Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My Public Portal
About
01 January 28-29, 2010 Commission Workshop
88581 RECORDS RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION www.rctc.org WORKSHOP AGENDA* *Actions may be taken on any item fisted on the agenda JANUARY 28-29, 2010 SANTA ROSA A and B Embassy Suites Hotel La Quinta 50-777 Santa Rosa Plaza, La Quinta, CA 92253 In compliance with the Brown Act and Government Code Section 54957.5, agenda materials distributed 72 hours prior to the meeting, which are public records relating to open session agenda items, will be available for inspection by members of the public prior to the meeting at the Commission office, 4080 Lemon Street, Third Floor, Riverside, CA, and on the Commission's website, www.rctc.org. In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act and Government Code Section 54954.2, if you need special assistance to participate in a 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. 2:30 p.m. - 2:40 p.m. 2:40 p.m. - 3:15 p.m. 3:15 p.m. - 5:00 p.m. 2:30 P.M. THURSDA Y, JANUARY 28, 2010 WELCOME AND WORKSHOP OVERVIEW Bob Buster, Chair Anne Mayer, Executive Director PRESENTATION ON COACHELLA VALLEY FINANCIAL CHALLENGES AND ACTION PLAN Tom Kirk, Coachella Valley Association of Governments This item is for the Commission to receive an oral report. WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY FINANCIAL CHALLENGES AND RECOVERY PLAN Anne Mayer, Executive Director Michael Blomquist, Toll Program Director This item is for the Commission to receive an oral report and provide direction and possible action. 5:00 p.m.- 6:00 p.m. BREAK 11.36.00 Riverside County Transportation Commission Workshop January 28-29, 2010 6:00 p.m. DINNER 6:00 p.m. — 7:30 p.m. UPDATE ON STATE LEGISLATIVE MATTERS Mark Watts, Legislative Advocate This item is for the Commission to receive an oral report and provide comments and possible action. 7:30 p.m. ADJOURNMENT The Commission workshop will continue at 8:45 a.m., Friday, January 29, 2010, 50-777 Santa Rosa Plaza, La Quinta, CA 92253. 8:45 A.M. FRIDA Y, JANUARY 29, 2010 8:45 a.m. — 9:00 a.m. 2010 STATE TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PROPOSAL Shirley Medina, Programming and Planning Manager This item is for the Commission to: 1) Approve the proposed 2010 State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) for Riverside County; 2) Submit the 2010 STIP proposal to the California Transportation Commission (CTC) by February 12, 2010 for adoption at the May 19, 2010 CTC meeting; 3) Submit the Interstate 215 Bi-County gap closure project to the CTC for consideration of available Corridor Mobility Improvement Account (CMIA) funding; and 4) Direct staff to pursue all funding options to deliver Measure A, STIP, Proposition 1 B, and other Commission priority programs. Riverside County Transportation Commission Workshop January 28-29, 2010 9:00 a.m. — 10:15 a.m. SB 375 UPDATE Hasan Ikhrata, Southern California Association of Governments John Husing, PhD, Economics and Politics, Inc. This item is for the Commission to receive an oral report. 10:15 a.m. — 10:45 a.m. PROPOSED COMMITTEE RESTRUCTURING John Standiford, Deputy Executive Director This item is for the Commission to: 1) Review and approve disbanding the Plans and Programs Committee; 2) Approve the formation of the Coachella Valley Programs and Projects Committee and the Western Riverside County Programs and Projects Committee; 3) Review and approve the restructuring of the Budget and Implementation Committee; and 4) Forward to the Executive Committee for final action. 10:45 a.m. — 11:00 a.m. BREAK 11:00 a.m. — 11:30 a.m. FINAL FEASIBILITY EVALUATION REPORT FOR THE IRVINE CORONA EXPRESSWAY TUNNELS PROJECT Cathy Bechtel, Project Development Director This item is for the Commission to: 1) Receive and file the feasibility evaluation report for Irvine Corona Expressway (ICE) tunnels project; 2) Authorize staff to conduct a toll revenue study to determine the pay back duration of the ICE tunnels project for use at a public -private partnership (PPP) workshop and allocate $10,000 to pay for the Commission's share of the required local match; 3) Authorize staff to conduct a PPP workshop to gauge the private industry interest to finance, design, construct, maintain, and operate the ICE tunnels project; and 4) Authorize the continuation of groundwater monitoring for up to an additional year in order to provide time to gauge private industry interest in the project. Riverside County Transportation Commission Workshop January 28-29, 2010 11:30 a.m. — 11:45 a.m. CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED RAIL UPDATE Sheldon Peterson, Rail Manager This item is for the Commission to receive and file an update regarding the activities of the California High -Speed Rail Authority (CHSRA). 11:45 a.m. — 12:30 p.m. WORKING LUNCH — 511 UPDATE Robert Yates, Multimodal Services Director This item is for the Commission to receive an oral report. 12:30 p.m. — 12:45 p.m. WORKSHOP WRAP UP AND CLOSING REMARKS Bob Buster, Chair Anne Mayer, Executive Director 12:45 p.m. ADJOURNMENT The next Commission meeting is scheduled to be held at 9:30 a.m., Wednesday, February 10, 2010, Board Room, County of Riverside Administrative Center, 4080 Lemon Street, First Floor, Riverside. RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION COMMISSION WORKSHOP ROLL CALL JANUARY 28, 2010 Present County of Riverside, District I T County of Riverside, District II 0 County of Riverside, District III County of Riverside, District IV O 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 C 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 Moreno Valley City of Murrieta City of City of Palm Desert City of Palm Springs City of Perris City of Ranoh City of Riverside City of San :Jacinto O City of Temecula O City of lll�il�{ornar Governor's Appointee, Caltrans District 8 El 0 Absent a Q lT RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION COMMISSION WORKSHOP COMMISSIONER SIGN -IN SHEET JANUARY 28, 2010 NAME AGENCY E MAIL ADDRESS X//,Q,,2_ /� J. uT 4K-5(���r . Z. 4,. 12j p/ e-� . Ps 6, 4_&-��, �/eitPb 1�, ren S COv--10(.. ,�tfav tea- e-4-G TT7-R�'S /*",I. / e-oliet5c)4L) , 1)69 LA Q�— .�o /�,1 c�� 165 7-1 ti t 1--) ------ ac) c_7 =VTT 2-lJA(M W i �IDl"i i"1�� !21eA C/ 0:e a,-, t-iL2_, rsg>a-2.,b ~3g di rr,,or,)T iz,6.s1-1_ %-!/-zic, rL-- MA- /!%T'Sidll,,r,,`����� /-762-3_1 l,o Ira-�.,..;��,,.—. � aa! /.1—�I it) � ( {,,.,� O A -AilFgfi ,ring RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION COMMISSION WORKSHOP ROLL CALL JANUARY 29, 2010 Present Absent County of Riverside, District` I County of Riverside, District II County of Riverside, District 111 County of Riverside, District IV County of Rini District V City of Banning City of -Beaumont City of Blythe City of Calimesa City of Canyon Lake City of CathedralCity City of Coachella City of Corona City of Desert Hot Springs City of Hemet City of Indian Wells City of India City of La Quinta City of Lake Elsinore City of Menifee City of Moreno 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 Mdom Governor's Appointee, Ca!trans District 8 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION COMMISSION WORKSHOP COMMISSIONER SIGN -IN SHEET JANUARY 29, 2010 NAME AGENCY E MAIL ADDRESS _ � IW f-- X,r27 /Sf Ps7 Rory /a®`FeE" CkL T?-1-N $ /Fr4 PI t /N7----' fii-e-e-.�.dou r Ct. -N.., ) in AUr- ."-i. ),D to 73A'T�ck /411/ 4,64eIY /00?A,ti id, ''‘''.J_5 5'.e 67 � JZ t n� S ,►. • 1 al_ LJ (� 7 1 , l (.J R11_,Ieg_ 40GEAT6ke ' >z 6 6-z-7 )1_ a tad... r> GJ i .' oky 3 44-#3 3 c 0� 94,"--ROCNtl...5-In •-1 c1 I co (vvt M i tl e r Ne-rE-a 1p , Inc o-,----(-- A- t— 12-N,c.r-4 _� ?fir '(- ( 6.6f H c/P.12-1- ikl- A- t fed IA_ \---7 - c �—y -� ��v P___I\VCo .1...______ _I"1' ,( Eyvie CC.) L.4-- C7 cat d... 14_,C { ' j 1�� a Nb`. r gft/ ca 19. ee Q c CAO . �ZG�- lS 2/2/2010 CVAG's Cash Flow RCTC-January 28, 2010 Analysis & Recommendations Background December 7, 2009 presentation To CVAG > Transportation Committee Executive Committee 1 Outline Looking Ahead Crystal Ball Malfunctioned? Recommendations Revenue ($M) 125 100 Projections - June 2008 07/08 08/09 09/10 10/11 11/12 12/13 13/14 14/15 15/16 16/17 2/2/2010 2 Expenditures (SM) Projections - June 2008 Lll O If) O 11') rs4 Revenue Projections ($M) 125 100 75 50 25 0 December 2009 07/08 08/09 09/10 10/11 11/12 12/13 13/14 14/15 15/16 16/17 2/2/2010 4 18 months later (expenditures)... Expenditure Projections ($M) 125 100 75 50 25 0 December 2009 07/08 08/09 09/10 10/11 11/12 12/13 13/14 14/15 15/16 16/17 2/2/2010 5 Balance Projections ($M) 125 7s 2s December 2009 07/08 08/09 09/10 10/11 11/12 12/13 13/14 14/15 15/16 16/17 2/2/2010 6 In 18 months, our Cash Flow ... 2/2/2010 7 Outline Crystal Ball Malfunctioned? Recommendations What Happened? Happened? More Projects Approved ) (i.e. More Certainty in Out Years on Expenditures) Less Revenue 2/2/2010 8 What Happened? - Expenditures Projects NOT included in 08 Projection Fred Waring-$16M Hwy 111-$40M Ave 56-$38M Ave 66-$18M Assorted-$5M - P Gene Autry Cathedral Canyon Bridge P Monterey / 1-10 • 10 2/2/2010 9 Some of these same projects at risk of delays. ... along with Jefferson & Madison Fred Waring-$16M Hwy 111-$40M Ave 56-$38M Ave 66-$18M Assorted-$5M Gene Autry E Cathedral Canyon Bridge Monterey / 1-10 Jefferson I/C-$78M 444 Madison-$35M • 2/2/2010 10 What Happened? - Revenues 2/2/2010 11 2/2/2010 TUMF & Measure A (08 Projection) 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 ■ Measure A TUMF 07/08 08/09 09/10 10/11 11/12 12/13 13/14 14/15 15/16 16/17 TUMF & Measure A (09 Projection) 45 40 35 1 30 25 a 20 15 10 5 t 0 ■ Measure A ;TUMF 07/08 08/09 09/10 10/11 11/12 12/13 13/14 14/15 15/16 16/17 12 2/2/2010 Measure A Revenue Projections Dawn 30% 13 2/2/2010 But, Some More, Bad News , 14 State, STIP, Funding ( 100 90 SO 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 M) 2008 2009 _ Outline Recommendations vio ti ttiWWW4kpAlgipeiR;; 2/2/2010 15 2/2/2010 Principles Focus on Exec. Committee/TPPS High Priorities Leverage Funding Build During Economic Downturn ® Good Bids Create Jobs Revenues Expenditures 16 Revenues Measure A (Some CVAG Discretion) TUMF (More CVAG Discretion) 2/2/2010 17 2/2/2010 Measure A -Maximum Bond Capacity 18 Measure A -Obligated Payback 2/2/2010 19 2/2/2010 Measure A -Obligated Payback CVAG 10 Year Payback Measure A -Obligated Payback $4.4M / year CVAG 10 Year Payback 20 Extend Bond Repayment to 20 Years $4.4M / year Recommendation 4'1 CVAG 10 Year Payback 2/2/2010 21 2/2/2010 Extend Bond Repayment to 20 Years Frees Up $-2M/Yr Cash Flow Consistent w Western RCO RCTC Approved, Jan 2010 Reco 1 ;r 22 Measure A Bond Capacity CVAG Share-$88M Dependent on RCTC Spring, 2010 Review Debt -Ratios Market Conditions Recommendation #2 2/2/2010 23 Evaluate Obligating More Measure A "Pie" 1 ReCommendatiun 4 2 Eating Too Much Pie May Be Unhealthy '• up to $88M in • But, --$125t4 in • AND $10M1Yr vc stainab penses 2/2/2010 24 What About TUMF? TUMF Rates Per DU Nexus Study Set $10,000 58,000 $6,000 $4,000 $2,000 $0 S2,899 CVAG 2/2/2010 25 2/2/2010 TUMF Rates Per DU Nexus Study Set CVAG Reduced $10,000 $8,000 $6,000 $4,000 S2,000 $0 CVAG TUMF Rates Per DU Nexus Study Set CVAG Reduced Reverts January 1, 2010 $10,000 $8,000 $6,000 $4,000 1 $2,899 $2,000 $0 CVAG 26 TUMF Rates Per DU Nexus Study Set CVAG Reduced Reverts January 1, 2010 New Nexus in 2010 $10,000 $8,000 $6,000 $4,000 $2,000 $0 t 1 7 $2,899 CVAG 1 RecammenddUon l 43 . 2/2/2010 27 2/2/2010 Expenditures 28 Approved Projects Fred Waring-S16M Hwy 111-$40M Ave 56-$38M Ave 66-$18M Assorted-$5M Gene Autry Cathedral Canyon Bridge s Monterey / 1-10 Jefferson I/C-$78M Madison-$35M 2/2/2010 29 2/2/2010 Reduce Projects' Costs Scope of Project Regional Share of Project > Reduce Cap Delay Start Dates Recommendati: 414 30 Examples Fred Waring-$16M Hwy 111-$40M Ave 56-$38M Ave 66-518M Assorted-$5M Gene Autry k Cathedral Canyon Bridge Monterey / Jefferson I/C-$78M Madison-$35M 2/2/2010 31 Another Touchy Subject... What About Loans to Local Jurisdictions? 2/2/2010 32 What About Loans to Local Jurisdictions? Perhaps I didn't explain our cash flow position... What About Loans to Local Jurisdictions? 2/2/2010 33 Summary of Recommendations Recommendation' # 1. Recommendation #2. Recomrrsendatior #3 Recomrrlendation #4'; Recommendation #5 2/2/2010 34 Recommendation #4 Long Term Recommendations Recommendation #5 2/2/2010 35 Summary of Recommendations Recommendation #1 Recommendation #2 Recommendation #3 Recommendation #4 Recommendation #5 Next Steps With Approval of Recommendations... Implement Recommendations Update Projections in Spring 2/2/2010 36 RCTC's Road to Recovery: Recalibrating the Western Riverside County Highway Delivery Plan Progress — the Key to Recovery • New Measure A now in place • Economic crisis has led to declining revenues • Uncertain traffic and revenue from tolls • State's economic issues are jeopardizing programs • RCTC must take advantage of opportunities for success and progress while continuing to move forward on projects of significance 2 1 Today's Agenda • Consider changes since 2006 — Review original plan — Review changed economic conditions • Discuss current progress in regard to individual projects • Review and re-evaluate previous policy decisions and assumptions • Obtain clear Commission direction on how to move forward to ensure long-term success and progress 2 Original Delivery Plan • Immediately pursue construction: — Interstate 215 — Interstate 10 — State Route 91 — Interstate 15 • Pursue environmental clearance: — Bi-county Interstate 215 project — Mega projects: State Route 79 realignment & Mid County Parkway • Protect right of way for mega projects • Consider additional projects as opportunities arise 5 • Add mixed flow lane in each direction from I-15 to Nuevo Road • Construct HOV lane in each direction from Nuevo Road to Box Springs Road 3 Proposed 3 MIXED FLOW PROPOSED 1415 ADD ONE (1) MIXED FLOW LANE EACH DIRECTION UsI EXISTING MED FROM NUEVO ROAD TO 1-215 i 1-1$ INTERCHANGE Improvements Construct east bound truck climbing lane from San Bernardino County line to 60/10 interchange 8 " C o n s t r u c t t w o H O T l a n e s & a g e n e r a l p u r p o s e l a n e f r o m O C l i n e t o I - 1 5 & a g e n e r a l p u r p o s e l a n e t o P i e r c e S t r e e t " C o n s t r u c t E B a u x i l i a r y l a n e f r o m O C L i n e t o S e r f a s C l u b D r i v e " B u i l d C o n n e c t o r I m p r o v e m e n t s & C o l l e c t o r D i s t r i b u t o r ( C D ) S y s t e m a t S R - 7 1 " I m p l e m e n t C o n n e c t o r I m p r o v e m e n t s a n d C D S y s t e m a t I - 1 5 I m p r o v e m e n t s R o u t � 9 1 � G E t I : I d l e d E a P r e s s l a n e s L a n u s P R O P O S E D R O U T E 9 1 A u g L a n u s A D D O N E ( 1 ) M I R E D F L O W + O N E ( 1 ) A U X I L I A R Y + T W O C t l T O L L E D E X P R E S S L A N E S E A C H D I R E C T I O N F R O M O R A N G E C O U N T Y U N E T O 1 - 1 5 1 0 5 " A d d 2 H O T l a n e s i n e a c h d i r e c t i o n f r o m S a n B e r n a r d i n o C o u n t y l i n e t o S R - 7 4 " C o n s t r u c t H O V l a n e f r o m S R - 7 4 t o I - 2 1 5 " S u p p o r t F r e n c h V a l l e y P a r k w a y " C o o r d i n a t e w i t h S A N D A G r e g a r d i n g f u t u r e i m p r o v e m e n t s 1 - 1 5 1 M I X E D 3 M I X E D F L O W F L O W 3 M I X E D 1 M I X E D F L O W F L O W L E G E N D : n e m T o l l e d E x p r e s s W i d e n e d L a n e s P R O P O S E D 1 - 1 5 A D D T W O 1 2 1 T O L L L A N E S + O N E 1 1 1 M I X E D F L O W I N E A C H D I R E C I i O N F R O M S R " 7 4 T O S R - 6 0 1 2 6 Riding the Rollercoaster $180.0 $160.0 $140.0 $120.0 $100.0 $80.0 $60.0 $40.0 $20.0 MeasureA Revenues +Actual —a—Projection Budget ▪ 90 1113 ti5°1 b� ry�oa ,15310 13 Measure A Reality • Western County highway program receives 22.5% of overall Measure A receipts • Measure A receipts have declined by 20% in recent months • FY 2010 receipts average $9 million monthly • Current projection for this fiscal year is $106 million for the entire program • Western County highway receipts for the first 10 years will be less than half of the 2006 forecast 14 7 State Funding Another Worry RGTC,. • Governor's budget proposal could impact STIP projects • STIP problems compounded by state's shaky credit rating • Uncertainty is the biggest problem — especially if budget conflicts drag on beyond deadlines • The Measure A program relies on state and federal revenues to leverage local dollars 15 Facing Reality • We lack the money to fund the entire 2006 Western County Delivery Plan as envisioned • Revised project priorities need to be established • Direction needed on a number of unprecedented actions including: — Lifting the bond cap — Considering private sector involvement on toll projects — Strong advocacy on state and federal policy direction • The Commission faces cash flow issues in mid- 2012 without revisions to current plans 16 8 Measure A Funding Limitations RCTo • Western County Expenditure Plan funds a variety of project and service categories including: — State Highways — New Transportation Corridors — Public Transit — Regional Arterials — Local Streets and Roads — Economic Development Incentives — Debt Financing Costs 17 Additional Limitations • Some funding sources are limited to specific projects: —CMIA (1-215 & SR-91 HOV) —Federal Earmarks (Perris Valley Line) • Return to source provision in Measure A • Measure contains $500 million bond limitation ,8 9 Active Projects Nearing Construction • 60/215 East )unction • SR-91 HOV lanes in downtown Riverside • 74/215 Interchange Project • SR-60/Valley Way Interchange • SR-91/Van Buren Interchange • SR-74 Curve Realignment • Additional ARRA projects PCTC ` 3 20 10 Current Projects • Dependent on 1989 Measure A and State Funding — Total cost: $425 million — State funding needed: $211 million — Federal or other funding needed: $121 million — Measure funding available: $123 million • Outlook: Can be funded if state transportation funds remain whole • Recommendation: Continue at full speed but consider delaying SR-91 HOV in Riverside if state funds are cut 2, Strategic Highway Projects • Mid County Parkway — Complete PA/ED — Consider extraordinary right of way acquisitions on a pay -as -you go basis • SR-79 Realignment — Complete PA/ED — No right of way acquisition funding available at this time 22 11 Rail Projects/Operations • Currently operating on 1989 Measure A reserves • Sufficient funds for short-term capital projects • Sufficient funds for operations through 2013 • Long term operating needs exceed planned revenue — station costs are a major concern • Perris Valley Line has attracted federal support, but will add to long-term operational costs 23 Priority Projects • Insufficient funds to maintain progress on all projects • Projects `above the line" — Prioritize — Loss of state funding = Delay • Projects "below the line" — Complete current work and stop — No money for new projects 24 12 I-215 Priority Projects • I-215 — Murrieta Hot Springs to Scott Road • Heavily dependent on CMIA • I-215 — Scott Road to Nuevo Road • Requires STIP funding • I-215 Bi-County Gap Closure • Attracts San Bernardino funding • French Valley Parkway Interchange • Eligible for Measure A new corridor funding and included in the STIP 25 I-215 Priority Projects • I-215 Gap Project — Relatively inexpensive project to maximize benefit of I-215 widening & French Valley Parkway • I-215 Nuevo Road to Box Springs Road — Has yet to begin environmental work — already at three lanes in each direction 26 13 Additional Priority Project • I-10 Truck Climbing Lane — Included in Delivery Plan but project yet to be defined • 71/91 Interchange and Flyover • I-15 Corridor Improvement Project — Environmental Work Underway • SR-91 Corridor Improvement Project — Envisioned to be the largest RCTC project in history — environmental work underway 27 14 Current Projects • Maintain delivery • Retain Measure A savings on 74/215 Interchange — SR-91 HOV, East Junction, eligible regional arterial — No local stimulus program — Maximize federal funding • SR-91 HOV — Delay Riverside project if CMIA funds fail to materialize zs I-215 Corridor Establish the following priorities: 1 South--Murrieta Hot Springs Road to Scott Road 2. Central --Scott Road to Nuevo Road 3. Bi-County HOV Project 4. French Valley Parkway IC and Gap Closure Defer: North —Nuevo Road to Box Springs Road 30 15 I-15 Corridor • Complete PA/ED • Scope re-evaluation underway- complete July 2010 • Assume deferral of PS&E • Reassess status in July 2010 • Continue monitoring and support of French Valley Parkway 31 • Defer start on truck climbing lane 16 Rail Program • Deliver PVL • In conjunction with SCRRA, explore long-range budget issues • Work with Commission to consider long-range RCTC Metrolink policy items including: — Station operations costs — Advertising — Parking 33 SR-91 Corridor Improvement Project... 17 SR-91 CIP • Don't stop/don't slow down • Continue to move the project forward • Implement phasing plan • Need to reduce project cost to maintain project financial feasibility • Proceed with an initial projectand ultimate project concept • Defer certain improvements • Explore alternative funding options • Private company equity • OCTA • Federal funds 35 SR-91 CIP Design -Build • Don't stop/don't slow down • Continue environmental phase of work • 65% complete, environmental approval Sept. 2011 • Continue design -build phase of work • Obtain design -build authority from the CTC • Commence procurement of a Design -Builder • Start application to obtain federal TIFIA funding • Green light to Project and Construction Manager (PCM) for remaining design -build phase 1 work • Commence acquisition of right of way • Continue agreement work with other agencies • Caltrans, OCTA, Corona, and others 36 18 SR-91 CIP Funding • Three-legged funding stool • Toll revenue bonds • Federal loan • (TIFIA - Transportation Investment Finance Innovation Act) • Measure A sales tax (and other public funds) • First, maximize use of toll revenue bonds and federal TIFIA loan • Second, use Measure A funds to close any funding gap 37 SR-91 CIP Funding 2006/2007 toll feasibility work (Level 1) • Use Measure A funds for project development work • Pay back Measure A funds after the sale of toll revenue bonds - No net Measure A dollars needed for SR-91 - Allowed Measure A dollars planned for SR-91 to be used elsewhere • 2009/2010 toll feasibility work (Level 2) • Use Measure A funds for project development work • Significant Measure A funds needed to close funding gap • Current estimate = $450 million ($2011) of Measure A funds needed • Impact to planned use of Measure A funds by other projects 38 19 SR-91 CIP Funding • 2002 Measure A (excerpt from voter information) • SR-91— Pierce St. to Orange County Line — 1 lane in each direction $161 million • 91/15 — interchange — add new connector from I-15 North to 91 West $243 million • Total $404 million ($2001) ($658 million in $2011) • 2006 Measure A 10-Year Western County Delivery Plan • SR-91— Pierce St. to Orange County Line — 1 lane in each direction • 91/15 — interchange — add new conn. (I-15N to 91W) and CD system • Orange County line to 91/15 interchange — extend Express Lanes • Total $736 million ($2006) ($939 million in $2011) $300 million $311 million $125 million 39 SR-91 CIP Phasing Fundin Project remains financially feasible • Positive net present value over life of project (2016-2066) • Measure A funds are now required to construct it. Tolled express lanes still subsidize other improvements • General purpose lane, auxiliary lanes, collector -distributor system, and interchange improvements are still partially paid by tolls • Strategies used to maintain a financially feasible project • Revisited key assumptions in 2009 (financial, Corridor A, traffic & revenue forecast, etc.) that have a major impact to results • Prepared an independent financial model to verify previous work • Reduced capital costs and the necessary Measure A funds required by deferring some work elements to the future (phasing the work over time) 40 20 SR-91 CIP Phasing Element • Implement phasing plan to "right -size" project and reduce capital costs • Initial Projectwill construct... • One lane each direction from SR-71 to I-15 • Improvements to six local interchanges • Merging and weaving lanes between interchanges • I-15/SR-91 interchange improvements • Extend tolled Express Lanes to I-15 • Tolled Express Lane direct connector to and from the south at I-15 • Ultimate Projectwill... • Defer five elements to the future 4, SR-91 CIP Phasing Elements • Five potential phasing elements were chosen from a longer list of ideas to reduce capital costs - Phasing options were selected based on their potential to significantly reduce costs - Other factors: Measure A commitments, toll revenue, purpose and need of project, practicality • Incorporating these phasing elements has... - Reduced capital costs by an estimated $600 million - Substantially improved the project's financial feasibility 42 21 SR-91 CIP Phasing Elements Phasing Element 1: Tolled express lanes to the north of SR-91 ■ Defer one tolled express lane in each direction on 1-15 between SR-91 and Hidden Valley Parkway ■ Defer tolled express lane direct connector to and from the north at 1-15 Phasing Element 2: Gen. purpose lanes from SR-71 to SR-241 ■ Defer one general purpose lane in each direction from SR-71 to SR-241 Phasing Element 3: 71/91 interchange project ■ Defer the two-lane, freeway -to -freeway, flyover ramp between eastbound SR-91 and northbound SR-71 and other interchange improvements Phasing Element 4: SR-91 improvements east of 1-15 ■ Defer one general purpose lane and one tolled express lane in each direction between 1-15 and Pierce Street Phasing Element 5: 1-15 improvements south of SR-91 ■ Defer one tolled express lane in each direction on 1-15 from south of Magnolia Avenue to south of El Cerrito Road 43 SR-91 CIP Phasing Option ■ The map below shows the Initial Project elements in yellow and the five phases of work proposed to be deferred in green as part of the Ultimate Project 22 SR-91 CIP Alternative Funding • Explore alternative funding options - Is a Public Private Partnership (PPP) a viable Plan B? • How much $ could a PPP bring to the project in private equity? • Currently updating initial PPP feasibility work from 2006/2007 • Policy issues raised with PPP... —Ownership vs. control of the toll facility — RCTC Board approve tolling policy — Prevent "non -compete" clauses 45 SR-91 CIP Alternative Funding - Can OCTA assist with funding? • General purpose lanes from SR-71 to SR-241 (phasing option 2) are desired • Staff reviewing possible options with financial/toll experts - Seek new federal funding for the SR-91 CIP • Federal reauthorization (multi -year funding plan to replace SAFETEA-LU) 46 23 Related Policy Positions RTCe 5: N • Build SR-91 CIP prior to I-15 CIP — Traffic management and demand requires 91 work — 91/15 interchange work will have impact — French Valley Parkway and I-215 critical to addressing Southwest county traffic issues along with I-215 • Defer Corridor A project — Toll feasibility assumes no Corridor A, revenue impact • Federal support needed for TIFIA — Expand and improve TIFIA in next federal transportation reauthorization • CTC action for design -build (or PPP) authority — Application for design -build authority submitted 47 24 $500 Million Debt Limit CT„G m • We need to increase cap to $1 billion even if SR-91 CIP can be financed under the current limit • Timing a concern and polling is critical early this year • Funding needed for other Measure A priorities — Regional arterials — New corridors — Coachella Valley needs 4s • Approval of Project Reprioritization Strategy • Designation of 91 CIP as the top "Priority Project" • Support "right -sized" 91 project scope • Consider private sector possibilities • Take initial steps to consider raising of bond cap — Initial polling — Work with other agencies to coordinate job creation messages and efforts so 25 2010 STATE TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PROPOSAL RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: January 29, 2010 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Shirley Medina, Programming and Planning Manager THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Executive Director SUBJECT: 2010 State Transportation Improvement Program Proposal STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Approve the proposed 2010 State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) for Riverside County; 2) Submit the 2010 STIP proposal to the California Transportation Commission (CTC) by February 12, 2010 for adoption at the May 19, 2010 CTC meeting; 3) Submit the Interstate 215 Bi-County high occupancy vehicle (NOV) gap closure project to the CTC for consideration of available Corridor Mobility Improvement Account (CMIA) funding; and 4) Direct staff to pursue all funding options to deliver Measure A, STIP, Proposition 1 B, and other Commission priority programs. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Each even -numbered year, the CTC is required to adopt a STIP based on the funding identified in the adopted Fund Estimate (FE). The FE is an assessment of transportation revenues for the upcoming five-year STIP cycle and is statutorily required to be adopted by August 15 of each odd -numbered year. However, due to budget amendments to the 2009/10 state budget, the FE was adopted by the CTC in October 2009. The outcome of the 2010 STIP FE resulted in only $366 million of additional programming capacity statewide over the 5-year STIP period beginning FY 2010/11. For comparison purposes, the 2008 STIP fund estimate resulted in $1.3 billion of added programming capacity. Given that the majority of the regions have maximized all available programming capacity, including Riverside County, no additional programming capacity is available through the 2010 STIP. When comparing the 2008 STIP programming with the 2010 STIP programming capacity, almost $700 million will need to be reprogrammed or delayed from the first three years to the last two years of the 2010 STIP cycle (FYs 2013/14 and 2014/15) in order to prevent overprogramming. 2010 STIP FE vs. 2008 STIP Programming 2010 STIP FE Programming Capacity 2008 STIP Programming Difference Fiscal Year ($ millions) 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 $ 972 $ 827 $ 832 $607 $ 607 $1,195 $1,044 $1,095 $ 73 $ 73 1$ 223) ($ 217) ($ 263) $ 534 $ 534 Therefore, each region would have to delay, on average, over 30% of its programming to the out years. Commission staff has reviewed current STIP project schedules and all are proposed to remain in the fiscal year currently programmed with the exception of one project, the I-15/French Valley interchange, which needs to be reprogrammed from FY 2010/11 to FY 2012/13 to reflect the updated construction schedule received by the city of Temecula. Staff will also request that the CTC consider allowing the programming of Planning, Programming, and Monitoring (PPM) funds in the amount of $500,000 per year to support staff activities pertaining to programming and monitoring of STIP funds, as well as project planning efforts (e.g. project study reports and feasibility studies). PPM is normally programmed in each fiscal year to support these efforts. However, the previous 2008 STIP cycle also resulted in no additional programming capacity. Therefore, staff did not have an opportunity to program PPM funds beyond FY 2009/10. FY 2009/10 projects remaining to be allocated could face a delay. As of the January 13, 2010, CTC meeting, all of the allocation capacity will be depleted leaving the remaining project allocations dependent upon the next state bond sale. The next bond sale may occur in Spring 2010, but this is an estimated timeframe. If the bond sale does not occur, or include STIP projects, the remaining FY 2009/10 projects would need to be carried over into the 2010 STIP. CTC staff is recommending that the regions carryover unallocated FY 2009/10 projects into the 2010 STIP. Riverside County unallocated FY 2009/10 projects are listed below: Project STIP $ Amount (millions) Phase Estimated Allocation 1-10/Date Palm IC $14.400 Construction February 2010 I-15/California Oaks/Kalmia IC $21.990 Construction May 2010 1-215 Widening, Scott Road to Nuevo Road $13.443 Design June 2010 60/215 East Junction Connector $ 8.117 Construction May 2010 Total $57.95 million The 2010 STIP proposals from the regions will reflect adjustments to project schedules and priorities. Typically, on a statewide basis, a majority of projects will be reprogrammed to reflect a one-year delay, some projects will remain programmed in the same year, and a few projects may be proposed for advancement. Once the STIPs are submitted by each region, CTC staff will evaluate the proposed programming versus capacity for each year. If overprogramming occurs within a year(s), the CTC will need to prioritize projects by moving projects to a year(s) where sufficient programming capacity is estimated to be available. CTC programming priorities for the FY 2009/10 allocation plan listed state highway construction, Proposition 1 B projects (CMIA, Trade Corridor Infrastructure Fund (TCIF)), PPM, and AB 3090 cash reimbursements as the highest priority for allocations. It is likely that these priorities for allocations will remain for the 2010 STIP in the event projects need to be delayed to meet annual programming capacity levels. CTC staff will contact regions to work out any post -submittal adjustments to the 2010 STIP proposals. Further complicating the 2010 STIP cycle is the release of the Governor's state budget proposal for FY 2010/11. Revenue assumptions included in the 2010 STIP fund estimate could be impacted given the Governor's recent announcement of a $20 billion shortfall and proposals that would impact Proposition 42 funding, the main funding source for STIP capacity projects. At this time, it is uncertain if the CTC will need to address over programming and/or readdress the revenue assumptions in the 2010 STIP fund estimate, but it is highly probable that adjustments will need to be made to the STIP proposals after the February submittal due date and prior to final adoption by the CTC in May 2010. The staff recommendation for the Riverside County 2010 STIP is included in Attachment 1 and is detailed as follows: 1) Carryover unallocated FY 2009/10 projects; 2) Carryover 2008 STIP projects to reflect updated schedules; 3) Program PPM funds in the amount of $500,000 per year; and 4) Reprogram the Transportation Enhancement (TE) reserve to reflect updated project delivery schedules. Potential Funding Opportunities Staff will continue to pursue all available funding opportunities to deliver STIP, Measure A, Proposition 1 B, and other high priority program projects including federal Surface Transportation Program (STP) and Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) funds that are apportioned to Riverside County and other state funding opportunities. Over the next few months, it will be extremely important to "move funds around" to ensure all available funds are programmed to deliver the Commission's current commitments. For example, if the CTC's recommendation is to delete STIP projects to address a shortfall, staff will develop a plan to replace the STIP funds with other funding. The proposed "Jobs Bill" could provide funding for projects within a short timeframe. However, based on the language included in the House version no federal rules and regulations will be waived. Additionally, a 90-day deadline is being proposed to have fully executed construction contracts for half of the funding. This restrictive language will limit the type and number of projects that can meet such a deadline. Commission staff is actively participating in discussions throughout the state to prepare for this "Jobs Bill" if it passes. The Proposition 1 B CMIA program has experienced cost savings through recent construction awards. The current low -bid environment has benefited the CMIA program resulting in programming opportunities. The CTC adopted Supplement 2 to the CMIA Accountability Implementation Plan that provides guidance on programming available CMIA funds due to cost savings. The guidance states that proposed projects must meet the eligibility criteria established for CMIA projects including the commencement of construction no later than December 31, 2012. The CTC will consider projects nominated during the original CMIA process and projects that will enhance the benefits of already programmed CMIA projects. The San Bernardino Associated Governments (SANBAG) experienced a significant cost savings as a result of awarding the 1-215 HOV project through downtown San Bernardino. SANBAG will propose the 1-215 Bi-County HOV gap closure project, from Orange Show Road in San Bernardino to the 60/91 /215 interchange in Riverside, given that this project directly enhances SANBAG's 1-215 CMIA project currently under construction. The Commission approved the Bi-County HOV gap closure project for 2010 STIP programming at the December 2009 meeting. Staff recommends submitting this project for CMIA funding jointly with SANBAG. If the CTC selects this project for funding, it would provide relief to the 2010 STIP that already faces overprogramming issues. Submittals for CMIA savings funding are due to the CTC by February 1, 2010, and projects will be evaluated based on their merits. The STIP and CMIA funds are administered by the CTC and Caltrans and do not affect the Commission's budget. Therefore, there is no financial impact to the Commission's budget. Attachment: Riverside County 2010 STIP Riverside County 2010 STIP Agency Rte Project 2010 STIP Period (000's) 5-year STIP Total Estimated Allocation FY 30/11 FY 11/12 FY 12/13 FY 13/14 FY 14/15 Riverside County 10 *Date Palm Interchange $ 14,400 $ 14,400 Feb 2010 Caltrans/Murrieta 15 *Calif Oaks/Kalmia Interchange $ 21,990 $ 21,990 May 2010 RCTC 215 *Scott Rd to Nuevo, add MF lanes $ 13,443 $ 13,443 June 2010 RCTC 60/215 *East Junction connector $ 8,117 $ 8,117 May 2010 RCTC 91/71 Interchange and connectors $ 4,612 $ 4,612 RCTC 215 Murrieta Hot Spr to Scott Rd, add MF Ins (CMIA) $ 16,530 $ 16,530 RCTC Rail Perris Valley Line, commuter rail Riverside to Perris $ 52,978 $ 52,978 RCTC 91 Corridor Improvement Project/HOT Ins $ 2,000 $ 2,000 RCTC/SANBAG 215 Bi-County HOV In gap closure $ 2,185 $ 24,881 $ 27,066 Caltrans/Temecula 15 French Valley Interchange $ 31,545 $ 31,545 Various **Transportation Enhancements Reserve 3472 292 1416 $ 5,180 RCTC Planning, Programming, and Monitoring $ 500 $ 500 $ 500 $ 500 $ 500. $ 2,500 Total 2030 STIP Programming $ 138,227 $ 27,673 $ 33,461 $ *FY 2009/10 Unallocated STIP Projects (as of Jan 2010) **Transportation Enhancements Projects Agency Project FY 10/11 FY 11/12 FY 12/13 Corona Magnolia/EI Camino Ave Beautification $ 943 RCTC PVL- GreenwayCorridor $ 1,113 Beaumont San Timeteo Cyn Bike & Ped. Facilities $ 1,416 Calimesa Calimesa Blvd Landscaping $ 292 County of Riverside Santa Ana Trail $ 1,416 TE FY Totals $ 3,472 $ 292 $ 1,416 500 $ 500 $ 200,361 2/1 /2010 Riverside County 2010 STIP Proposal State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) The California Transportation Commission (CTC) is statutorily required to adopt a STIP Fund Estimate by August 15 of each odd year. • Five-year forecast of transportation revenues • County shares determined per SB45 STIP distribution formula (population/road miles) The CTC adopts the STIP update each even year. *vers.& Cox lay T iansportution Co „311111114MW __ `= ;;;11;111,11IIiII.Ii, STIP Funding History Each STIP cycle brings in two new years of additional funding for project programming. Past STIP cycles provided the following fund capacity statewide: 2000 STIP $1.5 billion (RCTC $49 million) 2002 STIP $3.6 billion (RCTC $44 million) 2004 STIP $ 8 million (RCTC $0) 2006 STIP $1.9 billion (RCTC $167 million) 2006 STIP(Aug)$2.6 billion (RCTC $190 million, incl. Prop 113) 2008 STIP $1.3 billion (RCTC $0, 2006 STIP shortfall) 2010 STIP Fund Estimate $366 Million (RCTC $0) $220 million — TE Projects, GARVEE debt service $146 million — STIP Capacity Projects New STIP capacity funding depends primarily on Public Transportation Account (PTA) resources and Proposition 42 revenues transferred to the Transportation Investment Fund (TIF). 2/1 /2010 2 2010 STIP FE vs. 2008 STIP Programming (' 2010 STIP FE Capacity 2008 STIP Programming Difference Fiscal Year ($ millipns 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 2013i $ 972 $ 827 $ 832 $ $1,195 $1,044 $1,095 ($ 223) ($ 217) ($ 263), -Over $700 million needs to be reprogrammed to -Excludes FY 2009/10 and 2008/09 unallocated p -STIP capacity fully allocated at January 2010 CT -Future STIP allocations dependent on next bond 142014/.15 607 $ 607 ast two years rojects meeting sale FY Projects :lip 2009/10 Unallocated STIP � in Riverside County ��; F , „ , Estimated . Allocation Feb 2010 .. .......:...:.... May 2010 _, e ,, _ i'trsject STIP $ Phase Amount (millions) 1-10/Date Palm IC $14A00 Construction I-15/California Oaks/Kalmia IC $21.990 Construction 1-215 Widening, Scott to Nuevo $13.443 Design Jun 2010 60/215 East Junction Connector $ 8.117 Construction May 2010 Total ;57.950 $57.950 million will need to be carried over 2010 STIP in the event STIP funds are not : for allocation for remainder of FY 09/10. into the vailable 2/1 /2010 3 FY 2009/10 "Allocated" STIP Projects I' STIP Phase Allocation/ Programmed ; Obligation Amount Date imiltions} I-10/Bob Hope/Ramon IC $40.341 Construction Aug 2009 STIP $ 5,429 ARRA $34,912 1-10/Palm Drive IC $ 2.600 Construction ARRA 1-10/Indian:IC $13656 Construction Dec 2009 SR-91Nan Buren IC $16.101 Construction Oct 2009 Total $72.698 Actual FY 2009/10 STIP funding allocated: $35.186 million 2010 STIP Proposed Programming Project 1-10 Date Palm IC $14,400 1-15 Cal Oaks IC $21,990 1-215 Widen, Scott -Nuevo $13,443 60/215 E Jct Connectors $ 8,117 FY 11112 91/71IC $ 4,612 1-215 Wden, MHS-Scott $16,530 Perris Valley Line Extension $52,978 91 Corridor Imp/HOT Ins $2,000 1215 Bi•County HOV Gap $ 2,185 $24,881 1-15 French Valley IC Transp. Enhance, Reserve PPM Total. $ 3,472 $ 292 $ 500 $ 500 $138,227 $27,673 FY 12t13 $31,545 1,416 6 500 FY13/14 $' 500 1,461 $ 500 2/1 /2010 4 CMIA Savings 1 , Is Iloi r� • October 2009 CTC releases supplemental guidance on CMIA project savings • Regions can nominate projects from original CMIA process, or nominate projects that enhance currently programmed CMIA projects • SANBAG/RCTC joint submittal of 1-215 Bi-County HOV Gap Closure project ($50 million) - Identified in both county sales tax programs - Enhances 1-215 CMIA HOV project in San Bernardino - Enhances SR-91 CMIA HOV project in Riverside 2010 STIP Programming Recommendations - • Approve the proposed 2010 STIP for Riverside County • Submit the 2010 STIP proposal to the CTC by February 12, 2010 • Submit the 1-215 Bi-County HOV project to the CTC for consideration of available CMIA fund' g • Direct staff to pursue all funding options to deliver Measure A, STIP, Prop 1 B, and other Commission priority programs (including potential ARRA II) 2/1 /2010 5 Next Steps • Staff will work with CTC to determine final programming adjustments, if necessary Staff will review all available fund sources to maintain Commission commitments • CTC adoption — May 19, 2010 2/1 /2010 6 SB 375 & Southern Calif r� Economic Future John E. Husing, Ph.D. So. California Will Add More People From 2005-2035 Population Forecast, New People SCAG 6-County Region, 2005-2035 594.034 156.338 199,707 2 131 590 5,909.490 Imperial Ventura Co. Orange Co. Los Angeles Inland Empire SCAG Area Source: Regional Transportation Program, SCAG 2/1/2010 1 2/1/2010 Who Is Gro Exhibit 2.-Who Caused Growth? Southern California, 2000-2009 2,528,143 100.0% Births (less) Deaths Domestic & Foreign Migration Total Increase Source:. Califomia Department of finance, Demographic Research Unit, E-2 Report, 2000-2009 So. California Will Add Jobs From 2005-2035 More Job Forecast SCAG 6-County Region, 2005-2030 Imperial Ventura Co. Orange Co. Los Angeles Inland Empire SCAG Area Source: Regional Transportation Program, SCAG 2/1 /2010 35.4% 34.2% e11 orni Rachelor's Degree or Higher Shai; of Population, 25 & Over 29.9% 28.3% 28.1% Source: American Community Survey, 2008 du ate We Need A Discussion 3 2/1/2010 -12ETTIVAT1 We've Never Had One for Southern California! 4 fusing rnians Vice Have Pieces Of A Strategy But Only Pieces! 2/1 /2010 5 Tie &crate 91 Express Toll Lanes 2 Po:As t 40 50 !0 600D1 Cancers per millioni----.------ Source: SCAQMD, Multiple Air Tonics Exposure Study II, March 2000. "2: 2/1 /2010 6 2/1 /2010 7 2/1/2010 Population Growth M ✓ O N M N m a as Exhibit 1.-Population Riverside County, 1990-2009 N A n en CO m y N • M ▪ W C411 O ti H n g n n M N M m _o N 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 So nce', CA Department of Finance, E-5 Repons, 1990-2009 8 ORANGE LOS ANGELES IMPERIAL SAN DIEGO VENTURA INLAND EMPIRE Io Exhibit 9.-Jobs:Hc u; in6 Balance, So. Calif. Areas, 2006 =a IE Cities West of I-15 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA Riverside-MV-Perris SB-East Valley Coachella Valley SW Riv. County SB-High Desert 1.03 1.28 1.24 1.22 1.19 111 0.79 1.26 1.22 1.08 0.98 1.53 1.57 Note: Wage & S lary Jobs vs. Occupied Dwellings; Military in Outlying Deserts, Morongo Basin Sources: CA Department of Finance & CA Employment Development Department Gold Mine Theory 2/1 /2010 9 Why Blue Collar Important High School or Less School, 2008 Share of Population, 25 & Over Imperial San Bemardino Riverside Los Angeles So. California Ventura Orange San Diego Source: American Communitu Survey, 2008 2/1/2010 10 ico Median Income, 2008 Southern California, By County 576,860 $75,078 E37,936 E63,026 felo $65,499 $55,021 Ventura Orange San Diego Riverside Los Angeles San Bernardino Source: 2008 Census Bureau, American Community Survey Imperial al Economic Fact 2/1 /2010 11 2/1/2010 BA Or Higher Education Adults 25 & Up, Inland Empire, 2000-2008 2000 2008 Source: 2000 Census 8 2008 American Community Survey 2000-loos Percent Us unae y, No Eno gh Bachelor's Degree or Higher Share of Population, 25 & Over 35.4% 34.2% _ 29.9% 28.3% 28.1% Orange San Diego Ventura So. Calif Los Angeles Riverside San Bernardino Imperial Source: American Communim Survey, 2008 12 2/1/2010 y Fear? 13 2/1 /2010 That ®a Young Professionals � A Higher End Urban Llfes Where Is L.A.'s Edge Now? 14 2/1 /2010 15 2/1/2010 ucing CA's Greenhouse Gases-t r Down -200 Million Tons 16 2/1/2010 So. Calltorr�ia +- Li nanswerea Where We Working On Strategies We Still Don't Have Consensus How to Move Jobs To Where People Where To Put- New Transportation Corridors;&. Investment Hove To House 5.9 million More People What Is the Appropriate Trade Off: Health, Jobs, Unemplo ment 17 2/1 /2010 cussing The Answer 18 2/1 /2010 Two Ways To Get Action Mandate Action Through Re • ulato A • envies. Induce Action Using Incentives SLAG Believes: ; Incentives Work Bette 19 2/1/2010 20 Changing Whose Driving The Agenda? 2/1/2010 21 1 Population & Employment Growth Population & Employment Growth (Millions) SLAG Region 2010 2035 Population 19.0 23.8 Employment 7.5 9.9 Riverside County 2010 2035 Population 2.2 3.5 Employment 0.7 1.3 "Like adding two cities the size of Chicago to Southern California" 2035 rside County Total Population by Group,; ., 0 and 2035 1,200,000 - 1,000,000 - 800,000 - 600,000 - 400,000 - 200.000 - 0 1 .031,00D 462,000 1,07 2,000 ■2010 152035 640,000 360,000 "'''1,0 272 0 0-19 20-29 30-54 55-64 65+ 2 ��" 5 �� _ ' - 7 i . % ' n ��' i s : m Z ��t ��' . �� r i g , " 4 ��" ' �� - �� i . �� , �� # ���� H k ����' 3 A R ��' S k ` Y a i 9 L ' Y F �� . . t f I R . ' ' �� �� 5 t S ��" ^ ' 4 1 ' T v �'�� H _ . ) . r m t S } i j I J + r ' k t w l L V W R 4 . J ' i ��' " ��' f j \ ' ( ����f Y 1 i A ' �� R i t F ' 3 ' l I 4 T �� a p t A ' 1 . : i y ����( ��. ' > " 4 t t Y ��i ��B S ' I # I k H u g e , S h f t i n p g e s ; ; - 0 ' 0 1 0 t i 0 0 ; S C I ��G ` R 3 ° oval" H U4-phalds . the Wan1- Household Tvpe MHwuith Children . HH without Children 1960 2000 2005 2040 48% 33% 32% 27% 52% 67% 68% 73% Single -Person HH 13% 26% 31% 34% Source: Dr. Arthur C. Nelson, Presidential Professor & Director of Metropolitan Research, University of Utah. 4 National Preference' Exlstlitg Total Share Region Riv Co 38%. 37% 9%* 24% 1.5% . 39%oy. 62°%: 37% 60% ,. 25% .. 40% fnnetkreterencebr dGna Io'w rangeof surveys reyiowesl by Arthur i;',N,eison'LeadereiiiP 1ri aN .4:610arr fT,70iitiii gsociet%n,Fait20o6: e3ustingperStAiforhta'DepartmentofFineridb: 2009'= rid:ad iri4toi4$baindotniriium; WSJ 12/06 . , — nnual Rates of Buying and ;Selling - Per 100People of ,Each Age in California c5.0 4.5 a- 4.0 d 3.5 - 3.0 - 2.5 - 2.0 - w 1.5 WI 1.0 - a 0.5 m' 0.0 sr N 0 N N ,M n o N io Sell m c? V h o CO V. 4 Age 1.0 ti o n o N o ui Ln CO CO CO I� n 0 CO r Source: Myers (2007) Immigrants and Boomers, Figure 11.1 5 OM N per Gasoline P:ric etail Gasoline Rrlieaad Orivtng Costs =Peg.of lee a.,.lL•11Sobrl .....WIV WMm,OI MM 2000 • A household will spend over $4,000 to drive for one year, more thandouble from driving costs in 2006. • The increase in gas prices since 2006 has cost the U.S_ drivers more than $360 billion per year in driving costs. • Economists; estimate that nationally, for every one cent increase in gasoline_ price, spending- in other areas will decline by one billion dollars. 6 There will be an impact on — Health care — Transportation needs — Delivery services — Government finance/revenue generation — Fiscalization of land use 7 8 Compass Blueprint Demonstration Projects by Jurisdiction Ventura County Filmore Ventura ,.,. .. -a ntmenvun Cam. Mamma Ma Mum -MO count _. `' �. cathedra '. ComMM cly Co,onratlrNM Lon Angeles County { � Desert Hot Sim., •br Here, Baarm Park IMO Muter* Lanz Elsinore CotWMn - Mmgw CevHr - More. vallH wMm qlV MW16ya El Mank San Msnvdrw County Palm Spnyr Glendora Ont. MMrMele CdWn La Mirada Fontana • La Grand WU TVerrucaLLancaster"fNM Lgwgea Mntario LM2@aT OaMM Loa.MOHrW n Rancho Cucamongarga SanG Evxes Redlands San Gruel S Saar cMnu e.eMt - 4wa IHPMWangrw era 1PoMM Vi AgruTle p rersMe TematWe W*bnY ta+�arasYno Onnq County Urea FMeMn La Hmra Lmrma Nlquer Im Alamitos Placentia 9 I ransit Village ,Riverside: City of Indio t Feasibility Analysis.:' Studied redeveloprnent tential.al©ng Indfo Boulevard (connecting Downtown Indio to 140);in conjunction with the. proposed Downtown TXansportation Center and eXisting Amtrak station.. 10 11 12 Roundtable listening secs€ons on Target Setting GHG emission reduction TaCget finalized iy.ARB in Septernbel 2015}; Re ionaf workshops on develcsping Sustainable l nmmunities Strateg (SCS) 13 PROPOSED COMMITTEE RESTRUCTURING RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: January 29, 2010 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Executive Committee John Standiford, Deputy Executive Director THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Executive Director SUBJECT: Proposed Committee Restructuring EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Review and approve disbanding the Plans and Programs Committee; 2) Approve the formation of the Coachella Valley Programs and Projects Committee and the Western Riverside County Programs and Projects Committee; 3) Review and approve the restructuring of the Budget and Implementation Committee; and 4► Forward to the Executive Committee for final action. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Upon expansion of the Commission in 1999, the existing committee structure was defined and implemented per the Administrative Code. Budget and Implementation and Plans and Programs have served as two primary Commission committees that provide policy and program direction. A summary of the existing committee responsibilities and 2009 appointments are attached. The following observations have been made by staff and/or Commissioners regarding these two standing committees. • Many of the Commission's programs overlap and specific project decisions could come under the purview of either committee; • There can be an imbalance in the number of agenda items for each committee; • Committees are occasionally canceled due to lack of substantive items; • Due to the Coachella Valley Association of Governments (CVAG) active role and authority in administering the Coachella Valley's share of transportation funding, the Commission's committee agenda items are often Western County related; and " C o a c h e l l a V a l l e y C o m m i s s i o n e r s h a v e e x p r e s s e d c o n c e r n r e g a r d i n g t r a v e l a n d t i m e c o m m i t m e n t s f o r c o m m i t t e e i t e m s u n r e l a t e d t o t h e i r g e o g r a p h i c a r e a o r t h e c o u n t y a s a w h o l e . D I S C U S S / O N : M e a s u r e A c o n t a i n s a u n i q u e f e a t u r e i n p r o v i d i n g a g e o g r a p h i c r e t u r n t o s o u r c e o f f u n d i n g b e t w e e n W e s t e r n R i v e r s i d e C o u n t y , t h e C o a c h e l l a V a l l e y , a n d t h e P a l o V e r d e V a l l e y . T h e e x i s t e n c e o f t h i s p r o v i s i o n r e c o g n i z e s t h e e c o n o m i c i m p o r t a n c e o f t h e e a s t e r n p a r t o f R i v e r s i d e C o u n t y i n s p i t e o f i t s s m a l l e r p o p u l a t i o n a n d f e w e r m u n i c i p a l j u r i s d i c t i o n s . T e n o f R i v e r s i d e C o u n t y ' s c i t i e s a r e l o c a t e d i n t h e e a s t e r n p o r t i o n o f t h e c o u n t y , o n e c o u n t y s u p e r v i s o r i a l d i s t r i c t i s l o c a t e d e n t i r e l y i n t h e e a s t e r n p a r t o f t h e c o u n t y , a n d a n o t h e r s u p e r v i s o r i a l d i s t r i c t i s p a r t i a l l y l o c a t e d w i t h i n t h e C o a c h e l l a V a l l e y . T h e i n t e n t o f t h i s p r o p o s a l i s t o f o r m u l a t e a c o m m i t t e e a n d g o v e r n a n c e s t r u c t u r e t o s e r v e t h e e n t i r e c o u n t y , b u t t o a l s o p r o v i d e o p p o r t u n i t i e s t o r e c e i v e a d v i c e a n d c o u n s e l f r o m a l l C o m m i s s i o n e r s a n d e n s u r e t h a t e v e r y C o m m i s s i o n e r h a s a n o p p o r t u n i t y . t o f u l l y p a r t i c i p a t e . A s m e n t i o n e d a b o v e , t h e r e h a v e b e e n t i m e s w h e r e C o m m i s s i o n d i s c u s s i o n s h a v e o f t e n c e n t e r e d o n t o p i c s t h a t a r e l o c a l i z e d t o t h e w e s t e r n p o r t i o n o f t h e c o u n t y . A p r i m e e x a m p l e o f t h i s c a n b e s e e n o n d i s c u s s i o n s r e g a r d i n g t h e W e s t e r n R i v e r s i d e C o u n t y T r a n s p o r t a t i o n U n i f o r m M i t i g a t i o n F e e ( T U M F ) p r o g r a m . T h e m a i n r e a s o n f o r t h e d i c h o t o m y i s t h e s p e c i f i c a u t h o r i t y t h a t i s g r a n t e d t o C V A G u n d e r M e a s u r e A t o a c t i v e l y p a r t i c i p a t e i n t h e p r o g r a m m i n g o f M e a s u r e A r e v e n u e s r e t u r n e d t o t h e C o a c h e l l a V a l l e y . B a s e d o n t h e a b o v e , s t a f f b e l i e v e s t h a t s o m e s l i g h t m o d i f i c a t i o n s o f t h e e x i s t i n g c o m m i t t e e s t r u c t u r e w i l l b e n e f i t t h e C o m m i s s i o n a s a w h o l e a n d h a s e x p l o r e d t h e f o l l o w i n g o p t i o n s f o r d i s c u s s i o n : 1 . D i s b a n d t h e e x i s t i n g P l a n s a n d P r o g r a m s C o m m i t t e e a n d f o r m t w o g e o g r a p h i c a l l y - b a s e d c o m m i t t e e s . " W e s t e r n C o u n t y P r o g r a m s a n d P r o j e c t s : R e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s i n c l u d e C a p i t a l P r o j e c t s , T U M F , S T I P , R T I P , N e w C o r r i d o r s , A i r Q u a l i t y , R e g i o n a l A g e n c i e s / P l a n n i n g , C l e a n F u e l s , C o n g e s t i o n M a n a g e m e n t P r o g r a m r e l a t e d t o W e s t e r n R i v e r s i d e C o u n t y a n d o t h e r a r e a s a s m a y b e p r e s c r i b e d b y t h e C o m m i s s i o n . T h i s c o m m i t t e e m e e t s o n t h e f o u r t h M o n d a y o f t h e m o n t h a t 1 : 3 0 p . m . M e m b e r s h i p i s c o m p r i s e d o f 1 0 W e s t e r n C o u n t y r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s a s a p p o i n t e d b y t h e C h a i r . " C o a c h e l l a V a l l e y P r o g r a m s a n d P r o j e c t s : R e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s i n c l u d e C a p i t a l P r o j e c t s , S T I P , R T I P , N e w C o r r i d o r s , A i r Q u a l i t y , R e g i o n a l A g e n c i e s / P l a n n i n g , C l e a n F u e l s , C o n g e s t i o n M a n a g e m e n t P r o g r a m r e l a t e d t o t h e C o a c h e l l a a n d P a l o V e r d e V a l l e y s a n d o t h e r a r e a s a s m a y b e p r e s c r i b e d b y t h e C o m m i s s i o n . I t i s p r o p o s e d t h a t t h i s c o m m i t t e e w i l l m e e t d i r e c t l y a f t e r t h e C V A G T r a n s p o r t a t i o n C o m m i t t e e o n t h e f i r s t M o n d a y o f t h e m o n t h . M e m b e r s h i p i n c l u d e s a l l o f t h e C o a c h e l l a V a l l e y / P a l o V e r d e V a l l e y r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s i n c l u d i n g t h e F o u r t h a n d F i f t h D i s t r i c t S u p e r v i s o r s . I s s u e s f o r r e s o l u t i o n r e g a r d i n g C V A G T r a n s p o r t a t i o n C o m m i t t e e : " T h e e x i s t i n g C V A G C o m m i t t e e w i l l a d j o u r n a n d t h e n t h e C o a c h e l l a V a l l e y P r o g r a m s a n d P r o j e c t s C o m m i t t e e w i l l c o n v e n e . M e m b e r s h i p a n d p r o c e d u r a l i s s u e s c a n b e a d d r e s s e d a n d a f o r m a t d e v e l o p e d t h r o u g h d i s c u s s i o n w i t h r e s p e c t i v e s t a f f a n d l e g a l c o u n s e l . " C V A G w i l l n e e d t o m o v e t h e c o m m i t t e e d a t e f r o m s e c o n d M o n d a y o f t h e m o n t h a t 1 2 : 0 0 p . m . t o t h e f i r s t M o n d a y o f t h e m o n t h , e x c e p t w h e n t h e f i r s t M o n d a y a n d s e c o n d W e d n e s d a y f a l l i n t h e s a m e w e e k , i n o r d e r t o m e e t C o m m i s s i o n a g e n d a d e a d l i n e s . 2 . R e s t r u c t u r e B u d g e t a n d I m p l e m e n t a t i o n C o m m i t t e e R e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s i n c l u d e A n n u a l B u d g e t D e v e l o p m e n t a n d O v e r s i g h t , C o u n t y w i d e S t r a t e g i c P l a n , L e g i s l a t i o n , M e a s u r e A I m p l e m e n t a t i o n , I n t e r m o d a l P r o g r a m s , P u b l i c C o m m u n i c a t i o n s a n d O u t r e a c h P r o g r a m s , C o m p e t i t i v e S t a t e a n d F e d e r a l G r a n t P r o g r a m s , S A F E / F r e e w a y S e r v i c e P a t r o l a n d o t h e r a r e a s a s m a y b e p r e s c r i b e d b y t h e C o m m i s s i o n . T h i s C o m m i t t e e w i l l s t i l l i n c l u d e m e m b e r s f r o m b o t h t h e w e s t e r n a n d e a s t e r n p o r t i o n s o f t h e c o u n t y . T h i s C o m m i t t e e m e e t s o n t h e f o u r t h M o n d a y o f e a c h m o n t h a t 9 : 3 0 a . m . ( n o c h a n g e ) . M e m b e r s h i p i s c o m p r i s e d o f 1 0 W e s t e r n C o u n t y r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s a n d f i v e C o a c h e l l a V a l l e y / P a l o V e r d e V a l l e y r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s a s a p p o i n t e d b y t h e C h a i r . One thing to note is the members from the eastern part of the county will be required to serve on more than one committee because those members will also serve on the Coachella Valley Programs and Projects Committee. IMPLEMENTATION: Assuming approval by the Executive Committee in February including the needed revision of the Administrative Code, staff recommends implementation of new committee structures to begin in late February. Upon direction by the Chair, most committee assignments will closely mirror those existing appointments to minimize impact and inconvenience for Commissioners e.g., a Western County Commissioner currently appointed to Plans and Programs would be appointed to the new Western County Projects and Programs Committee. Also there would be no substantive change on the Budget Implementation Committee, and finally, the Coachella Valley Programs and Projects Committee would have its first meeting on the first Monday of March. " C r e a t e d i n 1 9 9 8 " G o v e r n e d b y A d m i n i s t r a t i v e C o d e " T w o P r i m a r y S t a n d i n g C o m m i t t e e s B u d g e t & I m p l e m e n t a t i o n C o m m i t t e e P l a n s & P r o g r a m s 2 / 2 / 2 0 1 0 1 Evolving to Three Committees` • Budget and Implementation — Proceeds largely unchanged • Western County Projects & Programs — Consists of 10 members • Coachella Valley/Eastern County Projects & Programs — Consists of all Commissioners representing the eastern portion of the county Why Make the Change? • Keep countywide focus and foster understanding of specific projects • Enhances cooperation between RCTC & CVAG • Encourage greater participation in committee process 2/2/2010 2 What Needs to Happen? • Approval of CVAG — Meet Immediately after CVAG Transportation Committee on 1st Monday • Change in RCTC Administrative Code • Final Executive Committee and Commission approval in February 2/2/2010 3 FINAL FEASIBILITY EVALUATION REPORT FOR THE IRVINE CORONA EXPRESSWAY TUNNELS PROJECT REVISED AGENDA ITEM Additions are noted by Bold Italics, Deletions are noted by c*•i' ethr-ems; RIVERS/DE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: January 29, 2010 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Riverside Orange Corridor Authority Cathy Bechtel, Project Development Director THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Executive Director SUBJECT: Final Feasibility Evaluation Report for the Irvine Corona Expressway Tunnels Project RIVERSIDE ORANGE CORRIDOR AUTHORITY AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Receive and file the feasibility evaluation report for Irvine Corona Expressway (ICE) tunnels project; 2) Authorize staff to condeet a to t fcvcntie stay to determine the pay back duration of the ICE tunnels pfejcct fef use at a public private partnership (PPP) workshop and allocato $ 10,000 to pay for tho Commission's share of tho required local match; 4—A therize staff te-sundaes-a Rial22—wer-ksh tv^�^a"v'ge th@—priv �e ost-y project; and 21 Direct staff to conduct an evaluation of the revenues needed to fund the proposed ICE tunnels obligation and return this information to the ROCA Board at its April 2010 meeting; and 3) Authorize the continuation of groundwater monitoring for up to an additional year in order to provide time to gauge private industry interest in the project. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: At the conclusion of the Riverside County -Orange County Major Investment Study (MIS), the Commission and the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) directed staff to further study the feasibility of Corridor B - ICE tunnels project. This corridor was proposed as a four -lane tunnel facility connecting the Foothill Transportation Corridor (State Route 241)/Laguna Freeway (State Route 133) in the city of Irvine to the Ontario Freeway (Interstate 15) at Cajalco Road in the city of Corona. REVISED AGENDA ITEM In early 2006, Commission staff issued a request for proposals to retain a consultant for the feasibility study. This feasibility study focused on underground soil and water table conditions, feasibility of ventilating the tunnels, construction methods, and operation and maintenance costs. The findings of this study will be the basis for direction on the next steps. Proposals for the services were received and evaluated in accordance with the Commission's procurement procedures for professional and technical services. The top ranked firm, Kleinfelder West, Inc., was selected to perform the feasibility study in early 2007. The total contract value is $8,003,487, with approximately $7.45 million spent to date. Through the effort of Congressmen Ken Calvert (R-CA), Chris Cox (R-CA), and Gary Miller (R-CA), $15.8 million of federal funds was set aside for the study of alternatives between the two counties. The Commission and OCTA are providing the required matching funds. DISCUSSION: The transportation tunnel concepts evaluated in the ICE tunnels feasibility evaluation assume large to medium -diameter tunnels accommodating highway and rail traffic. The tunnels evaluated in this study include highway and rail tunnels approximately 11.5 miles long. The general tunnel location that was defined during the MIS was assumed for the ICE tunnels feasibility evaluation. The MIS tunnel alignment location and depth were developed to avoid assumed high groundwater pressures while limiting road grades to no more than five percent. Beside the original MIS assumptions, two additional tunnel options were considered in the feasibility evaluation: a rail tunnel, which has grades of three percent or less to allow a transit rail option, and a shared tunnel, which has provisions for a water pipeline that could also be used by the Metropolitan Water District. The technical study was completed focusing on seven main feasibility issues: 1) Geologic, hydrogeologic/hydrologic, and geotechnical conditions; 2) Corridor concepts; 3) Tunnel configuration; 4) Tunnel excavation and support methods; 5) Tunnel systems (ventilation and air cleaning); 6) Construction considerations; and 7) Fiscal feasibility determined from construction costs, operations and maintenance costs, and toll revenues. More comprehensive evaluations will be needed to further explore the environmental impacts, regional traffic patterns at tunnel exit points, transit planning, and funding mechanisms. REVISED AGENDA ITEM Conclusions of the Study Based on these initial studies, a tunnel system beneath the Santa Ana mountain is technically feasible. There are no fatal flaws identified that would prevent the project from being designed, constructed, and operated. There are however, significant challenges. The most critical challenges determined to date are the following: • Large tunnel diameter construction technology; • Tunnel ventilation; • Construction costs; • Protection of groundwater resources; and • Tunnel configuration and grade considerations. When first conceptualized, the idea of connecting Orange and Riverside Counties through an alternative corridor to the Riverside Freeway (State Route 91) offered significant promise. Converting this idea into an actual project raised a number of engineering questions. There are a number of impressive tunnel facilities throughout the world. However, none combine the length of the proposed ICE corridor with the projected traffic volume and demand that is likely between Riverside and Orange counties. If constructed, the ICE corridor will have no peer in terms of its scale, design, and utility. Constructing the ICE corridor is technically feasible from an engineering perspective; however, the potential for moving forward using only public funding sources is unlikely due to significant construction and operational costs. The recommended concept focused on a phased construction approach to craft a financially feasible project. Constructing one large reversible vehicle tunnel and smaller rail tunnel as part of Phase 1 would allow generation of toll revenues to support the construction of a second large vehicle tunnel in a later phase. The estimated cost of the first phase is $8.6 billion (2009 dollars). The ICE ..neserl +ell feeil:+.,eiedes +he r.er+..ni+.. +e involve the private sector in evaluating the potential of a privatized facility. In order z T-kifS—wcc—muv.Tct-y-ir-rccre$c-vrrv--v-vavirrrcovvvek-Fc$cn'virrg options to finance, design, construct, maintain, and operate the ICE tunnels. A s+uely to assess +he potential fen reyen..e iver�ere+ii+.+ else recom men -deck This information •ill e.. n+ +he teen., el rL to date erred help seliri+ rrreo+er level of intoroct in tho workshop. REVISED AGENDA ITEM Staff is recommending to continue groundwater monitoring studies for up to one additional year. The additional data will go towards the 10 years of continuous monitoring data that is required by the U.S. Forest Service prior to any such underground project. There is sufficient budget within the existing eentraet to complete a PPP workshop and the-gr unel ter-monRterin finrcpp oyel-is-needeelle-F ex-pen':tufe•-ef -a„ additional $ 100,000 to conduct the toll and revenue study. Funding for this study Wabiki-Seaie-ffeffi-the-federal-ear,;,iFlak�„9-=Q tk� tk Se;,,fAissle,r Q„E =�T� sentribdting ; 1-0 000-eacia-for-tkte-r^gired'^^^I rnet.� w,:sslon=s share will be reimbursed through State T-ansper+,.tier, '^^^-e..ee^,e^+ Dreevrafn (STIR) -lennire. Dre�ere er,e�:.tee•. r. e.l NAe. erm. /DRI)A) funele. r , the Riverside Orange Ger-rider Authority at its meeting on January 22, 2010. An update on its reeerfm eneletion will be shared at tha Commission workshop. At the ROCA meeting on January 22, 2010, the Board recommended that before initiating a full toll revenue study, staff conduct an evaluation of the revenues needed to fund the tunnel obligation and return this information to the Board at its April meeting. Once that information is available, the Board will consider additional toll studies and a PPP workshop. The Board supported continuation of the groundwater monitoring for up to an additional year. There is sufficient budget within Kleinfelder's existing contract to allow continuation of this monitoring program. In Fi cal Yoar Budgct TNe Year: FY 2009/10 SAFETEA LU @80% Source of Funds: RCTC/OCTA @20% (split 60/50), RCTC $10,000 charo stato PPM 106 6511602 P2310 106 66 11601 P2310 106 6511110 P2310 310 GL/Project Accounting No.: Amount: 4-1 9,9A9 Budget -Adjustment - Yes $ 10,000 STIP reimbursement $ 10,000 OCTA reimbursement $ 80,000 federal revenue $100,000 spacial study expenditure Ficcal Procedures Approved: Date: 1 /21 /10 Attachment: Feasibility Evaluation Report for Irvine -Corona Expressway Tunnels Executive Summary REVISED AGENDA ITEM RIVERS/DE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMM/SS/ON DATE: January 29, 2010 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Cathy Bechtel, Project Development Director THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Executive Director SUBJECT: Final Feasibility Evaluation Report for the Irvine Corona Expressway Tunnels Project STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Receive and file the feasibility evaluation report for Irvine Corona Expressway (ICE) tunnels project; 2) Authorize staff to conduct a toll revenue study to determine the pay back duration of the ICE tunnels project for use at a public -private partnership (PPP) workshop and allocate $10,000 to pay for the Commission's share of the required local match; 3) Authorize staff to conduct a PPP workshop to gauge the private industry interest to finance, design, construct, maintain, and operate the ICE tunnels project; and 4) Authorize the continuation of groundwater monitoring for up to an additional year in order to provide time to gauge private industry interest in the project. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: At the conclusion of the Riverside County -Orange County Major Investment Study (MIS), the Commission and the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) directed staff to further study the feasibility of Corridor B — ICE tunnels project. This corridor was proposed as a four -lane tunnel facility connecting the Foothill Transportation Corridor (State Route 2411/Laguna Freeway (State Route 133) in the city of Irvine to the Ontario Freeway (Interstate 15) at Cajalco Road in the city of Corona. In early 2006, Commission staff issued a request for proposals to retain a consultant for the feasibility study. This feasibility study focused on underground soil and water table conditions, feasibility of ventilating the tunnels, construction methods, and operation and maintenance costs. The findings of this study will be the basis for direction on the next steps. Proposals for the services were received and evaluated in accordance with the Commission's procurement procedures for professional and technical services. The top ranked firm, Kleinfelder West, Inc., was selected to perform the feasibility study in early 2007. The total contract value is $8,003,487, with approximately $7.45 million spent to date. Through the effort of Congressmen Ken Calvert (R-CA), Chris Cox (R-CA), and Gary Miller (R-CA), $15.8 million of federal funds was set aside for the study of alternatives between the two counties. The Commission and OCTA are providing the required matching funds. DISCUSS/ON: The transportation tunnel concepts evaluated in the ICE tunnels feasibility evaluation assume large- to medium -diameter tunnels accommodating highway and rail traffic. The tunnels evaluated in this study include highway and rail tunnels approximately 11 .5 miles long. The general tunnel location that was defined during the MIS was assumed for the ICE tunnels feasibility evaluation. The MIS tunnel alignment location and depth were developed to avoid assumed high groundwater pressures while limiting road grades to no more than five percent. Beside the original MIS assumptions, two additional tunnel options were considered in the feasibility evaluation: a rail tunnel, which has grades of three percent or less to allow a transit rail option, and a shared tunnel, which has provisions for a water pipeline that could also be used by the Metropolitan Water District. The technical study was completed focusing on seven main feasibility issues: 1) Geologic, hydrogeologic/hydrologic, and geotechnical conditions; 2) Corridor concepts; 3) Tunnel configuration; 4) Tunnel excavation and support methods; 5) Tunnel systems (ventilation and air cleaning); 6) Construction considerations; and 7) Fiscal feasibility determined from construction costs, operations and maintenance costs, and toll revenues. More comprehensive evaluations will be needed to further explore the environmental impacts, regional traffic patterns at tunnel exit points, transit planning, and funding mechanisms. " " " C o n c l u s i o n s o f t h e S t u d y B a s e d o n t h e s e i n i t i a l s t u d i e s , a t u n n e l s y s t e m b e n e a t h t h e S a n t a A n a m o u n t a i n i s t e c h n i c a l l y f e a s i b l e . T h e r e a r e n o f a t a l f l a w s i d e n t i f i e d t h a t w o u l d p r e v e n t t h e p r o j e c t f r o m b e i n g d e s i g n e d , c o n s t r u c t e d , a n d o p e r a t e d . T h e r e a r e h o w e v e r , s i g n i f i c a n t c h a l l e n g e s . T h e m o s t c r i t i c a l c h a l l e n g e s d e t e r m i n e d t o d a t e a r e t h e f o l l o w i n g : " L a r g e t u n n e l d i a m e t e r c o n s t r u c t i o n t e c h n o l o g y ; " T u n n e l v e n t i l a t i o n ; " C o n s t r u c t i o n c o s t s ; " P r o t e c t i o n o f g r o u n d w a t e r r e s o u r c e s ; a n d " T u n n e l c o n f i g u r a t i o n a n d g r a d e c o n s i d e r a t i o n s . W h e n f i r s t c o n c e p t u a l i z e d , t h e i d e a o f c o n n e c t i n g O r a n g e a n d R i v e r s i d e C o u n t i e s t h r o u g h a n a l t e r n a t i v e c o r r i d o r t o t h e R i v e r s i d e F r e e w a y ( S t a t e R o u t e 9 1 ) o f f e r e d s i g n i f i c a n t p r o m i s e . C o n v e r t i n g t h i s i d e a i n t o a n a c t u a l p r o j e c t r a i s e d a n u m b e r o f e n g i n e e r i n g q u e s t i o n s . T h e r e a r e a n u m b e r o f i m p r e s s i v e t u n n e l f a c i l i t i e s t h r o u g h o u t t h e w o r l d . H o w e v e r , n o n e c o m b i n e t h e l e n g t h o f t h e p r o p o s e d I C E c o r r i d o r w i t h t h e p r o j e c t e d t r a f f i c v o l u m e a n d d e m a n d t h a t i s l i k e l y b e t w e e n R i v e r s i d e a n d O r a n g e c o u n t i e s . I f c o n s t r u c t e d , t h e I C E c o r r i d o r w i l l h a v e n o p e e r i n t e r m s o f i t s s c a l e , d e s i g n , a n d u t i l i t y . C o n s t r u c t i n g t h e I C E c o r r i d o r i s t e c h n i c a l l y f e a s i b l e f r o m a n e n g i n e e r i n g p e r s p e c t i v e ; h o w e v e r , t h e p o t e n t i a l f o r m o v i n g f o r w a r d u s i n g o n l y p u b l i c f u n d i n g s o u r c e s i s u n l i k e l y d u e t o s i g n i f i c a n t c o n s t r u c t i o n a n d o p e r a t i o n a l c o s t s . T h e r e c o m m e n d e d c o n c e p t f o c u s e d o n a p h a s e d c o n s t r u c t i o n a p p r o a c h t o c r a f t a f i n a n c i a l l y f e a s i b l e p r o j e c t . C o n s t r u c t i n g o n e l a r g e r e v e r s i b l e v e h i c l e t u n n e l a n d s m a l l e r r a i l t u n n e l a s p a r t o f P h a s e 1 w o u l d a l l o w g e n e r a t i o n o f t o l l r e v e n u e s t o s u p p o r t t h e c o n s t r u c t i o n o f a s e c o n d l a r g e v e h i c l e t u n n e l i n a l a t e r p h a s e . T h e e s t i m a t e d c o s t o f t h e f i r s t p h a s e i s $ 8 . 6 b i l l i o n ( 2 0 0 9 d o l l a r s ) . T h e I C E c o r r i d o r i s p r o p o s e d a s a t o l l f a c i l i t y a n d p r o v i d e s t h e o p p o r t u n i t y t o i n v o l v e t h e p r i v a t e s e c t o r i n e v a l u a t i n g t h e p o t e n t i a l o f a p r i v a t i z e d f a c i l i t y . I n o r d e r t o e n g a g e t h e p r i v a t e s e c t o r , i t i s r e c o m m e n d e d t h a t a P P P w o r k s h o p b e h e l d i n f a l l 2 0 1 0 . T h i s w o u l d g a u g e p r i v a t e i n d u s t r y i n t e r e s t a n d o b t a i n f e e d b a c k r e g a r d i n g o p t i o n s t o f i n a n c e , d e s i g n , c o n s t r u c t , m a i n t a i n , a n d o p e r a t e t h e I C E t u n n e l s . A s t u d y t o a s s e s s t h e p o t e n t i a l f o r r e v e n u e g e n e r a t i o n i s a l s o r e c o m m e n d e d . T h i s i n f o r m a t i o n w i l l a u g m e n t t h e t e c h n i c a l w o r k t o d a t e a n d h e l p s o l i c i t g r e a t e r l e v e l o f i n t e r e s t i n t h e w o r k s h o p . S t a f f i s r e c o m m e n d i n g t o c o n t i n u e groundwater monitoring studies for up to one additional year. The additional data will go towards the 10 years of continuous monitoring data that is required by the U.S. Forest Service prior to any such underground project. There is sufficient budget within the existing contract to complete a PPP workshop and the groundwater monitoring. Approval is needed for an expenditure of an additional $100,000 to conduct the toll and revenue study. Funding for this study would come from the federal earmark, along with the Commission and OCTA contributing $10,000 each for the required local match. The Commission's share will be reimbursed through State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) Planning, Programming, and Monitoring (PPM) funds. The findings of the study and the staff recommendations are being considered by the Riverside Orange Corridor Authority at its meeting on January 22, 2010. An update on its recommendation will be shared at the Commission workshop. Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: No Year: FY 2009/10 Amount: $100,000 SAFETEA-LU @80% Source of Funds: RCTC/OCTA @20% (split 50/50), Budget Adjustment: Yes RCTC $10,000 share - state PPM 106 65 41502 P2310 $ 10,000 STIP reimbursement GL/Project Accounting No.: 106 65 41604 P2310 106 65 41410 P2310 $ 10,000 OCTA reimbursement $ 80,000 federal revenue 106 65 81501 P2310 $100,000 special study expenditure Fiscal Procedures Approved: \0 Date: 1/21/10 Attachment: Feasibility Evaluation Report for Irvine -Corona Expressway Tunnels Executive Summary (available on the website) 2/3/2010 Final Feasibility Evaluation Report for the Irvine Corona Expressway Project Riverside County Transportation Commission January 29, 2010 m Project Background ► Riverside County -Orange County Major Investment Study (MIS), 2005 ► $15.8 million, SAFETEA-W* Funds, 2005 ► Feasibility Study Began, April 2007 ► Field Investigations Completed, December 2008 ► Feasibility Evaluation Report, December 2009 ► Water Resources Monitoring August 2008 — December 2009 ► Agency Cooperation ▪ US Forest Service • Metropolitan Water District *Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act -Legacy for Users funds Flu G OCTA 1 2/3/2010 ICE Feasibility Evaluation Primary Issues Considered ► Geologic, Hydrogeologic/Hydrologic and Geotechnical Conditions ► Corridor Concepts ► Tunnel Configuration/Cross Sections ► Tunnel Excavation and Lining Methods ► Tunnel Systems (Ventilation and Air Cleaning) ► Construction Methods ► Construction and Operations/Maintenance (0&M) Costs 3 Geotechnical Findings ► Lower Water Pressures than Expected O Favorable for Tunnel Mining and Lining Design ► Low Water Infiltration Potential ▪ Favorable during Tunnel Mining ► Challenging Geologic Conditions • Requires Special Tunnel Boring Machine (TBM) and Lining Designs ► Impacts to Groundwater • Requires Groundwater Controls during Mining ► Impacts to Surface Water during Operation • Requires Mitigation/Irrigation a 2 Tunnel Design Considerations ► Tunnel Concepts Evaluated • Full Tunnel Concept • Combination Surface/Tunnel Concept ► Tunnel Profiles: MIS, Rail and CPA Water Tunnel ► Tunnel Cross Sections ► Tunnel Lining System ► Phased Construction Approach 5 Tunnel Profile (Road Grade); MIS (5%); Rail (3%); and CPA (Gravity Flow) WEST () EAST (Corona) — GI cued Surface —MIS Profile (c556Grades) —Rail Profile (c3%Grades) — CPA Proale (Gravely Flaw) . 0 10,000 20,000 30.000 40.000 50.000 80000 /0,000 80000 Station (ft) 2/3/2010 3 2/3/2010 Tunnel Cross Sections Two 52.5 foot [ft) Diameter Two -Lane Highway Tunnels (MIS) v Three 40*ft Diameter Single -Lane Hwy Tunnels ^•^ Phase 1-Single 52.5 ft Diameter Two -Lane Highway Tunnel Paired with 26.5 ft Diameter Rail Tunnel Phase 2-Construction of Second Vehicular Tunnel (Recommended) War -..._ �... Rendering Rendering for M30 Highway Tunnel Cross Passages, Madrid 4 2/3/2010 Ventilation Issues and Concept ► 11.5 mile tunnel length ► Remove vehicle exhaust and heat ► Fire safety ► Ventilation shaft(s) ► Visual impacts ► Local air quality impacts mitigation WEST VENTILATION BUILDING OVER ROADWAY SUPPLY AND EXHAUST DUCTS MID -TUNNEL SHAFT EAST VENTILATION 3� BUILDING UNDER ROADWAY SUPPLY AND EXHAUST DUCTS Construction Issues — Phase 1 ► Portal and Shaft Access Roads ► Muck Disposal (10 million CY) • Average - 9,600 to 16,600 tons/day (400 Trucks or 18 Railcars) • Peak of 19,200 to 33,200 tons per day (685 Trucks or 65 Railcars) ► Construction Power Demands • 32 to 47 megawatts per portal area (-25,000 to 40,000 households) ► Portal Work Area Pads Needed O 12 acres each portal ► Construction Duration U 10.5 years 5 2/3/2010 Cost and Revenue (Phase 1) ► Paired Highway and Rail Tunnel Construction = $8.6 billion with contingency ► Operations and Maintenance - Annually = $51.7 million with contingency ► Toll and Revenue • 55,000 daily trips = $278 million annually • 65,000 daily trips = $347 million annually 11 Annual Toll Revenue Estimates - 2030 ► Reversible Traffic Direction — One Tunnel ► No Additional Truck Tolls ► Peak Hours Tolled Higher O Average toll $14 each way • Toll ranges from a low of $4 to a high of $20 ► 55,000 Daily Traffic = $278 million ► 65,000 Daily Traffic = $347 million ,2 6 2/3/2010 Major Project Challenges ► Funding Sources • Toll Revenue • Public -Private Partnership ► Power Needs • Construction / Operation ► Ventilation • Mid Tunnel Shaft ► Environmental Issues • Air Emissions • Water Resources Mitigation • Muck Disposal and Transport ► Construction Schedule 13 7 2/3/2010 ICE Tunnels Summary ► Highway and rail tunnel system is technically feasible ► Operates as a viable alternative to SR-91 ► No fatal flaws identified • Design • Construction o Operation ► Significant challenges remain SR-91 — Riverside Freeway (State Route 91) 15 Recommended Next Steps (2010) ► Conduct an evaluation of the revenues needed to fund the proposed tunnels obligation ► Water resource monitoring for up to one year ► Return to ROCA Board in April and possibly consider initiating a Toll and Revenue Study and hosting a Public -Private Partnership Workshop 18 8 2/3/2010 Field Exploration Summary ► Completed five exploratory coreholes ► Installed five monitoring wells ► Installed 21 pressure transducers ► Monitored by telemetry system 18 9 2/3/2010 Riverside County -Orange County MIS Locally Preferred Strategy no CORRIDOR 'R- •Maximize transit system *Ultimate widening to SR-91 *Possible managed lane changes for SR-91 or Corridor A (including reversible lanes) -Continued study of Corridor A -Continued study of Corridor B •SR-74 operational improvements SR-91 Improvements $ 670 million Corridor $2,720 million Corridor $5,960 million SR-74 Improvements $ 180 million Other Mitigation Reqs $ 470 million Shadow Toll (Revenue) $ (6701 million Total $9,330 million LEGEND — Existing Highway — Proposed SR-91 Improvements Proposed Extension of SR-241 — Proposed CortidorAAfignment —u- Proposed Candor B Route — Proposed SR-74 Improvements --r- Proposed Mogilev Mignmenl tEly Others) t� Projected SR-91 Traffic - 2030 LakevfewAv SR-71 Existing lanes 14 lanes 13 lanes SR-241 10 lanes 2 lanes I-15 10 2/3/2010 Future Project Development Needs ► Revise Tunnel Alignment and Profile • Straighten alignment and lower tunnel profile • Revise portal locations ▪ Locate potential ventilation shaft(s) ► Evaluate Rail -Grade Portal Approaches ► Redefine Groundwater Monitoring Program for Revised Alignment ► Continue 10 years of Water Resources Monitoring 2, Groundwater Studies ► Groundwater pressure readings (telemetry system) ► Monitored 60 water resource sites . Finite -element groundwater model ► Tunnel design criteria 22 11 213/2010 Tunnel Lining System s . Single- pass concrete lining ► Concrete segments ► Gasket -sealed joints ► Two -pass lining with membrane (optional) 23 Design Issues Summary / Solutions ► Lining System & Water Pressures • Sealed Lining Design ► Water Pressures Inhibit Mining o TBM Design ► Challenging Geology • TBM and Lining System Design ► Potential Water Resources Impacts • Special Designs and/or Mitigation ► Ventilation System ▪ Mid -Tunnel Ventilation Shaft Needed ► Rail Service Requires Lower Tunnel Profile o Adjust Tunnel Alignment and Profile 24 12 2/3/2010 Construction Costs — Phase 1 ► Equipment (TBMs etc.) ► Mobilize and Set Up ► Highway Tunnel Mining ► Rail Tunnel Mining ► Constructions Support ► Tunnel Lining, Road etc. ► Shaft, Passages, Buildings ► Lighting, Mech. & Support ► 25% Contingency Phase 1 Total _ $455 million _ $205 million _ $2.667 billion _ $948 million _ $880 million _ $838 million _ $557 million $395 million _ $1.610 billion _ $8.555 billion Operations and Maintenance Costs ► Electrical ► Mechanical ► Civil, Structures, and ► Personnel ► 30% Contingency _ $12.095 million _ $12.740 million Support = $4.120 million _ $10.825 million _ $11.920 million Total = $51.700 million 26 13 2/3/2010 Tunnel Cross Sections (MIS) ► Two 52.5 ft Diameter Two -Lane Hwy Tunnels .� � rt°-` Tunnel Cross Sections ► Phase 1-Single 52.5 ft Diameter Two -Lane Hwy Tunnel Paired with 26.5 ft Diameter Rail Tunnel ► Phase 2-Construction of Second Vehicular Tunnel 28 14 2/3/2010 Tunnel Cross Sections ► Three 40+ft Diameter Single -Lane Hwy Tunnels 28 15 CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED RAIL UPDATE RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: January 29, 2010 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Sheldon Peterson, Rail Manager THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Executive Director SUBJECT: California High -Speed Rail Update STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to receive and file an update regarding the activities of the California High -Speed Rail Authority (CHSRA). BACKGROUND INFORMATION: In November 2009, the Commission directed staff to join as a participating agency as part of the environmental impact report/statement (EIR/EIS) process for the Los Angeles to San Diego via the Inland Empire high-speed train (HST) project. As part of that action, Chair Bob Magee sent a letter to the CHSRA to express the Commission's interest and participation in the effort (Attachment 1). As part of the environmental effort, the CHSRA conducted a number of public meetings in Riverside County in the cities of Corona, Murrieta, and Riverside. As part of the process comments were received at the meetings and via mail regarding the project and the preliminary environmental work on the San Diego -Inland Empire - Los Angeles will continue well into next year. This work will provide needed information on two proposed alignments — one along Interstate 15 and another along 1-215. Both of these alignments are currently set to go forward through the Alternatives Analysis Phase and the Environmental Impact Report Phase that will take several years to complete. As noted in the Commission action in November, the consideration of multiple alignments at this time is important and not unusual during this preliminary stage of the study. As the CHSRA completes additional technical work, this information will be shared with local government stakeholders. On a Commission level, staff will share the information on a regular basis with the Commission and the High -Speed Rail Ad Hoc Committee. Recent Developments Since the . November Commission report, there have been a few news developments regarding the high-speed rail effort. The first item was the retirement of CHSRA's long-time executive director Mehdi Morshed. This will also be followed with a formal restructuring of the organization to address its current objectives. Another recent development was the issuance of a report from the Legislative Analyst's Office (Attachment 2) regarding the CHSRA Business Plan that was submitted to the Legislature. On a local level, the High Speed Rail Authority Chair, Anaheim Mayor Curt Pringle, has visited Riverside County on more than one occasion, addressing the Corona Chamber of Commerce and the Monday Morning Group in Riverside. Attachments: 1) Chair Magee Letter to CHSRA 2) Legislative Analyst's Office Report 4080 Lemon Street, 3rd Floor • Riverside, CA Moiling Address: P. O. Box 12008 • Riverside, CA 92502-2208 (9511 787-7141 • Fax (951) 787-7920 • www.rctc.org Riverside County Transportation Commission November 12, 2009 Dan Leavitt Deputy Director California High -Speed RaII Authority 925 L Street, Suite 1425 Sacramento, CA 95814 Re: Acceptance of Invitation to Serve as Participating Agency on the Los Angeles to San Diego Via Inland Empire High -Speed Train Project EIRjE1S Dear Mr. Leavitt: The Riverside County Transportation Commission (ROTC) is pleased to accept your invitation to become a Participating Agency in the preparation of the project EIR/EIS for the Los Angeles to San Diego via Inland Empire High -Speed Train project. The RCTC is an active member of the Southern California High -Speed Rail Inland Corridor Group and as part of that group's memorandum of understanding, we have demonstrated our desire to cooperate in the planning and environmental effort. In accepting your invitation, the ROTC will continue to assist in developing a regional vision for high-speed rail along the corridor and work with our participating cities and members. In return, the RCTC requests to continue the open dialogue and sharing of information with the California High -Speed Rail Authority. In addition, the RCTC would like to be consulted prior to any decision to narrow alignment alternatives for study or review that would impact our region. The RCTC is engaged in several major highway and transportation projects in this region that will need to coexist and support a future high-speed train system and the coordination of these projects is essential. The RCTC looks forward to working with you as a Participating Agency on this significant project for our region. Sincere Robert E. Magee, Chair Riverside County Trans rtation Commission LAOA 65 YEARS OF SERVICE January 11, 2010 The 2009 High -Speed Rail Business Plan LEGISLATIVE ANALYST'S OFFICE Presented to: Assembly Transportation Committee Hon. Mike Eng, Chair LAON 65 YEARS OF SERVICE January 11, 2010 2008 High -Speed Rail Business Plan Requirement. Chapter 267, Statutes of 2008 (AB 3034, Gal- giani), required the High -Speed Rail Authority to submit a busi- ness plan for the high-speed train system to the Legislature by September 1, 2008. The plan was released on November 7, 2008. QPlan Lacked Specifics. Information provided in the plan was very general and did not provide specifics that are included in typical business plans. The figure below summarizes our review of the 2008 plan. (See 2009-10 Budget Analysis Series: Trans- portation, page TR-47.) 2008 Business Plan Fails to Provide Many Details latu is Description of the anticipated system Forecast of patronage, operating, and capital costs Estimate of necessary federal, state, and local funds Proposed construction timeline for each segment Discussion of risks and mitigation strategies • What are the expected service levels, by segment? • What is the assumed train capacity? • How are the ridership estimates projected? • What is the operating break-even point? • How will costs be distributed by route segment? • How would funds be secured? • What level of confidence is there for receiving each type of funding? • What is the proposed schedule, by segment, for completing design/ environmental clearance? • For beginning/completing construction? • How would each type of risk impact the project? • What specific mitigation strategies are planned to be deployed? LEGISLATIVE ANALYST'S OFFICE 1 65 YEARS OF SERVICE January 11, 2010 2009-10 Budget Requires Business Plan Revision El2009-10 Budget Requirement. The current year budget direct- ed the authority to submit a revised business plan to the Joint Legislative Budget Committee by December 15, 2009. Required Elements. The revised plan must include, at a mini- mum: ■ A plan for a community outreach component to cities, towns, and neighborhoods affected by the project. ■ Further system details, such as route selection and alterna- tive alignment considerations. ■ A thorough discussion describing the steps being pursued to secure financing. ■ A working timeline with specific, achievable project mile- stones. ■ The strategies the authority would pursue to mitigate different risks and threats. ■ Additional information related to funding, project development schedule, proposed levels of service, ridership, capacity, op- erational plans, cost, private investment strategies, staffing, and a history of expenditures and accomplishments to date. LEGISLATIVE ANALYST'S OFFICE 2 January 11, 2010 LAOA Revised Business Plan Improved 65 YEARS OF SERVICE IJ Revised Plan More Informative in Some Areas. The revised plan includes at least some description of all the elements re- quired by the 2009-10 budget. The plan also provides more information than the previous version in certain areas. ■ Community Outreach. Though the authority only recently obtained their public relations consultant, the plan contains a summary description of a community outreach plan. ■ System Details. The plan includes: — General route selection and various alternative align- ments. — . Updated cost estimates using year -of -expenditure dollars. — Forecasted ridership, revenues, and proposed levels of service. — Projected operating and equipment replacement costs. ■ Funding. Descriptions of various types of financing available and possible funding sources for the project are included. ■ Authority Operations. The plan provides a short discussion of necessary future staffing for the authority as well as his- toric levels of funding. LEGISLATIVE ANALYST'S OFFICE 3 January 11, 2010 LAOA Some Significant Details Still Missing 65 YEARS OF SERVICE QInadequate and Incomplete Discussion of Risk. The plan's discussion of risk management is significantly inadequate, lack- ing any description of mitigation processes or detailed consider- ation of many key types of risk. QUninformative Timeline. Few deliverables or milestones are identified in the plan against which progress can be measured. Also, inconsistencies in the proposed order of events create some uncertainty. LEGISLATIVE ANALYST'S OFFICE 4 LAOA 65 YEARS OF SERVICE January 11, 2010 Risk Discussion Incomplete and Inadequate LJ No Risk Management Strategy. The plan contains no discus- sion of the authority's plans or processes to (1) identify poten- tial threats or (2) manage, respond, and mitigate those threats. The plan only states that the authority "believes it is aware of all existing threats and is taking the appropriate steps to prevent or mitigate those threats." Q Unknown Confidence in Projections. The plan does not pro- vide any numerical ranges nor confidence intervals for projec- tions contained in the plan (such as cost, revenues, or ridership). Without this information, the risk of not realizing the forecasted �{ ridership, revenues, or costs is unknown. Ll Inadequate Discussion of Key Types of Risks. The plan con- tains no detailed discussions or consideration of even the most significant risks to the project, such as ridership and funding. LEGISLATIVE ANALYST'S OFFICE 5 January 11, 2010 LAOADiscussion uss on of Risk -Two Examples 65 YEARS OF SERVICE QRidership Risk. The plan addresses the risk of incorrectly forecasted ridership with one sentence, stating the risk "would be mitigated by policies that continue to draw people to reside in California and encourage high-speed rail as an alternative mode of transportation." Funding Risks. The plan identifies the following types of finan- cial risks, and how these risks would be addressed: ■ Credit Approval Risk. To avoid the risk of failing to win credit approval from investors, the authority's strategy is "to clearly communicate the project and obtain up-to-date feed- back." ■ Overall Market Risk. To mitigate the risk that financial mar- kets shut down and stop lending, the authority "has to contin- ually monitor the market and develop strong back-up strate- gies such as project segmentation." ■ Government Funding Risk. The authority plans to avoid the risk that governments are not able to follow through on their commitments "by carefully assessing how each government funding source affects the build -out of each segment." LEGISLATIVE ANALYST'S OFFICE 6 LAO% 65 YEARS OF SERVICE January 11, 2010 Timelines Very General and Potentially Inconsistent QUninformative Timeline. The program management and proj- ect delivery timelines contained in the plan are very general and provide little opportunity for increased accountability. There are few deliverables or milestones included against which progress can be measured. Inconsistent Order of Events. Because the timelines in the plan are so general, it is unclear in what order various events will occur. For example, regulatory approvals are expected by 2018 but procurement is scheduled to be complete by 2014. This could mean the train technology and rolling stock will be pro- cured before regulatory agencies approve their use. LEGISLATIVE ANALYST'S OFFICE 7 LAO 65 YEARS OF SERVICE January 11, 2010 Funding Plan Uncertain; Appears to Violate Law Operating Subsidy Necessary for Private Funding. The Proposition 1A bond measure explicitly prohibits any public op- erating subsidy. However, the plan expects the following items to be funded by the private sector. ■ Revenue Guarantee. The plan assumes some form of revenue guarantee from the public sector to attract private in- vestment. This generally means some public entity promises to pay the contractor the difference between projected and realized revenues if necessary. The plan does not explain how the guarantee could be structured so as not to violate the law. ■ Operations Insurance. The plan anticipates the cost of insurance for operating the system would not be borne by the private operator. If the public sector pays for insurance, that would constitute an operating subsidy in violation of Proposi- tion 1A. IJ Federal Funding Expectations Highly Uncertain. The plan assumes between $17 billion and $19 billion from federal funds by 2016, or nearly $3 billion per year for the next six years. In comparison, over the past five years California has received roughly $3 billion per year of formula funding for the state's entire highway system, which is primarily funded through federal gas tax collected in the state LEGISLATIVE ANALYST'S OFFICE 8 OTOZ'6Z Annuer awpdn Heys paadS-46!H klunop appaanili eFem461H 91¢191e1u1 —E- (se1110) eu09e1S °Neve.' pue ales • pamedes-epea6 pa1e3ipaQ • qdw OZZ to paads Bugeaado wnwpcew • Jemod oppeia ueep %001. ■ H ea lams uo ieegm !eels • welsAs a ua-008 ■ �.Ip�cl s,pltuojneD h0.16.0 u6 ale i i"ey dub! uoAMS RRualod suopels woo POOdS 01H Pasodwd quawu611W pw+alaad 15H MOWS puB5a, 0 0 e0wera 011111111111111b iwom aids tied° sued ams spue1 xsaioj IeuoWN puelwwed ed4 ueq+n uea.7© _710fpes k 0. muiuuay I hegeueiy uepuelA ueg,! slopisip sueme3 Genii . segunoo ano j . Aiingoeuuoo lepou iem Bum'ls . suoge}s legue4od 4460 . salmi +on ■ iiogdo 5 papoddns uoiss!wwo3 sepnsou. o6alia u eS - sala6ud sod £601 Z40Z 460Z 040Z 600Z dON/ION) uoll elgUe;aCIJo a*l;oNtuols a;Q paooab S1321131eU1d 6uuaaugiu3 %OE suol;eooi uope;s pue saitpeuwa;lq;uawa!pd paua;awd }o uopoalas (S I3M 13) ;uetuNKS ;oed w l uu cuptuapwodall;aedual le;uawuo.oua 4.0wa spodaa leoluyaal le;uau uoipwa 6uuaau16143 %gi uoncluosaa;oafowd uewa away OM am slskeuy saApeuwaw s6upealN 6uldoas away awe OM ssaooad 6uldoos edawd Jo 00.110NOtl,a;u1 40 ONION uol;dposaa MOW anp pa[oad o6aia ues - saia6ud sal .siJodaa snoinaad uaui alap laiauaug pua diusaapp uo uoRettuolui axon . uaaaboad uaaa po sausuciels3 . sa6uaua uoi.aziva6ao Apluapi . snoinaad �au� spai.ap aaoua gip uald palapdn • sTuana Jo aap ° waispuoau i sauppi angeuuoluiun . sisp Jo sadAT Jo uopsnasip manbapaui — suopBrad ui aouappoo unnouiun — MaTags wewe6auew )isp oN — )1SN 40 uopsnos!a alaidwooui pua alanbapaui . spei.ea we's/Cs pua upaaajno panadwi . vodaN isAi eub annals! Bai dnao 6uppom isquyoal: �Illt Ashen leAce ueS = n�sG suomoi uogelS leuogdo suogpoi uoms peimeid lanai wei6okd 0 suopelS 1SH luewu6pyzDmi ammo:qv Iuawu6gywe cud =N. sluawu6gy 1SH pua6ai dnoio 6upoom leoiuyoa1=`wiz halleA Ie119e0 usS =AJSI. suoRno-i um's leuoudo suopeaoi none* pene)aid lanay weiBoid 0 suogeM 1SH wewu6gy zON'ti engeweyy zuewu&ly weiSom �.. swauwu8gp 1SH pue6aei 60/6 1JVH a anw`J nuq/ollA Y0a1 m MAL. sUoµct,01 uopRS 1au000 stioneaol uOnez9 ptweyald Iamn Wsl603d auousis J.BH yuawu6gy 4�.nyneQ mAdvg�wgeql�rde.rn. wlpOLauBg�S`H 60/6 JAYLl a tlnoao euINJOAA teMvyaal = MA-Lt. suogeoo-1 uorfetg 1euotIdo 41) su041eo01 cao+l eiS pgy»aisid 110n6.1 wea80ad 0 suolleyS 1SH wakx=0511V L001ILL anilewaalV s,. 4uauau611V wea8uad syueuauBipe 1SH puaBa, oa1.ayy .�aq ol2uppoM NVS sluauauaano9 , likK LMV 711 033d9-ki ifhl VINII0-117V0 N 31AI N if 3 A 0 9 o NOLLVI}OSSV VINb031170 w2:13H1110s uoissiwwo) uoppodsuoal /ono) appam saauped now) dnoa9 aopiaaop pueluI eivaopieD uaay4110s egogoS `e6ueyoad `o6uoaoW `segpi Ieaoi • euHunS . aewopl!M jo Ain • OVA° •elnaauaal 10 �1i0 saosvuadnS olupe� ueS jo Ain . jo paeo8 Alunoo appanN • apisaanN jo Ain 900HM • siaaad �o ��i� . episJeAN `epople010 AilsJemu fl •e}aiaanW �o ��i� VM • Callen ouaaolN 10 A110 • 010�1 • eepuaW jo Ain • vdf uoaeW • aaoupo aNei jo Alio • (MVOS • eum° jo Aiio • OVOS • V2:ISHO • episaanN jo Awn00 . g Taiaisu sueaile0 • 600Z `6 Jegweoea ul laUN lse-1 dnoao f uppoM Ieoluyoal Aluno3 emsnAIN Public Scopi ng Meetings PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD: Sept. 17 - Nova 20, 2009 RIVERSIDE COUNTY Monday, October 19 - Murrieta 95 Attendees Murrieta Public Library Tuesday, October 20 - Corona 45 Attendees Corona Public Library - West Room Thursday, October 22 - Riverside 53 Attendees Bobby Bonds Park Cesar Chavez Community Center Received 732 comments from Riverside County spial.sip oiaolsiy y}inn saw aapio ui Afiepadsa `1SH Aq !Deleon aaiaaeq leoisAyd Tnoge pauaaouoo . seam yannoa6 pews pauueld aeau paieoo! aq pue suopauuoo iepouamnua leuoi6aa apinoad wogs suopool uoRels . 6upueuu . si.oeduai oi}leaq. pazileoov6ui){aed . (spedw! Aouaoefpe) uoneaginiasioN . spaau AeM-jo-Ty6N . sluaLu Luop 6u ido�s uo!;duosea ;oafoad }ea❑ aaedaad podaa leu!d (VV) s!sAieuy san!;euaa;Id aaedaad oz/zr suogeo!unuauaoo'8 yoeagno `s6unaaw /touaBy ig itpunwwoo 6u!o6uo paeo8 ` NSHa' o; uo!;e;uasaad Blew 3snoH N3do !Kind pue sopuaBv o; yoeaa;no ;onpuoa ma!nat{ 9V/V21d 11Wd doysvoM;s san!;euaa;ly ;oafoad ;onpuop podaN s!sAleuy san!;euaa;ly aaedaad uo!;oas podeN yy san!;euaa;ly ;o ;uowdolanaa le!;lul as!nati sJMl '8 Jal IeaoS y;!nn uo!;eu!paooa san!;euaa;ld }o wewdolanea lel;lul o!Ignd pue sopuoBv o; yoeaa;np ;onpuoa Appo1 spAi eud sangeLuamy .LIO g L$-914 WWI sdNsJeuped ai.enpd oggnd - (Zuaeafioad `dHHV meN) uorniq — 01,$ sisoo uoi.on.ijsuo0 to %EO-5Z 6uipund peped - .spun] 6upueld aoj elq!Na ale o6a!G ueS 01 yi se Lions suogoes aaLi10 — Auo oospuead ueS mayeuy 6uipuni. uopruisuoo punat eice la uopes woo — (op `Thee `oalaW y-1 `)luiloaialAi `suieal Apia•ai) seopues 6ul}oeuuoo a04 uoill!w 096$ leuoi}ippy — uaea6oad Ilea paads-q6N appeleis a aoj uo ffq 6$ — d 10 doad 900Z noN — epopie0 JO eleTS • wea0oad uone gi1-O-17$ • 6uipunA paads-46m oop ` ODONd2N -104 elm agdw3 pualul auk e!n o0a!Q uas-di aol uo!II!w 96Z17$ PePnlaul - 28SH Job. uol.aailddd 2 )laa.ii„ uo!IHEI 911 papwgns aluaoneo - 60100 • uopallnd-d1 10aa1 alcIpT uon ua gc$ - NuuoalaVV — Old u! uo!lllu.i gL$ sapnloul - aalnaas �C�!oJew' pua *ISH - „VC' I- s)loaal„ u! uollli8 1,$ pappgns a!uaopao - 60 6nd • sa�a�s -bZ suopoudda u! uo!Inci 0g$ — d�NV u! AilauoReN algaliany uo!II!8 8$ • 6u!punA bSH IpaapaA Riverside County Transportation Commission2010 Prioritization of Western County Projects2009/ 2010/ 2011/ 2012/ 2013/ 2014/ 2015/ 2016/ 2017/ 2018/ 2019/2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 TotalCURRENT HIGHWAY PROJECTS1989 Measure A Highway Funds Available123.22 - - - - - - - - - - 123.22 1989 Measure A Highway Transfer to 2009 Measure A Priority Hwy Projects (0.88) (2.01) (1.33) - (4.00) - - - - - - (8.22) Total Funds Available122.34 (2.01) (1.33) - (4.00) - - - - - - 115.00 Projects: Program Management, SR-91 HOV, I-215/SR-60 East Junction, SR-74/I-I-215 Interchange, SR-91/La Sierra interchange, SR-60/Valley Wayinterchange, SR-91/Van Buren interchange, & SR-74 Curve RealignmentTOTALCost 52.69 121.54 87.16 77.34 47.92 33.40 4.71 - - - - 424.75 (STIP-RIP) TOTALState Funds (8.76) (16.10) - - - - - - - - - (24.86) (CMIA, STIP-IIP, STIP-RIP) TOTALState Funds (5.75) (35.74) (41.36) (49.27) (29.91) (21.36) (2.66) - - - - (186.05) (CMAQ, STP, WRTUMF, Demo, ARRA, Meas A LSR) TOTALFederal/Other Funds (14.50) (45.32) (29.74) (15.92) (9.23) (5.58) (0.59) - - - - (120.87) TOTALMeas A Contribution 23.68 24.39 16.06 12.14 8.78 6.45 1.46 - - - - 92.97 ENDING FUNDS AVAILABLE98.66 72.26 54.87 42.72 29.94 23.49 22.03 22.03 22.03 22.03 22.03 22.03 PRIORITY HIGHWAY PROJECTSCommercial Paper Funds Available6.71 6.71 Commercial Paper Proceeds Available27.00 27.00 RCTC Sales Tax Bond Proceeds Available231.72 231.72 Less Bond Proceeds Allocated to Coachella Valley(110.99) (110.99) 2009 Measure A Highway Transfer to Strategic Projects (for SR‐79)(0.27) 0.24 (0.65) - - - - - - - - (0.68) 2009 Measure A Bond Financing Funds6.18 6.18 6.37 6.56 6.82 7.16 7.59 7.97 8.41 8.87 9.36 81.50 2009 Measure A Highway Funds23.36 23.36 24.06 24.78 25.78 27.06 28.69 30.12 31.78 33.53 35.37 307.89 Total Funds Available183.71 29.78 29.78 31.34 32.60 34.23 36.28 38.10 40.19 42.40 44.73 543.15 Projects: Program Management, Debt Service, I-215 South, I-215 Central, I-215 Bi-county Gap Closure, French Valley Parkway, I-215 Gap Projects, & Los Alamos @ I-15 BridgeTOTALCost 18.78 50.99 66.50 138.58 109.66 108.06 57.11 36.69 36.78 36.86 36.93 696.95 (1989 Meas A WC Hwy & 2009 Meas A New Corridors) TOTALTransfer (0.88) (2.01) (1.33) (3.80) (4.00) - - - - - - (12.02) (STIP-RIP) TOTALState Funds (6.10) (1.39) - - - - - - - - - (7.49) (STIP-RIP, CMIA, SLPP) TOTALState Funds (2.58) (12.75) (29.71) (74.14) (14.43) (0.40) - - - - - (134.02) (STP, Local Share) TOTALFederal/Other Funds - - - (21.51) (47.54) (33.45) (19.50) - - - - (122.00) TOTALMeas A Contribution 9.22 34.84 35.46 39.13 43.69 74.21 37.61 36.69 36.78 36.86 36.93 421.43 SUBTOTAL FUNDS AVAILABLE AFTER SUPPORT, DEBT SERVICE, & I-215174.49 169.44 163.75 155.96 144.87 104.89 103.56 104.96 108.38 113.92 121.72 121.72 Project: SR-91 Corridor Improvement ProjectCost 21.00 79.00 211.00 168.00 241.00 230.00 212.00 88.00 - - - 1,250.00 (TIFIA, Toll Revenue Bonds)Federal/Other Funds - - (87.00) (131.00) (188.00) (180.00) (166.00) (69.00) - - - (821.00) Meas A Contribution 21.00 79.00 124.00 37.00 53.00 50.00 46.00 19.00 - - - 429.00 SUBTOTAL FUNDS AVAILABLE AFTER SUPPORT, DS, I-215 & SR-91153.49 69.44 (60.25) (105.04) (169.13) (259.11) (306.44) (324.04) (320.62) (315.08) (307.28) (307.28) TOTALCost 54.56 146.24 286.65 310.13 350.66 338.06 296.59 181.39 128.99 175.46 383.60 2,652.34 (1989 Meas A WC Hwy & 2009 Meas A New Corridors) TOTALTransfer (0.88) (2.01) (1.33) (3.80) (4.00) - - - - - - (12.02) (STIP-RIP) TOTALState Funds (7.37) (1.39) - - - - - - - - - (8.76) (STIP-RIP, CMIA, SLPP) TOTALState Funds (2.58) (12.75) (29.71) (74.14) (14.43) (0.40) (4.10) (4.20) (6.61) (45.01) (52.38) (246.31) (CMAQ, STP, Local Share, TIFIA, Toll Revenue Bonds) TOTALFederal/Other Funds - - (87.00) (152.51) (235.54) (213.45) (185.50) (69.00) (4.43) (8.85) (205.96) (1,162.24) TOTALMeas A Contribution 43.72 127.17 168.61 79.68 96.69 124.21 106.99 108.19 117.95 121.60 125.26 1,223.00 ENDING FUNDS AVAILABLE139.99 39.69 (99.15) (147.49) (211.58) (301.56) (372.27) (442.37) (520.12) (599.32) (679.85) (679.85) STRATEGIC HIGHWAYPROJECTSTUMF Regional Arterial Funds Available- - - - - - - - - - - - TUMF CETAP Funds Available46.75 - - - - - - - - - - 46.75 2009 Measure A New Corridors Transfer to Priority Highway Projects- - - (3.80) - - - - - - - (3.80) 2009 Measure A New Corridors Funds8.47 8.47 8.73 8.99 9.35 9.82 10.41 10.93 11.53 12.16 12.83 111.69 Total Funds Available55.23 8.47 8.73 5.19 9.35 9.82 10.41 10.93 11.53 12.16 12.83 154.64 PROJECT: MID COUNTY PARKWAY Cost 8.88 8.15 5.50 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 - - - - 42.53 (Demo, WRTUMF) Federal/Other Funds - - - - - - - - - - - - (Pay as You Go--Not Financed) Meas A Contribution 8.88 8.15 5.50 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 - - - - 42.53 ENDING FUNDS AVAILABLE FOR NEW/CETAP CORRIDORS46.35 46.67 49.90 50.09 54.44 59.26 64.67 75.59 87.12 99.28 112.11 112.11 PROJECT: SR-79 REALIGNMENT Cost 3.08 2.27 0.65 - - - 4.09 17.00 25.50 20.00 - 72.58 (2009 Measure A Highways Transfer for SR-79 Eng/Env Phase) Transfer (0.27) 0.24 (0.65) - - - - - - - - (0.68) (Demo, WRTUMF) Federal/Other Funds (2.81) (2.50) - - - - - - - - - (5.31) (Represents ROW) Other Contribution - - - - - - 4.09 17.00 25.50 20.00 - 66.59 Projects: Prog Mgmt, Debt Service, I-215 South, I-215 Central, I-215 Bicounty Gap Closure, French Valley Pkwy, I-215 Gap, Los Alamos @ I-15; SR-91 CIP; I-15 CIP, SR-91/71 EB connectors, I-215 North, & I-10 Truck Climbing Ln1 Riverside County Transportation Commission2010 Prioritization of Western County Projects2009/ 2010/ 2011/ 2012/ 2013/ 2014/ 2015/ 2016/ 2017/ 2018/ 2019/2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 TotalRAIL PROJECTS1989 Measure A Rail Funds Available (Capital)90.05 - - - - - - - - - - 90.05 1989 Measure A Unexpended Debt Reserves (Capital)29.14 - - - - - - - - - - 29.14 LTF Unallocated Reserves (Operations)17.55 - - - - - - - - - - 17.55 LTF Allocated Reserves (Capital)11.48 - - - - - - - - - - 11.48 STA Unallocated Reserves (Capital)2.70 - - - - - - - - - - 2.70 STA Allocated Reserves (Capital)2.68 - - - - - - - - - - 2.68 LTF Apportionment for Rail (Operations & Capital)8.26 7.60 7.68 7.83 8.06 8.39 8.72 9.07 9.43 9.81 10.20 95.06 STA Apportionment for Rail (Capital)- - - - - - - - - - - - 2009 Measure A Public Transit Funds for Rail (Operations & Capital)4.67 4.67 4.81 4.96 5.16 5.41 5.74 6.02 6.36 6.71 7.07 61.58 Total Funds Available166.53 12.27 12.49 12.79 13.22 13.80 14.46 15.10 15.79 16.52 17.28 310.24 TOTALCost 38.24 52.76 167.43 50.16 4.39 5.90 5.90 2.90 2.90 2.90 0.40 333.88 (STIP-IIP) TOTALState Funds 0.00 - - - - - - - - - - 0.00 (STIP-PTA) TOTALState Funds - (12.26) (40.72) - - - - - - - - (52.98) (FTA, STP, CMAQ, TE, TUMF, 1989 Meas A Commuter Assistance) TOTALFederal/Other Funds (14.41) (10.63) (74.01) (21.13) - - - - - - - (120.19) TOTALMeas A Contribution 23.82 29.87 52.70 29.04 4.39 5.90 5.90 2.90 2.90 2.90 0.40 160.72 SUBTOTAL FUNDS AVAILABLE AFTER CAPITAL PROJECTS142.70 125.10 84.89 68.64 77.48 85.38 93.94 106.13 119.02 132.64 149.52 149.52 OPERATIONS: METROLINK Cost 7.00 8.00 9.00 16.00 17.00 18.00 19.00 20.00 21.00 22.00 23.00 180.00 LTF/Meas A Contribution 7.00 8.00 9.00 16.00 17.00 18.00 19.00 20.00 21.00 22.00 23.00 180.00 OPERATIONS: RCTC STATION & OTHER RAIL Cost 4.20 4.54 4.91 7.66 8.04 8.44 8.87 9.31 9.77 10.26 10.78 86.78 LTF/Meas A Contribution 4.20 4.54 4.91 7.66 8.04 8.44 8.87 9.31 9.77 10.26 10.78 86.78 SUBTOTAL FUNDS AVAILABLE AFTER CAPITAL PROJECTS & OPERATIONS131.50 101.36 47.24 7.33 (8.88) (27.42) (46.73) (63.84) (81.72) (100.37) (117.27) (117.27) OTHER RAIL CAPITAL PROJECTS CONTEMPLATEDMETROLINK ANNUAL REHABILITATIONCost 2.00 2.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 40.00 (FTA 5307)Federal/Other Funds (2.00) (2.00) (2.00) (2.00) (2.00) (3.00) (3.00) (3.00) (4.00) (4.00) (4.00) (31.00) Meas A Contribution - - 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 9.00 LA SIERRA PARKING EXPANSIONCost 0.30 2.20 - - - - - - - - - 2.50 (Prop 1B)State Funds - (0.80) - - - - - - - - - (0.80) (Measure A Commuter Assistance)Federal/Other Funds (0.30) (1.40) - - - - - - - - - (1.70) 2009 Meas A Contribution - - - - - - - - - - - - METROLINK - POSITIVE TRAIN CONTROL (RCTC Share of Unfunded $127M)Cost - 7.00 7.10 - - - - - - - - 14.10 Federal/Other Funds - - - - - - - - - - - - Meas A Contribution - 7.00 7.10 - - - - - - - - 14.10 METROLINK EMF EXPANSIONCost - - - - - - 4.00 - - - - 4.00 (FTA 5307)Federal/Other Funds - - - - - - (2.00) - - - - (2.00) Meas A Contribution - - - - - - 2.00 - - - - 2.00 PERRIS VALLEY LINE RAMONA STATIONCost - - - - - - - - - - 6.00 6.00 Federal/Other Funds - - - - - - - - - - - - Meas A Contribution - - - - - - - - - - 6.00 6.00 PERRIS VALLEY LINE UCR STATIONCost - - - - - - - - - - 3.00 3.00 Federal/Other Funds - - - - - - - - - - - - Meas A Contribution - - - - - - - - - - 3.00 3.00 METROLINK SERVICE EXPANSION- BNSF TRIPLE TRACK - FUL-RIV- PERRIS TO SAN JACINTO (Future beyond 2019)- 2ND PHASE OF NORTH MAIN CORONA STATION (Future Beyond 2019)- DOWNTOWN RIVERSIDE PLATFORM EXPANSION- ROLLING STOCK (LOCOMOTIVES AND CARS)Projects: Project Management, PVL and related, NMC Parking Structure, PMM Facility, BNSF Property Acquisition, Riverside Layover Facility, Station Rehabilitation & Security, Metrolink Rail Car2