The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My Public Portal About11 November 14, 2011 Technical Advisory CommitteePLEASE NOTE DATE CHANGE TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE TIME: DATE: LOCATION: MEETING AGENDA * 10:00 a.m. November 14,2011 Beaumont City Hall Conference Room #2 550 East Sixth Street Beaumont, CA 92223 *By request, agenda and minutes may be available in alternative format; i.e. large print, tape. Don Allison, City of Menifee Dave Barakian, City of Palm Springs Tom Boyd, City of Riverside Duane Burk, City of Banning Greg Butler, City of Temecula Bo Chen, City of Palm Desert Tim D'Zmura, City of Wildomar Grant Eklund, City of Indio Kip Field, City of Corona Joe Forgiarini, SunLine Transit Agency Paul Goble, City ofIndian Wells City of Hemet Bruce Harry, City of Rancho Mirage Jonathan Hoy, City of Coachella Tim Jonasson, City of La Quinta -Chair Savat Khamphou, Caltrans District 8 COMMITTEE MEMBERS Habib Motlagh, Cities of Canyon Lake, Perris and San Jacinto Diane Nguyen, City of Eastvale Juan Perez, County of Riverside Kishen Prathivadi, City of Beaumont Jim Rodkey, City of Blythe Ken Seumalo, City of Lake Elsinore Michael Shoberg, CV AG Bill Simons, City of Cathedral City Riverside Transit Agency Ruthanne Taylor-Berger, WRCOG Patrick Thomas, City of Murrieta -Vice Chair Bill Thompson, City of Norco Chris Vogt, City of Moreno Valley Tim Wassil, City of Desert Hot Springs Carlos Zamano, City of Calimesa Commission Staff Anne Mayer, Executive Director Shirley Medina, Programming and Planning Manager PLEASE NOTE DATE CHANGE RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA * *Actions may be. taken on any item listed on the agenda. TIME: 10:00 a.m. DATE: November 14,2011 LOCATION: Bea1UIlont City Hall Conference Room #2 550 East Sixth Street Bea1UIlont, CA 92223 In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act and government Code Section 54954.2, ifyou need special assistance to participate in a Committee meeting, please contact Riverside County Transportation Commission at (951) 787-7141. Notification ofat 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. Self-Introductions 3. Approval of September 19, 2011 Minutes 4. Public Comments (This is for comments on items not listed on agenda. Comments relating to an item on the agenda will be taken when the item is before the Committee.) 5. 2011 Congestion Management Program Update (Attachment) 6. 2012 State Transportation Improvement Program (Attachment) 7. State Local Partnership Program, Competitive and Formula Programs (Attachment) 8. RTPIFTIP Update (Attachment) 2012 RTP Update FTIP Amendment Status 9. Transportation Control Measure Implementation Reporting (Attachment) 10. FFY 2011/12 OA Delivery Plan (Attachment) Technical Advisory Committee Meeting November 14. 2011 Page 2 11. Caltrans Local Assistance Report (Verbal Presentation) PSRlPDS Guidelines 12. November Commission Meeting Highlights (Verbal Presentation) 13. Other Business Discussion re 2012 TAC meeting schedule 14. Adjournment (The next meeting will be decided at this meeting (due to the January 16 holiday). It will be in Riverside. \ ·~ " • AGENCY BANNING BEAUMONT BLYTHE CVAG CALIMESA CAL TRANS TECHNICAL AD.RY COMMITTEE November 14, 2011 TAC MEMBER I ALTERNATE PRINT NAME DUANE BURK Kahono Oei Director of Public Works 1< 4-Ho ,J o .. ,0 (?l' • SIGNATURE KISHEN PRATHIVADI [Kevin Hughes I 1.(..._,,"'" i-{'I..{ L....,, I 72!_ ~ 7~--~ Assistant Director of Public Works 0 ----~?-· · ·-----··--·----------+-----------JIM RODKEY Kevin Nelson Public Works Director I Assistant Public Works Director _) 1r1/I Koo(k::_y --h 11 I Transportation Program Manager CARLOS ZAMANO 7 City Engineer ,. SAVAT KHAMPHOU ' Allyn Waggle Deputy Director Bob French Public Works Director Bill Mosby ~~ s~i.er1 i ~ vlt\ (l./-t111t1flloll I E-~ ·City Engineer CATHEDRAL CITY IBILL SIMONS Interim City Engineer ----+ChrisSunde J f{Af5i(; I ~ . . ------1B·11 5'r 1't-\P"-~ ~ COACHELLA CORONA DESERT HOT SPRINGS JONATHAN HOY I City Engineer KIP FIELD Acting Public Works Director TIM WASSIL Sr. Project Manager I Maritza Martinez I Interim Public Works Director Robert Morin (:1 Principal Civil Engine~\!" ' J. / • ) ~ ... ~-/ /1 ~ w 1(..,$5,.L-~ . . . <-r______/ Daniel Porras 10/31/2011 " " EASTVALE HEMET INDIAN WELLS INDIO JURUPA VALLEY LA QUINTA LAKE ELSINORE MENIFEE MORENO VALLEY MURRIETA NORCO PALM DESERT TECHNICAL ADaRv COMMITTEE November 14, 2011 " I DIANE NGUYEN Michael Kashiwagi I +--Transportation Program manager City Engineer I I Victor Monz I Principal Engineer PAUL GOBLE Bondie Baker Public Works Director Assistant Engineer II 7-~ GRANT EKLUND ITom Rafferty 0W? /2a } Public Works Director/City Engineer Principal Civil Engineer I I TIMOTHY JONASSON Nick Nickerson Public Works Director/City Engineer KEN SEUMALO City Engineer I I I DON ALLISON Matt Simonetti Public Works Director/ a City Engineer CHRIS VOGT Prem Kumar Public Works Director/City Engineer Deputy Public Works Director/Assistant City Engineer /"\ PATRICK THOMAS Bob Moehling ~\(\\~~ 1(~~ Director of Public Works/ Engineering Manager City Engineer BILL THOMPSON Lori Askew Director of Public Works Sr. Engineer I �--� ---BO CHEN Mark Diercks �v~ City Engineer Transportation Engineer iJ~ Chlti-l i : I --10/31/2011 " PALM SPRINGS PVVTA PERRIS RTA RANCHO MIRAGE RIVERSIDE RIVERSIDE COUNTY SAN JACINTO SUNLINE TEMECULA WILDOMAR WR COG DAVE BARAKIAN Director of Public Works/ City Engineer HABIB MOTLAGH City Engineer fVtOPI I !if" SY Director of Planning b <1201<.dorJ Ro ;,v.sorJ TECHNICAL AD"9:>RY COMMITTEE November 14, 2011 I Marcus Fuller ~s~~ Chris Sunde /{Ain6 -BRUCE HARRY Randy Viegas i�Lcly //..() --> ~yl/~-~ Director of Public Works Project Manager �~� TOM BOYD Siobhan Foster g~d Deputy Public Works Director/ /;rm City Engineer v I JUAN PEREZ Patty Romo r------~~v ~ < -------; V..:.:: Director of Transportation Deputy Director of Transportation 11~e,1� \ ""-<> � I �, -�_'._ � -i HABIB MOTLAGH Chris Sunde City Engineer JOE FORGIARINI Director of Transit Planning GREG BUTLER Amer Attar h~ Director of Public Works Principal Engineer lj,14;;~ ~l[.f.:,fL-TIM D'ZMURA Diane Nguyen / Director of Public Works and ; Transportation Program Manager City Engineer + ~-----RUTHANNE TAYLOR-BERGER I Deputy Executive Director I " -----~----10/31/2011 -· TECHNICAL AD.RY COMMITTEE November 14, 2011 AGENCY I NAME TELEPHONE OR E-MAIL • u-r/ c L:7(~, I A --!/ \ >-, -, / !---~-~ ~, _ ~6or~ -~ I ~vt~v\'1\\'J'~~--~------------1 f{ () h ///) S (UV iJ ~--~---L -.. . -~-. ---+------------------r ---10/31/2011 MINUTES TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES Monday, September 19,2011 1. CALL TO ORDER The meeting of the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) Technical Advisory Committee (T AC) was called to order at 10:00 a.m. at Caltrans District 8, 464 W. Fourth Street, 8th Floor, Room 805, San Bernardino, CA 92401. 2. SELF-INTRODUCTIONS Members Present: Dave Barakian, City of Palm Springs Tom Boyd, City of Riverside Greg Butler, City of Temecula Bo Chen, City of Palm Desert Kip Field, City of Corona Bruce Harry, City of Rancho Mirage Jonathan Hoy, City of Coachella Kevin Hughes, City of Beaumont Tim Jonasson, City of La Quinta Savat Khamphou, Cal trans Prem Kumar, City of Moreno Valley Victor Monz, City of Hemet William Mosby, Caltrans Diane Nguyen, City of Eastvale Kahono Oei, City of Banning Tom Rafferty, City of Indio Patty Romo, County of Riverside Bill Simons, City of Cathedral City Chris Sunde, Cities of Canyon Lake, Perris, and San Jacinto Patrick Thomas, City of Murrieta Others Present: Grace Alvarez, RCTC R. A. Barney Barnett, Highgrove Cathy Bechtel, RCTC Gail Carlson, County of Riverside Ernie Figueroa, Parsons Brian Frazer, Caltrans Headquarters Johnny Ghazal, City of Calimesa Shirley Gooding, RCTC Carol Green, Caltrans Eric Lewis, City of Moreno Valley Sylvester Lin, Caltrans Lorelle Luna, Riverside Transit Agency Technical Advisory Committee Meeting September 19,2011 Page 2 Kiet V. Ly, Caltrans Shirley Medina, RCTC Diane Morales, Caltrans Steven Nguyen, Caltrans John Pagano, Caltrans Evita Premdas, Caltrans Harish Rastogi, Caltrans Alex Serena, WRCOG Danette Silva, Caltrans Deepak Solanski, SANBAG Alberto Verge I de Dios, Caltrans Sean Yeung, Caltrans Andrea Zureick, RCTC 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Dave Barakian, City of Palm Springs, requested that the July 28, 2011 minutes be revised to reflect the correct title in item 14 from "Associated Public Works Association" to "American Public Works Association." Following that change, the minutes were approved as submitted. 4. PUBLIC COMMENTS R. A. Barney Barnett, Highgrove Municipal Advisory Committee, stated that 17.22 acres of RCTC-owned property that connects the two railroads to the Perris Valley Line could also be used to connect the BNSF to the trains between Riverside and Perris in the future. It could also be used for regional benefit on the west side of the BNSF tracks. He further stated that the property is being looked at for regional benefit by SCAG, which is part of the Draft 2012 Regional Transportation Plan, schedule for release in April 2012. He is trying to inform everyone that this location is a narrow area needed to connect the two railroads with one track, but the extra acreage could be used as a parking lot for the region, benefiting the population between Riverside and San Bernardino Counties. There are trains going by this location seven days a week. He talked to Metrolink and SANBAG, to assemblymen, senators, and other agencies. He provided the TAC with a compact disk showing the location, and a business card. 5. MOE BASE YEAR APPROVALS AT SEPTEMBER COMMISSION MEETING Shirley Medina, RCTC, said that RCTC staff has been working on establishing the 2009 Maintenance of Effort base year levels for each city. At its July 2011 and September 2011 Commission meetings, the Commission approved 2009 MOE base years for 21 of the 22 eligible cities. The only one left is Hemet. The recommendation to approve Hemet's will be presented at the October 2011 Commission meeting. Technical Advisory Committee Meeting September 19, 2011 Page 3 6. 2012 STIP DEVELOPMENT o Intra-county Formula o Status of Current TE Projects o State Highway Unruet Needs Report Ms. Medina provided a staff report and status of current Transportation Enhancement projects. She said there is $93.4 million as Riverside County's programming capacity target for new programming, most of which will be in t)1e latter years of the STIP. Project programming will be developed and submitted to the California Transportation Commission by December 15. Recommendations for the RCTC Commission will be presented at the November meeting. She pointed out the 2012 STIP Intra-Formula for new program capacity that was approved several years ago. Western County funding is at $69 million, Coachella Valley is at $21.6 million. Palo Verde Valley's STIP funds will be exchanged since most of their projects are going to be in the local arterial system, which does not get priority at the state level with CTC. Transportation Enhancements are federal funds and they have been incorporated into the STIP. RCTC had a call for projects in 2005 and the TE projects have been completed or are under construction. There are four projects remaining. It is not known if there will be a transportation enhancement program as part of the federal re-authorization. Many of the transportation programs will be consolidated. Shirley Medina pointed out that the unmet needs report attached to her staff report is a result of a survey RCTC sent requesting projects that might be potential candidate projects for future STIP funding. Diane Morales, Caltrans, informed the TAC that the CTC requires the unmet needs report be reported each STIP cycle. To meet that requirement, Caltrans requested an inventory of highway needs that could be delivered by fiscal year 2020 if funds are available. Caltrans met the August 25 deadline to headquarters. Headquarters is consolidating a statewide list. RCTC identified $1.7 billion in unfunded project costs, most of which includes interchange, truck climbing lanes, and transportation management systems projects. She said there is a highway needs report due to the CTC in September followed by the regions' RTIP submittals and Caltrans ITIP December 15. A consolidated list should be available by next month. 7. LOCAL ASSISTANCE REPORT Savat Khamphou, Caltrans, introduced Ray Wolfe, Caltrans District 8 Director. Mr. Wolfe welcomed the TAC members and asked for cooperation with the obligation submittals earlier in the year to make sure District 8 secures the funding for the projects and obligates the maximum obligation authority. Mr. Wolfe added that the Bay Area (District 4) obligates the maximum obligation authority on an annual basis due to the strategy used of submitting their obligations earlier in the year. Technical Advisory Committee Meeting September 19,2011 Page 4 Mr. Khamphou introduced Brian Frazer, Design Reviewer, Caltrans Headquarters, who explained ADA/right of way guidelines and their effects on the agencies from Caltrans compliance standpoint. He explained that federal regulations apply to new construction and alterations. He said that if Caltrans touches a project that is non-ADA compliant, it must be brought to standards. If it is not fixed at that time, it should be scoped out and put on the transition plan. Savat Khamphou said that ADA is a federal mandate in which any project using federal funds has to comply. He also explained that Caltrans has several templates as well as other information that any agency may be able to follow. Mr. Frazer and Mr. Khamphou responded to various questions. Savat Khamphou provided a Caltrans District 8 database communication demonstration and explained its usefulness. Bill Mosby, Caltrans, added that if there is a project timeline deadline Caltrans would telephone local agencies rather than relying on the database for notification. 8. REVIEW OF FISCAL YEAR 2011/12 OBLIGATION PLAN Andrea Zureick, RCTC, reminded the TAC that each year Caltrans requires the preparation of an obligation plan showing the projects for every federal program to be obligated within that fiscal year and RCTC coordinates with the local agencies for STP and CMAQ projects. She requested that the agencies review the draft obligation plan to make sure all projects are still on the schedule that was previously reported. She requested that any changes to the schedules provided can be made in the October Project Milestone Reports that will be due to RCTC October 14. 9. FTIP UPDATE AND UPCOMING 2013 FTIP DEVELOPMENT Ms. Zureick reported that SCAG continues to process amendments monthly. An administrative amendment is due to SCAG on October 4 with the approval the beginning of November. Another formal amendment will be in November and another administrative amendment in December. Last week RCTC submitted the 2012 RTP consistency amendment to make changes to FTIP projects that are proposed through the 2012 RTP update, which would include modeling changes and completion year changes. Amendment 16 would be approved about June 2012. She further reported that RCTC will soon send out information about the 2013 FTIP update, which is another opportunity for the agencies to look at projects that are currently programmed in the FTIP and make any programming changes. It is due to SCAG in January and RCTC expects to send information within the next month. Technical Advisory Corrunittee Meeting September 19,2011 PageS 10. SEPTEMBER COMMISSION MEETING HIGHLIGHTS Shirley Medina reported that one of the two discussion items was local transportation planning funds allocated to WRCOG and CV AG on an annual basis. The annual allocation was approved. There was also discussion on the federal and state legislation. Cathy Bechtel reported that there were updates on the jobs bill as well as a number of items on consent calendar, e.g., that RCTC is moving forward with the TIFIAITIGER application for the SR-91 Corridor Improvement Project that will be submitted by the end of October. 11. OTHER BUSINESS Ms. Medina said Caltrans has had a statewide effort on the project initiation document. There will be updated guidelines released late September/early October to condense that process to the a pdf so that the planning documents are a little lower to program the projects. 12. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business for consideration by the Technical Advisory Committee, the meeting adjourned at approximately 11 :45 a.m. Respectfully submitted, ~/~~~ Shirley Medina Programming and Planning Manager AGENDA · ITEM 5 II RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: November 14, 2011 TO: Technical Advisory Committee FROM: . Shirley Medina, Programmin~ and Planning Manager SUBJECT: I Draft 2011 Congestion Management Plan Update STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the TAC to review and comment on the Draft 2011 Congestion Management Program (CMP) Update. BACKGROUND INFORM A TlON: The Congestion Management Plan is required to be updated every two years. This year's update primarily consisted of reviewing the Level of Service (LOS) on the CMP system. Deficiencies have been identified and upcoming transportation projects should mitigate the deficiencies. Continued monitoring of these deficiencies as well as level of service liE" facilities will continue to ensure that there are no LOS !IF" conditions. The 2011 CMP document is included as a separate attachment in the agenda email.. A presentation by the CMP consultant, VRPA Technologies, will be made at the TAC meeting. A PowerPoint presentation of the 2011 CMP update is also included in the agenda email. AGENDA ITEM 6 I RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: I November 9, 2011 TO: • Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: ! Shirley Medina, Programming and Planning Manager THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Executive Director SUBJECT: 2012 State Transportation Improvement Program Recommendations I STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Approve 2012 State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) programming for Western Riverside County (Western County) including the use of Palo Verde Valley STIP funds; 2) Approve swapping Palo Verde Valley STIP funds with 2009 Measure A Western County highway funds and the development of a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the city of Blythe (Blythe) to reflect the fund swap; 3) Submit Western County projects and Coachella Valley Association of Governments (CVAG) project recommendations to the California Transportation Commission (CTC) by the December 15,2011 deadline; 4} Approve programming 2012 STIP Western County new capacity funding to highway projects; and 5) Approve converting current Transportation Enhancement (TE) projects from the 2005 Call for projects to federal Surface Transportation Program (STP) funds to streamline delivery. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The STIP is a five-year program of projects that is updated every two years and outlines the commitment of transportation funds for improving transportation projects including highways, operations for rail, mass transportation, and local roads. Caltrans is required to prepare a STIP fund estimate to forecast the total federal and state resources available for transportation over the next STIP period. The 2012 STIP covers FYs 2012113 -2016/17. STIP funds are derived from the State Highway Account, Federal Trust Fund, and Transportation Facilities Account (Proposition 1 B). The 2012 STIP fund estimate adds two new years for programming -FYs 2015/16 2016/17. The statewide total of new programming capacity is approximately $1.4 billion. Per the formula outlined in SB 45, Riverside County's new programming capacity is approximately $91 million. The STIP fund estimate also identifies a negative balance in the first year for FY 2012/13 resulting in over $240 million that will need to be reprogrammed to future years with more capacity available in the last two years of the STIP period. STIP Funding Over Last 10 Years The ability to program new capacity over the past 10 years has been extremely limited. The last decade has been plagued with one state budget crisis after another. The following chart shows the amount of Riverside County's new programming capacity compared to past STIP cycles. STIP Cycle Amount 2000 $ 49,378,000 2002 $ 34,366,000 2004 $ 2,340,000 2006 (Prop 1 B) $ 167,000,000 2008 $0 2010 $ (18,800,000) 2012 $ 90,928,000 STIP Intra-County Formula As discussed at its October 12 Commission meeting, there is a STIP intra-county MOU among the Commission, CVAG, and Western Riverside Council of Governments (WRCOG) that outlines how STIP funds are to be allocated to the three geographical areas identified in Measure A (Western County, Coachella VaHey, and Palo Verde Valley). To be consistent with Measure A, the STIP intra-county formula is based on taxable sales. The geographic area percentages of taxable sales are developed and adjusted each even year so that the percentages among the geographical areas are current. Therefore, after taking two percent off the top for planning, programming, and monitoring (PPM) activities, the STIP funds are allocated as follows: 2012 SliP Total Riverside County Share $ 90,928,000 2% PPM $1,818,560 Total New Project Programming $ 89,109,440 Western County 75.59% $ 67,357,826 Coachella Valley 23.69% $ 21,110,026 Palo Verde Valley 0.72% $ 641,588 Note -Total Riverside County share was adjusted from the October Commission agenda item to reflect the final STIP fund estimate adopted by the CTC. The CommiSSion recommends STIP projects for Western County. Coachella Valley and Palo Verde Valley STIP projects will be recommended by CVAG and Blythe, respectively. CVAG is currently developing its formal submittal for 2012 STIP programming and has provided the attached letter indicating its top priority project for STIP funds is the Interstate 10 Jefferson Street interchange project. Blythe has expressed its interest to enter into a MOU with the Commission to swap its 2012 STIP share with Measure A highway funds. A swap with Blythe was previously done for the 2006 STIP augmentation. as it became apparent that the CTC's allocation plan continued to prioritize projects on the state highway system and local arterial projects continued to be delayed year after year. The MOU with the city of Blythe will outline the projects that will be funded, and Blythe will amend its Measure A Local Streets and Roads Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) to include these projects. The swap will increase Western County STIP allocation to $67,999,414. The MOU with Blythe will be prepared once the 2012 STIP is adopted in March 2012 and returned to the Commission for approval. Western County STIP Programming Recommendation The Commission's top priority projects for the $67,999,414 of new STIP programming recommendations are as follows: 1) 1-215 Central widening from Scott Road to Nuevo Road $ 49.183,414 2) 1-15 French Valley interchange $ 18,816,000 The 1-215 Central widening project was programmed in prior STIP cycles for pre-construction and construction funding. Construction is slated to begin in October 2012 and is estimated at $120 million. Federal, state, and Measure A funds will also be needed to complete funding for the 1-215 widening project. The $18.8 million proposed for the 1-15 French Valley interchange replaces STIP funds that were reduced in the 2010 STIP. The reduction in funds was the result of declining state revenues, and, as part of the 2010 STIP development, projects throughout the state were shifted to later years. Federal TE funds are also included in the STIP fund estimate as part of the total available for programming. Regions have the choice to program TE funds, up to a specified target amount, or program all of its programming capacity on highway projects. Commission staff strongly recommends programming all STIP Western County funds on highway projects. The reason for this recommendation is because TE funds are extremely difficult to deliver due to the following: • Strict eligibility requirements; • CTC allocation process; • Federal Highway Administration's request for authorization process; and • SB 268 Conservation Corp participation requirement. In addition, it is uncertain what will happen to TE funds once federal authorization is approved. The Commission's lobbyists have indicated that it is likely that certain transportation funding programs will be consolidated and/or eliminated in the next transportation act. Therefore, the TE program may not exist in its current form, and staff recommends that it is more prudent to spend transportation dollars as quickly as possible on highway projects that are ready for construction and will create as many jobs as possible rather than program funds that may cease in the near future. Further, staff recommends unobligated TE projects from the 2005 call for projects that were approved by the Commission in January 2006 be converted to STP funds to streamline the delivery process. The only exception for programming TE funds is for the B Canyon wildlife crossing project that was approved for TE funds by the Commission at its September 2011 meeting. The reason for this exception is that Caltrans will be the lead agency, and the majority of project funds for B Canyon wildlife croSSing project are state TE funds. The decision to program TE projects with Coachella Valley STIP funds is at the discretion of CVAG. This recommendation not to program TE projects in the 2012 STIP only applies to Western County STIP funds. The attached table represents the 2012 STIP project programming by funding amount, phase, and fiscal year. In addition, the status of 2010 STIP projects is also included. 2012 STIP Submittal The 2012 STIP submittals are due to the CTC on December 15, 2011. The CTC is scheduled to adopt the 2012 STIP in March 2012. Until then, staff will continue to work with CTC staff to maintain the Commission's 2012 STIP programming recommendations to the extent possible. The financial impact of this item only relates to the swapping of Palo Valley Verde STIP allocation with Measure A funds. As previously stated, a MOU with Blythe will require it to amend its current Five-Year CIP in order to receive Measure A funds in the amount of Palo Verde Valley's 2012 STIP allocation. As previously stated, the MOU with Blythe will be prepared once the 2012 STIP is adopted in March 2012, and staff will present the item for approval of the MOU following the STIP adoption. Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: TNiA I Year: I FY 2012/13+ Amount: I $641,588 Source of Funds: 12009 Measure A Western County Highway funds Budget Adjustment: I N/A GLlProject Accounting No.: 003994 81 xxx 262 31 81xxx Fiscal Procedures Approved: ~~ I Date: I 10/18/11 Attachments: 1) CVAG's 2012 STIP Priority for the Coachella Valley Letter Dated October 13, 2011 2) Riverside County 2012 STIP Proposed Programming -- October 13, 2011 Anne Mayer, Executive Director Riverside County Transportation Commission 4080 Lemon Street, 3rd Floor Riverside, CA 92502 Re: 2012 STIP Priority for the Coachella Valley Jefferson Street Interchange ~~\{t::. ~ As you know t in accordance with Measure At agreements between CVAG and RCTe and historic practice t CVAG establishes its transportation project priorities by regularly updating its Transportation Project Prioritization Study (TPPS). Our most recent TPPS was approved by the CVAG Executive Committee in Decembert 2010. CVAG has historically targeted the highest ranking projects in the TPPS for funding through the STIP or other sources of funding. This prioritization and funding system was confirmed by action of the Executive Committee on September 26, 2011. The highest ranked project in the 2010 TPPS is Jefferson Street Interchange. CVAG is working with the County of Riverside, City of Indiot and Caltrans to finalize the environmental work and design and seek Federal and State approval of this project. Please incorporate the Jefferson Street Interchange into RCTe's countywide submittal to the California Transportation Commission utilizing CVAG's allocation of 2012 highway STIP funds. Thank you t Tom Kirk Executive Director, CVAG cc: Shirley Medina, RCTC '''',----------------------------------------, CITY m BLYTHE' CITV O~ CATHWRAL CiTY CITV O~ COACI-l£LLA . CITV O~ D£S£RT ~OT SPRINGS' CITV OF INDIAN WFLLS CITY OF INDIO' C'TY O~ LA QUINTA' CITV OF PALM D!;SEllT' ClTV OF P-'LM SPRINGS' CITV OF R.\NC~O N'RAGE' COUNTY O~ R,VERS,DE AGUA CAUtNT£ BAND or CAHUILLA INDIANS' CAB-,ZON BAND 01' N'SSION INDIANS Riverside County 2012 STIP Proposed Programming Agencv Rte Project Phase 2012 STIP Period (ODD's) S-year STIP Total CommentFY 12/13 fV 13/14 FY 14/15 FY 15/16 FY 16/17 RCTC 215 Scott Rd to Nuevo, add MF lanes Cons ~ $61,403 $51,403 Carryover -I ncreasing funds Caltrans/Temecula 15 French Valley Interchange Cons ~ $31.545 $31,545 Carryover -Increasing funds I RCTC 91 Corridor Improvement Project/HOT Ins Cons Support $2,000 $2.,000 Carryover CVAG/County/lndio 10 1-10 Jefferson Interchange Improvement Cons $21,110 $21,110 New Hwy project Caltrans "8" Canyon Wildlife Crossing -TE Project Cons ~ $3,100 $3,100 Carryover TE reserve New TE project RCTC/CVAG Planning, Programming, and Monitoring $WQ $664 $WQ $664 %QQ $664 $664 $663 $3,319 Carryover -Increasing funds Tot312012 STIP Programming $62.061 $21,114 $32,209 $664 $3,163 $122,477 2010 STIP Project Extensions: RCTC Perris Valley line, commuter rail Riverside to PerriS 2010 STIP Allocated Projects 2010 STIll' Period (OOO's) Agency Rte Project Phase FY 10/11 FY 11/12 FY 12/13 FY 13/14 FY 14/15 Riverside County 10 1·10 Date Palm Drive Interchange Cons $14,400 Murrieta 15 Calif Oaks/Kalmia Inerchange Cons $21,990 RCTC 215 215 Widening, Scott to MHS (CMIA) Cons $11,760 i RCTC/SANBAG 215 Bi-County HOV In Gap Closure RW/eon $2,185 $24,881 RCTe Planning, Programming, and Monitoring $500 $50~ i-_............._.. _._._---- Total 2010 STIll' Allocations $50,835 $25,381 Transportation Enhancements Projects Converted to STP funds: Agency Rte Project Phase Year Amount Corona Magnolia/EI Camino Ave Beautification Cons FY 11/12 $614: Palm Desert 10 Monterey (ntarcha nge Cons FY 11/12 $378! RCTC PVl • Greenway Corridor Cons FY 12/13 $1,113 Beaumont San Timoteo CYn Bike & Ped. Facilities Cons FY 11/12 $1.416 AGENDA ITEM 7 II RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: November 14,2011 TO: Technical Advisory Committee FROM: Shirley Medina, Programming and Planning Manager SUBJECT: State-Local Partnership Program STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Information item. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The California Transportation Commission (CTC) released its recommendations for the Fiscal Year 2011-12 State-Local Partnership Program (SLPP) Competitive Program. One project was approved in Riverside County, which is the city of Moreno Valley's SR-60/Nason Street Overcrossing. The final round for the SLPP Competitive Program will be in FY 2012-13 and applications will be due to the CTC by August 15' 2011. The Competitive Program allows applicants to compete for up to $1 million for construction funds with a 50% matching requirement. The SLPP Formula program is reserved for half-cent sales tax agencies. Funds have been reserved by RCTC to complete funding for the Perris Valley Line. AGENDA ITEM 8 I RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORT A TION COMMISSION I DATE: November 14, 2011 TO: Technical Advisory Committee _ .... FROM: Grace Alvarez, Staff Analyst Andrea Zureick, Senior Staff Analyst SUBJECT: 2011 Federal Transportation Improvement Program (FTIP) Update 2010/2011 through 2015/2016 and 2013 FTIP Update STAFF RECOMMENDA TION: Receive and file. BACKGROUND INFORMA TlON: 2011 FTIP As of November 8, 2011, the eighteen amendments have been processed through the 2011 FTIP; RCTC has participated in fifteen of the eighteen amendments (Amendment No's 5, 13, and 14 did not include RCTC projects). The most recent amendment was formal amendment No. 18, submitted to SCAG on November 8. Amendment No's 1-15, and 17 have been approved by FHWAIFTA. The 2012 RTP Consistency Amendment (Amendment No. 16) will be approved in June 2012, concurrently with the 2012 RTP approval. Approval of the recently submitted Amendment No. 18 is anticipated by end of December. For a detailed listing of the amendment submittals, please refer to the attached 2011 FTIP amendment log that includes amendment submittals and approval dates, as well as a detailed listing of the projects included in the latest amendments, 17 and 18. The next scheduled amendment is Administrative Modification No. 19 due to SCAG on December 6; the anticipated approval date is late December 2011. As discussed at the September TAC meeting, the 2013 FTIP update is due to SCAG on January 4, 2012. After the Commissions submit their FTIPs to SCAG for review, SCAG staff will focus on the 2013 FTIP analysis. SCAG is scheduling alternating formal amendments and administrative modifications every other month until June 2012. Formal Amendment/Administrative Modifications will only be allowed on an emergency basis. RCTC will review project amendment requests and determine if the project changes are needed for obligation purposes in FFY 11/12 or environmental approval before notifying SCAG of our intent to submit projects for amendments. 2013 FTIP Update On/around October 20th , you were notified via email of the 2013 FTIP Update schedule. You were requested to review your current FTIP projects to update them accordingly for inclusion in the 2013 FTIP, as well as given the opportunity to add new projects and/or delete existing projects. The project updates are due to RCTC on November 16th and new project submittals on November 23rd , but we will be happy to receive early submittals to start our own analysis and database entry. Attachment: 2011 FTIP Amendment Log 2013 FTIP Development Schedule 2011 Federal Transportation Improvement Program -Amendment Submittals & Approval Dates 2011 FTIP Purpose Due to RCTC Due to SCAG Approved by SCAG Approved by CT/FHWA Final 12/14/2010 Amendment 1 Formal Amendment - 61 projects submitted 10/25/2010 11/02/2010 12/812008 12/30/2010 Amendment 2 Administrative Modification -28 projects submitted 11/22/2010 12/1/2010 12/21/2010 12/21/2010 Amendment 3 Formal Amendment - 19 projects submitted 01/03/2011 01/1112011 2117/2011 04/04/2011 Amendment 4 Administrative Modification - 1 project submitted 112412011 2/112011 2/15/2011 2/18/2011 Amendment 5 Did not include RCTC projects Amendment 6 Formal Amendment - 14 projects submitted 02/28/2011 03/08/2011 04/15/2011 05/12/2011 Amendment 7 Administrative Modification - 7 projects submitted 04/04/2011 04/12/2011 04/29/2011 510412011 Amendment 8 Formal Amend ment 1 9 projects submitted 04/25/2011 05/03/2011 611012011 7/1112011 Amendment 9 Administrative . Modification -19 projects submitted 05/31/2011 05/17/2011 06/07/2011 06/10/2011 Amendment 10 Formal Amendment - 3 projects submitted 6/6/2011 6/14/2011 6/30/2011 08/08/2011 Amendment 11 Administrative Modification 52 projects submitted 612712011 07/12/2011 --- 07/27/2011 07/28/2011 2011 Federal Transportation Improvement Program -Amendment Submittals & Approval Dates 2011 FTIP Purpose Due to RCTC Due to SCAG Approved by Approved by SCAG CT/FHWA Amendment 12 Formal Amendment -08/22/2011 09/06/2011 10/21/2011 11/09/2011 60 projects submitted ~~~-- Amendment 13 Did not include RCTC projects Amendment 14 Did not include RCTC projects (U.S. DOT Discretionary Funding -Ray LaHood Grants) -------- Amendment 1 5 Administrative 09/01/2011 09/07/2011 9112/2011 9/13/2011 Modification - 3 projects submitted Amendment 16 Formal Amendment -08/08/2011 09/12/2011 I 2012 RTP/2012 FTIP Consistency Amendment -50 i projects submitted Amendment 17 Administrative 09/26/2011 10/04/2011 10/21/2011 10/25/2011 Modification -38 projects submitted Amendment 18 Formal Amendment - 7 11/01/2011 11/08/2011 projects submitted --- ----- ·1Iii'tRlv«'si•• County TIGnsportollon Commisslon 2011 FTIP -Administrative Modification No. 17 Approval Date: 10/25/2011 Agency Project 10 Title Change Requested Ramon Rd. Widening· 4 to 6 Ins -Date Reprogramming of construction funding years from FY Cathedral City RIV011212 Palm Dr to Da Vall 2010/2011 to FY 2011/2012 Reprogramming of construction funding year from FY Cathedral City RIV091202 Date Palm Dr. Signal Synchronization 2010/2011 to Fy 2011/2012 I Reprogramming of construction funding years from FY Cities & County RIV52001 Pavement Rehabilitation Lump Sum Listing 2010/2011 to FY 2011/2012 dean Vehicle Acquisition Program Reprogramming of construction funding from FY CVAG (Alternative Fuel Sweepers) RIV090102 2010/2011 to FY 2013/2014 Reprogramming of construction funding years from FY 2013/2014 to FY 2010/2011 based on federal obligation Corona RIV011241 Auto Center Dr. Grade Separation of 9/22/2011. Reprogramming of construction funding year from FY Desert Hot Springs Western Ave-Scenic Dr. Paving RIV071236 2010/2011 to Fy 2011/2012 Reprogramming of construction funding year from FY i Jackson St TS Interconnect & TS Install.Indio RIV091208 2010/2011 to FY 2011/2012. 'Adams St., Miles Ave., & Dune Palms Rd. La Quinta Signal Interconnect RIV091204 Project completion La Quinta Eisenhower Dr Signal Interconnect RIV091206 Project completion .1------- i Minor cost decrease from $778 to $773 to reflect the Monterey Ave., Country Club Dr., Cook St., actual CMAQ obligation of 8/22/2011 (100% CMAQ Palm Desert & Hwy 111 Signal Interconnect RIV071257 funded project) I Minor cost decrease from $693 to $691 to reflect the i actual CMAQ obligation of 8/5/2011 (100% CMAQ Palm Desert RIV071262 Hwy 111 Improvements funded project) - i Gene Autry Tr. Widening from 2 to 6 Ins Reprogramming of supplemental construction funding Palm Springs --- RIV0102~_3__ b700' S/()UPRR bridge to Salvia Rd. from FY 2010/2011 to FY 2011aQ12. i 1 "-::-;·~i·i~-ii~il/,-.,.~~~.... ,.~~ Riversid. (allnty TrGit:SpOtfa1ion Commftisian 2011 fTlP -Administrative Modification No. 17 Approval Date: 10/25/2011 Agency Project 10 Title Change Requested Riverside County RIV071259 Mecca Community Roundabout Reprogramming of construction funding year from FY 2012/2013 to FY 2011/2012 RCTC RIV050301 CETAP Corridor -Riverside to Orange County PA&ED & Pre-Design Work In support of environmental document Studies completed. RCTC RIV62047 SB45 Planning Pr()ject completion. Riverside RIV070703 Iowa Ave Grade Separation Reprogramming of construction funding year from FY 2010/2011 to FY 2011/2012. Riverside RIV090101 Victoria Ave Undergrounding Project Reprogramming of construction funding year from FY 2010/2011 to FY 2011/2012 Riverside RIV061106 Capitalized Preventative Maintenance Project Completion Riverside RIV061107 5 Replacement Alt-Fuel eNG DAR vehicles Project Completion . Riverside RIV070704 capitalized Preventative Maintenance Project Completion Riverside RIV080922 Purchase of Replacement Office & Mise Equipment Project Completion Riverside County RIV060124 1-10/Sunset Ave. GS ~~~~~-~ Modeling details removed from project -project is a non-I capacity exempt project Riverside County 45580 1-10 at Gene Autry Tr/Palm Dr IC Improvements Schedule Delay· Completion Date changed from 51212011 to 5/1/2012 Temecula RIV62031 1-15/SR79 So. IC Improvements Schedule Delay -Completion date changed from 12/31/2011.to 12/31/2012. Riverside County RIV050532 1-15/Schleisman Rd IC Completion Date from 5/812015 to 1/1512017 & reprogramming of construction funding year from FY 2013/2014 to FY 201412015 2 .1IiD RiV'8rsicfe County Tn:ansponctian Cammis::s.icm 2011 FTIP -Administrative Modification No. 17 Approval Date: 10/2512011 Agency Project 10 Title Change Requested Riverside County RIVOl1233 At I-ls/limonite Ave IC Improvements i Schedule Delay -Completion date changed from 2/27/2015 to 9/14/2015 Riverside County RIV990701 SR60/Valley Way IC Improvements Project Completion Riverside County SR 79 Widening from 2 to 4 through lanes 46460 Thompson Rd to Domenigoni Pkwy AC Conversion RCTC RIV071250 IOn SR91/115 Improvements Cost Change and Schedule Delay Riverside On SR91 at Van Buren Blvd IC RIV0084 Improvements Project Completion Caltrans ---- RCTC RIV010212 On SR91 -Adams to 60/215 IC -HOV AC Conversion -CMAC funds obligated in FY 2010/2011 1-215 -Murrieta Hot Springs Rd to Scott Rd: Construct a 3rd mixed flow lane in ea RIV070305 dir Cost Change and Schedule Advance RCTC '1-215 from Scott Rd to Nuevo Rd IC: Construct a mixed flow lane in each RIV070309 direction Schedule Advance Perris Case Road/Ma,tthews Rd. (SR-74) at 1-215 RIV091012 interchange Cost Increase " Perris ---- RIV07127S_ I,~RamonaE><pwy Ie Impro~ements Schedule Delay 3 ·lIiBiit..Riverstde County Transportotion Comlf'\.J'$slon 2011 FTIP -Formal Amendment No. 18 Approval Date: Agency Project 10 Title Change Requested Cities & County RIV031223 Pavement Rehabilitation Lump Sum listing Project completion. Desert Hot Springs RIV0161161 RIV071288 Essential Road Improvements -Ph III - 66th Ave. Grade Separation New project in the 2011 FTIP years.- Reirlstatement of project in the FTIP. -~-- Riverside County Riverside County RlVlll003 Market 5t Bridge Replacement New HBP funded project. Caltrans RIV090902. 1-215 -Blaine St 58 off -ramp to 0.3 miles E/University Ave UC: Extension of S8 Lane # 4 (lane dropt) to 0.3 miles E/O University Ave. Uc. Description change. Caltrans RILS13 Pavement Resurfacing/Rehab for the State Hwy System -Grouped Project Listing Cost increase. RCTC RIV090115 Angel View Children Foundation Computer Hardware Project deletion. , . October 2011 October 24 November 18, 2011 November 16, 2011 November 23, 2011 November December 2011 January 4,2012 January 2012 January -May 4, 2012 March May 4, 2012 June 4-8, 2012 lune 2012 luly 5, 2012 July 2012 September 6, 2012 September 7,2012 December 17,2012 Adoption Schedule for the 2013 Federal Transportation Improvement Program (Schedule subject to change) RCTC distributes existing HIP projects and new FTIP project entry forms for agency use in preparing 2013 HIP project submittal RCTC staff available to meet with each agency at agency's request to discuss HIP programming Project changes for existing projects due to RCTC New project forms, including maps and exhibits, due to RCTC RCTC staff works to input projects into database, prepare project narrative and financial plan, report on timely implementation of Transportation Control Measures (TCM), and compare to Draft 2012 RTP Riverside County 2013 FTiP due to SCAG RCTC adopts 2013 FTiP Financia I Resolution SCAG staff will analyze project submittals: Check for consistency with Draft 2012 RTP Identify modeled projects Analyze projects for conformity Check financial constraint Perform programmatic analysis Verify details entered for modeling purposes SCAG staff will perform modeling and analytical work, including timely implementation activities SCAG Management review period Presentation of 2013 HIP to AB1246 CEOs Committee to fulfill AB1246 Requirement Draft FTIP presented to Transportation Committee and Energy and Environmental Committee 30-day public review period and public hearings SCAG Regional Council adopts 2013 HIP 2013 HIP transmitted to Caltrans, FHWA, HA, and EPA Conformity Determination approved by Federal Agencies AGENDA ITEM 9 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: November 14, 2011 TO: Technical Advisory Committee FROM: Grace Alvarez, Staff Analyst THRPUGH: Shirley Medina, Program Manager SUBJECT: Transportation Control Measures -Implementation Reporting STAFF RECOMMENDA TlON: Receive and File. BACKGROUND INFORM A TlON: Transportation Control Measures (TCMs) are specific transportation projects and programs committed to improve air quality. TCMs are required by the Federal Clean Air Act in Ozone non-attainment and maintenance areas classified as serious or above; TCM projects and programs reduce road emissions, improve mobility and accessibility, and most importantly are required for air quality conformity. The type of TCM projects and programs are defined in the State Implementation Plan (SIP) and vary from region to region. Attached is an excerpt from the Southern California Association of Governments Federal Transportation Improvement Program (FTIP) guidelines that discusses the requirements for TCM projects. There are strict rules about the implementation of TCMs. TCM projects have funding priority, meaning that in the event of a funding shortfall, TCM projects must be funded and implemented before non-TCM projects. If a committed TCM project experiences delays and/or obstacles that are not being overcome, a substitute project must be identified for implementation. The schedule for the replacement project must be consistent with the schedule of the control measure being replaced and must achieve equivalent or greater emission reductions. The approval process for the substitution project may take from six to nine months. SCAG as the MetropOlitan Planning Organization is responsible for tracking the progress of TCMs through the updates to the FTIP and Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). Basically, "Committed TCMs" must be operational or implemented by the completion date committed to in the FTIP. The implementation status of TCMs is reported through the RTP and FTIP cycles until the project is complete. If committed TCMs are not implemented on schedule, the regions may experience a conformity lapse, during which environmental approvals and federal funding come to a halt as well as all RTP and FTIP amendments. Completed and operational TCM projects are included in the TCIVI Timely Implementation Report in the Conformity Determination subsequent to the project completion, and once project completion is declared, the projects will be removed from the list. RCTC will begin regular project monitoring (approximately quarterly) of TCM projects in Riverside County. This win be coordinated with the milestone reports. Attachments: 1) Riverside County -TCMs reported in the 2011 FTIP Timely Implementation Report 2) 2013 FTIP Guidelines, Section IV TCMs --- ·_ RIVERSIDE COUNTY -TCMS REPORTED IN THE 2011 FTIP TIMELY IMPLEMENTATION REPORT LEAD AGENCY PROJECT 10 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ORIGINAL COMPLETION DATE 2011 HIP COMPLETION DATE 2012 RTP COMPLETION DATE 2012 RTP PROJECT STATUS CORONA RIV010227 CORONA ADVANCED TRAFFIC 2005 12/31/2010 12/3112011 PHYSICAL CONSTRUCTION IS IN; • MANAGEMENT SYSTEM (ATMS)-AND PROJECT INTEGRATION AND SIGNAL REGIONAL ITS INTEGRATION PHASE 2. TIMING COMPLETION IS 12/31/2011, ! RIVERSIDE RIV010212 ON SR91 -ADAMS TO 6O/215IC: ADD ONE 2002 -S/3/2015 S/3/2015 PROJECT ON SCHEDULE. I COUNTY TRANS HOV LN IN EACH DIRECTION, RESTRIPE COMMISSION TO EXTEND 4TH WB MIXED FLOW LANE CONSTRUCTION IS PENDING E-76 (RCTC) FROM 601215 IC TO CENTRAL OFF-RAMP, APPROVAL FROM FHWA. RESTRIPE TO EXTEND 5TH WB MIXED FLOW LANE FROM 601215 IC TO 14TH ST OFF-RAMP, AUX LNS (MADISON-CENTRAL), BRIDGE WIDENING & REPLACEMENTS, EBfWB BRAIDED RAMPS, IC MOD/RECONSTRUCT + SOUNDIRETAINING WALLS RIVERSIDE RIV011211 AT N. MAIN STIE. GRAND BLVD2005 6130/2011 7/20/2009 PARKING STRUCTURE OPEN TO THE COUNTY TRANS CONSTRUCT NEW 1,000 SPACE PARKING PUBLIC IN JULY 2009 -CLOSE OUT OF COMMISSION STRUCTURE & CCTVISEC ENHANCE. AT THE FEDERAL-AID PROJECT IS (RCTC) CORONA N, MAIN METROLINK STN (EA: 6/30/2011. CORSTN, PPNO: 00790) (FY 07 5307) (UZA: RIV·SAN) RIVERSIDE RIV050555 ON 1·215 (NIO EUCAL YPTUS AVE TO NIO 2011 412912013 4/29/2013 PROJECT ON SCHEDULE. COUNTY TRANS BOX SPRINGS RD) & SR60 (EiO DAY ST TO COMMISSION SR6011-215 JCT): RECONSTRUCT JCT TO PROJECT UNDER CONSTRUCTION. (RCTC) PROVIDE 2 HOV DIRECT CONNECTOR LNS (SR60 PM: 12.21 TO 13.6) AND MINOR WIDENING TO BOX SPRINGS RD FROM 2 TO 4 THROUGH LANES BETWEEN MORTON RD AND BOX SPRINGS RDIFAIR ISLE DR IC (EA: 449311) RIVERSIDE RIV051201 IN CORONA -CONTINUE THE 913012009 6/30/2013 6/30/2013 PARK·N-RIDE LOTS ARE PART OF COUNTY TRANS IMPLEMENTATION OF A 60 SPACE PARK· RCTC'S ON-GOING TCM FOR THE COMMISSION AND-RIDE LOT (VIA ANNUAL LEASE REGION. CURRENT LEASE WILL (RCTC) AGREEMENT) AT LIVING TRUTH EXPIRE ON 6/30/2013. RCTC WILL CHRISTIAN FELLOWSHIP AT 1114 W. MOST LIKELY REQUEST RENEWAL OF ONTARIO AVE. THE LEASE TO CONTINUE THE OPERATION OF THE PARK-N-RIDE LOT -----~EYOND 6/30/2013. --- May 2011 ~.JI SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA "~'" ~ ASSOCIATION of GOVERNMENTS ;.:/ RIVERSIDE COUNTY -TCMS REPORTED IN THE 2011 FTIP TIMELY IMPLEMENTATION REPORT LEAD AGENCY PROJECT 10 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ORIGINAL COMPLETION DATE 2011 FTIP COMPLETION DATE 2012 RTP COMPLETION DATE 2012 RTP PROJECT STATUS RIVERSIDE RIV070303 ON SR60 IN NW RIV CO: CONTINUE THE 2010 2010 ONGOING ON-GOING TCM PROGRAM IN COUNTY TRANS IMPLEMENTATION OF THE EXPANDED TCM WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY. RCTC COMMISSION SR60 FREEWAY SERVICE PATROL (FSP) PROGRAM IN CONTINUED THE FSP BEAT 71N FY (RCTC) (BEAT #7 PATROL, 2 TRUCKS) BETWEEN RIVERSIDE 2010/2011 AND WILL MOST LIKELY MIUKEN AVE & MAIN ST (SR60 HOV LN COUNTY CONTINUE TO PROVIDE THE SERVICE CHANGE TCM SUBSTITUTION PROJECn IN FY 2011/2012 AND BEYOND. RIVERSIDE RIV070304 ON 1-215 IN SW RIV CO: CONTINUE THE 2010 2010 ON-GOING ON-GOING TCM PROGRAM IN COUNTY TRANS IMPLEMENTATION OF 1-215 FREEWAY TCM WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY. RCTC COMMISSION SERVICE PATROL (FSP) (BEAT #19, 2 PROGRAM IN CONTINUED THE FSP BEAT 191N FY (RCTC) TRUCKS) BETWEEN SR74/4TH ST AND RIVERSIDE 2010/2011 AND WILL MOST LIKELY ALESSANDRO BLVD (SR60 HOV LANE COUNTY CONTINUE TO PROVIDE THE SERVICE CHANGE TCM SUBSTITUTION PROJECT) IN FY 2011/2012 AND BEYOND. . ! RIVERSIDE RIV070307 ON SR60 IN MORENO VALLEY: CONTINUE 2010 2010 ON-GOING COUNTY TRANS THE IMPLEMENTATION OF SR60 FREEWAY TCM COMMISSION SERVICE PATROL (FSP) (BEAT #8,2 PROGRAM IN (RCTC) TRUCKS) BETWEEN DAY ST AND RIVERSIDE REDLANDS BLVD (SR60 HOV LANE COUNTY CHANGE TCM SUBSTITUTION PROJECn RIVERSIDE RIV520109 RECONSTRUCT & UPGRADE SAN JACINTO 2012 12/30/2012 913012013 COUNTY TRANS BRANCH LINE FOR RAIL PASSENGER COMMISSION SERVICE (RIVERSIDE TO PERRIS) (PERRIS (RCTC) VALLEY LINE) (FY 07 5307) (UZA: RIV-SAN) ON-GOING TCM PROGRAM IN WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY. RCTC CONTINUED THE FSP BEAT 8 IN FY 2010/2011 AND WILL MOST LIKELY CONTINUE TO PROVIDE THE SERVICE IN FY 2011/2012 AND BEYOND. THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION CERTIFIED THE PERRIS VALLEY LINE CECA FINAL EIR AND APPROVED THE PROPOSED PROJECT ON JULY 25, 2011. APPROVAL OF NEPA SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT IS ANTICIPATED AROUND SEP 29. 201t UPON COMPLIANCE WITH CEQA AND NEPA, RCTC WILL PROCEED TO COMPLETE FINAL DESIGN. APPLY FOR A PROJECT CONSTRUCTION GRANT AGREEMENT (PCGA). AND OBLIGATE FEDERAL FUNDS FOR START OF CONSTRUCTION ANTICIPATED IN 2012. RIVERSIDE RIV520111 REGIONAL RIDESHARE -CONTINUING 2009 12/30/2011 ON-GOING ON GOING TCM IN RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANS PROGRAM. TCM COUNTY. REGIONAL RIDESHARE COMMISSION PROGRAM IN PROGRAM WILL CONTINUE BEYOND (RCTC) RIVERSIDE FY 2011/2012. May2011 ~ SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION of GOVERNMENTS 2 RIVERSIDE COUNTY -TCMS REPORTED IN THE 2011 FTiP TIMELY IMPLEMENTATION REPORT LEAD AGENCY PROJECT 10 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ----------- ORIGINAL COMPLETION DATE 2011 FTIP COMPLETION DATE 2012 RTP COMPLETION DATE 2012 RTP PROJECT STATUS COUNTY RIVERSIDE TRANSIT AGENCY RIVERSIDE TRANSIT AGENCY RIV031207 RIV041 029 IN WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY IN THE CITY OF CORONA -CONSTRUCT NEW CORONA TRANSIT CENTER AT 31 EAST GRAND BLVD (5309C FY 03+04+06+08 (E· 2006·BUSP-080 & E-2008-BUSP-0688) EARMARKS)). IN RIVERSIDE· CONSTRUCT NEW RIVERSIDE TRANSIT CENTER AT 4141 VINE ST., IN THE VICINITY OF DOWNTOWN METROLINK STATION (5309C FY 03+04+06+08, E-2006·BUSP-156 & E-2008 BUSP·0688 EARMARKS) (FY 09 5309) (UZA: RIV·SAN) (TE) 2009 12/30/2010 12131/2010 12130/2012 09/30/2010 1213012013 CORONA TRANSIT CENTER OPENED TO THE PUBLIC IN SEPTEMBER 2010 PROJECT CLOSE OUT WAS 11/1/2010. THE RIVERSIDE TRANSIT CENTER IS A RELOCATION/REPLACEMENT PROJECT WITH SIMILAR CAPACITY. THE CURRENT TRANSIT CENTER ON MISSION IN BLVD WILL CLOSE ONCE THE NEW TRANSIT CENTER PROPOSED FOR THE VICINITY OF METROLINK STATION OPENS UP TO THE PUBLIC. BASED ON THIS FACT, RCTC REQUESTS THAT THIS PROJECT BE REMOVED FROM THE TCM LISTING. PROJECTS STATUS OF THE NEW REPLACEMENT FACILITY: CITY OF RIVERSIDE IS COLLABORATING WITH RTATO FIND THE ULTIMATE TRANSIT CENTER LOCATION. PROJECT IS CURRENTLY IN FINAL ROUND OF NEGOTIATIONS. FEASIBILITY STUDY IN DRAFT FINAL FORM WITH DESIGN ALTERNATIVES IDENTIFIED. A COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS AND FINANCIAL PROJECTION ANALYSIS IS CURRENTL Y IN PROCESS WITH A FEBRUARY 2012 ESTIMATED COMPLETION DATE. UPON COMPLETION, CITY COUNCIL ACTION IS EXPECTED. May2011~~ SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA .~ ASSOCIATION of GOVERNMENTS 3 RIVERSIDE COUNTY -TCMS REPORTED IN THE 2011 FTIP TIMELY IMPLEMENTATION REPORT ORIGINAL 2011 FTIP 2012 RTPPROJECT COMPLETIONPROJECT DESCRIPTION COMPLETION 2012 RTP PROJECT STATUS LEAD AGENCY COMPLETION10 DATEDATEDATE RIVERSIDE TRANSIT AGENCY RIVERSIDE TRANSIT AGENCY RIVERSIDE TRANSIT AGENCY RIV041 030 RIV050553 RIV080929 IN THE CITY OF HEMET· CONSTRUCT NEW HEMET TRANSIT CENTER (WITH APPROXIMATELY 4 BUS BAYS) AT 700 SCARAMELLA CR., HEMET, CA (5309C FY 04 + 05 EARMARKS). IN TEMECULA ~CbNSTRUCT NEW TEMECULA TRANSIT CENTER AT 27199 JEFFERSON AVE. (SW OF JEFFERSON AVE & SE OF CHERRY ST) (04, OS, 06, 07, E 2006-091, E-2007-0131, & 2008-BUSP-0131, SAFETEA-LU). IN WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY FOR RTA -PURCHASE 9 -40 FT. CNG EXPANSION BUSES TO IMPLEMENT EXPRESS ANDIOR BRT TYPE SERVICES IN WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY, PER RECENTLY COMPLETED COMPREHENSIVE ANALYSIS (COA). 6/30/2010 12/3012010 12/30/2010 6/30/2012 6130/2013 12/30/2010 613012013 ~itYOFHEMET HAS IDENTIFIED THE POTENTIAL SITE FOR THE HEMET COURTHOUSE WITH AN ADJACENT TRANSIT CENTER AT STATE AND DEVONSHIRE. ONCE THE HEMET COURTHOUSE FUNDING IS SECURED, THE PROJECT DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION CAN PROCEED. 12130/2014 ORIGINAL SITE AT 27199 JEFFERSON AVE IS NO LONGER FEASIBLE DUE TO ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS BY ARMY CORP OF ENGINEERS. A NEW SITE WILL BE CHOSEN BTWN TEMECULA & MURRIETA. RTA IS LOOKING AT DOING FUND TRANSFERS FROM OTHER NON-TCM PROJECTS TO HELP FUND THE TEMECULA TRANSIT CENTER. ADDITiON ALL Y, RTA APPLIED FOR A FEDERAL TRANSIT GRANT SUCCESSFUL APPLICANTS WILL BE KNOWN IN THE FALL 2011. CURRENT PROJECT SHORTFALL is $6 M. PROJECT TO DESCRIPTION LISTED iN THIS BE DELETED REPORTING SHEET IS INCORRECT, THROUGH THE APPROVED 2011 FTIP DESC THE 2011 READS: PURCHASE OF 19 -TYPE VII FTIP A-12, REPLACEMENT BUSES FOR EXISTING I FIXED RTE SVC & PURCHASE OF I SOLAR PANELS FOR EXISTING BUS SHELTERS. REPLACEMENT FLEET IS ....~- May 2011 ~ ,) SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA f~ASSOCIATION of GOVERNMENTS 4 RIVERSIDE COUNTY -TCMS REPORTED IN THE 2011 FTIP TIMELY IMPLEMENTATION REPORT LEAD AGENCY PROJECT 10 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ORIGINAL COMPLETION DATE 2011 FTIP COMPLETION DATE 2012 RTP COMPLETION DATE 2012 RTP PROJECT STATUS RIVERSIDE RIV090609 IN WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY FOR 2011 12/3012011 ·····1213012012 NOT A TeM PROJECT. --so%CQMPLETloN -RTA HAS TRANSIT AGENCY RTA: INSTALL ADVANCE TRAVELER INFORMATION SYSTEMS (ATIS) ON VARIOUS FIXED ROUTE VEHICLES AND INSTALLATION OF ELECTRONIC MESSAGE SIGNS AT APPROX. 60 BUS STOPS (FY 'S 05,07,08,09, AND 10 -5309). INSTALLED ATIS ELECTRONIC MESSAGE SIGNS AT THE RIVERSIDE DOWNTOWN TERMINAL, PERRIS TRANSIT CENTER, AND THE CORONA TRANSIT CENTER; AND STRATEGICALLY PLACED SEVERAL OTHERATIS SIGNS IN THE CITY OF MORENO VALLEY (8) AND CITY OF RIVERSIDE (4) - A TOTAL OF 40 SIGNS INSTALLED YEAR-TO-DATE. PRELIMINARY DESIGN FOR ADDITIONALATIS SIGNS AND CORRESPONDING SHELTERS IS UNDERWAY FOR GALLERIA AT TYLER TRANSFER LOCATION AND THE ADJACENT STOP ON MAGNOLIA AVE IN RIVERSIDE. THE ATIS ELECTRONIC MESSAGE SIGN SYSTEM ALLOWS RTA CUSTOMERS TO DERIVE BUS SCHEDULES AND ROUTE INFORMATION FROM RTAAND GOOGLE TRANSIT DIRECTLY TO WIRELESS DEVICES. RIVERSIDE RIV990902 IN WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY IN THE 2006 12f30/2010 08/30/2010 PERRIS MULTI-MODAL TRANSIT TRANSIT AGENCY CITY OF PERRIS -CONSTRUCT NEW MUL TIMODAL TRANSIT FACILITY (BUS & RAIL) AT 4TH AND D STREETS CENTER COMPLETED 8/30/2010. May2011~'" SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA ~ASSOCIATION of GOVERNMENTS 5 --------- RIVERSIDE COUNTY -TCMS REPORTED IN THE 2011 FTIP TIMELY IMPLEMENTATION REPORT LEAD AGENCY PROJECT ID PROJECT DESCRIPTION ORIGINAL COMPLETION DATE 2011 FTIP COMPLETION DATE 2012 RTP COMPLETION DATE 2012 RTP PROJECT STATUS SOUTHERN CALIF RIV010214 RCTC SHARE OF PURCHASE OF 2005/2007 12/30/2012 ' 12/31/2011 LOCOMOTIVES PLACED IN SERVICE REGIONAL RAIL METROLINK CARS & LOCOMOTIVES -UP ON 12113/2010; FIRST COACH CAR PUT AUTHORITY . TO 47 CARSICABS & 8 LOCOS TO BE IN SERVICE 12113/2010. AS OF ORDERED BY 6/30106 (FY 03 & 04 5307) 5/20/2011,19 COACH CARS WERE (SHARES AMONG LAOC8231, PLACED IN SERVICE; REMAINING 41 SBD20020801, & ORA090302) COACH CARS ARE PROJECTED FOR DELIVERY BY 10/30/2011 AND IN SERVICE BY 1213112011. FIRST CAB CAR PUT IN SERVICE 12/14/2010. AS OF 5/20/201120 CAB CARS ARE IN SERVICE; REMAINING 37 CAB CARS ARE PROJECTED TO BE DELIVERED BY 12131/2011 AND IN SERVICE BY 2/28/2012. CONTRACT FOR THE PURCHASE OF THE EQUIPMENT HAD THE OPTION TO INCREASE THE ORDER. UTILIZING LOCAL FUNDS, SCRRA/RCTC OPTED TO INCREASE THE ORDER TO 60 TRAILER CARS AND 57 CAB CARS (THIS OPTION IS PART OF RIV011242 BELOW). SOUTHERN CALIF RIV011242 PURCHASE EXPANSION ROLLING STOCK 2004/2009 12/30/2012 12/3112011 LOCOMOTIVES PLACED IN SERVICE REGIONAL RAIL (2 CAB CARS AND 3 LOCOMOTIVES) FOR ON 12/13/2010. FIRST CAB CAR PUT IN AUTHORITY METROLINK IEOC AND SERVICE 12113/2010. AS OF 5/20/2011, RIVERSJDEIFULLERTON/LA LINES (EA: 20 CAB CARS ARE IN SERVICE. RIVFUL, PPNO: 0079E) BALANCE OF 37 CAB CARS IS PROJECTED TO BE DELIVERED BY 12/31/2011 AND IN SERVICE BY 212812012. COMPLETION OF CONTRACT NEGOTIATION IS ANTICIPATED FOR JUNE 2013. CLOSE OUT PROJECT WILL FOLLOW ONCE CONTRACT NEGOTIATIONS ARE COMPLETE. TEMECULA RIV62029 AT HWY 79 SO AND LA PAZ ST: ACQUIRE 200412007 12/31/2012 12/31/2015 INTERIM 240-SPACE PARK-N-RIDE LAND. DESIGN AND CONSTRUCT PARKFACILITY LOCATED IN SPENCER'S AND-RIDE LOT -250 SPACES (FY 05 CROSSING AT THE CORNER OF BIGGS HR4818 EARMARK) AND LOS ALAMOS (NE OF THE CITY IN I THE VICINITY OF THE FRENCH VAL1..l:Y May20ll~) SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA ~ASSOCIATIONofGOVERNMENTS 6 ---------- RIVERSIDE COUNTY -TCMS REPORTED IN THE 2011 FTIP TIMELY IMPLEMENTATION REPORT ---------------------- LEAD AGENCY PROJECT ID PROJECT DESCRIPTION ORIGINAL COMPLETION DATE 2011 FTIP COMPLETION DATE 2012 RTP COMPLETION DATE 2012 RTP PROJECT STATUS AREA) WILL BE IN PLACE BY 2012. THE ORIGINAL P·N·R FACILITY AT HWY 79 SO AND LA PAZ WILL BE BUILT BY 2015 -MAX NUMBER OF SPACES IS 157. THE REMAINING 93 SPACES WILL BE PROVIDED THROUGH THE INTERIM FACILITY AT SPENCER'S CROSSING ANDIOR A COMBINATION OF SPENCER'S CROSSING AND NEW CIVIC CENTER PARKING STRUCTURE. May 2011~~ SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA ~.~ ASSOCIATION of GOVERNMENTS 7 Transportation Control Measures THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK. HIP FY 2012113 -2017/18 GUIDELINES October 2011 IV. TRANSPORTATION CONTROL MEASURES (TCMs) Transportation Control Measures (TCMs) are specific transportation projects and programs committed to help improve air quality, regardless of the source of funding. In other words, TCMs can be fully locally-funded. TCMs are required by the Federal Clean Air Act in non-attainment areas that are classified as "serious" and above [Section 182(c)] and provide multiple benefits, including reductions of emissions and improvements to mobility and accessibility and can help support better urban form. Southern California has the worst air quality in the nation and must implement all reasonably available measures to support attainment of federal and state air quality standards. The unique challenges in Southern California have called for an inclusive and flexible TCM development, implementation, and monitoring process, which is included in the SIPs for the South Central Coast Air Basin (SCCAB) and the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB). Within the SCCAB and SCAB, TCM-type projects and programs that have implementation funding-right-of-way acquisition or construction funding for transit, non-motorized or HOV projects or program funding for behavioral or informational programs-within the first two years of the FTiP are committed TCMs. This ongoing rollover process has committed hundreds of projects and programs, which collectively will remove tons of air pollution each day from Southern California's skies. A. TCM Definitions and Categories A TCM-type project or program is any transportation project or program that reduces vehicle use or changes traffic flow or congestion conditions for the purposes of reducing emissions from transportation sources and improving air quality. TCM-type Projects and Programs: Only those projects meeting the specifications defined in the prevailing SIP are designated as TCMs. These categories define the region's transportation strategies and control measures to reduce air pollution emissions from on-road mobile sources and provide guidance on the types of projects that can be considered in the event that a TCM substitution becomes necessary. In the SCAG region, two ozone non-attainment areas have TCMs: the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB) and the Ventura County portion of the South Central Coast Air Basin (VC/SCCAB). For the VC/SCCAB, the current TCM categories are as follows: A. Ridesharing Strategies A.1 Carpooling. Vanpooling, Buspooling A.2 Modified Work Schedules A.3 Park and Ride Lots B. Nonmotorized Strategies B.1 Telecommunications B.2 Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities C. Traffic Flow Improvement Strategy D. Land Use Strategy SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION of GOVERNMENTS 52 FTIP FY 2012113 E. Transit Strategies E.1 Public Transit Programs E.2 TransiVLand Use Planning E.3 Passenger Rail A specific list of projects, consistent with the TCM categories. is listed in each FTIP. In the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB). TCMs are defined in three main categories: • Transit and non-motorized modes; • HOV lanes and their pricing alternatives; and • Information-based strategies. Committed TCMs: As stated above, a TCM-type project or program becomes a committed TCM once tunds have been programmed by the CTCs in the first two years of the FTIP. Committed TCM projects have funds programmed for right-ot-way acquisition or for post-design implementation in the first two years of the prevailing FTIP or FTIP amendment. Projects with funds programmed for PE only are not TCMs. If a TCM project or program is programmed through an FTIP amendment, then the TCM project or program becomes a committed TCM that must be operational by the completion date provided in the amendment. TCM Timely Implementation Reporting: Once a TCM is committed for implementation in the first two years of the FTIP. the committed TCM must be operational or implemented by the completion date committed to in the prevailing FTIP or FTIP amendment. The completion date for committed TCMs will be used to track timely implementation for the Timely Implementation Report, submitted as part of each Conformity Determination. The primary analysis for Timely Implementation Reporting will be done as part of the two-year FTIP cycle, although completion status of committed TCM projects must be continuously monitored to ensure that committed TCMs are on schedule. Completed and operational TCM projects will be included in the TCM Timely Implementation Report in the Conformity Determination directly subsequent to project completion, and then completed projects will be removed from the list.. SCAG will maintain an internal list of completed TCM projects. TCM projects require priority in funding, as well as demonstration of timely implementation, in accordance with the schedule provided in the FTIP. This means that in the event of a funding shortfall, TCM projects must be funded and implemented before non-TCM projects. In addition, all projects properly designated as TCMs in the first two years must be tracked for timely implementation, and, in the event that a project is delayed or cancelled, substitute projects that provide equivalent air quality improvement benefits must be initiated in a timely manner. Once a TCM project is committed for implementation in an FTIP, the implementation status must be reported on in subsequent FTIPs until the project has been completed. All committed TCMs must be implemented on schedule to avoid a conformity lapse. If implementation obstacles arise, the obstacles must be overcome. Any development affecting implementation of a committed TCM will be reported to SCAG by the CTCs on an on-going basis. In the event that a committed TCM project encounters an obstacle to implementation, the implementing agency, SCAG, and the Transportation Conformity Working Group (TCWG) will work together to overcome the delay. SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION of GOVERNMENTS 53 FTIP FY 2012/13 -2017/18 GUIDELINES October 2011 B. TCM Rollover Process TCMs Rollover Process: Approximately every two years, as the FTIP is updated, additional TCMs will be added to the South Coast and Ventura County AOMPs/SIPs based on the new FTIP and the FTIP Guidelines. The "rollover" of TCMs will update the AOMPs/SIPs to include new projects in addition to ongoing projects from previous TIPs. The TCMs "rolled over" will be monitored for adherence to the schedule established in the FTIP at the time a project is identified as a committed TCM. The identification of TCMs from the FTIP shall be agreed upon by both SCAG and the appropriate CTCs. The rollover of the FTIP must be adopted by SCAG's Regional Council, in accordance with the FTIP adoption process, as described below. • The Draft FTIP is reviewed by various SCAG Committees, Task Forces, and Working Groups, such as the standing Transportation Committee; • The TCWG, which serves as the interagency consultation group, reviews the proposed TCMs and FTIP; • Public notification is provided through newspapers in the affected sub-regions as well as on SCAG's website; • Draft FTIP materials are distributed, with appropriate cover letters, to approved public libraries and facilities and also made available on SCAG's website for access by the public; • Input received is compiled and analyzed, and responses to comments are provided by SCAG Staff, and made available to the public; • A summary of comments received during the public comment period along with SCAG's responses, following the close of the public comment period, is incorporated into the final FTIP; • The Final FTIP is adopted by SCAG's Regional Council; • SCAG's adopted FTIP is submitted to the State for funding approval and to the federal agencies (FHWA and FT A) for conformity approval. C. Substitution of Individual TCMs For the purpose of TCM substitution, certain TCM projects including bicycle, pedestrian, bus/shuttles/paratransit vehicle purchases, and traffic signals synchronizations/control system computerization projects will be grouped into their respective TCM categories by county within each FTIP cycle. Thus, for the purpose of substitution of individual TCMs, a TCM project means a TCM project, a TCM category, or a TCM program. The CTCs and/or project sponsors shall notify SCAG when a TCM project cannot be delivered or will be significantly delayed. SCAG and the CTCs will identify and evaluate possible replacement measures for individual substitutions, through the TCWG, which includes members from all affected jurisdictions, federal, state and/or local air quality agencies and transportation agencies. ~~ SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA ~ASSOCIATION of GOVERNMENTS 54 FTIP FY 2012/13 -201 8 GUIDELINES October 2011 Substitution of individual TCMs will follow the process specified in the CAA section 176(c). Section 176(c) of the CAA allows for the substitution of individual TCMs if certain conditions are met These include: "(i) if the substitute measures achieve equivalent or greater emissions reductions than the control measure to be replaced, as demonstrated with an emissions Impact analysis that is consistent with the current methodology used for evaluating the replaced control measure in the implementation plan; "(ii) if the substitute control measures are implemented "(I) in accordance with a schedule that is consistent with the schedule provided for control measures in the implementation plan; or "(/I) if the implementation plan date for implementation of the control measure to be replaced has passed, as soon as practicable after the implementation plan date but not later than the date on which emission reductions are necessary to achieve the purpose of the Implementation plan; "(iii) if the substitute and additional control measures are accompanied with evidence of adequate personnel and funding and authority under State or local law to Implement, monitor, and enforce the control measures; "(iv) if the substitute and additional control measures were developed through a collaborative process that included "(I) participation by representatives of all affected jurisdictions (including local air pollution control agencies, the State air pollution control agency, and State and local transportation agencies); "(II) consultation with the Administrator; and "(11/) reasonable public notice and opportunity for comment; and "(v) if the metropolitan planning organization, State air pollution control agency, and the Administrator concur with the equivalency of the substitute or additional control measures. In addition to these conditions, the substitute project shall be in the same air basin and preferably be located in the same geographic area and preferably serve the same demographic subpopulation as the TCM being replaced. A substitution does not require a new conformity determination or a formal SIP revision. Adoption of the new TCM in coordination with ARB and EPA concurrence will rescind the original TCM and apply the new measure. SCAG will maintain documentation of all approved TCM substitutions. The documentation will provide the emissions analysis as well as a description of the substitution process, including a list of the committee or working group members, public comment process, and evidence of SCAG adoption. Compliance with the provisions listed above will ensure adequate emissions reductions are achieved in a TCM substitution. SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION of GOVERNM EHTS 55 FTIP FY 201211 October 2011 D. TCM Project Categories In the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB) and the South Central Coast Air Basin (SCCAB) Table IV-A below is a listing of program codes for different types of TCM projects. The county transportation commissions need to accurately enter the program code associated with TCMs for each project in the TIP database. Table IV-A: TCM Project Categories in the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB) and the South Central Coast Air Basin (SCCAB) Project Description Program Codes , A. High Occupancy Vehicle Measures • New HOV Lanes -Extensions and Additions to Existing CAN69,CAX69,CAY69Facilities CAN69, CAX69, CAY69 • New HOV Lanes -With New Facility Projects · New HOV Lanes --With Facility Improvement Projects CAN69, CAX69, CAY69 CAN69, CAX69, CAY69, Ramp Meters • HOV Bypasses, Connectors, and New Interchanges with CAN66, CAX66, CAY66, CAN71 , CAX71 , CA Y71 CAN69,CAX69,CAY69• High Occupancy Toll (HOT) Lanes and Pricing Alternatives B. Transit and System Management Measures Transit TRN92, LRN92. RAN92 • Rail Track -New Lines TRN92, LRN92. RAN92, TRR14. TRN14 • Rail Track -Capacity Expansion of Existing Lines • New Rolling Stock Acquisition --Rail Cars and/or CON94, CON93. COR17, Locomotives COR16 • Express Busways -Bus Rapid Transit and Dedicated Bus Lanes • Buses -Fleet Expansion (excluding fleet expansion BUN94, BUN93 with fewer than 5 buses)* • Shuttles and Paratransit Vehicles -Fleet Expansion (excluding fleet expansion with fewer than 5 PAN94, PAN93 vehicles)* Intermodal Transfer Facilities • Rail Stations· New TRNH6 TRRH6• Rail Stations Expansion TDN64• Park & Ride Lots -New TDR64• Park & Ride Lots Expansion • Bus Stations & Transfer Facilities -New (excluding bus TRNH6stop improvement projects) • Bus Stations & Transfer Facilities -Expansion (excluding TRRH6bus stop improvement projects) ~AlA SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA ~ASSOCIATION of GOVERNMENTS 'A~F" t 56 FTIP FY 2012113 -2017/18 October 2011 Project Description Program Codes Non-motorized Transportation Mode Facilities • Bicycle & Pedestrian Facilities -New (non recreational and excluding bicycle facility less than 1 NCN25 mile and pedestrian facility less than 1/4 mile)* • Bicycle & Pedestrian Facilities -Expansion (non recreational and excluding bicycle facility less than 1 NCR25 mile and pedestrian facility less than 1/4 mile)* • Bicycle Facilities -New (non-recreational and NCN26excluding bicycle facility less than 1 mile)* • Bicycle Facilities -Expansion (non-recreational and NCR26excluding bicycle facility less than 1 mile)* • Pedestrian Facilities -New (non-recreational and NCN27excluding pedestrian facility less than 1/4 mile)" • Pedestrian Facilities Expansion (non-recreational NCR27and excluding pedestrian facility less than 1/4 mile)* C. Information-based Transportation Strategies • Marketing for Rideshare Services and TransitITDM/ TDM20, TDM24 Intermodal Services • Intelligent Transportation Systems/Control System Computerization (excluding projects with fewer than 3 new traffic signals)* ITS02, fewer than 3 new tra1fic signals) ITS01, -Traffic Signal Synchronization (excluding projects with -Real Time Transit or Rail Notification System ITS03, - System-wide Smart Fare Card Equipment ITS04,Traffic Management/Operations Centers ITS05,-Changeable Message Signs (CMS) (excluding projects with fewer than 5 changeable message signs)'" ITS06,- Closed Circuit Televisions (CCTVs) ITS09, -Ramp Metering Systems ITS10, -System-wide Signal Preemption ITS12, -Traveler/Motorist Information Systems; Highway Advisory Radios ITS13 -Vehicle Detection (VDS) & Automatic Vehicle Classification (A VC) Systems TDM24• Telecommuting Programs/Satellite Work Centers * For TCM substitution purposes, these TCM projects will be grouped into their respective categories by county within each FrIP cycle. The grouping will allow individual projects within each category to be switched in and out as long as the magnitude (e.g., number of buses or miles of bike lanes) of the category is equivalent or greater than that at the beginning of the FTIP cycle. SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION of GOVERNMENTS 57 FTIP FY 2012113-2017118 GUIDELINES October 2011 Additional TCM/FTIP Listing Notes: • Transit expansions to add service or vehicles are TCMs. • Transit vehicle expansion projects should be split into different projects in two year increments consistent with a TeM committed programming period (2013 FTIP Project #1 = 12113 & 13/14; Project # 2 =14/151 & 15/16 etc.) Do not treat vehicle expansion projects as other "on-going "transit projects. • Transit projects using funds for operating expenses are not TCMs. • Transit replacement projects are not TCMs and should be separated from transit expansion projects. • Safety and maintenance projects are not TCMs. • Transit alternative fuel replacement projects are not TCMs. • Transit replacement and maintenance projects should be listed separately in the FTIP, not in conjunction with the purchase of new additional transit buses. • In the SCAB, any transit project is either a TCM project or an Exempt project. • Non-TCM projects may also be eligible for CMAQ funding such as replacement of old buses with alternative fuel buses. SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION of GOVERNMENTS 58 AGENDA ITEM 10 I RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION I DATE: November 14, 2011 TO: Technical Advisory Committee FROM: Andrea Zureick, Senior Staff Analyst THROUGH: Shirley Medina, Program Manager SUBJECT: Federal Fiscal Year 2011/12 Obligation Plan STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Receive and File. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Each year, states are allocated federal STP and CMAQ funds that are suballocated to the regions (or counties) based on the specific funding distributions for each fund source. Caltrans requires each region to prepare an obligation plan that identifies each project that is scheduled for obligation in the current fiscal year. This plan provides critical information to RCTC on the need to develop contingency plans, such as "loans between regions or project substitution, based on the target amount of federal funds that needs to be obligated during the fiscal year. Likewise, the plan allows Caltrans to monitor the rate of obligations and develop contingency plans for use of any funds that may not be obligated at a statewide level. The expectation is for each region to obligate 100% of its STP and CMAQ allocations or Obligation Authority (OA). Regions have until May 15t of each year to obligate their annual OA target, after which the OA becomes available for use by other regions within the state. If the state as a whole does not use all of the OA, then the unobligated balance will return to the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) for redistribution to other states that have obligated 100% of the OA. This is an opportunity that allows states to obligate more federal funding than initially received. This is referred to as "August Redistribution". Therefore, while some projects simply can not obligate earlier than the schedule allows because of issues such as environmental or right of way certification requirements, staff encourages agencies to obligate as early as possible. This increases the likelihood that there will be OA available for the project in the current fiscal year and may even bring more OA for Riverside County agencies than originally anticipated. The attached FFY 2011/12 obligation plan is based on recent updates from project sponsors. Based on the plan, more OA is required than is expected to be available. If projects stay on the schedules shown in the plan, RCTC will work with other regions to arrange OA loans so that project obligations are not delayed. Because the current schedules show that most obligation requests will be submitted to Caltrans before May 1st, it is likely that all projects in the plan will receive obligation. If some of the planned obligations are delayed, there is a risk of losing any unobligated balances because of August Redistribution going to other states or even FHWA rescissions of unobligated balances. There have been a couple of fiscal years that Riverside County did not obligate 100% of its OA. In these instances, RCTC "loaned" OA to regions that could obligate above their OA levels. Per Caltrans' OA Management policy, OA that is loaned is protected from being lost to the county as long as the state obligates 100% of the OA. Agencies are encouraged to notify RCTC when projects that are contained in the delivery plan begin to experience delay. This will allow staff the time necessary to develop contingency plans that ensure federal funds are not lost to the region. FFY 2010/11 Delivery Results Riverside County agencies were able to use 138% of the OA available to them in FFY 2010/11. This allowed Riverside County to receive $4.3M in additional OA through August Redistribution. In addition, agreements RCTC arranged with other agencies throughout the state saved $7M of CMAQ from being lost in the federal rescission of CMAQ balances. If projects proceed as planned, Riverside County can be in a similar position in FFY 2011/12. Attachment: Draft FFY2011/12 Obligation Delivery Plan **DRAFT** FFY 2011/12 Delivery-Obligation Plan **DRAFT** Status as of November 8, 2011 CMAQ Delivery Agency FTIPID Project Phase Remaining FFY11112 Planned SubmitRFA to Dist 8 Actual Date sent to 08 Date RFA sent to HQ Date RFA sent to FHWA Riverside County RIV990701 SR60Nalley Way IC RNV Transfer RNV $500 5/25/2010 5/25/2010 Riverside County RIV990701 SR60Naliev Way IC PSE Transfer PS&E $100 5/25/2010 5/25/2010 Cathedral City RIV091202 Date Palm Dr. Signal Synch Cons $413 10{1/2011 10/13/2011 Cathedral Citv RIV071247 East Palm Canyon Si!:mal Svnch Cons $247 10/512011 9130/2011 Riverside RIV070703 Iowa Ave Grade Separation Cons $3,550 10127/2011 Riverside County RIV071259 Mecca Community Roundabout Cons $2,000 1/15/2012 Indio RIV091208 Jackson Stsignalsvnch Cons $332 1/15/2012 Palm Desert RIV031208 1-10 at Monterey Ave IC Cons $2069 211/2012 Palm Desert RIV071243 Free rt· Fred Waringliii Cons $531 3/1/2012 Coachella RIV071246 Ave. 52 GS RNV $2,500 4/1/2012 Riverside County RIV071278 Magnolia Ave GS Cons $16.400 4/20/2012 . Riverside County RIV060123 Clay St GS Cons $7,500 6/16/2012 Total $36,142 STPL Delivery Agency Project Phase Remaining FFY11/12 SubmitRFA to Dist8 Date sent to 08 Date RFA Sent to HQ Date RFA sent to FHWA Palm Springs RIV010213 Gene Autry Tr Bridge (reobl) Cons $384 9/29/2010 912912010 Riverside RIV090101 Victoria Ave Utilities Undergrnd Cons $76 4/1/2011 7119/2011 Riverside County RIV060120 1-215 Van Buren IC Cons $10,000 8/20/2011 Cathedral City RIV011212 Ramon Rd Widening Cons $1,524 11/20/2011 Cathedral City RIV52001 Ramon Road Improvements Cons $408 12/15/2011 Indian Wells RIV52001 Cook St Rehab Cons $92----5/1/2012 Total $12,484 Total OA Required $48,626 Total OA Available (est) $37,621 Balance ($11,005) (to be borrowed from other regions) AGENDA ITEM 11 A presentation will be made but there is no attachment to the agenda for item 11. AGENDA ITEM 12 A presentation will be made but there is no attachment to the agenda for item 12. Riverside County Transportation Commission County Administro1'ive Center 4080 Lemon Street 3rd Floor Riverside, CA 92502-2208 ill,o'r"''''/~COUllty Ph: (951) 787-7141 Fox: (951) 787-7920 TrallsportaUon Commission 011 Draft IDE C ANAGE RA November 3, 2011 Prepared For: Transportation county Administrative Center 4080 Lemon Street, 3rd Floor Riverside, CA 92502-2208 Ph: (951) 787-7141 Fax: (951) 787-7920 Prepared By: VR Inc. 4630 W. Jennifer, Suite 105 Fresno, CA 93722 Ph: (559) 271-1200 Fax: (559) 271-1269 NT 2011 Riverside County Congestion Management Program CHAPTER 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 TABLE OF DESCRIPTION PAGE Executive Summary ES-1 Designation of the Congestion Management Agency 1-1 Designation of the CMP System of Highways and 2-1 Roadways Transportation Modeling 3-1 Multimodal System Performance Standards 4-1 Enhanced Transportation System Management 5-1 Program LOS Deficiency Plans 6-1 Transportation Demand Management! 7-1 Air Quality Capital Improvement Program 8-1 CMP Conformance and Monitoring 9-1 CMP Development and Implementationl 10-1 Update Process Prepared for: Riverside County Transportation Commission Prepared by: VRPA Technologies, Inc. 2011 Riverside County Congestion Management Program OF EXHIBIT DESCRIPTION PAGE 2-1 Riverside CMP System 2-2 4-1 Level of Service on CMP System 4-3 5-1 Smart Call Box (SCB) Implementation Sites 5-2 5-2 Transportation Management Center 5-5 (TMC) Implementation Sites TABLE 2-1 4-1 4-2 4-3 5-1 9-1 DESCRIPTION PAGE System of Highways &Roadways 2-5 Exempt Facilities in 2011 4-7 Highway Capacity Manual-Based LOS Methodology 4-8 Applications Transit System Performance Indicators 4-11 Floating Car Run Deficiency Analysis 5-9 CMP Updates Since Inception 9-4 Prepared for: Riverside County Transportation Commission Prepared by: VRPA Technologies, Inc. ii 2011 Riverside County Congestion Management Program The Congestion Management Program (CMP) was first established in 1990 under Proposition 111. Proposition 111 established a process for each metropOlitan county in Califomia to designate a Congestion Management Agency (CMA) that would be responsible for development and implementation of the CMP within county boundaries. The Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) was designated as the CMA in 1990, and therefore, prepares the CMP updates in consultation with the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC), which consists of local agencies, the County of Riverside, transit agencies, and subregional agencies. CMP legislation is provided in Appendix 1. The intent of the CMP is to more directly link land use, transportation, and air quality, thereby prompting reasonable growth management programs that will effectively utilize new transportation funds, alleviate traffic congestion and related impacts, and improve air quality. Counties within California have developed CMPs with varying methods and strategies to meet the intent of the CMP legislation. The Riverside County CMP was significantly modified in 1997 to focus on federal Congestion Management System (CMS) requirements as well as incorporate elements of the State CMP requirements. The 1997 CMP also focused on development of an Enhanced Traffic Monitoring System in which real-time traffic count data can be accessed by RCTC to evaluate the condition of the CMS, as well as meet other monitoring requirements at the state and federal levels. This monitoring effort was completed in 2004, which consisted of installing Smart Call Boxes (traffic counters in Call Box equipment) and traffic counters at Caltrans' Traffic Management Center (TMC) sites along the state highway system. Monitoring of the CMP system on local arterials will continue to occur through the Coachella Yalley Association of Governments' (CYAG) monitoring program and through local agency monitoring efforts in Western Riverside County. RCTC's adopted minimum Level of Service (LOS) threshold is LOS "E". Therefore, when a CMP street or highway segment falls to "F", a deficiency plan must be required. Preparation of a deficiency plan will be the responsibility of the local agency where the defiCiency is located. Other agencies identified as contributors to the deficiency will also be required to coordinate with the development of the plan. The plan must contain mitigation measures, including consideration of Transportation Demand Management (TOM) strategies and transit alternatives, and a schedule for mitigating the deficiency. To insure that the CMP is appropriately monitored to reduce the occurrence of LOS deficiencies, it is the responsibility of local agencies, when reviewing and approving development proposals, to consider the traffic impacts on the CMP System. When a deficiency is identified as part of the CMP Update LOS evaluation process, further detailed analysis of LOS must be conducted to determine whether an actual deficiency has occurred. The LOS analysis conducted as part of the CMP Update process is only considered to be a "screening" level analysis, therefore additional, more detailed assessment of a potential deficiency would be required before a deficiency is formally identified. Coordination with the affected local Prepared for: Riverside County Transportation Commission Prepared by: VRPA Technologies, Inc. ES-1 2011 Riverside County Congestion Management Program jurisdiction(s) will be made to insure that appropriate data, geometrics, counts and other related information is applied to calculate LOS. During preparation of the 2011 CMP, deficiencies were found on the CMP System based upon this year's monitoring effort. These segments will continue to be monitored to determine if the deficiencies reflect temporary or permanent conditions. If it is determined that deficiencies are permanent and not related to construction or other activities along a segment or elsewhere, a deficiency plan will be required to address the deficiency. This document is prepared to address each elements the State CMP legislation and federal CMS requirements. Below is a summary of each chapter highlighting the Riverside County CMP's approach in meeting the state CMP and federal CMS requirements. Chapter 1 • Designation of the CMP Lead Agency: • The County Board of Supervisors, and a majority of cities representing a majority of population in the incorporated area, must deSignate by resolution, a public agency to prepare and adopt the Congestion Management Program. The Riverside County Transportation Commission was deSignated as the CMA for Riverside County on June 11, 1990. The County Board of Supervisors and a majority of the cities representing a majority of the population supported the designation. Chapter 2 • Designation of the System of Highways and Roadways: • The CMA must designate a system of highways and roadways to include, at a minimum, all state highways and principal arterials. RCTC has designated, based upon a set of optional criteria referenced in Chapter 2, a system of Highways and Principal Arterials. All State highways within Riverside County have been included in accordance with CMP statutes, and a set of Principal Arterials has been identified (reference Exhibit 2-1 and Table 2-1). Chapter 3 • Transportation Modeling: • The CMA is to provide a uniform database of traffic impacts "for use in a countywide transportation computer model. " For purposes of this Program, the Commission has recognized use of the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) transportation model, the Coachella Valley Area Transportation System (CVATS) sub-regional transportation model, the Riverside County Traffic Analysis Model (RIVTAM) Final Report (May 2009), and local agency models to analyze traffic impacts associated with development proposals or land use plans. SCAG is currently in the process of preparing the 2012 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) to address requirements set forth in SB 375 -Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS). SB 375 Prepared for: Riverside County Transportation Commission Prepared by: VRPA Technologies, Inc. ES-2 2011 Riverside County Congestion Management Program also requires enhancements to the regional transportation model(s). Specific model enhancements will be reflected in the 2013 CMP following completion of modeling activity by SCAG. Chapter 4· Multimodal System Performance Standards: • AB 1963 identifies requirements in CMP legislation including development of multimodal system performance standards focusing on street and highway level of service and transit standards. This Chapter therefore incorporates minimum standards for both these important forms of transportation. CMP Street and Highway Standards The methodology for measuring LOS must be that contained in Circular 212 or the most recent version of the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM); and traffic standards must be set no lower than LOS "E" for any segment or intersection on the CMP system, unless the current LOS is lower (i.e., "F"). For purposes of this CMP, LOS analysis for intersections and segments along the CMP System of Highways and Roadways, under current or existing conditions, is required to be developed using HCM based methods. ConSidering the transportation financing program in Riverside County established through Measure A, there are no advantages to set a higher minimum LOS standard than required by CMP legislation, LOS "E". As a result, the minimum LOS standard for intersections and segments along the CMP System of Highways and Roadways shall be "E" unless the intersection or segment had a lower LOS (LOS "F") in 1991 (reference Table 4-1 and Exhibit 4-1). Such facilities are exempt from CMP deficiency plan requirements. Public Transit/Alternative Mass Transit System Standards Transit standards must be established for service frequency (i.e., headways), routing, and coordination among multiple transit agencies operating within the CMP jurisdiction. To meet the requirements of the Statutes, the performance measures outlined in the Short Range Transit Plans prepared by transit agencies in Riverside County are included in this chapter. In 2005, RCTC approved a Productivity Improvement Program (PIP) as part of a comprehensive effort to work with the county's eight public transit operators to provide better service and improve effiCiency. The PIP identifies performance targets in which transit operators will strive to meet in developing its SRTP service and financial plan. Chapter 5-Enhanced Transportation System Management Program: • The CMP must include a program to analyze the impact of land use decisions by jurisdictions on the regional transportation system, including an estimate of costs to mitigate those impacts. This element describes the traffic data collection process to assess land use decision impacts on the Congestion Management System. Under the program, RCTC, CVAG and Caltrans would be the agencies Prepared for: Riverside County Transportation Commission Prepared by: VRPA Technologies, Inc. ES-3 2011 Riverside County Congestion Management Program in Riverside County responsible for the traffic count data collection process. The count data can also be applied to comply with State and federal Congestion Management Plan/Congestion Management System/Transportation Management System {CMP/CMSITMS} data collection requirements. CVAG currently has a Traffic Monitoring Program in place that addresses CMP System Monitoring requirements in the Coachella Valley. RCTC has implemented the Enhanced Traffic Monitoring Program using Smart Call Box {SCB} and Caltrans' Traffic ManC1gement Center (TMC) equipment at selected sites along the State Highway system in Riverside County. Chapter 6 • LOS Deficiency Plans: • California Government Code Sections 65088 and 65089 provide for the development of deficiency plans. The Code states that "a city or county may designate individual segments or intersections as deficient when they do not meet the established level of service standards, if prior to the designation at a noticed public hearing, the city or county has adopted a deficiency plan". Deficient segments or intersections will be identified through the biennial traffic monitoring process. When a deficiency is identified as part of the CMP Update LOS evaluation process, further detailed analysis of LOS shall be conducted to determine whether an actual deficiency has occurred. The LOS analysis conducted as part of the CMP Update process is only considered to be a "screening" level analysis, therefore additional, more detailed assessment of a potential deficiency would be required before a deficiency is formally identified. Coordination with the affected local jurisdiction(s) will be made to insure that appropriate data, geometrics, counts and other related information is applied to calculate LOS. The local agency where the deficiency is located will be responsible for the preparation of the deficiency plan. RCTC will prepare deficiency plans on the State Highway System when deficiencies are identified and will coordinate the development of the deficiency plan with affected local jurisdictions. Chapter 7 • Transportation Demand Management (TDM)/Air Quality: • The CMP must include alternatives to single occupant auto use, such as transit, and van and carpooling; and must promote strategies to manage overall travel demand, such as a jobs/housing balance, flextime, telecommuting and parking strategies. Local agencies must also adopt a transportation demand management (TOM) ordinance to comply with CMP statutes. In 1991, all local agencies adopted TDM ordinances. In 1996, the State changed the CMP from a mandatory program to a voluntary program; therefore, RCTC has not required agencies to update their respective TDM ordinances. There are effective ways of achieving trip reduction in Riverside County other than through the adoption of local agency Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Ordinances, which was the focus of TDM efforts in the past. RCTC believes that there are other approaches that can be more effective and has facilitated the implementation of TDM projects through the Measure "A" Commuter Assistance Programs, and the implementation of a number of TDM projects (in cooperation with Caltrans and local agencies in Riverside County and in adjoining counties) to achieve TDM objectives. Such TDM strategies include the development of Park-N-Ride lots, commuter rail stations, and public transit feeder services. Prepared for: Riverside County Transportation Commission Prepared by: VRPA Technologies, Inc. ES-4 2011 Riverside County Congestion Management Program In addition to TDM, Transportation Systems Management (TSM) strategies also provide for smoother traffic flow, especially along congested streets and highways in the County. Types of TSM strategies already implemented in Riverside County include bus bays, signal coordination systems, signal preemption for transit vehicles, improved signal timing projects, ramp metering, and focused intersection improvements. Taken together, the individual programs, projects, and TDM ordinances that continue to be implemented by local agencies constitute a broad base effort to reduce reliance on the single occupant vehicle and address CMP objectives. Chapter 8 • Capital Improvement Program (CIP): • The CIP is a 7-year program; projects in the CIP may be incorporated into the Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTlP) for the programming of Flexible Congestion Relief (FCR) and Urban and Commuter Rail funds; CIP Projects must maintain or improve performance of the multi-modal system; and projects must conform to transportation-related emission air quality mitigation measures. To comply with the statutes, the 2011 CIP incorporates all CMP System projects listed in the most recent TIP including STIP, Measure "An, Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF), and other federally funded projects. To streamline this process, CIP requirements shall be the same as, and accomplished through the Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP) development. Chapter 9 • CMP Conformance and Monitoring Process: • RCTC must make a determination that its member cities and the county are conforming to the CMP, including consistency with traffic LOS and transit performance standards and implementation of a program to monitor and evaluate the performance of the transportation system. SCAG must also find the CMP consistent with the Regional Transportation Plan and certify that the CMP meets federal CMS requirements. The specific requirements of Conformance and Monitoring Process are described in Chapter 9. Chapter 10· CMP Development and Implementation Update Process: • This chapter focuses on the procedural, administrative, and coordination activities related to CMP development, adoption, and update in accordance with CMP legislation. The CMP includes a process that addresses each of the activities identified above including CMP development, adoption, and update. Environmental Assessment -The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) identifies the CMP as an exempt project. As a result, compliance with CEQA requirements is not required. Prepared for: Riverside County Transportation Commission Prepared by: VRPA Technologies, Inc. ES-5 2011 Riverside County Congestion Management Program 1 DESIGNATION OF THE CONGESTION MANAGEMENT AGENCY According to CMP legislation (AB 471, AB 1791, AB 1963, and AB 2419), the Riverside County Board of Supervisors and a majority of cities representing a majority of the population in the incorporated area, must designate by resolution, a public agency to prepare and adopt a Congestion Management Program (CMP). The Congestion Management Agency (CMA) has the authority to monitor compliance with the adopted program. An amendment to the Government Code requires the CMA to update and adopt the CMP every two years (biennially) consistent with development of the Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP). A copy of AB 2419 is provided as Appendix 1. A key feature of AB 471 is the requirement that every urbanized county with a population of 50,000 or more must prepare and adopt a comprehensive CMP. The CMP represents a directive for local governments to measure and mitigate the impact of land use decisions on streets, highways, and regional transportation systems. In 1996, the State of California amended the CMP legislation to change the requirement from mandatory to voluntary. However, federal Metropolitan Planning provisions require Metropolitan Planning Organization's (MPO) serving a transportation management area (TMA) (Le. area with a population over 200,000) to include a Congestion Management System (CMS) component as part of their transportation planning process. Each of the six counties in the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) region has adopted and implemented a CMP. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and Federal Transit Administration (FTA) jointly determine if the MPO's planning process meets the requirements of 23 U.S.C. 134 among other provisions. In the event that the FHWA/FTA determines that the planning process in a TMA does not substantially meet the requirements and do not certify the process, they may withhold federal project and funding approvals. AS On June 11, 1990, the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) was designated as the CMA for Riverside County by resolution from member agencies. The Coachella Valley Association of Governments (CVAG) and the Western Riverside Council of Governments (WRCOG) also supported the designation. It is the Commission's intent to continue working closely with WRCOG, CVAG, the cities and the County, toward development and implementation of an effective CMP. The Commission will continue to develop and biennially update the CMP to coincide with the development of the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) and Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP) in cooperation with local govemments, Air Quality Management Districts, and subregional planning agencies (WRCOG and CVAG). The CMP must also be submitted to the MPO, which for Riverside County is the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). SCAG is responsible for Prepared for: Riverside County Transportation Commission Prepared by: VRPA Technologies, Inc 1-1 2011 Riverside County Congestion Management Program determining consistency of each CMP within the SCAG region with the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) and air quality management plans. The Riverside County Congestion Management Program combines the requirements of the State's CMP and the federal CMS with a greater emphasis on the CMS, resulting in an enhanced transportation monitoring system. Prepared for: Riverside County Transportation Commission Prepared by: VRPA Technologies, Inc 1-2 2011 Riverside County Congestion Management Program DESIGNATION OF THE CMP SYSTEM OF HIGHWAYS AND ROADWAYS Section 65089(a), referenced in AB 1963, requires development of a Congestion Management Program (CMP) to establish traffic level of service (LOS) standards for a system of highways and roadways designated by RCTC as the Congestion Management Agency {CMA}. This system must include, at a minimum, all state highways and principal arterials, both new and existing facilities. Once designated, components of the system cannot be removed. Designated System of Highways and Principal Arterials: • All State Highway facilities in Riverside County. Consideration may be given to the following conditions when designating Principal Arterials: ./ Routes identified on Caltrans' "Functional Classification System" as "Principal Arterials"; ./ Designated expressways; and ./ Facilities linking cities/communities {interregional facilities}, and major activity centers (shopping malls, major industrial/business parks, stadiums, etc). SYSTEM An update to the CMP System considers the criteria identified above, including arterial facilities added to the Federal Functional Classification System. Local agencies may nominate arterials for inclusion on the CMP System at any time. Nominated arterials will be reviewed by the RCTC Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) for approval and forwarded to the RCTC Board for final approval. The CMP System of Highways and Roadways in Riverside County is displayed on Exhibit 2-1. Based upon review of the revised Functional Classification System and the considerations listed above, no additional facilities were designated as principal arterials during the 2011 CMP update process. Prepared for: Riverside County Transportation Commission Prepared by: VRPA Technologies. Inc. 2-1 2011 Riverside County Congestion Management Program r- I 0J 1----------1 + :0 r:. x w I i E Q) +~ U) CL ~ 0 Q) TI .V) " Q) .> 0:::: 0 Z w <.!) W --' E (J) ~ <f) a.. ~ U c: 0 21 0"'"(J) t « E ~ <f) a..a.. ~ ~ UU c:c: 00 <n (J) E !2 (J) C Prepared for: Riverside County Transportation Commission Prepared by: VRPA Technologies. Inc. 2-2 2011 Riverside County Congestion Management Program /.11-/ I ,~ ~, 1"---: <')1 ~I ~ c 0 0 .- I 0J + :0 .c X w ............ Q) TI"en ..... ~ b::: c..... Q) 1i5 ~ E Q) ~ en a... ~ U Q) TI"en ..... ~ b::: w UJI z-.-~! .... 3: <: ~ I ~ a: ~ ! E (]) "t; >en 0... E E (])2 (]) "t;() "t; >>-enenC 0...0 0... 2(J) 20 ()0 ()z "m c c w t: 0 0 (J)0) « (J) (])w >---' 0 Q. 0:;: "5 "0 1!!.c. (])c (t I OJ C Prepared for: Riverside County Transportation Commission Prepared by: VRPA Technologies. Inc. 2-3 -- 2011 Riverside County Congestion Management Program -::;::: c o U --I-------------------~ r- I C\I +- 1S ...c: x LU .--.. >(]) g 0 (]) ..c 0 0 0 U E (]) t5 ~ 0... 2 U Q) TI -U) " (]) -> ~ 0 z Ll.J (9 Ll.J -' E 2 <n if)> Q 2 u c 0 <n "0-lli t: « -0 Q -0 C -c Q EE OJ2 <n 11; >> (f)if) a. 2 a. 2 uu cc 00 VJ OJ~ 0 "0 ~ ~ £ OJ0) CI Prepared for: Riverside County Transportation Commission Prepared by: VRPA Techn%gies. Inc. 2-4 2011 Riverside County Congestion Management Program CMP SYSTEM OF HIGHWAYS AND ROADWAYS • State Highways: Facility Name 1. 1-10 2. 1-15 3. 1-215 4. US 95 5. SR 60 6. SR 62 7. SR 71 8. SR 74 9. SR 78 10. SR 79 11. SR 86 12. SR 91 13. SR 111/ Highway 111'1 14. SR 177 15. SR 195 16. SR 243 17. SR 371 Limits San Bernardino Co. Line to the Arizona State Line San Bernardino Co. Line to the San Diego Co. Line San Bernardino Co. Line to 1-15 San Bernardino Co. Line to 1-10 San Bernardino Co. Line to 1-10 San Bernardino Co. Line to 1-10 San Bernardino Co. Line to SR 91 Orange Co. Line to SR 111 Imperial Co. Line to 1-10 1-10 to San Diego Co. Line SR 111 to Imperial Co. Line Orange Co. Line to 1-215 1-10 to Imperial Co. Line SR62tol-10 SR 86 to SR 111 1-10 to SR 74 SR 79 to SR 74 • Principal Arterials· Western Riverside County: Facility Name 1. Alessandro Blvd. 2. Agua Mansa Rd. 3. Arlington Blvd. 4. Armstrong RdNalley Way 5. Country Village Rd. 6. La Sierra Ave. 7. Limonite Ave. 8. Magnolia Ave. 9. Main St.lFirst St. 10. Market St.lRubidoux Blvd. 11. Mission Inn and University 12. Sierra Ave. 13. Etiwanda Ave. 14. Van Buren Blvd. Limits Intersection of Central, Arlington &Chicago to 1-215 San Bernardino County Line to Market St. California to Intersection of Central, Alessandro &Chicago Sierra Ave. to SR 60 San Bernardino County Line to SR 60 Arlington Blvd. to SR 91 San Bernardino County Line to Mission Blvd. SR 91 to Market St. San Bernardino County Line to Market St. San Bernardino County Line to Magnolia Ave. Market to SR 91 San Bernardino County Line to Valley Way/Armstrong Rd. Limonite Ave. -San Bernardino County Line San Bernardino County Line to 1-215 • Principal Arterials· Coachella Valley: Facility Name 1. Monterey Ave. 2. Ramon Rd. Limits SR 111 to 1-10 SR 111 to 1-10 '1 SR 111 in Riverside County is a designated State Route (SR) between 1-10 and Golf Club Drive and between SR 74 and the Imperial County Line. That section between Golf Club Drive and SR 74 was relinquished to adjacent jurisdictions. Prepared for: Riverside County Transportation Commission Prepared by: VRPA Technologies. Inc. 2-5 2011 Riverside County Congestion Management Program 3 TRANSPORTATION MODELING Section 65089.3 (c) of the Government Code requires that RCTC, as the Congestion Management Agency (CMA), in consultation with the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), cities and the County, develop a uniform database on traffic impacts for use in a countywide transportation model. Further, RCTC, in consultation with SCAG, must approve transportation computer models that will be used by local jurisdictions and the county to determine the quantitative impacts of development on the circulation system. Local transportation models shall be consistent with the databases used by SCAG. TRANSPORTATION IlnV~JI..!...1 Transportation computer models applied in Riverside County include the Riverside County Traffic Analysis Model (RIVTAM) and the SCAG Regional Transportation Model. The newly developed RIVTAM model was a multi-agency effort to develop a more detailed roadway network than the SCAG Regional Model. RIVTAM added 570 centerline miles of roadways to the network and incorporates all facilities in the Riverside County General Plan classified as Secondary and above. In addition, some Collectors were included, as necessary, to insure that all Traffic Analysis Zones (TAZs) are connected to the network of General Plan roadways. A Memorandum of Understanding has been approved by the Riverside County Transportation Department (RCTD), CVAG, WRCOG, and RCTC to establish roles and responsibilities for updating and maintaining the model including use of the model by the local agencies. The RCTD serves as the lead agency for RIVTAM. During 2008, SCAG prepared an update to the SCAG models based upon new growth forecasts developed for the Year 2035. The RIVTAM model is based on the SCAG 2008 model with refinements to reflect local conditions within Riverside County. Local transportation models are also developed by local agencies to determine land use impacts on its transportation system. SCAG is currently in the process of preparing the 2012 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) to address requirements set forth in S8 375 -Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS). S8 375 also requires enhancements to the regional transportation model(s). Specific model enhancements will be reflected in the 2013 CMP following completion of modeling activity by SCAG. IMPROVEMENTS The SCAG model was last revised/updated (calibrated/validated) in 2008 and has been available for use by local agencies in reviewing regionally Significant development projects, or projects that generate greater than 500 peak hour trips through the Intergovernmental Review (IGR) process. In addition, SCAG developed a regionwide demographic database system to collect accurate data for development of the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). The RTP is the region's long range transportation Prepared for: Riverside County Transportation Commission Prepared by: VRPA Technologies, Inc. 3-1 2011 Riverside County Congestion Management Program plan that considers land use development patterns, transportation systems, population and housing needs to develop policies and strategies that will accommodate future growth and demand. Locally, WRCOG, CVAG, and the County of Riverside have taken lead roles in the development of a Geographic Information System (GIS) to monitor growth in the County so that socioeconomic and land use databases can be easily developed and maintained. SCAG has developed model consistency guidelines to assist public agencies and traffic engineering professionals with the development of local models that are consistent with the SCAG regional transportation model. The objective of these guidelines is to comply with CMP consistency requirements, improve communications between affected agencies to simplify the exchange of data, and improve databases and modeling results at both the local and regional level. A copy of the current Consistency Guidelines for Transportation Modeling -Riverside and San Bernardino Counties is available at RCTC or at the SCAG Inland Empire Office in Riverside. MODELING PURPOSES During implementation of the Riverside County CMP, transportation computer models are used for several purposes, including: • Determining and monitoring traffic levels of service (LOS) for the current and future years; • Analyzing the impacts of land use decisions resulting from the IGR or CEOA processes and when an LOS deficiency occurs along the CMP System; and • Evaluating and prioritizing transportation improvement projects, such as capital projects, transit projects, Transportation Systems Management (TSM) projects, Transportation Demand Management (TOM) strategies, and other programs that improve the transportation system and air quality. Prepared for: Riverside County Transportation Commission Prepared by: VRPA Technologies, Inc. 3-2 2011 Riverside County Congestion Management Program R4 MULTIMODAL SYSTEM PERFORMANCE STANDARDS Section 65089(b)(2) of the Government Code states that the Congestion Management Program (CMP) must contain a performance element that includes performance measures to evaluate current and future multimodal system performance for the movement of people and goods. At a minimum, the performance measures must incorporate highway and roadway system performance measures established for the frequency and routing of public transit, and for the coordination of transit service provided by separate operators. The performance measures must also support mobility, air quality, land use, and economic objectives, and must be used in the development of the Riverside County Capital Improvement Program (CIP) required pursuant to paragraph (5), deficiency plans required pursuant to Section 65089.4, and the land use analysis program required pursuant to paragraph (4) of the Government Code. According to AS 471 and AB 1791, traffic level of service (LOS) must be measured by: a) Circular 212; b) the most recent version of the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) prepared by the Transportation Research Board (TRS); or c) by an alternative uniform methodology adopted by the Congestion Management Agency (CMA), which the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) determines is consistent with the HCM. In no case can the standards established be below LOS "E" or the current level, whichever is farthest from LOS "A", This Chapter describes the multimodal system performance standards for Riverside County in accordance with CMP legislation. Therefore, standards are presented in this Chapter for the CMP System of Streets and Roads and for the Public Transit/Alternative Mass Transit System. CMP System of Streets and Highways • Established Minimum Level of Service With the intent of the legislation in mind, the RCTC Technical AdviSOry Committee (TAC) CMP Subcommittee approved a "two-tiered" approach to establish the minimum LOS standard. Tier 1 involves the "locally established minimum traffic LOS -or -ceiling," while Tier 2 involves the CMP minimum LOS standard -or -"floor." Most local agencies in Riverside County and Caltrans have adopted LOS standards of "C" or "D" (representing the "ceiling" in Tier 2) in an effort to maintain a desired LOS for the local circulation system. To address CMP legislative requirements, and establish a minimum LOS along the regional system of roadways and highways within the County (representing the "floor" in Tier 2). RCTC approved a minimum traffic LOS standard of "E." Prepared for: Riverside County Transportation Commission Prepared by: VRPA Technologies, Inc. 4-1 2011 Riverside County Congestion Management Program • Exempt Facilities Table 4-1 and Exhibit 4-1 identify facilities (roadway segments or intersections) along the CMP System that had a LOS of "F" in 1991. As a result, these facilities continue to be "exempt" from CMP requirements in accordance with CMP Statutes. • Methodology to Determine Level of Service RCTC determined that the traffic LOS method that incorporated a "delay" analysis was the most applicable for CMP purposes. Consideration of delay through HCM-based software programs provided a closer approximation of LOS than under the Circular 212 or similar methodologies. For purposes of this Program, LOS analysis for intersections and segments along the CMP System of Highways and Roadways (under current or existing conditions), should be developed or established using the following HCM-based methods in the order presented: 1. Segment (freeway and principal arterial) floating car runs or stopped delay LOS analysis at intersections; 2. Segment and intersection LOS analysis using HCM; and 3. Segment analysis using the Modified HCM LOS Tables (or revised Florida LOS Tables). Staff continues to recommend the use of HCM methods through applicable software packages applied to various types of facilities (reference Table 4-2 --LOS Methodology Applications). Appropriate defaults to be applied by local agencies in their analysis of LOS are referenced in Appendix 2. HCM-based methodologies applied to calculate LOS for CMP purposes will be the responsibility of local agencies as new development or land use plan revisions/updates (reflective of specific development proposals) are considered. This process shall be consistent with the Enhanced Transportation System Management Program described in Chapter 5. The initial LOS analysis conducted as part of the CMP Update process is considered to be a "screening" level analysis. A more detailed assessment is conducted on key critical segments. If the analysis results in LOS deficiencies, the LOS analysis would continue on a quarterly basis to determine the average peak hour LOS and determine if the LOS deficiencies are due to temporary or permanent conditions. Coordination with the affected local agency(s) also will be made to insure that appropriate data, geometrics, counts and other related information is applied to calculate LOS. Prepared for: Riverside County Transportation Commission Prepared by: VRPA Technologies, Inc. 4-2 ../lo. w ctl " "2 ctlQ. 0 :"! ::0<' ~ (Ii "g:ctlo"2g ctl ::::IQ.-< ~;;t " Qj ~~ ~o ;j;i it ::t, \") 0:::r::::l ::::10 !~ -, :3 m(ij' ~ <II :s-0'!"l ::::I Piv,""JJ I';l";~ Rd l H.:'~~<:('cr.. St __ I.... J~cl'm Bh:~l m ~ -~ !rl,'m.;J1\sl~'")1./~-~ 1.236 ~ jo SI>! 1!1 742 N w+ Nor rOSCAL€' 2011 -Level of Service on CMP System in Western Riverside EXHIBIT 4·1A ® xxx l&g~!H! lOS A, B, C. D. E. 0( F d-e~gna1itm basL>d L011 CUP Data __ Not Dor",-.,,! Por PoMS Speed Dat. __0.,1,,"01 Per PaMS Speed D~13 __Nol Deficlent Per 2009 FJoatmg Car Runs N <::> ..... ..... ::0 ~. illg: o o t:: ::::I -<o o ca m g. ::::I ~ ~ cg ~ ... a " CQ ii1 :3 ~ ~ CII ~ ./:>. j.. Q. 0;, :::0 ~' (iJ "g:~(") ~g ~ :::s Q.~ ~~ '. Qj ~~ ::ti'tl ~o it;;;t~g.g :::s(") S.O c8~ -.~ ~ -. ~ ~ S' o·fl:::s .~." 2.,78 i 580 " W+F Nor roSeAte 2011 -Level of Service on CMP System Coachella Valley EXHIBIT 4·1B 1&ll~.!l!.l ® lOS i'.. B. C, D, E, or F deSiOMllOI; fOr oog",oo'. MS<ldon 2011 ClAP Data xxx _ _ _ Not De!icienl Per PeMS Speed Data Daficient Per PeMS Speed Data Not DefICient Per 2009 FIOatiog Car flu", N Q ...a. ...a. :::0 ~. VIg: ~ § ~ (") g m-g' i ~ :::s ~- c8 ~ Ql ~ 2011 Riverside County Congestion Management Program Icoo-....x. X"" w (]) ~D ;;:'(/).... ~ 0 <.l(]) " '"" ~ 0 m,2:: ~ '" (.~ -g ~ U) £ ::;:., 8. '" (J) 0C Q. <Il '" .... ::; '" ;;; Q Il.(]) " " Q. G ~ c't5 ~ "-c '0 '" 0 "" "W 00'" LU ~ '0 ~ 0z c zc I I IE (]) 't5 >(J) ~ CL "0. ::E2 '-' U g '1:li 3C 0 ~i ~, 2 (]) C' ...Ji ;I; () E," "5 3i.... $:(]) g(J) ;i '+~0 ! (]) u. > 0 ui (]) r::i .....J 0 W ,...... ., '" ,...... g 0 ~ xC\I ® Prepared for: Riverside County Transportation Commission Prepared by: VRPA Technologies, Inc. 4-5 ~ ~ III Cti Q. ~ a, 0 :"! ~ ;§' iil ~g: ~o III 0 Cti § Q.~ 0':os;'Qj ~~ ;go ~S Cb~ C") 0' 5~ 00 0 0 1Q:3(b':3 ,!II iii' S-III C") 0' , ~ ----- '" < ;' ~ ;' ----/ ~ w+r: NorroscAlt-: \l",.ltu)..>Oin! (M\Y,lJ:II.,1 '£ "* -:-I'!J! v.~.'hU,~I\I":\1 _"~_'M."" ..... _--- 201 1 -Level of Service on CMP System in North Western Riverside EXHIBIT 4·1D !,st:.~!!J.I. ® LOS A, 8, C, D, E, Of F designation f{}f segments ba;red on 201' eMP Data XXX Peak Hour Volume (80th DirectiorH:.) based on 2011 CMP Data, CrnJnty of Rivar:wje 2010 Traffic C::xmts. CVAG Monitoring Report and Caltrans District 8 20"10 Peak '-1our Traffic Counts. _ Not Defident PElr PeMS Speed Data ..Oef!cient Per PeMS Speed Data ..Not Deficient Per 2009 Floating Car Runs "'llPA TF("}JNOI.M'O~H I*"' N Q ~ ~ ::0 ~' iilg: o o § ~ o o ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .... "tJ a ~ Qj :3 III 2011 Riverside County Congestion Management Program TABLE EXEMPT FACILITIES IN 2011 GRAND AVENUE TO LAKESHORE DRIVE LAKESHORE TO 1-15 SANDERSON AVENUE TO CORNELL STREET CORNELL STREET TO HEMET AVENUE RIVERSIDE COUNTY LINE TO JCT SR 71 JCT SR 71 TO MAPLE STREET MAPLE STREET TO JCT 1-15 JCT 1-15 TO 0.6 MILE WEST OF MCKINLEY 0.6 MILE WEST OF MCKII\ILEY TO MAGNOLIA AVENUE MAGNOLIA AVENUE TO 14TH STREET 14TH STREET TO JCT SR 60/SR 91/1-215 EAST JCT SR 60 TO JCT SR 60/SR 91/1-215 JCT SR 60/SR 9111-215 TO SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY LINE DISTRICT 11 BOUNDARY TO JCT SR 74 JCT SR 74 TO GENE AUTRY TRAIL PRINCIPAL ARTERIALS -WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY ON LA SIERRA AVENUE: ARLINGTON TO GRAMERCY ON VAN BUREN BOULEVARD: NORTHERLY CITY LIMIT TO JURUPA JURUPA TO CENTRAL CENTRAL TO ARLINGTON Prepared for: Riverside County Transportation Commission Prepared by: VRPA Technologies, Inc. 4-7 2011 Riverside County Congestion Management Program HIGHWAY CAPACITY MANUAL BASED LEVEL OF SERVICE METHODOLOGY APPLICATIONS *1 -Current year traffic conditions *2 -Future year (2030) traffic conditions *3 -Used as an example only, other HCM compatible software will also be accepted. *4 -Results of analysis should be evaluated considering actual intersection conditions or 4-or 2-way stop or signal warrants. Prepared for: Riverside County Transportation Commission Prepared by: VRPA Technologies, Inc. 4-8 2011 Riverside County Congestion Management Program • 2011 Level of Service (LOS) Results ../ Coachella Valley The Coachella Valley Associated Governments (CVAG) has implemented a valleywide traffic monitoring program for many years. Count information contained in CVAG's 2011 Traffic Census Report was utilized in the LOS analysis as well as a growth rate applied to 2009 CMP traffic count data. The analysis conducted by VRPA Technologies indicates that there is one (1) deficiency in the Coachella Valley for 2011 along Ramon Road between Bob Hope Drive and 1-10 . ../ Western Riverside County Based on LOS calculations along the CMP system in Western Riverside County using Caltrans and local agency counts as well as a growth rate applied to 2009 CMP traffic count data, two (2) deficiencies were found. The deficiencies occur along Van Buren Boulevard between Washington Street and Wood Road and between Orange Terrace and 1-215 . ../ State Highways Traffic count information was collected from the Caltrans 2010 Traffic Monitoring Report, from the Caltrans Performance Measurement System (PeMS), and from existing Smart Call Boxes (SCB) located along the State Highway system. In addition, peak hour traffic counts were collected from various transportation studies and local agencies. The data was then adjusted and evaluated by VRPA Technologies using HCM-based LOS tables. Previous deficiencies in 2009 along State Highways included one (1) segment along 1-15 (SR 60 to Weirick Rd) and one (1) segment along 1-215 (1-15 to Scott Rd). After additional monitoring and the analysis of PeMS speed data in 2011, a portion of the 1-15 segment still remains deficient as noted below. Results of this process are provided in Chapter 5 and indicate that three (3) smaller segments of the larger segment along 1-15 (SR-60 to Limonite Ave, 2nd St to SR-91, and Magnolia Ave to Weirick Rd) are currently operating at LOS <IF" and therefore are deficient. These segments however, will likely be improved to LOS "E" or better once construction of the 1-15 Corridor Improvement Project (CIP) is initiated and completed. In addition, one (1) segment along 1-215 (Nuevo Rd to SR-74/4th St) is operating at LOS <IF". This segment will likely be improved to LOS "E" or better once construction of the 1-215 widening project is initiated and completed and the 1-215/SR-74 interchange reconstruction project (currently under construction) is completed. Each of these deficient segments will be monitored using PeMS speed data over the next 9 months on a quarterly basis to determine the LOS. Results of this monitoring process will be provided to the TAC following the 12 month monitoring process or during preparation of the 2013 CMP Update. It will also be important to closely monitor LOS "E" segments on a quarterly basis. Once a LOS "E" segment falls to LOS <IF' during the quarterly monitoring process, the segment will be further analyzed as to what the cause may be. If the LOS is at <IF" for more than one (1) year and is the average annual peak hour condition with no extenuating circumstances causing the deficiency (e.g., construction, special event, etc), the local agency will be notified to prepare a deficiency plan in accordance to Chapter 6. Prepared for: Riverside County Transportation Commission Prepared by: VRPA Technologies, Inc. 4-9 2011 Riverside County Congestion Management Program Public Transit/Alternative Mass Transit Standards • Statutory Requirements Section 65089.(b)(2) of the Government Code specifically requires development of standards established for the frequency and routing of public transit, and for the coordination of transit service provided by separate operators. • Public Transit and Alternative Mass Transit Facility Standards RCTC, as the Regional Transportation Planning Agency, is responsible for planning and coordinating all public mass transit services within the jurisdiction of the Commission and between the jurisdiction of other county commissions or transit operators. On an annual basis, transit operators prepare a Short Range Transit Plan (SRTP), which is a three-year document detailing the operating and capital costs that are planned for transit services. Each operator adopts such a plan and then provides quarterly data to RCTC regarding performance. Once the SRTPs are approved by RCTC, transit operators are charged with the responsibility for providing the service levels and purchasing the capital equipment identified in year-one of the SRTP. Once approved by RCTC, the SRTPs must be amended if an operator wants to deviate from the original plan. The Commission encourages all operators to coordinate public transportation services including routes, fare structure and transfer agreements as the overall goal is the improvement of public transportation services to the general public. To assist with the coordination efforts, quarterly meetings are held with the public transit operators to ensure that efficient, effective transportation services are provided. Public Utilities Code Section 99244 requires the Commission to annually identify, analyze and recommend potential productivity improvements for transit operators through the SRTP process. This process requires the transit operators to address recommendations made through the triennial performance audit In 2005, the Commission reaffirmed its commitment to a Productivity Improvement Program (PIP), which was originally adopted in 1998 as part of a comprehensive effort to work with the county's eight public transit operators to provide better service and improve efficiency. Table 4-3 details the performance targets as identified in the PIP that transit operators will strive to meet in developing its SRTP service and financial plan: As an alternative mode to the single-occupant vehicle, mass transit services (commuter rail services) should be considered during the assessment of local development proposals that impact the Congestion Management System and during the development of deficiency plans by local agencies. Further, future rail passenger services should be considered as appropriate mitigation measures to offset potential deficiencies. If feasible, future transit and passenger rail facility systems should be described as potential services that could reduce vehicle trips and relieve congestion at or above the minimum LOS standard. Prepared for: Riverside County Transportation Commission Prepared by: VRPA Technologies, Inc. 4-10 2011 Riverside County Congestion Management Program TRANSIT SYSTEM PERFORMANCE INDICATORS Performance Indicator Method for Establishing Performance Targets 1) Operating Cost per Revenue Hour Increases no more than CPI 2) Fare Box Recovery Ratio Per PUC requirements and RCTC policy 3) Subsidy per Passenger +/-15% variance 4) Subsidy per Passenger Mile +/-15% variance 5) Subsidy per Revenue Hour +/-15% variance 6) Subsidy per Revenue Mile +/-15% variance 7) Passengers per Revenue Hour +/-15% variance 8) Passengers per Revenue Mile +/-15% variance 9) Ridership growth 2% minimum growth annually (Applies to Commuter Rail) CONFORMANCE AND MONITORING PROCESS It is the local agency's responsibility to ensure implementation of development project mitigation measures identified by the project proponent. RCTC and local qgencies will monitor the implementation of deficiency plans that include transit and roadway improvements intended to improve traffic LOS. If through the biennial traffic monitoring process, the LOS along a deficient arterial or highway facility improves to LOS "E" or better, mitigation measures that have not been implemented as specified in the deficiency plan, would no longer be required for CMP compliance purposes. Prepared for: Riverside County Transportation Commission Prepared by: VRPA Technologies, Inc. 4-11 2011 Riverside County Congestion Management Program 5 ENHANCED TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM MANAGEMENT PROGRAM Section 65089 (b)(4) of the Government Code requires that RCTC develop a program to analyze the impacts of land use decisions made by local jurisdictions on regional transportation systems, including an estimate of the costs associated with mitigating those impacts. In no case must the program outlined in this Chapter include an estimate of the costs of mitigating the impacts of interregional travel, but it must provide credit for local public and private contributions to improvements on regional transportation systems. In the case of toll road facilities, credit must only be allowed for local public and private contributions, which are unreimbursed from toll revenues or other state or federal sources. RCTC must calculate the amount of the credit to be provided. RCTC The RCTC CMP Enhanced Transportation System Management Program was designed to meet the federal Highway Performance Monitoring System (HPMS) and Congestion Manqgement SystemITraffic Management System (CMS/TMS) requirements, as well as to monitor the CMP System of Highways and Roadways. The intent of the Enhanced Transportation System Management Program is to effectively identify those facilities that have congestion problems, track the degree of congestion, and apply evaluation criteria to the system so that federal and State funds are targeted or programmed to relieve the congestion. The Enhanced Transportation System Management Program utilizes "loop or pavement sensors" currently installed along the State Highway system at call boxes (reference Figures 5-1 A through 5-1 C) and Caltrans' Performance Measurement System (PeMS) sites (reference 5-2A through 5-2C). Traffic counters were installed at these sites allowing RCTC and Caltrans to retrieve count data. Many PeMS sites now have the capability to retrieve speed, truck flow, vehicle miles traveled (VMT), vehicle hours traveled (VHT), and delay data. The Enhanced Transportation System Management Program will improve traffic monitoring for the CMP and other planning or technical purposes. The federal Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) requires that metropolitan transportation planning processes include a Congestion Management Process similar to the federal CMS requirements. To address the SAFETEA-LU requirements, SCAG and the county Congestion Management Agencies (CMAs) established and implemented a Congestion Management Process, which is designed to relieve traffic congestion and maintain high levels of service on the roadway network in the SCAG region. The Congestion Management Process includes the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP), the counties' CMPs, and the Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP), which should all maintain a level of consistency with each other. A review of Federal CMSITMS requirements is provided in Appendix 3. Prepared for: Riverside County Transportation Commission Prepared by: VRPA Technologies, Inc. 5-1 2011 Riverside County Congestion Management Program !::: m<-.....::1:.XI,(') W W -C en ~ w >ti: z ~ W I-en W ~ z en w !::: en z 0 ~ ~ Z w ::E w ...J 0.. ::E ><0 ca ...J ...J « 0 I ~ « ::E en 0 Z w (!) w -' ~+~ ~ J!l'" (i'j 0" .. til >< 00 til 1::.. <.) E '" .. <J) in OC] Prepared for: Riverside County Transportation Commission Prepared by: VRPA Technologies, Inc. 5-2 2011 Riverside County Congestion Management Program I-moo ',', i-....:1:. ~*ZgxU) .. ,.' ~ w ii; >W ...J ...J \ ~ [ ! ::i! ...J W ::t: i 0 «! 0i 0i \ z en w t- Cij ..Z :! rJ)0 0 " IX!~ Cl Z '1i ~ w 0 (!) t:Z .. ....J EW W .., :E w 0...J a.. :E X 0 Dl ...J ...J « 0 ~ « :E en Prepared for: Riverside County Transportation Commission Prepared by: VRPA Technologies, Inc. 5-3 2011 Riverside County Congestion Management Program ~ iii 0 7,X"':"X.., W j j j j i i \ /'.... " .....,'_. "\ ".., \ '........., .', I I W C (J) 0::: W > 0::: z 0::: W l- f/) j < ~ W j Z j f/)1 j W \ t:i (J)I i Z i 0\ 0 Zj \ , ~ W (!)~i wZ -'j W\ i :liE w ..J 0 :liE ><0 £Q ..J ..J <0 l i 0::: i <\ i :liE (J)\ i i ". _.,.,., ... ..III ;l:! (I) 0 " III ;;; fJ 1:: '"E II) " 0 m is .!! <Il ..; ;<t', i ~ I: ! ~ +-.,0 Prepared for: Riverside County Transportation Commission Prepared by: VRPA Technologies, Inc. 5-4 2011 Riverside County Congestion Management Program Im<-N:r:. )(10 W Prepared for: Riverside County Transportation Commission Prepared by: VRPA Technologies, Inc. 5-5 2011 Riverside County Congestion Management Program /+ >W ..J ..J ~ :5 ..J W ::I: 0 ..« " ee ««0 ., 0 .. '"i! i!'" " [ei >Z Q <>\ (,)u0\ z« '" :;;.. '"~..w 0 Il.W Il. w ;; ." co « tt: ...J ~ .. c C :::0 (,) Ii:W C) i « ! tt: i w \ >i i 0 0 UJ :E Q) Q. ! i L ......... .. Prepared for: Riverside County Transportation Commission Prepared by: VRPA Technologies, Inc. 5-6 " " " " " " " " " " " 2011 Riverside County Congestion Management Program Wi >\ i 0 \ () en :E Cl) a.. i I l j j ii i !J---+-----Iii \ \ i < < " " " " " " " " < " " " " < .." ......1. i ! i i i 1 I i I ! j i j I \ w -0 en! 0:::i wI ~l 0:::i Z\ 0::: w I-en to Ot � ~ � ~ II>CDW l!! '" '" $.. > 0Z > 0 00 -0 '" '"::Ii.,� z :EUJ l. 0.W (!) "'0 � ~ UJ " ..-' c: ;;E '" 0 a:::" W (!) � ~ i Prepared for: Riverside County Transportation Commission Prepared by: VRPA Technologies, Inc. 5-7 2011 Riverside County Congestion Management Program State Highways Monitoring the state highways for CMP purposes involves the downloading of traffic count data from Caltrans' PeMS Website (as necessary) and from Smart Call Box (SCB) sites (on a monthly basis). A level of service analysis will be performed to determine the condition of the CMP System. When a deficiency or LOS T' is identified as part of the CMP Update LOS evaluation process, further detailed analysis of LOS shall be conducted to determine whether an actual deficiency has occurred. The best approach to determine LOS along freeway segments is through the use of floating car runs or PeMS speed data on a quarterly basis. In 2011, PeMS speed data was downloaded and analyzed by RCTC's CMP consultant, VRPA Technologies. Results of this analysis are provided in Chapter 4. Local Arterials Local arterial monitoring involves the continuation of the CVAG Traffic Monitoring Program in the Coachella Valley and the local traffic counting efforts on behalf of the local agencies in Western Riverside County. To further insure that the CMP System is appropriately monitored to reduce the occurrence of CMP deficiencies, proposed development projects are evaluated by each affected agency to determine potential impacts along the regional and sub-regional Systems. As a result, these evaluations will likely reduce the incidence of LOS deficiencies along the CMP System given that each local agency has established LOS thresholds at higher levels. To insure that major development projects and plans are evaluated and reflected in the Southem California Association of Govemments (SCAG) Transportation Model and local models, local agencies are encouraged to work with affected agencies to mitigate the impacts considering the California Environment Quality Act (CEQA). Monitoring of Potential Deficiencies As a result of the 2011 LOS screening analYSis, three (3) LOS "F" segments along 1-15, one (1) along 1 215, two (2) along Van Buren Boulevard, and one (1) along Ramon Road were identified using PeMS speed data and/or recent traffic count data (reference Table 5-1). • 1·15 The segments along 1-15 (SR-60 to Limonite Avenue, 2nd Street to SR-91, and Magnolia Avenue to Weirick Road) are operating at LOS "F" based on PeMS speed data. These segments are expected to be improved to LOS "E" or better once the 1-15 Corridor Improvement Project (CIP) and/or SR-91 CIP are completed. The 1-15 CIP (SR-60 to just north of 1-1511-215) includes the potential construction of one high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lane and one general purpose lane in each direction from SR-74 to SR-60, or two tolled express lanes and one general purpose lane in each direction from SR-74 to SR-60. Both alternatives propose one HOV lane from 1-215 to SR 74. The SR-91 CIP (Orange County Line to 1-15) includes the potential construction of a general purpose traffic lane in each direction, improved ramps and intersections in Corona, better connections between 1-15 and SR-91 , and the extension of SR-91 Express Lanes. Prepared for: Riverside County Transportation Commission Prepared by: VRPA Technologies, Inc. 5-8 2011 Riverside County Congestion Management Program F!C!ENC;V ANALYS!S Ro.d .., I I Doli,;..'" i ",""",Fe, I Segment Floating Car ITraffic Volumes Runs (YIN) I (YIN) """rid;" ! Reason for Overriding I Considerations I Considerations (YIN) Multi·Modal Aspect 1-15 SR-60 to Limonite Ave Y N/A Y 1-15 Corridor Improvement Project, SR-91 Corridor Improvement Project Tolled Express LaneslHOV Lanes 2nd St to SR-91 y NlA y 1-15 Corridor Improvement Project, SR-91 Corridor Improvement Project Tolled Express Lanes/HOV Lanes Magnolia Ave to Weirick Rd Y NlA Y 1-15 Corridor Improvement Project, SR-91 Corridor Improvement Project Tolled Express Lanes/HOV Lanes 1-215 Nuevo Rd to SR·74 (4th St) N/A Y Y 1-215 Widening Project, 1-215/SR-74 Interchange Reconstruction Project Perris Valley Line Van Buren Blvd Washington St to Wood Rd N/A Y Y TUMF Regional Arterial Project Existing RT A transit service Orange Terrace to 1-215 N/A Y Y 1-215 Interchange Project Existing RT A transit service, Perris Valley Line Ramon Rd 1-10 to Bob Hope Dr N/A Y Y 1-10 Interchange Project Existing SunLine Transit Agency service • 1-215 The segment along 1-215 (Nuevo Road to SR-74/41h Street) is operating at LOS "F" based on recent Caltrans' traffic counts. It is expected, however, that the segment will be improved to LOS "E" or better once the 1-215 widening and 1-215/SR-74 interchange reconstruction projects are completed. The central portion of the 1-215 widening project (Scott Road to Nuevo Road) includes construction of a general purpose lane in each direction. The 1-215/SR-74 interchange reconstruction project includes construction of a new 8-lane bridge over 1-215 and improvements to freeway ramps, local streets and intersections. LOS along' 1-215 may also improve with construction of the Perris Valley Line, which is planned to run parallel to 1-215 along this segment with a stop located in Downtown Perris. • Van Buren Boulevard The segments along Van Buren Boulevard (Washington Street to Wood Road and Orange Terrace to 1-215) are operating at LOS "F" based on the County's recent counts. It is expected, however, that the segments will be improved to LOS "E" or better once the TUMF regional arterial and interchange projects are completed. The TUMF regional arterial project includes construction of one additional lane in each direction between Washington Street and Wood Road. The 1-215 interchange project includes reconstruction of the existing interchange, widening of 1-215, local street improvements, and modification and signalization of the ramp intersections. The March Joint Powers Authority (JPA) is expecting future improvements to Van Buren Boulevard west of 1-215 when development north and south of Van Buren occurs. These improvements could include a Prepared for: Riverside County Transportation Commission Prepared by: VRPA Technologies, Inc. 5-9 2011 Riverside County Congestion Management Program multi-use trail. Both deficient Van Buren segments currently experience RTA bus service. LOS along Van Buren Boulevard may also improve with construction of the Perris Valley Line, which is planned to run parallel to 1-215 in this area with a stop located in Moreno Valley/March Field Station . • Ramon Road The segment along Ramon Road (1-10 to Bob Hope Drive) is operating at LOS "F" based on CVAG's recent traffic counts. It is expected, however, that the segment will be improved to LOS or better once the interchange project is completed. The 1-10 interchange project includes a new interchange at Bob Hope Drive, new 8-lane overcrossing on Bob Hope Drive, new 6-lane bridge over Union Pacific (UP) railroad, modifications to Varner Road and Rio Del Sol, and ultimate removal of most ramps on Ramon Road. This segment currently experiences SunLine Transit Agency's Sun Bus service. Each of these deficient segments will continue to be monitored using PeMS speed data and recent traffic counts over the next 9 months on a quarterly basis to determine the LOS. If the LOS is at !IF" for more than one (1) year with no extenuating circumstances causing the deficiency (e.g., construction, special event, etc), the affected local agency will be notified that a deficiency plan must be prepared in accordance with requirements set forth in Chapter 6. As a result, it will be important to continue to monitor the LOS along these segments to identify the LOS through the use of traffic counts or PeMS speed data on a quarterly basis in 2012 and 2013. It will also be important to closely monitor critical LOS "E" segments. Once a LOS "E" segment falls to LOS "F", the segment will be further analyzed as to what the cause may be. If the LOS is at /IF" for more than one (1) year and is the average annual peak hour condition with no extenuating circumstances causing the deficiency (e.g., construction, special event, etc), the local agency will be notified that a deficiency plan must be prepared in accordance with requirements set forth in Chapter 6. Prepared for: Riverside County Transportation Commission Prepared by: VRPA Technologies, Inc. 5-10 2011 Riverside County Congestion Management Program C LOS DEFICIENCY PLANS Section 65089(b)(1)(8) of the Government Code specifically states that the Level of Service (LOS) standards established by RCTC, as the Congestion Management Agency (CMA) in Riverside County, not be below LOS "E" or the current level, whichever is farthest from LOS "An. Applicable Government Code Sections are included in Appendix 1. When the LOS on a segment or at an intersection fails to attain the established level of service standard, a deficiency plan must be adopted pursuant to Section 65089.4. In addition, Section 65089.4 requires a local jurisdiction to prepare a deficiency plan when highway or roadway LOS standards are not maintained on segments or intersections of the designated system. The deficiency plan must be adopted by the city or the County at a noticed public hearing. PLAN PROCESS RCTC will prepare deficiency plans or identify mitigation strategies for deficient segments along the State Highway System on behalf of local agencies. RCTC will coordinate development of such plans with affected local agencies, WRCOG or CVAG, and Caltrans. These agencies will have an opportunity to work with RCTC during the development of a deficiency plan, provide comments, and meet with other affected agencies to discuss issues prior to completion of a plan. To comply with the intent of the CMP legislation, a deficiency plan prepared by a city, the County or RCTC must include the principal elements specified in the CMP Legislation (reference Appendix 1). To date, the CMP minimum LOS threshold has been met for a majority of the CMP system, therefore deficiency plans have not been required. In the cases where the CMP minimum LOS threshold has been exceeded, there have either been overriding considerations (e.g. construction, traffic diversions, etc) or improvements already programmed to improve the facility. The procedure for identifying deficient segments or intersections along the CMP System of Highways and Roadways is documented in Chapter 5, Enhanced Transportation System Management Program. Deficient segments would be identified as part of the CMP Update LOS evaluation process. Upon initial identification of a deficiency, further detailed analysis of LOS shall be conducted to determine whether an actual deficiency has occurred or if the initial analysis identified a deficiency due to extenuating circumstances (e.g. construction, incident, etc.) or faulty data (e.g. traffic counter equipment malfunction, etc.). Coordination with the affected local jurisdiction(s} will be made to insure that appropriate data, geometrics, counts and other related information is applied to calculate LOS. If a deficiency is identified, affected agencies will be notified. A review of mitigation measures, including capital improvement, transit, and TDM projects, will be conducted to determine how the deficiency can be mitigated. The recommended mitigation measure(s} will be reviewed by the Technical AdviSOry Committee (TAC). Prepared for: Riverside County Transportation Commission Prepared by: VRPA Technologies, Inc. 6-1 2011 Riverside County Congestion Management Program Mitigation strategies that measurably improve the CMP System must be identified in the deficiency plan. Such strategies would include capital improvement projects or other measures that shift trips to alternative modes that may be included in or consistent with local Transportation Demand Management (TOM) ordinances. Further, mitigation measures should be developed considering both the existing and planned circulation system and the highest peak hour trip estimates or forecasts. Coachella Valley and Western Riverside County TLiMF Programs Coachella Valley and Western Riverside County local agencies and the County of Riverside have adopted Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) programs. In general, the programs impose fees on development specifically to address transportation impacts on local arterials. The fees are then used for selected transportation improvement projects along the adopted TUMF arterial network. The Coachella Valley Association of Governments (CVAG) implements the TUMF program in the Coachella Valley and the Western Riverside Council of Governments (WRCOG) implements the program in Westem Riverside County. If, during the annual LOS monitoring process, an intersection or segment along the CMP system within the Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) areas fall below LOS liE," an evaluation of planned improvements necessary to mitigate the deficiency must be undertaken. The adopted TUMF programs would then be reviewed to determine if the deficiency would be mitigated through the implementation of TUIIIIF projects, and within a reasonable timeframe. If an improvement project(s} is programmed that will mitigate the deficiency, the arterial program would be considered as a deficiency plan for CMP purposes. If projects in the arterial program do not meet the required mitigation for the deficiency, then RCTC will work with the appropriate agency(s) to identify mitigation measures. Agencies that do not participate in the TUMF programs would be required to prepare a deficiency plan in accordance with this chapter. Deficiency Plans will be reviewed by the RCTC Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) with a recommendation of approval or nonapproval forwarded to the RCTC Board for action. In accordance with Chapter 5 -Enhanced Transportation System Management Program, mitigation measures must be identified to offset deficiencies. The Deficiency Plan preparation/approval schedule and process will be in accordance with Section 65089 (reference Appendix 1). Prepared for: Riverside County Transportation Commission Prepared by: VRPA Technologies, Inc. 6-2 2011 Riverside County Congestion Management Program HAPTER 7 TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENTI AIR QUALITY Section 65089(b)(3)(A) of the State code requires that RCTC prepare a CMP trip reduction and travel demand element that promotes alternative transportation methods. Such methods must include, but are not limited to, carpools, vanpools, transit, bicycles, and park-and-ride lots; improvements in the balance between jobs and housing; and other strategies, such as, flexible work hours, telecommuting, and parking management programs. CMP Legislation also requires consideration of parking cash-out programs. INTRODUCTION There are effective ways of achieving trip reduction in Riverside County other than through the adoption of local agency Transportation Oemand Management (TOM) Ordinances, which was the focus of TOM efforts in the past. RCTC believes that there are other approaches that can be more effective and has facilitated the implementation of TOM projects through the Measure "An Commuter Assistance Programs, and the implementation of a number of TOM projects (in cooperation with Caltrans and local agencies in Riverside County and in adjoining counties) to achieve TOM objectives. Such TOM strategies include the development of Park-N-Ride lots, commuter rail stations, and public transit feeder services. Taken together, the individual programs and projects constitute a broad base effort to reduce reliance on the single occupant vehicle in Riverside County. In addition to TOM, Transportation Systems Management (TSM) strategies also provide for smoother traffic flow, especially along congested streets and highways in the County. Types of TSM strategies already implemented in Riverside County include bus bays, signal coordination systems, signal preemption for transit vehicles, improved signal timing projects, ramp metering, and focused intersection improvements. A study completed in the Coachella Valley that integrates both TOM and TSM solutions is the Washington Street and Highway 111 Commercial Corridors TDM/TSM Study affecting the cities of La Quinta, Palm Desert, Indio, Indian Wells, and the County of Riverside. TSM and TOM alternatives were analyzed to determine cost effective ways of easing future congestion and reducing delay along the Washington/Highway 111 corridors. These alternatives included adding capacity, through traffic synchronization (if feasible), encouraging motorists to use transit, car/van pooling, encouraging motorists to travel at less congested times, and/or encouraging pedestrian and bicycle usage. The Study explored a number of transportation solutions and strategies for getting people where they need to go by auto, foot, bicycle, or bus, and it provides a baseline of data and analysis for helping to make those decisions in the future. RCTC's approach to trip reduction and congestion relief through TOM and TSM can be particularly effective in a rapidly growing county such as Riverside. This chapter identifies the types of strategies that local agencies can also implement to achieve further reductions in trips and enhance traffic flow, especially along already congested CMP facilities and other major streets and highways. Prepared for: Riverside County Transportation Commission Prepared by: VRPA Technologies, Inc. 7-1 2011 Riverside County Congestion Management Program The intent of this section is to identify ways that local agencies can seek to maximize the efficient use and capacity of a roadway and/or transit facility, often with limited transportation resources. Developing a viable transportation system not only includes building new roadways and adding transit, but also involves managing the demand for travel on these systems. TDM is a term applied to a broad range of strategies that are primarily intended to reduce and reshape demand (use) of the transportation systems. TDM strategies are designed to make best use of existing transportation facilities and maximize future transportation investments. Using strategies that promote alternative modes, increase vehicle occupancy, maximize the efficient use of parking, reduce travel distances, and ease peak-hour congestion, TDM increases the efficiency of the transportation system. TDM includes programs and strategies to promote alternatives to single occupancy vehicle (SOV) travel as well as methods of eliminating incident based traffic congestion and pre-trip traffic information, including such activities as carpools, vanpools, transit, bicycles, park-and-ride lots, freeway service patrols, and Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS). These programs will contribute to improved air quality in the region and meet the goals of Air Quality Attainment Plans, including climate change goals. It is important that RCTC, Caltrans, and local governments throughout the County consider the application of TDM strategies during preparation of transportation plans, circulation elements, and transportation corridor studies, and traffic impact studies. The California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA) has prepared a resource document (Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures A Resource for Local Government to Assess Emission Reductions from Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures, August 2010) that can be used to quantify vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and vehicle trips (VT) reductions associated with TDM measures within the State of California Planning and preliminary engineering of major corridor investment projects in Riverside County present significant opportunities for the coordinated integration of TDM strategies. TDM is recognized as the quickest and least expensive component of transportation solutions, resulting in reduced construction impacts, increased use of new and existing transit services, and extension of the life of a roadway through reduced congestion. In addition, a basic tenet of TDM programs is developing partnerships between multiple organizations that have influence on commuting and travel habits necessary to develop programs and poliCies that will reduce congestion, increase accessibility and mobility, and improve air quality. The solutions to contemporary transportation problems can no longer be found solely in the construction of new or even wider roadways. The TDM strategy recommendations presented below have been drafted with an understanding that any viable solution must include the participation of all available players in the County. RCTC, local agencies, land developers, local employers and their employees, transit agencies, as well as the general public all need to work together cooperatively to resolve the transportation related issues that are currently affecting, and will continue to affect, Riverside County's economic viability and environmental health. TDM strategies that can be effective in the region have been organized under the following five categories: • Enhance Vehicle Occupancy (carpoolslvanpools/park-n-ride) • Shift auto travel to Transit (bus and rail system improvements) • Shift auto travel to Non-Motorized Transportation modes (bicycling and walking) Prepared for: Riverside County Transportation Commission Prepared by: VRPA Technologies, Inc. 7-2 2011 Riverside County Congestion Management Program • Shift travel demand to "non peak" periods or eliminate trips through Alternative Work-Hour Programs and Telecommuting • Maximize the efficient use of parking resources through Parking Management Recommended strategies within any of these categories should be used as individual TDM methods where appropriate, but will have the most significant impact when they are used in combination with other strategies. One example is when a company offers a flex time work schedule to its employees who live within moderate distances. The employees may change their commute travel mode from a single occupant vehicle to walking or bicycling due the increased flexibility of starting times. The research suggests that for shorter commute distances, the vehicle trips for an employment site may be reduced by Wo. However, when that same employer also provides lockers and shower facilities. employees that begin their work commute from an even further distance may also feel comfortable with a walking or bicycling commute increasing the reduction in vehicle trips up to 9%. The "TDM web or net" becomes much wider in terms of capturing more mode shifting employees based on a wider geographic scope. The actual trip reduction under the right conditions may be increased to as high as 30%. Following are some potential strategies: • Complete Streets Analysis or Multimodal Level of Service (LOS): The modes analyzed in the multimodal LOS analysis should be dependent on the place type. For example, in most cases. rural inter-city travel need not look at pedestrian capacity. The plan should provide mitigation and a monitoring program to offset impacts to all modes through incident and demand management strategies. • Corridor Analysis: Corridor impacts to a mode may be mitigated by providing capacity on a parallel facility. For example. an impacted facility may lack pedestrian and bike facilities; however. a parallel bike/pedestrian path within the corridor could offset this deficiency. In addition. impacts to transit buses stuck in the same traffic congestion as single occupancy vehicles could be mitigated by the provision of a transit/High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lane in the congested travel direction during peak periods. Additional mitigation for congestion could be through the provision of a freeway service patrol to rapidly clear traffic accidents and disabled vehicles during peak periods. • Multimodal Circulation Plans: Local traffic circulation elements should consider multimodal LOS standards and meet requirements set forth in the Federal and State Complete Streets Acts. These acts require that the road network and circulation plans consider include bike. pedestrian. and transit networks. The bike/pedestrian/transit networks should provide for transit oriented development (TOD) centers that could serve as transfer points and nodes for future express and/or regional service. The centers also should provide a connected network linking to the future High Speed Trains and passenger rail stations. These centers should be reflected in the Land Use Elements of local agency General Plans with higher densities and a mix of land uses that make for a vibrant pedestrian oriented destination. The centers should use multi-modal LOS standards within their boundaries to ensure capacity for bike. walk. and transit. Enhancing Vehicle Occupancy TDM strategies designed to increase vehicle occupancy including casual and organized ridesharing. have been categorized under the concept of Enhancing Vehicle Occupancy. Ridesharing requires a match of people that reside in the same general area and work at the same location or in close proximity. The region can promote the activity through marketing the services of ridematching firms and encouraging local Prepared for: Riverside County Transportation Commission Prepared by: VRPA Technologies, Inc. 7-3 2011 Riverside County Congestion Management Program companies to make the rideshare services a part of their TOM program. If a group of employees are interested in forming a formal rideshare arrangement, local agencies should assist them in applying for funding or in connecting them to another appropriate agency. Peer-to-peer carpooling programs are also available through smart phones such as AVEGO. This service allows a commuter to connect with other commuters in their area directly Perhaps the most significant deterrent to participating in a carpool of van pool is the fear of not having a personal vehicle to use in case an emergency arises while at work. Local agencies in the region should develop a guaranteed ride home program for employees that participate in any alternative transportation mode, including walking or bicycling. RCTC, through Inland Empire Commuter Services (IECS), offers these services and more to local employers. By partnering with IECS, employers have access to rideshare marketing materials and services to extend to their employees at no cost such as region-wide ridematching, a guaranteed ride home program, and RCTC's Rideshare Incentive and Rideshare Plus Rewards programs. Transit System Improvements The region and its communities share a common goal of insuring transit services are available to provide alternative mobility for its residents. The presence of viable and sustainable transit services is critical to ensure the economic viability and the region's general well being. Transit system improvements that should continue to be implemented or researched include: • Expansion of transit services, including additional regular or express service, Metrolink service, Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) systems, and other similar transit services. • Multi-modal transit centers linking alternative modes of transportation including transit, non-motorized transportation, rail, etc., allowing intercity and regional connections • Provision of alternative methods of transportation for paratransit riders • Provision of current schedules, rates (including procedures for obtaining transit passes), and routes of mass transit service to employment sites or service areas. • On-site waiting and loading facilities for transit. • Provision of a convenient and safe shuttle service to transport workers/patrons to and from their residences, a park-and-ride lot, or other staging area to a workplace/service area. • A monthly transit or rail pass subsidy of 50% or the maximum taxable benefit limit, whichever is greater. • Transit shelters along a designated bus route or posting a bond for future construction when the transit route is extended to an employment/service site. Credit is given when the transit shelter is constructed in conformance with city/county regulations and when the employment/service site is on, or adjacent to, an existing or planned bus route. Each of the local agencies in the County should work with affected transit providers to study transit enhancements and systems that will effectively reduce auto trips, especially along congested corridors. Non-Motorized Transportation Improvements The system of bicycle and pedestrian facilities must continue to be designed for all users. The skill level and preferences of bicycle riders can vary greatly. Riders who use bicycles to commute to work are likely Prepared for: Riverside County Transportation Commission Prepared by: VRPA Technologies, Inc. 7-4 2011 Riverside County Congestion Management Program comfortable on the majority of roads, including those without designated bicycle facilities. However, the casual user may be uncomfortable on routes that do not include separate bicycle designations. There are several types of bicycle facilities that can accommodate the various types of bicyclists. All type of accommodations should be considered in the effort to provide the area with the best system of bicycle and pedestrian accommodations. The most common type of bicycle facilities is: • Bicycle Lanes: Bicycle lanes are established by pavement markings and signage along streets where there is significant bicycle demand and the necessary street conditions to accommodate bike lanes. Bike lanes delineate the right of way by assigning separate lanes to motorists and bicyclists and lead to more predictable movements by each. • Paved Shoulders: These are primarily implemented in rural areas, often on state and local highways. Paved shoulders provide a separated space for bicyclists, similar to bicycle lanes. • Signed Shared Roadway: These roads are designated by bike route signs, generally either to provide continuity with other bicycle facilities (such as bike lanes) or to designate preferred routes through high demand corridors. The purpose of signing the shared roadway is to indicate to bicyclists that there are advantages to using that particular route over others. Signage also alerts vehicle drivers that bicyclists are likely to be present. • Shared Roadway (No Separate Bicycle Facility or Signage): Most minor residential streets would qualify as shared roadways as they have minimal and low-speed traffic and, therefore, do not need any bicycle deSignations or accommodations. There are many factors to consider when determining the best type of bicycle accommodation for a particular road, including traffic volume, speed limit, lane widths, parking, and so on. It should be kept in mind that many streets, especially low-volume residential ones, are safe for bicycling without any modifications. Arterials and collectors may be best suited by signage, wide outside lanes, or designated bike lanes. When planning for new facilities with consideration to peak hour trip reduction and mitigation, the following issues should be considered: • Traffic Signal Design: Traffic Signals are not always capable of responding to the presence of a cyclist. In areas where signals change due to the presence of vehicles, a bicyclist may have to wait an excessive amount of time for a green light or may cross on a red light. Where appropriate, new traffic Signal detectors should be implemented to recognize the presence of CYClists and cyclists should be educated on how to utilize detectors so the signal will change for them. Also, crossing lights for bicyclists/pedestrians and motorists should be examined, particularly on busy roadways, to ensure minimal points of conflict between road users. • Bicycle Parking: Bike racks, lockers, or some other form of bicycle parking must be provided throughout the metropolitan area. While providing the route to get to a destination is often the primary consideration, bicyclists must have a place to secure their bikes once there. Areas that should provide bicycle parking include all public buildings, parks, transit stops, and places near businesses and multi unit residential dwellings. • Bicycle Racks on Transit Buses: Bicycling and transit are two transportation modes that are often used on the same trip. Bicycle racks on buses increases the mobility of bicyclists as it enables them to travel across the metropolitan area. Transit agencies should have bike racks installed on all new bus purchases. • Showers/Locker Rooms: Bicycling to work would likely be more attractive to people if they were able to shower or freshen up and change in comfortable facilities. Local agencies can work on providing Prepared for: Riverside County Transportation Commission Prepared by: VRPA Technologies, Inc. 7-5 2011 Riverside County Congestion Management Program shower and changing areas in public buildings and work with private employers to provide these facilities to encourage bicycling to work. Recently, there has been a movement to plan for and implement "Complete Streets". According to the Complete the Streets organization (www.completestreets.org), complete streets are designed and operated to enable safe access for all users. Pedestrians, bicyclists, motorists, and transit riders of all ages and abilities must be able to safely move along and across a complete street. There are many benefits to complete streets, the most prominent being improved safety for all users. In addition, complete streets encourage other modes of travel besides personal automobile, thereby improving health, decreasing air pollution from emissions, and decreasing congestion. The design of a complete street can vary greatly, depending on the characteristics of the roadway. Local, residential streets that are low-speed and have low traffic volumes are likely already complete streets as they do not require separate accommodations for other modes of travel. Busier streets may require more infrastructure to make them complete. Items that could be part of a complete street include: • Sidewalks • Bike lanes • Wide shoulders • Separate trails • Crosswalk stripinglraised crosswalks • Median refugeS/islands • Bus pullouts/bus only lanes • Audible pedestrian signals/countdown pedestrian signals The optimal design for a particular street will depend upon many factors, including its traffic volume, speed limit, lane widths, parking, and so on. RCTC encourages each local agency to consider the elements noted above when designing new or improved transportation corridors, preparing transportation plans and circulation elements, developing a non-motorized transportation plan, or when reviewing new development proposals. Article 3 of the California Transportation Development Act establishes 2% of Local Transportation Funds to be made available to cities and the county to build facilities for the exclusive use of pedestrians and bicyclists. Every April, the Commission releases a call for projects (SB 821) for pedestrian and bicycle facilities in which all Riverside County jurisdictions are eligible to apply for funding. Alternative Work Schedules/Telecommuting Alternative work schedules (also known as variable work hours) are comprised of three different strategies: flextime, compressed work weeks, and staggered shifts. The definition of each follows: • Flextime-Employees work specified hours each week, but are given flexibility on when they arrive to work, take lunch, and leave work. • Compressed work weeks-Employees work more hours than typical, but work fewer days per week or pay period. Prepared for: Riverside County Transportation Commission Prepared by: VRPA Technologies, Inc. 7-6 2011 Riverside County Congestion Management Program • Staggered shifts-Employees arrive and depart work at different times in shifts. Shifts may be staggered anywhere from 15 minutes to two hours. In general, alternative work schedule strategies provide the following benefits: • Reduce peak period congestion directly • Make ridesharing and transit use more feasible • Reduce parking lot and entrance/exit congestion • Less employee stress/better productivify • Facilitate better employee morale/retention • Reduce tardiness • Are economical to provide • Can offer flexibility needed for other commute solutions • Staggered hours allow for more coverage because of extended workday • More flexibility for personal and work time • Can offer flexibility needed for other commute solutions • Often reduces commute time by avoiding rush hour traffic • Less traffic congestion during peak hours • Better air quality from reduced congestion Telecommuting involves a situation where an employee is working anywhere but in his/her traditional office. A typical scenario involves employees working at home either full or part time, but they could also be working on travel aSSignments, at remote work centers, or on the road day-by-day. Telecommuting benefits include: • Reduced parking needs • Reduced office space needs and overhead costs • Less employee stress/better productivity • Better employee morale/retention • Decreased absenteeism and sick leave • More flexibility for personal and work time • Higher productivity • Less traffic congestion • Better air quality • Reduced fuel use • Eligibility in the IECS Rideshare Incentive/Rideshare Plus Rewards programs Alternative work schedules and telecommuting should continue to be highlighted as TOM plans and programs are required by local agencies during review of development and redevelopment proposals. Both of these TOM strategies have the greatest potential for significant trip reduction in the region. Parking Management Parking management techniques include a range of practices, such as preferred parking spaces for high occupancy vehicles and alternative fuel vehicles, reduced parking charges for carpools and van pools, shared parking facilities, daily rather than monthly parking charges, establishing parking maximums for new Prepared for: Riverside County Transportation Commission Prepared by: VRPA Technologies, Inc. 7-7 2011 Riverside County Congestion Management Program developments, and the taxing of parking facilities. As is the case with most other TDM strategies, parking management can be even more effective when combined with other TDM techniques such as free transit passes, cash-incentive programs, and the availability of high-quality transit service. Local agencies should consider these management strategies as new developments and redevelopment projects are proposed and reviewed. Transportation Systems Management (TSM) is defined as a program to reduce demand on, and increase the capacity of, the existing transportation system. Specifically, TSM is an integrated program that will optimize the performance of existing infrastructure through the implementation of systems, services, and projects designed to preserve capacity and improve security, safety, and reliability. TSM strategies include the following: • 511 Traveler Information Service which provides Riverside County with real-time traffic information and commute alternatives by calling 511 or visiting ie511.org • Ramp metering • Congestion pricing • Changeable message signs • Signal coordination • Roadway improvements • Improved signal timing • Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) improvements, such as detection and video surveillance • Re-routing of traffic to less congested routes • Pedestrian facilities including restricted pedestrian crossings and consideration of pedestrian overcrossings • Placement of transit stops and bus bays • Corridor access improvements • Advanced traffic signal timing programs, such as SCOOT (Split Cycle Offset Optimization Technique) or SCAT (Sydney Coordinated Adaptive Traffic) systems • Neighborhood Electric Vehicles RCTC, Caltrans, and each of the local agencies within the County should consider the design and implementation of TSM improvements (where feasible) as they plan for and design street and highway improvement projects; especially along heavily congested streets and highways. Local agencies that fund ITS projects with federal or state funds are required to be consistent with the Regional Architecture Plan. This Plan is incorporated into SCAG's RTP. The Southern California Council of Governments' (SCAG) Compass Blueprint was enacted to encourage creative and sustainable development strategies that fit local needs and support shared regional values. The SCAG Compass Blueprint is regional in scope and supports the integration of land use, transportation, and resource planning. The planning process considers the "Three Es" of sustainable communities: prosperous ~conomy, quality ~nvironment, and social ~quity. Blueprint planning is a comprehensive undertaking that requires innovation, collaborative planning, thinking on a macro scale, and a willingness to Prepared for: Riverside County Transportation Commission Prepared by: VRPA Technologies, Inc. 7-8 2011 Riverside County Congestion Management Program follow through to implementation. Through partnerships with local governments, the SCAG Compass Blueprint serves communities by applying the best available tools to create successful examples to accommodate regional growth. A principal objective of the Compass Blueprint is to balance job growth with housing growth in order to reduce trips and vehicle miles traveled (VMT). Local agencies in Riverside County that have completed or are currently working with SCAG on Compass planning include Cathedral City, Coachella, Corona, Desert Hot Springs, Hemet, Lake Elsinore, Moreno Valley, Norco, Perris, Riverside, Murrieta, and Temecula. Some of the various Compass-related projects in Riverside County that these and other agencies are currently implementing or will initiate shortly include the following: • City of Alhambra -Alhambra Vision 2035 • City of Anaheim -Anaheim Platinum Necklace Urban Greenways • City of Calimesa -Calimesa Creek Riverwalk Master Plan • City of Fullerton Fullerton Smart Growth 2030 • City of La Mirada, California Air Resources Board (ARB), Caltrans -La Mirada 1-5 Corridor Specific Plan • Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (LACMA/Metro) -Los Angeles Metro Orange Line Sustainable Corridor Implementation Plan • City of Los Angeles, Caltrans, Metro, Los Angeles Department of Transportation (LA DOT) -Los Angeles PARK 101 District Phase 2 • City of Bellflower -Bellflower Alondra Mixed-Use Overlay Zone • City of Cathedral City -Cathedral City Date Palm Drive Connector Phase 2 • City of Highland, San Bernardino Association of Governments (SAN BAG), Ornnitrans -Highland Base Line Corridor Study • City of Los Angeles, LA DOT Los Angeles Transit Oriented Development (TOO) Parking Data Collection • City of Moreno Valley -Moreno Valley Alessandro Boulevard Corridor Vision Phase 2 • City of Oxnard -Oxnard Downtown East Transit Oriented Development Study • City of Rancho Mirage, The Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians, Coachella Valley Association of Governments (CVAG) -Rancho Mirage Interim Energy Park Study • City of Santa Clarita -Santa Clarita North Newhall SpeCific Plan SB 375 (Steinberg) is California state law that became effective January 1, 2009. This new law requires California's Air Resources Board (CARB) to develop regional reduction targets for greenhouse gas emissions (GHG). Future growth and development in California and within the Riverside County region will be planned consistent with Senate Bill (SB) 375, which calls for the integration of transportation and land use and housing planning through the development of "Sustainable Community Strategies· (SCS). California's 18 Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) have been tasked with creating SCSs and demonstrating actions necessary to attain the proposed reduction targets by 2020 and 2035. According to SCAG, by April 2012, the SCS will be included as a required element in its 2012 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS); thereby providing "a plan for meeting emissions reduction targets set forth by CARB." On September 23,2010, CARB issued a regional reduction target of Prepared for: Riverside County Transportation Commission Prepared by: VRPA Technologies, Inc. 7-9 2011 Riverside County Congestion Management Program 8% per capita for the planning year 2020, and a 13% conditional target for 2035. SCAG is in the process of identifying how it will meet the targets focusing on a variety of strategies to be incorporated in the 2012 RTP/SCS. The efforts presented in this Chapter are consistent with the objectives of SS 375 and AS 32 by supporting sustainable community strategies for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions, improving air quality, aligning planning for transportation and housing, and creating opportunities for the implementation of TOM and TSM strategies that reduce trips and vehicle miles traveled. Once the 2012 RTP/SCS is adopted, RCTC will use strategies listed in the 2012 RTP/SCS in the 2013 CMP Update. Prepared for: Riverside County Transportation Commission Prepared by: VRPA Technologies, Inc. 7-10 2011 Riverside County Congestion Management Program CHAPTER 8 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM Section 65089(b)(5) of the CMP Statutes requires that RCTC prepare a seven-year capital improvement program, developed using the performance measures described in paragraph (2) to determine effective projects that maintain or improve the performance of the multimodal system for the movement of people and goods, and to mitigate regional transportation impacts identified pursuant to paragraph (4). RCTC CIP PROGRAM For purposes of this CMP Update, the 2011 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) consists of the STIP, Measure "A", TUMF programs, and other federally funded projects programmed on the CMP system. RCTC submits state, local and federally funded projects to the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) for inclusion in the FTIP. Locally funded non-regionally significant projects are not required to be included in the FTIP. The following list of goals and objectives from SCAG's 2008 RTP reflect a vision that guides the transportation planning process, including development of the RTP, FTIP, and subregional CMPs: • Maximize mobility and accessibility for all people and goods in the region • Ensure travel safety and reliability for all people and goods in the region • Preserve and ensure a sustainable regional transportation system • Maximize the productivity of our transportation system • Protect the environment, improve air quality and promote energy efficiency • Encourage land use and growth patterns that complement our transportation investments • Maximize the security of the regional transportation system through improved system monitoring, rapid recovery planning, and coordination with other security agencies The following performance measures are also identified to determine whether the goals and objectives are being met: • Mobility -speed delay • Accessibility -percent PM peak period work trips within 45 minutes of home • Reliability -percent variation in travel time • Productivity -percent capacity utilized during peak conditions • Safety -accident rates • Sustainability -total cost per capita to sustain system performance at Base Year levels • Preservation -maintenance cost per capita to preserve system at Base Year conditions • Cost-Effectiveness -benefit to cost (B/C) ratio Prepared for: Riverside County Transportation Commission Prepared by: VRPA Technologies, Inc. 8-1 2011 Riverside County Congestion Management Program • Environmental -emissions generated by travel • Environmental Justice -distribution of benefits and costs The RTP Subcommittee is contemplating the addition of several performance measures as part of the 2012 SCAG RTP/SCS and includes the following: • Location Efficiency focus on transit viability and alternative modes of travel • Reliability -variability of travel time for trucks • Safety and Health -focus on location of roadways in relation to residential land uses and rates of noise and air quality impacts • System Sustainability -cost per capita to preserve multi-modal system Prepared for: Riverside County Transportation Commission Prepared by: VRPA Technologies, Inc. 8-2 2011 Riverside County Congestion Management Program CHAPTER 9 CMP CONFORMANCE AND MONITORING STATUTORY Section 65089.3 of the Government Code requires RCTC to monitor the implementation of all elements of the Congestion Management Program (CMP). Caltrans is responsible for data collection and analysis on State highways, unless the agency designates that responsibility to another entity. RCTC may also assign responsibility of data collection and analysis to other owners and operators of facilities or services if the responsibilities are specified in its adopted program. RCTC must also consult with Caltrans and other affected owners and operators in developing data collection and analysis procedures and schedules prior to program adoption. AND MONITORINGRCTC At least biennially, RCTC will determine if the County and cities are conforming to the CMP, including, but not limited, to the following: (a) Consistency with levels of service standards, except as provided in Section 65089.4. (b) Evaluation of performance of the transportation system. (c) Adoption and implementation of a deficiency plan pursuant to Section 65089.4 when highway and roadway level of service standards are not maintained on portions of the designated system. In addition to conformity requirements referenced in specific sections of the Government Code, the County and cities must work with the Congestion Management Agency (CMA) to provide Level of Service (LOS) monitoring information along the CMP System. This process is detailed in Chapter 5, Enhanced Transportation System Management Program. RCTC will continue to work with its Technical Advisory Committee (TAG) to introduce new or revised requirements. Additional CMP workshops, to be held at the request of individual jurisdictions, offer the opportunity for planning and engineering staff to gain a better understanding of the CMP in an informal environment. 1) Consistency with LOS Standards To simplify the process of collecting traffic counts from Caltrans and the local agencies, RCTC has implemented the Enhanced Transportation System Management Program. LOS calculations will primarily be based upon the newly installed traffic counting equipment along the state highway system. Counts along the local arterial system will be provided by the subregional agencies, affected local agencies, or from counts conducted by RCTC. Currently, 28 Smart Call Boxes (SCB) sites have been installed by RCTC to collect traffic counts along the State highway system. RCTC also coordinates with Caltrans for traffic count data collected from its Performance Measurement System (PeMS). Prepared for: Riverside County Transportation Commission Prepared by: VRPA Technologies, Inc. 9-1 2011 Riverside County Congestion Management Program The Enhanced Transportation System Mal1C1gement Program utilizes "loop or pavement sensors" currently installed along the State Highway system at call boxes and PeMS sites along the highway system. The program provides Caltrans and RCTC the ability to retrieve real-time count information. Chapter 5 of this CMP contains a full explanation of the SCB and PeMS implementation program. 2) Program to Manage and Analyze the System To insure that the CMP System is appropriately monitored to reduce the occurrence of CMP deficiencies, proposed development projects can be evaluated by each affected agency to determine potential regional and sub-regional impacts along the CMP Systems. As a result, such evaluation will reduce the incidence of LOS deficiencies along the CMP System. Local agencies are encouraged to work with other affected agencies to mitigate the impacts considering California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and Intergovernmental Report (IGR) requirements to insure that major development projects and plans are evaluated and reflected in the Southern Califomia Association of Governments (SCAG) Transportation Model. When a LOS deficiency is identified as part of the CMP Update, further detailed analysiS of LOS shall be conducted to determine whether an actual deficiency has occurred. The LOS analysis conducted as part of the CMP Update process is only considered to be a "screening" level analysis, and a more detailed assessment of a potential deficiency would be required before a deficiency is formally identified. Coordination with the affected local jurisdiction(s) will be made to insure that appropriate data, geometrics, counts and other related information is applied to calculate LOS. 3) Transportation Model Consistency Requirements Transportation Modeling Guidelines have been developed by SCAG to assist local agencies in developing transportation models to analyze the circulation system within their jurisdiction or for special transportation stUdies. These guidelines are available at RCTC and at the SCAG Inland Empire office in Riverside. In addition, the Riverside County Transportation Department, in coordination with RCTC, WRCOG, CVAG, and local agencies, developed transportation modeling guidelines for the RIVTAM model. RCTC requires that these guidelines be followed during development of traffic models for all projects of regional significance. The guidelines have several objectives; however, the primary objective is to insure that the legislative requirements for transportation modeling and database consistency are achieved. In addition, the guidelines have been designed to ease the transfer of information from the regional and subregional models to local models and vice-versa. CMP UPDATES The CMPs were required to be updated annually between 1992 and 1995. An amendment to the CMP legislation changed the update to occur biennially. Table 9-1 outlines the updates approved since inception: The 2011 CMP update consists of monitoring the CMP System, and reporting the results of the analysis including deficiencies. Update of the 2011 CMP is required to be updated and adopted by December 2011. Prepared for: Riverside County Transportation Commission Prepared by: VRPA Technologies, Inc. 9-2 2011 Riverside County Congestion Management Program The 2011 CMP will be reviewed by SCAG for consistency with the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) and with CMPs of adjoining counties (San Bernardino, Orange, and Los Angeles Counties). Under the MPO planning regulations, SCAG is required to certify that it meets federal CMS requirements, which includes a review and consistency determination of all CMPs within the SCAG region. Prepared for: Riverside County Transportation Commission Prepared by: VRPA Technologies, Inc. 9-3 2011 Riverside County Congestion Management Program CMP UPDATES SINCE INCEPTION Year Major Effort/Revisions Adopted 1992 The Commission originally adopted the CMP December 1992 1993 The CMP was revised focusing on LOS evaluation December 1993 1994 The Commission updated Chapters 3 and 5 of the CMP December 1994 1995 The CMP was revised and updated, primarily focusing on Chapter 5, Land Use Coordination and the inclusion of legislative amendments December 1995 1997 The CMP was thoroughly amended focusing on replacement of the Traffic Impact Assessment (TIA) process contained in the Land Use Coordination Program (Chapter 5). The TlA process was replaced with the Enhanced Traffic Monitoring Program December 1997 1999 The CMP was revised focusing on LOS evaluation December 1999 2001 Minor revisions were included in the update and RCTC issued the RFP for the traffic counter installations at Smart Call Box and Traffic Management Center Sites. December 2001 2003 The 2003 CMP Update was focused on continued implementation of the CMP to meet Federal Congestion Management System (CMS) requirements. The traffic counter installations project was nearing completion. Test runs were initiated. December 2003 2005 The 2005 CMP Update focused on a review of LOS and monitoring of various street and highway segments that were approaching deficient levels of service. Several segments were identified as deficient through the application of floating car runs. These segments fell deficient due to construction activity and road closures in adjacent areas. May 2006 2007 The 2007 CMP Update also focused on a review of LOS and monitoring of various street and highway segments that were approaching deficient levels of service as referenced for 2005. Several segments were identified as deficient through the application of floating car runs. These segments fell deficient due to construction activity and road closures in adjacent areas. December 2007 2009-2010 The CMP Update focused on a review of LOS, monitoring of various street and highway segments that were approaching deficient levels of service as referenced in the 2007 CMP, and incorporating TOM and TSM efforts implemented by RCTC and local agencies. Several segments were identified as deficient in 2007 through the application of floating car runs. These segments fell deficient due to construction activity and road closures in adjacent areas. In 2010, the LOS improved along some of these segments as a result of construction and road closures being completed. For the other segments where construction is affecting the existing LOS, continued monitoring of the segments was undertaken. In addition, there were a few segments that were identified as deficient; however, short-term future improvement projects are programmed to address those deficiencies and other modal services are available to address mode shift opportunities along the segments. March 2010 Prepared for: Riverside County Transportation Commission Prepared by: VRPA Technologies, Inc. 9-4 2011 Riverside County Congestion Management Program 10 CMP DEVELOPMENT AND IMPLEMENTATIONI UPDATE PROCESS Section 650B9(a) of the Govemment Code requires that the Congestion Management Program (CMP) must be developed, adopted, and updated biennially, consistent with the schedule for the adoption and update of the Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP), for every county that includes an urbanized area, and must include every city and the county. Development of the CMP must also be coordinated with the Southem Califomia Association of Governments (SCAG), regional transportation providers, local govemments, Caltrans, and respective air districts. RCTC As described above, CMP legislation requires that the Program be developed, adopted, implemented, monitored, and updated biennially. This chapter primarily focuses on procedural, administrative, and coordination activities related to CMP development, adoption, implementation and update. To meet the requirements of the legislation, the CMP shall be developed, adopted, implemented, and updated in accordance with procedures described in the following sections. The CMP is developed to meet federal CMS requirements and also includes elements of the State's CMP guidelines. State CMP statutes AB 471, 1791, AB 3093, AB 1963, and AB 2419 (reference Appendix 1). The following procedure has been developed to outline the process toward preparation and adoption of the CMP. RCTC staff shall coordinate the development of the CMP with the RCTC Technical AdviSOry Committee (TAC). • Local agencies should continue to monitor the CMP System. It is suggested that the local agency collect ground counts at least every four (4) months to provide for average annual traffic conditions. • Beginning in April of each odd numbered year, RCTC will obtain counts, PeMS speed data or LOS analysis from Caltrans, CVAG, and local agencies. • In May of each odd numbered year, RCTC must initiate a CMP update. RCTC staff will review individual Chapters with the RCTC TAC, as necessary. • In October of each odd numbered year, RCTC must submit a Preliminary Draft of the CMP to SCAG and the RCTC TAC CMP Subcommittee for review and comment. Prepared for: Riverside County Transportation Commission Prepared by: VRPA Technologies, Inc. 10-1 2011 Riverside County Congestion Management Program • In November of each odd numbered year, RCTC staff will submit the Draft CMP to the TAC for formal review and approval. • Between November and December of each odd numbered year, RCTC staff will submit the Final Draft to the Commission for review and approval c The CMP is to be implemented and monitored in accordance with procedures described in Chapter 9 CMP Confomlance and Monitoring. The CMP update process should be initiated at least six months prior to adoption. Revision of the CMP may occur any time during the year to address specific issues. The update should include a thorough review of each Chapter or required element contained in the current CMP. A suggested review process follows: • Legislative revisions or new enactments to CMP statutes should be thoroughly reviewed and incorporated into the CMP update. (Chapter 1. 2) • Review agency requests for adding road segments to the CMP System. According to the CMP legislation. facilities may only be added to CMP system. All facilities included in the adopted CMP must be retained. (Chapter 1, 2) • Review adjacent county CMP Systems to determine if facilities were added or are proposed for addition. Review and analyze any additions considering SCAG's Consistency Guidelines on file at RCTC. (Chapter 2) • Review, in coordination with SCAG and local agencies, the existing and future year databases used for transportation modeling purposes to insure consistency in the development of socioeconomic estimates and projections. (Chapter 3) • Review the adopted CMP Minimum level of service (LOS) standard. The CMP LOS standard can only be increased above the level identified in the adopted Program. (Chapter 4) • Review LOS estimates to determine if the LOS along CMP facilities has dropped below LOS "E". • Document the purpose for, and status of, deficiency plans that may have been prepared by local agencies during the previous year including proposed mitigation measures. • Document segments or intersections that are at LOS "E", close to falling below the adopted CMP threshold. Prepared for: Riverside County Transportation Commission Prepared by: VRPA Technologies, Inc. 10-2 2011 Riverside County Congestion Management Program • Review the Productivity Improvement Program Transit System Performance Indicators for any changes/updates. • Document whether public transit or passenger rail service was identified as a mitigation measure or potential mitigation measure in the development of deficiency plans. • Review the CMP Conformance and Monitoring Process to determine whether the process is consistent with changes or revisions identified within other CMP elements. • Review federal MPO planning regulations for any changes and additions to federal CMS requirements. Prepared for: Riverside County Transportation Commission Prepared by: VRPA Technologies, Inc. 10-3 2011 Riverside County Congestion Management Program DIX 1 CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENTS STATUTES REFERENCING CONGESTION MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS (Sections 65088-89) The Legislature finds and declares all of the following: (a) Although California's economy is critically dependent upon transportation, its current transportation system relies primarily upon a street and highway system designed to accommodate far fewer vehicles than are currently using the system. (b) California's transportation system is characterized by fragmented planning, both among jurisdictions involved and among tile means of available transport. (c) The lack of an integrated system and the increase in the number of vehicles are causing traffic congestion that each day results in 400,000 hours lost in traffic, 200 tons of pollutants released into the air we breathe, and three million one hundred thousand dollars ($3,100,000) added costs to the motoring public. (d) To keep California moving, all methods and means of transport between major destinations must be coordinated to connect our vital economic and population centers. (e) In order to develop the California economy to its full potential, it is intended that federal, state, and local agencies join with transit districts, business, private and environmental interests to develop and implement comprehensive strategies needed to develop appropriate responses to transportation needs. (D In addition to solving California's traffic congestion crisis, rebuilding Califomia's cities and suburbs, particularly with affordable housing and more walkable neighborhoods, is an important part of accommodating future increases in the state's population because homeownership is only now available to most Californians who are on the fringes of metropolitan areas and far from employment centers. (g) The Legislature intends to do everything within its power to remove regulatory barriers around the development of infill housing, transit-oriented development, and mixed use commercial development in order to reduce regional traffic congestion and provide more housing choices for all Californians. (h) The removal of regulatory barriers to promote infill housing, transit-oriented development, or mixed use commercial development does not preclude a city or county from holding a public hearing nor finding that an individual infill project would be adversely impacted by the surrounding environment or transportation patterns. 65088.1. As used in this chapter the following terms have the following meanings: (a) Unless the context requires otherwise, "regional agency" means the agency responsible for preparation of the regional transportation improvement program. (b) Unless the context requires otherwise, "agency" means the agency responsible for the preparation and adoption of the congestion management program. . (c) "Commission" means the California Transportation Commission. (d) "Department" means the Department of Transportation. Prepared for: Riverside County Transportation Commission Prepared by: VRPA Technologies, Inc. A1-1 2011 Riverside County Congestion Management Program (e) "Local jurisdiction" means a city, a county, or a city and county. (D "Parking cash-out program" means an employer-funded program under which an employer offers to provide a cash allowance to an employee equivalent to the parking subsidy that the employer would otherwise pay to provide the employee with a parking space. "Parking subsidy" means the difference between the out-of-pocket amount paid by an employer on a regular basis in order to secure the availability of an employee parking space not owned by the employer and the price, if any, charged to an employee for use of that space. A parking cash-out program may include a requirement that employee participants certify that they will comply with guidelines established by the employer designed to avoid neighborhood parking problems, with a provision that employees not complying with the guidelines will no longer be eligible for the parking cash-out program. (g) "Infill opportunity zone" means a specific area designated by a city or county, pursuant to subdivision (c) of Section 65088.4, zoned for new compact residential or mixed use development within one-third mile of a site with an existing or future rail transit station, a ferry terminal served by either a bus or rail transit service, an intersection of at least two major bus routes, or within 300 feet of a bus rapid transit corridor, in counties with a population over 400,000. The mixed use development zoning shall consist of three or more land uses that facilitate significant human interaction in close proximity, with residential use as the primary land use supported by other land uses such as office, hotel, health care, hospital, entertainment, restaurant, retail, and service uses. The transit service shall have maximum scheduled headways of 15 minutes for at least 5 hours per day. A qualifying future rail station shall have broken ground on construction of the station and programmed operational funds to provide maximum scheduled head ways of 15 minutes for at least 5 hours per day. (h) "Interregional travel" means any trips that originate outside the boundary of the agency. A "trip" means a one-direction vehicle movement. The origin of any trip is the starting point of that trip. A roundtrip consists of two individual trips. (i) "Level of service standard" is a threshold that defines a deficiency on the congestion management program highway and roadway system which requires the preparation of a deficiency plan. It is the intent of the Legislature that the agency shall use all elements of the program to implement strategies and actions that avoid the creation of deficiencies and to improve multimodal mobility. U) "Multirnodal" means the utilization of all available modes of travel that enhance the movement of people and goods, including, but not limited to, highway, transit, non motorized , and demand management strategies including, but not limited to, telecommuting. The availability and practicality of specific multimodal systems, projects, and strategies may vary by county and region in accordance with the size and complexity of different urbanized areas. (k) "Performance measure" is an analytical planning tool that is used to quantitatively evaluate transportation improvements and to assist in determining effective implementation actions, considering all modes and strategies. Use of a performance measure as part of the program does not trigger the requirement for the preparation of deficiency plans. (I) "Urbanized area" has the same meaning as is defined in the 1990 federal census for urbanized areas of more than 50,000 population. (m) "Bus rapid transit corridor" means a bus service that includes at least four of the following attributes: (1) Coordination with land use planning. (2) Exclusive right-of-way. (3) Improved passenger boarding facilities. (4) Limited stops. (5) Passenger boarding at the same height as the bus. (6) Prepaid fares. Prepared for: Riverside County Transporlation Commission Prepared by: VRPA Technologies, Inc. A1-2 2011 Riverside County Congestion Management Program (7) Real-time passenger information. (8) Traffic priority at intersections. (9) Signal priority. (10) Unique vehicles. 65088.3. This chapter does not apply in a county in which a majority of local governments, collectively comprised of the city councils and the county board of supervisors, which in total also represent a majority of the population in the county, each adopt resolutions electing to be exempt from the congestion management program. 65088.4. (a) It is the intent of the Legislature to balance the need for level of service standards for traffic with the need to build infill housing and mixed use commercial developments within walking distance of mass transit facilities, downtowns, and town centers and to provide greater flexibility to local governments to balance these sometimes competing needs. (b) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, level of service standards described in Section 65089 shall not apply to the streets and highways within an infill opportunity zone. The city or county shall do either of the following: (1) Include these streets and highways under an alternative areawide level of service standard or multimodal composite or personal level of service standard that takes into account both of the following: (A) The broader benefits of regional traffic congestion reduction by siting new residential development within walking distance of, and no more than one-third mile from, mass transit stations, shops, and services, in a manner that reduces the need for long vehicle commutes and improves the jobs-housing balance. (8) Increased use of alternative transportation modes, such as mass transit, bicycling, and walking. (2) Approve a list of flexible level of service mitigation options that includes roadway expansion and investments in alternate modes of transportation that may include, but are not limited to, transit infrastructure, pedestrian infrastructure, and ridesharing, vanpool, or shuttle programs. (c) The city or county may deSignate an infill opportunity zone by adopting a resolution after determining that the infill opportunity zone is consistent with the general plan and any applicable specific plan. A city or county may not deSignate an infill opportunity zone after December 31, 2009. (d) The city or county in which the infill opportunity zone is located shall ensure that a development project shall be completed within the infill opportunity zone not more than four years after the date on which the city or county adopted its resolution pursuant to subdivision (c). If no development project is completed within an infill opportunity zone by the time limit imposed by this subdivision, the infill opportunity zone shall automatically terminate. 65088.5. Congestion management programs, if prepared by county transportation commissions and transportation authorities created pursuant to Division 12 (commencing with Section 130000) of the Public Utilities Code, shall be used by the regional transportation planning agency to meet federal requirements for a congestion management system, and shall be incorporated into the congestion management system. Prepared for: Riverside County Transportation Commission Prepared by: VRPA Technologies, Inc. A1-3 2011 Riverside County Congestion Management Program 65089. (a) A congestion management program shall be developed, adopted, and updated biennially, consistent with the schedule for adopting and updating the regional transportation improvement program, for every county that includes an urbanized area, and shall include every city and the county. The program shall be adopted at a noticed public hearing of the agency. The program shall be developed in consultation with, and with the cooperation of, the transportation planning agency, regional transportation providers, local governments, the department, and the air pollution control district or the air quality management district, either by the county transportation commission, or by another public agency, as designated by resolutions adopted by the county board of supervisors and the city councils of a majority of the cities representing a majority of the population in the incorporated area of the county. (b) The program shall contain all of the following elements: (1) (A) Traffic level of service standards established for a system of highways and roadways designated by the agency. The highway and roadway system shall include at a minimum all state highways and principal arterials. No highway or roadway deSignated as a part of the system shall be removed from the system. All new state highways and principal arterials shall be designated as part of the system, except when it is within an infill opportunity zone. Level of service (LOS) shall be measured by Circular 212, by the most recent version of the Highway Capacity Manual, or by a uniform methodology adopted by the agency that is consistent with the Highway Capacity Manual. The determination as to whether an alternative method is consistent with the Highway Capacity Manual shall be made by the regional agency, except that the department instead shall make this determination if either (i) the regional agency is also the agency, as those terms are defined in Section 65088.1, or (ii) the department is responsible for preparing the regional transportation improvement plan for the county. (1) (8) In no case shall the LOS standards established be below the level of service E or the current level, whichever is farthest from level of service A except when the area is in an infill opportunity zone. When the level of service on a segment or at an intersection fails to attain the established level of service standard outside an infill opportunity zone, a deficiency plan shall be adopted pursuant to Section 65089.4. (2) A performance element that includes performance measures to evaluate current and future multimodal system performance for the movement of people and goods. At a minimum, these performance measures shall incorporate highway and roadway system performance, and measures established for the frequency and routing of public transit, and for the coordination of transit service provided by separate operators. These performance measures shall support mobility, air quality, land use, and economic objectives, and s~lall be used in the development of the capital improvement program required pursuant to paragraph (5), deficiency plans required pursuant to Section 65089.4, and the land use analysis program required pursuant to paragraph (4). (3) A travel demand element that promotes alternative transportation methods, including, but not limited to, carpools, vanpools, transit, bicycles, and park-and-ride lots; improvements in the balance between jobs and housing; and other strategies, including, but not limited to, flexible work hours, telecommuting, and parking management programs. The agency shall consider parking cash-out programs during the development and update of the travel demand element. (4) A program to analyze the impacts of land use decisions made by local jurisdictions on regional transportation systems, including an estimate of the costs associated with mitigating those impacts. This program shall measure, to the extent possible, the impact to the transportation system using the performance measures described in paragraph (2). In no case shall the program include an Prepared for: Riverside County Transportation Commission Prepared by: VRPA Technologies, Inc. A1-4 2011 Riverside County Congestion Management Program estimate of the costs of mitigating the impacts of interregional travel. The program shall provide credit for local public and private contributions to improvements to regional transportation systems. However, in the case of toll road facilities, credit shall only be allowed for local public and private contributions which are unreimbursed from toll revenues or other state or federal sources. The agency shall calculate the amount of the credit to be provided. The program defined under this section may require implementation through the requirements and analysis of the California Environmental Quality Act, in order to avoid duplication. (5) A seven-year capital improvement program, developed using the performance measures described in paragraph (2) to determine effective projects that maintain or improve the performance of the multimodal system for the movement of people and goods, to mitigate regional transportation impacts identified pursuant to paragraph (4). The program shall conform to transportation-related vehicle emission air quality mitigation measures, and include any project that will increase the capacity of the multimodal system. It is the intent of the Legislature that, when roadway projects are identified in the program, consideration be given for maintaining bicycle access and safety at a level comparable to that which existed prior to the improvement or alteration. The capital improvement program may also include safety, maintenance, and rehabilitation projects that do not enhance the capacity of the system but are necessary to preserve the investment in existing facilities. (c) The agency, in consultation with the regional agency, cities, and the county, shall develop a uniform data base on traffic impacts for use in a countywide transportation computer model and shall approve transportation computer models of specific areas within the county that will be used by local jurisdictions to determine the quantitative impacts of development on the circulation system that are based on the countywide model and standardized modeling assumptions and conventions. The computer models shall be consistent with the modeling methodology adopted by the regional planning agency. The data bases used in the models shall be consistent with the data bases used by the regional planning agency. Where the regional agency has jurisdiction over two or more counties, the data bases used by the agency shall be consistent with the data bases used by the regional agency. (d) (1) The city or county in which a commercial development will implement a parking cash-out program that is included in a congestion management program pursuant to subdivision (b), or in a deficiency plan pursuant to Section 65089.4, shall grant to that development an appropriate reduction in the parking requirements otherwise in effect for new commercial development. (2) At the request of an existing commercial development that has implemented a parking cash-out program, the city or county shall grant an appropriate reduction in the parking requirements otherwise applicable based on the demonstrated reduced need for parking, and the space no longer needed for parking purposes may be used for other appropriate purposes. (e) Pursuant to the federal Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 and regulations adopted pursuant to the act, the department shall submit a request to the Federal Highway Administration Division Administrator to accept the congestion management program in lieu of development of a new congestion management system otherwise required by the act. 65089.1. (a) For purposes of this section, "plan" means a trip reduction plan or a related or similar proposal submitted by an employer to a local public agency for adoption or approval that is designed to facilitate employee ridesharing, the use of public transit, and other means of travel that do not employ a single occupant vehicle. Prepared for: Riverside County Transportation Commission Prepared by: VRPA Technologies, Inc. A1-5 2011 Riverside County Congestion Management Program (b) An agency may require an employer to provide rideshare data bases; an emergency ride program; a preferential parking program; a transportation information program; a parking cash-out program, as defined in subdivision (D of Section 65088.1; a public transit subsidy in an amount to be determined by the employer; bicycle parking areas; and other noncash value programs which encourage or facilitate the use of alternatives to driving alone. An employer may offer, but no agency shall require an employer to offer, cash, prizes, or items with cash value to employees to encourage participation in a trip reduction program as a condition of approving a plan. (c) Employers shall provide employees reasonable notice of the content of a proposed plan and shall provide the employees an opportunity to comment prior to submittal of the plan to the agency for adoption. (d) Each agency shall modify existing programs to conform to this section not later than June 30, 1995. Any plan adopted by an agency prior to January 1, 1994, shall remain in effect until adoption by the agency of a modified plan pursuant to this section. (e) Employers may include disincentives in their plans that do not create a widespread and substantial disproportionate impact on ethnic or racial minorities, women, or low-income or disabled employees. (D This section shall not be interpreted to relieve any employer of the responsibility to prepare a plan that conforms with trip reduction goals specified in Division 26 (commencing with Section 39000) of the Health and Safety Code, or the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. Sec. 7401 et seq.). (g) This section only applies to agencies and employers within the South Coast Air Quality Management District. 65089.2. (a) Congestion management programs shall be submitted to the regional agency. The regional agency shall evaluate the consistency between the program and the regional transportation plans required pursuant to Section 65080. In the case of a multicounty regional transportation planning agency, that agency shall evaluate the consistency and compatibility of the programs within the region. (b) The regional agency, upon finding that the program is consistent, shall incorporate the program into the regional transportation improvement program as provided for in Section 65082. If the regional agency finds the program is inconsistent, it may exclude any project in the congestion management program from inclusion in the regional transportation improvement program. (c) (1) The regional agency shall not program any surface transportation program funds and congestion mitigation and air quality funds pursuant to Section 182.6 and 182.7 of the Streets and Highways Code in a county unless a congestion management program has been adopted by December 31,1992, as required pursuant to Section 65089. 1\10 surface transportation program funds or congestion mitigation and air quality funds shall be programmed for a project in a local jurisdiction that has been found to be in nonconformance with a congestion management program pursuant to Section 65089.5 unless the agency finds that the project is of regional significance. (2) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, upon the designation of an urbanized area, pursuant to the 1990 federal census or a subsequent federal census, within a county which previously did not include an urbanized area, a congestion management program as required pursuant to Section 65089 shall be adopted within a period of 18 months after designation by the Governor. (d) (1) It is the intent of the Legislature that the regional agency, when its boundaries include areas in more than one county, should resolve inconsistencies and mediate disputes which arise between agencies related to congestion management programs adopted for those areas. (2) It is the further intent of the Legislature that disputes which may arise between regional agencies, or agencies which are not within the boundaries of a multicounty regional transportation planning agency, should be mediated and resolved by the Secretary of Business, Housing and Transportation Agency, or an Prepared for: Riverside County Transportation Commission Prepared by: VRPA Technologies, Inc. A1-6 2011 Riverside County Congestion Management Program employee of that agency designated by the secretary, in consultation with the air pollution control district or air quality management district within whose boundaries the regional agency or agencies are located. (e) At the request of the agency, a local jurisdiction that owns, or is responsible for operation of, a trip generating facility in another county shall participate in the congestion management program of the county where the facility is located. If a dispute arises involving a local jurisdiction, the agency may request the regional agency to mediate the dispute through procedures pursuant to subdivision (d) of Section 65089.2. Failure to resolve the dispute does not invalidate the congestion management program. 65089.3. The agency shall monitor the implementation of all elements of the congestion management program. The department is responsible for data collection and analysis on state highways, unless the agency deSignates that responsibility to another entity. The agency may also assign data collection and analysis responsibilities to other owners and operators of facilities or services if the responsibilities are specified in its adopted program. The agency shall consult with the department and other affected owners and operators in developing data collection and analysis procedures and schedules prior to program adoption. At least biennially, the agency shall determine if the county and cities are conforming to the congestion management program, including, but not limited to, all of the following: (a) Consistency with levels of service standards, except as provided in Section 65089.4. (b) Adoption and implementation of a program to analyze the impacts of land use decisions, including the estimate of the costs associated with mitigating these impacts. (c) Adoption and implementation of a defiCiency plan pursuant to Section 65089.4 when highway and roadway level of service standards are not maintained on portions of the deSignated system. 65089.4. (a) A local jurisdiction shall prepare a deficiency plan when highway or roadway level of service standards are not maintained on segments or intersections of the designated system. The deficiency plan shall be adopted by the city or county at a noticed public hearing. (b) The agency shall calculate the impacts subject to exclusion pursuant to subdivision (f) of this section, after consultation with the regional agency, the department, and the local air quality management district or air pollution control district. If the calculated traffic level of service following exclusion of these impacts is consistent with the level of service standard, the agency shall make a finding at a publicly noticed meeting that no deficiency plan is required and so notify the affected local jurisdiction. (c) The agency shall be responsible for preparing and adopting procedures for local deficiency plan development and implementation responsibilities, consistent with the requirements of this section. The deficiency plan shall include all of the following: (1) An analysis of the cause of the deficiency. This analysis shall include the following: (A) Identification of the cause of the deficiency. (8) Identification of the impacts of those local jurisdictions within the jurisdiction of the agency that contribute to the deficiency. These impacts shall be identified only if the calculated traffic level of service following exclusion of impacts pursuant to subdivision (f) indicates that the level of service standard has not been maintained, and shall be limited to impacts not subject to exclusion. (2) A list of improvements necessary for the deficient segment or intersection to maintain the minimum level of service otherwise required and the estimated costs of the improvements. (3) A list of improvements, programs, or actions, and estimates of costs, that will (A) measurably improve multimodal performance, using measures defined in paragraphs (1) and (2) of subdivision (b) of Prepared for: Riverside County Transportation Commission Prepared by: VRPA Technologies, Inc. A1-7 2011 Riverside County Congestion Management Program Section 65089, and (8) contribute to significant improvements in air quality, such as improved public transit service and facilities, improved nonmotorized transportation facilities, high occupancy vehicle facilities, parking cash-out programs, and transportation control measures. The air quality management district or the air pollution control district shall establish and periodically revise a list of approved improvements, programs, and actions that meet the scope of this paragraph. If an improvement, program, or action on the approved list has not been fully implemented, it shall be deemed to contribute to significant improvements in air quality. if an improvement, program, or action is not on the approved list, it shall not be implemented unless approved by the local air quality management district or air pollution control district. (4) An action plan, consistent with the provisions of Chapter 5 (commencing with Section 66000), that shall be implemented, consisting of improvements identified in paragraph (2), or improvements, programs, or actions identified in paragraph (3), that are found by the agency to be in the interest of the public health, safety, and welfare. The action plan shall include a specific implementation schedule. The action plan shall include implementation strategies for those jurisdictions that have contributed to the cause of the defiCiency in accordance with the agency's deficiency plan procedures. The action plan need not mitigate the impacts of any exclusions identified in subdivision (D. Action plan strategies shall identify the most effective implementation strategies for improving current and future system performance. (d) A local jurisdiction shall forward its adopted deficiency plan to the agency within 12 months of the identification of a deficiency. The agency shall hold a noticed public hearing within 60 days of receiving the deficiency plan. Following that hearing, the agency shall either accept or reject the deficiency plan in its entirety, but the agency may not modify the deficiency plan. If the agency rejects the plan, it shall notify the local jurisdiction of the reasons for that rejection, and the local jurisdiction shall submit a revised plan within 90 days addressing the agency's concerns. Failure of a local jurisdiction to comply with the schedule and requirements of this section shall be considered to be nonconformance for the purposes of Section 65089.5. (e) The agency shall incorporate into its deficiency plan procedures, a methodology for determining if deficiency impacts are caused by more than one local jurisdiction within the boundaries of the agency. (1) If, according to the agency's methodology, it is determined that more than one local jurisdiction is responsible for causing a deficient segment or intersection, all responsible local jurisdictions shall participate in the development of a deficiency plan to be adopted by all participating local jurisdictions. (2) The local jurisdiction in which the deficiency occurs shall have lead responsibility for developing the deficiency plan and for coordinating with other impacting local jurisdictions. If a local jurisdiction responsible for partiCipating in a multi-jurisdictional deficiency plan does not adopt the deficiency plan in accordance with the schedule and requirements of paragraph (a) of this section, that jurisdiction shall be considered in nonconformance with the program for purposes of Section 65089.5. (3) The agency shall establish a conflict resolution process for addressing conflicts or disputes between local jurisdictions in meeting the multi-jurisdictional deficiency plan responsibilities of this section. (D The analysis of the cause of the deficiency prepared pursuant to paragraph (1) of subdivision (c) shall exclude the following: (1) Interregional travel. (2) Construction, rehabilitation, or maintenance of facilities that impact the system. (3) Freeway ramp metering. (4) Traffic signal coordination by the state or multi-jurisdictional agencies. (5) Traffic generated by the provision of low-income and very low income housing. (6) (A) Traffic generated by high-density residential development located within one-fourth mile of a fixed rail passenger station, and (8) Traffic generated by any mixed use development located within Prepared for: Riverside County Transportation Commission Prepared by: VRPA Technologies, Inc. A1-8 2011 Riverside County Congestion Management Program one-fourth mile of a fixed rail passenger station, if more than half of the land area, or floor area, of the mixed use development is used for high density residential housing, as determined by the agency. (g) For the purposes of this section, the following terms have the following meanings: (1) "High density" means residential density development which contains a minimum of 24 dwelling units per acre and a minimum density per acre which is equal to or greater than 120 percent of the maximum residential density allowed under the local general plan and zoning ordinance. A project providing a minimum of 75 dwelling units per acre shall automatically be considered high density. (2) "Mixed use development" means development which integrates compatible commercial or retail uses, or both, with residential uses, and which, due to the proximity of job locations, shopping opportunities, and residences, will discourage new trip generation. 65089.5. (a) If, pursuant to the monitoring provided for in Section 65089.3, the agency determines, following a noticed public hearing, that a city or county is not conforming with the requirements of the congestion management program, the agency shall notify the city or county in writing of the specific areas of nonconformance. If, within 90 days of the receipt of the written notice of nonconformance, the city or county has not come into conformance with the congestion management program, the governing body of the agency shall make a finding of nonconformance and shall submit the finding to the commission and to the Controller. (b) (1) Upon receiving notice from the agency of nonconformance, the Controller shall withhold apportionments of funds required to be apportioned to that nonconforming city or county by Section 2105 of the Streets and Highways Code. (2) If, within the 12-month period following the receipt of a notice of nonconformance, the Controller is notified by the agency that the city or county is in conformance, the Controller shall allocate the apportionments withheld pursuant to this section to the city or county. (3) If the Controller is not notified by the agency that the city or county is in conformance pursuant to paragraph (2), the Controller shall allocate the apportionments withheld pursuant to this section to the agency. (c) The agency shall use funds apportioned under this section for projects of regional significance which are included in the capital improvement program required by paragraph (5) of subdivision (b) of Section 65089, or in a deficiency plan which has been adopted by the agency. The agency shall not use these funds for administration or planning purposes. 65089.6. Failure to complete or implement a congestion management program shall not give rise to a cause of action against a city or county for failing to conform with its general plan, unless the city or county incorporates the congestion management program into the circulation element of its general plan. 65089.7. A proposed development specified in a development agreement entered into prior to July 10, 1989, shall not be subject to any action taken to comply with this chapter, except actions required to be taken with respect to tile trip reduction and travel demand element of a congestion management program pursuant to paragraph (3) of subdivision (b) of Section 65089. Prepared for: Riverside County Transportation Commission Prepared by: VRPA Technologies, Inc. A1-9 2011 Riverside County Congestion Management Program 65089.9. The study steering committee established pursuant to Section 6 of Chapter 444 of the Statutes of 1992 may designate at least two congestion management agencies to participate in a demonstration study comparing multimodal performance standards to highway level of service standards. The department shall make available, from existing resources, fifty thousand dollars ($50,000) from the Transportation Planning and Development Account in the State Transportation Fund to fund each of the demonstration projects. The designated agencies shall submit a report to the Legislature not later than June 30, 1997, regarding the findings of each demonstration project. 65089.10. Any congestion management agency that is located in the Bay Area Air Quality Management District and receives funds pursuant to Section 44241 of the Health and Safety Code for the purpose of implementing paragraph (3) of subdivision (b) of Section 65089 shall ensure that those funds are expended as part of an overall program for improving air quality and for the purposes of this chapter. Prepared for: Riverside County Transportation Commission Prepared by: VRPA Technologies, Inc. A1-10 2011 Riverside County Congestion Management Program PEND RECOMMENDED HCM·BASED LEVEL OF SERVICE PROGRAM DEFAULTS Prepared for: Riverside County Transportation Commission Prepared by: VRPA Technologies, Inc. A2-1 2011 Riverside County Congestion Management Program FEDERAL CONGESTION MANAGEMENT SYSTEM/TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT SYSTEM (CMSITMS) REQUIREMENTS Summation of FHWAlFlA Final Rule: Management and Monitoring Systems GENERAL The Final Rule is effective January 21, 1997, making Congestion Management Systems (CMS) in Transportation Management Areas (TMAs) and traffic monitoring systems (TMS) mandatory. The Final Rule requires the Secretary of Transportation (Federal Highway Administration and Federal Transit Administration) to issue regulations for state development, establishment, and implementation of: • BMS (Bridge Management Systems); • CMS (Congestion Management Systems); • IMS (Intermodal Management Systems); • PMS (Pavement Management Systems); • PTMS (Public Transportation Management Systems); and • SMS (Safety Management Systems). All above management systems are optional [as of the 1995 National Highway Designation Act (NHS)], except for CMS and TMAs. In addition to the CMS, the development, establishment, and implementation of a TMS are required under the Final Rule. TMAs are defined as: "An urbanized area with a population over 200,000 (as determined by the latest decennial census) or other area when TMA designation is requested by the Governor and the MPO (or affected local officials), and officially designated by the Administrators of the FHWA and the flA. The TMA designation applies to the entire metropolitan planning area(s)." Issues mentioned in the Final Rule concerning Federal Funds include: • Federal funds may not be programmed in a carbon monoxide and/or ozone non-attainment TMA for any project that will result in a significant increase in SOV (single-occupant-vehicle) capacity unless the project is based on an approved CMS; and • Amendments in the 1995 NHS Act allow a state to elect not to implement, in whole or in part, any one or more of the management systems (except for CMS in TMAs, and the TMS). In addition, the certification requirement was removed and the Secretary may not impose any sanction on or withhold any benefit from a state that elects to take this approach. Prepared for: Riverside County Transportation Commission Prepared by: VRPA Technologies, Inc. A3-1 2011 Riverside County Congestion Management Program Congestion Management Systems (CMS) In all TMAs, the CMS shall be developed, established, and implemented as part of the metropolitan planning process in accordance with 23 CFR 450.320© and shall include: • Methods to: ~ Monitor and evaluate the performance of the multimodal transportation system; ~ Identify the causes of congestion; ~ Identify and evaluate alternative actions; y Provide information supporting the implementation of actions; and y Evaluate the efficiency and effectiveness of implemented actions. • Definition of parameters for measuring the extent of congestion and for supporting the evaluation of the effectiveness of congestion reduction and mobility enhancement strategies for the movement of people and goods. • Establishment of a program for data collection and system performance monitoring to: ~ Define the extent and duration of congestion; ~ Help determine the causes of congestion; and y Evaluate the efficiency and effectiveness of implemented actions. • To the extent possible, existing data sources should be used, as well as appropriate application of the real-time system performance monitoring capabilities available through Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) technologies. • Identification and evaluation of the anticipated performance and expected benefits of appropriate traditional and nontraditional congestion management strategies that will contribute to the more efficient use of existing and future transportation systems based on the established performance measures. The following categories of strategies, or combination of strategies, should be appropriately considered for each area: y Transportation demand management (TOM) measures, including growth, management, and congestion pricing; y Traffic operational improvements; ~ Public transportation improvements; ~ ITS technologies; and y Additional system capacity (where necessary). • Identification of an implementation schedule, implementation responsibilities, and possible funding sources for each strategy (or combination of strategies) proposed for implementation. Section 500.102 -Policy (1}) of the Final Rule states: "Whether the systems are developing under the provisions of this part or under the State's own procedures, the following categories of FHWA administered funds may be used for development, establishment, and implementation of any of the Prepared for: Riverside County Transportation Commission Prepared by: VRPA Technologies, Inc. A3-2 2011 Riverside County Congestion Management Program management systems and the traffic monitoring system; National highway system; surface transportation program; state planning and research and metropolitan planning funds (including the optional use of minimum allocation funds authorized under 23 U.S.C. 157© and restoration funds authorized under Sec. 202 (D of the National Highway System Designation Act of 1995 (Pub.L. 104-59) for carrying out the provisions of 23 U.S.C. 307©(1) and 23 USC 134(a)): congestion mitigation and air quality improvement program funds for those management systems that can be shown to contribute to the attainment of national ambient air quality standard; and apportioned bridge funds for development and establishment of the bridge management system. The following categories of FTA administered funds may be used for the development, establishment, and implementation of the CMS, PTMS, IMS, and TMS: Metropolitan planning; state planning and research, and formula transit funds." • Implementation of a process for periodic assessment of the efficiency and effectiveness of implemented strategies, in terms of the area's established performance measures. The results of this evaluation shall be provided to decision makers to provide guidance on selection of effective strategies for future implementation. • In a TMA designated as non-attainment for carbon monoxide and/or ozone, the CMS shall provide an appropriate analysis of all reasonable (including multimodal) travel demand reduction and operational management strategies for the corridor in which a project that will result in a significant increase in capacity for SOVs (adding general purpose lanes to an existing highway or constructing a new highway) is proposed. If the analysis demonstrates that travel demand reduction and operational management strategies cannot fully satisfy the need for additional capacity in the corridor and additional SOV capacity is warranted, then the CMS shall identify all reasonable strategies to manage the SOV facility effectively (or to facilitate its management in the future). Other travel demand reduction and operational management strategies appropriate for the corridor, but not appropriate for incorporation into the SOV facility itself shall also be identified through the CMS. All identified reasonable travel demand reduction and operation management strategies shall be incorporated into the SOV project or committed to by the State and Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) for implementation. • Compliance with the requirement that the planning process in all TMAs include a CMS will be addressed during metropolitan planning process certification reviews for all TMAs specified in 23 CFR 450.334. If the metropolitan planning process in a TMA does not include a CMS that meets the requirements of this Section, deficiencies will be noted and corrections will need to be made in accordance with the schedule established in the certification review. • Federal funds may not be programmed in a carbon monoxide and/or ozone non-attainment TMA for any project that will result in a significant increase of SOV (single occupant vehicle) capacity unless the project is based on an approved CMS. Prepared for: Riverside County Transportation Commission Prepared by: VRPA Technologies, Inc. A3-3 2011 Riverside County Congestion Management Program Traffic Monitoring Systems (TMS) General Requirements • Each state shall develop, establish, and implement, on a continuing basis, a TMS to be used for obtaining highway traffic data when the data are: ~ Supplied to the U.S. Department of Transportation (U.S. DOT); ~ Used in support of transportation management systems; ~ Used in support of studies or systems which are the responsibility of the U.S. DOT; ~ Supported by the use of Federal funds provided from programs of the U.S. DOT; ~ Used in the apportionments or allocation of Federal funds by the U.S. DOT; ~ Used in the design or construction of an FHWA funded project; or ~ Required as part of a federally mandated program of the U.S. DOT. • The TMS for highway traffic data should be based on the concepts described in the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Guidelines for Traffic Data Programs" and FHWA "Traffic Monitoring Guide (TMG)," and shall be consistent with the FHWA Highway Performance Monitoring System Field Manual. • The TMS shall cover all public roads except those functionally classified as local or rural minor collector or those that are federally owned. Coverage of federally owned public roads shall be determined cooperatively by the state, the FHWA, and the agencies that own the roads. • The state's TMS shall apply to the activities of local governments and other public or private non state government entities collecting highway traffic data wi.thin the state of the collected data are to be used for any of the purposes enumerated in Section A of this subpart. • Procedures other than those referenced in this subpart may be used if the alternative procedures are documented by the state to furnish the precision levels as defined for the various purposes enumerated in Sec. A of this subpart and are found acceptable by the FHWA. • Nothing in this subpart shall prohibit the collection of additional highway traffic data if such data are needed in the administration or management of a highway activity or are needed in the design of a highway project. • Transit traffic data shall be collected in cooperation with MPOs and transit operators. • The TMS for highways and public transportation facilities and equipment shall be fully operational and in use by October 1,1997. • Components for Highway Traffic Data. Each state's TMS, including those using alternative procedures, shall address the following components: ~ A state's TMS shall meet the statistical precisions established by FHWA for the HPMS. Prepared for: Riverside County Transportation Commission Prepared by: VRPA Technologies, Inc. A3-4 2011 Riverside County Congestion Management Program y Continuous counter operations. Within each state, there shall be sufficient continuous counters of traffic volumes, vehicle classification, and vehicle weight to provide estimates of changes in highway travel patterns and to provide for the development of day-of-week, seasonal, axle correction, growth factors, or other comparable factors approved by the FHWA. As appropriate, sufficient continuous counts of vehicle classification and vehicle weight should be available to address traffic data program needs. y Count data for traffic volumes collected in the field shall be adjusted to reflect annual average conditions. y Vehicle classification activities on the National Highway System (NHS). On a cycle of no greater than three years, every major system segment (I.e., segments between interchanges or intersections of principal arterials of the NHS with other principal arterials of the IIJHS) will be monitored to provide information on the numbers of single-trailer combination trucks, multiple trailer combination trucks, two-axle four-tire vehicles, buses and the total number of vehicles operating on an average day. y Vehicle occupancy monitoring. Such vehicle occupancy data shall be reviewed at least every three years and updated as necessary. Acceptable data collection methods include roadside monitoring, traveler surveys, the use of administrative records (e.g., accident reports or reports developed in support of public transportation programs), or any other method mutually acceptable to the responsible organizations and the FHWA. y Field operations. (1) Each state's TMS for highway traffic data shall include the testing of equipment used in the collection of the data. (2) Documentation of field operations shall include the number of counts, the period of monitoring, the cycle of monitoring, and the spatial and temporal distribution of count sites. y Source data retention. For estimates of traffic or travel, the value or values collected during a monitoring session, as well as information on the date(s) and hour(s) of monitoring will remain available until the traffic or travel estimates based on the count session are updated. y Office factoring procedures. (1) Factors to adjust data from short-term monitoring sessions to estimates of average daily conditions shall be used to adjust for month, day of week, axle correction, and growth or other comparable factors approved by FHWA. These factors will be reviewed annually and updated at least every three years. (2) The procedures used by a state to edit and adjust highway traffic data collected from short-term counts at field locations to estimates of average traffic volume shall be documented. Prepared for: Riverside County Transportation Commission Prepared by: VRPA Technologies, Inc. A3-5 2011 Riverside County Congestion Management Program hMSREQUIREMENTS PROGRAMS TMS HPMS CMP Monitor/Evaluate the Multimodal Transportation System X X Identify Parameters for Evaluating the Extent of Congestion X Evaluate the Effectiveness of Implemented Actions X i Identify/Implement a Program for Data Collection X X X X i Cover all Public Roads X • Collect TransitlTraffic Data X X X • Meet AASHTO and FHWA Standards X X i Continuous Counter Operations (volumes, vehicle class, weights, and highway travel patterns) X X Short-term Traffic Monitoring Every Two Years X Short-term Traffic Monitoring Every Three Years (sample data) X X Vehicle Classification (single/multi-trailer truck, 2-axle, 4-axle vehicles, buses, totals) Every Three Years, Every Major System Segment X X Vehicle Occupancy (reviewed every three years) _ ...... Testing/Documentation of Field Operations X X X Factoring Procedures (reviewed annually and updated every three years) X X Interstate and State Highway System (Caltrans responsibility) X X X X Principal Arterials (CMAllocal agency responsibility) Xl I X X X Minor Arterials (local agency responsibility) Xl X X Collectors Xl X X Recreational Routes X X 1 All are eligible under CMS requirements depending on whether or not federal funds are to be allocated to the facilities. Prepared for: Riverside County Transportation Commission Prepared by: VRPA Technologies, Inc. A3-6 11/9/2011 November 14, 2011 • Directly link land use and transportation, effectively utilize transportation funds, alleviate traffic congestion and improve air quality 1 11/9/2011 " ReTe's Smart Call Box (SGB) :count data .. Cattraos' Perftlfmam~e Measurement System (PeMS) speed and count data " Recent traffic counts from local agencies .. Counts from CaltrBns' roonnoring report " Counts from CVAG's mooitoong report " Fl()ating car funs aloog aaleCted rouws 2 11/9/2011 ,/ Based upon the capacRY analysis of the CMP System, several LOS defo::iencies were identified and verified by kJcal agencies ,/ Results indicated that several along major highways and are operating at deficienllevels of seNice .. Approve the 2011 CMP Update and contirnJe mon~oring tf1e identified LOS deficiencies over the next 9-month period ,/ MonIToring results will be inCOlj>Orated into the 2013 CMP Update 3 Draft Appendix S Preparation Guidelines for Project Study Report-Project Development Support (PSR-PDS) Project Initiation Documents September 30, 2011 APPENDIX S Preparation Guidelines for Project Study Report-Project Development Support Project Initiation Documents TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER 1 -Introduction............................................................................................................. 1 Project Study Report-Project Development Support Project Initiation Documents ............ 1 Purpose for Project Study Report-Project Development Support (PSR-PDS) PID ............ 1 Applicability ........................................................................................................................2 CHAPTER 2 PSR-PDS Process .....................................................................................................3 ARTICLE 1 General ........................................................................................................................3 Proj ect Development Process ..............................................................................................3 Timing .................................................................................................................................3 Project Management ............................................................................................................3 Registered Civil Engineer ...................................................................................................3 Purpose and Need ................................................................................................................3 Context Sensitive Solutions .................................................................................................4 ARTICLE 2 Preparation Procedures ..........................................................................................................4 1. Work Programs tor PSR-PDS Development.. ..................................................................... 6 2. Pre-PID Meeting for STIP, Projects-Funded-by-Others, and Long Lead SHOPP Projects 6 3. Authorization tor PSR .. PDS Preparation ... Hu............H ........................................................7 4. Obtain and Review Existing Reports, Studies, Mapping or Other Information ..................7 5. Form the Project Development Team (PDT) ......................................................................8 6. Develop Consensus on the Project Purpose and Need ........................................................ 8 7. Review of the Project Site in the Field ................................................................................9 8. Identify additional data requirements for pr(jject scoping ...................................................9 9. Perform the Initial Engineering Analysis and Develop Alternatives ................................ 10 10. Develop Cost Estimates .................................................................................................... 13 J J. Develop Schedules ............................................................................................................ 13 12. Risks............................................................................................... 13 13. Quality ManagcmentofProject ................................................................. 14 14. Complete PSR-PDS .......................................................................................................... 14 15. Caltrans District Review and Approval ............................................................................ 14 CHAPTER 3 Outine for PSR-PDS .............................................................................................. 15 AR'fICLE I General ...................................................................................................................15 Outline ............................................................................................................................... 15 CHAPTER 4 -PSR-PDS Estimates ..............................................................................................25 ARTICLE 1 PSR-PDS Capital Estimate Components ...........................................................................25 CH1\PTER 5 -Scoping Tools .....................................................................................................................26 Project Development Procedures Manual ARTICLE 1 ARTICLE 2 ARTICLE 3 ARTICLE 4 ARTICLES ARTICLE 6 ARTICLE 7 ARTICLE 8 ARTICLE 9 ARTICLE 10 ARTICLE II CHAPTER 6 ARTICLE 1 ARTICLE 2 Draft Appendix S Preparation Guidelines for Pr~iect Study Report-Project Development Support (PSR-PDS) Project Initiation Documents General ..................................................................................................................... 26 Prqject Initiation DocumentDesign Scoping Index ......................................................... 27 Stormwater Documentation ...................................................................................28 Transportation Planning Scopinglnformation Sheet.. ....................................................... 30 Traffic Engineering Performance Assessment .................................................................. 32 Preliminary Environmental Analysis Report .................................................................... 32 Conceptual Cost Estimate Request -Right of Way Component.. .................................... 33 PSR-PDS Survey Needs Questionairre ............................................................................. 34 Quality Management Plan ......................................................................................35 Risk Register ..........................................................................................................36 Division of Engineering Services PSR-PDS Scoping Checklist. ..........................37 PSR-PDS Templates .............................................................................................38 Template for Project Study Report Project Development Support (PSR-PDS) .............. 39 Template for Long Lead SHOPP Project........... , .. ~ ....................;.~~;..................... .46 ii Project Development Procedures Manual Draft Appendix S Preparation Guidelines for Pr~ject Study Report-Project Development Support (PSR-PDS) Project Initiation Documents Appendix S -Preparation Guidelines For Project Study Report-Project Development Support Project Initiation Documents CHAPTER 1 -Introduction Project Study Report-Project Development Support Project Initiation Documents The development of a Project Study Report-Project Development Support (PSR PDS) Project Initiation Document (PID) provides a key opportunity for Cal trans and involved regional and local agencies to achieve consensus on the "purpose and need," scope, and schedule of a project. This appendix provides concepts and best practices for preparing a PSR-PDS for projects funded through the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP), projects funded by others, and Long Lead State Highway Operations and Protection Program (SHOPP) projects. This appendix also provides a description of the information that should be contained in the PSR~PDS, and scoping tools needed to collect and organize information during the project. initiation phase. To appropriately apply the guidance described in "this appendix, review the intent of policies and procedures in along with Appendix L of this manual. The PSR-PDS is only one type of PID. While this appendix provides guidance on preparing a PSR-PDS, Chapter 9 and Appendix L provide the foundation for the understanding and knowledge necessary to develop any PID. Purpose for Project Study Report-Project Development Support (PSR-PDS) PID The purpose for using the PSR-PDS document is to gain approval for the project to move into the Project Approval and Environmental Document (PA&ED) phase. The PSR-PDS is used to estimate and program the support costs necessary to complete the studies and work needed during PA&ED. The PSR-PDS does not provide conceptual approval as defined in Chapter 9. If conceptual approval is required, the project sponsor should consider using the Project Study Report (PSR) format as defined in Appendix L instead of the PSR-PDS format. The Project Development Team (PDT) should discuss the appropriate format to achieve project sponsor goals during the pre-PID meeting. If appropriate, a local agency may submit a request to the Caltrans District Director for approval to use the Project Study Report (PSR) in lieu ofthe PSR-PDS. At this level of the project, the required information is reduced with much ofthe detail being completed during PA&ED. Because of the reduction in level of effort, specific work must be completed and is listed in this document (e.g. Pre-PID meeting, Risk Assessments and Commitment). Project Development Procedures Manual Draft Appendix S Preparation Guidelines for Project Study Report-Pro.icct Development Support (PSR-PDS) Project Initiation Documents Applicability These guidelines generally apply to all STIP and specially funded projects (projects funded by others) on the State Highway System (SHS) and any segment of a transit project within the State highway right of way. These guidelines also apply to Long Lead SHOPP projects to program support costs. These guidelines are not intended for use on transit projects unrelated to the SHS or on STIP projects off the SHS. Project Development Procedures Manual 2 Draft Appendix S Preparation Guidelines for Prqject Study Report-Project Development SUpp0l1 (PSR-PDS) Initiation Documents CHAPTER 2 -PSR-PDS Process ARTICLE 1 -General Project Development Process The project development process begins with conceptual studies and continues through to the completion of construction. The project development process is tied to legal requirements and melds engineering requirements, a process for stakeholder and community input, and Caltrans approval steps with the environmental process. The principles of context sensitive solutions (CSS) including a focus on community involvement, is integrated into the project development process. Timing A completed PID is required before a project is included into either the STIP or SHOPP or prior to getting an approval to move to PA&ED for a project-funded-by others (as defined in Chapter 9 of this manual). Any agency preparing a PSR-PDS is responsible for developing a reasonable schedule that is necessary to produce a PSR PDS. Project Management A Caltrans project manager is assigned for every capital outlay project including locally implemented projects. Registered Civil Engineer The PSR-PDS shall be prepared under the direction of a registered Civil Engineer or other appropriate licensed professional (e.g., Landscape Architect). Purpose and Need A project must satisfy a clearly defined purpose and need. The project sponsors identify the initial transportation deficiency. The project must meet system strategies as defined in State, regional, and local plans, goals, and objectives. The project should reflect values of the community. Caltrans policy is to evaluate viable alternative solutions that avoid or reduce environmental impacts and to select the alternative that causes the least overall environmental damage and that satisfies the transportation purpose and need. Additional information and resources on Purpose and Need statement development can be found at the following website: http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/env/emo/purposeneed.htm. Project Development Procedures Manual 3 Context Sensitive Solutions The PSR-PDS provides an opportunity to consider the implementation of CSS from planning through construction. CSS implementation offers a process that focuses on community involvement and the flexibility to balance transportation needs with community values. The PSR-PDS also provides an opportunity to address the needs of various modes of transportation (e.g., vehicles, mass transit, rail, bicycle, and pedestrian). ARTICLE 2 -Preparation Procedures This article describes the sequence of key activities and best practices that ._._ ...._.._ during the development of a PSR-PDS. For an overview of where the PSR-PDS fits into thei't9ject development process, see Chapter 8 of this manual. A graphic overview of the project development process can be foundllt Division of Design's website http://www.caltrans.ca.gov/hq/oppd/pdwtlrevised/fdI.pdf For project teams, the PDWf provides a comprehensive flow of project delivery tasks and can be used as a structured step-by-step guide· for project development tasks performed by project engineers. Although the PDWfprimarilydescribes design activities performed by the project engineer, it also provides the framework for the flow of tasks by all the functional units. The PDWfcan be found On Division of Design's website: http://www.caltrans.ca.gov/hg/oppd/pdwt/revisedlpdwt.htm Project Development Procedures Manual 4 Draft Appendix S Preparation Guidelines for Project Study Report-Project Development Support (PSR-PDS) I nitiation Documents The PSR-PDS preparation procedures are summarized in the chart below with detailed information in the Project Development WorkflOW Tasks Manual (PDf;V7). Guidance on the content of the PSR-PDS is discussed in Chapter 3 of this appendix. PSR-PDS PREPARATION PROCEDURES FLOWCHART ;R-I)D~; DEwelopment ·Pre-PIO Meeting Develop Chartf:'r and Cooperative Agreernent, Framework for Purpose and Need and Concept and Scope, Design Criteria, Identify Deficiencie, and lead Agency Project Development Procedures Manual 5 l. Work Programs for PSR-PDS Development District Deputy Directors (ODDs) for Planning develop PID work programs on an annual basis. The work programs are a listing and schedule of proposed projects requiring resources. There is a work program for the STIP (which includes projects funded-by-others as defined in Chapter 9 of this manual) and SHOPP. ODDs submit the work programs to Headquarters Division of Transportation Planning, Office of Plans/Project Coordination (OPPC) for approval. OPPC establishes the procedures for opening an expenditure authorization for either the preparation of all PID work to include PSR-PDS PlDs or independent quality assurance (lQA) work. OPPC monitors the resources and the delivery of PIDs (including PSR-PDS PIDs) listed in the work program. The work program for Long Lead SHOPP projects must be consistent with the lO Year SHOPP Plan and is developed with the concurrence of the SHOPP Program Managers. The work programs for STIP projects are developed in partnership with local and regional transportation agencies. Either Caltrans or a local agency may prepare a PSR-PDS for STIP projects. If requested by a local agency, Section 65986.5 of the Government Code provides that Caltrans shall have 30 days to determine whether it can complete the requested report in a timely fashion (i.e., in time for inclusion in the next STIP). If Caltrans determines it cannot prepare the report in a timely fashion, the requesting entity may prepare the report. Work programs for projects-funded-by-others are developed in partnership with local agencies, regional agencies, or developers. Caltrans is responsible for providing IQA on all projects-funded-by-others. 2. Pre-PID Meeting for STIP, Projects-Funded-by-Others, and Long Lead SHOPP Projects Regardless of who prepares the PSR-PDS, a meeting with Caltrans and the appropriate local entity (or entities) shall be held. This is a required meeting with all entities to develop the Project Chmier. Input from all parties is required at the earliest possible stage and continues throughout the process. The project manager should take the lead in coordination activities. The purpose of the pre-PID meeting is to communicate a shared view of the project and to establish an understanding of the procedures, roles, and responsibilities before the project initiation process begins. The following are sample agenda items to be covered during the Pre-PID Meeting: • Prepare and finalize Charter and Cooperative Agreement for reimbursable work. • Review the PSR-PDS and PID development processes. • Set the framework for getting consensus of purpose and need. Project Development Procedures Manual 6 Draft Appendix S Preparation Guidelines for Project Study Report-Project Development Support (PSR-PDS) • Set the framework for agreeing on the design concept and scope. Ideally, the design concept and scope will evolve from the transportation system or regional planning process. The engineering specifics of the design scope should be discussed. These include the major features of work such as the number of lanes (current and future), right of way requirements, and interchange type and location. • Agree on the basic design criteria. • Identify known deficiencies. The design scoping index found in Appendix L of this appendix can be used to document known deficiencies and highlight areas requiring further investigation. Examples of deficiencies to consider are: structures with nonstandard vertical or horizontal clearances; inadequate bridge railing; pavement in need of rehabilitation; deteriorated or inadequate drainage systems; narrow or deteriorating shoulders; lack of continuity or the deficiencies of bicycle or pedestrian facilities; replacement landscaping; ramp metering; nonstandard guardrail; maintenance worker safety; and seismic retrofit requirements. • Lead Agency -Discuss when Caltrans is the NEPA and/or CEQA lead agency. Pursuant to SAFETEA-LU Section 6004 and/or 6005, Cal trans is the NEPA lead agency. FHW A assigned,andCaltrans assumed, all of the United States Department of Transportation (USDOT) Secretary's responsibilities under NEPA (for more information please see http://www.doLca.gov/ser/voll/sec6/ch38nepa/chap38.htm). NEPA lead cannot be delegated. Caltrans is the CEQA lead agency for improvements projects on the State Highway System. In limited cases, and only when it is in the best interests of the State, the Department may delegate CEQA lead agency status to a local agency. (for more information see: http://www.doLea.gov/ser/downloadslmemos/CEQA Lead Agencv 24Jun04.pdf 3. Authorization for· PSR-PDS Preparation The project initiation phase begins with the opening of an expenditure authorization. The project manager obtains an expenditure authorization to initiate the project initiation process. See Task POI of the PDWT. 4. Obtain and Review Existing Reports, Studies, Mapping or Other Information To adequately prepare a PSR-PDS, it is essential to obtain the best available and most current maps and plans, including right of way maps and as-built plans. Ideally, three dimensional (3-0) digital data; e.g., MicroStation design files, Digital Elevation Models (OEMs), Digital Terrain Models (DTMs) should be used. Other resources include Digital Highway Inventory Photography Program (DHIPP) images, aerial photography mosaics, orthophotography, LiDAR, and Google Earth. This information serves as the basis for the conceptual design, development of viable alternatives, quantities and estimates, and exhibits. The use of GIS and visualization software to collect and view the data is encouraged. Minimal field and office survey Pr~ject Development Procedures Manual 7 activities may be performed to collect new data or transform existing data to the project datum and units. Refer to the Survey Needs Questionnaire found in Chapter 5, Article 8 of this Appendix for details on datums. The Transportation Concept Report or Route Concept Report (TCR/RCR), District System Management Plan (DSMP), Regional Transportation Plan (RTP), Congestion Management Program (CMP), to-Year SHOPP, the State Implementation Plan, local plans, other reports and studies, and Complete Streets concepts should be reviewed. Appropriate information from these reports can serve to document the need and scope of the project. Further discussion on these documents can be found in the Transportation Planning Scoping Information Sheet, found in Chapter 5, Article 4 of this Appendix, and Chapter 1-Introduction, and Chapter 4 -Programming of the PDPM. Important background information can often be obtained in previous related or adjacent studies. A search and review of project history files and previously studied but suspended projects can give a historical perspective to the current proposal. See Tasks PDWT P8-P26 for further guidance on additional data and inppt. 5. Form the Project Development Team (PDT) The Caltrans District Director concurs on the members of a PDT for each project, regardless of who is preparing the PSR-PDS. The PDT is comprised of the assigned Caltrans project manager and representatives from the district project delivery, transportation planning, legal, maintenance and traffic operations units, and a Regional Transportation Planning Agency (RTPA) representative. Representatives from other functional units, and local and regional entities are added as needed. See Chapter 8, Section 4 of the PDPM. 'If the PSR-PDS is to be prepared by a local entity, the local entity shall furnish Caltrans a list of appropriate PDT members. See Task P06 PDWT for further guidance on forming a PDT. 6. Develop Consensus on the Project Purpose and Need It is crucial for the PDT to build PlDs on the project purpose and need statement early in the project development process. The PDT must identify the transportation deficiencies and describe underlying transportation need. The PDT must agree on the primary objectives that will be fulfilled by constructing the project and define those objectives as the project purpose. The project sponsor must concur on the purpose and need. Primary stakeholders must have consensus on the project purpose and need. For more information about developing purpose and need statements refer to: http://www.dot.ca.gov/ser/downloads/general/PN~Report.pdf 8 Project Development Procedures Manual Draft Appendix S Preparation Guidelines for Project Study Report-Project Development Support (PSR-PDS) Consider using one or more of the value analysis tools to develop eonsensus on purpose and need for complex projects. See -'-="-'-'-''-=~:...='''--''--=-:'-'-'-for further guidance on project purpose and need. Refer to http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/env/emo/purpose need.htm for further guidance on purpose and need. 7. Review of the Project Site in the Field It is important that the project team make an initial review of the project in the field. This should be an ongoing activity as needed. Field reviews often identify project features that may otherwise not be noticed. The reviews should focus on factors that could affect the project. Tn addition, it is important to incorporate Complete Streets (Rerer~~e DD-64-Rl). Bicycles and pedestrians are permitted on all state highways, e for some freeways (see Section 3 of this manual); therefore roadwa rand sidewalk geometrics and conditions are a part of the scoping process. referred way to assess conditions for bicycling and walking is by conducting afield review while bicycling and walking. See Highway DesignManual Chapter 1000 for bicycle geometric and surface quality guidance. If pedestrian facilities do not exist, consideration should be given to them if land conditions are such that pedestrians could be expected to regularly move along the highway. If the existing paved shoulders are narrow, worn paths can be an indicator of where pedestrian travel is occurring, If pedestrian facilities exist, they need to be upgraded to comply with ="'-"''''' See Tasks P25, and of the PDWTfor further guidance on field reviews. 8. Identify additional data requirements for project scoping Refer to the tools in Chapter 5 of this appendix to identify data needs and issues that should be considered or studied to properly scope the project. The use of the Scoping Index found in this Appendix can assist the project team in properly scoping a project. The Design Scoping Index can be used to identify facility deficiencies and the concerns of stakeholders. The PDT should evaluate which deficiencies can be addressed given the purpose and need, program definition, and funding constraints. See the PDWT ~:.!!....:~~~-!....;::...!.. and Flow Chart P32-P62 for further guidance on identifying data requirements. Project Development Procedures Manual 9 9. Perform the Initial Engineering Analysis and Develop Alternatives Perform the Initial Engineering Analysis-PSR-PDS (STIP, Projects funded by others, and Long Lead SHOPP Projects). The primary focus of the initial engineering analysis is to establish a reasonable study area for alternative development utilizing existing data. Develop Alternatives The alternative development effort should focus on identifying the project factors that must be studied or resolved. A comprehensive list of these factors is essential in estimating the effort (resources and time) required to complete PA&ED including technical studies, continued development and analysis of alternatives, public outreach, and identifying the preferred alternative. For alternative development, the perimeterQf a study area must be delineated, as well as identifying the major work elements o:t'~l'I,ealternative. .. Develop viable alternatives that will satisfY the;proj ect purpose and need, are cost effective, and will avoid or minimize environmental and right of way impacts. Involve stakeholders early and~u~e context sensitive~solution principles to develop project alternatives. ..~.~. In the development of alternative~ for the PSR-PDS, several key areas must be considered: environmental compliance, structures, materials, landscaping, permits, local and regiqnal input, right of way, mandatory and advisory design standards, traffic operations, and alternative transportation modes already in place (i.e., mass transit, rail, bicycle and,{:tedestrian facilities) . . .. " . If developing afte~ativesfor freeway projects, see Chapter 31 of this manual for Streets<and Highways Code requirements regarding impacts on pedestrian and bicycle transpot1ation routes. A. Environmental The environmental unit prepares a Preliminary Environmental Analysis Report (PEAR). For projects sponsored by others, the implementing agency assigns/contracts with an environmental team to complete the PEAR. The PEAR includes: • All feasible alternatives capable of functioning adequately per Cal trans policies. • A discussion of environmental resources and a description of the potential project issues or impacts, which could delay the project or affect the viability of any project alternative. • Description of studies that are needed to complete an environmental evaluation (noting as necessary any seasonal constraints for these studies). • A recommended environmental determination/documentation and a tentative schedule for its completion. If an environmental document is required, specifY the lead agency for its preparation. Project Development Procedures Manual 10 Dralt Appendix S Preparation Guidelines tor Project Study Report-Project Development Support (PSR-PDS) Initiation Documents See -'-'-'''-'-'--=:.!.!=.:'-'--'''-=---'-''= for further guidance on developing alternatives. • An initial site assessment (ISA) for hazardous waste, if the project includes the purchase of new right of way, excavation, and/or structure demolition or modification. • Required or anticipated pennits or approvals. Refer to the Standard Environmental Reference (SER) for further guidance on the PEAR. See Chapter 5, Article 5, of this appendix for general guidance on the PEAR scoping tooL B. Design Standards For PSR-PDS projects being used to program support costs, deviations from design standards shall be identified and described. A listing of the anticipated design standards that may likely be deviated from is required. Detailed design fact sheets are not required at this stage in the process. Establishment of a project-specific strategy to evaluate design exceptions for various alternatives should be discussed with the Headquarters Design coordinator early in the project initiation process to identify potential fatal flaws. Refer to Index 82.3 of the CaItrans Highway Design Manual and of this manual for further discussion of design standards. . See of this appendix for general guidance on the Pro Design Scoping Index. C. Structures The method of providing the necessary preliminary studies shall be discussed with the HQ Division of Engineering Services (DES) Technical Liaison Engineer and Project Liaison Engineer assigned to the district. The Technical Liaison Engineer shall use a streamlined estimating process, such as square-footage costs to develop a "Structure PSR-PDS Cost Estimate" for inclusion into the PSR-PDS document when bridge and/or nonstandard retaining wall work is necessary. The Project Liaison Engineer will provide recommendations on the preparation of the DES Scoping Checklist found in Chapter 5, Article II of this appendix. The DES Scoping Checklist is to be prepared by the district and will be reviewed by DES during the district review process. For the PSR-PDS, the level of detail in the DES Scoping Checklist and "Structure PSR-PDS Cost Estimate" is limited to information required to develop accurate work plans for the PA&ED phase. D. Traffic Engineering Performance Assessment (TEPA) The TEPA produces technical findings and recommendations that will: • Help establish the project purpose and need. • Identify major performance deficiencies within and adjacent to the (initial) project limits. Project Development Procedures Manual 11 " Determine the scope and magnitude of the Traffic Analysis Study/report that will be performed/produced during the PA&ED phase to: o Produce a complete scope of work. o Support decision making on the inclusion of critical design features and traffic elements (e.g. approval of nonstandard geometric design features). o Verify that the proposed infrastructure investment will satisfy the project purpose and need. The TEPA will either be prepared by the Division of Traffic Operations. If the PSR-PDS is prepared by a local or regional agency (or their agent) the TEPA will be prepared after one or more consultations with the Traffic Operations functional managers responsible for: " Electrical and Intelligent Transportation Systems " Traffic Control Systems and Devices " Highway and/or Freeway Operations " Safety Management " Traffic Management Systems " Traffic Safety Systems " Traffic Management Planning (for the construction phase) See Chapter 5, Article 5, of this appendix for general guidance on the Traffic Engineering Performance Assessment. Detailed traffic engineering analysis will be performed during the PA&ED phase. E. Storm water Since the main purpose of the PSR-PDS is only to estimate the resources needed to complete PA&ED, the expected level of storm water information for a PSR� PDS is going to be much less than a regular Project Study Report. The PSR-PDS evaluation will mainly focus on determining if there will be any significant impacts to the project alternatives, right-of-way needs, or project costs due to the need to incorporate treatment Best Management Practives (BMPs) for compliance with stormwater requirements. See Chapter 5, Article 3 of this appendix for general guidance on the PSR-PDS Stormwater Documentation scoping tool. F. Right of Way Summarize the anticipated right of way, utilities, and railroad impacts for each alternative using the Conceptual Cost Estimate Request -Right of Way Component found in Chapter 5, Article 7 of this appendix. Preliminary estimate mapping showing the property boundaries and project limits will help to estimate the number, area, and magnitude of parcels required for acquisition and the likely number of easements needed. The level of study is intended to develop an order of magnitude cost estimate for potential right of way needs to identify additional studies that may be needed during P A&ED. Project Development Procedures Manual 12 Draft Appendix S Preparation Guidelines for Project Study Report-Project Development Support (PSR-PDS) Identify eXlstmg utilities and potential relocation activities using existing, available information (e.g. pennit search, as-built drawings, field review). The level of study is intended to develop an order of magnitude cost estimate and to identify additional studies that may be needed during PA&ED. Identify rail lines in the vicinity of the project and indicate possible impacts G. Local and Regional Input Use of a CSS approach promotes community involvement in development of alternatives. Local and regional input is necessary in the development alternatives and in the delineation of the study area. Local planning (e.g., current and proposed land use) can have a significant effect on the local and regional planning transportation system, which affects the identification of viable alternatives and project specific features.. Districttransportation planning units can facilitate an understanding of community.oojectives. The Transportation Planning Scoping Infonnation Sheet also serves as a tool to gain understanding of community objectives. See Chapter 5, Article 4 of this appendix for general guidance on Transportation Planning Scoping Information Sheet. 10. Develop Cost Estimates Develop CostEstimate-PSR-PDS (STIP, Projects funded by others, and Long Lead SHOPP Projects). F()rthe PSR-PDS capital cost estimates, an order of magnitude cost estimate should be used. See PSR-PDS Estimate found in Chapter 4 of this appendix for guidance on preparing cost estimates. For PSR-PDS prepared by others, the local agency may elect to utilize a more detailed capital cost estimate. See the PSR-PDS Cost Estimate ~~=-:!.of this appendix for a suggested cost estimate format for this purpose. 11. Develop Schedules Develop a schedule for delivery of the major milestones of the project phase for P A&ED and general dates for PS&E and Construction. 12. Risks Using the PSR-PDS in lieu of a PSR may cause risks to the scope cost and schedule of the project. Potential risks shall be evaluated and discussed by the PDT, and ownership of the risks shall be identified. A risk assessment for the process and potential impacts to the overall project needs to be completed to identify, classify and quantify the risk impacts to the various disciplines. Additionally, the ownership of the risk must be identified. For locally implemented projects, the local agency is Project Development Procedures Manual 13 responsible for creating and maintaining the risk register. This information needs to be summarized within the PSR-PDS. Refer to Chapter 5, Article 10 of this appendix for general guidance on the Risk Register. 13. Quality Management of Project For projects sponsored by others, Caltrans shall provide IQA per 00-90. The Department's IQA activities can be described as a cross functional review of the final draft of the product which includes: functional reviews of the sub-products (e.g. PEAR), providing advice and consultation during the development of the product, and attendance at PDT and other project meetings as needed. The project sponsor and/or implementing agency must develop and follow a Quality Management Plan. Refer to Chapter 5, Article 9 of this Appendix for general guidance on the Quality Management Plan. 14. Complete PSR-PDS After developing feasible alternatives and evaluate impacts, prepare the PSR-PDS in accordance with the guidance in Chapter 3 of this appendix. If funds that are not included in a state programming document are used, cooperative features should be summarized in this section. An executable cooperative agreement will be deferred, but it should be completed at the beginning of the PA&EO phase. Refer to Chapter 16, Cooperative Agreements, of this manual for policies on cooperative agreements. 15. Caltrans District Review and Approval Statutes require Caltrans to review, and if appropriate, approve all PIDs, including the PSR-PDS, prepared by a local agency within 60 days of submittal of the PID as long as the review does not jeopardize the delivery of projects listed in the approved STIP. If the PSR-PDS is not approved, notification by the district will include the reasons the PSR-PDS is unacceptable, including reference to any inconsistencies with Caltrans policies or standards. Caltrans will review and approve the revised PSR-POS within 30 days. However, in the event that the document does not meet with Caltrans standards or policies, it may be necessary to return the PSR-PDS to the local entity for further revision. The review and approval cycle will then be repeated. The Caltrans District Director or Deputy District Director, if delegated, is responsible for approving the project's scope, schedule, and cost within these established guidelines and may exercise judgment and flexibility in approving the PSR-PDS document. The PSR-PDS must be approved by the District Director, or Deputy District Director if delegated after review by the PDT. Project managers are to endorse the decision by signing an "Approval Recommended." Project Development Procedures Manual 14 Draft Appendix S Preparation Guidelines for Pr~iect Study Report-Project Development Support (PSR-PDS) Initiation Documents CHAPTER 3 Article 1 Outline for PSR-PDS General The purpose of this outline is to identify the key elements to document in the PSR PDS. As an initial scoping and resourcing document; the PSR ..l?I)S must identify the key issues of the transportation deficiency, any major elements that should be investigated, and the PA&ED effort and resources needed to complete the studies and implement the project. The attachments should contain summary information only needed to support or clarify information in the body of the report. Chapter 6 of this appendix has templates that present a guideline for preparation of the PSR-PDS. When using any template, delete any italicized text. The italicized text provides instructions for users of the templates and does not provide any value to the report. Outline Cover Documents • Title Sheet The title sheet provides "at a glance" project identifiers, the primary reason for writing the report, and dated approval signatures. Project identifiers are the distrki, county, route, and post miles; as well as the official project description. See the Plan Preparation Manual, Section 2-2.1 B 2 for examples of project identifiers. Clearly state the reason for the PSR-PDS on the title sheet. It may be one or a combination of the following bullets. Use "AND" to separate multiple req ui rements. • Request for Programming in the (year) STIP for Capital Support of the Project Approval and Environmental Document. • Request for Programming in the (year) STIP for Capital Support for: • Project Approval and Environmental Document. • Request approval of a locally funded proje<-i to proceed to PA&ED phase (as defined in Chapter 9 of this manual). • Request approval to proceed with the formal studies for a Long Lead SHOPP project. • Request scope approval of projects-funded-by-others (as defined in Chapter 9). • Authorize a cooperative agreement. J 5 Project Development Procedures Manual The following figure depicts a sample title sheet with the reason for the PSR PDS clearly shown. Figure n>·tow,!f"~· ~..,, J.A L,;'~""<>t· f'RO.JEC'T STVbY REPORT<pnO.JECT UEV:f:I.(}P'I\tENT STt;OY (tlsn:",'rus) Tn For projects sponsored a signature the acceptance of the risks identified in the risk register must>b~.included on the title sheet. The PSR-PDS must include the endorsement ofthe PM and "APPROVED BY" Distri.ct DireCtb~ or Deputy District Director as delegated. Edit the signature blockas appro~iiate. • Vicinity Map (SwarateSheet) The vicinity map is adistrict, coutity; or city map showing all State highways and major local roads when pertinent. It should be placed on a separate page and should include the stud{limits, major topographic limits listed in the report, and a north arrow. • Registered Professional Stamp (Separate Sheet) The Registered Professional stamp or seal and number with signature shall be placed on a separate sheet, which shall be part of the report. Also included on this sheet shall be a statement indicated that the registered profession is attesting to the technical information contained therein and the engineering data upon which recommendations, conclusions, and decisions are based. This seal does not constitute approval of the PSR-PDS. Project Development Procedures Manual 16 Draft Appendix S Preparation Guidelines for Project Study RepOit-Project Development Support (PSR-PDS) • Table of Contents (Separate Sheet) On a separate sheet, place a table of contents that includes all the elements of the PSR-PDS. • Main Body of PSR-PDS 1. The introduction is a summary of the information presented in the report. The introduction should be no more than two paragraphs or a brief opening sentence with the information summarized in tables. The template includes an optional table that can be expanded or condensed to fit the individual project. In the introduction, identify: • The problem. • The range of alternatives and magnitude of capital costs. • The Caltrans resources needed to complete the proposed components (e.g., PA&ED phase and/or IQA). • Develop a schedule for delivery of the major milestones of the project phase for PA&ED and general dates for PS&E and Construction. • The proposed funding sources. • The initial project category. • Type offacility as designated on a current or proposed route adoption map. project approvals anticipated for each alternative (PDPM,• Any known 2. The background should briefly describe: • A description ofthe facility. • Project sponsors and project proponents. • A discussion on local and regional agency involvement in the development of purpose and need. • A discussion of any actions or commitments that have taken place to date regarding the proposed project. • Context Sensitive Solutions • Complete Streets 3. These statements together should succinctly answer the question: why this project and why now? The PDT, in conjunction with the project sponsors and key stakeholders, must develop the purpose and need statement. The purpose and need statement shall remain consistent through the entire project development phase. Additional information on the development of purpose and need statements can be found at: http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/env/emo/purposeneed.htm Project Development Procedures Manual 17 Purpose The project purpose is the set of project objectives that will be met, which addresses the transportation deficiency (i.e., the project need). It is important to identify the primary and secondary objectives that are met by this project. While the secondary objectives may be a factor in the scoping of the project (e.g., minimizing impacts to the environment, meeting American with Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements, etc.), the purpose statement should focus on the primary objectives of the project. The project need is an identified underlying transportation deficiency that needs correction. While there may be several associated deficiencies identified in the project area, it is important for the PDT to agree on the primary deficiency or deficiencies that create the need for the project. A need is supported by data that indicates, but is not limited to, a safety issue, reduced mobility, limited capacity for the transportation demand, the lack of reliability, gaps in or between transportation systems, or limited life of the facility. The details are discussed in the following section on "Deficiencies." 4. Traffic Engineering Performance Assessment The purpose of the Traffic Engineering Performance Assessment is to produce findings and estimates related to existing performance deficiencies, expected performance benefits and impacts, the scope of work and features needed to meet the project objectives, and the resources needed to produce a complete Traffic Analysis Report that will be necessary during the next phase of the project development process. To meet the purpose of the PSR-PDS, this assessment should rely upon an evaluation and macro-level analysis of readily available information and data. Summarize key findings, recommendations and the (performance, scope and resource) estimates produced or derived from the Preliminary Traffic Engineering Assessment (see Article 5), especially those which: a) Support the "Purpose and Need" statements in Section 3 b) Demonstrate and quantify the "Deficiencies" outlined in Section 4 c) Identify the design features and traffic "infrastructure" (i.e. traffic control, operational, safety and management systems, elements, devices and strategies) to be included in the preliminary project scope of work d) Identify the scope and magnitude of the formal Traffic Engineering studies (including operational, capacity, safety, warrant, and benefit/cost analysis) that will be necessary during the next phase of the project development process in order to: • Obtain "Project Approval" • Produce the Environmental Document Project Development Procedures Manual 18 Draft Appendix S Preparation Guidelines for Project Study Report-Project Development Support (PSR-PDS) Initiation Documents • Identify / confirm the complete scope of work (i.e. infrastructure and strategies) Items c and d facilitate the estimation of the capital cost, right of way requirements, and the traffic engineering resources required to perform the various traffic studies and analysis that is needed to produce a complete scope of work and support major design decisions (e.g. the safety analysis that can justifY deviations from design and traffic standards. 5. Deficiencies This section provides a concise discussion of the data that supports the purpose and need of the project as well as identifying existing available data that is important to the scoping of the pr~ject. This section should refer to attached maps, charts, tables, letters, etc. When appropriate, discuss existing and forecasted traffic, level of service, capacity adequacy, and safety data from existing data. This section may have two subsections. A subSection on the primary deficiencies would discuss deficiencies th(1t relate directly to the need and purpose statements. A subsection on the secondary deficiencies would identify other deficiencies that should be addressed when scoping the project, but are not related directly to the stated purpose and need for the project. 6. Corridor and System CQQrdination This section should address the coordination and consistency of the proposed purpose and need with statewide, regional, and local planning efforts such as: • District System Management Plan (DSMP). • Transportation Concept Reports/Route Concept Reports. • Corridor System Management Plan (CSMP) • Regional Transportation Plans (RTP). • Congestion Management Program (CMP). • State Implementation Plan (SIP). • Bicycle and pedestrian master plans. • Short and Long Range Transit Plans • Local Measure Programs • Complete Streets • Context Sensitive Solutions • General Plan and Circulation Elements Provide a summary of the infonnation from the Transportation Planning Scoping Information Sheet which also includes Complete Streets and Context Sensitive Solutions to address other State Highway improvements, local improvements or any development projects within the immediate project vicinity. Project Development Procedures Manual 19 Identify the date that the route was adopted, the CTC designation of the route or route denominations, and identify any applicable freeway or controlled access agreements, potential freeway or controlled access agreements, and potential relinquishments. A project that requires a new public road connection must provide a description of the land-use development to be served by the new connection, describe the relationship to the local agency's general plan or other specific area plans, and justification per Chapter 27 of this manual that existing interchanges or local road systems cannot be improved to handle the deficiencies. 7. Alternatives Alternatives -PSR-PDS (STIP, Projects funded by others, and Long Lead SHOPP Projects). All alternatives that address the purpose and need will be carried forward to PA&ED as described in Chapter 9. A "No Build" alternative should always be considered. Alternative discussions can refer to attachments which may include: schematic maps of the study area and typical cross-sections, as appropriate. The alternative section includes a discussion of the design scope, describes the boundary of the study area, and defines the activities for the P A&ED phase for each of the alternatives. As appropriate, consider the following topics for each alternative: • Discuss the design scope in terms of how it will satisfy the project purpose and need. • Describes the boundaries of the study area required for formal investigations during the PA&ED phase. The project study area for each alternative must be established to include reasonable modification to the alternative. Improper identification of the project study area can result in unanticipated studies and project delays. • Identify the resources needed to complete the engineering, environmental, and right of way studies for all alternatives to achieve PA&ED. Summarize the information for the right of way needs and preliminary environmental assessment report. • Discuss which studies and actions are required for approval of each alternative (e.g., FHW A, CTC route matters, etc.). For further guidance on approvals and agreements see "PDPM, Chapters 12 and U." • Discuss whether the alternative will require approval of design exceptions. If a project alternative requires a design exception approval during the PA&ED phase, discuss potential design exceptions in the PSR-PDS. A listing of the Project Development Procedures Manual 20 Draft Appendix S Preparation Guidelines tor Project Study Report-Project Development Support (PSR-PDS) anticipated design standards that may likely be deviated from is required. Detailed draft design fact sheets are not required at this stage in the process. For further guidance of design exceptions requirements for a PSR-PDS see Chapter 9, Article 4-Essential Procedures. • Discuss the estimated order of magnitude of capital cost of each alternative. The capital costs are for long-range planning. The capital costs should be presented as a range and are not to be used for programming. • Discuss Stormwater BMPs that could affect the estimated project costs for each alternative. Also discuss potential water quaHty impacts that would entail additional resource needs during PA&ED. • Discuss Context Sensitive Solutions or Complete Streets that could affect the estimated resources and PA&ED delivery milestone dates. • Briefly discuss any constructability issues or concerns for example full closure and staged construction (refer to Traffic Engineering fi\ssessment, Chapter 5, Article 5 of this appendix). 8. Right of Way Summarize the anticipated right of way, utilities, and railroad impacts for each alternative using the Conceptual Cost Estimate Request Right of Way Component found in of this Appendix. Preliminary estimate mapping showing the property boundaries and project limits will help to estimate the number, area, and magnitude of parcels required for acquisition and the likely number of easements needed. The level of study is intended to develop an order of magnitude cost estimate for potential right of way needs to identify additional studies that may be needed during PA&ED. Utilities IdentifY existing utilities and potential relocation activities using existing, available information (e.g. permit search, as-built drawings, field review). The level of study is intended to develop an order of magnitude cost estimate and to identifY additional studies that may be needed during PA&ED. (Pot holing is not part ofPID scope.) Railroad Identify rail lines in the vicinity of the project and indicate possible impacts. 9. Stakeholder Involvement Discuss the types of stakeholder involvement activities that were used to develop the purpose and need statement, and to identify the alternatives to be studied. Discuss stakeholder concerns and objectives that were identified during the PID phase. Pr~ject Development Procedures Manual 21 Discuss the CSS approach that will be used to obtain stakeholder involvement in the identification and evaluation of alternatives. 10. Environmental Determination/Documentation Summarize information provided in the PEAR. The PEAR includes a section titled "Summary Statement for PSR or PSR-PDS" which can be directly incorporated into the PSR-PDS. Refer to the Standard Environmental Reference (SER) for further guidance on the PEAR. The PEAR is completed and both summarized in the PSR PDS and attach to the PSR-PDS. 11. Funding Capital Estimate IdentifY potential or proposed sources of funding and project funding eligibility (e.g., "Federal aid eligible") to fully fund the project. Examples of funding sources are a specific local entity, STIP program, or "future county shares." If necessary, expand the table to allow for multiple funding sources. Fill out the funding tables that are found in the templates for the PSR-PDS for STIP and projects funded by others or Long Lead SHOPP Projects. The capital cost estimates are ranges and are not to be used for programmIng. The order of magnitude estimates are used to estimate future funding needs. The breadth of the cost range is project specific. The estimate should be based on the worst and best-case scenario for high risk factors. For a PSR-PDS prepared by others, the local agency may desire a more comprehensive capital cost estimate. Capital Support Estimate Estimate the support costs that will be needed to complete PA&ED. If federal dollars are used on any portion of the project and local agency support costs are considered a "soft" match for federal reimbursement, identify and discuss the local agency support cost. Complete the Capital Support estimate for STIP, projects funded by others, and Long Lead SHOPP projects. 12. Schedule Provide a delivery schedule for significant PA&ED milestones and major milestones for future project phases. For practical purposes this schedule shows the amount of time needed to complete the project. At a minimum, provide a tentative delivery schedule for milestones that are designated as Headquarters Mandatory (HQM) milestones in Guide to Project Delivery Workplan Standards (WSG). Discuss all schedule constraints and assumptions for programmed milestones. A tentative schedule is not complete without documentation of the assumptions and constraints. The assumptions and constraints provide decision-makers with the Project Development Procedures Manual 22 Draft Appendix S Preparation Guidelines for Projeet Study Report-Project Development Support (PSR-PDS) Initiation Doeuments rationale used to develop the schedule and the factors that could have significant impact on the schedule. The assumptions and constraints provide stakeholders with an understanding of critical delivery areas. For STIP, projects funded by others, and Long Lead SHOPP projects, the schedule, the resource needs, and estimate must be consistent with the workplan that is submitted to HQ Program Project Management. Fill in the month and year for proposed program delivery milestones for PA&ED. Any milestones that are not proposed for programming and are outside of the programming cycle should be identified by fiscal year in the "Delivery Date Column" and a notation made that these dates are for "planning purposes only." For projects funded by others, local agency should provide critical target dates. The schedule shall be tied to a workplan to assist Caltrans in managing resources for these projects. 13. FHWA Coordination Discuss coordination with FHW A. If either federal action or the use of federal funds is anticipated, include the following language: This Report has been reviewed by (Name and titleol the FHWA Liaison Engineer) reviewing on (date). Per (latest federal Transportation Act), this project is eligible for federal-aid funding and is considered to be (STATE-AUTHORIZED or FULL OVERSIGHT) under current FHWA-Caltrans Stewardship Agreements. (ll either no federal-aid funding will be used or no FHWA approval required, delete the above statement and replace with the statement: "No federal-aid funding anticipated or no FHWA action requiredfor this project."). Discuss whether or not the project is eligible for funding from the federal Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) Improvement Program. Consult the FHWA IS CMAQ Program Guidance, April 1999, at the Caltrans website http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/transprogifederal/cmaq/cmaq final guidance under safet ealu l008.pdf to determine if a project specific emission analysis needs to be made to quality for CMAQ funding. If Interstate access is being added or modified, the process to request FHWA approval is deferred to PA&ED. • For a PSR-PDS a FHWA "engineering and operational acceptability" must be obtained early in the PA&ED phase prior to circulation of draft environmental document with an unsigned supplemental PSR or an unsigned draft Project Report. FHWA "approval" will be given after the NEPA process is completed. • For a PSR-PDS, include a statement that sufficient funding is expected to be reasonably available at the time of the circulation and/or approval of the environmental determination/document to allow for the inclusion of the fully funded preferred alternative in the financially constrained Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) or Regional Transportation Planning Agency (RTPA), Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) and Federal Transportation Project Development Procedures Manual 23 Improvement Program (FTIP). State the source of the funding (e.g., future county shares). 14. District Contact Give name and phone number of district representative to be contacted concerning questions on the PSR-PDS submittal. 15. Pro iect Revi ews Include the completion date of major reviews. The templates include a list of suggested reviews. Each district should modify the template to reflect the district's review procedures. 16. Attachments The following list provides examples of the appropriate attachments and files. Each project should be evaluated as to the appropriate inclusion of specific reports and information. Do not include raw data that is used in the analysis in the report or as an attachment. This information should be part ofthe project file and kept to support engineering recommendations. Required Attachments: • Location and/or vicinity map • Schematic maps of the study area or alternatives • Cost Estimate • Typical Cross Sections • SHOPP Performance Outputs (Only required for Long Lead SHOPP Projects) • Preliminary Environmental Analysis Report (PEAR) • Transportation Planning Scoping Information Sheet • Right of Way Conceptual Cost Estimate Component • Risk Register Required Supplemental Documents for Project Files: (This information should only be summarized in the PSR-PDS) • Quality Management Plan For Locally Implemented Projects on the State Highway System • Storm Water Documentation • PSR-PDS Survey Needs Questionnaire • Traffic Engineering Performance Assessment • Division of Engineering Services PSR-PDS Scoping Checklist • For STIP projects, include a Project Nomination Fact Sheet as described in the STIP Guidelines as an attachment. Template for this Fact Sheet may be found at: http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/transprog/ocip/201Ostipdev.htm. • Design Scoping Index or Equivalent Document • Rosters of personnel participating in major reviews • Project Support Cost Estimate Project Development Procedures Manual 24 Drall Appendix S Preparation Guidelines for Project Study Report-Project Development Support (PSR-PDS) CHAPTER 4 -PSR-PDS Estimates ARTICLE 1 PSR-PDS Capital Estimate Components The level of detail available to develop the right of way and construction capital cost estimate for a PSR-PDS for the STIP, projects funded by others, or a long lead SHOPP project is only accurate to within orders of magnitude and is needed for long-range planning purposes only. Examples ofranges than can be considered are "less than $5M", "$5M-$25M," $25M-$75M" or "$SOM-$60M." The breadth of range is based on available information and reasonable assumptions. Therefore, the capital costs provided in PSR-PDS are not for programming purposes. In addition, there should be a discussion ofa financial plan that identifies existing non-STIP funding sources that are being considered to complete the project. Capital Outlay Estimate Source()s Right of R anl!e I or T otaIeost STIPFun ds o t h er F un d'm Right of Way Construction ConstructionConstrue Right of Way tion Way Alternative 1 " Alternative 2 .......••....... Alternative 3 Alternative 4 .'! The level of detail available to develop these capital cost estimates is only accurate to within the above ranges and is useful for long-range planning purposes only. The capital costs should not be used to program or commit State-programmed capital funds. The Project Report will serve as the appropriate document from which the remaining support and capital components of the project will be programmed. The intent of the table is to provide the following information: The cost range for each alternative, A list of the main funding sources for each alternative (i.e., RIP, HP, TRCP) SHOPP (Long Lead SHUPP projects) Other potential sources of funds (e.g., measure funds, developer funds). Columns may be added to the table for each non-STIP funding source. A description of any specific funding commitment or constraint should be included in text following the table, for example, if a city may be willing to contribute up to a fixed amount for sidewalk improvements. The city's participation must be discussed. Discuss any cooperative agreements that may be needed for various project components. PSR-PDS estimate sheets are available at: http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/oppd/design/psr-pds-estimate-sheets.pdf. Project Development Procedures Manual 25 CHAPTER 5 -Scoping Tools ARTICLE 1 General This chapter contains some of the tools used by various functional areas to aid the project team in scoping the project. The tools not contained in this chapter can be obtained from the appropriate functional unit. Upon receiving a request for project information, each functional unit completes the appropriate scoping tool and transmits the information to the unit responsible for developing the PSR-PDS. The Design Scoping Index can either capture or reference project information from various functional units. The following is a list of the scoping tools and their locations that are used by various functional units to transmit information to the project team: • Design Scoping Index (Appendix L) • Stormwater Documentation (Appendix S, Article 3) • Transportation Planning Scoping Information Sheet (Appendix L) • Preliminary Traffic Engineering Assessment (Appendix S, Article 5) • Preliminary Environmental Analysis Report (Appendix S, Article 6) • Right of Way Component (Appendix S, Article 7) o Conceptual Cost Estimate Request o Conceptual Cost Estimate • PSR-PDS Survey Needs Questionnaire (Appendix S, Article 8) • Quality Management Plan For Locally Implemented Projects on the State Highway System (Appendix L, Article 9) • Risk Register (Appendix S, Article 10) • Division of Engineering Services PSR-PDS Scoping Index (Appendix S, Article 11) Project Development Procedures Manual 26 Draft Appendix S Preparation Guidelines for Project Study Report-Project Development Support (PSR-PDS) Initiation Documents ARTICLE 2 Project Initiation Document Design Scoping Index General Guidance I. The Design Scoping Index (index) can serve as discussion document to help the design units analyze the highway system and identity geometric design issues that should be addressed during the project initiation phase. 2. The index can serve to facilitate discussions with other functional units to identify project issues and stakeholder input needed to properly scope the project. 3. The index can serve to facilitate discussions with Headquarter Liaisons.tQ)dentify potential fatal flaws of non-standard design features. . .. The Design Scoping Index is used in conjunction with the scoping checklists from other functional units to determine feasibility of the project alternatives. When filling out the index, use some type of notation to indicate if information on the index is based on assumptions. Project information is dynamic and the information in this index should be revised and dated throughout the PSR-PDS process. As the project progresses, information should be verified, updated, and possibly addressed in a risk analysis. To aid in engineering decision regarding the development of geometric plans, refer to the "Highway Design Manual" and 018 78 Design Checklist. The Design Scoping Index can be found in Appendix L. (Temporarily posted on the OPPC website) Project Development Procedures Manual 27 ARTICLE 3 Stormwater Documentation General Guidance: The Office of Storm water Management Design developed the Project Planning and Design Guide (PPDG) to provide guidance on the process and procedures for evaluating project scope and site conditions to determine the need for and feasibility of incorporating stormwater Best Management Practices (BMPs) into a project for compliance with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits. Within the PPDG, there is a standardized format to compile pertinent information necessary to evaluate potential storm water impacts on a project called the Storm Water Data Report (SWDR). The SWDR has a narrative, multiple checklists and attachments that are used to document the stormwater decisions being made on a project, as well as compiling the necessary background information needed to make those decisions. A SWDR is required to be completed at each phase of a project. The intent of this process is to doccument background information and the stormwater decisions made for a project throughout ea~l1phase. So as a project proceeds, the SWDR from the previous phase will be used as the starting point so that efforts are not duplicated. The level of detail in a PID-level SWDRshouldbe commensurate with the level of detail in the PID document. Since the main purpost(ofthe PSR-PDS is only to estimate the resources needed to complete PA&ED, the expected Ieyel of detail for a PSR-PDS SWDR is going to be much less than a regul~~r()ject Study Report SWDR. The PSR-PDS evaluation will mainly focus on determinil1gif.there will be any significant impacts to the project alternatives, right~of·way needs,Or project costs due to the need to incorporate treatment BMPs for compIlimcewith stomiwater requirements, The Evaluation Documentation Form CPPDG, Appendix E) will be uitdJo document the need to incorporate Treatment BMPs in a PSR·PDS. The following topicswould be cQrisidered to be the minimum information necessary to be able to provide an effective stormwater analysis during the PSR-PDS SWDR documentation process~. • List the Regional Water Quality Control Board(s) that are within the project limits. • Will a 401 Certification be required? • Are there any location specific requirements? • Is there a potential for the project to create permanent water quality impacts? • Determine the total estimated Disturbed Soil Area (nearest acre) for each project alternative. • Will the project need coverage under the Construction General Permit (CGP)? If so, what is the estimated project Risk Level? (if required) Project Development Procedures Manual 28 Draft Appendix S Preparation Guidelines for Project Study Report-Project Development Support (PSR-PDS) Initiation Documents • Determine the estimated net new impervious area (nearest acre) for each project alternative. • Will the project require the incorporation of Treatment BMPs? (complete the Evaluation Documentation Form) • If treatment BMPs will be required, describe the planned Permanent BMPs and any additional right of way needs. • Will steep slopes be created or disturbed? If so, describe any advanced erosion control needs. • Is the project going to require a notification of Aerial Deposited Lead (ADL) reuse? • What are the estimated costs for both permanent and temporary BMPs? It should be noted that while the SWDR has a number of checklists and attachments, it is understood that much of the information will be gathered and/or determined during the PA&ED. To eliminate the potential of expending resources to gather information that may not be required, the Project Engineer should coordinate withthe District/Regional Design Stormwater Coordinator during the Pre-PID meeting to come to an agreement of the expected level of documentation and to have a better understanding of the potential stormwater impacts within the project area. During this consultation, it will also be determined if additional information other than the topics listed above is warranted. Pertinent information from the SWDR should be summarized within a stormwater section in the PSR-PDS PID. During PA&ED, the normal storm water documentation process will be followed. For Statewide consistency, the template for a PSR-PDS SWDR will be similar to regular PID-Ievel SWDR and will be located on the Office of Storm water Management -Design Project Development Procedures Manual 29 ARTICLE 4 Transportation Planning Scoping Information Sheet General Guidance: The Project Development Team (PDT) should use the Transportation Planning Scoping lnfonnation Sheet to verify that the project remains consistent with the planning level purpose and need and is consistent with planning concepts, statewide and planning decisions. Guidance to assist in completing the lnfonnation Sheet is loc n the OPPC website. The majority of the data requested for the information sheet is~qQmpiled at two separate time periods. The initial infonnation is collected by the Transportation Planning PDT representative at the start of PID development to ensure appropriate stakeholders are included in the process and all pre-planning efforts and commitmentsatereviewed before any project decisions are made. Explanations of how the requirements were met will need to be finalized by the end of the PID. The remaining infonnation will be addressed during the project development process. The Transportation Planning Infonnation Sheet can be found in Appendix L. (Temporarily posted on the OPPC website) Project Development Procedures Manual 30 Draft Appendix S Preparation Guidelines for Project Study Report-Project Development SUppOlt (PSR-PDS) ARTICLE 5 Traffic Engineering Performance Assessment General Guidance: Project-related traffic engineering studies produce findings and estimates related to the operational and safety performance of existing and proposed highway infrastructure. These performance related findings and estimates are derived from the: • Analysis of traffic, collision and performance data andforecasted traffic volumes • Evaluation of existing infrastructure to identify deficiencies and/or omissions • Evaluation of the proposed infrastructure, including geometric design and traffic features or elements (i.e. traffic control, operational, management and safety devices, systems and features). Performance-related findings and estimates provide the basis for project scoping and design decisions. Ultimately, formal traffic engineering studies inform and advise the PDT as to whether the project scope is complete, and whether the scope will meet the project "purpose and need." To meet the purpose of the PSR-PDS, the preliminary traffic engineering studies should be limited to an assessment of readily available information and data, and macro-level analysis and evaluation. This· effort will produce preliminary traffic engineering findings and estimates to inform and advise the PDT on: 1. The potential scope of work and features (especially the traffic "elements" referenced above) 2. Potential performance benefits and deficiencies 3. The scope and magnitude of traffic engineering work (traffic forecasting, modeling, analysis and evaluation) to be performed during the Project Approval and Environmental Document phase The traffic engineering effort performed during PA & ED will further define the scope of work and produce reliable estimates of the operational and safety impacts (benefits and dis benefits) of the proposed highway infrastructure. The information, questions, checklists and report template provided below are intended to guide and advise the engineer and/or traffic analyst who is responsible for the performance and documentation of the traffic engineering assessment. A summary of the assessment and key findings and estimates should be summarized or incorporated into the PSR-PDS document (See Template in Section F, Arp91.1gj~ s. Article 5 posted on the OPPC website). 3 J Project Development Procedures Manual ARTICLE 6 PRELIMINARY ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS REPORT General Guidance: The Preliminary Environmental Analysis Report (PEAR) provides the initial environmental evaluation of a project and alternatives before it is programmed. It anticipates the environmental constraints that may affect project design, alternatives, cost, schedule, and delivery. It estimates the scope, schedule, and costs associated with the subsequent environmental compliance process and it documents the assumptions and risks used to develop those estimates. When a PEARisrequired, it becomes an attachment to the Project Initiation Document (PID). As the PSR-PDS only estimates costs through PA&ED, the. PEAR for a PSR-PDS should only estimate costs through PA&ED; a PSR-PDS, including the PEAR subcomponent, cannot be used to program capital expenses for subsequent phases. The cost of environmental pcrmits and commitments is a capital expense and is programmed along with ROWand construction costs and therefore should not be included in a PEAR for a PSR-PDS. The level of detail in a PEAR should be commensurate with the level of detail in the PID document. The PEAR should be a concise (approximately 5 to 15 pages) report used to document the issues that are anticipated to be addressed in the NEPA or CEQA documentation and the assumptions that were used to anticipate those issues. The magnitude and complexity of the proposed project dictates the level of effort expended for the PEAR documentation, nevertheless, the PEAR is not an environmental document; it is not the equivalent ofthe Tier 1 NEPA document; and it is not a report of environmental analysis. The 2009 revisions to the PEAR Handbook included a new discussion on level of effort as well as risks and assumptions. The level of effort discussion was added to provide more guidance on the types of projects that may be considered at higher risk for pr~ject delays due to environmental concerns and therefore require a higher level of effort for the PEAR. The PEAR Handbook makes it clear that a PEAR should always include documentation of any assumptions that were made and/or any environmental risks, particular those assumptions and risks that could affect the cost, scope, and schedule of the project. The PEAR Handbook, PEAR template, and templates for the PEAR attachments can be found at the following page: http://www.dot.ca.gov/ser/pear.htm Project Development Procedures Manual 32 Draft Appendix S Preparation Guidelines for Project Study Report-Project Development Support (PSR-PDS) Initiation Documents ARTICLE 7 CONCEPTUAL COST ESTIMATE RIGHT OF WAY COMPONENT General Guidance: Conceptual Cost Estimate -Right of Way Component The Conceptual Cost Estimate for the Right of Way Component provides an order-of magnitude estimate that is intended for planning purposes only. The Right of Way Component of the project should not be programmed until a Right of Way Data Sheet has been completed and approved. Conceptual Cost Estimate Request -Right of Way CoJl~nent " T,X:t;::> y:. The purpose of this request to the District Right of Way Office is to provide the necessary project information to complete a detailed work plan for the R.igh~of Way resource needs of the Permits and Studies component of the project as well as an oider ofmagnitude estimate for the support and capital of the Right of Way component. Conceptual maps should be attached consisting of schematic plans or aerial photography with the project study area marked. The request should be entirely completed with the best information available. The basis of the estimate will consist ofthe information on the request and maps. The Conceptual Cost Estimate and Request Right of Way Components are posted on the OPPC website) Project Development Procedures Manual 33 ARTICLE 8 PSR-PDS SURVEY NEEDS QUESTIONNAIRE General Guidance: The project datums, vertical and horizontal, need to be established as soon as possible in the schedule, and all other mapping adjusted to the project datums. Obsolete datums such as NAD27 and NGVD29 should not be used for new projects. What Survey Control Datums will be used for project design and mapping? Vertical Control o NGVD 1988 (Preferred) o NAVD 1929 (Alternative) o Other (Must consult with Caltrans Surveys) Horizontal Control California Coordinate System of 1983 o Epoch ____ o Other than CCS83 (Must consult with CaItrans Surveys) Will the project need a Sea Level Rise Risk Assessment? Does the project adjoin the ocean or tidal waterways? Is the existing highway protected by levees, sea walls, or rip-rap? Will existing as-builts, centerlines, or base mapping require any datum or unit conversions? Are the right of way record maps current? Is there any need to accelerate design accuracy surveys for this project? Project Development Procedures Manual 34 Draft Appendix S Preparation Guidelines for Project Study Report-Project Development Support (PSR-PDS) Initiation Documents ARTICLE 9 QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR LOCALLY IMPLEMENTED PROJECTS ON THE STATE HIGHWAY SYSTEM General Guidance: The purpose of the Quality Management Plan is to facilitate an effective and efficient process for the development, review and approval of PIDs for State Highway System (SHS) projects sponsored by others. The project sponsor and/or implementing agency must develop and follow a Quality Management Plan that meets the standards of professional practice and satisfies requirements ofthe project scope and schedule. The Project Managers from Caltrans and the Lead Agency shall ensure that all Project Development Team (PDT) members, including consultants, utilize the Quality Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC) elements as described in this document during the production and review of PlDs. QA/QC will be performed before deliverables are submitted to Caltrans for review. Each team member must understand the project objectives, apply sound engineering principles and is expected to produce quality, accurate, and complete documents within the project schedule and budget. Project documents will be prepared in accordance with current Cal trans regulations, policies, procedures, manuals, and standards including compliance with Federal Highway Administration (FHW A) requirements. The information provided in the Quality Management Plan describes the quality procedures that will be implemented for work performed during all phases of development, review and approval of locally sponsored and/or implemented PlDs. The Quality Management Plan template is to be modified to fit project needs, reporting relationships, and general circumstances. The Qualitv Management Plan Template can be found in Appendix L. (Temporarily posted on the OPPC website. Project Development Procedures Manual 35 ARTICLE 10 Risk Register General Guidance: The PSR-POS PIO requires that the project sponsor complete a risk assessment. The reduced amount of data that is required for the PSR-POS transfers risks to future phases and it is important to identify the risk, define the probability, define the severity, identity who or what the risk will impact, and identify the ownership of the risk~ The projectma,nager, project sponsor, and project team members jointly develop a ..wtltten pla,n that enabhl§lhem to identify, assess, quantify, prepare a response to, monitor, and control capital project risks. Refer to the Proiect Risk Management Handbook and use the RiskRegister template in completing the plan. Project Development Procedures Manual 36 Draft Appendix S Preparation Guidelines for Prqject Study Report-Project Development Support (PSR-PDS) Initiation Documents ARTICLE 11 Division of Engineering Services PSR-PDS Scoping Checklist The Division of Engineering Services (DES) developed the PSR-PDS Scoping Checklist to accurately identify the products and services required from DES functional units for STIP projects. • The District is responsible for completing all sections except the "Workload Estimate" section. • The DES Project Liaison Engineer will provide assistance to the District Project Manager to complete the checklist. Sections of the checklist include general project information, project type, alternative descriptions, project schedule, and estimated cost range. Detailed sections on project scope clarify involvement of the following: • Structure design, • Geotechnical services, • Structure hydraulics, • Preliminary investigations, • Transportation architecture, • Materials and testing services, • Structures and electrical, • Mechanical, • Water, • Wastewater design. Technical specialist design for culverts, barriers, sign and overhead sign structures are also included on the checklist. The "Workload Estimate" section is included for the District Project Manager and provides the estimate in PYs, required for DES products and services up to WBS 180 for the project. The DES PSR-PDS Checklist is summarized in the PSR-PDS document. The DES PSR-PDS Checklist is posted on the OPPC website. Project Development Procedures Manual 37 CHAPTER 6 -PSR-PDS Ten1plates This Chapter contains two templates for the PSR-PDS PID: I). Template for STJP projects and projects funded by others, and 2). Template for Long Lead SHOPP projects. Guidance for completing these templates is located in Chapter 3 of this appendix. These templates should be modified to include or exclude any applicable deficiencies or issues. Jf appropriate, the tables used in the scoping tools found in Chapter 5 of this appendix can be used to present project information. ARTICLE 1-Template for Project Study Report Project Development Support (PSR-PDS) Project Initiation Document This article is a template for the PSR-PDS for STlP projects and projects funded by others. Guidance for completing this template is located in Chapter 3 of this appendix. Project Development Procedures Manual 38 Draft Appendix S Preparation Guidelines for Project Study Report-Project Development Support (PSR-PDS) PROJECT STUDY REPORT-PROJECT DEVELOPMENT STUDY (PSR-PDS) To Request Programming for Capital Support~ (Project Approval and Environmental Document Phase) .. ...cc:, In the 20 STlR1~)';c, On And APPROVAL RECOMMENDED: PROJECT SPONSOR, Accepts Risks Identified in this PSR-PDS and Attached Risk Register CAL TRANS PROJECT MANAGER APPROVED: DISTRICT DIRECTOR (or delegated authority) DATE Project Development Procedures Manual 39 Vicinity Map Show: • Project limits • Topographical Features Listeg iri Report • North Arrow ~;~, j On Between_______________________________________________ And Project Development Procedures Manual 40 Draft Appendix S Preparation Guidelines for Project Study Report-Project Development Support (PSR-PDS) Dist. -Co. -Rte. -PM. This Project Study Report (Project Development Support) has been prepared under the direction of the following Registered Engineer. The registered civil engineer attests to the technical information contained herein and the engineering data upon which recommendations, conclusions, and decisions are based. REGISTERED CIVIL ENGINEER DATE NUMBER Exp. (Date) Project Development Procedures Manual 41 Table of Contents Project Development Procedures Manual 42 Draft Appendix S Preparation Guidelines for Projeet Study Repolt-Pr~iect Development SUppOlt (PSR-PDS) Project Initiation Documents l. INTRODUCTION Brief Project Description: See the Cost estimate for specific work items included in this project. Project Limits mst., Co., Rte., PM) Number of ! Alternatives: I : Capital Outlay Support ! for PA&ED jjICapital Construction I Cost Range (excluding i "no build"). I Right of Way Cost !Range (excluding "no II build"). I Funding Source: : Type of Facility l (conventional, i expressway, freeway): I Number of Structures: : Anticipated , Environmental ! Determination or i Document: : Legal Description , Pro,ject Category The remaining support, right of way, and construction components of the project are preliminary estimates and are not suitable for programming purposes. Either a Supplemental PSR or Project Report will serve as the programming document for the remaining support and capital components of the project. A project report will serve as approval of the "selected" alternative. (For a locally sponsored project, this language may not be included or may need to be modified.) Other approvals required are: 1. BACKGROUND Project Development Procedures Manual 43 2. PURPOSE AND NEED STATEMENT Need: Purpose: 3. DEFICIENCIES 4. CORRIDOR AND SYSTEM COORDINATION 5. AL TERNA TIVES 6. TRAFFIC ENGINEERING -(Refer to relevant findings, recommendations, and estimates provided in the Preliminary Traffic Engineering Assessment -Chapter 5, Article 5 of this appendix). 7. RIGHT OF WAY -(Refer to relevant findings in Conceptual Cost Estimate and Request -Right of Way Component -Chapter 5, Article 7 of this appendix). UTILITIES -(Refer to relevant findings in Conceptual Cost Estimate and Request -Right of Way Component -Chapter 5, Article 7 ofthis appendix). RAILROAD -(Refer to relevant findings in Conceptual Cost Estimate and Request -Right of Way Component -Chapter 5, Article 7 of this appendix). S. STAKEHOLDER INVOLVEMENT 9, ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATIONIDOCUMENT 10. FUNDING A. Capital Cost Project Development Procedures Manual 44 ---------------------------------- Draft Appendix S Preparation Guidelines for Project Study Report-Project Development Support (PSR-PDS) Project Initiation Documents C . lOti E'aplta U ay shmate Range for Total Cost STIP Funds Fund Source "A" Alternative t Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 The level of detail available to develop these capital cost estitnates is only accurate to within the above ranges and is useful for long-range planning purposes only_ The capital costs should not be used to program or commit capital funds. The Project Report will serve as the appropriate document from which the remaining support and capital components of the project will be programmed. 1, Capital Support Estimate for the Programmable PA&ED:ll) ,the 20_ STIP for this project: . 2. SCHEDULE Project Milestones 11. FHWA COORDINATION Discuss coordination with FHWA. Refer to Chapter 3, Section #13 of this appendix. 12. DISTRICT CONTACTS 13. PROJECT REVIEWS Field Review Date_ District Maintenance ____________________________ Date District Safety Engineer __________________________ Date_ HQ Design Coordinator __________________________ Date_ Project Manager District Safety Date_ Project Development Procedures Manual 45 ARTICLE 2 -Template for Project Study Report Project Development Support (PSR-PDS) Long Lead SHOPP Project This article is a template for the PSR-PDS for Long Lead SHOPP projects. Guidance for completing this template is located in Chapter 3 of this appendix. Project Development Procedures Manual 46 Draft Appendix S Preparation Guidelines for Project Study Report-Prqject Development Support (PSR-PDS) Project Initiation Documents PROJECT STUDY REPORT To Request Approval to Proceed with Formal Studies for Long Lead SHOPP Project On And APPROVAL RECOMMENDED: PROJECT MANAGER APPROVED: DISTRICT DIREC7VR (or delegated authoritJ1 DATE Project Development Procedures Manual 47 Vicinity Map Show: • Study limits • Topographical Features Listed in Report • North Arrow On Route ___________ Between_______________________ And Project Development Procedures Manual 48 Draft Appendix S Preparation Guidelines for Project Study Report-Project Development Support (PSR-PDS) Project Initiation Documents Dist. Co. -Rte. -PM. This Project Study Report has been prepared under the direction of the following Registered Engineer. The registered civil engineer attests to the technical infonnation contained herein and the engineering data upon which recommendations, conclusions, and decisions are based. REGISTERED CIVIL ENGINEER DATE NUMBER Exp. (Date) Project Development Procedures Manual 49 Table of Contents Project Development Procedures Manual 50 Draft Appendix S Preparation Guidelines for Project Study Report-Project Development Support (PSR-PDS) l. INTRODUCTION Brief Project Description: See the Cost estimate for specific work items included in this project. Project Limits [Dist., Co., Rte., PM] ,---'---"---'----'---'-----t------------------,-,' r-------------i-~~~---------i i--C----,ap....ii_ta_I_O_u_t_13"'--YS_u.L.LPPlo_r_t__f__-:-________________--,---1 Funding Source: SHOPP t-=--==-===-=-=-=-::.::.:.-----f--.::..:.-=-=-:..:..~----.---"""-, Capital Cost Range: Right of Way Cost Range: ------------------] Type of Facility (conventional, expressway, i-:-fr::--e__e_w::--a"'--<-:-:--:--______t________..,______l ~~~~-~---------------L~_~__ Anticipated Environmental -_OJj Determination/Docu ment:-::-...::..;.'-"-'------'-;.;.:..;.'-"-'-'--.:..c..;;..;;.;;.;.,.;;.::.'---'------------------fi Legal Description .J The remaining support and capital components of the project are preliminary estimates and are not suitable for programming purposes. Either a Supplemental PSR or Project Report will serve as the programming document for the capital for the project. 1. BACKGROUND 2. PURPOSE AND NEED STATEMENT Need: Purpose: 3. DEFICIENCIES Project Development Procedures Manual 51 4. CORRIDORS AND SYSTEM COORD INA TION 5. AL TERNA TIVES 6. TRAFFIC ENGINEERING. (Refer to relevant findings, recommendations, and estimates provided in the Preliminary Traffic Engineering Assessment -Chapter 5, ~==ofthis appendix). 7. RIGHT OF WAY -(Refer to relevant findings in ConceptualCost Estimate and Request Right of Way Component -Chapter 5, Artic1e 7oftl1is appendix). UTILJTIES· (Refer to relevant findings in Conceptual Cost Estima Right of Way Component Chapter 5, Article 7 ofthis appendix). RAILROAD· (Refer to relevant findings in Conceptua{Cost Estimate and Request Right of Way Component Chapter 5, Article 7 of this appendix). 8. STAKEHOLDER INVOLVEMENT 9. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINA TIONIDOCUMENT to. FUNDING A. Capital Cost Capital Cost Estimate for the Alternative Identified for Programming PA&ED in the 20XX SHOPP. Capital Outlay Estimate Ran~e for Total Cost SHOPP Funds Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 The level of detail available to develop these capital cost estimates is only accurate to within the above ranges and is useful for long range planning purposes only. The capital Project Development Procedures Manual 52 Draft Appendix S Preparation Guidelines for Project Study Report-Project Development Support (PSR-PDS) Project Initiation Documents costs should not be used to program or commit capital funds. The Project Report will serve as the appropriate document from which the capital for the project will be programmed. B. Capital Support Estimate Capital Support Estimate for PA&ED for this project: ________' 11. SCHEDULE Project Milestones Delivery Date (Month, Day, Year) Be in Environmental Circulate OED PA&ED 12. FHWA COORDINATION Discuss coordination with FHWA. Refer to Chapter 3, Sectioo,#13 of this appendix. 13. DISTRICT CONTACTS 14. DISTRICT REVIEWS Field Date_ District Date_ District Safety Engineer _________________ Date_ HQ Design Date_ Project Manager District Safety Date_ For SHOPP Projects Only-Delete ifnot applicable: District SHOPP Program Advisor Date_~. HQ SHOPP Program Advisor Date__ Project Development Procedures Manual 53