Loading...
01 January 30, 2014 Annual workshopRIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION www.rctc.org WORKSHOP AGENDA* *Actions may be taken on any item listed on the agenda JANUARY 30 -31, 2014 Hilton Palm Springs 400 East Tahquitz Canyon Way Palm Springs, California 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. -1:40 p.m. 1:40 p.m. -2:30 p.m. 2:30 p.m. -2:50 p.m. 2:50 p.m. -3:15 p.m. 3:15 p.m. -3:30 p.m. 3:30 p.m. -3:50 p.m. 3:50 p.m. -5:30 p.m. 1:30P.M. THURSDAY, JANUARY 30, 2014 WELCOME AND WORKSHOP OVERVIEW Marion Ashley, Chair Anne Mayer, Executive Director THE STATE OF RCTC Anne Mayer, Executive Director GOODS MOVEMENT-WHAT'S NEXT Tanya Love, Goods Movement Manager FEDERAL LEGISLATIVE UPDATE BREAK Cliff Madison, Federal Legislative Advocate Kathy Ruffalo, Federal Legislative Advocate BALLOT INITIATIVE UPDATE Mark Watts, Transportation California RIVERSIDE COUNTY VOTER ATIITUDES -RIVERSIDE COUNTY PRIORITIES D.J. Smith, State Legislative Advocate COMM-AWK-00004 Riverside County Transportation Commission Workshop January 30 -31, 2014 5:30 p.m. -6:00 p.m. 6:00 p.m. 6:30 p.m. 7:00 p.m. 9:30 a.m. -10:15 a.m. 10:15 a.m. -11:00 a.m. 11:00 a.m. -11:30 a.m. 11:30 a.m. -11:55 a.m. 11:55 a.m. -Noon Noon BREAK DINNER UPDATE ON STATE TRANSPORTATION ISSUES Brian Kelly, Secretary of the California State Transportation Agency ADJOURNMENT The workshop will continue at 10:15 a.m., Friday, January 31, 400 East Tahquitz Canyon Way, Palm Springs, California 10:15 A.M. FRIDAY, JANUARY 31, 2014 SPECIAL COMMISSION MEETING (Separate Agenda) THE STATE OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY'S ECONOMY Jordan Levine, Beacon Economics STATE ROUTE 91 CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT PROJECT PROPERTY ACQUISITION UPDATE Mark Lancaster, Acting Right of Way Manager Eliza Echevarria, Community Relations Manager WORKING LUNCH -BANNING PASS-COACHELLA VALLEY RAIL UPDATE Robert Yates, Multimodal Services Director WORKSHOP CLOSING REMARKS Marion Ashley, Chair ADJOURNMENT Tara Byerly From: Tara Byerly Sent: To: Monday, January 27, 2014 8:50 AM Tara Byerly Cc: Jennifer Harmon Subject: RCTC: REVISED 2014 Commission Workshop Agenda Importance: High Good morning Commissioners: The Workshop agenda that was emailed to you last week has been revised to remove the Executive Committee meeting. http://www.rctc.org/uploads/media items/januarv-30-31-2014.original.pdf Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you. Respectfully, Tara S. Byerly Senior Administrative Assistant RCTC 4080 Lemon Street, 3rd Floor Riverside, CA 92501 (951) 787-7141 1 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION WORKSHOP ROLL CALL JANUARY 30, 2014 County of Riverside, District I County of Riverside, District II County of Riverside, District Ill County of Riverside, District IV County of Riverside, Qistrict V City of Banning City of Beaumont City of Blythe City of Calimesa City of Canyon Lake City of ,Cathedral City City of Coachella City of Corona City of Desert Hot Springs City of Eastvale City of Hemet City of Indian Wells City of Indio City of Jurupa Valley 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 ~ancho Mirage City of Riverside City of San Jacinto City of Temecula City of Wildomar Governor's Appointee, Caltrans District 8 Absent Cl D ;tr D Cl D LI % Cl D LI D 0 D LI ~vU. i.; ·l,;;) e-in · D 0 D ?1 D LI ~ J?r D Cl D 0 D 0 D LJ D CJ D ', RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION WORKSHOP COMMISSIONER SIGN-IN SHEET JANUARY 30, 2014 NAME AGENCY E_MAIL ADDRESS RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION WORKSHOP ROLL CALL JANUARY 31, 2014 County of Riverside, District I County of Riverside, District II County of Riverside, District Ill County of Riverside, District IV County of Riverside, District V City of Banning City of Beaumont City of Blythe City of talimesa City of Canyon Lake City of Cathedral City City of Coachella City of Corona City of Desert Hot Springs City of Eastvale City of Hemet City of Indian Wells City of Indio City of Jurupa Valley 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 Q.).X~ City of Perris City of Rancho Mirage City of Riverside City of San Jacinto City of Temecula City of Wildomar Governor's Appointee, Caltrans District 8 Absent 0 D J1f %' Cl D Cl % Cl D 0 D LI D ,a-' D ~o D ;K D Cl D 0 D LI D -c D Cl pr Cl D Cl D GOODS MOVEMENT-WHAT'S NEXT Tanya Love, Goods Movement Manager til~M eil '-" ·;~,;;,, TCIF Projects in Riverside County lliVlllillt (aunlJ ...... COllriniGI From Local State PUC TCIF Federal Total Cost Status Under Auto Center Dr CTC Allocation $ 2,700,000 $ 5,000,000 $ 16,000,000 $ 8,975,000 $ 32,675,000 Construction Under Ave 52 CTC Allocation 9,306,000 -10,000,000 10,560,000 29,866,000 Construction Under Ave 56/ Airport Blvd CTC Allocation 16,592,000 -15,066,000 -31,658,000 Construction Under Clay St CTC Allocation 2,230,000 -13,247,000 15,329,000 30,806,000 Construction Columbia Ave CTC Allocation 23,050,000 5,000,000 4,953,000 33,003,000 Completed Magnolia Ave (Riv City) CTC Allocation 27,960,000 5,000,000 17,288,000 -50,248,000 Completed Under Magnolia Ave (Riv Co) CTC Allocation 8,186,000 5,000,000 17,696,000 20,750,000 51,632,000 Construction Under 1-215/Van Buren CTC Allocation 47,373,000 -8,835,000 10,568,000 66,776,000 Construction Iowa Ave CTC Allocation 6,000,000 5,000,000 13,000,000 8,000,000 32,000,000 Completed Under Riverside Ave CTC Allocation 7,777,000 5,000,000 8,500,000 10,330,000 31,607,000 Construction Under Streeter Ave CTC Allocation 10,188,000 5,000,000 15,500,000 5,312,000 36,000,000 Construction Under Sunset Ave CTC Allocation 4,342,000 -10,000,000 20,422,000 34,764,000 Construction Grand Totals $ 165,704,000 $ 35,000,000 $ 150,085,000 $ 110,246,000 $ 461,035,000 As of 1/29/2014 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: April 11, 2007 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission Grade Separation Funding Strategy Ad Hoc Committee FROM: Technical Advisory Committee Stephanie Wiggins, Regional Programs Director THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Alameda Corridor East Grade Separation Funding Recommendation GRADE SEPARATION FUNDING STRATEGY AD HOC COMMITTEE. TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Approve an "off the top" allocation of 25% of CMAQ and STP federal funds from the next transportation bill (anticipated after 2009) for Alameda Corridor East (ACE) grade separation projects, contingent upon a "use it or lose it" provision; 2) Approve ACE grade separation projects as eligible projects for 2009 Measure A Economic Development funds with an allocation of 25%; and 3) Adopt the Grade Separation Funding Strategy Blueprint Report. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach serve as the nation's key western portal and freight traffic is projected to triple over the next 20 years. Regional international trade has a significant effect on Riverside County because a large percentage of international trade travels through Riverside County on its way to the rest of the country 1 . As the conduit for this freight, Riverside County residents subsidize the nation's and California's economy with their health, their time, and their quality of life. Almost all freight rail traffic in Riverside County is from trains passing through the county. In 2003, 3 million tons of rail freight moved to or from places in Riverside County. In contrast, 68 million tons of rail freight passed through the county. 1 The total tonnage of goods moving to, from, within and through Riverside County was 180 million tons in 2003. Of this total, 28% (50 million tons) is domestic trade-related. Most domestic trade is with the other counties in the SCAG region. Agenda Item 1 O 120 100 "' c 0 80 I--0 60 "' c .5! 40 :E 20 0 Inbound Domestic Outbound County Domestic Internal Passing Through •Rail •Truck Today's freight chokes local roads, inhibits emergency vehicles, and degrades air quality at 58 mainline at-grade crossings in Riverside County. This is significant locally as well as within the Southern California region. An analysis of the demand for grade separations among four southern California counties (Los Angeles, Orange, San Bernardino, and Riverside) in 2001 concluded that 37 of the top 50 grade separations are in the Inland Empire. Grade separations eliminate the conflict between freight trains and cars. If 18 of the 58 are constructed by the cities and the County, the results are striking: • 37 less hours of crossing gate "down-time" every day; • 36 fewer accidents per year; • 212 less tons of projected 2030 emissions per year; and • 4,375 fewer hours of vehicle delay annually. At its September 2006 meeting, the Commission received a presentation on the Grade Separation Funding Strategy: A Blueprint for Advancing Projects report (Blueprint). As a result of the presentation, the Commission appointed an Ad Hoc Committee to develop formal funding recommendations to assist the cities and the County in advancing these projects. Currently, the Commission has one formal funding policy regarding grade separations. At the September 10, 2001 meeting, the Commission approved a policy to support successful California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) Section 190 Grade Separation projects that are included in the Commission approved Alameda Corridor-East (ACE) Grade Crossing Priority List by funding the 10% local share match requirement of the CPUC if funding sources are available. Today, 14 at- grade crossings in Riverside County potentially meet the requirement making them eligible for up to $7 million of Commission funding if the grade separation projects are awarded by the CPUC. Agenda Item 10 J The Blueprint Recommendations The Blueprint goes beyond the 2001 funding policy. It seeks to recognize the various federal, state, and local funding sources available for grade separation projects. Among these funding sources are those that the Commission has direct oversight: Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ), Surface Transportation Program (STP), and Measure A Economic Development funds. The staff recommendation seeks to expand the Commission's funding policy to earmark funds to support grade separation projects in Riverside County. The funding recommendation, unanimously supported by the Technical Advisory Committee on March 19, 2007, is as follows: • Earmark of 25% of CMAQ funds from the next transportation bill (anticipated after 2009), estimated at $30 million; • Earmark of 25% of STP funds from the next transportation bill (anticipated after 2009), estimated at $30 million; • Allow grade separation projects as eligible for Measure "A" Economic Development funds with an allocation of 25%, estimated at $10 million; and • CMAQ and STP funds are subject to a "use it or lose it" provision in order to encourage advanced delivery of projects. The Blueprint identifies 18 grade separation projects that total $561 million. Currently, $199 million of the $561 million is either planned or programmed. This results in a funding gap of $362 million. If approved, the funding policy provides for a minimum of $77 million (or 21% of the needed funding) to support the efforts of the cities and the County in delivering grade separation projects. While this is a significant allocation for the Commission, the lead agencies (cities and County) have a more substantial role to play in closing the funding gap. In recognition of this, the Blueprint also identifies local sources available for grade separations. For example, TUMF and Measure A Local Streets and Roads funding is eligible for grade separation projects, however, this decision remains with the cities and County. Next Steps While all of the funding recommendations contemplated in this agenda item are anticipated after 2009, the time to start educating state and federal representatives in advance of the next transportation bill is now. Approval of the funding recommendations today serves as a clear demonstration to the Commission's congressional delegation of the high priority of these projects and provides Agenda Item 1 O the lead agencies (city and County) support in leveraging these funds in order to advance a substantial local and state commitment of funds (i.e. Proposition 1 B funds which contemplate a 1 :1 match). Attachment: Agenda Item 1 O Grade Separation Funding Strategy: A Blueprint for Advancing Projects ,, 2 CONNECTING CONNECTIN The California Intercity Passenger Rail (C IPR) program is a customer-focused. cost-effective rail system that reaches nearly every regi on of the state. CIPR's interconnected network of passenger rail lines and thruway bus lines includes the Pacific Surfliner, Capitol Corridor, a nd the San Joaq uin. Emerging corridors are the Coast Daylight, Coachella Valley, and the Capitol Corridor Extension to Salinas. CIPR's benefits are wide-ranging not just for the millions of Californians who ride it every year but for all residents of the state, from enhancing mobility to protecting California's natural environment. ES, PLE An investment that pays off Railroads have played a vital role in transporting people and goods in California since the state's inception. Today, millions of people are once again choosing rail to provide fast, reliable connections to jobs, education, family, and recreation. Tired of traffic on the state's highways, more and more people every year are taking advantage of a travel choice that offers some of the country's most spectacular scenery and reliable travel times, while taking vehicles off our congested roads. Our state's investment of $1.9 billion in intercity passenger rail service since the 1970s has paid off: California's three services receiving state funding-the Pacific Surfliner, Capitol Corridor, and San Joaquin-all rank in the top five for intercity rail ridership in the nation. California outpaces every state but New York in intercity passenger rail ridership. With annual ridership at over 5.5 million, one in five Amtrak passengers are boarding in California-second only to the Northeast Corridor between Boston and Washington, DC. CIPR strives to be a national model for how states can successfully build, operate, and grow an innovative, reliable, high-amenity passenger rail system by collaborating with federal, state, regional, and local partners. One investment, many benefits CIPR's corridors share infrastructure and right-of-way with freight and regional commuter trains. Every capital investment in passenger rail improvements along CIPR corridors also pays off for goods movement, including many of the state's and nation's economic engines, such as the Ports of Los Angeles, Long Beach, and Oakland. And many of these investments pay off in improved service for local commuter rail, attracting new riders and better connecting Californians to where they need to go. The state's investments in upgrading CIPR corridors have contributed to increased local commuter rail ridership in southern California that is equivalent to one traffic lane on Interstate 5, First-rate customer lines have recently rolled out eli;ieketi:na. vuv"''"'u WiFi, real-time train status, "'"''-'"'":"u.ut:: information systems to make tr"""srh,, appealing than being stuck behind the\,'mi'!lll!frli l Millennials have proven to be much more interested in taking public transportation than preceding generations. Focusing on providing a high-amenity, customer-focused traveling experience helps CIPR attract Millennials and older riders alike. Taming congestion-and carbon The CIPR network is helping California continue to welcome more people and jobs without choking our freeways and further polluting the state. Our invest- ment is paying off in fewer vehicle miles traveled per person. Since 2001, while California's population has grown 10 percent and vehicle miles traveled by just 8 percent, ridership on CIPR lines has increased 56 percent. CIPR has a strong nexus with California's clean air goals (set by Assembly Bill 32) and sustainable communities strategies legislation (set by Senate Bill 375). CIPR trains emit less greenhouse gas than automobile travel, and many of CIPR's intermodal stations are the center of surrounding transit-oriented development. Ready for high speed rail The proposed high-speed rail system in California will serve as the backbone of a system that will move millions of Californians the state quickly and reliably for many to come. To make the most of this inv'%\li1ll;~~t,µt, an integrated noi~""'frlr will extend the high-speed rail system's connections at joint stations in San Jose, au:Leu.Lu, Merced/Fresno, Los Angeles, Anaheim Diego. Following international best practices, CIPR corridors are being planned as shared corridors between commuter, intercity, and high-speed rail services, maximizing the benefit of every dollar spent on network improvements. Already, more than 90 percent of California residents and 90 percent of California jobs have access to intercity passenger and feeder bus services. By investing in CIPR, we can ensure that our investment in high-speed rail pays off far beyond the cities that high-speed rail serves directly. 3 4 SERVICE EXPANSION AND VISION On track for faster, more frequent service CIPR service improvements aim to attract new riders from the state's congested freeways and airports, improve air quality, and enhance mobility and quality of life for Californians. The California State Rail Plan calls for CIPR service to increase up to 40 percent by 2020, by adding trains on existing routes and expand- ing service to emerging travel corridors. Already, so many people are choosing to travel by the CIPR network that standing-room-only trains have become commonplace on some lines. More than 15,000 customers have to stand on Amtrak Pacific Surfliner trains between San Luis Obispo and San Diego each month. Customers boarding San Joaquin and Capitol Corridor trains must stand on occasion as well. To alleviate crowded trains and build ridership, California will buy new rail cars to e· "ll service n all of its corridors. The state ha " et aside ,42 mill ivn in Proposition 1b funding to atch $16 3 11i icm in federal rail capital improvement qr 1s to purchase 42 passenger cars an o Joe 1 '\ tive tor the three existing corridors. California is leading multi-statP 1rocurement for these next generation ra1 cars: • State of the art safety features • Built to 125 mph standards • Top emissions standards • Compatibility with existing fleet CORRIDOR Capitol Corridor Sacramento-Auburn Oakland-Sacramento Oakland ~ Jose SanJo!i;i.J in p~~r ~merging Cofr id~?rs Coast Daylight .cf,,tichella Valley ·-. WEEKDAY TRIPS NEAR- TERM PLAN BY EXISTING 2020 2 4 30 30 14 22 12 16-22 22 26 0 2 0 4 "c rnake this service expansion happen, CIPR needs more than just new cars-we also must upgrade the state's aging rail infrastructure. CIPR is developing a program that will lay the groundwork for modernizing our intercity rail network and enhance connections to the planned high-speed rail system. Each CIPR corridor, existing and planned, has identified a 10-year Capital Improvement Program with nearly $4 billion in projects for new trains, station improvements, and high priority safety and capacity projects that will improve mobility, create jobs, benefit goods movement, and complement future high-speed rail service. Modernizing our rail infrastructure will increase capacity, performance, safety and efficiency for passengers and freight rail. Most importantly, these near-term upgrades will not only pay off in immediate service improvements-they are also a down payment on the intercity rail system of the future, which will feature fast, frequent, truly state-of-the-art service across California. Estimated Ten-Year Capital Programs 10-YEAR CORRIDOR CAPITAL PROGRAM Pacific Surfliner Capitol Corridor San Joaquin Emerging Corridors TOTAL STATEWIDE $1,565 M $952 M $725 M $650 M $3,892M Protecting California's investment with a stable funding source Today's intercity rail network exists thanks to Californians who voted in 1990 to invest in rail by passing two key bond measures: Propositions 108 and 116. Proceeds from those bonds provided new train equipment, built stations and maintenance facilities, and added new tracks and signals-improvements that have allowed faster, more frequent, and more convenient service. Voters again invested in the CIPR program with passage of Propositions 1B (2006) and 1A (2008). CIPR has leveraged this investment to secure nearly $400 million in federal capital grant~ f r equipment, capacity, and station improvement These one-time state funds have now all b een invested or programmed, and will soon run out "' ensure the continued success of t h s tate · ~ q biL . investment and provide all Cal 'ornians with a i rst- rate travel choice, CIPR needs a s1' ·tainable sot ce of capital funds . CIPR's near-term plan for increased service requires an estimated $4 billion of capital investment over the next 10 years. Not all of this must come from the state. A stable annual source of state capital funds will help leverage funds from federal, regional, and private sources. At least $100 million per year in state capital funds is needed to leverage funding for existing needs. Future state funding sources for capital improvements could come in many forms. Cap and trade revenues are one potential source: CIPR's direct contribution to reducing vehicle miles traveled and GHG emissions creates a clear connection. New bonds or other dedicated revenue streams could also provide the state's contribution. 6 While a steady source of capital funding is needed, current operating funds-if sustained-will meet the system's needs. State-allocated Public Transportation Account funds for operations are projected through 2017. Maintaining the state's support for operating costs into the future is also essential to meeting new federal requirements for local matches to intercity passenger rail programs. An achievable vision: world-class rail in california Together, CIPR's members have a shared vision for the long-term future of intercity passenger rail in Cali- fornia. This vision will build on the capital upgrades CIPR makes by 2020 and ultimately take the system to the next level: a modern, world-class rail system that will provide excellent service to Californians and connect seamlessly with future a high-speed rail network. This long-term vision maximizes the benefits of the state's existing investment and would make intercity passenger rail a central pi ece of the stat e's transportation network, providing a real alternative t o automobile travel for many Cali fornians. Specifically, CIPR envisions a network of the future that: • Provides truly seamless rail t ravel through the integration of intercity, comm uter, and high- speed rail services into a coordinated, sustainable, cost-effective, and efficient statewide network that also integrates with the national rail network. Significantly increases rail's market share and attractiveness by enhancing reliability and convenience, increasing frequencies, reducing travel times, and expanding service to key new destinations. • Is modern, customer-focused, similar to state- of-the-art services in countries with leading rail services. CIPR lines could ultimately be elec- trified, allowing for cleaner, more cost effective service. • Makes a significant impact in reducing highway congestion, improving air quality, reducing greenhouse gas emissions, promoting local and regional economic development, and supporting social equity for generations to come. • Fosters livable and vibrant communities through smart growth station area development. • Keeps CIPR on the cutting edge of providing traveler information. • Enhances safety by building on CIPR's stellar safety record and reducing crashes on the state's highways. What if rail travel was faster than car travel between most California cities? What if trains ran so often on CIPR lines that Californians could just show up and expect a train without checking a schedule? What if traveli ng across California was no longer known for t raffic congestion and frustration, but for comfort, convenience, and u n p aralleled beauty? We've already made a down payment on this vision, and the results are visible in improved service on the Capital Corridor, San Joaquin, and Pacific Surfl.iner. W ith continued support, we can finish the job, and make California's rail network an engine of the state's prosperity in the 21st Century. ~-------------------------------------------------------------------- CALL TO ACTION California already has one of the most successful intercity passenger rail networks in the country. The Capitol Corridor, San Joaquin, and Pacific Surfliner are among the highest-ridership lines in their class nationwide, and ridership continues to grow as more Californians take advantage of a travel mode free of the stress and delays of driving on the state's congest- ed highways. In the process, CIPR is helping the state meet its clean air and sustainable development goals. Guiding P ri ciples For over a decade, the state's intercity passenger rail corridors have worked together t o p ro mot e the benefits of intercity rail service in both Washington, DC and Sacramento. Recent efforts have focus ed on developing a broad coalition of business, labor, environmental, and public agency supp ort fo r CIPR, with an overall goal to create both a state and national voice for passenger rail. Capitalizing on this success into the next decade-and beyond-will require continued support from the state as well as local, federal, and private partners. A stable, consistent funding source is needed to bring the vision for a true 21st century rail network into reality. Sustained incremental upgrades to our rail network will transform it over time from a system that serves five million people per year to one that serves tens of millions of Californians. Through a modest but stable investment in this proven service, we can ensure that California's economy, environment, and livability are preserved and enhanced for generations to come. • Protect a nd enhance Califo rnia's investment in the existing successful passenger rail system, including su stainable and recurring new sources of funds at both the state and federal levels to support exist ing passenger rail corridors a n d e mergin g corridors throughout the state, including a new program for state of good repair improvements. • Support priority investments in integrated passenger rail networks that connect both existing services and future high-speed service which can in turn influence mode shift to be more sustainable and efficient and have positive impacts on the environment. • Procure a fleet of state-owned, standardized, bi-level rolling stock to support existing and future intercity passenger service. • Continue partnerships at all levels in support of future passenger rail investments which support safety, reliability, goods movement, job creation, sustainability, economic development, and quality of life. • Support lowering voter approval thresholds at the regional level. • Support state efforts to d edicate a portion of cap and trade funds for public transportation systems and specifically for an integrated passenger rail network. • Support streamlining of existing programs and policies (e .g., RRIF, TIFIA). Images from: Flickr user Charles Hutchins Capitol Corridor Joint Powers Authority San Diego Association of Governments )Hitch [need full name and credit] 7 www.capitolcorridor.org QSalinas •• •• •• •• •• • •• • • • •• • San Joaquin Joint PoMn Autllortt,. www.acerail.com LOS SAN www.lossan.org Existing State-Supported Intercity Passenger Rail Capitol Corridor San Joaquin Pacific Surfl.iner Proposed Routes •••••••• Coast Daylight Route •••••• Capitol Corridor Extension •••••••• Coachella Valley Route • • ••• 6 •••••••• Riverside •t> Indio .•· t:o••t R~~n• Council www.slocog.org Ensuring our Quality of Life and Building a Better Tomorrow January 30, 2014 • Most active period in RCTC history • Measure A revenues are growing • Expectations continue to grow • No Long-term funding other than Measure A • Uncertain legislative environment • What's next? 2/3/2014 1 • Discuss current projects • Review and reevaluate previous policy decisions and assumptions • Consider future priorities • Face and consider the impacts of declining funding in the face of growing expectations Measure A A 2/3/2014 2 • Western County Expenditure Plan funds: v"State Highways v"New Transportation Corridors v"Regional Arterials v"Local Streets and Roads v"Public Transit v"Economic Development Incentives v"Debt Financing Costs A • Coachella Valley Expenditure Plan funds: v"State Highways and Major Regional Roads v"Local Streets and Roads v"Public Transit • Palo Verde Valley Expenditure Plan funds: v" Local Streets and Roads A 2/3/2014 3 What Do We Have to Work With? Rivemde County Tr011SjlOl1ofion Commission FY 2014/15 Projections (Amounts in Millions) Debt Measure A Turnback service Operations CVAG Programmed Administration $ $ $ 3 $ $ Highway improvements 16 17 25 New corridors 7 Transit/commuter services 20 Regional arterials 11 Local streets and roads 51 Bond financing 10 Economic development Total 51 26 23 17 43 TUMF 6 Local Transportation Funds 82 State: STIP (10-year average, unstable) 13 Federal (Caltrans estimate): CMAQ 31 STP 22 $ 51 $ 26 $ 105 $ 17 115 2/3/2014 57 14 20 11 51 10 12 82 13 33 4 A Whirlwind of Activity 1-10/ Monterey Avenue Interchange Project • Avenue 52 Grade separation project • Avenue 56 Grade separation project Fred Waring Drive Widening {Adams Street to Port Maria Road) 1-10/ Date Palm Drive Interchange Project CV Link Highway 111 -Multiple street projects including intersection improvements and street widening in the cities of Cathedral City, Indio, and La Quinta Whitewater River Bridge Crossing (Avenue 50) Avenue 48 Widening (Jackson Street to Van Buren Street) 1-10/ Jefferson Street Interchange Project SR-86/Avenue 50 Interchange Project 2/3/2014 5 • Completed: -Avenue 48/Dillon Road -Columbia Avenue -Iowa Avenue -Jurupa Avenue -Magnolia Avenue/UP • SR-GO/Valley Way Interchange • Under Construction: -Auto Center Drive -Avenue 52 -Avenue 56/Airport Blvd. -Clay Street -Magnolia Avenue/BNSF -Riverside Avenue -Streeter Avenue -Sunset Avenue -l-215Nan Buren Blvd. • 1-215/Clinton Keith Road Interchange • 1-215/South Widening • 1-10/Bob Hope Interchange • 1-10/Palm Drive Interchange • 1-10/lndian Canyon Interchange • 74/215 Interchange Project • SR-91/Green River Interchange • SR-91/La Sierra Avenue Interchange Project • SR-91/Van Buren Blvd. Bridge and Interchange • 1-215 Widening: Blaine to Martin Luther King 2/3/2014 6 Western Riverside County Highway Delivery Plan 2/3/2014 7 • Under construction: -Interstate 215 -State Route 91 -Bi-county Interstate 215 project • Near term construction: -Interstate 15 -SR-60 Truck Climbing Lane • Pursuing environmental clearance: -Mega projects: State Route 79 realignment -Mid County Parkway • Consider additional projects as opportunities arise • Completed new mixed flow lane in each direction from 1-15 to Scott Road • Constructing new lane between Scott Road and Nuevo • Construct HOV lane in each direction from Nuevo Road to Box Springs Road 2/3/2014 8 • $1.3 billion project • Groundbreaking held in December • Construct two HOT lanes and a general purpose lane to 1-15 • Construct EB auxiliary lane from OC Line to Serfas Club Drive • Build Connector Improvements & Collector Distributor (CD) System at SR-71 • Implement Connector Improvements and CD System at 1-15 each direction from SR-60 to Cajalco • Will use design-build procurement ·Construction expected in 2020 • Coordinate with SANBAG and SANDAG regarding future corridor improvements 2/3/2014 9 • Construct dedicated truck climbing/truck descending lane and improve shoulder widths to standard 10 foot width • 4.4 miles • $111.3 million • Construction Start: 12/2016 • Construction End: 1/2019 • Active Transportation is an emerging issue -Quality of life discussion -key topic last year -Guidelines for state funding being considered -Cap and Trade funding is an important link -CV Link a marquee project for the state -CMAQ preservation an important goal 2/3/2014 10 2/3/2014 Approved in December ... 11 2/3/2014 Recent STP & MARA Approvals Recent STP & MARA Approvals 12 • $403.1 million total construction • 28 projects • Funding primarily from local funds: ~LTF: $11.96 million (FY 2015 projection) ~Measure A: $7.52 million (FY 2015 projection) • Sufficient funds for short-term capital projects • Sufficient funds for operations through 2019 • Long term operating needs exceed planned revenue -station costs are a major concern 2/3/2014 13 • Full presentation tomorrow • Comprehensive planning/outreach effort • Proposition 1 B grant allocated for planning purposes • 90/10 funding TDA funding split approved • Included in draft state rail plan Looking Beyond the Immediate Future 2/3/2014 14 1-215 Widening -North • On hold -MCP Phase 1 can provide improvement SR-71/91 Interchange • ED complete • PS&E funded • Draft environmental document issued Feb. 2013 • Environmental approval expected Fall 2014 • Total project cost: $1.3 billion 2/3/2014 15 • Draft Environmental document released - February 2013 • Total project cost: $1.1 billion • Continue delivering projects • Advocate and advance legislative platform -Protect current funding streams -Support streamlining efforts -Seek ongoing federal investment in transportation • Complete environmental work on MCP and SR-79 • Advance a collaborative, countywide effort to implement key provisions of the RTP 2/3/2014 16 w (]J t;: ro u c 0 > c.. ~ (]J > w ·- > N ro .......... -V') t;: .......... m b.O (]J _J -I-!..-(]J -ro ro c +-» ro z V> ~ -I- 0 -' -' <C cc BALLOT INITIATIVE UPDATE "A two-year effort by Transportation California and the California Alliance for Jobs to develop a statewide ballot measure that would generate critically needed funding to maintain, rehabilitate and improve local streets and roads, state highways and transit systems will be put on hold for the 2014 election year". Rivrile Coulllly Tn1111portalioo Commissioo Will Kempton and Jim Earp January 27~ 2014 2014 a Critical Year to Address the State's Transportation Funding Challenges • Continued Erosion of Revenues • Needs are Critical • State's Economy and Quality of Life on the Line • Transportation California in partnership with the Alliance for Jobs elected to move forward in 2013. ' ' :1 ·--u ... ... -ta u U» ·-u. c 0 ·-...., ta ...., ~ 0 a. U» c ta ~ I- cu .c I- ! o-., e Jt «g l~ if 1~ la c: ! v j' J c .I Ji la. .! 8 • I I I il'l j 1 j 1 - OD lip CP 'f 13 1. Cap and Trade 2. Lowering Voter Threshold on Local Measures 3. Vehicle License/Registration Fee Increase 4. Diesel Excise Tax Increase 5. Recapturing Truck Weight Fees 6. Reform Measures: Better Accountability & Efficiency • Investing in Transportation Infrastructure not High Priority with Voters in 2012 and 2013 • Voters believe they are Paying Enough Taxes • Skepticism High about Government Doing the Right Thing with Tax Dollars • Few Political Champions 9 8 81 e mai 16 11, rt 721"111111 S S uOSMCI u011S-au )90114 Supnpau 0 SUNJ IMO'S ttr011 Vf- 3U111111014 lil SSOUI51141 Jo; SOW 1. A01 IlUlAilidUJ6 rWo - Ihmtpi ,..•. f 0€ �! J 1111PMEll Pilisuoisuad*WAD ore 34104003 LT moi s4$03 uoioni Aptiomun Suffix llki wagg -141 F mmelp.: P 9 -x L i i 11111111F-Z6 lir f IlriNan& lirat q &Pan afgepome saxes Bupdaa s ue itimouo umoid ji isOpsido suirticKkaq stwoausos I AiaA ON 001 loN lu JO .,. illittlXklif 10 Mini NO Si Is the issue of very, somewhat or not too important to you? ·:;TQ:fJUSf'~~:,~'i~". R"~;~rn~~/1 e nfly ba I Stat:~\,~Budget ~~'21% ,'''*'' • Advantages: ~ Progressive Fee Structure ~Built-in Inflation Factor • Plan to Increase a VLF by~ percent per year for next four years Generates $3 billion/yr. • Dedicate Funding to Fixing Existing State/Local Roads, Improving Safety Hazards • Portion of Funding for Transit • Requires Constitutional Amendment (Statewide Ballot Measure) • Could be Placed on Ballot by Legislature or Through Petition Qualifying Effort • Numbers have to be Right before Industry and Labor Allies Pull Trigger on Expensive Campaign • Poll Numbers, early and mid-2013: ~Initial: 55 percent Yes -40 percent No ~After Pro/Con Arguments: 42 percent Yes -53 percent No • Draft Measure Filed with Attorney General Nov. 1gth to Obtain Title and Summary • Assess Annual California Road Repair Fee on all Vehicles, Excluding Heavy Trucks (over 10,000 lbs.) ~ Equal to 1 percent of each Vehicles' Value ~ Phased in Over four Years in ~ percent Increments ~ Trucks to Pay Increased Diesel Excise Tax to Cover their Share • Annual Total Revenue Estimated at $2.9 billion/year (when rate reaches 1 percent in 2018 or nearly $25 billion over the first 10 years) • New Revenue Allocation ~ 25 percent to California Cities ($750 million) ~ 25 percent to California Counties ($750 million) ~ 40 percent to the State Highway Account ($1.2 billion) ~ 10 percent to Transit ($300 million) • Fix It First Orientation ~ Maintenance and Rehabilitation, Replacement of Equipment, Repairing Potholes, etc. Transportation Projects. Vehicle License Fee. Initiative Constitutional Amendment. Will Kempton and James Earp Increases vehicle license fee by 1 percent of a vehicle's value, phased in over four years. Exempts commercial vehicles from 1 percent increase if diesel fuel taxes are raised by three cents per gallon. Requires new fees to be deposited in a special fund. Also redirects certain sources of current state revenue to this special fund. Disburses revenue from the special fund to pay-as-you-go transportation projects, including local streets and roads, state highways, and public transportation. Prohibits use of fund for other purposes. Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local government: Increased state revenues from a new tax on vehicles of $3 billion to $4 billion annually for state and local transportation programs. {13-0046.) • Continue to Test Voter Interest • Inform and Educate • Work with Governor • Work with Secretary Kelly, through CTIP • Cultivate Transportation Advocates in Legislature • Build our Coalition • Raise Money V) ~ -:J V) ClJ D:: bD q- c ~ ·-0 -N -0 .._ c.. 0 M ~ > I.. ·-ta _. ::::s '+-c 0 ta ..., > ~ ·--ta :J a Details of the Poll • Conducted by Moore Methods • Queried 600 likely voters • Completed after Christmas • Final report and results to be completed by RCTC workshop later this month Rivt!side Coomy Tr!lll$llO!llllio Commissioo Goal of the Poll To ascertain the opinions of highly likely voters in Riverside County regarding a broad range of quality of life, economic development and associated local infrastructure, such as transportation, parks and open space. And to survey voters acceptance of voting in favor of additional resources to pay for improvements on the issues they most care about. Voter Priorities What are voters most concerned about in general and in their local conditions, what are their personal priorities locally? lllveJside (oonlyT~ Commissioo N a.n 00 A w Bf 8,,,r. It S ae til +ou "tau io; u!uueid sa!wpe; uoi)eanai pue sued Suluiewiew pue SuidopAaa suiviciAbnuu e sue 's ods walk 8lu}p r►o P Es ± oonuailkaJd an) apsuapp flugeaJ3 spiiiii.,...._. 11�u3 pimkuno) ulAaala Fr ....„ II •Rib b ° ti r 0" * ZS dig uonnilocipe 303npau . ,rww-IT P.m, reliMPE ig uaq uo! uad vielisies luawmano8 leiSumo' luo uo1u1d0 oN j~''.~~::~~\~~<~·::,, ' " <~:t:', ,, ' '',,;·,.,;;;';~: ·.;~,,,~:;, ',' , ' , , RedlJcing glol:>;~t..W,~tr · · · · pg[·. Preser~ing open space · ;42 40 ~Expanding jail cap~tity Z 08 allI Apienb s,Aluno 044 id ! Hp% ivauudolaAap woi; eels uedo pue pueRum imp noA o speoi 1e� e e t� ti ,Aluno tssam u 3 en a omduu! of auop a o sp au aJoui luito nog[ o �I io Apienb siAlunoo ato AoJdtur ipm sweJlioJd uoneana., pue a ignd uNu►oidw! no o �w - zap] pienb ,Awitrilillabicudtti! II "sassau!snq mau Itupenze 443 noA as uoluid oN oN SOA I /snPUI islanas .•. jo Amento luaun3 aad wqm ~j;.~ c ..c >{i >t1tg ro ·.u, ......... 1 66 iiin t put steed Jo; u!Aed pue uiplAcud .awe a t9P 10u 03 aidoad allemcouJ of s t:2°A SuuinisapIJ Supanoll. •stuaprSai ie�4i 0 61 it Pi i LP �duuaa oI aa� a pue un) apit.w!ki ui aim'I Aain • p ' uauud!nba pue weld ***au :o; kiisnpup #110 r au of sam pa au le ueoi JO lueill a Jo) SulAed f � -sluff laxos Aopduua pue Z 0 T - EE � Juno ap!s�ami u! a� of saw Ieyi input au mA a of stueilkod uit:mil o! Jo; Ihnited •poo; ysaxi UM0.111 OS 4 ICI Jo Aiddns ato asipu! of sweaold Sulpuni I E 9£ Z 1 r- • of ..miodsue,„..,pun,, 01 Nr Jo Aia4es ► UoIu!OL.; ON Jan{ , nPall Ansnpul 313r zsuognios ieRuaiod moqv stial0A TB LIN\ lc. y�. Widening and irttprovi ',.?':.,~~;~ .... ·t, . ,,'?%WY transit services to redi experje(\}qed d&~~i1ly b/ ' ' "·'' ,:,. ~1. :~0~ $ 0 - Si-c E :::J ·-"'O OJ E .... ...c bO ·-...c ro c OJ > ·-~- bO -2 OJ 0 ..c ·--. s OJ c Si- ~ "'O > .._, -·-:::J Si- 0 0 ·-...c Si- V) c.. Should be given a high, medium or low priority for new jobs? ·-5...... 0 ·-5...... c.. s 0 5...... 0 E :::::s ·--c QJ E .... ..c b.O ·-..c ro c QJ > ·-b.O QJ ..c -c :::::s 0 ..c V) ("\... V> ..c 0 ·~ s QJ c s 0 - !ii.... 0 E :J ·--c (]J E """ ..c b.O ·-..c ro c OJ > ('\.· ·-b.O Vl ..c (]J 0 ..c ·~ s (]J c !ii.... ~ -c > +-' -·-:J !ii.... 0 0 ·-..c !ii.... V') c.. To help fund a broad based quality of life program, would you favor or oppose ? Do you commute to work in Riverside County or do you work outside the county? • Inside Riverside County (44 percent) • Don't Commute (39 percent) • Outside Riverside County (17 percent) -Los Angeles (4 percent) -San Bernardino (3 percent) -Orange (4 percent) -San Diego (1 percent) -Other (4 percent) How long is your home-to-work commute? • Less than 15 minutes (25 percent) • 15-30 minutes (20 percent) • 30-45 minutes (7 percent) • More than 45 minutes {13 percent) • Don't Commute (35 percent) ('"\.· QJ u ro -c.. ~ ~ 0 s ~ ........... :J +-' ........... c +-' 0 QJ c > u QJ 0 ~ u QJ ~ +-' c.. QJ QJ c.. ~ M N ·-M ..c ........... ~ M +-' ~ ~ ~ c 0 -QJ QJ ~ ro ~ u $ ·-~ ro co QJ s c c c.. ro ro lO :J u u Ln 0 ............. ............. ~ > Vl Vl 0 c ~ ~ z ro u • • • Economy The local economy is still a huge concern and priority for Riverside County voters, and they are open to new policies and incentive programs to spur economic development that require the development of new, good paying jobs in Riverside County. Transportation The clear transportation priority, as it is statewide in California, is repair and maintenance of city streets, county roads and the state highway system. Traffic congestion is still an issue here, but not the intense concern of twelve years ago when the transportation sales tax measure was extended by County voters. Transit is still a somewhat low priority, but voters do support very localized improvements (LA to Coachella Valley train service) and are beginning to understand that a better transit system can help combat higher gas prices, and transit for the increasing elderly and disabled population who can't drive their own vehicle will be needed. They still fundamentally believe that investments in the local transportation are good for the economy and offer real benefits. Environment Riverside County voters, like voters statewide, now rank generic environmental issues as a medium to low priority, such issues as "climate change". An exception would be air quality and localized issues, such as "open space preservation" which received a high priority as did park and recreation improvements. Growth and Development Unlike many urban/suburban counties in California, Riverside County voters are still generally "pro-growth" and do not believe making needed transportation improvements would encourage "too much growth and urban development". Credibility of Local Electeds Going back 25 years, Riverside County elected officials have generally had a high degree of credibility with voters that was proven decisively in 20002 when voters extended the Yz cent sales tax by a vote well in excess of the required 2/3 vote. An essential component of any new initiative involving voters is the underlying credibility of elected policy makers with voters. Once a program is effectively dealing with a very high voter priority, has then developed what voters believe is a solid plan to address that high priority, the last issue is do the voters trust policy makers to carry out the plan as envisioned and expected by the voters? All over California, in recent years, the very well publicized revelations of numerous local government financial excesses and corruption, as well as the media coverage of the whole issue of pension reform and some local government bankruptcies has made all voters in California question local government generally. Although very unfair, our recent research displays that same cynicism amongst Riverside County voters. There is no quick or easy remedy for this, except long term and continuous "good government". And always reminding voters of the "Promises Made, Promises Kept" as government carries out it's job, especially in transportation, which does have that solid record of achievement in Riverside County. This is one reason that RCTC should have a direct and on-going "conversation" with voters regarding its "voter approved" program over time. Economic Preferences As was described earlier, the voters have very clear preferences for the type of future economic development they would like to see in the County. Their choices are for the cleaner, more high-tech industry, and for certain service sectors such as healthcare. Almost all of the preferences require excellent educational and/or specialized training backgrounds for local job applicants. Interesting information for those of you making land use decisions and approving specific development projects. Regarding Willingness to Pay for New Programs or Services The real determining factor for voters in California regarding how badly they really want a specific problem solved or how much they want a public benefit is the simple question: Are they willing to voluntarily tax themselves to implement the new initiative, whatever it is? Great examples are RCTC's 30 year sales tax extension passed by a 2/3 vote in 2002, and more recently, the taxes imposed by a majority statewide vote in 2012 by Proposition 30 supported by Governor Jerry Brown. Neither of these measures were given much of a chance to pass when put on the ballot and yet both received strong voter approval. Regarding Willingness to Pay for New Programs or Services (continued) Our poll suggests that while County voters feel strongly about some desired programs or unmet needs, they are not prepared, at this time, to voluntarily increase their taxes to fund such needs or desires. Part of the basic reason is, affordability in a still recovering economy here. They also would need to be presented with a specific program proposal that is narrowed to their perceived highest priorities. In other words, we presented them with a very broad array of possibilities in this research. If we wanted to go the next step, we would put together a program, supported by policy makers and our voter research of highest priority projects or programs, and test such a program in the future. But clearly, our strong feeling is that voters are not ready to positively support a new tax at this time. • Economic Issues Remain the Top Issue • Transportation Important -Local Needs More So • General Support for Many Programs/Services • Reluctance to Raise Taxes for More Services • Two-third Vote Unlikely at this Time • Affordability Concerns Trumping Sense of Need • Refine Numbers and Results • Continue Monitoring Relevant State and Federal Legislation and Innovative Proposals • Take Action on Legislation or Other Opportunities for Policy Changes as they Arise • Continue Working Countywide to Develop Workable, Comprehensive Ideas for Sustaining Programs and Efforts ...., >< QJ z ,en N ...., ta .c s > ~ ro I ro ...., ~ c QJ E QJ > 0 ~ Vt -c 0 0 ~ luawaAm spoof - uaaopeid aNleisi2a1blOZ $a13N suopd AMod lsed 5.11,38 speduil luaulanovq spoof • Ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles -Largest container complex in the U.S. • Sixth largest in the world -Ports handle 40 percent of containers entering the U.S. -13.5 million TEUs • 43.2 million by 2035 • Trade activities -vital to economy • Competition • Riverside County serves as a conduit -77 percent of goods pass through Riverside County • 65 percent on rail -35 percent by trucks • Population is growing • Traffic congestion INCREASED RAIL TRAFFIC: • Trains will be more frequent and longer in length -Current: 66 -137 (2035) -Trains length will increase from 4,000 to 5,200 feet (2035) • Vehicle hours of delay (daily) -Current 600-3, 700 (2035) • Emissions (yearly) -Current 9 tons -53 tons (2035) • Noise impacts and safety concern spun] watuaAoiduli Japuao pi axieNpulils ieucOlaw ieuo!WN o sOoud per-i oeis du.g-f., spun] +uo!le lxisu sii l xo) &LS It April alepdn Ali d uogendas apeJ9 ZZ Ili ulpuni uo! Leda Pe -JD 80 Z ' 90 Z Alpopd anpels12a1 dal s,D_DH luauaanoW spoof ci. LL c-s.... (..) c_ r <( c UJ (.) (I) 0::--E ::::> E o.. en o 0 <( c (I) UJ 0 > -=:::::: (.) (I) .::::::: UJ 0 en 0:: z c_ o?.S 0 <( c_ ~r o en • 31 at-grade crossings identified as highest priority -$1. 7 billion price tag • $414.8 million committed through federal, state and local funding sources. -Due to funding constraints, reduced number from 31 to 20 » $908.5 million • Unsecured/Unidentified Planned/Programmed II Unsecured/Private 20 PRIORITY PROJECTS -RCTC's 2008 FUNDING STRATEGY Crossing Funding Priority Group A - 8 Projects Fully Funded Auto Center Drive Avenue 52 Avenue 56/Airport Blvd. Avenue 66/UP Columbia Avenue Iowa Avenue Magnolia Avenue/UP Sunset Avenue Funding Priority Group B - 5 TCIF Projects -Not Fully Funded 3rd Street Clay Street Magnolia Avenue Riverside Avenue Streeter Avenue Funding Priority Group C -7 Projects with Little or No Funding or Heavily Dependent on Container Fees Bellegrave Avenue Center Street Jurupa Road Mary Street McKinley Street Railroad Street Smith Avenue Priority TCIF Tier Status Project 2 3 Under Construction Yes 4 Under Construction Yes 3 Under Construction Yes 1 P/E 1 Completed Yes 1 Completed Yes 1 Completed Yes Under Construction Yes 1 Project Delayed 2 Under Construction Yes 1 Under Construction Yes 1 Under Construction Yes 2 Under Construction Yes 3 2 1 HSR Connectivity Project 2 1 HSR Connectivity Project 3 2 ,:~<~'~'~·~\' ·"~'{:: ' ,, J1g·e•li~~~t~ ,.~, i total Pro ·ect ,Cost ::,:·.l , ··y::i:\i. >S'.c • Auto Center Drive • Columbia Avenue • Avenue 52 • Iowa Avenue • Avenue 56/Airport Blvd. • Magnolia Avenue/UP {City) • Clay Street • Magnolia Avenue/BNSF {County) • Riverside Avenue Avenue 48/Dillon Completed • Streeter Avenue Jane Street Closed • Sunset Avenue • 1-215/Van Buren Blvd. 4 '447,3%1 1-0‘tid r �I�l Ni INHALIMAN1 1t/101 I,x • lnfraConsult conducted study -Coordination with: • RCTC's Technical Advisory Committee • Local Jurisdictions • Southern California Association of Governments & Metrolink • Study information was basis of SCAG's 2012 RTP/SCS Goods Movement section • Train assumptions were finalized in collaboration with SCAG, Metrolink and railroad staffs CROSSINGS WERE RANKED: • Safety • Existing {2010) Delay Rates • Future {2035) Delay Rates • Emissions {2035) • Residential noise Iowa Avenue Grade Separation • Adjacent grade separations • Local priority • Project readiness • Isolated location Magnolia Avenue -Ribbon Cutting McKinley Stf~~t*. · •.•• 11 ... • .,,,. · .. · ··thl~9g·~·Avenue 'iff!~; ,'' ;-' .,<':t,'Y ,, , , , , .:: .Hiargr~ve Street *Top Priority Projects -2008 Study • Support Congressional action to create a dedicated funding source ~Has a nexus to the user; ~Does not reduce funding to existing highway and transit programs; ~Provides funding to California, and Southern California in particular, commensurate with this region and state's significance to interstate goods movement; and ~Can be spent on grade separation projects • Provide input to the National Freight Advisory Committee and California State Freight Advisory Committee • Ensure TCIF Projects are delivered • Support priority grade separations • Future Calls for Projects • Seek other funding opportunities (PUC, High-Speed Rail) • Support a comprehensive approach • Highway improvements in key areas (State Route 86) • Quiet zones and other safety improvements • Use of cleaner fuels • Advocate for federal support of freight projects • Protect Congestion Mitigation Air Quality Funds -Ensure grade separations remain eligible :J +-' 0 c > QJ ~ E c QJ ro > ..c 0 I-~ ~ Vl c ""C 0 0 ·~ 0 Vl l9 ~ 0 > QJ --~ QJ ro u ·---> QJ L- s.... ..c QJ OJ 0 +-"' u aim' (LJ s.... u V) "1" ro M V'.l 0 -0 (LJ V'.l 0 ·-a. N +-"' (LJ ro ~ u u 0:: rn . '""""'! > (LJ I s.... V') L- ro (LJ Vl OJ :::J ...0 ro Vl 0 •llllillllllllll c ""O 0 ro 0 ro -0 '""""'! la. +-"' a.. ·-L- tl.O L- 0 c u ·-c c ro co • Prop 1 B Funds * * * Grant submitted to state and approved for project use $1.5 million allocated for planning purposes Environmental studies are INELIGIBLE • CVAG MOU * * * 90/10 Bus-Rail split approved Commission to hold funds and prepare annual SRTP to document use of funds Estimated $785,000 in TDA funds to be set aside starting FY14/15 • CalTrans Division of Rail Letter Agreement * * Agreement executed by Commission and CalTrans CalTrans to provide Amtrak Inner City Model for study based on Commission derived inputs. 1st step is the RFP ! * * * * * Scope of work is in review with partner agencies Expect to release RFP no later than 2/10/14 5-6 week proposal preparation period We have very robust interest from well respected planning and engineering firms Expect May 2014 Board action to award the contract ~ ~ I '-.. 7 If YES+ Decision to be Made RFP Award -May 14, 2014 Commission Meeting • Notice to Proceed to contractor -June 2014 • CalTrans Amtrak Model -Demand/Market Analysis -December 2014 • Alternatives Analysis -May 2015 • EIR Development/SOW -August 2015 • El R/Service Development Plan -August 2016 Other steps to be considered: • Host railroad negotiations • Legislative efforts • Federal and State Grant/Funding requests and approvals • Construction • Operating agreement with Amtrak -Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad Tracks -Union Pacific Railroad Tracks ~ SCRRA Alignment (San Gabriel Sub) -UP Alignment (Alhambra Sub) **** Existing Station with Rail Connections 0 0 0 0 Potential Station* • Catchment Areas (15 mile radius) _.,jjzi*'~ mlffl"'"",,,..~~l:':'-/<(««~,.w ... * Not all potential stations would be needed, construction and alignment alternatives will be determined in the future l'i• V) z -· ::J 0 0 > -~ I-c V) ro .s::. w I-::::> a