Loading...
07 July 8, 2009 Commission87557 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA TIME: 9:30 a.m. DATE: Wednesday, July 8, 2009 LOCATION: BOARD ROOM County of Riverside Administrative Center 4080 Lemon Street, First Floor, Riverside Commissioners Chair: Bob Magee 1" Vice Chair: Bob Buster 2' Vice Chair: Greg S. Pettis Bob Buster, County of Riverside John F. Tavaglione, County of Riverside Jeff Stone, County of Riverside Roy Wilson, County of Riverside Marion Ashley, County of Riverside Bob Botts / Don Robinson, City of Banning Roger Berg / Jeff Fox, City of Beaumont Joseph DeConinck / Robert Crain, City of Blythe Ray Quinto / Jim Hyatt, City of Calimesa Mary Craton / Jordan Ehrenkranz, City of Canyon Lake Greg S. Pettis / Kathleen DeRosa, City of Cathedral City Eduardo Garcia / Steven Hernandez, City of Coachella Karen Spiegel / Steve Nolan, City of Corona Scott Matas / Russell Betts, City of Desert Hot Springs Robin Lowe / Eric McBride, City of Hemet Patrick J. Mullany / Larry Spicer, City of Indian Wells Glenn Miller / Ben Godfrey, City of Indio Terry Henderson / Don Adolph, City of La Quinta Bob Magee / Melissa Melendez, City of Lake Elsinore Darcy Kuenzi / Scott Mann, City of Menifee Jesse Molina / Bonnie Flickinger, City of Moreno Valley Rick Gibbs / Kelly Bennett, City of Murrieta Frank Hall / Malcolm Miller, City of Norco Jim Ferguson / Cindy Finerty, City of Palm Desert Steve Pougnet / Ginny Foat, City of Palm Springs Daryl Busch / Al Landers, City of Perris Ron Meepos / Alan Seman, City of Rancho Mirage Steve Adams / Andy Melendrez, City of Riverside James Potts / Jim Ayres, City of San Jacinto Ron Roberts / Jeff Comerchero, City of Temecula Scott Farnam / Bridgette Moore, City of Wildomar Raymond Wolfe, Governor's Appointee Anne Mayer, Executive Director John Standiford, Deputy Executive Director Comments are welcomed by the Commission. N you wish to provide comments to the Commission, please complete and submit a Speaker Card to the Clerk of the Board. 11.36.00 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION COMMISSIONER SIGN -IN SHEET JULY 8, 2009 Al... AGENCY E MAIL ADDRESS 0b o t. (6 fl-A-10 ► /a /74-, J xv6d4_ gt5.25•tr6 13 ;;Aef9„-r 5 k NOL/A/i) AORe_A1a 1/144- E /V ©R sc/ At ��/1--leil_ 0-1 � � �S S' aJ fN-C l .4-2 TO a_ - 7-; J 0 R\NiCO r oyo--Yla , MA:r ,1 a /sr' ` Ef j -_-i (5 On-`7-31 0 (1 -tee . 3-t-U\J�^ dam. — �C 1/ C C -� E �Au. S�• (-revL (`�r2 d-t<)(eythal0,04--- --do'7TL E-..79~- .--:70? efe-,44$ / v/e�eyF Enitsr M �11L,(t_ 1ND%o . n � \ \50 , &s.,l Co/.g(Cr /� / (4/ x� 4. „iy .{� Gl/p--�� <5 ./ � F37-- �/�GyI% �%�iC'1 Al t rJ, f/ .5;;,7C /" vtrA5 .1::)T5tr.,0- 4,-. ,SAS il_ 8' -- (�/ �ipn,sp.2 '!"l�+�i�P� DCSrcl VIAUT Li' � -1I -re''_e — RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION ROLL CALL JULY 8, 2009 Present Absent County of Riverside, District I County of Riverside, District II �' O County of Riverside, District III County of Riverside, District IV County of Riverside, District V City of Banning City of Beaumont City of Blythe City of Calimesa City of Canyon Lake City of Cathedral City City of Coachella City of Corona City of Desert Hot Springs City of Hemet City of Indian Wells City of Indio City of La Quinta City of Lake Elsinore City of Menifee City of Morerio Valley City of Murrieta City of Norco , City of Palm Desert City of Palm Springs City of Perris City of Rancho Mirage City of Riverside City of San Jacinto City of Temecula City of Wildomar Governor's Appointee, Ca!trans District 8 • RIVERS/DE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMM/SS/ON www.rctc.org AGENDA* *Actions may be taken on any item listed on the agenda 9:30 a.m. Wednesday, July 8, 2009 BOARD ROOM County of Riverside Administrative Center 4080 Lemon Street, First Floor, Riverside, CA 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 special assistance is needed to participate in a Commission 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 Commission may, either at the direction of the Chair or by majority vote of the Commission, waive this three 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. In addition, the maximum time for public comment for any individual item or topic is thirty (30) minutes. Also, the Commission 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 Commission shall be submitted to the Clerk of the Board. This policy applies to Public Comments and comments on Agenda Items. Under the Brown Act, the Board should not take action on or discuss matters raised during public comment portion of the agenda which are not listed on the agenda. Board members may refer such matters to staff for factual information or to be placed on the subsequent agenda for consideration. Riverside County Transportation Commission Agenda July 8, 2009 Page 2 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - JUNE 10, 2009 6. PUBLIC HEARING - FISCAL YEAR 2009/10 ALLOCATION OF FUNDING FOR RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSIT SERVICES Page 1 Overview This item is for the Commission to: 1) Conduct a public hearing at the July Commission meeting on the proposed Section 5307 Program of Projects (POP) as attached; 2) Approve the FY 2009/10 Federal Transit Administration's (FTA) Section 5307 and 5311 POP for Riverside County; 3) Approve the FY 2009/10 Local Transportation Fund (LTF) and State Transit Assistance (STA) fund allocations for transit as attached; 4) Direct staff to add projects into the Regional Transportation Improvement Plan (RTIP); and 5) Adopt Resolution No. 09-015, "Resolution of the Riverside County Transportation Commission to Allocate State Transit Assistance Funds". 7. ADDITIONS/REVISIONS The Commission 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 Commission subsequent to the posting of the agenda. An action adding an item to the agenda requires 2/3 vote of the Commission. If there are less than 2/3 of the Commission 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. "RESOLUTION OF THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION ESTABLISHING THE COMMISSION'S ANNUAL APPROPRIATIONS LIMIT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2009/10" Page 17 Overview • This item is for the Commission to adopt Resolution No. 09-014, "Resolution of the Riverside County Transportation Commission Establishing the Commission's Annual Appropriations Limit for Fiscal • Year 2009/10". Riverside County Transportation Commission Agenda July 8, 2009 Page 3 . 8B. FISCAL YEARS 2010-14 MEASURE A FIVE-YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLANS FOR LOCAL STREETS AND ROADS Overview This item is for the Commission to: Page 25 1) Approve the FYs 2010-14 Measure A Five -Year Capital Improvement Plans (CIP) for Local Streets and Roads for all cities and the county as submitted; and 2) Authorize the Executive Director to approve minor amendments to CIPs at the request of the local agency. 8C. 2009 MEASURE A MAINTENANCE OF EFFORT BASE YEAR Overview This item is for the Commission to: Page 27 1) Approve using the 1989 Measure A Maintenance of Effort (MOE) base year amount for FY 2009/10 only; and 2) For cities incorporated after 1989, approve using the Proposition 42 MOE amount for FY 2009/10 only. 8D. AMENDMENTS WITH ZAMISKI CONSTRUCTION AND REAL ESTATE CONSULTING SERVICES, INC., FOR PROPERTY MAINTENANCE SERVICES Page 30 Overview This item is for the Commission to: 1) Approve Agreement No. 07-51-089-20, Amendment No. 1 to Agreement No. 07-51-089-00, with Zamiski Construction to extend the current agreements on a month -to -month basis; 2) Approve Agreement No. 07-52-088-1 1, Amendment No. 1 to Agreement No. 07-52-088-00, with Real Estate Consulting and Services, Inc. to extend the current agreements on a month -to - month basis; 3) Approve additional funding in the combined amount of $950,000 for the services to be provided by Zamiski Construction and Real Estate Consulting and Services, Inc.; and 4) Authorize the Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreements on behalf of the Commission. Riverside County Transportation Commission Agenda July 8, 2009 Page 4 8E. COMMUTER RAIL AND MULTIMODAL FACILITY DESIGN CRITERIA , MANUAL Page 35 Overview This item is for the Commission to approve the Commuter Rail and Multimodal Facility Design Criteria Manual. 8F. COMMUTER RAIL PROGRAM UPDATE Overview Page 148 This item is for the Commission to receive and file an update on the Commuter Rail Program. 8G. FISCAL YEAR 2009/10 SB 821 BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES PROGRAM FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS Page 157 Overview This item is for the Commission to approve the FY 2009/10 SB 821 Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities Program recommended funding as • shown in the attached schedule. 8H. SB 821 BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES PROGRAM EXTENSION FOR THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE Page 165 Overview This item is for the Commission to grant the city of Lake Elsinore (Lake Elsinore) an extension to June 30, 2011, for approved SB 821 program funds for the Lewis Street, Silver Street, and Mill Street "Missing Link" sidewalk projects. 81. FISCAL YEAR 2009/10 MINIMUM FARE REVENUE RATIO FOR RIVERSIDE TRANSIT AGENCY AND SUNLINE TRANSIT AGENCY Page 169 Overview This item is for the Commission to: 1) Reaffirm the methodology used to calculate the required fare box recovery ratio; and 2) Approve the FY 2009/10 minimum fare revenue to operating cost ratio of 16.85% for Riverside Transit Agency (RTA) and 18.18% for SunLine Transit Agency (SunLine). Riverside County Transportation Commission Agenda July 8, 2009 Page 5 8J. AGREEMENT WITH COMMUTER ASSISTANCE PROGRAM MANAGEMENT SERVICES CONTRACT FOR INLAND TRANSPORTATION SERVICES Page 171 Overview This item is for the Commission to: 1) Award Agreement No. 09-41-079-00 to Inland Transportation Services for Commuter Assistance Program (CAP) management services for a three-year term with two one-year options for an amount not to exceed $5,433,627; and 2) Authorize the Chair, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission. 8K. FISCAL YEAR 2009/10 AGREEMENTS FOR REGIONAL RIDESHARE SERVICES Overview This item is for the Commission to: Page 192 1) Approve Agreement No. 07-45-077-05 with the San Bernardino Associated Governments (SANBAG) as part of the Commission's continuing bi-county partnership with SANBAG to deliver commuter and employer rideshare services for FY 2009/10; 2) Approve Agreement No. 09-41-075-00 with the Los Angeles Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro); Agreement No. 07-41-115-07 with Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA); and Agreement No. 06-41-082-04 with the Ventura County Transportation Commission (VCTC) for regional ridematching services; and 3) Authorize the Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreements on behalf of the Commission. 8L. WORKSHOP ON ADVANCING GOODS MOVEMENT THROUGH THE INLAND EMPIRE Page 208 Overview This item is for the Commission to receive and file an overview on the Workshop on Advancing Goods Movement Through the Inland Empire brochure. Riverside County Transportation Commission Agenda July 8, 2009 Page 6 8M. FEDERAL AUTHORIZATION UPDATE Overview Page 222• This item is for the Commission to receive an update on the status of federal authorization efforts. 8N. STATE AND FEDERAL LEGISLATIVE UPDATE Overview This item is for the Commission to: Page 242 1) Receive an update on state and federal legislative activities; 2) Adopt a MONITOR position on SB 474 (Ducheny); and 3) Adopt a SUPPORT position on H.R. 2164 (Blumenauer). 9. SELECTION OF UNDERWRITERS AND DISCLOSURE COUNSEL AND OVERVIEW OF PROPOSED BOND ISSUANCE Page 246 Overview This item is for the Commission to: 1) Receive an update on the proposed 2009 bond issuance; 2) Approve the selection of Backstrom McCarley Berry & Co., LLC (Backstrom); Barclays Capital; De La Rosa & Co. (De La Rosa); Goldman Sachs; J.P. Morgan; and Merrill Lynch to perform the services of underwriters to the Commission in connection with long-term debt financings; 3) Approve the selection of Barclays Capital to perform the services of senior managing underwriter and Backstrom and De La Rosa as co -managing underwriters to the Commission in connection with the proposed 2009 bonds financing; 4) Approve the selection of Fulbright & Jaworski LLP and Agreement No. 09-19-072-00, to perform the services of disclosure counsel in an amount not to exceed $55,000; and 5) Authorize the Chair, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission. • • • Riverside County Transportation Commission Agenda July 8, 2009 Page 7 10. AMERICAN RECOVERY AND REINVESTMENT ACT OF 2009 — GRANTS FOR TRANSPORTATION INVESTMENT GENERATING ECONOMIC RECOVERY Page 251 Overview This item is for the Commission to: 1) Approve the submittal of Positive Train Control (PTC) in partnership with the Southern California Regional Rail Authority (SCRRA) for grant funding; 2) Approve the submittal of Alameda Corridor East (ACE) grade separation projects for grant funding; 3) Authorize Executive Director to submit a TIFIA application for SR-91 corridor improvement project for federal credit loan assistance ; and 4) Direct staff to work with the lead agencies to prepare a grant submittal package to Caltrans and/or U.S. Department of Transportation (U.S. DOT). 11. MID COUNTY PARKWAY: ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT/ ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Page 259 Overview This item is for the Commission to: 1) Focus the Mid County Parkway (MCP) project limits to Interstate 215 and State Route 79 in response to comments received on the draft environmental impact report/environmental impact statement (EIR/EIS); 2) Maintain a long-term plan for a future east -west CETAP corridor between 1-215 and 1-15; 3) Prioritize up to $7 million in Regional Arterial, Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee, or federal funds to the county of Riverside (County) for the preparation of the environmental document for the Cajalco Road widening; 4) Consider reinitiation of the Community and Environmental Transportation Acceptability Process (CETAP) corridor analysis between the 1-215 and 1-15 if the County's Cajalco Road project is not environmentally cleared by 2013; 5) Prepare a phasing plan for the MCP, east of 1-215, and support the County's efforts to prepare a phasing for Cajalco Road, between 1-215 and 1-15, that ensures equity in the funding and capacity improvements on each project; and 6) Reconsider funding priorities for east -west regional arterials as part of the Commission's Measure A Regional Arterial Program, once the economy improves. Riverside County Transportation Commission Agenda July 8, 2009 Page 8 12. ITEM(S) PULLED FROM CONSENT CALENDAR AGENDA 13. COMMISSIONERS / EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR REPORT Overview Page 270 This item provides the opportunity for the Commissioners and the Executive Director to report on attended meetings/conferences and any other items related to Commission activities. • Report on American Public Transportation Association Rail Conference 2009 from Commissioners Daryl Busch and Ron Roberts 14. ADJOURNMENT The next Commission meeting is scheduled to be held at 9:30 a.m., Wednesday, August 12, 2009, Board Room, County of Riverside Administrative Center, 4080 Lemon Street, First Floor, Riverside. • • 3a0O dIZ A11O 133tl1S :'ON 3NOHd :SS31100V SS3NIS09 df10tlO / NOIIVZINVOLIO / A3N3DV dO 3INVN OOO dIZ A110 Q47:70Q)2/ON 3N0Hd 'W311 VaN3'J1d d0 103rans :ON11N3S311d3l1 133tl1S =ssmaav /i Vj :31NVN (VON3OV 3H1 NO 031SI1 SV) rON IN311 VON3DV :S1N3ININ00 0119f1d :S1N3WUU00 0119f1d d0 103P9f1S 01:11d09 3H1 d0 1111310 3H1 O1 _mans aNv H3t1130 dl NO3H0 :311/0 3000 dIZ A110 1331l1S 3 00 dIZ ON 3NOHd :SS3HOCIV SS3NISna d1101:19 / NOI1tlZINVOO2, A3N3OV AO 3WtlN "/ JNI1N3S321d3l1 A110 133/A1S ?V"-&F /0(704 '„/L 46"(f' :SS3aaav :-ON 3N0Hd ` m� ` ���•31AtlN 6171 `;'1`?" 6Y,' 7r->'17 Q =W311 VON3011 30 1331130S IVON30tl 3H1 NO 031S11 Stll :'ON N1311 vON39V kG-20e}% :S1N3WW00 311and Ye/:S1N3WW00 onand 3O Iowans 31 )103H0 �� �' �� �31tla .61116Milianavos 3H1 3O H!l310 3H1 O1 limns ONH H0v130 AGENDA ITEM 5 MINUTES • • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MINUTES Wednesday, June 10, 2009 1. CALL TO ORDER The Riverside County Transportation Commission was called to order by Chair Bob Magee at 9:33 a.m., in the Board Room at the County of Riverside Administrative Center, 4080 Lemon Street, Riverside, California, 92501. 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE At this time, Chair Magee led the Commission in a flag salute. 3. ROLL CALL Commissioners/Alternates Present Steve Adams Marion Ashley Roger Berg Bob Botts Daryl Busch Bob Buster Christy Connors Mary Craton Joseph DeConinck Scott Farnam Eduardo Garcia Rick Gibbs Frank Hall Terry Henderson Darcy Kuenzi 4. PUBLIC COMMENTS Robin Lowe Bob Magee Scott Matas Ron Meepos Glenn Miller Jesse Molina Greg Pettis James Potts Steve Pougnet Ray Quinto Ron Roberts Karen Spiegel Jeff Stone Roy Wilson Commissioners Absent Jim Ferguson Patrick J. Mullany John F. Tavaglione Anne Mayer, Executive Director, presented five-year service awards to Brian Cunanan, Commuter Assistance Manager, and Sheldon Peterson, Rail Manager. Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes June 10, 2009 Page 2 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES — MAY 13, 2009 M/S/C (Henderson/Lowe) to approve the minutes of May 13, 2009. Abstain: Craton, Garcia, and Meepos 6. PUBLIC HEARING — PROPOSED BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2009/10 Chair Magee announced there was additional information for Agenda Item 6, "Public Hearing - Proposed Budget for Fiscal Year 2009/10". Theresia Trevino, Chief Financial Officer, presented the proposed Budget for FY 2009/10, and discussed the following areas: • Budget process; • Budget adjustments; • Budget summary; • Funding sources; • Summary of expenditures; • Management services; • Regional programs; • Capital program and highlights; • Expenditures breakdown by function; • Measure A administration; and • Next steps. Chair Magee announced the continuance of the public hearing from the May 13 meeting and requested comments from the public at this time. No comments were received from the public and the Chair closed the public hearing. In response to Commissioner Robin Lowe's question, Anne Mayer discussed the potential impacts on projects if the state were to suspend Propositions 1 A and 42 funds. Staff will provide an update and potentially seek direction from the Commission in July or August. Commissioner Jeff Stone expressed concern about local agencies potentially losing funds. He suggested continuing the lobbying efforts to ensure protection of those funds. He commended staff for understanding the current economic demise and for maintaining the Measure A administrative costs at an acceptable level. He discussed the land acquisition costs for the Perris Valley Line included in the budget. M/S/C (Stone/Lowe) to adopt the proposed Budget for FY 2009/10. • Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes June 10, 2009 Page 3 • 7. • • ADDITIONS/REVISIONS There was additional information for Agenda Item 10, "State Route 91 High Occupancy Vehicle Project Update". Commissioner Roger Berg requested Agenda Item 8M, "Amendments with Zamiski Construction and Real Estate consulting Services, Inc., For Property Maintenance Services" be pulled from the Consent Calendar for further discussion. Commissioner Bob Buster requested to pull Agenda Item 8Z, "State and Federal Legislative Update", be pulled from the Consent Calendar for further discussion. 8. CONSENT CALENDAR M/S/C (Lowe/Adams) to approve the following Consent Calendar items: Abstain: Ashley, Agenda Item 80, "Amendment to Agreement with Psomas to Provide Construction Support Services for the Phase I — Perris Multimodal Transportation Facility", and Agenda Item 8R, "Agreement with Caliber Paving Company, Inc. For Rehabilitation of at the Commuter Rail Station Parking Lots", due to a potential conflict of interest. 8A. FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION DISADVANTAGED BUSINESS ENTERPRISE PROGRAM AND PROPOSED GOAL FOR FEDERAL FISCAL YEAR 2009/10 11 Adopt 0.0% as its annual race -neutral Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) goal for FFY 2009/10 from October 1, 2009 to September 30, 2010; 2) Adopt Resolution No. 09-012, "A Resolution of the Riverside County Transportation Commission Adopting Its Federal Fiscal Year 2009/10 Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Program and Goal (49 CFR Part 26) as Applies to Funding Received Directly from the Federal Transit Administration"; 3) Post the proposed DBE overall annual goal for FFY 2009/10 and receive comments for 45 days; and 4) Submit the FFY 2009/10 FTA DBE program and annual goal to the FTA. Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes June 10, 2009 Page 4 8B. FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION AND CALTRANS DISADVANTAGED BUSINESS ENTERPRISE PROGRAM AND PROPOSED ANNUAL ANTICIPATED RACE- CONSCIOUS AND RACE - NEUTRAL PARTICIPATION GOALS FOR FEDERAL FISCAL YEAR 2009/10 1) Adopt 0.3% as its race -conscious Annual Anticipated DBE Participation Level (AADPL) and 0.4% as its race -neutral Annual Anticipated DBE Participation Level (AADPL) for FFY 2009/10 from October 1, 2009 to September 30, 2010; 2) Adopt Resolution No. 09-013, "A Resolution of the Riverside County Transportation Commission Adopting Its Federal Fiscal Year 2009/10 Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Program and Annual Anticipated DBE Participation Level as Applies to Funding Received from the Federal Highway Administration Through Caltrans "; 3) Authorize the Chair, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission for submission to Caltrans; 4) Authorize the Chair to execute the Local Agency DBE Annual Submittal Form on behalf of the Commission for submission to Caltrans; and 5) Submit the FFY 2009/10 DBE program and AADPL to Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and Caltrans. 8C. QUARTERLY FINANCIAL STATEMENTS Receive and file the Quarterly Financial Statements for the period ended March 31, 2009. 8D. QUARTERLY SALES TAX ANALYSIS Receive and file the sales tax analysis for Quarter 4, 2008. 8E. 2009 STATE ROUTE 91 IMPLEMENTATION PLAN UPDATE Receive and file an update on the 2009 State Route 91 Implementation Plan. • • • • • • Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes June 10, 2009 Page 5 8F. EXTENSION OF 1989 MEASURE A HIGHWAY FUNDING FOR THREE COACHELLA VALLEY PROJECTS 1) Approve the following three amendments to the previously approved 1989 Measure A Coachella Valley highway project agreements for an extension of the termination date beyond June 30, 2009 as follows: a) Agreement No. M23-006-02 (West Cathedral Canyon channel to East Palm Canyon Drive bridge widening project in city of Cathedral City) extended to December 31, 2010; b) Agreement No. 06-31-017-02 (Jefferson Street to Madison Street in city of Indio) extended to December 31, 2009; c) Agreement No. 07-31-097-02 (West city limits to Washington Street in city of La Quinta) extended to December 31, 2009; 2) Approve reductions to the Measure A funding amounts in the above amendments as follows: a) Agreement No. M23-006-02 by $357,600 for a revised funding amount of $3,942,400; b) Agreement No. 07-31-097-02 by $178, 600 for a revised funding amount of $1,976,400; and 3) Authorize the Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreements on behalf of the Commission. 8G. 1989 MEASURE A HIGHWAY LOCAL CIRCULATION FUNDS FOR STATE ROUTE 60/VALLEY WAY INTERCHANGE 1) Approve Agreement No. 09-31-078-00 with the county of Riverside authorizing 1989 Measure A Local Circulation funds for the State Route 60/Valley Way Interchange in the amount of up to $5.5 million; 2) Extend the expenditure reimbursement of 1989 Measure A funds expiring on June 30, 2009 to June 30, 201 1; and 3) Authorize the Chair, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission. Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes June 10, 2009 Page 6 8H. 1989 MEASURE A HIGHWAY LOCAL CIRCULATION FUNDS FOR • STATE ROUTE 91 /VAN BUREN BOULEVARD INTERCHANGE 1) Approve Agreement No. 09-31-077-00 with the city of Riverside authorizing 1989 Measure A Local Circulation funds for the State Route 91 /Van Buren Boulevard interchange project in the amount of $7.616 million; 2) Authorize staff to utilize federal, state, and/or local funds based on project delivery and availability of these funds; 3) Extend the expenditure reimbursement of 1989 Measure A funds expiring on June 30, 2009 to June 30, 2011; and 4) Authorize the Chair, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission. 81. FISCAL YEAR 2008/09 MEASURE A FIVE-YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT FOR LOCAL STREETS AND ROADS FOR THE CITY OF TEMECULA Approve an amendment to the FY 2008/09 Measure A Five -Year Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) for Local Streets and Roads for the city of Temecula (Temecula) as submitted. 8J. SB 821 BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES PROGRAM EXTENSION FOR THE CITY OF TEMECULA Grant the city of Temecula (Temecula) an extension to June 30, 2010, for approved SB 821 program funds for the Santa Gertrudis Creek pedestrian/bicycle bridge overcrossing project. 8K. REQUEST FOR QUALIFICATIONS FOR CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT SERVICES FOR THE INTERSTATE 215/ STATE ROUTE 74 INTERCHANGE PROJECT Authorize staff to issue a request for qualifications (RFQ) and conduct a selection process for construction management and related services for the Interstate 215/State Route 74 interchange project in the city of Perris. • • • • Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes June 10, 2009 Page 7 8L. AMENDMENTS TO THE RIGHT-OF-WAY POLICIES AND PROCEDURES MANUAL 1) Approve revisions to certain provisions in the Right -of -Way Policies and Procedures manual; and 2) Adopt Resolution No. 09-01 1, "A Resolution of the Riverside County Transportation Commission Regarding Revisions to the Right -of -Way Policies and Procedures Manual". 8N. DEFERRAL OF UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA RIVERSIDE METROLINK STATION FOR THE PERRIS VALLEY LINE PROJECT 1) Defer development of the University of California, Riverside (UCR) station from opening day service as part of the Perris Valley Line (PVL) project; and 2) Maintain the status in the environmental clearance process as a possible future station. 80. AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT WITH PSOMAS TO PROVIDE CONSTRUCTION SUPPORT SERVICES FOR THE PHASE I — PERRIS MULTIMODAL TRANSPORTATION FACILITY 1► Approve Agreement No. 04-33-007-04, Amendment No. 4 to Agreement No. 04-33-007-00, with Psomas for construction support services for Phase I — Perris Multimodal Transportation Facility in a not to exceed amount of $73,769, for a total contract value of $1,163,461, plus a general contingency amount of $6,231 for a total not to exceed amount of $1,169, 692; 2) Authorize the Chair, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission; and 3) Authorize Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel review, to approve the use of the contingency as may be required for the project. Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes June 10, 2009 Page 8 8P. PROPOSED METROLINK BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2009/10 1) Adopt the preliminary FY 2009/10 Metrolink operating and capital budget; 2) Allocate the Commission's funding commitment to the Southern California Regional Rail Authority (SCRRA) in an amount not to exceed of $6,502,900 in Local Transportation Fund (LTF) fund for train operations and maintenance -of -way, and $21,912,200 for capital projects to be funded by Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Section 5307, American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) funds, State Transit Assistance (STA) funds and LTF; and 3) Authorize the SCRRA to apply $155,200 of the Commission's prior year carryover funds to the FY 2009/10 operating budget to cover an unanticipated increase in the liability insurance premiums. 8Q. IMPLEMENTATION OF SECURITY CART PROGRAM AT THE COMMUTER RAIL STATIONS 1) Approve implementation of a security cart program at the three largest Commission -owned commuter rail Metrolink stations, with capital expenditures not to exceed of $50,000 and operating expenditures not to exceed $10,000 a year; and 2) Authorize the Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel review, to purchase equipment and services to implement the aspects of this program on behalf of the Commission. 8R. AGREEMENT WITH CALIBER PAVING COMPANY, INC. FOR REHABILITATION OF THE COMMUTER RAIL STATION PARKING LOTS 1) Award Agreement No. 09-24-063-00 to Caliber Paving Company, Inc. for repairs, paving, slurry sealing, and striping of various Commission -owned commuter rail station parking lots for the Metrolink Station Rehabilitation and Maintenance Plan (Plan) for a not to exceed amount of $790,886; and 2) Authorize the Chair, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission. • • • • Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes June 10, 2009 Page 9 8S. AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT WITH CALLAN MANAGEMENT COMPANY DBA WESTERN AREA SECURITY SERVICES 1) Receive and file the Review of Contract Billings of Callan Management Company dba Western Area Security Service (WASS); 2) Approve Agreement No. 06-25-071-01, Amendment No. 1 to Agreement No. 06-25-071-00, with WASS to provide additional security services at the five Metrolink commuter rail stations, with an increase to the current contract in the amount of $405,000 and exercise the first one-year option in the amount of $1.3 million; 3) Approve a budget adjustment to increase expenditures by $205,000; and 4) Authorize the Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission. 8T. COMMUTER RAIL PROGRAM UPDATE Receive and file an update on the Commuter Rail Program. 8U. FISCAL YEARS 2009/10 - 2011 /12 SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLANS Approve, in concept, the FYs 2009/10 — 2011/12 Short Range Transit Plans (SRTP) for the cities of Banning, Beaumont, Corona, Palo Verde Valley Transit Agency (PVVTA), Riverside, Riverside Transit Agency (RTA), SunLine Transit Agency (SunLine) and the Commission's Regional Commuter Rail Program. 8V. FISCAL YEAR 2008/09 THIRD QUARTER STATUS OF PRODUCTIVITY IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM Receive and file the transit operators' third quarter compliance status report on the FY 2008/09 Productivity Improvement Program (PIP). Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes June 10, 2009 Page 10 8W. PALO VERDE VALLEY — FISCAL YEAR 2009/10 UNMET TRANSIT • NEEDS HEARING 1) Reaffirm the Commission's definition of "Unmet Transit Needs" and "Reasonable to Meet" standards; and 2) Make a finding through the adoption of Resolution No. 09-010, "A Resolution of the Riverside County Transportation Commission Adopting a Finding That There Are No Unmet Transit Needs That Are Reasonable to Meet in The Palo Verde Valley Area" that based upon a review of the requests for services received through the Unmet Transit Needs Hearing process, review of existing services and proposed improvements to the available services, there are no unmet transit needs that can be reasonably met in the Palo Verde Valley. 8X. FISCAL YEAR 2009/10 MEASURE A COMMUTER ASSISTANCE BUSPOOL SUBSIDY FUNDING CONTINUATION REQUESTS 1) Authorize payment of $1,645 per month maximum per buspool for the period July 1, 2009 to June 30, 2010, to the existing Corona, Mira Loma, and Riverside buspools; and 2) Require subsidy recipients to meet monthly buspool reporting requirements as supporting documentation to receive payments. 8Y. FISCAL YEAR 2009 OMNIBUS APPROPRIATIONS ACT — ALAMEDA CORRIDOR EAST Approve a "first -come, first -served" basis allocation of $570,000 in support of Alameda Corridor East (ACE) grade separations located in Riverside County. 9. MID COUNTY PARKWAY ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT/ ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Cathy Bechtel, Project Development Director, presented the recommendation to refocus the Mid County Parkway (MCP) project limits to Interstate 215 and State Route 79, discussing the following areas: • MCP study area in the draft environmental impact report/environmental impact statement (DEIR/EIS); • Recap of MCP DEIR/EIS public review period; • Summary of comments received on the DEIR/EIS; • Issues raised and key themes in public comments; • Refocused MCP project map; Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes June 10, 2009 Page 11 • Staff recommendations; • Benefits of a refocused project; • Policy considerations; • Next steps; and • MCP timeline. As part of the public record, Chair Magee noted the city of Riverside submitted correspondence dated June 10, 2009, opposing the Commission's proposal to refocus MCP to construct only the eastern segment between 1-215 and SR-79. Jennifer Harmon, Clerk of the Board, provided a copy of the correspondence to the Commissioners. Pete Bleckert, Moreno Valley resident, expressed support for the proposed refocusing of the MCP project due to the traffic impacts. Michelle Randall, Corona resident, expressed support for the proposed refocusing of the MCP project. However, she expressed concern that these improvements will destroy the only trail crossing for the 1-215 and asked the Commission to consider a link between the 1st and 5' Districts. Andy Melendrez, council member for the city of Riverside, expressed opposition for the proposed refocused MCP project to only construct the eastern portion due to traffic impacts on the city of Riverside. Mike Gardner, council member for the city of Riverside, requested a 90-day continuance to the September Commission meeting to address the impacts of the proposed refocused MCP project on the city of Riverside. Commissioner Steve Adams thanked council members Melendrez and Gardner for their comments. He explained the city council unanimously approved to request a 90-day continuance on the proposed refocused MCP project to discuss and resolve its issues. He expressed the city of Riverside is the most negatively impacted in the nation due to transportation and goods movement issues. Motion (Adams) to continue this item for 90 days to address the concerns expressed by the city of Riverside and return to the Commission at its September meeting for final action. Commissioner James Potts expressed support for the proposed refocusing of the MCP project. He commended staff and the MCP Ad Hoc Committee for finding an alternative to a very difficult situation. Commissioner Karen Spiegel stated the city of Corona supported the entire MCP project (Alternative 9) and helped acquire land. She stated that after Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes June 10, 2009 Page 12 the MCP public hearings, which she attended, she realized there would be severe controversy in completing the entire MCP project, noting other cities are also negatively impacted by traffic. She stated that the Commission is simply delaying the western portion of the MCP project in order to expedite the completion of the eastern portion and expressed support for the proposed refocusing of the MCP project. Commissioner Marion Ashley concurred with Commissioner Spiegel's comments. He expressed support for the staff recommendation while acknowledging the city of Riverside's concern. He suggested working closely with the city of Riverside to address its concerns in the time outlined in the presentation without deferral of the item. He then discussed the importance of improvements to Ethanac Road. In response to Commissioner Mary Craton's question regarding the capacity for the Cajalco Road improvements compared to the capacity of the western portion of the MCP project, Cathy Bechtel and George Johnson, Riverside County Transportation Department Director, discussed the proposed improvements and capacity for each. In response to Commissioner Lowe's question regarding the timeline for the improvements along Cajalco Road, George Johnson replied the first segment, from 1-215 moving westerly to Wood Road, if funding is available, construction could start within two years. For the segment south of Lake Mathews Drive, there are environmental challenges that need to be addressed. If funding is available for this segment, construction could start in approximately five years. At Commissioner Craton's request, Cathy Bechtel discussed the three terminus alternatives for 1-215, project costs, and traffic projections. Commissioner Ron Roberts expressed support for the proposed refocusing of the MCP project. He stated the environmental issues on the western portion could suspend this project for many years resulting in traffic impacts on the southern portion of 1-215 that will impact the cities of Menifee, Murrieta, and Temecula. Commissioner Rick Gibbs commended the Commission and the MCP Ad Hoc Committee for its recommendation and consideration of the public concerns. However, he expressed concern from a broader prospective about the lack of adequate planning. Commissioner Berg concurred with Commissioner Adams' concern about the traffic impacts to the city of Riverside. He expressed the Commission should • • Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes June 10, 2009 Page 13 not abandon the western portion of the MCP project and recommended other alternatives such as project phasing. Cathy Bechtel clarified that the improvements to Cajalco Road are the county's project and separate from the MCP project. She explained the MCP Ad Hoc Committee evaluated various approaches to continue work on the western portion of the MCP, including project phasing. Commissioner Berg expressed the Commission should move ahead with the entire project using project phasing. He stated the recommendation is only an interim plan and does not consider the future of the county. Commissioner Buster discussed the initial alternatives of the MCP project and issues with its western portion. He expressed support for the Cajalco Road improvements to alleviate the traffic impacts for the city of Riverside. Second (Buster) to continue this item for 90 days to address the concerns expressed by the city of Riverside and return to the Commission at its September meeting for final action. Commissioner Adams suggested there would be no impact to the project if a continuance is granted, which would allow the Commission to address the city of Riverside's concerns. He discussed the city of Riverside's recommendations to allow for improved traffic conditions related to the MCP project. At Commissioner Stone's request, Cathy Bechtel compared the cost of the western portion of the MCP project to that of the proposed Cajalco Road improvement project. Commissioner Stone expressed concern about the large funding shortfall for the MCP project. He suggested the Commission evaluate projects that are realistic, have funding, and are scheduled appropriately. Commissioner Stone stated the eastern portion of the proposed MCP project is essential to the economic development of the cities of Hemet and San Jacinto. He expressed concern for the significant traffic impacts to 1-215 without the western portion of the project. He recommended the Commission expedite the SR-91 /1-15 improvements in order to alleviate traffic congestion regionally. He expressed support for the proposed refocusing of the MCP project and continuance of the item to allow staff to address the city of Riverside's concerns. Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes June 10, 2009 Page 14 Commissioner Lowe discussed the history of the CETAP process. She expressed concern that only the eastern portion of the MCP project is being considered. Commissioner Lowe expressed support for a continuance of the item with a provision that staff provides an update on the future planning for this region. Commissioner Daryl Busch stated the Commission acknowledges the city of Riverside's concerns and other areas and believes staff will be able to address those concerns as the refocused project moves forward without granting a continuance of the item. M/S (Busch/Henderson) to approve refocusing the Mid County Parkway (MCP) limits to Interstate 215 and State Route 79 in response to comments received on the draft environmental impact report/environmental impact statement (EIR/EIS). Commissioner Terry Henderson expressed support for the proposed refocusing of the MCP project without a continuance. She explained that due to the modification of the MCP scope, it will add 18 months to the process, which will allow staff to address the concerns that have been raised. Commissioner Frank Hall expressed concern that sufficient discussion has not occurred for the proposed refocusing of the MCP project and expressed support for a continuance of the item. Commissioner Bob Botts expressed concern for the proposed continuance and delay. He believes city of Riverside's concerns will be addressed during the next 18 months. He clarified th ere have been several discussions regarding the proposed MCP project and expressed support for the staff recommendation. Commissioner Darcy Kuenzi expressed support for the proposed refocusing of the MCP project without a continuance of the item. M/S (Stone/Spiegel) to continue this item for 30 days to address the concerns expressed by the city of Riverside and return to the Commission at its July meeting for final action. Chair Magee asked Commissioner Adams if the Commission supports a 90-day continuance that there would be no more requests for additional extensions. • • • Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes June 10, 2009 Page 15 Commissioner Adams expressed his appreciation to the Commission for a 30-day continuance. At Commissioner Busch's request, Jennifer Harmon provided the composition of the MCP Ad Hoc Committee members as follows: Commissioners Steve Adams, Marion Ashley, Daryl Busch, Bob Buster, Mary Craton, Robin Lowe, James Potts, Karen Spiegel, and John Tavaglione. Commissioner Busch expressed that Commissioner Adams is a member of the MCP Ad Hoc Committee and has been actively involved in all the discussions regarding the proposed alignment for the MCP project. M/S (Stone/Spiegel) to continue this item for 30 days to address the concerns expressed by the city of Riverside and return to the Commission at its July meeting for final action. No: Busch, Henderson, Miller, Potts, Pougnet, and Wilson 11. ELECTION OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION FOR 2ND VICE CHAIR At this time, Chair Magee opened nominations for the 2"d Vice Chair vacated by former Commissioner Dick Kelly. Commissioner Henderson, seconded by Commissioner Kuenzi, nominated Commissioner Greg Pettis for the 2' Vice Chair position. No other nominations were received. Chair Magee closed the nominations. Greg Pettis was elected as the Commission's 2"d Vice Chair for 2009. No: Berg 10. STATE ROUTE 91 HIGH OCCUPANCY VEHICLE PROJECT UPDATE Patti Castillo, Capital Projects Manager, presented an update on the State Route 91 high occupancy vehicle (HOV) project, highlighting the following areas: • Project history , overview and partners; • Project map depicting the proposed three mixed flow lanes and one HOV lane in each direction; • Roadway improvements; • Ramps with major improvements; Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes June 10, 2009 Page 16 • Bridge modifications and replacements; • Additional construction; • Right-of-way acquisition; and • Project cost and schedule. Commissioner Buster stated these improvements will improve the traffic flow on the SR-91 at Arlington Avenue. He discussed the traffic impacts at Riverside Avenue and asked about proposed improvements. Patti Castillo referred to Mark Penile, Caltrans District 08, to discuss the potential improvements for Riverside Avenue. Mark Pertile stated there will not be any major improvements to the Riverside Avenue location. He explained that Caltrans evaluated the accident history for this location and will make sight distance improvements at the ramp. M/S/C to receive an update on the State Route 91 high occupancy vehicle (HOV) project. 12. ITEM(S) PULLED FROM CONSENT CALENDAR FOR DISCUSSION 8M. AMENDMENTS WITH ZAMISKI CONSTRUCTION AND REAL ESTATE CONSULTING SERVICES, INC., FOR PROPERTY MAINTENANCE SERVICES Commissioner Berg expressed strong concern for the contractors' expertise. He discussed issues with Real Estate Consulting, and Services, Inc., and Zamiski Construction regarding specialized equipment, insurance issues, and proposed costs. He recommended both these amendments be referred back to the Budget and Implementation Committee for review and approval. Commissioner Berg suggested staff competitively bid these services. Staff concurred with Commissioner Berg to refer this item to the Budget and Implementation Committee. M/S/C (Stone/Lowe) to refer this item to the Budget and Implementation Committee. • • • • Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes June 10, 2009 Page 17 8Z. STATE AND FEDERAL LEGISLATIVE UPDATE At Commissioner Buster's request, John Standiford, Deputy Executive Director, provided a thorough update on the state and federal legislation. Anne Mayer stated that due to frequent changes on the federal side, staff is diligently working to update the Commissioners and Federal Legislative Authorization Ad Hoc Committee meetings will be scheduled to discuss these issues. M/S/C (Adams/Buster) to receive and file an update on state and federal legislative activities. 13. COMMISSIONERS/EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S REPORT 13A. Anne Mayer: • Reminded the Commissioners to provide comments on the Rail Station Criteria Plan; and • Announced bids will open on July 30, 2009, for the SR-91 eastbound auxiliary lane project. 14. CLOSED SESSION Due to the loss of a quorum, the Closed Session item was deferred until the next meeting when a quorum is present. 15. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business for consideration by the Riverside County Transportation Commission, the meeting adjourned at 12:15 p.m. The next Commission meeting is scheduled to be held at 9:30 a.m., Wednesday, July 8, 2009, in the Board Room at the County of Riverside Administrative Center, 4080 Lemon Street, Riverside, California, 92501. Respectfully submitted, Osu""-q-&-_Ho �L�m4r`- Jennifer Harmon Clerk of the Board • AGENDA ITEM 6 PUBLIC HEARING RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: July 8, 2009 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Plans and Programs Committee Fina Clemente, Transit Manager THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Executive Director SUBJECT: Fiscal Year 2009/10 Allocation of Funding for Riverside County Transit Services PLANS AND PROGRAMS COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Conduct a public hearing at the July Commission meeting on the proposed Section 5307 Program of Projects (POP) as attached; 2) Approve the FY 2009/10 Federal Transit Administration's (FTA) Section 5307 and 5311 POP for Riverside County; 3) Approve the FY 2009/10 Local Transportation Fund (LTF) and State Transit Assistance (STA) fund allocations for transit as attached; 4) Direct staff to add projects into the Regional Transportation Improvement Plan (RTIP); and 5) Adopt Resolution No. 09-015, "Resolution of the Riverside County Transportation Commission to Allocate State Transit Assistance Funds". BACKGROUND INFORMATION: At its June 10 meeting, the Commission approved the FY 2009/10 through FY 2011/12 Short Range Transit Plans (SRTPs) for the city of Banning, city of Beaumont, city of Riverside Special Services, city of Corona, Riverside Transit Agency (RTA), SunLine Transit Agency (SunLine), Palo Verde Valley Transit Agency and the Commission's Commuter Rail Program. As the transportation planning agency, the Commission is responsible for planning transit services, allocation of transit funds, operator oversight and performance monitoring. The SRTPs identify operating and capital budgets, funding sources, consolidated financial plan, and serve as blueprints for the future development of transit services, operations and infrastructure. The approved SRTPs provide the basis for the Commission's oversight activities to help establish system policy, determine appropriate service goals, and provide management with the necessary information to efficiently operate fixed routes, paratransit, and rail services. Agenda Item 6 SRTP Financial and Ridership Overview Based on submitted SRTPs for FY 2009/10, it is estimated that $198.9 million in funding is required to support the operating and capital requests for the provision of Riverside County transit services. The following table provides an overview of the operating and capital costs together with projected ridership levels by apportionment area. Operating Capital Total (Oper & Capital) Leverage of Commuter Rail Funds* GRAND TOTAL FY09/10 Projected Ridership Table 1 - FY 2009/10 Operating, Capital and Ridership Projections Western Riverside Coachella Palo Verde Valley Valley Total Bus I Rail $ 60,656,476 $ 10,983,600 $ 22,735,270 $ 925,069 12,698,301 73,354,777 52,805,137 3,091,828 63,788,737 25,827,098 34,992,800 $ 95,300,415 32,000 68,627,266 957,069 163,927,681 34,992,800 $73,354,777 8,504,427 $98,781,537 3,279,966 $25,827,098 3,853,176 $957,069 $198,920,481 58,085 ' LA Metro, OCTA & SANBAG's share and passenger fare revenues for Commuter Rail Expenses 15,695,654 As shown in Attachment 4 of this report, it is projected that the FY 2009/10 funding request will generate approximately 15.7 million in ridership, about 4% higher than projected ridership this year. The SRTPs are prepared under fiscally constrained economic conditions with declining revenue sources, particularly in LTF and Measure A and the elimination of STA funding beginning July 1, 2009. While constrained local funds have affected service, by leveraging new federal funds previously unavailable to the Commission and its operators, service has been expanded including RTA's new commuter link routes serving Hemet/San Jacinto, Escondido, and downtown Riverside. The plans are based on a conservative baseline budget estimates that operators can realistically and reasonably expect to get from known revenue sources. In general, the transit agencies planned their next year's operations at a similar funding level as this year with a slight decrease of 2.5% in operating expenses. Capital expenses, however, increased by about 48%. The increase in capital is mainly attributed to the substantial capital support needed for the Commuter Rail Program's Perris Valley Line project. Although local and state funds continued to spiral downward, approximately $31.9 million in stimulus funds under the American Agenda Item 6 • 2 • • • Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) Sections 5307 and 5311 programs supplemented the operators with the much needed funding to support some capital transit projects. Approximately $12.4 million of this amount was programmed in FY 2008/09 by the Commuter Rail Program and SunLine. The balance of $19.5 million in ARRA funds was programmed by RTA, city of Corona, and city of Riverside for FY 2009/10. The current financial situation presents a challenge to all transit providers in optimizing overall transit service in a way that provides the best mobility among residents given the resource limitations that the agencies operate within. FY 2009/10 Operating and Capital Costs To implement the SRTPs for FY 2009/10, the request is to utilize approximately $95.3 million for operating and $68.6 million for capital in addition to the $35 million share from the Los Angeles Metropolitan Transportation Authority, Orange County Transportation Authority and San Bernardino Associated Governments to leverage the Commuter Rail Program. The chart below provides an overview of the operating and capital costs by funding source required to provide transit services in Riverside County: Riverside County: FY 2009/10 Operating and Capital Costs Measure A — $28,535,178 TDA (LTF & STA Funds)` 14% $66,234,639 32% Add11 Rail Operating subsidy paid by SANBAG, OCTA & LA Metro — $14,982,700 8% TUMF, Fuel Rebate & Misc- Revenues $3,667,301 2% Agenda Item 6 ;Passenger Fares $33,276,755 17% Federal Formula Funds (5307 & 5311) $26,515,776 13% Prop 1B Capital & Security $3,184,637 2% Federal -Discretionary Funds (Sec 5309) -- $1,989,300 1% ARRA Stimulus Funds \. (5307 & 5311) $19,494,314 10% Sec 5316 & 5317 $1,009,631 1% 3 Of the $198.9 million operating and capital costs identified in the above chart, approximately $51..9 million (26.1 %) is derived from: • Passenger fares; • Western Riverside Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fees (TUMF) and fuel rebate revenues; • Commuter rail member agencies' revenue share; and • Miscellaneous other revenues (bus shelter advertising, TRIP revenue, Metrolink transfer fares, interest income, etc.) The remaining balance of approximately $147 million (73.9%) consists of federal (including the ARRA funds), state and local funds that are allocated through Commission action. Request for Allocation of FY 2009/10 Federal Funding: Section 5307, Section 5309 and Section 5311 Section 5307 Formula Funds There are four urbanized areas in Riverside County that receive federal operating and capital grant funding through FTA's Section 5307 program. • Riverside/San Bernardino; • Hemet/San Jacinto; • Temecula/Murrieta; and • Indio/Cathedral City/Palm Springs. Attachment 2 to this staff report is the proposed Section 5307 POP for Riverside County. The Commission must develop and approve a POP for each urbanized area and conduct a public hearing prior to an operator submitting its Section 5307 grant application to FTA. If the draft POP is not amended through the public hearing process, the POP will become final as presented and will be included in an approved RTIP, which is subsequently forwarded to the Southern California Association of Governments for review and processing. Agenda Item 6 Section 5307 Formula Funds City of Corona S 484,768 City of Riverside Special Services 656,000 Riverside Transit Agency 8,264,704 RCTC Regional Commuter Rail 11,396,600 SunLine Transit Agency 4,958,491 $ 25,760,563 • • • 4 • The actual Section 5307 apportionments for FY 2009/10 will not be known until later this calendar year when final appropriations are made by Congress. The POP was developed at the highest anticipated funding amount to allow the operators to proceed with their grant submissions and to avoid delays associated with program amendments and additional paperwork should the actual apportionments come in lower than estimated. Any excess funds will be carried over to subsequent fiscal years and will be made available to cover future project needs. Section 5309 Discretionary Funds Section 5309 is a discretionary pool of federal funds designated for public transit operators to purchase replacement or expansion buses and improve facilities. RTA and SunLine have identified projects totaling $1,989,300 in Section 5309 discretionary funds. RTA's FY 2009/10 earmark projects include an advance traveler information system, intermodal transit facility in Temecula and multimodal transit centers in Riverside and Corona. SunLine's Section 5309 earmarks will fund bus purchase, CalStart-Westart fuel cell bus program and a transit hub in Thousand Palms. The projects must be included in an approved RTIP before the operators can access these funds. Section 5311 Formula and Discretionary Funds The FTA Section 5311 Rural Transit Assistance program funds are administered by Caltrans. These funds are for transit operating purposes in non -urbanized areas. The majority of funds are passed through to counties based on a population formula. Any remaining funds are awarded in a statewide discretionary program by Caltrans for rural capital projects and intercity bus programs. The Commission must develop and approve a Section 5311 POP before grants are approved. This year's program was prepared using the FY 2008/09 funding level for transit operations. As with the Section 5307 program, the actual apportionments will not be known until the final appropriations are released. By programming at what may be a higher level of funding, the operators will be able to apply for maximum funding and avoid delays and additional work to amend their programs. The Section 5311 program allocates $755,213 in formula funds for Riverside County of which 61.7% will be allocated to RTA and 38.3% for SunLine. As in previous years, both RTA and SunLine identified the use of Section 5311 formula funds for operating. The 61.7%/38.3% formula was approved by the Commission in 1987 and was based on the level of service each agency operated in the non -urbanized areas of the county. In FY 2002/03, the formula was reviewed with staff from RTA and SunLine to determine if the formula was still applicable and both agencies agreed that the formula should remain at the current percentage splits. Agenda Item 6 5 Section 5311 Formula Funds Agency Riverside Transit Agency SunLine Transit Agency Amount % Allocation $465,966 61.7% 289,247 38.3% Total Federal Funds Available $755,213 100% Transportation Development Act (TDA► Funding There are two major sources of TDA funding for public transportation - LTF and STA. The LTF funds are derived from % cent of the state retail sales tax collected in each county, which was increased from 7.75% to 8.75% on April 1, 2009. The state Board of Equalization returns the sales tax revenues to the county of Riverside where it is held until the Commission provides written allocation instructions for disbursement. It is estimated that LTF revenue for transit services will be $55,225,646, a 13.8% drop in LTF revenue compared to revised FY 2008/09 projections'. In March 2009, the STA funding for transit was completely eliminated by the state. There are approximately $11 million in STA reserve funds at the end of FY 2008/09 and a substantial amount (60%) from this fund balance will be utilized for capital projects in FY 2009/10. Prior to approving the STA allocations, the Commission must adopt the attached resolution as specified in the TDA statutes and California Code of Regulations. The Commission must allocate funds to support the transit services and capital projects contained in the FY 2009/10 SRTP in order for the public transit operators to claim LTF and/or STA funds. The requested allocations are consistent with the approved SRTPs and the funds are explicitly for the projects as stated in the approved plans. The specific operators requested TDA allocations for FY 2009/10 are outlined in Attachment 3 to this agenda item. Staff recommendation is to approve the TDA and FTA funds as presented. Any modifications in farebox revenues, federal grants, Measure A funding or carry over funds may require operators to revise their services to operate within the available funding. ' Of the $55,225,646 LTF amount, $5,522,565 has been set aside as reserve funds based on Commission approved policy. Agenda Item 6 6 • Fiscal Impact The FY 2009/10 budget adopted at the June 10, 2009 Commission meeting included $51,740,000 in LTF transit operating expenditures, $10,540,000 in LTF transit capital expenditures and $6,962,000 in STA capital expenditures. These budgeted expenditures are expected to be funded by FY 2009/10 revenues as well as available fund balances. Based on these recommended allocations, no budget adjustments are required. Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: Yes Year: FY 2009/10 Amount: $59,521,066 (LTF) $6,713,573 (STA) Source of Funds: Transportation Deve opment Act: LTF and STA Budget Ad ustment: No GLA No.: LOCAL TRANSPORTATION FUND STATE TRANSIT ASSISTANCE Western County Bus Western County Bus 601 62 86101 P2210 $27,090,775 Western County Rail 241 62 86102 P2201 $2,150,933 Western County Rail 601 62 86101 P2213 $10,983,600 601 62 86102 P2213 $ 9,516,000 Coachella Valley 241 62 86102 P2204 $4,500,000 Coachella Valley 241 62 86102 P2202 $ 62,640 Palo Verde Valley 601 62 86101 P2211 $10,578,532 601 62 86102 P2211 $ 502,865 Palo Verde Valley 241 62 86102 P2203 $ 0 601 62 86101 P2212 $ 817,294 601 62 86102 P2212 $ 32,000 Fiscal Procedures Approved: \I-Xm,dzev,ta Date: 6/16/2009 Attachments: 1) Resolution No. 09-015 2) Section 5307 Program of Projects 3) TDA spreadsheets (LTF and STA) 4) FY 2009/10 and FY 2008/09 Operating and Capital Requests and Ridership Projections Agenda Item 6 7 ATTACHMENT 1 • RESOLUTION NO. 09-015 A RESOLUTION OF THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION TO ALLOCATE STATE TRANSIT ASSISTANCE FUNDS WHEREAS, the Riverside County Transportation Commission is designated the regional entity responsible for the allocation of State Transit Assistance Funds within Riverside County; and WHEREAS, the Riverside County Transportation Commission has examined the Short Range Transit Plans and Transportation Improvement Program; and WHEREAS, all proposed expenditures in Riverside County are in conformity with the Regional Transportation Plan; and WHEREAS, the level of passenger fares is sufficient for claimants to meet the fare revenue requirements of Public Utilities Code Sections 99268.2, 99268.3, 99268.4, 99268.5, and 99268.9, as applicable; and WHEREAS, the claimant is making full use of federal funds available under the Federal Transit Act; and WHEREAS, the sum of the claimant's allocations from the state transit assistance fund and from the local transportation fund does not exceed the amount the claimant is eligible to receive during the fiscal year; and WHEREAS, priority consideration has been given to claims to offset reductions in federal operating assistance and the unanticipated increase in the cost of fuel, to enhance existing public transportation services, and to meet high priority regional, countywide, or area -wide public transportation needs; and WHEREAS, the public transit operators have made a reasonable effort to implement the productivity improvements recommended pursuant to Public Utilities Code Section 99244; and WHEREAS, the claimant is not precluded by any contract entered into on or after June 28, 1979, from employing part-time drivers or contracting with common carriers or persons operating under a franchise or license; and • ATTACHMENT 1 WHEREAS, operators are in full compliance with Section 18081.1 of the Vehicle Code, as required in Public Utilities Code Section 99251. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Riverside County Transportation Commission to allocate State Transit Assistance Funds for FY 2009/10 as detailed in Attachment 2. This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its passage. APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 8' day of July, 2009. Robert E. Magee, Chair Riverside County Transportation Commission ATTEST: Jennifer Harmon, Clerk of the Board Riverside County Transportation Commission 9 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION PROGRAM OF PROJECTS FTA SECTION 5307 FY 2009/10 URBANIZED AREA: RIVERSIDE/SAN BERNARDINO Total Apportionment (Projected based on prior year actuals) Bus Rail Apportionment $9,144,260 $5,475,544 Lapsing Funds (per FTA) Carryover $1,003,537 $19,110,169 Total Funds Available $10,147,797 $24,585,713 Less Current Requests $4,515.646 $11,396.600 Balance (Projected) $5,632,151 $13,189,113 Sub Area Allocation Corona, City of $484,768 Riverside, City of $656,000 Riverside Transit Agency $3,374,878 RCTC's Commuter Rail $11396.600 TOTAL $15,912,246 ATTACHMENT Page 1 of 4 FEDERAL DESIGNATED NUMBER PROGRAM OF PROJECTS TOTAL AMOUNT SHARE PROJECT TYPE RECIPIENT Corona, City of 1) Preventive Maintenance $ 605,960 $ 484,768 Capital/Operating SCAG TOTAL: City of Corona $ 605,960 $ 484,768 Riverside, City of 2) Preventive Maintenance $ 300,000 $ 240,000 Capital/Operating SCAG 0 3) Purchase of Office Equipment $ 20,000 $ 16,000 Capital SCAG 4) Installation of Additional Slow Fill Stations $ 500,000 $ 400,000 Capital SCAG TOTAL: City of Riverside $ 820,000 $ 656,000 Riverside Transit Agency 5) COP Debt Service $ 4,811,018 $ 2,885,889 Capital SCAG 6) Revenue Vehicle Systems $ 64,650 $ 51,720 Capital SCAG 7) Facility Maintenance $ 376,586 $ 301,269 Capital SCAG 8) Information Systems $ 170,000 $ 136,000 Capital SCAG TOTAL: Riverside Transit Agency $ 5,422,254 $ 3,374,878 RCTC's Commuter Rail 9) SCRRA Rehab/Renovation • FY 10 RCTC's share $ 1,396,600 $ 1,396,600 Capital SCAG 10) Perris Valley Line (Engineering & Construction) $ 15,000,000 $ 10,000,000 Capital SCAG TOTAL: RCTC Rail $ 16,396,600 $ 11,396,600 TOTAL: GRAND TOTAL $ 23,244,814 $ 15,912,246 Approved: 7/08/09(Pending) • V1JCIemente153071POP1Riv-San Bernardino0910.xis 10 ATTACHMENT 2 Page 2 of 4 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION PROGRAM OF PROJECTS FTA SECTION 5307 FY 2009/10 URBANIZED AREA: HEMET/SAN JACINTO RECIPIENT: RIVERSIDE TRANSIT AGENCY Total Apportionment (Projected based on prior year actuals) Apportionment $1,891,037 Carryover $343,101 Transfer of Funds (CMAQ) $0 Total Funds Available $2,234,138 Less Current Requests $1,891,037 Balance (Projected) $343,101 TOTAL FEDERAL PROJECT DESIGNATED NUMBER PROGRAM OF PROJECTS AMOUNT SHARE TYPE RECIPIENT 1) Operating Assistance $ 24,252,133 $ 1,891,037 Operating Caltrans TOTAL: $ 24,252,133 $ 1,891,037 Approved: 7/08/09 (Pending) VAJClemente153071PORHemet - San Jacinto UZA09-10.xls • • 11 ATTACHMENT Page 3 of 4 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION PROGRAM OF PROJECTS FTA SECTION 5307 FY 2009/10 URBANIZED AREA: INDIO/CATHEDRAL CITY/PALM SPRINGS RECIPIENT: SUNLINE TRANSIT AGENCY Total Apportionment (Projected based on prior year actuals) Apportionment Lapsing Funds (per FTA) Carryover Transfer of Funds (CMAQ) Total Funds Available Less Current Requests Balance (Projected) NUMBER PROGRAM OF PROJECTS 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) 7) 8) TOTAL: Operating Assistance Capitalized Preventive Maintenance Bus Rehabilitation 5 Replacement Support Vehicles 4 Expansion Support Vehicles 4 Replacement Paratransit Buses Transit Amenities Enhancements ITS Equipment Approved: 7/8/09 (Pending) TOTAL AMOUNT $20,990,095 $1,745,175 $742,500 $231,428 $112,000 $400,000 $80,000 $650,000 $3,555,944 $2,120,775 $0 $5,676,719 $4,958,491 $718,228 FEDERAL PROJECT DESIGNATED SHARE TYPE RECIPIENT $1,849,608 Operating $1,396,140 Operating/ SCAG Capital $594,000 Capital SCAG $185,143 Capital SCAG $89,600 Capital SCAG $260,000 Capital SCAG $64,000 Capital SCAG $520,000 Capital SCAG $24,951,198 $4,958,491 SCAG V3JCIemente\5307\POP \Indio-Coachella-P Springs 09-10.xls 12 ATTACHMENT 2 Page 4 of 4 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION PROGRAM OF PROJECTS. FTA SECTION 5307 FY 2009/10 URBANIZED AREA: TEMECULA/MURRIETA RECIPIENT: RIVERSIDE TRANSIT AGENCY Total Apportionment (Projected based on prior year actuals) Apportionment $3,066,663 Lapsing Funds (per FTA) $0 Carryover $895,733 Transfer of Funds (CMAQ) $0 Total Funds Available $3,962,396 Less Current Requests $2,998,789 Balance (Projected) $963,607 TOTAL FEDERAL PROJECT DESIGNATED NUMBER PROGRAM OF PROJECTS AMOUNT SHARE TYPE RECIPIENT 1) Operating Assistance $ 24,252,133 $ 623,817 Operating SCAG 2) Capitalized Preventive Maintenance $ 9,407,663 $ 162,121 Operating/Capital SCAG 3) COP Debt Service $ 4,811,018 $ 27,454 Capital SCAG 4) Capital Maintenance Spares $ 2,564,498 $ 1,986,914 Capital SCAG 5) Capitalized Tire Lease $ 254,091 $ 198,483 Capital SCAG TOTAL: $41,289,403 $2,998,789 Approved: 7/8/09(Pending) V :1J C Iemenle15307\POP1T eme cula-Murrieta09-10.xls • • 13 Wd ZS:4 600Z/11/9 slx 0L60 uone0010i V1S All/Of 59913S0'0L $ LOZ'OLV64 $ t� l 'd18S 014600Z AA 10lenadde 6u!pued spepene spew 90 II!M uopeoolle !enuuV :910N •slsoo 6011e/900 10 aieys s,01021 s! 009'E86'03'lunowe Ley; 1o'd121S 10 4 Mel gad W 0.94$ le palewpsa ale slsoo 6046.19 D s,l!ea .1alnwwo0 , 990'LZS'6S $ S1.9'904'40L $ 1.89`LZ64E94 $ 99V/Z9`89 $ SLb`00E'S6 $ 1V101301M A1Nf100 000t£ 46Z'L48 46V678 SLL`LOL 000'Z£ v6Z'Lla 46V649 5LL'LOl 690'LS6 000'Z£ 690`SZ6 690'L$6 000'Z£ 690'SZ6 A3llVA 30213A OIVd 1V101 Amon V L!suell6apeA 90/0A 0I9d 698'ZOS z£5'819'0L L6£`1•80`14 401.'941'41 860'LZ9`SZ 8Z8'1,60'£ OLZ`SEL'ZZ A3llVA Vll3H3V00 r1V101 ssa'tos z£s'aLs'ot 16E'LBO'll LOL'S4L'44 860'LZ8'$Z BZ9't60'E OLZ'SEL'ZZ Foua6V psue.u. aununS 000'91S% 009'£86'01. 009468440Z LEL'69Z'£4 LEL`88L`£9 L£4`S09'ZS 009'£96'01 .11V21 N3inwwo0 - 301S213AI21 Nd31S3M 11/101 000'9 LSI 009'E9s'ot 009'664'0Z LEL'68Z'E4 LEL'98L'£9 L£L'509'ZS 009'£86'0l (5IuOollaW) lien Jalnwwo0 s,010H 5L1'060'LZ 9a060'LZ Z00'49V94 LLL`4SE'EL LOE'869'ZI. 9LV999'09 SL18-301S213AR1N2131S3M:lV101 Pez'69C1Z 40'654'12 £4Z'L£0'Z4 LLV96CO 1.0£'esCoL 9LL'966'Z5 964'1.097 964'LOS'Z 000'tar t 96VSZE'4 000'09el 964'9L0'E me'oott 96£'OOZ'l 6S0'90S'L 497'90L'Z 000'009 494'90CZ os9'e10'L 099'92.0'1 099'69L 009'8178'1. 000'099 005'86L't $ 000'94L't $ 000'W:1. $ 0S8'6ZL $ 098'4LZ'l $ - $ OSS'4LZ't $ OL/600Z OL/600Z Ad spund Aj spunj oupeae00 dll le410e0 All Aoue6V l!sue 1 apISJania seowaS !eioadS apisJania euao0lo lll0 luowneag 10 �l!0 6upuee 10 Al!0 Mfierrn S311N3AMA 81S03 S1S001V11dV0 UM V321V 1N3INN011210ddV/A0N30V 210A SNOUV0011V All NON 031VWI133 1V101031VWI1S3 031VWI1S3 ONIlV213d0 11SNV211 All 030Namon21 031VWI1S3 SOMA NOLLV1210dSNV2111V007 Z;o abed £ OV11V SNOI1V0011V 11SNV211 01./600Z Ad ONIONfId 10V 1N31Nd013A30 NOLLV11:10dSNV211 NOISSIWWOO NOI1V1210dSNV211 A11%100 3OIS213A121 • • £LS`£4L`9 $ 049`n 049'Z9 000'009'4 000'009'4 ££6'056`Z • 996'969'1. 000'40l 000'099 $ $ 041600Z Ad 01/600Z Ad spund spund leAde3 V1S Stipend° V1S • d121S 01/600Z Ad Jo lenoidde 6wpuad anepene °pew aq IIIm uoileaope ienuuy :aloN ELS'E11'9 $ $ £LS`£4L`9 $ $ TV101301M A1N1103 049'Z9 049`Z9 049'Z9 049'Z9 000`009'4 000'OOS`4 000`009'4 000'009'4 ££6`05l`Z ££6'051.`Z ££6'96£' l ££6'96£' l 000'401 000'401. 000'099 000'099 $ $ A311VA 30213A Olt/d :1V101 loua6y psuell AaapJan oled A311VA V1131-10V00 :1V101 Aoue6y psuaa aununS 1ib21 M3111WW00 - 301SN3A121 N2131S3M :1V101 (>IulloulaW) I1e21 aalni.uwo0 saLM:1 sne - 301S213AIN NN31S3M :1V101 Aoue6y appiaA!H saoinaaS poeds apisiania euaoo to Alo luoumeag to Auo $ 6uluueg to A119 01•/600Z Ad SaNfld S1S00 1V11dV0 S1S00 V321V 1N3AIN011210ddV/A0N3DV 210d SN011V0011V 213A0 A2121V0 V1S 031VW1193 ONI1V213d0 11SNVM1 V1S V19 031VNII1S3 a3C1N3WW003N V1S 031VINI1S3 :SOMA 3ONVISISSV 11SNVal 31VIS SNOI1VOOTIV 115NY/di 04/600Z Ad JN1aNnd 19V 11431Nd013A30 NOI1V1NOASNI211 NOISSMINOO NOI1V121OdSNV2l1 Amnon 301S213A121 Z io Z aBed £ 1N31NHOV11V 96 1001.'0L0'0Z$) enueneJ xoquel oea pun (00e£96'446) seioueBe Jeuped Lowy Apisgns &fume° ieuomppe ui ;meow S£$ ApuewixoJdde stud uo00w LLB AieleugxoJdde yo uegs 6,010a epnlou! won s,6ea Jelnwwo0, %LULL 00£'0£0'6LL 4 1.94OZ6'864 $ cielol 009'OLO'99 4 008'Z66`48 $ ,spun j pea Jelnwwo0 Jo eBeJenei %60'4 £LZ'6L0'S4 499'969'84 %LB'£l 00L'686'£44$ 489'LZ6'£94 $ %l'494 OZ£'44Z'96 $ 99Z`LZ9'89 $ %L4'Z- 08£'84eL6 $ 544'00£`96 $ SV321V11V:1V101 %L817Z 549`94 880`88 %6e'EE- 9Z9`L44'l 690'L96 %6L'E6- LL9'915 000`Z£ %4C0- 666'4E6 690`8Z6 1V101 :A311VA 2082A OlVd %Le'4Z $49'94 990'89 %69'E£- 9Z9'L44'l 690'LS6 %6L'E6 LL9'S LS 000'Z£ %4L'0- 646'LS6 690'9Z6 Aoue6y psueJl AepeA epJeA oled %6ZZ EL4`1.69'E 9LL'ES9'£ %6E'0£- ZE8'ZOL'LE -�-960 LZ8'SZ 19"Rxin" ;R ', itiliS %8b 8L- ZWL9E'44 8Z8'L60 E °/n00'0 OLZ'SSG 'ZZ .�a OLZ'SEL`ZZ , 1V10l :A311VA V113H0V00 %6Z1 %00'E £L4'164'£ 88e14414 9Ll`£S8'E --�, £6V69L'Il. %6£'0£- %R'0E ZSEIZOL'LE Z4Z'604'SO4 860'LZ8'4Z 419£44 Lel %94'9L- %HMI. Z9S'L9£'44 8Ze'L6o'£ %on OLZ'SEL'ZZ Oa' SEL'ZZ Aoua6yllsueJleui,luns 480'888'4£ 884'809'99 £E`:arf is t:' ,54. 7,A1. ..,: r ° r...a „.-Arr A,- :, { , , %9Z'E- 491:480`4L 9L0'049'LL HEN 9 en911/101'Alt9100 N93193M %S£'4 4LeE41.'E 998'6LZ'£ %04'60L 909'Z94bE L£L'88L'E9 %94'E9L 90L'990'0Z L£4'908'ZS %S9'S 00l'96E'0l 009'£86'0I. Hee:AlunoO walseM %642 LLo'SBZ'8 LZ4'40S`9 'AZ L'Z- 4E4'946'4L LLL'49£'EL %94'2L EL£'1.6Z'LL 40£'869'Zl %tLb- 1.90'SS9'£9 9L4'999'09 sng :Alun00walsaM %E92 8£4'649'L 9Z6'Z49'L %4Z'Z- ZSO'LZ9'49 LL4'961.'£9 %6Z'LL L6L'469'8 lOE'86L'0L %SZ'S- SSZ'ZE6'SS 9LC966'ZS Aoue6ypsumiaplsJaAla %96'Z 000'094 Z99'49l %CT4- LL0'0041, 964'8ZE'4 46E9't 000'0EZ'L 000'0SZ'L %697- LL0'OL L'E 964`9L0'£ seovues leloeds eplSJBAIa %49'0- EL8'ZEZ Z8£'LEZ %VTOL 669'6E4'Z 494'90L'Z %06'56 9Le90£ 000'009 %9Z'4- ELE'££L'Z 494'90L'Z euoJooyoAlp %L6'4 00L'90L 004'444 %69'9£ 6Z£'ZSE'L o0S'84e'L %8Z'8ZZ 000'86l 000'089 %£8'C 6ZE'49L'L 009'86I.'I. luowneaglo Apo %EO'£ 000'L14 L94'1•91. %LO'04- L8£'LZ 4'Z $ 098'4LeL $ %00'004- 00£'Z98 $ - $ %LL'0 L80'99Z'L $ OSe'4LZ'4 $ 6wuueg to Alio 'seam! %lelol (peuueld) dlguepla 60/130Ad 0014901.0.1d) d142Je0121 01460 AA eseuoul %Lelol 2l900 lelol 60I80Ad SW001E401 01.I60 Ad lelide0 Joel% Lewle0 69/80Ad pude0 04/60Ad 64tpued0 Joul% Bupeled° 60/90Ad Bupend° 0L/60Ad V39V11;)3WNOIlaOddVU0N39V 41N3WH0V11V • suq;carom diysaap121 pue s;sanbaa woe° +g bugeLadO 60/800Z Ad'8 06/600Z Ad ;o uospedwoo • • AGENDA ITEM 8A • • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: July 8, 2009 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Budget and Implementation Committee Michele Cisneros, Accounting and Human Resources Manager THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Executive Director SUBJECT: "Resolution of the Riverside County Transportation Commission Establishing the Commission's Annual Appropriations Limit for Fiscal Year 2009/10" BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to adopt Resolution No. 09-014, "Resolution of the Riverside County Transportation Commission Establishing the Commission's Annual Appropriations Limit for Fiscal Year 2009/10". BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Section 7910 of the California Government Code implements Article XIIIB of the California Constitution by requiring each local jurisdiction to establish, by resolution, its appropriations limit for each fiscal year and to make documentation used to determine the appropriations limit available to the public 15 days prior to adoption of the resolution establishing the appropriations limit. Staff has performed the calculations necessary to determine the limit. The resolution and documents supporting the calculation are attached. The Commission chose to use the percentage change in the California per capita personal income and the populations change within Riverside County as the factors in determining the appropriations limit. As required, the adoption of the Commission's Gann Appropriations Limit was posted in the local newspaper. Attachments: 1) Resolution No. 09-014 2) California Per Capita Income — California Department of Finance 3) Population, Riverside County — California Department of Finance, Demographic Research Unit Agenda Item 8A 17 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Commissioners of the Riverside County Transportation Commission as follows: 1. For fiscal year 2009-2010, the factors selected for calculating the appropriations limit are (a) the percentage change in California per capita personal income, and (b) the population change within the County of Riverside. 2. The appropriations limit applicable to this Agency pursuant to Article XIIIB of the California Constitution for fiscal year 2009-2010 are hereby established and determined to be $ 322,761,463. 3. A copy of the documentation used in the determination of the appropriations limit for fiscal year 2009-2010 shall be affixed hereto and shall be available for public inspection. 4. Pursuant to Section 7910 of the California Government Code, any judicial action or proceeding to attack, review, set aside, void, or annul the establishment of the appropriations limit as set forth herein must be commenced within forty-five days of the adoption of this resolution. ADOPTED this 8th day of July, 2009. Robert E. Magee, Chairman Riverside County Transportation Commission ATTEST: Jennifer Harmon, Clerk of the Board Riverside County Transportation Commission 19 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION 2009-2010 APPROPRIATIONS LIMIT 2008-2009 Appropriations Limit $ 311,666,690 2009-2010 adjustment: Change in California per capita income Change in Population, Riverside County = 2.13 percent = 1.40 percent 2.13 + 100 = 1.0213 100 1.40 + 100 = 1.014 100 1.0213 x 1.014 = 1.0355982 $ 311,666,690 X 1.0355982 = $ 322,761,463 2009-2010 Appropriations Limit $ 322,761,463 Source: California per capita income - California Department of Finance Population, Riverside County - California Department of Finance Demographic Research Unit 20 ATTACHMENT E-1: City/County Population Estimates with Annual Percent Change January 1, 2008 and 2009 State/County/City California Total Population Percent 1/1/2008 1/1/2009 Change 37,883,992 38,292,687 1.1 Riverside 2,078,601 2,107,653 1.4 Banning 28,148 28,457 1.1 Beaumont 31,317 32,403 3.5 Blythe 21,627 21,329 -1.4 Calimesa 7,423 7,498 1.0 Canyon Lake 10,994 11,128 1.2 Cathedral City 51,972 52,447 0.9 Coachella 40,317 41,000 1.7 Corona 146,698 148,597 1.3 Desert Hot Springs 25,939 26,552 2.4 Hemet 73,205 74,361 1.6 Indian Wells 5,000 5,093 1.9 Indio 80,962 82,230 1.6 Lake Elsinore 49,556 50,267 1.4 La Quinta 42,743 43,778 2.4 Menifee 0 67,705 0.0 Moreno Valley 182,945 186,301 1.8 Murrieta 99,576 100,714 1.1 Norco 27,143 27,160 0.1 Palm Desert 50,686 51,509 1.6 Palm Springs 47,019 47,601 1.2 Perris 53,340 54,323 1.8 Rancho Mirage 16,975 17,180 1.2 Riverside 296,191 300,430 1.4 San Jacinto 35,491 36,477 2.8 Temecula 99,873 102,604 2.7 Wildomar 0 31,321 0.0 Balance Of County 553,461 459,188 -17.0 21 E-1: State/County Population Estimates with Annual Percent Change January 1, 2008 and 2009 State/County California Total Population Percent 1/1/2008 1/1/2009 Change 37,883,992 38,292,687 1.1 Alameda 1,537,719 1,556,657 1.2 Alpine 1,227 1,201 -2.1 Amador 38,035 38,080 0.1 Butte 219,427 220,748 0.6 Calaveras 45,885 45,987 0.2 Colusa 21,811 21,997 0.9 Contra Costa 1,048,242 1,060,435 1.2 Del Norte 29,352 29,547 0.7 El Dorado 178,860 180,185 0.7 Fresno 928,066 942,298 1.5 Glenn 29,070 29,239 0.6 Humboldt 132,177 132,755 0.4 Imperial 175,622 179,254 2.1 Inyo 18,106 18,049 -0.3 Kern 814,995 827,173 1.5 Kings 153,572 154,743 0.8 Lake 63,805 64,025 0.3 Lassen 35,956 35,550 -1.1 Los Angeles 10,301,658 10,393,185 0.9 Madera 150,249 152,331 1.4 Marin 256,511 258,618 0.8 Mariposa 18,297 18,306. 0.0 Mendocino 89,743 90,206 0.5 Merced _ 253,471 256,450 1.2 Modoc 9,668 9,698 0.3 Mono 13,653 13,504 -1.1 Monterey 426,670 431,892 1.2 Napa 136,064 137,571 1.1 Nevada 98,874 98,718 -0.2 Orange 3,107,500 3,139,017 1.0 Placer 333,766 339,577 1.7 Plumas 20,786 20,632 -0.7 Riverside 2,078,601 2,107,653 1.4 Sacramento 1,418,763 1,433,187 1.0 San Benito 57,517 58,016 0.9 San Bernardino 2,044,895 2,060,950 0.8 San Diego 3,131,552 3,173,407 1.3 San Francisco 835,364 845,559 1.2 San Joaquin 682,316 689,480 1.0 San Luis Obispo 268,290 270,429 0.8 San Mateo 736,951 745,858 1.2 Santa Barbara 426,915 431,312 1.0 Santa Clara 1,829,480 1,857,621 1.5 Santa Cruz 265,782 268,637 1.1 • 22 • Shasta Sierra Siskiyou Solano Sonoma Stanislaus Sutter Tehama Trinity Tulare Tuolumne Ventura Yolo Yuba 181,622 183,023 0.8 3,363 3,358 -0.1 45,725 45,973 0.5 424,397 426,729 0.5 482,297 486,630 0.9 522,313 526,383 0.8 95,306 96,554 1.3 62,179 62,836 1.1 13,932 13,959 0.2 433,764 441,481 1.8 56,435 56,335 -0.2 827,267 836,080 1.1 198,326 200,709 1.2 71,803 72,900 1.5 23 PER CAPITA PERSONAL INCOME ATTACHMENT 3 United California California %Change States %Change %of U.S. 1950 1,874 - 1,504 - 124.6% 1955 2,383 - 1,907 - 125.0% 1958 2,599 - 2,109 - 123.2% 1959 2,743 5.5% 2,209 4.7% 124.2% 1960 2,826 3.0% 2,269 2.7% 124.5°% 1961 2,881 1.9% 2,327 2.6% 123.8°% 1962 3,005 4.3% 2,440 4.9% 123.2°% 1963 3,102 3.2% 2,527 3.6% 122.8°% 1964 3275 5.6% 2,672 5.7% 122.6% 1965 3,413 4.2% 2,850 6.7% 119.8% 1966 3,656 7.1% 3,062 7.4°% 119.4% 1967 3,874 6.0% 3,254 6.3% 119.1% 1968 4,201 8.4% 3,538 8.7°% 118.7% 1969 4,529 7.8°% 3,836 8.4°% 118.1% 1970 4,810 6.2% 4,085 6.5°% 117.7% 1971 5,034 4.7% 4,342 6.3°% 115.9% 1972 5,454 8.3% 4,717 8.6°% 115.6% 1973 5,944 9.07o 5,231 10.9°% 113.6% 1974 6,552 10.2% 5,707 9.1°% 114.8% 1975 7,129 8.8°% 6,172 8.1% 115.5°% 1976 7,825 9.8% 6,754 9.4% 115.9% 19R 8,570 9.5% 7,405 9.6% 115.7% 1978 9,580 11.8°% 8,245 11.3% 116.2°% 1979 10,753 12.2°% 9,146 10.9% 117.6°% 1980 11,951 11.1°% 10,114 10.6% 118.2°% 1981 13,175 10.2% 11,246 11.2% 117.2°% 1982 13,763 4.5°% 11,935 6.1% 115.3% 1983 14,556 5.8°% 12,618 5.7% 115.4% 1984 15,994 9.9°% 13,891 10.1% 115.1% 1985 16,956 6.0°% 14,758 6.2% 114.9% 1986 17,668 4.2°% 15,442 4.6% 114.4% 1987 18,549 5.0% 16,240 5.2% 114.2°% 1988 19,599 5.7% 17,331 6.7% 113.1°% 1989 a/-20,585 5.0% 18,520 6.9% 111.2°% 1990 21,638 5.1°% 19,477 5.2% 111.1% 1991 21,750 0.5% 19,892 2.1% 109.3% 1992 22,492 3.4% 20,854 4.8°% 107.9°% 1993 22,635 0.6% 21,346 2.4% 106.0°% 1994 bl 23,203 2.5% 22,172 3.9% 104.7°% 1995 24,161 4.1% 23,076 4.1% 104.7°% 1996 25,312 4.8% 24,175 4.8°% 104.7% 1997 26,490 4.7%v 25,334 4.6% 104.6% 1998 28,374 7.1% 26,883 6.1% 105.5% 1999 29,828 5.1% 27,939 3.9% 106.8% 2000 a 32,467 8.8% 29.847 6.8°% 108.8°% 2001 r 32,901 1.3% 30,582 2.5°% 107.6% 2002 ri 32,870 -0.1% 30,838 0.8% 106.6% 2003 d 33,620 2.3% 31,530 2.2°% 106.6% 2004 r, 35,531 5.7% 33,157 5.2°% 107.2% 2005 a 37,418 5.3% 34,690 4.6°% 107.9% 2006 40.020 7.0% 36.794 6.1% 108.8% 2007 r 41,805 4.5% 38,615 4.9°% 108.3% 2008 pi 42,696 2.1°% 39.751 2.9°% 107.4% a/ Reflects Loma Prieta earthquake. b! Reflects Northridge earthquake. Note: Omits income for government employees overseas. source: U.S- Department of commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis, nttp:r/www.oee.00c.govl ., Revised estimates `or 200 2007 and preliminary estimates for 2008 were released March 24. 2009 Per capiia income `vca revised tack to 2000. The next afirstai personal inceme. release is schoduiee iftin Septe tibe 18. 2009. Updated: March 24, 2009 Filename: bbpercap 24 AGENDA ITEM 86 • • • RIVERS/DE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: July 8, 2009 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Budget and Implementation Committee Andrea Zureick, Senior Staff Analyst Shirley Medina, Programming and Planning Manager THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Executive Director SUBJECT: Fiscal Years 2010-14 Measure A Five -Year Capital Plans for Local Streets and Roads Improvement BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Approve the FYs 2010-14 Measure A Five -Year Capital Improvement Plans (CIP) for Local Streets and Roads for all cities and the county as submitted; and 2) Authorize the Executive Director to approve minor amendments to CIPs at • the request of the local agency. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: • Measure A imposes several requirements on local agencies requesting to receive local streets and roads monies. First, the Coachella Valley and Western County cities and the county must be participating in either the Coachella Valley Association of Governments (CVAG) or Western Riverside Council of Governments (WRCOG) Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) program. Western County agencies must also participate in the Multi -Species Habitat Conservation Plan managed by the Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority (RCA). The city of La Quinta is not a Coachella Valley TUMF participant, and Commission staff is in the process of obtaining confirmation from CVAG, WRCOG, and RCA regarding the current participation in their programs. Additionally, agencies are required to annually provide to the Commission a CIP detailing how those funds are to be expended and an annual certification of maintenance of effort (MOE) along with documentation supporting the calculation. On March 26, 2009, Commission staff provided the local agencies with Measure A revenue projections for local streets and roads to assist in preparation of the required CIP. The agencies were asked to submit the CIP by May 29, 2009, for Commission approval on July 8, 2009. In addition, Commission staff has had Agenda Item 8B 25 numerous discussions with local agency technical staff on the establishment of a 2009 Measure A MOE baseline. Resolution of this issue for FY 2009/10 is the subject of a separate agenda item. Accordingly, the annual certifications will be requested upon adoption of the FY 2009/10 MOE baseline. The required CIP and supporting documentation has been received from all of the local agencies. In addition to the current CIP, the city of Wildomar has submitted a request to carry over the FY 2008/09 allocation of Measure A Local Streets and Roads funds into FY 2009/10; the city of Wildomar was incorporated on July 1, 2008, and had not previously submitted a CIP for FY 2008/09. Approval of this CIP will allow for release of the FY 2008/09 Local Streets and Roads funds to the city. The FY 2009/10 disbursements for all agencies are expected to begin in September 2009. In order to respond to future agency CIP amendment requests, staff is requesting that the Commission authorize the Executive Director to approve minor amendment requests that do not exceed the agency's allocated amount. The approval process would be in the form of a letter from the Executive Director in response to the agency letter requesting the amendment. Minor amendment requests would include adjustments to funding amounts for individual projects or project category, adding an eligible project(s), and project deletions. The CIPs received are posted on the Commission's website and are on file at the Commission office. Attachment: FY 2010-14 Measure A Five -Year Capital Improvement Plans — Posted on Commission Website Agenda Item 8B • 26 • AGENDA ITEM 8C RIVERS/DE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMM/SS/ON DATE: July 8, 2009 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Budget and Implementation Committee Technical Advisory Committee Shirley Medina, Programming and Planning Manager THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Executive Director SUBJECT: 2009 Measure A Maintenance of Effort Base Year BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE, TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE, AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Approve using the 1989 Measure A Maintenance of Effort (MOE) base year amount for FY 2009/10 only; and 2) For cities incorporated after 1989, approve using the Proposition 42 MOE amount for FY 2009/10 only. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: As with the 1989 Measure, the 2009 Measure A ordinance requires local agencies to meet a MOE to ensure that Measure A funds do not supplant local discretionary funds for streets and road improvements. If local agencies do not meet their respective MOE level in a given year, their Measure A Local Streets and Roads allocation will be withheld the following year. At the May 11, 2009, Special Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) meeting, the TAC recommended maintaining the 1989 Measure A MOE base year amount after extensive discussion regarding the State Controller Streets Report and the inconsistencies and variances involved in the development and reporting of street expenditures for these reports. Further, the development of a MOE level under today's economic environment complicates the ability to establish levels that reflect local discretionary spending on streets and road improvements. As a result, the TAC and staff recommend allowing more time to review different calculation methodologies to determine the best base year methodology that would result in fair and equitable MOE levels that the cities will be measured against until the next review cycle in 2019. Agenda Item 8C 27 There are four cities that currently do not have a MOE base level because the cities were incorporated after the 1989 Measure A MOE levels were established. These cities are: Calimesa, Canyon Lake, Murrieta, and Temecula. Staff reviewed different calculation methodologies to apply for FY 2009/10 and is recommending the use of an existing MOE amount that cities currently comply with to receive Proposition 42 funds. The Proposition 42 MOE is based on the State Controller's Streets Report averaging general fund streets and road expenditures for FY 1996/97 — 1998/1999. The newly incorporated cities of Wildomar and Menifee will not have a MOE base amount until such time that a three-year history of expenditures has been reported; however, they will receive Measure A Local Streets and Roads allocations. Attached are the recommended MOE base year amounts for the cities. Staff will continue to work with the TAC to develop and approve MOE base year amounts for FYs 2010/11 — 2019/20 and plan to present a recommendation later during the year. Attachment: FY 2009/10 Measure A MOE • • Agenda Item 8C 28 • • • Fiscal Year 2009/10 Measure A Maintenance of Effort Western County RCTC/TAC FY 2009/10 Recommendation Agency 2008 Meas A LS' . Allocation i 1989 MOE Base Year Prop 42 MOE Banning $ 692,058 . $ 164,325 Beaumont $ 686,232 $ 70,702 - Calimesa $ 174,462 N/A 7,294 Canyon Lake $ 222,567 N/A 6,063 Corona $ 4,790,068 $ 1,784,399 - Hemet $ 1,972,391 $ 1,183,605 - Lake Elsinore $ 1,296,326 $ 503,339 - Moreno Valley $ 4,264,317 '" - ,3 $ 943,143 Murrieta $ 2,516,817 N/A 52,625 Norco $ 828,871 $ 1,259 Perris $ 1,303,501 $ 399,945 - Riverside $ 8,433,571 t $ 12,449,203 - San Jacinto $ 749,541 $ 143,347 Temecula $ 3,342,016 i "',,_;5 N/A 2,785,034 Coachella Valle Agency 2008 Meas A LSR Allocation 1989 MOE Base Year Cathedral City $ 1,439,622 $ 625,230 Coachella $ 535,351 $ 69,663 Desert Hot Spr $ 387,365 $ 57,586 Indian Wells $ 228,694 $ 55,962 Indio $ 1,543,704 $ 465,763 Palm Desert $ 2,408,250 $ 904,798 Palm Springs $ 1,707,300 $ 1,892,584 Rancho Mirage $ 888,711 $ 1,191,036 Palo Verde Valley Blythe 756,219 I $ 475,677 29 • AGENDA ITEM 8D • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMM/SS/ON DATE: July 8, 2009 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Budget and Implementation Committee Min Saysay, Right -of -Way Manager THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Executive Director. SUBJECT: Amendments with Zamiski Construction and Real Estate Consulting Services, Inc., for Property Maintenance Services BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Approve Agreement No. 07-51-089-20, Amendment No. 1 to Agreement No. 07-51-089-00, with Zamiski Construction to extend the current agreements on a month -to -month basis; 2) Approve Agreement No. 07-52-088-11, Amendment No. 1 to Agreement No. 07-52-088-00, with Real Estate Consulting and Services, Inc. to extend the current agreements on a month -to -month basis; 3) Approve additional funding in the combined amount of $950,000 for the services to be provided by Zamiski Construction and Real Estate Consulting and Services, Inc.; and 4) Authorize the Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreements on behalf of the Commission. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: At its January 10, 2007 meeting, the Commission approved Agreement No. 07-51-089-00 with Zamiski Construction, and Agreement No. 07-52-088-00 with Real Estate Consulting Services, Inc., to provide property maintenance services for a combined not to exceed cost of $630,000. The term approved for each contract was for three years with two one-year options, to be exercised at the discretion of the Commission. Property maintenance services include weed abatement by mowing or discing, fence replacement and repairs, removal of effects of vandalism, trash removal and removal of other items such as debris and pieces of furniture left by homeless encampments, and coordinating with law enforcement personnel in the legal removal of homeless persons. Work is generated as a result of an abatement notice from the local jurisdiction, information from the sheriff and local police Agenda Item 8D 30 departments, or from staff inspection of the parcel(s), and work is assigned on a rotating basis. The contractor is requested to inspect the parcel to be cleaned and abated, and to submit a schedule and cost proposal. At the same time, Commission and Bechtel staff independently inspect the parcel and prepare an independent estimate as to schedule and cost. Hourly rates are then applied to the independent estimate and compared to the contractor's proposal. If the cost proposal from the contractor is significantly higher than Commission and Bechtel staff's cost estimate, staff negotiates with the contractor for a lower price. If the contractor cannot reduce its cost proposal, staff asks if the other contractor can perform the work at the independent cost estimate. If neither contractor can perform the work at the independent cost estimate, work is assigned to the contractor with the lowest cost proposal and a task order is issued. Staff then takes pictures of the parcel before and after work is performed. Commission and Bechtel staff inspect the parcel to ensure that work is performed in accordance with the task order, before the contractor's invoice is paid. At the time the agreements were executed, the Commission owned approximately 743 acres of which 301 acres required regular maintenance. These properties were acquired by the Commission for future highway and rail projects. During the two-year period that has since transpired, the Commission acquired additional properties, consisting of approximately 157 acres of vacant properties that require regular maintenance, resulting in an increase of over 52% in acreage requiring regular property maintenance services. Maintaining these properties in the coming years will require a significant increase in the amount of resources previously allocated for this purpose. Based on prior years' expenditures and future demand in maintaining and servicing these properties, staff recommends the Commission allocate additional combined funding of $950,000 for these amendments to compensate the contractors for providing the services needed to maintain the Commission's 'properties in a safe condition and to comply with all applicable local regulations and code requirements. Staff further recommends that the Commission extend the current agreements on a month -to -month basis. Agenda Item 8D • • 31 • Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: Yes Year: FY 2009/10 Amount: $450,000 N/A FY 2010/11 $500,000 Source of Funds: Lease Revenue and Measure A Budget Ad ustment: No GLA No.: 105 51 73313 $450,000 105 52 73313 $500,000 Fiscal Procedures Approved: \i/liv.,"iy"h,+� Date: 05/19/2009 Attachments: 1) Zamiski Construction Price Summary 2) Real Estate Consulting and Services, Inc. Price Summary Agenda Item 8D 32 ATTACHMENT 1 C O N S"T R .U: C T-1 0 N° • EXHIBIT: "C". PRICE SUMMARY FOR PROPERTY WUNTENANGE Description: .. Rates:. 1.. Tractor. with 6' mower $ /, iphr 2. - Tractor with 8'5" disc $ /30/b hr i 3 Laborer with weed Wacker Laborer removing trash/debris • $ 4.;38 hr 5 Laborer (i.e., repair fence line,gates, etc) $- 4: 7q-4 6 Supervisor (Foreman) $. 76hr 7 Ski loader3Z.Ohr 8 13ackhoe 66)0hr 9 2,000 gallon water truck $ .l37.52hr 10. Dump truck 5 yard capacity $ /,S4-:77hi- 11. Dump .truck 10 yard. capacity $ /7317hr 12. 40 yard bin per load (0- 5 ton) S g4;¢gton 13.. 40 yard bin per load (5 ton & above) $' 844-13ton. 14. Current Dump Fees $ 14, ton •cTST e�.: 9 694`..9935. • P9.r gs7. 9�8' .34.2 964-6 • .-P.0:.8oz. 891177 • Temecula_,- CA 92589 • Lic Fax: y #704950 A 694 0.535 33 ATTACHMENT 2 Real Estate Consulting and Services, Inc. EXHIBIT "B" PRICE SUMMARY FOR HIGHWAY PROPERTY MAINTENANCE Description: Rates: 1. Tractor with 6' mower $ 123.74 hr 2. Tractor with 8'5" disc $ 124.83 hr 3. Laborer with weed wacker $ 34.74 hr 4. Laborer removing trash/debris $ 66.98 hr 5. Laborer (i.e., repair fence line, gates, etc.) $ 63.76 hr 6. Supervisor (Foreman) $. 75.00 hr 7 Skiploader $ 146.17 hr 8. Backhoe $ 150.62 hr 9. 2,000 gallon water truck $ 152.07 hr 10. Dump truck 5 yard capacity $ 141.06 hr 11. Dump truck 10 yard capacity $ 150.53 hr 12. 40 yard bin per load (0- 5 ton) $ 109.46 ton 13. 40 yard bin per load (5 ton & above) $ 109.46 tong' 14. Current Dump Fees $ 62.44 ton Items 1,2,3,7,8,9,10, & 11 include the equipment, delivery, fuels, repairs and one operator. Item 4 is subject to future increases dictated by the prevailing wage determination starting June 30, 2007. Items 12,13, & 14 are subject to change as set forth by the waste haulers and dump operators. 34 • AGENDA ITEM 8E RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: July 8, 2009 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Plans and Programs Committee Sheldon Peterson, Rail Manager Erik Galloway, Bechtel Project Coordinator THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Executive Director SUBJECT: Commuter Rail and Multimodal Facility Design Criteria Manual PLANS AND PROGRAMS COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to approve the Commuter Rail and Multimodal Facility Design Criteria Manual. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The Commuter Rail and Multimodal Facility Design Criteria Manual (Manual) was developed to establish the design guidelines to be used for future facilities. This manual will provide guidelines for developing commuter rail stations, park and ride facilities, and multimodal transit centers developed by the Commission. This item was presented at the April 27 Plans and Program Committee meeting and the May 13 Commission meeting and a thirty day comment period was established to allow for the Commissioners and city staff to review the proposed manual and provide comments. Commissioner Comments and Responses The following comments were received with regard to the Manual: • Focus on solar power. o The issue of implementing solar power at the station was reviewed and where it can be implemented in a cost effective manner it will be done. An additional effort will be placed on designing solar carports and shelters into the project designs. • Allow for personal touch and artwork at the stations. o The Manual allows for artwork and design elements to be included at the stations. With the Perris Valley Line project, the funding sources for artwork have to be outside of the limited project costs allowed for stations. Agenda Item 8E 35 • Plan for Multimodal Access. o All stations are being designed to allow for enhance bus to train connections utilizing the "key hole" approach whenever possible. • Address how to modify existing stations to expand/add bus facilities. o Existing stations can be allowed to expand their capacity for bus transfers facilities, however funding for these upgrades will need to be determined. The Commission will need to retain control and use of property purchased for purpose of providing Commuter Rail Operations or risk issues of compliance with federal agencies who provided initial funding sources. • Explore city participation in station support. o The Commission has requested additional support from the host cities in the past for station operations, however given the current economic conditions it is not likely that various cities will be in a position to provide additional resources for the stations. It is important for the Commission to maintain a level of quality at the stations so that the investment in the Metrolink system is protected and the riders feel comfortable using the stations. The goal of this effort is to provide the best approach to allow the Commission to build, maintain, and operate cost effective and environmentally sustainable facilities that meet the publics' transportation needs. Attachment: Commuter Rail and Multimodal Facility Design Criteria Manual Agenda Item 8E • • 36 Riverside County Transportation Commission Commuter Rail and Multimodal Facility Design Criteria Manual Riverside County Transportation Commission July 8, 2009 %we, wow* RCTC Commuter Rail and Multimodal Facility Design Criteria Manual Table of Contents SECTION 1- FORWARD 1.0 FORWARD 1.1 PURPOSE 1 1 1.2 GOALS 2 1.3 CHANGES AND UPDATES 2 1.4 TERMS AND DEFINITIONS 2 (Included in Attachment 1) 1.5 ACRONYMS 3 (Included in Attachment 2) SECTION 2 — RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION 2.0 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION 3 2.1 INTRODUCTION 3 2.2 RCTC METROLINK COMMUTER RAIL STATIONS 5 SECTION 3 — DESIGN STANDARDS 3.0 DESIGN STANDARDS 6 3.1 CODES AND STANDARDS 6 3.2 SITE SELECTION 6 3.2.1 Standard for Track at Station Sites 6 3.2.2 Signal Systems Impacts 6 3.2.3 Approvals 6 3.2.4 Agreements 7 3.3 GOING GREEN ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY 7 3.4 PARKING AND SITE CONFIGURATION 7 3.4.1 Minimum Number of Spaces 7 3.4.2 Bus Loops 8 3.4.3 ADA Issues, Platform, Parking Lot and Street Access 8 3.4.4 intermodal Issues 8 3.4.5 Signage g 07_0064 RCTC Facility Design Criteria Manual Table of Contents Page i 38 -- RCTC Commuter Rail and Multimodal Facility Design Criteria Manual • 3.4.6 Parking Lot Layout 10 3.5 PLATFORMS 14 3.5.1 Consideration of Future Track and Platform Length Additions 14 3.5.2 Combination Amtrak/Metrolink Issues 14 3.5.3 Clearances 15 3.5.4 General Configuration 15 3.5.5 Mini -High Platforms 19 3.5.6 Lighting 19 3.5.7 Canopies 20 3.5.7.1 Paint 21 3.5.7.2 Conduits 21 3.5.7.3 Canopy Amenities 22 3.5.8 Benches and Other Platform Furniture 23 3.5.8.1 Paint 24 3.5.9 TVM Pad 24 3.5.10 Ticket Validators 24 • 3.5.11 Signs 24 3.5.12 Drainage 25 3.6 FENCING 26 3.6.1 Parking Lot Fence 26 3.6.2 Parking Lot Gates 26 3.6.3 Removable Inter -Track Fence 27 3.6.4 Right -of -Way Fence 27 3.7 PEDESTRIAN CROSSINGS 28 3.7.1 Baggage Cart Routes 28 3.7.2 Overcrossings 28 3.7.3 Undercrossings 30 3.7.4 Overcrossings and Undercrossings Special Conditions 30 3.7.5 At -Grade Crossings 31 3.8 LANDSCAPE & IRRIGATION 31 3.8.1 Landscape Clearances 33 3.8.2 Platform Landscape 32 • or 0064 RCTC Facility Design Criteria Manual Table of Contents Page ii 39 atom u.rw RCTC Commuter Rail and Multimodal Facility Design Criteria Manual 3.8.3 Parking Lot Landscape 33 3.8.4 Hardscaping 34 3.9 ARTWORK 35 3.10 COMMUNICATIONS 35 3.10.1 Communication Building 35 3.10.2 Security Camera CCTV Provisions 36 3.10.2.1 Security Monitoring Station 38 3.10.3 Passenger Information Call Boxes 39 3.10.4 Public Address/Changeable Message Signs 39 3.10.5 EMP Panel 39 3.11 PLUMBING SYSTEMS 39 3.11.1 Platform Wash Down System 39 3.11.2 Drinking Fountain 40 3.11.3 Restroom Facilities 40 3.12 ELECTRICAL SYSTEMS 40 3.12.1 Electrical Service 41 3.12.2 Power Requirements 41 3.12.3 Conduit System 41 3.12.4 Platform Receptacles 42 3.12.5 Solar Power 42 3.13 OTHER STATION EQUIPMENT 42 3.13.1 Trash Cans 42 3.13.2 Bike Lockers 43 3.13.3 Public Telephones 44 3.13.4 Vending Machines 44 3.13.5 Newspaper Racks 44 3.13.6 Kiosks 44 3.13.7 Alternate Power Sources 45 3.13.8 Bird Nesting 45 3.13.9 Canopy Misters 45 3.14 OFF SITE IMPROVEMENTS 46 3.15 SERVICE AND LAYOVER FACILITIES 47 0 0064 RCTC Facility Design Criteria Manual Table of Contents Page iii 40 ►(6.01.40.6.0ftwo, RCTC Commuter Rail and Multimodal Facility Design Criteria Manual e 3.16 MULTIMODAL AND PARK AND RIDE FACILITIES 47 ATTACHMENT 1: TERMS AND DEFINITIONS ATTACHMENT 2: ABBREVIATIONS APPENDIX A: STATION "KEY HOLE" LAYOUT APPENDIX B: BIKE STORAGE PODS APPENDIX C: RCTC STANDARDIZED SIGNAGE REQUIREMENTS APPENDIX D: ELECTRICAL AND LIGHTING SYSTEM RECOMMENDATIONS APPENDIX E: DETECTABLLE WARNING STRIP PERFORMANCE CRITERIA APPENDIX F: PAINT SYSTEM RECOMMENDATIONS APPENDIX G: CANOPY OPTIONS APPENDIX H: SCRRA ES 4032 STANDARD • 07_0064 RCTC Facility Design Criteria Manual Table of Contents Page. iv 41 • uW.ro.d. RCTC Commuter Rail and Multimodal Facility Design Criteria Manual 1.0 FORWARD 1.1 PURPOSE This document establishes the design criteria to be used for the design of future Riverside County Transportation Commissions (RCTC) Commuter Rail Stations, Layover Facilities and Multimodal Facilities. The most immediate projects are the stations along the Perris Valley Line (PVL) Commuter Rail extension between Riverside and Perris planned to begin service in 2012. The design and construction of the Stations along the PVL will be funded with Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Small Starts grant monies. These monies are tied to a Cost Effective Index (CEI) Criteria which if exceeded will result in the reduction or loss of the funding. Therefore, RCTC is limited by this funding as to what can be constructed on opening day of PVL Commuter Rail Service. This Design Criteria Manual will outline the basic Station that can be designed and constructed for PVL on opening day, while remaining within the limits established by the FTA funding. RCTC recognizes that these basic design criteria may not address the various Cities, Agencies, and local organizations expectations for a Commuter Rail Station, including the architectural look, aesthetic features, and amenities. RCTC will work with these groups, the State, and Federal Governments to identify and procure other funding sources to design and construct additional Architectural and Aesthetics Features and expand the Station Amenities after the opening day of the Station and outside of the FTA funding. The current budget estimates the total station costs including parking to average approximately $6 million, this compares to most recent North Main Corona Station construction costs of $10 million in 2002. The design criteria outlined in this document was developed based on the project funding constraints and also from RCTC's experience in designing, building, and managing five (5) Metrolink Commuter Rail Stations over the past 15 years. In 2008 RCTC completed and issued the RCTC Commuter Rail Station Rehabilitation and Maintenance Plan, which identified a number of items that required repair and maintenance at each of the five stations. During the development of this plan and through discussions with RCTC Station Management and Maintenance staff, a number of items were identified which have resulted in excessive maintenance costs. These design criteria will identify those items and will provide alternatives to reduce the short and long term operations and maintenance costs of the Stations. These criteria were developed to reduce the Station's construction operations and maintenance costs and provided environmentally friendly stations, while remaining within the FTA's CEI. These criteria can be readily applied to the future development of Multimodal and Park and Ride facilities. This document will be updated on an as needed basis. Minor changes to this document shall be reviewed and approved prior to incorporation by both the Rail Capital Projects Manager and the Rail Manager. Substantial changes will be reviewed by the Executive Director and presented to the Commission for adoption. Deviations from this plan will be addressed in the same manner. 07_0064 RCTC Facility Design Criteria Manual Page 1 42 a RCTC Commuter Rail and Multimodal Facility Design Criteria Manual 1.2 GOALS The goal of this document is to assist in the development and construction of future Commission Facilities including the new Metrolink Commuter Rail Stations along the PVL. These stations in particular will need to be kept within the program's CEI and reduce long term Operations and Maintenance Costs. RCTC has operated five (5) Commuter Rail stations over the past fifteen (15) years. This experience has indicated that the cost to operate and maintain the stations in a condition acceptable to the patrons is constantly rising. The design engineer when implementing these design criteria should focus on the following overall design requirements/goals: • Safety and Security • Environmental Sustainability • Facility Standardization • Compliance with the Cost Effective Index • Reduce Construction Costs • Reduced Operations Costs • Reduced Maintenance Costs • Ease of Maintenance • Ease of Future Expansion (addition of amenities as funding becomes available) 1.3 CHANGES/DEVIATIONS AND UPDATES Any proposed changes or deviations from these criteria must be submitted to the Rail Capital Projects Manager and the Rail Manager for consideration. The scope of the change/deviation will be reviewed by the Rail Capital Projects Manager and the Rail Manager for determination if Commission action will be required. If Commission action is determined to not be required, the change/deviation will be reviewed by both managers and will only be implemented upon a consensus vote by the Rail Capital Projects Manager and the Rail Manager. Commission Action will be required for the following changes/deviations: • Any change/deviation from Section 3.14: Off Site Improvements • Any change/deviation which negatively impacts the Project's Cost Effective Index • Any change/deviation which results in the relocation of a station platform • Any change/deviation which affects the "Key Hole" bus loop station approach • Any change/deviation which requires additional funding that cannot be covered by the project, the requesting agency, or is not considered by FTA as a concurrent non - project cost 1.4 TERMS AND DEFINITIONS Technical terms used in this document are defined in At -a 1.5 ACRONYMS Acronyms used in this document are defined in . 07_006+ RCTC Facility Design Criteria Manual Page 2 43 • • • RCTC Commuter Rail and Multimodal Facility Design Criteria Manual 2.0 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION (RCTC) 2.1 INTRODUCTION RCTC is Riverside County's primary transportation agency charged by state law with the responsibility of planning and funding transportation improvements. On November 8, 1988 the Voters of Riverside County approved Measure A authorizing the collection of a one-half percent (1/2 %) retail transactions and use tax (the "tax") to fund transportation programs and improvements within the County of Riverside, and adopting the Riverside County Transportation Improvement Plan (the "Plan"). Pursuant to Public Utility Code Sections 240000 et seq., the RCTC is authorized to allocate the proceeds of the Tax in furtherance of the Plan. On November 5, 2002, the voters of Riverside County approved an extension of the Measure A tax for an additional thirty (30) years for the continued funding of transportation and improvements within the County of Riverside. The original Measure A provided an initial pool of funds necessary to leverage additional state and federal resources to fund substantial right of way acquisitions, capital expenditures and investments in rolling stock. Within two years California voters approved Bond Propositions 108, 111 and 116. Following the lead of Riverside and San Bernardino counties, both Los Angeles and Orange Counties concurrently approved their respective measures, establishing the foundation for a regional commuter rail authority. In June 1990, the California Legislature enacted Senate Bill 1402, Chapter four of Division 12 of the Public Utilities Code. The bill required the transportation commissions of the counties of Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside and San Bernardino establish a Joint Powers Authority (JPA) to develop a plan for regional transit services within the multi -county region. In August 1991, responding to SB 1402 these four counties with the addition of Ventura formed the Southern California Regional Rail Authority (SCRRA). The purpose of the newly formed JPA was to plan, design, construct and administer the operation of regional passenger rail lines serving the counties of Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino and Ventura. Soon after its formation, SCRRA adopted the name 'Metrolink' for the commuter rail system it was operate in the five counties. The process of building the new system proceeded in rapid succession. Having already offered right of way, negotiations with Southland railroads quickly concluded for its first 3 lines. Within a year after its formation, Metrolink took delivery of its first passenger cars and began regular rail service on the Ventura, Santa Clarita and San Bernardino Lines in 1992. 0 0064 RCTC Facility Design Criteria Manual Page 3 44 t,maa; .r,.rwnrrso, RCTC Commuter Rail and Multimodal Facility Design Criteria Manual Service on the Riverside Line commenced in 1993, connecting downtown Riverside to downtown Los Angeles. Under the direction of SCRRA, Metrolink rapidly evolved into one of the fastest growing and most recognized inter -regional commuter rail systems in the country Four years after service began, facing significant and consistent growth in ridership. Metrolink increased its number of passenger cars. This growth necessitated the expansion of the RCTC owned and operated Metrolink Commuter Rail Stations from two in 1993 to four by 1995 and five by 2002. In 2002, as Metrolink celebrated its first decade of service, it announced the addition of the 91 Line, connecting Riverside and Los Angeles via Orange County. Due to this continued success of the Metrolink Commuter Rail system RCTC has expanded the existing stations to accommodate additional riders and address their needs and concerns. RCTC, for the most part, has contracted directly with engineers, architects, and contractors to design and build their Commuter Rail Stations. The stations were designed by various architects following ;the SCRRA Design Criteria Manual and other relevant codes and regulations, including but not limited Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway (BNSF), Union Pacific Railway (UP), State, City, and County ordinances. The stations are constantly being expanded to address patron's needs for additional parking, safe access to the platforms, and additional amenities to address their comments on the services provided. In the original Measure, only the Perris Valley Line (PVL) remains to be completed. As part of its original mandate, RCTC acquired the San Jacinto Branch Line (SJBL) from the Atchison Topeka and Santa Fe Railroad (now BNSF). This 38.3 mile corridor will serve Riverside County residents between Riverside and Perris. RCTC purchased the SJBL and adjacent properties in 1993 with Western County Measure A and state rail bonds. BNSF retains exclusive freight operating rights, serving its customers along the line, and will continue to maintain the right-of-way until such time as passenger service begins. RCTC has retained a design engineering consultant and is performing the engineering design of the extension of the Metrolink Service to the City of Perris. This Commuter Rail Station Design Criteria Manual will be used to as a basis for the design of the new Stations along the PVL, and any additional stations or Multimodal Facilities in Riverside County. Perris Valley Line Extension The Perris Valley Line will serve the cities of Riverside, Moreno Valley, March Air Reserve Base, Perris, Hemet and San Jacinto, 07 0064 RCTC Facility Design Criteria Manual Pa 4 • • • 45 •• Current RCTC Stations RCTC Commuter Rail and Multimodal Facility Design Criteria Manual 2.2 RCTC METROLINK COMMUTER RAIL STATIONS 6-04.61 tro k RCTC currently owns, operates, and maintains five (5) Metrolink Commuter Rail Stations, these are: 4066 Vine St. Riverside CA 92502 Station Opened: June 14, 1993 Rail Lines Served: BNSF 8 UPRR No. of Platforms: 2 • 6001 Pedley Rd. Riverside CA 92509 • Station Opened: June 14, 1993 • Rail Line Served: UPRR • No. of Platforms:,2 x �.;Ca $lerrasati4n ..', • • 10901Indiana Riverside CA 92502 • Station Opened: October 2, 1995 • Rail Line Served: BNSF • No. of Platforms: 2 West Corona Station 155 S. Auto Center Dr. Corona CA 92880 Station Opened: October 2, 1995 Rail Line Served: BNSF No. of Platforms: 2 North Main Corona Station • 250 E. Blaine St. Corona CA 92879 • Station Opened: November 2002 •ail Line Served: BNSF o. of Platforms: 2 • Riverside Downtown • Pedley • La Sierra • West Corona • North Main Corona These stations were constructed over the past fifteen (15) years during which time RCTC has operated and maintained the stations. This has resulted in RCTC developing extensive experience in constructing and maintaining the stations. This experience provides RCTC with a unique understanding of what station items and amenities are beneficial to the Metrolink Riders and which ones require extensive maintenance and corresponding higher operating costs. 0 0064 RCTC Facility Design Crilena Manual Page 5 46 oo,w RCTC Commuter Rail and Multimodal Facility Design Criteria Manual 3.0 DESIGN STANDARDS The intent of this manual is to provide station designers a basis for design of new RCTC Commuter Rail Stations. This Commuter Rail Station Design Criteria Manual will be used in conjunction with SCRRA Design Criteria Manual and all other relevant codes and requirements. This manual was developed through lessons learned by RCTC over the many years of station operations and maintenance. 3.1 CODES AND STANDARDS RCTC Commuter Rail Station design shall comply with the codes/design manuals listed below. If a conflict between the codes/design manuals arises, then the most restrictive code shall apply. • SCRRA Design Criteria Manual dated 2003 • Americans with Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines • California Title 24 • California Public Utilities Commission • SCRRA Engineering Design Standards • Local Building Codes • Local Planning and Zoning Codes and Standards • Other Codes/Agencies 3.2 SITE SELECTION 3.2.1 Standard for Track at Station Sites All requirements outlined in SCRRA Design Criteria Manual section 7.3.1 shall be applied to RCTC Rail Station design. 3.2.2 Signal Systems Impacts All requirements outlined in SCRRA Design Criteria Manual section 7.3.2 shall be applied to RCTC Station design. 3.2.3 Approvals The proposed Station Sites will be evaluated on impact to freight and commuter rail operations, track geometry, available right-of-way, ridership analysis, accessibility by other modes of transportation, and other factors which will be analyzed in detail as part of planning phase prior to site selection. All proposed sites are subject to review and approval by RCTC and SCRRA. 07_00e4 RCTC Facility Design Criteria Manual Page 6 • 47 • • 1...ia. RCTC Commuter Rail and Multimodal Facility Design Criteria Manual The presence of under and above ground utilities will require close coordination with the utility owners. For the PVL, RCTC has documented most utility encroachments into the SJBL property and this Geographic Information System (GIS) database should be reviewed to determine potential utility impacts to station site selection. This will be performed for future stations as deemed necessary by the particular project. 3.2.4 Agreements Various agreements will be required prior to the construction of a new station or expansion of an existing one. The types and number of agreements will be dependent upon the individual project, location, and Cities and Agencies impacted. RCTC also enters into License Agreements for utility encroachments along the rail right-of- way. These agreements are entered into a GIS database and should be reviewed prior to station site selection or modifications to an existing station site. 3.3 "GOING GREEN" Environmental Sustainability As part of the overall Station Design, RCTC desires for the future Metrolink Stations to be "Green" and to reduce the Station's carbon foot print and environmental impact. The design engineer should provide recommendations and their associated costs for alternative "Green" design options or building methods. The use of recycled building materials should be encouraged and the design engineer should look for new technologies, i.e. LEDs, Solar Power, Drought tolerant landscaping, runoff collection and reuse systems, etc., that would reduce the station water use, and operations and maintenance costs. The design engineer should also determine if any potential funding sources to supplement the design, construction, operations, and maintenance of "Green" alternatives exist or if any grants exist that could be used to offset the cost to incorporate these "Green" options. 3.4 PARKING AND SITE CONFIGURATION 3.4.1 Minimum Number of Spaces The minimum of parking spaces will be determined by three factors: 1) Section 7.4.1 of the SCRRA Design Criteria Manual. 2) Ridership and Station Usage studies, which will provide the anticipated number of riders at the station on opening date and also at a future project year. 3) RCTC's discretion to increase the number based on past experience and public comments received about the proposed station. These criteria will be used to determine the minimum number of spaces for each station, which may also be increased or decreased as funding permits. SCRRA requires a minimum of 500 parking spaces on the opening day of the station, if Ridership and Station Usage studies do not justify this number, then discussions will be held with SCRRA to seek a waiver of this requirement. 07_ 0064 RCTC Facility Design Criteria Manual Page 1 48 RCTC Commuter Rail and Multimodal Facility Design Criteria Manual Allowances shall be made for accessible spaces, van and carpool spaces, ride share to rail spaces, kiss and ride spaces, and bicycle racks and/or lockers. Loading and unloading areas for buses, minibuses, vanpools, and cars shall be provided as appropriate for the anticipated vehicle population. 3.4.2 Bus Loops All efforts should be made to separate pedestrian traffic from bus travel ways. RCTC prefers a bus loading / unloading area to be designed as a "Key Hole" layout, similar to the Pedley Metrolink Station. This layout separates the pedestrian traffic from the station parking lot and the bus routes thereby reducing the chance for conflicts between the two. RCTC prefers, as funding allows, the bus loading / unloading areas to be paved with concrete to reduce future maintenance costs. It has been noted at the other RCTC Riverside Line stations with asphalt paved Bus Loops have developed cracks resulting in water infiltration and subsequent pavement failure requiring extensive and costly repairs, while Pedley's concrete bus loop has not required any repairs. See Appendix A for how the "Key Hole" approach will be used on the PVL Stations. 3.4.3 ADA Issues, Platform, Parking Lot and Street Access All requirements outlined in SCRRA Design Criteria Manual section 7.4.2 shall be applied to RCTC Station design. The stations will also meet required Public Utilities Commission safety standards as appropriate. 3.4.4 Intermodal Issues RCTC will support all forms of alternative access to the stations and will design the stations to encourage pedestrian and bicycle access and ease of transfers off of connecting busses and shuttles. All requirements outlined in SCRRA Design Criteria Manual section 7.4.3 shall be applied to RCTC Station design with the following additional requirements. RCTC will also look at potential "Park and Ride" opportunities for Stations located near. major interstate or highway facilities. This option may provide other funding options and allow for the expansion of the stations or placement of additional amenities. This will be analyzed on a case by case basis and will only be implemented if the parking required for Station patrons is not impacted. Pedestrian access o wsa RCTC Facility Design Criteria Manual Page 8 • • 49 • • • RCTC Commuter Rail and Multimodal Facility Design Criteria Manual All requirements outlined in SCRRA Design Criteria Manual section 7.4.3 shall be applied to RCTC Station design with the following additional requirements. Pedestrian access will need to be reviewed and approved by Cities, Local Agencies, and other applicable government agencies. The Pedestrian access to the station should be analyzed to determine what would be the most preferred routes into the station. Pedestrian access should be directed to paved areas and barriers placed around areas where pedestrians should not be walking, i.e. within the railroad right-of-way or through landscaped areas. Pedestrian safety will be a key factor in station design. Bus access All requirements outlined in SCRRA Design Criteria Manual section 3.4.2 and 7.4.3 shall be applied to RCTC Station design with the following additional requirements. RCTC will work with the local Transit Agencies to coordinate the development of the Stations. If additional station amenities are requested, beyond what is provided in the opening day base station, by the Transit Agencies, RCTC will work with them to identify additional funding sources and/or direct funding from those Agencies to purchase, install, and maintain these additional station amenities. Existing stations can be allowed to expand their capacity for bus transfers facilities, however funding for these upgrades will need to be determined. The Commission will need to retain control and use of property purchased for purpose of providing Commuter Rail Operations or risk issues of compliance with federal agencies who provided initial funding sources. Bicycle access All requirements outlined in SCRRA Design Criteria Manual section 7.4.3 shall be applied to RCTC Station design with the following additional requirements. RCTC has placed bike lockers at the existing Riverside County Stations and if the space allows will accept placement of bike lockers at the PVL stations. RCTC does require the bike lockers be designed to allow individuals to place their own locks to secure the locker. RCTC has also researched alternatives for space savings and is now implementing the placement of Bike Racks or Bike Storage Pods see Appendix B. Depending on available funding these items may be implemented with the base station design. The University of Riverside Station is a "Kiss and Ride" lot and will be used extensively by the students, therefore Bike Lockers and Bike Racks will be required on opening day for this station. As part of the station design RCTC will review the demand for bike routes within the stations. These routes will be reviewed to determine their impact to and conflict with vehicle and bus traffic. In addition, they will be reviewed to determine if they can fit within the constraints of the property, i.e. station entrance widths. 07 00sn RCTC Facility Design Criteria Manual Page 9 50 RCTC Commuter Rail and Multimodal Facility Design Criteria Manual 3.4.5 Signage All requirements outlined in SCRRA Design Criteria Manual section 7.4.3 shall be applied to RCTC Station design with the following additional requirements. RCTC is developing standardized signage requirements that will be implemented across all RCTC Stations. The Signage requirements will detail the standard signs to be placed at each station, which is intended to reduce the initial station cost and long term signage replacement costs. The standardization of the signs will allow for RCTC to make bulk purchases of replacement signs that can be used at all stations and will eliminate the high cost to manufacture individual signs for each station. The base station design for PVL shall only incorporate SCRRA and RCTC standard signage, any additional unique signage will need to be funded by the requesting agency or purchased and installed at a later date when funding becomes available. RCTC's stations located along BNSF's mainlines will also incorporates signage as required by BNSF and AMTRAK. The Stations must conform to the SCRRA and RCTC Signage Standards which upon completion will be included in Appendix C. 3.4.6 Parking Lot Layout As stated in Section 3.4.2, RCTC's preferred layout for the parking lot / bus loop configuration is a "Key Hole" approach, with the Bus Loop centered to the platform with parking on both side of the "Key Hole". This configuration separates the Bus Traffic from the passenger vehicles and reduces the potential for bus / passenger conflicts. The parking lot layout should also include "Kiss-n-Ride" short term parking and "Rideshare to Rail" long term assigned parking. The PVL station layouts are included in Appendix A. Traffic Engineer The design consultant shall consult with a Traffic Engineer (TE) when designing the layout of the Parking Lots. The TE will review and determine the best flow and routes for vehicles to enter, exit, and circulate through the station. • RCTC prefers the number of entrance and exists to the station to be constrained as much as possible, while still remaining complaint with City, County, State and Federal Requirements, Codes and Regulations. The advantage of constraining the number of entrance/exits to the station will allow for controlled exiting from the station, minimal points of conflict with adjacent City/County Streets, better Security Control of the Station, reduced intersection signalization requirements, reduced construction and operations costs. 07_ 0064 RCTC Facility Design Criteria Manual Page 10 • • 51 RCTC Commuter Rail and Multimodal Facility Design Criteria Manual • Reducing the number of entrance/exists allows RCTC's security consultants to focus their monitoring and better patrol the stations. • RCTC intends to provide positive security control at the station's during night time non -operational hours. This positive control will consist of gated entrance/exists to the station, which will be secured by the onsite Security personnel. • The flow of the vehicles through the parking lot can be bi-directional or uni- directional based on the traffic engineer's analysis and recommendations. • The parking lot layout and flow should be reviewed to identify and reduce conflicts with vehicles traveling up/down the lanes and vehicles backing out. Exit Lanes The parking layout should be designed so turning movements from the body of the parking lot are impeded at the neck of the exit lanes, thereby reducing the back up of vehicles into the parking lot. The Exit Lanes should be designed to accommodate as much vehicle stacking as possible, so that it does not back up into the whole parking lot. The station design engineer and TE should design the parking layout and the exit lanes to provide for controlled exiting and to minimize the back up of cars into the individual parking lot lanes. Parking Spaces Parking Space size shall be based on City, County, State, or Federal Requirements. The design engineer should also include the following RCTC required specialty parking spaces. • Rideshare to Rails — RCTC typical requires 10 parking spaces be identified with this text. The spaces should be located close to the ticket vending canopy. • Kiss-n-Ride — Some stalls, typically 4 to 6, shall be designated for the short term pick up and drop off parking. These spaces are to supplement the Kiss-n-Ride drop off areas near the platforms. The stalls should be located close to the loading/unloading platform. • RCTC will review the potential for identifying one or two parking spaces for Electric Vehicle Recharging. This will be determined on case -by -case bases for each station. Specialty reserved parking for security and maintenance will also be identified. • Place Car Stops to impede vehicles from hitting light standards or from extending over landscape areas or walkways. The use of recycled materials for Car Stops is preferred. D7_0064 RCTC Facility Design Criteria Manual Page 11 52 a.ia.wnbm.r..wi. RCTC Commuter Rail and Multimodal Facility Design Criteria Manual Pavement Section The parking lot pavement section should be determined through a Geotechnical Investigation of sampling, testing, analysis, and report development with specific recommendations based on the existing soil conditions. The pavement sections should be sized to provide the longest life span with minimal maintenance and rehabilitation. The design engineer should include as part of their design, Operations and Maintenance Recommendations for the pavement, i.e. slurry seal every 10 years, pavement review every month/year etc. These recommendations should ensure the longest life possible and reduce future pavement maintenance costs. The design engineer should review and provide recommendations for the use of "Green Pavement alternatives". Some examples are rubberized asphalt, recycled or miscellaneous base etc. Due to drainage issues at the existing stations, the design engineer shall look at pavement capping materials that would provide better drainage, eliminate ponding, and water infiltration. Parking Lot Drainage RCTC's existing Metrolink Stations pavement has started to deteriorate, which is resulting in excessive maintenance and rehabilitation costs. It appears much of this deterioration is resulting from water infiltration, runoff from the planters, and/or ponding. The station design engineer should review the site drainage and determine the best possible way to route the site runoff to drainage facilities, ensure that the site is graded to provide maximum run off and reduce ponding, and should review and determine if concrete curb and gutter, and/or concrete drainage swales are necessary to minimize run off damage to the pavement. The design engineer must ensure that the site complies with all Storm Water requirements, including potentially on -site treatment. In addition, the re -use of site drainage for irrigation purposes should be explored to determine the viability of this option, including review the construction costs, maintenance costs, and water savings. Parking Lot Striping The materials used for parking lot striping should provide a long term life span and minimal maintenance while also emitting low Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) s. o Wfi4 RCTC Facility Design Criteria Manual Page 12 • • • 53 • • wet umwe RCTC Commuter Rail and Multimodal Facility Design Criteria Manual RCTC will require specialty pavement markings for some of the parking spaces which are listed below: • Ride Share to Rails • Kiss-n-Ride • Electric Vehicle Recharging Stations • Security & Maintenance Conduit Systems Conduits will be required for electrical, communication, and irrigation systems within the parking lot. • Conduits wherever possible shall be located in landscaped or under non -paved areas. • The conduits should be routed as close as possible to one another and if possible within the same trench to minimize pavement damage when repairs are required. • The location of the conduit routes should be logical i.e. not on skews or angles: • The conduit routes should be placed so that if the repairs are performed only small sections of asphalt or concrete will need to be removed and the repaired sections will not result in criss-cross pattern of saw cuts across the station. • Pull boxes should be logically and uniformly placed to allow ease of access to the wires. • The Design Engineer should also explore the potential and cost effectiveness of conduit chase ways that can be accessed without the need to saw cut and remove pavement. • The Station design should anticipate the placement of CCTV cameras at each light pole. o This will require a minimum of two (2) Power and two (2) Communication conduits to each light pole. Parking Lot Lighting All requirements outlined in SCRRA Design Criteria Manual section 7.5.6 Lighting shall be applied to RCTC Station design with the following additional requirements. Safety and security will be a critical factor in determining the amount of lighting required in the parking lots. The light poles and light fixtures should be uniform across all the stations, thereby providing an economy of scale when purchasing the poles and fixtures. This will also reduce RCTC's maintenance costs by allowing RCTC to bulk purchase replacement parts and poles and not require unique items for each station. In addition, light standards 07. 0060 RCTC Facility Design Criteria Manual Page 13 54 RCTC Commuter Rail and Multimodal Facility Design Criteria Manual should not be chosen based on their aesthetic design if it requires additional fixtures to provide the needed lighting requirements. Light fixtures should be selected based on their energy efficiency to reduce long term operations costs. In addition, they should also be designed to direct the light onto the parking lot and minimize light pollution to surrounding neighborhoods. Some lighting options that should be explored during the design are — Solar Powered Lights, LED, and any others that will reduce the power usage of the station and reduce operational and maintenance costs. The Light fixtures should be manufactured of materials to provide a long service life and not require extraordinary maintenance. The parking lot lighting should be designed on multiple circuits to allow for a portion of the station lights to be cycled off during non -operational hours to reduce energy costs. As of the date of the drafting of this Manual, RCTC is reviewing the existing lighting and electrical systems at the 5 RCTC owned stations. This process will result in recommendations for modification of the systems to reduce operations and maintenance costs. These recommendations will be incorporated into this Manual once they are reviewed and approved by the Commission and will be included in Appendix D. Landscaping Refer to Section 3.8.2 of this manual — Parking Lot Landscaping. 3.5 PLATFORMS All platforms will be designed to provide safe and clear access to the trains. 3.5.1 Consideration of Future Track and Platform Length Additions All requirements outlined in SCRRA Design Criteria Manual section 7.5.1 Consideration of Future Track and Platform Length Additions shall be applied to RCTC Station design with the following additional requirements. The base station design must include the construction of SCRRA's required 680-foot long platform and must be designed to accommodate the future expansion of the platform to 850-feet with minimal impact to items constructed as part of the base design. The base platform should be designed to accommodate the following: • Ease of future expansion with minimal disturbance and damage to existing conduits and structures. • Conduits placed within the base platform length should be designed for future extension. 07 0064 RCTC Facility Design Criteria Manual Page 14 • • 55 RCTC Commuter Rail and Multimodal Facility Design Criteria Manual • Construction and expansion joints should be spaced to accommodate the future extension and also provide a uniform look. • Tactile placed along the platform edge should be spaced to accommodate full sections and maintain a consistent spacing upon expansion of the platform. • Additional Platform Canopies may be placed in later years after the station becomes operational and the platform should be designed to accommodate them. The platform should be designed for the canopies to be placed equidistant from each other for the future platform length. 3.5.3 Clearances All requirements outline in SCRRA Design Criteria Manual section 7.5.3 shall be applied to RCTC Station design with the following additional requirements. Along the PVL all attempts should be made to provide a maintenance road along the track alignment with access points from adjacent City, County Streets, or RCTC owned property. 3.5.4 General Configuration Dimensions All requirements outlined in SCRRA Design Criteria Manual section 7.5.4 General Configuration shall be applied to RCTC Station design with the following additional requirements. • The PVL will be double tracked along some of its alignment and potentially in the future along the full alignment. BNSF will be providing freight service along the PVL with most of their customers located along the west side of the property. Potentially the western most track will be allocated for BNSF freight service, with sporadic Metrolink use, therefore the platform design should anticipate this rail usage and the platform/s should be placed accordingly. • The track usage maybe altered in the future and the platforms should be designed to be easily reconfigured to serve the modified usage. This may include the future design and construction of additional full service or emergency platforms. • The platform locations will also be dependent upon the property acquired for the project and any potential utility conflicts. Detectable Warning Strip All requirements outlined in SCRRA Design Criteria Manual section 7.5.4 General Configuration subsection Detectable Warning Strip shall be applied to RCTC Station design with the following additional requirements. 07 wea RCTC Facility Design Criteria Manual Pa_e 15 56 RCTC Commuter Rail and Multimodal Facility Design Criteria Manual RCTC also requires the Detectable Warning Strip (Tactile tile) meet the performance criteria detailed in Appendix E. CPUC Plafform Edge Warning Stripe All requirements outlined in SCRRA Design Criteria Manual section 7.5.4 General Configuration subsection CPUC Stripe shall be applied to RCTC Station design with the following additional requirements. • The paint used for the CPUC Stripe and the warning text shall be of a quality to resist scratches, scuffs, pealing, cracking, gum, sun damage(fading), water resistant, and provide for a minimum 10 year life. As of the date of the drafting of this Manual, RCTC is reviewing, sampling, and testing the paint systems used at the 5 RCTC owned stations. This process will result in paint system recommendations for use at all stations. These recommendations will be incorporated into this Manual once they are reviewed and approved by the Commission and will be included in Appendix F. CPUC ADA Train Access Ramps All requirements outline in SCRRA Design Criteria Manual section 7.5.4 General Configuration subsection CPUC Ramps shall be applied to RCTC Station design with the following additional requirements. • The ramps should be designed for the future extension of the platforms. Therefore, they should be designed in a way that their removal will not damage the end of the plafform or the tactile tile. Material All platforms will be constructed out of standard concrete materials. No future station will be designed to include pavers or decorative features on the platform. These Pose a significant ongoing maintenance concern. Conduit Systems All requirements outline in SCRRA Design Criteria Manual section 7.5.4 General Configuration subsection Conduit Systems shall be applied to RCTC Station design with the following additional requirements. • Conduits wherever possible shall be located behind the platform, landscaped or under non -paved areas, with only laterals extending under the concrete platform. o7_ 0064 RCTC Facile Design Criteria Manual Page 16 57 • RCTC Commuter Rail and Multimodal Facility Design Criteria Manual • The Conduit routes should be placed so that if the repairs are performed only small sections of concrete will need to be removed and the repaired sections will not impact the overall aesthetic look of the platform. • Pull boxes should be logically and uniformly placed to allow ease of access to the wires. • The Design Engineer should also explore the potential and cost effectiveness of conduit chase ways that can be accessed without the need to saw cut the concrete platform. • The Station design should anticipate the placement of CCTV cameras at each light pole and within or affixed to the present and future platform canopies. o This will require a minimum of two (2) Power and two (2) Communication conduits to each light pole. • The number of conduits to each base station design (single) main canopy shall be adequate to support the following equipment at the canopy: ■ CCTV Camera/s, minimum one (1) Camera on opening day with the future expansion of one (1) or two (2) additional cameras. The CCTV Cameras will require Power and Communication Connections. ▪ Ticket Vending Machine (TVM), minimum one (1) Machine on opening day with the addition of (1) in the future. TVM will require Power and Communications Connections. • Ticket Validator, minimum two (2) Machines on opening day. Validator will require Power Connection. ■ Changeable Message Sign (CMS), minimum one (1) CMS on opening day potentially one (1) additional in the future. CMS will require Power and Communication connections ■ Video Display Monitor (LCD) none anticipated on opening day, minimum two (2) LCDs in the future. Monitors will require Power and Communication Connections. • Outdoor rated Heaters for station patrons, none anticipated on opening day, minimum two (2) heating units in the future. Heaters will require Power Connection. ■ Powered Informational Kiosks potentially with LCDs Monitors, one (1) anticipated on opening day pending funding availability, and minimum of one (1) additional Kiosk in the future. Kiosk will require Power and Communication Connection. ■ Vending Machines, snacks or drinks, minimum one (1) vending machine on opening day and minimum two (2) additional ones in the future. Vending Machines will require Power and Communication Connection. ■ Public Telephones, minimum one (1) public telephone on opening day and no additional ones in the future. Public Telephone will require Power and Communication Connection. 07_0064 RCTC Facility Design Criteria Manual Page 17 58 iN.1k6rmr ani - RCTC Commuter Rail and Multimodal Facility Design Criteria Manual • Wi-Fi Base Station none anticipated on opening day, minimum one (1) Wi-Fi Base Station in the future. Wi-Fi will require Power and Communication Connection. • Station Emergency Phone, none anticipated on opening day, minimum one (1) Emergency Phone in the future. Emergency Phone will require Power and Communication Connection. ■ Water Mister System, system not anticipated on opening day, system to be placed in the future. Mister System may require Power and water Connection. ■ Electrical Outlets, it should be anticipated to have outdoor rated GFI outlets at the base of each column of the main canopy on opening day. ■ Electrical Outlet, it should be anticipated to have an outdoor rated GFI outlet at top of one of the canopy columns for potential anti -bird roosting devices. • Adequate Power Conduits for Canopy lighting. • The number of conduits to each future station design (multiple) platform canopies shall be adequate to support the following equipment at each canopy: ■ CCTV Camera/s, one (1) Camera in the future. CCTV Camera will require Power and Communication Connections. ■ Changeable Message Sign (CMS), support the potential installation of one (1) CMS on each canopy as necessary. CMS will require Power and Communication connections ■ Video Display Monitor (LCD) none anticipated when the canopies are installed, but need to have the conduits necessary to support the installation of one (1) LCD at each canopy at some time in the future. LCD Monitor will require Power and Communication Connections. ■ Outdoor rated Heater for station patrons; none anticipated when the canopies are installed, but need to have the conduits necessary to support the installation of a minimum of two (2) heating units in the future. Heaters will require Power Connection. • Water Mister System, system installation not anticipated when the canopies are installed, but need to have the conduits necessary to support the installation of the mister system in the future. Mister System may require Power Connection and water lines. • Electrical Outlets, it should be anticipated to have outdoor rated GFI outlets at the base of each column of the canopy on day of installation. ■ Electrical Outlet, it should be anticipated to have an outdoor rated GFI outlet at top of one of the canopy columns for potential anti -bird roosting devices on day of installation. • Adequate Power Conduits for Canopy lighting. • The platform design should anticipate the future placement of platform canopies and should include the placement of the necessary conduits on opening day of the station or allow for their placement with minimal demolition of the concrete platform. or 0064 RCTC Facility Design Criteria Manual Page 18 • 59 ud1'4uieaei+i wolsni RCTC Commuter Rail and Multimodal Facility Design Criteria Manual • The platform design should also anticipate the future placement of a single TVM at each end of the platform. Potential Future Pedestrian Overcrossinqs At the time of issuance of this manual it is not anticipated that pedestrian overcrossing will be required at any of the proposed Stations along the PVL. Even though overcrossings are not envisioned at this time, the platforms should be constructed to allow their placement in the future if necessary. The platforms should be designed for the potential placement of Pedestrian Overcrossing at the mid -point of the platform. Platform Canopies should not be placed in the area where the potential Overcrossing towers would be constructed. The design should not place any conduits within the area where the Pedestrian Tower would be placed to reduce future relocations. The Station designer should envision how a potential Pedestrian Overcrossing would fit within the station and how it would be constructed and design the station layout accordingly. Overcrossings are discussed in more detail in section 3.7.2 of this manual. 3.5.5 Mini -High Platforms All requirements outlined in SCRRA Design Criteria Manual section 7.5.5 Mini -High Platforms shall be applied to RCTC Station design with the following additional requirements. • The Mini -High platforms should be constructed so they can be relocated in the future when the station platforms are extended. • The removal and relocation of the Mini -High Platforms should not result in damage to the platform or require saw cutting or demolition of the platform. • The Mini -High Platform should also be designed for the future installation of a Canopy, similar to Riverside Downtown Metrolink Station. • This canopy will also need to be designed to be removed and relocated with the Mini -High Platform. • The electrical and communication conduits in the Mini -High Platform canopy should be designed to be cut to grade, of the station platform, caped and covered with a pull box for future use. 3.5.6 Lighting All requirements outlined in SCRRA Design Criteria Manual section 7.5.6 Lighting shall be applied to RCTC Station design with the following additional requirements. Safety and security will be a critical factor in determining the amount of lighting required in the parking lots. The light poles and light fixtures should be uniform across all the stations, thereby providing an economy of scale when purchasing the poles and fixtures. This will of oose RCTC Facility Design Criteria Manual Page 19 60 RCTC Commuter Rail and Multimodal Facility Design Criteria Manual also reduce RCTC's maintenance costs by allowing RCTC to bulk purchase replacement parts and poles and not require unique items for each station. In addition, light standards should not be chosen based on their aesthetic design if it requires additional fixtures to provide the needed lighting requirements. Light fixtures should be selected based on their energy efficiency to reduce long term operations costs. In addition, they should also be designed to direct the light onto the parking lot and minimize light pollution to surrounding neighborhoods. Some lighting options that should be explored during the design are — Solar Powered Lights, LED, and any others that will reduce the power usage of the station and reduce operational and maintenance costs. The Light fixtures should be manufactured of materials to provide a long service life and not require extraordinary maintenance. The parking lot lighting should be designed on multiple circuits to allow for a portion of the station lights to be cycled off during non -operational hours. As of the date of the drafting of this Manual, RCTC is reviewing the existing lighting and electrical systems at the 5 RCTC owned stations. This process will result in recommendations for modification of the system to reduce operations and maintenance costs. These recommendations will be incorporated into this Manual once they are reviewed and approved by the Commission and will be included in Appendix D. 3.5.7 Canopies The requirements outlined in SCRRA Design Criteria Manual section 7.5.7 Canopies shall be applied to RCTC Station design with the following exceptions and additions. Exception: • For opening day, potentially only one (1) Canopy will be constructed. This canopy will be centrally located along the platform or entrance to the platform and will include the ticket vending machine and ticket validator. This constraint is directly related to the Cost Effective Index Criteria. If additional funding can be located then additional canopies can be designed and placed on opening day. This additional funding and work must be considered "concurrent non -project costs" by FTA for it to be incorporated for opening day. Therefore, Metrolink's suggestion that the canopies cover approximately 20% of the platform length will not be complied with on opening day. As funding becomes available additional canopies will be placed and the suggested coverage will be met. Additions to the criteria: o7_ 0064 RCTC Facility Design Crileria Manual Page 20 • 61 >a.s, RCTC Commuter Rail and Multimodal Facility Design Criteria Manual • The Canopies should be designed in a uniform manner to minimize the construction and long term maintenance costs. By having a uniform design it will be easier and cost effective for RCTC to make repairs. • The use of Translucent Ceiling panels is not recommended. The panels were used at the North Main Corona Station and they do not reflect enough light at night from the upward firing light fixtures. • The canopies should be designed to allow for ease of cleaning and maintenance. The design should not be complicated or require special cleaning or maintenance materials or equipment. The electrical elements need to be secured enough so the structure can be pressure washed. • The main central canopy should be designed to allow for future structural expansion as funding becomes available. • The design engineer should explore the use of "off the shelf' Canopies and Shelters, some examples are shown in Appendix G. The "off the shelf Canopies would make it easier for RCTC to add canopies as funding becomes available and would not require specialized design efforts, which would reduces the overall project cost. In addition, these "off the shelf canopies would make it easier to repair or replace one in the future if they become damaged. • Benches shall be placed under the canopies to allow for the patrons to sit protected from inclement weather. • The canopies should be designed to address potential site specific weather conditions, i.e. excessive wind or dust. • The design engineer should review the option of solar powered canopies to supplement their electrical needs. A cost comparison should be provided between a standard canopy and solar powered canopy. • The Canopies shall be designed to impede the roosting of birds. The structure should be designed or have anti -bird roosting items installed if necessary. Some examples of the Canopies that RCTC would like to have the design engineer review and explore for possible incorporation into the project are included in Appendix G. 3.5.7.1 Paint The paint used for the Canopies shall be of a quality to resist scratches, scuffs, pealing, cracking, gum, sun damage(fading), water resistant, chalking, and provide for a minimum 25 year life. 07_0%4 RCTC Facility Design Criteria Manual Page 21 62 cti>wi RCTC Commuter Rail and Multimodal Facility Design Criteria Manual The paint selected should minimize future maintenance costs and reduce the need for repainting in the future. To reduce RCTC operational and maintenance costs the Canopies should be uniform in color at each station and if possible across all the stations along the PVL. Specialty colors shall not be specified only standard colors shall be used. This will reduce the potential of not being able to match the paint color when touch-ups are required or when acquiring additional paint in the future. The paint should be graffiti resistant or have an anti -graffiti coating. As of the date of the drafting of this Manual, RCTC is reviewing, sampling, and testing the paint systems used at the 5 RCTC owned stations. This process will result in paint system recommendations for use at all the stations. These recommendations will be incorporated into this Manual once they are reviewed and approved by the Commission and will be included in Appendix F. 3.5.7.2 Conduits Please refer to Section 3.5.4 General Configuration Sub Section Conduits for the required Conduits to the Main and Platform Canopies for Power and Communications. 3.5.7.3 Canopy Amenities The design engineer should plan for the placement of the following items on or within the canopies. Not all the items will be placed on opening day some will be placed as funding becomes available. Main Canopy • CCTV Cameras (One (1) on opening day and one (1) or two (2) additional in the future) • Lights (Opening day) • Changeable Message Sign (One (1) opening day additional ones in the future) • Future Solar Powered Lighting (Opening or future depending available funding) • Heaters (Future) • LCD TV Displays (Future) • Mister system (Future) • Signage (Opening day) • Site Specific Signage or Artwork (Future) • Benches (Opening day or with future expansion) • TVM (One (1) opening day and one (1) additional in the future) • Ticket Validator (Two (2) opening day) • Public Telephones (One (1) opening day, no additional ones in the future) • Station Emergency Phone (One (1) installed in the future) • Wi-Fi Base Station (One (1) installed in the future) 0 0064 RCTC Facility Design Criteria Manual Page 22 • 63 Walk Wolemelaka4.eria. RCTC Commuter Rail and Multimodal Facility Design Criteria Manual • Vending Machines (One (1) opening day and one (1) or more in the future) • Newspaper Rack (Opening day — adjacent to the canopy not inside or covered by the canopy.) • Information Kiosks (One (1) opening day and one (1) additional in the future) The main canopy area should have a large concrete paved area to allow for the patrons to gather, purchase tickets, use the Ticket Validator, review train schedules, and wait for their train. On opening day this area should be considered the main gathering and waiting area and should be designed as such. As funding becomes available and as other canopies are added, then the patrons should be encouraged to spread out under the platform canopies, but the main canopy will still house the TVM and Validator. The design engineer should plan for the placement of the following items on or within the future platform canopies. These canopies will not be placed on opening day of the station but will be placed in the future as funding becomes available. Platform Canopies • Benches (Adequate number and size to cover the span of the canopy when the canopies are installed) • CCTV Cameras (Support the placement of one (1) at each canopy, cameras to be placed when the canopies are installed or in the future) • Lights (When canopy is installed) • Changeable Message Sign (Support the placement of one (1) at each canopy when the canopies are installed) • Future Solar Powered Lighting (Installation depending on available funding) • Heaters (Support the placement at each canopy when the canopies are installed. System installation dependent on available funding) • Mister system (Support the placement at each canopy when the canopies are installed. System installation dependent on available funding) • Signage (When canopy is installed) • Site Specific Signage or Artwork (Installation dependent on available funding) • Station Emergency Phone (Installation dependent on available funding) 3.5.8 Benches and Other Platform Furniture All requirements outlined in SCRRA Design Criteria Manual section 7.5.8 Benches and Other Platform Furniture shall be applied to RCTC Station design with the following additional requirements. Benches RCTC requires benches have the following: • Individual arm rests to impeded people from laying down across the bench • Have a back to sit against • Can be metal or have recycled plastic slates 07_0064 RCTC Facility Design Criteria Manual Page 23 64 RCTC Commuter Rail and Multimodal Facility Design Criteria Manual • The newer benches used by the Riverside Transit Agency (RTA) are desirable and should be reviewed for incorporation into the project. The benches should be consistent between the Stations, which will allow RCTC to bulk purchase the benches thereby reducing the cost. Also having consistent Benches between the Stations will allow for ease of maintenance and replacement as needed. 3.5.8.1 Paint Any painted surfaces on the benches or other platform furniture should be coated with a paint that is durable and of a quality to resist scratches, scuffs, pealing, cracking, gum, sun damage(fading), water resistant; chalking, and provide for a minimum 25 year life. The paint selected should minimize future maintenance costs and reduce the need for repainting in the future. To reduce RCTC operational and maintenance costs the furniture should be uniform in color at each station and if possible across all the stations along the PVL. Specialty colors shall not be specified only standard colors shall be used. This will reduce the potential of not being able to match the paint color when touch-ups are required or when acquiring additional paint in the future. The paint should be graffiti resistant or have an anti -graffiti coating. As of the date of the drafting of this Manual, RCTC is reviewing, sampling, and testing the paint systems used at the 5 RCTC owned stations. This process will result in paint system recommendations for use at all the stations. These recommendations will be incorporated into this Manual once they are reviewed and approved by the Commission and will be included in Appendix F. 3.5.9 TVM Pad All requirements outlined in SCRRA Design Criteria Manual section 7.5.9 TVM Pad shall be applied to RCTC Station design with the following additional requirements. The TVMs should be located at the main Canopy area for opening day and in the future. The TVMs shall be protected from adverse weather conditions and protected so that they cannot be removed or tore out by vehicles. The area where the TVMs are located should be protected by removable and fixed concrete bollards. The design engineer should took at the option of using lighted bollards around the TVMs. 3.5.10 Ticket Validiators All requirements outlined in SCRRA Design Criteria Manual section 7.5.10 Ticket Validators shall be applied to RCTC Station design with the following additional requirements. 07 0064 RCTC Facility Design Criteria Manual Page 24 • 65 • tem Valsinkolswaske RCTC Commuter Rail and Multimodal Facility Design Criteria Manual The station should be designed to allow for the placement of additional validators at the ends of the platform. 3.5.11 Signs Parking Lot All requirements outlined in SCRRA Design Criteria Manual section 7.5.11 Signs subsection Parking Lot shall be applied to RCTC Station design with the following additional requirements at the end of this section. Platform/Right-of-wav All requirements outlined in SCRRA Design Criteria Manual section 7.5.11 Signs subsection Platform/Right-of-way shall be applied to RCTC Station design with the following additional requirements at the end of this section. RCTC is developing standardized signage requirements that will be implemented across all RCTC Stations. The signage requirements will detail the standard signs to be placed at each station, which is intended to reduce the initial station cost and long term signage replacement costs. The standardization of the signs will allow for RCTC to make bulk purchases of replacement signs that can be used at all stations and will eliminate the high cost to manufacture individual signs for each station. The base stations design shall only incorporate SCRRA and RCTC standard signage, any additional unique signage will need to be funded by the requesting agency or purchased and installed at a later date when funding becomes available. BNSF specified signage will be required on stations that are located along the BNSF main line tracks. Trail Blazer Signs Trail Blazer signs are designed and placed to direct people to the Stations. SCRRA can supply these signs on a reimbursement basis. These signs will need to be placed on opening day of the stations. Staff will need to coordinate with Ca!trans to place signs along the nearby freeways to indicate the new station locations. The Stations must conform to the SCRRA and RCTC Signage Standards which upon completion will be included in Appendix C. 3.5.12 Drainage All requirements outlined in SCRRA Design Criteria Manual section 7.5.12 Drainage shall be applied to RCTC Station design with the following additional requirements. 07_0064 RCTC Facility Design Criteria Manual 66 Page 25 iaa+.u. RCTC Commuter Rail and Multimodal Facility Design Criteria Manual The design engineer shall review each site to determine the existing drainage paths and how they needed to be modified to accommodate the stations. The design engineer shall ensure the drainage achieves the following: • Eliminates ponding • Eliminates water infiltration under the pavement. • Place curb and gutter where needed. • Place concrete drainage swales or cross gutters to eliminate damage to the asphalt paving. • Contain the runoff and detain it on site so as to control its release and not overwhelm the downstream facilities. • Study the potential for on -site collection of runoff, treatment, and reuse for irrigation purposes. 3.6 FENCING 3.6.1 Parking Lot Fence The stations should be designed with perimeter fencing as part of the start up design, if financially feasible. If the funding is not available the fencing to be installed as part of the initial construction then it should be designed for future installation. The fencing should consist of wrought iron coated with water and rust resistant paint. The fence should be located along the station's perimeter thereby directing walking station patrons to pedestrian entrances to the station. Any irrigation heads near the fence should be placed so that the spray does not fall or splash back onto the fencing. Locating the fence and irrigation system should be coordinated between the Station designer and landscape architect. The fence should be designed and located to reduce long term maintenance costs and not be exposed to potential water damage. The fence should be 6-feet tall and designed to impede people climbing it. The fence should not be designed with razor or barb wire on top and should be aesthetically designed to blend in with the station and surrounding buildings or properties. The fence should be painted black to remain consistent with other RCTC stations, thereby reducing maintenance costs by not requiring specialty paint for each station. As of the date of the drafting of this Manual, RCTC is reviewing, sampling, and testing the paint systems used at the 5 RCTC owned stations. This process will result in paint system recommendations for use at all the stations. These recommendations will be incorporated into this Manual once they are reviewed and approved by the Commission and will be included in AppE'ntlix . 3.6.2 Parking Lot Gates 07_0064 RCTC Facility Design Criteria Manual Page 26 • • • 67 • • RCTC Commuter Rail and Multimodal Facility Design Criteria Manual The stations should be designed with entrance/exit gates connecting to the perimeter fencing as part of the start up design, if financially feasible. If the funding is not available for this to be installed as part of the initial construction then it shall be designed for future installation. The gates should be placed at vehicle and pedestrian entrance/exists so that the stations can be secured during off hours. The gates should consist of wrought iron coated with water and rust resistant paint. The gates can either be swinging or sliding, which ever would be easier to operate by the station guards and would fit within the space available. The gates should be lockable with a standard RCTC pad lock. Any irrigation heads near the gates should be placed so that the spray does not fall or splash back onto the gates. Locating the gates and irrigation system should be coordinated between the Station designer and landscape architect. The gate should be designed and located to reduce long term maintenance costs and not be exposed to potential water damage. The gates should match the fencing and be aesthetically designed to blend in with the station and surrounding buildings or properties. Swing gates may need to be painted in a more visible color such as yellow to ensure the gates are clearly observed by the drivers. The gates should be painted black to remain consistent with other RCTC stations, thereby reducing maintenance costs by not requiring specialty paint for each station. As of the date of the drafting of this Manual, ROTC is reviewing, sampling, and testing the paint systems used at the 5 RCTC owned stations. This process will result in paint system recommendations for use at all the stations. These recommendations will be incorporated into this Manual once they are reviewed and approved by the Commission and will be included in Appendix F. The design engineer should look at future electrical operation of the gates by remote or vehicle loop detectors. The station design should not impede the future installation of electrically operated gates. 3.6.3 Removable Inter -Track Fence All requirements outlined in SCRRA Design Criteria Manual section 7.6.1 Removable Inter - Track Fence shall be applied to RCTC Station design with the following additional requirements at the end of this section. The Inter -Track fencing will be required on opening day for the Moreno Valley/March Field Station and the Downtown Perris Station. The fence style, color and coatings should attempt to match the fencing placed at the station. By standardizing all fencing at the stations it will reduce the initial purchase cost by 07 0004 RCTC Facility Design Criteria Manual Page 27 68 RCTC Commuter Rail and Multimodal Facility Design Criteria Manual allowing bulk quantity purchases. In addition, by having similar fencing at all the stations it will allow for easier maintenance, by allowing RCTC to develop standard maintenance procedures for all the stations. Also RCTC will not have to contract with specialized fence manufactures to make any necessary repairs. 3.6.4 Right -of -Way Fencing All requirements outlined in SCRRA Design Criteria Manual section 7.6.2 Right -of -Way Fencing shall be applied to RCTC Station design with the following additional requirements at the end of this section. For additional requirements please refer to RCTC Commuter Rail Station Design Criteria Manual Sections 3.6.1 and 3.6.2. 3.7 PEDESTRIAN CROSSINGS All requirements outlined in SCRRA Design Criteria Manual section 7.7 Pedestrian Crossings shall be applied to RCTC Station design with the following additional requirements at the end of this section. The design engineer should be aware that SCRRA is currently revising their design criteria manual. SCRRA has not provided a date when this manual will be available, but has notified RCTC that the Pedestrian Crossing requirements and design has substantially changed. RCTC has obtained a preliminary design layout plan from SCRAA for the new pedestrian crossing requirements and it is included in Appendix H. 3.7.1 Baggage Cart Routes The requirements outlined in SCRRA Design Criteria Manual section 7.7.1 Baggage Cart Routes at this time are not applicable to the PVL Stations. RCTC does not anticipate Amtrak Service on the PVL alignment, but the design engineer should ensure that the station could accommodate these routes without much retrofitting or demolition and reconstruction. RCTC will have a need for station security guard carts to have full access to the station, but not necessarily the platform. SCRRA's design criteria section 7.7.1 discusses at grade crossing configurations which may change with the revised Section 7.7 Pedestrian Crossing, therefore the design engineer should ensure the design complies with the updated requirements. 3.7.2 Overcrossings At the time of writing the design criteria manual, it was not anticipated that Pedestrian Overcrossings would be required at the PVL stations on opening day. There is a potential in the future that Pedestrian Overcrossing or Undercrossing will be required, depending on station usage and expansion. At that time all requirements outlined in SCRRA Design Criteria Manual section 7.7.2 Overcrossings shall be applied to RCTC Station design with D7 0064 RCTC Facility Design Criteria Manual Page 28 • • • 69 • re.r/RCTC Commuter Rail and Multimodal Facility Design Criteria Manual any future SCRRA amendments or changes to their design criteria manual and the following additional RCTC requirements. RCTC has designed and constructed four (4) Pedestrian Overcrossings at their Riverside stations. From this experience RCTC has developed the following requirement to reduce design, construction, and maintenance costs, these requirements will be expanded as additional maintenance issues or concerns arise. • The towers and overcrossing should not have a Stucco finish — this is difficult to clean and maintain. • The towers and overcrossing should be made with or covered with materials that reduce initial costs and future maintenance. • Colors selected shall be standard and not special order — thereby reducing the cost to obtain the paint in the future. • As of the date of the drafting of this Manual, RCTC is reviewing, sampling, and testing the paint systems used at the 5 RCTC owned stations. This process will result in paint system recommendations for use at all the stations. These recommendations will be incorporated into this Manual once they are reviewed and approved by the Commission and will be included in Appendix F. • The towers and overcrossing should not have a large color pallet — the number of colors used should be minimal, 2 to 3, thereby reducing the maintenance costs when painting has to be performed. • The elevator system should be Overhead Cable if possible, if not the system used must have an extensive record of reliable use in outdoor conditions. • The elevator system should be compatible with the existing elevators at the other RCTC stations. • The elevator shall not have proprietary hardware or software. • The elevators system should have an excellent service record and result in minimal maintenance by RCTC. • The tower stairs should have anti -slip nosing embedded into the concrete stair deck and not be attached after the stair treads are poured. • The anti -slip floor coating should provide a 15 year life span and not require any maintenance during the period. This issue will also be addressed in RCTC paint and coatings investigation and report in Appendix F. • Windows shall not be provided in the elevator towers. • Safety Glass or Lexan windows shall not be provided in the Overcrossing bridges. • In lieu of Glass or Lexan windows, wire mesh or other materials should be used; the design engineer should review Orange County Metrolink Stations with Pedestrian Overcrossings. • The Overcrossing Roofing should be low to no maintenance. • The exterior of the Overcrossing and towers should be designed to be cleaned with a pressure washer and not require man lifts or other equipment to lift people over the tracks. • Any Cameras attached to the overcrossing or towers should be designed so that maintenance can be performed without the need to have a man lift adjacent to the towers or over the tracks. 07 0064 RCTC Facility Design Criteria Manual Page 29 70 ▪ >. RCTC Commuter Rail and Multimodal Facility Design Criteria Manual • Elevator equipment room must have a dedicated thermostat controlled Air Conditioning system, window mounted units are not acceptable. • The towers should be designed with sump tanks that are located adjacent to the tower and are accessible for a vacuum truck. The tanks should have a level alarm system and the tanks should be of standard design and size. They should be located in areas where surface run off cannot flow into the tanks. • The concrete around the elevator tower and elevator door area should slope away from the structure so as to not allow water to drain into the elevator pit. • The area under the stair case should be secured with fencing and a locked gate with access only for RCTC security personnel. • The Overcrossing Bridge shall have individual lights, not the light strips that are currently used on the existing overcrossings. The feasibility of constructing a Pedestrian Overcrossing will need to be evaluated at each station. Some special conditions that should be anticipated are listed in section 3.7.4. 3.7.3 Undercrossings At the time of writing the design criteria manual, it was not anticipated that Pedestrian Undercrossings would be required at the PVL stations on opening day 2011. There is a potential in the future that Pedestrian Overcrossing or Undercrossing will be required, depending on station usage and expansion. At that time all requirements outlined in SCRRA Design Criteria Manual section 7.7.3 Undercrossings shall be applied to RCTC Station design with any future SCRRA amendments or changes to their design criteria manual and the following additional RCTC requirements. The feasibility of constructing a Pedestrian Overcrossing will need to be evaluated at each station. Some special conditions that should be anticipated are listed in section 3.7.4. 3.7.4 Overcrossings and Undercrossings Special Conditions Downtown Perris Station It was determined during Preliminary and Final Engineering design of the Perris Multimodal Transit Facility that the site of the proposed Downtown Perris Station has extensive drainage and flooding issues. Due to these site conditions an Undercrossing at this station location would not be feasible. The feasibility and need of an Overcrossing will need to be evaluated during future planning and design. South Perris Station The Preliminary Engineering for the PVL Project determined that the proposed South Perris Station is located in a 100 year flood plain. During a 100 year storm event it was determined that the station would be under 6 feet of water, therefore an Undercrossing at this station location would not be feasible. 07 0069 RCTC Facility Design Criteria Manual Page 30 71 • ow ► wbow» ROTC Commuter Rail and Multimodal Facility Design Criteria Manual Due to the flooding conditions at this site the construction of a Pedestrian Overcrossing with an elevator would also not be feasible. The Riverside County Flood Control is planning on constructing improvements to elimirtate the flooding conditions. The timing for this project is unknown and based on initial discussions it will not be constructed until some far out future date. UCR Station The Preliminary Engineering for the PVL Project determined that the proposed UCR Station would be located on a section of single track, with the loading platform on the street side. The station is located between a City Street, Watkins Drive, and private homes. The right of way width for this station limits the potential for an Undercrossing, due to the distance required for ADA compliance. Based on the start up conditions, single track, an Undercrossing at this station location would not be necessary: Based on the site conditions, right of way restrictions, and track geometry it would be difficult to construct an Undercrossing, therefore it unfeasible to anticipate an Undercrossing at this station in the future. The feasibility and need for an Overcrossing will need to be evaluated during future planning and design. Some restrictions that could be encountered are the close proximity of the homes. 3.7.5 At -Grade Crossings All requirements outlined in SCRRA Design Criteria Manual section 7.7.4 At -Grade Crossings shall be applied to RCTC Station design with the following additional requirements. The design engineer should be aware that SCRRA is currently revising their design criteria manual. SCRRA has not provided a date when this manual will be available, but has notified RCTC that the Pedestrian Crossing Requirements and design has substantially changed. RCTC has obtained a preliminary design layout plan from SCRAA and it is included in Appendix H. RCTC was notified during the Preliminary Engineering for the PVL project that one of the major changes to the SCRRA design criteria section 7.7.4 was the elimination of the requirement to locate the at -grade crossing in the middle of the platform. SCRRA's new design criteria will require at -grade crossings at the ends of the platforms with pedestrian gates and signals. The design engineer will need to design the stations to the newest SCRRA design criteria and should obtain a draft copy of the criteria. Signalized/gated At -grade pedestrian crossings should have the capability to be lowered and locked down at night to prevent access to the platforms. The signals should not be on when the gates are down and locked at night. 07 0064 RCTC Facility Design Criteria Manual Page 31 72 RCTC Commuter Rail and Multimodal Facility Design Criteria Manual 3.8 LANDSCAPING & IRRIGATION RCTC's existing Metrolink Commuter Rail Stations have extensive and unique landscaping. Over the fifteen (15) years of operation, RCTC has seen substantial increase in the landscape and irrigation maintenance costs. RCTC requires that the PVL stations reduce the landscape and irrigation maintenance costs through water conservation, more efficient irrigation system i.e. drip system, drought tolerant landscape usage, and increase in hardscape placement. RCTC's general landscape requirements are as follows: • The stations shall not have extensive landscaping to reduce the operational and long term maintenance costs. • Plant species used shall be uniform across all PVL stations, thereby allowing bulk purchases and reducing future maintenance costs. • Unique plant species shall not be used at the stations. • Hardscape shall be placed to supplement landscaping. • Plants/trees shall include native drought tolerant species. • Plants or trees requiring excessive water or maintenance shall not be used. • No fruit bearing trees will be used. • Sod shall not be placed at the stations. • Loose small rock shall not be used for hardscaping due to potential vandalism with the rocks. • Desertscape should be reviewed as an option for the stations. • Reduce landscaping barriers between the parking lot and the platform, people walk through the landscaping to the platform which results in higher maintenance costs, therefore this should be minimized or eliminated. • Landscaping design should stress water conservation and drought tolerant plant materials. • Irrigation system should be a bubbler or root irrigation system. • The City of Perris has approved the use of Desertscape at their City Hall. The design engineer shall review and determine how it can be implemented at the PVL stations. • Western Municipal Water District has also implemented Desertscape at their facility located near the PVL project. This should be reviewed and determined how or if it could also be used as a basis for the new stations. • Landscaping should be placed so as not to obscure or impeded CCTV monitoring of the stations and parking lots. • During the design of the stations the engineer shall determine if reclaimed water can be used for irrigation. And/or design the stations irrigation systems for future reclaimed water use. • Design Backflow Preventer cages to meet City standards and to prevent the cage and backflow from being stolen. As of the date of the drafting of this Manual, RCTC is reviewing the existing landscape and irrigation used at the 5 RCTC owned stations. This process will result in recommendations for use at all the stations to reduce operations and maintenance costs and promote water 07 0064 RCTC Facility Design Criteria Manual Page 32 • • 73 • r RCTC Commuter Rail and Multimodal Facility Design Criteria Manual conservation. These recommendations will be incorporated into this Manual once they are reviewed and approved by the Commission and will be included in Appendix H. 3.8.1 Landscape Clearances All requirements outlined in SCRRA Design Criteria Manual section 7.8 Landscape Clearances shall be applied to RCTC Station design with the following additional requirements outlined in Section 3.8.2, 3.8.3, and 3.8.4 of this design manual. 3.8.2 Platform Landscaping Platform Landscaping and/or planters shall not be installed on the platforms for the PVL Stations. This requirement is a result of RCTC's operations of the four (4) Riverside/Corona RCTC Metrolink Stations, where platform landscaping was installed in planters on the platforms. These platform planters required irrigation conduits be placed under the concrete platforms. At some stations these lines have deteriorated and leaked resulting in damage to the platforms. Repairs to these irrigation lines have resulted in portions of the platform having to be removed to make the necessary repairs, resulting in unsightly repairs and extensive maintenance costs. Therefore, due to this experience landscaping/planters shall not be placed on the station platforms. 3.8.3 Parking Lot Landscaping Parking Lot Landscaping shall be installed with the following requirements: Parking Lot Diamond Planters • The number of planters should be minimized to reduce maintenance and operations costs and irrigation impacts. Irrigation of these types of planters at RCTC's other stations has resulted in runoff and damage to the adjacent pavement, resulting in excessive operations and maintenance costs. • The planters shall not have pop up sprinklers; drip or bubbler irrigation head shall be used. • The planters shall only include tree planting to provide shade to the parked vehicles and reduce the thermal heating of the pavement. • Trees placed in the planters shall not impede CCTV camera coverage and guard observations of the parked cars. • The full tree height shall be no greater than 20 feet. • The trees should not have low growth branches, which would result in hazards to the patrons walking or parking near the trees. • Root barriers shall be placed around each tree to eliminate the root damage to the adjacent pavement. • The landscaping shall be designed with the principles of CPTED. • Diamond Planters shall be concrete or an environmentally friendly alternative. End of Parking Row Planters • The number of planters should be minimized to reduce maintenance and operations costs and irrigation impacts. Irrigation of these types of planters at RCTC's stations otoaa RCTC Facility Design Criteria Manual Page 33_ 74 timia:a.r m RCTC Commuter Rail and Multimodal Facility Design Criteria Manual has resulted in runoff and damage to the adjacent pavement resulting in excessive operations and maintenance costs. • The planters can include trees, shrubs, or bushes that do not require frequent trimming. • Trees placed in the planters shall not impede CCTV camera coverage and guard observations of the parked cars. • The full tree height shall be no greater than 20 feet. • The trees should not have low growth branches, which would result in hazards to the patrons walking or parking near the trees. • Root barriers shall be placed around each tree to eliminate the root damage to the adjacent pavement. • The landscaping shall be designed with the principles of CPTED. • The planters shall not have pop up sprinklers; drip or bubbler irrigation head shall be used. • Hardscape can be placed in lieu of landscaping for additional water conservation. • Planters shall be concrete or constructed of an environmentally friendly alternative material. Parking Lot Perimeter Planters • The amount of landscaping should be minimized to reduce maintenance and operations costs and irrigation impacts. Irrigation of these types of planters at RCTC's other stations has resulted in runoff and damage to the adjacent pavement, resulting in excessive operations and maintenance costs. • The Station perimeter fence will be placed adjacent to these planters and should be located away from irrigation spray. • The planters can include trees, shrubs, bushes, or hedges that do not require frequent trimming. • Trees placed in the planters shall not impede CCTV camera coverage and guard observations of the parked cars. • The full tree height shall be no greater than 20 feet. • The trees should not have low growth branches, which would result in hazards to the patrons walking or parking near the trees. • Root barriers shall be placed around each tree to eliminate the root damage to the adjacent pavement. • The landscaping shall be designed with the principles of CPTED. • The planters shall not have pop up sprinklers; drip or bubbler irrigation head shall be used. • Hardscape can be placed in lieu of landscaping for additional water conservation. • No SOD shall be placed. 3.8.4 Hardscaping Decorative hardscaping should be reviewed as an option to landscaping large open areas. The Hardscape requirements and guidelines are as follows: • Small rocks which can be picked up and thrown shall not be used. o 0064 RCTC Facility Design Criteria Manual Page 34 • 75 t RCTC Commuter Rail and Multimodal Facility Design Criteria Manual • Colored concrete paving can be used as long as the color is a standard and not a special order color. • Decorative brick paving shall not be used due to the high cost associated with purchasing, replacing, and maintaining the pavers. • Concrete paving shall not have intricate designs that would be difficult to maintain or repair if damaged, i.e. decorative etchings. • Concrete Paving shall be designed to withstand differential settlement. • Large rocks/boulders maybe used for the hardscape layout. • Very fine sand and gravel, less than '/" maybe used for the hardscape layout. 3.9 ARTWORK All requirements outlined in SCRRA Design Criteria Manual section 7.9 Artwork shall be applied to RCTC Station design with the following additional requirements. The placement of Artwork for opening day, shall not be included as part of the design, unless it is funded outside of the PVL project and is identified as a concurrent non -project cost. City's requesting additional artwork on the sites will be required to fund initial costs and maintenance costs. The design engineer should design the stations to accommodate the placement of future Artwork as additional funding becomes available. Areas should be designated in the plan sheets for future Artwork placement. The locations shall be selected for ease of retrofitting and close proximity to existing electrical power. The areas selected should not require demolition of existing station features and should require minimal trenching within paved areas. The design engineer should anticipate the future placement of artwork at the Moreno/March Field Station, Downtown Perris Station, and the South Perris Station. The Moreno Valley/March Field Station should have an area that could accommodate an aircraft display without impacting or occupying any parking spaces. 3.10 COMMUNICATIONS 3.10.1 Communication Building All requirements outlined in SCRRA Design Criteria Manual section 7.10.1 Communication Building shall be applied to RCTC Station design with the following additional requirements The Communication Building will be required for opening day service to the stations and should be located on the station layout plan to minimize impact to the station parking and located in an area that will allow for future expansion and placement of other similar structures, including bathroom facilities for security personnel, RCTC staff, and Metrolink Engineers use, a station storage room, future electric security vehicle storage and charging, future Security / CCTV monitoring building, or other future facilities as funding allows. 07 0069 RCTC Facility Design Criteria Manual Page 35 76 oft&d+ RCTC Commuter Rail and Multimodal Facility Design Criteria Manual RCTC has been informed that SCRRA is planning on altering the size of their Communications Building. The new building includes a separate area for other Agency use, which is separated from the SCRRA equipment. Communications and CCTV equipment can be placed within this separate area. The building will require power and communication connections. The design engineer will coordinate with SCRRA and RCTC about the size and location of the Communications Building. 3.10.2 Security Camera CCTV Provisions All requirements outlined in SCRRA Design Criteria Manual section 7.10.2 CCTV Provisions shall be applied to RCTC Station design with the following additional requirements. On opening day, all of the PVL Stations shall have CCTV cameras installed and operational. In addition, the stations shall be designed, i.e. additional conduits as described in the previous sections, to accommodate the expansion of the CCTV System. General Desiqn Requirements • The design engineer and a Security Expert shall recommend the locations and number of CCTV Cameras to be placed. • The number and locations of the cameras shall be reviewed by RCTC prior to final design. • The proposed equipment should have a long service life and require low to no maintenance. • The equipment should be common and not require any unique parts. • The equipment shall be uniform across the PVL stations. • .The equipment shall easily integrate with the existing monitoring and control equipment at the Riverside Downtown Station. • Any pole mounted cameras shall have a system to lower the camera for maintenance or repairs, RCTC's maintenance contractor should not have to use a boom truck to service the cameras. This will reduce the maintenance cost to RCTC. • The equipment should be easily upgradeable. • The equipment specified should be from a reputable company that will remain in business for the foreseeable future. • The design engineer should design the system to reduce RCTC operations and maintenance costs. • New Technology should be investigated and cost estimates provided to RCTC to determine the best equipment to purchase and install. •, The system should be easily expandable, adding cameras, in the future. • The cameras should be fiber optic connected, not Coaxial Cable. • Any underground conduits for the system should be water tight, rodent proof, and be easily located by radio detection or other non -intrusive methods. • The equipment will need to weather resistant and vandal proof. D7_0964 RCTC Facility Design Criteria Manual Page 36 • • 77 RCTC Commuter Rail and Multimodal Facility Design Criteria Manual • The cable system shall be Fiber Optic, camera to transmission equipment, and if possible, transmission equipment to receiving station. • The CCTV equipment room or cabinet shall have a warning system similar SENSA Phone to alert RCTC of any fluctuations in air temperature, moisture, noise, or other environmental conditions. Non -Fiber Transmission System The Caltrans 1-215 corridor does not have a fiber optic backbone that the PVL stations could connect too, like is done on the State Route 91 alignment. Therefore, the stations should be designed to have the following: • On site DVR to record video signal. • On site monitor to review the stored footage. • On site DVD Burner to burn the videos to DVD. • Hot swappable hard drives to allow for the information saved on the hard drive to be reviewed off site. • Internet connection for control and monitoring of the cameras from any off site location. • T-1 or faster connection to transmit the control and video signals to the Riverside Downtown Metrolink Station. • Modification to and/or placement of additional equipment at the Riverside Downtown Metrolink Station Security Monitor room (RDMSSMR) to monitor the CCTV cameras at the PVL Stations. • The design engineer shall develop the plans and specifications for the CCTV system and any future modifications through consultation with RCTC's Station Maintenance Manager and RCTC's CCTV maintenance contractor. • The design engineer shall review the existing equipment and determine if any items need to be upgraded to incorporate the PVL CCTV video transmission. • Some of the equipment at the Downtown Station has been upgraded over the past 15 years but some items may need to be replaced to allow for the proper reception and control of the PVL CCTV cameras. • The RDMSSMR shall have control of the PVL CCTV cameras. Fiber Transmission System Discussions have been held about the potential installation of conduit and fiber optic cable along the whole PVL alignment. If this occurs, as part of the 2011 station opening, then the design engineer should design the CCTV cameras to connect to this conduit and allocate 2 fibers for each station, one for video and one for control. The PVL conduit will either extend back to the Downtown Riverside Station or terminate at the BNSF mainline — PVL junction. If the later is the case, then the fiber should be designed to connect to the Caltrans Fiber Vault at the 1-215 and SR-60 Junction. RCTC will negotiate with Caltrans and obtain shared use rights to connect to the Caltrans Fiber System, which will extend back to the east bound Route 91 and Vine Street On/off ramp. The new fiber will 07 J1064 RCTC Facility Design Criteria Manual Page 37 78 RCTC Commuter Rail and Multimodal Facility Design Criteria Manual then be routed in an existing RCTC conduit from the freeway to the Riverside Downtown Metrolink Station Communication Building. If the Fiber Optic Conduit extends back to the Downtown Riverside Station, then the fibers can be connected directly to the Communication Building at the station. RCTC will require the following items be installed with the Fiber Transmission System: • DVR to record video signal located at the RDMSSMR for the 2011 opening day. This will be relocated to the South Perris Station once the Security Monitoring Station is constructed. • LCD video monitors to view the camera footage at RDMSSMR. • DVD Burner to burn the videos to DVD. • Hot swappable hard drives to allow for the information saved on the hard drive to be reviewed off site. • Internet connection for control and monitoring of the cameras from any off site location. • Modification to and/or placement of additional equipment at the RDMSSMR to monitor the CCTV cameras at the PVL Stations. • The design engineer shall develop the plans and specifications for the CCTV system and any future modifications through consultation with RCTC's Station Maintenance Manager and RCTC's CCTV maintenance contractor. • The design engineer shall review the existing equipment and determine if any items need to be upgraded to incorporate the PVL CCTV video transmission. • Some of the equipment at the Downtown Station has been upgraded over the past 15 years but some items may need to be replaced to allow for the proper reception and control of the PVL CCTV cameras. • The RDMSSMR shall have control of the PVL CCTV cameras until construction of the South Perris Security Monitoring Station. If funding is available, a Security Monitoring Station should be planned at the South Perris Station so that the monitoring of the CCTV systems can be split between the Riverside 91 route and the Perris 1-215 route; this is discussed in more detail in Section 3.10.2.1. 3.10.2.1Security Monitoring Station The design engineer should anticipate the construction, in the future, of a Security Monitoring Station (SMS) at the South Perris Station. The station layout should accommodate the placement of the SMS, which will include a CCTV monitoring Room where all the PVL CCTV cameras will be monitored and controlled from. Once the SMS is constructed all PVL CCTV monitoring will be transferred from the Downtown Riverside Station to the South Perris Station. The SMS shall have an elevated observation area so that the security personnel can visual monitor the South Perris Station and PVL Layover Facility. The SMS will be designed to withstand the 100 year flood. 07_0064 RCTC Facility Design Criteria Manual Page 38 • • • 79 • • • cgo., aaYwira.:a,. RCTC Commuter Rail and Multimodal Facility Design Criteria Manual The SMS will have a storage area for items to be use at the Station including, flyers, earthquake kit, emergency equipment, traffic control devices, blankets, flashlights, etc. 3.10.3 Passenger Information Call Boxes All requirements outlined in SCRRA Design Criteria Manual section 7.10.3 Passenger Information Call Boxes shall be applied to RCTC Station design with the following additional requirements. This equipment shall be included in the design for opening day. 3.10.4 Public Address/Changeable Message Signs All requirements outlined in SCRRA Design Criteria Manual section 7.10.4 PA/CMS shall be applied to RCTC Station design with the following additional requirements. This equipment shall be included in the design for opening day using the most current SCRRA standard for equipment. 3.10.5 EMP Panel All requirements outlined in SCRRA Design Criteria Manual section 7.10.5 EMP Panel shall be applied to RCTC Station design with the following additional requirements. This equipment shall be included in the design for opening day using the most current SCRRA standard for equipment. 3.11 PLUMBING SYSTEMS 3.11.1 Platform Wash Down System All requirements outlined in SCRRA Design Criteria Manual section 7.11.1 Platform Wash Down System shall be applied to RCTC Station design with the following additional requirements. The water lines shall be located in a manner that will allow for ease of maintenance in the future. The lines should not be imbedded in the concrete pedestrian platform and they should be constructed in a manner that would allow for ease of locating leaking lines and making necessary repairs. The lines should be located to allow for minimal concrete or asphalt removal. A comprehensive plan should be developed, which shall locate and route all underground conduits and lines in a manner that will reduce future maintenance costs and reduce damage to concrete, structures, paving, tactile tile when repairs are necessary. The design 07 0064 RCTC Facility Design Criteria Manual Page 39 80 Irmaista RCTC Commuter Rail and Multimodal Facility Design Criteria Manual engineer should make all attempts to locate these quick connect couplers in landscaped or non -paved areas. This equipment shall be included in the design for the 2011 opening day. 3.11.2 Drinking Fountains All requirements outlined in SCRRA Design Criteria Manual section 7.11.2 Drinking Fountains shall be applied to RCTC Station design with the following additional requirements. The water lines should be located in a manner that will allow for ease of maintenance in the future. The lines should not be imbedded in the concrete pedestrian platform and they should be constructed in a manner that would allow for the ease of locating and repairing of leaking lines. The lines should be located to allow for minimal concrete or asphalt removal. A comprehensive plan should be developed which shall locate and route all underground conduits and lines in a manner that will reduce future maintenance costs and reduce damage to concrete, structures, paving, tactile tile when repairs are necessary. The design engineer should make all attempts to locate the drinking fountain and the water lines feeding it adjacent to or in landscaped or non -paved areas. All drinking fountain water lines will be potable and designed so they do not have backflow issues. Water lines should also be provided for future hot drink vending machines and mister systems. This equipment shall be included in the design for opening day. 3.11.3 Restroom Facilities All requirements outlined in SCRRA Design Criteria Manual section 7.11.3 Restroom Facilities shall be applied to RCTC Station design with the following additional requirements. Restrooms will not be constructed as part of the opening day of the stations, but the station layout should be designed to accommodate the facilities in the future. Unisex restroom facilities will be added as funding allows. These future restroom facilities will only be for use by the station security, Metrolink Crews, and RCTC personnel. Restroom facilities will not be provided for the general public due to potential vandalism and the extensive maintenance and security costs associated with public restroom facilities. 3.12 ELECTRICAL SYSTEMS General Design Requirements • The electrical equipment shall be designed for ease of future expansion with enclosures large enough to accommodate additional meters. 07 0064 RCTC Facility Design Criteria Manual Page 40 • • • 81 • boom"lakalrobio RCTC Commuter Rail and Multimodal Facility Design Criteria Manual • The electrical equipment should be designed to accommodate the future parking lot expansion and platform extension with minimal retrofitting. • The design shall allow for the electrical system to be easily upgraded to accommodate placement of new equipment for potential future parking garages or pedestrian overcrossings at all stations except for the UCR station. • The electrical equipment should be placed in area away from the rail road right-of- way, so that flaggers are not required when maintenance is performed. • The circuits for the parking lot and station lighting should be separate and the system should be designed to allow for half of the lights, every other one, to be shut off at night. • Optional or supplemental Solar Power supply should be investigated and costs estimates provided to RCTC to determine if it can be incorporated in the opening day design or at a future date. • The Design Engineer should review and provide RCTC with information on Electric Grants for installation of "green" equipment. • As of the date of the drafting of this Manual, RCTC is reviewing the existing lighting and electrical systems at the 5 RCTC owned stations. This process will result in recommendations for modification of the system to reduce operations and maintenance costs. These recommendations will be incorporated into this Manual once they are reviewed and approved by the Commission and will be included in Appendix D. • Automatic controllers shall be installed to allow for the automatic cycling of the lights when the sun is down and when it rises. • Future expansion of the station should be taking into account when designing the conduit routes and main power feeds. 3.12.1 Electrical Service All requirements outlined in SCRRA Design Criteria Manual section 7.12.1 Electrical Service shall be applied to RCTC Station design with the following modifications. All station, platform and parking lot, electric bills will be paid for by RCTC, therefore one meter can be placed for these components. The electrical service for the Metrolink Communication Building shall have a separate meter with the bills sent to Metrolink for payment. Any electrical supply to track signals or gate crossings should be placed on separate meter with the bills sent to and paid by RCTC. 3.12.2 Power Requirements All requirements outlined in SCRRA Design Criteria Manual section 7.12.2 Power Requirements shall be applied to RCTC Station design with the following modifications. Modifications to the basic SCRRA station power requirements shall be reviewed by SCRRA. 07_0064 RCTC Facility Design Criteria Manual Page 41 82 RCTC Commuter Rail and Multimodal Facility Design Criteria Manual 3.12.3 Conduit System All requirements outlined in SCRRA Design Criteria Manual section 7.12.3 Conduit System shall be applied to RCTC Station design with the following modifications. Additional RCTC requirements are outlined in: • Section 3.4.6 Parking Lot layout sub section Conduit Systems of this manual. • Section 3.5.4 General Configuration sub section Conduit Systems of this manual. 3.12.4 Platform Receptacles All requirements outlined in SCRRA Design Criteria Manual section 7.12.4 Platform Receptacles shall be applied to RCTC Station design with the following modifications. Lockable receptacles shall also be placed at strategic locations within the parking lot for use by maintenance personnel and for special events. The preferred locations are at Light Poles, near the signs for the entrance and exits to the station, and adjacent to the Communications building. Additional RCTC requirements are outlined in: • Section 3.5.4 General Configuration sub section Conduit Systems of this manual. 3.12.5 Solar Power The design engineer shall review the potential for installation and use of solar power to supplement or offset station electrical usage. Implementing solar power is a goal of the Commission and should be explored for all projects. The design engineer shall: • Review the use of Solar Power and provide cost estimates to RCTC to determine if it can be incorporated in the station opening day or at a future date, depending on funding constraints. • Design Engineer shall investigate and provide information to RCTC on any Grants or supplemental funds for the installation of "green" or solar powered equipment. • Solar powered lighting should be reviewed as an option to offset the stations electric usage. • Solar power irrigation controllers shall be reviewed for incorporation into the stations design. • The design engineer should investigate the potential for joint development of a solar power project at one or more of the Stations. 3.13 OTHER STATION EQUIPMENT 3.13.1 Trash Cans All requirements outlined in SCRRA Design Criteria Manual section 7.13.1 Trash Cans shall be applied to RCTC Station design with the following additional requirements. o7_ ooea RCTC Facility Design Criteria Manual Page 42 • • 83 • ea;aetagir r RCTC Commuter Rail and Multimodal Facility Design Criteria Manual RCTC Requirements: • The Trash Cans shall not be concrete. • The Trash Cans will be the same type and manufacture at all PVL Stations to reduce the initial purchase cost and long term maintenance costs. • RCTC is currently reviewing potential trash can designs and manufactures to address RCTC maintenance concerns. • RCTC is reviewing the possibility of replacing all the trash cans across all current RCTC Metrolink stations with the final selected trash can. The results of this selection process will be provided to the Design Consultant once it is complete. • The trash can lids should be secured to the can body so they cannot be stolen. The lids should be secured in a manner to allow for the trash bags to be removed. • The trash can materials should provide a long service life with little to no maintenance required. • The trash cans colors should be uniform to allow for ease of maintenance and touch up painting across all PVL stations. • The station should also be designed to have a standard secured trash dumpster enclosure. o This enclosure should be located to allow access by trash trucks. o The enclosure and trash dumpster should be located away from the platform and if possible down wide of the platform, so the fumes do not impact the station patrons. o The enclosure should be covered to prevent animals, homeless and weather, rain, to enter the enclosure and trash dumpster. o The trash enclosure will have to meet ADA requirements. o The enclosure should require little to no long term maintenance. o The walls should be coated with an anti -graffiti coating to hinder vandalism. o The enclosure gates should be easy to operate and secure. This equipment shall be included in the design for the opening day. 3.13.2 Bike Lockers All requirements outlined in SCRRA Design Criteria Manual section 7.13.2 Bike Lockers shall be applied to RCTC Station design with the following additional requirements. RCTC Requirements: • Bike Lockers / Bike Racks shall be placed near the platform. • RCTC is currently testing a Bike Pod system at the North Main Corona Station and this may be used at the PVL stations. • The lockers should be designed to be secured by the user with their own lock and key. • The Bike lockers / racks should not required RCTC management or monthly rentals. • The Bike lockers / racks should be designed to require little to no maintenance. • The Bike lockers / rack should be anticipated to be included as part of the station opening day design. D1 0064 RCTC Facility Design Criteria Manual Page 43 84 w+rr.tisk. RCTC Commuter Rail and Multimodal Facility Design Criteria Manual • Future expansion of Bike lockers / racks should be anticipated in the design and area/s identified for their placement. • The Bike lockers / rack shall be placed so that they do not interfere or impeded station patrons walking on the platform. 3.13.3 Public Telephones All requirements outlined in SCRRA Design Criteria Manual section 7.13.3 Public Telephones shall be applied to RCTC Station design with the following additional requirements. The design should anticipate placement of one (1) public telephone on opening day of the station. 3.13.4 Vending Machines All requirements outlined in SCRRA Design Criteria Manual section 7.13.4 Vending Machines shall be applied to RCTC Station design with the following additional requirements. The design engineer shall anticipate placement of one (1) Vending Machine on opening day and a minimum two (2) additional ones in the future. The location should be within or adjacent to the main station canopy. 3.13.5 Newspaper Racks All requirements outlined in SCRRA Design Criteria Manual section 7.13.5 Newspaper Racks shall be applied to RCTC Station design with the following additional requirements. The design engineer shall anticipate the placement of a Newspaper Rack on opening day adjacent to the main canopy, not inside or covered by the canopy. The rack maybe provided by an outside agency or RCTC pending funding availability. 3.13.6 Kiosks The following are RCTC Kiosk Requirements: • The design engineer shall anticipate the placement of a single Kiosk on opening day, pending funding availability. • Additional Kiosk/s will be placed in the future as funding becomes available. • The Kiosk shall be lighted internally or externally depending on the type selected. • The Kiosk shall be located adjacent to or within the main canopy. • The Kiosk will have secured and weather tight panels for posting of announcements. • The potential for LCD Screened Kiosks should be investigated by the design engineer and cost estimates provided to RCTC. • The design engineer should investigate the use of solar powered Kiosks. o, 0064 RCTC Facility Design Criteria Manual Page 44 85 • • • RCTC Commuter Rail and Multimodal Facility Design Criteria Manual • The design engineer shall anticipate providing power and communications to the Kiosks. • The Kiosks shall be located near areas where the station patrons will gather and where they will be most visible. . • The Kiosks shall be vandal proof and secured to the platform so they cannot be easily removed. 3.13.7 Alternate Power Sources The design engineer shall review the potential for alternative power sources for the station including solar, as outline in Section 3.12.5, wind, geothermal, thermal, or other technologies as they become available. The design engineer shall design the stations to be "green", reduce their carbon foot print, reduce green house emissions, and reduce operations and maintenance cost. The design engineer shall review and report to RCTC on the viability of various options to achieve these goals and their associated cost. RCTC will review the recommendations and costs and provide direction on how to proceed. 3.13.8 Bird Nesting The stations shall be designed to reduce areas available for birds to nest and roost. Bird nesting is an issue at RCTC's La Sierra Metrolink Station and the future PVL stations shall be designed to eliminate bird nesting and roosting areas. All options should be reviewed and those that do not endanger the station patrons or create an un-aesthetic look should be implemented with RCTC's concurrence. The options recommended should not require connection to electrical service, unless they have their own solar power cells, and should only require low to no maintenance. 3.13.9 Canopy Misters As stated in Section 3.5.4 Canopy Water Misters shall be planned for on the Main and Platform Canopies. RCTC requires the canopies be designed to accommodate water mister systems in the future. Due to funding constraints these will not be placed on opening day of the stations. • The canopies should have water conduits routed to the canopy columns and extended to the top of the columns for future connection to a mister system. • The design engineer shall design the canopies to accommodate this system and shall provide recommendations of systems to be used. • Locations and placement for any ancillary equipment necessary to operate the misters should be anticipated and allocated for in the station design. 07_006 RCTC Facility Design Criteria Manual Page 45 86 w wyw,v.a. RCTC Commuter Rail and Multimodal Facility Design Criteria Manual 3.14 OFF SITE IMPROVEMENTS As part of the Station design, RCTC recognizes that off -site street and city improvements will be required. The design engineer should coordinate with the local cities to determine what improvements are required and provide the requests to RCTC for review and determination if they will be incorporated into the station design. In all of RCTC's stations designs and construction projects, RCTC has worked together with the impacted Cities to address their issues and concerns, by performing street improvements, beautification projects, street landscaping, art work installation, utility undergrounding, signalization of adjacent intersections, utility relocations, and other improvements. Due to the funding constraints on the PVL project, the amount of these off -site improvements will be severely limited. RCTC will work with the impacted Cities to address their concerns, but due to these funding constraints some of the requested improvements will not be able to be implemented as part of the opening day stations. Some improvements will have to be delayed until additional funding becomes available or if the requesting city or agency can provide the funding to offset the deficient funds then the improvements maybe implemented. RCTC has reviewed the previous commuter rail station projects constructed by RCTC and the cost for offsite improvements has varied from 7 %(North Main Corona Station) to 40% (Perris Multimodal Transportation Facility) of the total construction costs. Due to the budget constraints on the PVL project a maximum of 10°l0 of the total station construction cost can be allocated for offsite improvements. Due to these constraints the design engineer shall only focus on the typical offsite improvements RCTC has implemented in the past, for example: • Sidewalk and landscaping improvements limited to the side of the city street where the station is located. • Improvements only for the width of the RCTC owned property. • Street improvements only for the % of the street width where the station will be built. • Signalization at entrance/exits to the stations - only if traffic analysis warrants. • Utility Undergrounding only if the utility poles will need to be relocated to accommodate the station. • Storm Drain improvements within the station area. • If the existing downstream storm drain system is undersized, methods should be implemented to contain and control the outflow of storm water from the stations so that they do not over flow the undersized system. • Since restroom facilities will not be constructed as part of the opening day, no sewer improvements will be constructed. • Soundwalls will only be placed if noise studies warrant. Deviations from the list of off -site improvement or an increase in the percentage cap of off - site improvement can only be approved by full Commission Action. The request for o� 0064 RCTC Facility Design Criteria Manual Page 46 87 • RCTC Commuter Rail and Multimodal Facility Design Criteria Manual deviations shall be submitted to the Commission at its' monthly meeting, held the second Wednesday of every month. 3.15 SERVICE AND LAYOVER FACILITIES All requirements outlined in SCRRA Design Criteria Manual section 13.6 Service and Layover Facilities shall be applied to RCTC Station design with the following additional requirements. A layover facility will be constructed as part of the opening day service for PVL. The layover facility for the PVL project has been located adjacent to the South Perris Station. The design and construction cost for the layover facility is also tied to the Cost Effective Index, therefore any deviation from SCRRA's standard will require Commission action. All requirements outlined in RCTC Design Criteria Manual section 3.14 Off Site Improvements shall be applied to the design and construction of the service and layover facilities. 3.16 MULTIMODAL AND PARK AND RIDE FACILITIES Multimodal and Park and Ride Facilities will be designed using the elements of the rail station plans that apply as well as incorporate design standards from Riverside Transit Agency and other public transit operators as required. o? 0064 RCTC Facility Design Criteda Manual Page 47 88 RCTC Commuter Rail and Multimodal Facility Design Criteria Manual ATTACHMENT 1 TERMS AND DEFINITIONS (The terms and definitions are extracted from the 2003 SCRRA Design Criteria Manual) 0 ooee RCTC Station Design Criteria Manual Attachment 1 Page 48 89 K RCTC Commuter Rail and Multimodal Facility Design Criteria Manual All Terms and Definitions as outlined in SCRRA Design Criteria Manual Appendix A shall be applied to RCTC Station design. 07 naa RCTC Station Design Criteria Manual Attachment 1 Page 49 • 90 • RCTC Commuter Rail and Multimodal Facility Design Criteria Manual ATTACHMENT 2 (The abbreviations are extracted from the 2003 SCRRA Design Criteria Manual) 01 0960. RCTC Station Design Criteria Manual Attachment 2 Page 50 91 RCTC Commuter Rail and Multimodal Facility Design Criteria Manual All Abbreviations as outlined in SCRRA Design Criteria Manual Appendix B shall be applied to RCTC Station design with the following additions. of 0064 RCTC Station Design Criteria Manual Attachment 2 Page 51 • 92 ►.i..ils. RCTC Commuter Rail and Multimodal Facility Design Criteria Manual APPENDIX A Station "Key Hole" Layout o7_ 0654 RCTC Station Design Criteria Manual Appendix A Page 52 93 .09 z . I 3ro0a Z22 AO 60Z on ,33X5 ..0151n3n 101-3-V '0N 'JWTva0 00-421-SE'20a'on 10.n1n0 ..0-.09 ,• ..I 8 9<0E 9.09 Notiond1S00 dOd lON - ANYNI11113dd Nbld 311S V NOUV1S VARNlVd 3NI1 A311VA SIHH3d 010H 1N3Nd013A30 3Bnlnd 11130110Y '! !MINIM WIN 03 0301AONd 'f 3000 AB 0311I1103W NYN1 HON mamma 0NY d001 SRB d0 9301S N10B NO 0NI3tlYd 3141189300V OMB '8 d001 81111 d0 83018 N101 NO 30IN ! 8813 '3 '3AY YIBNn100 ONV'3AY Y1INAN1Yd 0011103M* AVAI3AI110 31YAItld '1 ES3anim A33 93110V 9'8 ROE ar3A 34I05011111 Off/ A S'NIM/10 3��1 Otllmf3b Q 1102 11.65 •9a 0MOW KS Olt 202 • 031111030 0S0 949 030111091 MU 111111. 1102 tlY34 9143012a 101 011CRria IV II5I11,001 33a1 53120424 O 101001 33tl1 63110413 O AlN0 3011221113 ATq Sn0 1.I01 VIZ 30Nv1511 13111E1 SAG w 21111123036 2 001 001 =c--4t • O L0 :1 0831081 • S1141 AIMOdd :L..�..�..�..�.. .. _.._.. _.. —..—.. —.. _.._.._.. �. AO'02 9b . a.e.n Y. >.,.... palsiadioni A's 60-61-5 1 NOI95I00100 NOIIVISOdS M A1NI100 3018N3AIZI Y:=441 1155N00 kr, 01 .00 62E �3aa 019641431. aldw.... NOON O '0 43118131. 1,3„0 ;PT 4021611 a5560.0 624 2110iiSL ur15 nnm3 �—"' Y, L_— 11 06 000 14gflv1.1 ld ]4n3f _ 0yiiii/iiii�gicliyi�rdi • 11nL Na0J1Ya Npi1v15 • 'V, - DDT //ifdy • E 0 N01530 16rN10113dd 402 60-61 • M)IOM 1.3421 non 25•4•46 2•604 1010 Ol a3f3b 3Ml Mon � /////r.e../ do 6224.. DI 10 3110183113' Y13839 M02� 9rl r, 1N311d013A30 3anind ,_ S3N11 A1tl3E0Xd�• I' AL e621 moa vadn • • • • • • ,D9 = I "„ 099 i0 t I Z 'ON .011114 NO44•38 101-V 3 'ON amArro '036tNiS Bo-ea-et-103'0N INN11100 NO11011HISN00 80d ION - NVId 31IS 3 NOILV1S Sititl3d 3NI1 A311VA Slkled 0138 56 "'""Pi313.111.10.r.“7":"Ur7":7 1111 30-6 L'S 300 outript NOISSINN03 NOILY1110EISNV81 Aaiun 301011A121 asan 303119Tr AO 0••• mosopin 4B6=0711,,C451 I ..,•Vr HOMO A/01419113tld %Ot 60-61-S 83111-D1 = OS • MAXI- AI NAM 0 3emni -a NOM 0 ALS AB -I NOM 0 3113140 AB •11804/1 3dyDSOM4 Ow SIIOLIn993316Thinala Iql 50.41/11•10 Ife3SINvi O1 /1333a W 1$31.0N 921. Dv &elm DtatlId n831. 19011S Stt oir onnoaa !OE? rts BOZ , 0309030 299 tBr 01/39103n 0t11Z *OA 110! tir3A %Iowa /3331$ 9' •I SIN& OM d ICI II 39914.11 , I ..d .k awsess 110. 9e55 • • ' •, ' .• 6:1 , III 3SVHde = - = r' , 7 t- BrIfiS 0199/tvd 06 .9 3SYNtl I -11 WAS. • 1 , : r ."4 UAW -/..0 006 STVIS,Dra a BB Ewa 11' Hit PrlrilflrlIfIlillr 1159.10 D .00 66 .00'099 133EI1S 3 133ULS 0 I151SNOD urD AIMSSL 331.rour113 .00 09B .0009 Ou.SSOaD 14c/115303a ,'(,}Trii_ ITT ; ; r ; t SlIrtS D a 08.1 mild 1 asylid O t slffis Orcierre t9 .1 39044 1 1H1,11H,wpAm 03= now - 1•0.1.1rld nOariS 0 - , 13N3! •-- hE 3904d6 ;I".--.\--.-14:41r1S r E SIMS Dram SC1 .11 35r1.14 E „ . lO „ II'14 301901ha Oi mDreo 11/J3 01 N3.138 .„ DnESSos3 ranaiS3o3d ....-111111,111nliikkill111111111111 , , .„. =,_.111111111J1 H*111111111111111. • .511B45.01.00a 09 -I r35VF9 r— 40:,&;",,,,46v4Ke ,a/5--, _,'Arlarw41,0144oriruKftlivflarri -1i1111111fl41,1.1*1*Itf1111111[1 zim (, 11 ,391/Hd 0) L._ ' F. --31- isvH,fati_r I 42. J-1 1 i II 3SVH ," xi ., i ---rj u iL i ..,=, , -,, 1, -, i. L c. 0- , 1 ' en ',.. ,,, J - .., toy` - . ." 1 ** "-7C)111 '1 ' * , 1, - L__—_ . '..i- 'PA — s' 0 \ .0 0 - -'k *. 4, M , 1 III ._,, --).. m ,) Loe , \\ ) \ ::,\' -"•-• pg , 13,3NO ,09 a .I 3was Zit 10 112 'm1 133M5 N0503y- 1014-0 m wowoo 00-501-00-L03'Ox 1na1a00 NOLLOMSN00 dOd 10N - AF1tlNIWIl3Hd Nrd 311S 0 NOIltl1S 0131d HUM / A311VA ON3801/1 3NI1 A311VA Slaa3d 0108 o d %ass. uv 9b ow�u�w,n yW a S pa3Elo Joaul A1S 60.61-5 c 0111111rt 'Oo NOISSIWN00 NOIlY1HOdSNYtl1 A1Nf100 301013AN /.%---- ,r / L 1— — 'Jr UNW3 Nemr.13aa 0rtl10 3100 33 11M SN011332A3 JO 1.101230 '01arern0 11In 08011111 01 S0011030/100 Q 1a 0 014 0m SN01]3.10 nM15303a 110f Mania 3d0Senal 01 alas QI 5310N 1LO Lh 030u0ad DO Ott 302 • 03rn03a NS 06L 0310:an 0202 nix 102 n3A Mane 101 Maw 1V NO1v301 3a1 531Y021 Q N01v001 311 5310310 O NO510Vf. m NOsmn a 8300111. p w y `'N,‘ \� '�' — 3/11)MYd N1i�1a31r a \\\_\ —_ _yJ _.... ^tom > xt" y 6�-T — _ T w q y— C' _•_ _ M Jr J6 eR1 v — r...._. ....... ........... �........ -1 -, NOIS311 ANVNIn1131d %Of 160-61-S 31v0 nlb 3dvNt1311v )131-]6 0-u-2 iU.if'�i /,. x.. .III. SS3]3Y ate / / .111... :sL nons tj / i // II /O//'//Li /'/ I [1 / �f/// / A/ 0/ !_ / r z S0 A100 55333'3 NJ O : ' %t • •' � ea1n15 N12101 n O / 1111 I . ...... ...... .. �� .: — �. l I i-' I 1 / 11 1NM1T1N6 °';'/° n!,'CCZC�f.C4CCIC[�_C#ICCXCCQd ;;. '[II'jII ,��® nerelso 13MM11 UP /V11 1 'J t 1 Y. 1.� Il 1._`I 313N3A A913013n1 P �.. I I ti / PP i i 1 1 no11Sgl/ y. r .•• s V , a —ak _. •\ LlLI / / W9 w�4cRla 31�A330O3n3 I 1 fIN3N3n1353006I . I— t y / / r r err 1N31350 S53003 Ow rwrIo0 On 31Nr.a0 �✓ ti m • r® AaOn] HOIIVIS J L _ t - — 1TM3O 3131OH03 OH _ 03 d�.t � � �{Z i T _ C�J T 4: T FL l T f�� T I--•], I `e N3 — S /v'a ir=ci-:a>�:+a�tl-'...t. Levi= -c �- 'E'r c-s 'c"'._. [ us )tee C + _ -•}.. -c e�3�c�. i �u1 [-Wz rx--rT !_vi na0J1V1a 31111nd—L T 11 10l SONMYA MOM IWO 01 AM �- � � I I K /0M1503 1 1N3rv3m )3tina�0 I_ 0 0a011V1a N011115 .00'0O1 I15pr30 n0 81.00'SSl ,00 OSB 1159100 /10 00.00566 ... 304' 0l �. 0N550tl] nitlls303a a n ONIMMYd MIN OS 0301809d 'f MOIi 0I1dY81 t DNI911Vd d0 NOIlO81818I0 030119189 'Z 3000 AB 03910039 NVH1 HON 0301A0tld ONY d001 BOB d0 83018 H103 NO ONIMNYd 319188300V 83dY8 'C d001 808 d0 83018 H108 NO OMIMNYd LLOS 'I 18311111V3d A3A • • §gib p6p1gff• Y44e R ,09 a .I „.„ 099 80 GN 13314, 80.58438 Ial-1, e 'M 04x[80 'DX/419 00-831-88-40301 tTNANOJ �d9 6N1 as. 'Atl13N030 110111 AO 0IN03A00 SI 11011Y001 N30d1Y1d NOILYIS 1310N i<b N NOIJ.Of1a1S00 80A ION - ANdNIW113Nd Ntld 311S 8 NoI1V1S Non 3Nn A311VA Mind oloN x1 M06- •L L6 alslop O,nEuldiNmh1Sb oaul 110ISSINN00 NOIlY1NOdSNYI1 Al 100 301SN3AI11 '8r AI txraa-t x[u �xraua�:xr --�„ 1, 3N30,O13n30 ]d[]SONIH „„,. ni ' �IJ 60-61-s o oiranaN3A•, KMM1rr ''0 WSW '.0� tl3XJl3N[•4is4 1. %.ON1MMYd 04 - AMC fd1 4380_ 3018 isSE21,44- W y?piaRpRl.\:A44R0.1@0�1`+RV1189n�,vP2QNN6RI=C®.>24,01: 'Yu NOIS30 1%0t1 04404141134d 31443311Y ]43H35 04193041 Nr)a1S3034 / 3014 OW 5513 301M 1Nr 55I4 3,0 60-61-5 9]-1t-Z 60-61-E 60.9E-1 nA 3! IN1n.;'4�101:r3v,N; Nl 1N31r(f�i.1'�Q.3dl]$rtlrN ]Gr]$Oflr3 a 4 •°1 30,33 099 e0 Pit ON /016 KMAN) 101-Y 'ON 0MMV310 '033/Y1.5 00-Sal-BP-L00'0N NOLLONISN03 HOd ION - AENNINI113Eld Meld LIS A NOLLYIS SINtI3d MINDS 3Nn A3111111 SINI:13d 313N Hb 111 paiendlooui Als 60-6L-g 3 NOISSIIIWOO NOILVIMISNYtil Anno 3018213/MI D1021 , 01P1 INI3A V NOSMIT 'S 333 0333.30 NOWN 830111 03•1215)0 7.1:510 teraVet.00ii JEAIKT.11 31V0 ,33 Noma (zoo Agrolnithid 31VM311V 3•13H3S 60-611 30-11-0 • . . ' ' - - ' , 00 0a _ — nvoiola -093r1MOrel a0l. 530t1va0SDIODM 100 01 0:30 3dv35airri 010 513513310.33 Me 303e bOA SWLY113 MY7501W1 al f3a 0 .531004 tar% eel aldnase 0151 t9V tat • 01111011 5111 Ale 03011030 NOE WV. 110t tfel., 0930Sed im "coma Iv Noll,001 5319310/4 <> 110111301 3Rn 53/0310111 0 0113031 .0. 9',11-XPECIe OM • , . /401—rn—laix, 3100 331.'100 A110 Mel 01901 elx0 5411 3310940 130011 won 30106 51113 303 N08153011 0 301 01 ONID111 AVIA3A11:10 311fttpfd IV eat -MO 0 0003053 00015303d 30101 3,,1 it tt it ZI tt Zi tt t tt -/ - 0 es 3LINA.1 • • • • RCTC Commuter Rail and Multimodal Facility Design Criteria Manual APPENDIX B Bike Storage Pods 07 0064 RCTC Station Design Criteria Manual Appendix C Page 56 99 ooL Luop•pnaliq•MMM • • • •amg anoA apm anoA *led anoA apia �unaa, a artai8 ui atptuiiin a41 • • AN 'Alp maN yW `98101-ic e� yo 'appania lj `eduael !10 'pUeliod A saa anp,eno u u l Z06 loomed Jo >loom e LiwnA a>lq JnoA Jana Has aLR Jamoi aanno1. apin8 aql ow! a>lq JnoA !pi I l0H. Ilays 411 • • i u ,94! .raps° ropads sr prr uo rauod 6u marn * luelsisaa mileJD• Supolpow AThripas ao,t Su!moile angm ssane luanaad Onoua news si pil to wouoq Al!!!gisin• apHod pue AminDas Aq papuawwcoaa pue panoaddy. sanaigp pue slepuen uaoa� Alp!Das sapinoad u2!sap palualed. i 301t1 unoA 301H Awnoas 1.12m sapinoad VOL hued Su!main. saoio3 wolsn3 ao paepuels. anevene Asap wo4sno ao 0201. a!saa wolsnj aBessaw umo anoA alowaid ao Sun.eaauaS anuana�. iaued aessaw aSueyo Ase3. spe aoj ameHene hued Aeldsia. uisi.aanpy sweAcud P!lal!e • • leaq pup mous `puinn `Urea uoi��a�oad alaidwoo sJallo pig ayl. i puiw anad sluawa13 atp spalaid 906 sdia� vonn pue uoileanaa oz ssene'spueaaa aoj papad si 2uNDADi8 900Z �b'MH� :aamoS suoiss!wa I.aels moo uaoa} paonpoad aae suoiss!wa aaoua %OS• so}ne woa} sawoo amouow uockin }o %sz. sallw z ueto. ssa! si wan }o mt. sapw E ueyl ssal si !anal; }o %OS• -mom' noA pia sianj ussoj uo apuapuadap pue suoiss!wa Supannoi apron Jo pealsui apiko!q Aq saBeanopua pnaNpa uonnioS aql Jo �a�d uoileAsap saalriwwoD aol sapeidhaom Isag. xelaad `yluow aad oZ$ aniapaa 600Z 2uiuu!Saq `1i}auag xel aalnwwo0. 2upped apAD!g panno3 a04 uoilepossy 2uippg uaaJD aye slipan (a33-) Asaa le}uawucLou3 pue ASaau3 ui dmsaapeal. -swauas aye lap Tapia ayl &uimp suoiss!wa ou 'A}ilenb aie ano aoj pooS si alp/kJ 'puy •passaals ssal pue an!lonpoad aaoua ale a>iq op\ sluapms pue saaAoldw3 isapeiD pue Awgmpoad aay2iH sluapni.s pue saaAoldua3 aameaH a u ova an3 aoj sluaua8 u�I�aH 801. sdnoJS Aaeaonpe pue slsipAa `ssauisnq aoj. pool si amsodxa eipaW . asuodsaa eipaw annisod pue aleipaww! ue salean Asap anilenouu! . ia2ewi anmsod a aleaa3 pasn aae sielaua Aneaq ao sluanios in juaaey iquauauomua oN. slepaleua paiaAaaa Jo apew aae swauoduaoD pals. aualAinaAlod paIDADaa %OOZ Jo apeua aae snags pig „onseld uiaain„ pue papAaaa ("log . uoilevodsuealaoj pasn aae slanj ussoj ssal sueaw dsn ui Aialaiduaoo apew . lupolood uocpeD news luawliwwoD ano 01. woD•pnamq•MMM woD•p!la)no@puogf V8Z ZS£8'£687ZZ aopaija anl.nmax3 puog arr ilex aseald `uopellnsuop Ieuosaad anoA a03 a3ueisissd Sugavew avuas aawoisnj aopadns • o 0064 caRCTC Commuter Rail and Multimodal Facility Design Criteria Manual APPENDIX C RCTC Standardized Signage Requirements (To be incorporated upon completion.) RCTC Station Design Criteria Manual Appendix C Page 58 111 wm. RCTC Commuter Rail and Multimodal Facility Design Criteria Manual APPENDIX D Electrical and Lighting System Recommendations (To be included upon Commission review and approval) 07.0064 RCTC Station Design Criteria Manual Appendix D Page 59 112 t+®. RCTC Commuter Rail and Multimodal Facility Design Criteria Manual APPENDIX E Detectable Warning Strip Performance Criteria 07_ 0064 RCTC Station Design Criteria Manual Appendix E Page 66 113 • crrb.saro;(maicw RCTC Commuter Rail and Multimodal Facility Design Criteria Manual Performance Specification for Detectable Warnings 1_ Detectable Warnings.'Unmated dome tiles) nmst adhere to ADA and ADAAM regulations(AT AAG4.29.5,1108.1_1,1108_1_2,1111813)_ 2_ Trued dame Imes must be hi -tech concrete materials That are s comctetewith an ancharmg system 3_ Trrmeated dome tiles must perfaffi to die following AS7 for ectocretematin alm Conmresstee.' slitallth sr Tensile strength a Flesmalid6matestmegth a maistarice is .Abrasion Waba absorption Freeze Maw 11,000* 2.200 Psi 2,700 psi FAA1_BS 0.03anClf n0 05014 0_00'34 per ASTM C 39-04 per ASTAi C496 per ASTM C 947-03 per ASTMC 1028 per ASTM C 418 per AST/A C 97-05 per ASTM C ]i263 4_ Tile edges are to be sized and installed allowing mntehirig edges to be.lintted together maintaining ADAtADAAGspacing requirements. 5. Trmxatd dome bh s must be 8mctional and maintain their shape for a mom. of 10yens_ 6_ The iastaliatiem must be without voids that can cause tripping hazards to breaking or cracking, High slip mistime must be maintained at ASTM C 1028 standards_ 8_ Tnm ated dome tiles must be guide -clog friendly. Title DI, 36.211, requires that detectable warnings mist be ".. _ readily accessible to and usable by persons Wilt disseihifitias.__ "_ Hot surfaces of a detectable warning could injure a guide -dog_ If a guide -dog tends to avoid a detectable warning area, it will nn longer be usable by someone who is visually impaired 07. aosc RCTC Station Design Criteria Manual Appendix E Page 61 114 RCTC Commuter Rail and Multimodal Facility Design Criteria Manual APPENDIX F Paint System Recommendations (To be included upon Commission review and approval) 0 6064 RCTC Station Design Criteria Manual Appendix F Page 62 115 RCTC Commuter Rail and Multimodal Facility Design Criteria Manual APPENDIX G Canopy Options a, 0064 RCTC Station Design Criteria Manual Appendix G Page 63 116 GuMing Shelter Shelter DetailS The Gull,Ang bul shelter has been developed using the latest 30 computerised design manufacturing technology to preside a styish, high quality, functional and rotost shelter range. The GAON shelter is capable of accepang Rea Time Passenger Information (Ffl"Pe systems and can be suPPlied wth a wide range of infrastructure accessories. including sdar Powered bghtrg. wry and information OisPlaYs, Specialist High Grade MSCor, p xtlbte Shelter Solution - Innovative, Future Proofed Design - Modular, Engineering Grade Constructon inanctatis the latest In Electronic Transport Hardwares • The Choice of Many Maor Mies Pasadena Tradng Estate Hayes. M,idciesex Les 0NC). uK • T 020 0561 4Ste 32o 084.8 nc:o...vas'kaaLanrm • trueform • Benefits Low Maintenance, Long Lasting Constructor, posiaeaericwaxape texas borrai treca li R FaCdPelaasgt*enleeyb&ay. 4 Build, Mountim and Foundation Optials Thastslkrcent$ Raided aIbtrAterargeofbrksCn1 no.Ali ef+ososokkateiewsbmrarANIa mr/SCIM N$WI AtiNe1atECMpde %Agee$ ant g but Wes aeJrn,frnrrs$$ece'mime reg'+. a alpe'eccIO.astese bie9mlere[A'1. wst$Iecte ottelvrRNNYfimQs,Cm tope NMEretarKI peer TrvnrserrseekB the We dan mayOslos eilacotrectreRnetd NIke t$lseIer pals 'itisJrghisaie l3.ri ieticn. 4 Sloping and Restricted Depth Site Conditions Tuakin s. mpe rI lartletn NA/ erd state -nun MUMS weft te Weevil-e ell On essaiea ele ncwigspptg ardma ctocepi etas works uitlRgartl each rru macs., structuralTre snow has beentay money ergt'lOeci =N n to si WOW' Way swamis. riauerg Weq, enoN, aerecerel end oaemb IoarNgs n redd1. FL* starved a Waal ergbeer daea'gs anoeamwea. Engineered Component Manteachxe - No Exposed Unpainted edges wTagarat ewe metre veetio Iatt etecado ItisherapasgoaoangaioarkworynalaPtfacial :OfI rtesrgalashed2 New jai eigBsta are Pare b ono W n ke9'g to vbAI arcs =CIA C atrial Yet Mend e —Ward bL'IXR �mai Electrical Enclosure irarwroa,iatsaeram ,*WW1. Pestden0. Tramrg Estate HayC.t, Mddesex J93 3NG, L'f: r 020350 $20 BEA 137 WNW. e�Gunetorm.W.uk saNseIe'ArrE'fU.uK aCCbLLrs3riruer .n*, uk 4 ouurtesyLi TOM v�ttght-'Magneic' scars SSY1rreplaftle:OV PACI1 hirp CON- esees 4Yerg cram rote %SW avrg aIvejd r4ia 11111tII l 1111111111111 6 3iiilil:iII trueform Benefits Engineered Design, Low, Maintenance, Long Lasting Materials& Finishing Engrt»na gala ovtreb8rt7 arms rtal kites Vada w Iasnperta a-ceasboimaraatratorete,a Mt waivr,, Arrpageaxo,s MiZat mentimm.tnae arse agars to sur aycuatma reuiarena Theatzka isabpe.2Kde trbn atvd frill mantas sled -} Attractivpe(21sttCCventury /wean=carkalni lnp&Contema� adila:wOm:lamas e-aa gm.rregeorw,lavol• Proven Performance, Tried & Tested Risk Free 'Mercer ,accbashiapaaua,arasymarco srcutad Premier Marketing & Branding Platform Promesa nigh iem p1960,171 la the ppmaiat and Passer ger: ice i-krmetian -> FullyDDAcorrpliant Ray heUtiva amain -aooe®orny to ami —) Sustainable Design naaaaera,ad6uaaVIp areradraydade fradadala -) Future Proofed Caie+rsrewor mibienn ad veEwg+®d kra5xa adpoatl;.c late ke/ioagala3a xi afa m7poagraeserge ofakeuel naked taming Ittoloare -4 Bay Lengths In a, gmberalaIlny Waft **Sod Art=War CIX etnx46l. -> Modular Construction for rapid build& melmenence N.P.Ypraing nW,:tiv 5.5v:51".3]AT )dltJ:y.. % MOSSO ta'rrxrpr.a, shos pest paprvY3TS, TIMssato :u. rzsi erectve a'" s.0 srec r.. ac szSz• <; 'n+rra pass_ u;h ;1�IIIgIItIIIIIiIh ili4111 - 4 Unique Socket Foundation Te.O2CoI k<rm:>, oXicq srslarn ESIO,SrOGO 'emir eon b«xLceil tirr,+s a she ax: f res.rr as-,t(m ra+eu C MSG. Pasadena Tracing. Estate Hayes, Middlesex. UFk UNIT. UK • T 027 8551 4959 F CC) 3e48 1397 wVhV.tn foTLiq,tfe. sVesOtruafur9Co-uk a=ounts fu&`ORRtt,uk • trueform • • • Optional Accessories Solar Energy Solutions Cgraelmnst,esow soUts re s4Asbl®kr are Gag%thaer. Pad% Nand comae/44g Wen; taro aneyyeflkea LE) Melee= edrel- oarr lherc nee leaders h to Waal 0:044434/a ilears3 Cv sake reeduets ere robust we amen vack Moo ON" patontoite n. the tenet maw Totem Ben solar Ilereeam asinine •fury alxn krthe Set. Newer Careen* a Zela Sae Weans also rabble end edema* aeste0. by Taefam: Compreher>sive Seating Range was rage o cerebral* swap cotes awes* bairn, dace clue Pep veroWe earneas Fare Collection & Ticket Vending ligam'afutureV orrele'ssanray accepl a wed Inge d aaaxac tars Mears ad lase weals rtasiewa Warm sart sad maces, Teelarnan obWnadapt al anelues le Mare axntssitaseon e%RM OYW IMMb RT] Displays lha tnekm Geaevssrena nac roes amen walceptawee res re) aPre ospees scams. Theatre Were Peer reres namely spared kr me palace d MPlcereal yr lda ccennm• rnisirrare shell esa.KXaa K'k9"N CCTV Security System CCTViseam =emceeseaely -°ease in Pe Slew Set CLe2 to re0.xd IdoEyed bete mete a'et 5nnviie ere Seer✓r Per pree ✓OS C`i Va CCN cameras Can CC nink ion in= aS a Courtesy Lighting exmie(rce+wic'a aam, F ease axteey Piarc rate Uorae toes term atc =feel by a,a rasoce ha5rr teede kt'err mr a Caw axl e:0 case Sell• daze y` Audio Announcement TrtRkYYM1Y rkaatjex fete de';ll reetrel My t.ewuid ar-0 ern :neernv es P4reared `Q' aaCt+:Ata 1a sastJe Hareem. These woes 6anared relwe= keykq, terie ..Nuseful te fie ;ate/ sax rsa =Ones rO k3.sa caloa ere to CPA Pasadena Trade Estate Hayes, Ma:lelesek U633N(], UK T 020&Sal 4059 F 02056451397 Sate3iPtartira.Co. k axaetSSItr aran cc.�K trueform irrte lotted Kosk Uni Teen.n.mex: ,ar:l .;tea g Tree Tnd elarreson. Tcetre d llax, Ser xt Cad Porn, Passage crsser.a CCTV —> Glass Polycarbonate, GRP & Perforated Mesh Gazing Strews a wee arse of sere masa to de es rad ateels - s sheet i Illuminated Displays kelha i V 6,e.-.6 m2 cepe, vow teen :emir exeseeree fd eC T'txd ere &M'9Ine r Heatng & Air Conditioning Options erevele eere eeex:reezzl tinge a; ofeeere'eem aerenr,aie (Saar ly,Har,t,r, a-i5e XxXre eeeeel me.y d when can ran oareasm: tyle wrxntN San ne carer erne rze,:x fin' Configurations - •,,,3,' ' ' . ' .., Y - --V 1 Open Cantleyer Oantleyer Carnival, Hal Ena ...otE.f7M7 PAt , ,,, ,fa,,.,.' , "!7,44..,, 31:337.1717,•555- "'•• , 57 ' Canseyer fJl Ena Erniosen vAah Front Bay Enclasett Fegnt Front Entry Let Rear Emy Foram Bean Paso:tern Wang F Hayes, Molder:ex l)83 3NO, • T 0208581 4955 F 020 8848 1357 End Screen Configuratans No end panels www tfue:Orrl GO.uk salessqtraetun no.na acceuntsetruefann,mor. Full end pant% Owner ex.' pane; rtarutrontr.roul wons ta” means la mil 0.Q. 5.55-en 1333 nwn A001WaIRS • kanow 483 nyn Sanded 2450 Hen trueform Liay 115;3 mr: Ekr,, 2235 mr:: Sar ,nr:1 • 4:,72 7rn • • +Irroe Lu:Op al@trdlSwxP N!! srcµ toop9uipremeagtuns@uin Kate -4= amuotermeofflot matewinocarms ,ogsu6syq, - 4i6.� � oo ssmpu.9em-4 imVCU gnrocRRA`i!(,Y BugueoW a'aNns !eu000 ugerepxo"ex d: F Bacro peRa.tpete04e9teawq RlOeaa:1L �iznaa:� Wen we pmd ppum $ W 1N.1 M u 6 laGsq xog IOu7913 >penfpalcosk,-Baliemetuali usa.sAs tueuxi6euen lelennuteb u ofren4 ,xn�caC Y'19.4uolnue gctawcac;vxL7 0.0 Vie; Aexm,, au soya s+m'%4 s nan...la se6pe pa}uledun pasodx3 oN - ainioeinueiN tuauociLuo0 pasaaupu3 peegG.d orUdO setwalpaeeaete Brw= Moans AIN Taxtea se sa+Fea aeries ae *wowed •ma s pµm Wm*" •aaeartsts l,leiss Mantel w a vow= a 08.11"w Resrea!49 kr%UM seu to eva. AMES PrLIOn 1.S saAxa:u swm wrrbTfin hspru' =nr.. t=pfxr..asAI Ne:xxbS t&gala%'nA?' gas pavele* uo1F5 e'V alWe S[aA wrstestoTm Ara.:s4344PAPoa9ucssa+' iPe MRa+Alau1 suoppuo0 a� S 4tda0 per! sa8 NE. 6wdo1S Loxprp au.es,4 , stub snore 'r.>r' F tmta^mca Avxa ysiuw 64 A'1-4,,OX.5T%leV a1R,ahriataoeua axivnata:rl aurep moo TI ii% meraet (8 ualgt 1@l41,. tA14C(Fa' LY-9sa.t: S WitsAxtt6a.1le!t EuraTm S✓.aftx.% a1,epR.cansrr.1rib a'.aa..{'la) `qtusral: !Leflep,n Fet+°a apvs P. 4w.Pa.'W*1.0 e7'-pa AAAa, suo d0 uogepuno-i pue 5ullunoNJ `p jnS >aeusp a rma P.e>torrbae s4e7 gooK Wel +YLNNe$Itpro a0Lola:05o MONO ps-6=0 uogoru}sue0 6ugszi 6uoi `aoueuaauceiq moT svjaua8 mood .005-e4se Reset wele AlvereeaeN /MEOW] UM= 14:10•42 HAW • WILUCO JE69136364LUVAVYKII swede teeenf rue Beene)=Aelee eeee ada•4109511AN 9.441lant 1009,1XXX) • 41131110161,0 OISIUMAJOAN.* AMP PAdaco elempalen. oxiar0 tekgeel 3 suoRdo Oupoqpuo0 eutMeH ka•c090 u.00{13N1 Wig liehenleee Mame wee e.Se ekeet4p elAelisaNee40040 9 Peerwril.1.64,00et1 sAelds10 Peleulux1111 49e4S 9 sp.o.00.000.31/0100 01 010/00m0 0m0011110 ceko spm 00,00009 eurzelD LlsalAt PeglaPed dEtt) 'alBuocireaApd ss-ma ALM :lees 's arM Cieereq.1. 'eseeste*4 Wei .1 aeu teeti 'ewe% Fewer teelleg weal 41Un siscv pelektelul wiojanij • I'M W 20.01150.40 Kmptiti SCWOXIPAi PM,OP•nd 041.0 FIPArMsArCoxt 'ctoc mown amemele,seso.a -ecleue,P 001ACR PM laa/if gleArfe •,;61•W•4,,Vd Fee erturseetexue ape p tegeeek4Asea seem* WeeektteeetuAele! Tuawaourlouutt opny ere% 'wee AnKeLepe Arece menu °awe lysepu =level eevrette eus peoe egeA etekgrOteeee ke.,61 Amoco poled terebe eelleenee 45"9 61j4q6r1 lisamoo itemiee Pme eeee514 emeloP e ea lee el Per44441 W um Mg.** ALOE) OAP a:0E6W etiL -Aeletie DA Wean p.e emetece ewe/ =mei arms mars mow Aaron co= 88.611014.-095 A100 welsAS AWrioeS A.1.00 Alyeep, gria45 Vapyt acp fassw .adeco room SeeosPeiie p LeeePe eta KI Peweettle keenereie eetee Mays Menem ewe NI 'wee= sAepep pe&v,SpeA e lee= at 1.6,04 1.039 SIN .rapoqa 4.0,009,0 tur.491.1atii SAL1dSK:1 4roow *OM • Go,..i.J.:(.•prratf•i•Igs =2:get, te=gge: eneJeA, emote Vall.,-15 5" 101.4XLE.Mr 410171.1 SAM: peo ;max Elr,r,at 171:11 {IR ,Leuf, as; a.,..xxe,x .Xvie ee,e, e arx 41:*; SRI,0,46 pum ;6>pu. uor4aalloo 0.4eJorp uxhet 'ePelem svonootlem ze;euemJete FA,N 2PAA abueb 5Livas ar,!suKis,cciwoo w.meeel, N eersel 4eeeeee nxe suairles ,ereS 14eLeereo zeaN caul ZA u, LOA= rwo:VSLuCtIPA•Ptil•VIOS Et•q. Waloi 1145nPLI Meal me u6sijo axow u.V.041 0 t41,, VI;),5X/4 113rAA io Op! 0.1 V sesee eacpreA. -p-em uomeowe 03-; :eepAD eo.eue mei WSW Egv '49 X.M.r,t0 02.94x, 8,41, ,ARACCSC IOQ as sum-vcrs ev+Strati:Ww00 suowlos S 2us Aelos >•.;'• 7),:••.• •IEr- seposseoov puopdo • Trueform. Providing industry leading environmental protection; signage and display syste... Page 1 of 2 truef©rm print page Y Send as an email Bus Shelters, Bespoke Shelters Bespoke Shelters Bespoke Shelters, Canopies & Covered Walkways In addition to a comprehensive off the shelf range of products and services, Trueforms highly specialised team offer unrivalled expertise in design engineering, manufacture and installation of custom built shelters, display structures, canopies, covered walkways, architectural awnings. Working independently or alongside an existing architectural team, Trueform guarantee a universally professional and value for money service. Trueform hava provided hundreds of custom made structures throughout the UK and welcome the opportunity of sharing our expertise in this area with new and existing clients. Please contact our sales team. http://www.truefonn.co. uk/trueform-products.asp'?lit?oauctTypeI D=27&productLeve11D=0... 6/11 /2008 £5"2 Cr'0 c sosc ;o$W AueW to aTou:D a 1. alemPx1-1 LOdsueiy 0!0040913'10e5galui ?sale! aul samod.100'JI . '..040gJls.,50 Guuaa4u3 ';pxoN uElsa3 pepold 001‘,,nj'5n21e00aq . LICT7p^S 1914914S OFCIrdcd00 S13 a>paC 4.61H IspsaadS smeldsp .;Dpew;olu pue /LL`JO'Cu1e51 ca;am0o ;eius 6uvnraul 'sauosseD0q. apon);52401 j0 064e1 epos E 4pm pardcrs aq tea Due su:aWs Gd18i uopeunqui ;a6LeSs2d 2'.ul Raa 6ugtleo0e {0 awes S; a$eyS O0ev4 a4y 'a6ueJ lBABus Isrrqa, Due 12o0101-P4 'NICMo g644'IY4i 2 apwod of 6Goq ugnal Suunoelnueu uSrsap paspeznIwo0 of; Isme, 04l 6ugn aWoo0ap wog See a;24s S^q alaN ayL Sim; a JaZa4S aaIPLIS agaW auo jen 4 i • - • uoptu4Nul alOW Jej. wee; sales .4no pewoo DSROld •eipeflene are suogeanftuoo pue sans Jo e5ue.! app'A V *lain ulnuirxew sapfnald welsoks Pa!luolat pue euzet5 Iselq is!iepods 'senbpi uoppRijsuao 'siepelew tpr5uwls ,,4E114 eijin 5u;sn •sucqeovidde >1sP LPN x).1•Al[ePyoeds sJe4aps auels.!sw Iselq to a6oet pnb!un e pectolenap p5pop seu u.poprui sJoilegs kieJes luels!seu Ise's 0 Loreo wiojenij • Ttueform. Providing industry leading environmental protection, signage and display-syste... Page 1 of • truef©rm print page i Send as an email Rail Shelters Rall Shelters Robust Stainless Steel Structure Designed specifically for rail platforms and bus waiting applications, the robust Metroplan anti -vandal stainless steel shelters are capable of resisting the most determined of vandals by the introduction of a stainless steel structure and special stainless steel glazing system. Stainless steel shelters have been proven to significantly reduce maintenance costs, particularly on unmanned rail stations and vandal prone bus shelter sites Glazing System The shelter can be supplied with small rubber cushioned toughened glass panels, polycarbonate, GRP or solid embossed stainless panels to suit all requirements. The individual panels are kept to a small size to offer maximum strength and the glazing frames to the edges of the glass panels are sloped to discourage climbing. Easy Clean Surfaces Manufactured from either satin finish or embossed (rigidized) stainless steel to deter marker pen, spray paint graffiti, stickers/fly posting and scratching, the stainless steel surfaces are almost impossible to deface and very easy to clean. Metalwork structure and glass panels can also be supplied with a special graffiti resistant non-stick surface coating making it resistant to weathering, staining and graffiti. Rapid Erection 8 Maintenance Rapid erection and maintenance on site are also key features of the anti vandal shelter range with quick release, tamperproof fixing methods. Long Lasting High Quality Appearance In addition to significant maintenance and operational benefits, the anti -vandal shelters provide long term appearance which helps to promote safe welcoming environments for passengers. hup://www.trueform.co.ukltrueform-products.asp?proauctType1D=59 6/1 I /2008 Trueform. Providing industry leading environmental protection, signage and display syste... Page 2 of 2 CCTV Security The Metroplan Anti -Vandal shelter range can be supplied with miniaturised CCTV cameras housed covertly within the shelter structure. These CCTV systems have a demonstrable effect on reducing vandalism whilst providing safe envir to congregate. Low Curved Roof The roof structure can be provided in clear or solid stainless steel. Additional Features of the Anti-Vandal"Shel Solar Power Lighting,.RTI Displays, Journey P Passenger Help Points Note: -The anti -vandal stainless steel glazing s bitted to all shelters within the Trueform shelter with powder coated coloured legs.Contact our for further details on the FORTRESS shelter range. Copyright © 2008 Trueform. Ali Rights Reserved. reetive.,iar nterested in expanding your transport infrastructure system? See our range of Bus Stops by clicking here. You can also check our solar options available bx�tickinA here. • http://www.trueform. co.uk/trueform-products. asp?pro8ductType1D=59 6/11 /2008 wio fut • . c°L 'N?J SSPP P'rmM en; lua.nuo,Nl:a uoge4,00slen Je6usegti Ssep PuoM e 5'uPlao4 40 uo5N Pue Aeolees,9g15uquaLuadun u±onunoo Aso eapunp c er^Qu4 E are Slaae'yS sng esa yj 'u5?saplellegs snq a:nr JPy Yre4l4Puaa e/Ln are slallel(' sop a41'uale.woJu! owe oue !did {0 u:ICj al4 U! ucgae104W /aeoessed mumps que seuslul'Sfq%e euj k9enb Isag'6e4 au; 6uvato caul 'LC5WP RIPAS snQ e)loeseq s,uuolea Fq PPAPn;a pue panleliew 'pelssuOue veep anal s;asops snq aNssaldun Pue °Ns'se:6ad eseµl uAser l Aq uo,ielV.su p(a: exsnejru'E.L'ubsap 6usaeu±6ua cue s7jaNPN so!Pn1S'.IessrTd 10gPIN Fq u5!aep loeopoo ruura eepuna W NY) Paptsv lnou6.nor41s,aNa.,.S FANPPsS] 14 Pellelsui pee 4»ipdns eneq pecE.ana sysq< ual.legs aa�au� fuenoos!Q • • • • In 00 kil,60;endGSX9", 1 001 pmau uViv90 u-natutPue ars uastxu4 1:02aPav umetrAt Paw s450 alWalo+Kost.,C9et1/4:016 uoroapunalmoog enbun we19 19Zi. suolsuatigki .4.941st-IS ‹^- twojenij • aVeS:CZA) f55t;', i-N9 0?-0 I •a.:,;p,2J1 W.pai =WS= PgjAU fa-MOCC pce,RJ wupo‘ruct) p ACIdn$ VD:840J ,,sry 74g r4 sNrAfse ua MX,01C0 MEG:0.W p/£3.noirg,AC=COQ &!aa,p0.3, pepold ainvi3 glaVaunu a/Ctspgaiki p tioniX 4514 • Ung PanOelnA161 u6!saci apeufeisns TR Old re.rom- am,,a4 4n, weNdwoo yea Mind 02.7,1^..CliuMS 71,.1 Lw04.4eld 5UPuale bupm.relni ra,Crau axawolke, 8 uoganco re,marris 1;r-^..s t.0 soij skis - Pelsal V Poi-1 'aousu_uoi.ad 1.127+0.1d Paa sna P DOELLI W 0-p414.0 px somecetar itsrCe&Pe mai) Etasuirlizo co-R=0N 6u9Als A.re.JodLu•Nuoo funlue0 4s 1Z sAll-os-11V MtVg u wave osp suck:m.1am sum= !Az r150111rpon p 11101, 00.V.70evqqvgenezve,azzulavV.-aeg:ocv eF rraxv.moovap"., Fua .1-1 tw,,ozi eo6,4 4,1,04 .aPA.-...pePs-,,,wt pua oe4a. OmE co .61 6U11.4SIUld srepalm . . 6up.sei buo7 'aoueua;uleini Mod 'u5!sea palaeu0L; si.ljeue8 SolarOne - Shelter Series Commercial Solar Powered LED Lighting Page 1 of 1 • Svlar�ne� HONE: Shetter Series; Click Below for More Detail: Lamps and Driver Fixture Housing"& Fittings SO -Bright Controls Power Packages Options Order Number Specifications + All Night Lighting Options + Offset CO2 Emissions PRODUCTS:.: APPLICATIONS NOW TO BUY NEWS ANDEVE Shelter lighting can be used to increase the sense of security at transit stops, help drivers to see that passengers are waiting, or increase ridership. Other applications include gazebo lighting, mail box shelter illumination, and fighting around buildings and doorways. SolarOne Systems provide bright even lighting that optimizes comfort and visibility. Choose from a variety of configurations and profiles that provide lighting oft demand or on a continuous basis. Panels can be roof mountedor pole mounted to optimize orientation: SolarOne® Benefits + No Trenching/No Re -Paving + Low Voltage/Low Liability 2008 SolarOne, LLC Ail rights reserveg. + Low Maintenance + Immune to Power Outages RESELLEP s , Related Prod' Product_Overvi•. Basic Series Flare Series' Power Systems Resources SO Bright Tech Photo Gallery Downloads Product Overvieu Shelter Series Sr Ground Rod Kit' Motion Detector DataLogger Spec SolarOne® Hiyh Complete LIU of Literature 'nVary http://www.solarone.net/products/shelter.efm 131 6/10/2008 Skylark Nautilus ST-2 Bus Shelter Page I of 2 Skylark - Nautilus ST-2 Bus Shelter Cl r1IJ1 / �1 1 II I Skylark Home Page I I Pavilion Shelters I l Gazebos i t Toilet Enclosures I( Kiosks/Ticket Booths I http://skylarkshelters.com/transit6.1itm 132 6/10/2008 i-SHELTERni Solar Shelter Lighting. Page 1 of 2 Home Products Product, Catalog • Transit Lighting • Solar Power Systems Carmanah Network l Technology • FAQ > Customer Feedback i Returns and warranty > Case Studies Photo Album Purchase • Join our e-mail list • View Photo Gallery Company Contact Us Privacy 1 Legal I Site Map j Co Home > Products > Transit Lighting > 1-SHELTER'" Solar Shelter Lighting i-SHELTER"" Solar Shelter Lighting To help improve the safety, security and convenience of our transportation systems, the transit industry has long embraced effective lighting as a key factor; but in many cases, the costs and logistics of equipping bus routes with adequate lighting has proven challenging. For locations where grid -based power is unavailable or just too costly to access, Carmanah offers the solar -powered i- SHELTER''. bus -shelter light. The I -SHELTER bus -shelter light is a stand alone, integrated light source, powered solely by the energy of the sun. Using Carmanah's time -tested solar -powered LED technology, the i-SHELTER lighting kit incorporates all the elements of a full solar -powered lighting system within an attractive, reliable and durable package. Ideal for dark, rural bus routes, busy urban streets or anything in between — the i-SHELTER bus -shelter light provides waiting passengers with a bright, secure night-time environment, illuminate( entirely by the free, renewable energy of the sun. For more product information or to place an order, contact Carmanah. Features Benefits Features http://www.transitiights.com/content/products/Viewl3Aduct/Default.aspx?i=i-Shelter 6/10/2008 i-SHELTERTM Solar Shelter Lighting Page 2 of 2 Bookmark this page. • With no trenching, cabling or permits required, any shelter can be equipped with the solar -powered 3-SHELTER lighting kit in minutes, at fraction of the cost of a hard -wired connection • Based on industry -proven solar -powered LED technology • Stand-alone product is suitable for improving any bus stop whether the heart of the city or out in the country — anywhere up to 60° nortt • Rated for reliable performance in ambient temperatures between -22c and +122°F (-30°C and +50°C) • Virtually maintenance free for up to 5 years, on a single set of rechargeable batteries Contact the webmaster. Co 2007 Cannanah Technologies Cor Home ProduCts purchase Company Contact Us • http://www.transitlights.com/content/products/Vienitduct/Default.aspx?i=i-Shelter 6/10/2008 in co S'al ir-Powered Bus Shelters Light Up : TreeHugger Page t of 2 Ads a Cools Solar Powered, Smoking Shelters Custom Designed, Accessories ww ensel.cam Soler_Emote Affordable Solar Panel Installation We Make Switching TO Solar Easy www.emoe-sotercom Solar Cruido0r Ligbxttls Getics Holiday, Festival Park Light Christmas, LEDs, Municipal www$Uloreowergetics.co S:oter Root_Tiles Slash your electric bill With Our Solar Power installation! wwweremiereower.com Solar -Powered. Bus Shelters Light Up by Justin Thomas, WW1* oh 1025.05 SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY lettereative energy). Emits* MMisted* 5tumbleUpon reddtt eodet;iGou€ Thesebus shelters, called iSHELTERs, light up widtLED bgh immediately when: someone walks hisk l liey were created M a Canadian cleantecl .company, Caarommn:: Technologies, The. solar bus shelters We MOO retently Irtstalle- in E 6nborgh streets. They also have installations in Canada, Chicago and. Seattle and a contract to provide at least 1,200 solar -LED bus stops in the London area.::. Via Ciean. Break Email [2] Comments i Related Tags: HOGG THIS I DIGO THIS Installing solar Power? Connect with the best installers Free rebate Info, Savings and morel ) Comments (2) g3 Get RSS Slash your electric DM With Our Solar Powei Installation! Anybody know where thesearein Chicago? I'd love to see IL October 26, 2005 1:27 PM 1 T flag a problem Anonymous says: I've seen these in several places in Seattle. :) October 27, 2005 5'20 PM 1'' Hag a problem BenSchlendelman v= says: http://www.treehugger.con/files/2005/l a/solar-powcred_b.php Ads by C,nos rFa'/ 6/11/2008 136 Kaleidoscope has the high -quality design, fit and finish -typically asseciat- ed with custom products. But unlike custom alternatives, It offers complete solutions with no surprises. Kaleidoscope fkillY' designed; engineered and tested, It comes ready to assemble and install, offering savings in technical and labor costs and tinge; Kaleidoscope is modular and has replaceable 'parts. tt Is assem- bled, not constructed; and can be removed and relocated. It meets strin- gent wind force and snow bad testing. Footing specifications are supplied. Kaleidoscope is manufactured to Landscape; Forms renowned stan- dards of quality and has our durable, weather resistant factory finish. And it is backed by our three-year warranty. Kaleidoscope curved canopies, walls and custom configurations aro avail- able as specials. Visit laridscrxpefoims:com for- addEtional llatltsr photog-,'. raptly. Contact yGrx Landscape! Forms reprr serttative flu details 138 Trueform. Providing industry leading environmental protection, signage and display syste.,. Page 1 of 2 trueform print page Send as an email Bus Shelters, Gullwing Gullwing The Gullwing bus shelter has been developed usin oomputensed design manufacturing technology to quality, functional and robust shelter range. Avaita a in a numuei I attractive roof designs, the Gullwing shelter is cap,I,,+��,,�cc 4?' May Cases Time Passenger Information (RIP» systems and drt oR= a with a vide range of infrastructure accessories, including _solar can Doweredasoliuhtino tOOK at 6 sheet advertising options and information displays. by, cilcking here. Robust and Operational Functionality Designed in conjunction with UK's Passenger Transport Executive(PTE) Councils and bus operators, the Gullwing range offers the ultimate in robust material specification, finish & operational functionality. Stylish Contemporary Appearance - The Ultimate Marketing Tool The Gullwing shelter range offers its customers both a'High Quality Waiting Environment' and a powerful calling card for the promotion of 'Passenger Transport Services'. Customisation The Gullwing offers numerous options for seating, lighting, structure style, roofing, materials and finishes- The Gullwing shelter can be supplied in all RAL & BS colours and printed graphics to reflect customer house styles or corporate identities. Environmental Suitability The Gullwing is available in a comprehensive range of attractive finishes and compliments a wide range of architectural environments: modern, heritage or rural. Solar Power Lighting [he Gullwing can be supplied in both mains and solar powered illumination. Solar energy is a tong term, cost effective method of illuminating bus shelters. Trueform is leading the way in the provision of sustainable design and cleaner green energy on street furniture. RTPI Display Systems The Gullwing shelter can readily accept real time electronic display and/or journey planning systems via a discreet internal cable management system. Rain Water Management The shelter utilises an integral rainwater displacement system channeling water to ground level, thus offering maximum environmental protection. Copyright © 2008 Trueform. All Rights Reserved. Creative Jar http://www.truefonn.co.uk/trueform-products.asp?V luctTypelD=27&productLevelID=0... 6/10/2008 Kaleidoscope is easy to understand and specify. Creating the perfect structure for the particular setting is now as simple as one two three. Select a structure Specify two, three or four posts to create one, two or three bays Standard solid panel offset canopies are made to fit e v V t0 OO OO Choose a hFinch (optional Specify plexus or Presidio, backed or backless, with or without intermediate arms Tell us how many you want and in which bays you want them 44* plexus backed plexus backless presiaio backed presidlo backless Add liddtidd (ddli dal) Specify standard hard -wired or create a Smart Shelter with state-of-the-art solar powered LED lighting 011(4 hard -wired lighting SOIA solar -powered lighting 141 • • • 41.a). utcgarv.gsair: rA,72. moan r:T 605019 o1q0OW*01 &W MONS 1040.119 dump &iamb assatear410 NOO P•o0A1M1011111 LoT1441110.01101.001114 POTTOO411 41000TOSUPTIO1LOOOP101a Mallon papsTpy UOPPTDOMtLMJ 1PPOS OnblUn =OP IRN1901111431%1011M 018ION01a011ekootT3 ToPPLI welsis Bugelb ,Burposcra >pais, Jew% uo4IneelP0JerPomi4 ."-"Ivw's4u,Buel"1"eira(-- peroszcsi- LLUOjarlii opegme con Jaw • p.eptent apem )00., exu pa6i puounos4p;11au.aiz;. %au L •aaa SB9u opera* 81-4PIN1a008 alCP-reA 4E- wed pseattap to ,.adaJ PTO t111MTOOTO W gffloom pom oietioei al Wawa eed Ice4 .N.00l /006Woo4*onto+ 'Pot PLIO o0,114/ u0wnr..5, prpa, TuTePdPoa crappappal ? ping ppT, uowalisuo9 Rrnpoini ,oloopou /aTIO111-00114.10.+Meep Vlfe:eNsta.p.ducc e p Acare Ore.6,mulfry aura WPSO1 okoT SvCTSco 0ad/s0p0/1{1t.e2X+ 3AT3 Aro-o,o.3 CIA.ST.00 pap aid arqn-1 MOP.; TipEpA0Eu p waxer! 444.1 a upaa penzapuara u6pa(j appuFlsns To 01 OPOTTO1101* - 4t1:00 ogOTT1,11,IF tu,a9sed pue uroyrud Jo] uweep twow3H 5upu3.18 ,$) 6upy,...rav,4 Jaiwald no.oaraaa arAnE),:lxv.' ;m4s-Lx". as-1 )1s!El P•91.1 '3 Pel,1 'auuututo.pacd LleAOld 'PT= MO Pfau:ft IRMOLIA 1742 93060SAJA PtrEOR.PR egrAp euxatcLuco. rid .eV bulAls fusiodwelmoo Arilue0 Is aAilaeATV Pas maToaa 11OPIPaP'60 azPeve^e P...04o4s ay v.uaismrtns .ouperc,42 amp° p aym epwene aesax4 akoego Ja a,'`S:`! rAmw, .:1,,tv•apwAox.kkopeta+ aa.euxvx; eum ecKad soum.ry lerromcx I7RSi3pleW WPM Goz/41., E1u!LisEui.d x3 slq.10;u1N 5uRsFi 6uoi 'aoLrei/elum Mot 'uti!ssa pal•Nlu!'6u si4euee WW1 -CORM WAMa 6 punoyl ins teu do xeSePDAP; makocia matiodi4Assplo -Rzx!omtPtPoweasico cuorco BF PrOu414 !l, no0 vmxi l� 3uau�a W,Jemmured fla s03.S uW P(Mal ae.L':.axa03.1.m Y.:? arnspioue i13 !eu a�ul— (salsa Cam a8664J ce4*ma as So%>CM itra-CM weleAs Bululetaa 6ugen anryenouul • • u PV rX.: { Pu81s' 0''el �Xv'4'1014M N -011C JSi:UAGIN:'i%p7ukranu atc0,4.= cA^R,£J: u.;'., 'slxl� I^i✓)LLIKJ�W c SyX R}'C9 Ci fk'ti.9'J', 0.7 .J3..+.xq Ys'W" ".:+Y SyKI se6P9 PoW edufl pesodxa oN - aanpegnJeIN ;uauodu'oa pe.Jaeu tuR sekgyawJewieva mwcr.cs%OMsAnd Perm) Se s6upsvl quryos Pue A+Aaae'x0.10 Burro. Viercass Ampa P3?tm a aPvm 01 Paee?dA 4e•400,10 /gy 0000 wJ 0311015 WL fq`Ws lean anaS - x:vact; Pa sAcifu pxn9epn (1cp.J+e oR PoRnm uo7FC 094 011a46412Xlc+s=qVP xrc11.1404 PB Plq 0P1M104P 05.41.15,14/D ra suompuoo egs 47d90 PePP;sele Pue 64-401g LoA�t aunt aF 9mfn °-IR0,a6v4 Prio,1 ; N ita:40413+A.9x4s °MO.:an dta Nlk944KWA4AYW W emini a.W iAf3=WAY%WI PxaR4T 'L4 w!o.p u1x:n{a w.WC avaaanY.`Yium, pry, ;rnt»ua»lc:a(sr,arrtnai 1 i 1,G09lRM1 6scs suoprulP-e>'aa-azG GahYWi Ottle10gQ0S1, x:?al4116g0 4'adq%40 px eauW:c avnir.q es q srmb FuM"u: ;Lotaxn,)D atte ewn 4416 06,P IQOtW Risx6 a!l SUO. 0 uopepunod pue u4unovy `pipe '66-6P 4 &WPa WM w o+m loouoamy '.Ocuelamu pq LEAU OW* PCO X;WAR O uor4auysuo9 6u 6uoi `aouaualule fy Aso-1 �— slijeues • • • • petax3 Ws 6-71 Pk aiRtmq ealAP-2'^a(”! **Wm unlue0"1•170,4A10 • pOp.o00..03u0sworl WRIX)8.1J/C4 MT» 68S08 84/e Bthxotcom of aw afire+ .410.49 ir...950zumugetta, svakcea? 0,011901,11M0194.011LOIN011)(41048 P81104C0 eleM3 08,80.d 44M481488111 SU°00 atilUVPUCO uulleaH 881N1sIci t50 01 kw* IN44 ,-40 041 salss9 Dip'aro n17aaAs p swag p Isquinu p.4 Awl:4;4pm+ empE4 62IA ' VCIC1ommuop00 lem 45144/4.,801p21$4101140 014.1:10.0014119r031W0g A..^1110110-1., mp"...c.orm 1,40,4104equeosaaptsceay. auesRRiateleRfr424 sukssis tN tuaLectrotanapa re.ztezam kan Wake *SP EW011-11011014SX010,-1. 21.1911.709UnOULIV aPnV It" =Wet= 0.0°0 eVRA04.414Xe-hilskJ.CdOS, OMMS irdena FOS WRIOISU EICIEREVeCEly 6up30 PPuBA p.uy Jacins - leaIS ssait-MS ;,..1 • r4.142 umoiEe4 tkil 4 hokstly-xa 01P9u=11s6P uteri bey Dislasp ELKW1:91001.19:1101941.01*0.0ry ;a sitarists peleuluinig AreocIIII9 StlaSt49.0ba/ le *IS 01 vmounseu egee6.p offuw apME swern E5URelD 149911 PeigIOP9d Weu0q.reoiSiod AlOC. , VemS Von NOM umulquiearea. au.lfield emu% AkNACtktVeVL wn *OEN' penwftui t- V"1 ' r AMP-, lzds,ea. a1G "Orwe..Cm .1301101Wq f1kme.1 qn00w5.0-431 Assancor1a1111c1W00/110r4.00»30-101.3 burxpri Asewoo '1,41.111GPPP*01uX4LI/1,1m1.111116P cm CY 0111.91~11m1 ,Ar4 wags* A.L.004110011a=0,0.11,u. *PS SW 4)000 pue muol kri0q10 toecq Pw0a1WW1/A.117./34S rip rn Xtear NW:ABM= SentM 4=06 •&„nt) WOWS 41•009S.A.1.00 4624 forionza044042 (146arso1u1.1110 PAW., SMICW dil310 teilpae Ow XII par.0.018kftna4S .1946.,Sonapi Otte Vu1esos swop kup Mug apoktskecoa of uanan !AMEN toiNe onortwatimi DLL S'AeidSK3Ilat— wioonij ‘9,01.,N1urlow Lie= ALIO ‘..oleira/ ansus x rermrs =paux,:,x/ Le3tunial, roapol Kut; (14a1,..; ,aAtP1t1+5.4x01111,5.11P1k1LmVed aoal pec/a42 X.,.s/: OW 8 08M 4peo) um.s0iptp 42.0 ertA S82"8/3ng. 6UPUM ),,e)101 uolP91100 aleA 1131010 Utt111,0111114 0Am .o or, p.rckt uacaaviel0P411^11-ePe111 eq - ppow .0;93y1`0.fa poualopAoce.0 usr.fA oCeD.x.i.ry laved $1..rx.1 PR xps .SpUP.,7:j L104.81.1.11OR uooW geH, pal.zu!Lunill :141.48.8 48.148,44" PLe 14504 °''C Aqq" =No L'ulm.: acrAcw.co p zelp.+80,m a5Led EupEas aNsuaLta.:dwoo ONS81/8:8+8,8188 OL.V Hfiera^t <."52 vxnrooS VOS raj 211e,..ala404,'ON An• vsn amps W9101. gE,•• f.181114/Cus10411J110.0.11c01$1e1,1P 1100EopeaLeraCeyoxlsrcp aerproori MX x(1 emesuas klroue pap awn 1.11,0Mirosa01antleAraWairliao+1 an MUFaif.-/a.MDMEI &Mr a405 414.rtOla404.16o.orPa .0f141c1,14N gierWe OR ao)-0.111c6Enasa,e.c1x0 SUOMOS 45.au9 peps seuossepov reuon.do Igetsad Aue Pa$0631,3 Wed pue 9P)Lied puelp.4 souk pua Jelreno ,j'es101.;.;.100,1,1?5 4n 0,1.u.lo;eq:1,.v.,,,v, sraued pua two janii s,-o4r.lrajwo Limos. pL.-; j4r 07M Exgrgy..2, 1:G111.10.2, IOW 4•* pa=1.1 S7 0.J3,1%.; ;Fme,r.:In P-;:l ^a t2A,31':,X^3 suoqeinbguop • • • RCTC Commuter Rail and Multimodal Facility Design Criteria Manual APPENDIX H (Preliminary SCRRA Engineering Standard (ES) 4032 Pedestrian Crossing Adjacent to Station o7_ 0(64 RCTC Station Design Criteria Manual Appendix H Page 65 146 Lb!. gg abed H ngueddV renew u5!sap uogelS ciou �3 >a9 IA if uN 011150SCy3 rlrrlallS3003d m' S021VGNY1S ONIL133NION3 13YM1 01 1311Y21Yd 31Y0 NYlalS303d 0IHVN33S 3 raa lira lent Ina IGII -94 !r' 6811 IO p�1y IR71 x '00 r0 On 0r pR �7Tp003�ftl� 3LL J�S,, 3LL ����OMr ii irel31m11 ONI 6l �O/et �-9{��fy�y��,,,��} •4 37•mM • (Isrsrerr[lq�0�ry 1 6 - rio' i �Omy;y7�5137l PIl a >� 11r111 9OIl l r 3T1 1d31llI yPyylrr� Eli •► MIS Km J. 361L •l-S01 We GHIIOI n Eli '0 annum ar.= �r�x1e ermtl �J •f soma on roctn'ttrisTA'"'siilSs1 `ilittal awn 10! LOOM MOMS OMIa3�1fON7 YtlYJ4 •P 9nrr13 ntru Yi0liOtl11 ni eeta3831�to1 �1Ipplrriyil 1� 'm -ally atm otus3 Otl wns •JNIOl3MON3 1�la�tl1?r�S •m 8MO= a0! 1001111100011 00•10SSM7NlsprfSISIip�'m n01130 1Yn01u001!r, -110i n 1I10N'iva 3W�1ri tly3�3f31tl •t atai �jp9 �1114 irikr 1)aP r M 01 WN�y38 AYSt7 l7r1ml1 Dl 079gIN7 lP tlr 1 uf�R 11001 WWI:d11M0 'S313814Y 501 ulOn K192 13315 1111011 Ii1005 001 J11a0H1nv 111fa 1ra01031 MIN110311Y0 0a3a11105 11N11011.1.3ff1 nes 14i/S e/114 Siff a0 Sral eL179A0 w 4.71,1172N JMIl NW 3010'117VlS =DV a0 StlD1410 SE MO A MMUJIY 71d1 11 Parsylf Vrab17r1 fin/fai a1,1 .1747'"'" M3Val 01 NV1031043dtl3d 31110 NYIM1S303d 4 00:rN37S 4 aromas 60113J unall e1 >oref OM! 80r18 tra01111 SIr18 w .l P. c. .{y,� r 1 . I 77.7- .N.Trr.r. -a1u •�'-� ._. � Yi iK.+ T.. . iY f. ♦i.T^i 1.-., . ,r +i ( .a.- M : - ^�.,L r C"3i 1 . 7 �.• y 1 C . �Y 1. C •w 1�//fylr v �/� ��l43 1 I I I I l e e m!//I/ _ ili6liulra 61 11. 1 aimilaimo l l airaiitorIlt• C —sue_ c 1 1 1 liklildili •1.1'1=1=1=1=1=1.1 rrl'1.1.1.1'1'1.1'1'I-1.1 rrie from l n•. _e riwr'RI'1'1' - Mori [VIIEN! a e NNW 30,191001 111'130 ICUs 'JMN}IVA ONOLLOtlM10 mai NI NOMOtldor iNlNtll �NIYMI Mod NOWAA f0A33n7e G 4 Pi I 1!!re 41113 •�dp t 1�141911i118tl .L 11111011 �IIIIIIIl11111.11111111111III1 7 " 1 I I1 F F M1. F. • F ; . i n r' **7:. Sr f.* '.f. - t..; �tstii ij }� ;+r`tii� • e J•.0, J•a J•JN 3A 4 i s L� 10r r + Imf JIrO0rd71113204 bL 163! 31•1 0NU& Ienueui spew° Ase° 4110E3 Iepou unui pue aea -muumuu° 01°a • AGENDA ITEM 8F • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMM/SS/ON DATE: July 8, 2009 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Plans and Programs Committee Sheldon Peterson, Rail Manager Henry Nickel, Staff Analyst THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Executive Director SUBJECT: Commuter Rail Program Update PLANS AND PROGRAMS COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to receive and file an update on the Commuter Rail Program. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: North Main Corona Parking Structure Construction Nearing Completion Construction of the new six -story parking structure at the North Main Corona Metrolink station is continuing as anticipated and reaching completion. Work is continuing on schedule and on budget. Opening of the structure is tentatively scheduled for mid -July. On January 4, 2008, the affected portion of the parking lot was closed. To compensate for the decrease of 239 spaces, the Commission has leased three auxiliary parking lots at the corner of Rincon and Joy Streets. Corona Cruiser initiated shuttle service on February 26, 2008. Riverside Transit Agency (RTA) began providing additional shuttle service on January 7, 2008 transporting morning and evening Metrolink commuters riders to and from the station and auxiliary lot. This shuttle designated by RTA as the Route 206 "Hopper" transported 697 North Main Corona Metrolink station patrons during the month of May. Additionally, RTA augmented Route 3 serves as a shuttle for mid day passengers. Rendering of the completed North Main Corona Parking Structure. Agenda Item 8F 148 Inland Empire -Orange County Weekend Service Performance Q4 FY 08/09 IEOC Weekend Passenger Trips 2000 — 1600 — 1200 — 800 — 400 — 0 ea Last Year tCurrent Year Daily passenger trips on the year-round Inland Empire -Orange County (IEOC) Metrolink weekend service have continued to grow into the fourth quarter, providing 8,797 trips in the fourth quarter and 54,269 passenger trips year to date. This is an increase of 10.59% over the 49,072 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 responsibilities for marketing of the service have transitioned to Metrolink, including revised seat drops, branding, and consolidation of the various weekend services under a single promotional umbrella. Riverside Line Passenger Trips Riverside Line 6,000 5,600 5,200 4,800 4,400 4,000 „� A�' .s.f ,JYo% PJ�ob Gig Q�o��o�pb o�p% ,��o°' �� cP� 49) PQ�d'��a cP Month Daily weekday passenger trips on Metrolink's Riverside Line for the month of May averaged 4,996, a decrease of 185, 4% less than the month of April. Compared to one year prior, the line averaged an overall daily decrease of 393 passenger trips. This is nearly 7% less than a year ago. Agenda Item 8F • 149 • On Time Performance (95% Goal) Riverside Line 100 m ss � . Y 9 y 85 2 80 a a 75 70 r Qb O� 00 00 O'b O41. 93 Oc' 0 �a� �J� �J\ PJA Sep �� �°, .Qer �a°Q 4°,P �3`a� PQk 44AQ Month May on -time performance averaged 99% inbound (no change from April) and 95% outbound (4% less than April). There were seven delays greater than five minutes during the month of May. The following are primary causes: Signals/Track/MOW Dispatching Mechanical Operations Inland Empire -Orange County Line 6,000 5,600 a 5,200 p 4,800 4,400 4,000 Passenger Trips Inland Empire Orange County Line O� QP „Qb O§3 00 O� Q� O2 QO OQ' �a� °c �J PJ� Se' 0°�v �°a dz° )a° �a� �a� PQ� as Month Daily weekday passenger trips on Metrolink's IEOC Line for the month of May averaged 4,226, a decrease of 210, 5% less than the month of April. Compared to one year prior, the line averaged an overall daily decrease of 744 passenger trips. This is nearly 15% less than a year ago. Agenda Item 8F 150 100 d 95 m 90 y 85 • 80 a 75 70 On Time Performance (95% Goal) Inland Empire Orange County Line 0 0 0 OP 0 OP AP c P OP OP CP OP SP �ma �J� �� PEA co 0 boa far �e� 4a eQ� \S Month May on -time performance averaged 99% inbound (2% more than April) and 99% outbound (2% more than April). There were three delays greater than five minutes during the month of May. The following are primary causes: 91 Line Signals/Track/MOW Dispatching Mechanical Operations 2,800 2,600 8- 2,400 0 2,200 2,000 Passenger Trips 91 Line 1,800 T 5ib �Jc � 0 O 0 �� ,A � �a �CZ' 41' PQ�� tea' Month Daily weekday passenger trips on Metrolink's 91 Line for the month of May averaged 2,261, a decrease of 73, 3% less than the month of April. Compared to one year prior, the line averaged an overall daily decrease of seven passenger trips. No change from a year ago. Agenda Item 8F • 151 • On Time Performance (95% Goal) 91 Line 100 d 95 R 90 m 85 i 80 a 75 70 �a�p��J p`b ,Jp PJCS o9. �oei= �64 0p�,��A ���� o�PQiO��� Month May on -time performance averaged 96% inbound (2% more than April) and 97% outbound (2% more than April). There were six delays greater than five minutes during the month of May. The following are primary causes: Signals/Track/MOW Dispatching Mechanical Operations Connecting Transit Service Performance The Commission's role in facilitating interconnectivity between Metrolink and connecting transit services is essential to ongoing system viability. Such services address the needs of transit dependent riders as well as help mitigate congestion and the necessity for expensive parking capacity at the Commission stations. The Commission is working to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of transit connections. In order to meet these requirements, the Commission has worked with Metrolink and local transit operators to offer connecting services to and from Riverside County Metrolink stations at no cost for those with valid Metrolink tickets. Within Riverside County, services include free transfers to routes operated by RTA, RTA's Commuter Link service and Corona Cruiser. The following graphs show total monthly Metrolink transfer passenger trips on each of the three services. Agenda Item 8F 152 Passenger Trips RTA Fixed Route 3,500 3,000 2,500 2,000 1,500 1,000 0) 00 09' 00 0`b 00 00 sib°' s§' 4,a� )�� eJ� • ��� 06�' �o° Od` �acp Q0o Oar Month Monthly Metrolink transfer trips on RTA's connecting fixed routes (1, 3, 15, 16, 21, 29, and 38) totaled 2,722 for the month of May, a decrease of 26 trips, and 0.95% less than the month of April. Monthly trips increased by 384 or 16.42% over the year. 10,000 9,000 o, 8,000 it 7,000 w 0 6,000 5,000 4,000 Passenger Trips RTA Commuter Link 4ZI0 00 0i' Oo o� o0 0`) oP 0O°' oQ' SP •sN. )J PJ� ye% Doti �d+" Qik �a� FOo �a%, PQF" 4,V Month Monthly Metrolink transfer trips on RTA's Commuter Link routes (202, 204, 206, 208, and 210) totaled 5,586 for the month of May, a decrease of 623 trips, and 10.03% less than the month of April. Monthly trips have decreased by 1,961 or - 25.98% over the year. Agenda Item 8F • 153 • • Passenger Trips Corona Cruiser 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 4,� �' �J�o$ ���o� PJ�o� yego0 �� a°° �p�p� ,a�o9 �e�¢� �a`cP� PQ`0a cP Month Monthly Metrolink transfer trips on the Corona Cruiser totaled 661 for the month of May, an increase of 14, 2.16% from the month of April. Monthly trips have decreased by eight or -1.20% over the year. Attachments: 1) Metrolink Average Weekday Passenger Trips 2) Metrolink Schedule Adherence Summary — Weekday Service Agenda Item 8F 154 gdem sun pue °mei uepiy eny 58 G %8- %0 %9l' % £ - %L- %EL- %8- %SL- %L- 80 Lew SA 60 Lew a6ueyo % %Z' %£' %9- %0 %b- okL- °/p£- 0/00 %E 60 ady SA 60 Lew a6uey0 %Z- £08'44 1.9n 9ZZ'4 6Z6'9 96614 L99 £94'ZL L17L'9 17E1.'17 606eW %0 999`Zb b££`Z 9£417 056'9 484`S 60L 068'Z4 994'9 LEO'4 60 Jd`d %L- 06nte 99n CW17 40l'L ZZL'9 ELL 6Z8'Z4 6LZ'9 ZOZ'4 60aeW %Z- £1•£'£4 5LZ'Z ZZb'b 6SL'L LLL`S £8L 494'U 904'9 66Z'4 604eA %E 896'£17 06n 9017'17 88£'L 99£'9 96L 881.'84 49V9 LO£'4 60 uef %8- 491`Z4 04Z'Z 917Z'4 9L6'9 bOL'S 4EL 4817'n Z9L'9 9ZZ'4 80 3a0 %0 4£4`94 ZOS'Z Lift, OSL'L LOV9 66L LSL'£l OZO'L ZS17'4 80 A9N %Z- 559`94 5174'Z 6Z0'S 2.49`L ZZ9'9 96L L9L'El SLL'L 9LZ`4 80 PO %L UV/4 Z9VZ 1794`9 2.88'L Zbe'S 86L Z98`£b LZ9'L 09Z'4 80 des %Z- LLL'L4 EOVZ £64'9 498'L L££'9 89L 8£9'£1. LLS'L 448'4 so Blvd %I• 68V84 444'Z 48V9 4£0'8 849'9 909 1.4L'£4 Z176'L 999'17 801nf %S 0£6`L4 1.04'Z ZZE'S 998'L 949'9 46L Z46'£1. Z4L'L L8£'b 80 unf %4J) £41054 99n OL6'4 444'L 69V9 99L E£9'£4 L9Z`L 694'4 80 Aew e y y a ry u l4113 W H O'dl_LV O31Sf1fOV AVOIIOH - MOONIM H1NOIN N331211H1 Sd11111130N3SSVd AVON33M 391P:13AV>1Ni102i13W • • m46400104-10 %46 %E6 %96 AL •uonomomo awn-uo ay; ui papnpw >ou ale suieq papnuuy 'uopeuiwial 10 mod 1e awn-uo OJeM Aay1 p 10 paJapisuoo eJe suien paleujuway 'sRelap elgenepei JO; spew uaaq snag sluawlsnfpe oN °AN %Se %OOL %86 %Z6 %L6 %S6 %004 %COL %00t %S8 %96 %Z6 %46 %46 %86 SA swe.J1 pouad Head 60 AeW mini pompanos to swum S upnwt 6ulnuay surveil paned Need %46 %E6 %96 %L6 %96 %66 %66 %L6 %46 %96 %66 %86 %OOL %06 %E6 %88 %Z6 %96 %L6 60LeIN %66 %66 %46 %96 %46 %L6 %L6 %96 %Z6 %66 %66 %S6 %L6 %S6 %86 %99 %06 %L6 %96 60,dy %46 %46 %46 %66 %96 %86 %66 %86 %£6 %96 %004 %96 %66 %46 %£6 %69 %68 %46 %L6 60 yen %£6 %E6 %46 %96 %96 %46 %96 %E6 %S6 %46 %96 %86 %66 %96 %96 %48 %89 %Z6 %E6 60 god %96 %66 %46 %96 %S6 %66 %96 %66 %£6 %L6 %66 %66 %66 %96 %96 %E6 %06 %96 %Z6 60 uef %46 %66 %46 %96 %Se %l6 %66 %46 %46 %96 %86 %96 %66 %86 9446 %98 %98 %66 %96 900e0 %46 %£6 %S6 %B8 %L6 %46 %Z6 %L6 %Z6 %96 %66 %96 %L6 %S6 %96 %SB %46 %S6 %96 80 noN %96 9446 %96 %L6 %L6 %Z6 %96 %86 %L6 %66 %96 %Le %00l %L6 %L6 %06 %S6 %96 %96 60100 %46 %46 %96 %L6 %66 %Z6 %96 %46 %S6 %86 %66 %96 %L6 %46 %86 %98 %88 %66 %E6 80 daS %66 %46 %66 %Z6 %96 %£6 %96 %66 %96 %S6 %86 %66 %66 %96 %96 %89 %99 %L6 %86 90 6ny %66 %96 %96 %96 %46 %L6 %46 %96 %46 %96 %96 %96 %°86 %96 %96 %l6 %£6 %96 %L6 BO pp %66 6/066 %96 %96 %96 %46 %96 %L6 %46 %96 %96 %66 %OOL %46 %96 %06 %Z6 %L6 %96 80 unf %96 %96 %96 %46 %96 %S6 %96 %Z6 %46 %66 %96 %OOl %OOL %96 %96 %L6 %Z6 %L6 %96 80 Rew .' r •.,. it P� 1 +.t 7 is f c° i- 9� ti a > "`::r �1xt _?�7 °(uby �� J• Ar °ra °' 9 ,L.?..=,f'�.. yePr; "` �r eg ..a_...a+A wri x k.,?.r rEl* ,�.� �x„&r3��d r'1'.itiL,° ✓'�' z°G r�x�^yia�, � S L.� �.Aiv+'' ` °.., ta'"r4 t'�$;•. jj �r'll sr �JtljCIM C^i804 Zip WHOV. LV SHINOV1 £41s31Vi aua�l peppegos;o swum g uNIN 6uinuay a6e;ueoied 331AUBS AVO>133M - ANvwinif1S 30N3213HCIV 31f103HOS NN1-10N131/11 • • • AGENDA ITEM 8G • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMM/SS/ON DATE: July 8, 2009 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Budget and Implementation Committee Martha Durbin, Staff Analyst Brian Cunanan, Commuter Assistance Manager THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Executive Director SUBJECT: Fiscal Year 2009/10 SB 821 Bicycle and Program Funding Recommendations Pedestrian Facilities BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION_ This item is for the Commission to approve the FY 2009/10 SB 821 Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities Program recommended funding as shown in the attached schedule. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: In March 2009, Commission staff notified the cities and the county that an estimated $1,146,590 would be available for programming in FY 2009/10 through the SB 821 Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities Program. This program is funded by an allocation of 2% of the total Local Transportation Fund (LTF) apportioned to Riverside County by the state. Based on sales tax receipt trends and economic data, an adjustment to the LTF revenues was recommended and approved by the Commission with the approval of the FY 2009/10 budget on June 10, 2009. As a result, the amount of available new SB 821 funds was reduced from $1,146,590 to $1,127,054. In addition to the new funds, carryover funds available this year totaled $77,343. This carryover is the result of previously approved projects which either did not expend their full allocations due to lower than estimated actual costs or those that were subsequently abandoned by the applicants for various reasons. Total available funds available for projects in FY 2009/10, is now set at $1,204,397. DISCUSSION: The SB 821 proposals were due on May 1, 2009. The Commission received 38 proposals: 36 sidewalk projects, one bike lane project, and one ADA related retrofit project from 19 agencies requesting a total of $3,784,297 in funding (Attachment 2). Agenda Item 8G 157 An evaluation committee comprised of three members from the Commission's Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) and three members from the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) reviewed the proposals on May 27, 2009. All of the applicants were invited to give a presentation on the proposal and answer questions from the committee members. Based upon the Commission's adopted scoring criteria (Attachment 3), the proposals were evaluated and ranked by members of the evaluation committee. Thirteen projects are recommended for funding as indicated on Attachment 1. Staff concurs with the CAC and TAC recommendation. Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: Yes No Year: FY 2009/10 FY 2009/10 Amount: $1,127,054 $ 77,343 Source of Funds: LTF Budget Ad ustment: No Yes GLA No.: 601 62 86106 Fiscal Procedures Approved: \ 401-te,n4 Date: 06/14/2009 Attachments: 1) SB 821 FY 2009/10 Recommended Funding 2) SB 821 Program Submittals FY 2009/10 3) SB 821 Evaluation Criteria Agenda Item 8G • 158 Rank A enc 1 Indio 2 Wildomar 3 Banning 4 Beaumont 5 Hemet 6 Lake Elsinore 7 Cathedral City 8 Lake Elsinore 9 Lake Elsinore 10 Riverside 11 Banning 12 La Quinta 13 Corona 14 Lake Elsinore 15 Lake Elsinore 16 Indio 17 Riverside County 18 Canyon Lake 19 Perris 20 Riverside 21 Riverside County 22 Desert Hot Springs 23 Riverside 24 San Jacinto 25 Riverside 26 Riverside County 27 Riverside County • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION SB 821 BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES PROGRAM FY 2009/10 RECOMMENDED FUNDING Project Description Monroe St./Dr.Carreon S/W & Ramp Project Wildomar/Reagan School S/W & Ramp Proj. Citywide ADA Ramp (S/W) Improvements Beaumont Ave - S/W & Access Ramps "Missing Link" S/W and ADA Project Campus Way S/W & Ramp Project Whitewater Neighborhood Sidewalk Improv. Sumner Ave. Sidewalk/Ramp Project Poe St. Sidewalk/Ramp Project Picker St/Ellen St/Gramercy Pl. S/W Project Woodland Ave. Sidewalk Improvements Village Sidewalk Infill Project 10th Street Sidewalk Gap Closures Riverside Dr. Sidewalk & Ramp Project Langstaff Street Sidewalk/Ramp Project Monroe St. S/W Improvements (Ave 50-52) Jurupa Road S/W & Access Ramps Railroad Canyon Rd S/W & Ramp Improv. Citywide Sidewalk & Ramps Randolph St. & Lake St. Sidewalk Project Grant St. Sidewalk and Access Ramps Wardman Park Sidewalk Improvements Orrenmaa Sch. Footpath Access Project Downtown Infill S/W & Ramp Project Citywide Wheelchair Ramps Mayberry Ave. S/W & Access Ramps Steve Ave. Sidewalk & Access Ramps 159 ATTACHMENT Total SB 821 Funds Recommended Cummulative Average Costs Requested Allocation Funds Allocated Score $184,480 $92,240 $92,240 S92,240 99.7 266,800 186,760 $186,760 279,000 95.5 125,000 62,500 $62,500 341,500 94.8 398,221 199,110 $199,110 540,610 94.3 279,500 103,500 $103,500 644,110 93.5 92,000 46,000 $46,000 690,110 92.8 180,000 108,000 $108,000 798,110 91.7 93,900 46,950 $46,950 845,060 91.5 38,500 19,250 $19,250 864,310 90.8 350,000 175,000 $175,000 1,039,310 90.7 90,000 45,000 S45,000 1,084,310 90.0 174,600 87,300 $87,300 1,171,610 89.3 89,483 67,112 $32,787 1,204,397 89.2 207,000 103,500 $0 1,204,397 88.3 87,500 43,750 $0 1,204,397 87.8 132,500 66,250 $0 1,204,397 86.7 257,000 205,600 $0 1,204,397 85.8 134,000 54,000 $0 1,204,397 85.6 240,000 95,000 $0 1,204,397 85.5 330,000 165,000 $0 1,204,397 85.0 157,000 125,600 $0 1,204,397 83.7 52,000 39,000 $0 1,204,397 83.3 200,000 100,000 $0 1,204,397 83.2 600,000 150,000 $0 1,204,397 82.0 400,000 200,000 $0 1,204,397 81.3 206,000 164,800 $0 1,204,397 81.2 120,500 96,400 $0 1,204,397 80.8 Rank 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 Agency Moreno Valley Desert Hot Springs Coachella Moreno Valley Murrieta Coachella Coachella Patin Springs Palm Springs Murrieta Desert Hot Springs MD. 6/ 1 /09 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION SB 821 BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES PROGRAM FY 2009/10 RECOMMENDED FUNDING Project Description Class II Bike Lanes (Lasselle to Krameria) Desert Springs Middle School S/W Project Bagdouma Park Projects (S/W & Ramps) Gap Closure Pedestrian Walkway Nutmeg (S/W) Washington to Adams Valley View School Projects (S/W & Ramps) Pueblo Viejo Projects (S/W & Ramps) Cerritos Road "Missing Link" Sidewalk Proj. Farrell Dr. "Missing Link" Sidewalk Project California Oaks Rd. (S/W) Jackson to Lincoln Cabot's Museum Sidewalk Improvements Total SB 821 Funds Costs Reauested 40,040 36,036 188,000 141,000 123,066 79,993 85,250 68,200 128,000 96,000 151,021 98,164 162,819 105,832 106,000 84,800 48,000 38,400 158,000 118,500 93,000 69,750 Totals $6 769 18Q Recommended Allocation $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 2 $3381292 11.22,4122 ATTACHMENT Cummulative Funds Allocated 1,204,397 1,204,397 1,204,397 1,204,397 1,204,397 1,204,397 1,204,397 1,204,397 1,204,397 1,204,397 1,204,397 Average Score 79.9 79.8 79.2 77.7 76.7 75.5 74.7 73.2 72.0 70.9 68.7 ATTACHMENT 2 RCTC SB 821 PROGRAM SUBMITTALS FY 2009/10 Total SB 821 Funds Local Agency / Project Cost Requested Match Banning (2) Citywide SW/Handicap Ramp Improvements $125,000 $62,500 $62,500 Woodland Ave. Sidewalk Improvements 90.000 45,000 45.000 Total $215,000 $107,500 $107,500 Beaumont S/W, Ramps and Ped Bridges (Beaumont Ave) $398,221 $199,110 $199,111 Canyon Lake Railroad Canyon Road SW/Ramp Improvements $134.000 $54,000 $80,000 Total 134,000 54,000 80,000 Cathedral City Whitewater Neighborhood Sidewalk Improvements $180,000 $108 000 $72.000 Total 180,000 108,000 72,000 Coachella (3) Valley View Schoo Projects (SW/Ramps) Pueblo Viejo Projects (SW/Ramps) Bagdouma Park Projects (SW/Ramps) Total Corona 10th Street Sidewalk Gap Closures $151,021 $162,819 $123.066 $436,906 $89,483 $98,164 $105,832 $79,993 $283,989 $52,857 $56,987 $43,073 $152,917 $67,112 $22,371 Desert Hot Springs (3) Wardman Park Sidewalk Improvements $52,000 $39,000 $13,000 Cabot's Museum Sidewalk Improvements $93,000 $69,750 $23,250 Desert Springs Middle School Sidewalk Project $188,000 $141 000 $47,000 Total $333,000 $249,750 $83,250 Hemet Missing Link Sidewalk & ADA Project $279,500 $103,500 $176,000 Indio (2) Monroe St/Dr.Carreon SW/Ramp Improvements $184,480 $92,240 $92,240 Monroe St Sidewalk Improve (Ave 50 to Ave 52) $132,500 $66,250 $66,250 Total $316,980 $158,490 $158,490 161 RCTC SB 821 PROGRAM SUBMITTALS FY 2009/10 Agency / Project ATTACHMENT 2 Total SB 821 Funds Local Cost Requested Match Lake Elsinore (5) Campus Way Sidewalk/Ramp Project $92,000 $46,000 $46,000 Langstaff Street Sidewalk/Ramp Project $87,500 $43,750 $43,750 Poe Street Sidewalk/Ramp Project $38,500 $19,250 $19,250 Riverside Dr Sidewalk/Ramp Project $207,000 $103,500 $103,500 Sumner Avenue Sidewalk/Ramp Project $93,900 $46.950 $46.950 Total $518,900 $259,450 $259,450 La Quinta Village Sidewalk Infill Project $174,600 $87,300 $87,300 Moreno Valley (2) Class II Bike Lanes (Lasselle to Krameria) $40,040 $36,036 $4,004 Gap Closure Ped. Wkwy (Calle San Juan De Lagos) 85.250 68.200 17.050 Total $125,290 $104,236 $21,054 Murrieta (2) Nutmeg St (SW) Washington to Adams $128,000 $96,000 $32,000 California Oaks Rd (SW) Jackson to Lincoln 158.000 118.500 39.500 Total $286,000 $214,500 $71,500 Palm Springs (2) Farrell Drive "Missing Link" Sidewalk $48,000 $38,400 $9,600 Cerritos Road "Missing Link" Sidewalk $106,000 $84,800 $21,200 Total $154,000 $123,200 $30,800 Perris Citywide Sidewalk & Ramps $240,000 $95,000 $145,000 Riverside (4) Citywide Wheelchair Ramps $400,000 $200,000 $200,000 Picker St/Ellen St/Gramercy PI. Sidewalk Proj. 350,000 175,000 175,000 Randolph St. & Lake St. Sidewalk Project 330,000 165,000 165,000 Orrenmaa School Footpath Access Project 200.000 100.000 100.000 Total $1,280,000 $640,000 $640,000 • 162 ATTACHMENT RCTC SB 821 PROGRAM SUBMITTALS FY 2009/10 Total SB 821 Funds Local Agency / Proiect Cost Requested Match Riverside County (4) Jurupa Road S/W & Access Ramps $257,000 $205,600 $51,400 Mayberry Ave.S/W & Access Ramps 206,000 164,800 41,200 Steve Ave. Sidewalk & Access Ramps 120,500 96,400 24,100 Grant St Sidewalk and Access Ramps 157.000 125.600 31.400 Total $740,500 $592,400 $148,100 San Jacinto Downtown Inn Sidewalk & Ramp Project $600,000 $150,000 $450,000 Wildomar Wildomar/Reagan School S/W & Ramp Project $266,800 $186,760 $80,040 Grand Totals -19 Agencies 38 Projects $6.Z6.2,180 La284,297 $2 984,883 Total SB 821 Funds Available $1.223.933 163 ATTACHMENT RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION SB 821 EVALUATION CRITERIA FACTOR 1. USE The extent of potential use of a bicycle or pedestrian facility is the most important factor. Emphasis of this factor helps ensure the greatest benefits will be derived from the expenditure of SB 821 funds. Relative usage is to be derived from analysis of trip generators and attractors adjacent to the project. 2. SAFETY Points are awarded on the basis of a project's potential to correct current safety problems. 3. IMPORTANCE AS A TRANSPORTATION ALTERNATIVE Points are awarded on the basis of a project's potential to attract users who would otherwise use an automobile. 4. MISSING LINK, EXTENSION, OR CONNECTIVITY Points are awarded to projects that link, are extensions of, or potentially connect to existing facilities. 5. MATCHING FUNDS This factor is used to help ensure that there is local funding participation in the project - not just an application for "free" money. One point would be awarded for each 5% of total project cost that is financed by the local agency. 6. POPULATION EQUITY The purpose of this factor is to help ensure that one agency does not receive all the funds. The applicant receives the maximum 10 points if the amount of funds requested does not exceed what the applicant would receive if the funds were allocated by population. Year to year totals are recorded so that an applicant could build up a "credit". (Calculated by RCTC) 7. PHYSICAL ACCESSIBILITY ENHANCEMENT The purpose of this factor is to enhance the physical accessibility of existing pedestrian projects. Applicant agencies may receive up to 10 "bonus" points for their project proposals which improve the physical access to existing facilities. MAXIMUM POINTS 25 20 20 15 10 10 10 BONUS 164 AGENDA ITEM 8H • • • • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: July 8, 2009 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Budget and Implementation Committee Martha Durbin, Staff Analyst Brian Cunanan, Commuter Assistance Manager THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Executive Director SUBJECT: SB 821 Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities Program Extension for the City of Lake Elsinore BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to grant the city of Lake Elsinore (Lake Elsinore) an extension to June 30, 2011, for approved SB 821 program funds for the Lewis Street, Silver Street, and Mill Street "Missing Link" sidewalk projects. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Each year, 2% of the Local Transportation Fund (LTF) revenue is made available for use on bicycle and pedestrian facility projects through the Commission's SB 821 program. This is a discretionary program administered by the Commission. There are three steps to carry out the program: 1. All cities and the county are notified of the SB 821 program estimate of available funding and are requested to submit project proposals. The Commission's SB 821 program policies, project application, and selection criteria are also provided with the notification. 2. The Commission's SB 821 Evaluation Committee, comprised of members of the Commission's Technical and Citizens Advisory Committees, meets to review and rank the project applications using the evaluation criteria adopted by the Commission and recommends projects and funding amounts to the Commission for approval. 3. The Commission reviews the Committee's recommendations and approves a program of bicycle and pedestrian projects for funding. Agenda Item 8H 165 The agencies then have 24 months to complete the projects. Any projects not completed using local sources or awarded a construction contract within the 24 months will be deleted from the program and the funds will be reprogrammed in the next fiscal year. A project sponsor may request an extension of time beyond June 30, if substantial progress has been made on the project which, at minimum, would mean completion of preliminary engineering. DISCUSSION: In July 2007, the Commission awarded $1,591,765 to fund 16 projects as part of its SB 821 Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities Program. The agencies awarded funds in this cycle have until June 30, 2009, to complete the projects. Within this funding cycle Lake Elsinore was. allocated $87,775 for construction of sidewalk and ADA ramps for the Lewis Street (Graham to Sumner Avenues), Silver Street (Heald to Sumner Avenues), and Mill Street (Avenue 4 to Avenue 9) "Missing Link" projects. These projects are currently in the design phase with preliminary engineering to be completed by July 3, 2009. Per Lake Elsinore's letter, it intends to combine two years of SB 821 funded bicycle and pedestrian facilities in order to advertise larger projects and therefore, receive more favorable bids along with a reduction in administrative costs. Lake Elsinore also now has the financial resources to cover the local match of fifty percent for the projects. Upon Commission approval of the requested two-year extension to June 30, 2011, Lake Elsinore will proceed with project plans and specifications, advertisement and award a construction contract for the completion of the project. Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: Yes Year: FY 2009/10 Amount: $ 87,775 Source of Funds: Local Transportation Fund Budget Ad ustment: No GLA No.: 601 62 86106 Fiscal Procedures Approved: \4,1 Date: 06/16/2009 Attachments: 1) Letter from the City of Lake Elsinore 2) SB 821 Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities Program Adopted Policies Agenda Item 8H • • 166 ATTACHMENT 1 CITY OF 011 •LAKEC,,Lsirion DREAM EXTREME • June 9, 2009 niN i � Anna JUN �. i 2009 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION Ms. Martha Durbin Staff Analyst Riverside County Transportation Commission PO Box 12008 Riverside, CA 92502-2208 Subject: SB-821 for City of Lake Elsinore (2007) Request for Extension Dear Martha, The following projects were approved for SB-821 funding for 2007. The projects are: Lewis Street $22,000 Silver Street $8,500 Mill Street $57,275 We hereby request a two-year period extension. These projects are in the design phase. Preliminary engineering will be completed by July 3, 2009. Our City combines two - years of SB-821 funded Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities. This action allows us to reduced administrative costs of the project. A major factor for request of extension is the availability of our local funds used to fund the City's 50 percent share of the project costs, which is $87,775. We do have the financial resources to cover our share now and can proceed to advertising and constructing these sidewalks. We appreciate your consideration for concurrence in this request for extension. If you have any questions or comments on this project, please feel free to contact me at (95 I ) 674-3124, ext 242. Sincerely, p 951.674.31131itvid S Solomon, P.E. 130 S. MAIN ;Pkfiject Engineer • LAKF FISINORF. CA `D2530 www.LAKE-EL INOREORG 167 U.26.03 • • • ATTACHMENT 2 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION SB 821 BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES PROGRAM ADOPTED POLICIES • The Commission will not allocate funds to a project in its approved SB 821 Program until the sponsoring agency awards a contract for the construction of the project or until local agency forces begin construction of the project. (12/18/86) • If funds for a project are not claimed prior to the end of the fiscal year, the project will be deleted from the program and the fimds will be reprogrammed in the next fiscal year's SB 821 Program. (12/18/86) • A project sponsor may request an extension of time beyond June 30th if substantial progress has been made on the project which, at minimum, would mean completion of preliminary engineering. (12/18/86) • Funds allocated for projects in FY 86/87 and prior years must be spent or encumbered (construction contract awarded) by December 31, 1987, or the funds and interest earned on the funds shall be returned to the SB 821 Account. (12/18/86) ***Following four policies pertain to multi -year projects*** • Cities and the County may submit applications for projects to be funded over a 2-3 year period with engineering in year 1 and construction in years 2 and 3. (9/2/87) • Multi -year projects approved in the Commission's program shall be given priority for funding in years 2-3 over new projects submitted and approved. (9/2/87) • When actual construction and/or right-of-way costs are not more than 15% over the initial application cost estimate, the increase will be funded by SB 821 funds, if requested by the applicant, during the development of the annual program by the Commission. (9/2/87) • When actual construction and/or right-of-way costs are more than 15% above the initial application estimate, the applicant may either fund costs in excess of 15% with local funds or resubmit the project as a new project for consideration by the Commission. (9/2/87) • Any unused SB 821 Program funds must be returned to the Commission unless that agency can a) demonstrate why the costs were substantially lower than the estimate, and b) utilize the unused funds to complete approved but unfunded projects. (12/11/91) • No agency will be allowed to carryover unused funds for projects not previously included in an application (annual project proposals) submitted to the Commission for consideration. (12/11/91) • The Commission will not award funds for projects that do not meet physical accessibility standards (i.e. California Government Code 4450, Civil Code 51 Et. Seq., Title 24 of the California Building Code, Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990). (4/12/95) • An agency will have twenty-four (24) months from the time of the allocation to complete the project using local forces or award a construction contract. There will be no time extensions granted unless the project is part of a larger, federally funded project, which has been delayed beyond the agency's control. Also, projects requiring coordination with another public agency that has been delayed beyond the agency's control may receive one twelve-month extension, if necessary. Projects not completed or awarded within the twenty-four months will be deleted from the program, and the funds will be reprogrammed in the next fiscal year's SB 821 Program. (3/12/03) ROTC 3/20/03 168 AGENDA ITEM 81 • • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: July 8, 2009 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Plans and Programs Committee Fina Clemente, Transit Manager THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Executive Director SUBJECT: Fiscal Year 2009/10 Minimum Fare Revenue Ratio for Riverside Transit Agency and SunLine Transit Agency PLANS AND PROGRAMS COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Reaffirm the methodology used to calculate the required fare box recovery ratio; and 2) Approve the FY 2009/10 minimum fare revenue to operating cost ratio of 16.85% for Riverside Transit Agency (RTA) and 18.18% for SunLine Transit Agency (SunLine). BACKGROUND INFORMATION: RTA and SunLine serve both urbanized and non -urbanized areas of Riverside County. As required by state law, these agencies' minimum required fare revenue to operating expense ratio, would fall somewhere between the 10% requirement for non -urbanized area services and 20% requirement for urbanized area services. The Commission developed a methodology to calculate the required minimum ratio and it was subsequently approved by the state. Per the Transportation Development Act, Section 99270.1, Caltrans must review and approve the methodology on an annual basis. On June 4, 2009, Caltrans staff concurred in writing that the methodology developed by the Commission is still applicable. The formula used is as follows: R=.1 Cn+.2Cu Cn + Cu R = Required Ratio Cn = Costs of Services in Non -Urbanized Areas Cu = Costs of Services in Urbanized Areas The costs for new or expanded services are exempted from the calculation for the year of implementation plus two full fiscal years of operation. For FY 2009/10, RTA has 11 new routes that are exempt from the farebox recovery calculation. SunLine has one new route that is also exempt from farebox ratio requirement. Agenda Item 81 169 Using the above formula and the Short Range Transit Plans, the FY 2009/10 minimum required ratio for RTA is 16.85% and 18.18% for SunLine. This means that passenger fares for RTA and SunLine should cover at least 16.85% and 18.18%, respectively, of the actual cost to operate services. The balance of the operating cost is covered by state, federal and local funding. The farebox recovery ratios for FY 2009/10 have been reviewed and approved by RTA and SunLine staff. The ratios are then fixed for the fiscal year upon adoption of the required ratio by the Commission and cannot be changed, even though actual revenues and expenses may differ from the Short Range Transit Plan estimates. Attachment: Rules and Regulations for Determining Required Fare Revenue Agenda Item 81 • • 170 • • • RULES AND REGULATIONS FOR DETERMINING REQUIRED FARE REVENUE TO OPERATING COST RATIOS FOR TRANSIT OPERATORS SERVING BOTH URBANIZED AND NON -URBANIZED AREAS OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY I. Based on the latest annually adopted Short Range Transit Plans for Riverside County, the Riverside County Transportation Commission with the cooperation of the transit operator will determine separately the operating cost of those transit services provided in non -urbanized areas and the operating cost of those services in urbanized areas. • For the purpose of this calculation, the operating cost in the urbanized areas shall include the cost of fixed route lines, groups of fixed route lines, and demand responsive service operating entirely within an urbanized area. The operating cost in the non -urbanized area shall include the cost of all fixed route lines, groups of fixed route lines, and demand responsive service operating entirely within a non -urbanized area. • For fixed route lines operating partly within an urbanized area and partly within a non -urbanized area, the cost shall be apportioned to the urbanized area costs and non -urbanized area costs in proportion to the route miles in the non -urbanized area and the route miles in the urbanized area. • For demand response systems serving both an urbanized area and a non - urbanized area, the cost shall be apportioned to urbanized area costs and non -urbanized area costs in proportion to the population of the urbanized area served and the population of the non -urbanized area served. • The costs of extension of public transit service pursuant to Section 99268.8 of the Public Utilities Code (PUC) shall not be included in any of these calculations. II. The required ratio of fare revenues to operating cost in compliance with PUC Sections 99268.3 and 99268.4 shall be calculated as follows: R = .1 Cn + .2 Cu Cn+Cu R = Required Ratio Cn = Operating Cost in Non -Urbanized Areas Cu = Operating Cost in Urbanized Areas III. Annually, prior to the beginning of the fiscal year, the Riverside County Transportation Commission shall calculate the required revenue to operating cost ratio for each transit operator serving both urbanized and non -urbanized areas and submit this calculation to Caltrans. Caltrans shall approve the methodology used to calculate the blended fare box ratio prior to the beginning of the fiscal year. Once approved, the ratio is not subject to change. • • • AGENDA ITEM 8J • • • RIVERS/DE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: July 8, 2009 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Plans and Programs Committee Brian Cunanan, Commuter Assistance Manager THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Executive Director SUBJECT: Agreement with Commuter Assistance Program Management Services Contract for Inland Transportation Services PLANS AND PROGRAMS COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Award Agreement No. 09-41-079-00 to Inland Transportation Services for Commuter Assistance Program (CAP) management services for a three-year term with two one-year options for an amount not to exceed $5,433,627; and 2) Authorize the Chair, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Transportation Demand Management and Measure A Rideshare and other commuter transportation demand management (TDM) programs are a vital tool for Riverside County and the entire Inland Empire region as it significantly decreases the number of vehicles traveling on congested corridors and saves thousands of pounds of pollutants from being emitted into the air each year. The Commission has valued rideshare as a viable element to help extract more efficient operation out of the county's transportation system by including it in the first Measure A passed in 1988. That vision has been acknowledged and further recognized as successful with the passage and imminent implementation of the renewed measure, which again includes a TDM strategy as a funded element of the plan through 2039. Commuter Assistance Program The establishment of the Riverside County Transportation Commission's CAP was established in 1991 and is intended to implement the commuter services called out in Measure A. Advantage Rideshare, an incentive based rideshare program, was one of the first programs developed, marketed, and implemented by the Commission's CAP. Participants of the program receive cash incentives in the form Agenda Item 8J 171 of gift cards for ridesharing over a three-month term. The Club Ride program was developed in 1992 to provide incentives to those who continue to rideshare past the first three months. In 1993, San Bernardino County opted to offer similar programs for its residents. Given the proximity of the two counties to one another, there are advantages to pooling the administration of the programs; so as a result,. the San Bernardino Associated Governments (SANBAG) started contracting with the Commission for the administration of its program. That partnership was expanded in 1995 when the Commission and SANBAG jointly developed an Inland Empire Commuter Services (IECS) program to provide local employer services and continues to this day. Employer partnerships are at the core of the CAP and provide an efficient and effective channel for the Commission's commuter products to be delivered to its constituents. To support these partnerships and efforts by local employers in implementing and maintaining rideshare activities at their work sites, the IECS program element provides turnkey services and tools to Riverside and San Bernardino County employers including: employer rideshare planning, commuter transportation survey services, the production and distribution of individualized Rideguides, ridematching for carpools and vanpools, average vehicle ridership support and technical assistance, commuter incentives, marketing materials, staff support for employer events, continuing education through transportation forums, and newsletters. Last fiscal year, over 500 employers in the Inland Empire partnered with IECS to deliver rideshare programs and services. The Commission's TDM role also extends beyond the boundaries of the Inland Empire. Since 2002, the Commission has led the way in implementing, operating, and maintaining the regional rideshare database to support coordinated and efficient ridematching services throughout the five county region. This entails processing commuter surveys, data retrieval, project reporting, Rideguide generation, network security, system maintenance and operation. The Los Angeles Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro), Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA), SANBAG, and Ventura County Transportation Commission (VCTC) have contracted with the Commission for the administration of the regional ridematching database for the past seven years. Today, the Commission operates a comprehensive TDM program that consists of three elements: 1) Employer Services; 2) Commuter Products; and 3) Regional Services. Employer Services Commuter Products Regional Services • Inland Empire Commuter • $2/day Incentive • Regional Ridematching Svcs • Vanpool Incentive Database • Marketing Materials Dev't • RidesharePlus Program • Survey/Ridematching • Guaranteed Ride Home • Employer Resources • Information Services • Rideshare Week • Commuter Exchange • Marketing Workshops Agenda Item 8J • • • 172 • • In FY 2007/08, the CAP had over 16,800 participants and saved 3.9 million one-way trips from being taken and prevented over 1.8 million pounds of emissions from polluting the air in Riverside and San Bernardino Counties. Staff is currently in the process of closing out the current fiscal year performance and will report on the programs year end figures once collected and calculated. DISCUSS/ON: The Commission has long been considered to be the leader in the implementation of successful TDM programs and has had a contractor -operated program in place since 1991. Inland Transportation Services (ITS), based in the city of Riverside, has been the TDM consulting firm that has provided a variety of commuter assistance services since the origin of the Commission's program. The last request for proposal (RFP) process for CAP management was released in 1999. In 2000, ITS was awarded the contract for an 18-month period with two one-year extension options that were exercised through FY 2002/03. Since then, ITS has annually been approved by the Commission as a recurring contract. The current contract for ITS concludes on June 30, 2009. Given that this contract has not been put out to public bid since 2000, staff felt that program transparency along with a new pricing structure was in order. This decision led to the development and subsequent release of a RFP for management of the CAP. The RFP was released December 9, 2008. The scope of work is attached. In order to generate interest in the consultant community, the RFP was directly mailed to a variety of TDM consultant firms including: • 2PIus, Inc. • DKS Associates • ICF International • Inland Transportation Services • McLean Consulting Services • NelsonlNygaard Consulting Services • Parsons Brinckerhoff • UrbanTrans Consultants Additionally, the RFP was advertised in the Press Enterprise, on the Commission's website, and on TDM industry oriented websites. Proposals were due on January 20, 2009, and only one proposal was submitted from Inland Transportation Services in response to the RFP. The Evaluation Committee for the CAP Operation and Implementation Project Services RFP was chaired by the Commission's procurement manager and was comprised of staff from SANBAG's Air Quality and Mobility department and the Agenda Item 8J 173 Commission's Multimodal Services team. The committee convened on January 28, 2009, and scored the technical proposal submitted by Inland Transportation Services. The panel reviewed and rated the technical proposal based on the established evaluation criteria as defined in the RFP including: resource allocation, qualifications of staff, and work plan. Each evaluator (two from SANBAG and two from the Commission) submitted individual score sheets on the technical proposal and provided written and verbal comments regarding his/her assessment. Below is the overall scoring of the ITS technical proposal: Resource Allocation Qualifications of Staff Work Plan Average Score 82.5 % 87.5 % 80.0 % Overall, ITS scored well on its technical proposal and was deemed responsive and highly competent. Selection Process and Negotiations Although ITS was the only bidder and scored well on the technical evaluation, a pre -award audit was initiated by staff after review of the cost element of the proposal. This was done in order to obtain a third party review of the proposed cost structure and to assure staff that the costs were reasonable given the sole response to the RFP. The audit was performed and subsequently delivered in May, which led to further discussion and negotiation with ITS with respect to the amount of staffing, labor hours, and overall program costs contained in its original proposal. Given the economic climate that the Commission is working under and with consideration of its sister agencies that reimburse the Commission for elements of this program, staff spent a considerable amount of time negotiating with ITS in order to achieve reductions in staff, labor hours, and direct costs without sacrificing performance. Ultimately, 6,431 billable labor hours and $418,499 was reduced over the three-year term while generally maintaining the same level of performance expected in the scope of work and as proposed by ITS. FY 09/10 $ 181,655 2,743 compared to prior year Funding Agenda Item 8J FY10/11 $ 112,906 1,844 compared to original proposal FY11/12 $ 123,938 $ 418,499 Dollars saved over three-year term 1,844 6,431 Hours saved over three-year term compared to original proposal • 174 • • The CAP is primarily funded by Measure A. Funds to support the contract period of July 1, 2009 through June 30, 2010 were approved as part of the Commission's FY 2009/10 budget. As such, included in the ITS proposal is work to be performed on behalf of SANBAG. SANBAG has contracted with the Commission to manage and implement its rideshare program for 15 years as part of the two agencies long standing efforts to deliver coordinated and consistent rideshare services to commuters and employers within the Inland Empire. SANBAG's share of the consultant agreement equates to approximately 41 % and is reimbursed to the Commission on at least a quarterly basis. The Commission's share of the total contract costs equates to approximately 46%, while the remaining contract amount is reimbursed by its partner agencies (MTA, OCTA, SANBAG, and VCTC), who also contract with the Commission for work related to management of operations of the regional rideshare database. Staff is also recommending an additional $170,000 per year to be included in the contract amounts as proposed by ITS. This amount includes $100,000 in direct costs for the provision of an entertainment book offering and marketing campaign for the RidesharePlus program. RidesharePlus is a reward based commuter club for consistent and long term rideshare participants. Lastly, this amount as recommended by staff also includes $70,000 for special projects such as park and ride outreach and Mobile Source Air Pollution Reduction Review Committee (MSRC) grant funds occasionally acquired for demonstration projects. This brings the total contract amount over three fiscal years to $5,433,627 Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: Yes Year: FY 2009/10 Amount: $1,772,745 Source of Funds: Measure A SANBAG, MTA, OCTA, VCTC funds MSRC Grant Budget Adjustment: No GLA No.: 226 41 81001 262 41 81001 Fiscal Procedures Approved: ' �1it> Date: 6/14/2009 Attachment: Scope of Work - Commuter Assistance Program Agenda Item 8J 175 ATTACHMENT 1 EXHIBIT "A" — SCOPE OF WORK EMPLOYER SERVICES PROJECT : Inland Empire Commuter Services Program (IECS) (RCTC and SANBAG) Task: Marketing Materials Development Contractor will provide input to development of various employer Contractor will coordinate with RCTC and RCTC's retained gr (where applicable) to produce marketing materials consiste and feel. treach pieces. design consultant the CAPs general look 1. Review program communication materials once year and i:'� marketing material needs. 2. Coordinate with RCTC on annual revision shall be the responsibility of RCTC. • Provide draft and final versions of all mng m als, products a correspondence/announcement to RCTC other marketing themes andsages. • Provide draft and final versew/coms on materials produced by other agencies or consultants'view. 3. Prepare marketing packets to pres 4. Develop Rideshare C• x tion Fax le Bt`; r. chi aterial, verify facts and write articles for R 5. Provide input tothe CommuteSmart News or other 6. 7. 8. regional com Review Comm Review Inland E AQM r nee,... h T,RAO< a) Quan fa ransmissions b} wheffordering and re Delivef Rideshare rega news pub, smart Ne Is for article tions. rafts and and re pdates. Production_ese materials s to current applicability with ide revisions. nt on CommuteSmart.info website and Coordinate updates with RCTC as re Connection Fax enewsletters transmitted and failed antdte pf`program marketing material. Coordinate with RCTC ing stock as necessary. tfon Faxes FY 09/10 Targets RCTC SANBAG TOTAL Shared Shared 14 Elements of this task that require special graphic design services will be coordinated in conjunction with RCTCs graphic design consultant at the direction of the RCTC program manager. Task: Employer Outreach/ Program Enrollment There are over 500 Inland Empire employers enrolled in the Commuter Assistance Program. These employers may be enrolled in one or all of the employer services. Company name, contact person, address, telephone and fax numbers are available to the Contractor to use for outreach/enrollment purposes. 176 Request for Proposals RCTC Commuter Assistance Program 1 1. Review and update Employer Partnership Agreement (PA) for RCTC/SANBAG approval. 2. Provide outreach to existing employer clients to re -enroll them into the program. 3. Provide outreach to Riverside and San Bernardino County employers outside of the installed base of employer clients to enroll incremental employer partners. Schedule/ conduct briefing appointment with the Employer Transportation Coordinator (ETC). 4. Generate customized RCTC PA for each Riverside employer client. 5. Generate customized SANBAG PA for each San Bernardino employer client. 6. Provide PA to RCTC or SANBAG for signature. 7. Mail fully executed PA to client. 8. ENTER into RideMaster , TRACK, and REPORT 1) Empl Employees 3) Industry 4) City 5) County 6) Status (pro of Worksites 8) AQMD Status 9) Plan Due Date (if a applicable) 11) Lead Source 12) Month of Initial Walk -In 15) Initial Phone Call 16) Follow-up Ph Management Presentation 19) Outcome (Si Only/Business Closed or Moved) 20) Clie RidesharePlus/ Promos Ridematching S GRH Program) for reporting purposes. Deliverables: Employer Partnership Agreeme Total (Renewals a Employer Part Elements of the 1project ar to RCTC through M� INC„' " proficiency in this pro undersu Con Task: Signe ements C• 13)A all (s) 17)� SOP/Declined S _ mitment (Surveyl$2 R/S C.., a.ection/ Netw ame 2) Number of xisting/new) 7) Number 0) Last Survey Date (if Letter Mailed 14) Presented 18) s/Services tives/ eetings/ FY 09/10 Tar • ets R " SANBAG TOTAL update all updated annually 155 2 295 Cs custom RideMaster program (licensed aff will need to train and demonstrate as (as needed) will occur through MHV gram manager. Sub -task $ tt'vey/Rl matching 1. Schedule < n t ,conduct briefing meetings with the employer representative to provide an overview of the Average Vehicle Ridership (AVR)/ transportation survey process. 2. Assist employers with implementation of Commuter Transportation Surveys (printed or electronic) at one or multiple employer worksite(s). 3. Maintain employer survey processing schedule to ensure equal distribution of workload and to ensure 10 working day turnaround time for the production of RideGuides and employer survey analysis. 4. Scan employer surveys for errors. Return surveys to employer if error rate is in excess of 10%. 5. Log and batch printed surveys for keypunch. 177 Request for Proposals RCTC Commuter Assistance Program 2 6. Generate employer survey error report. 7. Process employer surveys with less than a 10% error rate. 8. Keypunch printed surveys. 9. Produce employer Average Vehicle Ridership (AVR) report from employee survey data and provide to employer within five business days. 10. Produce and prepare RideGuides (fold and stuff) for delivery to clients. Review sample for quality control purposes. 11. Prepare employer survey analysis reports. 12. Schedule and conduct a meeting with the ETC to present AVR/transportation survey output and accompanying documentation. 3. Provide liaison with SCAQMD staff to identify and clarification of program processes. 4. Troubleshoot AVR and Ridematching Programs to staff or to interface with Trapeze for interpretatio 5. Maintain an effective working relationship wit Management through regular contact and 6. TRACK and REPORT on client producti generated for reporting purposes in Ri 1 1 1 1 Deliverables: Commuter Surveys RideGuides Sub -task 9 (Keyp currently outso outsource th process p Commuter and 34 % wer will treedtto be hav6 4 prce d e•Surveys. ansitid inn all Inland Empire employers with employees that have access to computer stations to e-Surveys will be an ongoing initiative moving sa , ve AVR issues and issues for clarification to sportation Programs 2) RideGuides ets SANBAG TOTAL 57,000 16,000 122,000 39,200 Sub-taslaEmployer I Sources 1. ProviClOkkeneraf assistance to employer clients using the Electronic Survey or requmniOrgher level of clarification of the AVR Program. 2. Provide Survey/RideGuide Services (Employer Survey Briefings/ AVR Analysis/ Employer Output Appointments/ Other Services) and Technical Services (Contacts/ Rule Interpretation/ Commute Reduction Strategies/ Marketing/ Information Referral/ Other Services) to ETCs. 3. Provide information to ETC and/or referral to another source regarding programs and services which are beyond IECS's funding or scope of services Marketing Collateral 4. Fulfill employer requests for marketing collateral (flyers, paycheck stuffers, posters, etc.) to supplement their internal marketing efforts/campaigns. 5_ Coordinate the delivery of marketing collateral requested. servic "surveys a eys proc +ces:` services the ea' but is ! relates sed, 66% d in 'tie nt that may not ng fulfillment services) are ontra``'`Proposer may or may not ely responsible for these capabilities to he scope of work. In FY 07/08, of all the paper surveys and manually processed If outsourced, the sub-contractor(s) used al. Finally, the Inland Empire will always have access to computer stations to submit 178 Request for Proposals RCTC Commuter Assistance Program 3 Commuter Exchange/Staff 6. Provide staff resources (Commuter Exchange and/or Staff) for employer promotions, rideshare or benefits fairs, employer presentations, lunchtime promotions and worksite mode formation meetings. Newsletters 7. Set-up and transmit Rideshare Connection Fax enewsletter, maintaining records of failed transmissions. Report Cards 8. Semi-annually create and distribute Employer Report Cards to ETCs which provide a summary of the employers performance translated into trips and emissions reduced. 9. ENTER into RideMaster, TRACK, and REPO 'r�` 1) Survey/Rideguide Services provided (Employer Survey Briefings/ nalysis/ Employer Output Appointments/ Other Services) 2) Technical `��? ovided (Contacts/ Rule Interpretation/ Commute Reduction Strate•l Information Referral/ Other Services) 3) Quantities of marketid to employers. Deliverables: Employer Support Services Survey/Rideguide Servies Technical Assistance Sub -task: Kick -Off Meeting/ Mar 1. Plan, organize, a� Asa ment t I e'work meetings. One of the three network : ludes t with RCTC �' ious el nts of 2. Determin �� and secu .cation. 3. Develop ne ®> topic - nd pr` re presentation material. 4. Ensure that wo o@arketing criteria set forth by AQMD. 5. SA P leers Ym.l!cable). ment`�L� roo ` t up. reate and dls Mute netw rk invitations. ,reate/distribute 1rketlri 4rtificates and evaluation of event by participants. 9 jrmile and proc��, netwo meeting evaluations to produce an evaluation report. 10. Mafn In IECS net*rk meeting schedule on CommuteSmart.info. 11. ENTEkinto Riderter, TRACK, and REPORT on 1) ETC participation in Kick -Off Meetin rgl 2)�' feting Workshops. 255 310 ets 630 625 Deliverables=3 share ork meetings. k Kick -Off Event. Coordinate FY 09/10 Targets RCTC SANBAG TOTAL Network Meetings ETC Kick -Off Meeting Shared Shared 1 Marketing Workshop Shared Shared 2 Sub -task: Rideshare Week 1. Plan, organize and implement Rideshare Week (RW) in the Inland Empire. 2. Work with RCTC program staff to develop RW promotional theme and slogan. 3. Coordinate RW material review with the preparation of the timeline, list of materials 179 Request for Proposals RCTC Commuter Assistance Program 4 and quantities for RCTC's graphic designer and printer. 4. Coordinate the production and delivery of RW promotional materials through RCTC. 5. Research new RW Sponsors and solicit for prize donations. 6. Develop and write RW Sponsor letters for RCTC review. 7. Mail solicitation letter to approximately 370 potential RW Sponsors. 8. Solicit area newspapers for free advertising space for RW. 9. Secure donated RW prizes and sponsor logos. 10. Prepare RW sponsor and prize list. Coordinate through RCTC for work with RCTC's graphic designer to include information on all marketing materials. 11. Prepare thank you letters and arrange for plaques (or s;.r recognition item) for all RW Sponsors; Send or deliver letters, plaque copies of marketing materials to RW Sponsors. 12. Develop in coordination with RCTC the RW ETCles and the securing of prizes. r Deliverables Rideshare Week Sponsors Rideshare Week Prizes 6- Task: Regional CoVlination Participate in regllbka!/sta RCTC. _ itteeS. 'Ortapg grout - Constt -dtab <1, 800 COMMt 511, Regional Rideshare Exchange, and th egional Ribeshare`fr r ementation Committee. Deliverables will vary according mmittee but M*inclucf ; uch items as: Coordination and preparation of agenda, writtOn, summary of ifteetmg-Aluding action items, maintain notebook of meeting mate i* and particip4te in meetings and provide ongoing recommendations. 2. Ensure n'd maintain AUR reporting certification through coordination and agreement T? with the AZ. 1. Targets Share Shared TOTAL 20-30 Sponsors Minimum $30,000 Total Value of Donated Prizes per Year tees and working groups as assigned by e but are not limited to the SCAQMD 180 Request for Proposals RCTC Commuter Assistance Program 5 COMMUTER PRODUCTS PROJECT : $2/day Commuter Incentive (RCTC and SANBAG) Market and administer the $2/day Incentive Program to employers located in Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino and San Diego counties. The Program is available to western Riverside County residents ("Advantage Rideshare") and San Bernardino County ("Option Rideshare") who currently drive alone to participating employers and start any of the rideshare alternatives. Process incentive claim payments according to established policy. See IECS Program Guidelines in Append , for detailed program guidelines. Tasks: 1. Enroll drive alone commuters from wester County in the $2/day incentive. 2. Check and approve program paym quarterly incentive audit. 3. Calculate correct incentive payment am 4. Alert appropriate staff if incentive paymen are in danger of exceeding e 'wgram's inc 5. Review enrollment/claim for a slas or incor' representative for correction(s 6. Count gift cards to fill the order 7. Prepare file, enroll enticlaim for review. 8. Verify all re 9. Data ent 10. Generate p 11. Order and mai 12. C documentation is ayment inf4ation. nt letter bfiAly� a monthly` bars and compare with Project Disbursement o en bafare Generate signed quarterly incentive balance log. onitor incentr4payMe s and order checks from RCTC on a quarterly basis. ?4 P{oduce and dl tttlute En ployee Report Card to $2/day incentive participant 30 114 after distnbui€)g, Incentive package. �s. b. 15. E l?.R into RIdd aster, TRACK, and REPORT on 1) $2/day Incentive Participal is by Cotl� + 2) Translated trip reductions, miles reduced, and emissions reduce particiOnt submission broken down by paper or online submission. - Deliverables erside Cou d San Bemardino reconcile disbursem gs, perform e trip reduction V redit. o participating employer clients e budget. information. Contact employer ommuter Benefits Manager Participants (Advantage Rideshare) FY 09/10 Targets RCTC SANBAG (Option Rideshare) 1,150 1,500 TOTAL 2,650 The Contractor will be expected to manage procurement, accounting, handling and delivery of incentive scrip payments in a manner that best protects RCTC against fraudulent practices. Contractor management practices will be audited one time per year by RCTC or RCTC's agent or additionally as deemed necessary. 181 Request for Proposals RCTC Commuter Assistance Program 6 PROJECT : RidesharePlus Program (RCTC and SANBAG) Administer and market RidesharePlus Program Merchant Discount Catalogue Program to employers located in Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino and San Diego Counties. The Programs are available to western Riverside County residents ("Club Ride") and San Bemardino County residents ("Team Ride") who have been ridesharing to work for a minimum of three months and rideshare at least once a week. Members have access to discounts from a variety of merchants located throughout southern California. Tasks: 1. Annual outreach to existing Club and Team Ride me upcoming year. 2. Ongoing marketing of program to ETCs or resear secure incremental RidesharePlus participants. 3. Re -enroll Club and Team Ride members an re incremental 4. Plan, organize, and implement up to thr deshare Plus memb including preparation of promotion sche:t concept ,f. guidelines communication plan to membership and a 2 ,ers, r nnounce winne 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. prizes. Secure exclusive offers/promoti? Priority of locations parallel Rides Y ' Coordinate offers with RCTC gr_ic �n= proof read Merchant Discount Cata �% e Mail out corresponde is members informin.° e a Deliver MDC an bersh Resolve me gyomplaints "' `t h employ merchants who of hon�discoun Monitor Rddeshare$ a .i content',. _ 11. to y 2) Tran ipants broken onliftsubmission 4) nounce ngesl rd to to re -enroll members for each opportunities to pants. promotions rticipation, and deliver r the Ride " r Plus Merchant Discount Catalog. membe figures. to begin production of and consu M IDE employer clients and ants an nual update process. ers. ETC and Fantastic Fundraising regarding S outlined in the MDC. ncy and maintain member promotion ACK, and REPORT on 1) RidesharePlus Participants by :ductions, miles reduced, and emissions reduced 2) n ba w or renewal 3) Participant submission by paper or icipation in RidesharePlus promotions. Deliverables, FY 09110 Targets RCTC (Club Ride) Participants SANBAG TOTAL (Team Ride) 5,300 7,600 12,900 MDC Offers Shared Shared Minimum 450 offers The website element of this project (rideshareplus.info) is updated by RCTCs graphic design consultant. The Contractor will coordinate with this consultant and RCTC when updates are needed. For the past couple of years, RCTC has used the services of Fantastic Fundraising to acquire merchants offers to populate the Merchant Discount Catalog and offer to RidesharePlus members. ENT 182 Request for Proposals RCTC Commuter Assistance Program 7 PROJECT : Vanpool Incentive Program (RCTC and SANBAG) Market and administer the RCTCISANBAG Vanpool Incentive Program which provides $1,800 over nine months for the formation of new vanpools. Coordinate with Metro, OCTA, and SANDAG to ensure new vanpools do not secure incentives from more than one agency. Tasks: 1. Provide program information to commuters, Riverside an employers and qualified vanpool leasing companies. 2. Qualify potential vanpool groups in accordance with R 3. Verify with Metro, OCTA or SANDAG that the v subsidy. 4. Register vanpool commute and contact da _W the Regio Maintain data on a monthly basis. 5. Coordinate with vanpool leasing compan payment requests to RCTC Accounting fment. 6. Prepare quarterly report on the number incentive, the number of participants and vehi 7. Coordinate with Metro, OCTA,,x .r SANDA number of vanpools 1) originati ®. Riverside destined for and subsidized by th 8. ENTER into RideMaster, TRACK, RCTCISANBAG inceTrans! reduced. PROJECT : Guaran C art Mar regional Riv and San Berth employ s4:4 an enrolle � b.>sH GurdelrndaAppendix C, Tasks: 1. Participate in reports, updates; 2. Provide feedback on GRH policy and procedure development including revisions to guidelines, marketing materials, procedures, etc. 3. Market the GRH Program when enrolling new employer clients. Announce GRH Program updates at network meetings and Rideshare Connection bulletins. 4. Enroll GRH employer clients in database and maintain spreadsheet of current client listing. Run a weekly report of new clients and send to the GRH Project Manager to issue ID numbers. 5. Mail marketing posters and flyers to new clients after they have enrolled in the program. 6. Monitor any employer changes and send to the regional GRH Program Manager. BAG) onthly incentive am n Bernardino County rogram Resolution. of receiving any other idePro Database. and prepare ceiving the R " CISANBAG duced. cquire and TRACK the average my or San Bernardino County C vanpool program. ber of vanpools receiving es reduced, and emissions Ride Home (GRH) Program to employers located in ino cities. The GRH Program is available to all ridesharing ployer°regardless of home county origin. See IECS Program detailed program guidelines. GRH conference calls as needed to discuss program issues, 183 Request for Proposals RCTC Commuter Assistance Program 8 7. Troubleshoot client issues and document the resolution. 8. Review monthly activity reports prepared by outside contractor(s). 9. ENTER into RideMaster, TRACK, and REPORT on 1) GRH participation 2) Participation broken down by County. Currently, RCTC/SANBAG contract out to Metro who bids this service out to an outside consultant. The consultant and/or procedures may change within the next 12 months. PROJECT : Teleservices (RCTC and SANBAG) Provide rideshare assistance to Riverside and San Ber 1-866-RIDESHARE and 1-800-COMMUTE. Input co Rideshare Database and produce customized Ride Tasks: 1. Provide teleservices on weekdays from 2. Answer incoming commuter calls to 1-866- 3. Verbally dispense information on carpooling, ride lots, Metrolink, buspools aI transit. 4. Input commuter information i .; .ional RideGuides. E-mail, mail, fax commuter. 5. Place outgoing calls t Wde com 6. Follow up with c, quiries s ated commutesmart.iR 7. Every six more, contact ")I in com `hers who are registered in the Regional Rideshare Dats`t * to I� �tetheir v.:. mute information and offer additional rideshare asslstanct 8. ENTERt fEWK an PORT on 1 s i°'.er of incoming 866-RIDESHARE calls 2) BreAdown of 8,6-RIDISHARE calls by call type and how caller was made aware of P6etk1DESHAR Vurn er.of outgoing calls to support rideshare formation 4) Track the number of outgoing calls aced for commuterprofile updates. unty residents who call ion into the Regional Deliverables d 1-800-COM "' TE. incentive programs, park and are Database and generate eGuide information to the 'zed ridematching assistance. RCTC/SANBAG website or FY 09/10 Targets RCTC SANBAG TOTAL 866-RIDESHARE , Shared Shared 4,000 Outgoing Calls "- Shared Shared 600 The Contractor needs to provide phone equipment. Equipment needs to accommodate call volume growth to 15,000 calls per year. 184 Request for Proposals RCTC Commuter Assistance Program 9 PROJECT : On -Line Service Provision (RCTC and SANBAG) Maintain web portal and programming to allow new ridesharers to complete and submit their Advantage/Option incentive claim forms electronically as well as to allow new and existing Club/Team members to complete their membership and renewal information in an electronic format. This process will include data validations on form submissions, an automatic review and approval process by the employer ETC, and data file for staff review before import and database processing. Tasks: 1. Work with RCTC's contract programmer to maintain odal, on-line form content and data validations. Assist programmer in creatic processes such as ETC notification and review process. 2. Test and troubleshoot the web portal portion of,rogrammin 3. Work with programmer to develop the in hou iew and proces unctions. 4. Test and troubleshoot the in-house portion 'e program functional 5. Organize a pilot program with a seleca ber of t,floyers to tee systems functionality, identify any areas of concern 6. Work with programmer to resolve an issue 4 : t 9 9 zY during the pilot test phase of p 9 Y ;�"�� 9 P� the new program. 7. Put new program into productio staff on t L 's _ ctionality. 8. Respond to requests for informatl ing on 'gram is implemented to the public. Deliverables Online Pilot Pr PROJE (RC The Commuter Exchang,. js a rrt&ile resource center that is available for western Riverside plenty schools xfmployers and public events. It provides on -site information and material, Jegardm a importance and ease of using alternate modes of transportation. ange Program Tasks: 1. Schedule and conduct visits to schools, employer and public events. 2. Provide a licensed and insured driver to deliver the CE to and from all visits and make presentations. 3. Provide a licensed and insured back up driver who can also make presentations. 4. Store CE in a mutually agreed upon location with RCTC. Location to be clean, safe and secure. CE is to be stored on a concrete pad. 5. Manage maintenance of the CE on an ongoing basis. Deliver vehicle to authorized repair shop. Require written estimate from repair shop in advance of repairs being completed and forward to RCTC for approval. Maintain log of ongoing repairs. 6. Clean and wash CE on a regular basis. 185 FY 09/10 Targets RCTC Only S G TOTAL Request for Proposals RCTC Commuter Assistance Program 10 7. Maintain stock of CE specific promotional and marketing materials. Prepare inventory report on a quarterly basis. 8. Maintain stock of externally produced rideshare and air quality information/ promotional materials. Prepare inventory report on a quarterly basis. 9. Prepare and maintain calendar of scheduled CE visits. 10. TRACK CE mileage for each vehicle trip and generator hours of operation. 11. TRACK CE visits by type and by city. 12. Prepare an evaluation for all of the CE visits. Deliverables School Events Employer Events Public Events PROJECT : Regional Ridematching Sery Manage the regional ridematch datab a system behalf of and in partnership with th Tra database will be secured from tamp accurate software. Monitor and mainta software of the regional ridematch Maintenance of the ridem vendor, Trapeze, and to ensure that qualit A. Task 1 Deliv Cool;¢jte so 38/A 38 6 6 6 Ile! school database system on nspoCommission's (CTC's). Each cessibl users needs with timely and hardware and connectivity d ridematching website. coordinated with the software pport sta Monitor system performance and that system integrity is maintained. nance and installation of enhancements. C st identify nee or program refinements on an annual basis, liJding A Progf' refinements as required by the SCAQMD. Work with rapeze staff frOeyeloftbgrams to satisfy identified needs, and to install and test m. Install petgdic uraWs from vendor. Monitor the system and augment s' c( city and datataccess controls as needed to maintain the confidentiality of information. Task 4Cludes travel expense for four visits per year to each CTC office,Inecessary,=a`fid annual license maintenance fees. 1. Review RfdeP'ro error logs on a daily basis, assess error messages to determine'=riext steps, take action with the appropriate entities (i.e., internal action, CTC's or RidePro product support staff) to secure resolution of issues. 2. Install product updates and enhancements including customized programming authorized by CTC's. Provide testing of new programs and enhancements to ensure that programs are functioning correctly and that any program compatibility issues are resolved. 3. Maintain annual Wish List of programming needs and coordinate programming, installation and testing with Trapeze staff. 4. Monitor performance of the servers, routers and switches to ensure system is operating at peak performance. 186 Request for Proposals RCTC Commuter Assistance Program 11 5. Report any system downtime to CTC's. 6. Up to four visits per year to each CTC location for system maintenance. 7. Coordinate with phone companies for communications infrastructure. B. Task 2 Deliverables: Maintain the address geo-coding database for translation of street addresses and intersections into geographic references for ridematching, mapping, and other geographic referential products. 1. Coordinate annual updates of digital base maps with 2. Identify and resolve any discrepancies in digital b geocoding anomalies. C. Task 3 Deliverables: Maintain computer software (i.e., RidePro a accurately and concisely track rideshare reporting to CTC's. 1. Monthly rideshare database report l D. Task 4 Deliverables: Provide technical and hel assistance with troubleshoot and/or wide area network conn contact with the , esk P' programs and f �mthin the E. 1. Resp 2. Assess s facilitate r and ken Provide Operate a sp+ wily to o eofr Tasir Deliverable: Man a e,.,and coor with the ';GTC s r tr employers; upport ms vity.' .ide ti 's and Trapeze. ps in response to c istrative tra' ase activities an e activity. WebTrends) to ices for es to CTC staffs. Provide to functionality of software one connection for direct s"uctional materials on new 9atabases to CTC staffs. and telePhOne technical inquires and trouble reports. ed problemsletermine appropriate actions, and g 6 • fate monthlyst►nary of reported problems and actions on as needed to all users. esk telephone "hot line" for assistance requests. fte the regional rideshare database system in partnership =-'ensure the effective delivery of ridematching services to sand commuters of the five county region. 1. Facilitate collective policy decisions relating to operational and procedural functionality of the system. 2. Provide liaison between the CTC's and the SCAQMD for maintenance and required updates to the AVR functions of the databases. 3. Coordinate with CTC technical staffs regarding hardware specifications and conformity. 4. Provide liaison between CTC's and Trapeze product support staff. 5. All staff involved with regional ridematching database must sign confidentiality policy. 187 Request for Proposals RCTC Commuter Assistance Program 12 F. Task 6 Deliverables: Operating Equipment Maintain computer system hardware, consistent with the specifications provided by Trapeze Software and agreed to by the CTC's, to accommodate the regional rideshare database, and the implementation and operation of the Wide Area Network. Repair or replace hardware items as needed. 1. Periodic hardware and software maintenance of Clustered Database Servers, Storage Area Network, two Citrix Terminal Services Servers for remote access, Job Process Server, workstation for network administration, and various routers and switches as needed On -going Costs — Network Connectivity Maintain the configuration of T3, Frame Relay, efficiently operate the Wide Area Network. 1. Monitor and troubleshoot operatio access and for access to Terminal 2. Monitor and troubleshoot acce security. On -going analysis of additions or improvements. Contractor is responsible fo RCTC will pay for those costs PROJECT: CAP Provide overall prop the development and tracking, product § formatif ess scribed bY' Taskslf 1. Mana AP to budget a. OtiOrpctor Prograrn Manager shall monitor and manage the number of labor hour8�t5x. pe ,:4o ensure that the number of hours/budget utilized do not exceed(% eloqu�s/budget allocated. b. Monitor spet al projects labor hours/budgdet and coding to ensure proper billing. c. Contractor shall invoice RCTC on a monthly basis. 2. Manage Contractor staff and provide local/regional coordination: a. Contractor Program Manager oversees assignment and completion of all work by Contractor staff. b. Work productivity and timeline for completion shall be those established by RCTC and Contractor Program Manager. c. Contractor Program Manager shall ensure the timely delivery of goals, products and deliverables through ongoing oversight of staff. Coordination and coordi ort« f thei C. andwidth connection to 3 Line for Ri tching Website es Server. to e,se operation,egrity and ity i and recomme dations for s relate. sus:= sable one/network/communications, ntractor staff and RCTC, with regard to uter Assistance Program (CAP) data nt manag and the delivery and/or distribution of the „port. Prepare and submit quarterly progress reports in the 188 Request for Proposals RCTC Commuter Assistance Program 13 issue resolution shall occur with RCTC Program Manager. d. Participate in monthly coordination meetings with RCTC/SANBAG and quarterly CTC Regional Coordination Meetings. 3. Manage CAP sub -contractors in coordination with and at the direction of RCTC: a. Trapeze Software, Inc. — for computer software licensing, development and support services related to regional ridematching services project. b. MHV, Inc. — for maintenance and programming enhancements to RideMaster application. c. Hollister -Powell Associates, L.L.C. — to license Riverside County basemaps for regional ridematching application. d. AT&T — for phone/network lines. 4. Manage CAP operations/infrastructure : a. Ensure that the necessary staff and region hardware are fully operational by July 1 b. Oversee functionality and performan Assistance Program database (Rer and reporting. c. Oversee day-to-day database opera identified by staff. d. Maintain tracking log of . fluter issues e. Troubleshoot new progrutines. implementation. f. Maintain employer client fili 5. Manage to and re m pe }°"e: a. Consults „•all coos ate with`` C to generate program goals/objectives as outl' b. Monitor am pe ce on a$ . rterly basis and develop recommen n g t" s orack to meet annual goals. ogress re0`` end other reports based on tracked CAP and necessary to quantify program performance: applications and ernal RCTC/S ) for program pe G Commuter ce tracking o problems an: issues tatus of completion. ve bugs before ablished policy. DeT`erables Qua rtt r .Progress ReNgs eMaster °NIvity Reports Quarter Year End Pr! Farr' R rt Communication: nts Calendar Monthly Phone ports 189 • • Request for Proposals RCTC Commuter Assistance Program 14 Office Location/ Set-up The Contractor shall set-up a local office within or near the city of Riverside for contract administration purposes. This office shall be staffed and furnished by the Contractor and have standard business hours of operation. The office must be publicly accessible and be equipped with a conference room, phone lines/service, computers, photocopier, fax machine, storage room for marketing collateral, safe for storage of incentive scrip, T3 service and a server room dedicated to rideshare database hardware. The Contractor shall set-up, op .4: , and maintain the following office elements: Call Centers/ Communications Conference Room Hardware 866-RIDESHARE (teleservices fo • Two Helpdesk phon • Voice Mail 866-IECS4HELP (telese • Three Helpd Regional Ridematchi RCTC representatives) • One Helpdesk • VMail Contractor is center/commu reimbursable. CAP stai needed.: list install nthly c� end RC nto an of the office or Employer Tran one lines into and out o rvices (tel ices for Cou or set-u CTC ion Coordinators) office nsportation and out of the office ration and maintenance of the call for these costs as a Ion meetings amongst Contractor staff, SANBAG P staff and/or other CAP related meetings as t/CliMputer Hardware List; Contractor is responsible t=up, operas maintenance of all the RCTC owned hardware elow; RCTC wil pay for equipment, maintenance and/or new )ton costs as a reimbursable. Two ftfell,PowerEdge 6850 Servers One Dell Blade Center Five Dell PowerEdge 1855 Blade Servers One Dell PowerEdge 2950 Server One Dell PowerEdge 1750 Server • One Dell AX150 Storage Server • One Dell OptiPlex 755 Workstation • HP Color LaserJet 5550 hdn Printer • Two 22" Flat Panel Monitors • Two 17" Flat Panel Monitor • Two Dell Gigabit Switches • Two Cisco PIX 515E Firewalls • Two IBM 360 xServers • Two Brocade Switches • One Cisco 2650 Router • Two APC Battery Backup 5000 190 Request for Proposals RCTC Commuter Assistance Program 15 Photocopier To support client outreach and enrollment. Safe Software All software installed on RCTC owned servers. Server Room Storage Room The Contractor shall provide secure (and fireproof) storage for the incentive scrip referenced in $2/day incentive program and to secure Rideshare Week prize donations. Regional Ridematching Software • RidePro3 — Ridematching Database* • AVR* • RidePro Web* • Citrix Presentation Server 4.5. • Windows Server 2003 • SQL Server 2005 • Windows 2000 Server RCTC (*Software owned by Trapeze Softwa Inland Empire Commuter Sen oftware • RideMaster— Incentiv:f=•ase Program (Owned by Advanced Tec_ Innovations, Inc. and sed for use by RCTC) d for use by RCTC) To house hardware Ils' .ove, sh m = equipped with gent back-up, security and temperature To house v CAP relate s""s eting collateral and giveaways. RCTC reserves the right to add equipmen' ;edify e'® tam' .mputer software. 191 • AGENDA ITEM 8K RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: July 8, 2009 TO: Riverside County Transportation Committee FROM: Plans and Programs Committee Brian Cunanan, Commuter Assistance Manager THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Executive Director SUBJECT: Fiscal Year 2009/10 Agreements for Regional Rideshare Services PLANS AND PROGRAMS COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Approve Agreement No. 07-45-077-05 with the San Bernardino Associated Governments (SANBAG) as part of the Commission's continuing bi-county partnership with SANBAG to deliver commuter and employer rideshare services for FY 2009/10; 2) Approve Agreement No. 09-41-075-00 with the Los Angeles Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro); Agreement No. 07-41-115-07 with Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA); and Agreement No.06-41-082-04 with the Ventura County Transportation Commission (VCTC) for regional ridematching services; and 3) Authorize the Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreements on behalf of the Commission. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Since 1993, SANBAG has contracted with the Commission to develop, implement and manage a Commuter Assistance Program (CAP) for San Bernardino County commuters. The program consists of several projects. • Option Rideshare, developed as a "sister" incentive project to the Commission's Measure A commuter incentive project Advantage Rideshare, focuses on encouraging solo drivers to try alternative commute modes. • Team Ride, modeled after the Commission's Club Ride Program, provides discounts at local merchants and entertainment venues for long-term ridesharers. • Inland Empire Commuter Services (IECS), was jointly established by SANBAG and the Commission in FY 1995/96 when it was determined by the two agencies that the Inland Empire would assume direct responsibility for the provision of local employer rideshare services. IECS provides various Agenda Item 8K 192 services to employers in the bi-county area including the provision of marketing promotions, rideshare survey processing, technical assistance, employer network meetings and electronic newsletters. • In FY 2002/03, the Commission and SANBAG began providing Ridematching and Teleservices directly. • The FY 2009/10 contract contains a new program element, Inland Empire 511, which was approved by the SANBAG Board at its May 2009 meeting and by the Commission in June 2009. Based on SANBAG staff's guidance, the Commission has developed a FY 2009/10 work plan and budget for continuation of SANBAG's CAP comprised of employer services, rideshare incentive and rewards programs, and the development and implementation of 511 services. The proposed agreement between SANBAG and the Commission that defines the terms and conditions regarding project goals, budgets, reporting, invoicing, and payment for services rendered was approved by SANBAG's Board at its June 3, 2009 meeting. This approval includes an allocation of Measure I and CMAQ funds for its CAP. Staff is seeking Commission approval to enter into the agreement for FY 2009/10 in an amount not to exceed $1,900,500. The Commission's role in transportation demand management also extends beyond the boundaries of the Inland Empire. Since 2002, the Commission has led the way in implementing, operating, and maintaining the regional rideshare database (Regional Database) to support a coordinated and efficient ridematching service throughout a five county region. Specifically, this entails processing commuter surveys, data retrieval, project reporting, rideguide generation, network security, system maintenance and operation. Metro, OCTA, SANBAG, and VCTC have contracted with the Commission for the administration of the Regional Database for the past seven years. Metro, OCTA, and VCTC are in the process of amending and seeking approval of their agreements with the Commission to extend the term through FY 2009/10. Funding of the Regional Database is split amongst the five county transportation commissions (CTC) based on population percentage split. Staff is seeking Commission approval to enter into agreements with the CTCs for FY 2009/10 in an amount not to exceed $353,000. Agenda Item 8K 193 • • Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: Yes Year: FY 2009/10 Amount: $2,253,500 Source of Funds: SANBAG Measure I — TMEE, and CMAQ Metro, OCTA, and VCTC funds Budget Adjustment: No GLA No.: 263 41 41203 P2111,2112, 2127, 2139, 263 41 41403 P2193,2113,2147,2182,2178 Fiscal Procedures Approved: \141e4,44431 Date: 6/16/2009 Attachments: 11 FY 2009/10 SANBAG Agreement and Scope of Work 21 FY 2009/10 Regional Ridematch Database Services Scope of Work Agenda Item 8K 194 ATTACHMENT 1 SANBAG Contract No. 09-190 by and between San Bemardino Associated Governments and Riverside County Transportation Commission for Implementation of FY 2009/10 Trip Reduction/Rideshare and 511 Program FOR ACCOUNTING PURPOSES ONLY ►�� Payable Vendor Contract # RCTC Retention: r Original ■ Receivable Vendor ID ■ Yes % ❑ No O Amendment Notes: Original Contract: Previous Amendments Total: $ $ 1.900.500 Previous Amendments Contingency Total: $ Contingency Current Amendment: $ Amount: $ Current Amendment Contingency: $ Contingency Amount requires specific authorization by Task Manager prior to release. Contract TOTAL 4 $ 1.900.500 `Y Please include funding albcation for the original contract or the amendment. Task Cost Code Funding Sources Grant ID Amounts 406 6506 SCAB CMAQ 662 $ 358.215 406 6506 MDAB CMAQ 661 $ 119.405 406 6506 Measure I-TMEE i308 $ 61 881 406 6504 SCAB CMAQ 662 $ 304.765 406 6504 MDAB CMAQ 661 $ 101,588 406 6504 Measure 1-TMEE i308 $ 52,647 406 6514 SCAB CMAQ 662 $ 142,091 406 6514 MDAB CMAQ 661 $ 47.364 406 6514 Measure I-TMEE i308 $ 24,546 406 6516 SCAB CMAQ 6_12 $ 33.199 406 6516 MDAB CMAQ 661 $ 11,066 406 6516 Measure I-TMEE i308 $ 5.735 406 6512 SCAB CMAQ, 662 $ 49.798 406 6512 MDAB CMAQ 661, $ 16,599 406 6512 Measure I-TMEE 1308 $ 8,603 408 6508 SCAB CMAQ 662 $ 41,830 406 6508 MDAB CMAQ 661 $ 13.943 406 6508 Measure I-TMEE i308 $ 7,226 511 5553 SCAB CMAQ 662 $ 331,988 511 5553 MDAB CMAQ 661 $ 110,663 511 5553 M aaure I-TMEE i308 $ 57,350 Original Board Approved Contract Date: 6/3/09 Contract Start: 07/01/09 Contract End: 6/30/10 New Amend. Approval (Board) Date: Amend. Start: Amend. End: Form 28 06/06 If this is a multi -year contractiamendment, please budget authority and future fiscal year(s)-unbudgeted Approved Budget Fiscal Year: 2009/10 allocate budget authority among approved obligations: Future Fiscal Year(s) — Unbudgeted Obligation 4 $ Authority -3. 1 $ 1,900,500 Is this consistent with the adopted budget? ►a Yes ■ No If yes, which Task includes budget authority? 40610000 and 51110000 If no, has the budget amendment been submitted? ❑Yes ■ No CONTRACT MANAGEMENT Please mark an "X" next to all that apply: ►A Intergovernmental ❑ Private ■ Non -Local ■ Local ❑ Partly Local % � 7 Disadvantaged Business Enterprise: ►:� No Yes Task Manager: Michelle Kykhoff Contrpcii 144r. I ir/iPl d ll Tas Chief Financial Officer Signature Filename: S P /CI Date 31 /3( by ' Date 0 Contract Manager Signature Date Form 28 06l06 1016 • AGREEMENT BETWEEN SAN BERNARDINO ASSOCIATED GOVERNMENTS AND RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY FISCAL YEAR 2009/2010 EMPLOYER AND COMMUTER TRIP REDUCTION/RIDESHARE PROGRAMS THIS AGREEMENT ("Agreement") is entered into as of this lu day of July 2009, in the State of Califomia by and between SAN BERNARDINO ASSOCIATED GOVERNMENTS, referred to herein as "SANBAG," and the RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION, referred to herein as "RCM." WHEREAS, SANBAG approved allocation of Measure I - Valley Traffic Management and Environmental Enhancement (TMEE) funds and Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act — A Legacy to Users (SAFE -TEA LU) Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) funds, the allocation of SAFE -TEA LU (initially approved in October of 2005 by SANBAG board), to provide trip reduction services as well as incentives for the commuter programs; and, WHEREAS, RCTC is a sub recipient of SANBAG SAFE -TEA LU funds, and shall adhere to the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Title No. 20.205; and, WHEREAS, SANBAG requires professional and consulting services with respect to the provision of commuter services and programs within San Bernardino County; WHEREAS, RCTC has managed the bi-county Inland Empire Commuter Services program since November 3, 1993, as well as employer outreach and regional programs/services since July 1, 2002, and has the expertise and resources necessary to manage such services for SANBAG; and, WHEREAS, the RCTC Commission and SANBAG Board approved a bi-county implementation of a 511 program and RCTC possesses the expertise and resources needed to develop, implement and maintain a service for the Inland Empire. NOW, THEREFORE, the parties agree as follows: A. Contract Services. 1. RCTC will administer, market, and implement a commuter services program in coordination with RCTC's commuter services program and in coordination with .the regional ridesharing core services program in compliance with and as specified in the scope of work, Attachment "A," attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. 2. RCTC shall provide program administration and oversight and assure that its consultants and/or staff performs its services within the budgets set forth in the scope of work, Attachment "A." C09190.doe 1 f87 Page 1 of 8 3. RCM shall provide SANBAG with a monthly statistical report of progress relative to tasks identified in the scope of work, Attachment "A", to this Agreement and in such detail as may be approved by SANBAG. B. Compensation. 1. It is understood that SANBAG funding for the program under this Agreement will not exceed one million nine hundred thousand, five hundred dollars and no cents ($1,900,500.00) and is being provided from the following sources: (a) One million six hundred and eighty-two thousand, five hundred and thirteen dollars and no cents ($1,682,513.00) from CMAQ funds, and (b) Two hundred and seventeen thousand, nine hundred and eighty-seven dollars and no cents ($217,987.00) from San Bemardino County local 'A cent sales tax, Measure I -Valley Traffic Management and Environmental Enhancement (TMEE) funds. 2. RCTC shall follow all federal laws, regulations, as well as requirements imposed by SANBAG, as it pertains to the expenditure of SAFE -TEA LU funds as well as their subrecipient status. RCTC shall meet the Single Audit and Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular No. A-133 requirements for this fiscal year. 3. It is agreed that SANBAG Measure I - TMEE will reimburse RCTC for the cost of purchasing any items not reimbursable by CMAQ, and invoices submitted to SANBAG shall clearly delineate CMAQ non -reimbursable expenditures. It is agreed that in the event sufficient funds from the sources set forth in (a) and (b) above do not become available to SANBAG for this Agreement, SANBAG may immediately terminate this Agreement with written notice, but shall pay to RCTC from other sources any amounts required to cover RCTC's costs to the date of Agreement termination. 4. SANBAG shall pay RCTC on a cost -reimbursement basis, based upon invoices which delineate charges based on tasks identified in the scope of work, Attachment "A." All invoices shall be provided to SANBAG no more frequently than on a bi-monthly basis and no less than a quarterly basis. 5. SANBAG shall be fully responsible for obtaining cost reimbursements of CMAQ funds. SANBAG shall monitor RCTC, as necessary, to ensure that the SAFE -TEA LU funds are used for authorized purposes in compliance with laws, regulations, and the provision of the terms in this agreement, and that performance goals are achieved. RCTC shall provide to SANBAG its annual audit report and should there be any findings, RCTC shall ensure SANBAG that it has taken all appropriate and timely corrective action. 6. SANBAG shall review all billings submitted by RCTC for accuracy and process payment based thereon to RCTC in a timely manner. 7. RCTC shall maintain during the term of this Agreement and for three years thereafter accounting records which cover the receipt and disbursement of all funds provided for the programs administered and implemented under this Agreement. Such records shall be made available for inspection during normal business hours by duly authorized representatives of SANBAG, SANBAG's auditors, Caltrans, Federal Highway Administration, and the United States Department of Transportation, so that SANBAG can comply with the Single Audit Act and OMB Circular No. A-133. C. Term. • C09190. doc Page 2 of 8 • • 1. This Agreement shall commence on July 1, 2009 and terminate on June 30, 2010, unless it is extended by a written amendment approved by the parties. 2. Either party may terminate this Agreement by giving thirty (30) days written notice to the other for no or any reason, including, but not limited to, changes in legislation, rules and regulations impacting trip reduction programs. SANBAG shall pay for any service provided up to the effective date of the termination. 3. The Executive Directors of both RCTC and SANBAG shall have the authority in their sole discretion to give notice of termination on behalf of their respective agencies. D. Indemnification and Insurance. 1. (a) It is understood and agreed that neither RCTC nor any officer, official, employee, director, consultant, agent, or volunteer thereof is responsible for any damage or liability occurring by reasons of anything done or omitted to be done by SANBAG under or in connection with any work authority or jurisdiction delegated to SANBAG under this Agreement. It is understood and agreed that, pursuant to Government Code Section 895.4, SANBAG shall fully defend, indemnify and save harmless RCTC, and all its officers, employees, consultants and agents from all claims, suits or actions of every name, kind, and description brought for or on account of injury (as defined in Government Code Section 810.8) occurring by reason of anything done or omitted to be done by SANBAG under or in connection with any work, authority or jurisdiction delegated to SANBAG under this Agreement. (b) It is understood and agreed that neither SANBAG nor any officer, official, employee, director, consultant, agent, or volunteer thereof is responsible for any damage or liability occurring by reasons of anything done or omitted to be done by RCTC under or in connection with any work authority or jurisdiction delegated to RCTC under this Agreement. It is understood and agreed that, pursuant to Government Code Section 895.4, RCTC shall fully defend, indemnify and save harmless SANBAG, and all its officers, employees, consultants and agents from all claims, suits or actions of every name, kind, and description brought for or on account of injury (as defined in Government Code Section 810.8) occurring by reason of anything done or omitted to be done by RCTC or its consultants under or in connection with any work, authority or jurisdiction delegated to RCTC under this Agreement. 2. Commercial General Liability Insurance. RCTC and its consultants shall maintain occurrence version commercial general liability insurance or equivalent form with a combined single limit of not less than $1,000,000 per occurrence. If such insurance contains a general aggregate limit, it shall apply separately to this Agreement or be no less than two times the occurrence limit. Such insurance shall: (a) Name SANBAG, its officials, officers, employees, agents, and consultants as insured with respect to performance of Services. Such insured status shall contain no special limitations on the scope of its protection to the above -listed insured. (b) Be primary with respect to any insurance or self insurance programs covering SANBAG, its officials, officers, employees, agents, and consultants. (c) Contain standard separation of insured provisions. C09190. doc 1 0.9 Page 3 of 8 3. Business Automobile Liability Insurance. RCTC and its consultants shall maintain business automobile liability insurance or equivalent form with a combined single limit of not less than $1,000,000 per occurrence. Such insurance shall include coverage for owned, hired and non -owned automobiles. 4. Workers' Compensation Insurance. ROTC and its consultants shall maintain workers' compensation insurance with statutory limits and employers' liability insurance with limits of not less than $1,000,000 per accident. 5. Certificates/Insurer Rating/Cancellation Notice. (1) RCTC and its consultants, prior to commencement of the Services, shall fumish and require its subcontractors to furnish to SANBAG properly executed certificates of insurance, and certified copies of endorsements, and policies if requested by SANBAG, which shall clearly evidence all insurance required in this Section. RCTC and its consultants shall not allow such insurance to be canceled, allowed to expire or be materially reduced in coverage except on 30 days prior to written notice to SANBAG. (2) RCTC shall maintain and shall require its consultants to maintain such insurance from the time the Services conunence until the Services are completed, except as may be otherwise required by this Section. (3) RCTC may legally self insure, but shall require its consultants to place insurance with insurers having an A.M. Best Company rating of no less than A: VIII and licensed to do business in California. (4) RCTC and its consultants shall replace certificates, policies and endorsements for any insurance expiring prior to completion of the Services. E. Rights of SANBAG and RCTC. The Executive Directors of both SANBAG and RCTC shall have full authority to exercise their respective entity's rights under this contract. F. Ownership of Materials/Confidentiality/Use of Data. (1) Ownership. All materials and data, including data on magnetic media, prepared by RCTC under this Agreement shall become the common property of the RCM and SANBAG. RCTC and SANBAG shall not be limited in any way in its use of such data at any time, provided that any such use not within the purposes intended by this Agreement shall be at the respective party's sole risk and provided that the other party shall be indemnified against any damages resulting from such use, including the release of this material to third parties for a use not intended by this Agreement. Neither party to this Agreement shall sell the data or other materials prepared under this Agreement without the written permission of both parties. (2) Confidentiality. All ideas, memoranda, specifications, plans, procedures, drawings, descriptions, computer program data, input record data, written information, and other materials described in subsection (1) either created by or provided to RCTC in connection with the performance of this Agreement shall be held confidential by ROTC. Such materials shall not, without the prior written consent of SANBAG, be used by ROTC for any purposes other • C09190. doc 2po Page 4 of 8 • • than the performance of the Services. Nor shall such materials be disclosed to any person or entity not connected with the performance of the Services. Nothing furnished to RCTC that is otherwise known to RCTC or is generally known, or has become known, to the related industry shall be deemed confidential. ROTC shall not use SANBAG's name or insignia, photographs of the project, or any publicity pertaining to the Services in any magazine, trade paper, newspaper, television or radio production or other similar medium without the prior written consent of SANBAG. (3) Use of Data. All data shall be provided to SANBAG in hard copy and electronic media. Data in electronic media shall be provided in a form that will allow SANBAG to use, access, and manipulate the data to prepare reports and perform other ridematching activities contemplated by this Agreement. G. Independent Contractor. SANBAG retains RCTC on an independent contractor basis and RCTC and its consultants shall not be employees of SANBAG. The consultants and other personnel performing the Services under this Agreement on behalf of RCTC shall at all times be under RCM's exclusive direction and control. RCTC shall pay all wages, salaries, and other amounts due its employees in connection with their performance of Services under this Agreement and as required by law. RCTC shall be responsible for all reports and obligations respecting such employees, including, but not limited to, social security taxes, income tax withholding, unemployment insurance, and workers' compensation insurance. H. Attomeys' Fees and Costs. If any legal action is instituted to enforce or declare any party's rights hereunder, each party, including the prevailing party, must bear its own costs and attorneys' fees. This paragraph shall not apply to those costs and attorneys' fees directly arising from any third party legal action against a party hereto and payable under Paragraph 3E, Indemnification and Insurance. I. Consent. Whenever consent or approval of any party is required under this Agreement, that party shall not unreasonably withhold nor delay such consent or approval. IN WITNESS THEREOF, THE AUTHORIZED PARTIES HAVE BELOW SIGNED AND EXECUTED THE AGREEMENT ON THE EFFECTIVE DATE: SAN BERNARDINO ASSOCIATED RIVERSIDE COUNTY GOVERNMENTS TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION Gary C. Ovitt, President APPROVED AS TO FORM FOR SANBAG e Basle, SANBAG Counsel Bob Magee, Chairman APPROVED AS TO FORM FOR RCTC Best, Best & Krieger, RCTC Counsel C09190. doe 2921 Page 5 of 8 Attachment "A" Scope of Work San Bernardino Employer and Commuter Assistance Programs Fiscal Year 2009-10 Inland Empire Rideshare Services Provide a variety of services to employers and commuters, who participate in trip reduction activities. Activities shall include, but not be limited to: RideGuide/survey services, employer technical assistance, promotions, RideGuide production, coordination/dissemination of surveys and resulting report analysis for target marketing, Rideshare Connection broadcast e-mails, CommuteSmart News, networking meetings and coordination with other rideshare agencies and service providers. Assist multi -site and multi jurisdictional headquarters employers within the County as well as related worksites outside of the County. Oversee and maintain a regional website (CommuteSmart.info) and other regional products/outreach as assigned. Respond to inquiries generated from 511, 1-800-COMMUTE, 1-866-RIDESHARE, CommuteSmart.info, as well as direct referrals. Oversee and maintain a regional. database of commuters, working with the five county transportation commission's (CFCs) throughout the region. Market the regional Guaranteed Ride Home Program to employers in San Bernardino County. Assist in the County's leased Park'N'Ride lot program. Conduct special projects and studies, as assigned. Related Expenses ($727.500): Includes labor, office expenses, marketing materials, office equipment, computer programming, telephone and other direct expenses. Goals: 1. Implementation of commuter assistance programs to approximately 380 regulated and non -regulated employer worksites in San Bernardino County, to assist in the development and implementation of trip reduction programs and for technical assistance. 2. Work with 90 employers on AVRaransportation surveys and AVR calculations. 3. Maintain an accurate database of 60,000 active San Bernardino County commuter registrants, resulting from completed commuter surveys at 90 San Bernardino County employers. 4. Disseminate 16,000 RideGuides to San Bernardino County commuters at 380 worksites. 5. Provide assistance to five multisite/multijurisdictional headquarters located in San Bernardino County representing 21 worksites in San Bernardino, Riverside, as well as Los Angeles and Orange counties. 6. Develop and implement three employer transportation network meetings, one promotional marketing campaign at San Bernardino employer worksites, and other events. 7. Produce and disseminate other regional marketing materials, as standalone campaigns within the Inland Empire or regional campaigns in coordination with the five CTCs. 8. Broadcast 14 Rideshare Connection a -mails to San Bernardino County employers. 9. For the two -county area, respond to 4,000 inquires/calls from commuters who work or reside in San Bernardino or Riverside counties, via 1-866-RIDESHARE, 1-800-COMMUTE, CommuteSmart.info, 511, direct referrals and other internet sources. Of these 4,000 inquiries, C09190.doc 2932 Page 6 of 8 1,200 RideGuides will be generated. In addition, 700 Inland residents will register in the database via the www.CommuteSmart.info and the 511 website. Rideshare Incentive Programs Option Rideshare offers San Bemardino County residents who commute to work, up to $2 a day (in local merchant gift cards) for each day they participate in a rideshare mode, during a three- month period. The Vanpool Incentive Program provides up to $1,800 over nine months in discounted vanpool fares. Team Ride provides ongoing ridesharers who reside in San Bernardino County a discount membership card to over 450 restaurants, as well as entertaimnent venues throughout the southland. Related Expenses ($673,000): Includes labor, office expenses, marketing materials, office equipment, computer programming, telephone, direct commuter incentives (gift cards/ subsidies) and other direct expenses. Goals: 1. The Option Rideshare program will enlist 1,500 County residents, who commute to work to 170 employers in Southern California. These participants on average have a one-way commute distance of 27.59 miles and the goal is to reduce 150,000 one way vehicle trips from the roadways. 2. Team Ride registrants will consist of 7,600 members by the end of December 2009, when the program is at its highest membership. Members will work at employment sites from 380 employers throughout Southern California. Development and Implementation of a 511 Phone/Web Program Develop and implement a comprehensive 511 telephone and web based program, which will provide traveler information and commute alternatives to the Inland Empire resident and motorist. The baseline telephone system will serve customers dialing from all land lines and all cellular calls within the county boundaries of the Inland Empire, as well as website. Phone services provided include a traffic interactive voice recognition (IVR), a transit IVR which routes callers to transit provider operated call centers, rideshare information routes callers to a RCTC/SANBAG operated call center and other recordings or transfers to other public service providers. The website will provide similar services that are available on the phone system, as well as on-line, multi -modal transit/rail trip planning, rideshare counseling, ridematching services, regionwide traffic maps with comprehensive information from Caltrans and the California Highway Patrol with a Google Map interface and a rideshare benefits calculators for employers and individuals. Market and promote the program, in coordination with any Los Angeles 511 outreach and marketing. Related Expenses ($500,000): Includes labor, office expenses, marketing and promotional materials, consulting fees, office equipment, computer programming, hardware and software, telephone and other direct expenses. 0 C09190. doc 2943 Page 7 of 8 • • Goals: 1. By October 1, 2009, develop and implement a robust phone and web 511 system. 2. Upon implementation, manage and operate the system which will be available to commuters 24 hours a day, 7 days per week, 365 days per year. 3. Phone system will provide assistance to 7,200 callers upon launch per month, and may reach 16,000 callers per month after outreach/promotion. The system will have the capacity to handle 100,000 concurrent callers. 5. Assure interoperability with neighboring systems, including Los Angeles, Orange, Ventura, Kem and San Diego Counties, as well as Arizona and Nevada 511 systems. 4. Website will realize at startup 1,500 visitors per month, with up to 6,400 visitors per month by the end of the year after outreach/promotions. Website will be able to handle 100,000 concurrent users. 5. Marketing/outreach during launch as well as throughout the fiscal year, to enhance/supplement marketing provided by Los Angeles 511. 6. Conduct periodic surveys to determine program use, effectiveness and customer satisfaction. 7. Work with Caltrans to establish 511 signage on the Inland Empire highways and freeways. C09190. doc 2g131 Page 8 of 8 ATTACHMENT 2 Riverside County Transportation Commission REGIONAL RIDEMATCH DATABASE SERVICES FY 09/10 SCOPE OF WORK Manage the regional ridematch database system and parallel school database system on behalf of and in partnership with the County Transportation Commission's (CTC's). Each database will be secured from tampering yet accessible to users needs with timely and accurate software. Monitor and maintain the performance of the hardware and connectivity software of the regional ridematch wide area network, and ridematching website. Maintenance of the ridematching and school software will be coordinated with the software vendor, Trapeze, and their designated product support staff. Monitor system performance to ensure that quality and throughput are optimum and that system integrity is maintained. Task 1: Coordinate software and database maintenance and installation of enhancements. Work with CTC staffs to identify needs or program refinements on an annual basis, including AVR Program refinements as required by the SCAQMD and/or VCAPCD. Work with Trapeze staff to develop programs to satisfy identified needs, and to install and test them. Install periodic updates from vendor. Monitor the system and augment security and data access controls as needed to maintain the confidentiality of information. Commutesmart.info web updates and Commutesmart News deployment. Task includes travel expense for four visits per year to each CTC office, if necessary, and annual license maintenance fees. Products: • Review RidePro error logs on a daily basis, assess error messages to determine next steps, take action with the appropriate entities (i.e., intemal action, CTC's or RidePro product support staff) to secure resolution of issues. • Install product updates and enhancements including customized programming authorized by CTC's. Provide testing of new programs and enhancements to ensure that programs are functioning correctly and that any program compatibility issues are resolved. • Maintain annual Wish List of programming needs and coordinate programming, installation and testing with Trapeze staff. • Monitor performance of the servers, routers and switches to ensure system is operating at peak performance. • Report any system downtime to OTC's. • Up to four visits per year to each CTC location for system maintenance Task 2: Maintain the address geo-coding database for translation of street addresses and intersections into geographic references for ridematching, mapping, and other geographic referential products. I 205 Products: • Coordinate annual updates of digital base maps with CTC's and Trapeze. • Identify and resolve any discrepancies in digital base maps in response to geocoding anomalies. Task 3: Maintain computer software (i.e., RidePro administrative tracking, CommuteSmart use tracking/reporting) to accurately and concisely track rideshare database activities and services for reporting to OTC's. Product: • Quarterly rideshare database report including website activity. Task 4: Provide technical and help desk support services to CTC staffs. Provide assistance with troubleshooting of problems related to functionality of software and/or wide area network connectivity. Operate a telephone connection for direct contact with the Help Desk. Provide training or instructional materials on new programs and functions within the RidePro and AVR databases to CTC staffs. Products: • Respond daily to on-line and telephone technical inquires and trouble reports. • Assess source of reported problems, determine appropriate actions, and facilitate resolution by appropriate staff. • Prepare and distribute quarterly summary of reported problems and actions taken. • Provide "help" information as needed to all users. • Operate a special Help Desk telephone "hot line" for assistance requests. Task 5: Manage and coordinate the regional rideshare database system in partnership with the OTC's to ensure the effective delivery of ridematching services to employers, TMA's and commuters of the five county region. Products: • Facilitate collective policy decisions relating to operational and procedural functionality of the system. • Provide liaison between the OTC's and the SCAQMD for maintenance and required updates to the AVR functions of the databases. • Coordinate with CTC technical staffs regarding hardware specifications and conformity. • Provide liaison between CTC's and Trapeze product support staff. • Monthly Rideshare Services Report of regional ridematching activity. 2 206 Task 6: A. Operating Equipment Maintain computer system hardware, consistent with the specifications provided by Trapeze Software and agreed to by the CTC's, to accommodate the regional rideshare database, and the implementation and operation of the Wide Area Network. Repair or replace hardware items as needed. Product: • Periodic hardware and software maintenance of Database Servers, Storage Area Network, two Citrix Terminal Services Servers, for remote access, Web Server, Job Process Server, workstation for network administration, and various routers and switches as needed B. Network Connectivity Maintain the configuration of T3, Frame Relay, and other bandwidth connection to efficiently operate the Wide Area Network. Products: • Monitor and troubleshoot operation of T3 Line for Ridematching Website access and for access to Terminal Services Server • Monitor and troubleshoot access lines to ensure operational integrity and security. On -going analysis of capacity issues and recommendations for additions or improvements. 3 207 AGENDA ITEM 8L • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMM/SS/ON DATE: July 8, 2009 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Plans and Programs Committee Tanya Love, Goods Movement Manager THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Executive Director SUBJECT: Workshop on Advancing Goods Movement Through the Inland Empire PLANS AND PROGRAMS COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to receive and file an overview on the Workshop on Advancing Goods Movement Through the Inland Empire brochure. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: On May 26, 2009, the Commission, the San Bernardino Associated Governments (SANBAG), the Southern California Association of Governments, and the Western Riverside Council of Governments, in partnership with Mobility 21 and the Inland Empire Economic Partnership hosted a workshop on the current status of goods movement through the Inland Empire. The workshop consisted of two panels representing the ports, railroads, trucking, warehousing, economic development, and both county transportation commissions. The first panel - Managing Growth of the Goods Movement System — Challenges and Opportunities - provided perspectives and answered audience questions regarding key challenges and opportunities facing each component of the goods movement delivery system. Balancing the Benefits and Burdens in the Inland Empire was the second panel. Anne Mayer, the Commission's Executive Director and Ty Schueling, Director of Planning and Programming with SANBAG, provided an overview of key goods movement infrastructure projects in Riverside and San Bernardino Counties; Bill Carney, President and CEO with Inland Empire Economic Partnerships, provided an overview on the economic development impacts. Each attendee was provided with a brochure (attached) that graphically displayed the supply chain from the ports to the Inland Empire and then points east. The brochure contained the latest information on projects that both the Commission and SANBAG have either identified or funded. It also identified the funding shortfall for many of the projects. A video was also presented demonstrating the need for funding and constructing grade separation projects to not only improve the Agenda Item 8L 208 flow of goods movement but to improve the overall quality of life for residents. The video was shown at the Plans and Programs Committee meeting. Congressman Ken Calvert (R-44' District) provided an update on federal legislation related to goods movement and a call to action to advance the needs of the Inland Empire. Congressman Calvert stated he is supportive of using innovative means to develop and fund transportation investments including public -private partnerships and congestion pricing. He provided an overview of his bill, the ON TIME Act, which is designed to provide a funding stream for goods movement related projects within trade corridors. The ON TIME Act imposes a fee on all imported and exported cargo, specifies that funds would be delivered to the corridors that generate the fees and could be used only for transportation improvements. Congressman Calvert anticipates that approximately $5 to $6 billion in funds could be generated through his bill, resulting in as much as $600 million for Southern California goods movement infrastructure projects including grade separations. He anticipates opposition from interior states without land or sea ports; however, he believes that linking the ON TIME Act to efforts to relieve congestion and protect the environment through reduced air pollution and reduction in greenhouse gases could be effective strategies at countering opposition. He called upon the audience to: • Make your voice heard. Fight to protect existing sources of transportation funding at the state and federal level. • Be good partners. Business and the public sector need to work together to bring investment to Southern California. Local agencies, including the ports, need to work together to develop a regional strategy to bring money back to our region to address project needs; • Speak with one voice. Once the region has agreed to the strategy, spread the word far and wide, using consistent messages to congressional and state leadership. Southern California will be most effective if we have one set of priorities and a diverse coalition of messengers; and • Be part of a national solution. Southern California must work with other regions to develop and advocate for a national freight policy. Attachment: Advancing Goods Movement Through the Inland Empire Brochure Agenda Item 8L • 209 Riverside Couniy-. ;. 7mnspoffotion Commission Southern California is our nation's largest and most important center for transferring and moving goods (freight and merchandise) from ships to people throughout the United States. The region's extensive goods movement net- work is composed of ports, airports, railyards and distribution centers, all connected by a highly developed system of highways and railways. In 2006, over 40% of the nation's containerized imports moved through the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach to their final destination, using this network. Federal trade policy calls for a reduction in trade barriers, but there is no parallel federal commitment to provide funding for capacity enhancements or mitigation in heavy trade corridors. This disconnect has created an "unfunded trade mandate;" in which areas like the Inland Empire are faced with the environmental impacts of growing trade, without federal funding support. While this system is an important economic engine for the region and the nation, the health and well being of Inland Empire communities cannot be preserved without solutions to address its environmental impacts. Absent policy changes that lead to attainment of federal air quality standards, growth of the goods movement system cannot be sustained. How can the Inland Empire facilitate growth of the system and reap the economic benefits of goods movement while managing its effects on our qualityoflife? How the System Works The Southern California goods movement network is complex and extensive. Southern California handles over 40% of the nation's containerized imports, which enter the country by ship and are transferred from ships to. trucks, rail cars and planes to reach their: final destinations in Southern California and across the country. Warehouses, distribution centers and intermodal facilities are critical hubs for . sorting, distributing, and consolidating goods. These facilities are highly concentrated in Southern California, comprising 15% of the • s • • • U.S. market and 60%of the West Coast market. The Inland Empire hosts 324 million square feet of warehouse and industrial space. An Economic Engine Despite the recent downturn in the economy, the amount of goods that reach their final destination across the country via Southern California's goods movement network is expected to triple by 2030. As the largest port complex in the nation, the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach served as the primary gateway for over $380 billion in cargo in 2006.Of the imported goods, over 70°% were transported from the Ports by truck or railroad to markets outside Southern California, many traveling through the Inland Empire. The goods movement sector is a critical source of jobs in Southern California. • The goods movement sector is the fourth largest employer after the manufacturing, retail, and healthcare industries. Employment by Industry JOBS IN THOUSANDS 1000 • From 1998.2006, the number of goods movement jobs in the region increased 18%, outpacing total job growth. • Goods movement provides nearly 700,000 well -paying jobs in the region, many of which are entry-level_ About 75°% of these jobs do not require workers with higher education or training. • Each job in the goods movement industry supports two more jobs in the regional economy. National and State Impacts of Trade via the Ports (2005) Economic 1m1 ct (� k Gaft#oPII i e !aanQC:741'.tI.3,-' Trade Valuet t' r:; k" � ,1 k ' t Totat Out,utF :;z _ ,,y g, rx :� '> r ; N, s Total Income . _ f> d ; a s r,, f t ,` a-4` r e i ' Iota l Bibs , � cx G k r F 3 -'•rpr l r h Star& oval ,Taxes . r _ , a x ; '1- , ' t a S g. ar Wed output 2 OvIp l relerstoDe Nte of ROAN or sale tlul is mated rabie thedoraesbc Kam M nade total Moutiadedesdiet :wired and inked moot impacts Dsociialdritt trait. Boma®- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 212 INDUSTRY 1 Manufacturing 2 Retail Trade 3 Health Care 4 Goods Movement 5 Hotels/Restaurant 6 Finance/Insurance/Real Estate 7 Admin/SupporUiVasle Management 8 Professional/ScientdicJfech 9 Construction 10 Other 11 Information 12 Edutalion 13 Arts/recreation 14 MgmE of Companies/Enterprises 15 Other Transpodalion 16 Utililies 17 Primary Industries 3 HIGHWAY CORRIDORS Southern California has a high concentration of freeways that are corridors of major significance for regional and national goods movement Interstate 710links trucks directly to and from the region's freeway network and distribution centers and carries up to 40.000 trucks on an average weekday. A recent study projected that by 2025, heavy-duty truck traffic may reach up to 35%of total traffic volumes along high volume segments. compared to current shares of between 14% and 19%. Interstate 15. As a north -south corridor.1-I5 is key to cross - border goods movement. Segments of 1-15 through the Inland Empire will experience a 64% to 100°% increase in overall truck volumes by 2030. 4 East-West Corridors. Trucks directly or indirectly related to . activity at the Ports have destinations throughout Southern California, but generally tend to flow northeast towards the Inland Empire on 1-10, SR-60, SR-91 and I-210. Today, on segments of I-10 through the Inland Empire between 10%and 34%of the freeways total volume is trucks. By 2030, some segments of I-10 will experience 76% to 80%growth in truck volume. SR-60 will increase by more than 100%, and some segments of SR-91 will increase by more than 100%. ONTARIO INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT Ontario International Airport is the center of a rapidly developing freight movement system that includes the airport, two railroads, four major freeways, an expanding distribution center and a network of freight forwarders. RAILROAD CORRIDORS ©oad.aver.age:' j weekday.150 freight trains run througtfthe South` ern California, hauling 52 percent of the Ports! international containerized goods to and from other parts of the country- The Alameda Corridor is a 20-mile freight rail expressway connecting the Ports to railyards near downtown Los Angeles. Annually. Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway (BNSF) and the Union Pacific Railroad (UP) carry nearly 5 million containers through the region. Of these containers, 64%are international and 36°% are domestic Combined traffic from these lines may increase to 250 by 2025. PORTS The Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach, also known as the San Pedro Bay Ports, constitute the nations busiest seaport and the fifth largest container port complex in the world. In 2005, the Ports accounted for 21 rarer 40%of all U.S. import container traffic. • WAREHOUSE & DISTRIBUTION CENTERS Warehouses, distribution centers and intermodal facilities —highly concentrated in the Inland Empire —serve as critical hubs for sorting and distributing goods. Southern California's current 1.5 billion square feel of warehouse floor space will expand to over 4.5 billion square feel by 2030, with half of that growth occurring in the Inland Empire. • COLTON CROSSING This crossing, an at -grade intersection of UP and BNSF rail lines, has been identified as a major rail bottleneck for both freight and street traffic in local communities. The majority of freight rail traffic moving between Southern California and the rest of the nation must travel through Colton Crossing. KEY GOODS MOVEMENT FACILITIES O Union Pacific Intermodal Container Transfer Facility O Gerald Desmond Bridge e 1-710 • BNSF Hobart/UPRR Commerce Rail Yards Ontario International Airport 1-1S NAFTA Corridor O East-West Corridors ® Mira Loma Multi -modal Rail Yard and Warehousing ® UP Colton Yard ® Colton Crossing ® BNSF San Bernardino Rail Yard March Global Airport Southern California Logistics Airport SR-86 NAFTA Corridor Port of Los Angeles Port of Long Beach BNSF Watson Rail Yard UP Dolores Intermodal Container Transfer Facility UP City of Industry Rail Yard San Bernardino International Airport Palm Springs Airport ® Major Highway Corridors tliiiskako Alameda Corridor ALAMEDA CORRIDOR EAST wf. Union Pacific Alhambra Line oligio Burlington Northern Santa Fe Transcon fine UP LA Sub UP El Paso Line Warehouse/ Distribution Center No single mode can fully meet the needs of the goods movement system. Some goods require staging and/or transfer between modes within Southern California before reaching their final destinations. i 50r0 a = 40 I 1 • 30 - aw 20 - I 2 10 r 0 • 01_ Many goods coming into the seaports require by 2030. Federal estimates suggest that uncon- fast and flexible distribution that can be best strained operations could expand annual container accommodated by trucks, while others may be volume to over 59 million TEUs by 2030. Increased more effectively delivered by rail or air over container volumes will have significant environ- longer distances. mental impacts due to diesel emissions from ships, terminal operations, rail lines and trucks. Seaports The California Air Resources Board estimates . The Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach that these Port -related emissions cause 120 continue to grow in importance to the Southern premature deaths annually and that cancer risk California, U.S. and world economies as the is elevated more than 15 miles from the Ports. - nation's busiest seaport and the world's fifth largest container port complex. Between Trucks and Overland Transport 1996 and 2006, the Ports' container volumes In Southern California, heavy-duty trucks carry increased more than 1500/0, handling 15.8 more goods than any other mode, traveling between million twenty -foot equivalent units (TEUs) of ports, airports, railyards, distribution centers. and containerized cargo in 2006, or 430/0 of all points outside of the region. The Inland marine containers entering or leaving the U.S. Empire's network of freeways accommodates In contrast, the second largest container port 42%of regional truck miles traveled, compared in the U.S., the Port Authority of New York/New to 33% in Los Angeles County. By 2030, truck Jersey, handled 5.3 million TEUs in 2006, or volumes on many freeway segments in the one-third of the volume handled by Los Angeles Inland Empire are expected to grow anywhere and Long Beach combined. from 700/o to 145cY0, depending on the segment. Despite the recent downturn in the economy, In addition, California/Mexico cross -border goods exports from Asia will continue to grow in the movement is on the rise. In 2005, approximately long term, tripling the annual TEU container S10.8 billion worth of goods passed through the volume handled by the Ports to 425 million three primary overland California/Mexico ports of entry in both directions. The value of goods enter- ing the U.S. overland from Mexico has increased az by approximately S7 billion since the early 1990s, 36.0 Truck emissions are a significant source of air quality impacts in Southern California. Southern California residents who live within 19.7 1,000 feet of transportation corridors and 14.2 facilities served by heavy-duty trucks have Actual ill Forecast 53 1995 2000 2005 2010 2020 2030 6 Source: BST Associates, PIERS Global Container Report; Growth of California Ports —Opportunities and Challenges, A Report to the Ley islature,214-052007. 9s ;s,-,. ::- been shown to have higher rates of cancer and asthma. This means that heavy-duty truck emissions must be reduced. New polices and technologies offer the best means for accomplishing these reductions. • Rail The Inland Empire is impacted by Union Pacific (UP) Railroad's and Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) Railways' transcontinental main lines, which are part of a strategic trade corridor link- ing Southern California and the ports to the rest of the country. These lines are an integral part of the Alameda Corridor -East (ACE) Trade Corridor, which was designated as a Project of National and Regional Significance in SAFETEA-LU. In 2003, 68 million tons of rail freight passed _ through Riverside County with less than five percent originating or ending locally. The volume of trains passing through the Colton crossing, an at -grade intersection of the UP and BNSF rail lines in San Bernardino County, Is expected to increase 88% by the year 2025, averaging more than 10 trains per hour. Today, the average rail crossing gate in the Inland Empire is down for as long as two hours a day, which will increase in the coming years as rail traffic grows. This, in turn, will cause increased emissions from idling vehicles, decreased productivity, and constrained access for first responders such as ambulances, fire personnel and police. Warehousing The Inland Empire has an especially strong warehouse and industrial market for receiving, delivering, consolidating, distributing and storing freight. Major distribution centers are concentrated near the 1-15 freeway between San Bernardino and Riverside Counties. The Inland Empire's available land, existing intermodal facilities, and potential for continued growth will strengthen its position for continued increases in warehousing. The Southern California warehouse sector is expected to grow from approximately 1.5 billion square feet of warehouse floor space today to over 4.5 billion square feet by 2030. Of this new space, 1.5 billion square feet is expected to be constructed in the Inland Empire, doubling the current amount. Air Cargo The Inland Empire is home to multiple commercial air cargo facilities. San Bernardino International Airport, with its excellent local transportation access and location within two miles of a major BNSF intermodal-facility, is well -positioned as a consolidation/distribution center for air cargo and ground shipments. The Southern California Logistics Airport in Victorville, which has two intercontinental runways allowing non-stop access to any destination in the world, specializes in goods movement. Riverside County is home to March Global Airport, a commercial air cargo and distribution develop- ment site. With existing limitations of on -airport cargo processing facilities at Los Angeles International Airport, these facilities will likely expand and may boost their collective share of Southern California's total air cargo activity from 33% in 2010 to 44% in 2030. All of these facilities will continue to expand the need for better ground access between trucks, rail, warehousing and intermodal yards. 216 7 With a clear understanding of the challenges ahead, the Inland Empire's civic, business and community leaders have joined forces to craft a set of projects that support the growth of the goods movement system and our regional economy while maintaining or enhancing our communities' livability and mobility. Grade Separations Rail -roadway crossings that are not grade - separated are major contributors to traffic con- gestion, lost productivity, safety, and air quality impacts. Grade separations will provide relief to local communities and facilitate efficient movement of rail cargo through the Inland The impact of poor air quality -on the s. cornmunity and environinent are a primary concerti related to, goods movement iti Southern California. Goods movement emissions are a significant source of pollution in the Inland . Empire: Heavy-duty trucks contribute approx- imately' 40° of particulate matter coming from diesel engines and other goods -movement related sources. Truck emssions are linked to health issues including cancer, astluua and pre -terns and lo‘v-‘veiglitbabjes. Higher ` concentrations of pollutants occur along rail - lines, free \vat's, and internlodal facilities and ' Ivarehousing districts' access routes. Strategies, to improve air quality need to be addressed at the regional level. ; Empire. While a recent infusion of funding from Proposition 113 has helped advance some grade separation projects, significant funding gaps remain and project costs continue to climb. RIVERSIDE COUNTY GRADE SEPARATION PROJECTS Of the 61 at -grade crossings in Riverside County, 20 are currently of the highest priority including both funded and unfunded projects. 1 is under construction 7 others are fully -funded 12 are unfunded, with a shortfall of $565.7 million SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY GRADE SEPARATION PROJECTS Of the many at -grade crossings in San Bernardino County, 27 are currently of the highest priority including both funded and unfunded projects. 1 is under construction 10 others are fully -funded 17 are unfunded grade separation projects, with a shortfall of $530 million Ten additional crossings require improvement, but may remain at grade. Corridor, Freeway and Interchange Improvements Every day, countless hours and dollars in productivity are lost due to congestion in the Inland Empire. Today, delays to trucks on the freeways result In a 50 to 250 percent increase in the cost of transportation goods. Local economies also suffer as employees face increasing difficulty in getting to work due to chokepoints and delays. This will only increase in the future. To retain the economic health of the Inland Empire and the congested corridor, freeway and interchange projects in this region must be accelerated and completed. • • key projects for the inland empire • :.LOCATOR MAP HESP., RIA Q Eul#y#unded Q ttnfundedorunderfunded HIGHWAY PRQJECT'S t SR-91Lane Additions (Orange County to Pieree:Street) j t 15 LaneAddittons (Sari Diego -to San Bernardino ' # 215 lane Additions (Riverside to San Bernardino County Line) ` SR:60 ER Truck Climbing Lane Route N to San Bernardino County Line S11-91/SR 7tlnterchange f New Connector -15ttto SR-9119 e 1-10/SR 691nterchange` ( 9 i 1-10 EB Truck Climbing Lane { 15/t=215 Devote Interchange o ;19 119/Riverside Ave. interchange o: a) I-19/Cherry Ave, Interchange a u._ -.`. pa 1-19/Citrus Ave. interchange .. =°(:tati; High Desert Corridor (Phase 1A/ 9 218 • The recently completed Multi -County Goods Movement Action Plan (MCGMAP) is Southern California's consensus strategy and implementation plan for the region's California goods movement system. The plan provides four "action sets" for organizing targeted and cost-effective solutions. ACCELERATE REGfONAL ENVIRQNMENTAL MITIGATIOts • Transportation Policy Priorities While the Southern California region has benefited recently from an infusion of federal stimulus funds, serious long-term funding gaps and policy issues remain that get in the way of meeting our goods system needs. The goods system funding need is estimated to be nearly $50 billion over the long term. Thanks to the success of the regional coalition to secure more than one billion dollars in bond funds for goods movement, there is new momentum for coordinated action. Now an expanded coalition of public and private sector entities is uniting with one voice to present our region's needs and priorities to Congress and the Administration as part of the next Federal Transportation Authorization Bill. The following principles are outlined in Southern California's National Policy Priorities. Create a national goods movement program that works for the most severely impacted states anii regions. Currently, there is an enormous federal policy vacuum in dealing with congestion, air quality and safety impacts in Southern California and DEVELOP EQUITABLE PUBLI0/;,'. PRIVATE FUNDING STRATEGY ,.' other metropolitan regions. The program should be funded by a "Freight Trust Fund" modeled on the version created by the Coalition for America's Gateways and Trade Corridors. The Fund would include dedicated funds for defined national corridors that address impacts with the greatest national benefit and are performance -based for efficient management of increasing freight volumes. Improve congestion and the environment simultaneously with policies and funding that dramatically reduce nonattainment pollutants, toxic diesel exhaust, and greenhouse gases and that pose a threat to the quality of life for Southern California's Zl million residents. This includes concentrating the Congestion Mitigation Air Quality (CMAQ) program on the most polluted areas, and prioritizing federal transportation funds on expenditures that support meeting air quality needs and achiev- ing federal attainment deadlines. Distribute discretionary funds to projects based on performance measures that emphasize decreasing congestion, reducing greenhouse gases, nonattainment pollutants and toxic diesel exhaust, and leveraging non-federal dollars. Federal funds should also support projects of national and regional significance and assist state and regional authorities in achieving federal mandates and goals. Strengthen commitments by investing in - rail safety infrastructure for Southern Cali- fornia's rail network. This network is already stretched to capacity and facing growing demands from passenger and freight trains that need to share the same tracks. Safety measures should include signal and technology systems upgrades, grade separation and crossing improvements, construction of rail network capacity, innovations in rolling stock technologies, and safety education outreach programs. Invest in metropolitan mobility to move the economy forward, recognizing that economic growth is inextricably linked to the ability of metropolitan areas to grow, develop and deliver effective transportation programs to connect markets with sources of raw materials. 220 n roximately; ]B to addittohaJ,tunding is needed to anittTt);i .` ? >t9h prl,Orit . nfunded; Kim* [elinfyTranspoiiotioe Caiimdssian List of Sources • BST Assoeiares Trade'Moist Study final Repot March 2067, California State tepartmentoiTransportatton He althyComm unitiesand tlealth GoodsM°veinent March20OR • Multi County Goods Movement Action Plan'faecgGve Summary.Aprii 2b08 Rivers ide County Action Plan. Multi -to unty Goods Movement Action Plan. M`ovemher 200? Riverside County Trarsportatioit£ommission Grade Separation funding Strategv._A Nueprint for Adiiahcino ".Projects 2003 RieersideCgartyTransportatianCommtsslon. tiny uctc:org , San Bernardino -Associated .CavernmentS.wunvsanbag.sa.gov ' SdnBamardmaCountyACIW PtanMultiCountyGoodsMovementActionPlan Fepiva y200a - Southern CalifofmaAssocrationofGovernments 2008Ravin atTransportation Finn . Southern GafrfA ma Assotiatiou of Governments uuny.scag eagov h'asternRiversideGouncito Governments,_ vrnvi/avrcog.cogcago conomles. A Toolsit to AGENDA ITEM 8M i • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMM/SS/ON DATE: July 8, 2009 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Federal Authorization Legislative Ad Hoc Committee Aaron Hake, Government Relations Manager THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Executive Director SUBJECT: Federal Authorization Update FEDERAL AUTHORIZATION LEGISLATIVE AD HOC COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to receive an update on the status of federal authorization efforts. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: House Committee Movement on Authorization is Imminent June 17 is the target date for the release of a white paper that will contain a blueprint of the upcoming authorization bill to be written by House Transportation and Infrastructure (T&I) Committee Chairman Jim Oberstar (D-MN). Chairman Oberstar has issued a press advisory in this regard. Staff will present an oral update on the white paper/blueprint. It is unknown as to when actual bill language will be available. The purported timeline for action also involves a markup hearing by the Highways and Transit Subcommittee on or around June 24. Assuming the bill is reported out of this subcommittee in a timely manner, the bill would then move to the full T&I Committee for a markup hearing in mid -July after Congress returns from the holiday recess. This, however, remains an aggressive expectation. Markup hearings are opportunities to introduce amendments to the bill and where the committee and subcommittee members have the opportunity to debate the proposed legislation. Expected to be absent from Chairman Oberstar's proposal is a financing title. Republican and Democrat leadership of the T&I Committee have committed to writing a bill that is in the $450-500 billion range, nearly double the size of the current Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) program. Given that new revenue is needed simply to keep the current program solvent through the end of this fiscal year, roughly Agenda Item 8M 222 doubling the size of the bill will require significant new revenue provisions. Many of the revenue options carry political considerations for Congress and the Administration. Chairman Oberstar and T&I Committee staff have hedged on discussing financing. This is where a great deal of Congressional politics will influence the movement of the bill. Raising revenue is under the jurisdiction of the House Ways and Means Committee, chaired by Representative Charles Rangel (D-NY). Speaker Nancy Pelosi has asked the Ways and Means Committee to begin holding hearings on financing the new transportation bill, which are estimated to be slated for late June although nothing has been officially scheduled yet. Given that a transportation bill will not move off the House floor without a finance title and the debate on revenue is just now beginning, the prospects of having a bill move to the Senate, let alone to the President's desk by September 30 are slim. It is not known what Senator Barbara Boxer's timeline for the Senate version of authorization will be. The Environment and Public Works (EPW) Committee is currently focused on climate change legislation. Chairman Oberstar has made recent statements to the press declaring emphatically that he will not author any extensions of SAFETEA-LU if Congress fails to enact a new authorization bill by the September 30 deadline. Chairman Oberstar has stated that he is willing to allow the program to cease and let funding streams drop off to nearly half of what they currently are if a new bill is not passed in time. It took a dozen extensions over nearly two years before Congress was able to reauthorize TEA-21, which became SAFETEA-LU in 2005. Chairman Oberstar has vowed that he would not allow that to happen under his chairmanship. However, the Highway Trust Fund will still require an interim revenue infusion before the end of the fiscal year, and the pace that Congress is moving (amid the health care, climate change, and Supreme Court debates) is not encouraging. High Priority Project (HPP) Requests: Status Update In April, at the direction of the Ad Hoc Committee and the Commission, staff submitted official funding requests for three high priority corridors to Members of Congress representing Riverside County. The corridors adopted were: Interstates 10 and 215, and Alameda Corridor East (ACE) Grade Separations in Riverside County. ACE was submitted as the number one ranked priority by the Commission. Additionally, the Commission supported local transit operators' requests for funding. Requests were submitted to Representatives Mary Bono Mack, Ken Calvert, and Jerry Lewis. Representative Darrell Issa chose not to participate in the high priority project process, and instead is devoting his efforts to securing a greater rate of return to California through formula programs. Agenda Item 8M • 223 • Members have posted the requests to the T&I Committee on their websites. Staff is pleased to report that the following Commission requests have been included in Members' submittals to T&1 Committee: Representative Bono Mack I-10/Jefferson interchange: French Valley Parkway: Representative Calvert ACE Grade Separations in Riverside County: 1-215 Bi-County high occupancy vehicle extension: $41.006 million $22.8 million $320 million $120.845 million Representative Lewis Sunset Avenue/UP Grade Separation (ACE): $10 million These members also requested funding for several other projects sponsored by cities and transit agencies. It is not yet known what vetting process the T&1 Committee will use to determine which projects are inserted into the bill for high priority funding designation. It has been reported that hundreds of billions of dollars of requests have been made to T&1 Committee. Attachment: Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure - The Surface Transportation Authorization Act of 2009, "A Blueprint for Investment and Reform Executive Summary" Agenda Item 8M 224 COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE THE SURFACE TRANSPORTATION AUTHORIZATION ACT OF 2009 A BLUEPRINT FOR INVESTMENT AND REFORM EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Presented by Chairman James L. Oberstar, Ranking Member John L. Mica, Chairman Peter A. DeFazio, and Ranking Member John J. Duncan, Jr. June 18, 2009 225 • • THE SURFACE TRANSPORTATION AUTHORIZATION ACT OF 2009 COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES A BLUEPRINT FOR INVESTMENT AND REFORM Presented by Chairman James L Oberstar, Ranking Member John L Mica, Chairman Peter A. DeFatio, and Ranking Member John J. Duncan, Jr June 18, 2009 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY America's surface transportation network is essential to the quality of life of our citizens and the productivity of the nation's economy. This expansive, national network provides all Americans — from those living in the largest cities to the smallest towns — with extraordinary freedom of mobility and unprecedented opportunity. The Costs of Decades of Underinvestment Regrettably, our transportation system, once the envy of the world, is losing its battle against time, growth, weather, and wear. The system is suffering from decades of underinvestment, and the costs are staggering: ▪ Each year, 42,500 people are killed and 2.5 million people are seriously injured in more than six million motor vehicle crashes, which are now the leading cause of death of children and young adults ages three to 34. • Congestion is crippling our major cities and even our small towns, at a cost of more than $78 billion a year, causing hardship for drivers and increasing costs and inefficiencies for America's businesses. • Accidents and traffic delays cost Americans more than $365 billion a year — $1 billion a day — or $1,200 for every man, woman, and child in the nation. • The quality of our transportation system is deteriorating: almost 61,000 miles (37 percent) of all lane miles on the National Highway System (NHS) are in poor or fair condition; more than 152,000 bridges — one of every four bridges in the United States — are structurally deficient or functionally obsolete; and more than 32,500 public transit buses and vans have exceeded their useful life. The nation's largest public transit agencies face an $80 billion maintenance backlog to bring their rail systems to a state of good repair and, within the next six years, almost every transit vehicle (55,000 vehicles) in rural America will need to be replaced. • Since designation of the NHS in 1995, the percentage increase in miles traveled on the NHS has been three times the percentage growth in the system's lane miles. 227 • As a result of this underinvestment, the total cost of logistics for U.S. companies has increased from 8.8 percent of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) in 2004 to 10.1 percent in 2008 — a $412 billion increase in four short years. The transportation system also imposes significant costs on the environment. In the United States, approximately 28 percent of total greenhouse gas emissions, which have been demonstrated to contribute significantly to global climate change, are attributed to the transportation sector. Private vehicles are now the largest contributor to household "carbon footprints", accounting for 55 percent of carbon emissions from U.S. households. • Unlike other major industrialized nations, Americans have limited transportation choices. The United States has almost no high-speed passenger rail service, even though it is widely recognized that high-speed rail can significantly reduce congestion on our highways and in the air, decrease our dependence on foreign oil, and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. We invest only a fraction of the amounts invested by European and Asian countries in high- speed rail. Although the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) is charged with addressing these enormous challenges, it has not lived up to its original purpose of integrating and implementing transportation policy. Most of DOT'S policies are established and administered by separate agencies of the Department, each of which focuses on a single mode of transportation. Since completion of the Interstate Highway System, our national transportation policy has lacked strategic focus. Although States and metropolitan regions are required to develop long-range transportation plans for highway, transit, and rail investment, there has been no attempt to aggregate these plans and establish a National Transportation Strategic Plan that is intermodal in nature and national in scope. In addition, Federal transportation programs have no performance metrics. Today, there is no requirement for States, cities, and public transit agencies to develop transportation plans with specific performance objectives, nor does DOT ensure that States are meeting specific performance objectives. DOT and state departments of transportation primarily decide whether projects are eligible for funding„ but not whether the projects that are funded actually achieve the expected benefits. Throughout Federal surface transportation programs there is limited transparency, accountability, and oversight. There are also unnecessarily long delays — more than 10 years for many highway and transit projects — for needed transportation improvements to be planned, approved, and constructed. Furthermore, the financing mechanism for the programs is in crisis. The Highway Trust Fund (Trust Fund), which finances surface transportation programs, does not have adequate revenues to meet existing commitments made by the Federal Government. If this is not corrected, there will be massive cuts in transportation investments beginning later this year, which will cause crippling job losses, a deepening of the economic recession, and a further deterioration of the assets and performance of the nation's surface transportation system. 2 228 • • A Blueprint for Investment and Reform Today, we advance a Blueprint for Investment and Reform that will transform Federal surface transportation from an amalgamation of prescriptive programs to a performance -based framework for intermodal transportation investment. The Blueprint is designed to achieve specific national objectives: reduce fatalities and injuries on our nation's highways; unlock the congestion that cripples major cities and the freight transportation network; provide transportation choices for commuters and travelers; limit the adverse effects of transportation on the environment; and promote public health and the livability of our communities. Specifically, the Surface Transportation Authorization Act of 2009: Redefines the Federal role and restructures Federal surface transportation by consolidating or terminating more than 75 programs; Consolidates the majority of highway funding in four, core formula categories designed to bring our highway and bridge systems to a state of good repair; improve highway safety; develop new and improved capacity; and reduce congestion and greenhouse gas emissions and improve air quality; Focuses the majority of transit funding in four core categories to bring urban and rural public transit systems to a state of good repair; provide specific funding to restore transit rail systems; provide mobility and access to transit -dependent individuals; and plan, design, and construct new transit lines and intermodal facilities; Directs Federal highway. safety investments to specific activities demonstrated to reduce fatalities and injuries on our roads; • Establishes new initiatives to address the crippling congestion in major metropolitan regions, and eliminate bottlenecks in freight transportation; • Creates a National Transportation Strategic Plan, based on long-range highway, transit, and rail plans developed by States and metropolitan regions, to develop intermodal connectivity of the nation's transportation system and identify projects of national significance; • Reforms the U.S. Department of Transportation to require intennodal planning and decision -making; ensure that projects are planned and completed in a timely manner; and ensure that DOT programs advance the livability of communities; ▪ Requires States and local governments to establish transportation plans with specific performance standards; measure their progress annually in meeting these standards; and periodically adjust their plans as necessary to achieve specific objectives; • Improves the project delivery process by eliminating duplication in documentation and procedures; • Establishes a new program to finance planning, design, and construction of high-speed rail; 3 229 • Creates a National Infrastructure Bank to better leverage limited transportation dollars; • Provides funding of $450 billion over six years — the minimum amount needed to stop the decline in our surface transportation system, begin to make improvements, and restore and enhance the nation's mobility and economic productivity. The Surface Transportation Authorization Act: • Doubles the investment in highway and motor carrier safety to $12.6 billion; • Provides $337.4 billion for highway construction investment, including at least $100 billion for Capital Asset Investment to begin to restore the National Highway System (including the Interstate System) and the nation's bridges to a state of good repair; and ■ Provides $87.6 billion from the Mass Transit Account of the Highway Trust Fund and $12.2 billion from the General Fund for public transit investment to restore the nation's public transit systems to a state of good repair, and provide access and transportation choices to all Americans from large cities to small towns; Within this $450 billion investment, the Act provides $50 billion for Metropolitan Mobility and Access to unlock the congestion that chokes major metropolitan regions; and $25 billion for Projects of National Significance to enhance U.S. global competitiveness by increasing the focus on goods movement and freight mobility; and In addition to this $450 billion investment, the Act provides $50 billion over six years to develop 11 authorized high-speed rail corridors linking major metropolitan regions in the United States. The high-speed rail initiative will provide greater consideration for projects that: encourage intermodal connectivity; produce energy, environmental, and other public benefits; create new jobs; and leverage contributions from state and private sources. The $450 billion for highway, highway safety, and transit investment over six years is a 38 percent increase above the current funding level ($326 billion). The Surface Transportation Authorization Act also provides an additional $50 billion investment for high-speed rail. Together, this $500 billion investment will create or sustain approximately six million family -wage jobs.' In sum, the Surface Transportation Authorization Act of 2009 transforms the nation's surface transportation framework and provides the necessary investment to carry out this vision. This increased investment is accompanied by greater transparency, accountability, oversight, and performance measures to ensure that taxpayer dollars are being spent effectively and in a manner that provides the maximum return on that investment. This estimate is based on 2007 Federal Highway Administration data on the correlation between highway infrastructure investment and employment and economic activity, and assumes a 20 percent state or local matching share of project costs. The Federal Highway Administration estimates that $1 billion of Federal investment creates or sustains 34,799 jobs. 4 • 230 THE SURFACE TRANSPORTATION AUTHORIZATION ACT OF 2009 COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES A BLUEPRINT FOR INVESTMENT AND REFORM Presented by Chairman James L. Oberrtar, Ranking Member John L Mica, Chairman Peter A. DeFaiio, and Ranking Member John J. Duncan, Jr. June 17, 2009 THE NEED FOR FUNDAMENTAL REFORM AND INCREASED INVESTMENT 1 Safety: The Human Toll and Economic Cost 1 The Cost of Congestion 2 A Deteriorating System 2 1956 Policies and 2009 Needs 3 THE CRISIS IN THE HIGHWAY TRUST FUND 4 TRANSFORMATIONAL REFORMS IN THE SURFACE TRANSPORTATION AUTHORIZATION ACT 5 A Clear Federal Role and National Objectives 5 Consolidate and Simplify Programs 6 Require Performance Standards and Institute Accountability Measures 6 Expand Mobility and Access for People and Goods 7 Improve Livability and Environmental Sustainability of Communities 8 Improve Efficiency of Federal Programs and Delivery of Projects 8 FUTURE SURFACE TRANSPORTATION INVESTMENT NEEDS 9 CONCLUSION 10 231 BLUEPRINT IN BRIEF THE NEED FOR FUNDAMENTAL REFORM AND INCREASED INVESTMENT The Federal -Aid Highway Act of 1956 (P.L. 84-627) established formula grant programs to distribute Federal surface transportation funds to States. These programs provided Federal construction aid for specific eligible highway categories (e.g., Interstate, primary, and secondary highways). The Federal investment provided by the Federal -Aid Highway Act, and its successors, connected communities across the nation to one another, opened new markets to unleash unparalleled economic growth, and improved mobility and quality of life for the nation. However, in the past 50 years, there have been significant economic and demographic changes that could not have been anticipated when the Interstate System was initially designed. Since 1956: • The U.S. population has almost doubled, increasing from 169 million to 300 million; • GDP has exploded, increasing from $345 billion to $14.3 trillion; • Land use, economic development patterns, and migration patterns have changed significantly, leading to an increased dependence on our surface transportation network, particularly highways; ▪ The most recent National Household Survey found that 87 percent of daily trips involved the use of personal vehicles; and The number of passenger vehicles on the nation's roadways has increased 150 percent from 54 million vehicles to 135 million vehicles. Many segments of the network handle volumes of traffic that greatly exceed their design standards. This increased traffic comes at a time when many highway assets, built in the 1960s and 1970s, are reaching the end of their useful design life, and need to be rebuilt or replaced. Transit assets also suffer from decades of underinvestment, even as public transit ridership rapidly increases across the United States, from the "old rail" cities to new Western towns. Safety: The Human Toll and Economic Cost The societal and economic toll of transportation accidents is staggering. Each year, 42,500 people are killed and 2.5 million people are seriously injured in more than six million motor vehicle crashes. Motor vehicle crashes are the leading cause of death for people of every age from three to 34. Every hour, 150 children (under the age of 19) are treated in emergency rooms for crash -related injuries. Each year, the economic cost of motor vehicle crashes to the U.S. economy is $289 billion. In addition, crashes involving large trucks and buses remain a significant safety concern. In 2007, more than 5,100 people were killed and 101,000 were injured in more than 400,000 motor 1 • 232 • • • vehicle crashes involving large trucks and buses. The average cost of a fatal crash involving a large truck is more than $3.6 million. The Cost of Congestion In 2005, traffic congestion cost $78.2 billion, including 4.2 billion hours of delay and 2.9 billion gallons of wasted fuel, in our nation's metropolitan areas. The average driver in 28 metropolitan regions experienced 40 or more hours of delay per year. Twenty-seven years ago, only Los Angeles experienced that level of congestion. Families are losing what precious little time they have together because of time spent in traffic on the way to and from work, picking up the kids at day care, or running the endless errands that seem a part of life in today's society. Congestion is also significantly increasing costs for American businesses. After 17 straight years of decline, the total cost of logistics — the cost of moving goods and services — for U.S. companies began to increase in 2005. Overall, logistics costs have increased from 8.8 percent of GDP in 2004 to 10.1 percent in 2008 — a $412 billion increase in four short years. This congestion cost can greatly affect businesses' bottom lines. For instance, General Mills spends almost $650 million a year trucking hundreds of millions of cases of food to market. For every one mile per hour reduction in average speed of its shipments, it costs General Mills $2 million of additional logistics costs. A Deteriorating System The quality of our transportation system is also deteriorating. Surface transportation assets have limited life spans. Currently, many segments of the nation's transportation infrastructure are reaching or have exceeded their useful design life. Today, almost 61,000 miles (37 percent) of all lane miles on the NHS are in poor or fair condition; more than 152,000 bridges — one of every four bridges in the United States — are structurally deficient or functionally obsolete; and more than 32,500 public transit buses and vans have exceeded their useful life. The nation's largest public transit agencies face an $80 billion maintenance backlog to bring their rail systems to a state of good repair and, within the next six years, almost every transit vehicle (55,000 vehicles) in rural America will need to be replaced. The American Society of Civil Engineers grades our surface transportation system as follows: Roads D- Bridges C Transit D Rail C- The American Society of Civil Engineers estimates that the nation's infrastructure requires an investment of $2.2 trillion over the next five years to bring the infrastructure to a state of good repair. A major deficiency in our transportation system is the absence of a high-speed rail system. High-speed rail can produce substantial economic benefits, reduce congestion on the highways and 2 233 in the air, and produce a net reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. The United States has only one rail line that can support high-speed rail, Amtrak's Acela service between Washington, DC, and Boston, Massachusetts. However, even this line cannot operate at high speeds over major segments and operates at an average of 73 miles per hour. By contrast, major European and Asian countries rely substantially on high-speed rail and continue to expand their systems. In 2008, Congress authorized the development of 11 high-speed rail corridors linking major metropolitan regions throughout the United States. In 2009, at the request of President Barack Obama, Congress provided $8 billion to begin construction of these high-speed rail systems. The Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008 (P.L. 110-432, Division B) and this $8 billion investment are the first serious commitments to high-speed rail in the history of the nation. However, despite the historic nature of this investment, it pales in comparison to the investments of our global competitors. Earlier this year, China announced that it will invest $730 billion in its railways (including high-speed rail) in the next four years (through the end of 2012). Spain, which opened its first high-speed rail line in 1992, has a network today of more than 1,200 miles of high-speed rail (traveling at 186 miles per hour). By 2020, Spain will invest almost$140 billion to develop a network of 6,200 miles of high-speed rail lines throughout the country. 1956 Policies and 2009 Needs The transportation programs and policies crafted more than a half -century ago are no longer well -suited to address today's challenges of improving the condition, performance, and safety of our system. With completion of the Interstate Highway System, national transportation policy lost its focus. Today, there are more than 108 individual programs, as well as dozens of set asides and takedowns, that provide Federal surface transportation funding. Overlapping and similar eligibility, transferability of funds, and the lack of transparency, accountability, and oversight make it impossible to determine whether programs are meeting national objectives. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) put it succinctly in a 2008 report: "To some extent, the Federal -aid Highway program functions as a cash transfer, general purpose grant program, not as a tool for pursuing a cohesive national transportation policy."2 In addition, our lack of a National Transportation Strategic Plan impedes our ability to replicate the successes of the Interstate Highway System in other transportation programs today. As we move beyond construction of the Interstate, we must develop a new transportation paradigm that is intermodal in nature. Present and future demands on the nation's intermodal surface transportation network require a bold new vision, greater accountability, and a forward -thinking approach to address these challenges. ' GAO, Restructured .Federal Approach Needed for More Focused, Performance -Bared, and Sustainable Programs (2008). 3 • 234 THE CRISIS IN THE HIGHWAY TRUST FUND If we do not act quickly to authorize and reform Federal transportation programs, we will face a major crisis. The existing reauthorization act, which is financed by the Highway Trust Fund, expires on September 30, 2009. In the past 30 years, Congress has never completed action on the reauthorization act by the date on which the programs expired. Instead, Congress has extended the programs for short-term periods while action was completed on the long-term reauthorization act. During consideration of the last reauthorization act, Congress extended the programs 12 times prior to enactment of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (P.L. 109-59). A business -as -usual reauthorization is not acceptable. In the past, during these periods of multiple short-term extensions of the programs, state departments of transportation have slowed investment because of the uncertainty regarding the long-term future of the program, and been unwilling to invest in large, long-term projects until enactment of the reauthorization act. In this time of severe economic recession, the effects of any slowed investment could offset much of the benefits of the increased transportation investment provided under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (P.L. 111-5). This concern for the economic effects of short-term reauthorization extensions is critically compounded by the current financial crisis in the Trust Fund. Prompt Federal action is necessary to stabilize the Trust Fund and restore the confidence of state departments of transportation and the contactor community or many States will not have enough confidence in future financing of the programs to go forward with significant new construction. According to DOT, the Highway Account of the Trust Fund is running out of cash and may not have enough funding to reimburse States for their Federal highway investments as early as August 2009. The shortfall is projected to be $5 billion to $7 billion by September 2009 and an additional $8 billion to $10 billion in fiscal year 2010. If the Trust Fund runs out of cash, DOT will immediately begin rationing reimbursements to States, creating cash flow problems for States and significant uncertainty for the future of the program. The current user fees supporting the Trust Fund are completely inadequate to maintain our existing infrastructure. If we continue at existing funding levels, our road surfaces will continue to deteriorate, structurally -deficient bridges will go unrepaired, and congestion will worsen. The mainstay of funding is the 18.3-cent-per-gallon gasoline user fee, which has not been increased since 1993, and produces progressively less revenue as the fuel efficiency of automobiles increases. The current user fees generate only enough revenue to finance a $35.1 billion of Federal highway, highway safety, and public transit investments in fiscal year 2010, which would be a 34 percent cut from this year's $53 billion funding level. Without additional revenues, a six -year surface transportation authorization bill could fund only $236 billion in highway, highway safety, and transit investment — $90 billion less than the current investment level over the next six years ($326 billion). These shortfalls could result in a loss of more than three million good, family -wage construction jobs. 4 235 The uncertainty of short-term extensions, Trust Fund cash flow problems, and potential highway, highway safety, and transit funding cuts could each cause significant job losses, and together, may severely deepen the current recession. It is imperative for Congress to act on the Surface Transportation Authorization Act and establish a sound and sustainable revenue stream to finance the future of surface transportation. TRANSFORMATIONAL REFORMS IN THE SURFACE TRANSPORTATION AUTHORIZATION ACT The next surface transportation authorization must affirm the nation's commitment to building and operating an intermodal surface transportation network that can meet the demands of the 21 st Century. The Surface Transportation Authorization Act creates a performance -based framework, designed to achieve results with transparency, accountability, and oversight to ensure that goals are met. This Act restructures DOT to implement more effectively the goals and objectives of the Federal surface transportation programs, improve the delivery of critical surface transportation projects, facilitate the utilization of all modal options to address needs, and provide taxpayers with a better, more measurable return on their investment in the nation's infrastructure. A Clear Federal Role and National Objectives Existing Federal surface transportation programs prescribe the type of project eligible for funding, but then afford States great discretion to shift funds between programs. The lack of clear Federal priorities and system -wide objectives has made it difficult to understand or identify the Federal role in surface transportation. Many of these Federal programs are ineffective in addressing current transportation challenges requiring solutions that integrate multiple modes of transportation. Further, the various program goals are often unclear and, in some cases, conflicting. The Surface Transportation Authorization Act will transform the nation's surface transportation policies by clearly defining the role and specific objectives of the Federal Government in providing resources to States to carry out programs. These objectives include: • Create a National Transportation Strategic Plan; ■ Improve the safety of the surface transportation network; ■ Bring existing highway and transit facilities and equipment to a state of good repair; • Facilitate goods movement; • Improve metropolitan mobility and access; • Expand rural access and interconnectivity; • Lessen environmental impacts from the transportation network; • Improve the project delivery process by eliminating duplication in documentation and procedures; • Facilitate private investment in the national transportation system that furthers the public interest; • Ensure that States receive a fair rate of return on their contributions to the Trust Fund; ■ Provide transportation choices; and ■ Improve the sustainability and livability of communities. 5 • • 236 • Consolidate and Simplify Programs To ensure that the national objectives and priorities are best addressed, the Surface Transportation Authorization Act consolidates or terminates more than 75 programs. Most highway funding will be provided under four, core formula categories: • Critical Asset Investment — Consolidates the existing Interstate Maintenance program, National Highway System program, and Highway Bridge program into one streamlined, outcome -based Critical Asset Investment program whose goal is to bring the highways and bridges on the NHS (including the Interstate System) to a state of good repair and maintain that condition. • Highway Safety Improvement — Restructures the Highway Safety Improvement program to focus on reducing motor vehicle crash fatalities and injuries on the nation's highways, grade -crossings, and rural roads by investing in improvements to remove or lessen roadway safety hazards. • Surface Transportation — Provides States with surface transportation funding through a flexible program that enables States and metropolitan regions to address state -specific needs including new highway and transit capacity. Facilitates local decision -making and participation by increasing the role of communities. • Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement (CMAQ) — Restructures the CMAQ program to fund projects that improve air quality, reduce congestion, and improve public health and the livability of communities. Similar consolidations are being proposed for programs in the Federal Transit Administration (NIA), National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), and the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA). Establishing core categories with specific performance objectives will simplify Federal surface transportation programs, and provide States, metropolitan regions, and public transit agencies with flexibility to identify the best approach to achieve the specific national performance objectives. Require Performance Standards and Institute Accountability Measures The Surface Transportation Authorization Act includes program -specific performance standards and measures that will hold funding recipients accountable for their choices on projects and the impact that those choices will have on meeting national objectives. These performance standards include: • Reducing the number of people killed and injured in motor vehicle crashes; • Restoring the highway, bridge, and public transit systems to a state of good repair; and ▪ Ensuring that motor carriers and commercial motor vehicle drivers comply with Federal motor carrier safety laws and regulations. 6 237 Many other performance standards will be tailored to the particular challenges of a State or metropolitan area as part of an overall long-term plan for investing surface transportation funds. Under existing law, States may transfer up to 50 percent of their core highway formula program funds to other programs. This power to transfer funds eliminates the link between Federal goals and the actual investment decisions at state and local levels. The Surface Transportation Authorization Act continues to provide States, cities, and public transit agencies with flexibility in how they choose to meet specific national performance objectives, but it institutes transparency, accountability, and oversight for these grant recipients to ensure that they meet these performance objectives. This approach is critical to transforming Federal surface transportation investment from the existing block grant programs to a performance -based framework. Expand Mobility and Access for People and Goods Improving and expanding mobility on the nation's surface transportation system is critical to the nation's economic competitiveness as well as to our fellow citizens' access to work, medical care, education, and recreation. Passenger and freight mobility are important to rural, suburban, and metropolitan communities alike. To accomplish these national objectives, the Surface Transportation Authorization Act establishes the following programs: Metropolitan Mobility and Access — Provides significant, dedicated funding to help the largest metropolitan regions address congestion. The program requires communities to develop metropolitan mobility plans to articulate each region's comprehensive local strategies for addressing surface transportation congestion and its impacts. To support Metropolitan Mobility and Access, the U.S. Department of Transportation, acting in part through a newly -created National Infrastructure Bank, may provide grants, loans, loan guarantees, lines of credit, private -activity bonds, tax -credit bonds, and other financial tools to help metropolitan regions implement their plans and finance a range of strategies, including improved transit operations, congestion pricing, and expanded highway and transit capacity. Projects of National Significance — Enhance U.S. global competitiveness by increasing the focus on goods movement and freight mobility. These high -cost projects, which cannot easily be addressed through formula grants of highway or transit funding, have significant national economic benefits, including improving economic productivity by facilitating international trade and relieving congestion at major trade gateways and corridors. To support Projects of National Significance, DOT, acting in part through the National Infrastructure Bank, will provide grants, loans, loan guarantees, lines of credit, private - activity bonds, tax -credit bonds, and other financial tools to States to finance the construction of these projects of national significance. Freight Improvement — Provides state formula grant funding for freight and goods movement projects and for improving States' ability to conduct freight planning. To 7 238 • • support Freight. Improvement, States will receive formula apportionments funded by contract authority derived from the Trust Fund. High -Speed Rail Initiative — Advances the Committee's and President Barack Obama's vision for high-speed rail, and provides funding to develop the 11 authorized high-speed rail corridors linking major metropolitan regions throughout the nation. To support the High - Speed Rail Initiative, DOT, acting in part through the National Infrastructure Bank, may provide grants, loans, loan guarantees, lines of credit, private -activity bonds, tax -credit bonds, and other financial tools to States to invest in construction of these high-speed rail corridors. This funding will not be provided from the motor vehicle fuel users fees of the Highway Trust Fund. Improve Livability and Environmental Sustainability of Communities Providing transportation choices and creating livable communities is essential to improving mobility for all users and ensuring that the transportation system enhances our quality of life. Expanding access to sustainable modes of transportation, and incorporating long-term mobility needs into the community planning process will yield significant benefits for public health and the environment. To provide national leadership for the creation of livable communities and the development of sustainable transportation choices, the Surface Transportation Authorization Act creates an Office of Livability within the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) of DOT. The Office of Livability will establish a focal point within FHWA to advance environmentally sustainable modes of transportation, including transit, walking, and bicycling. This Office will encourage integrated planning, linking land use and transportation planning, to support the creation of livable communities. To ensure that roadways are built with the needs of all users in mind, the Surface Transportation Authorization Act requires that States and metropolitan regions consider comprehensive street design principles. Comprehensive street design takes into account the needs of all users, including motorists, motorcyclists, transit riders, cyclists, pedestrians, the elderly, and individuals with disabilities. Comprehensive street design principles are not prescriptive, do not mandate any particular design elements, and result in greatly varied facilities depending on the specific needs of the community in which they are located. The Surface Transportation Authorization Act transforms the current transportation planning process by linking transportation planning with greenhouse gas emissions reductions. The Environmental Protection Agency, in consultation with DOT, will establish national transportation - related greenhouse gas emissions reduction goals. DOT, under the existing transportation planning process, will require States and metropolitan regions to develop surface transportation -related greenhouse gas emission reduction targets and incorporate strategies to meet these targets into their transportation plans. DOT, through performance measures, will verify that States and metropolitan areas achieve progress towards national transportation -related greenhouse gas emissions reduction goals. 8 239 Improve Efficiency of Federal Programs and Delivery of Projects The Surface Transportation Authorization Act will significantly reduce the time and administrative burden for projects in the approval process. It will also restructure key functions and offices within DOT to institute reforms and processes that foster greater collaboration and efficiency. New Transit Development — Significantly restructures transit New Starts and Small Starts to speed project delivery; ensure that all of the benefits of the proposed projects are fully evaluated; and provide a level playing field for local decision -making. Under Secretary of Intermodalism — Establishes an Office of Intermodalism within the Office of the Secretary, charged with developing and implementing a National Transportation Strategic Plan for addressing the long-term needs of the surface transportation network. The Under Secretary also has responsibility for administering the Metropolitan Mobility and Access and Projects of National Significance programs and the National Infrastructure Bank. Office of Expedited Project Delivery — Creates offices within FHWA and FTA to improve the project delivery process by eliminating duplication in documentation and procedures and expedite the development of projects through the environmental review process, design, and construction. FUTURE SURFACE TRANSPORTATION INVESTMENT NEEDS Reforming existing programs is vital to addressing our surface transportation needs, but we must also invest more in our infrastructure. The National Surface Transportation Policy and Revenue Study Commission (Commission), which Congress created to determine the future needs of the surface transportation system, identified a significant surface transportation investment gap. The Commission called for an annual investment level of between $225 billion and $340 billion — by all levels of government and the private sector — over the next 50 years to upgrade all modes of surface transportation (highways, bridges, public transit, freight rail, and intercity passenger rail) to a state of good repair. The current annual capital investment from all sources in all modes of surface transportation is $85 billion. Under existing transportation policy, the Federal highway, highway safety, and transit programs would be funded at a total level of $326 billion over the next six years. This level is not adequate to meet the needs of the system. We believe that a six -year investment of $450 billion is necessary. With the transformational reforms that we are making, the Surface Transportation Authorization Act will help give us the first-class transportation system that the nation will need in the decades to come. This level of investment is necessary to begin reducing roadway fatalities and injuries, improving mobility and access, eliminating freight bottlenecks, mitigating the impacts of our surface transportation system on the environment, and providing greater modal choice for all travelers. 9 • • 240 • A $450 billion program will enable the Federal Government, States, and major metropolitan regions to go beyond preserving our existing assets and restoring them to a state of good repair to add new highway and transit capacity. Many of the initiatives, including the Surface Transportation, Metropolitan Mobility and Access, Freight Improvement, Projects of National Significance, and New Starts programs, permit funding of new highway and transit capacity. Of course, improving the quality of the existing systems will also enable many of these assets to handle more capacity. In addition to allowing States and metropolitan regions to add highway and transit capacity, the Surface Transportation Authorization Act provides substantial funding for transportation needs in rural America. Newly -established programs, such as the Critical Asset Investment and Freight Improvement programs, provide States with funding to bring the NHS, almost 70 percent of which is located in rural areas, to a state of good repair. The restructured Highway Safety Improvement program requires States to focus investment on their most dangerous roads, including rural roads which account for an estimated 55 percent of all motor vehicle crash -related fatalities. The Surface Transportation Authorization Act leverages our investment in infrastructure by creating a National Infrastructure Bank (Bank). The Bank will maximize the limited resources available for investing in our surface transportation needs and allow the Federal Government to leverage resources to invest in our most critical national transportation assets. Located within DOT'S newly -created Office of Intermodalism and working in conjunction with the Metropolitan Mobility and Access, Projects of National Significance, and High -Speed Rail initiatives, the Bank will finance a wide variety of transportation projects, including highway, transit, rail, and intermodal freight projects, with priority given to large capital infrastructure projects that promise significant national or regional economic benefits. The Bank will provide grants and credit assistance, including secured loans, loan guarantees, and stand-by lines of credit, as well as allocations of tax-exempt private activity bonding authority and tax -credit bonding authority to projects under the Metropolitan Mobility and Access, Projects of National Significance, and High -Speed Rail initiatives. The National Infrastructure Bank will provide the necessary resources to supplement current Federal investment to build a surface transportation infrastructure system for the 21st Century. CONCLUSION The challenges facing the nation's surface transportation system cannot be addressed by making simple alterations to the existing set of surface transportation programs. We must move from an amalgamation of prescriptive programs to a performance -based framework for intermodal transportation investment. Our Blueprint for the Surface Transportation Authorization Act provides a bold new vision, greater accountability, a forward -thinking approach, and the investments necessary to ensure that Americans have a surface transportation system to meet their needs in the 21" Century. Specific information on the future framework for Federal surface transportation programs are outlined in the attached summaries. 10 241 • AGENDA ITEM 8N • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: July 8, 2009 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Budget and Implementation Committee Aaron Hake, Government Relations Manager THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Executive Director SUBJECT: State and Federal Legislative Update BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Receive an update on state and federal legislative activities; 2) Adopt a MONITOR position on SB 474 (Ducheny); and 3) Adopt a SUPPORT position on H.R. 2164 (Blumenauer). BACKGROUND INFORMATION: State Budget Crisis Impacts Transportation Funding The state Legislature appears to be poised to redirect $986 million of gas tax funds intended for cities and counties for transportation improvements in order to provide relief to the state's ailing general fund. Local governments typically receive a subvention of %4 C from the state motor fuel excise tax. Instead, the Budget Conference Committee consisting of budget leaders in both the Assembly and Senate has adopted a plan that would put this subvention towards servicing bond debt that would normally be an obligation of the general fund. Additionally, the Budget Conference Committee has voted to redirect $336 million of public transportation funds from a complex fund known as "spillover" account. This will mark the third consecutive year that "spillover" has been redirected by the Legislature. "Spillover" is created when gas tax revenues exceed a certain threshold, mostly due to high motor fuel prices; state law designates this revenue to transit purposes, however "spillover" is not protected by Propositions 42 or 1 A, thereby leaving it vulnerable to raids by the Governor and Legislature. In previous years, the Governor and Legislature have justified this redirection by stating that funds would pay for home -to -school transportation programs, which are an obligation of the general fund. Agenda Item 8N 242 If there is good news to be found in the Budget Conference Committee's recent actions it is that the committee voted unanimously to reject the Legislative Analyst's Office (LAO) proposal to suspend Proposition 42 transportation funds. Proposition 42 designates the sales tax collected on top of the motor fuel tax for the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP), which funds major capitol projects in Riverside County. By law, the Legislature is allowed to borrow. Proposition 42 money but must repay it with interest within three years, and it can only be borrowed twice in any 10-year period. Given California's fiscal emergency, the transportation community has been concerned that the Legislature would feel compelled to raid Proposition 42 this year. However, aggressive advocacy efforts by individual agencies such as the Commission, the Self -Help Counties Coalition, Mobility 21, and Transportation California have educated Legislators on the dangers of dipping into Proposition 42. In the Inland Empire region for Riverside and San Bernardino Counties, suspending Proposition 42 could potentially jeopardize $1.4 billion worth of construction funding in the next two fiscal years, while only providing modest relief to the state's general fund. Further, raiding Proposition 42 would only add to the ongoing deficit due to the repayment (plus interest) provision while increasing the costs of projects due to delays. It appears that local legislators are cognizant of these facts and are not in favor proposing a suspension of Proposition 42. It remains to be seen, however, whether the "Big 5" negotiators will put Proposition 42 on the table before a final deal on the budget is made. State Controller John Chiang has stated that July 28 is the date that the state will run out of cash if the budget is not fixed. New Bill Makes Changes to Design -Build and Public -Private Partnership Program SB 474 (Ducheny) adds new requirements to design -build and public -private partnership (P3) pilot programs enacted in February. The existing statute SB 474 seeks to add to, SBxx 4 (Cogdill), provides limited design -build authority for Caltrans and local agencies as well as a new P3 authority for transportation projects through January 1, 2017. Existing statue requires reports to the Legislature on the progress and performance of the programs. This bill increases the specificity of reporting requirements by mandating that the sponsors of any project using design -build, design -sequencing, or P3 delivery mechanisms to make a finding of the benefits to be derived from that delivery mechanism prior to awarding a contract. The author contends that the bill provides transparency and accountability to these new programs. The American Council of Engineering Companies (ACEC) is concerned that this legislation would become a potential impediment to awarding contracts after the lead agency has completed a rigorous Agenda Item 8N • • 243 • process to enter the pilot program in the first place. Additionally, there is a concern that a finding of benefits derived from the alternative delivery mechanism could expose projects to litigation. At the time this staff report was written, the author was in discussions with Senate Transportation and Housing Committee staff and stakeholders to clarify the language in this bill to ensure that projects are not delayed or legally exposed by SB 474. The Self -Help Counties Coalition has been an active stakeholder in the discussions on this bill. Staff recommends the Commission adopt a MONITOR position on this bill until further amendments are made. As an urgency bill, the bill requires a 2/3 supermajority vote to clear the Senate floor. Proposed Federal Legislation Reforms Federal Transit Administration's Small Starts Program Representative Earl Blumenauer (D-OR), a vociferous advocate for rail transportation investment in Congress, has introduced the Federal Streetcar Revitalization Act of 2009 (H.R. 2164). While the Commission currently has no direct interest in streetcars, the reforms proposed by this bill have positive impacts on the Federal Transit Administration's (FTA) Small Starts capital investment grant program from which the Commission is applying to receive $75 million for Perris Valley Line (PVL). In summary, the bill raises the maximum federal investment in a Small Starts project from $75 million to $100 million. It also raises the net capital cost limitation for a Small Starts project from $250 million to $300 million. These reforms make the Small Starts program more accommodating to rail projects. Currently the program is mostly focused on bus rapid transit (BRT) projects. PVL is unique in that it is one of only two commuter rail projects in the entire country to enter Small Starts. Future commuter rail extensions of Metrolink would likely be considered for this program; however the capital costs of commuter rail by its very nature make it difficult to fit within the limitations of the program. Staff believes that the expanded eligibility in H.R. 2164 is more reasonable. Additionally, the bill adds nuance to the evaluation criteria, which FTA must consider in this competitive program. The bill requires FTA to compare the proposed project to a no -build analysis when determining project benefits, which is currently not something considered. The cost effectiveness rating currently used to measure projects is replaced with a justification based on the project's "effect on local economic development, land use, travel patterns, and greenhouse gas reduction potential." This more holistic approach may benefit projects in the Inland Empire where unique travel patterns prevail compared to the rest of the country. For PVL, much effort has been spent by the Commission and FTA to reconcile ridership models that reflect the commuter behavior of inland Agenda Item 8N 244 Southern California as a prerequisite to receiving a cost effectiveness rating. This reformed evaluation criteria may assist in receiving project evaluations that take into account a more accurate and bigger picture of project benefits. As with many other transportation policy bills being introduced in Congress at this time, it is expected that H.R. 2164 will not be heard as stand-alone legislation but instead will be considered in the drafting of the large authorization bill expected to move forward this summer. Given the potential benefits of the proposed policy in this bill mentioned above, staff recommends the Commission adopt a SUPPORT position on H.R. 2164. New Authorization Expected to Begin Moving in House This Summer At the time of the writing of this staff report, House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Chairman Jim Oberstar (D-MN) had released a 700+ page draft of the new surface transportation authorization bill. Markup of the bill in the Highways and Transit Subcommittee was held June 24 with no amendments, with markup in the full T & I Committee after the July 4 holiday recess. The Ways & Means Committee has also held a hearing on issues relating to financing the new transportation bill. Staff and lobbyists are continuing to analyze the billfor policy details relevant to the Commission's platform and will keep the Commission updated. Agenda Item dN • 245 AGENDA ITEM 9 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: July 8, 2009 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Budget and Implementation Committee Theresia Trevino, Chief Financial Officer THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Executive Director SUBJECT: Selection of Underwriters and Disclosure Counsel and Overview of Proposed Bond Issuance BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Receive an update on the proposed 2009 bond issuance; 2) Approve the selection of Backstrom McCarley Berry & Co., LLC (Backstrom); Barclays Capital; De La Rosa & Co. (De La Rosa); Goldman Sachs; J.P. Morgan; and Merrill Lynch to perform the services of underwriters to the Commission in connection with long-term debt financings; 3) Approve the selection of Barclays Capital to perform the services of senior managing underwriter and Backstrom and De La Rosa as co -managing underwriters to the Commission in connection with the proposed 2009 bonds financing; 4) Approve the selection of Fulbright & Jaworski LLP and Agreement No. 09-19-072-00, to perform the services of disclosure counsel in an amount not to exceed $55,000; and 5) Authorize the Chair, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Prior to the commencement of the 2009 Measure A on July 1, 2009, the Commission has established a financing program in order to advance project development and land and right-of-way acquisition, as follows: • In March 2005, the Commission established a $185 million commercial paper program. Currently the Commission has $110 million in outstanding commercial paper notes. • As a means to achieve a greater level of interest rate stability in connection with a proposed refinancing of outstanding debt in late 2009, the Commission entered into two forward -starting interest rate swaps in Agenda Item 9 246 August 2006 for a total notional amount of $185 million. The swaps are effective on October 1, 2009. In September 2008, one of the swaps was terminated due to the Lehman Brothers bankruptcy, which was a trigger event under the swap agreements. The Commission entered into a replacement swap with another counterparty. • In June 2008, the Commission issued $126.4 million in sales tax revenue bonds to refinance $110,005,000 in outstanding commercial paper notes, as it was necessary to restore the commercial paper program to its maximum capacity to continue to pay project cost commitments. The bonds are subject to redemption on December 1, 2009, or will be remarketed at a new interest rate. Staff has commenced the planning process for a $185 million bond issuance that is anticipated to occur on or before October 1, 2009, in connection with the commencement of the interest rate swaps. Initial plans are to issue variable rate bonds, which will require liquidity support such as a letter of credit, to refinance the 2008 bonds and approximately $50 million in commercial paper notes; however, the financial team is monitoring the swap termination costs, which have been decreasing in recent weeks. Terminating one or both of the swaps would allow the issuance of fixed rate bonds. Staff will make a presentation at the Commission meeting on preliminary alternatives related to the proposed issuance of the 2009 bonds. In order to issue the bonds, the Commission must assemble a financial team consisting of Commission staff, a financial advisor, bond counsel, underwriters, disclosure counsel, and trustee. Fieldman, Rolapp & Associates (Fieldman) serves as the Commission's financial advisor, and Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP serves as bond counsel. US Bank has served as trustee for the debt issued under the 1989 Measure A and 2009 Measure A programs. Staff determined that it was appropriate to conduct solicitations for requests for proposals (RFP) from underwriters and disclosure counsel. In September 2004, following an RFP process, the Commission approved the selection of an underwriting team for the Commission's short-term and long-term debt financings in connection with the 2009 Measure A. As a result of the financial market crisis in 2008, there have been many changes within and among the investment banking firms on the team. Additionally, at the time the underwriting team was selected in 2004, the Commission had not yet contemplated toll road projects and the related toll revenue bond financings. Accordingly, staff elected to solicit proposals for underwriting services related to the Commission's financing programs including commercial paper, sales tax revenue bonds, and toll road revenue bonds. Agenda Item 9 • 247 • On April 29, 2009, staff released an RFP to perform underwriting services. Fifteen proposals were received by the Commission on May 28, 2009. An evaluation team consisting of staff from the Commission's Finance Department and Toll Programs and a representative from the Orange County Transportation Authority as well as non -voting representatives from the Commission's financial advisor, reviewed the technical proposals using the criteria of the qualifications of the firm, qualifications of the staff, and a work plan regarding the proposed financings. Based on the evaluations of the technical proposals, the proposers were divided into two tiers: firms to serve as senior and/or co -manager and firms to serve solely as co -manager; the evaluation team made a recommendation to short-list and interview the top five senior/co-manager firms and top two co -manager firms as follows: Senior/Co-Manager Barclays Capital De La Rosa Goldman Sachs J.P. Morgan Merrill Lynch Co -Manager Backstrom Siebert Brandford Shank & Co., LLC On June 15, 2009, the evaluation team interviewed six of the firms, as Siebert did not appear at the scheduled time. The criteria for the interview included the role of the project manager and other key team members, presentation of proposed financing structures, description of work plan and strategies, and responsiveness to questions. The cost proposals for each of the six firms were also opened and reviewed following the interviews. Based on the interviews and the cost proposals, the evaluation team recommends the six firms (Barclays Capital, De La Rosa, Goldman Sachs, J.P. Morgan, Merrill Lynch, and Backstrom) to be the Commission's underwriting team for financings during the next three years with an option to extend for an additional two one-year periods at the Commission's discretion. In connection with the proposed issuance of $185 million in variable rate sales tax revenue bonds and the commencement of the forward -starting interest rate swaps in October 2009, the evaluation team recommends Barclays Capital as the senior managing underwriter and De La Rosa and Backstrom as the co -managers. Barclays Capital is recommended as the senior underwriter for this transaction as its proposal and presentation reflected thoughtful and alternative recommendations regarding the Commission's current financial position. In choosing co -managers for this proposed transaction, the evaluation team desired to round out the underwriting syndicate with firms having complimentary attributes in order to obtain the broadest distribution of bonds to be sold. Agenda Item 9 248 It is likely that the five firms included in the senior/co-manager group will serve as part of the underwriting team for a future toll revenue bond financing due to the size of the transaction; however, the selection of a senior managing underwriter(s) will be deferred until approximately one year prior to such financing. Agreements with the senior managing underwriter(s) on behalf of the underwriting will be part of the financing documents associated with each financing. On April 29, 2009, staff also released an RFP to perform the services of disclosure counsel for the Commission in connection with debt financings over the next three to five years. Eight proposals were received on May 28, 2009. The technical proposals were reviewed by an evaluation team consisting of Finance Department staff and a representative from Riverside County's Executive Office as well as non -voting representatives from Fieldman. The same criteria used for the underwriting services RFP were used by the disclosure counsel evaluation team; the team recommended to short-list and interview the top four firms listed below: • Fulbright & Jaworski LLP (Fulbright); • Hawkins De!afield & Wood LLP; • Nixon Peabody LLP; and • Nossaman LLP. On June 16, 2008, the evaluation team interviewed the four firms using similar criteria as for the underwriter RFP. Following the interviews, the evaluation team opened and reviewed the cost proposals. As a result of this process, the evaluation team recommends the selection of Fulbright to perform the services of disclosure counsel in connection with the proposed 2009 bond issuance and other long-term debt financings, including toll revenue bonds. Fulbright was particularly astute in its understanding of the Commission's current financial position and already has strong existing relations with firms, which the Commission currently does business with. Staff recommends approval of Agreement No. 09-19-072-00 with Fulbright to perform disclosure counsel services at a fee of $55,000 for the 2009 financing. Underwriting and disclosure counsel fees, which are estimated at an aggregate amount of $300,000, are contingent on the sale of the debt and are included in the costs of issuance for the financings. Staff has included $3.250 million for total costs of issuance in the FY 2009/10 adopted budget. Since the interest swap commences on October 1, 2009, staff and the financing team will need to commence planning for the issuance of the 2009 sales tax revenue bonds immediately. Staff will bring the proposed plan of finance, including liquidity structurels), to the Commission within the next few months for approval. Agenda Item 9 249 • Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: Yes Year: FY 2009/10 Amount: $300,000 Source of Funds: Bond Proceeds Budget Ad ustment: No GLA No.: 304 19 96103 Fiscal Procedures Approved: \P,w44,,tiviz„ Date: 06/17/2009 Agenda Item 9 250 Riverside County Transportation Commission 2009 Plan of Finance Presentation of Options Actions Needed in 2009 1. 2008 Sales Tax Revenue Bonds are due on December 1, 2009 and must be refinanced 2. A portion of outstanding Commercial Paper ($50,000,000) must be refinanced to provide additional capacity for capital costs in FY 2010 3. Interest rate swaps are effective on October 1, 2009—RCTC must either: — Issue variable rate bonds corresponding to swaps, or — Terminate swaps and issue bonds for 1 and 2 above Existing Financing Plan ,Irt , ai • 2009 Sales Tax Revenue Bonds: — Refinance 2008 Sales Tax Revenue Bonds — Refinance $50,000,000 of outstanding Commercial Paper • Bonds are issued as variable rate obligations — Interest changes each week — Bonds are remarketed each week —holders can put them back — Bank liquidity supports the remarketing • Bonds are "integrated" with interest rate swaps — Result is a synthetic fixed interest rate 5 Current Financing Status ,111 $126,395,000 Sales Taaz Revenue Bonds, Series 20013 Bonds $1B5 Million Commercial Paper Program ($200 Million Authorized) • $110 million outstanding used 10 pay emendibares In 3 categories: - Initlel man on Yetis valley one Do be rtlmb,rsed fimm federal grant) - Inman mat an toil pro7at (m be reload tram boll financings) - °ajora capital Cant of Measure A project (m be refinanced through log term sales tax • Supported by a letter of Credit from Bank of America • $50,000,000 of outstanding ammerdal paper to be refinanced In 2009 through long term sales lax bonds Floating Rateto Rued Rate Swaps begin on October 1, 2009 • $100,000,000 swap with Bank of America (B of A) - Pay 3.679% and move 6716 of l month LIBOR • $85,000,000 swap with Deutsche Bank (DB) - Pay 1206% and receive 67% of l mun0 LIBOR 2 RCTC's Options IIIIIIIII III I� _�. - • Follow the Existing Financing Plan - 2009 Bonds are variable rare oBM9atbns supported by bank -provided Iiqudity • RCM has cleared 9 hds for !Iambi • ads are 2.5x the $105,000,000 needed - Swaps remain outstanding - When Integrated with swaps, Bonds resuk In synthetk fixed rate debt • Terminate sups(the"Fixed Rate Option") - 2009 Bonds are Rretl rate bonds - No it INOT support Is required - Termination payments on both swaps would be required (estimated at about $13.3 million for both) • Retain one snap, terminate one swap (the "Hybrid Options") - 2009 Bond have some variable rate obligations and some axed rate obligations - Bank liquidity used for the variable rate obligations - Termination payments on one swap required: B of A swap (approx. $9.6 million) and DB swap (approx $4.1 minon) 9 Integrating the Swaps Liquidity provider* 3.639%/3.206% RCTC r S� e Fixed Rate Floating Rate. (Linked to 87%of LIBOR) Variable Rate Bond Holders Counterpar0es (B of A and DB) • Assumed that floating Rtlnan eyul. lieldtionship lawman ceder could vary weera fora riprim ref i4"ld ny and ao ,.m.ait•itlnal ." Index compiles ell miealerne Aaund ob Ilnalgn banvMna 6 1 Rationale for Interest Rate Swaps • RCTC originally entered into swaps to: — Hedge against possible interest rate increases • Swaps ensured that RCTC did not experience disastrous interest rate increases — Potentially lower the cost of bonowing (as compared with fused rate financing) • Existing swaps still can provide low cost financing option (particularly if liquidity costs decrease from current record levels) Anticipated Results under Existing Financing Plan Bane of America Swap RCTG Pays' RCTC Raervsa 3.579% 8]%o1LlBOR Variable Sete Demand obligations Dml Service '. SIM3a-10 bpa Lgwdily: tas% (saPomd te&deem) Remarketing; 9.1011, Ceuta el lmrexe :925.000 Total Repealed Cost el DMA:6280,526,010 ell In True Interest Cost: 6.10e% Deobcbe Sane swap RCTC Pays' 3.306% RCTC Receives BM of LIBOR ' Raeewe Fmtl Investment netted out of final payment 9 Anticipated Results Under Fixed Rate Option )> , r,v Fixed Rate Bond Yields (2010 to 2029) Costs of Issuance Swap Termination Costs Total Expected Cost of Debt: All In True Interest Cost: 1.50% to 5.51 % $1,133,000 $13,700,000 $303,278,845 6.87% 11 Changes Since Development of Existing Financing Plan • Liquidity for Variable Rate Bonds is less available and more expensive —Original estimate was 26 bps —now 135 bps —Most underwriters project significant decreases (to approximately 75 bps) • Swaps remain outstanding —Counterparties(8 of Aand Deutsche) appear strong S Fixed Rate Option • Sales tax revenue bonds of $185,000,000 issued on fixed rate basis • Both Swaps are Terminated — Termination Value depends on degree of difference between current swap rates and rates under the 2 swaps — If current rates are lower, RCTC owes termination fee — Valuation as of June 30, 2009: • Bank of America Swap ($100MM notional): $9.6MM • Deutsche Bank Swap ($85MM notional): $4.1MM 10 Hybrid Option • Sales tax revenue bonds of $185,000,000 — One series is floating rate, one fixed • Bank Liquidity is needed for floating rate issue - Pricing of liquidity increases if (bating issue is below $125 million • One Swap is terminated; one is retained 12 2 Hybrid Option 1 • Hybrid Option 1—Terminate B of A Swap — Floating Rate Bonds of $125 million • Liquidity facility to match —Fixed Rate Bonds of $60 million — Incur cost of $9.6 pillion for swap termination — Results in $85 million of synthetic fixed rate bonds; $40 million of variable rate bonds; and $60 million of fixed rate bonds Hybrid Option 2 i..+,< -' • Hybrid Option 2—Terminate DB Swap — Floating Rate Bonds of $125 million • Liquidity facility to match — Fixed Rate Bonds of $60 million — Incur cost of $4.1 nillion for swap termination — Results in $100 million of synthetic fixed rate bonds; $25 million of variable rate bonds; and $60 million of fixed rate bonds 15 Advantages/Disadvantages • Existing Financial Plan — Advantages • Lowest total debt service • No changes to swaps required —retains possibility of realizing swap value • RCTC has sufficient access to liquidity — Disadvantages • Liquidity costs are high —may not come down • Some risk of liquidity rollover • Full administrative burden to track net settlements 1) Anticipated Results Under Hybrid Option 1 wwHurt Fixed Rata Benda 5 109.110,000 Deutsche Beek Swap 5 56,000000 Yields(2010 to 2029) 150%to 5.51% RC TC Pato 3.200% Costs el laouence 5613.580 RC TC Receives. 67%et LIBOR Swap Temlirrotim 55096,198 NM Service: SIFMA-10 bps Liquidly'. 125% Remarketing: 0.10% Costs or Issuance 5400095 Swap Termination E4,ID3,E02 Tedl 6epse1011Ce et M Debt. 52514,110,061 All In True Interest Cast 5.561% 19 Anticipated Results Under Hybrid Option 2 " II 11 Flied Rate Sande 5 87,930.000 Bol A Swap 5100.000,000 Weldet2010 to 3029) 150%ta 551% ROTC Pays) 3815% Costs M Issuance 5528,602 RCTC Receives 61%Ot LIBOR Sap Tamerlane 51812,517 DMA Service'. SIFMA-10 Ws liquidity: 1.25% Remarke6 no. 0.10% Costs of Issuance 5804,600 Swap Terreinetlnn 52,167,983 Total Expected Castor Debt: 5255,641,156 All In True Interest Cesi 6A13X 16 Advantages/Disadvantages • Fixed Rate Bonds —Advantages • Streamlined administration • All risk is borne by bondholders —Disadvantages • Highest total debt service —current market is unfavorable • Swap termination fees incurred 3 Advantages/ Disadvantages • Hybrid Options —Advantages • Locks in some fixed rate costs • Reduces some swap and liquidity risk • Preserves possibility for realizing swap value -Disadvantages • Full administrative burden to track net settlements on remaining swap • Swap termination fee incurred 19 Recommended Approach • Existing Financial Plan provides low cost financing options -Even under current "stressed" market conditions • Existing Financial Plan preserves RCTC financing capacity for project costs • Flexibility exists to implement Fixed Rate or Hybrid Options under better market conditions 21 Comparison of Options Hybrid Option 1-13 Hybrid option Existing Fixed Rata of A Swap b—UB Swap Financial Plan Option Terminated Terminated Total Expected Cost of Debt SSS0.6S6,S10 56012T1171e3 SIMA110,0117 SMA147ASS All In True Interest Coat: 6.103% 6.e7% 5.651% SA73% • m Timeline II 'I , „ ` hd` Date ' Wednesday, July 8, 2009 11 IN, Desorption Cumm16Slbn approves Plan d F10099e Wednesday, August l2, 2009 Commtsbn apprave5 Fnan<ing OOcumenis Thursday, August 13, 2009 Documents sent to Rating Agencies late August Meetings with Rating Agencies in New Yak TimsdaY, September 3, 2009 Bond Ratings Received Wednesday, September 23, 2009 Band said WednesdaY, September 30, 2009 Bond Closing 22 AGENDA ITEM 10 • RIVERS/DE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMM/SS/ON DATE: July 8, 2009 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Plans and Programs Committee Tanya Love, Goods Movement Manager THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Executive Director SUBJECT: American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 — Grants for Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery PLANS AND PROGRAMS COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Approve the submittal of Positive Train Control (PTC) in partnership with the Southern California Regional Rail Authority (SCRRA) for grant funding; 2) Approve the submittal of Alameda Corridor East (ACE) grade separation projects for grant funding; 3) Authorize Executive Director to submit a TIFIA application for SR-91 corridor improvement project for federal credit loan assistance; and 4) Direct staff to work with the lead agencies to prepare a grant submittal package to Ca!trans and/or U.S. Department of Transportation (U.S. DOT). BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) created a $1.5 billion surface transportation grant program, Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery (TIGER), to be allocated on a competitive basis by U.S. DOT. The TIGER process will be highly competitive; no state can receive more than $300 million and projects must be a minimum of $20 million. TIGER allows for up to $200 million of the $1.5 billion to be used to pay the subsidy and administrative costs of the Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act of 1998 (TIFIA) program, a federal credit assistance program. It is estimated that the $200 million of TIGER TIFIA payments could support approximately $2 billion in TIFIA credit assistance. The final grant guidelines were released by U.S. DOT on June 16, 2009. While the guidelines allow almost any kind of eligible applicants (state and local governments, tribal governments, transit and port authorities, etc.,) and the project eligibility list covers a broad range of project types and modes, it is clear in the guidelines that U.S. DOT officials are looking to award projects that can demonstrate long-term outcomes and relevance at the regional or national level. Because highway and transit programs received specific set -asides in ARRA, it is Agenda Item 10 251 likely that the discretionary TIGER funding will have less of an emphasis on traditional highway and transit needs and will focus on economic stimulus projects including goods movement and freight. U.S. DOT Application Process As highlighted in the attached summary of the TIGER grant program, applications are due no later than September 15, 2009, with grant awards to be made no later than February 17, 2010. Projects that are eligible for TIGER discretionary grants include capital investments in: 1. Highway or bridge projects; 2. Public transportation projects; 3. Passenger and freight rail transportation projects; and 4. Port infrastructure investments, including projects that connect ports to other modes of transportation and improve the efficiency of freight movements. U.S. DOT will give priority to projects that can be completed by February 17, 2012. While there is no matching fund requirement, the guidelines state that "...priority will be given to projects for which federal funding is required to complete an overall financing package that includes non-federal sources of funds". Caltrans' Application Process Staff from Caltrans has held a series of meetings announcing it will sponsor a statewide priority list of projects backed by Governor Schwarzenegger. Under the Caltrans process, applications will be submitted by July 27, 2009, for department evaluation and review. In August, Caltrans will make a draft project recommendation to the Governor's office through the Business, Transportation and Housing Agency (BT&H). Applications recommended for approval by BT&H will be forwarded to U.S. DOT with the Governor's support letter. Southern California's Project List For the past several months, in preparation for the official TIGER grant funding program announcement, Commission staff has been working with agency staffs from the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach, Alameda Corridor Transportation Authority, Alameda Corridor East Construction Authority, Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority, Orange County Transportation Authority, San Bernardino Association of Governments, Ventura County Transportation Commission, and the Southern California Regional Rail Authority (Working Group) to develop a consensus on a recommended process for accessing the TIGER Agenda Item 10 • • 252 • funding. Overall, members of the Working Group are recommending funding for PTC, ACE grade separations and several port projects such as the Gerald Desmond Bridge. In addition to these projects, the Commission recommends pursuing TIFIA funding for the SR-91 corridor improvement project. RCTC's Project List In reviewing the U.S. DOT guidelines coupled with discussions held at various meetings both at the state and national level, staff believes that for the state of California to be competitive in securing the $300 million in discretionary funding that will be available for up to five states, that the state should prioritize projects that are beneficial for not only the Southern California region but the state as a whole. Keeping with that philosophy, staff is recommending that the following three project categories be approved for TIGER grant submittal: • Positive Train Control (in support of SCRRA's funding request); • ACE Grade Separations on either the Tier I or Tier II Trade Corridor Improvement Fund (TCIF) list; and • Public/Private Partnership: Credit assistance on the SR-91 corridor improvement project. Following is an overview of each of the proposed grant categories: Positive Train Control (in Support of SCRRA's Application) PTC is a predictive collision avoidance technology designed to stop a train before an accident occurs. The safety enhancing goals of PTC are to help prevent train -to -train collisions, speeding, and over -speed derailments, incursions into track work zones, and movement of a train through a switch left in the wrong position. Relying on sophisticated new technology, PTC is designed to keep a train under its maximum speed limit and within the limits of its authorization to be on a specific track. Total Project Cost: $201.6 million TIGER Funding Request: $38.3 million ACE Grade Separation Projects The Commission's 2008 Grade Separation Funding Strategy adopted earlier this year identified 20 of the 61 at -grade railroad crossings as priority projects at an estimated cost of $980.5 million. Of that amount, $414.8 million in funding is secured through federal, state, and local funding sources. Appendix B (attached) from the 2008 funding strategy provides a summary of the 20 priority projects including an overview of the funding and project status. The 20 projects consist of Agenda Item 10 253 three funding priorities: Priority A consists of projects fully funded; Priority B consists of projects partially funded with a reliance on container fees; and Priority C consists of seven projects with little or no funding. Staff is recommending that grade separation projects located on the Alameda Corridor East, which was designated as a Project of National and Regional Significance in the federal transportation bill, commonly referred to as SAFETEA-LU, be included in the TIGER application process. In 2008, Priority A and B projects received Proposition 1 B funding under the TCIF application process. As previously stated, the U.S. DOT will give priority to projects that can leverage non-federal funds as well as projects that require additional funding to complete the overall funding package. Total Project Cost: $980.5 million TIGER Funding Request: $20 million TIFIA Credit Assistance for SR-91 Corridor Improvements As highlighted earlier, TIFIA established a federal credit program for eligible transportation projects of national or regional significance under which the U.S. DOT may provide three forms of credit assistance — secured (direct) loans, loan guarantees, and standby lines of credit. The program's fundamental goal is to leverage federal funds by attracting substantial private and other non-federal co -investment in critical improvements to the nation's surface transportation system. The U.S. DOT awards credit assistance to eligible applicants, which include state departments of transportation, transit operators, special authorities, local governments, and private entities. Key TIFIA Program Objectives • Facilitate projects with significant public benefits • Encourage new revenue streams and private participation • Fill capital market gaps for secondary/subordinate capital • Be a flexible, "patient" investor willing to take on investor concerns about investment horizon, liquidity, predictability and risk • Limit Federal exposure by relying on market discipline Major TIFIA Program Requirements • Large surface transportation projects ($50 million generally, $15 million for intelligent transportation systems — ITS) • TIFIA contribution limited to 33 percent • Senior debt must be rated investment grade • Dedicated revenues for repayment Agenda Item 10 • 254 • • Applicable Federal requirements (Civil Rights, NEPA, Uniform Relocation, Titles 23/49) Public or private highway, transit, rail, and port projects are eligible to apply for TIFIA assistance The SR-91 corridor improvements (extension of the 91 Express Lanes and freeway widening of the general purpose lanes) requires significant funding that is anticipated to come from the sale of toll revenue bonds and Measure A funds. To supplement this planned funding, staff planned to apply for federal TIFIA credit assistance in 2010 based on the anticipated date of environmental approval in 2011. In light of ARRA's recent TIGER grant program that includes a TIFIA component, staff and Commission consultants are evaluating whether to apply for TIFIA credit assistance more immediately. Preparing an application for TIFIA is an extensive undertaking that includes payment of an application fee to the federal government. Given that there is limited funding available on a national basis for this program, staff and consultants are still in the process of vetting the most prudent course of action regarding TIFIA opportunities in ARRA. Staff seeks authorization from the Commission to pursue a TIFIA application for the SR-91 corridor improvement project should staff deem it advisable. Total TIFIA: $200 million TIGER Funding Request: $20 million Competitive Grant Process Commission staff has approached staffs from local agencies to determine project deliverability based on the grant guidelines as well as the dollar amounts required to complete the projects. Staff is recommending that grant applications be submitted for projects that will compete at both the state and federal level. Given that there is a dual application submittal process - through the state and U.S. DOT - staff recommends that grant applications are submitted through the state process. If the Commission projects are not recommended for approval at the state level, staff is requesting approval to submit directly to U.S. DOT through its defined application process. Attachments: 1) TIGER Grant Application Summary 2) Appendix B — 2008 Grade Separation Funding Strategy Agenda Item 10 255 ATTACHMENT 1 $1.5 BILLION TIGER DISCRETIONARY GRANTS PROGRAM OUTLINE OF SOLICITATION AND SELECTION CRITERIA Interim Notice of Funding Availability: On Monday, May 18, 2009, the Department of Transportation published a notice of funding availability and solicitation of applications from applicants seeking funds under this program. Public Comments: The solicitation announces the availability of funding for TIGER Discretionary Grants, project selection criteria, application requirements and the deadline for submitting applications, which is September 15, 2009. Because this is a new program, however, the solicitation also provides two weeks for comments on the proposed selection criteria and guidance for awarding TIGER Discretionary Grants. The Department will take all comments into considgration and may publish a supplemental notice revising some elements of the solicitation. Any such amendment will be published by June 17, 2009. Eligible Applicants: Funds under this program will be awarded to State and local governments, including U.S. territories, tribal governments, transit agencies, port authorities, other political subdivisions of State or local governments, and multi -State or multi jurisdictional applicants. Eligible Projects: Projects that are eligible for TIGER Discretionary Grants include, but are not limited to, capital investments in: (1) highway or bridge projects; (2) public transportation projects; (3) passenger and freight rail transportation projects; and (4) port infrastructure investments, including projects that connect ports to other modes of transportation and improve the efficiency of freight movement. Selection Criteria: TIGER Discretionary Grants will be awarded based on the following selection criteria, which incorporate the criteria specified in the Recovery Act: (a) Long -Term Outcomes: The Department will give priority to projects that have a significant impact on desirable long-term outcomes for the Nation, a metropolitan area, or a region. The following types of long-term outcomes will be given priority: (i) State of Good Repair: Improving the condition of existing transportation facilities and systems, with particular emphasis on projects that minimize life -cycle costs. (ii) Economic Competitiveness: Contributing to the economic competitiveness of the United States over the medium- to long-term. (iii) Livability: Improving the quality of living and working environments and the experience for people in communities across the United States. (iv) Sustainabilitv: Improving energy efficiency, reducing dependence on oil, reducing greenhouse gas emissions and benefitting the environment. (v) Safety: Improving the safety of U.S. transportation facilities and systems. (b) Job Creation & Economic Stimulus: Consistent with the purposes of the Recovery Act, the Department will give priority to projects that are expected to quickly create and preserve jobs and stimulate rapid increases in economic activity, particularly jobs and . activity that benefit economically distressed areas. (c) Innovation: The Department will give priority to projects that use innovative strategies to pursue the long-term outcomes outlined above. (d) Partnership: The Department will give priority to projects that demonstrate strong collaboration among a broad range of participants and/or integration of transportation with other public service efforts. The solicitation provides additional guidance on the selection criteria. The Department will give more weight to the Long -Tenn Outcomes and Jobs Creation & Economic Stimulus criteria than I 256 ATTACHMENT 1 to the Innovation and Partnership criteria. Projects that are unable to demonstrate a likelihood of significant long-term benefits in any of the five long-term outcomes will not proceed in the evaluation process. For the Jobs Creation & Economic Stimulus criterion, a project that is not ready to proceed quickly is less likely to be successful. Program -Specific Criteria: The Department will use certain program -specific criteria to help differentiate between similar projects (for example, New Starts projects, or bridge replacements). To the extent two or more similar projects have similar ratings based on the selection criteria the program -specific criteria will be used to assign priority among these projects. Distribution of Funds: The Recovery Act prohibits the award of more than 20 percent of the funds made available under this program to projects in any one State. The Recovery Act also requires that the Department take measures to ensure an equitable geographic distribution of funds and an appropriate balance in addressing the needs of urban and rural communities. Waiver of Minimum Grant Size Requirement: The Recovery Act specifies that TIGER Discretionary Grants may be no less than $20 million and no greater than $300 million. However, the Department has discretion under the Recovery Act to waive the $20 million minimum grant size requirement for significant projects in smaller cities, regions or States. Applicants for TIGER Discretionary Grants of less than $20 million are encouraged to apply. TIFIA: Up to $200 million of the $1.5 billion available for TIGER Discretionary Grants may be used to pay the subsidy and administrative costs of the TIFIA program if it would further the purposes of the TIGER Discretionary Grants program. Given the average subsidy cost of the existing TIFIA portfolio, $200 million in TIGER TIFIA Payments could support approximately $2 billion in Federal credit assistance. Applicants seeking TIGER TIFIA Payments should apply in accordance with all of the criteria and guidance specified for TIGER Discretionary Grant applicants and will be evaluated concurrently with all other applications. Grant Administration: The Department expects that each TIGER Discretionary Grant will be administered by the modal administration in the Department with the most experience and/or expertise in the relevant project area. Applicable Federal laws, rules and regulations will apply to projects that receive TIGER Discretionary Grants, including all of the reporting and other requirements included in the Recovery Act. 2 257 ATTACHMENT 2 Appendix B RCTC Grade Separation Funding Strategy - Summary ' RCTC Total CPUC Voluntary Total Priority Project Railroad Section Container Avail. Balance Project Tier Crossing Cost Federal State Local Cordraaution 190 Premiums Funds* Needed Status 1 Funding Strategy Priority A 2 Auto Center Drive/ BNSF $32.0 $8.30 $16.00 $2.70 $5.0 - $32.0 FD 3 Avenue 52/UP $17.3 $10.20 - $2.10 $5.0 $17.3 - CE PSR 4 Avenue 56/ t Airport Blvd./UP $60.0 $10.00 $50.00 - - $60.0 CE PSR (Eqv.) ( 3 Avenue 66/UP $33.5 $10.00 $23.50 - - $33.5 CE PSR (Eqv.) 1 Columbia Avenue/ BNSF & UP $34.1 - $6.00 $20.45 $2.60 $5.0 $34.1 - C i 1 Iowa Avenue/ BNSF & UP $32.0 $10.30 $13.00 $2.40 $1.30 $5.0 $32.0 PS&E 1 Magnolia Avenue/UP $51.2 - $20.00 $26.20 - $5.0 - $51.2 ROW&D 1 Sunset Avenue/UP $36.5 $10.60 $10.00 $12.90 $3.00 - - $36.5 PE Funding Strategy Priority B 1 3rd Street/ BNSF & UP $40.2 $7.66 $17.50 $0.50 $2.00 $5.0 $7.5 $40.2 - PE 2 Clay Street/UP $37.4 $10.00 $12.50 $1.18 $1.87 $5.0 $6.9 $37.4 - CE PSR (Eqv.) 1 Magnolia Avenue/ } BNSF $81.8 $15.00 $13.70 $15.10 $4.09 $5.0 $28.9 $81.8 CE PSR lam) 1 Riverside Avenue/UP $30.3 $5.00 $8.50 $2.50 $1.30 $5.0 $8.0 $30.3 E 2 Streeter Avenue/UP $36.8 $7.80 $15.50 $2.20 $1.30 $5.0 $5.0 $36.8 E Funding Strategy Priority C 3 Bel!grave Avenue/ UP $105.5 - - $1.00 - - $- $1.0 $104.5 CE PSR (Eqv.) 2 Center Street/ j BNSF & UP $36.3 - - $0.50 - - $- $0.5 $35.8 CPU 1 Jurupa Road/UP $108.4 - - $12.00 $10.34 $5.0 $81.1 $108.4 - CE PSR (Eqv.) 2 Mary Street/BNSF $38.0 $2.25 - $5.0 $30.8 $38.0 PE 1 McKinley Street/ BNSF $109.2 $0.40 $1.50 $- $1.9 $107.3 CE PSR (Eqv.) 3 Railroad Street/ BNSF $30.0 $0.25 $- $0-3 $29.8 CE PSR (Eqv.) 2 Smith Avenue/ BNSF $30.0 - - $0.25 - - $- $0.3 $29.8 CE PSR (Eqv.) TOTALS: $980.5 $85.3 $152.7 $179.5 S27.8 $60.0 $168.1 $673.3 $307.1 *Total available funds include unsecured funding including railroad contributions, CPUC Section 190 and voluntary container fees. (All dollars in millions. Slight discrepancies may occur due to rounding.) s LEGEND CPU Conceptual Planning Underway CE PSR Conceptual Engineering PSR CE PSR (Eqv.) Conceptual Engineering PSR (or Equivalent) PE Preliminary Engineering E Environmental ROW&D Right of Way and Design C Construction PS&E Plans, Specifications and Estimate FD Final Design ROTC Grade Separation Funding Strategy 2008 258 • AGENDA ITEM 11 • 3000 dIZ uI� 133a1S 003 dIZ - ON 3NOHd :SS31100tf SS3NISn3 d00219 / NOIIVZINV0110 / A3N39V 40 3W VN A11O 5 "R 'A,N. Ng s L his b )ON 3N0Hd 1kk :ONI LN3S3tJd3f1 3111S 1 •ssmaatf 'Z �Nr(") �j :31NVN :IN311 tfaN30 lI IJ d0 1031 ans •S1N3WW00 onand d0 103f ans (VON39V 3H1 NO 031S11 SV) :'ON IN311 ` ON30V 0 =S1N3WW00 onand jl )I03H0 OH1o/A9 am_ 3A Inigi9 4141 O111Wa11S ONtf H011130 :31tf0 3003 dIZ A110 1331:118 r4, 0- 1-9% oN X/ pier) 3000 dIZ 2// ��a���/ x,Qy 'cr4 :SS31JaaV SS3N1Sna Amoy° / NOIIVZINVOHO / AON °V d0 INVN 3N0Hd fr ¢p yps,,, 9» 011 ps) "(1g �, do, odd :ONI1N3S31id3y v 9`' 1 7 A110 133y1S reS rh /44 .,,4 12.0S47 ='ON 3N0Hd 1i/q47 4 ° (. y "of? /vcup % Ulu / `� )re "C :1A1311 VON30V I (VON391/ 314l NO 031SI1 SV) AO 103f8nS :'ON U11311 vaN3pt/ :883ya0V :31NVN :S1N3WW00 3118nd O :S1N3WINO3 3118nd JO 103f8nS 31 NO3H0 k6/ PK. :31t/O nuwna au l an vssain au s n i I IIAIAnS niuw unw l a[1 31303 dIZ A113 7417," :'ON 3NOHd 3 IS A/=SS311001/ SS3NISn8 ammo / NOIIVZINVOtIO / A0N3OV d0 3INV 3003 dIZ ALO Z I52 6g4'17. ipjL 0ejj ON 3N0Hd A 7'7z/ :ONI1N3S31id31i 133lllS �1," ,X9,/iv e7,444,4 /7 •SS3aaad �/Z/re'ijV 6/ =Wt/ 311 VON3O S / �j A0133rans �/ ifi/ /f//'hy /f//yfl•�? :3WtlN // (VON3OV 3H1 NO 031SI1 SV) // :'ON IN311 VON301/ =S1N31/41N00 011and 0 :S1N3WW00 011and 30 103ranS Al NO3HD nsawnss au an usaa-in mu nI II mute n1YM unwi7n =31VO 6�� 3000 dIZ A110 tity p c� ��; ,(vv, at n "'pQ 133a1S ON 3NOHd 3000 dIZ :SS311001/ SS3NIS08 df10N9 / NOIIVZINV9110 / A3N39V d0 3INVN :9NI1N3S3ad311 A110 / 1331:11S al) 2 r✓ ea AA; ON 3NOH (17� ),,%2. :SS3HOOV =3INVN �► (tiQ t =W311 `d0N39b' I (VON39V 3H1 NO O31SIl SV) J ' fro 30 103f'8f1S :'ON W311 VON3OV :S1N3WW03 0118nd O :S1N3WW00 01180d dO Iowans 31 NO3H3 Q X _ f :31110 101AVOEI 3H1 d0 1111313 3H1 Ol limns ONV H0`d130 v L 3000 dIZ A110 133N1S ON 3NOHd •SS3l1001d SS3NIS013 d1101:19 / NOIIVZINV9H0 / A7N391/ i0 3INVN :9N11N3S311d3E1 3000 dIZ A110 133111S - Z9 ° b /47/ °III L igbYoq 0d 051 4.2 )_ is ON 3N0Hd d V N (� •SS3HOOV =3INVN :IN311 VON39V IVON39V 3H1 NO OSIl SV) 30 103fans / 31 ON IN311 VON30V :S1N3WW00 0119f1d o :S1N3WW00 0119f1d 30103f9(1S 31 )103H0 60 , p _ I :31110 CINVO9 3H1 30 M H310 3H1 O1 limns OW H3t/13O �J (� 3000 dIZ A110 1331:11S =SS311001/ SS3NIS113 df10H9 / NOIIVZINV9110 / A3N3DV d0 3WVN :'ON 3N0Hd :0N11N3S32id31i 3000 dIZ A110 %''') /) 133E11S /]% 4414-1. ,C11- :'ON 3NOHd �1 :SS3Li0CIV =3INVN 92_4,-y_y / :IN3.1.1VON3911 s / (VON3OV 3H1 NO 0319I1 WO 30133f8f1S / r :'ON W311 VON39V �(A?2 I/ kr—S1N3WWO3 mend Oimraf1S 'S1N3WW031N33H3 riming 7N1 -iO min- i 3M1 D111W9f7S dNti N�tl13A :3J.V0 3000 dIZ U17ti! -"ON 3N0Hd :SS3800V SS3NIS08 (lottl / NOI1tlZINVD,A0 / AO 30V d0 3WtlN ,� ran 1� =JNI1N3S311d311 3000 dIZ ul0 133/tl1S /AwA':"ON 3N0Hd fzit1/ —F ��✓� :3INVN :W311 VON3JV / (VON3Otl 3H1 NO 031SI1 Stl) dO 13318118 (� :'ON W311 VON3DV �y'fi �®� 0 p/I ,�S1N3WW101180d � WW •S1N3031 end a VO8 3H1 AO 118373 31-11 Ol 11W8f1S ONv H3t/130 MOD dIZ A113 1331:11S ON 3NOHd =SS31:1OOV SS3NISf19 df10H0 / NOI1tlZINVOHO /A�113`JN AO 3WtlN f :DNI1N3S3!!d311 3000 dIZ A110 133131S ON 3N0Hd -}r7 767( v? 7 :31A1VN •SSMAOCIV /?�/f, :W311 VON3DV // (VON3DV 3H1 NO O31SI1 SV) I (/ f ` AO 103I'9f1S :'ON IN311 VON3DV N31AIW00 0119nd 1] :S1N3WW00 wand d0 103f9f1S Al N031-10 �00r D �,�n� :31VO 8 3H1 d0 88310 3H1 01 Ionians awl H3V130 /� u461 1 �YV f2t9n `l ;`^A rrig 3000 dIZ A113 133a1S e cL 2 b "Zhn al -cc?, - LSb 'ON 3N0Hd 31300 dIZ -- !--.(04) Z A_. ) 0 yaw) :SS3a00V SS3NISna df`1_0,U.,� / NOI1tlZINtlOHO / A N30tl d0 3WtlN �'O( OA- tt) 'dJ p urt'U' •DNI1N3S31id32i ` Cl 133111S A110 fi �2 :ON 3NOHd `°11-(1' 1"1 l Q oeLn :SS31i00V ,11 u +1p'0m�) :3WVN =W311 VON3JV IVON3OV 3H1 NO O31S11 SV) 30 103rElOS ( ='ON IN311 VON3°JV J� )(is :S1N3WW00 °nand c:S1N3WW00 onand AO Iowans 31 )103110 I bQ / g :31V0 11111111111111111LANIMet 13 3H1 cu mums CINV HOV13a1111.1111111 a Post Office Box 51389 Riverside, Califomia 92517-2389 June 29, 2009 Opinion Box 792 Riverside, California 92502 HAND DELIVERED June 29, 2009 Reference: Press Enterprise Editorial, Parkway Myopia, June 16, 2009 Dear Sir or Madam, The enclosed op-ed document, entitled Editorial Influence, is submitted in response to the reference editorial. I am a 30-year resident of the Gavilan Hills who will eventually be impacted by Alternative 9, the so-called "locally preferred" alternative of the Mid County Parkway (MCP). I have been involved in Riverside County planning as a community activist and planning commissioner for almost the same length of time. The views expressed are my own and do not reflect the views of anyone on the Riverside County Board of Supervisors nor my colleagues on the Planning Commission. Also included with this submittal for your information are a cover letter and copies of three disks containing my comments regarding the Mid County Parkway Environmental Impact Report (EIR). The disks were submitted to the Riverside County Transportation Commission on January 7, 2009. The bottom line is that the MCP is a huge project that, in my opinion, has more reasonable, less costly and more environmentally sensitive alternatives that should be considered before the project is "green lighted" or otherwise cast in concrete. I have counted words in the enclosed op-ed and it is within your 600-word maximum. I would appreciate it if you would publish the material in its entirety, prior to the July 8, 2009 hearing, with no editorial manipulation. Thank you for your consideration. Respectfully, John W. Roth 21450 Juniper Road Perris, California 92570 951-789-0409 EDITORIAL INFLUENCE On July 8, the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) will again take up the issue of the Mid County Parkway (MCP). While the Press Enterprise (PE) editorial of June 16, 2009 concludes that splitting the MCP into segments East and West of 1-215 is myopic, it fails to consider whether there may be reasonable alternatives to the MCP as a whole and the western section between 1-215 and 1-15 in particular. This tortuous section, rather than following the existing Cajalco Road right -of --way, is forced to climb westbound over 500 feet from 1-215 to the Gavilan Plateau or eastbound over 1300 feet from 1-15 to the Plateau. I have read and commented on all three volumes of the EIR and Alternative 9, the so-called "locally preferred" alternative is, in my opinion, environmentally insensitive and financially unrealistic under existing federal, state, and local budget constraints. I realize that the economy will eventually recover, but the current economic meltdown must lead to better planning and the reduction of urban sprawl into outlying areas devoid of appropriate infrastructure. The RCTC staff has read the many comments on the EIR and made a recommendation to eliminate the western portion between 1-215 and 1-15. While this may appear myopic to the PE editorial staff, it is a good first step toward determining whether there are alternatives to the MCP as proposed. Simply "green lighting" the entire MCP as proposed in the PE editorial is short sighted and not in the best interests of the driving public. In addition, the PE editorial is misleading when it states: "Packing those cars and trucks onto the county's existing roads and highways is a recipe for aggravating congestion, increasing pollution and squandering residents' time in traffic." No one expects future traffic to be "...packed...onto the County's existing roads. While the PE editorial implies that there will only be a simple four -lane improvement to Cajalco Road, there are several more sophisticated alternatives, including one proposed by the Riverside County Director of Transportation and those in a cover letter supplied with my comments to the EIR. One of the most reasonable and significantly less expensive alternatives would be the construction of Cajalco Road as a four -lane highway with a median that could be expanded to an additional two lanes or used for multi -modal transportation lanes. This alternative could be combined with a similar, parallel route using SR-74 between Hemet and Lake Elsinore via Ethanac Road. The parallel routes would provide not only a second, less expensive east -west route, but could act as a backup in the event of a major accident or hazardous spill on one of the routes. The PE editorial is alsoseet-inflammatory in stating that: "If the parkway empties onto 1-215 instead of 1-15, Perris, Moreno Valley and Riverside will feel the adverse effects." The foregoing statement has the appearance of attempting to move the MCP project forward without regard to the City of Corona which, under the single route proposed by RCTC, would be required to accept the entire flow of MCP vehicles onto 1-15. The bottom line is that the PE editorial exerts an undue influence on RCTC decision makers to "green light" a project that has not as yet been fully vetted despite the significant funds invested in the EIR which, in my opinion, is heavy on weight and shallow on content. The bottom line is that the MCP is an expensive and questionable transportation project that should not be "green lighted" before seriously considering an reasonable alternatives. • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: July 8, 2009 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Mid County Parkway Ad Hoc Committee Cathy Bechtel, Project Development Director Gustavo Quintero, Bechtel Project Coordinator THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Executive Director SUBJECT: Mid County Parkway: Environmental Environmental Impact Statement Impact Report/ MID COUNTY PARKWAY AD HOC COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Focus the Mid County Parkway (MCP) project limits to Interstate 215 and State Route 79 in response to comments received on the draft environmental impact report/environmental impact statement (EIR/EIS); 2) Maintain a long-term plan for a future east -west CETAP corridor between 1-215 and 1-15; 3) Prioritize up to $7 million in Regional Arterial, Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee, or federal funds to the county of Riverside (County) for the preparation of the environmental document for the Cajalco Road widening; 4) Consider reinitiation of the Community and Environmental Transportation Acceptability Process (CETAP) corridor analysis between the 1-215 and 1-15 if the County's Cajalco Road project is not environmentally cleared by 2013; 5) Prepare a phasing plan for the MCP, east of 1-215, and support the County's efforts to prepare a phasing for Cajalco Road, between 1-215 and 1-15, that ensures equity in the funding and capacity improvements on each project; and 6) Reconsider funding priorities for east -west regional arterials as part of the Commission's Measure A Regional Arterial Program, once the economy improves. RECENT DEVELOPMENTS: Action on this item was considered by the Commission at the June 10, 2009 meeting. The city of Riverside (City) expressed concerns about traffic related impacts that could result from this modification and requested a delay in action to allow time for further discussion. Many of the concerns raised by the City focused on ensuring the County's success with improvements to Cajalco Road to allow Agenda Item 11 259 increased traffic capacity. Additionally, the City wanted assurance that improvements to the SR-91 /I-15 interchange would be in place prior to any construction of the modified MCP. On June 15, 2009, a meeting was held with the City to discuss the Mid County Parkway project and proposed changes. Representatives from the County were also present to share its planned improvements to Cajalco Road. A letter was sent to the City directly following the meeting to outline Commission staff's commitment to work with the City as the project moves forward (Attachment 1). At the Commission meeting, members also commented on the important role east -west arterials will play in local circulation as a result of a modified Mid County Parkway. Should the Commission approve the recommendation to have the project's western terminus be at 1-215, a new traffic report will be completed to evaluate the traffic impacts to surrounding areas and identify required mitigation. Additionally, the County is proceeding with plans to improve Cajalco Road. The County has already initiated environmental work for the section between 1-215 and Wood Road with construction anticipated to begin in FY 2011/12. Preliminary planning has also begun for the section from Wood Road to Temescal Canyon Road. The County's planned improvements to widen Cajalco Road will provide significant traffic benefit at a much lower cost, estimated at $200 million. Given the current financial situation, focusing the Commission's regional project on the eastern segment and supporting the County's efforts to improve Cajalco Road on the western segment will allow the Commission to make the best use of limited transportation funds while addressing the most immediate traffic and safety needs. At the MCP Ad Hoc Committee held on June 29, 2009, the City stated its support for the modification of the MCP as recommended, with the understanding that once the financial situation improves, reconsideration of east -west arterial improvements should be addressed (Attachment 2). Commissioners also directed staff to work cooperatively with the County and local jurisdictions on planned improvements to regional arterials, such as Ethanac Road, due to their significance in providing east -west circulation. Opportunity for evaluation and funding prioritization can be done through the Commission's Measure A Regional Arterial Program. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The draft EIR/EIS for the MCP project was circulated for public review on October 10, 2008, with the close of the public comment period on January 8, 2009, providing a 90-day comment period. During this time, six public Agenda Item 11 • 260 meetings/hearings were held: three public information meetings in late October 2008, two public hearings in November 2008 and a 1 ' District public meeting in December 2008. The Commission accepted public comments for the record at all of these meetings, along with comments via the website and email. Over 4,500 newsletters with comment cards were sent out in October 2008. Over 3,100 comments received from: • 50 public agencies and organizations; • 10 large property owners; • 240 individuals; and • Form letter from over 1100 individuals nationwide. Two key themes emerged in the public review comments: 1) Concern about the cost and timing of available funds for the project. Many comments noted that, given the current economy and difficulty in securing funding for the entire project, limited financial resources should be focused on areas of greatest need. 2) Although the public comments raised concerns about many aspects of the project throughout its entire length, many comments suggested that making improvements to existing facilities rather than building MCP would be a better expenditure of public funding in the western portion of the project area between 1-15 and 1-215. In this area, improving existing facilities such as Cajalco Road instead of building MCP would minimize impacts to the rural communities of Gavilan Hills and Lake Mathews Estates and minimize impacts to existing habitat reserves. Impacts to rural communities and existing habitat reserves were two major concerns raised during public comment. To address these concerns, the Commission as the lead agency under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) as the lead agency under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and Ca!trans as the liaison to FHWA in confirming compliance with all applicable NEPA requirements, have developed an approach for completing the EIR/EIS process for the project that would refine the project purpose statement and refine the project alternatives to focus on the transportation needs between 1-215 to SR-79 (Attachment 3). Under this approach, the MCP project purpose and need statement would be refined to establish 1-215 as the western terminus of the project, with SR-79 remaining as the eastern terminus of the project. Such a refinement would still provide for logical termini and independent utility pursuant to FHWA requirements under 23 CFR 771.111 because: Agenda Item 11 261 1) The project would connect logical termini (a north -south Interstate highway and a north -south State highway) and be of sufficient length (16 miles) to address environmental matters on a broad scope. 2) The project would have independent utility as a usable and reasonable expenditure of funds even if no other transportation improvements were made in the area. 3) The project would not preclude the consideration of other, reasonably foreseeable future transportation improvements. To address the refined project purpose statement, up to three modified build alternatives would be defined and evaluated that would consist of a parkway facility from 1-215 to SR-79 (these modified alternatives would follow the alignments for original Alternatives 4, 5, and 9 east of 1-215). While a revised notice of intent/notice of preparation (NOI/NOP) would not need to be issued for the modified project, the Commission would conduct additional public outreach, including public information meetings and notifications through the project website and direct mail, to notify the public of the changes in the project. A recirculated draft EIR/supplemental draft EIS (RDEIR/SDEIS) evaluating the modified alternatives would be prepared and circulated with the appropriate notice of availability (NOA) and public review process (including public meetings to be held during recirculation). The RDEIR/SDEIS would also include discussions of the process to date and how the comments received during public review of the draft EIR/EIS led to a decision to refine the project purpose statement to focus on the area between 1-215 and SR-79. Construction phasing plans . would be developed for the modified build alternatives (1-215 to SR-79) to disclose the proposed project implementation to the public and how construction will be broken up into phases. In addition to including the analysis of up to three modified build alternatives and inclusion of a phasing plan and associated environmental analysis, the recirculated document would also be revised to address public comments received on the draft EIR/EIS. Following completion of public review of the recirculated document, a final EIR/EIS would be prepared. As lead agency under CEQA, the Commission would consider certifying the final EIR, and then would consider approval of one of the modified build alternatives. The Commission would then be responsible for advancing future design, right-of-way, and construction phases for the parkway alternative from 1-215 to SR-79. As lead agency under NEPA, FHWA would consider approval of the final EIS, and issuance of a record of decision (ROD) for one of the modified build alternatives. Fundamental to the refinement of the project purpose statement and alternatives is that no improvements between 1-15 and 1-215 would be planned or analyzed as part of the MCP project. The Riverside County Transportation Department's Agenda Item 11 • 262 • • General Plan roadway improvements for Cajalco Road west of 1-215 would be analyzed in the MCP cumulative impacts assessment using the most current information available from the county; however, the Cajalco Road improvement projects will be subject to separate environmental review processes in the future with the Riverside County Transportation Department acting as the lead agency. The Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) and Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP) will have to be modified to match the refocused project description. Additionally, given that projected travel demand west of 1-215 still identifies a need for infrastructure improvements, even with the county's planned improvements to Cajalco Road, it is critical that a CETAP corridor between 1-215 and 1-15 remain in the RTP to not preclude consideration of future transportation improvements. The refocusing of the project and preparation of the RDEIR/SDEIS and will require additional time and budget. Approximately 18 months will be added to the completion schedule (Attachment 4). Staff is currently working with the team to develop a revised scope of work. There is adequate budget to allow work to continue through the summer. Staff anticipates coming back to the Commission in the fall with a contract amendment to cover the revised scope. CONCLUSION: An environmental process is completed to assess potential impacts and to hear from the public. With this recommended action, the Commission is responding to feedback we received from the public to deliver a project that provides the greatest transportation benefits with the fewest possible impacts. Modifying the project will allow the Commission to move more quickly to provide improvements where the demand is greatest and avoid time-consuming delays tied to environmental constraints and community challenges affecting the portion of the original project west of 1-215. This course of action will also result in improvements occurring more quickly west of 1-215 with the County's Cajalco widening project, making the best use of limited transportation dollars while providing the most immediate traffic and safety benefits. Attachments: 1) June 15, 2009 Letter to City of Riverside 2) June 29, 2009 Letter from City of Riverside 3) Refocused MCP Map 4) Schedule Agenda Item 11 263 ATTACHMENT 1 4080 Lemon Street, 3rd Floor • Riverside, CA Mailing Address: R O. Box 12008 • Riverside, CA 92502-2208 (951) 787-7141 • Fax (951) 787-7920 • www.rctc.org Riverside County Transportation Commission June 15, 2009 Mr. Brad Hudson City Manager City of Riverside 3900 Main Street Riverside, CA 92522 Subject: Mid County Parkway Dear Mr. We appreciate the opportunity to meet with you and your staff today to discuss the city's concerns about the proposed refocusing of the Mid County Parkway (MCP) project. It is clear from our discussions that we have mutual concems regarding project approvals, phasing and funding. I am hopeful that these concerns can be addressed through both policy and project decisions. Many of the issues will be evaluated in depth over the next 18 months and we are committed to working with the city to ensure the impacts are adequately identified and addressed through the environmental process. In addition, we propose to provide the following policy recommendations to the Commission for its consideration. 1. RCTC will prioritize up to $7 million in Regional Arterial, TUMF or federal funds to the County of Riverside for the preparation of the environmental document for the Cajalco Road widening. Due to limited funding sources, the project will have to be eligible for federal funding and remain in the TUMF backbone network. 2. RCTC, in conjunction with the county and corridor cities, will prepare a phasing plan for the MCP (east of Interstate 215) and Cajalco Road (between Interstates 15 and 215) that ensures equitable allocation of discretionary Regional Arterial and TUMF funding for each. Improvements will also be staged to enhance traffic capacity for each. The phasing and staging plans will be based on the assumption that the State Route 91 Corridor Improvement Project (CIP) is under construction or completed. The SR-91 CIP increases capacity on SR-91 from the SR-241 to Pierce Street and on I-15 from Hidden Valley Parkway to Cajalco Road. Construction is scheduled to begin in 2012 and the project also includes improvements at the SR-91/I-15 interchange. 264 Mr. Brad Hudson June 15, 2009 Page 2 3. RCTC will consider re -initiation of the CETAP corridor analysis between the I-215 and 1-15, if the Cajalco Road project is not environmentally approved. RCTC will work cooperatively with the county to provide appropriate documentation as necessary. We hope the above establishes our commitment to working with the city to allow for improved traffic conditions in this region. We are confident that our collaboration will ensure that we address congestion in Riverside County as effectively as possible with the limited resources available. We are available to meet again to discuss further. Please call me at 951-787-7141 if you have further questions. Sincerely, Anne Mayer Executive Director cc: RCTC Commissioners 265 ice of the City Council v1s, Anne Mayer Riverside County Transportation Con 4080 Lemon Street, 311 Floor PC Sox 12008 Riverside, CA 92502-2208 Dear Ms, Mayer: l appreciate everyone taking the time to meet with the City regarding our concetus with the re-foensing of the Mid -County Parkway (MCP) study, The City's major concern is that the re -focusing of the MCP study defies riot mean that the MCP between 15 and 215 freeways is not going to be constructed in the future_ The action to re -focus the MCP should be considered part of a long term plan to complete the parkway between SR 29 and the 15 freeways and for the County as a whole to focus short term efforts on improving Cajalco, between the 15 and 215 freeways and the easterly segment of the MCP. In eneral, the City of Riverside will support the proposal outlined in your lett 15 under the following; principles: of JUne 1. The City of Riverside will support RCTC's proposal to prioritize funding for the environmental review to widen Cajalco Road between the 15 and 215 freeways. The widening of Cajalco should ultimately include. a. 6-lanes between 1-15 and Lake Mathews b. 4-lanes south of Lake Mathews (future expansion to 6-lanes) ; and, c. 6-lanes between. El 5obrante and 1-215 The City of Riverside also supports preparation of a phasing plan for the MCP cast of the 215 freeway and for Cajalco Road between. the 15 and 215 freeways as outlined in your .lune 15`b letter. The critically important points are: a. The improvements on the 91 and 15 freeways must be a top priority and must be built at least concurrently with the MCP and Cajalco Road improvements; There must be equity in the funding and capacity in11J71'}b'emenMCP east of the 215 freeway and of Cajaclu Road het\\-cen and 215 Freeways: 3900 Main Street . Riverside California 92522 . (951) 826- 266 o 3. Should. the County be unable to environmentally clear the Cajalco R improvements by 2013, RCTC will re -start the westerly segment of the, M, and, 4. Circulation between the 15, 215 and. 601215 freeways should be a priority RCTC to fund under the Measure Arterial highway Program or through other funding sources once the economy improves. The program should give priority to arterials such as: Van Buren, MLK, Arlington, Overlook Partn ity, Washington, Madison, and similar transportation corridors. If you have any questions, please contact me at 826-5991. 267 Alternatives No Longer Considered • • ATTACHMENT 3 MID COUNTY PARKWAY PROJECT rdc mommi ems 1111111 .1. 268 Mid County Parkway (refocused) ►1 puobq pue ELOZ uo 11soboe /temgo igeoj • SMIa 1eu13 ZLOZ - L LOZ • 1N3WHOVJ_LV sliwaaii . purw sl�ntsadde, 811.101141.10.0110 9N10 ulelgp• sluawwo3 o1`puodsab . (lied) s6u!iBeH ' ..3llgnd • (aawwn$) SI31)eia leluawalddns / ZJI311a a paielnoJJoab . OLOZ 69Z salpnls 1e3rug301. pasha pue leluawalddns �o uoneaedaad (Jewwns)'s6upeew uonettuNw ollgnd pasn3o�ab l3afoad . sepue6e pue oggnd Aq penla39.1 sluewwoo to meined . 600Z s6upeeH 3ggnd . s6ullaaw uogetwolul 3llgnd . SI3/�J13lie-4 • 800Z : auflacuil dOW age welly pa.ualaJd to uogeoglluepi . 6upeau16u3 pue salpnls leluewuwinu3 • sangeuaally Apn1S • luawauya I anlleu.gly • 96ullaaw oggnd . salpnls slstleuy enleA . sangewel1y Alguepl . s6ugaaw 3ggnd . salpnls,Geulwllaad • • 600Z `8 AI n f SI3/�II3 auk BuReidwo0 a01 peaddd ABA/Ned Awnoo PUN 131I d V add Al f 10 I MID COUNTY PARKWAY PRO ECT KEY THEMES IN PUBLIC COMMENTS i1 Concern about the cost and timing of available funds for the project. 2. Comments suggested making improvements to existing facilities and raised concerns regarding issues in the western portion of the project area between 1-15 and 1-215, including impacts to the communities and to existing habitat reserves. 3. The public would like to understand when and how the project would be constructed; a project construction phasing plan should be developed and disclosed to the public. (pesnooja0 ABAINIBd Aluno3 PUN palappuo36uol oN sennet.uami pefaid dOW Pesnoojed D 10Hd AVMNIIVd AINr10D MID COUNTY PARK' AY PROJECT County's Cajalco Widening Project • County's General Plan identifies Cajalco as a six lane facility east of El Sobrante and west of La Sierra, and four lanes south of Lake Mathews • Initial environmental work is already underway for four lane facility between 1-215 and Wood Road • Preliminary work underway for area west of Wood Road • Estimated cost for four lane widening project = $200 million Modifying the MCP limits and supporting the County's Cajalco project will result in improvements occurring more quickly, allowing best use of limited dollars while providing more immediate traffic and safety benefits. sebuallego bumunj jo wewebpalnnouoy . Aeiv epun swewenoadw! pefoad Jew) . uoasin abuaa-6uo! uie}view peeN . saauoisSRAWOO JOIN ayi y}inn luelmouoo ao o} aopd eoeld ui eq pinup quewenoadw! pue ebueyoaaiui 5l,-1/[6:Is • _moo oij peat.' swewenoadw! peon oolefeo peuueid siAlunoo . Aiio aye of spedwi oileal • epi eAN jo :fiu eekv wok aunt pasied sulraauo3 1fOlid Ate 21 Vd1 AI N fl O D (MN MID COUNTY PARKWAY PRO ECT Recent Developments: • June 15th Meeting with City of Riverside • June 29th Meeting with MCP Ad Hoc • Key discussion points from meetings - Funding for PANED for Cajalco Road improvements — Assurance of re -consideration of CETAP if Cajalco Road improvements are not environmentally cleared in a timely manner — Timing and funding of Cajalco Road improvements and focused MCP improvements — Importance of other east west arterials such as Ethanac Road (pasnaolaa) aop!aao3 91.Z-I of 91,1 ABMind AWI100 p!W dV133 MOM AVAANIIVci AINflOD Q�W MID COUNTY PARK1 Benefits of a focused project: AY P 0 ECT • Reduces MCP construction and right of way costs • Avoids reopening MSHCP and impacts to reserves • Avoids time, cost, and uncertainty of amending HCP's • Makes best use of limited transportation funding • The public spoke and we listened Tuewpuewy Toaajuoo . SI3S/:II3�I Tleaa uo s6upeaH ollgnd • SIB aaa lewawalddnS / :1I3 ileaa paielnaaioaj sgpnis leoppai pesinaa pue lewewelddns jo uoReaedaid pefoad pewpow jo smau aaegs Jeueismau pua s6uweiAl uoRewiolul oilgnd dnW aoj sdam leuoPippV fOlid AV Vd N OD IN • • • MID COUNTY PARKWAY PRO ECT MCP Ad Hoc Committee and Staff Recommendation: 1 MCP limits to 1-215 and SR79 in response to comments received on the Draft EIR/EIS; 2) Maintain a long term plan for a future E-W CETAP Corridor between 1-215 and 1-15; 3) Prioritize up to $7M in Regional Arterial, TUMF, or federal funds to the County of Riverside for the preparation of the environmental document for their Cajalco Road widening project; 4) Consider re -initiation of the CETAP corridor analysis between the 1-215 and 1-15 if the County's Cajalco Rd project is not environmentally cleared by 2013; 5) Prepare a phasing plan for the MCP (east of 1-215) and support the County's efforts to prepare a phasing plan for Cajalco Road (between 1-15 and 1-215) that ensures equity in the funding and capacity improvements on each project; and 6) Reconsider funding priorities for east -west regional arterials as part of the Commission's Measure A Regional Arterial Program, once the economy improves. uoissnosiaisuogsano Ate _Vd AINfl©a CMA1 ADDITIONAL INFORMATION AGENDA ITEM 11 Riverside County Transportation Commission CURRENT WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY RCTC PROJECTS Lake Elsinore RCTC has developed a strategic plan to address congestion in Western Riverside County. RCTC is committed to acting quickly and has developed priorities and an approved plan to achieve them between now and 2019. NEAR TERM Perris Multimodal Project A Construct a Riverside Transit Authority bus terminal and Metrolink platform Completion date in Fall 2009 SR-91 Corridor Improvement Project Construct two Express Lanes, a General Purpose Lane, and Auxiliary Lanes in each direction from the Orange County Line to Pierce Street A Construct direct connectors linking SR-91 to the I-15 Begin construction 2011 Completion date estimated in 2016 I-215/SR-74 Interchange Project Reconstruct and modify the existing interchange A Begin construction 2010 Completion date estimated in 2012 Perris Valley Line Metrolink Extension A Extend the existing Metrolink 91 Line service from the Downtown Riverside station, 24 miles along the existing San Jacinto Branch Line terminating in the City of Perris Construct four stations at Hunter Park Area, Moreno Valley/March Field, Perris, and South Perris Completion date estimated in 2012 SR 60/1-215 East Junction Interchange Project A Construct an HOV Lane in each direction from Day Street to Box Springs Rd A Begin construction 2011 Completion date estimated in 2013 LONGER RANGE 6 8 9 10 SR-91 HOV Project Construct an HOV Lane in each direction from Adams Street to the 60/91/215 Interchange Begin construction 2011 Al Completion date estimated in 2015 SR-91/SR-71 Interchange Project Construct a two lane direct flyover ramp for the eastbound SR-91 and northbound SR-71 A Construct an eastbound road south and parallel to SR-91 between Green River Road and the SR-91/SR-71 interchange Begin construction 2011 Completion date estimated in 2016 1-215 Widening Projects (South) A Construct one General Purpose Lane in each direction from the I-15/1-215 junction to Scott Road Begin construction 2012 i Completion date estimated in 2013 1-215 Bi-County Gap Closure i Construct two HOV lanes from the 60/91/215 interchange to Orange Show Road in San Bernardino County Close 8 mile HOV gap Project built in partnership with SANBAG and Caltrans A Begin construction 2012 A Completion date estimated in 2014 1-215 Widening Projects (Central) Construct one General Purpose Lane in each direction from Scott Road to Nuevo Road Begin construction 2012 Completion date estimated in 2015 m 1-215 Widening Projects (North) A Construct one HOV Lane from Nuevo Road to SR-60 Begin construction 2015 Completion date estimated in 2018 1-15 Corridor Improvement Project Al Construct an HOV Lane in each direction between 1-215 and SR-74 Al Construct two Express Lanes, a General Purpose Lane, and Auxiliary Lanes in each direction from SR-74 to the San Bernardino County line Al Begin construction 2015 Completion date estimated in 2019 m Mid County Parkway Project Environmental approvals for an east -west transportation corridor connecting the San Jacinto area with the Perris area Environmental phase estimated to be completed in 2011 SR-79 Realignment Project A Realign SR-79 between Domenigoni Parkway and Gilman Springs Road Environmental phase estimated to be completed in 2011 Begin construction 2014 AGENDA ITEM 12 • COMMISSIONERS REPORT • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: July 8, 2009 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Commissioners Daryl Busch and Ron Roberts SUBJECT: American Public Transportation Association Rail Conference 2009 BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The recent passage of Assembly Bill 1234 requires a report on trips that are made by an elected official on behalf of a public agency. The purpose of this report is to provide information on the recently -completed American Public Transportation Association (APTA) Rail Conference in Chicago, Illinois, June 14-17, 2009. On an annual basis, the APTA Rail Conference is held to address nearly every aspect of commuter rail and rail transit. This provides a great opportunity to learn more about the industry's latest trends and challenges to developing effective transportation alternatives. Attendees Commissioners Daryl Busch and Ron Roberts participated in the APTA Rail Conference. Sheldon Peterson and Henry Nickel attended for Commission staff. Workshops and Seminars There was a full assortment of workshops that directly related to Metrolink Commuter Rail operations, safety, Positive Train Control, High Speed Rail, and topics that related to the development of the Perris Valley Line. The following list provides some examples: • The Rail Safety Act of 2008: Positive Train Control; • Commuter Rail Update; • U.S. High Speed Rail Developments; • Positive Train Control: The Technology; • Moving Forward with TOD: Challenges and Opportunity; • ITS in Rail Operations; • Expediting Transit Project Delivery at Every Step; • Energy, Environment, and Transit; • Fare Collection Technology Update; Agenda Item 12 270