Loading...
01 January 29, 2012 Technical AdvisoryTIME: DATE: LOCATION: TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA* 10:00 a.m. January 30, 2012 Riverside County Transportation Commission Riverside County Administrative Center 4080 Lemon Street, Riverside, CA Conference Room A, 3rd Floor *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 of Indian Wells City of Hemet Bruce Harry, City of Rancho Mirage Rick Hartman, City of Moreno Valley Jonathan Hoy, City of Coachella Tim Jonasson, City of La Quinta - Chair COMMITTEE MEMBERS Savat Khamphou, Caltrans District 8 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 Gordon Robinson, Riverside Transit Agency Jim Rodkey, City of Blythe Ken Seumalo, City of Lake Elsinore Michael Shoberg, CVAG Bill Simons, City of Cathedral City Ruthanne Taylor -Berger, WRCOG Patrick Thomas, City of Murrieta — Vice Chair Bill Thompson, City of Norco Tim Wassil, City of Desert Hot Springs City of Calimesa , City of Jumpa Valley Commission Staff Anne Mayer, Executive Director Shirley Medina, Programming and Planning Manager 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: January 30, 2012 LOCATION: Riverside County Transportation Commission Riverside County Administrative Center 4080 Lemon Street, Riverside, CA Conference Room A, 3rd Floor In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act and government Code Section 54954.2, if you need special assistance to participate in a Committee meeting, please contact Riverside County Transportation Commission at (951) 787-7141. Notification of at least 48 hours prior to meeting time will assist staff in assuring that reasonable arrangements can be made to provide accessibility at the meeting. 1. Call to Order 2. Self -Introductions 3. Approval of November 14, 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. Upcoming RCTC Workshop (Verbal Presentation) 6. MSHCP Funding (Attachment) 7. 2012 Funding Strategy: A Blueprint for Advancing Goods Movement Projects (Attachment) 8. 2012 STIP Update (Verbal Presentation) 9. 2012 RTP Update (Attachment) 10. FTIP Update (Attachment) 11. State and Federal Legislative Platforms and Reauthorization Update (Attachment) 12. Caltrans Local Assistance Report (Verbal Presentation) Technical Advisory Committee Meeting January 30, 2012 Page 2 13. January Commission Meeting Highlights (Verbal Presentation) 14. Other Business 15. Adjournment (The next meeting will be March 19 in Beaumont.) • TECHNICAL AD.RY COMMITTEE January 30, 2012 AGENCY TAC MEMBER ALTERNATE BANNING DUANE BURK Kahono Oei Director of Public Works BEAUMONT KISHEN PRATHIVADI jKevin Hughes Assistant Director of Public Works BLYTHE JIM RODKEY I Kevin Nelson Public Works Director Assistant Public Works Director CVAG MIKE SHOBERG Transportation Program Manager 1--CA-L-IM-ES_A __ J~~ CALTRANS ISAVAT KHAMPHOU CANYON LAKE I II HABIB MOTLAGH City Engineer CATHEDRAL CITY I BILL SIMONS Interim City Engineer COACHELLA JONATHAN HOY City Engineer Allyn Waggle Deputy Director Bob French Public Works Director Bill Mosby Chris Sunde Maritza Martinez Interim Public Works Director PRINT NAME 1<Jrn~1i10 (} 9i /{e,v' H\l MJC:">-t €8 \JJi.-n ~o.J)<J M~\Lv ~~~~ jo~vi~/ fr~Gt.l f;) 5itvKi /(\-\ t\-Mf/-tlJlL C,ti.J-7· s Sv.~e-U I 17,-u s' ~ \0 \/\_~ • SIGNATURE Z!f;i ____________ _ ~ ------------j' CORONA I KIP FIELDR 1~be.rt-M~~-. r.~/ I p _:.:-:L ,__ ~,/ IActingPublicWorksDirector Pnnc1palC1v1IEng1neer L Mr{?;~ /~~ ~ -------1 DESER_T_H-OT--HAL GOLDENBERG Tim Wassil SPRINGS I Sr. Project Manager • EASTVALE DIANE NGUYEN Transportation Program manager TECHNICAL AD.RY COMMITTEE January 30, 2012 I Micl 1ael l(asnina§i City Engineer 6:"''"'5"-A I va..re. z... Ge",:..,ye ) ftNIC:: J._). • HEMET I I I I r.:::::-_· () --· ... ""1!!"6;5 ,b111e71tWI v;ctor Mon> I I r, . x x -INDIAN WELLS INDIO JURUPA VALLEY LA QUINTA ~~ M~~O?J: Principal Engineer ~A-PAUL GOBLE Bondie Baker Public Works Director Assistant Engineer II GRANT EKLUND I Tom Rafferty Public Works Director/City Engineer Principal Civil Engineer TIMOTHY JONASSON I Nick Nickerson Public Works Director/City Engineer LAKE ELSINORE I KEN SEU MALO City Engineer MENIFEE DON ALLISON Public Works Director/ City Engineer Matt Simonetti MORENO VALLEY I AHMAD ANSARI ~ric Lewis, Transportation Public Works Director/City Engineer I Division Manager/City Traffic Engineer AND Prem Kumar, ~ Pt/lt?IOltl I G/2..1t-N-r E J< L ihV '(:> :fZR ~ Jf\.W:JM IA·.'P. -i lv..._ ~ Ml\ A-llt50Y\ I~~ At-/M,,.op ~s~/ PATRICK THOMAS 1--_______ Deputy Public Works Director I I ~~-Bob Moehling ,.n t "-D~rector ?f Public Works/ IE_ ng-ineering Manager ( '<a'tr')L -f"(µil¥ <I< ~-}''t~ J City Engineer ' \ \ ~-J · . \l vi -1-------------+ -------------MURRIETA NORCO BILL THOMPSON Director of Public Works Lori Askew Sr. Engineer • PALM DESERT PALM SPRINGS PVVTA PERRIS RTA BO CHEN City Engineer DAVE BARAKIAN Director of Public Works/ City Engineer HABIB MOTLAGH City Engineer GORDON ROBINSON Director of Planning RANCHO MIRAGE I BRUCE HARRY Director of Public Works RIVERSIDE TOM BOYD Deputy Public Works Director/ City Engineer RIVERSIDE COUNTY I JUAN PEREZ SAN JACINTO SUNLINE TEMECULA WILDOMAR Director of Transportation HABIB MOTLAGH City Engineer JOE FORGIARINI Director of Transit Planning GREG BUTLER Director of Public Works ITIM D'ZMURA Director of Public Works and City Engineer TECHNICAL AD.RY COMMITTEE January 30, 2012 Mark Diercks Transportation Engineer Marcus Fuller Chris Sunde Lorelle Moe-Luna Senior Planner Randy Viegas Project Manager ~6 ~·~ Ch'".'s. S,,..,..c-U._ ~'l~lLB~~ I~"""-~ • I t/W'--i!q) I ' L-,C ~ --~----1 Patty Romo . ( ·-----; 0 _ Deputy Director of Transportation ~~-~---0--+--~~-----Chris Sunde e~ Amer Attar Principal Engineer Diane Nguyen Transportation Program Manager C"',,·'~ S lAA-h ~~~ , 11 rr. D :C'""t ~1 • WRCOG I RUTHANNE TAYLOR-BERGER Deputy Executive Director TECHNICAL AD.RY COMMITTEE January 30, 2012 • . • TECHNICAL ADVAJRY COMMITTEE • Janua~0,2012 AGENCY NAME TELEPHONE OR E-MAIL 72~ Gr&<..cE:--' frfu~ 9 _;/, 7 712 ~1-C) 1"r-' ~vie--~ ~J.J--€.__-/ ~Tl-787; 7'-='77 ;\\ oa_c"M.o ·v f\/_L c :() ·\t, vvJ...-l....... ~·: ~v1..0 \..!C~~. G Cl\ 1:->l · .4 1 3:. -3 I l£ . \ "" ' I . __ ) l / \ '\~ £1'1'\. ""-v\ VVV\.-.i.'2.._ _,, -~ \ ' ·-...J 7/ . /' __..,-,,, , ,;:1 -f ~ ~--·,,,::_ .. &:? (./ iO ,/ v LnL. Wevk 5-?VJ/b _ _j __ ~~:-:__~~:.__ __ µ~:-:___~:__::.__-~_.:=__ _______ I Mdt<'lNO v'AL.t..<.:£)' ---'-I_,_,,.._""-'µ'-'---({ '( Cn?l\J 2.-A--L~ .'.JSl -4ls-3J '3'-flt \C--Q IJ wt\ -r~ l~ Gt"' -tv.. oJ JHl\OJA tarn\ ~tov\ C1ry f)f:. I · I 9!'~?f-J12~ x .2.9"" LA~ &t.s1~ . I ~ <?E:wAw , fKS'..-...w e 1-;>CE"-~''"'otc:. O'-=--------. ------1 ~t l\v0"' ~ ~\VI),\ ~a&\11\\.o.' I 1:-~ 1 ~ l ~~'\~M q oq -3J J -{, 1 e1>-vh?--t~ ca ~ t . c ~·114p~~ I ~vfz__ f£4U~P, 1<>7~_v.g,_?Qf.O-~.ft§~&,i'~~1 c;l · 1C61-1~'2,, _ ___c_? __ , Q010 c:r i , R'.v:·~r~~-H--1:4::!_~ ~-~5i-;;~/t// f;;df (ft '2.tu'\lid'. I ~SI -1f>1-1 J lf I MINUTES TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES Monday, November 14, 2011 1. CALL TO ORDER The meeting of the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) was called to order at 10:02 a.m. at Beaumont City Hall, Conference Room #2, 550 East Sixth Street, Beaumont, CA 92223. 2. SELF -INTRODUCTIONS Members Present: Others Present: Don Allison, City of Menifee Tom Boyd, City of Riverside Duane Burk, City of Banning Greg Butler, City of Temecula Bo Chen, City of Palm Desert Grant Eklund, City of Indio Marcus Fuller, City of Palm Springs Kevin Hughes, City of Beaumont Savat Khamphou, Caltrans Habib Motlagh, Cities of Canyon Lake, Perris, and San Jacinto Kahono Oei, City of Banning Tom Rafferty, City of Indio Gordon Robinson, Riverside Transit Agency Jim Rodkey, City of Blythe Patty Romo, County of Riverside Mike Shoberg, CVAG Bill Simons, City of Cathedral City Patrick Thomas, City of Murrieta Randy Viegas, City of Rancho Mirage Tim Wassil, City of Desert Hot Springs Grace Alvarez, RCTC Shirley Gooding, RCTC Rafael Martinez, City of Corona Shirley Medina, RCTC Erik Reuhr, VRPA Technologies, Inc. Alex Serena, WRCOG Georgiena Vivian, VRPA Technologies, Inc. Andrea Zureick, RCTC 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Minutes were approved as submitted. Technical Advisory Committee Meeting November 14, 2011 Page 2 4. PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no public comments. 5. 2011 CONGESTION MANAGEMENT PROGRAM UPDATE Shirley Medina, RCTC, introduced Georgiena Vivian, VRPA Technologies, Inc., who verbally presented a 2011 overview of the Congestion Management Program and responded to questions. M/S/C (Motlagh/Thomas) to approve the 2011 Riverside County Congestion Management Program update. Ms. Medina encouraged the TAC to review the CMP and let her know of any questions or concerns and commented that the CMP will be presented to the Commission in December for approval. 6. 2012 STATE TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM Ms. Medina said this item was presented last week at the Commission meeting. The staff recommendation to the Commission, which was approved, was to: 1) Approve 2012 State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) programming for Western Riverside 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 Government's (CVAG) project recommendations to the California Transportation Commission (CTC) by 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 TE Funds Call for projects to federal Surface Transportation Program (STP) funds to streamline delivery. 7. STATE -LOCAL PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM, COMPETITIVE AND FORMULA PROGRAMS Shirley Medina reported that 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. Technical Advisory Committee Meeting November 14, 2011 Page 3 She also reported that there will be a final round for the SLPP Competitive Program in FY 2012-13 with applications due to the CTC in the summer of 2012. She will keep the TAC informed. 8. RTP/FTIP UPDATE Grace Alvarez, RCTC, reported that as of November 8, 18 amendments have been processed through the 2011 FTIP; RCTC has participated in 15 of the 18 amendments. 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 FHWA/FTA. The 2012 RTP Consistency Amendment, AKA Amendment No. 16 (recently re -numbered to 24) will be approved in June 2012, concurrently with the 2012 RTP. Approval of the recently submitted Amendment No. 18 is anticipated by the end of December. Ms. Alvarez made reference to the detailed report that was included as an attachment to the staff report providing submittal and approval dates for the amendments as well as the individual listing of the projects included in the latest amendments, No. 17 and 18. She also commented that the SCAG approved listing can be downloaded from RCTC's Fundtrack program. The next scheduled amendment is Administrative Modification No. 19, due to SCAG on December 6; its anticipated approval date is late December. She reminded the TAC that RCTC's submittal date to SCAG for the 2013 FTIP is January 4, 2012 and mentioned that after the Commissions submit their FTIP updates to SCAG, SCAG staff will focus on the 2013 FTIP analysis. For this reason, SCAG is scheduling alternating formal amendments and administrative modifications every other month until June 2012. RCTC will review the project changes requested by the agencies to determine if the changes are needed for obligation purposes in FFY 2011/2012 or environmental approval and only projects meeting this criteria will be submitted for amendments. Regarding the 2013 FTIP, she mentioned that on October 20th, the TAC was notified via email of the 2013 FTIP update schedule and TAC members were requested to review 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 23`a° but early submittals are always welcome. 9. TRANSPORTATION CONTROL MEASURE IMPLEMENTATION REPORTING Ms. Alvarez introduced the topic of Transportation Control Measures or TCMs to highlight their importance in securing air quality conformity in our region. Transportation Control Measures or TCMs are specific transportation projects and programs committed to Technical Advisory Committee Meeting November 14, 2011 Page 4 improving air quality, such as HOV lanes, HOT lanes, transit stations, park-n-ride lots, bus rapid transit, commuter rail and rideshare programs, just to mention a few. TCMs are required by the Federal Clean Air Act in ozone non -attainment and maintenance areas; 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 and vary from region to region. She pointed out the attachment to her staff report under the section of the Southern California Association of Governments Federal Transportation Improvement Program guidelines that provides a complete list of TCM projects and programs for our region as well as the regulations for the timely implementation of these projects and programs. 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. Also, 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 the Regional Transportation P1an. 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 the 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 along with all RTP and FTIP amendments. She further stated that RCTC will begin regular TCM project monitoring, which will be incorporated in the quarterly milestone reports. Ms. Alvarez made reference to the TCM Timely Implementation Report that was submitted to SCAG for inclusion in the 2012 RTP and that was included as an attachment to the TAC staff report. 10. FFY 2011/12 OA DELIVERY PLAN Andrea Zureick, RCTC, stated that the OA Delivery P1an will be a regular TAC agenda item to keep track of projects scheduled for obligation in the current fiscal year. The actual plan is due to Caltrans in April; therefore, it is important to start early to make adjustments as needed. This past fiscal year, local agencies delivered 138% of the OA that came through that gave our region an extra $4.3 million in OA. There was a rescission of unobligated CMAQ funds Technical Advisory Committee Meeting November 14, 2011 Page 5 at the end of the last fiscal year, with $76 million to be rescinded throughout the state. The $76 million was distributed throughout the state based on an agency's unobligated balances. Because RCTC was able to work out some loans with other agencies throughout the state, $7 million of CMAQ was saved from our share of the rescission. Ms. Zureick reported that there is not an official tally from Caltrans yet on the rescission share, but it seems like $2 million was rescinded from RCTC; the rescission will not affect any currently programmed projects because RCTC received $2 or $3 million more of CMAQ last year than was anticipated. The OA is on target to be delivered this fiscal year. She requested that the TAC let RCTC know if there are any projects that can be advanced. 11. CALTRANS LOCAL ASSISTANCE REPORT Savat Khamphou, Caltrans Local Assistance, said he will e-mail information regarding a PSR/PDS webinar for the training. He said he will send the information to the TAC. Ms. Medina said she will forward the information to the TAC so the members will have the PowerPoint presentation that was included. It also included a schedule of future webinars, including the next one on the 17th. It is a five -part course to go over the new requirements. He explained the new Local Assistance staff structure and said he will e-mail a formal listing of the assignments to the TAC. The announcement for the upcoming safe routes to school call for projects will be released in December. For emergency relief projects, this week Caltrans will send out instructions on what to do to the applicants who send the ER applications, in addition to mass e-mailing those on his list for local assistance e-mails. Regarding the Local Assistance database, check list, and processes that he described at the September TAC meeting, he is still developing it and will keep the TAC informed. He also expects to set up monthly meetings with the local agencies as the processes are developed. 12. NOVEMBER COMMISSION MEETING HIGHLIGHTS Shirley Medina reported that SCAG's executive director, Hasan Ikhrata made a presentation to the Commission last week regarding the 2012 Regional Transportation Plan and how this document incorporates SB375 as a result of the new AB 32 legislation. The highlight of the presentation that provoked discussion amongst the Commission was system preservation of the state highways and local arterials, and how that is woefully underfunded. Technical Advisory Committee Meeting November 14, 2011 Page 6 13. OTHER BUSINESS Ms. Medina asked the TAC members if the TAC meetings should continue on a by -monthly schedule for 2012. No one objected to keeping that schedule, including alternating between Riverside and Beaumont. Due to the conflict with Martin Luther King holiday on January 16, the next meeting will be January 30 in Riverside. 14. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business for consideration by the Technical Advisory Committee, the meeting adjourned at approximately 11:15 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Shirley Medina Programming and Planning Manager AGENDA ITEM 5 A presentation will be made but there is no attachment to the agenda for item 5. RIVERS/DE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMM/SS/ON www.rctc.org WORKSHOP AGENDA* *Actions may be taken on any item listed on the agenda FEBRUARY 2-3, 2012 EMBASSY SUITES LA QUINTA 50-777 Santa Rosa Plaza La Quinta, CA In compliance with the Brown Act and Government Code Section 54957.5, agenda materials distributed 72 hours prior to the meeting, which are public records relating to open session agenda items, will be available for inspection by members of the public prior to the meeting at the Commission office, 4080 Lemon Street Third Floor, Riverside, CA, and on the Commission's website, www.rctc.org. In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act and Government Code Section 54954.2, if you need special assistance to participate in a Commission meeting, please contact the Clerk of the Board at (951) 787-7141. Notification of at least 48 hours prior to meeting time will assist staff in assuring that reasonable arrangements can be made to provideaccessibility at the meeting. 1: 30 P.M. THURSDA Y, FEBRUARY 2, 2012 1:30 p.m. - 1:35 p.m. WELCOME AND WORKSHOP OVERVIEW John J. Benoit, Chair 1:35 p.m. - 1:50 p.m. IE 511 DEMONSTRATION AND DISCUSSION Robert Yates, Multimodal Services Director 1:50 p.m. - 2:35 p.m. REGIONAL ISSUES AND COOPERATION John Standiford, Deputy Executive Director 2:35 p.m. - 3:45 p.m. LEGISLATIVE UPDATE Aaron Hake, Government Relations Manager Kathy Ruffalo, Commission's Legislative Advocate Mark Watts, Commission's Legislative Advocate 3:45 p.m. - 4:00 p.m. BREAK 4:00 p.m. - 5:00 p.m. COMMISSION MEETING (Separate Agenda) Riverside County Transportation Commission Workshop February 2-3, 2012 5:00 p.m. — 6:00 p.m. RIVERSIDE COUNTY RAIL UPDATE Robert Yates, Multimodal Services Manager This item is for the Commission to: 1) Receive an oral report on railmatters that affect the Commission relating to Metrolink, Los Angeles -San Diego - San Luis Obispo (LOSSAN) Rail Corridor Agency and high- speed rail; 2) Approve Memorandum of Understanding No. 12-25-044-00 with California High Speed Rail Authority (CHSRA), the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), and the partner Southern California transportation agencies; 3) Authorize the Chair, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the MOU on behalf of the Commission in order to protect the Commission's passenger rail rights on the LOSSAN Corridor and ensure the Commission's involvement in ongoing regional rail investment discussions; and 4) Approve the list of priority projects and authorize the Executive Director to negotiate the project list as necessary on behalf of the Commission. The workshop will continue at 9:15 a.m., Friday, February 3, 50-777 Santa Rosa Plaza, La Quinta, CA 9:15 A.M. FR/DAY, FEBRUARY 3, 2012 9:15 a.m. - 9:30 a.m. MOBILITY 21 UPDATE Marnie Primmer, Executive Director, Mobility 21 9:30 a.m. — 10:00 a.m. LONG TERM REVENUE FORECAST Dan Wiles, Fieldman Rolapp 10:00 a.m. - 10:15 a.m. BREAK 10:15 a.m. - 11:45 a.m. DELIVERY PLAN SUCCESSES AND FINANCING THE FUTURE Anne Mayer, Executive Director 11:45 a.m. LUNCH AND WORKSHOP WRAP UP Karen Spiegel, Vice Chair AGENDA ITEM 6 RIVERS/DE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMM/SS/ON DATE: December 14, 2011 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Western Riverside County Programs and Projects Committee Theresia Trevino, Chief Financial Officer Cathy Bechtel, Project Development Director THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Executive Director SUBJECT: Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority Funding Request WESTERN RIVERS/DE COUNTY PROGRAMS AND PROJECTS COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Provide Measure A funding to the Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority (RCA) in the amount of $3 million per year for two years as part of the Commission's Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) funding obligation; 2) Revisit the continuation of this funding amount in two years; 3) Work with RCA to assist in fulfilling the MSHCP funding obligations if a federal loan guarantee program is not in place in two years; and 4) Direct staff to return to the Commission for approval of an agreement with RCA regarding the funding commitment. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Caltrans and the Commission are participants in the Western Riverside County MSHCP. The MSHCP, approved in June 2003, is a comprehensive, multi - jurisdictional habitat conservation plan focusing on conservation of species and the associated habitat in Western Riverside County. Among other things, the MSHCP addresses project impact mitigation for proposed improvements to existing routes such as Interstates 10, 15, and 215, and State Routes 60, 71, 74, 79, and 91, as well as coverage of anticipated new transportation projects in the covered area of Western Riverside County for the next 75 years. As part of the MSHCP, approximately 153,000 acres of additional reserve lands will be secured to add to the approximately 347,000 acres already in public/quasi- public lands. The MSHCP funding plan anticipates that the entire 153,000 additional acres of conservation area will be assembled within 25 years of plan Agenda Item 9 approval (i.e. in 2029). Over the remaining 50 years of the state and federal permits, local mitigation will contribute to the long-term management and monitoring of the MSHCP Conservation Area. Caltrans and Commission Obligations Caltrans' obligation under the plan requires "contributing to the assembly of additional reserve lands through acquisition of two conservation land areas pursuant to Section 8.4.4. of the MSHCP, one of approximately 2,000 acres in the eastern portion of the criteria area and one of approximately 1,000 acres in the western portion of the criteria area, within the first eight years of the permits" by June 2012 and creation of a $9.6 million endowment in cooperation with the Department of Fish and Game for the management and monitoring of additional reserve lands, in perpetuity. The Commission's obligations under the MSHCP and the implementing agreement include the contribution of $153 million for mitigation of its covered activities. The Commission's contributions shall occur proportionately prior to impacts to covered species or their habitats. The $9.6 million endowment was funded from the 2005 State Highway Operation Protection Program, so this obligation has been fulfilled. At the time of plan initiation, the anticipated cost for acquisition of the 3,000 acres was $40 million — $8 million from the Interregional Improvement Program and $32 million from the Commission's Regional Improvement Program funds. This $32 million and the anticipated $121 million of Measure A funding identified in the 2009 Measure A results in the Commission's obligation of $153 million toward assembly of the reserve. To date, the Commission has contributed $128,649,708 to RCA toward the purchase of 8,663 acres, as summarized below: Fiscal Year Contribution Amount 2004/05 $ 1,271,250 2005/06 12,423,731 2006/07 28,158,388 2007/08 25,486,484 2008/09 61,309,855 Total $ 128,649,708 Of these acres purchased with Commission funding, the Caltrans obligation in the western and eastern portions of the criteria area has been met within the required eight -year time period. As to the Commission's funding obligation, the remaining balance is $24,350,292. Agenda Item 9 Since 2009 Measure A sales tax revenues did not commence until July 1, 2009, the Commission's funding consisted of debt financing through the Commission's commercial paper program. The commercial paper notes were subsequently retired through the Commission's issuance of sales tax revenue bonds. Since the commencement of the 2009 Measure A, $335 million in bonds has been issued. Of this amount, 37.5 percent of the financing proceeds were used toward the MSHCP funding obligation, and the Commission has also incurred financing costs such as interest, which are being paid from 2009 Measure A Western County highway and bond financing program revenues. In 2008 when the Commission approved its last contribution of $72.4 million over two fiscal years (2007/08 and 2008/09), it was done with the understanding that the Commission had made significant progress on its 20-year obligation prior to the commencement of the 2009 Measure A and that the Commission would fund the remaining contribution after 2019 during the second decade of the 2009 Measure A. This understanding was due to the following: • The Commission's debt limit at that time was $500 million; it was increased in November 2010 to $975 million; and • Western County Measure A highway revenues were needed through 2019 for projects included in the 10-Year Western Riverside County Highway Delivery Plan (Delivery Plan). Recently the Commission received the attached request from RCA to commit to pay $24 million over the next year eight years (i.e., through FY 2018/19) at $3 million per year to enable RCA "to continue to make important acquisitions while land values are low and RCA's development mitigation fees are significantly down." If the Commission were to approve this funding contribution commitment, it would fulfill the Commission's obligation; however, it would also strain the Commission's ability to adequately fund Western County highway and new corridor projects identified in or considered for the Delivery Plan. The Delivery Plan has already been revised to address funding shortfalls and some project schedules have been impacted. These projects include: • SR-91 Corridor Improvement Project • 1-215 Central Widening Project • 1-215 Bi-County High Occupancy Vehicle Project • French Valley Parkway, Phase 2 • 1-15 Widening from 1-215 to San Bernardino County Line • 1-10 Truck Climbing Lane • SR-60 Truck Lane • Mid County Parkway — Right of Way • SR-79 Realignment — Right of Way Agenda Item 9 In addition, flexibility in other programs such as Measure A Regional Arterials could be impacted as a result of funding challenges in the Highway program. It is impossible to say with certainty that a $24 million allocation to RCA will directly delay or impact a project because there are so many variables in play. Revenue fluctuations and bid prices are just two variables that could determine the Commission's available cash flow. It is reasonable to assume that $24 million is a significant enough sum that it could have an impact. The proposed commitment of $6 million will not have an impact on any existing project in the pipeline. It could result in limiting the Commission's ability to add projects. It is appropriate to time a re-evaluation of MSHCP funding support in two years. At that time, RCA will know the status of the proposed federal loan program and several of the large projects listed will be out to construction. Staff will have a more accurate understanding of the Commission's cash flow through 2019. Should the Commission support RCA's request in any amount, the Commission should authorize development and execution of an agreement between the Commission and RCA regarding the multi -year funding commitment and the fulfillment of the Commission's $153 million funding obligation. Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: No N/A Year: FY 201 1 /12 FY 2012/13 Amount: $3,000,000 $3,000,000 Source of Funds: Measure A Western County Budget Adjustment: Yes N/A GL/Project Accounting No.: 26X-31-81405 Fiscal Procedures Approved: \l/fi, Date: 1 1 /16/1 1 Attachment: RCA Letter Dated November 16, 2011 Agenda Item 9 egional onservation uthority Westem Riverside County Board of Directors Chairman Jeff stone County of Riverside Vice Chairman Jim Hyatt City M. Cralinnesa Marion Ashley County of Riverside Kevin Bash City of Norco William Batey City of Moreno Valley Ben Benoit City of Wildonmr John Benoit County of Riverside Roger Berg City of Beaumont Randy Bonner Cite/ of Canyon Lake Bob Buster County of Riverside Maryann Edwards City of Temecula Thomas Fuhrman City ofMenifee Mike Gardner City of Riverside Linda Krupa City of Hemet Alan Long City of Murrieta John 1,:4achisic City of Banning Melissa Melendez City of Lake Elsinore Scott Miller City Mf Sam Jacinto Eugene Montanez City of Corona Adam Rush City of Eastvale John Tavaglione County of Riverside Mark Yarbrough City of Perris Executive Staff Charles Landry Executive Director 3403 10,', Street, Suite 320 Riverside, California 92501 P.O. Box 1667 Riverside, California 92502-1667 Phone: (951) 955-9700 Fax: (951) 955-8873 www.wrc-rca.ore November 16, 2011 Anne Mayer, Executive Director Riverside County Transportation Commission 4080 Lemon Street, Third Floor Riverside, CA 92501 RE: MEASURE A FUNDING FOR THE WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY REGIONAL CONSERVATION AUTHORITY Dear Anne: The Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority (RCA) respectfully requests that the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) provide the last increment of Measure A Funding for the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP). RCA requests that RCTC commit now approximately $24 million to be paid over the next eight years at $3 million per year. This commitment will then fulfill RCTC's $153 million obligation to the MSHCP for its Covered Activities. RCTC's commitment of funding now will enable us to continue to make important acquisitions while land values are low and RCA's development mitigation fees are significantly down. We sincerely appreciate the valuable contributions to MSHCP acquisitions that RCTC has already made. RCTC's partnership and dedication has been key to the success of the MSHCP. RCA continues to be ready to assist RCTC in expediting projects through the environmental process. n ar -sLa Executive DiracYor AGENDA ITEM 7 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: January 30, 2012 TO: Technical Advisory Committee FROM: Tanya Love, Goods Movement Manager SUBJECT: 2012 Funding Strategy: A Blueprint for Advancing Goods Movement STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the TAC to: 1. Receive and provide feedback on the Alameda Corridor East Grade Separation Priority list; 2. Forward to the Commission for final action. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The impact of delays caused by freight trains traveling through Riverside County continues to be one of the area's most pressing transportation concerns. Southern California is the goods movement gateway to the nation because of the area's numerous advantages: deep -water marine ports, highly developed networks of highways and railways, an extensive concentration of warehousing and distribution facilities, and an enormous local consumer market. Congested highways and rail corridors are a barrier to keeping goods moving and the economy growing. Public health is at risk as regional freight activities are a major source of air pollution which is recognized as responsible for approximately 5,000 premature deaths per year. In addition, goods movement was identified as a component of the Southern California Association of Governments' 2012 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS), which is currently being circulated for review and comment. There are currently 55 at -grade ACE crossings in Riverside County. These crossings present conflicts between rail and highway traffic and are located on the main lines of either the Union Pacific (UP) or Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) railroads. In 2008, the Commission ranked the at -grade crossings into five priority tiers based on a set of criteria that included safety, congestion, air quality, noise, adjacent grade separations and local community preferences. At that time, the Commission identified 28 crossings that were ranked in the top two tiers as the highest priority for grade separations. Based on funding availability as well as project deliverability, the 2008 funding strategy up -date also identified three additional projects — Avenue 52, Avenue 56/Airport Boulevard, and Avenue 66 - as top priority projects. Since the 2008 funding strategy was adopted, significant progress has been made in constructing grade separations. Three projects — Avenue 48/Dillon Road, Avenue 50 and Jurupa Avenue — were completed. Two at -grade crossings have been permanently closed — Jane Street and Mountain View Avenue. In addition, $162.7 million in Proposition 1 B funds was allocated to 131 goods movement projects — 12 at -grade crossings and one interchange project - in Riverside County through the Trade Corridor Improvement Fund (TCIF) Program. Two of those grade separations - Columbia Avenue and Magnolia Avenue - have been completed. Three additional projects - Auto Center Drive, Iowa and I-215/Van Buren Blvd. - will start construction within the next three months. The remaining six at -grade crossings will start construction by December 2013. Given the up -date of the 2012 RTP/SCS and the pending completion of 14 at -grade crossings, the consulting firm of InfraConsult LLC was retained through RCTC's on -call goods movement contract to work with local jurisdictions to up -date the 2008 grade separation funding criteria. Consultant staff from InfraConsult will be present at the TAC meeting to provide an overview of the study results. I In March 2011, at the city of Riverside's request, the Commission deleted the Third Street grade separation project from the TCIF program. AGENDA ITEM 8 A presentation will be made but there is no attachment to the agenda for item 8. OOL`£ZT$ £9L`E$ b99$ 60Z`ZE$ bLL`TZ$ O6Z`S9$ Ou!wweAmid dIJS ZTOZ 'no! spun} Sulseanui- JanOklieD 6T£'£$ £99$ b99$ b99$ b99$ b99$ Supol!uoW pue `SulwweiSoid lu!uueld 9b'ADALD2I 2upweiScud lsn(pe - aAJasaJ 31 JeAOAJJED ooL'b$ OOT`£$ 009'1$ suoD amasaa 31 sues;!e0 aseyd Mau ppd OIS'6T$ OTS'61$ suoD luawanoidwl a2ueypialul uosia}}afOT-I OT olpul/AlunoD/9vAD pxa/puawe dllS OTOZ eirang 000'z$ 000'z$ voddns suo0 sul Km/13*m luawenadwl JopuioD 16 J10N spun} Sulseanui- JaAOklJeD sbs'TE$ sbs`T£$ suoD aSuey»alul AalleA ypuaij ST elnawal/sueilleD Spun} SulSeanui- JanokueD 9Z9'Z9$ 9Z9'Z9$ suoD sauel jyj ppe'onanN of PU lion STZ JJJ21 IualUlUOD lelol dllS JeaA-s LT/9T Ad 9T/ST Ad ST/bT A3 VI/ET Ad ET/ZT Ad aseyd pafad ala Aoua2v (s,000) po!Jad dllS ZTOZ Sulu Lueadoad pasodoad dI1S ZZOZ Awnop appanib r� AGENDA ITEM 9 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: January 30, 2012 TO: Technical Advisory Committee FROM: Andrea Zureick, Senior Staff Analyst THROUGH: Shirley Medina, Programming and Planning Manager SUBJECT: 2012 Regional Transportation Plan Development Update STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Receive and File. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: On December 20, 2011, SCAG released the 2012-2035 Draft Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS) for a 55-day public review and comment period. SCAG is accepting comments until February 14, 2012. The draft plan can be found at http://rtpscs.scag.ca.gov. RCTC staff is reviewing the RTP project list and will be providing formal comments for any inconsistencies in the project details. RCTC encourages each agency to review the project list; however, please provide the comments to RCTC before submitting them to SCAG to ensure that the comments are consistent. Please be aware that the projects included in the "FTIP Projects" portion of the project list is a snapshot in time and may have been superseded by FTIP amendments processed since development of the RTP list. If there are inconsistencies in this portion of the RTP list, please refer to the latest FTIP listing and FTIP Amendment 24 before providing comment since these are the current project details for programmed projects. The listing of projects and the schedule of completion for each project is critical, as those projects that are not included as part of an adopted and conforming RTP will not receive environmental clearance by the federal agencies and will not receive state or federal transportation funds. Additionally, the RTP must include all regionally significant projects, regardless of funding source, in its emissions analysis before the projects can be included in the FTIP. 2012 RTP Adoption Schedule Dec 2011 — Feb 14, 2012 2012 RTP/SCS and 2011 FTIP A#24 Public Comment Period Feb 2, 2012 Public Hearing at SCAG (video conferencing at SCAG Riverside) April 4, 2012 SCAG adopts 2012 RTP June 2012 2012 RTP approved by Federal agencies AGENDA ITEM ZO RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMM/SS/ON DATE: January 30, 2012 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 RECOMMENDATION: Receive and file. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: 2011 FTIP One year after the approval of the 2011 FTIP, nineteen amendments have been processed by the Southern California Association of Governments - RCTC has participated in sixteen of the nineteen amendments (Amendment No's 5, 13, and 14 did not include RCTC projects). The most recent amendment was administrative modification No. 19, submitted to SCAG on December 6. Amendment No's 1-15 and 17-19 have been approved by FHWA/FTA. The 2012 RTP Consistency Amendment, Amendment No. 24 (Previously Amendment No. 16) will be approved in June 2012, concurrently with the 2012 RTP approval. 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 amendment No. 19. From now until June 2012, SCAG has scheduled alternating formal amendments and administrative modifications every other month until the review of the 2013 FTIP is complete. Because SCAG staff is very busy with the analysis of the 2012 RTP and the 2013 FTIP, these amendments will be reserved for emergency situations, such as changes needed for environmental approvals and obligations in FY 201 1 /12. The following is the 2011 FTIP amendment schedule: Amendment Number Amendment No. 20 Administrative Modification No. 21 Amendment No. 22 Projects Due to RCTC February 14, 2012 April 10, 2012 May 22, 2012 2013 FTIP On January 4, 2012, RCTC Planning and Programming Division submitted the 2013 FTIP to SCAG, consisting of 348 projects. The breakdown of the projects included 1 1 1 local highway projects, 88 state highway projects, and 149 transit projects. The following is SCAG's process and schedule for the adoption of the 2013 FTIP. January — May 4, 2012 March — May 4, 2012 June 4-8, 2012 June 2012 July 5, 2012 July 2012 September 6, 2012 September 7, 2012 December 17, 2012 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 FTIP 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 FTIP 2013 FTIP transmitted to Caltrans, FHWA, FTA, and EPA Conformity Determination approved by Federal Agencies Attachment: 2011 FTIP Amendment Log 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 12/8/2008 12/30/2010 Amendment 2 Administrative Modification — 28 projects submitted 1 1 /22/2010 12/1 /2010 12/21 /2010 12/21 /2010 Amendment 3 Formal Amendment — 24 projects submitted 01 /03/2011 01 /11 /2011 2/17/2011 04/04/2011 Amendment 4 Administrative Modification — 1 project submitted 1 /24/2011 2/1 /2011 2/15/201 1 2/18/201 1 Amendment 5 Did not include RCTC projects Amendment 6 Formal Amendment — 14 projects submitted 02/28/2011 03/08/2011 04/15/201 1 05/12/2011 Amendment 7 Administrative Modification — 7 projects submitted 04/04/2011 04/12/2011 04/29/2011 5/04/2011 Amendment 8 Formal Amendment — 19 projects submitted 04/25/2011 05/03/2011 6/10/2011 7/11 /2011 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 6/27/2011 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 SCAG Approved by CT/FHWA Amendment 12 Formal Amendment — 60 projects submitted 08/22/2011 09/06/2011 10/21 /201 1 11 /09/2011 Amendment 13 Did not include RCTC projects Amendment 14 Did not include RCTC projects (U.S. DOT Discretionary Funding — Ray LaHood Grants) Amendment 15 Administrative Modification — 3 projects submitted 09/01 /2011 09/07/2011 9/12/2011 9/13/2011 Amendment -1-6 24 Formal Amendment — 2012 RTP/2012 FTIP Consistency Amendment — 65 projects submitted 08/08/2011 09/12/201 1 Amendment 17 Administrative Modification — 38 projects submitted 09/26/2011 10/04/2011 10/21 /2011 10/25/2011 Amendment 18 Formal Amendment — 7 projects submitted 1 1 /01 /2011 11 /08/201 1 12/07/201 1 01 /18/2012 Amendment 19 Administrative Modification — 21 projects submitted 11 /30/2011 12/06/201 1 12/13/2011 . 12/19/2011 :. RCTC 2011 FTIP - Formal Amendment No.19 Approval Date: 12/19/2011 Agency Project ID Title Change Requested Cathedral City RIV070302 Date Palm Dr. Bridge Replacement/Wid. Reprogramming of funding years Cathedral City RIV091011 Date Palm Dr. over the Whitewater River Widening Reprogramming of funding years Murrieta RIV031204 Guava St. Bridge Reprogramming of funding years Palm Springs RIV031206 S. Palm Canyon Dr. Bridge Replacement Reprogramming of funding years Palm Springs RIV090405 Vista Chino at Whitewater River Bridge Replacement Reprogramming of funding years Palm Springs RIV110124 Ramon Rd. Widening including bridge replacement of the Whitewater River Bridge Cost increase Palm Springs RIV990727 Indian Canyon Dr. Widening Cost increase RCTC RIV041047 Transportation Enhancements Grouped Listing Cost decrease Riverside RIV070703 Iowa Ave. GS Fund reprogramming Various Agencies RIV050201 HBP - Bridge Replacement (non -capacity enhancing) Grouped Listing Cost increase Palm Desert RIV031208 I-10/Monterey Ave. IC Reconfiguration Fund source change Moreno Valley RIV090117 SR60/Nason St. IC improvements Fund source change Riverside Co. 46460 SR79 Widening - Thompson to Domenigoni Pkwy Fund source change Riverside Co. RIV060120 I-215/Van Buren Blvd. IC Improvements Fund source change Caltrans RIVLS10 SHOPP - Mobility Program Grouped Listing Cost change and schedule advance Caltrans RIVLS01 SHOPP - Collision Reduction Grouped Listing Cost change and schedule delay 1 RCTC 2011 FTIP - Formal Amendment No. 19 Approval Date: 12/19/2011 Agency Project ID Title Change Requested Caltrans RIVLS02 SHOPP - Pavement Rehab Grouped Listing Fund source change Caltrans RIVLS06 SHOPP - Bridge Rehabilitation Grouped Listing Fund source change RCTC RIV090601 SCRRA Rehabilitation Cost decrease RCTC RIV520109 Perris Valley Line Cost increase RCTC RIV090114 Care -A -Van Transit Inc - Purchase of mini van Project completion 2 AGENDA ITEM 11 RIVERS/DE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMM/SS/ON DATE: January 11, 2012 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Aaron Hake, Government Relations Manager THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Executive Director SUBJECT: 2012 State and Federal Legislative Platforms STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to adopt the 2012 State and Federal Legislative Platforms. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: At the beginning of a new session of the Legislature and Congress, the Commission adopts legislative platforms that outline the policy priorities and lobbying initiatives that the Commission will undertake. The platforms allow staff, Commissioners, and contract lobbyists to take positions on proposed legislation, regulations, and other actions of the state and federal government. The platforms are intended to be somewhat broad since it is not always possible to anticipate every legislative issue that will arise. These documents will provide a general roadmap. This year's proposed legislative platforms follow closely with what the Commission adopted in 2011. Several items have been added or adjusted to reflect policy issues that have arisen in the last year and anticipated to be on the horizon for 2012. Staff recommends the 2012 State and Federal Legislative Platforms read as follows: State Legislative Program In general, the Commission will take positions on legislation, policy proposals, administrative actions, or any other act of state government according to the following policy positions: Agenda Item 12 I. Ensuring Riverside County is represented. • Ensure that funding formulas for state and federal pass -through money is distributed equitably to Riverside County, with an emphasis on regional control of how such funds are spent. • Ensure that any legislation that modifies existing regional governance structures or creates new entities responsible for transportation affecting Riverside County includes the Commission as a full voting member with voting weight proportional to the Commission's .rights and interests. II. Preserving current legislative authority for the Commission. • Act to protect the Commission's current authority to implement express toll lanes on Interstate 15 and State Route 91 and to use best value design -build for the SR-91 Corridor Improvement Project (SR-91 CIP). • Protect SB X2 4 (Cogdill) Public -Private Partnership and Design -Build pilot programs. • Oppose any state action that creates additional hurdles or risks to delivering the 1-15 or SR-91 CIPs. III. Enhancements of transportation project delivery. • Support efforts to expand the use of design -build, public -private partnerships, and other financing and delivery mechanisms that increase investment in transportation, accelerate projects, and provide innovation and flexibility. • Support any state action to streamline project approvals that result in time and cost savings. IV. Accountability and commitment to California voters. • Support efforts to increase transparency and accountability in the administration of all state funding. • Ensure allocation of Proposition 1 B based on objective criteria focused on congestion relief, benefits to the public, and readiness for delivery. Agenda Item 12 • At minimum, maintain funding levels to be generated by the 2010 fuel tax swap and honor the will of the voters in the passage of Proposition 22. • Urge the Legislature and Governor to maintain an honest, on -time, and balanced budget to ensure transportation projects are delivered without delay or costly stoppages. V. Reduce congestion and harmful emissions by supporting funding for alternate transportation modes and air quality programs. • Ensure a fair share of funding for Riverside County for all rail programs; • Support incentives to employers that enhance or create transit reimbursement or ridesharing programs. • Support incentives for taxpayers who utilize alternative fuels. • Oppose efforts to impose additional alternative commute program mandates on employers or interfere with the Commission's ability to successfully implement its commuter assistance program. VI. Support the California economy and the Inland Empire's quality of life through increased funding for goods movement projects. • Support permanent increases in state funding levels available for grade separations and goods movement mitigation projects. • Partner with regional transportation agencies to achieve common objectives. VII. Support policies that recognize and reward local governments for committing local dollars to transportation projects. VIII. Focus on wise investments in rail. • Commuter and intercity rail safety, including positive train control, should be a funding priority for the state. • Support Coachella Valley Rail service as part of the California State Rail Plan and encourage the state to make steps towards implementing such service. Agenda Item 12 • High-speed rail funding should allow for connectivity improvements that enhance the existing system's ability to interface with new high-speed rail routes. • Ensure that the Commission's rights and interests in passenger rail in Southern California are properly respected in state plans and policies. • Oppose any legislation that reforms Los Angeles -San Diego -San Luis Obispo (LOSSAN) Rail Corridor Agency operations and/or governance that does not include the Commission as a full voting member of the LOSSAN joint powers authority and recognition of rail service in Riverside County that is impacted by LOSSAN and/or the Commission's legal rights related to passenger rail in Southern California. IX. Support policies that increase utilization of Ontario International Airport. X. Protect regional governments from bearing state responsibilities. • Oppose any effort that opens the possibility of regional governments becoming responsible for funding traditional obligations of the state. • Oppose legislation that places additional onus on regional governing bodies or local voters to decide on fees or taxes to pay for projects and plans required to meet state -mandated targets, goals, or policy objectives. • Ensure maximum flexibility and discretion of regional governments to craft revenue measures according to regional needs and preferences. Federal Legislative Program The Commission will focus on the following key areas in Washington. • Achieve victory on Commission policy priorities in the surface transportation reauthorization bill. • Receive a Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (TIFIA) loan from the U.S. Department of Transportation (U.S. DOT) for the SR-91 CIP. • Execute a project construction grant agreement (PCGA) with the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) on the Perris Valley Line Metrolink extension. Agenda Item 12 In general, the Commission will support the following federal policies. I. Protect and enhance current funding levels for transportation programs. Riverside County and California should be treated fairly. • At minimum, maintain current transportation funding levels. • Maintain the "trust" in the Highway Trust Fund. Congress should not erode the integrity of the firewall between the Highway Trust Fund and the General Fund. • As a self-help county, ensure a fair share for Riverside County of any federal funding made available for transportation programs and projects. • Ensure a fair share and equitable rate of return for the state of California of federal transportation funding. Every effort must be made to raise the current percentage of return in federal tax revenues that are generated in the state. • The Commission will work with Committees, Members of Congress, and the Administration on funding formulas that benefit Riverside County and the state of California. • California and the western states should receive a fair share of rail funding resources as compared to the older east coast rail systems. • Oppose efforts by non -elected, regulatory bodies to dilute, reduce, or withhold transportation funds. II. Provide long-term funding and policy stability. • For the sake of economic recovery, job creation, traffic relief, and environmental stewardship, Congress and the President should pass a new multi -year surface transportation authorization bill as quickly as possible. • Congress must provide predictability and stability of funding and policy; short-term extensions obstruct good planning and delay job creation. III. The federal government should act swiftly to provide financing mechanisms that reward local transportation investment. Agenda Item 12 • While creation of a new infrastructure bank may be a promising idea, priority should be given to expanding funding for current lending programs that have proven successful such as TIFIA. This will save time and complications related to creating new bureaucracies while economic and traffic relief is needed immediately. • The TIFIA program should be significantly expanded and the maximum loan amount should be lifted from 33 percent to at least 50 percent of a project's cost. • The U.S. DOT should approve TIFIA projects that represent all modes of transportation, including highways, giving priority to projects that are backed by voter -approved funding mechanisms and are sponsored by agencies with high credit ratings. • The federal government should remove barriers to delivering and financing projects funded by voter -approved local sales tax measures such as Measure A or other self-help mechanisms such as Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF). • Congress should create a low -interest loan program to support habitat conservation plans that mitigate the impacts of transportation infrastructure. Such plans will help reward and incentivize local commitments to proactively meet federal and state environmental protection goals while streamlining approvals for important transportation projects. IV. Federal policy should be a balance among highways, transit, and freight modes and urban, rural, and suburban areas. • Policies towards livability and sustainability must address the unique characteristics and practical realities of rural, suburban, and growing regions. • One mode of transportation must not be funded at the expense of another; there must be a balance of policy between highways, transit, freight, and intercity rail. Every area of the nation must be treated according to its unique needs and characteristics. There is no one -size -fits -all policy. • Discretionary programs should fund a balance of types of projects. • Congress must provide additional funding and policy flexibility for public transportation, mobility improvements, and other transportation services that will achieve greenhouse gas emission reduction goals. Agenda Item 12 • Congress should approve specialized funding for goods movement projects of international and national significance that are beyond the funding ability or responsibility of local and state agencies. • Congress should approve tax benefits and/or incentives for transportation demand management programs and alternative fuel programs to promote the use of alternate modes of transportation. • Congress should approve increased federal funding for Alameda Corridor East improvements with a special emphasis on ensuring funding for Riverside County highway/rail grade separations. V. Protect and enhance flexibility in use of transportation revenue. • In general regional agencies with responsibility for implementing transportation projects should be given maximum deference to fund projects that have been approved by voters and reflect local and regional priorities. • The Commission supports, in general, legislation that ensures coordination of transportation and social service agency funding (i.e. Departments of Aging, Rehabilitation, and Welfare). • The Commission supports, in general, legislative or administrative policies that promote a regional approach to airport development in Southern California, as well as funding flexibility for ground access to major airports. VI. Provide transparency, reduce or eliminate costly and duplicative administrative and regulatory requirements. • Administrative or legislative action to ensure consistency among the federal and the state's congestion management program requirements. • Allow tolling projects with existing federal agreements to proceed without additional oversight or bureaucracy. In general, for tolling projects funded and managed locally, federal rules should defer to regional and state authority. • Simultaneous review of reports and studies should become standard practice. • Congress should make permanent the pilot program that allows the State to accept jurisdiction of federal courts for the purposes of approving National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) documents and Agenda Item 12 providing a closer relationship between the approval of California Environmental Quality Act and NEPA documents. • Federal law should allow for state environmental laws to substitute for federal environmental laws where the state's laws are similar or more stringent than federal laws. • Support reforms that result in cost savings to environmental clearance processes for transportation construction projects. • Streamlining of federal reporting/monitoring requirements should be more efficient, data collected should be meaningful and avoid unnecessary and/or duplicative requirements. • U.S. DOT should be transparent in sharing written evaluations of applications for discretionary funding. • Congress should make legislative reforms that encourage a culture shift in the federal bureaucracy away from hyper -sensitivity to risk. VII. Focus on wise investments in rail. • Commuter and intercity rail safety, including positive train control, should be a funding priority for U.S. DOT. • High-speed rail funding should allow for connectivity improvements that enhance the existing system's ability to interface with new high-speed rail routes. • Support funding for Amtrak that enables productive intercity rail service through the Coachella Valley. VIII. Work together with local, regional, statewide, and national partners. • Support the efforts of transportation advocacy groups such as: Mobility 21, Self -Help Counties Coalition, Coalition for Americas Gateways and Trade Corridors, American Public Transportation Association, California Transit Association. • Coordinate with cities, the County, and transit agencies on advocacy strategies and project funding requests of common concern. Agenda Item 12 AGENDA ITEM 12 A presentation will be made but there is no attachment to the agenda for item 12. AGENDA ITEM 13 A presentation will be made but there is no attachment to the agenda for item 13. Riverside County Transportation Commission RCTC Grade Separation Priority Update Study TAC Meeting RCTC Conference Room A Monday, January 301 2012 10:00 AM 12:00 NOON Handouts RCTC Grade Separation Priority Update Study Project Status Map �\ 1.Rd 4.954) laritC,EZf SDNIIMS w \ o` G m a s6uL Pa &Mlle Wed ❑A d'scpuanvH S MIMS s6uud 10H l as�H 11113S3a _2 u 1s:eh,5 apq,m 41:st UNwll„; 1Nownv3� LOC1lIb+ e�ialucl -\ 141 Z �J 6empeyrmg ugl.dy k •�u l76 �,� \ 6A4,0 4p `.�.�e uenp(suuad .61uo6, 9iit, 1NUee .IS o AM11Y lS!� `a8 1-9NINNVB ti arux a 'St) 99 anuaA kik e� u o, a•r .a . �r rvr +!!+IM l(anuany \\ es anuany 95 anuany/IQ ]lod`� au lanuan b ?8alpSON V113H3VOD OSanuany` po D Apeouemad • eon dSN8 pela!dwoj • eon df1 iD1 Q sapD dpeuS Z LOZ uI • OW5a0 ltea 1 I ON3D3l eyaOnuan .,� —. • �vvn i•s n, `gi.) 9, a 32JaNl a UiS s � a,va lau°aj °n,wao °>I� 1 ^a `=eo • ••eJ , '1•1:0 9 N ui .I aolepcl+yu.ews n 9109 uwfa�,otl U,t IOU f ED V1Illat#1/1 • ro !r?oua4'S gun() • d y Y •,p,s M w >!5 ••-• uonueo 5 C. uoslaHa( nlikaet6 'yaI°N 'S i�we:. AWdv .ay ,ywuosgl9 4- a�s • Eh swept' e f �uoslpey� r4!i5 s t A CO pare h3pen, +luau waPA in I vt3r11V pa a;uugos l3 sauy ap i5lanlQL °inn°, ry ie u.�a .dn...vIauw.a aPTA':!y 10 " (. ,,,®, matnulegunob�J ewe,ou P1l' • m lalaady,� '6y�q e'slaans an��r�&Ua, '9j� aplstsEa fivplis� paoM wa1 0 ,anw ,y •.S i41)". N $pUuul uo!ss!yy� lsy�a rAn 4uaaun u Aakaad '��p` SIPH .S.� C: Is w 1E 3 ain/d5 s ,�� .eyge6e yp _ xnop!gnJ elg6wwln!edo� • 'U9 :.,. - ,�'' an e 610 u!ew /uepy�uol6""AA aV•I a: 4'oasb aue(,: l$113n1a 17. .77111.13 ueLt!Y cioq:la t 4-5 p8 e<Lr � puaet ado!s(uung'- a� S ewoi m!w pa adr n al!lny� ; MOW U819 a56a� H^°sur'' d c mainaNEn uo6ueD oalo919e5 2 °°b 177u7w,1 !o aPI•.•U,sa3 1a6a1S alNun8 f PH eua,aD aoy and pum,aglal a,,y man ant, u.P3 ,o °wa,aua Isa3 s6upsoa0 aun diem A4unoo app.ianw RCTC Grade Separation Priority Update Study Priority Ranking Results Includes: 1. Table with Priority Ranking Results for each Methodology and comparing to 2006 Priority Results 2. Map showing Priority Ranking Results for each Methodology Comparison of Priority Groupings Results with 2006 Priority Ranking Total Weighting Total Weighting 2006 Ref Rail Cross Jurisdiction Score Method Score Method Prority No. Line Street Method #1 #1 Method #2 #2 Group 36 BNSF & UP (SB SUB) Spruce St (BNSF) Riverside 4100 1 3900 1 1 19 BNSF (SB SUB) McKinley St Corona 4100 1 3700 1 1 37 BNSF & UP (SB SUB) Chicago Av Riverside 3750 1 3450 1 1 35 BNSF & UP (SB SUB) 3rd St Riverside 3575 1 3275 1 1 50 UP (YUMA MAIN) Hargrave St Banning 3750 1 3250 1 2 17 BNSF (SB SUB) Joy St Corona 3186 2 3186 1 4 29 BNSF (SB SUB) Madison St Riverside 3475 1 3175 1 2 27 BNSF (SB SUB) Adams St Riverside 3525 1 3125 1 2 23 BNSF (SB SUB) Tyler St Riverside 3300 1 3000 1 2 3 UP (LA SUB) Jurupa Rd Jurupa Valley 2925 2 2925 1 1 48 UP (YUMA MAIN) 22nd St Banning 3283 1 2883 2 2 1 UP (LA SUB) Bellgrave Av Jurupa Valley 2783 2 2883 2 3 44 UP (YUMA MAIN) Viele Av Beaumont 2783 2 2883 2 4 49 UP (YUMA MAIN) San Gorgonio Av Banning 3217 1 2817 2 2 60 UP (YUMA MAIN) Avenue 66 Riverside County 2525 3 2525 2 3 59 UP (YUMA MAIN) Avenue 62 Riverside County 2504 3 2504 2 3 16 BNSF (SB SUB) Sheridan St Corona 2332 3 2482 2 5 22 BNSF (SB SUB) Pierce St Riverside 2675 2 2475 2 3 31 BNSF (SB SUB) Mary St Riverside 2750 2 2450 2 2 2 UP (LA SUB) Rutile St Jurupa Valley 2267 3 2417 3 4 41 BNSF & UP (SB SUB) Center St Riverside County 2582 2 2332 3 2 46 UP (YUMA MAIN) Pennsylvania Av Beaumont 2717 2 2317 3 4 30 BNSF (SB SUB) Washington St Riverside 2475 3 2275 3 4 13 BNSF (SB SUB) Smith Av Corona 2468 3 2268 3 2 45 UP (YUMA MAIN) California Av Beaumont 2600 2 2250 3 3 26 BNSF (SB SUB) Jackson St Riverside 2350 3 2250 3 4 34 BNSF & UP (SB SUB) 7th St Riverside 2500 3 2200 3 2 51 UP (YUMA MAIN) Apache Trail Riverside County 2011 4 2011 3 4 15 BNSF (SB SUB) Cota St Corona 1954 4 2004 3 4 21 BNSF (SB SUB) Buchanan St Riverside 2000 4 1900 4 3 52 UP (YUMA MAIN) Broadway _ Riverside County 2039 4 1889 4 4 28 BNSF (SB SUB) Jefferson St Riverside 1875 4 1875 4 4 14 BNSF (SB SUB) Railroad St Corona 2046 3 1846 4 3 39 BNSF & UP (SB SUB) Palmyrita Av (UP) Riverside 1750 4 1750 4 2 43 UP (YUMA MAIN) San Timoteo Canyon Rd Calimesa 1825 4 1725 4 3 56 UP (YUMA MAIN) Avenue 54 Coachella 1500 4 1400 4 5 8 UP (LA SUB) Brockton Av Riverside 3575 4 1375 4 2 33 BNSF & UP (RIV) Cridge St Riverside 1375 5 3275 5 4 53 UP (YUMA MAIN) Tipton Rd Palm Springs 1300 5 1250 5 4 11 UP (LA SUB) Panorama Rd Riverside 1375 5 1225 5 3 24 BNSF (SB SUB) Harrison St Riverside 1300 5 1200 5 4 18 BNSF (SB SUB) Radio Rd Corona 1189 5 1139 5 5 7 UP (LA SUB) Palm Av Riverside 1275 5 1125 5 3 42 BNSF & UP (SB SUB) Main St Riverside County 1096 5 996 5 4 58 UP (YUMA MAIN) Avenue 58 Riverside County 743 5 743 5 5 25 BNSF (SB SUB) Gibson St Riverside 625 5 625 5 5 Highlights indicate different priority ranking using Methodology #1 Source for 2006 Overall Weighted Score and Priority Ranking: Riverside County Rail Crossing Priority Analysis, Final Report KHA Inc. 10/20/2006; Table 4-2 RCTC priority.012612; PriorityCompWith2006; 1/28/2012 a; °' wled satets3 tsa,`rl,gvlp r.,IFdvasag 07bz,ea SDNIadS WIVd :c O s6u Ph uor!C u,led tuz epua!7e1-1 srauud SDMEWS 101. vasy�H 1113S3a uotdu. 1aAi uewlr, L 1NOWf1V38 £b2 I ?JOCil!V -pIU01 �hf Rempemg ayoedy Q tlbWE �� ar,�g �ieH _ Pu` q e uenl/suuad �s aau 9ganuany� e9 C1 s.ged Va�>�•+H •"O aex4,Ja w •P•I."1 yecnuany \\ gS anuany Vll3H3V03 b b aun dSN6 i Pa'W IPo4,W luea s6ursoi3 tleN ON3931 wv,3 -0b �1v�s nen 4..3 .way➢ zodNl v.d:Y232.3 .Mye�xye. ,:al�xod .1.1 wj lo'J u iluy f27 -van. ....WO WV V1NI:IID V1 r. Y101,kvs elu no. Puy - \ _!6ryo6{og6'660Ueta. uosllrylN �?41g1.1 .31a I F-6NINNVB 1.t, waPrN, AtNor� LouLLK.Os o u xumueo Z m F,r6 {alien, Duey AatleA VS3WI1V &JOU i f4 .; Wv, .1alRl �-.3,0S' sN6lN yl0211.1 1 afe T 13333.1,31 ot. 4i J®yj .„" $' �a ux919 ,* -0. ) " ",01 9 8 swept' a 1D 32E . �� uouaHaC )10.00'' '*uoslpeyy ...1t3 s .• E� A.W�uoi6ulyseM YR"ri v.. seat' ..: °am..Y p'.. - aplva0p1s10 nla�! e,»!S 01 d !ic ewwou • i �yl.all$ ieP1213a6VO b°oM % ¢3 S Wp� . Povpz/uul uolssI4 ; /1,„,, E 3 aciuds ie •*0 `// "St:71��I WeW a..ur Ip • anbetlr , uodly gogeld Y o xnopmna edeannf adols(dung. - pA 41ed puolea a•la - :.rues` 4, A ` e1gs lurinp " saluad �p pH e•r .mrik , 5i alpnyl6 anegallag� � UOny Ueer e sn�H ed„nP ewoi envy Pb edn�n,- x ®---. ` _ :O.Wv.xa He3 6wPIuea 4210Pd APNS Z I.OZ S6LIPS0213 Ilea uw(ueD oarow1 ues X a1/ �nJ.uv* 3,3 0d punuaylal .nyllu.yl a..y u.ap3