Loading...
08 August 27, 2007 Plans and Programs81478 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION PLANS AND PROGRAMS COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA TIME: 1:30 p.m. DATE: Monday, August 27, 2007 LOCATION: BOARD ROOM County of Riverside Administrative Center 4080 Lemon Street, First Floor, Riverside *** COMMITTEE MEMBERS *** Patrick Mullany, City of Indian Wells, Chair Frank West, City of Moreno Valley, Vice Chair John Chlebnik / Ray Quinto, City of Calimesa Jeff Miller / Karen Spiegel, City of Corona Robin Lowe / Eric McBride, City of Hemet Michael H. Wilson / Gene Gilbert, City of Indio Frank Hall / Harvey Sullivan, City of Norco Dick Kelly / Cindy Finerty, City of Palm Desert Ronald Oden / Ginny Foat, City of Palm Springs Daryl Busch / Mark Yarbrough, City of Perris Chris Carlson / Jim Ayres, City of San Jacinto Bob Buster, County of Riverside, District Roy Wilson, County of Riverside, District IV Marion Ashley, County of Riverside, District V *** STAFF *** Eric Haley, Executive Director Cathy Bechtel, Project Development Director *** AREAS OF RESPONSIBILITY *** State Transportation Improvement Program Regional Transportation Improvement Program New Corridors Intermodal Programs (Transit, Rail, Rideshare) Air Quality and Clean Fuels Regional Agencies, Regional Planning Intelligent Transportation System Planning and Programs Congestion Management Program RECORDS Comments are welcomed by the Committee. If you wish to provide comments to the Committee, please complete and submit a Speaker Card to the Clerk of the Board. 11.36.15 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION PLANS AND PROGRAMS COMMITTEE www.rctc.org AGENDA* *Actions may be taken on any item listed onthe agenda. 1: 30 pan. Monday, • August 27, 2007 BOARD ROOM County of Riverside Administrative Center 4080 Lemon Street, First Floor, Riverside In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act and Government Code Section 54954. Z 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. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 3. ROLL CALL 4. PUBLIC COMMENTS - Each individual speaker is limited to speak three .(3)`. continuous minutes or less. The Committee may, either at the direction of the Chair or by majority vote of the Committee, waive this three (3) minute time limitation. Depending on the number of items on the Agenda and the number of speakers, the Chair may, at his/her discretion, reduce the time • of each speaker to two (2) continuous minutes. Also, the Committee may terminate public comments if such comments become repetitious. Speakers may ..not yield their time to ' others without the consent of the Chair. Any written documents to be distributed or presented to the Committee shall be submitted to the Clerk of the Board. This policy applies to Public Comments and comments on Agenda Items. Under the Brown Act, the Board should not take action on .or discuss matters raised during public comment portion of the agenda which are not listed on the agenda. Board members may refer such matters to staff for factual information or to be placed on thesubsequent agenda for consideration. Plans and Programs Committee Agenda August 27, 2007 Page 2 APPROVAL OF .MINUTES APRIL 23, 2007. 6. 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.) CONSENT CALENDAR - All matters on the Consent Calendar will be approved in a single motion unless a Commissioner(s) requests separate action on specific item(s). Items pulled from the Consent Calendar . will be placed for discussion at the end of the agenda. 7A. COMMUTER RAIL PROGRAM UPDATE Overview This item is for the Committee to: 1) Receive and file an update on the Commuter 2) . Forward to the Commission for final action. IDENTIFICATION OF A LOCALLY PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE FOR THE MID COUNTY PARKWAY Overview This item is for the Committee to: 1) Designate . Alternative 9, the Far South Alternative, as the Commission's locally preferred alternative for the Mid County Parkway (MCP); and 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. Plans and Programs Committee Agenda August 27, 2007 Page 3 9. AB 872 OPTION TO PROCEED WITH PENDING STIP ALLOCATION REQUESTS FOR STATE ROUTE 71/91 INTERCHANGE, INTERSTATE 215 WIDENING PROJECTS, AND THE NORTH MAIN CORONA PARKING STRUCTURE Overview This item is .for the Committee to: Page 16 1) Direct staff to proceed with the projects under AB 872 that allows projects to proceed prior to the 'California Transportation Commission (CTC) allocation in the event the pending STIP allocation requests are not approved at the September 19-20, 2007 CTC meeting; and 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. 10. PROPOSED GOODS MOVEMENT CONTROL MEASURES FOR SOUTH COAST AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN Overview This item is for the Committee to: Page 18 1) Request that the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) develop and approve Goods Movement Control Measures for the inclusion in the South Coast Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) that: a) demonstrates the feasibility of implementation by the 2014 attainment deadline; b) specifically identifies roles and responsibilities of all parties involved including funding; c) does not put the region at risk of losing federal transportation funds; and 2) Work with SCAG, ..South Coast Air Quality Management District, and the county transportation commissions to ensure fair and equitable responsibility .for emissions reductions that also include federal regulatory agencies; and 3) forward to the Commission for final action. Plans and Programs Committee Agenda August 27, 2007 Page 4 11. GRADE •SEPARATION JUMP START FUNDING AWARD FOR. TRADE CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM Overview This item is for the Committee to: Authorize the Chair, pursuant to legal counsel :.review, to . execute agreements on behalf of the Commission for grade separation project development for: a) City of Corona, Agreement No. 08-33-014-00 for $2.5 million b) City of Riverside, Agreement No. 08-33-012-00 for $4.5 million c) County of Riverside, Agreement No. 08-33-013-00 for $3 million; Amend the FY 2007/08 Short Range Transit Plan (SRTP) for the Commuter Rail to reflect the increased funding; and Forward to the Commission for final action. CONSULTANT SERVICES FOR ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICEANALYSIS ,AND OUTREACH FOR THE MULTI -COUNTY GOODS MOVEMENT ACTION PLAN Page 23. :Overview. lis itern is for th•e Committee to: Award Agreement No. 08-67-017-00 in the amount of $223,970 to Moore lacofano Goltsman, Inc. (MIG) to provide consultant services for Environmental Justice Analysis and Outreach for the Multi -County Goods Movement Action Plan; 2) Authorize the Chair, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission; and 3) Forward to the Commission for final action. 13.ITEMS PULLED FROM CONSENT CALENDAR AGENDA • • Plans and Programs Committee Agenda August 27, 2007 Page 5 14. COMMISSIONERS I -STAFF REPORT Overview This item provides the opportunity for the Commissioners and staff to report on attended and upcoming meetings/conferences and issues related to Commission activities. 15. ADJOURNMENT The next Plans and Programs Committee meeting is scheduled to be held at 1:30 p.m., Monday, September 24, 2007, Board Chambers, First Floor, County Administrative Center, 4080 Lemon Street, Riverside. TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Jennifer Harmon, Clerk of the Board DATE: August 22, 2007 SUBJECT: Possible Conflicts of Interest Issues - RCTC Plans and Programs Agenda of August 27, 2007 The August 27, 2007 Plans and Programs agenda of the Riverside County Transportation Commission includes items which may raise possible conflicts of interest. An RCTC member may not participate in any discussion or action concerning a contract or amendment if a campaign contribution of more than $250 is received in the past 12 months from any entity or individual listed. Agenda Item No. 12: Consultant Services for Environmental Justice Analysis and Outreach for the Multi -County Goods Movement Action Plan Consultant(s): Moore lacofano Goltsman, Inc. 169 North Marengo Avenue Pasadena, CA 91101-1703 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION PLANS AND PROGRAMS SIGN -IN SHEET AUGUST 27, 2007 NAME AGENCY E MAIL ADDRESS Cft 1 V v -rShal(1.60ie/. am e �'�l-e/--- f orll :2A-14 , O" � ,dl; 1 Ami , 25 /5-efe� �a 41�,-(6 e-! Al i c p.,e-L id l i to ,_i P-6' 2 ( ca - µQ_ �/�,_ � J l- 5 " ( 2j� 06-t '-'�/ v/, y,wa P I vin.4� v�gt dor ,ILA v i ��,-/ gtvram,, RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION PLANS AND PROGRAMS COMMITTEE ROLL CALL AUGUST 27, 2007 County of Riverside, District I ' uerstge Districtil �e County of Riverside, District V D � tl'2iriXM1" It rry ".i .�"Xiii nfr-r of Calrmesa� City of Corona mmc City of Indian Wells � City of Moreno Valley City of Palm Desert mSpiaga City of Perris '167 into Present Absent O AGENDA ITEM 5 MINUTES • RIVERS/DE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION PLANS AND PROGRAMS COMMITTEE Monday, April 23, 2007 MINUTES 1. CALL TO ORDER The meeting of the Plans and Programs Committee was called to order by Chair Patrick Muliany at 1234 p.m., in the Board Room at the .County of Riverside Administrative Center, 4080 Lemon Street, 'First Floor, . Riverside;. California, 92501. 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE At this time, Chair 'Patrick Mullany led the Commission in a flag salute. 3. ROLL CALL Members/Alternates Present MembersAbsent Marion Ashley Daryl Busch Bob Buster Chris Carlson John Chlebnik Frank Hail Robin Lowe Jeff Miller Patrick Mullany Ron Oden Richard Kelly Frank West Michael H. Wilson Roy Wilson 4. PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no requests to speak from the public. 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES — April 23, 2007 The minutes of the February 26, 2007, will be submitted at the next meeting. Plans and Programs Committee Minutes April 23, 2007 Page 2 ADDITIONS/REVISIONS CathyBechtel, to Project Deliver Director, noted Agenda Item 10' � 1 Y g C►t►zens Advisory Committee/Social Services Transportation Advisory Council" was printed incorrectly. Staff inadvertently printed only the first page of the agenda item; there are a total of three pages. CONSENT CALENDAR - All matters on the Consent Calendar will be approved in a single motion unless a Cornmissioner(s) requests separate action on specific item(s). Items pulled from the Consent Calendar will be placed for discussion at the end of the agenda. M/S/C :to approve the following Consent Calendar 'items: 7A. COMMUTER RAIL UPDATE 1) Receive and file an update on the Commuter Rail Program; and 2) _ Forward to the Commission for final action. 7B FY 2006/07 SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN AMENDMENT: CITY OF RIVERSIDE SPECIAL SERVICES 1) Allocate=-$230,000 in State Transit Assistance (STA) funds to the city of Riverside's Special Services (RSS) program contingent upon approval by the Riverside 'City Council; Amend RSS' FY 2006/07 Short Range; Transit Plan (SRTP) to reflect the additional funding; and 3) . Forward to the Commission for final action. 7C. FY 2006/07 SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN AMENDMENT: SUNLINE TRANSIT AGENCY SECTION 5310 CAPITAL GRANTS PROGRAM 1) Allocate $12,400 in State Transit Assistance (STA) funds to the ' SunLine Transit Agency (SunLine) as the local match for the Federal Transit Administration's (FTA) ,Section 5310 program; 2) Amend SunLine's FY 2006/07 Short Range Transit Plan (S'RTP) to reflect the additional capital equipment and associated funding; and 3;) Forward to the Commission for final action. • • Plans and Programs Committee Minutes April 23, 2007 Page 3 8. REGIONAL PROGRAMS SPOTLIGHT: WESTERN RIVERSIDE SPECIALIZED TRANSIT PROGRAM Tanya Love, Program °Manager, presented the specialized transit outreach efforts throughout Riverside County as well as the state level, highlighting the following areas: • • • Mobility Management - 82% of Americans age 65 or older worry they will be stranded and unable to get around when they can no longer drive; Chart from - 'USA Today dated May 2, 2007, that depicts graphically risk by age group; Older Californian traffic safety Committee Memberships and goals to raise awareness of aging, ,population's mobility needs and associated, issues; >- Riverside County's senior ,population - Growth in . seniors age 65 + and 85 + Aging generation - Longevity creates socioeconomic challenges and opportunities; • Challenges in providing transportation;. Opportunities to meet transportation needs; County -wide activities - Continue to provide traditional funding for public dial -a -ride, working with the federal government that provides '5310 capital funds and non -emergency medical health needs for San 'Bernardino and RiversideCounties; County -wide specialized transit activities Roadmap for Coordinated Transportation Innovations meeting located at the Morongo Casino May 17, 2007; Biennial call for. projects Western Riverside County; FY 2007/08 Guide to Transportation Freedom; Innovative Programs - Transportation Reimbursement and Information Project (TRIP), Care=a-Van Transit (San Jacinto/Hemet), City of Norco's program and Riverside County Regional Medical Center Program; Western Riverside County - Measure A Specialized Transit proposed funding; and Partnerships to increase mobility options. At Commissioner Jeff Miller's request, Tanya Love explained the process for someone to become- an escort or driver for the TRIP. She then provided background information on the taxi demonstration program that is now part of the service profile for the public operators. Plans and Programs Committee Minutes April 23, 2007 Page 4 At Commissioner Ronald Oden's request, Tanya Love provided an update on the TRIP program in the Coachella Valley. M!S/C (Oden/Miller) to: 1) Receive and file the Western Riverside Specialized Transit Program presentation as an information item; and 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. APPROVAL OF THE PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENT 07-67-041-00 (FORMERLY SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA NATIONAL FREIGHT GATEWAY MOU) Stephanie Wiggins, Regional Programs Director, provided an overview of the Southern California National Freight Gateway Partnership Agreement. At its September 15, 2006 meeting, the Commission approved a MOU related to the Southern California National Freight Gateway. However, some of the Commission's federal partners and the state requested substantial modification of the language. Therefore, its revised :form is a partnership agreement. M/SIC (Busch/Lowe) to: 2 Approve the Partnership Agreement 07-67-041-00 (formerly Southern California National Freight Gateway MOU),' contingent upon legal counsel review; and; Forward -to .the Commission for final action. 10. FISCAL YEAR 2006/07 SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN AMENDMENT: COMMUTER RAIL Tanya Love provided an overview of the amendment to. the FY 2006/07 Short Range. Transit Plan (SRTP) for Commuter Rail, which relates to the North Main Corona Metrolink parking structure, andreviewed the strategyto assist commuters during its construction. Commissioner Jeff Miller expressed that an area of concern is the distance that the satellite parking will be from the station and commuter and vehicle safety. He stated that it is imperative for all agencies involved to :stay attentive to this matter. • Plans and Programs Committee Minutes April 23, 2007 Page 5 MIS/C (Miller/Ashley) to: 1) Allocate $3,523,775 in State Transit Assistance (STA) and $567,714 in Local Transportation Fund (LTF) funds to serve as local match to previously allocated Congestion Mitigation Air Quality (CMAQ► funds for the ;parking. structure at the North Main Corona, station; 2) Allocate $180,000 in LTF funds to cover the costs of parking relocation; 3) Amend the FY 2006/07 Commuter Rail Program's Short Range Transit Plan (SRTP) to reflect the additional funding allocations for the project; and 4) Forward to the Commission for final action. 11 CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE/SOCIAL SERVICES TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY COUNCIL Tanya Love stated that the Commission is looking to add new members, to the Citizens .Advisory Cornmittee/Social Services Transportation Advisory Council (CAC/SSTAC). Staff recommends appointing Fortunato Penilla to . the CAC/SSTAC Heis, currently retired and _a former member of the Inland Regional Center. Although Mr. Penilla is not an official member of the committee, he attends regularly and provides assistance to staff in reviewing grant applications, Measure A recipient funding requests, and SRTPs. At Commissioner Oden's request, Tanya . Love provided the regional breakdown of the CAC/SSTAC. M/S/C (Busch/Miller) to: 1) Appoint Fortunato Penilla to the Commission's. Citizens Advisory Committee/Social Services Transportation Advisory Council (CAC/SSTAC); 2) Seek candidate names from Commissioners as to potential appointments to the CAC/SSTAC; and 3) Forward to the Commission for final action. 12. ITEMS PULLED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR There were no items pulled from the Consent .Calendar for discussion. Plans and Programs Committee Minutes April 23, 2007 Page 6 13.; COMMISSIONERS / STAFF REPORT There were no Commissioner or staff reports. 14. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business for consideration by the Plans and Programs Committee, the meeting adjourned at 1:05 p.m. The next meeting of the Plans and Programs Committee is scheduled for June 25, 2007 at 1:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Jennifer 'Harmon Clerk of the Board Eta-04Y•ert-- AGENDA ITEM 7A RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMM/SS/ON DATE: August 27, 2007 TO: Plans and Programs Committee FROM: Henry Nickel, Staff Analyst Sheldon Peterson, Program Manager THROUGH: Stephanie Wiggins, Regional Programs Director SUBJECT: Commuter Rail Program Update STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Committee to 1) Receive and fife anupdateon the Commuter Rail Program; and 2) Forward to the Commissionfor finalaction. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Inland Empire -Orange County Weekend Service Completes its. First Year Cumulative Passenger Trips 1E0C Weekend Service 70,000 60,000 a 50,000 F 40,000 c 30,000 20,000 10,000 . 0 �J NJ . ® FY 2006-07 FY 2005-06 Daily passenger trips on the new year-round IEOC weekend service have remained consistent through July. To date, the IEOC weekend service has provided 62,719 passenger trips since commencing . July 15, 2006. This constitutes 43,787 additional trips resulting from year-round service compared to 18,932 Summerlin`k seasonal trips in 2005. The success of this .service is due in large part to the coordinated initial marketing efforts among the Commission, Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA), and 'San Bernardino Associated Governments (SANBAG). Since discussions, began jr) March, marketing responsibilities have been Agenda Item 7A steadily transitioning to Metrolink staff to address the expanded weekend :service throughout :the system. By fall of this year, most all responsibilities for marketing of the 1E0C weekend service will transfer to Metrolink as part of an overall Weekend Service marketing campaign. Schedule Changes Effective Tuesday, September 4 On September. 4, Metrolink will implement modifications to its existing schedule. These are being made to add the Buena Park Station to the 91 Line and: extend more IE0C _trains to Laguna Niguel from Irvine. Of those routes serving Riverside County, both the 91 and IEOC Lines will be affected as follows: 91 Line Departures IEOC Line Departures Station 701 703 705 707 803 805 807 811 grsr Riverside La Sierra 5 39a 6 39a 2:34-p 5:59p 5:21 a 5 51 a 6:26a 11:54a West Corona .. _ 5:53a 6:53a 2:48p 6:13p 5:35a 6:05a 640a::.:.12.08p Additionally,there will be modifications to the San Bernardino Line weekend. service to and from Riverside to allow for better connection from Riverside on Saturdays. ROUTE PERFORMANCE: Riverside Line Passenger Trips Riverside Line 6,000 5600 Q 5,200 4,800 .. 0 4,400 lk 4,000 3,600 3,200 O� OHO d° OrO p� p1 01 O� Q� ,01 cog'0°'` moo) �6' far` ��� 4.m QQ� Month Daily passenger trips on Metro'link's Riverside Line for the rnonth of July averaged 5,093, a decrease of 48, 1 % less than the month of June.: Compared to one year Agenda Item 7A 2 • prior, the line averaged an overall daily increase of 615 passenger trips. This is nearly 14% more than a year ago, a trernendous improvement due to consistent on time performance above 95% forr the past five months. 100 m 95 2 90 85 80 n. 75 70 i On Time :Performance (95% Goal) Riverside Line UP Track Work NA.; J� P 06 0c ADO ob Al "0A 0A 01 A� 0A eR S �O �o� sec►" ��P a ��'o �" PQ�" a� �JO Month July on -time performance averaged 97% inbound (-1 % from June) and 94% outbound (no change from June). There were 11 delays greater than five minutes during the month of July. The following are primary causes: Signals/Track/MOW Dispatching Mechanical Operations . 0 18`% 18% 0 % 64% TOTAL Inland Empire -Orange County (IEOC) Line Passenger Trips Inland Empire Orange County Line 5,000 4,800 4,600 a. L. 4,400 0 4,200 �t 4,000 3,800 3,600 Agenda Item 7A o� A`� O S I '0' 01 O� 947, �� <cob 4\qk v.9 4a�� 0 \40 'Month Daily passenger- trips, on Metrolink's Inland Empire -Orange County (1E0C) Line for the month of July averaged 4,588, a decrease of 128 trips, 3"% less than the month of June. The line has increased by 104 daily trips or 2% from a year ago July 2006. On Time Performance (95% .Goal) Inland Empire Orange County Line 100 a, 95 sa 90 d 85 m 80 a 75 70 p0 0 O zo co Qo Qo AAA AA AA ,O , O p O 00'` �4 Oe' ,ems ��s° �a� PQ9 4t' Month July on -time performance averaged 98 % southbound ( + 2 % from June) and 93% northbound (-1 % from June). There were 15 delays greater than five minutes during the month of July. The following are primary causes: 91 Line . Signals/Track/MOW Dispatching Mechanical Operations -2,800 2600 2,400 a. 2;200 0 2000 1,800 1,600 1,400 TOTAL Agenda Item 7A T o� oq) . o� 01 0� ,es e , 01 O � O ((P ,4S Month 4 • Daily passenger trips on Metrolink's 91 Line for the month of July averaged 2,023, a decrease of 33 trips, 8% less than the month of June. The line has decreased by 460 daily trips or -19% from a year ago July 2006. This is primarily due to passengers returning to a better performing Riverside Line. 1.00 a) 95 c 90 co 85 . . 80 a 75 70 On Time Performance (95% Goat) 91' `Line \p� c �J P44 o� o° 01 ,01 Ok ,01 iJk 01 �a� QR`4f6v Month July on -time performance averaged 96% inbound (-2% frorn June') and 97% outbound (-2% from June). There were six delays greater than five minutes during the month of July. The following are primary causes: Signals/Track/MOW Dispatching Mechanical Operations 0 1 0 5 0% 16% 0% 84% TOTAL Connecting Transit Service 'Performance The Commission's role facilitating interconnectivity between Metrolink and connecting transit services is essential to the ongoing viability of the system. These services address the needs of transit dependent riders as well as help mitigate congestion and the necessity for expensive parking capacity at the stations. The Commission is working to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of transit connections. In order to meet these requirements, the Commission has worked with Metrolink and local transit operators to offer connecting services to and from Riverside County Metrolink stations at no cost for those with valid Metrolink tickets. Within Riverside County, services include free transfers .to routes operated by Riverside Transit Agency (RTA), 'RTA's Commuter Link service and Corona Cruiser. The following graphs show total monthly Metrolink transfer passenger trips on each of the three services. Agenda item 7A Monthly Metrolink transfer trips on 29, and 38) totaled 2,601 for -3.88% more than the month of 9.84% over the last fiscal year. .0.. 0 7,000 6,400 5,800 5,200 4,600 4,000 Passenger Trips RTA Fixed Route RTA's connecting fixed routes (1, 3, the month of July, a decrease of June. Monthly trips have increase. d Passenger Trips RTA Commuter Link Month • 15, 16, 21, 105 trips, by 233 or Monthly Metrolink transfer trips on RTA's Commuter .Link routes (202, 204, 206,and 208) totaled 4,622 for the rnonth of July, a decrease of 227 trips,-4.68%o frorn the month of June. Monthly trips have increased by 150 or 26.46% over the last fiscal year. - Agenda Item 7A 6 Passenger Trips Corona Cruiser 700 600 a 500 1— 400 • 300 200 100 06 CS° Ob p6 OA 01 O� 01 01 • p� p1 6'O� )arc fig° lac PQ` Month Monthly Metrolink transfer trips on the Corona Cruiser totaled 494 for the month of July, a decrease of 46 trips, -8.52% less than the month of June. Monthly trips have increased by 245 or 98.39% over the past fiscal year. This is partially attributed to the development and distribution of a promotional brochure in December and improved driver retention. Attachments: 1) Metrolink Average Weekday Passenger Trips 2) Metrolink Schedule Adherence Summary — Weekday Service Agenda Item 7A 7 ww •w 14l'W..'1 yue W401.+.PRJ ony %L. %61- %Z %Z- %K. %S %Z- %Z- %0 90Inf sn LO hf e6usya % %C. %L- %£- %4- %L- %1- %Z- %E- %£- LO unr sn LD Inr OLIN° % %£- %0 %L %E %6 %L- %0 %Z % L- %0 089' 1.4 LL4'£b 6S8`Z4 £16'Z4 804'Zb S60' Lb Zb8'LE S8 L'Z4 0£9'Z4 L9£'Za 06£ 44 806'14 £ZO`Z 811'Z 84E'Z 9L£ Z LZZ Z 86Z'Z 14£ Z E88'L Z6O'Z 9bi'Z 914' Z 4Z4'Z E84'Z 89S'4 9 LL'4 EL8'b 1.6L`b 848'4 LOL'4 LOL'4 b0Z'4 9ZL'4 9£94 98917 869'4 484`4 64S'9 L9L'9 £99.9 684 9 Z64 9 L94'9 LE4 9 LL9'9 ZLS'9 L99'9 814'9 86E 9 9L9 9 £60'9 141`9 10£'S 866'4 6Z6'4 9Z817 980'4 09Z'4 OZO'9 0964, SOL'b LDS'b 999 OL9 9L9 9L9 ELL SL9 189 9LS Lb9 OLL Z99 ZZ9 LE9 0/9'LI. 996' L 1 S01'ZI• 0!L'ZL L9£ Zl ZZL'ZL L£6`11 9L6'O1 190 ZL LBZ'ZL 80Z Z 1 E89' L L 1991. LEl'1 SS£'L 8££ 1 fib£ L 66l'L 81L L 096 9 48S'9 Z4l L L91'L ZL l't 8LZ'L 69Z'L 486'£ 801'4 £LZ'b L10 4 VOL b S£1`4 Z96'£ ZZ9 E S£6`£ 0/0'4 L£0 b 096 £ 0004 LO Inr LO unr LO JQW LO ped LO use 90 Pea 90 ItoN 90 PO 90 me • amisnrav AvanoH - MOONIM H1NOIN N331?llHl Sd11112130N3SSVd A1faN33M 3W/113AV )1N11O21131N • Jul 08 Aug 08 Sep 08 Oct 08 METROLINK SCHEDULE ADHERENCE SUMMARY - WEEKDAY SERVICE Percentage of Trains Arriving Within 5 Minutes of Scheduled Time LATEST 13 MONTHS 98% 98% 94% 94% 96% " 94% 97% 96% 98% 98% 100% 98% 93% 93% 98% 95^% 98% 94% 94% 96% 95% 94% 96% 94% 98% 96% 99%95% 99% 92% 100%' 98% 98°% " 97% 90% 95% 98% 98% 96°% 97% - 99% 94% 91% 95% 92°% 98% 95% 96% 94% 92% 92% 92% 88% 88% 95% 95% 94% 95% 92% 95% 98% 95% 94% 96% 95% • 95% 94% 95% 95% 94% 97% 96°% 95°% 94% 95% 96% Nov 06 Deo 06 Jan 07 86% 89% 97% 95% 99% 96% 91% 92% 95% 94% 98% 93% 9. % 91 % 97% 98% 97% 97% 95% • 96% 98% 97°% 98% 98% 90% ' 91% 86% 90% 91°% 84% 88% 89% 90% 94% 92% 97% 92°% 87% 98% 94% 90% 95% 93°% 93°% 98% 95% 97% 100% 90% 91% 95% 94% 95% 95% 91% 95% 95% Feb 07 97% 97% 97% 95% 97% 98% 100% 97% 88% 80% 95% 98% 94% 95°% 94% 100% 96% 95% 95°% Mar 07 Apr 07 May 07 97% 99% 99% 97% 97% 97% 83% 86"% 93% 93°% 94% 94% 97% 98% 99% 96°% 98% 97°% 97% 97% 99% . 97% 99% 97% 98% 98% 99%_ 98% 98% 97°% 93% 98% 96°% 96% 97% 95% 94% 91% 92% 93% 97°% 93% 92°% 95% 100% 98% 98% 96% 94% 95°% 97% 98% 97% 96% 94% 96% 96% Jun 07 99% 98% 97% 94% 98% 98% 100% 100% 98% 94% 96% 96% 96% 94% 98% 99% 97% 97% 97% Jul 07 100°% 98% 95% 90% 98% 98% 96% 99% 97%.;,_ 94% 91% 98% 98°% 93% 96°% 97% 96% 96% 96% Peak Period Trelne. 1 _(1 Pa Pedatl _.. ... .{._-: f. . i _ 1 �. << r _ .. f - ..,... '� t . , :�.:. �.. Apr. Tsa �, £�. . � 1 P, - :`I r .. :.,}.;tE_ ,_ �FA'iYR1RVY4li 100% 95% . �e:+FSMiid 97% Trains 100% 07% 97% 89% 08% 98% 94% 100°% ,, 99% - 93% 90% 100%� 99% 92% 95% 96% No adjustments have been made for relievable delays. Terminated trains are considered OT 6 they were on-dme at point of termination. Annulled trains are not included In the on -time calculation. 15 . OT-11MoNew AGENDA ITEM 8 RIVERS/DE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: August 27, 2007 TO: Plans and Programs Committee FROM: Cathy Bechtel, Project Development 'Director Gustavo Quintero, Bechtel Project Coordinator Mark Massman, Bechtel Project . Manager THROUGH: - Hideo Sugita, Deputy Executive Director SUBJECT: Identificati on of a Locally Preferred Alternative for Mid County 'Parkway the STAFF RECOMMENDATION - This itern is for the Committee to: 1) . Designate Alternative 9, the Far South Alternative, as the Commission's. locally preferred alternative for the Mid County Parkway (MCP); and 2) ;Forward to, the Commission for final .action. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Since 2003, the Commission has been working on the (MCP) in partnership with Caltrans, the Federal Highway Administration ('FHWA) and federal; and state resource agencies. Early analysis and discussion for this east -west corridor was initiated and studied as ;part of _ the Riverside County Integrated_ Project (RCIP) _ efforts, which began back in 1999. One of the milestones agreed to by the MCP partner agencies, the transportation and resource agencies that constitute the small working group (SVVG), was to consider designation of a preferred alternative in the draft environmental impact report/environmental impact statement (EIR/EIS) following completion of the draft technical studies. The partner agencies agreed that if one alternative "rose to the top" with respect to being the likely least environmentally damaging practicable alternative (LEDPA), this would help streamline the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process by allowing the agencies to focus on this preferred alternative through the preparation and review of the draft EIR/EIS. The MCP study team has completed the draft environmental and engineering technical studies for the five MCP build alternatives. Now that the :. technical studies have been completed and the information is readily available for comparison of the project alternatives, staff recommends that the Commission identify a locally preferred alternative. Agenda Item 8 Project Alternatives The five build alternatives under evaluation (Alternatives 4, 5, 6, 7, and 9) were developed through a collaborative process with the SWG following the NEPA/404 integration process. The attached depicts the five build alternatives being evaluated as part of the draft EIR/EIS. These alternatives were intended to provide a reasonable ,range of alternatives with the potential to address thepurpose and need for the project. The range of alternatives is intended to meet the requirements for alternatives analysis under California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), NEPA, Section 404 of the federal Clean VVater Act (CWA), and Section 4(f).of ,the U.S. Department of Transportation Act > (49 USC 303). Key milestone ;actions to date include: 1) Execution of an interagency partnering agreement (October 2003) 2) concurrence on Purpose and Need (January 2004) 3) Preliminary agreement on an initial suite of alternatives (November 2004) 4) Consensus on evaluation criteria for selection of a preferred alternative (December 2004) Preliminary = agreement on a revised (November 2005). The . preliminary agreement on a revised suite of alternatives was required to address eliminations of two alternatives deemed impracticable due to potential safety and operational impacts to the Lake Mathews. and Perris .dams, and the addition of ,a : new alternative that fully avoided the Metropolitan Water District (MWD) Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) reserve lands. Environmental and engineering technical studies have been in preparation since 2004, and draft technical reports have undergone concurrent review by the MCP partner agencies. The MCP alternatives have been evaluated using the selection criteria agreed to by the SWG in December-2004 for use in selecting the LEDPA. A total of 17 primary: criteria and 56 sub -criteria was developed and agreed to by the partner agencies. Key criteria include impacts to the following: cost, people and homes, businesses, water resources, endangered and threatened species, existing ;habitat conservation plans, cultural resources, land use, and impacts to communities. While area residents are likely more concerned about effects on their homes and other community impacts, the criteria addressing natural resources must also be considered as they are critical to the ability of the resource agencies to grant future approvals and; permits for the project. For example,. the U.S. Army Corps , of Agenda Item '$ 11 Engineers can only approve a Section 404 permit for the alternative with the least impacts to .waters of the ,U.S. (the LEDPA), unless it is shown that such an alternative is neither reasonable nor practicable. Designation of Preferred Alternative The analysis performed, using findings from the draft MCP technical studies, shows that Alternative 9, the far south alternative, is superior under almost every criterion and rises to the top as the least impacting alternative. Since this alternative appears to be superior to all of the other alternatives based on the criteria for. alternative selection, per the agreement with FHWA and the federal and state resource agencies, Commission staff is recommending identification of Alternative 9 as the Commission's preferred alternative. The designation of a preferred alternative in the draft EIR/EIS should significantly aid in the analysis and completion of the environmental process. The strengths and weaknesses of this early identification of a Preferred Alternative are shown below. Strengths: 1) Provides early disclosure to the public of the preferred alternative; Allowsthe public to provide .focused input on a single: alignment; Savesmoney and minimizes impacts by limiting the scope of the remaining cultural resource studies. The state ;historic preservation office (SHPO) has agreed that cultural phase 2 testing can be limited to just the preferred alignment, thusminimizing disturbance to cultural resources since studies will not have to be done on the other alignments; 4) Does not preclude the Commission from making adjustments to the preferred alternative during the public comment process; and 5) Streamlines federal permit processing as selection of a preferred alternative allows for the initiation of key coordination with federal resource agencies earlier in the process. Weaknesses: 1) May require more time and work if the preferred alternative changes due to unforeseen impacts brought forward during the public review process (would have to revise the EIR/EIS). One concern that has been raised is regarding the potential for the MCP to be growth inducing (i.e., would it encourage unplanned growth?). The growth analysis conducted for the MCP concluded that implementation of the MCP project Agenda !tern 8 12 is expected to have little influence on the location, amount, rate, or type of growth in the area The basis for this conclusion is: (1) the area has been undergoing rapid development since well before the MCP planning (and prior CETAP corridor planning) had begun; (2) the MCP project has been integrated into the overall planning of the area based on the inclusion of the CETAP corridor overlay in the Riverside County general plan circulation element; and (3) based on the Commission's monthly review meetings with the local land use authorities, there has been no indication of developers intensifying or substantially modifying their development proposals in response to the proposed MCP project. For Alternative 9, the potential for growth --related effects is constrained by topography and ,existing land use patterns, including the overall rural character of the areas. The growth inducing potential of Alternative 9 is limited due to the provision of three local service interchanges between 1-15 and 1-215 and current general plan 'land use which calls for low density, rural residential development. Changes to this land use can only be done through a discretionary action by the county of Riverside. CONCLUSION: Based on the key .evaluation criteria for the MCP build alternatives, Alternative 9 is recommended to be designated as the locally preferred alternative in the draft EIR/EIS. Alternative 9 is the least damaging to water resources and aquatic ecosystems, threatened and endangered species, Section 4(f) resources, and existing reserve . lands; completely avoids the MWD MSHCP reserve area; and avoids a: potential sacred cultural site. Alternative 9 is the least impacting to existing business and residential access and travel patterns, :impacts the least acreage of farmland,and requires the least number of residential and business displacements for right-of-way acquisition. Alternative 9 does not impact schools and has the lowest direct impacts to low income/minority populations. Finally, Alternative 9 will have the least impact to noise sensitive land uses. By designating Alternative 9 as the preferred alternative, public agency resources can be focused on reviewing the impacts and proposed avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures for this alternative during the draft EIR/EIS review period. In addition, the --many communities not along the preferred alignment ..may experience some level of relief by the early identification of a preferred alternative. The identification of a locally preferred alternative is not a final decision but it does indicate the Commission's staff opinion. It also allows the Commission to review this choice in its discussions with the other public agencies involved in the decision -making process: the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, the United States Army Corps of Engineers, the United States Environmental Protection Agency, the 'FHWA, the California Department of Fish and Game, and Caltrans. Agenda Item 8 13 • • • Selection of a locally preferred alternative does not complete the approval process. There are still many phases of work left to complete before a final selection of the LEDPA is made and construction can begin. The draft EIR/EIS will be released in early 2008 for comment and review by the public, resource agencies and local governments. At that time, there will be an opportunity for public comments and a full review of the draft EIR/EIS findings with the involved federal and state agencies. Once the EIR/EIS is finalized to address comments received during the public hearing period, the Commission will select a final alternative, certify the EIR under CEQA and approve the project. Once this is completed, and agreement on the LEDPA is reached by the agencies involved in the federal decision -making process, the Commission will be able to obtain needed federal and state permits and finalize engineering designs for the project in summer 2009. The earliest construction is projected to begin is 2011. Given the length of the projected corridor of 32 miles and cost of $3.1 billion, it is likely the project would be constructed in stages as funding is secured. Possible funding sources include Measure A, Traffic Uniform Mitigation Fees, and federal and state funds. Following the Commission's action, the Commission will request FHWA's concurrence on identification of Alternative 9 as the preferred alternative in the draft EIR/EIS for the MCP. This request will be made pursuant to the provisions of SAFETEA-LU Section 6002, and in the belief that the public is better served by early disclosure of a preferred alternative. Attachment: MCP Build Alternatives Map Agenda Item 8 14 SOUTH LAKE MATHEWS (ALTERNATIVES 4, 5) GENERAL PLAN (ALTERNATIVES 6,7) • ALTERNATIVE 9 COMMON TO ALTERNATIVES PERRIS VALLEY STORM DRAIN 4, 5, 6, 7 (ALTERNATIVES 4, 6) PERRIS SOUTH (ALTERNATIVES 5, 7) 15 • �yONA kYPWY COMMON TO ALL Proposed Connections Attachment I - MCP Build Alternatives AGENDA ITEM 9 • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: August 27, 2007 TO: Plans and Programs Committee FROM.: Shirley Medina, Program Manager THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Deputy Executive Director SUBJECT: AB 872 Option to Proceed with Pending STIP Allocation Requests for State . Route . 71 /91 Interchange, Interstate 215 Widening Projects, and. the North Main Corona Parking Structure STAFF RECOMMENDATION. - This item is for the Committee to: 1) Direct staff to .proceed with the projects under AB 872 that allows projects to proceed prior to the California Transportation Commission (CTC) allocation in the event the pending STIP allocation requests are not approved at the September 19-20, 2007 CTC meeting; and 2) forward to the Commission for final action. BACKGROUND INFORMATION; Due to the delayed state budget adoption, the CTC did not approve State Transportation Improvernent Program (STIP) project allocations for highway, transit, : and road projects at its July ;25-26, 2007- meeting. , The STIP is :primarily funded by state fund sources and dependent upon the state 'budget. Without a budget in place and knowing the impact to transportation fund sources, the CTC felt .it was'best to delay its July allocations until September. Four project allocations were submitted for a vote by the CTC at its July 25-26, 2007 meeting: SR-71 /91 interchange, 1-215 widening from 1-15 to Scott Road (Corridor Mobility Improvement Account (CMIA) project), 1-215 .widening from Scott Road to Nuevo 'Road, and the North Main Corona parking structure. The first three projects are requesting allocation for the preliminary engineering phase, and the parking structure is seeking the allocation for the construction phase. _ In the event the state budget is delayed and/or the CTC continues todefer allocations beyond its September meeting, there is a provision under AB 872 that allows project sponsors to proceed with STIP projects 12 months prior to a CTC allocation and receive reimbursement: at the time the allocation is made. Therefore, Agenda Item 9 16 the project sponsor would need to have the necessary cash flowuntil the allocation is made. The risk is that there is no guarantee that the CTC will allocate funds or vote on the project. If the CTC decided not to allocate funds. to these 'projects within the next 1; 2 months, expenditures would not be reimbursed. In discussing this option with CTC staff, there was a positive indication that the CTC.. would indeed vote these projects as soon as the state budget is approved. This option allovvs staff to proceed with the projects without any further delay:. Of the utmost importance is that contracts have been secured to begin the preliminary engineering work for the SR-71 /91 interchange and 1-215 widening projects, and construction management services for the North Main Corona parking structure are being retained. Proceeding under AB 872 will allow the Cormission to maintain schedules, which is critically important for the 1-215 widening project from 1-15 to Scott Road. The process to enact the AB 872 option requires a letter be sent to Ca!trans and the CTC indicating the Commission's intention to proceed with the specific .projects prior to the CTC allocation under the AB 872 provision Should staff learn ,prior to the September CTC meeting that the risk is too great, or that there is uncertainty about the projects being voted within the next 12 months, this item will be !brought back to the Commission in October for further discussion. State 'Budget Impact to STIP Without a state budget, there are certain unknowns concerning the availability. of funds. It is known, however, that a $ 1.3 billion diversion of Public TransportationAccount (PTA) funds is _proposed :in .the budget. Although PTA funds, transit and rail projects programmed in the STIP, it does not necessarily mean that these projects are the only projects impacted Any, diversion of a STIP fund source results in 'lessfunding for the projects included in the entire'STIP. As soon as the state 'budget is adopted, the CTC will conduct a workshop on the 2008 STIP fund ; estimate. The fund estimate determines the amount of funding that will be available for programming in the upcoming STIP cycle. The $1.3 billion diversion and other state °budget impacts on transportation funding will be analyzed and the actual funding availability for the 2008 STIP will be broken_ down to county levels. When; funding has been reduced in the past, the CTC has had to develop allocation` plans:, Alllocation plans prioritize and categorize projects based on the CTC's priorities and funding availability. The last allocation plan process was enacted during the state budget crisis in 2003 and was terminated when the 2006 STIP was :adopted. Agenda Item 9 17 • RIVERSIDE: COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: August 27, 2007 TO: Plans and Programs Committee FROM: Shirley Medina, Program Manager Stephanie Wiggins, Regional Programs Director THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Deputy Executive Director SUBJECT: Proposed Goods Movement Control Measures for . South Coast^ Air Quality Management Plan STAFF. RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Committee to: 1) Request that the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) develop and approve Goods Movement Control Measures for the inclusion in the South Coast Air Quality 'Management :Plan (AQMP) that: a) demonstrates the feasibility of implementation by the 2014 attainment,=deadline; b) specifically identifies roles and responsibilities of all parties involved including funding; c) does not put the region at risk of losing federal transportation funds; and 2) . Work with SCAG, South Coast Air Quality .`Management District, and: the county transportation commissions to ensure fair and equitable responsibility for emissions reductions that also include federal regulatory agencies; and 3) forward to the Commission for final action. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: SCAG is responsible for developing the transportation component of the AQMP. SCAG is in the process of developing Goods Movement Control Measure strategies be amended into the AQMP due to the new requirements for meeting Particulate Matter (PM) 2.5 emission reductions by 2014. These strategies will be incorporated into the 2007 AQMP. Over the past few months, SCAG has worked closely with the county transportation commissions on developing strategies that will meet the 'PM 2.5 emissions reductions. If a ,strategy is not identified in the AQMP to meet the Agenda Item 10 18 PM 2.5 emission reductions requirement, federal transportation funding may be withheld from the SCAG region. However, if the Goods Movement Control. Measures identified in the AQMP are not implemented by 2014, the region would also be at risk of losing federal funding. Therefore, it is imperative that _SCAG approves a strategy that will not only meet the emissions reductions by 2014, but actually can be implemented and funded without irnpacting other federal projects. Currently, SCAG is proposing the following projects as the Goods Movement Control Measure strategy: 1) electrification of various rail corridors; 2) grade separation strategies; and 3) the implementation of lower emission railroad locomotives within the South Coast Air Basin. A range of options that includes ,the above projects are :being studied, which have different emission benefits and costs. SCAG assumes that these projects will be implemented by 2014 and will :be funded by a combination of sources, including county transportation commission funds, new 'Metrolink bonds, State Proposition 1 B goods movement and air quality bonds, SB 97.4 container fees, and bonding through a public/private . partnership. None of, these ;fund sources are currently committed to the proposed strategies. SCAG is also proposing that these strategies/control measures be incorporated into the AQMP with the condition that they be "backstopped" by the Air Resources Board (ARB). This :means that if these projects are not implemented ;on schedule,, ARB -`would assume the responsibility of meeting the emissions attributed to these strategies with other measures. It is unclear if ARB will agree to this and without this . agreement, the SCAG region would be "on the hook" to implement these projects even' though funding is not committed. This would result ;in the county` transportation :;commissions being forced to fund these projects or risk the loss of federal funds, thereb eo ardizin already committedprojects. Y �1 � p 9 Y , Staff is continuing to meet with SCAG and express concern on implementing these projects in the requisite timeframe, and the impacts of identifying projects that do' not have committed funds. Coordination of many entities (public and private) would be necessary to implement the proposed projects, which would take time to achieve a .consensus on how to implement and fund these projects. Staff does not oppose the concept of these projects, however, there is doubt that without a funding plan in ,place and lack of detailed studies, this would lead to certain , loss of funding: Staff will continue to work with SCAG and the other county transportation commissions in developing a Goods Movement Control Measure strategy that will meet the 'PM 2.5 requirement. Staff will also work with these agencies to ensure that federally regulated PM 2.5 contributors such as ports, trains, and planes do. their fair sharein reducing PM 2.5 emissions. Agenda !tern 10. 19 • RIVERS/DE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMM/SS/ON DATE: August 27, 2007 TO: Plans and Programs Committee FROM: Tanya Love, Program Manager THROUGH: Stephanie Wiggins, Regional 'Programs Director SUBJECT: Grade Separation Jump Start Funding Award for Trade Corridor` lmprovernent Program STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Committee to: 1) Authorize the Chair, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute agreements on behalf of the Commission for grade separation project development for: a) City of Corona, Agreement No. 08-33-014-00 for $2.5 million b) City of Riverside, Agreement No. 08=33-012-00 for $4.5 million c) County of Riverside, Agreement No. 08-33-013-00 for $3'million, _ 2) Amend the FY 2007/08 Short Range Transit Plan (S'RTP) for the Commuter Rail to reflect the increased funding; and 3) Forward to the Commission for final action. BACKGROUND INFORMATION; At its July 11, 2007 meeting, the Commission in anticipation of the first round of Trade Corridor Improvement Fund allocations, allocated $10 million of Western Riverside County Rail Local Transportation Fund (LTF) funds to support the project development (preliminary engineering) of 10 grade separation projects in Western Riverside County' The next step in the process of allocating the funding is to enter into agreements with the city of Corona, city of Riverside and county of Riverside in order for the respective . agencies to access the funds. Attached is an overview of the Western Riverside jump start grade separation projects that were approved at the. July 11, 2007 Commission meeting. ' In addition, the Coachella Valley Association of Governments identified two grade separation projects in the Coachella Valley, Avenue 52 and Avenue 66, for an award of $3 million which will be funded by CVAG. Agenda Item 11 20 Staff is requesting an amendment to the FY 2007/08 SRTP for the Commuter Rail Prograrn to reflect the $10 million in LTF funding. Financial Information In fiscal Year :Budget: Yes Year: FY 2007/08 Amount: $10,000,000 Source of ?Funds: Local Transportation Funds - Commuter Rail Budget Adjustment: Yes 221 33 86102 P4008 S10 - $2.5 million - City of Corona GLA No.: 221 33 86102 P4008 S11 - $4.5 million - City of Riverside 221 33 86102 P4008 S12 - $3 million - County of Riverside Fiscal Procedures Approved: . ibut Date: 8/20/07 Attachment: Jump Start TGIF funding Agenda Item 11 21 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION JUMP START TCIF PROGRAM Western Riverside County AGENCY/GRADE SEPARATION PROJECT Preliminary City of Corona PA&ED and PS&E Engineering Total McKinley Street/BNSF $ 1,500,000 $ - Railroad Street/BNSF $ $ 250,000 Smith Street/BNSF - 250,000 Auto Center Drive/BNSF - 500,000 Subtotal: City of Corona $ 1,500,000 $ 1,000,000 $ 2,500,000 City of Riverside Streeter Avenue/UP = 1,500,000 - Iowa Avenue/BNSF 1,500,000 Riverside Avenue/UP 1,500,000 - Subtotal: City of Riverside $ 4,500,000 $ $ 4,500,000 ''County of Riverside Jurupa Road/UP Bellegrave Avenue/UP Center Street/BNSF Subtotal: County of Riverside Grand Total: 1,500,000 1,000,000 2,500,000 500,000 500,000 $ 3,000,000 8,500,000 $ 1,500000' $ 10000000 22 8/20/2007 TL Preprint TCIF Folder Financial Tracking • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: August 27, 2007 TO: Plans and Programs Committee FROM: Tanya Love, Program Manager THROUGH: Stephanie Wiggins,: Regional Programs Director SUBJECT: Consultant Services for Environmental Justice Analysis Outreach for the Multi -County Goods Movement Action Plan and STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Committee to: 1) Award Agreement No. 08-67=017-00 in the amount of $22.3,970 to Moore lacofano .Goltsman, Inc. (NG) to provide consultant services for 'Environmental Justice Analysis and Outreach for the Multi -County Goods Movement Action Plan; 2) Authorize the Chair, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission; and. ForWard.to the Commission for --final action. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: In January 2007, the Commission approved, entering into an agreement with the California. ,Departrnent; of . Transportation .(Ca!trans)::for. $200,000 in: grant funds from the Environmental Justice (EJ): Context -Sensitive Transportation Planning grant program. In addition to committing $6,000 in 'local funds, the Commission entered into funding agreements with Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro), Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) and San Bernardino Associated Governments (SANBAG) for the local funding match of $24,000 in support of the EJ grant. With funding in place, staff was authorized to release a request for proposal (RFP) to conduct an EJ_ analysis and cornmunity outreach to supplement the Multi -County Goods Movement Action :Plan (MCGMAP), which is a work effort designed to model goods movement growth trends, identify possible public -private partnerships, and highlight near to long-term strategies, as well as development of a list of potential projects to be :funded. The RFP was distributed to approximately 25 firms. A total of three proposals . were received and consultant interviews were conducted on August 15, 2007. The selection committee consisted .of staff from the Commission together with agency representatives from Ventura County Transportation Commission (VCTC), AgendaItem 12 23 Ca trans, Metro, OCTA, SANBAG, a community member impacted by goods movement and an individual from the business community. The following; criteria were used to evaluate the proposals: 1) Qualification and experience of the firm; 2) Staffing and project organization; 3) Work plan; and 4) Completeness of response. :The three: firms each demonstrated capability of completing the proposed .scope of work. After careful evaluation of the project teams, 'knowledge of the' project and proposed project approach, the selection team ranked the firms as follows: Flanking Firm Name Top Ranked Moore lacofano Goltsman, Inc. Second Network Public Affairs Third PMC After 'MIG was selected as the top ranked firm, its cost proposal wasopened and used as a starting point in further negotiations. At the time of writing this agenda item, Commission staff is in the process of working with 'MIG to.refine_its, ,proposal. t is anticipated '. that negotiations will be finalized -prior to the 'September 12,2007 :Commission meeting. Based onthe results of the selection committee, staff recommends that Agreement No. 08-67-017-00 be awarded to MIG to perform the environmental justice :analysis and community outreach efforts. If approved, it is anticipated" that the study will be completed within 12 months. Although the work effort' will be administered by Commission staff, itwill include active cooperation and input from each MCGMAP staff representative regarding direct public outreach in each respective county.. The study will include the following work elements Identify representative target communities within each county in the goods movement study area; 2) Analyze ,potential environmental justice impacts resulting from goods movement activities and investments; 3) Establish Local community feedback groups and obtain feedback; 4) Identify 'best practices and develop potential strategies to .avoid` or: reduce potential impacts and maximize opportunities; and Develop and finalize a Strategic Report and Guidebook, for .. Communities that can be used by local jurisdictions to help mitigate` the impacts of goods movement. 24 • • As identified previously, $200,000 in grant funding was secured through a Ca!trans grant. The local match of $24,000 was provided by Metro, 4CTA, SANBAG and the Commission. Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: No Year: FY 2007/08 FY 2008/09 Amount: $74,000 $15.0,000 State:. $ 00,000 Source of Funds: Local Match from RCTC (LTF): $6,000 Budget Adjustment: Yes L Local Match from other CTCs: $ 18,000 N/A 106 67 41509 P2404 S40 $66,000 GLA No.: 106 67 41203 P2404 S40 $ 8,000 1 106 '67 65520 P3404 S40 $74,000 Fiscal Procedures Approved: \lif,t.,44:4114, Date: 8/20/07 Agenda Item 12 25