HomeMy Public PortalAbout05 May 18, 2015 Technical Advisory CommitteeCOMM-TAC-00039
TIME:
DATE:
LOCATION:
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA*
*Actions may be taken on any item listed on the agenda.
10:00 A.M.
May 18, 2015
Riverside County Transportation Commission
4080 Lemon Street, Third Floor
Riverside, CA 92501
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act and government Code Section 54954.2, if you need special
assistance to participate in a Committee meeting, please contact the 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 January 26, 2015 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. SB 16 (Attachment)
6 Strategic Assessment (Attachment)
7. Legislative Update (Attachment)
8. Principles of State Transportation Revenue
9. 2015/16 and 2016/17 TUMF Programming (Handout will be provided at the meeting.)
10. FY 2014/15 Obligation Plan (Attachment)
11. 2015 FTIP Update (Attachment)
12. TIGER Cycle 7 — Riverside County Project List (Attachment)
13. ATP Update — Cycle 1 and 2 Status (Attachment)
14. Measure A Five -Year CIP Submittal Update (Attachment)
Technical Advisory Committee Meeting
May 18, 2015
Page 2
15. Local Assistance Update (Attachment)
• Performance End Date New Directive Impacting Federally Funded Projects
• HSIP Cycle 7
• DBE FY 2015/16 Submittals
• Updated Local Assistance Staffing Assigned to Local Agencies
• Caltrans Local Assistance Web Links to Check for Project Status, E-76 Status, and
Invoice Reimbursement Status
16. May Commission Meeting Highlights (Verbal Presentation)
17. Other Business
18. Adjournment (The next meeting will be July 20 in Beaumont.)
... AGENCY -----BANNING BEAUMONT BLYTHE CVAG TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE May 18, 2015 TAC MEMBER i ALTERNATE PRINT NAME ART VELA j Holly Stuart ! Acting Director of Public Worlol-1 Public Work:alyst KYLE WARSINSKI Kelsey Gormley Development Services Director Management Analyst • Director of Pu~ic Wo~NE 1---I -_ _[_ --!Allyn Waggle I Deputy Director CALIMESA TMICHAEL THORNTON Bob French H·~~T~ City Engineer Public Works Director SIGNATURE /flt!!/)17 JJ7:::;----CAL TRANS SEAN YEUNG ! .A ()W/J;(t; ~ f)J; ~ I I ~ ~ t-µ.tJS~fG ~ , District Local Assistance En~ineer i /' 1hA}fjlt1b ~ ~p~ ( CANYON LAKE IHABIB MOTLAGH. C-HAIR --- --_l---City Engineer L___ ------__ ___.__ ~ CATHEDRAL CITY IJOHN CORELLA !Bill Simons --t; A /"" _ , A 1 City Engineer Senior Engineer ~u • \....c>Kt:: l l --------------, I ~ COACHELLA I JONATHAN HOY I Maritza Martinez I j CA. CORON_A ___ ICityn;;~s:Dir~ ';;~;;~;:gin~r . o~ 1-----------l L-----~-I ·=---J~-----_______ _J DESERT HOT SPRINGS DANIEL PORRAS Contract Assistant City Engineer Richard Kopecky Contract City Engineer
EASTVALE GEORGE ALVAREZ City Engineer TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE May 18, 2015 Joe lndrawan HEMET -------11HABIBMOTLAGH 1 City Engineer INDIAN WELLS INDIO KEN SEUMALO Public Works Director TIM WASSIL Public Works Director I Bondie Baker Assistant Engineer II ----+-Tom Rafferty Principal Civil Engineer ~~ N'b~Jli, -------i--------------LA QUINTA JURUPA VALLEY ~~~c~~~~::r/Cicy Eng:r I_ _ ------ -----~ TIMOTHY JONASSON l'etya11 folcl(u111ey ~I 6 {J) Public Works Director/City Engineer /Principal Engineer urn~ I ~Mz:a_ NORE IATI ESKANDARI --ktta Thompson -·---1----------------------Consultant Project Manager 1 · ----~ 1-1/ MENIFEE --~~=~~=• ~~~!r/City Engineer 1--L -----/~-------MORENO VALLEY AH~ADANSA~I . . PremKuma~ ----.-. -~-1,)---,-,i/ _) // Public Works D1rector/C1ty Engineer Deputy Public Works Director/ ' ~ ~'vvi\/\.A/Z /._./1-~ l _ Assistant City Engineer i/ t' ,c~,-ty --_ __ __ JeffHitch 1.-;--------------~~-----1NORCO l:::LE::::~SON 1LoriAskeW--Bl/ --+----------------·-------Water and Sewer Manager Director of Public Works , MURRIETA BOB MOEHLING I
PALM DESERT TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE May 18, 2015 ,4 PALM SPRINGS BO CHEN City Engineer Mark Diercks Transportation Engineer MARCUS FULLER -----!savatKhamphou /t \ tJ ~· ' ~ p \ / 1.,C C_ ~!-__ --+--PERRIS RTA Assistant City Manager/City Engineer HABIB MOTLAGH City Engineer ROHAN KURUPPU 1AA,A g, c.i\ 'Y>rorly ~ iBill Enos r! ·-C~ -------:~::;:9:::mma~ c~_ RANCHO MIRAGE I BRUCE HARRY· VICE CHAIR Director of Public Works ~Q_~r _=!_4_<_l~_l RIVERSIDE TOM BOYD Public Works Director ' RIVERSIDE COUNTY I PATRICIA ROMO SAN JACINTO SUNLINE Assistant Director of Transportation HABIB MOTLAGH I City Engineer BEVERLY BARR-FORD Engineering Manager +------------~---' Mojahed Salama ~f!Ac\ \Sr~/ Anita M. Petke Deputy Chief Administrative Officer I Transit Planning Manager TEMECULA 'WILDOMAR 'WRCOG TOM GARCIA Public Works Director DAN YORK Assistant City Manager/Director of Public Works/City Engineer RUTHANNE TAYLOR BERGER Deputy Executive Director Amer Attar Janet Morales I Administrative Assistant Donna Dean Program Manager ~~ (ij~JA-~ I ' I ~(s '-j fV\t~~ 1----------------I i -
AGENCY TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE May 18, 2015 __ _J__ _N~ME TELEPHONE OR E-MAIL c,-ty ~ Cor-"l'V\~ I R~ /VltL-/-r~q,, ~c--=r0_=-:_-i_l<l~~-q.J~ i~·"'a~f;M=-e~"ccro.-. ~"'' ---------~-t ~-~ ~]~ ~-~ ----+-----·-------·-··-----------------------£!---------·----------(4 rz u /( ~ re-flH-idt· IS'Vr f<.;VQ4-:>/de ec~T-"f i J tf------_p-..._tc:>~_,,..r_~f~~ !?qi_. ___ J ___ ~1_!_ ii ('-Y-P. tli --------~---UJ RCOG 'f".6-tz:..So µ_ S f) \C('fS $ f-4 t:::.:<2-Vl ...J. /:>. Cc:J1r,. ,..._1f ,i1.. C..C:f3t:> @ f-l v CfZ.-J'a-') C:: ~f'~.,,_J!_·tr. --~~---1-------------M_Q\X__~ ~\AJvi.o· J MV"l&t(bl~~ ~c,+c--a"'i -----------------+---------_______ ivl__ ----1---------------------------~ ~ ___ LJ2MM@_W@_co~_.._ _ _LQ~-~ ~(}.,s _ ---------1 i ~\ft.., f l(.10~4-1~~lf;_ "f'."L'='.Wfut,;;{.;l C t">_...;:\ 1¢ -~.:.••rev >...'! u....-vi -------------------------·--------------··--------· --------·-----------------·-----~""\<; ,.,Jl_~-v~""' ___ _____ __ -~\_. S '""-\\;~"'---~-\)'°"-rs c_:~~\.,~ ~-C)<2Y-9 ~ ~;-1¥1e\/Ot\ I SeYse-<-Jv'"\~vo0~@~ pcHSc-vv(. coyV\ ------------1-----~"'-"'-s --\ _,Q;.110~ <!,..._, -I /---1 o v~ k.eJ. S"' /e... wi ~ 1-VVI $ "'l a.<M"' «' rc:_ ti l4ol ~__')____ _ _ ___ _ GI TY oC ivforitr,Jc, VAU-E'( I /3'12{ c /_.61.,1.}t S t1 E£ti( C,I_,£., ~ f1o\IALr. ot<-6" ----------------· -+-----t~-------------···----i---+=------------------·---------------.---~---·------------~---·-------------·-----------· .. -------·-1----------------------1----=--=----= =-~t= =-I I -------=1=--~=----=----=i I I
MINUTES
TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING
MINUTES
Monday, January 26, 2015
1. CALL TO ORDER
The meeting of the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) Technical Advisory Committee (TAC)
was called to order at 10:01 a.m. at the Riverside County Transportation Commission 4080 Lemon Street,
Riverside, CA.
2. SELF -INTRODUCTIONS
Members Present:
Others Present:
Lori Askew, City of Norco
Tom Boyd, City of Riverside
Donna Dean, WRCOG
Marcus Fuller, City of Palm Springs
Tom Garcia, City of Temecula
Bruce Harry, City of Rancho Mirage
Prem Kumar, City of Moreno Valley
Bob Moehling, City of Murrieta
Robert Morin, City of Corona
Habib Motlagh, Cities of Canyon Lake,
Hemet, Perris and San Jacinto
Daniel Porras, City of Desert Hot Springs
Ken Seumalo, City of Indian Wells
Michael Thornton, City of Calimesa, via telephone
Sean Yeung, Caltrans
Dan York, City of Wildomar
Mervin Acebo, Riverside Transit Agency
Grace Alvarez, RCTC
Amer Attar, City of Temecula
Chris Benz -Blumberg, Caltrans
Eric DeHate, RCTC
Vince Demasse, City of Lake Elsinore
Shirley Gooding, RCTC
Aaron Hake, RCTC
Kevin Hughes, City of Beaumont
Eric Lewis, City of Moreno Valley
Rafael Martinez, City of Menifee
Shirley Medina, RCTC
Lorelle Moe -Luna, RCTC
Thuy Nguyen, City of Riverside
Roy Null, County of Riverside
Mike Phillips, Cambria Solutions
Theron Roschen, Quincy Engineering
Mojahed Salama, County of Riverside
John Standiford, RCTC
Theresia Trevino, RCTC
Ed Wimmer, City of La Quinta
Technical Advisory Committee Meeting
January 26, 2015
Page 2
3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Minutes were approved as submitted.
Abstain: Bruce Harry
4. PUBLIC COMMENTS
There were no public comments.
5. ELECTION OF OFFICERS
Habib Motlagh, Cities of Canyon Lake, Hemet, Perris, and San Jacinto was unanimously nominated
and elected Chair for the Western County; and Bruce Harry, City of Rancho Mirage, was
unanimously nominated and elected Vice Chair for the Eastern County, both for one year term (due
to upcoming retirement) commencing January 2015.
6. MEASURE A PROJECTIONS AND OTHER MEASURE A MATTERS
a. FY 2014/15 Mid -Year Revenue Projections, Measure A, LTF, TUMF
b. FY 2015/16 Revenue Projections, Measure A, LTF, TUMF
c. Measure A Allocation Calculation Formula
Theresia Trevino, RCTC, said RCTC does annual revenue projections in the December/January
timeframe, which includes the local transportation fund that is primarily for transit purposes, as well
as the TUMF revenue projections. She said RCTC reviews mid -year projections to see if fiscal year
adjustments need to be made. She explained revenue projections, capital improvement plan
preparations, economic studies, forecasts, historical trends, and current revenue trends. She
further stated that Measure A is based on place of consumption versus point of sale.
Ms. Trevino reported that unemployment has come down significantly and Riverside County grew
1.1 percent, which is faster than the state's growth. Spending in Riverside County has bounced back
and taxable sales are above the pre -recession peak, which was in the second quarter of 2006.
She responded to various questions.
7. 2015 LEGISLATIVE PLATFORM AND PREVIEW
Aaron Hake, RCTC, reported that transportation revenue has been declining and is on a poor path
with fuel efficiency vehicles and declining gas tax revenues. In April 2015, the federal highway
authorization expires. He suggested that the TAC submit any questions they may have to him so he
may represent those issues to a team of lobbyists in Washington, especially this reauthorization
year.
Governor Brown's philosophy for the state is restraint. He identified repair and rehabilitation for
roads, bridges, and highways as a priority.
Technical Advisory Committee Meeting
January 26, 2015
Page 3
Mr. Hake said in September, Governor Brown signed a bill creating a pilot program to begin a
vehicle -miles traveled (VMT) pilot in California. The California Transportation Commission (CTC)
set up a committee that is designing a pilot that will be implemented in about two years — SB 1077.
The Commission's position is not to support or oppose a VMT program but to support its thorough
investigation and to make sure its investigation is applied to the dynamics of Riverside County.
8. STATE CAP AND TRADE (CAT) FUNDING AND DISADVANTAGED COMMUNITIES
John Standiford, RCTC, reported that AB 32 is legislation that set statewide objectives for reducing
greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, including authorization of a program that capped allowable
carbon emissions by certain industries and created a market for carbon credits to be purchased
above the cap. He further reported that this program is administered by the California Air
Resources Board (CARB). CARB holds regular auctions of carbon credits; the price of credits
fluctuates based on the market's demand. These credit purchases create a revenue stream to fund
projects that mitigate carbon emissions. SB 535 requires that 25 percent of all Cap and Trade (CAT)
funds must be spent on projects physically located within disadvantaged communities.
He announced a public workshop to discuss funds available under CAT programs that will be held at
the city of Riverside City Hall on January 30, 3:00-5:00. He responded to various questions.
9. 2015 FTIP UPDATE
Eric DeHate, RCTC, presented an update to the 2015 FTIP. He announced the transition from the
2013 FTIP to the 2015 FTIP that took place on December 15, 2014. With the federal approval of the
2015 FTIP was Amendment No. 2 to the Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities
Strategies (RTP/SCS). In addition, Formal Amendment No. 1 was also approved. On December 16,
2014, SCAG approved Administrative Modification No. 2.
In December 2014, SCAG opened Formal Amendment No. 4 to the 2015 FTIP. RCTC participated in
this amendment and included changes to 28 projects; the amendment was submitted to SCAG on
December 23, 2014. RCTC anticipates the approval of this amendment in mid -February.
Mr. DeHate also reported that SCAG opened and processed a consistency amendment to the 2015
FTIP called Formal Amendment No. 99 (placeholder amendment). Currently, there are seven
projects, one local highway and six state highway projects reflecting modeling changes that were
not incorporated with the 2016 RTP. This is anticipated to be approved concurrently with the 2016
RTP/SCS.
Attached to this report is the 2015 FTIP Amendment Log and within the report is a hyperlink to
SCAG's website where each agency can download the latest project listings to the 2015 FTIP.
Technical Advisory Committee Meeting
January 26, 2015
Page 4
10. 2015 DRAFT OBLIGATION DELIVERY PLAN
Grace Alvarez, RCTC, reported that RCTC was very successful with the FFY 2013/14 Obligation
Authority Delivery. She said our region over obligated CMAQ and RSTP funds by $12.24 million.
$9.8 million of the over obligation has been deducted from our FFY 2015/15 obligation authority
balance, giving the region $2.44 million in August Redistribution.
She said the Draft FFY 2014/15 Obligation Plan attached to the staff report has been modified to
track the progress of the planned obligations. Since most of the projects come from a competitive
process and points were awarded to the projects based on project readiness, RCTC decided to
include in the comment section of the spreadsheet the agreement number, the project phase that is
funded, and the anticipated start of the funded project phase based on the executed agreements.
RCTC will continue to monitor the progress of the project delivery to use as a new scoring criteria
for future call for projects.
11. ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM (ATP) UPDATES
Lorelle Moe -Luna, RCTC, said the ATP goals are to increase the proportion of biking and walking
trips, increase safety and mobility for non -motorized users, advance the efforts of regional agencies
to achieve greenhouse gas reduction goals, enhance public health, and benefit Disadvantaged
Communities.
Eligible applicants may include public agencies such as cities, counties, Metropolitan Planning
Organizations, Regional Transportation Planning Agencies, and school districts, essentially anyone
who can comply with all federal and state regulations and enter into a Master Agreement with
Caltrans. Eligible projects can be: 1) infrastructure such as environmental, design, right of way, and
construction; 2) non -infrastructure projects for education or pilot programs; or 3) community -wide
active transportation plans.
Ms. Moe -Luna further said Cycle 2 of the ATP will commence on March 26, 2015 upon the adoption
of the program guidelines by the CTC. Approximately $359 million is available from three years of
funding under MAP-21 for two years of programming. At least 25 percent of the funds must be to
benefit disadvantaged communities. Draft program guidelines and the project application have
been released. The distribution of the funds will remain the same as in Cycle 1 with 50 percent for
the statewide competition, 40 percent for large MPOs, and 10 percent for small urban/rural areas.
Additionally 5 percent is set aside for active transportation plans. The ATP process includes
sequential project selection, meaning that all projects are first submitted for the statewide
competition then are automatically considered for the large MPO share. Cycle 2 applications are
due May 31, 2015.
She said staff is happy to assist wherever possible — whether it is by reviewing applications and
allocation requests or working with Caltrans and the CTC.
Technical Advisory Committee Meeting
January 26, 2015
Page 5
12. SB 821 REVAMPED GUIDELINES AND ANNOUNCEMENT FOR CALL FOR PROJECTS
Eric DeHate, RCTC, reported that on January 14, the Commission adopted new evaluation criteria
and adopted policies as part of the SB 821 bicycle and pedestrian facilities program. Notable
changes to the evaluation criteria are:
• Reduction of total points from 110 to 50;
• New categories are: destinations served, project enhancement, and multimodal access;
• Eliminated categories are: use, importance as a transportation alternative, missing
link/extension/or connectivity, and physical accessibility enhancement.
Notable changes to the adopted policies include:
• TDA Article 3 guidelines;
• Moves the program from an annual basis to a biennial basis;
• Gives staff the ability to award partial funding to projects if the full amount is not available;
• Does not allow for temporary facilities, or projects under bid or construction to be funded;
• Changes the evaluation committee composition from 3 TAC and 3 CAC members to just 5
people representing a wide range of interests;
• Staff monitoring to ensure Coachella Valley allocations at least meet what their allocation
would be by population;
• Provides clarification of eligible expenses.
Mr. DeHate stated that consistent with the Commission -adopted policy to release an SB 821 call for
projects on a biennial basis, the next call for projects will be released on Monday, February 2, 2015.
There will be approximately $3.3 million available in this call. Consistent with years past, there will
be an optional Technical Workshop held at RCTC February 12.
13. CALRECYCLE GRANT OPPORTUNITIES FOR TIRE DERIVED AGGREGATES
Theron Roschen, Quincy Engineering, discussed the CalRecycle program regarding rubberized
asphalt.
14. STANDARD ENVIRONMENTAL REFERENCE
Chris Benz -Blumberg, Caltrans, provided a fact sheet for new categorical exclusions (CEs) under 23
CFR 771.117(c), CEs moved from the "D list" to the "C list" and programmatic agreements for
CEs — effective November 5, 2014. He explained the changes in the lists as well as general
considerations and responded to questions.
Technical Advisory Committee Meeting
January 26, 2015
Page 6
15. LOCAL ASSISTANCE UPDATE
Sean Yeung, Caltrans, reported that inactive projects were recently updated on the Caltrans website
and whether a project is labeled active or inactive, an invoice should be submitted no later than
February 20. On Thursday, January 29, there will be an Architecture and Engineer (A&E) Selection
process training at Caltrans, room 805, from 8:30 to about 4:00.
Mr. Yeung requested that when submitting documents through local assistance, please make sure
the studies are bound and have the federal projects number on them, not just on the cover sheet.
He said that regarding the Prop 1B TCIF program, more periodic reporting is requested.
He said for the FFY 2014/15, there are still several agencies that have not submitted an exhibit 9D
for Disadvantaged Business Enterprise that is required to process RFA applications.
In May or June 2015, a notice will be sent from Local Assistance requesting the 9D form for next
fiscal year.
16. JANUARY COMMISSION MEETING HIGHLIGHTS
Shirley Medina, RCTC, said there will be a Commission Workshop in Palm Springs. She said a
one -page flyer will be sent to the TAC.
17. OTHER BUSINESS
The TAC was reminded to complete the electronic survey that was sent out on December 18
regarding pedestrian and bicycle facilities.
18. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business for consideration by the Technical Advisory Committee, the
meeting adjourned at approximately 12:03 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Shirley Medina
Planning and Programming Director
AGENDA ITEM 5
SB 16 (Beall):
Status: Passed Senate Transportation & Housing Committee (6-1) with the required 2/3rds vote. Next,
SB 16 will be heard in Senate Government & Finance Committee.
Digest:
• Requires Caltrans to produce a plan to achieve 30% cost efficiency within 3 years. Savings are
directed to transportation projects.
• Raises $3+ billion annually for road maintenance on local roads and state highways via multiple
user fees and returning money owed to transportation from the General Fund:
o $100 fee for zero -emission vehicles;
o 10 cent gas tax increase;
o 12 cent diesel tax increase;
o $35 Vehicle Registration Fee;
o 0.35% Vehicle License Fee (phased in over 5 years);
o Repay transportation fund loans from the General Fund; and
o Return truck weight fees from the General Fund.
• After a 5% set -aside to incentivize new self-help counties to pass sales tax measures, funds are
divided equally between the state and cities/counties. City/county funds are distributed by
formula based on road -miles and number of registered vehicles. State oversight is provided but
there is no state authority over project selection by locals.
Notes:
• This bill meets 5 of the 6 principles recommended adopted by the Quality of Life & Sustainability
ad hoc committee. A matrix of how SB 16 matches up to the principles is attached.
• Supporters of SB 16 include: League of California Cities, California State Association of Counties
(CSAC), Self -Help Counties Coalition (SHCC), Associated General Contractors (AGC), United
Contractors, California Alliance for Jobs, and several labor organizations including carpenters
and laborers.
• Opposition to SB 16 is currently limited to Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association (HJTA).
SB 16 (Beall) as measured by proposed RCTC Principles - 5/13/15
RCTC Principles
1) Restore transportation funds for
transportation projects.
SB 16 (Beall) Comments
YES
Repays all outstanding General Fund loans
by 2018.
2) Regional/local share with
Regional/local decision -making
and geographic equity.
3) Geographic equity for state funds.
4) User -pay = User -benefit.
5) Reduce the costs of delivery.
6) Fund trade corridors.
MOSTLY
NO
YES
Cities and Counties must submit project
lists for the upcoming budget year to the
CTC to ensure that the objectives of the
State (rehab and safety of roadways) is
being met. Important language in the bill:
"This project list shall not limit the
flexibility of an eligible local agency to fund
projects in accordance with local needs
and priorities..."
RCTC staff suggests potentially seeking an
amendment that would allow cities and
counties to do this consistency finding
with the regional transportation planning
agency (aka, RCTC) as a surrogate for the
State.
50% of revenue will go to the State
Highway Operations and Protection
Program (SHOPP). These funds are
controlled by Caltrans and there is no
guarantee of geographic equity (the
program is typically driven by needs).
There has been a recent push in some
quarters for increased transparency and
equity in how SHOPP is administered.
Revenues are derived from motorist user
fees; expenditures are restricted for use
only on roadways.
YES
Requires Caltrans to present a plan to the
CTC by April 2016 reduce Department
efficiency by 30%
YES
Two cents from the diesel tax increase will
be deposited in the Trade Corridors
Improvement Fund (TCIF) — the program
which provided several grade separations
in Riverside County and the I-215/Van
Buren Interchange.
Estimated u1March zo15
RIVERSIDE COUNTY
BEAUMONT
BLYTHE
Proposed New Local Streets&Roads Funding preliminary estimates
Estimated Allocations of $1.33 billion and $1.71 billion
Allocation if Allocation if
$1.33 billion $1.71 billion
CALMESA
CANYON LAKE
COACHELLA
CORONA
166,952
227,680
292,731
1.071.788 1.378.013
885,020
3,227,717
DESERT HOT SPRINGS 567.052
EASTVALE 1.200.465
MEMET 1.653.837
INDlANVVELLS 104337
[NDlO 1.6e/.202
1.543,455
2,126,361
134.148
2,182,117
3,314.737
LAQUINTA 901.003 1.158,432
L4KEELSINORE 1.150,426 1,479.120
MORENO VALLEY 4`041,603 5.196.347
MURRIETA 2.158.647 2.775.403
PALM DESERT 1.056,080 1.357,829
PALM SPRINGS 974,408
1,252,810
PERRIS 1.482,484 1.880.337
RANCHO MIRAGE 359,927 462,763
SAN]ACINTO 924166 1.188,214
TFMFCULA 2.155.888 2.771.858______
NDLDOMAR 702.102 1.018,417
CuhforvLiaCit�F�vtx*ceuon
Riverside County Erin Sasse
Page 1sm1r
AGENDA ITEM 6
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
DATE:
April 27, 2015
TO:
Budget and Implementation Committee
FROM:
Aaron Hake, Government Relations Manager
THROUGH:
John Standiford, Deputy Executive Director
SUBJECT:
Agreement with HDR Engineering, Inc. for Strategic Assessment
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
This item is for the Committee to:
1) Award Agreement No. 15-65-051-00 to HDR Engineering, Inc. (HDR) for the
development of a strategic assessment for a nine -month period for an amount not to
exceed that is under negotiation and will be presented at the Commission meeting;
2) Authorize the Chair or Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute
the agreement on behalf of the Commission; and
3) Forward to the Commission for final action.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
Purpose of Strategic Assessment
The Commission is at a defining moment: it has been successfully accomplishing its mission of
delivering transportation projects that are measurably improving the quality of life of the
people of Riverside County (County). As several Commissioners noted at the January 2015
Commission Workshop, the Commission's mantra has been "Promises Made, Promises Kept"
with the voters of the County. Several members of the public are aware of the progress being
made on the County's infrastructure by way of the many highways under construction. Much
of this concentrated construction activity is due to the forward -thinking of the Commission
when it adopted the Measure A 10-Year Western Riverside County Highway Delivery Plan in
2006, which prioritized several major projects such as State Route 91, Interstates 15 and 215 to
"front -load" the renewed Measure A sales tax.
As these projects come to fruition, it is clear that much work still remains to be done to bring
the County's infrastructure up to par to facilitate the economic and quality of life vision the
public expects. Yet, Measure A's ability to maintain the current level of progress is restricted
over the long-term while state and federal funding streams are uncertain at best. The County is
continuing to grow in terms of population and employment as it recovers from an economic
recession that hit the Inland Empire region harder than the rest of the state. New state and
federal environmental policies are in place. The Commission will be operating tolled express
Agenda Item 9
lanes in less than two years, becoming a business enterprise with customers. Generational
shifts within the workforce (Baby Boomers retiring and Millennials hiring) raise legitimate
questions as to whether there will be changes in travel behavior and housing preferences.
Technology continues to disrupt the transportation sector with mobile applications being used
to get from point A to point B and the prospect of autonomous vehicles on the horizon.
In short, now is an important time to take stock of the infrastructure policies, plans, and
funding streams and analyze where the County is headed demographically, economically, and
environmentally. Such an analysis allows the Commission to assess whether the status quo is
appropriate to address the County's current and future transportation infrastructure needs, as
measured by the Commission's guiding principles developed at the 2015 Workshop:
• Together, the Commission is imagining and implementing an efficient transportation
system for the good of all in the County.
• The Commission is the people the Commission serves. Economic prosperity and quality
of life is enhanced with proper transportation. The public trust is vital to the
Commission's mission.
• The Commission operates in a dynamic environment. The Commission will remain
flexible in order to respond to change and opportunity. The Commission will focus on
projects and allocate funds that support the quality of life in the County. The
Commission collaborates in partnerships to maximize the Commission's ability to get
people where they want to go and when they want to get there.
• The Commission's priority is to serve the public need. The Commission will invest in a
transportation system that moves community members, visitors, and goods. This
system will support the Commission's economy and the Commission's future prosperity
and is vital to attract and retain quality jobs to the Commission's region.
• The Commission is dedicated to environmental stewardship. The Commission will use
existing regional and countywide plans, such as the Riverside County Integrated Plan, as
a framework for our decisions. The Commission knows that goods moving to, within,
and through the County are vital to the Commission's economy; however the
Commission desires and will work toward a future where there is a balance between
goods movement and the Commission's quality of life.
Thus, staff proposes to conduct a high-level strategic assessment to prepare the Commission
for several significant upcoming decision -making processes, including but not limited to:
• 2016 and 2020 Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) Regional
Transportation Plan (RTP)/Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS);
• 2019 Measure A Expenditure Plan review, as required by the 2002 Measure A
ordinance;
• Implementation of tolling programs on SR-91 and 1-15; and
• Development of a long-range Countywide Transportation Plan.
Agenda Item 9
These processes are additional to critical decisions with which the Commission will need to
grapple regarding important projects mentioned at the 2015 Commission Workshop that are
still in development yet lack sufficient funding, including but not limited to:
• SR-79
• Mid County Parkway
• Rail to Coachella Valley
• Rail to San Jacinto Valley
• Alternate East-West Corridors
Several other counties in California have recently undertaken similar analyses. Transportation
agencies throughout the state, particularly in self-help counties with a voter -approved half -cent
sales tax for transportation projects, are undertaking serious introspection at to what is realistic
in light of declining revenue, increasing public expectations, demographic and policy shifts, and
deteriorating infrastructure. Staff researched extensively other counties' approaches to
assessing needs and public priorities and then crafted the scope of work in its request for
proposals (RFP) for the strategic assessment based on those experiences yet tailored to the
County's unique needs.
Overview of Strategic Assessment Process
The strategic assessment will analyze planning and financial data to best match public priorities
with economic and demographic realities.
The assessment will begin with a data -driven inventory of existing funding streams, government
policies at all levels, and recent planning studies in the County. The assessment will then look
at forecasts for County growth and identify potential funding and policy gaps that could emerge
as a result. A strategic outreach process will gather public input on long-term transportation
priorities throughout the County. This process will involve a variety of tactics and
methodologies including in -person public meetings, online tools, and traditional phone surveys.
The assessment will also take into consideration transportation plans and priorities of
stakeholders within the County, including local governments, private sector groups, and social
service providers. All of this external input will be measured against what the data -driven
analysis says about the County's future, providing a clearer picture to the Commission of where
there may be gaps going forward.
It is staff's strong desire to see this effort culminate in a set of findings and strategic
recommendations that become a useful tool for Commissioners to address regional
transportation and quality of life issues. The proposed agreement establishes a timeline that
would result in a final strategic assessment being delivered to the Commission at its 2016
Commission Workshop. At the 2016 Workshop, the Commission will have an opportunity to
have an in-depth dialogue about the realities conveyed by the strategic assessment and
actionable steps to move forward. This will be a natural building block from the visioning
discussion that took place at it 2015 Commission Workshop.
Agenda Item 9
Throughout the next eight months, staff recommends the Quality of Life and Sustainability Ad
Hoc Committee serve as the venue for Commissioners to monitor and provide input to staff and
consultants regarding the progress of the strategic assessment. Commissioner input will be
critical to ensuring that the most effective approaches are utilized in this multi -faceted analysis
and outreach.
A visual representation of the overall structure of the strategic assessment process and future
applications is as follows:
ASSESSMENT
STRATEGIC
CONSIDERATIONS STRATEGIES
APPLICATIONS
Lid sti ng
& Future
Conditions
Financial
Situation
Partner
Agency
Priorities
Public and
Stakeholder
Attitudes
Planning/
Policy Gaps
Improvement
Needs/Costs
Funding
Gap
Integrated
Transportation
System
Regional
Diversity
Partner
Priorities
Address Needs
& Financial
Scenarios
Address
Planning/Policy
Gaps
Build
Public Relationships:
Attitudes -Public
- Stakeholders
- Customers
- Agency Partners
Cost/Funding
Realities
Federal &
State Policies/
Regulations
Political
Realities
Address Public
Attitudes
Implementation
Timeframes
Lang -Range
Countywide
Transportation
Flan
County
General Plan
Update
Measure A
Expenditure
Plan Review
Funding
Ailacdtion
Decisions
Agenda Item 9
Procurement Process
This procurement was conducted in accordance with established Commission procurement
policies and procedures. Staff determined the weighted factor method of source selection to
be the most appropriate for this procurement, as it allows the Commission to identify the most
advantageous proposal with price and other factors considered. Non -price factors include
elements such as qualifications of firm and personnel and project approach and understanding
for the development of a strategic assessment as set forth under the terms of RFP No.
15-65-051-00.
RFP No. 15-65-051-00 for the development of a strategic assessment was released on
January 30, 2015. A public notice was advertised in the Press Enterprise, and the RFP was
posted on the Commission's PlanetBids website, which is accessible through the Commission's
website. Utilizing PlanetBids, emails were sent to 336 firms, 52 of which are located in
Riverside County. Through the PlanetBids site, 111 firms downloaded the RFP, and 24 of these
firms are located in Riverside County. A pre -bid conference was held on February 17, 2015, and
attended by 7 firms, of which two firms are local to Riverside County. Staff responded to all
questions submitted by potential proposers prior to the February 19 clarification deadline date.
Three firms — Cambridge Systematics, Inc. (Los Angeles); HDR (Riverside); and VRPA
Technologies, Inc. (Fresno) — submitted responsive proposals prior to the 2:00 p.m. submittal
deadline on March 12. Utilizing the evaluation criteria set forth in the RFP, all firms were
evaluated and scored by an evaluation committee comprised of four Commission staff
members and one member from the San Bernardino Associated Governments.
Based on the evaluation committee's assessment of the written proposals and pursuant to the
terms of the RFP, the evaluation committee short listed and invited two firms to the interview
phase of the evaluation and selection process. Interviews of the short listed firms — HDR and
VRPA Technologies, Inc. — were conducted on April 3, 2015.
As a result of the completion of the evaluation process, the evaluation committee recommends
contract award to HDR to perform a strategic assessment for a nine -month term, as this firm
earned the highest total evaluation score.
Staff commenced negotiations with HDR regarding a cost that is consistent with similar projects
in other California counties, within the Commission's budget, and is competitive with the other
two proposals received. Negotiations will conclude shortly and details will be disclosed on the
agenda for the Commission meeting on May 13, presuming the Committee moves this item
forward. The Commission's standard form professional services agreement will be entered into
with HDR, subject to any changes approved by the Executive Director and pursuant to legal
counsel review.
HDR's Southern California office locations include the cities of Claremont, Irvine, Long Beach,
Los Angeles, Pasadena, Riverside, and San Diego, and it teamed with other firms including
Creative Infrastructure Solutions, Moore Methods, Parsons Brinckerhoff, AMMA Transit
Agenda Item 9
Planning, Katherine Padilla & Associates, Fehr & Peers, and System Metrics Group. HDR
understands the transportation issues throughout the County and has significant Southern
California experience in transportation planning, travel demand forecasting, transit planning,
traffic engineering, goods movement and combining aspects of alternatives analysis and long-
range planning with practical considerations of project funding and implementation of context -
sensitive design. It is important to note that several of the firms on the HDR team have
previously provided professional services for the Commission, Western Riverside Council of
Governments, Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Agency , and Coachella Valley
Association of Governments, among other local agencies, providing a great deal of familiarity
with the County's transportation dynamics. This familiarity allows for HDR to meet an
aggressive schedule and minimizes costs of conducting new research. Finally, HDR's proposed
approach demonstrates a strategic thinking process at each stage of the project that recognizes
the need for this effort to be understandable and useful for the general public, Commissioners,
as well as transportation professionals.
Conclusion
Staff is confident HDR will provide the Commission with quality service at a fair price. The
strategic assessment will result in a data -driven foundation for critical decision -making in the
near future.
Staff recommends the award of Agreement No. 15-65-051-00 to HDR to conduct a strategic
assessment of the Commission and the overall transportation landscape of the County through
the year 2039 for a total not to exceed amount over a nine -month period that will be presented
at its May Commission meeting.
Financial Information
In Fiscal Year Budget:
Yes
Yes
Year:
FY 2014/15
FY 2015/16
Amount:
To be determined
Source of Funds:
Local Transportation Funds (planning)
Budget Adjustment:
No
No
GL/Project Accounting No.:
002315 81501 106 65 81501
Fiscal Procedures Approved:
\I-414da),14,
Date:
04/16/2015
Attachment: HDR Agreement No. 15-65-051-00
Agenda Item 9
Agreement No. 15-65-051-00
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
AGREEMENT FOR STRATEGIC ASSESSMENT
WITH HDR ENGINEERING INC
1. PARTIES AND DATE.
This Agreement is made and entered into this day of , 2015,
by and between the RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION ("the
Commission") and HDR ENGINEERING, INC. ("Consultant"), a Nebraska corporation.
2. RECITALS.
2.1 Consultant desires to perform and assume responsibility for the
provision of certain professional consulting services required by Commission on the
terms and conditions set forth in this Agreement. Consultant represents that it is a
professional consultant, experienced in providing Strategic Assessment to public clients,
is licensed in the State of California, and is familiar with the plans of Commission.
2.2 Commission desires to engage Consultant to render certain
consulting services for the Strategic Assessment ("Project') as set forth herein.
3. TERMS.
3.1 General Scope of Services. Consultant promises and agrees to
furnish to Commission all labor materials, tools, equipment, services, and incidental and
customary work necessary to fully and adequately provide professional consulting
services and advice on various issues affecting the decisions of Commission regarding
the Project and on other programs and matters affecting Commission, hereinafter
referred to as "Services". The Services are more particularly described in Exhibit "A"
attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. All Services shall be subject to,
and performed in accordance with, this Agreement, the exhibits attached hereto and
incorporated herein by reference, and all applicable local, state, and federal laws, rules
and regulations.
3.2 Term. The term of this Agreement shall be nine months unless
earlier terminated as provided herein. Consultant shall complete the Services within the
term of this Agreement and shall meet any other established schedules and deadlines.
3.3 Schedule of Services. Consultant shall perform the Services
expeditiously, within the term of this Agreement, and in accordance with the Schedule of
Services set forth in Exhibit "B" attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference.
APPENDIX B
Consultant represents that it has the professional and technical personnel required to
perform the Services in conformance with such conditions. In order to facilitate
Consultant's conformance with the Schedule, the Commission shall respond to
Consultant's submittals in a timely manner. Upon request of the Commission,
Consultant shall provide a more detailed schedule of anticipated performance to meet
the Schedule of Services.
3.4 Independent Contractor; Control and Payment of Subordinates.
The Services shall be performed by Consultant under its supervision. Consultant will
determine the means, method and details of performing the Services subject to the
requirements of this Agreement. Commission retains Consultant on an independent
contractor basis and Consultant is not an employee of Commission. Consultant retains
the right to perform similar or different services for others during the term of this
Agreement. Any additional personnel performing the Services under this Agreement on
behalf of Consultant shall not be employees of Commission and shall at all times be
under Consultant's exclusive direction and control. Consultant shall pay all wages,
salaries, and other amounts due such personnel in connection with their performance of
Services under this Agreement and as required by law. Consultant shall be responsible
for all reports and obligations respecting such additional personnel, including, but not
limited to: social security taxes, income tax withholding, unemployment insurance, and
workers' compensation insurance.
3.5 Conformance to Applicable Requirements. All work prepared by
Consultant shall be subject to the approval of Commission.
3.6 Substitution of Key Personnel. Consultant has represented to
Commission that certain key personnel will perform and coordinate the Services under
this Agreement. Should one or more of such personnel become unavailable,
Consultant may substitute other personnel of at least equal competence and experience
upon written approval of Commission. In the event that Commission and Consultant
cannot agree as to the substitution of key personnel, Commission shall be entitled to
terminate this Agreement for cause, pursuant to provisions of Section 3.16 of this
Agreement. The key personnel for performance of this Agreement are as follows:
3.7 Commission's Representative. Commission hereby designates
Executive Director, or his or her designee, to act as its representative for the
performance of this Agreement ("Commission's Representative"). Commission's
representative shall have the power to act on behalf of Commission for all purposes
under this Agreement. Consultant shall not accept direction from any person other than
Commission's Representative or his or her designee.
3.8 Consultant's Representative. Consultant hereby designates
f INSERT NAME OR TITLE ], or his or her designee, to act as its representative
for the performance of this Agreement ("Consultant's Representative"). Consultant's
Representative shall have full authority to represent and act on behalf of the Consultant
for all purposes under this Agreement. The Consultant's Representative shall supervise
and direct the Services, using his or her best skill and attention, and shall be
responsible for all means, methods, techniques, sequences and procedures and for the
satisfactory coordination of all portions of the Services under this Agreement.
3.9 Coordination of Services. Consultant agrees to work closely with
Commission staff in the performance of Services and shall be available to Commission's
staff, consultants and other staff at all reasonable times.
3.10 Standard of Care; Licenses. Consultant shall perform the Services
under this Agreement in a skillful and competent manner, consistent with the standard
generally recognized as being employed by professionals in the same discipline in the
State of California. Consultant represents and maintains that it is skilled in the
professional calling necessary to perform the Services. Consultant warrants that all
employees and subcontractors shall have sufficient skill and experience to perform the
Services assigned to them. Finally, Consultant represents that it, its employees and
subcontractors have all licenses, permits, qualifications and approvals of whatever
nature that are legally required to perform the Services and that such licenses and
approvals shall be maintained throughout the term of this Agreement. Consultant shall
perform, at its own cost and expense and without reimbursement from Commission, any
Services necessary to correct errors or omissions which are caused by the Consultant's
failure to comply with the standard of care provided for herein, and shall be fully
responsible to the Commission for all damages and other liabilities provided for in the
indemnification provisions of this Agreement arising from the Consultant's errors and
omissions.
3.11 Laws and Regulations. Consultant shall keep itself fully informed of
and in compliance with all local, state and federal laws, rules and regulations in any
manner affecting the performance of the Project or the Services, including all Cal/OSHA
requirements, and shall give all notices required by law. Consultant shall be liable for all
violations of such laws and regulations in connection with Services. If the Consultant
performs any work knowing it to be contrary to such laws, rules and regulations and
without giving written notice to Commission, Consultant shall be solely responsible for
all costs arising therefrom. Consultant shall defend, indemnify and hold Commission, its
officials, directors, officers, employees and agents free and harmless, pursuant to the
indemnification provisions of this Agreement, from any claim or liability arising out of any
failure or alleged failure to comply with such laws, rules or regulations.
3.12 Insurance.
3.12.1 Time for Compliance. Consultant shall not commence work
under this Agreement until it has provided evidence satisfactory to the Commission that
it has secured all insurance required under this section, in a form and with insurance
companies acceptable to the Commission. In addition, Consultant shall not allow any
subcontractor to commence work on any subcontract until it has secured all insurance
required under this section.
3.12.2 Minimum Requirements. Consultant shall, at its expense,
procure and maintain for the duration of the Agreement insurance against claims for
injuries to persons or damages to property which may arise from or in connection with
the performance of the Agreement by the Consultant, its agents, representatives,
employees or subcontractors. Consultant shall also require all of its subcontractors to
procure and maintain the same insurance for the duration of the Agreement. Such
insurance shall meet at least the following minimum levels of coverage:
(A) Minimum Scope of Insurance. Coverage shall be at
least as broad as the latest version of the following: (1) General Liability: Insurance
Services Office Commercial General Liability coverage (occurrence form CG 0001 or
exact equivalent); (2) Automobile Liability: Insurance Services Office Business Auto
Coverage (form CA 0001, code 1 (any auto) or exact equivalent); and (3) Workers'
Compensation and Employer's Liability: Workers' Compensation insurance as required
by the State of California and Employer's Liability Insurance.
(B) Minimum Limits of Insurance. Consultant shall
maintain limits no less than: (1) General Liability: $2,000,000 per occurrence for bodily
injury, personal injury and property damage. If Commercial General Liability Insurance
or other form with general aggregate limit is used, either the general aggregate limit
shall apply separately to this Agreement/location or the general aggregate limit shall be
twice the required occurrence limit; (2) Automobile Liability: $1,000,000 per accident for
bodily injury and property damage; and (3) if Consultant has an employees, Workers'
Compensation and Employer's Liability: Workers' Compensation limits as required by
the Labor Code of the State of California. Employer's Practices Liability limits of
$1,000,000 per accident.
3.12.3 Professional Liability. Consultant shall procure and
maintain, and require its sub -consultants to procure and maintain, for a period of five (5)
years following completion of the Project, errors and omissions liability insurance
appropriate to their profession. Such insurance shall be in an amount not less than
$1,000,000 per claim. This insurance shall be endorsed to include contractual liability
applicable to this Agreement and shall be written on a policy form coverage specifically
designed to protect against acts, errors or omissions of the Consultant. "Covered
Professional Services" as designated in the policy must specifically include work
performed under this Agreement. The policy must "pay on behalf of the insured and
must include a provision establishing the insurer's duty to defend.
3.12.4Insurance Endorsements. The insurance policies shall
contain the following provisions, or Consultant shall provide endorsements on forms
approved by the Commission to add the following provisions to the insurance policies:
(A) General Liability.
(i) Commercial General Liability Insurance must
include coverage for (1) Bodily Injury and Property Damage; (2) Personal
Injury/Advertising Injury; (3) Premises/Operations Liability; (4) Products/Completed
Operations Liability; (5) Aggregate Limits that Apply per Project; (6) Explosion, Collapse
and Underground (UCX) exclusion deleted; (7) Contractual Liability with respect to this
Agreement; (8) Broad Form Property Damage; and (9) Independent Consultants
Coverage.
(ii) The policy shall contain no endorsements or
provisions limiting coverage for (1) contractual liability; (2) cross liability exclusion for
claims or suits by one insured against another; or (3) contain any other exclusion
contrary to the Agreement.
(iii) The policy shall give the Commission, its
directors, officials, officers, employees, and agents insured status using ISO
endorsement forms 20 10 10 01 and 20 37 10 01, or endorsements providing the exact
same coverage.
(iv) The additional insured coverage under the
policy shall be "primary and non-contributory" and will not seek contribution from the
Commission's insurance or self-insurance and shall be at least as broad as CG 20 01
04 13, or endorsements providing the exact same coverage.
(B) Automobile Liability.
(i) The automobile liability policy shall be
endorsed to state that: (1) the Commission, its directors, officials, officers, employees
and agents shall be covered as additional insureds with respect to the ownership,
operation, maintenance, use, loading or unloading of any auto owned, leased, hired or
borrowed by the Consultant or for which the Consultant is responsible; and (2) the
insurance coverage shall be primary insurance as respects the Commission, its
directors, officials, officers, employees and agents, or if excess, shall stand in an
unbroken chain of coverage excess of the Consultant's scheduled underlying coverage.
Any insurance or self-insurance maintained by the Commission, its directors, officials,
officers, employees and agents shall be excess of the Consultant's insurance and shall
not be called upon to contribute with it in any way.
Coverage.
(C) Workers' Compensation and Employers Liability
(i) Consultant certifies that he/she is aware of the
provisions of Section 3700 of the California Labor Code which requires every employer
to be insured against liability for workers' compensation or to undertake self-insurance
in accordance with the provisions of that code, and he/she will comply with such
provisions before commencing work under this Agreement.
(ii) The insurer shall agree to waive all rights of
subrogation against the Commission, its directors, officials, officers, employees and
agents for losses paid under the terms of the insurance policy which arise from work
performed by the Consultant.
(D) All Coverages.
0)
the limits set forth hereunder.
Defense costs shall be payable in addition to
(ii) Requirements of specific coverage or limits
contained in this section are not intended as a limitation on coverage, limits, or other
requirement, or a waiver of any coverage normally provided by any insurance. It shall
be a requirement under this Agreement that any available insurance proceeds broader
than or in excess of the specified minimum insurance coverage requirements and/or
limits set forth herein shall be available to the Commission, its directors, officials,
officers, employees and agents as additional insureds under said policies. Furthermore,
the requirements for coverage and limits shall be (1) the minimum coverage and limits
specified in this Agreement; or (2) the broader coverage and maximum limits of
coverage of any Insurance policy or proceeds available to the named insured;
whichever is greater.
(iii) The limits of insurance required in this
Agreement may be satisfied by a combination of primary and umbrella or excess
insurance. Any umbrella or excess insurance shall contain or be endorsed to contain a
provision that such coverage shall also apply on a primary and non-contributory basis
for the benefit of the Commission (if agreed to in a written contract or agreement) before
the Commission's own insurance or self-insurance shall be called upon to protect it as a
named insured. The umbrella/excess policy shall be provided on a "following form"
basis with coverage at least as broad as provided on the underlying policy(ies).
(iv) Consultant shall provide the Commission at
least thirty (30) days prior written notice of cancellation of any policy required by this
Agreement, except that the Consultant shall provide at least ten (10) days prior written
notice of cancellation of any such policy due to non-payment of premium. If any of the
required coverage is cancelled or expires during the term of this Agreement, the
Consultant shall deliver renewal certificate(s) including the General Liability Additional
Insured Endorsement to the Commission at least ten (10) days prior to the effective
date of cancellation or expiration.
(v) The retroactive date (if any) of each policy is to
be no later than the effective date of this Agreement. Consultant shall maintain such
coverage continuously for a period of at least three years after the completion of the
work under this Agreement. Consultant shall purchase a one (1) year extended
reporting period A) if the retroactive date is advanced past the effective date of this
Agreement; B) if the policy is cancelled or not renewed; or C) if the policy is replaced by
another claims -made policy with a retroactive date subsequent to the effective date of
this Agreement.
(vi) The foregoing requirements as to the types
and limits of insurance coverage to be maintained by Consultant, and any approval of
said insurance by the Commission, is not intended to and shall not in any manner limit
or qualify the liabilities and obligations otherwise assumed by the Consultant pursuant
to this Agreement, including but not limited to, the provisions concerning
indemnification.
(vii) If at any time during the life of the Agreement,
any policy of insurance required under this Agreement does not comply with these
specifications or is canceled and not replaced, Commission has the right but not the
duty to obtain the insurance it deems necessary and any premium paid by Commission
will be promptly reimbursed by Consultant or Commission will withhold amounts
sufficient to pay premium from Consultant payments. In the alternative, Commission
may cancel this Agreement. The Commission may require the Consultant to provide
complete copies of all insurance policies in effect for the duration of the Project.
(viii) Neither the Commission nor any of its
directors, officials, officers, employees or agents shall be personally responsible for any
liability arising under or by virtue of this Agreement.
3.12.5 Deductibles and Self -Insurance Retentions. Any deductibles
or self -insured retentions must be declared to and approved by the Commission. If the
Commission does not approve the deductibles or self -insured retentions as presented,
Consultant shall guarantee that, at the option of the Commission, either: (1) the insurer
shall reduce or eliminate such deductibles or self -insured retentions as respects the
Commission, its directors, officials, officers, employees and agents; or, (2) the
Consultant shall procure a bond guaranteeing payment of losses and related
investigation costs, claims and administrative and defense expenses.
3.12.6 Acceptability of Insurers. Insurance is to be placed with
insurers with a current A.M. Best's rating no less than A:VIII, licensed to do business in
California, and satisfactory to the Commission.
3.12.7 Verification of Coverage. Consultant shall furnish
Commission with original certificates of insurance and endorsements effecting coverage
required by this Agreement on forms satisfactory to the Commission. The certificates
and endorsements for each insurance policy shall be signed by a person authorized by
that insurer to bind coverage on its behalf. All certificates and endorsements must be
received and approved by the Commission before work commences. The Commission
reserves the right to require complete, certified copies of all required insurance policies,
at any time.
3.12.8 Subconsultant Insurance Requirements. Consultant shall
not allow any subcontractors or subconsultants to commence work on any subcontract
until they have provided evidence satisfactory to the Commission that they have
secured all insurance required under this section. Policies of commercial general
liability insurance provided by such subcontractors or subconsultants shall be endorsed
to name the Commission as an additional insured using ISO form CG 20 38 04 13 or an
endorsement providing the exact same coverage. If requested by Consultant, the
Commission may approve different scopes or minimum limits of insurance for particular
subcontractors or subconsultants.
3.13 Safety. Consultant shall execute and maintain its work so as to
avoid injury or damage to any person or property. In carrying out its Services, the
Consultant shall at all times be in compliance with all applicable local, state and federal
laws, rules and regulations, and shall exercise all necessary precautions for the safety
of employees appropriate to the nature of the work and the conditions under which the
work is to be performed. Safety precautions as applicable shall include, but shall not be
limited to: (A) adequate life protection and life saving equipment and procedures; (B)
instructions in accident prevention for all employees and subcontractors, such as safe
walkways, scaffolds, fall protection ladders, bridges, gang planks, confined space
procedures, trenching and shoring, equipment and other safety devices, equipment and
wearing apparel as are necessary or lawfully required to prevent accidents or injuries;
and (C) adequate facilities for the proper inspection and maintenance of all safety
measures.
3.14 Fees and Payment.
3.14.1 Compensation. Consultant shall receive compensation,
including authorized reimbursements, for all Services rendered under this Agreement at
the rates set forth in Exhibit "C" attached hereto. The total compensation shall not
exceed f INSERT WRITTEN DOLLAR AMOUNT j ($j INSERT NUMERICAL
DOLLAR AMOUNT j) without written approval of Commission's Executive Director
("Total Compensation"). Extra Work may be authorized, as described below, and if
authorized, will be compensated at the rates and manner set forth in this Agreement.
3.14.2 Payment of Compensation. Consultant shall submit to
Commission a monthly statement which indicates work completed and hours of
Services rendered by Consultant. The statement shall describe the amount of Services
and supplies provided since the initial commencement date, or since the start of the
subsequent billing periods, as appropriate, through the date of the statement.
Commission shall, within 45 days of receiving such statement, review the statement and
pay all approved charges thereon.
3.14.3 Reimbursement for Expenses. Consultant shall not be
reimbursed for any expenses unless authorized in writing by Commission.
3.14.4 Extra Work. At any time during the term of this Agreement,
Commission may request that Consultant perform Extra Work. As used herein, "Extra
Work" means any work which is determined by Commission to be necessary for the
proper completion of the Project, but which the parties did not reasonably anticipate
would be necessary at the execution of this Agreement. Consultant shall not perform,
nor be compensated for, Extra Work without written authorization from Commission's
Executive Director.
3.15 Accounting Records. Consultant shall maintain complete and
accurate records with respect to all costs and expenses incurred and fees charged
under this Agreement. All such records shall be clearly identifiable. Consultant shall
allow a representative of Commission during normal business hours to examine, audit,
and make transcripts or copies of such records and any other documents created
pursuant to this Agreement. Consultant shall allow inspection of all work, data,
documents, proceedings, and activities related to the Agreement for a period of three
(3) years from the date of final payment under this Agreement.
3.16 Termination of Agreement.
3.16.1 Grounds for Termination. Commission may, by written
notice to Consultant, terminate the whole or any part of this Agreement at any time and
without cause by giving written notice to Consultant of such termination, and specifying
the effective date thereof. Upon termination, Consultant shall be compensated only for
those services which have been fully and adequately rendered to Commission through
the effective date of the termination, and Consultant shall be entitled to no further
compensation. Consultant may not terminate this Agreement except for cause.
3.16.2 Effect of Termination. If this Agreement is terminated as
provided herein, Commission may require Consultant to provide all finished or
unfinished Documents and Data, as defined below, and other information of any kind
prepared by Consultant in connection with the performance of Services under this
Agreement. Consultant shall be required to provide such document and other
information within fifteen (15) days of the request.
3.16.3 Additional Services. In the event this Agreement is
terminated in whole or in part as provided herein, Commission may procure, upon such
terms and in such manner as it may determine appropriate, services similar to those
terminated.
3.17 Delivery of Notices. All notices permitted or required under this
Agreement shall be given to the respective parties at the following address, or at such
other address as the respective parties may provide in writing for this purpose:
CONSULTANT:
HDR Engineering, Inc.
2280 Market Street, Suite 100
Riverside, CA 92501
Attn: JD Douglas
COMMISSION:
Riverside County
Transportation Commission
4080 Lemon Street, 3rd Floor
Riverside, CA 92501
Attn: Executive Director
Such notice shall be deemed made when personally delivered or when
mailed, forty-eight (48) hours after deposit in the U.S. Mail, first class postage prepaid
and addressed to the party at its applicable address. Actual notice shall be deemed
adequate notice on the date actual notice occurred, regardless of the method of service.
3.18 Ownership of Materials/Confidentiality.
3.18.1 Documents & Data. This Agreement creates an exclusive
and perpetual license for Commission to copy, use, modify, reuse, or sub -license any
and all copyrights and designs embodied in plans, specifications, studies, drawings,
estimates, materials, data and other documents or works of authorship fixed in any
tangible medium of expression, including but not limited to, physical drawings or data
magnetically or otherwise recorded on computer diskettes, which are prepared or
caused to be prepared by Consultant under this Agreement ("Documents & Data").
Consultant shall require all subcontractors to agree in writing that
Commission is granted an exclusive and perpetual license for any Documents & Data
the subcontractor prepares under this Agreement.
Consultant represents and warrants that Consultant has the legal
right to grant the exclusive and perpetual license for all such Documents & Data.
Consultant makes no such representation and warranty in regard to Documents & Data
which were prepared by design professionals other than Consultant or provided to
Consultant by the Commission.
Commission shall not be limited in any way in its use of the
Documents & Data at any time, provided that any such use not within the purposes
intended by this Agreement shall be at Commission's sole risk.
3.18.2Intellectual Property. In addition, Commission shall have
and retain all right, title and interest (including copyright, patent, trade secret and other
proprietary rights) in all plans, specifications, studies, drawings, estimates, materials,
data, computer programs or software and source code, enhancements, documents, and
any and all works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium or expression, including
but not limited to, physical drawings or other data magnetically or otherwise recorded on
computer media ("Intellectual Property") prepared or developed by or on behalf of
Consultant under this Agreement as well as any other such Intellectual Property
prepared or developed by or on behalf of Consultant under this Agreement.
The Commission shall have and retain all right, title and interest in
Intellectual Property developed or modified under this Agreement whether or not paid
for wholly or in part by Commission, whether or not developed in conjunction with
Consultant, and whether or not developed by Consultant. Consultant will execute
separate written assignments of any and all rights to the above referenced Intellectual
Property upon request of Commission.
Consultant shall also be responsible to obtain in writing separate
written assignments from any subcontractors or agents of Consultant of any and all right
to the above referenced Intellectual Property. Should Consultant, either during or
following termination of this Agreement, desire to use any of the above -referenced
Intellectual Property, it shall first obtain the written approval of the Commission.
All materials and documents which were developed or prepared by
the Consultant for general use prior to the execution of this Agreement and which are
not the copyright of any other party or publicly available and any other computer
applications, shall continue to be the property of the Consultant. However, unless
otherwise identified and stated prior to execution of this Agreement, Consultant
represents and warrants that it has the right to grant the exclusive and perpetual license
for all such Intellectual Property as provided herein.
Commission further is granted by Consultant a non-exclusive and
perpetual license to copy, use, modify or sub -license any and all Intellectual Property
otherwise owned by Consultant which is the basis or foundation for any derivative,
collective, insurrectional, or supplemental work created under this Agreement.
3.18.3 Confidentiality. All ideas, memoranda, specifications, plans,
procedures, drawings, descriptions, computer program data, input record data, written
information, and other Documents and Data either created by or provided to Consultant
in connection with the performance of this Agreement shall be held confidential by
Consultant. Such materials shall not, without the prior written consent of Commission,
be used by Consultant for any purposes other than the performance of the Services.
Nor shall such materials be disclosed to any person or entity not connected with the
performance of the Services or the Project. Nothing furnished to Consultant which is
otherwise known to Consultant or is generally known, or has become known, to the
related industry shall be deemed confidential. Consultant shall not use Commission's
name or insignia, photographs of the Project, or any publicity pertaining to the Services
or the Project in any magazine, trade paper, newspaper, television or radio production
or other similar medium without the prior written consent of Commission.
Should Consultant receive a subpoena or court order related to this
Agreement, the Services or the Project, Consultant shall immediately provide written
notice of the subpoena or court order to the Commission in order to allow the
Commission to pursue legal remedies designed to limit any confidential information
required to be disclosed or to assure the confidential treatment of the information
following disclosure. Consultant shall not respond to any such subpoena or court order
until notice to the Commission is provided as required herein, and shall cooperate with
the Commission in responding to the subpoena or court order.
3.18.4Infringement Indemnification. Consultant shall defend,
indemnify and hold the Commission, its directors, officials, officers, employees,
volunteers and agents free and harmless, pursuant to the indemnification provisions of
this Agreement, for any alleged infringement of any patent, copyright, trade secret, trade
name, trademark, or any other proprietary right of any person or entity in consequence
of the use on the Project by Commission of the Documents & Data, including any
method, process, product, or concept specified or depicted.
3.19 Cooperation; Further Acts. The Parties shall fully cooperate with
one another, and shall take any additional acts or sign any additional documents as
may be necessary, appropriate or convenient to attain the purposes of this Agreement.
3.20 Attorney's Fees. If either party commences an action against the
other party, either legal, administrative or otherwise, arising out of or in connection with
this Agreement, the prevailing party in such litigation shall be entitled to have and
recover from the losing party reasonable attorney's fees and costs of such actions.
3.21 Indemnification. Consultant shall defend, indemnify and hold the
Commission, its directors, officials, officers, agents, consultants, employees and
volunteers free and harmless from any and all claims, demands, causes of action,
costs, expenses, liabilities, losses, damages or injuries, in law or in equity, to property or
persons, including wrongful death, in any manner arising out of or incident to any
alleged negligent acts, omissions or willful misconduct of the Consultant, its officials,
officers, employees, agents, consultants, and contractors arising out of or in connection
with the performance of the Services, the Project or this Agreement, including without
limitation, the payment of all consequential damages, attorneys fees and other related
costs and expenses. Consultant shall defend, at Consultant's own cost, expense and
risk, any and all such aforesaid suits, actions or other legal proceedings of every kind
that may be brought or instituted against the Commission, its directors, officials, officers,
agents, consultants, employees and volunteers. Consultant shall pay and satisfy any
judgment, award or decree that may be rendered against the Commission or its
directors, officials, officers, agents, consultants, employees and volunteers, in any such
suit, action or other legal proceeding. Consultant shall reimburse the Commission and
its directors, officials, officers, agents, consultants, employees and volunteers, for any
and all legal expenses and costs, including reasonable attorney's fees, incurred by each
of them in connection therewith or in enforcing the indemnity herein provided.
Consultant's obligation to indemnity shall not be restricted to insurance proceeds, if any,
received by the Commission or its directors, officials, officers, agents, consultants,
employees and volunteers. Notwithstanding the foregoing, to the extent Consultant's
Services are subject to Civil Code Section 2782.8, the above indemnity shall be limited,
to the extent required by Civil Code Section 2782.8, to claims that arise out of, pertain
to, or relate to the negligence, recklessness, or willful misconduct of the Consultant.
This Section 3.21 shall survive any expiration or termination of this Agreement.
3.22 Entire Agreement. This Agreement contains the entire Agreement
of the parties with respect to the subject matter hereof, and supersedes all prior
negotiations, understandings or agreements. This Agreement may only be
supplemented, amended, or modified by a writing signed by both parties.
3.23 Governing Law. This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of
the State of California. Venue shall be in Riverside County.
3.24 Time of Essence. Time is of the essence for each and every
provision of this Agreement.
3.25 Commission's Right to Employ Other Consultants. The
Commission reserves the right to employ other consultants in connection with this
Project.
3.26 Successors and Assigns. This Agreement shall be binding on the
successors and assigns of the parties, and shall not be assigned by Consultant without
the prior written consent of Commission.
3.27 Prohibited Interests and Conflicts.
3.27.1 Solicitation. Consultant maintains and warrants that it has
not employed nor retained any company or person, other than a bona fide employee
working solely for Consultant, to solicit or secure this Agreement. Further, Consultant
warrants that it has not paid nor has it agreed to pay any company or person, other than
a bona fide employee working solely for Consultant, any fee, commission, percentage,
brokerage fee, gift or other consideration contingent upon or resulting from the award or
making of this Agreement. For breach or violation of this warranty, Commission shall
have the right to rescind this Agreement without liability.
3.27.2 Conflict of Interest. For the term of this Agreement, no
member, officer or employee of Commission, during the term of his or her service with
Commission, shall have any direct interest in this Agreement, or obtain any present or
anticipated material benefit arising therefrom.
3.27.3 Conflict of Employment. Employment by the Consultant of
personnel currently on the payroll of the Commission shall not be permitted in the
performance of this Agreement, even though such employment may occur outside of
the employee's regular working hours or on weekends, holidays or vacation time.
Further, the employment by the Consultant of personnel who have been on the
Commission payroll within one year prior to the date of execution of this Agreement,
where this employment is caused by and or dependent upon the Consultant securing
this or related Agreements with the Commission, is prohibited.
3.27.4 Employment Adverse to the Commission. Consultant shall
notify the Commission, and shall obtain the Commission's written consent, prior to
accepting work to assist with or participate in a third -party lawsuit or other legal or
administrative proceeding against the Commission during the term of this Agreement.
3.28 Equal Opportunity Employment. Consultant represents that it is an
equal opportunity employer and it shall not discriminate against any employee or
applicant for employment because of race, religion, color, national origin, ancestry, sex
or age. Such non-discrimination shall include, but not be limited to, all activities related
to initial employment, upgrading, demotion, transfer, recruitment or recruitment
advertising, layoff or termination. Consultant shall also comply with all relevant provi-
sions of Commission's Disadvantaged Business Enterprise program, Affirmative Action
Plan or other related Commission programs or guidelines currently in effect or
hereinafter enacted.
3.29 Subcontracting. Consultant shall not subcontract any portion of the
work or Services required by this Agreement, except as expressly stated herein, without
prior written approval of the Commission. Subcontracts, if any, shall contain a provision
making them subject to all provisions stipulated in this Agreement.
3.30 Prevailing Wages. By its execution of this Agreement, Consultant
certified that it is aware of the requirements of California Labor Code Sections 1720 et
seq. and 1770 et seq., as well as California Code of Regulations, Title 8, Section 16000
et seq. ("Prevailing Wage Laws"), which require the payment of prevailing wage rates
and the performance of other requirements on certain "public works" and "maintenance"
projects. If the Services are being performed as part of an applicable "public works" or
"maintenance" project, as defined by the Prevailing Wage Laws, and if the total
compensation is $1,000 or more, Consultant agrees to fully comply with such Prevailing
Wage Laws. The Commission shall provide Consultant with a copy of the prevailing
rate of per diem wages in effect at the commencement of this Agreement. Consultant
shall make copies of the prevailing rates of per diem wages for each craft, classification
or type of worker needed to execute the Services available to interested parties upon
request, and shall post copies at the Consultant's principal place of business and at the
project site. Consultant shall defend, indemnify and hold the Commission, its elected
officials, officers, employees and agents free and harmless from any claims, liabilities,
costs, penalties or interest arising out of any failure or alleged failure to comply with the
Prevailing Wage Laws.
3.31 Employment of Apprentices. This Agreement shall not prevent the
employment of properly indentured apprentices in accordance with the California Labor
Code, and no employer or labor union shall refuse to accept otherwise qualified
employees as indentured apprentices on the work performed hereunder solely on the
ground of race, creed, national origin, ancestry, color or sex. Every qualified apprentice
shall be paid the standard wage paid to apprentices under the regulations of the craft or
trade in which he or she is employed and shall be employed only in the craft or trade to
which he or she is registered.
If California Labor Code Section 1777.5 applies to the Services,
Consultant and any subcontractor hereunder who employs workers in any
apprenticeable craft or trade shall apply to the joint apprenticeship council administering
applicable standards for a certificate approving Consultant or any sub -consultant for the
employment and training of apprentices. Upon issuance of this certificate, Consultant
and any sub -consultant shall employ the number of apprentices provided for therein, as
well as contribute to the fund to administer the apprenticeship program in each craft or
trade in the area of the work hereunder.
The parties expressly understand that the responsibility for compliance
with provisions of this Section and with Sections 1777.5, 1777.6 and 1777.7 of the
California Labor Code in regard to all apprenticeable occupations lies with Consultant.
3.32 No Waiver. Failure of Commission to insist on any one occasion
upon strict compliance with any of the terms, covenants or conditions hereof shall not
be deemed a waiver of such term, covenant or condition, nor shall any waiver or
relinquishment of any rights or powers hereunder at any one time or more times be
deemed a waiver or relinquishment of such other right or power at any other time or
times.
3.33 Eight -Hour Law. Pursuant to the provisions of the California Labor
Code, eight hours of labor shall constitute a legal day's work, and the time of service of
any worker employed on the work shall be limited and restricted to eight hours during
any one calendar day, and forty hours in any one calendar week, except when payment
for overtime is made at not less than one and one-half the basic rate for all hours
worked in excess of eight hours per day ("Eight -Hour Law"), unless Consultant or the
Services are not subject to the Eight -Hour Law. Consultant shall forfeit to Commission
as a penalty, $50.00 for each worker employed in the execution of this Agreement by
him, or by any sub -consultant under him, for each calendar day during which such
workman is required or permitted to work more than eight hours in any calendar day
and forty hours in any one calendar week without such compensation for overtime
violation of the provisions of the California Labor Code, unless Consultant or the
Services are not subject to the Eight -Hour Law.
3.34 Subpoenas or Court Orders. Should Consultant receive a
subpoena or court order related to this Agreement, the Services or the Project,
Consultant shall immediately provide written notice of the subpoena or court order to the
Commission. Consultant shall not respond to any such subpoena or court order until
notice to the Commission is provided as required herein, and shall cooperate with the
Commission in responding to the subpoena or court order.
3.35 Survival. All rights and obligations hereunder that by their nature
are to continue after any expiration or termination of this Agreement, including, but not
limited to, the indemnification and confidentiality obligations, and the obligations related
to receipt of subpoenas or court orders, shall survive any such expiration or termination.
3.36 No Third Party Beneficiaries. There are no intended third party
beneficiaries of any right or obligation assumed by the Parties.
3.37 Labor Certification. By its signature hereunder, Consultant certifies
that it is aware of the provisions of Section 3700 of the California Labor Code which
require every employer to be insured against liability for Workers' Compensation or to
undertake self-insurance in accordance with the provisions of that Code, and agrees to
comply with such provisions before commencing the performance of the Services.
3.38 Counterparts. This Agreement may be signed in counterparts,
each of which shall constitute an original.
3.39 Incorporation of Recitals. The recitals set forth above are true and
correct and are incorporated into this Agreement as though fully set forth herein.
3.40 Invalidity; Severability. If any portion of this Agreement is declared
invalid, illegal, or otherwise unenforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction, the
remaining provisions shall continue in full force and effect.
3.41 Conflicting Provisions. In the event that provisions of any attached
exhibits conflict in any way with the provisions set forth in this Agreement, the language,
terms and conditions contained in this Agreement shall control the actions and
obligations of the Parties and the interpretation of the Parties' understanding concerning
the performance of the Services.
3.42 Headings. Article and Section Headings, paragraph captions or
marginal headings contained in this Agreement are for convenience only and shall have
no effect in the construction or interpretation of any provision herein.
3.43 Assignment or Transfer. Consultant shall not assign, hypothecate,
or transfer, either directly or by operation of law, this Agreement or any interest herein,
without the prior written consent of the Commission. Any attempt to do so shall be null
and void, and any assignees, hypothecates or transferees shall acquire no right or
interest by reason of such attempted assignment, hypothecation or transfer.
3.44 Authority to Enter Agreement. Consultant has all requisite power
and authority to conduct its business and to execute, deliver, and perform the
Agreement. Each Party warrants that the individuals who have signed this Agreement
have the legal power, right, and authority to make this Agreement and bind each
respective Party.
[SIGNATURES ON FOLLOWING PAGE]
SIGNATURE PAGE
TO
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
AGREEMENT FOR STRATEGIC ASSESSMENT
WITH HDR ENGINEERING, INC.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Agreement was executed on the date first
written above.
RIVERSIDE COUNTY HDR ENGINEERING, INC.
TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
By: By:
Daryl R. Busch Signature
Chair
Name
Title
Approved as to Form: Attest:
By: By:
Best Best & Krieger LLP
General Counsel Its: Secretary
EXHIBIT "A"
SCOPE OF SERVICES
j INSERT 1
EXHIBIT "B"
SCHEDULE OF SERVICES
j INSERT 1
EXHIBIT "C"
COMPENSATION
j INSERT 1
AGENDA ITEM 7
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
DATE:
April 27, 2015
TO:
Budget and Implementation Committee
FROM:
Aaron Hake, Government Relations Manager
THROUGH:
John Standiford, Deputy Executive Director
SUBJECT:
State Legislation
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
This item is for the Committee to:
1) Adopt the following positions on state legislation:
a) SB 608 (Liu) — Oppose;
b) SB 516 (Fuller) —Support In Concept; and
2) Forward to the Commission for final action.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
SB 608 (Liu) — Staff Recommendation: Oppose
This bill is known as the "Right to Rest Act" and is similar to AB 5 (Ammiano), the "Homeless Bill
of Rights," which the Commission opposed in 2013. While the Commission respects the
difficulty of remedying issues related to homelessness, SB 608 imposes a number of constraints
on the Commission related to ensuring public health and safety at its Metrolink stations.
The intent of SB 608 is to "afford persons experiencing homelessness the right to use public
space without discrimination based on their housing status." In doing so, the bill provides for
the following rights to persons and provides for a $1,000 fine for any law enforcement action
that infringes on these rights:
• Use and to move freely in public spaces;
• Rest in public spaces and to protect oneself from the elements;
• Eat in any public space in which having food is not prohibited;
• Perform religious observances in public spaces; and
• Occupy a motor vehicle or a recreational vehicle legally parked or parked with the
permission of the property owner.
While on face value these proposed rights may seem logical, the expansive terminology within
the bill defines a "homeless person" as:
Agenda Item 10
"Individuals and members of families who have a primary nighttime residence that is a
public or private place not designed for or ordinarily used as a regular sleeping
accommodation for human beings, including a car, park, abandoned building, bus or
train station, airport, or camping ground."
According to this definition, SB 608 affords homeless persons the right to assume residency on
public property, specifically including train stations. The bill would expose the Commission to
litigation and fines for enforcing its adopted Code of Conduct, therefore allowing persons to
sleep and reside on station property. The Code of Conduct reads as follows, in excerpt:
"PARKING: Station parking is for Train Passengers Only, unless otherwise specified. Park at your
own risk: RCTC, Metrolink, and Amtrak are not responsible for theft of or damage to property.
Utilize designated parking areas only. Violators are subject to tow at the vehicle owner's
expense. Erratic or careless driving in station parking areas is prohibited.
LOITERING: Use of this facility is limited to station patrons only. Loitering is strictly prohibited.
SOLICITATION: Solicitation of any kind without prior written permission of station management
is strictly prohibited.
Any other unacceptable behavior that constitutes or causes a nuisance, a disturbance, or harm
or a threat of harm is prohibited.
Failure to obey these guidelines or to comply with lawful and reasonable requests by the station
management, police or security will result in your being asked to leave the station. If you refuse
to leave, you may be arrested and prosecuted for criminal trespass."
Particularly at the Riverside Downtown Station, the Commission's private security service
reported significant problems created by homeless persons, including but not limited to:
• Harassment of passengers via panhandling and aggressive, obscene behavior;
• Fires being lit in the railroad right-of-way;
• Vandalism of portable restrooms, elevators and other property; and
• Public urination and defecation.
Closed circuit television (CCTV) cameras at the station regularly capture the above types of
incidents, and more. In many cases, these incidents degrade the level of service and safety
provided to the public when facilities are placed out of order or areas made inaccessible. Also,
in many cases Riverside Police and Fire Departments are dispatched to respond, adding
increased burdens to municipal services. SB 608 would further hamper the Commission's
ability to maintain its stations for their intended purpose — to provide safe and reliable
commuter transportation to the residents of Riverside County.
Staff is open to working with the city of Riverside's Homeless Task Force and other initiatives;
however, staff strongly believes that public safety, public services, and public property should
not be further compromised.
Agenda Item 10
The bill is opposed by the California League of Cities, the California State Sheriff's Association,
the California Chamber of Commerce and several other agencies. The bill's supporters include
several dozen social justice and legal advocacy nonprofits throughout the state.
SB 608 is being brought to the Commission for an oppose position because the Commission's
adopted legislative platform does not speak to this particular issue.
SB 516 (Fuller) — Staff Recommendation: Support If Amended
This bill is sponsored by the Kern Council of Governments (Kern COG) and is intended to
provide additional flexibility for transportation agencies such as the Commission to implement
motorist aid and safety services with the one dollar per vehicle registration fee the Commission
receives from vehicles registered within the county. As technology is rapidly changing the
methods by which motorists receive information and assistance on the roadway, Commission
staff and many other transportation professionals across the state see the need to modernize
the state's approach. Under current law, the priority for motorist aid is focused on call boxes;
however other motorist services are permitted after call box needs are met. This bill would
explicitly expand the list of eligible expenditure of the one dollar registration fee and
thematically direct the program towards a more comprehensive motorist aid and roadway
safety system. Specifically, the bill adds to the list of eligible projects:
• Traveler information systems;
• Intelligent Transportation System architecture and infrastructure and other
transportation demand management services; and
• Litter and debris removal.
In 1986, the Commission established itself as the Riverside County Service Authority for
Freeway Emergencies (RC SAFE) after the enactment of SB 1199 in 1985. Funding for SAFE is
derived from a one dollar per vehicle registration fee on vehicles registered in the county. The
Commission, acting in its capacity as the RC SAFE, operated a system of call boxes along the
freeways and highways in Riverside County since 1990. At its peak, the call box program had
1,149 call boxes in operation throughout Riverside County. With the advancement of
technology and the proliferation of cellular phone owners over the past several years, the
Commission took steps to reduce the number of call boxes in the Riverside County system. The
reduction of call boxes over time to nearly half of its peak number led to significant cost
savings, in addition to a more efficient operation of the call box program. The Commission
currently operates and maintains 597 call boxes. Over the past two decades, the RC SAFE
program expanded to include Freeway Service Patrol and Inland Empire 511 traveler
information services as part of a comprehensive motorist aid system in Riverside County.
In an effort to clarify and expand upon the initial legislation, minor revisions to SB 516 are being
proposed. Notable revisions include: clarification of language to ensure local control over SAFE
revenues; clarification of language on the rolls of the California Department of Transportation
Agenda Item 10
and the California Highway Patrol with regard to reviewing and approving call box plans; and
expansion of language that identifies potential uses of SAFE revenues.
The proposed amendments to SB 516 will allow for greater flexibility in the way RC SAFE uses
SAFE revenues. As call box call volumes continue to decrease with each passing year, this
amended legislation will allow RC SAFE to implement more relevant programs and services
throughout the county.
While the bill's intent is consistent with the Commission's adopted legislative platform (quoted
below), staff felt compelled to bring the bill to the Commission to ensure the Commission's
position is conditioned on satisfactory amendments.
Commission platform excerpt:
• Support programs and policies that support investments in new technologies that
promote ridesharing, traffic information, and commuter assistance.
Review of Legislation Consistent With Commission Platform
At the Assembly Transportation Committee hearing on April 13, the Commission testified in
support of AB 1265 (Peres), which would extend the sunset date of California's public -private
partnership law. The bill is consistent with the Commission's platform which states:
• Support the availability of project delivery tools such as design -build, construction
manager/general contractor, and public -private partnerships by the Commission, the
state, federal agencies, and other infrastructure agencies. Oppose efforts to add
barriers to effective implementation of such tools.
Agenda Item 10
AGENDA ITEM 8
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
DATE:
April 16, 2015
TO:
Quality of Life and Sustainability Ad Hoc Committee
FROM:
Aaron Hake, Government Relations Manager
THROUGH:
John Standiford, Deputy Executive Director
SUBJECT:
Principles for State Transportation Revenue
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
This item is for the Ad Hoc Committee to:
1) Provide direction to staff on strategies for approaching state transportation revenue
legislation;
2) Adopt principles for state transportation revenue legislation; and
3) Forward to the Commission for final action.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
There are multiple legislative proposals under development in the State Capitol that would
raise between $3-5 billion annually for transportation infrastructure. These proposals are
almost exclusively focused on maintenance and operation of existing state highways and local
roads. There has been some conversation from the Brown Administration about funding trade
corridors as well.
The impetus for the higher -than -normal interest in transportation funding can be attributed to
the precipitous decline in funding due to the:
• End of the Proposition 1B state bond program ($20 billion one-time program);
• Reduction of the state price -based excise tax on motor fuels ($868 million negative
statewide impact);
• Continued erosion in value and return on the state per -gallon excise tax on motor fuels
(worth one-third less per gallon than 1993, when it was last increased);
• Mounting backlog — and associated cost escalation — of basic maintenance of state
highways and local roads (nearly $6 billion annual deficit for state highways alone, and
what amounts to $7.8 billion deficit for local streets and roads over the next decade);
and
• Economic activity generated by transportation investment, which is subsiding due to all
of the above.
Agenda Item 3
As reported at its March Commission meeting, Riverside County local governments are
expected to lose about one-fourth of its gas tax revenue in the next fiscal year, a $26 million
loss to Riverside County alone. Also in jeopardy are major regional projects such as the State
Route 91/SR-71 interchange, SR-60 truck climbing lane, French Valley Parkway interchange, and
the 1-10 Monroe and Jackson interchanges.
By the time Quality of Life/Sustainability Ad Hoc Committee meets, and likely by the time the
Commission meets, these proposals are likely to be unveiled publicly. Given that these
proposals will provide a substantial amount of funding that could come to Riverside County,
and will likely involve user fees that would be paid by Riverside County residents, staff believes
it is appropriate for the Commission to adopt guiding principles on what constitutes an
supportable revenue package. Adoption of a clear set of policy principles will provide direction
to staff and Commission lobbyists to communicate and negotiate on behalf of Riverside
County's interests with legislators and the Administration, fellow transportation agencies trade
associations, and other stakeholder groups that are involved in shaping policy. Staff believes it
is essential to the Commission's credibility and effectiveness to provide productive input into
the policy -making process on such an important topic. Acknowledging that no plan is perfect,
staff also believes that adopting principles rather than supporting a specific proposal at this
time provides latitude to comment on the various elements of all proposals in an effort to
improve all of them.
Based on previous Commission legislative platforms, bill positions, and viewpoints expressed by
Commissioners, staff proposes the following principles for Commission adoption:
1) Restore transportation funds for transportation projects.
a) Provide for repayment of all outstanding loans to the General Fund from
transportation revenue sources.
b) End diversion of truck weight fees to the General Fund.
2) Regional/local share with Regional/local decision -making and geographic equity.
a) At least 50 percent of new revenue should be provided to regional and/or local
governments to meet local maintenance and operational needs.
b) The state should set broad parameters for project eligibility, with regional and/or
local governments making project selection and programming.
c) Distribute regional/local funds on a population and/or lane -mile basis.
Consistency and predictability of funding is critical.
3) Geographic equity for state funds.
a) Taxpayers from every region should see direct benefit to the state highways in
their communities. The state should provide a transparent process by which
state-controlled revenues are spent equitably throughout all regions of the state.
Agenda Item 3
4) User -pay = User -benefit.
a) Revenue from new user fees should be spent in a manner that benefits the user
who is paying the fee. Diversion of revenue derived from motor vehicles to
purposes that do not directly benefit motorists is not acceptable.
5) Reduce the costs of delivery.
a) The Legislature should not ask taxpayers to pay additional revenue without
simultaneously approving policies that maximize the revenue that is already
being generated. Reducing costs of transportation projects can include
pragmatic adjustments to project review and approval processes by state
agencies, reduction in exposure to litigation, streamlining of reviews required for
projects that promote state policy goals, and/or reducing overhead costs at
Caltrans.
6) Fund trade corridors.
a) While maintenance of existing assets is the priority, new revenue should take
into account that California's roadways are the conduit for international,
interstate, and intrastate commerce.
As further background, the Commission's unanimously -adopted 2015 legislative platform
includes the following policy statements that reinforce the above -suggested principles:
Equity and Fairness
• Funding should be distributed equitably to Riverside County.
Regional Control
• Project selection and planning authority for state/federal funds should be as local as
possible, preferably in the hands of the Commission.
• Oppose efforts by non -transportation interests to assert control over transportation
funding. Policies should be sensitive to each region's unique needs and avoid "one size
fits all" assumptions, especially regarding the balance among highways, transit, rail, and
freight; and urban, suburban, and rural needs.
Project Delivery Streamlining
• Support all efforts to reduce project delivery timelines while maintaining important
environmental protections.
Agenda Item 3
Accountability
• Revenue derived from transportation sources should be spent exclusively on
transportation projects. Support measures to strengthen the relationship between
transportation revenue and expenditures; oppose measures that weaken them.
Funding
• Strongly support repayment of state general fund loans from transportation -related
accounts.
• Support re -dedication of California truck weight fees to transportation accounts.
Finally, staff seeks strategic input from Commissioners as these legislative negotiations develop
over the next few weeks and months.
Of note, the League of California Cities board of directors recently voted unanimously to
support raising $3-4 billion in new transportation revenue.
Agenda Item 3
AGENDA ITEM 9
A presentation will be made but
there is no attachment to the
agenda for item 9.
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
DATE: May 18, 2015
TO: Technical Advisory Committee
FROM: Shirley Medina, Planning and Programming Director
SUBJECT: Fiscal Year 2015/16 TUMF Programming Requests
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
That the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) approve the recommendation from staff and the TUMF
Regional Arterial subcommittee to:
1) Program a total of $7.6 million in TUMF Regional Arterial funds for the following two projects
in FY 2015/16:
County of Riverside -Van Buren Boulevard, Washington to Wood
• $3.0 million for Construction;
City of Lake Elsinore -1-15 Railroad Canyon Interchange (Roundabout)
• $4.6 million ($2.0M for PS&E, $2.6M for R/W);
2) Program $4 million for the construction phase in FY 2016/17 for the 1-15/Railroad Canyon
Interchange contingent upon approval of U. S. Department of Transportation TIGER Cycle 7
grant award; and
3) Forward to the Commission for final approval.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
On May 6, 2015, the TUMF Regional Arterial subcommittee met to discuss the programming needs
for FY 2015/16. Programming capacity at the end of FY 2015/16 is estimated at $16 million. Based
on the TUMF programming needs expressed by the subcommittee, the immediate needs are for two
projects: County of Riverside's Van Buren Boulevard widening project from Washington Street to
Wood Road, and Lake Elsinore's 1-15/Railroad Canyon interchange roundabout project.
The county of Riverside's Van Buren Boulevard widening project will complete the environmental and
design phases towards the end of FY 2015/16. The county is requesting construction funds in the
amount of $3 million.
The 1-15/Railroad Canyon interchange is currently in the PA&ED phase, which is scheduled to be
complete in December 2015. The city of Lake Elsinore would like to pursue PS&E and R/W phases as
soon as the environmental document is complete to continue the project's schedule and secure
construction grant funding. The city is requesting programming a total of $4.6 million of TUMF
Regional Arterial funds in FY 2015/16 for PS&E ($2.0 million) and R/W ($2.6 million).
The city is also pursuing a federal grant for construction funding for the 1-15/Railroad Canyon
interchange project. The total cost for construction is $24 million. The city is applying for $20 million
of federal TIGER funding, which requires a minimum local (non-federal) match of 20 percent. The city
is requesting $4 million of TUMF Regional Arterial funds as local match funds for construction in the
event they receive approval of the federal grant funds. Staff supports the city of Lake Elsinore's
request to program $4 million for the construction phase contingent upon
U. S. DOT approval of federal TIGER Cycle 7 funding. The city is expected to be notified of the status
of the grant in fall 2015. Should the city not receive approval, staff will continue to work with the city
in seeking other funding opportunities for construction along with the remaining TUMF Regional
Arterial projects.
Staff and the TUMF Regional Arterial subcommittee recommend programming a total of $7.6 million
in FY 2015/16 TUMF programming as presented above. Upon TAC approval of this item, staff will
forward the item to the Commission for final approval.
The remaining TUMF Regional Arterial projects are scheduled for construction in FY 2017 /18. The
projects listed below are the remaining projects to be programmed based on the September 2004
Commission approval of TUMF Regional Arterial projects.
• 1-15/Limonite Interchange -Construction
• 1-15/French Valley Interchange -Construction
• 1-15/Railroad Canyon Interchange -Construction
Since the majority of the projects have been implemented, staff will be meeting with the TUMF
subcommittee to develop funding recommendations for the above remaining projects. Additionally,
staff will meet with WRCOG on the development of the next program of projects for TUMF Regional
Arterial funds.
AGENDA ITEM 10
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
DATE:
May 18, 2015
TO:
Technical Advisory Committee
FROM:
Eric DeHate, Staff Analyst
Grace Alvarez, Planning and Programming Manager
Shirley Medina, Planning and Programming Director
SUBJECT:
Obligation Delivery Plan — FFY 2014/15
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Receive and file.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
As you may recall on January 26, 2015, RCTC had great success with the delivery of its federal
obligation plan in FY 2013/14 and the region received an additional $2,443,743 in August
Redistribution from other states that did not obligate 100 percent of their Obligation Authority (OA).
RCTC would like to carry on the momentum to FY 2014/15 and there are good chances of exceeding
our obligation authority if all the projects included in the attached FFY 2014/15 Obligation Plan move
forward. The attached FFY 2014/15 Obligation Plan was submitted to Caltrans on 4/7/2015.
Approximately $28 million of CMAQ funds and $28.5 million of STP funds are anticipated to be
obligated in FFY 2014/15. Currently, there approximately $3 million of STP funds have been obligated
thus far. $4.1 million of CMAQ and $5.4 million of STP funds are currently at Local Assistance
District 8 pending review.
The FFY 2014/15 obligation delivery plan is included as an attachment to this report. The report
segregated the planned obligations based on the Multi -Funding Call for Projects Award of
January 8, 2014, the 2013 Surface Transportation Program Pavement Rehabilitation Awards of 2013,
CVAG's CMAQ Call for Projects Awards, one remaining project from the Transportation Enhancement
Program, and Miscellaneous Grants. There are two Requests for Authorization (RFA) Columns in the
spreadsheet to track the delivery delays and/or adjusted RFA schedules. Please take a look at the
RFA schedules and notify me if there are any changes to delivery schedules.
Since most of the projects come from a competitive process and points were awarded to the projects
based on project readiness, RCTC decided to include in the comment section of the spreadsheet the
agreement number, the project phase that is funded, and the anticipated start of the project phase
based on the executed agreements. RCTC will continue to monitor the progress of the project
delivery to use as perhaps a new scoring category for future call for projects.
RCTC would like to reiterate its Planning and Programming staff is available to assist you with the
processing of the RFA and to help you navigate through the federal -aid process.
Looking forward to a great FFY 2014/15 delivery year!
Attachment: FFY 2014/15 Obligation Plan
RIVERSIDE COUNTY - FFY 2014/2015 OBLIGATION PLAN �.
a...,d. c....r ,..,..
Agency
FTIP ID
Project Location
Project Scope/Description
rcrAauom. Io
Caltrans D-8
(Originally
Purposed)
rCrAJUDm. Io
Caltrans D-8
(Newly
Projected)
CMAQ
STP-L
Funding
Phase
Project
Phase
FTIP
Funding
Year
Comments
Calimesa
RIV060116
-
I-10/Cherry Valley IC
PA&ED
1/1/2015
6/30/2015
$ 443,000
Eng
PA&ED
Y
Agna 14-/L-1L1-uu - tnvironmentai
funded phase with federal obligation Jan
2015. As of 2/27/2015: Currently
requesting FPN, RFA for PA&ED by
6/30/2015.
Coachella
RIV151217
Ave 48 from Jackson to Van Buren
Street Widening
11/1/2014
6/22/2015
$ 2,278,000
Con
Pre PA&ED
FY 15/16
Agmt 14-/2-14/-00 Cons funded phase
with a start of cons Jan 2015; EPSP
concurrence needed from SCAG.
Eastvale
RIV151201
Hamner Ave
Hamner Ave Signal
Synchronization
11/1/2014
5/15/2015
$ 142,150
Con
PA&ED
Y
.gu ....4 i«-vv w1131. mi ww
phase with a start date of March 2015
(CMAQ and MSRC funding). As of
4/29/2015 NEPA secured. Waiting for
R/W cert and will submit RFA for
Construction in 2 more weeks New RFA
date is 5/15/2015.
Palm Desert
RIV071243
Free rt- Fred Waring/111
Reconfigure Right Turn
10/3/2014
4/10/2015
$ 531,000
Con
Con
Y
LMAQ Caii for Projects Award 200t-
2008. Funding reprog to FY 2014/15 in
2015 FTIP A-4. As of 4/28/2015 RFA at
Local Assistance. At District 8
Rancho Mirage
RIV140814
Bob Hope Dr and Dinah Shore Dr
4 ft high sand fencing
12/1/2014
2/24/2015
$ 101,000
PA&ED
Pre PA&ED
Y
CVAG'S CMAQ Call for Projects Award
2014. As of 2/5/2015: Received FPN.
Working on RFA for PE. RFA submitted
2/24/2015. At District 8
Rancho Mirage
RIV140815
Ramon Rd and Dinah Shore Dr
Pork Chop Island, pole
replacement and relocation and
4 ft high sand fencing
12/1/2014
2/24/2015
$ 204,000
PA&ED
Pre PA&ED
Y
CVAG'S CMAQ Call for Projects Award
2014. As of 2/5/2015: Received FPN.
Working on RFA for PE. RFA submitt
2/24/2015. At District 8
Rancho Mirage
RIV110130
Monterey Ave. SB Widening - Dinah Shore to
Gerald Ford
Widening Road and
Improvements
1/1/2015
6/30/2015
$ 850,000
Con
PS&E
Y
Prior Call for Projects Award. As of
4/29/2015: still in R/W. RFA date moved
from 5/5/2015 to 6/30/2015
Riverside
RIV151206
SR 91 Lime to Mulberry
Pedestrian Bridge
7/17/2014
6/1/2015
$ 638,000
Eng
Pre PA&ED
Y
Agmt 14-72-127-00 Environmental
funded phase with May 2014 schedule.
Secured FPN.
Riverside
RIV131202
Adams St at 91 IC
PA&ED
7/17/2014
7/3/2015
$ 935,000
Eng
Pre PA&ED
Y
Agmt 14-/2-14b-00 tnvironmental
funded schedule May 2014. As of
2/24/2015: RFA delayed due to PSR
required.
Riverside
RIV151209
4 Locations
Bike Lockers for last mile share
10/1/2014
7/1/2015
$ 240,000
Con
PA&ED
Y
Agmt 14-/L-130-00 Cons funded phase
with start of cons June 2015. As of
2/24/2015: Revised RFA date to July 1,
2015.
Riverside
RIV151215
Bruce Street
Sidewalks
10/1/2014
6/30/2015
$ 195,000
Con
PA&ED
Y
Agmt 14-72-131-00 Cons funded phase
with start of cons Sept 2015. FPN
secured.
Riverside
RIV151205
Magnolia Ave from First street to Buchanan
Signal Synchronization
1/2/2015
8/1/2015
$ 1,012,500
Con
Pre PA&ED
FY 15/16
Agent 14-/L-12b-Uu - LUIIS fUlluea pnase
with start of cons in Sep 2015 EPSP -
Need Concurrence from SCAG. As of
2/24/2015: New RFA Date is 8/1/2015.
No FPN and No NEPA.
Jan. 14, 2015
Agency
FTIP ID
Project Location
Project Scope/Description
ra-Aauom. to
Caltrans D-8
(Originally
Purposed)
KrAauom. to
Caltrans D-8
(Newly
Projected)
CMAQ
STP-L
Funding
Phase
Project
Phase
FT1P
Funding
Year
Comments
Sunline
RIV140821
Eastern Coachella Valley
Vanpool Pilot Program
7/3/2015
4/1/2015
$ 1,762,000
Con
Pre PA&ED
Y
LVAG s (.MA(/. tau for Projects Awanl
2014.
Flex Transfer with Local Assistance
4/27/2015. At District 8
Sunline
RIV140822
Desert Hot Springs to Palm Desert
New Bus Service
7/3/2015
4/1/2015
$ 1,536,000
Con
Pre PA&ED
Y
(.VAG s WALL tall for Projects Award
2014.
Flex Transfer with Local Assistance
4/27/2015. At District 8
Temecula
RIV62029
Park and Ride Facility
Park and Ride Facility
9/1/2014
6/30/2015
$ 1,300,750
Con
PS&E
Y
As of 4/29/2015, RFA delayed trom
4/30/2015 to 6/30/2015 due to
environmental issues
Temecula
RIV62031
I-15/SR-79 IC
IC Project
11/1/2014
6/30/2015
$ 12,976,000
Con
R/W
FY 15/16
4/30/2015 to 6/30/2015 due to
environmental issues
Blythe
RIV130402
N. Broadway Pavement Rehab
Pavement Rehab
11/1/2014
6/30/2015
$ 150,000
Con
Con
Y
As of 4/29/2015 - PES still under review,
RFA date was 4/10/2015, now delayed
due to environmental issues
Coachella
RIV130402
Grapefruit Blvd. Pavement
Rehabilitation/Reconstruction
Pavement Rehab
10/3/2014
6/23/2015
$ 215,000
Con
PA&ED
Y
FPN request rcvd by LA 8/22/14. As of
2/24/2015: City submitted updated PES
on 2/4/2015.
Corona
RIV130401
Ontario Ave Pavement Rehab
Pavement Rehab
10/1/2014
4/1/2015
$ 832,000
Con
PA&ED
Y
As of 4/29/2015 - RFA submitted to
Caltrans. At District 8
Desert Hot Springs
RIV130402
Hacienda Ave & Mission Lakes Blvd. Surface
Rehab
Pavement Rehab
9/1/2014
3/13/2015
$ 182,000
Con
Con
Y
As of 4/29/2015 - RFA submitted
3/19/2015. At District 8
Indian Wells
RIV130402
Cook Street Rubberized Overlay
Pavement Rehab
11/1/2014
4/15/2015
$ 135,000
Con
Pre PA&ED
Y
12/16/14 - KS start of cons is July -Aug
2015.
Indio
RIV130402
Old Hwy 111 Pavement Reconstruction
Pavement Rehab
1/7/2015
4/10/2015
$ 477,000
Con
Con
Y
As o14/29/2015 - RFA submitted on
2/19/2015 and R/W cert secured on
4/10/2015. At District 8
La Quinta
RIV130402
Washington St. Improvements
Pavement Rehab
7/15/2014
4/10/2015
$ 250,000
Con
Con
Y
As of 4/29/2015 - RFA submitted on
3/13/2015. At District 8
Lake Elsinore
RIV130401
Gunnerson St. Pavement Rehabilitation
Pavement Rehab
11/15/2014
7/3/2015
$ 286,000
Con
Con
Y
As of 2/4/2015: Lake Elsinore wants to
push RFA to July/August 2015, pending
NEPA approval.
Moreno Valley
RIV130401
Frederick St. and Elsworth St. Pavement
Rehab
Pavement Rehab
8/1/2014
4/10/2015
$ 1,084,000
Con
Con
Y
As of 2/19/2015, waiting for 2015 FTIP A.
4 Approval. As of 4/28/2015, RFA is at
Local Assistance. At District 8 Aid
Mu rrieta
RIV130401
Jefferson Ave. Pavement Rehab
Pavement Rehab
10/1/2014
6/1/2015
$ 593,000
Con
PS&E
Y
As of 2/24/2015: NEPA CE in 8/2014,
R/W cert not submitted. New RFA
6/1/2015.
Palm Desert
RIV130402
Portola Ave. Pavement Rehab
Pavement Rehab
10/3/2014
4/10/2015
$ 336,000
Con
Con
Y
NEPA and R/W completed. As of
4/28/2015 RFA at Local Assistance. At
District 8
Palm Springs
RIV130402
Ramon Rd. Pavement Rehab
Pavement Rehab
10/30/2014
4/21/2015
$ 396,000
Con
Con
Y
As of 4/29/2015 - RFA submitted on
4,g1/2o15 _—,
Rancho Mirage
RIV130402
Old Hwy 111 Pavement Rehab
Pavement Rehab
4/8/2015
6/30/2015
$ 162,000
Con
ROW Cert
Y
As of 2/23/2015: Received NEPA CE. RFA
anticipated date for summer 2015.
Riverside
RIV130401
Indiana Ave. Pavement Rehab
Pavement Rehab
6/27/2014
4/27/2015
$ 1,810,000
Con
Con
Y
As of 3/5/2015: CE approved
11/18/2014 and R/W cert. Need 2015
FTIP A-4 approval. As of 4/27/2015 RFA
at Local Assistance. At District 8
Temecula
RIV130401
Winchester Rd. Pavement Rehab
Pavement Rehab
9/1/2014
6/30/2015
$ 646,000
Con
PA&ED
Y
As of 4/29/2015, RFA delayed trom
4/30/2015 to 6/30/2015 due to
environmental issues
Jan. 14, 2015
Agency
FTIP ID
Project Location
Project Scope/Description
KI-Aauom. 10
Caltrans D-8
(Originally
Purposed)
KI-Aauom. to
Caltrans D-8
(Newly
Projected)
CMAQ
STP-L
Funding
Phase
Project
Phase
FTIP
Funding
Year
Comments
Corona
RIV041047
Magnolia & El Camino Ave
TE project
10/1/2014
6/22/2015
$ 943,000
Con
PA&ED
Y
As of 3/4/2015: RFA date :n Summer
2015.
TOTAL
RCTC
PVL Operations/Maintenance
Rail operations/maintenance
8/1/2015
20,000,000
Con
Con
New project in the 2015 FTIP A-8
Caltrans
RIV010212
SR91 HOV Gap Closure
HOV Lanes
4/1/2015
$ 6,197,100
Cons
Cons on-
going
FY 14/15
Post programming obligation to cover
cons capital and cons support shortfall
RCTC
RIV010212
SR91 HOV Gap Closure
HOV Lanes
4/1/2015
$ (6,197,100)
Util Rel
Util Rel on-
going
FY 14/15
De -obligation of funds per latest utility
relocation estimate.
OP - Totals
$ 28,105,400
$ 25,536,000
53,641,400
FY 2014/15 Obliaabons as of 5/11/2015
'hive Side County
R.V j I r+;<'47
1-10 in the City of Blythe
New W/B on and off ramps
10/1/2014
11/3/2014
$ 810,000
Con
Con
Y
STPLN-5956(240). Obligated 3-13-2015
YNIldumar
RIV130401
Clinton Keith Rd Slurry Seal
Pavement Rehab
6/30/2014
8/14/2014
$ 135,984
Con
Con
Y
STPL-5484(006). Obligated 3-9-2015
E#rrale
RIV130401
Schleisman Ave. Pavement Rehab
Pavement Rehab
7/17/2014
6/30/2014
$ 199,000
Con
ROW Cert
Y
STPL-5486(002) - Obligated 12/19/2014
MC
RIV041047
Downtown Station Improvements
Transit Station Improvements
11/14/2014
$ 1,485,526
Con
Con
FY 12/13
STPL-6054(0474) - Obligated 12/5/2014
Reverse EPSP.
Cathedral City
RIV130402
East Palm Canyon Dr. Rehab
Pavement Rehab
2/12/2014
10/23/2014
$ 336,680
Con
Con
FY 13/14
Si PL-5430(031) - Obligated 12/19/1014
(EPSP).
2,967,190
Jan. 14, 2015
AGENDA ITEM II
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
DATE:
May 18, 2015
TO:
Technical Advisory Committee
FROM:
Eric DeHate, Staff Analyst
LoreIle Moe -Luna, Senior Staff Analyst
SUBJECT:
2015 Federal Transportation Improvement Program (FTIP)
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Receive and file.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
2015 FTIP Update
As you may recall on January 26, 2015, staff reported the 2013 FTIP expired on December 15, 2014,
and was replaced with the 2015 FTIP. As you may also recall, staff reported the 2015 FTIP approval
also included Amendment No. 2 to the 2012-2035 RTP/SCS, and that parallel to securing these
important approvals, Amendment Nos. 1-3 were signed off by the reviewing agencies in late
December 2014.
Subsequently, Formal Amendment No. 4 was submitted on December 23, 2014, to SCAG including 28
projects; its approval was recently secured on April 8, 2015.
The former placeholder, also known as 15-99 (currently 15-11), is a consistency amendment
incorporating model changes to seven projects on the state highway and three projects on the local
highway system; its anticipated approval remains June 2016. Around early August 2015, staff will be
contacting you to update the financial plan for this consistency amendment. This will be the
opportunity to update the cost estimates and funding sources for programming purposes in the 2015
FTIP. No additional changes/modifications will be allowed until its approval, concurrent with the
2016 RTP/SCS in June 2016.
The following additional amendments have been submitted to SCAG since the last January 2015, TAC
update:
Amendment #
Type of Amendment
# of
Projects
SCAG submittal
Final Approval
Amendment 5
Administrative Modification
10
2/17/2015
3/10/2015
Amendment 6
Formal Amendment
15
3/17/2015
PENDING
Amendment 7
Administrative Modification
13
4/28/2015
PENDING
Attached to this staff report is the 2015 Amendment Log summarizing the amendments processed as
of today as well as a schedule for upcoming amendments up to August 2015.
To view the latest 2015 FTIP listings, please visit SCAG's website below:
http://ftip.scag.ca.gov/Pages/2015/approved.aspx
The following table is SCAG's current 2015 FTIP amendment schedule up to August 2015.
2015 FTIP Amendment/Administrative Modification Schedule
Due to RCTC
Due to SCAG
Amendment/Administrative
Modification No.
Formal or Administrative
6/2/2015
6/9/2015
15-09
Formal
7/14/2015
7/21/2015
15-10
Administrative
8/11/2015
8/18/2015
15-11
RTP Amendment**
** Projects in 15-99 in December
Attachment: 2015 FTIP Amendment Log
2015 Federal Transportation Improvement Program - Amendment Submittals and App: c:•a: Dates
2015 FTIP
Purpose
No. of Projects
Due to RCTC
Due to SCAG
Anticipated Approval
Final Approval
Final
Update
381
10/7/2013
1 /3/2014
12/17/2014
12/15/2014
Amendment 1
Formal Amendment
81
8/5/2014
8/12/2014
12/17/2014
12/15/2014
Amendment 2
Administrative Modification
13
10/27/2014
11/4/2014
12/29/2014
12/16/2014
Amendment 3*
Administrative Modification
0
Amendment 4
Formal Amendment
28
12/16/2014
12/23/2014
2/15/2015
4/8/2015
Amendment 5
Administrative Modification
10
2/10/2015
2/17/2015
3/10/2015
3/9/2015
Amendment 6
Formal Amendment
15
3/10/2015
3/17/2015
5/15/2015
Amendment
Administrative Modification
13
4/21/2015
4/28/2015
5/31/2015
Amendment 8"
Formal Amendment
0
Amendment 9
Formal Amendment
6/2/2015
6/9/2015
8/25/2015
Amendment 10
Administrative Modification
7/14/2015
7/21/2015
8/20/2015
Amendment 99
RTP Consistency Amendment
10
12/2/2014
12/9/2014
4/1/2016
Total Number of Projects
170
* RCTC did not participate in this amendment. This amendment was for OCTA
** RCTC will not participate in this amendment. This amendment is for LA Metro
2015 FTIP Amendment log.xlsx a'13/2015 - 7:44 AM
As of May 13, 2015
Page 1 of
AGENDA ITEM 12
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
DATE:
May 18, 2015
TO:
Technical Advisory Committee
FROM:
Eric DeHate, Staff Analyst
Grace Alvarez, Planning and Programming Manager
Shirley Medina, Planning and Programming Director
SUBJECT:
Tiger Grant Pre -Application Status
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Receive and file.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
In December 2014, Secretary Anthony Foxx from the United States Department of Transportation
(USDOT) released the notice of available discretionary Transportation Investment Generating
Economic Recovery (TIGER) cycle 7 grants funds. According to the USDOT's website, $500 million is
available for projects that are successful in competing for the funds. From the website,
pre -applications were due to the USDOT on May 4, 2015. In Riverside County, RCTC received
confirmation from four agencies they submitted a pre -application by the deadline of May 4, 2015, for
these TIGER Funds (See Attachment). Full applications will be due June 5, 2015. For more
information please visit the website below:
http://www.dot.gov/tiger
If there are any other agencies that submitted pre -applications to the USDOT, please let me know so I
can keep track for Riverside County.
Attachment: Tiger Grant Cycle 7 Pre -Application Table
DRAFT
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TIGER GRANT
CYCLE 7 PRE -APPLICATION TABLE
Agency
Lead Agency
Project Description
Funds Requested
Total Project Cost
FTIP ID
Percent of Funds to
Total Project Cost
Beaumont
Beaumont
Potrero Blvd Phase I and Western
Knolls Interim Project
12,000,000.00
18,500,000.00
RIV050535
64.86%
Calimesa
Yucaipa
I-10/County Line Rd Interchange
Project
11,000,000.00
16,400,000.00
RIV131201
67.07%
Lake Elsinore
Lake Elsinore
I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Corridor
Improvements
20,000,000.00
24,000,000.00
RIV010206
83.33%
Temecula
Temecula
French Valley Parkway/I-15
Overcrossing and Interchange
Improvements — Phase II
20,000,000.00
187,691,000.00
RIV031215
10.66%
No. of Agencies
4
Totals
63,000,000.00
246,591,000.00
25.55%
AS OF 5/11/2015
AGENDA ITEM 13
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
I
DATE:
May 18, 2015
TO:
Technical Advisory Committee
FROM:
LoreIle Moe -Luna, Senior Staff Analyst
SUBJECT:
Active Transportation Program (ATP) Updates
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Receive and file.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
Cycle 1
For project phases programmed in Fiscal Year 2014/15, the last opportunity for allocation/extension
requests by the California Transportation Commission (CTC) was due to Caltrans Local Assistance by
April 27 for the June 24, 2015, CTC meeting. To date, the following items are pending Caltrans
Headquarters approval for the June 24, 2015, CTC agenda:
1. Riverside Co. DPH — SRTS City of Jurupa Valley (Statewide)— CON Allocation of $500,000;
2. Riverside Co. DPH — SRTS City of Indio (Statewide)— CON Allocation of $500,000;
3. Riverside Co. DPH — SRTS City of Perris (Statewide) — CON Allocation of $500,000;
4. Indio — Andrew Jackson Elem Ped Improvements (Statewide) — Extension Request for 12
months for PSE ($186,000);
5. San Jacinto — Safe & Active San Jacinto SRTS (Statewide) — Extension Request for 9 months for
R/W ($126,000); and
6. Coachella —ATP Improvements (MPO) — Extension Request for 6 months for PSE ($100,000).
The following items are agendized for the May 27, 2015, CTC meeting:
1. Moreno Valley Citywide SRTS Ped Facility Improvements (Statewide) — Extension Request for
12 months for PSE ($89,000) and R/W ($71,000); and
2. WRCOG Active Transportation Plan (MPO) — CON Allocation of $333,000.
For those who will seek allocation in FY 2015/16, please remember to summit your allocation
requests to Caltrans by the agenda due dates as shown on the Caltrans website and found below. It
is also recommended you work with your assigned Local Assistance Engineer closely and as early as
possible to ensure your allocation packet is fully complete and follow up questions are answered
timely.
Local Agency Submits Allocation Requests to
Caltrans Local Assistance
2015 CTC Meeting Schedule
Monday, June 29, 2015
August 26-27 — San Diego Area
Monday, August 24, 2015
October 21-22 — Bay Area
Monday, October 12, 2015
December 9-10 — Inland Empire
Source:
http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/transprog/ctcliaison/Schedules/2015%20Calendars/2015 INTERNET Prep
updated Nov1814.pdf
Please ensure a copy of your final allocation/extension request is submitted to Lorelle Moe -Luna for
our records and to be forwarded to SCAG. RCTC staff is happy to assist in the allocation process, if
needed, and requests you allow additional time for review prior to submitting to Caltrans.
Cycle 2
The Call for Projects for Cycle 2 commenced on March 26, 2015, and applications are due
June 1, 2015. Please be sure to read all the instructions carefully and submit the required copies
(electronically and hard copies) timely. RCTC, in its role as the Regional Transportation Planning
Agency (RTPA)/County Transportation Commission, is required to receive a copy of all final
applications in our county. Please submit an electronic copy of your application at the time of
submittal by email to Imoe-luna@rctc.org. If the file is larger than 10 MB, please send an email
notifying us that a CD or flashdrive will mailed. SCAG is also requesting an electronic copy by CD to
be sent to the following:
Stephen T. Patchan
Senior Regional Planner
Southern California Association of Governments
818 West 7th Street, 12th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90017
A total of $359 million is available from three years of funding under MAP-21 (Fiscal Years 2016/17 —
2018/19) for two years of programming. Pursuant to state and federal statutes, the funds must be
distributed on a statewide, large Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPO), and small urban and
rural basis as shown in the table below. A minimum of 25 percent of the funds must benefit
disadvantaged communities. Up to 3 percent may be set aside to fund active transportation plans in
predominantly disadvantaged communities.
Funding
Distribution
Category
$179.5
50%
Statewide
$143.6
40%
Large MPOs (population > 200,000)
$35.9
10%
Small Urban/Rural areas (population < 200,000)
$359.0
100%
Total
Scoring Criteria
The CTC solicited comments from MPOs and county transportation commissions to improve the
guidelines, including scoring criteria, and application process. A notable change in the scoring criteria
for this cycle is each narrative question is broken down into subsections with the point breakdown for
each. Additionally, the instructions are more descriptive in the types of answers that should be
provided. The following table is a summary of the scoring criteria by narrative question for Cycle 2.
Cycle 2
Narrative Questions
30 pts
Potential for increased walking and bicycling
A. Current and projected types and numbers/rates of users (12 pts)
B. Describe project links and connections to major destinations (12 pts)
C. Describe how the proposed project represents the Agency's highest unfunded
non -motorized active transportation priorities. (6 pts)
25 pts
Potential for reducing the number and/or rate of bike/ped fatalities and injuries
A. Describe the plan/program influence area or project location's history of collisions
resulting in fatalities and injuries (10 pts)
B. Describe how the project will remedy (one or more) potential safety hazards that
contribute to pedestrian an/or bike injuries and fatalities. (15 pts)
15 pts
Public participation and planning
A. Who was engaged to identify this project? (5 pts)
B. How were stakeholders engaged? (4 pts)
C. What feedback did you get from the stakeholder engagement process? (5pts)
D. How will stakeholders continue to be engaged in the implementation? (1 pt)
5 pts
Cost Effectiveness
A. Describe alternatives that were considered and how the ATP-related benefits vs
project -costs varied between them (3 pts)
B. Use the ATP Benefit/Cost Tool (provided by Caltrans) to calculate the ratio of the
benefits of the project relative to both the total project cost and ATP funds
requested. (2 pts)
10 pts
Improved Public Health
A. Describe health status of the targeted users of the project. (3 pts)
B. Describe how you expect your project will enhance public health. (7 pts)
10 pts
Benefits to Disadvantaged Communities
A. Identification of disadvantaged communities (0 pts - screening only)
B. What % of the funds will be expended in the disadvantaged community? (5 pts)
C. Describe how the project provides a direct, meaningful, and assured benefit to
members of the disadvantaged community. (5 pts)
5 pts
Leveraging of Funds
1 point: For committing the leveraging funds to a phase(s) of the project where the
applicant is requesting new ATP funding. (i.e. not for the completion of aprior phase.)
The committed funding must be at least 1% of the total ATP funding requested for the
project.
Plus:
1 point: 1% to 11.4% of total project cost
2 points: 11.5% to 14.9% of total project cost
3 points: 15% to 19.9% of total project cost
4 points: 20% of more of total project cost
100 pts
Total
Potential Deductions
-5 pts
Use of California Conservation Corps (CCC) or a Certified Community Conservation
Corps
-10 pts
Applicant's performance on past grants and deliverability of projects
The ATP process includes sequential project selection, meaning projects not ranked high enough in
the statewide competition would automatically have a second opportunity for funding through the
large MPO share. The Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), as our MPO, will allow
the Regional Transportation Planning Agencies (RTPAs) such as RCTC to review the applications
submitted to the state from Riverside County and add up to 10 points for projects consistent with
bicycle and pedestrian plans adopted by local and regional governments. Similar to Cycle 1, RCTC
automatically added 10 points to each application, and again in Cycle 2 anticipates each applicant will
receive the full 10 points. In Cycle 1, RCTC's share of SCAG's large MPO pot was approximately
$9 million, or 12 percent, and was based on geographic equity and is likely to be approximately the
same in Cycle 2.
Potential Applicants
As of the writing of this report, the following agencies indicated that they are planning on submitting
an application for this cycle:
1. Western Riverside Council of Governments (2 applications)
2. SunLine Transit Agency (1 application)
3. City of Moreno Valley (3 applications)
4. Coachella Valley Association of Governments (1 application)
5. City of Riverside (5 applications)
6. County of Riverside Department of Public Health (2 applications)
7. City of Perris (2 application)
8. County of Riverside Transportation (6 applications)
9. City of Wildomar (2 applications)
10. City of Beaumont (2 applications)
Given the success of the number of awarded projects in Riverside County from Cycle 1, RCTC staff
would like to continue this momentum in Cycle 2 and offer its assistance in any way possible
(i.e., letter of support, review of application, etc.) to local agencies considering applying for ATP funds
in the next round.
Resources:
Cycle 2 Guidelines —
http://www.catc.ca.gov/programs/ATP/2015/Final%20Adopted%202015%20ATP%20Guidelines.pdf
Cycle 2 Application Instructions —
http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/Local Programs/atp/cycle-2.html
AGENDA ITEM 14
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
DATE:
May 18, 2015
TO:
Technical Advisory Committee
FROM:
Grace Alvarez, Planning and Programming Manager
SUBJECT:
Measure A Local Streets and Roads Submittals — FYs 2016-2020
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Receive and file.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
The Measure A Local Streets and Roads Annual Capital Improvement Program Fiscal Years 2016-2020
submittals were due to the Riverside County Transportation Commission on May 11, 2015. As of
the writing of this report (May 12, 2015), 19 submittals were received (68 percent). There are 9
agencies pending the annual submittals (32 percent).
Attachment: Measure A Five Year CIP Submittals FYs 2016-2020 Report
Measure A — Five Year CIP Submittals
FY 2016-2020
WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY
AGENCY
SUBMITTAL DATE
Comments
BANNING
CALI M ESA
5/7/2015
CANYON LAKE
5/11/2015
CORONA
5/6/2015
EASTVALE
HEMET
5/12/2015
JURUPA VALLEY
LAKE ELSINORE
5/11/2015
MENIFEE
5/7/2015
MORENO VALLEY
5/12/2015
MURRIETA
5/11/2015
NORCO
PERRIS
RIVERSIDE
5/7/2015
SAN JACINTO
5/12/2015
TEMECULA
5/11/2015
WILDOMAR
RIVERSIDE COUNTY
5/11/2015
EASTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY
AGENCY
SUBMITTAL DATE
Comments
BLYTH E
CATHEDRAL CITY
5/4/2015
COACH E LLA
DESERT HOT SPRINGS
4/20/2015
INDIAN WELLS
4/20/2015
INDIO
LA QU I NTA
5/7/2015
PALM DESERT
5/11/2015
PALM SPRINGS
5/6/2015
RANCHO MIRAGE
5/11/2015
RIVERSIDE COUNTY
5/11/2015
Submittals received are currently under review. RCTC staff may require additional information and/or
corrections to the submittals.
AGENDA ITEM 15
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
DATE:
May 18, 2015
TO:
Technical Advisory Committee
FROM:
Grace Alvarez, Planning and Programming Manager
SUBJECT:
Caltrans Local Assistance Update
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Receive and file.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
Sean Yeung, District Local Assistance Engineer will provide the following updates:
• Performance End Date new directive impacting federally funded projects
• HSIP Cycle 7
• DBE FY 2015/16 Submittals
• Updated Local Assistance Staffing Assigned to Local Agencies (attached)
• Caltrans Local Assistance web link to check for project status, E-76 status, and invoice
reimbursement status:
To check Project Status: http://sv08data.dot.ca.gov/localprojects/search.php Click: local assistance
project.
To check E-76 status: http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LocalPrograms/E-76-status.php
To check Invoice payment: http://www.dot.ca.gov/tmp/lapsintropage.html Click: Vendor Payment.
LOCAL ASSISTANCE STAFF ASSIGNMENTS
Sean Yeung
District Local Assistance Engineer (DLAE)
sean.yeung@dot.ca.gov
(909)383-4030
Harish Rastogi harish.rastogi@dot.ca.gov
(909)806-4798
Albert Vergel de Dios albert.vergel.de.dios@dot.ca.gov
(909)806-3944
Corona Needles Victorville
Desert Hot Spings Ontario Wildomar
Lake Elsinore Riverside City- SANBAG*
Murrieta Temecula
Banning Moreno Valley San Jacinto
Beaumont Palm Desert HBP (Riv Cnty)
Highland Palm Springs
Indio Rancho Mirage
Evita Premdas evita.premdas@dot.ca.gov
(909)806-3943
Sylvester Lin sylvester.lin@dot.ca.gov
(909)806-3942
Coachella Menifee WRCOG
CVAG Perris
Eastvale RCTC
Jurupa Valley Riverside County
Colton San Bernardino County
DWR SANBAG*
Grand Terrace HBP (SBd Cnty)
Indian Wells
David Lee david.lee@dot.ca.gov
(909)809-4759
Carol Green carol.green@dot.ca.gov
(916)651-8909
Apple Valley Chino Hills Rialto
Calimesa La Quinta SANBAG*
Cathedral City Rancho Cucamonga 29 Palms
Chino Redlands ER
FTA
Barstow Hemet San Bernardino City
Big Bear Lake Hesperia Upland
Blythe Loma Linda Yucaipa
Fontana Montclair Yucca Valley
SANBAG*
Ron Akers :onald.akers@dot.ca.gov
(909)806-3954
Gloria Taylor oloria.tavloregiot.ca.gov
(909)806-4780
Cooperative Work Agreements (CWAs) Program Coordinator
Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) Training Coordinator
Inactive Projects
Preliminary Engineering (PE) > 10 Years
Budgets General Inquiry
Administrative
Mail and Document Submittal Information
464 W. 4th Street, 6th Floor MS 760, San Bernardino, CA 92401
• All mail will be delivered to the above address.
• Only original, hard copies (with wet signature if applicable) will be accepted as official submittals.
* Staff is assigned to project(s) based on location.
Current as of April 17, 2015
"
"
"
M E M O R A N D U M
T O : T E C H N I C A L A D V I S O R Y C O M M I T T E E
F R O M : G r a c e A l v a r e z , P l a n n i n g a n d P r o g r a m m i n g M a n a g e r
R E : H S I P C Y C L E 7 U p d a t e
D A T E : M a y 1 8 , 2 0 1 5
R C T C w a s r e c e n t l y n o t i f i e d b y o n e o u r C a l R T P A m e m b e r s w h o i s p a r t o f t h e H S I P c o m m i t t e e
t h a t C a l t r a n s a d j u s t e d t h e b e n e f i t c o s t a n a l y s i s f o r H S I P p r o j e c t s s o t h a t f a t a l a n d s e v e r e i n j u r i e s
a r e n o w c o n s i d e r e d t o g e t h e r b a s e d o n a n a v e r a g e o f t h e t w o t y p e s o f a c c i d e n t s . T h e H S I P
c o m m i t t e e h a d e x p r e s s e d c o n c e r n s t h a t t h e o l d b e n e f i t c o s t c a l c u l a t i o n w o u l d w e i g h o n e f a t a l i t y
t h a t m a y h a v e b e e n t h e r e s u l t o f s o m e t h i n g o t h e r t h a n t h e s a f e t y c o n d i t i o n s o f t h e f a c i l i t y
s i g n i f i c a n t l y h i g h e r t h a n i t w o u l d m u l t i p l e s e r i o u s i n j u r y c r a s h e s . T h i s c h a n g e w a s m a d e
r e c e n t l y s o i f y o u t e s t e d a p r o j e c t f o r s u b m i t t a l a n d y o u w e r e u n h a p p y w i t h t h e b e n e f i t c o s t
a n a l y s i s , y o u m a y w a n t t o c o n s i d e r r u n n i n g y o u r p r o j e c t t h r o u g h t h e a n a l y s i s a g a i n .
P l e a s e f i n d a t a b l e a t t a c h e d t h a t d e m o n s t r a t e s t h e o l d v a l u e s t h a t a r e n o l o n g e r i n e f f e c t a n d t h e
n e w v a l u e s t h a t w i l l b e c o n s i d e r e d i n t h e b e n e f i t c o s t c a l c u l a t i o n n o w . A l s o e n c l o s e d i s a p o w e r
p o i n t p r e s e n t a t i o n t h a t d e s c r i b e s t h e c h a n g e .
I n f o r m a t i o n o n t h e H S I P C y c l e 7 a p p l i c a t i o n p r o c e s s c a n b e f o u n d a t :
h t t p : / / w w w . d o t . c a . g o v / h q / L o c a l P r o g r a m s / H S I P / a p p l y n o w . h t m
A l s o , p l e a s e f i n d a l i s t o f l o w c o s t c o u n t e r m e a s u r e s t h a t c a n b e f u n d e d t h r o u g h H S I P c y c l e 7 a t
1 0 0 % t h r o u g h t h e l i n k b e l o w . T h i s i s n e w i n f o r m a t i o n f o r t h e H S I P p r o g r a m .
h t t p : / / w w w . d o t . c a . g o v / h q / L o c a l P r o g r a m s / H S I P / D o c u m e n t s / h s i p / f e d e r a l - e l i g i b l e - l i s t . p d f
"
C o l l i s i o n C o s t V a l u e s u s e d f o r C a l c u l a t i n g B e n e f i t / C o s t s f o r H S I P P r o j e c t P r o p o s a l s
O l d M e t h o d N e w M e t h o d - C o m b i n e d F a t a l a n d
S e v e r e / D i s a b l i n g I n j u r y C o l l i s i o n C o s t s
R o a d w a y S i g n a l i z e d N o n - S i g n a l i z e d
F a t a l $ 4 , 0 0 8 , 0 0 0
$ 1 , 7 3 0 , 0 0 0 $ 1 , 2 6 0 , 0 0 0 $ 2 , 0 0 0 , 0 0 0
S e v e r e / D i s a b l i n g l n j u r y ( A ) $ 2 1 6 , 0 0 0
E v i d e n t I n j u r y - O t h e r $ 7 9 , 0 0 0 $ 1 0 8 , 6 0 0 $ 1 0 8 , 6 0 0 $ 1 0 8 , 6 0 0 V i s i b l e ( B )
P o s s i b l e I n j u r y - C o m p l a i n t o f $ 4 4 , 0 0 0 $ 6 1 , 3 0 0 $ 6 1 , 3 0 0 $ 6 1 , 3 0 0 P a i n
P r o p e r t y D a m a g e O n l y ( O ) $ 7 , 4 0 0 $ 1 0 , 0 0 0 $ 1 0 , 0 0 0 $ 1 0 , 0 0 0 "
"
"
"
"
c : : J
0 u - V l
I - r t S u
0
. . . . J
Collision Factors Venn Diagram showing the causes by percentage, of road collisions in the United States 2 •
" " 4 E ' s o f S a f e t y E m e r g e n c y S e r v i c e s E d u c a t i o n a n d E n f o r c e m e n t p l a y m o r e o f a r o l e i n p r e v e n t i n g f a t a l c o l l i s i o n s a s t h e v a s t m a j o r i t y a r e c a u s e d b y d r i v e r b e h a v i o r . " 3
Crash Severity by percentage Percent Collision Severity (2008-2010) 0.6% Local 'Roadways •Fatal •Injury •PDQ Source: SWITRS for Local Roadways / TASA~ •
" " " % b y # o f F a t a l i t i e s a n d I n j u r i e s 2 . 3 % " F a t a l i t i e s " I n j u r i e s R u r a l L o c a l R o a d w a y s r c e : S W I T R S f o r L o c a l R o a d w a y s I T A S A S 5
% by# of Fatalities and Injuries 0.8% • Fatalities •Injuries Urban Local Roadways Source: SWITRS for Local Roadways / TASAS 6 •
" " 5 Y e a r A v e r a g e - I n j u r y S e v e r i t y C o m p l a i n t , 6 1 . 7 % , S e v e r e , 5 . 8 % O t h e r V i s i b l e , 3 0 . 9 % , S o u r c e : T I M S - L o c a l R o a d w a y s " 7
Local Roadway B/C Methodology Cycle 6 0 HEAVY emphasis on a fatal collisions and fatal collision cost (11 .5 times higher than all others combined): • Fatal : $4,008 ~ • Severe/Disabling lnjury(A) == $216 I< • Evident Injury -Other Visible(B) == $ 79 K • Possible Injury -Complaint of Pain (C) == $44 K • Property Damage Only (0) == $7.4 K a 8 •
" " L o c a l R o a d w a y E x i s t i n g B / C M e t h o d o l o g y ~ E x a m p l e p r o j e c t : 0 R u r a l R o a d w a y : I n s t a l l H i g h F r i c t i o n S u r f a c e T r e a t m e n t , P r o j e c t C o s t = $ 4 5 0 , 0 0 0 " 5 y e a r s o f c o l l i s i o n d a t a " 2 1 t o t a l c o l l i s i o n s , - 2 f a t a l s , 0 I n c a p a c i t a t i n g I n j u r y , 9 N o n - c a p a c i t a t i n g I n j u r y , l 0 P o s s i b l e I n j u r y , 0 P D Q " T o t a l B e n e f i t f o r a l 0 y e a r l i f e o f p r o j e c t = $ 5 . 5 m i l l i o n " B / C = 1 2 . 2 " 0 S a m e p r o j e c t : I n s t a l l H i g h F r i c t i o n S u r f a c e T r e a t m e n t ( n o f a t a l s b u t 2 w e r e I n c a p a c i t a t i n g I n j u r y c o l l i s i o n s ) " 5 y e a r s o f c o l l i s i o n d a t a " 2 1 t o t a l c o l l i s i o n s , 0 f a t a l s , 2 l n c a ~ a c i t a t i n g I n j u r y , 9 N o n - c a p a c i t a t i n g I n j u r y , 1 0 P o s s i b l e I n j u r y , 0 P D Q s " T o t a l B e n e f i t f o r a l 0 y e a r l i f e o f p r o j e c t = $ 9 5 5 , 2 0 0 " B / C = 2 . l ~ B / C d i f f e r e n c e o f 1 0 . 1 - W i t h o u t t h e f a t a l c o l l i s i o n s , p r o j e c t w o u l d l i k e l y n o t h a v e b e e n s u b m i t t e d a s a n H S I P s a f e t y p r o j e c t 9
Local Roadway Existing B/C Methodology 0 Using the fatal cost in the B/C calculation can lead to the tendency to focus on collisions experiencing a fatality. 0 Missed opportunities - A location could be the local agency's top priority but without a fatal collision, getting a qualifying B/C may be difficult. 10 •
" " " U p d a t e d C o l l i s i o n C o s t s f o r C y c l e 7 " F a t a l : $ 5 , 5 7 9 , 4 0 0 " S e v e r e / D i s a b l i n g l n j u r y ( A ) = = $ 2 9 7 , l 0 0 " E v i d e n t I n j u r y - O t h e r V i s i b l e ( B ) = = $ 1 0 8 , 6 0 0 " P o s s i b l e I n j u r y - C o m p l a i n t o f P a i n ( C ) = = $ 6 1 , 3 0 0 " P r o p e r t y D a m a g e O n l y ( 0 ) = = $ 1 0 , 0 0 0 1 1
Cycle 7 Average Collision Cost Combined Fatals and Severe Injuries Fatal & Severe -{Roadway -$1.73 million Injury Non-Signalized Intersection -$2 .0 million Collision Signalized Intersection -$1.26 million Costs Evident Injury -$ 108,600 Possible Injury -$61 ,300 Property Damage Only-$10,000 l 2 •
" " C y c l e 7 A v e r a g e C o l l i s i o n C o s t C o m b i n e d F a t a l a n d S e v e r e I n j u r i e s C a l c u l a t e d a S e v e r e I n j u r y t o F a t a l I n j u r y R a t i o U s e d t h e T I M S t o o l a n d 1 0 C o u n t y , 5 y e a r a v e r a g e t o d e r i v e a l / F r a t i o - 3 . 6 0 U s e d t h e f o r m u l a f r o m F e b r u a r y 1 , 1 9 6 7 F H W A c i r c u l a r , " S e l e c t i o n o f H i g h w a y S a f e t y I m p r o v e m e n t P r o j e c t s " t o c a l c u l a t e a v e r a g e c o l l i s i o n c o s t . " ( F a t a l C o s t + ( l / F ) * ( S e v e r e I n j u r y C o s t s ) ) / 1 + ( l / F ) P r o r a t e d F + S I c r a s h c o s t s t o C y c l e 6 p r o j e c t s a n d a d j u s t e d u p o r d o w n U t i l i z e d b y M i c h i g a n D O T a n d H i g h w a y S a f e t y M a n u a l d i s c u s s e s a v e r a g i n g c o l l i s i o n s a s w e l l f o r b e n e f i t I c o s t p u r p o s e s . " 1 3
Applying Average Collision Cost to Previous Example Project (Using Updated Crash Costs) Roadway High Friction Surface Treatment, 21 collisions over 5 years, Project Cost =$450,000 B/C == 1 7.0 Same project: HFST (without fatals) B/C = 2.9 Using Average Collision Methodology for Fatal and Severe Injury Crashes, F+ SI = $1. 73 million B/C = 6.7 14 •
" " A p p l y i n g A v e r a g e C o l l i s i o n C o s t ( U p d a t e d C r a s h C o s t s ) U r b a n L o c a l I n t e r s e c t i o n E x a m p l e U p g r a d e t r a f f i c s i g n a l s a t 5 i n t e r s e c t i o n s ( c o n v e r t t o m a s t a r m ) , 3 F a t a l s , 2 S I , 1 1 N o n I n c , 5 8 C . O . P . , 0 P D Q 7 4 c o l l i s i o n s o v e r 1 0 y e a r s , P r o j e c t C o s t = " ' $ 7 7 0 K B / C = = 1 7 . 2 S a m e p r o j e c t : ( w i t h o u t f a t a l s ) B / C = 4 . 9 U s i n g F + S I A v e r a g e C o l l i s i o n M e t h o d o l o g y ( $ 1 . 2 6 m i l l i o n B / C = 8 . 6 1 " . l 5
r'-·
Vl
c:
0 ·-
I ' Vl
(])
:l
Ci
AGENDA ITEM 16
A presentation will be made but
there is no attachment to the
agenda for item 16.