HomeMy Public PortalAbout06 June 19, 2006 Technical Advisory Committee77098
i
TIME:
DATE:
LOCATION:
TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTE
MEETING AGENDA*
10:00 A.M.
June 19, 2006
Records
Banning City Hall, Civic Center,
Large Conference Room,
99 East Ramsey Street, Banning, CA
*By request, agenda and minutes may be available in alternative format; i.e, large print, tape.
COMMITTEE MEMBERS
RTA
Ahmad Ansari, City of Perris
Dave Barakian, City of Palm Springs
Bill Bayne, City of Cathedral City
Tom Boyd, City of Riverside
Duane Burk, City of Banning
City of Calimesa
Bill Gallegos, City of Coachella
Mike Gow, City of Hemet
Mark Greenwood, City of Palm Desert
Bruce Harry, City of Rancho Mirage
Bill Hughes, City of Temecula
George Johnson, County of Riverside
Tim Jonasson, City of LaQuinta
Jim Kinley, City of Murrieta
Eunice Lovi, SunLine Transit
Amir Modarressi, City of Indio
Habib Motlagh, Cities of Canyon Lake,
(Perris) and San Jacinto
Les Nelson, PVVTA
Craig Neustaedter, City of Moreno Valley
Dan Patneaude, City of Desert Hot Springs
Juan Perez, County of Riverside
Amad Qattan, City of Corona
Jim Rodkey, City of Blythe
Ken Seumalo, City of Lake Elsinore
Ruthanne Taylor Berger, WRCOG
Bill Thompson, City of Norco
Allyn Waggle, CVAG
Tim Wassil, City of Indian Wells
John Wilder, City of Beaumont
Sean Yeung, Ca!trans District 8
Anne Mayer, Deputy Executive Director
11.36.02
"
"
R I V E R S I D E C O U N T Y T R A N S P O R T A T I O N C O M M I S S I O N
T E C H N I C A L A D V I S O R Y C O M M I T T E E M E E T I N G A G E N D A *
* A c t i o n s m a y b e t a k e n o n a n y i t e m l i s t e d o n t h e a g e n d a .
T I M E : 1 0 : 0 0 A . M .
D A T E : J u n e 1 9 , 2 0 0 6
L O C A T I O N : B a n n i n g C i t y H a l l , C i v i c C e n t e r ,
L a r g e C o n f e r e n c e R o o m ,
9 9 E a s t R a m s e y S t r e e t , B a n n i n g , C A
I n c o m p l i a n c e w i t h t h e A m e r i c a n s w i t h D i s a b i l i t i e s A c t a n d g o v e r n m e n t C o d e S e c t i o n 5 4 9 5 4 . 2 , i f
y o u n e e d s p e c i a l a s s i s t a n c e t o p a r t i c i p a t e i n a C o m m i t t e e m e e t i n g , p l e a s e c o n t a c t R i v e r s i d e C o u n t y
T r a n s p o r t a t i o n C o m m i s s i o n a t ( 9 5 1 1 7 8 7 - 7 1 4 1 . N o t i f i c a t i o n o f a t l e a s t 4 8 h o u r s p r i o r t o m e e t i n g
t i m e w i l l a s s i s t s t a f f i n a s s u r i n g t h a t r e a s o n a b l e a r r a n g e m e n t s c a n b e m a d e t o p r o v i d e a c c e s s i b i l i t y
a t t h e m e e t i n g .
1 . C A L L T O O R D E R
2 . S E L F - I N T R O D U C T I O N
3 . A P P R O V A L O F M I N U T E S
4 . P U B L I C C O M M E N T S ( T h i s i s f o r c o m m e n t s o n i t e m s n o t l i s t e d o n a g e n d a .
C o m m e n t s r e l a t i n g t o a n i t e m o n t h e a g e n d a w i l l b e t a k e n w h e n t h e i t e m i s
b e f o r e t h e . C o m m i t t e e . )
5 . F F Y 2 0 0 5 / 0 6 O B L I G A T I O N P L A N U P D A T E ( A t t a c h m e n t )
M E M O R A N D U M O F U N D E R S T A N D I N G ( M O U ) R E G A R D I N G P R O J E C T
D E L I V E R Y A N D I S S U E S R E S O L U T I O N ( A t t a c h m e n t )
7 . C A L T R A N S L O C A L A S S I S T A N C E R E P O R T ( V e r b a l P r e s e n t a t i o n )
8 . 2 0 0 7 R E G I O N A L T R A N S P O R T A T I O N P L A N ( R T P ) U P D A T E ( A t t a c h m e n t )
6 .
Technical Advisory Committee Meeting
June 19, 2006
Page 2
9. REGIONAL TUMF PROJECT STATUS UPDATE (VerbalPresentation)
10. REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM.(RTIP)
PROGRAMMING CHANGES (Attachment)
11. PM 2.5 PROJECT LEVEL CONFORMITY AND HOT SPOT ANALYSES
SUMMARY (Attachment)
12. TRANSPORTATION ENHANCEMENT PROJECTS (Attachment)
13. JUNE 14, 2006 COMMISSION HIGHLIGHTS (Verbal Presentation)
14. OTHER BUSINESS/ANNOUNCEMENTS
15. ADJOURNMENT (The next meeting will be July 17, 2006 10:00 A.M. in
Riverside.)
" M I N U T E S
"
T E C H N I C A L A D V I S O R Y C O M M I T T E E M E E T I N G
M I N U T E S
M o n d a y , M a y 1 5 , 2 0 0 6
1 . C a l l t o O r d e r
T h e m e e t i n g o f t h e R i v e r s i d e C o u n t y T r a n s p o r t a t i o n C o m m i s s i o n ( R C T C )
T e c h n i c a l A d v i s o r y C o m m i t t e e ( T A C ) w a s c a l l e d t o o r d e r a t 1 0 : 0 0 A . M . a t
t h e R i v e r s i d e C o u n t y T r a n s p o r t a t i o n C o m m i s s i o n , 4 0 8 0 L e m o n S t r e e t ,
R i v e r s i d e , C A
2 . S e l f - I n t r o d u c t i o n s
M e m b e r s P r e s e n t :
O t h e r s P r e s e n t :
A h m a d A n s a r i , c i t y o f P e r r i s
D a v e B a r a k i a n , c i t y o f P a l m S p r i n g s
E d B a s u b a s , c i t y o f L a k e E l s i n o r e
T o m B o y d , c i t y o f R i v e r s i d e
M i k e G o w , c i t y o f H e m e t
M u r k G r e e n w o o d , c i t y o f P a l m D e s e r t
L e s l i e G r o s j e a n , c i t y o f C a t h e d r a l C i t y
B r u c e H a r r y , c i t y o f R a n c h o M i r a g e
B i l l H u g h e s , c i t y o f T e m e c u l a
G e o r g e J o h n s o n , c o u n t y o f R i v e r s i d e
E l d o n L e e , c i t y o f C o a c h e l l a
E u n i c e L o v i , S u n L i n e
M i k e M c C o y , R i v e r s i d e T r a n s i t A g e n c y
H a b i b M o t l a g h , c i t i e s o f C a n y o n L a k e , P e r r i s , & S a n
J a c i n t o
A m i r M o d a r r e s s i , c i t y o f I n d i o
R u s s N a p i e r , c i t y o f M u r r i e t a
C r a i g N e u s t a e d t e r , c i t y o f M o r e n o V a l l e y
D a n P a t n e a u d e , . c i t y o f D e s e r t H o t S p r i n g s
J u a n P e r e z , c o u n t y o f R i v e r s i d e
A m a d Q a t t a n , c i t y o f C o r o n a
M a r k S t a n l e y , R i v e r s i d e T r a n s i t A g e n c y
T i m W a s s i l , c i t y o f I n d i a n W e l l s
J o h n W i l d e r , c i t y o f B e a u m o n t
S e a n Y e u n g , C a [ t r a n s
M i k e A i n s w o r t h , S C A G
F r e d A l a m o l h o d a , M u n i c i p a l E n g i n e e r i n g R e s o u r c e s
C a t h y B e c h t e l , R C T C
Technical Advisory Committee Meeting
May 15, 2006
Page 2
Shirley Gooding, RCTC
Phil Law, SCAG
Ken Lo'beck,RCTC
Anne Mayer, ROTC
Shirley Medina, RCTC
Bob Morin, city of Corona
Mike Perovich, CaWens.
Steve Rogers, Municipal Engineering Resources
John Standiford, RCTC
3. Approval of Minutes
Minutes approved.
4. Public Comments
There were no public comments.
5. 2006 STIP ADOPTION
Shirley Medina, RCTC, explained that the California Transportation
Commission (CTC) Staff Recommendation from County Share for 2006 STIP,
attached to the agenda item, is the final listing from the action taken by the
CTC in April. There are projects noted that were removed from the 2004
STIP or projects that are proposed in the 2006 STIP that were not included.
The potential of having funding available through the bond measure, if it
passes, could have an impact on the deleted projects.
6. STATE AND FEDERAL LEGISLATIVE UPDATE
John Standiford, RCTC; provided a PowerPoint presentation entitled,
"Infrastructure. Bond Package Overview" and summarized what happened in
the legislature with the bonds. He stated that in 2005, Governor
Schwarzenegger developed a bond proposal of about $222 billion. Of that,
$68 billion will be general obligation bonds for transportation. This was
scaled to about $50 billion with the strategy by March to include the bond
on the June ballot. However, the proposal did not get two-thirds approval in
both houses. Now, there will be four separate bond measures on the
November ballot for various infrastructure needs. .The focus for this meeting
purpose is on the transportation package, Proposition 1 B, $19.75 billion
statewide.
•
Technical Advisory Committee Meeting
May 15, 2006
Page 3
Mr. Standiford provided an outline of where the $19 billion will be spent and
how it will be allocated in each of the projects. $4.5 billion will go towards
the new effort entitled, "Corridor Mobility Improvements." That will be
allocated by the CTC. The CTC will develop the guidelines by December
2006. In transit capital, there is about $4 billion. There is about $2 billion
to supplement the STIP, $3.1 billion for Ports Infrastructure, security and Air
Quality - $1 billion for air quality mitigation with the remainder for major
goods movement type of projects rail or truck improvements. There is $1
billion to revive what is known as the state and local partnership, essentially
an augmentation program for self-helpcounties over 5 years. For local
governments, there is $2 billion set aside for cities and counties with every
city in the state guaranteed at least $400,000.
Aside from the bonds, an even bigger part of the plan is Proposition 1 A.
While the bond negotiations were going on, there was an effort to .get an
initiative on the ballot to make Proposition 42 essentially untouchable. To
protect Proposition 42, a measure similar to Proposition 1 A was developed
to continue Proposition 42 as it is. There will still be a suspension clause
from which the state may borrow. The state will be able to borrow only
twice in a 10 year period and will have to repay any of the loans within 3
years, paying off previous loans before borrowing again.
In response to a question, Mr. Standiford indicated that the idea on the local
government financing is to have funding available as quickly as possible.
Time is required to sell bonds and he will get more information regarding
financing. He believes that the local government financing will be available
sooner than the local partnership plan, which is a 5-year program.
Shirley Medina stated that regarding the STIP funding, it would take a STIP
fund estimate to be prepared. Updating the fund estimates can be done in a
5-6 month period but she is not sure if it will be a 2006 STIP augmentation
or 2007 STIP.
2007 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN (RTP) UPDATE
Ken Lobeck introduced Philip Law and Mike Ainsworth from SCAG. Mr. Law
stated that earlier this month SCAG asked commissions to submit a list of
projects for consideration in the 2007 RTP. He provided a Power point
presentation and highlighted the major points. The Regional Transportation
Plan (RTP) is a multimodal long-range plan (through 2035) and is updated
every 4 years. He stated that an important part of what SCAG does is the
Technical Advisory Committee Meeting
May 15, 2006
Page 4
conformity determination. The two major parts of that determination are
Emissions analysis and Financial constraint.
In developing the project Fist, SCAG starts first with the TIP (what has
already been programmed) and assume that future revenues will be directed
towards completing the TIP projects before anything else is built. The
project list that he is discussing today focuses on those projects that are
above and beyond the TIP so they have not moved into the programming
stage yet. The projects are those that require state or federal funds, projects
that require NEPA clearance or federal sign -off on the NEPA document, and
projects that are regionally significant regardless of where they get the
funds. The federal definition of "A Regionally Significant Project" is a project
that is on a facility that serves regional transportation needs, including
access to and from the area outside of the region; major activity centers in
the region, such as hospitals, malls, stadiums and transportation terminals as
well as most terminals themselves.
Mr. Law said that in the past few months, SLAG has been subject to
increasing scrutiny on the financial constraint of both the plan and the TIP.
This comes from FHWA's concerns about project cost changes and .project
scope changes. FHWA's concerns regard the consistency between a project
that is in the plan in the TIP/RTP and the NEPA document that they are being
asked to sign. SCAG staff has tried explaining that when going from a long-
range plan to programming to actual project construction, there will be
changes and a more detail project description and increases in project costs.
The general rule is that a 10% or higher increase in cost would require a RTP.
plan amendment.
Mr. Lawindicated that additional information is beingrequestedfor the RTP.
The new fields that are being requested are: Project source, Existing
configuration, Project cost by phase and Project purpose and need. Ken
Lobeck will e-mail the spreadsheets to the individual agencies. this week and
he will return them to SCAG by the end of June 2006. Alternatives
development will be done between June and December 2006 and modeling
and analysis will be done the early part of next year. A draft RTP will go out
in the summer of 2007. The final should be'adopted by the end of next
year.
Bean Yeung asked if the 10% rule is by project or program. Mr. Law stated
that it is by the project. It is not a new rule but it does apply at the project
level. In response to Mr. Lobeck's question about how RTP amendments will
be done, Mr. Law responded that SCAG has done about one or two RTP
Technical Advisory Committee Meeting
May 15, 2006
Page 5
amendments in the past five or six years. They can take up to five months
to complete. Mr. Boyd asked what the benefit is of a locally funded project
being in the RTP. Mr. Law said that if the three criterions are met, the
project must be in the plan. If a project is awaiting a NEPA sign off and the
project is not in the plan, the federal agency will not sign off on the
document. If a project does not need state or federal funds or if it does not
need NEPA sign off and it is not regionally significant, then a project does
not need to be submitted to the plan. If it is regionally significant, it must be
included in the emissions analysis.
In response to complaints about submitting projects to the RTP, Mr. Law
stated that if TUMF projects are not submitted to SCAG they would not be
coded into the network. Shirley >Medina said that the TUMF network was
included in the last RTP round. The 2004 RTP was based on preliminary
Nexus study numbers; therefore, the total costs should be reviewed as they
have changed. All the fields should be reviewed to be sure they are properly
reflective of the new updates.
Discussion ensued about how to accelerate the review and if WRCOG could
review the TUMF funded projects. Juan Perez, county of Riverside,
motioned with a second from Bill Hughes, city of Temecula, to ask WRCOG
to assist in the RTP project update.
8. FFY 05/06 OBLIGATION DELIVERY PLAN
Shirley Medina, RCTC, provided the FFY 05/06 Obligation Plan (05-1-06) and
indicated that this item will be a monthly item. She stated that the agencies
have provided information concerningwhat projects are going forward for.
the end of the FFY 05/06. She further stated that the report would be sent
via, a -mail regularly to be sure to adhere to the dates. If obligation packages
have not been submitted past the due date, staff needs to be informed.
Staff will work closely with District 8 to ensure that as many projects are
obligated as possible.
Ms. Medina reported that Caltrans is reviewing inactive projects — projects
that have been obligated sometime ago and nothing in at least a 12-month
period has ensued. The list of those projects will be e-mailed to each
agency.
Ms. Medina reiterated that Caltrans is asking for invoices as well as updates
of when the next invoice will be submitted and that explanations are required
Technical Advisory Committee Meeting
May 15, 2006
Page 6
as to why the projects are inactive and what is being done to rectify that so
that the projects can be removed from the list. Not providing that
information will result in the ,projects being deobligated.
In response to a question regarding how this process correlates with the
recent FHWA exercise, Ms. Medina indicated that this is a follow-up, When
FHWA reviewed projects, they focused on only a few projects and Caltrans
is responsible to make sure that these projects are updated. Caltrans is
looking at identifying projects ahead of time to avoid deobligation by FHWA.
Tom Boyd, city of Riverside, reminded the TAC that Caltrans recently gave
the agencies a preliminarydatabase of all the projects and that they should
review the list and let Caltrans know if they are still active. He reiterated
that agencies should bill Caltrans since individual cities are carrying the
finance cost of the projects.
Regarding the rehabilitation projects on the-FFY 05/06 Obligation Plan (05-1-
06), Dave Barakian, city of Palm Springs, asked if assistance is available in
obtaining anenvironmental document since projects cannot be obligated
without it. Anne Mayer, . RCTC, stated that when the project delivery
subcommittee meets on Thursday morning, the Programmatic Categorical
Exclusion (PCEs) Environmental Documents are a primary topic of discussion
on how to move them through. The subcommittee will also focus on the
obligation plan to make sure projects get obligated:
Ms. Mayer also stressed the importance of returning the milestone reports
with dates so that they can be tracked. Staff is basing discussions` from the
milestone information.: She further stressed' that for those agencies that
have advertised federal projects prior to May 1 with the old DBE
requirements, make sure bids are not opened without an addendum going
out to change the DBE requirements; otherwise, they will be ineligible if a
contract is awarded under the old DBE requirements.
9. PROJECT DELIVERY UPDATE
Anne Mayer stated that the Project Delivery Subcommittee members have
been working hard to identify some of the big issues related to project
delivery, specifically regarding local assistance and its process. She stated
that the subcommittee members, from RCTC - Shirley Medina, Anne Mayer,
Paul Blackwelder; from Caltrans - Sean Yeung, Bill Mosby and Ernie Figueroa
met for several hours recently to identify the top priorities for resolution.
•
Technical Advisory Committee Meeting
May 15, 2006
Page 7
One of the priorities is focusing on programmatic PCEs to make sure that the
sign -off process goes quickly. Another is the Memorandum of
Understanding that it is hoped the TAC would execute with the department
that identifies issue resolution processes and commitments regarding
durations for the process itself. The subcommittee is also reviewing short-
term project delivery improvements. The subcommittee will meet again
Thursday, May 18 at Caltrans to focus on project delivery specific
improvements that can be made.
She discussed results of the project delivery survey to determine what
agencies wanted assistance from RCTC and whether or not they were willing
to pay for it and the split consensus it produced.
Tom Boyd stated that one of the challenges the agencies faced with the
survey is how the staff support will be used has not been defined and each
agency had different expectations ranging from help filling out forms to help
tracking projects. Some agencies felt that they did not need any help. He
suggested that the process will become easier and quicker once the first
meetings are through and discussions with Caltrans management and the
subcommittee develop.
Ms. Mayer announced that very shortly there would be an environmental
group headed by a senior environmental planner totally focusing on local
assistance. She said that there would be discussion about how to focus
more attention on local assistance from an environmental standpoint at
Thursday's meeting to keep the projects moving forward. Ernie Figueroa,
Caltrans District 8, is expected at Thursday's meeting to talk about what is
being done.
10. CALTRANS LOCAL ASSISTANCE REPORT
In addition to Caltrans Local Assistance information provided in agenda item
9 above, Shirley Medina conveyed that the project delivery subcommittee is
working on a Memorandum of Understanding and it will be in a format that
each TAC member will be expected to sign. It is expected that a final draft
will be submitted to the subcommittee on May 18 and presented to the TAC
as soon as possible.
Technical Advisory Committee Meeting
May 15, 2006
Page 8
11. MILESTONE REPORTS AND PROJECT MONITORING
Ken Lobeck, .RCTC, presented an overview of milestone ;reports and how
they are used at. different levels. The monitoring is done to ensure funds are
properly expended and, projects delivered timely.
He summarized the following process from development of obligation targets
through development of the obligation delivery plan. The discussion included
an overview of annual apportionments, RTIP programming actions, AB 1012
apportionment balances, RCTC's milestone reports, and other agencies
interested in project delivery. -
In a related manner, Shirley Medina informed the members that staff is
actively undergoing a process to develop a database. The contract should be
signed with a contractor soon and part of it will include a web base project
management database. With the database, when the updates are done for
the project milestone reports, agencies will have the ability to access it
online which should streamline the process.
12. 2006 FEDERAL TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (FTIP)
STATUS UPDATE
The 2006 FTIP/RTIP is moving forward and the new DEMOACE six awarded
projects that the RCTC Board approved have been included in the RTIP.
SCAG is modeling the projects and the expected completion time is mid -
June. SCAG will be ready for public review in mid -June with approval about
mid -August. The TIP is expected to be approved by October 4, at which
time the 2006 TIP will replace the 2004 TIP.
13. 2006 FTIP DEMOACE AND HBRR PROGRAMMING UPDATES
Mr. Lobeck said that the March 23 HBRR list was included in the 2006 FTIP.
A list of projects showing how they are programmed is included in the staff
report.
14. CHANGE TO INTERCHANGE PROJECTS WITH HOV ENTRY RAMPS
DESIGNATED AS TRANSPORTATION CONTROL MEASURE PROJECTS
(TCMs) IN THE DRAFT 2006 RTIP
•
"
T e c h n i c a l A d v i s o r y C o m m i t t e e M e e t i n g
M a y 1 5 , 2 0 0 6
P a g e 9
K e n L o b e c k e x p l a i n e d t h a t e x i s t i n g p r o g r a m m i n g g u i d a n c e r e q u i r e s
i n t e r c h a n g e i m p r o v e m e n t p r o j e c t s w i t h a n H O V e n t r y r a m p b e c l a s s i f i e d a s a
T C M p r o j e c t . R e c e n t d i s c u s s i o n s w i t h F H W A a n d E P A h a v e d e t e r m i n e d t h a t
t h e H O V e n t r y r a m p i s n o t s u f f i c i e n t t o d e s i g n a t e t h e e n t i r e p r o j e c t a s a
T C M . E i g h t i n t e r c h a n g e i m p r o v e m e n t p r o j e c t s w i l l b e c h a n g e d b a c k t o t h e
n o n - T C M p r o j e c t s .
1 5 . M A Y 1 0 , 2 0 0 6 C O M M I S S I O N H I G H L I G H T S
A n n e M a y e r s a i d o n e o f t h e h i g h l i g h t s w a s M a r k W a t t s ' p r e s e n t a t i o n o n t h e
b o n d p a c k a g e . A n o t h e r w a s R i v e r s i d e O r a n g e C o u n t y A u t h o r i t y w h e r e
i n s t e a d o f f o r m i n g a s e p a r a t e e n t i t y , i t w i l l b e O C T A , R C T C , a n d M I N D
r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s w i t h C a l t r a n s D i s t r i c t D i r e c t o r s . T h a t w i l l b e t h e g o v e r n i n g
b o d y t o d e a l w i t h t h e g e o t e c h n i c a l b o r i n g s f o r a n e w t u n n e l .
1 6 . O T H E R B U S I N E S S / A N N O U N C E M E N T S
T h e r e w a s n o o t h e r b u s i n e s s o r a n n o u n c e m e n t s .
i
1 7 . A D J O U R N M E N T
T h e r e b e i n g n o f u r t h e r b u s i n e s s f o r c o n s i d e r a t i o n b y t h e T e c h n i c a l A d v i s o r y
C o m m i t t e e , t h e m e e t i n g w a s a d j o u r n e d a t a p p r o x i m a t e l y 1 1 : 4 0 A . M . T h e
n e x t m e e t i n g i s s c h e d u l e d f o r J u n e 1 9 , 2 0 0 6 , 1 0 : 0 0 A . M . , B a n n i n g C i t y H a l l
C i v i c C e n t e r , 9 9 E a s t R a m s e y S t r e e t , B a n n i n g , C A
R e s p e c t f u l l y s u b m i t t e d ,
K f n L o b e c k
S t a f f A n a l y s t
" A G E N D A I T E M 5
RIVERS/DE
COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMM/SS/ON
DATE:
June 19, 2006
TO:
Technical Advisory Committee
FROM:
Ken Lobeck, Staff Analyst
THROUGH:
Shirley Medina
Program Manager
SUBJECT:
FFY 2005/06 Obligation Plan Update
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
This item is for the TAC to: Receive and file an updated FFY Obligation Plan (RCTC
version) as of June 1, 2006.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
i
I
TAC members will receive an updated FFY 2005/06 RCTC versions Obligation Plan. The
revised obligation plan is updated as of June 1'. The changes to the DBE program
appear to have impacted several projects and some planned obligations are slipping. The
new PM 2.5 Hot Spot Analysis requirement for non exempt projects in the South Coast
Air Basin also appears to be delaying planned project obligations.
" A G E N D A I T E M 6
"
"
R I V E R S I D E C O U N T Y T R A N S P O R T A T I O N C O M M I S S I O N
D A T E :
J u n e 1 9 , 2 0 0 6
T O :
T e c h n i c a l A d v i s o r y C o m m i t t e e
F R O M :
S h i r l e y M e d i n a , P r o g r a m M a n a g e r
S U B J E C T :
M e m o r a n d u m o f U n d e r s t a n d i n g ( M O U ) R e g a r d i n g P r o j e c t D e l i v e r y
a n d I s s u e s R e s o l u t i o n
S T A F F R E C O M M E N D A T I O N :
T h a t t h e T e c h n i c a l A d v i s o r y C o m m i t t e e m e m b e r s s i g n t h e a t t a c h e d M e m o r a n d u m
o f U n d e r s t a n d i n g R e g a r d i n g P r o j e c t D e l i v e r y a n d I s s u e s R e s o l u t i o n
B A C K G R O U N D I N F O R M A T I O N
A f e w m o n t h s a g o , t h e T e c h n i c a l A d v i s o r y C o m m i t t e e ( T A C ) f o r m e d a
s u b c o m m i t t e e t o r e v i e w p r o j e c t d e l i v e r y i s s u e s . T h e T A C s u b c o m m i t t e e h a s
' e v o l v e d t o a P r o j e c t D e l i v e r y t e a m i n c l u d i n g C a l t r a n s L o c a l A s s i s t a n c e S t a f f a n d
R C T C s t a f f t o i d e n t i f y k e y i s s u e s a f f e c t i n g p r o j e c t d e l i v e r y a n d w o r k t o w a r d s
s t r e a m l i n i n g a n d c l a r i f y i n g p r o c e s s e s , r o l e s a n d r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s t o t h e e x t e n t
p o s s i b l e .
T h e P r o j e c t D e l i v e r y t e a m i n c l u d e s t h e f o l l o w i n g m e m b e r s :
T o m B o y d , C i t y o f R i v e r s i d e
C r a i g N e u s t a e d t e r , C i t y o f M o r e n o V a l l e y
D a v e B a r a k i a n , C i t y o f P a l m S p r i n g s
H a b i b M o t l a g h , C i t i e s o f , P e r r i s a n d S a n J a c i n t o
J u a n P e r e z , C o u n t y o f R i v e r s i d e
B i l l H u g h e s , C i t y o f T e m e c u l a
A n n e M a y e r , R C T C
S h i r l e y M e d i n a , R C T C
' P a u l B l a c k w e l d e r , R C T C C o n s u l t a n t
B i l l M o s b y , C a l t r a n s
S e a n Y e u n g , C a l t r a n s
E r n i e F i g u e r o a , C a l t r a n s
T h e a t t a c h e d M O U h a s b e e n d e v e l o p e d a s a f i r s t s t e p t o w a r d s e s t a b l i s h i n g g e n e r a l
g u i d a n c e f o r r e v i e w i n g p r o j e c t d o c u m e n t s u b m i t t a l s a s w e l l a s a n i s s u e s r e s o l u t i o n
f o r r e s o l v i n g i s s u e s t h a t a r i s e d u r i n g t h e p r o j e c t l i f e c y c l e . T h i s M O U i s a
consolidated effort involving input from all members of the above Project Delivery
team members.
A "Master" MOU will be available at the TAC meeting for all agencies to sign.i
Local agencies not in attendance will be asked to sign the area designated for their
signature and submit to RCTC as soon as possible.
NEXT STEPS:
Local Assistance —
• Local Assistance is continuing progress with the development of a project
tracking system that would be available to RCTC and local agencies. The
tracking system is anticipated to be available in July.
• An "Inactive Project Listing" was emailed to local agencies on May 25, 2006
and Paul Blackwelder, RCTC Consultant, is working with local agencies to
submit the required information to Caltrans as soon as possible. In general,
projects Fisted on the Inactive list have had no invoicing- activity for over 6
months. Responses are needed to prevent funds from being automatically
deobligated by FHWA. Lastly, projects on the list may have been completed
but not closed out. It ;is possible that Caltrans/FHWA will not authorize
additional funds to agencies that do not close out their projects. Therefore,
closing out projects is critical to agencies. that want to continue using state
and federal funding for their projects.
• The Project Delivery Team suggested that Caltrans provide training
workshops starting with PES and Section 106. We have asked Caltrans to
schedule the training in August,
State Highways —
• The next Project Delivery Team meeting is scheduled for June 29, 2006 to
discuss state highway project issues with Paul Engstrom,, Deputy District
Director, Program/Project Management.
RCTC Assistance —
• RCTC will continue to offer assistance to local agencies that experience
issues with project delivery.
Attachment: Memorandum of Understanding
•
•
Memorandum of Understanding
Between
the Riverside County Transportation Commission, Technical
Advisory Committee Members (Local Agencies) and the
California Department of Transportation District 08
Regarding Project Delivery and Issues Resolution
This Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), entered into effect on
2006 between the Riverside County Transportation Commission (Commission),
Technical Advisory Committee members (Local Agencies), and the California
Department of Transportation (Department) District 08 outlines the general areas
of responsibility for various project development activities, including reviews and
approvals, for proposed improvements including but not limited 'to, state
highways (non-SHOPP), local arterials, transit/rail, and bridge projects. This
MOU constitutes a guide to the intentions and strategies of the parties involved
and is not intended to authorize funding or project effort nor is it a legally binding
contract.
This MOU covers Local Assistance project development, oversight, Request for
Authorization (RFA) of funds (obligation of funds), expenditures, Issues
Resolution, and all other activities that require the administration of funds and/or
project approvals from the Department, starting with initial project development
phases through project closeout. Cooperative Agreements will continue to be
required for specific state highway projects. The intent of this MOU would serve
as an enhancement to the Cooperative Agreements entered between the
Department and Commission/Local Agencies for state highway projects that
require Cooperative. Agreements.
INTENT
The intent of this MOU is to establish a true partnership between the Department,
Commission and Local Agencies to improve project delivery, and define how the
entities will work together as one Project Team to successfully deliver projects in
a timely and efficient manner. This MOU will act as a guideline for the
Commission, Department and Local Agencies to assist with successful and
timely project delivery, and it is not intended to be legally binding on the parties
or to supplant any of the responsibilities of the parties under other agreements
between the parties or applicable state or federal law.
GENERAL
The Commission and Local Agencies serve as lead agency for various projects
consisting of federal, state, and local fund sources. The administration of state
and federal funds is the responsibility of the Department's Office of Local
Assistance. Project approvals on or off the state highway system, regardless of
the fund source, are the responsibility of the Department. The Commission and
Local Agencies desire to streamline, to the extent possible, the processes
6/13/2006
established to administer state and federal projects including improved
communications with the Department. Further, a better understanding of the
Department's review and approval of project documents would also benefit the .
Commission and Local Agencies in estimating project schedules.
The Commission allocates federal, state, and local funding and implements
projects in adherence to state and federal regulations requiring' obligation and
expenditure of funds within specific time periods or risk loss of funds. Project
delays are continuing to occur with project delivery and Riverside County could
experience, at a minimum, a loss of funds.
A process for addressing issues that arise during the project cycle would
enhance the ability to reduce project delays and prevent loss of funds.
TERMS OF AGREEMENT
The following agreements have been mutually agreed upon and will serve as a
guideline to resolve conflicts and provide a general framework of responsibility.
Department agrees to:
Given the responsibilities of the department to review and approve required
documents according to state and federal rules the Department agrees to the
following:
1) Upon receipt of project documents requiring review and approval, the
Department will notify the Local Agency that the submittal was received
and will provide project status updates on a bi-weekly basis and/or
through the implementation of a database that agencies can access on-
line.
If the Department determines that a submittal is incomplete or inadequate,
the Department will contact the Commission and/or Local Agency in
writing within 10 working days describing the actions needed to complete
and correct the submittal.
3) Department will provide comments in writing and send them to lead
agency and/or designee at one time, instead of piecemeal.
4) Department staff will be trained in areas that are problematic in project
delivery including conferring with other Districts and Headquarters, the
Commission, Federal Highway Administration, and Federal Transit
Agency.
Department will continue to provide courses and workshops to the
Commission, Local Agencies and consultants on processing federal -aid
projects.
6/13/2006
6) To the extent possible, the Department will allocate sufficient staff to
manage volume of projects.
Commission and Local Agencies agree to:
1) Ensure key staff and consultants are knowledgeable about the federal -aid
project process by attending training courses offered by the Department,
FHWA, or other qualified training institution. The Commission will keep a
database demonstrating they comply with this requirement.
2) Notify Department staff prior to submitting project documents that the
document is being mailed or hand delivered, and indicate the key Local
Agency contact person.
The Commission will provide a quarterly forecast of projects anticipated to
be submitted within the next six months and approximate dates of
submittal.
Local Agency staff will contract with consultants experienced with the
federal aid process and closely monitor their work. Local Agencies will
instruct consultants to include them in all correspondence between
Department and consultant.
Meet with the Department to discuss any document that has been
submitted and rejected three times. The time taken to schedule and hold
this meeting will be in addition to the times provided below.
6) Initiate project status meetings/project delivery team (PDT) meetings, if
applicable, take meeting minutes and respond to all action items
expeditiously and in writing.
Respond to Department comments expeditiously and in writing at one
time, instead of piecemeal.
8) The Commission and Local Agencies will work strategically and
cooperatively in planning and programming projects to distribute project
activity throughout the year and provide for realistic project scheduling.
All Parties Agree to the following:
1) Upon notification and receipt of required documents from Commission and
Local Agencies, the Department will adhere to the following timelines each
time the document is submitted:
6/13/2006
Document Review Timelines
Document Reviews
Caltrans
Review
Time *
Agency
Response
Overall
Duration
PES
30 days
14 days
6 to 8 wks
PA&ED for State Hwy
projects
60 days
Depends on
CT comments
2 to 6
months
Programmatic Categorical
Exemptions
30 days
14 days
45 to 60
days
PS&E approval for local
arterial projects
30 days
30 days
60 to 90
days
PS&E for state highway
projects
120 days
Depends on
CT comments
6 to 9
months
R/W Certifications
30 days
14 days
4 to 6 wks
RFAs/Obligation packages
14 days
14 days
30 days
Note: nays = working days
* Initial Review. Subsequent review time is dependent upon number of
Department comments.
Each party will strive to meet the agreements contained in this MOU and if
any conditions arise that prevent any of the items in this agreement from
being met, the affected parties will immediately notify the other party and
the Commission to inform the Technical Advisory Committee.
Any staff changes will be addressed by fully informing the new staff of the
project's status and key decisions/commitments previously agreed upon.
To attend PDT meetings and respond to all action items expeditiously and
in writing.
At the first PDT meeting, the project schedule will be reviewed as
proposed by the Local Agency to ensure the project schedule includes
processes identified in the Local Assistance Procedures Manual and other
applicable requirements. The Department and the Local Agency must
agree on the project schedule. A concerted effort should be made by all
parties to adhere to the project schedule. Changes to the project
schedule should only be made in the event of unknown circumstances or
circumstances beyond the Department's or Local Agency's control.
Review times are to be included in the project schedule.
ISSUES RESOLUTION
In the event the Department, Commission, or Local Agencyencounters a
problem with project delivery, including the above terms of agreement, the Issues
Resolution will serve as a guide in resolving any: disagreements or concerns
encountered during any phase of project delivery.
6/13/2006
It is the intent of the Commission, the Department, and Local Agencies to resolve
issues at the lowest level possible, which would be at the Project Development
Team (PDT) level. However, when substantive issues arise in the project life -
cycle, they need to be resolved as diligently as possible by elevating them to
upper management so consensus can be obtained. Therefore, the following
levels describe how issues are to be elevated.
First Level Team: Local Agency Project Manager and District Local Assistance
Engineer (DLAE) and/or Department Senior
Issues will arise in the midst of the project team's effort to develop the project.
Many of these issues can be resolved within the project team's level, especially
those that do not change the scope of the project, do not require additional
budget, and do not delay the approved schedule. The staff involved will review
issues that arise, discuss the options for resolution, the pros and cons to each
option, and any advocate's reasons in support of specific options. Provided the
resolution does not change the scope, cost and schedule of the project, the first
level team should determine the outcome. If the first level team either does not
have sufficient authority to resolve the issue or is unable to agree, then they will
elevate the issue, within 3 days, to the second level team.
Second Level Team: Public Works/Planning Director or City Engineer and
Department's Local Assistance Deputy Director
The first level team will prepare a document presenting the issue, options for
resolution, and the pros and cons to each option including any advocate's
reasons in support of specific options. This level should determine the outcome
of the resolution provided they have sufficient authority to resolve the issue. If
not, then they will elevate the issue, within 3 days, to the third level team.
Third Level Team: City Manager/Mayor/Councilmember and
Department's District Director
The third (and final) level team will review the document prepared by the first
level team with additional comments provided by the second level team. The
issue must be resolved within this level. If for some reason, the issue cannot be
fully resolved without approval from the City Council/Commission and/or the
Department, then the third level team will direct preparation of agenda items for
any required action needed to ratify their agreed upon solution.
Decisions made at each review level are to be documented by the Project
Manager or a designee thereof and stored in the project file to become a
permanent part of the project history.
6/13/2006
Signatures to this Agreement are as follows:
Riverside County Transportation Commission
Department of Transportation, District 08
County of Riverside
City of Banning
City of Beaumont
City of Blythe
City of Calimesa
City of Canyon Lake
City of Cathedral City
City of Coachella
City of Corona
6/13/2006
City of Desert Hot Springs City of Palm Desert
City of Hemet City of Palm Springs
City of Indian Wells
City of Perris
City of Indio City of Rancho Mirage
City of La Quinta City of Riverside
City of Lake Elsinore City of San Jacinto
City of Moreno Valley City of Temecula
City of Murrieta Coachella Valley Association of
Governments
City of Norco Western Riverside Council of
Governments
6/13/2006
"
A G E N D A I T E M 7
A p r e s e n t a t i o n w i l l b e m a d e b u t
t h e r e i s n o a t t a c h m e n t t o t h e
a g e n d a f o r i t e m 7 .
"
" A G E N D A I T E M 8
"
"
R I V E R S I D E C O U N T Y T R A N S P O R T A T I O N C O M M I S S I O N
D A T E :
J u n e 1 9 , 2 0 0 6
T O :
T e c h n i c a l A d v i s o r y C o m m i t t e e
F R O M :
K e n L o b e c k , S t a f f A n a l y s t
T H R O U G H :
S h i r l e y M e d i n a
P r o g r a m M a n a g e r
S U B J E C T :
2 0 0 7 R e g i o n a l T r a n s p o r t a t i o n P l a n ( R T P ) U p d a t e
S T A F F R E C O M M E N D A T I O N :
T h i s i t e m i s f o r t h e T A C t o : R e c e i v e a n d f i l e a n u p d a t e o n t h e e f f o r t t o r e f o r m a t P l a n
s e c t i o n p r o j e c t s a n d r e c e i v e a n u p d a t e d c o p y o f t h e r e f o r m a t t e d A l a m e d a C o r r i d o r E a s t
( A C E ) G r a d e S e p a r a t i o n p r o j e c t l i s t .
B A C K G R O U N D I N F O R M A T I O N :
S t a f f s e n t o u t t h e r e f o r m a t t e d R T P P l a n s e c t i o n p r o j e c t l i s t s t o l e a d a g e n c i e s a t t h e e n d
o f M a y w i t h a r e t u r n d u e d a t e o f J u n e 2 6 , 2 0 0 6 . H o w e v e r , t h e r e f o r m a t t i n g p r o c e s s
r e s u l t e d i n a k e y e r r o r f o r C o a c h e l l a v a l l e y c i t i e s . T h e w r o n g f i l e w a s u s e d t o r e f o r m a t
C o a c h e l l a V a l l e y c i t i e s . C V A G h a d s u b m i t t e d a n u p d a t e d " C V A G a l l - j u r i s d i c t i o n " f i l e t h a t
i n c l u d e d p r o j e c t s t a r t a n d e n d y e a r s . A n e a r l i e r v e r s i o n o f t h e C V A G a l l - j u r i s d i c t i o n
p r o j e c t l i s t w a s u s e d t o r e f o r m a t t h e p r o j e c t s i n t o t h e n e w f o r m a t . C V A G n o t i f i e d R C T C
o f t h e e r r o r a n d s e n t o u t t h e m o s t c u r r e n t p r o j e c t l i s t t o l e a d a g e n c i e s f o r t h e i r u s e .
R C T C s t a f f o f f e r e d t o r e f o r m a t t h e p r o j e c t l i s t s u s i n g t h e c u r r e n t u p d a t e d l i s t i f t h e
a g e n c y n o t e s m a j o r d i s c r e p a n c i e s b e t w e e n t h e t w o l i s t s .
I n r e f o r m a t t i n g t h e p r o j e c t l i s t s , a l l i n t e r c h a n g e i m p r o v e m e n t p r o j e c t s a r e n o w s e p a r a t e d
f r o m t h e a r t e r i a l s a n d a r e l o c a t e d i n t h e M a i n l i n e s e c t i o n . H o w e v e r , t h e n e w f o r m a t
r e q u i r e s t h e c a p a c i t y i n c r e a s e t o t h e 1 C s t o b e s t a t e d a s w e l l . I C p r o j e c t s c a n n o t b e
s t a t e d a s " R e c o n s t r u c t I C / r a m p s " . P r o j e c t s p r e v i o u s l y s h o w n f u n d e d b y T U M F a r e n o w
c a l l e d o u t a s " D e v M i t F e e " . A l o n g w i t h t h i s c h a n g e , t h e r e v i s e d f o r m a t r e q u i r e s c o s t s
t o b e i d e n t i f i e d b y p h a s e , a p u r p o s e a n d n e e d s t a t e m e n t b e i n c l u d e d , a n d a s s o c i a t e d
b e n e f i t s c a l l e d o u t .
W R C O G i s r e v i e w i n g a n d u p d a t i n g " D e v M i t F e e " i d e n t i f i e d p r o j e c t s f o r w e s t e r n C o u n t y
l e a d a g e n c i e s b a s e d o n t h e n e w T U M F N e x u s S t u d y . R C T C a n d C a ! t r a n s a r e
c o o r d i n a t i n g t h e u p d a t e o f t h e M a i n l i n e s e c t i o n . I n a d d i t i o n t o I C i m p r o v e m e n t p r o j e c t s ,
t h e M a i n l i n e s e c t i o n w i l l i n c l u d e c o r r i d o r i m p r o v e m e n t p r o j e c t s ( e . g . C E T A P ) a n d I T S
r e l a t e d p r o j e c t s .
A r e f o r m a t t e d A C E p r o j e c t l i s t f o r t h e 2 0 0 7 R T P h a s b e e n c o m p l e t e d a n d w i l l b e
p r o v i d e d t o T A C m e m b e r s a t t h e m e e t i n g . D u e t o t h e f u n d i n g c o m m i t m e n t r e s t r i c t i o n s
imposed on the RTP Plan section, several of the ACE projects will have to be moved to
the RTP Unconstrained section. The ACE list along with the developing 2007 RTP status
will be discussed with TAC members.
•
"
"
A G E N D A I T E M 9
A p r e s e n t a t i o n w i l l b e m a d e b u t
t h e r e i s n o a t t a c h m e n t t o t h e
a g e n d a f o r i t e m 9 .
" A G E N D A I T E M 1 0
RIVERS/DE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMM/SS/ON
DATE:
June 19, 2006
TO:
Technical Advisory Committee
FROM:
Ken Lobeck, Staff Analyst
THROUGH:
Shirley Medina
Program Manager
SUBJECT:
Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP) Programming
Changes
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
This item is for the TAC to: Receive a short presentation on the 2006 RTIP and
Amendment programming adjustments
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
I
This item is a continuation from last month's discussion of programming changes to the
RTIP especially to amendments. TAC members will receive a short presentation that
provides further background on the types of RTIP amendments, the limitations of making
changes, and the new added wrinkle of the RTP consistency check against RTIP formal
amendments.
i
Attachment: RTIP Programming Changes - Powerpoint slides
2006 Regional Transportation
Improvement Program (RTIP)
Programming Changes
Ken Lobeck
RCTC Technical Advisory
Committee
June 19, 2006
"
2 0 0 6 R T I P P r o g r a m m i n g C h a n
" A d h e r e n c e t o a q u a r t e r l y a m e n d m e n t s c h e d u l e
" A m e n d m e n t t y p e s & l i m i t a t i o n s
" A d m i n i s t r a t i v e a m e n d m e n t s
" F o r m a l a m e n d m e n t s
" D e v e l o p i n g t h e a m e n d m e n t
" R T P c o n s i s t e n c y u p o n t h e R T I P a m e n d m e n t s
" "
2 0 0 6 R T P - I k R T I P D o c u m e n t s
" R T P - R e g i o n a l T r a n s p o r t a t i o n P l a n :
- 3 0 y e a r l o n g r a n g e v i s i o n o f g r o w t h a n d m o b i l i t y f o r t h e
S C A G r e g i o n
" R T I P - R e g i o n a l T r a n s p o r t a t i o n I m p r o v e m e n t P r o g r a m
( R T I P ) :
- R e p r e s e n t s t h e f i r s t 6 y e a r n o f p r o j e c t s t o b e i m p l e m e n t e d
i n t h e R T P
- S u b s e t o f t h e R T P
- R T I P = S C A G R e g i o n a l F e d e r a l T r a n s p o r t a t i o n
I m p r o v e m e n t P r o g r a m ( F T I P )
- R T I P / F T I P : 1 s t t h r e e y e a r s a r e t h e f i n a n c i a l l y c o n s t r a i n e d
y e a r s o r t h e T r i e n n i a l E l e m e n t a l s o c a l l e d t h e F e d e r a l
S t a t e w i d e T r a n s p o r t a t i o n I m p r o v e m e n t P r o g r a m ( F S T I P )
40 •
2006 RTIP Amendments
FHWA considers the number of
RTIP amendments Metropolitan
Planning Agencies (MPO)
submitted in the 2004 RTIP
excessive
• Directed MPOs to adhere to a
quarterly amendment schedule
starting in October 2006 for the
2006 RTIP
"
"
R T I P Q u a r t e r l y A m e n d m e n t s
F i n a l C o u n t y T i p
S O R T : B Y S O U R C E
P r o j e c t 1 0 4 5 0 0 0
S O U T H E R N C A L I F O R N I A A S S O C I A T I O N O F G O V E R N M E N T S
2 0 0 6 F e d e r a l T I P ( F Y 2 0 0 6 f 2 0 0 7 - 2 0 1 1 / 2 0 1 2 1
P R O J E C T R E P O R T
A l l S t a t e
C o u n g r . A 0
P r i n t D a t e :
5 1 3 1 / 2 0 0
S y s t e m 5
R o u t e l 0
P o s t M i t e 4 7 _ 4 0
t o 4 3 _ 9 0
E l e m e n t 2
P r o g r a m C A X 7 0 D e s c r i p t i o n :
Y r A d d e d 1 9 9 4 O N 1 - 1 0 N E A R R A N C H O M I R A G E F R O M 1 . 5 K M W E S T T O 0 . 9 K M E A S T O F R A M O N R D I C - C O N S T R U C T B O B
H O P E D R E X T E N S I O N ( 6 L A N E S ) W 1 A N E W D I A M O N D I C d . M O D I F Y R A M O N R D I C 8 , R A M P S ( P P N O : 0 0 0 7 D )
L e a d A g e n c y C A L T R A N S
S o u r c e ; F T W 0 6 F T 1 P
N O
E n v . D o c .
T C M N
C o u n t y R I V E R S I D E
A m e n d # 0
B a s i n w a s
M o d e l # R 3 1 2
C h a n g e R e a s o n C O S T S O H
F E D E R A L
C o m m e n t s :
F u n d N a m e
S T P " R I P
S T P - R I P
S T P " R I P
Y E A R E n g . C o s t R A N C o s t C o n s , C o s t
C o m p l e t i o n D a t e 0 5 / 3 1 / 0 9
F u n d T o t a l
8 5 0 S 8 5 0
$ 8 5 0
2 0 0 3 / 2 0 0 4 5 2 , 7 0 4 2 2 7 $ 2 . 9 3 1
2 0 0 6 / 2 0 0 7 7 , 8 3 2 $ 7 , 8 3 2
2 0 0 7 / 2 0 0 8 3 5 , 6 9 8 D 5 , 6 9 8
$ 2 , 7 0 4 $ 8 , 0 5 9 $ 3 6 , 5 4 s
( F o n d s a r e M i h a u s s n d a o f d o w n )
S u b t o t a l
$ 4 S , 4 ( 1 S u b t o t a l
T o t a l C o s t : $ 4 7 , 3 1 1
2 9 0 6 U p d a t e : C o m s + a d t x l u l e b a s a l o n 2 0 0 E S T I R 2 0 0 6 S T I P . R I P _ O r i s i n S T I P = 1 9 , 9 8 R I P . E A # - 4 5 6 0 0 I _ S T P L f o r S W f r o m M o n t e r e y A v e -
"
A m e n d m e n t T y p e s
" A d m i n i s t r a t i v e :
- M i n o r c h a n g e s
" F o r m a l :
- E v e r y t h i n g e l s e t h a t i s a l l o w a b l e
t h r o u g h t h e a m e n d m e n t p r o c e s s
" "
A m e n d m e n t C h a n g e s L i m i t a t i o n
" C h a n g e s n o t a l l o w e d t h r o u g h a n a m e n d m e n t :
- M a j o r s c o p e c h a n g e s t o m o d e l e d p r o j e c t s ( e . g . w i d e n
2 t o 4 l a n e s n e e d s t o b e 2 t o 6 l a n e s )
- A d d i n g n e w m a j o r s c o p e e l e m e n t s t h a t w o u l d n e e d
t o b e m o d e l e d ( e . g . I C w i d e n i n g p r o j e c t n o w i n c l u d e s
a n a u x l a n e )
- C h a n g i n g m o d e l e d y e a r s ( e . g . e x i s t i n g c o m p l e t i o n
d a t e i n 2 0 1 0 i s e x t e n d e d t o 2 0 1 3 )
- M a j o r p r o j e c t s c o p e c h a n g e s c a n o n l y b e m a d e e v e r y
2 y e a r s t h r o u g h a n R T I P U p d a t e
-aAvAunauolqucuiasau7dIS'1009SY-Ora "dit8661=dI1SOP°AII d11S900Z-dus90OZu6R'1114>>n rtls47:012Pdf19004
RrS'9CS 6503S POCZS
mows
6000/900Z
005"8£$ �I'Wirt 44304,10g4 ?RAH dlav,1g
zta`ts L0058£$ zta't LOCC900Z 208H da-d.LS
It6`ZS LZZ /� Vo teCOZ tRi8H ��us
mows DMsroaX Or£$
OM 0S8 puo s4unoudo 80219OOZ ldiS
II/0£/9 punj a6uoto
o; a;op
uoi;a/dudou 1IDL Purl woo. O a wo0'Sua a N Punj
.
ua x (OL000 :ONdd)
%/ ( �
90910nmISN
.Gowso elea uopeidwoo
Lamm
0 # Puaunci
�o a;ap
o; �opAu
: MO luPd
ovals C
1404314 Io3road
(Z L Ef L IU - 100Z+900Z Ad) dLL IBnePaj 990Z
S1N31NNIIRA00 AO NOIMOOSSV VINa0d11VJ N 13H1fiOS
atinOS A9 :11dOS
du kunoa R u3 j
()quo annegsnin) sa6ue43
•
•
" "
A d m i n i s t r a t i v e A m e n d m e n t s
" A l l o w a b l e M i n o r C h a n g e s :
- M i n o r d e s c r i p t i o n c h a n g e s t h a t d o n o t c h a n g e t h e
s c o p e o r c o n f l i c t w i t h t h e e n v i r o n m e n t a l d o c u m e n t
- T o t a l c o s t c h a n g e s l e s s t h a n 2 0 0 / 0 a n d b e l o w $ 2
m i l l i o n
- F u n d c h a n g e s a m o n g P E , R / W , o r C o n s t r u c t i o n
p h a s e s w i t h n o c h a n g e t o t h e t o t a l p r o j e c t c o s t
- L e a d a g e n c y c h a n g e s
- F u n d s w a p s b e t w e e n p r o j e c t s ( e . g . M o v i n g C M A Q
f r o m o n e p r o j e c t t o a n o t h e r a s l o n g a s t h e f u n d s a r e
a l r e a d y i n t h e T r i e n n i a l e l e m e n t
" "
A d m i n i s t r a t i v e A m e n d P r o c e s s
K e y A d m i n i s t r a t i v e A m e n d m e n t P r o c e s s i n g S t e p s :
1 . R C T C d e v e l o p s a m e n d m e n t p a c k a g e
2 . S C A G r e v i e w a n d a n a l y s i s
3 . S C A G C o n f o r m i t y s e c t i o n r e v i e w
4 . M a n d a t o r y p u b l i c r e v i e w p r o c e s s
5 . F i n a n c i a l p l a n f i n i s h e d - A m e n d m e n t p a c k a g e
c o m p l e t e d
6 . A m e n d m e n t s e n t t o C a ! t r a n s H Q f o r r e v i e w a n d
a p p r o v a l
7 . A m e n d m e n t s e n t t o f e d e r a l r e v i e w a g e n c i e s f o r
r e v i e w a n d a p p r o v a l ( F H W A , E P A , & F T A )
8 . F H W A a p p r o v e s f o r m a l R T I P a m e n d m e n t
1 t o 6 w e e k s
2 t o 4 w e e k s
N o t r e q u i r e d
N o t r e q u i r e d
N o t r e q u i r e d
4 w e e k s
N o t r e q u i r e d
N o t r e q u i r e d
T o t a l a p p r o v a l t i m e
i s a b o u t 2 m o n t h s
f r o m S C A G r e c e i p t
o f t h e a m e n d m e n t
"
"
A d m i n i s t r a t i v e A m e n d A p p r o v a
T r a n s p o r t a t i o n
4 e g u r o r a r k s p o r I n c o , n o m v e
A v ( g t i P n f . G o o d s t r i b a e m e n t j ' M a g l e v I M a i v r . R e g i v n a l C o r r i d o r f l a n n n g ,
" W e n s a n d P r o g r e r o ' s T e e A N c a E P . d v i s o r y C p r r t i n t t j a e ��' R e g i p n a i T r a n s p o r t a t i o n I m p r o v e m e n l , P r a g r a m
R e g i o n a l T r a n s p o r t a t i o n , P l a n S a u t t i e r n i T S A r b - 4 6 d i r e _ j _ T r a n s p o r t a t i o n F i n a n c e P r o g r a m
S t a t u s a f 2 0 0 4 R T I P A m e n d m e n t s
a
G i
t r t l
e V e ��i i z f i
} ~ " N i . , y -
` S ,
{ ! . . i +
k 0 ' 3 f F ��
�� ��3 r ����' ��.
4 r
��' ����'
r ���� J ^ " ^ ��*
����
��������5
������A ��j v A ��d " e 4 K e W : f&N i - i e m �� ����
�� � . Y i ��f v m ��1 L - ��. 4
��' ����i S i i ��
��
r ��E n n
" ��n ' N
y l ' A j y F I G 3 V V W k l ) ' Z ,
A m e n d m e n t S t a t u s
P o s t e d a t :
h t t p : w w w . s c a g . c a . g o v / r t i p
" .
F o r m a l A m e n d m e n t s
" R e q u i r e s b o t h C a l t r a n s H Q a n d F H W A
a p p r o v a l
" R e q u i r e s f o r m a l c o n f i r m a t i o n o f n o
i m p a c t t o c o n f o r m i t y f i n d i n g
" R e q u i r e s 3 0 d a y f o r m a l p u b l i c r e v i e w
p e r i o d
" M a y t a k e 4 t o 6 m o n t h s f o r a p p r o v a l t o
o c c u r
"
F o r m a l A m e n d m e n t s
" A l l o w a b l e P r o j e c t C h a n g e s :
- C o s t c h a n g e s t h a t e x c e e d 2 0 0 / 0 o f t o t a l p r o j e c t c o s t a n d a r e e q u a l
t o o r g r e a t e r t h a n $ 2 m i l l i o n
" $ 1 0 0 m i l l i o n t o t a l p r o j e c t c o s t i n c r e a s e s b y $ 2 m i l l i o n = F o r m a l
a m e n d m e n t
- M i n o r l i m i t c h a n g e s : P o s s i b l y u p t o % m i l e f o r S t a t e H i g h w a y
S y s t e m p r o j e c t s ( e . g . I C i m p r o v e m e n t s ) d e p e n d i n g o n o v e r a l l
p r o j e c t d i s t a n c e
- A d d i n g f e d e r a l f u n d s t o t h e p r o j e c t i n t h e 1 s t 3 y e a r s o f t h e R T I P
( T r i e n n i a l E l e m e n t )
- A d d i n g n e w e x e m p t p r o j e c t ( e . g . f e d e r a l l y f u n d e d t r a n s i t p r o j e c t )
o r n e w e x e m p t p h a s e ( e . g . P E a d d e d t o a n I C w i d e n i n g p r o j e c t )
- M a j o r d e s c r i p t i o n / s c o p e & l i m i t c h a n g e s O N L Y t o n o n m o d e l e d
p r o j e c t s
- A d d e d n o t e : A l l c h a n g e s m u s t b e e x p l a i n e d t o F H W A
Formal Amendment Processin
Key Formal Amendment Processing Steps:
1. RCTC develops Amendment package
2. SCAG review and analysis
3.
4.
S.
SCAG Conformity section review
Mandatory public review process
Financial plan finished - Amendment package
completed
6. Amendment sent to Caltrans HQ for review and
approval
7. Amendment sent to federal review agencies for
review and approval (FHWA, EPA, & FTA)
8. FHWA approves formal RTIP amendment
Size of amendment impacts review and approval
time
2006 RTIP Amendment 01 will start late August
2006. FHWA approval for the "Formal"
amendment will be during February 2007
1 to 6 weeks
2 to 4 weeks
2 to 4 weeks
30 days
2 weeks
4 weeks
4 weeks
Total approval time
4 to 6 months
"
"
F o r m a l A m e n d A p p r o v a l
I E Z ; r a R M I l n 1 3 3 T 7 7 1 3 1 P r m r 7 7 / 1 1 1 x 7 " T I
A v i o t j b n j ` C p o d s , M o v e m e n t M p g l e v j r , O p j o r . R e g i o n a l C o r r i d o r P l a n n i n g - `
" R I f f i n a a n d P r o g r . m s s T a c l i n i c a l A d v i s o r y C o m m t t t 0 . 1 : R e g i c n s l T r a n s p o h a t l o n I m p r o v e m e n t P r o g r a m
R e g i o r f a l : T r a n s p o d c 4 l o n , P l a n . ��. ; S o u t f i e r n C a l ' r f o r r i . R e g i o n a l l T S A r c h d e c t i e - . 7 r a n s p e r t a t i o n , F i n a n c e P r o g r a m
S t a t u s o f 2 0 0 4 R T I P A m e n d m e n t s
T r a n s p o r t a t i o n , , , ,
W O
U 4 - 1 9 ' l
i ��e l a s O r a n g e R l v e r s i d e ; S a n
d a d ; a ��d : w e n l u r ' a C o u r t l y - . ;
. o s A n g e l e s i S I 1 0 C p U p t l a f e i e Y N n p e 1 0 1 ' .
' . o s A [ i g e l e �� , O r a i r g e �� R r v e r s i d e 3 a n d
e r ��a r q ��y r o o C u u r ��! a s . . . . .
A m e n d m e n t S t a t u s
P o s t e d a t :
h t t p : w w w . s c a g . c a . g o v / r t i p
"
A g e n c y A c t i o n s
" S u b m i t n e e d e d c h a n g e s b y
m a r k i n g u p t h e T I P s h e e t
" P r o v i d e s u p p o r t i n g m a t e r i a l s a s
r e q u e s t e d
" D o n ' t w a i t t o n o t i f y R C T C o f
n e e d e d c h a n g e s
" R e q u e s t e d c h a n g e s m a y r e q u i r e
d i s c u s s i o n w i t h F H W A p r i o r t o t h e
a m e n d m e n t s u b m i s s i o n
"
"
D e v e l o p i n g t h e A m e n d m e n t
R t v e r a n l e . C a u i W . - r l m e n e h r i e n t n 2 2
P r o j e c t N a r r a t i v e
F Y 2 0 0 4 , 2 0 0 5 - F Y 2 0 0 0 9 2 0 1 0
M a n n 2 r , X . 5
P R O J E C T F I L E : S c r e e n ( M o d i f i e d )
N C N 3 1 : G R A D E S E P A
N D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A
t a r t t y P i n g a r r F a a d i k ; r r x z D F E a d k A q u n t a r e m t i + i i
O n c e c h a n g e s s u b m i t t e d :
1 . D e t e r m i n e t h e a m e n d m e n t
t y p e A d m i n i s t r a t i v e o r
F o r m a l
M a k e r e q u i r e d c h a n g e s t o
t h e R T I P d a t a b a s e
C o m p l e t e t h e r e q u i r e d
n a r r a t i v e a n a l y s i s f o r S C A G
S u b m i t r e q u i r e d s u p p o r t
m a t e r i a l s
D e v e l o p t h e f i n a n c i a l p l a n
S u b m i t t h e a m e n d m e n t t o
S C A G
" "
R T I P a n d R T P C o n s i s t e n c y
" N e w p r o j e c t s o r p r o j e c t c h a n g e s
r e q u i r i n g a f o r m a l a m e n d m e n t w i l l
b e c h e c k e d a g a i n s t c u r r e n t R T P f o r
c o n s i s t e n c y
"
- - - - - R T P C o n s i s t e n c y R e q u i r e m e n t s
1 . P r o j e c t l i m i t s c o n s i s t e n t b e t w e e n R T P a n d R T I P ?
2 . P r o j e c t s c o p e c o n s i s t e n t b e t w e e n R T P a n d R T I P ?
r A u x i l i a r y
S R " 8 1 E B
O r a n g e C o u n t y L i n e
S R " 7 1
A d d a u x i l i a r y l a n e E B w h i c h d r o p s a t G r e e n
R i v e r , a n o t h e r e x t e n d s t o S R - 7 1
$ 2 9 . 1 2 0 . 0 0 0
r .
2 0 0 7
t I C / R a m p s
1 4 0
a R " 7 9 1 B e a u m o n t
A v e
b t w n 6 t h S t & 1 s t S t
R e c o n s t r u c t i n t e r c h a n g e l r a m p s
$ 1 4 , 5 0 0 , 0 0 0
e
2 0 1 5
�%
2 0 2 0
B e a u m o n t
W e s t e r n C o T U M F
t I C / R a m p s
I . 1 0 -
a t 8 t h S t
b t w n R a m s e y S t &
L i n c o l n S t
R c o n s t r u c t i n t e r c h a n g e l r a m p s
$ 2 , 9 0 0 , 0 0 0
�%
2 0 1 1
I '
2 0 2 0
B a n n i n g
W e s t e r n C o T U M F
r I C l R a m p s
I - 1 0
a t A v e 5 0
C o t r u c t n e w i n t e r c h a n g e
6 R E F 1
2 0 0 4
2 0 0 6
C o a c h e l l a
C V A G
r I C l R a m p s
I - 1 0
-
a t C 5 f i m e s a ' ; - '
��B I v d l S a r r d a l w o o d O r
b t w n 7 1 G S t �
-
S a n d a l w o o d O r
R e c o n s t r u o t i n t e r c h a n g a l f a m p s
$ 2 9 0 0 0 , 0 0 0
; 2 0 0 8
2 0 0 8
C a l i m e s a ,
. . . ,
W e s t e r n C o T U M F
_
t I C / R a m p s
1 - 1 0
M c N a u g h l o n P k w y
( a p p r o x . 3 . 3 8 m i e 1 0
D i l l o n R d l
C o n s t r u c t i n t e r c h a n g e
$ 2 0 , 0 0 0 , 0
2 0 0 7
2 0 0 8
C o a c h e l l a
S t a t e H i g h w a y s
r I C / R a m p s
M O
a t P e n n s y l v a n i a A v e
b t w n 6 t h S t � 3 r d S t
R e c o n s t r u c t I n t e r c h a n g e l r a m p s
$ 1 4 , 5 0 0 , 0 0 0
�% 2 0 1 5
�%
0 2 0
B e a u m o n t
W e s t e r n C o T U M F
t I C / R a m p s
1 - 1 0
a t P o r t o l a A v e
b t w n D i n a h S h o r e �
V a r n e r
C o n s t r u c t n e w I C ( 4 l a n e s ) a n d r a m p s I n c l .
b r i d g e o v e r U P R R � V a r n e r r e a l i g n m e n t
$ 1 9 , 7 5 0 , 0 0 0
2 0
P a l m O e s e r t
3 . P r o j e c t c o s t s c o n s i s t e n t b e t w e e n R T P a n d R T I P ?
4 . P r o j e c t t i m i n g c o n s i s t e n t b e t w e e n R T P a n d R T I P ?
P a s t i n c o n s i s t e n c i e s b e t w e e n R T P a n d R T I P h a v e r e s u l t e d i n e x p a n d e d
R T P p r o j e c t d e t a i l s f o r t h e 2 0 0 7 R T P
SSA
SSA
SSA
seA
saA
seA
saA
saA
saA
ape6-e ue 6upeaules fiq sonny films
asearaap pue'flll!gow anoduq'uapsseuoa
aonpu II!m uopeedef aped NI
6ulssora
ape6-n ue 6upeu!wpa fiq spumy dopes
aseassap pus 4llpgow anoduq'uopsa6uoa
aonpat ems uopeedas aped 641
SSA-
saA
Sae
saA
SSA
SSA
SSA
saA
saA
saA
Pups=
aped -le ue 6upeu!wpa 6q speeey finales
*stamp put 'know anoduq vopsaduoo
aonpat Ipm uopmelas aped a41
Pdssou
aped -le ue 6unvades fig spumy fiesles
aseanap pue Is = anodwl vopsa6uoa
aonpa il!m uopeedas aped Pa
SSA
SSA
SSA
SSA
SSA
dissom aped a filales
anmdw! pue'fieicpsu anoldw! vopsa6uoo
eonpal p!m uopendas sped ay1
saA
SSA
saA
saA
SSA
dessmo aped le filales
anodwl pue dessiow anodua voasa6uoa
aanpat p!m uopeedas aped ay1
saA
saA
saA
SSA
&estop
ape6-4t ue 6upeu!wpa fig spent' fipales as
aseadsp pus'finpgow anoduq vopsa6uoa
aonpat plm uopeedes aped ay1
saA
SSA
saA
SSA
6ulssaa LO
aped -le ue 6upeuwpa fiq some Slaps
anodes sue ding= snadu4 4ao1sa6uoa
aonpat Ipm uopeudas aped mu
r/ap
�rYaNisegads?
fj
P?aNPve,+AsplmallPNaJ`/.:
U08
cs
rus
rows!'
aaOUaa'GS
oaOWA
°Wont
ombatts
aagnacros
aagaats
oecoaess
.1'
Bakmeepsi6ogg
ADuaiaspuoD dlli_Pue dal]
•
•
" "
R T I P - & R T P N o t C o n s i s t e n t ?
" R T I P p r o j e c t d e e m e d i n c o n s i s t e n t a g a i n s t R T P
i f :
- L i m i t s / c r o s s s t r e e t s a r e s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t
- D i f f e r e n t s c o p e :
" R T P = W i d e n 2 t o 4 t h r o u g h l a n e s
" R T I P = W i d e n 2 t o 6 t h r o u g h l a n e s
- S t a t e d c o s t s b e t w e e n R T I P a n d R T P a r e g r e a t e r t h a n
1 0 %
- P r o j e c t s t a r t a n d e n d t i m i n g i s s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t :
" R T I P : S t a r t = 2 0 0 8 & C o m p l e t i o n = 2 0 1 5
" R T P : S t a r t = 2 0 2 0 & C o m p l e t i o n = 2 0 2 7
" I n c o n s i s t e n c y w i l l t r i g g e r S C A G t o a c c o m p l i s h
a n R T P a m e n d m e n t
Lianllap pa[oad
Aepp Aenn ampoue auknaq Minn dIlll pue dill ma -
:13eduui neaanp
pagsilgeisa Apeap you sluat.upuauup dIlb gv!nn
uoipun[uoa ui quampuauae dill gsilcluaoppe ssaaoad -
aplduaoa sgluow ue3 luampuauae dill -
an33o aneq Minn luampuauae dill -
quauipuauue laa[oad dI121 eLn ui pasodoad
sa6ueya gp'nn lualsisuoDui aq punoi si dill �I
•
dill' uodn dill
• •
" "
P r o g r a m m i n g c h a n g e s - P a r t - 2 -
" N e x t m o n t h - T h e S A F E T E A L U g r a c e y e a r
& t h e r e s u l t i n g p r o g r a m m i n g L o c k d o w n :
- M o r e d e t a i l s o n t h e 1 s t Q u a r t e r l y A m e n d m e n t
t o t h e 2 0 0 6 R T I P
- R e v i e w i m p a c t o f t h e 2 0 0 4 R T P l a p s e i n J u l y
2 0 0 7 a n d t h e r e s u l t i n g p r o g r a m m i n g l o c k
-
d o w n t h a t w i l l o c c u r f r o m J u l 2 0 0 7 u n t i l
2 0 0 7 R T P i s a p p r o v e d ( 6 - 8 m o n t h s )
- P r o g r a m m i n g l o c k - d o w n = N o f o r m a l R T I P
a m e n d m e n t s a l l o w e d
- E x a m i n e w h y t h e 2 n d Q u a r t e r l y A m e n d m e n t t o
t h e 2 0 0 6 R T I P m a y n o t b e f e a s i b l e
" "
R T I P - P r o g r a m m i n g C h a n g e s
Q u e s t i o n s ?
" A G E N D A I T E M 1 1
"
"
R I V E R S I D E C O U N T Y T R A N S P O R T A T I O N C O M M I S S I O N
D A T E :
J u n e 1 9 , 2 0 0 6
T O :
T e c h n i c a l A d v i s o r y C o m m i t t e e
F R O M :
K e n L o b e c k , S t a f f A n a l y s t
T H R O U G H :
S h i r l e y M e d i n a
P r o g r a m M a n a g e r
S U B J E C T :
P M 2 . 5 P r o j e c t L e v e l C o n f o r m i t y a n d H o t S p o t A n a l y s e s S u m m a r y
S T ' . A F F R E C O M M E N D A T I O N :
T h i s i t e m i s f o r t h e T A C t o : R e c e i v e a n d f i l e a s u m m a r y o f t h e c u r r e n t d i s c u s s i o n
c o n c e r n i n g P M 2 . 5 H o t S p o t A n a l y s i s R e q u i r e m e n t s
B A C K G R O U N D I N F O R M A T I O N :
1
O r l i M a r c h 1 0 m 2 0 0 6 t h e E n v i r o n m e n t a l P r o t e c t i o n A g e n c y ( E P A ) p u b l i s h e d a f i n a l r u l e
t h a t e s t a b l i s h e s t h e t r a n s p o r t a t i o n c o n f o r m i t y c r i t e r i a a n d p r o c e d u r e s f o r d e t e r m i n i n g
w h i c h t r a n s p o r t a t i o n p r o j e c t s m u s t b e a n a l y z e d f o r l o c a l a i r q u a l i t y i m p a c t s i n P M 2 . 5
n o o n a t t a i n m e n t a n d m a i n t e n a n c e a r e a s . T h e i m p a c t o f t h e P M 2 . 5 r u l i n g w i l l a f f e c t n o n
e x e m p t p r o j e c t s i n t h e S o u t h C o a s t A i r B a s i n m o v i n g t h r o u g h t h e N E P A p r o c e s s .
F H W A , E P A , S C A G , C a ! t r a n s a n d t h e C T C s a r e w o r k i n g t o u n d e r s t a n d p r o j e c t s o f a i r
q u a l i t y c o n c e r n ( P O A Q C ) t h a t w i l l r e q u i r e a P M 2 . 5 H o t S p o t A n a l y s i s a n d w h i c h
p r o j e c t s a r e c l e a r l y e x e m p t f r o m a P M 2 . 5 H o t S p o t A n a l y s i s , r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s f o r t h e
p r o j e c t s p o n s o r , a n d S C A G ' s r o l e t h r o u g h i n t e r a g e n c y c o n s u l t a t i o n . A t t a c h e d a r e a
F r e q u e n t l y A s k e d Q u e s t i o n s ( F A Q ) s u m m a r y s h e e t . f o r P M 2 . 5 t h a t p r o v i d e s f u r t h e r
g u i d a n c e c o n c e r n i n g t h e P M 2 . 5 r e q u i r e m e n t a n d a d r a f t i n t e r a g e n c y c o n s u l t a t i o n f o r m .
A t t a c h m e n t s :
1 . P M 2 . 5 P r o j e c t L e v e l C o n f o r m i t y a n d H o t S p o t A n a l y s e s - F r e q u e n t l y A s k e d Q u e s t i o n s
2 . D r a f t F o r m : P M 2 . 5 C o n f o r m i t y H o t S p o t A n a l y s i s - P r o j e c t S u m m a r y f o r I n t e r a g e n c y C o n s u l t a t i o n
PM2.5 Project -Level Conformity and Hot -Spot Analyses
Frequently Asked Questions
1. When does PM2.5 project -level conformity apply for FHWA projects in PM2.5
nonattainment and maintenance areas?
A project -level conformity determination will be required prior to the first action to
adopt, accept, approve, or fund a non-exempt phase of a FHWA project in a PM2.5
nonattainment or maintenance area on or after April 5, 2006.
2. How does PM2.5 project -level conformity apply for different types of projects?
Exempt projects. Exempt projects are those listed in 40 CFR 93.126 and traffic signal
synchronization projects under 40 CFR 93.128. These projects are exempt from project -
level conformity, and PM2.5 project -level conformity determinations are not required.
Projects of local air quality concern. Projects of air quality concern are those types of
projects that are listed in 40 CFR 93.123(b)(1). PM2.5 project -level conformity
determinations that meet all applicable criteria (see 40 CFR 93.109) are required for these
types of projects, and they must include a hot -spot analysis.
Nonexempt projects that are not of local air quality concern. This would include projects
that are not of the type listed in 40 CFR 93.123(b)(1), but are also not exempt. PM2.5
project -level conformity determinations that meet all applicable criteria (see 40 CFR
93.109) are required for these types of projects, but they do not have to include a hot -spot
analysis. The project -level conformity determination should document that the project is
not of the type identified in 40 CFR 93.123(b)(1), and EPA has determined that such
projects meet the Clean Air Act's requirements without any further hot -spot analysis.
3. At what phase in project development and how often must project -level
conformity be determined for PM2.5 areas?
FHWA must make a project -level conformity determination prior to its first action to
adopt, accept, approve or fund a non-exempt phase of a project that occurs on or after .
April 5, 2006. In most cases project -level conformity determinations are made as part of
the NEPA process, and must be completed prior to adoption of the CE, FONSI, or ROD.
Conformity must be redetermined only if one of the following occurs: a significant
change in the project's design concept and scope; three years elapse since the most recent
major step to advance the project; or initiation of a supplemental environmental
document for air quality purposes (40 CFR 93.104(d)). Major steps include: NEPA
process completion, start of final design, acquisition of a significant portion of the right-
of-way, and construction (including Federal approval of plans, specifications, and
estimates.)
4. When should PM2.5 project -level conformity be determined for projects that are .
already under development?
If the project still requires a FHWA approval or authorization, a project -level conformity
determination will be required, prior to the first such action on or after April`5, 2006, even
if the project has already completed the NEPA process, or for multi -phase projects, even
if other phases of the project have already been constructed. After project -level
conformity is determined for a project, a new conformity determination is only required
under the scenarios discussed in 40 CFR 93.104(d). If no new FHWA approval or
authorization is required for a project on or after April 5, 2006, then project -level
conformity will not be required.
5. How should PM2.5 project -level conformity be determinedformulti-phase
projects that are already under construction?
If any phase of the project still requires a FHWA approval or authorization, a project -
level conformity determination will be required prior to the first such action on or after
April 5, 2006. In this case, the required PM2.5 hot -spot analysis should focus on those
portions of the project area that are not already under construction or are not completed
and require a new FHWA approval or authorization.
6. For a PM2.5 project -level conformity determination that is not being made as
part of the initial NEPA process for a project, how should the conformity
determination be documented?
The project -level conformity documentation prepared by the project sponsor and the
project -level conformity determination made by the FHWA Division Office can' be
documented in a format that is consistent with other documents in the project files or
Administrative Record. When appropriate, it is recommended that this project -level
conformity determination be made in conjunction with the re-evaluation required under
23 CFR 771.129.
7. For a PM2.5 project -level conformity determination: that is not being made as
part of the initial NEPA process for a project, how should the public
involvement requirement of 40 CFR 93.105(e) be met?
Section 93.105(e) of the conformity regulations state that agencies shall "provide
opportunity for public involvement in conformity determinations for projects where
otherwise required by law." :However, the regulations do not contain specific
requirements for the length of the public comment period. Consideration should be given
to the scale and scope of the analysis supporting the project -level conformity
determination when determining the length of the public comment period.
Project sponsors must provide the opportunity for public review and comment of project-
level conformity analyses for projects of air quality concern. The project• sponsor should'
consult with the interagency partners to determine the extent of public involvement
"
n e c e s s a r y t o m e e t 4 0 C F R 9 3 . 1 0 5 ( e ) . F o r p r o j e c t s t h a t a r e n o t o f a i r q u a l i t y c o n c e r n , a
c o m m e n t p e r i o d i s o n l y r e q u i r e d f o r p r o j e c t - l e v e l c o n f o r m i t y d e t e r m i n a t i o n s i f s u c h a
c o m m e n t p e r i o d w o u l d h a v e b e e n r e q u i r e d u n d e r N E P A .
8 . A s a n o p t i o n i n a d v a n c e o f a p r o j e c t - l e v e l c o n f o r m i t y d e t e r m i n a t i o n t h a t i s n o t
b e i n g m a d e a s p a r t o f t h e i n i t i a l N E P A p r o c e s s f o r a p r o j e c t , i f a l i s t o f p r o j e c t s
t h a t a r e n o t o f a i r q u a l i t y c o n c e r n i s m a d e a v a i l a b l e f o r p u b l i c r e v i e w a n d
c o m m e n t , d o e s t h i s s a t i s f y t h e p u b l i c i n v o l v e m e n t r e q u i r e m e n t s f o r l a t e r p r o j e c t -
l e v e l c o n f o r m i t y d e t e r m i n a t i o n s ?
Y e s . A l i s t o f p r o j e c t s t h a t h a v e b e e n d i s c u s s e d t h r o u g h i n t e r a g e n c y c o n s u l t a t i o n a s n o t
b e i n g o f a i r q u a l i t y c o n c e r n c o u l d b e m a d e a v a i l a b l e t o t h e p u b l i c a n d m e e t t h e
r e q u i r e m e n t s o f p u b l i c i n v o l v e m e n t f o r p r o j e c t l e v e l c o n f o r m i t y . I f t h i s o p t i o n i s
s e l e c t e d , t h e p r o j e c t s w o u l d n e e d t o b e s p e c i f i c a l l y d e s c r i b e d a n d a s h o r t e x p l a n a t i o n o f
w h y t h e p r o j e c t s a r e n o t o f a i r q u a l i t y c o n c e r n m a y b e n e e d e d , a s a p p r o p r i a t e t o a l l o w f o r
s u f f i c i e n t p u b l i c c o m m e n t . I n t e r a g e n c y c o n s u l t a t i o n s h o u l d b e u s e d t o d e t e r m i n e t h e l e v e l
o f d e t a i l a n d t h e e x t e n t o f p u b l i c i n v o l v e m e n t n e c e s s a r y t o m e e t 4 0 C F R 9 3 . 1 0 5 ( e ) f o r t h e
l i s t o f p r o j e c t s .
9 . H o w m u s t t h e M P O b e i n v o l v e d i n i n t e r a g e n c y c o n s u l t a t i o n f o r p r o j e c t - l e v e l
c o n f o r m i t y d e t e r m i n a t i o n s ?
U n d e r 4 0 C F R 9 3 . 1 0 5 , M P O s m u s t b e i n v o l v e d i n t h e e s t a b l i s h m e n t o f i n t e r a g e n c y
c o n s u l t a t i o n p r o c e d u r e s f o r p r o j e c t - l e v e l c o n f o r m i t y d e t e r m i n a t i o n s . H o w e v e r , t h e e x t e n t
o f M P O i n v o l v e m e n t i n a n y s p e c i f i c p r o j e c t - l e v e l d e t e r m i n a t i o n i s n o t d e f i n e d b y t h e
t r a n s p o r t a t i o n c o n f o r m i t y r e g u l a t i o n . I n t e r a g e n c y c o n s u l t a t i o n s h o u l d b e u s e d t o d i s c u s s
t h e r o l e o f t h e M P O i n p r o j e c t - l e v e l c o n f o r m i t y d e t e r m i n a t i o n s . I n a d d i t i o n , M P O d a t a
m a y b e v a l u a b l e i n h o t - s p o t a n a l y s e s , e s p e c i a l l y r e g a r d i n g r e g i o n a l t r a n s p o r t a t i o n a n d
t r a f f i c c o n d i t i o n s a n d e m i s s i o n s .
1 0 . A r e t h e e x a m p l e s i n t h e p r e a m b l e t o t h e M a r c h 1 0 , 2 0 0 6 r u l e ( 7 1 F R 1 2 4 9 1 ) t h e
o n l y p r o j e c t s t h a t a r e o f a i r q u a l i t y c o n c e r n o r c a n o t h e r c a s e s a p p l y ?
T h e e x a m p l e s i n t h e p r e a m b l e a r e n o t e x c l u s i v e a n d a r e n o t i n t e n d e d t o c o v e r a l l c a s e s . I f
a p a r t i c u l a r p r o j e c t d o e s n o t f i t a n y o f t h e e x a m p l e s , i n t e r a g e n c y c o n s u l t a t i o n s h o u l d b e
u s e d t o d e t e r m i n e d i f t h e p r o j e c t i s o f a i r q u a l i t y c o n c e r n a s d e f i n e d i n 4 0 C F R
9 3 . 1 2 3 ( b ) ( 1 ) .
1 1 . W h a t p e r c e n t a g e o f t o t a l t r u c k s s h o u l d b e c o n s i d e r e d d i e s e l t r u c k s ? C a n t o t a l
t r u c k s b e u s e d i n s t e a d ?
A s d i s c u s s e d i n t h e p r e a m b l e t o t h e M a r c h 1 0 , 2 0 0 5 r u l e ( 7 1 F R 1 2 4 9 1 ) , P M 2 . 5 a n d
P M 1 0 h o t - s p o t a n a l y s e s a r e t a r g e t e d t o p r o j e c t s t h a t i n v o l v e a s i g n i f i c a n t n u m b e r o f o r a
s i g n i f i c a n t i n c r e a s e i n d i e s e l v e h i c l e s . I n a r e a s w h e r e t r u c k v o l u m e d a t a m a y n o t e a s i l y
b e d i s a g g r e g a t e d , t o t a l t r u c k v o l u m e s c o u l d b e u s e d . I n t e r a g e n c y c o n s u l t a t i o n s h o u l d b e
u s e d t o d i s c u s s d a t a a n d t h e a p p r o p r i a t e w a y t o c a t e g o r i z e d i e s e l v e h i c l e s .
12. For the example of 125,000 AADT and 8%diesel trucks, is this the existing
levels, the open -to -traffic levels, or the design year levels?
The example could apply to any of these scenarios. In some cases, there may be existing
violations which must not be worsened, so the existing traffic levels may be applicable.
As discussed in the preamble to the July 1, 2004 rule (69 FR 40057), the hot -spot analysis
should examine the year(s) during the time frame of the plan in which project emissions,
in addition to background regional emissions in the project area, are expected to be the
highest. In some cases, this may be when the project opens to traffic, but in other cases
may be the design year or another year where peak emissions are anticipated.
13. One of the examples of a "project of air quality concern" from the preamble to
the March 10, 2006 rule (71 FR 12491) is "a project on a new highway or
expressway that serves a significant volume of diesel truck traffic, such as
facilities with greater than 125,000 annual average daily traffic (AADT) and 8°/a
or more of such AADT is diesel truck traffic." This amounts to a truck AADT of
10,000. Could a project on a new highway that has a truck AADT of 10,000 also
be an example of a "project of air quality concern," regardless of the total
AADT or percentage of diesel trucks?
Yes. A project that has a truck AADT of 10,000 would also be an example of a "project
of air quality concern." For example, a project may have a diesel truck percentage less
than 8%, but the over AADT is higher than 125,000, resulting in over 10,000 diesel truck
AADT. Also, a project may have an AADT less than 125,000, but a truck percentage
over 8%, resulting in over 10,000 diesel truck AADT. It is important to note that the
examples were included in the preamble to the March 10, 2006 final rule to illustrate a
typical project of air quality concern. The numbers included in the examples should not
be interpreted as required thresholds.
14. Would any nonexempt project on a facility with 125,000 AADT and 8% diesel
trucks be a "project of air quality concern," or would only a project that
significantly increased the number of diesel vehicles on such a facility be a
"project of air quality concern?"
As discussed in the examples in the preamble to the March 10, 2006 rule (71 FR 12491),
40 CFR 93.123(b)(1)(i) should be interpreted as applying only to projects that would
involve a significant increase in the number of diesel transit busses and diesel trucks on
an existing highway facility. The example of 125,000 AADT and 8% diesel trucks is
intended for new facilities, not as an example of a "significant increase." This is
consistent with 93.123(b)(1)(iv) which defines projects of air quality concern based on a
significant increase the number of diesel vehicles due to terminal or transfer project
expansion. A "significant increase" in the number of diesel transit busses and diesel
trucks under either 40 CFR 93.123(b)(1)(ii) or (iv) would need to be determined through
interagency consultation.
PM Conformity Hot Spot Analysis
Project Summary for Interagency Consultation
1The purpose of this form is to provide sufficient information to allow the Transportation
Conformity Working Group (TCWG) to determine if a project requires a project -level PM hot
spot analysis pursuant to Federal Conformity Regulations.
The form is not required under the following circumstances:
1. The project sponsor determines that a project -level PM hot spot analysis is required or
otherwise elects to perform the analysis; or
2. The project does not require a project -level PM hot spot analysis since it:
a. Is exempt pursuant to 40 CFR 93.126; or
b. Is a traffic signal synchronization project under 40 CFR 93.128; or
c. Uses no Federal funds AND requires no Federal approval; or
d. Is located in a Federal PM attainment area (note: PM10 and PM2.5 areas differ).
Projects other than those listed above may or may not need a project -level PM hot spot analysis
depending on whether it is considered a "Project of Air Quality Concern" (POAQC), and should
be brought before the TCWG for a determination.
It is the responsibility of the project sponsor to ensure that the form is filled out completely and
provides a sufficient level of detail for the TCWG to make an informed decision on whether or
not a project requires a project -level PM hot spot analysis. For example, the TCWG will be
reviewing the effects of the project, and thus part of the required information includes build/no
build traffic data. It is also the responsibility of the project sponsor to ensure a representative is
available to discuss the project at the TCWG meeting if necessary.
!Instructions:
11) Fill out form in its entirety.
j2) Be sure to include MPO ID#. See http://scaq.ca.gov/rtip/ if necessary.
13) Submit completed form to your local Transportation Commission who will submit it to
the MPO.
i
jThe TCWG meets the fourth Tuesday of each month at SCAG Headquarters, 818 W. 7th Street,
12th Floor, Los Angeles, CA 90017. Participation is also available via teleconference. Call (213)
'236-1800 prior to meeting to get the call -in number and pass -code.
Forms must be submitted by the second Tuesday of the month to be considered at that month's
TCWG meeting.
"
"
P M C o n f o r m i t y H o t S p o t A n a l y s i s P r o j e c t S u m m a r y f o r I n t e r a g e n c y C o n s u l t a t i o n
P r o j e c t D e s c r i p t i o n f r o m T I P , R T P , a n d / o r p r o j e c t d o c u m e n t s R T I P I D # :
' T y p e o f p r o j e c t s e e l i s t b e l o w
C o u n t y :
N a r r a t i v e L o c a t i o n / R o u t e & P o s t m i l e s :
C a l t r a n s P r o j e c t s E A # :
L e a d A g e n c y :
C o n t a c t P e r s o n
P h o n e #
F a x #
E m a i l
; D e c i s i o n D e s i r e d C h e c k a p p r o p r i a t e b o x b e l o w
P M 2 . 5
M A Y B E P r o j e c t o f A i r Q u a l i t y
C o n c e r n
N O T P r o j e c t o f A i r Q u a l i t y '
C o n c e r n
P M 1 0
M A Y B E P r o j e c t o f A i r Q u a l i t y
C o n c e r n
N O T P r o j e c t o f A i r Q u a l i t y
C o n c e r n
F e d e r a l A c t i o n f o r w h i c h P M A n a l y s i s i s N e e d e d C h e c k a p p r o p r i a t e b o x a n d d e s c r i b e i n C o m m e n t s b e l o w
C a t e g o r i c a l
E x c l u s i o n
( N E P A )
E A o r
D r a f t
E I S
F O N S I o r
F i n a l E I S
P S & E o r
C o n s t r u c t i o n
O t h e r
S c h e d u l e d D a t e o f F e d e r a l A c t i o n :
' C u r r e n t P r o g r a m m i n
D a t e s a s a p p r o p r i a t e
P E / E n v i r o n m e n t a l
E N G R O W
C O N
S t a r t
'
I
I
E n d
P r o j e c t P u r p o s e a n d N e e d ( S u m m a r y ) : A t t a c h a d d i t i o n a l s h e e t s a s n e c e s s a r y
S u r r o u n d i n g L a n d U s e / T r a f f i c G e n e r a t o r s ( e s p e c i a l l y e f f e c t o n d i e s e l t r a f f i c )
B u i l d a n d N o B u i l d L O S , A A D T , % t r u c k s , t r u c k A A D T o f p r o p o s e d f a c i l i t y ( o p e n i n g y e a r )
B u i l d a n d N o B u i l d L O S , A A D T , % t r u c k s , t r u c k A A D T o f p r o p o s e d f a c i l i t y ( R T P h o r i z o n y e a r o r d e s i g n y e a r )
P M 1 0 / 2 . 5 C o n f o r m i t y H o t S p o t P r o j e c t S u m m a r y F o r m
C o n t i n u e d o n n e x t p a g e
If facility is an interchange(s) or intersection(s), Build and No Build cross -street AADT, % trucks, truck AADT
(opening year)
If facility is an interchange (s) or intersection(s), Build and No Build cross -street AADT, % trucks, truck AADT
(RTP horizon year):
Describe potential traffic redistribution effects of congestion relief
Comments/Explanation/Details
Attach additional sheets as necessary; include narrative reason why POAQC or Not POAQC decision is appropriate
TYPE OF PROJECT:
New state highway
New regionally significant street
New interchange
Intersection channelization
Roadway realignment
Bus, rail, or inter -modal facility/terminal/transfer point
Truck weight/inspection station
At or affects location identified in the SIP as a site of actual or possible violation of NAAQS
Change to existing state highway
Change to existing regionally significant street
Reconfigure existing interchange
Intersection signalization
REFERENCE:
Criteria for Projects of Air Quality Concern (40 CFR 93.123(b)(1)) — PMio and PM16 Hot Spots
New or expanded highway projects that have a significant number of or significant increase in diesel
vehicles;
Projects affecting intersections that are at Level -of -Service D, E, or F with a significant number of
diesel vehicles, or those that will change to Level -of -Service D, E, or F because of increased traffic .
volumes from a significant number of diesel vehicles related to the project;
New bus and rail terminals and transfer points than have a significant number of diesel vehicles
congregating at a single location;
Expanded bus and rail terminals and transfer points that significantly increase the number of diesel
vehicles congregating at a single location; and
Projects in or affecting locations, areas, or categories of sites which are identified in the PMI0 or
PM2.5 applicable implementation plan or implementation plan submission, as appropriate, as sites of
violation or possible violation.
•
Version: 6/13/2006
" A G E N D A I T E M 1 2
"
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMM/SS/ON
DATE:
June 19, 2006
TO:
Technical Advisory Committee
FROM:
Shirley Medina, Program Manager
SUBJECT:
Transportation Enhancement Projects
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
That the TAC receive and file this item.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
The Transportation Enhancement (TE) projects are programmed in the 2006 STIP
as identified in the attachment. Three projects are programmed in the 2006 STIP
for construction in Fiscal Year 2006/07. These projects should have approved
'environmental documents and in the design phase.
As previously indicated, TE projects that are ready for their allocations prior to the
year they are programmed can request an advance allocation. Projects that are not
ready for their allocation in the year programmed can ask for one-time extension,
with the maximum time of twelve months. The extension request must
demonstrate the delay of the project was due to circumstances beyond their
control. Approvals of extension requests are not guaranteed. If the California
Transportation Commission (CTC) determines that the reason for the request is not
justified, they will simply deny the request and the funds would lapse into a future
year (last two years of the STIP cycle).
If a TE project in Riverside County cannot be delivered in the year programmed, the
local agency must inform RCTC staff as soon as possible. We would determine if
the local agency can delivery the project within 12 months. If so, an extension
request will be prepared and submitted to the CTC. If not, we will review the
current programming to determine if the project can be reprogrammed in the next
year or two if capacity is available as a result of another project being advanced or
delayed.
I
"
T E P R O G R A M M I N G
A g e n c y
P r o j e c t
T E F u n d s
L o c a l M a t c h
( 0 0 0 ' s )
T o t a l
P r o j e c t C o s t
R i v e r s i d e C o
S a n t a A n a R i v e r B i k e T r
$ 1 , 4 1 6
$ 3 , 8 6 8
$ 5 , 2 8 4
P e r r i s
P e r r i s G a t e w a y
$ 4 2 5
$ 1 , 3 2 5
$ 1 , 7 5 0
B e a u m o n t
H i s t o r i c S a n T i m o t e o B i k e a & P e d
$ 1 , 4 1 6
$ 1 , 1 8 7
$ 2 , 6 0 3
C o r o n a
D o w n t o w n E n h & B e a u t i f i c a t i o n
$ 1 , 4 1 6
$ 5 , 4 8 4
$ 6 , 9 0 0
M o r e n o V a l l e y
S u n n y m e a d B l v d M e d i a n E n h
$ 1 , 4 1 6
$ 2 , 6 7 4
$ 4 , 0 9 0
C o r o n a
E S i x t h S t r e e t
$ 1 , 4 1 6
$ 1 , 5 8 4
$ 3 , 0 0 0
P a l m D e s e r t
M o n t e r e y A v / I - 1 0 o n / o f f r a m p s
$ 3 7 8
$ 4 2 2
$ 8 0 0
R i v e r s i d e
A l e s s a n d r o M e d i a n l a n d s c a p i n g
$ 9 4 4
$ 1 , 0 5 6
$ 2 , 0 0 0
R i v e r s i d e
S R 6 0 / M a r k e t I C l a n d s c a p i n g
$ 4 7 2
$ 5 2 8
$ 1 , 0 0 0
R T A
P e r r i s M u l t i - m o d a l T r a n s i t C e n t e r
$ 1 , 3 5 2
$ 3 , 9 1 4
$ 5 , 2 6 6
T e m e c u l a
W i n c h e s t e r R d / S R 7 9
$ 1 , 1 3 3
$ 1 , 2 5 2
$ 2 , 3 8 5
P a l m D e s e r t
M o n t e r e y A v / D i n a h S h o r e l a n d s c .
$ 5 6 7
$ 6 3 3
$ 1 , 2 0 0
R C T C
G r e e n w a y C o r r i d o r , P e r r i s V a l l i n e
$ 1 , 1 1 3
$ 1 , 2 4 5
$ 2 , 3 5 8
S a n J a c i n t o
F r a n c i s c o E s t u d i l l o H e r i t a g e E n h
$ 4 7 2
$ 1 7 8
$ 6 5 0
L a Q u i n t a
J e f f e r s o n S t B e a u t i f i c a t i o n
$ 4 4 5
$ 1 9 9
$ 6 4 4
C a t h e d r a l C i t y
C a t h C y n D r / T e r r a c e B i k e & P e d
$ 4 4 5
$ 1 5 2
$ 5 9 7
I n d i o
H w y 1 1 1 E n h a n c e m e n t s
$ 1 , 4 1 6
$ 6 8 4
$ 2 , 1 0 0
P a l m S p r i n g s
G e n e A u t r y G a t e w a y l a n d s c a p .
$ 1 , 3 7 5
$ 8 4 5
$ 2 , 2 2 0
$ 1 7 , 6 1 7
$ 2 7 , 2 3 0
$ 4 4 , 8 4 7
O l d T E A 2 1 : H e m e t
C a l i m e s a
N o r c o
C a t h C i t y
O l d T E A 2 1 T o t a l :
S A F E T E A L U a n d O l d T E A 2 1
2 0 0 6 S T I P T E P r o g r a m m i n g :
T E S T I P P R O G R A M M I N G
E l i g i b i l i t y
A p p D a t e
F Y 0 6 / 0 7
F Y 0 7 / 0 8
F Y 0 8 / 0 9
F Y 0 9 / 1 0
F Y 1 0 / 1 1
C o n S t a r t
1 4 1 6
p e n d i n g
4 2 5
J u n - 0 7
p e n d i n g
3 / 1 6 / 2 0 0 6
1 4 1 6
4 / 1 8 / 2 0 0 6
1 4 1 6
J u n - 0 7
1 / 2 4 / 2 0 0 6
1 4 1 6
4 / 1 8 / 2 0 0 6
2 / 1 5 / 2 0 0 6
9 4 4
1 / 2 4 / 2 0 0 6
4 7 2
D e c - 0 6
1 / 2 4 / 2 0 0 6
1 3 5 2
3 / 1 6 / 2 0 0 6
1 1 3 3
1 / 2 4 / 2 0 0 6
2 / 1 5 / 2 0 0 6
1 1 1 3
1 / 2 4 / 2 0 0 6
4 7 2
p e n d i n g
1 / 2 4 / 2 0 0 6
4 4 5
F e b - 0 7
4 4 5
1 / 2 4 / 2 0 0 6
1 4 1 6
1 / 2 4 / 2 0 0 6
1 3 7 5
1 / 2 4 / 2 0 0 6
9 1 7
9 0 1 9
3 9 0 4
1 4 1 6
0
S A F E T E A T E T o t a l s
5 2 0
3 1 2
3 1 2
5 2 0
6 2 4
0
0
0
1 4 3 7
9 6 4 3
3 9 0 4
1 4 1 6
0
1 2 0 9
6 3 7 8 4 5 7 8 4 1 0 6 2 5 4 4
P r e p a r e d b y m e d i n a 6 / 1 3 / 2 0 0 6 P a g e 1
... • /~ INITIAL CITY TAC MEMBER ~ BANNING 99 E. Ramsey St., DUANE BURK Banning 92220-0998 Director of Public Works BEAUMONT -""n E. 6th St., JOHN WILDER ~ Beaumont 92223 Assistant Director of Public Works -BLYTHE ¥ 440 S. Main St., JIM RODKEY Blythe 92225 Public Works Director v CVAG 73-710 Fred Waring Dr., Suite 200, Palm Desert 92260 ALLYN WAGGLE CALIMESA P. 0. Box 1190, Calimesa 92320 CAL TRANS ):y 464 W. 4th St., 6th Fl., San Bernardino 92401-1400 SEAN YEUNG CANYON LAKE {kS 31516 Railroad Canyon Rd., HABIB MOTLAGH Canyon Lake 92587 Contract City Engineer CATHEDRAL CITY 68-700 Avenida Lalo Guerrero, Cathedral City 92234 BILL BAYNE COACHELLA 1515 West Sixth Street, Coachella 92236 BILL GALLEGOS ~ ~~ CORONA tcMAB QA'Fl'AN !4ee-s0utti Vicentia Ave. Public Works Director Corona 92882 Public Works Department DESERT HOT 16 SPRINGS -65-950 DAN PATNEAUDE Pierson Blvd., Desert Assistant City Engineer ~ , Hot Springs 92240 Engineering Department \...7 TELEPHONE 951-922-3130 951-769-8520 760-922-6611 x227 760-346-1127 909-795-9801 909-383-4030 951-943-6504 760-770-0360 760-398-57 44 951-736-2236 760-329-6411 X243 TAC.NIN JUNE 19, 2006 FAX E-MAIL 951-922-3141 dburk@ci.banning.ca.us 951-769-8526 ulcjohn1@aol.com 760-922-0278 jwrjr@gte.net 760-340-5949 awaggle@cvag.org 909-795-4399 909-383-4129 sean_yeung@dot.ca.gov 951-943-8416 trilake@adelphia.net 760-202-1460 bbayne@cathedralcity.gov ·-760-398-1630 bgallegos@coachella.org 951-736-2496 amadq@ci.corona.ca.us 760-288-0651 dpatneaude@ci.desert-hot-springs.ca.us ( • ALTERNATE AL TERNA TE E-MAIL {3.t,1f.>.,...) 4,..lt~ Kahono Oei citybanning@hotmail.com Chad Aaby Acting City Engineer caaby@cityofblythe.ca.gov Carol Clapper cclapper@cvag.org Bill Mosby william_a_mosby@dot.ca.gov ~\c. ~ ~~~ Leslie Grosjean lgrosjean@cathedralcity.gov Tony Lucero Senior Civil Engineer Department of Public Works tlucero@coachella.org . -'\ Ned Ibrahim I Ass1s1an1 t'Uum; nu1 ~s Director ned.ibrahim@ci.corona.ca.us Ryan Duarte Associate Engineer 6/14/2006
" C I T Y T A C M E M B E R H E M E T ~ 5 1 0 E . F l o r i d a A v e n u e H e m e t 9 2 5 4 3 M I K E G O W ' \ ; t I N D I A N W E L L S 4 4 - 9 5 0 E l d o r a d o D r . , T I M W A S S I L I n d i a n W e l l s P u b l i c W o r k s D i r e c t o r / C i t y E n g i n e e r 9 2 2 1 0 - 7 4 9 7 P u b l i c W o r k s D e p a r t m e n t H J - t I N D I O 1 0 0 C i v i c C e n t e r M a l l , I n d i o 9 2 2 0 2 A M I R M O D A R R E S S I L A Q U I N T A 9 - ~ P . O . B o x 1 5 0 4 , 7 8 - 4 9 5 C a l l e T a m p i c o , T I M O T H Y J O N A S S O N L a Q u i n t a 9 2 2 5 3 P u b l i c W o r k s D i r e c t o r / C i t y E n g i n e e r L A K E E L S I N O R E K E N S E U M A L O 1 3 0 S o u t h M a i n S t . , C i t y E n g i n e e r L a k e E l s i n o r e 9 2 5 3 0 C o m m u n i t y D e v e l o p m e n t D e p a r t m e n t t J Y M O R E N O V A L L E Y ~ ~ ; i 1 1 ~ � a ( e ; e ! P . O . B o x 8 8 0 0 5 , T F a R s 1 3 e 1 1 a l i o n M a n a g e d f " ' U � t W r - ~ M o r e n o V a l l e y 9 2 5 5 2 - 0 8 0 5 - � - � - - . C . ' t , ~ � ~ , . . . - - . . . . . . , , _ , . . . . . - � � . . , ( h ) M U R R I E T A 2 6 4 4 2 B e c k m a n C o u r t , J I M K I N L E Y M u r r i e t a 9 2 5 6 2 D i r e c t o r o f P u b l i c W o r k s / C i t y E n g i n e e r N O R C O 2 8 7 0 C l a r k A v e . , P . O . B o x 4 2 8 , B I L L T H O M P S O N N o r c o 9 2 8 6 0 - 0 4 2 8 D i r e c t o r o f P u b l i c W o r k s P A L M D E S E R T / ! l i d J ' / ! . 7 3 - 5 1 0 F r e d W a r i n g D r . , P a l m D e s e r t 9 2 2 6 0 - M A R K G R E E N W O O D V " ' 2 5 7 8 D i r e c t o r o f P u b l i c w o r k s P A L M S P R I N G S 3 2 0 0 T a h q u i t z C a n y o n D A V E B A R A K I A N W a y , D i r e c t o r o f P u b l i c W o r k s / P a l m S p r i n g s 9 2 2 6 2 C i t y E n g i n e e r P V V T A 1 2 5 W e s t M u r p h y S t . , L E S N E L S O N B l y t h e 9 2 2 2 5 C i t y M a n a g e r T E L E P H O N E 9 5 1 - 7 6 5 - 3 7 1 2 7 6 ( } . 7 7 6 - 0 2 3 7 7 6 0 - 3 4 2 - 6 5 3 0 7 6 0 - 7 7 7 - 7 0 4 2 9 5 1 - 6 7 4 - 3 1 2 4 x 2 4 4 i > r t d t J - / 3 1 0 $ " ' 9 5 1 - 4 1 ~ 9 5 1 - 4 6 1 - 6 0 7 7 9 5 1 - 2 7 0 . . 5 6 0 7 7 6 0 - 7 7 6 - 6 4 5 0 7 6 0 . . 3 2 3 - 8 2 5 3 7 6 ( ) . . 9 2 2 - 6 1 6 1 T A C . N I N J U N E 1 9 , 2 0 0 6 F A X E - M A I L 9 5 1 - 7 6 5 - 2 4 9 3 m g o w @ c i t y o f h e m e t . o r g 7 6 0 - 3 4 6 - 0 4 0 7 t w a s s i l @ c i t y o f i n d i a n w e l l s . o r g 7 6 ( ) . . 3 4 2 - 6 5 5 6 a m i r @ i n d i o . o r g 7 6 ( ) . . 7 7 7 - 7 1 5 5 t j o n a s s o n @ l a - q u i n t a . o r g 9 5 1 - 6 7 4 - 2 3 9 2 k s e u m a l o @ l a k ~ l s i n o r e . o r g c J . . . . � . \ 1 4 ! . " " " � " ' c . ( . 0 . . . , , ~ ~ 3 . J l 5 a Q F 8 i ! J l ' l @ ! M e I I I ! ) = 9 5 1 - 6 9 8 - 4 5 0 9 j k i n l e y @ m u r r i e t a . o r g 9 5 1 - 2 7 ( ) . . 5 6 2 2 b t h o m p s o n @ c i . n o r c o . c a . u s 7 6 0 - 3 4 1 - 7 0 9 8 m g r e e n w o o d @ c i . p a l m - d e s e r t . c a . u s 7 6 0 - 3 2 2 - 8 3 2 5 D a v e B @ c i . p a l m - s p r i n g s . c a . u s 7 6 0 . . 9 2 2 - 4 9 3 8 l n e l s o n @ c i t y o f b l y t h e . c a . g o v " A L T E R N A T E A L T E R N A T E E � M A I L L i n d a N i x o n B o n d i e B a k e r A s s i s t a n t E n g i n e e r I I b b a k e r @ c i t y o f i n d i a n w e l l s . o r g J i m S m i t h j s m i t h @ i n d i o . o r g f \ 1 1 \ ~ t . . k ~ ~ ~ l < . . \ L . \ \ \ \ l . ' V . ~ ~ I A ~ \ ~ . . . . w ~ 0 . c . ~ E d B a s u b a s S e n i o r C i v i l E n g i n e e r e b a s u b a s @ l a k e - e l s i n o r e . o r g C r t f , . ' . N C & L s i e c t w . - c . . . c . j A l i j . ~ _ . , ) . " ' " " j R u s s N a p i e r C a p i t a l I m p r o v e m e n t P r o g r a m M a n a g e r r n a p i e r @ m u r r i e t a . o r g L o r i A s k e w A s s o c i a t e E n g i n e e r L a s k e w @ c i . n o r c o . c a . u s R y a n G a y l e r / P h i l J o y M a r c u s F u l l e r 6 / 1 4 / 2 0 0 6
-(AS ~ l,~ -rJr3 v {AS C' <.~t_., .. Jsi/ r • CITY TAC MEMBER PERRIS 101 North 'D' St., AHMAD ANSARI Perris 92570 Public Works Director ~ L.Dtzi:'L,,L§ MC 1825 Third St., MARI< SlANbEY Plt<ru....:t~ Riverside 92517-1968 D1rmor of l'la1111i11g ~ y '{-RANCHO MIRAGE 69-825 Highway 111, BRUCE HARRY Rancho Mirage 92270 Director of Public Works RIVERSIDE TOM BOYD 3900 Main St., Deputy Public Works Director/ Riverside 92522 City Engineer GEORGE JOHNSON RIVERSIDE COUNTY Director of Transportation 4080 Lemon St., Transportation and Land Management Riverside 92501 Agency JUAN PEREZ RIVERSIDE COUNTY Deputy Director of Transportation 4080 Lemon St., Transportation and Land Management Riverside 92501 Agency SAN JACINTO TELEPHONE 951-943-6100x237 TAC.NIN JUNE 19, 2006 FAX E-MAIL 951-943-8591 aansari@cityofperris.org e--t;{;.e S--$} (r~ t*5Jv/ iniee@ ~~·ver61dcfr6'q1U(t:tffeiY\ 951-565-5130 951-565-5131 mstanley@riversidetransit.com 760-770-3224 760-770-3261 bruceh@ci.rancho-mirage.ca.us 951-826-5575 951-826-5542 TBoyd@riversideca.gov 951-955-6740 951-955-3198 GJohnson@rctlma.org 951-955-6740 951-955-3198 jcperez@co.riverside.ca.us • ALTERNATE ALTERNATE E-MAIL ~<'\c. ~~ua~ Habib Motlagh c;o, \\{II\ Contract City Engineer trilake@adelphia.net -Mike McCoy Senior Planner Planning Department mmccoy@riversidetransit.com Randy Viegas Project Manager randyv@ci.rancho-mirage.ca.us Siobhan Foster sfoster@riversideca.gov Juan Perez Deputy Di rector of Transportation jcperez@co.riverside.ca.us George Johnson Director of Transportation GJohnson@rctlma.org e{\c... s~.J 201 E. Main St., HABIB MOTLAGH ~s¥-O.~s4 @s~)CLt\"'-~ ca.. 1 San Jacinto 92583 Contract City Engineer 951-943-6504 951-943-8416 trilake@adelphia.net AS()-\. EM' o.s SUN LINE ...., 32-505 Harry Oliver Trail, Thousand Palms EUNICELOVI 92276 Director of Planning 760-343-3456 X119 760-343-3845 elovi@sunline.org TEMECULA BILL HUGHES Ron Parks 43200 Business Park Director of Public Works/City Engineer Deputy Public Works Dr., Temecula 92590 Public Works Department 951-694-6411 951-694-6475 bill .hughes@cityoftemecula.org Director IWKt;Uu 4080 Lemon Street, Riverside 92501 RUTHANNE TAYLOR-BERGER 951-955-8304 951-787-7991 berger@wrcog.cog.ca.us ~\ P.Ob ~"-"':t l)P.~~~k4b.S ~({fA2 ·'t'(k:> f~-.'""'°*2 e UP-f>M>'-,a.4 ~s fiJJlt-V Uht ()ff~Sfr-~ 7bo 3'i.7Sz.t;3 ~~-~~~-s--r"'"f!J~·~·US .,.Avt.. fl> .FAt;.A,.J CAt.rA.A-"'S b ~r ~ C 1dCl)J <fl -~'lo l-p~--r:,~@~·ccc.jo-t A\\C\CA.., Q,c \blA.rvl C<l \ trtlnS p;s-t ~ ( qoq) 38 3 -wq 0q Cl. \ic.,liN_ 00 11-lt\ vV)@ clo+. ctt. <Jov 6/14/2006