Loading...
10 October 13, 1999 CommissionCOMM-COMM-00098 RCTC Meeting Agenda October 13, 1999 Page 2 6B. FY 1999-2000 STATE TRANSIT ASSISTANCE ALLOCATIONS AND RESOLUTION NO. 99-012, "A RESOLUTION OF THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION TO ALLOCATE STATE TRANSIT ASSISTANCE FUNDS" Page 8 Overview It is recommended that the Commission approve the FY 1999-2000 State Transit Assistance Fund allocations in Riverside County as presented on the attached table and adopt Resolution No. 99-012. 6C. POSSIBLE EXCHANGE OF FUNDS WITH SCAG FOR THE MAGLEV HIGHSPEED RAIL STUDY Page 13 Overview It is recommended that the Commission approve an administrative action to exchange up to $700,000 of SB 45 2% Planning, Programming and Monitoring funds, on a dollar for dollar basis, with SCAG for FHWA Planning funds with the following conditions: 1. Require SCAG and Caltrans to provide the Commission approval of the agreement which facilitates the access to FHWA Planning funds to support CETAP either prior to or simultaneous with the transfer or availability of Commission 2% Planning, Programming and Monitoring funds, retroactive to July 1, 1999. 2. Authorize staff to amend the Activity Program for the SB 45 2% Planning, Programming and Monitoring funds to facilitate this action. 3. This action is administrative and does not change the Commission's neutral position on high speed rail technology. RCTC Meeting Agenda October 13, 1999 Page 3 6D. ANNUAL LOCAL TRANSPORTATION FUND PLANNING ALLOCATIONS TO CVAG AND WRCOG Page 17 Overview It is recommended that Commission approve the Local Transportation Fund allocations of $168,609 to the Coachella Valley Association of Governments and $350,000 to the Western Riverside Council of Governments to support transportation planning programs and functions as identified in the attached work programs. 6E. LOCAL TRANSPORTATION FUND ALLOCATIONS FOR PALO VERDE VALLEY TRANSIT AGENCY AND THE CITY OF CORONA Page 23 Overview It is recommended that the Commission approve the FY 1999-2000 LTF Allocations for Transit in Riverside County as shown on the attached table. 6F. HIGHWAY 111 ADVANCEMENT - PALM SPRINGS' REQUEST Page 28 Overview It is recommended that the Commission, in conjunction with CVAG, approve the City of Palm Springs' request to advance the construction of Improvements at Gene Autry Trail and Highway 111 and reimbursement from the Measure A Highway Program. This action shall not change the previous action of the Commission to repay the loan from CVAG (to complete Tier II of the Cathedral City Highway III Project) as the first priority of any available Measure "A" Highway 111 funds. Furthermore, any interest charges to make this money available to the City of Palm Springs will be paid by the City and will not be funded from the Measure "A" Highway 111 Account. RCTC Meeting Agenda October 13, 1999 Page 4 6G. COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENTAL TRANSPORTATION ACCEPTABILITY PROCESS (CETAP) - WORKING PAPER #1 OVERVIEW OF CANDIDATE CORRIDORS #2 DRAFT CORRIDOR EVALUATION CRITERIA Page 34 Overview Receive and file. 6H. FY 2000-2006 SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN FOR THE PALO VERDE VALLEY TRANSIT AGENCY Page 75 Overview It is recommended that the Commission approve the fiscal year 2000- 2006 Short Range Transit Plan for the Palo Verde Valley Transit Agency as submitted. 61. FY1990-2000 CONTRACT AMENDMENT TO FREEWAY SERVICE PATROL TOW TRUCK AGREEMENTS WITH HAMNER TOWING AND PEPE'S TOWING SERVICE Page 94 Overview It is recommended that the Commission approve Amendment #3 to the Freeway Service Patrol Tow Truck Agreement with Hamner Towing, Inc. and Pepe's Towing Service, Inc. to continue service until June 30, 2000. 6J. STATE AND FEDERAL LEGISLATIVE UPDATE Overview Receive & file. Page 96 RCTC Meeting Agenda October 13, 1999 Page 5 6K. REQUEST TO HIRE CONTRACT EMPLOYEE TO MARKET SB 836 KEYS TO THE FUTURE VOLUNTARY RIDESHARE PROGRAM Page 109 Overview It is recommended that the Commission hire a contract employee to market the SB 836 Keys to the Future Voluntary Rideshare Program. This contract will be for an 18 month period ending on or around June 30, 2001 and will be entirely paid for from SB 836 funds. No Measure "A" dollars will be used. The 18 month contract amount, including the cost of benefits, will not exceed $114,480. Authorize the Executive Director to direct Legal Counsel to develop the employment contract. 6L. COMMISSION SIGNATURE AUTHORIZATION Page 121 Overview It is recommended that the Commission Authorize the Deputy Executive Director to be added to the account as a primary signature. 6M. SINGLE SIGNATURE AUTHORITY REPORT Page 124 Overview Receive and file. 6N. MONTHLY COST AND SCHEDULE REPORTS Page 131 Overview Receive and file. 7. CETAP VISION PROCESS 15 Minutes Page 135 Overview Receive and file. RCTC Meeting Agenda October 13, 1999 Page 6 8. REQUESTS FOR REALLOCATION OF CMAQ FUNDS FROM THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE AND THE RIVERSIDE TRANSIT AGENCY 10 Minutes Page 147 Overview It is recommended that the Commission approve the reallocation of Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) funds in the amount of $843,907 to a County of Riverside PM10 Mitigation Project on Holland Road. 9. ACCELERATE DELIVERY OF STATE ROUTE 74 MEASURE "A" PROJECT BETWEEN 1-15 AND 7T" STREET IN THE CITY OF PERRIS AND AMEND CONTRACT RO 9954 WITH SC ENGINEERING TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL RIGHT-OF-WAY ENGINEERING AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES 20 Minutes Page 156 Overview A number of items are presented for approval to accelerate project delivery, provide Safety Improvements, and minimize project construction impacts. 10. ITEMS PULLED FROM CONSENT CALENDAR AGENDA 11. COMMISSIONERS/EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S REPORT Overview Commissioners and the Executive Director may report on attendance of meetings/conferences/workshops attended. At the meeting, a report will be made on the RailVolution and the RCTC Bonding trip. 12. ADJOURNMENT. The next meeting of the Commission is scheduled to be held in Indio at the Senior Center, 45222 Towne Street, Indio, on November 10, 1999 at 9:00 a.m. Detach and submit to Clerk of the Hoard • PUBLIC SUBJECT OF � COMMENTS: PUBLIC COMMENTS: Pl/ AGENDA ITEM NO(S) AND SUBJECT(S): NAME: l I 1 n o 5a ri v t% DATE: O0 1 q '1 ADDRESS: TEL: NO: REPRESENTING: ,S-ovNcY07 (alf{ .45,0ci41/m of�lo�er�w,ce�J 3(00 Ci2r( BUSINESS ADDRESS: �Y « cr2Sa1 TEL. NO: '78 cf ` 3S2 C RCTC 7/99 PUBLIC COMMENTS: Detach and submit to Clerk of the Board SUBJECT OF (�� PUBLIC COMMENTS: 1 IES, S tt 141 Al tk i jpNS _ AGENDA ITEM NO(S) AND SUBJECT(S): 1 NAME: Cs- a Y2 Cr�(?�- n! DATE: / O " � � � g h g � ADDRESS: I ®C d p }(��i�TEL. NO: % T 9 3� 9, REPRESENTING: 1:17 �-OA—) o O IL. BUSINESS ADDRESS: RCTC 7/99 TEL. NO: Detach and submit to Clerk of the Board PUBLIC SUBJECT OF COMMENTS: PUBLIC COMMENTS: u k 7 "it- , 7 , AGENDA ITEM NO(S) AND SUBJECT(S): 9 J / / /I 74._ , /lcc- NAME: C- i i `r e_ il ,,f-- (2.4s) tv1 DATE: /D ` i? ''' r 7- ADDRESS: �r? n 6 g A Id S 5rTEL. NO: 6� y,- 9 3/ Q, / 7 / REPRESENTING: ti 4 , A 1,\) 12np e)/4 , BUSINESS ADDRESS: RCTC 7/99 TEL. NO: RIVERS/DE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMM/SS/ON MINUTES September 8, 1999 1. CALL TO ORDER. Chairman Jack van Haaster called the meeting of the Riverside County Transportation Commission to order at 9:12 a.m. at the Corona Public Library, 650 South Main Street, Corona, California 91720. Commissioners/Alternates Present Commissioners Absent Gene Bourbonnais Bob Buster* John M. Chlebnik Frank Hall John Hunt Dick Kelly William G. Kleindienst Jan Leja Stan Lisiewicz Ameal Moore * Tom Mullen Kevin W. Pape John J. Pena Gregory S. Pettis Andrea M. Puga Robin Reeser Lowe Ron Roberts Chris B. Silva John F. Tavaglione Jack van Haaster James A. Venable Frank West Roy Wilson Donald F. Yokaitis * Arrived after start of meeting 2. COMMISSIONERS SELF INTRODUCTIONS A roundtable self introductions followed. 4. PRESENTATIONS Percy L. Byrd Robert Crain Juan M. DeLara Al Landers Doug Sherman Jim Smedley On behalf of the Commission, Commissioner Tom Mullen recognized the tireless and dedicated service of Marilyn Williams for 10 years and of Paul Blackwelder for 20 years. He then presented them with items of appreciation. RCTC Minutes September 8, 1999 Page 2 PUBLIC COMMENTS 1. Garry Grant, Meadowbrook, presented 180 petitions protesting the dangerous conditions on Route 74. He asked about status of the traffic signal which was to be installed on River Road and Route 74. Kim DeChristopher spoke on the need for a traffic signal on River Road and Route 74. She noted that there is a high school nearby and is heavily traveled. She said that on August 23 her daughter was involved in an automobile accident Greenwald and Route 74. She is okay but unfortunately, her friend is not. Leo De La Cruz informed the Commission that his daughter was the friend of Ms. DeChristopher that is not doing well and, in fact, is in a coma. His reason for appearing before the Commission, as a citizen and a father, was to prevent what has happened to his daughter from happening to someone else. He asked that the Commission take necessary steps so that another family does not go through what is happening to them. Chairman Jack van Haaster encouraged the individuals to meet with him, Eric Haley, RCTC Executive Director, and Stan Lisiewicz, Director of Caltrans District 8, after the Commission meeting. Commissioner Chris Silva requested a report on Route 74 at the Commission's next meeting. 6. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - July 14, 1999 M/S/C (Silva/Hunt) approve the minutes of the July 14, 1999, meeting as submitted. 7. ADDITIONS/REVISIONS. No additions or revisions were submitted. 8. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. PROGRAM OF PROJECTS REVISION Susan Cornelison, Program Manager, stated that with the approval of the Tier II Station Report, a request for proposal for station design is underway. $5.1 million of State funds have been dedicated to this project. This item is to amend the RCTC's federal program of projects to include RCTC's Tier II commuter rail stations. The amendment does not change any of the other projects that are currently programed under Section 5307. With the adoption of this amendment, staff will be allowed to pursue the federal application process. RCTC Minutes September 8, 1999 Page 3 Chairman Jack van Haaster opened the public hearing. Hearing or seeing no one wishing to present testimony, the public hearing was closed. M/S/C (Mullen/Kleindienst) revise RCTC's Federal Program of Projects for the Western Riverside County Urbanized Area to include federal funding for construction of commuter rail stations and authorize amendment of the FY 2000 Commuter Rail Short Range Transit Plan. B. ADDITION OF PROGRAM MANAGER CLASSIFICATION TO THE LIST OF DESIGNATED EMPLOYEES AND ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION NO. 99-011, RESOLUTION OF THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION AMENDING THE APPENDIX TO THE CONFLICT OF INTEREST CODE PURSUANT TO THE POLITICAL REFORM ACT OF 1974. Eric Haley stated that the amendment was to extend full financial reporting provisions to the Program Manager level. Chairman Jack van Haaster opened the public hearing. Hearing or seeing no one wishing to present testimony, the public hearing was closed. M/S/C (Kleindienst/Hall) Commission to: 1) Add the Program Managers to the Conflict of Interest Code's list of designated employees; and, 2) amend RCTC's Conflict of Interest Code by adopting Resolution No. 99-011. 9. 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. M/S/C (Mullen/Kleindienst) to approve the following Consent Calendar items, with the exception of Agenda Items 9L, Advance of Local Transportation Funds to SunLine Transit Agency. 9A. SURFACE TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM (STP) LOCAL PROGRAMS FOLLOW UP Approve the STP Local Program projects and ensure they are included in the Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP). 9B. REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM - 2001 RTIP, AND 1998 RTIP AMENDMENT SCHEDULE Receive and file. 9C. REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS TO DEVELOP A BID PACKAGE (PS&E) FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE MEASURE A SR 60 HOV LANE PROJECT IN MORENO VALLEY RCTC Minutes September 8, 1999 Page 4 Direct staff to prepare, advertise, and select a consultant who will prepare the plans, specifications and cost estimate for the construction of the Measure A State Route 60 HOV lanes in Moreno Valley between the East Junction with 1-215 and Redlands Boulevard. 9D. CITY OF NORCO - REQUEST TO REPROGRAM SURFACE TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM FUNDS Approve City of Norco's request to reprogram discretionary STP funds. 9E. AWARD OF CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT NO. RO-9969 FOR SOUND WALL #98 ALONG THE SOUTH SIDE OF ROUTE 91, BETWEEN JACKSON AND MONROE STREETS IN THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE (PHASE II SW) Award Contract No. RO-9969, for the construction of Sound Wall #98 and Drainage Canal Relocation and Rehabilitation, on Route 91, from Tyler St. to Monroe St., in the City of Riverside, to Hillside Contractors, Inc., for the amount of $793,960. Authorize a contingency amount of $81,040 (10%) to cover potential change orders encountered during construction for a total not to exceed value of $875,000. 9F. AMENDMENT 1 TO LAND USE AGREEMENT WITH THE RIVERSIDE COMMUNITY COLLEGE (RCC) FOR TEMPORARY PARKING LOT AT THE LA SIERRA METROLINK STATION AND AWARD OF A DESIGN CONTRACT TO KCT CONSULTANTS FOR THE PARKING LOT DESIGN To: 1) approve the agreement with the Riverside Community College to obtain temporary parking for the La Sierra Metrolink Station, subject to RCTC Legal Counsel review and approval; 2) award a design contract with KCT Consultants to design the 200 vehicle temporary parking facility called for in the Tier II Station Study in a manner compatible with the station parking needs, using a standard RCTC consultant agreement, for an amount of $16,804 with an extra work amount of $4,000 for a total not to exceed amount of $20,804. 9G. CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENTS WITH BN&SF FOR THE LA SIERRA AND WEST CORONA PEDESTRIAN OVER CROSSINGS Approve the agreement, subject to legal counsel, for La Sierra and West Corona Metrolink Station Pedestrian Over Crossings. 9H. COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY SERVICE AUTHORITY FOR FREEWAY EMERGENCIES FOR THE OPERATION OF A CONSTRUCTION FREEWAY SERVICE PATROL ON I-215/SR-60 IN RIVERSIDE COUNTY Approve the agreement between the Caltrans and the Riverside County SAFE is RCTC Minutes September 8, 1999 Page 5 presented for approval, subject to legal counsel, in the amount of $96,000. 91. AGREEMENT BETWEEN SAN BERNARDINO ASSOCIATED GOVERNMENTS (SANBAG) AND RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION (RCTC) FOR THE PROVISION OF DISPATCH SERVICES IN THE SAN BERNARDINO AND INDIO CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL OFFICES Approve the agreement between SANBAG and RCTC for dispatch services for Riverside County Motorist Aid Call Box Program. 9J. FUND TRANSFER AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION FOR THE OPERATION OF A FREEWAY SERVICE PATROL PROGRAM IN RIVERSIDE COUNTY Approve the Agreement with the State of California Department of Transportation, subject to legal counsel, in the amount of $918,500. 9K. CONTRACT AWARD FOR FREEWAY SERVICE PATROL TOW TRUCK SERVICES Award a three-year contract to Pepe's Towing Service to provide tow truck service on Beat #25. 9M. MEASURE A COMMUTER ASSISTANCE PROGRAM EVALUATION RESULTS To: 1) receive and file the evaluation study; and, 2) direct staff to use results from the study to develop the RFP to manage the Commuter Assistance Program in future years. 9N. ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION NO. 99-010, "RESOLUTION OF THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION AMENDING ITS PERSONNEL RULES AND REGULATIONS" Adopt Resolution No. 99-010 amending the Personnel Rules and Regulations. 90. QUARTERLY CALL BOX UPDATE Receive and file. 9P. QUARTERLY FINANCIAL STATEMENTS Receive and file 9Q. MONTHLY COST SCHEDULE REPORT Receive and file. RCTC Minutes September 8, 1999 Page 6 9R. QUARTERLY Y2K STATUS REPORT Receive and file. 10. RIVERSIDE COUNTY INTEGRATED PLAN - "LISTENING" AND "VISIONING" PHASE Hideo Sugita, Director of Planning and Programming, briefed the Commission on the outreach efforts as it related to the Riverside County Integrated Plan as follows: 1) An opinion poll was conducted in late June 1999; 2) Twelve public workshops were conducted throughout the County between June and July 1999; and, 3) The study effort conducted four focus groups and interviewed residents which included Temecula/Murrieta/Hemet; Corona/Norco/Riverside; Moreno Valley/Perris; and the Coachella Valley area in early August. The development of a vision for the integrated planning effort is underway and he anticipates a formal action on a vision statement by RCTC and the Board of Supervisors in November. Patrick O'Reilly, Stoorza, Ziegaus and Metzger, subcontractor for Sverdrup, reviewed the Riverside County Integrated Plan's draft vision statement. M/S/C (Mullen/Buster) receive and file. 11. STATE AND FEDERAL LEGISLATIVE UPDATE Eric Haley stated that the State Legislature voted down SCA 3 on a straight party -line vote. We are now in an interesting transitional period which will require the Commission, if AB 1155 passes, to develop an expenditure plan for the next 20 years by May 1 regardless of the constitutional amendment having been defeated. A statewide discussion on the measures will continue and the Regional Transportation Planning Agencies (RTPA) will be developing project plans and demonstrating their need through the fall and spring. For RCTC, the work effort is in the form of the Strategic Plan, which will be before the Commission for review and approval in the coming months. M/S/C (Mullen/Buster) receive and file. 12. AMENDMENT TO FY 1999-2000 SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN FOR SUNLINE TRANSIT AGENCY M/S/C (Mullen/Buster) approve the request from the SunLine Transit Agency to: 1) amend their FY 1999-2000 Short Range Transit Plan to purchase two additional SuperBuses from OCTA; and, 2) increase SunLine's Local Transportation Fund (LTF) allocation by $567,603, to $8,099,603. 13. DONATION OF SURPLUS RAIL TO ORANGE EMPIRE RAILWAY MUSEUM. Steve DeBaun, Legal Counsel, explained that a year ago the Orange Empire Railway RCTC Minutes September 8, 1999 Page 7 Museum replaced and upgraded, at their cost, in the Commission's property the 62 'h lb rail with a more durable 115 lb rail. The removed rail has been stored on the Museum property and would continue to be a liability to the Commission. By transferring ownership of the removed rail to the Orange Empire Railway Museum as a historic display would save the Commission cost to haul and dispose of it and offset the minimal value of the scrap that provided to the Museum. M/S/C (Mullen/Hunt) approve the donation of surplus 62 '/2 lb rail to the Orange Empire Railway Museum for use in the Museum's Grizzly Flats narrow gauge railroad display. 14. PRESENTATION ON ORANGE EMPIRE RAILWAY MUSEUM ACTIVITIES. Tom Jacobsen, President of the Orange Empire Railway Museum (OERM), briefed the Commission on various activities at the Museum, which includes: 1) an education program in coordination with public schools wherein children come to the museum to learn about rail/transportation history; 2) involvement in preservation of the "red" cars and its technology; 3) in the past, operation of a dinner train for several of the councilmembers and mayors of the communities of Riverside County; and, 4) hosted community events and used portions of the San Jacinto branchline. The OERM is the owner of the Perris Depot building; the Commission owns the land around it. It is their intention to not only restore the Perris Depot but to make it an anchor in the City of Perris and in the County in order to operate trolleys and trains from the Depot and attract people to the County. To move forward with the restoration of the Depot, they play to apply for TEA 21 funds. They believe that Depot can go a long way to enhancing the 74 corridor, the City of Perris, and the County. In the process, they will be able to extend the tracks to the Depot. The OERM has participated in a study of drainage issue in Perris and they are prepared to do their share. Once that project is done it will not only enhance the freight service through that area and will make it possible to meld that into a future commuter rail and a destination point on Route 74. He requested Commission assistance for an OERM sign before reaching the City of Perris going south either on the highway right-of-way or on the Commission -owned rail right-of-way. Chairman van Haaster appointed Commissioners Mullen, Landers, and Lisiewicz, and the Executive Director to meet and discuss a way to provide a sign for GERM. At this time, it was requested that the Route 74 be added to the agenda as a latebreaking item. M/S/C (Buster/Mullen) to add Route 74 as a latebreaking item to the agenda as this item was raised at the meeting. Eric Haley stated that a solution for Route 74 beyond band -aids is a complete project that is within RCTC's program now scheduled to 2006. Staff will work on bringing this project forward at least 2-3 years from the current schedule. RCTC Minutes September 8, 1999 Page 8 Commissioner Stan Lisiewicz noted that the Meadowbrook project plans have been done for some time. The delay was caused by some difficulty in obtaining the necessary right-of-way. There are a two projects in the area with different right-of-way requirements. For the signal project, it should be ready to list in January and construction could start under the normal procedures in April. In response to Commissioner Bob Buster if there was an ability to put in an interim signal and if any other signals would be installed along the route, Commissioner Lisiewicz responded that it would not be possible to install a signal in a shorter time frame. There are three SHOPP projects and they are attempting to incorporate the other two into the ultimate widening project. He was not sure if there is another signal involved. Commissioner Robin Reeser Lowe asked about the possibility of making River Road and Route 74 a four-way stop until such time as the traffic signal was installed. Commissioner Lisiewicz said this is currently a two-way stop with highway going through and the side street stops. It would created a bigger problem to have a four-way stop as it traffic would stack up on the State Highway. M/S/C (Buster/Mullen) that an ad hoc committee consisting of Commissioners Buster, Mullen, Landers, Pape, Lisiewicz and RCTC staff meet to discuss the Route 74 issues and ways to expedite the project. 15. COMMISSIONERS AND EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S REPORT 1. Fund Trade Request - Eric Haley said that a request was received from the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) to trade on a one to one basis up to $1.5 million, a portion of the Commission's SB 45 2% PPM funds for SCAG FHWA planning funds. This would provide SCAG a source of non-federal funds to match the TEA 21 MagLev planning funds awarded to a Southern California MagLev proposal. Doing would not disrupt any of the Commission's funding programs or lose any revenue. Commissioner Will Kleindienst indicated that he was unclear as to the position that RCTC had taken with regard to high speed rail but believed it was technology neutral. By taking this action, RCTC would be taking a position of supporting MagLev without any discussion. Eric Haley explained the high speed rail authority is the entity that will actually contract on behalf of MagLev and they represent two different mode approaches. Technically, if approved, RCTC will transfer funds to SCAG to allow them to pursue a High Speed Rail Authority goal which actually ends up implementing the SCAG MagLev Study. Commissioner Kleindienst reiterated that it is important that RCTC remain consistent with its direction and since it has not taken a position on technology, the action proposed will dictate, at least with the generous contribution of funds, RCTC Minutes September 8, 1999 Page 9 that it has embraced a certain technology. Commissioner Lowe stated that she has not been pleased with SCAG staff regarding their assistance and the processing of application for grants and participation for matches, and it should be noted. M/S/C (Kleindienst/Mullen) direct staff to work with SCAG and present a proposal to the Commission at its next meeting. 2. Regional Government Facility - Eric Haley informed the Commission that the Executive Committee reviewed a proposal from the County regarding the possibility of housing the Commission at its proposed Regional Government Facility adjacent to the County building. The Executive Committee voted unanimously to continue discussions with the County on specific space needs and amenities and focus on this proposal at this time with the exclusion of seeking other sites. Completion of the facility is expected to be October 31, 2001. No final arrangements have been made and a full presentation to the Commission in October. 3. City of Riverside Representative - Eric Haley noted that Councilman Moore will be attending RCTC meetings for the next two months. Commissioner Alex Clifford has agreed to allow RCTC to recognize his significance efforts as one of the early members of the Commission. A luncheon will be held in his honor following the October meeting. 4. Mobile Source Reduction Committee - Commissioner Will Kleindienst expressed that as RCTC's representative on the Mobile Source Reduction Committee, it is important for everyone to hear what has happened with regards to MSRC and AQMD. Last month, in a combined effort, approved over $25 million incentive funding ($1.1 million AQMD Clean Fuel Program; $6.3 Carl Moyer; $17.6 MSRC AB 2756 Discretionary Funds). These three awards represent the largest funding every in one year for heavy duty diesel replacements in Southern California. With the life of these projects lasting some twenty years, it will reduce more than 8,000 tons of nitrous oxide. Programming for next year's funding cycle will again begin in the fall. He encouraged anyone with interest to contact himself or Marilyn Williams. 5. APTA Conference - Commissioner Ron Roberts stated that he attended the APTA conference in May in Toronto, Canada. Sessions that he attended included Airport Links workshops, several sessions on Livable Cities and Dependants on the Private Cars, TEA 21 and several other topics. 6. Chairman Activities - Chairman van Haaster informed the Commission that he spent some day in Sacramento to represent our interests on SCA 3 and AB 1012. He will also be making a trip to New York for RCTC's bond rating. At this item, Chairman van Haaster announced Dean Martin's departure date from RCTC to the Alameda Corridor Transportation Authority as September 29, 1999. RCTC Minutes September 8, 1999 Page 10 16. ITEMS PULLED FROM CONSENT CALENDAR 9L. ADVANCE OF LOCAL TRANSPORTATION FUNDS TO SUNLINE TRANSIT AGENCY Commissioner Pape asked is RCTC would experience loss of interest from loaning the LTF funds, and Eric Haley stated that the funds accrue to the agency itself, not RCTC. This action is to advance funds that is ultimately theirs to overcome the disruption in terms of the federal disbursement schedule. There is no RCTC loss. Commissioner John Hunt noted that this time was reviewed by the Plans and Program Committee and felt that it should have been to Budget and Implementation Committee. M/S/C (Hunt/Mullen) Approve SunLine Transit Agency's request for an advance of $585,000 in Local Transportation Funds to be repaid by reducing their next two payments of FY 2000 LTF funds. At 10:41 a.m., the Commission adjourned to a closed session. 17. CLOSED SESSION A. Conference with Rea/ Property Negotiator Pursuant to Section 54946.8 Property: Assessor Parcel Nos. 234-250-016 and 234-250-018 Name of Parties: Agency - Executive Director and Legal Counsel Property Owner - Fleetwood Enterprises, Inc. After the closed session, no announcement was made. 18. ADJOURNMENT. The meeting was adjourned at 10:55 a.m. The next meeting of the Riverside County Transportation Commission is scheduled to be held on Wednesday, October 13, 1999, at 9:00 a.m. at the UCR Chancellor's Conference Room, 1201 University Avenue, Suite 207, Riverside, California. Respectfully submitted, 0.'v PJ� Nat y Konhave Clerk of the Board RIVERS/DE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMM/SS/ON NAME 1114 �y h �U LJ I s r4 Jao,.) C-Pc_EBI '�� 6046 eouraion ytai s c� 11c is-4.1 COMMISSION MEETING WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 8, 1999 9:00 A.M. SIGN -IN SHEET AGENCY t l� (� , TELEPHONE /FAX NUMBER 009677471/2-/gq( qg2/11( P21141 e-S (79 06 2( v Cb ) (74 c') 0\) G-A Li MESA ea .1 o ti ier e Co u $F `) c a)/A174-- ,40,1,,y 4, g /e .t' C, ` /-(r* of */etwe/ ��4NK 47141-L- Cof- NDisc 0 w' ikki•kw. -E7, I S44v emak pv•Avv• dTrr lw'$ 2:20 . btoo (*709-79)"-8993 / 0e0 79- -42) YV 01479) 244-7z75r 0,05 (69-0 ?'33_sc), / 3zi-Ctr387 23 / ? 3 7,20f� 74 3&/ l 77S7- a 7(r5— NO) ill -7 6770 / ///3 300‘ / Signing is not required 73J -SZ Pi(> l / 1(.0.32:b. 8101 q�-95S=-/4)1t) RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMM/SS/ON WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 8, 1999 SIGN -IN SHEET (Page 2) NAME AGENCY TELEPHONE /FAX NUMBER 1) v u O lc /+-r T/ S uac 0-7 t !L. e- ?O o- R.:1J 7q)/P-%,s /e_tvl_c�<.g ,.;y CYY / Gfs' . U9S'G S it x� ; _ 1 �� /�vn,,, ivy -383 -Y� ss' / 3@ 3 6a 39 0e)-1A- 2 k Signing is not required / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMM/SS/ON COMMISSION MEETING WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 8, 1999 9:00 A.M. PLEASE SIGN IN IF YOU WISH TO PROVIDE COMMENTS TO THE COMMISSION, PLEASE COMPLETE AND SUBMIT A TESTIMONY CARD TO THE CLERK OF THE COMMISSION N M K �r Sissy NoRrylrml \---)E PoJ�/z_ `L'c220e n 41Afi ii /10057-79 l4gny . o eve IZHrNd/-1,4n? 1P_OtA AGENCY S isit hu E ;54-,vsi r RYA-1211)ni& f'�ru�Y e76/5 dC- Edl C4c� iT�� i v co, sc cyfy >7 TELEPHONE /FAX NUMBER ►,; ; 5- / s QA / / 5if 46)34 / 344 (oil c`62- 1 7 rr, (%aq.1 933r s 9 - ci?- l36�a— O of-V qi s -- 7/ / -79 (900)) 3 S61,2.9 0 ill / 276-yyg3 / / / RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION Signing is not required RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMM/SS/ON DATE: October 13, 1999 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Budget & Implementation Committee Cathy Bechtel, Program Manager THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Transportation Enhancement Activities Program Selection Criteria TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE, BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve the Transportation Enhancement Activities Program Selection Criteria as presented in the attached application. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: At the Commission's July 1999 meeting, staff was directed to develop and release a Call for Projects to obtain proposals under the Transportation Enhancement Activities Program for FY 1998-2004 with a minimum total project amount of $250,000. Additionally, the Commission designated the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) as the Evaluation Committee. A Call for Projects was developed and sent to all local agencies, Commissioners, as well as a number of local organizations that had expressed interest in these funds. Applications are due to the Commission on Friday, November 19, 1999. The TAC worked closely with staff to develop selection criteria based on the state- wide criteria. The entire application was also reviewed by the Caltrans State TEA Coordinator to ensure consistency with state requirements. Attached is the application format which includes the selection criteria under Section VI. The TAC has requested that the Commission affirm the selection criteria to be used for project evaluation. Should the Commission desire modifications to the criteria, an addendum to the call for projects will be released. Financial Assessment Project Cost Up to $13,404,000 Source of Funds Federal Transportation Enhancement Activities Program Transportation Enhancement Activities (TEA) Program Call for Projects for Funds Available in FY1998-FY2004 I. APPLICANT INFORMATION Sponsoring Agency: Address: Contact Person: Title: Phone #: Fax #: E-mail: If Joint Project, include partner agency name, contact person, and phone number: II. PROJECT INFORMATION Project Name: Project Description and Scope: (Include information on project location, limits of work, property needing to be purchased, modifications required to complete project, etc). Amount TEA Requested: $ ( %) Non -Federal TEA Match: $ ( %) Total Project Cost: $ ( 100%) Source(s) of Match: WHICH CATEGORY OR CATEGORIES ENCOMPASS YOUR TEA PROJECT? (May be more than one.) List approximate amount of federal TEA funds to be spent in each of the TEA categories: $ 1. Pedestrian or Bike Facilities $ 7. Historic Transportation Rehab $ 2. Safety/Educ. for Peds & Bikes $ 8. Railway Corridor Preservation $ 3. Acquisition of Easement/Sites $ 9. Outdoor Advertising $ 4. Highway Programs $ 10. Archaeological Plan/Research $ 5. Landscaping/Scenic Beautification $ 11. Environmental Mitigation $ 6. Historic Preservation $ 12. Transportation Museums Federal Environmental Approval for TEA Project (check proposed type and status): TYPE: Environmental Assessment Categorical Exclusion EIS Negative Declaration STATUS: Not Started Complete (Date of Completion } In Progress i Riverside County Transportation Commission Transportation Enhancement Activities (TEA) Program Call for Projects for Funds Available in FY1998-FY2004 III. PROJECT SCREENING If any of the applicable screening criteria are not me4 the proposal will not be ranked or evaluated any further, 1) DIRECT RELATIONSHIP TO TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM: Function Proximity Impact Briefly explain the direct relationship between the proposed TEA Project and the transportation system. How does the proposed project enhance the transportation system? 2) OVER AND ABOVE A NORMAL PROJECT: Yes No A normal transportation project may include mitigation, standard landscaping, etc. as part of the permitting requirements. Briefly explain how the proposed enhancement is over and above a normal transportation project. 3) Is the project consistent with federal, state, regional or local land use and regional transportation plans, goals, and policies? Yes No Describe the plans used in evaluating consistency (e.g. Regional Transportation Plan, Coachella Valley Arterial Program, Comprehensive Transportation Plan): 4) Is the proposed project financially viable? Yes No Describe the financial plan for the project including discussion of project phasing, cash flow and commitment of matching funds. 5) Is the project well-defined, well -justified, and ready -to -go in the year proposed? Yes No Describe evidence supporting this statement. 6) If the project requires on -going maintenance, do you have a maintenance program in place or planned? Yes No N/A If so, please describe program and how it will be funded. 7) Does the proposed project improve air quality or have a neutral air quality impact? Yes No Describe evidence supporting this conclusion. Riverside County Transportation Commission Transportation Enhancement Activities (TEA) Program Call for Projects for Funds Available in FY1998-FY2004 8) Is the project in compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act? Yes No N/A 9) For archaeology and historic preservation projects, is the proposal in compliance with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards and Guidelines for Archaeological and Historic Preservation? Yes No N/A IV. SCHEDULE AND BUDGET TEA $ (000's) Other $ (000's) Other $ (000's) Total $Project (000's) illte cat Start(moiyo EPrircl°iDTe (mo/Yr) Environmental Design & Engineering ROW/Site Acquisition Construction Project Completion ..Y.,":;----wtpr.......x.mignum langomommi:iimmiggiami:.i*,:,*:,:,,:,,,:,,,:,„„,......,........,..,„„..............,..„ i.i.g.i.immignownammomm TOTAL V. DETAILED COST ESTIMATE ITEM ESTIMATE -CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT ITEMS Item Description Unit Quantity Unit Price Amount • • ••••• Riverside County Transportation Commission x:;:;Mg0);NOME Transportation Enhancement Activities (TEA) Program Call for Projects for Funds Available in FY1998-FY2004 VI. PROJECT SCORING CRITERIA UNDER WHICH DIVISION SHOULD YOUR PROJECT BE SCORED? (Must designate only one.) The Divisions are groupings of the 12 activity categories into four divisions with similar characteristics The divisions are for ease of scoring only and are not intended to affect the distribution of funds Division A: Bicycle, Pedestrian, Abandoned Rail Right -of -Way (Categories 1,2,8) Division B: Historic/Archaeological (Categories 3,4,6,7,10, 12) Division C: Transportation Aesthetics and Scenic Values (Categories 3,4,5,9) Division D: Environmental Mitigation (Category 11) ALL APPLICANTS MUST ANSWER QUESTIONS 1-3 1) Describe why the project is beneficial. How does the project improve overall quality -of -life, community and/or environment? Does the project connect transportation modes or does the activity have other multi -modal aspects? Does the project reinforce or complement the regional transportation system or fill a deficiency in the system? (0-6 points) 2) Describe degree of regional and/or community support for the project. (0-3 points) 3) If project has in excess of the required 12% local match describe sources and commitment for the additional matching funds. (0-3 points) Answer the two questions that correspond to the Project Scoring Division designated above, either Division A, B, C, or D. DIVISION A: Bicycle, Pedestrian, Abandoned Rail Right -of -Way Projects 1) What is the need for the proposed facilities or programs? Please specify high, medium or low and explain your answer. For example, is there a shortage of bicycle or pedestrian facilities available? Is there a missing link in connecting the intermodal system; how important is this link? How necessary are new facilities serving the system? (0-3 points) Riverside County Transportation Commission Transportation Enhancement Activities (TEA) Program Call for Projects for Funds Available in FY1998-FY2004 2) Describe how the proposed project meets the needs or addresses opportunities for bicycle or pedestrian facilities or programs. (0-3 points) DIVISION B: Historic/Archaeological Projects 1) Specify the current recognition of historical or archaeological significance. Please specify whether the recognition is federal, state, local or some other measure of significance. (0-3 points) National Register of Historic Places (Date: State Historical Landmark (No. ) State Points of Historical Interest (No. ) California Register of Historical Resources Regional Archaeological Information Ctr (No. Local Landmarks Program 2) How will the project enhance, preserve, or protect a historic or archaeological resource? (0-3 points) DIVISION C: Transportation Aesthetics and Scenic Values Projects 1) How are the scenic or aesthetic resources rare, unique, or significant, or how does the potential exist for landscaping or scenic beautification or improvements? (0-3 points) 2) How does the project preserve, rehabilitate, or develop scenic or aesthetic resources? (0-3 points) DIVISION D: Environmental Mitigation 1) What are the environmental problems caused by the highway runoff to be mitigated? If project is to reduce vehicle -caused wildlife mortality while maintaining habitat connectivity, provide specific data on wildlife mortality, motorist issues, habitat fragmentation, etc. (0-3 points) Riverside County Transportation Commission Transportation Enhancement Activities (TEA) Program Call for Projects for Funds Available in FY1998-FY2004 2) How does the proposal solve the problem? (0-3 points) VII. Please attach an 8 1 x 11 site map and/or photos of proposed project. VIII. STANDARD ASSURANCES Project Sponsoring Agency possesses legal authority to nominate transportation enhancement activity and to finance, acquire, and construct the proposed project; and by action of an official authorized to submit the project on behalf of the agency, authorizes the nomination of the transportation enhancement activity, including all understanding and assurances contained therein, and authorizes the person identified as the official representative of the Sponsoring Agency to act in connection with the nomination and to provide such additional information as may be required. Project Sponsoring Agency will maintain and operate the property acquired, developed, rehabilitated, or restored for the life of the resultant facility(ies) or activity. With the approval of the California Department of Transportation, the Sponsoring Agency or its successors in interest in the property may transfer the responsibility to maintain and operate the property. Project Sponsoring Agency will give the California Department of Transportation's representative access to and the right to examine all records, books, papers, or documents related to the transportation enhancement activity. Project Sponsoring Agency will cause work on the project to be commenced within a reasonable time after receipt of notification from the State that funds have been approved by the Federal Highway Administration and that the project will be carried to completion with reasonable diligence. Project Sponsoring Agency will comply where applicable with provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act, the National Environmental Policy Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Secretary of the Interior's Standards and Guidelines for Archaeology and Historic Preservation, and any other federal, state, and/or local laws, rules, and/or regulations. I certify that the information contained in this transportation enhancement activity application, including required attachments, is accurate and that I have read and understand the important information and agree to the assurances on this form. Signed Title Date Printed (Name, Agency) Riverside County Transportation Commission RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMM/SS/ON DATE: October 13, 1999 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Plans and Programs Committee Jerry Rivera, Program Manager THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: FY 1999-2000 State Transit Assistance Allocations and Resolution No. 99-012, "A Resolution of the Riverside County Transportation Commission to Allocate State Transit Assistance Funds" PLANS AND PROGRAMS COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION That the Committee recommend the Commission approve the FY 1999-2000 State Transit Assistance Fund allocations in Riverside County as presented on the attached table and adopt Resolution No. 99-012. BACKGROUND INFORMATION In order for the public transit operators to claim State Transit Assistance (STA) funds for operating and capital purposes, the Commission must allocate funds to support the transit services and capital projects contained in the approved FY 2000-2006 Short Range Transit Plan (SRTP) identified for funding with State Transit Assistance funds. When the SRTP was prepared, the operators assumed for planning purposes that the State appropriation of funds would be the same as the previous year. According to the State Controller's Office, the amount of STA funds that are expected to be received in Riverside County for FY 2000 is $2,395,666 ($2,170,936 discretionary pot, $224,730 operators specific pot). An additional $108,508 in unapportioned STA funds is also available, bringing the total to $2,504,174. The attached table outlines the specific operators' allocations which need to be approved by the Commission. The State allocated non -discretionary funds will be used first with the balance derived from the discretionary allocation. Financial Assessment Project Cost $1,870,095 Source of Funds State Transit Assistance Included in Fiscal Year Budget Y Year Included in Program Budget Y Year Programmed 1999-00 Approved Allocation Year of Allocation 1999-00 Budget Adjustment Required N Financial Impact Not Applicable Attachment A State Transit Assistance Fiscal Year 2000 Allocation County Allocation Western County Bus Rail Coachella Palo Verde Valley Valley • Current Year Allocation Requests per SRTP • I • Banning $9,000 Beaumont $145,000 Corona $15,000 Riverside Transit Agency $967,095 SunLine Transit Agency $734,000 Total Current Year Funding Requests $1,870,095 $1,136,095 $0 $734,000 $0 f: \users \bechtelc \lotus \99statwk4 21-Sept-99 RESOLUTION NO. 99-012 A RESOLUTION OF THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION TO ALLOCATE STATE TRANSIT ASSISTANCE FUNDS WHEREAS, the Riverside County Transportation Commission is designated the regional entity responsible for the allocation of State Transit Assistance Funds within Riverside County; and WHEREAS, the Riverside County Transportation Commission has examined the Short Range Transit Plan and Transportation Improvement Program; and WHEREAS, all proposed expenditures in Riverside County are in conformity with the Regional Transportation Plan; and WHEREAS, the level of passenger fares is sufficient for claimants to meet the fare revenue requirements of Public Utilities Code sections 99268.2, 99268.3, 99268.4, 99268.5, and 99268.9, as applicable; and WHEREAS, the claimant is making full use of federal funds available under the Urban Mass Transportation Act of 1964, as amended; and WHEREAS, the sum of the claimant's allocations from the state transit assistance fund and from the local transportation fund does not exceed the amount the claimant is eligible to receive during the fiscal year; and WHEREAS, priority consideration has been given to claims to offset reductions in federal operating assistance and the unanticipated increase in the cost of fuel, to enhance existing public transportation services, and to meet high priority regional, countywide, or area -wide public transportation needs; and WHEREAS, the public transit operators have made a reasonable effort to implement the productivity improvements recommended pursuant to Public Utilities Code section 99244; and WHEREAS, the claimant is not precluded by any contract entered into on or after June 28, 1979 from employing part-time drivers or contracting with common carriers or persons operating under a franchise or license. WHEREAS, operators are in full compliance Section 1808.1 of the Vehicle Code, as required in Public Utilities Code section 99251. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Riverside County Transportation Commission to allocate State Transit Assistance Funds for FY 1999-00 as detailed in Attachment A. This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its passage. Approved and adopted this 13th day of October, 1999. Jack F. van Haaster, Chairperson Riverside County Transportation Commission Attest: Naty Kopenhaver, Clerk of the Riverside County Transportation Commission RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: October 13, 1999 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Plans and Programs Committee Hideo Sugita, Director of Planning and Programming THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Possible Exchange of Funds with SCAG for the Maglev Highspeed Rail Study PLANS AND PROGRAMS COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION That the Plans and Programs Committee recommend Commission approval of an administrative action to exchange up to $700,000 of SB45 2% Planning, Programming and Monitoring funds, on a dollar for dollar basis, with SCAG for FHWA Planning funds with the following conditions: • That the Commission require SCAG and Caltrans to provide the Commission approval of the agreement which facilitates the access to FHWA Planning funds to support CETAP either prior to or simultaneous with the transfer or availability of Commission 2% Planning, Programming and Monitoring funds, retroactive to July 1, 1999. • That the Commission authorize staff to amend the Activity Program for the SB 45 2% Planning, Programming and Monitoring funds to facilitate this action. • That this action is administrative and does not change the Commission's neutral position on high speed rail technology. BACKGROUND INFORMATION At the September 8, 1999 Commission meeting in the City of Corona the Executive Director raised a proposal from SCAG to exchange, on a dollar for dollar basis, a portion of the Commission's SB 45 2% Planning, Programming and Monitoring funds for SCAG FHWA Planning funds. The purpose of the proposal is to provide SCAG a source of non-federal funds to match the TEA 21 Maglev planning funds awarded to a Southern California maglev proposal. SCAG in conjunction with the California High Speed Rail Authority (California HSRA) has received a commitment of approximately $3.0 million of Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) funds to support this effort. The matching ratio required for the funds is 2/3 federal 1 /3 local. The amount of match SCAG is seeking is $1.5 million. The maglev study has a requirement that this study must be completed by June 30, 2000 so, from SCAG and the California HSRA viewpoints, time is of the essence. The discussion at the September 8`h Commission meeting included an observation by Commissioner Kleindienst that the Commission has remained neutral on the issue of high speed rail technology and that approving this transaction could be construed as tilting the Commission toward maglev. Staff has reviewed the issue and presents the following information to the Commission. The Commission has a neutral position on highspeed rail technology. It is important to note that the California High Speed Rail Authority also maintains a neutral position on high speed rail technology. The Governor of California has communicated with U.S. Secretary of Transportation Rodney Slater that the State of California maintains a neutral position technology. This communication was included in the submittal of the application for federal maglev funding. HIGH SPEED RAIL PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENTS There are several significant pieces of information which the Commission needs to be aware of: • The California HSRA currently has a contract with Parsons Brinkerhoff to perform a study of conventional (steel wheel on rail) high speed rail in existing rail corridors. The alignment of the study is consistent with what the Inland Empire continues to support. (From Ontario Airport to Riverside and down the 1-215 to Temecula and south to San Diego. • The California HSRA and SCAG are "partners" on the maglev study. SCAG selected the consultant (Parsons Transportation Group) and the California HSRA is hiring the project manager for the study. The SCAG/HSRA effort will study maglev in freeway rights -of -way and the alignment in the federal application is from LAX to Union Station to Arcadia to Ontario Airport to March Air Reserve base. Progress is being made in Europe. Very recently (approximately the last 2 weeks) the German Government entered into an agreement with Transrapid to build a maglev high speed rail system between Berlin and Hamburg. Given this information and having discussions with both the California HSRA staff and SCAG staff, the following assessment is made. Staff recommends that the Commission view this as an administrative action to exchange funds with SCAG on a dollar for dollar basis to facilitate the study of high speed rail alternatives in the Southern California region. This action, if approved, serves the interests of the Commission, the California HSRA, the SCAG region and the Commission's goal of building high speed rail to serve the Inland Empire. With the advent of a maglev system being built in Germany and having the potential of two high speed rail studies which include alignments supported by the Inland Empire it is important that the Commission maintain a neutral position on the subject of technology along with the Governor and the California HSRA. Who knows? Perhaps there may be an operational maglev system by the time a technology selection needs to be made. COMM/SS/ON/SCAG FUNDING RELATIONSHIPS With respect to the funding exchange, Caltrans has indicated this exchange can occur on an administrative basis. However, the Commission has formally approved $1.5 million for CETAP in the activity program for the SB 45 2% Planning, Programming and Monitoring funds. Staff estimates the project funding which could be redirected is approximately $700,000. The reason for this is that a portion of the funds were expended in FY 1998-99 and the Transportation & Community& Systems Preservation funds (TCSP) we are pursuing requires a 20% cash match. If we are successful in securing a total of $2.0 million dollars of TCSP funds it will require $500,000 of match. To date, SCAG has provided $780,000 of FHWA Planning funds to the Commission to support CETAP. SCAG has also been a very good partner in assisting the Commission and the County of Riverside to secure additional discretionary state and federal planning funds to support the underfunded CETAP project. Recently, SCAG was successful in securing an additional $350,000 of state discretionary planning funds and SCAG is the agency through which funds must flow from a federal earmark of approximately $1 .0 million of TCSP funds. This funding flows from the FY 1999-00 federal transportation budget. SCAG and Caltrans will make every effort to obtain additional federal and state discretionary funds in FY 2000-01 and SCAG is committed to provide a minimum of $500,000 of FY 2000-01 Overall Work Program funds to CETAP. Even if we are successful securing a similar amount of discretionary funds in the ensuing year ($1.35 million) the CETAP effort will require approximately $500,000 of additional funding to make it whole. However, if this years funding is secured and this effort is duplicated next year, we will have made significant strides to close the project funding gap. SCAG and Caltrans staff have assured staff that this exchange would not create a disruption in funding to the Commission's funding of the CETAP project. Staff recommends that the Commission require SCAG to provide approval and reimbursability of FHWA Planning funds to support CETAP either prior to or simultaneous with the transfer of Commission 2% Planning, Programming and Monitoring funds. The reason for this condition is to maintain continuity of funding to support CETAP. Financial Assessment Project Cost $0 Source of Funds Included in Fiscal Year Budget Dollar for dollar exchange of 2% Planning, Programming and Monitoring funds for SCAG FHWA Planning funds. n Year Included in Program Budget Y Year Programmed 1999-00 2000-01 Approved Allocation Y Year of Allocation 1999-00 Budget Adjustment Required Y Financial Impact Not Applicable RIVERS/DE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMM/SS/ON DATE: October 13, 1999 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Plans and Programs Committee Hideo Sugita, Director of Planning and Programming THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Annual Local Transportation Fund Planning Allocations to CVAG and WRCOG PLANS AND PROGRAMS COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Commission approve Local Transportation Fund allocations of $168,609 to the Coachella Valley Association of Governments and $350,000 to the Western Riverside Council of Governments to support transportation planning programs and functions as identified in the attached work programs. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: On an annual basis the Commission, CVAG and WRCOG develop transportation planning programs. The Commission's planning program is identified in the annual budget which was approved on June 2, 1999. Staff has reviewed the attached FY 1999-00 transportation planning and administrative work programs submitted by CVAG and WRCOG and finds them consistent with the overall RCTC transportation program and planning objectives. The funding requested is consistent with the approved FY 1999-00 Commission budget. Financial Assessment Project Cost $ 518, 609 Source of Funds Local Transportation Fund :v ?-0:•;;.;,yy.}y:. v; ...v.::v.: }.:w.v:., .... ......: . .i:..mr..::.:: v,'::::. v: :1:' :i}:w::;;: L..v:.v.v.v; .... n.v::•:::.w. v:.v ,r,.ri.}:. 'v'v'•} .•.:i.{:{v ?::.:.>..ry v ;•; .; .::..,v.......:v, ::•.; .... .......v n.:.:::.v; •v:.v:nv' :.:::::.v...............v: r.v:?;•}•.v::.v}.:•}:.:•:{p:vv:{?i:{•}:{^:{•:?.}:.:PY:4i:{i:;: i.S•:.:v:•�4:v..:................. :.. •v.v i .... :${ :•..: .::::: ...... :.:?{:ry}:•Y:{;.'.:}.v:.v:.:............::: Y::....... •%: ,.....{.............5.......... Y:::LS:;{•}:.S:fS:i•v;{•}:i.S:f ,.......: r..:::: :.m:r.•:: .:%.... n.:. ...... ?....: •.v:; •... .. 6.. ..i:{}•.}:::{::..v . n...n......... r: {:: rv4•::::::: u::::... ........................ }: .....:........... ...................... ...............{... r........ rn ........v::::; .: w:: v..•::::::SAi;{{•}:•}}:v'••?•i}:{•:{•}}}:4v.:v:.v:.v:::::;•}:}S:{L4:?•}}%{:r}};•},:{::: :: w::A::::::...... ' r........ r...... •:.r: w: Included in Fiscal Year Budget Y Year Included in Program Budget Y Year Programmed 1999-00 Approved Allocation Year of Allocation 1999-00 Budget Adjustment Required N Financial Impact Not Applicable COACHELLA VALLEY ASSOCIATION of GOVERNMENTS FISCAL YEAR 1999-2000 LOCAL TRANSPORTATION FUND PROGRAM OBJECTIVES The Coachella Valley Association of Governments Fiscal Year 1999-2000 Work Plan is separated into eight program areas. Of these, three have been identified to be partially funded from Local Transportation Funds. Transportation Operations • Transportation Program Administration • Other Transportation Planning • Operational Systems Management and Administration Primarily an administrative function area. Consists of general transportation program administration activities and various transportation planning duties in support of the Transportation Department. Local Transportation Funds Allocated: $ 85,600 Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) Programs • State Routes in the Coachella Valley • Congestion Management Program (CMP) • RCTC Technical Advisory Committee • Measure A/TUMF Discussions Includes staff time to support the Riverside County Congestion Management Program through permit analysis of the two non-TUMF jurisdictions and analysis of traffic patterns through the traffic count program; participation in the Surface Transportation Program/ Congestion Management -Air Quality project selection for CVAG and eastern county areas; assist RCTC staff in the selection of SB 821 projects in the Coachella Valley; provide RCTC staff with regional transportation project information for the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) and the Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP), and; support the RCTC Technical Advisory Committee. Local Transportation Funds Allocated: $ 18,609 COACHELLA VALLEY ASSOCIATION of GOVERNMENTS Transportation Planning, Programming and Monitoring • STIP/ RTIP Implementation • Transportation Project Prioritization Study (TPPS) Implementation • Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Update • SB 45 Participation • Signal Synchronization Project Implementation • Interstate-10 Lane Addition Project Study Report Completion • Palo Verde Valley Transportation Master Plan Completion This area includes staff time in support of the STIP and RTIP development, to implement the TPPS update, to coordinate updates to the CIP and to monitor and examine the impacts of implementation of SB 45, and to coordinate efforts for the signal synchronization project, the I- 10 lane addition project and the Palo Verde Valley Transportation Master Plan. Local Transportation Funds Allocated: $ 64,400 TOTAL LOCAL TRANSPORTATION FUNDS ALLOCATED: $ 168,609 Western Riverside Council of Governments Fiscal Year 1999/2000 Local Transportation Funds Programs Objectives The work Plan for FY 1999/00 is divided into 4 key program areas: b Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) Programs ❑ Previous year rollover ❑ Fiscal year 1999/00 Participate in the SCAG Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) Technical Advisory Committee and attend technical committees to assist SCAG with the RTP revision; to perform specific transportation, air quality, planning and GIS work for SCAG as part of their Overall Work Program (OWP); conduct outreach on air quality, transportation and planning issues with the public, members' jurisdictions and regional agencies; participate in the Air Quality Management Plan 2000 (AQMP) development and prepare air quality and transportation legislation analysis. $170,000 .4> State and Federal Programs ❑ CMAQ ❑ STPL Support Department of Energy Clean Cities; develop emission reduction strategies; continued work on the western county Comprehensive Transportation Plan; assist in the purchase of alternative fuel vehicles and development of infrastructure; attend regional air quality and transportation meetings to provide sub -regional input into the RTP revision and Air Quality Management Plan 2000 development process. $83,000 [4> Regional Air Quality Programs ❑ South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) ❑ Caltrans ❑ EPA and CARB Participate in the development of the Air Quality Management Plan 2000, assist Inland Empire Governing Board Members, participate in the South Coast Air Quality Management District committee structure, participate/attend in EPA and Air Resources Board public hearing and workshops. $45,000 II> Riverside Transportation Commission Programs ❑ Community Environmental Transportation Acceptability Process (CETAP) ❑ RCTC Technical Advisory Committee ❑ Mobile Source Reduction Committee (MSRC) ❑ Measure A and future measure extensions Provide assistance in transportation planning and air quality programs (e.g., HOT Lane project), participation in the Surface Transportation Program/Congestion Mitigation Air Quality(STP/CMAQ) project evaluation for Riverside County, assist in the evaluation of SB 821 (Bicycle and pedestrian Projects), assist RCTC in ensuring Riverside County projects are included in the revised RTP, and other planning related tasks as determined in consultation with the RCTC Executive Director. $52,000 G:IDOC\LTF99.00 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: October 13, 1999 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Plans and Programs Committee Jerry Rivera, Program Manager THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Local Transportation Fund Allocations for Palo Verde Valley Transit Agency and the City of Corona PLANS AND PROGRAMS COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Commission approve the FY 1999-2000 LTF Allocations for Transit in Riverside County as shown on the attached table. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: In order for the public transit operators to claim Local Transportation Fund (LTF) money for operating and capital purposes, the Commission must allocate funds to support the transit services and capital projects contained in the approved FY 2000- 2006 Short Range Transit Plan (SRTP). The Riverside County SRTP for all operators except the Palo Verde Valley Transit Agency (PVVTA) have been previously approved by the Commission. The PVVTA Plan is schedule for review and approval by the Commission as a separate agenda item. The FY 2000 LTF allocation for the Palo Verde Valley Transit Agency is consistent with the SRTP and the funds allocated are explicitly for the projects as stated in the Plan. The City of Corona staff has also informed Commission staff that the estimated beginning fund balance was overstated in their Short Range Transit Plan which resulted in the Commission allocating less LTF funds to Corona than needed to operate for the year. The SRTP for the City of Corona included a beginning fund balance of $29,067. However, City staff indicates that the Commission's auditors, Ernst & Young, are finalizing the City's audit, and they have found a deficit of $25,832 in capital funds for FY 1998-99 due to unexpected added costs in the purchase of vehicles. The auditors also discovered a surplus of $5,925 in operating funds. Therefore, the City of Corona will require an additional LTF allocation of $48,974 ($29,067 + $25,832-$5,925) for FY 1999-2000. It is understood at the time the allocations are made that the fund balance estimates are preliminary and adjustments may be necessary. The revised allocation table reflects the revised carrryover amount and adjusted LTF allocation to Corona of $545,307. Financial Assessment Project Cost $278,380 Source of Funds Included in Fiscal Year Budget Local Transportation Funds Year Included in Program Budget Y Year Programmed 1999-00 Approved Allocation Year of Allocation Budget Adjustment Required Financial Impact Not Applicable L L6`££8`S£$ 904'6ZZ$ 904'6ZZ$ £09'660'8$ £09'660'8$ Z06`409`LZ$ L96'8Zb`b$ 00817£L'OZ$ SS L'8bZ' L$ LOE`S4S$ 000`ZOL$ £L9`S4b$ N011V0011V 11SNVM1311 030N3WW00321 £Z4'£69'LES L44'£49$ OSZ`£Z$ OSZ'EZ$ 000`94L`9$ 000'9bL9$ £L117Z617Z$ 0$ Lb£`880'4Z$ Z£Z`ZS£$ 009'99 L$ 000`90Z$ 0$ 000`£ZL$ LZE`LL$ 464`8E$ l64`8£$ 51L'OL0`89$ 14L`L6Z$ LbL` l6Z$ L6E`4E$ L6£ b $ S3f1N3A36 311 NON 031VINI1S3 £SS`OLb$ ££ L`£Z£$ 0$ 000'09L$ (L06'6LS) SONIld 213A0AMI VO 031VINI1S3 000`0881714 000`08-8'b l$ 8Z9`668`Z9$ OO l `ZSL b$ Lb L `EZZ'b4$ L8£'OSL'LS 000'1.89$ 000' L06$ 000 `989$ S1S00 1V101 031VINI1S3 66/51460 `•66/9Z/80 :paslnaa 66/ZZ/90 :at •spun; VlS y6n0-114 papun; leuluual uopepodsueil Jo; 000`006$ sapnloul , 009`96S`LZ$ 0$ 0$ 000`SZL`Z$ 000`SZ Z$ 009'4L8'814 009'bLEs 000'L90'8L$ 000' OS L$ 000`0£$ 000'LO£$ 000' 6$ S1S00 1V11dV0 031VNII1S3 SL L'4L4`917$ 14L` L6Z$ Lbl`L6Z$ 000`55 L`Z L$ 000'99 L `Z L$ 8Z0`8Z0`4E$ 009'L£b`b$ VOL L `Z9 L `9Z$ L8£`009` L$ 000`L99$ 000'009$ 000'219$ S1S00 ONI1Va3d0 031VW11S3 llSNti211 210d SNOIldOOTIV ONfI� N011kaMOdSNb211 1t/001 00-6661• AA 1V101 AMMO 1V101 A311VA 30t13A OIVd V 1 A311VA 30213A O1Vd 1V101 A311VA V1131-10V00 AON3OV 11SNVt11 3NI1NfIS 1V101 A1Nf100 N2131S3/0 >iN 1102i13 W AON3DV lISM 11 301St13A1 1 S301A213S 1V103dS 301S213A1H VN01100 1NOINflb'39 ONINNVEI 2101V213d0 11SNV211 19091 736-2235 -. (909) 279-3627 (FAX) AnneP@ci.corona.ca.us IE-maill September 15, 1999 OFFICE OF: 047597 PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT 815 WEST SIXTH STREET, P.O. BOX 940, CORONA, CALIFORNIA 91718-0940 CORONA CITY HALL - ONLINE, ALL THE TIME (http://ci.corona.ca.us) PWA-0603-99 13.54 Jerry Rivera, Program Manager Riverside County Transportation Commission 3560 University Avenue #100 Riverside, CA 92501 SUBJECT: TDA CLAIM FOR FY 1999/2000 You should have received a letter dated September 2, 1999 from the Acting Public Works Director, John Licata, indicating that the City of Corona did not have any carryover funds available for the Dial -a -Ride program at the end of the fiscal year. Therefore, the City requests that the $29,067 be re -allocated back to the program. In our last conversation, you indicated that the October RCTC Commission meeting would be the next opportunity to increase the allocation to include the $29,067 for the City of Corona. Furthermore, upon completion of an audit that was just performed by Ernst & Young, it was found that there is a deficit of $25,832 in Capital Expenses for the FY 98/99 due to unexpected added costs in the purchase of vehicles. A surplus of $5,925 was identified in Operating Funds, therefore, the City is seeking RCTC's permission to apply these funds towards the deficit leaving a balance of $19,907 in unfunded capital expense. The City hereby requests an additional $19,907 allocation to cover the shortfall in capital expenses due to the purchase of vehicles during FY 98/99. Please call if you have any questions. Sincerely, C --24_ t,L�,,c ANNE PALATINO Transportation Planner AP/Irt wp/u:lltrhead PWA-0575-99 1.14 OFFICE OF: PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT 815 WEST SIXTH STREET (P.O. BOX 940), CORONA, CALIFORNIA 91718-0940 (909) 736-2235 (909) 279-3627 (FAX) AnneP@ci.corona.ca.us September 2, 1999 CORONA CITY HALL - ONLINE, ALL THE TIME http://www.ci.corona.ca.us) Jerry Rivera, Program Manager Riverside County Transportation Commission 3560 University Avenue #100 Riverside, CA 92501 SUBJECT: TDA CLAIM FORM FOR FY 1999-2000 The TDA Local Transportation Fund Claim (LTF) form for the amount of $496,333 is in the process of being completed and will be sent to you as soon as all signatures are secured. Upon review of the "FY 99/00 LTF Allocations for Transit" table, dated June 22, 1999, it came to my attention that the estimated carryover funds in the amount of $29,067 is shown as available funds. This is incorrect. The City does not have carryover funds, in fact, funds had to be transferred into the Dial -A -Ride account from another fund. Supporting documentation is attached. Please consider this request for the required funds and revise the allocation for the City of Corona to reflect the additional $29,067 necessary for Operations of the Transit Service for FY 99/00. If you have any questions, please call Anne Palatino, Transportation Planner at (909) 736-2235 or me at (909) 736-2483. incerely, OHN N. LICATA �- Acting Public Works Director J N UAP/Irt G:IGCIDOCS1pwa057599. doc M RIVERS/DE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMM/SS/ON DATE: October 13, 1999 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Budget & Implementation Committee Paul Blackwelder, Deputy Executive Director THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Highway 111 Advancement - Palm Springs Request BUDGET & IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: In conjunction with CVAG, approve the City of Palm Springs' request to advance the construction of improvements at Gene Autry Trail and Highway 111 and reimbursement from the Measure A Highway Program for the appropriate share of funding at the completion of construction. This action shall not change the previous action of the Commission to repay the loan from CVAG (to complete Tier II of the Cathedral City Highway 111 project) as the first priority of any available Measure "A" Highway 111 funds. Furthermore, any interest charges to make this money available to the City of Palm Springs will be paid by the City and will not be funded from the Measure "A" Highway 111 account. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Attached is a letter from the City of Palm Springs requesting the Commission to permit them to advance the Highway 111 improvement project at Gene Autry Trail and be reimbursed from the Measure A Highway Program at the completion of construction. As a part of our efforts to advance all of the highway improvements identified in the Measure A Highway Program, the City of Palm Springs was authorized to use funding left over from the Sunrise Avenue/ Hwy 111 improvement project to design the Tier II project for improvements on Hwy 111 at Gene Autry Trail. They have completed the design and have received the necessary permits to proceed with construction from Caltrans. The estimated cost for the project is $997,000 of which Measure A is estimated to cover 70% - 75% of the cost with local funds providing the remainder of the funding required. The Measure A portion of the cost will be based on the cost of the improvements on Highway 111 using the alignment of Highway 111 as it was at the time Measure A was approved. This cost sharing is consistent with a policy previously recommended by CVAG, adopted by the Commission, and used for similar projects. The most recent cash flow analysis of the Measure A Highway Program in the Coachella Valley shows that the funding available for improvements on Highway 1 1 1 are under subscribed. Based on the schedule for completion of the higher priority projects which are currently in process, the advancement of the Gene Autry Trail project can be accommodated either within the current pay as you go cash flow or, with short term borrowing. Short term borrowing for the project, if required, can easily be accommodated by projected revenues, will not delay any other projects, and would cost less than the additional expenses which will be incurred if the project is not advanced. The CVAG Technical Advisory Committee has reviewed the request and recommended approval to the Executive Committee. The Executive Committee approved this item at their meeting on September 27, 1999 with the following conditions: 1. That this approval will not change the priority status to repay the CVAG loan that was obtained to advance the Tier II Cathedral City project. 2. Measure "A" Highway 111 funds will not be used to pay interest charges resulting from advancing this project. The City of Palm Springs must pay any fees resulting from borrowing to advance this project. Attachment Financial Assessment Project Cost $997,000 Source of Funds Included in Fiscal Year Budget Measure A $698,000 to $ 747,000 and Local N Year Included in Program Budget Y Year Programmed 2004 Approved Allocation Year of Allocation Budget Adjustment Required Y Financial Impact Not Applicable 047326 City of Palm s S rin. P g Office of the City Manager 2rMl tONIu.CZ L.11c m VI! • 1,..1in j-r:nc.. TEL: c 2:.>,_r i • FAX•.-6tr, c_....•.C.- • TDU August 12, 1999 Mr. Eric Haley Executive Director Riverside County Transportation Commission 3560 University Avenue, Suitt 100 Riverside, California 92501 -Attentione<Paul Blackwelder, Deputy Executive Director Re: Gene Autry & Highway 111 Street Widening Request for Reimbursement Agreement (($7 000 Construction Phase) or Project) Dear Mr Haley: This letter of request is pursuant to phone conversations with Paul Blackwelder and Louie Martin of your RCTC staff. Plans and specifications (prepared by an RCTC consulting engineer contract) have been completed and Caltrans has issued permits for the street widening project at the Gene Autry Trail & Highway 111 Intersection. The construction funding for this project, however, has not yet been budgeted by RCM because the project is a Highway 111 Tier-2 Corridor Project and currently only Tier-1 Corridor funds have been allocated by RCTC for Coachella Valley Highway 111 projects. . RCTC staff had suggested that if other Coachella Valley cities have Hwy. 111 Corridor projects that are being delayed and will not be able to go to construction for another year or two, that possibly the City of Palm Spy could request a loan of the Tier-1 funding allocation from a city, with the provision that the funding be restored when RCTC allocates Tier-2 funding in about year 2001. After discussing this proposal with other Coachella Valley cities and with RCTC and CVAG staff members, it appears that no other Coachella Valley projects are now delayed and the other cities wash to proceed with construction of their projects in a timely fashion. The design for Geri Autry & Hwy. 111 has been complete for about 1 year and met current Caltrans design standards at that time. However any further delays would require new pezrniu, and Caimans will require "metric" design requirements, which would cause the project to go back for redesign. A new design contract would be required (RCCTC's previous design consultant for this project is no longer in business) and it could take another year to go through the RFP, design Y: ►o,awavMTCEricHal•ys 1 t tg.iar.wpd Post Office Box 2743 • Palm Springs, California 92263-2743 and then Caltrans permit stages again. The current Caltrans permit expires on 8/3I/99, but the City Engineer can request a time extension on the permit. ' Since the Gene Autry & Hwy. 111 project is ready to go to bid, we respectfully request that RCTC reimburse the City for the proportionate RCTC shale of costs as soon as possible upon completion of work and the City of Palm Springs could proceed with the work, advancing our Local Measure A funding for the entire construction cost of the project during the construction phase. We could expedite the bidding process and with RCTC's cooperation, insure that the project would be awarded as soon as possible. The City Council would need to make an exception to the City's Construction Policy however, which restricts major street construction to the summer months to avoid conflict with prime- season winter and tourist traffic. Your assistance in obtaining funding by RCTC for this project will be greatly appreciated by the City of Palm Springs. If you have any questions, please call me. Also Bob Mohler, Grants and Government Affairs Manager, can be contacted by phone at (760) 323- 8250, or Dave Barakian, City Engineer at (760) 323- 8253 for further information. Rob W Parkins City Manager Attachments: I. Location Map 2. RCTC's Engineer's Estimate , including coast. contingency=S977,000 cc: Allen Smoot, Assistant City Manager -Operations Bob Mohler, Grants and Government Affairs Manager Dave Barakian, City Engineer Patricia "Corky" Larson, CVAG Allyn Waggle, CVAG YADaalDoclttCreGeneAul y!1.299.)tr,wpd P.02 (Prepared by Engineering Resources -formerly NBS Lowry) BID SCHEDULE Schedule of Prices for Construction of INTERSECTION AND STORM DRAIN IMPROVEMENTS GENE AUTRY TRAIL AT STATE HIGHWAY 111, in the City of Palm Springs, California Item Final No. is • e. 7 9 10. 11. 12 F Pavement Exratmg P.0 C. Arid A.C. Deeerl Wt1aI MOdI¢atiorl an Sheehng, Shaine ano Gracing or E LiYalefli Method Clearing. Gnawing and Retnovah Remove EicrWe rb end.OtrHer Ramer., Emsw16 P.C.C. Sidewalk Grind Eutsting A.C. Pavement City Project No. 92.38 Remo.. and Chown of Pipes, Heedwslls, FowlnQand RaSkt�_ Roadway Excavation imported Batton► •r Crushed AQra80e Saes IClikaa Iq A C PavenlMu 8' PCC Curb 8' PCC Cure oral 04,gter PCC Cross Gutter and S PCC Sidewalk Aeolis R But = urnout Catch Basin No. 1 R C FC6 W pC sr a e r MONztetai E111011csl RCP . Class 8 PCC NaaQwayt, Witngwebe. Footings and SD. ilia. 10+22.94 • PC P 8�1e. 110, � . Footings and 18" RCP C. 24" RCP Manhole o. 1 RCFC a WCD Manhole ko. 4 RCFC A WCG /11111 'M� T.• ir4 081 MN ►rokctMusyrer sz x corm MrQx Tianostata anarmay 111 o^•arnMr lane Inlet Estenatad Quantity . Unit 68,250 2,170 Unit Price lS A110wamet LS LS SF LF s 1C.eso SF 3 11,082 SF 375 3,500 2,310 2,275 173 3.173 200 1,000 1.320 2 2,070 1 132 811 2 2 235 1.5 CY S CY 3 CY TON IF S LF S 5F SF 3 EA S SF $ EA 3 LF EA • EA I.F $ LF s 10, 000.00 5,000 00 0 25 2 00 025 Amount 3 30 003 00 10,000.00 5 000.00 17.063 00 4 4,340 00 i 2.713.00 1.00 , i�+082 00 7.500 00 1.00 7,500 00 S 375 00 7.00 ; 24.503.00 20.00 = 45,200.00 25.00 IP 63,200.00 I 10 00 $ 1.730 00 12.00 36,078.00 4,90 S 800.00 2.50 2,500.00 1.500 00 $ 6,000 00 6.00 S 7,920.00 i 183.00 $ 309,300.00 000.00 3,090.00 45.00 3.000.03 • 3,000.00 5,940,00 60.00 s 48,660 00 EA S 2,000.00 S 2,000.00 EA $ 3.600.00 7,000.00 EA S 3.000.00 S e 000.03 CY 20 00 _ S 6J00.00 UNIT PRICE BID SCHEDULE BID FORMS - PAGE 1 I P-Q3 BID SCHEDULE (Continued) City Project No. 82-36 TOTAL OF ALL ITEMS OF THE BID SCHEDULE 's (Pnpe in %Ivies) l;d nem Numbers Followed by Me lener'P Deslanop+q in t b ah Fuel Pay Items. week' Number in -la • auw ernoweann petarmr tt t u(Construction ) + 3 t: Mr Inspection/ TIttltillgi Aarnm-rat; � 5977.049 (Total Construction �) •) USE s1,77,0oo UNIT PRICE BID SCHEDULE 810 FORMS - PAGE 2 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE October 13, 1999 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Plans and Programs Committee Hideo Sugita, Director of Planning and Programming THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Community Environmental Transportation Acceptability Process (CETAP) - Working Paper #1 Overview of Candidate Corridors #2 Draft Corridor Evaluation Criteria PLANS AND PROGRAMS COMMITTEE & STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Receive and File BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The CETAP Advisory Committee received the attached working papers at their meeting on September 7, 1999. At that meeting, the Advisory Committee broke into groups and had their initial discussion on the prospective candidate corridors. Additionally, the Advisory Committee received a presentation and had their initial discussion on the prospective Corridor Evaluation Criteria. The Advisory Committee requested additional time to review and formulate comments on the working papers. It is important to note that the working papers are "works in progress" and the structure of the CETAP development process will have the CETAP Advisory Committee develop and forward recommendation(s) to the CETAP Management Committee which will then forward, with or without comments, the recommendations to the RCTC and County Board of Supervisors. Working paper #1 identifies 15 prospective corridors. These corridors were identified through the public workshops conducted from June though early August. While this corridor evaluation process is on going, it is important to note that RCTC has approved an agreement with Sanbag and the City of Fontana to perform a north/south corridor study. This work, under a separate contract, will be shared and coordinated with the CETAP effort. Working paper #2 identifies proposed criteria to evaluate the prospective corridors in Phase I of the CETAP effort. At this time, the CETAP Advisory Committee has not taken any action on the proposed criteria for Phase I but continues to discuss the criteria as corridor specific analysis comes before them. On September 21, 1999 the CETAP Advisory Committee met for the third time and began work on identifying potential corridor alternatives. e.g. if the prospective corridor was from Moreno Valley to Riverside what alternatives could assist in meeting the travel demand? Intercity bus service?, commuter rail? Conventional highway improvements?, new corridor? etc.. Steve Smith of the Riverside County Integrated Planning (RCIP) Team will be present at the Plans and Programs Committee to provide an overview of the CETAP Advisory Committee's work to date. RIVERSIDE COUNTY INTEGRATED PLAN COMMUNITY, ENVIRONMENTAL, AND TRANSPORTATION ACCEPTABILITY PROCESS (CETAP) WORKING PAPER NO. 1 OVERVIEW OF CANDIDATE CORRIDORS (DRAFT) Prepared for the County of Riverside Transportation and Land Management Agency and the Riverside County Transportation Commission Prepared by TransCore with Jacobs/Sverdrup, Dudek Associates, and LSA Associates August 27, 1999 INTRODUCTION The purpose of this working paper is to provide an overview of candidate transportation corridors being examined for the Community, Environmental, and Transportation Acceptability Process (CETAP) in Western Riverside County. CETAP is one part of a three-part planning and implementation program being undertaken by the County of Riverside and the Riverside County Transportation Commission. The other two parts are the development of a Multi -Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) and a new county General Plan. A central purpose of CETAP is to examine the need and opportunities for the development of new or expanded transportation corridors in western Riverside County. The prospect of continued high population and employment growth rates is creating a sense of urgency for determining potential locations for new or expanded highway and/or transit corridors in western county. However, it is important to carry out these activities in concert with the identification of habitat requirements, land use plans, and other public infrastructure needs. Phase I of CETAP (to be completed by December 1999) will result in decisions to forward selected corridors for more detailed study in Phase II. In addition, recommendations will be formulated on corridors not selected for further analysis in Phase II. Phase II will conduct planning, engineering, and environmental studies on two to four selected corridors, depending on the complexity. The original concept of CETAP was to develop one east -west corridor and one north -south corridor. Draft environmental documents will be prepared at the end of Phase II, to be completed in mid- 2001. Phase III will consist of hearings and decisions on corridor recommendations, which could include preservation of Tight -of -way or other actions associated with the implementation of future transportation corridors. CETAP is considering all modes of travel. The CETAP effort is proceeding under the overall direction of the Riverside County Board of Supervisors and the RCTC Commissioners. An advisory committee has been established to guide the CETAP effort. At the advisory committee meeting of August 3, 1999, a set of candidate corridors was identified and discussed. This working paper provides a general overview of the corridors being examined. This paper does not constitute the evaluation of corridors. Rather, it provides general information to acquaint the advisory committee and the interested public with the corridors. The corridors will undergo an evaluation process to identify those corridors that should be forwarded to Phase II of CETAP. LISTING OF CORRIDORS The following represents a listing of candidate corridors for examination in the CETAP program. These areas are for purposes of analysis only and do not imply any specific type of improvement. There is no priority implied by the listing. The analysis areas provide a way of organizing information as it is obtained, so that the need for transportation improvement in the various corridors can be assessed and compared. There is overlap in the corridors, and it is possible that the corridors may be subdivided later in CETAP. The primary means for defining the corridors involved linking major origins and destinations and considering general topographic features of the County. Although a number of the corridors are generally aligned with certain major facilities, the primary defining points of each corridor are the communities connected by the facilities or services. The candidate corridors include: • Riverside to Los Angeles County • Riverside County to Orange County • Riverside to Chino Hills • Riverside to Fontana • Moreno Valley/Riverside to Corona • Moreno Valley to San Bernardino County • Hemet to Corona/Lake Elsinore • Hemet to Riverside • Temecula to Corona/Ontario • Temecula to Riverside • Temecula to San Diego • Banning/Beaumont to Redlands/San Bernardino • Banning/Beaumont to Riverside • Banning/Beaumont to Temecula • Coachella Valley to Banning/Beaumont CETAP — Overview of Candidate Corridors Draft, August 27 1999 Page I CORRIDOR DESCRIPTIONS The remainder of this working paper provides a general overview of the corridors, along with selected facts and statistics that give context to the discussion. Each corridor is represented by a map on the left and accompanying text on the right. The discussion of each corridor includes a corridor definition, existing highway facilities, existing transit services, previous studies (where applicable), significant transportation issues, and significant environmental issues. CETAP — Overview of Candidate Corridors Page 3 Draft, August 27 1999 -\ Riverside to Los Angeles County Riverside County Integrated Plan Community Environmental Transportation Acceptability Process RIVERSIDE/CORONA TO LOS ANGELES COUNTY CORRIDOR Corridor Definition This corridor represents the general movement of people and goods from areas between Riverside and Corona toward Los Angeles County. Existing Highway Facilities Although Los Angeles County does not physically border on Riverside County, there is still substantial interaction between the two. A portion of San Bernardino County separates the counties of Riverside and Los Angeles. Ontario is a major destination in the middle of the corridor. SR71 is the principal highway facility connecting the Corona area with Pomona and the freeways heading westward toward Los Angeles. In San Bernardino County, SR71 has been upgraded to freeway status with a 6-1ane to 8-lane cross section, including HOV lanes. There is a major constraint along SR-71 at its existing at -grade intersections between I-10 and SR-60. Los Angeles County has maintained that it is the responsibility of others (primarily San Bemardino County) to resolve this problem. A recent study jointly sponsored by RCTC and the San Bernardino Associated Governments (SANBAG) resulted in a decision to upgrade the Riverside County portion of SR 71, currently two lanes, to a 4-lane divided expressway. From the Riverside area, access to Los Angeles is via the SR60 Freeway and I-10, both highly congested facilities. SR60 in San Bernardino County has been upgraded to an 8/10—lane cross-section including HOV lanes. On I-10 in San Bernardino County west of I-15, an HOV lane is being added, bringing the total cross section to 10 lanes. In Riverside County, the 6-lane cross section of SR60 narrows to 4 lanes east of Valley Way, and this is being upgraded through the addition of an HOV lane in each direction. SR 60 carries approximately 100,000 vehicles per day east of Valley Way, increasing to over 200,000 per day west of I-15. Congestion on SR60 and SR71 in San Bernardino County has been somewhat relieved because of the recent improvements, but heavy congestion remains on virtually all freeways in LA County. The "Four -Comers Study" has been ongoing for approximately two years to deal with mobility issues in eastern Los Angeles and western San Bernardino County. Recommendations will be forthcoming from that effort. In addition, SCAG is studying the feasibility of truck lanes on SR60, a concept that was included as part of the Regional Transportation Plan. This study is still in its early stages. Transit Service Metrolink provides transit service from Riverside into downtown Los Angeles with seven inbound trains (5 in the morning) and 8 outbound trains (6 in the afternoon). Los Angeles can also be reached via the Fullerton line, with one train in the morning and two returning in the afternoon. Approximately 4000 passengers per day use the Riverside line. It could be approximated that the Riverside line of Metrolink carries in the range of 8-10% of person trips from this area of northwestern Riverside County into Los Angeles County in the a.m. peak period (estimated based on ratio of Metrolink riders to freeway trips). It is expected that Metrolink carries a high percentage of all commuters from the Riverside area that are bound to downtown Los Angeles. RTA provides transit service from Riverside to Jurupa. The Inland Empire Connection, route 110 provides service from San Bernardino to Ontario Airport and Montclair. This can be reached through the Inland Empire Connection route 100, which provides service on an hourly basis between downtown Riverside and downtown San Bernardino. Transportation Issues Most of the transportation issues in this corridor revolve around maintaining mobility for longer distance travelers between Corona/Riverside and the eastern and central portions of Los Angeles County. Maintaining mobility for trucks, particularly SR60, will continue to be a major concern. For the most part, other efforts such as the Four Comers Study and Truck Lane Feasibility Study are addressing issues in this area. Approximately 15 percent of SR 60 traffic is trucking traffic on a daily basis. Land Use and Environmental Issues The Mira Loma and I-10/1-15 interchange areas are developing rapidly as industrial and distribution centers. Industrial development is expanding easterly along the I-10 corridor, while major residential development is planned south of SR 60 in agricultural preserve areas of Ontario and Chino. Thus, both I-10 and SR 60 between San Bernardino and Los Angeles Counties will become heavily congested in the future, even with the opening of the Route 30 freeway. Biological resources of concern in this area include Hidden Valley wildlife area along the Santa Ana River and the Jurupa Mountains. Habitat for the Delhi sands flower loving fly may also be present north of SR-60 toward Ontario. CETAP — Overview of Candidate Corridors page 5 Draft, August 27 1999 l Riverside to Orange County i do Calimesa ROmoland Wincheste 1 try Valley Aguanga 0�. Cabazon nter An. Riverside County Integrated Plan Community Environmental Transportation Acceptability Process RIVERSIDE COUNTY TO ORANGE COUNTY CORRIDOR Corridor Definition This corridor represents the movement of people and goods across the entire border between Riverside County and Orange County. Existing Highway Facilities The major highway facility linking Riverside County and Orange County is the State Route 91 Freeway. West of I-15, SR 91 is generally an eight -lane to ten -lane facility. It currently carries an average of 232,000 vehicles per day. West of the county line, the FASTRAK toll lanes provide two additional lanes in each direction. The toll lanes were built as a private toll facility and are operated by the Califomia Private Transportation Company (CFTC). Tolls vary by time of day, with the highest tolls in the peak period and peak direction of travel (typically $3.50). East of the county line, one of the lanes in each direction has been designated as an HOV lane. SR 91 is one of the most congested highway facilities in Southern California, with normal eastbound delays beginning approximately 5 a.m. and continuing through 9 a.m. The eastbound p.m. congestion typically begins at 3 p.m. and continues at least until 7 p.m. Traffic on the toll road is highly peaked, with almost 90 percent of the toll traffic in the a.m. peak period destined toward Orange County. In the p.m. peak period, approximately 80 percent of the toll traffic is proceeding eastbound. The only other intercounty facility is SR 74, Ortega Highway, which crosses the Cleveland National Forest west of Lake Elsinore. Ortega Highway is a winding, two-lane facility and carries approximately 10,000 vehicles per day. A number of studies have been conducted in the SR 91 corridor. The most recent was the SR 71/91 Improvement Study, in which several alternatives for lane additions were explored, ranging from new toll lanes, HOV lanes, and general purpose lanes. A 1989 privately sponsored study "The Road to the Coast" examined the possibility of a new facility in the general vicinity of Ortega Highway. A 1995 study examined the possibility of an extension of Cajalco Road westward as an intercounty facility. A 1997 study explored the possibility of a roadway or toll road connecting Cajalco Road with SR 71. Except for the possibility of lane additions on SR 91, the concepts have been generally rejected due to the high cost and/or community impact. Existing Transit Service Transit service is provided in the SR 91 corridor through the Inland Empire/Orange County line of Metrolink, with five trains per day in each direction. Ridership has been approximately 1800 passengers per day. The RTA provides bus service between Riverside and Orange, with 7 trips per day. Stops are made in south Riverside and Corona. Transportation Issues Based on SCAG demographic forecasts, traffic demand on SR 91 is shown to increase by approximately 80 percent between now and year 2020. This would mean traffic volumes in excess of 400,000 vehicles per day. The highest volume freeway in the U.S. currently is approximately 330.000 vehicles per day. One of the major questions that needs to be addressed in CETAP is the extent to which adding highway capacity to Orange County will be worth the high price that will likely need to be paid or whether the County should invest in its internal roadway system. The CPTC has a 30-year franchise agreement with Caltrans for the operation of the FASTRAK lanes. Among the provisions of the agreement is the prohibition against building parallel capacity to the FASTRAK lanes within two miles on either side without the consent of the CPTC. Land Use and Environmental Issues Creation of a new corridor between Riverside and Orange Counties will require access through the Cleveland National Forest. A wide variety of biological resources are present in the National Forest. Wetland resources are also present in the vicinity of Lake Elsinore. Any such corridor will need to be handled with extreme sensitivity due to the potential for substantial landform modification and biotic resource impacts. Other issues include the potential effect on traffic patterns on Orange County highways, as well as the landform modification and biotic resource impacts involved in creating a connection to the Orange County transportation system. CETAP — Overview of Candidate Corridors Page 7 Draft, August 27 1999 Riverside to Chino Hills Homeland moland 1 Winchestef� Riverside County Integrated Plan Community Environmental Transportation Acceptability Process RIVERSIDE TO CHINO HILLS CORRIDOR Corridor Definition This corridor represents the area from Riverside to the vicinity of Chino Hills/SR142. Existing Highways Facilities This corridor is included because of the amount of development activity expected in the future in this part of Riverside and San Bernardino County. With recent annexations of the agricultural preserve by the cities of Chino and Ontario, and development of the Eastvale Community Plan by Riverside County, the potential for future growth is extensive. A master plan has recently been prepared for the agricultural preserve. In addition, the I-15 corridor continues to receive substantial attention in terms of development. These factors combined make both the need and opportunity for corridor development substantial. There is currently limited access in an east -west direction in this area. There are relatively few arterial streets, namely Limonite and Arlington Avenues. Transit Service A RTA transit route proceeds westward from Riverside onto Limonite Ave., terminating at Jurupa Valley High School on Etiwanda. Transit service also exists on Arlington Ave. connecting Riverside and Norco. Transportation Issues The major transportation issue in this area is the expected growth in this corridor, providing a significant opportunity for the definition of a connection that would link Riverside and the developing areas in San Bernardino County. One of the major constraints in this area is the Santa Ana River, which limits both east -west and north -south mobility. The I-15 freeway and Van Buren Avenue are the only significant crossings of the river west of downtown Riverside. Land Use and Environmental Issues Major development is planned in the existing agricultural preserve south of the City of Ontario, which will add several thousand dwelling units and hundreds of acres of commercial/industrial development to the southwest San Bernardino County developed land inventory. As a result, excess capacity on San Bernardino County roadways to accommodate increased traffic from Riverside County is not likely. The Riverside to Chino Hills corridor is and will remain primarily residential in nature, and requires connections to major employment areas along the I-10 freeway and Orange County. San Bernardino County and the City of Chino Hills have dropped widening of SR-142 (Carbon Canyon Road) as an alternative connection to Orange County employment centers, and are reviewing other connections. Any new connection will entail substantial landform modification and biotic resource impacts, and will impact traffic patterns on existing roadways within Orange County. CETAP — Overview of Candidate Corridors Page 9 Draft, August 27 1999 Riverside to Fontana if N !'C Glen Ivy 4 Rif 1 GaHills j Good Hope r r\ s 0- Mtirrieta ���9e / /� 1St Springs fir. \ N 1 � r % �i� iJ l `/ y f�fyfhvild ountain ` enter Riverside County Integrated Plan Community Environmental Transportation Acceptability Process RIVERSIDE TO FONTANA CORRIDOR Corridor Definition This corridor is defined as a north -south corridor roughly between Citrus Ave. and Riverside Ave. Existing Highway Facilities Communities in this area have expressed the desire for additional north/south mobility. Currently, Sierra Ave. in Fontana crosses the county line, but topography makes the provision of additional mobility difficult. The existing route along Sierra Avenue to Valley Way is heavily traveled, and is hampered by substantial congestion at the I-10/Sierra Avenue and SR-60/Valley Way interchanges.There is currently a study being conducted in this north/south corridor as a cooperative effort between agencies in the two counties. An earlier study, the "Sierra -Cedar Corridor Study" took an initial look at mobility options in this corridor area. Transit Service RTA route 21 provides transit service between Riverside and Country Village. Transfers can then be made to Omnitrans' routes 21 and 71. Transportation issues The primary transportation issue in this corridor is finding ways to improve north/south mobility across the county line. RCTC and SANBAG have embarked on a program to identify potential roadway connections between Riverside and Fontana; however, steep hillsides with rock at shallow depths serve as a major barrier to movement between Riverside and San Bernardino Counties (I-10 and SR-60 corridors) in this area. Land Use and Environmental Issues The location of existing and former mining operations, as well as the Stringfellow Acid Pits remediation area present additional constraints. Noise and displacement impacts within existing communities are a possibility in the portion of this corridor north of the hills separating Riverside and San Bernardino Counties. Biotic resource impacts map also occur along foothill areas. CETAP — Overview of Candidate Corridors Page 11 Draft, August 27 1999 Moreno Valley/Riverside to Corona --,1 Home: Corona Gardens N i Glen Ivy Woodcr AF Albe?hill Mead Valle Good Hope Sedco Hills 117 Wildomar Calimesa Winchester' I Cttrry Valley �1 Sage i Riverside County Integrated Plan Community Environmental Transportation Acceptability Process MORENO VALLEY/RIVERSIDE TO CORONA CORRIDOR Corridor Definition This corridor represents the movement of people and goods from the general vicinity of Moreno Valley to the Corona area. Existing Highway Facilities This corridor represents one of the major commuting corridors in Riverside County. The defined area includes not only the SR60/1-215 and SR91 facilities, but the area from Van Buren northward as well. It includes the March Air Re -use Base (ARB) as a major activity center. Serious traffic congestion exists on I-215/SR60 primarily in the a.m. peak period westbound and p.m. peak period eastbound. The 91/215/60 interchange is a major hindrance to mobility in this corridor, particularly for the westbound to southbound and northbound to eastbound movements, both of which back up from the merge areas onto the respective freeways. In addition, congestion occurs along SR 91 from I- 215 to Magnolia Ave. (generally a six -lane section), and on SR 91 west of I-15. SR 91 west of I-15 is the most heavily traveled roadway in the county, with approximately 230,000 vehicles per day. (See discussion on the Riverside to Orange County corridor). SR 60 in Moreno Valley carries approximately 110,000 vehicles per day. SR 604-215 carries approximately 190,000 vehicles per day. An eastbound truck lane plus HOV lanes in both directions are programmed for I-215/60 between Riverside and Box Springs. However, the improvements may not be complete for approximately 6 years. Van Buren is a four -lane major arterial highway, with occasional signalized intersections. The frontage along Van Buren is developing, with the prospect of additional development in the future. It is one of the major roadways that will serve March ARB. Transit Service RTA provides fixed route service from Moreno Valley to Riverside and from Riverside southward along Magnolia Avenue. Transportation Issues The section of SR 60/I-215 between Riverside and Box Springs acts somewhat as a "traffic funnel," serving both east -west and north -south traffic. Topography limits north -south mobility to the east, and no east -west freeways are available to the south. Travelers from Moreno Valley to Corona not only encounter significant congestion, but the freeway routing is indirect. Van Buren serves as somewhat of a "shortcut" between I-215 and SR 91, but speeds are reduced in built-up areas. Metrolink provides an alternative in the SR 91 corridor. An extension of Metrolink has been discussed from Riverside to San Jacinto, which could provide some degree of relief to the I-215 corridor. Land Use and Environmental Issues The I-215 corridor south from Moreno Valley south is expected to be one of the higher growth corridors in Riverside County in the future, both for residential and commercial/industrial development. This will place increasing pressure on the congested SR-60/SR-91/I-215 interchange, as well as on east -west arterials south of the City of Riverside. Creation of a new corridor or widening of existing facilities will entail biotic resource and possibly landform modification impacts. In addition, depending upon location, noise and displacement impacts on existing residential neighborhoods could also occur. Overall, this corridor is heavily residential in character. In the Moreno Valley area, important biological resources include Sycamore Canyon, Box Springs Mountains, and Reche Canyon. CETAP — Overview of Candidate Corridors Page 13 Draft, August 27 1999 Moreno Valley to San Bernardino 1 Ontario Is d' Glen Albe r 1 ar. Gavilan Good Hope je ,n f Calimesa rry Valley �n Sage i v Cabman untain \_ rater Riverside County Integrated Plan Community Environmental Transportation Acceptability Process i An MORENO VALLEY TO SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY CORRIDOR Corridor Definition This corridor is defined as representing the north -south travel demand from Moreno Valley to San Bernardino County. This could include destinations of the City of San Bernardino, Loma Linda, Redlands, Highland, or Yucaipa. Existing Highway Facilities Commuters from Moreno Valley to San Bernardino have five route choices. 1) SR 60 to the City of Riverside, then I-215 to San Bernardino. This facility is a very congested route during peak periods. 2) a less congested route is SR 60 east to Beaumont then West on I-10 to destinations between San Bernardino and Yucaipa. This is a much longer commute but incurs less delay. The next three routes are more direct but are two lane roads through hilly terrain and have much lower design speeds. 3) Pigeon Pass. 4) Reche Canyon Road. 5) Redlands Boulevard to San Timoteo Canyon Road. The North -South Corridor Study, for which SANBAG was lead agency, examined highway alternatives between Moreno Valley and San Bernardino County, but no acceptable alternatives were found at that time. Transit Service Bus service exists for this route. A one hour 15 minute bus trip from Moreno Valley to San Bernardino requires a transfer in the City of Riverside. Transportation Issues: Moreno Valley experienced significant growth in the late 80's and early 90's. The city now has a population in excess of 100,000 people with anticipated growth south and east. The traffic volumes on this segment of SR 60 are projected to increase by 70% and I-215 by 110% by year 2020. Additional routes or improvements to the three existing routes presents challenges through the hilly terrain. Any new routes must be designed for safety first, which could require new alignment and significant right-of-way takes. Land Use and Environmental Issues: Each of these several possible routes for transportation improvement would entail substantial landform modification and biotic resource impacts. In addition, this corridor will affect traffic patterns on San Bernardino County highways and roadways. Biological resources are present along the Reche Canyon Road and Davis Road corridors as well as within San Timoteo Canyon and the San Jacinto wildlife area. CETAP — Overview of Candidate Corridors Page 15 Draft, August 27 1999 Hemet to Corona/Lake Elsinore Home Gard El Cerrito Glen Ivy N 10 4' grov i Mead Valle oland Winchester IJ Wildomar Valley MOM Riverside County Integrated Plan Community Environmental Transportation Acceptability Process HEMET TO CORONA/LAKE ELSINORE CORRIDOR Corridor Definition: This corridor represents the movement of people and goods between the cities of Hemet/San Jacinto and the area along I-15 between Corona/Lake Elsinore. Existing Highway Facilities: This corridor has been defined as a broad swath of land area that links the Hemet/San JacintoNalle Vista area with areas along 1-15 between Corona and Lake Elsinore. It has been defined broadly, because it is potentially linked with decisions that may come out of the analysis of the Riverside to Orange County Corridor. For example, additional transportation capacity could be conceived through expansion of the SR 91 or through a new route to the south of SR 91. Continuing connectivity to the east toward Hemet could be a logical and important supporting strategy. Currently, the connection between Corona and Hemet is via multiple routes: SR 74, I-215, I-15, and SR 91 or via the Ramona Expressway and Cajalco Road connecting to the I-15 and SR 91. SR 74, I-215 and I-15 connect Hemet to Lake Elsinore. SR 74 is generally a two-lane roadway, as is Cajalco Road. The Ramona Expressway is a four -lane divided facility eastward from 1-215 but reduces to two lanes as it approaches Lake Perris. Right-of-way exists for eventual widening to the four -lane divided cross section. I-215 is a four -lane to six -lane freeway. 1-15 is generally a six -lane facility south of SR 91. Congestion in this corridor is currently limited, but substantial growth is expected in this corridor. Improvement of SR 74 is part of the Measure A half -cent sales tax program. Currently, realignment of curves is planned for SR 74 between I-215 and I-15, but no lane additions are included in the program. Transit Service The Riverside Transit Agency provides bus service between Hemet and Lake Elsinore, with a transfer in Perris. This trip takes approximately one and one half-hours. Bus service between Hemet and Corona requires a transfer in Riverside. This trip takes approximately two and one quarter hours. Buses depart from each end approximately every hour and fifteen minutes. Transportation Issues The traffic volumes on this segment of I-15 are projected to increase some 140% by year 2020 and by some 200% on parts of 1-215. Some of what is decided in this corridor will be dependent on decisions concerning the Riverside County to Orange County Corridor. Improvements to the SR 91 may suggest reinforcing the connection between Hemet and Corona. A new facility to Orange County south of SR 91 may suggest reinforcing the connection between Hemet and points to the south of Corona. Regardless of what occurs to Orange County, improved route continuity between Hemet and I-15 should be explored. Land Use and Environmental Issues: The sharp increase in anticipated traffic volumes within this corridor reflects projected high residential, commercial, and industrial growth. Even with projected commercial/industrial growth, this corridor will be primarily residential in character, and a connection to major employment centers in the Riverside, Ontario/Fontana, and Orange County areas may be needed in conjunction with this route. Substantial landfonm modification impacts can be expected if this corridor entails the development of new routes as opposed to widening of existing roadways. SR 74, Ramona Expressway, and Cajalco Road all pass through areas of sensitive habitat and community concerns. including biological resources associated with the San Jacinto River, Mystic Lake and Potrero Creek. CETAP — Overview of Candidate Corridors Page 17 Draft, August 27 1999 Hemet to Riverside Glen Ivy N Gavila Good Hope Albe 9 Sedco Hills i (® Wildomar Calimesa c Ramoland Wincheste rl I� MOrrieta H6tSprings l Riverside County Integrated Plan Community Environmental Transportation Acceptability Process Cab HEMET TO RIVERSIDE CORRIDOR Corridor Definition This corridor represents the movement of people and goods between the cities of Hemet and Riverside. Existing Highway Facilities SR 74, Ramona Expressway and I- 215 are facilities that can be used to connect Hemet to Riverside's central business district. The volumes and congestion problems along I-215 have been mentioned in the discussion of the Moreno Valley to Riverside corridor. I- 215 is a four -lane to six -lane facility and carries approximately 106,000vehicles per day south of SR 60. The Ramona expressway is a four -lane divided facility eastward from I-215 but reduces to two lanes as it approaches Lake Perris. Right-of-way exists for eventual widening to the four -lane divided cross section. Van Buren Boulevard can also be used for access to Riverside. It is a four -lane and six -lane urban arterial.. Signalization along Van Buren Boulevard is currently limited, but adjacent development is increasing, which will result in a degradation of speeds. The traffic volumes on this segment of I-215 are projected to increase by 110% to 200% by year 2020. Transit Service The RTA provides bus service between Hemet and Riverside.. This trip takes approximately one and one half-hours. Bus headways average slightly over one hour. The San Jacinto branch line of the former Santa FeRailway is in the north end of the corridor and proceeds east to Hemet. RCTC purchased the right-of- way for this line to preserve the option of eventually extending Metrolink beyond Riverside. Significant investment in track repairs is needed for service to be provided at reasonable speeds. Transportation Issues This is a high growth corridor. There are also significant opportunities in this corridor to plan land use in coordination with transportation. March ARB is expected to become a major employment hub, and well - planned transportation service to residential areas to the south and east could prove effective. Improvement to the I-215/SR 60 segment through Box Springs can be considered critical to the connection between Riverside and Hemet. Strategies for preserving mobility along Van Buren Boulevard should be examined as well, given the importance of its linkage to SR 91 and the City of Riverside. Land Use and Environmental Issues This corridor represents a northerly alternative to a Hemet to Corona/Lake Elsinore corridor, and shares similar environmental and land use issues. Even with projected commercial/industrial growth, this corridor will be primarily residential in character, and a connection to major employment centers in the Ontario/Fontana and Orange County areas may be useful in conjunction with this route. Sensitive biological resources existin the area, associated with the San Jacinto River, Mystic Lake and Potrero Creek. In addition, substantial landform modification impacts can be expected from major transportation improvements. In some locations, existing developed areas might not be avoided, leading to noise and displacement impacts. CETAP — Overview of Candidate Corridors Page 19 Draft, August 27 1999 Temecula to Corona/Ontario 1! �i i San Bernardin Cagmesa Aguanga Cabazon } edvshvi ountain� nter Riverside County Integrated Plan Community Environmental Transportation Acceptability Process TEMECULA TO CORONA/ONTARIO CORRIDOR Corridor Definition This corridor includes the area from the Cleveland National Forest to the areas east of I-15. Existing Highway Facilities This corridor is dominated by 1-15, which carries traffic from Temecula up to Corona and into Orange County, or beyond Corona to Ontario and Los Angeles County via either I-15 or SR 71. The movement of people and goods to Orange County will be addressed in the Riverside County to Orange County corridor. I-15 is generally six lanes through this corridor, but widens south of its junction with I-215. It carries approximately 133,000 vehicles per day north of SR 91, 136,000 vehicles per day south of SR 91 and 134,000 vehicles per day south of I-15. The section of I-15 in Temecula is heavily congested, particularly in the p.m. peak period, with vehicles queued from off -ramps back onto the southbound freeway. The portion just south of SR 91 is regularly affected by traffic backed up from the westbound 91. Transit Service The primary transit services in this corridor are local services. There is no transit service providing linkages between cities along the corridor, except from Temecula to Lake Elsinore, and this requires a transfer. Greyhound provides service through this area to Riverside. Transportation Issues Rapid growth along the I-15 corridor is expected to continue. Travel demand can be expected to more than double over the next 20 years. Trucks comprise approximately 16 percent of the daily traffic, and the corridor is an important connection between San Diego and the Mexican border with the industrial/distribution facilities in the Ontario area. It is a major gateway to the Los Angeles region and therefore important economically. Land Use and Environmental Issues The I-15 corridor serves several areas of environmental, cultural, and recreational interest. Because it lies at the center of a narrow, elongated canyon/valley area, the potential for parallel routes is limited to steep hillside areas. A number of active mining operations are located within the hilly areas along the I-15 corridor limiting the potential for alternative parallel routes. Large areas of the hillsides along the east side of the corridor exhibit rock at shallow depths, and would not be easy to grade for a transportation corridor. The Cleveland National Forest to the west is an important biological resource area. Links to habitat areas to the east are important to maintaining the viability of biological resources in western Riverside County, particularly along the tributary drainages discharging from the forest. Of interest are Cajalco Creek, Marble Canyon and Indian Canyon in the vicinity of Lake Mathews, connections to the Santa Rosa Plateau, Murrieta Creek, Santa Gertrudis Creek and the Santa Margarita River/Temecula Creek. Biological resources are also present in the Sedco Hills, Wildomar, and Clinton Keith Road areas. CETAP — Overview of Candidate Corridors Page 21 Draft, August 27 1999 N Temecula to Riverside ®� Glen Ivy ,="41 J I rry Valley Y r Cabazon Oyllwild 3 untain nter Anza r Riverside County Integrated Plan Community Environmental Transportation Acceptability Process TEMECULA TO RIVERSIDE CORRIDOR Corridor Definition This corridor incorporates the area from Temecula to the City of Riverside, and is generally oriented in a north -south direction. Existing Highway Facilities The dominant transportation facility in this corridor is I-215. It was fully upgraded to freeway status in the early 1990s and is four to six lanes in width. It carries 106,000 vehicles per day just south of SR 60 and 52,000 vehicles per day just north of I-15. Other than I-215, there are no other significant north -south highway facilities. Most arterial roadways run east -west in this area. Transit Service RTA service exists from Temecula to Sun City, from Sun City to Perris, and from Perris to Downtown Riverside, generally along I-215. Service also exists from Perris to Moreno Valley. Headways for all these routes tend to be in the range of 45 minutes to one hour. The San Jacinto branch line of the former Santa Fe Railway is in the north end of the corridor and proceeds east to Hemet. RCTC purchased the right-of-way for this line to preserve the option of eventually extending Metrolink beyond Riverside. Significant investment in track repairs is needed for service to be provided at reasonable speeds. Transportation Issues Traffic in this corridor is expected to more than double over the next 20 years. If expected employment at March ARB and elsewhere in the corridor materializes, this corridor could represent a well-defined commuting corridor, with opportunities for linking residential areas to the south. The section of I-215/SR 60 in Box Springs will continue to be a major bottleneck until it is improved. Land Use and Environmental Issues The broad flat valley areas which the I-215 traverses provides opportunities to limit or avoid major landform modification and biotic resource issues which could be involved in the Temecula -Corona corridor. However, a number of specific plans have been approved along in the valleys adjacent to the I- 215 freeway. Thus, potential noise and displacement impacts would need to be considered in areas along these new developments, as well as within existing residential neighborhoods in the Murrieta, Temecula, and Perris areas. In addition, biotic and cultural resource impacts could become an issue in the northern half of the corridor. Further land development in this corridor will also increase pressure on SR-60/1-215 in Box Springs. Biological resources in the vicinity of this corridor are present in the area of the hogbacks around Murrieta Hot Springs, the Motte Rimrock SKR reserve, and the Sycamore Canyon SKR reserve. CETAP — Overview of Candidate Corridors Page 23 Draft, August 27 1999 Temecula to San Diego Riverside County Integrated Plan Community Environmental Transportation Acceptability Process TEMECULA TO SAN DIEGO CORRIDOR Corridor Definition This corridor represents the connection between the Temecula/Murrieta area and the San Diego Metropolitan area. Existing Highway Facilities Temecula is located only about an hour north of San Diego and 30 minutes north of Escondido. I-15 is the major transportation facility in this corridor, and carries approximately 90,000 vehicles per day south of Temecula. Traffic movements at the interchanges in Temecula indicate a significant movement of people to and from the south, although approximately two-thirds of the movements from the Rancho California area are to and from the north. Because of the topography, no other significant highway options exist for travel to and from San Diego. Transit Services The only transit service to the south is Greyhound, with four trips per day. However, a trip to downtown San Diego takes nearly two hours. Transportation. Issues As Temecula continues to grow and the San Diego region expands northward, the linkages between the areas will likely increase. The I-15 corridor will continue to be commercially important, carrying goods to and from Mexico and the greater San Diego region. Nearly 15 percent of the I-15 traffic is trucks, with two-thirds of these 3 or more axles. Land Use and Environmental Issues As is the case to the north, the I-15 freeway south of Temecula traverses a narrow canyon area. Widening of the freeway or establishment of a parallel corridor would entail substantial landform modification and biotic resource impacts. In addition, impacts on productive agricultural lands (avocado orchards) could occur. A major river crossing over the San Luis Rey River would also be needed. An important consideration in this area is maintaining connections between the Agua Tibial Wilderness and San Mateo Canyon Wilderness portions of Cleveland National Forest. The Santa Margarita River (Temecula River/Temecula Creek) drainage system may be an important component of that connectivity. CETAP — Overview of Candidate Corridors Page 25 Draft, August 27 1999 Banning/Beaumont to Redlands/San Bernardino Riverside County Integrated Plan Community Environmental Transportation Acceptability Process BANNINGBEAUMONT TO REDLANDS/SAN BERNARDINO CORRIDOR Corridor Definition This corridor represents the route between the cities of Banning and Beaumont and the cities of Redlands and San Bernardino. Existing Highway Facilities The main route from Banning to San Bernardino is currently Interstate 10. Between these cities, I- l 0 is generally an eight -lane freeway. Currently, there are no High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lanes along this route. Present traffic volumes on I-10 in Banning are 80,000 vehicles per day and are expected to approximately double by 2020. The only other direct facility connecting these locations is San Timoteo Canyon Road, which parallels the UPRR tracks through San Timoteo Canyon. Transit Service RTA's route 36 provides service between Banning and Yucaipa. Transfers to Omnitrans are possible to reach westward, however trip times will exceed two hours. Greyhound service is provided between Banning and San Bernardino (five trips per day). The Cities of Banning and Beaumont provide local fixed -route service in their communities.. Transportation Issues Interstate 10 currently carries a high volume of truck traffic (in excess of 15 percent in the Banning area). A transportation strategy for this corridor would need to be coordinated with San Bernardino County. SANBAG has programmed an improvement to add a truck lane on I-10 eastbound west of Yucaipa plus an HOV lane in each direction.Improving San Timoteo Canyon Road would require extensive coordination and cooperation from the Union Pacific Railroad, since they own much of the right-of-way along this route. The existing tracks could possibly be used to provide Metrolink service along this corridor. Land Use and Environmental Issues Both San Bernardino County and the Banning/Beaumont area are experiencing rapid growth and expansion. The Calimesa/BanningBeaumont area is anticipating a large increase in housing units, an amusement park, and a major employment center south of I-10. Roadway improvements through San Timoteo Canyon would create environmental concerns. Needed grading would result in substantial landform modification impacts. Because San Timoteo Canyon is a highly sensitive biotic habitat area, substantial disturbance to plant and animal habitat areas, as well as important habitat linkages could occur. The Badlands, Potrero Creek and San Mateo Creek areas include important biological resources in the vicinity of this corridor. CETAP — Overview of Candidate Corridors Page 27 Draft, August 27 1999 'ills Banning/Beaumont to Riverside O Glen Ivy Jd1I Denldruin r> i .l Meta CZ7J—,22,age �r �' r Riverside County Integrated Plan Community Envirinmental Transportation Acceptability Process C ountain enter BANNINGBEAUMONT TO RIVERSIDE CORRIDOR Corridor Definition This corridor is defined as the area between the city of Riverside and the cities of Banning and Beaumont. Existing Highway Facilities Interstate 10 and SR 60 connect the Riverside area with Banning and Beaumont. From Beaumont to east of Banning, Interstate 10 is generally an eight -lane facility with no HOV lanes. West of Beaumont, SR 60 continues westward through the "badlands" to Moreno Valley and Riverside. This section of SR 60 is mainly a four -lane freeway with severe horizontal and vertical curvature. SR 60 through the badlands carries approximately 37,000 vehicles per day. This increases to 110,000 just east of the junction with I- 215 and to 200,000 west of the junction with I-215. The safety problem has been partially mitigated through the addition of a median barrier approximately 10 years ago. The freeways are generally congestion -free on I-10 east of Yucaipa and on SR 60 east of Moreno Valley. Traffic projections for SR 60 through Moreno Valley estimate volumes increasing approximately 70 percent from current levels by year 2020. In the Banning/Beaumont area, traffic is expected to nearly double by year 2020. Transit Service The RTA provides bus service between Banning and Riverside, with a transfer in Moreno Valley. This trip can take up to two and one half hours. Buses depart from each end approximately every hour and fifteen minutes. Greyhound service is provided from Banning/Beaumont to Riverside through San Bernardino. Transportation Issues Roadway access to and from Banning/Beaumont is quite good, and I-10 and SR 60 have room to accommodate further growth. The area is connected via transit to other parts of western county and to San Bernardino, but trips are lengthy. SunLine Transit Agency has plans to operate a bus line between the Coachella Valley and Riverside which would provide access to/from the Pass Area. Extending Metrolink to Banning/Beaumont (possibly via the San Bernardino line) could also be examined. Land Use and Environmental Issues: Both San Bernardino County and the Banning/Beaumont area are experiencing rapid growth and expansion. The CalimesaBanningBeaumont area is anticipating a large increase in housing units, an amusement park, and a major employment center south of I-10. Roadway improvements through San Timoteo Canyon would create environmental concerns. SR-60 borders the Norton Younglove Reserve on its south end. Although this land is mainly used as an off -road vehicle park, it might preclude roadway development in this area. The Badlands, Potrero Creek and San Mateo Creek areas include important biological resources in the vicinity of this corridor. CETAP — Overview of Candidate Corridors Page 29 Draft, August 27 1999 Banning/Beaumont to Temecula 1 N �i 1 San Bernardino �17 Riverside County Integrated Plan Community Environmental Transportation Acceptability Process i ountain\ nter BANNINGBEAUMONT TO TEMECULA CORRIDOR Corridor Definition: This corridor represents the area connecting Banning/Beaumont, Hemet, and Murrieta/Temecula. Existing Highway Facilities: The main linkage between these areas is provided by State Route 79. This is generally a north -south route that passes through the city of Hemet. On the north end, SR 79 passes through Lamb Canyon and into the City of Beaumont. This section was widened to four lanes approximately six years ago. This route also represents one of primary options for travel from I-10 in the pass area to San Diego. Through the City of Hemet, SR 79 runs east -west along the same streets as SR 74. Studies have been conducted concerning the realignment of SR 79 to bypass the City of Hemet. Several alignment alternatives have been identified, and these are being examined further through a project being initiated by RCTC and Caltrans. SR 79 passes just west of the Eastside Reservoir and is expected to be the major access route to the recreational activities at the reservoir. In Murrieta, SR 79 (Winchester Road) is a six -lane facility and is one of the City's major thoroughfares. Existing Transit Service: RTA transit service exists between Banning/Beaumont and Hemet at headways of one hour. Additional service is provided to Hemet and to Murrieta and Temecula from other directions. Transportation Issues: This is expected to be a major growth corridor in the future. The Eastside Reservoir is expected to be a major recreational attraction, and development is expected throughout the corridor over the next 20 years. Given the growing congestion issues along several I-15 interchanges in Murrietta and Temecula, there is concern over the impacts the additional growth along the corridor could have on mobility in the south end of the corridor. The portion of SR 79 through Hemet passes through dense business and residential areas. This is one of the reasons for consideration of a realignment of SR 79 to the west of Hemet. Land Use and Environmental Issues: The prospects for substantial growth have been referenced above. In addition, several areas along the corridor contain sensitive habitats, including lands to the south and west of Hemet. In addition, this corridor would traverse habitat linkage areas, and would need to be designed to maintain habitat connectivity. Biological resources in the vicinity of the Eastside Reservoir, Lake Skinner, and Vail Lake are of concern in this area as are crossings of the San Jacinto River and Potrero Creek. Substantial development has been approved in San Jacinto, lands west of Hemet, and the Murrieta/Temecula areas. CETAP — Overview of Candidate Corridors Page 31 Draft, August 27 1999 Coachella Valley to Banning/Beaumont i Homeland %1 79 ,e--jzCz I 1 Sage k� i� Aguanga N !wild Anna Riverside County Integrated Plan Community Environmental Transportation Acceptability Process COACHELLA VALLEY TO BANNING/BEAUMONT CORRIDOR Corridor Definition This corridor covers the pass area between the cities of the Coachella Valley and approximately the junction of I-10 and SR 60 in Beaumont. Connections between the Coachella Valley and Riverside also are discussed. Existing Highway Facilities This corridor is a well-defined area between the mountains of San Jacinto and San Gorgonio. The corridor is approximately five miles wide in the pass and is dominated by Interstate 10 as the major transportation facility. Interstate 10 is an 8-lane freeway from Monterey Ave in Palm Desert to the I- 10/SR60 split. At that point, SR 60 diverges as a 4-1ane freeway connecting to Moreno Valley. I-10 continues as a 6-1ane freeway. The traffic volume in the pass area on Interstate 10 is 80,000 vehicles per day. In the Coachella Valley, the I-10 volume is in the range of 50,000 vehicles per day. One of the most notable features of I-10 is the presence of trucks. Trucks comprise over 15% of the traffic in this corridor. This section of I-10 is relatively congestion free, except when major accidents and incidents occur. Weekend traffic on I-10 can be substantial, both in the peak season for the Coachella valley and in the summer travel season. Major I-10 interchange improvements at Monterey Avenue, Washington Street, and Cook Street (new interchange) in the last two years have greatly reduced congestion at those locations. Transit Services Greyhound connects the Coachella Valley with San Bernardino and Riverside, with stops in Banning/Beaumont on selected trips. Both Banning/Beaumont and the Coachella Valley have their own local bus services. The Coachella Valley is serviced by SunBus. RTA provides service to the Banning/Beaumont area. The Sunline Transit Agency has been provided with funds to initiate a transit commuter service from the Coachella Valley to the Riverside Metrolink station. Service is anticipated to begin in late 1999/early 2000. Transportation Issues Major transportation issues include preservation of mobility for this economically important corridor. Although vehicle mobility is good at the moment, traffic volumes on I-10 are expected to approximately double over the next 20 years in Banning/Beaumont, with even greater percentage increases on I-10 in the Coachella Valley. In addition, there are few good modal choices in this corridor except for local transit services. This is being remedied, in part, by the anticipated commuter bus service from the Coachella Valley to Riverside. This corridor is also one of the most heavily traveled freight rail corridors in Southern California. Land Use and Environmental Issues Although wind and accompanying blowsand are a concern in the pass area, this only rarely impacts transportation in the corridor. Development in the Coachella Valley is rapidly expanding north toward the 1-10 corridor. Connections to the I-10 will likely need improvement to accommodate projected growth. State Route 111 is congested through Palm Springs and the cove area in high season. Issues of potential concern include needed crossings of the Whitewater River, habitat preserve and habitat areas along the north side of I-10, and potential impacts on agricultural resources within the Coachella Valley. Expanding the existing 1-10 freeway or establishing a parallel corridor would also involve the use of Indian lands. CETAP — Overview of Candidate Corridors Page 33 Draft, August 27 1999 RIVERSIDE COUNTY INTEGRATED PLAN COMMUNITY, ENVIRONMENTAL, AND TRANSPORTATION ACCEPTABILITY PROCESS (CETAP) WORKING PAPER NO.2 CORRIDOR EVALUATION CRITERIA (DRAFT) Prepared for the County of Riverside Transportation and Land Management Agency and the Riverside County Transportation Commission Prepared by TransCore August 27,1999 INTRODUCTION This working paper identifies a possible set of corridor evaluation criteria for use in Phase I of the Community, Environmental, and Transportation Acceptability Process (CETAP). CETAP is one part of a three-part planning and implementation program being undertaken by the County of Riverside and the Riverside County Transportation Commission. The other two parts are the development of a Multi -Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) and a new county General Plan. A description of CETAP and its role in the Riverside County Integrated Plan (RCIP) is described in Working Paper No. 1, "Overview of Candidate Corridors." The evaluation criteria are to serve as a basis for determining which corridors should be advanced to Phase II, for more detailed development and analysis of transportation alternatives. For those corridors advanced to Phase II, a revised set of criteria will be developed, more focused on issues faced in that corridor. The Phase II criteria will focus on the evaluation of specific transportation alternatives, whereas the focus in Phase I is on the evaluation and prioritization of corridors. The proposed evaluation criteria are in draft stage, for discussion and acceptance by the CETAP advisory committee at the September 7 meeting. The draft criteria were developed based on factors that are typically used in studies of this nature and on a review of the SCAG Regional Performance Indicators. A description of these performance indicators is contained in the August 3 handout to the advisory committee. The indicators include mobility, accessibility, environment, reliability, safety, livable communities, equity, and cost-effectiveness. It should be noted that the SCAG performance indicators were designed for evaluating the transportation strategies in the regional transportation plan and some of the indicators are not as directly applicable to the purposes of corridor -level evaluation in CETAP. It is important to note there is no weighting implied by the criteria. It is not implied that all criteria will have equal weight, nor will there be an assigned set of weights. The criteria are not listed in priority order. The various criteria are valued differently by different individuals and groups. The intent is that the criteria will be used as the basis for identifying impacts and benefits of potential transportation improvements in each corridor. Data will likely be presented in a matrix format, with an assessment of each corridor for each of the evaluation criteria. The advisory committee will then make recommendations on corridors based on this information and on the value judgments they individually place on those impacts and benefits. PROPOSED CRITERIA The following set of criteria are proposed for consideration by the CETAP advisory' committee: I. Expected rate of population growth in corridor — This can be expressed as a ratio of future to existing households or population or an annual growth percentage. A higher rate of growth would indicate a greater degree of urgency in taking action in the corridor. 2. Expected rate of employment growth in corridor - This can be expressed as a ratio of future to existing employment or an annual growth percentage. A higher rate of growth would indicate a greater degree of urgency in taking action in the corridor. 3. Importance of the corridor to the County economy — This is a qualitative criterion that takes into consideration a combination of the movement of goods and job growth potential. The volume of truck traffic would be an important indicator of the economic importance, as would the level of business/industrial activity along the corridor. Higher priority would likely be placed on preservation of mobility for corridors most important to the economy. 4. Existing and future congestion levels — A basic indicator would involve the volume/capacity ratios on major facilities. An indicator such as number of miles of roadway with a 0.9 or greater volume/capacity ratio (or other appropriate value) could also be used. Existing congestion is important as an indicator of the magnitude of the problems now. Future congestion is important in identifying how serious the problems are expected to be. It is important to note that congestion levels can be affected not only by highway improvements, but by transit and travel demand management improvements as well. Thus, although volume/capacity ratio is a measure applied to highways, it can be affected by transit strategies as well. 5. Physical/operational feasibility of a high capacity transportation enhancement(s) — In some corridors, the physical feasibility of a major improvement may be limited due to topography, existing development, etc. This is related to the cost, but is more of a "fatal flaw" test. Corridors that have no physically or operationally feasible capacity enhancements (highway or transit) would not be reasonable to carry forward into Phase II. However, these corridors may be considered for other types of strategies such as additional upgraded transit service or trip reduction measures. 6. Potential cost of a high capacity transportation enhancement(s) — `Ballpark" planning - level costs will be estimated for improvements being considered. There will be no engineering of alignments associated with these estimates in Phase I, but approximate, planning -level unit costs will be applied. A general indication of operating and maintenance cost requirements should be included, where appropriate. 7. Potential regional mobility enhancement/congestion relief through a transportation improvement — The benefit to mobility will be estimated based on changes in vehicle hours of travel (VHT). One or more transportation alternatives may be identified for testing in each corridor. Estimates of changes in VHT will be developed using either the travel demand model or other engineering estimation techniques, depending on the type of alternative. A greater reduction in VHT will indicate greater benefit. 8. Potential enhancement of transit access and mobility — Certain corridors may be more amenable to the improvement of mobility for transit and other alternatives to the automobile. This could be because effective transit -friendly land use strategies have a higher likelihood of being put in place in the corridor, or because the corridor is more amenable to expanded, effective transit service. This criterion is related to the SCAG livable communities performance indicator. 9. Potential reduction in vehicle miles of travel through a transportation improvement — Estimates of vehicle miles of travel (VMT) are indicators of the extent to which travel and trip making may be reduced or increased by a particular improvement. Reductions in VMT are a regional goal and, in turn, provide benefits to air quality and energy consumption. One or more transportation alternatives may be identified for testing in each corridor. Estimates of changes in VMT will be developed using either the travel demand model or other engineering estimation techniques, depending on the type of altemative. The VMT criterion is directly related to the "livable communities" criterion in the SCAG regional performance indicators. An average speed can be computed when VMT is divided by VHT. This applies to the SCAG "mobility" performance indicator. 10. Potential level of community impact — Potential impacts of improvement alternatives need to be considered in addition to the possible benefits. Both new and expanded transportation facilities can have impacts, and these potential impacts need to be recognized in making decisions. In Phase I, the assessment of community impacts will be identified in general terms and based on multiple factors, such as potential residential and business displacements, noise, etc. l 1. Potential level of environmental impact — Likewise, new and expanded transportation facilities can have environmental impacts. These will be assessed in general terms, keeping in mind that there will be no specific alignments identified in Phase I. However, the characteristics of areas through which alignments could pass will be identified and considered. This could include multiple factors, such as habitat, parklands, wetlands, cultural resources, air quality, etc. Specific types of possible environmental impacts will be identified for each corridor. 12. Probable level of community support — Although community support (or lack thereof) cannot be fully determined until more details are developed on the nature and location of possible transportation alternatives, a general sense of the level of support behind certain transportation improvements or initiatives often emerges at an earlier stage. It is important to recognize that there will be concerns from some segment of the population over almost any transportation improvement. Community support must be gauged by looking at the view of the entire population, while recognizing that local concerns over project impacts are legitimate and need to be dealt with. The localized impacts need to be balanced against the long term good of the county and its population as a whole. An important element of community support is also the views of neighboring counties to which transportation facilities may need to connect. The extent to which other counties are willing to work with Riverside County on these inter -county connections will be a significant determining factor in whether improvements in those corridors should be pursued further. 13. Equity — Improvements in corridors should not disproportionately benefit or impact particular groups. This usually needs to be considered as a criterion that shapes the transportation program as a whole, but could occasionally come into play as a factor in a single corridor. 14. Opportunity — The decisions on which corridors need to move forward should consider the importance of time frame. In some cases, there may be a window of opportunity that allows for particularly cost-effective action that supports other actions or initiatives. For example, an area plan may be developing that is ripe for a major decision on a transportation corridor. This opportunity needs to be seized at the right time to allow plans to be firmed up and move forward. Although subjective, this criterion can have a major influence which corridors should be advanced first. At the same time, the transportation action needs to fit in with other county objectives. An action should not necessarily be taken just because it is possible to take it. RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: October 13, 1999 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Plans and Programs Committee Jerry Rivera, Program Manager THROUGH: Hideo Sugita, Director of Planning and Programming SUBJECT: FY 2000-2006 Short Range Transit Plan for the Palo Verde Valley Transit Agency PLANS AND PROGRAMS COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve the fiscal year 2000-2006 Short Range Transit Plan for the Palo Verde Valley Transit Agency as submitted. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The Riverside County FY 2000-2006 Short Range Transit Plan (SRTP) covers the three apportionment areas of the county and is comprised of plans for the municipal operators, the Riverside Transit Agency, SunLine Transit Agency, Palo Verde Valley Transit Agency, and Regional Commuter Rail. The Commission has previously approved all of the Plans except the Palo Verde Valley Transit Agency (PVVTA). The Palo Verde Valley Transit Agency operates a dial -a -ride service for the general public in the City of Blythe and adjacent unincorporated area. Service has been provided by the Valley Resource Center under a contractual agreement with PVVTA since September 1981. The Short Range Transit Plan for the PVVTA proposes a continuation of existing services for FY 1999-2000. The SRTP was reviewed by the Citizens Advisory Committee at its September 20, 1999 meeting, and the Committee was supportive of the proposed SRTP. 1000'75 Financial Assessment Project Cost $229,406 Source of Funds Local Transportation Funds Included in Fiscal Year Budget Year Included in Program Budget Year Programmed 1999-00 Approved Allocation Year of Allocation Budget Adjustment Required Financial Impact Not Applicable n0076 PALO VERDE VALLEY TRANSIT AGENCY I. EXISTING CONDITIONS Palo Verde Valley Transit Agency (PVVTA) operates a dial -a -ride service for the general public in the City of Blythe and adjacent unincorporated areas. Service has been provided by the Valley Resource Center under a contractual agreement with PVVTA since September 1981. A. CURRENT POLICIES 2. GOALS - To provide a transit service which will meet the mobility needs of seniors and persons with disabilities and the transit dependent. - To monitor increases in demand for transit by the low income population and general public and to develop and implement a financially feasible service to meet this need. 3. COORDINATION WITH OTHER AGENCIES The City Manager of the City of Blythe is a member of the Riverside County Transportation Commission's Technical Advisory Committee which rneets on a monthly basis to provide recommendations to the Commission on transportation related matters. The PVVTA received access to teleconferencing equipment in FY 99. This has allowed staff greater access and participation in transportation meetings which have county -wide significance. ��00077 4. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION Public participation regarding plan adoption was afforded at the RCTC Unmet Transit Needs Public Hearing held in the City of Blythe on March 4, 1999, at the RCTC Citizens Advisory Committee/Social Service Transportation Advisory Council meetings, and at the monthly meetings of the ROTC. The PVVTA Board meetings are open to the general public and comments are encouraged. B. CURRENT LEVEL OF SERVICE 9. SERVICE INFORMATION PVVTA operates Monday -Friday from 6:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. There is currently no weekend service offered. 2. SERVICE DESCRIPTION Dial -a -ride service is available to the general public in the City of Blythe as well as to the adjacent unincorporated area within an 98 mile radius of the city. A mileage reimbursement and information program, TRIP, is also available in the Valley for eligible seniors and persons with disabilities. 3. FARE STRUCTURE The existing fare structure is shown in table 2. 4. RELATIONSHIP WITH OTHER TRANSIT OPERATORS PVVTA is the only public transit operator in the Palo Verde Valley. �`0i 078 5. EXISTING CAPITAL AND OPERATING FACILITIES The system owns three intermediate buses and two vans. The vehicle inventory is shown in Table 3. II. EVALUATION OF THE EXISTING SYSTEM A. ANALYSIS OF THE EXISTING SYSTEM PVVTA provides dial -a -ride service in the Palo Verde Valley under contract with the Valley Resource Center. The Agency continues to make every effort to improve the advertising to make sure that all residents are aware of the service and how to use it. These marketing efforts continue to prove to be successful as shown by a 40% increase in ridership from FY97 to FY 98 (1000 psgrs/mo to 1400 psgrs/mo). The growth continues in FY 99 with the system carrying an average of 1520 passengers per month (+8.5%). The demand for service continues to require the operation of two full time vehicles, with a third in operation during peak periods (10:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m.). In October 1995 the Transportation Reimbursement and Information Project (TRIP) was initiated in the Palo Verde Valley in response to comments received at unmet transit needs hearings regarding the need for assistance with long distance travel. As of March 31, 1999, 1,409 one-way trips and 51,456 miles of travel have been provided to residents of the Valley. The average trip length is 36.5 miles per trip at a reasonable cost of $11.89 per trip. B. EVALUATION OF THE SYSTEM'S NEEDS AND DEFICIENCIES An unmet transit needs hearing was held in the City in March 1999 with three individuals providing comments regarding the service needs in the area. There were a couple of requests for transportation of elderly and wheelchair handicapped to the Coachella Valley area for special doctor needs. The TRIP )00079 program, which provides reimbursement to volunteer drivers, is currently available and residents could also use Greyhound services to reach the Coachella Valley. PVVTA and the TRIP Director will work to increase awareness of these services. There was also a request for transportation from the Palo Verde Valley to the Veteran's Administration Hospital in Loma Linda. RCTC and PVVTA will work jointly with SunLine to attempt to coordinate a link with the Vets Express in order to provide service to the VA hospital. Also, the TRIP program could be used to reach the Coachella Valley. PRIVATE ENTERPRISE INVOLVEMENT The Palo Verde Valley Transit Agency contracts for service with the Valley Resource Center. The operation has been provided under contract since September 1981. III. SEVEN YEAR PLAN A. SERVICE LEVEL In FY 2000 the PVVTA will continue to operate two full time dial -a -ride vehicles, with a third in operation during peak ridership times (10:00 a.m. - 2:00 p.m.). The addition of the third vehicle was required to meet demand in FY 98; additional funds have been programmed to allow the continued operation of the part-time vehicle in FY 2000. B. STATEMENT OF JUSTIFICATION FOR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS A 1995 six -passenger van was destroyed in an accident in FY98 (vehicle originally slated for replacement in FY2000). This vehicle was replaced in FY99 with a 16 passenger intermediate size bus. No other vehicles are needed until FY2004, when two intermediate sized buses will need to be replaced. !� 0080 C. SEVEN-YEAR FINANCIAL PLAN The seven year financial plan is shown in Table 8. D. PERFORMANCE Expected performance is shown in Table 7. E. DISABLED POLICIES AND PRACTICES The proposed plan is designed specifically to meet the needs of persons with disabilities. ©0081 TABLE 1 - AB 120 ACTION PLAN UPDATE Actions Specified in Dec-97 AB120 Plan Update including Schedule Actions Taken By Operator including Implementation Date Future Actions Planned including implementation Date Palo Verde Valley Transit Agency is the only transit .system available in the Palo Verde Valley. t100082 TABLE 2 - EXISTING FARE STRUCTURE CATEGORY FIXED ROUTE DAR CHANGES PROPOSED PEAK AND OFF-PEAK HOURS - UP TO FIVE MILES Full Fares $1.50 None Zones(s) Elderly $1.50 Disabled $1.50 Student $1.50 Transfer(within system) Transfer(other operator) OTHER DISCOUNTS: Book of 10 Coupons $10.00 Book of 20 Coupons $20.00 PEAK AND OFF-PEAK HOURS - 6 TO 18 MILES Full Fares $2.00 Zone(s) Elderly $2.00 Disabled ,- $2.00 Student $2.00 Transfer(within system) Transfer(other operator) OTHER DISCOUNTS: Book of 10 Coupons $14.00 Book of 20 Coupons $28.00 00083 i i l 900Z L L UMO [asap] seA Z191 43e;oiab opeio0 13 6661. b00Z 1 1, UMO lasala saA Z191 43a;oiey ope.so] 13 L661, b00Z 1 4 UMO lasala saA Z19 L 4383010V 013e100 13 L66 L - aiedS 1 UMO see 9 •Ae43 I- 6661 ---- aiedS 1, UMO lasaia Pl. 'Ae43 6961 33V1d321 Ol 21V3A t SVH321 aorvw 331A213S 3A113V S3131H3A 21Va t. S3131H3A 113 3SV31 ao NMO 13na d0 3dAl t d111153 -.Lill S.LV3S 9300IN '21911N llins 21V3A AHOIN3ANI 1331A - C 318111 TABLE 4 - SUMMARY OF PERFORMANCE BY SERVICE TYPE ❑ Systemwide [] Fixed Route Bus Specialized Demand Response ❑ Systemwide (excluding new service exemptions) E General Public Demand Response ❑ ADA Paratransit ❑ New Service DATA ELEMENTS FY 1998 ANNUAL ACTUAL FY 1999 SRTP FY 1999 EST. ACTUAL FY 1999 VARIANCE Unlinked Passengers 16.9 16.6 18.9 2.3 Passenger Miles 61.6 60.0 48.0 (12.0) Total Vehicle Revenue Hrs 5.4 5.8 6.2 .40 Total Vehicle Revenue Mile 61.6 60.0 48.0 7 (12.0) Total Vehicle Miles 61.6 60.0 48.0 (12.0) Collisions -0- -0- -0- -0- Major Revenue Vehicle System Failures -0- -0- -0- -0- Total Passenger Complaints -0- -0- -0- -0- Total Revenue Vehicle Trips Scheduled 16.9 16.6 16.9 2.3 Total On -Tune Revenue Vehicle Trips 16.9 16.6 16.9 2.3 otal Operating Expenses 115.2 168. 126.6 (41.4) Total Passenger Fare Revenues 19.0 20.7 21.6 .90 Net Operating Expenses (Subsidies) 96.2 147.3 105.0 (42.3) PERFORMANCE INDICATORS Operating cost Per Revenue Hour $21.33 528.96 $20.42 ($8.54) Farebox Recovery Ratio 16.5% 12.3% 17% 4.7`/0 Subsidy Per Passenger S5.69 58.87 $5.55 03.32) Subsidy Per Passenger Mile $1.54 52.66 $2.16 ($ .50) Subsidy Per Revenue Hour $17.81 $25.39 $16.94 ($8.45) Passngrs Per Revenue Mlle .27 .30 .39 .09 Revenue Miles Between Collisions 61 1600 6010 O O 48,0 D C (12.0) % Trips On -Time 100% 100% 100% 100% Complaints Per 1,000 Passengers -0- -0- -0- -0- Total Miles Between Roadcalis 000S5 TABLE 5 - PROJECTED PERFORMANCE BY SERVICE TYPE - SYSTEM CHARACTERISTICS (Page 1 of 2) SYSTEM CHARACTERISTICS F/Y 1999 EST. ACTUAL F/Y 2000 PLAN F/Y 2001 PLAN FLEET CHARACTERISTICS Peak Hour Fleet - 3 3 3 Spares for Maintenance 2 2 2 Energy Reserve Fleet 0 0 0 Vehicles Unavailable for Service 0 0 0 Total Vehicles 5 5 5 EXPANSION Vehicles to be delivered 0 0 0 REPLACEMENT Vehicles to be delivered 0 0 0 FINANCIAL DATA " Fare Revenues ($000) 21.6 23.2 25.1 Operating Costs ($000) 126.6 142.1 153.4 n OPERATING CHARACTERISTICS Revenue Miles (000) 48.0 51.0 53.0 Total Miles (000) 48.0. 51.0 53.0 Revenue Hours (000) 6.2 6.4 6.6 Total Hours (000) 6.2 6.4 6.6 Linked Passengers (000) 18.9 20.4 22.0 Unlinked Passengers (000) 18.9 20.4 22.0 Full -Time Equivalent Employees 3.75 3.75 3.75 0086 TABLE 5 - PROJECTED PERFORMANCE BY SERVICE TYPE (Page 2 of 2) Systemwide Systemwide (excluding new service exemptions) El Fixed Route Bus Q General Public Demand Response E] Specialized Demand Response ADA Paratransit New Service DATA ELEMENTS F1Y 1999 EST ACTUAL FfY 2000 TARGET F/Y 2000 PLAN F/Y 2001 PLAN Unlinked Passengers 18.9 20.4 20.4 22.0 Passenger Miles 48.0 51.0 51.0 53.0 Vehicle Revenue Hours 6.2 6.4 6.4 6.6 Vehicle Revenue Miles 48.0 51.0 51.0 53,0 Total Actual Vehicle Miles 48.0 51.0 51.0 53.0 Total Operating Expenses 126.6 142.1 142.1 153.4 Passenger Fare Revenue 21.6 23.2 23.2 25.1 Net Operating Expenses 105.0 118.9 118.9 128.3 PERFORMANCE INDICATORS Operating Cost Per Hour $20.42 $22.20 $22.20 $23.18 Farebox Recovery Ratio 17% 16% 16% 16% Subsidy Per Passenger 55.55 $5.83 $5.83 $5.83 Subsidy Per Passenger Mile $2.16 $2.33 $2.33 $2.39 Subsidy Per Hour $16.94 $18.58 $18.58 $19.44 Subsidy Per Mile $2.16 $2.33 $2.33 $2.39 Passengers Per Hour 3.0 3.2 3.2 3.3 Passengers Per Mile .39 .40 .40 .41 (a) FIY 2000 Performance Targets apply to systemwide performance only. •••• These figures do not include S24,000 programmed for TRIP or;100,000 for claim settlement or S25,000 for Tranist Origin & Destination Survey 0008'� TABLE 6 - SERVICE CHARACTERISTICS ITEM DESCRIPTION OF CHARACTERISTICS Service Name Palo Verde Valley Transit Agency Service Type Dial -A -Ride Service Area City of Blythe & unincorporated area within an 18 mile radius of the City Days & Hours of Operation Monday - Friday - 6:00 a.m. - 4:30 p.m. Service Operated By Valley Resource Center Primary Markets Served Senior Citizens, Persons with Disabilities and the Transit Dependent Citizen Service Change Summary None Marketing Plans The Transit Agency markets its Transit service through several means of advertising (newspaper, public broadcasting channel). These marketing efforts will continue since they have proven to be very successful. a0088 TABLE 7 - PROJECTED PERFORMANCE BY ROUTE (Specify Name): Palo Verde Valley Transit Agency ❑ Fixed Route Bus ❑ Specialized Demand Response a General Public Demand Response ❑ ADA Paratransit ❑ New Service DATA ELEMENTS F/Y 1999 EST. ACTUAL F/Y 2000 PLAN F/Y 2001 PLAN Unlinked Passengers 18.9 20.4 22.0 Passenger Miles 48.0 51.0 53.0 Vehicle Revenue Hours 6.2 6.4 6.6 Vehicle Revenue Miles 48.0 51.0 53.0 Total Actual Vehicle Miles 48.0 51.0 53.0 Total Operating Expenses 126.6 142.1 153.4 Passenger Fare Revenue 21.6 23.2 25.1 Net Operating Expenses 105.0 118,9 128.3 'ERFORMANCE INDICATORS Operating Cost Per Hour $20.42 $22.20 $23.18 Farebox Recovery Ratio 17% 16% 16% Subsidy Per Passenger $5.55 $5.83 $5.83 Subsidy Per Passenger Mile $2.16 $2.33 $2.39 Subsidy Per Hour $16.94 $18.58 $19.44 Subsidy Per Mile $2.16 $2.33 $2.39 Passengers Per Hour 3.0 3.2 3.3 Passengers Per Mile .39 .40 .41 "Theses figures do not include $24,000 programmed for TRIP or 100,000 for claim settlement or S25,000 for Tranist Origin & Destination Survey E}0Oa89 TABLE 8 - TRANSIT PROJECTS SCAG FIY 2000 - 2006 SRTPIRTIP Project Description Program Year Expend. Year Total ($000) LTF ($000) FTA ($000) Fare ($000) - Measure A ($000) ► STA ($000) Other ($000) Operating Assistance/DAR 1999/00 1999100 142.1 * 118.9 ------ 23.2 ------ ------ Operating AssistancelDAR 2000101 2000/01 153.4 128.3 ------ 25.1 ------ — Operating AssistancelDAR 2001/02 2001/02 213.0 187.0 ----- 26.0 ------ ---- ---- Operating AssistancelDAR 2002/03 2002/03 219.0 192.0 27.0 ------ ----- ----- Operating AssistancelDAR 2003/04 2003/04 225.0 197.0 28.0 ------- ------ ---- 2 Replacement Vehicles w/lifts and tiedowns 2003/04 2003/04 200.0 200.0 ----- ------- Operating AssistancelDAR 2004/05 2004105 232.0 203.0 29.0 --- — ----- ----- Operating AssistancelDAR 2005/06 2005/06 240.0 210.0 30.0 ----- 1 l * Excludes TRIP Program, Transit 0 & D Survey, & Contingency Reserves. TABLE 9 - CAPITAL PROJECT JUSTIFICATION PROJECT NAME: PROJECT DESCRIPTION: 2004 - Purchase two replacement transit buses 2006 - Purchase one replacement transit bus PROJECT JUSTIFICATION: Replacement of transit buses PROJECT FUNDING SOURCES: Article 4/Transportation Funds PRIOR YEAR PROJECTS OF A SIMILAR NATURE WITH UNEXPENDED BALANCE Program Year Total Funds Allocated Spent To Date Type Funding Allocated Reason For Delay NIA - , 000091 TABLE 10 - PROJECTED EXPENSES AND REVENUES FINANCIAL ELEMENTS FIT 1998 ACTUAL FIY 1999 EST. ACTUAL FP( 2000 PLAN F/Y 2001 PLAN OPERATING EXPENSE (Less Depreciation) 142,171 153,720 I 291,147 174,454 OPERATING REVENUES: Prior Carryover LTF - 0 - - 0 - 38,491 - 0 - New LTF Subsidies 116,886 160,761 229,406 149,254 FTA Operating Subsidies - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - STA Subsidies - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Measure A Subsidies - 0 - - O - - 0 - - 0 - Farebox Revenues 19,759 21,600 23,200 25,100 Other Operating - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Other Grant Subsidies 5,526 15 50 100 OPERATING SURPLUS/(DEFICIT) - 0 - r 28,656 - 0 - - 0 - r CAPITAL EXPENSES 101,117 50,165 - 0 - - 0 - CAPITAL REVENUES: Prior Year LTF Grants - 0 - 19,118 - O - - 0 - Current Year LTF Grants 101,117 40,882 - 0 - - 0 - Prior Year FTA Grants - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Current Year FTA Grants - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - O - Prior Year STA Funds - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - O - Current Year STA Funds - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - O - Other Grant Funds - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - CAPITAL SURPLUS/(DEFICIT) - 0 - 9,835 - 0 - - 0 - �()in92 TABLE 11 - PROGRESS TO IMPLEMENT PRIOR AUDIT RECOMMENDATIONS Prior Audit Recommendation Action(s) Taken And Results (a) City of Blythe, PVVTA and VRC staff meet to ensure an understanding of data reporting requirements and definitions. City of Blythe and PVVTA met with VRC staff to clarify the understanding of reporting requirements and definitions. Revise VRC's driver logs to separate deadhead mileage. City, Transit Agency and VRC staff initially were not aware of separating out deadhead miles. Since that clarification from the auditor, forms have been modified and deadhead miles are being tracked separately. During the audit, it was found that the vehicle service hours and FTEs for FY96 were incorrectly reported by the City's financial auditor in the State Controller's Report. The amity should review all draft reports before they are finalized. City and Transit Agency staff now review a draft audit before it is finalized and reported to the State Controller's Office. {A) If no action taken, provide schedule for implementation or explanation of why the recommendation is no longer relevant. O0093 RIVERS/DE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMM/SS/ON DATE: October 13, 1999 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Budget & Implementation Committee Jerry Rivera, Program Manager THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: FY 1999-2000 Contract Amendment to Freeway Service Patrol Tow Truck Agreements with Hamner Towing and Pepe's Towing Service BUDGET & IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE & STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve, subject to Legal Counsel review, Amendment No. 3 to the Freeway Service Patrol Tow Truck Agreement with Hamner Towing, Inc., and Pepe's Towing Service, Inc., to continue service until June 30, 2000. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The Riverside County Freeway Service Patrol (FSP) program currently contracts with two tow truck companies, Hamner Towing and Pepe's Towing, to provide the roving tow service on four segments of State Route 91 and 1-215/60. The agreement covers the normal days and hours of operation, reimbursements and penalties, and uniform and equipment requirements for the program. The contract for both operators expired on June 30, 1999. Commission staff asked the contractors if they would be willing to continue providing the FSP tow service at the same hourly rate, and they both agreed. It was staff's intention to include the two agreements in the recurring contracts list, but they were inadvertently omitted. The California Highway Patrol (CHP), who provides the day to day field supervising of the program, is satisfied with their performance and recommends continuing the contracts for another year. The State funding for FY 1999-2000 for the Riverside County FSP program has increased by $282,200, or 30.7%, and will provide funding for beat #25 on 1-15 (awarded at last month's meeting) and an additional hour of service in the afternoon on all four beats. The afternoon service will now operate from 3:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except designated holidays. Sufficient funds were included in the FY 1999-2000 Motorist Assistance budget approved by the Commission at its June 2, 1999 meeting to continue both contracts for another year and provide the increased service. Financial Assessment Project Cost $776,152 Source of Funds State of California 80%; SAFE Fees 20% .$ .. ... .:.: . :.... :.i: .... %. ..... ....,.:. •:•:::::::::§1i$ - - ' :::: $i :‘• * x .. fo :;..*:. ;:.::; ig.No:.. ::::. .;:. K. z • ' —. :,...:*;:i:K:K:Kv.::::•• . ,-*: .-... • . . . . ' iiiiii4:3m.: :::: :.:: ' :::: •!•,. ,:::.. :i:i ;t: :4:i .. ..• .. .•:.. Included in Fiscal Year Budget Y Year Included in Program Budget Y Year Programmed 1999-00 Approved Allocation Y Year of Allocation 1999-00 Budget Adjustment Required N Financial Impact Not Applicable RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMM/SS/ON DATE: October 13, 1999 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Budget & Implementation Committee David W. Shepherd, Director of Intergovernmental and Legislative Affairs THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: State and Federal Legislative Update BUDGET & IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Receive and file the State and Federal Legislative Update as an information item. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: State Legislative Update On September 10, 1999, the Legislature adjourned for interim recess until January 3, 2000. Before, adjourning, the following bills were sent to the Governor for signature. The Governor has 30 days to either veto or sign into law bills sent for his review by the Legislature. Staff anticipates favorable action by the Governor on each of the bills listed below. AB 1 155 (Torlakson) the legislation setting forth the expenditure plan requirements the ballot measure SCA 3 would require. AB 283 (Longville) - this bill would allow a County Board of Supervisors, rather than the California Transportation Commission to adopt a Resolution of Necessity for condemnation of property for transportation projects. AB 1012 (Torlakson) - the project delivery bill which contains the Riverside County Transportation Commission/San Bernardino Associated Governments (RCTC/SANBAG) generated State Highway Account loan concept. AB 1571 (Villaraigosa and Brulte) - this bill would create a state grant program for reduction of diesel emissions. RCTC has a "Support with Amendments" position. The amendment being sought would require both the South Coast Air Quality Management District and the Mobile Source Reduction Review Committee to jointly develop a program for use of the funds allocated to the South Coast Air Basin. Unfortunately, SCA 3 failed to pass out of the Assembly. Needing 54 votes, the bill only received 46 in favor of passage. The votes were cast strictly on a party -line basis - with Democrats in support and Republicans opposed. In the last two days of the Legislative Session, the Republican Caucus did offer a proposal (essentially transferring the sales tax on the gas tax from the General Fund to transportation) which, if supported by Democrats, would have garnered Republican support for SCA 3. However, an agreement on the two proposals was not reached. Meanwhile, AB 1 155 (Torlakson), which sets forth requirements for the development of an expenditure plan for the revenues generated should SCA 3 pass on the Senate ballot, was sent to the Governor for signature. Passage of AB 1155 is in anticipation of both parties potentially reaching an agreement when the Legislature resumes legislative activity in January 2000. Federal Legislative Update Shortly after returning from Summer Recess, the Senate unanimously passed the Transportation Appropriations legislation. Largely due to the efforts of Senators Feinstein and Boxer, the language mandating a nationwide 12.5% cap on transit allocations was deleted from the bill legislation, and is the reason for delay in the bill's passage. The deletion of this language helps California avoid a loss of approximately $1 18 million in federal transit funding, and for Riverside and San Bernardino Counties a funding loss of $7 to 9 million was prevented. While the House Transportation Appropriations legislation contained specific dollar amounts for the earmarked projects, the Senate legislation did not. Thus, soon to be designated members from each house will begin negotiations to resolve the differences in each bill and subsequently report a "Conference" bill for the full body of each house to either approve or disapprove. Conclusion The State Legislature adjourned until January 4th. Before adjourning, several bills of importance to SANBAG and RCTC were sent to the Governor for signature. In Washington, D.C., both the House and Senate have passed transportation appropriation legislation, but representatives from each house have not yet met to resolve the differences in each bill. 1%1 r C.l%alva wun I Y 1 1 A 11ON commISSION/SAN BERNARDINO ASSOCIATED GOVERNMENTS POSITIONS ON STATE LEGISLATION Legislation/Author Description Bill Status Position Date of Board Adoption AB 38 (Washington) Amended to address education issues. Passed the Assembly Floor 57-20 on 5/13/99. Passed Senate Floor 25-11 on 9/2/99. Referred to Assembly. Concurrence in Senate amendments pending, may be considered after 9/4/99. SUPPORT NO POSITION ON CURRENT SUBJECT MATTER SANBAG 3/3/99 RCTC 3/10/99 AB 44 (McClintock) Would require Caltrans and local authorities to redesignate all existing HOV lanes as mixed flow. Referred to Assembly Transportation Committee. No hearing date yet. OPPOSE SANBAG 3/3/99 RCTC 3/10/99 AB 71 (Cunneen) Would permit inherently low- emission vehicles (ILEV) to travel in High Occupancy Vehicle lanes regardless of the number of occupants in the ILEV. Passed Assembly Floor 79-0 on 5/27/99. Passed Senate Floor 31-7 on 8/24/99. Signed into law by Governor, 9/7/99. SUPPORT SANBAG 4/7/99 RCTC 4/14/99 AB 74 (Strom -Martin) Amended to just Require State Intercity Freight Rail Study. Passed Assembly Floor 52-27 on 6/4/99. Passed Senate Floor 50-26 on 8/26/99. On 8/31/99 at Governor's desk for signature. CHANGE FROM OPPOSE .I() WATCI I OPPOSE SANBAG 3/3/99 RCTC 3/10/99 WATCI I SANBAG 6/2/99 RCTC 6/2/99 I Status L/ulV Vl LlJCIl Adoption AB 102 (Wildman and Hertzberg) Would fund the 1989 Priority Soundwall Retrofit list off -the -top of the State Highway Account. Passed the Assembly Floor 43- 31 on 6/3/99. Failed passage in Senate Transportation Committee on 8/ 17/99. CHANGE FROM SEEK AMENDMENT TO OPPOSE SANBAG 3/3/99-SEEK AMENDMENT RCTC 3/10/99-SEEK AMENDMENT SANBAG 6/2/99- OPPOSE RCTC 6/9/99-OPPOSE. AB 276 (Longville) Would redirect a portion of sales and gas taxes currently going to the General Fund to the Public Transportation Account Passed the Assembly Floor on Revenue, Tax and Transportation 14-2 on 5/10/99. Held in Assembly Appropriations Committee, suspense file. NO RECOMMENDATION SANBAG 4/7/99 RCTC 4/14/99 AB 283 (Longville) Would allow a resolution of necessity to be approved by a County Board of Supervisors, rather than the California Transportation Commission. Passed the Assembly Floor 76-0 on 4/20/99. On 9/ 10/99 Assembly unanimously concurred in Senate Amendments to Governor's desk for signature. Passed Senate Floor 40-0 on 9/7/99. SPONSOR - ADOPTED AS PART OF THE STATE LEGISLATIVE PROGRAM SANBAG 1 /6/99 RCTC 1/13/99 Status ............ ..,,, I AB 308 (Longville) Would require a review and analysis of the Public Transportation Account expenditures and a review of the account's needs Passed the Assembly . Floor 48-31 on 6/2/99. On6/12/99 passed Senate "Transportation Committee 1 1-1. Passed the Senate Appropriations Committee 13-0 on 9/2/99. Passed to Assembly Transportation 25-10. Concurrence in Senate amendments pending. NO RECOMMENDM ION SANBAG 4/7/99 RCTC 4/14/99 AB 521( McClintock) Would redirect that portion of sales and gas taxes currently going to the General Fund to the State Highway Account. Set for hearing on 4/19/99 in the Assembly Transportation Committee. Hearing canceled at the request of author. NO RECOMMENDATION SANBAG 4/7/99 RCTC 4/14/99 AB 872 (Alquist) Would allow reimbursement of local funds used to advance STIP programmed projects. • Passed the Assembly Floor 78-0 on 6/1/99. On 9/7/99 passed Senate Floor 40-0. To Assembly for concurrence in Senate Amendments. 9/10/99, ordered to Special Consent Calendar. SUPPORT SANBAG 4/7/99 ROTC 4/14/99 Status wall. V1 LIVaIU 111.IVI./1IV11I AB 923 (Hertzberg) Would increase the fines for Rail Right of Way violations. Passed the Assembly Floor 63-13 on 5/26/99. On 9/7/99 passed Senate Floor 30-5. Assembly concurred in Senate Amendments to Governor's desk for signature. SUPPORT SANBAG 6/2/99 ROTC 6/2/99 AB 1012 (Torlakson) A comprehensive transportation reform package intended to enhance Caltrans' operating environment; includes the RCTC/SANBAG generated "loan" concept. Passed Assembly Floor 73-7 on 6/2/99. Passed Senate Floor 40-0 on 9/8/99. On 9/10/99 Assembly concurred in Senate Amendments to Governor's desk for signature. SUPPORT SANBAG 4/7/99 RCTC 4/14/99 AB 1425(Runner) Provides Statutory Direction To Caltrans to Insure More TEA21 Funds Flow Directly to Regions. Passed the Assembly Floor 50-23 on 5/27/99. On 7/6 passed the Senate Transportation Committee 7-2. Referred to the Senate Appropriations Committee. In Committee, placed on Appropriations suspense file. SUPPORT SANBAG 5/5/99 RCTC 5/12/99 1 Status �..., .,. �.,..... .... ,,.,.,., I AB 1475 (Soto) Would Designate a Portion of Federal Transportation Safety Funding to School Safety Programs. Passed the Assembly Floor 50-25 on 6/2/99. On 9/8/99 passed Senate Floor 23-13. On 9/9/99 Assembly concurred in Senate Amendments to Governor's desk for signature. OPPOSE SANBAG 6/2/99 RCTC 5/12/99 AB 1571 (Villaraigosa) Creates the Carl Moyer Memorial Air Standards Attainment Program. Passed the Assembly Floor 78-0 on 5/26/99. Passed the Senate Floor 40-0 on 9/7/99. On 9/ 10/99 Assembly concurred in Senate Amendments to Governor's desk for signature. SEEK AMENDMENTS SANBAG 5/5/99 RCTC 5/12/99 AB 1612 (Florez) Would Allocate $300 Million of State Highway Account Dollars to Rehabilitate Streets and Roads. Passed the Assembly Floor 60-20 on 6/2/99. Referred to the Senate Transportation Committee. On 8/18/99 hearing canceled at the request of the author. OPPOSE UNLESS AMENDED OPPOSE SANBAG 6/2/99 RCTC 5/12/99 Status SB 14 (Rainey) Would require extensive study prior to construction of future HOV lanes. Passed the Senate Transportation Committee 33-1 on 6/22/99. Passed the Assembly Transportation Committee 18-0 on 8/16/99. Referred to Assembly Appropriations Committee. On 9/1/99 held in Committee under submission. No hearing date yet. OPPOSE UNLESS AMENDED SANBAG 3/3/99 RCfC 3/10/99 SB 17 (Figueroa) Would permit employers to receive a tax credit for purchasing transit passes for their employers. Passed the Senate Revenue and Taxation Committee 5-0 on 4/28/99. Referred to the Senate Appropriations Committee 5/27/99. Hearing postponed by Committee. SUPPORT SANBAG 3/3/99 RCTC 3/ 10/99 SB 63 (Solis) Would reduce the minimum occupancy for the El Monte Busway from 3 plus to 2 plus. Passed the Senate Floor40-0 on 5/10/99. On 7/8/99 passed Assembly Floor 74-2. Signed into law by Governor on 7/23/99. OPPOSE UNLESS AMENDED. SANBAG 3/3/99 RCl'C 3/20/99 r IStatus SB 65 (Murray) Would appropriate $20 Million to support welfare to work transportation projects Senate Transportation Committee 9-0 on 3/16/99. Passed Senate Health & Human Services Committee 6-2 on 3/22/99. Placed on Senate Appropriations Committee. On 5/27/99 hearing postponed by Committee. No hearing date yet. SEEK AMENDMENT SANBAG 4/7/99 ROTC 4/14/99 SB 98 (Alarcon) Extends SCAQMD Authority to collect $1 vehicle license fee for air quality programs. Passed the Senate Floor 28-7 on 4/15/99. Passed Assembly Floor 56- 21 on 6/1/99. Signed into law by the Governor on 6/8/99. SUPPORT SANBAG 3/3/99 RCTC 3/10/99 SB 117 (Murray) Makes the State Environmental Enhancement and Mitigation fund permanent. Passed the Senate Floor 24-12 on 6/ 1 /99. On 9/9/99, Senate concurs in Assembly amendments 26-12. To Governor's desk for signature. SUPPORT SANBAG 3/3/99 RCTC 3/10/99 Status �.. ..........,, .... SB 481(Baca) Establishes a Study of the Economic Benefits of an Inland Port. Passed Senate Floor 30-4 on 5/24/99. Passed Assembly Consumer Protection, Governmental Efficiency & Economic Development Committee 7-0 on 6/29/99. Passed Assembly Floor 51- 27 on 8/31 /99. On 9/1/99 Senate concurs in Assembly Amendments 29-4. 9/7/99, to Governor's desk for signature. SUPPORT WITH AMENDMENTS SANBAG 5/5/99 RCTC 5/12/99 SB 928 (Burton) Authorizes Federal Grant Revenue Anticipation Notes-(Garvee Bonds) Passed Senate Floor 32-3 on 6/2/99. On 9/5/99 passed Assembly Floor 74-0. On 9/9/99, Senate concurs in Assembly amendments 35-2, to Governor's desk for signature. NO POSITION SUPPORT SANBAG RCTC SB 1043 (Murray) Requires the California High Speed Rail Authority to Submit it's Financial Plan to the Legislature for Approval. Passed Senate Floor on 28-9 on 5/27/99. On 7/8 passed Assembly Floor 78-0. On 7/28/99 vetoed by Governor. On 9/ 1 /99 placed on inactive file on request of Senator Murray. SUPPORT SANBAG 5/5/99 RC'TC 5/12/99 Status I SB 1277 (Hayden) Would Prohibit Construction of Roads in Lands Under the Jurisdiction of the. Department of Parks and Recreation, the Department of Fish and Game and the state conservancies. Passed Senate Natural Resources and Wildlife Committee 5-3 on 5/ 13/99. Passed the Senate Appropriations Committee 7-4 on 6/ 10/99. Referred to the Senate Floor. OPPOSE NO POSITION ROTC 5/12/99 SANBAG 6/2/99 SCA 3 (Burton) Would allow state ballot measure for local transportation sales taxes. Passed Senate floor 27-9 on 7/12/99. On 9/7/99 failed passage on Assembly Floor 46-28. SUPPORT RCTC 5/12/99 SANBAG 6/2/99 .v. ROM; CLI F N1ADI SO GOVERNMENT RELATIONS. INC. Dave Shepherd - Pain Blackwelder Cliff Madison t.� 1 � l September 1, 1999 SUL SD;: August Federal Affairs Report D: The Congress adjourned on August 6, and will return on September 8, at which time, tte primary focus of the Congress will be :.o pass the appropriations bills for the operations of the Federal agencies. As the Federal government fiscal year expires on the evening of September 30, the Congress must pass legislation to either fund an agency for the entire fiscal year, or pass legislation to fund an agency for a portion of the fiscal year. If they fail to pass legislation which would fund an agency, that agency must shut down until it's funding is approved by the Congress, and signed by the President. While the House of Representatives has 'passed the Transportation Appropriations for Fiscal Year 2000, the Senate has not acted upon the Committee -approved bill. The Committee-ap roved bill has a provision which would limit the amount any statecould receive in the transit category to 12.5 per cent. This provision applies to only two states -- California which receives almost 14 per cent of the total amount of transit funds, and New York, which receives approximately 14.5 per cent of the transit funding available. Because of this provision, the New York Senators, and the California Senators have pledged to block consideration of the bill. And at this time, the Democratic leadership' of the Senate has backed the California and New York delegations. At this time, it appears that Senator Shelby, the Chairman of the Senate Transportation Appropriations Subcommittee, will attempt to invoke cloture (a two-thirds vote to limit debate) on September 9. It also appears that his attempt will fail. If his attempt to limit debate fails, then the Senator has three choibes: 1. Bring the bill to the floor and have the bill debated over a long period of time. The Senate leader (Senator Lott) does not want to waste time debating this bill over a long period of time. -2- 2. Drop the anti -New York/California provision, and briny the bill to the floor, where it would progress smoothly, and pass without much cebste. Do not bring the bill to the floor for consideration 5y the full C'enate, and simply meet with his House counterpart (Congressman Frank Wolf, chairman of the House Transportation Appropriations Subcommittee), and reach agreement on the contents of a bill. That bill would be included in an "omnibus" bill to be considered by both the House and the Senate some time in October or November. This last scenario seems the likely outcome. This "omnibus" bill would also include a "tax reform" provision which would force action on the Republican "tax reform" plan that the President has pledged to veto. (In September, the President will veto the "tax reform" package that was adopted by the House and the Senate in July -August). i RIVERS/DE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMM/SS/ON DATE: October 13, 1999 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Tanya Love, Program Manager THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Request to Hire Contract Employee to Market the SB 836 Keys to STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends hiring a contract employee to market the SB 836 Keys to the Future Voluntary Rideshare Program. This contract will be for an 18 month period ending on or around June 30, 2001 and will be entirely paid for from SB 836 funds. No Measure "A" dollars will be used. The 18 month contract amount, including the cost of benefits, will not exceed $1 14,480. Authorize the Executive Director to direct Legal Counsel to develop the employment contract. BACKGROUND: In 1997, through a partnership with San Bernardino Associated Governments, $398,1 10 in SB 836 grant funds were received to implement three projects serving Inland Empire commuters and employers. Based on the projected success of the 1997 SB 836 projects, the Commission and SANBAG again partnered for grant funds and were awarded $268,654 through SB 836 funds for an additional demonstration project. The proposed project known as "Keys to the Future" will combine two of the SB 836 1997 projects into one. The new comprehensive commute project is designed to motivate drive alone commuters, working at small work sites with less than 250 employees, to begin ridesharing and will be comprised of three elements: 1. Survey Element: The employee transportation survey is the cornerstone of the regional database and provides essential information from which to market and implement additional TDM strategies and commuter incentive programs. The focus will be on employers in the Inland Empire who have not implemented a match list survey for the past 18 months or employers who have terminated their rideshare efforts as a result of Rule 2202 or SB 836. 2. Incentive Element: The project will provide an incentive of up to S2.00 per day for three consecutive months in local merchant gift certificates for every day a new ridesharer uses an alternative mode of transportation to work. 3. Team Ride Element: This element recognizes and rewards employees who continue to rideshare for six months or more by providing unlimited discounts at restaurants and entertainment venues. Historically, the Commission has hired a consulting firm to manage its core rideshare projects. Hiring a contract employee will enable staff to determine if there is any difference in contracting with a consultant firm compared to contracting directly with an individual. If approved, the contract employee will be hired on an at will basis and work up to 40 hours a week. The Commission will provide necessary benefits including workers compensation, California Public Employee's Retirement System, in addition to holidays, vacation and sick leave as negotiated. It is requested that the Executive Director be authorized to direct Legal Counsel to develop the employment contract. Included as Attachment 1 is the proposed Marketing Representative job description, essential functions of the job, required travel, minimum requirements and physical demands. A full recruitment will be conducted by staff as soon as the Commission approves the item. This item was presented to the Executive Committee at their meeting on October 6, 1999. If there were changes to the recommendations, this item will be pulled from the Consent Calendar. MARKETING REPRESENTATIVE THE POSITION: The Marketing Representative will perform tasks related to implementation of Riverside County Transportation Commission's (RCTC) and the San Bernardino Associated Government's (SANBAG) Senate Bill (SB) 836 program, referred to as "Keys to the Future". The purpose of the grant -funded program is to market services and incentives to employers with less than 250 employees at a work site, so as to motivate drive alone commuters to begin ridesharing. To implement the program, a full time Contract Employee is required for an 18-month period, to market the programs and incentives to employers and commuters, track and monitor all services, and provide reporting as needed. Please refer to the attached program description, Attachment II. Services will be performed under the supervision of the RCTC Program Manager. ESSENTIAL FUNCTIONS: Perform rideshare outreach to small employers in Riverside and/or San Bernardino Counties, who have not previously worked with RCTC and/or SANBAG for the past 18 months, providing marketing packets, materials and technical assistance as required; execute Statements of Participation (SOPs) with the employers; assist Employer Representatives and commuters in the delivery of the program; and, monitor, track and analyze the effectiveness of the outreach efforts. Occasional travel throughout the Counties of Riverside and San Bernardino is required, and travel within Southern California region may be required. At the time of hire, a valid California driver's license and proof of automobile liability insurance must be produced. QUALIFICATION GUIDELINES: Education/Training/Experience: A Bachelor's degree in marketing, business, transportation, planning, or a related field; three years work experience in ridesharing, commuter services programs, transportation, or a related technical field. An additional three years work experience may substitute for a Bachelor's degree; A Master's degree in a related field may substitute for two years of experience. Knowledge: Knowledge of Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) database, survey tools and outputs; general knowledge of ridesharing, transportation demand management and congestion management programs and strategies; general knowledge of word processing and spreadsheet software. Skills/Abilities: Ability to market and provide rideshare outreach services to employers and commuters; ability to analyze and clearly communicate information related to the program/project, orally and in writing; ability to maintain an effective working relationship with the commuting public, public and private employers, various government and public agencies, and staff members. Physical Elements: Manual and automated entry of complex and lengthy narrative and numerical items; ability to converse and respond in forums and meetings; strength, dexterity, coordination, and vision to use keyboard and video display terminals; reading long reports; occasional lifting of items weighing up to 25 pounds, such as files, boxes, and stacks of paper; moving from place to place within the office and community; reaching for items above and below desk level; and, dexterity, handling files and single sheets of paper, and the ability to sit for long periods of time. ATTACHMENT II Modified for Recruitment 9/21 /99 1998 SB 836 Proposal KEYS TO THE FUTURE The Inland Empire Voluntary Ridesharing Incentive Project 1 . Project Description Riverside County Transportation Commission (ROTC) and San Bernardino Associated Governments (SANBAG) propose the continuation of the AKeys To The Future@ umbrella Project which will combine two of the previous SB 836 projects into one. The new comprehensive commute reduction Project is designed to motivate drive alone commuters, working at small employer worksites with less than 250 employees, to begin ridesharing and will be comprised of three elements. Survey Element: Since the South Coast Air Quality Management District=s implementation of Rule 2202 in December 1995 and the passage of SB 836, it is difficult to encourage employers to voluntarily survey their employees to obtain vital commuting information. The employee transportation survey is the cornerstone of the regional database and provides essential information from which to market and implement additional TDM strategies and commuter incentive programs. Based upon the growing need to: 1) prevent existing employer survey clients from dropping out of the regional rideshare database, and 2) to encourage new employer clients to implement the voluntary employee transportation survey, it is proposed to expand the 1997 SB 836 funded Customized Employer Rideshare Services Project to provide supplemental survey support. Additional services to be performed by Project staff on behalf of the employer will include provision of on -site services including: 1) the distribution and collection of survey forms, 2) review of survey forms for 5 accuracy, 3) packaging of survey forms to send to SCAG Rideshare for processing, 4) completion of all instructional forms associated with processing the surveys and 5) provision of employee/employer survey participation drawings. Incentive Element: Building upon and expanding the concept of the 1997 SB 836 1-10 Commute Reduction Project, the Incentive Element of the proposed Project will be available to all employer worksites in Riverside and San Bernardino counties with less than 250 employees located within the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) jurisdiction. The Project will provide an incentive of up to $2.00 per day for three consecutive months in local merchant gift certificates for everyday a new ridesharer uses an alternative mode of transportation to work. It is proposed that the incentive be available to all employees regardless of home county origin. The ability to offer incentives to all employees regardless of home county origin will further entice an employer to participate in the Project. Team Ride Element: The Team Ride Element of the 1-10 Commute Reduction Project which recognizes and rewards employees who continue to rideshare on an on -going basis, would be expanded to include the availability of Team Ride to all San Bernardino County residents who commute to a qualifying small employer work site. 2. Geographic Region/Corridor/Infrastructure The Survey and Incentive Elements of the Project target employer work sites with less than 250 employees located in the counties of Riverside and San Bernardino, within the SCAQMD =s jurisdiction. The Team Ride Element of the Project targets all San Bernardino County residents who commute to employers with less than 250 employees located in the SCAQMD =s jurisdiction. There are several major commute corridors in the two counties. It is bisected on a north/south axis by 1-15 and 1-215, and on a east/west axis by 1-10, SR- 60 and Highway 91. 6 Beginning in July 1997, 1-10 from the Los Angeles/San Bernardino County line east to the 1-15 is under construction for approximately 2 years. The project includes the construction of one High Occupancy Vehicle lane in each direction including widening of eight existing bridge undercrossings, the reconstruction of two bridge undercrossings, reconstruction of one bridge overcrossing and sound walls. The project extends approximately 10 miles along the 1-10 corridor. Beginning in March 1998, a segment of SR60/1215 from the Valley Way off ramp to University Avenue in Riverside will be under construction for approximately 24 months. The project includes the addition of one High Occupancy Vehicle lane in each direction as well as an additional mixed flow lane. Also included in the project are sound walls, bridge reconstruction and widening, and interchange realignment. Recognizing that the majority of Riverside and San Bernardino County commuters travel to work within the two county sub -region, these construction projects will provide additional encouragement to commuters to sample ridesharing as one solution to inconveniences caused by the construction. 3. Origin/Destinations The destinations of the targeted employees for both the Survey and Incentive Elements of the Project will be those commuters traveling to an employment site with less than 250 employees located in Riverside County or San Bernardino County. The location of home county origin will not be used as criteria for who qualifies for participation in the Incentive Element of the Project. For the Team Ride Element of the Project the county of origin will be used to determine eligibility. Only those employees residing in San Bernardino County and traveling to work sites with less than 250 employees within the SCAQMD=s jurisdiction will be eligible to participate. 4. Rideshare Modes All modes of ridesharing will be targeted for this Project including carpool, vanpool, buspool, use of public bus or commuter rail, telecommuting, walking or bicycling. 5. Project Incentive Description 7 In the Survey Element of the Project, incentives will be available to work site employees to encourage completion and return of the survey form. The incentives provided will be gift certificates from local merchants and will be awarded through a participation drawing from those surveys returned at each work site. In addition, the Employer Representative will become eligible for an incentive gift certificate by achieving a 60% or greater survey response rate. The Incentive Element of the Project will provide an incentive of up to $2.00 per day for three consecutive months in local merchant gift certificates for everyday a new ridesharer uses an alternative mode of transportation to work. This incentive will be provided to all new ridesharer, regardless of home county origin, who commute to work sites with less than 250 employees located in the counties of Riverside and San Bernardino. The only exception to this will be for those Riverside and San Bernardino County work sites with less than 250 employees who are already an Advantage or Option Rideshare client. Under this scenario the Project will only pay for their new ridesharer who are not residents of Riverside or San Bernardino County. The Team Ride Element of the Project will provide membership to all San Bernardino County residents who currently rideshare to a work site with less than 250 employees in the SCAQMD =s jurisdiction as a reward and on -going motivation to continue ridesharing. Team Ride provides an annual membership card good for 20% discounts at local merchants. 6. Project Implementation RCTC will act as the lead agency to implement the Project on behalf of the SANBAG and RCTC partnership. SANBAG and RCTC have worked together for the past four years on the implementation of Option Rideshare, Advantage Rideshare, Inland Empire Commuter Services and Club Ride to employers in San Bernardino, Riverside, Los Angeles and Orange Counties. Collectively recognized as the SANBAG/RCTC Commuter Assistance Programs, RCTC has in turn contracted with a transportation firm as well as recruit a Contract Employee for the day to day Project implementation. SANBAG and RCTC retain collaborative yet independent program oversight responsibilities. 7. Marketing Strategies 8 Project staff will concentrate their marketing efforts on working directly with work sites with less than 250 employees to communicate with the primary market - the commuting employee. RCTC/SANBAG currently has an established working relationship with many employers in Riverside and San Bernardino counties. Staff will make use of a variety of resources to compile a listing of additional employer contacts, including but not limited to Chambers of Commerce, SCAG Rideshare database, purchased mailing lists, the SCAQMD database of employers exempted by SB 836 and Inland Empire Commuter Services database. Existing Keys To The Future marketing materials will require revision to accommodate the enhanced scope of the proposed Survey and Incentive Elements. Project participation forms will need to be updated. During the Survey Element of the Project staff will assist with the implementation of the employee transportation survey process by providing on - site services including the distribution and collection of survey forms, review of survey forms for accuracy, packaging of survey forms to send to SCAG Rideshare for processing and the completion of all instructional forms associated with processing the surveys. The Project will also conduct participation drawings during the survey process focused on encouraging employee=s to complete and turn in survey forms and heighten their awareness regarding the benefits of ridesharing. Staff will rely on a combination of mailings, follow-up telephone calls and one on one meetings with employers to facilitate participation in the Incentive Element of the Project. In addition, grass roots marketing targeted directly at the commuting employee may include the placement of Public Service Announcements (PSA) on local radio, cable television and movie theater screens. All PSA=s will include specific information on program parameters and eligibility. 8. Existing Efforts/Services The Project will be implemented in coordination with the services already provided by the RCTC/SANBAG Commuter Assistance Programs. As previously noted, Advantage Rideshare and Option Rideshare will continue to provide incentives to existing employer clients with less than 250 employees for their Riverside County and San Bernardino County residents respectively. 9. Budget/Time Line 9 The proposed budget for the Project is $268,654. The following provides a breakdown of the budget by line item: Proposed Line Item Line Item Budget Description Labor $172,804 Includes hours budgeted in RCTC Core Services contract for Mangement and Administrative; in addition to a full time Marketing Representative, as a Contract Employee to RCTC Expenses Marketing Materials Ride $ 3,500 $32,000 Includes mileage and incidental reimbursable expenses. Includes Project brochures, Team applications, Team Ride membership cards, assorted marketing materials and securing merchants. Office Supplies $ 1,500 Miscellaneous office supplies. Photocopies $ 350 Postage $15,000 Includes postage for marketing material, on -going payments for incentives and postage reply mail costs for Team Ride. Certificates/Vouchers $40,000 Includes the $2.00/day incentive Subsidies program, and survey incentives. Mailing Services Computer Support/ Maintenance $ 2,000 Use of mailing house for direct mail purposes. $ 1,500 Includes computer software and fees for computer programmer consultant. 10 TOTAL $ 268, 654 The time line for the Project is based on an 18 month implementation. Once a Marketing Representative is hired, there will be an additional 1.5 month development, and then a 15 month implementation, followed by 1.5 months of paperwork/incentive payments. Activity Develop employer work site target market list. Revise Project marketing material and administrative forms for employer/employee participation to reflect enhanced services. Time Line Month 1 Months 1-2 Begin implementation and marketing outreach to employers. Months 3-15 Schedule employer survey dates and assign staff to cover Months 5-15 each survey implementation. Process employer/employee transportation survey forms Months 5-15 in coordination with SCAG Rideshare Process incentive payments and mail to employers Months 5-18 Maintain merchant participation in Team Ride discounts Completed and promotions Process Team Ride applications Ongoing Prepare membership cards and materials Completed Prepare and submit eleven bi-monthly reports on Project progress. Prepare final report On -going Months 17 and 18 10. Trips Reduced The Incentive Element of the Project is projected to attract 360 participants, eliminate 300 vehicles, reduce 28,386 one-way vehicle trips and reduce 11 559,204 vehicle miles traveled, with each participant participating on average over a three month period. The Team Ride Element of the Project is projected to attract 600 new and renewing members, eliminate 600 vehicles, reduce 96,620 one-way vehicle trips and reduce 1,864,014 vehicle miles traveled, with each participant participating on average during a five month period. 11 . Project Tracking/Quantification The Survey Element of the Project will track statistical data from each employer survey implementation. Tracking will include, at a minimum: 1) employers contacted, 2) number of participating employers, 3) number of surveys processed, 4) number of RideGuides produced, and 5) number and type of speciality reports produced and delivered. The Incentive Element of the Project will track and report those items listed in the Trips Reduced section of this proposal. The Project will be able to track which employers participated in the program by a signed Statement of Participation (SOP) between the employer and RCTC/SANBAG. As a requirement of the SOP, employers will verify the incentive claim form completed by their respective participating employees. Both the employer and employee provide signatures on the incentive claim form before incentive payments are released back to the employer for distribution to their participating employees. The Team Ride Element of the Project will similarly report those items listed in the Trip Reduced section of this proposal. The employer will verify the continued rideshare participation of Team Ride applicants. Both the employer and employee provide signatures on the application form before the membership card is sent to the employee. The formula for tracking and quantifying vehicle trips reduced, miles saved and pounds of pollutants reduced is based upon the actual commute information provided and verified by both the employer and employee and will be reported based upon the agreed upon definition and process of the RTAC. 12 RIVERS/DE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMM/SS/ON DATE: October 13, 1999 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Budget & Implementation Committee THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Commission Signature Authorization BUDGET & IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Authorize the Deputy Executive Director to be added to the account as a primary signature. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Due to the departure of Dean Martin, the Commission's signature authorization needs to be changed. Currently, the Commission's checks require either the signature of the Chief Financial Officer or the Executive Director, along with co-signators. In order to insure that there are sufficient signatories available for cash disbursement, staff is recommending that the Deputy Executive Director be added to the account as a primary signature. RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: August 9, 1995 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Dean Martin, Controller SUBJECT: Establishment of Checking Account with Bank of America One of the management letter comments from the Commission's fiscal audit of 1993 was a recommendation that the Commission assume much of the responsibility for cash disbursement and general ledger functions. Staff has purchased an accounting system in response to that recommendation and is prepared to fully implement the system no later than October 1, 1995. Staff has held a number of meetings with the County to accomplish this change. County staff has indicated that the most efficient process is for the Commission to establish its own operating account at a separate bank. The Commission's excess (i.e., those funds not needed to pay current month's expenditures) funds would continue to be held and invested by the County of Riverside Treasury. Since the County banks principally with Bank of America, staff recommends establishing an account with the Bank of America as this will facilitate transfers from the County to the Commission. Staff recommends en opening deposit of $100,000 from the General Fund. Each month staff will project cash needs for the ensuing month and transfer that amount from the County Treasury or the trustee (bond requisitions) to the Commission's account for payment of all outstanding checks. The signature requirements on the account will be the same as the imprest account which requires the signature of the Executive Director and/or the Controller, and if needed, counter signatures from the Deputy Executive Director or the Clerk of the Board. Staff will send a formal notification to the Auditor Controller once the Commission takes action to approve this item. Along with that notification staff would like to express its gratitude to the Auditor Controller for the very responsive service they have provided the Commission for a number of years, and to assure them that this change is for reasons of efficiency and economy, not for lack of service. F AUSERSIPREPRINTIAUG .951BANKACCT.DM Page 2 STAFF AND BUDGET/FINANCE COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: That the Commission: 1) Authorize the Executive Director to establish an operating account at the Bank of America with an opening deposit of $100,000 from the General Fund for the purpose of processing monthly cash disbursements; 2) Authorize the Executive Director to formally notify the Auditor Controller of the Commission's intent to discontinue use of the County's accounting services, and to express gratitude for the many years of service provided by the Auditor Controller. :jw FAUS ERSIPREPRINTIAUG.951BANKACCT.DM RIVERS/DE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMM/SS/ON DATE: October 13, 1999 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Budget & Implementation Committee THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Single Signature Authority Report BUDGET & IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Receive and file. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Through August 31, 1999, contracts were executed under single signature authority granted to the Executive Director by the Commission. Remaining was $475,000.00 unused capacity. Attachment 00'0 00'000'SZ 00'0 00'0 Q0'000'S1 00'000'06 00'0 30NV1V8 iNf10WV JNINIVW321 030N3dX3 00'000'SLis 00'000'OOS 00'000'SZ 00'0 00'000'01 1Nf10WV 1OV211N00 006!SuiSONUpdaJd\SJOSIIVI MBnV Pus Apr speiwoo Mau s;uasaidal ease papeyg :emu Aq pamainaa .y;nnw8 uol;uslndod pue $400 010W2 aaldw4 puelul oX uol;ujai ul uawanou� 34g1�� aay}o pua dA%ra ��e poll puewap ul yy�noa6 llo lipn�s e6tus,w-a0 ' • }e al.0k4 110M6611100ua do N►ollo$ V Usis ni►su o sdl4suoma 'ainpru;s puonequelim olou *sauna 0.4o dwa 01.021.101 }ue31neu00 S301A213S AO NOI1d1210S30 6661 1Sf1Jf1V AO SV A11210H111V 321fi1VNJIS 3-19NIS 2130Nn 03ZR10Rinv S10V211NO3 Aq pandaid —10W/XV OOOZ'0£ aunt num ONINIVIAIM iNnowv 6661 ' 6 AInr 318V1IVAV 1Nf10WV '1V101 OVBNVS ae4epossb'8 s14leW 1NV1lf1SN00 47y6 SANBAG CONTRACT NO: 99-060 by and between San Bernardino .Associated Governments and Riverside County Transportation Commission to CO -MANAGE PREPARATION OF A STUDY OF GROWTH IN DEMAND FOR AIIt CARGO AND OTHER FREIGHT MOVEMENT IN RELATION TO INLAND EMPIRE E1IPLOYMENT kND POPULATION GROWTH (SANBAG CONTRACT NO. NO. 99-059) AND REIMBURSE SANBAG FOR 50% OF THE PROJECT COST, NOT TO EXCEED S15.000. FOR ACCOUNTING PURPOSES Payable OR Vendor Contract No. Y Receivable Task dumber 9911010 Cost Code 6010 New Contract/ if Amount: $15.000 for a total amount of $ 15.000 Funding Source(s) 1_ RCTC Reimbursement for Contract 99-059 $ 15,000 $ 3_ $ 4_ $ Contract SANBAG Approval Date: June 2, 1999 Contract Effective Date: June 2, 1999 Contract Ending Date: December 31, 1999 If this is a multi -year contract, please allocate contract costs among fiscal years: Fiscal Year _ Fiscal Year _ Fiscal Year $ $ $ — Is this consistent with the adopted budget? No. If no, is budget amendment attached? Yes If 1099 required Fed ID/SSN# CONTRACT. MANAGEMENT Please mark an "X" next to all that apply: x Intergovernmental OR Private Local Partly Local Non -Local DBE/WBE/DVBE % Task Manager. Ty Schuiling Contract Manager. Ty Schuiling A99-060.doc Page 1 of 3 AGREEMENT NO. 99-060 BY AND BETWEEN SAN BERNARDINO ASSOCIATED GOVERNMENTS AND RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION TO CO -MANAGE PREPARATION OF A STUDY OF GROWTH IN DEMAND FOR AIR CARGO AND OTHER FREIGHT MOVEMENT TN RELATION TO INLAND EMPIRE EMPLOYMENT AND POPULATION GROWTH THIS AGREEMENT ("agreement") is entered into as of this �T" day of June 1999 (the -`Effective Date"), in the State of California by and between SAN BERNARDINO ASSOCIATED GOVERNMENTS ("SANBAG") and the RIVERSIDE COUNTY TR iNSPORTATION COMMISSION ("RCTC"). WHEREAS. SANBAG approved the allocation of funding (SANBAG Contract No. 99-059) for preparation of a time -sensitive analysis of the Inland Empire's economic expansion which addresses concerns associated with a probable under -representation of the growth in air cargo demand in the Inland area in SCAG's air cargo modeling efforts ("Analysis"); and. WHEREAS. RCTC has agreed to provide fifty percent (50%) of the project cost, not to exceed S 15.000.00. NOW, THEREFORE, the parties agree as follows: A. Contract Services. SAIIIBAG will manage the preparation of the Analysis and RCTC will provide assistance with the Analysis as requested. B. Compensation. Upon completion of the Analysis and acceptance by RCTC, RCTC will reimburse SANBAG for half of the cost of the Analysis. in an amount not to exceed Fifteen Thousand Dollars (S 15,000.00). C. Term. This Agreement shall commence on the date first mentioned above and terminate upon acceptance of the Analysis by the parties or December 31, 1999, whichever' comes first. D. Indemnification. It is understood and agreed that neither party nor any officer, employee, consultant or agent thereof is responsible for any damage or liability to the other party occurring by reason of anything done or omitted by it under or in connection with any work authority of jurisdiction delegated to either party under this Agreement. It is understood and agreed that, pursuant to Government Code Section 895.4, each party shall fully defend, indemnify and save harmless the other, and all its officers, employees, consultants and agents from all claims, suits or actions of every name, kind and description brought for or on account of injury (as defined in Government Code Section 810.8) occurring by reason of anything done or A99-060.doc Page 2 of 3 omitted to be done by either party under or in connection with any work. authority or jurisdiction deleuated to either parry under this Agreement. E. Rights of SANBAG and ROTC. The Executive Directors of both SANBAG and RCTC shall have full authority to exercise their respective entity's rights under this Agreement. F. Ownership. All materials and data, including data on magnetic media, prepared for the parties under this Agreement. shall become the common property of RCTC and SANBAG. RCTC and SANBAG shall not be limited in any way in its use of the Analysis. G. Consent. Whenever consent or approval of any party is required under this _ zreement, that parrshall not unreasonably withhold nor delay such consent or approval. "v WITNESS THEREOF. THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVES OF THE PARTIES HAVE SIGNED BELOW AND EXECUTED THIS AGREEMENT ON THE EFFECTIVE DATE: SAN BERNARDINO :ASSOCIATED RIVERSIDE COUNTY GOVER iVIENTS TRANSPORTATION COIVIIVIISSION Robert Christman, President Eric A. Haley, Executive Director r � z, REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED APPROVED AS TO FORM FOR RCTC FOR APPROVAL Norman R. King, Executive Director APPROVED AS TO FORIv1 Rex A. Hinesley SANBAG C� A99-060.doc Stever DeBa�u�""C';atirse; /• REV OR FISCAL IMPACT i. i 77-Ns, Dea riala i>fef Financial Officer Page 3 of 3 047459 AGREEMENT FOR CONSULTING SERVICES BETWEEN THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION AND MATHIS & ASSOCIATES This Agreement is made and entered into this 1st day of January , 1999 by and between the Riverside County Transportation Commission, hereinafter referred to as "RCTC," and Mathis & Associates, hereinafter referred to as "CONSULTANT." RECITALS WHEREAS, CONSULTANT is a professional consultant, experienced in providing services to public clients and familiar with the plans of RCTC; and WHEREAS, RCTC desires to engage CONSULTANT to render certain consulting services as set forth herein; and NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration for the promises set forth herein, the receipt and adequacy of which is hereby acknowledged, the parties hereto agree as follows: SECTION I SERVICES OF THE CONSULTANT: TERM 1. General Scope of Services. CONSULTANT shall provide professional consulting services and assist the Riverside County Transportation Commission's Executive Director, in preparing for the staff retreat and to facilitate the Commission's staff retreat. 2. The term of this Agreement shall be from January 1, 1999 to September 30, 1999 unless earlier terminated as provided herein. 3. Termination. 3.1 Notice. Commission may, by written notice to Consultant, may terminate this Agreement in whole or in part at any time. Such termination may be for Commission's convenience or because of Consultant's failure to perform its duties and obligations under this - 1 - pursuant to provisions of Section V of this Agreement. The key personnel for performance of this Agreement is R. William Mathis. 4. Coordination of Services. CONSULTANT agrees to work closely with RCTC staff in the performance of Services and shall be available to RCTC's staff, consultants and other staff at all reasonable times. 5. Standard of Care; Licenses. CONSULTANT shall perform the Services under this Agreement in a skillful and competent manner and shall serve and maintain in force any and all licenses, permits or other approvals necessary for it to carry out the services. 6. Insurance. CONSULTANT shall provide its own insurance, such liability, health and workers' compensation 7. Schedule of Services. CONSULTANT shall perform all required services by September 30, 1999. SECTION III FEES AND PAYMENTS 1. Compensation. CONSULTANT shall receive compensation, including reimbursements, for all Services rendered under this Agreement. Reimbursements for expenses must be authorized by the Executive Director. The total compensation under this Agreement shall not exceed $10,000. 2. Payment of Compensation. CONSULTANT shall submit to RCTC a statement which indicates work completed and hours of Services rendered by Consultant. The statement shall describe the amount of Services and supplies provided since the initial commencement date, or since the start of the subsequent billing periods, as appropriate, through the date of the statement. RCTC shall, within 45 days of receiving such statement, review the statement and pay all approved charges thereon. 3. Reimbursement for Expenses. CONSULTANT shall be reimbursed for any authorized and documented expenses. 4. Extra Work. At any time during the term of this Agreement, RCTC may request that CONSULTANT perform Extra Work. As used herein, "Extra Work" means any work which is determined by RCTC to be necessary for the proper completion of the Project, but which the parties did not reasonably anticipate would be necessary at F : the execution_of this Agreement. CONSULTANT shall_ not perform, nor be """ - 4 - RIVERS/DE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMM/SS/ON DATE: October 13, 1999 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Budget & Implementation Committee Bill Hughes, Measure A Project Manager Louie Martin, Project Controls Manager THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Monthly Cost and Schedule Reports BUDGET& IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Receive and file. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The attached material depicts the current costs and schedule status of contracts reported by routes, commitments, and cooperative agreements executed by the Commission. For each contract and agreement, the report lists the authorized value approved by the Commission, percentage of contract amount expended to date, and the project expenditures by route with status for the month ending August 31, 1999. Attachments %1'16 % L'L6 %V'LB %0-£L %L LL %S 46 %S'4S %0'0 %00 %1'9 %L9 %L'86 %8 L6 %9 66 £ 10 1 eBed L683,01'9S 0$ %rt9 tit, 'E1 eft 009'9ZL`9S 91Z11V1O18nS L69170L'St %VLB £L1'818'St 409'9ZL'9t (9106'90060a)'uoalnu3/613u3tieulumlaid 8103POad 91Z-I n9't06'9S t8Z'8LC$ %6'96 t1¢'i'68'L;C 896'Ltni$ 46 31110a 11I101EmS 6EL'Z8St LLS'L$ 964'06 16Z'963 OSVE99$ (9466'9466'££66'94960a) Buldeaspuel IlemPuS OS8'L9L' 1t 914'46t %0'001 000'00E'ZS 000'00£'Zt (9£86021) dwea 100H Amid *mg uaang ueA (Z£86 '8696 ' 1996'L486'LZ96'L££6 ' 101602d) SE0t£914t OLZ'9 LZS %O'S6 £90'96L17t 809'940'St uoprulsuoa pue (Asap pennpunOS 81031"021d 16 31nOa Z98`t891S LZ0'9Z$ %0'OOL 606'Ct6'9Lt 606'tt6191; ILL 31flOa inallins LS96' 1996-6486'£4L6'9£96 ZSS'£9918S LZO'SZt 960001 606'E£6'91S 606'£E6'91$ (9£S6'L£96'0E96'SZ96'£ZS6'4£Z6'LZZ6'61Z6021) 81031'021d LL1 31n021 O= 0$ %0'001 000'MS 000'Lt9t 64 3.1110a 1V1018nS sauel uwn) 14618 'Apple luauluBlleaa (19660a) OS 09 %0'001 000'L£St 000'LES3 MO8/•uonnu3/Bupeaupu3 S103rOad 6L 31n021 tL1'96t$ 9Z9'0t$ %WOOL 006109'9$ 00010969S ►L amOti It/MienS £L 1'96£S SZ9'0£S %0 001 006'909'9$ 006'909'9$ (9966'0966 L££6021) MOalloilnu3/6uuaaull3u3 8103f021d tL 31110a 9964Lt= OS %1116 L91'Z8t$ /91'at$ 09 31n02J llimanS S£6'Zla %S 96 000'0ZES 000'SZ£S (Z£86'9Z66021) uollonuisuoa 101 BM A >l1ed OZO'Z9t %0 001 LS L'Z9S LS L'Z9t (9£L60M) upsea 'mid 101 aP121 .u. )11ed SINWiwuni n iHnni 8103P021d 09 alma 1SNIVOY 31V0-01 S3Uf1110N3dX3 % S381111CN3dX3 COON] NINON 210] 361111ON3dX3 Hine 1SNIVOV 0311100100 % S1N3W11WW03 itaint0V2i1N00 N011VO011V 03Z1110H1f1V NOISSIVWVOO NOI1d1210S30 1331'08d 31noa As 121od3a 139ana _..-- .-... - - -- - XC'L6 %8'O6 %0 46 %Olt; %0 l6 %WO %0'0 %8't►9 %8 t7S %L'86 % t 06 %8'66 96L'CC9'9C$ 9L4'611.6$ SEE'66S'L$ 19l'OSS' IS 806'C4Z'C$ 8o6'£sZ'E$ 0$ 0$ Z98'f08$ ZS6'ti08$ 161'8991$ Ot78'£LZ$ t SE'Y8£' t$ 8L6'899$ $ LZf'1'OL$ LZb'60 L$ 9Z9'9$ 8Zb'tl$ 31V0 Ol S1N1111WW00 31V0 Ol £ l0 Z aBed Xt'46 XL'L6 %S'68 %0'001 %WOOL %0'00l %WOOL %0'001 %WI'S %9176 Xt►'LB %6'98 %0'001 06Z'BLIeLtt$ 009'110'014 . 000'69£'8$ 009'8179' t$ OOZ'9L9'C$ OOZ'SLS'£$ 000'OOL $ 000'00 L$ 000'0001,$ 00o'OLVIS LL8'069'L$ 0000£$ LL8'98£' L$ LOL'LLL'6i$ Z01'666'014 ZOVOSE'6$ 009'0179' L$ OOZ'4L3'C$ OOZ'SLS'£$ 000'OOL$ 000'00 L$ 000'0$9'L$ 000`OSS' L$ LL8`81L`L$ 000'0S£$ LL8'98£' L$ S1V101 11V11213.L11 W WOO 1V101811 S ('LS66'£966'5486'£686'9£86'0Z66'0000021) WOO •;uieyJ/S;S00 dO/b3V el!S/LiOne;S (9S6617S9617486'E£86'ZE86' 1£L6'0Zti6 021) BupaaulBu3/ae!PnIS 111/21213111WW00 3011M)111Vd 11V101811S (£1.86) (St66-LO66) 6996 (ZtL6-0t•L608) W V210021d '1N30NU30121-N'N2lVd 'SOAS V Mild W11210021d 1V1018nS Apnls Jopw00 Wn0S/IIlieN S301A2130 V NVId WV210021d 131H3381V101ans (000Z 021) VMS 1WOW 211SN00 V 1331'021d 30NVH02131NI 1Vti018115 (91766'9Z660H) Buldeospuel 01 ewnA (8Z176021) (3'8Sd) u6lsaa leU1d 01 eulnA WV210021d 'AMAMI 3ONVH02131NI 31V0 at. N011V0011V NOIldRl0S30 1SNIVOV 31V0-01 S3Nf1110N3dX3 030N3 H1NOIN H1f1V 1SNIVOV S1N3W11NNN00 03ZINOH1f1V S32lf1110N3dX3 °k 103fOad aOd 321f11iON3dX3 0311114100 °,6 1V21f110V211N00 NOISSIYWV00 666t'LE Isn6nV NOUN/3011V 3111021 A81210d321 13Ja118 sin4r Uld IHMLICIILI M 7vncwnui •-•a aevive to se snois %L'S9 %L S9 %L.S9 %L'S9 %Z'9L %Z 9L %6' 19 %6' 19 £ to £ °Bed 0$ OS OS OS OS 0$ OS OS OS •s;a6pnq JeeA leosB o; pamei iou pue peiwoomerold lam poi aye semen Ild •sweiBad;uawanoadwl eBueyoJa;ul;suleBe ueoi (1,) :310N 8t9'9Ot`LL= OS 9t9'90C`L�: S1V101 6It'Z£9' IS L90'6£ L'ZS 99L'£9£'4S LZO'060'SS SZ9'17£ I' IS 00917Z£' IS ZZ9'999'IS 61V9£6'tS ZLi'ti64ts tz9'ZIVS$ ZLb'£L6'£S £Z9'ZleSS LtL'O<t'LS 000'0091$ L£L'O l£' lS 1101N00 03AONddV 1N30111/4W00 3ONV1V9 1SNIVOV 3.010-01 ONIONV1S1110 NVOI 3ONV1V9 NV01 % ONIONV1S1110 000'009' IS 0$ L90'6£ L'ZS LZ0'b60'SS 00S'4Z£' IS 61V9£6' IS CZ911.Z.9$ £Z9'Z LZ'SS 000'009` $ 000'009'IS slruLdwl peon pue slaws 1e3o1 v on ewnA 03210N d0 A110 sluawana lwl pea g slaags pool V11133W31 d0 A113 sluaulanadwl pea S. slaalls leool OINIOVf NVS d0 A113 sluawanadwl pea g slaalls pool S121213d d0 A110 1rNouo3 Ao ul "'mans wnloruls aBeuleJp wJois ( I) saBueyaalul ulooun 8 aldeyy 'taws VN02100 d0 A110 NV013)111 NOANV3 inoiens S3ONVAOV 6661,'LE IsanV 1N3W11WW00 -V. 32111SV31A1 030N3 NINON 03A021ddV 1V101 and 321f1110N3dX3 sluawanwdull pa uoAue0 pealleu 3)♦V1 NOANVO d0 A113 NOIld1210S30 103f021d 103f021d A8 12J0d3211300ne S103f0Hd SCRIM V S13321191V001/AVMHOIH „V.. 32111SV3W 31321 RIVERS/DE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: October 13, 1999 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Plans and Programs Committee Hideo Sugita, Director of Planning and Programming THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: CETAP Vision Process PLANS AND PROGRAMS COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Receive and file. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The Riverside County Integrated Planning (RCIP) process is the concurrent, integrated development of a western county Multi -Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP), the identification of new transportation corridors, primarily in western county and the development of a new County General Plan. As was reported last month, the consultant team has completed the initial "listening phase" including an opinion poll, focus groups and 12 public workshops. On August 17, 1999, a meeting of the Strategic Partners, which is comprised of the 5 Board of Supervisors and 5 RCTC members, met with key stakeholders to review the public input to date and had an interactive workshop to begin the development of a "vision" for the integrated planning effort. The proceedings of the visioning workshop along with the public input from the outreach efforts provided the basis for the development of the draft vision statement (attached) to set broad goals and outcomes for what this County, its communities and stake holders desire it to be in 20 or more years into the future. Very draft is an appropriate label for the draft vision statement because the next round of public outreach will be to obtain input on the draft vision. This will involve a second round of community workshops and polling. The draft vision statement received wide distribution through the press and we will be seeking public and key stakeholder input on the draft vision through the planning effort's advisory committees, public agencies, stakeholders, etc.. The plan development schedule anticipates formal action on a vision statement by RCTC and the Board of Supervisors in November. From there the plans will then be developed, through the stakeholder driven, integrated process to create the framework of how we will achieve the visioning goals. It is always important to acknowledge that this plan development process is advantaged by the opportunity to assess the implications of various decisions on the subjects of growth, land use, habitat, transportation, economy, etc., and their projected effect on what the county will be in the future. On Sunday, September 19, 1999 the draft vision statement was published in the Press Enterprise. A copy of the publication is attached. A representative of the consulting team will be present to provide an overview of the draft vision to the Committee. RIVERSIDE COUNTY INTEGRATED PLAN Draft Vision Statement Riverside County Integrated Plan Draft Vision Statement September 20,1999 vision as a guide for the RCIP Our values drive our vision. What we, the people of Riverside County want for our future, our communities and ourselves will shape the Riverside County Integrated Plan. Implementing the plan will unify our resources to achieve our common purpose. What we choose to do or not to do will, in turn, validate or refine our vision so that it is not only imaginative in seeking a better future, but practical in creating expectations that are real. In short, this will lead to a comprehensive plan that says what it means and means what it says. Why is this so important? It is because the only way for our vision to be translated into reality is to work at it and persist. In other words, completing the RCIP is not the end of the process; it is the beginning. That is when the hard —but truly rewarding —work begins. Integration: the Hallmark of the Rlueralde County Plan The key to the entire RCIP lies in the word "integration". There are a number of movements throughout the nation that seek to improve quality of life. They all include useful ideas, usually organized around a major theme or emphasis. Examples include Healthy Cities, Sustainable Development, Livable Cities, Safe Communities, Smart Growth, Clean Cities and a number of others. The RCIP is not beholden solely to any one of these excellent ways of defining "quality of fife." Rather, it seeks to integrate the combinations of ideas from these programs and locally initiated concepts that will allow the citizens of Riverside County and their leaders to tailor the most applicable ideas to Riverside County's needs and potentials. If any single quality is evident regarding Riverside County, it is diversity. So, the vision for its future must respect the fact that "one size does not fit all." The foundation for this approach is integration of a host of ideas rich in potential, based not on a single theme, but on what makes the most sense for Riverside County. It is essential to appreciate the fact that this vision for Riverside County allows for varied interpretations, depending on one's priorities. This cannot and should not be avoided. Yet, it should become clear, as implementation of the vision occurs, if some aspect of the vision is completely ignored. That is not acceptable and will require serious attention. So this vision should be thought of as a consolidation of many legitimate agendas within which balanced response is expected. That this balance will vary at different times and in different locales does not diminish the value of the vision. After all, the vision is intended to motivate excellence, not impose a singular straightjacket on the future. Rather, it reflects the heritage of diversity that has always enriched the character of this place. This thought leads to one final idea reflected in our community vision statement. We constantly refer to the term "quality of life" in describing what we seek in our living environment. We all agree that this is a desirable purpose, yet we may define quality to mean widely differing things. For purposes of this vision statement, quality of life is defined to include all of the ingredients contained in our vision. It is not September 21,199911TPC_CMIPROJECTIDATAIPROJDATAISVE-011VISIONINewVision19.20.99Vision Statement2.doc Page 1 RIVERSIDE COUNTY INTEGRATED PLAN Draft Vision Statement exactly the same thing in every portion of the County. It is a balancing of competing priorities that do not enjoy universal definition throughout the County. Yet the vision statement includes an essential common ground that must be found to some degree in any quality of life interpretation used here. With this in mind, the RCIP... • Adapts the best part of many themes to the needs of Riverside County. Derives its power from the values that are held by the people here. • Balances stability in the landscape with the dynamism and flexibility to adapt to changing future circumstances. > Uses the best available data and analysis to guide decisionmaking without constraining the overall vision. ➢ Is flexible so that it can be adjusted to accommodate future circumstances, yet provides a solid foundation of stability so that basic ingredients in the plan are not sacrificed. • Protects high -value environmental resources and private property rights — and develops the complex tools needed to do so. • Integrates and works closely with cities and their planning efforts. • Provides a long-term means for economic stability to be achieved through investment by a variety of interests: residential, agricultural, property owner, environmental, institutional, business community, labor and others. • Seeks a balanced transportation system where people do not need to be totally dependent on the single -occupancy vehicle. ➢ Stimulates an unprecedented level of intergovernmental cooperation and collaboration. The RCIP will... • Provide on -going monitoring, measurement and status on progress toward achieving the vision. ➢ Preserve crucial open space and transportation corridors, resulting in less sprawl than would otherwise happen. • Provide a range of community design options to respond to varied lifestyle choices. ➢ Put a focus on high quality, efficient growth. • Provide a process for adjustment through General Plan reviews at regular intervals or when triggered by key events. September 21,199911TPC CMIPROJECTIDATAIPROJDATAISVE-011V1S10NINewVisionl9.20.99Vision Statement2.doc Page 2 RIVERSIDE COUNTY INTEGRATED PLAN Draft Vision Statement Draft Vision Concepts The most powerful way to state our vision is to place ourselves in the future and see what we have achieved; what our communities are like; what the quality of Irfe means at that point in time. So, if you will "fast forward" to about the year 2020 and look around, you will be able to describe our vision. Because the Riverside County Integrated Plan was adopted and implementation has been underway for almost 20 years... ❑ Future corridors and areas are preserved for distinctive uses: multi -purpose open space, economic development, residences, public facilities, and transportation systems. ❑ Growth involving new development or expansion of existing development is consistently accompanied by the public improvements required to serve it. ❑ The rich diversity of the County's environmental resources —even those modified by human activities —is preserved and enhanced for the enjoyment of present and future generations. ❑ The supply and quality of critical water resource essential to support development, agriculture and open space are now managed through a network of intergovernmental compacts, coordinated by a forward thinking water board. ❑ Multipurpose regional open space and community/neighborhood public spaces are permanent elements of the Riverside County landscape. ❑ Public access to recreation opportunities is part of the overall open space system, with multi- purpose parks, play fields and community facilities at varied sizes in accessible locations. ❑ Our communities maintain their individual distinctive qualities and character, surrounded in most cases by open space or non -intensive uses to give them physical separation. ❑ Development standards are consistently high, offset in cost by the absence of unpredictable time delays and conflict in the development review process. This is possible because the places where development should occur are clearly defined and the standards for development in cities and the County highly consistent. ❑ A significant part of new growth has been accommodated through infill and redevelopment within our existing communities. ❑ Our communities —both improvements to existing ones and newly emerging ones —are models for new ways to provide and manage infrastructure, deliver education, access jobs, and apply new technology. ❑ A comprehensive transportation system operates at regional, countywide, community and neighborhood scales. As part of that system, transportation corridors are unifying connectors between communities, providing high capacity linkages between jobs, residences and recreational opportunities and offering multiple modes of travel. ❑ Broadening of choices provided by the transportation system has resulted in reduced vehicle miles traveled and reduced vehicle hours, contributing to an improved quality of life, including air quality. September 21,199911TPC_CMIPROJECTIDATAIPROJDATAISVE-01WISIONINewVision19.20.99Vision Statement2.doc Page 3 RIVERSIDE COUNTY INTEGRATED PLAN Draft Vision Statement ❑ Clusters of similar businesses and industries are created within areas designated for job generating uses and our expanded educational institutions provide preparation and training for the new jobs created in these clusters. ❑ Though overall acreage in agricultural production has diminished, proactive measures have retained economically viable agricultural lands, which are well protected as valuable economic resources and, in some areas, have expanded. ❑ Many dimensions of the Riverside County Vision are being achieved through expanded levels of intergovernmental cooperation and partnerships that represent commitments to common ground not achievable in the past. September 21,199911TPC_CMIPROJECTIDATAIPROJDATAISVE-011V/SIONINewVision19.20.99Vision Statement2.doc Page 4 RIVERSIDE COUNTY INTEGRATED PLAN Draft Vision Statement Pt 11 Translating Issues Into won A number of issues were raised by the people of Riverside County during the outreach process aimed at finding out their opinions and concerns about the future. The people had much to say. The issues they talked about and the ideas they had for improvement fell into twelve subject areas. Those subject headings follow, with vision statements applicable to each one. Population Growth • New growth patterns no longer reflect a pattern of random sprawl. Rather, they follow a framework or transportation and open space corridors, with concentrations of development that fit into that framework. In other words, important open space and transportation corridors define growth areas. • Growth focus in this County is on quality, not on frustrating efforts to halt growth. • Population growth continues and is focused where it can best be accommodated. • Growth is well coordinated between cities and the County and they jointly influence periodic state and regional growth forecasts affecting Riverside County and its cities. Our Communities and Their Neighborhoods Each community in the County is identified uniquely as a special place. This includes incorporated cities, unincorporated communities, and new communities. The combination of multipurpose open space systems, transportation networks, and land suitable for development distinguishes those areas that logically fit into future expansion of cities, creation of new communities, and indefinitely preserved rural enclaves. Cooperative policies and programs are now in place that closely coordinate cities, the County of Riverside, and the Local Agency Formation Commission in concentrating development where it is most appropriate and still allowing considerable choice in location for developers and future residents. This collaboration is widely regarded as a means of assuring the integrity of communities within the County. Earlier problems associated with leapfrog development (development that "skips over" developable land and establishes inappropriate development patterns) have virtually disappeared because areas slated for development and those not acceptable for development are clearly identified and mapped. Where development is proposed at some distance from existing communities, it is treated as a new community and must demonstrate its self-sufficiency in terms of public facilities and services. This may eventually facilitate infill development where that is clearly consistent with planning policy and mapped designations. New communities are demonstrating methods for achieving efficient development and building a sense of community from the very beginning. The pattern of development is now moving in a rational direction and the incentives for intensification of development are working very effectively. As a result, the initial components of a transit system are in place, and the capability for expansion is preserved through rights -of -ways that can be brought on line as service needs dictate and financial resources permit. Not only are multipurpose open space areas permanently protected, but also numerous rural areas are likewise assured of a continuation of that lifestyle. Limitations on the erosion of this lifestyle are well respected because of the clarity and strength of commitment by the County and other agencies, and because extensive opportunities for more urban and suburban development exist which are not vulnerable to successful legal challenge regarding their appropriateness. • A high degree of consistency now exists between County and city land use and transportation planning within city spheres of influence, resulting in a reduction in development policy conflicts and September 21,199911TPC_CMIPROJECTIDATAIPROJDATAISVE-011VISlONINewVision19.20.99Vision Statement2.doc Page 5 RIVERSIDE COUNTY INTEGRATED PLAN Draft Vision Statement confusion. In some cases this has been driven by city initiatives, in others by County policy direction, and in still others through a negotiated blend of city/county preferences. • Innovative designs allow for increased density in key locations, such as near transit stations, with associated benefits. In these and other neighborhoods as well, walking, bicycling, or use of transit are attractive alternatives to driving for many residents. • Incentives commonly stimulate the development community to exceed the norms of development standards. • The regulatory system consistently rewards implementation of concepts that contribute to achievement of the Riverside County vision. • Incentives to achieve development efficiency often results in reduced fee costs. • The financial implications of implementing the RCIP are well documented and understood. • The planning process continues to refine acceptable densities as a means of accommodating additional growth so that the extensive permanent open space that now exists can be sustained. • The extensive heritage of rural living continues to be accommodated in areas committed to that lifestyle and its permanence is reinforced by the strong open space and urban development commitments provide for elsewhere in the RCIP. • Some development is accommodated in open space preserves where the type of development and sensitivity of the natural resource are mutually compatible. • Considerable protection from natural hazards such as earthquakes, flooding, slope failure, and other hazardous conditions is now built into the pattern of development authorized by the General Plan. Housing • The people of Riverside County represent a richly varied range of income categories. Housing for every increment of this range, from highly affordable to exclusive executive housing and from rental to various forms of ownership housing, is being provided through a combination of new housing, rehabilitated housing, group housing, resale, mixed use development, and various housing assistance programs where they are needed. • Regional forecasts of housing needs are well coordinated within Riverside County and are accepted by regional and state agencies. • Census data is well integrated into housing needs forecasts. • There is now a balance between the residential development capacities of county and city General Plans within the County and regional allocations of housing needs. • Mixed -use development occurs at numerous urban concentrations in city spheres and unincorporated communities, many of which include residential use. • Because of the clarity of direction now provided by the General Plan and the cooperative arrangements with most of the cities, constraints on providing affordable housing attributable to excessive local regulations have largely been eliminated. • Housing plans are well integrated throughout the County at four levels: — Subregionally at the Area Plan level; — Within cities and unincorporated communities; — Within large-scale development plans; and — At the project site planning level where housing is involved. Transportation • Major new transportation corridors capable of automobile and other transit modes are now partially developed, with funding for additional segments underway. • Riverside County and its communities are preeminent in their commitment to accessibility to all people, including those whose mobility is limited and requires special access design treatment. September 21,199911TPC_CMIPROJECTIDATAIPROJDATAISVE-011VIS/ONINewVision19.20.99Vision Statement2.doc Page 6 RIVERSIDE COUNTY INTEGRATED PLAN Draft Vision Statement • New fuels technologies continue to be carefully analyzed so that commitments to specific technologies are not premature and wasteful of limited funding. • Selected alternative fuels are in use to provide some of the multiple transportation choices people now enjoy. • Toll -way options are being explored as a means of achieving improved capacity in critical corridors. • Investment in and expansion of the existing freeway and arterial street networks continue to be a critical part of our comprehensive transportation system development. • Strategically planned truck routes provide for the movement of goods as a critical component of our transportation system. • The land use/transportation connection is a key part of the development process and has served to reduce the number of vehicle trips compared to earlier patterns of development. • Direct and immediate access to multi -purpose open space areas is provided in most areas of the County. Conservation and Open Space Resource System • Open space is viewed as a critical part of the County's infrastructure system (public facilities and services required to accommodate development). That system and the methods for its acquisition, maintenance, and operation are calibrated to its many functions: visual relief, natural resource protection, habitat preservation, passive and active recreation, protection from natural hazards, and various combinations of these purposes. This is what is meant by a multi -purpose open space system. • A major thrust of the multipurpose open space system is the preservation of components of the landscape that embody the historic character of the County, even though some areas have been impacted by man-made changes. • Native habitat for plants and animals that make up such important parts of our natural heritage now have interconnected spaces in a number of locations that allow these natural communities to prosper and be sustained. • A market system for habitat protection is in operation that includes options to use transfers of development rights (TDRs), conservation credits, and management programs to achieve equitable sharing of costs and benefits. • The cost to the public of maintaining open space and habitat areas over time continues to be balanced between the habitat value, recreational contributions and economic benefits the areas provide. • Lands identified for habitat preservation are based on the best available scientific information regarding species and habitat requirements and that information is updated as better methods emerge. • A coordinated education program spanning elementary through college and university levels exposes students of all ages to appropriate levels of information regarding the rich natural environment being preserved and enhanced here. This has lead to some highly regarded stewardship programs engaging the energies of students and their instructors in actions to sustain and protect these irreplaceable resources. • Strategies and incentives for voluntary conservation on private land are a basic part of the County's policy/regulatory system and are referred to nationwide as model approaches. Air Quality • Air quality measurements are used as a major factor in evaluating the Plan's performance. • Riverside County is an active participant in programs to base air quality improvement techniques on "best available science" methods. September 21,199911TPC_CMIPROJECTIDATAIPROJDATAISVE-011VISIONINewVision19.20.99Vision Statement2.doc Page 7 RIVERSIDE COUNTY INTEGRATED PLAN Draft Vision Statement • Implementing strategies have been accomplished to transition public and private fleets from petroleum -based fuels to alternative fuels and Riverside County is known as a center for applied new technology. • The County actively participates with other regional jurisdictions in developing strategies to reduce air pollution spillover into Riverside County from adjacent counties as well as limiting pollutants generated within the County. • Land use strategies being implemented in the County reflect an improved balance of jobs and housing, resulting in significant reduction in the average commute times and related motor vehicle pollutants. Jobs and the Economy • Implementation of the RCIP provides a clear picture of the fiscal implications of land use policies and documents the financial, as well as physical and social viability of communities in the County. • Jobs/housing balance is significantly improved, not only at the Countywide level, but within subregions of the County as well. • Voluntary tax sharing strategies are in place to diffuse the threat to our communities from the "fiscalization of land use". This is in addition to legislation largely stimulated by the County's planning process that achieves limited tax sharing procedures. • Economic development coalitions at several levels are active partners in implementing the County Plan through their involvement in stimulating new business development. • Jobs training programs to put people into new industry clusters are operational throughout the county and serve as an attraction to firms seeking a capable and stable labor force. • School programs are coordinated with economic clusters in terms of curriculum emphasis and cooperative internship and training arrangements with businesses. • Emerging employment sectors, such as the hospitality industry, are receiving renewed emphasis in job training and investment focus. Agricultural Lands • Riverside County continues to be one of the major agricultural forces among California counties and competes successfully in the global agricultural economy. • Many agricultural properties remain as economically productive businesses, whereas others are phasing into development through a carefully managed transition program designed to stage the transition from farming to clearly designated suburban uses. • Productive agricultural lands are broadly understood to be a valuable economic resource and have expanded in some areas. In selected areas they also serve as a valuable buffer between suburban and open space uses. Where agricultural lands are slated for transition to suburban uses, they are valued for their temporary contribution to the County's economy. • Financial incentives, such as transfer of development rights, development easements, and other mechanisms preserve the economic value of agricultural lands because they acknowledge the potential development value of these properties and enable property owners to capture some of that value without giving up agricultural production. • Agricultural operations of varying sizes and types are accommodated under the Plan in response to prevailing market strengths. • Where agricultural activities with significant environmental impacts such as dairies, egg production and animal husbandry are accommodated, they are accompanied by special provisions for mitigating impacts and assuring their continued operation. • Agricultural land that remains economically viable, either as a permanent or temporary economic resource, is well protected by policies, ordinances and design regulations. September 21,199911TPC_CMIPROJECTIDATAIPROJDATAISVE-011VISIONiNewVision19.20.99Vision Statement2.doc Page 8 RIVERSIDE COUNTY INTEGRATED PLAN Draft Vision Statement • Pressure for converting agricultural lands to development caused by expanded open space acquisitions is offset by agricultural protection measures and increased capacity of lands designated for development. Educational Facilities • The priority need for quality educational facilities and programs in the County (in order to attract industry, business and quality development) is satisfied through universally established partnerships between school districts and local government and is reflected in cooperative planning for growth. • A considerable contribution to the educational excellence within Riverside County has been made by expanded and new facilities at the community college and university levels. • There are now numerous examples of arrangements for joint use and financing of school facilities, as well as cooperative community based programs made possible by reduced costs of facilities. • Several industrial/office park sectors of the County include community college branch facilities in which job training and employee professional development programs are conducted under a business/college partnership arrangement. • The special housing needs of educators and students are recognized through innovative partnerships between developers, communities, and educational institutions to provide a range of residential choices for this segment of the population. Plan Integration • A key opportunity for plan integration is exemplified by the existence of critical corridors linking our communities — all part of the infrastructure system: open space corridors for vistas and recreation, habitat corridors for wildlife and plants, transportation corridors for mobility, riding and hiking trails for recreational travel, and bikeways as an alternate mode of travel as well as recreation pursuit. • Many of the corridors are recognized, not only as community links or buffers, but also as unifying elements that reinforce community identity. • The need for safe and efficient access to jobs, housing, commerce, and public services for residents of all ages, income groups, and physical abilities is reflected in the comprehensive transportation network serving the County. • Flexible planning tools such as mixed use zoning, incentives for creative use of land, overlay zoning, and multiple, flexible use of open space are in common use as our communities mature and new communities take shape. Financial Realities • A wide variety of public and private funding arrangements are in operation, including creative use of state and federal grant and loan funds to confront the continuing financial reality of not having enough money to do everything that is desired. • The County has a reputation for being unusually creative in gaining leverage out of limited funds by using them as seed money to attract larger investments in community facilities and programs and to obtain private grants and investment participation by the private sector. • Despite the emphasis on achieving community desires, the County is highly respected for its sensitivity to private property rights. Intergovernmental Cooperation • Recognition that many aspects of the vision are boundary -less is exemplified by the extensive array of intergovernmental arrangements involving the County, cities, special districts, and unincorporated communities. September 21,199911TPC_CMIPROJECTIDATAIPROJDATAISVE-011VISIONINewVision19.20.99Vision Statement2.doc Page 9 RIVERSIDE COUNTY INTEGRATED PLAN Draft Vision Statement • A coordinated and streamlined permitting process is now in operation that is feasible because areas clearly slated for development are identified and appropriate open space areas are acquired or protected. • Intergovernmental partnerships have eliminated the once common contentiousness surrounding annexations, incorporations, and preservation of unincorporated community integrity. • Several inter -county and intra-county compacts now exist regarding cooperative programs for open space management, transportation corridor planning and implementation, air quality and water quality improvements, water management, and other critical topics of mutual concern. • Because of the public support for the new levels of intergovernmental cooperation that have been achieved, a tradition is now well in place that limits the erosion of this way of conducting public business as elected officials transition in and out of office: the bar is raised regarding these expectations. • A Countywide information and education program is in place to sustain an understanding of the unique planning program that has emerged from the RCIP. This program includes a section in school curricula, a summary brochure that is updated from time to time, an orientation program for newly elected officials, a strong internet presence, and an ongoing speakers bureau to reinforce this strong tradition. September 21,19991iTPC_CMIPROJECTIDATAIPROJDATAISVE-011VISIONINewVision19.20.99VisionStatement2.doc Page 10 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: October 13, 1999 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Budget & Implementation Committee Shirley Medina, Staff Analyst THROUGH: Eric A. Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Requests For Reallocation of CMAQ Funds from the County of Riverside and the Riverside Transit Agency BUDGET & IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE AND TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: Approve the reallocation of Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) funds in the amount of $843,907 to a County of Riverside PM10 Mitigation Project on Holland Road. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The Riverside County Transportation Commission has a total of $843,907 of CMAQ funds available for reallocation. The funds have been made available from two projects, one from a County of Riverside cost reduction on a PM10 Mitigation project on Leon Road, and the other from unspent capital and operating costs for the Riverside Transit Agency (RTA) Trolley Demonstration Project. The projects were programmed by the Commission with ISTEA funds in 1996 and 1993 respectively. The County of Riverside and the RTA have recently submitted letters notifying the RCTC of the available CMAQ funds. The County is requesting available funds be reallocated to the next fundable project on the ISTEA Unfunded Project List which is the Holland Road PM10 Mitigation from Haun Road to Murrieta Road ($898,275). The project would implement a high priority segment adjacent to Paloma Valley High School to alleviate safety issues. The RTA is requesting reallocation of available funds to fund a Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) Compressor and Fueling Station in the City of Hemet. The project would compliment the new Hemet operating and maintenance facility currently underway. The Budget and Implementation and Technical Advisory Committee's recommendations are to reallocate the total of funds available ($843,907) to the Holland Road project. The basis for the recommendation of the TAC is as follows: • The ISTEA funds will expire on September 30, 2000. ISTEA funds must be obligated by this date or lose the funding allocated to the Western Riverside County region. • The CNG facility is not fully funded. According to RTA staff, the cost of the CNG facility is estimated at $2 million to build the ultimate project. If the Commission were to approve the requested $423,907 of CMAQ funds, the RTA would still need to secure additional funding in excess of $1 million. • The Holland Road project can be fully funded and obligated by Summer, 2000. • The Commission's past practice has been to reallocate available funds to the next project on the Unfunded Project List from where the funds originated. • There were several (13) other CMAQ projects on the current TEA-21 Unfunded Project List which ranked higher than the RTA CNG fueling project. • The Holland Road project will alleviate safety issues. Both Committees also discussed at length the need to convert to alternative fuels and the requirement that the infrastructure must be in place in order for it to happen. The CNG Facility, when implemented, would meet the Commission's desire to promote alternative fueled vehicles throughout the County. However, in reviewing the recent Transportation Equity Act of the 21' Century (TEA 21) CMAQ Call for Projects Unfunded Project List, the Committees acknowledged that there were several projects throughout the County which ranked higher than the RTA CNG Facility including another CNG Facility submitted by the March Air Force Base Joint Powers Authority. The Committee also discussed the possibility of additional funding opportunities for the CNG facility. RTA staff stated that $120,000 of match funds are being contributed by the City of Hemet. To date, no other funding commitments have been made, however, the RTA is actively pursuing all funding opportunities. RCTC staff stated that the RCTC Clean Fuels Opportunity Program may be able to provide additional match in the amount of $250,000. County of Riverside staff was asked about the delivery schedule and the conditions of Holland Road. County staff stated that the project can be under construction in June, 2000 and that the road is in poor condition resulting in safety issues since it serves as a primary access road to Paloma Valley High School. AGENDA ITEm 7B ISTP/CMAO POLICY COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION - MARCH 25,1996 RIVERSIDE COUNTY CMAQ PROGRAM FY1 1995-% - 1996-97 SCAB AREA IAOENCY ' _LIIMIJRRIETA • 2II'RTA 3 1RCT'C 4 RIVERSIDE 5 RIVERSIDE 61RTA 7 COUNTY OF RN jELECrRIC VEHICLE INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT 1 f`RCTC ISAN JAC RAIL UNE e3xi6ad cow and cagixerinL Projects above were approved June 14,1995 9 MORENO VLY IHOV ON -RAMP G. MORENO BEACH/SR60 10 (COUNTY OF RN TRAFFIC MONITORING A COORDINATION McCALL BLVD 11 IMORENO VLY 'HOV ON -RAMP ® NASON/SR60 c 93/e 95/ 96r1 96/I 96,17 954 95/6/7 12 !COUNTY OF RN IPPROJECI TYPE 1 SIONAL INTERCONNECT ® FREEWAY RAMP TERMINAL SIONALWATION 3 REPLACEMENT BUSES AND ENGINE OVERHAULS FOR 14 BUSES ISOUTHWE,ST AREA DEFICIENCY PLAN COMPONENT (MAGNOLIA AVE CORRIDOR SEPARATION ON ARLIIJ GRADE GTON AVE @ ATSF RAILROAD TRACKS 1DOWNTOWN RIVERSIDE TROLLEY OPERATIONS AUTOMATED TRAFFIC COUNTS 13 SIGNAL INTERCONNECT HEACOCK 14 PERRIS ,PARK-N-RIDE,BUS STOP, BICYCLE STORAGE,RPARTCING APROVE-METROUN 15 (COUNTY OF RN 1PM10 MITIGATION PROGRAM - (EON ROAD OLIVE TO SIMPSO t 6 I OUNTY OF RIv 1 PM 10 MITIGATION PROGRAM - (EON ROAD (BENrON TO ICELLER] 17 OUNTY OF RN :M10 MITIGATION PROGRAM - BRIGGS RD II OUNTY OF RN PM I0 MMGATION PROBLEM - HOLLAND ROAD MORENO VLY 9 (COUNTY OF RN '0 (RIVERSIDE TEMECULA (MARCH JPA 3 MORENO VLY 4CORONA - ‘IT. SAN JAC /RONA , CORONA t 'CORONA ('CORONA I RIVERSIDE MORENO VLY 1 2 rstoi/Atcoo SIGNAL COORDINATION - MISSION BLVD SIGNAL INTERCONNECT ® CENTRAL AVENUE WESTERN BY-PASS CORRIDOR MARCH AIR FORCE BASE CIRCULATION/TRANSPORTATION PLAN PEDESTRIAN MEDIANS CONTROL MEASURES SIGNAL MODIFICATION AND CHANNELIZATION-EL SOB INTERACTIVE VIDEO NETWORK RANTEr�MAGNOLTA SIGNAL MODIFICATION AND CHANNIILIZATION - SDCTH of§ MAN ST [SIGNAL MODIFICATION AND CHANNEISLATION - MAGNOLIA ® RTMPAU SIGNAL MODIFICATION - MAIN ST ® NORTH GRAND BLVD SIGNAL MODIFICATION AND CHANNEII,ATTON - SDCIH ST CO MAGNOLIA EMERGENCY VEHICLE PRIORITY SIGNAL CONTROL SYSTEM ELDER AVENUE CONTROL MEASURES FOOTHILL PARKWAY OTAL CMAQ (SCAB( FUNDS AVAILABLE - MARCH 25, 1996 95/3 FL6/195/ 96r 95/3 961- 95/3 96/7 96/7 96/7 93l6i7 95/e 95/3 95/e 9313 96/1 95/e 93/6 95/6 9S/6 95/1 95/6 95/3 96/7 96r1 CMAQ FUNDDJG RECOMMENDED S302.703 3955.100 S150,000 S130,000 13.000,000 1250,000 SI20.200 S2,729,597 S3S0,000 131,250 S350,000 S257,500 390,000 S240,000 S442,500 31.140.450 S1,1114,250 S191,275 S130,000 S354,000 S2.500,000 S15.000 S15,000 S44,000 S524,000 S21,000 S32,000 S44,000 S41,000 S505,000 S300.000 SIl0.000 S11.260,1100 I CUMULATIVE TOTAL 1302,703 S1.23t,303 S1,4011,503 S1,551,303 14.5511, 503 14,1011,503 54,921,703 S7.653,300 11,0011,300 AVG SCORE 71.000 73.500 65.000 63.200 61.500 59.333 55.503 53.600 51.500 Si,039,550 S1,319,550 S1,647,030 S1,737.050 S1,977,050 39,419.550 S11,260.000 S13,074,250 S13,972,525 S14,122.525 S14,476,525 SI6,976,523 S16.991.525 S17,076,525 S17.120,325 S17,644,525 SI7,672,323 S17,704,525 S17.741,525 :17,796,525 S11,301,523 :11,601,525 S11,751,525 ' - REFLECTS RESCOPING OF PROJECTS AS OF MARCH 25, 1996 Notes: Projects #9 through #16 are being considered for reprogramming from additional funding capacity. Projects #15 and #16 are being reviewed for appropriateness as air quality measures. Project #16 is reduced by $190,050 to meet capacity available. Capacity Available: $ 9.8 mil. = capacity available for'95P96 call for projects $ 1.46 mil. = additional capacity made available from '92/193-194f95 call for projects $11.26 mil. = total capacity available for'95P96 program of projects 50.667 50.500 44.500 41.133 31.000 37.500 37.500 .37.500 37.500 36.133 26.667 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 SIA IVA inviND [luau, 611au1 Guam 611auI suaul 3UODS SS9'9Lti'SLS ' USW1b3k1O30Nf13N111V101 0.b3H ! OVnO 'mpio Apolid tq 10u aye tawas palmd MON IsaM- em Ped 11141003 jo tu3 'S u6lsan ISe3- empBd II!41oo310 u011311.1Isuo3 uollezgeu6ls 'S uluanm .pu olum313 uolleZlleU.ls g BUNORm '8AV 011e11-10 peOH 40a.13 zei uo siapjno4s 6u!ned peon pegieo >? Peoa alms 10 Binned ssauanl �a 1 113 lan3 lasalpol8 to uonenlen3 uoms 6uyan3 'S Jossa1 won ONO IawaH peoa ednmr jo JaPlno4s plp Binned wet6oJd amluaoul umopAn8 lan3 man -IS pooeaH le pauuoasalul toed Pad V apA310 asn-I11nVy IS alelS any uosiayaf/1S n1 le 1eu613 oujeil 'pnl8 spied le pauuoaialu1 sed uoa6ld le loauuo��alul sAioslnpv Amjusu613 a6essalry algea6ue40 any y3o3ueN/pu syeo 1!Ie0 le leu6!S 391en .lS uelpul/anV sus le Ieu ft ogled 4��en uollelS Bulsuadsl plan3 an11ewa11V a u�0 pun n 81e I�auuopialul V sleu613 oglekl sdulea 11ooH IS uoslpen/16 aS NOI1d1H3S3O 133POtld V111 Iuno3 903HM alien ouagyy IawaH elaugwy aneA ouaioyy alien oualoyy sueIIleO ela! unvy alien ouamyy Vdf 0'41 AIuno3 appiangj AON30V :sparoJd papunjun i 11 1NAN113V.I IV 99E'LE9'Eb1 = algelleAV 6ulpun3 INV2100ad A1l1Vrlb 2lIV ONV NOI1V9111IN NOI SI3JNOn nacnO ri., . S 3H1 2iO3 COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE TRANSPORTATION AND LAND MANAGEMENT AGENCY Transportation Department August 9, 1999 Mr. Eric Haley, Executive Director Riverside County Transportation Commission 3560 University Avenue, Suite 100 Riverside, CA 92501 RE: CMAQ Project Addition v `7' David E. Barnhart Director of Transportation Dear Mr. Haley: On April 10, 1996 the Riverside County Transportation Commission approved the reprogramming of some CMAQ funds resulting in an increase in the number of projects funded in the FY 95/96-96/97 CMAQ program. Two County of Riverside projects on Leon Road were among the approved projects. A copy of agenda item 7B is attached for reference and shows a total amount of $2,282,950 for the two Leon Road projects. We recently completed the project design and have estimated the improvements for Leon Road will consume only $1,863,950 of CMAQ funds. We request the programmed CMAQ funding amount for Leon Road be reduced to a total of $1,863,950 and the fund balance of $420,000 be used to fund the next deliverable project on the FY 95/96-96/97 CMAQ program list, which is the County of Riverside's Holland Road project. The amount of CMAQ funds to be used on Holland Road has been reduced from the 1995 application amount due to a reduction in project limits. The projected fund balance from Leon Road will allow for paving of Holland Road between Bradley Road and Haun Road, a length of 0.75 miles. This segment of Holland Road is the most heavily traveled portion since it serves as a primary access road to the new Paloma Valley High School and is also the least costly portion to construct. The County of Riverside has begun preparation of construction plans for Holland Road using local funds due to the importance of this project and to accelerate the project completion. We will be in a position to advertise for construction as soon as the funding becomes available. The County of Riverside respectfully requests the RCTC approve 4080 Lemon Street, 8th Floor • Riverside, Califomia 92501 • (909) 955-6740 P.O. Box 1090 • Riverside, California 92502-1090 • FAX (909) 955.6721 000034 Mr. Eric Haley, Executive Director Riverside County Transportation Commission Page 2, August 9, 1999 the CMAQ funding to pave Holland Road between Bradley Road and Haun Road and administratively amended the project into the RTIP at the earliest opportunity. Should there be any questions, please contact me or George Johnson, Deputy Director of Transportation, at (909) 955-6740. Sincerely, LL/ avid E. Barnhart Director of Transportation RKN: attachments c: James Venable, Third District Shirley Medina, RCTC Atef Zaki Roy Null 000035 0 '7,135 August 25. 1999 Mr. Eric Haley Executive Director Riverside County Transportation Commission 3560 University Avenue, Suite 100 Riverside, CA 92501 Dear Eric: IINN -31111 Riverside Transit Agency 1825 Third Street P.O. Box 59968 Riverside, CA 92517 Phone: (909) 684-0850 Fax: (909)684-1007 Re: Reallocation of CMAQ Funds to RTA Our FTA Grant Project CA-90-X587 included CMAQ funds of $1,242,346. These funds covered the costs of purchasing five (5) trolleys for the Riverside Demo Project. Of the $1,242,346 budget. only $1,172.746 was spent leaving a balance of $69.600. On July 30, 1999, the grant was closed and as such, these funds are going to be deobligated by TTA and returned to our area. In this regard, we request that the $69.600 be reallocated to RTA for future eligible projects. In 1995, RTA was awarded a CMAQ grant of $1,097.525 under CA-90-X665. These funds were used to fund the Riverside Trolley Demo Project. As of June 30, 1999, we have an unappropriated balance of $354,307 from this project. Although the grant is still open, we request that the unexpended CMAQ funds, when deobligated, be reallocated back to RTA for future eligible projects. We appreciate your continued support to RTA and if you should have any questions, please feel free to call me. Sincerely, Susan J. Hafner General Manager cc: Steve 011er. Deputy General Manager -Operations -- - September 9, 1999 Eric Haley Riverside County Transportation Commission 3560 University Ave.. Suite100 Riverside. CA 92501 Dear Eric: Riverside Transit Agency 1825 Third Street P.O. Box 59968 Riverside, CA 92517 Phone:(909)684-0850 Fax: (909)684-1007 Re: Reallocation of CMAQ to CNG Fueling Station Construction Project As a follow-up to our letter dated August 25, 1999 regarding the deobligation of CMAQ funds from grant projects CA-90-X587 and CA-90-X665 we are requesting that the remaining total CMAQ balance of $423.907 be reallocated to RTA specifically for the construction of a compressed natural gas (CNG) fueling station. The proposed fueling station would be located at the Agency's Hemet operating and maintenance facility. This fast -fill fuel station project is included in the FY 1999-2000 Short Range Transit Plan at total estimated cost of$1.2 million . We appreciate your assistance in this matter. If you should require further information please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerel • z� Stephen 011er Deputy General Manager, Operations cc: Susan J. Hafner, General Manager 000039 047627 eptcmbcr 20, 1999 Eric Haley Executive Director Riverside County Transportation Commission 3560 University Ave., Suite100 Riverside, CA 92501 Dear Eric: Riverside ltivnsit Agency 1825 Third Street P.O. Box 59968 Riverside, CA 92517 Phone:(909) 684-0850 Fax: (909)684-1007 At the September 20, 1999 meeting of the RCTC Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) RTA's request for the reprogramming of unexpended CMAQ funds toward the construction of a CNG fueling station in the City of Hemet was denied in a 9-5 vote. The RTA respectfully wishes to appeal this decision before the ROTC 'Budget and implementation Committee on September 27, 1999. The RTA recognizes that it has been a past practice to reprogram remaining balances of CMAQ funds to previously approved projects or to fund a project from the original project call list from the year(s) the hinds were first made available. it is our belief that reprogramming these funds for the purposes of advancing the construction of a public transit CNG fueling station is consistent with the intents and values whereby they were originally awarded and therefore worthy of an exception to this practice. These CMAQ funds were in large part, awarded to encourage the introduction of clean -fueled transit vehicles in the region. Reprogramming the remaining balances to a CNG fuel station will not only continue to support that objective by allowing RTA to expand the use of alternative fuels in the southern portion of its service area, but will also promote the conversion of other municipal fleets to clean fuels as well. if you have any further questions regarding this Mauer please do not hesitate to contact me at your earliest convenience. Sincerely, Susan J. Haber General Manager cc: RTA Board of Directors ►• P 000040 RIVERS/DE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: October 13, 1999 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: State Route 74 Subcommittee Paul Blackwelder, Deputy Executive Director Bill Hughes, Bechtel Project Manager THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Accelerate Delivery of State Route 74 Measure "A" Project Between 1-15 and 7th Street in the City of Perris and amend Contract RO 9954 with SC Engineering to provide additional Right -of -Way Engineering and Environmental Services STATE ROUTE 74 COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: In order to accelerate project delivery, provide safety improvements, and minimize project construction impacts, it is recommended that the following actions be taken by the Commission: 1. That the current standing Committee be maintained to provide oversight of this important Measure "A" project. They will meet on an as -needed basis to review technical issues, make key management decisions impacting project delivery, and provide direction to RCTC staff. 2. That RCTC staff assist Caltrans with the acquisition of needed right-of-way for the signal at Meadowbrook on State Route 74. The right-of-way acquisition will be coordinated with the Measure "A" improvement project to minimize the impacts on the effected property owners. Note: Caltrans has indicated that they will construct the project as soon as the right-of-way has been obtained. 3. Authorize the Executive Director to make offers to purchase real property for the State Route 74 projects. The offers shall be based on appraisals prepared pursuant to applicable State and federal law. 4. Direct RCTC staff, in conjunction with Caltrans, to seek additional "targeted" CHP enforcement of the portion of State Route 74 between 1-15 and the City of Perris. This additional focused enforcement shall continue until the Measure "A" project is completed. Staff will bring back a proposal for focused and target enforcement and funding options to provide this additional CHP enforcement for the Commission's approval. 5. Direct RCTC staff to seek sponsorship of urgency legislation in the 2000 Legislature to double the traffic fines along the section of State Route 74 between 1-15 and the City of Perris. 6. Make every effort to consolidate the currently proposed Caltrans SHOPP projects with the Measure "A" improvement project for this segment of State Route 74 and accelerate delivery in order to provide safety improvements at the earliest possible time, eliminate throw -a -way construction costs; and . minimize the construction impacts on property owners, the motoring public, and utilities. Work with Caltrans to make the existing Caltrans SHOPP funding available for the Measure "A" widening project. 7. Commit that funding for delivery of the Measure "A" project be advanced to allow the Measure "A" project to be delivered, as soon as right-of-way and environmental clearances have been obtained, using the least costly means of financing the project. Note: Various funding options exist and the choice of the selected funding mechanism will be reviewed prior to selection to assure that the most efficient means of funding this project is exercised. 8. Authorize the Executive Director to sign any required agreement(s) with Caltrans to implement the above Commission directives subject to RCTC Legal Counsel review. In order to accelerate the Measure "A" project, Staff is recommending that SC Engineering's contract be amended to have their sub consultants perform work that was previously identified as work to be performed by Caltrans. The additional scope of work will be for two items. The first will be to provide right-of-way engineering for the portion of State Route 74 between Wasson Canyon Road and 7m Street in the City of Perris. This scope of work is estimated to cost between $200,000 and $250,000. The second scope change will be to provide the necessary environmental support for the Environmental Reevaluation of the current environmental document. The value of this scope change is estimated to be $61,000. The total value of this amendment will be between $260,000 and $310,000. The existing extra work that remains from the Commission actions to award the original contract and Amendment ##1 to the agreement will remain. No additional extra work will be authorized with this amendment. The standard amendment language will be used for this agreement subject to RCTC Legal Counsel review. I BACKGROUND INFORMATION: At the September 8, 1999 Commission meeting, the Commission established a sub committee of Commissioners Gene Bourbonnais, Al Landers, Tom Mullen, and Kevin Pape. The Committee met on September 17, 1999 and reviewed project status for both the Measure "A" State Route 74 improvement project and the various Caltrans SHOPP (State Highway Operations and Protection Program) projects. The meeting was also attended by members of the public interested in accelerating project delivery to improve this segment of Highway 74. A summary of the status information is attached for your information and review. After consideration of the information presented, the Committee members were unanimous in their desire to assist Caltrans with the signal installation at Meadowbrook and to recommend to the Commission to have the Caltrans SHOPP projects combined with the Measure "A" improvement project within the limits of I-15 and 7th Street on State Highway 74. The advancement of the Measure "A" improvement Project will require obtaining financing. In order to advance the Measure "A" improvement project, the Commission will be required to advance approximately $35 million for about a three year period of time. This amount is based on the following assumptions: 1. The existing $4.1, authorized by RCTC at the June 11, 1997 Commission meeting to buy -up the Caltrans SHOPP projects to be compatible with the Measure "A" improvement project, will be applied toward the delivery of this project, and 2. That Caltrans will be able to roll their currently identified SHOPP project funding into the combined project. The financing analysis will consider the following options: A. One time Issuance of new Bonds B. Borrowing from State Highway Account pursuant to AB 1012 using the pool interest rate C. Commercial paper with draw to be consistent with project needs D. Pay back using Riverside County's STIP cycle allocations for 2004 and Measure "A" revenues. The results of the financial analysis determined that the borrowing capacity is available to allow the Commission to borrow the required amounts to fund the project while still maintaining the required 2 to 1 income to dept coverage ratio (see attached letter). Advancing this project will not delay the delivery of any remaining Measure "A" projects. The environmental document for the Measure "A" project was originally approved in 1994 as a Negative Declaration and Finding of No Significant Impact. Five years have lapsed since the original environmental document was approval. FHWA and Fish & Wildlife are now requesting that an Environmental Reevaluation be performed to consider any changes in environmental impacts that occurred since the document approval. Initial findings of the new environmental studies have determined that the project may need to address habitat impacts for several listed species. The primary impacts of concern for this.project are for the California Gnatcatcher and the Quino Checkerspot Butterfly. Recent Gnatcatcher surveys have observed Gnatcatchers at various locations along the Measure "A" project alignment. No Quino Checkerspot Butterflies have been observed in recent years along the proposed project alignment. Habitat for both species exists along the alignment and may require mitigation in order for the Measure "A" project to proceed. Since potential impacts to listed species have now been brought to light, it will be necessary to resolve these issues with FHWA and Fish & Wildlife prior to the Measure "A" project moving forward. In order to expedite the reports that will be required to have these issues resolved, Staff is recommending that SC Engineering be directed to expand their existing scope of services to provide this additional documentation. These additional environmental activities will be closely coordinated with Caltrans District 8. Financial Assessment Project Cost $42 million ($24 million construction, $12 million ROW, S6 million contingency) Source of Funds Included in Fiscal Year Budget $4 million previously authorized • $3 million Caltrans.SHOPP (this may increase) $35 million to be financed by RCTC and payed back starting year 2004 n Year Included in Program Budget Y Year Programmed Approved Allocation Year of Allocation Budget Adjustment Required Y Financial Impact Not Applicable 1 SL'SZ/VZ'LL VL-A1�1-8 \ dVW NOI1V001 r_ 1 UOdUIV AA11VA SIUUid A3111/A llvno 0►03V 011 f�1Vw s NOANVO 0 11 OM�OVNVIII3 � N , — 11 1AV OUVIOVA MVIM1011 3AV 61111 slItun laa(oid NOCVSP V3 � I 3AV OIMyy�llVeNye IS 701SM1AW 111 1AV 0001111 3UONISl3 3Hr'1 4.11: 1 10010Jd NOLVSP V3 sliwi� l�alo�d WO9£b V3 slpun laaIwd NOZVSV V3 1 State Route 74 Ca!trans Projects Meadowbrook / Greenwald Avenue: Install traffic signal and lighting. EA 436001 Begin construction: April 2000. Wasson Canyon to Meadowbrook: EA 454101 Richard Street to Mountain Avenue: EA 454201 Ellis Avenue to 7t Street: EA 454301 Realign roadway. Add shoulders and 2-way left turn lane. Begin construction: Fall 2000. Left turn channelization and standard shoulders at the intersections of Richard Street, Spring Street, Theda Street and Mountain Avenue. Begin construction: Fall 2000. Realign roadway. Add shoulders and 2-way left turn lane. Begin construction: Fall 2000. State Route 74 Measure Projects Dexter Avenue to Wasson Canyon: Add two lanes. EA 464101 Begin construction: Fall 2000. Wasson Canyon to 7t Street: Add two lanes. EA 464201 Begin construction: Fall 2001. State Route 74 Delivery Options 1) Continue with delivery of SHOPP Projects a) Positive: i) This will provide the earliest delivery of significant improvements to this segment of State Highway 74 ii) Least environmental impact and have a smaller chance of being held -up for environmental clearance. b) Negative: i) SHOPP Projects have a high throw -a -way value of at least $2.7 million dollars. The current funding level of the SHOPP projects is $6.7 million dollars. $2.7 million dollars of this amount is the amount of money coming from the SHOPP program. The remaining $4.0 million dollars is coming from Measure A to buy up the project to be compatible with the Measure A widening project. Since the SHOPP funding is equal to the project throw -a- way, it is clear that the Commission contribution of Measure A funds was not successful in leveraging the SHOPP project funding into delivery of a portion of the Measure A project. ii) The current funding level of the SHOPP projects is about $2.4 million short of the funding level for construction. A higher construction cost will translate into a higher throw -a -way cost. This could potentially increase the throwa- way cost to $5.1 million dollars ($2.4 + $2.7). iii) Currently some property owners will be hit multiple times with acquisitions that address each of the projects separately. In order to minimize the impact to property owners, it will be necessary to purchase all required right-of-way at the time of the first project. This will require additional right-of-way funding be provided up -front to allow the SHOPP projectslo go forward while minimizing the impacts to property owners. This additional funding will likely have to come from Measure A and will be above and beyond the current $4 million funding level. iv) Utilities will be required to move twice within a short time period increasing the cost to the utility companies and/or the project cost. This will also mean utility connections to homeowners and businesses impacted by the SHOPP projects will be disrupted twice in a short time period. v) The current delivery schedule of the SHOPP projects is July of 2000 for start of construction. The current schedule for Measure a delivery of the SR 74 widening project is in 2004. However, the Measure A project is in final design and if funding is found for construction the delivery schedule can be advanced to March of 2001 about nine months later than the SHOPP project schedule for delivery. If the Measure A construction is advanced to 2001, most of the pavement constructed with the SHOPP projects will only be in use by the motoring public for at most several months before it is demolished. 2) Combine Safety Projects with Measure A Project a) Positive i) Best use of available funding ii) Easier and less costly utility coordination. Utilities will not have to be moved twice in the areas of the two curve realignments and property owners will not have their connections disrupted twice. iii) Easier to coordinate right-of-way acquisition with property owners and properties will be hit only one time. b) Negative i) Will delay the two curve realignments and installation of five of the signal projects for up to one year ii) Is a bigger project that adds capacity and therefore has a higher chance of being held up environmentally iii) Will require RCTC to borrow $35 million dollars to advance this project from the current schedule to deliver the project in 2004. iv) RCTC will have to expand the current consultant agreement with SC Engineering to provide right-of-way engineering that is currently being handled by Caltrans v) Several new Coop agreements will have to be entered into with Caltrans to modify the existing agreements with regards to the SHOPP•projects and establish new agreements for the combined highway -widening project. 3) Note with either option 1, 2, or 3 the signal project at Meadowbrook/Greenwald will go forward. at the earliest time. This project is currently delayed as a result of right- of-way acquisition because one of the property owners is impacted by this signal project, the SHOPP project near this location, and the Measure A widening project resulting in three planned separate takings on this property. a CALTRANS SHOPP PROJECTS (all dollars in Millions) EA if Description 454101 Wasson to Meadowbrook 454201 Signals installed at various locations 454301 Ellis Ave. to 7th St. EA # Description 464101 Dexter to Wasson 464201 Wasson to 7th Street misc row and utilities Totals Current Funding Level Throw -away Construction ROW TOTAL Amount % $1.8 $0.8 $2.6 $0.9 50% $0.9 $0.1 $1.0 $0.9 100% $2.4 $0.8 $3.2 $0.9 38% $5.1 $1.7 $6.8 . $2.7 53% Note 4 Note 3 MEASURE PROJECTS Totals Estimated Cost Construction ROW TOTAL $8.9 $2.5 $11.4 $15.3 $6.1 $21.4 $3.4 $3.4 $24.2 $12.0 $36.2 Proposed Project Funding if SHOPP Projects are Combined with Measure Projects Source Amount Remarks Total Project Cost $36.2 Caltrans share of SHOPP -$2.7 See note 2 Current Measure A funding for SHOPP -$4.0 Project Contingency (15%) $5.4 Estimated RCTC Required Loan $34.9 Notes: 1. The signal project (EA 436001) at Meadowbrook/Greenwald is not included in the above analysis. 2. This is the amount of SHOPP funds that are currently committed. This amount could increase. 3. The current construction estimate of the SHOPP projects is $2.4 million higher than the funding level If the construction costs increase, the throw -a -way cost could increase to $5 million. 4. The right-of-way costs will increase to provide for larger takes to match the Measure A Widening project. I. .r ,I•x1• V. IMM• ,,, e141 WY NrrrM0.1I4M1.I41 NMq MIMM41 Al MI WPM •Implimi AMPIIIIM • MMM1M •••••1• ARIAIIMM •YO r1111n/'1/ stem 6'»I vI • •I I 1 II MI L_4_—______.___— - r- 1 • ,:� ♦ • .41 `1f==11 11114.441 si.[r lr I_'•I I_ry _,._�_�_ o M d a l rIt TM FY in LJI 'oo sJ rT rT�r.L1 YETA� r�a Ito Y Y tjrLM Y=nri� Iwt IM[ I Mw2 _ IMMI ap•MJd dd011C 4444143 PIN 14442 41/ o1 paoa uotlw3 uou•M 444444 •1 ►l •PI•a Na1S 1411 .11 ISM! WM PIK 14I1 V/1 M•AI PH PPP M III PPM M•1I✓•1 PI MI IV 14 M!••ryl 141 1i.16.1111 Mrl l rnn Vet Wln••1 Wnl nrl M11 •.,r M..J ✓n.M ••v./ /w11 .•Mb M.vvM.•Y .Mw. A/ V H MY •M•MJ •••N,.,...1 IMx 1,.1,. R. yMP. n.l. I.4.44t1 avl•Y17101YOu•001IM •Arun x.x". I Me. WM •MIN P•M M•RM1 .n1 P[II 1.0IIKYI1 . AVM AO OH. 1A.1111 r. M, 1111 ,w1 111S M ., NPN••J nik• x.r. M,In•„1 IYP. I1 lwn M/P.•vMh/•M.. W.M IMMII.M ILIR HI MM a MISMYdd. AVM AO *MOM I I1N I 1 1141 1114.414, MIP,l wM1 IM4/11111 Vet 14144) �.. vNl lull .. 0I14,w1 VI livem. 1• IP,1l v. •M/. 1 Pell 1151 101.10•au1 J•sd/.•Iv.Y MMI 1.614.11 AM , .1 PPP AK,1AHIAMII\f. IN.M,•I,I MVO P•1 I•, 3/5d/P••M,I1 AI• IM/ll ••l 116MI11•PI PAH •1Oa111.1.AIM w1YY11Y] MINIM HIN IMAM MLL Nr IMIMPa II•IM•PI•IM?•.....HI OHIO P•MI MMRIRI HI P•I •,•.rvMMMwMrry • I Hamm IP 1I.1 1 PI PPM un 1.u1 M II 1.,...1r PPP* .11NMN 1 11141111..41 111,1,11 IwM 41 I.w••••,..1. IJM PHI ,411.1111 M IA 11911 0 III IuN.wY l.w,.N'lI.N11.••v5 444n n.l I44111 M 1104141 M. Iw✓ lv..,, 1•.1 ✓. I 1•I.I n. w'1 II•, ... N N• w�+...• xM•M•N 11Mt1. P•M •MIIR HI Pt/1 NOIMMPIO•• HA A0 I MOIY 14.IwP.p. (WI n11 1114 N••• , P M r:l ./I 1,1 IN,.n n 14011 4111114.411 I.14n1 H11 P•II / MP/I.YMdII I.M AO IMMO MIA PM1 AIMtM,1.11 rll wad M.♦•.M • et 1 •NN..MM AHOt *PI 11Ml el „rl PH P .,..Ih I•,..v,•b •P.O..4M'1 wlrtl lvM MVIRIPPI Pt Nv.M N4.11M,d w1r11 N•11Y wtR uyl Iw 1Y v15 1/1..1v1 mem. SHIM HI WM✓. PAI .•IMPP••.MIPINIw.yva WIMP/ OHM PHI PH I41Myu.yML4,.,•a,3 taw...31 wassail w wort Mll 10/01 P.1 IMI wad A••I•.M •w' / •..I•IIM /[ MHO lW IM[RI PrI PH 1.1.41/H IVIVIvvyJ1311MH •OI MLPJIY w MOM MIA MUM • A Mw wM•PHMem ww [ SW/WM PI MIMM111,1 MIAMI P.M Pw 14,1•L•••,rMLOvv/101TIAMH•M0Iwavav al HOW MA WMl Mu •II HSI M•M.Y%MP IHAMMAIM / �-I'"1 MI r IS to N to A It M l/ w p_ Iwy! T IMN _1_1__ AS MWM...1 a- MMI tam. MEMO THE CHAPMAN COMPANY BOYEA CAPITAL MARKETS To: Eric Haley, Executive Director Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) From: Leonard Berry, The Chapman Company Sean Boyea, Boyea Capital Markets Financial Advisors to Riverside County Transportation Commission CC: Paul Blackwelder, Deputy Executive Director Susan Van Note, Interim Chief Financial Officer Re: SR74 Project Acceleration -Financing Capacity Date: October 7, 1999 Background: The Riverside County Transportation Commission is considering the acceleration of the delivery of the SR74 (I-15 to 7°' Street) project. In order to assist in the evaluation of this possible action, the Commission's financial advisors have been requested to determine the amount of available bond dent financing capacity. In determining debt capacity, we analyzed the following three constraints: • Overall Commission -wide capacity, subject to a 2.00 times debt service coverage policy, (debt service coverage defined as the ratio of available sales tax revenues to maximum annual debt service) • Western County Highway/Rail Program capacity (subject to a 1.10 times debt service coverage policy) • Western County Highway cashflow sufficiency capacity Key Factors and Analysis Summary: The factors reviewed in the analysis include: 1) project cost and timing assumptions, 2) most recent sales tax revenues, 2) allocation of sates tax revenues, 4) existing debt service totals, and 5) current interest rates. Based on these factors we have determined that sufficient capacity exists to accelerate the delivery of the SR74 project. However, based on the current policy for the Commission's Measure A sales tax allocation between Western County Highway and Rail Programs, the 2009 Western County Highway program sales tax defidt is projected to increase from $8 million to $10 million. Next Stens and Alternatives: Should the Commission decide to proceed with acceleration of the delivery of the SR74 project, staff and the financial advisors will continue evaluate other finandng alternatives and structures, including the proposed State Highway Account borrowing program and offsetting a portion of projects costs with funds designated for the SHOPP component of the project, to determine the optimal funding plan for acceleration of the SR74 project.