Loading...
04 April 19, 2007 Transit Policy80035 �rSCVVnv�.. - RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMM/SS/ON TRANSIT POLICY COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA TIME: 10:00 a.m. DATE: Thursday, April 19, 2007 LOCATIONS: Conference Room C, 5th Floor Riverside County Administrative Center 4080 Lemon Street, Riverside 4th District, Riverside County (Teleconference Site) 73-710 Fred Waring Drive, Suite 222 Palm Desert, CA 92260 *** COMMITTEE MEMBERS *** Frank West, City of Moreno Valley, Chairman Roger Berg, City of Beaumont, Vice -Chairman John Chlebnik, City of Calimesa Terry Henderson, City of La Quinta Frank Hall, City of Norco Daryl Busch, City of Perris Steve Adams, City of Riverside Jeff Stone, County of Riverside John F. Tavaglione, County of Riverside Roy Wilson, County of Riverside *** STAFF *** Stephanie Wiggins, Regional Programs Director Tanya Love, Program Manager *** AREAS OF RESPONSIBILITY *** Review items and make recommendations to the Commission on the following: • Policy directions to prepare for transit vision and to bring regional perspective to transit • Monitor transit implementation • Performance of transit operators and its services The Committee welcomes comments. if you wish to provide comments to the Committee, please complete and submit a Testimony Card to the Clerk of the Board. 11.36.39 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION TRANSIT POLICY COMMITTEE www.rctc.org AGENDA* *Actions may be .taken on any item listed on the agenda 10 00 a.m. Thursday, April 19, 2007 CONFERENCE ROOM C Riverside County Transportation Commission 4080 Lemon Street, 5th Floor, Riverside, 92501 and 4th District, Riverside County (Teleconference Site) 73-710 Fred Waring Drive, Suite 222, Palm Desert, 92260 In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act and Government Code Section 54954.2, if you need special assistance to participate in a Committee meeting, please. contact the Clerk of the Board at (951) 787-7141. Notification of at least 48 hours prior to meeting time will assist staff in assuring that reasonable arrangements can be made to provide accessibility at the meeting. 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL 3. PUBLIC COMMENTS (Items not listed on the agenda) 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - To be submitted at thenext. meeting 5. ADDITIONS/REVISIONS (The Committee may add an item to the Agenda after making a finding that there is a need to take immediate action on the item and that the item came to the attention of the Committee subsequent to the posting of the agenda. An action adding an item to the agenda requires 2/3 vote of the Committee. If there are less than 2/3 of the Committee members present, adding an item to the agenda requires a unanimous vote. Added items will be placed for discussion at the end of the agenda.) Transit Policy Committee Agenda April 19, 2007 Page 2 6. POTENTIAL PARTNERSHIPS: SCHOOL DISTRICT TRANSPORTATION Overview Page, 1 This item is for the Committee to as part of the visioning process, receive and file the report on the outreach to Riverside County . school : districts . to explorepotential partnership opportunitiesin an effort to reduce traffic congestion. TRANSIT CENTERS, TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENTS, AND RAIL STATION JOINT DEVELOPMENTS FOR RIVERSIDE COUNTY: PLANNED AND CONCEPTUAL Overview part This item; is for the Committee to as ' of ` the transit visioning '..process, receive and file the report on planned and conceptual Transit Centers (TC), Transit Oriented Developments (TOD), and Rail Station Joint Developments for Riverside County. LONG RANGE PASSENGER RAIL PLANNING EFFORT Overview This item is for the Committee to receive and file the report on the Long Range Passenger Rail Planning Effort that summarizes the current plans and projects relating to passenger rail in Riverside County. 9. TRANSIT VISIONING: NEXT STEPS Overview This item is for the Committee to receive and file the presentation on the next steps in the transit visioning process. 10. ADJOURNMENT The next Transit Policy Committee meeting ° is scheduled to be held at 10:00 a.m., Thursday, May 24, 2007, Conference Room A, County of Riverside Administrative Center, 4080 Lemon Street, 3rd Floor, Riverside TRANSIT POLICY COMMITTEE COMMISSIONER SIGN -IN SHEET APRIL 19, 2007 NAME AGENCY E MAIL ADDRESS ‘_, ry � -_ ,ia A L»z-EB N)K. C/G� g_54 /ck.4.04 riiQLL. 11 ,,ec-0 c-V 6,4,- yz_ r C (c,4:. t'S s...6v p-10-../T ..-ECt g G R-- G21 < ( . �4NA,r i,tvl �7� -,G.- / 4) .-.tsy ,;:7--TZ. _s • %; �`'tic-- ]` ` �4,C4d 2 rf � 1 AGENDA ITEM 6 • RIVERSIDE . COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMM/SS/ON . DATE: April 19, 2007 TO: Transit Policy Committee FROM: Tanya Love, Program Manager THROUGH: Stephanie Wiggins, Regional Programs Director SUBJECT: Potential Partnerships: School District Transportation STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Committee to as part of the visioning process, receive and file the report on the outreach to Riverside County school districts to explore potential partnership opportunities in an effort to reduce traffic congestion. BACKGROUND INFORMATION.- This staff report is'in follow-up to the Transit Policy Committee's request for staff to explore partnership opportunities with Riverside County school districts. It; is important to .note that traditional transit funding sources cannotbe used to subsidize school transportation. At this time, staff has met with 15 of the 21 districts in order to explore the following policy questions: 1) Can the Commission provide a subsidy to parents who choose to get their children to school by some means other than being . transported by the parent? Specifically, can the Cornmission purchase passes for students to ride either the school bus or public transit?; and 2) Review the provision of school transportation to determine if the cost of providing transportation is the issue; or address the question of whether it is a matter of service, reliability, convenience and safety. Status Report Based on ` the Riverside County Office of Education's FY 2006/07 Financial Comparison Report, the current cost to provide student transportation is projected to be $77.4 million. Of that amount, approximately $25.4 million is funded by the district's transportation budget; the balance. of =:$51.9: million is paid for with general funds - dollars that are available for classroom expenses including salaries, books and supplies. The report projects .that 77,953 -pupils will be transported at a per -student cost ranging from a low of $586.7.8 to a high of $7,869.04. Approximately one-third of the student body is transported via school funded Agenda Item 6 transportation programs. The balance of students use an alternative source .of transportation including -walking, bicycling, public transit and transportation by. private vehicle. ` Although a few districts charge a nominal fee for student transportation', the. majority of districts provide the transportation without charge. Reasons why the majority of districts do not charge include: 1') Majority of students are on a free/reduced lunch program and 2) Charging for transportation may negatively impact daily attendance. No student = reduced Average Daily Attendance (ADA) funding.. The majority of school district staff indicated that riding public transit was not a viable option for kindergarten through 8th grade students. Reasons given included; the following: 1 ) Parents do not want their younger children riding with the general public. Reasoris cited included the need ,for public ,transit to stop at courthouses, jails and casinos - stops deemed unsuitable for young children; 2) Issue of needing to transfer to another bus to complete their trip; 3) Not enough flexibility with public transit. Schools have "late .,starts" and "early outs that fluctuate; and Schools have a. direct relationship with the students. If the student misbehaves on the school bus, the driver can report the incident directly to school management. Overall, there appeared. tobe a perceived safety issue. with transporting' :younger students; however, through various discussions, the following :,..partnership opportunities were ;identified for high. school students: 1) If public transit route schedules could be coordinated with school : bell, times, the likelihood of riding public transit .may increase; 2) Development and implementation of a mobility travel =training program to encourage ridership. This would need to include: an aggressive outreach program to teach students not only how to ride the bus but how to purchase passes as well; ' Beaumont ($200); Hemet ($210-first student $140-two students; $70-third student; free for 'four. or more students); Lake Elsinore. ($226); Menifee (80 cents a ride annual passalso available; however cost nat available at time of writing this staff report; Murrieta ($350); "Riverside ($330), Agenda Item 6 2 3) Development andimplementation of :a marketing outreach program to distribute free and/or reduced bus passes; 4) Implementation . of: shuttle buses in student "walk zones". Under this scenario, students would be picked -up„ at school and delivered to major intersections based on the. enrolled students' neighborhoods; 5) Coordination of transportation for "after school" programs 6) Financial assistance to operate additional school buses , and/or building, fueling infrastructure to assist with securing grant funding made available through . the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). and other grant opportunities; 7) Development of specialized transportation. programs for: a. Homeless children; b. Special education students (state law.: requires curb to curb serviceup to age 23). Transportation must be made available to the school that offers a program most beneficial to the special education child not necessarily tied to the child's neighborhood school; and No student left behind program. Based on "performance tier". students that are eligible for transportation can go to a higher performing school. 8) Provision of transportation within .the :school's "walking zones" which varies by school district. Safe Routes to. Schools Program ,SAFETEA-LU As reported above; Riverside County school districts transport approximately one-third of its student population. "According to local studies, 21-27 % of morning traffic is attributed to parents driving their children .to school. This has caused increased .traffic congestion around schools, prompting even more parents to drive their ,kids."2 Under SAFETEA-LU, funding in the amount of $612 million is available for a.Safe Routes to Schools program. Following is a brief summary of the provisions of the program, as stated in the transportation bill: 1) Enable and encourage children, including those with disabilities to walk or bicycle to school; 2) To make bicycling and walking to school a safer and more appealing transportation alternative; and 3) To: facilitate., the planning, development, and implementation of program activities that will .improve safety and reduce traffic, fuel consumption as well as pollution. 2 Safe, Routes to Schools. <http://www.saferoutestoschools.org/about.html> Agenda Item 6 Funding will be provided . to the State Departments of Transportation on a formula basis calculated from school enrollment. Only schools are eligible recipients. Eligible activities for funding include: • Infrastructure: Funds may be used for planning, 'design and, construction of .projects to improve the ability of students to walk to school, including sidewalk improvements, traffic calming, street crossings, bicycle facilities, etc.; and Non -Infrastructure: To encourage walking and bicycling to 'schools," funds may' be used for public awareness campaigns, outreach, .traffic education and enforcement, etc. Safe Routes to Schools Program - Marin County In .August 2000, Marin County Bicycle Coalition was funded to develop a national model Safe Routes to Schools Program as a means to reduce traffic: congestion around schools as well as to promote healthy alternatives. To "demonstrate the benefits of the program, nine pilot schools in four different geographic locations were recruited. Initial surveys reported that 73% of the studentswere arriving by car, .14% walking and 7% biking to school and 6% arriving by. ;bus:"3 Guidance together with promotional materials were made available to staff at the pilot schools. In addition, a traffic engineer was hired to assist in developing safe route . to school plans. Periodic walk and bike to school days were held with frequent rider mile contests which rewarded children who came to school walking; biking., carpooling or riding the public bus. At the end of the pilot' program, the schools experienced a 57 % increase in the number of childrenwalking and biking and a 29% decrease in the number of children arriving alone in a car. In .2005, as a result of the successful pilot program, on -going, funding was made available through the Transportation Authority of Marin through the -passage of the Measure A sales .tax. Safe ,Routes to Schools` Program — Training Training on exploring and/or starting a Safe Routes to Schools PrograM is available . including a one hour presentation, a half day, full day ortwo day. workshop. The - two day workshop provides a blueprint for how to develop a successful Safe Route' to School program and includes exercises ranging .from' event planning ` and classroom education to 'identifying barriers to walking and bicycling as well creating safe streets. Based on a preliminary review, the cost to 'conduct the training ranges from $750 (one hourlecture) to $6,000 for the, two day workshop plus travel expenses. 3 ,Marin :County Bicycle Coalition: Safe Routes' to Schools. <http://www.saferoutestoschools.org> Agenda Item 6 4 Next Steps Staff will offer to host a meeting of the school districts and transit operators to discuss the Safe Routes to Schools Program. It is anticipated that this meeting will foster a discussion of the potential to leverage existing discounted bus passes, transit scheduling, marketing, and rideshare activities with the Safe Routes to Schools Program in order to expand transportation options and improve mobility. Agenda Item 6 5 AGENDA 'ITEM 7 • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: April:19, 2007 TO: Transit Policy Committee FROM: Tanya Love, Program Manager THROUGH:. Stephanie Wiggins, Regional. Programs Director SUBJECT: Transit Centers; Transit Oriented Developments,and 'Rail Station Joint Developments for Riverside County: Planned and Conceptual STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Committee to as part of the transit visioning process, receive and file the report on'planned and conceptual Transit Centers (TC),` Transit Oriented Developments (TOD), and Rail Station Joint Developments for Riverside County. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: At its February 15, 2007 meeting, a presentation was made' .to the Transit =Policy Committee :on TOD` related to a study conducted as .a result of funding made available to the Western Riverside Council of Government (WRCOG). „ Given: the current transit visioning process, staff felt it advantageous to develop the attached master county -wide list and subsequent map of planned and conceptual TC, TOD, transfer locations as well as` potential park -and -ride lots. To delineate' between TC and TOD, the followingdefinitions are provided: TC Are large stop areas that are designed to serve multiple; routes and/or modes of transit including buses, light rail and. commuter ,rail. The TC can be on street or off street facilities. Typically, TC are developed and funded under the direction of the regional transit agency. TOD - Refers to the _clustering of homes, jobs,shops and services in close proximity to rail stations, _ferry terminals or bus stops offering access to frequent, high -quality transit services. "To be successful, TOD must serve a significant portion of trips by public transit walking and biking, rather than by private automobile."' Typically, developers initiate and secure funding for TOD. ' Transit Oriented Development. New Places, New Choices. Association of Bay Area Governments. December 2006 Agenda Item 7 To encourage transit ridership, it is essential that TC, transfer locations and park and ride lots be conveniently: placed throughout the transit operator's service area. It : should be noted that although TOD are not currently the -dominant trend in the region, the concept certainly offers a distinct .and growing market that provides new choices for individuals to reduce their dependence on the: automobile. The attached master lists .of planned and conceptual transit and . commutes rail stations together with transfer points and park -and -ride clots represent -county-wide planning- efforts. Whenever possible, both Riverside. Transit,, Agency (RTA) and the Commission cooperate in their planning efforts to ensure effective transfer connections at all commuter rail stations. Rail Station Joint Development As the Metrolink s stern begins to y g' prove attractive to developers who recognize the potential revenue stream that can be generated by locating their . developments near rail stations, these developments may generate additional revenue .potential for the Commission, provide benefit to existing passengers, who . frequent these. stations, and encourage new transit ridership. In recognition .of this, at its June 2005 meeting, the Commission adopted Joint Development Guidelines for the Commission owned Metrolink Stations. Currently, joint development opportunities exist with the La Sierra Avenue and the Riverside -Downtown Stations. In addition, the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) New Starts process emphasizes land use and joint development when ,rating projects for discretionary funding, such as the Perris Valley ,Line (PVL) project .that anticipates up to six new stations. Establishing the Joint Development Guidelines for current and future Commission owned rail stations is . the first ; step in creating . an.. opportunity for comprehensive: planning of station area developrnent with ''local jurisdictions and the development community. The ,goals of the Guidelines are to: Promote and enhance rail transit ridership, ➢" Enhance and protect the commuter rail station and corridor; Encourage comprehensive and complementary planning - and development around the Commission owned station sites Reduce auto use and congestion through. encouragernent : of rail transit -linked development, consistent with Commission policy to pursue transportation alternatives that :enhance or `:complement economic development; and Demonstrate a fiscal .benefit to the Commission based on a fair market return on public, investment. Agenda Item 7 e e e Attachments: 1) Coachella Valley: SunLine's Service Area 2) Coachella Valley: City of Indio 3) Western County: RTA's Service Area 4) Western County: Commuter Rail 5) Riverside County Proposed Transit Facilities and TOD Development Map 6) RCTC Rail Station Joint Development Guidelines Agenda Item 7 • • ATTACHMENT 1 MASTER LIST OF TRANSIT CENTERS, TRANSFER POINTS AND PARK AND RIDE LOTS IN COACHELLA VALLEY Prepared April 10, 2007 by Planning Department of SunLine Transit Agency This comprehensive list includes any place where bona fide transit -oriented; development, transit centers or large transit nodes have been built, are under construction or are planned or conceptualized in the SunLine Transit Agency operations and service area. Includes public, private and partnership. arrangements, Transit Center Name General Center Description and Notes Physical Location Address Assessor's Parcel No Planning Status Extent Of TOD Planned at this Site. Coachella- Downtown Bus, bike, and pedestrian transit node to be determined Preferably downtown Coachella Unknown — not yet assigned and will be determined Unknown — not sure which parcel would be selected Recommended in Comprehensive Operational Analysis approved by the Board. None- will be surrounded by mixed use of residential, offices, retail and/or commercial Mecca Bus, bike, and °pedestrian transit node to be determined Located in the unincorporated area of Mecca Unknown — not yet . assigned and will ' be determined ' Unknown - not sure which parcel would be selected Recommended as part of the South Valley Implementation Program None - will be surrounded by mixed use of residential, offices, retail and/or commercial_ Transfer Location/Shared Park and- Ride Bus, bike, pedestrian transit node to be determined Vicinity of Palm Drive and Two Bunch Palms Trial in Desert Hot Springs Unknown - not yet assigned and will be determined Unknown - not sure which parcel would be selected Recommended in Comprehensive Operational Analysis approved by the Board. Surrounded by mixed uses of residential, offices, retail,, and commercial Transfer Location Bus, pedestrian, and transit node. Bicycle storage may be added to make facility multimodal. Vicinity of Palm Canyon Drive and Baristo Road in Palm Springs Unknown Unknown Recommended in Comprehensive Operational Analysis approved by the Board. Currently in use. Surrounded by mixed uses of residential, offices, retail, and . commercial. Additional improvements may be needed.. Transfer Location Bus; pedestrian and transit node. Bicycle storage may be added to make facility multimodal. Town Center Way and Highway 111 East and West side of Town Center Way and Highway 111 Unknown Currently in use and recommended in the Comprehensive Operational Analysis = approved by the Board. Currently in use. Surrounded by mixed uses of residential, offices, retail, and commercial, including Westfield Shoppingtown. Additional improvements may be needed. Transfer Location Bus, pedestrian and transit node. Bicycle storage maybe added to make facility multimodal. East Palm Canyon Drive and Monty Hall . East and West side of Palm Canyon Drive 9 Unknown Currently in use and recommended as potential site in the Comprehensive Operational Analysis approved by the Board Currently in use. Surrounded by mixed uses of residential, offices, retail, and commercial. Additional improvements may be needed. ATTACHMENT 1 In addition, to the transit centers and transfer locations identified above, the following park and ride lots are needed to support the Commuter/Express Service identifiedin SunLine's Comprehensive Operational Analysis: 1. Monroe Street, Indio 2`. Washington Street, La Quints 3. Cook Street, Palm Desert 4. Monterey Avenue - possibly located in Thousand Palms, Rancho Mirage and/or Palm Desert 5. Ramon Road, Thousand Palms . 6. Palm Drive, Desert Hot Springs 7. Cabazon — Outlet Malls 8. Banning, Beaumont and Riverside: SunLine could partner with existing agencies to use park and ride. lots and/or transit. centers • • • ATTACHMENT 2 MASTER LIST OF TRANSIT -ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT - INDIO Prepared April 11, 2007 based on information provided by City of Indio Staff Transit Center Name General Center Description and Notes Physical Location _ Address Assessor's Parcel No Panning Status Extent Of TOD Planned at this Site Indio -Downtown The site will be designed to provide transit service to people as a destination station. Provides access to entertainment facilities, City and County services, as well as retail and commercial activities. Greyhound Transit Center; North-East corner of Requa Avenue and Oasis Street 45-524 Oasis Street 611-211-002 Downtown Commercial 1 (DC-1). Preliminary. Preliminary cost estimates for the proposed center could. be $8-10 million. Need to begin planning process for site Preliminary. Anticipate mixed -use TOD at this site. Perhaps 4 to 5 story that may include housing, retail and commercial activities. 11 i • • ATTACHMENT MASTER LIST OF RIVERSIDE TRANSIT AGENCY'S TRANSIT CENTERS Prepared March 26 2007 by Planning Department of Riverside Transit Agency This comprehensive list includes any place where bona fide transit -oriented development, transit centers or large transit nodes have been built, are under construction or are planned or conceptualizedin the Riverside Transit Agency operations and service area. Includes public, private and partnership arrangements. Transit Center Name ` General Center Description and Notes Physical Location Address Assessor's Parcel No Planning Status Extent Of TOD Planned at this Site RIVERSIDE DOWNTOWN Rail-bus-ped-bike, .PnR "Downtown Transp_Terminal" West side of Vine St, S of 9tt' 4141 Vine St 215-341-007 Planned by RTA One developer pro - poses conceptual of mixed -use TOD _CORONA _ NORTH MAIN Rail-bus-ped-bike; small PnR East side of N Main, N of Grand 31 E Grand Blvd 119-320-050 Nearing final_ design Conceptual designs in process for vicinity MARCH ARB/ MORENO VALL/ ALESSAND:RO Rail -bus -bike S of Alessandro, E of Meridian Pkwy in March J'PA area Not yet assigned. To be determined Assignment of new.APN's in process Conceptual design presented by consultant Commercial -office TOD proposed by consultant. No homes HEMET DOWNTOWN Rail, bus, bike, pedestrian Centered E of State St, between Menlo & Oakland 200 E Menlo Ave 439-100-031 and others _ _ Conceptual design presented by consultant None now. Extensive mixed -use TOD proposed TEMECULA Bus, bike, PnR SW of Jefferson Av, SE of Cherry St 27199 Jefferson Av 909-120-046 In conceptual and pre -engineering stage At flood control basin and park. Initial . residential TOD in conceptual ,stage PERRIS Rail, bus, bike, pedestrian, PnR W of "D"St, N of 4th Unknown z To be determined Primarily 313-081-013 Transit portion nearing final design Exploring options. No conceptuals on street WEST HEMET GARRETT RCH Bus, bike, pedes- trian transit node N of Florida Av, E of Warren Unknown 3800 blk of Florida 448-090-001 Refining conceptual design Commercial `"lifestyle" TOD conceptualized DOS LAGOS Bus; bike`, pedest transit node to be determined Along Temescal Canyon Rd, S of Catalco Rd Unknown.Would be determined Not sure which parcel would have TOD site Developer desires transit center. Site not firmly located Surrounded by mixed use of res, office and commercial BEAUMONT Bus, bike, ped. Rail not certain NE quadrant of intersection of 3`d and California Unknown. To be determined Primarily 418-200-003 1n Beaumont General Plan No conceptual activity known to RTA 12 ATTACHMENT 3 CALIMESA Rail, bus, bike, ped, PnR intended. Assumes rail service on main line N side San Timo- teo Canyon in NW quadrant of survey Section 27 Unknown to be - determined. Probably a San Timoteo address Not sure at this time _. Depicted on Cali- mesa Gen'I Plan Land Use Map Mentioned as appro= priate for TOD, but no conceptuals yet RIVERSIDE LA SIERRA Rail, bus, bike. Near current Metrolink Sta N side of Indiana, E'of La Sierra. along existing RR, NE of rail station Unknown, to be determined. Off Indiana Av 138-030-024 Noted in. Riverside General Plan -as suitable in.this general vicinity Has been mentioned occasionally for TOD, but nothing firm at present MENIFEE Bus, bike, pedestrian access NE quadrant of- intersection of 1- 215 and Scott Rd Precise site undetermined Not certain at this time Proposed in vari- ouS development plans with Riv County Transit center or transit friendly sites have been submitted to County Planning Staff notes: RTA staff is not.aware of any proposed or contemplated centralized community -oriented transit center concepts for: Norco San Jacinto Murrieta .. Lake Elsinore Wildomar Temescal Valley Eastvale Jurupa Banning Other smaller transit: nodes: such as Moreno Valley Mall and Galleria at Tyler are not considered part of this Master List. • • ATTACHMENT 4 FASTER LIST OF COMMUTER RAIL STATIONS IN RIVERSIDE COUNTY Prepared April 9, 2007 by Commuter Rail Department of Riverside County Transportation Commission This comprehensive list includes all stations selected as preferred alternatives for future commuter rail expansion within Riverside County. Major roadway access routes to the stations are cites in the tables as well. Similarly, connecting transit services are proposed at all stations. Some of the stations cited are included in the ongoing planning of the Perris Valley Line (PVL) Metrolink extension. The population and employment growth potential at the otherstations are assumed to be high: - Transit Center Name - General Center ` Description and Notes Physical Location Address Assessor's Parcel No Metrolink. Lines �, Planning Status Extent Of TOD Planned at this Site RIVERSIDE DOWNTOWN Rail, bus, bike, pedestrian West side of Vine St, S of 9th . 4166 Vine St Riverside CA 92502 215-341-007 Riv, . IEOC, 91, PVL Existing Rail Station RCTC reviewing Joint Development proposals PEDLEY Rail, bus, bike; pedestrian Pedley Rd and Limonite 6001 Pedley Rd. Riverside CA 92509 Riv Existing None at this time LA SIERRA Rail, bus, bike, pedestrian La Sierra Ave and 91 10901 Indiana. Riverside CA 92502 IEOC, 91 Existing RCTC reviewing Joint Development . NORTH MAIN CORONA - Rail, bus, bike, pedestrian North Main St and 91 250 E. Blaine St: Corona CA 92879 IEOC, 91 '..proposals. Existing - - City considering possible TOD at and around station:; WEST CORONA Rail, bus, bike, pedestrian Auto Center Dr and 91 155 S. Auto Center Dr. Corona CA 92880 IEOC, 91 Existing ° None at this time SPRUCE STREET/RUSTIN Rail, bus, bike, pedestrian Spruce Street . and Rustin TBD TBD PVL Part of initial PVL None at this time UCR/BLAINE STREET Rail, bus, bike, pedestrian s ' Blaine Street at Watkins Drive TBD TBD PVL Part of initial PVL None at this time MORENO VALLEY /MARCH FIELD Rail, bus, bike, pedestrian : Alessandro Blvd at 1-215 TBD TBD PVL Part of initial PVL None at this time RAMONA EXPRESSWAY Rail, bus, bike, pedestrian Ramona Expressway at 1-215 TBD TBD PVL _ Part of initial PVL' None at, this time PERRIS Rail, bus,. bike, pedestrian, PnR 4th street at Perris Blvd TBD Site of existing Depot PVL Part of initial PVL None at this time 14 ATTACHMENT 4 SOUTH PERRIS Rail, bus, bike,,: pedestrian Matthew Rd. (74).at 1-215 Case Rd. Parcel Purchased at Case Rd PVL Part of initial PVL None at this time WINCHESTER ROAD Rail, bus, bike, pedestrian Winchester Rd (79) at Asbury Street TBD TBD PVL San Jacinto Extension Potential future PVL expansion None at this time HEMET AIRPORT Rail, bus, bike, pedestrian Sanderson Ave at Stetson Ave TBD ' TBD PVL San Jacinto Extension . Potential future PVL expansion None at this time SAN JACINTO .. Rail, bus, bike, pedestrian State St (R3):at 7th St TBD TBD PVL San Jacinto Extension, Potential future PVL expansion- . None=at this time NEVVPORT ROAD Rail, bus, bike, pedestrian Newport Rd at 1-215 TBD" TBD PVL - Temecula Extension Potential future expansion None at this time CLINTON KEITH ROAD Rail, bus, bike, pedestrian Clinton Keith Rd at 1-215 TBD - TBD PVL " Temecula Extension Potential future expansion None at this time . WINCHESTER ROAD TEMECULA Rail, bus, bike, pedestrian • Winchester Rd (79) at 1215 TBD TBD PVL Temecula Extension Potential future expansion None at this time Staff notes: Future Station sites are based upon PVL development plans and the Commuter Rail Feasibility Study of November 9, 2005 conducted by RL Banks & Associates, Inc. * Riv denotes the Riverside Line, 1E0C denotes the Inland Empire Orange County Line, 91 denotes the 91 Line ,episienia;o Awnoo eyl Rq peumo uogewJolui oNde.16oe8 swewoo dew sNi. sap1A1 s b Z VdSHO 'fie-0wy51wlalaW 'aununS 'SSVd `euwoo 'OVOS '011A0 '01021 'V1H soomos a o O LOOZludV peleap elea 96 Z9 anuany/AelleA 4}nog onenrsumalnaiei }Isueal 6ugeaodaooul swauadolanaa pauueid apinnAwnoa peob aofew Aenny6N/Aemea u voN4eN sne )aonn}aN llea pasodoad ap21-u-maed aa}ueo }lsueal Alb O O sioquuis 9'�61 NI . 1 7_ n9 anupAtooneA 4lnoS � f J w w II e;wncr el AL 0 i F-1L umolumod °mu/ PO4S.NooJ gsH kA\ pasea ruled peod uowed afieim cupued swetudoleAea aol � samoeA iisueil pasodoad Aunoa apisienN bwrds wled :sfiuuds uiled uoaegeD elnoaluei c7.41. �1 e/noawal iPeoa iwsti sumA ;PeoH JalsagsuAA g^ dwaue`j iawaH lsam jUUU/neag U0tu eg' eseUpp3O eseuille�� PeoH UVX 00APIO aepril PeoH - uodmaN luaualolanea l pesodad-' onanNinnol/newt elrrxwey J� shad ni1os SLUed Aunoo o6alo ues aZ6-00 i demssardxg euowem 09 r❑o� �o•eti Aalleii■ ouwobv roans aulelew3n I upsnasgagfss ^� _asruds� Ajunop oulpaeuieg ues soGe7 SOO euals e7 emsianld Apunop a8ueio uoroO uleyy .�guoNii i • ATTACHMENT 6 RCTC Rail Station Joint Development Guidelines, June 2005 Riverside County Transportation Commission Rail Station Joint Development Guidelines. June 2005 PURPOSE These guidelines are issued under the authority of the Riverside County Transportation Commission (ROTC) which seeks to enter ' into -joint development ;partnerships to enhance the, financial return and overall patronage of the Commission's significant rail transportation infrastructure investment. For purposes of these guidelines, joint development is defined as a real property asset ,:development; and management program intended to secure: the most appropriate private. and/or - public sector development on RCTC-owned .property at and adjacent to Metrolink commuter rail stations and corridors. Joint development also includes coordination with local jurisdictions in station -area land_ use planning in the interest of establishing development . that enhances rail transit use. It is the intention of the RCTC to realize the maximum benefits from and utilization of property owned and acquired by the Commission consistent with transportation mobility and community development objectives. The RCTC joint development guidelines seek .to: 1. Promote and enhance rail transit ridership; 2. Enhance andprotect the commuter rail station and corridor; 3. Encourage comprehensive and complementary planning and development around RCTC-owned station sites; 4. Reduce auto use and congestion through encouragement of rail transit -linked development, consistent with , Commission policy to pursue transportation alternatives that enhance or complement economic development; and 5. Demonstrate a fiscal benefit to the Commission based on a fair market return on public investment. POLICIES The basic construct of: joint development guidelines encourages, comprehensive planning of. station -area development. These policies are limited to solicited proposals. To facilitate coordinated transportation and land use decisions, RCTC will: Rev #I, 11/29/05 RCTC Rail Station Joint Development Guidelines, June 200.5 1. Consult and work cooperatively with local jurisdictions, redevelopment agencies, developers, and other public and private sector entities to facilitate land use policies and plans which encourage intensive, high quality development at current and planned RCTC-owned stations and surrounding properties; 2. In consultation with local jurisdictions, prepare conceptual development strategies specific to each joint development site that articulate the intensity and types of land use that the RCTC envisions for that site as well as any of. the desired transit facility, features; 3. Encourage transit . compatible land use plans that,: enhance RCTC's regional mobility, air quality, economic development, ridership and revenue goals; 4.. Consider joint development opportunities in the location of new station 'sites for future rail corridors, and construction of station facilities; 5 Encourage and allow surrounding property owners/developers, at their expense; to construct direct connections to stations from their . property/buildings, in particular, pedestrian connections .which enhance the overall pedestrian flow. of,. the project area; and 6_ Any modifications of these guidelines may be made, by the RCTC Proper Committee. Additionally, the RCTC shall consider new joint development, projects .'based following. standards: Projects shall be evaluated for consistency with development strategies as delineated in site -specific Request for Qualification/Proposals (RFQ/RFP) issued by the Commission; 2.: Projects shall not negatively impact present or future public transportation facilities; 3. Projects shall be evaluated for consistency with regional and policies and plans; 4. Projects must demonstrate, at a minimum fair market value, return to RCTC, 5. If there are multiple .;proposals for the same site, selection between : projects will be based on those which meet the above criteria and additionally demonstrate: a. The greatest potential to increase rail transit' ridership and enhance the transit system environment b. The greatest economic development potential to the community consistent with adopted land use plans; and c. Responsiveness to community needsfor employment, services, housing . or other facilities. 6.. Projects are encouraged which create a long-term 'source of -revenue for. the RCTC and allow the RCTC to participate in the increase in value,of ;its real estate assets . over time. This will generally take the forrn of a 'long-term lease. Under' some circumstances, the Commission may consider the sale ;> of property if it is determined to be in RCTC's best interest; 7. Projects are encouraged which require no commitment of RCTC 'financial resources, minimize any investment risk, and maximize asset security for RCTC; 8. Where appropriate, as defined in the site -specific conceptual development guidelines enumerated in the RFP, projects are encouraged which provide new or additional station parking facilities; and Rev #1, 11/29/05 123 RCTC Rail Station Joint Development Guidelines, June 2005 9. Projects must allow RCTC to, retain station facility and related transportation service design andV location authority and access to all necessary station operational facilities. Rail Station Joint Development Implementation Procedures RCTC will periodically prepare conceptual development strategies for RCTC-owned properties at Metrolink commuter rail stations: The RCTC will also consult with local -- jurisdictions regarding local land use development efforts. These conceptual development strategies and consultations with local jurisdictions =shall provide the basis for establishing project priorities and implementation approaches .to ensure maximum attainment of RCTC's joint development goals. RCTC will be open and competitive in rnarketing its properties. RCTC shall solicit competitive proposals for joint development of its properties. The standard RCTC procurement procedures shall be used as the general guideline for determining . the appropriate process for solicitation RCTC shall not accept unsolicited written ,proposals for joint development on RCTC owned property. Proposal Solicitation and Evaluation Process RCTC may periodically initiate a process to solicit development proposals for specific properties owned by RCTC. In soliciting joint development proposals, the RCTC shall provide available relevant site information including the conceptual development strategies for the site and encourage developers to seek information or consultwith local jurisdictions regarding current and planned land uses in the project area. The RFQ/RFP will outline the minimum qualifications and project selection criteria, including any unique capabilities or credentials which would be required of the proposer. "Pre- proposal conferences may be held, as deemed necessary by RCTC. The solicitation process will consist of two distinct stages — an assessment of qualifications and an assessment of development proposals. The first stage, the Qualifications Assessment, involves a request for qualifications (RFQ). This stage establishes the fitness of potential development teams to present formal development. proposals to the RCTC for the specific site. During this stage, development teams are to be evaluated on two major criteria: 1`. the Experience and Qualifications of the DevelopCnent Team 2. the Financial Capacity of the Development Team Public notice of the RFQ issuance will be posted at least 30 days prior to the date .set for receipt of_ ' Statements of Qualification. Development` : tearns that meet the predetermined minimum requirements for both evaluation criteria will be invited by RCTC to participatein the second stage of the development solication process. The second stage of the development solication / RFP process is an Assessment of Development Proposals. During this stage, the set of pre -qualified development teams will be given the opportunity to prepare: a proposal for development on the site in question. The proposals shall include:. Rev #1, 11/29/05 RCTC Rail Station Joint Development Guidelines, June 2005 1. A description of the. project (program and schematic site plans) 2. A description of the approach to implement . the proposed project (management plan, schedule, and financial terms). Proposals shall be evaluated by a; review panel selected by the Executive :Director. It is anticipated that the :panel will include representatives from the local jurisdiction and RCTC staff: Additionally, an urban design panel may be used to evaluate;;: projects in an advisory, capacity.. to the review committee. The RCTC shall notify Proposers within.30 days following their proposal . submittals as to the estimated time Jrame for :proposal' review. It is ,the intent .of the: Commission to :review proposals as .expeditiously as possible, and review periods may be dependent on the volume and ,complexity of the proposals. The review committee will use the Rail Station Joint Development Checklist. to evaluate the initial submittals and make recommendations to the Commission on, the selected developer/proposal to _ be considered for advancement : to the Exclusive. Negotiations Agreement phase: Exclusive Negotiations Agreement Upon recommendation and approval of the Commission, the Executive Director may enter into an Exclusive Negotiations Agreement (ENA) with the selected developer for a period of 180 days or such other term that is mutually acceptable to :the parties. A. Requirements of proposer/developer under the E'NA: 1. Developer shall provide the Executive Director with a. "good faith refundable deposit," in the amount of $25,000 in the form of cash or certified.check or an alternative amount determined by the Executive Director or his designee. The amount shall be sufficient to cover reasonable expenses incurred by the RCTC in carrying out the analysis of the proposal. 2. Developer shall have 120 days to provide the Executive Director with, the following information: a. A preliminary site plan showing building layout and' .dimensions, parking, landscaping and access. b. Project development schedule including milestones for sitecontrol, financing commitments, design and environmental clearances, entitlements, construction and completion. c. Cost °estimates and project data for the proposal in detail to permit adequate financial analysis. d. Evidence of a firm commitment from tenants of the proposed projects. e. A comprehensive_ list of previous experience in the specific project area and of like 'projects for both construction: and .operation of the said projecttype, as well as disclose full credit and litigation, history under penalty of perjury. 3. Evidence of a firm financial plan, including a. Evidence of construction financing. b.:'Evidence of long-term financing. c. Evidence of other financial sources necessary Rev #I; II/29/05 • RCTC Rail Station Joint Development Guidelines; June 2005 Evidence shall consist of a letter of commitment from a financial institution or any reasonably acceptable party providing development capital. The financial plan shall include a proforma statement of project return adequate to enable the Commission to evaluate the economic feasibility of the proposed project. 4. Developer shall provide a written offer to the RCTC for fee, purchase of land, purchase .of lease rights, or other ,development rights as appropriate to the proposal. 5. Evidence of control of any properties not owned by RCTC but considered - essential to the project: Evidence shall be in the form of letters of intent from each of the owners stating commitment of land, economic terms and: costs basis as well as a detailed action plan and schedule relating to the acquisition of the properties: Responsibilities of the RCTC under the. ENA: 1. The 'RCTC shall approve no other joint development proposals for the land in question during the period of the ENA. The ENA shall serve as proof of control ;of land for acquiring letters of financial commitment by the developer. 2. The Executive Director shall place ,the "good faith" depositin an interest- bearing account, and shall have the right to 'draw down from the account paymentfor reasonable expenses incurred by the RCTC for such items as land and development rights appraisals, materials, data and other information costs, and other administrative and consultant costs expended in the evaluation of the proposal. 3. The RCTC shall provide the developer with an appraisal for the fair market value of the fee interest or lease rights or other development rights appropriate .to the -project. 4. The RCTC shall deliver, within 30 days of receipt of written request, any existing RCTC-owned information, studies, reports, site and construction plans or .other documents requested by the developer to facilitate project design at cost to the developer. 5. Upon completion of the 120-day period referenced above in Section A, the RCTC will evaluate and negotiate with the :Developer in close coordination with the local jurisdiction for a period of up to 60 .days. 6: If, at the conclusion of the ENA period, the proposal is 'terminated, the Executive Director shall return any remaining balance of the "good faith deposit," including any interest 'accrued thereon to the developer. 7. If; at the conclusion of the ENA, a Development Agreement is .entered into, the remaining balance of the "good faith deposit including interest accrued thereon, shall be subtracted from the cost of land, lease or other development rights conveyed to the developer by the RCTC. Extension of ENA Either the developer or the Executive.` Director may request from the Commission an extension of the 180-day exclusive negotiation period. The Commission will determine whether sufficient progress has been made toward fulfillment of the above requirements in their consideration of extension. Rev #1, 11/29/05 RCTC Rail Station Joint Development Guidelines, June 2005 Environmental Documents The developer shall bear the :responsibility and costs associated with the preparation and certification of any re uired environmental clearance. It is generally-; assumed that the:local jurisdiction will be the lead agency in the q , preparation of : any required. environrental clearance for the development. Conclusion of the Rail Station Joint Development Evaluation Process Upon satisfactory fulfillment of all the development requirements in the. ENA, the RCTC may enter into a Joint Development Agreement for the implementation of the project. Joint .Development Agreement The Joint Development Agreement shall describe the rights and responsibilities of both parties and shall contain, but not be limited to the following elements: 1. Identification of the parties to the agreement including prohibition against change, transfer or assignment of ownership, management and/or control of developer; 2. Description of the site including a map. If the subject of the lease is :an air space. development, placement of supports shall be included on the map; 3. Requirement that the developer must secure from appropriate local agencies all necessary perrnits and approvals; 4. The terms and conditions of the lease (if applicable) including ':but not limited to: Lease price and payment schedule Conveyance and delivery for possession; Payment oftaxes and insurance requirement; • Condition of site at time of beginning and end of lease; • Financial statement of developer; • Hold harmless and indemnity clauses; • Limitations of use and terms of lease; and • Schedule of the . RCTC approval of ".ail plans a 5. If the development incorporates a sale of: property,: the conditions and terms o' such :sale including but not limited to: • Sale or purchase price and payment schedule; . • Escrow instructions; • Conditions, covenants, restrictions and other limitations of use as, terms of sale; • Conveyance and delivery of possession • Form of deed as approved by RCTC counsel • Condition: of title and insurance of title; • Time and place for. delivery of deed; Rev #I, 11/29/05 RCTC Rail Station Joint Development Guidelines, June 2005 • Taxes, assessments, and insurance requirements_ ; • Condition of site at time of sales; • Financial statement of developer; and • Prohibition of transfer without prior Board approval. 6. The scope of the development of the site including: a. Schedule for submission of concept, schematic, construction, grading and landscaping plans and drawings; b. Schedule for local agency and the RCTC review, and approval of plans and drawings. The staff review will include but not be limited to: (1) Design of site and improvements; (2) Relationship to the urban design of the community both form and scale; (3) Architectural design and visual continuity; (4) Effects on railway operations; (5) ' Type and quality of building materials; (6) Structure location, height and lot coverage; (7) Parking requirements and design; (8) Streetscape and landscaping; and (9) Vehicular circulation. c. Schedule of performance; and d. Insurance requirements. 6. Failure of either party to perform including defaults, remedies and termination by either party; 7. Ownership of improvements constructed upon leased land upon the expiration or termination of lease term; 8. Requirements to restore leased property to original condition upon expiration or termination of lease term; 9. Possible performance bond requirements; and 10.Any other general or special provisions which are deemed necessary by the Commission. Use of Revenue Revenue obtained from joint use and development of property including concessions and advertising will first be applied to the maintenance and operation of RCTC-owned facilities from which the revenue is generated, with any additional revenue being applied to any other RCTC commuter rail operations.. Applicability of Guidelines Nothing in these guidelines shall 1) require RCTC to enter into any agreements or commitments or 2) invalidate any action of the Commission, or 3) require any action by the Commission. Rev ill, 11/29/05 223 • AGENDA ITEM 8 • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: April 19`, 2007 TO: Transit Policy Committee FROM: Sheldon Peterson, Program Manager THROUGH: Stephanie Wiggins, Regional Programs Director SUBJECT: Long Range Passenger Rail Planning Effort STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the. Committee to receive and file the report on the Long Range Passenger Rail Planning Effort that summarizes the current plans and projects. relating to passenger rail in Riverside County. BACKGROUND INFORMATION.• At its February 15`h meeting, the Transit Policy Committee (TPC) identified the need for a master rail plan for Riverside County (County). The primary focus of this effort is .to ensure that the core potential rail transportation corridors are identified and that the future right-of-way is protected. With' the tremendous development pressures that the County and local cities are experiencing now is the time to reap out the future needs of the County. The first step is this process is to reviewthe current commuter rail network, service from identified in the commuter rail feasibility studies, and related regional transportation initiatives. The next step is a review of the right-of-way issues as they relate to federal funding eligibility. This document provides a profile of ,the routes- both existing and proposed and includes a brief discussion on the key topics of interest. Following is the list of the rail categories and specific routes. Existing Commuter 'Rail Service • Riverside Line • Inland Empire Orange County Line • 91 Line • Service level increase on existing lines Programmed Service • Perris Valley Line Approved for Further Study • San Jacinto Extension • Temecula Extension • Los Angeles to Indio Intercity Amtrak Service Agenda Item 8 24. Currently Under Study -15 Corona to Temecula • 1-15 .Temecula to San Diego California High Speed Rail Project Potential Right-of-way Set Asides -215 N',ewport Road to Temecula • Mid County Parkway • Riverside to Orange County Tunnel • .I-15 Corona to Lake Elsinore — Public Private Partnership . Current Service Levels Route: Riverside Line : Riverside to Los Angeles No. of Miles: 59.1 No. of Trains: 12 Stations: (7) Riverside Downtown, Pedley, East Ontario, ..Downtown` Pomona, Industry, Montebello Commerce, LA Union Station Avg. Daily Riders: March 2007 4,929 Flight -of -way: Union Pacific Railroad's (UPRR) Los Angeles. Subdivision ..Shared Use Agreement ROW Costs:. $21 Million in 1992 Total Capital Costs: N/A Discussion: This route started in 1992 and has shown steady ridership .in spite of frequent delays due to. the Union Pacific Railroad dispatching issues: Route: Inland Empire Orange . ;County Line San Bernardino: to Oceanside No. of Miles: 100.1 No. of Trains: 16 Stations: (14)San Bernardino, Riverside Downtown, Riverside - La Sierra, 'North Main Corona, .West: Corona Anaheim Canyon, Orange, Santa; Ana, Tustin, Irvine, Laguna Niguel, San Juan Capistrano, San Clemente, Oceanside Avg. Daily Riders: March 2007 4,,848 -Right-of-way: Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) San ;Bernardino .Subdivision Shared Use Agreement (San. Bernardino to roughly Anaheim Canyon) OCTA Orange Subdivision (Anaheim Canyon to OC County Line) .: North County Transit District San Diego Subdivision (OC ' County Line. to' Oceanside) ROW Costs: $26 Million in 1993 for BNSF' Total Capital Costs: N/A Discussion: This route started in 1995 as the one of the first suburb to suburb commuter' rail connections in the . country. It has shown steady growth and carries more Riverside residents than; any other route. Agenda Item 8 25 • Route: 91 Line Riverside to Los Angeles No. of Miles: 61.6 No. of Trains: 9 Stations: (8) Riverside _'Downtown, Riverside - La Sierra,, North Main Corona, West Corona, Fullerton, Norwalk/Santa Fe , Springs, Commerce, Los Angeles Union Station. Avg. Daily Riders: March 2007 2,221 Right-of-way: Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) San Bernardino Subdivision. Shared Use Agreement (Riverside to Los Angeles)..' ROW Costs: $26 Million, in 1993 for BNSF Total Capital Costs: N/A Discussion: This route started in 2002and has limited service frequencies with two peak period peak directions round. trips:. RCTC staff feels that with increased service this route will perform very well. Increase Service Levels on Existing Lines One of the primary objectives is to increase the service levels and frequencies of the existing Metrolink services. Commuter rail systems work best and; attract more riders when they provide more travel time options and are thus more convenient to use. The Inland Empire Orange County Line and 91 Line routes' currently do not have sufficient peak period serviceoptions to maximize ridership. In 2006, the staff from all the member agencies worked with. Metrolink to develop ;a strategic assessment to outline future service expansion and created ridership projections to coincide with the added service. The following tables depict the growth :in service levels, impacts to train frequencies, and estimated ridership for the three routes serving Riverside. Proposed Service levels (Daily Trains) Routes 2006 2010 2015 2020 % Increase Riverside 12 12 22 40 233% IEOC 16 18 24 26 62% 91 Line 9 10 20 24 166 % Totals 37 40 66 90 153 % Corresponding Average Train Frequencies during Peak Periods {minutes) Routes 2006 2010 2015 2020 Riverside 60. 60 20-30 20 IEOC 40-60 40-60 30-40 30-40 91 Line 90 90 40-60 40-.60 Ridership for Riverside County Routes Year Average Daily ; Ridership Increase Equivalent. Freeway Lanes 2006 11,415 2010 12,857 12% 1.0 2015 21,230 65% 1.6 2020 28,646 35% 2.2 Agenda Item 8 26 Programmed Projects Route: Perris Valley, Line, Riverside o South Perris No. of Miles: 22 Proposed No. of Trains: 1, 6 Stations: (7) Riverside Downtown, Spruce/Rustin, University California Riverside; Moreno Valley/March Field, Ramona, Perris, South Perris Avg. Daily Riders Projected in 2030: 6,200 Right-of-way: RCTC San Jacinto Branch Line (Riverside to South Perris) ROW Costs: $24.7 Million in 1993 for entire branch line. Total Capital ,Costs: $1' 89 Million Discussion: This rail expansion project is a high priority of the Commission. It is listed in the 2009 Measure A program. as expanding commuter rail service to Moreno Valley: and Perris to relieve congestion on I-215. Currently the Commission .is .pursuing New Starts Federal Funding for the project: After approval for the funding, :preliminary .engineering' will begin. It is anticipated that this service will operate in late 2010: Approved .for Further Study Route: San Jacinto Extension South Perris to 'San Jacinto .;.; No.: of Miles: -16.5 Proposed. No. of Trains: 16 Stations: (3) Winchester Road, Hemet Airport, San Jacinto Avg. Daily Riders Projected 2030: 1,338 - - Right-of-way: RCTC San Jacinto Branch Line (South Perris to San Jacinto), . ROW Costs: $24.7 Million in 1993 for entire branch Line. Total 'Capital Costs: $111.5 Million Discussion: This route was identified as part of the 2005 Commuter 'Rail Feasibility "Study and was recommended for further study and inclusion in the Regional` Transportation Plan: Since the Commission already owns the, rail alignment propertythe right-of-way concerns would primarily only be station grounds for this extension. Route: Temecula Extension 1-21.5 South Perris to Temecula No. of Miles: 165 Proposed No. of Trains: 16 Stations: (3) Newport Road;Clinton Keith Road", Winchester Road Temecula Avg. Daily Riders : Projected 2030: 2,166 Right-of-way: New rail corridor along side the :1-21 5, these .is potential for a right- of-way g y= 9 P 9 of -way set aside as part of the CETAP program. ROW Costs: $21.3 Million Total Capital Costs: $249 4 Million:` Discussion: This route was identified as part of the 2005 Commuter Rail : Feasibility' Study and was recommended for further study acid inclusion , in the.: `Regional Transportation Plan. There is potential right-of-way for this project along the 1-215 as part of the CETAP process. Agenda Item 8 27 Route: Amtrak Intercity Rail Service Los Angeles to Indio Los Angeles to Indio No. of Miles: 137 Proposed No. of Trains: 2 Stations: (7) Los Angeles, ' Fullerton, Riverside,Banning, Palm Springs, Palm Desert, and Indio Avg. Daily Riders:, N/A ; Right-of-way: Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNS'F) San Bernardino Subdivision_: (Los Angeles to Riverside) Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) Yuma Main from Colton to Indio ROW Costs:. N/A Total Capital Costs: A new set of tracks could be greater than: $544 Million Discussion: The California , State Rail Plan 2005/06 to 2015/16 proposes Amtrak/Caltrans intercity :rail service on this route similar to.: the 'Pacific .Surfliner service. The Caltrans operating planreflects the recommendations :of a` 1999 study prepared by the Coachella Valley. Association of Governments (Coachella Valley Passenger Rail Feasibility Study) to operate. a state-fundedintercity rail passenger service. The primary issue .with this route is that the Union Pacific ,Railroad has not- supported any passenger rail service on their congested freight lines. Amtrak. and Caltrans have .limited rights to operate over the freight railroad's tracks, rights that Metrolink and RCTC do, not have. In April 2006, the Commission passed a Resolution of Support for this route and encouraged the statelegislature to support funding for this service. Currently Under. Study Route: 1-15 Corona to Temecula Extension Corona to Temecula No. of Miles: 35.3 Proposed No. of Trains: 16 Stations: (6) North Main `Corona,' Dos Lagos, Temescal Canyon, Nichols Rd,_ Bundy Canyon, Temecula/Rancho Murrieta - Avg. Daily Riders Projected 2030: about 1,100 Right-of-way: New rail corridor along side the 1-15 using abandoned BNSF right- of-way` between Corona and Lake .Elsinore and the 1-15 right-of-way from Nichols Road to Temecula. There is the potential for a public private partnership with . interest from developers on a portion of this route. ROW Costs: $24.73, Million Total Capital Costs: $571.8 Million Discussion: This route is currently under- study as part of the , I-15 . Commuter Rail Feasibility Study. Complete ;results are anticipated by. June 2007. Agenda Item 8. 28 Route: 1-15 Temecula to San Diego Commuter Rai Temecula to San Diego No: of Miles.' 60 Proposed No: of Trains: 14 Stations: (6) Temecula, Escondido, Rancho Bernardo/Poway, University City, Old Town San Diego, "Downtown San Diego. Avg.. Daily Riders Projected 2030: TBD Right-of-way: New rail corridor along side the 1-,15 following the proposed alignment of the California High Speed Rail Corridor. The, "route will ;follow the North County Transit District San Diego Subdivision (South of University City to ` San Diego). ROW Costs: TBD Total Capital Costs;TBD Discussion: . This route is currently under study as part . of the I=15 Commuter : Rail Feasibility: Study:. Complete results are anticipated by June. 2007: . Route: California High Speed Rail Authority Proposal Los Angeles to San' Diego No. of 'Miles: 700 state wide, approx 160 from Los :Angeles to San Diego via Riverside Proposed No. of Trains ,Every 8-10" minutes Stations: (8) Los Angeles, City of Industry, Ontario Airport, Riverside, Murrieta, Escondido, University City, Downtown San Diego. Avg. Daily Riders Projected 2030: 367,000 annual trips Right-of-way: Los Angeles to Riverside = UPRR Los Angeles Sub"& Alhambra Sub Riverside to 'Perris — RCTC 'San Jacinto Branch Line Perris to University City - New rail corridor along side the 1-215 & 1-15. University City to San Diego - North County Transit District San Diego Subdivision ROW Costs: TBD Total Capital :Costs TBD : Discussion: The California High Speed Rail Authority is the state agency pursuing the development and funding for a 700 mile high-speed rail network .from the Sacramento/Bay Area to San Diego. The California High Speed Rail Authorit g g p y has hired focal engineering firms 'to work on specific corridor level environmental review and limited .-preliminary engineering. Commission. staff has met with the local :team to coordinate development of the Los Angeles to Riverside to :San` Diego section. The team is also coordinating,. with Metrolink on the ;various shared corridors in the system. The, future of the Haigh Speed Rail effort will depend on . whether or not it is passed by a. voter approved ;bond for about $9: Billion:. Agenda, Item 8 29 Potential Right. -of -Way Set Asides The Commission completed the Community and Environmental Transportation Acceptability 'Process (CETAP): to determine where to locate- major new multimodal transportation facilities -in Western 'Riverside County. As part of these corridors, additional right-of-way was included in the planning to :potentially serve as 'future rail corridors. The following three projects -have, the potential for future rail_ development: 1) Along the 1-215 between 'Newport Road` to the 1-15 in Temecula the plan calls for an average of 500-1,000 ft of right-of-way and the proposed highway only needs 300 feet; 2) Along . the 'Mid County Parkway the East/West lntracounty Corridor between SR. 79 and I-15 near the existing Cajalco Road/ Ramona Expressway the plan is to acquire 220 ft of right-of-way and some of that could be use for rail; and 3) As part of the 'Riverside County to Orange County Major Investment Study, the potential of a tunnel connecting the two counties is being explored. Currently the tunnels are planned to be 42 .foot tunnels that can carry two lanes of vehicle traffic. The project anticipates the need for possibly three tunnels with the third to be use for peak flow traffic or possibly rail. An option of a fourth tunnel for rail may also be explored. These existing planning efforts have outlined potential future rail corridors along withthe highway improvements. Another potential right-of-way "set aside is along the 1-15 rail corridor currently being studied between Corona and Lake Elsinore on the way to Temecula. The Commission has received preliminary interest from some of the property developers. along the route who would be interested in setting aside a corridor for future rail transportation. The concept of a Public -Private Partnership could be used to set aside the right-of-way and "offset the property acquisition costs associated with the project. Initial estimates for the right-of-way valuealong this section are at $19.5 million along the 15.7 mile corridor. Staff is currently- exploring potential options to determine if the Public -Private Partnership will make the project more competitive. The results will be presented along with the completed 1-15 Commuter Rail Feasibility Study this summer. Right -of -Way The solution to protecting property and right-of-way for the proposed rail corridors will need to come from many sources. A significant amount of cooperation and leadership will be required from both the County and local cities that have the land use authority and ability to work directly with .developers and property owners. The Commission does not have land use authority and therefore must follow specific rules in regards to advance right-of-way acquisition related to a project. Agenda Item 8 30 Specifically in the Code of federal Regulations (CFR) 23 :CFR 710.503, .the rules: provide that only in extraordinary cases and emergency situations .an agency may requestfrom and the, Federal Transit Administration (FTA) may approve . federal participation in the acquisition of a particular .parcel or parcels prior to completion of the ,environmental process. There are two circumstance in which this can be done;, Hardship acquisition, : which . is to alleviate a particular hardship to the property owner, and .;protective acquisition to prevent the imminent development and increased cost of a parcel that would limit the corridor alternatives. In addition, a major consideration in making a decision on advance acquisition is the, effect on the ` federal : funding for the parcel and the project as a whole. 1f the federal regulations .are not followed, the FTA : may deny federal funding for the whole project. furthermore, if the advance acquisition of the parcel is determined to influenced the environmental assessment of the project alternatives, the environmental clearance may also be compromised and the project not be _allowed to move, forward. With the tremendous capital costs needed to develop any of the proposed rail projects, it is critical to carefully follow the federal regulations and not jeapordize the federal funding for the project. Attachments: 1) Western County 'Map 2) Coachella Valley Map 3) Entire County Map Agenda "Item 8 31 ,epp.lania;o qunoo eyf 6q paumo uogeuwjui oNde.6oe6 suwwoo dew oNi. 9 £ 0 0 00U snsua0 'OVOS '00021M V121 90U aagwwlas saomos p01e0y3 alep a riff* Wog NM. peoN Igen! Aenny6!Hpiennea.ld sal;l0 uo!;e;S ideal Aomns 900Z woa; saaplb )!u!loa;ayii;uaaano itemved ,t;uno0 p!py S4Z-1 aopNaoO d`d130 uo!sue;x3 !auunl ii;uno0 a6uea0 uolsua;x3 aaou!s13 ai!e7 saplsb;aS MON lel;ua;od 0 • !!eb paadS 46!H VO oBem ues o; e!noawei au!7 e!noawal o; euoao0 Apn;g aapun AI;uaaan0 �. olpu! - mea;way uo!sue;x3 eun e!noawal uo!sue;x3 eun o;u!oer ueS Apn;g aaypnd ao; panoaddy p eun i(apeq spied aolnaaS pewwea6o.1d —' 40140;semy;nog - lea;wy min 46 cull 0031 eun ap!saan!a aolnaaS BUIRSV3 spona fuiuueld HeN aauessed aueN f uoi oioN Bu/uueg �m einoetual e/naaway peon ualsaNnum Peoa Pod ON Podgy lawa/./ pualow° o)waep ues • sudad tuns e}aum{q oyouca A/Maway � • • • aX�ej� 0 4uo'',(ue0 Anoty i euoulea �-ll1�-w .. s �• a _ ' • swiss •p y�aeyw. • oualog•lt-1 Ate •� 'L• • s esaumeo Auna 0 0 ,U p�euiaa ues •• • WOWS13 1 a3/e7 ad udds Awno0 °Pea ues umfueo /easaway wia/s e7 aps,an/g • Awno0 a6ueao• • soee-jzoer • asopv aaiped • ` • u • gave •• ouewp sea euo90 tsaM o' ,apiwanN Nunop ew 6q paumo uNewlo;ui oi4deJ6oe6 n em* dew sou. ����sa�iW O - 9 E 0 (mu snsuao 'svos '000aM 'via 900Z aaquialdas saaanos palew pled a peoy aofew Aem4B1H/Aemaaad sai;i0 uon.els meal AananS 900Z uaoa; saap!N 3iuiloalaw waaano 0 A o!pul 03 dl - �le�l�ub aaypnd ao; panoaddy �=, spoil] 6uiuueld HeN JeBuessed aueN Buoi 013N ONTARIO AIRPORT EAST OONNT\A\RIIO... --- - • NORTH MAIN CORONA Corona PEDLEY RIVERSIDE DOWNTOWN SPRUCE UCR ORENO VALLEY.! MARCH FIEI. D Vt I !} RAMONA 1 DOS LAGOS�\ 1 Perris \ TEMESCAL CANYON Orange County San Diego County Existing Service Riverside Line IEOC Line 91 Line Amtrak - Southwest Chief Freeway/Highway Major Road PERRIS SOUTH (Pt RBI BUNDY CANYON TEMECULA M If RANCHO MU`R`RIETA c San Bernardino County WINCHESTER ROAD; NEWPORT ROAD WINO ICS, ER1 ROAD l` \ TEMECULA Temecula p Programmed Service Perris Valley Line O Train Station Cities •Falimesa Beaumont � HEMET ems^— '—�AIRPORi i Hemet Banning kro BANNING o Approved for Further Study San Jacinto Line Extension Temecula Line Extension Amtrak - LA to Indio O 0 2 4 8 � Miles 1111 'This map contains geographic information owned by the County of Riverside' RCTC Long Range Passenger Rail Planning Efforts Desert Hot Springs PALM SPRINGS (NORTH) Palm Springs L —a— Currently Under Study Corona to Temecula Line Temecula to San Diego CA High Speed Rail PALM DESERT —: • Al;' i..': /NDO ce 7f-"I La Quinta II EJ c = Salton Soo Potential ROW Set Asides Lake Elsinore Extension Orange County Tunnel Extension CETAP Corridor 1-215 Mid County Parkway ..® Metl.tallq�Y(�M Date Created March 2007 Sources CVAG, SCAG, Census 2000 Metrolink, Amtrak, CHSRA AGENDA ITEM 9 1n I� REVISION TO AGENDA ITEM 9 Additions noted by Bold !fa/ics, Deletions noted by StfikethFough RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: April 19, 2007 TO: Transit Policy Committee FROM: Tanya Love, Program Manager THROUGH: Stephanie Wiggins, Regional Programs Director SUBJECT: Transit Visioning: Next Steps , STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Committeeto receive and file the presentation on the next steps in the transit visioning process. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The development of a transit vision was a recommendation made as a result of the Commission's FY 2000/01 through FY 2002/03 Triennial Performance Audit:: -The establishment of the Transit Policy Committee (TPC) provided the institutional means to provide overall policy direction in the development of the county -wade transit system planning process. As previously reported, included in the policy discussion is the allocation of the 2009 Measure A funds for four program areas in Western Riverside as well as the Transportation Development Act (TDA) formula for Western Riverside's Commuter Rail. and Bus programs. Attached is an overview, by apportionment area, of the 2009 Measure A funding and current TDA funding split for Western Riverside. The prevailing policy question is the dollar amount which should be set aside for each of the following ,program areas:> $390,000,000: ➢ Commuter Rail ➢ Intercity Bus;' Note: Maximum of $255M available for Commuter Rail and Intercity Bus Specialized Transit ($85M minimum threshold) ➢ Commuter Assistance ($50M - minimum threshold) In addition to the $390 million set aside for Western Riverside, approximately $188 million in Measure A funding has been identified for transit services . in Coachella Valley' for public transit and specialized transportation services. ' Ordinance states "Fifteen percent (15%) of the Measure A revenues will be used to improve and expand public transit and specialized transportation services in Coachella Valley. 1� fa 1i The current TDA funding formula for 'Western Riverside is 78 % fo bus and 22 % for commuter ailQ o i .. When the 78 /d/22 /q funding formula was approved, a timeline was establi hed .to review the funding `formula 'n FY '2007/08 withproposed changes, if any, to be implemented in IFY 2009/10. From,a policy perspective, it is ' beneficial to :review both the Measure A End TDA funding formula simultaneously as the process should nfurther assist thei{ Commission' in developing a vision of transit Service' or Ri I erside County. In January 2006, an .initial meeting for the TPC to begin the process ,of developing a transit vision was held'. At that time, it 'was = anticipated: that the transit visioning process would be completed by .October 2006; :however, through the process of identifying proposed projects, . it became' apparent that requests for funds exceeded anticipated revenue Snce that time, ` the Commission , retained: the ; services ° of O'Me1ia Consulting an, �i; d Transportation 1 Man'agement and Design to assist Commission and transit operator staffs ,Irn developing a consensus plan of proposed projects with,an emphasis on identifying': 1 Performance measures with afocus on improving mobility; 2. ;� ;on -Measure A and TDA funds that can be leveraged; and 3 Coord nated transit needs,. Next Steps: Transit Visioning Process 9 Wphile •much ro ress has been made, lincluding a serves tof topical meetings with 4 the transit ope ators as well as the outreach to Riverside County school districts, there , remains addit'onal staff work.I A� ' t this time; : it is anticipated that the 2009 Measure;, A funds; will be available t for services in . FY 2009/10 Keeping .with prior year planning process ;timelines, the development of Short Range Transit ` Plans , (S „TP)2 for FY ,200l8/09 will begin no later than February'. 2008. At this time, a ° total of four TPC ! meetings. a e scheduled. in order to finalize process: To assist with the planning efforts, following is a listing of TPC meetings and anticipatedtopics E Proposed Topics_ '11 20 ®7 `I Update on school .district outreach; Transit :.Centers, , Transit , Oriented (Devel'opments I Rail Station Joint Developments, �k Long rangepassenger rail planning efforts; and Next Steps. `in the'transit visioning process. the transit visioning Date April 1 2 Short Ran a Transit Plans identify ify capital andj operating, costs service level and: projected. productivity. Agenda Item based on the operator's identified Date Proposed Topics May 24, 2007 July 19, 2007 SRTPs: FY 2007/08 — FY 2009/10; Triennial Performance Audits Results: FY 2003/04 — FY 2005/06; City of Beaumont's Audit Results: FY 2004/05 & FY 2005/06; and Transit visioning: draft project list and associated funding Requirements. Transit visioning: final project list and associated funding requirements tied to productivity with a focus on congestion relief; and Follow-up on out -reach to school districts including Safe Routes to School Program and long range passenger rail planning efforts (as needed). . October 18, 2007 Proposed Measure A and TDA formula funding (Western Riverside). Depending on TPC direction, additional topics. may be added to the proposed list. As illustrated by the proposed meeting topics, it is imperative that the Commission and the transit operator staff continue to focus on the transit visioning process in order to allow adequate time for the TPC to make policy recommendations related to service levels as well as fund allocation. Agenda Item 9 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMM/SS/ON. DATE: April 19, 2007 TO: Transit Policy -Committee FROM: Tanya Love, Program 'Manager THROUGH: SUBJECT: Stephanie Wiggins, Regional Programs Director Transit Visioning:- 'Next Steps STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Committee to receive and file the presentation on the next steps in the transit visioning process:. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The development of a transit vision was a recommendation made_ as a; result of the Commission's FY 2000/01 through FY 2002/03 Triennial Performance Audit. The establishment of the Transit Policy Committee (TPC) provided the institutional means to . provide overall policy direction in the development of the . county -wide transit system planning process. As previously reported, included in the policy discussion is the allocation of the 2009 Measure A funds for four program areas in Western Riverside as well as the Transportation 'Development Act (TDA) formula for Western Riverside's . Commuter Rail and Buse programs. Attached is an overview, by apportionment area, of the 2009 Measure A funding and current TDA funding split for Western Riverside. The prevailing policy question is the dollar amount which should be set aside for each of the following program areas: $ 390,000,000: ➢ Commuter Rail • Intercity Bus Note: Maximum of $255M available for Commuter Rail and Intercity Bus ➢ Specialized' Transit ($85M - minimum threshold) ➢ Commuter Assistance ($5OM — minimum threshold) In addition to the $390 million set aside for Western Riverside, approximately $188 million in Measure .A funding has been identified .for transit services in Coachella Valley' for public transit and specialized transportation services. ' Ordinance states "Fifteen percent (15 %) of the 'Measure A revenues will be used to improve and expand public transit and specialized transportation services" in Coachella Valley. Agenda Item 9 32 The current TDA funding formula for Western Riverside is 78% for bus and 22%` for commuter rail. When the 78% /22% funding formulawas approved, a timeline; was established to review, the funding formula in. FY 2007/08 . with proposed changes, if :any, to be implemented' `in FY 2009/10. From a' policy .perspective, it is beneficial to , review both the Measure A and TDA funding formula: simultaneously_ as the ,process should further assist the Commission in developing a vision' of ' transit service for : Riverside County. 1n January 2006, an initial meeting for the TPC to begin_ .the process of developing :. a, transit vision was held. Atthat time, it was anticipated that the transit visioning process would be . completed by October 2006; however,, throughthe process of: identifying proposed projects, it became apparent that requests for funds exceeded anticipated revenue. Since that time, the Commission. retained thee. services" of O'Melia Consulting : and Transportation Management and . Design to assist Commission and transit operator staffs in developing a consensus :plan of proposed projects with an emphasis on identifying: Performance measures with a focus on improving mobility; Non -Measure A and TDA funds that can be leveraged; and Coordinated transit needs. Next Steps: Transit Visioning Process while much progress has been made, including a series of topical meetings with the, transit operators as .well as the outreach to Riverside County school districts, there remains additional staff work. At this time, it is anticipated that the 2009 Measure A funds will be available for services in FY 2008/09. Keeping :with; prior year planning process timelines, the development of Short Range -Transit Plans (SRTP)2 for FY 2008/09 will begin no later than February 2008 " At this time, a total of four TPC meetings are scheduled in order to finalize °. the :transit visioning process. To assist with the planning efforts, following is a listing of TPC meetings and: anticipated topics: Date Proposed Topics April 19, 2007 Update on school district outreach; Transit Centers, Transit Oriented Developments: Rail Station Joint Developments Long range passenger rail, planning :efforts; and Next Steps in the transit visioning process. 2 Short Range Transit Plans identify capital and operating costs based on, the operator's identified. service level and projected productivity. Agenda Item 9 33 • Date Proposed Topics May 24, 2007 July 19, 2007 SRTPs: FY 2007/08 — FY 2009/10; Triennial Performance Audits Results: FY 2003/04 - FY 2005/06; City of Beaumont's Audit Results: FY 2004/05 &- FY 2005/06; and Transit visioning: draft project list and associated funding Requirements. Transit visioning: final project list and associated funding requirements tied to productivity with a focus on congestion relief; and Follow-upon out -reach to school districts including Safe Routes to School Program and long range passenger rail planning efforts (as needed). October 18, 2007 Proposed Measure A and TDA formula funding (Western Riverside). Depending on TPC direction, additional topics may be added to the proposed list. As illustrated by the proposed meeting topics, it is imperative that the Commission and the transit operator staff continue to focus on the transit visioning process in order to allow adequate time for the TPC to make policy recommendations related to service levels as well as fund allocation. Agenda Item 9 • • • MEASURE A 2009 EXPENDITURE PLAN Western County: Coachella Valley: $ 390,000,000 $188,000,000 ► Commuter Assistance ($50M — minimum threshold) ► Provide Express East-West Transit Routes in the Coachella Valley ► Specialized Transit ($85M — minimum threshold) ► Improve and expand public transit and specialized transportation services ► Commuter Rail ► Discount fares and expanded transportation services for seniors and persons with disabilities Intercity Bus ► Bus replacement and more frequent service Transportation Development Act Funding Current TDA funding formula for Western County apportionment area is 78% for bus and 22% for commuter rail. ► Review funding formula in FY 2007/08 ► Proposed changes, if any, to be implemented in FY 2009/10. 35 Riverside County Transportation Commission • Categories — Existing Commuter Service — Programmed Service — Approved for Further Study — Currently Under Study — Potential Right of Way Set Asides 1 Existing Commuter Rail Services Effective October 1, 2004 Metrolink/Amtrak Rail Rail lomt Stations Ventura County Line av Antelope Valley Line San Bernardlna line •� Riverside Line • Orange County Line Inland Empire -Orange County Line • 91 Line (Riverside • Fullerton • Downtown LA) tie ••+ Amtrak Pacific Smtllner Only Rail 2 Rail Corridor Q Future Station Operated by Metro — Metro Red Line (Subway) metro — Metro Blue Lme(Light Rail) — Metro Green Line (Light Rail) -- Metro Gold Line (Light Rail) Southern California Regional Rail Authority metrolinktrains.com Existing Commuter Rail Services • Riverside Line — Opened Jun 1993 59.1 Route Miles — 12 Trains per day, Avg. trip length 36 miles. — March 2007 Daily Ridership 4,929 — Travels on Union Pacific Railroads Line • Inland Empire Orange County Line — Opened Oct 1995 100.1 Route Miles — 16 Trains per day, Avg. trip length 42 miles. — March 2007 Daily Ridership 4,848 — Travels on BNSF and OCTA Rail Line 2 Existing Commuter Rail Services • 91 Line — Opened May 2002 61.6 Route Miles — 9 Trains per day, Avg. trip length 34 miles. — March 2007 Daily Ridership 2,221 — Travels on BNSF Rail Line Increased Service Levels Proposed Service Levels (Daily Trains) Routes 2006 2010 2015 2020 % Increase Riverside 12 12 22 40 233% IEOC 16 18 24 26 62% 91 Line 9 10 20 24 166% Totals 37 40 66 90 153% Corresponding Average Train Frequencies during Peak Periods (minutes) Routes 2006 2010 2015 2020 Riverside 60 60 20-30 20 IEOC 40-60 40-60 30.40 30-40 91 Line 90 90 40.60 40-60 3 Programmed Service Perris Valley Line • 22.7 Miles Riverside to Perris • Service Assumptions 8 Round Trips (2010) 16 Round Trips (2030) • 6 proposed stations • Projected 2030 Ridership 6,200 daily trips • $189 Million Project Cost • RCTC owns the San Jacinto Branch Line - $24.7 M in 1993 -6SPACCE STAMM ""UCA STATION urn�x ALESSANDRO STATION RIVERSIDE PP ' TAU0 SOON RATIO MORENO VALLEY PROPOSED PERRIS VALLEY LINE lake Nrris Approved for Further Study San Jacinto Extension • 16.5 Miles Perris to San Jacinto • Service Assumptions 16 Round Trips (2030) • 3 proposed stations • Projected 2030 Ridership 1,338 daily trips • $111.5 Million Project Cost • RCTC owns the San Jacinto Branch Line - $24.7 M in 1993 �'sil .'t awv. m.1•1.2 c CIA,11..1.6On PePif :w Riverside County Feasibility Study 2005 Results Potential Routes for Future Study, 4 Approved for Further Study Temecula Extension 1-215 • 16.5 Miles Perris to Temecula • Service Assumptions 16 Round Trips (2030) • 3 proposed stations • Projected 2030 Ridership 2,166 daily trips • $249.4 Million Project Cost • Potential Right-of-way available from CETAP along 1-215 Riverside County Feasibility Study 2005 Results Potential Routes for Future Study L-B-nd m..ten-n Approved for Further Study Amtrak Intercity Service Los Angeles -Indio • 137 Miles LA to Indio • Service Assumptions 2 Round Trips (2011) • 7 proposed stations • CVAG 1999 Study • No current state funding for this project • BNSF ROW from LA to Colton • Union Pacific ROW from Colton to Indio (UPRR is currently opposed to passenger rail over their line.) 5 Currently Under Study 1-15 Corona to Temecula 35.3 Miles Corona to Temecula • Service Assumptions 16 Round Trips (2030) • 6 proposed stations Projected 2030 Ridership about 1,100 daily trips $571.8 Million Project Cost Potential Right-of-way using abandoned BNSF alignment Potential Public Private Partnership with local developers Currently Under Study 1-15 Temecula to San Diego • 60 Miles Temecula To San Diego Service Assumptions 16 Round Trips (2030) • 6 proposed stations • Projected 2030 Ridership to be determined • Project Cost to be determined Follows proposed High Speed Rail Corridor San Clemente r Commute, P3 ii Algnmenr /� y Stations 6 • 160 Miles Los Angeles To • San Diego via Riverside • Service Assumptions Every 8-10 Minutes • 8 proposed stations • Follows UPRR LA -Riverside, RCTC PVL Riverside to Perris, New Corridor 1-215 & 1-15 to University City, NCTD to San Diego Currently Under Study _ p&K1Nnkbler nkM1•Cla Crrj UP Riverside California High Speed ` Rail — Los Angeles to San Diego LOSSaN Gwall Canyon/Miramar Road' trnirereity City' , p•truN«•m {A r UP Colton. Riverside L215i -1 ` p: San Diego S. c+,ee,e' Potential Right -of -Way Set Asides CETAP Corridors 1-215 • Newport Road to 1-15 in Temecula • 500 to 1,000 of ROW proposed, only 300 ft needed for highway Mid County Parkway • San Jacinto to Corona • 220 ft of ROW proposed, some could be used for rail Orange County Tunnel • Corona to Irvine • Potential for 42 ft wide tunnel be used for rail 7 Potential Right -of -Way Set Asides Public Private Partnership Corona to Lake Elsinore • Interest from local developers to help preserve Right of way for future rail service. • 15.7 mile corridor • $19.5 million Right of Way Estimate Right -of -Way Issues • RCTC has no land use authority. • Need to cooperate with County and Local Cities. • Project related right-of-way must follow strict federal rules. • Environmental Process must be complete before land acquisition. • Two exceptions, hardship and protective acquisition. • Failure to properly follow rules could risk all federal funding to the project. 8 �'?CeLK a 11=1.--17"METROg.INK .1111111111111 tM211•111M .. - .111141.11111111111111.91111111 9 144,,Trui4.41))1 METROLINK FACT SHEET The Metrolink Regional System Mar '07 Mar `06 Number of Routes Stations in Service Route Miles (includes' shared miles) Route Miles (excludes shared miles) Average Trains Operated/Weekday Average Trains Operated/Saturday Average Trains Operated/Sunday Average Weekday Riders on Metrolink trains (Jan thru Mar) Average Weekday Metrolink Riders on Amtrak (Jan thru Mar) Total Average Weekday Metrolink Riders (Jan thru Mar) Average System Speed (m.p.h. with stops) 7 54 512 388 145 40 22. 42,202 (+5%) 1,632 (+15% o) 43,834 (+5%) 40 m.p.h. 7 54 512 388 145 24 8 40,182 1,419 41,601 40 m.p.h. Metrolink By Route Corridor Mar '07 Mar 06 Ventura County Line (Oxnard to Los Angeles) tlncludes 11 Burbank/Bob Hope Airporftrains Stations Route Miles Trains Operated/Day Ave Wkday Riders on Metrolink (Jan thru Mar) Ave Wkday Metrolink Riders on Amtrak (Jan thru Mar) Total Ave Weekday Metrolink Riders (Jan thru Mar) Ave Saturday Metrolink Riders on Amtrak (Jan thru Mar) Ave Sunday Metrolink Riders on Amtrak (Jan thru Mar) Average Speed Antelope Valley Line (Lancaster to Los Angeles) Stations Route Miles Trains Operated/Weekday Trains Operated/Saturday Average Weekday Riders (Jan thru Mar) Average Saturday Service Riders (Jan thru Mar) Average Speed 12 70.9 31t 4,411 (+6%) 252 (+27%) 4,663 (+7%) 87 (-5%). 63 (-27%) 40 m.p.h. 11 76.6 24 8 12 70.9 31 4,169 199 4,368 92 86 40 m.p.h. 10 76.6 24 8 7,495 (+4%) 7,183 1,643 (-28%) 2,278 40 m.p.h. 40 m.p.h. The Quarterly Fact Sheet is Prepared by the Metrolink Communications 8 Development Department 2007'METROLINKO 2 Southern California Regional Rail Authority's FACT SHEET —MAR 2007 San Bernardino Line (San Bernardino to Los Angeles) Stations Route Miles Trains Operated/Weekday Trains Operated/Saturday Trains Operated/Sunday Average Weekday Riders (Jan thru Mar) Average Saturday Service Riders (Jan thru Mar) Average Sunday Service Riders (Jan thru Mar) Average Speed Riverside Line (Riverside to Los Angeles) Stations Route Miles Trains Operated/Weekday Average Weekday Riders (Jan thru Mar) Average Speed; Orange County Line (Oceanside to Los Angeles) Stations Route Miles Trains Operated/Weekday Trains Operated/Saturday . Trains Operated/Sunday Ave,Wkday Riders on Metrolink (Jan thru Mar) Ave Wkday Metrolink Riders on Amtrak (Jan thru Mar) Total Ave Weekday Metrolink Riders (Jan thru Mar) Average Saturday Service Riders (Jan thru Mar) Average Sunday Service Riders (Jan thru Mar). Ave Saturday Metrolink Riders on Amtrak (Jan thru Mar) Ave Sunday Metrolink Riders on Amtrak (Jan thru Mar) Average Speed inland Empire -Orange County Line (San Bernardino to Stations Route Miles Trains Operated/Weekday Trains Operated/Saturday Trains Operated/Sunday Average Weekday Riders (Jan thru Mar) Average Saturday Service Riders (Jan thru Mar) Average Sunday Service Riders (Jan thru Mar) Average Speed 13 13 56.5 56.5 34 34 20 16 12 8 12,156 (+0.2%) 12,137 3,355 (-8%) 3,655 1,632 (-7%) 1,758 37 m.p.h 37.m..p.h. 7 59.1 12 7 59.1 12 4,621 (+20%) ; 3,839 41 m.p.h. 41 m.p.h. 13 13' 87.2 87.2 19 19, 6 0 6 0 6,470'(+4%) 6,22.3' 1,380 (+13%) 1,221 7,850 (+5%) 7,444 607 - NA 426 NA 374 (-9%) 410 328 (-6%) 348 42 m.p.h. 42 m.p.h. Oceanside) 1414' 1.00.1. 100.1 16 16 6: 6 4" 4,756 (+8%) 337 206 39 m.p.h 6 4,413 NA NA 39 m.p.h. The Quarterly Fact Sheet is Prepared by the Metrolink Communications & Development Department 2007 METROLINK® 3 Southern California Regional Rail Authority's FACT SHEET —MAR 2007 91 Line (Riverside to Los Angeles via Fullerton) Stations Route Miles Trains Operated/Day Average Weekday Riders (Jan thru Mar) Average Speed 8 61.6 9 2,293 (+3%) 39 m.p.h. 8 61.6 9 2,218 39 m.p.h. Metrolink Fast Facts • Average Number of Auto Trips Removed/Weekday • Weekday Riders Who Formerly Drove Alone/Carpooled • Weekday Riders Who Formerly Made the Trip and Drove Alone/Carpooled • Average Metrolink Commute Trip Length (linked/unlinked) • Percent of Freeway Traffic Removed on Parallel Freeways each Peak Hour • Percent of work trips destined for Los Angeles Union Station • Percent of work trips destined for the Los Angeles Central Business District • Average weight of a Metrolink train • Passenger Car Dimensions Length Width Height • Locomotive Dimensions (maximum) Length Width Height • Average distance for a Metrolink train to stop • Percent of revenue recovered by operations • Percent of Ethnic Riders by Line Corridor (Latino, Asian, African American, other) San Bernardino Line " Riverside Line Antelope Valley Line Ventura County Line Orange County Line Inland Empire -Orange County Line 91 Line System Source: 2006 Metrolink Customer Satisfaction Survey and SCRRA Budget for FY 2006-07 24,657 63.4 percent 88.0 percent 37.2/35.8 miles 2.9 percent 56.4 percent 37 percent 450 tons 85'0" 9' 10" 15'11" 58'2„ 10' 6.5" 15'11.5" 1 /3 mile 55 percent 70 percent 78 percent 55 percent 39percent 51 percent 49_percent 61 percent 60 percent The Southern California Regional Rail Authority/Metrolink Date of Formation Form of Government Number of SCRRA Board Members Number of Alternates Number of Member Agencies Number of Ex-Officio Members August 1991 Joint Powers Authority 11 9 5 3 The Quarterly Fact Sheet is Prepared by the. Metrolink Communications:& "Development Department 2007 METROLINK® 4 Southern California Regional Rail Authority's FACT SHEET —MAR 2007 SCRRA Member Agencies Ex -Off cio Member Agencies SCRRA/Contract Employment Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority Orange County Transportation Authority Riverside County Transportation Commission San Bernardino Associated Governments Ventura County Transportation Commission Southern California Associationof Governments San Diego Association of Governments State of California , .. . Operating Route Miles by County in System Excludes Shared Miles 186.0 67.5 38.1 38.7 38.9 19.0 388.2 Los Angeles County Orange County Riverside County San Bernardino County Ventura County San Diego County TOTAL Operations Maintenance of Way SCRRA Administration SCRRA Interns TOTAL 276 130 187 8. 601 Includes Shared Miles 220.2 117.6 58.6 38.7 38.9 38.0,. 512.0 Metrolink's 2006-07 Annual Budget Operating Budget Projected percent of operating costs covered by operating revenues Projected percent of operatingcosts covered by fares $134.8 million 548 per cent 444 percent Metrolink Train Equipment Number of Locomotives (includes 1.leased from Sound Transit in September 04) Total Number of Commuter Rail Cars Cab Cars (includes 4,leased from Sound Transit + 2 from Altamont Commute Express) Coaches 8'leased from Sound Transit + 2 from Alt `(�includes amont Commute Express): Equipment on Order: Locomotives Cab cars Coaches 39 The Quarterly Fact Sheet is Prepared by the Metrolink Communications it Development Departrnent 2007 METROLINK® 5 Southern California Regional Rail Authority's FACT SHEET -MAR 2007 Highway -Rail Grade Crossings Total Number of Grade Crossings of All Types in Metrolink Systeml - 794 Number of At -Grade Crossings in System 445 Number of Undergrade Crossings (Railroad Over) in System 152 Number of Overgrade Crossings (Railroad Under) in System 197 Number of Public Crossings in System Number of Pedestrian Crossings in System Number of Private Crossings in System Number of SCRRA-owned Crossings in System Number of BNSF-owned Crossings in System Number of UPRR-owned Crossings in System Number of NCTD-owned Crossings in System At -Grade Crossings: Metrolink BNSF UPRR Total 298 73 71 Public 255 67 66 Pedestrian 10 5 0 Private 33 1 5 Undergrade Crossings (Railroad Over): Metrolink BNSF UPRR Total 85 40 25 Public 61 38 24 Pedestrian 11. 2 l Private 13 0 0 699 40 55 521 140 117 13 NCTD 3 3 0 0 NCTD 2 2 0 Overgrade Crossings (Railroad Under): Metrolink BNSF UPRR NCTD Total 141 27 21 8 Public 12827 20 8 Pedestrian 10 1 0 0 Private 3 0 0 0 ' The Metrolink system operates over rail rights -of -way owned by SCRRA member agencies, Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad (BNSF), Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) and North County Transit District (NCTD) The Quarterly Fact Sheet is Prepared by the Metrolink Communications & Development Department 2007 METROLINK® oce' • - Q, f " 0 ',..' ,,, @plawwoD .. .. . . . -.,...:.:,..,,.. .1., 'a - ..)-(-) .Q ,"- ) N)0# _ joilaqaluon: ,''......!. .Q), \s> 0 ,.\). - 4.,•:,,,c.> f'-:::•», CP' ‘,o _ ,,,a,\:. o ,, 6,,,2x:::,;:::. .. ... ,C.,\>\ .., ,(5° t\x , -.. ... ,-- _........... . - -:; ,f`<' ...„45`. > Q, c_\ 0, sc\c6 or \\'' ..... .4?› -- --,t, - cl?› --..'• •)). •-e, + L, c, • N \:.\ --1N- 2X 06 0.. * J'‘ 2 ' ' .). \`• •.:.4 . " - - - N)- ' k)J9 ...e . 0 ' ‘ ) , - - ) Q. N- N.)\''' .6,-. e> , .‘-'2'-' 2P \.)), "2).\\ ). '2, \\\'' \§'\<2, (P ED 0 0 4,2> •C6C-) \). '-)\. . <2> +2,g QP ' Q> • -6" /DA • 9VONVS •.)D11 • VDO • 01113W )1N11011.1.31Aliel NMI 113E140 s/viNsoimo miinos '7!) - 0 \\ *Danny net] leuolEseli quaopieD watitnos 11-16n) Bun PloD man purl uaaJD man (pH NCO auri Brim man culan (Aemqns) peH man man Aq pewied° uopels aJnlnd 0 icipuioD z Alu0 Jeu!II-InS D!1Ped le-11-wV §1- (v7 umalumoG • uovaling • apsien0 auri L6 immi. @Lin Alunop o6uei0-ai'dw puelui 4.111 Alunop a6uei0 aug ep'sJaAN mem NN11011131111 Burl oupewe8 ues ems 11 11 @Lin AelleA edolel-uV am. our' Alunop einluaA *wgimp suopels lu!or l!e2:1 le4wvplu'imen SOOZ 1SZ 1Pdv ampalo 0 &so Q.> elelop Jodwowns 0 edn'epeng 0 upeas A@A0.19 ods!q° s'n Lies , • oia ewes o/s Aextui • RIVERSIDE - DOWNTOWN 4066 Vine Street • PEDLEY 6001 Pedley Road ABOUT METROLINK In 1991, Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino and Ventura Counties formed the Southern California Regional Rail Authority to develop Metrolink, a regional commuter train system. Today, Metrolink trains serve 54 stations in Southern California, carrying thousands of long-distance commuters to centers of employment such as Burbank, Glendale, Irvine and Downtown Los Angeles. Trains are also popular with group travelers, taking students on field trips and families to recreational destinations throughout the region. ABOUT RAIL 2 RAIL The Rail 2 Rail program is a partnership between Metrolink and Amtrak, providing many rail passengers more train service between Oceanside and Oxnard at no additional cost. Metrolink Monthly Pass holders may ride any Amtrak Pacific Surfliner train or bus within the origin and destination of their pass for no additional cost. * Metrolink/Amtrak Rail 2 Rail joint stations are indicated by a star on the system map and on the station list below. For more information about Metrolink and the Rail 2 Rail program, visit SAN BERNARDINO Line Trains run from San Bernardino to Los Angeles, paralleling the San Bernardino Freeway (1-10). The 57-mile trip takes 1 hour and 25 minutes. • SAN BERNARDINO 1204 W. 3rd Street • RIALTO 261 S. Palm Avenue • FONTANA 16777 Orange Way • RANCHO CUCAMONGA 11208 Azusa Court • UPLAND 300 East A Street • MONTCLAIR 5091 Richton Street • CLAREMONT 200 W. 1st Street • POMONA (NORTH) 205 Santa Fe Street • COVINA 600 N. Citrus Avenue • BALDWIN PARK 3825 Downing Avenue • EL MONTE 10925 Railroad Street • CAL STATE L.A. 5150 State University Drive *L.A. UNION STATION 800 N. Alameda Street ANTELOPE VALLEY Line Trains run from Lancaster to Los Angeles, paralleling the Antelope Valley Freeway (State Route 14) and Golden State Freeway (1-5). The 76-mile trip takes 1 hour and 40 minutes. • LANCASTER 44812 N. Sierra Highway • PALMDALE 39000 Clock Tower Plaza Drive (Sierra Hwy. & 6th St.) • VINCENT GRADE/ACTON 730 W. Sierra Highway • VIA PRINCESSA 19201 Via Princessa • SANTA CLARITA 22122 Soledad Canyon Road • NEWHALL 24300 Railroad Ave • SYLMAR/ SAN FERNANDO 12219 Frank Modugno Drive • SUN VALLEY 8360 San Fernando Road • DOWNTOWN BURBANK 201 N. Front Street * GLENDALE 400 W. Cerritos Avenue * L.A. UNION STATION 800 N. Alameda Street RIVERSIDE Line Trains run from Riverside to Los Angeles, paralleling the Pomona Freeway (60). The 59-mile trip takes 1 hour and 15 minutes. • MONTEBELLO/ COMMERCE 2000 Flotilla Street *L.A. UNION STATION 800 N. Alameda Street • EAST ONTARIO 3330 E. Francis Street • DOWNTOWN POMONA 101 W. 1st Street • INDUSTRY 600 S. Brea Canyon Road metrolinktrains.com or call 1300.371-LINK. Trains run from Oxnard to Los Angeles, paralleling the Ventura Freeway (101) and the Simi Valley Freeway (118). The 66-mile trip takes 1 hour and 30 minutes. • MONTALVO 6175 Ventura Boulevard * OXNARD 201 East 4th Street * CAMARILLO 30 Lewis Road * MOORPARK 300 High Street * SIMI VALLEY 5050 Los Angeles Avenue * CHATSWORTH 10046 Old Depot Plaza Road • NORTHRIDGE 8775 Wilbur Avenue * VAN NUYS 7720 Van Nuys Boulevard * BURBANK AIRPORT 3750 Empire Avenue • DOWNTOWN BURBANK 201 N. Front Street * GLENDALE 400 W. Cerritos Avenue * L.A. UNION STATION 800 N. Alameda Street Trains run from Oceanside to Los Angeles, paralleling the Santa Ana Freeway (1-5). The 87-mile trip takes 1 hour and 45 minutes. * OCEANSIDE 235 S. Tremont Street • SAN CLEMENTE 1850 Avenida Estacion * SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO 26701 Verdugo Street • LAGUNA NIGUEL,/ MISSION VIEJO 28200 Forbes Road * IRVINE 15215 Barranca Parkway • TUSTIN 2975 Edinger Avenue * SANTA ANA 1000 E. Santa Ana Boulevard • ORANGE 194 N. Atchison Street * ANAHEIM 2150 E. Katella Avenue * FULLERTON 120 E. Santa Fe Avenue • NORWALK/ SANTA FE SPRINGS 12700 Imperial Highway • COMMERCE 6433 26th Street * L.A. UNION STATION 800 N. Alameda Street INLAND EMPIRE - ORANGE COUNTY Line 91 Line [ Riverside • Fullerton • Downtown LA]1111 Trains run from Riverside to Los Angeles via Fullerton, paralleling the Riverside Freeway (91) and the Santa Ana Freeway (1-5). The 60-mile trip takes 1 hour and 30 minutes. • RIVERSIDE - DOWNTOWN 4066 Vine Street • RIVERSIDE - LA SIERRA 10901 Indiana Avenue • NORTH MAIN CORONA 250 E. Blaine • WEST CORONA • COMMERCE 155 S. Auto Center 6433 26th Street Drive * L.A. UNION STATION * FULLERTON 800 N. Alameda Street 120 E. Santa Fe Avenue • NORWALK/ SANTA FE SPRINGS 12700 Imperial Highway Trains run from San Bernardino to San Juan Capistrano, paralleling the Riverside Freeway (91), the Costa Mesa Freeway (55) and the Santa Ana Freeway (1-5). The 59-mile trip takes 1 hour and 35 minutes. • SAN BERNARDINO 1204 W. 3rd Street • RIVERSIDE - DOWNTOWN 4066 Vine Street • RIVERSIDE - LA SIERRA 10901 Indiana Avenue • NORTH MAIN CORONA 250 E. Blaine • WEST CORONA 155 S. Auto Center Drive • ANAHEIM CANYON 1039 Pacificenter Drive • ORANGE 194 N. Atchison Street * SANTA ANA 1000 E. Santa Ana Boulevard • TUSTIN 2975 Edinger Avenue * IRVINE 15215 Barranca Parkway • LAGUNA NIGUEL/ MISSION VIEJO 28200 Forbes Road *SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO 26701 Verdugo Street • SAN CLEMENTE 1850 Avenida Estacion * OCEANSIDE 235 S. Tremont Street ■ 800-371-LINK(5465) 9 metrolinktrains.com 800-698-4T00 for speech & hearing impaired MET 212-05 06 iverside County ransportation Commission Date: April 13, 2007 Riverside County Regional Complex 4080 Lemon Stmt. 3rd Roor • Riverside, California MailingAddresx Pact Office Box 12008 • Riverside, California 92502-2208 Phone (951) 787-7141 • Fax (951) 787-7920 • mvucnu.org To: Citizens' Advisory Committee/Social Services Transportation Advisory Committee and Western Riverside Measure "A" Specialized Transit Recipients From: Tanya Love, Program Manager Re: Transit Policy Committee Agenda As a result of the discussions at the February 13, 2007 meeting of the Citizens' Advisory Committee/Social Services Transportation Advisory Committee (CAC/SSTAC), a decision was made to provide a copy of the Commission's . Transit Policy Committee agenda to members of the CAC/SSTAC as well as current Measure A grant recipients. I invite you to attend these meetings as I believe they will be beneficial in learning more of the Commission's activities as they relate toour transit oversight responsibilities.