Loading...
02 February 23, 2009 Plans and Programs86499 RECORDS • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION PLANS AND PROGRAMS COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA TIME: 1:30 p.m. DATE: Monday, February 23, 2009 LOCATION: BOARD ROOM County of Riverside Administrative Center 4080 Lemon Street, First Floor, Riverside * * * COMMITTEE MEMBERS * * * Chair Vice Chair • Bob Botts / To Be Appointed, City of Banning Karen Spiegel / Steve Nolan, City of Corona Robin Lowe / Eric McBride, City of Hemet Patrick Mullany / Larry Spicer, City of Indian Wells Frank Hall / Malcolm Miller, City of Norco Dick Kelly / Cindy Finerty, City of Palm Desert Steve Pougnet / Ginny Foat, City of Palm Springs Daryl Busch / Mark Yarbrough, City of Perris James Potts / Jim Ayres, City of San Jacinto •Scott Farnam / Bridgette Moore, City of Wildomar Bob Buster, County of Riverside, District I 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, February 23, 2009 BOARD ROOM County of Riverside Administrative Center 4080 Lemon Street, First Floor, Riverside In compliance with the Brown Act and Government Code Section 54957.5, agenda materials distributed 72 hours prior to the meeting, which are public records relating to open session agenda items, will be available for inspection by members of the public prior to the meeting at the Commission office, 4080 Lemon Street, Third Floor, Riverside, CA, and on the Commission's website, www.rctc.org. In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act and Government Code Section 54954.2, if you need special assistance to participate in a Committee meeting, please contact the Clerk of the Board at (951) 787-7141. Notification of at least 48 hours prior to meeting time will assist staff in assuring that reasonable arrangements can be made to provide accessibility at the meeting. 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. 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. Plans and Programs Committee Agenda February 23, 2009 Page 2 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._ 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - October 27, 2008 6. ELECTION OF OFFICERS Overview This item is for the Plans and Programs Committee to conduct an election of officers for 2009 - Chair and Vice Chair. 7. 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.) 8. 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. 8A. COMMUTER RAIL PROGRAM UPDATE Overview 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. • Plans and Programs Committee Agenda February 23, 2009 Page 3 9. OPERATIONAL IMPROVEMENT STUDY FOR THE ORTEGA HIGHWAY / STATE ROUTE 74 Overview This item is for the Committee to: 1) Receive and file the Operational Improvement Study for the Ortega Highway / State Route 74; and 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. 10. SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN BUDGET AND REVENUE ESTIMATE Overview This item is for the Committee to: 1) Receive and file the preliminary revenue estimate for the Short Range Transit Plan (SRTP) budget process; and 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. 11. LOCAL MATCH CONTRIBUTION FOR SIGNAL SYNCHRONIZATION PROJECT APPLICATIONS TO THE MOBILE SOURCE REDUCTION REVIEW COMMITTEE CALL FOR PROJECTS Overview This item is for the Committee to: 1) Approve a contribution in the amount of $50,000 of 1989 Measure A Commuter Assistance reserves for a joint project application by the cities of Corona, Moreno Valley, and Riverside for signal synchronization; and 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. 12. ITEMS PULLED FROM CONSENT CALENDAR AGENDA 13. COMMISSIONERS / STAFF REPORT Overview This item provides the opportunity for the Commissioners and staff to report on attended and upcoming meetings/conferences and issues related to Plans and Programs Committee Agenda February 23, 2009 Page 4 Commission activities. 14. ADJOURNMENT The next Plans and Programs Committee meeting is scheduled to be held at 1:30 p.m., Monday, March 23, 2009, Board Chambers, First Floor, County Administrative Center, 4080 Lemon Street, Riverside. RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION PLANS AND PROGRAMS SIGN -IN SHEET FEBRUARY 23, 2009 NA AGENCY EMAIL ADDRESS o6M f ( j-NAl i N q b,�Q�edc_ re Con '� T .k A/ A ,i��� i ll rzl�l-�-r_er�{ `144LL 1 okc_b wINK piek spy 6/.00140 6Ler,lti In v -7--,.,o‘o � 3€/sz°� Co7.< _7 , >$7- ni/Z *$ 0 /lc�s. z, ,jEs's .oLiN4 N frkegAt�o��/FL/L€y eG `/� vi Mccd,�seavtoi kl,404.w -0 fe . �4-G � 'i/6= /JLZ 14---- 1`AnA vAt "f17 ._'C� ►akt0-4-/urIQ-4 cot. s f"i cp."; 4-74 avT ,Z4 .J c)79- c i vv 7 0 1 i t (,� ISa R`//r%%C,g (- RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION PLANS AND PROGRAMS COMMITTEE ROLL CALL February 23, 2009 County of Riverside, District I County of Riverside, District IV 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 Present Absent /21: City of Palm Springs City of Perris City of San Jacinto City of Wildomar AGENDA ITEM 5 MINUTES RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION PLANS AND PROGRAMS COMMITTEE Monday, October 27, 2008 MINUTES 1. CALL TO ORDER The meeting of the Plans and Programs Committee was called to order by Chair Frank West at 1 :30 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 • 3. • At this time, Commissioner Robin Lowe led the Plans and Programs Committee in a flag salute. ROLL CALL Members/Alternates Present Marion Ashley Bob Buster Chris Carlson Scott Farnam Ginny Foat Frank Hall Dick Kelly Robin Lowe Eugene Montanez Patrick Mullany Frank West Michael Wilson Roy Wilson Members Absent Bob Botts Daryl Busch RCTC Plans and Programs Committee Minutes October 27, 2008 Page 2 4. PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no requests to speak from the public. 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES — August 25, 2008 MIS/C (Lowe/Foat) to approve the minutes of August 25, 2008 as submitted. Abstain: Ashley 6. ADDITIONS / REVISIONS There were no additions or revisions to the agenda. 7. AGREEMENT WITH CORNERSTONE STUDIOS TO PROVIDE ON -CALL DESIGN AND ENGINEERING SERVICES FOR THE COMMUTER RAIL STATION REHABILITATION AND MAINTENANCE PLAN Henry Nickel, Staff Analyst, provided a brief overview of the on -call design and engineering services for the commuter rail station rehabilitation and maintenance plan. M/S/C: (M. Wilson/Ashley) to: 1) Award Agreement No. 09-33-009-00 to Cornerstone Studios to provide on -call design and engineering support services for the Commuter Rail Station Rehabilitation and Maintenance Plan (Plan), for a not to exceed amount of $300,000; 2) Authorize the Chair, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission; and 3) Forward to the Commission for final action. 8. NORTH MAIN CORONA SATELLITE PARKING AGREEMENT Henry Nickel provided a brief overview of the proposed agreement with Princeland Properties International, Inc. (Princeland) for satellite parking spaces during construction of the North Main Corona parking structure. In response to Commissioner Eugene Montanez's question regarding the transition, Henry Nickel responded the transition will occur when the Edwards Theater is closed at the end of this year. Staff is working with RTA and Corona Cruiser to redirect those buses and notify passengers. • • • • • RCTC Plans and Programs Committee Minutes October 27, 2008 Page 3 M/S/C (Lowe/Hall) to: 1) Approve Agreement No. 09-33-47-00 between Princeland and the Commission to provide for over 200 leased parking spaces as a satellite parking lot during the remaining construction of the North Main Corona parking structure construction for a not to exceed amount of $48,000; and 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. 9. COMMUTER RAIL PROGRAM UPDATE Henry Nickel provided an update on the Commuter Rail Program. In response to Commissioner Montanez's question regarding ridership, Henry Nickel stated the decrease in ridership is attributed to the decrease in fuel prices. M/S/C (M. Wilson/Ashley) to: 1) Receive and file an update on the Commuter Rail Program; and 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. 10. STATE ROUTE 91 COMMUTER EXPRESS BUS - ROUTE 794 Brian Cunanan, Commuter Assistance Manager, provided a status report on the State Route 91 Commuter Express Bus- Route 794 demonstration project. Commissioner Robin Lowe requested staff to report back to the committee on this item before the end of the project demonstration. M/S/C (Lowe/Mullany) to: 1► Approve continued demonstration funding of SR-91 Commuter Express Bus - Route 794 service using Measure A Commuter Assistance Program funds in an amount not to exceed $142,000; and 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. RCTC Plans and Programs Committee Minutes October 27, 2008 Page 4 11. UPDATE ON PORTS OF LOS ANGELES AND LONG BEACH'S EXPANSION PROJECTS Tanya Love, Goods Movement Manager, provided an update on the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach's expansion projects. Commissioner Lowe recommended staff continue its efforts to communicate the Commission's concerns to the ports regarding the expansion projects. Anne Mayer, Executive Director, noted that there has been a significant change in the Commission's relationship with the ports and staff is now formally commenting on their EIS/EIRs. The Commission has extended an invitation to both ports for their CEOs to join the Southern California CEO Group in an effort to continue working to make sure the ports understand the regional concerns. M/S/C (Lowe/R. Wilson) to: 1) Receive and provide input on the San Pedro port's proposed expansion projects; and 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. 12. ITEMS PULLED FROM CONSENT CALENDAR There were no items on the consent calendar. 13. COMMISSIONERS / STAFF REPORT 13A. Anne Mayer announced: • Public information meetings for Mid County Parkway project will be held October 28-30 followed by public hearings on November 6 and 12. • The Commission will be hosting the California Transportation Commission on October 29 and 30 in the County of Riverside Administrative Center Board Room. • • RCTC Plans and Programs Committee Minutes October 27, 2008 Page 5 • 14. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business for consideration by the Plans and Programs Committee, the meeting was adjourned at 2:06 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Jennifer Harmon Clerk of the Board • AGENDA ITEM 6 • • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMM/SS/ON DATE: February 23, 2009 TO: Plans and Programs Committee FROM: Jennifer Harmon, Office and Board Services Manager 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 2009 - Chair and Vice Chair. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The election of officers for the full Commission and its Committees are held on an annual basis. Commissioners Frank West and Michael H. Wilson were elected as the Plans and Programs Committee's officers in January 2008. 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: 2008 - Frank West, City of Moreno Valley 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 6 1 AGENDA ITEM 8A • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: February 23, 2009 TO: Plans and Programs Committee FROM: Henry Nickel, Staff Analyst Sheldon Peterson, Rail Manager THROUGH: Robert Yates, Multimodal Services 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 Q2 & Q3 FY 08/09 MIN Last Year IEOC Weekend Passenger Trips —+—Current Year 2000 — 1600 — 1200 — 800 — 400 — 0 op��' p� p`b�pstjb p�prp�p��pGpcAA�A� ���.4 �o e6GoA��•o' •o0 ����a (o6,o"o�ry�q?`o� Daily passenger trips on the year-round Inland Empire -Orange County (IEOC) Metrolink weekend service have continued to grow into the third quarter, providing 2,453 passenger trips quarter to date. This is an increase of 1.07% over the 2,427 trips provided at this point last year, attributed to increased gasoline prices and continued promotion. The success of this service is due in large part to the coordinated marketing efforts among the Commission, Orange County Transportation Authority and San Bernardino Associated Governments. Most all responsibilities for marketing of the service have transitioned to Metrolink; this has included revised seat drops, branding, and consolidation of the various weekend services under a single promotional umbrella. Agenda Item 8A 2 Riverside Line e a F- w 0 6,000 5,600 5,200 4,800 4,400 4,000 Passenger Trips Riverside Line 02) c° r� �� <5' PI) soe oe o0 oa o0 00 o°) �a� fed �`a PQ �a� ,>� P�0X ge`� oati 04 QQ, Month Daily weekday passenger trips on Metrolink's Riverside Line for the month of January averaged 5,366, an increase of 262, 5% more than the month of December. Compared to one year prior, the line averaged an overall daily increase of 183 passenger trips. This is nearly 4% more than a year ago. 100 m 95 m 90 o 85 o • 80 N a 75 70 On Time Performance (95% Goal) Riverside Line Ao 00 A' 0 Ao 0 o� ocb o° PR, Ao' �a‘ Qe lac PQ� �,z;\ PJ� o f O0"c .o� OaG sac Month January on -time performance averaged 99% inbound (1 % more than December) and 97% outbound (2% more than December). There were five delays greater than five minutes during the month of January. The following are primary causes: Signals/Track/MOW Dispatching Mechanical Operations Agenda Item 8A 3 • • • Inland Empire -Orange County Line o a .` F 0 4t 6,000 5,600 5,200 4,800 4,400 4,000 Passenger Trips Inland Empire Orange County Line Month Daily weekday passenger trips on Metrolink's IEOC Line for the month of January averaged 4,405, a increase of 160, 4% more than the month of December. Compared to one year prior, the line averaged an overall daily decrease of 462 passenger trips. This is nearly 9% less than a year ago. 100 95 90 85 80 75 70 On Time Performance (95% Goal) Inland Empire Orange County Line )a�AFEZP. ��`p�P4," AAw,Jc,Qw,Jo e� O�oQ gpG\o �o oOoGA0 Month January on -time performance averaged 96% inbound (1 % more than December) and 95% outbound (4% more than December). There were nine delays greater than five minutes during the month of January. The following are primary causes: Agenda Item 8A Signals/Track/MOW Dispatching Mechanical Operations 6 4 1 4 40 % 27% 6% 27% TOTAL 4 91 Line 2,800 2,600 a 2,400 H Is 2,200 2,000 1,800 Passenger Trips 91 Line 00 00 O'b 00 0 `b 0 O 0 `b A Jam Ocr far �Qr �a;A •3P �JA Q� � e<O6 oer 414 pec'A �a°A Month Daily weekday passenger trips on Metrolink's 91 Line for the month of January averaged 2,240, a increase of 50, 2% more than the month of December. Compared to one year prior, the line averaged an overall daily decrease of 10 passenger trips. No significant change from a year ago. On Time Performance (95% Goal) 91 Line 100 R so95 ■.—■—■ .��..H o 85 i 80 a 75 70 A )'a O 46C 4"1 ' PQ�O�a�O )\ 00 �JA PJOO GP' t]o'O 4)4 oocl 00��OAO Month January on -time performance averaged 95% inbound (no change from December) and 96% outbound (no change from December). There were nine delays greater than five minutes during the month of January. The following are primary causes: Agenda Item 8A Signals/Track/MOW Dispatching Mechanical Operations 4 4 0 0 50% 50% 0% 0% TOTAL • • 5 • • Attachments: 1) Metrolink Average Weekday Passenger Trips 2) Metrolink Schedule Adherence Summary — Weekday Service Agenda Item 8A udei0 <WM./A.91MM P°e Opel Imam any %£ %Z %0 %6- %9 %4 %L %9 %6- %£ 80 uer sn 60 uer e6ue4o % %E %Z %4 %9 %S %6 . %9. %8- %Z 809aa sn 60 uer a6uey0 % %8- %0 %Z- %L %Z- %L 886'£4 491'Z4 4E4'94 SS9'94 Z8£'L4 %9 °k l %L %£ %0 %L lll'14 68Z`84 OE6'L4 £44'54 46L'44 064'44 8SE'E4 ZZ£'E4 06Z`Z O4Z'Z ZOS`Z S44`Z Z94'Z E04'Z l44'Z l04`Z s9n 69£'Z 004`Z 96£'Z 00£'Z 904`4 S8E'L 99£`S 96L 88l`£L LSZ'9 LO£'4 60 uer S4Z`4 SL6'9 40l `9 l£L 484'Z L Z9L'9 9ZZ'4 80 aaa LLL`4 08L'L L04'9 66L L9L'EL OZO'L Z54`4 BO noN 6Z0'S L49`L S6L 19L'£L 914 `L 9LZ'4 80 PO L88'L Z4£`9 86L ZS8'£l LZ9'L 09Z'4 80 des £6L'9 498'L L££'S 89L 8£S'£ L 2.1. L lS'4 80 Bny 48l'S 4£0'8 SL9'9 908 Z46'L 999'4 801nf ZZ£`S 9S8'L 9LS'9 46L ZL6'£L Z4L'L L8£'4 oat. I.LCL 69£'9 99L ££S'£L L9Z'L 694'4 BO /Sew 800`S £9l'L 9LL'S LLL 9sz'£L 8E8`9 L4Z'4 80 Juv 496'4 £6l'L OSL`9 09L 966'Zl 9LL'9 ££Z'4 80 JeW 9L8'9 800'9 64L 4Z9'Z l L99'9 8lZ`4 80 gad L98`4 ZOO'L £8 L'S 1.172. E0Z'ZL 848'9 8L L'4 8o uer • 031S(1f0V Ay0110H • MOONIM H1NOW:N3312(IHl SdR112130N3SSVd AVam33M 30V):13AV NNIl02i13W • • meN0141e4•10 rg6 I%98 %$6 %S6 %D6 %46 %96 %DB %S6 %D6 %S6 %46 %E6 %S6 %S6 %96 %46 %96 %96 %96 %S6 %S6 %96 %LB %46 %96 %S6 %96 %96 %96 %S6 %96 %96 %L6 %LB %96 %96 %96 %96 %96 %96 %S6 %89 %L6 %L6 %L6 %L6 %66 %Z6 %96 %96 %46 %ZS %S6 %96 %46 %96 %46 "/oZ6 %Z6 %S6 %Z6 %86 %EB %96 %L6 %46 $4 'uopeinoleo awp-uo syl ul pepnloul;ou aye sure„ polouuy vagew .iol jo mod le aum-uo atom Amuj! 1O paieplsuoo peleumual 'SAepp aigenalla.1 Jo; apew uaacl aney slualu;sn(pe oN %96 %E6 %46 %46 %L6 %Z6 %88 %46 %46 %S6 %SO %96 %S6 %46 %66 %00l %004 %00 L %96 °/ 46 °/ %16 %66 %S6 %86 %96 %66 %66 %96 %66 %66 %86 %66 %S6 %L6 %L6 %00L %96 %96 %96 %48 %96 %96 %L6 %L6 %£6 %O6 %99 %99 %S9 %46 %O6 %86 /0 L9 °06 %96 %£6 ° f o sme�1 Mig011atielMgfefiliEKKIVANS"x . ` e$100.47;Ni ..:.:c l A110.:9N"d/t Puued „ed (' c^ir� 60 us(' I &Lou palnpagos Jo swum S uppim 8ulnuiy suleuj pound plead %96 %Z6 %66 %96 %S6 %96 %96 %86 60 uef BO 390 80 noN 90100 %86 %66 %96 %86 %96 %86 %96 %L6 %66 %66 %96 %96 %L6 %L6 %L6 %DB %98 %96 %96 %S6 %46 %96 %LB %L6 %66 %66 %96 %96 %46 %96 %96 %96 %46 %96 %Z6 %16 %96 %96 %L6 %46 %Z6 %46 %E6 %96 %L6 %46 %96 %E6 %96 %96 %66 %96 %Z6 %86 %66 %OOL %00 L %00 L %66 %66 %46 %86 %S6 %96 %96 %S6 %46 %96 %96 %96 %Le %86 %99 %9B %99 %98 %L6 %E6 %06 %Z6 %46 %Z6 %£6 %£6 %96 %£6 %L6 %96 %96 %L6 %L6 %96 %L6 %96 %86 %004 8o deS 90 Brit/ 90 Pr 90 unf 90AeW 90 idv %86 %86 %96 %66 %66 %86 %96 %f6 %96 %86 90 JEN %96 %96 %66 %00 L %L6 %46 %96 %L6 %L6 %Le 'w %86 %96 SHINOW £L 1S31V1 mil M012040510 swum g ul43!M 601n!.uy su!e11;o eBewaaad 331A213S AVON33M - A21t/WWf1S 33143213HCIV 311103H3S >MI102113W %96 %96 %96 %96 %96 %96 Y'rlow4f:ta a fri130$:. %96 %L6 %L6 %96 • %00 L %66 %46 %L6 ,14>kl� 13R1itla/� • 90 clad 80 uef YV403 AGENDA ITEM 9 • frIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: March 23, 2009 TO: Plans and Programs Committee FROM: Cathy Bechtel, Project Development Director THROUGH: John Standiford, Deputy Executive Director SUBJECT: Operational Improvement Study for the Ortega Highway / State Route 74 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Committee to: 1) Receive and file the Operational Improvement Study for the Ortega Highway / State Route 74; and 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: In December 2005, the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) and the Commission approved the locally preferred strategy as part of the Riverside County/Orange County Major Investment Study (MIS). One of the recommendations of the approved locally preferred strategy was to study operational improvements along the Ortega Highway. The Operational Improvement Study (Study) has been completed and was a collaborative effort between OCTA and the Commission, in partnership with Caltrans Districts 8 and 12, as well as other stakeholder agencies. The study performed a high-level operational analysis of SR-74 between Antonio Parkway in San Juan Capistrano and Interstate 15 in the city of Lake Elsinore, and recommended a prioritized set of improvements that should be considered for more detailed study by the stakeholder agencies. DISCUSSION: The study provides an overview of the existing conditions along SR-74 between Antonio Parkway and the Interstate-15, and makes recommendations for projects that will improve intercounty mobility. These recommendations are limited to non - capacity enhancing improvements due primarily to right-of-way limitations, geologic conditions, and environmentally sensitive surroundings. Moreover, this study provides a planning tool that can be used by OCTA, the Commission, and Caltrans when considering operational improvements on SR-74. Agenda Item 9 9 The Study was developed under the review and guidance of a technical advisory committee (TAC) that was composed of staff from OCTA, the Commission, Caltrans Districts 8 and 12, the county of Orange, the Cleveland National Forest, and the cities of Lake Elsinore and San Juan Capistrano. The TAC also provided input to, and acceptance of, the recommendations presented in the Study. Since SR-74 was originally constructed during the 1930s, the facility was designed to the standards of the time and was intended for much lower volumes than experienced today. Increasingly, SR-74 is being utilized as a work trip facility, carrying commuters between Riverside and Orange Counties. One particular section of SR-74, segment 5 in Orange County, has recently been retrofitted to provide the maximum level of improvement feasible; however, more improvements are recommended throughout the facility to enhance operations. The Study divides SR-74 into 12 segments based on Caltrans' operational records to analyze the facility. As noted above, Caltrans recently concluded a project to enhance operations within segment 5; therefore, this segment was not included in the analysis performed for this study. Traffic operations were analyzed for the current traffic conditions using the Highway Capacity Manual methodology for two-lane undivided highways. This methodology utilizes geometric features and traffic demand factors, such as lane and shoulder widths, type of terrain, number of intersections, and traffic volumes. Based on this analysis, this study finds that the SR-74 study corridor is currently operating at or very near its maximum capacity during peak hours. Due to these conditions, if any incident occurs that slows traffic, it can have severe impacts to the facilities throughput. Compounding this are such factors as reduced lane and shoulder widths, lack of adequate turnouts and passing lanes; therefore, this study recommends that the following improvements be considered: • Add passing lanes at two to five mile intervals; • Upgrade lanes and shoulders; • Upgrade drainage systems; • Add/upgrade metal beam guard rails (MBGR); • Improve intersections that are at or near capacity; • Remove sight obstructions; • Improve lighting; • Add recessed pavement markers; • Add/improve rock catchments; • Install/improve warning signs; and • Provide adequate delineation. A cost -benefit analysis of the recommended improvements was performed in order to develop the project phasing strategy as shown in the table below: • • • Agenda Item 9 10 • Ecgin End Pest Hk° M ®® Proposed i ,e ter of- �1a nituce � t r:ngth Ran:Ns nei - ;C:cnst plus Support; OD ®® Rives1 2 ®� RFts 0EDIECII Q� R!k�eeif�a 1 gg ®®L��r"�0® ®® a -- 0 1O i 11151011117N 6 rlta 0:0 �� 7i1 ® MI run III MINIM maid* Emma 4.1) ROWa7Mak 10,.20 23,048 30«9' 23+ 46. 90-1r6 CO-• 130 355.4 151 ®®®--®--1111111 11111-®®-®-•11--� ®®®Q®®®®0®® ®Q®QQ®®®®®® ©©®®®-®®©®® ®®®®0=100__® --©®--©111111--1M ®®©0®11111Q®®®® ®®®®Q-®®--Q ®®151®®®®®1111-® Finally, the Study recommends that the following additional studies be considered for more detailed study by the stakeholder agencies: • Feasibility study for specific passing lane locations; • Project initiation documents such as project study reports. These preliminary engineering studies will evaluate the specific feasibilities, costs, and scopes for proposed improvements; • Environmental studies for the proposed improvement projects; and • Financial analyses to identify funding for implementation of the proposed improvements. Attachment: Operational Improvement Study of the Ortega Highway (State Route 74) in Orange and Riverside Counties Executive Summary Agenda Item 9 11 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY In 2006, the Riverside County —Orange County Major Investment Study (MIS) recommended that operational improvements to State Route 74 (SR-74, also known as Ortega Highway) be identified as a key strategic initiative for intercounty mobility. The MIS also concluded that, between Interstate 15 (1-15) (in Riverside County) and Antonio Parkway/La Pata Avenue (a few miles east of Interstate 5 in Orange County), capacity improvements to SR-74 are not feasible because of environmental and cost constraints. To respond to this recommendation, the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) and the Riverside County Transportation Commission (ROTC) jointly initiated this Operational Improvement Study. This is a high level study. Future improvements to SR-74 will be subject to more detailed project -specific. studies. A Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) composed of involved agencies was assembled to review the study objectives and provide guidance throughout the study process. Study Limits. The study limits are the SR- 74 Corridor between Antonio Parkway/La Pata Avenue in Orange County and 1-15 in Riverside County, totaling 30 miles in length. (Ora -PM 2.6 / 16.6, Riv-PM 0.0 / 16.3) Objective. The objective is to provide a planning tool that can be used by the involved agencies to consider how to improve operations on SR-74. Consensus -Building This study was developed in coordination with a Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) composed of representatives from: • United States Department of Interior, Cleveland National Forest, • California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) District 8, • Caltrans District 12, • County of Orange, • Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA), • Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC), ES-1 • City of Lake Elsinore, and • City of San Juan Capistrano. This TAC provided review of, input to, and acceptance of the proposed analysis and recommendations included herein. Background SR-74 was constructed in the 1930s to provide access from Riverside County to recreational attractions —primarily, Lake Elsinore, the San Juan Hot Springs, the beaches in Orange County, and outdoor recreation areas in the Cleveland National Forest. The greater part of the study area is two-lane undivided rural highway that is rolling and mountainous. At the City of take Elsinore, the highway changes to an urban setting and has a four -lane configuration with multiple signal or stop sign controlled intersections. When the highway was constructed, the current design standards were not in existence. New improvements will have to consider application of the current standards when feasible. Analysis Results Segments. The SR-74 study corridor is divided into twelve segments for analysis and comparison, as shown in Figure ES-1. The limits of these segments were based on Caltrans' traffic operational records. Segment 5. It should be noted that Caltrans is completing an improvement project on Segment 5 (EA 12-043214). The project widens the existing lanes to 12 feet and shoulders to 4 feet, places rumble strips in the median, adds safety enhancements (wire mesh system, rock catchment) to reduce road closures due to rock slides, improves motorists sight distances by removing protruding rock walls, improves drainage facilities into San Juan Creek, improves turnouts and adds two new turnouts. According to Caltrans, this project has provided maximum level of improvements feasible to this segment and no further improvement will be necessary. As a result, Segment 5 will not be included in any of the analyses shown in this report. 13 • • • Fi ure ES-1: SR-74 Stud Area Se ment Map Current Operations. The SR-74 corridor is a winding mountainous alignment with limited places for passing, vehicle turnouts, or emergency clear zones. Because of the current corridor alignment and associated constraints, traffic queues form behind slow - moving vehicles and disabled vehicles; see Figure ES- 2. Traffic operations were analyzed for the current traffic conditions using the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) methodology for two-lane undivided highways. This methodology incorporates geometric features and traffic demand factors such as lane and shoulder widths, type of terrain, number of access points, two-way traffic volumes, truck percentages, and directional splits. The analysis shows that the existing facility is operating at a Level of Service (LOS) E or less. ES-2 OPf;8ATIOi+Al. Ih+1 Figure ES- 2: Time Spent Following Slower Vehicles by Segment 99% 92% W 90% � 6e% 0 O. 8e% LL t 89% S. Vl 92% • 80% at 78% 76% 79%- 2 0 9 6 7 8 B Segment No. 10 „ 12 Horizontal Highway Curves. Within the study area, due to the mountainous terrain, horizontal curves are key physical characteristics of the roadway. At each horizontal curve location, the roadway geometry results in a corresponding recommended stopping sight distance and design speed'. Based on the as -built t Geometric features affecting sight distances and design speeds typically include horizontal alignment, vertical alignment, super -elevation, and horizontal clearances. 14 construction plans and photograph log, Figure ES- 3 depicts the number of existing horizontal curves and their corresponding design speed ranges within each segment. As can be seen, horizontal curves are particularly prominent in Segments 4 through 9, which are in the mountainous areas. Combined with restricted clearances, the corresponding recommended highway design speeds are significantly reduced in the same mountainous segments? Figure ES- 3: Number of Horizontal Curves & Corresponding Recommended Design Speed Ranges by Segment 30 • equal to or greeter than 45 mph ■ between 30 and 45 mph •below 30 mph 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 it 12 Segment No. Lane and Shoulder Widths. The SR-74 roadway section within the defined project study limits includes significant lengths with narrow lane and shoulder widths. Currently, the standard lane width for a two-lane conventional State highway per Caltrans' geometric standards is 12 feet, and the standard right shoulder width is 8 feet. These standards were not in existence when the Ortega Highway was constructed. As can be seen in Figures ES-4 and ES-6, the narrow lanes and shoulders are more prominent in the mountainous segments. Fifty-seven (57) percent of the travel lanes within the total study area include lane widths that are less than 12 feet, and over seventy-five (75) percent of shoulder areas are less than 8 feet in width. Figures ES-5 and ES-7 summarize the lane and shoulder width inventories respectively. 2 Caltrans' current design standard for two-lane conventional highway in mountainous terrain specifies a design speed of 45 miles per hour (mph). ES-3 Figure ES-4: Existing Lane Widths by Segment ■ 12-ft ■ 11-ft • 1041 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Segment No. Figure ES-5: Lane Widths within Total Study Area 12fi 43% 30% Figure ES-6: Existing Shoulder Widths by Segment . 6.&ft • 8-1t n 6-ft o 4-ft • 2-ft • oft E 90% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 2 3 4 6 7 8 Segment No. 9 10 11 Figure ES-7: Shoulder Widths within Total Study Area 6-ft 0% 4-ft 7% >8-ft 4% 0-ft 59% 12 15 • • • Access Points. Highway access points create potential traffic conflict points. Because of the topography, many access points have challenging geometric configurations. As an example, in the photograph in Figure ES-8, the connection of the subject access road is not perpendicular to the SR-74 and the access point is located at a curve, which can affect sight lines and driver comfort. Figure ES-8: Example of Access to Ortega with Challenging Geometric Conditions Figure ES-10: Number of Turnouts per Mile by Segment 14 12 2 1 2 3 4 6 Riverside 8 9 10 11 12 Segment No. Scoring. Based on the traffic data, physical characteristics, and maintenance records, this study assesses the findings and recommends improvements for each SR-74 segment. A scoring system was developed to quantify comparisons. Scores are shown in "points per mile". Segments showing higher scores would presumably require more improvements than those segments with lower scores. Figure ES-11 summarizes the operational scores by segment. Figure ES-11: Score Summary by Segment As shown in Figure ES-9, the density of 120 access points is particularly prominent in 100 Segment 7. Figure ES-9: Access Points per Mile by Segment Segment No Turnouts. Turnouts allow motorists to leave the traveled lane to allowing the motorists to slow or disabled vehicles to pull over and let faster traffic pass, so as to reduce traffic queues and driver frustration. Figure ES-10 shows turnouts are most numerous in Segments 6 and 8. ES-4 1 2 3 4 8 ) e Segment No. 9 10 11 12 16 Environmental Constraints SR-74 traverses portions of two major open space areas: Casper Regional Park and Cleveland National Forest. The area is very hilly, with mid- and long-range mountainous views. Towards the eastern extent of the roadway segment, the road enters into the urbanized area of the City of Lake Elsinore and remains in an urban setting to from the City of Lake Elsinore to the interchange with the 1-15. Habitat for Diverse Species. The Cleveland National Forest lies within a region recognized by Conservation International as one of the world's "biodiversity hotspots" (areas where exceptional concentrations of endemic species are threatened by loss of habitat). The Forest provides habitat for federally listed threatened and endangered animals and plants. While it is not completely financially prohibitive to improve the highway within the study area, any proposed improvements should make the greatest effort feasible to avoid impacts on sensitive habitats and species and to avoid fragmentation of conservation areas identified in the Central and Coastal Subregion Natural Community Conservation Plan (NCCP) and follow the regulations and environmental review processes of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the Califomia Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Environmental Constraints. The map on the following page provides an overview of the environmental constraints within the study area. ES-5 • • 17 86 *US••vunatlwlllucam•O e[113 pua6al pue malnaanp • SIIIHMSuo3 IMuawuo AL13 .no!,^PS (.711I 3NYdWOD INC) L Ae6S 0{ wu pue aleWIXOJdde ale sr.me Su0o IE1LIBW11011NUa all) Jo Su01je00j musty 0U1 lle 10U alg pue dp0 {LIau153a5Se (1CulWllald 10J a1C W40115 SiU16.115000 IELIEUN011A110 ay j TRIO ani}eaaquaa-aad gnns ergs ueappan!g gwaS a0eg ued Immo ueaplSlaub gm's uepedlu 300e3Neg1Ode!lurr!sag puodMonresaypaleM MOO - pueRsesO ange•UoN PAPO/an0,0 - spuelaal0 plaid gmpS deS IelsePO ue6•0 11110 LIMN JalerNSafd balled Pue lelseo3 PuelPooM Me0 on Moo F��,n IOJadag0 upgela6a6 Spurpm 0+00 H mV.Z.; eBL�.=, pRIB mega P•Old ePadY%l MPH leo!lp0 Peol array MN NV* Jetinnieu0 eldlome0 ', SeaJV 2A*dONSIN Q 0•1V61S moods a@IlsuaS 90➢NNO • Wed ___ swea1IS luadlu0ll• to Jung am l e — I luawu611y 1001oy man 0 SIuieaISuo3 1e1110wuoainu3 • s • • • improvements to Be Considered Based on the assessments and discussions presented herein, the following SR-74 improvements should be considered and further developed: • Add passing lanes at 2 — 5 mile intervals; • Upgrade lanes and shoulders3; • Upgrade drainage systems; • Upgrade metal beam guard rails (MBGRs); • Improve intersections with LOS E or greater; and • Remove sight obstructions, install/ improve -warning signs and provide adequate delineation. Other miscellaneous items such as lighting, recessed pavement markers, new MBGR locations, and rock catchments should also be considered whenever feasible. These improvements are compatible with the long- term system plans by the regional and local transportation agencies. Costs. This study developed order -of - magnitude cost estimates for the proposed improvements. Figure ES- 12 shows the cost -per -mile data for each segment. Note that these costs represent the upper end of the cost range for each segment. 3 Whenever a major improvement project is proposed on a State Highway System, full design standards must be considered first. Deviation from the mandatory or advisory design standards will need to be justified and approved by the Department of Transportation. For example, the Upper Ortega Highway Project justified for a 4-foot shoulder width due to the high cost and environmental impacts. Similar justification process will apply to the other segments if application of full standards is not feasible. ES-7 Figure ES-12: Average per -Mile Cost of Proposed Improvements by Segment 45 40 9 10 11 Segment No. Cost -Benefit Analysis. This SR-74 study performed a cost -benefit analysis for each segment. The potential improvements mentioned in the previous section would improve the performance of the roadway, and, as a result, would reduce the point scores which represent the conditions of the roadway in this study. More reduction in points means better roadway performance. The cost -benefit analysis is based on the cost per point reduced within each segment. Figure ES-13 summarizes the results. Figure ES-13: Cost in $Million per Point Reduced 2.50 2 3 4 6 l 6 Segment No. 9 10 11 This analysis provides a guide as to the effectiveness of implementing the proposed improvements. The lower the cost -per - point -reduced value is, the more cost- effective are the improvements within a segment. The results were used as the basis for project phasing. As can be seen Figure ES-13, the most cost-effective segment in orange County is Segment 1, and in Riverside County, Segment 11. 12 19 • • Recommendations Based upon the conceptual analysis conducted for this study, it is suggested that the stakeholder planning agencies consider the improvement priorities summarized in the implementation phasing plan in Table ES-1, and perform the following additional studies: • Feasibility Study for specific passing lane locations; • Project Initiation Documents (PIDs), which will evaluate the specific feasibilities, cost, and scope of the Table Es- 1: Proposed Improvemen proposed improvements in greater detail and precision; • Analysis and research to determine the amount and availability of funding, and the requirements of proposed funding sources; and • NEPA/CEQA compliance reports. It should be noted that these proposed improvements are based on very high level evaluations. The feasibility of their final implementation will be subject to detailed analyses and studies. Priority No 1 Seg. No.: 11 County Riverside Begin End Post Post Mile Mile 14.9 15.0 Length (mile) 0.8 " Order -of- Magnitude" R nges (Const. Plus Support} (SMillions), 10 - 20 „, g � o m � 27 a, -- cc m Q Proposed a, rs R � , r -o a a Improvements o n, ` �� d bs o do E -� £ � a G E d a T v� E m -0 � m o z 4.0 o -' S P 7.3 0 ce Q , ✓ ✓ ✓ �- ✓ ✓ ----- ✓ --_- ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ 2 12 Riverside 15.0 16.3 1.3 10 - 20 -- ✓ 3 8 Riverside 6.9 8.7 1.8 40 - 78 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ 4 7 Riverside 4.5 6.9 2.4 40 - 78 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ V ✓ I 5 1 Orange 2.6 5.2 2.6 23-46 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ - 6 4 Oran 9.3 13.3 4.0 30 - 98 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ 7 2 Oran 5.2 8.1 2.9 23 - 46 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ---- ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ 8 10 Riverside 11.8 14.2 2.4 16 - 33 -- ✓ ✓ ✓ 9 6 Riverside 0.0 4.5 4.5 90 -176 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ 10 3 Ora a 8.1 9.3 1.1 13 - 26 ✓ © ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ -- ✓ 11 9 Riverside 8.7 11.8 3.1 60 -130 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ -- ✓ Route Total: 355 - 751 ' ES-8 20 AGENDA ITEM 10 REVISED ATTACHMENT 2 (Revisions made in bold/italics and strikethrough) Created: 2/12/2009 Panted: 2/23/2009 12:01 PM B ESTIMATED FUND BALANCES (RESERVE) BY APPORTIONMENT AREA LTF, STA & MEASURE A As-of-danuary-2908 Revised February 23, 2009 i Western Riverside Bus I Rail Coachella Valley Palo Verde Valley Total i LTF FY 07/08 Operating Carryover as of 6/30108 (Apportioned/Unallocated/Available) a 25,157,466 16,418,417 2,831,124 253,733 Estimated LTF FY 08/09 Apportionment (revised 12/08) LTF FY 08/09 SRTP Requests Estimated Fund Balance (a+b-c) 44,660,740 b 35,193,720 9,926,434 12,495,644 901,277 58,517,075 c 34,529,041 9,296,100 12,823,846 834,999 57,483,986 25,822,146 17,048,751 2,502,922 320,011 45,693,829 STA FY 07/08 Carryover as of 6/30/08 (Apportioned/Unallocated/Available) d 9,778,623 5,614,589 4,547,274 * 60,374 20,000,860 C e 6,679,203 1,858,614 2,212,810 133,307 9,783,961 Estimated STA FY 08/09 Allocation per February2009 State Budget Revision a Z789,602 929,307 1,106,420 66,654 4,891,982 STA FY 08/09 SRTP Requests f 5,963,913 2,031,004 8,358,977 591,198 16,945,092 Estimated Fund Balance (d+e-f) (Assumes all of FY 08109 STA allocation per 1018108 funding level will be released) 6,604,312 4,512,892 (2,705,283) (464,171) 7,947,750 MEASURE A Carryover as of 6130108 10.370,660 Amount to be Used for FY 08/09 Specialized Transit funding RTA FY 06 JARCMF local Match Estimated Fund Balance 1,716,844 281,168 8,372,648 * SunLine's original FY 07/08 carryover increased by $4,020,564 after SunLine moved funding for bus replacement & ITS equipment projects from STA to Prop 1B funding. *' Reduced SunLine's FY 08/09 STA request by 5238,000 after notification that CW4 project using STA match will not be funded. Note: Due to negative fund balance resulting from STA shortfall, SunLine will amend its FY 08/09 SRTP to modify & reduce capital requests for FY 08/09. C:ID000ME-llthyerry0.0CALS-11Temp\(Pgrpwlse1FY%200708RESERVEAVAILABLE2Feb09Revtals STA wtthSRTP Request(3) AGENDA ITEM 10 • • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: February 23, 2009 TO: Plans and Programs Committee FROM: Robert Yates, Multimodal Services Director THROUGH: John Standiford, Deputy Executive Director SUBJECT: Short Range Transit Plan Budget and Revenue Estimate STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Committee to: 1) Receive and file the preliminary revenue estimate for the Short Range Transit Plan (SRTP) budget process; and 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The month of February traditionally signals the start of the budgeting process for the Commission's public transit operators. These budgets are reflected in what is known as a SRTP for each public operator. The SRTP process breaks down the funding by source for each operator and defines the nature and extent of the service to be provided. DISCUSSION: On February 4, 2009, staff conducted the kick-off meeting for the FY 2009/10 SRTP budget process. During that meeting, staff provided a revenue estimate, which detailed the funds currently known to be available for transit operations and capital. With the state and federal budget process at a standstill, staff provided the operators with a very conservative estimate of the available revenue for the next fiscal year for both operations and capital projects. Highlights of some of the economic impact on revenues are as follows: • Federal 5307 funds are currently provided to the Commission via a continuing resolution, but only in the amount of 43% of the original commitment. • The Measure A midyear revenue revision approved by the Commission in January resulted in a decrease of projected Measure A revenues from Agenda Item 10 21 $135 million to $126 million for FY 2008/09. The SRTP revenue estimate provided to the operators indicated Measure A to be flat for FY 2009/10 at $126 million. • The Local Transportation Fund (LTF) midyear revenue revision was also approved by the Commission in January and resulted in a decline in revenue for the current FY 2008/09 from $67 million to $60 million. The SRTP revenue estimate provided to the operators indicated that LTF would also be flat for FY 2009/10, at $60 million. • State Transit Assistance and Prop1 B bond funds were projected to be at zero in the SRTP revenue estimate. This is a direct result of the state budget crisis with both programs currently in a state of suspension. Given the nature of the current economic climate, it is safe to say that the revenue estimate provided to the operators was a very dire piece of information. This information however, should not come as news. Back in November 2004 and again in July 2005, staff presented to the Commission various scenarios, wherein operating costs would eventually outstrip available revenues. The current economic environment served to move up the date as to when this occurrence would become reality. The Commission also previously adopted a reserve policy in January 2005. This policy intended that a 10% set aside would be established in order to deal with unforeseen economic conditions and that certain guidelines would need to be met in order for it to be accessed. The SRTP revenue estimate provided to the operators excluded the 10% reserve in order to preserve a buffer in the case that revenues continue to decline. Any operator wishing to access the reserve for FY 2009/10 must by policy, file a request to amend its SRTP document and that request would be reviewed by staff and forwarded to the Commission for action. Lastly, while unallocated carryover fund balances exist, staff is recommending prudence in how they are accessed and utilized. Given that the Commission finds itself in a declining revenue environment, it will only be a matter of time before the carryover balances are completely exhausted thus setting up an environment where very difficult choices will need to be made. Staff has informed the operators that should the operators wish to access the carryover balances and deficit spend (as compared to available revenue), that these plans would be presented to the Commission for action. This would be consistent with the reserve policy identified above. SRTP kick off was moved up by two weeks in order to allow both Commission staff and the operators more time to deal with a constantly changing funding environment. Staff expects that as the state and federal budgetary processes Agenda Item 10 22 • • • become clearer, that additional guidance on available revenue will be provided to the operators. Currently, the operators are expected to present initial drafts of their SRTP document to staff on March 13, 2009. At that point, staff will begin the review process and will work closely with the operators to refine their budgets. SRTP's for all operators will be presented to the Commission in July for final approval. Attachments: 1) FY 2009/10 SRTP Revenue Estimate 2) Estimated Fund Balances by Apportionment Area Agenda Item 10 23 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION FY 2009/10 REVENUE ESTIMATES FOR TRANSIT Date Prepared: 2/1/09 Date Revised: ATTACHMENT1 Page 1 REVISIONS TO PLANNING ESTIMATES: ESTIMATES ARE FOR PLANNING PURPOSES ONLY -SUBJECT TO CHANGE BASED ON AVAILABILITY OF FUNDING. STATE S LOCAL FUNDS a«" - i LUOA-N$Rt i i�0 0 Total Western County Coachella Valley Palo Verde Valley Attachme Wee ntl FY 2009/10 Estimated Apportionments(weedompopNraBon) Bus Services: 78% Rail Services: 22% $ 50,562,943 $ 38,971,723 30,397,944 8,573,779 $ 10,881,971 $ 709,249 1A Allocation of Transit Reserves tft-*+.A;T-:*RN•J$rr.,;,..,� ,p,x .- P2t � 1 a § 5,618,104 Banning Beaumont Corona Riverside RTA RCTC's Commuter Rail Total $ 4,330,191 80,112 75,634 119,541 198,652 2,903,723 952,674 .. Western County § 1,209,108 Coachella Valley $ 78,805 16 ak�nm.mi'.,. rote Palo Verde Valley FY 2009/10 Estimated Apportionments (based on population estimates from DOF) Bus Services: 78% Rail Services: 22% $ - $ _ - _ $ - $ - No current release of STA estimate for FY 09/10 .STATE"TKANSfTA551.4TA ��J1� (�$TA)' (�Cr'9O/� NS O77, iJASct>9(�i,EY,� `� r. ,.w; „.: -_ Total Western Coun County Coachella Valley Palo Verde Valley Attachment/ Note FY 2009/10 Estimates (based on operator revenues from Annual Report) TOTAL: Banning Beaumont Corona Riverside RTA RCTC's Commuter Rail $ - No current release of STA estimate for FY 09/10 _ .....__.. .-.... .... -. _____ r .. III. MEASURE A FUNDS v .a.w. _. s1' �._ Total Western County Coachella Valley Palo Verde Valley Attachment/ Note FY 2009/10 Estimated Apportionments FY 2008/09 Mid -Year Adjustment $ 4,408,000 (fBD) N/A $ 4 408:000 N/A N/A Cl C2 TOTAL $ 4,408,000 N/A $ 4,908,000 N/A .�+. ,a^T a [ +atN'ff:'#`f: Inv.Snr ..1.1.e'v��'Er'+;.S IV. PROP I / PTMISEA (Currently Suspended) Total Western County Coachella Valley Palo Verde Valley ua%.• Amcnmeav NOW Prop 18 - Capital FY 08/09 Estimated Apportionments Bus Services: 78% Rail Services: 22% $ - $ _ $ _ $ _ $ _ _ Prop 1B-Security FY 08/9 Estimated Apportionments Bus Services: 78% Rail Services: 22% $ _ _ TOTAL: § _ $ - $ _ $ _ Population Source: California Department of Finance. Demographic Research Unit (1/1/081 Population Population % 1,609,588 77.08% 449,441 21.52e/ 29,293 1.40% Total 2,088,322 2100.00% Area Western Riverside Coachella Valley Palo Verde Valley RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION TRANSIT: REVENUE ESTIMATES FOR FY 2009/10 FEDERAL FUNDS 212/09: Amounts shown below represeM 43%of Sec 5307 FY 09110 hording estimates. Estimated carry over from FY 08109 wl0 be updated when total funding becomes available. Page 2 I. FEDERAL SECTION 5307 - RIVERSIDE/SAN BERNARDINO UZA - BUS SERVICE Palo Verde Aw.hmew - Total Western County Coachella Valley Valley Note FY2009/10 Estimated Federal Capital Assistance - Bus $ 3,672,958 $ 3,672,958 NIA NIA Estimated Carry Over (FY 2008/09) $ , „ m TOTAL: $ 3,672,958 $ 3,672,958 NOTE: Section 5307 Funds to be updated based on SCAG & SCRRA's split analysis for rail and bus. II. FEDERAL SECTION 5307 - RIVERSIDEISAN BERNARDINO UZA - RAIL Total Western County Coachella Valley Palo Verde Valley Attachment/ Nate FY 2009110 Est. for Federal Capital Assistance - Rail Estimated Carry Over (FY 2008M9) $ 2,181,606 $ 2,181,606 WA Coachella Valley N/A Palo Verde Valley ox Attachment/ Nw TOTAL: III. FEDERAL SECTION 5307 - TEMECULA- MURRIETA $ 2,181,606 Total $ 2,181,606 Western County FY 2009/10 Estimated for Federal Capital Assistance Estimated Carry Over (FY 2008/09) 1,237,730 $ 1,237,730 WA Coachella Valley N/A Palo Verde Valley oa ABaetm,entl Note TOTAL: IV. FEDERAL SECTION 5307 - INDIO - CATHEDRAL CITY - PALM SPRINGS $ 1,237,730 Total $ 1,237,730 Western County FY 2009110 Estimated for Federal Capital Assistance Estimated Carry Over (FY 2008/09) $ 1,435,169 $ N/A $ 1,435,169 - N/A. Palo Verde Valley ot Attachment/ Note TOTAL: r V. FEDERAL SECTION 5307 - HEMET/SAN JACINTO UZA $ 1,435,169 Total Western County $ 1,435,169 Coachella Valley FY 2009/10 Estimated for Federal Capital Assistance 'Population under 200,000 Estimated Carry Over (FY 2008109) $ 763,156 - $ 763,156 - WA r r .�,... , � Coachella Valley N/A , uu Palo Verde Valley D5 A1feeM1iiiiit/ Not. TOTAL: "� Q) 9r' I r i t `-ic4 c ...a.,� �',`st._.x.�.z�.....-�Sx,uaa� VI. FEDERAL SECTION 5309 FIXED GUIDE WAY MODERNIZATION $ 763,156 ..e «��u, .i..m'` .5�-vim'=)�.t Total $ 763,156 3w: �'xs ._�, Western County FY 2009/10 Estimated Federal Assistance - Rail Estimated Cany.Over (FY 2008109) $. - - WA N/A oe TOTAL: $ - $ - NOTE Estimated Ca Over based on SCRRA s spreadsheet. Sec 5309 FY 09/10 allocation based on Fed Re • ister. VII. FEDERAL SECTION 5311 Total Western County Coachella Valley Palo Verde Attaon,,,ov (61.7%) (38.3%) Valley Note FY 2009/10 Estimated Federal Assistance Estimated Carry Over (FY 2008/09) $ 755,213 $ 465,966 $ 289,247 N/A TOTAL: 755,213 S 465,966 $ 289,247 D7 25 ATTACHMENT 2 Created 2/12/2009 A B C Printed 2/18/2009 4:18 PM ESTIMATED FUND BALANCES (RESERVE) BY APPORTIONMENT AREA LTF, STA & MEASURE A As of January 2009 Westem Riverside Coachella Palo Verde Total Bus Rail Valley Valley LTF FY 07/08 Operating Carryover as of 6/30/O8 (Apportioned/Unallocated/Available) a 25,157,466 16,418,417 2,831,124 253,733 Estimated LTF FY 08/09 Apportionment (revised 12/08) LTF FY 08/09 SRTP Requests Estimated Fund Balance (a+b-c) b 35,193,720 9,926,434 12,495,644 c 34,529,041 9,296,100 12,823,846 25,822,145 17,048,751 2,502,922 44,660,740 901,277 58,517,075 834,999 57,483,986 320,011 45,693,829 STA FY 07108 Carryover as of 6/30108 (Apportioned/Unallocated/Available) d 9,778,623 5,614,589 4,547,274 60,374 20,000,860 Estimated STA FY 08/09 Allocation per 10/8/08 State Controller Letter a 5,579,203 STA FY 08/09 SRTP Requests Estimated Fund Balance (d+e-f) (Assumes all of FY 08/09 STA allocation per 10/8/08 funding level will be released) 1,858,614 2,212,840 133,307 9,783,964 f 5,963,913 2,031,004 8,358,977 " 591,198 16,945,092 9,393,913 5,442,199 11,598,883► (397,517) 12,839,732 MEASURE A Carryover as of 6/30/08 10,370,660 Amount to be Used for FY 08/09 Specialized Transit funding Estimated Fund Balance 1,716,844 8,653,816 • SunLine's original FY 07/08 carryover increased by $4,020,564 after Sunline moved funding for bus replacement & ITS equipment projects from STA to Prop 16 funding. • Reduced Sunline's FY 08/09 STA request by $238,000 after notification that CMAQ project using STA match will not be funded. Note: Due to negative fund balance resulting from STA shortfall, Sun Line will amend its FY 08/09 SRTP to modify & reduce capital requests for FY 08/09. V:12009103 March1Plans&Prograrns110.A2.ry.FY 0708RESERVEAVAILABLE STA withSRTP Request(3) 26 AGENDA ITEM 11 • • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMM/SS/ON DATE: February 23, 2009 TO: Plans and Programs Committee FROM: Robert Yates, Multimodal Services Director THROUGH: John Standiford, Deputy Executive Director SUBJECT: Local Match Contribution for Signal Synchronization Project Applications to the Mobile Source Reduction Review Committee Call for Projects STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Committee to: 1) Approve a contribution in the amount of $50,000 of 1989 Measure A Commuter Assistance reserves for a joint project application by the cities of Corona, Moreno Valley, and Riverside for signal synchronization; and 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The cities of Corona, Moreno Valley, and Riverside have collectively self -financed approximately $22 million of arterial street signal synchronization projects and now desire to leverage this investment by installing a more complex interconnected traffic signal synchronization system. This interconnected system will allow the cities to work cooperatively and synchronize traffic signals on major arterial streets across all three jurisdictions. Synchronized signal systems have been proven to make the operation of signals more efficient, which in turn allows for more efficient use of the roadway capacity, a decrease in travel times and a decrease in harmful vehicle originated pollutants. DISCUSSION: In February 2009, the Mobile Source Reduction Review Committee opened a "call for projects" for its Local Government Match program, which includes Intelligent Transportation Systems infrastructure and signal synchronization projects. The cities have indicated an interest in being able to compete for these funds and are requesting the Commission's assistance in providing part of the required local match. While an argument can be made that an interconnected and synchronized signal system across the three cities would serve all commuters and not simply those that rideshare, staff with legal counsel concurrence also believes that an argument can be made that use of Commuter Assistance funds for this purpose will also directly affect those who rideshare or use transit and thus remain consistent with the intent of Measure A. Agenda Item 11 27 The argument to support this contention is based on the following three elements of traffic congestion and signal synchronization: • Carpools/vanpools as well as buses currently do not use fixed and dedicated guideways on arterial streets in Riverside County, which means that they are just as much subject to the negative effects of traffic congestion as are solo vehicle drivers. As such, poorly timed signals at major intersections resulting in high levels of congestion and reduced levels of service (LOS) during rush hour have the same impact on ridesharers and transit users as it does on solo vehicle drivers. • Since carpool or high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes, which directly benefit those using alternative transportation are relegated to the freeway system, the harmful effects of arterial street traffic congestion actually serves as a disincentive to rideshare or use transit as once on arterial streets, commuters using alterative transportation modes have no perceived advantage over solo vehicle drivers. • Lastly, an interconnected multi -jurisdictional traffic signal system serves as a pre -cursor infrastructure to the eventual deployment of Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) projects. BRT has been proven to attract solo vehicle drivers to transit and therefore leads to an increased LOS for the roadway(s) on which it is deployed. The first sentence regarding commuter assistance in the Measure A reads that "A systematic program will be implemented that encourages the use of commuter bus, car pools and van pools to make our existing highway system work better during congested rush hour periods" . The three reasons spoken to the above all apply to a systematic program of improvements that would benefit ridesharing and transit use by increasing system efficiency and accordingly, point to the conclusion that this proposed project does meet the spirit and intent of Measure A. Accordingly, staff is recommending that the Commission provide $50,000 in 1989 Measure A Commuter Assistance funds as a portion of the required local match. Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: No Year: FY2009/10 Amount: $50,000 Source of Funds: Measure A Commuter Assistance Budget Adjustment: yes GLA No.: 226 41 81030 2199 Fiscal Procedures Approved: \Y��svy-te„ Date: 2/12/09 Agenda Item 11 • 28