated for consistency with regional and local jurisdictions'' policies and plans; 4. Projects must demonstrate, at a minimum, fair market value return to RCTC; 5. lf there are multiple proposals for the same site, selection between projects will be based on those which meet the above criteria and additionally demonstrate: a. The greatest potential to increase rail transit ridership and enhance the transit system environment; b. The greatest economic development potential to the community consistent with adopted land use plans; and c. Responsiveness to community needs for employment, services, housing or other facilities. 6. Projects are encouraged which create a long-term source of revenue for ttie RCTC and allow the RCTC to participate in the increase in value of its real estate assets over time: This will generally take the form of a long-term lease. Under some circumstances, the Commission may consider the sale of property if it is determined to be in RCTC's best interest; 7. Projects are encouraged which require no commitment of RCTC financial resources, minimize any investment risk, and maximize asset security for RCTC; 8. Where appropriate, as defined in the site -specific conceptual development guidelines enumerated in the RFP, projects are encouraged which provide new or additional station parking facilities; and 2 18 • RCTC Rail Station Joint Development Guidelines, June 2005 9. Projects must allow RCTC to retain station facility and related transportation service design and location authority and access to all necessary station operational facilities. Rail Station Joint Development Implementation Procedures RCTC will periodically prepare conceptual development strategies for RCTC-owned properties at Metrolink commuter rail stations. The RCTC will also consult with local jurisdictions regarding local land use development efforts. These conceptual development strategies and consultations with local jurisdictions shall provide the basis for establishing project priorities and implementation approaches to ensure maximum attainment of RCTC's joint development goals. RCTC will be open and competitive in marketing its properties. RCTC shall solicit competitive proposals for joint development of its properties. The standard RCTC procurement procedures shall be used as the general guideline for determining the appropriate process for solicitation. RCTC shall not accept unsolicited written proposals for joint development on RCTC owned property. Proposal Solicitation and Evaluation Process RCTC may periodically initiate a process to solicit development proposals for specific properties owned by RCTC. In soliciting joint development proposals, the RCTC shall provide available relevant site information including the conceptual development strategies for the site and encourage developers to seek information or consult with local jurisdictions regarding current and planned land uses in the project area. The RFQ/RFP will outline the minimum qualifications and project selection criteria, including any unique capabilities or credentials which would be required of the proposer. Pre - proposal conferences may be held, as deemed necessary by RCTC. The solicitation process will consist of two distinct stages — an assessment of qualifications and an assessment of development proposals. The first stage, the Qualifications Assessment, involves a request for qualifications (RFQ). This stage establishes the fitness of potential development teams to present formal development proposals to the RCTC for the specific site. During this stage, development teams are to be evaluated on two major criteria: 1. the Experience and Qualifications of the Development Team 2. the Financial Capacity of the Development Team Public notice of the RFQ issuance will be posted at least 30 daysprior to the date set for receipt of Statements - of Qualification. Development teams that meet the predetermined minimum requirements for both evaluation criteria will be invited by RCTC to participate in the second stage of the development sofication process. The second stage of the development solication / RFP process is an Assessment of Development Proposals. During this stage, the set of pre -qualified development teams will be given the opportunity to prepare a proposal for development on the site in question. The proposals shall include: 3 19 RCTC Rail Station Jo inr Development Guidelines, June 2005 1. A description of the project (program and schematic site plans) 2. A description of the approach to implement the proposed project (management plan, schedule, and financial terms). Proposals shall be evaluated by a review panel selected by the Executive Director. It is anticipated that the panel will include representatives from the local jurisdiction and RCTC staff. Additionally, an urban design panel may be used to evaluate projects in an advisory capacity to the review committee. The RCTC shall notify. Proposers within 30 days following their proposal submittals as to the estimated time frame for proposal review. It is the intent of the Commission to review proposals as expeditiously as possible, and review periods may be dependent on the volume and complexity of the proposals. The review committee will use the Rail Station Joint Development Checklist to evaluate the initial submittals and make recommendations to the Commission on the selected developer/proposal to be considered for advancement to the Exclusive Negotiations Agreement phase. Exclusive Negotiations Agreement Upon recommendation and approval of the Commission, the Executive Director may enter into an Exclusive: Negotiations Agreement (ENA) with the selected developer for a period of 180 days or such other term that is mutually acceptable to the parties. A. Requirements of proposer/developer under the ENA> 1_ Developer shall provide the Executive Director with a "good faith refundable . deposit," in the amount of $25,000 in the form of cash or certified check or an alternative amount determined by the Executive Director or his designee. The amount shall be sufficient to cover reasonable expenses incurred.by the . . RCTC in carrying out the analysis of the proposal. 2_ Developer shall have 120 days to provide the Executive Director with the following information. a. A preliminary site plan showing building layout and ' dimensions, parking, landscaping and access. b. Project development schedule including milestones for site control, financing commitments, design and environmental clearances, entitlements, construction and completion. c: Cost estimates and project data for the proposal in sufficient detail to permit adequate financial analysis. d. Evidence of a firm commitment from key managerial members or tenants of the proposed projects. e. A comprehensive list of previous experience in the specific project area and of like projects for both construction and operationof the said project type, as well as disclose full credit and litigation history under • penalty of perjury. 3: Evidence of a firm financial plan, including: a. Evidence of construction financing. b: Evidence of long-term financing_ c. Evidence of other financial sources necessary to carry out the project: 4 20 RCTC Rail Station Joint Development Guidelines, June 2005 Evidence shall consist of a letter of commitment from a financial institution or any reasonably acceptable party providing development capital. The financial plan shall include a proforma statement of project retum adequate to enable the Commission to evaluate the economic feasibility of the proposed project. 4. Developer shall provide a written offer to the RCTC for fee purchase of land, purchase of lease rights, or other development rights as appropriate to the proposal. 5. Evidence of control of any properties not owned by RCTC but considered essential to the project. Evidence shall be in the form of letters of intent from each of the owners stating commitment of land, economic terms and costs basis as well as a detailed action plan and schedule relating to the acquisition of the properties. B. Responsibilities of the RCTC under the ENA: 1. The RCTC shail approve no other joint development proposals for the land in question during the period of the ENA. The ENA shall serve as proof of control of land for acquiring letters of financial commitment by the developer. 2. The Executive Director shall place the "good faith" deposit in an interest - bearing account, and shall have the right to draw down from the account payment for reasonable expenses incurred by the .RCTC for such items as land and development rights appraisals, materials, data and other information costs, and other administrative and consultant costs expended in the evaluation of the proposal. 3. The RCTC shall provide the developer with an appraisal for the fair market value of the fee interest or lease rights or other development rights appropriate to the project. 4. The RCTC shall deliver, within 30 days of receipt of written request, any existing RCTC-owned information, studies, reports, .site and construction plans or other documents requested by the developer to facilitate project design at cost to the developer. 5_ If, at the conclusion of the ENA period, the proposal is terminated, the Executive Director shall return any remaining balance of the "good faith deposit," including any interest accrued thereon to the developer. 6. If, at the conclusion of the ENA, a Development Agreement is entered into, the remaining balance of the "good faith deposit," including interest accrued thereon, shall be subtracted from the cost of land, lease or other development rights conveyed to the developer by the RCTC. Extension of ENA Either the developer or the Executive Director may request from the Commission an extension of the 180-day exclusive negotiation period. The Commission will determine whether sufficient progress has been made toward fulfillment of the above requirements in their consideration of extension. 5 21 RCTC' Rai! Stalion Joint Development Guidelines, June.2005 Environmental Documents The developer shall bear the responsibility and costs associated with the .preparation and certification of any required environmental clearance. It is generally assumed that the local jurisdiction will be the lead agency in the preparation of any required environmental clearance for the development. Conclusion of the Rail Station Joint Development Evaluation Process Upon satisfactory fulfillment of all the development requirements in the ENA, the RCTC may enter into a Joint Development Agreement for the implementation of the project. Joint Development Agreement The Joint Development Agreement shall describe the rights and responsibilities of both parties and shall contain, but not be limited to the followingelements 1. Identification of the parties to the agreement including prohibition against change, transfer or assignment of ownership, management and/or control of developer; 2. Descripfion of the site including a map. If the subject of the tease is an air space development; placement of supports shall be included on the map; 3. Requirement that the developer must secure from appropriate' local agencies all necessary permits and approvals; 4. The terms and conditions of the lease (if applicable) including but not limited to. • Lease price and payment schedule; • Conveyance and delivery for possession; • Payment of taxes and insurance requirement; • Condition of site at time of beginning and end of lease; • Financial statement of developer; • Hold harmless and indemnity clauses; • Limitations of use and terms of. lease; and • Schedule of the RCTC approval of all plans. and drawings. 5. If"the development incorporates a sale of property, the conditions and terms of such sale including but not limited to: • Sale or purchase price and payment schedule; • Escrow instructions; ▪ Conditions, covenants, restrictions and other limitations of use as terms of sate; • Conveyance: and delivery of possession; • Formofdeed as approved by RCTC counsel; • Condition of title and insurance of title; • Time and place for delivery of deed; • Taxes, assessments, and insurance. requirements; • Condition of site at time of sales; 6 22 • RCTC Rail &anon Join., Develnonenl Guidelines, June 2005 - • Financial statement of developer, and • Prohibition of transfer without prior Board approval. 6. The scope of the development of the site including: . a. Schedule for submission of concept, schematic, construction, grading and landscaping plans and drawings; b_ Schedule for local agency and the RCTC review, and approval of plans and drawings. The staff review will include but not be limited to: (1) Design of site and improvements; (2) Relationship to the urban design of the community both form and scale; (3) Architectural design and visual continuity; (4) Effects on railway operations; (5) Type and quality of building materials; (6) Structure location, height and lot coverage; (7) Parking requirements and design; (8) Streetscape and landscaping; and (9) Vehicular circulation. c. Schedule of performance; and d. Insurance requirements. 6. Failure of either party to perform including defaults, remedies and termination by either party; 7. Ownership of improvements constructed upon leased land upon the expiration or termination of lease term; 8. Requirements to restore leased property to original condition upon expiration or termination of lease term; 9. Possible performance bond requirements; and 10.Any other general or special provisions which are deemed necessary by the Commission. Use of Revenue Revenue obtained from joint use and development of property including concessions and advertising will first be applied to the maintenance and operation of RCTC-owned facilities from which the revenue is generated, with any additional revenue being applied to any other RCTC commuter rail operations. Applicability of Guidelines Nothing in these guidelines shall 1) require RCTC to enter into any agreements or commitments or 2) invalidate any action of the Commission, .or 3) require any action by the Commission. 7 23 RCTC jointly develops conceptual development strategy for site with local jurisdiction.. • • Riverside County Transportation Commission Joint Development Implementation -Process -- Evaluation by Review Panel RCTC Issues Request for Qualifications 30 days • RCTC Issues Request for Proposal to Pre - Qualified Firms Statement of Qualifications Submitted End Process As of 6/2/05 60 days Solicited Proposal (s) Submitted to RCTC • Evaluation by Review Panel Developer: *Conceptual design including Site Plan &Sections *Schedule * Environmental Clearance " Financing Plan w/Pro-forma Operating & Construction, Cost & Revenue Projections - * Business Term Sheet 4- 120 days Extend Negotiations Period (Up to 180 days) • RCTC: " Approve no other proposals * Place deposit in interest - bearing account *Use deposit for related costs *Negotiate in Good Faith RCTC Evaluation & Negotiations (incl. coordination whocal jurisdiction) 1 Maybe Exclusive Negotiating Agreement; Developer Good Faith Deposit 8 60 days Board Decision End Process with Developer Implement Joint Development Agreement * • AGENDA ITEM 7G • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: April 12, 2006 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Plans and Programs Committee Pass to Desert Rail Ad Hoc Committee Sheldon Peterson, Rail Program Manager THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: California State Rail Plan 2005/06 to 2015/16: Indio (Coachella Valley) Los Angeles to PLANS AND PROGRAMS COMMITTEE, PASS TO DESERT RAIL AD HOC COMMITTEE, AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION; This item is for the Commission 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); and 3) Adopt Resolution No. 06-004, " A Resolution of the Riverside County Transportation Commission in support for the Los Angeles to Indio Service." 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. Agenda Item 7G 25 In addition, the State's rail plan also proposes to add several new intercity rail routes in the period FY 2005/06 to FY 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. 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 FY 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 Rai/ 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 servicesare 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." Agenda Item 7G 26 • • Potential New Service Operation Plan The draft California State Rail Plan 2005/06 to 2015/16 includes one daily round-trip between Los Angeles and Indio in FY 2010/11 and a second daily round trip in FY 2013/14. The plan currently lists the following proposed stations: Los Angeles, 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 FY 2006/07 and a second in FY 2008/09. In the 2003/04 State Rail Plan the goal was to implement one train LA -Coachella in FY 2008/09 and a second in FY 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 Resolution No. 06-004 in support for the Los Angeles to Indio Intercity Service. This proposed service was identified in the 2001 /02 California State Rail Plan 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. Attachments: 1) Resolution No. 06-004 2) Excerpt from draft California State Rail Plan 2005/06 to 2015/16 Agenda Item 7G 27 I • RESOLUTION N0. 06-004 RESOLUTION OF THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION 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 California Department of Transportation's Califomia State Rail Plan 2005-06 to 2015-16 and the establishment of intercity passenger rail service between Los Angeles and Indio; and 28 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this resolution be transmitted to the Inland Empire's legislative delegations in Washington D.C. and Sacramento. APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 12`h day of April, 2006. Marion Ashley, Chair Riverside County Transportation Commission ATTEST: Jennifer Harmon, Acting Clerk of the Board Riverside County Transportation Commission 29 October 2005 California Department of Transportation `. A,FNOLD SCHV,..»' L NEGGEP H J .1! I`,'IVCJ'EAK;Sc rnILI`/1 'S A,•. >in°<. i�P�Pi��J(dt�J'1 dr1C OUP Il) nGeI1 Cy.i r �> r ♦ T al turn � C��artri �,t oT_afisGvitatle^' 2005-06 — 2015-16 California State Rail Plan Figure IOA San Francisco r s r San, se Monter Route Monte Bay i k e • n�arys�ne Gilroy Salinas oast R ute s • • s • Redding . . Redding Route. Chico Reno! Reno Extension : • dts Ye • bum •,;;! Sacramento -i:r Stockton . San Luis i Obispo Santa Barbara° `e r.� Los An Fulkr[on Fresno eakersfi Wheeler Ryes Santa'Bu • osAngeles Extension Options ti e s San Diego Barstow + San Bernardino side •Patin. . WI* . • • Indio Coa • lia Valleys Roiitel Potential New Intercity Routes in California Legend: Potential New " intercity Routes' Existing State - Supported Routes Las Vegas Las Vegas \ Route e 124 31 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 California 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 l0-year plan. Figure 10A 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 32 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, concerned 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, KingCity, 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 33 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 RENO 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 I-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 34 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 California 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 northern 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 busconnectionto 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. 128 35 • • 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 36 2005-06 — 2015-16 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 ROTC 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 train service options between San Francisco and Monterey. The San Francisco -Monterey Intercity Rail Service Implementation PIan 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 37 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 38 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 39 - 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) established 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 andlindicated 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. 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 40 2005-06 — 2015-16 California State Rail Plan Report (EIR) 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 alternative 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, Aitamont 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. 134 41 AGENDA ITEM 7H • • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: April 12, 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 PLANS AND PROGRAMS COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to allocate 8500,000 in available Rail Local Transportation Fund (LTF) funds to provide a non-federal match to the city of Riverside for the Jurupa Avenue Grade Separation project. 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. Agenda Item 7H 42 Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: N/A Year: FY 2007/08 Amount: $500,000 Source of Funds: LTF Rail Capital Funds Budget Ad ustment: N/A GLA No.: 221-33-81301 P4008 Fiscal Procedures Approved: \,, , Date: 3/22/06 Agenda Item 7H 43 AGENDA ITEM 71 • • RIVERS/DE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: April 12, 2006 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Plans and Programs Committee Sheldon Peterson, Rail Programs Manager THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Commuter Rail Program Update PLANS AND PROGRAMS COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to receive and file the Commuter Rail Program update as an information item. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Riverside Line 5,200 5,000 4,800 to 4,600 0 4,400 4,200 G 4,000 3,800 3,600 3,400 3,200 3,000 Passenger Trips Riverside Line o`' Q� o�' ,cY' ,o`' o`' o`' A`' o<0 o4, Ao o`O �o� ��� PQc � ��� �J 7- cooct 00 �o� Q6 �a•(• .8$ Month Passenger trips on Metrolink's Riverside Line for the month of February averaged 3,111 which is down 1,407 (-31 To) from the month of January. The Line averaged an overall decrease of (-32%) from a year ago February 2005. This vvas 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. Agenda Item 71 44 100 95 90 85 80 75 70 On Time Performance (95% Goal) Riverside Line Month February on -time performance averaged 83% inbound (+7% from January) and 67% outbound (-9% from January). There were 57 delays greater than five minutes during the month of February. The following were the primary causes: 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. Agenda Item 71 45 • Inland Empire -Orange County Line 4,600 4,400 to 4,200 c. F • 4,000 c 3,800 at 3,600 3,400 3,200 Passenger Trips Inland Empire Orange County Line 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. 100 95 90 85 80 75 70 On Time Performance (95% Goal) Inland Empire Orange County Line d°h eS Ay �Ah <,A J°y oh o� A� Q� 4` 44' P� S 06 \° 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. Agenda Item 71 46 The primary causes were: 91 Line 2,600 2,400 2,200 1a 2,000 `s 1,800 1,600 1,400 1,200 Signals/MOW/Track Dispatching Mechanical Other Passenger Trips 91 Line �`�iph•h ,°�Ah ,J`Ah J�� �h �,60 ,Q5 �h 0 P 5 0` ‘-4) Cy°' 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. C 100 95 90 85 80 75 70 Agenda Item 71 On Time Performance (95% Goal) 91 Line 47 • Month 017 / • 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. Agenda Item 71 48 • • AGENDA ITEM 7J • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: April 12, 2006 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: John Standiford, Public Affairs Director THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: State and Federal Legislative Update STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Approve the following bill positions: SB 1812 (Runner, R-Palmdale) — SUPPORT AB 2630 (Benoit, R-Riverside) -- SUPPORT 2) Direct staff to issue an Request for Proposal (RFP) for State Legislative Lobbyist Services; and 3) Receive and file the State and Federal Legislative update as an information item BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Federal Update Ethics Reform Could Alter Earmarking Process On March 29, the Senate approved an ethics bill, S. 2349. The bill contains a number of provisions regarding lobbying restrictions. Ironically, the bill was considered on the same day that former lobbyist Jack Abramoff was sentenced to more than five years in prison. One aspect of the bill would require more disclosure of "earmarks." Earmarks are often placed in appropriations bills for specific projects and earmark a set amount of dollars for that single effort. In some cases, earmarks find their way into a bill at the last minute and with scant information at the prerogative of individual legislators. Even the most questionable project can gain funding because members are loath to hold up a comprehensive bill over a single item. The Senate ethics bill would require greater disclosure regarding earmarked projects and allow for review and possible changes. Final approval of an ethics bill by all of Agenda Item 7J 49 Congress will not happen immediately, but depending on what passes it could impact the possibility of future earmarks especially in transportation bills. Much of the earmarking controversy gained added attention because of the thousands of earmarks that were part of SAFETEA LU in 2005. Staff does not recommend a position on this legislation but will monitor the bill as it continues through the process. State Update Legislature Contemplates Implementation of SAFETEA LU Provision Staff recommends a SUPPORT position on SB 1812 by Palmdale Senator George Runner that would ensure that California meets the requirements to apply for the assumption of NEPA authority. This is a provision included in SAFETEA LU that creates a pilot program to allow five states to be designated NEPA authority. The idea behind the program is to eliminate duplicative and sometimes contradictory environmental reviews that result from the confluence of state and federal requirements. The hope would be to cut down on the time needed to process environmental documents. SB 1812 would have the state accept the jurisdiction of the federal courts for carrying out the responsibilities assumed by the state under NEPA and waives the state's Eleventh Amendment protection against lawsuits brought in federal court. While this has the potential of exposing the state to some legal liability, Caltrans has concluded that the risk is outweighed by the advantage of streamlined environmental reviews. Caltrans is the sponsor of this legislation and is actively seeking to participate in the program. The final implementation of the program will probably not take place until late this year after the promulgation of federal regulations in order to implement it. Commission staff recommends a SUPPORT position on this bill for the potential time savings on projects. RCTC's past success with the RCIP program also proves that environmental streamlining can result in cost savings while protecting natural resources. Assembly Bill 2630 - PUC Funding for Grade Separations Another bill that staff is seeking a SUPPORT position for is AB 2630 by local Assemblyman John Benoit. The bill deals with PublicUtilities Commission funding of grade separations and would eliminate a current restriction in state law that has the potential of unfairly penalize local agencies including the City of Riverside. Current law states that a local jurisdiction that receives state funding for a grade separation is no longer eligible for funding for a period of ten years after the approval of the previous project. Given the number of grade crossing projects required in Riverside County, this restriction limits the area's access to this funding Agenda Item 7J 50 • • source. Another provision of the bill would also allow a local jurisdiction to fund ten percent of a project's cost that railroads are currently required by state law to pay. While Commission staff does not support the idea of easing the requirement of railroads to participate in funding grade separations, the author is attempting to create flexibility in state law to speed approval of these projects. A similar position in another Benoit bill last year that would have reduced the railroad contribution to five percent was amended out of the bill. Commission staff will communicate their concerns regarding this provision in the bill to the author, but still suggest a strong SUPPORT position to eliminate the 10-year funding restriction that could hamstring funding for local projects. Bond Proposal Misses June Ballot; Prop. 42 Fix on Target for November Ballot. The big news in Sacramento was the last minute negotiations and ultimate failure of the Legislature to come to an agreement on an infrastructure bond for the June ballot. The deadline for action was March 10, and as is often the case, the Legislature did its best to turn back the hands of time and extend the deadline. Ultimately, the Governor's fiercest opposition was in the form of Assembly Republicans, many of whom never supported the bond proposal in the first place. Perhaps the best analysis of the failure of the bond plan was penned by Sacramento Bee political columnist Daniel Weintraub who offered the following opinion of why the bonds won't appear on the June ballot: • "He put a number on his package too early. The $222 billion total price tag and $68 billion in borrowing spooked Republicans from the start. He would have been better off beginning with a description of the goals he was trying to achieve and then building the number in a consensus with legislators." "He (Governor Schwarzenegger) took Republicans for granted. Schwarzenegger negotiated mostly with the Democratic leaders and always figured he would be able to get Republican votes for anything he and the Democrats agreed to. He was wrong. In one meeting with Republican lawmakers in the Assembly, the governor stayed a few minutes, said he needed their votes and then left. His aides distributed an outline of the deal he had made with Democrats, and then they left. What followed was a Republican revolt." • "He tried negotiating individually with the legislative leaders instead of all of them at once. Each time he came close to a deal with one legislative leader, the others who were not part of the discussions began to dump on the emerging agreement." Agenda Item 7J 51 • "He sent mixed signals on the timing. Nobody in the Capitol knew whether he really wanted the plan on the June or November ballot until about two weeks before the deadline for June, when he began to focus on that date. By then it was probably too late." • "He overreached, insisting on a huge, comprehensive package covering education, transportation, water supply and flood control." • "Schwarzenegger probably could have won approval for a slimmed -down package that he could have promoted as the first phase of his larger plan. As a campaign device, that might have been even better than the whole plan, since it would have left people wanting more, or at least thinking that there was more to come. In this case, not finishing the job would have given him something to talk about doing in a second term, with some evidence that he could get it done. But when Republican lawmakers approached him with that idea, he told them he had to have something historic and visionary, not piecemeal. The bottom line is that the Legislature and the Governor will have to start over again to determine if a bond proposal can be approved in time for the November ballot. The difference this time is that it will have to be done with the specter of budget negotiations and the general election. While the prospects for a major infrastructure bond measure remain unclear, a proposition strengthening Proposition 42 is very likely to appear on the November ballot. Signature gathering is continuing and more information can be found at a new website at www.close421oophole.com. State Legislative Representation for the Commission Since 1998, RCTC has contracted with San Bernardino Associated Governments (SANBAG) for lobbying representation in Washington and Sacramento. The joint contracts with SANBAG were a natural outgrowth of the shared legislative affairs position that both agencies funded from 1998 to 2004. SANBAG and RCTC no longer share a legislative .affairs position and given the eventual expiration of the lobbying contracts later this, year, it marks an opportune time for RCTC to seek its own legislative representation services and its own contracts. Currently, SANBAG and RCTC are represented by Smith, Watts Company of Sacramento. The firm's principals, D.J. Smith and Mark Watts have a long record of success in representing the Commission in Sacramento and staff is highly satisfied with their work. In fact, current`Caltrans Director Will Kempton is a former partner in the firm and worked on behalf of RCTC in the past. Agenda Item 7J 52 • Given the long-standing nature of the arrangement with one firm and the Commission's contracting processes, it would be prudent to issue a Request for Proposals in order to complete a contract prior to the end of the current agreement which will take place at the end of September. Staff intends to issue the RFP in mid -to late May with evaluations of the proposals to take place in late -June or early -July. Staff would return to the Commission with a recommendation of a bidder and approval of a contract at that time. The Commission also shares a federal lobbying contract with SANBAG that expires at the end of this calendar year. Given the later date for the contract expiration, staff will return next month with a proposed timetable for and RFP on the federal side. The current staff request is to seek approval to issue an RFP at this time only for state legislative representation. Agenda Item 7J 53 AGENDA ITEM 8 • RIVERS/DE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: April 12, 2006 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Plans and Programs Committee Stephanie Wiggins, Regional Programs Director THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Award of Alameda Corridor East SAFETEA-LU Earmark PLANS AND PROGRAMS COMMITTEE, TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE, AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 11 Allocate $21 million of the $31.25 million of RCTC SAFETEA-LU Alameda Corridor East (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; and 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. 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 million to be available for allocation to address immediate grade separation needs. Agenda Item 8 54 Call for Projects Guidelines At its December 2005 meeting, the Commission authorized the release of a Call for Projects (Call) 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. Agenda Item 8 55 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 22nd 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. While the total scores of the Brockton Avenue and 22"d 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 exceeds $896 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 six projects from five 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 July2008 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. Agenda Item 8 56 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 per Day 2030 Gate Down Time per Day Accidents (last 10 yrs) 2030 Emissions (tons/yr) 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 Agenda Item 8 57 • • ACE Funding Plan - Final Grade Separation Cost Estimates 24-Feb-06 • Cross Street Jurisdiction Grade Separation Alternative Considered Construction Cost Estimated Right -of -Way COSf 9 y Planning / Design Construction Management Agency Management 2006 Total Cost zest Estimate (provided by RCTC) 2005 Estimate (provided by Riverside County) 10% 5% 5% Magnolia Ave Riverside County Overhead $ 76,000,000 $ 1,000,000 $ 7,700,000 $ 3,850,000 $ 3,850,000 $ 92,400,000 $ 15,700,000 not available Chicago Ave' Riverside Overhead $ 15,000,000 $ 30,000,000 $ 2,500,000 $ 1,000,000 $ 250,000 $ 48,750,000 $ 15,900,000 $ 21,820,000 3rd St' Riverside Underpass $ 20,000,000 $ 8,000,000 $ 2,500,000 $ 1,000,000 $ 250,000 $ 31,750,000 $ 15,900,000 not available Columbia Ave (BNSF)' Riverside Overhead $ 15,000,000 $ 4,000,000 $ 1,000,000 $ 750,000 $ 250,000 $ 21,000,000 $ 18,300,000 $ 21,000,000 McKinley St Corona Overhead/Trench $ 60,600,000 $ 30,400,000 $ 9,100,000 $ 4,550,000 $ 4,550,000 $ 109,200,000 $ 17,900,000 not available Iowa Ave(BNSF)' Riverside Underpass $ 15,000,000 $ 2,000,000 $ 1,000,000 $ 750,000 $ 250,000 $ 19,000,000 $ 18,700,000 $ 23,819,000 Adams St` Riverside Underpass $ 30,000,000 $ 15.000,000 $ 2,500,000 $ 1,000,000 $ 250,000 $ 48,750,000 $ 14,700,000 $ 24,000,000 Smith St Corona Underpass $ 16,800,000 $ 9,400,000 $ 2,620,000 $ 1,310,000 $ 1,310,000 $ 31,440,000. $ 14,700,000 not available Sunset Ave Banning Underpass $ 16,500,000 $ 1,400,000 $ 1,790,000 $ 895,000 $ 895.000 $ 21,480,000 $ 15,400,000 not available Tyler St` Riverside Underpass $ 30,000,000 $ 5,000,000 $ 2,500,000 $ 1,000,000 $ 250,000 $ 38,750,000 $ 14,700,000 $ 27,000,000 Mary St` Riverside Underpass $ 20,000,000 $ 5,000,000 $ 1,000,000 $ 1,000,000 $ 250,000 $ 27,250,000 $ 15,700,000 not available Jurupa Rd Riverside County Underpass $ 63,400,000 $ 47,200,000 $ 11,060,000 $ 5,530,000 $ 5,530,000 $ 132,720,000 $ 15,600,000 not available Auto Center Dr Corona Underpass $ 21,500,000 $ 1,000,000 $ 2,250,000 $ 1,125,000 $ 1,125,000 $ 27,000,000 $ 15,700,000 not available Hargrave St Banning Underpass $ 14,500,000 $ 6,500,000 $ 2.100,000 $ 1,050,000 $ 1,050,000 $ 25,200,000 $ 13,800.000 not available Magnolia Ave' Riverside Underpass $ 20,000,000 $ 10,000,000 $ 2,500,000 $ 1,000,000 $ 250,000 $ 33,750,000 not available not available Madison St' Riverside Underpass $ 18,000,000 $ 7,000,000 $ 1,500,000 $ 1,000,000 $ 250,000 $ 27,750,000 $ 14,700,000 $ 19,000,000 Avenue 48 / Dillon Rd Indio/Coachella Overhead $ 10,500,000 $ 3,700,000 $ 1,420,000 $ 710,000 $ 710,000 $ 17,040,000 $ 6,400,000 not available Center St Riverside County Underpass $ 22,400,000 $ 7,900,000 $ 3,030,000 $ 1,515,000 $ 1,515,000 $ 36,360,000 $ 15,300,000 not available Clay St Riverside County Underpass $ 18,100,000 $ 1,000,000 $ 1,910,000 $ 955,000 $ 955,000 $ 22,920,000 $ 14,700,000 not available 7thSt* Riverside Underpass $ 19,000,000 $ 2,000,000 $ 1,000,000 $ 750,000 $ 250,000 $-23,000,000 $ 15,300,000 not available Riverside Ave Riverside Underpass $ 20,000,000 $ 5,000,000 $ 1,500,000 $ 250,000 $ 250,000 $ 27,000,000 not available $ 17,732,000 Streeter Ave` Riverside Underpass $ 18,000,000 $ 12,000,000 $ 2,500,000 $ 1,000,000 $ 250,000 $ 33,750,000 not available $ 31,050,000 $ 896,260,000 ' Estimate provided by the City of Riverside ADDITION TO AGENDA ITEM 8 April 12, 2006 DRAFT Mr. Gene Fong, Division Administrator Federal Highway Administration California Division 650 Capitol Mall, Suite 4-100 Sacramento, California 95814 Dear Mr.Fong In accordance with Public Law 109-59, The Safe, Accountable, Flexible, and Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA LU); the agencies that have programming and project development authority within the Alameda Corridor East have agreed to the following in regard to the funds provided under the Projects of National and Regional Significance (PNRS) and Transportation Improvement (TI) programs: • SAFETEA LU Section 1301, PNRS Project #9: Alameda Corridor East, $125 million: The Los Angeles Metropolitan Transportation Authority (LAMTA), Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA), Riverside County Transportation Commission (ROTC), and San Bernardino Associated Governments (SanBAG) have agreed to divide the funds equally and program $31.25 million each. When programming these funds, LAMTA and OCTA will respectively confer with the Alameda Corridor -East Construction Authority and Orange North -American Trade Rail Access Corridor (ONTRAC). • SAFETEA LU Section 1934, TI Project #21: Alameda Corridor East Construction Authority, $30 million. The Alameda Corridor -East Construction Authority will select projects for programming with the cooperation of LAMTA. The California Department of Transportation and these agencies are working together to meet the guidance requirements for these programs and to ensure that the funds are programmed expeditiously. Sincerely, Will Kempton Director, California Department of Transportation Roger Snoble Executive Director, Los Angeles Metropolitan Transportation Authority Arthur Leahy Executive Director, Orange County Transportation Authority Eric Haley Executive Director, Riverside County Transportation Commission Tony Grasso Executive Director, San Bernardino County Association of Governments Rick Richmond Executive Director, Alameda Corridor -East Construction Authority Robert Dominguez City Administrator, City of Placentia, Orange North American Trade Corridor Rail Access Corridor DRAFT cc: Sunne Wright-McPeak, Secretary, California Business, Transportation and Housing Agency John Barna, Executive Director, California Transportation Commission AGENDA ITEM 9 • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION .COMM/SS/ON DATE: April 12, 2006 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Shirley Medina, Program Manager THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: 60/91/215 Interchange Design -Sequencing Project Cost Increase STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to approve the: 1) Reprogramming of $16.3 million of Traffic Congestion Relief Program (TCRP) funds from the SR-91 High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lane to the 60/91/215 Interchange Corridor project to cover the 60/91/215 Interchange design -sequencing project cost increase; and 2) Allocation of $6.005 million of Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) program and/or Surface Transportation Program (STP) funds to cover the 60/91/215 Interchange design -sequencing project cost increase. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The 60/91/215 Interchange and Corridor improvement project is one of twelve design -sequencing pilot projects throughout the state. Design -sequencing is a method of contracting that enables the sequencing of design activities to permit each construction phase to commence when design for that phase is complete, instead of requiring design for the entire project to be completed before beginning construction. This new method of contracting allows Caltrans to award a contract starting with as little as 30% of the plans completed and also has the potential for earlier delivery of the project. The 60/91/215 Interchange design -sequencing project is currently halfway completed. Cost increases in the amount of $17 million have occurred due to design changes, and construction material cost increases. Another $10 million is needed to re-establish the contingency amount for a total funding need of $27 million. The GARVEE bond proposal established RCTC's proportionate share of the total cost of the project at 85% and Caltrans' share is 15%. Therefore, RCTC and Caltrans are responsible for any cost increases that occur duringconstruction Agenda Item 9 59 according to these percentages. Caltrans is able to transfer $889,000 of unexpended funds from a previous project (conventional project that was completed prior to the design -sequencing project) to the design -sequencing project thereby reducing the amount from $27 million to $26.111 million. Applying the proportional split to the $26.111 million results in RCTC's share of the cost at $22.194 million and Caltrans' share at $3.806 million. Caltrans Headquarters, District 08, and RCTC propose the following to cover the $27 million cost increase: Amount Fund Type $ 889, 000 TCRP funds available after completion of the conventional project constructed prior to the design sequencing project launch. $ 16.3 million TCRP funds reprogrammed from the SR-91 HOV lane project (included in RCTC's 2006 STIP proposal) to the 60/91 /215 Interchange project. $ 6.005 million RCTC unallocated CMAQ and/or STP funds. $ 3.806 million State funds from a supplemental allocation to the 60/91 /215 Interchange project anticipated to occur at the July 2006 CTC meeting. $27 million Total RCTC Actions RCTC's actions involve two different fund sources. Staff is recommending reprogramming Traffic Congestion Relief Program (TCRP) funds from the SR-91 High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lane project, Adams Street to the 60/91/215 Interchange, to the 60/91 /215 Interchange design -sequencing project. Staff is anticipating the $16.3 million taken from the 91 HOV lane project will be replaced by federal and/or local funds. The advantage of allocating TCRP funds on the 60/91 /215 Interchange project is that TCRP funds are available now. As a result of the State's budget crisis, TCRP funds were suspended and just recently renewed. Having access to these funds, regardless of the project, is definitely to the Commission's advantage since the availability of TCRP funds in the future is still questionable. Staff is also recommending programming unallocated SAFETEA LU Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) program and/or Surface Transportation Program (STP) funds .in the amount of $6.005 million : on the 60/91 /215 Interchange design -sequencing project. This action does not impact other committed programmed projects. Agenda Item 9 60 • Caltrans' Actions As mentioned, Caltrans proposes to transfer $889,000 of unexpended funds from a prior project to the 60/91 /21 5 Interchange design -sequencing project. In addition, Caltrans will request an allocation of Interregional Improvement Program (IIP) funds in the amount of $3.806 million. This proposal, if approved by the Commission, will be presented to the California Transportation Commission (CTC) at their April 26-27, 2006 meeting by means of a TCRP amendment and allocation vote request, and a supplemental vote request for the IIP funds. Agenda Item 9 61 AGENDA ITEM 10 • RIVERS/DE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: April 12, 2006 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Cathy Bechtel, Project Delivery Director THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Request to Join Riverside Orange Corridor Authority STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Join the Riverside Orange Corridor Authority (ROCA), pursuant to legal counsel review; and 2) Authorize the Chair to appoint three members to serve on the ROCA Board of Directors. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Last year, Congress approved SAFETEA LU that included an earmark that authorized $15.8 million to "Study and construct highway alternatives between Orange and Riverside Counties, directed by the Riverside Orange Corridor Authority working with local government agencies, local transportation authorities, and guided by the current MIS." The current MIS refers to the recently -completed Riverside County -Orange County Major Investment Study that was completed by RCTC, the Orange County Transportation Authority and the Transportation Corridor Agencies. One of the approved recommendations from the study was to do detailed study to consider the technical feasibility of a tunnel between Corona and Irvine. The idea to form the Riverside Orange Corridor Authority was originally conceived by representatives from the Metropolitan Water District (MWD) who are also seeking to construct a tunnel to transport water between Lake Mathews and south Orange County. The MWD representatives worked closely with elected officials in Orange County as well as other proponents of a transportation tunnel to attempt to combine transportation and water interests. Their efforts were welcomed by Congressional Representatives Ken Calvert and Gary Miller and former Congressman Christopher Cox who all worked to successfully obtain federal funding in SAFETEA LU. Agenda Item 10 62 Late last year, the Riverside Orange Corridor Authority (ROCA) was formally. incorporated with the Secretary of State by MWD and the Municipal Water District of Orange County. The Western Municipal Water District of Riverside County has also signed the Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement (JPA). Two meetings of the ROCA have been held to date. A copy of the JPA is attached to this agenda item (Attachment 1). On March 24, the JPA formally invited the Riverside County Transportation Commission to join ROCA (Attachment 2). Ideally, forming a new layer of government in the form of a JPA can be redundant and unnecessary unless there are extenuating circumstances. Quite often it is more efficient to agree to a memorandum of understanding that spells out each party's responsibilities instead of forming a new agency. Indeed, RCTC staff has worked closely with the staff of OCTA and TCA as part of the MIS. The relationship worked effectively and the agencies jointly contracted for engineering support. Regardless the past success, the completion of the MIS last December moves the efforts into a new phase. With many of the recommendations from the MIS, RCTC and OCTA are working with Caltrans regarding preliminary engineering for the widening of State Route 91 and for a new parallel corridor. The outcome of these efforts will be brought back to the Commission later this year. Improvements on the SR-91 are on a much faster track than planning and study for a new corridor between Corona and Irvine that would run through and/or under the Cleveland National Forest. Given the long-term nature of this new corridor, this is an opportune time to consider a different arrangement on the next steps. Staff believes that it would be prudent to accept the invitation to join the Riverside Orange Corridor Authority for the following reasons: 1) Congressional Intent: Congressmen Calvert and Miller have both expressed their strong support for a new corridor between Riverside and Orange County. With their support, funding has been made available and the possibility exists to continue working with their offices as this project unfolds. Attachment 3 is a letter signed by Representatives Calvert and Miller that express their support for ROCA. The Congressional intent is clear. 2) Transportation Needs Must. Remain the Top Priority: What is also clear is the wording of the actual earmark. While the funding is directed to ROCA, the earmark clearly states that the money is to study and construct highway Agenda Item 10 63 alternatives and is to be guided by the MIS. The funding will come from the Federal Highway Administration and will be approved only for transportation purposes. 3) Favorable Standing for Transportation Agencies on the JPA Board: The articles of incorporation create a nine -member Board of Directors. Three seats are to be held by representatives of water agencies, three seats are to be held by representatives from RCTC and the final three seats are to be held by representatives of transportation agencies in Orange County. No action can be taken without approval by 314 of the Board of Directors which effectively provides the Commission with veto power over any action. 4) Continued Progress of the MIS: The outcome of the MIS clearly showed the need for tunneling in order to develop a new corridor. Eventually it may be conclude that combining a tunnel for transportation and water might not be possible, however, there are many opportunities to share information to determine the best way to move forward. Currently, there are a number of good reasons to work with the MWD because all of the agencies need to do geotechnical borings and other analyses. By working together, we can achieve efficiencies and get the needed information to move forward. 5) Combined Efforts Can Result in Dividends: While a number of Commissioners have expressed concerns about the objectives and intent of MWD, their stature and financial resources can be helpful to this effort. The combined voice of MWD and transportation agencies from both counties will undoubtedly be heard in Washington, Sacramento and with potential private investors who may be needed if a project is ever developed. The next meeting of ROCA is scheduled in late April and will likely take place at Corona City Hall. Staff recommends that RCTC join the agency and that the Chairman of the Commission be authorized to appoint the three members to the Board of Directors. Staff also recommends legal counsel review of the articles of incorporation and that any concerns regarding the language of the JPA be expressed and made a condition of membership. Attachments: 1) Joint Powers Agreement 2) Invitation Letter from ROCA dated March 24, 2006 3) Miller -Calvert Letter dated November 18, 2005 Agenda Item 10 64 RIVERSIDE ORANGE CORRIDOR AUTHORITY JOINT EXERCISE OF POWERS AGREEMENT 65 • • This Agreement between the Members of the "Riverside Orange Corridor Authority" is made and entered into on the date shown below when the second Member executes this Agreement. RECITALS A. The object of the Authority is to provide the necessary comprehensive, multi - agency, broadly based and mutually beneficial consensus planning and financing to manage geotechnical studies regarding a proposed additional transportation and utility corridor linking Riverside County and Orange County. B. The Parties to this Agreement have the common power to conduct such planning, financing, testing, and sharing of geotechnical data. C. It has been determined by the Parties hereto that it is in the best interest of the respective Parties to join together to administer the funds necessary to plan, finance and test to determine the geotechnical feasibility of a cost-effective and efficient construction of a transportation and utility corridor or to cooperate in the alignment of such public facilities. D. Each of the Parties is authorized to contract with each other for the joint exercise of any common power under Article 1, Chapter 5. Division 7, Title 1 of the Government Code of the State of California. E. The Parties hereto recognize that, in order to serve the purpose stated herein, additional funding from external sources must be obtained. Each Party has agreed to cooperate in obtaining additional funding, including but not limited to, contributions, gifts, debt financing, special legislation, toll revenue financing, Arterial Highway Financing programs and other forms of government grants-in-aid. F. The Parties hereto entered into this Agreement with the express understanding that the purpose of this Agreement shalt be accomplished at little or no expense to the members hereto or to the Authority created hereunder. G. The Parties hereto have entered into this Agreement with the express understanding that the capital project needs of the various Parties differ in timing, the generation of environmental and other planning issues, and anticipated costs of geotechnical studies and delays in completing studies may result in termination of the joint efforts of the Parties during or beyond the planning and fmancing phases, or may result in the coordinated, but not joint, use of staffmg, contractors, and shared data. H. The Parties hereto recognize that in accordance with the principles of sound community planning, future land use decisions should not upset the balance between land use intensity and adequate infrastructure facilities. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises and covenants herein contained, the Parties agree as follows: 2 66 I. DEFINITIONS For purposes of this Agreement, the following words shall have the following meanings: a. "Agreement" means this Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement, as amended from time to time. b. "Authority" means the RIVERSIDE ORANGE CORRIDOR AUTHORITY. c. "Annual Budget" means the approved budget applicable to the expenses of administration of the Authority. d. "Board Members" or "Members" means those persons serving as members of the Board of the Authority or their alternates. e. "Board" means the governing body of the Authority. f. "Ex-Officio Members" means Board Members who do not have a vote in Authority matters and whose presence shall not be counted in determining whether a quorum sufficient to transact Authority business exists. g. "Executive Director" means the chief operating employee selected by the Board to manage the day-to-day activities of the Agency. The Executive Director may be an employee of any individual Party. h. "Fiscal Year" means July 1st to and including the following June 30th. i. "Party" means each public entity which becomes a -signatory to this Agreement, accepting the rights and,obligations of the Authority hereunder, including any public entity executing an amendment of the original Agreement as hereinafter provided. j. "Riverside Orange Corridor" means the two to three mile wide potential corridor through the Santa Ana Mountains, extending westerly from the vicinity of Interstate Highway 15 in Riverside County on the east and traversing westerly through the Santa Ana Mountains and the vicinity of the Cleveland National Forest to connect with California State Route 241 near its junction with California State Rout 133 in Orange County on the west as necessary to provide a jointly aligned right of way for the transportation of vehicles, mass transit facilities, utility facilities, and water, or any combination thereof. A maximum of three potential alignments between these points may be examined. k. "Quarter" means July 1st to and including September 30th, October 1st to and including December 31st, January 1st to and including March 31st, and April 1st to and including June 30th. 3 67 • • II. CREATION OF THE AUTHORITY, PURPOSE AND POWERS 2.1 CREATION The Authority, a public entity separate from its Members, hereby is formed by the provisions of this Agreement, and Chapter 5, of Division 7 of Title 1 of the Government Code, beginning with Section 6500. Within thirty (30) days after the effective date of this Agreement and after any amendment, the Authority shall cause a notice of such Agreement or amendment to be prepared and filed with the office of the California Secretary of State containing the information required by Government Code Section 6503.5 Within ten (10) days after the effective date of this Agreement, the Authority shall cause a statement of the information concerning the Authority and its Board Members required by Government Code Section 53051 to be filed with the office of the California Secretary of State and with the County Clerk of each county in which the Authority maintains an office, and within ten (10) days after an amendment which makes any change in the facts required to be stated pursuant to Subdivision (a) of such Section a statement of such facts also shall be provided therein. 2.2 PURPOSE The purpose of this Agreement is to jointly exercise the common powers of its Members to manage and undertake geotechnical studies and planning regarding the Riverside Orange Corridor. The Parties thereafter by amendment to this Agreement or by a new Agreement may either (a) implement the acquisition, leasing or ownership, construction, and operation of the Riverside Orange Corridor as a joint facility by the Authority or (b) arrange for co -location of such facilities of the Parties on mutually agreeable and beneficial terms: 3 POWERS The Authority shall have the power in its own name to exercise any and all common powers of its Members reasonably related to the purposes of the Authority, including but not limited to the powers to: a. Study the geotechnical feasibility of the Riverside Orange Corridor; b. Make and enter into contracts; c. Contract for the services of engineers, attorneys, planners, financial consultants, and other professionals, and separate and apart therefrom to employ such other persons, as it deems necessary; d_ Lease, acquire, construct, manage, maintain and operate any buildings, works, or improvements; 4 68 e. Acquire, hold, dispose of property by any lawful means, including without limitation, gift, purchase, eminent domain, lease; lease purchase or sale; f. Incur debts, liabilities, or obligations subject to limitations herein set forth; g. Receive gifts, contributions and donations of property, funds, services, and other forms of financial assistance from persons, firms, corporations and any governmental entity; h. Obtain and maintain in force from an admitted insurer a policy of insurance to defend and indemnify the directors and officers for any liabilities arising from actions taken in their capacities at the Authority; i. Sue and be sued in its own name; j. Apply for appropriate grants under any federal, state, or local programs for assistance in developing any of its programs; k. Adopt rules, regulations, by-laws and procedures governing the operation of the Authority; 1. To the extent not herein specifically provided for, exercise any powers in the manner and according to the methods provided under applicable laws. III. ORGANIZATION 3.1. Membership The Parties to the Authority may include the Orange County Transportation Authority, the Riverside County Transportation Commission, the Foothill/Eastern Transportation Corridor Agency, the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, the Municipal Water District of Orange County and the Western Municipal Water District, which have executed or hereafter execute this Agreement, or amendment thereto, and which have not, pursuant to the provisions hereof, withdrawn therefrom. 3.2. Board a. The Board shall consist of the following: Three voting Board Members from the Orange County Transportation Agencies (F/ETCA or OCTA). One voting Board Member from the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California ("MWD"), as appointed by the Board of MWD. One voting Board Member from the Municipal Water District of Orange County ("MWDOC"), as appointed by the Board of MWDOC. 5 69 • • (4) One voting Board Member from the Westem Municipal Water District ("WMWD"), as appointed by the Board of WMWD. (5) Three voting Board Members from the Riverside County Transportation Commission. The Board may, from time to time, appoint additional ex-officio members. b. Except for ex-officio members, each Board Member shall be a current member of the governing body of the Party such member represents or a public official appointed by such Party. c. Each Board Member shall also have an alternate appointed by the governing body of the Party represented by such Board Member. An alternate Member shall assume all rights and duties of the absent Board Member. d. Each Board Member and alternate shall hold office from the first meeting of the Board after appointment by the governing body that is a Party to this agreement until a successor is named. e. A Board Member may be reimbursed for expenses incurred by such Board Member in the conduct of the business of the Authority subject to such rules and regulations as shall be adopted by the Board. 3.3 Principal Office The principal office of the Authority shall be established by the Board and shall be located within either the County of Orange, the County of Los Angeles, or the County of Riverside. The Board is hereby granted full power and authority to change said principal office from one location to another within these counties. Any change shall be noted by the secretary of the Board under this Agreement but shall not be considered an amendment to this Agreement. 3.4 Meetings The Board shall meet at the principal office of the Authority or at such place designated by the Board. The time and place of regular meetings of the Board shall be determined by resolution adopted by the Board, and a copy of such resolution shall be furnished to each Party. Regular, adjourned, and special meetings shall be called and conducted in accordance with the Ralph M. Brown Act, Government Code Section 54950 et. seq., as amended. 3.5 Quorum A simple majority of the Board Members shall constitute a quorum for the purposes of the transaction of business relating to the Authority, except as expressly set forth herein or as otherwise provided by law. 6 70 3.6 Powers and Limitations Thereon All the powers of the Authority shall be exercised by the Board, subject however, to the reserved rights of the Parties as herein set forth. Unless otherwise provided herein, each Board Member or participating alternate Board Member shall be entitled to one vote, and as except as otherwise provided herein or as otherwise provided by law, a three -fourths (3/4) vote of all Board Members shall be required to adopt any motion, resolution, or order and take any other action they deem appropriate, including without limitation any action which obligates the Authority to expend significant funds, not including routine expenditures. 3.7 Minutes The secretary of the Authority shall cause to be kept minutes of regular, adjourned regular and special meetings of the Board, and shall cause a copy of the minutes to be forwarded to each Member and to each Party. 3.8 Rules The Board may adopt from time to time rules and regulations for the conduct of its affairs consistent with this Agreement. 3.9 Vote or Assent of Members The vote, assent, or approval of Parties in any matter requiring such vote, assent, or approval hereunder shall be evidenced by a certified copy of the action of the governing body of such Party filed with the Authority. It shall be the responsibility of the Executive Director to obtain certified copies of such actions. 3.10 Officers and Employees There shall be selected by the Board from its membership, a chairman and vice chairman. The Board shall appoint a secretary who may be a Member. The Board shall appoint an officer or employee of a Party to hold the offices of treasurer and auditor for the Authority. Such person or persons shall possess the powers and the duties of, and shall perform the treasurer and auditor functions for the Authority, and those functions required by Government Code Sections 6505, 6505.5, and 6505.6, including any subsequent amendments thereto. The Board shall appoint an Executive Director. The chairman, vice chairman, secretary, treasurer and auditor shall hold the office for a period of one year commencing July 15L of each year. Any officer, employee, or agent of the Board may also be an officer, employee or agent of any Parties. The appointment of the Board of such person shall be evidence that the two positions are compatible. 7 71 • 3.11 Committees The Board may, as it deems appropriate, appoint committees to accomplish the purposes set forth herein. Each committee shall consist of at least two Board Members but fewer than a quorum of the Board; the Executive Director, auditor and/or the treasurer may also serve on any committee as the Board deems appropriate, but as non -voting members of the committee. Any meeting of such a committee shall be deemed to be a meeting of the Authority for compensation purposes only and all such meetings shall be open to all Board Members, unless the presence of Board Members who are not members of such committee would violate the provisions of the Ralph M. Brown Act, Government Code Section 54950, et. seq., as amended. 3.12 Additional Officers The Board shall have the power, upon the unanimous approval of all Board Members, to appoint such additional officers as may be appropriate. Such officers may also be, but are not required to be, officers and employees of a Party. 3.13 Bonding Requirement The officers or persons who have charge of, handle, or have access to any property of the Authority shall be so designated and empowered by the Board. Each such officer or person shall be required to file an official bond with the Board in an amount which shall be established with the Board. Should the existing bond or bonds of such officer or person be extended to cover the obligations provided herein, said bond shall be the official bond required herein. The premiums on any such bonds attributable to the coverage required shall be appropriate expenses to the Authority. 3.14 Status of Officers and Employees All the privileges and immunities from liabilities, exemption from laws, ordinances and rules, all pension, relief, disability, worker's compensation, and other benefits which apply to the activities of officers, agents, or employees of any of the Parties when performing their respective functions shall apply to them to the same degree and extent while engaged in the performance of any of the functions and other duties under this Agreement. None of the officers, agents, or employees appointed by the Board shall be deemed, by reason of their employment or appointment by the Board, to be employed by any of the individual Parties or, by reason of their employment by the Board, to be subject to any of the requirements of such individual Parties. 8 72 IV. STATE AND FEDERAL FUNDING Each Party to this Agreement agrees to use its best efforts to assist the Authority in the securing of funding from both the State of California and the federal government to obtain grants, matching funds, or loans to underwrite the costs of the gathering of geotechnical data regarding the feasibility of the Riverside Orange Corridor. In using its best efforts, each Party shall support the inclusion in such funding of reimbursements to the Authority or to a Party for the consultant services performed under contract awarded by a Party after July 1, 2005 when such contract services consist of tunnel feasibility investigations within the three potential alignments of the Riverside Orange Corridor, including but not limited to, field reconnaissance, geologic mapping, soft rock bucket auger drilling, hard rock core drilling, field and laboratory testing, technical analysis of geologic conditions, stream surveys, biological surveys, and/or groundwater modeling. V. BUDGET AND DISBURSEMENTS 5.1 Annual Budget The Board shall adopt upon the unanimous approval of the Board Members, an annual budget, for the ensuing fiscal year, pursuant to procedures developed by the Board. 5.2 Disbursements The auditor shall draw warrants upon the approval and written order of the Board. The Board shall requisition the payment of funds only upon approval of such claims or disbursements and such requisition for payment in accordance with the rules, regulations, policies, procedures and bylaws adopted by the Board. All disbursements of State or federal funds received by the Authority shall be disbursed in furtherance of geotechnical studies regarding the Riverside Orange Corridor, if so permitted by the terms and conditions of such funding sources. 5.3 Accounts All funds will be placed in object accounts and the receipt, transfer, or disbursement of such funds during the tern of this Agreement shall be accounted for in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles applicable to government entities. There shall be strict accountability of all funds. All revenues and expenditures shall be reported to the Board. 9 73 • 5.4 Expenditures Within Approved Annual Budget All expenditures within the designations and limitations of the approved annual budget shall be made upon the approval of the Executive Director in accordance with the rules, policies and procedures adopted by the Board. No expenditure in excess of those budgeted shall be made without the unanimous approval of the Board Members of a revised and amended budget which may, from time to time, be submitted to the Board. 5.5 Audit The records and accounts of the Authority shall be audited by an independent certified public accountant and copies of such audit report shall be filed with the County Auditor, State Controller and each Party no later than fifteen (15) days after receipt of said audit by the Board. VI. LIABILITIES 6.1 Liabilities The debts, liabilities, and obligations of the Authority shall be the debts, liabilities, or obligations of the Authority alone and not of the individual Parties, unless expressly specified herein. 6.2 Hold Harmless and Indemnity To the extent that a liability is not funded by proceeds of insurance procured by the Authority, each Party hereto agrees to indemnify and hold the Authority and the other Parties harmless from and against any and all claims, causes of action, suits, judgments, costs, penalties, fines damages, losses and liabilities, including any injury to or death of persons or damage to or loss of property, including attorneys' accountants' and expert witness fees and costs incurred in connection with the enforcement of this indemnity, arising out of, relating to or resulting from any negligent or intentional act or omission of the indemnifying Party or its employees. Such indemnity shall not inure to the benefit of an indemnified party so as to impose liability on an indemnifying party for the active negligence of the indemnified party. VII. ADMISSION AND WITHDRAWAL OF PARTIES 7.1 Admission of New Parties It is recognized that public entities, other than the original Parties, may wish to Participate in the Authority. Additional public entities may become Parties to the 10 74 Authority upon such terms and conditions as may be provided by the Board and upon the unanimous consent of the Parties evidenced by the execution of a written amendment to this Agreement, and executed by all of the Parties, including the additional Party. 7.2 Withdrawal While it is fully anticipated that each Party hereto shall participate in the Authority until all the purposes set forth in Section 2 above are accomplished, the Parties recognize that any Party may determine that withdrawal from this Agreement will be in its best interests to enable it to provide its services in the most timely, cost- effective, and qualitative and quantitative manner. Thus, each Party reserves the right; which will be continuing, to withdraw from this Agreement wheneversuch Party, in its discretion, so determines as provided in this Section 7.2. The withdrawal of any Party, either voluntarily or involuntarily, shall be conditioned as follows: (i) in the case of a voluntary withdrawal, written notice shall be given not later than one hundred and twenty (120) days prior to the end of the fiscal year; (ii) the effective date of the withdrawal shall be the end of the fiscal year. Said withdrawal shall not relieve the Party of its proportionate share of any debts or other liabilities incurred by the Authority prior to the date of notification of the Party's withdrawal. VIII. TERMINATION AND DISPOSITION OF ASSETS 8.1 The Authority shall continue to exercise the joint powers herein until the termination of this Agreement and any extension thereof or until the Parties shall have mutually rescinded this Agreement; provided, however that the Authority shall continue to exist for the purposes of: disposing of all claims, parties advancing funds to the Authority and satisfaction of other covenants contained in the reimbursement agreements with such parties, distribution of assets and all other functions necessary to conclude the affairs of the Authority. Termination shall occur upon the written consent of all of the Parties, upon the withdrawal from the Authority of a sufficient number of the Parties to leave fewer than two Parties remaining in the Authority. However, no such termination shall occur until all financial and contractual obligations of the Authority have been satisfied. 11 75 • • 8.2 Distribution of Property and Funds In the event of the termination of this Agreement, any property interest remaining in the Authority following the discharge of all obligations shall be disposed of as the Board shall determine with the objective of returning to each Party or former Party a proportionate share of the staffing and other contributions made to such properties by such Parties, less previous distributions, if any, provided however that any funds generated by the disposition of such property also shall be expended to construct facilities which accomplish the purposes of the Riverside Orange Corridor; to the extent legally possible. In the event of termination of this Agreement, any funds remaining following the discharge of all obligations shall be disposed of by returning to the Party a proportionate share of such funds equal to the percentage of the staffing and other contributions made by each Party, less each Party's proportionate share of the previous distributions, if any, provided that said funds shall be expended to construct facilities which accomplish the purposes of the Riverside Orange Corridor, to the extent legally possible. IX. MISCELLANEOUS 9.1 Amendments This Agreement may be amended with the unanimous approval of all Members; provided, however, that no amendment may be made which would adversely affect the interests of the owner of bonds, letters of credit, or other financial obligations of the Authority. 9.2 Notice Any notice or instrument required to be given or delivered by depositing the same in any United States Post Office, registered or certified, postage prepaid, addressed to the Parties, shall be deemed to have been received by the Party to whom the same is addressed at the expiration of seventy-two (72) hours after deposit of the same in the United States Post Office for transmission by registered or certified mail as aforesaid. 9.3 Effective Date This Agreement shall be effective at such time as this Agreement has been executed by at least two Parties enumerated in the introduction of this Agreement. 12 76 9.4 Arbitration Any controversy or claim between any two or more Parties, or between any such Party or Parties and the Authority, in respect to the Authority's operations, or to any claims, disputes, demands, differences, controversies, or misunderstandings arising under, out of, or in relation to this Agreement, shall be submitted to and determined by arbitration. To the extent not inconsistent herewith, the rules of the American Arbitration Association shall apply. The Party desiring to initiate arbitration shall give. notice of its intention to arbitrate to every other Party and the Authority. Such notice shall designate as "respondents" such other Parties as the initiating Party intends to have bound by any award made therein. Any Party not so designated but which desires to join in the arbitration may, within ten (10) days of service upon it of such notice, file a response indicating its intention to join in and to be bound by the results of the arbitration, and further designating any other Parties it wishes to name as a respondent. Within twenty (20) days of the service of the initial demand for arbitration, the American Arbitration Association, hereinafter referred to as "AAA," shall submit simultaneously to the initiating and to all Parties named as respondents or filing a response therein, an identical list of names and persons chosen from AAA National Panel of Arbitrators which persons shall be, to the extent possible, persons first in the field of transportation as well as public law. Each Parry to the dispute shall have seven (7) days from the mailing date in which to cross off any names indicating the order of his or her preference, and return the list with such time period, all persons named therein shall be deemed acceptable. From among the persons who have been approved on both lists, in accordance with the designated order of mutual preference, the AAA shall invite the acceptance of an arbitrator to serve. If the Parties fail to agree upon one of the persons named, the acceptable arbitrator is unable to act, or if for any other reason the appointment cannot be made from the submitted list, the AAA shall have the power to make the appointment of the arbitrator from other members of the panel without the submission of any additional list. The arbitrator shall proceed to arbitrate the matter in accordance with the provisions of Title 9 of Part 3 of the Code of Civil procedure. 9.5 Partial Invalidity If any or more of the terms, provisions, sections, promises, covenants or conditions of this Agreement shall to any extent be adjudged invalid, unenforceable, void or voidable for any reason whatsoever by a court of competent jurisdiction, each and all. of the remaining terms, provisions, sections, promises, covenants and conditions of this Agreement shall not be effected thereby and shall be valid and enforceable to the fullest extent permitted by law. 13 77 9.6 Successors This Agreement shall be binding upon and shall inure to the benefit of the successors of the Parties hereto. 9.7 Assignment The Parties shall not assign any rights or obligations under this Agreement without consent of the other Parties. 9.8 Execution 14 78 • ORANGE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY DATED ORANGE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY, a public agency APPROVED AS TO FORM: By DATED By Chairman 15 79 • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATED RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION, a public agency APPROVED AS TO FORM: By Bill Katzenstein County Counsel DATED By Chairman Riverside County Transportation Commission 16 80 • • FOOTHILL/EASTERN TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR AGENCY DATED FOOTHILL/EASTERN TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR AGENCY, a public agency APPROVED AS TO FORM: By DATED By Chairman 17 81 • METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT OF SOUTHi SRN CALIFORNIA DATED 76/ ` / /Zoor METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, a political subdivision of the State of California By t/(- - 4- Wesley M. Bannister, Chairman MWD Board of Directors APPROVED AS TO FORM: 18 82 • MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT OF ORANGE COUNTY (MWDOC) DATED APPROVED AS TO FORM: By Russell Behrens General Counsel DATED / o7l MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT OF ORANGE COUNTY, a political subdivision of the State of California By `'Bdward I. Royce, S� ., President MWDOC Board of Directors 83 19 • WESTERN MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY (WESTERN) DATED l ° 5- APPROVED AS TO FORM: By DATED / //2/<9,5 WESTERN MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY, a political subdivision of the State of California By 84 20 Lopez, P WESTERN Board . Direc :rs sq toe cep 0 a* 'no! b Atte an -mum co p qj .q}seV00/1- U Mod uoquiatu ,To [ 14110gPIV iopuza 900Z, ` 7Z u� Yii o Q3I q u0 CS (Toren 080 odst (+�ca;az 11 _, =a- Congregg of the tiniteb ,6tateg astbington, /DC 20515 November 18, 2005 Mr. Bill Campbell Chairman Riverside County to Orange County Major Investment Study Policy Committee 550 South Main Street P.O. Box 14184 Orange, CA 92863-1584 Dear Chairman Campbell: The most significant issues in Southem California today are traffic congestion and the availability of water to the residents of our region. We firmly believe we need to address these problems by considering and further exploring a multi -pronged approach to create a long-term solution to relieve congestion and increase the availability of water resources between Riverside and Orange Counties in Southern California. As the Riverside County to Orange County Major Investment Study Policy Committee (MIS) considers all options to reduce congestion between Orange and Riverside Counties, we would like to reiterate our support for the Riverside Orange Corridor Authority (ROCA) to further study the feasibility of constructing a tunnel through the Cleveland National Forest to connect transportation and water to these thriving communities. Understanding that this alternative requires further geotechnical and geophysical research to determine if the tunnel is a viable option, we recommend that the final MIS recommendation refer further research of Corridor B to ROCA. SAFETEA-LU included $15.8 million to study and construct highway alternatives between Orange and Riverside counties, directed by ROCA, working with the local government and transportation authorities and guided by the current MIS. We view the ROCA studies as being complementary to the MIS process by considering all multi -use opportunities in this corridor. Therefore, we strongly encourage you to ensure the study of the tunnel alternative will continue. Sincerely, GARY G. MILLER ' ICED CALVERT Member of Congress PRINTED ON RED4§0 PAPER Member of Congress • AGENDA ITEM 11 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: April 12,2006 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Plans and Programs Committee 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 Commission to approve prioritization of projects included in the 2006 State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) 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. 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 FY 2010/11. • Minimum Scenario — $45.5 million new programming capacity. This scenario assumes programming of county shares through FY 2007/08. • Maximum Scenario — $197.3 million new programming capacity. This scenario assumes county shares through FY 2011/12. Agenda item 11 87 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-215 East Junction Connector. Attachment: January 11, 2006 Agenda Item for 2006 STIP 88 • ATTACHMENT 1 REVISED AGENDA ITEM 9 Additions are noted by Bold Italics, Deletions are noted by Stri-kethrough RIVERS/DE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: January 11, 2006 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Shirley Medina, Program Manager THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Programming and Administration Director SUBJECT: 2006 State Transportation Improvement Recommendations for Programming Program STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to approve the 2006 State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) as proposed in Attachment 2 including the following recommendations: 1) Carryover 2004 STIP state highway projects into the 2006 STIP; 2) Delete $16.882 million of local arterial projects from the 2004 STIP and reprogram with federal funds, and reprogram the $16.882 million of STIP funds on the SR 91 High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lane project; 3) Maintain the Commission's commitment to fund the SR 91 HOV lane project by programming $91.3 million of 2006 STIP Western County Formula funds; 4) Support Caltrans in reprogramming $8 million of STIP/IIP funding from the Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) land acquisition project and S23.183 *15.483 million of STIP/IIP funding from the AB 3090 agreements on the SR 60 HOV lane and SR 91/Green River interchange improvement projects to the 60/215 East Junction connector project; 5) Program $1.849 *2.5 million of CMAQ funds on the 60/215 East Junction connector project to complete funding on this project; 6) Maintain the Commission's commitment to fund the SR 91 HOV lano 60/215 East Junction connector project by reprogramming $7.349 million of STIP/R/P funds from the AB 3090 agreements on the SR 60 HOV lane and SR 91/Green River interchange improvement projects; 7) Program 2006 STIP Eastern County Formula funds as proposed by the Coachella Valley Association of Governments to cover cost increases on the 1-10 Interchanges at Bob Hope/Ramon Road, Gene Autry Trail/Palm Drive, and Date Palm Drive; Agenda Item 9 89 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 currentlyprogrammed 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 90 • • 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 2010-201 1 and includes unprogrammed reserves. • Minimum Scenario — $45.5 million new programming capacity. This scenario assumes programming of county shares through 2007-08. • Maximum Scenario — $197.3 million new programming capacity. This scenario assumes county shares through 2011-2012. CTC staff has recommended that the regional agencies focus on the Target Scenario for their respective STIP submittals. Attachment 1 reflects the Commission's adopted STIP Intra-county Formula for the Target Scenario, and the Minimum Scenario is provided for comparative purposes. Attachment 2 represents the project programming recommendations that will be submitted to the CTC. The Target Scenario programming includes carryover projects from the 2004 STIP, deletion of 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 2010-2011). 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 91 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 (CMAO 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 llP 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 60/21`5 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 CMAO 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 92 • #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 i1P funds from the MSHCP to the 60/215 East Junction since the 60/215 East Junction is eligible for 11P 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 93 #11 Work with Ca!trans in programming an additional $4 million of IIP funds to cover the cost increase on the North Main Corona Metrolink Station 'Parking Structure project currently programmed in the STIP with Interregional Improvement Program (IIP) funds. The North Main Corona Metrolink'"Station Parking Structure has experienced a significant cost increase above $15 million. The initial cost estimate of $11 million is programmed in the STIP with IIP funds. The remainder of the cost increase is proposed to be funded with Section 5307 funds. In addition to meeting previous commitments to complete funding on the 91 HOV lane (from Adams to the 60/91 /215 interchange) and the 60/215 East Junction Connector projects (refer to Attachment 3), the Target Scenario proposes the deletions of local arterial projects currently programmed in the 2004 STIP. Over the past three years, when STIP allocations are limited due to lack of sufficient funds, allocation plans are developed. These allocation plans rank categories of projects in priority order. Local arterial projects tend to be ranked very close to the bottom, and therefore, these projects stand a good chance of being delayed if they stay in the STIP and the State continues to have funding problems. Staff is proposing to replace the STIP funds with other federal funds (e.g. Regional Surface Transportation Program (RSTP) and Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ)) as noted in Attachment 2. Should the Commission approve this action staff will follow up with changing the fund sources in the Federal Transportation Improvement Program (FTIP). Lastly, the STIP funds freed up from the deleted local arterial projects ($16.882 million) would be reprogrammedon 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 94 • • The Target Scenario also includes working with Caltrans in programming an additional $4 million of IIP funds for the North Main Corona Metrolink Station Parking Structure. Caltrans programmed $11 million in the 2004 STIP as this amount was the initial cost estimate. The parking structure is part of a bi-county list of improvement projects proposed by Caltrans Districts 8 and 12 to alleviate congestion on SR 91. The parking structure will address the current overflow at a nearby park-n-ride lot by allowing an additional 500 designated parking spaces (total planned parking structure spaces is 2,500). It is proposed to cap the Caltrans IIP funding contribution at a total of $15 million with the remaining balance proposed for Section 5307 funds. Construction of the parking structure is scheduled in FY 2009-10. Minimum Scenario The Minimum Scenario identifies $45.5 million of new programming capacity. If the Minimum Scenario is selected by the CTC, staff will bring back to the Commission a revised 2006 STIP proposal for review and approval AB 3090 Cash Reimbursements The AB 3090 Cash Reimbursement approved for the 60/91/215 Interchange and corridor improvement projects in the amount of $31,324,000 ($26,625,000 are RIP funds, and $4,699,000 are IIP funds) will be paid back in FY 2006-07. These funds will be programmed on the SR 91 HOV project. The AB 3090 Cash Reimbursement for FY 2003-04 Planning, Programming, and Monitoring (PPM) funds in the amount of $166,000 will be received in FY 2007-08 and will be reprogrammed to support future PPM activities. The deadline for 2006 STIP submittals from the regional agencies and Caltrans is January 30, 2006. Staff will report to the Commission on any state or federal issues that may impact our proposed 2006 STIP submittal. Attachments: 1) 2006 STIP Intra-County Formula for New Program Capacity 2) 2006 STIP Proposed Programming — Target Scenario 3) Funding of SR 91 HOV Lane and 60/215 East Junction Connector Projects Agenda Item 9 95 96 •Alunoo aplsaanN to ammo pauawel6adaa 6ulaq woa; spun;;oalad o; (AOH 1.6 ?!S) )dune° uialsem ay; ul pewwezejd seen 6ulpun; elnwiod;o £bL'Z l9$ ay; 'auo;eJayl 'le;#lwgns dllS VOOZ ayl;o awl; ay;;e peulwJa;ap lou seM spun; AsileA apJaA oled pue /tam ellayoeoo Jo} 6ulwweJ60Jd OZ1'Z9L'£91 $ OZ1'Z9L'£91 OLS'bL£`L $ 999'OZ $ Z179'E6Z'L 006'9£L`Lt. $ 9191.69 $ SZO'Stnt, OICOOE`LZl $ (E17ZZ19) $ £9b'EL6'1.Z1. luewlsnfpy dI1S b00Z, OZL'ZSL'E9L $ 099` Lt£'£ 000176W/91 000'61L'26 000'9/.039 l 1N3WHOdlld ass' lb£'£ L0'v'9Z 6bb'LZ9 0£0'98b'Z $ R;bade° Bulwwegioid meN le;ol $ %6L'0 AalleA EP-19A oled $ %9L'bZ AalleA elley0e09 $ %WtL A;unoo wa;saM :uMopoieaag e;nuuod Rlloedeo weffload MaN so; algelleny spund das $ algenuity Wdd 1e301 $ %6L'0 AalleA apaaA °led $ %9EtZ AalleA ellayoeoO $ %217'171 llunoo walsaM :uMopa/eeag elntwod 6uuo;luolni 6u umualawd 'Buluueld %Z eoueleg amyS AlunoO pewwwBoadufl dllS 1700Z BulwwwBoid dlIS 900Z Jo; elgellene Apedeo nnaN ( 6 60Z-0 40Z Bulpue popad eaeyg A;uno3) opeuaoS ;aBael Aipedeo weaBoad maN ao} elnuaaod Alunoo-ea;ul dllS 900Z • •• • L6 •AjunoO eplsaeANjo epls;no pewwei6adai 6uleq wa; spun;;oe;ad o; (AOH 46 US) AjunoO we;sem ay; ul pewww6oid sem 6ulpun; elnwwod;o £bL'Z49$ ey;'eao;eaayl 'le;;lwgns dllS b00Z ay; ,0 awl; ay;;e peulwaa;ap;ou sem spun; AalleA apJeA oled pue �(alIBA ella peoO 6ulwwe.160.1d4 094`4E9` / b9VELE 099'Zb9' 4 4 99 4'9 49'Z£ 09 4' 4£9'bb Ob8'046 000`Z4S`S4 4 1N3WHOV1IV $ 898'0Z $ $ 92.8' 469 $ $ (E17L'Z49) $ ;uaw;snfpV daS b00Z.. 094`4E9`* 989'ZS£ 3L9'090` 4 4 668'LZZ'£E $ AwedeO 6ulwwei6oud maN mai $ %6L'0 �e118A epiaA °led $ %9L'17Z teller ellayOeoO $ %917'17L dump wa;saM :umopeeis elnwuod :6ulwweJ6oid;oafwd Jo; aaeys pewwei6oadun O48'046 $ amelleAy Wdd Mel 964'L $ %6L'0 AelleA epJeA °led bZ9`2ZZ $ %91217Z AelleA eliayoeoO OZ4'8L9 $ %917'17L A;unoO u.191saM :umoplewe elnwJod 6UpOWoW `6ulwwea6ad '6uluueld %Z 6ulwwei6oid dllS 900Z Jo; emellene kpedeo maN (80/LOOZ 6ulpue popad antis Awno3) opeueos uanuafulw Apoedeo weaBoad meN ao} elnwaod Awno0-ea;u1 dliS 900Z • 2006 STIP Proposed_Programming , Target Scenario.. Current Proiects $ (000's Attach Agency Rte Project Total RIP FY 06/07 FY 07/08 FY 08/09 FY 09/10 FY 10/11 Phase RCTC PPM Planning, Programming, and Monitoring $ 1,105 $ 105 $ 500 $ 500 Con Caltrans 10 Ramon Rd/Bob Hope Interchange $ 19,022 $ 19,022 Con Caltrans 10 Jefferson Street Interchange $ 10,560 $ 10,560 Con Caltrans 10 Indian Ave Interchange $ 15,112 $ 2,000 $ 13,112 R/W, Con Caltrans 15 Calif Oaks/Kalmia Interchange $ 7,366 $ 2,324 $ 5,042 R/W, Con Caltrans 91 HOV lanes (2004 STIP deletions, see below) $ 16,882 $ 16,882 Con Caltrans 91 Van Buren IC (former widen. @ SA river) $ 3,465 $ 3,465 Con Caltrans 95 Intake Blvd Widen/Signal $ 1,875 $ 1,875 Con RCTC 91 AB 3090 Replacement Project, 91 HOV Ins $ 7,349 $ 7,349 Con Sub -total Current Projects New Proiect Programmin $ 82,736 $ 4,429 $ 53,576 $ 500 $ 24,231 I $ - RCTC 91 91 HOV lanes (Adams to 60/91/215 IC) $ 91,300 $ 91,300 Con RCTC Perris Valley Rail Line $ 30,000 $ 30,000 Con CVAG 10 Bob Hope/Ramon IC (cost increase) $ 24,508 $ 24,508 Con CVAG 10 Date Palm Drive $ 8,542 $ 8,542 Con CVAG 10 Gene Autry Trail/Palm Drive $ 8,087 $ 8,087 Con Palo Verde Valley Fund Trade on RCTC Project (91 HOV) $ 1,315 $ 1,315 Con RCTC PPM Planning, Programming, and Monitoring $ 3,342 $ 1,842 $ 1,000 $ 500 Con Sub -total New Projects $ 167,094 $. 1,842 $ 25,508 $ 47,129 $ 92,615 $ - Total Current and New Projects $ 249,830 $ 6,271 $ 79,084 $ 47,629 $ 116,846 AB 3090 Cash Reimbursements Caltrans 91 HOV lanes, Adams to 60/91/215 IC $ 26,625 R/W, Con RCTC PPM Planning, Programming, and Monitoring $ 166 Con Projects Proposed to Be Deleted from STIP Total RIP New Funds Program Year Blythe Lovekin Blvd Rehabilitation $ - Local FY 07/08 Cathedral City Ramon Road Improvements $ 1,385 RSTP FY 06/07 Coachella Dillon Road Grade Separation $ 4,559 CMAQ FY 05/06 Coachella Dillon Road Widening $ 2,117 RSTP FY 05/06 Moreno Valley Perris Blvd Improvements $ 3,184 RSTP FY O6/07 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 98 REVISION TO AGENDA ITEM 11 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMM/SS/ON DATE: April 12, 2006 TO: Plans and Programs Committee FROM: Shirley Medina, Program Manager 'THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: 2006 State Transportation Improvement Program — CTC Recommendations 'PLANS AND PROGRAMS COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the (,',Commission to: 1) Receive and file the 2006 State Transportation Improvement Program California Transportation Commission Staff Recommendations; 2) Reaffirm RCTC's commitment of programming 2008 STIP and other currently available local Measure A and/or federal funds (CMAQ and RSTP) to the SR 91 HOV project, from Adams to Mary Street, to complete funding of the construction phase; 3) Adjust the imbalance of 2006 STIP Intra-county formula funds in the 2008 STIP; and 4) Work with Palo Verde Valley on substitute funding for the deleted STIP project on Intake Boulevard. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: d On April 7, 2006 -the California Transportation Commission (CTC) released their staff recommendations for the 2006 State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP). These recommendations will be presented for approval at the April 26-27, 2006 CTC meeting.',' The 2006 STIP adds two new years of programming providing a total of $5.895 billion in funding covering fiscal years 2006/07 — 2010/11. Unfortunately, the outcome of the recommendations (Attachment A) reflect Riverside County programming levels at just above our minimum programming capacity at $49.71 1 million (minimum level was $45.5 million). As you may recall, I R. V 1 , I i I our January 30, 2006 STIP submittal included programming at the estimated "Target" level, which was'!I $167 million of newt capacity. ,,1, o j u The reason for the decrease in programming, is [that^ there isn't enough funding available for highway and road projects. I;; Only .$455 million of new cepacity is available statewide for highway and road projects: The total statewide request for highway and road'funding was $1:23 b Ilion. ;As a result,' most counties are being held to less than 20% of their target levelaleav ng out $-780 million in highway and road proposals from the 'STIP. RiversideCounty; received approxiinately 30% of the estimate target. This is attributable to the addition of the Perris Valley Line project for $30 million. „ ° f G 9 II j As for rail and transit programming, $1.355_ billion is the statewide amount available for programming in the 2006 STIP. tThe statewide programming request for rail and transit, projects is $625 mi lion. liThis leaves $730 million n rail and transit capacity unprogrammed in the STIP; Additional transit and rail projects may be amended into the STIP, using this unprogrammed capacity. ° i t The disparity between thIle "highway and 'head" projects and the "rail and transit" projects highlights the need and imbalance of 'highway projects and availability of highway funding. ,There were a few countiesthat had more rail and transit projects in their STIP submittals and were eble to receive funding et or above their minimum targets. These a enciee included the L"os] Angeles ° Metropolitan Transportation Authority (LAMTA), the Metropolitan! Transportation Commission (MTC), and Sacramento County. In areas with population' growth or lack. of density, the demand for highways, and roads far outweighs the need for programming rail and transit projects in the STIiP. ° i r Riverside County STlP R�ecommendations versus January 30, 2006 STIP Submittal ' i 1• The differences between!our submittal ends, what is being recommended by the CTC is outlined as follows: I I 1;. ' V 11 i'II a een 'rleduced from $167 million to $49.711 11 • New Programming;i Capacity; has million r i! • I-10 Indian' Avenue Interchange nas 2008/09 1. h- been moved from FY 2607/08 to • 1-15 Califor,nia Oaks/Kalmia, Interchange, has to 2009/10 i aw ,, I i • Projects recommended for �delet on,' are: 1-10 Jefferson Interchange, 14101 r been moved from FY 2007/08 l SR-91 HOV construction funding, Date Palm Interchange, 1-10 1 j , Palm Drive/Gene Autry Interchange, and the Intake Blvd widening and signal project. Note: the Jefferson Interchange and Intake Boulevard projects were previously included in the 2004 STIP. Funding for Planning, Programming, and Monitoring (PPM) will be reduced from $3.342 million to $994,220 to reflect the Commission's policy to program up to 2% of new capacity for planning, programming and monitoring activities. The funds will be reprogrammed to an existing project and/or ,will remain in the unprogrammed county share balance for future programming. The STIP recommendations include the AB3090 reprogramming commitments from the SR 60 HOV, Valley Way to 1-15, and SR 91 /Green River Interchange projects to the 60/215 East Junction, which is now fully funded. Further the AB 3090 cash reimbursements for the 60/91/215 IC ($31 million) and the PPM ($166,000) are 'still in place and will be repaid in fiscal year 2006/07 and 2007/08 respectively. {I Riverside County's unprogrammed county share balance is now at $117 million. There have been previous commitments made by the Commission to dedicate future Western County STIP funding to the 91 HOV project. Staff is seeking reaffirmation of this commitment and direction to program uncommitted funds from Measure A, federal fund sources (Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) ,and Regional Surface Transportation Program (RSTP) funds) and 2008 STIP funding to complete the 91HOV construction funding. !Staff is also recommending working with Palo Verde Valley on replacement funds for the Intake Boulevard project that is being deleted. Coachella Valley Association of Governments will work with its member agencies on funding for those projects not recommended for programming. The 2006 STIP Intra-county formula (Attachment B) has been revised to reflect the programming capacity at $49.71 1 million. Given that the 2006 STIP new program ,capacity for Coachella Valley is $12.654 million and the Coachella Valley received '$13.631 million (additional funds programmed on Ramon Road minus the funds from the 1-10 Jefferson project that was carried over from the 2004 STIP and now deleted), an adjustment to the 2008 STIP will be made to reduce the Coachella Valley formula. by;,„$977,000. In addition, a review of the STIP Intra-county Formula will be conducted to ensure that the subregions have received their fair share since the 1998 STIP. Attachments: 1) CTC Staff Recommendation 2) 2006 STIP Intra-County Formula CTC STAFF RECOMMENDATION FROM COUNTY SHARE FOR 2006 STIP Does Not Include STIP Interregional Share Funding (See Separate Listing) ($1,000's) Proposed New Non-TE Programming: 49,711 - Minlmum 45,542 Target 167,094 Maximum 197,322 Under (Over) Non-TE Target 117,353 Riverside _,. - _ _ _ -- .. -,_ ._ -- - -- -- - -�- -• --- Project Totals by Fiscal Year= - -` "-_ -'Project rotate* Component- •-_-- . _ -- ---- Agency Rte PPNO Project Voted Total Prior 06-07 07.08 08-00 09.10 10.11 RAN Const E & P PS8•E1 NM sup con sup RCTC _ 9803 Planning, programming, and monitoring Mar-05 170 170 0 0 0 0 0 0 170 0 0 RCTC - 9803 �PIannine •rorrammin•, end monitoring Jul-05 953 953 0 0 0 0 0 0 953 0 0 0 0 0 0 Caltrans_____ _ _ _ 60 33 HOV lanes Rt 15-Valley, supp to AS 3090 (RIP' Seo.05 3,058 3,058 0 0 0 0 0 0 3,058 0 0 0 0 Cellrans 10 63A Jefferson SI Interchange, widen OC I 150 150 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 150 0 0 Caltrans 10 7D Ramon Rd Inlerch Improvements (02S-72) 3,728 3,728 0 0 0 0 0 797 0 547 2,157 227 0 Caltrans 10 7G Indian Av Interchange, widen OC, ramps 150 150 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 150 0 0 Caltrans 79 66D Hunter Rd-Domenl onl Pk , widen 02S-58 438 438 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 438 0 0 0 RCTC cash 1109 AB 3090 reimbursement (03-04 PPM)(025.124) 166 0 0 166 0 0 0 0 166 0 0 0 - -0 RCTC _ cash 121P AB 3090 reimburse (IR160/91/215)(02S-102)031P, 85% 26,625 0 26,625 0 0 0 0 0 26 25 0 0 - Caltrans debt 1210 GARVEE debt Rt 215 El Cerrito- Rt 60/91 RIP, 85% _ 156,707 43,554 _ 22,611 _ _ 22,610 _ 22,810 _ 22,611 22 61 0 _ 156 707 0 0 _ _0 0 __0 _ 0 D Hot Songs loc OL Pierson BI, rehab pavement 627 627 0 0 0 0 0_ 0 627 0 0 RCTC loc 92A ___ Rt 91, Adams St-Rt 60/215, HOV lanes, deslgnf045.1_ _ _ 13,070 13,070 _ 0 0 0 0 _ 0 0 ___ 0 _1) 0 13,070-__ 0 _ 0 __ 0 ____0 RCTC tdm 9801 Rldeshare pros7ram 400 400 .0 0 0 0 0 0 400 0 0 0 0 GARVEE debt service for 2011-12 22,611 0 0 0 0 0 22,611 0 22,61.1 0 0 0 0 Prior Commitments Not Part of 2006 STIP Target), 228,853 66,398 49,236 22,776 22,610 - 22,611 45,222 797 211,317 985 15,527 227 0 �® Caltrans HOV lanes, Rt 15-Valley (supplemental) Feb-06 11,651 11,651 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 11,651 0 - 0 0 0 D Hot Spings loc OL' Pierson Bl, rehab pavement DELETE -627 -627 0 0 0 0 0 0- 627 0 0 RCTC io .__ 92A ____-__ RI 91, Adams St-Rt 60/215, HOV lanes, design(045.11 DELETE -13,070 -13,070 ._____-__.____ 0 0 0 ..__. _..___ 0 0 0 _ 0 __a.___-.-_ 0 -13,070 0 0 0 0 - ROTC tdm 9801 Rideahare•rogram DELETE -400” -400 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Caltrans 10 7D Ramon Rd Interchimprovements (02S-72) INCR 43,530 -797 •- 8,629. 35,698 0 0 0 7532 -400 30 373 0 0 0 0 0 0 5,325 Caltrans 10 NuIndlan Av interchanee, widen OC, ramps 73506 0 0- -0 13,506 0 0 0 11,886 0 0 1,840 Caltrans 15 9991 -- Celli Oaks/Kalmla Interchange Improvs (046-55) _ 5,457 0 0 0 100 5,357 0 0 4,394 _0 0 100 0 963 Caltrans_ ______ 91 92A. Adams St-Rt 60/215, HOV lanes, add RAN ADD 23 100 0 0 23,100 0 20,000 0 0 Caltrans 215 116F Rt 60_/215 East Junction connector (RTIP) NEW - 7,349 0 0 _ 0 0 _0 7,349 .0 0 0 _ 7 _ _._0 ___ 6100 ___0 Murrlete _ _ _ loc 9991 Rt 15 Celli Oaks/Kalmia Interchange improve j045.55)_ 2,224 0 0 _._"_ 0 0 2,224 349 0 0 0 0 0- 0 0 0 Riverside loc 84 Rt 91 Van Buren BI Interchange,RAN NEW __ 3,465 __ 0 0 _0 0 _2,224 3,465 0 0 3,465 _ 0 . 0 _ 0 _' 0 0 0 Riverside Co stImais Rt 10 Indian Av Interchange, widen OC, ramps 2,000 0 ; 0. 2,000 0 0 2,000 ' RCTC 111111.11)101Plannlne,•roeramming, and monitoring (Increased) 4,262 0 1947 1,315 - 1,000 0 0. 0 0 4,282 0 0 0 0. 0 0 0 0 Total Non-TE/PTA Proposed for ProcEemming In 2006 STIP 102,447 -3,243 10,5761 62,113 20,295 12,708 0 35,521 68,868 0 -12.970 3,100 7,928 Highway/Road Reprogramming Target 82,736 25,763 45,175 11,798 0 0 __ ®MUnder (over) target.. - _(19,711) I 3.243. 15,157 (18938). A8,497), (12,706) Cumulative under (over) 3,243 18,430. - 1,492 (7,005) (19,711) ' RCTC Fr PerrlsValle Line commuter rail extension NEW 0 0 0 30,000 0 0 0 30,000 _3D,600 Total PTA•el Bible Proposed for Programming In 2006 STIP- 30,000 - 0 0 0 30,000 0 0 0 30,000 0 0 0 0 PTA Programming, 2004 STIP 0 0 0 p -_ Under (over) 2004. STIP'. - (30,000) 0 0 ".0 (30000 0 0 Cumulative under (over) 2004 STIP - 0 0' 0 30,000 30,000 30,000 California Transportation Commission - Page 55 of 111 4/7/2006 - —..-._._-_._.-_, -, CTC STAFF RECOMMENDATION FROM COUNTY SHARE FOR 2006 STIP Does Not Include STIP Interregional Share Funding (See Separate Listing) ($1,000%) - - Riverside Project Totals by Fiscal Year Project Totals by Component Agency Rte PPNO Proloot Voted Total Prior 06.07 07.08 06-09 09.10 10.11 RIW Const E & P PS&E RAY Sup con sup RCTC res 1112 TE reserve 18,615 0 1,209 6,378 4,578 4,106 2 544- 0 18,815 0 0 0 0 __ _________Total TE.Pro• osed for. Programming In2006 STIP_ - - 18,615 0 1,209 6,378 .4,578 4,106 2,544 0 16,815 0 0 0 0 Enhancement Target 18,815 5,705 4,091 3,245 3,230 2,544 Under (over) target - 0 0 4,496 (2,287) (1,333) (876)2 0 - Cumulative under (over) I 0 4,496 2,209 675 0 , 0 Prolect Proposals No included In Staff Recommendation: -_ ADD 86,832 10,677 - NEW 8,542- NEW 8,087 1,675 Coltrane 91 92A Adams St-Rt 60/215, HOV lanes, add con Coltrane 10 53A Jefferson St Interchange, widen OC Riverside Co Ioc 12E Rt 10 Date Palm interchange Riverside Co loc 7E Rt 10 Palm Drive/Gene Autry Interchange Blythe loc 96E Intake Blvd, Hobsonway-14th, widen, signal (043-36) .-, - �.., ,-. e_ _--. __-- -�___ - __ _. ,. -._,—. --- - - -- - - - .�-_--Y -�-_ ..-_�. __.. ,.,.. .. ._. ., ,,_ — __ -..... - California Transportation Commission . Page 56 of 111 4/7/2006 „.. 08L'91L'94 $ 08L'96L'84 $ Appedea wea6oad meN le}ol l£L'904 $ 998'0Z $ E98`49E $ %61'0 AalleA apiaA pled OSl'4S9'Zl $ SL8`1•69 $ 9LZ`Z90'Zl $ %9L'4Z AaileAeleyoeo0 006`999'9E $ (£4L`Z69) $ £49'69Z'9£ $ %94'4L Riunoo walsem ;uaw;snfpy daS 400Z* 08L'91.1`84 $ : umomeaa8 einuuod Apedeo wekoad maN ao; algelleny spund dllS OZZ'466 $ emelleAV Wdd lelol 1799'L $ %6C0 691'917Z $ %9L'4Z L6l'04L $ %S4'4L AapeA apieA °led ita!IBA ellayoeo0 / ono° wa;saM - _. e - :umop leaag_e/nauod OZZ'466 $ 6uuopuovi g 6upuwei6oad `61..puueld %Z 000' l 61'64 $ 9 1N3INHO`dlld 6ulwwea6oad ao; A;loede3 6ulpun j meN dllS 900Z Alpedeo wea6oad maN aoj elnwaod Aluno3-ealul dlIS 900Z