HomeMy Public PortalAbout01 January 30, 2014 Annual Commission 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
" D i s c u s s c u r r e n t p r o j e c t s
" R e v i e w a n d r e e v a l u a t e p r e v i o u s p o l i c y
d e c i s i o n s a n d a s s u m p t i o n s
" C o n s i d e r f u t u r e p r i o r i t i e s
" F a c e a n d c o n s i d e r t h e i m p a c t s o f d e c l i n i n g
f u n d i n g i n t h e f a c e o f g r o w i n g e x p e c t a t i o n s
M e a s u r e A
A
2 / 3 / 2 0 1 4
2
" W e s t e r n C o u n t y E x p e n d i t u r e P l a n f u n d s :
v " S t a t e H i g h w a y s
v " N e w T r a n s p o r t a t i o n C o r r i d o r s
v " R e g i o n a l A r t e r i a l s
v " L o c a l S t r e e t s a n d R o a d s
v " P u b l i c T r a n s i t
v " E c o n o m i c D e v e l o p m e n t I n c e n t i v e s
v " D e b t F i n a n c i n g C o s t s
A
" C o a c h e l l a V a l l e y E x p e n d i t u r e P l a n f u n d s :
v " S t a t e H i g h w a y s a n d M a j o r R e g i o n a l R o a d s
v " L o c a l S t r e e t s a n d R o a d s
v " P u b l i c T r a n s i t
" P a l o V e r d e V a l l e y E x p e n d i t u r e P l a n f u n d s :
v " L o c a l S t r e e t s a n d R o a d s
A
2 / 3 / 2 0 1 4
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
" C o m p l e t e d :
- A v e n u e 4 8 / D i l l o n R o a d
- C o l u m b i a A v e n u e
- I o w a A v e n u e
- J u r u p a A v e n u e
- M a g n o l i a A v e n u e / U P
" S R - G O / V a l l e y W a y I n t e r c h a n g e
" U n d e r C o n s t r u c t i o n :
- A u t o C e n t e r D r i v e
- A v e n u e 5 2
- A v e n u e 5 6 / A i r p o r t B l v d .
- C l a y S t r e e t
- M a g n o l i a A v e n u e / B N S F
- R i v e r s i d e A v e n u e
- S t r e e t e r A v e n u e
- S u n s e t A v e n u e
- l - 2 1 5 N a n B u r e n B l v d .
" 1 - 2 1 5 / C l i n t o n K e i t h R o a d I n t e r c h a n g e
" 1 - 2 1 5 / S o u t h W i d e n i n g
" 1 - 1 0 / B o b H o p e I n t e r c h a n g e
" 1 - 1 0 / P a l m D r i v e I n t e r c h a n g e
" 1 - 1 0 / l n d i a n C a n y o n I n t e r c h a n g e
" 7 4 / 2 1 5 I n t e r c h a n g e P r o j e c t
" S R - 9 1 / G r e e n R i v e r I n t e r c h a n g e
" S R - 9 1 / L a S i e r r a A v e n u e I n t e r c h a n g e P r o j e c t
" S R - 9 1 / V a n B u r e n B l v d . B r i d g e a n d I n t e r c h a n g e
" 1 - 2 1 5 W i d e n i n g : B l a i n e t o M a r t i n L u t h e r K i n g
2 / 3 / 2 0 1 4
6
Western Riverside County
Highway Delivery Plan
2/3/2014
7
" U n d e r c o n s t r u c t i o n :
- I n t e r s t a t e 2 1 5
- S t a t e R o u t e 9 1
- B i - c o u n t y I n t e r s t a t e 2 1 5 p r o j e c t
" N e a r t e r m c o n s t r u c t i o n :
- I n t e r s t a t e 1 5
- S R - 6 0 T r u c k C l i m b i n g L a n e
" P u r s u i n g e n v i r o n m e n t a l c l e a r a n c e :
- M e g a p r o j e c t s : S t a t e R o u t e 7 9 r e a l i g n m e n t
- M i d C o u n t y P a r k w a y
" C o n s i d e r a d d i t i o n a l p r o j e c t s a s o p p o r t u n i t i e s a r i s e
" C o m p l e t e d n e w m i x e d f l o w
l a n e i n e a c h d i r e c t i o n f r o m
1 - 1 5 t o S c o t t R o a d
" C o n s t r u c t i n g n e w l a n e
b e t w e e n S c o t t R o a d a n d
N u e v o
" C o n s t r u c t H O V l a n e i n
e a c h d i r e c t i o n f r o m N u e v o
R o a d t o B o x S p r i n g s R o a d
2 / 3 / 2 0 1 4
8
" $ 1 . 3 b i l l i o n p r o j e c t
" G r o u n d b r e a k i n g h e l d i n
D e c e m b e r
" C o n s t r u c t t w o H O T l a n e s a n d a
g e n e r a l p u r p o s e l a n e t o 1 - 1 5
" 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 1 - 1 5
e a c h d i r e c t i o n f r o m
S R - 6 0 t o C a j a l c o
" W i l l u s e d e s i g n - b u i l d
p r o c u r e m e n t
� C o n s t r u c t i o n e x p e c t e d i n
2 0 2 0
" C o o r d i n a t e w i t h S A N B A G
a n d S A N D A G r e g a r d i n g
f u t u r e c o r r i d o r
i m p r o v e m e n t s
2 / 3 / 2 0 1 4
9
" C o n s t r u c t d e d i c a t e d t r u c k
c l i m b i n g / t r u c k d e s c e n d i n g
l a n e a n d i m p r o v e s h o u l d e r
w i d t h s t o s t a n d a r d 1 0 f o o t
w i d t h
" 4 . 4 m i l e s
" $ 1 1 1 . 3 m i l l i o n
" C o n s t r u c t i o n S t a r t : 1 2 / 2 0 1 6
" C o n s t r u c t i o n E n d : 1 / 2 0 1 9
" A c t i v e T r a n s p o r t a t i o n i s a n e m e r g i n g i s s u e
- Q u a l i t y o f l i f e d i s c u s s i o n - k e y t o p i c l a s t y e a r
- G u i d e l i n e s f o r s t a t e f u n d i n g b e i n g c o n s i d e r e d
- C a p a n d T r a d e f u n d i n g i s a n i m p o r t a n t l i n k
- C V L i n k a m a r q u e e p r o j e c t f o r t h e s t a t e
- C M A Q p r e s e r v a t i o n a n i m p o r t a n t g o a l
2 / 3 / 2 0 1 4
1 0
2/3/2014
Approved in December ...
11
2/3/2014
Recent STP & MARA Approvals
Recent STP & MARA Approvals
12
" $ 4 0 3 . 1 m i l l i o n t o t a l
c o n s t r u c t i o n
" 2 8 p r o j e c t s
" F u n d i n g p r i m a r i l y f r o m l o c a l f u n d s :
~ L T F : $ 1 1 . 9 6 m i l l i o n ( F Y 2 0 1 5 p r o j e c t i o n )
~ M e a s u r e A : $ 7 . 5 2 m i l l i o n ( F Y 2 0 1 5 p r o j e c t i o n )
" S u f f i c i e n t f u n d s f o r s h o r t - t e r m c a p i t a l p r o j e c t s
" S u f f i c i e n t f u n d s f o r o p e r a t i o n s t h r o u g h 2 0 1 9
" L o n g t e r m o p e r a t i n g n e e d s e x c e e d p l a n n e d
r e v e n u e - s t a t i o n c o s t s a r e a m a j o r c o n c e r n
2 / 3 / 2 0 1 4
1 3
" F u l l p r e s e n t a t i o n t o m o r r o w
" C o m p r e h e n s i v e p l a n n i n g / o u t r e a c h e f f o r t
" P r o p o s i t i o n 1 B g r a n t a l l o c a t e d f o r p l a n n i n g
p u r p o s e s
" 9 0 / 1 0 f u n d i n g T D A f u n d i n g s p l i t a p p r o v e d
" I n c l u d e d i n d r a f t s t a t e r a i l p l a n
L o o k i n g B e y o n d t h e
I m m e d i a t e F u t u r e
2 / 3 / 2 0 1 4
1 4
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
" D r a f t E n v i r o n m e n t a l
d o c u m e n t r e l e a s e d -
F e b r u a r y 2 0 1 3
" T o t a l p r o j e c t c o s t :
$ 1 . 1 b i l l i o n
" C o n t i n u e d e l i v e r i n g p r o j e c t s
" A d v o c a t e a n d a d v a n c e l e g i s l a t i v e p l a t f o r m
- P r o t e c t c u r r e n t f u n d i n g s t r e a m s
- S u p p o r t s t r e a m l i n i n g e f f o r t s
- S e e k o n g o i n g f e d e r a l i n v e s t m e n t i n t r a n s p o r t a t i o n
" C o m p l e t e e n v i r o n m e n t a l w o r k o n M C P a n d S R - 7 9
" A d v a n c e a c o l l a b o r a t i v e , c o u n t y w i d e e f f o r t t o
i m p l e m e n t k e y p r o v i s i o n s o f t h e R T P
2 / 3 / 2 0 1 4
1 6
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
" I n v e s t i n g i n T r a n s p o r t a t i o n I n f r a s t r u c t u r e n o t H i g h P r i o r i t y w i t h V o t e r s i n 2 0 1 2 a n d 2 0 1 3 " V o t e r s b e l i e v e t h e y a r e P a y i n g E n o u g h T a x e s " S k e p t i c i s m H i g h a b o u t G o v e r n m e n t D o i n g t h e R i g h t T h i n g w i t h T a x D o l l a r s " F e w P o l i t i c a l C h a m p i o n s
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% ,'''*''
" A d v a n t a g e s : ~ P r o g r e s s i v e F e e S t r u c t u r e ~ B u i l t - i n I n f l a t i o n F a c t o r " P l a n t o I n c r e a s e a V L F b y ~ p e r c e n t p e r y e a r f o r n e x t f o u r y e a r s G e n e r a t e s $ 3 b i l l i o n / y r . " D e d i c a t e F u n d i n g t o F i x i n g E x i s t i n g S t a t e / L o c a l R o a d s , I m p r o v i n g S a f e t y H a z a r d s " P o r t i o n o f F u n d i n g f o r T r a n s i t
" R e q u i r e s C o n s t i t u t i o n a l A m e n d m e n t ( S t a t e w i d e B a l l o t M e a s u r e ) " C o u l d b e P l a c e d o n B a l l o t b y L e g i s l a t u r e o r T h r o u g h P e t i t i o n Q u a l i f y i n g E f f o r t " N u m b e r s h a v e t o b e R i g h t b e f o r e I n d u s t r y a n d L a b o r A l l i e s P u l l T r i g g e r o n E x p e n s i v e C a m p a i g n " P o l l N u m b e r s , e a r l y a n d m i d - 2 0 1 3 : ~ I n i t i a l : 5 5 p e r c e n t Y e s - 4 0 p e r c e n t N o ~ A f t e r P r o / C o n A r g u m e n t s : 4 2 p e r c e n t Y e s - 5 3 p e r c e n t N o
" D r a f t M e a s u r e F i l e d w i t h A t t o r n e y G e n e r a l N o v . 1 g t h t o O b t a i n T i t l e a n d S u m m a r y " A s s e s s A n n u a l C a l i f o r n i a R o a d R e p a i r F e e o n a l l V e h i c l e s , E x c l u d i n g H e a v y T r u c k s ( o v e r 1 0 , 0 0 0 l b s . ) ~ E q u a l t o 1 p e r c e n t o f e a c h V e h i c l e s ' V a l u e ~ P h a s e d i n O v e r f o u r Y e a r s i n ~ p e r c e n t I n c r e m e n t s ~ T r u c k s t o P a y I n c r e a s e d D i e s e l E x c i s e T a x t o C o v e r t h e i r S h a r e " A n n u a l T o t a l R e v e n u e E s t i m a t e d a t $ 2 . 9 b i l l i o n / y e a r ( w h e n r a t e r e a c h e s 1 p e r c e n t i n 2 0 1 8 o r n e a r l y $ 2 5 b i l l i o n o v e r t h e f i r s t 1 0 y e a r s )
" N e w R e v e n u e A l l o c a t i o n ~ 2 5 p e r c e n t t o C a l i f o r n i a C i t i e s ( $ 7 5 0 m i l l i o n ) ~ 2 5 p e r c e n t t o C a l i f o r n i a C o u n t i e s ( $ 7 5 0 m i l l i o n ) ~ 4 0 p e r c e n t t o t h e S t a t e H i g h w a y A c c o u n t ( $ 1 . 2 b i l l i o n ) ~ 1 0 p e r c e n t t o T r a n s i t ( $ 3 0 0 m i l l i o n ) " F i x I t F i r s t O r i e n t a t i o n ~ M a i n t e n a n c e a n d R e h a b i l i t a t i o n , R e p l a c e m e n t o f E q u i p m e n t , R e p a i r i n g P o t h o l e s , e t c .
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 $4 billion annually for state and local transportation programs. {13-0046.)
" C o n t i n u e t o T e s t V o t e r I n t e r e s t " I n f o r m a n d E d u c a t e " W o r k w i t h G o v e r n o r " W o r k w i t h S e c r e t a r y K e l l y , t h r o u g h C T I P " C u l t i v a t e T r a n s p o r t a t i o n A d v o c a t e s i n L e g i s l a t u r e " B u i l d o u r C o a l i t i o n " R a i s e M o n e y
V)
~ -:J
V)
ClJ
D::
bD q-
c ~ ·-0 -N -0 .._
c.. 0
M
~ > I.. ·-ta _. ::::s
'+-c
0 ta ...,
> ~ ·--ta
:J a
Details of the Poll • Conducted by Moore Methods • Queried 600 likely voters • Completed after Christmas • Final report and results to be completed by RCTC workshop later this month Rivt!side Coomy Tr!lll$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.
" E c o n o m i c I s s u e s R e m a i n t h e T o p I s s u e " T r a n s p o r t a t i o n I m p o r t a n t - L o c a l N e e d s M o r e S o " G e n e r a l S u p p o r t f o r M a n y P r o g r a m s / S e r v i c e s " R e l u c t a n c e t o R a i s e T a x e s f o r M o r e S e r v i c e s " T w o - t h i r d V o t e U n l i k e l y a t t h i s T i m e " A f f o r d a b i l i t y C o n c e r n s T r u m p i n g S e n s e o f N e e d
" R e f i n e N u m b e r s a n d R e s u l t s " C o n t i n u e M o n i t o r i n g R e l e v a n t S t a t e a n d F e d e r a l L e g i s l a t i o n a n d I n n o v a t i v e P r o p o s a l s " T a k e A c t i o n o n L e g i s l a t i o n o r O t h e r O p p o r t u n i t i e s f o r P o l i c y C h a n g e s a s t h e y A r i s e " C o n t i n u e W o r k i n g C o u n t y w i d e t o D e v e l o p W o r k a b l e , C o m p r e h e n s i v e I d e a s f o r S u s t a i n i n g P r o g r a m s a n d E f f o r t s
....,
>< 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
" P o r t s o f L o n g B e a c h a n d L o s A n g e l e s - L a r g e s t c o n t a i n e r c o m p l e x i n t h e U . S . " S i x t h l a r g e s t i n t h e w o r l d - P o r t s h a n d l e 4 0 p e r c e n t o f c o n t a i n e r s e n t e r i n g t h e U . S . - 1 3 . 5 m i l l i o n T E U s " 4 3 . 2 m i l l i o n b y 2 0 3 5 " T r a d e a c t i v i t i e s - v i t a l t o e c o n o m y " C o m p e t i t i o n
" R i v e r s i d e C o u n t y s e r v e s a s a c o n d u i t - 7 7 p e r c e n t o f g o o d s p a s s t h r o u g h R i v e r s i d e C o u n t y " 6 5 p e r c e n t o n r a i l - 3 5 p e r c e n t b y t r u c k s " P o p u l a t i o n i s g r o w i n g " T r a f f i c c o n g e s t i o n
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
" 3 1 a t - g r a d e c r o s s i n g s i d e n t i f i e d a s h i g h e s t p r i o r i t y - $ 1 . 7 b i l l i o n p r i c e t a g " $ 4 1 4 . 8 m i l l i o n c o m m i t t e d t h r o u g h f e d e r a l , s t a t e a n d l o c a l f u n d i n g s o u r c e s . - D u e t o f u n d i n g c o n s t r a i n t s , r e d u c e d n u m b e r f r o m 3 1 t o 2 0 � $ 9 0 8 . 5 m i l l i o n " U n s e c u r e d / U n i d e n t i f i e d P l a n n e d / P r o g r a m m e d I I U n s e c u r e d / P r i v a t e
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
" A u t o C e n t e r D r i v e " C o l u m b i a A v e n u e " A v e n u e 5 2 " I o w a A v e n u e " A v e n u e 5 6 / A i r p o r t B l v d . " M a g n o l i a A v e n u e / U P { C i t y ) " C l a y S t r e e t " M a g n o l i a A v e n u e / B N S F { C o u n t y ) " R i v e r s i d e A v e n u e A v e n u e 4 8 / D i l l o n C o m p l e t e d " S t r e e t e r A v e n u e J a n e S t r e e t C l o s e d " S u n s e t A v e n u e " 1 - 2 1 5 / V a n B u r e n B l v d .
4
'447,3%1 1-0‘tid r
�I�l Ni INHALIMAN1 1t/101 I,x
" l n f r a C o n s u l t c o n d u c t e d s t u d y - C o o r d i n a t i o n w i t h : " R C T C ' s T e c h n i c a l A d v i s o r y C o m m i t t e e " L o c a l J u r i s d i c t i o n s " S o u t h e r n C a l i f o r n i a A s s o c i a t i o n o f G o v e r n m e n t s & M e t r o l i n k " S t u d y i n f o r m a t i o n w a s b a s i s o f S C A G ' s 2 0 1 2 R T P / S C S G o o d s M o v e m e n t s e c t i o n " T r a i n a s s u m p t i o n s w e r e f i n a l i z e d i n c o l l a b o r a t i o n w i t h S C A G , M e t r o l i n k a n d r a i l r o a d s t a f f s
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
" S u p p o r t C o n g r e s s i o n a l a c t i o n t o c r e a t e a d e d i c a t e d f u n d i n g s o u r c e ~ H a s a n e x u s t o t h e u s e r ; ~ D o e s n o t r e d u c e f u n d i n g t o e x i s t i n g h i g h w a y a n d t r a n s i t p r o g r a m s ; ~ P r o v i d e s f u n d i n g t o C a l i f o r n i a , a n d S o u t h e r n C a l i f o r n i a i n p a r t i c u l a r , c o m m e n s u r a t e w i t h t h i s r e g i o n a n d s t a t e ' s s i g n i f i c a n c e t o i n t e r s t a t e g o o d s m o v e m e n t ; a n d ~ C a n b e s p e n t o n g r a d e s e p a r a t i o n p r o j e c t s " P r o v i d e i n p u t t o t h e N a t i o n a l F r e i g h t A d v i s o r y C o m m i t t e e a n d C a l i f o r n i a S t a t e F r e i g h t A d v i s o r y C o m m i t t e e
" E n s u r e T C I F P r o j e c t s a r e d e l i v e r e d " S u p p o r t p r i o r i t y g r a d e s e p a r a t i o n s " F u t u r e C a l l s f o r P r o j e c t s " S e e k o t h e r f u n d i n g o p p o r t u n i t i e s ( P U C , H i g h - S p e e d R a i l ) " S u p p o r t a c o m p r e h e n s i v e a p p r o a c h " H i g h w a y i m p r o v e m e n t s i n k e y a r e a s ( S t a t e R o u t e 8 6 ) " Q u i e t z o n e s a n d o t h e r s a f e t y i m p r o v e m e n t s " U s e o f c l e a n e r f u e l s " A d v o c a t e f o r f e d e r a l s u p p o r t o f f r e i g h t p r o j e c t s " P r o t e c t C o n g e s t i o n M i t i g a t i o n A i r Q u a l i t y F u n d s - E n s u r e g r a d e s e p a r a t i o n s r e m a i n e l i g i b l e
: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
" P r o p 1 B F u n d s * * * G r a n t s u b m i t t e d t o s t a t e a n d a p p r o v e d f o r p r o j e c t u s e $ 1 . 5 m i l l i o n a l l o c a t e d f o r p l a n n i n g p u r p o s e s E n v i r o n m e n t a l s t u d i e s a r e I N E L I G I B L E " C V A G M O U * * * 9 0 / 1 0 B u s - R a i l s p l i t a p p r o v e d C o m m i s s i o n t o h o l d f u n d s a n d p r e p a r e a n n u a l S R T P t o d o c u m e n t u s e o f f u n d s E s t i m a t e d $ 7 8 5 , 0 0 0 i n T D A f u n d s t o b e s e t a s i d e s t a r t i n g F Y 1 4 / 1 5 " C a l T r a n s D i v i s i o n o f R a i l L e t t e r A g r e e m e n t * * A g r e e m e n t e x e c u t e d b y C o m m i s s i o n a n d C a l T r a n s C a l T r a n s t o p r o v i d e A m t r a k I n n e r C i t y M o d e l f o r s t u d y b a s e d o n C o m m i s s i o n d e r i v e d i n p u t s .
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