Loading...
02 February 2, 2012 Annual workshopTIME/DATE: LOCATION: Riverside County Transportation Commission WORKSHOP AGENDA 1:30 p.m. I Thursday, February 2, 2012 9:15a.m. I Friday, February 3, 2012 SANTA ROSA B AND C EMBASSY SUITES LA QUINTA 50-777 Santa Rosa Plaza, La Quinta, CA &a COMMISSIONERS ..,. Chair-John J. Benoit First Vice Chair -Karen Spiegel Second Vice Chair -Marion Ashley Bob Buster, County of Riverside John F. Tavaglione, County of Riverside Jeff Stone, County of Riverside John J. Benoit, County of Riverside Marion Ashley, County of Riverside Bob Botts I Don Robinson, City of Banning Roger Berg I Jeff Fox, City of Beaumont Joseph DeConinck I To Be Appointed, City of Blythe Ella Zanowic I Jeff Hewitt, City of Calimesa Mary Craton I Barry Talbot, City of Canyon Lake Greg Pettis I Kathleen DeRosa, City of Cathedral City Steven Hernandez I Eduardo Garcia, City of Coachella Karen Spiegel I Steve Nolan, City of Corona Scott Matas I Russell Betts, City of Desert Hot Springs Adam Rush I Ike Bootsma, City of Eastvale Larry Smith I Robert Youssef, City of Hemet Douglas Hanson I Patrick Mullany, City of Indian Wells Glenn Miller I Michael Wilson, City of Indio Frank Johnston I Micheal Goodland, City of Jurupa Valley Terry Henderson I Don Adolph, City of La Quinta Bob Magee I Melissa Melendez, City of Lake Elsinore Darcy Kuenzi I Wallace Edgerton, City of Menifee Marcelo Co I Richard Stewart, City of Moreno Valley Rick Gibbs I Kelly Bennett, City of Murrieta Berwin Hanna I Kathy Azevedo, City of Norco Jan Harnik I William Kroonen, City of Palm Desert Ginny Foat I Steve Pougnet, City of Palm Springs Daryl Busch I AI Landers, City of Perris Scott Hines I Gordon Moller, City of Rancho Mirage Steve Adams I Andy Melendrez, City of Riverside Andrew Kotyuk I Scott Miller, City of San Jacinto Ron Roberts I Jeff Comerchero, City of Temecula Ben Benoit I Timothy Walker, City of Wildomar Raymond Wolfe, Governor's Appointee Comments are welcomed by the Commission. If you wish to provide comments to the Commission, please complete and submit a Speaker Card to the Clerk of the Board. -------------------------------- RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION WORKSHOP COMMISSIONER SIGN-IN SHEET FEBRUARY 2, 2012 NAME AGENCY A-E MAIL ADDRESS I RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION WORKSHOP ROLL CALL FEBRUARY 2, 2012 Co< 11t <> !f t'•"C'~'rs·''" ·.·· .. ··•· . r' .•. ' · · u • y o •·· R.~e Jde(j!>1st 1ct I ,. · County of Riverside, District II Count¥i.6l Riverside, District IU ·· County of Riverside, District IV courfty o-r·'Riv~rsiite, .Distridt3~~ •. City of Banning c11:v.·ot seau~io~t City of Blythe Cit¥ '<i:tF·~al(mes~·· ·· City of Canyon Lake City of Cathedrai•:City Cityof Coachella Cit:y of Corona City of Desert Hot Springs City ~·ty;f~a$l·~al~\r· ·i.,"!·r~~fT'rHrl~~i;)fY ~· . City of Hemet Cit Ollna1an .well's> .·:· y ·.... ::cc·. :C:> .. ·;;;;. City of Indio City of Jl.lrupa"Vaii'E~v City of La Quinta City of Lake ~lsiriore City of Menifee CitMi;ots~l'or~;.~o l!:all~¥;•;;> City of Murrieta C ity .. :O.t:''l\,lor~p. City of Palm Desert City ;~~mPattri Springs C:ity of Perris .... . City of ij;encho Mirage City of Riverside c'Ft:vrof·r.s:an Jacinto : ' ·> <· · City of Temecula Cit · of Wil~'orn~r . y ......... ':%•···· Governor's Appointee, Caltrans District 8 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION WORKSHOP COMMISSIONER SIGN-IN SHEET FEBRUARY 3, 2012 , NAI\lle "' AGENCY E MAIL ADDRESS R 1 CYt./ G'l ~ ~ s /'{ u /2/tf p-TA- RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION WORKSHOP ROLL CALL FEBRUARY 3, 2012 Present Cottf)ty :~~t Riverside, District I · · ::: · .. r:;] : County of Riverside, District II D Couritv··o.tRiversid~, Disttie~U~III ... j:i(~ .:' County of Riverside, District IV D co·untvfo~ f3jve~;~id~,.oistrictv;. }If City of Banning ... . ,;z! (3jty of Beaumont " . • : · D g:~:!;~:S!ti•' ··~·· City of Canyon Lake D City of C~thed.rahCity . .~. }8 ··z2 City of Coachella D CH:v of CoroJr'ta IJ{ g1~~'!!·~~~~~~ot Springs "~t. ".· .. ill' City qflndiart::WeUs ,., . City of Indio ; City .:(H'Ju~wpa:~(Va(l.ey .. · ,pt City of La Quirlta . ;;( Ci:tY' of .. ~~~ke ... ~Jsir:l9r~< ;;r_·····.····· · City of Menifee j?f City •Qf Mqrenq Vall~y · . t:l · gs ~! ~~~~sert :t CitvotPal~···sg~in@l$<f··;t.r~• "o ... g:~ ~; ~h:hlf Mlf8ge '~ ·· City of River.sid~ , j{· City of SaQ·tla£(fnto·~' · ·~ .• City of Temecula ~. City of WildQ.~a~.;cHV · · • . · . . .· E,·;i~tf': Governor's Appointee, Caltrans District 8 If RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION WORKSHOP AGENDA* *Actions may be taken on any item listed on the agenda FEBRUARY 2-3, 2012 EMBASSY SUITES LA QUINTA 50-7 7 7 Santa Rosa Plaza La Quinta, CA In compliance with the Brown Act and Government Code Section 54957.5, agenda materials distributed 72 hours prior to the meeting, which are public records relating to open session agenda items, will be available for inspection by members of the public prior to the meeting at the Commission office, 4080 Lemon Street, Third Floor, Riverside, CA, and on the Commission's website, www.rctc.org. In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act and Government Code Section 54954.2, if 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. 1:30 p.m.-1:35 p.m. 1:35 p.m. -1:50 p.m. 1:50 p.m. -2:35 p.m. 2:35 p.m. -3:45 p.m. 3:45 p.m. -4:00 p.m. 4:00 p.m. -5:00 p.m. 1:30 P.M. THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 2, 2012 WELCOME AND WORKSHOP OVERVIEW John J. Benoit, Chair IE 511 DEMONSTRATION AND DISCUSSION Robert Yates, Multimodal Services Director REGIONAL ISSUES AND COOPERATION John Standiford, Deputy Executive Director LEGISLATIVE UPDATE Aaron Hake, Government Relations Manager Kathy Ruffalo, Commission's Legislative Advocate Mark Watts, Commission's Legislative Advocate BREAK COMMISSION MEETING (Separate Agenda) Riverside County Transportation Commission Workshop February 2-3, 2012 5:00 p.m. -6:00 p.m. 9:15a.m. -9:30a.m. 9:30a.m. -10:00 a.m. RIVERSIDE COUNTY RAIL UPDATE Robert Yates, Multimodal Services Manager This item is for the Commission to: 1) Receive an oral report on rail matters that affect the Commission relating to Metrolink, Los Angeles-San Diego- San Luis Obispo (LOSSAN) Rail Corridor Agency and high- speed rail; 2) Approve Memorandum of Understanding No. 12-25-044-00 with California High Speed Rail Authority (CHSRA), the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), and the partner Southern California transportation agencies; 3) Authorize the Chair, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the MOU on behalf of the Commission in order to protect the Commission's passenger rail rights on the LOSSAN Corridor and ensure the Commission's involvement in ongoing regional rail investment discussions; and 4) Approve the list of priority projects and authorize the Executive Director to negotiate the project list as necessary on behalf of the Commission. The workshop will continue at 9:15 a.m., Friday, February 3, 50-777 Santa Rosa Plaza, La Quinta, CA 9:15A.M. FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 3, 2012 MOBILITY 21 UPDATE Mamie Primmer, Executive Director, Mobility 21 LONG TERM REVENUE FORECAST Dan Wiles, Fieldman Rolapp 10:00 a.m.-10:15 a.m. BREAK 10:15 a.m.-11:45 a.m. DELIVERY PLAN SUCCESSES AND FINANCING THE FUTURE Anne Mayer, Executive Director 11:45 a.m. LUNCH AND WORKSHOP WRAP UP Karen Spiegel, Vice Chair ATTACHMENT 1 DRAFTMOU MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING CONTRACT# XXXXXX BY AND BETWEEN CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY (CHSRA); SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS (SCAG); LOS ANGELES COUNTY METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY (Metro); ORANGE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY (OCTA); RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION (RCTC); SAN DIEGO ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS (SANDAG); SAN BERNARDINO ASSOCIATED GOVERNMENTS (SAN BAG); and SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA REGIONAL RAIL AUTHORITY (METROLINK), COLLECTIVELY REFERRED TO HEREIN AS THE "PARTIES", FOR THE PREPARATION OF STUDY, DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF HIGH-SPEED RAIL THROUGH THE SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA REGION, INCLUDING IDENTIFIED HIGH-SPEED RAIL CORRIDORS SOUTH OF BAKERSFIELD. RECITALS: Whereas, the California High-Speed Rail Authority (CHSRA) is responsible for planning, building and maintaining an 800-mile statewide high-speed rail system, providing more than 600,000 jobs and improved mobility through the development of safe, clean, reliable rail technology; and Whereas, CHSRA, in partnership with the Federal Railroad Administration has completed and certified a Program EIR/EIS for a proposed California High-Speed Train (HST) network linking the major metropolitan areas of the State of California, and the HST system approved by the CHSRA includes corridors into and through Southern California; and Whereas, the CHSRA's responsibility for planning, construction and operation of high-speed passenger train service in California is exclusively granted to CHSRA by PUC Section 185032.a.2; and Whereas, the CHSRA is charged with accepting grants, fees and allocations from the state, from political subdivisions of the state and from the federal government, foreign governments, and private sources (PUC section 185034(4)); and 1 Whereas, the CHSRA DRAFT 2012 Business Plan proposes to incrementally develop the HST utilizing a blended system and blended operations involving coordinated passenger rail system development and operations with existing passenger rail systems, and this emphasis reflects the recognition that a key to success in developing the statewide rail network, including the high-speed system, is in coordinated infrastructure development that improves, enhances and expands the integration of high-speed and regional/local passenger rail systems; and Whereas, this blended approach requires a series of incremental investments in local rail corridors to prepare for integrated service and operations and the CHSRA recognizes the need for a collaborative effort with regional and local agencies to identify early investment projects along existing rail corridors, that increase speed, improve safety and efficiency, and create linkages between HST and local passenger rail service; and Whereas, local transportation improvement projects are required to be included in a Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) and both the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) and the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) are each charged with developing a RTP every four years for their respective regions to provide guidance for transportation investments within each region, and development of regional transportation strategies to address the regions' mobility needs; and Whereas, SCAG adopted the 2008 RTP to identify the facilities, services and programs necessary to meet the SCAG region's travel needs through the year 2035, and that document recognizes the need for HSR ground transportation to serve these needs; and Whereas, the Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act of 2008 (SB 375, Steinberg, Statutes of 2008) requires subsequent RTPs to include a Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS), showing evidence of integrated planning, goals that establish and strengthen the crucial linkages between the economy, land use development and regional transportation system to improve access to jobs, education, healthcare, and regional amenities in ways that improve the overall quality of life in the region; and Whereas, the DRAFT 2012 SCAG RTP identifies Phase 1 of the California High-Speed Rail program in the constrained plan to facilitate the development of HSR early investment projects in passenger rail corridors in the SCAG region and that the HST development objectives are consistent with achieving SB 375 goals to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 8 percent per capita by 2020 and 16% by 2035; and Whereas, SANDAG adopted the 2050 RTP on October 28, 2011, including a SCS, with similar transportation goals and including the Authority's Phase 2 Los Angeles to San Diego via Inland Empire HST corridor in its constrained plan and extensive capital and operations improvements along the San Diego segment of the Los Angeles-San Diego-San Luis Obispo (LOSSAN) rail corridor, the nation's second busiest passenger rail corridor, and Whereas, the CHSRA already had an MOU in place with SCAG, Metro, OCTA, RCTC, SANDAG, SAN BAG, California Department ofTransportation, Division of Rail, and the San Diego County Regional Airport 2 Authority that guide discussion and participation in the collaborative development of technical studies, sharing of technical information, and regional outreach coordination; and Whereas, Metro, OCTA, SANDAG, SANBAG, RCTC and Metrolink are involved in the planning, funding, construction and/or operation of heavy and light rail transit, buses, and/or commuter train services in los Angeles/Orange/Riverside/SAN BAG/San Diego counties and are considering intermodal service integration, including linkages to the proposed HST service; and Whereas, it is the intent and purpose of this MOU to strengthen the working relationship between CHSRA and the Parties to facilitate the development and implementation of passenger rail improvements that will improve local passenger rail service and operations while preparing designated HST corridors for eventual HST operation to achieve region-wide systems integration of rail service in Southern California; and Whereas, the PARTIES also intend to communicate and coordinate with rail operators such as Metrolink, Amtrak, Burlington Northern & Santa Fe, Union Pacific Railroad and Caltrans' Division of Rail in the development and implementation of rail improvements and enhancements; and to include them in the California State Rail Plan. Now, THEREFORE, it is mutually understood and agreed to by the PARTIES as follows: 1. To collaboratively agree to the statement of purpose of the MOU in order to identify and move forward with a program of early investments in the regional and local rail systems to facilitate the blended approach as described in Chapter 2 of the CHSRA Draft 2012 Business plan regarding coordination of increasing interregional connectivity of the existing systems (rail, bus, airports, and highways). 2. Parties to this MOU agree to support improved rail operations in Southern California in a manner that is in keeping with the statutory requirements of Proposition lA, and that prioritized projects supported by this MOU will emphasize the need to improve speed and operations into Southern California. Parties to the MOU agree to collaboratively partner in delivering the California High-Speed Rail project to Southern California as a whole by supporting efforts to obtain funding, enhance stakeholder support, secure environmental clearance and all other aspects that will move the implementation of Proposition lA and all it endeavors to achieve. 4. Parties to this MOU agree to collaboratively improve and increase community outreach in Southern California to improve community understanding and support of the HSRA Business Plan and proposed projects in Southern California. 5. This MOU establishes a framework for the recommendation of candidate improvement projects for consideration for funding and implementation. The framework includes the application of performance-based criteria to prioritize candidate projects, select projects for funding consideration, and a process for the Parties to achieve regional consensus on the projects to be recommended to CHSRA for funding. A subsequent project level MOU (or other agreement(s) 3 may be developed to specify the details of approved projects that implement the goals of this MOU. 6. The PARTIES agree to work together through the Southern California Passenger Rail Planning Coalition to develop, refine and update the project development and selection process for projects that may be funded in whole or in part by the CHSRA that will be reviewed and approved by the Regional Chief Executive Officer's Group, which is comprised of parties to this MOU. 7. The PARTIES have developed a list of candidate rail improvement and enhancement projects attached hereto as Attachment A. This list of projects will be further refined to prioritize these projects both according to their utility and extent that they achieve the goals identified in the CSHRA's 2012 Business Plan in implementing projects related to the "Blended Systems and Blended Operations" concept. The projects are consistent with the CHSRA's phased implementation strategy for developing the statewide High-Speed System. The candidate project list will be used to develop a "Prioritized Rail Improvement List "(PRIL) for a region-wide series of rail improvements and enhancements, including work on Phase 1 High-Speed Rail corridors and on feeder rail corridors that support the Blended Systems/Blended Operations model. 8. Attachment B details the performance criteria that will be used to review the candidate rail project list and refine the list through collaboration with the PARTIES to develop the PRIL. The PRIL will be completed, including approval of said list by all respective participating governing Boards of the PARTIES, by June, 2012. 9. The PRIL is intended to be incorporated into the California State Rail Plan as applicable. 10. PARTIES will utilize the PRIL to develop a specific funding plan, including investment by the California High-Speed Rail Authority, State and, and federal matching funds based upon an agreed strategy. a. CHSRA will work with the other parties to the MOU to seek early approval and release of the $950 million already committed to interregional service statewide. b. CHSRA will commit an additional $1 billion in unallocated Prop 1A funds to implement the PRIL projects that meet the performance criteria identified in Attachment B by 2020. c. CHSRA will work with necessary funding partners (state, private, and federal) to assist in seeking and releasing the funds necessary to implement the PRIL projects. Local agencies may provide local funds, real property or in-kind resources as matching funds where matching funds are required to qualify for grant funding. PARTIES agree to work together to identify appropriate amounts and types of local resources that may be used to support a specific PRIL project. d. CHSRA and appropriate local agencies will coordinate to obtain federal and private funding using a mutually agreed upon strategic approach. In the event that funding for the HST program is constrained by statute, rescission of existing law, change in funding requirements or eligibility, reduction in funding level or availability, the CSHRA shall 4 notify the Parties in a timely manner of same and provide a statement of impact of such change on the prioritized candidate list. 11. In the event that the funding provided for under this MOU is not approved by the CHSRA by 2020, the MOU is deemed to be terminated effective thirty (30) days upon notice by CHSRA. 12. Any non-CHSRA Party may withdraw from this MOU at any time prior to notice of a grant award for a PRIL project by giving notice to the other parties of the MOU of such termination (including the effective termination date) at least thirty (30) calendar days before the effective date of such termination. 13. If through any cause, the CSHRA shall fail to fulfill in a timely and proper manner its obligations under this MOU regarding approval of the prioritized candidate list or the PRIL, the other parties to the MOU shall thereupon have the right to withdraw from the MOU by giving not less than thirty (30) days written notice of the intent to terminate and specifying the effective date thereof. 5 DRAFT January 3, 2012 Southern California ATTACHMENT 2 Potential Early Investment Projects that Support Development of the California High Speed Train Pro]ech :rorPr< ~ect Selection J ! !h ~ I~ i!l I I lh I :I Rough Order Ill if Code Description of Magnitude Status Details Cost I ~ J 11 i ~ S~·I.A-501 I $2,000,000 IRooda"'"'""'~' ..J S~-\.A-502 I••• s ..... ""' Imp<•~-·" $5,000,000 ..J S~-\.A-503 i"""."' •• .,~ .•••• 1.,. __ ,.. $5,000,000 '""'"' ..J Syl-l.A-504 IModay A.oo"' • X-mg Imp"''~"" $5,000,000 ..J Syi.U-505 ............... X-iogl ..... ~~·· $5,000,000 ·.we., '""'"' ..J Syi.U.SOO ''"" s ..... ""' Imp"''~"" $5,000,000 ..J Syi-\.A-507 ··~'" s ..... '""''"""~"'· $5,000,000 '"""' ..J S~·I.A-508 P.IQS.oot· Cl~u" $2,000,000 IRoodaooolog"''"" ..J .,, ....... , O.bomo s .. ot · x-•o '"""''~"" $5,000,000 loood.ateo; · '"""' ..J Syi.U-510 B""''" ................. ,_,. $5,000,000 ..J Syi-I.A-511 ''""" S.ool· Ck>•~• $2,000,000 IRoodao"I"O"''"" ..J Syl-l.A-512 S~l'"d Boulomd ........... ~~"" $5,000,000 ..J Syl-l.A-513 ........ ., ... c ..... $2,000,000 I""' a~••o "'•wo ..J S~-l.A-514 i"""' ............. ~ ... $5,000,000 ..J S~-\.A-511 is., ..... ., ... $5,000,000 ....... ,.., lulotvl ..J S~.U-511 ............. _,.. $5,000,000 ..J S~.U-511 IFio-•S.oot· x-•olmpm•~"" $5,000,000 ..J S~-\.A-518 1:'::!::::.'.:' '"'"'" s•oot . ""' $5,000,000 ,...,. ....... ,.,,.., ..J f S~.U-511 lche,., """'. x-•• '"''"'"~"" $5,000,000 ..J S~.U-520 iMoloSbHt· i $5,000,000 ·~··.,,.., lulolv ..J S~-\.A-521 lo .. .,s•oot-G"""""'"" $40,000,000 HSTPEIEo• IConooto oonooo~~-~ oo~~• ..J ..J ..J f S~.U-522 I•O>domSOoot $40,000,000 HSTPEIEo• IN-G<Odo Sopo<Ot•• ..J ..J ..J S~-LA-523 lst,.ldoo Sboot • G<Odo Sopo10t1oo $40,000,000 HSTPE/Eo• 1•-G,.doSopo<Oooo ..J ..J ..J S~-\.A-524 • G10do Sopo10t•o $40,000,000 HSTPE!Eo• 1·-G10do Sopo10tioo ..J ..J ..J AM-I.A-501 I'"'"'" .... , .... '""' ~ ....... ~,. $5,000,000 ..J AM-I.A-502 ic"~"" Rood· X·mg lmpmw~•• $5,000,000 ·~-..... , lulotvl ..J A"'-\.A-503 i'''""' ......... X<oglmpiO"~"" $5,000,000 ..J A,. ........ lv"~"'. X·l"lt '""'""-"" $5,000,000 ..J A,. ........ ISooth SL. I $5,000,000 ..J A"'-\.A-501 IBmodway·X·mgl""""~"" $5,000,000 ..J .......... , I•YQ~<O·C"'"" $2,000,000 IRooda"""'""'"" ..J .,. ........ l"""""·c•'"" $2,000,000 l•••da"'"'"""" ..J Aoo·I.A .. OI ~~~"""'."' St50,000,000 o .. ~"'' '"~~~'::.' """'" ..J v f { A,. ........ ~~:::.:.;::·· n~ N.WO KG • GIOGO $40,000,000 Oulgood I'"~ ~:·• 02 ""' ..J v ..J ..J A"'·I.A-811 ISOoOo CoUogo BMI G<Odo Sopo~tioo $70,000,000 POnnmg/PSR '"""'"'"0 ..J v v v Ano-U-812 lea• Rd G10do Sop•~"'" $78,000,000 Ptanomg/PSR I""'""" v v ..J Ano-tA-813 $90,000,000 Ptano.g/PSR i""'""'" v v v ftiV-$01 1::::=~~·;,·~ IEOC "'"I $30,000,000 .•.•.. IPUC ...... v v v RIV-802 1::::. ",;;~;:;-,:::;;:;·'"· $74,000,000 .•.•.. ~~uc ~ .. ,._,, v v v SUBTOTAl. ........... ,,, Syi·I.A-ctl1 1-"' Voto to s~.,., Doubk> T~oki.,. $40,800,000 v v v v Syi-!A-C02 IGtand•• Slldo Rok>Qtion . S»OO.OOO v v v Syi-\.A-003 1~:""'" ":.:'~=·~~;·;... •. , ... $20,000,000 v Ano-IA-Cot lu••• Statioo •~-Th""'" T~oo . $350,000,000 v v ..J !.A-Cot I"''"'"' .. "'"'''" .. , •• ""' $77,000,000 PEIE~Imn v v v !.A-C02 lvon N"Y' Station , ... ,m $40,000,000 PEIE~imn v OC-Cot ~~,.'~;• Nlguol to ''" Juoo Cop"bo"" Po"l"' $30,000,000 ~'""""."""" v v OC-C02 liN"' Jm Molo T~ok &tonoioo $75,000,000 ~OMI"" v v v SO-Cot i"" Onol~ to "'"" Doub• Tmok $68,000,000 :;·;~:::::::.-:· v v v v SO-C02 IE.,tblooktoShoiiOoubO' SGS,OOO,OOO . ., ..... , , 16%1undod) v v v v SO-C03 l'"""'o VoNoy Doubta T<Ook 10 FinoiDoolgn ;;:;::,SO duo to 100% fundod @ $34,000,000) v v v v SO-C04 ~~~;,::,"'''" p.., oN" o 10~ tiO<n>el. 10 FinoiOooign ,;,~otiOduoto ....... v v v v SO-COO ······~~"' $20,000,000 AnoiOoolgn Son o•o• (unlundod) v v j SO-CO& lc .. •••• v•••• """'" T""' $45,000,000 PEIE"""" v v v SO-C07 ls.n Elijo t.ogoon Ooublo T<Ook $78,000,000 . ., ...... v v v SO-COB I•M~ to Mo""' OoubO T<Ook $80,000,000 . .,., ... , ..J ..J v SO-Cot IS'"Oiogultotl<idgo oTIOok Slto,OOO,OOO PEIE""'"" v v v SO-C to ISoiiOmo to Mi~.,., Ph 2 St20,000,000 v v ..J SO-C11 i ' ..... Ropl•~~"' $20,000,000 ....... v v SO-C12 I'''"" "'"'' •···~-·" (tbd) $20,000,000 ~onnlng v v SO-CIJ ITorok>to W '''" Doubta Tlook S«,OOO,OOO "'""'"' .i ..J v SUBTOTAL Sl,284,100,000 .... , ??· :;::,:,.':.,;w?J&I 1,104,100,000 -~ ':·: DRAFT Performance Criteria for Draft Candidate Project List Under Review by MOU Parties • Improved Speed/Performance • Improved Operations • Utility for Future HST System • Independent Utility • Connectivity to the HST System/Linkages • Capacity Increase by Double Tracking • PUC Ranking (Grade Crossing) • Safety Improvements to Increase Speed • Funding Matches (Contingent by Legislature Budget Allocation) • Fits within Statutory Requirements for Funding • Local Minimum/Regional Benefit • Project Readiness by 2020 Note; Reflects CEO/Agency comments as of January 3. 2012 ATTACHMENT 3 ATTACHMENT 4 AGENDA ITEM NO. 6 DATE: January 5, 2012 TO: Regional Council (RC) FROM: Hasan Ikhrata, Executive Director, ikhrata@scag.ca.gov, 213-236-1800 SUBJECT: California High Speed Rail Authority (CHSRA) Business Plan Presentation; Authorize SCAG Executive Director to Submit Public Comment Letter Regarding the Draft Business Plan; and Discuss Draft Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with CHSRA and Southern California Transporta~ EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S APPROVAL: ~ RECOMMENDED ACTIONS: 1. Receive presentation from CHSRA Board Member Dan Richard; 2. Authorize Executive Director to submit public comment letter to CHSRA regarding the Draft Business Plan (Attachment 1 ); and 3. Review and discuss the draft MOU with CHSRA and Southern California Transportation Agencies (Attachment 2 -To Be Distributed Under Separate Cover) EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The RTPISCS Subcommittee approved retaining the CHSRA Southern California projects within the draft 2012-2035 financially constrained plan pending MOU agreement by February with CHSRA and Southern California Transportation Agencies regarding early implementation of the blended approach goals described in Chapter 2 of the Draft CSHRA Business Plan. Further, the draft MOU was to include a candidate project list of $1 billion in Southern California projects that would implement regional interconnectivity to the CSHRA project, improve speed, capacity and safety of the existing interregional rail system. Since the Subcommittee direction, staff has been meeting regularly and collaboratively with CHSRA and Southern California Transportation Agencies to develop the draft MOU by February. Mr. Dan Richard, CHSRA Board Member will attend the January 5, 2012 Regional Council meeting to provide an update on the Draft Business Plan. STRATEGIC PLAN: This item supports SCAG's Strategic Plan; Goal1: Improve Regional Decision Making by Providing Leadership and Consensus Building on Key Plans and Policies; Objective c) Provide practical solutions for moving new ideas forward. BACKGROUND: RTP/SCS Subcommittee On October 20, 2011, the Subcommittee recommended to retain the CHSRA Phase 1 in the financially constrained Draft 2012-2035 RTP/SCS subject to a more defined commitment such as an MOU coming forward by February and if not, the project would be included in the Strategic Plan of the RTP/SCS. ~ SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA r-..:;: ASSOCIATIONofGOVERNMENTS -------------------------------------------------- Since that time, the following actions have occurred: • CHSRA Board approved the SCAG letter requesting extension of public comment for the Draft Business Plan from January 1 to January 16, 2012. This would allow time for the Regional Council to discuss the matter at the January 5th Board meeting and submit a public comment letter on the Draft Business Plan regarding how Southern California would be affected by early implementation of the blended approach described in Chapter 2 which describes the phased implementation (or blended approach) in Northern and Southern California. Chapter 2 also describes committing to early investments that increase regional interconnectivity and increased speed of existing regional rail services. The goal is to increase connectivity and mobility by expanding the inter-connected transportation investments in order to attract new riders and feed the CHSRA system. The attached letter thanks the CHSRA for approving the public comment extension request. • CHSRA representatives have met collaboratively with SCAG and Southern California Transportation Agencies and indicated that they are committed to meeting the February MOU deadline noted above along with agreement on more specificity on early project investments (by 2020) in Southern California of $1 billion. Recommended Joint CEO Public Comment Letter to CSHRA on Chapter 2 of the Draft Business Plan On December 16, 2011, CHSRA representatives met with the ChiefExecutive Officers (CEOs) of the Southern California Transportation Agencies party to the attached MOU described below to review the attached joint public comment letter regarding more specificity in Chapter 2 of the Draft Business Plan. CHSRA representatives have accepted in the meetings conducted since the above direction occurred more detailed comments that address the phased Southern California early investment implementation contained in the attached letter. Staff recommends approval of the attached letter to CHSRA regarding the Draft Business Plan Chapter 2 early implementation strategy for Southern California (Attachment 1 ). Status of Draft MOU with CHSRA and Southern California Transportation Agencies (Attachment 2) Parties to the MOU include: • California High Speed Rail Authority (CSHRA) • Metrolink • Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) • San Diego Associated Governments (SANDAG) • Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro) • Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) • Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) • San Bernardino Associated Governments (SANBAG) ~ SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA ~'<iii ASSOCIATIONofGOVERNMENTS Key Principles of the MOU include: • CHSRA agreement to an additional $1 billion early investment in Southern California above and beyond the already committed $950 million committed (but unallocated) statewide for interregional rail services • Candidate Project list attached to Draft MOU for the $1 billion early investment in Southern California by 2020 • Performance criteria attached to Draft MOU for selecting the projects from the candidate project list • Process for selecting the prioritized project list of early investments in Southern California by 2020 • Agreement of draft MOU by February, 2012 • Execution of agreement by all parties by June, 2012 Next Steps On December 16, 2011, the CEOs met with representatives of the CHSRA to discuss the draft comment letter, draft MOU, candidate project list and draft performance criteria for selecting the prioritized project list. Their comments have been incorporated in the attachments. Pending comments from the Regional Council on January 5, 2012, staffwill update the attachments and distribute to the partner agencies so that the respective CEOs can brief their Boards to meet the above schedule outline. Staff will return at the February 2, 2012 Regional Council meeting with the final MOU for consideration and action. FISCAL IMP ACT: None ATTACHMENTS: 1) Draft Joint CEO Public Comment Letter on Chapter 2: CHSRA Business Plan 2) Draft MOU with CHSRA, SCAG, SANDAG, Metrolink, Metro, OCTA, SANBAG, and RCTC (Note: To Be Distributed Under Separate Cover) ~ SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA r ~ ASSOCIATION of GOVERNMENTS