HomeMy Public PortalAbout02 February 9, 2009 Technical Advisory86506
TIME: .
DATE:
LOCATION:
TEGINICAL ADVISORY COMMIT'
MEETING AGENDA*
if:00 A.M.
February 9, 2009
Beaumont City Hall
Conference Room #2
550 East Sixth Street
Beaumont, CA 92223
Records
*By request, agenda and inbautes may be available in alternative format; i.e. large print, tape.
COMMITTEE MEMBERS
Wave Barakian, City of Palm Springs
ill Bayne, City of Cathedral City
Tom Boyd, City of Riverside
Duane Burk, City of Banning
Ron Carr, City of Perris
Kip Field, City of Corona
Mike Gow, City of Hemet
Mark Greenwood, City of Palm =Desert
Patrick Nally, Ca'trans.District 8
Bruce Harry, City of Rancho Mirage
Jonathan Hoy, City of Desert Hot Springs
Bill Hughes, City of Temecula
Tim Jonasson, City of La Quiff
Michael Kashiwagi, City of Wikkirriar
Eunice Lovi, SunLine Transit
Habib Motlagh, Cities of Canyon Lake San Jacinto
Les Nelson, PVVTA
Juan Perez, County of Riverside
Tom Rafferty, City of Indio
Jim Rodkey, City of Blythe
Anne Schneider, City of Calimesa
Ken Seumalo, City of Lake Elsinore
Mark Stanley, Riverside Transit Agency
Ruthanne Taylor Berger, WRCOG
Patrick Thomas, City of Murrieta
Bill Thompson, Gty of Norco
Paul Toor, City of Coachella
Chris Vogt, City of Moreno Valley
Allyn Waggle, CVAG
Tim Wassil, City of Indian Wells
John Wilder, City of Beaumont
Commission Staff
;Anne Mayer, Executive Director .
SBriar Programming and Planning Manager
11.36.02
"
"
R I V E R S I D E C O U N T Y T R A N S P O R T A T I O N
C O M M I S S I O N
T E C H N I C A L A D V I S O R Y C O M M I T T E E M E E T I N G A G E N D A *
* A c t i o n s m a y b e t a k e n o n a n y i t e m l i s t e d o n t h e a g e n d a .
T I M E : 1 0 : 0 0 A . M .
D A T E : F e b r u a r y 9 , 2 0 0 9
L O C A T I O N : B e a u m o n t C i t y H a l l
C o n f e r e n c e R o o m # 2
5 5 0 E a s t S i x t h S t r e e t
B e a u m o n t , C A 9 2 2 2 3
I n c o m p l i a n c e w i t h t h e A m e r i c a n s w i t h D i s a b i l i t i e s A c t a n d g o v e r n m e n t C o d e S e c t i o n 5 4 9 5 4 . 2 , i f y o u
n e e d s p e c i a l a s s i s t a n c e t o p a r t i c i p a t e i n a C o m m i t t e e m e e t i n g , p / e a s e c o n t a c t R i v e r s i d e C o u n t y
T r a n s p o r t a t i o n C o m m i s s i o n a t ( 9 5 1 ) 7 8 7 - 7 1 4 1 . N o t i f i c a t i o n o f a t l e a s t 4 8 h o u r s p r i o r t o m e e t i n g t i m e w i l l
a s s i s t s t a f f i n a s s u r i n g t h a t r e a s o n a b l e a r r a n g e m e n t s c a n b e m a d e t o p r o v i d e a c c e s s i b i l i t y a t t h e m e e t i n g .
1 . C A L L T O O R D E R
2 . S E L F - I N T R O D U C T I O N S
3 . A P P R O V A L O F M I N U T E S
4 . P U B L I C C O M M E N T S ( T h i s i s f o r c o m m e n t s o n i t e m s n o t l i s t e d o n a g e n d a .
C o m m e n t s r e l a t i n g t o a n i t e m o n t h e a g e n d a w i l l b e t a k e n w h e n t h e i t e m i s
b e f o r e t h e C o m m i t t e e . )
5 : M O B I L E S O U R C E A I R P O L L U T I O N R E D U C T I O N R E V I E W C O M M I T T E E ' S F Y
2 0 0 8 / 0 9 L O C A L G O V E R N M E N T M A T C H P R O G R A M ( A t t a c h m e n t )
6 . F E D E R A L E C O N O M I C S T I M U L U S ( A t t a c h m e n t )
7 . R T I P U P D A T E ( A t t a c h m e n t )
8 . L O C A L A S S I S T A N C E U P D A T E ( V e r b a l P r e s e n t a t i o n )
9 . R i v T A M M O D E L U S E R G R O U P
Technical Advisory Committee Meeting
February 9, 2009
Page 2
10. TRADE CORRIDORS IMPROVEMENT FUNDS - UTILITY RELOCATION
(Attachment)
11. COMMISSION MEETING HIGHLIGHTS (Attachment)
12. OTHER BUSINESS
13. ADJOURNMENT (The next meeting will be March 16, 2009, 10:00 A.M., in
Riverside.)
MUTES
TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING
MINUTES
Monday, January 12 2009
Call to Order
The meeting of the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC)
Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) was called to order at 10:00 A.M, at
Riverside County Transportation Commission, 4080 Lemon Street, Riverside, CA.
2. Self -Introductions
Members Present: Dave Barakian, City of Palm Springs
Ed Basubas, City of Lake Elsinore
Bill Bayne, City of Cathedral City
Tom Boyd, City of Riverside
Greg Butler, City of Temecula
Mike Gow, City of Hemet
Mark Greenwood, City of Palm Desert
Patrick Nally, Caltrans District
Bruce Harry, City of Rancho Mirage
Alfonso Hernandez, SunLine Transit Agency
Jonathan Hoy, City of Desert Hot Springs
Tim Jonasson, City of La Quinta
Prem Kumar, City of Moreno Valley
Kahono Oei, City of Banning
Juan Perez, County of Riverside
Tom Rafferty, City of Indio
Scott Richardson, Riverside Transit Agency
Jim Rodkey, City of Blythe
Patty Romo, County of Riverside
Patrick Thomas, City of Murrieta
Paul Toor, City of Coachella
Tim Wassil, City of Indian Wells
Others Present:
•
Grace Alvarez, RCTC
Cathy Bechtel, RCTC
Patricia Castillo, RCTC
Lisa .DaSilva, RCTC
Stan Dery, County of Riverside
Martha Durbin, RCTC
Technical Advisory Committee Meeting
January 12, 2009
Page 2
Eliza Echevarria, RCTC
Shirley Gooding, RCTC
Brian Guillot, City of Banning
Steve Hatt, Caltrans District 8
Glenn Higa, County of Riverside
Abunnasr Husain, ROTC
Eric Lewis, City of Moreno Valley
Tanya Love, RCTC
Anne Mayer, RCTC
Shirley Medina, RCTC
Alex Serena, WRCOG
John Standiford, RCTC
Chris Sunde, Cities of Canyon Lake,
Perris & San Jacinto
Andrea Zureick, RCTC
3. Approval of Minutes
Approved with the exception of the first paragraph of agenda item 9, Other
Business, that should be changed to read as follows:
Dave Barakian reported that at last week's CVAG TAC meeting there was
considerable discussion about the interchanges in the Coachella Valley. The City
Managers came down rather hard on CVAG's executive director and consultant
regarding progress. In summary, there is plenty of Measure A money for the
interchanges, even at the current cost estimate, as long as there is STIP money
available.
4. Public Comments
There were no public comments.
5. SB 375 COORDINATION
Shirley Medina, RCTC, stated that SB 375 implements a small portion of AB 32
which requires a reduction of greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2020.
In December, RCTC met with WRCOG and CVAG to discuss coordination of SB
375, and the approach that Riverside County should take in dealing with SCAG
and the subregions within SCAG. There are still some unanswered questions
regarding legislation. RCTC, along with many other counties in the state, would
like to get clean up language in regards to the projects financed by voter
approved sales tax measures grandfathered under SB 375 that would be
•
•
"
"
T e c h n i c a l A d v i s o r y C o m m i t t e e M e e t i n g
J a n u a r y 1 2 , 2 0 0 9
P a g e 3
e x e m p t e d f r o m f u r t h e r e v a l u a t i o n o f p r o j e c t s p e c i f i c i m p a c t s o f g r e e n h o u s e g a s
e m i s s i o n s . I t i s h o p e d t h a t a l l t h e p r o j e c t s i n t h e c u r r e n t R T P w o u l d b e e x e m p t
a s w e l l a s a l l t h e M e a s u r e A p r o j e c t s . A l l t h e o t h e r s e l f h e l p c o u n t i e s w o u l d l i k e
t o m a k e s u r e t h e i r m e a s u r e p r o j e c t s a r e e x e m p t a s w e l l . T h e r e i s a l s o a n i s s u e
w i t h t h e u p d a t e t o t h e R e g i o n a l . H o u s i n g N e e d s A s s e s s m e n t ( R H N A ) w h i c h t h e
S L A G r e g i o n w a s n o t p l a n n i n g t o d o u n t i l 2 0 1 6 . T h e l a n g u a g e i n S B 3 7 5 i s
l e a n i n g t o w a r d s d o i n g a R H N A i n 2 0 1 2 .
T h e r e w i l l b e a m e e t i n g w i t h S C A G , W R C O G a n d C V A G t o d e v e l o p a n a p p r o a c h
t h a t w o u l d w o r k b e s t f o r t h e r e g i o n . C u r r e n t l y , S C A G i s l o o k i n g a t w h a t t h e l o c a l
a g e n c i e s c a n d o t o r e d u c e v e h i c l e m i l e s t r a v e l l e d ( V M T ) a n d l o o k a t t h e i r g e n e r a l
p l a n a n d c u r r e n t z o n i n g , t o i d e n t i f y c e r t a i n z o n e s a n d t r a n s i t o r i e n t e d
d e v e l o p m e n t s , s i m i l a r t o w h a t R i v e r s i d e C o u n t y h a s b e e n w o r k i n g o n l a t e l y a n d
h o p i n g t h a t e a c h c i t y w i l l d o t h e s a m e . T h e r e i s r e c o g n i t i o n t h a t s o m e c i t i e s a r e
i n a b e t t e r p o s i t i o n t o d o t h i s t y p e o f r e z o n i n g t h a t h a v e h i g h e r d e n s i t y t h a n
o t h e r c o u n t i e s o r c i t i e s . T h i s i n f o r m a t i o n w o u l d b e g i v e n t o S C A G a n d S C A G w i l l
r u n t h e m o d e l t o d e t e r m i n e w h e r e t h e S C A G r e g i o n s t a n d s a n d t o i d e n t i f y o t h e r
m e a s u r e s , r e g i o n - w i d e t h a t c a n b e i m p l e m e n t e d . S t a t e w i d e t h e r e w i l l b e a t a s k
f o r c e . S C A G w i l l b e r e p r e s e n t e d a s w e l l a s t h e A i r Q u a l i t y M a n a g e m e n t D i s t r i c t
a n d c o u n t y t r a n s p o r t a t i o n c o m m i s s i o n o r s u b r e g i o n a l a g e n c i e s t o d e t e r m i n e t h e
a p p r o p r i a t e g r e e n h o u s e g a s e m i s s i o n s r e d u c t i o n t a r g e t s . A t t h i s t i m e , S C A G
d o e s n o t w a n t t o s u b a l l o c a t e t h e t a r g e t s ; S C A G p r e f e r s t h e s u b - r e g i o n s t o
p r o p o s e t h e i r o w n G H G e m i s s i o n r e d u c t i o n t a r g e t s . T h e p r o c e s s t o a r r i v e a t t h e
r e q u i r e d G H G l e v e l s w i l l b e a l e n g t h y e f f o r t , i n c l u d i n g c o o r d i n a t i o n w i t h o t h e r
m e t r o p o l i t a n a r e a s t o m e e t o u r s t a t e t a r g e t l e v e l s a n d d o w h a t e v e r w e c a n t o
a p p r o v e c l e a n u p l e g i s l a t i o n t h a t m e e t s o u r n e e d s .
6 . L E G I S L A T I V E U P D A T E
" S T A T E B U D G E T
" F E D E R A L E C O N O M I C R E C O V E R Y
A n n e M a y e r , R C T C , r e p o r t e d t h a t t h e s t a t e b u d g e t i s a d a y - b y - d a y s i t u a t i o n . O n
F r i d a y , t h e s t a t e c o n t r o l l e r d e c i d e d n o t t o p a y c o n t r a c t o r s w h o a r e a w a i t i n g
p r o g r e s s p a y m e n t s o n P r o p o s i t i o n 1 B p r o j e c t s . F u r t h e r , t h e s t a t e c o n t r o l l e r i s
n o t p a y i n g a n y c o n t r a c t o r s o n a n y P r o p 1 B p r o j e c t s .
R C T C h a s o n l y t w o r e l a t i v e l y s m a l l p r o j e c t s t h a t c o u l d b e a f f e c t e d o n e i s t h e
C i t y o f R i v e r s i d e ' s C o l u m b i a G r a d e S e p a r a t i o n p r o j e c t a n d t h e o t h e r i s a l o o p
d e t e c t i o n p r o j e c t . R C T C i s i n r e l a t i v e l y g o o d c o n d i t i o n . O t h e r c o u n t i e s h a v e
p r o j e c t s t h a t a r e h u n d r e d s o f m i l l i o n s o f d o l l a r s c u r r e n t l y i n c o n s t r u c t i o n . T h e y
Technical Advisory Committee Meeting
January 12, 2009
Page 4
are faced with the daunting prospect of having to backfill a lot of money and/or
let the projects shut down.
Ms. Mayer continued by stating that we are likely going to recommend that RCTC
backstop the two projects that are in construction now but this could mean that
every single project we all have with state dollars could be at risk for the next
couple of years. Just the projects we have in the SfIP get $208 million for the
next two years. If the Proposition 113 funds start sliding, it would take away
other resources that the local agencies have available.
She further stated that we are in for a tough couple of years and that she would
not recommend stopping any projects at this point. RCTC has been having
discussions in the Coachella Valley regarding the proposed interchanges along
the I-10 to ensure that the projects get as ready as can be so that if there is
money, they can go out the door.
Regarding the federal stimulus, RCTC is strongly encouraging our Congressional
delegation and in conversations in Sacramento that the money flow through a
formula that follows the RSTP instead of coming directly to the state of
California to be further divided up and/or to go through another state legislation
process. We've seen some proposals now that say that half of our money would
have to be spent in the first 90 days, the other half possibly in a year.
She advised that if any of the local agencies have projects that could be ready to
go on the bubble, make sure that Shirley Medina knows about it because if we
do receive money and we get a 90-day time period to spend the money, we
need to make sure that our highest priority is not necessarily splitting up the
money so everybody gets a piece of it. We have to have some reality in the list
that we have.
Ms. Mayer commented that the next couple months will be very tough and if the
federal stimulus funds are realized, it will be helpful but it will not get us out of
the current situation, considering the funding levels at the state. RCTC is taking
a revised projection and a mid -year revenue adjustment to the Commission
meeting on Wednesday. RCTC anticipated receiving $135 million in Measure A
receipts this year; mid -year revenue adjustments are now $126 million. We are
holding $126 million for next year's number. That will be the starting point for
RCTC's budget for next year. Compared to a couple of years ago, Measure A
receipts were at $155 million.
•
•
Technical Advisory Committee Meeting
January 12, 2009
Page 5
In response to a question of whether the federal economic stimulus money for
the projects will have to follow federal guidelines, Ms. Mayer stated that RCTC is
advocating that they get an exception of some kind. The fear is that the federal
economic stimulus funds will all of a sudden federalize a project that you would
not normally federalize, which is why our strategy should be to put the money on
projects that are already federalized so that we do not further complicate or
delay the project delivery. In an ideal world, this money would come straight to
us to spend without going through all the hoops.
Patrick Hally, Ca!trans, concurred with Ms. Mayer report, adding that everyday
there is new discussion about the proposed federal economic stimulus package.
Ms. Mayer stated that if a local agency gave RCTC a project on the 90-day list
that really is not a 90-day project, RCTC should be made aware of that.
Likewise, if a local agency has a project that it knows can be delivered, the goal
is to get the money spent in Riverside County as quickly as possible without
delaying anything further. There have been side comments that when they say
they want Federal money spent in 90 days, usually the accompanying comment
by the people who are listening is, "We can't even get any paperwork processed
in 90 days, even if we were ready to go today." She further stated that
everything that we are communicating includes a message about streamlining,
exceptions, exemptions. There has to be something different done. Failing
changes in process, we need to put the money on projects that are already
federalized because it will have a ripple effect.
John Standiford offered that the state should resolve its budget so they can do
the projects they've already committed to do rather than using this as some sort
of back up to bail them out. Ideally, the state passes a budget and some of
these STIP projects that we're worried about, Proposition 1B projects, can
continue to move forward instead of giving them essentially a free pass with the
stimulus and in a sense excusing them of that obligation.
Mr. Boyd stated that there are numerous lists generated by different groups for
stimulus purposes, and he has been operating on the basis that those lists are
more of an idea to gauge how much work is out there and that probably this is
not going to come down as project by project specific.
Ms. Mayer responded that it will not.
•
Technical Advisory Committee Meeting
January 12, 2009
Page 6
7. STATE -LOCAL PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM GUIDELINES
Shirley Medina reported that the State -Local Partnership Program Guidelines
were approved by the CTC at the December meeting. There is a $200 million
allocation for FY 2008/09. The program calls for project submittals in February
but at the upcoming CTC meeting, no Prop 1B allocations will be made due to
the state budget problem. She stated that she will keep the TAC updated on
when the guidelines will be updated for submittal. The funds are to match
construction — 50/50 minimum match. The competitive grant program is $1
million per project while the 950/0 formula distribution is by formula and Riverside
County gets $11 million.
8. CALTRANS UTILITIES UPDATE
Shirley Medina introduced Steve Hatt, Caltrans District 8. Mr. Hatt stated that in
the past, the department as well as local agencies has been unable to contact or
work with utility companies prior to approval of environmental documents. He
also stated that the definition of preliminary engineering has been expanded to
include all utility relocation planning up to but not including the actual notice to
utility owners. Requirements that must be met are that the project has to be
approved; funded; preferred alternative selected; and design plans of sufficient
quantity and quality (65% complete), to allow the utility owners to begin their
utility relocation planning efforts.
Caltrans would like to address this on a case -by -case, project -by -project, basis,
sit down with the local agency, its consultant , Caltrans design oversight and
Caltrans utility unit, to figure out if there is a good candidate project. Caltrans
does not want to create a situation where it ends up with wasted work and it has
to pay utility owners for work that was not necessary. The utility industry has its
own capital improvement projects; therefore, Caltrans wants to be sure that
projects are not started prematurely. He stated that he is aware of some current
projects in Riverside County that probably meet these requirements.
Mr. Hatt responded to various questions. In response a question regarding the
issue of cost sharing for the utility relocations within the state right of way, Mr.
Hatt stated that the director has not made a final decision. in response to a
question of whether or not a decision had been made as to Caltrans involvement
if the right of way is completely off the state right of way, Juan Perez, County of
Riverside, said that there are a number of issues that have gone through a
committee concerning who would pay for what as well as whether or not the
work is physically within the state right of way or if it should be all work
•
•
"
"
T e c h n i c a l A d v i s o r y C o m m i t t e e M e e t i n g
J a n u a r y 1 2 , 2 0 0 9
P a g e 7
a s s o c i a t e d w i t h t h e p r o j e c t e v e n i f i t i s n ' t . I t i s h o p e d t h a t i t w i l l b e c l a r i f i e d v e r y
s o o n .
9 . L O C A L A S S I S T A N C E U P D A T E
P a t r i c k H a l l y , C a ! t r a n s D i s t r i c t 8 , t h a n k e d t h e l o c a l a g e n c i e s f o r t h e i r r e s p o n s e t o
t h e s t i m u l u s l i s t . H e s t a t e d t h a t p r o j e c t s s h o u l d n o t h a v e b e e n r e m o v e d f r o m
t h e l i s t , a s i t w a s p r e p a r e d , t o d e t e r m i n e f u n d i n g n e e d e d t o g e t t r a n s p o r t a t i o n
p r o j e c t s u n d e r w a y a n d c o n s t r u c t i o n g o i n g . W i t h i n t w o m o n t h s o f t h e n e w
a d m i n i s t r a t i o n , n e w g u i d e l i n e s w i l l b e g o i n g o u t t h a t w i l l g i v e b e t t e r g u i d a n c e a s
t o w h a t t y p e o f p r o j e c t a r e w a n t e d a n d w h a t p r o j e c t s w i l l b e s e l e c t e d .
1 0 . O N L I N E M I L E S T O N E R E P O R T I N G
A n d r e a Z u r e i c k , R O T C , s a i d t h a t f o r t h e p a s t s e v e r a l y e a r s R C T C h a s b e e n
w o r k i n g w i t h a : c o n s u l t a n t t o d e v e l o p a w e b - b a s e d p r o j e c t m a n a g e m e n t
d a t a b a s e . T h e p u r p o s e o f t h e d a t a b a s e i s t o c r e a t e a c e n t r a l s t o r a g e s y s t e m f o r
p r o g r a m m i n g i n f o r m a t i o n f r o m t h e R e g i o n a l T r a n s p o r t a t i o n I m p r o v e m e n t
P r o g r a m ( R T I P ) , t h e R e g i o n a l T r a n s p o r t a t i o n P l a n ( R T P ) a n d t h e P r o j e c t
M i l e s t o n e R e p o r t s t h a t t h e a g e n c i e s h a v e b e e n s u b m i t t i n g q u a r t e r l y o n t h e
p r o j e c t s f o r w h i c h R C T C h a s a w a r d e d f u n d i n g .
I n t h e n e a r f u t u r e , R C T C c o n s u l t a n t , C i v i c R e s o u r c e G r o u p ( C R G ) , w i l l p r o v i d e
t r a i n i n g t o t h e l o c a l a g e n c i e s o n t h e u s e o f t h e d a t a b a s e s o t h a t t h e m i l e s t o n e
r e p o r t s f o r t h e f i r s t q u a r t e r o f 2 0 0 9 c a n b e e n t e r e d d i r e c t l y i n t o t h e d a t a b a s e .
M s . Z u r e i c k p r o v i d e d a v i s u a l o v e r v i e w o f t h e d a t a b a s e a n d r e s p o n d e d t o r e l a t e d
q u e s t i o n s .
1 1 . R T I P U P D A T E
G r a c e A l v a r e z , R O T C , s t a t e d t h a t a p p r o v a l o f t h e 2 0 0 8 R T P a n d 2 0 0 8 R T I P
A m e n d m e n t n u m b e r 1 i s a n t i c i p a t e d l a t e r t h i s m o n t h p e r S C A G ' s u p d a t e o f
J a n u a r y 9 .
B a s e d o n t h e n e e d t o i n c o r p o r a t e a d d i t i o n a l p r o j e c t c h a n g e s t o t h e 2 0 0 8 R T P ,
S C A G m a y b e o p e n i n g u p a s e c o n d 2 0 0 8 R T P a m e n d m e n t i n t h e s p r i n g o f 2 0 0 9 .
R C T C s t a f f s u g g e s t s t h a t t h e l o c a l a g e n c i e s r e v i e w t h e i r p r o j e c t s a n d i d e n t i f y a n y
s c o p e o f w o r k c h a n g e s , c o s t c h a n g e s , a n d / o r c o m p l e t i o n d a t e c h a n g e s t h a t a r e
a l l o w e d o n l y t h r o u g h a n R T P a m e n d m e n t , f o r i n c l u s i o n i n t h i s u p c o m i n g
a m e n d m e n t .
Technical Advisory Committee Meeting
January 12, 2009
Page 8
As notified via e-mail on November 20, the 2008 RTIP was officially approved by
the Federal Highway Administration and Federal Transit Administration on
November 17, 2008. The 2008 RTIP project listing can be downloaded from
SCAG's website at www.scag.ca.gov or you may e-mail - your request to Grace
Alvarez. She will provide you with a project listing and/or detailed project sheet
report for your agency.
The 2008 RTIP amendment number 2 was approved by Caltrans on January 8.
Federal Highway Administration and Federal Transit Administration approval is
February 2009.
The 2008 RTIP amendment number 3 was a special submittal by another RTPA
for the approval of an urgency project.
The 2008 RTIP administrative modification number 4, consisting of two projects,
was submitted to SCAG on Friday, January 9. The anticipated approval of this
administrative modification is late February 2009.
The next amendment to the 2008 RTIP will be due to SCAG on February 20,
2009. RCTC has received approximately 60 projects for inclusion. The projects
to be included in this amendment are projects that meet the criteria for a formal
amendment and/or that RCTC was not able to include in previous amendments
as other project changes had previously been included in amendments currently
under review. Under SCAG's current RTIP guidelines, project changes must be
officially approved by the funding agencies prior to their inclusion in new
amendments. Submittal of project changes by the local agencies will be received
by RCTC up to January 30, 2009.
12. COMMISSION MEETING HIGHLIGHTS
Shirley Medina reported that the Coachella Valley Association of
government/SunLine Transit. Agency CMAQ Audit Resolution item was approved
at the December 10 Commission meeting and an MOU is being worked on with
Caltrans to outline the payback of the $5 million that was disallowed. From the
CVAG CMAQ call for projects, two of SunLine projects were deprogrammed and
one project from Palm Desert reduced by $800,000. Future appropriations from
the next transportation act will be used for the Salton Sea Air Basin and be
applied to the South Coast Air Basin. Ms. Medina thanked Caltrans District 8 for
allowing the flexibility.
John Standiford, RCTC, announced that there will be an extra Commission
meeting. The annual Commission Workshop will be held February 5 and 6 in
Palm Desert at the Embassy Suites.
•
•
•
"
"
"
T e c h n i c a l A d v i s o r y C o m m i t t e e M e e t i n g
J a n u a r y 1 2 , 2 0 0 9
P a g e 9
T h e H i g h S p e e d R a i l p r o g r a m w a s a l s o d i s c u s s e d a t t h e C o m m i s s i o n m e e t i n g .
T h e H i g h S p e e d R a i l C o m m i s s i o n i s m o v i n g o n t h e p l a n n i n g o f t h i s p r o j e c t .
T h e r e w i l l b e m o n t h l y S t a k e h o l d e r m e e t i n g s . T h e R C T C C o m m i s s i o n i s
r e c o m m e n d i n g l o o k i n g a t t h e I - 1 5 c o r r i d o r a s w e l l a s a n I - 2 1 5 c o r r i d o r t h a t i s
c u r r e n t l y o n t h e i r m a p . M r . S t a n d i f o r d u r g e d t h e l o c a l a g e n c i e s t h a t r e c e i v e d t h e
i n f o r m a t i o n f r o m t h e H i g h S p e e d R a i l C o m m i s s i o n t o a t t e n d t h e S t a k e h o l d e r
m e e t i n g s .
C o m m i s s i o n o f f i c e r s w e r e e l e c t e d f o r 2 0 0 9 a s f o l l o w s :
B o b M a g e e , C i t y o f L a k e E l s i n o r e , C h a i r
S u p e r v i s o r B o b B u s t e r , F i r s t V i c e C h a i r
R i c h a r d K e l l y , C i t y o f P a l m D e s e r t , S e c o n d V i c e C h a i r
H e p r o v i d e d a s t a f f r e p o r t f o r t h e J a n u a r y 1 4 , 2 0 0 9 C o m m i s s i o n m e e t i n g
r e g a r d i n g S o u t h e r n C a l i f o r n i a ' s N a t i o n a l P o l i c y P r i o r i t i e s f o r t h e N e x t F e d e r a l
T r a n s p o r t a t i o n A u t h o r i z a t i o n B i l l . M r . S t a n d i f o r d s t a t e d t h a t C a ! t r a n s h a s p a s s e d
p r i o r i t i e s f o r t h e n e x t F e d e r a l T r a n s p o r t a t i o n A u t h o r i z a t i o n B i l l . T h e S o u t h e r n
C a l i f o r n i a a g e n c i e s h a v e i n c o r p o r a t e d i t i n t o a m o r e S o u t h e r n C a l i f o r n i a t y p e o f
d o c u m e n t . T h e q u e s t i o n w i l l b e w h e t h e r o r n o t r e a u t h o r i z a t i o n i s s o m e w h a t p u t
a s i d e f o r t h e t a l k o f s t i m u l u s t a k e s p r e c e d e n c e i n t h e c o m i n g y e a r .
1 3 . O T H E R B U S I N E S S
T a n y a L o v e , R C T C , p r o v i d e d t h e M o b i l e S o u r c e A i r P o l l u t i o n R e d u c t i o n R e v i e w
C o m m i t t e e ( M S R C ) F Y 2 0 0 8 / 0 9 W o r k P r o g r a m D r a f t , a n o v e r v i e w o f w h a t w a s
a n n o u n c e d a t t h e M S R C m e e t i n g . S h e i n d i c a t e d t h a t t h e M S R C w i l l h a v e a c a l l
f o r p r o j e c t s f o r $ 3 m i l l i o n . I t i s a n t i c i p a t e d t h a t t h e c a l l w i l l b e r e l e a s e d F e b r u a r y
6 , 2 0 0 9 . T h e r e i s a c o u n t y m i n i m u m o f $ 3 7 5 , 0 0 0 . S h e e n c o u r a g e d t h e l o c a l
a g e n c i e s t o a p p l y f o r t h e f u n d s .
M s . L o v e u p d a t e d t h e r o s t e r t o i n c l u d e t h e T e c h n i c a l A d v i s o r y C o m m i t t e e . O n
M a r c h 4 t h e r e w i l l b e a n a p p l i c a t i o n w o r k s h o p a n d t h e e a r l i e s t d a t e f o r
a p p l i c a t i o n s u b m i s s i o n i s M a r c h 2 4 .
S h e f u r t h e r e x p l a i n e d t h a t t h e r e a r e s i x c a t e g o r i e s i n t h e m a t c h p r o g r a m . T w o
o f t h e m a r e n e w c a t e g o r i e s , w h i c h a r e t h e E m e r g e n c y R e s p o n s e V e h i c l e a n d t h e
E m e r g e n c y R e s p o n s e V e h i c l e R e - P o w e r s & V D E C S R e t r o f i t s . M s . L o v e a l s o
h i g h l i g h t e d t h a t t h e r e i s a M u l t i - J u r i s d i c t i o n a l S i g n a l S y n c h r o n i z a t i o n .
M s . L o v e o f f e r e d t o h a v e t h e M S R C s t a f f o r c o n s u l t a n t ' s s t a f f p r o v i d e a
p r e s e n t a t i o n a t t h e n e x t T A C m e e t i n g o n t h e a c t u a l c a l l .
Technical Advisory Committee Meeting
January 12, 2009
Page`10
A request was made that the maximum MSRC match amount per vehicle is
increased from $25,000 to $50,000.
Ms. Love indicated that she will provide her e-mail address for anyone wishing to
make further comments regarding the MSRC call.
14. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business for consideration by the Technical Advisory
Committee, the meeting adjourned at approximately 11:15. The next meeting is
scheduled for February 9, 2009, 10:00 A.M., Beaumont City Hall, Conference
Room #2, 550 East Sixth Street, Beaumont.
Respectfully submitted,
Shirley. Medi
Programming and Planning Manager
•
AGENDA ITEM 5
"
"
"
R I V E R S I D E C O U N T Y T R A N S P O R T A T I O N C O M M I S S I O N
D A T E :
F e b r u a r y 9 , 2 0 0 9
T O :
T e c h n i c a l A d v i s o r y C o m m i t t e e
F R O M :
T a n y a L o v e , G o o d s M o v e m e n t M a n a g e r
T H R O U G H :
J o h n S t a n d i f o r d , D e p u t y E x e c u t i v e D i r e c t o r
S U B J E C T :
M o b i l e S o u r c e A i r P o l l u t i o n R e d u c t i o n R e v i e w C o m m i t t e e ' s F Y
2 0 0 8 / 0 9 L o c a l G o v e r n m e n t M a t c h P r o g r a m
S T A F F R E C O M M E N D A T I O N :
R e c e i v e a n d f i l e t h e p r e s e n t a t i o n o n t h e M o b i l e S o u r c e A i r P o l l u t i o n R e d u c t i o n R e v i e w
C o m m i t t e e ' s ( M S R C ) F Y 2 0 0 8 / 0 9 L o c a l G o v e r n m e n t M a t c h P r o g r a m .
B A C K G R O U N D I N F O R M A T I O N :
A t t h e J a n u a r y 2 0 0 9 T e c h n i c a l A d v i s o r y C o m m i t t e e ( T A C ) m e e t i n g , C o m m i s s i o n s t a f f m a d e a
b r i e f p r e s e n t a t i o n o n t h e M S R C ' s p r o p o s e d F Y 2 0 0 8 / 0 9 L o c a l G o v e r n m e n t M a t c h P r o g r a m ' s
c a l l f o r p r o j e c t s . C u r r e n t l y t h e d r a f t s o l i c i t a t i o n d o c u m e n t s i d e n t i f y e l i g i b l e c a t e g o r i e s t h a t : a )
w e r e i d e n t i f i e d b y l o c a l g o v e r n m e n t s a s a r e a s w h e r e c l e a n a i r f u n d i n g a s s i s t a n c e w a s
n e e d e d ; b ) w e r e i d e n t i f i e d a s a p p r o p r i a t e A B 2 7 6 6 S u b v e n t i o n F u n d c a t e g o r i e s b y t h e S o u t h
C o a s t A i r Q u a l i t y M a n a g e m e n t D i s t r i c t ( S C A Q M D ) ; a n d , t o t h e m a x i m u m e x t e n t f e a s i b l e ; c )
a r e a c k n o w l e d g e d b y t h e C a l i f o r n i a A i r R e s o u r c e s B o a r d a n d S C A Q M D a s " S I P - c r e d i t a b l e " .
T h e r e c o m m e n d e d t a r g e t e d f u n d i n g l e v e l f o r t h e F Y 2 0 0 8 / 0 9 L o c a l G o v e r n m e n t M a t c h
P r o g r a m i s $ 3 m i l l i o n c o n s i s t i n g o f t h e f o l l o w i n g s i x c a t e g o r i e s :
1 ) A t t e m a t i v e f u e l i n f r a s t r u c t u r e ;
2 ) H e a v y - d u t y a l t e r n a t i v e f u e l v e h i c l e s ;
3 ) R e m o t e f l e e t v e h i c l e d i a g n o s t i c s ;
4 ) E m e r g e n c y r e s p o n s e v e h i c l e r e p o w e r s a n d r e t r o f i t s ;
5 ) O f f - r o a d h e a v y d u t y v e h i c l e r e p o w e r s a n d r e t r o f i t s ; a n d
6 ) M u l t i j u r i s d i c t i o n a l t r a f f i c s i g n a l s y n c h r o n i z a t i o n .
I t i s a n t i c i p a t e d t h a t f i n a l a p p r o v a l t o r e l e a s e t h e c a l l f o r p r o j e c t s w i l l b e a p p r o v e d a t t h e
S C A Q M D s F e b r u a r y 6 , 2 0 0 9 m e e t i n g . I n a n t i c i p a t i o n o f b o a r d a p p r o v a l , M S R C c o n s u l t a n t
s t a f f w i l l p r o v i d e a n o v e r v i e w o f t h e a p p r o v e d F Y 2 0 0 8 / 0 9 L o c a l G o v e r n m e n t M a t c h P r o g r a m
a t t h e F e b r u a r y 9 , 2 0 0 9 T A C m e e t i n g .
F o r F Y 2 0 0 8 / 0 9 , i t i s a n t i c i p a t e d t h a t t h e g e o g r a p h i c a l f u n d i n g m i n i m u m f o r e a c h c o u n t y
l o c a t e d w i t h i n t h e S C A Q M D w i l l b e $ 3 7 5 , 0 0 0 . D u r i n g t h e p r e v i o u s c a l l , R i v e r s i d e C o u n t y
j u r i s d i c t i o n s r e q u e s t e d o n l y $ 1 3 0 , 5 0 0 o f t h e g e o g r a p h i c m i n i m u m ; a s a r e s u l t , t h e f u n d
b a l a n c e o f $ 2 4 4 , 5 0 0 w a s a l l o c a t e d t o o t h e r c o u n t i e s .
MSRC's Local Government Match
Program - FY 2008/2009
Introduction
4 Timeline for RFP
a February 6, 2009 — RFP was released
• March 4, 2009 — voluntary applicant workshop at AOMD in
Diamond Bar from 10-.30-11:30 a.m.
is March 24, 2009— wades( date to submd appficationa
is May 29, 2009 — deadline to submit applications is 5b0 p.m.
4• Funding is distributed on a first -come, first -served basis
2) Purchase of Pie, Heavy -Doty Ail Fuel Vehicles
4- Defined as vehicles with a GVVVR of 14,001 pounds or
greater
+ Eligible alt fuels
a cNG, LNG, LPG, H and/or 14-NG blends, electricity
++ Matching funds
e °rear-for-Ooflar, up to 325,00D per vehicle
Introduction
Be Background on the MSRC
++ Overview of the Local Govemment Match Prog.
a What is it?
a Who is eligible?
a Categories
3 continued from last year
I. New, expended or upgraded an fuel infrastructure
a Purchase of heavy-duty Mt fuel vetltdes
a. Remote fleet vehicle diagnostics
3 new for this year
,. Off -road vehicle equipment re -powers & retrofits
a. Emergency response vehicle re -powers & retrofits
a. Mul6-junsr5dional traffic signal coordination & synchronisation
.Iternative Fuel Infrastructure Projects
0 3 types of projects
,. New alt fuel refusing stations
• Eligible as fuel typee:
- GM. LNG, r.n:NG, Motor vehicle -grade LPG, 1.1 and or H-NG blends
]. Upgrade and expansion of existing att4uel station
• ElgHe projects include, bur are not asked to
- Expansion of fuel storage cepacity; increase in fuel oompyres4on
addition of dale G ay we>oa"5"67 o Vnprdmcia°1M:
aaoe>adxava n Wprade to mullFterd payment reader;
a. Facility modifications s to accommodate an-tuets
EJdggble Proieele include. did are not Tented to:
- Methane detection censors; healer element explosion
proofing; gas evacuation and variation upgrades
4 what funding cannot be used for
P Matching funds
e Dollar -far -Dollar, up to S400,000 per project
3) Remote Fleet Vehicle Diaanosfcs
4. Description of Remote Fleet Vehicle Diagnostic Systems
S Current qualifying systems:
e Network Car
• PexTel Telemetry Systems
a SysTech International
4e What funding cannot be used for-
d• Matching funds
is Dollar -for -Dollar, up to $50,000
per entity
wa+�+•riovaa..ys.,ux..0
eau
_ m,wmw a..+in
4) Off -Road Heavy -Duty Equipment
Re -Powers and Retrofits
C 2 types of projects
r. Re -power of existing equipment with new CARE-raroTied desel engines
- Qualifying vehicles must be motlet yea,2003 and older and include, bul
act not limited to:
Off -road trucks, road graders, earth moves, tMJ dozers,
tractors, large tl forklifts
• Ineligible equip'
- Locomotives, aircraft, refrigeration units, aoti6ary generators,
mama vessels, cranes
• Matching funds
- coats) for -Dollar, up to S50,000 per vehicle fan Include instal/Minn
s Retrofit of existing equipment with CARE -Verified Level 3 Diesel
Emission Control Systems (greater than an 85% reduction in diesel PM)
• Matching hinds
- Doge-for-Dolter, up to S20,000 per vehicle (an include inslaaa ion
costs)
6) Mule-Junsdicecnal Traffic Signal
Coordination & Synchronization
O Project requirements and conditions:
.. Mulible paNdpants requirement
EOellxe oamclp®its
. Other participants 0-e.. consetams)
. tohu application cad options
• Minimum amount of Subvention FundalLaal Funds applied -6% of the teal
Project coat Faro each eligible pEnkipant
it. Eligible projects
fever -update and coonlnation of signal timing plans between adjacent
jurisdiction using mining systems
. Lavel2-PanAase and wslalnibn of compatible signal noominatbn hardware
and software
3 Level3- Trathe management cantor software and communications upgrades
O Matching funds
. $.50 against each dollar or se MS twos mayor bat funds applied mate
pinion, up to a maximum of at50,000 per project
b Eligahe project coats
. oiled sew purchase of tenaa equipment, beware aaa sotMate; mmc
cantrni feebly hardware and software upgrades
9 What funding cannot be used for
5) Emergency Response Vehicle
Re-PaNers & Retrofits
4 Eligible vehicles: medium- and heavy-duty with a GVWR of 6,000
pounds or greater
0 2 types of projects -
,. Re -power of existing veltcles with modal year-2007 or newel diesel or
alternative fuel engines
. Querying vehicles mrsi be model year-2003 and older anti MUM be
exempt from AMA) Rule 1196, which include but are not Smiled to,
emergemy imitates operated by govenanent rreedkal entities for
- Fin, ambulance ads, Ife•savi g cam
• Matching funds
- Dogar-for-Dollar, up to 350,000 per vehicle (an include kutaiatwn
costs)
z Retrofit of edam quardyi g vehicles with CARS -Verified Levet 3 Cassel
Emission Control Systems (greater than an 85%reduction in diesel PM)
matching funds
- Dollar-for-Doilar,up to$20,000 per vehicle {can include installation
ate)
Questions and More Information
The RFP is available on f he MSRC's websRe
www.CieanTransportationFunding.org
9 For General, Administrative or Contractual Questions:
Cynthia Ravenstein, MSRC Contracts Administrator
Phone: 90939E-32E9
E-mad: cvrdhiaaroters ante ortalionfunc ine orty
s3 For Technical Assistance:
Ray Gorski, MSRC Technical Advisor
Phone: 909396-2479
E-mall: raVaitcteardransiwrtationtcmding.ore
4 For Contractual Assistance:
Dealt Hugibanks, AQMD Procurement Manager
Phone: 999-396-2608 -
E-mail: dhtatibanksiEra ndoov
" A D A I T E M 6
"
"
R I V E R S I D E
C O U N T Y T R A N S P O R T A T I O N C O M M I S S I O N
D A T E :
J a n u a r y 2 6 , 2 0 0 9
T O :
B u d g e t a n d I m p l e m e n t a t i o n C o m m i t t e e
F R O M :
A a r o n H a k e , G o v e r n m e n t R e l a t i o n s M a n a g e r
T H R O U G H :
A n n e M a y e r , E x e c u t i v e D i r e c t o r
S U B J E C T :
A m e r i c a n R e c o v e r y a n d R e i n v e s t m e n t A c t o f 2 0 0 9
S T A F F R E C O M M E N D A T I O N :
T h i s i t e m i s f o r t h e C o m m i t t e e t o :
1 ) R e c e i v e a n d F i l e a r e p o r t o n t h e A m e r i c a n R e c o v e r y a n d R e i n v e s t m e n t A c t o f
2 0 0 9 ; a n d
2 ) F o r w a r d t o t h e C o m m i s s i o n f o r f i n a l a c t i o n .
B A C K G R O U N D I N F O R M A T I O N :
T h e t o p p r i o r i t y o f C o n g r e s s a n d t h e P r e s i d e n t i s c u r r e n t l y t h e p a s s a g e o f t h e " A m e r i c a n
R e c o v e r y a n d R e i n v e s t m e n t A c t o f 2 0 0 9 " . T h e l e g i s l a t i o n w i l l a p p r o p r i a t e b i l l i o n s f o r
i n f r a s t r u c t u r e , e n e r g y , e d u c a t i o n , t e c h n o l o g y a n d h e a l t h . T h e l e g i s l a t i o n w i l l a l s o
a u t h o r i z e t a x c u t s . T h e H o u s e h a s i n t r o d u c e d a n d m a r k e d - u p i t s v e r s i o n o f t h e b i l l , a n d
t h e S e n a t e h a s r e l e a s e d a n o u t l i n e o f i t s p r o p o s a l ( a f u l l b i l l i s e x p e c t e d t o b e r e l e a s e d
t h i s w e e k ) . T h e t w o p r o p o s a l s a r e e x p e c t e d t o b e r e c o n c i l e d i n e a r l y - m i d F e b r u a r y i n
C o n f e r e n c e C o m m i t t e e ; C o n g r e s s i o n a l l e a d e r s h i p a n d t h e P r e s i d e n t h a v e s e t
e x p e c t a t i o n s t h a t t h e f i n a l b i l l w i l l b e s i g n e d i n t o l a w b y P r e s i d e n t ' s D a y W e e k e n d .
H o u s e B i l l H i g h l i g h t s
T h e H o u s e b i l l i n c l u d e s $ 3 0 b i l l i o n f o r h i g h w a y s . F i f t y - f i v e p e r c e n t o f t h e m o n e y w i l l b e
d i s t r i b u t e d d i r e c t l y t o s t a t e s a c c o r d i n g t o e x i s t i n g f o r m u l a s t h a t d i v i d e m o n e y b e t w e e n
t h e 5 0 s t a t e s a n d U . S . t e r r i t o r i e s , a n d t h e r e m a i n i n g f o r t y - f i v e p e r c e n t w i l l b e d i s t r i b u t e d
a c c o r d i n g t o a n o t h e r f o r m u l a t h a t s u b - a l l o c a t e s s o m e f u n d s t o r e g i o n s b a s e d o n
p o p u l a t i o n . I n c o m p u t i n g t h e f o r m u l a s , t h e s t a t e s r e c e i v e a p p r o x i m a t e l y 7 5 % o f t h e
h i g h w a y m o n e y , w h i l e t h e u r b a n i z e d a n d r u r a l r e g i o n s r e c e i v e 2 5 % .
F o r r e g i o n s , 5 0 % o f t h e f u n d s m u s t b e o b l i g a t e d f o r p r o j e c t s w i t h i n 1 5 0 d a y s o f
e n a c t m e n t o f t h e l e g i s l a t i o n . S t a t e s h a v e 1 8 0 d a y s t o o b l i g a t e t h e f i r s t 5 0 % o f t h e i r
f u n d s . T h e r e m a i n i n g f u n d s m u s t b e o b l i g a t e d n o l a t e r t h a n A u g u s t 1 , 2 0 1 0 .
A n o t h e r s i g n i f i c a n t p a r t o f t h e H o u s e b i l l i s $ 9 b i l l i o n f o r p u b l i c t r a n s p o r t a t i o n . T r a n s i t
c a p i t a l r e c e i v e s $ 6 b i l l i o n d i s t r i b u t e d a c c o r d i n g t o e x i s t i n g S A F E T E A - L U f o r m u l a s u n d e r
S e c t i o n s 5 3 0 7 ( f o r u r b a n i z e d a r e a s ) a n d 5 3 1 1 f o r r u r a l a r e a s . $ 2 b i l l i o n i s i n v e s t e d i n t o
f i x e d - g u i d e w a y i n f r a s t r u c t u r e , a n d $ 1 b i l l i o n i s g i v e n t o p r o j e c t s i n t h e N e w a n d S m a l l
Starts program that can be awarded within 120 days of enactment. Intercity passenger
rail is given $300 million for use within 180 days for rolling stock and projects that
support the development of high speed rail.
Common to all categories of transportation spending in the House bill is the allowance
for 100% federal cost -share of projects funded by this legislation. This elimination of
local matching requirements is intended to provide flexibility to states and local
agencies. Additionally, the bill requires "maintenance of effort" by .grant recipients,
generally meaning that agencies cannot reduce or supplant funding that was previously
planned for projects. Congress intends for these funds to have additive effect, rather
than replacing money and letting agencies "off the hook" for commitments they already
intended to follow through on. Further, the bill requires a high level of transparency and
accountability, including extensive amounts of information on contracts and bidding
online on federal government websites.
Senate Proposal Outline
At this time, the full Senate bill is not available; however the Senate Appropriations
Committee (the committee of jurisdiction for this legislation), has released an outline of
what will be in the Senate version of the bill. This outline includes:
• $27 billion for formula highway investments.
• $8.4 billion for formula investments in public transportation.
• $5.5 billion for competitive grants to state and local governments for surface
transportation investments.
• $1.1 billion for investments in rail transportation.
Riverside County impact and advocacy efforts
The funding structure in the House version of the bill is expected to yield approximately
$36 million directly to the Commission for highways. An unknown sum of money would
be distributed to Riverside County. STIP projects, depending on how the state decides to
spend the money it receives among maintenance and preservation projects, and STIP
projects. It is not yet known what formula process the Senate will use. Eventually the
House and Senate versions will have to be reconciled in Conference.
What has been evident throughout the negotiation of this legislation is the role of
Congressional leadership in crafting the structure and dollar figures of the bill. Further,
while in the early stages of public discussion about a "stimulus" bill, infrastructure was
one of the cornerstones of the plan, January saw infrastructure shrink as tax cuts were
introduced into the picture.
Programming and administrative challenges
•
s
•
i
•
Of what is known of the Senate bill and the. full House bill, neither appear to waive
current programming and processing regulations, nor does there appear to be any
appetite on the Hill to legislate such expedited measures. Congress is looking to the
new Administration to take ownership of this stimulus program and take the initiative to
streamline its own processes at FHWA and FTA.
Once the: funding amounts and distribution of funds are established in the final bill,
project sponsors will have to program the new funds in the Federal Transportation
Improvement Program (FTIP). In addition, project sponsors will need to prepare
Request for Authorization (RFA) packages to obligate these new federal stimulus funds.
Commission staff is working with the Southern California Association of Governments
(SCAG) to establishthe timelines needed to amend the FTIP as quickly as possible. To
program stimulus funds on projects already included in the FTIP, no public review
process is required. To program new projects into the FTIP, a 15-day public review
process is required. The ideal process to meet time constraints of obligating stimulus
funds is to select projects that are already programmed in the FTIP and consistent with.
current funding. The process to amend the FTIP would require:
2-3 days Commission staff to prepare and submit the amendment
5-7 days SCAG staff to prepare the amendment encompassing all six counties (Los
Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, Ventura, and Imperial);
5-7 days Caltrans to review and approve; and
7-10 days Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Federal Highway Administration
(FHWA), and Federal Transit Agency (FTA) concurrence and approval.
Therefore, the FTIP amendment process could take 19-27 days to complete, which is a
best case scenario. The timeline is also highly dependent upon the number of projects
included in the amendment. More projects would result in a longer timeline.
Once the amendment is federally approved, project sponsors can submit the
RFA/obligation package to Caltrans District 8, Office of Local Assistance. Caltrans
Local Assistance is responsible for processing and submitting the RFA to Caltrans
Headquarters. Since the funds are for construction, numerous forms and documents
must be included in the RFA package that demonstrates the project has met federal
funding regulations from NEPA clearance to inclusion of federal wage rates in the bid
documents. This could take another 7-14 days before the package is submitted to
Caltrans Headquarters and FHWA for approval of the obligation. In order to fast track
the obligation of funds, RFA packages would need to be submitted to Local Assistance
for review prior to the FTIP amendment approval so that once the FTIP amendment is
approved, then Caltrans could immediately submit the RFA to FHWA. Once FHWA
obligates the funds, a Notice to Proceed is sent to the cities allowing them to advertise
for construction.
Programming and RFA Estimated Timeline:
Activity
Estimated # of Days
FTIP Amendment Process
19 - 27 days
RFA/Obligation Process
10 days (if RFA package is deemed
complete and adequate to submit to
FHWA at time of FTIP Amendment
approval)
Total Amount of Processing Time
29 — 37 days
SCAG staff has committed to expediting the FTIP amendment to the extent possible.
Caltrans and FHWA have also committed to processing and approving the FTIP
amendment and RFA's as quickly as possible. This is extremely important so that we
can meet "Use It or Lose It" provisions that will be part of the stimulus bill. Per the
recent House of Representatives Draft bill, project sponsors would need to obligate
funds within 150 days after passage of the bill. Projects would need to be identified for
programming quickly so that the Programming and RFA processes could begin as soon
as possible.
Attachments
House Appropriations Bill Flow Charts
Commission letter to Speaker Pelosi
Economic Stimulus
90-day Candidate Projects
NEPA Clearance, PS&E Complete, Included in FTIP:
Agency Project
Hiphwav Proiects:
Total
DRAFT
Shortfall Comments
Caltrans
1-10 Bob Hope/Ramon IC
$ 40,341
STIP project
Murrieta
1-215 Clinton Keith IC
$ 35,746
RTL
STIP TE Pro iects:
Palm Springs
Gene Autry Tr Gateway
$ 2,000
Allocation Deferred Jan 2009
Riverside
Alessandro Blvd Median
$ 1,893
Allocation Planned Apr 2009
Temecula
SR 79/Winchester
$ 3,405
Transit:
RTA
Corona Transit Center
$ 9,000
Local Federal Proiects
Temecula
Main St Bridge
$ 7,842
Temecula
Park-n-ride, 79 So & La Paz
$ 1,688
NEPA?
Riverside County
Van Buren Bridge
$ 40,625
DRAFT
Economic Stimulus
180-Day Candidate Projects
Regional Project, NEPA Clearance, PS&E Complete or Near Completion, Included in FTIP
Agenc
Proiect
Total
Shortfall
Comments
Riverside
SR 91Nan Buren IC
$ 16,101
STIP project
County of Riverside
1-10 Palm Dr IC
$ 33,415
STIP/I-CRP project
County of Riverside
1-10 Indian IC
$ 33,100
STIP project
County of Riverside
SR 60Nalley Way IC Mod.
$ 10,337
PS&E Complete
Moreno Valley
SR 60/Nason IC
$ 18,000
PS&E Complete
Murrieta
1-15 Cal Oaks IC
$ 37,697
PS&E @ 60%
Corona
SR 91/Serfas Club
$ 3,000
CEQA - need NEPA
Local Federal Grade Separation Projects:
Corona
Auto Center Drive
$ 51,200
PS&E Complete, Need R/W
Riverside
Magnolia/UPRR
$ 32,000
PS&E Status??
emaNng .40 M074
771E1 S OLL 3snoH
9'Z$
pauadx3
064011.8 Z£ 4,14
IVounEildI SIG VIIVH0417177,1
77IG SNOII VIddOdddti 3SnOH
4080 Lernon Street, 3rd Floor • Riverside, CA
Mailing Address: R O. Box 12008 • Riverside, CA 92502-2208
(951) 787-7141 • Fax (951) 787-7920 • www.rdc.org
Riverside County Transportation Commission
January 16, 2009
The Honorable Nancy Pelosi
Speaker of the House
United States House of Representatives
235 Cannon HOB
Washington, DC 20515
Dear Madam Speaker:
The "American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009" as introduced yesterday falls woefully
short of achieving the economic relief sought by Congress or the President-elect for California
and the nation. Recognizing that infrastructure investment is the core of any national jobs
creation plan, infrastructure investment is shockingly minimized and poorly allocated in the draft
bill released by the House Appropriations Committee. On behalf of the 2.1 million people and
31 cities represented by the Riverside County Transportation Commission, I respectfully request
the House consider the following revisions to the "American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of
2009":
1. Adhere to the existing STP formula for highway funds to states and regions.
The proposed bill shortchanges regional governments that deliver transportation
projects by reducing their share of STP funds from 62.5% to 45%. In addition, the
45 percent share is further diluted by sending another one third to the states. In
California, this means sending more dollars to the state Legislature which is
paralyzed by a budget disaster of epic proportions. In a time when spending dollars
quickly to create jobs is the paramount objective, sending this much extra money to
Sacramento risks losing these needed funds to other states. Self-help regional
governments in California can act quickly to spend federal dollars on projects of
short and long term economic significance to California and the nation, and should
be treated fairly as they are in the existing STP formula. Changing the formula in
this bill results in a loss of more than $50 million to Riverside County that it
would ordinarily receive under the existing STP formula.
2. Increase investment levels in transportation infrastructure. The proposed bill
will provide less than $36 million for Riverside County, an urbanized county of
more than 2 million people who are impacted by the heaviest international trade
corridor in North America. This sum of money would limit our ability to pay for
one grade separation or one bridge reconstruction. While every job saved is
important, the $36 million translates into less than 1,000 jobs in a county that has
lost 60,000 just this past year. This is hardly the historic investment that our
nation's current economic crisis warrants or that the President-elect and Congress
•
The Honorable Nancy Pelosi
January 16, 2009
Page 2
have called for. Infrastructure provides good -paying jobs to middle-class families
in the near and mid -terms, but also provides a legacy of economic growth for the
future. This moment calls for Congress to take bolder action and not shy away
from making the necessary investment that will build an economic legacy for the
future.
3. Allow regions the same amount of time as states to award contracts. The
proposed bill allows regional and local governments 30 fewer days to award
contracts for the first 50% of their economic recovery funds than states are allowed.
Although regional and local governments can act nimbly, this 30 day time reduction
may prevent highly economically beneficial projects from moving forward.
Furthermore, by restricting regional and local governments to 90 days to award
contracts, Congress is essentially creating a "pothole" program by limiting
investments to small jobs that will not have long-lasting job creation benefits to
communities, regions, the state, or the nation.
4. Provide direction to the federal bureaucracy to avoid administrative delays.
Congress must clarify that economic recovery funds are considered as administrative
amendments to the Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP). Otherwise, a lengthy
process may ensue to amend transportation planning documents that must receive .
Environmental Protection Agency concurrence and approval by the Federal
Highway Administration (FHWA) that optimally could take up to 2 months, and
possibly more. If we are to deliver projects within 90 days to immediately create
jobs, we cannot allow 60 of those days to be consumed with red tape. Congress can
easily provide this relief without weakening environmental or wage -related laws by
including special provisions in the bill that call for the development of an expedited
programming amendment process.
As you know the Inland Empire suffers among the highest unemployment and home foreclosure
rates in Califomia and even the nation. There is a historic opportunity before us to rebuild our
communities, boost employment, improve air quality, and turn the recession around. l firmly
believe this cause is worthy of bolder legislation. I implore Congress to seize this opportunity,
lest we may wind up claiming a hollow victory upon enactment of this bill. Instead I would urge
making an investment that our children and grandchildren will look back upon and literally see
that, in this time of crisis, our leaders built a prosperous future for America.
Sincerely
Robert E. Magee, Chairman
Riverside County Transportation Commission
DA ITEM 7
"
"
R I V E R S I D E C O U N T Y T R A N S P O R T A T I O N C O M M I S S I O N
D A T E :
F e b r u a r y 9 , 2 0 0 9
T O :
T e c h n i c a l A d v i s o r y C o m m i t t e e
F R O M :
A n d r e a Z u r e i c k , S e n i o r S t a f f A n a l y s t
G r a c e A l v a r e z , S t a f f A n a l y s t
T H R O U G H :
S h i r l e y M e d i n a , P r o g r a m m i n g a n d P l a n n i n g M a n a g e r
S U B J E C T "
'
2 0 0 8 R e g i o n a l T r a n s p o r t a t i o n P l a n ( R T P ) a n d R e g i o n a l T r a n s p o r t a t i o n
I m p r o v e m e n t P l a n ( R T I P ) A m e n d m e n t S t a t u s
S T A F F R E C O M M E N D A T I O N :
R e c e i v e a n d F i l e .
B A C K G R O U N D I N F O R M A T I O N :
S i n c e a p p r o v a l o f t h e 2 0 0 8 R T I P ( s h o r t - r a n g e t r a n s p o r t a t i o n p r o g r a m ) i n N o v e m b e r
2 0 0 8 , S C A G h a s p r o c e s s e d f o u r a m e n d m e n t s a n d i s c u r r e n t l y w o r k i n g o n f o u r m o r e
a m e n d m e n t s . I s s u e s a s s o c i a t e d w i t h t h e S t a t e b u d g e t a n d t h e f e d e r a l e c o n o m i c
s t i m u l u s p l a n w i l l l i k e l y r e s u l t i n m a n y n e c e s s a r y u p d a t e s t o t h e R T I P i n t h e c o m i n g
m o n t h s . T a b l e 1 i s a r e c o r d o f i m p o r t a n t d a t e s f o r t h e s e A m e n d m e n t s , b o t h h i s t o r i c a l
a n d a n t i c i p a t e d . S i n c e t h e T e c h n i c a l A d v i s o r y C o m m i t t e e m e e t i n g i n J a n u a r y , S C A G
h a s r e c e i v e d a p p r o v a l o f A m e n d m e n t s 1 , 2 , a n d 4 .
I n a d d i t i o n , T a b l e 2 o u t l i n e s i m p o r t a n t d a t e s f o r t h e 2 0 0 8 R T P ( l o n g - r a n g e
t r a n s p o r t a t i o n p l a n ) . S C A G h a s a n n o u n c e d p l a n s t o i n i t i a t e A m e n d m e n t 2 t o t h e 2 0 0 8
R T P i n S p r i n g 2 0 0 9 , b u t h a s n o t y e t e s t a b l i s h e d a s c h e d u l e f o r s u b m i t t a l s . A m e n d m e n t
1 w a s a p p r o v e d b y F H W A o n J a n u a r y 1 4 , 2 0 0 9 .
"
"
T a b l e 1 - 2 0 0 8 R e g i o n a l T r a n s p o r t a t i o n I m p r o v e m e n t P r o g r a m I m p o r t a n t D a t e s
2 0 0 8 R T I P
D o c u m e n t
p u r p o s e
D u e t o R C T C
D u e t o S C A G
A p p r o v e d b y
S C A G
A p p r o v e d b y
C T / F H W A
F i n a l
7 / 1 4 / 2 0 0 8
1 1 / 1 7 / 2 0 0 8
A m e n d m e n t 1
C o n s i s t e n c y w i t h 2 0 0 8
R T P A m e n d m e n t 1 6 3
p r o j e c t s s u b m i t t e d
7 / 1 8 / 2 0 0 8
7 / 3 0 / 2 0 0 8
1 2 / 8 / 2 0 0 8
1 / 1 4 / 2 0 0 9
A m e n d m e n t 2
F o r m a l A m e n d m e n t
9 0 p r o j e c t s s u b m i t t e d
9 / 2 3 / 2 0 0 8
1 0 / 2 2 / 2 0 0 8
1 2 / 3 0 / 2 0 0 8
2 / 2 / 2 0 0 9
A m e n d m e n t 3
- - D i d n o t i n c l u d e R i v e r s i d e C o u n t y p r o j e c t s
A m e n d m e n t 4
A d m i n i s t r a t i v e
M o d i f i c a t i o n 2 p r o j e c t s
s u b m i t t e d
1 2 / 8 / 2 0 0 8
1 / 1 2 / 2 0 0 9
1 / 2 8 / 2 0 0 9
1 / 2 9 / 2 0 0 9
A m e n d m e n t 5
- - E c o n o m i c S t i m u l u s R e v e n u e A m e n d m e n t D o e s n o t i n c l u d e p r o j e c t s - -
A m e n d m e n t 6
E m e r g e n c y F o r m a l
A m e n d m e n t 1 5
p r o j e c t s s u b m i t t e d
2 / 2 / 2 0 0 9
M a r c h 2 0 0 9
M a r c h 2 0 0 9
A m e n d m e n t 7
E c o n o m i c S t i m u l u s
A d m i n i s t r a t i v e
M o d i f i c a t i o n
2 / 9 / 2 0 0 9
2 / 1 8 / 2 0 0 9
M a r c h 2 0 0 9
A m e n d m e n t 8
E c o n o m i c S t i m u l u s
F o r m a l A m e n d m e n t
2 / 9 / 2 0 0 9
M a r c h 2 0 0 9
M a r c h 2 0 0 9
A m e n d m e n t 9
F o r m a l A m e n d m e n t
1 / 3 0 / 2 0 0 9
2 / 2 0 / 2 0 0 9
A p r i l 2 0 0 9
M a y 2 0 0 9
A m e n d m e n t 1 0
E c o n o m i c S t i m u l u s
A d m i n i s t r a t i v e
M o d i f i c a t i o n
T B D
T B D
T B D
T B D
A m e n d m e n t 1 1
E c o n o m i c S t i m u l u s
F o r m a l A m e n d m e n t
T B D
T B D
T B D
T B D
T a b l e 2 - 2 0 0 8 R e g i o n a l T r a n s p o r t a t i o n P l a n I m p o r t a n t D a t e s
6 0 0 Z 6 u p d s u i Z ; u e u a p u a u a y s l e w ! o f s u e i d O Y O S
Z L u a u a p u a w y
6 0 0 Z / 1 7 L / L
8 0 0 Z / t / Z L
8 0 0 Z / O E / L
8 0 0 Z / 8 L / L
L l u a u a p u a u a y
8 0 0 Z / 9 / 9
8 0 0 Z / 8 / S
l e u u
V M H d / 1 0
I ( q p a n o a d d d
s y o s A q
p a n o ��d d ��y
��J t / ��S o �� a n a
��1 ��2 i o ; a n a
a s o d a n d
l u e t u n o o a
d i l l 8 0 0 Z
"
"
"
A G E N D A I T E M 8
A p r e s e n t a t i o n w i l l b e m a d e b u t
t h e r e i s n o a t t a c h m e n t t o t h e
a g e n d a f o r i t e m 8 .
"
"
I V D A I T E M 9
A p r e s e n t a t i o n m a y b e m a d e b u t
t h e r e I S n o a t t a c h m e n t t o t h e
a g e n d a f o r i t e m 9 .
" A I T E M 1 0 .
"
"
"
R I V E R S I D E C O U N T Y T R A N S P O R T A T I O N C O M M I S S I O N
D A T E :
F e b r u a r y 9 , 2 0 0 9
T O :
T e c h n i c a l A d v i s o r y C o m m i t t e e
F R O M :
T a n y a L o v e , G o o d s M o v e m e n t M a n a g e r
T H R O U G H :
J o h n S t a n d i f o r d , D e p u t y E x e c u t i v e D i r e c t o r
S U B J E C T :
T r a d e C o r r i d o r s I m p r o v e m e n t F u n d s U t i l i t y R e l o c a t i o n
S T A F F R E C O M M E N D A T I O N :
R e c e i v e a n d p r o v i d e f e e d b a c k o n t h e d e v e l o p m e n t o f a n e x p e d i t e d u t i l i t i e s r e l o c a t i o n p r o c e s s
f o r p r o j e c t s f u n d e d w i t h T r a d e C o r r i d o r s I m p r o v e m e n t F u n d s ( T C I F ) .
B A C K G R O U N D I N F O R M A T I O N :
I n J u l y 2 0 0 7 , $ 1 6 2 . 7 m i l l i o n i n P r o p o s i t i o n 1 B f u n d s w e r e a w a r d e d b y t h e C a l i f o r n i a
T r a n s p o r t a t i o n C o m m i s s i o n f o r 1 2 g r a d e s e p a r a t i o n p r o j e c t s a n d t h e I - 2 1 5 N a n B u r e n
I n t e r c h a n g e . S i n c e t h a t t i m e , S C A G , a s a m e m b e r o f t h e S o u t h e r n C a l i f o r n i a W o r k i n g G r o u p
( W o r k i n g G r o u p ) , w h i c h c o n s i s t s o f a g e n c y s t a f f f r o m t h e C o m m i s s i o n , S C A G , L o s A n g e l e s
C o u n t y M e t r o p o l i t a n T r a n s p o r t a t i o n A u t h o r i t y , O r a n g e C o u n t y T r a n s p o r t a t i o n A u t h o r i t y , S a n
B e r n a r d i n o A s s o c i a t e d G o v e r n m e n t s , P o r t o f L o s A n g e l e s , P o r t o f L o n g B e a c h , A l a m e d a
C o r r i d o r T r a n s p o r t a t i o n A u t h o r i t y , a n d t h e A l a m e d a C o r r i d o r E a s t C o n s t r u c t i o n A u t h o r i t y h a s
r e t a i n e d t h e s e r v i c e s o f G r e e n T e c h C o a s t t o p r o v i d e f o l l o w - u p s e r v i c e s r e l a t e d t o t h e T C I F
f u n d i n g . G r e e n T e c h ' s p r i n c i p a l , W a l t e r B a k e r , w a s a f o r m e r s e n i o r e x e c u t i v e w i t h t h e L o s
A n g e l e s E c o n o m i c D e v e l o p m e n t C o r p o r a t i o n ( L A E D C ) . W h i l e a t L A E D C , M r . B a k e r w o r k e d
w i t h f o u r o f t h e p a s t g o v e r n o r s o f C a l i f o r n i a t o e s t a b l i s h t h e S o u t h e r n C a l i f o r n i a L e a d e r s h i p
C o u n c i l e n a b l i n g b u s i n e s s l e a d e r s f r o m s i x S o u t h e r n C a l i f o r n i a C o u n t i e s t o a d d r e s s p u b l i c
p o l i c y i s s u e s c r i t i c a l t o t h e S o u t h e r n C a l i f o r n i a e c o n o m y a n d q u a l i t y o f l i f e . I n S e p t e m b e r
2 0 0 8 , t h e C o m m i s s i o n a p p r o v e d M r . B a k e r ' s s c o p e o f w o r k i n c l u d i n g t h e d e v e l o p m e n t o f a n
e x p e d i t e d u t i l i t i e s r e l o c a t i o n p r o c e s s f o r T C I F p r o j e c t s . A t t h e F e b r u a r y 9 , 2 0 0 9 T e c h n i c a l
A d v i s o r y C o m m i t t e e , M r . B a k e r w i l l p r o v i d e a n o v e r v i e w o f p r o g r e s s m a d e i n d e v e l o p i n g a
m a s t e r u t i l i t y a g r e e m e n t . H e w i l l a l s o s e e k i n p u t f r o m t h e p u b l i c w o r k s d i r e c t o r s e s p e c i a l l y
t h o s e w i t h T C I F p r o j e c t s r e g a r d i n g e x p e d i t i n g t h e u t i l i t y r e l o c a t i o n a s w e l l a s i n s i g h t
r e g a r d i n g t h e C a l i f o r n i a P u b l i c U t i l i t i e s C o m m i s s i o n ' s i n v o l v e m e n t , i f a n y .
6
600Z `6 kienagad
sluauauaan00 j.o uowpossy
epopeo uaayjnos awl. pue `TJV ` _LOV `8-1 pue V-1
4.o spod `suoiss!wwoo uoppodsueil Aiunoo-5 aui. ol. welinsuoo
077 lseoo coal uaaao
aa)/e8 Allem
Maie..gs pue a.iepdn leuo!Bad
peroid
suopeoo/a2l Minn diaL
Purpose of TCIF Relocation Project
❑ Improve the coordination between utilities
and the TCIF Projects
❑ Reduce the cost, risk and liability
❑ Develop a master agreement process that
can be used by agencies
Our Guiding Principles
❑ Draft process that allocates responsibilities
for work performance, design, construction,
reconnection, cost allocation, easements,
schedules, coordination, indemnifications,
betterments, and disputes resolutions;
❑ Use Work Orders to address individual or
aggregated relocations or protections;
Background
❑ Researched existing model agreements
❑ Began discussion with Investor Owned
Utilities, Ca!trans and railroads
❑ Draft project plan, guiding principles and
schedule
❑ Begin model agreement & regional sessions
Our Guiding Principles
❑ Replace property rights in -kind. New easements
where utilities had previous easement. In cases
where no previous rights are found, revocable
licenses should be provided;
O Reduce risks for independent due diligence review
of project financing;
0 Create dispute resolution process that allows work
to proceed uninterrupted and resolves the dispute
on a separate track.
4
Critical Path Issues
❑ Responsibility for performance of the work.
• Who will perform each element of work? Design?
Conduits? Reconnections? Salvage? Testing?
in Schedule of performance.
What about realistic schedule commitments? Staff
availability?
o Responsibility for payments.
• Payment for each element of work? Estimates? Third
parties?
5
Critical Path Issues
❑ Coordination of Work.
• How should we require coordination of other elements
of work? Other construction?
❑ Indemnification and Insurance.
• What kind of robust indemnification should be
included? Protection of agency and utility?
❑ Audit and Records Retention.
• What about audit and records retention?
Critical Path Issues
O Betterments and Upgrades.
r Who is responsible for betterments or upgrades?
Reimbursements? Property rights?
❑ Property Rights.
How do we address replacement property rights? •
Temp or permanent? License? Franchise?
❑ Expedited Dispute Resolution.
How will it work? Does work stop? Who is liable for
delay costs?
Negri Steps
❑ Presentations and feedback to regions;
❑ Meet with Consensus Group CEO's;
❑ Meet with Utilities, Railroads, and State
Agencies;
❑ Craft a consensus model agreement;
❑ Propose a dispute resolution process.
AG pA ITEM ZZ
issue No. 40 — January 31, 2009
Revenue Declining but Delivering
Projects Continues to be Commission's
Priority
As part of the annual budget process, the Riverside County Transportation
Commission (RCTC) released its revenue projections for FY 2009/10.
Revenue projections included Measure A, the half cent sales tax initiative;
Local`. Transportation Funds (LTF) which consists of funding derived from a 1/4'
cent of the staters general sales tax; State Transit Assistance '(STA) revenues
which are generated from the; statewide sales tax on gasoline and diesel fuel
as well as funding ;from Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fees (TUMF).
TUMF revenuesconsist of fees charged to new developments to ensure they
pay for transportation facilities needed to accommodate growth.
r FY 2009/10, the Measure A revenue projection is $126 million and
venue for ,LTF is projected at $60 million; these sales tax revenue
projections reflect. the downturn in the local economy. TUMF revenue is
projected to be $5 ,million; which reflects the struggling housing market.
RCTC staff did not snake a- revenue projection for. STA funds due to the
uncertainty regarding the state budget.
Despite lower revenue projections, delivering projects continues to be RCTC's'.
priority. Staff will continue to focus on engineering and `environmental work
on projects that, will start .construction within two years including the
widening of SR-91 in downtown Riverside, the widening of I-215 in Murrieta,
the improvement of freeway interchanges in the Coachella Valley and 12
railroad grade separations throughout the county. Public transit is also
seeing much needed investment with the development of a 24-mile Metrolink
extension to Perris and the construction of a new parking structure at the
North Main Corona station.
Lake Elsinore
Mayor Magee is
New Chair of
RCTC
Lake Elsinore Mayor Bob Magee
has been selected by RCTC to
Chair: the organization in 2009.
Riverside .County Supervisor Bob
Buster is the; Commission's new
First Vice Chairman. Palm Desert
Councilman Richard Kelly will
serve as. Second Vice Chair.
Magee was elected to the Lake
Elsinore City Council in 2003 and
became the city's representative
on the Commission. Since his
appointment to RCTC, he has
been active on a number of
committees and served as the
Budget and Implementation
Committee Chair in 2005 and was
the 'representative to the SR-91
Advisory Committee.
Buster was .first elected to the
Riverside County Board of
Supervisors in 1993 and has
actively championed a number of
transportation projects which
included initiating the process to
put the SR-91 Toll Roads back
into public hands.
Dick Kelly was first elected to the
Palm Desert City Council in 1982
and has been a member of the
Commission for over 20 years.
He is an active participant in a
number of regional' organizations
and was past Chairman of
SunLine Transit Agency.
Irvine Corona Expressway Project Update
In 2006, the Commission executed a cooperative agreement with the Orange
County Transportation Authority and the Foothill/Eastern Transportation
Corridor Agency to develop and manage geotechnical feasibility studies for a
potential transportation and utility corridor linking Riverside and Orange
Counties. ; The purpose of
the study is to define and
evaluate site conditions that
affect the feasibility of
transportation tunnel
construction beneath: the
Cleveland National Forest
and geotechnical and
hydrogeological constraints'
affecting tunneling
methods, ,groundwater
controls, impacts to
groundwater resources, and
construction costs. Re
a:
Meficoptor tmwart tO0104'
In 2008, the Commission received a Special Use Permit from the USDA Forest
Service to conduct the field testing and drilling of five core holes in the
Cleveland National forest. The drilling has been completed and work has
commenced on the testing of the core and water resources monitoring.
The completion of the geotechnical analysis report is anticipated in late 2009.
A progress report on the Irvine Corona Expressway was presented at the
January 14, 2009 Commission meeting. The "next steps" will include seeking
approval to conduct additional feasibility studies.
Upcoming Meetings I.
and Information
The 2009 Commission Worksho
will be held on 'Thursday a
Friday, February 5th and 6m
the Embassy Suites HotelinPalm
Desert. The workshop is an
opportunity to seek action on a
number of. major policy issues
establishing the Commission's
direction for 2009.
RCTC` will hold its next regularly
scheduled meeting on
Wednesday, February 11, 2009,
at the Riverside County
Administrative Center, Board of
Supervisors Meeting Room, 4080
Lemon Street, Riverside.
RCTC also maintains a speaker's
bureau that actively makes
presentations ` throughout the
county on transportation issues.
If you are interested in
scheduling a presentation for
your service dubor community
organization, please contact Eliza
Edievarria at (951) 787-7141 V
eechevan is@rdc.org.
Riverside County Transportation Commission • 4080 Lemon Street, 3rd Floor • Riverside, California 92501
Mailing Address: P.O. Box 12008 • Riverside, Califomia 92502-2208 • (951) 787-7141 • Fax (951) 787-7920 • www.rctc.org
" A G E N C Y I T A C M E M B E R B A N N I N G D U A N E B U R K D i r e c t o r o f P u b l i c W o r k s B E A U M O N T J O H N W I L D E R A s s i s t a n t D i r e c t o r o f P u b l i c W o r k s B L Y T H E J I M R O D K E Y P u b l i c W o r k s D i r e c t o r C V A G A L L Y N W A G G L E C A L I M E S A - - , . _ - . C A L T R A N S P A T R I C K H A L L Y C A N Y O N L A K E H A B I B M O T L A G H C i t y E n g i n e e r C A T H E D R A L B I L L B A Y N E C I T Y C O A C H E L L A P A U L T O O R P u b l i c W o r k s D i r e c t o r C O R O N A K I P F I E L D A c t i n g P u b l i c W o r k s D i r e c t o r D E S E R T H O T J O N A T H A N H O Y S P R I N G S P u b l i c W o r k s D i r e c t o r / C i t y E n g i n e e r A L T E R N A T E K a h o n o O e i D e e M o o r j a n i C h a d A a b y C i t y E n g i n e e r C a r o l C l a p p e r B o b F r e n c h P u b l i c W o r k s D i r e c t o r B i l l M o s b y E r i c S k a u g s e t A s s i s t a n t E n g i n e e r P a v e l H o m T o n y L u c e r o B o b M o r i n P r i n c i p a l C i v i l E n g i n e e r I I I T E C H N I C A L A D , R Y C O M M I T T E E F e b r u a 9 , 2 0 0 9 P R I N T N A M E ' \ 3 c L L ~ A ~ N ~ ) o \ A . L < . . f i < C A I \ 1 + r . " S I G N A T U R E - - ~ ' ? : > c P ~ { / ~ I v / / ~ - ' I . . - 2 1 2 1 2 0 0 9
..... AGENCY HEMET • • TAC MEMBER MIKE GOW ALTERNATE Victor Monz Principal Engineer INDIAN WELLS ITIM WASSIL Bondie Baker Assistant Engineer II Public Works Director/City Engineer INDIO I TOM RAFFERTY j Jim Smith Principal Civil Engineer Director of Public Works LA QUINTA I TIMOTHY JONASSON I Nick Nickerson Public Works Director/City Engineer LAKE (KEN SEUMALO IEd Basubas ELSINORE City Engineer City Traffic Engineer MORENO VALLEY MURRIETA NORCO CHRIS VOGT Prem Kumar Public Works Director/City Deputy Public Works Engineer Director/Assistant City Engineer PATRICK THOMAS Russ Napier Director of Public Works/City Capital Improvement Engineer Program Manager BILL THOMPSON j Lori Askew Director of Public Works Associate Engineer PALM DESERT IMARK GREENWOOD (Alana Townsend Director of Public works PALM SPRINGSIDAVE BARAKIAN I Marcus Fuller Director of Public Works/City Engineer PVVTA ILES NELSON City Manager TECHNICAL AD'.RY COMMITTEE Febru~, 2009 PRINT NAME --,;~ ~v-A-j ~ \,\,tA.S.~ ~ f\ .. O&"M. .t.uN\lflt ~\ ~..v\~ \~(~-~~ JJ/f</rQ J5/R;:t y</ )J/V • SIGNATURE :k[;,oJ ~ 6--:__ 2/2/2009
....... ._,,_ • AGENCY TAC MEMBER PERRIS IRON CARR Public Works Director RTA MARK STANLEY Director of Planning RANCHO BRUCE HARRY MIRAGE Director of Public Works RIVERSIDE TOM BOYD Deputy Public Works Director/City Engineer RIVERSIDE JUAN PEREZ COUNTY Director of Transportation SAN JACINTO HABIB MOTLAGH City Engineer SUN LINE EUNICE LOVI Director of Planning TEMECULA BILL HUGHES Director of Public Works Public Works Department WILDOMAR MICHAEL KASHIWAGI Director of Public Works WR COG RUTHANNE TAYLOR· BERGER Deputy Executive Director ALTERNATE I Habib Motlagh City Engineer Scott Richardson Planning and Program Manager Randy Viegas Project Manager Siobhan Foster Patty Romo Deputy Director of Transportation Eric Skaugset Assistant Engineer Alfonso Hernandez Assistant Planner Greg Butler Deputy Public Works Director Diane Nguyen Transportation Programs Manager TECHNICAL AD'.RY COMMITTEE Febru~, 2009 PRINT NAME l/A.r J. ~" /.7 . 1i1-18~J /) jy tf/? ~,~~ ·z. ~~-tc_ Gvrr.,\~1 • SIGNATURE ~ -),'K~ _.) -/).7~··· 21212009
" ' " A G E N C Y ! I I ( J v 1 - U S - ' 1 m C ( t i : ~ o v / r ( ) . . . t J - ( C ! ~ L T 1 1 . A - A I S T E C H N I C A L A D - R Y C O M M I T T E E F e b r u a r y 9 , 2 0 0 9 N A M E T E L E P H O N E O R E - M A I L A \ i ' + W e V V A - 1 5 5 _ , - g 1 0 J f { : : t c L f i . U t ) ~ 5 1 4 1 3 - 5 1 4 9 � f L } ' T / t A - L c Y y { J C j - ? R - 1 y e ] 0 " � � - 2 / 2 / 2 0 0 9