Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout01 January 26, 2017 Annual workshopRIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION  www.rctc.org  WORKSHOP AGENDA*  *Actions may be taken on any item listed on the agenda JANUARY 26 – 27, 2017  HYATT PALM SPRINGS  285 North Palm Canyon Drive  Palm Springs, CA  In compliance with the Brown Act and Government Code Section 54957.5, agenda materials distributed 72 hours prior to the  meeting, which are public records relating to open session agenda items, will be available for inspection by members of the public  prior to the meeting at the Commission office, 4080 Lemon Street, Third Floor, Riverside, CA, and on the Commission’s website,  www.rctc.org.  In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act and Government Code Section 54954.2, if you need special assistance to participate in a Commission meeting, please contact the Clerk of the Board at (951) 787‐7141.  Notification of at least 48 hours  prior to meeting time will assist staff in assuring that reasonable arrangements can be made to provide accessibility at the  meeting.  1:30 P.M.  THURSDAY, JANUARY 26, 2017  1:30 p.m. – 2:45 p.m. COMMISSION MEETING (SEPARATE AGENDA)  2:45 p.m. – 3:00 p.m. BREAK  3:00 p.m. – 3:05 p.m. WELCOME AND WORKSHOP OVERVIEW  John Tavaglione, Chair  Anne Mayer, Executive Director 3:05 p.m. – 3:50 p.m. LEGISLATIVE UPDATE  Mark Watts – Smith, Watts and Hartmann  Cliff Madison – Madison & Associates  Kathy Ruffalo – Ruffalo & Associates 3:50 p.m. – 5:00 p.m. STRATEGIC ASSESSMENT PROGRESS AND NEXT STEPS  Anne Mayer, Executive Director  Aaron Hake, External Affairs Director  This item is for the Commission to:  1)Receive and file the update on the 2015 Strategic Assessment; 2)Provide any further direction to staff; and 3)Sponsor state legislation to authorize the Commission to impose a sales tax in addition to Measure A, subject to the voters’ approval. COMM-AWK-00008 Riverside County Transportation Commission Workshop  January 26 – 27, 2017  5:00 p.m. – 6:00 p.m. BREAK    6:00 p.m. – 7:30 p.m. DINNER – 40TH ANNIVERSARY VIDEO  Eliza Perez – Community Relations Manager    7:30 p.m. ADJOURNMENT     The workshop will continue at 8:30 a.m., Friday, January 29, 285 North Palm Canyon Drive, Palm Springs, California      8:30 A.M.  FRIDAY, JANUARY 27, 2017    8:30 a.m. – 9:30 a.m. CLOSED SESSION  CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL:  EXISTING LITIGATION  Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(1)  Case Nos:  RIC 1505449, RIC 1607468, and 5:16‐cv‐00133     9:30 a.m. – 10:00 a.m. FUTURE CHANGES IN TRANSPORTATION – A LOOK AT FUTURE  TECHNOLOGY  Matthew Barth, UC Riverside    10:15 a.m. – 10:30 a.m. BREAK    10:30 a.m. – 11:00 a.m. HABITAT CONSERVATION PLANS – A RIVERSIDE COUNTY SUCCESS STORY  Tom Kirk, Executive Director, Coachella Valley Association of Governments  Charles Landry, Executive Director, Western Riverside County Regional  Conservation Authority   11:00 a.m. – 11:15 a.m. 91 EXPRESS LANES MARKETING PRESENTATION  John Standiford, Deputy Executive Director  Jennifer Crosson, Toll Operations Manager    11:15 a.m. CLOSING REMARKS AND ADJOURNMENT    STRATEGIC ASSESSMENT  PROGRESS AND NEXT STEPS    RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION  DATE: January 26, 2017  TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission  FROM: Aaron Hake, External Affairs Director  THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Executive Director  SUBJECT: Strategic Assessment Progress and Next Steps    STAFF RECOMMENDATION:    This item is for the Commission to:    1) Receive and file the update on the 2015 Strategic Assessment;  2) Provide any further direction to staff; and  3) Sponsor state legislation to authorize the Commission to impose a sales tax in addition  to Measure A, subject to the voters’ approval.    BACKGROUND INFORMATION:    The 2015 Strategic Assessment is not just another government report that sits on a shelf; the  document is routinely referenced as a means for the Commission to remain committed to  improving transportation in the lives of Riverside County residents and the economy upon which  they rely.  With mounting congestion challenges endemic to economic growth, in a region that  values its unique communities and lifestyles, and in the midst of a long‐term funding downturn  for transportation projects, it is essential Riverside County’s transportation vision is clear and  strategic.    The Strategic Assessment was a nine‐month in‐depth look at the Commission, Riverside County,  its transportation system, and the past, present, and future of all three of the above.  The  resulting actions recommended and adopted by the Commission at the 2016 Commission  Workshop represented a “sweet spot” where staff and consultants identified a convergence of  technical, financial, and public input data regarding countywide mobility needs today and  through 2039.  Commissioners were closely engaged in the Strategic Assessment’s work from  beginning to end, especially the four public Transportation Summits and Transportation  Workshops throughout Riverside County.  These events drew diverse audiences and media  interest and have already yielded tangible results.  The Quality of Life and Sustainability Ad hoc  Committee comprised of 15 Commissioners guided the effort.      The recommended strategy is organized into four priority categories, in no particular order:   Plan for the future;   Maximize our assets;     Increase funding; and   Communicate more.    The Executive Summary of the final Riverside County Strategic Assessment is attached for  reference.  Following the Commission’s adoption of the action recommendations, staff has  regularly used the Strategic Assessment as a guidepost for internal decision‐making and  advanced several of the items.  Staff is dedicated to assuring Commissioners that the Commission  remains on a clear, focused path forward to address Riverside County’s significant mobility  challenges.    Tangible Successes and Milestones    Palo Verde Valley Transit Authority (PVVTA) Receives Federal Grant    The need for affordable, coordinated transportation to medical services was the number one  “take away” of the transportation workshop held in Blythe as part of the Strategic Assessment.   In response, the Commission’s Multimodal Services Department identified a funding opportunity  in early 2016 for precisely this need through the Federal Transit Administration’s new Rides to  Wellness program.  The Commission partnered with PVVTA, the city of Blythe, and the medical  community to nominate a program that would provide transit rides to local clinics and hospitals  in the Coachella Valley and the Veterans Administration hospital in Loma Linda.  This proposal  included a data‐tracking component so that outcomes could be monitored.  The Blythe Wellness  Express was one of only 13 proposals funded nationwide.  Such success addresses publicly  identified need through a proactive outreach process, yet also maximizes federal and state  dollars to fill the very large gap in local funds to meet the county’s needs.  Maximizing federal  and state dollars was a key finding of the Strategic Assessment.    Internal Grant Pursuit Team Assembled, I‐15 Fostering Advancements in Shipping and  Transportation for the Long‐term Achievement of National Efficiencies (FASTLANE) Grant  Sought    In fall 2016, staff organized itself to take a more methodical approach to identifying and pursuing  funding opportunities.  The intent of this internal effort is to increase the success of the  Commission in pursuing state and federal discretionary grant dollars while maintaining efficient  use of resources with its lean staff.  “Increase funding” and “Maximize assets” were the guiding  strategies for this effort.  The new grant pursuit team activated quickly in November 2016 to seek  a federal FASTLANE grant for the Interstate 15 Express Lanes project.  If successful, the  Commission could receive $35 million as part of a regional Southern California application.  While  FASTLANE is highly competitive, it is only since the Commission structured itself for these  opportunities that the Commission was able to make the attempt.  Regardless of the FASTLANE  grant funding outcomes, staff will learn from this first effort and improve for future funding  rounds.         Next Generation Rail Study Moving Forward    The Strategic Assessment recommended initiation of a fresh look at the county’s rail future.  The  Perris Valley Line (PVL) now in operation and studies are currently under way for Coachella  Valley‐San Gorgonio Pass Rail intercity rail service.  An update to the 2005 and 2007 Rail  Feasibility studies are further warranted by financial strain on the current rail paradigm, coupled  with emerging rail technologies and potential new service models.  In late 2016, the Multimodal  Services Department provided a scope of work to the rail on‐call consulting bench to execute this  updated study, which is anticipated to be completed by the end of 2017.    Online Changes Underway    The External Affairs Department (formed in August 2016) initiated a number of efforts to  modernize the Commission’s online presence.  In today’s mobile society, it is essential to the  Commission’s customer and public service mandates that the Commission is highly effective  communicator in the digital realm.  By devoting a senior analyst position to online  communications, the Commission has been able to launch a social media program and strategy  on multiple platforms.  Commissioners are encouraged to “follow” and “share” the Commission’s  posts on Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, Instagram, and SnapChat (all handles are @theRCTC,  except for Twitter which is @RCTC).  Project‐related social media efforts continue to experience  success.  The State Route 91 Corridor Improvement project (91 Project) has more than 8,700  followers and earned recognition for rapid response to public comments and questions  (@sr91project is the social media handle).  The I‐15 Express Lanes project also has social media  platforms, which have launched in earnest. A new mobile‐friendly, interactive website  (www.rctc.org) is being procured and will be launched later this year.  Redesign of the  Commission’s On the Move newsletter is also in its early stages.      Tangible Milestones on the Near‐Term Horizon     Countywide Long Range Transportation Plan RFP is under development in the Planning  and Programming Department; release expected in February 2017;   Initiation of Next Generation Rail Study work to commence in January 2017;   Opening of 91 Express Lanes in Spring 2017 will activate customer service and marketing  functions of the Commission.    Congestion Grows Without a Funding Answer    The Strategic Assessment identified a $23 billion total capital cost to meet the anticipated  population and economic growth in Riverside County through 2039, the final year of Measure A.   Presently, only $6.1 billion (or 26 percent) can reasonably be expected to materialize under the  status quo.  Another $1.3 billion (or 6 percent) can reasonably be expected to be secured through  state and federal competitive grants if the Commission is to receive its fair share of statewide  and national competitive programs.  This leaves a staggering $15.9 billion in unfunded  infrastructure to meet the needs and expectations of Riverside County residents and businesses.      In the immediate term, congestion is increasing due to post‐recession economic and population  growth throughout the county.  The 91 Project, the upcoming I‐15 Express Lanes project, recently  completed PVL and I‐215 projects represent a substantial portion of the Measure A voter‐ approved expenditure plan.  These projects are cornerstones of the 2009‐2019 Western County  Riverside Highway Delivery Plan, adopted by the Commission as the priorities for the first 10  years of Measure A.  Yet, several projects in the 2009‐2019 Delivery Plan were deferred during  the Great Recession as Measure A revenues dipped significantly.  The deferred projects1 are to  be prioritized in the 2019‐2029 Delivery Plan pursuant to action the Commission took at last  year’s Workshop.  The projects that did move forward in the first 10 years absorb nearly all of  the $950 million debt limitation that Measure A imposes on the Commission.  Measure A’s  original debt limitation was $500 million, however in 2010 voters approved raising the debt limit  to $950 million.2  Without the 2010 ballot measure, Measure K, the Commission would not have  been able to procure the 91 Project that is now near completion.      Also in the Measure A expenditure plan are two new corridors connecting high‐growth regions  of Riverside County to urban Southern California: State Route 79 realignment and Mid County  Parkway.  Both projects carry construction price tags exceeding more than $1 billion, which is  unavailable.  Meanwhile, environmental studies have begun for daily passenger rail service  between the Coachella Valley and Los Angeles.  Proponents in the mid‐county region would like  to see PVL extended to Hemet and San Jacinto.  None of these rail projects are identified for  funding in Measure A, nor can state or federal grant sources be realistically expected to bring  them to fruition.      Increases in port freight traffic, driven by a resurgent global economy, means more trains  bisecting local communities, making grade separations a priority for many cities.  Grade  separations do not fit neatly into many existing funding programs.  Active transportation and  transit service have become growing priorities throughout the county, especially in  disadvantaged communities with few mobility options.  For these types of projects, the  Commission is largely reliant on state and federal funds.  As western Riverside County urbanizes  and strives to become an employment hub, there is an increasing demand for reverse commute  Metrolink commuter rail service to draw the workforce east, rather than exporting them toward  the coast under the current service model.  A prime example of this inland job shift is the  relocation of the California Air Resources Board (CARB) research facility which will open adjacent  to UC‐Riverside in a few years.  Several hundred jobs will move from Los Angeles County to  Riverside; many CARB employees are asking what options are available for them to get to work  if they maintain residency near Los Angeles.  Although ridesharing programs are available under  IE Commuter, the Commission remains financially hamstrung to substantially expand Metrolink  service to support Riverside County’s growing employment market.    1 SR‐91/71 interchange, SR‐91 Eastbound/I‐15 Northbound Direct Connector, I‐15 Express Lanes from Cajalco Road  to SR‐74.  2 Measure K was approved by more than 62 percent of voters    These are just a few examples of unfunded transportation needs with no apparent solution   at‐hand in spite of public expectations.    Meanwhile, two years of serious deliberations in Sacramento have gone by without a vote on  new transportation revenues with major cuts to programs, such as the State Transportation  Improvement Program and State Highway Operations Protection Program, with no meaningful  funding increases to address state of good repair and mobility needs.  It has now been more than  10 years since the state of California provided meaningful new funding to transportation projects  (when voters approved $19.9 billion in bonds through Proposition 1B, a one‐time infusion of  dollars that has since run its course).  Although Congress approved a full five‐year transportation  bill in 2015 (the FAST Act), funding increases were modest.  Infrastructure has been discussed as  a potential consensus item with the new Presidential Administration and Congress, however  substantive plans to pay for an infrastructure package have yet to emerge; a key issue to the fate  of any such bill.  Moreover, it is speculated that much of the new President’s transportation policy  focus will be on public‐private partnerships (P3s).  Such projects require a revenue source, usually  tolls or some source of tax revenue.  Many projects in Riverside County will not readily have  either of these.  State policy, Executive Orders, and subsequent court decisions are discouraging  projects that increase highway capacity even outside urbanized high density areas, which is  problematic in the Inland Empire as the Commission works to address gaps in the  highway/roadway system, economic opportunities, consumer demands, and connecting  communities.  All of the above create pressure among stakeholders to jostle over a shrinking pie.   Such fighting can lead to funding going elsewhere, exacerbating the problem.    Staff believes the people and businesses of Riverside County deserve a solution to their mobility  challenges better than reliance on volatile legislative bodies in Sacramento and Washington, DC.   Therefore, staff encourages the Commission to take steps to activate the statement it made at  the 2016 Commission Workshop that the Commission will explore a sales tax supplemental to  Measure A in 2018 or 2020.  Two significant steps are needed this year if the Commission wishes  to seriously consider placing a ballot measure before voters in 2018:     Update the state law that creates the Commission and its taxing authority; and   Comprehensive, countywide public and stakeholder engagement to assess feasibility of a  potential ballot measure and to identify project priorities.    Updating the Commission’s authorizing statutes in time for consideration of a 2018 ballot  measure will require passage of legislation in Sacramento in 2017.  Laws passed by the Legislature  by August 2017 are signed by the Governor in September 2017 and become law on January 1,  2018.3  Similar bills for other transportation agencies have received the Governor’s signature in  recent years.  Pursuit of statutory authority for a supplemental sales tax does not commit the  Commission to placing a measure on the ballot in any particular election, or at all.  Such an effort    3 Unless the bill is an “Urgency” bill, which requires a 2/3rds vote of the Legislature and takes effect immediately  upon the Governor’s signature.    would simply make the opportunity available for the Commission to pose the question to voters  when the Commission deems it appropriate.  A two‐thirds vote of the electorate is necessary for  any special transportation sales tax to be approved; this is a high threshold.    Consistent with the Strategic Assessment’s recommendation the Commission increase its  communication and engagement with the public and stakeholders, staff recommends that 2017  be a year in which the Commission conducts proactive and thorough outreach to constituencies  across the County.  These efforts will ascertain public attitudes and needs for transportation  investment as the Commission weighs serious decisions about how to allocate existing dollars  and potential future new dollars.  As mentioned earlier in this report, changes to the  Commission’s online communications are already underway, anticipating the Commission’s  increased exposure due to the 91 Express Lanes, PVL, and upcoming I‐15 Express Lanes.  Further  work is anticipated to elevate the Commission’s ability to provide first‐rate responsiveness to its  constituents and customers.  Staff expects to bring forward contracts to the Commission for  services including integrated strategic communications, on‐call public outreach, and graphic  design services.  These consultant resources will supplement the Commission’s lean staff during  this time of heavily increasing workload and expectations.    Additionally, a number of future action items from the Strategic Assessment remain to be  tackled, including but not limited to:   2019‐2029 Measure A Delivery Plan (to be evaluated beyond the deferred projects);   2019 Measure A Expenditure Plan Review (required by ordinance and possible to fold into  the Countywide Long Range Transportation Plan); and   Next Generation Toll Study (slated to begin December 2017).  Much of the above work will assist the Commission in preparing for the 2020 cycle of the Regional  Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy by the Southern California Association of  Governments.  It will be beneficial for Riverside County to have clear, organized priorities to feed  into this Southern California plan.    Conclusion    Progress is underway as a result of the Strategic Assessment’s findings and recommendations.   Yet, much remains to be done.  Staff seeks direction from the Commission as 2017 begins, with  an eye toward addressing the near‐ and long‐term solutions to the regional challenges that only  this agency is suited to address.    Attachment:  Strategic Assessment Executive Summary  Riverside County Strategic Assessment Riverside County Transportation Commission 4080 Lemon Street, 3rd Floor Riverside, CA 92501 January2016 In Association With: AMMA Transit Planning CrinSol Fehr & Peers Katherine Padilla & Associates Moore Methods WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff System Metrics Group Strategic Assessment i Draft Report January 20, 2016 Table of Contents Executive Summary .................................................................................................... 1  ES.1. Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 1  ES.2. Recommended Strategy .................................................................................................................. 1  Plan for the Future ........................................................................................................................... 1  Maximize Our Assets ....................................................................................................................... 2  Increase Funding ............................................................................................................................. 3  Communicate More .......................................................................................................................... 3  ES.3. Existing and Future Transportation Conditions ................................................................................ 4  Demographics .................................................................................................................................. 4  Roadway Facilities ........................................................................................................................... 5  Rail and Transit ................................................................................................................................ 6  Freight Transportation ...................................................................................................................... 7  Active Transportation (Bicycles and Pedestrians) and Low-Speed Transportation ........................ 8  Key Findings and Strategic Considerations of Existing and Future Conditions .............................. 8  ES.4. Current Plans and Policies ............................................................................................................. 10  Current Plans ................................................................................................................................. 10  The Role of Measure A .................................................................................................................. 11  Current Policies .............................................................................................................................. 14  Strategic Issues and Policy Gaps .................................................................................................. 15  Key Findings and Strategic Considerations of Current Plans and Policies ................................... 17  ES.5. Funding Analysis ............................................................................................................................ 17  Funding for Capital Projects ........................................................................................................... 17  Funding for Operations and Maintenance Costs ........................................................................... 19  Key Findings and Strategic Considerations of Funding Analysis .................................................. 19  ES.6. Public and Stakeholder Attitudes ................................................................................................... 20  Polling of Registered Voters .......................................................................................................... 20  Summits and Workshops for Stakeholders and the General Public .............................................. 23  Key Findings and Strategic Considerations of Public and Stakeholder Attitudes ......................... 24  ES.7. Partner Agency Coordination ......................................................................................................... 26  Key Findings and Strategic Considerations of Partner Agency Coordination ............................... 29  Strategic Assessment ii Draft Report January 20, 2016 List of Tables Table ES.1: Riverside County Population and Employment ....................................................................... 4  Table ES.2: Demographic Comparisons within SCAG Region .................................................................... 4  Table ES.3: Current Transit Service Levels and Transit Trips Per Capita by County ..................................... 7  Table ES.4: Summary of Current Transportation Plans for Riverside County ............................................. 10 Table ES.5: Summary of Measure A Projects ......................................................................................... 12 Table ES.6: Total Estimated Cost of Capital Improvements (2016-2039), by Mode/Project Type ................ 13  Table ES.7: Existing Annual O&M Costs for Transit and Rail ................................................................... 14  Table ES.8: Future (2040) Annual O&M Costs for Planned Transit System ............................................... 14  Table ES.9: Estimate of Potential Revenue from New Sources (Category C) ............................................. 18  List of Figures Figure ES.1: Existing and Future (2040) County Travel Patterns ................................................................ 5  Figure ES.2: Existing Congested Locations on Riverside County’s Major Roadway Facilities ........................ 5  Figure ES.3: Future (2040) Congested Locations on Riverside County’s Major Roadway Facilities ................ 6  Figure ES.4: Existing and Proposed Rail Services .................................................................................... 6  Figure ES.5: Fixed-Route Bus Transit Service Areas in Riverside County ................................................... 7  Figure ES.6: Location and Status of Rail Crossings in Riverside County ..................................................... 9  Figure ES.7: 2009 Measure A Programs by Geographic Area .................................................................. 13  Figure ES.8: Funding Sources for Capital Improvements 2016-2039 ........................................................ 18  Figure ES.9: Funding for Rail and Transit O&M in Year 2040 ................................................................... 19  Figure ES.10: Views of Government Performance .................................................................................. 20  Figure ES.11: Priority Issues for Riverside County .................................................................................. 21  Figure ES.12: Support for Transportation Improvements ......................................................................... 22  Figure ES.13: Support for Alternative Revenue Sources .......................................................................... 23  Figure ES.14: Summary of Summits and Workshop ................................................................................ 25  Figure ES.15: Regional Transportation Improvement Priorities for Local Jurisdictions ................................ 27  Figure ES.16: Local Transportation Improvement Priorities for Local Jurisdictions ..................................... 28  Strategic Assessment 1 Draft Report January 20, 2016 Executive Summary ES.1. Introduction In November 2002, Riverside County voters approved Measure A, a 30-year extension of the countywide ½-percent sales tax originally passed in 1988 to fund transportation improvements in Riverside County. Both measures authorized the Commission to administer the tax according to the expenditure plans delineated on their respective ballots. The current Measure A (“2009 Measure A”), which expires in June 2039, requires the Commission to review and update the expenditure plan in 2019 and every ten years thereafter. Four years later in December 2006, the Commission adopted a 10-Year Delivery Plan of high-priority projects included in the Western Riverside County Measure A expenditure plan, including the first tolled express lanes in Riverside County. Subsequently the Commission received legislative approval to implement two projects that included tolled express lanes. A vast majority of projects in the 10-Year Delivery Plan will be open to the public by 2020, including tolled express lanes on State Route 91 and Interstate 15 and the Perris Valley Line Metrolink Extension. Therefore, the Commission’s relationship to the public is in the midst of significant transition in terms of construction and operations of permanent revenue-generating facilities. External factors are also shaping the Commission’s activities. Since the renewal of Measure A and adoption of the 10-Year Delivery Plan, the Riverside County economy has experienced dramatic swings. Revenue forecasts for Measure A have been adjusted several times, causing project scopes to be modified. The Commission has also had to respond to changing policies at the state and federal level that emphasize greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction, active transportation, and public transit. At its 2015 annual workshop the Commission directed staff to conduct a strategic assessment to assist the Commission in re-examining the County’s needs for transportation investments in the context of: (1) the Measure A expenditure plan and other local transportation-related policies, (2) changing economic and demographic trends in Riverside County, (3) evolving state and federal transportation policies, (4) revenue realities, and (5) desires of the public and stakeholders. The objective of the strategic assessment is to produce findings and provide strategic recommendations on actions the Commission can take to proactively prepare for the County’s future. The next section of this Executive Summary presents the strategic actions recommended for the Commission to take based on the study’s analysis and findings. The technical analyses that provide the basis for the recommendations are summarized in the sections following the Recommended Strategy, and include Existing and Future Conditions, Current Plans and Policies, Funding Analysis, Public and Stakeholder Attitudes, and Partner Agency Coordination. The detailed documentation of these analyses is provided in the appendices to this Executive Summary. ES.2. Recommended Strategy The recommended strategic actions are based on the technical analyses and findings presented in sections below, and have been grouped into four categories: Plan for the Future, Maximize Our Assets, Increase Funding, and Communicate More. Plan for the Future  Develop a long-range transportation plan (LRTP) for Riverside County that provides a vision of the County’s future integrated transportation system and a coordinated strategy for agencies to work toward a common vision for meeting mobility needs and contributing to a sustainable transportation system. The LRTP will include: Strategic Assessment 2 Draft Report January 20, 2016  Develop principles for development and land use planning that is supportive of an integrated and efficient transportation system for Riverside County;  Develop plans for rail and transit facilities to serve employment centers in Riverside County;  Develop plans for rail and transit services to serve the essential mobility needs of transit- dependent people including seniors and veterans in Riverside County and provide a viable alternative to driving in the more highly urbanized parts of the County.  Develop plans for express lane and other toll facilities to promote driver choice, promote express bus and carpool benefits, provide a means to fund future transportation projects, and increase mobility in Riverside County.  Plan for highway and regional arterial roadway facilities to maintain acceptable levels of vehicular mobility in Riverside County, including a re-evaluation of CETAP corridors; and  Develop plans and strategies for active transportation facilities to enable greater levels of trip- making by bicycle, on foot, and low-speed electric vehicles.  Evaluate new and existing corridors to assess feasibility of tolling the entire facility or adding tolled express lanes to determine the next tolling projects in Riverside County. Findings will be incorporated into the LRTP.   Continue assuming the leadership role in the development of Riverside County’s rail network:  Conduct a next-generation rail feasibility study to determine the next rail projects in Riverside County, including an analysis of alternative rail service and project delivery models, with a focus on intra-county travel;  Adopt as policy that the Commission will be the lead agency in all fixed guideway projects seeking state or federal discretionary grants.  Commence development of the 2019-2029 Measure A Western County Highway Delivery Plan, prioritizing projects deferred from the current delivery plan, specifically:  I-15 Express Lanes from Cajalco Road to SR-74 (toll)  SR-71/SR-91 Interchange  SR-91/I-15 Northbound Express Lane Connector (toll)  Continued progress and evaluation of CETAP and alternative corridors. Maximize Our Assets  Optimize existing funding sources by: 1. Prepare the 2019 review and update of the Measure A Expenditure Plan as required by the Measure. 2. Integrating RCTC services, programs and projects across modes and departments to maximize mobility benefit for as many people as possible. 3. Developing a countywide coordinated strategy to leverage existing revenue streams to capture additional discretionary and competitive state and federal revenues. 4. Reviewing and updating the Commission’s funding allocation policies (including the bus-rail funding split and Measure A program allocations) to better align and balance current and future needs. 5. Supporting continuation of the WRCOG and CVAG TUMF programs and periodic policy reviews and updates of fee levels based on nexus study findings.  Initiate a comprehensive prioritization and phasing assessment of planned and potential transportation improvement projects to determine: Strategic Assessment 3 Draft Report January 20, 2016 1. Approximate timing/phasing of improvements and the corresponding flow of revenue streams needed to implement them; 2. If/how some major projects can be phased or scaled down to reduce or defer funding needs; 3. If/how some major projects may be vulnerable to emerging state and federal policy changes; 4. Locations where bottleneck improvements can provide congestion relief without needing to improve an entire corridor; and 5. Improvements or services that can be deferred, replaced, modified, or eliminated because of emerging or expected technological innovations.  Coordinate with local agencies and rail and transit providers to effectuate development of viable transit-oriented development around rail and transit stations in Riverside County.  Coordinate with local agencies to promote development and expansion of employment centers supported by multi-modal transportation.  Support CEQA/NEPA reform to reduce the cost and time required to prepare project environmental documents.  Enhance the Commuter Assistance Program and Freeway Service Patrol.  Enhance the service levels and accessibility of transit service for low-income and transit-dependent communities.  Expand the use of technology to make Riverside County’s transportation system more “user friendly” and to enhance awareness of transportation programs managed by RCTC and provided as a result of Measure A. Increase Funding  Encourage state and federal efforts to increase transportation funding through sources that will provide Riverside County with a fair share.  Prepare to submit an additional local sales tax measure to voters in 2018 or 2020.  Consider a truck impact mitigation fee and/or a development impact mitigation fee for highways.  Collaborate with transit service providers and other programming agencies to explore options for a dependable, sustainable, ongoing revenue source adequate to support operations and maintenance costs of desired future rail and transit expansions.   Consider how future surplus toll revenues may be used to improve transportation within the corridor in which they were generated. Communicate More  Develop an ongoing public education and involvement program to educate the public about Riverside County transportation and RCTC to develop a greater public awareness of:  Who RCTC is and the services we offer;  What RCTC has accomplished;  How Measure A works and the benefits to Riverside County residents and businesses;  Current ongoing Measure A projects; and  Future needs.  Enhance existing stakeholder and community engagement processes to ensure that RCTC remains closely in touch with users of the transportation system in Riverside County.  Develop outreach and feedback mechanisms for dealing with RCTC’s new “customers”, the users of the express lanes. Strategic Assessment 4 Draft Report January 20, 2016 ES.3. Existing and Future Transportation Conditions Demographics From a current population of almost 2.5 million, Riverside County is projected to grow by 41% by the Year 2040, with the largest numerical growth expected in Western Riverside County and the higher growth rates expected in the desert areas (see Table ES.1). Employment is expected to grow faster than population, with an overall growth of 87%. Table ES.1: Riverside County Population and Employment     Population  2012  Population  2040  Population   Absolute  Difference  (2012‐2040)  Pct. Difference  (2012‐2040)  Coachella Valley 431, 206 697,744 266,538 62%  Palo Verde Valley 25,783 43,473 17,690 69%  Western Riverside County 1,787,928 2,430,010 642,310 36%  Total Riverside Co. 2,444,917 3,171,227 926,310 41%        Employment  2012  Employment  2040  Employment  Absolute  Difference  (2012‐2040)  Pct. Difference  (2012‐2040)  Coachella Valley 148,174 294,174 146,000 99%  Palo Verde Valley 5,080 10,763 5,683 112%  Western Riverside County 463,433 848,829 385,396 83%  Total Riverside Co. 616,687 1,153,766 537,079 87%  Riverside County’s forecast growth percentages are the highest of all the urbanized counties in the SCAG region, and in terms of absolute growth in population and jobs Riverside County is second only to Los Angeles County (see Table ES.2). Riverside County has the lowest jobs/housing ratio of all the SCAG region counties, and that is expected to continue in the future despite the rapid growth of jobs projected for Riverside County. As a result, many Riverside County residents will commute to other counties for their employment and other trip purposes. As illustrated in Figure ES.1 the majority of the inter-county trips are to/from San Bernardino County, with trips to/from Orange and Los Angeles Counties comprising most of the rest. Table ES.2: Demographic Comparisons within SCAG Region County  2012  Population  2040  Population Pop %  Difference 2012  Employment 2040  Employment Emp %  Difference  2012 Jobs  to  Households 2040 Jobs  to  Households Los Angeles 9,922,731 11,517,461 16%4,235,143 5,213,136 23% 1.30 1.32 Orange 3,071,544 3,464,493 13%1,526,227 1,898,685 24% 1.53 1.65 Riverside 2,244,917 3,171,227 41%616,687 1,153,770 87% 0.89 1.10 San Bernardino 2,067,978 2,725,029 32% 659,463 1,028,205 56% 1.07 1.20 Ventura 835,432 962,806 15% 332,250 420,211 26% 1.23 1.35 Total SCAG Region 18,322,197 22,123,389 21%7,428,836 9,838,616 32% 1.26 1.33 Strategic Assessment 5 Draft Report January 20, 2016 Figure ES.1: Existing and Future (2040) County Travel Patterns Roadway Facilities Travel demand is projected to increase consistently with the forecast population and employment growth, and would result in increased congestion on the County’s major roadway facilities (see Figures ES.2 and ES.3). The substantial increase in the extent of traffic congestion indicates that, despite the highway projects currently under construction and in the pipeline, the large amount of regional population growth will put substantial additional strains on the highway system. Figure ES.2: Existing Congested Locations on Riverside County’s Major Roadway Facilities Source: RivTAM Base Year Model Strategic Assessment 6 Draft Report January 20, 2016 Figure ES.3: Future (2040) Congested Locations on Riverside County’s Major Roadway Facilities Source: RivTAM Future Year Model Rail and Transit Metrolink service currently operates on three routes to Los Angeles and Orange County, and the terminus of the 91 Line service (Los Angeles to Riverside) will soon be extended from downtown Riverside to Perris along the Perris Valley Line (PVL) (see Figure ES.4). Extensions of PVL have been proposed from Perris to San Jacinto and from Perris to Temecula, and rail service has also been studied along the I-15 corridor from Corona to Temecula. The two existing Amtrak services are long-distance trains that operate from Los Angeles to New Orleans (three times per week) and from Los Angeles to Chicago (daily). A study is currently underway of a potential new Amtrak service from Los Angeles to the Coachella Valley with initially two round trips per day. Figure ES.4: Existing and Proposed Rail Services Source: Caltrans, SunLine Transit Agency, Riverside County Bus transit service areas are illustrated in Figure ES.5. In addition to the fixed-route and demand-responsive services illustrated on the map the City of Riverside operates its Special Transit for senior citizens and riders with disabilities. Strategic Assessment 7 Draft Report January 20, 2016 Figure ES.5: Fixed-Route Bus Transit Service Areas in Riverside County Source: Riverside County, SunLine Transit Agency, Palo Verde Valley Transit Agency The per-capita transit service level and ridership in Riverside County (Table ES.3) is slightly higher than that in San Bernardino County and about half that in Orange County, reflecting the lower population and less- concentrated development patterns in the Inland Empire. Los Angeles and San Diego Counties have higher ratios because of the higher densities of their developed areas and their significant investments in rail transit. Table ES.3: Current Transit Service Levels and Transit Trips Per Capita by County County  Annual Transit Service  Hours per Capita  Annual Transit Trips  per Capita   Los Angeles 1.50 60.7  Orange 0.89 20.8  Riverside 0.45 10.0  San Bernardino 0.39 9.3  San Diego 1.04 30.7  Ventura 0.36 6.5  Due to the large service area in Riverside County, the continuing development of new neighborhoods, and the expansion of established residential areas, there are numerous areas of the county with unmet transit needs and other areas where needs for service expansion have been identified. However, opportunities for service expansion are limited due to constrained funding sources for subsidizing transit operations and maintenance costs, as well as the lower density development patterns in the service area. Freight Transportation BNSF Railway (BNSF) and Union Pacific Railroad (UP) own freight railroads that cross Riverside County and carry goods from the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach destined for locations across much of the United States. Current levels of freight train activity are projected to at least double in the next 25 years as imported goods are expected to rise at a rapid rate and the ports expand their facilities to meet the needs of US consumers. Strategic Assessment 8 Draft Report January 20, 2016 Where these rail lines cross streets at grade, traffic is delayed while each train crosses, and the combination of the number of trains and their length means that the crossing gates are down a total of between one and two hours each day at each street crossed by the BNSF and UP rail lines. For the past decade RCTC has made railroad grade crossings one of its high priorities for transportation improvements, and as a result funding has been obtained to construct 14 grade separations (overpasses or underpasses), and to close two low-traffic crossings. (Figure ES.6 shows the 14 grade separation locations in green or yellow, and the closed locations in black.) With continuing growth in freight train traffic many of the remaining at-grade intersections are projected to experience high levels of delay, and RCTC has established a list of 19 crossings with the highest priority for improvement. However, the state and federal funding sources that were used to fund the completed grade separations are no longer available, so additional progress in this direction must await the availability of a new source of funding. Active Transportation (Bicycles and Pedestrians) and Low-Speed Transportation Agencies throughout Riverside County are working to provide local and regional trails, bikeways, and sidewalks to make bicycling and walking (“active transportation”) more viable modes of travel for short trips, and to connect these facilities to long-distance regional facilities and form regional networks for active transportation. Additionally, several communities are providing facilities that accommodate low-speed motorized vehicles for travel without needing to travel in mixed traffic with autos and trucks. Key Findings and Strategic Considerations of Existing and Future Conditions  Forecast population growth in Riverside County of 926,000 (41%) by Year 2040.  Forecast jobs growth of 537,000 (87%) by 2040.  Continued low future jobs-housing ratio despite robust jobs growth forecast.  Forecast growth is expected to substantially increase highway congestion despite the highway improvement projects currently underway and in the pipeline.  Opportunities to expand transit service to fill unmet needs are constrained by funding limitations.  Continuing growth in freight rail traffic means that additional railroad grade separations will be needed to reduce traffic delays at rail crossings, but additional sources of funding are needed.  Active transportation facilities are an important component of the transportation system, to facilitate short trips without use of an auto and to provide better bicycle and pedestrian connections to transit. Strategic Assessment 9 Draft Report January 20, 2016 Figure ES.6: Location and Status of Rail Crossings in Riverside County Strategic Assessment 10 Draft Executive Summary January 20, 2016 ES.4. Current Plans and Policies Current Plans The future of transportation in Riverside County is laid out in a diverse array of planning documents that have been developed by various responsible agencies. Table ES.4 identifies current plans, responsible agencies, transportation modes, and planning horizons. Table ES.4: Summary of Current Transportation Plans for Riverside County Plan Agency  ←  Improvement Plans for  → Planning  Horizon  High‐ ways Mgd  Lanes Arterial  Roads  Intchg,  Grd  Sep.  Rail  Transit Bus  Transit  Active  Trans  Habit ‐at NEV Long  Term Short  Term 2013 CA State Rail Plan Caltrans     X     X   General Plan Circulation  Element County of  Riverside X  X    X   X   CVAG Non‐Motorized  Transportation Plan CVAG       X   X   TUMF Regional Roadway  System CVAG   X X   X   X   SR‐91 Implementation  Plan OCTA/RCTC/ Caltrans X X  X X X    X X  Measure A Expenditure Plan  (2009‐2019) RCTC X X X X X      X  Western Riverside County  Highway Delivery Plan (2006) RCTC X X  X       X  Comprehensive Operational  Analysis RTA      X     X  Comprehensive Operational  Analysis  SunLine Transit  Agency      X     X  Regional Transportation Plan SCAG X X X X X  X   X   Short‐Range Transit Plans  SunLine, Corona,  Banning, Beaumont, Riverside, Palo Verde      X     X  Western Riverside County Non‐ Motorized Transportation Plan WRCOG       X   X   TUMF Regional System of  Highways and Arterials WRCOG   X X   X   X   Riverside County Multiple  Species Habitat Conservation  Plan (MHSCP)  Western Riverside  County Regional  Conservation  Authority         X  X   Coachella Valley Multiple  Species Habitat Conservation  Plan (CVMSHCP)  Coachella Valley  MSHCP        X  X   4‐City Neighborhood Electric  Vehicle Transportation Plan  WRCOG, Corona,  Norco, Riverside and  Moreno Valley          X X X  Neighborhood Electric Vehicle  (NEV) Plan CVAG         X X X  Strategic Assessment 11 Draft Executive Summary January 20, 2016 The Role of Measure A Central to RCTC’s mission since 1989 has been the delivery of projects included in Measure A, the County’s half-cent sales tax dedicated to transportation improvements. In 1988 County residents approved Measure A as a 20-year program (1989-2009), and in 2002 the voters approved a 30-year extension (2009-2039). Each measure included a list of transportation improvements to be delivered using the sales tax revenues. Table ES.5 highlights Measure A projects that are completed, under construction, or planned in Western Riverside County and the Coachella Valley. Funds raised by Measure A are returned to each of the County’s three distinct geographic areas – Western Riverside County, Coachella Valley, and Palo Verde Valley – in proportion to their contribution. Generally, 75% of the funding is allocated to Western Riverside, 24% to Coachella Valley, and 1% to Palo Verde Valley. Figure ES.7 illustrates the distribution of Measure A funds geographically and between programs. Strategic Assessment 12 Draft Executive Summary January 20, 2016 Table ES.5: Summary of Measure A Projects Western County Coachella Valley  Completed  60/215 East Junction Project  74/215 Interchange Project  I‐215 South Project  I‐215 Bi‐County Gap Closure  I‐215 Central Project  SR‐91/La Sierra Avenue Interchange Project  SR‐91/Van Buren Boulevard Bridge and Interchange Project  SR‐91/Green River Road Interchange Project  I‐215 Widening – Southbound – Blaine Street to Martin Luther  King Boulevard)  I‐215/Van Buren Boulevard Interchange  SR‐74 Curve Widening  Grade Separations:  Auto Center Drive, Columbia Avenue,  Iowa Avenue, Jurupa Avenue, Magnolia Avenue,  Riverside Avenue, and Streeter Avenue  Perris Valley Line – 24 mile commuter rail extension  terminating in Perris (2016)  Completed  SR‐111:  • Make Improvements and Widen SR‐111 through Indian  Wells (Phases I‐IV)  • Washington Street Intersection Improvement (La Quinta)  I‐10/Palm Drive/Gene Autry Trail  I‐10/Indian Canyon Drive  I‐10/Bob Hope Drive/Ramon Road Interchange  I‐10/Date Palm Drive  I‐10/Monterey Avenue Interchange Project  Grade Separation Projects:  Avenue 48/Dillon Road, Avenue 50,  and Avenue 52  Under Construction  91 Project – Tolled Express Lanes  SR‐91 HOV Project  Grade Separation Projects:  Clay Street, Magnolia Avenue, and  Sunset Avenue  Under Construction  I‐10/Jefferson Street Interchange Project   Avenue 56 / Airport Boulevard Grade Separation Project  Future Term  I‐15 Express Lanes Project  SR‐60 – Add Truck Climbing and Descending Lane, Badlands  area east of Moreno Valley  71/91 Interchange Project  SR‐71 Corridor Improvement Project  SR‐79 Realignment Project  Mid County Parkway  I‐215 North Project  10/60 Interchange  I‐10 Truck Climbing Lane  Future Term  SR‐111:  • Signal Synchronization Project  • Intersection improvements and Street Widening in  Cathedral City  • Widening Project in Indian Wells from Cook Street to the  Eastern City Limit  • Madison Street to Rubidoux Street – Street Improvement  Project (Indio)  SR‐86 Interchanges  I‐10 Interchange Projects  • I‐10 / Monroe Street  • I‐10 / Jackson Street  Whitewater River Bridge Crossing   (Avenue 50)  Avenue 48 Widening (Jackson Street to Van Buren Street)  SR‐86/Avenue 50 Interchange Project  Avenue 66 Grade Separation Project  Strategic Assessment 13 Draft Executive Summary January 20, 2016 Figure ES.7: 2009 Measure A Programs by Geographic Area Source: RCTC Annual Budget As part of the 2002 Measure A extension, RCTC is committed to supporting habitat mitigation in Riverside County. RCTC has fully paid its $153 million obligation to the Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority (RCA) for the Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP), as promised under Measure A. Long-Term Improvement Needs and Costs Based on all the plans listed above in Table ES.4, a needs list was developed to indicate improvement projects needed to achieve full development of current plans. This is a comprehensive list covering all modes and all the various components of the regional transportation system in the County planned for a horizon year of 2040. An order-of-magnitude cost estimate was identified for each project in the needs list using estimates available from recent studies or by applying typical unit costs to the needed improvement. Table ES.6 summarizes the capital costs, which collectively total $23.4 billion. Table ES.6: Total Estimated Cost of Capital Improvements (2016-2039), by Mode/Project Type Mode/Project Type Amount (in 2015 $)  Freeways & Interchanges $8,724,000,000  Arterials $9,990,000,000  Grade Separations $1,528,000,000  Transit – Intercity and Commuter/Regional Rail $1,392,000,000  Transit ‐ Bus Capital $1,092,000,000  Non‐motorized/Active Transportation $642,000,000  Total $23,367,000,000  In addition to the capital improvements costs, the future transportation system will have substantial, ongoing operations and maintenance (O&M) costs due to planned improvements in rail and transit services. Table ES.7 summarizes existing rail and transit O&M costs, which total $156 million annually. Table ES.8 Strategic Assessment 14 Draft Executive Summary January 20, 2016 summarizes the annual O&M costs (in Year 2015 dollars) for the planned rail and transit system, which total $562 million annually. Table ES.7: Existing Annual O&M Costs for Transit and Rail  Annual O&M Cost  (in 2015 $)  Metrolink $14,000,000  RTA $75,500,000  SunLine $52,500,000  Municipal Operators $3,200,000  Specialized Transit $10,800,000  Total Existing Annual Countywide Transit O&M Cost $156,000,000  Table ES.8: Future (2040) Annual O&M Costs for Planned Transit System Mode  Annual O&M Cost  (in 2015 $)  Intercity Rail $30,200,000  Commuter/Regional Rail $126,200,000  Basic Local Bus $246,400,000  Enhanced Local Bus $144,600,000  Regional Express Bus $14,300,000  Total Future Annual Rail and Transit O&M Cost $561,700,000  Current Policies Following is a summary list of key policies currently in effect relative to the transportation system and its development and operation: Freeways and Highways  The Freeway Service Patrol program of commuter assistance delivers a high benefit-cost ratio for delay reduction on freeways, however, there is limited funding available to expand the FSP program. Managed Lanes and Tolling  RCTC has secured specific legislation that guides the development and operation of toll facilities on SR-91 and I-15. Similar legislation has not been passed for toll lanes on other highways. Arterials and Local Streets  TUMF programs in Western Riverside County and the Coachella Valley place some responsibility for funding transportation improvements on the development generating the need for improvements.  Local agencies must maintain their existing commitment of local funds for street, highway and public transit purposes to receive Measure A Local Streets and Roads funds. Rail and Transit Strategic Assessment 15 Draft Executive Summary January 20, 2016  The 2008 Transit Vision includes: o Provisions to guide annual allocation of Measure A and TDA funds, as well as percentages for specialized transportation contribution of Measure A; o Vision for potential Perris Valley Line extensions to San Jacinto and Temecula; o Funding split formula for transportation funds in Western Riverside County: 78% for public bus and 22% for commuter rail.  CVAG has established a policy to dedicate 10% of the Coachella Valley’s annual TDA State Transit Assistance (STA) funds to establishing passenger rail service. Non-Motorized / Active Transportation  The State of California has redirected programming responsibilities for active transportation funding from MPOs to the State.  RCTC and local cities must now compete to secure a portion of the 50% of total funds made available annually through the Active Transportation Program statewide funding solicitation. Sustainability / Climate Change / Environment  Senate Bill 535 requires a portion of cap-and-trade funds to be directed to disadvantaged communities. Grant applications for these funds should involve projects that are located in or directly benefit disadvantaged communities. Riverside County includes a number of the disadvantaged communities that have been identified statewide.  Executive Order B-30-15 mandates a 40 percent reduction in GHG emissions below 1990 levels by 2030, so regional agencies must take climate change into account in their planning and investment decisions and employ full life-cycle cost accounting to evaluate and compare infrastructure investments and alternatives. Funding / Finance  The 2013 RCTC Comprehensive Debt Management Policy allows RCTC to investigate innovative project financing methods where appropriate (TIFIA, toll revenue-backed bonds) for future projects.  The 2013 Edition RCTC Full Speed Ahead 2009-2019 Delivery Plan provides for exploration of alternative procurement and delivery options such as design-build and public-private partnerships. Strategic Issues and Policy Gaps The review of current plans and policies presented in the preceding sections raises several issues deserving consideration in the Strategic Assessment. They include strategic issues that should be considered because of changing conditions or needs, as well as issues which are not currently addressed by adopted plans or policies (“gaps”). This section outlines the plans and policies that fall into one of these categories, and summarizes the issues or questions that should be considered in the Strategic Assessment. Technology and Automation The rapid advancement of technology will affect the future of transportation, especially promising the potential to make the system safer and more efficient. Strategic issues to consider include:  Could the emergence of automated vehicles increase the capacity of the highway system so that some planned improvements may be no longer necessary? Strategic Assessment 16 Draft Executive Summary January 20, 2016  Will the emergence of car-sharing systems substantially change auto ownership patterns in the future, and how will that affect traffic volumes and congestion levels?  How can traveler information systems be used in the future to enable travelers to make optimal travel choices, and how much can that improve the efficiency of the system?  Can technological advancements be tapped to improve service and reduce costs for serving the transit-dependent? Congestion Management vs. Greenhouse Gas Reduction State laws, policies, and funding programs put increasing emphasis on reduction of greenhouse gases (GHG), often to the detriment of strategies to reduce traffic congestion through highway capacity expansion. Riverside County will need to improve all components of its transportation system to provide adequate mobility for the 3.2 million people projected to live in the County in 2040. Strategic issues to consider include:  What land use strategies can realistically be implemented in Riverside County to shorten driving distances and to enable people to accomplish more of their mobility needs without the need for an automobile?  What strategies can be pursued to bring more employment to Riverside County so people can live closer to their jobs?  What strategies can be pursued to provide more Riverside County residents with good mobility alternatives to the single-occupant automobile?  How can Riverside County best contribute to, and be compatible with, the SCAG region’s Sustainable Communities Strategy while providing good quality of life for its residents including meeting their mobility needs?  What highway system improvements will be important for supporting economic development in Riverside County and minimizing time people waste in congested traffic?  What is the optimal mix of transportation system investments so the system is both ecologically and financially sustainable? Funding Availability and Allocations. Current funding sources will be very inadequate to pay for all the County’s future transportation improvement needs. Also, funding sources are increasingly dedicated to particular modes or purposes, which affects the types of projects that are possible to fund. Strategic issues to consider include:  Are RCTC’s funding allocation policies still appropriate in light of system investment needs and emerging trends in state and federal funding?  Is the current split of funds between bus transit and rail transit appropriate for the future?  How can transit service be substantially expanded in the future and be financially sustainable? Farebox revenues cover only a portion of transit O&M costs, and funding sources for transit O&M are limited.  How should RCTC determine funding priorities, given the inevitable shortfall of revenues in relation to identified needs?  As new funding sources are considered and realized, what policies can be adopted to make sure the funds are directed to improvements that are truly important for meeting Riverside County’s transportation needs?  Is there funding availability to meet the maintenance and operations needs of the Commission-owned commuter rail stations? Strategic Assessment 17 Draft Executive Summary January 20, 2016 Regional Emergency/Evacuation Planning. There is no plan in place for dealing with a catastrophic event that would require large-scale evacuation or disable key components of the regional transportation system in Riverside County for extended periods of time. Key Findings and Strategic Considerations of Current Plans and Policies  Long-range planning for Riverside County transportation is addressed in a large number of plans developed by multiple agencies. Not all plans are coordinated among one another.  Measure A requires a ten-year update of the Expenditure Plan in 2019.  The Measure A Western County Highway Delivery Plan will shortly need to be updated to address the period 2019-2029.  The Riverside County transportation system has a total capital improvement need of $23 billion by 2040  The Riverside County rail and transit system has an estimated annual transit O&M cost of $562 million (2015 dollars) in 2040.  To contribute to state greenhouse gas reduction goals, rail and transit service should be developed in concert with transit-oriented development and employment centers.  Active transportation funds must now be competitively pursued at the state level by local agencies.  Western Riverside County has fixed split percentages for allocating funds to bus and rail, and O&M cost needs in each sector will change over time as system needs continue to evolve.  Emerging technological innovations have the potential to substantially increase operating efficiencies of the transportation system, as well as provide users with better information about travel choices and conditions. ES.5. Funding Analysis Revenue sources at the federal, State, and local levels were identified and analyzed for their future funding potential, both for capital improvements and transit operations and maintenance (O&M). Estimates for each revenue source were developed based on a combination of factors, including 1) the assumed continuation of prior year funding amounts, 2) planning documents from the relevant programming agencies, 3) independent forecasts, and 4) consultations with RCTC staff. Revenue sources were assigned to one of three categories:  Category A – existing revenues reasonably expected to be available countywide in the future, including those from formula programs or ongoing levies/fee programs (example: TUMF)  Category B – existing unprogrammed revenues that Riverside County might realistically secure on a discretionary or competitive basis (example: cap and trade grants)  Category C – “strategy revenues” that are contingent upon the implementation of future federal or State legislation or project-specific funding mechanisms (example: mileage-based user fees, highway or express lane tolls) Funding for Capital Projects Figure ES.8 illustrates the availability of capital funding in relation to the projected $23 billion need. Existing programs (Category A) can cover 26% of the need, and plausible discretionary grant funds (Category B) can cover another 6%. This leaves a funding gap of almost $16 billion (two-thirds of the total need). Strategic Assessment 18 Draft Executive Summary January 20, 2016 Figure ES.8: Funding Sources for Capital Improvements 2016-2039 Revenue from potential new sources of funds (Category C) at the various levels of government has been estimated for the purpose of illustrating how much the funding gap could be filled by particular sources. Eight potential funding sources have been quantified, and their potential revenue is shown in Table ES.9. Of potential new revenues that could be adopted at the local level, an additional sales tax would generate the greatest amount of funding. A freeway mitigation fee or vehicle license fee each has the potential to generate one-third to one-half as much as a quarter-cent sales tax, and toll revenues on other highways (besides the 91 and 15) would generate about 50% less than those. Table ES.9: Estimate of Potential Revenue from New Sources (Category C)  Estimated Revenue by 2040  (in 2015 $)  Federal Gas Tax Increase $587,000,000  State Gas Tax Increase $847,000,000  Mileage‐Based User Fee (State) $1,957,000,000  Measure A2 – 1/4 cent increase for 20 years $1,265,000,000  Vehicle License Fee increase  $422,000,000  Freeway Mitigation Fee $585,000,000  Tolls on Additional Express Lanes $241,000,000  Private Railroad Funds $153,000,000  Total  $6,058,000,000  $6.114 Billion  26% $1.363 Billion 6% $6.058 Billion  26% $9.833 Billion  42% Existing Programs Discretionary Grants Possible New Sources Funding Gap Strategic Assessment 19 Draft Executive Summary January 20, 2016 Funding for Operations and Maintenance Costs Figure ES.9 illustrates the available funding for rail and transit operations needs in the Year 2040. Available sources of revenue for future (new) services are limited to farebox revenue and three current funding programs that collectively can cover 30% of the total need, leaving an O&M funding gap of $238 million annually for the planned 2040 rail and transit system. No sources of substantial new O&M funding are currently under consideration at any level of government. Figure ES.9: Funding for Rail and Transit O&M in Year 2040 Key Findings and Strategic Considerations of Funding Analysis  The County’s transportation capital needs total $23 billion over the next 25 years, and current revenue sources are estimated to be able to generate $6.1 billion.  There is potential to generate additional capital funding through competitive grant sources. The estimated potential additional revenue is about $1.3 billion, leaving an estimated funding gap of $15.9 billion.  The funding gap could realistically be closed substantially with potential new sources that have been talked about at the local, state, and federal levels, even if those sources were plausible.  Current sources of funding for O&M will be unable to fund the rail and transit services planned for the Year 2040, leaving an estimated annual gap of about $238 million, or 42% of the total O&M costs. No new significant sources of O&M funding are under consideration at any level.  Of potential new revenues that could be adopted at the local level, an additional sales tax would generate the greatest amount of funding. A freeway mitigation fee or vehicle license fee each has the potential to generate one-third to one-half as much as a quarter-cent sales tax, and toll revenues on other highways (besides the 91 and 15) would generate about 50% less than those. $156.0 Million  28% $139.7 Million 25% $7.6 Million  1% $3.3 Million  1% $16.9 Million  3% $238.2 Million 42% Funding for Transit O&M Needs Existing Revenue Future Farebox Revenues CMAQ LCTOP State Operating Assistance for Intercity Rail Unfunded Need Strategic Assessment 20 Draft Executive Summary January 20, 2016 ES.6. Public and Stakeholder Attitudes Public and stakeholder attitudes were gauged through two types of activities: (1) telephone polling of a random sample of 800 Riverside County voters conducted during August and October, 2015; and (2) a series of five community summits held in August/September 2015 plus a public workshop held in Blythe in October 2015. Polling of Registered Voters Based on the polling, the following are the key messages and perspectives of the voting public. Views of Government. Respondents in general do not have favorable opinions of government (see Figure ES.10). “No Opinion” numbers are high for RCTC, likely because many voters do not know who RCTC is or what it does. Figure ES.10: Views of Government Performance Priority of Issues. Reducing highway congestion is the transportation issue of highest priority, following the three top issues of reducing crime, creating jobs, and improving water supplies (see Figure ES.11). Roadway maintenance is also a high priority issue. Expanding rail and transit services are much lower priorities to voters. 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Local City Government Riverside County Board of Supervisors Riverside County Transportation Commision California State Legislature No Opinion Dissatisfied Satisfied Source: Aug and Oct 2015  JMM Poll Strategic Assessment 21 Draft Executive Summary January 20, 2016 Figure ES.11: Priority Issues for Riverside County 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% No Opinion Low Medium High Source: Aug and Oct 2015 JMM Poll Strategic Assessment 22 Draft Executive Summary January 20, 2016 Priority of Transportation Improvement Types. Fixing potholes and widening highways to reduce congestion are the highest transportation priorities for voters (see Figure ES.12). Expanding older interchanges and providing freeway tow truck service gets very high marks. Walking and bike routes to school are higher priority than bike lanes and bike paths in general. Improving rail and bus transit are medium priorities, and new highways are a relatively low priority. Figure ES.12: Support for Transportation Improvements 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% No Opinion Low Medium High Source: Aug and Oct 2015 JMM Poll Strategic Assessment 23 Draft Executive Summary January 20, 2016 Support for New Revenue Sources. When asked about their support for different types of new revenue sources (see Figure ES.13), a majority of voters support building new FasTrak lanes, and almost half support increased fees on new development. Other fees and taxes get lower levels of support, ranging from 37% support for a quarter-cent sales tax down to 12% support for increasing the gas tax by five cents per gallon. Figure ES.13: Support for Alternative Revenue Sources Summits and Workshops for Stakeholders and the General Public Stakeholders attending the Summits were a diverse group representing many interests within Riverside County, with a strong focus on environmental awareness, alternative transportation options, and governance/policy issues. Inputs received at each of the summits are summarized in Figure ES.14, and the following discussion highlights some of the main messages. Transportation needs. Accessibility to public transportation was identified repeatedly as a need, including safer sidewalks, ADA accessible curb ramps, and better connections between transit systems. First mile / last mile access and access for seniors were also identified as needs. Many participants were not aware of some transportation services currently being provided. 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% No Opinion Oppose Favor Source: Aug and Oct 2015 JMM Poll Strategic Assessment 24 Draft Executive Summary January 20, 2016 How to solve/address the needs. Participants frequently mentioned improvements to public transit, including extending hours of service; more routes and improved frequencies; access to information on availability and schedules; access to alternate modes; use of alternative fuels; and ensuring transit is affordable to all residents. Stakeholders also indicated that better communication, land use policies, and elected official involvement would address some of the needs. Participants emphasized the need to link transportation and land use policies, respect the needs of users in improving quality of life, ensure better connectivity between rural and urban areas, and maximize capacity through the use of existing infrastructure and information technology. The major challenges: Nearly every group discussion during the Summits concluded that funding (finding it, getting it, keeping it) was a significant challenge to transportation progress. Stakeholders also identified the length and complexity of the environmental process, changes to the political landscape, and government/development policies as potential challenges. Key Findings and Strategic Considerations of Public and Stakeholder Attitudes  A substantial portion of the public is unfamiliar with RCTC.  Transportation issues are important to the public, but currently not as important as crime, jobs, and water issues.  Top public priorities for transportation improvements include roadway maintenance and reducing highway congestion. Freeway Service Patrol also gets strong support.  Public support for new revenue sources is strongest for express toll lanes, and moderate for increased fees on new development. Additional fees and taxes are opposed by a majority of voters, with the greatest opposition to a gas tax increase.  Stakeholder groups and the public identify improved accessibility to public transit as an important need, including more hours of service, service to more areas, and better/easier connections.  Other stakeholder desires – better land use/transportation linkages, more consideration for user quality of life, better rural/urban connectivity, and use of emerging technologies to help address transportation needs.  Stakeholders consistently identified the lack of funding as the biggest challenge to achieving needed improvements.  Other key challenge to address – reducing the length and complexity of the environmental process. Strategic Assessment 25 Draft Executive Summary January 20, 2016 Figure ES.14: Summary of Summits and Workshop Strategic Assessment 26 Draft Executive Summary January 20, 2016 ES.7. Partner Agency Coordination Interviews and meetings with partner agencies provided insights and information as to their views and priorities. A City Manager Roundtable was held on September 10 with the League of California Cities- Riverside Division Executive Committee, a Regional Agency CEO Meeting was held on September 30, and WRCOG/CVAG CEOs held a conversation with RCTC Executive Staff on October 8. Additionally, City Managers from the cities and the County of Riverside CEO’s office were surveyed in order to identify priorities for their jurisdiction as well as for the region as a whole. Finally, the long-range transportation plans of adjacent counties were reviewed to determine the consistency of plans for inter-county corridors connecting to Riverside County. Partner agencies’ perceptions of Riverside County needs. City Managers see the TUMF program in western county as needing improvement. They also see a need for a cohesive voice from the region to state and regional (SCAG) government as well as a comprehensive countywide transportation plan. The top needs they identified for the county’s transportation system include improving highway interchanges, fixing potholes and resurfacing roads, widening congested arterials, and expanding rail service to new areas of the county (see Figure ES.15). Partner agency priorities. Based on the local agency survey, the individual jurisdictions’ high priority categories included fixing potholes and resurfacing roads as the highest priority, followed by expanding older interchanges on major highways and improving walk and bike routes to schools (see Figure ES.16). Specific to transit operators, RTA needs to grow their service and construct a new central facility, while SunLine, needs to implement basic infrastructure improvements in addition to service expansion. (For example, making a bus stop ADA-compliant does not make sense if there are no sidewalks connecting to the bus stop.) How partners think RCTC can help. RCTC could potentially coordinate/lead a countywide transportation plan that rolls up into the RTP/SCS. RCTC could also lead a coordinated strategy that could protect local transportation dollars and help local cities present a cohesive approach to state and federal funding opportunities. Cities could use RCTC’s help in legislative advocacy, and in helping elected officials understand the existing programs, why they are important, how they are funded, and how infrastructure is a component of economic development. Additionally, RCTC could provide strategic support of City capital improvement programs by helping cities understand funding options for projects, building a strategy, and prioritizing projects. Partners also indicated that RCTC could provide best practices and case studies for how to get projects done, illustrate creative solutions that have been used by others, and provide specific technical staff resources on modeling, air quality, etc. to help project funding applications. A “toolbox of capability” at no/low charge to COG/cities could help create a consistent approach out of Riverside County on all project applications for funding (on modeling, congestion, issues, etc.). Agencies see an opportunity to partner with County and Regional Parks and feel that RCTC could lead this effort. Future needs in inter-county corridors. For the most part, adjacent county’s corridor plans are consistent with the plans in Riverside County. One key area of difference is the I-15 corridor between Riverside County and San Diego County. The long-range plan in San Diego County is to add two toll lanes each direction to the current eight general purpose lanes, and in Riverside County the improvement identified in Measure A is to add one general purpose lane in each direction. In the corridor connecting Riverside County to Orange County, the ongoing 91 project in Riverside County will bring the corridor to a consistent cross-section (two toll lanes plus five general purpose lanes) on both sides of the county line. In the long-term future, additional capacity may be needed in this corridor. Strategic Assessment 27 Draft Executive Summary January 20, 2016 Figure ES.15: Regional Transportation Improvement Priorities for Local Jurisdictions Strategic Assessment 28 Draft Executive Summary January 20, 2016 Figure ES.16: Local Transportation Improvement Priorities for Local Jurisdictions Strategic Assessment 29 Draft Executive Summary January 20, 2016 Key Findings and Strategic Considerations of Partner Agency Coordination  Roadway maintenance and improving older highway interchanges are the top transportation improvement needs as seen by RCTC’s local (city and county) partner agencies.  The local partner agencies desire RCTC to provided leadership and resources to enable a more effective coordinated approach to legislative advocacy and pursuit of funding from the state and federal governments. 2280 Market Street, Suite 100 Riverside, CA 92501 951.320.7300 hdrinc.com © 2016 HDR, all rights reserved. Controlling Our Destiny in a Time of Unknowns:January 26, 2016Strategic Assessment Update and Next Steps FinancialTechnicalPublic InputThe “Sweet Spot”Making Decisions2 Technical Analysis3 Public Input4Transportation Summits & Workshops:•Perris•Riverside•Temecula•Winchester•Palm Desert•BlythePublic Opinion Survey:•Countywide statistically valid sample•Support for transportation investment•Congestion, road repair = priority•Tolling = popular•RCTC is not well known 1.Planning for the Future2.Maximizing Our Assets3.Increasing Funding4.Communicate MoreStrategies5 1. Blythe federal transit grant2. Grant Pursuit Team •(I‐15 FASTLANE application)3. Next Generation Rail Study4. External Affairs Dept. •Online and social media presence•91 Project communicationsProgress so far6 $156.0 Million 28%$139.7 Million25%$7.6 Million 1%$3.3 Million 1%$16.9 Million 3%$238.2 Million42%Existing RevenueFuture Farebox RevenuesCMAQLCTOPState Operating Assistance forIntercity RailUnfunded NeedFunding for Rail and Transit O&M by 2040Funding Gap7 $6.114 Billion 26%$1.363 Billion6%$6.058 Billion 26%$9.833 Billion 42%Existing ProgramsDiscretionary GrantsPossible New SourcesFunding GapFunding Sources for Capital Improvements 2016‐2039Funding Gap8 SpeculationFederal Gas Tax Increase $587 State Gas Tax Increase $847 Mileage‐Based User Fees (plus State Gas Tax) $1,957 Measure A2: 20‐year 1/4¢ $1,265 Vehicle License Fee Increase $422 Freeway Mitigation Fee $585 Toll Revenues $241 Private Railroad Funds $153 Total$6.058 billion$6.058 billion26%Category ACategory BCategory CFunding Gap(in millions)Possible New Sources9 Measure A: The Work Ahead of UsWestern County Coachella ValleyDeferred Projects from first 10 years:•I‐15 Express Lanes Project – South•North Connector – 15/91•71/91 Interchange Project•SR‐60 –Add Truck Climbing and Descending Lane, Badlands area east of Moreno Valley•SR‐79 Realignment Project•Mid County Parkway•I‐215 North Project•SR‐71 Corridor Improvement Project•10/60 Interchange•I‐10 Truck Climbing Lane•SR‐111:oSignal Synchronization ProjectoIntersection improvements and Street Widening in Cathedral CityoWidening Project in Indian Wells from Cook Street to the Eastern City LimitoMadison Street to Rubidoux Street –Street Improvement Project (Indio)•SR‐86 Interchanges•I‐10 Interchange ProjectsoI‐10 / Monroe StreetoI‐10 / Jackson Street•Whitewater River Bridge Crossing   (Avenue 50)•Avenue 48 Widening (Jackson Street to Van Buren Street)•SR‐86/Avenue 50 Interchange Project•Avenue 66 Grade Separation Project10 SpeculationDebt Capacity11$36.46 4%$938.54 96%2009 Measure A Sales Tax Debt Limit (in millions)Available debt capacityUsed debt capacity**Includes projected 2017 Bonds for I‐15 Express Lanes Project " State funding negotiations have made littleprogress for two years." Trump,�Congressional�interest�is�promising�yet�volatile.�P3�focus�and�federal�budget�constraints�could�limit�impact." Self Help�leadership�has�been�Riverside�County s�recipe�for�success.Uncertainty�vs.�Seizing�Our�Destiny12 " State legislation to allow RCTC to administeran additional voter approved sales tax Housekeeping item Gives Commission flexibility in 2018 and beyond" Comprehensive, countywide constituentcommunications and engagement Important to know what public priorities are forcurrent and future fundingMoving�Forward13 " Open 91 Express Lanes" Keep all projects pushing forward" Commence long range planning Next Generation Rail and Tolling studies Next 10 Year Measure A Delivery Plan Countywide Long Range PlanMoving�Forward14 Questions, Discussion&Action15 Future Changes in TransportationA Look at Future Technologywww.cert.ucr.eduRiverside County Transportation Commission WorkshopJanuary 26 – 27, 2017Matthew Barth, Yeager Families Professor of EngineeringDirector, Center for Environmental Research and Technology (CE-CERT)University of California - RiversideBourns College of Engineering CE-CERT Our MissionBourns College of EngineeringCenter for Environmental Research and Technology, CE-CERT’s role is:Serve as an honest broker in improving our understanding of air quality, transportation, and sustainable and efficient energy supplies by conducting a broad program of interdisciplinary basic and applied research;Provide educational opportunities for the next generation of engineers, scientists and policy-makers. CE-CERT Research Focus Reducing Air Pollution and Energy ImpactsClean AirQuantifying and Measuring EmissionsToxic, Ozone and PM formationSustainable TransportationIntelligent transportation systemsElectric and Hybrid vehicle integrationEco-driving Renewable FuelsAqueous Processing of Biomass to FuelsThermochemical Processing of Biomass to FuelsClimate Change ImpactsImpacts of our fuelsCloud formation & impactsRenewable Electricity & Smart GridsAdvanced Solar Energy ProductionEnergy StorageEnergy Management CE-CERT “Products”Students: Ph.D., M.S., B.S., K-12Research: technical papers & reportsInnovative Technology: intellectual propertyBalanced FocusBasic Research, Applied Research & Implementation, Education and OutreachIntegrated across multiple disciplinesHonest BrokerPartnership between academia, industry, and regulatory agencies (along with public and environmental community)Our Approach USDOT UTC:National Center on Sustainable Transportation•NCST has been a successful center for 3 years, recently renewed for an addition 5 years.•Partners:–University of California: Davis and Riverside–USC, GIT, Vermont•One of the key pillars of research remains with infrastructure and system operations•Significant cost share from partners (Caltrans, CEC, CARB) USDOT UTC:Center for Advancing Research in Transportation Emissions, Energy and Health (CAR-TEEH) •CAR-TEEH is one of the first research centers examining the impacts of mobile-source emissions on health effects•Partners:–Texas Transportation Institute, UCR, UTEP, GIT, and Johns Hopkins CARB Board voted (8-3) on March 24th2016, to relocate their Southern California facilities to UCRLocation will be on 18 acres adjacent to UCRGround breaking this year, complete in 4 yearsCARB El Monte Relocation to UCR New Transportation Trends•How we certify and measure vehicle emissions•Vehicles are becoming increasingly Connected•Emergence of Vehicle Automation•Importance of Vehicle Electrification•The role of Shared Mobility New Directions in Emissions Measurements•New light-duty vehicles are now nearly as clean as an EV (when you account for indirect electricity generation emissions)•Trucks are still a problem•For years vehicles have had to have their emissions certified on a “dynamometer” Portable Emission Measurement TechnologyNew Directions in Emissions MeasurementsNew Portable Technology•easily installed•measures NOx, PM, PN, O2, and NH3New Generation PEMS TechnologyInternational PEMS Conference, CE-CERT, March 30-31, 2017 Volkswagen ScandalThe recent discovery of emissions rigging in diesel-powered Volkswagen automobiles highlights both the importance of real-world emissions testing•Independent Testing & Evaluation Center•New Portable Technology•Exposure and Health ModelingUCR is one of the leading academic institutions equipped to provide comprehensive progressive research effort with its Portable Emissions Measurement Systems, Activity Monitoring, and Inspection/Maintenance Program Transportation Systems Research Microscopic Traffic ModelingDynamometer-in-the-Loop Control SystemDynamometerOperationNew Directions in Emissions MeasurementsReal-Time Vehicle Trajectory Data New Directions in Connected VehiclesConnected Vehicle Technology:–A combination of well-defined technologies, interfaces, and processes that enables the development and deployment of a fully connected, safe, stable, interoperable, and reliable (multi-modal) transportation systemWireless communication:–Between vehicles (V2V)–Between vehicles and Infrastructure (V2I/I2V)–Between vehicles and devices (V2X/X2V) New Directions in Connected VehiclesCV Technology Pilot Programs–Safety: Connected vehicle safety pilot–Mobility: Dynamic mobility applications (DMA)–Environment: Applications for the environment – real-time information synthesis (AERIS)–Road Weather: Road Weather Connected Vehicle ApplicationsCV Pilot Deployment Program (Wave 1)–I-80 in Wyoming (truck safety and efficiency)–New York City (vehicle and pedestrian)–Tampa, Florida (traffic around reversible freeway lanes)USDOT’s Connected Vehicle Program Connected Vehicle Applications: Example: Eco-Traffic Signal OperationsSource: Noblis, November 2013Vehicle Equipped with the Eco‐Approach and Departure at Signalized Intersections Application(CACC capabilities optional)Traffic Signal Controller with SPaT InterfaceTraffic Signal HeadRoadside Equipment UnitV2I Communications: SPaT and GID MessagesV2V Communications: Basic Safety Messages Eco-Approach and Departure Scenario DiagramIntersection of interest Simulation Modeling…baselineeco approach & departure New Directions in Connected VehiclesAERIS Operational Scenarios & Applications " Six mile section of University Avenue between UC Riverside and downtown Riverside" All traffic signal controllers are being updated to be compatible with SAE connectivity standards" UC Riverside is providing the Dedicated Short Range Communication modems in each traffic signal" Corridor will be used for connected and automated vehicle experiments (ARPA-E hybrid bus, light-duty vehicles, etc.)City of Riverside Innovation Corridor " Automated/autonomous�vehicle Capable�of�sensing�its�environment�and�navigation�without�human�input,�to�fulfill�the�transportation�needs�of�a�traditional�vehicle" Sensing�technology Radar,�LiDAR,�computer�vision�and�sonar" Level�of�automation�(by�NHTSA) Level�0:�100%�human�control Level�1:�Individual�module�is�automated Level�2:�2+�modules�are�automated�in�unison Level�3:�Conditional�automation Level�4:�100%�automationAutomated/Autonomous�Vehicle�Technology�New�Directions�in�Automated�Vehicles New Directions in Automated VehiclesVehicle Automation and Traffic System Operations•In general, full or partial vehicle automation can help with traffic system operations•Traffic operations with autonomous vehicles will not likely change much–Mobility and Environmental impacts will remain the same or could even get worse–Partial Automation Example: automated cruise control (ACC) has been shown to have negative traffic mobility impacts•Traffic operations with connected automated vehicles will likely have a improved mobility and environmental impacts New Directions in Automated VehiclesMerging of Connected Vehicles and Automation New Directions in Automated VehiclesBehavioral Effects: Explosion of Various UsesLikely to reduce the time cost of travel and thus increasevehicle travel and GHG emissionsEngage in activities other than driving (e.g., work, entertainment, sleep, relax)Lowers physical and intellectual barriers to vehicle travelYoung and disabled can travel aloneEnables “passenger‐less” travel (zero‐occupancy vehicles)New empty vehicle relocation travel: return home, drop‐off, pick‐upLess on‐street parking and increased roadway capacityOperational Effects:If done properly, there are several operational aspects that can decreaseGHG emissionsPotential congestion reductionsPotential traffic smoothingPotential better speed managementMobility and Environmental Considerations ofConnected and Automated Vehicles New Directions in Automated VehiclesFrom: Wadud, Z., D. MacKenzie and P. Leiby. 2016. Help or hindrance? The travel, energy and carbon impacts of highly automated vehicles. Transportation Research A: Policy and Practice 86: 1‐18.Energy/Emissions Impacts of CAV Technology New Directions in Automated VehiclesCAV Synergies and Tradeoffs ofSafety, Mobility, and Environment Vehicle ElectrificationOn-line Eco Energy Management for PHEVs Vehicle ElectrificationNew Technologies: Electric Heavy Duty Class 8 VehiclesDescription Yard Tractor (YT) On-roadVehicle curb Weight (lbs)18,780 22,000Towing capacity (lbs)61,220 58,000Motor power rating (kW)150 300Energy Stored (kWh) (Usable)154 172Loaded range (miles)58.7 at 2.1 kWhr/mi 74.8 at 2.3 kWhr/miUsable capacity implies about 20% reserve on batteries Vehicle ElectrificationSustainable Integrated Grid Initiative (SIGI): Integrating Photovoltaics, Energy Storage, and a Local Utility for Electric Transportation Shared MobilityShared Mobility Eco‐System(from Susan Shaheen, UC Berkeley) ConvergenceFAVES(fleets of automated vehicles that are shared & electric) Critters and CarsRiverside County Transportation CommissionJanuary 27, 2017 How You Know Us…•Bridges & Roadways•I‐10 Interchanges•Fight for funds•CV Link May not know …•Separate JPA•Similar Members•No Tribes, No Blythe•Water Districts•Managed by CVAG•21 Conservation Areas•27 Covered Species How does it work? CVCC•Separate JPA–Similar Members•No Tribes, No Blythe•CVWD•Managed by CVAG Multiple Species Plan•Predecessor ‐Fringe Toed Lizard•Approved in Oct. 2008•1.1M Acres Covered•21 Conservation Areas•27 Covered Species•Builders & Environmentalist Support•Fees Fund Plan & Buy Land How does the fee work? How we compare$0$1,000$2,000$3,000$4,000$5,000$6,000$7,000$8,000Per House Per acreCVAG/ CVCCRCA$1992$6780$5451$1221 Value of Paying the Fee? Don’t Have to Go Through Sacrificial Ceremonies! Must buy 100,000 Acres Target: Most Threatened Existing Conservation in 1996 D e Springs tPalm Springs Cathedral MG0h (91,111r1 Conse Jon 19964' Salton Sea dba, 5a012±A 4auLol, kdaLV., IJan ZAT-ra t edra io P Im Desert Salton Sea 11-6g, aacem, 1,mttaL,Al., USW, Aet, GIS L . . . . . ) .~� '' | , _� '_� - | - _ - ) '�T�� . Conse 201 Salton Sea 4.1hErk 29A+ 4,01,244l L '1y LSe'ir�z�i„N?ii �+�7fsal';J i Aefggr4C, I,E-r Ir GP, s3hsstopo.3ntl (lie GIS User CcmmunIty:, Over 88,000 acres are conserved!! Not Just about Critters I‐10 Mitigation Bank•Provided Mitigation Prior to Plan•Independent from CVMSHCP•Complements Plan ‐2008 Ramon Road/ Bob Hope Dr$38M from Measure A I‐10 Mitigation Bank Ramon Road/ Bob Hope•Highest Priority•I‐10 Corridor Improvement Project•Caltrans = lead Years of delays …… Frustrated ElectedsNew Casino … June 2010 –I get a call… MSHCP Saved $ and Time 2010 ‐Construction Woes•2ndBorrow Site Needed•Outside ID’dconservation•1.5 acres •More delay? Social MediaFacebook: CVAGnewsTwitter:@CVAGnews Questions? Preserving our open space heritage • Protecting our economy • Building our futureWestern Riverside CountyMultiple Species Habitat Conservation PlanRCTC WorkshopJanuary 27, 2017 Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan•Linchpin to the Riverside County Integrated Planintegrating with the county general plan and thefuture transportation plan•WHY – rapid development was occurring, butneeded infrastructure improvements, particularlyroads, were nearly unbuildable due to ESA relateddelays and lawsuits•Adopted in June 2003•Permits issued in June 2004“A plan to protect and sustain endangered and threatened animals andplants, and their habitats in a comprehensive way, so local governmentscan expedite the construction of infrastructure to support growth–particularly transportation facilities.” RCA MissionEstablish a 500,000 acre habitat reserve to protect, restore andenhance habitats for the conservation of 146 species whileexpediting construction of needed infrastructure and providingcertainty in the development process‐Permittees include the County of Riverside, 18 western RiversideCounty Cities, Caltrans, Riverside County TransportationCommission, State Parks, County Parks, County Flood ControlDistrict, County Department of Waste Resources‐Plan Area covers 1.26 million acres‐There are 33 Federal and State listed species in the Plan Area Transportation What the MSHCP Provides •Allows all covered public infrastructure projects to proceedinside the Criteria Area•Allows all public and private projects outside the Criteria Areato proceed without delays associated with listed species•Compliance with the Plan provides all species relatedmitigation for project State CEQA documents " Shared�acquisition:��2/3 Local,�1/3�State�and�Federal�" Local�Funding Development�mitigation�fees Landfill�tipping�fees Infrastructure�contribution� Measure�A,�TUMF�(5%),�Flood�Control�(3%),�other�(5%�or�per�acre�fee) Other�public�facilities�(libraries,�parks,�etc.) Participating�Special�Entities�(i.e.,�Utilities)" Federal�Funding� Section�6�(HCP)�only Western�Riverside�Plan�has�no�Refuge�or�ConservancyFunding�Sources 7MSHCP Transportation Fees•The MSHCP planned for $371 million in transportation infrastructure contributions–$121 million from Measure A–$  32 million from Caltrans (paid by RCTC)–$218 million from local transportation projects•TUMF contribution estimated at $64 million over 25 years•Local projects pay an infrastructure feeof 5% of construction costs Acres Conserved Funding ExpendedTotal Acres Conserved 54,727 Total Funding Expended $474,244,661 Acquisition MSHCP Covered Roads with Capacity Covered Road ImprovementsCounty/Cities•All General Plan Circulation Element facility improvements in effect at the time the Plan was developed (MSHCP Figure 7‐1)RCTC/Caltrans•Interstate 215 Improvements ‐ultimate facility and a 75’ rail Corridor•Interstate 15 Improvements ‐ultimate facility and a 75’ rail Corridor•Interstate 10 Improvements ‐ultimate facility and a 75’ rail Corridor•Highway 60 Improvements ‐ultimate facility and a 75’ rail Corridor•Highway 91 Improvements ‐ultimate facility and a 75’ rail Corridor•State Route 79 Realignment•Mid County Parkway•SR‐74, SR‐79, SR‐371 and SR‐71 receive coverage as General Plan Circulation Element Roads Covered Operation and Maintenance Activities•Signage•Traffic Control Devices•Guardrails and Fences•Pavement Repairs•Accident Response•Tree Trimming •Natural Disaster Damage/Restoration of Emergency Access•Storm Damage •Weed Control•Grading Shoulders (up to 12 feet from the edge of paved or unpaved roadways)•Grading Existing Dirt Roadways•Dust Stabilization•Culverts/Drop Structures•Curbs/Gutters/Sidewalks•Roadway Widening•Berms•Roadway Resurfacing •Ditch Clearing•Landscape Maintenance•Bridge Maintenance•Roadway Reconstruction 13What did the Plan Change?•Significant time savings for the vast majority of projects*–Endangered Species Act issues are no longer critical path–Average 2 months for a streamlined BO, versus over 2 years•Certainty in the process–Every RCTC/Caltrans/County Transportation project has moved forward•Roads are recognized as projects critical to support existing and planned growth•Less project specific mitigation, more certainty•Fewer species surveys required•RCA  policy allows for future right of way dedication on conserved lands*UCLA study, Transportation and Habitat Conservation Plans, Lederman and Wachs, April 2014 " 401,700�acres�are�being�managed�today�as�part�of�the�MSHCP�reserve" Most�development�projects�require�no�MSHCP�actions" $2.5�Billion�in�current�highway�construction�is�underway�due�to�the�plan�expediting�infrastructure�including:�� Two�new�freeways Six�major�freeway�widening�projects Five�major�highway�widening�projects Over�a�dozen�freeway�and�highway�interchange�projects A�new�Metrolink�rail�line Major�dam�rebuild Major�power�and�water�distribution�projects Over�five�dozen�regional�road�improvementsSuccesses Marketing Update91 Express Lanes Marketing EffortsRCTC Commissioners WorkshopFriday, January 27, 2017 Presentation Highlights1. Marketing Objectives2. Target Audiences3. General Messaging4. Marketing Strategies5. Questions and AnswersOverview ��Position the 91 Express Lanes as anideal, long termtransportation optionfor commuters in the region toreduce their travel time on the 91.��Educate and provide incentives for 91 Express Lanesaudiences to take advantage of the benefits of using theExpress Lanes:time saver, convenience, ease of use, andstress free experience.��Build ridership througheducation and outreachpromotingthe expansion of the 91 Express Lanes to both new andexisting users.��PromoteSafe  Reliable  PredictablemessagingMarketing�Objectives ��Existing transponder owners who may wish totravel the new express lanes��Existing transponder owners who may wish topurchase another transponder for a familymember, etc.��New accountsTarget�Audiences General MessagingBenefits The 91 Express Lanes are safe, reliable, and predictable. The 91 Express Lanes extension added eight miles from the Orange County/Riverside County Line to McKinley Street on State Route 91 and Ontario Avenue on Interstate 15 South. With the new extension, the Express Lanes offer 18 miles of stress free travel between Orange and Riverside Counties.Use of LanesDrivers may now travel both directions between the 55 and 91 interchange and McKinley Street, or travel in segments: the 55 and 91 interchange to County Line; County Line to McKinley Street or County Line to the 15 South.There is only one entry/exit point at the County Line. There is no direct access to Interstate 15 North.Transponder requiredTrip pricing General MessagingTranspondersYou must have a transponder, you cannot pay a toll by license plate or with cash.There are several different transponder models and all of them are accepted by the 91 Express Lanes. If you already have a transponder issued by another California toll operator, you can use that transponder on the 91 Express Lanes.For more information, to open an account or obtain a transponder please call, visit our customer service center or our website, www.91ExpressLanes.comToll RatesCarpoolsof three or more wishing to receive the carpool discount you must travel through the designated HOV3+ lane at both the Orange County and Riverside County toll points. Toll rates will be posted on signs at each entry point. These signs will display the cost to travel a single segment or to the end of the Express Lanes. Toll schedules are on the project website at www.91ExpressLanes.com Marketing StrategiesUpdate the 91ExpressLanes.com WebsiteIn ProgressNew toll rate schedule Project video Include extension web bannerLink to IE 511 Page and City pagesBanner for Website Landing PageCompleted      Pending Collateral MaterialsVarious pieces were developed to help promote the extension to the 91 Express LanesMarketing StrategiesNew Customer CardFor easy distribution at community eventsA “take away” piece to serve as a reminder to sign upPromotes discounts and provides key information  Marketing StrategiesCollateral MaterialsExisting Customer CardMailed to existing customer account holders beginning in DecemberPart of a larger mailer that included transmittal letter, license agreement and privacy policy Promotes discount and provides key information Highlights relevant updates or changes for the customer Marketing StrategiesCollateral MaterialsWelcome BrochureSelect pages displayedFor new customer account holders to accompany transponderProvides key details for new customers including transponder mounting instructions, how to determine toll, FAQs and a state‐wide map of toll lanesDesigned to be a comprehensive information piece for the new customer Marketing StrategiesCollateral MaterialsOverview Fact SheetProvides general information for new customers including overview of the project, entry and exit points, segment map, toll schedule, available promotions, and how to open an accountDesigned to be a comprehensive information piece for the new customerDistribution at events and to project stakeholders Marketing StrategiesCollateral MaterialsCommissioner Fact SheetProvides general information for Commissioners and other officials including overview of the project, entry and exit points, segment map, toll schedule, available promotions, and how to open an account, background on project, cooperative agreement with OCTA and toll policy. Marketing StrategiesCollateral Materials91 Reasons Promotional PieceSelect pages displayedA light‐hearted promotional piece (currently in production) that reminds commuters of the many reasons to open an accountTo be distributed at community events and festivalsProvides project information on use of Express lanes Marketing StrategiesProject VideoInformational Video2 minute and 47 second video providing an overview of the project, entry and exit points, segment map, how to use the lanes, how to open an account, and requirement for mounting a transponderAnimated and easy‐to‐followOn www.91ExpressLanes.comTo be shared with cities and toll agencies for posting when website updates are completedAlso available to view here: http://youtu.be/oo4LeGvsTx0 Marketing StrategiesCommunity Engagement –Special EventsCommunity Events and FestivalsStaff booth at community events and festivals to promote 91 Express Lanes – about 10‐15 events possibly more as we team up with other RCTC projects (Metrolink 91/PV Line)Provide collateral materials and promotional itemsDisplay project video on loop at select locationsiPad sign up available for new accounts Display boards and pull up banner showing segments and entry pointsIdeal opportunity to engage the community  Marketing StrategiesCommunity Engagement –Promotional ItemsPromotional Items USB Drive Project video is preloaded with remaining space to save filesCar ChargerPopular items with publicBallpoint penInexpensive item for larger distribution Marketing StrategiesCommuter Services CoordinationCoordination with Commuter Services IE 511E‐NewslettersWebsiteSocial MediaEmployer Worksite EventsI.E. 511 Hosted EventsAQMD Employer Training –Host TableRegional Rideshare Stakeholder CoordinationAllows for additional outreach to targeted audiences Marketing StrategiesPlanned Marketing Activities91 Express Lanes Changeable Message SignsBillboardsRadio Advertising Utility Bill InsertsSocial Media and Website Coordination and Advertising Marketing StrategiesTransportation Corridor Agencies (TCA) Partnering:•TCA accountholders represent up to 40% of the existing 91 Express Lanes users•Providing TCA with information and materials to train staff and distribute to customers•E‐mail blast to customers•Quarterly Newsletter•Thetollroads.com Questions