Loading...
04 April 24, 2006 Plans and Programs76624 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION PLANS AND PROGRAMS COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA TIME: 12:30 P.M. RECORDS DATE: April 24, 2006 LOCATION: Board Chambers, 1" Floor County of Riverside Administrative Center 4080 Lemon Street, Riverside *** COMMITTEE MEMBERS *** Daryl Busch/Mark Yarbrough, City of Perris, Chairman Mary Roche/Robert Bernheimer, City of Indian Wells, Vice Chairman John Chlebnik/Shenna Moqeet/ Bill Davis, City of Calimesa Mary Craton/John Zaitz, City of Canyon Lake Jeff Miller/Karen Spiegel, City of Corona Robin Lowe/Lori Van Arsdale, City of Hemet Michael H. Wilson/Gene Gilbert, City of Indio Frank West/Charles White, City of Moreno Valley Frank Hall/Harvey Sullivan, City of Norco Dick Kelly/Robert Spiegel, City of Palm Desert Ronald Oden/Ginny Foat, City of Palm Springs RonsRoberts/Jeff Comerchero, City of Temecula Bob Buster, County of Riverside, District I Roy Wilson, County of Riverside, District IV *** STAFF *** Eric Haley, Executive Director Cathy Bechtel, Project Delivery Director *** AREAS OF RESPONSIBILITY *** State Transportation Improvement Program Regional Transportation Improvement Program New Corridors Intermodal Programs (Transit, Rail, Rideshare) Air Quality and Clean Fuels Regional Agencies, Regional Planning Intelligent Transportation System Planning and Programs Congestion Management Program The Committee welcomes comments. If you wish to provide comments to the Committee, please complete and submit a Testimony Card to the Clerk of the Board. 11.36.15 L RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION PLANS AND PROGRAMS COMMITTEE www.rctc.org AGENDA* *Actions may be taken on any item listed on the agenda 12:30 P.M. Monday, April 24, 2006 BOARD ROOM County of Riverside Administrative Center 4080 Lemon Street, First Floor, Riverside In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act and Government Code Section 54954.2, if you need special assistance to participate in a Committee meeting, please contact the Clerk of the Commission at (951) 787-7141. Notification of at least 48 hours prior to meeting time will assist staff in assuring that reasonable arrangements can be made to provide accessibility at the meeting. 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL 3. PUBLIC COMMENTS 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES ADDITIONS/REVISIONS (The Committee may add an item to the Agenda after making a finding that there is a need to take immediate action on the item and that the item came to the attention of the Committee subsequent to the posting of the agenda. An action adding an item to the agenda requires 2/3 vote of the Committee. If there are less than 2/3 of the Committee members present, adding an item to the agenda requires a unanimous vote. Added items will be placed for discussion at the end of the agenda.) • Plans and Programs Committee Agenda April 24, 2006 Page 2 6. CONSENT CALENDAR - All matters on the Consent Calendar will be approved in a single motion unless a Commissioner(s) requests separate action on specific item(s). Items pulled from the Consent Calendar will be placed for discussion at the end of the agenda. 6A. FISCAL YEARS 2006/07 AND 2207/08 CALL FOR PROJECTS: MEASURE A SPECIALIZED TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM: WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY Pg. 1 Overview This item is for the Committee to: 1) Receive and file a progress report on the Measure A Specialized Transportation Program's Request for. Proposals/Call for Projects for the provision of specialized transportation services for western Riverside county residents; and 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. 6B. RIVERSIDE COUNTY 2006 TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (TIP) FINANCIAL RESOLUTION AND ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION NO. 06-006, "RESOLUTION CERTIFYING THAT THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY HAS RESOURCES TO FUND PROJECTS IN FISCAL YEARS 2006/2007 THROUGH 2011/2012 TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM AND AFFIRMING COMMITMENT TO IMPLEMENT ALL PROJECTS IN THE PROGRAM" Pg. 3 Overview This item is for the Committee to: 1) Adopt the Riverside County 2006 Transportation Improvement Program Financial Resolution 06-006 for submittal to the Southern California Association of Governments for inclusion in the 2006 Regional Transportation Improvement Program; and 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. • • • Plans and Programs Committee Agenda April 24, 2006 Page 3 7. PRESENTATION: PIERPASS Overview This item is for the Committee to: Pg. 7 1) Receive and file the presentation by Cambridge Systematics, Inc. (CS) on the PierPass program; and 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. 8. AUTHORIZATION FOR RELEASE OF A REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL FOR A 1-15 COMMUTER RAIL FEASIBILITY STUDY Overview This item is for the Committee to: Pg. 8 1) Authorize the release of a Request for Proposal for the purpose of performing an 1-15 Commuter Rail Feasibility Study; and 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. 9. APPROVAL OF ALAMEDA CORRIDOR EAST (ACE) TRADE CORRIDOR RAIL CROSSING GRADE SEPARATION PRIORITY LIST WITH SWITCHING IMPACT Pg.16 Overview This item is for the Committee to: 1) Approve the Alameda Corridor East (ACE) Trade Corridor Rail Crossing Grade Separation Priority List incorporating switching activities; and 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. 10. COMMUTER RAIL PROGRAM UPDATE Overview This item is for the Committee to: Pg. 19 1) Receive and file the Commuter Rail Program Update as an information item; and 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. Plans and Programs Committee Agenda April 24, 2006 Page 4 11. COMMISSIONERS / STAFF REPORT Overview This item provides the opportunity for the Commissioners and staff. to report on attended and upcoming meetings/conferences and issues related to Commission activities. 12. ADJOURNMENT The next Plans and Programs Committee meeting is scheduled to be held at 12:30 P.M., Monday, May 22, 2006, Board Chambers, 1st Floor, County Administrative Center, 4080 Lemon Street, Riverside. ATTENDANCE ROSTER PLANS AND PROGRAMS COMMITTEE MEETING MONDAY, APRIL 24, 2006 - 12:30 P.M. NAME rI?1Iti/� /L4/ j (1 M/cOtrz- s,) -Jo ph) Cesti g. 31 REPRESENTING ,e4 %J��i Mil 14 i�1/tJ� / CV� et7/Lo TELEPHONE OR E-MAIL ydiey' Pe MINUTES • • RIVERS/DE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION PLANS AND PROGRAMS COMMITTEE Monday, March 27, 2006 MINUTES 1. CALL TO ORDER The meeting of the Plans and Programs Committee was called to order by Chair Daryl Busch at 12:30 p.m., in the Board Room at the County of Riverside Administrative Center, 4080 Lemon Street, First Floor, Riverside, California, 92501. 2. ROLL CALL Members/Alternates Present Members Absent Daryl Busch Bob Buster John Chlebnik Mary Craton Frank Hall Dick Kelly Robin Lowe Jeff Miller Ronald Oden Ron Roberts Mary Roche Frank West Michael Wilson Roy Wilson 3. PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no requests from the public to speak. 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - January 23, 2006 M/S/C (Craton/M. Wilson) to approve the January 23, 2006 minutes as submitted. Abstain: Chlebnik, Lowe Plans and Programs Committee Minutes March 27, 2006 Page 2 5. ADDITIONS/REVISIONS Eric Haley, Executive Director, requested that the Committee add "2006 State Transportation Improvement Program Priorities" to the agenda as an urgency item. This item arose after the agenda was posted and mailed, and there is a need that this item be addressed by the Committee at this time. M/S/C (Henderson/West) to approve the addition of the '2006 State Transportation Improvement Program Priorities" as Agenda Item 12. 6. CONSENT CALENDAR M/S/C (Roche/Miller) to approve the following Consent Calendar items: 6A. SUNLINE TRANSIT AGENCY'S REQUEST TO AMEND ITS SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN TO PROGRAM' FUNDS` FOR EXPANSION OF ITS CLEAN FUELS MALL AND HYDROGEN INFRASTRUCTURE FACILITY 1) Allocate $21,844 in Local Transportation Funds (LTF) to SunLine Transit Agency as an additional local match for the Federal Transit Administration's (FTA) Section 5309 earmark for expansion of SunLine's Clean Fuels Mall and Hydrogen Facility; 2) Include the project in the Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP); 3) Amend SunLine's Short Range Transit Plan (SRTP) to reflect these changes; and 4) Forward to the Commission for final action. 6B. COMMUTER RAIL PROGRAM UPDATE 1) Receive and file the Commuter Rail Program Update as an information item; and 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. 7. AWARD OF ALAMEDA CORRIDOR EAST SAFETEA-LU EARMARK Stephanie Wiggins, Regional Programs Director, provided an overview of the recommendations allocating $21 million of the Alameda Corridor East (ACE) SAFETEA-LU earmark funds for the grade separation projects. • Plans and Programs Committee Minutes March 27, 2006 Page 3 M/S/C (Roberts/Lowe) to: 1) Allocate $21 million of the $31.25 million of RCTC SAFETEA-LU ACE earmark funds as presented in Table A which represents the amount requested by the local agencies; 2) Condition the allocation of $6 million to the city of Riverside for Jurupa Avenue contingent upon the reallocation of $6 million in local funds towards the design and construction of other railroad grade separation projects in their city; 3) Authorize a 10-year loan from the commercial paper program for up to $1.5 million for the Sunset Avenue grade separation project which represents the maximum commercial paper amount available to the city of Banning; 4) Designate the remaining unprogrammed balance of $10.25 million for construction funding for a Tier 1 or Tier 2 crossing(s) to be made available on a rolling "first come/first serve" basis; and 5) Forward to the Commission for final action. CITY OF RIVERSIDE JURUPA AVENUE GRADE SEPARATION CPUC SECTION 190 10% LOCAL MATCH REQUEST Stephanie Wiggins provided a brief overview of the grant program that encourages local jurisdictions to seek California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) funding for grade separation projects and reviewed the request from the city of Riverside for the Jurupa Avenue grade separation project. In response to Commissioner Bob Buster's question regarding the cost increase on this project, Tom Boyd, Deputy Public Works Director for the city of Riverside, responded that the current cost is $20 - $22 million depending on right-of-way costs. M/S/C (Oden/R. Wilson) to: 1) Allocate $500,000 in available Rail Local Transportation Funds to provide a non-federal match to the city of Riverside for the Jurupa Avenue grade separation project; and 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. Plans and Programs Committee Minutes March 27, 2006 Page 4 9. CALIFORNIA STATE RAIL PLAN 2006/06 TO 2015/16: LOS ANGELES TO INDIO (COACHELLA VALLEY) Sheldon Peterson, Program Manager, provided an overview on the issue of providing passenger rail service to Coachella •Valley. He reviewed, the Pass to Desert Rail Ad Hoc Committee's determination that the best way to pursue passenger rail service to the region was to support the efforts of the California State Rail Plan (Plan). He then provided a brief summary of the draft Plan. Commissioner Michael Wilson stated that as the chairman of the Pass to Desert Rail Ad Hoc Committee, there was a unanimous vote to support this recommendation. Commissioner John Chlebnik stated that the city of 'Calimesa supports .this recommendation. He also suggested that two additional stations be added to better serve the needs through the pass area. In response to Commissioner Bob Buster's inquiry regarding issues with Union Pacific Railroad, Sheldon Peterson responded that the primary issues related to the connection between Colton .and Indio. Union Pacific has not set up any agreement for Metrolink to travel over its tracks. The area would be better served for Amtrak and the State to pursue it. Commissioner Robin Lowe stated that an emphasis needs to 'be put on protecting the transportation corridors in the respective areas being discussed and ensure that the importance of those areas is understood at the state and federal levels. M/S/C (M. Wilson/Oden) to: 11 Endorse the summary of the California State Rail Plan as it relates to intercity rail service to and through the Pass and the Coachella Valley areas, 2) Formally request that the Draft California State Rail Plan amend the section on Potential New Service for the Los Angeles to Indio route to include a proposed train station in the Pass Area, (Banning or Beaumont), 3) Approve a Resolution of Support for the Los Angeles to Indio service and request adoption by the local cities; and 4) Forward to the Commission for final action. • • • Plans and Programs Committee Minutes March 27, 2006 Page 5 10. FY 2006/07 FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION'S SECTION 5310 PROGRAM Tanya Love, Program Manager, briefly reviewed the Federal Transit Administration Section 5310 grants program and the applications received for funding that included vehicles and computer and communications equipment. Commissioner Jeff Miller requested that the jurisdiction of the agencies being awarded funds be included on the proposed regional priority list. M/S/C (Hall/Roche) to: 1) Adopt the FY 2006/07 Federal Transit Administration's Section 5310 Riverside County project rankings as recommended by the Local Review Committee; 2) Include the projects in the Regional Transportation Improvement Plan; 3► Certify by Resolution No. 06-003 that the projects are consistent with the local area regional transportation plan; and 4) Forward to the Commission for final action. 11. AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO THE SR 91 COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT NO. 08-1152 (RCTC AGEREEMENT NO. 05-31-527) BETWEEN CALTRANS AND THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION TO PREPARE PROJECT APPROVAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTS FOR THE SR 91 HOV LANE PROJECT (ADAMS STREET TO 60/91/215 IC) Shirley Medina, Program Manager, provided an overview of the oversight responsibilities assumed by Caltrans for the SR-91 HOV project and the amendment to the cooperative agreement to increase the oversight costs. M/S/C (M. Wilson/Miller) to: 1) Approve Agreement No. 05-31-527, Amendment No. 2, to the SR 91 Cooperative Agreement No. 8-1152 to increase the Caltrans oversight costs by $100,000 that will be funded from the current Traffic Congestion Relief allocation; 2) Authorize the Executive Director to execute the Amendment No. 2 subject to legal counsel review; and 3) Forward to the Commission for final action. Plans and Programs Committee Minutes March 27, 2006 Page 6 12. 2006 STATE TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PRIORITIES Anne Mayer, Programming and Administration Director, provided an overview for the 2006 State Improvement Program (STIP) submittal made to CTC staff in January 2006. 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. She then reviewed the priority list that will be submitted to the CTC. Eric Haley presented staff's policy recommendation that the 75%/25% west to east formula that was agreed upon in 1999 be used to determine how the STIP funds are allocated. The Memorandum of Understanding signed by CVAG, WRCOG and RCTC does not split out highway vs. the entire STIP. Rather than trying to distinguish between a STIP investment on rail and on highway, staff looked at the aggregate and applied the formula. Commissioner Lowe requested that staff provide the total amount of STIP funds that has been put into the 60/91 /215 Interchange and SR-91 projects including obligations already spent and committed to and the funds loaned by the Commission. M/S/C (Oden/Lowe) to: 1) Approve prioritization of projects included in the 2006 State Transportation Improvement Program submittal for Riverside County; and 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. 13. COMMISSIONERS / STAFF REPORT A) Commissioner Jeff Miller briefed the 'Committee on the Riverside Orange County Authority (ROCA) Joint Powers Authority (JPA) meeting that was held on March 23, 2006. As part of SAFETEA-LU, there is an earmark that allocates $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 Major Investment Study (MIS). A letter from ROCA was received by RCTC to request formal participation and reviewed the composition of the board. He recommended the Commission take a Plans and Programs Committee Minutes March 27, 2006 Page 7 position on its participation and suggested the Commission participate in order to expedite the investigation to determine the feasibility of building a multi -use tunnel. B) Commissioner Lowe noted that in discussions last year related to CETAP, Metropolitan Water District (MWD) expressed their desire to be partners to achieve better transportation corridors. Also, it was felt that because of MWD's position and access to resource funds that a partnership cou►d be formed to achieve the original goal of CETAP that combined transportation and utilities for greater benefit. She also expressed the importance of expediting and the maintaining formal control of the process and exercising caution in doing so. C) Eric Haley: • Reviewed the focus of the ROCA JPA and the benefits of a partnership to determine the feasibility of building a multi -use tunnel. • Announced that effective April 2006, the new start time for the Commission meeting will be 10:00 a.m. and Executive Committee meeting will be 9:30 a.m. • Announced the SR-60 — Valley Way to Interstate 15 widening project groundbreaking at 1:00 p.m. on April 12, 2006. 14. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business for consideration by the Plans and Programs Committee, the meeting adjourned at 1:22 p.m. The next meeting of the Plans and Programs Committee is scheduled for April 24, 2006 at 12:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Jennifer Harmon Clerk of the Board AGENDA ITEM 6A • RIVERS/DE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMM/SS/ON DATE: April 24, 2006 TO: Plans and Programs Committee FROM: Tanya Love, Program Manager THROUGH: Stephanie Wiggins, Regional Programs Director SUBJECT: Fiscal Years 2006/07 and 2007/08 Call for Projects: Measure A Specialized Transportation Program: Western Riverside County STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Committee to: 1) Receive and file a progress report on the Measure A Specialized Transportation Program's Request for Proposals/Call for Projects for the provision of specialized transportation services for western Riverside 'County residents; and 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: In July 2005, the Commission authorized staff to develop a Request for Proposal (RFP) for the western Riverside County Measure A Specialized Transportation Program for the provision of non -emergency medical transportation services (NEMT). The RFP was designed to include, but not be limited to, the provision of non -emergency medical transportation for: 1) Medical appointments to veterans' administration facilities; 2) Inter -regional transportation for medical appointments; and 3) Dialysis, chemotherapy and/or radiation medical appointments. The RFP also included the two-year call for projects that is traditionally conducted for the provision of specialized transportation services as part of Ordinance No. 88- 1 (the original Measure A half -cent sales tax initiative) which set aside funding for niche -market specialized transportation services that benefit seniors, persons with disabilities or the truly needy residents of western Riverside County. The RFP/Call for Projects was released in February 2006 and was mailed to approximately 280 potential applicants. A total of 16' applications were received One proposal was submitted late and as a result was disqualified from the review process. 1 as a result of the call requesting approximately $5.7M in funding over the two year period. A six member Evaluation Committee consisting of a former transportation coordinator for the Inland Regional Center, the County of Riverside's Director of Veterans' affairs, two members from the Commissions' Citizens' Advisory Committee/Social Services Transportation Advisory Council, and two RCTC staff members will meet with potential Measure A applicants on Friday, April 28, 2006 to review the applications. Each grant applicant will be requested to make a brief presentation to the Evaluation Committee followed by a. question and answer session (approximately 30 minutes per applicant). Staff will present the results of the Evaluation Committee at the May 10, 2006 Commission meeting. At that time, it is anticipated that a recommendation for funding the various projects will also be presented for approval. 2 AGENDA ITEM dB • • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: April 24, 2006 TO: Plans and Programs Committee FROM: Ken Lobeck, Staff Analyst THROUGH: Shirley Medina, Program Manager SUBJECT: Riverside County 2006 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) Financial Resolution and Adoption of Resolution No. 06-006, "Resolution Certifying that the Riverside County Has Resources to Fund Projects in Fiscal Years 2006/2007 Through 2011/2012 Transportation Improvement Program and Affirming Commitment to Implement All Projects in the Program" STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Adopt the Riverside County 2006 Transportation Improvement Program Financial Resolution 06-006 for submittal to the Southern California Association of Governments for inclusion in the 2006 Regional Transportation Improvement Program; and 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The Safe Accountable Flexible Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA LU) requires that a Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP) be adopted and included in federally approved statewide documents before receiving federal funds for transportation projects. The RTIP must be updated by the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) at least every two years, or within six months after adoption of a Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) update. The RTIP implements projects identified in the first six years of the long-range RTP. The Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), as the MPO, adopted the 2004 RTIP Update in August 2004 with federal approval occurring in October 2004. Therefore, the RTIP is required to be updated and approved by SCAG prior to October 2006. Federal regulations require SCAG to determine that the RTIP 1) conforms to the adopted air plans in the region; 2) is financially constrained; and 3) affirms project commitments. The attached resolution must be included in the 2006 RTIP update to certify that the Riverside County portion of the RTIP is financially constrained and to affirm our commitment to implement our projects. Financial Constraint and Project Commitment is defined as follows: 3 A. Financial Constraint: The RCTC must certify that the Riverside County TIP is financially constrained (projects are not programmed in excess of fund levels) and that the funding may be reasonably expected to carry out the program. B. Project Commitment: The RCTC must affirm that their highest priorities for funding are the projects in the 2006 RTIP. The affirmation is specifically targeted to enforceable Transportation Control Measures (TCMs) TCMs are strategies/projects employed to reduce emissions from on -road mobile sources. Over the past nine months, staff has reviewed projects submitted by Ca!trans, local agencies, and transit operators in Riverside County to ensure that each project has a clearly identified funding source and schedule. Projects that completed construction were identified and removed from the RTIP, while other projects were added or modified. All project programming was accomplished with the concurrence of each project sponsor. The end result is that the Riverside County projects are consistent with the financial constraint and TCM implementation requirements of SAFETEA LU. The 2006 RTIP Update is scheduled for approval by the SCAG Regional Council in August 2006. SCAG subsequently will pursue the necessary state and federal approvals for the 2006 RTIP. These approvals are anticipated to occur in October 2006 Attachment: Resolution 06-006 • • RESOLUTION 06-006 RESOLUTION OF THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION CERTIFYING THAT RIVERSIDE COUNTY HAS RESOURCES TO FUND PROJECTS IN FISCAL YEARS 2006-2007 THROUGH 2O11-2012 TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM AND AFFIRMING COMMITMENT TO IMPLEMENT ALL PROJECTS IN THE PROGRAM WHEREAS, Riverside County is located within the metropolitan planning boundaries of the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG); and WHEREAS, the Safe Accountable Flexible Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA LU) requires SCAG to adopt a regional transportation improvement program for the metropolitan area; and WHEREAS, the SAFETEA LU also requires that the regional transportation improvement program include a financial plan that demonstrates how the transportation improvement program can be implemented; and WHEREAS, the Riverside County Transportation Commission is the agency responsible for short-range capital and service planning and programming for the Riverside County area within SCAG; and WHEREAS, as the responsible agency for short-range transportation planning, the RCTC is responsible for developing the Riverside County Transportation Improvement Program (TIP), including all projects utilizing federal and state highway and transit funds; and WHEREAS, the RCTC must determine annually the total amount of funds that may be available for transportation projects within its boundaries; and WHEREAS, the RCTC has adopted the FY 2006-07 through 2011-12 Riverside County TIP for FY 2006-07 through 2008-09 for funding purposes and has adopted the TIP for FY 2009-10 through 2011-12 for programming purposes and to allow environmental work on approved projects to proceed. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Riverside County Transportation Commission that it affirms its continuing commitment to the projects in the FY 2006-07 through 2011-12 Riverside County TIP; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the FY 2006-07 through 2011-2012 Riverside County TIP Financial Plan identifies the resources which may be reasonably expected to be made available to carry out the program, and that the RCTC certifies to the following: 5 1 The projects in the FY 2006-07 through 2011-2012 Riverside County TIP remain the highest priority for funding by the RCTC, 2 All projects in the State Highways component of the FY 2006-07 through 2011-12 Riverside County TIP have been included in the County's projects for inclusion in the 2006 State Transportation improvement Program (STIP) that is scheduled to be approved by the California Transportation Commission in April 2006, and as requested by state laws and amended by SB45, 3 All projects in the State Highways component of the FY 2006-07 through 2011-12 Riverside County TIP have complete funding for each programming phase identified in the Federal State Transportation Improvement Program (FSTIP), 4 Riverside County has the funding capacity in its county Surface Transportation Program (STP) and Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) program allocations to fund all of the projects in the 2006-07 through 2011-12 Riverside County TIP, 5 Local Matching funds for projects financed with federal STP and CMAQ Program funding have been identified in the Financial Plan, and 6 All the Federal Transit Administration funded projects are programmed within SAFETEA-LU Guaranteed Funding Levels. APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the Riverside County Transportation Commission at its meeting on Wednesday, May 10, 2006 ATTEST: BY: BY: Marion Ashley, Chair Riverside County Transportation Commission Jennifer Harmon Clerk of the Board • • AGENDA ITEM 7 • • RIVERS/DE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: April 24, 2006 TO: Plans and Programs Committee FROM: Stephanie Wiggins, Regional Programs Director THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Deputy Executive Director SUBJECT: Presentation: PierPass STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Committee to: 1) Receive and file the presentation by Cambridge Systematics, Inc. (CS) on the PierPass program; and 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: On July 29' of 2005, the PierPass Off Peak program was initiated. Under this program, all international container terminals in the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach established four new evening shifts per week (Monday through Thursday 6:00 p.m. to 3:00 a.m.) and one new weekend shift (Saturday 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.). As an incentive for trucks to use the new shifts, a traffic mitigation fee is now assessed for loaded containers moving through the terminal gates during the peak daytime shift between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. on Mondays through Fridays. The fee is $40 per 20-foot equivalent unit (TEU), or $80 for the typical 40-foot container. There is no fee for empty containers, chassis, or bobtails moving through the gates at the Port. There is also no fee for containers that utilize the Alameda Corridor and pay the Alameda Corridor Transportation Authority fee. The traffic mitigation fee is collected for all containers, and then refunded for those using the off-peak hours. Michael Fischer, Principal at CS will provide an update on the status of the PierPass OffPeak program at the Ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles. The presentation will address how the program affects the time of day distribution of terminal gate traffic at the ports, how it affects truck traffic on the 1-710 freeway, what its operational impacts have been on users and drayage trucking firms, and community reactions to the new program. 1 +, 7 PierPass OffPeak Program Status Report PierPass OffPeak Program • PierPass - Special purpose entity of marine terminal operators •• OffPeak - Extended gate hours • 4 new weekday evening shifts - 6:00 p.m. to 3:00 a.m. • Saturday - 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. • Traffic mitigation fee for daytime pickup/delivery - $40/TEU • Initiated operations - 7/29/2005 1 Changes in Terminal Gate Traffic Port of Long Beach Time Period Daytime Weekday Truck Traffic Nighttime Weekday Truck Traffic Weekend Truck Traffic Total Jan 1, 2005—July 23, 2005 90% 3% 7% 100% July 24, 2005 — Dec 31, 2005 66% 24% 10% 100% 2 CAMB.RIDGE 1-710 Truck Traffic by Time Period Northbound SDuthbound Time Period Feb 2006 May 2005 Time Period Feb 2006 May 2005 6:00 a.m.-9:00 a.m. 12.2%, 15.2% 6:00 a.m.-9:00 a.m. 12.0% 12.2%, 9:00 a.m.-3:00 p.m. 44.8% 51.4%, 9:00 a.m.-3:00 p.m. 44.2% 52.1% 3:00 p.m.-7:00 p.m. 16.0% 16.7% 3:00 p.m. 7:00 p.m. 15.8% 18.3% 7:00 p.m.-6:00 a.m. 27.0% 16.7% 7:00 p.m.-6:00 a.m. 28.0% 17.4% Total 100.0% 100.0% Total 100.0% 100.0% 8:00 a.m.-6:00 p.m. 63.8% 72.9% 8:00 a.m.-6:00 p.m. 62.0%, 72.1% 6:00 p.m.-8:00 a.m. 36.2% 27.1%, 6:00 p.m.-8:00 a.m. 38.0% 27.9% Total 100.0% 100.0% Total 100.0% 100.0% CAMB'RIDGE 1-710 Hourly Truck Traffic - Southbound 4 Hour Feb 2006 May 2005 Change 6:00 a.m. 2.6% 3.5% -26.3% 7:00 a.m. 3.5% 4.5% -20.6°% 8:00 a.m. 6.1% 7.2% -15.6% 9:00 a.m. 8.0% 10.3% -22.0% 10:00 a.m. 8.1% 9.8% -17.2% 11:00 a.m. 8.5% 9.7% -12.1% 12:00 p.m. 6.3% 7.0% -10.D% 1:00 p.m. 6.4% 6.5% 2:00 p.m. 7.3% 8.0% -7.8% 3:00 p.m. 5.7% 6.2% 4:00 p.m. 4.6% 5.1% -9.9% 5:00 p.m. 2.7% 3.1% -13.9% 6:00 p.m. 3.1% 2.4% 28.1% 7:00 p.m. 4.2% 2.1% 97.3% Total 77.2°% 85.4% CAMBRIDGE 1-710 Hourly Truck Traffic - Northbound Hour Feb 2006 May 2005 Change 6:00 a.m. 2.8% 3.4% -17.1% 7:00 a.m. 3.8% 4.2% -10.8% 8:00 a.m. 5.4% 4.6% 17.4% 9:00 a.m. 7.2% 7.2% 0.1% 10:00a.m. 8.1% 9.1% -10.6% 11:00 a.m. 8.0% 9.5% -16.2% 12:00 p.m. 7.8% 9.4% -16.5% 1:00 p.m. 7.0°% 8.8% -20.3% 2:00 p.m. 6.0°% 8.0% -25.0% 3:00 p.m. 4.8% 6.6% -27.6% 4:00 p.m. 3.8% 5.3% -28.5% 5:00 p.m. 3.8% 3.5% 8.6°% 6:00 p.m. 3.4°% 2.9% 18.6% 7:00 p.m. 3.2°% 2.4% 33.6% Total 75.2% 85.0% 5 CAMBRIDGE 2 Operational Impacts to May have helped smooth pre -holiday surge to Favored by low -margin exporters and high -volume importers ✓ Trucker survey • 73% experiencing reduced traffic • 58% able to accommodate more trips • Significant issues with queues at terminal gates — staffing IW Increased costs being passed onto shippers in supply chains CAMBRI'DGE Community Reactions Ri Major outreach effort to elected officials and community groups — generally positive response to North Long Beach Coolidge Triangle neighborhood groups expressing concerns about port traffic growth • POLB/POLA study indicates that by 2030 night traffic on 710 could equal current daytime levels with extended gate hours M Teamsters oppose fee • Concern that rates to truckers will be squeezed CA-M'BRIDGE 4 • AGENDA ITEM 8 • • RIVERS/DE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMM/SS/ON DATE: April 24, 2006 TO: Plans and Programs Committee FROM: Sheldon Peterson, Rail Programs Manager THROUGH: Stephanie Wiggins, Regional Programs Director SUBJECT: Authorization for Release of a Request for Proposal for a Commuter Rail Feasibility Study 1-15 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Committee to: 1) Authorize the release of a Request for Proposal for the purpose of performing an 1-15 Commuter Rail Feasibility Study; and 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. 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. In 1995, the Inland Empire -Orange County (IEOC) Line began providing service to Orange County, followed most recently by the start of peak -period service on the 91 (Riverside - Fullerton -Los Angeles) Line in 2002. Also in 1993, the Commission acquired the San Jacinto Branch Line (SJBL) with the eventual goal of providing passenger rail service. Upon completion of a commuter rail feasibility study in 2000, the Commission authorized staff to develop commuter rail service on the SJBL to Perris, known as the Perris Valley Line (PVL) Project. Currently, the PVL Project is in the environmental review phase and awaiting FTA approval to advance to preliminary engineering once acceptable modeling forecasts are produced. In November 2005, RCTC completed the Riverside County Commuter Rail Feasibility Study which evaluated several commuter rail corridors throughout the county. The project studied extensions of existing or proposed rail routes to the Coachella Valley, Hemet/San Jacinto, and Temecula via both the 1-215 and Winchester Road. The analysis supported advancing two scenarios for inclusion in the next SCAG RTP update, the Perris Valley extension to Hemet/San Jacinto and the extension to Temecula along the 1-215. 8 In May 2005, the Commission directed staff to evaluate a new commuter rail line from Temecula to San Diego to accommodate the large number or Riverside County residents who commute south along the 1-15. The proposed 1-15 Commuter Rail Feasibility study will examine this segment. In addition, given the growth forecast in the 1-15 corridor, the project will include a study of a conventional commuter rail corridor between Temecula and Corona on the 1-15 corridor, maximizing use wherever possible of the former Santa Fe Railroad right of way between Lake Elsinore and Corona. PURPOSE The purpose of this study is to perform an objective evaluation of the potential for commuter rail extensions along the 1-15 corridor from Temecula to. Corona and Temecula to San Diego. The study will: • Examine operations, ridership, and costs to determine the feasibility of implementation of the service; and • Establish estimates for the physical, operational, and financial feasibility of a major capital investment and operating subsidy projections. Findings from this study will allow public officials and area residents to better understand the general issues and cost estimates of potential extensions of commuter rail to directly serve these cornmunities. The study will consider a 30- year window of transportation demand and be used as input to the Commission's Long Range Rail Plan for the next SCAG RTP update. Each service alternative scenario will be evaluated based upon eight criteria that measure its feasibility to satisfy the goals of the study. The matrices developed to rank and compare each alternative are based upon the following approved evaluation criteria: 1. Ridership 2. Institutional Issues 3. Mobility Improvements — General 4. Mobility Improvements — Access to Low Income Households 5. Operating Cost per Passenger -Mile 6. Farebox Recovery 7. Capital Cost (Track, Stations & Equipment) and 8. Capital Cost Per Passenger • GOALS & OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY The intent of this effort is to answer the following major policy questions for each geographic area: • Is a commuter rail extension viable and effective, as part of a multi -modal transportation system to maintain or enhance mobility and contribute to improving the quality of life? If viable: • Is there sufficient available right of way to design and build a new rail infrastructure? • What service ►evels are appropriate to meet forecasted demand? • How much will it cost (capital and operating) to provide potential rail service levels? • How should the service and capital projects be phased -in over time? In addition, RCTC will create a technical advisory committee that will include SANDAG and local governments to support this process. The Commission will seek consultant assistance to perform this work over a six month period with a budget not to exceed $100,000. Source of funding identified for the planning study is Western County Rail Local Transportation Funds. The anticipated schedule for retention of a consultant firm is as follows: May 10, 2006 June 12, 2006 June 19, 2006 July 12, 2006 Release of Request for Proposal Deadline for Receipt of Proposals Evaluation Committee Selects Firm Award of Contract by Commission Attachment: 1-15 Commuter Rail Feasibility Study Scope of Work 10 • SCOPE OF WORK I-15 COMMUTER RAIL FEASIBLITY STUDY BETWEEN TEMECULA AND SAN DIEGO AND BETWEEN TEMECULA AND CORONA 1. Background The Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) has just completed an evaluation of five potential commuter rail routes within Riverside County. That study • recommended that two of those five routes be examined in greater detail as possible candidates for future public investment. Those two routes are 1) an extension of the proposed Metrolink 91 Line service from Riverside to South Perris at the 1-215, continuing eastbound through to Hemet and San Jacinto, and 2) an extension of the proposed Metrolink 91 Line service from Riverside to South Perris at the I-215, continuing southbound near the I-215 corridor to Temecula and Murrieta. A second study is a statewide high speed ridership study directed by the Bay Area Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC). That study is examining the potential for long distance intercity trips between regions within the state as well as the potential for long distance intraregional commuter trips using the high speed rail network. One of the corridors specifically under examination in the MTC study is one linking Temecula and Murrieta with Downtown San Diego, following the route of the proposed high speed rail network. RCTC is participating in the MTC study. As a comparison to the MTC study, RCTC wishes to examine the ridership potential of a conventional commuter rail service as well as the costs related to additional stations on this conventional commuter rail alternative. In addition to examining conventional commuter rail between Temecula and San Diego via the high speed rail corridor, RCTC also wishes to examine the operational feasibility and potential ridership of a conventional commuter rail service between Temecula and Corona along the 1-15 freeway, connecting with existing Metrolink routes in Corona. To the extent feasible RCTC wishes this expanded examination of high speed and conventional commuter rail services south and west from Temecula-Murrieta to be compatible with the analysis conducted in the 2005 Riverside County Transportation Commission Commuter Rail Feasibility Study on the other five corridors, all with an orientation to either Orange or Los Angeles Counties and all operating at typical commuter rail speeds of 79-90 MPH. At the same time RCTC wishes to take full advantage of the statewide ridership research being conducted on the potential for high speed intraregional trips. Based upon this objective RCTC is proposing a Scope of Work with three principal service alternatives: a) A study of commuter rail feasibility assuming conventional commuter rail technology between Temecula-Murrieta and Downtown San Diego using 11 the preferred alignment selected by the California High Speed Rail Authority (CHSRA); and b) a study of commuter rail feasibility assuming high speed rail technology between Temecula and Downtown San Diego also using the preferred alignment selected by CHSRA; and c) a study of a conventional commuter rail corridor between Temecula- Murrieta and Corona on the I-15 corridor, maximizing use wherever possible of the former Santa Fe Railroad right of way between Lake Elsinore and Corona. All three projects —the conventional commuter rail corridor on the high speed rail alignment, the high speed commuter/intraregional rail corridor, and the conventional commuter rail corridor between Temecula-Murrieta and Corona " will be evaluated using the eight criteria developed to assess the commuter corridors in the recent RCTC study. The Low Income criterion included in the eight criteria will be examined by others outside this Scope of Work. 2. Common Assumptions for All Three Service Alternatives Alignment The CHSRA has adopted a preferred alignment between Temecula and Downtown San Diego for its statewide high speed rail system. This route commences adjacent to the I- 15 freeway corridor in Temecula, continues south through Escondido, Rancho Bernardo/Poway, thence southwesterly to University City where it joins the existing coastal rail corridor currently used by Coaster commuter rail, Amtrak intercity service, and Burlington Northern Santa Fe freight for the balance of the route into Downtown San Diego. Both Service Alternatives will assume this alignment. Stations For the two service alternatives between Temecula-Murrieta and San Diego, all stations included in the statewide high speed study will be assumed. In addition, a station convenient to Rancho Bernardo will also be assumed for both the conventional and high speed alternatives. In Escondido the CHSRA station site will be assumed, not the new light rail terminal. For the service alternative between Temecula-Murrieta and Corona, stations will be assumed at Temecula-Murrieta and North Main Corona, as well as a station near the Dos Lagos development in southeast Corona and near Lake Elsinore. Additional stations will be included upon the recommendation of the consultant and approved by the Technical Advisory Committee. Ridership data source Land use and population data for 2030 shall be used to determine ridership for the conventional commuter rail options. For service levels there will be six southbound trains during the moming peak period, with six northbound trains during the afternoon peak. This peak period service will be supplemented by two midday round trips between the two end points. Each train will serve all stations in each direction. Each destination 12 • station shall be assumed to have an extensive feeder bus network to distribute passengers within a 2.5 mile radius of the station, but the specific routes do not need to be identified. Ridership on the statewide high speed system will use the same data base developed by MTC for its study. To the extent feasible the MTC intraregional ridership forecast will be used without additional modification by theRCTCconsultant. Train Speeds For the conventional commuter rail top train speeds will not exceed 90 MPH, but shall be reduced based upon any alignment or gradient restrictions. In the existing rail segment between University City and San Diego the estimated train speeds shall correspond to existing train speeds. For the high speed alternative, train speeds assumed in that service will be assumed (the MTC study will likely reflect travel time in its ridership estimate). 3. Conventional Commuter Rail Analysis: Temecula to San Diego The CHSRA proposes four stations along its route: Temecula, Escondido, University City and Downtown San Diego. For both the conventional commuter rail service and the high speed service RCTC is assuming an additional station for commuters only at Rancho Bernardo/Poway, located between Escondido and University City. For the conventional commuter service RCTC is assuming use of the existing commuter rail station at Old Town San Diego, a few miles north of Downtown San Diego. The existing Coaster commuter rail service between Oceanside and San Diego likewise uses this station at Old Town. Parking is constrained at the Old Town Station; nevertheless the consultant will conduct an unconstrained ridership analysis. For purposes of estimating capital costs, the conventional commuter rail corridor shall be assumed to be primarily single track with a single, two-mile long passing siding spaced midway based upon travel time between Temecula and San Diego. To the extent possible the unit capital costs for the high speed rail guideway developed by CHSRA, adjusted for single track construction, shall be used. The design solution recommended by CHSRA in a particular location shall be used. Thus, all tunnels and viaducts shall be included in the base conventional commuter rail analysis. Station unit cost at the Rancho Bernardo station shall be based upon available CHSRA costs for stations with four tracks. Equipment costs shall assume 7 trains of six cars each operated in a push-pull manner, requiring that 9 cars of the 42 car fleet consist of cab cars to direct the operation of the train. The assessment of Operating Costs shall use the average of Metrolink systemwide operating costs. For track maintenance, average systemwide Metrolink costs shall also be used. For revenue, average monthly ridership shall be multiplied by the Metrolink monthly pass cost for the equivalent trip. Both revenues and costs shall be based upon the same year, either in constant current dollars or inflated future dollars. 13 4. High Speed Rail Commuter Rail Analysis This analysis will assume the completion of the high speed rail line between Temecula and San Diego. Stations in operation for the statewide intercity service are: Temecula, Escondido, University City and San Diego. In addition, for the,RCTC commuter service, a new station will be assumed at Rancho Bernardo/Poway. Because of the substantial "footprint" required for high speed stations, no additional station at Old Town is assumed, as is the case in the Conventional Commuter Rail Analysis. For purposes of estimating capital costs, the high speed rail double -track network shall be in operation. The Rancho Bernardo/Poway station shall be considered the responsibility of the commuter operator and shall be built to the standards of the CHSRA and include run-through tracks for the express intercity service and two tracks for the commuter service. At Temecula, Escondido and University City —if additional station tracks are not already provided in the basic system plan by CHSRA—there shall be two station tracks for the commuter service. For passenger equipment, three trainsets shall be assumed to protect the commuter service with the balance of the train requirements met by existing intercity equipment staged at San Diego. This is an optimistic assumption but under a scenario in which the CHSRA would integrate these commuter trains into the intercity operation it might even be possible to implement commuter service without any additional trains set aside for that service. Thus the assumption of the need for three high speed trainsets might be too conservative. Unit operating costs developed by CHSRA shall be used to determine high speed commuter rail operating costs. Additionally, a pro-rata share of track maintenance costs shall be derived frominformationavailable from CHSRA. On the revenue side, revenue shall be estimated using the 2030 average monthly ridership forecast multiplied by the Metrolink monthly pass cost for the equivalent travel distance. Revenue estimates shall be based on the same time frame as cost estimates. 5. Conventional Commuter Rail Analysis: Temecula —Corona This route will operate between Temecula-Murrieta along the I-15 corridor to Corona, and will utilize to the extent feasible both the abandoned and active railroad right of way between Lake Elsinore and Corona. Six trains of six cars each are assumed to provide eight daily roundtrips, six during the peak period and two during the midday. In the morning, the six trains will provide three trains to Metrolink IEOC destinations (supplementing IEOC frequencies between North Main Corona and Orange County and three trains to Metrolink 91 Line destinations (supplementing 91 Line frequencies between North Main Corona and downtown Los Angeles). The pattern will be reversed in the evening and both the IEOC and the 91 Line will have a single midday round trip traveling to Temecula-Murrieta on this new corridor. 14 For purposes of estimating capital costs this conventional commuter rail corridor shall be assumed to be primarily single track, with a single, two-mile long passing siding spaced midway based upon travel time between Temecula and Corona. The capital improvements for this new alignment shall be limited to those which would permit a commuter train to operate between Corona and Murrieta-Temecula at an average speed of 40 MPH, including all station stops. 6. Evaluation Listed below are the eight criteria used to evaluate the five commuter rail scenarios in the 2005 RCTC commuter study. These criteria will also be used to evaluate these three service options. Each is discussed in somewhat more detail below. 1. Ridership 2. Institutional Issues 3. Mobility Improvements — General 4. Mobility Improvements — Access to Low Income Households 5. Operating Cost per Passenger -Mile 6. Farebox Recovery 7. Capital Cost (Track, Stations & Equipment) and 8. Capital Cost Per Passenger Ridership refers to total daily ridership on the trains. For the conventional Temecula — Corona alternative it excludes ridership between Corona and' other end -point destinations on the IEOC and 91 Line. Institutional Issues focuses on issues, while not easily quantifiable, can affect the ability of RCTC to implement a corridor, such as traversing a sensitive environmental area. Mobility Improvements — General reflects the value of time savings and air quality improvements. Mobility Improvements — Access to Low Income Households identifies areas needing access to transportation. Operating Cost per Passenger — Mile enables routes to be compared when some riders travel greater distances on one route than another. Farebox Recovery is the amount of fare revenue received from passenger fares to cover total operating expenses. Capital Cost refers to the total cost of constructing all improvements and purchasing equipment. Capital Cost per Passenger will be expressed in total capital cost divided by estimated daily ridership in 2030. Schedule The consultant will prepare and provide a schedule for the completion of all three scenarios. It is anticipated that the projection should take six months to complete. Public Involvement RCTC will create a Technical Advisory Committee to work with the consultant team at significant milestone points. 15 AGENDA ITEM 9 RIVERS/DE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: April 24, 2006 TO: Plans and Programs Committee FROM: Stephanie Wiggins, Regional Programs Director THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Deputy Executive Director SUBJECT: Approval of Alameda Corridor East (ACE) Trade Corridor Crossing Grade Separation Priority List with Switching Impact Rail STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Committee to: 1) Approve the Alameda Corridor East (ACE) Trade Corridor Rail Crossing Grade Separation Priority List incorporating switching activities; and ' 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: In October 2005, the Commission approved the updated ACE Grade Separation Priority List. The prioritization of crossings is weighted in favor of safety and current and forecast delay. Additional factors in ranking include air quality, noise, nearby grade separations, and local jurisdiction preference. At the October meeting a request was made to analyze whether switching activity and/or observed operating train speeds has a substantial impact on the list for the Priority Tiers. Over the last three months, Kimley-Horn and Associates has performed the additional analysis incorporating observed speeds and switching activity. Results of the Switching/Operating Delay Analysis Switching activity occurs when freight trains serve local businesses on spur tracks or industrial leads. The analysis identifies the majority of switching activity occurring on the Union Pacific (UP) (Los Angeles Subdivision). The most impacted crossing in Riverside County due to switching activities is the Jurupa Road grade crossing located in the unincorporated area of the County on the UP LA Subdivision. 2005 Gate Down Time per Day (excluding switching) is 1 hour and 12 minutes; with switching it increases to 2 hours and 6 minutes. Below are summary measures of delay designed to illustrate the impact to Riverside County. Gate down time is a measurement that depends on the number, length, 16 and speed of trains passing through the crossing. In general, the majority of the gate down time is experienced in the evening/night hours (between 7pm and 5am). TABLE A: Grade Crossing Impact by Jurisdiction Jurisdiction # of ACE Crossings 2005 Gate Down Time per Day 2030 Gate Down Time per Day Banning 4 6 hrs, 57 min 13 hrs, 34 min Beaumont 3 5 hrs, 3 min 10 hrs, 2 min Calimesa 1 1 hr, 41 min 3 hrs, 20 min Coachella 3 3 hrs, 48 min 7 hrs, 9 min Corona 8 14 hrs, 4 min 27 hrs, 12 min Palm Springs 1 1 hr, 41 min 3. hrs, 20 min Riverside 28 57 hrs, 53 min 114 hrs, 31 min Unincorporated 13 22 hrs, 33 min 43 hrs, 48 min TOTALS 61 113 hrs, 48 min 223 hrs; 5 min Change from October 2005 Update The actual observed train counts were lower and operating speeds were higher than those assumed in October 2005. These adjustments coupled- with the switching. delay impact results in the revised recommended Priority List (See Attachment). Four crossings moved up to Priority Group #1: Jurupa 'Road (County), Magnolia Avenue (Riverside), Sunset Avenue (Banning), and Riverside Avenue (Riverside). Five crossings moved up to Priority Group #2: 22nd Street (Banning), San Gorgonio Avenue (Banning), Palmyrita Avenue (Riverside), Spruce Street (Riverside), and Brockton Avenue (Riverside). Three crossings moved up to Priority Group #3: Panorama Road (Riverside), Bellgrave Avenue (County), and San Timoteo Canyon Road (Calimesa). Five crossings moved down in priority group due to actual observations of lower train counts, train lengths and higher operating speeds: Washington Street (Riverside), Jefferson Street (Riverside), Cridge Street (Riverside), Radio Road (Corona), and Jane Street (Riverside). Attachment: October 2005 RCTC-ACE Grade Separation Priority List w/Switching to 17 Total Priority Comparison Ref No. Rail Line Cross Street Jurisdiction October Study Update - Base Assmp. Update - Switching Overall Weighted Score Group by percentile Overall Weighted Score Group by percentile Overall Weighted Score Group by percentile 1 UP (LA SUB) Jurupa Rd Riverside County 3462 2 3512 2 �4.41 2 BNSF & UP (SB SUB) Chicago Av Riverside 4380 1 4330 1 4330 1 3 BNSF (SB SUB) Magnolia Av Riverside County 4525 1 4250 1 4250 1 4 BNSF & UP (SB SUB) 3rd St Riverside 4060 1 4010 1 4010 1 5 BNSF (SB SUB) McKinley St Corona 3950 1 3950 1 3950 1 6 BNSF & UP (SB SUB) Columbia Av (BNSF) Riverside 4000 1 3950 1 3950 1 7 UP (LA SUB) Magnolia Av Riverside 3380 2 3355 ,:'if 11 8 UP (YUMA MAIN) Sunset Av Banning 3500 2 i, 3, 9 UP (LA SUB) Riverside Av Riverside 2810 3 i ),,1, 0i'U 2 & & 10 BNSF & UP (SB SUB) Iowa Av (BNSF) Riverside 3820 1 3770 1 3770 1 11 BNSF (SB SUB) Adams St Riverside 3665 1 3590 2 3665 1 12 BNSF (SB SUB) Auto Center Dr Corona 3438 2 3238 2 3638 2 13 UP (YUMA MAIN) Hargrave St Banning 3425 2 3625 2 3625 2 14 UP (LA SUB) Clay St Riverside County 3235 2 3535 2 3535 2 15 BNSF (SB SUB) Smith Av Corona 3613 2 3263 2 3263 2 16 BNSF & UP (SB SUB) 7th St Riverside 3135 2 2910 2 3110 2 17 BNSF (SB SUB) Tyler St Riverside 3500 2 3075 2 3100 2 18 UP (YUMA MAIN) 22nd St Banning 2375 3 MOO ' `21'-rN1 * 3100 2vl,ti f 19 UP (YUMA MAIN) Avenue 48/Dillon Road Indio/Coachella 3325 2 2875 2 3075 2 20 BNSF & UP (SB SUB) Center St Riverside County 3283 2 2808 2 3008 2 21 UP (YUMA MAIN) San Gorgonio Av Banning 2300 4 th;_l,2800 . 3000 2 °" 1" 22 UP (LA SUB) Streeter Av Riverside 2515 3 2265 3 I' , 23 UP (LA SUB) Jurupa Ave Riverside not included in study 2700 2 2925 2 24 BNSF & UP (SB SUB) Palmynta Av (UP) Riverside 3010 3 ,28�5 2- 2835 °""°2 25 BNSF & UP (SB SUB) Spruce St (BNSF) Riverside 2845 3 2ti �.�)1 ;:-:2:- - 2655 �- 2. 26 BNSF (SB SUB) Madison St Riverside 3340 2 2640 2 2690 2 27 UP (LA SUB) Brockton Av Riverside 2400 3 2250 3 r 28 BNSF (SB SUB) Mary St Riverside 3465 2 2640 2 2640 2 9 BNSF (SB SUB) Pierce St Riverside 3090 3 2590 3 2590 3 3D UP (YUMA MAIN) Avenue 62 Riverside County 2525 3 2544 3 2544 3 31 BNSF (SB SUB) Railroad St Corona 2925 3 2475 3 2475 3 32 UP (LA SUB) Panorama Rd Riverside 1290 4 1365 4 a! 33 BNSF (SB SUB) Buchanan St Riverside 2800 3 2400 3 2400 3 34 UP (LA SUB) Bellgrave Av Riverside County 2048 4 - 3 ' . 3; 11. 35 UP (YUMA MAIN) Avenue 66 Riverside County 2158 4 2065 4 36 UP (LA SUB) Palm Av Riverside 1965 4 2040 4 37 UP (YUMA MAIN) Avenue 52 Coachella 2233 4 2033 4; a 38 UP (YUMA MAIN) California Av Beaumont 1500 4 2000 4 39 UP (YUMA MAIN) San Timoteo Canyon Rd Calimesa 2100 4 Si 40 BNSF (SB SUB) Washington St Riverside 2580 3tk = A 1'Y1 ;(FRM 41 UP (YUMA MAIN) Apache Trail Riverside County 1727 4 2052 4 2052 4 42 UP (LA SUB) Rutile St Riverside County 1746 4 1796 4 2046 4 43 BNSF (SB SUB) Jefferson St Riverside - 2380 3 '1 44 BNSF& UP (RIV) Cridge St Riverside 2650 3 20 A 1) 45 UP (YUMA MAIN) Viele Av Beaumont 1983 4 1983 4 1983 4 46 BNSF (SB SUB) Cota St Corona 2113 4 1938 4 1938 4 47 UP (YUMA MAIN) Broadway Riverside County 1604 4 1904 4 1904 4 48 UP (LA SUB) Mountain View Av Riverside 1450 4 1450 4 1650 4 49 UP (YUMA MAIN) Airport Drive Riverside County 1892 4 1592 4 1592 4 50 BNSF & UP (SB SUB) Main St Riverside County 1681 4 1531 4 1531 4 51 BNSF (SB SUB) Jackson St Riverside 1805 4 1330 4 1330 4 52 UP (YUMA MAIN) Pennsylvania Av Beaumont 917 5 li.l'? �i 4)�i}� 53 BNSF (SB SUB) Joy St Carona 1525 4 1250 4 1250 4 54 BNSF (SB SUB) Harrison St Riverside 1545 4 1120 4 1120 4 55 UP (YUMA MAIN) Tipton Rd Palm Springs 1100 5 �� _ rah ITAI9 fM11 4= rt� 56 BNSF (SB SUB) Radio Rd Corona 1400 4 � 107 �1`a �l( I)) t 57 BNSF (SB SUB) Jane St Riverside 1310 4 &6€.- )4lk = 5 58 UP (YUMA MAIN) Avenue 54 Coachella 767 5 767 5 767 5 59 UP (YUMA MAIN) Avenue 58 Riverside County 638 5 688 5 688 5 60 BNSF (SB SUB) Sheridan St Corona 813 5 663 5 663 5 1111661 BNSF (SB SUB) Gibson St Riverside 695 5 520 5 520 5 Change in priority group from October study Change in priority group due to switching 18 a a 3 0 • RIVERS/DE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMM/SS/ON DATE: April 24, 2006 TO: Plans and Programs Committee FROM: Henry Nickel, Commuter Rail Staff Analyst THROUGH: Sheldon Peterson, Rail Programs Manager SUBJECT: Commuter Rail Program Update STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Committee to: 1) Receive and file the Commuter Rail Program Update as an information item; and 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Riverside Line Passenger Trips Riverside Line 5,200 5,000 4,800 4,600 4,400 4,200 4,000 3,800 3,600 3,400 3,200 3,000 O� O� 0 CP OP OP O< OP ,O° p(t) OrO OHO OrO �a PQt 40•A ��� OG� �o� O ff, �a� <<°� fat Month Passenger trips on Metrolink's Riverside Line for the month of March averaged 3,887 which is up 776 (+25%) from the month of February. The Line averaged an overall decrease of 492 (-11 %) from a year ago March 2005. This indicates a rebound in ridership following recent drops during the period of Union Pacific's track repair operations. 19 100 a) 95 R 90 r d 85 U 80 d 75 70 On Time Performance (95% Goal) Riverside Line 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 p0 00 p`° OHO OHO OHO 4�� PQt �a� ��c ��� P,0 �0444 OG� �o� Off, �mS ��o fat Month March on -time performance averaged 88% inbound (+5% from February) and 72% outbound (+5% from February). There were 53 delays greater than 5 minutes during the month of March. The following were primary causes: Signals/Track/MOW Dispatching Mechanical Other 17 32 1 3 34% 62% 2% 2 % TOTAL 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. To compensate riders for the inconvenience Metrolink is offering a 50% off discounted Riverside Line only monthly pass for the month of May. • 20 • inland Empire -Orange County Line Passenger Trips Inland Empire Orange County Line 4,600 4,400 a 4,200 F 4,000 c 3,800 3,600 3,400 3,200 O� O 0 0 O� O� 0 0 ,0 O� OrO O3 OHO ‘Vr&t PQ� 4,a-\ �J� ��\ PJ� 5°,/ 06. Month Passenger trips on Metrolink's Inland Empire -Orange County (IEOC) Line for the month of March averaged 4,384, a decrease of 191 riders or (-4%) change from the month of February. The line has increased 12% from a year ago March 2005. 100 95 R 90 85 E' d 80 a 75 70 On Time Performance (95% Goal) Inland Empire Orange County Line O4.3 O471 O\ Or O- Q� O� O� OHO 00 �O�O �fc PQc ��� ��� �J� PLO ��� O(Y. �o‘ Ooc�a� <e¢o 4`� Month March on -time performance averaged 88% southbound (-2% from February) and 87% northbound (-2% from February). There were 46 delays greater than five minutes during the month of March. The following were primary causes: Signals/MOW/Track Dispatching Mechanical Other 21 97 Line Passenger Trips 91 Line 2,600 2,400 H 2,200 o. F 2,000 0 1,800 1,600 1,400 1,200 Ob � b c �O�O� owO� �O�O O� �00 •QaJ�P�• • poff��.00 P 0 Month Passenger trips on Metrolink's 91 Line for the month of March averaged 2,179, a decrease of 304 riders or (-12%) from the month of February. The line has averaged an increase of 16% from a year ago March 2005. 100 95 d c3) 90 d 85 at 80 a 75 70 On Time Performance (95% Goal) 91 Line c0b `Oh Q<° Pp �643 °b �O`O 06 ArO PQ ,a� �J� �J PJ�' mod �, ‘6 p` ' �a� t�°•o' eSm; Month March on -time performance averaged 85% inbound (-9% from February) and 92% outbound (no change from February). There were 23 delays greater than five minutes during the month of March. The following were primary causes: Dispatching Mechanical Other 22 • 'Riverside County Metrolink Ridership Continues to Grow Despite a recent decline in Metrolink ridership on the Riverside Line due to Union Pacific's extensive track upgrade construction, Riverside County as a whole has experienced consistent growth. Since 2001, total daily ridership throughout the county has increased 64%. Though a temporary setback, recent improvements to the Riverside Line will reduce the delays that have plagued the route and will likely result ' in better on -time performance and ultimately increased ridership. The chart below illustrates year on year average combined daily Metrolink ridership from all Riverside County stations. 3,500 3,000 2,500 2,000 1,500 1,000 500 Average Daily Metrolink Ridership From Riverside County Stations TOTAL IEOC Riverside Line 91 Line 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 23 ADDITION TO THE AGENDA RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: April 24, 2006 TO: Plans and Programs Committee FROM: Hideo Sugita, Deputy Executive Director Shirley Medina, Program Manager THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Deputy Executive Director SUBJECT: SR 91 /Green River Interchange Cost Increase STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Committee to: 1) Approve funding the $2,622,000 cost increase on the SR 91 /Green River Interchange project by increasing the Commercial Paper fund source from $10,898,400 to $13,520,400 and 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Recently, the Department prepared the Final Engineer's Estimate for the SR 91 /Green River Interchange project resulting in a cost increase of $2,622,000 for a total construction cost of $20,752,000. The project is ready to go to construction and all funds must be committed prior to advertisement. At the January 23, 2006 RCTC meeting an item was presented regarding the cost increase on the SR 60 High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lane project based on bids received. The agenda item also addressed future funding needs for the SR 60 HOV and SR 91 /Green River Interchange project. A Master Funding Agreement between the Department and RCTC was developed to memorialize previous AB 3090 commitments on the SR 60 HOV and SR 91/Green River Interchange projects, and stipulated how future cost increases would be funded. The January 23, 2006 agenda item identified the funding of the SR 91 /Green River Interchange construction as follows: $10,898,400 $ 3,114,600 $ 4,1 17,000 $18,130, 000 Commercial Paper TUMF funds Federal Demonstration funds Total Construction Cost (based on the Engineer's estimate in Dec 05) As outlined in the Master Funding Agreement, RCTC will provide funding for any cost increases on the SR 91 /Green River Interchange and the Department will repay ,its share by programming future Interregional Improvement Program (IIP) funds on the 60/215 East Junction connector project or any other project RCTC designates. The funding split for the Department and RCTC is 72 percent and 28 percent, respectively. This funding split will apply to all cost increases that may occur over the duration of the project. Staff recommends that the Commission approve the increase of $2,622,000 by increasing the Commercial Paper fund source from $10,898,400 to $13,520,400. This cost increase results in the Department programming an additional $1,887,840 (72%.commitment) of future IIP funds on the 60/215 East Junction connector project or other project designated by RCTC. Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: Yes No Year: FY 2005/06 FY 2005/06 Amount: $10,898,400 $2,622,000 Source of Funds: Commercial Paper Proceeds Budget Ad ustment: Yes GLA No.: A303 31 81301 P8100 80 $2,622,000 Fiscal Procedures Approved: \14/4,e.,0,34, Date: 4/20/06