Loading...
12 December 18, 2006 Technical Advisory• • TIME: DATE: LOCATION: 78886 TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING MEETING AGENDA* 9:30 A.M. December 18, 2006 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 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 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 Dan Patneaude, City of Desert Hot Springs Juan Perez, County of Riverside Amad Qattan, City of Corona Jim Rodkey, City of Blythe Anne Schneider, City of Calimesa Ken Seumalo, City of Lake Elsinore Mark Stanley, Riverside Transit Agency Ruthanne Taylor Berger, WRCOG Bill Thompson, City of Norco Chris Vogt, City of Moreno Valley 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 11.36.10 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA* *Actions may be taken on any item listed on the agenda. TIME: 9:30 A.M. DATE: December 18, 2006 LOCATION: Banning City Hall Civic Center Large Conference Room 99 East Ramsey Street Banning, CA In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act and government Code Section 54954.2, if you need special assistance to participate in a Committee meeting, please contact Riverside County Transportation Commission at (951) 787-7141. Notification of at least 48 hours prior to meeting time will assist staff in assuring that reasonable arrangements can be made to provide accessibility at the meeting. 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. SELF -INTRODUCTIONS 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 4. PUBLIC COMMENTS (This is for comments on items not listed on agenda. Comments relating to an item on the agenda will be taken when the item is before the Committee.) 5. WORK EFFORT OF 10 YEAR DELIVERY PLAN FOR WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY MEASURE A FREEWAY PROGRAM (Attachment) 6. 10 YEAR MEASURE A WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY HIGHWAY PROGRAM PROJECT RECOMMENDATIONS/CMIA RECOMMENDATIONS (Attachment) Technical Advisory Committee Meeting December 18, 2006 Page 2 7. PROPOSITION 1B (AB1266) LOCAL STREETS AND ROAD IMPROVEMENT, CONGESTION RELIEF, AND TRAFFIC SAFETY. ACCOUNT OF 2006 SUMMARY (Attachment) 8. 2006 STIP AUGMENTATION (Verbal Presentation)' 9. OTHER BUSINESS/ANNOUNCEMENTS 10. ADJOURNMENT (The next meeting will be January 8, 2007, 10:00; A.M. in Riverside.) • MINUTES i • TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES Monday, November 20, 2006 1. Call to Order Tom Boyd, Chair, called the meeting of the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) to order at 10:00 A.M. at the Riverside County Transportation Commission, 4080 Lemon Street, Riverside, CA. 2. Self -Introductions Members Present: Others Present: Dave Barakian, City of Palm Springs Bill Bayne, City of Cathedral City Tom Boyd, City of Riverside Patti Castillo, City of Hemet Tim Jonasson,City of LaQuinta Eunice Lovi, SunLine Transit Amir Modarressi, City of Indio Habib Motlagh, Cities of Canyon Lake, (Perris) and San Jacinto Russ Napier, .City of Murrieta Craig Neustaedter, City of Moreno Valley Juan Perez, County of Riverside Amad Qattan, City of Corona Ken Seumalo, City of Lake. Elsinore Alana Townsend, City of Palm Desert Tim Wassil, City of Indian Wells John Wilder, City of Beaumont Sean Yeung, Ca!trans Marlin Feenstra, RCTC Shirley Gooding, RCTC Aaron Hake, RCTC Eric Haley, RCTC Ken. Lobeck, RCTC Shirley Medina, RCTC Paul Rodriguez, Urban Crossroads Edda Rosso, RCTC Technical Advisory Committee Meeting November 20, 2006 Page 2 3. Approval of Minutes Sean Yeung, Ca!trans Local Assistance, requested a change in the minutes to reflect that thefirst word in line 6 of agenda item 8c should be qualitative in reference to a PM 2.5. Qualitative Analysis.' 4. Public Comments There were no public. comments. 5. RTIP UPDATE Ken Lobeck, RCTC, indicated that federal agencies approved the 2006 RTIP on October 2, 2006 without special conditions except for ,i a minor 'requirement to update ,the State Highway Operation_ and Protection Program (SHOPP) that will become the: first amendment to the 2006 RTIP. The first regular amendment will then proceed as Amendment 02. Both amendments have now ; been submitted to SCAG for review and processing. Riverside County's submission as part of Amendment 02 exceeded 100 projects. Ken added that a copy of the RTIP approval letter is included with the agenda,: item and highlighted paragraph #5 -for the TAC that states, "Any project or project`' phase, listed in a MPO ;FTIP,;that is not included in the MPO's Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) is, not approved for inclusion in the 2007 FSTIP".; He clarified that this means, SCAG will be held to a RTP consistency ;check when the project, is submitted for RTIP inclusion. if .not in the RTP, then the project can't be added,to the RTIP. Shirley Medina, RCTC, said, that the agencies, could review the '2006 RTIP and the current 2004 RTP. on SCAG's website www.scag.ca.gov. 1n response to a question ,'concerning the length of time to process and approve RTIP amendments, Ken agreed that ,the RTIP process has become weighed down with excessive review requirements by FHWA which has slowed amendment :approvals. He cited that ,the formal amendment portion to Amendment 02 most likely will not receive? approval until mid to late March 2007. Eunice Lovi,''SunLine asked for further, clarification about the process to add a new transit project with a federal earmark to the RTIP. ;Ken clarified that approved federally funded projects identified in the FY ;'07 Short Range Transit Plan (SRTP) in FY 06/07 and FY 07/08 were included as part of • Technical Advisory Committee Meeting November 20, 2006 Page 3 Amendment 02. However, if the project is not yet part of the 'approved SRTP, then an amendment to :the SRTP must first occur. The. project then can be added to the,RTIP through the next available RTIP amendment. 6. TRANSPORTATION BOND - NEXT STEPS Eric Haley, RCTC. Executive Director, provided a review Proposition 1 B's passage and what it may mean to Riverside County. He explained that a Local Streets: and Roads Improvement component is included and contains an estimated total funding of $2 billion. The funds will be allocated directly to the cities based on a population formula. The minimum allocation to a city will be at least .$400,000. Mr. Haley, stated that currently no one is sure when the funds will begin flowing to the cities and some details with the funding program need to be resolved before the cities will see the funds. A discretionary funding category also exists and totals $7.5 to $8 billion of which $4.5 billion will be for congestion relief projects as part of the Corridor Mobility Improvement Account (CMIA). Mr. Haley added that counties will be competing against each other along with Caltrans Districts. Presently, the RCTC Board hasapproved staff to focus on three specific routes, which include 1-15, SR91, and 1-215. Mr. Haley explained that the ,project selection guidance complicates and narrows the possible project selections. He cited that one provision requires that the project must be under construction by 2012. He stated that this one requirement eliminates consideration of numerous projects, that would have competed well, but will not be included because they will not be under construction by 2012. Mr. Haley concluded that the entire effort is being fast -tracked by CTC and .RCTC's submission must be ready for Board approval by the December 13, 2006 meeting. Shirley Medina added that because of the passage of Proposition 113, a 2007 State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) :Augmentation would now occur that would provide $1 billion. Project submissions to CTC will be due by April 2007. She indicated that the County's Regional Improvement Program (RIP) share could be about $100 million. Like the CMIA, the 2007 STIP Augmentation will _be fast -track by CTC. Specific projects have not been identifiedfor funding yet, but oneidea could be to use the STIP Augmentation to program STIP augmentation funds back into projects that lost STIP funding in the 2006 STIP Update. Technical Advisory Committee Meeting November 20, 2006 Page 4 Dave Barakian, City of Palm Springs, inquired if projects with delayed STIP funds would possibly now be accelerated. Shirley responded that because of the intracounty formula, CVAG would make this determination. 7. HBRR GROUP PROJECT FUNDING INDIVIDUAL. PROJECT LISTS Ken _ Lobeck' provided TAC members with individual project lists', awarded funding in the '2006/07 :Highway Bridge Program (HBRR). The individual project lists are now available on the Caltrans Local Assistance ;website. A website guide to help agencies find the' project lists was included with agenda item. Ken explained that previous guidance from 'Caltrans HQ to program; all HBRR in the construction phase was incorrect. All.'$3.358 million; approved for FY 06/07 should have been programmed in the Preliminary Engineering phase in the RTIP. This will be corrected in the RTIP through the next available amendment.. Until then, project HBRR obligations in PE wall not; be able to proceed. Ken added that several projects reflect HBRR for construction in :out -years (FY 09/10, and beyond)_ If construction will occur in an earlier ;year, the HBRR funds must be formally moved to the correct year. ,Shirley Medina, RCTC, recommended that the agencies work very closely with' the new engineer, Chris Igbinedion, who is handling HBRR to make 'sure construction funds are programmed when needed. 8. FY 2006/07,OBLIGATION DELIVERY PLAN A draft comprehensive FY 06/07 Obligation'' Plan reflecting' `proposed obligations, for CMAQ, 'STPL, TE, and earmark funded projects was provided to TAC members. Ken Lobeck explained that the August 2006 Milestone Reports were used ' as the basis to develop; the FY 06/07 Obligation Plan. Shirley Medina provided a FY 2006/07 proposed obligation List reflecting .only the 1' and 2nd: quarters. She stated that the list does not include all the projects that are the full list. The tailored list ;will be used for presentation to Caltrans Headquarters and CTC'to meet 'the' AB 1012 iUse it or Lose' it requirement: 'There is "a balance of about, $5 , million that will.' require an extension. However, the extension will expire May 1, 2007. District will work closely with;` the agencies regarding projects listed in quarters 1 and 2. echnical Advisory Committee Meeting November 20, 2006 Page 5 AB 1012 EXTENSION Shirley Medina indicated that the AB 1012 Extension was covered in agenda item 8. 10. LOCAL ASSISTANCE REPORT Sean Yeung, Caltrans Local Assistance, did not have an update at this time. 11, PROJECT DELIVERY SUBCOMMITTEE UPDATE Shirley Medina indicated that discussions with Paul Engstrom on the project charter are continuing.- She pointed out that the agencies have received a template. The . project charters are basically for highway projects, mostly interchange projects, which will spell out the delivery schedule and other milestones. The conflict resolution section would also describe if conflicts emerge at Project Development Team Meetings (PDT) meetings and the steps to elevate issues properly for a quick resolution. She pointed out that the subcommittee also received a demonstration on the oversight tracking database developed by District 8. The subcommittee is working on an Excel spreadsheet that has key information, e.g, submittals, what documents have been submitted, when they were submitted and other important data that will be compiled on a rnonthly basis. The data will be put on RCTC's website. She further stated that Paul Blackwelder, RCTC, had made available to the TAC a draft of the listing asking everyone to review the projects before the list is posted to RCTC's website. The TAC subcommittee is also discussing ways to obtain more support at District 8, recognizing the staffing shortage and oversight projects and how to raise the importance of the oversight projects. . Through the NEPA delegation that should occur in April 2007, District 8 will get a. new staff person to handle the workload._ The subcommittee will continue to meet with Caltrans concerning. right of way issues and utility relocations. The next meeting will be in December or early January 2007. The TAC will receive an updated report in January. Technical Advisory Committee Meeting November 20, 2006 Page 6 12. NOVEMBER 8, 2006 COMMISSION HIGHLIGHTS Eric Haley announced that the November 30 retreat has been cancelled. The next Commission meeting will be December 13. : He also announced the cancellation of the Budget & Implementation and Plans . &', 'Programs Committee meetings. There were discussions relating to the election, bond funding, timing and P3. The 10: Year Delivery plan was also discussed. The CMIA i program and the STIP were also discussed: ' The Private Financing/Delivery Plan Ad Hoc Committee Meeting is scheduled for November 27 and is a preview to the December 13presentation and new revenue estimates will be unveiled for Measure A followed by discussions of the public/private partnership and the toll roads. 13. OTHER BUSINESS/ANNOUNCEMENTS Ken Lobeck reported that SCAG has been working on the RTP `update and he requested that SCAG provide a draft master .listing of all that has been submitted. Once received, he will send it to the TAC for one last review. Shirley Medina reminded TAC members not to wait until the schedule for the next RTIP amendment is released, but to submit changes as, they occur. The necessity of a December TAC meeting was raised and it was decided that if there .are no substantive agenda items, staff: will notify the TAC that the meeting has been cancelled. 14. ADJOURNMENT There being no further` business for consideration by the Technical Advisory Committee, the meeting adjourned at approximately 11:1.5• A.M.'The next meeting is scheduled for December 18, 2006, .10:00 A.M:,i Banning City Hall Civic Center, Large Conference Room, ,99. East Ramsey Street, Banning, CA. Respectfully submitted, Shirley Medina(`) Program Manager • • AGENDA ITEM 5 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: December 18, 2006 TO: Technical Advisory Committee FROM: Ken Lobeck, Staff Analyst THROUGH: Shirley Medina Program Manager SUBJECT: Work Effort of 10-Year Delivery Plan for Western Riverside County Measure A Freeway Program STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the TAC to receive a copy of the RCTC Dec 13, 2006 agenda item concerning the work effort of the 10-Year Delivery Plan for Western Riverside County Measure A Freeway Program. Attachment: Dec 13 RCTC Board Agenda Item: "Work Effort of 10 Year Plan for Western Riverside County Measure A Freeway Program" • • RIVERSIDE. COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION I i DATE: . December 13, 2006 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Public/Private Financing and Delivery Plan Ad Hoc Committee Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Work Effort of 10-Year Delivery Plan for Western Riverside County Measure A Freeway Program PUBLIC/PRIVATE FINANCING AND DELIVERY PLAN AD HOC COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Receive and file the results of the work effort to "formulate the 10-Year Delivery Plan for the Western Riverside County Measure A Highway program; 2) Approve the '10-Year Western County highway priorities, which include the prioritization of freeway :investments on projects along the 1-215, 1-15, SR-91 and 1-10 corridors; 3) Authorize" staff to utilize the 2006 forecast of Measure A revenues in developing projections for the 10-Year Western Riverside 'County Highway Delivery Plan; 4) Direct staff to return to the Commission in 90 days with "detailed updates and reports regarding the Mid County Parkway (MCP) project, the realignment of SR-79, and the Bi-County 1-215 project; and 5) Return to the Commission with quarterly updates and actions to facilitate and expedite the delivery of highway improvements in Western Riverside County. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: In mid-2005, the Commission directed staff to pursue a three -pronged strategy aimed at developing the necessary background information to implement the first 10 years of the 2009 Measure A program, approved by voters in 2002. The Commission has already taken action on some Measure'A policy areas such as the acquisition of habitat areas for mitigation, ongoing planning on Community and Environmental Transportation Acceptability Process (CETAP) corridors and the implementation of a Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fund (TUMF) program "for Western Riverside County. Agenda Item 9 209 However`, the one major policy area of the 2009 Measure. A program that required a comprehensive background and data development effort is in the`area of highway projects in Western Riverside County. The Measure A expenditure .plan approved by voters in November 2002 :provides funding for a wide .variety of local street and road" projects, 'regional arterials, specialized'' transit and rail projects and commuter services.: The, voter approved plan originally allocated $1.02 billion for improvements. to .state highways in Western Riverside County, and specifically mentions that the Measure. A dollars needed to cover the program would provide less than half of the needed money to complete the ,projects`.' The drafting of the 2009 Measure expected ,state and federal funding ,to be . used with measure dollars to finance the+ambitious plan. Attachment 1 provides the detail that was included in the Measure,A plan, A Changed Environment The Measure A expenditure plan was approved' in 2002: and was actually formulated by .the Commission throughout that year and 2001. The; projected costs for individual projects were estimated in close consultation with the state of _California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) and represent an assessment of cost projections, as they were known at that time.; Shortly after Measure A was approved, construction costs for major projects have skyrocketed along with the cost of real estate in Riverside County. After careful study and 'consideration, Commission staff believes that the true 'cost of implementing the state highway projects included in the Measure ek program now exceeds $4.5 billion. • At the same time, Riverside County continues ;to lead most areas in .terms of population and job growth, congestion levels ,and commute distances. `'While the growth in population is helpful in terms of sales tax. revenue 'generation, growth does bring added strain on the transportation system and the results can'; be seen . on freeway corridors throughout Western Riverside County. Riverside, County's residents and the overall economy are especially dependent on highways as the backbone of its ;transportation system. "Moving Parts Given the :dynamic transportation environment of Western Riverside County, the Commission directed staff to move. forward on three subject areas in order to lay the groundwork' for developing. an implementation plan: strategy for the Measure A state highway program and specifically the first 10 years of the program. The updated data would then be used to develop a 10=Year Delivery Plan which is the Agenda Item 9 210 subject of this staff report. The three subject areas which were often colloquially referred to as "moving parts" have been completed by staff and include: 1. An updated Measure A revenue estimate; 2. The use of innovative financing techniques such as public/private partnerships and toll roads; and 3. Updated scope, cost, traffic and data for the Measure A state highway program. - An ad hoc committee appointed by Chair Marion Ashley guided the data development work that was conducted to advance these subject areas and the Committee's membership was comprised of Commissioners Ashley, Terry Henderson, Bob Buster, Frank Hall, Barbara Hanna, Robin Lowe,, Bob Magee, Jeff Miller, Ron Roberts, John Tavaglione, Frank West and Roy Wilson. Caltrans District 8 Director, Mike Perovich, also participated in the ad hoc meetings. The result of this ad hoc committee's work guides the recommendations that are reflected in this staff report and was reviewed .and unanimously forwarded to the Commission at its most recent meeting on November 27, 2006. Revised Measure A Revenue Estimate During the development of the extension of Measure A for the November 2002 ballot, the Commission used a forecast completed, in May 2001 with the assistance of Ernst & Young LLP. As a result of the significant economic growth in Riverside County the past three fiscal years, that forecast was no longer useful for budgeting and strategic planning purposes. In mid-2006, the forecast of Measure A revenues through 2039 was completed by the UCLA Anderson Forecast. Attachment 2 providesmore details on the forecasted amounts. The new forecast of sales tax receipts for the 2009 Measure A, net of the 1.5% State Board of Equalization fee, is approximately $10.354 billion compared to the original forecast of $4.662 billion. These amounts are reflected in real dollars, which are adjusted for inflation and represent the purchasing power of future receipts in current year amounts. This represents a 122% increase in forecasted sales tax receipts. Based on the forecast, staff has distributed the annual amounts by geographic area based on the distribution used for Measure A allocations during FY 2005/06. The following is a comparison of the forecasts by geographic area: Geographic Area 2001 Forecast 2006 Forecast Increase Western County $3,360,000,000 _$7,675,300,000 128.4%. Coachella Valley $1,255,000,000 $2,605,000,000 107.6% Palo Verde Valley $47,000,000 $73,300,000 56.0% Total Receipts $4,662,000,000 $10,353,600,000 122.1% Agenda Item 9 211 Assuming proportionality for program allocations within each geographic area, the new forecast results in approximately, , $486.2 million available for the Western County highway program during the first ten years of the 2009 Measure A and $2.330. billion for the 30-year period. While the new projections indicate a healthy, growing economy, .Measure A will not be sufficient to fund priority projects in the first ten years, of the 2009 Measure A (FY 2010-2019). As originally projected in the Measure A expenditure plan, state and federal funding will be needed and even then,; revenues will likely fall short. One possibility to; close future gaps could :be a fee on new development': to build freeway facilities and the Commission is beginning the secondphase of 'evaluating that, approach. Other options could be through the utilization of user fees!'such as tolls and securing ,one-time funding such as state bond dollars. Innovative Financing Techniques Including Public/Private. Partnerships and, Tolls At, its February 8, 2006;;meeting„ the Commission approved a list of pre -qualified firms for On -Call Strategic Partnership Advisor Services. The assistance of °,experts, knowledgeable .in the area of transportation economics, federaltransportation funding tools and corporate equity investment evaluation, was critical in enabling staff to independently evaluate the feasibility of public/private partnerships to build additional transportation capacity or to speed the delivery of ,already ,planned projects. The idea of considering toll facilities in Riverside County is consistent with actions that; are taking place .throughout the country. Indeed state and federal policy have been moving in this direction with ,the idea of seeking private sector perticipation for the funding ofinfrastructure projects that include hospitals; water facilities and schools in addition to highways. The federal Safe, Accountable, Flexible, 'Efficient Transportation Equity Act. (SAFETEA LU) ,legislation encourages the private sector funding of highway improvements and _all'ovired the use of privately financed .toll roads on interstate highways. r In ,California, the Legislature approved; AB ; 1,467 which allows for :four privately financed''' transportation facilities throughout the state.,' Although" the Governor and the Legislature trumpeted: the bill as an . example of innovative thinking, the, provisions of':the .bill are so restrictive that: it is believed that,; additional legislation will be needed in the next session to actually make implementation possible. Nevertheless, it demonstrated :a willingness of the Legislature .and the state to consider this type' of approach. Agenda Item 9 Finally, toll ,roads of variouskinds have been constructedadjacent to Riverside County in both San Diego and Orange Counties. The facilities have all been unique in the way they were implemented but the success of the 1-15 managed lanes in San Diego County, the SR-241 and SR-261 .toll roads operated by the Transportation Corridor Agencies (TCA) in Orange County and the 91 Express. Lanes have all shown that there is a market and. a .demand for the public to pay for additional capacity through tolls if it provides an attractive alternative to the congestion on conventional highways. All three of the above -mentioned toll facilities were implemented and, are operated and managed in different ways. Furthermore, there is a wide variety of financing this type of development which is why consultants were retained to examine toll financing alternatives. The result was an exhaustive nine -month study of both publicly and privately financed delivery methods and then the application of these methods to actual corridors in Western Riverside County. In a best case scenario, toll roads offer the promise of providing additional transportation capacity that can .be financed through their own 'revenue stream. With the use of design -build contracting, theconstruction of this type of project could also be expedited resulting in benefits being delivered quicker. Also if demand is sufficient, excess revenue, from the facility could be invested in additional projects in the same corridor. The allure of working with the private sector is that more of the risks of constructing this type of project can be borne by the private company because of the private sector's needto generate profits as quickly as possible. The best case scenario is predicated on strong user demand to entice the private sector to participate. Early on in the analysis of actual corridors, it became clear that toll roads and private sector participation would only pencil out on heavily - trafficked freeways such as SR-91 and 1-15. That's why these highways already have toll facilities on them in adjacent counties. It also means that toll facilities will not ,pencil out on corridors with lesser traffic volumes such as SR-79 and the proposed MCP. . Congestion is certainly a problem on SR-79 but the overall volume of traffic is not sufficient to finance a highway that is expected to more than a billion dollars. Also, while the need for a new east -west corridor as envisioned on the MCP is undeniable, the needed traffic demand to see anywhere near a break even revenue projection for a toll road is decades into the future. If toll roads are to be considered as a near -term transportation strategy, the focus will have to be limited to improvements on SR-91 and 1-15. . Agenda Item 9 213 Updated Scope; Cost, Traffic and Data for. the Measure A State Highway:' Program At its June 3 2005: Commission .workshop, staff was provided wit -I general direction to develop the information necessary to assess the delivery status of the 1989 Measure AlWestern County Highway Program (including the "MCP), as well as, develop' an:±objective set of project measurements, including;, state recognized performance measures, to support the Commission in' establishing: priorities for the first 10 years of the 30-year Measure A program. At its December.14,. 2005 -meeting, the Commission (approved an amendment to the Bechtel 'Infrastructure program management contract to assist the Commission in determining the status and deliverability .of the 1989 Measure A• program and developing the initial' 2009 Measure A program 10-Year Delivery Plan. The objectivesof the effort were: • An assessment of the status and challenges of completing the delivery of. the Western ;.County highway program for the 1989:Measure; • An objective based •assessment of the Western County portion of the 2009 'Measure A transportation program; • Prioritization of the Western County 'program of projects; and • Development of a delivery plan that will cover r the first 10 years of the 30-year extension of Measure A. Staff and the Bechtel ,team have completed this analysis, which involved 'fupdating project scopes, and developing quantitative and qualitative benefits of projects in the Measure A state highway program. This required updated modeling ,and traffic . projections that used:&horizon year of 2015. The need to reevaluate the 'scopes of the , various` Measure ;Vk projects' was necessary because of limited detail in the Measure and.,the' continued growth of the county. Project scope, outlined on the ballot, in imost' cases only;jspecified that an additional lane be added.'. The ballot did not specify if the additional lane would be a high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lane or a mixed flow (MF) lane'. ' Alsoi in most cases the Measure did not consider_ ancillary. projects that are necessary to improve the effectiveness for certain improvements. . As an example; 'merely adding another lane to SR-91 will have;lirnited benefit near the convergence,of I-1.5,and Main Street in Corona. '!:While the primary `cause of congestion in the area is traffic volume, the impact :is exacerbated.through°,a variety of traffic movements that ;take' place in a confined %area.' ' In less than ' a mile, vehicles are entering SR-91 from both directions'" .-of 115 while others are attempting .to either enter or exit ,the freeway • from Main Street. All ,;of these Agenda Item 9 214 , vehicle movements require lane changes and other traffic moves that further complicate an already -congested situation. A good way of addressing this area would be through the construction of a collector distributor road system that would add lanes alongside the freeway to allow for ingress, egress, lane changes and weaving off the mainline of the freeway which would improve traffic flow and provide safety benefits. The problem is this type of system is not specifically identified in the Measure A program. Similarly the connector between the eastbound SR-91 and northbound SR-71 was seen as a simple enhancement of the existing loop ramp that is already in place at that location. Given the congestion in the area, what is really needed is a much larger fly -over _ structure that would eliminate a hairpin turn and allow for more cars to transition between the two freeways. Yet another work effort that plays a role in defining project scopes and definitions was the completion of project study reports (PSR) by Caltrans for the 1-15, 1-215 and SR-91 corridors. This effort began in 2004 and is required by the state before a project can move forward. This preliminary level of engineering and project assessment helps quantify project costs, needed right-of-way, assesses environmental issues and determines additional engineering or construction challenges. Quantitative Analysis By re-evaluating the scope of various projects, staff was able to model results for the quantitative measures of effectiveness that included: • Facility Number of Trips Served -Average Daily Traffic (ADT); • Facility Daily Level of Service (LOS); • Travel Time Savings; • Vehicle Miles Traveled Savings; • Distance Savings per Vehicle; • Vehicle Hours Traveled; • Value of Time Savings ($); • Value of Distance Savings ($); • Energy ConsumptionSavings; • Air Pollutant Savings, and; • Accident Reduction. These results were used to develop a cost -benefit ratio for each of the 2009 Measure projects and project segments after the delivery costs for each project were updated ,and compared to 2015 baseline data. Agenda Item 9 215 Qualitative Analysis In addition to the cost -benefit ratios, the ,projects were compared using a list of . qualitative.rneasures. These measures were used to attempt to assess issues that are not easy to provide a •quantitative benefit. The qualitative measures focused on factors such as: •, Opportunistic Timing; • Environmental Challenges; • Need to Protect Right -of -Way; • External funding available that is project specific; • Time required to get the project ready to advertise, and; Safety issues not addressed in the cost benefit analysis: The details from the comprehensive analyses are voluminous to i:the point that it could require .months of meetings to fully report all of the information. In fact, that did happen with the ad hoc committee that oversaw the effort. However,, in sifting through all of the information, there are a number of conclusions or assumptions that can be gleaned that ,provide the basis for: formulating a delivery plan. They include the following: Increased Project Costs This is a statewide, and even a national problem . but the situation in Riverside County is especially acute given increases in property value and the need to expand the scope of some of the Measure A projects. A funding gap exists and there needs to be':a realization that Measure A is a 30-year program. Priorities need to be established and some improvements will have to be made before others. The quantitative benefit -cost analysis .provides helpful data to evaluate some of these decisions. A Need to Act Quickly While the renewed Measure A program does not officially begin until July 2009, Riverside County's residents` and its economy require immediateaction to address current traffic conditions. Furthermore there are potential funding opportunities thanks to the approval of Proposition 1 B. There are advantages` to keying in on projects that can be delivered quickly. Usually these are,projectsthat require less. right-of-way or that can be cleared environmentally with, little complication. Finally, Riverside County: is home to a number ,of freeway corridors that are 'essentially failing. Agenda item 9 216 • Using these parameters as a guide, four highway corridors are ideally situated as appropriate priorities for. the first 10 years of investment for the first 10 years of the Measure A program. The corridors are: • 1-215 • 1-15 • 1-10 • SR-91 Staff recommends that a priority focus be placed on these highway corridors for the lion's share of Measure A, and state and federal funding, as well as to pursue additional forms of funding including tolls. The details of these. projects are outlined in the subsequent staff report: Staff also recommends. that while the majority of investment must continue on these corridors, work must still continue on longer -term priorities including the development of the MCP, the widening of 1-215 to San Bernardino County and the realignment of SR-79 as well as improvements identified . in the Riverside -Orange County Major Investment Study (MIS) that called for the construction of an elevated expressway facility along SR-91 and a new .corridor between Corona and • Irvine that could require a tunnel through the Cleveland National Forest. Unfortunately, these projects fail to meet the test of early implementation. Planning and studying future opportunities remains an important function of the Commission, but immediate construction of improvements on already impacted corridors must take precedence. For that reason, it is recommended that planning activities continue on these projects and that funds be allocated for ongoing environmental clearances and the protection of right-of-way, to allow future construction as funding becomes available. Next Steps The presentation of this report presents only the beginning of work that will come together to implement the first 10 years of the 2009 Measure A highway program. Through the use of innovative financing, and aggressive construction scheduling, the effort seeks to intensify investment in the areas that are most congested and need immediate relief. During the next few months, staff will continue to return to the Commission with action items to implement the overall plan. This will include contractsfor environmental clearance, engineering, right-of-way acquisition and construction. Riverside County's transportation needs are significant and the current environment that sees construction crews. working on various highways, streets and roads will continue and intensify with the implementation of this plan. Agenda Item 9 217 Attachments: 1) State Highway Portion: of 2009 Measure A Expenditure Plan 2) Taxable Sales Revenues for Riverside County - UCLA Report. Agenda Item 9 218 ATTACHMENT 1 STATE HIGHWAY PORTION OF 2009 MEASURE A EXPENDITURE PLAN WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY The Expenditure Plan Map illustrates the Western and Coachella Valley areas. The Western County area includes the cities of Banning, Beaumont, Calimesa, Canyon Lake, Corona, Hemet, Lake .Elsinore, Moreno Valley, Riverside, Murrieta, Norco, Perris, San Jacinto, and Temecula. It also includes the unincorporated communities of Jurupa, Mira Loma, Menifee, Wildomar, and Sun City and other, more sparsely populated areas, and the reservations of the Pechanga Band of Mission Indians, the Soboba Band of Mission Indians, the Cahuilla Band of Mission Indians, the Ramona' Band of Cahuilla Indians, and the Morongo Band of Indians. 1. STATE HIGHWAYS Many more state highway improvement projects are needed to deal with congestion and safety problems than existing state and federal revenues can fund. Projected formula funds from these sources over the 30 years is estimated to be $640 million and will fund less than 1/2 of the improvements needed and identified in the Expenditure Plan, which are estimated to cost $1.66 billion in current dollars. Measure A funds will supplement those funding sources- by an estimated $1.02 billion andwill cover the remaining costs estimated to accomplish these improvements. The highway projects to be implemented with funding returned to the Western County area by extending the Measure A program are as follows: ROUTE LIMITS PROJECT EST. COST SR-91, SR-60, 1-15, & I-215 Reducing congestion on these routes will require that new transportation corridors are constructed See Section 2 • SR-91 Pierce Street to Orange County Line Add 1 lane each direction $ 161 million SR-91/1-15 Interchange Add new connector from 1-15 North to SR-91 West $ 243 millon SR-91/SR-71 Interchange Improve Interchange $ 26 million SR-71 SR-91 to San Bernardino County Line Widen to 3 lanes each direction $ 68 million 1-215 60/91/215 to San Bernardino County Line Add 2 lanes each direction $ 231 million ATTACHMENT 1 ROUTE LIMITS PROJECT EST. `COST 1-215 Eucalyptus Ave to 1-15 Add 1 lane each direction $ 210 million 1-15 ' SR-60 to San Diego County Line Add 1 lane each direction $ 359 million 1-10 1 Sari Bernardino County Line to Banning Add eastbound i ;, truck climbing lane $75 million 1-10/SR-60- , ,. . Interchange ; - Construct new interchange. , J , •$ 129 million SR-60 Badlands area, east of Moreno Valley , Add truck climbing' lane $ 26 million SR-79 Ramona Expressway to Domenigoni Parkway Realign highway $ 132 million SUBTOTAL Measure A Funding State & Federal Formula Funds $1.02 billion $0.64 billion TOTAL - $1.66 billion The Commission may add additional state highway , projects, should additional Measure A revenue become available. An estimated 5% of the total cost for these highway projects ($83 million) will be used for environmental purposes to mitigate the, cumulative and indirect impacts associated with construction; of, these projects. • UCLA Anderson Forecast (May 2006) FY Receipts, net of 1.5% SBOE Admin Fee FY 1989 Measure A Receipts: FY06/07 FY07/08 FY08/09 Total for last 3 years-1989 Measure A 2009. Measure A Receipts: - ' FY09110: FY1011�1 " FY11l1Z FY12113 ' FY13l14 , FY14N5 FY15116 ,r FY16117 FY17/18, FY18/99 Sult40.4 first 10 FY19l20 • FY21122 FY22Y13' FY23l24.. ,`, FY25g6!s Y26127t FY2712£3 F`f28129 � , Subtotal -second 10 years =. FY29f3U '. FYa Fa( FY5 FY3' FY38/,9ul,�. Subt64oas, Nominal 157,297,293 165,479,599 174,546,921 $ 497,323,813 % Change 185;614;649 198710;986 ` • 213;2J6,�13 .228;374831,, 245fj44;229' ` 268,0�3;979 ,; 285283 438�, '" 306 768,159 , .. 3?9;748 058> ;, 354Q50,324,'.", 2,612514;966" 379,597 087 405,6§5 897: 433 3;17 2'00 462 542 793 527 Q33 947 561,331905 596,230,456 . 633,722 346 ' 673568,$S6 i '. 5,1C447,478 ;. 7154467,00. 7 9i782,472 9,t7�„��1'�� ny�yy ttri 638,675; Real 6.6% 155,656,422 5.2% 160,492,344 5.5% 166,055,764 $ 482,204,530 % Change 6: 1:80,313,762 , " 6 ' 198,299,310 o '. 219,842,256 6, 230 744,1:78 6,; , i'�41;794458 253 448;Q52 o:� ;�65;626,465. . „.„.;9,98 78 pb7,941 90�226�3.3(t U2 941 47,6 `15 435 3Z8 , 29 ^165,Q45 " 357 938197A 371 d34,1'l 385125,945 398,§6�,48G 52% 5;4%1 4i8%' • 4:r!o` 44% 4;4°!0 4:1 % 4Ac;: 4.4%', 4i1%' 38% 36"l0l Note: Nominal dollars reflect actual dollars (year of receipt). Real dollars are adjusted for inflation, representing the purchasing power of future receipts in current year amounts (2006 $). Amounts presented include deduction of State Board of Equalization fees (1.5%). • • AGENDA ITEM 6 • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: December 18, 2006 TO: Technical Advisory Committee FROM: Ken Lobeck, Staff Analyst THROUGH: Shirley Medina Program Manager SUBJECT: 10-Year Measure A Western Riverside County Highway Program Project Recommendation STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the TAC to receive a copy of the RCTC Dec 13, 2006 agenda item concerning the 10-Year Measure A Western Riverside County Highway Program recommendations and CMIA submission recommendations. Attachment: Dec 13 RCTC Board Agenda item: "10 Year Measure A Western Riverside County Highway Program Project Recommendations" • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: December 13, 2006 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM:. Public/Private Financing and Delivery Plan Ad Hoc Committee Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: 10-Year Measure A Western Riverside County Highway Program Project Recommendations PUBLIC/PRIVATE FINANCING AND DELIVERY PLAN AD HOC COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Approve CMIA list and prepare submittal to the California Transportation Commission (CTC); 2) Direct staff to prepare requests for proposals (RFP) to pursue environmental clearance work leading to the eventual widening and improvement of 1-215,.1-15, SR-91 and 1-10; 3) Adopt as a priority, improvements that would widen 1-215 by at least one lane in each direction between Box Springs Road and 1-15; 4) Adopt as, a priority, the construction of an eastbound truck climbing lane on 1-10 between the San Bernardino County line and 1-10; 5) Adopt as a priority, the construction of two lanes in each direction on SR-91 between the Orange County line and 1-15 that would include the extension of the 91 Express Lanes to 1-15 and the addition of a general purpose lane in each direction along with collector distributor road systems, improved freeway to freeway connections with 1-15 and SR-71, and an eastbound auxiliary lane between SR-241 and Serfas Club Drive; 6) Adopt as a priority, the construction of two high occupancy toll (HOT) lanes in each direction on 1-15 between SR-74 and the San Bernardino County line and the addition of an high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lane . in each direction from .the confluence of 1-15/1-215.and •SR-74 along with support for the rapid implementation of the French Valley Parkway interchange; 7) Seek legislative approval for toll facilities on SR-91 and 1-15; and 8) Return to the Commission with a detailed report and construction staging plan for the widening of SR-91 and 1-15 with a special emphasis on HOT and HOV lane policy considerations and begin discussions with the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) regarding operational issues between the 91 Express Lanes and proposed HOT lane facilities in Riverside County. Agenda Item 10 222 BACKGROUND INFORMATION: With. the ;completionof a .comprehensive work effort to update projected Measure A revenues,assess innovative financing possibilities such: as public/private partnerships. and HOT lanes, and in the updating; scope, cost and. traffic data for Western Riverside` County highway projects, Commission staff concluded that a focus be placed on the county's most highly .impacted highway corridors. Specifically, .1-215, 1-10, 1-15 and SR-91 freeways are in need of immediate improvement. The 'timingof the recent work effort to update data for a delivery plan has 'come at an opportune time. The approval of Propositions 1 A and 1 B willhave the effect of generating significant state- revenue after years of: shortfalls`. The . added investment, especially in the area of highway corridors will be ' especially competitive and a'premium will be placed on timely project delivery,;. 2009 Measure A Plan and. State Highways in Western Riverside County The state's 'tight, deadlines for the CMIA program with a focus ',on rapid project deliveryare an important impetus for an aggressive implementation:strategy for the 2009 Measure: A Western Riverside County .state highway program. ' Riverside - County continuesto be one of the fastest growing areas in the nation. Congestion continues to, be a burgeoning problem andthe maturation of the; area's economy depends on rapid infrastructure development. Toward that end, Riverside County is currently .,horne, toa number of ambitious, projects that are already under. construction. The most obvious' example is the reconstruction- of the' 60/91 /215 _interchange in ;Downtown Riverside that the Commission played an important role in guaranteeing ,funding. Only a,few miles westofthat location, ; crews are widening SR-6,0 between Valley Way and 1-15 with the addition of a: general, purpose lane and an HOV lane ineach direction. SR-60 was also improved earlier by the Commission with an addition .of ,an HOV' lane through Moreno Valley. Yet another project is underway tobuild the Cantu Galleano interchange on 1-15 and next year construction will begin to rebuild the Green River Road interchange on SR-91. The bottom; line is that construction is already taking place at a rapid rate in Western Riverside County, but even more is needed and the Sooner the better. In order to accomplish this vision, staff is recommending a comprehensive delivery plan that will seek to invest approximately ;$2 billion on four freeway corridors over the next ;ten ;years. Implementing the delivery; . plan ' will require . aggressive timetables; for environmental clearance, engineeringand design, right-of-way acquisition, and !construction. Moreover, it will require a comprehensive fiscal plan utilizing funding from the CMIA, Measure A, bonding, against future Measure A revenues,' State! Transportation Improvement Program'(STIP) funding, federal funds, Agenda Item 10 223 • and toll revenues from HOT lanes.. This will need to be done in an environment in California where many other counties will also be aggressively seeking to leverage their own sales tax measure dollars and state bond revenue. Specifically regarding the financial situation, the 2009 Measure A program is expected to provide $486.2 million over its first 10 years. Given the plan's goal of investing $2 billion in freeway investments during the first 10 years, this leaves a gap of more than $1.5 billion. The Commission will likely compete well for CMIA funding and will receive its proportionate share of STIP dollars that will begin to close a significant percentage of the financial gap, but additional funding will still be needed. One option that .will be discussed in this staff report is use of HOT lanes that could be financed through user tolls while adding more capacity. Corridor Focus for Recommendations Staff recommends a focus on 1-215, 1-10, 1-15 and SR-91, while continuing long- term development work on large-scale projects such as the development of the Mid County Parkway (MCP), realignment of SR-79, the bi-county widening of 1-215 to San Bernardino County and Major Investment Study (MIS) recommendations that include a new facility parallel to SR-91 and the Corona- Irvine Expressway which could include a tunnel through the Cleveland National Forest.. All of these projects are likely to cost as much as a billion dollars each and are unlikely to be ready for construction in the near -term. Most importantly, the four :existing corridors of emphasis are heavily -congested and need to be improved before projects such as MCP can be built and connected to them. The following are the detailed project improvements suggested by corridor: Interstate 215 The 2009 Measure A Expenditure Plan (Expenditure Plan) includes a lane in each direction on the 1-215 from Eucalyptus Avenue to the 1-15/1-215 split. For planning purposes, staff has divided the 1-215 into three segments: • 1-15/1-215 to Scott Road - Add one lane in each direction • Scott Road to Nuevo Road - Add one lane in each direction • Nuevo Road to Box Springs Road - Add one lane in each direction. The southernmost two segments are a priority because the I-215 narrows to only two lanes in each direction south of D Street in Perris to the 1-15. The proposed build scenario for these segments would add a mixed flow lanein each direction from the 1-15/1-215 split to Nuevo Road. This proposed improvement would not only provide needed capacity but would establish three lanes in each direction on 1-215. Agenda Item 10 224 Additionally, Measure- A identifies the northern limit of the 1-215 improvement as being Eucalyptus Avenue. The build scenario proposes to extend the northern `limit from Eucalyptus Avenue to Box Springs Road. The reason for this exte sion is that the 2009 Measure A project would leave a gap between the SR-60/I215 east junction (East Junction) and Eucalyptus Avenue. The northernmost segment of the 1-215 corridor, Nuevo Road to Box Springs Road, adds an HOV lane that would, link to the east junction project. Due to existing right-of-way located in the center median from a cost/benefit perspective, the •improvement of .1-215 rates strongly in providing significant congestion relief benefits at a . relatively lower : cost. In terms of project development; this corridor is,.less complicated than some projects because most of the needed land to do the widening project is already located in the existing freeway right-of-way. Most importantly; the "state 'of California' Department of Transportation (Caltrans) is about to complete its 'project study report '(PSR) for these improvements, whichmeans that one important task will be done by the end of the year. The lower right-of-way hurdle along with=the completion of the PSR could allow that all three segments can be under construction by 2012. The overall cost, of the proposed 1-215 improvement's is, estimated at $293' million. Measure A initially set aside:$210 million for the project. If the Commission were to proportionally increase the Measure A funding :level for. the 1-215 by the 128.4 percent 'projected increase in future revenues, .funding from 'the Measure alonewould be:; sufficient. However if the project successfully obtains CMIA funding, or by using available STIP funds, this would t free up Measure A funds to be allocated to additional Measure A projects. Paying for these improvements will require a combination of dollars beginning either with CMIA or STIP along with Measure A. No matter the outcome regarding the CMIA, staff recommends keeping to the state's., goal of having projects under construction, by' 2012. Thisrequiresthe Commission to enter into contracts for . environmental clearance early next year, and staff irecommends receiving the authorization to immediately issue' a RFP to support this work. Interstate 10 Much like the proposed 1-215 project, additions to 1-1.O ;provide significant`; benefits at a relatively lower cost. San Bernardino Associated Governments (SANBAG) and Caltrans recently 'completed ::a, truck climbing lane east of Redlands to Live Oak Canyon.. The ',Commission's .project; will not connect ;with the San Bernardino : climbing lane, but it will :create ,additional capacity on this -eastbound/uphill segment of I-10. Agenda Item 10 • With the exception of improving the interchange at SR-60, the eastbound truck climbing lane is the only project for 1-10 that was included in'the Expenditure Plan. Given the increase in truck traffic through the Banning Pass area, the project is needed and can be implemented quickly. The newly estimated cost of construction of the eastbound truck climbing lane is $47 million, which is actually less than the original $75 million estimate in the Expenditure Plan. The first plan of action for this project is to work with Caltrans District 8 or a private contractor to complete a PSR and then issue a RFP for environmental clearance. The PSR and subsequent environmental work could begin early next year. • Staff is seeking authorization to either work with Caltrans or to issue a RFP for the PSR and to: issue a RFP upon its completion for the environmental work. State Route 91 In 1988, the widening of the Riverside Freeway iSR-91) was the cornerstone project in the campaign to approve the 1989 Measure A program. Upon its passage, the Commission moved quickly. to widen SR-91 through Corona and much of Riverside. With the passage of another decade, Riverside County has seen record housing and population growth and. job centers in Orange County have expanded resulting in thousands of additional Riverside County residents using the SR-91 to get to and from work. At the end of 2005, the Commission along with the OCTA and Transportation Corridor Agencies conducted a MIS to consider cross -county transportation improvements. The effort was a natural outgrowth of 'OCTA's purchase of the 91 Express Lanes and the creation of a state -mandated advisory committee for the corridor that consists of board members from both counties. The MIS produced a comprehensive recommendation that included short, medium and long-term courses of action. The short-term actions have commenced .with the opening of an auxiliary lane on the westbound side, the addition of express bus service and the enhancement of Metrolink service including weekend trains. OCTA is also pursuing environmental clearance for an eastbound auxiliary lane between the SR-241 toll road and Serfas Club Drive. The remainder of the MIS recommendation suggested widening of SR-91 as a course of action to be followed by the development of alternative corridors such as a parallel facility adjacent to the freeway and the construction of a new highway between Corona and Irvine. The new Corona Expressway could travel through the Cleveland National Forest and would require significant tunneling structures. Agenda Item 10 226 With the passage of Measure M. in. Orange County, the possibility of receiving state funding for the SR-91 HOV lane project in Downtown. Riverside and the completion of the Commission's analysis of public/private partnerships, it is the perfect time for the Commission to consider a major transformation of the: SR-91 through Corona and Riverside. In looking: at:the. Expenditure, Plan, the specified improvements forSR-91 fall short of the expansion that is needed along the corridor. Merely adding another lane to SR-9.1 will have limited benefit. Additionally there are; problem hot spots such as near 1,-15 and .Main .Street, where drivers are forced to make numeroustransition moves in a, confined area. A collector distributorroad system is an excellent way of addressing this; kind of problem by adding lanes alongside the freeway to allow' for ingress, egress, lane changes and weaving off the freeway mainline thus improving traffic flow and provide safety benefits. A potential issue is this, type of system improvement is not specifically identified in the Measure A program. Another Expenditure Plan issue is in: the area of freeway to freeway connections. For example the connector between the eastbound` SR-91 and northbound SR=71 was allocated only $26 million fora simple enhancement of the existing loop ramp that is already in place at that location. Given the congestion in the area, what is really needed is a.much larger fly -over structure that would allow for more cars to transition between the. two freeways and is expected to cost $78 million. In improving SR-91, the Commission must also consider the potential traffic disruption caused by construction. Adding one lane ata. time inperpetuitywould add capacity but would .result inrecurrent construction impacts to (residents, businesses and commuters for only an incremental improvement. To address this -situation, staff suggests .the implementation :of a major capacity increase on SR-91 to be built at one time in order to bring improvements as quickly as possible while minimizing disruption and also allowing for the possibility of building an overheadviaduct structure in the future as called for in: the .MIS. . The only problem with this approach is its cost. The Measure A program ,allocates $1.61, million for .: a- new . lane in each direction between Orange County and Pierce Street, $243 million for an HOV to HOV connector with 1-15' and $26 million to upgrade the existing loop connector with SR-71, a total of $430 million. These figures fall short :of.the recently updated costs. Instead, $815 million will be needed for the following projects that would. provide projects specified in Measure.A and additional improvements to what is called for in the Expenditure Plan: Agenda Item 10 227 • Add a mixed flow lane from Orange County line to Pierce Street • Construct eastbound auxiliary lane from Orange County line to Serfas Club Drive • Build connector improvements and collector/distributor system at SR-71 • Build connector improvements and collector/distributor system at 1=15 • Build two HOT lanes from Orange County line to 1-15. The result will be the addition of two new lanes of capacity on SR-91 in both directions between Orange County and I-15. In .the eastbound direction, the net lane improvement will be three lanes to Serfas Club. Drive with the construction of the eastbound auxiliary lane. East of 1-15, the net gain will be a mixed flow lane in each direction. The key to achieving this is the use of High Occupancy Toll Lanes (HOT) Lanes. Essentially, it would involve extending the existing 91 Express Lanes to Interstate 15. The Riverside County portion of the facility would be publicly -owned by ROTC, but it would obviouslyrequire full cooperation with OCTA so that commuters see the facility as a seamless transportation system. The two HOT Lanes would replace the existing HOV lane which currently exists in the same area. Along with the HOT lanes will be the addition of the general purpose lane from the Orange County Line to Pierce Street in Riverside. HOT Lane Po/icy Issues The idea :to replace an existing HOV lane with a HOT lane is consistent with new federal policy that was established by the passage for SAFETEA LU. HOT lanes are recognized as a transportation control measure (TCM) for air quality purposes. In the case of neighboring San Diego County, HOV lanes on 1-15 in northern San Diego County were converted to HOT lanes and are often referred to as "managed lanes." The conversion was done in San Diego County because the lanes were underutilized: Carpools are relevant in this discussion because HOT lanes are designed to allow carpools to travel for either a reduced cost or free of charge while single occupant vehicles pay the full fare. This encourages carpooling just as HOV lanes do while allowing everyone to enjoy the time advantage of the lanes if they are willing to pay the toll. The policy issue to consider is that the 91 Express Lanes define a carpool as three or more passengers rather than just two. In most cases, three -plus carpools: travel for free in the 91 Express Lanes except in the afternoon eastbound rush hour where they are charged half-price. The issue of two -plus versus three -plus will soon hit Southern California as HOV lanescontinueto fill with carpools, alternative -fuel vehicles and hybrids. The HOV lane on the SR-91 is already congested during rush hours, which could eventually compel Ca!trans to raise the requirement to three or more occupants. Agenda Item 10 228 Most importantly, the Commissionn's modeling and 'research work on public/private partnerships and toll roads has found that allowing carpools of two or more, rather than three or more, would overwhelm the capacity of the HOT lanesrendering them unattractive for toll users. The experience of OCTA with: the 911 Express Lanes has shown that the .three -plus definition is not onerous, ))has encouraged carpool formation and has actually led to an increase in the number of people who travel in the toll lane. The Commission must recognize that constructing HOT lanes on SR-91 and I-15 provides added capacity, allows for projects; to be delivered sooner .with ,a separate funding stream and affords the possibility ,of future; revenue generation. While a. strategy :that • includes HOT lanes maybe controversial, the added capacity; benefit is too significant to ignore. The attractiveness of using HOT lanes in Riverside County .is the ability to offer capacity .on :SR-91 that exceeds what is "provided in Measure A and to be able to provide the added capacity through a separate : financing stream that ::would be supported, through user tolls. This type of financing would not apply against Measure.A's $500, million bonding cap because MeasureA funds would not be used to guarantee the repayment of the financing: As a result, (the Commission would use Measure A.and state funds to construct .the freegeneralpurpose lane and bond against future HOT lane tolls to build the :HOT lanes: Future excess revenue . could `then be used for additional_ improvements in the same SR-91 corridor. Moving forward with such a large project raises a number of complexities that do not exist with ,the recommendations on 1-215 and 1-1 O. The size and scope of the project will require a more robust environmental clearance effort than on the other corridors .and will also involve.; :the acquisition' of., right-of-way.; The •.idea of introducing HOT lanes and tollswill also require a significant public outreach and education ;:program. The introduction of HOT lanes would also requires added coordination with', OCTA and staff believes that the first steps of that work should begin immediately along with theneed to seek legislative approval for HOT lanes in Riverside' County. : Such legislative approval should also provide for the use of innovative contracting and bidding methods . such as design -build. Staff. recommends moving forward; on .the overall package of the ;HOT .lanes and accompanying general purpose and auxiliary lanes. This would.require an RFP for environmental clearance and subsequently a _ contract : for construction 'staging to work in concert' with improvements on 1-15. Staff also seeks authorization to begin. communication with OCTA on toll coordination policies and to, seek, legislative . approval for HOT lane authorization. As it is currently envisioned, the pricing structure for tolls' would be :similar to the structure: used by OCTA' .although additional' work on projections will need final refinement. Staff swill return to the. Commission early, next year with: a full report on toll policies such as .the use ,;of transponders, pricing, public outreach and legislative issues. Agenda Item 10 229 • This is necessary because the current staff recommendation does not irreversibly bind .the Commission to HOT lanes. At any point in time, the Commission could reject tolls as a financing strategy but will have to do so with the realization that Measure A and state funding will not be sufficient to fund such a comprehensive $810 million improvement on this corridor. Interstate 15 Widening 1-15, especially in sections adjacent to SR-91 and SR-60 are absolutely necessary to improve mobility in Western Riverside County. Much like 1-215, most of the needed land for widening is located within the existing right-of-way of the freeway. The Expenditure Plan sets aside $359 million for the addition of one lane in each direction of 1-15 from SR-60 to the San Diego County line. The description does not specify whether the lane would be :a general purpose lane- or an HOV lane, although is has been assumed that air quality rules would require an HOV lane. Widening the 1-15 as called for in the Expenditure Plan is now estimated to cost as much as $900 million. Given the proposed. Measure A commitments on SR-91, 1-21.5 and 1-10, Measure A funds will need either a significant infusion of state and federal dollars or funding from HOT lane tolls. Yet another source could be from an envisioned "freeway fee" on new development, however that study is about to begin Phase II and will not be completed until next year. Moreover, the amount of time needed to generate funding from such a fee, as well as the policy considerations that it would entail, make it difficult to predict when or if such a fee would be enacted. Much like the case on SR-91, the addition of one lane in each direction on 1-15 will have only a limited, beneficial effect on congestion. Two lanes are necessary and staff recommends the development of two HOT lanes from SR-74 to the -San Bernardino County line. This would bring added capacity to a congested area, allow for rapid development with financing from future tolls and allow for a comprehensive HOT system with a direct connector to the proposed HOT lanes on SR-91. Considering HOT lanes on 1-15 involves many of the same policy issues that exist with the HOT lane proposal for SR-91. Once again, allowing carpools of two or more would overwhelm the capacity of the lane, and legislative authorization is still necessary and federal approval will be needed since 1-15 is an interstate highway. The major difference between 1-15 and SR-91 is that there is not an existing HOV lane on 1-15.. This proposal does not convert an existing facility, but instead provides two _lanes of added capacity in eachdirection while still offering an attractive incentive to form carpools. Also, the pricing for HOT lanes on 1-15 are projected through modeling at a much lower rate on than on SR-91. Agenda Item 10 230 The first phase in the 10-yearprogram should focus on the portion of 1-15,between SR-74 and San Bernardino ' County, although additional. extensions toward San Diego County could come shortly thereafter. Along ,with, the HOT lanes, the Commission; will seek to construct an HOV lane in each direction; between SR-74 and the 1-215 interchange. In addition to these improvements, theconstruction of French Valley Parkway will add significant capacity to the freeway south of the interchange. For that reason; staff has added the French Valley Parkway project for consideration as part of the Commission's CMIA submittal The completion of the French Valley Parkway is of great regional benefit and Commission will work closely with,the city of Temecula to assure expeditious .implementation. 4, To summarize staffs- recommendation for 1-15, it is quite similar :to the steps proposed for SR-91. Once ,again, Caltrans is ready to .wrap up?its PSR ifor this facility. Immediate work should take place for .environmental clearance and a construction staging plan to ensure that improvements on '1-15 arelimade inconcert with SR-91 Legislative authorization is also necessary andstaff should be directed to begin talks with OCTA and perhaps SANDAG regarding toll policies, billing and other procedural matters. Once again, the approval of these recommendations does not irreversiblybind the Commission to HOT lanes for 1-15 but it willbegin the process necessary, to; move forward as quicklyas possiblewith additional improvements. Future Policy Issues. The comprehensive ; project recommendations for the .first 10 years of the Measure A Western Riverside County Highway program will require a number of future Commission decisions and staff work to ensure its fulls implementation. Contracts :will be required for environmental clearance,' right-of-way acquisition, design, construction staging, bond financing,: public outreach, construction management and ;eventual construction. Each of these contracts will require formal Commission action.. In addition to the ongoing ,implementation items, there are larger policy issues that will need to be addressed. The first will be the limit i; in ,Measure A on bonding against future revenue. Measure A contains an artificial' limit of $500 million. With projections showing strong growth in future Measure A revenue, the Commission should consider going to: thevoters in a future election to raise, this limit.- The Commission's credit rating is .unsurpassed among public transportation agencies and the financial industry has repeatedly assured the Commission that a raise in the limit is in order and would not impact its credit rating.: Another issue ,'regardsthe proportionality_ of revenues as they grow above the original estimates that are contained in Measure A. Overall, Measure A originally projected $1.02 billionrfor Western. County highways. iThe UCLA iwork effort now Agenda Item 10 231 s� Priority Order 1 Project Description SR-91 HOV Lanes, Adams to 60/91 /215 IC Cost (000's) $ 238,000 Request (000'sl $ 161,000 2 SR-91 E/B Auxiliary Lane, SR-241 to SR-71 $ 81,000 $ 74,000 3 1-215 Add 1 MF Lane, 1-15/1-215 IC to Scott Road $ 56,000 $ 56,000 4 1-215 Add 1 MF Lane, Scott Road to Nuevo Road $ 117,000 $ 117,000 5 1-215 Add 1 MF Lane, Nuevo Road to Box Springs Road $ 121,000 $ 121,000 6* 1-215 TMS Field Elements, 1-15/1-215 IC to Box Springs Road $ 68,000 $ 68,000 7 SR-71 /SR-91 IC, Connector & Collector -Distributor System $ 99,000 $ 99,000 8 1-15 Add 1 MF & 1 HOV Lane, SR 91 /1-15 to Indian Truck Trail $ 229,000 $ 229,000 9 CETAP - French Valley Pkwy/I-15 OC & IC Improvements $ 135,000 $ 26,000 TOTALS $1,144,000 *The cost of TMS Field Elements will be divided in to the three segments on 1-215. All costs are rounded $ 951,000 Staff recommends formal adoption of this list for submittal to the CTC for consideration. The deadline for the submittal is January 16, 2007, and the final CTC decisions are expected in March 2007. With the exception of the SR-91 HOV lanes, which are a 1989 Measure A project, the remainder of the list is compatible with staff's 10-Year Delivery Plan recommendations for the 2009 Measure A program. The Commission and Caltrans District 8 will both submit projects for CMIA consideration. Caltrans' recommendations will be financially constrained, making it unlikely for the District to co -nominate every project that the Commission submits. Regardless of Caltrans' financial constraints in nominating projects, it pledges to assist the Comrission throughout the process. The First Step in a Long Process The presentation of the two staff reports are seen by staff as the framework, for action in developing the first ten years of the Western Riverside County Measure A highway program. The adoption of these priorities as part of an overall plan is the first of many steps that will take place over the next few months. The most immediate item is the: approval of the CMIA proposal that is due next month. The outcome of the CMIA will then affect the availability of funds for the rest of the effort. Figures will be adjusted further with the allocation of STIP funds in June. As has always been the case, the Commission will seek to combine funds from various sources to ensure that the priorities set by the Commission will then be implemented as quickly as possible. The subsequent work will then be pursued as quickly as possibleand regular updates, reports, policy decisions and action will come before the Commission. This will be especially critical if the Commission chooses to move forward with HOT lanes and the introduction of tolls to Riverside County's highway system. The effort will require active participation from the Commission on policy issues as well as in educating and informing the public. Agenda Item 10 233 • AGENDA ITEM 7 • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMM/SS/ON DATE: December 18, 2006 TO: Technical Advisory Committee FROM: Ken Lobeck, Staff Analyst THROUGH: Shirley Medina Program Manager SUBJECT: Proposition 1 B (AB1266) Local Streets and Road Improvement, Congestion Relief, and Traffic Safety Account of 2006 Summary STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the TAC to receive the estimated allocations proposed in Proposition 113 (AB1266) Attachment: SB1266 Local Streets Bill Pages and Estimated Allocations — 9 — Ch. 25 high -priority railroad crossing improvements, including grade separation projects, that are not part of the process established in Chapter 10 (commencing with Section 2450) of Division 3 of the Streets and Highways Code. The allocation of funds under this paragraph shall be made in consultation and coordination with the High -Speed Rail Authority created pursuant to Division 19.5 (commencing with Section 185000) of the Public Utilities Code. (k) (1) Seven hundred fifty million dollars ($750,000,000) shall be deposited in the Highway Safety, Rehabilitation, - and Preservation Account, which is hereby created in the fund. Funds in the account shall be available, upon appropriation by the Legislature, to the Department of Transportation, as allocated by the California Transportation Commission, for the purposes of the state highway operation and protection program as described in Section 14526.5. (2) The department shall develop a program for distribution of two hundred and fifty million dollars ($250,000,000) from the funds identified in paragraph (I) to fund traffic light synchronization projects or other technology -based improvements to improve safety, operations and the effective capacity of local streets and roads. (1) (1) Two billion dollars ($2,000,000,000) shall be deposited in the Local Streets and Road Improvement, Congestion Relief, and Traffic Safety Account of 2006, which is hereby created in the fund. The proceeds of bonds deposited into that account shall be available, upon appropriation by the Legislature, for the purposes specified in this subdivision to the Controller for administration and allocation in the fiscal year in which the bonds are issued and sold, including any interest or other return earned on the investment of those moneys, in the following manner: (A) Fifty percent to the counties, including a city and county, in accordance with the following formulas: (i) Seventy-five percent of the funds payable under this subparagraph shall be apportioned among the counties in the proportion that the number of fee -paid and exempt vehicles that are registered in the county bears to the number of fee -paid and exempt vehicles registered in the state (ii) Twenty-five percent of the funds payable under this subparagraph shall be apportioned among the counties in the proportion that the number of miles of maintained county roads in each county bears to the total number of miles of maintained county roads in the state. For the purposes of apportioning funds under this clause, any 'roads within the boundaries of a city and county that are not state highways shall be deemed to be county roads. (B) Fifty percent to the cities, including a city and county, apportioned among the cities in the proportion that the total population of the city bears to the total population of all the cities in the state, provided, however, that the Controller shall allocate a minimum of four hundred thousand dollars ($400,000) to each city, pursuant to this subparagraph. (2) Funds received under this subdivision shall be deposited as follows in order to avoid the commingling of those funds with other local funds: 95 Ch. 25 —10 —. (A) In the case of a city; into the city account that is designated for the . receipt of state funds allocated for local streets and roads. (B) In the case of an eligible county, into the county road fund. (C) In the case of ;a city and county, into a local account that is designated for the receipt of state funds allocated for local streets and ' roads. (3) For the purpose of allocating funds under this subdivision to cities and a city and county, the Controller shall use the most recent population estimates prepared by the Demographic Research Unit of the Department of Finance. For a city that incorporated after January 1, 1998 that does not appear on the most recent population estimates prepared by the Demographic Research'- Unit, the Controller shall. use the population determined for that city under Section 11005.3 of the.. Revenue`' and Taxation Code. (4) Funds apportioned to a city, county, or city and county under this subdivision shall be used for improvements to transportation facilities that will assist in reducing local, , traffic congestion and further deterioration, improving traffic flows, ,or traffic safety that may include, but not be limited to, street and ,:highway pavement maintenance,. rehabilitation, installation, construction and reconstruction of necessary ; associated facilities such as drainage and traffic control devices, or the maintenance, rehabilitation; installation, construction and reconstruction of facilities that expand ridership on transit systems, safety projects to reduce fatalities, or as a local match to obtain state. or federal transportation funds for similar purposes. (5) At the conclusion of each fiscal year during, which a city or county expends the funds it has received under this subdivision; the Controller , may verify the city's or county's compliance with paragraph (4). Any city or county that has not complied with paragraph (4) shall reimburse the state for the funds it received during that fiscal year. Any funds withheld or returned as a result of a failure to comply with paragraph (4) shall be reallocated to the other counties and cities whose expenditures are in - compliance. Article 3. Fiscal Provisions 8879.25. , Bonds in the ;total amount of nineteen billion nine hundred twenty-five million dollars ($19,925,000,000), exclusive of refunding bonds, or so much thereof as is necessary, are hereby authorized to be issued and sold for carrying out the purposes expressed in this chapter and . to reimburse the General Obligation Bond Expense Revolving Fund pursuant to Section 16724.5. All bonds herein authorized'. which have been duly sold and deliveredas provided herein shall constitute valid` and legally binding general obligations of the state, and the full faith and credit of the state is hereby pledged for the punctual payment of both principal and interest thereof. mjgc 5May2006 SB1266 Local Street and Road Imprvmt Funds Allocation of CityAllocationj 1;0006s0004 LA PALMA 162081 $ 510,913 LOS ALAMITOS 12,004 S 400,000 MISSION VIEJO 97,997 $ 3,113,482 NEWPORT BEACH 832361 $ 2,648L479 ORANGE 137f801 $ 4,378,103 PLACENTIA 51,236 $ 1,627,829 RANCHO SANTA MARGARf 49,130 $ 1,560,919 SAN CLEMENTE 66,280 $ 2,105,795 SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO 36,073 $ 1,146,082 SANTA ANA 351r322 $ 11,161,920 SEAL BEACH 25,298 $ 803,748 STANTON 38,761 $ 1,231,483 TUSTIN 71,767 $ 2,280L123 - VILLA PARK 6,218 S 400,000 WESTMINSTER 92,408 $ 2,935,913 YORBLINDA 7IWA;R11 66,794 S 2z122i125 AUBURN 12,975 S 412,231 COLFAX 1,825 - $ 400,000 LINCOLN 332589 $ 1,067,163 LOOMIS 6,480 S 400,000 ROCKLIN 50,920 $ 1,617,789 RLE� 104,655 $ 3,325,O15 �{yP�ORTOLA 2,150 S 400,000 Kid BANNING 28,128 S 893z660 BEAUMONT BLYTHE 23,145 $ 735,344 22;179 $ 704,653 CALIMESA 7,415 S 400,000 CANYON LAKE 10,939 $ 400=000 CATHEDRAL CITY 51,081 $ 1,622,905 COACHELLA 352207 $ 1,118,569 CORONA 144,661 $ 4,596,053 DESERT HOT SPRINGS 22,011 $ 699,316 HEMET 69,544 $ 2,209,496 INDIAN WELLS 4,865 S 400,000 INDIO 712654 $ 2,276,533 LAKE ELSINORE LA QUINTA MORENO VALLEY 40,985 $ 1,302,143 38,340 $ 1,218,108 174,565 $ 5,546,139 - MURRIETA 92,933 S 2,952,593 NORCO 27,263 $ 866,178 PALM DESERT 49,539 $ 1,573,913 PALM SPRINGS 46,437 S 1,475,359 PERRIS 47,139 $ 1,497,662 RANCHO MIRAGE 16,672 $ 529,689 RIVERSIDE 287,820 $ 9,144,386 SAN JACINTO 312066 $ 987,004 TEMECULA 93,923 S 2,984,046 CITRUS HEIGHTS 86,883 $ '2,760,377 ELK GROVE 130,874 $ 4,158,024 FOLSOM 692445 $ 2,206,351 GALT 22,982 $ 730,166 ISLETON • 813. S 400,000 RANCHO CORDOVA 56,355 $ 1,790,466 SACRAMENTO 457,514 S 14,535,767 LaliforniaGiifinancc.com - page 6 of 10 r • AGENDA ITEM 8 A presentation will be made but there is no attachment to the agenda for item 8. • ' -INITIAL .CITY TAC MEMBER (l::J?J BANNING ev c,...) c...0 \ U-c:l'f"" ~ 99 E. Ramsey St., DUANE BURK Banning 92220--0998 Director of Public Works BEAUMONT 550 E. 6th St., JOHN WILDER Beaumont 92223 Assistant Director of Public Works 14'-BLYTHE 440 S. Main St., JIM RODKEY Blythe 92225 Public Works Director (/ CVAG 73-710 Fred Waring Dr., Suite 200, Palm Desert 92260 ALLYN WAGGLE CALIMESA P. 0. Box 1190, Calimesa 92320 ANNE SCHNEIDER CAL TRANS 464 W. 4th St., 6th Fl., San Bernardino 92401-1400 SEAN YEUNG CANYON LAKE {M 31516 Railroad Canyon Rd., HABIB MOTLAGH Canyon Lake 92587 City Engineer CATHEDRAL CITY ~ 68-700 Avenida Lalo Guerrero, Cathedral City 92234 BILL BAYNE COACHELLA 1515 West Sixth Street, Coachella 92236 BILL GALLEGOS ~ CORONA AMADQATIAN 400 South Vicentia Ave. Public Works Director Corona 92882 Public Works Department DESERT HOT £ l.Ot1~ /;;fl SPRINGS -65-950 9.0.N PA;NliiPM-E Pierson Blvd., Desert Pt1blie Worl's Bireet81 Hot Springs 92240 Engineering Department TECHNICAL AD'4iPRY COMMITTEE DECEMBl'liP'18, 2006 TELEPHONE FAX E-MAIL 951-922-3130 951-922-3141 dburk@ci.banning.ca.us 951-769-8520 951-769-8526 ulcjohn1@aol.com 760-922-6611 x2.27 760-922-0278 jrodkey@cityofblythe.ca.gov 760-346-1127 760-340-5949 awaggle@cvag.org 909-795-9801 909-795-4399 aschneider@cityofcalimesa.net 909-383-4030 909-383-4129 sean_yeung@dot.ca.gov 951-943-6504 951-943-8416 trilake@adelphia.net 760-770-0360 760-202-1460 bbayne@cathedralcity.gov 760-398-57 44 760-398-1630 bgallegos@coachella.org 951-736-2236 951-736-2496 amadq@ci.corona.ca.us 1"'·Z 'fl• 1'o -Zt..!-.Ct9f el~• Q ~a 1 c~.u,. t+,.,,. eo,, .S3tff ~8 l!!!'ell 11 ~ .e9o!!l!!l'!rl55t ~' -~ • ALTERNATE AL TERNA TE E-MAIL 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 Eric Skaugset, Assistant Engineer eskaugset@sanjacintoca.us Leslie Grosjean lgrosjean@cathedralcity.gov Senior Civil Engineer Department of Public Works tlucero@coachella.org Ned Ibrahim Assistant Public Works Director ned.ibrahim@ci.corona.ca.us Ryan Duarte Associate Engineer 12/12/2006 INITIAL ~ I uJ ! I 11 1:: • ~ CITY HEMET 510 E. Florida Avenue Hemet 92543 INDIAN WELLS 44-950 Eldorado Dr., Indian Wells 92210-7497 INDIO 100 Civic Center Mall, TAC MEMBER MIKE GOW TIM WASSIL Public Works Director/City Engineer Public Works Department TECHNICAL AD'4a>RY COMMITTEE DECEMBllftl"18, 2006 TELEPHONE I FAX E-MAIL 951-765-3712 1951-765-2493 mgow@cityofhemet.org 760-776-0237 I 760-346-0407 twassil@cityofindianwells.org ,,.,. ' Indio 92202 !AMIR MODARRESSI 760-342-6530 760-342-6556 amir@indio.org ~ LAQUINTA P.O.Box 1504, 78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta 92253 TIMOTHY JONASSON Public Works Director/City Engineer 1760-777-7042 KENSEUMALO City Engineer 760-777-7155 tjonasson@la-quinta.org LAKE ELSINORE 1/!IL 1130 South Main St., M ..::> Lake Elsinore 92530 Community Development Department l951-674-3124x244 1951-471-1418 kseumalo@lake-elsinore.org RJ Ji 90 MORENO VALLEY P.0.Box 88005, Moreno Valley 92552-0805 MURRIETA CHRIS VOGT Public Works Director/City Engineer 1951-413-3105 26442 Beckman'Court, IJIM KINLEY Murrieta 92562 Director of Public Works/City Engineer 1951-461-6077 NORCO 2870 Clark Ave., P.O.Box 428, Norco 92860-0428 PALM DESERT 73-510 Fred Waring Dr., BILL THOMPSON Director of Public Works Palm Desert 92260-[MARK GREENWOOD 2578 Director of Public works PALM SPRINGS 3200 Tahquitz Canyon Way, Palm Springs 92262 PVVTA 125 West Murphy St., Blythe 92225 DAVE BARAKIAN Director of Public Works/ City Engineer LES NELSON City Manager 951-270-5607 760-776-6450 760-323-8253 x8732 760-922-6161 951-413-3170 I chrisv@moval.org 951-698-4509 ljkinley@murrieta.org 951-270-5622 I bthompson@ci.norco.ca.us 760-341-7098 lmgreenwood@ci.palm-desert.ca.us 760-322-8325 Dave.Barakian@palmsprings-ca.gov 760-922-4938 lnelson@cityofblythe.ca.gov ALTERNATE ·QY Patricia Castill~ Bondie Baker Assistant Engineer II Jim Smith Nick Nickerson Ed Basubas • ALTERNATE E-MAIL pcastillo@cityofhemet.org bbaker@cityofindianwells.org jsmith@indio.org nnickerson@naiconsulting.com Senior Civil Engineer I ebasubas@lake-elsinore.org Craig Neustaedter craign@moval.org Russ Napier Capital Improvement Program Manager I mapier@murrieta.org Lori Askew Associate Engineer I Laskew@ci.norco.ca.us Alana Townsend I atownsend@ci.palm-desert.ca.us Marcus Fuller 12/12/2006 • -INITIAL CITY PERRIS ik? 101 North 'D' St., Perris 92570 fittc_, RTA 1825 Third St., Riverside 92517-1968 ~ RANCHO MIRAGE 69-825 Highway 111, Rancho Mirage 92270 /rtf; RIVERSIDE 3900 Main St., Riverside 92522 RIVERSIDE COUNTY 4080 Lemon St., Riverside 92501 RIVERSIDE COUNTY 4080 Lemon St., Riverside 92501 lkS SAN JACINTO 201 E. Main St., San Jacinto 92583 SUN LINE ~J_, 32-505 Harry Oliver Trail, Thousand Palms 92276 ~ TEMECULA 43200 Business Park Dr., Temecula 92590 WR COG 4080 Lemon Street, Riverside 92501 LI CC~ t..'11'.4 ..t 0 {7'\T % \. "" <t~>1 ' s8~ TAC MEMBER AHMAD ANSARI Public Works Director MARK STANLEY Director of Planning BRUCE HARRY Director of Public Works TOM BOYD Deputy Public Works Director/ City Engineer GEORGE JOHNSON Director of Transportation Transportation and Land Management Agency JUAN PEREZ Deputy Director of Transportation Transportation and Land Management Agency HABIB MOTLAGH City Engineer EUNICE LOVI Director of Planning BILL HUGHES Director of Public Works/City Engineer Public Works Department RUTHANNE TAYLOR-BERGER 1Avt-F~~~,.J p"' \f f'A. { I' ru1} f'I\ c;; Ml TECHNICAL ADia>RY COMMITTEE DECEMB'ftr 18, 2006 TELEPHONE FAX E-MAIL 951-94~100x237 951-943-8591 aansari@cityofperris.org 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 951-955-67 40 951-955-3198 GJohnson@rctlma.org 951-955-6740 951-955-3198 jcperez@co.riverside.ca.us 951-94~504 951-943-8416 trilake@adelphia.net 760-343-3456 X119 760-343-3845 elovi@sunline.org 951-694-6411 951-694-6475 bill.hughes@cityoftemecula.org 951-955-8304 951-787-7991 berger@wrcog.cog.ca.us <iO't ... Jf3 :. l' 3 f6.14.L~Gt,~c:....1'' .,.~ '11' '2-''-43~ • ALTERNATE ALTERNATE E-MAIL Habib Motlagh City Engineer trilake@adelphia.net Mike McCoy mm~transit.com Senior Planner Planning Department Randy Viegas Project Manager randyv@ci.rancho-mirage.ca.us Siobhan Foster sfoster@riversideca.gov Juan Perez Deputy Director of Transportation jcperez@co.riverside.ca.us George Johnson Director of Transportation GJohnson@rctlma.org Eric Skaugset, Assistant Engineer eskaugset@sanjacintoca.us Ron Parks Deputy Public Works Director -12/12/2006