HomeMy Public PortalAbout09 September 8, 1999 CommissionCOMM-COMM-00113
RCTC Meeting Agenda
September 8, 1999
Page 2
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.
Overview
This item is 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. 99-01 1.
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.
9A. SURFACE TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM (STP) LOCAL PROGRAMS
FOLLOW UP
Overview
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
Overview
Receive and file.
RCTC Meeting Agenda
September 8, 1999
Page 3
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
Overview
This item is to 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.
The project will include ramp improvements at the Perris Boulevard
interchange.
9D. CITY OF NORCO - REQUEST TO REPROGRAM SURFACE
TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM FUNDS
Overview
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)
Overview
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.
RCTC Meeting Agenda
September 8, 1999
Page 4
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
Overview
It is recommended that the Commission 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
Overview
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
Overview
The agreement between the Caltrans and the Riverside County SAFE is
presented for approval, subject to legal counsel, in the amount of
$ 96, 000.
RCTC Meeting Agenda
September 8, 1999
Page 5
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
Overview
The agreement between SANBAG and RCTC for dispatch services for
Riverside County Motorist Aid Call Box Program is presented for
approval.
9J. FUND TRANSFER AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND THE RIVERSIDECOUNTY
TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION FOR THE OPERATION OF A
FREEWAY SERVICE PATROL PROGRAM IN RIVERSIDE COUNTY
Overview
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
Overview
Award a three-year contract to Pepe's Towing Service to provide tow
truck service on Beat #25.
9L. ADVANCE OF LOCAL TRANSPORTATION FUNDS TO SUNLINE TRANSIT
AGENCY
Overview
This item is to 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.
RCTC Meeting Agenda
September 8, 1999
Page 6
9M. MEASURE A COMMUTER ASSISTANCE PROGRAM EVALUATION
RESULTS
Overview
This item is 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"
Overview
This item is to include language in the Commission's Personnel Rules
and Regulations for employees to disclose to their immediate supervisor
that a relative works for or on behalf of an individual, business or entity
that does business with RCTC by adopting Resolution No. 99-010.
90. QUARTERLY CALL BOX UPDATE
Overview
For receive and file.
9P. QUARTERLY FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
O vervie w
For receive and file
9Q. MONTHLY COST SCHEDULE REPORT
Overview
For receive and file.
RCTC Meeting Agenda
September 8, 1999
Page 7
9R. QUARTERLY Y2K STATUS REPORT
Overview
For receive and file.
10. RIVERSIDE COUNTY INTEGRATED PLAN - "LISTENING" AND "VISIONING"
PHASE 25 Minutes Page 143
Overview
Presented is the Riverside County Integrated Plan's draft vision statement.
11. STATE AND FEDERAL LEGISLATIVE UPDATE 10 Minutes Page 295
Overview
State and federal legislative updates are presented for receive and file.
12. AMENDMENT TO FY 1999-2000 SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN FOR SUNLINE
TRANSIT AGENCY 5 Minutes Page 311
Overview
This item is to 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.
5 Minutes Page 313
Overview
This item is for the Commission to approve the donation of surplus 62 1 lb rail
to the Orange Empire Railway Museum for use in the Museum's Grizzly Flats
narrow gauge railroad display.
RCTC Meeting Agenda
September 8, 1999
Page 8
14. PRESENTATION ON ORANGE EMPIRE RAIL MUSEUM ACTIVITIES.
15 Minutes
Overview
Tom Jacobsen, President of the Orange Empire Rail Museum, will be present
at the meeting to brief the Commission on the status and upcoming activities
at the Museum.
15. COMMISSIONERS AND EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S REPORT 10 Minutes
Overview
This item is to provide the Commissioners and the Executive Director to report
on activities and meetings attended and other issues to be discussed. The
Executive Director will present a proposal for a no -cost fund trade with the
Southern California Association of Governments for discussion and/or action.
16. ITEMS PULLED FROM CONSENT CALENDAR
17. CLOSED SESSION
1. 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.
18. ADJOURNMENT
The next Commission meeting is scheduled to be held at 9:00 a.m.,
Wednesday, October 13, 1999 at the UCR Chancellor's Conference Room,
1201 University Avenue, Suite 207, Riverside, California 92507.
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
MINUTES
July 14, 1999
1. CALL TO ORDER.
Chairman Jack van Haaster called the meeting of the Riverside County Transportation
Commission to order at 9:00 a.m. at the UCR Chancellor's Conference Room, 1201
University Avenue, Suite 207, Riverside, California 92507.
A moment of silence was observed in memory of Commissioner Frank Parrot who passed
away on July 11, 1999.
Commissioners/Alternates Present Commissioners Absent
Gene Bourbonnais
Bob Buster
Percy L. Byrd
John M. Chlebnik
Alex Clifford
Juan M. DeLara
Frank Hall
John Hunt
Dick Kelly
Stan Lisiewicz
Tom Mullen
Kevin W. Pape
John J. Pena
Gregory S. Pettis
Andrea M. Puga *
Robin Reeser Lowe
Ron Roberts
Jim Smedley
Doug Sherman
John F. Tavaglione
Jack van Haaster
James A. Venable
Frank West
Roy Wilson
Donald F. Yokaitis
Mark Yarbrough
Arrived after start of meeting
2. COMMISSIONERS SELF INTRODUCTIONS
A roundtable self introductions followed.
Robert Crain
William G. Kleindienst
Jan Leja
Chris B. Silva
RCTC Minutes
July 14, 1999
Page 2
3. PUBLIC COMMENTS
None.
4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - June 2, 1999
M/S/C (Hall/Byrd) approve the minutes of the June 2, 1999, meeting as submitted.
5. ADDITIONS/REVISIONS.
No additions or revisions were submitted.
6. 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).
M/S/C (Pena/DeLara) to approve the following Consent Calendar items, with the exception
of Agenda Items 6A, FY 2000 FTA Section 5311 Rural Transportation Program, and 6S,
Schedule of Recurring Consultant.
6B. UNMET TRANSIT NEEDS HEARING TESTIMONY AND RESPONSES; ADOPT
RESOLUTION NO. 99-008 "RESOLUTION OF THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY
TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION ADOPTING A FINDING THAT THERE ARE NO
UNMET TRANSIT NEEDS THAT ARE REASONABLE TO MEET IN THE PALO VERDE
VALLEY AREA".
1) Reaffirm its definition of "Unmet Transit Needs" and "Reasonable to Meet"; 2)
That based upon a review of requests for services received through the "unmet
transit needs" hearing process, review of existing services and proposed
improvements to the available services, make a finding that there are no unmet
transit needs which can be reasonably met in the Palo Verde Valley area; 3) Adopt
Resolution No. 99-008, "Resolution of the Riverside County Transportation
Commission Adopting a Finding that There are No Unmet Transit Needs that are
Reasonable to Meet in the Palo Verde Valley Area".
6C. FY 2000-2006 SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLANS FOR THE RIVERSIDE TRANSIT
AGENCY AND REGIONAL COMMUTER RAIL
Approve the FY 2000-2006 Short Range Transit Plans for the Riverside Transit
Agency and Regional Commuter Rail as presented.
6D. FY 1999-2000 LOCAL TRANSPORTATION FUND ALLOCATIONS FOR TRANSIT
Approve the FY 1999-2000 LTF Allocations for transit in Riverside County as shown
on the table in the agenda packet.
RCTC Minutes
July 14, 1999
Page 3
6E. TRANSPORTATION ENHANCEMENT ACTIVITIES (TEA) CALL FOR PROJECTS
Direct staff to develop and release a Call for Projects; designate the Commission's
Technical Advisory Committee as the Evaluation Committee.
6F. REAFFIRMATION OF CONFORMITY FINDINGS OF THE 1998 RTP AND RTIP FOR
PM 10 NON -ATTAINMENT AREAS
Receive and file the report on reaffirmation of conformity findings of the 1998 RTP
and RTIP for PM10 non -attainment areas.
6G. AMENDMENT TO FIVE-YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN
Approve the revised Five Year Capital Improvement Plan for the City of Beaumont.
6H. FY 2000-2004 MEASURE "A" FIVE YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
FOR LOCAL STREETS AND ROADS
Approve the FY 2000-2004 Measure "A" Five Year Capital Improvement Plans,
including the City of Calimesa's Plan for FY 1999, as submitted.
61. AWARD OF AMENDMENT #3 TO CONTRACT NO. RO-9832 FOR NINYO & MOORE
TO PROVIDE ON -CALL MATERIAL TESTING SERVICES FOR MEASURE "A"
CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS IN THE 1999/2000 FISCAL YEAR.
Authorize the award of Amendment No. 3 to Contract RO-9832 to Ninyo & Moore
to provide on -call construction material testing services for the projects identified
in the staff report for a base amount of $77,185 and an additional extra work
amount of $22,815, for a total not to exceed amendment value of $100,000. The
extra work contingency will be used as authorized by the Executive Director. The
RCTC standard consultant amendment will be used subject to Legal Counsel review
and approval.
6J. SMART CALL BOX PROJECT/BUDGET ADJUSTMENT
Approve the FY 1998-99 budget adjustment to support the Smart Call Box Pilot
Program.
6K. FY 1990-00 SB 821 BICYCLE & PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES PROGRAM FUNDING
RECOMMENDATIONS
Approve the SB 821 allocations as shown in the attached schedule
RCTC Minutes
July 14, 1999
Page 4
6L. SB 821 PROGRAM EXTENSION REQUESTS FROM THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE
Grant the County's request to amend the site location for the Serfas Club Drive
project and approve time extensions as requested.
6M. 1999 REVISIONS TO LOCAL GUIDELINES TO IMPLEMENTING THE CALIFORNIA
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) AND ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION NO.
99-007, 'A RESOLUTION OF THE RIVERS/DE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION
COMMISSION AMENDING AND ADOPTING LOCAL GUIDELINES FOR
IMPLEMENTING THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT"
Adopt Resolution No. 99-007, 'A Resolution of the Riverside County Transportation
Commission Amending and Adopting Local Guidelines for Implementing the
California Environmental Quality Act (pub. Resources Code § §2100 Et Seq.)."
6N. AMEND RCTC DISADVANTAGED BUSINESS . ENTERPRISE PROGRAM (DBE)
PROGRAM AND OVERALL ANNUAL GOAL FOR FEDERALLY FUNDED PROJECTS
1) Adopt the amended RCTC Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Program; 2) Set
RCTC's overall DBE goal at 11 .6%; and, 3) Authorize staff to resubmit its adopted
plan and goal to the California Department of Transportation (CalTrans).
60. APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. 99-009, "RESOLUTION OF THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY
TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION AMENDING ITS PERSONNEL RULES AND
REGULATIONS'
Adopt Resolution No. 99-009, 'A Resolution of the Riverside County Transportation
Commission Amending its Personnel Rules and Regulations"
6P. QUARTERLY FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
Receive and file the status report.
6Q. MONTHLY COST SCHEDULE REPORT
Receive and file.
6R. REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL (RFP) FOR RCTC/SANBAG SHARED STATE AND
FEDERAL ADVOCATES
Approve two (2) RFP's: 1) RCTC and SANBAG shared State advocacy services; and
2) RCTC and SANBAG shared Federal advocacy services.
RCTC Minutes
July 14, 1999
Page 5
7. PUBLIC HEARINGS
7A. FY 2000 FTA SECTION 5307 PROGRAM OF PROJECTS
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 (Smedley/Reeser Lowe) to approve the proposed FY 2000 FTA
Section 5307 Program of Projects for Riverside County
7B. HEARING TO CONSIDER THE ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION OF NECESSITY TO
ACQUIRE TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT INTERESTS IN CERTAIN REAL
PROPERTY LOCATED IN RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, MORE PARTICULARLY
DESCRIBED AS APNS 233-130-020, 233-130-007, 233,140-004 AND 233-140-
005, BY EMINENT DOMAIN FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF SOUND WALL #98,
AND RELATED PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE, ALONG STATE ROUTE 91, BETWEEN
JACKSON AND MONROE STREETS, IN RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA
Chairman Jack van Haaster stated that this was eminent domain and would require
a 2/3 vote by the Commission.
Steve DeBaun, Legal Counsel, stated that it is necessary to acquire temporary
construction easements to put up that sound wall. There are five temporary
construction easements that are listed in the agenda. He noted that an agreement
with Felix' has been reached so this will be pulled. In order to adopt a Resolution
of Necessity, the Commission is required to make four findings: 1) whether the
public interest and necessity require the proposed project; 2) whether the proposed
project is planned or located in a manner that will be most compatible with the
greatest public good and the least private injury; 3) whether the acquisition of
temporary construction easements are necessary for the project; and, 4) whether
the required offers to acquire the temporary construction easements have been
made.
Naty Kopenhaver, Clerk of the Board, stated that proof of mailing is included in the
agenda packet and had been mailed to affected property owners.
Paul Blackwelder, Deputy Executive Director, explained that the Soundwall 98,
located on the south side between Jackson and Madison Streets, is a continuing
effort to complete the soundwall project on Route 91 which was part of the
widening of Route 91. The acquisition of the temporary construction easements are
necessary because the sound walls are located adjacent to the property line and the
outside of the footing will be the property line. RCTC contracted with the County
of Riverside to make the appropriate appraisals, and to contact and negotiate with
the property owners. Approval of this item is needed in order to continue this
project on schedule.
RCTC Minutes
July 14, 1999
Page 6
Naty Kopenhaver, Clerk of the Board, explained that there were no written
objections, protests or requests received.
Janet Parks, County of Riverside Supervising Property Agent, stated that they had
settled with all but one party.
Chairman Jack van Haaster opened the public hearing. Hearing or seeing no one,
the public hearing was closed.
M/S/C (Clifford/Smedley) make the findings as noted in the agenda report
and Approve Resolution No. 99-006 "Resolution of the Riverside County
Transportation Commission Declaring that the Acquisition of Temporary
Construction Easement Interests in Certain Real Property Located in
Riverside County, California, more Particularly Described as APNS 233-130-
020, 233-130-005, 233-130-007, 233-140-004 and 233-140-005, by
Eminent Domain is Necessary for the Construction of Sound Wall #98, and
Related Public Infrastructure, Along State Route 91, between Jackson and
Monroe Streets, in Riverside, California"
8. STATE ROUTE (SR) 71/91 IMPROVEMENT STUDY
Paul Blackwelder, explained that State Route 71 improvements are not included in
Measure "A". San Bernardino's Measure included State Route 71, from Route 60 to the
Riverside County line and they proceeded to construct the four -lane freeway. That, in
conjunction with growth in the Chino Hills area and the traffic increasing going towards 91,
created a congestion and safety problems. In an effort to resolve the problems, a
Coordination Team consisting of RCTC, SanBAG , CalTrans, SCAG and Riverside County
was formed to focus on short term improvements to solve the safety problems and identify
longer range improvements to increase capacity. Through the efforts of the Coordination
Team and Congressmen Ken Calvert and Jay Kim, interim improvements were approved
and funded. By using CalTrans SHOPP funding, California Transportation Commission
approved Interregional Road Funding and federal Demonstration Project Program, projects
are underway to solve the immediate safety problems and add some capacity. Also, funds
were secured to hire HDR Engineering to conduct a study to identify : a) identify
improvements for increased capacity on State Routes 71 and 91; and, b) various methods
available to fund improvements in the future.
Eric Haley, Executive Director, noted that NewTrak, the agency seeking to purchase the
91 HOV facility from the California Private Transportation Company (CPTC), was granted
a non-profit status.
Eric Keen, HDR, briefed the Commission on the Study. the alternatives identified are from
Magnolia Avenue and the Eastern Transportation Corridor. It is the impression that there
was a strong predominant movement from San Bernardino and Orange County, but in
looking at the traffic projections it is much more evenly distributed. In reviewing the
RCTC Minutes
July 14, 1999
Page 7
alternatives, it is recommended that an additional high occupancy lane be added west of
the 71 /91 Interchange, to implement the inner four -lane widening which is Alternative 1-A
as quickly as possible. and to review and adopt a Long Range Implementation Plan to
address the institutional and financial issues. There is a need to work with CPTC or their
successor, NewTrak, to establish a working relationship to implement some of these
improvements because they impact their facilities, revenue stream and also impacts their
franchise rights, and for a joint powers authority to be pursued to look at these
institutional/financial arrangements to implement parts of the project and that the
intergovernmental working group that has been established be continued. A long range
funding plan also needs to be developed.
In response to Commissioner Jim Smedley as to what agencies will be part of the JPA and
if Los Angeles County would be involved, Paul Blackwelder, explained that it would likely
be RCTC, Orange County, toll road operators and CalTrans. He added that Los Angeles
County would not be a member of the JPA but the JPA would coordinate with them.
Commissioner Alex Clifford expressed his concern about the four lane recommendation
and asked if traffic entering Route 91 will be controlled by the existing lights as they
approach the bridge before the 91 using a single lane to cross the bridge. He felt we
previously dealt with the safety argument and was not in favor of directing higher highway
traffic volumes from Route 71 which would cause a greater bottleneck at the 91 /71.
Paul Blackwelder indicated that in addition to controlling the lights, the bridge would be
widen and they will redo the ramp onto 91. These improvement would be done in
conjunction with the CalTrans auxiliary lane proposal between that point and the eastern
corridor. He agreed and confirmed Commissioner Clifford's question that if a motion
approving those recommendations it is understood that until determined otherwise by
RCTC the two projects are assumed to be connected.
Commissioner Bob Buster agreed with Commissioner Clifford that while these are
projections out fifteen years, he wondered if their basing the fact that traffic is going down
through the canyon, they are not going to want to go through the canyon because this will
be bottleneck in 15 years. These improvements should not be added preceding any kind
of agreement with CPTC or NewTrak to get official binder in writing to allow improvements
on Route 91 at least down to the 241.
Eric Keen stated that with regard to the four lane Alternative 1-A, the four lanes would go
across the bridge. One reason for that is that, currently, it operates as a two lane facility
at that location and there is a back-up of traffic. By adding the additional lane across the
bridge structure, it allows free -flow movement to and from the east to Riverside. It not only
enhances movement in this corridor, but does not add additional trips onto the roadway
(Route 91) in that it is still metered at the ramp. It does allow the movement coming
southbound on 71 to go eastbound on 91. By adding additional lanes, back-up traffic will
move right through and continue eastbound.
RCTC Minutes
July 14, 1999
Page 8
Eric Haley commented that the California Transportation Commission (CTC) will be
reviewing its Inter -regional Transportation Improvement Program and that will include $22
million for additional projects on 91. He then thanked Stan Lisiewicz for his efforts.
Commissioner John Chlebnik indicated that there is congestion westbound and eastbound
on Route 91 at different times of the day. By widening 71, will add to the congestion.
Unless Orange County widens the westbound to the 55 and maybe beyond, all that this
will do is to change where the congestion will be. He suggested just widening the
northbound 71 to relieve the congestion on the 91.
Commissioner John Tavaglione agreed with Commission Chlebnik and said that if those
auxiliary lanes could be built, it will allow a freer flow southbound on Route 91 at least
from Route 71 to westbound Orange County. He then questioned NewTrak's potential
acquisition of CPTC and RCTC's or CalTrans' ability to build the auxiliary lane without any
opposition or threat of lawsuit.
Eric Haley stated that NewTrak is not a party to CPTC's lawsuit. Theoretically, the basis
for CPTC's suit was that it reduced their market share, that would probably also be the
case for NewTrak.
Commissioner Andrea Puga commented that the City of Corona is probably the most
impacted by this issue. She was able to attend most of the meetings concerning this and
the report before the Commission has come a long way to identify the solutions.
Communication with the two toll road agencies should be continued and that Eric Haley has
done a very good job in doing so.
Eric Haley restated the recommendation was to approve the range of options and this time
will come back to the Commission to decide the level of financial commitment. Part of the
financial commitment will be based on the institutional arrangements that could be made
with Orange and San Bernardino Counties and perhaps Newtrak.
Commissioner Alex Clifford stated that presently there are physical barriers because when
you enter the 71 in Riverside County, it channels down to one lane and traffic is regulated
by signals. By widening Route 71 it to four lanes without the downstream widening on
Route 91, trying to regulate this by signals becomes a political barrier and the pressure will
be turned on by those outside the Inland Empire to start changing the timing on the signals
or turning them off. He concurred with Commissioner Buster to tie these two projects
together unless otherwise determined by this Commission down the line, make sure that
the four lanes occur and at the same time the downstream improvements between 71 and
the eastern corridor toll road occur.
Chairman van Haaster asked the Executive Director if it was appropriate to tie the two
together and if funding opportunities may be lost by doing so.
Eric Haley explained that the question of the auxiliary lanes is still tied up in litigation, so
RCTC Minutes
July 14, 1999
Page 9
they are not running on the same track. He would be very reluctant to try to put any
conditional language on the CTC's action to approve funding. The points are well taken,
but the speed of both decisions are significantly different. One is happening now and the
question on the auxiliary lanes is still in court.
In response to Chairman van Haaster if the auxiliary lanes never happened, would the
Commission want to widen that bridge. Eric Haley responded that this is a policy decision
and there are clearly some benefits for the traffic northbound traffic on 91 to have those
improvements and there are benefits for intercounty travel.
Commissioner Stan Lisiewicz shared his experience going to Temecula by way of 71 and
waited for 3 miles of backup traffic in order to get past that one lane choke. He stated
that if the Commission do have install two lanes southbound, it would not be beneficial to
Riverside residents.
Commissioner Chlebnik asked if it would be possible to go ahead with the northbound 71
improvements and set aside the money for the southbound until, and if, the downstream
improvements are done on the 91. Commissioner Lisiewicz said that the funds could not
be set aside.
Eric Haley indicated that the one section is in court and it is a CalTrans project which would
be done in cooperation with RCTC, highway improvements take a great deal of time. We
have a considerable amount of time to continue to work on this, but I would caution
against any signal that says we back away from the commitment that CalTrans has on this
$22 million.
Commissioner Tavaglione stated that the issue being debated occurred prior to when most
of the Commissioners were members of RCTC. We are now left with a congestion on
71 /91, we took the pro -active roll and worked with San Bernardino County and the cities.
The key is to have ongoing communications and a team put together to work with the toll
road agencies. He agreed with Commissioners Clifford and Buster that the two projects
should be combined but it will not happen unless there is a strong concerted effort working
with the toll roads to reach some agreement. The Commission should focus on what needs
to be done on Route 91 from the Route 71 to 1-15 with regards to future toll roads in
connection to the Route 71.
Paul Blackwelder stated that the study gives the proper direction, identifies the longer term
alternatives and the institutional arrangements. The Commission could approve the study
with direction to the staff to continue to work to make sure that the interim improvements
are down all at one time. The study does indicate that we want the four lane and the
auxiliary lane at one time.
M/S/C (Tavaglione/Hunt) to approve the SR 71 /91 Improvement Study Final Report
and the Chair create an ad hoc committee including Commissioners Andrea Puga,
John Tavaglione, and representatives from San Bernardino County to review the
alternatives and provide a recommendation to the Commission.
RCTC Minutes
July 14, 1999
Page 10
Nays: Buster, Clifford, Chlebnik
9. PRESENTATION OF COACHELLA VALLEY ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS (CVAG)
TRANSPORTATION PROJECT PRIORITIZATION STUDY
Corky Larson, Executive Director of the Coachella Valley Association of Governments
(CVAG), informed the Commission that they have adopted the 1999 update of the
Transportation Project Prioritization Study (TPSS) and the Regional Arterial Cost Estimate
for the Coachella Valley. The documents lists all of the arterial roadway improvement
projects in the Coachella Valley by ranking, including estimated cost of construction. These
are submitted to the Commission as Coachella Valley's strategic planning guide. The
estimated need, as identified by the various jurisdictions, is approximately $639 million.
In response to Commissioner Jim Smedley's question if the developer mitigation fee is wide
spread throughout the Coachella Valley or left up to each individual city, Corky Larson
explained that it was uniform throughout the Valley with the exception of two cities, all
of the cities in Coachella Valley participate because if they do not have a Transportation
Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF), the city gives up their local street and road funds to the
regional arterial program.
10. FY 2000-2003 CONGESTION MITIGATION & AIR QUALITY (CMAQ) IMPROVEMENT
PROGRAM
Cathy Bechtel, Program Manager, explained that CVAG was directed to coordinate the
programming of funds for their area and provide a list of recommended program allocations
to RCTC for consideration and approval. Attached to the staff memorandum is CVAG's
recommended program for PM 10 Control Measure Projects totaling $5,132,652. The
balance of the funds, $9,270,41 5, will be programmed at a later date. CVAG has called
a meeting of the local agencies to begin to develop a project list for the Commission's
consideration. In the Western County area, a total of 41 projects from 17 agencies was
received requesting a total of S61,662,463 in CMAQ funds. The Commission's TAC
evaluated all of the proposals using the approved selection criteria and in addition, Ray
Gorski was hired to provide support to staff in reviewing the proposals. Presented is the
recommended funding list of 18 projects developed by the TAC. In order to fund as many
projects as possible, the County of Riverside agreed to phase their project on Valley Way
Entrance and Exit Ramp. Also presented are the list of project which were unable to be
funded due to lack of funds to support their PM10 Implementation program in Coachella
Valley. She noted that broadening the scope on the SR 60 Moreno Valley HOV project to
include a reconfiguration at the Perris Boulevard SR 60 Interchange was recommended and
approved by the Budget and Implementation Committee. This will not affect the allocation
of the CMAQ money. The City of Moreno Valley will provide the necessary right-of-way
and additional construction cost will be covered by Measure "A".
Commissioner Robin ReeserLowe asked why the CNG Infrastructure in Hemet was not on
the list. Cathy Bechtel explained that there is great support for the Infrastructure, but given
RCTC Minutes
July 14, 1999
Page 11
the selection criteria approved by the Commission and the number of projects submitted,
there was not sufficient funds. Staff will be working with RTA to try to secure other funds
to implement and construct this station. She added that RTA has federal funds available
that could possibly be used.
Commissioner Alex Clifford asked for clarification, regarding the Nason Interchange in the
60 Project. Paul Blackwelder explained that the Commission will have substantial savings
by doing the project at the same time that the Route 60 construction project is done. The
total cost, including right-of-way is about $3 million with the right-of-way being close to
$1 million and approximately $500,000 will be saved by doing the projects together. There
is funding for local circulation and interchange improvement in Measure "A", since the Day
Street interchange which is part of the 60 Project was funded through the STIP. The $7.2
million interregional program is in the STIP Proposal. Staff will come back to the
Commission for funds to be reprogrammed for Route 60 at a future meeting after the
interregional funds are approved. That project was fully funded, but we were contacted
by the CTC asking if we had a project that could use $7.2 and funds will be used for the
truck bypass which would then allow the Commission to reprogram thoseoriginal funds.
Between the STIP, CMAQ and Measure "A" money available, it is not a problem to fully
fund this project. Commission Clifford confirmed that the Commission would not be in any
way precommitting to any other funds.
Eric Haley confirmed Commissioner Clifford's question that by this motion the Commission
would be putting the $7.2 million into the Route 60 project. There will be subsequent
action to realign the money. He further explained that it puts us in the vicinity of $33
million for this project. Without the $7.2 million we would have been about $7.5 million
short. Commissioner Clifford clarified that the $7.2 million is separate from the CMAQ
discussions. It is important the Commissioners are aware of this and we need to ensure
that we discuss these types of things.
In response to Commissioner Puga's request for clarification on the Southern California
Edison's Zero Emissions program, Cathy Becthel explained that it was a buy down program
for heavy equipment. Public or private agencies would be eligible if they were replacing
heavy equipment, if replaced with electric equipment, they will get the differential cost
through this buy down program. Eric Haley added that one of the cheapest way to reduce
air pollution is by switching from fossil fuel power utility equipment to electrical power
utility equipment. Edison and several manufacturers are marketing this approach to a
variety of large warehouse and distribution operations. If this takes off you will probably
see the SCAQMD embrace it as well. Commissioner John Tavaglione also added that in
the Ontario/Riverside/Western Riverside area there are tremendous amounts of
warehouse/distribution facilities. This is one way to deal with the diesel emissions,
especially with the refrigerator vehicles.
Commissioner Tom Mullen stated that originally the Commission planned to borrow from
the unused STIP money, if the bill passed, to complete the Routes 60, 74 and other small
projects. Route 74 is on track and for Route 60, there is no need to borrow funds as a
result of the shift from San Bernardino. Eric Haley added the reason for the Commission
RCTC Minutes
July 14, 1999
Page 12
to sponsor the loan bill is to move the Route 74 project and receive other benefits over
time.
M/S/C (Mullen/Pape) approve the proposed list of projects for CMAQ Improvement
funds available in the South Coast and Salton Sea Air Basins and direct staff to
include these projects in the Regional Transportation Improvement Program.
11. STATE AND FEDERAL LEGISLATIVE UPDATE
David Shepherd, Director of Intergovernmental and Legislative Affairs, updated the
Commission on the proposed legislation and other activities: 1) SCA 3, a constitutional
amendment will provide a statewide ballot to allow for transportation sales and use tax for
local transportation purposes. It passed on the Senate floor this Monday evening. Last
week Senator Burton had a meeting with all of the Executive Directors of self help county
agencies and other agencies that would be the implementing agencies should this pass
state-wide. At least a draft plan will have to be approved here in Riverside County and
should come before this Board in March, 2000 and a final plan in April, 2000, before we
go to the ballot in November. That is a very fast pace; 2) SB 315 was initially written to
allow for $16 billion in bonds for transportation purposes state-wide, broken down into
three different ballot measures. It now looks like it is going to be a one time ballot measure
and likely in a $4-8 range; 3) SB 928 by Senator Burton would authorize federal grant
anticipation bonds. TEA 21 authorized the tool to allow states to bond against future
federal allocations that they are going to be receiving, this bill is the implementation
mechanism for the State of California to allow that tool to be available; and, 4) there was
a 12.5% cap nationwide on the amount of total pool of dollars available for transit
allocation which means that each state would not receive more than 12.5% of the total
amount available. California currently receives 13.9% and is looking at a loss of about
$1 18 million state-wide and Riverside- San Bernardino is about $4.2 million. Senator
Feinstein voted no in Appropriations because of this cap and is currently negotiating and
is currently holding the bill from being heard by the full body. Both California and New York
will be affected.
Commissioner Mullen commented that Congressman Packard is in need of applause for the
$1 million for the CETAP and are soliciting Senator Feinstein's support for that. Still need
2-3 votes. The County hired former Congressmen Lowery and Fasio to secure the $200-
300 million needed in order to complete the buy program as it relates to the entire
agreement plan, specifically the multi -species plan which will be used as the mitigation for
transportation and housing. On the stateside, there are currently negotiations over two
versions of a park bond bill, SB 57 and AB 18 of about $2.3 million. Cities as well as
counties will reap the benefits. For the Inland Empire, there is a section for $57.3 million
that can be used for either park or habitat purchase. Our plan calls for us to purchase
somewhere between 15,000-100,000 acres which would then be appropriated into the
parks regional system so we could appropriate put equestrian and hiking trails, those types
of things where we can and maintain that. In order to be able to do that in the time period
necessary to make the Transportation Plan viable. The $57 million for the two county area
will not do it, there is $30 million that has been proposed to use for bike trails from the
RCTC Minutes
July 14, 1999
Page 13
ocean to the mountains in the Santa Ana water project, 50% of that $57 million. Currently
working with the authors of the bills in an attempt to work that out. We think that is more
appropriately put into water bond bill. Currently working to shift that $30 million out of the
$57 million. He will provide an update in September.
Commissioner Reeser Lowe stated that the Hayden bill will be heard tomorrow. Votes from
the Inland Empire are needed asked representatives to fax letters to area legislators.
M/S/C (Wilson/Mullen) to adopt the following bill positions: AB 102 - change from
"Seek Amendment" to "Oppose"; Support SB 928; and receive and file the
Legislative Update.
12. CONSULTANT AGREEMENT WITH GLADSTEIN & ASSOCIATES IN SUPPORT OF THE
INTERSTATE CLEAN TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR PROJECT
M/S/C (Mullen/Hunt) Approve: 1) entering into a consultant agreement with
Gladstein & Associates; and 2) allocation of $25,000 for the work effort.
13. ITEMS PULLED FROM CONSENT CALENDAR AGENDA
6A. FY 2000 FTA SECTION 5311 RURAL TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM
In response to Commissioner John Venable as to who is eligible to for these funds,
Jerry Rivera, Program Manager, explained that these funds are available to public
transit operators as defined by the FTA.
M/S/C (ReeserLowe/Puga) Approve the proposed FY 1999-2000 FTA Section
5311 Program of Projects for Riverside County.
6S. SCHEDULE OF RECURRING CONSULTANTS
Dean Martin, Chief Financial Officer, explained that two additional contracts were
added since the Budget and Implementation Committee reviewed and approved this
item: Geographics through September 30,1999 and Inland Empire Transportation
Services December 31, 1999.
M/S/C (Mullen/Hunt) Approve the Schedule of Recurring Consultants. The
contracts will be for the period July 1, 1999 through June 30, 2000 with the
addition of Geographics through September and Inland Empire Transportation
Services through December, 1999.
RCTC Minutes
July 14, 1999
Page 14
14. COMMISSIONERS/EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S REPORT
Chairman van Haaster requested to add an item as an emergency item that has just come
before the Commission. This item is the letter from Councilman Karel Lindemans, Chairman
of the RTA Board. He requested Commission to approve this item to be added to the
agenda for discussion as a late breaking item that has just come before the Commission
and RTA will be meeting next week to discuss related items.
M/S/C (Mullen/ReeserLowel that the Commission add the discussion of the letter
from RTA Chairman Karel Lindemans as a late breaking item that was just brought
to the attention of the Chairman, after the posting of the agenda.
Nay: Commissioner Yokaitis
Commissioner Mullen indicated that the letter being distributed by RTA's Chairman and
action by their finance committee is requesting a major transportation corridor study as it
relates specifically to adding hundreds of buses which would seem to run directly into what
is being attempting in CETAP. This was approved by their committee and is going to their
board to approve $1 25,000 for the study. He proposed that within the CETAP process
that look at transit, new corridors as well as arterials, within the general plan, envision
corridors which are different than what exists today. There should not be any duplication
of efforts nor should there be any exclusions. He proposed to split with RTA a component
of the CETAP process dealing specifically with transit and that seek the services of Marty
Wachs, formerly the Chair of the Grad School of Urban Management at UCLA and now the
Chair of Dean at Berkeley, to do the study.
Chairman van Haaster stated that a broader question that he and Eric Haley had to deal
with is the fact that they have been receiving letters which appear to be a representation,
but as near as he could tell there has been no RTA action at the Board level submitting a
request to RCTC. He would like a policy for both himself and the Executive Director that
requests will be addressed by the Commission from legislative bodies assuming there is
legislative action behind it and requests from specific individuals of those bodies, whether
the chairman or not, will be referred back to them.
Commissioner John Hunt explained that he agreed with Commission Chair's assumption
and statements but he has not seen the letter. He said that at the last RTA Board meeting,
the Board authorized staff to begin formation of request for ten year routing plan and
referred the project to the board financial committee for their recommendation regarding
the appropriate fund to be used by the project. On July 7, 1999, the board finance
committee met and approved $125,000 to be taken out interest accrued on this agencies
reserve. Lengthy discussion took place regarding appropriate scope and delivery of the
project. Staff was requested to assemble a scope of work and to provide the Board with
a complete description of the project. They are planning to define the context of the ten
year transportation plan, including pertinent relationship to other planning efforts within the
region. This would be structured to avoid any duplication to determine the impact of
growth. Additionally through the study RTA is seeking: 1 ) increased public transportation
RCTC Minutes
July 14, 1999
Page 15
leadership, 2) expand, reorganize, and improve services in public transit to make it more
attractive alternative to the automobile, 3) continue to develop a favorable public
awareness of RTA, 4) develop a planning process that is community centered and will meet
RTA's community transit needs, 5) set a public transit service level described to meet
efforts to seek additional funding, 6) demonstrate that RTA committed to improve of the
changing needs of community that we serve. The recommendation is to approve a ten year
strategic plan process.
Commissioner Venable stated that it is very clear that the Chairman Lindemans' letter
clearly stated that the CETAP Program as it relates to transit will not work and
Commissioner Venable took exception to that.
Commissioner Reeser Lowe indicated that Hemet's representative, Marge Tandy, put on
record that she is opposed to this study. The City of Hemet is fully committed to the
CETAP process and feel that one of those ingredients is transportation as a whole, not
separately.
Commissioner Andrea Puga expressed that she was not in favor of the RTA study and
asked if there is a segment in CETAP that there is money allocated for public transportation
study. Eric Haley explained that as the corridor analysis is being done, alternatives to
highways will be looked at such as rail, increased bus service, intercity express service.
In his discussion with the RTA Chairman, he informed him that CETAP would accelerate
some of the work on transit in order to meet his goal for enhanced express transit services.
One issue is how rapidly data can be developed within his time line and within the context
for CETAP.
Chairman van Haaster stated that his direction to the Executive Director was that the
Commission should not be specifically responding to any one member. But if the RTA
Board, as a whole, wants to come forward with a request then the Commission would
consider it. He recommended that the Commission send a letter to RTA to that affect.
Commissioners Kevin Pape and Percy Byrd expressed their concurrence.
Commissioner Robin ReeserLowe explained that this is the second time she had heard that
someone was excluded from the CETAP process. Some of the cities have representatives
on the multi -species committee, stakeholders committee and they are not there. There is
an important meeting on the 15`h, it goes back to the same issue. There is one member of
an organization sending a letter, but complaints can only be made if they are present at the
meeting. This CETAP process is quite inclusive, she is not certain how else to reach out
to them to attend the
Commissioner John Tavaglione agreed with the Chairman van Haaster's recommendation
and it would be incumbent upon this Commission to have the leadership of the CETAP
process to make a presentation to the RTA Board as to what CETAP is and what it
involves.
RCTC Minutes
July 14, 1999
Page 16
Commissioner Mullen requested that the Karel Lindemans' letter be faxed to each of the
Commissioners..
M/S/C (Hunt/ReeserLowe) to: 1) establish a policy that the RCTC Chairman and
Executive Director respond to funding requests as approved by submitted to the
Commission by their respective boards rather than individual members of the board:
and, 2) send a letter to the RTA Board to inform them of the Commission's policy.
At this time, Eric Haley presented the following: 1) the UCLA Symposium is an annual
transportation conference at Lake Arrowhead at the UC Conference Center, October 24-
26. Commissioner John Chlebnik and Commissioner John Tavaglione requested
attendance; 2) a letter sent to all of the western county cities regarding the opportunity
to advance Measure "A" money by virtue of a loan; and, 3) he, Commissioners Clifford and
Roberts will be attending and making a presentation before the High Speed Rail Committee
next week in San Francisco.
Commissioner Frank West thanked the Commission for supporting SR 60 Improvement
Plan.
15. ADJOURNMENT.
There being no other items before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned at
11:23 p.m. The next meeting of the Riverside County Transportation Commission is
scheduled to be held on Wednesday, September 8, 1999, at 9:00 a.m. at the Corona
Public Library, 650 Main Street, Corona.
Respectfully submitted,
N.ty K nh ver
CI : rk o the Bo
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPOR TA T/ON COMMISSION
vAME
r✓ �� /z, /
aek k�ll
R Ism
11 C/i_e AI -
�epze [Jozip4oHSNQi5
Jot�J \�vArC' uoNE
t S
011/1 l�I - Zara
j
OG 4\ b
Signing is not required
COMMISSION MEETING
WEDNESDAY, JULY 14, 1999
9:00 A.M.
SIGN -IN SHEET
AGENCY
x? c""� /ice •i .. .
GAL /McSA
Ci-t yO vt L cz. K 2
-r--7461) � r
., OUK1
ijs
ft; 6: •` 144.
TELEPHONE /FAX NUMBER
6 77- 42Yi l a`?e-9/t
�dc?-(- / %2Z-���c
�7‘0 /0�1
�6 3- oV/
74a
09 - 79S---29p3/ 90 9 - 79,r--a.TYy
2.44-7Z715--
) 3=1c71tl _
7(�v SS33-S-11 (0/
7400 39r-S502 / (760)39/ ///7
9/9: 7Z.5 ate) /
-'1 17- 01-20 /
7l- 0 3Yt z yk,
S lob
67r 5 ,/
1f/3 696.4
/
9o9 - 755 - 7- /430 /
717-7)0"7
RIVERS/DE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMM/SS/ON
WEDNESDAY, JULY 14, 1999
SIGN -IN SHEET (Page 2)
NAME
//
0!� A /.
^ tl (C OccliSc;:ov (F
o v..) y O tc "
`� tt
'-/ ,L1 S. �0 )1,,`"
y
J �a ria6.e7=
I 1-i Si Qom'; c
Al\lar2.e /\ ��) �—
Signing is not required
AGENCY
e ki\1 rn
ik)f��
Ca jfrrl►IS
TELEPHONE /FAX NUMBER
/�/O /
76.0 s2 I r ! ZS)J
7g-2
,227
�9.y-6yyo l FG73 o9s-6
3�3-yv5�
l 3v3 - 6�3p
/
/
RIVERS/DE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
COMMISSION MEETING
WEDNESDAY, JULY 14, 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
1'AME
Ai11 Lv Fa srci/
_)
/7 57
4 `7
ighLi6rou0a
�rr of .1 -Sorg /7! vr.�
:04 c s' /`2 e27
✓��yvY /` 5.5
NOR rY] fir,) pUN)&t_
r 04 )61041
Ali-`DA tOz(6NT
G(/)4fra, V
AGENCY
grD/Z
VJ��cr—
CaC-
.c.
-cn1LtrI
__Sc-4- C-
51 i� �� g
�(-71-7
Rr12ioc-,?_
,►Cev E-10/02PPLS6
;/
01� 4✓,,t,Gto
TELEPHONE /FAX NUMBER
Fee 142- / 803 703 4-3 Z-S
-46r7-e) / -3-0P) I
7-WSf I 7?4 j
1,57 7E19=/
7 3d3 3 ¢ Sr /
9 yes-- 7�idl
yi-,=3/ l ; it ?-) y.:L
70 ?s16 //47
WQ )52/
/ S -6 (1-6
9 0(t) “2— / 767
CZl3)ep2_ / 039
,g,q--em -7,5/
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
Signing is not required
WEDNESDAY, JULY 14, 1999
SIGN -IN SHEET (Page 2)
IF YOU WISH TO PROVIDE COMMENTS TO THE COMMISSION, PLEASE COMPLETE AND
SUBMIT A TESTIMONY CARD TO THE CLERK OF THE COMMISSION
NAME
/Co ‘rs•
Signing is not required
,'i/SSc7-7 y/1'/ir1,L, ?.‘/ez o
AGENCY TELEPHONE /FAX NUMBER
/
/
/
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
DATE:
September 8, 1999
TO:
Riverside County Transportation Commission
FROM:
Plans and Programs Committee
Hideo Sugita, Director of Planning and Programming
Susan Cornelison, Program Manager
THROUGH:
Eric Haley, Executive Director
SUBJECT:
Public Hearing - Program of Projects Revision
PLANS AND PROGRAMS COMMITTEE & STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
That the Commission revise the RCTC 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 FY2000 Commuter Rail
Short Range Transit Plan.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION;
In April the Commission directed staff to begin development of new commuter rail
stations at Van Buren Boulevard in Riverside and near Main Street in Corona. Efforts
are underway to begin design of these Tier II stations, and both stations are
included in the long range commuter rail plan and the current RCTC budget.
State and local funds have been identified for approximately one-half of the estimated
costs with the remainder proposed to come from Federal 5307 funds which the
region has accumulated by virtue of Metrolink train operations in western Riverside
County. It is anticipated that approximately $6 million of the Section 5307 funds
designated for western region rail projects will be required, but a more definitive
estimate will not be possible until the designs are completed six months from now.
In order to expedite construction, staff needs to begin the federal application process
as soon as possible. RCTC has never before been a direct grantee of federal transit
monies, and the grant approval process is quite complex. Before a Federal Transit
Administration grant application can be submitted, the Commission's federal Program
of Projects must be amended.
A public hearing is required for adoption or amendment of the Program of Projects.
The appropriate notice of public hearing has been published in a newspaper of general
circulation at least ten days prior to this meeting.
PROPOSED PROGRAM OF PROJECTS
FTA SECTION 5307
FY 1999/00
URBANIZED AREA: RIVERSIDE - SAN BERNARDINO
BUS APPORTIONMENT: $4,465,893
RAIL APPORTIONMENT: $3,785,814
CARRYOVER FUNDS -BUS: $2,519,572
CARRYOVER FUNDS -RAIL: $11,836,243
TRANSFER FUNDS -BUS: $0
TOTAL FUNDS AVAIL -BUS: $6,985,465
TOTAL FUNDS AVAIL -RAIL: $15,622,057
RECIPIENTS: SUBAREA APPORTIONMENTS
RIVERSIDE TRANSIT AGENCY $4,658,000
CITY OF CORONA $13,000
CITY OF RIVERSIDE $124,000
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSP. COMM. $6,000,000
PROGRAM OF PROJECTS:
TOTAL FEDERAL PROJECT DESIGNATED
AMOUNT SHARE TYPE RECIPIENT
(1) CITY OF CORONA -PREVENTATIVE MAINTENANCE $651,000 $13,000 C SCAG
(2) CITY OF RIVERSIDE - 3 REPLACEMENT VANS $150,000 $124,000 C SCAG
(3) RTA - 7 TRANSIT REPLACEMENT COACHES $2,450,000 $1,930,000 C SCAG
(4) RTA - 18 REPLACEMENT DAR VANS $1,290,000 $1,032,000 C SCAG
(5) RTA - DEBT SERVICE PAYMENT FOR $393,000 $314,000 C SCAG
TRANSIT COACHES
(6) RTA - MAINTENANCE SPARE COMPONENT $170,000 $136,000 C SCAG
(7) RTA-OPERATIONS EQUIPMENT $40,000 $32,000 C SCAG
(8) RTA - BUS STOP AMENITIES $100,000 $80,000 C SCAG
(9) RTA- OFFICE EQUIPMENT $288,000 $230,000 C SCAG
(10) RTA - 5 SERVICE SUPPORT VEHICLES (3R,2E) $100,000 $80,000 C SCAG
(11) RTA - 2 FLEX -FUEL SERVICE TRUCKS (E) $80,000 $64,000 C SCAG
(12) RTA - OFFICE ITS SOFTWARE INTEGRATION $750,000 $600,000 C SCAG
(13) RTA - FACILITY IMPROVEMENTS $1,400,000 $160,000 C SCAG
V14) RCTC TIER II COMMUTER RAIL STATIONS* $12,750,000 $6,000,000 C SCAG
TOTAL PROGRAMMED $20,612,000 $10,795,000
BALANCE AVAILABLE -BUS $2,190,465
BALANCE AVAILABLE -RAIL $9,622,057
4pproved by RCTC: 7/14/99
4mended by RCTC:
* Added Project
RIVERS/DE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMM/SS/ON
DATE:
September 8, 1999
TO:
Riverside County Transportation Commission
FROM:
Executive Committee
Naty Kopenhaver, Director of Administrative Services
THROUGH:
Eric Haley, Executive Director
SUBJECT:
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
EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE & STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that: 1) the Program Manager classification be added to the list of
designated employees; and, 2) adopt 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.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
The Commission's Program Manager classification includes the management of major
transportation programs such as the Commuter Assistance, Specialized Transit, Rail and
Motorist Assistance Programs. They develop and oversee program budgets and
develop contracts for services to be performed by consulting firms.
The Program Managers participate in making decisions which may affect financial
interests. They develop and provide substantive recommendations as it relates to
contracts and agreements which are regularly approved without significant amendment
or modification by the Commission. Therefore, because their responsibility includes
decision making as it relates to budgets, financing of their respective program areas, and
developing contracts and agreements, the Executive Director determined that the
Program Manager position be added to the list of Designated Employees and, thereby,
required to file annual Statement of Economic Interests.
A public hearing is required to amend the Conflict of Interest and a notice of the public
hearing was posted.
This item was approved by the Executive Committee at their July 14, 1999 meeting.
Attachments
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
WHEREAS, the Legislature of the State of California enacted the Political
Reform Act of 1974, Government Code Section 81000 et seq. (the "Act"), which
contains provisions relating to conflicts of interest which potentially affect all officers,
employees and consultants of the Riverside County Transportation Commission (the
"Commission") and requires all public agencies to adopt and promulgate a Conflict of
Interest Code; and
WHEREAS, the Commission adopted a Conflict of Interest Code (the
"Code") which was amended on November 12, 1998, in compliance with Government
Code Section 81000 et seq.; and
WHEREAS, subsequent changed circumstances within the Commission
have made it advisable and necessary pursuant to Sections 87306 and 87307 of the Act
to amend and update the Appendix of the Code by adding the position of "Program
Manager" to the list of Designated Positions; and
WHEREAS, notice of the time and place of a public meeting on, and of
consideration by the Members of the Board of the Commission of, the proposed
amended Appendix was provided each designated employee and publicly posted for
review at the offices of the Commission and the Corona Public Library; and
RVPUMMV1527585
WHEREAS, a public meeting was held upon the proposed amended
Appendix at a regular meeting of the Members of the Board of the Commission on
September 8, 1999, at which all present were given an opportunity to be heard on the
proposed amended Appendix.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Members of the Board of the
Riverside County Transportation Commission that the Members of the Board do hereby
amend the Appendix to the Commission's Conflict of Interest Code, by adding the
position of "Program Manager" to the list of Designated Positions, a copy of which is
attached hereto and shall be on file with the Director of Administrative Services and
available for inspection to the public;
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the said amended Appendix shall be
submitted to the Board of Supervisors of the County of Riverside for approval and said
amended Appendix shall become effective 30 days after the Board of Supervisors
approves the proposed amended Appendix as submitted.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 8th day of September, 1999.
Jack F. van Haaster, Chairman
Riverside County Transportation Commission
ATTEST:
Naty Kopenhaver, Clerk of the Board
Riverside County Transportation Commission
-3-
RVPUB\DMV\527565
LEGISLATIVE VERSION
APPENDIX
CONFLICT OF INTEREST CODE
OF THE
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
EXHIBIT "A"
OFFICIALS WHO MANAGE PUBLIC INVESTMENTS
All Commission Officials who manage public investments are included
in and governed by this Conflict of Interest Code only with respect to its
disqualification provisions. For purposes of disclosure, all Commission Officials who
manage public investments, as defined by 2 Cal. Code of Regs. § 18720, are subject
to the statutory conflict of interest provisions of Article 2 of Chapter 7 of the Political
Reform Act of 1974 (Government Code Section 87200 seq.) . (Regs. §
It has been determined that the positions listed below are officials who
manage public investments:
Members of the Board of the Commission and their Alternates
Executive Director
Deputy Executive Director
Chief Financial Officer
Financial Consultants 1
-4-
RVPUBIDMV1527565
DESIGNATED POSITIONS
GOVERNED BY THE CONFLICT OF INTEREST CODE
DESIGNATED EMPLOYEES' DISCLOSURE CATEGORIES
TITLE OR FUNCTION ASSIGNED
Clerk of the Commission &
Director of Administrative Services
Director of Plans & Programs
Director of Regional Issues & Communications
General Counsel
Consultants /
1/
4, 5
2,3,6,7
6, 7
1, 2
Consultants shall be included in the list of Designated Employees and shall
disclose pursuant to the broadest disclosure category in this Code subject to
the following limitation:
The Executive Director may determine in writing that a particular consultant,
although a "designated position," is hired to perform a range of duties that are
limited in scope and thus is not required to fully comply with the disclosure
requirements described in this Section. Such written determination shall
include a description of the consultant's duties and, based upon that
description, a statement of the extent of disclosure requirements. The
Executive Director's determination is a public record and shall be retained for
public inspection in the same manner and location as this Conflict of Interest
Code.
-5-
RVPUBIDMV1527565
EXHIBIT "B"
DISCLOSURE CATEGORIES
The disclosure categories listed below identify the types of investments,
business entities, sources of income, or real property which the Designated Employee
must disclose for each disclosure category to which he or she is assigned.
Category 1: All investments and business positions in, and sources of
income from, business entities that do business or own real property within the
boundaries of the Commission, plan to do business or own real property within the
boundaries of the Commission within the next year, or have done business or owned
real property within the boundaries of the Commission within the past two (2) years.
Category 2: All interests in real property which is located in whole or
in part within, or not more than two (2) miles outside, the boundaries of the
Commission.
Category 3: All investments and business positions in, and sources of
income from, business entities that are engaged in land development, construction
or the acquisition or sale of real property within the jurisdiction of the Commission,
plan to engage in such activities within the jurisdiction of the Commission within the
next year, or have engaged in such activities within the jurisdiction of the Commission
within the past two (2) years.
Category 4: All investments and business positions in, and sources of
income from, business entities that are banking, savings and loan, or other financial
institutions.
Category 5: All investments and business positions in, and sources of
income from, business entities that provide services, supplies, materials, machinery,
vehicles or equipment of a type purchased or leased by the Commission.
Category 6: All investments and business positions in, and sources of
income from, business entities that provide services, supplies, materials, machinery,
vehicles or equipment of a type purchased or leased by the Designated Employee's
Department.
Category 7: All investments and business positions in, and sources of
income from, business entities subject to the regulatory, permit or licensing authority
of the Designated Employees's Department, will be subject to such authority within
the next year or have been subject to such authority within the past two (2) years.
-6-
RVPUB\DMV1527565
RIVERS/DE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
DATE:
September 8, 1999
TO:
Riverside County Transportation Commission
FROM:
Budget and Implementation Committee
W. Dean Martin, Chief Financial Officer
Shirley Medina, Staff Analyst
THROUGH:
Eric Haley, Executive Director
SUBJECT:
Surface Transportation Program Local Programs - Follow up
BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE & STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Approve the above Surface Transportation Program Local Projects and ensure that they
are included in the Regional Transportation Improvement Program.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
At the June 2, 1999 Commission meeting, the Commission approved the TEA 21 STP
Local Programs for fiscal years 1999/00 - 2002/03. This also included any funding
carryover from ISTEA. The following six cities did not submit projects: Blythe, Calimesa,
Coachella, Desert Hot Springs, Indian Wells, and Norco. To clarify, there was no
deadline given to the local agencies for submittal of projects to program the local STP
funds in June. However, given the recent issue of timely implementation of projects at
the State level, the Commission requested those agencies which did not submit projects
to submit projects in 90 days for programming or they would consider reallocating the
funds.
All six cities have submitted the following projects for approval at the September 8,
1999:
AGENCY
FUNDING
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Blythe
$ 42,156
Signal on Lovekin and 1-10
Calimesa
$ 77,250
Intersection improvements at Calimesa Blvd and County Line
Road
Coachella
$ 307,370
Rehab Van Buren St - Ave 52 to Ave 56, Overlay Airport Blvd
in front of Coachella Valley High School
Desert Hot Springs
$ 166,523
Rehab on Palm Dr - Hacienda to Pierson
Indian Wells
$ 83,904
ADA improv. On Hwy 111, rehab, lane widening on Miles and
Washington
Norco
$ 1,091,140
Rehabilitation/Overlay on: Hamner - Fourth St to Santa Ana
River, Fifth St. - Corydon to California Avenues, Western -
South of Fifth St, Second St - River Road to Hamner Ave,
First St - Valley View to Temescal, Seventh St - Valley View
to California, Third St - Corona to Hillside, Detroit St - Hamner
to Valley View, Parkridge Ave - Second to Cota St.
Upon Commission approval, the above projects will be included the Regional
Transportation Improvement Program. Due to the programming of the STP projects
approved in June, the above projects will be programmed in Fiscal Year 2001 /02. This
does not preclude any project ready to be obligated to proceed with obligation once it
is approved in the RTIP. Local agencies will be notified of the RTIP approval.
Financial Assessment
Project Cost
N/A
Source of Funds
Surface Transportation Funds
•:::...v:.v.:}•::. .{.: :•}:+:•: Y.v}. :::• {i. i•::}v }%•. •. .:. •..
.:..:
iti•i••. n{:•.9:1 :'•-.:
..:'%:�
.•.}..
•. ..•.. }.n{• h• {• ..::{:::v.....:...n...•.•'F..
k• ir
.. $......::.:$:{+.:.......
Included in Fiscal Year Budget
Year
Included in Program Budget
Year Programed
Approved Allocation
Year of Allocation
Budget Adjustment Required
Financial Impact Not Applicable
Y
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
DATE:
September 8, 1999
TO:
Riverside County Transportation Commission
FROM:
Plans and Programs Committee
Hideo Sugita, Director of Planning and Programming
Shirley Medina, Staff Analyst
THROUGH:
Eric Haley, Executive Director
SUBJECT:
Regional Transportation Improvement Program - 2001 RTIP Update
PLANS AND PROGRAMS COMMITTEE & STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
That the Commission receive and file the information on the Regional Transportation
Improvement Program - 2001 RTIP Update. By receiving the information, Commissioners
should inform their respective agencies of the November 5, 1999 deadline to submit to
RCTC local and state projects meeting the criteria for inclusion in the RTIP.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
In order to receive federal funding and/or approvals for transportation projects, the projects
must be included in the Federal Transportation Improvement Program (FTIP) which is
required to be updated every two years by the Environmental Protection Agency's
Transportation Conformity Rule. This document is also referred to as the Regional
Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP). The FTIP/RTIP is a six -year programming
document which contains transportation improvements projects that meet one or more of
the following criteria:
1) Federally Funded
2) On State Highway System
3) Requiring Federal Approvals and/or Permits
4) Regionally Significant
The RTIP must conform with a federally approved air plan known as the State
Implementation Plan (SIP). The conformity analysis is performed by the Metropolitan
Planning Organization (MPO) which for the southern California region is the Southern
California Association of Governments (SCAG).
The process begins with each County Transportation Commission's (Los Angeles, Orange,
Riverside, San Bernardino, Ventura, and Imperial) submittal of the following to SCAG:
project information entered into the RTIP database (new, amended, and deleted projects),
a report demonstrating that all Transportation Control Measures (TCMs) projects
programmed in the first two years of the previous RTIP are being implemented as
programmed, and a resolution stating that all funding is committed and does not exceed
apportionment levels.
Once SCAG receives the submittals from the CTC's the information is processed and
analyzed for adherence to requirements outlined in the Transportation Conformity Rule.
There are three conformity tests that are performed: 1) Emissions Tests; 2) Financial
Constraint; and 3) Timely Implementation of Transportation Control Measures (TCMs). All
three tests must be met in order to make a conformity determination of the proposed RTIP.
The emissions analysis looks at all the proposed projects in the region which are then
modeled in the regional transportation computer model. Outputs of the transportation
model are then included in an emissions model which displays the amount of emissions per
pollutant the proposed RTIP generates. The purpose of this is to ensure that the region is
not exceeding the air quality standards per pollutant set forth in the 1990 Clean Air Act
Amendments.
The financial constraint test is to ensure that all transportation funds programmed in the
RTIP are committed funds. Federal funding must not exceed apportionment levels. All
projects must have identified/committed funding before inclusion in the RTIP.
Implementation of TCMs as programmed in the previous RTIP must be met. The CTC's,
upon submittal of every RTIP update, commits by resolution to implement all TCM projects
as scheduled to demonstrate priority to these projects.
A finding of conformity for each of the 3 tests can be difficult to attain. SCAG has
scheduled the conformity analysis to be performed from January to June 2000. If there
are problems finding conformity the schedule could be extended. Once the SCAG Regional
Council finds the RTIP to be in conformance with the SIP, it is submitted to Caltrans,
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
FHWA is the approving agency with EPA commenting on the conformity analysis
procedures. In the past, it has taken approximately three months to receive federal
approval (FTIP approval).
The 2001 RTIP Update is ready to begin. SCAG has provided a schedule (attached) which
identifies the submittal date for the CTC's on December 17, 1999. Projects programmed
by RCTC (i.e. CMAQ, STP, TEA, STIP Regional Improvement Program, Short Range Transit
Plan, and Federal Demonstration projects) will be programmed by RCTC staff. All other
local and state projects meeting the above criteria for inclusion in the RTIP must submit the
required information to RCTC by November 5, 1999. Agencies must fill out the attached
RTIP Project Submittal Form which will be accepted by E-mail, fax, or regular mail.
Once the 2001 RTIP is federally approved approximately in August -September 2000, the
1998 RTIP will become null and void. All projects in the current 1998 RTIP will be carried
over to the 2001 RTIP. Over the next few months, agencies will be contacted on the
status of their projects. If projects have been fully obligated, they will be deleted. Projects
which have not been obligated will be updated to reflect the current status.
RTIP FY 2000/01 - 2005/06 Guidelines July 29, 1999
i
1
' June 1999 Draft of Updated RTIP Guidelines
' County Commissions, IVAG, Caltrans, Etc. work on project
Proposed
Adoption Schedule for the
FY 2000/01 - 2005/06 Federal Regional Transportation Improvement Program
July 28, 1999 Final RTIP Guidelines
Dec. 17, 1999 DEADLINE - PROJECT SUBMITTAL TO SCAG
' All projects input into Regional database. Projects must be
consistent with the 1998 RTP
i
I
i
i
i
i
i
i
Database locked down
Financial Plans Due
Jan. 4-Feb 21, 2000 SCAG staff working with Caltrans and County commissions, will
analyze project submittals.
• Analyze projects for consistency with 1998 RTP
• Analyze projects for air quality conformity
• Financial Constraint
• Programmatic Analysis
• Timely Implementation Report Due
Feb 22 - Apr 4, 2000 Modeling and analytical work including timely implementation
activities
April 5, 2000 Modeling Report due to RTIP Section
April 6-18, 2000 Final draft write-up and Management Review Period
April 20, 2000 RTIP sent out for reproduction
April 25, 2000 30-Day Public Review period starts
May, 2000 Public Hearings throughout SCAG Region
June 1, 2000 Regional Council scheduled to adopt RTIP
June 9, 2000 Report to FHWA,.FTA, EP
Southern California Association of Governments 7
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
2001-2006 RTIP PROJECT SUBMITTAL FORM
Lead Agency Name : Date .
Contact Person Phone #:
PROJECT INFORMATION
Circle One: New Project Amend Project Delete Project
Circle One: State Project Local Project Transit Project
If Amending a Project, Go to Section B.
If Deleting a Project, Go to Section C.
SECTION A - New Projects
Route or Street:
Project Limits:
Detailed Description of Project:
If Lane Widening, how many existing lanes?
How many lanes are being added?
Length of Project (miles or feet):
Project on CMP System? Yes [ ] No [ ]
Environmental Completion Date :
Environmental Document Type :
Estimated Completion Date of Project:
Fund
Source
Source
E $
R $
C $
T $
E $
R $
C $
T $
FUND SUMMARY
(000's)
FY 00/01 01/02 02/03 03/04 04/05 05/06
FY 00/01 01/02 02/03 03/04 04/05 05/06
E=Engineering R=Right of Way C=Construction T=Total
Total Cost of Project: $
SECTION B - Amending Projects In Approved RTIP.
RTIP PPNO#
Please provide a detailed description as to why the project is being amended:
If applicable, please fill out the appropriation fund changes in Section A.
SECTION C - Deleting Projects
RTIP PPNO#
Circle One: Why is the project being deleted?
Completed - Completion Date: (Month/Year)
Dropped
Other - Explain:
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
DATE:
September 8, 1999
TO:
Riverside County Transportation Commission
FROM:
Plans and Programs Committee
Paul Blackwelder, Deputy Executive Director
Bill Hughes, Bechtel Project Manager
THROUGH:
Eric Haley, Executive Director
SUBJECT:
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.
PLANS AND PROGRAMS COMMITTEE & STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
That the Commission 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. The project will include ramp improvements at
the Perris Boulevard interchange.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
At the July 1999 RCTC meeting, the Commission approved $26,165,880 of CMAQ
dollars to design and construct the SR 60 Measure A HOV lane project between the
East Junction of the SR 60 and 1-215 to Redlands Boulevard in Moreno Valley. Now
that this money has been made available for this project by the Commission, staff
is requesting direction to prepare a request for proposals to select a design firm that
can prepare the plans, specifications and cost estimate for the project.
This project will be coordinated with the 1-215 projects between Day Street and the
SR60/91 /1-215 Interchange that will be constructed by Caltrans in the same time
frame. The SR 60 HOV project will also include the improvements to the Perris
Boulevard interchange ramps that the Commission included with the authorization of
the CMAQ funds.
Staff will advertise a request for proposals, create a selection panel which will
include staff from Ca!trans, RCTC , City of Moreno Valley, and Bechtel. The results
of the selection panel will be brought back to the Commission for review and contract
award.
Financial Assessment
Project Cost
PS&E design cost will be determined after the selection
process is completed.
Source of Funds
CMAQ matched with Measure A
:'}+Ly.,• . • $'�$: •#• .iY�'x}.lj}k7y:�• i.}, :#, .ti :bY'i V4:'•
�:>.........:::.:,.:•3 #'�t}.�5:.• �$k{•::t::e •.:...•...:::..:.::•,.:. �.::•:::::•?:.•::•...•.•::::.:..:...:.:.:.:x�Y�{.,,:r.:::
.+x�•.•;q.}C1�y�+ . C � P , }<n ;}• ; . ; Y':::'
•:,•::}.,+...,,.... t::. v; : •t)•:'3�#•:5..
:' ?4,1..4.r.•.v'4>.:? i:h;:ti,, ti•'{'•:'r :.hl•.•%
i.
i.:. , 2xe'»�'i • •6: •: t. .:
:•5.;' •}^ +:{: ; '•i:ti},� �:
+r���...:..
Included in Fiscal Year Budget
N
Year
Included in Program Budget
Y
Year Programmed
2002
Approved Allocation
Year of Allocation
Budget Adjustment Required
Y
Financial Impact Not Applicable
State Route 60
60 / 215 to Redlands
'BEGIN PROJECT
1110X SPA INC
MORENO VALLEY TEPID PROJE
w
ALVA 111011000
VICINITY MAT'
N LO=
•
i
AY
s
_a
AV
li
1R AY
11KK AY
dG►LA9a AY
w
AY
iY
•
aIKRICIt
i
a
B
r
1111111101i
A!
✓ w
✓
AY
Tlf1R LY
00wLA AY
eigriliWOOS AV
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
DATE:
September 8, 1999
TO:
Riverside County Transportation Commission
FROM:
Budget and Implementation Committee
W. Dean Martin, Chief Financial Officer
Shirley Medina, Staff Analyst
THROUGH:
Eric Haley, Executive Director
SUBJECT:
City of Norco Request to Reprogram Surface Transportation Program
Funds
BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE & STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Approve the City of Norco's request to reprogram discretionary Surface Transportation
Program funds from a signal installation at Sixth Street and California Avenue to a signal
installation at Hamner Avenue and Market Street.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
The City of Norco is requesting reprogramming of discretionary Surface Transportation
Program (STP) funds of $75,000 from a signal installation at Sixth Street and California
Avenue to a signal installation at Hamner Avenue and Market Street. The funds were
approved by RCTC in May 1993.
The City states that there have been ongoing discussions regarding the future carrying
capacity on California Avenue which would continue to delay any design work for the
signal at the Sixth Street intersection. Therefore, another high priority site has been
recommended and approved at the intersection of Hamner Avenue and Market Street
by the Norco City Council. The City states that the project is ready to proceed with
design as soon as they are given the authorization to proceed.
The City of Norco's request is consistent with the RCTC Substitution Policy which
reads: "to allow the substitution of two projects in STP discretionary funding categories
or 20% of an agency's overall budget (whichever is larger) by fund type. The
substituting agency must provide written certification that the substituted projects are
of comparable value both financially and public benefit wise with respect tot he projects
they are replacing. Agencies requesting specific project substitution(s) must bring such
requests before the Commission for review, consideration and action." This request
would also be consistent with the Commissions intentions to deliver projects in a timely
manner.
If approved, the signal project can begin obligation through Ca!trans Office of Local
Programs. Signal installation projects are included in the 1998 Regional Transportation
Improvement Program (RTIP) under a lump sum; therefore this action does not require
an RTIP amendment.
AUG-16-99 09:33 AM CITY OF NORCO
9092705619 P.01
City of Norco
CITY HALL 2870 CLARK AVENUE * (909)735•8900 FAX (909)210.5622 * P.O. BOX 42e. 1130:0.CA 91760.0428
August 16, 1999
Ms. Shirley Medina, Staff Analyst II
Riverside County Transportation Commission
3580 University Avenue, Suite 100
Riverside, CA 92501
Dear Ms. Medina:
Subject: RTIP PPNO #: 08-RIV32338 (Signals — Sixth Street and California Avenue) — Request
for Transfer of Funding
In the mid 90's, the City of Norco applied for STP grant funds to install a traffic signal at the
intersection of Sixth Street and California Avenue. The City's application was approved; however, in
the Interim, our City Council determined that California Avenue would remain a two-lane thoroughfare.
As yet, the configuration of the east leg of this intersection on Sixth Street remains to be determined,'
end Sixth Street to the west of California Avenue Is a four -lane thoroughfare. Needless to say, we
have some issues to resolve before design could begin.
Since our request for the subject traffic signal was approved, another intersection In Norco has
generated a higher priority for signallzation. The location Is on a major arterial, Hamner Avenue, at
the intersection of Market Street. Besides having a high vehicular volume, the Intersection also has
high pedestrian traffic due to the proximity of a bank, post office, and shopping center on the west
side of Hamner Avenue, and a major employment center (Dyncorp) on the east side.
As a result of a high number of complaints, the City commissioned a traffic study, and the results
indicate that a signal is warranted. Our City Council has accepted the recommendation, placed the
project on this year's Capital Improvement list, and has requested staff to pursue funding substitution
for this location. City staff is aware that if the substitution is approved our grant funds would remain at
$75,000.00. We are prepared to augment the grant funding with other City funds as necessary. City
Council Is eager to have this Intersection signalized to improve safety and traffic flow, and design
would begin as soon as funding authorization Is granted. We appreciate your assistance in having
our request considered by the Commission, and if you have any questions, please contact me at
(909)270-5827.
Sincerely,
d�,f -tom
Joseph S. Schenk
Director of Public Works/City Engineer
JSS:cka
/18133
CITY COUNCIL
BARBARA J. CARMICHAEL FRANK HALL ROBBIN G. KOZIEL
(Mayer Mow PIOTow Cwma4nr
CHRISTOPHER L. SORENSEN
C irdlmm
NAL H. aARK
Cwsil�w
f
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMM/SS/ON
DATE:
September 8, 1999
TO:
Riverside County Transportation Commission
FROM:
Budget and Implementation Committee
Paul Blackwelder, Deputy Executive Director
Bill Hughes, Bechtel Project Manager
Karl Sauer, Bechtel Resident Engineer
THROUGH:
Eric Haley, Executive Director
SUBJECT:
Award of Contract No. RO-9969 for construction of Sound Wall
#98 and Drainage Canal Relocation and Rehabilitation along the
South side of Route 91 between Tyler and Monroe Streets in the
BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE & STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
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. Staff also
recommends that a contingency amount of $81,040 (10%) be authorized to cover
potential change orders encountered during construction for a total not to exceed value
of $875,000. The standard RCTC construction Agreement will be used, subject to RCTC
Legal Counsel Review.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
At the May RCTC meeting, the Commission authorized staff to advertise for bids for
construction of Sound Wall #98, located along the South side of Route 91, between
Jackson and Monroe Streets, in the City of Riverside, the relocation of an existing
concrete drainage channel adjacent to Sound Wall #98, and the rehabilitation of an
existing concrete drainage channel on the South side of Route 91, between Tyler and Van
Buren.
The construction costs for the project were estimated to be as follows:
Project
Estimated Cost Range
Funded By
Soundwall #98
$450,000 to $500,000
RCTC
Canal Relocate & Rehab
$275,000 to $300,000
Caltrans
Total Project Cost Range
$725,000 to $800,000
The project was advertised starting on May 22, 1999. Three (3) bids were received
and opened on June 17, 1999, at 2:00 p.m.. A summary of the bids are shown
below:
Sound Wall #98 Bid Summary
Firm
(in order from low bid to high bid)
Bid Amount
Amount
Over Low Bid
Engineer's Estimate
$725,000 to
$ 800, 000
1
HILLSIDE CONTRACTORS, INC.
$793,960
$0
2
R. FOX CONSTRUCTION, INC.
$819,785
$25,825 (+3%)
3
4 - CON ENGINEERING
$825,350
$31,390 (+4%)
The bids were reviewed by Legal Counsel and Bechtel, and all concurred that Hillside
Contractors low bid was the lowest responsive bid received for the project. A summary
of the review of all of the bids received and the responsiveness of the bids are as follows:
Checklist Item
HILLSIDE
R. FOX
4 - CON
1
Bid Letter
yes
yes
yes
2
Schedule of Prices
- Bid Amount (math check)
- Bid Item Comparison
- w/Eng's Est
- w/other Bidders
- Unbalanced Bid Items
yes
minor error
good
good
none
yes
correct
good
good
none
* incomplete
non-
responsive
3
Bid Bond
yes
yes
yes
4
List of Subcontractors
- Prime Performs > 50% Work
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
5
Bidder Information Forms
yes
yes
yes
6
Non -Collusion Affidavit
yes
yes
yes
7
Evidence of Insurance
**no
**no
no
*The bid from 4 - CON did not include unit prices for a major portion of the work. Therefore, the 4 - CON
bid proposal was deemed non -responsive and disqualified.
**Hillside Contractors provided a letter from their insurance carrier verifying that Hillside can obtain the
Contract required insurance. R. Fox is currently under contract with RCTC and is currently meeting the
Contract required insurance.
The following summarizes the costs associated with the construction of the RCTC funded
Sound Wall #98 and the Caltrans funded Canal Relocation and Rehabilitation for the
remaining two responsive bids received:
RCTC SOUND WALL #98 CONSTRUCTION COSTS
Item
No.
Description
Quantity
Hillside Contractors
R. Fox Construction
Unit Price
Total
Unit Price
Total
1
Temporary Fence
550 M
$18
$9,900
$15
$8,250
2
Const Area Signs
LS
$5,000
$5,000
$5,000
$5,000
3
Traffic Control Sys
LS
$75,000
$75,000
$2,850
$2,850
4
Remove Fence
550 M
$16
$8,800
$15
$8,250
5
Remove Culvert
1 M
$1, 500
$1, 500
$ 500
$ 500
6
Reconst Chain Link
10 M
$80
$800
$85
$850
8
Clear & Grub
LS
$35,000
$29,000
$50,000
$41,500
10
Maint Exist Plants
LS
$10,000
$8,300
$3,500
$2,905
11
Maint Exist Wig
LS
$10,000
$8,300
$2,500
$2,075
12
Replace AC
53 M3
$250
$13,250
$45
$2,385
13
CIDH Piles
1070 M
$76
$81,320
$102
$109,140
14
Sound Wall
1190 M2
$90
$107,100
$98
$116,620
19
Chain Link Gate
1 EA
$700
$700
$1,000
$1,000
20
Concrete Barrier
530 M
$250
$132,000
$250
$132,000
21
Mobilization
LS
$50,000
$41,500
$10,000
$8,300
22
City Riv Permit
LS
$6,000
$5,000
$500
$415
Total
$527,970
$442,540
Caltrans Canal Relocation / Rehabilitation Construction Costs
Item
No.
Description
Quantity
Hillside Contractors
R. Fox Construction
Unit Price
Total
Unit Price
Total
7
Remove Channel
89 M3
$150
$13,350
$150
$13,350
8
Clear & Grub
LS
$35,000
$6,000
$50,000
$8,500
9
Ditch Excavation
50 M3
$100
$5,000
$50
$2,500
10
Maint Exist Plants
LS
$10,000
$1,700
$3,500
$595
11
Maint Exist Irrig
LS
$10,000
$1,700
$2,500
$425
15
Reinf Conc Pipe
1.4 M
$350
$490
$1,000
$1,400
16
Rock
Slope(Facing)
5 M3
$110
$550
$550
$2,750
17
Channel Lining
190 M3
$350
$66,500
$706
$134,140
18
Rock Slope(Fabric)
12 M2
$100
$1,200
$150
$1,800
21
Mobilization
LS
$50,000
$8,500
$10,000
$1,700
22
City Riv Permit
LS
$6,000
$1,000
$500
$85
Subtotal
$105,990
$167,245
Canal
Rehabilitation Bid
$160,000
$ 210,000
Total Cost
$265,990
$377,245
Work Segment
Hillside Contractors
R. Fox Construction
Sound Wall #98
$527,970
$442,540
Drainage Channel
Relocation & Rehabilitation
$265,990
$377,245
Total
$ 793,960
$ 819, 785
By an approved Caltrans Cooperative Agreement No. 08-1097, Caltrans has committed to
pay a lump sum amount, of $300,000, to relocate and rehabilitate the referenced drainage
canal. The Hillside Contractors bid for the respective canal work totals $265,990 leaving
$34,010 (13%) to cover construction management and any Change Orders that may arise
during construction. Additional funding above $300,000, if required, must be authorized.
Based on the review by staff and legal counsel, staff recommends that the Commission
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.
Staff also recommends that a contingency amount of $81,040 (10%) be authorized to
cover potential change orders encountered during construction for a total not to exceed
value of $875,000.
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
DATE:
September 8, 1999
TO:
Riverside County Transportation Commission
FROM:
Plans and Programs Committee
Paul Blackwelder, Deputy Executive Director
Bill Hughes, Bechtel Project Manager
THROUGH:
Eric Haley, Executive Director
SUBJECT:
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
PLANS AND PROGRAMS COMMITTEE & STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
That the Commission:
1. Approve the attached 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.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
RCTC adopted the recommendations of the Tier II Station study at the April 1999
Commission meeting. One recommendation was to provide for a temporary parking
facility at the La Sierra Metrolink Station because the current parking lot use was
running higher than 90%. The need for the temporary parking lot will be eliminated as
soon as the Van Buren Metrolink Station is constructed. Proposals for the final design
of the Van Buren and Corona Main Street Metrolink Stations have been requested.
The land for the present La Sierra parking lot was leased from RCC in 1994 for 49 years
with an option to extend for another50 years. RCTC Staff has discussed the need for
the temporary parking facility to accommodate approximately 200 vehicles with the
Riverside Community College who also owns the land surrounding the La Sierra Station
site. RCC has agreed to lease the additional acreage required to RCTC for free under
the following conditions:
1. RCTC uses the RCC consultant KCT Consultants to perform the design of the
temporary parking lot. KCT Consultants is currently under contract with RCC to
perform preliminary design engineering for a future development on the RCC
property. The proposed KCT scope of work is attached for your review and
approval. KCT proposes to perform the required design tasks for the amount of
$16, 804.
2. That RCTC work with RCC with regards to the future parking lot design such that
the final parking lot configuration will be compatible with the RCC commercial
development. This may require that some of the current station parking be
relocated to a different location on the RCC property. The agreement requires
that any relocated parking must be conveniently located.
3. That RCTC would assist RCC to limit their developer's share of the La Sierra
interchange to $400,000 as a result of the proposed RCC development.
A further benefit of the agreement is that the contractor constructing the La Sierra
pedestrian overcrossing will be able to use an additional portion of RCC property for a
temporary lay down area eliminating the need to provide the contractor space in the
existing parking lot. The complete agreement proposed by RCC is attached for your
review and approval.
Financial Assessment
Project Cost
$ 16,804 + extra work of $ 4,000 for a total of $ 20,804
Source of Funds
TD>A�
r• ', :.F?.{}ti;CS :$'rf•2:`S T{: ;,}' F};°. • : • :5:5 . IJ
:�a:;takx,'{.';,•�{.:•
....`..{.k;.:,iM::::....; fit. • ,..$..,...:.:.'t '° ,,..:
..;:}
•?ri:,
x
,'.'�C..Y.{.'.•:{•1.cg;:
,.
• •s-•y:'-•'
}¢;
e. v .4.....d}.. •S�
�r. • •. �;
•
i:.0 •+i
Included in Fiscal Year Budget
N
Year
Included in Program Budget
N
Year Programmed
Approved Allocation
Year of Allocation
Budget Adjustment Required
Y
Financial Impact Not Applicable
Attachment
Hirt 111111111‘
/ /
1
,44
TIIIt it11Rn
1RIl 11111R• Tfrlir �
r - dNd0d
ems_ -31-0,00 f
1
1
S30ddS ONIlSIX3 811
,w,
� litfliirnin66i:6;1:,:
perrnrsurwir
l
�r
cti„c6/ 9, /
ONDINVd NOI1b1S 11VN
Atib210d1V31. 80a VRIV
13NNrH, 'MUM, 0001.1034 1 3 3, N
•
•
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
t
I4/l1 a b S 9 l v
•
�IAI 116.0 1 f• \11111At1 11u1 v•1•1•Iw Lit
AUG 02 1999 11:22 FR BEST, BEST 8 KRIEGER 909 666 5036 TO 2#03447677920 P.04/06
FIRST ADDiNDUX TO GROUND LEA88
This First Addendum to the Ground Lease ("First Addendum")
between RIVERSIDE COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT, a public agency
("Landlord") and the RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION,
a public agency ("Tenant") dated December 13, 1994 ("Ground
Lease") is made by and between these parties effective
, 1999.
WEERL"A8, the Landlord has leased to Tenant approximately 3.5
acres of property ("Land•) for purposes or a Matrolink commuter
rail stop and parking lot for approximately 350 vehicles at the
corner of La sierra Avenue and Indiana Avenue in the City of
Riverside ("La Sierra Station"); and
WHEREAS, Tenant is aware that Landlord is currently
soliciting a developer to develop a mixed use project on its
adjacent property; and
WHEREAS, said'Ground Lease is in full force and effect, and
WHEREAS, Tenant desires to temporarily expand its parking
capacity by 200 parking spaces at the La sierra Station while
Tenant constructs a new rail station and parking lot at the
corner of Van Buren Boulevard and Indiana Avenge in the City of
Riverside but in no case beyond February 28, 2001; and
WHEREAS, Landlord has property aontig OUe to the La Sierra
Station upon which Tenant can construct its desired 200 temporary
parking spaces; and
WHEREAS, Tenant desires to lease from Landlord and Landlord
desires to lease to Tenant property for the 200 temporary parking
spaces.
7/Z9/99 1
AUG 02 1999 11:22 FR BEST, BEST & KRIEGER 909 686 5036 TO 2#034#7877920 F.05/08
NOW, TH MORE, .Landlord and Tenant agree as follows:
1. TUE LEASEZ EIZEMEN. Landlord will additionally lease
to Tenant and Tenant from Landlord the property of approximately
two (2) acres described in Exhibit 1 attached hereto which is
incorporated by reference herein (the 'Additional Lease Area.")
The exact acreage shall be established upon completion of the
preliminary design and Exhibit 1 shall be modified based on that
design.
2. THE PURPOSR or THE FTRAT ADDRXIDUK. The sole purpose of
the First Addendum is temporary provision of 200 parking spaces
for Xetrolink riders,consisting or paving, striping, and
lighting. Tenant's contractor shall receive a temporary easement
for the installation of improvements at Tenant's passenger
loading area.
3. THE TRIM DF THE 'MIST ADDENDUM. The term of tha First
Addendum shall commence on August 1, 1999, and shall conclude on
February 28, 2002.
4. mom zon_pmsIas. The design, approval and
installation of all improvements necessary to the parking lot
construction shall be the responsibility of Tenant, subject t0
approval by the Landlord, which approval shall not be
unreasonably withhold. The design will incorporate two access
points t0 the existing adjacent Netrolink Station and will
prevent access to the existing City right of tray ad j acant to La
Sierra Avenue. KCT consultants, Inc. or another consultant
mutually agreeable to Landlord and Tenant/ shall provide
engineering, planning and construction management support for the
parking lot installation at Tenant's expense.
7/29/99 2
RUG 02 1999 11:23 FR BEST, BEST & KRIEGER 909 686 5036 TO 2403447677520 F.06/06
5. C ifilDEMTLQ FOR THE F1R6T ADD12Mi. No monetary rent
shall be paid by Tenant to Landlord pursuant to this First
Addendum. In consideration for the First Addendum, Tenant agrees
to the following:
a. Apply for a revised Conditional Use Permit (RCUP)
from the City of Riverside for the parking lot use. Landlord
shall sign any necessary applications as owner.
b. At the time it constructs its parking lot on the
Additional Lease Area, satisfy the applicable requirements of the
City of Riverside for such a parking lot including but not
limited to lighting, paving and striping.
o. gold harmless and indemnify Landlord, its trustees,
employees and agents from any and all damages, rights of action,
costs and liability of any kind whatsoever, arising out of
Tenant's use of the property. The hold harmless, indemnity, and
insurance clauses of the Ground Lease shall have Rill force and
effect in this First Addendum as set forth in paragraph 7 below.
d. Permit reconfiguration of the permanent parking lot
serving the Retrolink station subject to the Ground Lease if
requested to do so by Landlord and/or a party purchasing or
leasing the property described in Exhibits A-1 and A-2 of tha
Ground Lease from Landlord, on the condition that the party
requesting the reconfiguration pay for it and provide alternate
parking during the period of reconfiguration. Permission for
reconfiguration is subject to the requirements of Tenant to
conveniently serve its riders, but shall not be unreasonably
withheld. This permission for reconfiguration shall be subject
to a separate written agreement between the parties. This
n29/99 3
AUG 02 1999 11:23 FR BEST, BEST & KRIEGER 909 686 5036 TO 24034#7877920 F.07/08
condition shall survive the termination of this First Addendum.
e. Use Tenant's beat efforts to assist Landlord in
limiting, to an amount not to exceed $400,000.00, Landlord's
"local share" requirement to fund a portion of the La Sierra
Avenue-91 freeway overpass --widening as established by the
Specific Flan for Landlord's property approved by the Riverside
City Council on July 91 1991 or any revised specific plan. The
$400,000.00 amount is based on an estimate provided by the Public
Works Department of the city of Riverside to Clayson, Mann,
YaegerHansen, counsel for Landlord by letter of June 21, 1999.
Tenant's best efforts in.this regard shall not require or imply
Tenant's payment of the Landlord's "local share's obligation in
whole or in part.
6. RE WEAL OF ZMPagyznE . The Tenant agrees to remove
all improvements constructed under this First Addendum and
environmental hazards resulting from Tenant's use within ninety
(90) days of the date Tenant ceases using the Additional Lease
Area or within ninety (90) days of the termination date of the
First Addendum, whichever comes first. Said removal shall be at
Tenant's sole expense and effort.
7. GROUND LEASE IN FORCE AND EFFECT. Except as expressly
provided herein, all terms, conditions and covenants of the
Ground Lease shall remain in force and effect and shall control
Landlord and Tenant and shall apply to the Additional Lease Area
pursuant to this First Addendum.
8. Lamm COOPERATIOn Landlord .hall as the property
owner sign the RCOP application and permit application to the
City of Riverside as prepared by Tenant to obtain permission for
7/29/99 4
AUG 02 1999 11:24 FR BEST, BEST 8 KRIEGER 909 686 S036 TO 2##034##7877920 P.08/08
installation of the improvementsand the parking lot use.
WHEREFORE, the parties execute this First Addendum to Ground
Lease to be effective on the date first written above.
Dated ; 1999 LANDLORD
RIVERSIDE COMMUNITY COLLEGE
DISTRICT
$Yi
Tames L. Suysse,'vice Presfdent
Administration and Finance
Dated , 1999. TENANT
RIVERSIDE couNTY TRANSPORTATION
COMMISSION
BY:
Chairperson
Dated ,_. 1999 RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL.
BY
Eric Haley, Executive Director
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION
COMMISSION
Dated , 1999 APPROVED As To FORM.
By: '
Best, Best & Krieger, LLP
Counsel, RIVERSIDE COUNTY
TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
Dated , 1999 APPROVED AS TO FORM.
By:
Clayeon,. Mann, Yaeger 9
Hansen, PLC, Counsel,
R vERSlDE COMMUNITY COLLEGE
DISTRICT
Dated r 1999 APPROVED AS TO FISCAL IMPACT.
By:
omit•
MINAIICCD-NM.cee
7/29/S9
Controller, RIVERSIDE COUNTY
TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
5
** TOTAL PAGE.08 **
Civil Engineers
Surveyors
Planners
4344 Latham St.
Suite 200
Riverside, CA
92501
P.O. Box 5705
Riverside, CA
92517-5705
Ph.909/341-8940
rex.909/341-8945
nc@tstonramp_com
KCT CONSULTANTS, INC.
Quality People Providing Quality Professional Services to Quality Clients
July 16, 1999
William R. Hughes, P. E.
Riverside County Transportation Commission
3560 University Avenue, Suite 100
Riverside, CA 92501
Re: La Sierra Metro Link Station, Temporary Parking Lot
Dear Mr. Hughes:
KCT Consultants, Inc. (KCT) is please to present this proposal for engineering services
regarding the development of approximately 200 temporary parking spaces on property
owned by Riverside Community College District (the "District") adjacent to the La Sierra
Metro Link station. The principals of KCT have had a long history with this property, and
are intimately familiar with the site, and with the land use and construction permit
requirements of the City of Riverside. We believe that the inclusion of KCT on your
professional team for this project will enhance your ability to attain goals for schedule and
budget.
Based on our discussion and understanding of the project, KCT proposes to provide the
following:
Scope of Services
1. Base Mapping. Perform a field survey to obtain existing ground elevations on a 50
foot grid, location and elevations of existing driveway improvements, and existing
utilities and structures in the project area. The mapping will be digitally compiled
with boundary and easement data contained in our files. The resulting map will
depict the two to three acre project site, adjacent street rights of way for La Sierra
Avenue and McMillan Street, the closest rail road track, and the westerly extremity
of the existing Metro Link parking and drive aisle.
2. Preliminary Site Design. Utilizing the Base Mapping described above, two
preliminary parking and circulation layouts will be developed for review and
approval by RCTC. The resulting approved site design will be inserted into the
Conditional Use Permit application and Grading Plan described below.
William R. Hughes, RCTC
La Sierra Metro Link Temporary Parking Lot
July 16, 1999
Page 2
3. Revised Conditional Use Permit. Prepare an application and exhibit for a Revised Conditional
Use Permit in accordance with the requirements of the City of Riverside, including:
Application forms
Environmental questionnaire
Property owners notification package
Site Plan exhibit, with preliminary engineering and lighting details
Project description
The application package will be submitted to the City of Riverside Planning Department for
processing. (It is assumed that application and processing fees, if any, will be provided in a
timely manner by RCTC).
4. Processing. Assist client in processing the CUP application package by attending meetings
with City staff, attending project team meetings, responding to questions and requests for
additional information, and representing the project before public hearings (Planning
Commission and City Council). After approval of the CUP application, assist client in
obtaining construction permits by interfacing with various departments in the City of Riverside.
5. Grading Plan. Prepare a precise grading plan depicting temporary paving and sheet flow
drainage over existing ground, including general notes, erosion control and Storm Water
Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), and process plans through City engineering and Planning
Departments. (It is assumed for this project that geotechnical engineering will not be required
due to the temporary nature of the improvements.)
6. Site Lighting Plan. As a sub -consultant to KCT, W. A. Doby Engineering, Inc. will prepare a
lighting and electrical power plan to provide temporary lighting for the parking lot, including
verification of existing service conditions, construction documents and specifications,
processing through the City of Riverside for permits and project meetings. (Note: It is
assumed that the existing Metro Link station has sufficient power capacity to serve the project.
If engineering for offsite facilities is required, additional engineering costs may be incurred).
7. Construction Phase Administration. KCT and W. A Doby will assist RCTC's project managKCT
William R. Hughes, RCTC
La Sierra Metro Link Temporary Parking Lot
July 16, 1999
Page 3
during the construction phase by responding to requests for information and clarifications and
performing site visits as requested. Two meetings and one progress and one final site visit
from each firm is included in the budget.
Fee Schedule
Professional fees for the services described above, including designated sub -consultants, are set out on
the attached Estimate of Professional Fees.
Exclusions and Assumptions
The following services are available, but excluded in the Scope of Services for this proposal:
It is assumed that geotechnical investigations and engineering are not required for this
project due to its temporary nature.
Drainage for the proposed parking lot will perpetuate natural (existing) conditions.
Engineering for underground drainage facilities is excluded from the scope of this
proposal.
It is assumed that the project will not require the relocation if any underground or
overhead utilities.
No land division mapping or processing is included in the scope of this project.
Advertisement for and selection of a contractor will be undertaken by RCTC.
We are prepared to commence work on this project immediately upon receipt of authorization to
proceed. We have enclosed our Standard Agreement Between Client and Consultant for your review
and approval. Should you have any questions, we would welcome the opportunity to discuss our
proposal and the scope of this project with you.
We look forward to working with you. Thank you for the opportunity to be of service.
Sincerely,
KCT Consultants, Inc.
Daniel J. Kipper, PLS
Principal
KCT
KCT Consultants, Inc. 08/17/99
RCTC
Temporary Parking Lot
La Sierra Station
ESTIMATE OF PROFESSIONAL FEES
Project Sr. Assoc.
Position Principal Manager Engineer Egn./Sur. Technition Clerical
Salary Rate $42.00 $35.00 $32.00 $24.00 $18.00 $12.00
Base Mapping 0 2 12
Preliminary Site Design 2 4 8 12
Revised CUP Application 4 4 8 40 4
Processing 8 6
Grading & Drainage Plan 4 12 28 40
Site Lighting Plan 1 6
Construction Phase Admin 2 8
Total Hours 21 42 28 28 92 4
Direct Cost $882.00 $1,470.00 $896.00 $672.00 $1,656.00 $48.00
Multiplier @ 99.6% of Direct Cost $878.47 $1,464.12 $892.42 $669.31 $1,649.38 $47.81
Profit @ 10.5% $184.85 $308.08 $187.78 $140.84 $347.06 $10.06
Total Cost $1,945.32 $3,242.20 $1,976.20 $1,482.15 $3,652.44 $105.87
Consult.
Dir. Cost Multiplier Profit Sub -Total Fees Totals
Base Mapping $358.00 $356.57 $75.03 $789.60 $1,800.00 $2,589.60
Preliminary Site Design $632.00 $629.47 $132.45 $1,393.93 $0.00 $1,393.93
Revised CUP Application $1,268.00 $1,262.93 $265.75 $2,796.68 $0.00 $2,796.68
Processing $546.00 $543.82 $114.43 $1,204.25 $0.00 $1,204.25
Grading & Drainage Plan $2,204.00 $2,195.18 $461.91 $4,861.10 $0.00 $4,861.10
Site Lighting Plan $252.00 $250.99 $52.81 $555.81 $2,000.00 $2,555.81
Construction Phase Admin $364.00 $362.54 $76.29 $802.83 $600.00 $1,402.83
$5,624.00 $5,601.50 $1,178.68 $12,404.18 $4,400.00 $16,804.18
Estimate for labor.123
L Wed
patios u6lsep
O auoisein do palloN
1111111111111111111111111111111111111
ssel6ad cin Pa1108
Nsel do Pe110N
tiemuns
•
aumallW
ssai6oid
4sel
66/L L/9 and :Nea
Patios u6lsap :pafoJd
8/Z
91/Z L
waled 6ulpeao enssl
OL/LL
Z/ L
Z/L
uolsslwwoo 6uluueld Aq lenoaddy • Z/L L
Z/L L
uogeoliddv dna ilw
£L/0L
£L/0L
6Z/6
8Z/6
8Z/6
LZ/6
b L/6
PO
ZL
M$
uogagsiunupy eseyd umnipuoa
LL
PO
Huued 6ulpeio anssl
OL
mg
Noego Ueld APO
6
Me
ueld 6uR116n ails eiedeid
8
Me
ueld e6euleia pue 6ulpeio eiedeid
1
PO
uolssiwwoo 6uluueld Aq'muddy
9
MC,
6ulssaowd
9
PO
uogeoHddy dno puigns
V
?AZ
uogeollddy dna pes!Aeu
£
MZ
u6lsaa axis kieulwilald
Z
MZ
6uiddelN esee
L
OZ/Z
9/Z
£Z/ L
6/ I.
9Z/Z L
ZL/ZL
8Z/ L L
�L/LL
L£/0 L
LL/0L
£/0 L
6 L/6
9/6
ZZ/8
ispenb 4s L
aa4.1eno q4v
Jai
Deana
aweN 4sel
al
66/L L/9 and
31f1a3H3S NJIS3a
10� 6upped Amodwal
uoRe}S enaG el 010'8
•oul 'sweunsuoa la),
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
DATE:
September 8, 1999
TO:
Riverside County Transportation Commission
FROM:
Budget & Implementation Committee
Paul Blackwelder, Deputy Executive Director
Bill Hughes, Bechtel Project Manager
THROUGH:
Eric Haley, Executive Director
SUBJECT:
Construction and Maintenance Agreements with BN&SF for the
La Sierra and West Corona Pedestrian Over Crossings
BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE & STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Approve the attached form of agreement with the BN&SF Railway Company, subject
to RCTC legal counsel final review, and approval for both the La Sierra and West
Corona Metrolink Stations.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
After the Commission awarded the construction contract for the La Sierra and West
Corona Pedestrian Over Crossings on July 1, 1999; Burlington Northern & Sante Fe
Rail Way Company (BN&SF) informed RCTC Staff that new agreements would be
required for each of the new projects. Previously, RCTC Staff had been informed by
BN&SF that the existing agreements ( Shared Use Agreement, Line Sale Agreement
and the San Bernardino Easement Agreement) would be adequate for constructing
the pedestrian over crossings (see letter from Walt Smith dated February 23, 1995).
These agreements were adequate for the construction of the La Sierra Station, West
Corona Station, and Southside platform and pedestrian overcrossing that was recently
completed. This new position by BN&SF resulted in our Contractor being delayed for
one week due to BN&SF refusal to provide the flaggers required by BN&SF for our
Contractor to perform any work within 25 feet of the BN&SF track. BN&SF finally
agreed to allow our Contractor back to work as long as RCTC agreed to act in good
faith to get the new agreements in place and that the Contractor cannot perform any
work requiring a crane until both RCTC and the Contractor sign the new agreements
required by BN&SF.
The current form of the agreement is attached for your information and review. The
agreement is currently still under negotiation between BN&SF Staff and RCTC Staff.
The final agreement will be presented to the Commission at the September
Commission meeting. Staff is expediting this agreement to assure that our Contractor
will not be denied access to the work area resulting in construction delays. Most of
the terms and conditions of the agreement were either covered by the previous
agreements or understood to be conditions of doing work on the BN&SF right-of-way.
Staff is working with BN&SF to assure that the terms and conditions that are included
in these new agreements do not subject RCTC to new liability that was not previously
contemplated or passed on to the contractor through insurance requirements.
One of the major issues under discussion between RCTC Legal Counsel and BN&SF
is the new provision that work cannot occur during the 4th quarter of the year. This
new provision could have a major impact to our contractor who is currently scheduled
to be working on both station projects in the 4th quarter of this year.
The new provisions also require the contractor to sign agreements directly with
BN&SF covering insurance provisions and indemnification issues resulting related to
damages or delays suffered by BN&SF as a result of the contractors actions.
Financial Assessment
Project Cost
No additional direct cost.
claim from the Contractor
RCTC may be subject to a delay
Source of Funds
npi
'$�2L
:.:t.{:�n�:....,....v}i�:
.....•i,i�#7�..�''?..,h.,
. �.
,
y .hv.'x�
•}�v}.'•i
4.
�... .:.
. , w..v. 4
i..,, 1}`..t�
}::,.n'i.Y}n.�'..t
.�i:�{• %.. 7C;r•
+fjtvjC
Included in Fiscal Year Budget
Y
Year
Included in Program Budget
Y
Year Programmed
Approved Allocation
Year of Allocation
Budget Adjustment Required
N
Financial Impact Not Applicable
Attachments
oJc�3q�
'The Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway Company
If t
Santa Fe
N
Commuter Rail Construction Group
720 East Carnegie Drive, Suite 100
San Bernardino, California 92408
FAXCOM: (909) 386-4918
February 23, 1995
File: 01004331
FEB 211 1995
f �ECHTE,L VI;
Mr. Jack Reagan
Riverside County
Transportation Commission .�
3560 University Ave., Suite 100
Riverside, CA 92501
ATTENTION: Bill Hughes
Gentlemen:
Based on the provisions of the Shared Use
Agreement, the Line Sale Agreement and the San Bernardino
Easement Agreement, a separate lease for each station
site will not be required. The above -referenced
documents provide for these stations, however, we would
appreciate prints tying the station to Santa Fe
stationing for reference. We would particularly like to
know the stationing and size of any pedestrian crossing
and each end of the station platform.
Thank you for your assistance.
Sincerely,
L. F. Fox
By: wait Smith
cc: Messrs. Ray Branstetter
DMJM
275 W. Hospitality Lane, Suite 314
San Bernardino, CA 92408
Bill Young •
Hu tt-aa tars, 'Inc .
15991 Red Hill Avenue, Suite 200
Tustin, CA 92680
A Santa Fee Pac0c Company
RCTC ORIGINAL
BNSF Secy. Cont. No:
05026420
"La Sierra Station" Pedestrian Overhead
AGREEMENT, made this day of , 1999, between THE BURLINGTON
NORTHERN AND SANTA FE RAILWAY COMPANY, a Delaware corporation, hereinafter referred to as
"BNSF", and the RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION, a political subdivision of the State
of California, hereinafter referred to as "RCTC".
RECITALS:
BNSF owns and operates a line of railroad in and through the City of Riverside, State of California. RCTC
desires to construct a new pedestrian crossing at separated grades over BNSF's San Bernardino Subdivision
main line tracks, to be known as the "La Sierra Station" Pedestrian Overhead and designated as California
Public Utilities Crossing No. 2B-18.37 AD and D. O. T. No. 027390T. The La Sierra Station Pedestrian
Overhead is being constructed between the north and south passenger platforms for the La Sierra Station.
The term "Project" as used in this agreement shall include all work of every kind and character required in
connection with the construction of the proposed La Sierra Station Pedestrian Overhead (hereinafter referred
to as the "Structure") including, but not limited to, any and all changes to telephone, telegraph, signal and
electrical lines and appurtenances, all temporary and permanent track work, grading, drainage facilities as
shown on Exhibit "A", attached hereto and made a part hereof, as well as preliminary and construction
engineering, and contract preparation.
The parties hereto desire to express in writing their understanding and agreement with respect to the Project
and pursuant to which the Structure is to be constructed and maintained.
AGREEMENT:
ARTICLE I
IN CONSIDERATION of the covenants of the RCTC hereinafter set forth, and the faithful performance thereof,
BNSF agrees as follows:
1. To grant, and hereby does grant, to RCTC, its successors and assigns, upon and subject to the
terms and conditions hereinafter set forth, permission and license to enter upon and use that portion of BNSF's
right of way as is necessary to construct, and thereafter maintain, the Structure as shown on Exhibit "A",
excepting and reserving the right to be exercised by BNSF, and by any others who have obtained, or may
obtain, permission or authority from BNSF so to do:
(a) To operate, maintain, renew and/or relocate any and all existing railroad track or tracks, wires,
pipelines and other facilities of like character upon, over or under the surface of said right of way;
(b) From time to time to construct, operate, maintain, renew and/or relocate upon said right of way
additional facilities of the character described in Subsection (a) of this Section 1.
This right is given by BNSF without warranty of title of any kind, express or implied, and no covenant
of warranty of title shall be implied from the use of any word or words herein contained. In case of the eviction
1
of RCTC by anyone owning, or claiming title to or any interest in said right of way, BNSF shall not be liable to
RCTC for any damage of any nature whatsoever.
2. To furnish all labor, materials, tools, and equipment, and do the "Railroad Work" required due to
the construction of the Project, such Railroad Work and the estimated cost thereof being as shown in Exhibit
"B" attached hereto and made a part hereof. In the event that construction of the Project has not commenced
within six (6) months from the effective date of this Agreement, BNSF may, in its sole and absolute discretion,
revise the cost estimates set forth in said Exhibit "B". In such case, BNSF shall provide to RCTC its revised cost
estimate highlighting all changes that are made. Any item of work incidental to those items listed in said Exhibit
"B", but not specifically mentioned therein, may be included as part of this agreement as an item of work upon
written approval of RCTC, if practicable. Construction of the Project shall include the following principle
elements of work by BNSF:
(a) Preliminary engineering, design, and contract preparation;
(b) Furnishing of such watchmen and flagmen as may be necessary for the safety of BNSF's property
and the operation of its trains during construction of the Project;
(c) Furnishing of engineering and inspection as required in connection with the construction of the
Project;
(d) The making of such changes in the alignment, location and elevation of its telephone, telegraph,
signal and/or wire lines and appurtenances along, over or under its tracks as may be required
to accommodate construction of said Project and;
(e) Any signal work necessitated by construction of the Project.
3. To do all work provided in Article I, Section 2 above with its own employees working under Railroad
Labor Agreements or by contractor(s), if necessary, and on an actual cost basis.
4. RCTC agrees to reimburse BNSF for work of an emergency nature caused by RCTC or RCTC's
contractor, in connection with the Project which is reasonably necessary for the immediate restoration of
railroad operations, or for the protection of persons or BNSF property. Such work may be performed by BNSF
without prior approval of RCTC and RCTC agrees to reimburse BNSF the reasonable cost for all such
emergency work.
5. To submit to RCTC periodic statements for payment covering the cost of the work performed by
BNSF, and upon completion of the Project, a detailed statement of final costs, segregated as to labor and
materials for each item in the recapitulation shown on Exhibit "B".
ARTICLE II
IN CONSIDERATION of the covenants of BNSF herein set forth and the faithful performance thereof, RCTC
agrees as follows:
1. To furnish to BNSF plans and specifications for the Project. Four sets of said plans, together with
two copies of calculations, and two copies of specifications, shall be submitted to BNSF for approval prior to
commencement of construction. After having been approved by both RCTC and BNSF, said plans and
specifications are hereby adopted and incorporated into this agreement by reference.
2. To make application to the Public Utilities Commission of the State of California (hereinafter referred
to as the "Commission") for an order authorizing construction of the Project. RCTC shall furnish to the
2
Commission plans for the construction of the Project, approved by BNSF, together with a copy of this
agreement.
3. To furnish BNSF's Assistant Director Public Projects written authorization to commence the
Railroad Work.
4. To provide for and maintain minimum vertical clearances, as required by the Commission.
5. To acquire all rights of way necessary for the construction of the Project.
6. To make any and all arrangements to secure the location or relocation of wire lines, pipe lines and
other facilities owned by private persons, companies, corporations, political subdivisions or public utilities which
may be found necessary to locate or relocate in any manner whatsoever due to the construction of the Project.
7. To construct the Project as shown on Exhibit "A" and do all work provided for in the plans and
specifications for the Project, except such work that BNSF herein agrees to do. Principal elements of work to
be performed by RCTC in the construction of the Project are as follows:
(a) Construction of the Structure;
(b) Necessary Grading and Paving;
(c) Provide suitable drainage, both temporary and permanent;
(e) Apply and maintain the Commission's Crossing Number 2B-18.37 AD and D. O. T. No. 027390T
in a conspicuous location on the Structure;
(f) Installation of a locked gates across the existing pedestrian grade crossing and;
(g)
Extension to the existing fence, located between tracks, a sufficient distance to encourage use
of the Pedestrian Overhead by station patrons who park at the east and west ends of the station
parking lot.
8. To furnish all labor, materials, tools, and equipment in performing the work it agrees to perform
herein. All work of construction with respect to said Project shall be undertaken by RCTC, or RCTC's
contractor and shall be performed at such times as shall not endanger or interfere with the safe and timely
operations of BNSF's tracks and other facilities.
9. To require its contractor(s) to notify BNSF's Roadmaster at least ten (10) business days in advance
of commencing work on BNSF property or near BNSF's tracks, when requesting a BNSF flagman in
accordance with the requirements of Exhibit "C" attached hereto, in order to protect BNSF from damage to its
trains and property.
10. To require its contractor(s) to furnish BNSF's Director of Structures, for approval, four copies of
plans and two sets of calculations of any shoring or cribbing proposed to be used over, under, or adjacent to
BNSF's tracks. The use of such shoring or cribbing shall conform to the standard side clearance set forth in
the Commission's requirements which govern such clearance. In case the use of such shoring will impair said
clearance, RCTC will ensure that application is made to the Commission for approval of such impairment
during the period of construction of the Project.
11. The RCTC agrees to include the following provisions in its contract with any contractor performing
work on said Project:
3
(a) Fiber optic cable systems owned by various telecommunication companies may cross
or run parallel in BNSF's rail corridor. The contractor shall be responsible to contact
BNSF and/or the telecommunications companies to determine whether there are any
fiber optic cable systems located within the Project boundaries that could be damaged
or their service disrupted due to the construction of the Project. The contractor shall also
pothole all lines either shown on the plans or marked in the field in order to verify their
locations. The contractor shall also use all reasonable methods when working in the
BNSF rail corridor to determine if any other fiber optic lines may exist;
(b) Failure to notify, pothole or identify these lines shall be sufficient cause for the RCTC
Engineer to stop construction at no cost to the RCTC or BNSF until these items are
completed. Costs for repairs and loss of revenues and profits due to damage to these
facilities through negligent acts by the contractor shall be the sole responsibility of the
contractor. The contractor shall indemnify and hold the RCTC and BNSF harmless
against and from all cost, liability and expense arising out of or in any way contributed to
these negligent acts of the contractor and;
(c) The telecommunication companies shall be responsible for the rearrangement of any
facilities determined to interfere with the construction. The contractor shall cooperate
fully with any company performing these rearrangements.
12. To also incorporate in each prime contract for construction of the Project, or the specifications
therefor, the provisions set forth in Article II, Sections 8, 9, 10, 11, 13 (a) and 13 (b), 15 and in Article III,
Sections 3, 4, 5, 6, 8,and 10, and the provisions set forth in Exhibits "C" and "C-I", attached hereto and by
reference made a part hereof.
13. That, except as hereinafter otherwise provided, all work to be performed hereunder by RCTC in
the construction of the Project will be performed pursuant to a contract or contracts to be let by RCTC, and all
such contracts shall provide:
(a) That all work performed thereunder, within the limits of BNSF's right of way shall be performed
in a good and workmanlike manner, and in accordance with plans and specifications approved
by BNSF. Those changes or modifications during construction that affect safety or BNSF's
operations shall also be subject to BNSF's approval;
(b) That no work shall be commenced within BNSF's right of way until each of the prime contractors
employed in connection with said work shall have (i) executed and delivered to BNSF a letter
agreement in the form of Exhibit "C-I", and (ii) delivered to and secured BNSF's approval of the
required insurance;
(c) That if, in RCTC's opinion, it shall be for its best interest, RCTC may direct that the construction
of the Project be done by day labor under the direction and control of RCTC, or if at any time, in
the opinion of RCTC, the contractor has failed to prosecute with diligence the work specified in
and by the terms of said contract, it may, in the manner provided by law, terminate the
contractor's control over said work and take possession of all or any part thereof and proceed to
complete the same by day labor or by employing another contractor(s), provided that all such
contractor(s) shall be required to comply with the obligations in favor of BNSF hereinabove set
forth and, provided further, that if such construction is performed by day labor, RCTC will, at its
expense, procure and maintain on behalf of BNSF the insurance required by Exhibit "C-1 ".
14. BNSF shall have the right to request that any RCTC employee, any RCTC contractor, or any
employee of a RCTC contractor who performs any work within BNSF's right of way and which affects BNSF's
operations or facilities, be removed from the Project for incompetence, neglect of duty, unsafe conduct or
misconduct. In the event RCTC or its contractor elects not to honor such request, BNSF may stop work within
4
its right of way until the matter has been fully resolved to BNSF's satisfaction. The party whose employee has
been asked to leave the Project will indemnify the requesting party against any claims arising from such
removal.
15. RCTC's employees, agents, contractors, representatives and invitees shall wear the current BNSF
Personnel Protective Equipment ("PPE") when on the BNSF's rail corridor during construction of the Project
or subsequent maintenance after completion of construction. BNSF PPE shall meet applicable OSHA and
ANSI specifications. Existing BNSF PPE requirements are: (i) safety glasses; permanently affixed side shields;
no yellow lenses; (ii) hard hats with high visibility orange cover; (iii) safety shoes with hardened toe, above the
ankle lace up and a defined heel; and (iv) high visibility reflective orange vests. Hearing protection, fall
protection and respirators will be worn as required by RCTC and federal regulations.
16. To advise BNSF's Assistant Director Public Projects, in writing, of the completion date of the
Project within thirty (30) days after such completion and to notify BNSF's Assistant Director Public Projects, in
writing, of the date on which RCTC and/or its Contractor will meet with BNSF for the purpose of making final
inspection of the Project.
ARTICLE III
IN CONSIDERATION of the premises, it is mutually agreed as follows:
1. That all work contemplated in this agreement shall be performed in a good and workmanlike
manner and each portion shall be promptly commenced by the parties hereto obligated to do the same and
thereafter diligently prosecuted to conclusion in its logical order and sequence. Furthermore, any changes or
modifications during construction that affect BNSF shall be subject to BNSF's approval prior to commencement
of such changes or modifications.
2. That such work shall be done in accordance with detailed plans and specifications approved by
BNSF and subject to the Commission's approval, with minimum clearances of not less than those specified by
the Commission, or as otherwise authorized by the Commission for BNSF's tracks at this location.
3. RCTC and BNSF shall, to the extent reasonably practicable, adhere to the construction schedule
for all Project work. The parties agree that BNSF's failure to complete the Railroad Work in accordance with
the construction schedule by reason of inclement weather, unforeseen railroad emergencies, or other
conditions beyond BNSF's reasonable control, will not constitute a breach of this Agreement nor subject BNSF
to any liability or responsibility for added expense to the RCTC.
4. In the event of an unforeseen railroad emergency, and regardless of the requirements of the
construction schedule, BNSF reserves the right to reallocate all or a portion of its labor forces assigned to
perform the Railroad Work when BNSF believes such reallocation is necessary to provide for the immediate
restoration of railroad operations of BNSF or its affiliates or to protect persons or property on or near any BNSF
owned property or any related railroad. BNSF will reassign such labor forces to again perform the Railroad
Work when, in its sole opinion, such emergency condition no longer exists. BNSF will not be liable for any
additional costs or expenses of the Project resulting from any such reallocation of its labor forces. The parties
further agree that such reallocation of labor forces by BNSF and any direct or indirect results of such
reallocation will not constitute a breach of this Agreement by BNSF.
5. That if any RCTC contractor shall prosecute the Project work contrary to the Plans and
Specifications or if any RCTC contractor shall prosecute the Project work in a manner BNSF deems to be
hazardous to its property, facilities or the safe and expeditious movement of its freight traffic, or the insurance
described in said Exhibit "C-1" shall be canceled during the course of the Project, then BNSF shall have the
right to stop the work until the acts or omissions of such RCTC contractor have been fully rectified to the
satisfaction of BNSF's Division Engineer, or additional insurance has been delivered to and accepted by BNSF.
Such work stoppage shall not give rise to or impose upon BNSF any liability to RCTC, or to any RCTC
5
contractor. The right of BNSF to stop the work is in addition to any other rights BNSF may have which include,
but are not limited to, actions for damages or lost profits. In the event that BNSF shall desire to stop work,
BNSF agrees to give RCTC immediate notice thereof in writing to the address provided in Section 20 of this
Article III.
6. The RCTC shall supervise and inspect the operations of all RCTC contractors to assure compliance
with the plans and specifications, the terms of this Agreement and all safety requirements of BNSF. If at any
time during construction BNSF determines that proper supervision and inspection is not being performed by .
RCTC personnel, BNSF shall have the right to stop construction (within or adjacent to its operating right of way)
and to request that the RCTC correct the situation before construction is allowed to proceed. If BNSF believes
the situation is not being corrected in an expeditious manner, BNSF shall immediately notify RCTC's Executive
Director so that the RCTC can take appropriate corrective action.
7. That RCTC will bear the entire cost and expense incurred in connection with the construction of the
Project.
8. That RCTC will reimburse BNSF in full for the actual cost of all work performed by BNSF pursuant
to this agreement.
9. That no construction activities with respect to the Project, nor future normal or routine maintenance
of the Structure once completed, shall be permitted during the Fourth Quarter of each Calendar Year. Subject
to prior notification to BNSF's NOC in Fort Worth, Texas, telephone number 817 234 2350, emergency work
will be permitted. It is understood that trains cannot be subjected to delay during this time period.
10. That after completion of the construction of the Project as hereinabove described:
(a) RCTC will own and, at its sole cost and expense, maintain the Structure;
(b) RCTC will, at its sole cost and expense, remove or obliterate graffiti on the Structure as required
and;
(c) RCTC will keep the gates that secure the pedestrian at grade crossing locked at all times except
for emergencies. Prior to opening the gates RCTC shall notify BNSF's NOC in Fort Worth, Texas,
telephone number 817 234 2350 for notification of trains en route.
11. That RCTC will furnish BNSF one set of as built plans, at no cost to BNSF, prepared in U.S.
Customary Units, as well as one set of computer diskettes, containing as built CAD drawings of the Structure
identifying the software used for the CAD drawings. The "as built plans" shall depict all information in BNSF
engineering stationing and mile post pluses. The "as built plans" shall also include plan and profile,
specifications, and drainage plans. All improvements and facilities shall be shown.
12. Subject to the restrictions imposed by Article III, Section 9, RCTC shall notify BNSF's Division
Engineer before entering upon BNSF's right of way for maintenance purposes in order to obtain prior
authorization. If work is contracted, RCTC shall require its prime contractor(s) to comply with the obligations
in favor of BNSF, set forth in Exhibits "C" and "C-1 ", as may be revised from time to time, and accepts
responsibility for compliance by its prime contractor(s).
13. The terms of allocation of liability between BNSF and RCTC, and the liability insurance obligation
of RCTC, as set forth in Article 8 and Article 9, of the Shared Use Agreement (San Bernardino Subdivision)
between BNSF and RCTC, shall govern all activities and the presence of RCTC and any of its contractors, or
their invitees, in connection with the construction or maintenance of the La Sierra Station Pedestrian Overhead.
6
14. That if BNSF shall deem it necessary or desirable, in the future, in the performance of its duty as
a common carrier, to raise or lower the grade or change the alignment of its tracks or to lay additional track or
tracks or to build other facilities in connection with the operation of its railroad, BNSF shall, at its expense, have
full right to make such changes or additions, provided such changes or additions do not change or alter the,
Structure herein proposed to be constructed and provided further, however, that should it become necessary
or desirable in the future to change, alter, or reconstruct the Structure to accommodate railroad projects the
cost of such work, including any cost incidental to alteration of railroad or drainage facilities, shall be divided
between BNSF and RCTC in such shares as may be determined between them, subject to the Commission's
jurisdiction.
15. That if RCTC shall deem it necessary or desirable, in the future to alter or reconstruct the Structure
herein proposed to be constructed, it shall have full right to do so, the cost of which shall be born by the RCTC;
provided, however, that such alteration or reconstruction shall not encroach further upon or occupy the surface
of BNSF's right of way to a greater extent than is contemplated by the plans and specifications to be approved
by BNSF pursuant to Article II, Section 1 hereof, without the prior written consent of BNSF, and the execution
of a supplement to this Agreement or the completion of a separate agreement.
16. That the books, papers, records and accounts of the parties hereto, insofar as they relate to the
items of expense for labor and material or are in any way connected with the work herein contemplated, shall
at all reasonable times be open to inspection and audit by the agents and authorized representatives of the
parties hereto for a period of three (3) years from the date of final payment.
17. All the covenants and provisions of this agreement shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit
of the successors and assigns of the parties hereto, except that no party may assign any of its rights or
obligations hereunder without the prior written consent of the other party.
18. In the event that construction of the Project has not begun for a period of three (3) years from the
date of this agreement, this agreement shall become null and void.
19. Any notice provided for or concerning this agreement shall be in writing and be deemed sufficiently
given when sent by certified mail, return receipt requested, to the parties at the following addresses:
The Burlington Northern and
Santa Fe Railway Company:
The Burlington Northern and
Santa Fe Railway Company:
The Burlington Northern and
Santa Fe Railway Company:
The Burlington Northern and
Santa Fe Railway Company:
Riverside County
Transportation Commission
7
BNSF's Vice President and Chief Engineer
2600 Lou Menk Drive
Fort Worth, Texas 76131
BNSF's Assistant Director Public Projects
740 East Carnegie Drive
San Bernardino, CA 92408-3571
Telecopy No.: 909 386 4479
BNSF's Director of Structures
4515 Kansas Avenue
Kansas City, KS. 66106
Telecopy No.: (913) 551 4099
BNSF's Division Engineer
740 E. Carnegie Drive
San Bernardino, CA 92408-3571
Telecopy No.: (909) 386-4070
Executive Director
3560 University Avenue
Suite 100
Riverside, CA. 92501
Telephone: 909-787 7141
Telecopy No.: 909 787 7920
20. It is understood that there are no oral agreements between the parties hereto affecting this
agreement, and that this agreement supersedes and cancels any and all previous negotiation, arrangement,
agreement, and understanding, if any, between the parties, and none shall be used to interpret this agreement.
This agreement may be amended at any time by the mutual consent of the parties by an instrument in writing.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this agreement to be executed and attested
by its duly qualified and authorized officials as of the day and year first above written.
WITNESS:
WITNESS:
"La Sierra Ped OP August 4, 1999
THE BURLINGTON NORTHERN AND
SANTA FE RAILWAY COMPANY
By:
M. N. Armstrong
Its Asst. Vice President and Interim Chief Engineer
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION
COMMISSION
By:
8
Eric Haley
Its Executive Director
NOTE THIS SECTION REMOVED BY D. WILSON BECAUSE PROJECT WAS ALREADY STARTED
10. Subject to the restrictions imposed by Article III, Section 9, the construction of said Project shall
not be commenced by RCTC's Contractor until RCTC shall have given not less than thirty (30) days advanced
written notice to BNSF's Assistant Director Public Projects, making reference to BNSF's file number 05026420,
which notice shall state the time that operations for construction of the Project shall begin.
9
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMM/SS/ON
DATE:
September 8, 1999
TO:
Riverside County Transportation Commission
FROM:
Budget & Implementation Committee
Jerry Rivera, Program Manager
THROUGH:
Eric Haley, Executive Director
SUBJECT:
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
BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE & STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Approve the agreement with the State of California Department of Transportation,
subject to Legal Counsel review, in the amount of $96,000 in State funding for the
Construction Freeway Service Patrol on I-215/SR-60 in Riverside County.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
The Riverside County Freeway Service Patrol (FSP) program operates one of its four
beats on I-215/SR-60 with three roving tow trucks during the morning and afternoon
commute hours. The FSP program is funded by the State of California (80%) and
local SAFE fees (20%).
The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) is constructing a truck
climbing lane for southbound traffic on 1-215 from the east junction of SR-60 to
University Avenue and on SR-60 from the east junction of SR-60 to Frederick Street.
It is Caltrans' desire to implement a construction freeway service patrol during the
construction period to assist in transportation system management efforts, provide
traffic congestion relief and expedite the removal of freeway impediments, all of
which will have the added benefit of reducing accidents and improving air quality in
the construction zone. Furthermore, Caltrans would prefer to use the existing RCTC
FSP contractor to not only better coordinate service but also eliminate any duplication
of service and/or problems that could arise if there were two different operators.
The attached agreement provides for State funding for the construction period
estimated to begin in March 2000 and terminating December 31, 2001, in the amount
of $88,000, plus an $8,000 contingency, for a total of $96,000. The agreement will
cover all costs associated with the additional truck and RCTC's overhead costs.
Financial Assessment
Project Cost
$96,000
Source of Funds
{{•�{T'L}w� .i xx$$�� , •�•
Included in Fiscal Year Budget
/
No
:
•,'C
iW,�I{:�.;•
t, :�,
T,
., k 1(::
Year
Included in Program Budget
No
Year Programmed
Approved Allocation
N/A
Year of Allocation
Budget Adjustment Required
Yes
Financial Impact Not Applicable
08-Riv-215-PM R38.4/41.5
(KP R61.8/66.8)
08-Riv-60-PM R12.1/14.3
(KP R19.5/23.0)
In Riverside County
08303 - 453001
District Agreement
No. 8-1105
CONSTRUCTION FREEWAY SERVICE PATROL (CFSP)
COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT
This AGREEMENT, entered into on , is between
the STATE OF CALIFORNIA, acting by and through its Department of
Transportation, referred to herein as STATE, and
RIVERSIDE COUNTY SERVICE AUTHORITY
FOR FREEWAY EMERGENCIES, a public
entity, referred to herein as
RC SAFE.
RECITALS
(1) Under Streets and Highways Code Section 114, STATE and RC
SAFE may enter into a cooperative agreement for maintenance
of State highways within Riverside County.
(2) STATE and RC SAFE have determined that, due to the nature of
the construction project, a Construction Freeway Service
Patrol (CFSP) is necessary to assist in transportation
system management efforts, provide traffic congestion
relief, and expedite the removal of freeway impediments, all
of which will have the added benefit of reducing accidents
and improving air quality in construction zone.
(3) STATE and RC SAFE mutually desire to cooperate and jointly
participate in the CFSP and desire to specify herein the
terms and conditions under which. the CFSP is to be
conducted.
1
SECTION I
STATE AGREES:
(1) To define or specify, in cooperation with RC SAFE, the State
highway segments to be served by the CFSP. The CFSP will be
funded under Project EA 08-453001. The proposed project is
to improve traffic operations and safety by adding a truck
climbing lane for southbound traffic on Interstate 215 from
the east junction of State Route 60, (PM R38.4, KP R61.8) to
University Avenue (PM 41.5, KP 66.8) and on Route 60 from
the east junction of Route 60 (PM R12.1, KP R19.5) to
Frederick Street (PM 14.3, KP 23.0).
(2) To deposit with RC SAFE for CFSP within twenty, five (25)
days of receipt of billing therefore, (which billing will be
forwarded 15 days prior to RC SAFE contracting with its FSP
Contractor. The amount of $88,000, which figure represent
the total obligation for said anticipated CFSP Program costs
under this Agreement, and shall not exceed the amount of
$96,000. Anticipated costs are shown on attached EXHIBIT
"A" which, by this reference, is made a part of this
Agreement.
SECTION II
RC SAFE AGREES:
(1) To develop and award, in cooperation with STATE, the CFSP
contract for the selected segments of highway in the
construction project in Riverside County freeways, using
existing RC SAFE Freeway Service Patrol Towing Contractors.
The existing towing contractor has been chosen as a result
of RC SAFE'S standard contract process for competitive bid
process for Freeway Service Patrol. The contract was
awarded based on price and qualifications of each
contractor.
(2) To use competitively bid existing contractor for the
necessary communications system and related equipment which
may include voice, data, and Automatic Vehicle Location
(AVL) terminal and affiliated software.
(3) To submit CFSP operational contract invoices and receipts of
actual expenditures to STATE at the completion of
construction and prior to acceptance of the construction
project under EA 08-453001.
2
(4) To deposit all STATE funds transferred to RC SAFE, into an
interest bearing account whereby the principal and interest
earned shall be available for the CFSP. The CFSP fund must
be a unique CFSP fund, separate from other RC SAFE funds.
(5) At the end of operation of the CFSP, to furnish STATE with a
detailed statement of the total direct costs to be borne by
STATE. RC SAFE thereafter shall refund to STATE (promptly
after completion of RC SAFE's final accounting of CFSP
Program costs), any amount of STATE's,funds remaining after
actual final costs to be borne by STATE have been deducted,
or to bill STATE for any additional amount required to
complete STATE's financial obligation pursuant to this
Agreement, subject to the limitations of STATE funds as
stipulated in said Section I, Article (2).
SECTION III
IT IS MUTUALLY AGREED:
(1) All obligations of STATE under the terms of this Agreement
are subject to the appropriation of resources by the
Legislature and the encumbrance of funds under this
Agreement.
(2) All obligations of RC SAFE under the terms of this Agreement
are subject to authorization and allocation of resources by
RC SAFE.
(3) RC SAFE and STATE shall jointly define the scope of the
CFSP, as well as the appropriate level of CFSP funding
recommendations and scope of service and equipment required
to provide and manage the CFSP. No changes shall be made
unless mutually agreed to in writing by the parties to this
Agreement.
(4) Nothing in the provisions of this Agreement is intended to
create duties or obligations to or rights in third parties
not parties to this Agreement or affect the legal liability
of either party to the Agreement by imposing any standard of
care with respect to the maintenance of State highways
different from the standard of care imposed by law.
(5) Neither RC SAFE nor any officer or employee thereof is
responsible for any damage or liability occurring by reason
of anything done or omitted to be done by STATE under or in
connection with any work, authority or jurisdiction
delegated to STATE under this Agreement. It is understood
and agreed that, pursuant to Government Code Section 895.4,
3
(8)
STATE shall fully defend, indemnify and save harmless RC
SAFE, all officers and employees 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 omitted to be
done by STATE under or in connection with any work,
authority or jurisdiction delegated to STATE under this
Agreement.
(6) Neither STATE nor any officer or employee thereof is
responsible for any damage or liability occurring by reason
of anything done or omitted to be done by RC SAFE under or
in connection with any work, authority or jurisdiction
delegated to RC SAFE under this Agreement. It is understood
and agreed that, pursuant to Government Code Section 895.4,
RC SAFE shall fully defend, indemnify and save harmless the
State of California, all officers and employees, 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 omitted to be done by RC SAFE under or in
connection with any work, authority or jurisdiction
delegated to RC SAFE under this Agreement.
(7) Each of the contracting parties shall be subject to
examination and audit for a period of three (3) years after
final payment under the cooperative agreement in accordance
with Government Code Section 8546.7. In addition, RC SAFE
and STATE may be subject to the examination and audit by
representatives of either party. The examination and audit
shall be confined to those matters connected with the
performance of the contract including, but not limited to,
the costs of administering the contract.
The actual costs of the CFSP referred to in this Agreement
shall conform and comply with provisions and/or regulations
contained in Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular
A-87 - "Cost Principles for State, Local and Indian Tribal
Governments" (Federal Acquisitions Regulation 48 CFR,
Chapter 1, Part 31, Subpart 31.602). RC SAFE also agrees to
comply with Federal procedures in accordance with 49 CFR,
Part 18, "Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants and
Cooperative Agreements to State and Local Governments". Any
costs for which payment has been made to RC SAFE that are
determined by subsequent audit to be unallowable under OMB
Circular A-87, or 49 CFR, Part 18, are subject to repayment
by RC SAFE to STATE.
(9) This Agreement may be terminated by STATE or RC SAFE at any
time by 30 days written notice to the other party. If
terminated by STATE, STATE shall reimburse RC SAFE for all
mutually agreed upon costs associated with this Agreement
4
for services already performed. If terminated by RC SAFE,
RC SAFE shall reimburse STATE for all mutually agreed upon
costs associated with this Agreement for services already
performed. Unused and uncommitted funds shall be refunded
to the appropriate party.
10) This Agreement shall terminate on completion of Project 08-
453001, unless earlier terminated or on December 31, 2001.
Upon termination, any unexpended STATE funds, plus accrued
interest in those funds, in the possession of RC SAFE, shall
be returned to STATE. All equipment purchased with STATE
funds shall be returned to STATE.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Department of Transportation
RIVERSIDE COUNTY SERVICE
AUTHORITY FOR FREEWAY
EMERGENCIES
JOSE MEDINA
Director of Transportation By:
Jack F van Haaster
Chairman
By: REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED
S. LISIEWICZ FOR APPROVAL:
District Director
APPROVED AS TO FORM AND PROCEDURE: Eric Haley,
Executive Director
Attorney, REVIEWED FOR FISCAL
Department of Transportation IMPACT:
CERTIFIED AS TO FUNDS:
District Budget Manager
CERTIFIED AS TO PROCEDURE:
Accounting Administrator
5
By:
Dean Martin,
Chief Financial
Officer
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
By:
Steven C. DeBaun
Best, Best & Krieger
Commission Counsel
EXHIBIT "A"
Cost Estimates for Construction Freeway Service Patrol (CFSP)
Estimated Working Day 4 200
Estimated Required Number of Tow Truck 1
Estimated Hours of Service Per Day � 8
Estimated Cost of Tow Truck Per Hour -› $46.00
Estimated RCSAFE Administering CFSP Cost 5% of Total cost of CFSP
Calculation:
Estimated CFSP Cost = (200days)(8Hrs per day)($46.00 per hour)(1 Tow truck)
= $ 73,600.00
Additional Equipment Cost, i.e. Radios, Vest, Brochure, etc. = $2500.00
Sub Total = ($73600.00)+($2500.00)= $ 76,100.00
5% RCSAFE Administering Cost = (5%)($76100) = $3,680.00
Sub -Total = $73,600.00 + $3,680.00 = $ 79,780.00 Say $80,000.00
Add 10% Contingency Fund = (10%) ($80,000) = $8,000.00
Total = $80,000.00 + $8,000.00 = $88,000.00
Total with 20% Contingency Fund = (20%)($80,000) = $16,000.00
Upper Limit Total = $80,000 + $16,000.00 = $96,000.00
Total with 10% Contingency Fund = $ 88,000.00
Total with 20% Contingency Fund = $96,000.00
* This CFSP will be funded 100% from the Project EA.
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
DATE:
September 8, 1999
TO:
Riverside County Transportation Commission
FROM:
Budget and Implementation Committee
W. Dean Martin, Chief Financial Officer
Jerry Rivera, Program Manager
THROUGH:
Eric Haley, Executive Director
SUBJECT:
Agreements between San Bernardino Associated Governments and
Riverside County Transportation Commission for the Provision of
Dispatch Services in the San Bernardino and Indio California
Highway Patrol Offices
BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE & STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Authorize the Executive Director to execute the agreements between San Bernardino
Associated Governments and Riverside County Transportation Commission, subject
to Legal Counsel review, for the provision of dispatch services in the San Bernardino
and Indio California Highway Patrol offices for the Riverside County Motorist Aid Call
Box program.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
The Riverside County Motorist Aid Call Box system has been in operation since April
1990 and currently includes 1,123 call boxes on all freeways and major highways in
the county. Approximately 66,800 call are made annually by motorists in Riverside
County, and all of the calls are answered by the California Highway Patrol (CHP) at
either the Inland Dispatch Center in San Bernardino or the Indio Dispatch Center.
The CHP is reimbursed for its services through a formula which takes into account the
annual number of calls received by a dispatch center for a particular call box program
divided by the number of calls that a dispatch operator can handle in a twelve month
period and determines the number of operators needed to staff the center. The
number is rounding up to the next whole number and each program is billed
accordingly. Besides the salary and benefits costs for the required communication
operator positions, each program is also is billed for indirect costs applied to the
personnel costs, a proportionate share of the CHP SAFE Coordinator position and
related computer equipment costs, translation service costs, and any other telephone
system costs associated with the program.
The San Bernardino call box program was also implemented around the same time as
Riverside County's program. At that time, it was mutually agreed that SANBAG
would enter into an agreement with the CHP and bill RCTC for its share of the costs
for the Inland Dispatch Center based upon RCTC's number of calls to the total
number of call received at the center. It was also agreed that RCTC would contract
with the CHP for the Indio Dispatch Center and bill SANBAG for its share of the costs
on a similar basis. This arrangement allowed both programs to save money since the
fraction of each position was not rounding up to the next whole number and the
dispatch center would still be staffed appropriately. Otherwise, RCTC would pay for
two positions at Inland (rather than approximately 1.68 positions) and two positions
at Indio (rather than 1.9 positions), and SANBAG would be charged for three
positions at Inland (versus approximately 2.32 positions) and one position at Indio
(versus 0.1 position). In fiscal year 1998-99, it is estimated RCTC will reimburse
SANBAG $109,000 for its share of the CHP Inland Dispatch Center and receive
approximately $5,500 from SANBAG for services at the CHP Indio Dispatch Center.
The estimated costs for FY 1999-2000 is included in the approved RCTC Motorist Aid
program budget.
Both programs have benefitted from the agreement and wish to continue working
cooperatively. The attached agreements formalize the costs sharing arrangement
between SANBAG and RCTC for the CHP Dispatch Centers in San Bernardino and
Indio. The agreements are to remain in full force and effect until either terminated by
the mutual agreement of the parties or by either party giving one hundred eighty days
written notice.
Financial Assessment
Project Cost
$120,000
Source of Funds
SAFE Fees
.,�,T }•:'},',�,',{{'SS;££} F::•
:'•3•::o}.ta{•E:£�;.S:.d.
.�... v..,:'•}::::•:: •}.,
$
..
.. �• •Y.i {' . r •,� : ;,.{•' • '•ti 6•:�•,}
•�ti. `� •t::,;k;.. <...S;y •v ;y �.3
•.......:.....{•Y.:.:,.;.{.... }.:}...........6..•h..b.-.....:.......{..�.
• 1,
, 'f' •'{
• • .. �L• v.
�� };
..:..,............ %:.{•Y.{{,'ti }.l. i+
&'
• ;}• ; a
{
•, }:}{..+.•Y.{3:{ }.: Y..H.{4{x{{r,:,w,'.4}.{{44...*.v{.}.{nifitr:.
; };
��3�: • .' • .i•:
Included in Fiscal Year Budget
Yes
Year
Included in Program Budget
Yes
Year Programmed
1999-00
Approved Allocation
N/A
Year of Allocation
Budget Adjustment Required
No
Financial Impact Not Applicable
AGREEMENT BETWEEN
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
AND
SAN BERNARDINO ASSOCIATED GOVERNMENTS
FOR
THE PROVISION OF DISPATCH SERVICES
IN THE
INDIO CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL OFFICES
THIS AGREEMENT ("Agreement") is entered into as of this day of
1999, in the State of California by and between the RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION
COMMISSION referred to herein as "Riverside County Service Authority for Freeway Emergencies
(Riverside County SAFE)," a public entity, and SAN BERNARDINO ASSOCIATED
GOVERNMENTS referred to herein as "San Bernardino County Service Authority for Freeway
Emergencies (San Bernardino County SAFE)," a public entity.
RECITALS
WHEREAS, Riverside County SAFE and San Bernardino County SAFE were established
pursuant to Section 2551 of the California Streets and Highways Code for the purposes of
implementing, maintaining and operating motorist aid systems call boxes on freeways and state
highways; and
WHEREAS, Riverside County SAFE and San Bernardino County SAFE have entered into
agreements (the "CHP Agreements") with the State of California Department of the Highway Patrol
(CHP) for service and assistance in accordance with the Joint CHP/Caltrans Guidelines for County
SAFE Call Box Systems, which agreements may be extended from time to time by the parties; and
WHEREAS, the Riverside County SAFE and San Bernardino County SAFE have
determined that the cooperative use of dispatch services in the Indio CHP Office will provide for
better coordination and cost savings for both agencies;
NOW, THEREFORE, Riverside County SAFE and San Bernardino County SAFE, hereby
agree as follows:
SECTION 1
TERMS AND CONDITIONS
1. The Riverside County SAFE and San Bernardino County SAFE agree to share the CHP
dispatch service costs at the Indio CHP Office as set forth below.
2. The Riverside County SAFE and San Bernardino County SAFE agree to share the CHP
service costs incurred under the CHP Agreements as follows:
A. The quarterly billing of dispatch services identified in Section 12(a) through (e) shall
be shared based on the percentage of calls generated from each of the call box
systems operated by the Riverside County and San Bernardino County SAFES during
the billing period. The total volume of motorist aid calls generated during the quarter
shall be used to determine the percentage of calls applicable to each agency. The
quarterly billing for dispatch services shall be divided between the Riverside County
and San Bernardino County SAFES based upon the percentage of calls applicable to
each during the quarter.
B. The capitalized maintenance costs of all CHP communication equipment (with the
exception of the computer assisted dispatch system, the payment of which has already
been agreed to between the CHP, Riverside County SAFE, and San Bernardino
County SAFE) for call box dispatch services currently installed at the Indio CHP
Office will be shared equall} by the Riverside County and San Bernardino County
SAFE. All costs associated with the purchase and installation of any additional
equipment shall be shared as mutually agreed upon by the parties based upon the
estimated percentage of each use by each agency.
C. All trunk line operations and maintenance costs for those trunk lines currently
installed shall be shared equally by the parties. The costs associated with any
additional trunk lines shall be shared based upon the percentage of use of additional
trunk lines by Riverside and San Bernardino SAFES.
D. Each SAFE shall be responsible for the costs of all translation service calls in its
respective county.
SECTION II
FEES AND PAYMENTS
1. The San Bernardino County SAFE shall provide monthly data regarding the call box calls
that were made to the Indio CHP Dispatch to Riverside County SAFE on a quarterly basis.
2. The Riverside County SAFE shall timely pay all costs billed by the CHP under the CHP
Agreement and then bill the San Bernardino County SAFE on a quarterly basis for San
Bernardino County SAFE'S share of all costs billed by the CHP as described in Section I,
Item 2.
3. San Bernardino County SAFE shall make payment to the Riverside County SAFE within
forty-five (45) days of its receipt and approval of each quarterly billing.
SECTION III
GENERAL PROVISIONS
1. This agreement shall remain in full force and effect from its effective date until either
terminated by mutual agreement between the parties or as provided in Section 3 below or
upon the expiration of the CHP Agreements.
2. Neither party shall assign, sublet, or transfer this agreement or any part hereof, without the
written consent of the other agency.
3. This agreement may be terminated by either party by giving one hundred eighty (180) days
written notice.
4. This agreement may be amended at any time by written agreement of the each agency.
5. No waiver of a breach of any provision of this agreement shall constitute a waiver of any
other breach, or of such provision. Failure of either party to enforce any time, or from time -
to -time, any provision of this agreement shall not be construed as waiver thereof. The
remedies herein reserved shall be cumulative and additional to any other remedies in law or
equity.
6. Should any part, term, portion, or provision of this agreement be finally decided to be in
conflict with any law of the United States or the State of California, or otherwise be
unenforceable or ineffectual, the validity of the remaining parts, terms, portions or provisions
shall be deemed severable and shall not be affected thereby, provided such remaining
portions or provisions can be construed in substance to constitute the agreement which the
parties intended to enter in the first instance.
7. This agreement contains the entire agreement of the parties relating to the rights herein
granted and the obligations herein assumed. Any oral representations and modifications
concerning this agreement shall be of no force or effect unless provided in writing and signed
by both parties.
8. Any notice or notices required or permitted to be given pursuant to this agreement may be
personally served on the other party by the party giving such notice or may be served by
certified mail, return receipt requested, to the following address:
Riverside County SAFE
3560 University Avenue, Suite 100
Riverside, CA 92501
Tel: (909) 787-7141
Fax: (909) 787-7920
San Bernardino County SAFE
472 North Arrowhead Avenue
San Bernardino, CA 92401-1421
Tel: (909) 884-8276
Fax: (909) 885-4407
Such notice shall be deemed made when personally delivered, or when mailed, forty-eight
(48) hours after deposit in the U.S. Mail, first class postage prepaid and addressed to the
party at its applicable address.
9. Both parties hereby waive their respective right to trial by jury and agree to accept trial by
judge alone of any cause of action, claim, counterclaim or cross -complaint in any action,
proceeding and/or hearing brought by either party against the other party on any matter
whatsoever arising out of, or in any way connected with, this agreement, the relationship of
the parties, or any claim of injury or damage, or the enforcement of any remedy under any
law, statute, or regulation, emergency or otherwise, now or hereafter in effect, regardless of
whether such action or proceeding concerns any contract or tort or other claim.
10. If any legal action is instituted to enforce or declare any party's rights hereunder, each party,
including the prevailing party, must bear its own costs and attorneys' fees.
11. The individual executing this agreement on behalf of each party warrants that he/she is
authorized to execute the agreement on behalf of his/her agency and the agency will be
bound by the terms and conditions contained herein.
IN WITNESS THEREOF, THE AUTHORIZED PARTIES HAVE BELOW SIGNED AND
EXECUTED THE AGREEMENT ON THE EFFECTIVE DATE:
RIVERSIDE COUNTY SAFE SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY SAFE
Jack F. van Haaster, Chairman Robert Christman, President
Date: Date:
REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED
APPROVAL APPROVAL
Eric A. Haley, Executive Director Norman R. King, Executive Director
Date: Date:
Reviewed for Fiscal Impact:
Dean Martin, Chief Financial Officer
APPROVED AS TO FORM FOR APPROVED AS TO FORM FOR
RIVERSIDE COUNTY SAFE SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY SAFE
Steven C. DeBaun
Best, Best & Krieger
Commission Counsel
Rex A. Hinesley, Legal Counsel
AGREEMENT NO.00-005
BETWEEN
SAN BERNARDINO ASSOCIATED GOVERNMENTS
AND
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
FOR
THE PROVISION OF DISPATCH SERVICES
IN THE
SAN BERNARDINO CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL OFFICES
THIS AGREEMENT ("Agreement") is entered into as of this 7th day of July 1999, in the
State of California by and between SAN BERNARDINO ASSOCIATED GOVERNMENTS
referred to herein as "San Bernardino Service Authority for Freeway Emergencies (San
Bernardino SAFE)," a public entity, and the RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION
COMMISSION referred to herein as "Riverside Service Authority for Freeway Emergencies
(Riverside SAFE)," a public entity.
RECITALS
WHEREAS, San Bernardino SAFE and Riverside SAFE were established pursuant to
Section 2551 of the California Streets and Highways Code for the purposes of implementing,
maintaining and operating motorist aid systems call boxes on freeways and state highways; and
WHEREAS, San Bernardino SAFE and Riverside SAFE have entered into agreements
with the State of California Department of the Highway Patrol (CHP) for service and assistance
in accordance with the Joint CHP/Caltrans Guidelines for County SAFE Call Box Systems; and
WHEREAS, the San Bernardino SAFE and Riverside SAFE have determined that the
cooperative use of dispatch services in the San Bernardino Inland CHP Office will provide for
better coordination and cost savings for both agencies;
NOW, THEREFORE, San Bernardino SAFE and Riverside SAFE, hereby agree as
follows:
SECTION 1
TERM AND CONDITIONS
1. The San Bernardino SAFE and Riverside SAFE agree to share the CHP dispatch service
costs at the San Bernardino CHP Office.
2. The San Bernardino SAFE and Riverside SAFE agree to split the CHP service costs as
follows:
0:1A00005.doc Page 2 of 5
A. The quarterly billing of dispatch services shall be split based on the percentage of
calls generated from each of the call box systems operated by the San Bernardino
and Riverside SAFEs during the billing period. The total volume of motorist aid
calls generated during the quarter shall be used to determine the percentage of
calls applicable to each agency. The quarterly billing for dispatch services shall
be divided between the San Bernardino and Riverside SAFEs based upon the
percentage of calls applicable to each during the quarter.
B. The costs of all CHP communication equipment (with the exception of the
computer assisted dispatch system, the payment of which has already been agreed
to between the CHP, San Bernardino SAFE, and Riverside SAFE) for call box
dispatch services currently installed at the San Bernardino CHP Office will be
shared equally by the San Bernardino and Riverside SAFE. All costs associated
with the purchase and installation of any additional equipment shall be shared as
mutually agreed upon by the parties based upon the estimated percentage of each
use by each agency.
C. All trunk line operations and maintenance costs for those trunk lines currently
installed shall be shared equally by the parties. The costs associated with any
additional trunk lines shall be shared based upon the percentage of use of
additional trunk lines by San Bernardino and Riverside SAFEs.
D. Each SAFE shall be responsible for the costs of all translation service calls in its
respective county.
SECTION II
FEES AND PAYMENTS
1. The Riverside SAFE shall provide monthly data regarding the call box calls that were made
to the San Bernardino Inland CHP Dispatch to San Bernardino SAFE on a quarterly basis.
2. The San Bernardino SAFE shall pay all costs billed by the CHP and then bill the Riverside
SAFE on a quarterly basis for Riverside SAFE's share of all costs billed by the CHP as
described in Section I, Item 2.
3. Riverside SAFE shall make payment to the San Bernardino SAFE within ninety (90) days of
its receipt and approval of each quarterly billing.
SECTION III
GENERAL PROVISIONS
1. This agreement shall remain in full force and effect from its effective date until either
terminated by mutual agreement between the parties or as provided in Section 3 below.
O:\A00005.doc Page 3 of 5
2. Neither party shall assign, sublet, or transfer this agreement or any part hereof, without the
written consent of the other agency.
3. This agreement may be terminated by either party by giving one hundred eighty (180) days
written notice.
4. This agreement may be amended at any time by written agreement of the each agency.
5. No waiver of a breach of any provision of this agreement shall constitute a waiver of any
other breach, or of such provision. Failure of either party to enforce any time, or from time -
to time, any provision of this agreement shall not be construed as waiver thereof. The
remedies herein reserved shall be cumulative and additional to any other remedies in law or
equity.
6. Should any part, term, portion, or provision of this agreement be finally decided to be in
conflict with any law of the United States or the State of California, or otherwise be
unenforceable or ineffectual, the validity of the remaining parts, terms, portions or provisions
shall be deemed severable and shall not be affected thereby, provided such remaining
portions or provisions can be construed in substance to constitute the agreement which the
parties intended to enter in the first instance.
7. This agreement contains the entire agreement of the parties relating to the rights herein
granted and the obligations herein assumed. Any oral representations and modifications
concerning this agreement shall be of no force or effect unless provided in writing and signed
by both parties.
8. The parties acknowledge and agree that this agreement was entered into and intended to be
performed in whole or substantial part in San Bernardino County, California. The parties
agree that the venue for any action or claim brought by any party to this agreement will be
the Central District of San Bernardino County. Each party hereby waives any law or rule of
court which would allow them to request or demand a change of venue. If any action or
claim concerning this agreement is brought by any third party, the parties hereto agree to use
their best efforts to obtain a change of venue to the Central District of San Bernardino
County.
9. Any notice or notices required or permitted to be given pursuant to this agreement may be
personally served on the other party by the party giving such notice or may be served by
certified mail, return receipt requested, to the following address:
San Bernardino SAFE
472 North Arrowhead Avenue
San Bernardino, CA 92401-1421
Tel: (909) 884-8276
Fax: (909) 885-4407
Riverside SAFE
3560 University Avenue, Suite1O0
Riverside, CA 92501
Tel: (909) 787-7141
Fax: (909) 787-7920
O:1A00005.doc Page 4 of 5
Such notice shall be deemed made when personally delivered, or when mailed, forty-eight
(48) hours after deposit in the U.S. Mail, first class postage prepaid and addressed to the
party at its applicable address.
10. Both parties hereby waive their respective right to trial by jury and agree to accept trial by
judge alone of any cause of action, claim, counterclaim or cross -complaint in any action,
proceeding and/or hearing brought by either party against the other party on any matter
whatsoever arising out of, or in any way connected with, this agreement, the relationship of
the parties, or any claim of injury or damage, or the enforcement of any remedy under any
law, statute, or regulation, emergency or otherwise, now or hereafter in effect, regardless of
whether such action or proceeding concerns any contract or tort or other claim.
11 If any legal action is instituted to enforce or declare any party's rights hereunder, each party,
including the prevailing party, must bear its own costs and attorneys' fees.
12. The individual executing this agreement on behalf of each party warrants that he/she is
authorized to execute the agreement on behalf of his/her agency and the agency will be bound
by the terms and conditions contained herein.
IN WITNESS THEREOF, THE AUTHORIZED PARTIES HAVE BELOW SIGNED AND
EXECUTED THE AGREEMENT ON THE EFFECTIVE DATE:
SAN.BERNARDINO SAFE RIVERSIDE SAFE
Robert Christman, President
Eric Haley, Executive Director
Date: 2 Date:
REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED APPROVAL
Reviewed for Fiscal Impact:
Dean Martin
Norman R. King, Executive Director Chief Financial Officer
Date:
APPROVED AS TO FORM FOR
Date:
APPROVED AS TO FORM FOR
SAN BERNARDINO SAFE RIVERSIDE SAFE
�litG-
Rex A. Hinesley, Le ounsel
0:1A00005.doc
Legal Counsel
Page 5 of 5
RIVERS/DE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMM/SS/ON
DATE:
September 8, 1999
TO:
Riverside County Transportation Commission
FROM:
Budget and Implementation Committee
W. Dean Martin, Chief Financial Officer
Jerry Rivera, Program Manager
THROUGH:
Eric Haley, Executive Director
SUBJECT:
Fund Transfer Agreement Between the State of California
Department of Transportation and the Riverside County
Transportation Commission for the Operation of a Freeway Service
BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE & STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Approve the agreement with the State of California Department of Transportation,
subject to Legal Counsel review, in the amount of $918,500 in State funding for the
Riverside County Freeway Service Patrol program for FY 1999-2000.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
The Riverside County Freeway Service Patrol (FSP) program has been in operation for
almost five years and provides roving tow truck service on four beats of SR-91 and
I-215/SR-60 during the morning and afternoon commute hours. The FSP program is
funded by the State of California (80%) and local SAFE fees (20%). Funds are
allocated to participating local agencies through a formula based on population,
freeway lane miles, and levels of congestion.
The attached agreement provides for continued State funding for fiscal year 1999-
2000 in the amount of $918,500. This is an increase of $282,200 over the funding
level for FY 1998-99, and will provide funding for the addition of two trucks on FSP
beat #25 on 1-15 between SR-91 and SR-60. The Riverside County SAFE must
provide matching funds of $229,625. The increased funding levels were included in
the Commission's FY 1999-00 budget for the Motorist Assistance Program.
Annually, the program provides approximately 18,000 assists to stranded motorists
along three segments of SR-91 and one segment of I-215/SR-60. The Commission
contracts with two tow truck operators to patrol these routes Monday through Friday
during peak commute hours. The program's day to day field supervision is handled
by the California Highway Patrol.
Financial Assessment
Project Cost
$229,625
Source of Funds
SAFE
ti Y }'i}
111:
:r,r
.
�.
Included in Fiscal Year Budget
Yes
Year
Included in Program Budget
Yes
Year Programmed
1999-00
Approved Allocation
NSA
Year of Allocation
Budget Adjustment Required
No
Financial Impact Not Applicable
FREEWAY SERVICE PATROL PROGRAM
FUND TRANSFER AGREEMENT (Non -Federal)
Agreement No.: FSP-6054(013) Location: 08-RIV-0-RCTC
Project No.: FSP-6054(013) EA: 08-924402
THIS AGREEMENT, effective on July 1, 1999, is between the State of California, acting by and
through the Department of Transportation, hereinafter referred to as STATE, and the Riverside County
Transportation Commission-RCTC, a public agency, hereinafter referred to as "ADMINISTERING
AGENCY."
WHEREAS, Streets and Highways Code (S&HC) Section 2560 et seq. authorizes STATE and
administering agencies to develop and implement a Freeway Service Patrol (FSP) program on traffic -
congested urban freeways throughout the state; and
WHEREAS, STATE has distributed available State Highway Account funds to administering agencies
participating in the FSP Program in accordance with S&HC Section 2562; and
WHEREAS, ADMINISTERING AGENCY has applied to STATE and has been selected to receive
funds from the FSP Program for the purpose of providing Freeway Service Patrols on State Routes 60,
91 & 215, hereinafter referred to as "PROJECT"; and
WHEREAS, proposed PROJECT funding is as follows:
Total Cost
$ 1,148,125
State Funds
$ 918,500
Local Funds
$ 229,625
; and
WHEREAS, STATE is required to enter into an agreement with ADMINISTERING AGENCY
to delineate the respective responsibilities of the parties relative to prosecution of said PROJECT; and
WHEREAS, STATE and ADMINISTERING AGENCY mutually desire to cooperate and jointly
participate in the FSP program and desire to specify herein the terms and conditions under which the
FSP program is to be conducted; and
WHEREAS, ADMINISTERING AGENCY has approved entering into this Agreement under authority
of Resolution No. approved by ADMINISTERING AGENCY on , a
copy of which is attached..
NOW, THEREFORE, the parties agree as follows:
For Caltrans Use Only
I hereby Certify upon my own personal knowledge that budgeted funds are available for this encumbrance
Accounting Officer
Date
$
Chapter
Statutes
Item
Fiscal
Year
Program
BC
Category
Fund
Source
$
1999
2660-101-0042
99-
2000
20.30.010.600
C
262041
02-042T
Non -Fed FSP
6/9/99
2
SECTION I
STATE AGREES:
1. To define or specify, in cooperation with ADMINISTERING AGENCY, the limits of the State
Highway segments to be served by the FSP as well as the nature and amount of the FSP dedicated
equipment, if any, that is to be funded under the FSP program.
2. To pay ADMINISTERING AGENCY the STATE's share, in amount not to exceed $918,500 , of
eligible participating PROJECT costs.
3. To Deposit with ADMINISTERING AGENCY, upon ADMINISTERING AGENCY's award of a
contract for PROJECT services and receipt of an original and two signed copies of an invoice in
the proper form, including identification of this Agreement Number and Project Number, from
ADMINISTERING AGENCY, the amount of $146,960. This initial deposit represents STATE's
share of the estimated costs for the initial two months of PROJECT. Thereafter, to make
reimbursements to ADMINISTERING AGENCY as promptly as state fiscal procedures will
permit, but not more often than monthly in arrears, upon receipt of an original and two signed
copies of invoices in the proper form covering actual allowable costs incurred for the prior
sequential month's period of the Progress Payment Invoice. (The initial deposit will be calculated
at 16% of the STATE's total share.)
4. When conducting an audit of the costs claimed by ADMINISTERING AGENCY under the
provisions of this Agreement, STATE will rely to the maximum extent possible on any prior audit
of ADMINISTERING AGENCY performed pursuant to the provisions of State and federal laws.
In the absence of such an audit, work of other auditors will be relied upon to the extent that work is
acceptable to STATE when planning and conducting additional audits.
SECTION II
ADMINISTERING AGENCY AGREES:
1. To commit and contribute matching funds totaling $ 229,625, from ADMINISTERING AGENCY
resources, which shall be an amount not less than 25 percent of the amount provided by STATE
from the State Highway Account.
2. The ADMINISTERING AGENCY's detailed PROJECT Cost Proposal which identifies all
anticipated direct and indirect PROJECT costs which ADMINISTERING AGENCY may invoice
STATE for reimbursement under this Agreement is attached hereto and made an express part of
this Agreement. The detailed PROJECT Cost Proposal reflects the provisions and/or regulations
of Section III, Article 8, of this Agreement.
3. To use all state funds paid hereunder only for those transportation related PROJECT purposes that
conform to Article XIX of the California State Constitution.
Non -Fed FSP
6/9/99
3
4. STATE funds provided to ADMINISTERING AGENCY under this Agreement shall not be used
for administrative purposes by ADMINISTERING AGENCY.
5. To develop, in cooperation with STATE, advertise, award and administer PROJECT contract(s)in
accordance with ADMINISTERING AGENCY competitive procurement procedures.
6. Upon award of a contract for PROJECT, to prepare and submit to STATE an original and two
signed copies of invoicing for STATE's initial deposit specified in Section I, Article 3. Thereafter,
to prepare and submit to STATE an original and two signed copies of progress invoicing for
STATE's share of actual expenditures for allowable PROJECT costs.
7. Said invoicing shall evidence the expenditure of ADMINISTERING AGENCY's PROJECT
participation in paying not less than 20% of all allowable PROJECT costs and shall contain the
information described in Chapter 5 of the Local Assistance Procedures Manual and shall be mailed
to the Department of Transportation, Accounting Service Center, MS 33, Local Programs
Accounting Branch, P.O. Box 942874, Sacramento CA, 94274-0001.
8. Within 60 days after completion of PROJECT work to be reimbursed under this Agreement, to
prepare a final invoice reporting all actual eligible costs expended, including all costs paid by
ADMINISTERING AGENCY and submit that signed invoice, along with any refund due STATE,
to the District Local Assistance Engineer. Backup information submitted with said final invoice
shall include all FSP operational contract invoices paid by ADMINISTERING AGENCY to
contracted operators included in expenditures billed for to STATE under this Agreement.
9. Any costs for which ADMINISTERING AGENCY receives payment that are determined by
subsequent audit to be unallowable are to be repaid to STATE by ADMINISTERING AGENCY
within thirty (30) days of ADMINISTERING AGENCY receiving notice of audit findings.
Should ADMINISTERING AGENCY fail to reimburse moneys due STATE within (30) days of
demand, or within such other period as may be agreed between both parties hereto, STATE
reserves the right to withhold future payments due ADMINISTERING AGENCY from any source,
including, but not limited to, the State Treasurer and the State Controller.
10. ADMINISTERING AGENCY and its subcontractors shall establish and maintain an accounting
system conforming to Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) to support
reimbursement payment vouchers or invoices which segregate and accumulate costs of PROJECT
work elements and produce monthly reports which clearly identify reimbursable costs, matching
costs, and other expenditures by ADMINISTERING AGENCY.
11. ADMINISTERING AGENCY and its subcontractors shall maintain all source documents, books
and records connected with its performance under this Agreement for a minimum of three years
from the date of final payment to ADMINISTERING AGENCY or until audit resolution is
achieved and shall make all such supporting information available for inspection and audit by
representatives of the STATE. Copies will be made and furnished by ADMINISTERING
AGENCY upon request.
Non -Fed FSP
6/9/99
4
SECTION III
IT IS MUTUALLY AGREED:
1. All obligations of STATE under the terms of this Agreement are subject to the appropriation of
resources by the Legislature and the encumbrance of funds under this Agreement. Funding and
reimbursement is available only upon the passage of the State Budget Act containing these STATE
funds. The starting date of eligible reimbursable activities shall be July 1, 1999.
2. All obligations of ADMINISTERING AGENCY under the terms of this Agreement are subject to
authorization and allocation of resources by ADMINISTERING AGENCY.
3. ADMINISTERING AGENCY and STATE shall jointly define the initial FSP program as well as
the appropriate level of FSP funding recommendations and scope of service and equipment
required to provide and manage the FSP program. No changes shall be made in these unless
mutually agreed to in writing by the parties to this Agreement.
4. Nothing in the provisions of this Agreement is intended to create duties or obligations to or rights
in third parties not parties to this Agreement or affect the legal liability of either party to the
Agreement by imposing any standard of care with respect to the maintenance of State highways
different from the standard of care imposed by law.
5. Neither STATE nor any officer or employee thereof is responsible for any injury, damage or
liability occurring or arising by reason of anything done or omitted to be done by
ADMINISTERING AGENCY under or in connection with any work, authority or jurisdiction
delegated to ADMINISTERING AGENCY under this Agreement. It is understood and agreed
that, pursuant to Government Code Section 895.4, ADMINISTERING AGENCY shall fully
defend, indemnify and save harmless the State of California, its officers and employees 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 omitted to be
done by ADMINISTERING AGENCY under or in connection with any work, authority or
jurisdiction delegated to ADMINISTERING AGENCY under this Agreement.
6. Neither ADMINISTERING AGENCY nor any officer or employee thereof is responsible for any
injury, damage or liability occurring or arising by reason of anything done or omitted to be done
by STATE under or in connection with any work, authority or jurisdiction delegated to STATE
under this Agreement. It is understood and agreed that, pursuant to Government Code Section
895.4, STATE shall fully defend, indemnify and save harmless ADMINISTERING AGENCY, its
officers and employees 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 omitted to be done by STATE under or in connection with any work,
authority or jurisdiction delegated to STATE under this Agreement.
7. ADMINISTERING AGENCY will maintain an inventory of all non expendable PROJECT
equipment, defined as having a useful life of at least two years and an acquisition cost of $500 or
more, paid for with PROJECT funds. At the conclusion of this Agreement, ADMINISTERING
AGENCY may either keep such equipment and credit STATE its share of equipment's fair market
Non -Fed FSP
6/9/99
5
value or sell such equipment at the best price obtainable at a public or private sale (in accordance
with established STATE procedures) and reimburse STATE its proportional share of the sale price.
8. ADMINISTERING AGENCY and its sub -contractors will comply with all applicable Federal and
State laws and regulations, including but not limited to, Office of Management and Budget
Circular A-97, Cost Principles for State and Local Governments (49 CFR, Part 18, Uniform
Administrative Requirements for Grants and Cooperative Agreements to State and Local
Governments).
9. In the event that ADMINISTERING AGENCY fails to operate the PROJECT commenced and
reimbursed under this Agreement in accordance with the terms of this Agreement or fails to
comply with applicable Federal and State laws and regulations, STATE reserves the right to
terminate funding for PROJECT, or portions thereof, upon written notice to ADMINISTERING
AGENCY.
10. This Agreement shall terminate on June 30, 2001; However, the non -expendable equipment, and
liability clauses shall remain in effect until terminated or modified in writing by mutual agreement.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA AGENCY
Department of Transportation
By:
Chief, Office of Local Programs
Project Implementation
By:
Title:
Date: Date:
Non -Fed FSP
6/9/99
RIVERS/DE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMM/SS/ON
DATE:
September 8, 1999
TO:
Riverside County Transportation Commission
FROM:
Budget and Implementation Committee
W. Dean Martin, Chief Financial Officer
Jerry Rivera, Program Manager
THROUGH:
Eric Haley, Executive Director
SUBJECT:
Contract Award for Freeway Service Patrol Tow Truck Services
BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE & STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Award a three-year contract to Pepe's Towing Service to provide tow truck service
on Beat #25 for the Riverside County Freeway Service Patrol program.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
The Riverside County Service Authority for Freeway Emergencies (RC SAFE) was
advised by Caltrans Headquarters that additional State funding would be available for
FY 1999-2000 for its Freeway Service Patrol (FSP) program. With this in mind,
Caltrans District 8, CHP, and RCTC staff decided to implement an additional FSP beat
on 1-15 beginning August 2, 1999. The following is an account of the process that
has occurred to date:
• RFP issued on April 2, 1999 and advertised in Press Enterprise on April 7,
1999
• Pre -bid conference held at RCTC office on April 13, 1999
• Proposals due and opened 5:00 p.m., May 7, 1999
• Site visits conducted on five lowest responsive bidders week of May 17
• Recommendation on contract award presented to Budget and Implementation
Committee on May 24, 1999
At the May 24 Committee meeting, the item was deferred until June and staff was
directed to return with additional information and documentation to substantiate the
recommendation. Subsequently, a cost estimate was prepared by CHP staff based
upon the proposals submitted from the five lowest bidders. The estimates projected
each bidder's estimated costs, revenues, and profit or loss for the three year period.
Each bidder was sent a copy of their respective cost estimate and given the
opportunity to comment and/or provide additional information. They were also asked
to provide additional clarification and information on specific items (e.g., maintenance,
miscellaneous, incidental costs) including the specific items covered under each
category and the amount per item. Staff pulled the item from the June 28, 1999
Committee meeting to allow more time to complete their analysis.
Staff also took the opportunity to survey other FSP programs to determine what
criteria they used to evaluate their proposals. Copies of RFP's were received from
OCTA, LACMTA, SANBAG and Ca!trans.
OCTA's criteria was more definitive with a greater level of specificity and most
closely followed the analysis initially performed by staff. Staff used this criteria to
evaluate qualitative factors of the five proposals (see Attachment I).
A Time and Material Calculation spreadsheet was also developed to assist staff in
evaluating the cost reasonableness of the proposals (see Attachment II). Although
all of the operators furnished some of this information with their original proposal,
each proposer submitted it with varying levels of details and differing descriptions.
The spreadsheet standardized the information in order for staff to compare between
the proposals and to determine reasonableness of costs. They were also asked to
provide resumes of the key personnel responsible for day to day operations.
Reference was made to RFP Section 1-10.0, Commission Rights, which states in part,
"The Commission may investigate the qualifications of any Proposer under
consideration, require confirmation of information furnished by a Proposer, and require
additional evidence of qualifications." They were given one week to comply and told
that failure to provide the attached schedule appropriately signed, and the resumes
could result in the Commission viewing their proposal as non -responsive.
The requested information was received from Our Boyz Towing, Duran's Towing, and
Pepe's Towing. M & D Towing and Mr. T's Towing did not comply with the request
for additional information. Staff contacted the two operators to determine if they had
received the letter dated July 23, 1999 requesting the additional information and to
ask why they had not responded. Mr. T's Towing stated they had received the letter
but had decided not to reply. M & D Towing stated they had not received the letter.
A copy was faxed to their office and they were asked to reply by 4:00 p.m. on
Monday, August 16. The information was received by the specified time and date.
A review of the qualitative factors included in Attachment I resulted in Pepe's Towing
being ranked the highest of the five proposers. The qualifications and experience of
the firm and staff were the two factors that favored Pepe's. Their combined
experience with the CHP rotation tow program, other local police departments and
with the freeway service patrol itself are invaluable. The safety issues involved with
working in a dangerous freeway environment cannot be compared to towing on local
streets. There are many times more vehicles driving by at high speeds, drivers have
to be on constant alert for oncoming vehicles, and often times must work in areas of
little or no shoulder area. The operator must also have the experience of responding
to accidents on the freeway.
Although cost is a factor, the qualitative factors and safety issues far outweigh any
benefit of a low bid. Also, based on information obtained from other FSP programs
and operators and our analysis of the cost components (e.g., fuel and materials), it
is still our belief that the lowest bid is significantly underestimated and, therefore,
brings into question the ability of the firm to sustain operations over a three year
contract. If the contractor cannot perform as required, the Commission would have
to go out to bid for the services before the end of the contract term. At the
minimum, the CHP has indicated it would strain their resources if an operator fails to
perform adequately. It would require additional time to monitor the beat, and this
could occur at the expense of the other beats.
Therefore, based upon the evaluation of all the information submitted by the
prospective tow companies, interviews with the tow company owners, review of
historical and present statistical information, discussions with other FSP programs in
the State, and our experience in the FSP program, it is recommended that the
Commission award the contract for FSP Beat #25 to Pepe's Towing.
Pepe's Towing is a well -established tow company who has been in business for over
12 years and possess the experience necessary to safely and successfully complete
this type of service contract. Pepe's has 4 years of prior FSP experience within
Riverside and San Bernardino counties and currently has seven certified FSP drivers.
The company has over 10 years in CHP rotation tow experience, four years
experience with AAA towing and several years experience towing for City Police and
County Sheriff Departments. Pepe's hourly truck cost appears to be in line with the
State average and they have adequately estimated fuel costs and mileage estimates
that reflect the average miles driven by FSP trucks in Riverside County. They have
also allowed for unforeseen expenses during the life of the contract.
Upon approval of the recommendation, staff will negotiate a Best and Final Offer
(BFO) with Pepe's and the hourly rate will not exceed the $40.00 per truck rate
included in their proposal. Total cost for FY 1999-2000 will not exceed $95,205.00
(effective October 25, 1999). The costs for the last two fiscal years is not to exceed
$137,827.00 per year.
Financial Assessment
Project Cost
$370,859
Source of Funds
State of California and SAFE Fees
{'`•::k''.L• 'v{ �..,>.•Y.,>. �•. £•<{
4.,, $ $:: •..::•:§:.:::� %4;i :1 �{' ,i,, • .i r. ¢ . :. n
: v:.•.•::: •:F v�••. f. •F. ...
;
}:
:.
y}F •,
3{{}I S i
{
T.;j�.�{}': •.-4d::4:Y.•}:•,•$:{:�:•:
v
}:v:.
„
:'
..:}+;.'•}:•:f••::'•}.;.'
•}:- ....
• • Y
f : •::{•
.•:.n }.•.:.•.::•...:::.. }...:...:...L•.34:.4:.:
'{ .Y:'•:•' 1FI•}1
C }yy +i
•.,�.Sy`�V�,F..r.
}F:r.::..•$]D':. •}. •
$
iC! �.
}
~$:
..
Included in Fiscal Year Budget
Yes
...
Year
Included in Program Budget
Yes
Year Programmed
99-00
Approved Allocation
Yes
Year of Allocation
99-00
Budget Adjustment Required
No
Financial Impact Not Applicable
66/LI/8 :2If
66/I/L moi uo►lemi dHj traag (Z)
•auti of sueid inq luawout aql .io3 alenbapeuI (I)
V/N V/N V/N V/N V/N angmasia palap►suoo lou sloloe3 luenap.I Iatug •
oN saA sail sail sail suotlonllsui dd2i ghm aouepl000e ui ssaualaidwoa .
asuodsaN jo ssaualaidutop
W 78 I W 78 I LEI W I W W .I, W 78 I (3 7st i • Imp' ddd) palonb DIe wood go►gm uo siseg .
poop poop poor) suo►lsan6 poop elep lloddns jo XaenbapV .
poop poop poop poop •n poop •n snip laglo glim ssauan► padwoo a8 aoud jelol jo ssauaigeuoseall .
aNid'S' 1s03
V/N V/N V/N V/N V/N suo►lenouu! ietnpaowd 10 leoiugoal palsanns 3o Xlil►ln •
poop poop poop poop poop ainpatios pasodold jo ssauaigeuoseaN •
saA soA saA sail saA au►ipeap laaCold ati laaw of 41!gV
1►e,4 poop poop lted poop mid *tom Jo Xputoads a8 4.Ieia `oi2o-i •
1--1 Iled poop pooh obi poop ueid >pomp Xltienb'Imam) a8 sluawannba13o fluipueimpun •
upld K1OM
umou�iun poop (I) poor) pooh luawliwwoo 1oge13o CoenbapV
Elted poop poop poop poop uotleztuaato laafold jo o►nol
poop poop poop poop poop luawanionui 3o ianai s�iauuoslad X3N
lied luaiiaox3 poop pooh pooh n Ia�euey� loafom Xpuino► nd `3juls 3o suopuog►iend
uopuz!uuno laafold pup 2uti3elS
auop loN pooh n pooD •n mop lox poop •n saoualajal luaiio /Cq luawssassV
•s.IX Ei •sIX ZI •sIX 8.E •s1X t sow pi IBC i (uot endo ui -saX # -a-!) uu9 jo kiliigels a8101.10 8
(Z) obi saA auobi sail sail (Qd Iaglo 28 dH3) saioua2u o►ignd glim aouatladx3
obi sail oN sail sail ameu Ieitwts 3o vom 2uutuo31ad ui aouauadxa Ieoiutioai
wail atilJo suoileagiienb
a ag s�ica as s‘upana sa %qv ziIog anp
&DI yip° lad e►Ialt..0 uopenien3
SZ# wag lolled aotnla5 Xemaald klunop apislamu
Name of Operator
Tow Trucks*
Labor(Driver)
Salary
Payroll Taxes
Workers Compensation
Labor subt
Office personnel
Office Equipment
Other Office Expenses
Time and Materials Calculation
Per Hour Calculation
Fdr One Truck
Overhead subtotal
Cellular Phones
�-
aalos
Fuel(2)
Materials(tires, filters, oil)
Uniforms
Operating subtotal
Insurance
,Equipment
'MlscAncidentals(1)
Total Cost per Hour per Truck
• Loan a ments
1. Describe whats included under miscellaneous/incidentals. If the total amounts to more than ten percent (10%)
of the per hour cost, provide on a separate sheet an itemized breakdown with the related cost.
2. Provide assumed cost per gallon on this line Cost should also include gasoline for motorists.
I certify that the above information is true and correct
Signature Date
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
DATE:
September 8, 1999
TO:
Riverside County Transportation Commission
FROM:
Plans and Programs Committee
Hideo Sugita, Director of Planning and Programming
Jerry Rivera, Program Manager
THROUGH:
Eric Haley, Executive Director
SUBJECT:
Advance of Local Transportation Funds to SunLine Transit
Agency
PLANS AND PROGRAMS COMMITTEE & STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
That the Commission approve SunLine Transit Agency's request for a $585,000 advance
from Local Transportation Funds (LTF) to be repaid by reducing their next two (2) FY
2000 LTF payments.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
SunLine Transit Agency submitted a grant application for Section 5307 Federal Transit
Administration (FTA) funds in fiscal year 1999. However, because the FTA instituted a
new electronic application and reporting system which has incurred many serious
problems and has slowed rather than accelerated the processing of federal funds, SunLine
has not yet received the $585,000 of operating funds for FY 1999 included in the grant.
The delay has affected transit operators throughout the country.
SunLine does not provide for any contingency reserves in its budget and depends on
timely payment of grants. They are severely short of cash and are requesting an advance
to cover the $585,000 shortfall. They propose to repay the loan by deducting it from
their next two (2) payments of FY 2000 Local Transportation Funds (LTF).
unLi�e
TRANSIT AGENCY
July 23, 1999
Mr. Eric Haley, Executive Director
Riverside County Transportation Commission
3560 University Ave.
Riverside, CA 92501
Dear Eric:
4/7/ yS
MEMBERS:
Desert Hot Springs Rancho Mirage Indio
Palm Springs Palm Desert Coachella
Cathedral City Indian Wells Riverside County
La Quinta
A Public Agency
As I am sure you are aware, The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) has instituted a
new electronic reporting system (the TEAM system) that has incurred serious pains at
birth and in this first year of its operation has slowed, rather than accelerated, the
processing of federal grants. As a result, SunLine has not yet received the $585,000 of
operating funds for Fiscal Year 1999 that are contained in the FTA grant.
We are now nearly one month through Fiscal Year 2000. Needless to say, under the
circumstances, we are severely short of cash. SunLine does not provide for any
contingency reserves in its budget, and depends on the timely payment of grants.
We would greatly appreciate any assistance that you could provide to us in advancing
$585,000 to us to cover this short -fall. It could be repaid by deducting it from the second
and third payments to us for the Fiscal Year 2000 LTF funds. That would allow us to
receive the first LTF payment intact, which is needed to pay for Fiscal Year 2000
expenses already incurred.
Thank you for any assistance you can provide in this matter.
Sincerely,
iichard Cromwell III
General Manager
William A. Maier
Chief Financial Officer
32-505 Harry Oliver Trail, Thousand Palms, California 92276 Phone 760-343-3456 Fax 760-343-3845
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
DATE:
September 8, 1999
TO:
Riverside County Transportation Commission
FROM:
Plans and Programs Committee
Hideo Sugita, Director of Planning and Programming
Tanya Love, Program Manager
THROUGH:
Eric Haley, Executive Director
SUBJECT:
Measure A Commuter Assistance Program Evaluation Results
PLANS AND PROGRAMS COMMITTEE & STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
That the Commission: 1) receive and file the evaluation study; and, 2) direct staff to
use results from the study to develop the RFP for managing the Commuter Assistance
Program in future years.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
At its May 12, 1999 meeting, the Commission authorized staff to enter into a contract
with Strategic Consulting & Research (SCR) to perform a study to evaluate the
effectiveness of RCTC's Commuter Assistance Advantage Rideshare and Club Ride
Programs and the similar San Bernardino Associated Governments' Commuter
Assistance Programs which RCTC manages.
The study looked at the following: 1) the length of time an incentive participant
continued to rideshare after the initial three month period; 2) the importance the
incentive was in motivating the participant to begin ridesharing; 3) the number of days
per week the participant continued to rideshare; 4) if no longer ridesharing, what factors
caused the participant to stop; 5) the types of improvements, if any, participants and
employers suggest; 6) the impact the programs have had on a employer's trip reduction
plan; 7) the vehicle miles traveled/cost effectiveness of vehicles reduced; and 8) a rating
of the performance of the consulting program staff.
SCR has completed their review of the Commuter Assistance Programs. Included in
your agenda packet is SCR's Executive Summary and report.
Based on unsolicited comments, RCTC and SANBAG's Commuter Assistance Programs
are considered to be among the most proactive and respected transportation demand
management efforts in the South Coast Air Basin. They have served as a model for the
Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority's Voluntary Rideshare
Program as well as the Orange County Transportation Authority's Voluntary Metrolink
and Rail Feeder Program. We have also received requests for our rideshare program
marketing materials from other areas and states interested in starting similar programs.
For several years, these programs have won awards and continue to be nationally
recognized.
The purpose of the evaluation was to gather information to shape the future direction
of the Commuter Assistance Program. While the programs continue to receive high
marks from commuters and employers, the evaluation found that it may be time to
consider some changes to the programs' structure. Highlights of the results of the
evaluation together with recommendations for the future structure, administration and
operation of the incentive programs are as follows:
1) 70% of the participants surveyed indicated that the Commuter Incentive
Programs influenced their decision to begin a rideshare arrangement;
2) 87% of participants continued to share rides after the completion of the
three month incentive program;
3) Performance of consultant staff was rated high in the overall management
and administration of the Commuter Assistance Program;
4) 65% of participants reported the Club Ride newsletter as "useful" and
"informative";
5) 36% of the 1,606 participants surveyed indicated that they were sharing
rides prior to enrolling in the Commuter Assistance Program.
6) Review by SCR staff reinforced that the method for calculating the cost
effectiveness for vehicles reduced is consistent with the California Air
Resources Board recommended methods. However, since the evaluation
found that 36% of the participants were actually sharing rides at the time
they started the incentive program, the "prior mode" of participants needs
to be considered so that the effectiveness is not overly stated;
7) While 20% of Club Ride and Team Ride participants indicated that the
programs had a major influence in their decision to continue ridesharing,
both programs were rated as "somewhat effective" to "effective" for
maintaining long-term ridesharing. The programs tend to reinforce
decisions to continue sharing rides rather than acting as the primary factor
in continuing to not drive alone;
8) 82% of the respondents stated that they would be more likely to continue
to share rides if the Club/Team Ride program eligibility began immediately
after completion of the three-month program; and
9) There is little "name brand" identity among the six Commuter Assistance
Programs. The consultants recommend that RCTC and SANBAG combine
logo and program names rather than continue to keep the programs
separate with separate identities. However, before any decision on this
recommendation can be made, it must be fully explored with SANBAG staff
and agreed to prior to implementation.
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION
COMMISSION & SAN BERNARDINO
ASSOCIATED GOVERNMENTS
EVALUATION OF
COMMUTER ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS
1999
SCR
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION
COMMISSION & SAN BERNARDINO
ASSOCIATED GOVERNMENTS
EVALUATION OF
COMMUTER ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS
1999
SCR
EVALUATION OF
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION'S AND SAN
BERNARDINO ASSOCIATED GOVERNMENTS' COMMUTER ASSISTANCE
PROGRAMS
ANALYSIS OF PARTICIPANT
AND
EMPLOYEE TRANSPORTATION COORDINATOR
SURVEY RESPONSES
Submitted to:
Riverside County Transportation Commission
3560 University Avenue, Suite 100
Riverside, California 92501
Submitted by:
Strategic Consulting & Research
18008 Sky Park Circle, Suite 145
Irvine, CA 92614
and
Transportation Management Services
234 East Colorado Boulevard, Suite 400
Pasadena, California 91101
With Assistance From:
ETSC
13580 Samantha Avenue
San Diego, California 91229
August 6,1999
SCR • Strategic Consulting & Research • Irvine, CA • (949) 752-5900 • Washington, DC • (202) 785-4800
CONTENTS
Page
Executive Summary 1
Introduction 6
Methodology 11
Survey Results
In -County and Out -County Commuter Incentive Programs 13
Club Ride Program and Team Ride Program 20
Employee Coordinator Survey 23
Review of Cost Effectiveness Evaluation Process 26
Conclusions and Recommendations 29
Appendix
Commuter Incentive Program Evaluation — Commuter Survey
Survey Instrument
Cross Tabulations
I
II
Employee Transportation Coordinator Survey
Survey Instrument III
Cross Tabulations IV
SCR • Strategic Consulting & Research • Irvine, CA • (949) 752-5900 • Washington. DC • (202) 785-4800
EVALUATION OF
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION'S AND SAN
BERNARDINO ASSOCIATED GOVERNMENTS'
COMMUTER ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This report presents the results of a survey of commuters and Employee Transportation
Coordinators (ETC) participating in the Riverside County Transportation Commission's (RCTC)
and San Bernardino Associated Governments' (SANBAG) Commuter Incentive Programs.
Findings are presented on the effectiveness of these programs along with recommendations for
the structure, administration, and operation of the incentive programs.
INTRODUCTION
The RCTC and SANBAG formed a bi-county partnership to address regional transportation goals
including assisting commuters with finding and using alternative transportation. An important
part of this assistance includes offering commuters rewards for sharing rides by using public
transportation, carpooling, vanpooling, bicycling, walking, or telecommuting instead of driving
alone: RCTC's Commuter Assistance Programs were started in 1991 while SANBAG began
sponsoring similar efforts in 1993.
Three programs form the core of the Commuter Assistance Programs:
The Out -County Commuter Incentive Programs for both the RCTC (i.e., Advantage
Rideshare) and SANBAG (i.e., Option Rideshare) are geared towards county residents who
commute to work outside of the county. This program is designed as a start-up incentive program
for individuals who commute to work between the hours of 4:00 a.m. and 10:00 a.m. on
weekdays, at least one day per week. The program offers incentives, ranging from TrainBuck$
that are provided to Metrolink riders to Unocal Autoscrip coupons. Both the RCTC Advantage
Rideshare program and the SANBAG Option Rideshare programs are open to county residents
who work for an employer located in any neighboring county.
The In -County Commuter Incentive Programs for both the RCTC and SANBAG are oriented
towards county residents who commute inside the county. This program is also designed as start-
up incentive program for individuals who commute to work between the hours of 4:00 a.m. and
10:00 a.m. on weekdays, at least one day per week. The program offers incentives, such as
Unocal Autoscrip coupons and Lucky's grocery gift certificates. RCTC's In -County Advantage
Rideshare program includes western Riverside County residents and SANBAG's In -County
Option Rideshare program includes all San Bernardino County residents.
The terms "ridesharing" and "sharing rides" used in this document refer to any means of travel other than driving
alone.
SCR • Strategic Consulting & Research • Irvine, CA • (949) 752-5900 • Washington, DC • (202) 785-4800
These programs are designed to attract commuters who drive alone to work into some form of
ridesharing.
The RCTC Club Ride Program and the SANBAG Team Ride Program are directed at
county residents who have been ridesharing at least once a week for the previous six months.
These programs provide their members with discounts on products and/or services at
participating local merchants.
The Club and Team Ride programs are designed to offer a reward for maintaining ridesharing
over a long period of time.
METHODOLOGY
A kick-off meeting was held with RCTC and SANBAG program managers to ensure that the
SCR project team fully understood all program objectives and parameters. Based on discussions
at this meeting the sampling design was established which was to split the surveying evenly
between the two counties and to focus primarily on the most recent incentive recipients with half
of all survey respondents receiving their incentive in 1998 or 1999. The balance was then spread
evenly over the previous four years. Also, based on input from this meeting and program
materials, the SCR team developed a memorandum explaining the various programs.
Draft survey instruments were prepared for both commuters and ETCs and submitted to
RCTC/SANBAG project management for review. After making all desired changes, these
surveys were loaded into the CATI (Computer Assisted Telephone Interviewing) system and pre-
tested. Surveys were conducted between June 10th and 27th for both commuters and ETCs.
Cross -tabulations of the completed data were then produced and used to present and analyze the
results of this study. Tabulations of the data are provided in the Appendix, sections I and III.
KEY FINDINGS
There were few significant differences in survey results between participants or Employee
Transportation Coordinators from Riverside and San Bernardino counties.
Over 70 percent of participants reported that the Commuter Incentive Program had some
influence on their decision to share rides. However, one-third of the Advantage/Option Rideshare
participants indicated that the programs had a "major" influence on their decision to not drive
alone. This suggests that the Advantage/Option incentives reinforce decisions to start sharing
rides, but may not be sufficient to change travel behavior on their own. The Commuter Incentive
Programs appear to be a needed compliment to the assistance commuters receive from their
employers as half of the respondents indicated that incentives from their employers were not
sufficient for them to start sharing rides.
A majority of the commuters (i.e., 87 percent) who participated in the Commuter Incentive
Programs continued to share rides immediately after the completion of the three-month incentive
SCR • Strategic Consulting & Research • Irvine, CA • (949) 752-5900 • Washington, DC • (202) 785-4800
period. Participants share rides for approximately ten months after they complete the three month
incentive payment period. Moreover, over 50 percent of participants are still ridesharing today.
These responses show that the investments in Commuter Incentive Programs pay off well past
the period in which commuters receive incentive payments.
Respondents indicated that outside circumstances, such as changes in residential or work
location, rather than inconvenience or dissatisfaction with ridesharing or the Commuter Incentive
Programs, were the primary reasons they stopped sharing rides.
Nearly 90 percent of participants indicated that the three month period needed to qualify for
receiving incentive payments was adequate or more than adequate time for qualifying to receive
the incentive. Similarly, over 90 percent of participants responded that the amount of the
incentive (i.e., $2.00 per day) was an adequate or more than adequate incentive for getting
commuters to change travel behavior.
Many more participants were sharing rides prior to their participation in the Advantage/Option
Rideshare programs than had been assumed. Almost one-third (i.e., 29 percent) of respondents
indicated that they were sharing rides prior to joining the Advantage/Option Rideshare programs.
The presence of these commuters in the programs indicates that employer representatives who
qualify participants are not as effective in admitting only commuters who are driving alone to
work as would be desired, participants are providing false information, ETCs are misinterpreting
the rules, or all of the above. It is not possible to compare these findings with the previous
1994/95 study because the travel mode of participants prior to starting the Commuter Incentive
Program was not included in the reporting for that study.
Club/Team Ride participants value the services and rewards afforded to them. Fifty percent of
the respondents indicated that the programs had some influence on their travel decisions, with 18
percent indicating that the programs had a major influence on their continuing to share rides.
EMPLOYEE TRANSPORTATION COORDINATORS
Nearly 40 percent of ETCs believe that the $2.00 a day incentive program is very effective in
encouraging commuters to rideshare as compared to 35 percent of participants. Similarly, only 10
percent of the ETCs indicated that $2.00 per day is not at all effective as compared to 28 percent
of participants reporting that the program had no effect on their decision to share rides.
ETCs and participants both report that the three month incentive period was about the right
length of time needed to get acquainted with ridesharing.
ETC opinions about why participants stop sharing rides differs with those of participants as they
believe employees stop sharing rides due to its inconvenience (i.e., 56 percent) with participants
indicating that outside circumstances, not inconvenience, influenced their decision to stop
ridesharing. It should be noted that the employer representatives are basing their response on
what they hear from commuters, and may not reflect the real reasons.
SCR • Strategic Consulting & Research • Irvine, CA • (949) 752-5900 • Washington, DC • (202) 785-4800
ETCs generally rate the Club and Team Ride programs as only somewhat effective to effective
for maintaining long-term ridesharing.
ETCs rated the overall program at a B+ using an A-F grading scale. This ranking was reported
for individual rating factors including: having professional courteous staff, providing effective
promotional materials, returning phone calls in a timely manner, and clearly communicating the
parameters of the program. These ratings are similar to those reported in the 1994/1995
evaluation.
COST EFFECTIVENESS EVALUATION
The cost effectiveness analysis method used for evaluating the Commuter Assistance Program's
incentive projects is sound, of appropriate rigor, and consistent with other methods used in
California and around the U.S. It is based on the California Air Resources Board (ARB)
standardized method that is considered the "best practice" within the industry.
RECOMMENDATIONS
The following recommendations are offered regarding the Commuter Assistance Programs:
1. Review methods for qualifying Advantage/Option Rideshare participants since over one-third
of enrollees indicated that they were sharing rides at the time they started receiving incentives
from the Advantage/Option Rideshare programs.
2. Focus marketing on employers and commuters who may not work at sites at where employer -
provided incentives are provided thus making the incentives more influential in decisions
regarding choice of travel to work. This may mean targeting smaller worksites, conducting
direct mail activities, or other more focused marketing.
3. Consider modifying Club/Team Ride activities:
Create one program that combines the Option/Advantage and the Club/Team Ride programs
as commuters and employee coordinators do not distinguish between the two types of
programs, and in some cases find it confusing. The incentive payment features offered by the
Advantage/Option Rideshare programs should serve as a way to create interest in sharing
rides among persons driving alone to work. The efforts to sustain the use of commute
alternatives used by Club/Team Ride should commence directly after the completion of the
three month incentive payment period. Consolidating the programs would eliminate some
complexity of participation that is perceived by potential participants.
Assist existing carpoolers and vanpoolers who need help in finding new and/or rejuvenating
existing shared rides. Providing assistance in the form of new and enhanced ridematch lists,
communicating with transportation service providers, and providing personal trip planning
may be able to sustain trip reduction among former Advantage/Option Rideshare participants
at a lower cost than recruiting new enrollees. Efforts to communicate with commuters as they
SCR • Strategic Consulting & Research • Irvine, CA • (949) 752-5900 • Washington, DC • (202) 785-4800
are completing their tenure in the Advantage/Option Rideshare programs regarding assistance
needed to continue sharing rides could increase the rideshare retention rate.
4. Modify Trip Reduction Calculations
The `prior mode' of participants needs to be considered in determining trips reduced as each new
enrollee does not represent a reduced trip since 36 percent of participants were sharing rides
previously.
SCR • Strategic Consulting & Research • Irvine, CA • (949) 752-5900 • Washington. DC • (202) 785-4800
EVALUATION OF
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION'S AND SAN
BERNARDINO ASSOCIATED GOVERNMENTS'
COMMUTER ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS
INTRODUCTION
This report presents the results of a survey of commuters and Employee Transportation
Coordinators (ETC) participating in the Riverside County Transportation Commission's (ROTC)
and San Bernardino Associated Governments' (SANBAG) Commuter Incentive Programs.
Findings are presented on the effectiveness of these programs along with recommendations for
the structure, administration, and operation of the incentive programs.
Background
The Riverside County Transportation Commission (ROTC) and the San Bernardino Associated
Governments (SANBAG) formed a bi-county partnership to address regional transportation goals
including assisting commuters with finding and using alternative transportation. An important
part of this assistance includes offering commuters rewards for sharing rides, using public
transportation, bicycling, walking, or telecommuting instead of driving alone. In 1991 RCTC
used funds from the Measure A half -cent sales tax to create Advantage Rideshare, a program of
financial incentives to reward western Riverside County residents for not driving alone to work
for the first three months after changing their means of travel.
In 1993, SANBAG created Option Rideshare, an incentive program identical to Advantage
Rideshare, directed to residents of San Bernardino County. Both agencies contract with a vendor
to deliver both programs. Advantage Rideshare and Option Rideshare operate nearly identically
to provide financial incentives to commuters, except RCTC does not provide $2.00 per day for
commuters using buspools. In lieu of $2.00 per day, RCTC provides $25.00 per month per seat
on an annual basis.
RCTC's Commuter Assistance Program also includes the Rideshare Club of Riverside County
(i.e., Club Ride), which is also funded by Measure A and has been operating since 1993. Club
Ride is a membership program that rewards commuters who have been ridesharing at least once a
week for six months to retain ridesharers over a long period of time. Club Ride encourages
members to promote ridesharing and participation in the Commuter Assistance Programs among
coworkers, friends, and neighbors. SANBAG has offered a comparable program known as Team
Ride. Beginning in 1997, Team Ride was offered to commuters who work at work sites with less
than 250 employees, and on July 1, 1998, the program was made available to all eligible
commuters regardless of the number of people employed at their work site.
Eligibility
Commuters are eligible to participate in Advantage or Option Rideshare, if they live in either
western Riverside County or San Bernardino County, respectively, and work for an employer
SCR • Strategic Consulting & Research • Irvine, CA • (949) 752-5900 • Washington, DC • (202) 785-4800
1
located within the county or any neighboring county, such as Riverside, San Bernardino, Los
Angeles, Orange, Kern, Ventura, and San Diego, that has agreed to participate in these programs.
The "In" or "Out" County references used in this document indicate whether the participating
commuter's work site is located within or outside of the sponsoring county, however, there is no
difference in services provided to commuters.
Table 1
Commuter Assistance Incentive Program Guidelines
Residential Location
Work Location
Program
Western Riverside County
Western Riverside County
Advantage Rideshare: In -County
Western Riverside County
Outside western Riverside County
Advantage Rideshare: Out -County
Western Riverside County
Any work location
Club Ride
San Bernardino County
San Bernardino County
Option Rideshare: In -County
San Bernardino County
Outside San Bernardino County
Option Rideshare: Out -County
San Bernardino County
Any work location
Team Ride
Target Markets
Advantage and Option Rideshare
These programs are directed toward commuters who drive alone to work. Commuters are not
eligible to participate in Advantage Rideshare or Option Rideshare if they have been in a
ridesharing arrangement in the last 90 days or have received incentives from a publicly funded
ridesharing program in the last six months.
Club and Team Ride
Club Ride and Team Ride encourage continued use of alternative transportation by offering
tangible rewards for commuters who have been ridesharing for at least six months. This program
also targets those who do not rideshare, by using members to motivate others to participate in
ridesharing.
Program Features
Advantage and Option Rideshare
Employers register in either Advantage or Option Rideshare by completing an Employer
Information Form and signing a Statement of Participation, which requires the employer to
actively market, monitor, and track ridesharing among participating employees.
Eligible commuters join the programs by completing an Enrollment Form which includes their
address, phone number, social security number, employer information, the rideshare mode they
will be using, and the date they will begin ridesharing.
Commuters must participate in their selected rideshare mode for at least once per week in order
to receive the incentives for this three-month program. Eligible commuters must travel to work
between 4:00 a.m. and 10:00 a.m. on weekdays. Commuters submit an Incentive Claim Form
after ridesharing three consecutive months in order to claim their incentive.
SCR • Strategic Consulting & Research • Irvine. CA • (949) 752-5900 • Washington. DC • (202) 785-4800
Club and Team Ride
Western Riverside County and San Bernardino County commuters who have been ridesharing for
at least six months can also be rewarded for using alternative modes of transportation by joining
Club or Team Ride. Club Ride members receive discounts at over 160 local merchant locations.
Members are provided with both a Club Ride Membership Card and a Club Ride Merchant
Discount Catalogue that lists the participating merchants and the discounts they provide. Team
Ride members receive discounts at over 75 local restaurants and entertainment venues. Members
are provided with a personalized Team Ride Membership Card and a listing of the participating
merchants.
If employers are already enrolled in Advantage or Option Rideshare, they do not need to enroll in
Club or Team Ride. Employers not already in the database are asked to fill out an Employer
Information Form. All employers complete a Marketing Materials Order Form to receive Club
and Team Ride marketing materials at no charge. Commuters join Club and Team Ride by filling
out an application which is signed by both the commuter and their employer representative.
Member benefits, information, and renewal statements are sent to the member's homes. A Club
Ride newsletter is produced three times a year that includes information on events and contests,
special member offers, and pertinent commuter -related information. Promotional contests are
held exclusively for Club Ride members. Members are asked to renew their membership
annually if they are still ridesharing.
Incentives
Advantage and Option Rideshare
Commuters meeting the eligibility requirements receive incentives for each day they rideshare for
three consecutive months. Commuters will receive a financial incentive of up to $2.00 per day in
the form of gift certificates for each day they carpool, vanpool, buspoo12, use public bus, bicycle,
walk, or telecommute. Commuters who use rail to travel to work can receive up to $44.00 toward
the purchase of a monthly pass or $10.00 for a ten -trip ticket per new rider that is paid in the
form of TrainBuck$ which can only be redeemed for commuter rail fare.
Commuters must not have participated in a rideshare arrangement for the previous 90 days.
Eligible commuters must also have not received an incentive from another publicly funded
commuter incentive program for the past six months. If commuters received an incentive more
than six months ago, they may receive another incentive if it is for a commute mode different
from that for which they already received an incentive.
2 The buspool incentive applies to Option Rideshare (i.e., San Bernardino) and not Advantage Rideshare (i.e.,
Riverside).
SCR • Strategic Consulting & Research • Irvine, CA • (949) 752-5900 • Washington, DC • (202) 785-4800
Club and Team Ride
Club Ride members are able to redeem discounts at over 160 local merchant locations. Many
different types of merchants offer Club Ride discounts, including: restaurants, entertainment
venues, car washes, bicycle shops, dry cleaners, car care businesses, gift stores, and other
services.
Team Ride members can receive a 20 percent discount at over 65 restaurant locations, in addition
to discounts at other entertainment venues including several area bowling lanes, the Pharaoh's
Lost Kingdom Theme Park, and the Glen Helen Blockbuster Pavilion. Members present their
personalized Membership Card at the time they place their order to redeem these Club Ride and
Team Ride discounts.
Participation
A total of 22,957 Riverside and San Bernardino commuters have been served by these Commuter
Assistance Programs, since 1991 and 1993 respectively. 3,355 employers in Riverside, San
Bernardino, Los Angeles, and Orange counties have enrolled in the programs since their
inception.
Riverside County
Since 1991, 9,673 western Riverside County commuters have participated in Advantage
Rideshare; 5,818 of these participants worked in Riverside County and 3,855 worked outside of
Riverside County. 7,825 residents have participated in Club Ride since 1993.
OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY PARTICIPATION
San Bernardino County
Since 1993, 6,341 San Bernardino County commuters have participated in Option Rideshare;
4,052 of these participants worked in San Bernardino County and 2,289 worked outside of San
Bernardino County. Since 1997, SANBAG has enlisted 1,427 commuters in the Team Ride
program.
SCR • Strategic Consulting & Research • Irvine, CA • (949) 752-5900 • Washington. DC • (202) 785-4800
% OF SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY PARTICIPATION'
SAN B ERNARDINO
--- IN -C O U N TY
64%
Findings From 1994/1995 Evaluation
An evaluation of the Riverside County Commuter Assistance Program was conducted in 19953.
This evaluation found that the program was successful in encouraging commuters to begin and
continue ridesharing, the incentives and basic program structure were effective, and $2.00 per
ridesharing day was the minimum incentive which should be offered. A key recommendation
from this previous evaluation was for RCTC to provide a lump -sum payment of incentives at the
end of the 90-day period. This incentive payment recommendation has been implemented in both
the Advantage Rideshare and Option Rideshare programs.
3 "Evaluation of Riverside County Transportation Commission's Commuter Assistance Program — Final Report,"
Applied Management & Planning Group, March 30, 1995.
10
SCR • Strategic Consulting & Research • Irvine, CA • (949) 752-5900 • Washington, DC • (202) 785-4800
METHODOLOGY
Six tasks were performed including:
1. Initiate Project Study and Collect/Review Background Information
Strategic Consulting & Research (SCR) and Transportation Management Services (TMS)
reviewed all program information and promotional materials. A Progress Report describing the
four programs was delivered to the RCTC/SANBAG project management team prior to the
surveying beginning.
2. Conduct Agency Interviews
SCR and TMS project managers met with the RCTC and SANBAG project managers to review
all project objectives and to discuss sampling design. The project schedule was also set at this
meeting.
3. Develop Survey Instruments
SCR developed draft survey instruments for both program participants and ETCs utilizing the
detailed project objectives determined in the project kick-off meeting. These were provided to
RCTC and SANBAG project managers for review. SCR incorporated all desired modifications
and programmed the survey instruments into our CATI (Computer Assisted Telephone
Interviewing) system. The surveys were then pre -tested to ensure skipping patterns were
operating properly. SCR's surveyors conducted mock interviews with the survey to familiarize
themselves with the survey instrument and then commenced surveying.
4. Develop Sampling Design
SCR and RCTC/SANBAG project management jointly decided to primarily survey respondents
who had received their incentives within a relatively recent time -frame to increase the likelihood
that they could recall the impact of the program in their decision -making process. Accordingly, it
was decided that for each county, 400 surveys would be conducted with respondents who had
received payment in 1998 or 1999, and 100 each would be surveyed who had received their
incentive payment in each of the four preceding years.
Employee Transportation Coordinators were randomly selected from two calling lists so that 25
were completed with employers in each county.
5. Conduct the Survey
A pretest of the program participant survey was conducted with approximately 20 respondents.
Based on the results of the pretest, minor survey modifications were made to more clearly
communicate the intent of specific questions. These changes were incorporated into the survey
instrument and surveying began.
11
SCR • Strategic Consulting & Research • Irvine. CA • (949) 752-5900 • Washington, DC • (202) 785-4800
6. Analyze data and prepare the report
SCR tablulated and TMS analyzed the data, interpreted results, and prepared the evaluation
report. ESTC provided analysis of the program evaluation process and TMS provided analysis of
survey results leading to recommendations.
12
SCR • Strategic Consulting & Research • Irvine, CA • (949) 752-5900 • Washington, DC • (202) 785-4800
SURVEY RESULTS
Findings from the surveys conducted of participants of both the RCTC and SANBAG Commuter
Assistance Programs and ETCs are presented in this section. The findings presented are
representative of all participants as the responses for Riverside and San Bernardino participants
were very similar.
Advantage and Option Rideshare
The results of the commuter surveys of both the RCTC Advantage Rideshare program and the
SANBAG Option Rideshare program demonstrated that both the In -County and Out -County
Commuter Incentive Programs were effective in encouraging employees to begin and continue
ridesharing.
Employer Size
Most participants work at employer sites with 500 or more employees — 40 percent of the
commuters worked at employer sites of this size. Twenty-two percent of the respondents reported
that less than one hundred people were employed at their work site, 19 percent reported a
workforce size of between 100 and 249 employees, and 20 percent stated that between 250 and
499 people were employed at their work site.
Rideshare Participation
Nearly 90 percent (i.e., 87 percent) of participants continued to share rides after the completion
of the three-month incentive payment period. Twenty-nine percent of participants were sharing
rides to work before participating in the programs in spite of guidelines that prohibit commuters
from participating if they are sharing rides to work. The presence of existing ridesharers in the
13
SCR • Strategic Consulting & Research • Irvine, CA • (949) 752-5900 • Washington, DC • (202) 785-4800
program may be attributed to employer representatives who are not careful in qualifying
participants, misinterpreting program rules, participants providing false information, or all of the
above.
00%
00%
40%
30%
30%
10%
0%
IN CID E N C E OF RIDESHARING BY W E E KI
1 % 1 %
3 %
10%
73%
91%
ONCE PER ONCE PER T W ICE PER 3 TIMES PER I TIM ES PER 0• TIM ES PER
W E E K W EEK WEEK WEEK W EEK W EEK
During the three-month program participation, 61 percent of participants were ridesharing five or
more days per week, 23 percent reported ridesharing four times per week, and 10 percent
reported sharing rides three times per week. Those who used public bus reported the highest
frequency of ridesharing with 81 percent sharing rides five or more days per week. Interestingly,
the percent of commuters ridesharing five or more days per week decreased with the length of
time since completing the program. For example, 56 percent of participants registering for the
incentive program in 1994 were sharing rides five or more days per week as compared to 66
percent sharing rides five or more days per week among persons registering in the program in
1999. The incidence of ridesharing five or more days a week also decreased with the higher the
income of the respondent.
70%
50%
00%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
IN CID E N C E OF S+ DAYS PER WEEK RIDESHARING BY Y E A RI
1994
1990
1990
1997
1999 ! 1999
14
SCR • Strategic Consulting & Research • Irvine, CA • (949) 752-5900 • Washington, DC • (202) 785-4800
Over half of the respondents (i.e., 56 percent) indicated that they are ridesharing to work when
asked about their mode of transportation after receiving the incentive. Of the commuters who are
sharing rides, 44 percent are doing so five or more times per week with 14 percent ridesharing
four times a week. Vanpoolers and those using the transit (bus and rail) reported the highest
percentages of ridesharing five or more days per week. Twenty-six percent of the ridesharers
reported ridesharing less than once a week.
Nearly half of the respondents (i.e., 49 percent) stated that saving money led to their participation
in either Advantage Rideshare or Option Rideshare. The other most frequently cited reasons for
their participation in the ridesharing program experiencing less stress and congestion.
6 0 %
4 0 %
3 0 %
2 0 %
1 0 %
0%
48%
WHY COMMUTERS START RIDESHARING I
28%
SAVE MONEY LESS $TRESS
1 4 %
CONGESTION FRIENDS
LEVEL
COW ORR ERE
S%
\
LOST OTN ER OTHER
MODE
The most frequently stated reasons for continuing to rideshare after the three-month program
were convenience (i.e., 34 percent) and enjoyment (i.e., 29 percent). In addition, one -quarter (25
percent) of the respondents indicated that driving alone was too expensive.
CONVENIENT
WHY PEOPLE CONTINUE TO RIDESHAREI
ENJOY LESS EXPENSIVE
RIDESHARING
15
SCR • Strategic Consulting & Research • Irvine. CA • (949) 752-5900 • Washington, DC • (202) 785-4800
Almost half (46 percent) of commuters who are ridesharing have decreased the number of days
per week they rideshare to work due to a schedule change. Sixteen percent of the respondents
attributed their reduction of ridesharing to losing their carpool or vanpool partner(s). Thirteen
percent of the commuters reported that they reduced the number of days they rideshare because
of inconvenience.
6 0 %
4 6 %
4 0 %
36%
3 0 %
26%
2 0 %
16%
1 0 %
6 %
0%
4 6 %
j..
SCHEDULE
W H Y RIDESHARING REDUCED?'
1 6 %
j
j
1 3 %
9%
i, �j
LOST POOL TOO
CHANCE INCONVENIENT
27%
jjjj
j
PEOPLE CUT DAYS O THE R
Just over half of the respondents (i.e., 58 percent) stated that they thought the program has
encouraged their employer to be more supportive of alternative modes of transportation.
Means of Travel
The Advantage and Option Rideshare database provided by RCTC and survey results showed
that more people tended to carpool than to use any other form of ridesharing during and after the
three-month program participation. Carpooling was the most frequently used mode of travel
during the three-month Advantage and Option Rideshare Commuter Incentive Program, as
shown by the Advantage/Option database. The use of vanpooling was considerably less;
specifically 67 percent carpooling and 13 percent vanpooling. Commuter rail also accounted for
11 percent.
Commuters who participated in a buspool during the three-month program had the highest
ridesharing retention rate (i.e., 95 percent). Ninety-one percent of the respondents who vanpooled
16
SCR • Strategic Consulting & Research • Irvine, CA • (949) 752-5900 • Washington, DC • (202) 785-4800
and 89 percent of those who used a bicycle continued to rideshare after they stopped receiving
the program incentives.
The average tenure in ridesharing after the completion of the three month incentive payment
period was 9 to 10 months. Vanpoolers, buspoolers, and rail riders averaged 11 months of
ridesharing after the completion of the incentive payment period.
HOW LONG DID YOU CONTINUE TO RIDESHARE
AFTER THE 3 MONTHS?
Eighty-seven percent of the respondents stated that they shared rides with co-workers. Twenty-
five percent of the respondents shared rides with a family member. Sixteen percent of the
respondents used their employer rideshare services to find their rideshare partner.
Effectiveness of Commuter Incentive Programs
The Commuter Incentive Programs contribute to a commuter's decision to start sharing rides
with over 70 percent of participants indicating that the Commuter Incentive Programs influenced
their decision to start sharing rides to work. One-third of the Advantage/Option Rideshare
participants that responded to the survey indicated that the programs had a "major" influence on
their decision to not drive alone. This suggests that the Advantage/Option Rideshare incentive
reinforces decisions to start sharing rides, but may not be sufficient to change travel behavior by
itself. The Commuter Incentive Programs appear to be a needed compliment to the assistance
commuters receive from their employers as half of the respondents indicated that incentives from
their employers were not sufficient for them to start sharing rides.
Incentives
The maximum value of incentive received by participants for ridesharing in either the Advantage
or Option Rideshare programs was $2.00 per ridesharing day. Seventy-one percent of the
respondents stated that the $2.00 per day incentive level was adequate, while 22 percent reported
that it was more than adequate. Only six percent of the respondents thought the $2.00 per day
17
SCR • Strategic Consulting & Research • Irvine. CA • (949) 752-5900 • Washington, DC • (202) 785-4800
incentive was inadequate. The respondents who used public bus as their ridesharing mode during
the program had the highest rate (i.e., 38 percent) of those who stated that a $2.00 per day
incentive was more than adequate.
Reasons for Ceasing to Rideshare After Program Completion
Most of the respondents (i.e., 87 percent) indicated that they continued to share rides after
completing the three-month incentive payment period. Reasons for ceasing ridesharing varied
from the 26 percent of participants who indicated that they "lost their carpool or vanpool" to the
24 percent that had a change in their work schedule. Only two percent indicated that they did not
like to rideshare. Only six percent of those not continuing to share rides indicated that their
dissatisfaction with the program due to it being inconvenient was the cause for starting to drive
alone after the three-month incentive payment period was completed.
P R IM A R Y REASON TO STOP RIDESNARING
{ 6 %
40%
2 6 %
2 0 %
2 6 %
2 0 %
1 6 %
1 011
6 %
0%
Approximately three-quarters of the respondents who stopped sharing rides stated that no
incentive would have convinced them to continue ridesharing.
Administration of Commuter Assistance Program
Commuters were asked whether three months was a sufficient period of time for employees to
experiment with ridesharing. The majority of respondents (i.e., 61 percent) stated that three
months was about the right amount of time. Twenty-six percent of the respondents responded
that the three-month time period was more than enough time to get people to try and continue
modes of transportation other than driving alone.
Nearly all of the commuters (i.e., 95 percent) reported that they did not experience any
administrative problems with the program when asked whether they encountered any challenges
or problems that could not be resolved during their three-month participation.
Demographic Profile
A total of 1,606 past and current Commuter Incentive Program participants were surveyed. The
survey population for the commuters is presented below.
SCR • Strategic Consulting & Research • Irvine, CA • (949) 752-5900 • Washington, DC • (202) 785-4800
Sixty-six percent were enrolled in the In -County Commuter Incentive Programs and 34 percent
participated in the Out -County programs.
Seven hundred and seventy-seven of the respondents participated in these programs in 1998/99
(48 percent). Sixteen percent were in the three-month program in 1997, 15 percent in 1996, 16
percent in 1995, and 5 percent in 1994.
Gender
A majority of the respondents (i.e., 64 percent) were female. Thirty-six percent were male.
Age
Over one-third of the survey respondents (i.e., 38 percent) were in their 40s; another third (i.e.,
28 percent) were in their 30s; one -fifth (19 percent) of the participants were in their 50s; while 11
percent were in their 20s.
Ethnicity
A majority (i.e., 60 percent) of the survey respondents reported being Caucasian. Twenty-two
percent of the participants described themselves as Latino or Hispanic and 11 percent stated that
they were African -American.
1 0 %
00%
S 0 %
1 0 %
0 0 %
2 0 %
1 0 %
0%
8 0 %
CAUCASIAN
2 2 %
ETHN IC IT Y I
1 1 %
N If V A N IC A F R IC A N
AMERICAN
4 % 3 %
A S IA N OTHER
Employment and Annual Household Income
About one-third of the respondents (i.e., 35 percent) reported a professional employment
classification, while 24 percent fell in the technical classification and an additional 23 percent
were clerical or secretarial.
The mean household income was approximately $51,000. Most of the respondents were close to
this figure with 39 percent reporting a total annual household income of between $41,000 and
19
SCR • Strategic Consulting & Research • Irvine. CA • (949) 752-5900 • Washington, DC • (202) 785-4800
$75,000, and about one-third of (i.e., 29 percent) stating that their total annual household income
is between $20,000 and $40,000. One -fifth of the participants (20 percent) reported an annual
household income of over $75,000, and four percent indicated household income below $20,000.
• f %
•0%
2 f %
2 0 %
2 6 %
2 0 %
1 f %
1 0 %
6 %
0 %
j.,
$20
0
0
I%
0
2 2 %
6 2 0 - 6 6 0. 0 0 0
IN COM E)
{ 2 %
2 2 %
6 6 1 - 6 7 6 0 0 0 6 26 0 0•
Club Ride Program and Team Ride Program
Just over half (52 percent) of respondents reported that the Club Ride or Team Ride program had
some influence in their decision to continue ridesharing after they stopped receiving the
Advantage/Option Rideshare incentive payments. Eighteen percent of participants indicated that
the programs were a "major" influence in their decision to continue sharing rides. This result
suggests that the Club/Team Ride programs serve to reinforce decisions to continue sharing rides
rather than acting as the primary factor in continuing to not drive alone.
C L U B !TEA M R ID E 'S IN FLU E N C E IN D E C IS IO N
TO C O N TIN U E RIDESHARING
Over 70 percent of Club/Team Ride participants have continued to renew their membership. Of
those who did not renew their membership, one-third indicated that it seemed too involved,
another third reported that they did not believe their membership had expired, 15 percent
reported outside circumstances, nine percent do not like or use the program, another nine percent
did not realize they had to renew their membership, and seven percent stated that they no longer
rideshare.
20
SCR • Strategic Consulting & Research • Irvine, CA • (949) 752-5900 • Washington, DC • (202) 785-4800
W H Y D ID N 'T YOU RENEW CLUB/TEAM RIDE? I
NO LONGER
RIDESHARE
7%
DON'T LIKE
PROGRAMS
9%
OTHER
1 6 %
HASN'T
EXPIRED
2 9 %
D ID N 'T KNOW I
HAD TO RENEW
9 %
TOO MANY
HASSLES
31%
Over half of the Advantage and Option Rideshare participants who had not signed up for the
Club/Team Ride programs stated that they were unaware of the program. Subsequent probing of
a selected number of these respondents revealed that most respondents were aware of the
Club/Team Ride services and features, but they were not aware of the program's name. In fact,
almost 30 percent of Team Ride participants and five percent of Club Ride participants stated
that they were unaware of the programs they were registered in, but did recognize the services
and benefits of the programs. Part of this can be explained by the relative newness of Team Ride,
however, it may also be the result of a lack of concern for a "brand" name and that many
participants thought that the Club/Team Ride programs were a continuation of the incentive
programs they had completed recently.
Forty-one percent of the respondents did not sign up because it was "too much of a hassle" and
18 percent stated they do not like to use discount programs. Sixteen percent were unaware of the
program. This is of concern as there is little, if any, complexity to registering for the Club/Team
Ride Programs. It appears that any additional registration process may inhibit participation. For
those members who receive the quarterly Club Ride newsletter about ridesharing, 65 percent
reported that it was useful and informative.
45%
40%
35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
1 0 %
5%
0%
i
WHY DIDN'T YOU SIGN UP FOR CLUB/TEAM RIDE? I
1 41%
TOO MUCH
HASSLE
18%
16%
10%
DON'TLIKE UN A W ARE OF SCHEDULE
DISCOUNTPROGRAMS PROBLEM
PROGRAM S
8 -%
7%
NO LONGER OTHER
RID ESH AR E
21
SCR • Strategic Consulting & Research • Irvine, CA • (949) 752-5900 • Washington, DC • (202) 785-4800
Most of the respondents (i.e., 82 percent) stated that they would be more likely to continue to
share rides if the Club/Team Ride program eligibility began after completion of the three-month
program instead of six months later. Over three-quarters of the respondents (80 percent) stated
that they did not encounter any administrative problems that could not be resolved.
22
SCR • Strategic Consufting & Research • Irvine, CA • (949) 752-5900 • Washington, DC • (202) 785-4800
Employee Transportation Coordinator (ETC) Survey
Key findings from the surveys conducted of the ETCs of both the RCTC and SANBAG
Commuter Assistance Programs are presented below. The ETC survey results of both the RCTC
and SANBAG programs were very similar.
Incentives
The ETC survey results indicate that the ETCs believe that the $2.00 a day program is very
effective in encouraging qualified commuters to rideshare. Thirty-nine percent of the ETCs
reported that the $2.00 per day incentive is very effective, 24 percent stated it is effective, and 24
percent believe it is at least somewhat effective. Only ten percent of the ETCs indicated that
$2.00 per day is not at all effective as compared to 28 percent of participants reporting that the
program had no influence on their decision to share rides.
EFFECTIVESNESS OF THE $2.00 A DAY INCENTIVE I
NOT AT ALL
EFFECTIVE \
1 0 %
SOMEWHAT
EFFECTIVE
2 4 %
DON'T KNOW
2 %
EFFECTIVE
2 4 %
VERY EFFECTIVE
40%
When asked what minimum dollar amount is necessary to motivate employees, over half of the
ETCs (i.e., 54 percent) agreed with $2.00 per day, while about one quarter (i.e., 27 percent) of the
respondents said it should be higher (i.e., $3.00 to $5.00 per day), and a tenth of the ETCs
thought it could be less than $2.00 per day.
Program Time Period
About two-thirds of the employer representatives stated that three months was about the right
length of time for the program; the remaining third of the ETCs were evenly split between those
who felt the time period was too short and those who thought it was more than enough time.
Accordingly, three months is an appropriate length of time for employees to experience other
commute alternatives. This finding supports responses provided by participants. ETCs wanting to
lengthen the program time period feel it should be expanded to five or six months.
23
SCR • Strategic Consulting & Research • Irvine, CA • (949) 752-5900 • Washington. DC • (202) 785-4800
Rideshare Participation
The ETCs' responses varied significantly when asked their opinion about the percentage of
employees who continued to rideshare after they stopped receiving incentives. The results vary
considerably from less than ten percent to 100 percent, with the average at 53 percent.
ETC opinions about why participants stop sharing rides is at odds with the responses of
participants as they believe the primary reason employees discontinue ridesharing is that it is "too
inconvenient" (i.e., 56 percent) and participants indicated that outside circumstances, not
inconvenience, influenced their decision to stop ridesharing. The next most frequently reported
reasons by ETCs for employees to stop ridesharing are changes in their employment location
(i.e., 17 percent) or moving to another residence (i.e., 10 percent). It should be noted that the
employer representatives are basing their response on what they hear from commuters, and may
not reflect the real reasons.
WHY DON'T EMPLOYEES CONTINUE TO RIDESHARE71
DON'T LIKE
RIDESHARINO
7 %
CHANGED
RESIDENCE
1 0 %
CHANGED
E M PLO Y M ENT 1
LOCATION
1 7 %
TOO
INCONVENIENT
6 6 %
Employee coordinators stated that the primary reasons for their firm continuing to offer the
Commuter Incentive Programs is it helps to increase ridesharing (i.e., 29 percent), that there is a
positive employee response (i.e., 22 percent), and that a high percentage of employees live in
Riverside/San Bernardino County (i.e., 12 percent).
Program Administration
ETCs were generally satisfied with the administration of the program. The average turnaround
time for the incentive payments has been anywhere from less than two weeks to three weeks
according to over 50 percent of the ETCs. Fourteen percent of the ETCs indicated that it takes
longer than three weeks. Thirty-four percent of the ETCs did not know what the payment
turnaround time was. The average incentive payment turnaround time is closer to three weeks in
Riverside County and two weeks in San Bernardino County. Only ten percent of the ETCs stated
they have experienced any problems with payment turnaround time.
SCR • Strategic Consulting & Research • Irvine, CA • (949) 752-5900 • Washington, DC • (202) 785-4800
Continuation of Commuter Assistance Program
When asked how the three-month program could be improved, only 28 percent offered
suggestions, which included increasing the variety of incentives offered, expanding coverage to
other counties, and making the incentive time period longer.
ETCs generally rate the Club and Team Ride programs as only somewhat effective to effective
for maintaining long-term ridesharing.
The primary reasons for continuing with the Club and Team Ride programs are the positive
employee response (i.e., 45 percent), and helping to maintain the organization's Average Vehicle
Ridership (i.e., 21 percent). About one-third (i.e., 31 percent) of the ETC respondents stated that
they did not know the main factor contributing to their firm's continued participation in the Club
and Team Ride programs.
Commuter Assistance Program ETC Evaluation
ETCs rated the overall program at a B+ using an A-F grading scale. This was also true for all
individual rating factors including: having professional courteous staff, providing effective
promotional materials, returning phone calls in a timely manner, and clearly communicating the
parameters of the program. ETCs rated the RCTC program higher in the 1994/1995 evaluation,
with a majority giving the program an "A" in the same categories.
HOW WOULD YOU GRADE THE INCENTIVES PROGRAM
OVERALL?
Support materials were all rated by ETCs as "very useful," "useful," "somewhat useful," or "not
at all useful." Converting this to a numeric 1-4 scale where "1" is very useful and "4" is not at all
useful, the different materials ranged from 2.10 to 2.64. The program implementation package
was deemed most useful at an average of 2.10. This was followed in descending order of
usefulness by sample newsletter articles at 2.18, Club/Team Ride program posters at 2.22, and
zip -code listings and sample Rule 2202 pages at 2.44.
25
SCR • Strategic Consulting & Research • Irvine, CA • (949) 752-5900 • Washington, DC • (202) 785-4800
COST EFFECTIVENESS EVALUATION PROCESS
Existing Process
The cost effectiveness of the Commuter Assistance Programs is evaluated in a manner consistent
with the California Air Resources Board (ARB) recommended methods. This has become the
industry standard for program evaluation throughout the state and in many other parts of the
United States.
The appropriate performance measure for cost effectiveness is cost per trip reduced since the
program is targeted at relieving traffic congestion. This is calculated by dividing total annual
program costs by total annual trips reduced. Trip reduction is determined directly from monthly
reporting forms submitted by employers or commuters where carpool riders, vanpool riders,
transit riders, walkers, bicyclists, and telecommuters are credited with a trip reduced for each
shared ride. Total trips reduced are calculated by multiplying daily reductions by the average
number of days per week/month and weeks/months in the program.
Evaluation methods for Advantage and Option Rideshare Programs do not account for the prior
mode of participants since it was assumed that all participants were driving alone prior to
receiving incentives. The survey responses cited previously found that approximately 36 percent
of participants were sharing rides at the time they started the incentive programs. The `prior
mode' of participants needs to be considered in determining trips reduced as each new enrollee
does not represent a reduced trip as many participants were sharing rides previously.
Club and Team Ride do not reduce trips, per se, but they maintain ridesharing arrangements.
Many program evaluations assume a ridesharer equates to a vehicle trip reduced when, in
actuality, the new carpooler may have switched from transit, resulting in no net trip reduction.
Two other performance measures include vehicle miles of travel (VMT) reduction and emission
reduction. Total one-way vehicle trips reduced are multiplied by the average one-way trip length.
Trip and mileage emission factors (from ARB) are then applied for Reactive Organic Gases
(ROG), Oxides of Nitrogen (NOx), Particulate Matter (PMio), and Carbon Monoxide (CO).
Recommendations
The method for determining the cost effectiveness of the Commuter Assistance Program's three-
month incentive program elements is sound, rigorous and consistent with statewide practices.
The one recommendation that should be implemented concerns how trip reduction is calculated
for the Club/Team Ride program. The other three recommendations made below are intended to
offer suggestions on area's of updating and future enhancements. As such, they are not intended
as "must do" items, but rather are offered as suggestions.
26
SCR • Strategic Consulting & Research • Irvine, CA • (949) 752-5900 • Washington, DC • (202) 785-4800
1. Modify Trip Reduction Calculations
RCTC and SANBAG should develop a trip reduction factor that can be used to calculate trips
reduced per new enrollee should the program continue without more rigorous methods in place to
disqualify existing ridesharers. This figure would replace the values taken from enrollment
forms.
Each member of Club/Team Ride is assumed to equate to a trip reduction. Thus, the total number
of members is used as the number of trips reduced. Unlike the Advantage/Option programs=
RCTC and SANBAG do not know who is a carpool driver versus carpool passenger in these
programs. It is recommended that trip reduction factors be applied to carpool and vanpool
member statistics in order to convert Club Ride and Team Ride members to trips reduced. These
trip reduction factors will eliminate carpool and vanpool drivers from the trip, VMT and
emission reduction calculations.
To do so, it is recommended that the total number of carpool members be multiplied by 0.6
(assuming an average carpool occupancy of 2.5 ((1 — (1 +2.5) = 0.6)) equating to six -tenths of a
trip reduced for every carpool member. Likewise, the total number of vanpool members should
be multiplied by 0.9 (assuming an average vanpool occupancy of 10 ((1 — (1 _ 10) = 0.9))
equating to nine -tenths of a trip reduced for each vanpool member. If RCTC and SANBAG
possess locally generated carpool and vanpool occupancy statistics, these should be used in
determining the trip reduction factors. These factors (multipliers) can be added as a new column
in the Club/Team Ride spreadsheet.
2. Compare Cost Effectiveness
One additional analysis that might be performed to demonstrate the comparative cost
effectiveness of the program is to compare the cost per trip reduced to results from other
evaluations in California and to other types of Transportation Demand Management strategies.
This would provide policy makers with an indication that the funds spent on the incentive
programs are cost effective in comparison to other programs and other means of reducing trips.
In FY 97/98, the cost per trip reduced for the Club Ride, Advantage Rideshare and Option
Rideshare projects ranged from $0.19 — $4.25. One source for comparisons is "Comparative
Evaluation of the Cost Effectiveness of 58 Transportation Control Measures (Transportation
Research Record 1641, 9/98) ". These ranges compare favorably to other evaluations of financial
incentives from around California that exhibited a range of $ (0.44) — $7.04 (the $0.44 saved was
from a program that also generated revenue from parking fees). Fixed route transit projects cost
$0.22 — 75.60 per trip reduced. Vanpool projects cost from $1.33 — $20.49 per trip reduced).
From an air quality standpoint, ARB considers a mobile source reduction project cost effective if
it reduces a pound of pollutants for $10 or less. The RCTC and SANBAG programs appear to
meet this standard as well.
SCR • Strategic Consulting & Research • Irvine, CA • (949) 752-5900 • Washington, DC • (202) 785-4800
3. Update Emission Factors
RCTC and SANBAG use ARB's 1996 guidance document and the emission factors included
therein (from EMFAC 7F). ARB's newest guidance "Methods to Find the Cost Effectiveness of
Funding Air Quality Projects" (4/99) includes new emission factors (from EMFAC 7G). The new
factors (for the period 1997-2001) are:
Trip end VMT
Factor Factor
(g/trip) (g/mile)
ROG 4.98 0.55
Nox 2.05 1.02
PMio n/a 0.45
4. Explore Inclusion of Access Mode
Given that the overall goal of the Commuter Assistance Program incentives is congestion
management, the air quality analysis is adequate. However, if air quality becomes a more
important focus of the program's objectives, the mode of access to ridesharing should be
considered as each "cold start" associated with a vehicle trip needs to be accounted for regardless
of the destination (e.g., accessing a carpool at a park and ride facility). This is an important issue
if a significant proportion of commuters access their alternative mode by driving alone to a pick-
up point. One way of accounting for this in the evaluation is to not assign a "trip reduced" to
park -and -ride commuters, but credit the miles of travel that are reduced. Therefore, in the
RCTC/SANBAG evaluations, a new column for park -and -ride trips would need to be added.
Registrants would need to be asked how they accessed their new commute alternative. Emissions
analysis would be applied to the net trip reduction column (not including park -and -ride) and the
VMT reduction column (average miles times all trips reduced). For congestion relief, total trips
reduced could be reported and for air quality, park -and -ride trips could be subtracted. It should be
stated again, however, that for congestion management purposes, park -and -ride trips are equally
effective because they reduce vehicle trips and VMT in the most congested corridors.
28
SCR • Strategic Consulting & Research • Irvine, CA • (949) 752-5900 • Washington, DC • (202) 785-4800
CONCLUSIONS and RECOMMENDATIONS
The Advantage/Option Rideshare programs are successful in changing the travel behavior of
commuters.
Nearly 90 percent of participants continued to share rides after they stopped receiving incentives.
Ridesharing went from 36 percent of participants before taking part in Advantage/Option
Rideshare to 87 percent after participation in the program.
The Advantage/Option Rideshare Programs contribute to, but may not be directly responsible
for, changing travel behavior.
Over 70 percent of participants reported that the Commuter Incentive Program had some
influence on their decision to share rides. However, one-third of the Advantage/Option Rideshare
participants indicated that the programs had a "major" influence on their decision to not drive
alone. This suggests that the Advantage/Option Rideshare incentives reinforce decisions to start
sharing rides, but may not be sufficient to change travel behavior on their own. The Commuter
Incentive Programs appear to be a needed compliment to the assistance commuters receive from
their employers as half of respondents indicated that incentives from their employers were not
sufficient for them to start sharing rides.
This finding suggests that RCTC and SANBAG:
Focus marketing on employers and commuters that find non -employer incentives more
influential in changing travel behavior. Many survey respondents did not think that the
Commuter Assistance Programs had a significant influence on their decision to change
their means of travel. There were several exceptions to this finding especially among bus
riders, employees at smaller firms, and commuters living in households with lower
incomes. Moreover, many survey respondents felt that the incentives offered by their
employers were sufficient to get them to change their means of travel.
Many more Advantage/Option Rideshare participants were sharing rides prior to their
participation than had been assumed
Thirty-six percent of participants were sharing rides to work before participating in the programs
in spite of guidelines that prohibit commuters from participating if they are sharing rides to work.
The presence of participants that had been sharing rides prior to joining the program may be
attributed to employer representatives that are not careful in qualifying participants or
misinterpret program rules and/or participants that provide false information.
This finding suggests that RCTC and SANBAG:
Review methods for qualifying Advantage/Option Rideshare participants since over one-
third of enrollees indicated that they were sharing rides at the time they started receiving
incentives from the Advantage/Option Rideshare programs. Changes could include
•
SCR • Strategic Consulting & Research • Irvine, CA • (949) 752-5900 • Washington, DC • (202) 785-4800
educating employer representatives to be more rigorous in qualifying commuters,
disqualifying employers that allow existing ridesharers to participate, and directly
qualifying commuters.
Develop a trip reduction factor that can be used to calculate trips reduced per new enrollee
should the program continue without more rigorous methods in place to disqualify existing
ridesharers. This figure would replace the values taken from enrollment forms.
Advantage/Option Rideshare participants who stop sharing rides after completing the
incentive program do so largely for reasons that are outside the direct influence of the
programs.
Many participants reported "loss of carpool or vanpool partners" as the reason they stopped
sharing rides. The investment in getting commuters to start sharing rides that is represented by
the cost of the Commuter Assistance Programs is considerable, as are the benefits since every
participant will share a ride for an average of 12 to 13 months. Benefits could be increased even
further without a commensurate increase in costs if more Advantage/Option Rideshare
commuters continued to share rides for longer periods after their incentive period is completed.
This finding suggests that RCTC and SANBAG:
Provide commuters with more direct help in reforming carpools and vanpools rather than
letting carpools and vanpools disband. Efforts to communicate with commuters when they
are completing their tenure in the Advantage/Option programs regarding assistance they
may need to continue sharing rides could increase the rideshare retention rate.
The Club/Team Ride programs appear to support commuters that share rides.
Club/Team Ride program participants value the services and rewards afforded to them, however,
nearly 50 percent of the respondents indicated that the programs had no influence on their travel
decisions, with an additional 34 percent indicating that the programs had a minor influence.
This finding suggests that RCTC and SANBAG:
Review the Club/Team Ride program elements, the market the programs are directed
towards, and the marketing approach, especially in light of the help carpoolers and
vanpoolers may need to keep sharing rides when arrangements start to deteriorate.
Consider communicating with Advantage/Option Rideshare participants regarding the
Club/Team Ride programs before their tenure expires since many participants were
unaware of the Club/Team Ride programs.
Eliminate the six-month waiting period needed to qualify for Club/Team Ride programs as
survey results suggest that interest in Club/Team Ride programs would be substantially
greater if the eligibility period started after completion of the three-month
30
SCR • Strategic Consulting & Research • Irvine, CA • (949) 752-5900 • Washington, DC • (202) 785-4800
Advantage/Option Rideshare incentive period (i.e., 82 percent would be more likely to
participate).
Evaluation methods for the Advantage and Option Rideshare Programs do not account for the
mode of participants prior to joining the programs as it had been assumed that all participants
were driving alone prior to receiving incentives. The survey responses cited previously found that
approximately 36 percent of participants were sharing rides at the time they started the incentive
programs.
SCR • Strategic Consulting & Research • Irvine, CA • (949) 752-5900 • Washington, DC • (202) 785-4800
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMM/SS/ON
DATE:
September 8, 1999
TO:
Riverside County Transportation Commission
FROM:
Executive Committee
Naty Kopenhaver, Director of Administrative Services
THROUGH:
Eric Haley, Executive Director
SUBJECT:
Approve Resolution No. 99-010, Resolution of the Riverside County
Transportation Commission Amending Its Personnel Rules and
Regulations
EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE & STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
That the Commission approve Resolution No. 99-010, Resolution of the Riverside
County Transportation Commission Amending Its Personnel Rules and Regulations, to
add disclosure requirements for employees of the Commission.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
The Executive Director, to avoid perception of conflict of interest, has recognized that
the need to expand the Personnel Rules and Regulations for employees of the Riverside
County Transportation Commission to declare to their respective supervisor if a relative
is employed or associated with consultants or vendors that the Commission has the
possibility to contract with. Therefore, it is proposed that a language to disclose such
interests be included in the Personnel Rules.
The following is proposed by Legal Counsel:
"An employee of the Commission, who is aware that a relative of the employee
works for or on behalf of an individual, a business or other entity that does
business with the Commission, shall disclose such relationship to the employee's
immediate supervisor. For the purposes of this policy, relative shall include any
relative by blood or marriage, or anyone residing in the employee's household."
The Executive Committee is meeting prior to the Commission meeting on September 8tn.
If there are any changes to the recommendation, the item will be pulled from Consent
Calendar.
nk
Attachment
RESOLUTION NO. 99-010
RESOLUTION OF THE
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
AMENDING ITS PERSONNEL RULES AND REGULATIONS
WHEREAS, the Commission has previously adopted Personnel Rules and
Regulations establishing terms and conditions of employment with the Commission; and,
WHEREAS, the Commission wishes to avoid perception of conflict of interest by
its employees by addition additional disclosure requirements to Section 9.3 of its
Personnel Rules and Regulations.
NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved by the Riverside County Transportation
Commission as follows:
Section 1: The following paragraph shall be added as a second paragraph to Section
9.3, Conflicting Activity of Rule 9, Outside Activities, of the previously adopted
personnel rules and regulations of the Commission:
"An employee of the Commission, who is aware that a relative of the employee
works for or on behalf of an individual, a business or other entity that does
business with the Commission, shall disclose such relationship to the employee's
immediate supervisor. For the purposes of this policy, relative shall include any
relative by blood or marriage, or anyone residing in the employee's household."
Section 2: This resolution shall take place immediately upon its adoption.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 8`h day of September, 1999.
Jack F. van Haaster, Chairman
Riverside County Transportation Commission
ATTEST:
Naty Kopenhaver, Clerk of the Board
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
DATE:
September 8, 1999
TO:
Riverside County Transportation Commission
FROM:
Budget and Implementation Committee
W. Dean Martin, Chief Financial Officer
Jerry Rivera, Program Manager
THROUGH:
Eric Haley, Executive Director
SUBJECT:
Quarterly Call Box Update
BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE & STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
That the SAFE Board receive and file.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
Attached are the operational statistics for the call box system for the quarter ending
June 30, 1999. There were a total of 16,137 calls during the quarter; 9,354 to
Inland CHP and 6,783 to Indio CHP dispatch offices. This represents an increase of
2,385 calls or 17.3% in call box activity over the quarter ending March 31, 1999.
The average calls per day were 177 for the current quarter versus 153 for the
previous quarter. In comparing the quarter ending June, 1999 to June, 1998 call
volumes, there has been a decrease of 3,164 calls (-16.4%) from last year to this
year. Unfortunately, all call box programs throughout the state have been
experiencing a similar decrease in usage which may be attributed to less older
vehicles on the highway due to strict insurance requirements.
Attachments
Call Box calls to CHP for ALL TIME - 655,536 (.,,in.may.90)
4.*(seseiesese
RCTC
2nd QTR '98
2nd QTR '99
Difference
Indio
2nd QTR '98
2nd QTR '99
Difference
se*e,ese.v Nesese.sfy ef*.e4e
»» »»»»»» WW»
Call Boxes
551
551
Produced by: TeleTran Tek Services
0
Calls to CHP
7,998
6,783
-1,215
Calls/Box
14.5
12.3
Page: 1
-2.2
•D o mums a•!sion!,
.41661. iappri • •u
Data Source: AT&T Wireless
Average Call Lengths
2nd Quarter Apr May Jun
3:35 3:31 3:31 3:43
*The amount of time each call box is authorized to use in one
Average Call Lengths
2nd Quarter
3:50
Apr May Jun
3:49 3:44 3:57
month without an additional charge from the cellular vendor
1,124 Call boxes l 118,020 Minutes
1 ,1 23 Call boxes 1117,915 Minutes
Call Box Cellular Minutes
Allocated 118,020 minutes
Cellular time used
83,734 71 % 4111111
Remaining 34,286 29%
Cell Time used 71
29% Remaining cell time
Call Box Cellular Minutes
Allocated 117,915 minutes
Cellular time used
74,902 64% 411110
Remaining 43,013 36%
Cell Time used 64%
36% Remaining cell time
a
Call Length
Number of calls
Percent
Call Length
Number of calls
Percent
0 to 1 min 3,815
20%
0 to 1 min 3,189
20%
1 to 3 min 6,162
32%
1 to 3 min 4,938
31%
3 to 5 min 4,460
23%
3 to 5 min 3,405
21%
5 to 7 min 2,496
13%
5 to 7 min 2,149
13%
7 to 9 min 1,196
6%
7to9min 1,156
7%
over 9 min 1,172
6%
over 9 min 1,300
8%
Total 19,301 calls
100%
Total
16,137 calls
100%
Calls
Expected*® 33,720
Actual
Too Many 5,734
Calls
Expected*® 33,690
Actual
Too Many 6,274
*Call boxes are scheduled to Call Maintenance every 3 days (10 times/month)
666 l aap ano pu z
Produced by: TeleTran Tek Services
Page: 2
Data Source: AT&T Wireless
X09 / 51100 a610.19Ay
25
20
15
10 --
5
0
O
0
PCP
CO
�A
1998
❑ 1999
2nd QTR '99
Call Calls to Avg
Highway Boxes CH Calls/Box
RV-010 398 5,335 13.4
;RV 0
11709
RV-1
RV-2
unassg
TOTALS:
Q
.2'
la
24 193�1
Produced by: TeleTran Tek Services
5
5
0
9
9
4'8
2�
i5
w9
RV-015 205 4,006 19.5
RV-031 5 39 7.8
RV-033 2 21 10.5
RV-060 75 1,058 14.1
RV-062 20 271 13.6
RV-071 0 0 0.0
RV-074 30 362 12.1
RV-078 7 12 1.7
RV-079 30 213 7.1
RV-086 11 43 3.9
RV-091 160 2,603 16.3
RV-095 7 17 2.4
RV-111 13 158 12.2
RV-177 26 77 3.0
RV-215 94 1,672 17.8
RV-243 14 86 6.1
RV-371 12 62 5.2
RV-86S 14 102 7.3
unassigned 0 0 0.0
TOTALS 1,123 16,137 14.4
Page: 3
lop apisaaAN
Acont 6i H Aq soRs!lois xo8
666 l aap pno pu z
Data Source: AT&T Wireless
Calls to CHP
Park N Ride
Average Calls / Day
TIME
of day
1 Opm - 11 pm
1 1 pm - 12am
2nd QTR
7
1999
564
519
2nd QTR
9
1999
13
3
12am - lam
441
3
1999
6.2
5.7
4.8
lam - 2am
365
1
2am - 3am
5
242
0
4.0
3
3am - 4am
4am - 5am
5am - 6am
0
200
170
185
2
3
3
2nd Quarter
i.
;I
2.0 n
2.7
2.2
1.9
i
2nd QTR'99
TOTAL
2,686
28
29.4
6am - 7am
339
3
3.7
7am - 8am
625
477
6
5.2
8am - 9am
599
6
9am - 1 Dam
668
7
8
6.6
8�9
7.3
10am - 1 1 am
d
710
7
13
1 1 am - 12pm
Q
769
10
7.8
<{
8.4
12pm - 1 pm
";02
881
1
15
11,2
9.7
1 pm - 2pm
`1 079
956
12
TOTAL
I288
5,399
78
73
1
69
10.5
59.2
f::: I
2pm - 3pm
1
982
10
3pm - 4pm
1,028
16
4pm - 5pm
2'
1,179
18
5pm - 6pm
1, 442
1,149
`.4
26
10.8
11.3
12.9
15 8'
12.6
6pm - 7pm
,354'
1,085
20
24
148
11.9
7pm - 8pm
199
1,052
2
13
8pm - 9pm
1,046
863
14
9pm - l Opm
877
714
21
TOTAL
13
8,052
T2
142
11.5
9.5
7.8
1€#'7►.5
88.2 _..
RCTC TOTAL
93t1
16,137
275
243
211.6
176.8
RCTC TOTAL
iao j.o klowwns apisJanii
JnoH Aq dHD o4. s
666 l a04-an0 pu z
Produced by: TeleTran Tek Services
Page: 4
Data Source: AT&T Wireless
300
250
200
150 -
100 -
50 -
0-
Jul
Previous
Performance
98 Aug-98 Sep-98 Oct-98 Nov-98 Dec-98
Preventive Percent of
PM Maintenance System
Cycle Visits Visited
Jul-98 183 16%
Aug-98 202 18%
Sep-98 302 27%
Oct-98 77 7%
Nov-98 279 25%
Dec-98 83 7%
Total 1,126 100%
PM visits needed to
be on schedule
187 / Month (17%)
AVG Number of
Active Call Boxes
1,123
PM visits in the last
6 months
187 / Month (17%)
00\0
O
Produced by: TeleTran Tek Services
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
Performance
Jan-99
Feb-99
Mar-99
Apr-99
May-99
Jun-99
Most Recent
PM Cycle
Preventive
Maintenance
Visits
Percent of
System
Visited
Jan-99
212
Feb-99 75
Mar-99 273 24%
19%
7%
Apr-99 94 8%
May-99 234 21 %
Jun-99 213 19%
Total 1,101 98%
PM visits needed to
be on schedule
187 / Month (17%)
PM visits in the last
6 months
183 / Month (16%)
AVG Number of
Active Call Boxes
1,126
cb
oI
aDuauaIuiaW 9n4u9naad apisaaniA
666 L aap ano pu z
Page: 5 Data Source: Comarco Wireless
THIS REPORT COVERS THE INLAND DISPATCH CENTER ONLY
A "lost call" occurs when a call box caller hangs up
or "redials" before reaching a CHP operator.
Note: "redialing", or pressing the call button a second
time, disconnects the caller and reconnects them at
the end of the queue (calls are answered by CHP in
the order they are received.)
311°D }sot }o 4ua3.rad
10%
9%
8%
7%
6%
5%
4%
3%
2%
1%
0%
O 4 R
6 ;
Jul-97
Aug-97
Sep-97
Oct-97
Nov-97
Dec-97
Jan-98
Feb-98
Mar-98
Apr-98
May-98
Jun-98
Jul-98
Au • -98
Se•-98
Oct-98
Nov-98
Dec-98
Jan-99
Feb-99
Mar-99
A • r-99
May-99
Jun-99
5%
5%
4%
4%
4%
5%
3%
5%
5%
4%
4%
4%
5%
8%
7%
7%
6%
9%
5%
7%
6%
7%
6%
8%
The length of time (in minutes) a motorist waited before hanging up or "redialing" CHP.
On hold
Apr-99
May-99
Jun-99
AVG
Chart
31
% irlp�
!��
AN AP
rl PWAAA,
� •`'-'»
45%
13%
o
�.,; 1 1 /o
«4 .. ..i,
••4e • 4
-'•��.�.
5 sec
5%
3%
3%
4%
"NNW
� �
OWN
&CPU
10 sec
10%
10%
9%
10%
15 sec
4%
6%
6%
5%
4
20 Sec
°
4/0
°3%4%►�1
5/0
3
30 Sec
7%
9%
8%
8%
40 Sec
7%
10%
6%
8%
50 Sec
5%
6%
4%
5%
60 Sec
5%
5%
5%
5%*%�!
70 Sec
1 %
2%
3%
2%
''' •1
v,�,r�+.
:.;. !.:.:11
90 Sec
3%
4%
6%
4%
110 Sec
5%
4%
4%
4%
130 Sec
5%
5%
4%
5%
130+ Sec
38%
31 %
39%
36%
Produced by: TeleTran Tek Services
Page: 6
aD isoi apisaaAN
666 L as P ion° pu z
Data Source: CHP ACD
THIS REPORT COVERS THE INLAND DISPATCH CENTER ONLY
CHP considers a call to be "delayed" if the
call is not answered within 10 seconds.
A call must be answered for it to be
a delayed call, otherwise it is a lost call.
Produced by: TeleTran Tek Services
Page: 7
Jul-97
77%
55
Aug-97
79%
60
Sep-97
76%
50
Oct-97
75%
44
Nov-97
76%
43
Dec-97
78%
51
Jan-98
76%
38
Feb-98
76%
48
Mar-98
77%
47
Apr-98
77%
42
May-98
77%
42
Jun-98
77%
44
Jul-98
79%
54
Aug-98
84%
78
Sep-98
82%
72
Oct-98
83%
66
Nov-98
80%
56
Dec-98
84%
77
Jan-99
79%
62
Feb-99
79%
62
Mar-99
80%
60
Apr-99
80%
65
May-99
80%
56
Jun-99
84%
83
666 l JaiJon° pu Z
Data Source: CHP ACD
CalSAFE
California Service Authority for Freeway Emergencies
CALL BOX ACTIVITY REPORT
June 1999
Riverside
MCC
CVRS
Ventura
Santa Barbara
can
1 123
14%
1 279
16%
521
6%
330
4%
6 230 17%
14 467 3996
4 323 12%
1723 596
990 3%
29 889
15%
21 659 11%
10 557
5%
5 007
3%
-tenoviataniti
•B VittL
5.5 26.6
4.6 24.0
3.4 16.9
3.3 20.3
3.0 15.2
Counties developing call box programs
Produced by: TeleTran Tek Services
Page: 8
Data Source: Cellular tapes
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
DATE:
September 8, 1999
TO:
Riverside County Transportation Commission
FROM:
Budget and Implementation Committee
Dean Martin, Chief Financial Officer
THROUGH:
Eric Haley, Executive Director
SUBJECT:
Quarterly Financial Reports
BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE & STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Receive and file.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
Attached are Combining Statements of Revenues and Expenditures and Changes in
Fund Balances (Unaudited) for the Quarter Ending June 30, 1999.
Attachments
Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and changes in Fund balances- General, Special Revenue and
Capital Project Funds
Budget Variance explanations
For the year ending June 30, 1999
REVENUES
Federal, State, Local and other Government Revenues
Funding for the improvements to the San Jacinto Branch Line has been re -budgeted to FY2000,
when the project is currently scheduled to be completed. In addition Pedley surveillance
system for $775,000 will be carried forward to FY2000, as well as STP/CMAQ reimbursement
for Pedley station platform extension for $300,000. The construction contract for the 91
sound wall has just been awarded, revenue of $300,000 expected in FY99 will materialize in
FY2000.
EXPENDITURES
Salaries & Benefits
The allocation of salaries between Administration and Programs are based on budgetary
estimates. Total salary/benefit expenditures are consistent with total budget for salaries.
Office Lease
Our costs for operations and maintenance paid annually to the landlord, above the amount
provided in the lease agreement, was $7,000.00 higher than anticipated.
Hiphwav Engineering.
Awaiting Van Buren invoice from City of Riverside of approximately $750,000.
Hiphwav ROW
Route 74 appraisal slower than anticipated of approximately $300,000.
Awaiting Phase II Temporary Easement invoices.
Special Studies
CETAP Environmental Study for $200,000 budgeted for FY99 should materialize in FY2000.
Regional Arterial
Remaining Regional Arterial projects to be carried over to FY2000.
Proiect Maintenance/Operations
The project maintenance budget was understated by $174,000, while the project operations
budget was overstated by $174,000. The total operation and maintenance expenditures are
consistent with total budget.
Proiect Towing.
Actual expenditures included holidays and overtime which were not originally budgeted.
Note: There will be additional accrued expenditures that will be processed as part of year-end closing
and the annual audit.
00'095'£th'85 8L'265'06L'1 1/9'181.'0Oh'£ 62118'L95'L 00'115'781'1 98'1.0'7£5'1J 78'259'08'LZ 9Z'lZh'h06'l ££'L58'LZL'8
06'£L0'601. 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 L5'£99'2L ££'OS£'9£
047'800'L6£ 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 (09'982) 00'0 00'0 00'562'L6£
8£'627'97£'55 8L'265'06L'L h9'L9L'00h'£ 62118'L95'1.00115'h8L'L 91'8LL'7£5'lt he'259'76L'L2 1£'902'909'1 90'5£9'L98'5
(sasn)saouno5 Buloueuli Aa410
S3210110N3dX3 1V101
Ae11n0 lellde�
uotingl.i1s10 wano6Jalu1
S133r0Hd/SWV1190Hd 1V101
00'LLS'h8L'L 00'0 00'0 00'0 0011.5'h8L'1 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 suolinciplo10 V1S
h8'h00'6L9 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 h8'700'6L9 00'0 Wool loafoJd
LL'Ll5'828 00'0 00'0 00'0 UO'0 00'0 00'0 25'516'08£ 61'209'L7h suotleuad0 loaf0a41
Z8'L6£'SOL 00'0 61'1,81 00'0 00'0 00'0 L1'709'Z 0h'065'1.1£ 90'229'06£ aoueualuleW loaloJd
00'970'928'5 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'96£'06L'l 00'05L'ZLl'l 00'0 00'006'298'2 itsueunuolluodsueJl lepadS
0£'052'L2£'L2 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'298'09L'L 0£'88£'99L'02 00'0 00'0 speos $ slaaJlS
2L'Z£t'L86'2 00'0 00'0 69'626'78L 00'0 £7'202'961.'2 00'0 00'0 00'0 1elJalJ2 leuotfas
06'277'99L1 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 06'2hh'99L'L 00'0 00'0 a0uelstsstl Jalnuwo3
00'05L'SLO'l 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'05L'SLO% uolingtJluo3 1e10e3 V11113S
52'00'02 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 52'00'02 00'0 00'0 MOH lied
08'Oh5'£22'£ 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 OS'Oh5'£22'£ 00'0 00'0 uollonulsuo3 Iles
09'256'1£2 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 OL'L£9'£OL 00'0 OL'lZ£'82l 6upeaul6u3 Iles
50'21.2'96 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 LL'69h'S 56'800'0L £6'££6'02 sawnls ,floods
00'86eL97 86'h90'681, 00'0 27'LL9'952 00'0 09'168'8 00',22'£L 00'0 00'0 MOH sAem491N
56'L7L'h8L'h Oh'58£'689 22'££6'02£'£ OL'L5h'91,5 00'0 /2'060'062 (L9'97070 00'0 £0'L2 uollonAlsuo3 Aen46lN
68'91£'601,'L Oh'2hl'Zl6 L2'857'99 8h'998'L 00'0 £7'h89'91. 1.£'761.'lll 00'0 00'0 6utdaeul6u3 Aen46114
hf'2£f'LZ£'L 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 62'067'2L 50'2h8'h52'L 00'0 00'0 s40afoad leuaua9
58'L7h'68£ 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 56'07'69 8L'LL8'L5 ZL'9L0'292 (le6al sepnlox3) s03lAJaS ;old
Lh121'6£2 00'0 96'809'9L 00'0 00'0 7h'191, 90'f79'691, 08'L52'f 1,2'057'67 s00tnuOS le6al leJeue2
62'L8L'Z80'l 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 Sh'h88'9h£ 291S5'£OL ZZ'LSe6Z9 sit;auag 2 sepele5
S103f0Hd/SNtlH90Hd
2£11ZL'1,95'2 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'000'6 8£'I55'SZt 76'9L5'92h'2 NOIIVHISININOV 1V101
£5'£85'72L 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 08'5£Z'L7 £L'L7£'f89 sasuadx3 utupe leJauag
L9'91£'922 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 11'6LS'£t 05'6£L'212 aseal a31;i0
86719'16L 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'000'6 77'786'£Z 7S'999'8S1 (le6al sapnl0x3) 5331AJaS loud
86'001,'68 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 88'£S£'7 OL'L7L'78 s80tnuaS left, leuauag
ZZ'ZS1'6ZL 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 51'96£'Zh L0'hS0'L89 sltiauag $ satuele5
N011VH1S1N1WOV
S3191110N3dX3
Zr 2e 0L8'06 L8'SZ7'£LZ 81.1816'lLS'L 8S'555'862 29'152'L75'2 6L'922'598'02 £2'861'689'75 88'599'15e1, L6'8Z6'ZL8'9 S311113638 1V101
6£'980'0£9'9 00'0 62'216'SW 00'0 00'61.0'£2h'2 8L'2L6'6217'1. 00'055 ZO'L89'6h9'L 0£'576'08£ senuanas ua410
06'£ll'LLO'f Lh'9h6'201 90'6,6'952 85'555'862 29'2£2'721 62'920'LL5 89'2LeL06 L2'2£9'26 62'966'912 awo0ul lsaJalul
££'£1.0'81.£'S Oh'6Lh'OLL £8'950'6 00'0 00'0 (12'112'2) 92'£65'h08'£ 59'9h£'6 8£'808'92£'L wan09 uapo $ 18301 elelS pai
00'6LL'9hh'S 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'6LL'Shh'S senuaneH eel sales ua410
OS'828'96£'0L 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 £h'975'026'91. L0'292'9/6'6', 00'0 00'000'005'l V aanseaW senuanaH xel saleS
S30N3A3H
1V101 H3dtld N01130H1SN00 N011311H1SN00 301011SISSV A1N000 A111003 3AVS/dSi ONnA
9NIN18W00 1V10113WW00 A1N003 9V113 11SNVH1 NH31SV3 NH31S3M 1VH3N39
A119103 NH31S3M NH31S3M 31V1S
66/81/80
66/0£/90=6utpu3 potaad uoi
NA Nil naN1 0NnA A8 sivni0tl
66/81/80 87716 uolsslwuo3 uollelJodsueJl Aluno3 aplsJanls
uotldposa0
s81'h08'26£'96 98'SL2'8£1'2 W 855'299'99 56'9hh'h0£'8 h6'£1£'L9£'f LL'09£'20£'h1 Oh'£20'LlIC R hL'L8h'90h'2 88'2.££'h00'h
`SS 2E9'279'56 S W 27'1'559'9 L8'0£L'91L'6£ 69'LheL98'6 Z£'£LS'109'Z 12'Llh'698 ZL ££'LL0'119 OZ 2l'£7Z'60'2 hZ'99Z'658'£
£9'LL6'6hL (16'991'LL5'1) (£971S'£f0'7) ChL'00£'£9S'1) 29'0,eZ9L 96'276'Zfhal L0'210'9LS'S (8£'SSL'ZS) 79'110S71
67'699'878'U 00'0 L1'60f'Sh1'2 EO'S86'£62 00'0
00'0
97'869'LZL'££
96'9E0'10'1
66/91/80
00'0
00'0
00'0
00'0
LL'60E'Shl'2
00'0
L6'178'L68'2 Z£'££S'60£'12
00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0
£0'586'£6Z 00'0 L6'Lh8'L68'L 8Z'L8h'1£9'2Z
00'0 00'0 00'0 96'£56'12E'1
1V101 b3dVd NOI1311b1SN03 NO113nb1SN03 33NV1SISSV A1NnO3 A1NnO3
ONIN18W03 1V1383WW03 A1Nn03 OVA3 lISNVbl Nb31SV3 Minn
A1NnO3 Nb31S3M Nb31S3M 31V1S
66/91/80
66/0E/90 :9ulpu3 popad uoi
Nib HIV nu' aNnA A8 sun13V
87b10 uolssluuo3 uolleyAodsueAL A4uno3 aptsAanlb
00'0 00'0
00'0
00'SL0'65L
00'EL0'651
31VS/dSA
00'0
00'0
00'0
aNn4
1VN3N30
6661 '0£ 3Nnf 33NV1V8 ONnA
8661 '1 Alnf 33NV1V8 aNnd
sasn eupueuld uay10
puV saAnllpuadx3(Aapun)Aan0
saoAnos 6uloueul; Jayl0 puV
sanuanab ;o(Aoualol;aa)ssaox3
sasn
sa3Anos 6uloueuli Aayl0 lelol
slso3 aouenssl aolnuas Aga°
1n0 spa;sueAl 6ulleAad0
ul sAa;sueAl 6ulleAad0
uolldl asaa
Description
Riverside County Transportation Commission
BUDGET VERSUS ACTUALS
For Period Ending: 06/30/99
08/18/99
REMAINING PERCENT
BUDGET ACTUALS BALANCE UTILIZATION
REVENUES
Sales Tax Revenues Measure A 68,500,001.00 70,396,828.50 (1,896,827.50) 102.76
Other Sates Tax Revenues 5,448,179.00 5,448,179.00 0.00 100.00
Fed State Local & other Govern 6,969,920.00 5,318,013.33 1,651,906.67 76.29
Interest Income 3,060,565.00 3,017,113.90 43,451.10 98.58
Other Revenues 6,642,989.00 6,630,086.39 12,902.61 99.80
TOTAL REVENUES 90,621,654.00 90,810,221.12 (188,567.12) 100.20
EXPENDITURES
ADMINISTRATION
Salaries & Benefits 606,214.00 729,452.22 (123,238.22) 120.32
General Legal Services 92,500.00 89,100.98 3,399.02 96.32
Prof Services (Excludes Legal) 865,020.00 791,672.98 73,347.02 91.52
Office Lease 220,000.00 226,318.61 (6,318.61) 102.87
General Admin Expenses 716,960.00 724,583.53 (7,623.53) 101.06
TOTAL ADMINISTRATION 2,500,694.00 2,561,128.32 (60,434.32) 102.41
PROGRAMS/PROJECTS
Salaries & Benefits 1,311,656.00 1,082,187.29 229,468.71 82.50
General Legal Services 232,500.00 239,121.47 (6,621.47) 102.84
Prof Services (Excludes Legal) 678,650.00 389,447.85 289,202.15 57.38
General Projects 1,693,900.00 1,327,332.34 366,567.66 78.35
Highway Engineering 1,877,738.00 1,109,345.89 768,392.11 59.07
Highway Construction 5,048,000.00 4,784,747.95 263,252.05 94.78
Highways ROW 758,188.00 467,798.00 290,390.00 61.69
Special Studies 265,000.00 96,412.05 168,587.95 36.38
Rail Engineering 266,539.00 231,952.80 34,586.20 87.02
Rail Construction 3,506,300.00 3,223,540.80 282,759.20 91.93
Rail ROW 22,352.00 20,490.25 1,861.75 91.67
SCRRA Capital Contribution 1,150,000.00 1,075,750.00 74,250.00 93.54
Commuter Assistance 1,378,920.00 1,166,442.90 212,477.10 84.59
Regional Arterial 10,068,505.00 2,981,132.12 7,087,372.88 29.60
Streets & Roads 26,579,715.00 27,327,250.30 (747,535.30) 102.81
Special Transportion\Transit 5,915,461.00 5,826,046.00 89,415.00 98.48
Project Maintenance 550,094.00 705,397.82 (155,303.82) 128.23
Project operations 1,129,787.00 828,517.71 301,269.29 73.33
Project Towing 657,800.00 679,004.84 (21,204.84) 103.22
STA Distributions 2,186,116.00 1,784,511.00 401,605.00 81.62
TOTAL PROGRAMS/PROJECTS 65,277,221.00 55,346,429.38 9,930,791.62 84.78
Intergovern Distribution 397,295.00 397,008.40 286.60 99.92
Capital Outlay 158,221.00 109,013.90 49,207.10 68.89
TOTAL EXPENDITURES 68,333,431.00 58,413,580.00 9,919,851.00 85.48
Other Financing Sources(Uses)
QTRA4
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
DATE:
September 8, 1999
TO:
Riverside County Transportation Commission
FROM:
Budget and Implementation Committee
Bill Hughes, Bechtel Project Manager
Louie Martin, Bechtel Project Controls Manager
THROUGH:
Eric Haley, Executive Director
SUBJECT:
Monthly Cost and Schedule Reports
BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE & 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 July 31, 1999.
Attachments:
£;O L abed
% I.16
t'ea ;i'
%6'9L
%L'LL
%0'O6
................
%£'4S
%00
%0'0
................
%9`9
%9'S
%916
%9'66
198'�0'1'S�
L69'40L'S$
LLa's�a'9$
Z9 L'SLS$
099'L9L' L$
S9L'9 LE'4$
.........................
..................
L£e$99'8$
LE9'9S9'9$
0$
...................
94S`S9£$
99S`LS$
S£6'Z L£$
OZO'Z9$
ova
0P L'L$
9S4'46£$
9 L4'46$
L6£'£4£$
0L9` 3
OL9'Z L$
ILO 1.80
LL9`L9 L$
L80`98tS
L90'S£ L$
%Arlo.
%4'L9
%9'69
%0'00 L
%UM
9'0,0„',00L
%0'00 L
%WOOL
%0'00 L
%root
%0'00 L
%L"86
%S'96
%0'00l
giVszes$
£L L'B19'S$
L6Z'StL$
000'00£'Z$
E90'96L'4$
.......................
606`8S6'945
606'EE6'S L$
...................
00042ns
000'L£S$
000`809'9$
006'909'9$
L911888
000'OZ£$
LS L'Z9$
:09`9Zd 9$
409'9ZL'9$
...........:.
094'££98
0001.4C8
000'L£S$
00619818
006'909'9$
..........................
L9L'L88$
000'SZ£$
LS L `Z9$
.9181 '1V11C1iens
(9106 '9006020 110.11nu3/616u3 /1eu1w11aid
S103P021d 91Z-I
40.14-I,;01.0b
(9466'EE66'94960N) 6uwdeospuelllempunog
(S£S6021) domed )I001A /mod 'PMg uaang ueA
(Z£96 '9496 ' L996'&96'LZ96'L££6 ' L0 L60U)
uonoru;suoo pue ut3pap pempunog
S103r021d 16 31f1021
LLL 3 nos 11110.11819
LS96' 1S96-6496'£4L6'S£96
(9£96'L£S6`0£S6'9396'£ZS617£Z6'LZZ6 '6 LZ6O21)
S103r021d LLL 31f1021
.........................................
6L nno ittolans
seuel Lurn L N ;uaLuu611eeN (1,966ON)
M02Uua1nu3/6uueeupu3
8103r021d 6L 31f1021
1L 31f1021 l\i11t19f1S'
(9960966 Le£6021) M021Na1nu3/6uuaau16u3
S103P021d 4L 31f1021
09 31f10211V1019fiS
(U96'066021) uonomnsuo0 ;ol apla ,u, *Jed
(9£L6011) u61sa01euwd ;ol apla A fed
S103r021d 09 31f1021
31VO Ol S1NIN11NA100 31V0 Ol 666L 'LE NI1r N011V0011V 31V0 Ol N011V0011V
1SNI` OV 31V0-01 S321f1110N3dX3 030N3 NINON -H1f1V 1SNIVOV S1N3NI111NW00 03ZINOH1f1V
SMInl10N3dX3 % 210d MI(1110N3dX3 C131110/0100 %-rdani0VM1N00 NOISSINIW00
NOI1dINOS30
103f021d
31f1021 AEI 1210d321Japans
91031'021d-111121/AVMHOIH Of.. 321f1snw 01021
£;o Z a6ed
%e343
%0176
%Z'66
%0.0
%6"OL
%6'0L
%9'LS
% l'06
%Z'66
2O'►`265`9C$
9iS'$i'i'69
S££'66S'L$
18 VOSS' 1$
i8i'Bti`SS :
mfr'6b L'£$
0$
L8l'££0' 1$
£9l'$KJ'i$
069`£LZ$
£Z6'ZL£' L$
BSS'Li9
Z6£`01st
0
0
9Z9'9$
Z£0'Z$
%S'68
%TOO L
8S8`E1041ii!S
009fri0"016
000'69£'8$
009'9179' 14
00$`SLi'SS`
OOZ`SL 1'£$
00b`00iS
000`0013
.........................
899`951eis
99S'9Sb'Lg
LL8`IBS 1.$i ('
000'b0£$
LL8'£9£' l$
20t'PL&"8 , <ri
Z0V686bi9
ZOS'OS£'6$
009'9179' 3
OOZ`SLi`'L'S
OOZ'SL 1'£$
....................
900`:®Oi$
000'00 3
000`.009`i$
000'009'1.$
LLS`££L`iS
000'0S£$
LL9'£8£'1$
ST#101
'Ifd2t 2t31i1WWfl0'1 aoism
('LS66'£966'91796%1796'9£86'0Z66'000008)
S1SoO 1u1e1/1/SIS09 dO/b3V 911S/uoneis
(99661799071796'££86'Z£86' l£L6'OZtP6 08)
6uuaau16u3/salpn}S
111f21213111 W W00
012t'N7.?I21dd lV 04;00S.
(£186) (S166-1066) 6996 (Z171.6-0tL6 ON)
WV21J021d '1N30N1/3012FN NIFfid
'50115 � NV'Id Wl121J021d �h1101t3FIS
Apn}s Jopwo0 41n0S/LIVoN
9301A2139 Mrld WV21J021d
"13DOM ivic 18#15
(0066 oa)
*A2139 1WOW ILLSN00 V 103f021d
3JMIH02131NI ivioi8(1S
(9N66'9Z660):1) 6uldeospue-101 ewnA
(9Zt76021) (38Sd) u6lsaa leUl j 01 ewnA
411tRI0021d 71021dW1 3ONVH02131N1
31Va Oi S1NW11V0100 31V0 Ol 6661. ' 6£ AMC NOI1V0011V 31V0 01 N011V0011V
1SNIVOV 31Va-Ol S321nlION3dX3 030N3 H1NOW 'H1nV 1SNIVJV S1N3W111NN00 03ZILIOH1nV
SM1n110N3dX3 % 210d 32111110N3dX3 03111WW00 % 1V21n10V211N00 NOISSIWW00
NOIld12:10S30
103r08d
31f1021 AB 1210d32113J0f18
S103f021d AVMHJIH «V. 32111S`d3W 01021
£ )o £ aBed
66/lea /o to snIWS
•sia6pnq yea/( leosg of pomp.' you pue peiwoofpafad Joj aae semen II`d
sweiBo.id luewenoidwl eBueyoiawl puleBe ueoi aLON
%CVO
%£'99
%£'99
%£'99
964'94
%L9L
%ZZ;3
%£Z9
c$,
0$
0$
0$
0$
0$
0$
849`s9C.114$ b ME
ZLZ'Sb9' l$
SL£'176£'b$
£99'Zb
LS4'0L9'l$
LLb'966'£$
OZS'Ll•ei$
OZS'L l£' l$
L90'6£ L'Z$
LZ0'460'S$
00917Z£' l$
6 1.4'9£6' l$
tL9'ZYZ`S$
£Z9'Z lZ'S$
0000094$
000'009' l$
0$
0
9t9'90t'LL;f
L90'6£ L'Z$
LZO'460'S$
OOS'bZ£' l$
6147'9£6' 13
tzsti "S#
£Z9'Z LZ'S$
...........................
000'009'l$
s;<wdwl peon pue shells pool 2 on ewnA
03210N d0 A113
swewanomdwl pecu +g spoils Idol
V11133W31 d0 A113
sluewanadwl pea 8 slaalls pool
O1NI3Vf NVS d0 A113
sluawanadwl pea slaal}s leool
SI21213d d0 A113
VN01103 AO A113 "PO1018110
anuoruls a6eulew uuois
(t) '8 saBueyoaalul ulooull 8 aldeW 'LAPS
VN02103 d0 A113
NV013AV1 NOANV31VLOI8AS
(ZZ176021) sluewenadwl pb uo/;ue3 peoallea
3)IV1 NOANV3 d0 A113
'IMMO03nOaddV 1N3W11WWOO 3ONV1V9 S3ONVnOV 6661'LE ANrif 1NMAIIIV 100 NOIldINOS30
1SNIVOV 31V0-0l ONIONVIS1110 NV01 .V. 32lnSV3W Q3ON3 NINON 03n02IddV 103f0ad
3ONV1V9 NV01 % ONI0NV1SIM 1V101 MOd MInlION3dX3
133f021d AS 1210d32113oans
S133f021d SaV021'8 S1331l1S 1V301/AVMHOIH ..V.. 31inSV3W 31321
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
I
DATE:
September 8, 1999
TO:
Riverside County Transportation Commission
FROM:
Budget and Implementation Committee
W. Dean Martin, Chief Financial Officer
Bill Hughes, Bechtel Project Manager
THROUGH:
Eric Haley, Executive Director
SUBJECT:
Quarterly Y2K Status Report
BUDGET & IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION..
Receive and file.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
At their October 14, 1998 meeting, the Commission adopted a policy to address the
potential of problems occurring relating to the manner in which computer hardware and
software handle the century information. In the past, when memory was limited,
programers used only the last two digits of the year to indicate the date of a transaction.
The two digit year shortcut will fail to correctly identify the date after the turn of the
century. This failure could result in any number of problems occurring that could
adversely impact the ability of RCTC correctly process information. The Commission
adopted a plan to address the potential problem that included the following general
activities:
1. Inventory and Assessment of impacted hardware, software, and outside agencies
doing business with RCTC.
2. Renovation Phase
3. Validation and Testing Phase
4. Training/instruction of RCTC Staff on how to avoid future problems related to
Y2K.
The adopted Compliance Schedule is as follows:
Compliance Activity
Target Completion Date
Complete inventory and assessment of systems
Identify compliant/non-compliant systems
Renovate or replace non -compliant systems
Complete test of all systems
Certify systems as compliant
Monitor systems
By November 1998
By December 1998
By March 1999
By June 1999
By August 1999
Through December 1999
To date, the following activities have been completed:
1. All RCTC hardware systems have been inventoried and tested for Y2K
compliance. Non -compliant systems have been made compliant by either
updating the system, updating the bios or adding a program that will correct the
century designation to the full four digits on boot -up.
2. Software in use by RCTC Staff has been reviewed. Non -compliant software
packages have been updated to a version that is Y2K compliant or are scheduled
to be deleted from the RCTC LAN servers and workstations prior to October 15,
1999.
3. Staff has determined that all mission critical software is now Y2K compliant.
4. A list of all outside vendors/agencies, that RCTC deals with, was prepared and
letters were sent out to each of them in January to confirm that they will be Y2K
compliant prior to January 1, 2000 so that they will not impact our operations.
Second notices were sent in March to vendors/agencies that had not responded
to the first letter of inquiry. A third and final notice was mailed on the 18th of
August. RCTC has received responses from all critical vendors/agencies and is
now reasonably satisfied that RCTC will not be prevented from performing its
functions after the turn of the century as a result of an outside vendor/agency.
5. RCTC Staff in conjunction with Jaguar Computer systems performed a test of the
RCTC network and workstations on August 6, 1999. The test procedure was as
follows:
• Fully backup the system to tape
• Verify tape for completeness
• Disconnect the RCTC LAN system from the County Cornet System
► Advance server clocks and workstation clocks to 30 minutes prior to the
turn of the century.
► RCTC Staff was on hand to test the functionality of the various software
packages
• After the test was complete, all clocks were restored to the correct time
and the RCTC network was restored using the backup tape
The test confirmed that all software that is not Y2K compliant should be removed prior
to the turn of the century. In particular, old versions of Lotus that have not been
upgraded because of the RCTC Staff decision to move spreadsheet work to EXCEL,
need to be deleted as soon as RCTC Staff has the time to convert the information to
EXCEL. RCTC currently has scheduled all noncompliant software, including LOTUS, to
be purged prior to October 15, 1999.
Fundware (RCTC's accounting package) performed well in all tests with the exception
that the program would not roll over if active when the clocks roll over to January 1,
1999. Since no one is expected to be working at midnight on December 31 °t, this will
not be a problem. Fundware worked as expected after the program was shut down and
brought up after the clocks were set forward to the new century.
The last finding was with the DOCTRAC program. This is a custom data base built with
FOXPRO that controls access to the RCTC document retrieval system. This program
failed to produce reports that spanned the century date. This problem is currently being
resolved with the programmer. It is important to note that this problem with the report
generation did not prevent the use of the system after the turn of the century.
Furthermore, this program does not calculate any information based on the date
information.
Compliance Status:
All RCTC hardware (including servers and workstations) and all RCTC software that is
required to be operational after the turn of the century is now certified as being
compliant.
RCTC Staff will continue the Y2K effort in the following areas:
1. Convert any old data files such as spreadsheets over to EXCEL
2. Complete changes to DOCTRAC reporting function.
3. Delete all old versions of programs from both the RCTC server and RCTC
workstations by October 15, 1999.
Contingency Plan:
1. RCTC Staff will obtain a full backup of the system on the last working day of this
century. This tape will be taken off -site for safety.
2. RCTC Staff will print out a hard copy of the Fundware accounting system records
so that the accounting department will have the information to work manually
with any of the accounts, if required.
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
DATE:
September 8, 1999
TO:
Riverside County Transportation Commission
FROM:
Plans and Programs Committee
Hideo Sugita, Director of Planning and Programming
THROUGH:
Eric Haley, Executive Director
SUBJECT:
Riverside County Integrated Plan - "Listening" and "Visioning"
Phase
PLANS AND PROGRAMS COMMITTEE & STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
That the Commission receive the information resulting from the outreach efforts to
date and, if available, provide the "very draft" vision statement at the meeting.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
As the Commissioners are probably aware, 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 a stakeholder driven development process a significant level of public out reach
efforts were launched to obtain input necessary to begin the process of integrated
plan development. From project launch to date, which we refer to as the "listening
phase", the following efforts have been accomplished along with summary reports
documenting what the project team heard.
• During late June, 1999, an opinion poll of 600 residents of the county was
conducted. The poll was divided on the basis of 120 completed interviews in
each of the Supervisorial Districts.
• Between June 17t, and July 16, 1999,12 public workshops were conducted
throughout the county. The workshops were held in the evenings and while
concentrated in Western Riverside County the range of the meeting locations
was from Temecula to Corona to the San Gorgonio Pass, Palm Desert and
Blythe.
" I n e a r l y A u g u s t , t h e s t u d y e f f o r t c o n d u c t e d f o u r f o c u s g r o u p s . T h e a r e a
r e s i d e n t s i n t e r v i e w e d i n a g r o u p s e t t i n g i n c l u d e d T e m e c u l a / M u r r i e t a / H e m e t ;
C o r o n a / N o r c o / R i v e r s i d e ; M o r e n o V a l l e y / P e r r i s a n d t h e C o a c h e l l a V a l l e y .
F o l l o w i n g t h i s m e m o a r e t h e r e p o r t s d o c u m e n t i n g t h e "