HomeMy Public PortalAbout05 May 5, 2014 Eastern Riverside County Programs and ProjectsRiverside County Transportation Commission
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Riverside County Transportation Commission
Jennifer Harmon, Office and Board Services Manager
April 30, 2014
Possible Conflicts of Interest Issues -Eastern Riverside County Programs and Projects
Committee Agenda of May 5, 2014
The May 5, 2014 agenda of the ERC Programs and Projects Committee includes items which may raise
possible conflicts of interest. A RCTC member may not participate in any discussion or action
concerning a contract or amendment if a campaign contribution of more than $250 is received in the
past 12 months or 3 months following the conclusion from any entity or individual listed.
Agenda Item No. 7 -Agreement for Forecasting Services for the Coachella Vallev-San Gorgonio
Pass Rail Corridor Service Development Plan
Consultant(s): HDR Engineering, Inc.
2280 Market Street, Suite 100
Riverside, CA 92501
Thomas Kim, Senior Vice President
COMM-ERC-00003
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
EASTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY PROGRAMS AND PROJECTS COMMITTEE
www.rctc.org
AGENDA*
*Actions may be taken on any item listed on the agenda
10:30a.m.
Monday, May 5, 2014
CVAGO/fice
73-710 Fred Waring Drive, Suite 119
Palm Desert, CA 92260
Teleconference Site-Blythe City Hall
235 N. Broadway, Room A
Blythe, CA 92225
In compliance with the Brown Act and Government Code Section 54957.5, agenda materials distributed
72 hours prior to the meeting, which are public records relating to open session agenda items, will be
available for inspection by members of the public prior to the meeting at the Commission office, 4080
Lemon Street, Third Floor, Riverside, CA, and on the Commission's website, www.rctc.org.
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act and Government Code Section 54954.2, if you need
special assistance to participate in a Committee meeting, please contact the Clerk of the Board at (951)
787-7141. Notification of at least 48 hours prior to meeting time will assist staff in assuring that
reasonable arrangements can be made to provide accessibility at the meeting.
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
3. ROLL CALL
4. PUBLIC COMMENTS -Each individual speaker is limited to speak three (3) continuous
minutes or less. The Committee may, either at the direction of the Chair or by majority
vote of the Committee, waive this three (3) minute time limitation. Depending on the
number of items on the Agenda and the number of speakers, the Chair may, at his/her
discretion, reduce the time of each speaker to two (2) continuous minutes. Also, the
Committee may terminate public comments if such comments become repetitious.
Speakers may not yield their time to others without the consent of the Chair. Any written
documents to be distributed or presented to the Committee shall be submitted to the
Clerk of the Board. This policy applies to Public Comments and comments on Agenda
Items.
Under the Brown Act, the Board should not take action on or discuss matters raised
during public comment portion of the agenda which are not listed on the agenda. Board
members may refer such matters to staff for factual information or to be placed on the
subsequent agenda for consideration.
Eastern Riverside County Programs and Projects Committee Agenda
May 5, 2014
Page2
5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES-OCTOBER 7, 2013
6. ADDITIONS/REVISIONS (The Committee may add an item to the Agenda after making a
finding that there is a need to take immediate action on the item and that the item came
to the attention of the Committee subsequent to the posting of the agenda. An action
adding an item to the agenda requires 2/3 vote of the Committee. If there are less than
2/3 of the Committee members present, adding an item to the agenda requires a
unanimous vote. Added items will be placed for discussion at the end of the agenda.)
7. AGREEMENT FOR FORECASTING SERVICES FOR THE COACHELLA VALLEY-SAN
GORGONIO PASS RAIL CORRIDOR SERVICE DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Pagel
Overview
This item is for the Committee to:
1) Award Agreement No. 14-25-072-00 to HOR Engineering, Inc. (HOR) for
forecasting services for the Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor
(Corridor) Service Development Plan (SOP) in the amount of $1,697,645, plus a
contingency amount of $150,000 for a total amount not to exceed $1,847,645;
2) Authorize staff to proceed with the Phase 1 work, including Tasks 1 and 2 through
a limited notice to proceed (NTP) in the amount of $1,847,645;
3) Authorize the Chair or Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel review, to
execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission;
4) Authorize the Executive Director to approve contingency work as may be
required for the project;
5) Authorize staff to negotiate the scope and fee for Phase 2 (Tasks 3 and 4) and to
bring back to the Commission, at a later date, a separate request for
authorization to execute a separate contract amendment to proceed to the next
phase of work, if warranted; and
6) Forward to the Commission for final action.
8. COMMISSIONERS/ STAFF REPORT
Overview
This item provides the opportunity for the Commissioners and staff to report on
attended and upcoming meetings/conferences and issues related to Commission
activities.
9. ADJOURNMENT
The next Eastern Riverside County Programs and Projects Committee meeting is
scheduled to be held at 10:30 a.m., Monday, June 2, 2014, CVAG Office, 73-710 Fred
Waring Drive, Suite 119, Palm Desert, CA 92260.
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
EASTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY PROGRAMS AND PROJECTS
COMMITTEE
County of Riverside, District IV
City of Blythe
City of Cathedral City
City of Coachella
City of Desert Hot Springs
City of Indian Wells
City of Indio
City of La Quinta
City of Palm Desert
City of Palm Springs
City of Rancho Mirage
ROLL CALL
May 5, 2014
Present
71
Ll
%'
Cl
~ {
~ ~
Absent
Ll
)lf
Ll
1
Ll
Ll
Ll
Ll
Ll
Ll
r----------------------------------
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
EASTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY PROGRAMS AND PROJECTS SIGN-IN SHEET
May 5, 2014
~ NAME AGENCY E MAIL ADDRESS
At71/ _;A)~ (;2.c~('_/ )~~ lf'\u"'w (J; dfl Jf?~ // r;;:7t.J~J,<ft> '(
m.h t-!rrz~ c.~~H::. ~~I G._ ..., -I
}A.,J I L~v1N v Ci'__\_JL c;() [1' J '\ ')
1~ ..... 1 H~ius o.J LfJ CJv, 1~ '
;S;"c/n-1 ~~ ~--~~ Hv1 <;;# -,_, (
~~ 0 .~~ ML\.lr , ~()LO / /
JPrv11A.../ r/, ~ ,l)t/ /7 1'4,; G ti~
l Jo V\A \oe_\ Wat....,J 'Ii/\ -,yj,-J['~ ,/\ \/\{\ \\I cA
/\N...\ ~ DN l V --::D ~ M .--c:IF ~ Ti -v1 --
'-.J ~ . \
DETACH AND SUBMIT TO THE CLERK OF THE BOARD I I / / DATE: ,-71 '-?/' /~,/ CHECK IF PUBLIC COMMENTS: 0 SUBJECT OF PUBLIC COMMENTS: CR ?;?SSEi»6€/2 ~171L s u ~µ;;-AGENDA ITEM NO.: SUBJECT OF (AS LISTED ON THE AGENDA) AGENDA ITEM: ____________________ _ NAME: ? (> /3/:,_,,J?-'1-jV/ RA! N/lf/ 6 PHONE NO.: 7 te o dl/ f? ~/j k/ ADDRESS: STREET CITY ZIP CODE REPRESENTING:S~u//-f ?i//;.£'T /21-l/l-1/ff.5~ ;:;Jssoe. PHONE NO.: ---------NAME OF AGENCY I ORGANIZATION I GROUP BUSINESS ADDRESS: 2.-3 ,Y / t/ 5 /L/f./ ~ Gr 17 J1 ~ n S ,> /2 1/1'1P£ ~ 2 '2.-' "---STREET CITY ZIP CODE
Page 1of 1
http ://www.railpictures .net/images/dl/7 /4/5/4 745.1388963922.jpg 5/5/2014
I
•4S&t ---Riverside County lronspol'lollonCommission
I
COACHELLA VALLEY-SAN GORGONIO PASS
Corridor Rail Service
Coachella Valley Rail Service Overview
The Riverside County Transportation Commission (RC TC ) and the Coachella Valley
Association of Governments (CVAG) have been working on planning and supporting
expansion of passenger rail service to the Coachella Valley since the first study in
1991. It has been determined that using Amtrak with a state supported intercity train
presents the best alternative for developing service. Th e 141 mile trip between Los
Angeles and Indio would cross four counties and there are proposals for up to 9
stations. Due to the trip length and time of approximately 3 hours, Amtrak service with
larger seats and food service would be more appealing to the riders. In addition, the
service would operate over Union Pacific and BNSF tracks and, in general, Amtrak has
a greater ability to initiate service over freight railroads based on a national agreement.
The initial service plan would be for two daily round trips along the corridor.
COACHELLA VALLEY-
SAN GORGONIO PASS
.---------------------tCORRLDOR RAIL SERVICE 1-------.
LO S ANGELES
COUNTY
ORANGE COUNTY
SAN BERNARDINO
COUNTY
RIVERSID
COUNTY
-Burlington Northern Santo Fe Railroad Trocb
-Union Pacific Railroad Tracks
-SCRRA Alignment [Son Gabriel Sub)
-UP Alignment !Alhambra Subj
~~'tf-(:/ Existing Station w1!h Roil Connecl1ons
0 0 0 Q Potential Stol1on •
Catchment Areas ( 15 mile radius)
• Not oil potent1ol stations would be needed, comtrud1on and alignment olterno!ives wrll be determined in the fu ture
Project Benefits
• A new regional intercity passenger rail service to the Coachella Valley will ease
congestion on local roads and freeways, providing new economic opportunity,
improving mobility and the quality of life in the Inland Empire .
• The need for daily, convenient intercity passenger rail service is growing as an
environmental friendly alternate to the 1-10 freeway.
• The Coachella Valley and the San Gorgonio Pass area are experiencing rapid
population growth and demand on this route will continue to increase.
• This new connection would serve both the commuter and leisure market with a
safe and reliable transportation option.
Initial Project Supporters:
Riverside County
Transportation Comm i ssion
County of Riverside Supervisors
Coachella Valley
Association of Governments
Coachella Valley
Economic Partnership
City of Calimesa
City of Cathedral City
City of Corona
City of Indian Wells
City of Eastvale
City of Jurupa Valley
City of Indio
City of La Quinta
City of Palm Desert
City of Palm Springs
City of Temecula
Greater Palm Springs
Convention & Visitors Bureau
(CVB)
Southwest Rail
Passenger Association
If you would like to be listed
as a supporter, please contact RCTC.
Riverlide(ounlylronspor1ation(ommission
COACHELLA VALLEY-SAN GORGONIO PASS
Corridor Rail Service
Status/Next Ste ps
• The State of C a li forn ia D ivision of Rail (Caltrans) has updated the State Rail Plan
and has incl uded the se rv ice a potential new service. The service was also included
in previous ve rs io ns o f th e State Rail Plan for approximately 10 years.
• In early 201 3, C al tra ns co mpleted an Alternatives Analys is Study on the Coachella
Valley that id e ntifi ed the p urpose and need of the project and showed strong
potential tra v el m ark e ts.
• Local comm u ni tie s' suppo rt is growing and local and regional officials are
advocating fo r th e ne w se rvice.
• CVAG is work in g co o peratively with local agencies to set aside some initial
transportatio n f u ndi n g t o support the project.
• RCTC is worki ng in co ord i nation with Caltrans, FTA, and CVAG to initiate the next
step in the p la n ni ng p roc e ss. This comprehensive Service Development Plan will
include deta il e d ri d e rshi p and cost estimates .
• Once the Se rv ce D e velop ment Plan is complete the project will need to proceed
with Environ m e nta l D ocu ments and after those are approved it will be eligible to
compete for f ed e ral rail f u nding grants .
Task 1: Project Work Plan & Outreach Plan
Defin e Project A p proach Identify Stakeholder Outreach
Task 2: Preliminary Service Planning and Alternatives
Identify Servi ce Patterns/
A lternat ives
Envi ro n mental O utreach
an d Sc o pin g
Develop Ridership and
Cost Projections
Identify Impacts and
Mitigations
Task 4: Service Development Plan
Finali ze Plann ing Documents to be eligible for Federal Funds
CALIFORNIA INTERCITY PASSENGER RAIL LEADERSHIP COALITION
Joint Position on CAP & TRADE Revenues
• We urge recognition of intercity passenger rail as an important component of Cap and
Trade distribution and urge a discrete allocation of 10%.
o To provide a secure and stable source of funding for intercity passenger rail corridors , a
significant, dedicated portion of Cap and Trade Funds should be allocated to these services-
-similar to how current Cap and Trade proposals establish discrete allocations of these
funds to the High Speed Rail program and for transit service throughout the state .
o We appreciate the Administration 's recognition that California operates the most successful
state-supported intercity rail program in the nation by including support for commuter , urban ,
and intercity rail services in the projected $1.25 billion in Cap & Trade funds in FY 13/14 and
FY 14/15.
o We strongly urge that any adopted legislation include a continuous 10% appropriation of
Cap and Trade funds to intercity passenger rail corridors .
• The California Intercity Passenger Rail (CIPR) services represent more than 40% of all
annual passenger-miles traveled in the state's passenger railroad network and the CIPR
program has become an integral part of California's transportation network, which helps
support the state's clean air goals (AB32) and sustainable community strategies (58375).
o Linking California's cities with 61 rail stations and 122 additional bus stop locations , CIPR
services are an important transportation alternative that promotes transit-oriented
development throughout California.
o With the three existing CIPR services currently eliminating 355 million vehicle miles traveled
every year and 109 million pounds of carbon dioxide emissions, these state-supported
services are valued assets in helping the state achieve its greenhouse gas reduction goals
identified in AB32 , SB375 , and other adopted state legislation . Improved and expanded
CIPR services will result in substantially increased benefits to all California residents and
visitors .
o In its role as an important "feeder" service, enhancing and expanding CIPR services is
critical to the success of the proposed High Speed Rail program in California.
• We are ready to participate.
o For the reasons stated above, it is fundamentally important that the executive management
of the CIPR services and emerging corridors participate in the discussions about how future
Cap and Trade funds should be allocated , whether these funds are allocated by competitive
grant, formula, at the discretion of the State Transportation Agency , or another method .
o The CIPR Program is supported and endorsed by the Senate Select Committee on
Passenger Rail , which has members representing all current and future CIPR services .
Spring 20 14
Existing Stat~upportad.
Intercity Panclnger Ran
Capitol Corridor
San Joaquin
Pacific Surll~
Emarglng Corridors
•••-••• Coast Daylight Route
Capitol Corridor Extension
-•••• •• Coachella Valley Route
.....
Riverside 1>,.o lndlo
CA INTERCITY PASSENGE R AI L LEADERSHIP COALITION
San Joaquin
...... "'""" AlldMrity
Dan Leavitt
Regional Manager
209.944.6266
ace rail.com
LOS SAN
Jennifer Bergener
Managing Director
714.560 .5462
lossan.org
David Kutro sky
Ma naging Director
5 10.464 .6993
c apit olcorridor.org
A CRCC
c o .. t ra ll eoordlDlllDg co1,,.cll
Pete Rodgers
Program Manager
805.781-5712
slocog.org
Sheldon Peterson
Rail Manager
951.787 .7141
rctc.org
AGENDA ITEM 5
MINUTES
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
EASTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY PROGRAMS AND PROJECTS COMMITTEE
Monday, October 7, 2013
MINUTES
1. CALL TO ORDER
The meeting of the Eastern Riverside County Programs and Projects Committee was
called to order by Chair Terry Henderson at 10:38 a.m., at 73-710 Fred Waring Drive,
Suite 119, Palm Desert, California, 92260 and teleconference at Blythe City Hall,
235 N. Broadway Street, Room A, Blythe, CA 92555.
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
At this time, Commissioner Greg Pettis led the Eastern Riverside County Programs and
Projects Committee in a flag salute.
3. ROLL CALL
Members/ Alternates Present
Joseph DeConinck
Ginny Foat
Eduardo Garcia
Douglas Hanson
Jan Harnik
Terry Henderson
Scott Hines
Scott Matas
Glenn Miller
Greg Pettis
4. PUBLIC COMMENTS
Members Absent
John J. Benoit
There were no requests to speak from the public.
5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES-AUGUST 29, 2011
M/S/C (Pettis/Matas) to approve the minutes of August 29, 2011, as
submitted.
RCTC ERC Programs and Projects Committee Minutes
October 7, 2013
Page 2
6. ADDITIONS/REVISIONS
There were no additions or revision to the agenda.
7. RAIL SERVICE THROUGH THE PASS AREA TO THE COACHELLA VALLEY
Sheldon Peterson, Rail Manager, presented the details of the scope of the rail service
through the pass area to the Coachella Valley project.
In response to Commissioner questions regarding which ridership model will be used,
Sheldon Peterson stated the AECOM model and the SCAG model will be used for inner
city and local passenger trips. He also requested a letter of support from each city for
daily inner city service.
John Standiford, Deputy Executive Director, stated this item will be taken to the
Commission meeting on Wednesday and the Commission will come back next month
with more details.
Robert Manning, rail advocate, responded to questions concerning the need for
additional rail to the Coachella Valley.
M/S/C {Foat/Matas) to:
1) Approve the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) No. 14-25-034-00
between the Commission and the Coachella Valley Association of
Governments {CVAG) whereby the Commission shall establish and
administer the Coachella Valley Rail fund;
2) Authorize the Chair, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the
agreement on behalf of the Commission;
3) Authorize staff to set aside Transportation Development Act {TOA)
State Transit Assistance {STA) funding to be utilized specifically for the
Coachella Valley in support of the rail program at specified multi-year
levels;
4) Approve a bus/rail funding split and the terms and conditions;
5) Approve an amendment to the Commission's Commuter Rail Short
Range Transit Plan {SRTP) to set aside $4.2 million of Proposition 18
Public Transportation Modernization, Improvement, and Service
Enhancement Account (PTMISEA) funds to initiate Coachella Valley Rail
through the Pass Area;
6) Authorize staff to seek approval to apply for a letter of no prejudice
(LONP) for Proposition 18 funds to allow the Commission to expend
local funds prior to the state bond sale and disbursement;
7) Authorize staff to establish a Coachella Valley Rail specific SRTP and
establish a separate funding and accounting process at the Commission;
RCTC ERC Programs and Projects Committee Minutes
October 7, 2013
Page 3
8) Authorize the Executive Director to execute a letter of understanding
with Caltrans in support of project development;
9) Adopt Resolution No. 13-042, "Resolution of Support to Establish Daily
Intercity Rail Service from Los Angeles to the Coachella Valley via the
Pass Area";
10) Receive an update on next steps for Coachella Valley Rail project
development, including the service development plan, alternatives
analysis, and discussion on potential for future environmental analysis;
and
11) Forward to the Commission for final action.
9. COMMISSIONERS/ STAFF REPORT
There were no Commissioner or staff reports.
10. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business for consideration by the Eastern Riverside County
Programs and Projects Committee, the meeting was adjourned at 11:09 a.m. The next
meeting of the Eastern Riverside County Programs and Projects Committee is scheduled
for November 4, 2013, at 10:30 a.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Jennifer Harmon
Clerk of the Board
AGENDA ITEM 7
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
DATE: May 5, 2014
TO: Eastern Riverside County Programs and Projects Committee -------1
FROM: Sheldon Peterson, Rail Manager
THROUGH: Robert Yates, Multimodal Services Director
SUBJECT: Agreement for Forecasting Services for the Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio
Pass Rail Corridor Service Development Plan
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
This item is for the Committee to:
1) Award Agreement No. 14-25-072-00 to HDR Engineering, Inc. (HDR) for forecasting
services for the Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor (Corridor) Service
Development Plan (SDP} in the amount of $1,697,645, plus a contingency amount of
$150,000 for a total amount not to exceed $1,847,645;
2} Authorize staff to proceed with the Phase 1 work, including Tasks 1 and 2 through a
limited notice to proceed (NTP} in the amount of $1,847,645;
3} Authorize the Chair or Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute
the agreement on behalf of the Commission;
4} Authorize the Executive Director to approve contingency work as may be required for
the project;
5} Authorize staff to negotiate the scope and fee for Phase 2 (Tasks 3 and 4} and to bring
back to the Commissior.i, at a later date, a separate request for authorization to execute
a separate contract amendment to proceed to the next phase of work, if warranted; and
6} Forward to the Commission for final action.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
Providing some form of passenger rail service to the Corridor has been a long-standing priority
for more than two decades with the first studies completed in the early 1990's. Additional
studies have been performed over time with one of the more recent efforts completed in April
2010. This was later followed in May 2013 with the state of California Department of
Transportation (Caltrans} Division of Rail completing the first phase of a planning study and
initial alternatives analysis for the Corridor. This planning study was very supportive of the
potential for a viable service, and future studies would then be able to expand on the Caltrans'
effort by determining ridership demand and more detailed cost estimates.
Agenda Item 7
1
Caltrans also included an updated project description and analysis of the Corridor service in the
latest state rail plan, which was approved on September 5, 2013, by the California State
Transportation Agency. The next update will take place in 2017.
DISCUSSION:
As the result of past studies from the Coachella Valley Association of Governments {CVAG),
Commission, and CalTrans, it was determined that using state-supported intercity trains
presents the best alternative for developing passenger rail service along the Corridor. The
141-mile trip between Los Angeles and the Coachella Valley would cross four counties. Stops
and station locations are yet to be determined. Due to the trip length and time of
approximately three hours, Amtrak-style state-supported intercity service with larger seats and
food service would be more appealing to the riders.
While the Corridor was part of the state's planning study effort, Caltrans Division of Rail was
also very clear it did not have the funding in place to further analyze the Corridor. Accordingly,
and to further the project development of the Corridor and to leverage the work already
conducted by the state, a number of key initiatives were approved by the Commission in
October 2013 and subsequently carried out. These included:
• Establishment of a memorandum of understanding (MOU) between CVAG and the
Commission that establishes cooperation on the Corridor and a Transportation
Development Act (TDA) bus/rail funding split for transit funding;
• Authorization of $4.2 million of Proposition 18 Public Transportation, Modernization,
Improvement, and Service Enhancement Account (PTMISEA) funds to be used to initiate
Corridor planning and limited capital improvements. The funding confirmation and
approval notice from Caltrans was received on April 16, 2014;
• Agreement and the execution of a letter of understanding between the Commission and
Caltrans Division of Rail in which both agencies agreed on the performance of certain
modeling efforts. Caltrans staff initiated its contractor's efforts to begin work on the
ridership modeling for the project; and
• Approval of the Commission's Resolution of Support for the Corridor and initiation of
outreach to get project letters of support. There are now over 18 cities and
organizations who have submitted letters with more to. come.
Next Step -The Service Development Plan
The true success of this effort will be to develop comprehensive and convincing planning
documents that will allow the Corridor to compete for limited state and federal rail funds. To
move in this direction, the Commission will need to construct a SDP for the Corridor meets the
following requirements:
• Clearly demonstrate the purpose of and need for the project;
Agenda Item 7
2
" A n a l y z e a l t e r n a t i v e s f o r t h e p r o p o s e d p a s s e n g e r r a i l s e r v i c e ;
" I d e n t i f y t h e a l t e r n a t i v e t h a t b e s t m e e t s t h e p u r p o s e a n d n e e d ;
" I d e n t i f y t h e d i s c r e t e c a p i t a l p r o j e c t s r e q u i r e d t o s u p p o r t t h e s e r v i c e ; a n d
" D e m o n s t r a t e t h e o p e r a t i o n a l a n d f i n a n c i a l f e a s i b i l i t y o f t h e p r o j e c t .
T h e S D P p r o c e s s w a s d e v e l o p e d b y t h e F e d e r a l R a i l r o a d A d m i n i s t r a t i o n { F R A ) , a n d t h e
r u l e m a k i n g a n d g u i d a n c e f o r i t a r e c o n t a i n e d i n t h e F e d e r a l R e g i s t e r . B o t h C a l t r a n s a n d F R A
h a v e b e e n w o r k i n g t o e i t h e r d e v e l o p o r a p p r o v e S D P s f o r v a r i o u s c o r r i d o r s a c r o s s t h e s t a t e a n d
c o u n t r y ; t h e r e f o r e , i t w a s c l e a r a r e q u e s t f o r p r o p o s a l ( R F P ) w i t h a v e r y s p e c i f i c s c o p e o f w o r k
w o u l d n e e d t o b e d e v e l o p e d i n o r d e r t o p r o c u r e a c o n s u l t a n t w i t h t h e a p p r o p r i a t e l e v e l o f
e x p e r i e n c e .
S t a f f m e t w i t h b o t h C a l t r a n s D i v i s i o n o f R a i l a n d t h e F R A t o d e t e r m i n e t h e p r o p e r m i x o f t h e
r e q u i r e d e l e m e n t s f o r a s c o p e o f w o r k . B o t h a g e n c i e s w e r e s u p p o r t i v e a n d o f f e r e d s o m e v e r y
h e l p f u l s u g g e s t i o n s o n h o w t h e C o m m i s s i o n c o u l d b e s t c o n d u c t t h i s p l a n n i n g e f f o r t .
T o m e e t t h e n e e d s o f t h e p r o j e c t , t h e s c o p e h a s b e e n d e v e l o p e d w i t h m u l t i p l e p h a s e s a n d t a s k s
t h a t a l l o w f o r c l e a r d e c i s i o n p o i n t s a n d o p p o r t u n i t i e s f o r s t a f f t o e n g a g e t h e C o m m i s s i o n f o r
t h e s e d e c i s i o n s . P h a s e 1 i n c l u d e s t w o r e q u i r e d t a s k s . F o r T a s k 1 , t h e c o n s u l t a n t w i l l n e e d t o
d e v e l o p t h e d e t a i l e d o v e r a l l p r o j e c t w o r k p l a n , p r o j e c t a p p r o a c h , a n d p r o j e c t o u t r e a c h p l a n .
T a s k 2 w i l l r e q u i r e t h e c o n s u l t a n t t o d e v e l o p t h e d e t a i l e d p r e l i m i n a r y s e r v i c e p l a n a n d
a l t e r n a t i v e s a n a l y s i s . T h i s t a s k i n c l u d e s d e v e l o p m e n t o f t h e c o m p r e h e n s i v e r i d e r s h i p a n d c o s t
e s t i m a t e s t h a t w i l l p r o v i d e t h e l e v e l o f d e t a i l n e e d e d t o m a k e a r e s p o n s i b l e p l a n n i n g d e c i s i o n
o n t h e f i n a n c i a l v i a b i l i t y o f t h e p r o p o s e d s e r v i c e .
T h e r e s u l t s o f P h a s e 1 w i l l b e b r o u g h t b a c k t o t h e C o m m i s s i o n f o r r e v i e w a n d a d e t e r m i n a t i o n
o f t h e p r o j e c t '