Loading...
01 January 28, 2008 Plans and Programs82877 RECORDS • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION PLANS AND PROGRAMS COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA TIME: 1:30 p.m. DATE: Monday, January 28, 2008 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 Bob Botts / Brenda Salas, City of Banning Jeff Miller / Karen Spiegel, City of Corona Robin Lowe / Eric McBride, City of Hemet Michael H. Wilson / Gene Gilbert, City of Indio Frank Hall / Malcolm Miller, City of Norco Dick Kelly / Cindy Finerty, City of Palm Desert Ginny Foat / Steve Pougnet, 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 * * * Anne Mayer, 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 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 on the agenda 1:30 p.m. Monday, January 28, 2008 BOARD ROOM County of Riverside Administrative Center 4080 Lemon Street, First Floor, Riverside In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act and Government Code Section 54954.2, if you need special assistance to participate in a Committee meeting, please contact the Clerk of the 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. 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 the subsequent agenda for consideration. Plans and Programs Committee Agenda January 28, 2008 Page 2 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - NOVEMBER 26, 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.) 7. 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: Page 1 1) Receive and file an update on the Commuter Rail Program; and 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. 8. 2008 STATE TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM Overview This item is for the Committee to: Page 11 1) Approve the 2008 State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP); and 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. Plans and Programs Committee Agenda January 28,2008 Page 3 • 9. • RIVERSIDE COUNTY 2008 TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM FINANCIAL RESOLUTION Page 14 Overview This item is for the Committee to: 1) Adopt Resolution No. 08-009, "Resolution Certifying that the Riverside County Has Resources to Fund Projects in Fiscal Years 2008/09 Through 2013/14 Transportation Improvement Program and Affirming Commitment to Implement All Projects in the Program"; 2) Forward to the Commission for final action; and 3) Forward to the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) for inclusion in the 2008 Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP). 10. ANNUAL LOCAL TRANSPORTATION FUND PLANNING ALLOCATION TO WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS Overview This item is for the Committee to: Page 18 1) Approve an allocation of Local Transportation Fund planning funds totaling $642,180 to the Western Riverside Council of Governments (WRCOG) to support transportation planning programs and functions as identified in the attached work program; and 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. Plans and Programs Committee Agenda January 28, 2008 Page 4 11. STATE TRANSIT ASSISTANCE FUNDS ALLOCATION TO RIVERSIDE TRANSIT AGENCY FOR THE PROCUREMENT OF EIGHT BUSES AND. FARE COLLECTION EQUIPMENT AND SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN AMENDMENT Overview This item is for the Committee to: Page 22 1) Allocate 51.16 million in State Transit Assistance (STA) funds to Riverside Transit Agency (RTA) to procure eight buses and fare collection equipment; 2) Approve Amendment No. 2 to RTA's FY 2007/08 Short Range Transit Plan (SRTP) to reflect this increase in revenues and expenses; 3) Approve a budget amendment for a $1.16 million increase to revenues and expenses in FY 2007/08; and 4) Forward to the Commission for final action. 12. SUNLINE TRANSIT AGENCY'S FISCAL YEAR 2007/08 SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN AMENDMENT Overview This item is for the Committee to: Page 24 1) Approve Amendment No. 2 to the SunLine Transit Agency's (SunLine) FY 2007/08 Short Range Transit Plan (SRTP) to reflect the re -allocation of $100,000 in State Transit Assistance (STA) funds between capital line items; and 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. Plans and Programs Committee Agenda January 28, 2008 Page 5 ® 13. CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE/SOCIAL SERVICES TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY COUNCIL Overview This item is for the Committee to: Page 26 1) Renew Andrea Puga, Sherry Thibodeaux and Mary Venerable's memberships to the Citizens Advisory Committee/Social Services Transportation Advisory Council (CAC); 2) Approve the membership roster for the CAC effective February 2008; and 3) Forward to the Commission for final action. 14. PROPOSITION 16: TRADE CORRIDORS IMPROVEMENT FUND PROGRAM AND HIGHWAY -RAILROAD CROSSING SAFETY ACCOUNT UPDATE Overview This item is for the Committee to: Page 30 1) Receive an update on the Trade Corridors Improvement Fund (TCIF) and the Highway -Railroad Crossing Safety Account (HRCSA) of Proposition 1 B; and 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. 15. ELECTION OF OFFICERS Overview This item is for the Committee to conduct an election of officers for 2008 — Chair and Vice Chair. 16. ITEMS PULLED FROM CONSENT CALENDAR AGENDA 17. COMMISSIONERS / STAFF REPORT Overview Page 42 This item provides the opportunity for the Commissioners and staff to report on attended and upcoming meetings/conferences and issues related to Commission activities. Plans and Programs Committee Agenda January 28, 2008 Page 6 18. ADJOURNMENT The next Plans and Programs Committee meeting is scheduled to be held at 1:30 p.m., Monday, February 25, 2008, Board Chambers, First Floor, County Administrative Center, 4080 Lemon Street, Riverside. RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION PLANS AND PROGRAMS COMMITTEE ROLL CALL JANUARY 28, 2008 Present Absent County of Riverside, District I County of Riverside, District I` County of Riverside, District V City of Banning, City of Corona City of Hemet City of Indian Wells City.of Indio City of Moreno Valley City. of Norco. City of Palm Desert City of, Palm Springs City of Perris City of San Jacinto RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION PLANS AND PROGRAMS SIGN -IN SHEET JANUARY 28, 2008 NAME AGENCY E MAIL ADDRESS � , 1 hil e //042 ie./ 0.)/c4vr-) 1 /ia.,b/,D /7-54e#9r. )/ AZ-Z., /C./OR Ca �1(-_ eh / .1/ / A� l9 a //� iDA -pRi C�FiN�f ai. ttyl xi , � � ,,or 4 , :.- 7 <\--- 0011 ijK.,/ 1`j3- 3 06,6 orFt- /ii 0 W4LC.E--.)--- , s i 7�Z .-AC At L _, � Al/ Mi-e /(.... e--,3 • • AGENDA ITEM 5 MINUTES • RIVERS/DE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION PLANS AND PROGRAMS COMMITTEE Monday, November 26, 2007 MINUTES 1. CALL TO ORDER The meeting of the Plans and Programs Committee was called to order by Chair Patrick Mullany at 1:33 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, Vice Chair Frank West led the Plans and Programs Committee in a flag salute. 3. ROLL CALL Members/Alternates Present Marion Ashley Daryl Busch Bob Buster Chris Carlson John Chlebnik Frank Hall Dick Kelly Robin Lowe Patrick Mullany Frank West Michael Wilson Roy Wilson 4. PUBLIC COMMENTS Members Absent Jeff Miller Ronald Oden There were no requests to speak from the public. RCTC Plans and Programs Committee Minutes November 26, 2007 Page 2 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES — JUNE 25, 2007 AND AUGUST 27, 2007 M/S/C (Busch/West) to approve the minutes of June 25, 2007, and August 27, 2007, as submitted. Abstain: June 25 minutes — Ashley; August 27 minutes — Lowe 6. ADDITIONS / REVISIONS M/S/C (Busch/Ashley) to add the urgency item on the Trade Corridor Improvement Fund to the agenda. 7. 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. M/S/C (Carlson/Lowe) to approve the following Consent Calendar items: 7A. COMMUTER RAIL PROGRAM UPDATE 1) Receive and file an update on the Commuter Rail Program as an information item; and 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. 8. REGIONAL" PROGRAMS SPOTLIGHT: MOTORIST ASSISTANCE PROGRAM Brian Cunanan, Staff Analyst, presented the Commission's Motorist Assistance Program, which includes the call box and Freeway Service Patrol (FSP) programs. He highlighted the following areas: • Call box program — 682 total call boxes in system, currently upgrading call box system from analog to digital technology and TTY; • Call box program focus — Provide a lifeline to rural areas and the Coachella Valley, call box usage continues to decline; • FSP program overview - Free roving tow service, program services, program funding and partners; • FSP program benefits — Improved safety, reduced traffic congestion, and reduced emissions; • FSP statistics for FY 2006/07 and FY 2005/06 comparative benefit/cost rations for the FSP program; • Emission benefits; • RCTC Plans and Programs Committee Minutes November 26, 2007 Page 3 • FSP program growth of 2005, 2006 and 2007; • FSP moving forward — Expand service along Interstate 15 and enhance California Highway Patrol management tools; and • Recent news coverage — Time Warner Southern California News Inland Empire Edition September, 2007. In response to Commissioner Chris Carlson's question regarding coordination with the driver's roadside assistance provider, Brian Cunanan responded that the FSP tow operator typically arrives before the driver's roadside assistance provider is called or arrives. If a call has been placed, either the FSP or the driver will cancel the roadside assistance call. Commissioner Bob Buster expressed support for the FSP program. He asked if the FSP program will be extending to the southwest county area on the 1-215/1-15 and extending south to SR-79 and beyond. He also expressed concern for emergency medical response and FSP not being able to respond in the FSP beats due to freeway congestion. He suggested continuing to enhancing the FSP service. Brian Cunanan replied that part of the issue is radio reception in that area, which staff is planning to address over the next year. At Commissioner Buster's request, staff will provide a report on what is necessary to deliver FSP coverage in that area. In response to Commissioner Buster's request for clarification on the basis for the FY 2005/06 comparative benefit/cost ratios for the FSP program, Brian Cunanan said it has largely due to the costs that have been maintained with the tow operators. Commissioner Buster then suggested that staff attempt to determine the cost effectiveness of the program as it relates to how much money is saved by clearing a traffic congestion situation quicker than by normal means. Commissioner Michael Wilson expressed concern that due to issues with communications or radio service in certain areas, FSP service cannot be provided. He requested staff work with Riverside County to allow the tow truck operators to utilize the county's radio network. Commissioner Marion Ashley stated that the county of Riverside has a $100 million 800 mega hertz county radio network that is currently being implemented and recommended Commission staff contact the County in order to integrate the FSP program. RCTC Plans and Programs Committee Minutes November 26, 2007 Page 4 M/S/C (Carlson/R. Wilson) to receive and file the Motorist Assistance Program presentation. 9. COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT WITH THE ORANGE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY FOR PROJECT MANAGEMENT FOR GEOTECHNICAL STUDIES Cathy Bechtel, Project Development Director, provided an overview of the cooperative agreement with Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) for project management for geotechnical studies. M/S/C (Ashley/Lowe) to: d 1) Approve Cooperative Agreement No. 08-65-04(3 between the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) and the Commission for a project management consultant to assist in managing the geotechnical studies for a proposed transportation corridor between Riverside County and Orange County, which will include equal funding participation by each agency; 2) Authorize the Chair, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreement of behalf of the Commission; and 3) Forward to the Commission for final action. 10. ADOPTION OF 2007 RIVERSIDE COUNTY CONGESTION MANAGEMENT PROGRAM Shirley Medina, Program Manager, provided a brief overview aid background information on the 2007 Riverside County Congestion Management Program (CMP). Shirley Medina introduced Georgina Vivian, VRPA Technologies, Inc., to provide an update of the 2007 Riverside County CMP. Georgina Vivian, VRPA Technologies, Inc., explained every two years the CMP is updated and she highlighted the following areas: �l • 2007 Riverside County CMP purpose — Directly link land use and 11 transportation, effectively utilize transportation funds, alleviate traffic congestion and improve air quality; • Riverside CMP systems: Western Riverside and Coachella Valley; • CMP system monitoring — street and highway monitioring; • 2007 level of service on CMP system in Western Riverside, North Western Riverside, and Coachella Valley; • CMP monitoring results; • CMP deficiency plan provisions; and RCTC Plans and Programs Committee Minutes November 26, 2007 Page 5 • Deficiency plan process - required components of a deficiency plan, reliance on Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fees (TUMF) programs. Commissioner Robin Lowe's request, Georgina Vivian explained that floating car runs are conducted during peak hours in order to determine the actual delay. Commissioner Robin Lowe asked for clarification on how a level of service (LOS) and a segment length are determined. Georgina Vivian replied that a LOS is determined by miles per hour (mph) that it took for a vehicle to get from point A to point B, which equates to a certain LOS. Georgina Vivian asked for Erik Ruehr, Traffic Engineer, VRPA Technologies, Inc., to provide detailed information. Erik Ruehr explained that a highway capacity manual is used for arterial streets, which will add the overall delay into the calculation of the mph along that segment. He stated that it is up to the analyst, which in this case is VRPA Technologies, Inc., along with the Technical Advisory Committee to determine the length of a segment. Commissioner Robin Lowe expressed concern for the determination of segment length as congestion and emission issues on a segment may not be accurately reflected due to inappropriate length and therefore questioned the validity of the study based on the subjective nature of the determination by the analyst. Erik Ruehr acknowledged that there is some judgment involved in determining the measurement of a segment and that in a particular three to five mile segment of arterial roadway it could be determined to be at an acceptable LOS, however there could be an isolated congestion spot within that three to five mile segment. Georgina Vivian replied if there are particular segments of concern, VRPA Technologies, Inc. can conduct a floating car run along those segments and provide the results. She said this is the most efficient way of establishing LOS and this is a subjective process using engineering judgment in identifying those particular segments. RCTC Plans and Programs Committee Minutes November 26, 2007 Page 6 M/S/C (Carlson/M. Wilson) to: 1) Approve the 2007 Riverside County Congestion Management Program (CMP); and 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. 11. MULTI -COUNTY GOODS MOVEMENT ACTION PLAN Tanya Love, Program Manager, presented an update on Multi -County Goods Movement Action Plan (MCGMAP) (Draft) and she highlighted the following: • Draft action plan - MCGMAP is a partnership between county, regional and state transportation agencies to address the goods movement challenges faced by Southern California; Draft action plan presented in preparation for two public workshops - December 10 held at city of Coachella Council Chambers and December 17 held rat the Jurupa Community Center; • November Commission meeting follow-up - Review a+d discuss the Riverside County project fist and research the potential of goods movement separation funding strategies; • Riverside County's project list - 61 Grade Separation, projects, four freeway/highway projects; • Year 2003 truck average, daily truck/vehicle (ADT) traffic; • SR-79 and Mid -County Parkway traffic demand ADT ifor 2035 and traffic projected demand count for 2035; and • Grade separation funding strategies three pronged approach - Negotiate (container fees), legislate (container fees) and litigate (unmitigated increased rail capacity). 4 Commissioner Bob Buster expressed concern for the truck traffic on the SR-60 in the badlands area in the city of Moreno Valley and suggested integrating this section of the freeway into the plan, adding a truck climbing lane. Anne Mayer, Executive Director, replied that the improvement suggested by Commissioner Buster is included in the 2009 Measure A Expenditure Plan and it is not included in the 10-Year Western County Highway Delivery Plan. At Anne Mayer's request, Tanya Love explained that the projects included in the MCGMAP are short, mid and long term. • RCTC Plans and Programs Committee Minutes November 26, 2007 Page 7 Commissioner John Chlebnik explained there is an organization called the River of Trade Corridor Coalition that is interested in the goods movement along the SR-60/I-10 corridor and suggested the Commission become a member of this coalition. Anne Mayer replied that she is familiar with this coalition and noted that the Commission is a member of the Coalition for America's Gateways Trade Corridor, which is a national freight corridor group. Commissioner Carlson concurred with the grade separation projects for the MCGMAP project list. She expressed concern for the number of projects listed that are extensively in Los Angeles and Orange Counties and that the list does not have a proportionate share for Riverside County; however, the goods movement study reflects additional truck traffic on the Riverside County system. She suggested that staff include additional projects in the MCGMAP for Riverside County so when funding becomes available, Riverside County will receive a more proportionate share. 12. REGIONAL VANPOOL PROGRAM INTERAGENCY AGREEMENT Robert Yates, Program Manager, provided an overview of the Regional Vanpool program interagency agreement. M/S/C (Lowe/Carlson) to: 11 Approve Agreement No. 08-41-041-00 between the Commission and Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro), Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTAL San Bernardino Associated Governments (SANBAG) and Ventura County Transportation Commission (VCTC) for the provision of regional vanpool services; 2) Authorize the Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission; and 3) Forward to the Commission for final action. RCTC Plans and Programs Committee Minutes November 26; 2007 Page 8 13. AMENDMENT TO RIVERSIDE TRANSIT AGENCY'S FISCAL YEAR 2007/08 SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN Brian Champion, Program Manager, provided an overview on the amendment to Riverside Transit Agency's FY 2007/08 Short Range Transit Plan. M/S/C (Lowe/Carlson) to: 1) Approve Amendment No. 1 to Riverside Transit Agency's (RTA) FY 2007/08 Short Range Transit Plan (SRTP) to reflect an additional $1.5 million in Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) funds for the Riverside Multimodal Transit Center project; and 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. 14. ALLOCATION OF LOCAL TRANSPORTATION FUND PLANNING FUNDS TO THE SUNLINE TRANSIT AGENCY FOR AN ORGANIZATIONAL ASSESSMENT M/S/C (Lowe/M. Wilson) to: 1) Allocate $100,000 in Local Transportation Fund (LTF) planning funds to SunLine Transit Agency (SunLine) to conduct an organizational and administration assessment; 2) Approve Amendment No. 1 to SunLine's FY 2007/08 Short Range Transit Plan (SRTP) to reflect this increase in revenues and expenses; 3) Approve a budget amendment for a $100,000 increase to planning expenditures in FY 2007/08; and 4) Forward to the Commission for final action. 15. TRADE CORRIDORS IMPROVEMENT FUND PROGRAM DRAFT CORRIDOR ALLOCATION PROPOSAL Anne Mayer provided a status report on the Trade Corridors Improvement Fund (TCIF) program Draft Corridor Allocation Proposal. Commissioner Bob Buster commended staff for the coordination with local agencies and the negotiation process on the TCIF program Draft Corridor Allocation Proposal. He suggested the Commission pursue the railroads for additional funding on the Colton Crossing. RCTC Plans and Programs Committee Minutes November 26, 2007 Page 9 In response to Commissioner John Chlebnik's question regarding the distribution of the projects, Anne Mayer responded the primary list includes 42 grade separation projects with 10 more projects that can be delivered by the end of 2013, and the Commission is proposing to nominate all of those projects for consideration by the California Transportation Commission (CTC). Staff will come back to the Commission in December 2007, with a full summary of the guidelines and targets that the CTC has adopted along with a list of projects that staff proposes to nominate. At Commissioner Buster's request, Anne Mayer described the positive effect that this process has had on relationships with all of the Southern California partners. In response to Commissioner Lowe's comment concerning Los Angeles County Metropolitan Authority (Metro) reaching a decision on the priority list, Anne Mayer replied Metro does not have any project delivery responsibility for any of the projects listed. Metro is a strong partner in advocating projects on the priority list and Metro may have some funding that is passed through to the other agencies. Commissioner Michael Wilson asked Anne Mayer if Commission staff was involved in the CTC's guidelines once these projects were nominated. Anne Mayer replied that with respect to the CTC guidelines, all the agencies throughout the state were provided draft CTC guidelines for review and comment. Commission staff has been actively commenting as a part of the Southern California Coalition, and the Commission has been engaged as Shirley Medina, Program Manager, is the moderator of the Regional Transportation Planning Agencies (RTPA), and is engaged and representing the RTPA at the CTC meetings. M/SIC (R. Wilson/Buster) to: 1) Receive and file the Trade Corridors Improvement Fund (TCIF) program Draft Corridor Allocation Proposal as an information item; and 2► Forward to the Commission for final action. 16. ITEMS PULLED FROM CONSENT CALENDAR No items were pulled from the consent calendar for discussion. RCTC Plans and Programs Committee Minutes November 26, 2007 Page 10 17. COMMISSIONERS / STAFF REPORT Anne Mayer, Executive Director, announced Commissioner Frank West will be appearing on KVCR program -It's Your Call" on Wednesday, November 28, 2007, at 7:00 p.m. to talk about the Perris Valley Line and Metrolink. 18. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business for consideration by the Plans and Programs Committee, the meeting was adjourned at 2:55 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Jennifer Harmon Clerk of the Board • AGENDA ITEM 7A • RIVERS/DE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: January 28, 2008 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 file an update on the Commuter Rail Program; and 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Inland Empire -Orange County Weekend Service Performance 1800 - 1500 - 1200 - 900 - 600 - 300 - 0 Q21Q3 FY08 Passenger Trips IEOC Weekend Service 1 A 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 O°�Q O°�A O°moo O°��0,,A'�044 �`' Ft I•� yo: ,y1' 3 \Q �1ti� �O er 2006 --2007 p1 Al Al A2 oR, Oro Oeu Oe4 Sao lac �h titi tia Daily passenger trips on the year-round Inland Empire -Orange County (IEOC) Metrolink weekend service have remained largely consistent through the second quarter, providing 9,840 passenger trips quarter to date. This is an increase of nearly 13% over the 8,742 trips provided at this time last year. The success of this service is due in large part to the coordinated marketing efforts among the Commission, Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) and San Bernardino Associated Governments (SANBAG). Most all responsibilities for marketing of the service have transitioned to Metrolink, including revised seat drops, branding, and consolidation of the various weekend services under a single promotional umbrella. Agenda Item 7A 1 Parking Structure Construction Begins at North Main Corona Construction of a new six -story parking structure at the North Main Corona Metrolink Station started on January 7. Commission staff was present at the station to direct and inform affected passengers on the mornings of January 7 and 8. With the assistance of Corona police, passengers were directed to the new parking facilities. Both the lot closure and transition to auxiliary lot operations occurred without major incident and are now functioning as intended. On January 4, the affected portion of the parking lot was closed. To compensate for the decrease of 239 spaces, the Commission has leased 300 spaces as an auxiliary parking lot at the former Edwards movie theater. Corona Cruiser initiated shuttle service on December 26. Riverside Transit Agency (RTA) began providing additional shuttle service on January 7, transporting morning and evening Metrolink commuters to and from the station and auxiliary lot. Additionally, RTA augmented Route 3 to now serve as a shuttle for mid -day passengers Commission staff will continue to monitor the auxiliary lot and adjust operations as needed. Information has been made available to the public through multiple internet channels including the Commission, Metrolink, OCTA, and city of Corona websites. Additionally, a designated rack for project update flyers has been installed on the platform walkway to provide passengers with regular communication regarding the project and any impact it may have upon the use of the station. Designated notice boards have been placed on the platform to notify passengers of transit alternatives and relevant project information. Both station security and Metrolink staff have been notified of how to direct station patrons to relevant project information and updates. Rendering of the completed North Main Corona Parking Structure. The North Main Corona station was built with 563 spaces. Due to the popularity of its location, ridership increased rapidly. By August 2003, more than 600 passengers were boarding at the station every weekday. As a result, the Commission developed plans for an onsite parking structure. The design calls for phased construction based on need. The first phase will include 1,065 parking spaces in a six story concrete structure located on half of the parking lot nearest to Main Street. The structure will include two elevators, two entrances/exits and a connecting bridge to the over Agenda Item 7A • crossing. The $25 million project has been awarded to McCarthy Building Companies, Inc. Anticipated completion is fall 2009. Metrolink Strategic Work Session Scheduled for January 25 and 26 Metrolink will hold the 2007 Strategic Work Session/Board Retreat on January 25 and 26 at the Temecula Creek Inn in Temecula. This event originally scheduled for October 26 and 27 had to be rescheduled due to fires in the area and other Southern California communities. This year's session focuses on the growth of the Inland Empire as it relates to the planning of various projects including the Eastern Maintenance Facility and Perris Valley Line, having recently received approval by the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) to advance into Preliminary Engineering. The 2007 retreat will begin with a combination bus/train tour of the Perris Valley Line. A bus will pick up participants at the Temecula Creek Inn and will make its way to the Downtown Perris station. The group will then board a special Metrolink train, traveling on the Perris Valley Line of the San Jacinto Branch through project sites while staff describes the various projects and issues. The final destination is the Metrolink San Bernardino Station, where there will be a catered lunch at the SANBAG offices. Following lunch, participants will re -board the bus for a brief tour of Burlington Northern Santa Fe's (BNSF) San Bernardino yard and return to the Temecula Creek Inn for the traditional board reception and dinner. The Saturday morning session will include an insider's tour of the TVM technology and a discussion of upcoming fare policy issues such as the potential to implement online ticketing and fare inspection technology options. Agenda Item 7A Riverside Line 6,000 5,600 a 5,200 F 4,800 c 4,400 at 4,000 3,600 3,200 Passenger Trips Riverside Line UP Track Work 06 6 6 6 6 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 Oec �a�` 4e� lac Vs 4 ��� .,jr vS> c, •0 �d4 pd' Month Daily passenger trips on Metrolink's Riverside Line for the month of December averaged 4,994, a decrease of 262, 5% less than the month of November. Compared to one year prior, the line averaged an overall daily increase of 714 passenger trips. This is nearly 17% more than a year ago due primarily to 91 Line passenger migration and strong on time performance. On Time Performance (95% Goal) Riverside Line 100 95 so s5 so 75 70 UP Track Work 0t. Al 01 0\ 6 Al AA A� o� o� o� Oec lac Qez, �`a� PQ� 4a\ �J\O°� Month December on -time performance averaged 98% inbound (no change from November) and 95% outbound (-3% from November). There were eight delays greater than five minutes during the month of December. The following are primary causes: Signalsarack/MOW Dispatching Mechanical Operations Agenda Item 7A 4 i • Inland Empire -Orange County Line a F 0 Passenger Trips Inland Empire Orange County Line 5,000 4,800 4,600 4,400 4,200 4,000 3,800 3,600 Aq, AF 6 6 0A Al 0� o1 o� 01 01 01 AA OaG .ao F°� u PQ� 4so sir S•1 ,s7 50� ocs. pe° Month Daily passenger trips on Metrolink's IEOC Line for the month of December averaged 4,622, a decrease of 369 trips, 7% less than the month of November. The line has increased by 418 daily trips or 10% from a year ago December 2006. On Time Performance (95% Goal) Inland Empire Orange County Line 100 95 co 90 ® 85 ta 80 a 75 70 A6 A� o� o\A o"\ o� o� Aj o"\ o� o� Oa° lac <<e, eCa� QQ� �a� sP �J` PJA cd6 0 �6 Month oeA December on -time performance averaged 94% souhbound (-1 % from November) and 93% northbound (+1% from November). There were 20 delays greater than five minutes during the month of December. The following are primary causes: Agenda Item 7A Signals/Track/MOW Dispatching Mechanical Operations 3 6 -3 8 15% 30% 15% 40 % TOTAL 5 91 Line 2,800 2,600 2,400 •n 2,200 c 2,000 ak 1,800 1,600 1,400 Passenger Trips 91 Line 5§D 6 6 6 6 01 �1 p1 C'l 6 p1 c\1 OeG �e� (ted far F'9 �e� )J� �J\ pJo; coo- O°� \-‘°, peG Month Daily passenger trips on Metrolink's 91 Line for the month of December averaged 2,100 a decrease of 232 trips, 10% less than the month of November. The line has increased by 217 daily trips or 12% from a year ago December 2006. Percentage On Time Performance (95% Goal) 91 Line 100 95 90 85 80 75 70 pro 01 6 01 6 • 66 �1 �l 6 6 p1 p1 Oe° a� 0e( \ac PQ� `Sad�J� PJA yet O°ti \- O`Lo Month December on -time performance averaged 95% inbound (-1 % from November) and 100% outbound (+5% from November). There were four delays greater than five minutes during the month of December. The following are primary causes: Signals/Track/MOW Dispatching Mechanical Operations Agenda Item 7A 6 • Connecting Transit Service Performance The Commission's role facilitating interconnectivity between Metrolink and connecting transit services is essential to ongoing viability of the system. Such services address the needs of transit dependent riders as well as help mitigate congestion and the necessity for expensive parking capacity at our 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 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. 3,000 y 2,500 c 1- 2,000 w a # 1,500 1,000 00 01 01 01 O6' �6( fee 4'• Passenger Trips RTA Fixed Route 6 0 01 O1 01 01 01 O\ i ' 43\ 5 ;4 pot �o° ao P O Month Monthly Metrolink transfer trips on RTA's Connecting Fixed Routes (1, 15, 16, 21, 29, 3, and 38) totaled 2,271 for the month of December, a decrease of 188 trips, 7.65% less than the month of November. Monthly trips decreased by 330 or - 12.69% over the last fiscal year. Passenger Trips RTA Commuter Link 7,000 6,400 N 5,800 F p 5,200 4,600 Agenda Item 7A 4,000 O� O� 07 01 O0 0 01 �1 p1 0' 01 01 � Oe fag fan mac PQc �a� 4� ,0 0 ye�j ooti r`o� OaC 7 Month Monthly Metrolink transfer trips on RTA's Commuter Link routes (202, 204, 206, and 208) totaled 4,794 for the month of December, a decrease of 782 trips,-14.02% from the month of November. This reflects a seasonal decline expected in light of the holidays. Monthly trips have increased by 172 or 3.72% over the last fiscal year. 700 600 i; 500 H 400 w 0 300 200 100 06 OA 01 O0C �a•• Few Passenger Trips Corona Cruiser r 01 01- 01 O1 Ok 01 O‘ Est V9 44' � �J� P�� �eI Month 01 01 01 o` \° 06' O Monthly Metrolink transfer trips on the Corona Cruiser totaled 441 for the month of December, a decrease of 97,-18.03% from the month of November. Monthly trips have decreased by 53 or-10.73% over the past fiscal year. This reflects a seasonal decline expected in light of the holidays. Attachments: 1) Metrolink Average Weekday Passenger Trips 2) Metrolink Schedule Adherence Summary — Weekday Service Agenda Item 7A 8 • METROLINK AVERAGE WEEKDAY PASSENGER TRIPS THIRTEEN MONTH WINDOW - HOLIDAY ADJUSTED .).. �.{ nJ'{-fit l £IJ4 � S' ��(i.1� • ♦ . f SI,i.1 ifr J L' 0.s.mm++�� ` �iy,L(t�9 v)a U-r, > JS r9....1,1 F,'p. ! W ,-Cti F C , 4 i' J 4n1...,.. .� 1 I .1 `9i L ... 3 t±Y x ]�::.1 , .11-. • r� - - r.� a i�li.�p�p �' S.r..HL ivCRliy. .S k$= , r .5: ' -�I„ t[ hM n tr R11 �i, � 1 Dec06 3,522 6,584 10,976 576 4,280 5,817 4,204 1,883 37,842 -10% Jan 07 3,962 6,950 11,937 681 4,086 6,431 4,701 2,347 41,095 9% Feb 07 4,135 7,178 12,122 675 4,826 6,467 4,707 2,298 42,408 3% Mar 07 4,104 7,299 12,367 713 4,929 6,492 4,848 2,221 42,973 1% Apr 07 4,077 7,343 12,170 676 4,998 6,489 4,791 2,315 42,859 0% May 07 4,213 7,338 12,105 676 5,301 6,683 4,813 2,346 43,477 1% Jun 07 4,108 7,355 11,954 670 5,141 6,767 4,716 2,178 42,889 -1% Jul 07 3,984 7,137 11,670 666 5,093 6,519 4,588 2,023 41,680 -3% Aug 07 4,042 6,524 11,624 680 5,051 6,579 4,744 2,113 41,357 -1% Sep 07 4,053 6,749 12,002 692 5,263 6,675 4,745 2,194 42,373 2% Oct 07 4,078 6,673 12,330 720 5,232 6,638 4,792 2,324 42,787 1% Nov 07 4,149 6,773 12,359 714 5,256 7,084 4,991 2,332 43,658 3% Dec 07 3,940 6,431 11,378 634 4,994 6,531 4,622 2,100 40,630 -5% % Change Dec 07 vs Nov 07 -3% -4% -8% -12% -5% -2% -4% -10% -5% % Change Dec 07 vs Dec 06 12% -2% 4% 10% 17% 12% 10% 12% 7% l 1N3WHOVII l Awn RNnn rvN. y,n LLd,Lvv, Inn rm.d • METROLINK SCHEDULE ADHERENCE SUMMARY - WEEKDAY SERVICE Percentage of Trains Arriving Within 5 Minutes of Scheduled Time LATEST 13 MONTHS • +� 1 F,�,11 } i 1+.•..L,.e.: it DeC06 '. a, � ..n. un,. >�itt:e+,.,' 97% !' 5". 95% Fes". 4 i'ry ihr ! 1 ''$$t[[{{f��!FF!x ; Ck y-; .,A_.. .t<;�.. 95% 94°%' �. a t 1°'. �Ad.-- .-.x �! ��+�aifi• 97% w•" � t x' � S a P 98°% 1 .!F ((EE ..ze'!f'a�' a.` 97°% cyf ti I':.(: '.'S9 SA.y '`'' ":+, 66% 90% .4)i?7 _'�'Ye!£•.. < rn r',;. as ( Imo/' J'i. ";¢ t,�`aay. 90% 94% -. h'4iv 1i1 °..ys> , 1 ...V 7 .. a•�T-� '.:.; �{' ,FiF rt...,A. 96% 94% r,,.. 98% 95% 95% 94% 95% Jan 07 99% 96% 96% 93% 97% 97% 98% 98% 91% 84% 92% 97% 90°% 95% 97°% 100% 95% 95% 95% Feb 07 97% 97% 97°% 95% 97% 96°% 100% 97% 88% 80% 95% 98°% 94% 95% 94°% 100% 96% 95% 95% Mar 07 97% 99% 83% 86°% 97% 98°% 97% 97°% 98% 98% 93% 98% 94°% 91% 92% 95% 94% 95% 94% Apr 07 99°% 97°% 93°% 93% 99% 96°% 99°% 97% 99°% 98% 96°% 96% 92% 93% 100% 98% 97% 96% 96°% May 07 97°% 97% 94% 94% 98°% 97% 99% 97% 98°% 97°% 97% 95°% 97% 93°% 98%. 96% 97% 96% 96% Jun 07 r 99% 98% 97°% 94% 98% 98% 100°% 100% 98% 94% 95% 96% 96% 94% 98% 99% 97% 97% 97% Jul 07 100% 98%. 95% 90°% 96% 98°% 96% 99% 97% 94% 91% 98% 98% 93% 96°% 97% 96°% 96% 96% Aug 07 99% 94% 91% 63% 98% 89% 97% 96% 96% 93% 97% 95% 96% 95% 99°% 98% 96% 92% 94% Sep 07 95°% 96°% 92°% 95°% 92% 90°% 99°% 96°% 96°% 99% 92% 94°% 96°% 96°% 97°% 97% 94% 94% 94% Oct 07 95°% 93% 91°% 93% 95% 94% 95% 97°% 97°% 92°% 92% 95°% 97'y° 93% 95% 97% 95% 94%' 946/0 Nov 07 97% 99% 89°% 90% 96% 98% 100% 98°% 98°% 98% 96% 98% 95% 92% 98% 95% 95% 95% 95% Dec 07 99% 97% 93°% 89°% 96% 98°% 99% 99% 96% 95°% 97% 97% 94% 93°% 95% 100% 96% 96% 96% Peak Period Trains Arrivin Within 8 MIna of Dec W - - ` t�.il Peek Period- Trains 98°% 95% 94% 97°% 95% 99% 100% 98% 99% 94°%� 97% 98% 93% 97%J 97°% 100% 96% 98°% .. ._ 97% No adjustments have been made for relievable delays. Terminated trains are considered OT if they were on.dme at point of termination. Annulled trains are not Included in the on -time calculation. 15 OT-13MoNew • AGENDA ITEM 8 • AGENDA ITEM 8 REVISED INFORMATION 2008 STIP - Riverside County Proposed Programming PROJECT DESCRIPTION STIP-RIP (000's) FISCAL YEARS Phase 2008/2009 2009/2010 2010/2011 2011/2012 2012/2013 *RCTC - Perris Valley Line Commuter Rail Extension 52,978 52,978 52,978 Construction Caltrans - 1-10/Ramon Road Interchange 40,341 40,341 Construction County of Riverside - I-10 Palm Dr/Gene Autry IC 2,600 2,600 Construction *Palm Springs - I-10 Indian Avenue IC 13,656 13,656 13,656 Construction `County of Riverside - 1-10 Date Palm Dr IC 14,400 11,400 14,400 Construction Temecula - 1-15 French Valley Parkway IC 31,545 31,545 31,545 Construction *Murrieta - 1-15 California Oaks/Kalmia IC 21,990 21,990 21,990 Construction Caltrans - 60/215 East Junction HOV Connectors 8,117 8,117 Construction RCTC - 1-215 Add Mixed Flow lane, I-15/1215 Jct to Scott Rd 20,128 3,598 16,530 PS&E, Const RCTC - 1-215 Add Mixed Flow lane, Scott Rd to Nuevo Rd 13,443 13,113 13,443 PS&E, R/W RCTC - 91/71 Interchange and Connectors 6,612 6,612 PS&E, R/W Riverside - 91Nan Buren Blvd IC 16,101 16,101 Construction RCTC - Transportation Enhancements (TE) Reserve 8,342 3,877 3,399 1,066 Construction RCTC - Planning, Programming, and Monitoring 1,152 1,152 PPM RCTC - 60/91/215 IC GARVEE Debt Service 113,054 22,610 22,611 22,611 22,611 22,611 paid off in 14/15 Total 364,459 90,279 157,206 71,752 22,611 22,611 * Projects proposed to change from current 2006 STIP programming based on project schedules. • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: January 28, 2008 TO: Plans and Programs Committee FROM: Shirley Medina, Program Manager THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Executive Director SUBJECT: 2008 State Transportation Improvement Program STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Committee to: 1) Approve the 2008 State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP); and 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The STIP is a five-year planning document adopted every two years that commits transportation funds for increasing capacity and improving operations related to rail, mass transportation, local highway, and the state highway system. The California Transportation Commission (CTC) approves the STIP and develops the STIP fund estimate. The STIP consists of the following fund sources: Fund Category State Highway Account — Fund Sources Excise taxes on motor vehicle fuels, truck weight fees, and Federal Highway Trust Funds. Public Transportation Account (PTA) — Sales taxes on gasoline and diesel fuels and transfers from the SHA. Transportation Investment Fund (TIF) — State sales tax on motor vehicle fuel from the General Fund (Prop 42). Transportation Facilities Account — Prop 1B S2 billion STIP Augmentation. The STIP fund sources have changed considerably over the past few years. The large majority of projects used to be funded from the State Highway Account. Agenda Item 8 11 Now, new STIP capacity is primarily dependent upon TIF transfers, which are difficult to predict with any certainty under current budgetary circumstances. Last year, the legislature diverted $1.3 billion of PTA funds back to the General Fund, which had an immediate impact to the STIP. Proposition 1 A included the "protection" of Proposition 42 funds in that the legislature could borrow these funds, but must repay borrowed funds within three years. Although the Governor's proposed FY 2008/09 budget includes full funding of Proposition 42 at $1.5 billion, there is still reason to be concerned that this funding level may not stay intact as budget cuts continue to be debated among legislators to address the State's fiscal emergency. The 2008 STIP fund estimate added two new years (FY 2011 /12 and FY 2012/13) and associated fund estimates. This new fund capacity was distributed to each county per the formula included in SB 45. As previously reported, the 2008 STIP fund estimate did not include additional funds for Riverside County due to the limited amount of funding available, and current project commitments, which include Grant Anticipation Revenue Vehicle (GARVEE) Bond Program debt service for the 60/91 /215 design sequencing project. The 2008 STIP fund estimate also identifies negative balances in the first two years of the STIP period. It has been reported at recent CTC meetings that over $1 billion will need to be delayed from the first two years to the last two to three years of the FY 2010-13 STIP (FY 2010/11 — FY 2012/13). This is likely going to impact each county throughout the state. The current 2006 STIP Riverside County project listing is attached. Staff is currently reviewing project schedules to determine which projects need to be reprogrammed based on updated information. Staff will provide the Riverside County 2008 STIP project programming recommendations as soon as possible and prior to the February 13, 2008 Commission meeting. Staff will continue to work with CTC staff to maintain the Commission's 2008 STIP programming recommendations to the extent possible. Attachment: 2008 STIP Riverside County Agenda Item 8 12 • 2008 STIP - Riverside County Proposed Programming PROJECT DESCRIPTION STIP-RIP (000' FISCAL YEARS Phase 2008/2009 2009/2010 2010/2011 2011/2012 2012/2013 *RCTC - Perris Valley Line Commuter Rail Extension 52,978 52,978 52,978 Construction Caltrans - 1.10/Ramon Road Interchange 40,341 40,341 Construction County of Riverside - 1-10 Palm Dr/Gene Autry IC 2,600 2,600 Construction `Palm Springs - 1-10 Indian Avenue IC 13,656 13,656 13,656 Construction "County of Riverside -1-10 Date Palm Dr IC 14,400 11,100 14,400 Construction Temecula - 1-15 French Valley Parkway IC 31,545 31,545 Construction `Murrieta - 1-15 California Oaks/Kalmia IC 21,990 21,000 21,990 Construction Caltrans - 60/215 East Junction HOV Connectors 8,117 8,117 Construction RCTC -1-215 Add Mixed Flow lane, 1-15/1215 Jct to Scott Rd 20,128 3,598 16,530 PS&E, Const RCTC - 1-215 Add Mixed Flow lane, Scott Rd to Nuevo Rd 13,443 13,113 13,443 PS&E, R/W RCTC - 91/71 Interchange and Connectors 6,612 6,612 PS&E, R/W Riverside - 91/Van Buren Blvd IC 16,101 16,101 Construction RCTC - Transportation Enhancements (TE) Reserve 8,342 3,877 3,399 1,066 Construction ROTC - Planning, Programming, and Monitoring 1,152 1,152 PPM RCTC - 60/91/215 IC GARVEE Debt Service 113,054 22,610 22,611 22,611 22,611 22,611 paid off in 14/15 Total 364,459 90,279 188,751 40,207 22,611 22,611 " Projects proposed to move from current 2006 STIP programming in FY 2008/09 to FY 2009/10 based on project schedules. 13 • AGENDA ITEM 9 • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: January 28, 2008 TO: Plans and Programs Committee FROM: Shirley Medina, Program Manager THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Executive Director SUBJECT: Riverside County 2008 Transportation Financial Resolution Improvement Program STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Committee to: 1) Adopt Resolution No. 08-009, "Resolution Certifying that the Riverside County Has Resources to Fund Projects in Fiscal Years 2008/09 Through 2013/14 Transportation Improvement Program and Affirming Commitment to Implement All Projects in the Program"; 2) Forward to the Commission for final action; and 3) Forward to the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) for inclusion in the 2008 Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP). BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The Safe Accountable Flexible Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) requires that a RTIP be adopted and included in federally approved statewide documents before receiving federal funds for transportation projects. The RTIP must be updated by the metropolitan planning organization (MPO) every two years. The RTIP implements projects identified in the first six years of the long-range Regional Transportation Plan. The SCAG, as the MPO, adopted the 2006 RTIP Update in August, 2006 with federal approval occurring in October 2006. Therefore, the RTIP is required to be updated and approved by SCAG prior to October 2008. SCAG anticipates submitting the 2008 RTIP to the federal approval agencies by August 2008. Federal regulations require SCAG to determine that the RTIP: 1) conforms to the adopted air plans in the region; 2) is financially constrained; and 3) affirms project commitments. The attached resolution must be included in the 2008 RTIP update to certify that the Riverside County portion of the RTIP is financially constrained and to affirm the commitment to implement the projects. Financial constraint and project commitment is defined as follows: Agenda Item 9 14 A. Financial Constraint: The Commission must certify that the Riverside County TIP is financially constrained (projects are not programmed in excess of fund levels) and that the funding may be reasonably expected to carry out the program. B. Project Commitment: The Commission must affirm that their highest priorities for funding are the projects in the 2008 RTIP. The affirmation is. specifically targeted to enforceable Transportation Control Measures (TCM). TCM are strategies/projects employed to reduce emissions from on -road mobile sources. Over the past nine months, staff has reviewed projects submitted by Ca[trans, local agencies, and transit operators in Riverside County to ensure that each project has a clearly identified funding source and schedule. Projects that completed construction were identified and removed from the RTIP, while other projects were added or modified. All project programming was accomplished with the concurrence of each project sponsor. The end result is that the Riverside County projects are consistent with the financial constraint and TCM implementation requirements of SAFETEA-LU. The 2008 RTIP Update is scheduled for approval by the SCAG Regional Council by August 2008. SCAG subsequently will pursue the necessary state and federal approvals for the 2008 RTIP. These approvals are anticipated to occur in by early November 2008. Attachment: Resolution No. 08-009 Agenda Item 9 • 15 RESOLUTION 08-009 RESOLUTION OF THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION CERTIFYING THAT RIVERSIDE COUNTY HAS RESOURCES TO FUND PROJECTS IN FISCAL YEARS 2008/09 THROUGH 2O13/14 TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM AND AFFIRMING COMMITMENT TO IMPLEMENT ALL PROJECTS IN THE PROGRAM WHEREAS, Riverside County is located within the metropolitan planning boundaries of the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG); and WHEREAS, the Safe Accountable Flexible Efficient Transportation Equity Act_ A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) requires SCAG to adopt a regional transportation improvement program for the metropolitan area; and WHEREAS, the SAFETEA-LU also requires that the regional transportation improvement program include a financial plan that demonstrates how the transportation improvement program can be implemented; and WHEREAS, the Riverside County Transportation Commission is the agency responsible for short-range capital and service planning and programming for the Riverside County area within SCAG; and WHEREAS, as the responsible agency for short-range transportation planning, the RCTC is responsible for developing the Riverside County Transportation Improvement Program (TIP), including all projects utilizing federal and state highway and transit funds; and WHEREAS, the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) must determine annually the total amount of funds that may be available for transportation projects within its boundaries; and WHEREAS, the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) has adopted the FY 2008/09 through FY 2013-2014 Riverside County TIP for FY 2008/09 through FY 2011/12 for funding purposes and has adopted the TIP for FY 2012/13 through FY 2013/14 for programming purposes and to allow environmental work on approved projects to proceed. WHEREAS, the RCTC has programmed the FY 2008/09 - FY 2013/14 in year of expenditure dollars; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Riverside County Transportation Commission that it affirms its continuing commitment to the projects in the FY 2008/09 through FY 2013/14 Riverside County TIP; and 16 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the FY 2008/09 through FY 2013/14 Riverside County TIP Financial Plan identifies the resources which may be reasonably expected to be made available to carry out the program, and that the RCTC certifies to the following: 1 The projects in the FY 2008/09 through FY 2013/14 Riverside County TIP remain the highest priority for funding by the RCTC, 2 All projects in the State Highways component of the FY 2008/09 through FY ,2013/14 Riverside County TIP have been included in the County's projects for inclusion in the 2008 State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) that is scheduled to be approved by the California Transportation Commission in April 2006, and as requested by state laws and amended by SB45, 3 All projects in the State Highways component of the FY 2008/09 through FY 2013/14 Riverside County TIP have complete funding for each programming phase identified in the Federal State Transportation Improvement Program (FSTIP), 4 Riverside County has the funding capacity in its county Surface Transportation Program (STP) and Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) program allocations to fund all of the projects in the FY 2008/09 through FY 2013/14 Riverside County TIP, 5 Local Matching funds for projects financed with federal STP and CMAQ Program funding have been identified in the Financial Plan, and 6 All the Federal Transit Administration funded projects are programmed within SAFETEA-LU Guaranteed Funding Levels. APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the Riverside County Transportation Commission at its meeting on Wednesday, February 13, 2008 ATTEST: BY: BY: Jeff Stone, Chair Riverside County Transportation Commission Jennifer Harmon Clerk of the Board 17 • AGENDA ITEM 10 • • • RIVERS/DE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMM/SS/ON DATE: January 28, 2008 TO: Plans and Programs Committee FROM: Stephanie Wiggins, Regional Programs Director THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Executive Director SUBJECT: Annual Local Transportation Fund Planning Allocation to Western Riverside Council of Governments STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Approve an allocation of Local Transportation Fund planning funds totaling $642,180 to the Western Riverside Council of Governments (WRCOG) to support transportation planning programs and functions as identified in the attached work program; and 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Pursuant to the Transportation Development Act (TDA), Code of Regulations, Section 99233.2, up to three percent of the annual revenues shall be allocated for the transportation planning and programming process. The TDA further states that one-half of these funds shall be for planning work within the Western Riverside County and the Coachella Valley areas, as determined by the Commission. On an annual basis the Commission, Coachella Valley Association of Governments (CVAG) and WRCOG develop transportation planning programs. The Commission's planning program is identified in the annual budget that was approved in June 2007. The Commission approved the CVAG allocation at its January 2008 meeting. Staff has reviewed the attached FY 2007/08 transportation planning and administrative work program submitted by WRCOG and finds it consistent with the overall Commission transportation program and planning objectives. The funding requested $642,180 is consistent with the approved FY 2007/08 Commission budget. Agenda !tern 10 18 Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: Yes Year: FY 2007/08 Amount: $642,180 Source of Funds: Local Transportation Fund Budget Adjustment: No GLA No.: 106-65-86205 Fiscal Procedures Approved: \,%,_4,h,; Date: 01/17/2008 Attachment: WRCOG FY 2007/08 Program Objectives Agenda Item 10 19 I WRCOG Fiscal Year 2007-2008 Local Transportation Funds Program Objectives The Work Plan for FY 2007-06 is divided into 3 key program areas: 1. Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) Overall Work Program (OWP) The SCAG OWP includes staff time to: coordinate the WRCOG sub -regional priorities/needs into the OWP; participate in the SCAG Technical Advisory Committees; work with our Policy Committee members to assist SCAG with the performance of specific transportation, air quality, planning and GIS work for SCAG as part of their Overall Work Program; work with SCAG and our partners regarding goods movement, legislation, population and employment issues; conduct outreach on air quality, transportation, and planning issues with the public, member jurisdictions and regional agencies. 2. Air Quality and Planning Programs Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) projects/programs Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and California Air Resources Board Ca!trans Department of Energy (DOE) and California Energy Commission South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) Regional Conservation Agency (RCA) Air Quality: These programs include staff time to: support the Air Quality Task Force and the Clean Cities Program; expand of the Coalition to include the entire WRCOG sub region; continue the Clean Cities Interactive Middle School Program; participation in the National Clean Cities Conference and DOE Peer Review sessions; prepare and host a regional "Advancing the Choice "event; continue to develop emission reduction strategies; and specifically target diesel emission reductions; assist in the purchase of alternative fuel vehicles; and development of. infrastructure;. continue to apply for and administer grants; review and analyze state and federal legislation attend and participate in regional air quality meetings; attend and participate in EPA and Air resources Board hearings and workshops and conferences, to provide sub regional input; participate in outreach to our jurisdictions regarding SCAQMD rule making; HAShared1RulhanneBudgetITf Scopes\LW FY 0708_doc 20 Planning: These programs include: staff time to coordinate with the grant partners to analyze, develop strategies and implement the Caltrans 1-15 Interregional Partnership, to continue the economic development working group; to complete Transit Oriented Development grant, and seek demonstration project funding; to prepare legislative reviews and analysis. 3. Regional Transportation Programs Riverside Transit Agency (RTA) Riverside and San Bemardino. County Transportation Commissions San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAL) Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) TUMF: This program includes staff time to administer the TUMF Program which includes but is not limited to: program contract/agreement administration; public outreach/information; the Annual Report; signage program TUMF Zone TIP development and amendments; develop an investment policy and program for TUMF revenue; annual .audit; preparation of annual adjustment for construction costs; maintain TUMF data base of fee collections and disbursements; work with developers on credit and reimbursement agreements; develop and maintain a GIS database to support the Program. Miscellaneous and GIS: This area includes staff time to and project management to: review the criteria cells in cooperation with the County of Riverside and the RCA,, participate with the local jurisdictions and regional partners GIS coverage analysis; develop databases and provide analysis and mapping to support RCTC's rail, STIP, TUMF and transit programs and projects; provide land use, population and employment and other GIS information to local and regional agencies, Caltrans, and other state agencies; legislative review and analysis. Riverside Transportation Commission Programs: These programs include staff time and project management to assistance in transportation planning and air quality programs to include: participation in the Regional TUMF project evaluations, TIP revisions and other TUMF Program tasks as needed to assist RCTC in the implementation of the Regional TUMF Program; participate in evaluation committees as requested; Mid County Parkway, RTP, Goods Movement and other planning related tasks as determined in consultation with the RCTC Executive Director. HASharethRuthanne\BudgeftLTF Scopes \LTF FY 0708.doc 21 • AGENDA ITEM 11 • • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: January 28, 2008 TO: Plans and Programs Committee FROM: Brian Champion, Program Manager THROUGH: Stephanie Wiggins, Regional Programs Director SUBJECT: State Transit Assistance Funds Allocation to Riverside Transit Agency for the Procurement of Eight Buses and Fare Collection Equipment and Short Range Transit Plan Amendment STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Committee to: 1) Allocate $1.16 million in State Transit Assistance (STA) funds to Riverside Transit Agency (RTA) to procure eight buses and fare collection equipment; 2) Approve Amendment No. 2 to RTA's FY 2007/08 Short Range Transit Plan (SRTP) to reflect this increase in revenues and expenses; 3) Approve a budget amendment for a $1.16 million increase to revenues and expenses in FY 2007/08; and 4) Forward to the Commission for final action. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: At its December 20, 2007 meeting, the RTA Board of Directors authorized the purchase of eight, 26-passenger, mid -size buses at a unit price of $130,000. The total purchase will not exceed $1.04 million. These vehicles will be used to operate two newly created CommuterLink routes scheduled for implementation in FY 2008/09. Routes 212 and 214 will provide service between San Jacinto and Riverside, and Hemet and Escondido, respectively. Mid -size vehicles provide a safe, attractive, and flexible alternative to smaller buses and are more economical to operate than a full-size, 40-foot bus. In addition to buses, RTA's Board authorized the purchase of two GFI Genfare fare collection systems to support the expansion of CommuterLink services. Since this service extends into outlying areas, the ability to probe, vault, and safeguard fare revenues from two additional locations will minimize costs associated with deadheading (operating a bus in non -revenue service) to an operations base with fare collection equipment. The unit cost of this equipment is $60,000, for a total cost of $120,000. Agenda Item 11 22 If the additional funds are approved, Commission staff will amend RTA's FY 2007/08 SRTP to reflect this increase in revenues and expenses. Monies used for capital purchases are exempt from the farebox recovery ratio as well as other Productivity Improvement Program indicators. Staff also recommends a budget adjustment of $1.16 million to increase STA expenditures to fund the purchase of buses and fare collection equipment. Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: No Year: FY 2007/08 Amount: $1,160,000 Source of Funds: State Transit Assistance Fund Budget Ad ustment: Yes GLA No.: 241-62-86102 Fiscal Procedures Approved: \141.4_,Ittuz Date: 01/17/2008 Agenda Item 11 23 • AGENDA ITEM 12 • • RIVERS/DE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMM/SS/ON DATE: January 28, 2008 TO: Plans and Programs Committee FROM: Brian Champion, Program Manager THROUGH: Stephanie Wiggins, Regional Programs Director SUBJECT: SunLine Transit Agency's Fiscal Year 2007/08 Short Range Transit Plan Amendment STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Committee to: 1) Approve Amendment No. 2 to the SunLine Transit Agency's (SunLine) FY 2007/08 Short Range Transit Plan (SRTP) to reflect the re -allocation of $100,000 in State Transit Assistance (STA) funds between capital line items; and 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: SunLine's approved FY 2007/08 SRTP capital budget included $180,000 to purchase three support vehicles to replace vehicles that have reached the end of their useful life. These vehicles are used primarily as relief vehicles for bus drivers beginning or ending their shifts in mid -route. Although budgeted at a unit price of $60,000, these vehicles can be purchased for under $27,000 per unit. At its December 5, 2007 meeting, the SunLine Board of Directors requested the unused funds as described above to accommodate the purchase of two additional vehicles - a relief vehicle and a flat-bed utility truck to support the Stops and Zones Division. The additional relief vehicle meets SunLine's fleet needs as they expand bus service, while the utility truck will enable in-house staff to relocate and replace bus shelters and benches, an activity that is currently outsourced. In sourcing this activity has the possibility of reducing operational costs. The following table below represents the reallocation of unused funds to accommodate the purchase of two additional vehicles: Agenda Item 12 24 Item SunLine Transit Agency FY 2007/08 SRTP Proposed Adjustment Approved SRTP Proposed Adjustment Description Oty Unit Cost 3 Replacement support vehicles 3 60,000 (relief vehicles) - CNG Total Description Qty Unit Cost Total 180,000 Replacement support vehicles 3 26,667 80,000' (relief vehicles) - CNG - 4 Expansion support vehicles 3 30,000 90,000 (Supervisor vehicles) - CNG 6 270,000 Expansion support vehicles Supervisor and flatbed stops & Zones) 38,000 190,000 8 270,000 Since the purchase of these two additional vehicles can be accommodated with the approved capital budget, no additional funds are required. Monies used for capital purchases are exempt from the farebox recovery ratio as well as other Productivity Improvement Program indicators. Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: Yes Year: FY 2007/08 Amount: $100,000 Source of Funds: State Transit Assistance Funds Budget Ad ustment: No GLA No.: 241 62 86102 Fiscal Procedures Approved: \1 142,urm Date: 01/17/2008 Agenda Item 12 25 tl AGENDA ITEM 13 • RIVERS/DE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: January 28, 2008 TO: Plans and Programs Committee FROM: Brian Champion, Program Manager THROUGH: Stephanie Wiggins, Director of Regional Programs SUBJECT: Citizens Advisory Committee/Social Services Advisory Council Transportation STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Renew Andrea Puga, Sherry Thibodeaux and Mary Venerable's memberships to the Citizens Advisory Committee/Social Services Transportation Advisory. Council (CAC); 2) Approve the membership roster for the CAC effective February 2008; and 3) Forward to the Commission for final action. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The Transportation Development Act (TDA) provides direction for administering both Local Transportation Fund (LTF) and State Transit Assistance (STA) funds. Both fund types are used to support operating and capital costs for public transportation. Section 99238 of the TDA requires that the Commission have a CAC consisting of categorical memberships as follows: 1) One representative of a potential transit user who is 60 years of age or older; 2) One representative of a potential transit user who is handicapped; 3) Two representatives of the local social service providers for seniors, including one representative of a social service transportation provider, if one exists; 4) Two representatives of local social service providers for the disabled, including one representative of a social service transportation provider, if one exists; 5) One representative of a local social service provider for persons of limited means; and Agenda Item 13 26 6) Two representatives from the local consolidated transportation service agency, designated pursuant to subdivision (a) of Section 15975 of the Government Code, if one exists, including one representative from an operator, if one exists. As further identified in Section 99238, members of the social services transportation advisory council shall be appointed by the Transportation Planning Agency (TPA). Candidates shall be recruited from a broad representation of social service and transit providers representing the elderly, the disabled, and persons of limited means. The Commission is the TPA for Riverside County. In appointing committee members, the TPA shall strive to attain geographic and minority representation among members. Initial appointments to the CAC are staggered with members appointed to one, two and three year terms. Once initial appointments are made, subsequent renewals are for a three year term. Appointments for Andrea Puga, Sherry Thibodeaux, and Mary Venerable expired December 31, 2007. Staff contacted these members and all have indicated that they would like to have their appointments reconfirmed. For the past several years, staff has requested CAC participation in reviewing the testimony of the Commission's Unmet Transit Needs Hearing, the SB 821 Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities Program and the Federal Transit Administration's (FTA) Section 5310 program. Following is a brief description of each program: Unmet Transit Needs Hearing State law requires that prior to making any allocations of Local Transportation Funds (LTF) not directly related to public transit, the Commission must identify the unmet transit needs in the area and determine those that are reasonable to meet. At least one public hearing must be held to solicit comments on unmet transit needs. The only area that this determination of unmet needs is applicable to is the Palo Verde Valley where it is anticipated that not all funds will be needed for transit. In western county and the Coachella Valley, all available local transit funds are being used for transit services. The Unmet Transit Needs Hearing is held annually in Blythe, California. For FY 2008/09, the hearing is scheduled for March 6, 2008. SB 821 Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities Program Each year, 2% of the LTF revenue is made available for use on bicycle and pedestrian facility projects through the Commission's SB 821 Program. This is a discretionary program administered by the Commission. Agenda Item 13 27 There are three steps to carry out the program: 1) All cities and the county are notified of the SB 821 program estimate of available funding and are requested to submit project proposals. (All school districts in the county are also notified and asked to coordinate project submissions with either their local city or the County Transportation Department.) The Commission's SB 821 program policies, project application, and selection criteria are also provided with the notification; 2) The Commission's SB 821 Evaluation Committee, comprised of members of the Commission's Technical and Citizens' Advisory Committees (three each), meets to review and rank the project applications using the evaluation criteria adopted by the Commission and recommends projects and funding amounts to the Commission for approval; and 3) The Commission reviews the Committee's recommendations and approves a program of bicycle and pedestrian projects for funding. Federal Transportation Administration's Section 5310 Program The FTA Section 5310 Program provides capital grants for the purpose of assisting private, non-profit corporations and public agencies, under certain circumstances, in providing transportation services to meet the needs of seniors and persons with disabilities for whom public transportation services are otherwise unavailable, insufficient or inappropriate: The program provides funding for approved projects on an 88.53% federal/11.47% local match basis. In addition to the above tasks, members of CAC review the draft Short Range Transit Plans from the eight public operators providing services in Riverside County as well as the draft Public Transit -Human Services Transportation Coordination Plan. Attachment: CAC Membership .Roster Agenda Item 13 28 • • • Riverside County Transportation Commission Citizens Advisory Committee / Social Services Transportation Advisory Council Effective February 12, 2008 Name / Area Represented Categorical Membership Term Expiration Date Qualifications Michelle Anglin /Norco Social service provider for senior and disabled Jan 2010 Provides senior and disabled services Peter Benavidez / Riverside Potential transit user who is disabled Jan 2010 Provides disabled services Jim Collins / Indio Potential transit user who is ti0 years of age or older Jan 2010 Previous CAC/SSTAC member Eunice Lovi / Coachella Valley Consolidated Transportation Service Agency Jan 2010 SunLlne Transit Agency staff Fortunato Penilla / Riverside Community member Jan 2010 Retired Inland Regional Center transportation coordinator. Actively attended CAC meetings providing assistance wl FTA Section 5310 program. Andrea Pugs / Carona Community member Jan 2011 Past member of RCTC, RTA, and Metrolink Scott Richardson / Western Riverside Consolidated Transportation Service Agency Jan 2010 Riverside Transit Agency staff Cindy Scheirer / Pedley Community member Jan 2011 Involved in community issues and has attended Transportation Now meetings Sherry Thibodeaux / Riverside Social service provider for limited means Jan 2011 Interested in transit issues. Works for Community Access Center. Hosts support groups for women with disabilities and victims of domestic violence. Mary Venerable / Perris Social service provider for seniors Jan 2011 Involved in community issues and a member of Lake Elsinore Transportation Now 29 • AGENDA ITEM 14 • • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMM/SS/ON DATE: January 28, 2008 TO: Plans and Programs Committee FROM: Tanya Love, Program Manager THROUGH: Stephanie Wiggins, Regional Programs Director SUBJECT: Proposition 1B: Trade Corridors Improvement Fund Program and Highway -Railroad Crossing Safety Account Update STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Committee to: 1) Receive an update on the Trade Corridors Improvement Fund (TCIF) and the Highway -Railroad Crossing Safety Account (HRCSA) of Proposition 1B; and 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: In November 2006, voters passed Proposition 1B, a $19.9 billion transportation bond initiative. Proposition 1B authorized $2 billion to the TCIF that targeted the funding for goods movement infrastructure projects. Since late June of this year, Commission staff has been working with the agency staffs of the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach, Alameda Corridor Transportation Authority, Alameda Corridor East (ACE) Construction Authority, San Bernardino Associated Governments, Orange County Transportation Authority, Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority, Ventura County Transportation Commission and the Southern California Regional Rail Authority to develop a consensus on a recommended process for allocating the funds. The Southern California Working Group also includes representatives from Caltrans Districts 7, 8, and 12 as well as from South Coast Air Quality Management District, and the Southern California Association of Governments who serve as advisors to the working group. As a result of the consensus strategy, Commission staff, working with staff from the cities of Banning, Corona, Riverside, county of Riverside and the Coachella Valley Association of Governments identified 14 grade separation projects, a truck climbing lane, and a cargo airport ground access project for the TCIF funding under the Los Angeles/Inland Empire Corridor. The TCIF recommendation was based on Agenda Item 14 30 the economic contributions, congestion relief and health impacts to Riverside County residents. As shown in Attachment 1, for Riverside County, the first tier projects consists of 13 projects totaling $542.6 million; of that amount $169 million is recommended in TCIF funding. The second tier identifies 3 projects for a total cost of $192.4; a TCIF match of $50.7 is recommended: The projects nominated in both Tier 1 and Tier 2 meet all of the California Transportation Commission ICTC) required screening criteria; they are included in numerous trade infrastructure and goods movement plans including the Goods Movement Action. Plan, Cal-MITSAC, and the Multi -County Goods Movement Action Plan. In addition, the projects are specifically identified in the 2004 Regional Transportation Plan. The projects will improve air quality, improve economic vitality, provide adequate matching funds and can start construction by 2013. Trade Corridor Improvement Fund Project Benefits: Grade Separations The movement of freight through Southern California is increasing at a rapid rate. The impact of delays caused by freight trains traveling through Riverside County is rapidly becoming one of the area's most pressing transportation concerns. The benefits of the proposed 14 ACE grade separation projects' for Riverside County include: • Stops 160 tons of air pollutants and 315 tons of greenhouse gases from being emitted annually in the worst air basin in the nation in 2030; • Reduces projected doubling of gate crossing wait times of 2,984 minutes per day in 2030; • Reduces a projected 385% increase in auto/truck traffic delay at crossings resulting from a 62% increase in rail traffic and 53% increase in vehicular traffic; and • Connects the Alameda Corridor and the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach to the transcontinental rail network creating a faster, more efficient method for distributing an estimated $300 billion worth of trade by the year 2030. Interstate 10/State Route 60 Truck Climbing Lane The I-10/SR-60 Truck Climbing Lane project proposal is to add an eastbound dedicated truck climbing lane on 1-10 from the Riverside -San Bernardino County line to the I-10/SR-60 interchange, which is currently a six -lane mixed flow facility with a three percent grade. The benefits of the proposed project includes: ' Kimley-Horn Rail Crossing Priority Analysis up -date, January 2008. Agenda Item 14 31 • • • Congestion Relief and Operational Improvement: trucks will have a dedicated lane to traverse this uphill portion of 1-10 which currently experiences delays due to auto/truck conflicts that slow truck and auto travel to very low speeds and deteriorate level of service conditions; • Safety Improvement: trucks will have a dedicated lane, which will eliminate auto/truck conflicts resulting in a safer drive; • Air Quality: Air quality will be improved as traffic speeds improve from 20 mph to 45 mph, decreasing emission levels for carbon monoxide (CO), particulate matter 10 (PM 10), volatile organic compounds (VOC), oxides of nitrogen (NOx), and greenhouse gases (CO2); and • Advances delivery of the Measure A voter -approved project on the 1-10 corridor in the Banning/Beaumont pass area. March Inland Cargo Port I-215/Van Buren Boulevard Ground Access Improvement Project The I-215/Van Buren Boulevard project proposes to reconstruct the Van Buren Boulevard Interchange and the nearby railroad grade separation on 1-215. Improvements include reconfiguration of the interchange, bridge replacements, widen railroad grade separation, auxiliary lanes to the north, and improvements to Van Buren Boulevard. The project proposes to realign southbound 1-215 to accommodate future widening of the freeway. The benefits of the proposed project includes: • Reconstruction of the interchange will facilitate the development of up to 13 million square feet of goods movement related development and 15,000-20,000 permanent jobs within the former March Air Force Base with many of those jobs goods movement/logistics related; • It will help facilitate a projected 1 million tons/year of domestic and international air freight by 2030 at the March Inland Port Airport; and • Project will improve the operation of the interchange, increase the volume and speed of cars and trucks that travel through the. interchange thereby improving reliability of travel times.. Economic Benefits According to the Economic Development Corporation of Los Angeles County, building the grade separation projects will add a one-time benefit of $1.184 million in economic output, 9,480 FTE one-year jobs, and $390 million in wages. It will also generate at least $32 million in state and $5 million in local taxes. As Agenda Item 14 32 illustrated in the following table, the economic benefits for the truck climbing lane and the cargo airport ground access project are also significant: Taxes Project Economic Output ($mil Jobs Wages ($mil) State ($mil) Local ($mil) ACE: 14 Grade Separations $1,184 9,480 $390 $32 $5 March Inland Cargo Port Airport — 1-215 Van Buren Ground Access Improvement Project $218 1,700 $71 $5.96 $0.86 I-10-SR/60 Truck Climbing Lane $111 866 $37 $3.05 $0.44 Total: $1,513 12,066 $498 $41 $6 Trade Corridor Improvement Fund Project Hearings The CTC has scheduled a series of hearings during the month of February 2008, on the proposed projects (Attachment 2). The Los Angeles meeting is scheduled for February 19, 2008, 1:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m. at the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority. Commissioners are encouraged to attend. Proposition 1 B: HRCSA High -Priority Grade Separation and Railroad Crossing Safety Improvements At the January 2008 CTC meeting, discussion was held regarding a potential new funding source that may be available for Riverside County projects. The Highway Safety, Traffic Reduction, Air Quality, and Port Security Bond 'Act of 2006, approved by the voters as Proposition 1 B, authorized $250 million to be deposited in the HRCSA to be available, upon appropriation by the Legislature, to Ca!trans. The funds, will be allocated by the CTC for the completion of high -priority grade separation and railroad crossing safety improvements. The draft HRCSA program guidelines are attached. Although still in draft format, following are the highlights of the guidelines: A. Proposition 1 B provides that $150 million from the HRCSA shall be made available for allocation to projects on the annual Public Utilities Commission (PUC) priority list developed pursuant to the process established in Chapter 10 of the Streets and Highways Code, with two exceptions: Agenda Item 14 33 • A dollar for dollar match of non -state funds shall be provided for each project; and • The $5 million maximum in Section 2454 shall not apply to HRCSA funds. The CTC will receive HRCSA allocation requests for projects on the current PUC priority list and for projects nominated for the FY 2008/09 and FY 2009/10 priority lists. B. Proposition 1 B provided that the remaining $100 million be made available to high -priority railroad crossing improvements, including grade separation projects, that are selected outside the annual PUC priority list process. According to the draft guidelines, the CTC will adopt a program of projects (POP) for these funds from projects nominated by Ca!trans, regional agencies or recipient local agencies. The projects may include any of the following: • Crossings where freight and passenger rail share the affected rail line; • Crossings collisions; • Crossings with a delay; • Crossings where benefits; and with a high incidence of motor vehicle -rail or pedestrian -rail high potential for savings in rail and roadway traffic an improvement will result in quantifiable emission • Crossings where the improvement to or from a port facility. will improve the flow of rail freight Although not yet adopted by the CTC, staff will closely monitor this funding opportunity as it is anticipated that the schedule to nominate projects will be tight based on the CTC's proposed schedule: CTC adoption of HRCSA guidelines HRCSA project applications due CTC staff releases its proposed POP CTC adopts the initial HRCSA POP Attachments: 1) Riverside County TCIF Project List 2) CTC Hearing Schedule 3) HRCSA Program Guidelines (Draft) Agenda Item 14 February 14, 2008 April 4, 2008 May 9, 2008 May 29, 2008 34 • Attachment A Riverside County Transportation Commission Project List Trade Corridor Improvement Fund January 17, 2008 Project Name Total Project Cost TCIF Request (in Millions) Tier 1 ACE: Columbia Avenue Grade Separation (BNSF & UP) $29.1 $6.0 ACE: Auto Center Drive Grade Separation (BNSF) $32.0 $16.0 ACE: Magnolia Avenue Grade Separation (UP) $51.2 $20.0 ACE: Iowa Avenue Grade Separation (BNSF & UP) $32.0 $13.0 ACE: Sunset Avenue Grade Separation (UP) $36.5 $10.0 ACE: Streeter Avenue Grade Separation (UP) $36.8 $15.5 ACE: Avenue 56 Grade Separation (UP) $20.0 $10.0 ACE: Avenue 66 Grade Separation (UP) $20.0 $10.0 ACE: Clay Street Grade Separation (UP) $37.0 $12.5 ACE: Riverside Avenue Grade Separation (UP) $30.3 $8.5 ACE: 3rd Street Grade Separation (BNSF & UP) $40.2 $17.5 ACE: Magnolia Avenue Grade Separation (BNSF) $80.0 $20.0 March Inland Cargo Port Airport - 1-215 Van Buren Ground Access Improvement Project $97.5 $10.0 Total Tier 1 $542.6 $169.0 Tier 2 ACE: Mary Street Grade Separation (UP) $38.0 $17.7 ACE: Jurupa Road Grade Separation (UP) $108.4 $10.0 1-10/SR60 Truck Climbing Lane $46.0 $23.0 Total Tier 2 $192.4 $50.7 35 ATTACHMENT 2 JAMES C. GHIELMETTI, Cfiair JOHN CHALKER, Vice Chair BOB ALVARADO �R MARIAN BERGESON AMES EARP ARL GUARDING R. K. LINDSEY JOSEPH TAVAGLIONE LARRY ZARIAN • SENATOR ALAN LOWENTHAL, Ex Moo ASSEMBLYMAN PEDRO NAVA, EX Officio JOHN F. BARNA JR., Executive Director STATE OF CALIFORNIA CALIFORNIA TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION 1120 N STREET, MS-52 P. O. BOX 942873 SACRAMENTO, 94273-0001 FAX (916) 653-2134 (916) 654-4245 http.11www.catc.ca.gov Trade Corridor Improvement Fund Hearings Tuesday, February 19, 2008 Los Angeles 1:00 p.m. - 3:00 p.m. Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority One Gateway Plaza, Board Room Los Angeles, California Wednesday, February 20, 2008 San Diego 1:00 p.m. - 3:00 p.m. San Diego Association of Governments 401 B Street, Suite 800 San Diego, California Thursday, February 21, 2008 Oakland 10:00 a.m- - 12:00 p.m. Department of Transportation District 4 Office 111 Grand Avenue, Auditorium Oakland, California Friday, February 22, 2008 Fresno 1:00 p.m. - 3:00 p.m. 2550 Mariposa Mall, Room 1036 Fresno, California ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER GOVERNOR 36 D F11 January 2, 2008 Highway -Railroad Crossing Safety Account Program Guidelines General Program Policy 1. Authority and purpose of guidelines. The Highway Safety, Traffic Reduction, Air Quality, and Port Security Bond Act of 2006, approved by the voters as Proposition 1B on November 7, 2006, authorized $250 million to be deposited in the Highway -Railroad Crossing Safety Account (HRCSA) to be available, upon appropriation by the 'Legislature, to the Department of Transportation (Caltrans), as allocated by the California Transportation Commission (CTC), for the completion of high -priority grade separation and railroad crossing safety improvements. In 2007, the Legislature enacted implementing legislation (SB 88) that designated the Commission as the administrative agency for the HRCSA program and directed the Commission to adopt guidelines to establish the criteria and process to allocate funds to an eligible project in the HRCSA program. SB 88 also specified various administrative and reporting requirements for all Proposition 1B programs. 2. Eligibility of applicants and projects. The Commission will consider HRCSA allocations to Caltrans or to a public agency responsible for development of a proposed project. Eligible projects are the capital costs of high -priority grade separation and railroad crossing safety improvements projects. HRCSA projects will be matched at least dollar - for -dollar by local, federal, or private funds. Other state funds, including STIP and other Proposition 1B funds, may be used for a project but will not be counted as match. Under statute, the project recipient agency must provide a project funding plan that demonstrates that the non-HRCSA funds in the plan (local, state, or federal) are reasonably expected to be available and sufficient to complete the project. The Commission expects that HRCSA project funding will usually be limited to the costs of construction and right-of-way. Project development costs should be covered with other funding. The useful life of an HRCSA project shall not be less than the required useful life for capital assets pursuant to the State General Obligation Bond Law, specifically subdivision (a) of Section 16727 of the Government Code. That section generally requires that projects have an. expected useful life of 15 years or more. 3. Public Utilities Commission (PUC) Priorities. Proposition 1B provided that $150 million from the HRCSA shall be made available for allocation to projects on the annual PUC priority list developed pursuant to the process established in Chapter 10 (commencing with Section 2450) of Division 3 of the Streets and Highways Code, with two exceptions: 37 I Draft Highway Railroad Crossing Program Guidelines Page 2 January 2, 2008 (1) a dollar for dollar match of non -state funds shall be provided for each project, and (2) the $5 million maximum in Section 2454 shall not apply to HRCSA funds. The annual PUC priority list process described in Chapter 10 has been in place for many years, funded primarily from State Highway Account funds as provided for under Section 190 of the Streets and Highways Code. The CTC will receive HRCSA allocation requests for projects on the current PUC priority list and for projects nominated for the FY 2008-09 and FY 2009-10 PUC priority list. The CTC will make allocations to those projects in accordance with the procedures and standards described in Chapter 10 for as tong as the $150 million authorization and necessary appropriations are available. The CTC will not adopt a program of projects for these funds other than the annual PUC priority list. As described in Section 2460, if more projects comply with the requirements of Chapter 10 than can be financed from the funds set aside for purposes of that chapter (including HCRSA and Section 190), allocations shall be made to those projects highest on the PUC priority list. The CTC may make allocations. for any project when it determines, at the time of allocation, that sufficient funds are available for all projects which are higher on the priority list and which are, or are reasonably expected to become, eligible during the fiscal year. NOTE: Sections 4 to 11 of these guidelines do not apply to the projects on the annual PUC priority list. The project delivery guidelines beginning with Section 12 apply to all projects that may receive HRCSA funding. CTC Program of Projects. Proposition 1B provided that the other $100 million from the HRCSA shall be made available to high -priority railroad crossing improvements, including grade separation projects, that are selected outside the annual PUC priority list process. The CTC will adopt a program of projects for these funds from projects nominated by Caltrans, regional agencies or recipient local agencies. These may include projects at any of the following: (a) Crossings where freight and passenger rail share the affected rail line. (b) Crossings with a high incidence of motor vehicle -rail or pedestrian -rail collisions. (c) Crossings with a high potential for savings in railand roadway traffic delay. (d) Crossings where an improvement will result in quantifiable emission benefits. (e) Crossings where the improvement will improve the flow of rail freight to or from a port facility. 5. Program Schedule. The Commission intends to implement the program of projects on the following schedule: CTC adoption of HRCSA guidelines. HRCSA project applications due. Commission staff releases its proposed program of projects. CTC adopts the initial HRCSA program of projects. February 14, 2008. April 4, 2008. May 9, 2008. May 29, 2008_ 38 • i Draft Highway Railroad Crossing Program Guidelines Page 3 January 2, 2008 G. Project nominations. Project nominations and their supporting documentation will form the primary basis for the Commission's HRCSA program of projects. Farh project nomination should include: • A cover letter with signature authorizing and approving the application. • A programming request form (Appendix A) and a project fact sheet that includes a map of the project location and that describes the project scope, useful life, cost, funding plan, delivery milestones, and major project benefits. Cost estimates should be escalated to the year of proposed implementation. The project delivery milestones should include the start and completion dates for environmental clearance, land acquisition, design, construction bid award, eonstmction completion, and project closeout. • A brief narrative that provides: o A concise description of the projectscopeand anticipated benefits (outputs and outcomes) proposed for HRCSA funding. o A specific description of non-HRCSA funding to be applied to the project and the basis for concluding that the non-HRCSA funding is reasonably expected to be available. o A description of the project delivery plan, including a description of the known risks that could impact the successful implementation of the project and a description of the response plan for the known risks. The risks considered should include, but not be limited to, risks associated with deliverability and engineering issues, community involvement, railroad agreement, and funding commitments. o A description of the function of the proposed crossing project within the appropriate rail and highway corridors, including how the project would improve safety, operations and the effective capacity of the rail corridor and of streets and highways in the area. o A description and quantification of project benefits, citing any documentation in support of estimates of project benefits. Where applicable and available, this should include a description of how the project would reduce rail and highway travel times, improve safety by reducing deaths and injuries, and reduce emissions from rail and motor vehicles. Where appropriate, this should also include the potential for enabling or improving high speed train operation. • Documentation supporting the benefit and cost: estimates cited in the application. This should be no more than 10 pages in length, citing or excerpting, as appropriate, the project study report, environmental document, regional transportation plan, and other studies that provide quantitative measures of the project's costs and benefits, including safety, mobility, and emission reduction benefits. 39 Draft Highway Railroad Crossing Program Guidelines Page 4 January 2, 2008 7. Submittal of project nominations. For the initial HRCSA program of projects, the Commission will consider only projects for which a nomination and supporting documentation are received in the Commission office by 12:00 noon, April 4, 2008, in hard copy. A nomination from a regional agency will include the signature of the Chief Executive Officer or other authorized officer of the agency. A nomination from Caltrans will include the signature of the Director of Transportation or a person authorized by the Director to submit the nomination. A nomination from a city, county, or other public agency will include the signature from an officer authorized by the city council, board of supervisors, or other agency board. Where the project is to be implemented by an agency other than the nominating agency, the nomination will also include the signature of the Chief Executive Officer or other authorized officer of the implementing agency. The Commission requests that each project nomination include five copies of the cover letter, the project fact sheet, and the narrative description, together with two copies of all supporting documentation_ All nomination materials should be addressed or delivered to: John Barna, Executive Director California Transportation Commission Mail Station 52, Room 2222 1120 N Street Sacramento, CA 95814 , Project Selection and Programming . 8. Program of projects based on applications. The Commission will develop its HRCSA project priority list from the nominations received by the nomination due date. The listing may take into account the amount of funds appropriated. Project application scoring. The Commission will evaluate and score project applications according to the following weighting: A. 60%, the effectiveness of the project in providing transportation benefits, including the improvement of safety, operations, and effective capacity of rail and highway facilities in a corridor. The Commission will measure operational improvement and capacity benefits in terms of hours of delay saved per dollar expended. The Commission will measure safety benefits in terms of the estimated reduction in the number of deaths and injuries. B. 20%, the date by which the project will be ready for award of the construction contract, giving higher priority to projects delivered earlier. C. 10%, the degree to which the project reduces local and regional emissions of diesel particulates and other air pollutants. D. 10%, the financial contribution from non -state funds in the HRCSA project, giving higher priority to projects with a higher non -state contribution. 40 • • Draft Highway Railroad Crossing Program Guidelines Page 5 January 2, 2008 10. Evaluation committee. The Department will form a committee to conduct a review and objective evaluation of project nominations, with representatives of staff. from the Department of Transportation, the Public Utilities Commission, the High Speed Rail Authority, and the Califomia Transportation Commission_ Program adoption. The Commission will adopt its initial HRCSA project priority list after holding at least one public hearing. The Commission anticipates that its adopted HRCSA priority list will exceed $100 million, just as the annual PUC priority list has consistently exceeded the amount of funding available for that list. The Commission may, if it finds it necessary or appropriate, _advise potential applicants to submit new or revised applications annually thereafter. Project Delivery 112. Project baseline agreements. Within three months after the adoption of a project into the HRCSA program of projects, the Commission, Caltrans and the. implementing agency, together with the regional agency and any entity committed to providing supplementary funding for the project, will execute a project baseline agreement, which will set forth the project scope, benefits, delivery schedule, and the project budget and funding plan. For this purpose, the Commission will identify the projects from the annual PUC priority list that appear to be fimdable as part of the overall HRCSA program of projects. The Commission may delete a project for which no project baseline agreement is executed, and the Commission will not consider approval of a project allocation prior to the execution of a project baseline agreement. i 13. Quarterly delivery reports: As a part of the project baseline agreement, the Commission will require the implementing agency to submit quarterly reports on the activities and progress made toward implementation of the project, including those project development activities taking place prior to an HRCSA allocation and including the status of supplementary funding identified in the adopted HRCSA program. As mandated by Government Code Section 8879.50, the Commission shall forward these reports, on a semiannual basis, to the Department of Finance_ The purpose of the reports is to ensure that the project is being executed in a timely fashion and is within the scope and budget identified when the decision was made to fund the project. If it is anticipated that project costs will exceed the approved project budget, the implementing agency will provide a plan to the Commission for achieving the benefits of the project by either downscoping the project to remain within budget or by identifying an alternative funding source to meet the cost increase. The Commission may either approve the corrective plan or direct the implementing agency to modify its plan. Where a project allocation haS not yet been made, the Commission may amend the program of projects to delete the project. 14. Amendments to program of projects. The Commission may approve an amendment of the HRCSA program in conjunction with its review of a project corrective plan as described in Section 13. The implementing agency may also request and the Conunission may approve an amendment of the program at any time. An amendment need only 41 N Draft Highway Railroad Crossing Program Guidelines January 2, 2008 Page 6 appear on the agenda published 10 days in advance of the Commission meeting. It does not require the 30-day notice that applies to a STIP amendment. 15. Allocations from the HRCSA. The Commission will consider the allocation of funds j from the HRCSA for a project or project component when it receives an allocation request and recommendation from Cabman, in the same manner as for the STIP. The recommendation will include a determination of the availability of appropriated HRCSA and the availability of all identified and committed supplementary funding. The Commission will approve the allocation if the funds are available, the allocation is necessary to implement the project as included in the adopted HRCSA program, and the project has the required environmental clearance. i 16. Final delivery report. Within six . months of the project becoming operable, the implementing agency will provide a final delivery report to the Commission on the scope of the completed project, its final costs as compared to the approved project budget, its duration as compared to the project schedule in the project baseline agreement, and performance outcomes derived from the project as compared to those described in the project baseline agreement. The Commission shall forward this report to the Department of Finance as required by Government Code Section 8879.50. The implementing agency will also provide a supplement to the final delivery report at the completion of the project to reflect final project expenditures at the conclusion of all project activities. For the purpose of this section, a project becomes operable at the end of the construction phase when the construction contract is accepted. Project completion occurs at the conclusion of all remaining project activities, after acceptance of the construction contract. 17. Audit of project expenditures and outcomes. The Department of Transportation will ensure that project expenditures and outcomes are audited. For each HRCSA project, the Commission expects the Department to provide a semi-final audit report within 6 months after the final delivery report and a final audit report within 12 months after the fmal delivery report. The Commission may also require interim audits at any time during the performance of the project. Audits will be performed in accordance with Generally Accepted Government Auditing Standards promulgated by the United States Government Accountability Office. Audits will provide a fording on the following: • Whether project costs incurred and reimbursed are in compliance with the executed project baseline agreement or approved amendments thereof; state and federal laws and regulations; contract provisions; and Commission guidelines. • Whether project deliverables (outputs) and outcomes are consistent with the project scope, schedule and benefits described in the executed project baseline agreement or approved amendments thereof. 42 AGENDA ITEM 15 • RIVERS/DE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMM/SS/ON DATE: January 28, 2008 TO: Plans and Programs Committee FROM: Jennifer Harmon, Clerk of the Board THROUGH: John Standiford, Deputy Executive Director SUBJECT: Election of Officers STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Plans and Programs Committee to conduct an election of officers for 2008 - Chair and Vice Chair. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The election of officers for the full Commission and its Committees are held on an annual basis. Commissioners Patrick Mullany and Frank West were elected as the Plans and Programs Committee's officers in January 2007. Once the election has been conducted, the new Chair and Vice Chair will immediately assume the positions. Past Chairs of the Plans and Programs Committee are as follows: 2007 - Patrick Mullany, City of Indian Wells 2006 - Daryl Busch, City of Perris 2005 - Michael H. Wilson, City of Indio 2004 - Frank Hall, City of Norco 2003 - Dick Kelly, City of Palm Desert 2002 - Daryl Busch, City of Perris 2001 - Percy L. Byrd, City of Indian Wells 2000 - Robin Lowe, City of Hemet Agenda Item 15 43