Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout10 October 12, 2011 CommissionRECORDS • Iivenida (ounly Transportation Commission TIME/DATE: LOCATION: • • MEETING AGENDA 9:30 a.m. / Wednesday, October 12, 2011 BOARD ROOM County of Riverside Administrative Center 4080 Lemon Street, First Floor, Riverside ,. COMMISSIONERS -tA Chair G reg Pettis First Vice Chair -John J. Benoit Second Vice Chair Karen Spiegel Bob Buster, County of Riverside John F. Tavaglione, County of Riverside Jeff Stone, County of Riverside John J. Benoit, County of Riverside Marion Ashley, County of Riverside Bob Botts / Don Robinson, City of Banning Roger Berg / Jeff Fox, City of Beaumont Joseph DeConinck / To Be Appointed, City of Blythe Ella Zanowic / Jeff Hewitt, City of Calimesa Mary Craton / Barry Talbot, City of Canyon Lake Greg Pettis / Kathleen DeRosa, City of Cathedral City Steven Hernandez / Eduardo Garcia, City of Coachella Karen Spiegel/Steve Nolan, City of Corona Scott Matas / Russell Betts, City of Desert Hot Springs Adam Rush / Ike Bootsma, City of Eastvale Larry Smith / Robert Youssef, City of Hemet Douglas Hanson I Patrick Mullany, City of Indian Wells Glenn Miller I Michael Wilson, City of Indio Frank Johnston I Micheal Goodland, City of Jurupa Valley Terry Henderson I Don Adolph, City of La Quinta Bob Magee I Melissa Melendez, City of Lake Elsinore Darcy Kuenzi / Wallace Edgerton, City of Menifee Marcelo Co / Richard Stewart, City of Moreno Valley Rick Gibbs I Kelly Bennett, City of Murrieta Berwin Hanna / Kathy Azevedo, City of Norco Jan Harnik / William Krooner:'l, City of Palm Desert Steve Pougnet / Ginny Foat, City of Palm Springs Daryl Busch / AI Landers, City of Perris Scott Hines I Gordon Moller, City of Rancho Mirage Steve Adams / Andy Melendrez, City of Riverside Scott Miller / Andrew Kotyuk, City of San Jacinto Ron Roberts I Jeff Comerchero, City of Temecula Ben Benoit I Timothy Walker, City of Wildomar Raymond Wolfe, Governor's Appointee Comments are welcomed by the Commission. If you wish to provide comments to the Commission, please complete and submit a Speaker Card to the Clerk of the Board. Tara Byerly From: Tara Byerly Sent: Wednesday, October 12, 20111:58 PM To: Tara Byerly Subject: Barney Barnett's Handouts for the October Commission Meeting Attachments: ECOPY1_LDAPMAIL_10122011-133455.PDF Importance: High Good Afternoon Commissioners, For your information, attached above is Barney Barnett's correspondence dated October 12, 2011, along with the map that depicts the proposed Highgrove Metrolink Station. Since there were not enough copies of Mr. Barnett's letter and there were no copies of the map at the Commission Meeting we wanted to ensure you received both. Please let me know if you have any questions. Respectfully, Tara S. Byerly RCTC 1 Tara Byerly From: Tara Byerly Sent: Wednesday, October 05, 2011 3:13 PM To: Tara Byerly Subject: RCTC October Commission Agenda Importance: High Good Afternoon Commission Alternates: Attached below is the link to the October 12, 2011 Commission Meeting Agenda. Please copy the link and past it into a web page http://www.rctc.org/downloads/current/agenda 2011 10.pdf. Thank you. Respectfu lIy, Tara S. Byerly Senior AdIninistrative Assistant 4080 Lemon Street, 3rd Floor Riverside, CA 92501 (951) 787-7141 1 Tara Byerly From: Tara Byerly Sent: Wednesday, October 05, 2011 3:07 PM To: Tara Byerly Subject: RCTC October Commission Agenda -Ipad Users Attachments: Conflict of Interest Memo.pdf; Conflict of Interest Form.pdf Importance: Hjgh Good Afternoon Commissioners, The October Commission Agenda for the IPad Users is available. Please copy this link: http://www.rctc.org/downloads/current/agenda ipad.pdf In addition, attached is the conflict of interest memo and the form for your review. Please let me know if you have any questions. Respectfu lIy, Tara S. Byerly Senior Administrative Assistant 4080 Lemon Street, 3rd Floor Riverside, CA 92501 (951) 787-7141 1 Rivenicle (GUllty'ranspartation Comnissian TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Jennifer Harmon, Office and Board Services Manager DATE: October 5, 2011 SUBJECT: Possible Conflicts of Interest Issues -Riverside County Transportation Commission Agenda of October 12, 2011 The October 12, 2011 agenda of the Riverside County Transportation Commission includes items which may raise possible conflicts of interest. A RCTC member may not participate in any discussion or action concerning a contract or amendment if a campaign contribution of more than $ 250 is received in the past 12 months or 3 months following the conclusion from any entity or individual listed. Agenda Item No. 7H -Awards for Freeway Service Patrol Tow Truck Services Consultant(s): Pepe's Towing Service 2000 W. Key Street Colton, CA 92324 Jose Acosta, President Roy and Dot's Towing 667 W. Rialto Avenue Riaito, CA 92376 David McClure, President Navarro's Towing 76657 Orange Way Fontana, CA 92335 Heriberto Eddie Navarro, Owner RCTC Conflict of Interest Form Purpose: This form is provided to assist members of the RCTC Commissioners in meeting requirements of Government Code Section 84308 and 87100 in documenting conflict of interests as related to RCTC Commission/Committee agenda items. Instructions: Under certain circumstances, RCTC Commission may be required to disclose and disqualify themselves from participating in, influencing, or voting on an agenda item due to personal income, real property interests, investments, business positions, or receipt of campaign contributions. If applicable, Commissioners must personally state the following information, for entry into the public record, prior to consideration of the involved agenda item(s) and turn in the completed form to the Clerk of the Board prior to leaving the meeting. An RCTC member may not participate in any discussion or action concerning a contract or amendment if a campaign contribution of more than $250 is received in the past 12 months or 3 months following the conclusion from any entity or individual. I. Board Member Information Board Member Name Meeting DateCityICounty Name II. Campaign Contributions 'Jcf ~ It <. vV))j ,/'II.. 1. I have a disqualifying campaign contribution of over $250 from e~i)~ '/ r."c Lv /?<'C , (Identify the name of the company and/or Individual) and therefore I am abstaining from participation on Agenda item I]fl , Subject:/tc;:/, ~(I(./ S ~/\vi {\~~ 2. I have a disqualifying campaign contribution of over $250 from and therefore I am abstaining from participation on Agenda item (Identify the name of t , Su ,I) 1,\ TtC ct:: he company and/or Individual! ,cc-v' {YV/( , 3. I have a disqualifying campaign contribution of over $250 from and therefore I am abstaining from participation on Agenda item (ldenti!y the name of t , Subject: he company and/or Individual) , 4. I have a disqualifying campaign contribution of over $250 from and therefore I am abstaining from participation on Agenda item (Identify the name of t , Subject: he company and/or Individual) , 1111. Financial Interest 1. I have a financial interest of from/in (State income, real properlY interest, or business poSition) (Identify name of company or property locatton) and therefore I am abstaining from participation on Agenda Item__, Subject: 2. I have a financial interest of from/in (State income, real property interest, ,,. ~, or bUSiness poSition) (Identify name of company or property locationl and therefore 1 am abstaining from participation on Agenda Item__, Subject: IV. Signature Board Member signature..Y"~ ~. A-~j21 Date: 10 -/ L-' 1/ I Please remember you must state the information into the public record prior to consideration of the involved agenda item(s' and turn in the completed form to the Clerk of the Board prior to leaving the meeting. " RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION www.rctc.org AGENDA * *Actions may be taken on any item listed on the agenda 9:30 a.m. Wednesday, October 12, 2011 BOARDROOM County of Riverside Administrative Center 4080 Lemon Street, First Floor, Riverside, 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 special assistance is needed 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. CALL TO ORDER 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 3. ROLL CALL 4. PUBLIC COMMENTS -Each individual speaker is limited to speak three (3) continuous minutes or less. The Commission may, either at the direction of the Chair or by majority vote of the Commission, waive this three minute time limitation. Depending on the number of items on the Agenda and the number of speakers, the Chair may, at his/her discretion, reduce the time of each speaker to two (2) continuous minutes. In addition, the maximum time for public comment for any individual item or topic is thirty (30) minutes. Also, the Commission may terminate public comments if such comments become repetitious. Sp,eakers may not yield their time to others without the consent of the Chair. Any written documents to be distributed or presented to the Commission shall be submitted to the Clerk of the Board. This policy applies to Public Comments and comments on Agenda Items. " Under the Brown Act, the Commission should not take action on or discuss matters raised during public comment portion of the agenda that are not listed on the agenda. Commission members may refer such matters to staff for factual information or to be placed on the subsequent agenda for consideration. Riverside County Transportation Commission Agenda October 12, 2011 Page 2 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES -SEPTEMBER 14, 2011 • 6. ADDITIONS 1 REVISIONS -The Commission may add an item to the Agenda after making a finding that there is a need to take immediate action on the item and that the item came to the attention of the Commission subsequent to the posting of the agenda. An action adding an item to the agenda requires 2/3 vote of the Commission. If there are less than 2/3 of the Commission members present, adding an item to the agenda requires a unanimous vote. Added items will be placed for discussion at the end of the agenda. 7. CONSENT CALENDAR -All matters on the Consent Calendar will be approved in a single motion unless a Commissioner(s} requests separate action on specific item(s}. Items pulled from the Consent Calendar will be placed for discussion at the end of the agenda. 7 A. FISCAL YEAR 2010/11 MEASURE A LOCAL STREETS AND ROADS BUDGET ADJUSTMENT Page 1 Overview This item is for the Commission to approve a budget adjustment for an increase in FY 2010/11 revenues and expenditures related to Measure A local streets and roads allocations. • 7B. PARTICIPATION IN REGIONAL GRANT REGARDING EXPRESS AND TOLL LANES Page 3 Overview This item is for the Commission to: 1 ) Direct staff to participate in the Southern California Association of Governments' (SCAG) regional congestion pricing study known as the Express Travel Choices study; 2) Approve Agreement No. 12-65-016-00 with SCAG in the amount of $68,400 for the Commission's share of the local match for the $4 million effort; and 3) Authorize the Chair, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission. • Riverside County Transportation Commission Agenda October 12, 2011 Page 3 • 7C. COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE FISCAL YEARS 2012-16 MEASURE A FIVE­ YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN FOR LOCAL STREETS AND ROADS Page 120 Overview This item is for the Commission to approve the county of Riverside's FYs 2012-16 Measure A Five-Year Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) for Local Streets and Roads as submitted. 7D. 2009 MEASURE A PROGRAM MAINTENANCE OF EFFORT Page 132 Overview This item is for the Commission to: 1 ) Approve the 2009 Measure A Maintenance of Effort (MOE) base year level for the city of Hemet (Hemet); • 2) Approve the retroactive application of Hemet's 2009 MOE to FY 2009/10 and FY 2010/11 with the condition there is no excess MOE carryover available from the 1989 Measure A after FY 2008/09; and 3) Make a revised finding that Hemet did meet its MOE for FY 2009/10. 7E. ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 11-014 FOR COMMISSION ELECTION TO HEAR FUTURE RESOLUTIONS OF NECESSITY FOR THE INTERSTATE 215 CENTRAL WIDENING PROJECT AND DESIGNATION OF COMMISSION'S GENERAL COUNSEL Page 137 Overview This item is for the Commission to adopt Resolution No. 11-014, #Commission Electing to Hear Future Resolutions of Necessity for the Interstate 215 Central Widening Project Between Scott and Nuevo Roads and Designation of Commission's General Counsel to Process Resolution of Necessity Packages for the Project". • Riverside County Transportation Commission Agenda October 1 2, 2011 Page 4 7F. RESOLUTION NO. 11-015 FOR COMMISSION ELECTION TO HEAR FUTURE RESOLUTIONS OF NECESSITY FOR THE STATE ROUTE 74 • CURVE WIDENING PROJECT AND DESIGNATION OF COMMISSION'S GENERAL COUNSEL Page 140 Overview This item is for the Commission to adopt Resolution No. 11-015, #Commission Electing to Hear Future Resolutions of Necessity for the State Route 74 Curve Widening Project Between Calvert and California A venues and Designation of Commission's General Counsel to Process Resolution of Necessity Packages for the Project H • 7G. COMMUTER RAIL STATION CODE OF CONDUCT Page 143 Overview This item is for the Commission to approve the Commuter Rail Station Code of Conduct (Code of Conduct) and allow the Executive Director to make future changes as necessary. 7H. AWARDS FOR FREEWAY SERVICE PATROL TOW TRUCK SERVICES Page 147 • Overview This item is for the Commission to: 1) Award Agreement No. 11-45-146-00 to Pepe's Towing (Pepe's) for tow truck services on Beat No. 4 of the Freeway Service Patrol (FSP) program for a three-year term, and two one-year options to extend the agreement, in an amount not to exceed $1,000,000; 2) Award Agreement No. 11-45-147-00 to Roy and Dot's Towing (Roy and Dot's) for tow truck services on Beat No.7 of the FSP program for a three-year term, and two one-year options to extend the agreement, in an amount not to exceed $1,020,000; 3) Award Agreement No. 11-45-148-00 to Navarro's Towing and Recovery (Navarro's) for tow truck services on Beat No.8 of the FSP program for a three-year term, and two one-year options to extend the agreement, in an amount not to exceed $909,000; and •4) Authorize the Chair, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreements, including option years, on behalf of the Commission. Riverside County Transportation Commission Agenda October 12, 2011 Page 5 • 8. RESPONSE TO BARNEY BARNETT'S PUBLIC COMMENTS Page 178 Overview This item is for the Commission to receive and file the Commission's response to Barney Barnett's comments at the September 14 Commission meeting. 9. 2012 STATE TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM INTRA-COUNTY FORMULA ADJUSTMENT Page 182 Overview This item is for the Commission to approve the 201 2 State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) intra-county formula percent adjustment based on a thorough review of the formulas used to apportion state funds between Western Riverside County, the Coachella Valley, and the Palo Verde Valley. 10. STATE ROUTE 79 REALIGNMENT PROJECT UPDATE • Page 216 Overview This item is for the Commission to receive an oral presentation on the SR-79 realignment project. 11 . ITEM(S} PULLED FROM CONSENT CALENDAR AGENDA 12. COMMISSIONERS I EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR REPORT Overview This item provides the opportunity for the Commissioners and the Executive Director to report on attended meetings/conferences and any other items related to Commission activities. 13. CLOSED SESSION 13A. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL: EXISTING LITIGATION Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9 (a) Case No. RIC 10016058 • Case No. RIC 1113896 Riverside County Transportation Commission Agenda October 12, 2011 Page 6 13B. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8 • Item APN(s) Property Owner(s} 1 426-020-007 William R. Sweeney Nancy B. Cunningham Lori A .Sukoff Gary J. Buchanan William J. Buchanan I 14. ADJOURNMENT The next Commission meeting is scheduled to be held at 9:30 a.m., Wednesday, November 9, 2011, Board Chambers, First Floor, County Administrative Center, 4080 Lemon Street, Riverside. • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION COMMISSIONER SIGN-IN SHEET OCTOBER 12, 2011 AGENCY EMAIL ADDRESSI NAME 1 cr -C~J;." W t \ \5 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION ROLL CALL OCTOBER 12, 2011 Present Coun ty of Riverside, District I .n County of Riverside, District II ; County of Riverside, District III 0 County of Riverside, District IV County of Riverside, District V 1:1 City of Banning City of Beaumont n- City of Blythe City of Calimesa .ct City of Canyon Lake City of Cath edral City a- City of Coachella City of Coron a ;:r City of Desert Hot Springs 0--/City of Eastvale City of Hemet City of Indian Wells a City of Indio City of Jurupa Valley ~ City of La Quinta City of Lake Elsinore Z City of Menifee City of Moreno Valley 0 City of Murrieta City of Norco n City of Palm Desert City of Palm Springs LI City of Perris City of Rancho Mirage a- City of Riverside 0 City of San Jacinto .a- City of Temecula City of Wildomar Governor's Appointee, Caltrans District 8 Absent LI LI LI 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 D 0 LI 0 0 0 LI 0 0 0 0 0 LI 0 0 0 0 LI D 0 LI 0 DETACH AND SUBMIT TO THE DATE: C) d I 'l-; rvo I / CHECK IF SUBJECT OF PUBUC COMMENTS: 1& PUBUC COMMENTS: It I&I-I&&..<o VE In G7RoLIItI)< AGENDA ITEM NO.: Q SUBJECT OF (AS USTED ON THE AGENDA) 0 AGENDA ITEM :,_________~.._:___.__---- NAME: R.f},"flzBe..flJEy' Sf/RillE rr PHONE NO.: 93 '68'.3=t'l'l'f ADDRESS: Lf7 if PROS'}J €: CoT It-VE , IfrG-lfGReJ 1/E:..J CR, 9750 , STREET CITY t' ZIP CODE REPRESENTING: H(G+fGlQ Ve:: 7fJ ,1-c... PHONE NO.:,________ NAME OF AGENCY I ORGANIZATION I GROU~ BUSINESS ADDRESS: CITY ZIP CODE STREET " RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION MINUTES Wednesday, September 14, 2011 1. CALL TO ORDER The Riverside County Transportation Commission was called to order by Vice Chair John J. Benoit at 9:32 a.m. in the Board Room at the County of Riverside Administrative Center, 4080 Lemon Street, Riverside, California, 92501. 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE At this time, Vice Chair Benoit led the Commission in a flag salute. 3. ROLL CALL " Commissioners/Alternates Present Commissioners Absent Steve Adams Steven Hernandez Rick Gibbs Marion Ashley Scott Hines Greg Pettis Ben Benoit Frank Johnston Jeff Stone John J. Benoit Andrew Kotyuk Roger Berg Darcy Kuenzi Bob Botts Bob Magee Daryl Busch Scott Matas Bob Buster Glenn Miller Marcelo Co Ron Roberts Mary Craton Adam Rush Joseph DeConinck Larry Smith Ginny Foat Karen Spiegel Berwin Hanna John F. Tavaglione Douglas Hanson Ray Wolfe Jan Harnik Ella Zanowic Terry Henderson 4. PUBLIC COMMENTS " Anne Mayer, Executive Director, presented 20-year service awards to Cathy Bechtel, Project Development Director, and Shirley Medina, Programming and Planning Manager. - Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes September 14, 2011 Page 2 Cynthia Rullo, a Thousand Palms resident, expressed her strong concern • regarding the effects of second-hand smoke. . Ms. Rullo expressed the Commission-owned commuter rail stations need designated smoking areas at least 100 feet from the platforms. She also noted she has seen the Western Area Service Security guards smoking by the benches. Ms. Rullo explained the Commission signage at the commuter rail stations states smoking is prohibited on the platforms and requested it be enforced. In addition, Ms. Rullo recommended the Commission request guards not to smoke around commuters or at the benches. She referred to the Smokefree Air for Everyone hand out that was distributed to the Commissioners. Cynthia Rullo then discussed an unmet transit need in the Pass Area and expressed concern that the transit agencies fixed routes do not meet the needs for disabled people in this area. She cited the 2.4-mile distance between 300 S. Highland Springs Avenue to 3055 West Ramsey Street where there is· no transit connection for disabled people. Ms. Rullo proposed that Riverside County could be divided into six transit regions for better coordination of transit services. Commissioner John Tavaglione requested clarification regarding designated smoking areas at the commuter rail stations. Commissioner Tavaglione stated he recently visited the Downtown Riverside Station and noticed a guard was smoking and quite rude. He suggested utilizing a silent shopper tool to evaluate the service quality of the guards. Anne Mayer replied staff will look into this issue. R.A. Barney Barnett discussed his new approach to utilize the Citrus Connector property for a regional transportation benefit and referred to the September 2011 Highgrove Happenings publication and his correspondence dated September 14 that was distributed to the Commissioners. He clarified that Highgrove is not part of any legal action against the Commission. Mr. Barnett stated he met with or presented information to representatives of Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), Metrolink, and San Bernardino Associated Governments (SANBAG) regarding regional transportation benefits. He requested the Commission utilize the remaining acres at the Citrus Connector property for a parking lot and Metrolink station to benefit Riverside and San Bernardino Counties. • • - Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes • September 14, 2011 Page 3 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES -JULY 13 AND JULY 25,2011 MIS/C (HendersonlBusch) to approve the minutes of JUly 13 and July 25, 2011 meetings as submitted. Abstain -July 13, 2011 minutes: Foat and G. Miller Abstain -July 25, 2011 minutes: Foat and Hanson 6. ADDITIONSIREVISIONS Commissioner Douglas Hanson requested Agenda Item 71, "Advance Agreements with Southern California Edison, AT&T, Southern California Gas Co., and Questar for Advanced Engineering and Material Procurement for Schedule Critical Utility Relocations for the State Route 91 Corridor Improvement Project", and Agenda Item 71\1, "Agreement with Sunesys, LLC to Provide Fiber Optic Connections and/or Infrastructure to Link the Pedley Station to the Downtown Riverside Station ", be pulled for further discussion. • Commissioners Bob Buster and Ginny Foat requested Agenda Item 7P, "TIGER Discretionary Grants: State Route 91 Corridor Improvement Project", be pulled for further discussion . Vice Chair Benoit announced a letter of support dated September 12, from Dan Silver. Endangered Habitats League Executive Director. for Agenda Item 7G. "Consideration of Transportation Enhancement Funds for the B Canyon Wildlife Crossing", was distributed to the Commissioners at the dais. 7. CONSENT CALENDAR MIS/C (HarniklSpiegel) to approve the following Consent Calendar items: 7A. QUARTERLY FINANCIAL STATEMENTS Receive and file the Quarterly Financial Statements for the period ended June 30. 2011. 7B. QUARTERLY INVESTMENT REPORT Receive and file the Quarterly Investment Report for the quarter ended June 30. 2011 . • Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes September 14, 2011 Page 4 7C. SINGLE SIGNATURE AUTHORITY REPORT • Receive and file the Single Signature Authority report for the fourth quarter ended June 30, 2011. 70. QUARTERLY SALES TAX ANALYSIS Receive and file the sales tax analysis for Quarter 1 (Q 1) 2011. 7E. CITY OF CATHEDRAL CITY FISCAL YEARS 2012-16 MEASURE A FIVE-YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN FOR LOCAL STREETS AND ROADS Approve the city of Cathedral City's FYs 2012-16 Measure A Five­ Year Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) for Local Streets and Roads as submitted. 7F. 2009 MEASURE A PROGRAM MAINTENANCE OF EFFORT Approve the 2009 Measure A Maintenance of Effort (MOE) base year levels for the following cities: • Calimesa • Cathedral City • Coachella •• Palm Desert • Palm Springs • Rancho Mirage • San Jacinto 7G. CONSIDERATION OF TRANSPORTATION ENHANCEMENT FUNDS FOR THE B CANYON WILDLIFE CROSSING Approve $3.1 million of regional Transportation Enhancement (TE) funds for the B Canyon wildlife crossing project. 7H. EXTENSION OF TASK ORDERS ISSUED TO ON-CALL RIGHT OF WAY CONSULTANTS 1) Approve Agreement No. 07-72-026-40, Amendment No.3 to Agreement No. 07-72-026-00, with Overland Pacific and Cutler, Inc. (OPC) and Agreement No. 07-72-027-26, Amendment No. 3 to Agreement No. 07-72-027-00, with Epic Land Solutions, Inc. (Epic) to extend the term of the agreements to enable the consultants to complete the right of way components of certain highway and rail projects assigned to them, as identified in the attachment; • Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes • September 14, 2011 Page 5 2) Authorize staff to extend the term of current task orders for OPC and Epic and to issue the pending task orders for OPC, as identified in the attachment, for the additional amount of $751,600, plus a 10 percent cost contingency of $75,160, for a total additional cost of $826,760; 3} Authorize the Chair, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission; and 4} Authorize the Executive Director to further extend the term of the agreements and related task orders as the corresponding future project schedule revisions may require. 7 J. SURPLUS OF REAL PROPERTY LOCATED AT LA SIERRA AVENUE AND INDIANA AVENUE IN THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE 1 ) Declare the real property located at La Sierra A venue and Indiana Avenue as surplus; and 2) Authorize staff to initiate the 60-day public agency notification period and, if no interest is expressed, authorize the Executive Director to offer the surplus property for sale. • 7K. AMENDMENT TO COMMISSION'S RAIL PROGRAM SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLANS 1 ) Amend the Commission's Commuter Rail Program's FY 200911 0, FY 2010/11, and FY 2011/12 Short Range Transit Plans (SRTPs) to reflect the allocation of $5.2 million in Federal Transit Administration (FT A) Section 5309 program funds to the Southern California Regional Rail Authority's (SCRRA) Rehabilitation and Renovation project and deobligation of $3,877,300 in FTA Section 5307 program funds from the SCRRA Rehabilitation and Renovation project; 2) Amend the Commission's Commuter Rail Program's FY 2008/09 and FY 2009/10 SRTPs to re"Hect deobligation of $216,000 in Local Transportation Fund (L TF) funds and $279,000 in State Transit Assistance (STA) funds for the Station Rehabilitation and Preventative Maintenance Plan (Station Plan) and reallocation of $100,000 in STA funds from the Station Plan to the Perris Multimodal Facility construction project; • Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes September 14, 2011 Page 6 3) Amend the Commission's Commuter Rail Program's • FY 2004/2005, FY 2008/09, and FY 2010/11 SRTPs to reflect deobligation of $1,575,000 in L TF funds from the SCRRA rolling stock purchase and reallocation of $1,575,000 in Proposition 'I B Public Transportation Modernization, Improvement, and Service Enhancement Account (PTMISEA) funds from the Station Plan, Operations Control Center, and La Sierra Parking Lot Expansion projects to the SCRRA rolling stock purchase; 4)' Amend the Commission's Commuter Rail Program's FY 2008/09, FY 2009/10, FY 2010/11, and FY 2011/12 SRTPs· to reflect the reallocation of PTIVIISEA funds of $724,268 from the La Sierra Station Parking Lot Expansion project and $635,847 from the Station Plan to the Perris Valley Line CCTV and Operations Control Center projects; .and 5) Approve budget adjustments to increase revenues for FY 2010/11 and FY 2011/12 in the amount of $1,490,476 and $100,000, respectively. 7L. AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT WITH OWEN DESIGN GROUP, INC. TO PROVIDE CONSTRUCTIOI\l MANAGEMENT SERVICES FOR THE • PERRIS MUL TIMODAL FACILITY 1) Approve Agreement No. 08-33-011-04, Amendment No.4 to Agreement No. 08-33-011-00, with Owen Design Group, Inc. (Owen Group) for construction management services for the Perris Multimodal (PIVIM) Facility in an amount not to exceed $100,000; 2) Authorize the Chair, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission; and 3) Approve a FY 2011/12 expenditure budget increase of $100,000 related to the PMM Facility construction management. 7M. AGREEMENT WITH UNIVERSAL PROTECTION SERVICE TO PROVIDE SECURITY GUARD SERVICES FOR FIVE COMMISSION-OWNED COMMUTER RAIL STATIONS 1 ) Award Agreement No. 11-24-057-00 to Universal Protection Service for security guard services at the five Commission­ owned commuter rail stations for a three-year term, and two one-year options in the amount of $5,367,382, plus a contingency amount of $536,718, for a total amount not to exceed $5,904,100; and • Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes • September 14. 2011 Page 7 2) Authorize the· Chair, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreement, including option years, on behalf of the Commission. 70. 2011 COACHELLA VALLEY SPECIALIZED TRANSIT CALL FOR PROJECTS IMPLEMENTATION UPDATE Receive and file the report on the implementation of 2011 Specialized Transit Call for Projects. 70. IOWA AVENUE GRADE SEPARATION PROJECT 1)· Allocate $6 million in federal Congestion Mitigation Air Quality (CMAQ) and/or Surface Transportation Program (STP) funds to the city of Riverside (Riverside) in support of the Iowa Avenue grade separation project to front Proposition 1 B . Trade Corridor Improvement Fund (TCIF) funds; • 2) Approve Agreement No. 12-67-009-00 with Riverside for reimbursement of TCIF/CMAQ/STP funds; and 3) Authorize the Chair, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission . 7R. AVENUE 66 GRAOE SEPARATION ON THE ALAMEDA CORRIDOR EAST -FISCAL YEAR 2008/09 APPROPRIATIONS Allocate $1.3 million to the county of Riverside in support of the Avenue 66 grade separation project $950,000 from the Omnibus Appropriations Act of 2009 and $350,000 in federal Congestion Mitigation Air Quality (CMAQ) funds. 8. FISCAL YEAR 2011/12 ANNUAL LOCAL TRANSPORTATION FUND PLANNING ALLOCATIONS TO WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS AND COACHELLA VALLEY ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS Shirley Medina, Programming and Planning Manager, provided an overview of the Local Transportation Fund (L TF) planning funds allocations, highlighting the following areas: • Background; • Regional planning role of a council of governments (COG); • • Coachella Valley Association of Governments (CVAG) and Western Riverside Council of Governments (WRCOG) work plans; and • Staff recommendations. Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes September 14, 2011 Page 8 Rick Bishop, WRCOG Executive Director, explained WRCOG utilizes LTF • planning ·funds for a wide range of programs such as TUMF, congestion relief, discovering ways to reduce vehicle trips and vehicle miles traveled, and adhering to SB 375 and ultimately AB 32. WRCOG also utilizes these funds to compliment a number of Southern California Association of Governments' (SCAG) projects that WRCOG has undertaken such as transit oriented development, bus rapid transit, and electric vehicles. Tom Kirk, CVAG Executive Director, provided an overview of CVAG's role with respect to L TF planning funds, which are utilized for a wide range of programs such as transportation department operations, TUMF, and air quality. The result is more funds for road and bridge projects. Commissioner Roger Berg explained at its August 22 Budget and Implementation Committee meeting he requested staff review the Transportation Development Act (TDA) to determine the eligible subrecipients. He stated staff responded that it is discretionary in how the Commission distributes these funds. Commissioner Berg expressed concern for WRCOG's work plan as he believes WRCOG is no longer as effective as it once was. He expressed the city of Beaumont (Beaumont) does not receive any benefits from WRCOG as Beaumont is responsible for its own transportation planning. Commissioner Berg opposes the LTF planning funds request for WRCOG as it could be better spent. He recommended these •funds be allocated to the cities or the county transportation department for road improvements. In response to Commissioner Adam Rush's question about what measures are being taken to avoid overlap between the cities, county, Commission, and SCAG related to AB 32 and SB 375, Rick Bishop replied the answers are forthcoming as AB 32 is in the beginning stages of implementation. SB 375 was never implemented by any of the agencies throughout California that are charged with developing a Regional Transportation Plan (RTP), which includes sustainable community strategy. He explained this document will ultimately describe how greenhouse emissions/reductions will occur through improved land use, transportation connections, and compatibility. Mr. Bishop described the requirements for SB 375 and WRCOGs' role. Anne Mayer explained SCAG's outreach to the regional partners and COGs provided the opportunity for an individual COG to acquire a leadership role in developing the sustainable community strategies. She explained the local agencies determined SCAG acquires the leadership role on a region wide basis to avoid any duplication of efforts. • Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes • September 14, 2011 Page 9 Commissioner Karen Spiegel expressed gratitude to Rick Bishop and Tom Kirk for their presentations and commended them for their work plans as they address ways to meet the needs for cities to implement new requirements such as SB 375 and AB 32. Commissioner Ginny Foat expressed concern the formula was not explained in the agenda item and suggested staff evaluate the formula specifically for distribution to the Coachella Valley. Commissioner Terry Henderson expressed that in trying to comply with AB 32 and SB 375, SCAG has absolutely committed itself to understanding a baseline, taking into account the accomplishments made before the mandated legislation. Commissioner Berg concurred with Commissioner Foat's comment and recommended staff re-evaluate the allocations and provide an update at the next Commission meeting. He stated since Beaumont is not a member of CVAG or WRCOG, Beaumont would like the opportunity to apply for a portion of these planning funds based on population. • Commissioner T avaglione stated he advocates a periodic review of allocations. Commissioner Tavaglione explained he was a Commissioner in the 1990s and charged with negotiating this allocation ..He cautioned there are four new cities in Western Riverside County and these new cities' demands will be charged. He supports the current formula as it has worked extremely well. MIS/C (HendersonlSpiegel) to approve an allocation of Local Transportation Fund (LTF) Planning funds in the amount of $467,800 to the Western Riverside Council of Governments (WRCOG) and $255,150 to the Coachella Valley Association of Governments (CVAG) to support transportation planning programs and functions as identified in the FY 2011/12 LTF Program ObjectiveslWork Plan (Work Plan), No: Berg 9. UPDATE ON FEDERAL AND STATE LEGISLATION Aaron Hake, Government Relations Manager, presented the bill positions and an overview of federal and state legislative activities, highlighting the following • areas: Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes September 14, 2011 Page 10 • Reauthorization status; • • American Jobs Act; • Project delivery legislation -H.R. 2389 (Miller), H.R. 2538 (Calvert), and H.R. 2766 (Miller); • Status of AB 294 (Portantino), AB 900 (Buchanan), and SB 791 (Steinberg); and • SB 791 Details and staff's concerns. In response to Commissioner Henderson's question about SB 791 and how it is different from Measure A, Aaron Hake replied there is a 50 percent vote requirement and the eligible project costs are fairly limited and more restrictive than Measure A. In response to Commissioner Spiegel's question if the state has discussed pulling funding if an agency chose not to put a tax on the ballot, Aaron Hake replied it is a concern because when the state passed SB 375, transit funding zeroed out at the same time. It has been difficult for transit advocates to get the funding necessary to implement and meet air quality goals. Commissioner Darcy Kuenzi explained based on the Commissioner's • comments, the frustration with the state's situation, and the lack of attention the Inland Empire receives, the Inland Empire should work with all regional partners to continue being a self-help county and not rely or fight Sacramento. Commissioner Steve Adams referred to President Obama's speech that mentioned of the "cutting of red tape", which is presumed to mean the blending of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) with National Environmental Policy Act (NEPAl. He asked if this has been clarified. Additionally, he expressed support for the Commission's bill positions for project delivery legislation as these bills will expedite projects. Aaron Hake replied there have been few specifics coming from Washington, D.C. as far as streamlining projects. He then discussed the President's American Jobs Act proposal. Anne Mayer stated she expects the continuation of the work the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) is doing with its Everyday Counts program where several key areas have been identified in getting projects out to construction quicker. She said the Federal Transit Administration is doing the same. • Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes • September 14, 2011 Page 11 Vice Chair Benoit stated representatives in Washington, D.C. have expressed • support of the idea for cutting red tape, specifically the CEQA substitution for NEPA. However, getting it signed into law on a permanent basis will be the challenge. Commissioner John Tavaglione stated when Commissioner or council members visit Washington, D.C. and there is an opportunity for testimony, there are a number of examples of projects that took several years to complete, due largely in part to the conflict between CEQA and NEPA. At Commission Rush's request, Aaron Hake discussed the eligibility criteria for AB 900 as follows: 1) project capital costs; 2) a level of guarantee for the number of jobs to be created; 3) economic development as a result; 4) a specific threshold that the Governor would consider before the project is approved; and 5) certification by the Governor that it meets the criteria. Commissioner Henderson reported on her attendance at the National league of Cities (NlC) Policy Forum meeting on September 19. The NlC is moving in the same direction as the Commission regarding SB 791. She expressed her opposition to any action being taken in Sacramento that makes it easier to raise taxes to pay for the state's mistakes. She recommends the Commission stay neutral and provide no support for SB 791 . At Vice Chair Benoit's request, Aaron Hake provided an update the Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (TIFIA) loan program, the Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery (TIGER) III program, the American Jobs Act, and a national infrastructure bank. MIS/C (Adams/Craton) to: 1 ) Receive and file an update on federal and state legislation; and 2) Adopt the following bills positions: a) H.R. 2389 (Miller) -Support; b) H.R. 2766 (Miller) -Support; c) H.R. 2538 (Calvert) -Support. The Commission then discussed the appropriate language to use in its position against SB 791 . Commissioner Adams stated he is adamantly against any legislation that places the burden on the local agencies to raise taxes on its constituents . • Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes September 14. 2011 Page 12 Commissioner Kuenzi expressed the state has no sustainable funds and laws • have been imposed that the state cannot afford to fund. While the Commission may take an oppose position on this legislation, she believes Sacramento lawmakers are not listening. She believes the Commission needs to focus on other measures to protect the itself. Commissioner Foat expressed her belief that an opposed position will exclude the Commission from changing the bill and expressed support for the staff recommendation. Commissioner Tavaglione stated this is just the start in Senator Steinberg's efforts to pass responsibility for tax initiatives to the local government. He explained the California State Association of Counties had numerous discussions with Senator Steinberg last year as it relates to the challenges of local government and realignment back to the counties. It was made very clear that Senator Steinberg wants to give local jurisdictions the opportunity to raise its taxes for its services. Commissioner Tavaglione stated all transportation agencies in California need to express strong opposition to SB 791. Commissioner Bob Botts suggested the Commission needs to send a strong • message to the state that it is unacceptable to shift raising taxes to the local jurisdictions. MIS/C (Henderson/Adams) to adopt a bill position of Oppose for S8 791 (Steinberg). No: Foat and Hernandez Abstain: Kuenzi 10. ITEM(S) PULLED FROM CONSENT CALENDAR AGENDA 71. ADVANCE AGREEMENTS WITH SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON, AT&T, SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS CO., AND QUESTAR FOR ADVANCED ENGINEERING AND MATERIAL PROCUREMENT FOR SCHEDULE CRITICAL UTILITY RELOCATIONS FOR THE STATE ROUTE 91 CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT PROJECT In response to Commissioner Hanson's request for clarification on costs related to utility relocation and right of way, Anne Mayer replied the determination of paying for the utility relocation costs is dependent on which entity has prior legal rights and provided examples. • Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes • September 14, 2011 Page 13 In response to Commissioner Hanson's question regarding Caltrans process for utilities relocation and right of way, Ray Wolfe replied Caltrans charges an encroachment permit fee for entering Caltrans' right of way, but there is no fee charged to occupy Caltrans' right of way. MISIC (Hanson/Kotyuk) to: 1) Authorize the Executive Director to execute advance agreements with Southern California Edison (SCE), AT&T, Southern California Gas Co. (SoCaIGas), and Questar, pursuant to legal counsel review, for advanced engineering and material procurement for utility relocations for the State Route 91 Corridor Improvement Project (SR-91 CIP) for a combined amount of $2,070,000, plus a contingency amount of $330,000, for a total not to exceed amount of $2.4 million; and • 2) Authorize the Executive Director to approve contingency work up to the total not to exceed amount as may be required for these future utility relocation agreements for advanced engineering and material procurement . 7N. AGREEMENT WITH SUNESYS, LLC TO PROVIDE FIBER OPTIC CONNECTIONS AND/OR INFRASTRUCTURE TO LINK THE PEDLEY STATION TO THE DOWNTOWN RIVERSIDE STATION In response to Commissioner Hanson's questions regarding the fiber optic connection, Sheldon Peterson, Rail Manager, replied the distance is approximately 11.28 miles from the Pedley Station to the Downtown Riverside Station. He stated it is an existing fiber optic cable owned and operated by Sunesys, LLC and the Commission is being charged to utilize it. MIS/C (HansonlHenderson) to: 1) Award Agreement No. 11-25-132-00 to Sunesys, LLC for fiber optic connections to link the Pedley Station to the Downtown Riverside Station for a five-year term for an amount not to exceed $72,000; and 2) Authorize the Chair, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission . • Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes September 14, 2011 Page 14 7P. TIGER DISCRETIONARY GRANTS: STATE ROUTE 91 CORRIDOR • IMPROVEMENT PROJECT Commissioner Bob Buster requested clarification on the correlation between the grant and the loan for the TIGER/TIFIA program. Anne Mayer replied a TIFIA I?an is slightly complicated by the fact that it is a TIGER/TIFIA program. She explained the Commission will submit the project as a TIGER project for a grant and if eligible, it will shift over to the TIFIA component of a TIGER loan. In response to Commissioner Buster's question regarding the competition for this program, Anne Mayer replied it is expected that the competition is much broader and much more extensive, of those it is likely the competitors in the last round of TIFIA will be joining the Commission in trying to get through TIGER III into the TIFIA loan. She expressed it is very appropriate and important for the Commission to go through this process since the State Route 91 Corridor Improvement Project (SR-91 CIP) meets the criteria. In response to Commissioner Buster's question regarding how the project will be promoted in the application, Anne Mayer replied that repeatedly over the past year, the Ontario/Riverside/San Bernardino metropolitan region as defined in the Census program tops the list for unemployment of all 49 metropolitan regions of a million people or more. She explained one of the Commission's key arguments is that there is current unemployment data produced through the Census program and reflects why the SR-91 CIP is ideal for the TIGER III program. • Commissioner Buster suggested staff augment that argument as the President's proposal does not have anything directly for the housing industry. He recommended stressing the interrelated signs for this area that are unlike anything in the nation. Vice Chair Benoit stated there is a component of the process that involves the prioritization of a project from a transportation prospective. He discussed the meetings held in Washington, D. C. and it was determined the SR-91 CIP is high on the list as a nationally significant mUlti-regional project. Anne Mayer stated when the Commission went through the last round for the TIFIA program and in the category of national and regional significance the project scored very well. She discussed a meeting with TIFIA staff to go through a debriefing of the Commission's plan • Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes • September 14, 2011 Page 15 of finance for the project. In addition, she met with Joey Mendez, FHWA Administrator, and updated him on the status of the SR-91 CIP and the delivery process. Mr. Mendez offered advice on how to accelerate the environmental approval process. In response to Commissioner Foat's question regarding any disadvantages of pursuing both a grant and a loan, Anne Mayer replied there is no disadvantage to the Commission for competing in TIGER III program. She explained when the U.S. Department of Transportation (U.S. DOT) reviews the application, U.S. DOT will make that distinction between grant or loan. Commissioner Foat requested the amount the Commission is asking for and how the Commission will repay the TIFIA loan. • Anne Mayer explained the amount being requested for the TIGER III program is based on the Commission's plan of finance for the SR-91 CIP. The TIFIA loan is capped at 30 percent of the total project cost. The Commission will ask for the maximum amount allowed under the TIFIA program and the loan will be reimbursed with toll revenues . MISIC (SpiegellBuster) to: 1} Direct staff to prepare a grant and Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation ACT (TIFIA) letter of interest (LOt) submittal package to U.S. Department of Transportation (U.S. DOT) for the SR-91 Corridor Improvement Project (SR-91 CIP); and 2) Authorize the Executive Director to submit the grant application and TIFIA LO!. 11 . COMMISSIONERSIEXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S REPORT 11 A. Commissioner Mary Craton announced SCAG is preparing its regional housing needs assessment and each city needs to get its housing development certified before October 2012. 11 B. Commissioner Marion Ashley requested the Executive Director report on Barney Barnett's request at the October Commission meeting. At this time, Commissioners Adams, Hanson, Johnston, Magee, Miller, and • Tavaglione left the meeting . Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes September 14, 2011 Page 16 12. CLOSED SESSION • 12A. COI\IFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL: EXISTING LITIGATION Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9 (a) Case No. RIC 1113896 There was no announcement for this closed session item. 12B. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL: ANTICIPATED LITIGATION Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9 (b) Potential Number of Case(s): One The Commission denied the claim received from claimants David, Jennifer, and Colin Kerr in the matter of Alana Kerr and directed a rejection letter be sent. At this time, Commissioners Foat, Hernandez, and Kuenzi left the meeting. 12C. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8 Agency Negotiator: Executive Director or Designee Property Owners: See the List Below •Item APN(s) Property Owner(s) 1 331-410-061 331-090-025 Tract No. 23311 Community Association 2 331-090-008 AI-Wafaa Family Trust 3 311 -1 90-035 311-190-002 331-190-044 Seal Beach Business Center, Inc. 4 311 -1 80-01 4 North Valley Schools, Inc. 5 311-180-032 Lilian Stephens Judith A. Blake 6 311-1 90-048 T emplo Del Evangelio 7 311-120-023 Josephine Miller 8 311-120-002 311-110-028 Michael G. Murphy 9 31 1 -1 1 0-01 1 Ismael Penaloza 10 311-110-01 0 William R. Westendorf Rosa Alba 1 1 311-120-022 Laurel Palms Apts, Inc. 12 311-110-001 Carmen Sanabria Item APN(s) Property Purchaser(s) 1 211-1 91-026 City of Riverside • Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes • September 14, 2011 Page 17 Commissioners Ashley and Busch recused themselves from this item and left the meeting. There was no announcement for this closed session item. 13. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business for consideration by the Riverside County Transportation Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 11 :41 a.m. The next Commission meeting is scheduled to be held at 9:30 a.m., Wednesday, October 12, 2011, in the Board Room, at the County of Riverside Administrative Center, 4080 Lemon Street, Riverside, California. Respectfully submitted, Jennifer Harmon Clerk of the Board • • " RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION DATE: October 12, 2011 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Budget and Implementation Committee Michele Cisneros, Accounting and Human Resources Manager Theresia Trevino, Chief Financial Officer THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Executive Director SUBJECT: Fiscal Year 2010111 Measure A Local Streets and Roads Budget Adjustment BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to approve a budget adjustment for an increase in FY 2010/11 revenues and expenditures related to Measure A local streets and roads allocations. BACKGROUND INFORMA TION: " As part of the year end closing procedures, the FY 2010/11 Measure A revenues have been determined to be $123,439,833, a 7.8% increase from the FY 200911 0 Measure A revenues of $114,526,254. The FY 2010111 budgeted Measure A revenues were $114.7 million. As a result of the higher revenues, there is a related increase in the Measure A local streets and roads allocations that are turned back and disbursed to the county and eligible cities. Accordingly, a budget adjustment is required to increase budgeted Measure A local streets and roads revenues and expenditures, as follows: Measure A Local FY 2010/11 FY 2010/11 Budget Streets and Roads Budget Allocations (actual) Adjustment Western County $ 24,226,000 $ 26,350,100 $ 2,124,100 Coachella Valley 9,539,000 10,009,600 470,600 Palo Verde Valley 813,000 866,800 53,800 Total $ 34,578,000 $ 37,226,500 $ 2,648,500 " Agenda Item 7 A 1 Financiallnfonnation In Fiscal Year Budget: No Year: FY 2010/11 Amount: $2,648,500 revenues $2,648,500 expend itu res Source of Funds: ! Measure A Local Streets and Roads Budget Adjustment: I Yes. GLlProject Accounting No.: ~Procedures Approved: 267 71 401 40101 $2,124,100 we LSR revenues 267 71 86104 2,124,100 we LSR expenditures 25771 401 40101 470,600 ev LSR revenues 25771 86104 470,600 ev LSR expenditures 234 71 401 40101 53,800 PVV LSH revenues 23471 86104 53,800 PVV LSR expenditures ~~ I Date: r 09/2U/LUll • • Agenda Item 7 A • 2 " RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION DATE: October 12, 2011 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Budget and Implementation Committee John Standiford, Deputy Executive Director THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Executive Director SUBJECT: Participation in Regional Grant Regarding Express and To" Lanes BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item .is for the Commission to: 1 ) Direct staff to participate in the Southern California Association of Governments' (SCAG) regional congestion pricing study known as the Express Travel Choices study; " 2) Approve Agreement No. 12-65-016-00 with SCAG in the amount of $68,400 for the Commission's share of the local match for the $4 million effort; and 3) Authorize the Chair, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission. BACKGROUND INFORMA TION: Earlier this year, SCAG, the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) and the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro) embarked on a planning effort regarding the use of tolls and other congestion pricing strategies for the Southern California region. The goal behind the effort is to bring about an� opportunity for transportation agencies in Southern California to coordinate their ongoing efforts to develop toll facilities to ensure that regional issues are considered and addressed. This is especially important in that congestion pricing and other innovative forms of transportation financing will likely be included in the next Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) that will be adopted by SCAG next year. With this goal in mind, SCAG and Metro applied for and subsequently received a $3.2 million federal grant to fund a study of a regional high occupancy toll (HOT) lane network and a cordon pricing study of various locations in Los Angeles . " Agenda Item 7B 3 The Commission's interest in this study is limited to consideration of a regional • HOT lane network because it is pursuing a $1.3 billion widening of State Route 91 through the city of Corona, which includes express lanes similar to those in Orange County. When surveying the region, in addition to the existing express lanes in Orange County, Metro is constructing HOT lanes on Interstates 10 and 110, San Bernardino Associated Governments (SANBAG) is studying the idea, the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) is considering HOT lanes on 1-405, and the Transportation Corridor Agencies (TCA) owns and operates three toll facilities in Orange County. In addition, there are two toll facilities currently .in operation in San Diego County, which is outside the SCAG region but relevant to motorists throughout Southern California. Each of these facilities differs slightly in terms of their operation, location, regional impact, and philosophy behind their development. For example, Metro is converting existing high occupancy vehicle lanes into HOT lanes to improve traffic flow and fund additional transit service, while the Commission's SR-91 Corridor Improvement Project seeks to expand highway capacity while offering more efficient public transit service along the corridor. By providing a share of the local match for this study, the Commission will continue to play a key role in providing input and guidance regarding the direction of the work effort. The effort will be helpful to Riverside County's SCAG representatives as they consider issues involving the RTP. In the past, the • Commission has helped fund the local match of a regional study involving goods movement that was led by SCAG, but involved the participation of transportation agencies throughout the region. The $68,400 amount represents the Commission's share of the portion of the grant that involves the HOT lane network. Overall, a match of $800,000 is needed to ensure a grant of $3.2 million. The HOT lane network portion of the grant represents 43 percent of the match amount and is being split five ways. The Commission, OCT A, and SANBAG are expected to pay the same amount of $68,400 each, while Metro and SCAG will pay a higher amount totaling $297,400 each due to the cordon area pricing component of the study exclusive to los Angeles County. Preparation of Agreement No. 12-65-016-00 with SCAG for the Commission's share of the match amount has not been completed. Staff recommends that the Commission authorize the Executive Director, subject to legal counsel review, to execute the agreement. Cordon pricing involves a toll charge that is assessed on motorists for entering a particular area during congested hours. It is currently used in congested areas of london, Singapore, and Stoc'kholm. It is usually confined to the Central Business District, airports, and other high activity areas. This kind of financing scheme is Agenda Item 7B • 4 " not being considered in Riverside, Orange, or San Bernardino Counties, and that particular component of the study will not involve a local match outside of SCAG and Metro. Financiallnfonnation In Fiscal Year Budget: I Yes I Year: I FY 2011/12 Amount: J $68,400 i Source of Funds: ISTIP PPM funds Budget Adjustment: I No GLlProject Accounting No.: 652040815011066581501 cal Procedures Approved: '"1.1" ~)~ I Date: I 09/20/2011 Attachment: Express Travel Choices (Phase I/) " " Agenda Item 7B 5 Value Pricing Pilot Program Express Travel Choices (Phase 1/) Proposal • This page intentionaHy left blank • • 7 " February 2, 2011 Ms. Angela Jacobs FHWA Office of Operations Mail Stop: E86-205 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE Washington, DC 20590 RE: Value Pricing Pilot Program -Express Trovel Choices (Phose II) Proposal Dear Ms. Jacobs: The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), and Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro) have expended significant resources over the last three years to study the potential for using value pricing strategies to combat growing congestion in Southern California. These strategies fit within our shared system management philosophy and reflect the fact that the region cannot simply build its way out of congestion. Our value pricing strategies provide an innovative approach to alter travel behavior and encourage the use of alternative modes. In addition, these strategies will help Southern California meet its greenhouse gas (GHG) emission reduction commitments under California Senate Bill 375 (SB 375) . " SCAG's regional congestion pricing study, also known as the Express Travel Choices study, represents nearly $4 million in resource expenditures to facilitate enhanced evaluation and understanding of travel behavioral impacts from pricing. Caltrans, Metro, and other transportation partners in the region have contributed several million in additional pre-implementation funds by conducting demonstration projects on the 1-110 and 1-10 and planning for other value pricing projects. These efforts have enabled the region to move beyond planning and feasibility testing. However, the region needs federal financial assistance to move more aggressively in that direction. Findings from the Express Travel Choices study indicate that reducing congestion can have a significant impact on Southern California's economy. For every 10-percent reduction in delay, the region will add $17 billion annually in Gross Regional Product and 132,000 total jobs. California and the region need a substantial federal contribution to facilitate implementation as quickly as possible. Relying on only state and local funding would delay implementation and realization of these economic benefits. Southern California's transportation partners are submitting this full grant application to the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) to seek funding assistance from the Value Pricing Pilot (VPP) program in response to the Federal Register notice dated October 19, 2010. We propose to develop an implementation plan, Express Travel Choices (Phase II), for a two-pronged pricing strategy: 1) Build-out of the existing and planned managed network of express/HOT lanes across Southern California. 2) Integration with one or more pilot projects for cordon/area pricing within specific major activity " centers (e.g., downtown Los Angeles urban core and the vicinity of the Los Angeles World Airports complex). 8 Ms. Jacobs February 2, 2011 We previously submitted a sketch plan that summarized our proposed value pricing project for review and comment by FHWA. We appreciate the guidance you provided and have addressed all comments • received in our proposal: • Provide detailed budget breakdown by task. We provide a detailed itemized budget for developing the implementation plan in Section 10 of this proposal. We have scaled our request for VPP program funds back to $4 million. We understand that this may still be high in comparison to the total funds available to award. The itemized budget should allow the review team to select higher priority portions of the proposal to receive funding, if sufficient funds are not available for the full requested amount. • Identify champion and attach supporting documentation on potential to obtain State Legislature approval of cordon/area pricing. The City of Los Angeles is a major supporter and a letter of support is included in Appendix B. The State Legislature has previously indicated support for value pricing strategies with recent passage of California Assembly Bill 798 (AB 798). • Provide quantitative measures ofpotential impacts by strategies. Our proposed value pricing strategy integrates both express/HOT lanes and cordon/area pricing. In Section 5 of our proposal, we provide our best estimates of how the value pricing strategy will meet the VPP program goals. As part of our implementation plan, SCAG will continue to enhance its travel demand model to capture the impact on level of service, flows, speeds, safety, mode choice, route,and time-of-day, auto occupancy, transit usage, and parking utilization. The implementation plan will also include an evaluation of the performance of the pricing alternatives. Air quality and GHG impacts will be included in the analysis. • Address the eligibility of hybrid vehicles. California Vehicle Code §5205.5 allows for 85,000 Clean • Air Vehicle Stickers to be issued to hybrid vehicles. All 85,000 stickers have been assigned. Recent State law, Senate Bill 535 extends the use of Clean Air Stickers for hybrids through July 1, 2011. The stickers must also be reauthorized by FHWA and will expire sooner if reauthorization is not provided. Carpool lane use may be restricted at any time by State and federal law for all Clean Air Vehicles carrying fewer occupants than the posted minimum requirement, if their presence is determined by Caltrans to contribute to increased traffic congestion, increased travel times, and decreased sustained travel speeds. Hybrids are currently treated as standard vehicles on the 91 Express Lanes and the Metro's ExpressLanes demonstration projects on the 1-110 and 1-10. Hybrids are expected to be treated similarly under the proposed express/HOT lane network and cordon/area pricing strategies. However, this issue will be explored in the implementation plan. Southern California's transportation partners thank you and FHWA for your leadership. FHWA's support for Metro's Congestion Reduction Demonstration Project has helped Los Angeles reduce congestion and establish a foundation for value pricing as part our system management toolkit. Our proposed pre­ implementation project will build on this previous pioneering effort and continue to break new ground by testing cordon/area pricing with a regional express/HOT lane network. This will be the first place in the United States that cordon/area pricing will be integrated with a regional HOT lane network. According to Texas Transportation Institute's Urban Mobility Report, Southern California leads the nation in congestion. As such, we are an ideal laboratory for testing innovative congestion reduction • 9 Ms. Jacobs February 2, 2011 • measures. Our proposed pre-implementation project will provide a valuable addition to the VPP program. We ask you to consider the following aspects of our application: • The project is located in the nation's second largest metropolitan area and the most congested region. • The project includes cordon/area pricing, which is a less-tested, innovative strategy. • The project will use traveler surveys to advance the understanding of traveler behavior and transportation economics. It will also build on public opinion surveys conducted for the Express Travel Choices study to assess user acceptance of these strategies. • The project can take advantage of the region's already extensive monitoring capabilities through the Freeway Performance Measurement System (PeMS). In combination with traveler surveys, we will monitor the effects on driver behavior, congestion dynamics (e.g., speeds, traffic volumes, and travel time reliability), as well as transit ridership. • The project will help the nation get more out the existing infrastructure without major expansion and improve mobility, travel time reliability, and safety. • The project combines managed lanes with cordon/area pricing strategies not tested elsewhere in the United States. • The project encourages the use of alternative travel modes and supports efforts to reduce GHG emissions and to promote environmental sustainability. • The project builds on extensive regional studies of congestion pricing to enhance implementation. • Additionally, our proposal directly meets the core outcome measures identified by FHWA as follows: • Livability. Our proposal builds on regional efforts to promote smart growth and integrated transportation and land use decision-making. It targets areas in which we have invested heavily in transit and neighborhood design. Complementary value pricing strategies (especially cordon/area pricing) will leverage this investment and promote non-motorized travel as a viable alternative. • Sustainability. As part of the overafl 2012 Regional Transportation Plan, the region will reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 8 percent per capita by 2020 and by 13 percent per capita by 2035. These reductions in climate change related emissions cannot be achieved without value pricing strategies. Based on our initial analysis, a broad array of pricing strategies is needed to achieve our reduction goals for greenhouse gas emissions. • Equity. Southern California's experience with HOT lanes has taught us that value pricing can be less regressive than traditional transportation funding sources. It has also given us opportunities to develop mitigation measures, such as Metro's Toll Credit Program, to address equity concerns. • Congestion reduction. Our proposal benefits from cutting-edge work in the region to promote solutions to our long-standing congestion problem. This ranges from development of the nation's most extensive HOV system to regional deployment of ramp metering, freeway service patrol, traveler information services, and other strategies focused on optimizing the use and productivity of our existing transportation infrastructure. Value pricing will serve as a critical addition to our congestion management approach. • Safety. The combination of express/HOT lanes and cordon/area pricing will result in a substantial shift to tranSit, reducing the overall amount of driving and cutting exposure to • crashes . 10 Ms. Jacobs February 2, 2011 • State of good repair. Our strategies are anticipated to make additional funds available for operations and maintenance along the corridors where they are implemented. Furthermore, these strategies will helps to maximize operational performance and avoid the need for • expansion. In the long-term, this reduces our overall system maintenance needs. We look forward to working with you and your staff throughout the evaluation and screening process. If you have any questions about our proposed pre-implementation project, please feel free to contact myself, Annie Nam of SCAG at (213) 236-1827 or Stephanie Wiggins of Metro at (213) 922-1023. Sincerely, Frank Quon Deputy District Director Division of Operations, Caltrans District 7 ~Metro ASSO(IATIOH of GOVERNMENTS • • 11 " Value Pricing Pilot Program Express Travel Choices (Phase /I) Proposal TABLE OF CONTENTS BACKGROUND INFORMATION .......................................................................................................................... 1 Contact Person ..............................................................................................................................................7 Description of Agencies Requesting Funding ............................................................................................... 7 Funding Only Statement ............................................................................................................................... 8 Description of Operating Agencies ............................................................................................................... 8 CORE APPLICATION .............................................................................................................................................. 9 1 Description of Congestion Problem ......................................................................................................... 11 2 Proposed 'Pricing Program ....................................................................................................................... 15 3 Facilities Covered ..................................................................................................................................... 22 4 Anticipated Effects ................................................................................................................................... 23 5 Addressing Program Goals ....................................................................................................................... 24 6 Social and Economic Effects ..................................................................................................................... 28 7 Role of Alternative Modes ....................................................................................................................... 29 8 Project Tasks ............................................................................................................................................32 9 Project Timeline .................................................................................................. ................................... 38 H " 10 Itemized Budget .....................................................................................................................................39 11 Monitoring Plan .....................................................................................................................................40 12 Finance and Revenue Plan ..................................................................................................................... 41 13 Previous Public Involvement .................................................................................................................. 42 14 legal and Administrative Requirements ................................................................................................ 42 15 Private Entity Involvement ..................................................................................................................... 43 16 Toll Collection Equipment ...................................................................................................................... 44 APPENDICES Appendix A: California HOV!Express lane Business Excerpt Appendix B: letters of Support Appendix C: Recent Media Clips Appendix D: Evaluation Framework for 1-10 and 1-110 Pricing Demonstrations -Executive Summary Appendix E: Copy of Title 21 " 12 " This page intentionally left blank " " 13 Value Pricing Pilot Program Express Travel Choices (Phose II) Proposal • • BACKGROUND INFORMA TlON • 1 14 Value Pricing Pilot Program Express Travel Choices (Phose II) Proposal • This page intentionally left blank • 2 • 15 Value Pricing Pilot Program Express Travel Choices (Phose II) Proposal • The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), and los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro), have expended significant resources over the last three years to study the potential for using value pricing strategies to combat growing congestion in Southern California. These strategies fit within our shared system management philosophy and reflect the fact that the region cannot simply build its way out of congestion. The strategies provide an innovative approach to alter travel behavior and encourage the use of alternative travel modes. In addition, value pricing strategies have the potential to help Southern California meet its greenhouse gas (GHG) emission reduction commitments under California Senate Bill 375 (SB 375). Mobility Challenges Vehicle-miles traveled (VMT) in the SCAG region has grown slightly faster than population (see Figure 1). While this indicates that per capita VMT continues to grow, it has worrying implications for congestion and GHG emissions. The SCAG region is already experiencing hyper-congestion, so even small additions to VMT will generate large increases in traveler delay. Over the last decade, vehicle-hours of delay have grown twice as fast as population. Without measures to curtail VMT, congestion will get much worse. Figure 1: Growth in Population, VMT, and Congestion in Southern California • -0-Daily Vehicle-Hours of Delay 45% -i!r:-Vehicle·Miles Traveled (VMT) -0-Population 40% -Total Directional Urban Freeway Miles 35% ;::::: <:> <:> 30% N 00 '" '"=. 25% OJ.., " '" .c >0%u C OJ ~ OJ 15%0­ 100'. Source: SCAG Express Travel Choices Study • Caltrans and the region understand that system management practices will be critical to addressing congestion. In its 2004 Regional Transportation Plan, SCAG recognized that infrastructure expansion has 3 16 Value Pricing Pilot Program Express Travel Choices (phase /I) Proposal not kept pace with demand, and adopted a system management philosophy to address Southern California's current and future transportation needs in a comprehensive manner. Similarly, Caltrans developed its Transportation Management System (TMS) Master Plan. The TMS Master Plan outlines a • new approach to improve mobility across California that includes an emphasis on productivity, reliability, flexibility, safety, and performance using TMS elements, Active Transportation Demand Management (ATOM)' and other operational strategies. Figure 2 illustrates core components of these system management approaches. As with several recent federal initiatives, the emphasis is on getting more out of the region's existing transportation system through innovative approaches. To support the system management philosophy, Caltrans, SCAG, and local agencies have embarked on a series of Corridor System Management Plan (CSMP) studies to identify bottlenecks and potential system management strategies for improving system performance. Figure 2: Components of System Management Philosophy • Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas Emissions The projected increase in traffic and congestion will compound existing air quality problems in Southern California. Despite improvements gained in the last two decades, the SCAG region continues to have the worst air quality in the nation. Much of the region exceeds the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) identified in the federal Clean Air Act. Given that over one-third of air pollutants in the region come from transportation sources, rapidly worsening traffic congestion poses ongoing air quality challenges and health threats to the public. Of the people nationwide that are exposed to PM 2.5 levels exceeding the federal health-based standard, 52 percent live in the SCAG region. With pending 4 • 17 Value Pricing Pilot Program Express Travel Choices (Phose /I) Proposal • proposed revisions to strengthen the NAAQS for ground-level ozone, there is greater urgency placed on the region's ability to manage congestion better and achieve air quality goals. Efforts to reduce GHG emissions present a tremendous challenge to the transportation sector. Transportation represents 38 percent of total emissions and is the largest source of GHG emissions in California. The State of California has aggressively committed to reducing its contribution to climate change by passing Assembly Bill 32 (the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006) and Senate Bill 375 (SB 375). AB 32 established a 2020 GHG emissions reduction goal and directed the California Air Resources Board (CARB) to develop discrete early actions for reducing GHG emissions. SB 375 enhances California's ability to reach its AB 32 goals by promoting good planning with the goal of more sustainable communities. SB 375 requires CARB to develop 2020 and 2035 GHG emission reduction targets for passenger vehicles for each MPO region in California. Each MPO must prepare a "sustainable communities strategy" (SCS) to meet its GHG emission reduction target through integrated land use, housing, and transportation planning. Once adopted, the SCS is incorporated into the region's Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). • As part of its SCS, SCAG and its local partners are seeking to reduce GHG emissions from passenger vehicles through incentives for more compact and efficient development, and more sustainable transportation and housing choices. It is expected that changes in residential development and land-use patterns, such as higher density, mixed-use development, and related increases in pedestrian acceSSibility, would be the key parts of the strategy employed to reduction GHG emissions. However, achieving the GHG emission reduction targets cannot be accomplished through land-use changes alone. Complementary strategies are needed . Supportive transportation policies and investments, including innovative pricing and demand management strategies, will reduce reliance on automobile use, while encouraging use of transit and non-motorized modes. Ultimately this will lead to GHG emissions reductions. Value priCing forms a critical part of the SCS for Southern California. Express Travel Choices SCAG has led a regional congestion pricing study, also known as Express Travel Choices, to facilitate enhanced evaluation and understanding of travel behavioral impacts from pricing. This study represents $4 million in resource expenditures for pre-implementation analysis of value pricing in the region. Caltrans, Metro, and other transportation partners in the region have contributed several million in additional pre-implementation funds by conducting demonstration projects on the 1-110 and \-10 and planning for other value pricing projects. These studies have enabled the region to move beyond planning and feasibility testing. However, the region needs federal financial assistance to move more aggressively in that direction. California and the region need a substantial federal contribution to enable Southern California to move towards implementation as quickly as possible. Relying on only state and local funding would delay implementation and realization of economic benefits. Findings from the Express Travel Choices study indicate that reducing congestion can have a significant impact on Southern California's economy. For every lO-percent reduction in delay, the region will add $17 billion annually in Gross Regional Product • and 132,000 total jobs . 5 18 Value Pricing Pilot Program Express Travel Choices (Phase /I) Proposal Caltrans, SCAG, and Metro ("Southern California's transportation partners") are proposing to develop an operational implementation plan, Express Travel Choices (Phase II), for a two-pronged pricing strategy that includes: • 1) Build-out of the existing and planned managed network of express/HOT lanes across Southern California. 2) Integration with one or more pilot projects for cordon/area pricing within specific major activity centers (e.g., downtown los Angeles urban core and the vicinity of the los Angeles World Airports complex). The strategy would build on the Express Travel Choices study and include the pre-implementation work necessary for deployment by 2015-2016. The two-pronged approach will address core performance objectives of reducing congestion, optimizing overall regional transportation system productivity, reducing emissions to meet regional air quality goals, and identifying more efficient means of generating revenue to support transportation system investments and associated mitigation. Political support already exists for one or more pilot projects beyond existing demonstration initiatives. There is interest by key local jurisdictions, including the City of los Angeles, to establish pilot demonstrations for cordon/area pricing within major activity centers. Federal grant assistance through the Value Pricing Pilot (VPP) program would facilitate accelerated development of such demonstration templates for the region and potentially other jurisdictions throughout the nation. Southern California's transportation partners believe that the following aspects of the proposed Express Travel Choices (Phase II) pre-implementation project will be a valuable addition to the VPP program: • The project is located in the nation's second largest metropolitan area and the most congested region. • • The project includes cordon/area pricing, which is a less-tested, innovative strategy. • The project will use traveler surveys to advance the understanding of traveler behavior and transportation economics. It will also build on public opinion surveys conducted for the Express Travel Choices study to assess user acceptance of these strategies. • The project can take advantage of the region's already extensive monitoring capabilities through the Freeway Performance Measurement System (PeMS). In combination with traveler surveys, we will monitor the effects on driver behavior, congestion dynamics (e.g., speeds, traffic volumes, and travel time reliability), as well as transit ridership. • The project will help the nation get more out the existing infrastructure without major expansion and improve mobility, travel time reliability, and safety. • The project combines managed lanes with cordon/area pricing strategies not tested elsewhere in the United States. • The project encourages the use of alternative travel modes and supports efforts to reduce GHG emissions and to promote environmental sustainability. • The project builds on extensive regional studies of congestion pricing to enhance implementation. 6 • 19 Value Pricing Pilot Program Express Travel Choices (Phase II) Proposal • Contact Person As requested in the Federal Register Notice, this application is being made through the State Department of Transportation (DOT), Caltrans, which already has an established VPP program. Caltrans District 7 in Los Angeles will act as the point of contact on behalf of all three requesting agencies participating in the application: Name: Frank Quon Title: Deputy District Director, Division of Operations, Caltrans District 7 Email: frank.quon@dot.ca.gov Phone: (213) 897-0362 Questions may also be directed to Annie Nam of SCAG at (213) 236-1827 or Stephanie Wiggins of Metro at (213) 922-1023. Description of Agencies Requesting Funding This application represents a partnership among Caltrans, SCAG, and Metro -the "Southern California's transportation partners." This collaborative effort will help Caltrans manage the freeway system better; SCAG meet its mobility, livability, and GHG emission reduction commitments; and Metro make transit a more attractive alternative. • The California Department of Transportation (Ca/trans) manages more than 50,000 miles of California's highway and freeway lanes, provides inter-city rail services, permits more than 400 public-use airports and special-use hospital heliports, and works with local agencies. Caltrans has been in the vanguard for innovative transportation solutions by starting one of the earliest ramp metering systems in the country in the Los Angeles area, demonstrating managed lane approaches on the SR-91, promoting Integrated Corridor Management OCM), and making use of archived traffic data for monitoring transportation improvements through the Freeway Performance Measurement System (PeMSj. The Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro) is the California-chartered regional transportation planning agency (RTPA) and the public transportation operating agency for Los Angeles County. As a result of these dual roles, Metro serves as transportation planner and coordinator, designer, builder, and transit operator for the nation's largest and most populous county. More than 9.6 million people nearly one-third of California's residents -live and work within its 1,433-square­ mile service area. Through its many bus, bus rapid transit (BRT), light-rail, and heavy rail lines, Metro operates one of the largest public transportation systems in the United States. Metro administers three half-cent transportation sales taxes approved by county voters. The Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) serves as the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) for the six-county Southern California region that includes Los Angeles, Orange, San Bernardino, Riverside, Ventura and Imperial counties. SCAG is the largest MPO and council of governments in the United States, representing over 190 cities and 19 million residents . • 7 20 Value Pricing Pilot Program Express Trovel Choices (Phase 1/) Proposal Funding Only Statement •This application is seeking funding from the VPP program to support pre-implementation activities. Tolling authority will be sought through one of the other programs identified in the Federal Register as appropriate at a later date. Description of Operating Agencies Pre-implementation work will be conducted jointly by SCAG, Caltrans, and Metro in coordination with affected jurisdictions within the six-county SCAG region. Agencies anticipated to be responsible for operating, maintaining, and enforcing the pricing program include Caltrans, Metro, Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA), Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTq, San Bernardino Associated Governments (SAN BAG), and partnering local jurisdictions. The Orange County Transportation Authority {OCTA) is a multi-modal transportation agency serving Orange County. OCTA is the California-chartered RTPA for Orange County. The agency plans freeway and road improvements and operates countywide bus and paratransit service as well as the 91 Express lanes toll facility. The Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) is the RTPA for Riverside County. RCTC plans and implements transportation and transit improvements, assists local governments with money for local streets and roads, and helps smooth the way for commuters and goods movement. RCTC administers Measure A, a half-cent transportation sales tax approved by county voters in 1988 and reauthorized in 2002. San Bernardino Associated Governments (SANBAG) is the council of governments ~nd RTPA for San Bernardino County. SANBAG is responsible for cooperative regional planning and furthering an efficient multi-modal transportation system. SAN BAG administers Measure I, a half-cent transportation sales tax approved by county voters in 1989. The City of Los Angeles is the most populous city in California and the second most populous in the United States, with a population of approximately 3.8 million on a land area of about 470 square miles. In addition to operating three public transit systems (Commuter Express, DASH, and City Ride), the City is responsible for 4,300 signalized intersections, 6,500 miles of streets, tens of thousands of traffic control devices, and operation of one of the most advanced city-based traffic control center (ATSCAC). • 8 • 21 " Value Pricing Pilot Program Express Travel Choices (Phose 1/) Proposal " CORE APPLICA TION " 9 22 Value Pricing Pilot Program Express Travel Choices (Phase 1/) Proposal • This page intentionally left blank • 10 • 23 Value Pricing Pitot Program Express Travel Choices (Phose II) Proposal' • 1 DESCRIPTION OF CONGESTION PROBLEM The Southern California region covers the six counties of Imperial, los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, and Ventura and has over 19 million residents. It has also been consistently ranked as the most congested metropolitan area in the nation. The Texas Transportation Institute (TIl) estimates in its Urban Mobility Report (2010) that for the los Angeles-long Beach-Santa Ana area: • Up to 86 percent of peak period travel is congested and 57 percent of lane-miles are congested. • Average commuters lose 63 hours per year due to congestion. • Congestion costs $12 billion annually in terms of wasted time and fuel. SCAG estimates that, on average, every driver loses more than 20 minutes per day in delay, and collectively about 5.7 million person-hours are lost each day to traffic delays. Despite significant investments in rail capacity and the second highest bus ridership in the nation, transit constitutes less than four percent of all trips. Conditions are expected to worsen as the region grows to 24 million residents by 2035. Per capita daily delay will rise to over 30 minutes, and peak period freeway speeds will drop below 15 miles per hour on most major routes. According to the INRIX National Traffic Scorecard (see Figure 3}, the los Angeles metropolitan area was the most congested metropolitan area in the nation. • In addition to providing information for the Urban Mobility Report, Caltrans conducts detailed analyses of urban mobility through its Highway Congestion Monitoring Program (HICOMP). For over 20 years, Caltrans has collected extensive information on the duration and extent of freeway congestion. In 200g, the SCAG region accounted for over 55 percent of California's freeway congestion. With 127,122 daily vehicle-hours of delay (DVHD), Los Angeles County alone accounted for about a third of the state total. Figure 4 shows where freeway congestion occurs in Los Angeles County -basically on every freeway. According to the 2008 HICOMP Report, 23 percent (or 29,504 DVHD) of the congestion in Los Angeles County occurs within five miles of downtown los Angeles (Le., area bounded by 1-5, US 101, 1-10, and 1-110). This area accounts for 13 percent of all congestion in the SCAG region. If one assumes a $10 value of time and average vehicle occupancy (AVO) of 1.1, the congestion in this area causes travel delays worth over $80 million dollars per year. Increasing international and domestic cargo volumes place even greater demands on the region's highly congested network as goods and containers compete with everyday commuter traffic. Mor~ than 75 percent of the containers processed by the San Pedro Bay Ports in 2006 and 2007 involved truck trips within the SCAG region to rail intermodal facilities, warehouses, or transload facilities. These trucks will contribute to more congestion as the number of trucks is projected to more than double for several major highways by 2035. SCAG's travel demand model projects that regional daily truck VMT will increase from 29.0 million in 2003 to 50.4 million by 2035. Delays caused by congestion could increase the cost of transporting goods by as much as 50 to 250 percent. This would have measurable costs to the national and regional economy. A recent SCAG analysis of the imported goods traveling through the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach, show that almost 75 percent of the goods get consumed outside California. Clearly, increasing the cost of transportation for these goods would lead to negative economic ramifications for the nation. Moreover, California's economy • ranks as the gth largest in the world between Italy and Brazil. The region's economy ranks 14th between Mexico and Korea . 11 24 Value Pricing Pilot Program Express Travel Choices (Phase II) Proposal Figure 3: INRIX Nation Traffic Scorecard Excerpt 1£1 L.os Angeles Metropolitan Area National Congestion Rank: #1 8,a'n National Congestion Rank Trav..ITimeTa~-' -Rank ~.:; ,... ~" ­~~ '"" ~.t .....g "" 2009 200$ 2007 2006 35% 31% 45% 44% 121 What Was theWOr$t HQur? Thursday. 5-6 PM [69fJ'b TravelTime Taxi] How Much Congestion Was Peak'v,,-Non-Peak Period? Metro National Population Rank: #2 (12,873.000) 1iiII1I1I1I1I~IIIII!rl€!IIIII"!1I1I For a One-Way, /n 2009, all Average Driver /Ilcurred,a Annual Travel Time Tax' lin HOII") of•••IJncongeste.J1 Peak Period' los Angeles Metro National {ommuteof.u AM PM Total AM PM Total 15 Minutes \>.7 27.7 43.4 4.4 6.7 11.1 30 Minutes. 31.4 55.3 86.8 8.7 13.4 22.1 60 Minute~ 62.9 110.7 173.5 17.4 26,8 44.3 Wh.tW.s theWo'$I Place and TIme? Harbor r"'yiCi\-110 NB,~ 8th 5treetiExit 22. Thursday 5-6 PM [6 mph ov-erage SIX.;:dI035 m!if: s'2gmentj HO\.r~ol L.>r~h\""I~) C(lo16~!.I.'on' Av(..t.>jj/;S,>o?e-c I'/he!lc>'<'.g"m.'o' lmp:1/ ::,1; lSA, "" ,;t<~,-°A:~ """c: 165, 15.1 ,... ; ~ =~S~l~£~~~~~E~~~~~~~::~t~~Jr!t:~~~~~'l,::~;~Q~:,:~~ :~.:~:~~'~~:~~:~f.::~:~~:'I:::::~::~~::0:-::::: ~~~~lo-{ ~·ear,~ ;(~, ~cli::o')~ I-I~ lir.,~d~~ '0 (,.•~,g~ti~n ~ ·1-~;~~::;1~~~~~::~~~,~!"~'l;;,i~a:the offieal 'eon '01 a fUJX!lcr,al ;e::;tu;.n t;-,a,e.;:! ¥Cu'-,{J ''''l~t>.:r (~~a d::.1 :0:,;<$\ :0.1Y.)J.l~J:~<; N~~·d 0r "1",r.&'J~ ::<-,U,she-j tor th,::..I~. G0'.Io:n,well"S AdditbJdiMOI'muHotto" rhf> fJKrfrodologHs UHd III thiJ ,,,portDI. DI'CIDobI"Dthnp:l/J<'Ot"UJ,d.illrix.conr. THE LEADING PROVIDER OFTRAFFIC INFORMATION A-1 12 • • • 25 Value Pricing Pilot Program Express Travel Choices (Phose /I) Proposal • Figure 4: Morning and Evening Congestion in Los Angeles County • Source: Ca/trans, 2008 H/COMP Report • 13 26 Value Pricing Pilot Program Express Travel Choices (Phase /I) Proposal Corridor System Management Plans •Caltrans and SCAG recently developed and prepared Corridor System Management Plans (CSMPs) covering all modes to provide an in-depth understanding of highway corridors, including their infrastructure, demand profiles, related land-use developments, modal interactions and mode shares, and environmental issues. The CSMPs focus on all aspects of the system management pyramid, particularly operational strategies and techniques. While SCAG and Caltrans led the effort, several other local jurisdictions were involved, including Metro, the South Bay Cities Council of Governments, San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments, the City of los Angeles, and other cities along the corridors participated in the effort. Figure 5 illustrates CSMP corridors studied in los Angeles County. The CSMP corridors included the areas near downtown los Angeles and the los Angeles World Airports complex. Figure 5: CSMP Corridors in Los Angeles County • Source: Ca/trans The CSMP prepared for each corridor includes: • Comprehensive corridor-wide performance assessment, including trends of different performance measures. • Identification of performance deficiencies along the corridor and the causes of these deficiencies. • Alternative scenarios of short-term and medium-term investments to address these deficiencies. • Tools to evaluate the scenarios and develop an implementation plan for strategies that provide the highest return on investment. • Consultation with stakeholders throughout and incorporation of their feedback to maximize acceptance of the final recommendations. 14 • 27 " Value Pricing Pilot Program Express Travel Choices (Phase 1/) Proposal 2 PROPOSED PRICING PROGRAM In this Express Trovel Choices (Phose II) pre-implementation project, Southern California's transportation partners propose to develop an operational implementation plan for a two-pronged pricing strategy that includes: 1) Build-out of the existing and planned managed network of express/HOT lanes across Southern California. 2) Integration with one or more pilot projects for cordon/area pricing within specific major activity centers (e.g., downtown los Angeles urban core and the vicinity of the Los Angeles World Airports complex). The strategy would build on the Express Trovel Choices study and include the pre-implementation work necessary to initiate deployment by 2015-2016. The two-pronged approach will address core performance objectives of reducing congestion, optimizing system productivity, reducing emissions to meet regional air quality goals, and generating revenue to support transportation system investments and mitigation needs. Political support already exists for one or more pilot projects beyond existing demonstration initiatives. In addition, key local jurisdictions, including the City of Los Angeles, are interested in establishing pilot demonstrations for cordon/area pricing within major activity centers. Federal grant assistance through the VPP program would enable accelerated deployment of " demonstration templates for the region. Since technical analysis is already underway, additional federal support would augment previous feasibility assessments as follows: 1) Phased implementation plan of an express lane/HOT network across jurisdictional boundaries, including system design speCifications, business rules, and institutional/legal framework. 2) Implementation plan for the establishment of cordon/area pricing pilot projects, including delineation of geographic perimeters, concept of operations, system design specifications, and institutional/legal framework. 3) Integrated assessment of operational parameters to address how a cordon/area pricing pilot would function in conjunction with the proposed network of express/HOT lanes. Express/HOT lane Network Phased Implementation Plan The first prong of the proposed pricing strategy is build-out of a regional network of express/HOT lanes. A phased implementation will provide segment-by-segment specifications. These specifications include design requirements to facilitate optimal performance and operational parameters for the initial regional network. The specification will also include business rules for facilitating network connectivity, promoting seamless user-interfaces across jurisdictional boundaries (e.g., occupancy requirements and pricing structure), and establishing a legal/institutional framework for operations. The business rules are intended to quell operational issues that may surface in a broad network of express/HOT lanes. For example, poorly synchronized or coordinated adjustments to pricing levels would have unintended consequences on travel behavior and congestion management. The plan will need to address " coordinated traffic management practices . 15 28 Value Pricing Pilot Program Express Travel Choices (Phase 1/) Proposal Preliminary phasing/performance analyses conducted though the Express Travel Choices study will be the starting point for more detailed corridor and system traffic simulation assessments. The initial •regional network (see Figure 6) is identified in Metro's Los Angeles County 2015 HOV to HOT Conversion Technical Feasibility Study and SCAG's Express Travel Choices study. It is also consistent with the State's HOV/Express Lane Business Plan. Many facilities are already under construction. Planned facilities for pricing include the implementation of a Congestion Pricing Demonstration Project on the existing 1-110 and 1-10 HOV lanes in Los Angeles County, implementation of Express Lanes on 1-15 in Riverside County, extension of the current SR-91 Express Lanes in Orange County to 1-15 in Riverside County, and evaluation of an express facility alternative for the 1-405 Improvement Project in Orange County. Additionally, traffic and revenue studies are currently underway for the 1-10 and 1-15 in San Bernardino County. Figure 6: Strategic Express/HOT Network o • Source: SCAG Express Travel Choices Study Recently completed studies and projects have identified numerous physical capacity and constructability constraints associated with a full build-out of an express/HOT network. Nevertheless, further innovation with operational strategies and better interface with existing investments can facilitate system integration. The implementation plan will explore these opportunities further to address connectivity requirements. The strategic express/HOT network shown in Figure 6 was developed in the SCAG Express Choices study after a thorough evaluation of the region's congestion dynamics. For some corridors, Caltrans and SCAG have developed CSMPs and identified corridor bottlenecks. For other corridors, the performance monitoring capabilities available in PeMS helped Southern California's transportation partners identify 16 • 29 Value Pricing Pilot Program Express Travel Choices (Phose II) Proposal • bottlenecks. Figure 7 shows a compilation of the region's freeway bottlenecks. Most delay on the region's freeway system is experienced along corridors that serve inter-regional/inter-county travel. Some corridors experience over 1,000 vehicle-hours of delay daily at critical bottlenecks. Figure 7: Regional Freeway Bottlenecks P....,liolllO!1lenec. () 12 4 6 a 10 I , I , I , " I , I t~-1Ht<s • Source: SCAG Express Travel Choices Study The nature of congestion dynamics in the region is further explained through inter-county trip flows. Figure 8 and Figure 9 show the magnitude of inter-county work trips and non-work trips in the SCAG region. These long-distance trips represent a tremendous demand exerted on local freeways. For many facilities, half to two-thirds of the peak hour travel is due to inter-county traffic rather than intra-county or local travel. These dynamics reinforce the need and the potentially significant benefits from a regional-priced network . • 17 30 Value Pricing Pilot Program Express Travel Choices (Phase II) Proposal Figure B: 2020 Weekday County-to-County Work Trip Flows (in thousands of trips) • Source: SCAG Express Travel Choices Study Figure 9: 2020 Weekday County-to-County Non-Work Trip Flows (in thousands oftrips) • Source: SCAG Express Travel Choices Study 18 • 31 Value Pricing Pilot Program Express Travel Choices (Phase 1/) Proposal • Cordon/Area Pricing Pilot Project Template The second prong of the pricing strategy is conducting a pilot project for cordon/area pricing within one or more specific major activity centers. Federal funding support is needed to develop a detailed demonstration template for establishing cordon/area pricing. While necessary for the SCAG region, the template may be transferable to other urban areas throughout the nation. The polycentric nature of Southern California, the resulting complexity in travel patterns, and geographic concentration of wor~ production and attractions will present some unique challenges for our implementation plan. However, as shown in Figure 10, there are opportunities for identifying strategic nodes as potential candidates for cordon/area pricing. Figure 10: Peak Period Home to Work Productions and Attractions • Source: SCAG Express Travel Choices Study A demonstration template for cordon/area pricing would include operational parameters, such as: • Business rules that facilitate seamless interface with local traffic operations. • Technology deployment design requirements, including ITS architecture requirements. • legal/institutional analyses and framework for implementation. Two geographic areas (Le., downtown los Angeles and in the vicinity of the los Angeles World Airport complex) have been identified as initial candidates and are currently under evaluation (see Figure 11 for location). As part of the project template, Southern California's transportation partners will conduct a more detailed assessment of geographic perimeters, pricing structures (including variable rates and charge pointsL as well as policies and methods for revenue collection and distribution. Figure 12 illustrates a conceptual cordon/area pricing around downtown los Angeles in context with area transit • services . 19 32 Value Pricing Pilot Program Express Travel Choices (Phase /I) Proposal Figure 11: Cordon/Area Pricing Locations under Evaluation • • Source: SCAG Express TrC!vel Choices Study Southern California's transportation partners will need to tackle challenging integration issues, such as how to overlay cordon/area pricing onto existing assessment and business improvement districts as well as active parking management and pricing initiatives. Impacts on communities immediately adjacent to cordon/area pricing perimeters will need to be evaluated as well. In addition, the template must address concerns about impacts on commercial delivery vehicles and local business development. The current and projected economic climate dictates careful consideration of the economic impacts of any pricing strategy. The underlying goal is to develop a clear roadmap for integrating pricing into a comprehensive approach to congestion management. While this effort is focused on creating an implementation and performance template for Southern California, the lessons learned will be crucial for other metropolitan areas contemplating cordon/area pricing. 20 • 33 Value Pricing Pilot Program Express Travel Choices {Phose II} Proposal • Figure 12: Conceptual Cordon/Area Pricing Downtown Los Angeles • Source: SCAG Express Travel Choices Study Integrated Express/HOT Lane Network and Cordon/Area Pricing Assessment The dominate approach to designing a pricing program often involves isolated assessment of a single pricing strategy. The challenge for Southern California, however, is integrating multiple pricing strategies under consideration for a coordinated approach to implementation. Building on the implementation plan for the regional network of express/HOT lanes and pilot program for cordon/area • pricing, the integrated assessment will detail business rules that facilitate seamless interface for 21 34 3 Value Pricing Pilot Program Express Travel Choices (Phase ll) Proposal travelers and system operators across pricing strategies, document technology deployment requirements, and identify the legal/institutional steps that need to be taken to ensure timely and •successful implementation. FACILITIES COVERED The SCAG region has over 20,750 centerline miles and over 65,000 lane-miles of roadways. It includes the most extensive High-Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lane systems in the country (see Figure 13) -366 centerline miles in 2010, growing to 684 by 2035 -which could serve as the backbone of a regional HOT lane or managed lane system. The region also has an expanding network of express lanes and HOT lanes (see Figure 6 and Figure 13). The Express Travel Choices (Phase 1/) pre-implementation effort will encompass most of the region's urban core and cover Interstates, state and local highways, as well as major arterial routes. Figure 13: Southern California HOV System • Interregional HOV System Status -ElliSOn!) -Under Consl1uetloo -Design Stage Planning Slllge .... TOft ~(not includecl in totalS)., Ii) ill ~ HOV Dirac! Conne<:!Ol "'" Ff<M.'A'}ty !.)onSU\tCfiOU Source: Ca/trons and Metro Figure 6 (found earlier in this proposal in section 2) shows the strategic express /HOT lane network that will form the first prong of the pricing strategy. Planned facilities for pricing include the implementation of a Congestion Pricing Demonstration Project on the existing 1-110 and 1-10 HOV lanes in Los Angeles County, implementation of Express Lanes on 1-15 in Riverside County, extension of the current SR-91 Express Lanes in Orange County to 1-15 in Riverside County, and evaluation of an express facility 22 • 35 Value Pricing Pilot Program Express Travel Choices (Phase /I) Proposal • alternative for the 1-405 Improvement Project in Orange County. Additionally, pricing evaluations are currently underway for the 1-10 and 1-15 in San Bernardino County as well as the 1-710 South Freight Corridor in Los Angeles County. The initiatives already underway represent the first phase of the strategic express/HOT network. These corridors are anticipated to be followed by additional corridors being evaluated by Caltrans, SCAG, Metro, and other local jurisdictional partners. The second prong of the pricing strategy will involve highways and major arterial routes as part of cordon/area pricing. The implementation study will focus on one or two candidate locations. As previously referenced in section 2, Figure 11 shows the location of initial candidates (i.e., downtown Los Angeles and in the vicinity of the Los Angeles World Airport complex). 4 ANTICIPATED EFFECTS • Understanding the behavioral response of travelers is an important part of evaluating the policy implications of different forms of pricing. Depending on the type and extent of pricing and the specific implementation details, travelers may respond by shifting their primary travel route, departure time, travel mode, or destination. Alternatively, they may stop making certain trips or make them less often. SCAG recently conducted stated-preference surveys as part of the Express Travel Choices study. The purpose of the stated-preference survey was to estimate toll sensitivity, or the value of time (VOT), in the region as well as travelers' elasticities in shifting mode, route, time of day, and destination. The survey also sought to estimate the levels of trip reduction that could result from various pricing strategies. These estimates are being turned into inputs to the SCAG regional travel demand model, which will evaluate proposed pricing strategies and alternatives . The survey and choice model results indicate that pricing has a significant impact on travel behavior in the SCAG region. Overall, 40 percent of drivers indicated they have the flexibility to shift their departure time by a half-hour or more. Also, 20 percent of survey respondents indicated that they could change the destination of their trips. The initial models show that pricing facilities individually and as a regional network could substantially affect travel behavior through shifts in departure time, mode, and route. Similarly, the models show that cordon/area pricing could affect trip destinations and cause trip suppression. These effects can become quite significant as prices increase. Trip suppression results are illustrated in Figure 14 by income and trip distance for the work commute segment with no travel time difference at a $2.00 toll. Overall, Southern California's transportation partners expect the combination of express/HOT lane network with cordon/area pricing to have a very large impact on reducing congestion and encouraging the use of alternative modes. The cordon/area pricing is likely to have a particularly large impact in curtailing highway trips and encouraging transit use. More detailed estimates of the effects will be developed in the implementation plan using the travel demand model modified during the Express Travel Choices study . • 36 5 Value Pricing Pilot Program Express Travel Choices (Phase II) Proposal Figure 14: Trip Suppression -Work Commute Segment • 2.00% 1.75% 1.50% 1.25% 1.00% 0.75% 0.50% ~ 20 10 to .,0 60 50 70 Trip Distance Source: SCAG Express Travel Choices Study ADDRESSING PROGRAM GOALS • The congestion pricing program is intricately linked to other strategies being implemented in the region. Southern California's transportation partners have been developing, and implementing through pilot projects, an aggressive smart land-use strategy to reduce vehicular demand and meet the State's SB 375 mandate to reduce GHG emissions. In addition, Southern California's transportation partners have been actively implementing the transportation system management strategies identified in Caltrans' TMS Master Plan. The combination of pricing, land use, targeted transit investments, and operational traffic management strategies, is expected to yield substantial mobility and air quality benefits, while enhancing the region's ability to maintain and operate its transportation system in a fiscally responsible manner. Anticipated benefits from the region's integrated approach include: • Reducing per capita VMT by 6 percent by 2020 and by 14 percent by 2034. • Reducing GHG emissions by 20 percent by 2035, which is comparable to 1995 levels. • Reducing congestion up to 20 percent by 2035. • Improving freeway productivity (and traffic flow) up to 20percent by 2035. • Improving travel time reliability by 10 percent or more. Revenues from pricing will be dedicated to the priced corridors and affected areas. In addition to helping to operate and maintain roadways, priCing revenues will be used to expand and enhance transit services. The value pricing strategy proposed in this application provides a win-win scenario for all travelers, including those who choose to pay the congestion fee, those who use tranSit, and those who 24 • 37 Value Pricing Pilot Program Express Travel Choices (Phase 1/) Proposal • enjoy improved mobility on corridors with reduced vehicular demand. The program also benefits non­ travelers, since air quality and GHG emissions are expected to decline significantly. To address equity concerns, Southern California's transportation partners will apply many lessons from Metro's current Congestion Reduction Demonstration Project. These include coordinating the provision of transit services, providing toll credits, and offering options for the unbanked (Le., people lacking traditional checking or savings accounts). livability Our two-pronged pricing strategy is linked to other regional strategies and is expected to yield significant livability benefits for Southern California. In 200l, the region began a growth visioning exercise that identified locations for strategic investment and infill development (including areas with high potential for transit-oriented development); developed guidelines for establishing "complete communities" (e.g., a mix of land uses in strategic growth areas where most daily needs can be met by walking or cycling a short distance); and established the regional blueprint for future growth, known as Compass Blueprint. Potential locations for the cordon/area pricing pilots are consistent with the region's growth visioning effort and have received substantial investment in transit improvements. Value pricing will leverage existing land-use and transit investments and reduce the demand for motor vehicle use. This, in turn, will free land for activities that do not involve automobiles and reclaim travel corridors for non-motorized travel. • Initial findings from the Express Travel Choices study indicate that the expansion of pricing strategies already in the region will make funding available for non-motorized travel, additional transit services, and other transportation demand measures (e.g., expansion of ridesharing programs). While individual expreSS/HOT lane projects might provide revenue to fund faster bus service and expanded rideshare programs along specified corridors, the proposed integrated express/HOT lane network and cordon/area pricing pilots are expected to generate substantial revenues for travel choices throughout the region. Research conducted in the Express Travel Choices study indicates that integrating multiple priCing strategies affects traveler behavior and reinforces benefits anticipated from investments in alternative transportation modes. Sustainability The 2012 RTP for the SCAG region will incorporate the regional strategy for sustainable communities. Travel demand modeling suggests that this strategy will result in an 8-percent reduction in per capita GHG emissions for 2020 and a 13-percent per capita reduction by 2035. The proposed express/HOT lane network and cordon/area pricing are part of several strategies to achieve these GHG emission reduction goals. When developing its sustainable community strategy, Southern California's transportation partners found that the most effective measures involve relying on value pricing to influence traveler behavior, expanding transportation demand management (TDM) measures, and substantially increasing non-motorized travel. Value priCing may also provide additional revenues. It will be an integral part of how Southern California reduces its carbon footprint. A key objective for the managed network of expreSS/HOT lanes is to maximize the operational performance of the transportation system with minimal investment in new capacity. This will also • provide secondary benefits in avoiding the environmental impacts of capacity expansion. Along with on­ 25 38 Value Pricing Pilot Program Express Travel Choices (Phase II) Proposal going efforts to link land-use decisions with transportation investments, the regional express/HOT network and cordon/area pricing will result in a more sustainable Southern California. • Equity In the coming months, the Express Travel Choices study will analyze the equity impacts resulting from a managed network of express/HOT lanes and cordon/area pricing. Complementary transit and non­ motorized improvements to mitigate potential pricing impacts will be identified before work on the implementation plan is initiated. However, the region's experiences with the 91 Express lanes and Metro's ExpressLanes Demonstration Project reveal some of the potential equity impacts and mitigation measures to be expected. While equity is often cited as a potential issue with value pricing, tolls on the 91 Express lanes has impacted low-income residents less than ifthe lanes had been financed through sales tax measures. Dedicated sales taxes, passed by super-majorities, are the primary funding source for transportation improvements in Southern California. A 91 Express lane impact study found that middle and upper­ middle income travelers paid $26 million more each year under tolling than they would have through sales taxes, while the very poorest travelers saved money under tolling ($3 million less than if they had paid through sales taxes). The 91 Express lanes have also yielded operation improvements on the non­ tolled, mixed-flow lanes. Even though the express lanes are used predominately by middle and upper­ middle income travelers, lower-income travelers benefit without paying more. The 91 Express lanes are very popular among all income groups despite the higher fees. To address other equity concerns and the potential impacts of pricing on low-income commuters, Metro's ExpressLanes Demonstration Project includes a Toll Credit Program. This mitigation program • was approved by the Metro Board of Directors on March 25, 2010 and is the first of its kind in California. The program credits qualifying households with $25 for the account set-up/establishment fee. This credit can be applied to the transponder deposit or pre-paid toll deposit. The program also waives the monthly $3 non-usage maintenance fee. low-income commuters benefit substantially from the $70 million investment in the transit and rideshare elements included in the ExpressLanes program. Southern California's transportation partners expect to implement similar measures for the proposed network of express/HOT lanes and cordon/area pricing. Congestion Reduction Since the proposed pricing strategy integrates express/HOT lanes with cordon/area pricing, initial analysis suggests that the traveling public will experience measureable reductions in congestion and delay. The implementation plan focuses on maximizing the economic return of existing investments and optimizing the use of the existing infrastructure, rather than substantially expanding roadway capacity. In addition, cordon/area pricing is expected to increase transit utilization and leverage recent transit investments in the pilot project areas. Potential mode shifts are being analyzed on a corridor-by-corridor basis in the Express Travel Choices study for SCAG's 2012 RTP. The identified mode shifts will help the region decide whether sufficient transit capacity exists to meet the projected demand. If transit capacity is insufficient, pricing revenues can fund new multimodal capacity (including transit, non-motorized, and ridesharing). The implementation plan will leverage previous planning efforts and focus on components that require detailed analysis prior to implementation. 26 • 39 Value Pricing Pilot Program Express Travel Choices (Phase 1/) Proposal• The implementation plan is also linked to regional goods movement strategies. For example, the region is considering truck-only lanes with tolls along the 1-710 and an east-west corridor that links 1-710 with the rest of the region. like the value pricing strategies proposed in this application, truck pricing is expected to benefit freight traffic and other travelers. As part of its 2012 RTP, SCAG is preparing a regional goods movement strategy to identify specific improvements and will be evaluating the impacts of pricing on commercial vehicles. SCAG is conducting a stated-preference survey to measure the likely behavioral responses of truck drivers to pricing in Southern California. Safety Build-out of the express/HOT lane network and implementation of cordon/area pricing will yield substantial safety benefits through improved traffic flow and reductions in motor vehicle trips (through mode shifts and trip suppression). The Express Travel Choices study suggests that a substantial shift to transit will occur when cordon/area pricing is imposed. For example, findings from stated-preference survey indicate that with area pricing the percentage of commuters that would use transit would increase from 5 percent to 27 percent based on the fee level imposed. Value pricing will also eliminate trips not worth the cost to the traveling public. Lower VMT and the shift to safe modes (e.g., transit) will reinforce the long-term trend of declining accident rates on Southern California's highways. • The addition of special purpose lanes has the potential to reduce safety at the access points. However, Southern California has gained valuable experience in deSigns that curtail accidents related to lane access through its extensive network of HOV lanes and growing network of express/HOT lanes. Lessons from our substantial operating experience and state and national examples will help ensure that the regional system is implemented with safety in mind. The implementation plan will also benefit from insurance companies beginning to offer VMT-based automobile insurance to California motorists. This market-based incentive, approved by the California Insurance Commission in December 2010, will complement the value pricing implementation plan. The Pay-As-You Drive Auto Insurance Program rewards drivers who voluntarily drive fewer miles with lower auto insurance rates. The cordon/area pricing pilot projects will also include substantial investments in non-motorized and public transportation, resulting in safety benefits for ali travelers. State of Good Repair A key objective of the express/HOT lane network is to maximize operational performance from the existing transportation system with minimal investment in new capacity. Southern California simply does not have enough money to operate and maintain its transportation system at desired levels nor continue to invest in expansion. California's State Highway Operation and Protection Plan {SHOPP)provides funding for highway operations and maintenance. Statewide, SHOPP is funded at only 24 percent of estimated need. Regional leaders view value pricing as a promising strategy, because it can improve mobility and generate revenue. While the actual revenues raised depend on whether optimal system usage or revenue generation are the priority, experience with the 91 Express Lanes demonstrates that toll lanes can provide sufficient revenue to pay debt service related to construction and cover operating and • maintenance needs when this is the objective. The proposed value pricing strategies will need to balance revenue and system operation objectives . 27 40 6 Value Pricing Pilot Program Express Travel Choices (Phase /I) Proposal While value pricing will not Single-handedly lead to a state of good repair, it can make funds available for operations and maintenance along the corridors where it is implemented. In addition, value pricing helps to maximize operational performance and avoid continued highway expansion. In the long~term, • fewer highway miles reduce our overall system maintenance needs. SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC EFFECTS Full economic impact analysis of the managed network of express/HOT lanes and pilot projects for cordon/area pricing will be completed later this year as part of the Express Travel Choices study. Preliminary analysis indicates that the region's failure to reduce congestion has cost the region in output (i.e., foregone increases in Gross Regional Product) and net losses in employment. REM I modeling for the Express Travel Choices study indicates that a 10-percent reduction in congestion delay is associated with an annual increase in Gross Regional Product of approximately $17 billion (2010 dollars) or 1.2 percent (see Figure is). This is a significant increase in terms of the economy. Without pricing, the Gross Regional Product is expected to grow $44 billion or 3 percent annually over the next 25 years. A lO-percent reduction in congestion delay generates roughly one-third additional economic growth. Likewise, the lO-percent reduction in congestion delay is associated with an increase of approximately 132,000 total jobs or an annual increase of 1.2 percent. Figure 15: Economic Impact oflncreasing Mobility through Decreasing Travel Time Delay by 10% in SCAG Region • is associated with... Source: SCAG Express Travel Choices Study The Express Travel Choices study is just beginning to explore the equity impacts of these value pricing projects and its equity findings will be integrated into SCAG's 2012 RTP. Prior analyses of environmental justice provide an indication of what the region may expect. Analyses for the 2008 RTP indicate that the transit system expansion will provide low-income better access to employment via local bus and rail compared to higher-income groups. Transit system expansion is focused on the same areas targeted for the corridor/area pricing, which will likely encourage greater transit use. In addition, the 2008 RTP identified no disproportionate accessibility impacts between income groups for automobile usage. 28 • 41 " Value Pricing Pilot Program Express Travel Choices (Phase II) Proposal As described earlier in this application, the value pricing strategies are expected to have a more equitable financial impact than the dedicated sales taxes on which the region primarily relies for transportation financing. Furthermore, a comparative analysis conducted for the 2008 RTP indicates that the total tax burden (i.e., sales, gasoline, and income) by income group falls heavily on higher� income travelers. Even without value pricing, the two lowest-income quintiles will pay just over 20 percent of total taxes collected in the region, but enjoy 65 percent of the transit time savings. The share of taxes (60 percent) for the two highest-income quintiles will exceed the benefits they receive in local transit time savings (16 percent) and account for only 9 percent oftotal bus and light rail usage. While higher-income groups are anticipated to benefit the most from automobile travel time savings, they will also incur the highest taxes. The equity impacts of the managed network of express/HOT lanes and cordon/area pricing will be evaluated in the coming months through the Express Travel Choices study. The study will also explore complementary transit and non-motorized improvements to mitigate potential pricing impacts. The implementation plan developed in Express Travel Choices (Phase /I) will include these strategies as well as promising strategies from the Metro Toll Credit Program. 7 ROLE OF ALTERNATIVE MODES " The pricing approach described in this application has the potential to enhance the attractiveness of alternative modes, especially Metro Rail and BRT into downtown los Angeles. The cordon/area pricing provides an economic incentive for travelers to use transit, while the strategic express/HOT network ensures that freeway capacity is available for buses to use. Additional service along the EI Monte Busway wiJl provide other travel options for travelers to downtown los Angeles. Transit plays a very important role in relieving demand on los Angeles freeways. The effect of transit was seen during the Metro transit strike from October 14 to November 19, 2003. During the one-month strike, freeway traffic and congestion increased dramatically. Delays on los Angeles freeways grew by 10 to 20 percent (see Figure 16) compared to the same weeks in the years before and after the strike. The increases in delay occurred even though fall 2003 had significantly less rain (a major determinant of congestion in los Angeles) than fall 2002 or fall 2004 and fuel prices were on par with other time periods . " 29 42 Value Pricing Pilot Program Express Travel Choices (Phase /I) Proposal • Figure 16: Impact of Metro Transit Strike on Freeway Congestion in the City of Los Angeles 300.00 275.00 250,00 ::E Q 225,00 E 0 \D @J 200,00 ..> a; c 175,00 ... ~ '" ::> 150,00 .. '" =f u :c 125,00 .. > 2:'n; c 100,00 ] .... '" 75,00 50,00 • 25,00 :;, <r. ~. ~ ~ ~ N."..,c, .. ." '" ro '" N "' <!' \ii'"' "' "' '" "' .,"' ~ '" ~ m "' w N '" m "' ~ ,~ ~ '" ~ "' "' "' '" '";<)~ ~ '" ~ ~ i'i N N m "" '" '" '" " Days from 5tri ke Source: Ca/trans PeMS data Metro currently runs 10 BRT lines into downtown Los Angeles. The downtown area is also served by numerous local and express bus services, Metro Rail (light and heavy), and the interregional Metrolink commuter rail service. Southern California's transportation partners have invested heavily in transit over the last 20 years, including rail (heavy, light, and commuter) lines shown in Figure 12. This project will maximize this investment. As Table 1 shows, BRT and express bus ridership has grown considerably over the last few years. BRT ridership alone grew by 70 percent between Fiscal Year (FY) 2006 and FY2009, with much of the growth occurring after 2008 when several lines began operation. About 44 percent of BRT ridership and 86 percent of express bus ridership is for trips on lines that run into downtown Los Angeles . • 30 43 Value Pricing Pilot Program Express Travel Choices (Phase II) Proposal Table 1: Metro Ridership by Line Type and Service to Downtown Los Angeles • Source: Metro data There is likely to be some capacity available on transit to carry travelers who choose not to drive as a result of the pricing strategies, especially cordon/area pricing. Revenues from the pricing strategies will be used to expand or enhance transit services to ensure that sufficient transit capacity is available. Figure 17 shows the average load ratios (riders per seat) for the three major transit sub-modes serving downtown los Angeles: bus, Metro Rail (light and heavy), and Metrolink. The average load ratios listed are for all routes (include routes not in downtown los Angeles) and for the entire day. The average load ratios for the downtown los Angeles sections of the routes are likely higher. In addition, transit routes typically experience very heavy ridership during the peak commute hours when buses and trains are often overcapacity. However, average load ratios provide an indication of how efficiently vehicles are being used over time. Metro Rail has the highest load ratios of the sub-modes -exceeding 50 percent (or an average of two seats per rider) over most of the last decade. Regional buses operate at above 30 percent, which is similar to the Metrolink average. Since 2003, Metro Rail has been increaSingly utilized by riders, while buses and Metrolink have shown stable trends. • 31 • 44 i Value Pricing Pilot Program Express Travel Choices (Phase /I) Proposal• Figure 17: Average Regional Load Ratios (Riders per Seat) by Mode 100% 90% 80"'{' 70"'{' 0.... ttlex: " 60% t\I 0..... iii c 0 50"'{' 'iii! CUex: CU t).O 40% I! • it cu 30% 20"'{' 10% O",{, 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Year I i . I-Bus .............. I . I i , ............ .... ,_.. I , .... /'~..... -----~ ---/ T t1)MIttn> 1 V -I----r----! 1fI1!h."' I ..... ........ i .... ..... ............ I Source: Metro data 8 PROJECT TASKS The following scope of work specifies tasks to develop the proposed implementation plan. It is acknowledged that upon approval of this proposal, a formal cooperative agreement will be prepared, which will include a refined scope of work with guidance from FHWA. Task 1: Provide Project Management Support The objective of this task is to provide coordination and management of project activities including administrative, contractual and technical activities to accomplish project objectives. Task activities include refinement to the scope of work with guidance from FHWA to clearly articulate the approach for developing an implementation plan and submittal of a project management plan (PMP) defining project control/management processes. Additionally, task activities include establishment and staffing of project meetings as well as coordination with SCAG, Metro, and Caltrans' relevant technical advisory and policy committees, and other agency stakeholders. • Deliverobles: Revised scope of work and detailed project management plan . 32 45 Value Pricing Pilot Program Express Travel Choices (Phase II) Proposal Task 2: Define Pricing Alternatives Including Pilot Perimeter and Options for Phasing •The proposed value pricing pilot project in Southern California includes a two-pronged strategy to address regional mobility needs: an express/HOT lane network and cordon/area pricing. This task includes assessment of a range of considerations and constraints that apply to the two proposed strategies. Three sub-tasks are identified below: 2.1 Define Express/HOT lane Network Including Phasing and Operational Alternatives Screening of alternative express/HOT lane network configurations, operational parameters, and phasing will be drawn primarily from recommended strategies identified through the current Express Travel Choices study and supplemented with technical findings from Metro's Los Angeles County 2015 HOV to HOT Conversion Technical Feasibility Study. This sub-task includes the following steps: + Establish goals for optimizing system (e.g., optimal traffic flow, revenue generation, emissions reduction, etc.) and develop commensurate measures/criteria for evaluation-building on current study and refining for implementation/phasing objectives; + Detail corridor characteristics of network configurations, including physical conditions and constructability with evaluation of varying cross-sections for right-of-way and design/engineering or other physical constraints; + Define alternative network concepts, including potential modifications to alignments and segments as appropriate, variations in access and egress points, restriping of lanes as applicable, operational policies including occupancy requirements, and potentially variations in complementary measures (including accessibility to transit facilities, capacity/service levels and • traffic management projects); and + Identify pricing structures (toll policy alternatives) including constrained tolls or toll caps with dynamic priCing (by time of day/demand), variations based on vehicle occupancy, hybrid vehicle use and other exemptions. 2.2 Define Cordon/Area Pricing Pilot Perimeter and Operational Alternatives Screening of alternative geographic configurations, operational parameters, and phasing will be drawn primarily from technical findings identified through the current Express Travel Choices study. This sub­ task includes the following steps: + Define cordon/area priCing alternatives including potential variations in zonal systems as appropriate; extent of the highway and arterial network within the cordon/area perimeter (e.g., to capture through trips on the highway and arterial network) and modifications to hours of operation, operating policies, and enforcement; variations in entry/exit charge pOints or internal movements; and potential variations in complementary measures (transit accessibility and service levels, other improvement initiatives including parking and traffic management projects); + Define pricing structures (toll policy alternatives) including variable rates by location and time of day or time of week, identification of potential discounts and/or exemptions (e.g., hybrid vehicles, public fleets, taxis, commercial vehicles, resident vehicles, etc.); + Examine how to integrate with parking pricing policies and other pricing measures including benefit assessment districts/business improvement districts; 33 • 46 Value Pricing Pilot Program Express Travel Choices (Phase 1/) Proposal• • Analyze the feasibility of pricing overlays, including coordinated operation with Express HOT Network; and • Examine existing incentives for employees and private businesses (e.g., telecommute and night deliveries). 2.3 Develop Integrated Express HOT Network and Cordon/Area Pricing Alternatives The dominant approach to designing a pricing program often involves isolated assessment of a single pricing strategy. The challenge for Southern California, however, is integrating multiple pricing strategies under consideration for a coordinated approach to implementation. This sub-task focuses on combining alternatives identified in 2.1 and 2.2 and developing feasible hybrid alternatives for phased implementation. Deliverables: Documentation of pricing alternatives identified for an express/HOT lane network and cordon/area pricing. Task 3: Evaluate Performance of Pricing Alternatives • Understanding the behavioral response of travelers is an important part of evaluating the policy implications of different forms of congestion pricing. Depending on the type of pricing and the specific details of the pricing implementation, travelers may respond by shifting their primary travel route, departure time, travel mode, or destination, or they may stop making certain trips all together or make them less often. To enhance SCAG's capability to analyze the effects of pricing, recent efforts have included major modifications to SCAG's regional travel demand forecasting model and collection of stated-preference surveys to support model changes. SCAG is also developing a next generation Activity-Based Travel Model and land Use Model-expected to be functional by 2012. This task includes some additional modifications, as may be needed, to incorporate use of additional modeling techniques such as Dynamic Traffic ASSignment (DTA) to analyze the regional express/HOT network and cordon/area pricing pilot program. Task activities will include augmenting traffic, transit, and parking data, as appropriate, to support modeling and analysis of alternatives. Analysis of travel impacts will include changes in VMT, VHT, delay, as well as impact on level of service, flows, speeds, safety, mode choice, route, and time-of-day, auto occupancy, transit usage, and parking utilization. The impact analysis will be conducted at the regional, corridor, cordon, and local levels, as appropriate for the specific strategies. Additionally, analysis will be conducted for each of the strategies individually and as combined alternatives. Performance assessment will include air quality analysis to evaluate the impact on regional levels of Nitrous Oxides (NO.), reactive organic compounds, (ROCs), carbon monoxide (CO), particulate matter (PM lO and PM 2,S) and greenhouse gases (GHG). The analysis will be based on the traffic data produced and include estimates of total pollutants for the entire study area. Additionally, community impact assessments will be conducted. Pricing alternatives that involve a cordon charge during select time periods would impact local and adjacent communities. It will be critical to understand the impact on local businesses and to consider the spill-over effects on adjacent • communities, including increased traffic and parking demand, and localized economic effects . 34 47 Value Pricing Pilot Program Express Trovel Choices (Phase II) Proposal Economic assessment methodologies will consider direct user benefits of the pricing alternatives to the cost of implementing. Direct user benefits include value of travel time savings, reduced vehicle •operating costs, reduced emissions, pollution, noise and energy use, etc. Pricing alternatives are anticipated to improve mobility within corridors and pricing areas/zones for both passenger vehicles (autos) and trucks, but may have the potential to reduce total trips. As such, impacts on businesses will need to be evaluated. Analysis will include labor market and industry impacts, including the distribution of economic activities within the pricing area/zone. Additionally, analysis will include distribution of benefits and impacts across different socio-economic groups (e.g., low-income groups). Deliverobles: data collection and modeling; performance evaluation report including assessment of transportation impacts-localized and at regional level; economic analysis technical report; and environmental analysis technical report. Task 4: Define Technology Requirements Implementation of the regional express/HOT lane network will continue California's use of the FasTrak n • electronic toll collection system. The FasTrokn • system is made up of an electronic transponder that is mounted on the inside of a vehicle's windshield, toll recording equipment located on the road, and an enforcement system. Facilities throughout California use the FasTrok™ system. Launch of the ExpressLanes Demonstration project in Los Angeles County will also employ FasTrak'M but with the option of a "self-declaration" transponder that can account for different minimum occupancy requirements. Additional analysis, however, is needed to specify the technology requirements for the cordon/area pricing pilot program. A key consideration in developing the toll collection system for the pilot program will be integration with the existing FasTrakTM system to ensure a seamless experience for the traveling • public. Additionally, system design criteria such as cost, performance, reliability, and simplicity will be important in determining specifications that meet the proposed cordon/area pricing program goals. Technology evaluation will include identification of implementation costs and schedules; system deployment requirements including technology infrastructure needs; institutional, legal and enforcement reqUirements, including addressing privacy issues as applicable; and ITS architecture requirements. Deliverables: Technology design and specification report for cordon/area pricing. Task 5: Develop Investment and Financial Plan The primary focus of this task is to assess the revenue generating capacity of the pricing alternatives identified in Task 2. The financial assessment will include identification of net excess revenue generated after capital and operating expenses for each of the pricing alternatives. At a minimum, the financial model will include the following elements: • Annualized revenues, • Deductions for discounted and exempted vehicles, • Capital costs-equipment and construction expenses, • Other upfront costs-ROW acquisition, planning, financing, etc., and 3S • 48 " Value Pricing Pilot Program Express Travel Choices (Phase I/) Proposal " Operation and maintenance costs; enforcement, surveillance, and administrative costs (e.g., transaction, customer service, etc.). To help balance financial returns against congestion impacts, revenue forecasting and travel demand modeling activities will be iterative. The revenue model should facilitate sensitivity analyses of various pricing levels and financing options (debt and equity financing) including the potential impact of public� private partnerships (e.g., operating concessions). Analysis will be incorporated into a final financial plan for each of the pricing alternatives. Additionally, this task includes development of an investment plan for the allocation of excess revenues. Analysis will include identification of added financial capacity generated from pricing revenues to supplement funding for transit services, road improvements, road capacity acceleration and/or expansion, or systems management, as may be applicable. Deliverables: Documentation ojjinancial analysis conducted jor each alternative, including investment and jinancial plans. Task 6: Assess Institutional and legislative Requirements for Implementation " The implementation of a pricing program requires a lead agency to administer and collect fees; issue bonds to finance capital expenditures as may be needed, and to enter into contracts/cooperative� agreements with private entities and government agencies. This task includes evaluation of institutional arrangements and governance including evaluation of successful models (e.g., establishment of a Joint Powers Authority) for pricing alternatives. Analysis will identify the legislative, statutory, and inter� agency policy requirements that will govern the ability of Southern California transportation agencies to implement and operate the proposed pricing program. Additionally, analysis will include identification of actions necessary to obtain enabling legislation for tolling authority (e.g., state legislative authority and local approvals) as well as cooperative agreements and procurement options to facilitate project delivery. The priCing program will require legislative actions for toll collection, incurring debt, toll enforcement, and authority to procure and contract for design, construction and operation. Focus will be placed on selecting the appropriate project delivery method, including traditional design-build as well as operation concessions/public-private partnerships. Additionally, analysis will include identification of federal, state, and local regulatory approvals and other clearances to implement the priCing program (i.e., environmental clearances as well as consistency and compliance with local and regional plans). Federal laws on tolling of interstates and federal-aid highways will need to be considered. Additionally, analysis will consider federal programs (e.g., Special Experimental Projects No. 15 or SEP-15) allowing deviations from federal regulations, and any resulting Early Development Agreements. Deliverables: Technical report addressing the legislative and institutional requirements jor implementing the priCing program. Task 7: Conduct Stakeholder Outreach and Marketing Campaign Prepare and execute an extensive public outreach campaign. The outreach campaign will be applied " throughout the duration of the project, and will include the implementation of a comprehensive communication strategy to educate regional stakeholders, the general public, and political leaders. This 36 49 Value Pricing Pilot Program Express Travel Choices (Phase II) Proposal campaign should include the establishment of multiple advisory committees, targeted thematic workshops, and focused industry sector meetings, as well as direct outreach meetings with affected •communities and stakeholders. Additionally, outreach will include market research activities, in strategic iterations throughout the project, to gauge public awareness and opinion about the proposed strategies. In addition to focus groups, public opinion surveys will be conducted to determine overall awareness and level of acceptability. The outreach effort will include development of marketing and educational materials (e.g., print, web including use of social media tools, video, etc.). The outreach campaign will be designed to gain support and build coalitions (among regional stakeholders, political leaders, media, and advocates) for carrying out the implementation plan and to secure support for the ultimate implementation of the express/HOT lane network and cordon/area pricing pilot program. A key element of the outreach campaign will be to identify a successful path to implementation that strikes a balance between the most effective management of system supply and demand and what is viable both politically and from a transportation consumer's perspective. Deliverable: Public involvement and education plan, marketing materials, market research reports including identification and analysis of data from surveys/focus groups, and outreach meetings/workshops summaries. Task 8: Develop Implementation Plan Including Pilot Program Procurement Documentation and Design Specifications This task includes development of detailed phasing and implementation plan for a regional express/HOT lane network and cordon/area pricing pilot program. The implementation plan will draw upon the findings and recommendations from each of the analyses completed in previous tasks. • The implementation plan will include identification of institutional roles/responsibilities in the collection, administration and distribution of revenues; concept of operations; technology requirements, conceptual design specifications, and detailed financial plan. Procurement documentation will be developed for the system design needed to launch cordon/area pricing pilot recommendations. Additionally, monitoring plans will be developed to conduct before and after assessments of travel time savings, economic, environmental, and safety benefits (with driver and transit surveys; and highway traffic and transit operating data; and public opinion surveys). Monitoring is discussed further in section 11. Deliverables: Implementation plan including procurement documentation, conceptual design specifications, concept of operations, financial plan, and procurement documentation. 37 • 50 Value Pricing Pilot Program Express Travel Choices (Phase If) Proposal • 9 PROJECT TIMELINE The overall schedule for completion of the tasks identified in this proposal is estimated to be two years (see Table 2}-following the Express Travel Choices study. Implementation activities for the pilot program would begin in 2013 with full scale deployment by 2015-2016. Table 2: Proposed Schedule by Task Year 1 Year 2 • Provide Project Management Support me Pricing Alternatives Including Pilot Perimeter and Options for Phasing Evaluate Performance of Pricing Alternatives Define Technology Requirements Develop Investment and Financial Plan lative ation Conduct Stakeholder Outreach and Marketing Campaign Develop Implementation Plan • 38 51 Value Pricing Pilot Program Express Travel Choices (Phase /I) Proposal 10 ITEMIZED BUDGET •Proposed Budget by Task The proposed budget for this proposal is $4 million and is shown below in Table 3. Table 3: Proposed Budget by Task Budget Task 1 $300,000 ,> , '\~::.:::JL;" . " .,.... Provide Project Management Support ,J :f<,;,",:~,:;';'%ii';;~ .',"" '''';<F''.Ar :;ti,· Task 2 Define Pricing Alternatives Including Pilot Perimeter and Options for Phasing $400,000 Define Express/HOT Lane Network Alternatives $150,000 Define Cordon/ Area Pricing Alternatives $150,000 $100,000Integrate Express/HOT Lane Network and Cordon/ Area Pricing ~ ie"~";:>' "";". Task 3 ormance of Pricing Alternatives $1,200,000 Data Collection and Model Enhancement $500,000 Express/HOT Lane Network Alternative Analysis $200,000 Cordon/ Area Pricing Alternative Analysis $300,000 Economic Impact Analysis ii1<'3; :i' !. ~ Task 4 $350,000Define Technology Requirements for Cordon/ Area Pricing $100,000Evaluation of Pricing Technologies for Cordon/Area Pricing $250,000System Design and Integration with Express/HOT Lane Network • !;';~,j;: /:<? /i':.'"'<";!"" Task 5 Develop Investment and Financial Plan $350,000 , ">,;¥.':~~~'i,:; .:,!1'}\!"; '::i""'t,,· :"':':i,':,:ii.,,;;: Task 6 $350,000Assess Institutional and Legislative Requirements for Implementation $150,000Express/HOT Lane Network Requirements $200,000~a Pricing Requirements ;Xi ...<;:::". ';.~' ,\'!7;;:t.. '::C':f; :'i", ,. ,. ,',£:1.",,'; Task 7 $700,000Conduct Stakeholder Outreach and Marketing Campaign $200,000Express/HOT Lane Network Approach $500,000Cordon/Area Pricing Approach >b,:,»:" i:;:)%\2f\~;; ,:i.ji!;:":!~::·;:;::fr:t ". ·"i.,.'. .;:,.,. :',<:, ,,c'. ',' i::C;!~'f'" T",••~mplementat;o.Pia. I $350,000 " Operations and Procurement Documentation 1~'i'f~":0~;2.;'i+ inc::,",,,"!:' ,"~,"j '''.:e"L :"0~i";Y::~ Total ~ • Description of All Funding Sources A 20 percent local match of $800,000 would be required if this proposal is accepted for funding by the FHWA. The anticipated main funding source for the local match is local Transportation Development Act (TDA) funds. 39 • 52 " Value Pricing Pilot Program Express Travel Choices (Phase II) Proposal 11 MONITORING PLAN As part of the value pricing project, Southern California's transportation partners intend to conduct long-term monitoring to assess the impact of the pricing strategies on driver behavior, traffic volume, and transit ridership. In addition,CARB will monitor how well the SCS (of which the value pricing project is a critical component) helps SCAG meet AB 32 GHG goals. The monitoring will leverage existing information from PeMS, Metro, and public opinion surveys, as well as include additional data collection after implementation. For the pricing demonstrations on the 1-110 and 1-10, Metro conducted extensive monitoring. Metro's State tolling authority as well as the Congestion Reduction Demonstration Program requires monitoring and evaluation of implementation projects. Specifically, monitoring and evaluation includes 12 months of pre-deployment data collection, one-year demonstration period, and post-deployment data collection. The Framework for the Evaluation Executive Summary is included in Appendix D. Metro's state tolling authority requires Caltrans and Metro to report jointly to the Legislature by December 31, 2014. It is anticipated that a similar commitment to monitoring, evaluation, and reporting of the cordon/area priCing pilot projects will also take place. " In the Express Travel Choices study, SCAG conducted a public opinion survey to gauge the public's perception of value priCing and willingness to accept such innovative strategies. In the survey, SCAG found that 70 percent of Southern California residents have favorable views of express lanes. Similar survey conducted after implementation could show how travelers' opinions of pricing change with experience. Stated-preference surveys conducted for the Express Travel Choices study suggest that travelers have flexibility to adjust travel times and destinations. Detailed monitoring of freeway traffic flows after implementation can help determine how accurately the state-preference surveys predict driver behavior. The region and the State of California have an extensive Archived Data User Service (ADUS) for freeway traffic data called PeMS. The system collects traffic data in real-time from over 32,000 individual detectors across California. Approximately 9,400 of these detectors are located in Los Angeles County and more are available throughout the SCAG region. PeMS also provides over ten years of data for historical analysis. It integrates a wide variety of information from Caltrans and other 10c~J agency systems including: " Traffic detectors, " InCidents, " Lane closures, " Toll tags, " Census traffic counts, " Vehicle claSSification, " Weight-in-motion, and " Roadway inventory . " 40 53 Value Pricing Pilot Program Express Travel Choices (Phase II) Proposal The monitoring plan for the Express Trovel Choices (Phase II) pre-implementation project will include before and after assessments of project impacts using three components: • • Public opinion survey - A public opinion survey will be conducted after implementation. The results of this survey can be compared with the survey conducted during the Express Travel Choices study to see how opinion's of value pricing change after implementation. • Driver and transit surveys -This information will be supplemented with surveys of drivers and transit riders into downtown los Angeles to determine factors that affect travel behavior and mode choice. • Analysis of highway traffic and transit operating data -Metro transit statistics and PeMS monitoring data provide a database of before and after data to explore issues, such as how value pricing has affected travel times, reliability, collisions, and transit ridership into downtown los Angeles. As required for the VPP program, long-term monitoring and documentation of the project's effects will continue for at least ten years after implementation. 12 FINANCE AND REVENUE PLAN The Express Trovel Choices (Phase /I) pre-implementation project includes the development of a comprehensive financial plan as identified in the project task section-Task 5 of Section 8. The plan will • identify all sources and uses of revenues and detail annual capital and operating costs. Using the conceptual designs of alternatives defined in Task 2, cost estimates will be developed and/or refined as appropriate, including necessary right-of-way, construction, signing, striping, technological systems and associated transit or carpool facility improvement costs. Additionally, annualized cost estimates for operation and maintenance, administrative, and enforcement will be developed. Further, each of the pricing alternatives will be tested with toll optimization procedures-to balance benefits of a robust revenue stream with travel benefits. USing SCAG's regional travel demand model and potentially micro-simulation tools for specific segments/areas as appropriate, demand, optimal average toll rates, and annual revenue will be estimated. Based on cost and revenue estimation efforts, a financial feasibility assessment will include a cash flow analysis-matching revenue sources (toll revenues and other sources offunding) with capital and ongoing operation and maintenance expenses. Analysis will also include evaluating the potential for private equity investment, identification of additional public resources as may be needed, as well as the potential for innovative debt financing strategies to expedite implementation. Pilot initiatives will be designed to be self-sustaining within the time period specified as per FHWA's VPP program requirements. Operational parameters and optimal phasing of system components will be critical in deSigning a financially sustainable project. Already, Southern California has consistently relied upon local initiatives to facilitate implementation of transportation projects as voters have passed measures dedicating a portion of sales taxes to transportation projects. Approximately 70 percent of expected revenues in the 2008 Regional 41 • 54 " Value Pricing Pilot Program Express Travel Choices (Phose /I) Proposal Transportation Plan (RTP) are from local sources. A majority (about 69 percent) of these local revenues rely on sales tax revenues. Recent experimentation with pricing initiatives throughout the region continues to reinforce a local "self-help" approach to financial sustainability. The design of pilot initiatives as proposed in this application will incorporate this "self-help" emphasis to ensure financial sustainability. 13 PREVIOUS PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT With over a decade and a half of experience with HOT lanes in the region, the public's understanding and support of pricing as a valuable transportation choice is widespread. Indeed, public opinion surveys conducted for the Express Travel Choices study indicate that 70 percent of Southern California residents have favorable views of express lanes, even if they do not readily associate them with value or congestion pricing. Cordon/area pricing is less well-known and is the subject of additional outreach efforts in the Express Travel Choices study. " Declarations of support for value pricing as a regional transportation strategy began with the 2008 RTP, in which the SCAG Regional Council (comprising 84 members representing 6 counties and over 190 cities) directed SCAG staff to conduct a detailed study for establishing a regional strategy on congestion pricing for the 2012 RTP. The Express Travel Choices study delivers on that direction. The Express Travel Choices study includes a comprehensive public outreach component with a Steering Committee (comprising representatives from the public and private sectors, academic and research institutions, advocacy organizations, and various other transportation stakeholders); public opinion surveys; focus groups; a study website, and regular study update presentations to SCAG's technical and policy committees, and groups throughout Southern California. Because the Express Travel Choices study will be integrated into the 2012 RTP, it will benefit from the full public involvement plan prepared pursuant to state and federal requirements. At a local level, extensive community outreach efforts are underway in conjunction with Metro's Congestion Reduction Demonstration Project (HOT lanes on 1-10 and 1-110). Efforts have included targeted focus groups, license plate and public opinion surveys, outreach meetings with affected communities (Community Advisory Groups or CAGs), meetings with Metro's Ad-Hoc Congestion Pricing Committee (comprising elected officials), and media relations activities. Recent media news clips are provided in Appendix C. The VPP program grant will support an outreach campaign for coalition building and media relations to ensure public support before implementation of the express/HOT lane network and the cordon/area pricing components. 14 LEGAL AND ADMlNISTRA TIVE REQUIREMENTS SCAG is currently developing the 2012 RTP for Southern California. The new RTP will incorporate findings and recommendations from the Express Travel Choices study. This wilt ensure that the implementation plan is included in the approved metropolitan transportation plan and that the elements in the implementation plan associated with determining the metropolitan transportation " plan's conformance with the state air quality implementation plan are fully analyzed concurrent with the 2012 RTP adoption . 42 55 Value Pricing Pilot Program Express Travel Choices (Phase /I) Proposal While the 2012 RTP will address environmental impacts at a programmatic-level consistent with state •and federal environmental requirements, subsequent project-level environmental analysis will be required for consistency with state and federal requirements. Detailing of other subsequent activities for meeting federal, state, and local legal, planning, and administration will be established through the implementation plan. As part of the Express Travel Choices (Phase II) pre-implementation project, Southern California's transportation partners will facilitate California authorizing legislation as well as review the applicability of recent California law to a cordon/area pricing program. Existing state law (California Vehicle Code Section 9400.8) provides that a local agency may not impose a new tax, permit fee, or other charge for the privilege of using streets and roads after December 31, 1990, except for a permit fee for extra-legal loads and unless the fee was imposed after June 1, 1989. Therefore, any cordon/area pricing program will require authorizing state legislation to ensure that this prohibition does not apply to the authorized program. Additionally, the recent passage of Proposition 26 will need to be considered. Approved by California voters on November 2, 2010, Proposition 26 amended the State Constitution and reclassified certain fees as taxes. While a cordon/area pricing program may fall within the exception for service-related fees (particularly if the revenues are used for operation and maintenance of the system within the cordon), the implementation plan will explore this issue further. As described earlier in this proposal, express lanes have enjoyed considerable public support, so authorization to implement has significantly progressed. Specific to Metro's existing state enabling authority for tolling, SB 1422 (Ridley-Thomas) was enacted on September 28, 2008, providing Metro with legal authority to implement the ExpressLanes projects' congestion pricing component by adding Section 149.9 to the California Streets and Highways Code. Two years later, on September 29,2010, • AB 1224 (Eng) was enacted, which extends Metro's tolling authority until January 2015. In October 2009, the Governor signed AB 798 establishing the California Transportation Financing Authority (CFTA). The CFTA has the power to grant tolling authority to Caltrans or to any regional transportation agency so long as certain conditions are met. AB 798 also lifts the requirement for the HOT lane projects authorized under AB 1467 (such as the 1-10 and 1-110 ExpressLanes) to have separate legislative approval. These changes will significantly increase the possibilities to use tolling as a financing and traffic management tool in the state. 15 PRIVATE ENTITY INVOLVEMENT No private entity participation is planned for expenditure of grant funds or cost sharing in development of this implementation plan. However, based on recent discussions with private entities and regional experience with public-private partnerships, opportunities for private entity participation are anticipated in full-scale implementation. The implementation plan will outline potential roles for private entities in successful delivery of the regional express/HOT lane network and cordon/area pricing program. Metro is also utilizing a Design-Build-Operate-Maintain (DBOM) contract for the ExpressLanes demonstration project in Los Angeles County. Task 6 of Section 8 provides additional discussion on evaluating the potential for private entity involvement. 43 • 56 Value Pricing Pilot Program Express Travel Choices (Phase /I) Proposal• 16 TOLL COLLECTION EQUIPMENT Tolling Authority Southern California's transportation partners are not seeking toll authority through the VPP program, since this application is for support of pre-implementation efforts only. Toll authority will be required for the express/HOT lane network and cordon/area pricing during implementation. As noted in the Federal Register, there are a number of programs outside the VPP program that can provide the necessary federal toll authority: HOV-to-HOT Conversion Program (23 USC 166), Interstate System Reconstruction and Rehabilitation Pilot Program, Interstate System Construction Toll Pilot Program, ExpressLanes Demonstration Program, and Section 129 toll agreements. One of these programs will be used for toll authority to preserve the programming lines in the VPP program. Compatibility of Tolling Equipment • The toll collection equipment chosen for the Express Travel Choices network will be compatible with other regional electronic toll collection (ETC) systems. Southern California's transportation partners will continue using the FasTrak™ ETC system for the regional express/HOT lane network and cordon/area pricing. In 1990, the California Legislature passed "Title 21" (California Senate Bill 1523, Chapter 1080, Section 27565), which required a single statewide specification for ETC in California. As a result, compatible FasTrakTM systems are used on all tolling facilities in California. The FasTrak rr• system consists of an electronic toll tag (placed inside vehicles), toll recording equipment located on the road, and an enforcement system. Travelers can use FasTrakTtll on all Southern California toll roads, including the 91 Express Lanes and the San Joaquin Hills (SR-73) and Foothill/Eastern (SR-241, SR-133 and SR-261) Toll Roads in Orange County. FasTrakTM is also accepted on the South Bay Expressway (SR-125) and 1-15 Express Lanes in San Diego County, the 1-680 Express Lanes in Alameda and Santa Clara counties, and all eight bridges in the San Francisco Bay Area. FasTrak'" will be used soon on the 1-580 Express Lanes. The ExpressLanes Demonstration project (1-10 and 1-110) in Los Angeles County will also employ FasTrakTM but with the option of a "self-declaration" transponder that can account for different minimum occupancy requirements. Currently, five Customer Service Centers (CSCs) operate FasTrak™ accounts for travelers in California: • Bay Area FasTrak™ Customer Service Center, • Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA), • San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG), • Transportation Corridor Agencies (TCA), and • South Bay Expressway. Although the accounts are separate, money is transferred among the agencies, so the back-office functions are hidden and seamless from the standpoint of the traveling public. In response to Title 21, Caltrans formed the California Toll Operators Committee (CTOC). One goal of • the CTOC is to offer inter operability to customers including the ability to offer a single account . statement to each customer setting their transaction activities on all participating facilities. Each toll 44 57 Value Pricing Pilot Program Express Travel Choices (Phase /I) Proposal agency establishes an electronic interface to CTOC participating agencies for the exchange of transponder status and toll transaction data according to the Interface Control Document that governs •the exchange of information. The tolling agency processes away accounts (transponders issued by other California tolling agencies) and transfers of funds for its transponder accounts used on other facilities. The CSC provides pre-paid customer toll account management, violations processing, and programmatic accounting functions. Each CSC receives transaction data from the toll collection system and posts the transactions to customer accounts and to the CTOC clearinghouse. It is envisioned that a similar approach and process will apply to the cordon/area pricing pilot and an inter-county express/HOT lane network. Tolling for the network could be handled through an existing, new, or consolidated CSc. The Bay Area CSC provides a useful example of a single service center for multiple agencies in a region. A copy of Title 21 is included in Appendix E. The FasTrakn • system has the potential to collect origin-destination, speed, and volume information if antennas are placed around the transportation network. For example, Caltrans and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) use FasTrakTM data to supplement other archived traffic data for system monitoring in the San Francisco Bay Area. This information could be use for monitoring and evaluating the implementation of the cordon/area pricing pilot and an inter-county express/HOT lane network. Starting January 1, 2011, traveler location data is kept private as a result of California Senate Bill 1268. FasTrakTM also facilitates travel by alternate modes and can be used for innovative parking strategies. For example, FasTrak™ is used to facilitate bus travel through toll lanes on existing facilities. The San Francisco International Airport has recently started accepting FasTrakTM to pay for airport parking. FasTrakTM could be used later for more innovative parking strategies in downtown los Angeles. As noted in the project tasks, the Express Travel Choices (Phase /I) pre-implementation project will include detailed technology requirements for the cordon / area pricing pilot program. A key consideration in developing a toll collection system for the pilot program will be integration with the existing FasTrakTM system. This will help ensure a seamless travel experience for the public. • 45 • 58 " Value Pricing Pilot Program Express Travel Choices (Phase II) Proposal " This page intentionally left blank " 59 Value Pricing Pilot Program Express Travel Choices (Phase /I) Proposal • Appendix A: California HOVjExpress Lane Business Excerpt • • 60 Value Pricing Pilot Program Express Travel Choices (Phase /I) Proposal • • This page intentionally left blank • 61 " ngthening California's congestion management toolbox with key statewide actions, enabling regions to improve HOV lanes. In the early 1970's California began implementing an innovative demand-management strategy called "HOV Lanes" to encourage people to carpool and reduce the number of vehicles on the increasingly congested bridges (Bay Area) and freeways (Los Angeles area). It was always envisioned that, as the congestion and carpooling grew, adjustments could be made to the HOV lane network to further congestion relief. Changes such as increasing occupancy or adjusting hours of operation, however, proved difficult to do without public upset. Understanding the potential impact and communicating the potential benefit were missing and changes were rarely made. Between 2000 and 2012, the number of HOV network miles will have doubled from 906 to 1784 miles, and with the increase in congestion, including on some HOV lanes, the need make operational adjustments to the HOV lane network has become more critical than before. HOVlExpress Lane Business Plan 2009: y Caltrans' Business Planning project worked with regional partners, FHWA, and CHP to debate the strategic challenges to transforming the HOV operations business into something more dynamic and modern. After issues from the draft Business Plan were addressed, one-an-one regional meetings confirmed buy-in. " y In 2009 Caltrans will begin to solve strategic challenges with the help of partners in four focus areas . ;;.. By 2012 California will have the knowledge and tools to design a true HOV/Express Lane Development Plan. State policies will provide consistent boundaries and philosophies for regionally-specific projects. Strategies that could signifICantly combat congestion are: " y Offset underutilization with tolling y Create Dual-lane HOVand Express Lanes y Increase carpool occupancy minimums y Modified access designs y Utilize more detection technologies for measurement and enforcement y Implement Express Lanes y Complete the HOV lane network y Increase drop-ramps and direct-connectors y Increase transit usage y Combine HOV with broader System Management strategies y Utilize entire roadway (including buffers and shoulders} Changing Landscape: " By 2006, the transportation environment is focusing more on system-management &congestion pricing. Federal support for HOT Lanes encouraged early projects in Houston, Minneapolis, and Seattle, and California regions began showing interest in HOT lane strategies. Orange County appealed to Caltrans asking to convert buffer-separated facilities to continuous-access striping (atypical for Southern California). Caltrans organized a HOV Summit in Irvine to bring together academia and industry experts to discuss the challenges and options ahead of us in making the HOV lane network even more productive given the increasing demand. " The use of CSMP studies focus planning activities toward more system-minded operations, a key part of which is HOV and Express Lane strategies. " In 2008, Los Angeles Metro and Caltrans were awarded Federal Congestion Relief Demonstration Project ($217 million) to improve transit and implement Express Lanes on 1-10 and 1-110. " Several metropolitan areas conduct HOT Studies to evaluate the strategy's potential in the region. Bay Area partners utilize results of MTC regional HOT Lane Study to propose legislative authority for an entire network of Express Lanes in the Bay Area. 62 How TECHNOLOGY WILL CONTRIBUTE: -Automated enforcement and person counts -Dynamic signing and ultimate Active Traffic Management -Pilot project to open the shoulder in peak periods with ATMS will lead to space for dual-lane HOVlExpress lanes -PeMSand detection systems Making Strategic Improvements: The state-level strategic actions needed to evolve the •HOV/Express Lane business to optimize and balance traffic flow through System Management are categorized into Four Focus Areas. Actions have already begun in all Focus Areas and will require continued focus and resourcing to provide successful results. While Caltrans Traffic Operations is the lead on most Critical Actions, partner involvement is critical to success. Focus A: Support Performance-based Decisions • Improve data collection and analysis • Improve decision-making knowledge with research and pilot projects Outcome: Increase system performance with changes such as increased carpool occupancy requirements, multi-lane facilities, tolled Express Lanes. ~~~~~_B:!.f!!J~~:!_~_~~t~,,-:_~~_~_~~!s~h ip __.."". ,_ """_,,_ • Increase informal communication between partners • Learn lessons and adopt best practices from initial interagency agreements • Share and adopt best message material to increase the government's compelling common voice Outcome: Potential new platform for partner interaction, partner authoritylroleslresponsibilities are win­•win and largely consistent statewide. Consistent core message and language in outreach materials within Caltrans Traffic Operations Program initially, with partners ultimately. Public and political satisfaction. Focus C: Update Technical Policies and Regulations • Update HOV Guidelines and other design/operating/approval standards • Explore and clarify federal guidance and requirements for system changes • Update State and federal tolling statutes as necessary Outcome: Updated guidelines and standards address current questions on dual-lane facilities, access control, and toll collection. Titfe-21 and automated occupancy detection technology improvements enable open-road tolling. • 63 Value Pricing Pilot Program Express Travel Choices {Phase II} Proposal • • Appendix B: Letters 0/Support • 64 Value Pricing Pilot Program Express Travel Choices (Phase /I) Proposal • This page intentionally left bJank • • 65 staff at (213) 978-3061. Mayor • ,. ANTONIO R. VILLARAIGOSA MAYOR January 11, 2011 Honorable Ray LaHood U.S. Secretary of Transportation 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Room 10200 Washington, D.C. 20590 Administration Value Pricin Re: lication Letter • I write to express my support for the Value Pricing Pilot (VPP) application for funding to be submitted to the U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT) by the Southern California Ass()ciation of Governments, the California Department of Transportation and the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro) on behalf of the Los Angeles County region. This application includes countywide mobility enhancements made possible through cordon area pricing and technology projects that will effectively address the traffic congestion challenges faced daily by Los Angeles County's ten million residents, the most populous and congested urban area in the U.S. These challenges also have an impact on the economy of the country due to the status of Los Angeles as a trade gateway. For these reasons, Los Angeles County would be a prime candidate to become a qualified jurisdiction under the USDOT's Value Pricing Pilot program. I thank you in advance for your careful review of our region's application. Should you have any questions concerning MTA's application, please contact Borja Leon, Associate Director, of my rul Y7:vC---­ OR. VILLARAIGOSA • ARV:bl 200 NORTH SPRING STREET • Los ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90012 PHONE: (213) 978-0600 • FAX: (213) 978-0750 EMAIL: MAY6~!hACITY.ORG 4080 Lemon Street, 3rd Floor· Riverside, CA Mailing Address: P. O. Box 12008 • Riverside, CA 92502-2208 (951) 787-7141 • Fax (951) 787-7920· www.rctc. Riverside Counly Transportation Commission January 18, 2011 Ms. Angela Jacobs Federal Highway Administration Office of Operations Mail Stop: E8G-20S 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE Washington, DC 20590 Dear Ms. Jacobs: On behalf of the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC), thank you for your consideration of the Value Pricing Pilot Program application entitled Express Travel Choices (Phase /I) submitted by the California Department of Transportation, los Angeles Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro), and Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). RCTC lends its support for the application and urges funding for this critical project. • The Express Travel Choices (Phase /I) could provide an excellent foundation for getting Riverside County commuters moving. The plan to integrate build-out of the existing and planned managed network of express lanes across Southern California is of direct interest. RCTC is moving forward with an express lanes project on State Route 91 and considering options on Interstate 15. Funding for the express lane/high occupancy toll network portion of the grant will facilitate coordination among the Southern California transportation agencies, which is needed because there is a wide variety of pricing projects and financing proposals in various stages of implementation throughout the region. A coordinated planning effort will facilitate earlier implementation, enhanced communication, and the opportunity for a number of agencies to work collaboratively throughout the region. Thank you for your leadership and support. Sincerely, Anne Mayer Executive Director cc: Hasan Ikhrata, SCAG Stephanie Wiggins, Metro • 67 " BOARD OF SUPERVISORS COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES 366 KENNETH HAHN HAll OF AOMINISTRATION ILOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 900121 (213)974�2222 MARK RIDLEY-THOMAS SUPERVISOR, SECOND DISTRICT February 1, 2011 Ms. Angela Jacobs Federal Highway Administration Office of Operations Mail Stop: E86-205 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE Washington, DC 20590 Dear Ms. jacobs: As Chair of the Ad Hoc Congestion Pricing Committee for the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro). I thank you for your consideration of the Value Pricing Pilot Progr'am application entitled Express Travel Choices (Phase /I) and urge you to provide needed funding for this critical project. " Gridlock cO[ltinues to be a challenge in the greater metropolitan Los Angeles area-which is why Metro continues to spearhead investments in state-of-the-art technology and innovative, data-driven solutions to get Los Angeles County commuters mOving again. Metro is aggressively pursuing sustainable quality of life solutions that not only reduce congestion but create jobs, improve air quality, and help the region's economy recover. As Metro prepares to kick off th.e Express Lanes Congestion Reduction Demonstration Prowam, funded by a $210 million federal grant. the Express Travel Choices (Phase /I) will provide significant additions to our tools for getting Los Angeles County commuters moving again. Namely. the plan to integrate build-out of the existing and planned managed network of express lanes across Southern California will help to ensure. our freeways flow efficiently. Additionally, the cordon/area pricing pilot study for urban core areas will provide a template for how we and other regions can reduce pollution, make commercial delivery schedules more reliable, improve transit and create jobs. If you have any questions, please contact my Deputy for Mobility Fernando Ramirez at 213-974-2222. With hope, " 68 Value Pricing Pilot Program Express Travel Choices (Phase /I) Proposal • This page intentionally left blank • • 69 Value Pricing Pilot Program Express Travel Choices (Phose /I) Proposal • • Appendix C: Recent Media Clips • 70 Value Pricing Pilot Program Express Travel Choices (Phase /I) Proposal • This page intentionally left blank • • 71 " Metro Studying More Roads for Congestion Pricing http://la.streetsbloq.orq/201 O/11/1S/some-like-it -hot -metro-s tudying-more-roads-for-congeslion-pricingl Metro will look at five corridors to convert HOV lanes to HOT lanes. For a better look, visit our Google Map Drivers willing to pay an extra fee for a congestion free commute could get some good news in the coming months. " Buried in a Metro Board Subcommittee report is an interesting update on Metro's congestion pricing plans. In addition to turning standard HOV Lanes on the 1-10 and 1� 110 into HOV and toll lanes during non peak hour periods, a move that seems more about capacity expansion plan than congestion reduction; the MT A is also planning to study whether to bring congestion pricing in some form or another to five more stretches of Los Angeles County Highways. Staff is proposing to study five stretches of highway to assess the feasibility of expanding their Congestion Pricing program. Ifyou can't read the map above, the report recommends studying: " 1-105, from 1-40S to 1-605 " 1-405, from I-lOS to I-S north of LAX " SR91, from 1-1 10 to the Orange County Line " SRS7, from SR60 to the Orange County Line " Additional consideration may also be warranted for the 1-10 between 1-605 and the San Bernardino County Line. These corridors were selected based on a criteria created by the federal government. Every corridor was rated on connectivity, construct ability , transit benefits and revenue potential. This last category is a tricky issue for Metro who stated over and over again, in the face of harsh media criticism, that their congestion pricing plans are about reducing congestion and protecting investment in HOV lanes. The "revenue potential" of these tolls was just a bonus. At this point, Metro isn't using the term "Express Lanes" to discuss the study. "Express Lanes" is the term they created for their almost-congest ion-pricing pilot plans for the 1-10 and 1-110 that will begin construction " sometime in 2011. As we discussed earlier, the Express Lanes concept, which doesn't change any part of the road pattern during rush hour, would allow drivers of single passenger vehicles to buy a congestion free ride during non-peak hours by buying their way into the carpool lane. Instead, Express Lanes' impact on peak hour travel time is linIited to the transit expansion projects that the federal government paid for to entice Metro to experiment with HOV /Express Lanes conversion. 72 As for these five corridors, Metro staff says its way to soon to know what form, if any, congestion pricing might take. But one thing is for certain, Metro's plans for congestion pricing in existing HOV lanes go way beyond a one year pilot study on the 1-10 and 1-11 O. • • • 73 " 57, 10 freeways listed as candidates for toll lanes http://www.pasadenastamews.com/news/ci 16631244 Two San Gabriel Valley freeways are among the top candidates for a new to11 lane project, according to a study released Tuesday by the county's Metropolitan Transportation Authority. The MT A has been looking to expand a program that converts carpool lanes to High Occupancy Toll lanes. The 57 Freeway between the 60 Freeway and the Orange County line was listed as a top candidate for a toll lane. So was the 10 Freeway between the 605 and the San Bernardino County line. The other candidates include sections of the 91, the 405 and the 105 freeways. "I t doesn't mean they are going to do these," said Mark Littman, an MT A spokesman. "It's a study to gather more information on where to go next." The study condsidered cost, commute-time savings, construct ability and public perception. The study follows an MT A HOT lane project on 28 miles of the 10 Freeway. That project runs between downtown Los Angeles and the 605 Freeway. It started this year and is expected to be completed in 2012. " The toll on the 10 would vary depending on traffic. At rush hour the rate would be $1.40 per mile. For off-peak hours, the rate would be 25 cents per mile . Cars with at least two people could still use the lanes for free. And no solo riders would be allowed if traffic in the lane was moving too slow. The lane would also be used by buses. The MTA is doing a similar project on the 110 Freeway. The HOT lane project on the 10 was opposed by several San Gabriel Valley-area politicians, including Supervisor Mike Antonovich, who thought the project was too rushed. Officials hope the MT A will take more time to involve lawmakers in any projects that come from Tuesday's report. "It's an interesting study," said Antonovich's transportation deputy, Michael Cano. "In our mind set its more theoretical at this point. We're not opposed to the idea of toll lanes. But we'd like to see how the 10 corridor plays out first." ben.baeder@sgyn.com 626-962-8811, ext. 2230 " 74 MTA considers more freeway toll lanes to reduce congestion hltp:llarticies.latimes.com/201 0/novl16/Iocal/la-me-freeway-toll-201 01116 Advancing their experiment with toll roads, Los Angeles County transportation officials are considering more •projects for local freeways -including a heavily congested freeway on the Westside that would allow solo motorists to pay to use carpool lanes. A preliminary study by the Metropolitan Transportation Authority has recommended that five locations be explored in detail for the installation of high-occupancy toll lanes or so-called HOT lanes. The MTA's ad hoc . congestion-pricing committee is set to discuss the matter Wednesday. Officials said the highways that demonstrate a strong potential for conversion to HOT lanes include: The 105 Freeway between the 405 and the 605; the 405 from the 105 to the 5 in the San Fernando Valley; the 91 from the 110 Freeway to the Orange County line; the 57 from the 60 to the Orange County Line; and the 10 between the 605 and the San Bernardino County Line. With motorists making up to 310,000 trips a day, the 405 from the 105 to the 5 is one of the busiest highways in the state. "We had good timing for the study," said Stephanie Wiggins, the MT A's project manager for tollways. "The Southern California Assn. of Governments is doing a regionwide congestion-based-pricing study, and other counties are looking at potential projects." Wiggins said if the ad hoc committee selects a route for further study the MT A would have to apply for federal funding to pay for construction because the agency has no money budgeted for it at this time. The California Department of Transportation and the MTA are now converting existing carpool lanes to HOT •lanes on 14 miles of the 10 from Alameda Street to the 605 and on 11 miles of the 110 from Adams Boulevard to the Artesia Transit Center at 182nd Street. It is the county's first venture into congestion-based pricing -tolls that are set higher or lower in direct relation to the traffic volume. The MTA plan, however, would prohibit solo motorists from entering HOT lanes if the speed of traffic falls below 45 mph. The demonstration project, which will be evaluated to see if congestion is indeed reduced, has received a $210.6­ million federal grant. Some of the money will go to improving transit service along the 10 and 110, including the purchase of 57 clean-fuel buses. The project, which is estimated to cost $332 million, is expected to be completed in late 2012. Charging solo motorists to use carpool lanes has been implemented in other states including Texas, Florida and Washington. In California, HOT lanes have been installed along the 15 Freeway in north San Diego County. The Bay Area's first high-occupancy toll lanes opened in September along a 14-mile stretch of southbound Interstate 680 through Alameda and Santa Clara counties. dan.weikel@latimes.com • 75 " Paying to use those carpool lanes hltp:/lwww.pressteleqram.comlopinions/ci 16629121 Five more of our jammed freeways will get a look as possibilities for toll lanes. Who doesn't look longingly at the carpool lane when driving solo on our jammed freeways? Soon we may be able to go with the flow. For a price, of course. Metropolitan Transportation Authority officials meet today to consider recommendations to convert five high-occupancy vehicle lanes (HOy) to HOT (high occupancy /toll). The list includes one of a driver's worst nightmares: the San Diego Freeway (405) between the 105 and the 10. The five stretches of freeway could be next in line for conversion to toll roads, allowing lone motorists to pay for the privilege of sharing a lane now reserved for carpoolers. We can hardly wait. But it may be awhile, because the MTA doesn't actually have the money to do the conversions. The five projects are under review by an ad hoc congestion-pricing committee, and financing would have to come from federal and state grants. The MT A is further along with work on HOT lanes for the Harbor Freeway (110) between the 405 and the 60, which is one of the most miserable late afternoon drives in the region for anyone trying to get to downtown LA from points south without benefit of the carpool lane. Another is in progress on the 5 between downtown LA and the 605. " An ofthis is an experiment by the MTA to see how much HOT lanes help lessen the overload on some of our worst commutes. Whether it helps a little or a lot, however, won't make it popular with an of those harried drivers. Some call these schemes Lexus Lanes, reserved for the rich while those with less money stay stuck in traffic, and some carpoolers worry that they will somehow get squeezed out. Both concerns are understandable. But why leave HOV lanes half empty when some drivers would be happy to pay for the privilege of easing the jam in the regular lanes? Flexible pricing, based on the level of demand, could help balance the flow, and revenue from tolls would help pay for more freeway improvements. The other four additions to the HOT project, in addition to the 405, would be the 105 between the 405 and 605; the 91 from the 110 to the Orange County line; the 57 from the 60 to the Orange County line, and the 10 between the 605 and San Bernardino County line. MT A officials say those freeways have strong potential for conversion to HOT lines. That's what many drivers would say, too, but a lot less politely . " 76 Streetsblog Los Angeles» What a Difference Two Years Makes. Warm Reception for Congestion pricing in San Gabriel Valley htl p: Ilia. s t reetsblog. orgl20 1 O/11/22/what -a-difference-Iwo-years-m a k es-warm-reception-for-congestion-pncing-i n-s an-g abner-valleyl • Metro will look at five corridors to convert HOV lanes to HOT lanes. For a better look, visit our Google Map Throughout 2008, local politicians and the media seemed to be in a race to see who could say more substance-free attacks on converting HOV Lanes on two Los Angeles freeeways. In particular, politicians of both parties representing the San Gabriel Valley, including Member of Congress, State Senators and County Supervisors on the Metro Board, threw such a fit they managed to get one freeway, the 1-210, removed from the proposal. • Along with those nasty off-peak toll lanes, these leaders managed to chase off hundreds of millions of federal dollars for transit improvements that the federal government was offering as a carrot to agencies for a one-year pilot program. Ifyou consider that Metro's final plan for the pilot project won't remove any cars from the HOV lanes that are being converted, those "leaders" have to be smarting that they basically gave away a hundred million dollars. Yet, outside of Streetsblog, nobody has seemed to call them on it. Which is why it is somewhat surprising to see the San Gabriel Valley Tribune publish an editorial that's basically a lukewarm embrace of Metro's plans to study converting HOV to variable toll lanes on five more stretches of L.A. County freeways ... especially since this time there's no promise of transit improvements to go with the toll lanes. The editorial recognizes that someone has to pay to maintain our highway system, and it might as well be the people that use it. We know deep down in our fuel injectors that we pay for the roadways one way or another, even if we never drive on a particular one, and that doing so directly -throwing bills into the gaping maw of a booth, or having a FastTrak device attached to our windshields may make some economic sense. Such a measured response would have benefited residents of the San Gabriel Va]]ey in 2008 when Supervisor Michael Antonovich pushed the Metro Board to remove the 210 from Metro's original congestion pricing plan. The hundreds in millions in transit improvements for the corridor would already have been spent to relieve thousands of residents of their car-dependency. Meanwhile, Metro hasn't even begun construction of the much­ feared toll booths on its replacement freeway, the 1-110. •But this time around, Antonovich's office is also taking a wait and see approach. They tell the Tribune: 77 "It's an interesting study," said Antonovich's transportation deputy, Michael Cano. "In our mind set • its more theoretical at this point. We're not opposed to the idea of toll lanes. But we'd like to see how the 10 corridor play s out first." Congestion pricing supporters welcome this change-of-heart from leaders in the San Garbiel Valley. Hopefully it leads to a more balanced and sustainable highway system in San Gabriel and beyond . • • 78 " Ti me for L.A. to pay the toll? http://www.dailybreeze.com/opinions/ci 16704280 East Coasters have dealt with toll roads for as long as there have been highways in America. West Coasters � especially Californians -not so much. In fact, until recent decades, not at all. We'll pay a bridge toll without too much protest, especially if the span is a spectacular one. But surface routes? No way. Especially not in the county that prides itself as being the heart of American car culture, Los Angeles. But the day of "free" in our freeways might be coming an end. The Metropolitan Transportation Authority is about to launch a major exploration of tolls in Southern California with an experiment along key parts of the region's freeway system. Among the considerations are high-occupancy toll lanes for the 405 Freeway from LAX to Interstate 5; the 105 Freeway between the 405 and the 605; the 91 from the 110 Freeway to Orange County; the 57 from the 60 to Orange County; and Interstate 10 between the 605 and San Bernardino County. The plan will allow solo motorists to join the carpoolers and the hybrid vehicles in the diamond lane at rush hour � for a fee. " This pilot will also be a test of congestion-based pricing models. When the freeways are at their most crowded, the price to drive solo in the so-called HOT lanes will be more expensive . The objections to this trial are legion. One of the most prevalent is the regressive nature of the tolls. For the wealthy, an extra couple of bucks will not put a noticeable dent in their budgets. But for the working poor, the cost for the solo HOV lanes might not be affordable. Worst still, it's the least affluent in minimum wage jobs who are most likely to face consequences at work if they are running late and could truly use the purchase of that most important commodity. The other side, however, notes that taking a few cars out of general traffic population will help everyone left, meaning those who don't pay extra will benefit as well. The spread of toll roads -or at least toll lanes -into Los Angeles County was perhaps inevitable, considering the traffic and cost of maintaining the infrastructure. While the experiment makes sense, transit officials must guard against the transit version of gated communities: Private freeways with pricing that almost completely eliminates the less-than-rich. One way or the other, we all pay for the roads and we all own them. And any attempt to speed up the region's traffic is welcome . " 79 New eastbound 91 lane opening liane, new, road -News http://www.ocregjster.com/newsflane-278297-new-road.hlml Motorists traveling from Orange County into Riverside County could soon shave an expected 15 minutes from •their commute as a new eastbound 91 lane is set to open Thursday. Officials said the new six-mile addition, between the 241 toll road and the 71, will ease traffic on a key stretch of the freeway by improving a traffic chokepoint near Coal Canyon Road. Officials said the new six-mile addition, between the 241 toll road and the 71, will ease traffic on a key stretch of the freeway by improving a traffic chokepoint near Coal Canyon Road. ERIC CARPENTER, THE ORANGE COUNTY REGISTER On Thursday, transportation officials and construction workers will gather on Santa Ana Canyon Road in Anaheim to inaugurate the new lane at a ceremony dubbed as the "first step to a better commute and a better connection." With more than 300,000 motorists who travel the 91 daily, the added lane is set to be a traffic relief for commuters, officials said. The project also helped create 12-foot standardized lanes and a 10-foot shoulder area within the expanded segment. The $59.5 million project is primarily funded by the federal stimulus program, which is contributing $47.9 million . The Riverside County Transportation Commission provided $5 million for the project and the Orange County Transportation Authority is allocating $6.6 million in tolls from the 91 Express Lanes. • The lane addition is the first of numerous improvements planned for the 91. Construction is expected to begin next year to add one new lane in each direction from the 55 freeway to the 241 toll road. Transportation leaders from Riverside and Orange counties have been at odds for years over what to do with the 91. Just this August, the Riverside Orange Corridor Authority suspended any further analysis of a proposed tunnel that would connect both counties. Officials said the $8.6 billion project, that was envisioned to be built beneath the Santa Ana Mountains in the Cleveland National Forest, would be too expensive. Last year, two new lanes also opened along the 241 toll road where it meets the 91. The lane dedication ceremony is scheduled to begin at 10 a.m. at 8712 East Santa Ana Canyon Road. Contact the writer: amolina@ocregister.com or 714-704-3795 Article Motorists traveling from Orange County into Riverside County could soon shave an expected 15 minutes from their commute as a new eastbound 91 lane is set to open Thursday. Officials said the new six-mile addition, between the 241 toll road and the 71, will ease traffic on a key stretch of • the freeway by improving a traffic chokepoint near Coal Canyon Road. 80 On Thursday, transportation officials and construction workers will gather on Santa Ana Canyon Road in Anaheim • to inaugurate the new lane at a ceremony dubbed as the ":first step to a better commute and a better connection." • • 81 " New eastbound lane opens on 91 Freeway http://www,sepr,org/news/2010/12/02lnew-91-lane-12021 01 The headache is not over for commuters between Riverside and Orange counties, but it's getting better. County, state and federal officials today opened a new eastbound lane on the 91 Freeway. The new lane runs about six miles between the 241 Toll Road in eastern Orange County and the 71 Freeway in Riverside County. The $65 million price tag is paid for mostly by federal stimulus money. This is the fIrst stimulus-funded transportation project to be completed in Orange County. "We're estimating that you're going to be saving about 15 minutes each day as you travel eastbound on this highway," said Victor Mendez of the u.s. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration. Some people said one new eastbound lane won't make much of a dent in the bottleneck and that a new lane will only attract new traffic. But the Orange County Transportation Authority's Will Kempton sees it the other way around. "This is a growth state. This is a growth region," he said. "It's not a matter of, 'If you build it, they will come: They are here and they will keep coming. So we've got to make sure we have alternative forms oftransportation available. We've got to make sure that we can provide whatever capacity that we can." " More capacity is on the way. The Orange County Transportation Authority plans to add one additional lane in each direction on the 91 Freeway between the 55 and the 241. That project is due to begin next year. And crews plan to break ground on more improvements to the 91 Freeway in Riverside County in 2012. "We will have a mirror image of what's in Orange County in Riverside," said Anne Mayer of the Riverside County Transportation Commission. "We'll have two express lanes in each direction. We're also going to be adding another lane of general purpose capacity on the outside. We'll be rebuilding all of the interchanges." Those new lanes will stretch all the way from the Orange-Riverside county line to Interstate 15. They're expected to be completed by 2016. " 82 Insurance Commissioner Poizner Approves Californias First-Ever Pay-As-You Drive Auto Insurance Program • News: 2010 Press Release For Release: December 2. 2010 Media Calls Only: 916-492-3566 Insurance Commissioner Poizner Approves California's First-Ever Pay-As-You Drive Auto Insurance Program State Farm estimates customers will reap $31 million in savings from their new program; Auto Club estimates $68 in savings per vehicle for participating customers Insurance Commissioner Poizner announced today that he is enabling Californians to take advantage of a cutting-edge program that will reward drivers who voluntarily drive fewer miles with lower auto insurance rates. Commissioner Poizner has approved filings by the Automobile Club of Southern California and State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance to offer this kind of coverage to customers. "The voluntary pay-as-you-drive initiative is an innovative program that will allow insurers to offer plans based on more accurate mileage, so that people who choose to drive less will pay less for auto insurance," said Commissioner Poizner. "The regulations • I finalized last year allow insurers to offer this innovative option without compromising consumer privacy. I'm pleased to approve plans for Automobile Club of Southern California and State Farm to offer this kind of coverage to policyholders. I hope other insurers follow suit." "Since the Auto Club began offering auto insurance in 1912, we have focused on providing members with quality service and competitive rates that accurately reflect their driving experience," said Christopher Baggaley, senior vice president of insurance operations. "We implemented a verified mileage program because we expect that it will provide more accurate, lower rates to policyholders who choose to participate in the program." "Drive Safe & Save™ will help us better match price to risk and that's a good thing," said Tom Conley, State Farm Agency Vice President. "We believe customers will respond positively to this program." Beginning on February 28,2011, State Farm customers will have an option to move into the new verified mileage plan, which State Farm has labeled its Drive Safe and Save program. Under the plan, State Farm will offer an initial 5 percent discount for the first policy term to insured drivers who agree to self-report their odometer readings at the beginning and end of each policy period or who agree to allow State Farm to access their mileage data automatically when the insured's vehicle has an active On Star system. The mileage amounts used in determining the applicable rates for each subsequent policy term will be based upon the actual verified mileage from the previous term. Those • insureds who choose these more accurate mileage reporting methods and drive less 83 --. than 19,000 miles will have lower premiums than those insureds who simply estimate their miles for the policy term based upon current loss projections. In addition, State • Farm has created 39 new and narrower 500 mile pricing intervals for its Drive Safe and Save program which will allow those who drive fewer miles to achieve even greater savings. State Farm presently has 3.3 million auto policies in force with written premiums of $2.5 billion in California for 2009. They estimate 25 percent of their policyholders may select the optional Drive Safe and Save program which would result in a saving to policyholders of $31 million. Drivers who choose to purchase this policy will then be rated based upon the actual annual miles they have driven. Under the program, consumers who reduce their driving habits by as little as 500 miles per year will see a reduction in their rates. Beginning on February 1, 2011, The Automobile Club of Southern California's Pay-Drive program will be made available to insured drivers who agree to report their odometer readings at the beginning and end of each policy period or who agree to plug in a small "telematics" device into their automobile which will automatically record the nurnber of miles driven. The rates for those who verify their actual miles driven via these methods will now be, depending on the number of miles driven, from 1 percent to 10.5 percent lower than those insureds in the same "mileage band" who simply estimate their miles for the policy term. • Existing policyholders who choose to be part of the Auto Club's verified mileage program will pay an average of $68 per vehicle less than those who choose not to be part of the program . ### Please visit the Department of Insurance Web site at www.insurance.ca.gov. Non media inquiries should be directed to the Consumer Hotline at 800.927.HELP. Callers from out of state, please dial 213.897.8921. Telecommunications Devices for the Deaf (TOO), please dial 800.482.4833. If you are a member of the public wishing information, please visit our Consumer Services . • 84 Drive Less, Pay Less: New Insurance Plans for California http://laist.com/2010/12/03/dri~ less pay less new insurance p.php Drivers who telecommute or who keep their mileage to a minimum can soon opt to sign up for insurance plans • that offer' savings for driving less. California Insurance Commissioner Steve Poizner announced yesterday that two insurance providers, State Farm and the Automobile Club of Southern California, will implement new pay-as­ you-drive insurance plans effective February 2011. Using verified mileage, the new plans will better allow insurance providers to offer premiums based on more accurate risk; the less distance you cover behind the wheel, the less of a risk you have for being involved in an accident. Poizner's office released details about each of the plans: Beginning on February 28, 2011, State Farm customers will have an option to move into the new verified mileage plan, which State Farm has labeled its Drive Safe and Save program. Under the plan, State Farm will offer an initialS percent discount for the first policy term to insured drivers who agree to self-report their odometer readings at the beginning and end of each policy period or who agree to allow State Farm to access their mileage data automatically when the insured's vehicle has an active On Star system. They have created a series of 500 mile intervals for narrower pricing plans, and for those participating in the program, "consumers who reduce their driving habits by as little as 500 miles per year will see a reduction in their rates." Via the Automobile Club, a similar plan will be available as of February 1, 2011. The new plan "will be made • available to insured drivers who agree to report their odometer readings at the beginning and end of each policy period or who agree to plug in a small 'telematics' device into their automobile which will automatically record the number of miles driven." Customers participating in the verified mileage plans will pay rates "from 1 percent to 10.5 percent lower than those insureds in the same 'mileage band' who simply estimate their miles for the policy term." • 85 http://blogdownlown.com/201 0/1215907 -expresspark-aims-to-giw-smarts-Io--downlowns• ExpressPark Aims to Give Smarts to Downtown's Parking Spots :: blogdowntown Eric Richardson [Flickr] 10,000 new parking meters that accept credit card payments were installed by the city this summer. IXJWNTOWN LOS ANGELES The streets of Downtown should get a whole lot smarter in 2011 as implementation work gets underway on ExpressPark, an ambitious parking management system that designed to give the city's Department of Transportation and the public a real-time view of 5,500 on-street and 7,500 off-street parking spaces. The department will use that data to alter rates at K"{pressPark zones throughout Downtown, raising or lowering them up to 50 percent in order to achieve a 70 to 90 percent occupancy rate. • While that aspect of the program has gotten the most media attention, project manager Peer Ghent says it's only a piece of the puzzle. "The part that's never been done is the management system to integrate all these different systems," he says of the smart meters, parking sensors and web interfaces included in the project. The city's parking meter technology has already gotten smarter in recent years. Pay stations were deployed on some Downtown blocks in 2008, and earlier this year the city deployed 10,000 smart parking meters across the city. The new technologies allow drivers to pay for their parking with a credit card and are more resistant to the tampering that has plagued traditional meters. Requirements for ExpressPark call for cell phone payments to be added to that mix. E.xpressPark's most noticeable addition will be the installation of sensors in those 5,500 on-street spaces that will communicate their availability back to the management system. That data will then be communicated in real­ time to message boards on the street, a website that the city will set up and the regionalSl1 traffic information system. The requirements even call for ties allowing both pricing and availability data to find its way into in­ vehicle GPS systems. Despite the ambitious aims, Downtowners won't see a lot in the way of torn-up streets. Construction will take place to install the parking sensors, but most of the rest of the work will take place behind the scenes. "The meters themselves are not challenging," says Ghent, who calls the hardware and software on the backend "the real guts of the project." Those new parking meters installed this summer may stay, or they may not. The city i<; leasing the units currently on the streets, and it will be up to the winning bidder on the ExpressPark project to recommend what • hardware the system should use. Those new units will be purchased instead of rented. The program is federally-funded as part of Metro's ExpressLanes project, aimed at congestion relief on the 10 and 110 freeways. Proposals are due in two weeks from companies interested in implementing the system for the city. A winning bid will be chosen in February, and installation is required to be completed by October. 86 While Ghent and the city hope that ExpressPark's smarts will make parking simpler and reduce the time drivers spend looking for a space, the program won't solve all of Downtown's parking woes. State law mandates that drivers with handicap placards can park free and for an unlimited time at any meter, so no amount of rate tweaking will affect availability at spots currently filled by placard parkers. •The system also won't eliminate traffic crunches around major events. "If there's a Laker game, it's going to be congeSted regardless of what we do," Ghent notes. Still, Ghent thinks the system has a lot of promise. "If somebody can get excited about parking meters, this is the tinle." • • 87 " " " Critical vote for congestion pricing I San Francisco Examiner A controversial plan to charge drivers a fee for entering portions of San Francisco has reached a fork in the road: whether to drive ahead or curb the plan. Based on models in London and Stockholm, city planners are considering a driver toll to help decrease traffic congestion and raise funds for transit and infrastructure projects. While several different proposals are in the works, the one with the most support would charge motorists a $3 fee for entering The City's northeast cordon. an area that stretches as far north as Fisherman's Wharf. south to the Mission district, and west to lower Pacific Heights. Congestion pricing would generate $60 million to $80 million in annual revenue that would be invested in transportation programs, according to the San Francisco County Transportation Authority, the city agency in charge of the study. The program would also help reduce traffic by about 12 percent and speed up transit vehicles by 20 to 25 percent. On Tuesday, the Board of Supervisors. acting in its role as board of directors of the SFCTA, will vote on whether to extend the study into congestion pricing. or to shelve the idea indefinitely. Dave Snyder, spokesman for the San Francisco Transit Riders Union, said his group is enthusiastic about the SFCTA moving further with the study ..Although Snyder said the union still needs more information before offering a full endorsement on congestion pricing. any project that speeds up transit and provides transportation funding is a good idea . The San Francisco Chamber of Commerce has consistently opposed any plans to charge motorists for entering downtown San Francisco. Jim Lazarus, public policy director for the Chamber, said congestion pricing in downtown San Francisco would drive potential visitors to other cities in the Bay Area. "~'s already expensive enough here," Lazarus said. 'The last thing we need to do is make it costlier for people who want to visit their doctor, go shopping, see a cultural event or anything else that would bring them to San Francisco." If the Board of Supervisors approves the study, the SFCTA will continue to develop their ideas for congestion pricing. The agency projects to have a final design on the plan finished by 2014. The implementation date would come in 2015, according to agency documents. One outstanding question about the congestion pricing plan is whether it would need voter approval. Californians in November approved Proposition 26, which mandated that fees now be treated as taxes. If the proposition is found to be applicable to the program. then two-thirds of San Francisco voters would have to give their approval for implementation. Plans for payment There are three options on the table for howto charge drivers in so-called congestion pricing, V'.hich WJuld implement a fee for vehicles entering parts of San Francisco . Study 1* 88 " Charge drivers $3 for entering and leaving the northeast cordon during morning and evening peak hours Study 2 " " Charge $6 for outbound drivers leaving the northeast cordon during evening peak hours Study 3* " Charge motorists $3 for entering and leaving points along the southern gateway between San Mateo and San Francisco counties * Options 1 and 3 have a $6 daily max Source: SFCTA " " 89 " Interview: Matthew Roth on the price of driving I San Francisco Bay Area News -Crosscu rrents from KAL W From HOT lanes to congestion pricing, cities across the region are rethinking how we get around -and how much it should cost. For the past two years, Matthew Roth has been watching these changes unfold from his position as a reporter and editor for San Francisco Streetsblog. Roth's moving on to other things, but before he goes, KALW's Casey Miner stopped him long enough to talk about the Bay Area's transportation future. * * * CASEY MINER: I wanted so start with this controversy that's sort of exploded over the past couple days. The Board of Supervisors voted this morning to continue studying options for a congestion pricing scheme, where drivers would be charged a certain amount of money to enter the city from different points. I'm wondering, could you explain what are options under consideration, also why this is controversial? " MATTHEW ROTH: I think congestion pricing is an interesting idea that's been tried in other cities -they tried to make it happen in New York City, but it never got all the way to the point of implementation. It's essentially an idea that in especially crowded areas you charge for driving into those areas. The goal is to reduce peak hour commute traffic, to encourage to take other modes oftravel, including transit. And then with the revenues you gain from charging people who still choose to drive, pay for better transit, pay for better streets for pedestrians and for cyclists. What the Board of Supervisors did today-it's kind of ironic how much attention has come to this. They basically they just voted to continue the study the various congestion pricing cordons. MINER: It's sort of interesting what you were saying, because people coming in from Oakland and Marin County already pay a great deal of money to cross the bridge and come into San Francisco. It's something we accept as the cost of doing business. I wonder if you have ideas about why this in particular is really riling people up to the degree that it is. ROTH: It makes sense: I mean think about it, it's driving and it's tax, quote unquote tax-it's really a fee -those are two of the most American things in the world, to hate taxes and love driving, and driving as free as you possibly can. I think it's understandable you would have as much turmoil as you do about it because it's a novel idea, it's something people get quote-unquote for free right now-the other costs of actually maintaining the roads, and pollution, and the harmful effects health and otherwise, those are all subsumed socially, it goes into other taxes. so you don't really see the impact you have driving. Why would you want to payfor something you get for free now? On the Bay Bridge, they recently changed their toll structure so you have a congestion charge. So if you come in between I think 6 and 10, it's more than it is after 10. Everyone complained when they were about to change the toll structure, they said it would be a horrible thing to ding drivers. And what you saw, including media in the sky, and helicopters the day of the charge, was that people changed their patterns. Some people paid for it, others waited and came into the city after 10, which achieved the exact goal they had, which was to disperse the congestion. Really, streets are not congested all day in San Francisco in the downtown corridor, it's really at those peak " hours. It's when everyone's driving into work and when everyone's leaving in their cars. Those are also the peak hours for Muni or for other transit, for cyclists. Everybody's condensed in this area at the same time, so that's when you want to make the improvements. MINER: And so has that success of the congestion pricing on the Bay Bridge, you were saying people did change their habits, is that something that has lasted in the subsequent months? 90 ROTH: Yes, from what I understand from the data, there has been a shift, and you have less traffic in the most congested hours. MINER: And so would it be reasonable to expect that you'd see similar results in San Francisco with a congestion pricing structure? • ROTH: All the models they've created tend to suggest that you would have quite a bit of savings in congestion and also a lot revenue -revenue is anywhere between 60 and 80 million dollars, and you could see upwards a 10, 12, 15 percent reduction in traffic, according to the models. Of course they don't know, these are just models. One of the things that remains to be seen is a pilot. And if we do a pilot, then we'll have a real-world example of whether or not it's a success. MINER: We're talking to Matthew Roth, deputy editor of Streetsblog San Francisco. Speaking of bridge tolls, in cities like New York, tolls are much higher than they are in the Bay Area. I'm wondering if we can expect to see our own tolls continue to go up, and how you think people would react to something like that? ROTH: I think we're going to see higher tolls, in my opinion, we're going to see a cost of driving that better reflects actual extemal costs to environment, to our health, in congestion and lost productivity because of traffic. MINER: Do you think that's something that the public will be on board with, or will it have to be to be forced on people? ROTH: I think it's going to be a difficult pitch to get the public excited about paying more, but if planners do a couple of things, they start out, elaborate the issue very well, and they talk about the • problem and clarify what that is, then say here's the solution, here's how we're going to do it, and you show that through demonstration projects or pilots, and you deliver on the promise, I think people will be less upset about it. But I think at some level, there's going to be a degree of it where we look and we say: these are our values, climate change and how we want to address it. All the driving we do right now is inimical to those values. I think we'll get to a point where we look back on this period of a great deal of driving, of vehicles that are not very fuel efficient, and we'll think to ourselves, how did we live in that? Would you still drive ifyou had to pay extra? Let us knowon our Facebook page. • 91 The Truth About HOT Lanes» INFRASTRUCTURIST • one for each HOT lane in operation today.* questions Fifteen years ago this month, the country's first HOT lane opened up on Route 91 in Orange Country, California. Short for "high-occupancy toll lanes," HOT lanes allow solita ry drivers to pay for the perks of the HOV carpool lane. The lanes employ electronic payment and graduated pricing systems to maintain a steady flow of 60 mi les per hour. HOT lanes have been criticized at times (including on this site) for favoring the wealthy. But interest in HOT lanes -heck, we can't resist -seems to be heating up. San Francisco and Miami recently opened them, joining San Diego, Denver, and Minneapolis, and more than 30 others are being developed or constructed in places like Los Angeles, Houston, Dallas, and Washington, D.C. We asked Jack Finn, head of toll services for HNTB Corporation -the infrastructure firm that designed Route 9 -nine Infrastructurist: A recent poll conducted by HNTB found that more than two-thirds of • respondents were willing to pay higher tolls to save time. Why are HOT lanes taking off now? Jack Finn: Orange County was very successful. Shortly after that, in San Diego, we had another lane that was also very successful. They did a lot of surveys and were getting an approval rating up around 75-80%, even for people who don't payforthe lane. That's because people in the general­ purpose [free] lanes are happy that people getting are out of their lanes and driving in HOT lanes. Coupled with that is the lack offederal and state funding for roadways. Places are looking for other ways of financing road construction now they can get a revenue stream to get a new lane and pay for the construction. I: Who pays for the construction of HOT lanes? ...IF: [Route 91] was built as a public-private partnership. So the private sector company built the lanes and was allowed to collect and keep tolls to payoff their investment. In 2003" Orange County bought it back from private sector. Typicallywhat's happened is it's built as a new lane in a congested corridor. Or you can take an existing HOV lane and construct a charge toll. I don't think any have overtaken existing general­ purpose, free lanes. A big one is the Washington, D.C. area. They're building a HOT lane on the Beltway, and building • one on 1-95/395 that's about 35 miles long, I believe. That's also being done as public-private partnerships. They're over $1 billion each . I: What's the difference between HOV lanes and HOT lanes? JF: One of the criticisms of [HOV lanes] is that they're underutilized. The general-purpose lanes 92 next to them can be bumper-to-bumper, while the HOV lanes are underutilized. With HOT lanes, they're HOV lanes but you also charge a toll for single-occupant drivers to use them. So you can sell off that extra capacity to those single-occupancy drivers. You can price it just enough so that not everyone jumps in. If you have room for 1,000 vehicles an hour, you can price it so the lane still flows at 60 miles per hour. I: How do you make sure traffic stays at 60 miles per hour? JF: A general lane can handle 2,000 vehicles per hour per lane. Once you go above that, you're squeezing too many in. You may try to target 1,800 cars an hour in a HOT lane. For Route 91, they monitor traffic every 6 months. If it exceeds the targeted number by more than 10 percent, they jack up price 50 cents for next 6 months. So at 9 a.m. on Friday, if they're charging $3 and getting too many cars, then you'd go to $3.50. In San Diego, they measure traffic immediately, as it starts to get too crowded they change the price. I: What's an average price for a HOT lane? JF: It significantly varies by location and time of day. Orange County, for instance, is a very affluent area, and congestion is horrible, as you can imagine. The HOT lane there is 10 miles long. At the peak hour, the worst hour of the week, they charge $10 to go 10 miles. The alternative is, in that corridor, it's going to take you 45 minutes to an hour to get through that 1 O-mile stretch. In the off­ peak, at night, it's 75 cents on that same roadway. Others around the country, in Colorado, and down in Miami, the highest price is around $3 to go 10 miles. You might say typically the price range is 50 cents to three or four dollars. I: Some have criticized HOT lanes for being unfair to the poor. JF: The ones in California, when they first opened, people started to call them the "Lexus lanes." Then they started doing studies and it turns out everybody from all income levels and age groups uses the lanes. If you gotta punch a clock and were late two days before, you're willing to pay to make sure you get to work on time. One of the beauties of the HOT lane is that people don't typically pay to drive it every day. If they're running late or have to get to a meeting, they get in lane, pay, and bypass all the traffic. It's there when they need it. I: Is it possible that HOT lanes will encourage drivers to drive alone, which could be worse for the environment and for congestion? JF: You know, quite the opposite. They're building a lot of parking lots along the roadway-like the one in D.C. so people can carpool. You can pay to use [the HOT lane if you drive alone], but if you don't want to pay, you can carpool and ride in it for free. That's a guaranteed 60 miles per hour. For buses it works well. They ride for free. I: A recent report found that 45 percent of New York's urban highways were congested in 2007. That's a lot of time and money wasted. But the Northeast doesn't appear interested in HOT lanes. Why not? JF: I'm not 100% sure. The northeast does have a fair amount of toll roads. Because most drivers already have EZ-pass tag in their cars, so that would make it very easy. You'd have customers all over the place. There's a lot of HOV lanes, in Long island for instance. New Jersey, years ago, got federal money for HOV lanes, but then got rid of all their HOV lanes in the mid-'90s. It's a shame because they could have just converted them [to HOT lanes] and made money. 93 • • • I: What's the biggest challenge to the success of HOT lanes? • JF: Probably the biggest obstacle is the education of the general public on what these things are being used for. It's not the total [traffic] solution. They work because the other lanes are congested. No one would pay if the lanes beside them were free-flowing. You still have congestion in general purpose lanes. But corridors in New York and elsewhere, there's no option, and no money to build more lanes. A good introductory solution is to put a HOT lane in. At least you have one lane that's moving. * This Wiki entry lists only eight, but Route 91 remains a HOT lane. Image: WSDOT • • 94 Streetsblog San Francisco» California's Pay as You Drive Insurance Program Could Reduce Driving The California Department of Insurance has approved a pay-as-you-drive insurance program encouraged by environmental advocates and transportation planners because it provides an incentive to drive less by reducing premiums for low-mileage drivers. Widespread adoption of similar insurance policies could reduce driving in the U.S. by as much as eight percent, according to a Brookings Institution study. • 'The voluntary pay-as-you-drive initiative is an innovative program that will allow insurers to offer plans based on more accurate mileage, so that people who choose to drive less will pay less for auto insurance," California Insurance Commissioner Steve Poizner said recently when he announced the program with the participation of State Farm Insurance and the Automobile Club of Southern California. Though other insurance companies, notably Progressive Insurance, have experimented with pay­ as-you-drive policies, because of the large number of drivers in California and the scale of the program, it could have national Significance. State Farm -the state's largest automobile insurance company with 3.3 million policy holders and premiums of $2.5 billion -had previously required mileage to be self-reported by customers, who then got a small discount if they drove less than 7,500 miles in a year. Starting in late February, State Farm will offer an initialS percent discount for the first policy term to drivers who opt-in to the Drive Safe and Save program and agree to self-report their odometer readings at the beginning and end of each policy period. Policy holders with an active On Star system, which comes with many vehicles made by General Motors, can agree to allow State Farm to access their mileage data automatically. Customers who opt-in under the program will have their policies adjusted based on 500-mile segments up to 19,000 miles per year. For those who rarely drive, State Farm expects their premiums will be reduced by up to 45 percent. Assuming State Farm achieves its target of convincing one quarter of its policy holders to switch to pay-as-you-drive, the resulting savings would be $31 million a year. "From our perspective it's an opportunity to help our customer have more options when pricing their policy," said Sevag Sarkissian, a spokesperson for State Farm. "An exciting positive that goes along with this is the potential impact this has on the environment." State Farm and OnStar partnered in 2009 for a small pilot in Ohio, though both companies believe Californians will embrace the program in large numbers, given the state's reputation for environmental advocacy. "Both OnStar and State Farm are trying to be leaders. We're trying to work with California consumers to get lower rates," said Mark DuBois, manager of strategic alliances at OnStar. DuBois said the program is primarily about saving drivers money, but he noted the incentive to drive less would help the environment. "We're all trying to look at how to make green initiatives and look at ways to reduce that carbon footprint. We look at it as a potential to change consumer behavior." The environmental impact would be substantial, as the Brookings Institution study noted. If every driver in the state switched to pay-as-you-drive, the eight percent reduction in driving would translate to 24 billion fewer miles driven, 1.2 billion fewer gallons of gasoline and a seven to nine 95 • • percent reduction in carbon dioxide. According to a Victoria Transport Policy Institute study, widespread adoption of pay-as-you-drive would also reduce traffic crashes, lowering medical bills and saving lives. "Mileage reductions reduce traffic density (vehicles per lane-mile), which reduces crash rates," the study noted. • Another potential benefit of the program is the gradual public acceptance of reporting vehicle miles traveled (VMT). For Robert Atkinson, President of the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation and former chair of the National Commission on Surface Transportation Infrastructure Financing at the U.S. Department of Transportation, this could make it easier to transition to a distance-based VMT tax to pay for roads. This is particularly important as cars get increaSingly better mileage and the gas tax now pays for barely half the cost of highways. Given that raising the gas-tax has been a political third rail, a shift to another funding mechanism will be crucial to pay for infrastructure, according to Atkinson. "People will get marginally used to the notion of paying by the mile. Then it's less of a big emotional or intellectual shift," said Atkinson about moving to a distance-based tax. "If it works in California, then they talk about it elsewhere. Eventually these innovations will permeate to other states," he said. • • 96 New App Tells Parkers Where the Spaces are in Hollywood -Parking -Curbed LA • Wednesday, December 22, 2010, by Adrian Glick Kudler • Pi1c!.ng: Paym&nl OptIOnS: ltmeUmlt: NO fl'lIr.king: Ttl: Today Los Angeles and parking tech company Streetline announced the release of Parker for iPhone, "the first app that gives drivers real-time parking information," according to a press release. The app is Hollywood-only right now (zinger from City Council President Eric Garcetti: "Sometimes it feels like more movie stars have been discovered in Hollywood than parking spaces."). It costs $1.99 and shows users which blocks have more than four, more than two, or fewer than two spots, plus time limits, pricing, and payment methods. The app uses data from Streetline's in-ground sensors, which in addition to Hollywood, have been installed in Studio City and parts of Chinatown, according to TechCrunch. The company's CEO says an Android app is coming in the next quarter. · Streetline and the City of Los Angeles Unveil First Real-Time Parking ApR for iPhone [PRNewswire] · New Streetline App Gives L.A. Drivers Real Time Data On Available Parking [TechCrunch] · Parker [iTunes] • 97 Streetline and the City of Los Angeles unveil first real-time parking app for iPhone -LA Daily News LOS ANGELES -Los Angeles Mayor Villaraigosa and City Council President Eric Garcetti today joined Streetline CEO Zia Yusuf to announce the Parker for iPhone App -the first app that gives drivers real-time parking information and a fast. convenient way to find open metered parking spaces and nearby garages. It is available now from the App Store. The Parker for iPhone App features a simple interface that gives users an instant, location-based map pinpointing the city blocks with the most available parking spaces. Users can see which blocks have: more than four, more than two or less two spots; as well as blocks with "rock star" parking -the areas closest with the most open spaces. The app also delivers information about parking space time limits, pricing, and whether meters take credit cards or coins. It also will direct drivers to the nearest City parking garages as an alternative to street parking. The app is based on Streetline's patented smart parking platform that detects the presence of a car through a network of ultra-low power wireless sensors located in each parking space. This information is then transmitted back to mobile smart phones and web ?pplications that give drivers a live, accurate picture of open parking spaces across a city. The entire system helps cities, airports, universities and private organizations reduce costs, increase efficiencies, and alleviate the environmental impact of traffic caused by parking. Studies estimate that more than 30 percent of city traffic is caused by drivers looking for parking, and Parker for iPhone dovetails Los Angeles' and Streetline's efforts to implement smart city technologies that make urban areas more livable, cleaner, and more efficient. Streetline smart parking solutions have been deployed in California and New York, and several U.S. cities will deploy its smart parking technology in 2011. "We are excited that Los Angeles is the first city in the country to offer this unique app to residents and visitors," said Mayor Villaraigosa. "By making parking easier, we can help people get where they are going faster, and reduce pollution and traffic congestion caused by drivers circling in hopes of finding an open spot." "Sometimes it feels like more movie stars have been discovered in Hollywood than parking spaces. This app will help drivers save time, reduce traffic and air pollution, and make visiting Hollywood even more enjoyable than it already is," said Council President Eric Garcetti. "LADOT has been working hard to utilize new technologies like Streetline's to help connect the residents and visitors of Los Angeles with valuable information to make their lives easier," saidAmir Sedadi, InterimGeneral Manager of the City Los Angeles Department of Transportation. 'This new system will transform the parking and driving experience in Hollywood, and we look forward to rolling out this service to other parts of Los Angeles. II "We are excited to partner with the City of Los Angeles to launch this innovative service for locals and visitors in Hollywood," said Zia Yusuf, CEO of Streetline. "We applaud Los • • • 98 Angeles for exploring and implementing smart parking solutions that can not only transform how people park, but also address the critical need to reduce traffic and • pollution." Initially covering the areas in and around Hollywood, the Parker for iPhone App is available for $1.99 from the App Store or at www.itunes.com/appstore . • • 99 Steps taken to connect 241 and 91 Express Lanes I toll, express, road -News -The Orange County Register The agency that operates the 241 Toll Road is taking steps to design a connector to the 91 Express Lanes -easing the commute between Orange and Riverside counties. • For up to $2.3 million, RBF Consulting would begin designing the connector and determining how such a project, targeted for years, would affect the environment and the traffic. Officer Richard Powell attemps to pull a vehicle over on the eastound 91 Express Lanes in this file photo. CINDY YAMANAKA, THE ORANGE COUNTY REGISTER ADVERTISEMENT Currently, commuters willing to pay tolls to bypass some of Orange County's worse traffic -on the eastbound 91 freeway through Anaheim Hills and Yorba Linda -must choose either the 91 Express Lanes that bisect the 91 freeway, or the 241 Toll Road that rolls south to Rancho Santa Margarita. The 241 Toll Road agency and the Orange County Transportation Authority want motorists to be able to take both toll roads in the same trip. Besides making the commute faster for those paying tolls, the project would lure drivers off of the 91 freeway, even helping those who don't pay tolls. 'The reason that they're doing it is to improve mobility and decrease the backup on the 91," Toll Road spokeswoman Susan Williams said. "That's where most of the problem is.II If approved, a connector will be constructed from the northbound 241 Toll Road directly to the eastbound 91 Express Lanes. There would also be a direct connector from the westbound 91 Express Lanes to the southbound 241. In November, more than 1 million trips were taken on the 91.Express Lanes alone. said Joel Zlotnik. an OCTA spokesman. The OCTA, which operates the countis public-bus line, owns the Express Lanes that run 10 miles between the 55 freeway and the Riverside County border. Tolls depending on the day, the hour and the direction -range from $1.30 to $9.95 a trip. The 241 is run by a local government, the Foothill/Eastern Transportation Corridor Agency. To take the entire 25-mile route can cost $5.50 . It is unclear if the tolls would change somehow if the toll roads were directly connected. 100 • • At a meeting Wednesday, a 241 committee recommended that the full board proceed with the $2.3-million phase of the project. The majority of the study would be completed by October 2012. "We anticipate the environmental impact will be minimal," said Lisa Telles, a 241 spokesman. • A 2008 study considered how people wanting to drive both the 241 and the 91 Express Lanes had to take indirect routes. "It showed 54 percent of the northbound 241 toll road trips actually travel past the interstate 15," Williams said." Those are people who would be good candidates for the direct connector." How to fund the connectors' construction and the total cost for the project have not been determined. But the OCTA and the toll road agency have already agreed to split the cost. The $2.3-million contract will be considered by the toll road board on Jan. 13 for final approval. Caltrans would help with any design and engineering and must sign off on the project. "A lot of people ask about this project," Telles said. 'They wonder, 'Why can't I connect from the toll road to the Express Lanes?' The answer is that it's not a simple solution." Article •The agency that operates the 241 Toll Road is taking steps to design a connector to the 91 Express Lanes -easing the commute between Orange and Riverside counties. For up to $2.3 million, RBF Consulting would begin designing the connector and determining how such a project, targeted for years, would affect the environment and the traffic. Currently, commuters willing to pay tolls to bypass some of Orange County's worse traffic -on the eastbound 91 freeway through Anaheim Hills and Yorba Linda -must choose either the 91 Express Lanes that bisect the 91 freeway, or the 241 Toll Road that rolls south to Rancho Santa Margarita. • 101 Value Pricing Pilot Program Express Travel Choices (Phose II) Proposal • • Appendix D: Evaluation Framework/or 1-10 and 1-110 Pricing Demonstrations -Executive Summary • 102 Value Pricing Pilot Program Express Travel Choices (Phase /I) Proposal • This page intentionally left blank • • 103 " EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This report provides an analytical framework for evaluating the Los Angeles County (LA) Congestion Reduction Demonstration (CRD) effort under the United States Department of Transportation (U .S. DOT) Urban Partnership Program Agreement (UPA) program. It identifies the hypothesis and questions to be tested and answered in the evaluation; the evaluation analyses and measures of effectiveness; and the data needed to conduct the analysis. Background In 2006, the U.S. DOT, in partnership with metropolitan areas, initiated a program to explore reducing congestion through the implementation of pricing activities combined with necessary supporting elements. This program was instituted through the UPAs and the Congestion Reduction Demonstrations (CRDs). Within each program, multiple sites around the U.S., including Los Angeles, were selected through a competitive process. The selected sites were awarded funding for implementation of congestion reduction strategies. The applicants' proposals for congestion reduction were based on four complementary strategies known as the 4Ts: Tolling, Transit, Telecommutingffravel Demand Management, which includes additional travel demand management (TDM) strategies, and Technology. " The UPAlCRD national evaluation is sponsored by the U.S. DOT. The Research and Innovative Technology Administration (RITA) Intelligent Transportation Systems Joint Program Office (ITS JPO) is responsible for the overall conduct of the national evaluation. Representatives from the modal agencies are actively involved in the national evaluation. The Battelle team was selected by the U.S. DOT to conduct the national evaluation through a competitive procurement process. The purpose of the national evaluation is to assess the impacts of the UPAlCRD projects in a comprehensive and systematic manner across all sites. The national evaluation will generate information and produce technology transfer materials to support deployment of the strategies in other metropolitan areas. The national evaluation will also generate findings for use in future federal policy and program development related to mobility, congestion, and facility pricing. The Battelle team developed a National Evaluation Framework (NEF) to provide a foundation for evaluation of the UPAlCRD sites. The NEF is based on the 4Ts congestion reduction strategies and the questions that the U.S. DOT seeks to answer through the evaluation. The Los Angeles County CRD Projects The Los Angeles County (LA) Congestion Reduction Demonstration effort is led by the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro). The CRD projects are being implemented with the assistance of a number of supporting agencies especially the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) and the Los Angeles Department of Transportation (LADOT). The Los Angeles County CRD projects are intended to reduce congestion, promote throughput, and enhance mobility in the 1-10 and 1-110 corridors, and in downtown Los Angeles. Figure ES-l shows the location of the L.A. CRD project elements . Los Angeles Urban Partnership Agreement January 13, 2010 " Final National Evaluation Plan Page vii 104 CD ExpressLanes ., I",,~ased 1'"" "<!<!Wocy • lnu1stl Cem~hpanSfi)n!)mpf~nlS • • Figure ES-1. Locations of Los Angeles County CRD Projects The U.S. DOT is allocating $210.6 million in Federal grant funding for the Los Angeles projects. These funds are drawn from the Federal Transit Administration (FT A) 5309 Bus and Bus Facilities Program (the "Bus Program"). The Los Angeles County CRD projects are briefly described as follows. Transit Improvements. Over half of LA's CRD budget will be devoted to transit improvements. The frequency of Metro Rapid service in the 1-10 EI-Monte Busway and 1-110 Harbor Transitway corridors will be significantly increased through the acquisition of new buses. Other major improvements include a new downtown transit operating and maintenance facility; Los Angeles Urban Partnership Agreement January 13, 2010 Final National Evaluation Plan Page viii • 105 " improved Artesia Transit Center security; expansion of the EI Monte Transit Center; the creation of an EI Monte BuswayfUnion Station connection; expansion of the Pomona Metrolink Station (platforms and parking); and the implementation of additional transit signal prioritization in downtown Los Angeles. High Occupancy Toll (HOT) Lanes. L.A. will use CRD funds to convert HOV lanes to HOT in the 1-10 and 1-110 freeways. This will expand freeway capacity by permitting toll-paying, single-occupancy vehicles to use slack, HOT lane capacity. Since the current 1-10 HOV lane operates near capacity during peak travel periods, L.A. also plans to add an additional HOT lane to the section of the 1-10 bounded by the 1-71 0 and 1-605 interchanges. Intelligent Parking Management (IPM). LADOT will be deploying an IPM (also known as "ExpressPark") in downtown L.A. to alleviate congestion by reducing parking space seek time, an important source of traffic congestion. IPM entails demand-based pricing of city managed parking to promote space turnover and to maintain balance between the parking spaces available and the number of travelers wishing to make use of those spaces. The IPM effort will use advanced technologies to help downtown travelers rapidly locate available parking spaces and to apprise them of current parking prices. " Technology. L.A. will employ advanced technologies in support of both the HOT and IPM efforts. These technologies include algorithms that estimate HOT lane capacity and detect parking spot availability; and advanced, real-time information dissemination technology that will make this information available to travelers through their computers, cell phones, PDAs, and electronic signage. Ridesharing Promotion (Telecommuting/Travel Demand Management). L.A. will use a variety of promotional methods to increase the number of registered vanpools, and major employer-based ride sharing in general, in the 1-10 and 1-110 corridors. The methods include subsidies to travelers and vanpool operators and promotional outreach to major employers. Deployment Schedule Some transit elements of the Los Angeles County CRD programs are expected to be operational in July, 2010. Most of the remaining projects elements will be deployed by December, 2010. The major exception is a new Metro transit operating and maintenance facility. It is scheduled to be completed in December, 2011. Evaluation Analyses and Test Plans The national evaluation of the Los Angeles County CRD projects focuses on the 11 of 12 analysis areas outlined in the NEF. (The goods movement analysis area was not judged to be relevant to the L.A. CRD projects.) Plans for collecting and analyzing the data to support the 11 analyses are described in 11 test plans. Table ES-l presents the relationship among the analysis areas and the test plans . " Los Angeles Urban Partnership Agreement January 13, 2010 Final National Evaluation Plan Pageix 106 Table ES-1. Relationships among Data Test Plans and Evaluation Analyses Tolling • • 0 • Transit • 0 0 0 0 • Ridesharing 0 0 0• 0 0 Safety 0 • • Transportation Modeling • Environmental • 0 0 Surveys and Interviews • • • • 0 0 • • • Content • Cost Benefit • Exogenous Factors 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 • • • Major Input o Supporting Input * =This corresponds to the "TelecommutingITDM" analysis in the UPA/CRD National Evaluation Framework. The L.A. CRD local partners have requested that the reference to telecommuting be dropped in the L.A. evaluation documents because telecommuting is not included among their strategies. The transit analysis area is summarized in Table ES-2 to provide a representative example of the hypothesis-driven evaluation approach used in the L.A. CRD National Evaluation Plan. Transit is a key element of the Los Angeles County CRD. The CRD transit projects focus on making riding the bus in the 1-10 and 1-110 corridors more attractive and convenient by significantly increasing the frequency of bus rapid transit (BRT) service, reducing bus travel times through signal prioritization; mitigating traffic bottlenecks through infrastructure investments; and by reducing travelers potential security concerns at park-and ride-lots and bus stops. Los Angeles Urban Partnership Agreement January 13,2010 Final National Evaluation Plan Page x • 107 " Table ES-2. Transit Analysis Approach CRD projects will enhance transit performance within CRD corridors through reduced travel times, increased service reliability, and increased service capacity User perceptions of security at transit stationslpark-and-ride lots will be improved by CRD projects " CRD projects will increase ridership and facilitate a mode shift to transit within CRD corridors I ncreased ridership and mode shift to transit will contribute to increased person throughput, congestion mitigation, and transit cost-effectiveness within CRD corridors What was the relative contribution of each CRD project element to increased ridership/ transit mode sharel person throughput? " Los Angeles Urban Partnership Agreement Final National Evaluation Plan " Reduced end-to-end transit route trip times " Reduced perceived door-to-door passenger trip times " Increased in-transit service speeds " Increased transit reliability (headway variance if freq < 12 mins I schedule adherence if freq > 12 mins) " Increased transit capacity (# seats per hour) " Improved user satisfaction " User perceptions of security at transit stationslpark and ride lots " Increased transit ridership " Increased persons per peak revenue hour/period " Reduced cost per passenger mile " Increased park-and-ride lot utilization " Corridor mode split (%) " Increase in person throughput attributable to transit " Total change in traffic congestion (as determined in the Congestion Analysis) " Change in transit cost per passenger mile " User perceptions of project impacts " All of the above measures, supplemented by those obtained from other aspects of the evaluation " Transit travel time data " Transit reliability / schedule adherence data " Transit service characteristics data " Traveler survey data " Traveler survey data " Transit ridership data " Traveler survey data " Transit service characteristics data " Park-and-Ride lot utilization data " Traffic volume and vehicle occupancy data " Transit ridership data " Traveler survey data " Transit service characteristics data " Park-and-Ride lot utilization data " Traffic congestion data (from Congestion Analysis) " Traffic volume and vehicle occupancy data " Transit cost data " All of the above data sources January 13,2010 Page xi 108 The first hypothesis shown in Table ES-2 relates to the use of CRD funds to attain reduced • transit travel times and improved service reliability by buses in the 1-10 and 1-110 corridors. Six measures of effectiveness (reduced end-to-end transit route trip times, reduced perceived door-to-door passenger trip times, etc.) are presented in the adjacent column. They enumerate the measures that the evaluation will use to assess the correctness of the hypothesis. The third column lists the key data elements that will be needed to compute the measures of effectiveness. In the case of the first hypothesis, these data elements include numeric transit travel time and reliability data, which will provide objective measures of service improvements. Required data also includes survey data that will help the evaluation determine whether transit users perceive these service improvements. This transit analysis example typifies the multi-layered approach that will be used in many of the CRD evaluation analyses. In such a multi-layered approach, the later hypotheses focus on the intended "bottom line" results, which for the CRD is primarily to reduce congestion. The earlier hypotheses focus on the series of causes and effects that are intended to yield those bottom line results. In this case those earlier causes and effects consist of improving transit performance in order to increase ridership and transit mode share. Testing hypotheses at each of these layers helps explain how and why the intended congestion reduction results were realized or not realized. Plans for collecting and analyzing data pertaining to the transit hypotheses and all other evaluation hypotheses are detailed in a series of data test plan documents. Preliminary versions of these data test plan documents are included within the body of this evaluation plan. Futl, finalized versions of the data test plans will be generated in coming months. Responsibility for collecting the data required by the evaluation resides with the Los Angeles •County CRD partners. The Battelle evaluation team will provide guidance to the partners on data collection. The evaluation team is also responsible for analyzing the data and reporting results. Next Steps The next steps in the Los Angeles County CRD National Evaluation include developing the detailed test plans and initiating data collection and analysis activities. The detailed test plans will be developed based on this Los Angeles County CRD National Evaluation Plan. It is anticipated that the draft test plans will be developed by January 2010. The results of the Los Angeles County CRD national evaluation are expected in late-2012. Los Angeles Urban Partnership Agreement January 13,2010 Final National Evaluation Plan Page xii • 109 Value Pricing Pilot Program Express Travel ChoicES (Phase /I) Proposal • • Appendix E: Copy of Title 21 • 110 Value Pricing Pilot Program Express Travel Choices (Phase II) Proposal • This page intentionally left blank • • 111 " CALTRANS APPROVED TITLE 21 TRANSACTION RECORD TYPE CODES BACKGROUND In 1990 the California State legislature directed the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) to develop specifications and standards for an Automatic Vehicle Identification system such that a vehicle owner would not have to install more than one device to use toll facilities statewide. Caltrans developed open compatibility specifications for a two way communications protocol for Automatic Vehicle Identification including an initial set of Transaction Record Type codes mandated for statewide electronic toll collection use. This standard was Chaptered into the California Code of Regulations in 1992 as Title 21, Chapter 16, Articles I through 4, and is commonly referred to as "Title 21". The Title 21 standard envisioned more complex Transaction Record Type codes being developed for both electronic toll collection and other new applications. To maintain the growth of Title 21 it was specified that Caltrans shall function as the standards monitoring authority to authorize the use of new record types and to assign record type numbers to newly authorized records. INTENT This document represents the current Caltrans approved Transaction Record Type codes. APPROVAL HISTORY" Following is the Approval History of Title 21 Transaction Record Type codes. DATE REQUESTOR "'d Ar~RQY:E~;o;'~~'~'" ,... ~~~~~, ':."'.. ; ." . "\';';'~' .'. ,\ I 7-27-92 Caltrans California Code of Regulations Reader and Transponder compatibility specifications with an initial set of Transaction Record Type codes defmed for electronic toll collection in California. 2 1-31-97 Texas Instruments Caltrans Numerous additional Transaction Record Type codes approved involving lane specific, data transfer and other manufacturer specific information. Message Types were created to further defme information exchange. CALTRANS TECHNICAL CONTACT David Cordone, PE Traffic Operations Office of ITS Projects and Standards Email: david _ cordone@doLca.gov Telephone: (916) 653-4670 " California Departmenl ofTransporlation Page 1 of6 April 5, 1999 112 Caltrans Approwd Tllk 21 Transaction Record Type Colles DEFINlTIOl'f OF TECHNICAL TERMS • Alternative Polling: A synchronized process where a Reader checks to see ifa transponder bas arrived by alternatively using a Reader Polling Message with a ditfarem Transaction Record Type code. Approved Codes: Title 21 Transaction ~Type Codes that have been approved by the California Department ofTransportation. Data Element: A formalized representation of information. Elements are combined to form a message to provide the information defined by the Transaction Record Type codes. Data Registration: A process where the fonnat ofall data elements is collected and compiled so that different data assigmnents remainuniqae and functionality fa defined. It also provides the foundation fo.; regional and interregional iDteroperibility. Half Duplex: Data GanOe transmitted in both directions, but not at the same time. Message Types: M~e types in this dOcument are used. to fut1het define the fimetion and infon.nation exchanged between the reader and tnmsponderdming each stage of the half duplex communication scheme. 1'here are cwrentIy three types defined for the Reader Polling, Transponder Data and Reader Acknowledge messages. The ''message types" are spec:ific to this document and do not represent message types (e.g. in Title 21, Type 1 is a poll message) ideQtified in the T'ttle 21 standard. The "type" discrepancy will be clarified in a future T'ttle 21 standard .amcndment Polling: A synchronized process where a Reader checks to see if'a transponder bas arrived. Protoeol: A set ofrules orconveetions .formulated to control the exclla.nge of data between two or more entities. Reader: A system, typically in a fixed locati9n,. that triggers «activates a transponder. poUsthe transponder for specific information. and provides an acknowledge • messase to the k&n5ponder after;& validresponse to the polling message bas been receivld. Reader Acknowledge M ...: The third and final step in a halfduplex communication scheme. Provided to inform specific transponders that they have been sutcesSftllf:y processed and can be used to t.imninate the transaction. or continue processing. It i& a specific response to a Ttansaction Record Type.eode transmitted during the Transponder ~Messap. Reader Polling Message: . The first step in a half duplex communication scheme. Tells the t:ransponder the type.of transaction the reader wishes to conduct by transmission of a Transaction Record Type code. Title 21 Standard: California's compatibility specifications for a two way communications protocol for automatic vehicle identification including an initial set oftransaction record codes for use in electronic toll collection applications. Transaction Record Type: A unique code that specifies the type of valid transaction between a reader and a transponder. This code is transmitted during the Reader Polling, Transponder Data and Reader Acknowledge messages and lUrlquely defines the fUnction and information exclla.nged between the reader and transponder. Transponder: A typically portable electronic device that contains information which can be communicated to the reader. The transpOnders may have the capability to read and write information. Transponder Data Message: The second step in a halfduplex comml.Ulication scheme. Transponder provides the reader a specific response to a Transaction Record Type code tnmsmitted during the Reader Polling Message. • April S. 1999 113 Ca/trans Approved Thl£ 21 Transaction Record Type Codes • OVERVIEW OF PROTOCOL: The California Department of Transportation is providing the foUowing/orln/ormationai purposes only, and assumes no l",bUIlies for errors and omissions contained within. It is recommended that you contact your Title 21 system provider to confin:n capabilities and ensure that no proprietary implementations or design improvements compromise interoperability with other Title 21 systems. The currently defined Title 21 protocol is a half duplex communication scheme where the transponder takes its cues from the reader in the following order: L Reader Polling Message 2. Transponder Data Message 3. Reader Acknowledge Message. Each of these three stages of cotnmunication has three defined Message Types that further deftne the function and information exchanged between the reader and transponder. For complete technical details ofthe communication protocol refer to this document and to: • Bardays California Code ofRegulations for the rItle 21 standard for Reader and Tralisponder compatibility specifications • California's Definition for Title 21's Transponder ID Number Field for interoperabi1ity assignments within the State. . An overview of this protocol consists ofthe following ordered bits: 1. READER POllING M~GE: • • California [)epaI1mem ofTl'III15ponation Page 3 of6 April 5, 1999 114 Ca/trans An.nroved Title 21 Transaction Record Codes TRANSPONDER DATA MESSAGE: • • California Depanment of Transportation Page 4 of6 April 5. 1999 • 115 Caltrans Approved Title 1/ Transaction Record Type Codes • 3. . READER ACKNOWLEDGE MESSAGE: • HPE tLIlIT~ . [ DESCR1l:'TIQl"j "';:.;~G,r tHEXVAL~ ."' .. : 1 12 Header Always "AAC" 16 Transaction Record Type Code Always "COOO" ~.~_I 32 Transponder ID Number (Must Match Defmed in California and Transmission) undefmed everywhere else 32 Reader ID Number Undefmed 16 Transaction Status Code 16 Error Detection Code ,. 124 Iotal :'-'-'At·· Weader12 ~'-<-'.2 . Always "AAC" 16 Transaction Record Type Code Currently Always "COOX" 16 Agency Code Undefmed 32 Transponder ID Number (Must Match I Defmed in California and Transmission) undefmed everywhere else 16 Reserved Currently "00" Until Defmed ~- 32 Reader ID Number Undefined 16 TransactIon Status Code (Activates Undefmed -microprocessor if present when >= 8000) 16 Error Detection Code (CRC 16) Dependent on Above 156 Total """',., '. 3 12 . Header Always"AA C" 16 Transaction Record Type Code Currently Always "COOx" 16 Agency Code Undefmed 32 Transponder ID Num-ber (Must Match Defmed in California and Transmission) undefmed everywhere else 16 Reserved Currently ''00'' Unti} Defmed 32 Reader ID Nwnber Undefmed. 16 Transaction Status Code (Activates Undefmed microprocessor if present when >= 8000) 128 Data Undefmed 16 Error Detection Code (CRC16) Ji Dependent on Above 284 I Total ~- There are a nurnber of undefmed data elements within the above messages which are summarized as follows Reader PoUing Message: • Transaction Record Type Code(s) -16 Bits • Agency Code(s) -16 Bits Transponder Data Message: • Transaction Record Type Code(s) 16 Bits • Transponder ID Nurnber (Currently defmed only within California) -32 Bits Reader Acknowledge Message: • Transaction Record Type Code(s) -16 Bits • Reader ID Nurnber(s) -32 Bits • Transaction Status Code(s) -16 Bits . California Department of Transportation Page 5 of6• April S. 1999 116 I - 11 Caltrans Approved Title 21 Transaction Record Type Codes APPROVED TRANSACTION RECORD TYPE CODES •Since Title 21 is an open standard, the functionality of all Approved Transaction Record Type Codes is available for manufacturers to develop interoperable products. However, in some cases (e.g. code functionality affecting account balance on transponders) additional institutional arrangements must be made to avoid potential liability. Please contact Caltrans for further information on developing interoperable products, or to request approval for new Transaction Record Type Codes. The Caltrans approved Transaction Record Type codes are separated by half duplex communication stage and are summarized as follows: IJALF DUPLEXCOM~~ATION STAGE .. nuNSAC'BON,RE(:~IP.l TYPE cqJ>~W~» .... 1. Reader Polling Message* 25 Total 8000,8001,8002,8003,8004,8010,8011,80]2,8013, I 8014,8020,8021,8022,8023,8024,8030,8031,8032, 8033,8034,8800,8801,8802,8803,8804._---...... 2. Transponder Data Message* 5 TotaJ 0001,0002,0003,0004,0007 : 3. Reader Acknowledge Message* 16 Total COOO, COOl, C002, C003, COO4, C005, C006, C007, C008, C009,COOA,COOB,CooC,COOD,COOE,COOF I ! Please note that with the exception ofthe interoperable messages 8000, 0001 and COOO the Transaction Record Type codes are specific Texas Instruments product implementations. • California Depanment ofTransportation Page 60f6 April 5, 1999 • 117 Value Pricing Pilot Program Express Travel Choices (Phase /I) Proposal • • This page intentionally left blank • 118 " RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION DATE: October 12, 2011 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Budget and Implementation Committee Andrea Zureick, Senior Staff Analyst Shirley Medina, Programming and Planning Manager THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Executive Director SUBJECT: County of Riverside Fiscal Years 2012-16 Measure A Five-Year Capital Improvement Plan for Local Streets and Roads BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to approve the county of Riverside's FY s 201 2 -16 Measure A Five-Year Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) for Local Streets and Roads as submitted. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: " Measure A imposes several requirements on local agencies in order to receive local streets and roads funds. First, the Coachella Valley, Western County cities, and the county must be participating in either the Coachella Valley Association of Governments (CV AG) or Western Riverside Council of Governments (WRCOG) Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) program. Western County agencies must also participate in the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan managed by the Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority (RCA). The cities of Beaumont and La Quinta are not TUMF participants, and staff is in the process of obtaining confirmation from CVAG, WRCOG, and RCA regarding the current participation in their programs. Additionally, agencies are required to annually provide to the Commission a CIP detailing how those funds are to be expended and an annual certification of maintenance of effort (MOE) along with documentation supporting the calculation. On February 28, 2011, staff provided the local agencies with Measure A revenue projections for local streets and roads to assist in preparation of the required CIP. The Commission approved the CIPs for all of the local agencies except the county of Riverside and the newly incorporated city of Jurupa Valley at its July and September meetings. The required CIP and supporting documentation has now been received from the county of Riverside and is attached. The FY 2011112 Measure A Local Streets and Roads disbursements to local agencies with Commission-approved CIPs began in September 2011. " Attachment: County of Riverside FYs 2012-16 Measure A Five-Year CIP Agenda Item 7C 120 " RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM Page 1 Fiscal years 2012-2016 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT 08/18/2011 " " Name Supv.Disti Fund : Fund I Measure A Funds by Fiscal Year Limits iSource Source Amount .It $1000 Length (m;) EIJ Cft)/PIJ (ft) ! Amount Desc r i pt i on x $1000 D =Design R = Right of Yay Acquisition (COI11I1ents) E = Environmental C = Construction : Total 11/12 I 12/13 I 13/14 I 14/15 I 15/16 O4th St 4 301 113 D 0 0 0 0 0 SR "1 Hamnond Rd E 0 0 0 0 0 .00 emi) eft)! (ft) R 0 0 0 0 0 Const raised median at RR crossing other C 113 0 0 0 0 301 Measure A/Coachella Valley Total 113 10th Ave /:fci2 177 D 1 0 0 0 0 C.l. Blythe C and D Blvd E 1 0 0 0 0 .63 (mT) 13 (tt)/ 13 (ft) R 0 0 0 0 0 Reconst AC paved road other C 175 0 0 0 0 302 Measure A/Palo Verde Total 1n 21st Ave 5 301 12 0 0 0 1 0 0 Y Circle 8 Dr 0.02 mi E Circle B Dr 0.02 mi E 0 0 1 0 0 .04 (mi) 18 (ft)/ 18 (ft) R 0 0 0 0 0 Resurf RMS paved road other C 0 0 10 0 0 301 Measure A/Coachella Valley Total 12 66th Ave 4 301 81 D 0 0 0 0 0 Tyler St E'lyO.25mi E 0 0 0 0 0 .25 (mi) 24 (ft)! 24 eft) R 0 0 0 0 0 Const sidewalk on S'ly side other 147 C 81 0 0 0 0 301 Measure A/Coachella Valley Total 228 Alessandro Ave 3 ~ 507 0 35 0 0 0 0 S'ly Cypress 0.02 mi Ramona Expy ! E 2 0 0 0 0 .79 (mi) 20 (ft)/ 20 (ft) R 0 0 0 0 0 Grind and Resurf . other C 470 0 0 0 0 I i 300 Measure A/Yestern : Total 507 Apache Tr/ 1-10 Interchange 51~ 6 D 0 0 0 0 0 Seminole Or Main St ; E 0 0 0 0 0 .20 (mi) 40 (ft)/ 40 (ft) R 3 0 0 0 0 Canst Roundabouts at 2 off/on ramp intersections iother C 3 0 0 0 0 to improve capacity of interchange. Funds shown are for County activity only. ! 300 Measure AjlJestern Total 6 Bedford Canyon Rd 2 ~ 567 D 0 0 0 0 0 El Cerrito Rd S'ly E 0 0 0 0 0 .10 {mil 33 (ft)/ 40 (ft) R 351 0 0 0 0 Realign road and install traffic signal other C 216 0 0 0 0 Part of Corona's Foothill Pkwy/El Cerrito Rd project. 300 Measure A/lJestern T'O"tal 567 121 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM Page 2 Fiscal years 2012-2016 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT 08/18/2011 • Name Measure A Funds by Fiscal YearSUPV.Distl Fund I Fund Limits Amount x $1000 ,Source, Source Length emi) Ell (ft)/PII (ft) Amount!Description x $1000 o =Design R = Right of lIay Acquisition (Comments) E =Environmental C = Construction 11/12 I 12/13 I 13/14 I 14/15 I 15/16ITotal ! Bennett Rd 4 i""""301 187 0 0 0 1 0 0 Di llon Rd S'ly1.12mi 0E 0 0 1 0 1.12 (mi) 23 (ft)/ 23 (ft) I 0R 0 0 00 Resurf RMS paved road 0other 185 0C 0 0 301 Measure A/Coachella Valley Total 187 Butterfield Stage Rd 3 0110 46 0 0 0300 0 Auld Rd Murrieta Hot Sprgs Rd 0 0 0 0E 64 2.11 (mi) (ft)/ 48 (ft) 0 0 0 0R 0 Canst AC paved road other C 0 05401 0 0 0 Part of the Eastern Bypass Corridor 300 Measure A/llestern , , ITotal 5511 Cactus Ave Interchange 11 300 34 0 7 7 0 0 0 1-215 E 0 0 0 0 0 .55 (mi) 40 (ft)/ 76 (ft) R 0 0 0 0 0 Recon and widen overpass and ra"l>S other 49200 C 0 0 0 10 10 70X in SD#1, 30X in SD#5 Moreno Valley is the lead.agency Total 49234 I 300 Measure A/llestern Cal ico Ave 5 300 124 0 13 0 0 0 0 Chaparral Rd Cottonwood Rd E 1 0 0 0 0 .21 (mi) 60 (ft)/ 60 (ft) R 0 0 0 0 0 Resurf AC paved road other C 110 0 0 0 0 300 Measure A/llestern Total 124 Camino Campanero 5 ~ 55 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ave Descanso Ave Florencita E 0 0 0 0 0 .40 (mi) 15 (ft)/ 15 (ft) R 0 0 0 0 0 Canst sidewalk on S'ly side other 127 C 55 0 0 0 0 301 Measure A/Coachella Valley Total 182 Chaparral Rd 5 300 215 0 22 0 0 0 0 Tamarack Rd Haugen Lehmann \Iy E 1 0 0 0 0 .37 (mi) 60 (ft)/ 60 (ft) R 0 0 0 0 0 Resurf AC paved road other C 192 0 0 0 0 300 Measure A/llestern Total 215 Chico Cir 5 301 18 0 0 0 1 0 0 Circle B Dr NII'ly E 0 0 1 0 0 .03 (mi) 34 (ft)/ 34 (ft) R 0 0 0 0 0 Resurf RMS paved road other· C 0 0 16 0 0 301 Measure A/Coachella Valley Tot!!l 18 • • 122 _______________________________________ ________________________________ • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE "Au LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM Page 3 Fiscal years 2012-2016 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT 08/1812011 Name Supv.Dist I Fund ! Fund Measure A Funds by Fiscal Year limits I Source I Source Amount x $1000 length (mi) EW eft)/pw (ft) ':Amount Description x $1000 D =Design R =Right of Way Acquisition (Cooments) E =Environmental C = Construction _---,.__--,-,..-____________ Total 1_-=-___-,-11_I_l-:-T21_1_2_/l_3-;-r-1_13_1_1_4::-11_14_1_15""="'1"1_1_5/_'_6".- Coachella Valley Area 4 301 I 1235 0 0 0 0 0 0 various roads E 0 0 0 0 0 6.00 emi) eft)1 eft) ROO 0 0 0 Resurfacing program in the Coachella Valley other '00 C 275 300 220 220 220 I 301 Measure A/Coachella Valley 1335 • • Contreras Rd Johnson Rd .49 (mi) Resurf RMS paved road S.H. 371 27 eft)1 27 eft) 3300 other 327 o E R C o o o o o o o o 1 1 o 325 Total 327 300 Measure A/Western Cottonwood Rd 5 300 260 Tamarack Rd Verbenia Ave .45 (mi) 60 eft)1 60 eft) , Resurf AC paved road other Total 260 Countywide solar Radar Speed Feedback Signs 1.300 101 various locations .00 (m;) eft)/ eft) Install Solar Powered Radar Speed Feedback Signs Da Vall Dr Interchange on 1-10 30th Ave Varner Rd 1.02 (mi) (ft)/110 eft) Const new interchange, connecting roads and bridges over UPRR and Long Cyn Creek channel. Cathedral City is lead agency. I~D7i~ll-o-n~R-d~----------------------------4 44th Ave Nly landfill Rd 0.28mi .91 em;) 37 Ot)1 37 eft) Resurf AC paved road ~E~l~S~o~br-a-n~t-e~R~d~--------------------------~'l Cajalco Rd Mc All ister Rd 5.00 (mi) 26 eft)1 26 eft) Recon AC paved road other Total 101 30 other 1000 Total I 1030 o o 26 o E o 1 o R o o o C o o 233 300 Measure A/Western o 5 o o E o o o R o o o C 96 o o 300 Measure A/Western o 10 10 10 E o o o R o o o C o o o 301 Measure A/Coachella Valley o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o ~'--~5=72----I-D~--~3~8~--~0'---~0T---~0~-----0~ other 166 Total 300; I 738 3240 other i ! Total ,-3-24-0-­ E 2 0 0 0 0 ROO 0 0 0 C 532 0 0 0 0 301 Measure A/Coachella Valley o 225 o o E o o5 R o o o C 5 1805 1200 300 Measure A/Western o o o o o o o o 1 123 --- --- RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM Page 4 Fiscal years 2012-2016 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT 08/18/2011 • Name Supv.Dist Fund Measure A Funds by Fiscal YearFund Limits Source Amount x $1000 Source Length (mi) EW (ft )/PW (ft) Amount Description x $1000 D =Design R =Right of Way Acquisition (Cooments) E =Envi ronnental C =Construction Total 11/12 I 12/13 I 13/14 I 14/15 I 15/16 El Sobrante Rd 1 0 0 0300 97 D 0 0 Mc All ister St E'ly 1.00 mi 0 0E 0 0 0 2.00 (mi) 24 (ft)/ 32 (ft) 0R 0 0 0 0 Widen shoulders and add roadway illumination 0other C 97 0 0 0 Plus segment from Mockingbird Cyn Rd to Cajalco Rd --­300 Measure A/Western Total 97 Eucalyptus St 5 300 37 D 6 0 0 0 0 Esperanza Ave Ida Ave E 1 0 0 0 0 .17 (m;) 24 (ft)/ 24 (ft) R 0 0 0 0 0 Grind and Resurf other C 30 0 0 0 0 300 Measure A/Western Total 37 Fremontia Rd 5 300 216 0 0 22 0 0 0 Tamarack Rd Cot tonwood Rd E 0 1 0 0 0 .37 (mi) 60 (ft)/ 60 (ft) R 0 0 0 0 0 Resurf AC paved road other C 0 0 193 0 0 --­300 Measure A/Western Total 216 Frontage Rd 3 300 113 0 0 0 1 0 0 Rainbow Canyon Rd / .67 (mi) N San Diego C.l. 36 (ft)/ 36 (ft) E R 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 Resurf RMS paved road other C 0 0 111 0 0 300 Measure A/Western Total 113 I ---Gavilan Rd/Lake Mathews Dr 1 300 221 0 0 0 0 0 0 S'ly Elderidge Dr .26 (mi) S'ly 0.07 mi-E'ly side 30 (ft)/ 30 (ft) E R 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Const Guard rail other C 221 0 0 0 0 on Dr Gavilan Rd and to Malta Pl on on Lake Mathews w'ly side. from Capello --­300 Measure A/Western Total 221 Hattie Ave 5 """300 30 D 6 0 0 0 0 Elm St .14 (mi) Grind and Resurf E'lyend 22 (ft)/ 22 (ft) other E R C 1 0 23 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 --­300 Measure A/Western Total 30 Haugen-Lehmann Wy 5 """300 295 D 0 29 0 0 0 Railroad Ave .51 (mi) Chaparral Rd 60 (ft)/ 60 (ft) E R 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Resurf AC paved road other C 0 0 265 0 0 300 Measure A/Western Total 295 • • 124 " RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE "A" lOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM Page 5 Fiscal years 2012-2016 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT 08/18/2011 " " Name Stpv.Dist fund fund Measure A Funds by fiscal Year limits Source Source Amount li. $1000 length (mi) HI (ft)/PW (ft) Amount Description x S1000 D =Design R =Right of ~ay Acquisition (Comnents) E = Envrronnental C " Construct ion Total 11/12 ! 12113 I 13/14 I 14/15 I 15/16 Haugen-lehmann Wy 5 300 179 D 0 18 0 0 0 Chaparral Rd W'ly Chaparral 0.31 mi E 0 1 0 0 0 .31 (mi) 60 (ft)/ 60 (ft) R 0 0 0 0 0 Resurf AC paved road other C 0 0 160 0 0 300 Measure A/Western iTotal 179 I 51 I Helen Ave 300 19 D 6 0 0 0 0 Elm St E'ly end I E 1 0 0 0 0 .07 (mi) 22 (ft)1 22 (ft) i R 0 0 0 0 0 Grind and Resurf Iother C 12 0 0 0 0 1 ITotal 300 Measure A/Western 19 Johnson Rd 3i 3OO 259 D 0 0 1 0 0 Contreras Rd Hill St I E 0 0 1 0 0 .51 (mi) 22 (ft)/ 22 (ft) Iother R 0 0 0 0 0 Resurf RMS paved road C 0 0 257 0 0 300 Measure A/Western Total 259 Jurupa Rd 2 300 55 D 0 0 0 0 0 Poinsetta Pl Rutile St E 0 0 0 0 0 .32 (mi) 61 (ft)1 61 (ft) I R 0 0 0 0 0 Const sidewalk on N'ly side other 116 C 55 0 0 0 0 i, 300 Measure A/Uestern i Total ! 171 Krameria Ave 1 300' 187 D 0 0 0 0 0 lois ln Woodcrest Elem. School. E 0 0 0 0 0 .13 (mi) 40 eft)/ 40 (ft) R 0 0 0 0 0 Const curb. gutter and sidewalk on south side other C 187 0 0 0 0 and install matchup sidewalk on north side. I 300 Measure AIWestern TOtiil 187 Krameria Ave 1 300 60 D 1 0 0 0 0 Porter Ave Gamble Ave E 0 0 0 0 0 .25 (mO 14 (ft)1 20 (ft) R 0 0 0 0 0 Const curb. gutter, and sidewalk on north side other 195 C 59 0 0 0 0 Project includes Design segment from Gardner Ave to Porter Ave. 300 Measure A/~estern Total 255 leon Rd 3 300 Tl8 D 0 0 0 0 0 Keller Rd Scott Rd E 0 0 0 0 0 1.00 (mi) 26 (ft)1 26 eft) R 10 0 0 0 0 Adjust AC road profile other 1360 C 768 0 0 0 0 300 Measure A/Uestern Total 2138 --� 125 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE "A" lOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM Page 6 Fiscal years 2012-2016 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT 08/1812011 • Name SupV.Dist! Fund i Fund Measure A Funds by Fiscal Year Limits Source Source Amount x $1000 length (mi) EW (ft)/PW (ft) Amount Description x $1000 D = Design R = Right of Way Acquisition (Comnents) E = Environnental C = Construction :r;;tS"l 11/12 I 12/13 I 13/14 I 14/15 i 15/16 Main St 5i 300 34 D 0 0 0 0 0 Michigan Ave E 0 0 0 0 0 .00 (mO 24 (ft)/ 24 (ft) R 0 0 0 0 0 Install Traffic Signal other C 34 0 0 0 0 Misc funds=Colton USD + Grand Terrace. Funding is 25% Colton USD, 25% Grand Terrace, 50% County 300 Measure A/Western !Total 34 ! l Market Street Bridge 2 300 675 D 54 0 39 78 40 Santa Ana River E 186 124 154 0 0 .00 (ml) (ft)/ (ft) R 0 0 0 0 0 Replace bridge i other 15129 C 0 0 0 0 0 Seek federal bridge replacement funds I 300 Measure A/Western-­Total 15804 Mitchell Rd 3:300 376 D 0 0 1 0 0 Bautista Rd Regal Blue Tr E 0 0 1 0 0 1.43 (mi) 23 (ft)/ 23 (ft) R 0 0 0 0 0 Resurf RMS paved road other C 0 0 374 0 0 300 Measure A/Western Total 376 Mitchell Rd 3 300 143 D 0 0 1 0 0 Kirby Rd W'ly Bohlen Rd 0.11 m; E 0 0 0 0 .57 (lIIf) 22 (ft)/ 22 (ft) R 0 0 0 0 0 Resurf RMS paved road other C 0 0 141 0 0 300 Measure AJWestern ~. 143 Monterey Ave at 1-10 4 -=-:--. 10 D 0 0 0 0 0 C.t. Palm Desert N'ly Varner Rd 0.1 mi E 0 0 0 0 0 .00 (1IIi) 76 (ft)/ 90 (ft) R 0 0 0 0 0 Real ign/Add W.bound ramps, Widen Varner Rd, and other 2288 C 10 0 0 0 0 Install traffic signal at WB ramp. i:r;;tS"l 301 Measure A/Coachella Valley 2298 New Chi cago Ave 3 300 205 0 21 0 0 0 0 At to Dr Acacia Ave E 2 0 0 0 0 .13 (mO 16 (ft)/ 26 (ft) R 0 0 0 0 0 Recon surface and widen road other C 0 182 0 0 0 300 Measure A/Western Total 205 Nuevo Rd 5 300 5 D 0 0 5 0 0 Dunlap Dr Menifee Rd E 0 0 0 0 0 2.01 (mO 32 (ft)/ 56 (ft) R 0 0 0 0 0 Widen road to 4 lanes other 4072 C 0 0 0 0 0 1:r;;tS"l 300 Measure A/Western 4077 ,­ • • 126 " RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE "AU LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM Page 7 Fiscal years 2012-2016 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT 08/18/2011 " " i Warne SUPv.Distl Fund Fund Measure A Funds by Fiscal Year limits iSource Source Amount x $1000 Length (mi) E\.I (ft)/P\.I (ft) I Amount!Description ; x $1000 D = Design R = Right of \.lay Acquisition (COII'IIlents) ,Total I E = Environmental C = Construction 11/12 I 12/13 I 13/14 I 14/15 I 15/16 I ! Nuevo Rd Interchange l:300i 44 D 0 0 6 5 10 1-215 E 0 0 4 4 15 .00 (mi) (ft)/ (ft) i R 0 0 0 0 0 Widen Overcrossing and ramps ; other 1140 C 0 0 0 0 0 Portion in SD #5. In the City of Perris. 300 Measure A/l.lestern Total , 1184 Old State Hwy 3 300 497 0 35 0 0 0 0 Green Ave SH 74 E 2 0 0 0 0 Iother .61 (mi) 25 (ft)/ 25 (ft) R 0 0 0 0 0 Resurf AC paved road C 0 460 0 0 0 i 1�300 Measure A/l.lestern iTotal 497 Pala Rd 3 300 220 D 0 0 1 0 0 Temecula CoL. San Diego C.L. E 0 0 1 0 0 1.55 (mi) 26 (ft)/ 26 (ft) R 0 0 0 0 0 Recon AC paved road other C 0 0 218 0 0 300 Measure A/I.Iestern -�Total 220 Palo Verde Area 4 302 635 D 0 0 0 0 0 various roads E 0 0 0 0 0 .00 (mO (ft)/ (ft ) R 0 0 0 0 0 Resurf RMS paved road Iother C 0 150 155 160 170 302 Measure A/Palo Verde Total 635 Peach St 5i 300 34 D 6 0 0 0 0 Esperanza Ave Ida Ave I E 1 0 0 0 0 .17 (mi) 22 (ft)/ 22 (ft) R 0 0 0 0 0 Grind and Resurf other C 27 0 0 0 0 300 Measure A/l.lestern Total 34 -�Pigeon Pass lid 5� 300 37 D 17 0 0 0 0 Hidden Springs Dr Center St E 20 0 0 0 0 4.80 (mi) 26 (ft)/ 60 (ft) R 0 0 0 0 0 Construct portions and widen to 4 lanes other 3625 C 0 0 0 0 0 The Transportation Dept. is seeking additional funds needed. 300 Measure A/l.Iestern ~ 3662 i Planada Ct 1 I-=::-:--i 14 D 0 0 0 0 0 Vista Grande Dr W'ly 0.03 mi E 0 0 0 0 0 .03 (mO 31 (ft)/ 31 (ft) R 0 0 0 0 0 Resurf AC paved road other C 14 0 0 0 0 Total I 300 Measure A/l.Iestern 14 127 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMM)SSION MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM Page 8 Fiscal years 2012-2016 RIVERS)DE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT 08/1812011 • Name SLpII.Di st Fund 1 Fund Measure A Funds by Fiscal Year Limi ts Source Source Amount x $1000 length (mi) Elol (ft)/Plol (ft) Amount Desc ri pt ion x $1000 D Design R =Right of loIay Acquisition (COIIIJIents) E =: EnvirOl'1llental C =Construction Total 11/12 I 12/13 I 13/14 I 14/15 I 15/16 Plum St 5 300 37 D 6 0 0 0 0 Esperanza Ave Ida Ave E 1 0 0 0 0 .17 (mi) 24 (ft)1 24 (ft) R 0 0 0 0 0 Grind and Resurf other C 30 0 0 0 0 300 Measure A/Uestern Total 37 Pueblo Ct 1 300 14 D 0 0 0 0 0 Vista Grande Dr U'ly 0.03 mi E 0 0 0 0 0 .03 (mi) 31 (ft)/ 31 (ft) R 0 0 0 0 0 Resurf AC paved road other C 14 0 0 0 0 300 Measure Atwestern Total 14 Rainbow Canyon Rd 3 300 97 D 0 0 1 0 0 Frontage Rd 1 N San Diego C.L. E 0 0 1 0 0 .66 (mi) 31 (ft)1 31 (ft) R 0 0 0 0 0 Resurf RMS paved road other C 0 0 95 0 0 , 1 300 Measure A/Uestern Total 97 Reche Vista Dr 1 Reche Canyon Rd 5 300 33 D 13 0 0 0 0 lIeacock St San Bernardino Co.line E 20 0 0 0 0 5.23 (m; ) 26 (ft)1 86 (ft) R 0 0 0 0 0 Realign 1.3 miles and widen to 4 lanes other 8481 C o· 0 0 0 0 Coordinate with RCTC/SANBAG bi-county CETAP project. . 300 Measure A/Iolestern , Total 8514 River Rd Bridge 2 300 3 [) 0 0 0 0 0 Santa Ana River E 0 0 0 0 0 .12 (mi) (ft)/ (ft) R 0 0 0 0 0Bridge Replacement other 8 C 3 0 0 0 0 Half in the City of Eastvale. 300 Measure A/Uestern I Total 11 Riverside County Bridge Maintenance Program 3 300 250 D 250 0 0 0 0 Various locations Countywide E 0 0 0 0 0 .00 (mi) (ft)1 (ft) ! R 0 0 0 0 0 Pursue federal bridge maintenance funds other C 0 0 0 0 0 300 Measure Atwestern Total 250 Rudell Rd 2 300 41 D 3 0 0 0 0 Ontario Ave U'ly 0.23 m; E 0 0 0 0 0 .23 (mi) 33 (ft)! 33 (ft) R 0 0 0 0 0 Grind and Resurf AC paved road other C 38 0 0 0 0 300 Measure A/Uestern Total 41 1­ 128 • • " RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE "Au LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM Page 9 Fiscal years 2012-2016 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT 08/18/2011 " " ~ame SLpV.Dist Fund ! Fund Measure A Funds by fiscal Year Limits Source Source Amount x $1000 Length emi) Ell (ft)/PII (ft) Amount Description x S1000 D Design R ; Right of lIay Acquisition (C oornents) i E ~ Environmental C =Construction i 'TOt8'l1 11/12 I 12/13 I 13/14 I 14/15 I 15/16 SR-86S at Airport Blvd (Ave 56) Ichg 4~i 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 Whitewater River fillmore St E 0 0 0 0 0 .00 (mil (ft)/ (ft) R 0 0 0 0 0 Const interchange other 26796 C 10 10 0 0 0 Caltrans is the lead agency. N'ly 1/2 is in the !City of Coachella. Amounts shown are for County TOtal I 301 Measure A/Coachella Vat ley 26816 Sagebrush Ave 5300: 45 0 6 0 0 0 0 W'ly Cottonwood 0.02mi Verbenia Ave E 1 0 0 0 0 .14 (mi) 30 (ft)/ 30 (ft) R 0 0 0 0 0 Resurf AC paved road other I C 38 0 0 0 0 T.", I I 300 Measure A/Western 45 San Timoteo Cyn Rd 5 300 800 I D 0 40 20 0 0 II Railroad X�ing1.39mi Beaumont C.L. l E 0 0 1 0 0 2.30 (mil 24 (ft)/ 24 (ft) R 0 0 0 0 0 Resurf AC paved road other C 0 0 739 0 0 I , i 300 Measure A/Western I Total [ 800 IISanta Rosa Mine Rd 13001 42 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sly lk Mathews Or .1mi i E 0 0 0 0 0 .12 (mi> 22 (ft)/ 22 (ft) I R 0 0 0 0 0 I Install Guardrail at curve other i C 42 0 0 0 0 I 300 Measure A/llestern Total 42 [ Schlelsman Rd Interchange 2 300 92 0 31 0 0 0 0 Hamer Ave }-15 E 41 20 0 0 0 .50 (m; ) 24 (ft)/110 (ft) R 0 0 0 0 0 Const road, interchange and overcrossing other 54551 C 0 0 0 0 0 300 Measure A/Western Total 54643 Tamarack Rd 5 300 264 0 0 26 0 0 0 W'ly Verbenia 0.57 mi Haugen Lehmann \.Iy E 0 1 0 0 0 .57 (mil 48 (ft)/ 48 (ft) R 0 0 0 0 0 Resurf AC paved road other C 0 0 237 0 0 300 Measure A/Western Total 264 lrimero C; r 5 301 34 0 0 0 1 0 0 Circle B Dr S'ly E 0 0 1 0 0 .08 (mi) 30 (ft)/ 30 (ft) R 0 0 0 0 0 Resurf RMS paved road other C 0 0 32 0 0 301 Measure A/Coachella Valley 'TOt8'l 34 -� 129 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM page 10 Fiscal years 2012-2016 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT 08/1812011 • Name S~v.Dist Fund fund Measure A Funds by fiscal Year Limits Source Source Amount x $1000 Length (mi) E\.I (ft)/PII (ft) Amount Description x $1000 D =Design R =Right of lIay Acquisition (conrnents) E Env i ronnenta l C '" Construction !iTotal ! 11/12 I 12/13 I 13/14 I 14/15 I 15/16 Van Buren BLvd 1 i 300 34 D 2 0 0 0 0 \.Iashington St lload Rd E 32 0 0 0 0 2.10 (ml) 62 (ft)/110 (ft) R 0 0 0 0 0 \.Iiden AC paved road to 6 lanes ,other 5980 C 0 0 0 0 0 i 300 Measure AIWestern 'Total 6014 Van Buren Blvd Bridges 2 300 354 D 0 0 0 0 0 Santa Ana River E 1 1 0 0 0 .10 (rol) (ft)! (ft) R 0 0 0 0 0 Replace existing bridges other 8348 C 347 5 0 0 0 in cooperation with the City of Riverside. 300 Measure Ailiestern ITotaL 8702 Vineland St 51-=-::-­570 0 0 0 75 0 0 Edgar Canyon ChanneL E 0 0 15. 0 0 .01 (ml) 26 (ft)1 26 (ft) R 0 0 0 0 0 other IConstruct box cuLvert C 0 0 0 480 0 300 Measure Ailiestern I~ 570 Vista Grande Or 51-=-:--, 35 0 0 0 1 0 0 Circle B Dr Nil' Ly & SE'ly , E 0 0 1 0 0 .08 (ml) 29 (ft)1 29 (ft) R 0 0 0 0 0 Resurf RMS paved road other C 0 0 33 0 0 301 Measure A/Coachella Valley Total 35 lIashington St 1 300! 1303 D 0 120 0 0 0 Tava Ln Hermosa Dr(City Limit) E 0 3 0 0 0 1.60 (mi) 33 (ft)1 33 (ft) R 0 0 0 0 0 Resurf AC paved road other C 0 0 1180 0 0 This road received an interim overlay under B6-0565. 300 Measure Ailiestern Total 1303 lIatkins Dr 5 300 157 0 30 0 0 0 0 1-215 Riverside C.L. E 3 0 0 0 0 .17 (mi) 40 (ft)1 40 (ft) R 0 0 0 0 0 Resurf AC paved road other C 124 0 0 0 0 300 Measure Aillestern Total 157 1I0rsley Rd 5 301 219 0 0 0 0 0 0 Dillon Rd pierson Blvd E 0 0 1 0 0 2.63 (mi) 22 (ft)1 22 (ft) R 0 0 0 0 0 Resurf RMS paved road other C 0 0 218 0 0 301 Measure A/Coachella Valley Total 219 -­ • • 130 " RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM Page 11 Fiscal years 2012-2016 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT 08/18/2011 " Name Supv.Dist\ Fund Fund Measure A Funds by Fiscal Year limits Source Source Amount )( $1000 Length (mi) EW (ft)/PW (ft) I Amount Description )( $1000 o =Design R =Right of Way Acquisition (COIIIIlents ) E = Environmental C =Construction i __ Total 11/12 I 12/13 I 13/14 I 14/15 I 15/16 z* Future Projects 1 300 300 D 0 0 0 0 0 District 1 Only E 0 0 0 0 0 .00 (m; ) (ft)/ (ft) R 0 0 0 0 0 other 8115 C 0 0 0 150 150 These funds wi II be used for pavement rehabilitation projects in the years shown. 300 Measure A/Western Total 8415 z* Future Projects 2 300 810 D 0 0 0 0 0 District 2 Only E 0 0 0 0 0 .00 (mi) (ft)/ (ft) R 0 0 0 0 0 other 4350 C 0 0 0 400 410 These funds wi II be used for pavement rehabilitation projects in the years shown. 300 Measure A/Western 'T'Otal 5160 z* Future Projects 3 300 4950 0 0 0 0 0 0 District 3 Only E 0 0 0 0 0 .00 (mi) (ft)/ (ft) R 0 0 0 0 0 other noo C 0 1250 800 1450 1450 These funds wi II be used for various pavement rehabilitation projects in the years shown. 300 Measure Alwestern Total 12650 z* Future Projects 4 301 3800 D 0 0 0 0 0 District 4 Only E 0 0 0 0 0 .00 (A'li) (ft)/ (ft) R 0 0 0 0 0 other 16350 C 800 950 150 950 950 These funds wi II be used for pavement rehabilitation projects in the years shown. 301 Measure A/Coachella Valley Total 20150 z* future Projects 5 300 4025 D 0 0 0 0 0 District 5 Only E 0 0 0 0 0 .00 (mO (ft)/ (ft) R 0 0 0 0 0 other 3400 C 0 1000 50 1475 1500 These funds will be used for vari ous pavement rehabilitation projects in the years shown. 300 Measure A/Western Total 7425 i FUND SUMMARY Fund Source Source Nme " 300 Measure A/Western 301 Measure A/Coachella Valley 302 Measure A/Palo Verde * Grand Totals * Fiscal Year (Amt )( $1000) Fund Totals 11/12 12/13 13/14 14/15 15/16 4851 5143 6861 3777 3285 23917 1926 1270 935 1445 1470 7046 In 150 155 160 170 812 6954 6563 7951 5382 4925 31775 131 " RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: October 12, 2011 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Budget and Implementation Committee Theresia Trevino, Chief Financial Officer Shirley Medina, Programming and Planning Manager THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Executive Director SUBJECT: 2009 Measure A Program Maintenance of Effort BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTA TION COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDA TlON: This item is for the Commission to: 1 ) Approve the 2009 Measure A Maintenance of Effort (MOE) base year level for the city of Hemet (Hemet); " 2) Approve the retroactive application of Hemet's 2009 MOE to FY 2009/1 0 and FY 2010/11, with the condition that there is no excess MOE carryover available from the 1989 Measure A after FY 2008/09; and 3) Make a revised finding that Hemet did meet its MOE for FY 2009/1 O. BACKGROUND INFORMA TION: Measure A imposes several requirements on local agencies in order to receive local streets and roads funds. The 2009 Measure A ordinance continued the requirement for local agencies to maintain the current commitment of local discretionary expenditures toward transportation construction and maintenance activities. This requirement is to ensure that Measure A funds supplement current expenditures, not supplant. In accordance with the 2009 Measure A ordinance, if local agencies do not meet their respective MOE base year level in a given year, Measure A local streets and roads disbursements will be withheld the following year. At its July 2010 meeting, the Commission approved the MOE guidelines developed by staff and the Technical Advisory Committee (T AC). The MOE guidelines also indicated that the implementation of the 2009 MOE base year levels would be applicable to FY 2011112. For the first two years of the 2009 Measure A program (i.e., FY 2009/10 and FY 2010/11), the Commission approved the use of the 1989 Measure A MOE (1989 MOE) base year amounts, or the Proposition 42 MOE amount for cities incorporated in or after 1989. The 1989 MOE base year amounts " were based on discretionary expenditures for street and road construction and Agenda Item 70 132 maintenance as identified in the FY 1987/88 Annual Street Report to the State • Controller (Street Report) or the three-year average of FYs 1985/86 through 1987/88. The 2009 Measure A MOE annual certification process is as follows: • Local agencies complete the MOE report template to include discretionary general fund expenditures for construction and maintenance activities for the reporting year; • General ledger documentation/forms must be submitted as an attachment to the MOE report template; • MOE reports will be submitted to the Commission's auditor; • Staff will report to the T AC and Commission regarding the outcome of the auditor's findings regarding agencies meeting the MOE base year levels; and • Local agencies that do not meet the MOE base year may submit a request for special consideration, which will be presented to the Commission. The newly incorporated cities of Eastvale, Jurupa Valley, Menifee, and Wildomar are eligible to receive Measure A local streets and roads funding upon notice of participation in the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan and participation in the Western Riverside County Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee program. These cities will be required to determine their respective • MOE base year levels to meet the MOE certification requirement after the third year of incorporation. At its July 2011 and September 2011 meetings, the Commission approved 2009 MOE base years for all of the 22 eligible cities except Hemet. 2009 MOE Base Year Level Determination Hemet submitted a 2009 MOE base year level of $18,924, which is significantly lower than the 1989 MOE base year level of $1,183,605. The 1989 MOE, which was based on the 1988 Street Report, appears to have been based primarily on discretionary funding of maintenance and construction expenditures by non-general fund sources. Several years later, as a result of State Controller changes to the Street Report, which appeared to have narrowed the definition of discretionary expenditures to the general fund, the actual discretionary expenditures were lower than the base year level. Through FY 1995/96 Hemet had accumulated a significant MOE carryover of approximately $1 2.7 million using the State Controller's broader definition of discretionary expenditures per the Street Report; this carryover continued to be utilized in subsequent years to cover any current year deficiency of MOE Agenda Item 70 • 133 " expenditures. In FY 2008/09 upon the expiration of the 1989 Measure A, the MOE carryover had been reduced to $835,788. Following is an analysis of the discretionary expenditures compared to the 1989 MOE base year requirement: Fiscal Discretionary Less: 1989 MOE Deficiency of current Excess MOE Year Expenditures per base year level year expenditures at end of FY Street Report under MOE " 1996 $12,735,352 1997 $ 671,547 $ 1,183,605 $ (512,058) 12,223,294 1998 543,796 1,183,605 (639,809) 11,583,485 1999 609,032 1,183,605 (574,573) 11,008,912 2000 238,590 1,183,605 (945,015) 10,063,897 2001 724,142 1,183,605 (459,463) 9,604,434 2002 74,180 1,183,605 (1,109,425) 8,495,009 2003 6,607 1,183,605 (1,176,998) 7,318,011 2004 5,413 1,183,605 (1,178,192) 6,139,819 2005 1,692 1,183,605 (1,181,913) 4,957,906 2006 242,784 1,183,605 (940,821 ) 4,017,085 2007 256,174 1,183,605 (927,431 ) 3,089,654 2008 31,975 1,183,605 (1, 151,630) 1,938,024 2009 81,369 1,183,605 (1,102,236) 835,788 These changes by the State Controller also affected the Proposition 42 MOE of $1,822, which was based on the three-year average of discretionary expenditures from FY 1996/97 through 1998/99. While discussing the comparison the 1989 and proposed 2009 MOE base year levels, staff noted that Hemet's street and road construction and maintenance expenditures have been substantially funded by Measure A and fuel tax funds. Based on staff's review of Hemet's proposed 2009 MOE base year level, it appears that Hemet's general fund has incurred small amounts of discretionary expenditures for streets and roads for many years. The proposed 2009 MOE of $18,924 reflects Hemet's general fund discretionary expenditures for streets and roads construction and maintenance in FY 2009/10. fY 2010 and 2011 MOE Compliance Matters As previously noted, Hemet's 1989 MOE carryover at June 30, 2009, was $835,788 and the 1989 MOE base year amounts were to be used during the first two years of the 2009 Measure A. Since Hemet's FY 2009/10 local discretionary expenditures were $18,924 and the 1989 MOE base year level was $1,183,605, the available carryover was utilized to determine compliance with the MOE requirement. This resulted in a deficit of MOE expenditures of $328,893 and a finding, as reported at the July Commission meeting that Hemet did not meet its " MOE requirement. A response from Hemet regarding such noncompliance was Agenda Item 7D 134 requested prior to taking any action. Considering the 1989 MOE base year level, • the FY 2009/10 MOE deficiency, and Hemet's level of discretionary expenditures, Hemet anticipates that the FY 2010/11 MOE requirement also will not be met. Hemet and staff reviewed these compliance matters in connection with the determination of the 2009 MOE base year level. Considering that, for at least the last 14 years, Hemet's general fund has not had the level of discretionary expenditures as originally determined in 1988 due to changes in the Street Report, staff recommends the retroactive application of the proposed 2009 MOE to FY 2009/1 0 and FY 2010/11. However, since any 1989 MOE carryover remaining at the end of FY 2008/09 was available for use with the 1989 MOE base year level for FY 2009/1 0 and FY 2010111, staff recommends that the 1989 MOE carryover is not available to Hemet after FY 2008/09. As a result of this recommendation, Hemet will 1) have met the FY 200911 0 MOE requirement with no carryover MOE available for FY 2010/11; and 2) be required to have incurred at least $18,924 in general fund discretionary expenditures in FY 2010/11. The attached listing identifies Hemet's 2009 MOE base year calculation that is recommended for approval in addition to those that were previously approved. Attachment: 2009 Measure A MOE Base Year Recommendations • Agenda Item 7D • 135 " ATTACHMENT 1 2009 MEASURE A MOE BASE YEAR LEVELS 2009 MOE Base Years Recommended for Approval at the October 2011 Commission Meeting Proposed RCTC Recommended Agency 1989 MOE 2009 MOE Adjustments 2009 MOE Hemet 1,183,605 18,924 18,924 2009 MOE Base Years -Approved at the September 2011 Commission Meeting Approved Agency 1989 MOE 2009 MOE Calimesa 7,294 2,401 Cathedral City 625,230 391,688 Coachella 69,663 92,205 Palm Desert 904,798 2,398,146 Palm Springs 1,892,584 1,498,732 Rancho Mirage 1,191,036 674,811 San Jacinto 143,347 156,391 2009 MOE Base Years -Approved at the July 2011 Commission Meeting " Agency Banning Blythe Canyon lake Corona Desert Hot Springs Indian Wells Indio lake Elsinore Moreno Valley Murrieta Norco Perris Riverside Temecula 1989 MOE 399,945 12,449,203 2,785,034 Approved 2009 MOE 316,181 520,192 28,873 2,201,200 75,147 963,640 2,048,564 960,771 1,459,153 595,702 22,536 1,218,470 12,449,203 1,431,799 New Cities -Base Year Level Required After Third Year of Incorporation Agency 1989 MOE Approved 2009 MOE Eastvale N/A N/A Jurupa Valley N/A N/A Menifee N/A N/A Wildomar N/A N/A MOE Base Year levels Not Required Agency 1989 MOE Approved 2009 MOE Comments Beaumont 70,702 N/A City does not qualify for Measure A LSR funds la Quinta N/A N/A City does not qualify for Measure A lSR funds Riverside County -No Discretionary GF expenditures " 136 " RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION DATE: October 12, 2011 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Min Saysay, Right of Way Manager THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Executive Director SUBJECT: Adopt Resolution No. 11-014 for Commission Election to Hear Future Resolutions of Necessity for the Interstate 21 5 Central Widening Project and Designation of Commission's General Counsel STAFF RECOMMENDA TION: This item is for the Commission to adopt Resolution No. 11-014, "Commission Electing to Hear Future Resolutions of Necessity for the Interstate 215 Central Widening Project Between Scott and Nuevo Roads and Designation of Commission's General Counsel to Process Resolution of Necessity Packages for the Project". " BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The 1-215 Central widening project proposes to widen a 12.5-mile section of the 1-215 from Scott Road north of Murrieta to Nuevo Road in Perris. The Commission and Caltrans District 8 have partnered in acquiring the right of way necessary for the construction of the project. It was further agreed that one of the Commission's responsibilities in the right of way acquisition process is to hear future Resolutions of Necessity and designate the Commission's general counsel to process and approve the resolutions packages. By adopting Resolution No. 11-014, the Commission agrees to follow all procedures for the resolutions of necessity process as outlined in the Caltrans Right of Way manual, which requires condemnation evaluation and condemnation panel review meetings under certain circumstances, prior to seeking resolutions of necessity. Attachment: Resolution No.11-014 " Agenda Item 7E 137 " RESOLUTION NO. 11-014 RESOLUTION OF THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION ELECTING TO HEAR FUTURE RESOLUTIONS OF NECESSITY FOR THE INTERSTATE 215 CENTRAL PRo.JECT BETWEEN SCOTT AND NUEVO ROADS AND DESIGNATION OF COMMISSION GENERAL COUNSEL TO PROCESS RESOLUTION OF NECESSITY PACKAGES FOR THE PROJECT WHEREAS, the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) is empowered to acquire by eminent domain any property to carry out its powers or functions pursuant to Public Utilities Code section 130220.5; WHEREAS, property may properly be acquired by eminent domain for the State Highway System pursuant to Streets and Highways Code section 102; " WHEREAS, RCTC has approved the construction of new mixed flow lanes on Interstate 215 between Scott Road to Nuevo Road, a project on the State of California Highway System and has approved a cooperative agreement with the State of California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) providing that RCTC will perform right of way activities as set forth in the cooperative agreement for said project; WHEREAS, all local public agency projects on the State of California Highway System, within the existing or proposed State of California rights of way are subject to the requirements of the State of California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) Right of Way Manual, and recent provisions to the Caltrans Right of Way Manual now require a local public agency to pass a resolution, by a four-fifths vote, making an election to hear all the Resolutions of Necessity for the project; and WHEREAS, RCTC will follow state statute requirements and the Caltrans Right of Way Manual processes in the issuance of the Notice of Intent to adopt a Resolution of Necessity and in the adoption of a Resolution of Necessity, and the RCTC General Counsel is designated to process and approve the resolution packages(s); NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Riverside County Transportation Commission, by a four-fifths vote, will hear the Resolutions of Necessity associated with the construction of lanes on Interstate 215 from Scott Road to Nuevo Road . " 17336.00000\6967586.1 138 ------------------------- BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that RCTC designates its General Counsel to • prepare, review, process, and approve the Resolutions of Necessity packages for this project. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 12th day of October, 2011. By: ------------~----------~---------Gregory S. Pettis, Chajr Riverside County Transportation Commission ATTEST: By: Jennifer Harmon Clerk of the Board • 17336.00000\6967586.1 2 • 139 " RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: October 12, 2011 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Min Saysay, Right of Way Manager THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Executive Director SUBJECT: Resolution No. 11-015 for Commission Election to Hear Future Resolutions of Necessity for the State Route 74 Curve Widening Project and Designation of Commission's General Counsel STAFF RECOMMENDA TlON: This item is for the Commission to adopt Resolution No. 11-015, "Commission Electing to Hear Future Resolutions of Necessity for the State Route 74 Curve Widening Project Between Calvert and California A venues and Designation of Commission's General Counsel to Process Resolution of Necessity Packages for the Project". " BACKGROUND INFORMA TlON: The SR-74 curve widening in Hemet is one of the last remaining highway projects in the 1989 Measure A expenditure plan. The Commission along with Caltrans District 8 oversight, is acquiring the right of way necessary for the construction of the SR-74 curve widening project from Calvert Avenue to California Avenue. As a part of the streamlined oversight process, one of the Commission's responsibilities in right of way acquisition is to hear future resolutions of necessity and designate the Commission's general counsel to process and approve the resolutions packages. By adopting Resolution No. 11-015, the Commission agrees to follow all procedures for the resolution of necessity process as outlined in the Caltrans Right of Way manual, which requires condemnation evaluation and condemnation panel review meetings under certain circumstances, prior to seeking resolutions of necessity. Attachment: Resolution No.11-015 " Agenda Item 7F 140 " RESOLUTION NO. 11-015 RESOLUTION OF THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION ELECTING TO HEAR FUTURE RESOLUTIONS OF NECESSITY FOR THE STATE ROUTE 74 CURVE WIDENING PROJECT BETWEEN CALVERT AND CALIFORNIA AVENUES AND DESIGNATION OF COMMISSION GENERAL COUNSEL TO PROCESS RESOLUTION OF NECESSITY PACKAGES FOR THE PROJECT WHEREAS, the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) is empowered to acquire by eminent domain any property to carry out its powers or functions pursuant to Public Utilities Code section 130220.5; WHEREAS, property may properly be acquired by eminent domain for the State Highway System pursuant to Streets and Highways Code section 102; " WHEREAS, RCTC's Measure A includes the widening of medians, shoulders and lanes on State Route 74 between Calvert and California Avenues, a project on the State of California Highway System, and State of California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) has authorized RCTC to perform right of way activities for said project; WHEREAS, all local public agency projects on the State of California Highway System, within the existing or proposed State of California rights of way are subject to the requirements of the State of California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) Right of Way Manual, and recent provisions to the Caltrans Right of Way Manual now require a local public agency to pass a resolution, by a four-fifths vote, making an election to hear all the Resolutions of Necessity for the project; and WHEREAS, RCTC will follow state statute requirements and the Caltrans Right of Way Manual processes in the issuance of the Notice of Intent to adopt a Resolution of Necessity and in the adoption of a Resolution of Necessity, and the RCTC General Counsel is designated to process and approve the resolution packages(s); NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Riverside County Transportation Commission, by a four-fifths vote, will hear the Resolutions of Necessity associated with the widening of medians, shoulders and lanes on State Route 74 between Calvert and California Avenues . " 17336,00000\6968370.1 1 141 -------------------------- BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that RCTC designates its General Counsel to • prepare, review, process, and approve the Resolutions of Necessity packages for this project. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 12th day of October, 2011. By:------------------------------------­Gregory S. Pettis, Chair Riverside County Transportation Commission ATTEST: By: Jennifer Harmon Clerk of the Board • 17336.00000\6968370.1 2 • 142 " RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION DATE: October 1 2, 2011 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Sheldon Peterson, Rail Manager THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Executive Director SUBJECT: Commuter Rail Station Code of Conduct STAFF RECOMMENDA TION: This item is for the Commission to approve the Commuter Rail Station Code of Conduct (Code of Conduct) and allow the Executive Director to make future changes as necessary. BACKGROUND INFORMA TION: " Approximately two years ago, staff and legal counsel developed the Code of Conduct for the stations with the goal to provide information to the station patrons for the safe and appropriate activities at the stations. One of the elements of this Code of Conduct is the station smoking policy. At the September 14 Commission meeting, a passenger brought to the Commission's attention a recommendation to establish designated smoking areas. Staff is exploring the possibility of creating these designated smoking areas and is also working with the new security guard contractor on ways to effectively implement the changes. In light of this discussion, it was determined appropriate to bring the Code of Conduct to the Commission for approval. The Commission-owned commuter rail stations in Riverside County are used by thousands of people each day. With all that activity at the stations, a clear set of guidelines in the form of a Code of Conduct needed to be established. The intent of this Code of Conduct is to provide a means to ensure safety, security, and maintain efficient and clean stations. The Code of Conduct is displayed prominently at the stations to support the security guard force in oversight of the stations. The security guards' focus is to be helpful and friendly yet maintain order to protect the facility. The Code of Conduct was developed cooperatively between staff and legal counsel to ensure that all elements were appropriate and needed. Safety is a priority in the Code of Conduct and it addresses safety issues such as platform safety, suspicious items, vandalism, assault, weapons, etc. The Code of Conduct is comprehensive " and deals with a wide range of issues including ticketing requirements, overnight Agenda Item 7G 143 parking, photography, smoking, food, alcohol, animals, bikes, skateboards, • solicitation, etc. All of these issues are questions the guards are asked on a regular basis and this document answers the questions in a clear and concise manner. The Code of Conduct may need to be revised as situations change. It would be appropriate for the Executive Director to make future changes as necessary in order to keep the document up to date. Major changes will be brought to the Commission for review and approval as appropriate. Attaohment: Code of Conduct • Agenda Item 7G • 144 *' ' • ~/ -, RCTC Station Information and Code of Conduct These guidelines have been established to ensure that all passengers enjoy their experience at this Metrolink Station. Guards are on duty to protect passengers and equipment. Please report all incidents to guards or notify 911 in an emergency. PLATFORM SAFETY: Remain behind the yellow line at all times prior to boarding. Train stops are brief, board immediately. Never run on station platforms. Never walk onto the tracks. Use extreme caution at all times. TICKETS: Passengers are required to obtain proper transit fare media prior to boarding the train. Tickets are not sold on board Metrolink/Amtrak Trains. PARKING: Station parking is for Train Passengers Only, unless otherwise specified. Park at your own risk: RCTC, Metrolink, and Amtrak are not responsible for theft of or damage to property. Utilize designated parking areas only. Violators are subject to tow at the vehicle owner's expense. Erratic or careless driving in station parking areas is prohibited. OVERNIGHT PARKING: Overnight parking is allowed except in the East Side Lot at the Downtown Riverside. Please notify the guard in advance of leaving any vehicle parked overnight. Vehicles left at stations for more than two consecutive weeks are subject to tow. SUSPICIOUS ITEMS: Personal items must remain in your possession at all times. If you encounter a suspicious package or an unattended bag, please report it to station security or train crew member immediately. VANDALISM: Stations have extensive video surveillance systems. Anyone observed damaging property, including tagging, are subject to the full extent of prosecution . ASSAULT: Physically assaulting or verbally harassing any person is strictly prohibited and police will be notified • immediately. LOITERING: Use of this facility is limited to station patrons only. Loitering is strictly prohibited. NOISE: Loud music or disruptive noise of any kind is prohibited. WEAPONS: Unauthorized firearms or weapons of any kind are strictly prohibited. CLOTHING: Shirts and shoes are required. SMOKING: Smoking is prohibited on platforms, platform entrances and designated vending areas around which "No Smoking" signs are posted. Designated smoking locations may be established at the stations as needed. ALCOHOL: Consumption of alcoholic beverages and open alcoholic beverage containers are prohibited. FOOD: Eating is permitted at stations and on trains. Please exercise care and properly dispose of your trash. LITTER: Littering of any kind is strictly prohibited. Please utilize designated trash receptacles on platforms and trains. ANIMALS: Animals, other than restrained service animals (e.g. seeing-eye dogs), are prohibited. SOLICITATION: Solicitation of any kind without prior written permission of station management is strictly prohibited. PHOTOGRAPHY: Photography is allowed. Stay safe and clear of platforms and train tracks. Please use proper discretion and do not interfere with other passengers. Media and commercial inquiries should be referred to RCTC at (951) 787-7141. BICYCLES: Bicycles must be walked on entrance walkways and platforms. Bicycles parked at stations shall be secured to bicycle racks. BikeLids or in lockers only . SKATEBOARDS, SCOOTERS, ROLLERBLADES, ETC.: Use of skateboards, scooters, rollerblades or similar items is not permitted on platforms or walkways. • LOST & FOUND: If you have lost an item, report it to the guard. If you have found an item, present it to a guard. 145 Any other unacceptable behavior that constitutes or causes a nuisance, a disturbance, or harm or a threat of harm is prohibited. Failure to obey these guidelines or to comply with lawful and reasonable requests by the Station Management, Police or. Security will result in your being asked to leave the station. If you refuse to leave, you may be arrested and prosecuted for criminal trespass. If you have any questions, suggestions or helpful comments about our stations, we invite you to contact us at our RCTC Customer Service Hotline at 951-778-1092 or visit www.rctc.org. For schedules and train conditions contact Metrolink at 800-371-LlNK. Thank you for your support and cooperation. • • 146 " RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: October 12, 2011 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Jillian Edmiston, Staff Analyst Brian Cunanan, Commuter Assistance Manager THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Executive Director SUBJECT: Awards for Freeway Service Patrol Tow Truck Service STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1 ) Award Agreement No. 11-45-146-00 to Pepe's Towing (Pepe's) for tow truck services on Beat No.4 of the Freeway Service Patrol (FSP) program for a three-year term, and two one-year options to extend the agreement, in an amount not to exceed $1,000,000; " 2) Award Agreement No. 11-45-147-00 to Roy and Dot's Towin~ (Roy and Dot's) for tow truck services on Beat No. 7 of the FSP program for a three-year term, and two one-year options to extend the agreement, in an amount not to exceed $1,020,000; 3) Award Agreement No. 11-45-148-00 to Navarro's Towing and Recovery (Navarro's) for tow truck services on Beat No.8 of the FSP program for a three-year term, and two one-year options to extend the agreement, in an amount not to exceed $909,000; and 4) Authorize the Chair, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreements, including option years, on behalf of the Commission. BACKGROUND INFORMA TION: In 1986, the Commission established itself as the Riverside County Service Authority for Freeway Emergencies (RC SAFE) after the enactment of SB 1199 in 1985. The purpose of the formation of SAFEs in California was to provide call box services and, with excess funds, provide additional motorist aid services. Funding for RC SAFE is derived from a one dollar per vehicle registration fee on vehicles registered in Riverside County. Initially, these funds were used only for the call box program. As additional motorist aid services were developed, SAFE funds were also used to provide FSP and the Inland Empire 511 traveler informC!tion services as part of a comprehensive motorist aid system in Riverside County . " Agenda Item 7H 147 In 1990, Proposition C was passed to fund transportation improvements and to • help reduce traffic congestion in California. From this, the FSP program was created by Caltrans, which developed the corresponding Local Funding Allocation Plan to distribute funds to participating jurisdictions. In addition to funding received from Caltrans, agencies are required to contribute a 25% local match. For the Commission, SAFE revenues are used to meet this match requirement. The Commission, acting in its capacity as the SAFE, is the principal agency in Riverside County, in partnership with Caltrans and the California Highway Patrol (CHP), managing the FSP program. The purpose of the FSP program is to provide a continuous roving tow services patrol along designated freeway segments (referred to as beats) to relieve freeway congestion and facilitate the rapid removal of disabled vehicles and those involved in minor accidents on local freeways. Contracts to provide FSP tow service are competitively bid as needed for each beat. Currently, the Commission contracts with three tow truck operators to provide service on a total of nine beats Monday through Friday during the peak commute hours, 5:30 a.m. to 8:30 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. (1 :00 p.m. on Fridays) to 7:00 p.m. Staff sought a competitive solution to award tow service contracts to qualified firms for Beat Nos. 4, 7, and 8, of the nine total beats administered by the Commission. Beat No.4 operates on State Route 91 from Magnolia Avenue in the city of Riverside (Riverside) to the 60/91/215 interchange in Riverside and requires • the use of two tow trucks during normal service hours. Beat No.7 operates on SR-60 from Milliken Street in the city of Eastvale to Main Street in Riverside, which requires the use of two tow trucks during normal service hours. Beat No. 8 operates on SR-60 from the 60/215 interchange in Riverside to Theodore Street in the city of Moreno Valley, which requires the use of two tow trucks during normal service hours. Since the Commission's FSP requirements are demanding, the Commission reserved the right to limit the number of beats awarded to one contractor. Procurement Process This procurement was conducted in accordance with established Commission procurement policies and procedures. Staff established certain minimum qualifications required of each potential proposer and developed a weighted evaluation criterion to select qualified tow services contractors for Beat Nos. 4, 7, and 8. Non-price elements of the evaluation criteria included experience, the relative qualifications of the firms, proposed work plan, and the proposer's ability to respond to the requirements set forth under the terms of the request for proposals (RFP). Agenda Item 7H • 148 " RFP No. 11-45-146-00 was released and advertised by the Commission on July 1, 2011. A pre-proposal conference was conducted by the Commission on July 14, and was attended by approximately eight firms. Staff responded to all questions submitted by potential proposers prior to the July 28 proposal deadline date. Four responsive and responsible firms -Bob and Dave's Towing, Inc., Navarro's, Patriot Towing, and Pepe's -submitted a proposal in response to the RFP for services on Beat No.4. Six responsive and responsible firms -Bob and Dave's Towing, Inc., Navarro's, Pacific Truck and Auto Towing, Patriot Towing, Pepe's, and Roy and Dot's submitted a proposal in response to the RFP for services on Beat No.7. Four responsive and responsible firms -Bob and Dave's Towing, Inc., Navarro's, Patriot Towing, and Pepe's submitted a proposal in response to the RFP for services on Beat No.8. An 'evaluation committee conslstmg of representatives from the CHP Inland Division, San Bernardino Associated Governments, and Commission staff evaluated each proposal in accordance with the evaluation criteria set forth in the RFP and short-listed four firms. The Committee performed site visits, interviewed the short� listed firms, and provided final scoring based on a comprehensive evaluation of each firm's written proposal and interview. Beat No.4 " Proposals submitted in response to Beat No. 4 were scored by the evaluation committee based upon the criteria set forth in the RFP. The two short-listed firms submitted hourly rates for tow' services that ranged from a low of $45.75 per hour to a high of $50.00 per hour. Beat No.4 services are currently provided by Pepe's at an hourly rate of $51.00. The all-inclusive hourly service rate for this beat, as well as the other two beats, includes all direct costs (e.g., fuel, labor, equipment), indirect costs (e.g., fringe benefits, overhead), and profit to provide the subject services. The overall rankings, inclusive of pncmg, listed from highest to lowest total evaluation score for Beat No.4 are as follows: Short-listed Firm Hourly Rate Overall Ranking Pepe's $50.00 1't Navarro's $45.75 2 nd Based on the overall score according to the evaluation criteria listed in the RFP, the evaluation committee recommends Pepe's for award of Beat No.4. " Agenda Item 7H 149 Beat No.8 Proposals submitted in response to Beat No. 8 were scored by the evaluation committee based upon the criteria set forth in the RFP. The two short-listed proposers submitted hourly rates for tow services that ranged from a low of $45.75 per hour to a high of $50.00 per hour. Beat No.8 services are currently provided by Tri City Towing at an hourly rate of $50.00. The overall rankings, inclusive of pricing, listed from highest to lowest total evaluation score for Beat No.8 are as follows: • Short-listed Firm Hourly Rate Overall Ranking Pepe's $50.00 1 51 Navarro's $45.75 2 nd In light of Pepe's anticipated award of Beat No.4, the evaluation committee recommends Navarro's for award of Beat No.8. Beat No.7 Proposals submitted in response to Beat No. 7 were scored by the evaluation committee based upon the criteria set forth in the RFP. The four short-listed proposers submitted hourly rates for tow services that ranged from a low of • $45.75 per hour to a high of $51.00 per hour. Beat No.7 services are currently provided by Pepe's at an hourly rate of $48.50. The overall rankings, inclusive of pricing, listed from highest to lowest total evaluation score for Beat No.7 are as follows: Short-listed Firm Hourly Rate Overall Ranking Pepe's $50.00 pI Navarro's $45.75 2 nd Roy and Dot's $51.00 3'd Pacific Truck and Auto Towing $50.00 4th In light of Pepe's anticipated award of Beat No.4 and Navarro's anticipated award of Beat No.8, the evaluation committee recommends Roy and Dot's for award of Beat No.7. Agenda Item 7H • 150 " Conclusion In order to address its concerns regarding workload, flexibility, capacity, experience, and other business considerations, the Commission reserved the right to limit the number of beats awarded to one contractor. Additionally, the RFP states that a contractor with no prior FSP experience shall be considered new and may only be awarded one FSP beat. Based on the foregoing, although it ranked highest overall for each of the three beats, staff recommends limiting the number of beats awarded to Pepe's to one. Currently, five out of nine of the Commission's FSP beats are awarded to Pepe's, causing concern regarding Pepe's capacity and workload. Staff is recommending Pepe's for award of Beat No.4 because of Pepe's proximity to the beat, and its FSP experience for normal and construction-related service, as construction is expected on the beat. " In addition, staff recommends limiting the number of beats awarded to Navarro's Towing to one since Navarro's is new to the FSP program. The Commission's FSP requirements are demanding, and firms that are new and unfamiliar to the program may experience difficulty meeting the requirements. Awarding an initial contract for one beat sets a precedent for a working relationship that assures competent performance and reduces (multiple beat) liability . Due to the Commission's concerns of awarding multiple beats to Pepe's and Navarro's, staff recommends the award of Beat No.7 to Roy and Dot's Towing. Roy and Dot's is currently providing satisfactory services on Beat No. 25. The proposed all-inclusive hourly rates of $50.00 by Pepe's for Beat No.4, $51.00 by Roy & Dot's for Beat No.7, and $45.75 by Navarro's for Beat No.8 are considered fair and reasonable based upon adequate price competition under the RFP process, and the historical cost experience of the Commission for comparable services. As noted above, current hourly rates for these three beats range from $48.50 to $51.00. Staff recommends the award of Agreement No. 11-45-146-00 to Pepe's for tow truck services on Beat No.4 in an amount not to exceed $1,000,000; Agreement No. 11-45-147-00 to Roy and Dot's for tow truck services on Beat No.7 in an amount not to exceed $1,020,000; and Agreement No. 11-45-148-00 to Navarro's for tow truck services on Beat No.8 in an amount not to exceed $909,000. The Commission's standard form FSP services agreement will be entered into with each firm subject to any changes approved by the Executive Director, and pursuant to legal counsel review . " Agenda Item 7H 151 All obligations incurred by the Commission under the terms of this award are • funded 75% from state funds and 25% from local SAFE revenues and are subject to continued funding from the state of California for the Riverside County FSP program. The FY 2011112 cost of $260,000 has been included in the FY 2011/12 budget. Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: I ~~~ I FY 2011/12 Amount: I $ 260,000 Year: FY 2012/13 + $2,669,000 Source of Funds: IState of California -75% SAFE DMV Fees -25 % Budget Adjustment: I No GLlProject Accounting No.: 00217381014201 4581002 II Fiscal Procedures Approved: ~~ I Date: I 09/26/11 Attachment: Standard Form FSP Services Agreement • Agenda Item 7H • 152 " Note Items in red/bold/underline will be filled in with contract execution Agreement No. 11-45-146-00 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION, ACTING AS THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY SERVICE AUTHORITY FOR FREEWAY EMERGENCIES, AND [NAME OF CONTRACTOR] FOR FREEWAY SERVICE PATROL FOR BEAT NO. X WITHIN RIVERSIDE COUNTY 1. PARTIES AND DATE. " 1.1 This Contract ("Contract") is made and entered into this Xlh day of Month, 2011, by and between the Riverside County Transportation Commission, a public entity, acting as the Riverside County Service Authority for Freeway Emergencies (referred to herein as "SAFE"), and [NAME OF FIRMl, a [LEGAL STATUS OF CONTRACTOR e.g., CORPORATION] (referred to herein as "CONTRACTOR"). SAFE and CONTRACTOR are sometimes individually referred to herein as "Party" and collectively as "Parties" . 1.2 The Califomia Highway Patrol herein referred to as "CHp u and California Department of Transportation, herein referred to as "Caltrans" are hereby expressly designated as third-party beneficiaries of CONTRACTOR's performance under this Contract. 2. RECITALS. 2.1 WHEREAS, the Riverside County Transportation Commission ("RCTC") is a California County Transportation Commission existing under the authority of Section 130050 et seq. of the California Public Utilities Code; 2.2 WHEREAS, RCTC is authorized, pursuant to Section 2550 et seq. of the California Streets and Highways Code, to act as SAFE for purposes of providing a motorist aid system, including provision of freeway service patrols; 2.3 WHEREAS, SAFE requires the services of a CONTRACTOR to provide the freeway service patrol profeSSional services as described in the Scope of Services; 2.4 WHEREAS, SAFE has determined that CONTRACTOR is best " qualified to perform the required services; ] 1336.0002A \6030198.4 153 2.5 WHEREAS, the CONTRACTOR is able and willing to perform the • required services under the terms and conditions of this Contract; 2.6 WHEREAS, RCTC is the short range transportation planning agency for Riverside County, and programs federal, state, and local funds. RCTC has entered into a Memorandum of Understanding with Caltrans and CHP to fund peak period freeway service patrols on selected freeway segments in Riverside County; and 2.7 WHEREAS, Section 21718 (a) of the California Vehicle Code specifically authorized CHP to be responsible for freeway service patrols stopping on freeways for the purpose of rapid removal of impediments to traffic. Article 3, Section 91, of the Streets and Highways Code, states that Caltrans has responsibility to improve and maintain the state highways. Caltrans also has the responsibility for traffic management and removing impediments from the highways. NOW, THEREFORE, for the consideration hereinafter stated, SAFE and CONTRACTOR agree as follows: 3. TERMS. 3.1 General Scope of Services. 3.1.1. Contract Oversight. Caltrans and CHP will jointly oversee •the Services. Both agencies will have responsibility for overseeing Service performance and ensuring that the CONTRACTOR abides by the terms of this Contract. CHP is responsible for dispatch services to incident locations within the CONTRACTOR's patrol limits. The dispatching will be done in accordance with this Contract. A Standard Operating Procedures ("SOP") manual will be given to the CONTRACTOR explaining the types of incidents to which his/her operators may be dispatched. 3.1.2 Beat Descriptions. The Freeway Service Patrol ("FSP") will operate on selected freeway segments referred to herein as "beats". Each beat has specific turnaround locations and designated drop locations identified by the CHP. Exhibit "A-1" shows the specific limits, number of tow trucks, number of back-up trucks and hours of operation and Exhibit "A-2" details the fiscal years 2012, 2013, 2014 and 2015 holidays for the CONTRACTOR's specific beat. SAFE reserves the right to add or delete holidays to the work schedule, provided that SAFE provides CONTRACTOR seven (7) days advanced notice of such addition or deletion. Travel time to and from the beat will be at the expense of the CONTRACTOR. At any time during the term of this Contract, SAFE reserves the right to adjust beat specifications to better accommodate demand for the Services. These changes can occur during the course of this Contract through written change orders. If warranted and during the hours of operation of the Services, the J7336.0002A\6030198.4 2 • 154 " CONTRACTOR may be requested to temporarily reassign his/her FSP operators/trucks to locations outside the assigned beat. 3.1.3 Description of Services. CONTRACTOR shall be responsible for those services set forth in this Section 3.1.3, hereinafter referred to as "Services." The purpose of the FSP program is to provide for the rapid removal of disabled vehicles and vehicles involved in minor accidents from the freeway. Where conditions permit, safe removal of small debris will be required. CONTRACTOR vehicles shall be exclusively dedicated to the Services during the hours of operation. All vehicle maintenance activities shall be conducted during non-Services hours. When conducting the Services on an FSP shift, the CONTRACTOR's vehicle shall display all FSP markings and the vehicle operator shall wear an FSP uniform, as detailed in Exhibit "A-3". " The CONTRACTOR's vehicle operators shall assist motorists involved in minor accidents and those with disabled vehicles. They shall be responsible for clearing the freeway of automobiles, small trucks and small debris. When and where conditions warrant, service may be executed on the freeway shoulders. Where conditions do not warrant, vehicle operators will remove the vehicles from the freeway to provide service. The FSP vehicles shall continuously patrol their assigned beat, respond to CHP dispatches for Services, use the deSignated turnaround locations and use the CHP identified designated drop locations . All FSP services shall be provided at no cost to the motorist. FSP vehicle operators shall not be accept gratuities, perform secondary towing services, recommend secondary tows, or recommend repair/body shop businesses. FSP vehicle operators may be required to change flat tires, provide "jump" starts, provide one gallon of gasoline or diesel fuel, temporarily tape cooling system hoses and refill radiators. Vehicle operators may spend a maximum of ten (10) minutes per disablement in attempting to mobilize a vehicle. If a vehicle cannot be mobilized within the ten (10) minute time limit, it shall be towed to a designated drop location identified by the CHP. The motorist can request the FSP vehicle operator to call the CHP Communications center to request a CHP rotational tow or other services. FSP operators shall not be allowed to tow as an independent contractor from an incident that occurred during the FSP shift unless called as a rotation tow by CHP. If called as a rotation tow after a FSP shift, the vehicle operator must remove all FSP markings and change his/her FSP uniform. There may be some instances where FSP operators may be requested to provide assistance to CHP officers. FSP operators shall follow the instructions of the CHP officer at the scene of any incident within the scope of the FSP program. " 3.1.4. The SOP Manual. To promote a safe work environment and for the maintenance of profeSSionalism. the most current version of the SOP manual shall, at all times, be followed by the CONTRACTOR and its vehicle operators. The 17336.0002A\6030198A 3 155 SOP manual, as such manual may from time to time be amended, is incorporated into this Contract by reference. CONTRACTOR shall be notified and provided with a copy of any changes to the SOP manual. Drivers found not to be in compliance with FSP procedures, as set forth in the SOP manual or this Contract, may be suspended or terminated from the FSP program and the CONTRACTOR may be fined three (3) times the hourly Contract rate in one (1) minute increments until a replacement vehicle is provided (Driver and Truck must return to beat compliant with all FSP requirements), or fined for the entire shift at three (3) times the hourly rate at the discretion of the FSP Field Supervisors. 3.1.5 Check In. Upon arrival at the location for each instruction to provide Services, and upon completion of each such request, CONTRACTOR shall check in with the CHP field supervisor using the radio provided by SAFE as set forth in Section 3.2, entitled "Equipment Requirements". 3.2 Equipment Requirements. CONTRACTOR shall comply with all equipment requirements outlined in RFP No. FSP11-45-146-00. Notwithstanding any other provision contained in the RFP, radio and AVL equipment shall be supplied by SAFE and installed (mounted) in all CONTRACTOR vehicles by SAFE's installation vendor, and shall remain mounted in all CONTRACTOR vehicles at all times. 3.3 Commencement of Services. The CONTRACTOR shall commence work upon receipt of a written Notice to Proceed from SAFE. 3.4 Term. The term of this Contract shall be from Month 1, 2012 through Month 31,2015 unless earlier terminated as provided herein. SAFE, at its sole discretion, may renew this Contract for a total of two (2) separate one year terms, based on the option-year rates. SAFE shall also have the right to renew this Contract from one month up to a one year term after the initial term by providing notice as provided below. SAFE must provide written notice to CONTRACTOR no less than ninety (90) days prior to the end of the applicable term, indicating its renewal of the Contract. CONTRACTOR shall complete the Services within the term of this Contract, and shall meet any other established schedules and deadlines. All applicable indemnification provisions of this Contract shall remain in effect following the termination of this Contract. If SAFE, at its sole discretion, renews this Contract for one or both of the additional separate one year terms as provided, the option-year rates shall be as follows: SCHEDULE OF HOURLY RATES Classification Option Year 1 Hourly Rate Option Year 2 Hourly Rate Contract tow truck operators $ per hour $ per hour 3.5 SAFE's Representative. SAFE hereby designates the SAFE Executive Director or his or her designee, to act as its Representative for the performance of this Contract ("SAFE's Representative"). SAFE's Representative shall have the authority to act on behalf of SAFE for all purposes under this Contract. 173 36.0002A \6030 J98.4 4 156 • • • " SAFE's Representative shall also review and give approval, as needed, to the details of CONTRACTOR's work as it progresses. CONTRACTOR shall not accept direction or orders from any person other than the SAFE's Representative or his or her designee. 3.6 CONTRACTOR'S Representative. CONTRACTOR hereby designates [INSERT NAME, TITLE], to act as its representative for the performance of this Contract ("CONTRACTOR's Representative"). CONTRACTOR's Representative shall have full authority to act on behalf of CONTRACTOR for all purposes under this Contract. The CONTRACTOR's Representative shall supervise and direct the Services, using his best skill and attention, and shall be responsible for all means, methods, techniques, sequences and procedures and for the satisfactory coordination of all portions of the Services under this Contract. CONTRACTOR shall work closely and cooperate fully with SAFE's Representative and any other agencies which may have jurisdiction over or an interest in the SerVices. CONTRACTOR's Representa� tive shall be available to the SAFE staff at all reasonable times. Any substitution in CONTRACTOR's Representative shall be approved in writing by SAFE's Representative. 3.7 Substitution of Key Personnel. CONTRACTOR has represented to SAFE that certain key personnel will perform and coordinate the Services under this Contract. Should one or more of such personnel become unavailable, CONTRACTOR may substitute other personnel of at least equal competence upon written approval by SAFE's Representative. In the event that SAFE's Representative and CONTRACTOR cannot agree as to the substitution of the key personnel, SAFE shall be entitled to terminate this Contract for cause, pursuant to the provisions of Section 3.15. The key personnel for performance of this Contract are: [LIST " NAMES AND TITLES]. 3.8 Review of Work and Deliverables. All reports, working papers, and similar work products prepared for submission in the course of providing Services under this Contract may be required to be submitted to SAFE's Representative in draft form, and SAFE's Representative may require revisions of such drafts prior to formal submission and approval. In the event that SAFE's Representative, in his or her sole discretion, determines the formally submitted work product to be inadequate, SAFE's Representative may require CONTRACTOR to revise and resubmit the work at no cost to SAFE. Upon determination by SAFE that CONTRACTOR has satisfactorily completed the Services required under this Contract and within the term set forth in Section 3.4, SAFE shall give CONTRACTOR a written Notice of Final Completion. Upon receipt of such notice, CONTRACTOR shall incur no further costs hereunder, unless otherwise specified in the Notice of Completion. CONTRACTOR may request issuance of a Notice of Final Completion when, in its opinion, it has satisfactorily completed a/l Services required under the provisions of this Contract. 3.9 Appearance at Hearings. If and when required by SAFE, CONTRACTOR shall render assistance at public hearings or other meetings related to the performance of the Services. 3.10 Standard of Care: Licenses. CONTRACTOR represents and maintains that it is skilled in the professional calling necessary to perform all Services, duties and obligations required by this Contract. CONTRACTOR shall perform the " Services and duties in conformance to and consistent with the standards generally recognized as being employed by professionals in the same discipline in the State of California. CONTRACTOR warrants that all employees and subcontractors shall have 1 7336.0002A \6030198.4 5 157 sufficient skill and experience to perform the Services assigned to them. CONTRACTOR further represents and warrants to SAFE that its employees and subcontractors have all licenses, permits, qualifications (including medical certification) and approvals of whatever nature that are legally required to perform the Services, and that such licenses and approvals shall be maintained throughout the term of this Contract. CONTRACTOR shall perform, at its own cost and expense and without reimbursement from SAFE, any services necessary to correct errors or omissions which are caused by the CONTRACTOR's failure to comply with the standard of care provided for herein, and shall be fully responsible to SAFE for all damages and other liabilities provided for in the indemnification provisions of this Contract arising from the CONTRACTOR's errors and omissions. Any employee of CONTRACTOR or its subcontractors who is determined by SAFE to be uncooperative, incompetent, a threat to the adequate or timely completion of the Services, a threat to the safety of persons or property, or any employee who fails or refuses to perform the Services in a manner acceptable to SAFE, shall be promptly removed from performing the Services by the CONTRACTOR and shall not be re-employed to perform any of the Services. 3.11 Opportunity to Cure. SAFE may provide CONTRACTOR an opportunity to cure, at CONTRACTOR's expense, all errors and omissions which may be disclosed during performance of the Services. Should CONTRACTOR fail to make such correction in a timely manner, such correction may be made by SAFE, and the cost thereof charged to CONTRACTOR. 3.12 Inspection of Work. CONTRACTOR shall allow SAFE's Representative to inspect or review CONTRACTOR's performance of Services in progress at any time. SAFE/Caltrans/CHP also reserves the right to audit all paperwork demonstrating that CONTRACTOR participates in an employee alcohol/drug-testing program and the DMV Pull Notice Program. 3.13 Laws and Regulations. CONTRACTOR shall keep itself fully informed of and in compliance with all local, state and federal laws, rules and regulations in any manner affecting the performance of the Services, including all Cal/OSHA requirements, and shall give all notices required by law. CONTRACTOR shall be solely liable for all violations of such laws and regulations in connection with Services. If the CONTRACTOR performs any work knowing it to be contrary to such laws, rules and regulations and without giving written notice to SAFE, CONTRACTOR shall be solely responsible for all costs arising therefrom. CONTRACTOR shall defend, indemnify and hold SAFE, their officials, directors, officers, employees and agents free and harmless, pursuant to the indemnification provisions of this Contract, from any claim or liability arising out of any failure or alleged failure to comply with such laws, rules or regulations. 3.14 Damage Complaints. Upon receiving a damage complaint from a motorist assisted by the CONTRACTOR, that the CONTRACTOR damaged their vehicle while lending aSSistance, the CONTRACTOR shall notify CHP immediately regarding the nature of the damage complaint and its disposition. The CONTRACTOR shall reply to the motorist by telephone within twenty-four (24) hours of receiving the damage complaint notification. If necessary, the CONTRACTOR shall send either his or I 7336.0002A\603OJ 98.4 6 158 • • • " her authorized representative or his or her insurance company representative to inspect the vehicle and complete an incident report within forty-eight (48) hours after receiving the damage complaint. If the investigation shows that damage to the vehicle could have been caused by the CONTRACTOR, the CONTRACTOR shall negotiate in good faith to try and resolve the issue and shall report to the CHP the result of the negotiations. All complaints shall be resolved within a reasonable period of time after being received. 3.14.1 Complaint Review Committee. The FSP Technical Advisory Committee ("FSP TAC") is composed of voting members from CHP, SAFE and Caltrans. Voting members of the FSP TAC are hereby designated as the members of the Damage Complaint Review Committee ("DCRC"). If the DCRC finds that justifiable complaints are not resolved within a reasonable time frame, it can recommend that payment to the CONTRACTOR in the amount of the damage claim may be deducted from the CONTRACTOR's monthly invoice. 3.15 Termination. " 3.15.1 Notice; Reason. SAFE may, by written notice to CONTRACTOR, terminate this Contract, in whole or in part, including, without limitation, the geographical territory covered by this Contract, at any time by giving written notice to CONTRACTOR of such termination, and specifying the effective date thereof ("Notice of Termination"). Such termination may be for SAFE's convenience or because of CONTRACTOR's failure to perform its duties and obligations under this Contract, including, but not limited to, the failure of CONTRACTOR to timely perform Services pursuant to the Scope of Services described in Section 3, entitled "Terms," as well as Section 7 of the RFP. CONTRACTOR may not terminate this Contract except for cause. 3.15.2 Discontinuance of Services. Upon receipt of the written Notice of Termination, CONTRACTOR shall discontinue all affected Services as directed in the Notice of Termination, and deliver to SAFE all Documents and Data, as defined in this Contract, as may have been prepared or accumulated by CONTRACTOR in performance of the Services, whether completed or in progress. 3.15.3 Effect of Termination For Convenience. If the termination is to be for the convenience of SAFE, SAFE shall compensate CONTRACTOR for Services fully and adequately provided through the effective date of termination as provided in the Notice of Termination. Such payment shall include a pro-rated amount of profit, if applicable, up through such effective date, but no amount shall be paid for anticipated profit on unperformed Services past such effective date. CONTRACTOR shall provide documentation deemed adequate by SAFE's Representative to show the Services actually completed by CONTRACTOR prior to the effective date of termination. This Contract shall terminate on the effective date of the Notice of Termination. 3.15.4 Effect of Termination for Cause. If the termination is for " cause, CONTRACTOR shall be compensated for those Services which have been fully and adequately completed and accepted by SAFE as of the effective date of termination as provided in the Notice of Termination. In such case, SAFE may take over the work 17336.0002A\6030198.4 7 159 and prosecute the same to completion by contract or otherwise. Further, CONTRACTOR shall be liable to SAFE for any reasonable additional costs or damages incurred to revise work for which SAFE has compensated CONTRACTOR under this Contract, but which SAFE has determined in its sole discretion needs to be revised, in part or whole. Termination of this Contract for cause may be considered by SAFE in determining whether to enter into future contracts with CONTRACTOR. 3.15.5 Cumulative Remedies. The rights and remedies of the Parties provided in this Section are in addition to any other rights and remedies provided by law or under this Contract. 3.15.6 Procurement of Similar Services. In the event this Contract is terminated, in whole or in part, as provided by this Section, SAFE may procure, upon such terms and in such manner as it deems appropriate, services similar to those terminated. 3.15.7 Waivers. CONTRACTOR, in executing this Contract, shall be deemed to have waived any and all claims for damages which may otherwise arise from SAFE's termination of this Contract, for convenience or cause, as provided in this Section. 3.15.8 Authorization to Terminate. The Executive Director of SAFE shall have the full authority and discretion to exercise SAFE's rights under this ,Section 3.15, entitled "Termination". 3.16 Trend Meetings. CONTRACTOR shall attend, or send a designated management-level representative, to all trend meetings (Le. required FSP TAC meeting which meets every other month). These trend meetings will encompass focused and informal discussions concerning, but not limited to: scope, Services, schedule, current progress of Services, relevant cost issues, and future objectives. CONTRACTOR shall be responsible for having a representative attend all meetings (i.e. FSP TAC meetings) that has the ability to make management-level decisions on the behalf of the CONTRACTOR If the CONTRACTOR cannot have a management-level representative at a meeting, CONTRACTOR shall notify SAFE and CHP prior to the meeting. Management-level attendance at these meetings shall be considered part of the CONTRACTOR's contractual responsibility. Meetings are scheduled, and CONTRACTOR will be notified of such schedule, no later than three (3) working days prior to the meeting. 3.17 Fees and Payment. 3.17.1 Amount to be Paid. Subject to the provisions set forth below for Services satisfactorily performed hereunder, SAFE shall pay the CONTRACTOR on a Time and Materials basis a ceiling price NOT TO EXCEED DOLLARS ($ ). 3.17.2 Maximum Payment is the Ceiling Price. SAFE shall not be obligated to pay costs which exceed the ceiling price set forth above, except as provided in Sections 3.15 and 3.17.10. CONTRACTOR agrees to use its best efforts to perform the services and all obligations under this Contract within such ceiling price. I 7336.0002A\6030198.4 8 160 • • • " 3.17.3 Hourly Rate. For its performance of the Services, the CONTRACTOR shall be paid for labor expended directly in the performance of the Services at the rates specified below. The CONTRACTOR shall not be entitled to reimbursements for any expenses unless approved in advance in writing. SCHEDULE OF HOURLY RATES Classification Hourly Rate Contract -tow truck operators $ 3.17.4 Payment Coverage. The compensation herein above specified will cover and include all applicable labor surcharges such as taxes, insurance and fringe benefits, as well as indirect costs, overhead, general and administrative expense, and profit. 3.17.5 Fines. Fines for starting late; leaving early; taking more than 15-minutes worth of breaks per 3-hour shift; or being ordered out of service by a CHP or Caltrans supervisor for Contract infractions shall be deducted from the CONTRACTOR's monthly invoice at three (3) times the hourly rate. " 3.17.6 Invoices. Invoices for CONTRACTOR's Services shall be submitted monthly on forms approved by SAFE. Invoices will be routinely verified by CHP. To ensure prompt payment, most billing disputes may be resolved within ten (10) working days of written notice of dispute. However, at SAFE's discretion, reconciliation of disputed fines that sum to less than 2% of the months' Invoice may be corrected on the next month's Invoice to ensure prompt payment of the major portion of the invoice. Each Invoice shall include a cover sheet bearing a certification as to the accuracy of the statement signed by the CONTRACTOR's authorized officer. 3.17.6.1 Monthly Progress Reports. As part of its Invoice, CONTRACTOR shall submit a Monthly Progress Report, in a form determined by SAFE, which will cover the Invoice period and include spreadsheets showing hours expended for each day of the month per vehicle per beat, and the total for the term of the Contract to date. Submission of such Monthly Progress Report by CONTRACTOR shall be a condition precedent to receipt of payment from SAFE for each monthly Invoice submitted. 3.17.6.2 Payment Schedule. Invoice periods shall be based upon a calendar month, beginning with the first day of the month. SAFE shall reimburse CONTRACTOR for Services adequately provided under this Contract within thirty (30) days of receiving the current period invoice with no errors. If the Invoice is completed incorrectly by the CONTRACTOR it will delay payment. If SAFE fails to pay any amount owed to CONTRACTOR under this Contract within thirty (30) days after receipt of the " invoice, CONTRACTOR may give SAFE a notice of failure to pay which shall set forth the invoice(s) and amount(s} which CONTRACTOR believes are thirty (30) days I 7336.0002A\6030 J98.4 9 161 overdue. SAFE shall pay any undisputed invoice(s) and amount(s) within thirty (30) • days of receipt of a notice of failure to pay. 3.17.7 Authorization to Inspect and Audit. The CONTRACTOR shall maintain complete and accurate records with respect to all costs and expenses incurred and fees charged under this Contract. All such records shall be clearly identifiable. The CONTRACTOR shall permit the authorized representatives of SAFE, and any other government agency to inspect, audit and make transcripts or copies of any and all records, including ledgers and books of account, invoices, vouchers, cancelled checks, and any other documents, of CONTRACTOR relating to it and its subcontractor's performance under this Contract from date of Contract through and until expiration of three (3) years after completion of the Contract. Contracts with the CONTRACTOR's subcontractors shall include such provisions for such audits, as applicable. For purposes of audit, the date of completion of the Contract shall be the date of SAFE's payment for CONTRACTOR's final billing (so noted on the invoice) under this Contract, or a period of ninety (90) days from the date of SAFE's Notice of Final Acceptance. 3.17.8 Taxes. CONTRACTOR shall pay any sales, use, or other taxes, if any, attributable to the provision of the Services. 3.17.9 Source of Funding. It is understood that SAFE funding for the Services is being provided primarily from the State's FSP Funding program and the Department of Motor Vehicles (UDMV") Registration Fees (funding source for Motorist • Assistance Programs). It is acknowledged that at any time funds from the State and DMV Registration Fees are not available to SAFE for the full amount of this Contract, SAFE may terminate this Contract pursuant to Section 3.15 entitled "Termination." 3.17.10 Extra Work. At any time during the term of this Contract, SAFE may request CONTRACTOR to perform Extra Work. "Extra Work" shall mean any work which is determined by SAFE to be necessary for proper completion of the Services, but which the Parties did not reasonably anticipate would be necessary at the time of the execution of this Contract and was not included in the Scope of Services. Extra Work, if any, shall be reimbursed at the same hourly rate as identified in Section 3.17.3. CONTRACTOR shall not perform, nor be compensated for Extra Work without obtaining authorization in the form of a written Extra Work Order issued by SAFE's Representative. For instance, Construction FSP services as it relates to construction activity can be considered Extra Work. In the event an Extra Work Order is not issued and signed by SAFE's Representative, CONTRACTOR shall not provide such Extra Work. However, no compensation or reimbursement for Extra Work shall be paid if it is not authorized by SAFE and if the cumulative total of such Extra Work under the Contract exceeds $25,000. All Extra Work in a cumulative total in excess of $25,000 must be approved in advance by amendment to this Contract. 3.17.11 Most Favored Customer. CONTRACTOR agrees that, throughout the term of this Contract, it shall not enter into any FSP services agreement with any government agency with whom it has either existing contractual relationship or • has no contractual relationship that predates this Contract, pursuant to which J7336.0002A\6030198.4 10 162 " CONTRACTOR agrees to charge FSP services fees less than those as indicated in this Contract for substantially the same level of FSP services contemplated by this Contract. Should SAFE establish that suCh lower fees have been agreed to by CONTRACTOR with another government agency, CONTRACTOR agrees to renegotiate the fees or to refund SAFE an amount equal to the difference between the fees indicated in this Contract and the fees charged to other government agency customer. 3.18 Delav in Performance. 3.18.1 Excusable Delays. Neither Party shall be considered in default in the performance of its obligations to the extent that the performance of any such obligation is prevented or delayed by an Excusable Delay. Should CONTRACTOR be delayed or prevented from the timely performance of any act or Services required by the terms of the Contract by an Excusable Delay, Contractor's schedule for completion of tasks affected by such delay may be extended as set forth in Section 3.18.2. But in every case, CONTRACTOR's failure to perform must be reasonably beyond the control, and without the fault or negligence of the CONTRACTOR. Excusable Delays are acts of God or of the public enemy, acts or omissions of SAFE or other governmental agencies in either their sovereign or contractual capacities, fires, floods, epidemics, quarantine restrictions, strikes, freight embargoes or unusually severe weather. " 3.18.2 Written Notice. If CONTRACTOR believes it is entitled to an extension of time due to conditions set forth in subsection 3.18.1, CONTRACTOR shall provide written notice to the SAFE within seven (7) working days from the time CONTRACTOR knows, or reasonably should have known, that performance of the Services will be delayed due to such conditions. Failure of CONTRACTOR to provide such timely notice shall constitute a waiver by CONTRACTOR of any right to an excusable delay in time of performance. 3.18.3 Mutual Contract. Performance of any Services under this Contract may be delayed upon mutual agreement of the Parties. Upon such agreement, CONTRACTOR's Schedule of Services (as defined in their Proposal) shall be extended as necessary by SAFE. CONTRACTOR shall take all reasonable steps to minimize delay in completion, and additional costs, resulting from any such extension. 3.19 Status of CONTRACTOR/Subcontractors. 3.19.1 Independent Contractor. The Services shall be performed by CONTRACTOR or under its supervision. CONTRACTOR will determine the means, methods and details of performing the Services subject to the requirements of this Contract. SAFE retains CONTRACTOR on an independent contractor basis and not as an employee, agent or representative of the SAFE. CONTRACTOR retains the right to perform similar or different services for others during the term of this Contract. Any additional personnel performing the Services under this Contract on behalf of " CONTRACTOR shall at all times be under CONTRACTOR's exclusive direction and control. CONTRACTOR shall pay all wages, salaries and other amounts due such personnel in connection with their performance of Services and as required by law. 17336.0002A \6030) 98.4 11 163 CONTRACTOR shall be responsible for all reports and obligations respecting such • personnel, including but not limited to, social security taxes, income tax withholdings, unemployment insurance, disability insurance, and workers' compensation insurance. 3.19.2 Assignment or Transfer. CONTRACTOR shall not assign, hypothecate, or transfer, either directly or by operation of law, this Contract or any interest herein, without the prior written consent of SAFE. Any attempt to do so shall be null and void, and any assignees, hypothecates or transferees shall acquire no right or interest by reason of such attempted assignment, hypothecation or transfer. Notwithstanding the foregoing, SAFE may transfer or assign any and all of its rights and obligations under this Contract, including, without limitation the rights to terminate this Contract, as assigned, pursuant to Section 3.15 hereof. 3.19.3 Subcontracting. CONTRACTOR shall not subcontract any portion of the work or Services required by this Contract, except as expressly stated herein, including the Scope of Services, without prior written approval of the SAFE. Subcontracts, if any, shall contain a provision making them subject to all proviSions stipulated in this Contract. SAFE shall have no liability to any subconsultant(s) for payment for services under this Contract or other work performed for CONTRACTOR, and any subcontract entered into by CONTRACTOR pursuant to the conduct of services under this Contract shall duly note that the responsibility for payment for the technical services or any other work performed shall be the sole responsibility of CONTRACTOR. 3.20 Ownership of Materials and Confidentiality. • 3.20.1 Documents & Data; Licensing of Intellectual Property. All plans, specifications, studies, drawings, estimates, materials, data, and other documents or works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression, including but not limited to, physical drawings, spreadsheets, or data magnetically or otherwise recorded on computer diskettes, prepared by or on behalf of CONTRACTOR under this Contract ("Documents and Data"), shall be made available to SAFE at all times during this Contract and shall become the property of SAFE upon the completion of the term of this Contract, except that CONTRACTOR shall have the right to retain copies of all such Documents and Data for its records. Should CONTRACTOR, either during or following termination of this Contract, desire to use any Documents and Data, it shall first obtain the written approval of SAFE. This Contract creates a no-cost, non-exclusive, and perpetual license for SAFE to copy, use, mOdify, reuse, or sublicense any and all copyrights, deSigns, and other intellectual property embodied in the Documents and Data which are prepared or caused to be prepared by CONTRACTOR under this Contract ("Intellectual Property"). CONTRACTOR shall require all subcontractors to agree in writing that SAFE is granted a no-cost, non-exclusive, and perpetual license for any Intellectual Property the subcontractor prepares under this Contract. CONTRACTOR represents and warrants that CONTRACTOR has the legal right to license any and all Intellectual Property prepared or caused to be prepared by CONTRACTOR under this Contract. SAFE shall not be limited in any way in its use of the Intellectual Property at any time, provided that any such use not within the purposes intended by this Contract shall be at SAFE's sole risk. ) 7336,OOO2A\6030) 98.4 12 • 164 " 3.20.2 Confidentiality. All ideas, memoranda, specifications, plans, procedures, drawings, descriptions, computer program data, input record data, written information, and other Documents and Data either created by or provided to CONTRACTOR in connection with the performance of this Contract shall be held confidential by CONTRACTOR to the extent permitted by law, including, without limitation, the California Public Records Act, Government Code section 6250 et seq. Such materials shall not, without the prior written consent of SAFE, be used by CONTRACTOR for any purposes other than the performance of the Services as provided herein. Nor shall such materials be disclosed to any person or entity not connected with the performance of the Services, except as provided herein. Nothing furnished to CONTRACTOR which is otherwise known to CONTRACTOR or is generally known, or becomes known, to the related industry shall be deemed confidential. CONTRACTOR shall not use SAFE's name or insignia, photographs, or any publicity pertaining to the Services in any magazine, trade paper, newspaper, television or radio production, or other similar medium without the prior written consent of SAFE. " 3.21 Indemnification. CONTRACTOR shall indemnify and hold SAFE, RCTC, CHP, Caltrans and their directors, officials, officers, agents, contractors, consultants, employees, and volunteers free and harmless from any and all claims, demands, causes of action, costs, expenses, liabilities, losses, damages or injuries, in law or in equity, to property or persons, including wrongful death, in any manner arising out of, or incident to, alleged negligent acts, omissions, or willful misconduct of the CONTRACTOR, its officials, officers, employees, agents, consultants, and contractors arising out of or in connection with the performance of the Services or this Contract, including without limitation, the payment of all consequential damages and other related costs and expenses. CONTRACTOR shall defend, at CONTRACTOR's own cost, expense and risk, any and all such aforesaid suits, actions, or other legal proceedings of every kind that may be brought or instituted against SAFE, RCTC, CHP, Caltrans or their directors, officials, officers, agents, contractors, consultants, employees, and volunteers. CONTRACTOR shall pay and satisfy any judgment. award, or decree that may be rendered against SAFE, RCTC, CHP, Caltrans or their directors, officials, officers, agents, consultants, employees, and volunteers, in any such suit, action, or other legal proceeding. CONTRACTOR shall reimburse SAFE, RCTC, CHP, Caltrans and their directors, officials, officers, agents, consultants, employees, and volunteers, for any and all legal expenses and costs incurred by each of them in connection therewith or in enforcing the indemnity herein provided. CONTRACTOR's obligation to indemnify shall not be restricted to insurance proceeds, if any, received by the CONTRACTOR, SAFE, RCTC, CHP, Caltrans or their directors, officials, officers, agents, consultants, employees, and volunteers. 3.22 Insurance. 3.22.1 Time for Compliance. CONTRACTOR shall not commence " work under this Contract until it has provided evidence satisfactory to SAFE that it has secured all insurance required under this section. In addition, CONTRACTOR shall not ] 7336.0002A \6030 ]98.4 13 165 allow any subcontractor to commence work on any subcontract until it has secured all insurance required under this section. 3.22.2 General Liability Insurance. CONTRACTOR shall procure a Commercial General Liability Insurance Policy in amounts and form set forth below: 3.22.2.1 Commercial General Liability Insurance. A policy of Commercial General Liability which provides limits of not less than: a. Per occurrence: $2,000,000 b. Project Specific Aggregate: $4,000,000 c. Products/Completed Operations: $1,000,000 d. Personal Injury Limit: $1,000,000 3.22.2.2 General Liability Policy Coverage. Any general Liability policy provided by CONTRACTOR hereunder shall include the following coverage: a. Premises and Operations b. Products/Completed Operations with limits of at least one million dollars ($1,000,000) per occurrence to be maintained for three (3) years following acceptance of the work by SAFE. c. Contractual Liability expressly including liability assumed under this Contract. d. Independent Contractor's Liability. If CONTRACTOR is unable to provide Commercial General Liability Insurance with the four million dollar ($4,000,000) project specific aggregate limits indicated in Section 3.22.2.1 above, or the two million dollar ($2,000,000) per occurrence limits in Section 3.22.2.2 above, CONTRACTOR shall provide an Excess or umbrella option which achieves twice the per occurrence limits. 3.22.2.3 Additional Insured Endorsement. Any general liability policy provided by CONTRACTOR hereunder shall also contain an additional insured endorsement which applies its coverage to RCTC, SAFE, CHP Caltrans and their officers, agents and employees. Any self-funded program and/or insurance policy of any of the foregoing referenced agencies shall be excess only and not contributing to such coverage. 3.22.2.4 Form of General Liability Insurance Policies. All general liability policies shall be written to apply to all bodily injuries, including death, property damage, personal injuries and other covered loss, however, occasioned, occurring during the policy term, and shall specifically insure the performance by CONTRACTOR of that part of the indemnity agreement contained in this Contract relating to liability for injury to or death of persons and damage to property per project, per location aggregate endorsement. If the coverage contains one or more aggregate limits, a minimum of 50% of any such aggregate limit must remain available at all times; 1 7336.0002A \6030198.4 14 166 • • • " if over 50% of any aggregate limit has been paid or reserved, SAFE may require additional coverage to be purchased by CONTRACTOR to restore the required limits. CONTRACTOR may combine primary, umbrella and as broad as possible excess liability coverage to achieve the total limits indicated above. Any umbrella or excess liability policy shall include the Additional Insured Endorsement described above. 3.22.3 Comprehensive Automobile Liability Insurance. CONTRACTOR shall procure Comprehensive Automobile Liability Insurance written for bodily injury, including death, and property damage, however occasioned occurring during the policy term, in the amount of not less than one million dollar ($1,000,000), combined single limits per occurrence, applicable to all owned, non-owned and hired vehicles. This coverage shall include contractual liability. " 3.22.4 Statutory Worker's Compensation and Employer's Liability Insurance. CONTRACTOR shall maintain a policy of California Worker's Compensation coverage in statutory amount and Employer's Liability coverage for not less than one million dollars ($1,000,000) per occurrence for all employees of CONTRACTOR engaged in services or operations under this Contract. CONTRACTOR's policy shall contain the following provision, or CONTRACTOR shall provide endorsements on forms approved by SAFE to add the following provision to its insurance policy: the insurer shall agree to waive all rights of subrogation against SAFE, RCTC, CHP, Caltrans and the members of their Board of Directors and their officers, agents, employees and volunteers. Coverage shall include the following endorsements: 3.22.4.1 Broad Form All -States endorsement. 3.22.5 Subcontractor's Insurance. CONTRACTOR shall make certain that any and all subcontractors hired by the CONTRACTOR are insured in accordance with this Contract. If any subcontractor's coverage does not comply with the foregoing provisions, CONTRACTOR shall indemnify and hold SAFE, RCTC, CHP and Caltrans harmless of and from any damages, loss or cost or expense pursuant to Section 3.21, Indemnification, incurred by any of them as a result thereof. 3.22.6 General Provisions. 3.22.6.1 Evidence of Insurance. CONTRACTOR shall, as soon as practicable following the placement of insurance required hereunder, but in no event later that the effective date of this Contract, deliver to SAFE certificates of insurance evidencing the same, together with appropriate separate endorsements thereto, evidencing that CONTRACTOR has obtained such coverage for the period of this Contract. CONTRACTOR shall deliver certified copies of the actual insurance policies specified herein, within thirty (30) days after commencement of work. Thereafter, copies of renewal policies, or certificates and appropriate separate endorsements thereof, shall be delivered to SAFE within thirty (30) days prior to the expiration of the term of any policy required herein. CONTRACTOR shall permit SAFE " at all reasonable times to inspect any poliCies of insurance of CONTRACTOR which CONTRACTOR has not delivered to SAFE . 1 7336.0002A\6030198.4 15 167 3.22.6.2 Claims Made Coverage. If coverage is written on a "claims made" basis, the Certificate of Insurance shall clearly so state. In addition to the coverage requirements specified above, such policy shall provide that: a. The policy retroactive date coincides with or preceded CONTRACTOR's commencement of work under this Contract (including subsequent policies purchased as renewals or replacements ). b. CONTRACTOR will make every effort to maintain similar insurance during the required extended period of coverage following expiration of this Contract, including the requirement of adding all additional insureds. c. If insurance is terminated for any reason, CONTRACTOR shall purchase an extended reporting provision of at least two (2) years to report claims arising in connection with this Contract. d. The policy allows for reporting of circumstances or incidents that might give rise to future claims. 3.22.7 Failure to Obtain or Maintain Insurance: SAFE Remedies. CONTRACTOR's failure to procure the insurance specified herein, or failure to deliver certified copies or appropriate certificates of such insurance, or failure to make the premium payments required by such insurance, shall constitute a material breach of this Contract, and SAFE may, at its option, obtain and pay for such insurance and deduct from payments due to CONTRACTOR such amounts paid, or terminate this Contract for any such default by CONTRACTOR. 3.22.8 No Litigation of Obligations. The foregoing requirements as to the types and limits of insurance coverage to be maintained by the CONTRACTOR, and any approval of said insurance by SAFE or its insurance contractor(s), are not intended to or shall not in any manner limit or qualify the liabilities and obligations otherwise assumed by the CONTRACTOR pursuant to this Contract, including, but not limited to, the provisions concerning indemnification. 3.22.9 Notice of Cancellation of Change of Coverage. All insurance and the certificates of insurance provided by CONTRACTOR must evidence that the insurer providing the policy will give SAFE thirty (30) days written notice, at the address shown in Section 3.30, Notices, of this Contract, in advance of any lapse, cancellation, reduction or other adverse change respecting such insurance. 3.22.10 Qualifvino Insurer. All policies of insurance required hereby shall be issued by companies which have been approved to do business in the State of California by the State Department of Insurance, and which hold a current policy holder's alphabetic and financial size category rating of not less than A: VIII according to the current Best Current Rating Guide, or a company of equal financial stability as determined by SAFE. 17336.0002A \6030198.4 16 168 • • • " 3.22.11 Review of Coverage. SAFE retains the right at any time to review the coverage, form and amount of insurance required herein and may require CONTRACTOR to obtain additional insurance reasonably sufficient in coverage, form, amount to provide adequate protection against the kind and extent of risk which exists at the time of change in insurance required. 3.22.12 Safety. CONTRACTOR shall execute and maintain its work so as to avoid injury or damage to any person or property. In carrying out its Services, the CONTRACTOR shall at all times be in compliance with all applicable local, state and federal laws, rules and regulations, and shall exercise all necessary precautions for the safety of employees appropriate to the nature of the work and the conditions under which the work is to be performed. Safety precautions as applicable shall include, but shall not be limited to: (A) adequate life protection and life saving equipment and procedures; (8) instructions in accident prevention for all employees and subcontractors, such as safe walkways, scaffolds, fall protection ladders, bridges, gang planks, confined space procedures, trenching and shoring, equipment and other safety devices, equipment, and wearing apparel as are necessary or lawfully required to prevent accidents or injuries; and (C) adequate facilities for the proper inspection and maintenance of all safety measures. " 3.23 Prohibited Interests . 3.23.1 Solicitation. CONTRACTOR maintains and warrants that it has not employed nor retained any company or person, other than a bona fide employee working solely for CONTRACTOR, to solicit or secure this Contract. Further, CONTRACTOR warrants that it has not paid nor has it agreed to pay any company or person, other than a bona fide empl0yee working solely for CONTRACTOR, any fee, percentage, brokerage fee, gift, or other consideration contingent upon or resulting from the award or making of this Contract. For breach or violation of this warranty, SAFE shall have the right to rescind this Contract without liability. 3.23.2 Conflict of Interest. For the term of this Contract, no member, officer or employee of SAFE, during the term of his or her service with SAFE, shall have any direct interest in this Contract, or obtain any present or anticipated material benefit arising therefrom. 3.23.3 Conflict of Employment. Employment by the CONTRACTOR of personnel currently on the payroll of SAFE shall not be permitted in the performance of this Contract, even though such employment may occur outside of the employee's regular working hours or on weekends, holidays, or vacation time. Further, the employment by the CONTRACTOR of personnel who have been on SAFE payroll within one year prior to the date of execution of this Contract, where this employment is caused by, and or dependent upon, the CONTRACTOR securing this or related Contracts with SAFE, is prohibited. " 3.24 Equal Opportunity Employment. CONTRACTOR represents that it is an equal opportunity employer and it shall not discriminate against any subcontractor, I 7336.0002A\60301 98.4 17 169 employee, or applicant for employment because of race, religion, color, national origin, ancestry, sex, age, disability (including HIV and AIDS), mental disability, medical condition (cancer), marital status, denial of family and medical care leave, or denial of pregnancy disability leave. Such non-discrimination shall include, but not be limited to, all activities related to initial employment, upgrading, demotion, transfer, recruitment or recruitment advertising, layoff, or termination. Employment and Housing Act (Gov. Code Section 12900 et seq.) and the applicable regulations promulgated thereunder (Cal. Admin. Code, Tit. 2, Section 7285.0 et seq.): The applicable regulations of the Fair Employment and Housing Commission implementing Government Code, Sec 12900, set forth in Chapter 5 of Division 4 of Title 2 of the California Administrative Code, Sec 12900, set forth in Chapter 5 of Division 4 of Title 2 of the California Administrative Code are incorporated into this Contract by reference and made a part hereof as if set forth in full. CONTRACTOR shall include the provisions of this Section in all of CONTRACTOR's subcontracts with respect to 'work under this Agreement, unless exempted by the Regulations. CONTRACTOR shall also comply with all relevant provisions of SAFE's Minority Business Enterprise program, Affirmative Action Plan, or other related SAFE programs or guidelines currently in effect or hereinafter enacted. • 3.25 Right to Employ Other CONTRACTORs. SAFE reserves the right to employ other CONTRACTORs in connection with the Services. 3.26 Governing Law. The validity of this Contract and of any of its terms or provisions, as well as the rights and duties of the parties hereunder, shall be governed by and construed with the laws of the State of California. • 3.27 Venue. The Parties acknowledge and agree that this Contract was entered into and intended to be performed in Riverside County, California. The Parties agree that the venue for any action or claim brought by any Party will be the Central District of Riverside County. Each Party hereby waives any law or rule of court which would allow them to request or demand a change of venue. If any action or claim concerning this Contract is brought by any third party, the Parties agree to use their best efforts to obtain a change of venue to the Central District of Riverside County. 3.28 Time of Essence. provision of this Contract. Time is of the essence for each and every 3.29 Headings. Article and section headings, paragraph captions, or marginal headings contained in this Contract are for convenience only and shall have no effect in the construction or interpretation of any provision herein. 3.30 Notices. All notices hereunder and communications regarding interpretation of the terms of this Contract or changes thereto shall be given to the respective Parties at the following addresses, or at such other addresses as the respective Parties may provide in writing for this purpose: J 7336.0002A \6030 J98.4 18 • 170 -------- • CONTRACTOR: SAFE: Name Riverside County Service Authority Title for Freeway Emergencies Address FSP Program City, State Zip P.O. Box 12008 Attn: Riverside, CA 92502-2208 Attn: Brian Cunanan Such notice shall be deemed made when personally delivered or when mailed, forty­ eight (48) hours after deposit in the U.S. mail, first class postage prepaid, and addressed to the Party at its applicable address. Actual notice shall be deemed adequate notice on the date actual notice occurred, regardless of the method of service. • 3.31 Contract Documents and Conflicting Provisions. This Contract consists of, in addition to the Exhibits attached hereto and incorporated by reference herein, the following documents ("Contract Documents"): (1) Request for Proposal No. FSP11-45-146-00, including all of the Exhibits attached thereto and incorporated therein by reference and any amendment or addendum thereto (the "RFP"); aRd (2) CONTRACTOR's response thereto, including any amendments or addendums ("CONTRACTOR's Proposal"). In the event that provisions of this Contract conflict in any way with the provisions of the RFP, and/or CONTRACTOR's Proposal, the terms of this Contract shall control. In the event that the provisions of the RFP conflict with CONTRACTOR's Proposal, the terms of the RFP shall control. Otherwise, the Contract Documents are intended to be complementary. Services required by one of the Contract Documents and not by others shall be performed as required by all. In the event that provisions of any attached Exhibits conflict in any way with the provisions set forth in this Contract, the language, terms and conditions contained in this Contract shall control the actions and obligations of the Parties and the interpretation of the Parties' understanding concerning the performance of the Services. 3.32 Amendment or Modification. No supplement, modification, or amendment of this Contract shall be binding unless executed in writing and signed by both Parties. 3.33 Entire Contract. This Contract contains the entire Contract of the Parties relating to the subject matter hereof and supersedes all prior negotiations, Contracts or understandings. 3.34 Invalidity; Severability. If any portion of this Contract is declared invalid, illegal, or otherwise unenforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction, the remaining provisions shall continue in full force and effect. 3.35 No Waiver. Failure of CONTRACTOR to insist on anyone occasion upon strict compliance with any of the terms, covenants or conditions hereof shall not be deemed a waiver of such term, covenant or condition, nor shall any waiver • or relinquishment of any rights or powers hereunder at anyone time or more times be 1 7336.0002A\6030 198.4 19 171 deemed a waiver or relinquishment of such other right or power at any other time or • times. 3.36 Counterparts. This Contract may be signed in one or more counterparts, anyone of which shall be effective as an original document. 3.37 Attorneys' Fees and Costs. If any legal action is instituted to enforce or declare any Party's rights hereunder, each Party, including the prevailing Party, must bear its own costs and attorneys' fees. This paragraph shall not apply to those costs and attorneys' fees directly arising from any third party legal action against a Party hereto and payable under Section 3.21, Indemnification. 3.38 Consent. Whenever consent or approval of any Party is required under this Contract, that Party shall not unreasonably withhold nor delay such consent or approval. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement on the date first herein written above. RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION ACTING AS THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY SERVICE [CONTRACTOR'S COMPANY NAME] AUTHORITY FOR FREEWAY [LEGAL STATUS OF CONTRACTOR] EMERGENCIES • By:~_____~~__~________ By: ________________________ Gregory S. Pettis, Chair (Name) {Title} APPROVED AS TO FORM: Attest: By: _______________________By:=-~~~~----~------­ Best Best & Krieger LLP, Counsel to the Riverside County Its: Secretary Service Authority for Freeway Emergencies I 7336JlO02A\6030198.4 20 • 172 " EXHIBIT "A" Exhibit ..A-l" Beat Descriptions Exhibit "A�2" Preliminary List of FSP Holidays " " I 7336.0002A \6030198.4 21 173 EXHI81T "8" • Compensation and Payment [INSERT FINAL PRICE PROPOSALS FROM CONTRACTOR'S PROPOSAL} • I 7336.0002A\60301 98.4 22 • 174 " Attachment G-1: BEAT 4 AREA MAP RFP No. 11-45-146-00 Agreement No. 11-45-146-00 RIVERSIDE COUNTY FREEWAY SERVICE PATROL " " 1 7336.0002A \6030198.4 23 175 Attachment G-2: BEAT NO.7 AREA MAP • RFP No. 11-45-146-00 Agreement No. 11-45-147-00 RIVERSIDE COUNTY FREEWAY SERVICE PATROL • 17336.0002A\6030J 98.4 24 • 176 " Attachment G-3: BEAT NO.8 AREA MAP RFP No. 11-45-146-00 Agreement No. 11-45-148-00 RIVERSIDE COUNTY FREEWAY SERVICE PATROL " " J 7336.0002A\6030198.4 25 177 " RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: October 12, 2011 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Anne Mayer, Executive Director SUBJECT: Response to Barney Barnett's Public Comments STAFF RECOMMENDA TION: This item is for the Commission to receive and file the Commission's response to Barney Barnett's comments at the September 14 Commission meeting. BACKGROUND INFORMA TION: Mr. Barney Barnett provided public comments at the September 14 Commission meeting regarding his desire for a transit station in Highgrove. Commissioner Marion Ashley requested that a response to these comments be provided at a future meeting. This topic was most recently discussed in depth at its March 2011 Commission meeting . " Mr Barnett indicated that he has met with or presented information to representatives of Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), Metrolink and San Bernardino Associated Governments (SANBAG) regarding the construction of a future transit station in Highgrove. He indicated this station could serve passengers utilizing the trains passing between the San Bernardino and Riverside stations. SCAG staff met with Mr. Barnett to listen to his concerns and proposals. SCAG has repeatedly declined requests to involve its agency in this issue as SCAG has no authority to do so. SCAG is the metropolitan planning organization for this region and does not fund, develop, or build projects. A letter confirming SCAG's position is attached. Mr. Barnett did appear at the September 9 Metrolink Board meeting to speak under public comments regarding his proposal. There was no response to Mr. Barnett's comments and there has not been any follow up discussion to staff's knowledge. Metrolink operates the commuter rail system for this region and does not fund, develop, build, operate, or maintain stations within that system. Metrolink does not have plans for service expansion in this corridor in the near future. Any consideration of a future expansion would be at the request of and with funding from the Commission and SANBAG. " Mr. Barnett indicated that he spoke with SANBAG staff regarding his proposal. SANBAG has not taken a position to support a station at this location, has not Agenda Item 8 178 approached the Commission to discuss this issue, and SANBAG's priority continues to be a rail extension San Bernardino to Redlands. to staff's knowledge with stations from • Subsequent Follow Up: On September 27 Executive Director Anne Mayer met with Mr. Barnett at his request. He presented a proposal for construction of a station at the Highgrove location. He also asked what the Commission's plans are for the likely surplus property once the Commission has built the connection for the Perris Valley Line (PVU. Anne Mayer explained to Mr. Barnett that there are currently no plans to construct additional stations beyond those needed for the PVL project. There are or will be stations in the Hunter Park area, Downtown Riverside, and San Bernardino that will provide access to commuter rail for the Highgrove residents. The adjacent neighborhood is residential and it is not an appropriate location for a transit hub .. The Commission purchased the property at this location in order to construct the Citrus Connection between the San Jacinto Branch Line and the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway mainline. The Citrus Connection is necessary for the PVL project operation. Once the construction of the project is complete it is likely the Commission will have surplus land. It was explained to Mr. Barnett that the Commission would not surplus the land until after the project was built to ensure that the Commission owned the property if needed for construction purposes. Once it is declared surplus by the Commission, it would be sold following the Commission's policies and procedures. These procedures include an initial offering to public agencies. Mr. Barnett indicated his desire was to allow this property to be utilized by others as soon as possible. It was explained to Mr. Barnett that an interested buyer could contact the Commission at any time to have an earlier sale opportunity evaluated. • Conclusion: The Commission has spent over nine years and at least $200,000 addressing the feasibility of a Highgrove station. Through repeated independent study, complete management and project team turnover, and personal engagement of several Commissioners, the answer remains the same. The Highgrove location between Villa and Citrus Streets is not a feasible location for a Metrolink station now or in the future. Its geographic, topographic, access, and community impacts are prohibitive from both a technical and cost perspective. Should another party be interested in developing this parcel in the future, the Commission has existing processes in place that provide that opportunity for acquiring the property once it is declared surplus. Attachments: 1) Map of the Citrus Connector Site 2) Letter from SCAG Dated September 23, 2011 Agenda Item 8 • 179 Citrus Connector Site o i ! i r_----~ ~----~ w r-----~ ~----~ ~ o z ::s I r_----~ r_----~ ~ I --­-----------------------------­. -------­SPRING ST .------' ------­-­-­-­----------------­---------­CITRUS -------------------------------,------~~~~--~Legend 10/07/11 Proposed Acquisitions _ Portion Needed for the PVL Project ~Citrus Connector ROW r-­---­---r---j I=t=l==l Railroads ----­Streets nn map was ae8l:ed uelng the belt !At. iI'Iatlllbie a1 the Ikne of procldion. Epic Land SohAior.lnc. uaumeI no IMpOl"IIIiti:I:y tit !he aa:uacy 0' ttWd F*fY niDrmllCion. INs lNp is lnlltndtO /of Itt. vlaaIinIionpY'poMi!I odoJ and5holJd not ....... h ba• • bf .,." .... adion or be uSild fof enginMflng jU­poHt. Epic L.ud SoluUon ,In!:. 180 P3800-CI-00516 ASSOCIATION of GOVERNMENTS Main Office 818 West Seventh Street 12th Floor los Angeles, California 90017-3435 1(113)236-1800 f (113) 136-1815 www.$Ca9·co .golt Officers • President Pam O·Connor. Santa Monka Fi,st like "'esideot Glen Becerra. S'mi Valley Second Vice President Greg Penh. Cathedral City rm~dia[e Past President Larry McCallon, Highland Executive/Administration Committee Chair Pam O'Connor, Santa Monica Policy Committeoe Chairs Community. Economic "nd Hum~n DeV£llopfl"\€'Ol Bill Jahn, BIg Bear Lake Energy & EnVIronment Margaret Clark, Ro.emead Tran')portation Paul Glaab. L .. guna Niguel • " : it; ...J J 1\ :', ;:,'. "".' ."",;,;< September 23, 2011 Mr. R,A. "Barney" Barnett 474 Prospect Avenue Highgrove, CA 92507 Dear Mr. Barnett: Thank you for taking the time to meet with my staff over the last few weeks regarding the Highgrove site for the planned Perris Valley Metrolink service. The identification of the proper station location sites for the Perris Valley Line is the responsibility of the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC). The RCTC is planning, designing, and funding this future rail service. RCTC has completed a detailed environmental and technical analysis regarding station locations in terms of engineering and technical feasibility, costs and ridership potential. After a thorough review and analysis, RCfC has not chosen the Highgrove site to be a station location but rather the location in Hunter Park. ReTC has cited a number of operational, engineering and ridership challenges with the Highgrove site. These challenges include: • Highgrove is not an employment center as is Hunter Park, and Highgrove does not have the population density to support a train station, especially when the current downtown Riverside station is approximately two miles away. (The selected Hunter Park station site is just one mile south of Highgrove.) • The Highgrove site's location on the BNSF mainline would create operational and safety concerns that would impact dispatching and require complicated switching facilities. To address these concerns would be exceptionally expensive. • There are significant engineering challenges including the need for a grade separation at Villa Ave. and a pedestrian undercrossing, and drainage issues. RCTC estimates these challenges would double the cost of a station at Highgrove over the one selected at Hunter Park. As a regional planning agency SCAG docs not make or ratify decisions such as siation location that must be made at the county level by the implementing agency. Sincerely, Executive Director, SCAG .£c: Anne Mayer, ReTC The Regional Council is comprised of B4 elected officials representing 191 cities. six couOlieS. six County Transportation Commissions and 11 Tribal Government representative within Southern California. 7.1.11 181 ADDITIONAL INFORMATION AGENDA ITEM 8 METROLINI<® Southern California Regional Rail Authority SENT VIA U.S. MAIL October 3,2011 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSIONR.A. Barnett 474 Prospect Avenue Highgrove, CA 92507 Re: Proposed Highgrove Metrolink Station Letter dated August 23, 2011 I Public Comment -September 9, 2011 Board Meeting Dear Mr. Barnett, I would like to thank you both for your letter dated August 23, 2011 and your attendance at the September 9, 2011 Board Meeting to speak on this matter in the time allotted for Public Comment. The Board appreciated hearing your comments regarding a proposed Highgrove Metrolink"Station. Metrolink's Member Agency Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) owns and plans all stations in their jurisdiction. Therefore, we will be referring your comments to RCTC and forwarding a copy of the materials you presented during the Public Comment period at the Board Meeting for their information. All the Best, '\2l&9-~·· Richard Katz Chair, Metrolink Board of Directors cc: Clerk of the Board,RC'J'"C', One Gateway Plaza, Roar 12 Los Angeles, CA 90012 T (213) 452.0200 metrolinktrains.com 92502 Riverside County Transportation Commission Oct. 12, 2011 4080 Lemon St. Riverside, Ca. Congratulations to you in your efforts toward establishing new commuter rail service between Riverside and Perris. You have accomplished an important goal by purchasing property for a curved track that will connect the Perris Valley Line to the BNSF main line. At the Sept. 14,2011 RCTC meeting I stated how this property could be used for 2 purposes: one to connect the 2 railroads and the other for a Metrolink station on the west side using the existing commuter trains between Riverside and San Bernardino. Our freeway system connects cities and counties and the commuter rail system is supposed to do the same. RCTC now owns the 17.22 acres in Highgrove and this land should only be used for future commuter rail purposes because of its ideal location. RCTC should develop the excess land north of the curved track for a future Metrolink station that would benefit the entire region. Transportation organizations such as Mobility 21, the former 5 County Coalition, or SCAG's Regional Transportation Plan are all designed to promote efficient transportation. Instead of opposing this location, RCTC should be promoting this location to help relieve 1-215 freeway congestion. The benefits of this location are too numerous to continue to ignore. It is only Y2 mile from the 1­ 215 freeway, it is at a natural railroad junction point, it has railroad tracks on both sides, construction of the $202 million dollar Colton Crossing will start next month and the $32 million dollar Iowa Ave. overpass has already started. $250 million dollars has already been spent in infrastructure in the Spring Mountain Ranch housing project in Highgrove. The Spring Mountain Ranch is straight up Spring st. only 1 mile east of the 17.22 acres owned by RCTC. The Riverside County EDA reports that there are 1,555 acres of vacant land in Highgrove and there are already over 30,000 residents within a 2 mile radius of the Highgrove location before thousands of new homes are built in Spring Mountain Ranch. RCTC should keep the remainder of the 17.22 acres not needed for the curved track for future parking and the 1.75 acres north of Villa st. should also be purchased. This would create 19 acres of pie shaped land owned by RCTC between the 2 railroads and another access point from Center St. for future commuter rail transportation uses. You own it, keep it, you are going to need it! R A. 44Barney" Barnett 4 7 4 Prospect Ave. Highgrove, Ca. 92507 (951) 683 4994 highgrovenews@roadrunner.com Web site: www.highgrovehappenings.net J-L~----=--:--===-=:=:=:=:===--:--=--:--=--=-JdA-:= -, f r _______________~_ENT~B ___ST -------------,:7 /'?r/T---­ I I /',1: ' 1 , ! /.,' I' f I I ! /1,// : i i I 1/,/ ,,: , N //'I'FUTU1~E . : I fI ~ ,1, /' P,A.RKING'! ' I , ~ I',/,! EXPA~SION: I ! !I HIGHGROVE, / ' ',. I I N.T.S. METROLlNK', /7,---'==-' -~: I -.J --, I I I I IWI I~II I I I I~! 101 STATION FUTURE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT I ' I I I II , I : I : , I I: I : I ' , I I : , r ~-----------l-, I I • I EXISTING INDUSTRIAL WAREHOUSES I '0;1 I 10:::1 I I I '~I I 11-:1 I ,UI NAME: METROLlNK.DWG.DWG DATE: SEP 20, 2011 TIME: 10:27 AM " RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: TO: FROM: f--. THROUGH: SUBJECT: October 12, 2011 Riverside County Transportation Commission Budget and Implementation Committee Shirley Medina, Programming and Planning Manager Anne Mayer, Executive Director 2012 State Transportation Improvement Program Intra-County Formula Adjustment BUDGET AND IMPLEMENT A TION COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDA TION: This item is for the Commission to approve the 2012 State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) intra-county formula percent adjustment based on a thorough review of the formulas used to apportion state funds between Western Riverside County, the Coachella Valley, and the Palo Verde Valley. COMMITTEE ACTION AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION: " Staff brought this item to the Budget and Implementation Committee in order to gain approval of the biennial STIP formula adjustment. The allocation in question determines the amount of state transportation money that would flow to the three commonly accepted geographic areas of Riverside County. These three areas are Western Riverside County, the Coachella Valley, and the Palo Verde Valley. Commission approval of the allocation percentages for each part of the county is necessary because the California Transportation Commission (CTC) adopts the STIP in March 2012. Prior to that action, the Commission and other regional transportation agencies are required to submit their proposals to spend STIP funds by December 15, 2011. The total expected amount of STIP funds to be allocated between the three areas of the county is $91,568,260, based on an estimate approved by the CTC in August. Staff's recommendation was to allocate the funds following the terms of an existing memorandum of understanding (MOU) approved by the Commission, Western Riverside Council of Governments (WRCOG), and Coachella Valley Association of Governments (CVAG) in 1998. A copy of this MOU is attached and was adopted after months of discussion between elected officials from all three entities. The terms of the formula outlined in the MOU allocate the STIP dollars " Agenda Item 9 182 based on taxable sales. This type of funding split is identical to how Measure A • funds are allocated in order to ensure a return to source of revenue to the area in which the revenue. was generated. Per the STIP Intra-County MOU, the formula percentage applied to the STIP programming capacity must be adjusted to reflect the current apportionment of Measure A taxable sales by geographic area. The adjustment is to be done each odd year prior to the submittal of the STIP to the CTC. Based on verified taxable sales by geographic area in the previous fiscal year, the following percentage split of 2012 STIP funds was identified and recommended by staff for the geographic split by regional area: Western County: 75.59% Coachella Valley: 23.69% Palo Verde Valley: 0.72% The above percentages were calculated using the following numbers: Fiscal Year 2011 Riverside County Taxable Sales Western Riverside County $154,234,506 Coachella Valley 48,325,818 Palo Verde Valley 1,464,703 •Countywide Total $204,025,027 Staff's recommendation to approve this allocation based on the updated sales tax revenues was approved by the Budget and Implementation Committee. However during the discussion of the item, staff was directed to review the appropriateness of the STIP intra-county formula. In response to that direction, staff not only reviewed and evaluated the STIP intra­ county formula and the process to implement but also took a comprehensive approach to review the major funding formulas that govern the allocation of transportation revenues between geographic areas of the county. While staff does not recommend altering the existing formulas or allocation process, a detailed discussion and review follows. Agenda Item 9 • 183 " Existing Transportation Funding Allocation Formulas The Concept of Return to Source -Created by Measure A Riverside County is somewhat unique in California transportation circles with its formal designation of geographic areas in its voter-approved measures. Riverside County's Measure A expenditure plans approved by voters in 1988 and 2002 both include a return to source provision that ensures that every dollar from the half� cent sales tax collected in the three geographic areas of the county are returned back to the specific geographic subregion. In fact, there are different Measure A expenditure plans for Western Riverside County and the Coachella Valley. The language from the current Measure A ordinance reads: "SECTION VIII. RETURN TO SOURCE. Funds for transportation purposes shall be allocated to the Western County, Coachella Valley, and Palo Verde Valley areas proportionate to the Measure "A" funds generated within these areas. " " Furthermore the expenditure plans define the communities that comprise each subregion. For example, Western Riverside County is cleared spelled out in Page 4 of the expenditure plan and reads: "... The Western County area includes the cities of Banning, Beaumont, Calimesa, Canyon Lake, Corona, Hemet, Lake Elsinore, Moreno Valley, Riverside, Murrieta, Norco, Perris, San Jacinto, and Temecula. It also includes the unincorporated communities of Jurupa, Mira Loma, Menifee, Wildomar, and Sun City and other more sparsely populated areas, and the reservations of the Pechanga Band of Mission Indians, the Soboba Band of Mission Indians, the Cahuilla Band of Mission Indians, the Ramona Band of Cahuilla Indians, and the Morongo Band of Indians. " The Coachella Valley subregion is spelled out in the following manner: "The Coachella Valley area is located in the central part of Riverside County and includes the cities of Cathedral City, Coachella, Desert Hot Springs, Indian Wells, Indio, La Quinta, Palm Desert, Palm Springs, and Rancho Mirage. It also includes the unincorporated areas, and the reservations of the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians, the Cabazon Band of Mission Indians, and the Torres Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians. " Additional language is included in the expenditure plan in less detail to define the Palo Verde Valley but it is recognized as being located in the eastern area of Riverside County that includes the city of Blythe and unincorporated parts of the " county . Agenda Item 9 184 The entire attached text and of the can current Measure be found at A ordinance and expenditure plan the Commission's website is at • http://w ww .rctc.org/downloads/Renewed MeasureA Plan.pdf. Other counties with voter-approved sales tax measures have not established this type of geographic return to source mechanism. As an example, Los Angeles County's three half-cent sales tax measures do not ensure that sales tax revenues generated in one subregion such as the San Gabriel Valley or the Antelope Valley stays in the subregion. San Diego County with its Transnet Sales Tax program does not require that sales tax revenues in Northern San Diego County be returned dollar-for-dollar back to that region and this type of return to source does not exist in Orange County. Riverside County took this approach because there are clear geographic and topographic boundaries between the areas. Moreover, the Coachella Valley is rather unique in having a sizable number of part-time residents and also being a significant sales tax generator as an international tourist destination. The return to source provision was necessary to ensure widespread support for Measure A throughout the county and was included in 1988 and in 2002. Changing the expenditure plan, which includes the definition of the three geographic subregions, in any manner would require a formal amendment of Measure A. This process would require ratification by the Riverside County Board of Supervisors and approval by a majority of the cities constituting a majority of the incorporated population. Changing or removing the return to source provision would necessitate a change in the ordinance, which would require countywide voter approval. • In that Measure A is a sales tax program, apportioning the revenue based on taxable sales by area has been quite effective. The apportionment is dynamic in that the percentage of funding for each geographic area adjusts to reflect changes in taxable sales and there is a clear nexus between the formula and the source from which it is generated. As a result, staff does not recommend any adjustment to the definition of geographic subregions nor in the return to source provision for the Measure A program. However, Measure A is only one of a number of funding programs that are apportioned to the three geographic areas of the county. The STIP Funding Formula Commission consideration of the biennial adjustment of the STI P formula is the topic that led to this review of funding formulas. As previously mentioned in this staff report, STIP funds are currently allocated based on an MOU that was agreed upon by the Commission, WRCOG, and CVAG. The process that led to the adoption of the MOU involved months of negotiation involving an ad hoc committee comprised of the three agencies. Agenda Item 9 • 185 " The eventual solution was to come to an agreement that mirrored the Measure A approach of apportioning funding based on sales tax generation. While STIP funds are generated primarily through motor fuel excise taxes and not sales tax dollars, a significant portion of the Commission's STIP dollars are used to leverage and fund projects in the Measure A expenditure plans. As an example, a number of projects in Riverside County have or will receive both Measure A and STIP funding; they will include the widening of Interstate 215, 1-10 freeway interchanges in the Coachella Valley, and the Perris Valley Line project. An important fact that should be noted is that this intra-county apportionment of state funding does not involve the state itself. The agreement to apportion STIP funding in this manner was arrived at through local action and does not involve approval of the CTC. The approach is a voluntary one to ensure that state transportation funds are spent in a manner that is consistent with the voter's actions to approve Measure A. " One quirk in the existing MOU is that funding is divided into two sections. The first section that is apportioned among the three areas of the county is mandatory and specifies that 75.8 percent of STIP funding be split based on population. Section 2 of the MOU allows the Commission to take 24.2 percent of the entire STIP total to use on projects at its discretion. The language states that this funding "may" be programmed at the Commission's discretion and that the Commission .may take into account safety, congestion, economic development, and other special conditions which have arisen since the passage of Measure A in 1988." In recent years, the Commission has not acted to take the 24.2 percent for its own uses and has instead allocated the entire STIP amount based on taxable sales percentages. In recent years no state funding of any kind has been made available when STIP dollars were diverted in the General Fund so it was a moot point. Moreover, there has been a change in practice from the CTC to require that STIP funds be spent on the state highway system, which makes it even harder for local agencies to make use of the funding. This year, the Commission will not recommend taking the 24.2 percent off the top to ensure that all three areas of the county are able to utilize STIP funding for projects on the state highway system. In reviewing the STIP formula, staff is of the opinion that the current allocation based on taxable sales has been effective. This has been especially important in a financial climate and state budget environment that have often jeopardized the availability of STIP funding. Allocating to the various subregions of the county has ensured that projects such as the 1-10 interchanges and a number of other Western County projects have been able to move forward in spite of funding uncertainties. " Moreover the allocation split is consistent with what voters have approved in the Measure A expenditure plans . Agenda Item 9 186 Yet Another Formula -State Transit Funding • The Commission also allocates state public transit funding that is generated by a state quarter-cent sales tax program from the Transportation Development Act (TDA). In this case, apportionment of funding to any area is governed by state law and can only be distributed in a manner that is based on population percentages. The key portion in state law can be found in Section 99231 of the Public Utilities Code and reads: "The term "apportionment" has reference to that proportion of the total annual revenue anticipated to be received in the fund that the population of the area bears to the total population of the county. " This section of state law also includes a number of passages that include language that is specific to certain counties. One such passage recognizes Riverside County's unique geographic areas and the transit operators that serve the public: "(g) With reference to the County of Riverside, the area within the jurisdiction of the transit operator established by the joint exercise of powers of one or more cities and the County of Riverside. The area within the jurisdiction of the transit operator shall be as it existed on January 1, 1981, as determined by the Riverside County Transportation Commission." Finally this same law has a unique consideration that is important to the Palo Verde •Valley and Blythe: "(m) With reference to the County of Riverside, the area including the Chuckawalla Valley State Prison, even if annexed by the City of Blythe. " Using population as the means for apportioning funds between the subregions of the county differs from the Commission's practice of using taxable sales for STIP and Measure A funding allocations. The thinking behind the state law is that TDA funding is intended to fund transit services primarily used by local residents. Recent Trends Riverside County Taxable Sales Fiscal Year 1998/99 Western Riverside County $79,397,134 72.50% Coachella Valley 28,742,411 26.30% Palo Verde Valley 1,316,591 1.20% Riverside County Total $109,456,136 Agenda Item 9 • 187 " Riverside County Taxable Sales Fiscal Year 2010/11 Western Riverside County $154,234,506 75.59% Coachella Valley 48,325,818 23.69% Palo Verde Valley 1,464,703 0.72% Riverside County Total $204,025,027 During the last decade Riverside County has seen record growth and it has taken place throughout the area, although Western Riverside County has seen more rapid growth in terms of sales tax revenue than either the Coachella Valley or the Palo Verde Valley. The following charts compare sales tax receipts in 1999 compared to 2010. The long-term effect of these numbers is that there has been a significant growth in transportation revenues from the STiP and Measure A for both Western Riverside County and the Coachella Valley. However, the percentage of funding for the Coachella Valley and the Palo Verde Valley has declined somewhat since growth has been more pronounced in Western Riverside County. It provides an exampl~ of the dynamic nature of the funding formula as the county grows. ' " The numbers regarding population growth rates during the same time have been more consistent: Riverside County Population 1999 Western Riverside County 1,120,774 77.80% Coachella Valley 293,964 20.40% Palo Verde Valley 26,449 1.80% Riverside County Population 2011 Western Riverside County 1,666,281 77.90% Coachella Valley 444,626 20.80% Palo Verde Valley 28,627 1.30% Population is used only to determine the apportionment of state transit funding. In this case, while the percentages have remained somewhat constant, the Coachella Valley receives a smaller percentage of funding since population is the determinant factor . " Agenda Item 9 188 DISCUSSION AND STAFF RECOMMENDA TlON: •Although the current formula to determine the apportionment of STIP funding has been in place since 1998, staff does not recommend a change in the approach that determines the allocations through the use of taxable sales. Using taxable sales as a determinant is consistent with the approach called for in the voter-approved Measure A expenditure plan and ordinance. It recognizes the unique transportation needs created by part-time residents and tourism in the Coachella Valley; yet it also is dynamic to adjust to changes in Riverside County's population and growth patterns. Finally, the demonstrated track record of project development that has been made possible by combining Measure A and STIP revenues has benefited the entire county and created a productive working relationship that stretches from Western Riverside County to Blythe and includes the input of cities, the county, councils of governments, and public transit agencies. The original intent of this staff report was to seek Commission approval to update the percent apportionments of STIP revenues that will be used to formulate the Commission's slate of STIP-funded projects for 2012. Riverside County's 2012 STIP is currently scheduled for approval at the November Commission meeting. In order to complete that effort, Commission staff will recommend programming of funds for Western County. CVAG will recommend programming of funds allocated to the Coachella Valley that • will provide the area with maximum flexibifity in making decisions regarding this funding. Staff will work with the city of Blythe and the county of Riverside regarding the Palo Verde Valley STIP recommendation. The STIP intra-county formula with existing percentages is also attached. Based on these percentages, 2012 STIP funds will be allocated to the subregions as follows: . Western County: $69,216,448 Coachella Valley: 21,692,521 Palo Verde Valley: 659,291 Total $91,568,260 There is no financial 'impact created by this particular action, since its purpose is to adopt the apportionment formula. Attachments: 1) 1998 MOU Among The Commission, WRCOG, and CVAG 2) Current Measure A Expenditure Plan 3) 2012 STIP Intra-County Formula for New Program Capacity Agenda Item 9 • 189 ATTACHMENT 1 ... ,,"'. .. !.".I i MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING AMONG THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION AND THE WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS AND THE COACHELLA VALLEY ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS REGARDING ALLOCATION OF S8 45 FUNDS IN RIVERSIDE COUNTY THIS MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING ("Moun) is made by and among the Riverside County Transportation Commission, the Western Riverside Coun~1 of GOV~and the Coachella Valley Association of Governments as of this ~day of 1998.I WHEREAS, the legislature has adopted S845 (Chapter 622, Statutes of 1997) authorizing the Riverside County Transportation Commission ("RCTC") to allocate certain state transportation improvement program ("STIP") funds within Riverside County and; WHEREAS, the parties to this MOU have agreed to a formula allocation of certain funds as between Western Riverside County, the Coachella Valley, and the Palo Verde Valley as described herein; • NOW, THEREfORE, the Riverside County Transportation Commission, the Coachella Valley Association of Governments and the Western Riverside Council of Governments hereby agree as follows: Section 1: 75.8% of the S8 45 funds allocated to RCTC for capital improvement projects under Section 164(a)(2) of the Streets and Highways Code ("Regional Choice Funds")shall be apportioned by RCTC for projects located throughout the County as follows: Western Riverside County 72.23% Coachella Valley 26.39% Palo Verde Valley 1.38% As used in this MOU, "Western Riverside County, II .. Coachella Valley, " II Palo Verde Valley," shall have the same meanings as that in the Measure "A" Transportation Improvement Plan dated July 13, 1988 and adopted by the voters of Riverside County November 8, 1988.. The apportionment of funds in this Section 1 among Western Riverside County, • Coachella Valley and Palo Verde Valley is consistent with the current apportionment of Measure "A it Funds among those areas. Every two years starting in February 2000 I the percentages set forth above shall be adjusted to remain consistent with the then current RVPUB\SCIMl87S '------------------------------------------------------------------~ " .". .. ... . .. • •' apportionment of Measure "A" funds (or if Measure "A" has expired, using the Measure "A n formula) between Western Riverside County, the Coachella Valley and the Palo Verde Valley. Changes to the apportionment percentages stated herein (other than the adjustments authorized in the prior sentence) shall be made only by written amendment • to this Agreement signed by each party thereto. Section 2: 24.2% of the SB 45 Regional Choice Funds (as defined above) may be programmed at the discretion of RCTC for transportation projects throughout the County and without regard to the percentages set forth in Section 1, above. In programming these funds, RCTC may take into account one or more of the following: safety, congestion, economic development, and other special conditions which have arisen since the passage of Measure nAn in 1988. Section 3: Should any party to this MOU be dissolved or disbanded without the designation of a successor agency, such party shall be deemed no longer to be a party of this MOU and the consent of such party shall not be required for an amendment to the MOU. The reorganization of RCTC to expand its membership (currently S6 1851 (Kelley)) shall not be considered a dissolution or disbanding under this Section. Section 4: This MOU shall not effect any monies other than funds allocated \.Inder •Section 164(a)(2) of the Streets and Highways Code, or a successor section, if any. Section 5: This Memorandum of Understanding shall be deemed effective March 11, 1998. RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION: By: V;tdll .~ Robert Buster, Chairperson WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS COACHELLA VALLEY ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS By: ~~~ Andrea Puga, Chairper on RVPUB\SCD\4187S • ATTACHMENT 2 • ORDINANCE NO. 02-001 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION TRANSPORTATION EXPENDITURE PLAN AND RETAIL TRANSACTION AND USE TAX ORDINANCE PREAMBLE The transportation system in Riverside County is rapidly deteriorating and our population and economy are growing rapidly. Maintenance and repairs of existing roadways and improvements to relieve congestion cannot be accomplished with available funds. Without additional funds, the system will bog down and pavement will crumble into permanent disrepair. State highway funds are inadequate and competition for funds is increasing. Projects in areas where local sales tax funds are available have been and will continue to be viewed much more favorably in the selection process of the California Transportation Commission. Local governments must either generate revenues to expand our system and maintain our investments or watch the system collapse and endanger the health, welfare and safety of all Riverside County residents. • Continuation of our one-half percent sales tax for transportation to supplement traditional revenues and revenues to be generated through locally­ adopted developer fees and assessment districts for transportation improvements is the only way local governments can be sure the transportation system will serve the current and future travel needs of Riverside County. Collection of the one-half percent sales tax will commence upon the expiration of the existing tax. The Riverside County Transportation Commission will continue to seek maximum funding for transportation improvements through State and federal programs. The Commission will not provide sales tax revenues to any city or to the County unless revenues currently used by that agency for transportation are continued to be used for transportation purposes. The Riverside County Transportation Commission ordains as follows: SECTION 1. SUMMARY. This Ordinance provides for the imposition of a retail transaction and use tax of one-half percent for a period of thirty (30) years, the authority to issue bonds secured by such taxes, and the administration of the tax proceeds and a county transportation expenditure plan. SECTION II. DEFINITIONS. The following definitions shall apply in this ordinance: A. Expenditure Plan. "The Expenditure Plan" means the Riverside County Transportation Commission Expenditure Plan (attached as Exhibit B) and adopted as part of this Ordinance including any future amendments thereto. B. "County" means the County of Riverside . • 193 C. "Commission" means the Riverside County Transportation Commission s set forth in Sections 130053, 130053.5 and 130053.7 of the Public Utilities Code. • D. "TUMF" means Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee. This fee is charged on new development by local governments to assist with the building and improvement of regional arterials. E. "MSHCP" means the Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan currently under development by the County of Riverside. F. "Existing Tax" means the % % retail transactions and use tax adopted pursuant to Ordinance No. 88-01. SECTION III. AUTHORITY. This Ordinance is enacted, in part, pursuant to the provisions of Division 25 (commencing with Section 240000) of the Public Utilities Code, and Section 7252.22 of the Revenue and Taxation Code. SECTION IV. IMPOSITION OF RETAIL TRANSACTIONS AND USE TAX. Subject to voter approval of the same, the Commission shall impose, in the incorporated and unincorporated territory of the County of Riverside, a retail transactions and use tax (referred to as the Measure"A" fund tax) at a zero percent (0%) rate until the expiration of the Existing Tax. Thereafter, a tax shall be collected for a thirty (30) year period at the rate of one-half of one percent (0.5%). This tax shall be in addition to any other taxes authorized by law, including any existing or future state or local sales tax or transactions and use tax. SECTION V. PURPOSES. Measure II A" funds may only be used for transportation purposes including the administration of Division 25, including •legal actions related thereto, the construction, capital, acquisition, maintenance, and operation of streets, roads, highways, including state highways and public transit systems and for related purposes. These purposes include expenditures for the planning, environmental reviews, engineering and design costs, and related right-of-way acquisition. SECTION VI. BONDING AUTHORITY. Upon voter approval of Measure "A" , the Commission shall have the power to sell or issue, from time to time, on or before the collection of taxes, bonds, or other evidence of indebtedness, including, but not limited to, capital appreciation bonds, in the aggregate principal amount at anyone time outstanding of not to exceed $500 million, and to secure such indebtedness solely by way of future collection of taxes, for capital outlay expenditure for the purposes set forth in Section V hereof, including to carry out the transportation projects described in the Expenditure Plan. SECTION VII. MAINTENANCE OF EFFORT. The Commission, by the enactment of this Ordinance, intends the additional funds provided government agencies by this Chapter to supplement existing local revenues and required developer improvements being used for transportation purposes. The government agencies shall maintain their existing commitment of local funds for street, highway and public transit purposes pursuant to this Ordinance, and the Commission shall enforce this Section by appropriate actions including fiscal audits of the local agencies. • 194 " The local cities and the County shall annually submit to the Commission a list of the proposed uses for these funds and a certification that the maintenance of effort requirement is being met. If in any fiscal year the " maintenance of effort requirement is not met, the agency shall not be eligible for any Measure II A" funds in the following fiscal year. Such funds shall be distributed to the remaining local governments using the formula for the area. SECTION VIII. RETURN TO SOURCE. Funds for transportation purposes shall be allocated to the Western County, Coachella Valley, and Palo Verde Valley areas proportionate to the Measure II A H funds generated within these areas. SECTION IX. ADMINISTRATION OF PLANS. The Commission shall impose and collect Measure II A" funds, shall allocate revenues derived, and shall administer the Expenditure Plan consistent with the authority cited herein. SECTION X. ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS. The Commission shall expend only that amount of the funds generated from Measure II A" for staff support, aUdit, administrative expenses, and contract services that are necessary and reasonable to carry out its responsibilities pursuant to Division 25, and in no case shall the funds expended for salaries and benefits exceed one percent (1 %) of the annual net amount of revenue raised by Measure "A 1/. SECTION XI. ANNUAL APPROPRIATIONS LIMIT. The annual appropriations limit has been established pursuant to Ordinance 88-01 pursuant to Article XIlIB of the California Constitution and Section 240308(b) of the Public Utilities Code. The appropriations limit has and shall be subject to adjustment as provided by law. SECTION XII. EFFECTIVE AND OPERATIVE DATES. Subject to voter approval, this Ordinance shall take effect at the close of the polls on November 5, 2002. SECTION XIII. ELECTION. The Commission requests the Board of Supervisors to call an election for voter approval of Measure"A " (Exhibit A), which election shall be held on November 5, 2002. The election shall be called and conducted in the same manner as provided by law for the conduct of elections by a county. Pursuant to Section 240308 of the Public Utilities Code, the sample ballot to be mailed to the voters shall be the full proposition as set forth in the Ordinance, and the voter information handbook shall include the entire Expenditure Plan. Approval of the attached proposition, and the imposition of the Measure "A" retail sales and use tax described herein, shall require the affirmative vote of 2!3rds of the electors voting on the attached proposition at the election described in this section. SECTION XIV. EXPENDITURE PLAN AMENDMENTS. The Expenditure Plan for Measure"A" funds may only be amended, if required, in accordance with Public Utilities Code section 240302, as amended. This section currently provides the following process for amendment: (1) initiation of the amendment by the Commission reciting findings of necessity; (2) approval by the Board of Supervisors; and, (3) approval by a majority of the cities constituting a majority of the incorporated population, unless such process is amended in a manner consistent with State legislation . " 195 Commencing in 2019 and at least every ten years thereafter, the • Commission shall review and, where necessary propose revisions to the Expenditure Plan. Such revisions shall be submitted for approval according to the procedures set forth in this Section XIV. Until approved, the then existing Expenditure Plan shall remain in full force and effect. SECTION XV. SEVERABILITY. If any tax or provision of this ordinance is for any reason held invalid or unenforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction, that holding shall not affect the validity or enforceability of the remaining Measure "A" funds or provisions, and the Commission declares that it would have passed each part of this ordinance irrespective of the validity of any o~her part. SECTION XVI. THE EXISTING TAX. Nothing in the ordinance is intended to modify, repeal, alter or increase the Existing Tax. The provisions of this ordinance shall apply solely to the retail transactions and use tax adopted herein, and not to the collection or administration of the Existing Tax. APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the Riverside County Transportation Commission at its meeting on Wednesday, May 8,2002. By: John F. Tavaglione, Chairman Riverside County Transportation Commission ATTESTED: By: Naty Kopenhaver, Clerk of the Board Riverside County Transportation Commission • • 196 " Riverside County Transportation Improvement Plan GOALS AND OBJECTIVES MAINTAIN AND IMPROVE THE QUALITY OF LIFE IN RIVERSIDE COUNTY BY SUPPLEMENTING EXISTING FUNDS FOR TRANSPORTA TION Reduce current congestion and provide adequate transportation facilities to accommodate reasonable growth in the future. Provide funding for the adequate maintenance and improvement of local streets and roads in the cities and unincorporated areas. Enhance Riverside County's ability to secure state and federal funding for transportation by offering local matching funds . " PROVIDE FOR ACCOUNTABILITY IN THE EXPENDITURE OF TAX PAYER FUNDS Provides for mandatory dedication of sales tax funds only for the transportation improvements and programs identified in the Expenditure Plan and no other purpose. Provides for a mandatory, annual financial audit of program expenditures to insure that all funds are spent in accordance with this voter adopted Plan and associated legal ordinance. Provides for a Maintenance of Effort requirement in funds made available to city and county governments for local street and road programs to insure the new money for this purpose is adding to current funding levels. Provides for the strict limitation of administrative staff costs in implementing this Plan, by limiting, in law, funds expended for salaries and benefits to no more than one (1) percent of the annual net amount of revenues raised by Measure nAn . " 197 Provides for the Plan to be updated every 10 years for the period it is in effect to •insure that the changing needs and priorities of the county are met. Provides for the mandatory termination of the tax in 2039, requiring additional voter approval for extension at a County General Election according to state law. PROVIDE FOR EQUITY IN THE DISTRIBUTION OF MEASURE"A" REVENUES Return funds to the Western County, Coachella Valley and Palo Verde Valley proportionate to the funds generated in those areas. Adopt a Transportation Improvement Plan, which address the unique needs of each of the areas of the county. Provide a reasonable balance between competing highway, commuter rail, transit, and local streets and roads needs. PROVIDE FOR LOCAL CONTROL OF THE TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM Provide for cost effective, local administration of the program through the existing Riverside County Transportation Commission. No new agency would be required to administer these funds. • Delegates appropriate administrative responsibility to the cities and the county and other local agencies for local programs. This TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PLAN, which shall act as the County's Expenditure Plan, was prepared by the Riverside County Transportation Commission for the purpose of extending the current % cent local transaction and use tax for transportation to be collected for an additional 30 years, if approved by the voters on November 5, 2002 Measure II A". This is proposed by the Commission as a means to fill the funding shortfall to: implement necessary highway, commuter rail, and transit projects; secure new transportation corridors through environmental clearance and right of way purchases; provide adequate maintenance and improvements on the local street and road system; promote economic growth throughout the county; and provide specialized programs to meet the needs of commuters and the specialized needs of the growing senior and disabled population. 2 • 198 " TAXPAYER ACCOUNTABILITY SAFEGUARDS LEGAL DEDICATION OF FUNDS Measure "A" funds may only be used for transportation purposes and described in the local ordinance governing this program, including the construction, environmental mitigation of transportation projects, capital activities, acquisition, maintenance, and operation of streets, roads, highways, including state highways and public transit systems and for related purposes. These purposes include but are not limited to expenditures for the planning, environmental reviews, engineering and design costs, related right-of-way acquisition, and construction, engineering and administration. MANDATORY ANNUAL FISCAL AUDIT " No less than annually, the RCTC shall conduct an independent fiscal audit of the expenditure of all sales tax funds raised by this measure. The audit, which shall be made available to the public, shall report on evidence that the expenditure of funds is in accordance with the Riverside County Transportation Improvement Plan as adopted by the voters in approving the sales tax measure on November 5, 2002. In addition, the audit shall determine that Maintenance of Effort requirements, other requirements regarding local government participation in Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee Programs, as well as requirements described in Section 5 of the Plan entitled "Local Streets and Roads" have been complied with. The audit shall also insure that no more than 1 (one) percent of total sales tax expenditures are used for administrative staff salaries and benefits in implementing this Plan. MANDATORY PLAN UPDATE AND TERMINATION OF SALES TAX This Plan shall be updated by RCTC every 10 years that the sales tax is in effect to reflect current and changing priorities and needs in the County, as defined by the duly elected local government representatives on the RCTC Board. Any changes to this Plan must be adopted in accordance with current law in effect at the time of the update and must be based on findings of necessity for change by the Commission. The sales tax authorized to be collected by the voters shall be terminated on March 31, 2039, unless reauthorized by the voters to extend the sales tax prior to the termination date as required under state law in effect at the time of the vote for extension . " 3 199 SPECIFIC TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS TO BE FUNDED •WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY The Expenditure Plan Map illustrates the Western and Coachella Valley areas. The Western County area includes the cities of Banning, Beaumont, Calimesa, Canyon Lake, Corona, Hemet, Lake Elsinore, Moreno Valley, Riverside, Murrieta, Norco, Perris, San Jacinto, and Temecula. It also includes the unincorporated communities of Jurupa, Mira Loma, Menifee, Wildomar, and Sun City and other more sparsely populated areas, and the reservations of the Pechanga Band of Mission Indians, the Soboba Band of Mission Indians, the Cahuilla Band of Mission Indians, the Ramona Band of Cahuilla Indians, and the Morongo Band of Indians. 1. STATE HIGHWAYS Many more state highway improvement projects are needed to deal with congestion and safety problems than existing state and federal revenues can fund. Projected formula funds from these sources over the 30 years is estimated to be $640 million and will fund less than % of the improvements needed and identified in the Expenditure Plan, which are estimated to cost $1.66 billion in current dollars. Measure "A" funds will supplement those funding sources by an estimated $1.02 billion and will cover the remaining • costs estimated to accomplish these improvements. The Highway projects to be implemented with funding returned to the Western County Area by extending the Measure"A" Program are as follows: 4 • 200 " EST. COSTLIMITS PROJECTROUTE , 91, 60, 1-15, & 1-215 . Rte 91 91/1-15 91/71 Rte 71 1-215 1-215 1-15 ~:160 Rte 60" Rte 79 SUBTOTAL rr<rrAL The Pierce Street to Orange County Line Interchange Interchange Rte 91 to San Bernardino County Line /91 /21 5 to San Bernardino County Line Eucalyptus Ave to 1-15 Rte 60 to San Diego County line San Bernardino County line to Banning Interchange Badlands area, east of Moreno Valley Ramona Expressway to Domenigoni Parkway Measure"A" Funding State & Federal Formula Funds Reducing congestion on these routes will require that transportation corridors new are See Section 2 constructed Add 1 lane each direction $ 161 Add new Connector North to 91 West from 1-15 $ 243 Improve Interchange $ 26 Widen to 3 lanes each direction $ 68 Add 2 lanes each direction $ 231 Add 1 lane each direction $ 210 Add 1 lane each direction $ 359 Add lane eastbound truck climbing $ 75 Construct new interchange $ 129 Add truck climbing lane $ 26 Realign highway $ 132 $1.02 Billion $0.64 Billion $1.66 Billion Commission may add additional State Highway projects, should additional Measure II A" revenue become available. An estimated 5 % of the total cost for these highway projects ($83 million) will be used for environmental purposes to mitigate the cumulative and indirect impacts associated with construction of these projects . " 5 201 2. DEVELOPMENT OF NEW TRANSPORTATION CORRIDORS •State Routes 91 and 60 and Interstate Routes 15 and 215 cannot cost effectively be widened enough to provide for the traffic expected as Riverside County continues to grow. In addition to the specific highway improvements listed in Section 1 above, congestion relief for these highways will require that new north-south and east-west transportation corridors will have to be developed to provide mobility within Riverside County and between Riverside County and its neighboring Orange and San Bernardino Counties. Four new Transportation Corridors have been identified as necessary through the Community Environmental Transportation Approval Process (CETAP) currently underway. An estimated $370 million in Measure "A" matching funds to leverage local, state and federal funding will be made available for environmental clearance, right of way, and construction of these new corridors. An estimated $70 million of these funds will be used to mitigate the cumulative and indirect impacts associated with construction of these projects. 3. PUBLIC TRANSIT The Transportation Improvement Plan will provide an estimated $390 million • to expand commuter rail, implement intercity bus services and to continue and expand programs to assist the elderly, disabled and commuters. A. Discount Fares and Transit Services for Seniors and Disabled Persons Seniors and disabled persons are becoming an increasing percentage of the population each year. They are currently charged a fare on fixed route transit services that is one-half the normal fare for service within the Western County area. In addition a number of specialized transportation programs have been implemented which meet specialized needs for transportation to medical services, social service agencies and programs, shopping and other purposes that cannot be met by conventional transit. A minimum of $85 million in Measure IfA" funds will be used to guarantee these services. 6 • 202 " B. Commuter Rail and Intercity Bus Service Metrolink has provided a viable alternative to the automobile for thousands of daily commuters to Orange and Los Angeles counties and reduces the demand on our freeways. The current service level needs to double in the future and expansion of the system to Moreno Valley and Perris is needed to relieve congestion on 1-215. In addition, an intercity express bus service that feeds the Metrolink service and provides a reasonable alternative to the automobile for daily commuters who travel within the region is needed. Measure "A" funds will be made available for operations of these services and to match federal funds for capital. C. Commuter Services, Ridesharing, Vanpools, Buspools, Park-N-Ride " Commuter traffic created by Riverside County residents traveling to jobs in neighboring Orange, Los Angeles, and San Bernardino counties adds significantly to the peak hour congestion on the freeway and highway system. A number of programs have been implemented to assist commuters to share rides, reduce congestion, and take advantage of travel in the "carpool II lanes. These programs include; rideshare matching services; incentive programs; vanpool "seed money"; buspool subsidies; and park-n-ride lot leasing. These programs will become even more necessary in the future as traffic increases. A minimum of $50 million in Measure "A" funds will be used for this purpose. 4. REGIONAL ARTERIAL SYSTEM The freeway and state highway system can no longer be expected to handle the traffic demands for travel between and through the cities of the Western County area, with the development projected for the future. A system of regional arterials (major local roadways) with. limited access, freeway interchanges, grade separations, and coordinated traffic signals are needed to supplement the highway backbone system. The Western Riverside Council of Governments (WRCOG), in conjunction with the cities and the County, has developed this system of roadways to meet this need. This roadway system will be periodically updated by the Commission, or the Western Riverside Council of Governments, to reflect actual development trends . " 7 203 Funding to widen existing roads and construct new roads on this system will • be funded by an estimated $300 million in revenues generated by Measure II A" and by matching revenues to be generated by the cities and County implementing a Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) administered by the Commission or the Western Riverside Council of Governments (WRCOG). Examples of the roadways on the regional arterial system that may be eligible to receive Measure II A" and TUMF funding for widening and other improvements to increase capacity and traffic flow are: • Van Buren Boulevard from 1-215 to State Route 60 • Alessandro Boulevard from 1-215 westerly to Central Avenue • Central Avenue from Alessandro Blvd to Van Buren Boulevard • Arlington Avenue from Central Avenue to Van Buren Boulevard • Green River Road from Dominguez Ranch Rd to State Route 91 • Foothill Parkway from Lincoln Ave to Green River Road • Scott Road from State Route 79 to 1-215 • Clinton Keith Road from State Route 79 to 1-215 • Date Street from State Route 79 to 1-1 5 • State Route 79/1-10 Interchange Improvements and possible bypass to 1-10 • Ramsey Street from Banning City Limits to Field Road • Ramona Expressway hom San Jacinto to 1-215 • • Cajalco Road from 1-21 5 to 1-1 5 • Perris Boulevard from State Route 74 to San Bernardino Co. Line • Pyrite Street from San Bernardino County Line to State Route 60 • Schleisman Road from San Bernardino County Line to 1-15 and Arlington Avenue • Domenigoni Parkway from State Street to 1-215 • Railroad Canyon/Newport Road from 1-21 5 to 1-1 5 The final scope and project limits of all improvements proposed for the regional arterial system will be determined through noticed public hearings, environmental clearance process, and agreement with affected agencies. 5. LOCAL STREETS AND ROADS The local street and road system is critical to the every day movement of people within the cities and the county. This system is reaching "middle age", with potholes and is in need of continued maintenance and rehabilitation. New local roads adjacent to new residential and business developments will continue to be constructed and paid for by the developers . 8 • 204 " Current resources, without the extension of the existing sales tax revenues for transportation, cannot provide adequate funding to maintain the local street and road system at the level necessary to adequately serve the pUblic. The Transportation Improvement Plan will provide an estimated $970 million specifically for this purpose. The funds made available in the Western County area will be distributed to the cities and the county by a formula based 75% on proportionate population and 25 % on revenues generated by Measure "A". In order to be eligible for these funds, each agency will be required to; 1) File a Five-Year Capital Improvement Program, updated annually, with the Commission; 2) Participate in a Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) Program to be developed and administered by the Commission or the Western Riverside Council of Governments (WRCOG); and, 3) Participate in the Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) currently under development by the County of Riverside by endorsing the Permit Application and signing the Implementation Agreement. " The TUMF Program shall be adopted according to all applicable laws and shall provide that the first $400 million of TUMF revenues will be made available to the Commission to fund equally the: 1) Regional Arterial System, as described above; and, 2) Development of New Corridors ("CETAP") described above . 6. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT INCENTIVES PROGRAM The need to attract new commercial and industrial development and jobs to Riverside County to reduce the need for long commutes to Orange and Los Angeles counties is important to the economic vitality and quality of life of Western Riverside County. A greater jobs -housing balance is needed immediately. The Transportation Improvement Plan will provide an estimated $40 million for this purpose. These funds will be used to create an Infrastructure Improvement Bank to improve existing interchanges, construct new interchanges, provide public transit linkages or stations, and make other improvements to the transportation system. Given the limited amount of funds available, the RCTC shall develop a program of competitive incentives to attract commercial and industrial development and jobs to locate within the Western Riverside County area . " 9 205 In particular, the highest priority for these funds shall be for use in attracting key industrial development. For example, Western Riverside County through the provision of a needed interchange or transit service as a part of an overall package of incentives, could attract industrial development, which may have otherwise located elsewhere in California, in the United States or internationally. • 7. BOND FINANCING Construction of the highway and rail projects and implementation of the local streets and roads and other programs identified in the Transportation Improvement Plan are needed as soon as possible. In order to accomplish this, some level of borrowing will be required. The Commission will determine the extent of borrowing that is reasonable as the program is implemented. Up to $270 million, 8% of the revenues expected to be generated, will be made available for this purpose. COACHELLA VALLEY AREA The Coachella Valley area is located in the central part of Riverside County and includes the cities of Cathedral City, Coachella, Desert Hot Springs, Indian Wells, Indio, La Quinta, Palm Desert, Palm Springs, and Rancho Mirage. It also includes the unincorporated areas, and the reservations of the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians, the Cabazon Band of Mission Indians, and the Torre.s Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians. The Transportation Improvement Plan is designed to give flexibility to adjust to changing circumstances and to: • • • • • • • • Improve Traffic Flow and Reduce Congestion on Highway 111 Add/Improve Interchanges on Highway 86 and 1-10 Provide funding for Local Streets and Roads Improvements Improve Safety and Visibility at Major Intersections and Arterial Roads Reduce Congestion by Improving Major Roadways Identified as Important by Local Governments in the Coachella Valley Provide Express East-West Transit Routes in the Coachella Valley Improve and Expand Public and Specialty Transit Service 10 • 206 " 1. STATE HIGHWAYS AND MAJOR REGIONAL ROAD PROJECT Fifty percent (50%) of the Measure "A" revenues will be used for State highways and regional road improvements. The Transportation Project Prioritization Study (TPPS), developed through the Coachella Valley Association of Governments (CVAG), will function as the Plan for future needs. Preventive maintenance of these Measure "A" funded arterials will be allowed, if a majority of the Coachella Valley local governments give approval. The system improvements will be accomplished with a mix of Measure "A" funds, state and federal highway funds, and the existing Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) on new development. This segment of the Measure II A" Expenditure Plan will be implemented through the Coachella Valley Association of Governments. 2. LOCAL STREETS AND ROADS " Thirty-five percent (35 %) of the Measure "A" revenues will be returned to the cities and the county in the Coachella Valley and shall be used to assist with the funding local street and road improvements. These funds will supplement existing federal, state, and local funds. Local street improvements adjacent to new residential and business developments will continue to be paid for by the developers. Cities and the county in the Coachella Valley must participate in the Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) program to assist in the financing of the priority regional arterial system in order to receive these funds. If a city or the county chooses not to levy the TUMF, the funds they would otherwise receive for local streets and roads will be added to the Measure "A" funds for the Regional Arterial Program. Allocations of funds to the cities and the county will be based on a formula weighted 50% on proportionate dwelling units and 50% on Measure "A" revenues generated within each jurisdiction. A Five-Year Capital Improvement Program for the use of these funds will be prepared and annually updated with public participation by each city and the county . " 11 207 3. PUBLIC TRANSIT •Fifteen percent (15%) of the Measure "A" revenues will be used to improve and expand public transit and specialized transportation services. A. Discount Fares and Expanded Transportation Services for Seniors and Persons with Disabilities For Seniors (age 60 and older) and persons with disabilities, access to healthcare, social services, shopping, and recreation is a key to quality of life. Sunline Transit Agency offers a full array of public transit and specialized transportation services at reduced prices to individuals in these special groups. Measure "A" funds will guarantee discounts continue for the next 30 years. Funds will also be used to expand services to meet future needs of the growing population of the valley. B. Specialized Transportation Services In addition to providing SunBus public transit service, SunDial paratransit service, and SunLink express commuter service to Riverside, the Sunline Transit Agency offers specialized transportation services to Coachella Valley residents and visitors. These services • include the Vets Express that provides free transportation to the Veterans Hospital in Loma Linda; SunTrip, that enables those beyond Sunline's fixed route service area to receive reimbursement they can pay to volunteer drivers; and SunRide that coordinates the transportation services offered by many non-profit social service organizations. All of Sunline's vehicles operate on clean, alternative fuels thereby preserving the environment and creating a healthier community while increasing access. Measure "A" funds will assist these and other types of specialized transportation services which may be implemented. C. Bus Replacement and More Frequent Service Public bus transportation offers communities many benefits -reduced traffic congestion, reduced wear and tear on roads, reduced parking demand, and lower emissions. By providing access to schools, jobs and shopping, it is also a vital force in economic development. This is especially true in the Coachella Valley where nearly 75% of the 4 million annual SunBus riders take a bus to work and/or school. Public 12 • 208 " transit buses have a 12-year life. Passage of Measure II A" will enable Sunline's fleet to be replaced as needed. Funds will also be used to increase frequency of service, which is the single most important factor in use of public transportation. PALO VERDE VALLEY AREA The Palo Verde Valley area is located in the far eastern part of Riverside County. It is geographically separated from the Western and Coachella Valley areas. The population within the area is relatively small, and significant growth over the next 30 years is not anticipated. The Palo Verde Valley is served by Interstate 10 which provides adequate connections to the more westerly portions of Riverside County and easterly to Arizona. Increasing transit needs can be adequately met using existing revenue sources available for that purpose. The greatest need for the Palo Verde Valley is additional funding to adequately maintain and rehabilitate local streets and roads. " All of the funding generated by Measure "A" returned to the Palo Verde Valley is to be used for local streets and roads. Funds shall be distributed to the City of Blythe and the County of Riverside by formula. The formula distribution is based 75% on proportionate population and 25% on sales tax revenues generated in each area. MEASURE II A" REVENUE ALLOCATIONS ($ millions) Western County Area Highway Improvements $1,020 New Corridors $ 370 Commuter Rail! Intercity Bus! Specialized $ 390 Transit! Commuter Services Regional Arterial Projects $ 300 Local Streets and Road Improvements $ 970 Bond Finance $ 270 Economic Development Projects $ 40 TOTAL $3,360 Coachella Valley Highways and Regional Arterials $ 628 Local Streets and Roads $ 439 Specialized and Public Transit $ 188 TOTAL $1,255 Palo Verde Valley Area Local Street and Road Improvements $ 47 " TOTAL $ 47 13 209 " " " s,..t'''''' ROIA "'TitS &IIOZ New Mea!f!iure A Completed by 2039 FreewayslHighways Major Arterials Commuter Rail " " " " " Interchange " Local Street and ~ Road Improvements ~ " GENERAL PROVISIONS OF THE TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PLAN 1. " 2 . 3. BASIS FOR REVENUE ESTIMATES Federal and state participation for highways, commuter rail, new corridors, and major non-highway roadway improvements is assumed to be $40 million per year allocated biannually by the California Transportation Commission through the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) process. The Riverside County Transportation Commission currently programs 24.2% of these funds on a discretionary basis for projects. This practice will be continued in order to fund major improvements that will arise and have not been anticipated by this Transportation Improvement Plan. Measure II A" revenue estimates have not been adjusted to reflect inflation. It is assumed that inflation revenue increases will be offset by inflation costs to deliver the projects. "Real Growth" is assumed to parallel countywide population growth. Based upon these factors Measure"A" revenues over the 30-year period are assumed to be about $4.665 billion. BASIS FOR COST ESTIMATES All cost estimates for highway projects were developed by Caltrans based on a specific scope of improvements and are based on 2001 values. Future costs may increase due to inflation or other factors beyond the control of the Commission. The 2001 costs estimates are to be used to determine the proportionate distribution of funds to the categories of projects and programs identified in the transportation program. STATE HIGHWAY AND MAJOR ARTERIAL PROGRAMS A. Eligible state highway project costs include preliminary engineering, environmental clearances, design engineering, project management, right of way acquisition and long-term leases and construction. Measure II A" funds are intended to supplement and not replace existing federal and state sources. If it is determined by the Commission that Riverside County is not receiving its fair share of existing funds, sales tax funds may be directed to other types of transportation needs . " 15 211 B. The actual scope of the highway, and major arterial projects to be implemented is to be determined through a prioritization process, •required environmental analysis, and full consideration of reasonable alternatives. Public participation during the environmental analysis process is required. C. The Commission shall establish a "State Highway Account" for funding capital expenditures for state highway improvements. 4. PUBLIC TRANSIT A. Eligible programs include: special discount fares for the elderly and persons with disabilities; funding for computer assisted rideshare programs; commuter incentive programs; "seed" programs to encourage the creation of vanpools and buspools; bus capital replacement and additional bus service in the Coachella Valley; and capital and operating assistance for commuter rail expansion and intercity bus service implementation in the Western County area. B. Western County area commuter rail services are anticipated to continue to be operated by Metrolink on existing rail lines to Los Angeles, Orange and San Bernardino counties. Increasing the level of services will require negotiation of the appropriate agreements with the railroads and appropriate cost sharing between the counties •served. Extension of service to the Moreno Valley area and the City of Perris is anticipated to be along the San Jacinto Branch Line owned by the Commission. Measure"A" funds will be used for operating costs and to match federal and state funds for capital improvements. C. Western County area intercity bus express services to be implemented are intended to specifically target commuters and provide a viable connection to the Metrolink service and transportation between and to key employment centers within the region. D. The Commission shall establish a "Public Transit Account" for funding these programs. The Commission shall determine which public transportation or specialized transportation services operators, and carpool/vanpool facilitating agencies, shall receive funding assistance. The Commission may directly provide or operate these services and programs if it is determined that they are the most appropriate agency to do so in the Western County area. In the Coachella Valley area, the services will be provided by the Sun Line Transit Agency. Based on 30 year funding estimates, the amount of funds should be $340 million for the Western County and $188 million for the Coachella Valley area. 16 • 212 " 5. LOCAL STREETS AND ROADS PROJECTS A. Eligible local street and road project costs include any environmental review and mitigation, engineering, right of way acquisition and, capital or maintenance cost. Decisions on projects are to be made by local jurisdictions, but subject to capital Improvement requirements. B. Annual population estimates used for the distribution formula for the Western County and Palo Verde Valley areas shall be from the State Department of Finance. Dwelling unit estimates used for the distribution formula in the Coachella Valley shall be from the Riverside County Planning Department. Actual State Board of Equalization retail sales transactions shall be used for the formula in all three areas. The County Planning Department shall estimate the share for each of the unincorporated areas for the three areas, from the total retail sales transactions for the total unincorporated area. " C. The Commission shall assure the cities and the County are in compliance with maintenance of effort requirements before allocating funds for local streets and roads. Further, the Commission shall not allocate funds to an individual city or the County for local streets and roads witl:lin the Western County and Coachella Valley areas unless the local agency is certified by the Coachella Valley Association of Governments or in the Western County Area by the Commission or the Western Riverside County Association of Governments as applicable, to be a participant in the Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) program necessary for the implementation of the Regional Arterial Program in their area. The cities and the county in the Western County Area must participate in the Multi Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) by endorsing the Permit Allocation and executing the Implementation Agreement with the resources agencies in order to be eligible to receive local streets and roads funds. D. Funding which is not allocated to a city or the county because it is not a participant in the TUMF program in the Coachella Valley area and the TUMF and the MSHCP in the Western County area shall be allocated to the Regional Arterial Program in the geographic area in which the city or portion of the county is located . " 17 213 6. FUNDING FLEXIBILITY AND BONDING TO EXPEDITE PRO.JECTS • The Commission may make maximum use of available funds by temporarily shifting allocations between geographic areas and transportation purposes. However, the proportionate shares for areas and purposes over the 30-year period may not be changed without an amendment of the Transportation Improvement Plan as required by law. Shifts may not be made without previous consultation with the affected agencies and two-thirds majority approval of the Board of Commissioners. The Commission may also use bonds to speed implementation of some projects. Bonding will not be used without first determining that the benefits of an accelerated program outweigh the additional cost of interest on borrowing funds. 7. INFORMING THE PUBLIC OF LOCAL FUNDING SUPPORT All state highway, commuter rail, and regional arterial projects using $1 million or more of sales tax revenues shall be signed to inform the public that local voter approved revenues are being used to support the project. 8. SEVERANCE PROVISIONS •If any provision of this Transportation Improvement Plan is for any reason held invalid and unenforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction, that holding shall not effect the validity or enforceability of the remaining provisions, and the Commission declares that it would have passed each part of the Plan irrespective of the validity of any other part. 18 • 214 " " " ATTACHMENT 3 ---0 RAFT --� 2012 STIP Intra-County Formula for New Program Capacity 2012 STIP New Funding Capacity for Programming $ 93,437,000 2% Planning, Programming & Monitoring $ 1,868,740 Formula Breakdown: Western County 75.59% $ 1.412,581 Coachella Valley 23.69% $ 442,705 Palo Verde Valley 0.72% $ 13,455 Total PPM Available $ 1,868,740 STIP Funds Available for New Program Capacity $ 91,568,260 Formula Breakdown: Western County 75.59% $ 69,216,448 Coachella Valley 23.69% $ 21,692,521 "Palo Verde Valley 0.72% $ 659,291 Total New Program Capacity $ 91,568,260 215 State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) Apportionments and Review of County Funding Formulas Commission Meeting October 12, 2011 IiYtBide County ~CMamissian " Approved revised percentages for STIP " Considerable discussion regarding intra� county funding formulas -Measure A -STIP allocation and existing MOU -Geographic definitions " Directed staff to review current practices and return with presentation Transportation Development A (TDA " Ordinance requires return to source " Three expenditure plans " Plans define each geographic area " Distribution determined by taxable sales " Sub-allocation determined by three-party MOU -The Commission -Coachella Valley Association of Governments (CVAG) -Western Riverside Council of Governments (WRCOG) " Allows the Commission to take 24.2 percent off the top for regional projects " Adopts a similar approach to Measure A based on taxable sales by sub-region " Governed by state law " Requires that any sub-allocation or apportionment be based on population " State law includes language specific to Riverside County -References transit operator jurisdictions in 1991 -Chuckawalla Valley State Prison -(Jl. -(Jl. I-' V1 0 0 0 b b 0 0 -(Jl. I 0 b 0 0 p 0 0 0 I-' lO lO 00 I-' lO lO lO N 0 0 0 N 0 0 I-' N 0 0 N N 0 0 W N 0 0 .j:>. N 0 0 V1 N 0 0 0'1 N 0 0 -...J N 0 0 00 N 0 0 lO N 0 I-' 0 N 0 I-' I-' -(Jl. -(Jl. -(Jl. I-' N N V1 0 V1 0 0 0 b 0 b 0 b 0 ~o p P 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 + ++ :t> n :E" o mr-:t> VIo n --i:x:< m m m :xl :xl r-Z o m S; n o c~ ~ r­z r­r­m -< r­ m ::;;! -< Riverside County Taxable Sales Fiscal Year 1998/99 Western Riverside County Coachella Valley Palo Verde Valley Riverside County Total Riverside County Taxable Sales Fiscal Year 2010/11 Western Riverside County Coachella Valley Palo Verde Valley Riverside County Total $7,939,713,400 2,874,241,100 131,659,100 $10,945,613,600 $15,423,450,600 4,832,581,800 14,6470,300 $20,402,502,700 72.50% 26.30% 1.20% 75.59% 23.69% 0.72% " " " " " " -0 -0 I n Vl n zru ru 0 0 Vl I'D I'D 0C ruVl0 3 :J ..... n ......... ..... .... ::yI'D ::y ::y< ..... ruI'D ~ ........ :E ~ :E .... Vl I'D I'D0-D ru Vl ru VlI'D ~ ..... .....:J << '-D ru ru ru ~ ~ 0. I'D I'D D -< D:J-< ..... 0 -0 ~~ D Riverside County Population 1999 Western Riverside County Coachella Valley Palo Verde Valley Riverside County Population 2011 Western Riverside County Coachella Va lIey Palo Verde Valley 1,120,774 293,964 26,449 1,666,281 444,626 28,627 77.80% 20.40% 1.80% 77.90% 20.80% 1.30% " Measure A is a sales tax 'program " Changing Measure A requires -Formal amendment process for plans -Plans define geographic boundaries of sub-regions -Voter approval to change ordinance " Return to source provision recognizes unique geography of Riverside County " Updates on biennial basis ensures adaptability with County changes " STIP MOU required months of negotiation and has been in place for a decade " STIP revenue often used to match Measure A funding " Commission takes lead in Western County " CVAG takes lead in the Coachella Valley " Additional geographic areas will minimize local influence and hamper regional planning " Approve updated sub-region allocation percentage for STIP apportionment " Maintain current formulas for intra-county funding allocations " Seek opportunities to provide additional information and input regarding transportation funding " RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION DATE: October 12, 2011 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Cathy Bechtel, Project Development Director THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Executive Director SUBJECT: State Route 79 Realignment Project Update STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to receive an oral presentation on the SR-79 realignment project. BACKGROUND INFORMA TlON: " The SR-79 realignment project proposes to realign SR-79 between Domenigoni Parkway and Gilman Springs Road in the Hemet/San Jacinto Valley. The project will realign the highway to provide a more direct route so regional motorists will be able to use a direct, north-south route while local residents will have better mobility on local streets. This project is currently in the environmental clearance phase. At the request of Commissioner Jeff Stone, a status report on the project will be provided at the Commission meeting. Attachment: Commissioner Stone's Letter Dated September 27, 2011 " Agenda Item 10 216 P3003-CI-00086 • THIRD D1STRICT September 27,2011 Anne Mayer, Executive Director Riverside County Transportation Commission 'r: 4080 Lamon Street, Third Floor Riverside, CA 92501 Dear Anne: • As a product of the private sector, I am used to getting things done in an expeditious manner. So, as you can imagine, delays in public projects often frustrate me and at times, even anger me. One of the most important infrastructure corridors to be defined and built, exists in my District, the extension to Highway 79. I am dismayed at the length of time this project has taken to finally define its orientation via the environmental process. The defined alignment of this road, triggers important economic development plans for the surrounding communities of Hemet, San Jacinto, and Winchester, at a Ume when not only the construction jobs are needed, but also when the commercial benefits to this corridor are needed. , am formally requesting, at our next ReTC meeting, to have an agendized Item that will: 1. Give the Commission an update on where the environmental work is at this point in time; 2. When a defined alignment will be determined, for the benefit of property owners, along these potential corridors, so surrounding municipalities can begin planning strategies; 3. What kind of funding is planned or not planned for right of way acquisition along the chosen corridor; 4. Send staff direction to provide a timetable that begins when the alignment is chosen and to have staff identify, if any funding sources are identified and if not, to begin the process of haVing staff begin to look for funding mechanisms to build this important corridor, and an assumption of when this infrastructure necessity can be completed. DISTRICT Om<.'E: FRENCH VALLEY • 37600 SK\' CANYON DRIVf;, #505 MlIRJlJ);rA" CA 92563 TOLL FREE ] -866-383-2203 RIVERSIDE OFflCE (951) 698-7326 • FAX: (951) 677-0669 HEMET OFFICE 4080 LEMON STREET, 5TH FLOOR www.supjeffstone.org 43950 E. ACACIA, SUITt: A RIVERSIDE, CA 92501 HEMET, CA 92543 (951) 955-]030 VER."IE I,AURlTZE.lII, CHIEF OF STAFF (951) 79]-3490 FAX: (951) 955-2194 E-MAIL: district3@rcbo8.org FAX: (951) 791-3465 217 Thank you for your assistance in this matter. • Third District Supervisor County of Riverside CC: Mayor Franchville, Oty of Hemet CC: Mayor Miller, City of San Jacinto CC: Chairman Domenigoni, Winchester M.A.C. CQ John Petty, Third District Planning Commissioner CC: Juan Perez, Director, Riverside County Transportation CC: George Johnson, Director, Riverside County Transportation and land Management Agency CC: Charles landry, Director, Regional Conservation Authority • • 218 LEGEND • Driveway Existing State Route 79 1 84000 Figure 1.2-1 SR 79 Driveway Encroachments Draft Environmental Impact Report! Environmental Impact Statement State Route 79 Realignment Project -----J Existing State Route 79 ==---..J Hemet Locally PrefefTcd Alternat ve San Jacinto Locally Preferred Alternative -----J Potentia Corridor Potentia Intersection or Interchange Ncw Design Option For Potentia Intersection or Interchange ! 7TH SOEET