HomeMy Public PortalAbout05 May 16, 2016 Technical Advisory CommitteeCOMM-TAC-00048
RIVERSI DE COU NTY TRANSPORTATION COM M ISSION
TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETI NG AGENDA*
*Actions may be taken on any item listed on the agenda.
TIME: 10:00 A.M.
DATE: May L6, 2016
LOCATION: Riverside County Transportation Commission
4080 Lemon Street, Third Floor
Riverside, CA 92501
ln complionce with the Americans with Disabilities Act ond government Code Section 54954.2, if you need speciol
ossistance to porticipate in o Committee meeting, please contoct the Riverside County Tronsportation Commission
at (951) 787-7747. Notification of ot least 48 hours prior to meeting time will ossist staff in ossuring that
reasonoble orrongements can be made to provide occessibility at the meeting.
L. Callto Order
2. Self-lntroductions
3. Approval of March 2I,2OL6 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 743 - Congestion Management Plan (Verbal Presentation)
5. 2016 Grade Separation Companion Study (Verbal Presentation)
Caltrans Design Flexibility (Verbal Presentation)
8. LocalAssistailceUpdate(VerbalPresentation)
9. May Commission Meeting Highlights (Verbal Presentation)
10. Other Business
LL. Adjournment (The next meeting will be July 18 in Beaumont.)
AGENCY TAC MEMBER BANNING ART VELA Acting Director of Public Works --------------------·-BEAUMONT CHRIS VOGT 1 Public Works Director I ------------IARMANDO BALDiZZONE BLYTHE i Director of Public Works I ---------------CVAG DENNIS WOODS Director of Transportation ---------·· CALIMESA MICHAEL THORNTON City Engineer ---------------CAL TRANS SEAN YEUNG District Local Assistance Engineer I -----------I HABIB MOTLAGH -CHAIR CANYON LAKE City Engineer -. -· CATHEDRAL CITY JOHN CORELLA City Engineer I-· COACHELLA JONATHAN HOY City Engineer I / ---------CORONA NELSON NELSON / Public Works Director/City Engineer -· DESERT HOT DANIEL PORRAS SPRINGS Public Works Manager TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE May 16, 2016 PLEASE SIGN IN ALTERNATE PRINT NAME Holly Stuart 1 Public Works Analyst -----------_l ---------------------Elizabeth M. Gibbs-Urtiaga {~v-• !. 11.. V"j i Interim City Manager . ·---------· i I I I -----Bob French Public Works Director H1~(.., T~ ·-i Secif) Yeun7 -___ _, ___ ---· -----------·-------.-------------Bill Simons 1 Senior Engineer J C)~,.J LoR..tLL.A ·--·-·----------Maritza Martinez Interim Public Works Director I ·---Rafael Martinez Principal Engineer -------Richard Kopecky Contract City Engineer SIGNATURE and EMAIL -----tLtt /~'7-L.ll~j t@;" {.-(-..-€' J, {~ ""/' ( . ("<?,,....__ -----I I -~P.~ -----------· ---I'--Yd-.SeC1n:;ev117 e c{o-f, ta.;~v. ---------------I -1--'-!-UV ·-J :J C1> R£ lLA E:; CAtktO&W:.L f. w ---ifL1f~ . . l'J__t!./f c .:(.. . 11. • f'~"':_~ C•, Co ,,...o .nu, e, tc., q(f
AGENCY TAC MEMBER EASTVALE GEORGE ALVAREZ City Engineer HEMET l'.EVE LATINO City Engineer INDIAN WELLS I KEN SEU MALO • VICE CHAIR 'Public Works Director --·-----INDIO TIM WASSIL Public Works Director ------------------JURUPA VALLEY ROY STEPHENSON Public Works Director/City Engineer -----~-----LA QUINTA TIMOTHY JONASSON TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE May 16, 2016 PLEASE SIGN IN ALTERNATE PRINT NAME :Joe lndrawan ~ -S-r<£vrs U.u//D - ---------------------Bondie Baker aw 'il!1u,,c./.Lo Assistant Engineer II SIGNATURE ----------------------------------i JS ... ... . .. " ---Tom Rafferty , Principal Civil Engineer <; j ""-0 .i, > .S 1 L /) ~ ----------------------------------------I I k--------------'""---------------1 Edward Wimmer . -----------I r,..,_ Jc \11-~ov-d~~ Public Works Director/City Engineer I Principal Engineer ! -----------------------------------------------------------------LAKE ELSINORE ATI ESKANDARI Rita Thompson Consultant Project Manager -··z MENIFEE JONATHAN SMITH Steve Glynn :b°AAT~AN SlV\t-rft Public Works Director/City Engineer I -----MORENO VALLEY AHMAD ANSARI Prem Kumar Public Works Director/City Engineer Deputy Public Works Director/ Assistant City Engineer -----------------------------------------------MURRIETA BOB MOEHLING Jeff Hitch ~ \\J\~~\.. t"1i City Engineer Public Works Construction Manager ------------NORCO CHAD BLAIS Bill Thompson Public Works Director Water and Sewer Utilities
AGENCY PALM DESERT TAC MEMBER BO CHEN City Engineer TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE May 16, 2016 PLEASE SIGN IN ALTERNATE PRINT NAME Mark Diercks 1 Transportation Engineer 170 l~ I PALM SPRINGS MARCUS FULLER I Savat Khamphou PERRIS Assistant City Manager/City Engineer HABIB MOTLAGH City Engineer RT A I ROHAN KURUPPU RANCHO MIRAGE I MARK SAMBITO Director of Public Works _____________ L_ ·-------RIVERSIDE i KRIS MARTINEZ Kristin Warsinski Planning and Programming Specialist Bill Enos City Engineer Farshid Mohammadi Engineering Manager RIVERSIDE COUNTY I PATRICIA ROMO IMojahed Salama SAN JACINTO SUN LINE Assistant Director of Transportation HABIB MOTLAGH City Engineer SEMIA HACKETT Chief Administrative Officer Anita M. Petke Transit Planning Manager R"'~~~ ~· ~61Th -------~A~'t.\ A ~o~ 1\ t--"~ ~ ~Ye--\'1-SIGNATURE and EMAIL h1-• .('"(Cl/ -----~ ~l'Y\Oo...Jt-c.__ +L ~<:tl·r--J----------------,_-_____,.,. -TEMECULA TOM GARCIA Amer Attar -/ifVfG"L Ari~ --) ;__ $4rct4 Public Works Director Janet Morales -----11'>,;--+-~~uct«iftJ ~lf•) DAN YORK 1WILDOMAR Dan Var~ Assistant City Manager/Director of I Administrative Assistant Public Works/City Engineer
AGENCY TAC MEMBER WRCOG !CHRISTOPHER GRAY ________ 1: Dir~ctor o~ Transportation /A1 ~A-Li{~: CADb!~tJ lh1t) I ------=-t (L,(Ac_ ' TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE May 16, 2016 PLEASE SIGN IN ALTERNATE Donna Dean j Program Manager i PRINT NAME SIGNATURE and EMAIL L)TI-/ /ff, fr -5 " 0&1/l?~. ~-S If rv 1J J 12-A-_ . , · 11tthai'1{-e < n c., 13 RI JJ{.,g, d j) f:\j_f. ' u 5 QYJ d 7 (d\ ~ H ·-~--A l~.x l\i\e111-0V .) ~~ .;:;~ -~= --l--1--I I "vVle"'-o~ , Mo .)c<."'-o.d 'Sc... I~''"' ...., s'..._~ < c. ti ....... -""""~ ~··kt_ ~+L·tfi f4t-vltt, StA+tr{t".2 J,,-f. u-j'J -~-s.;R«-[ Wl •<fffOrJ\;;1.1(_~. ""''PrOf/{ Q~.r-c,f. 5• v C.f!.L"t~Ar 5 I lA£ /+s5cc,~~-<ftj ~ 0/ tt frtd Alr1 mo!,h D ~ l{ ·)(f/rvi'}'l.A.<l{iiL J?eit~) l-f t,:Mj.::t-1 ~tf-e15 .. c4Jir ------,.--+--· ,coJOOf\S II ___ ] I Chrtsly~(\~ ] ctir1s_1y.~~Jo/.co.~ cc,y C.-1 I t-V-dlY) ":> ·--··-·-·· ----·--i--·---··-·~---···--·---·-·--·-··-·--~-------+---R~y-b __ .,.... __ Ua..<§k:..\o +--C::::..e>\. ~ 0" ~.7 a-~s.~ ,, ___ -------I-------lo--\.~"\!7 '-------------~-+-----"I<.~\/~~' d.st U>"4fr{ ~.,.k~wz1~ ~~~ ~~~'"""' @_J.g.t--. .. ~~crV r fl" tt ~ re. +I mo... c:sY''f +------------------+--fZ.. •'{ "1 t-{ l ( -----I
~c 1c_/ ---I f-XbK, ~[_,, ·-t.J ·1r 1r--L1'-/Jere M~1U~v -~ AtUi TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE May 16, 2016 PLEASE SIGN IN --~~· Li41-L -I !tu_:~---~~}~_, . ' .])>"):>!'7'\o_J_ ~~~--Lo r.f.,i f-e fvloC ~ ~ ;:.:--"--·~ I __ _!.)_· _LJ_ __ ·-~ -t;.,; c t: /'t;r{( kcd~'1 ~~-=-Ef2A6 L£W1 S i ~ c(U d,L.£. '2.JYlc '-*1.. . o{?--6 --------+----------------~··~--·--+ . -------' I-----·-+·---------+-------·+-----------+---------+-. ----------I
MINUTES
TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING
MINUTES
Monday, March 21, 2016
1. CALL TO ORDER
The meeting of the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) Technical Advisory
Committee (TAC) was called to order by Vice Chair Ken Seumalo at 10:05' a.m. at the Riverside
County Transportation Commission, 4080 Lemon Street, Riverside, CA.
2. SELF -INTRODUCTIONS
Members Present:
Others Present:
Bo Chen, City of Palm Desert
Marcus Fuller, City of Palm Springs
Tom Garcia, City of Temecula
Steve Glynn, City of Menifee
Jeff Hitch, City of Murrieta
Prem Kumar, City of Moreno Valley
Steve Latino, City of Hemet
Rafael Martinez, City of Corona
Farshid Mohammadi, City of Riverside
Anita Petke, SunLine Transit Agency
Patricia Romo, County of Riverside
Mark Sambito, City of Rancho Mirage
Ken Seumalo, City of Indian Wells
Jonathan Smith, City of Menifee
Art Vela, City of Banning
Chris Vogt, City of Beaumont
Kristin Warsinski, Riverside Transit Agency
Edward Wimmer, City of La Quinta
Dennis Woods, CVAG
Sean Yeung, Caltrans
Dan York, City of Wildomar
Grace Alvarez, RCTC
Craig Bradshaw, City of Eastvale
Eric DeHate, RCTC
Ray Desselle, Caltrans
Shirley Gooding, RCTC
Marsie Gutierrez, Riverside County Department of Public Health
Mike Heath, City of Calimesa
Amy Hyong, Riverside County Department of Public Health
Eric Lewis, City of Moreno Valley
Tanya Love, RCTC
Kranthi Mannila, Athalye Consulting
Lorelle Moe -Luna, RCTC
Nina Mohammed, Inland Empire Biking Alliance
Technical Advisory Committee Meeting
March 21, 2016
Page 2
Daniel Ramirez-Cornejo, WRCOG
Paul Rodriguez, Rodriguez Consulting Group
John Standiford, RCTC
Eric Weck, City of Indio
3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
The January 15, 2016 minutes were approved as submitted.
Abstain: Edward Wimmer
4. PUBLIC COMMENTS
There were no public comments.
5. 2016 STIP UPDATE
John Standiford, RCTC, provided a PowerPoint document that was presented at the March 9
Commission meeting along with a resolution that was adopted. He explained the declining State
Transportation Improvement Program revenues. He and Grace Alvarez responded to questions.
6. FIXING AMERICA SURFACE TRANSPORTATION ACT (FAST ACT) UPDATE
• FASTLANE Grants
• Repurposing Old Federal Earmarks
Tanya Love, RCTC, reported there is $800 million available under the FASTLANE Grant opportunity
for this fiscal year. It's a five-year bill that increases each year by about $50 million. Applications
are due April 14 online at grants.gov. She pointed out the website links in Grace Alvarez's staff
report. She suggested letting RCTC know if any of the cities need a letter of support.
Ms. Alvarez added that as part of the FASTAct there is a provision that allows states to repurpose
earmarks that are 10 years and older and apply them to new projects within 50 miles of the
earmark designation. Projects must meet Title 23 criteria for federal highway projects; must be
repurposed by September 2016; and the obligation must be by September 30, 2019 otherwise the
balances will lapse on that date. Caltrans will contact RCTC to coordinate the effort to identify
potential projects. About mid -April, a list of projects will go to the regional agencies identifying the
projects that can be repurposed. Once a project is repurposed, there are three years to obligate the
funds. Once a project has been repurposed, the funds will be moved to an existing project defined
as a project that is currently in the FTIP.
Ms. Alvarez added that once funds are repurposed, they may not be again repurposed because the
funds no longer meet the requirements for repurposing since they have been moved off the original
congressionally designated earmark. If the earmark is not repurposed, it will remain unchanged and
available for obligation by the original agency for the project approved for the earmark.
Technical Advisory Committee Meeting
March 21, 2016
Page 3
Mr. Yeung announced a Southern California Local Assistance Management Meeting Thursday,
March 24, 9:00 to 3:00 at Caltrans District 7 office in Los Angeles.
He said the Local Assistance staff assignments list included in the agenda has since been revised and
he will update it.
The next federal aid series course will take place in Irvine April 11 through April 15.
Regarding CWA requests, a list of approved projects has been provided and Caltrans reset the
reversion date to June 30, 2018. If a project was not approved, you have until April 1 to submit the
final invoice for processing.
7. ATP CYCLE 3 — CALL FOR PROJECTS UPDATE
Lorelle Moe -Luna, RCTC, reported that Cycle 3 Guidelines were approved by the CTC March 17 and
are included in the current TAC agenda. The final guidelines are on the CTC website. One change to
the guidelines is that the CTC review projects on a case -by -case basis for special circumstances if a
20-month extension is needed.
There will be approximately $240 million from state fiscal years 2019/20 and 2020/21. She pointed
out important deadlines included on her staff report, e.g., Call for Projects Opens April 15, 2016 and
applications are due to Caltrans June 15, 2016.
She introduced Marsie Gutierrez of the Riverside County Department of Public Health who provided
a PowerPoint presentation and explained the Riverside County Active Transportation Network and
the Active Transportation Program (ATP). Network meetings are held quarterly at SCAG in
Riverside. The next meeting is scheduled May 18, 10:00-12:00. Videoconferencing is also available
in Palm Desert/CVAG and SCAG office, Los Angeles.
She introduced Nina Mohammed, Inland Empire Biking Alliance, who provided an ATP Survey and
requested all agencies to complete the form.
Amy Hyong, Riverside County Department of Public Health, provided a PowerPoint presentation
entitled "Strategic Health Alliance Pursuing Equity (SHAPE)" to assist in preparing for ATP Cycle 3. It
is a data portal designed to share health data that gathers information from various resources and
puts it in the SHAPE website — www.shaperivco.org.
She briefly described its features. Amy and Marsie responded to questions.
8. CLINTON KEITH 2013 MULTI FUNDING CALL FOR PROJECTS — PROJECT SAVINGS REQUEST
Grace Alvarez, RCTC, presented a request from the County of Riverside for utilization of MARA
Project Savings from the Clinton Keith Extension Phase II to Clinton Keith Extension Phase III. She
stated it was a successful project through the 2013 Multi -Funding Call for Projects that received
Measure A Regional Arterial funds in the amount of $16.5 million for the construction of Phase II.
Technical Advisory Committee Meeting
March 21, 2016
Page 4
The scope of the work was to build a half width (3 lanes) section of Clinton Keith from Whitewood
Road to Trois Valley Street (1.7 miles easterly), striping from Trois Valley Street to Leon Road full
width of six lanes including a traffic signal at Trois Valley Street.
Patty Romo, County of Riverside, stated that the bid came in low and that the County approached
RCTC to utilize MARA savings to complete Phase III to provide a transportation link between 1-215
and Leon Road. Patty and Grace responded to various questions.
Vice Chair Seumalo stated that it would make sense to use the project savings towards the next
phase of the project and asked whether it would preclude projects that did not receive funding in
2013 from getting funding. Grace stated that it was the highest scoring projects.
Dan York, City of Wildomar, asked if the level of service warranted the six lane facility. Patti Romo
stated Los Alamos is being overburdened with a six -mile gap between Scott Road and Los Alamos.
M/S/C (Seumalo/Kumar) to recommend approval based on the public benefits by
providing a continuous six -lane facility between 1-215 and Leon Road reducing congestion
on other major arterials and/or mainline.
9. 2015 FEDERAL TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (FTIP)
Eric DeHate, RCTC, reminded the TAC that from January, amendments 13 and 14 were approved in
November 2015 and Amendment's 15 (15-15) and 17 (15-17) have been submitted to SCAG. 15-15
included 15 projects and 15-17 included three projects. Both are anticipated to be approved at the
end of March.
Included in his staff report is the website to access the approved listings along with the remaining
amendment schedule for any projects that need amending for any federal approvals. The
remaining amendments to the 2015 FTIP will be limited to revisions needed for federal approvals.
10. 2015/16 OBLIGATION PLAN
Mr. DeHate reported that the Federal Fiscal Year (FFY) 2015/16 is about halfway over and RCTC and
Caltrans are working together to deliver this year's obligation authority of $64.4 million. He pointed
out the revised FFY 2015/16 Obligation Plan attached to his staff report that includes carryover
projects not obligated in FFY 2014/15. These include RSTP Pavement Rehabilitation projects, 2013
multi -funding projects, CVAG's 2014 CMAQ call for projects and prior call for projects that were
delayed. He said there are many projects still completing PA&ED and timelines are up against the
delivery deadline of September 30, 2016. As you are aware, once April 1, 2016 comes, obligation
authority will be opened up to regions all over the state. In order to avoid the risk of funding being
distributed to other areas of the state and losing funding for Riverside County, he urged the TAC to
submit the Requests for Authorization for obligation as soon as possible. There are also projects
that have air quality deadlines that were awarded CMAQ funds from the calls for projects.
Technical Advisory Committee Meeting
March 21, 2016
Page 5
11. LOCAL ASSISTANCE UPDATE
Sean Yeung's Local Assistance update was included in agenda item 6.
12. MARCH COMMISSION MEETING HIGHLIGHTS
John Standiford reported the following items were discussed:
• State Transportation Improvement Plan reduction
• Review of the 55-hour closure in Corona
• Funding set aside for Right of Way purchases on the Mid -County Parkway
He recommended viewing On the Move, a monthly newsletter, on the Commission's website for
up-to-date information. Mr. Standiford also reported that Commission meetings will be streaming
live on the internet.
13. OTHER BUSINESS
There was no other business presented.
14. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business for consideration by the Technical Advisory Committee, the
meeting adjourned at approximately 11:24 a.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Shirley Medina
Planning and Programming Director
AGENDA ITEM 5
A presentation will be made but
there is no attachment to the
agenda for item 5.
SB 743
SB 743 Implementation: The Change from
LOS to VMT in CEQA Transportation Studies
Erik Ruehr, VRPA Technologies, Inc.
Chair, California SB 743 Task Force
Institute of Transportation Engineers –
Western District
Riverside County Transportation Commission
Technical Advisory Committee
May 16, 2016
SB 743
Outline
Introduction to SB 743
Summary of Revised Draft Guidelines
Next Steps in SB 743 Process
Preparing for Implementation
Comments/Questions
SB 743
Introduction to SB 743
SB 743 Passed in Fall of 2013
Governors Office of Planning and Research (OPR) to Write New
CEQA Guidelines for Transportation Analyses
Reduced Emphasis on Roadway Capacity/Level of Service (LOS)
Analysis
Increased Emphasis on Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) or Similar
Measures
Purpose is to Encourage Smart Growth, Multimodal Travel and Infill
Developments and Reduce Vehicle Travel
Draft SB 743 Guidelines Prepared by OPR in August 2014
Revised Draft SB 743 Guidelines Prepared by OPR in January 2016
SB 743
Revised Draft SB 743 Guidelines -CEQA
Guidelines
VMT is performance measure. Auto delay is excluded.
Lead agencies can choose different thresholds if
supported by substantial evidence
Projects in transit areas may be exempted
Induced travel required for roadway projects
Qualitative analysis may be acceptable
Two -year opt in period
SB 743
Technical Advisory –VMT Considerations
Tour -based analysis preferred over trip-based analysis
Don’t mix tour and trip-based methods in same analysis
Retail developments re-route trips. Focus on net change
in VMT.
Don’t truncate VMT analysis at jurisdictional boundaries
SB 743
VMT Screening/Exemptions
Projects with less than 100 ADT exempt
Map-based screening for residential and office projects
Exemptions for projects near transit stations
SB 743
VMT Thresholds
Residential: VMT/capita 15% below regional average or city
average
Office: VMT/employee 15% below regional average
Retail: Net decrease in VMT. Local-serving retail exempt.
Mixed Use: Evaluate each component separately and take credit
for internal capture
Other Projects: To be determined by lead agency
Development in areas assumed to be vacant in RTP/SCS are
significant
SB 743
Other Threshold Considerations
Land Use Plans: Consistent with RTP/SCS and VMT/capita and
employee lower than regional average
RTP/SCS: Meet SB 375 targets and reduce VMT/capita
Rural Projects Outside MPO’s: Thresholds may be determined on
a case-by-case basis
SB 743
Transportation Projects
Exempt Projects: Auxiliary lanes, roundabouts, turn lanes, local
streets, collector streets
Induced travel analysis
Sketch planning methods described for induced travel using
elasticity (e.g. 0.8% increase in VMT per 1.0% increase in lane
miles)
VMT Threshold: Increase of less than 2,075,220 VMT/year (5,685
VMT/day)
SB 743
Safety
Focus on fatality/injury rather than property damage
Discussion of benefits of speed reduction and other safety issues
Discussion of NACTO standards and justification that they are
appropriate
Examples of possible detriments to safety (e.g. increase in
pedestrian wait times)
Examples of mischaracterization of safety issues (e.g. avoidance of
10 foot travel lanes)
SB 743
Case Studies
Sacramento Mixed-Use Development
Mission Viejo Office Development
Kern County Roadway Widening
SB 743
Expected Next Steps in SB 743 Process
Draft Guidelines to Natural Resources Agency
Final Guidelines/Incorporation into CEQA/Local Thresholds
Early Opt-In Period for Implementation (2 Years)
Required Implementation
(Statewide)
SB 743
Preparing for Implementation
Caltrans Transportation Analysis Guide/Transportation Impact
Studies Guide (TAG/TISG)
City of Pasadena
City of San Francisco
Cities of Oakland and Los Angeles
ITE Guide to SB 743 (?)
Websites
OPR: www.opr.ca.gov
Check: CEQA / Alt Transportation Metrics (SB 743)
ITE: www.westernite.org
Check: Legislation Around the District
SB 743
Preparing for Implementation (cont.)
Determine new methodologies and thresholds for VMT-based
analyses.
Determine new procedures for requiring roadway improvements for
development projects.
Consider VMT fees for mitigation.
Consider tiered environmental studies for small land development
and roadway projects (to avoid preparation of an EIR).
AGENDA ITEM 6
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
DATE:
May 16, 2016
TO:
Technical Advisory Committee
FROM:
Tanya Love, Goods Movement Manager
SUBJECT:
2016 Grade Separation Companion Study
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
1) Receive and file presentation on the initiation of the 2016 Grade Separation
Companion Study; and
2) Form a small working group of Public Works Directors (or designees) with grade
separations located in their jurisdictions.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
Over the past several years, approximately $500 million in local, state, and federal funding
has been invested in goods movement related projects throughout Riverside County. These
crossings present conflicts between rail and highway traffic and are located on the main lines
of either the Union Pacific or Burlington Northern Santa Fe railroads. In 2006 and again in
2008, the Riverside County Transportation Commission (Commission) developed a funding
strategy to serve as a blueprint for constructing many of these at -grade crossings. In March
2012, the Commission adopted a Grade Separation Priority Update Study for the remaining
at -grade crossings located on the Alameda Corridor East.
The various studies have assisted the Commission in securing much needed funding for the
at -grade crossings. To date, the following grade separation projects have been completed
and/or permanently closed due to roadway reconfiguration
Project
Auto Center Drive
Avenue 48/Dillon Road
Avenue 50
Avenue 52
Columbia Avenue
Iowa Avenue
Jane Street
Jurupa Avenue
Magnolia Avenue
Mountain View Avenue
Riverside Avenue
Streeter Avenue
Sunset Avenue
Location
Corona
Coachella
Coachella
Coachella
Riverside
Riverside
Riverside (Permanently Closed)
Riverside
Riverside
Riverside (Permanently Closed)
Riverside
Riverside
Banning
In addition, the March Inland Cargo Airport — 1-215 Van Buren Boulevard Ground Access
Improvement Project was completed.
The following four projects are under construction:
Project Location
Avenue 56/Airport Boulevard County
Avenue 66 County
Clay Street Jurupa Valley
Magnolia Avenue County
Although growth in goods movement presents significant economic opportunities in terms of
increased tax revenues and job creation, it also highlights the need to improve freight
infrastructure. Riverside County serves as a conduit for the Port of Los Angeles and the Port
of Long Beach for transporting goods to areas beyond the state with more than 77 percent of
freight being passed through cargo destined for areas beyond the county line. Approximately
65 percent of the pass through freight travels by rail and the remaining 35 percent travels by
truck. This results in having a freight train at most rail crossings at least twice an hour. Slow
freight trains create delays for vehicles at many of the remaining 46 at -grade crossings
throughout the county.
Using the 2012 Grade Separation Priority Update Study as a basis for further study, the
Commission retained the services of HDR to conduct a 2016 Grade Separation Companion
Study. The goal is to obtain updated information regarding the feasibility and desirability of
improving each of the remaining 46 at -grade crossings. The study analysis will provide
information on the following key questions:
• Which crossings are grade separations still feasible and desirable to build within the
next ten years?
• Which locations are grade separations not feasible?
• Which locations are grade separations desirable in the longer term future (more than
10 years)?; and
• Which locations could be potential candidates for quiet zone implementation?
STUDY APPROACH
Form a small working group with representatives from the cities and counties with grade
separations located in their jurisdictions.
At -Grade Railroad Crossings
In 2008, RCTC had 62 At-Grade Crossings
Today, 46 Remain at a Price Tag of $1.7 Billion
Studies –
Funding
Strategies
Trade Corridor Improvement
Funds (Proposition 1B Funding)
Measure A
“Economic
Development
Funds”
Local
Transportation
Funds
“Jump Start
Funding”
Projects of
National &
Regional
Significance
Federal
Funding
(CMAQ/STP)
Recent Investments in Goods
Movement Projects
Completed Projects Projects Under Construction
Avenue 56/Airport Boulevard
Avenue 66 (December 2016)
Magnolia Avenue/BNSF
Auto Center Drive –Corona
Avenue 52 –Coachella
Clay Street –Jurupa Valley
Columbia Avenue –Riverside
Iowa Avenue –Riverside
Jurupa Avenue –Riverside
Magnolia Avenue/UP –Riverside
Riverside Avenue –Riverside
Streeter Avenue –Riverside
Sunset Avenue –Banning
I-215/Van Buren Blvd. –County
Previously Completed Projects
(Prior to Prop. 1B)
Avenue 48/Dillon Road –Coachella
Avenue 50 –Coachella
$550.3 Million
Investment
Goods Movement Projects
•RCTC retained HDR to develop a
2016 Grade Separation
Companion Study to look at:
–What crossings are still feasible to
build within the next 10 years?
–Are there locations where grade
separations are no longer feasible?
–What locations are still desirable in
the longer-term (more than 10
years)?
–What locations would be good for
Quiet Zone implementation?
AGENDA ITEM 7
A presentation will be made but
there is no attachment to the
agenda for item 7.
}�K a r l a S u t l i f f , D e p u t y f o r P r o j e c t D e l i v e r y , C a l t r a n s
}�J e r r y M o n t o y a , D e p u t y C h i e f C o u n s e l , C a l t r a n s
}�M a r k S a m u e l s o n , H Q L o c a l A s s i s t a n c e , C a l t r a n s
}�M a r l i n F e e n s t r a , D i r e c t o r o f P r o j e c t D e l i v e r y , R C T C
D e s i g n F l e x i b i l i t y a n d L i a b i l i t y W o r k s h o p
R i v e r s i d e T A C
R i v e r s i d e , C a l i f o r n i a
M a y 1 6 , 2 0 1 6
1
��M a n a g e m e n t
��O p e r a t i o n s
��C o m m u n i c a t i o n
��P e r f o r m a n c e
��A c c o u n t a b i l i t y
}�K e y f i n d i n g s :
��U p d a t e m a n u a l s a n d g u i d a n c e
��B u i l d m o r e f l e x i b i l i t y i n t o i t s p r o c e s s e s
��R i s k - a v e r s e d u e t o l i a b i l i t y c o n c e r n s
�� C u l t u r e o f f e a r o f i n n o v a t i o n a n d f l e x i b i l i t y
3
4
Strategic
Direction Group
(SDG)
Performance
Mgmt. & HR
Performance
Measures
Continuous
Improvement
Incentives &
Accountability
Succession
Planning
Smart Investment &
Resource Alignment
Align Investments
w/ Mission &
Goals
Preservation, Asset
Mgmt., Ops and
Planning, Sustainability
System/Network
Approach
Freight Strategy
Strategic
Partnerships
Local
Industry
Legislative
State & Federal
Agencies
Innovation,
Flexibility & Risk
Mgmt.
Risk Mgmt.
Liability
Appropriate Local
Autonomy
Flexibility in
Design Manuals &
Guidelines
Communication
Tell Our Story
Communicate Around
Performance Metrics
Strategies for
Delivering News:
Good & Bad
Community
Engagement: Early
& Often
Project Manager
��E v a l u a t e M a n u a l s , G u i d a n c e , T o o l s
��E n h a n c e P a r t n e r s h i p s a n d C o m m u n i c a t i o n
��E d u c a t e a n d T r a i n S t a f f , P a r t n e r s , a n d S t a k e h o l d e r s
��M a x i m i z e D e l e g a t i o n
��M a x i m i z e A p p r o p r i a t e u s e o f R i s k M a n a g e m e n t
��D e p l o y a n d I n t e g r a t e R e s e a r c h
5
��2 - d a y S e s s i o n w i t h S S T I A d v i s o r s L e a r n f r o m o t h e r s
��H i g h w a y D e s i g n M a n u a l U p d a t e s C o m p l e t e S t r e e t s , m u l t i m o d a l ,
p l a c e t y p e s &
��C A M U T C D U p d a t e s - E x p e r i m e n t a l c o n c e p t s e v a l u a t e d a n d
i n c o r p o r a t e d
��L o c a l A s s i s t a n c e P r o c e d u r e M a n u a l U p d a t e C h a p t e r 1 1 D e s i g n
G u i d a n c e
��R e s e a r c h a l i g n m e n t w i t h n e w g o a l s
��D i s t r i c t D e s i g n D e l e g a t i o n s
��O u t r e a c h t o D i s t r i c t s , p a r t n e r s a n d s t a k e h o l d e r s r e g a r d i n g d e s i g n
f l e x i b i l i t y a n d t o r t l i a b i l i t y
��D e s i g n E x c e p t i o n s > > > D e s i g n D e c i s i o n s
6
}�W h a t i s t h e p u r p o s e / n e e d f o r t h e p r o j e c t ?
}�W h a t i s t h e c o n t e x t o f t h e p r o j e c t ? P l a c e / f a c i l i t y t y p e / f u n c t i o n
}�W h a t i s t h e f u t u r e f o r t h i s r o u t e ?
}�W h a t a r e t h e s t a k e h o l d e r i s s u e s / c o n c e r n s ?
}�A r e t h e r e a n y i d e n t i f i e d ( d a t a d r i v e n ) s a f e t y i s s u e s ?
}�W h a t i s t h e v a l u e a d d e d f o r t h e a d d e d c o s t ?
}�W h a t a r e t h e r i s k s a n d h o w d o w e m i t i g a t e t h e m ?
}�D o e s i t p u t u s i n a b e t t e r s i t u a t i o n t h a n w e a r e t o d a y ?
}�D O C U M E N T A T I O N I S O U R F R I E N D !
S t a n d a r d s a n d g u i d a n c e i s t h e e a s y p a r t . C u l t u r e c h a n g e i s t h e h a r d p a r t .
- M a l c o l m D o u g h e r t y
7
}�D e s i g n i m m u n i t y p r o t e c t s e n g i n e e r i n g j u d g m e n t
}�I m m u n i t y d o e s n o t r e q u i r e s t a n d a r d f e a t u r e s - e q u a l
p r o t e c t i o n f o r n o n - s t a n d a r d / f l e x i b l e d e s i g n s
8
}�C a s u a l c o n n e c t i o n w i t h a l l e g e d i n j u r y
}�A p p r o v a l p r i o r t o c o n s t r u c t i o n b y p e r s o n w i t h
a u t h o r i t y t o a p p r o v e / b u i l t i n a c c o r d a n c e w i t h
a p p r o v e d d e s i g n
}�D e s i g n m u s t b e r e a s o n a b l e
9
}�D o c u m e n t a n d r e t a i n e n g i n e e r i n g d e c i s i o n s
}�I n c l u d e s a f e t y m i t i g a t i o n f e a t u r e s
}�W h a t i s r e a s o n a b l e u n d e r t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s a n d i n
l i g h t o f p r o j e c t p u r p o s e
1 0
��C o u r t d e t e r m i n e d n o n - s t a n d a r d d e s i g n f e a t u r e c a n
m e e t i m m u n i t y s s e c o n d e l e m e n t ( d i s c r e t i o n a r y
a p p r o v a l )
��R u l i n g b a s e d o n f i n d i n g t h e i n t e n t o f d e s i g n
i m m u n i t y i s t o p r e v e n t s e c o n d g u e s s i n g o f d u l y
v e s t e d o f f i c i a l d e c i s i o n
��S i g n i f i c a n c e ? D e s i g n i m m u n i t y a p p l i e s e v e n i f d e s i g n
d e v i a t e s f r o m d e s i g n s t a n d a r d s o r g u i d a n c e :
p r a c t i c a l , i n n o v a t i v e a n d d e s i g n f l e x i b i l i t y a l l
p r o t e c t e d a s l o n g a s & & & & .
1 1
12
External Guidance
Location-Based
•On SHS
•On NHS
•Not on the NHS
13
Projects on the National Highway System
•FHWA adopted edition of AASHTO
Roadways
Policy on Geometric Design of
Highways and Streets
Bicycle & Pedestrian
Guide for Development of Bikeway
Facilities
14
Projects not on the National Highway System
•In accordance with locally developed design Standards
District 2 –Downtown Redding -Rightsizing
15
Before After
16
17
18
Before After
19
D8 Organization
20
http://toolkit.valleyblueprint.org/tool/complete-streets
AGENDA ITEM 8
A presentation will be made but
there is no attachment to the
agenda for item 8.
AGENDA ITEM 9
A presentation will be made but
there is no attachment to the
agenda for item 9.
Please RSVP to Sam Emmersen at sam@betterworldgroup.com or (818) 563-9111
Here’s your chance to give the MSRC
your ideas about how to allocate millions
of dollars in Clean Transportation Funding
Coachella Valley/
Eastern Riverside County
June 14, 2016 1:00 - 3:00 p.m.
City of Cathedral City
68700 Avenida Lalo Guerrero
City Council Chambers
Cathedral City, CA 92234
6 workshops to choose from
Riverside County
June 23, 2016 10:00 a.m.- noon
Riverside County Transportation
Commission
4080 Lemon Street, 3rd Floor
Conference Room A
Riverside, CA 92501
San Bernardino County
June 23, 2016 2:00 - 4:00 p.m.
San Bernardino Associated
Governments
1170 W. 3rd Street, 2nd Floor
San Bernardino, CA 92410
Los Angeles County #2
June 17, 2016 10:00 a.m.- noon
County of Los Angeles Internal
Services Department
1100 N. Eastern Av.
Conference Room G101
Los Angeles, CA 90063
Los Angeles County #1
June 10, 2016 10:00 a.m.- noon
Burbank Water & Power
164 W. Magnolia Blvd.
Burbank, CA 91502
Orange County
June 22, 2016 1:00 - 3:00 p.m.
Orange County Transportation
Authority
550 S. Main St.
Conference Center, Rooms 8/9
Orange, CA 92863
The Mobile Source Air Pollution Reduction Review Committee (MSRC) is holding a series
of workshops to receive input on its two-year work program, which distributes
approximately $14 million each year to projects designed to reduce emissions from
motor vehicles in the South Coast Air District.
The workshop agenda will
include:
• A discussion about how the
MSRC can help improve air
quality in the South Coast region
and assist the SCAQMD in
meeting its clean air requirements
• A dialog among stakeholders
about their clean air priorities and
how the MSRC can help by
considering funding for programs
to meet these goals
Clean Transportation
Funding from the MSRC
Mobile Source Air Pollution Reduction Review Committee
2 years
Celebrating
5
Local Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP)
Cycle 8 Call for Projects
(http:! /www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LocalPrograms/HSIP /appl v now HS IP .htm)
Announcement Date: Monday, May 9, 2016
Call Size: Approx. $150 million ofHSIP funds
Max. HSIP Funds per Agency: $10 million
Application Due Date: Friday, August 12, 2016
Number of Applications per Agency: No limit
Max. HSIP Funds per Application: $10 million
Minimum B/C required for an application to be considered in the selection process: 3.5
On Monday, May 9, 2016, Caltrans Division of Local Assistance announced Cycle 8 Call for Projects for the
Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP). This Call for Projects is targeted for approximately $150 million
of federal HSIP funds based on the estimated programming capacity in the FSTIP.
Agencies must submit applications to their respective Caltrans District Office, with attention to the District Local
Assistance Engineer (DLAE). Applications are due by Friday, August 12, 2016. Applications received or
postmarked later than this deadline will not be accepted. Please also contact your DLAEs if you have any
questions regarding this Call for Projects. For DLAE contact information, go to:
http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LocalPrograms/dlae.htrn
For program guidelines, application form and other useful documents, please follow the link on top.
Cvcle 8 specifics:
•!• UC Berkeley TIMS website will no longer be used for the Benefit/Cost Ratio (BCR) calculation. Instead, the
BCR is calculated using Excel Benefit Calculator and Section IV of the application form. Please read through
Appendix A of the application form instructions before you start any calculation.
•!• Funding Set-asides:
o Set-aside for guardrail upgrades:
$20 million HSIP funds are set aside for guardrail upgrades and end treatments. Note this funding set-
aside is for upgrades of existing guardrails, not for new guardrail installations. Bridge rail upgrades
are not eligible as well. The maximum HSIP amount per agency from this set-aside is $600,000.
o Set-aside for crosswalk enhancements at unsignalized locations and/or pedestrian countdown heads at
signalized intersections:
$10 million of HSIP funds are set aside for crosswalk enhancements at unsignalized locations and/or
pedestrian countdown heads at signalized intersections. The maximum HSIP amount per agency from
this set-aside is $250,000.
For a proposed project competing for the set-asides, no Benefit/Cost Ratio (BCR) calculation is required.
For either of the above two set-asides, ifthe total requested funding statewide exceeds the set-aside
amount, ranking of the applications will be based on the number of fatality and severe injury (F+SI)
crashes and the (F+SI) rate within the applicant's jurisdiction from 1/1/2011 to 12/31/2013.
•!• Non-infrastructure (NI) elements are not eligible to be funded due to the changes in the new Fixing America's
Surface Transportation (FAST) Act.
•!• If an agency has one or more active HSIP (including HR3) projects that are flagged for not meeting delivery
milestones, Caltrans will not accept HSIP applications from that agency unless the flags have been resolved
prior to the application due date. For delivery requirements and project delivery status, please go to
http://www.dot.ca.gov/hg/Loca!Programs/HSIP/deliverv status.htm.
May 2016
SAVE THE DATE
LOCAL HSIP CYCLE 8
WEBINAR
Caltrans Local Assistance and FHWA are hosting a webinar to help local
agencies in preparing HSIP applications that can successfully compete for
the $150 million of federal HSIP grant funds. Registration is not required
but log in early to the webinar as connections are limited. For those who
can't make it or unable to log in, the webinar will be recorded and posted
on the Local Assistance website soon afterwards.
What: Cycle 8 Local HSIP Webinar
When: Thursday, May 19st, 2016
1:30 -3:30 pm
How: https:// con nectdot.con nectsol utions.com/ ca hsi p/
Log in as 'Guest'
Audio: 1-877-366-1839 call-in number
Access code: 1878229
STAIE OF CAL[FQRNIA---CALlfORNIA STATE IRANSPOIUAI!ON N;JENGY EDMUND G BROWN jr GoyernQf
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DlVISION OF LOCAL ASSISTANCE
P.O. BOX 942874, MS-I
SACRAMENTO. CA 94274-0001
PHONE (916)654-1776
FAX (916) 653-1905
ITY 711
www.dot.ca.gov
May 12, 2016
ALL CITIES AND COUNTIES IN CALIFORNIA, METROPOLITAN PLANNING
ORGANIZATIONS, AND REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLANNING AGENCIES
Dear Directors and Finance Departments:
Seriws drought.
Help save water!
This letter serves as an advance notice to inform you that, at the recommendation of the Local
Highway Bridge Program Advisory Committee (Cemmittee), the Califomia Department of
Transpertation (Caltrans) will be making changes te its Local Highway Bridge Program (HBP)
Guidelines that will affect the eligibilities of certain bridge projects for federal funding under the
HBP program. These changes will take effect on October I, 2016.
Projects currently programmed and applications received prior to October 1, 2016, will continue
to follow the existing HBP Guidelines.
Effective October 1, 2016, the following categories of bridge projects will NOT be eligible for
HBP funding:
• Bridges that are not in the National Bridge Inventory. This will effectively exclude
replacement oflow-water crossings from receiving HBP funding.
• Bridges that are Functionally Obsolete due to bridge deck geometrics.
• Bridges that were NOT designed and constructed to acceptable standards, resulting in
substandard facilities for such conditions as flood flows. The Committee may grant an
exception to this policy after due consideration.
• Bridge Preventative Maintenance Program (BPMP) projects under $100,000. For smaller
BPMP projects, local agencies are encouraged to use non-federal funds and accumulate
Bridge Investment Credits to use as a match for future HBP funded projects. The Committee
may grant an exception to this policy after due consideration.
"Prowde a safe. sustainable, integrated and efficient transportation system
to enhance California's ecoriomy and livability"
Directors and Finance Departments
May 12, 2016
Page2
Background:
On July 6, 2012, President Obama signed into law the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st
Century Act (MAP-21). MAP-21 made significant changes to the Federal-Aid Highway
Pregrams. Under MAP-21, thete is no longer a separate HBP funding program. Bridge
replacement and rehabilitation projects continue to be eligible for federal funding under the
newly created National Highway Perfonnance Program (NHPP) and Surface Transportation
Program (STP). In California, the State decided to continue funding the Local Highway Bridge
Program using a combination ofNHPP and STP funding at the pre-MAP-21 funding level.
Howeveri the pre-MAP-21 federal regulations governing the eligibility determination ofHBP
projects have changed with the Federal Highway Administration;s MAP-21 implementing
regulatio.n and guidance. For example, bridge deck geometrics are no longer considered a factor
in establishing bridge sufficiency rating. This means that Functional Obsolete is no longer
reported in bridge inspection reports.
Another cornerstone of MAP-21 is the transition to a performance-and outcome-based program.
States will invest resources in projects to achieve individual targets that collectively will make
pragress toward national goals. For infrastructures such as roads and bridges, the goal is to
maintain the highway infrastructure asset system in a state af good repair. When it comes to
bridges, a good state of repair is def med by the bridge's structural conditions. This drives the
Committee's decision to focus limited HBP funding on replacing and rehabilitating structurally
deficient bridges.
Caltrans HBP managers are available to answer questions you may have regarding these future
changes to the HBP Guidelines. Contact Linda Newton at (916) 651-0022, Reza Fereshtehnejad
at (916) 651-6876, or Eileen Crawford at (916) 653-5740.
L RIHUI ZHANG ~ Chief
Division of Local Assistance
c: District Deputy Directors for Planning and Local Assistance, Caltrans
District Local Assistance Engineers, Caltrans
Office Chiefs, Division of Local Assistance, Caltrans
Local Highway Bridge Program Advisory Committee
"Provide a safe, sustainable. Integrated and efficient transponatlon system
to enhance California ·s economy and livability··
Highway Bridge Program Advisory Committee Roster
Department of Transportation:
Mr. Rihui Zhang
Chief, Division of Local Assistance
Committee Chair
1120 N Street, MS#l (95814)
P.O. Box 942874
Sacramento, CA 94274-0001
California State Assoeiation of Counties (CSAC):
Matt Randall
Program Manager
Placer County
3091 County Center Drive, Suite 220
Auburn, CA 95603
Chris Sneddon
Deputy Director of Transportation
County of Santa Barbara
123 East Anapamu Street
Santa Barbara, CA 93l01
Jim Campbell (Northern CA alternate)
Princ.ipal Civil EngineeI
Yolo County
292 West Beamer Street
Woodland, CA 95965
Tayfun Salgam (Southern CA alternate)
County Bridge Engineer
County of Riverside
3525 14th Street
Riverside, CA 92501
League of California Cities (LCC):
Jesse Gothan
Senior Engineer, Engineering Services Division
City of Sacramento
915 I Street, Room 2000
Sacramento, CA 95814
Page I
Phone:
Fax:
Email:
Phone: (530) 745-3564
Mobile: (530) 305-1304
Fax: (530) 745-3540
Email:
Phone: (805) 568-3047
Fax: (805) 563-3015
Email:
Phone: (530) 666-8847
Fax: (530) 666-8156
Email:
Phone: (951) 955-2871
Fax:
Email: ..!..2~~~~~~~
Phone: (916) 808-6897
Fax:
Email:
April 2016
Highway Bridge Advisory Ce>mmittee Roster
Robert Newman
Director of Public Worlcs
City of Santa Clarita
23920 Valencia Boulevard
Santa Clarita, CA 91355
Roubik Golanfan (Southern CA alternate)
Public Works Director
City of Glendale
633 Broadway
Glendale, CA 91206
Vacant (Northern CA alternate)
Phone: (661) 284-1429
Fax:
Email:
Phone: (818) 548-3900
Fax:
Email:
Phone:
Fax:
Email:
California Division of Federal Highway Administration (FHWA):
Christopher Long
Initastructure Team Leader
FHWA
650 Capitol Mall, Suite 4-100
Sacramento, CA 95814
Greg Kolle
FHWA
650 Capitol Man. Suite 4-100
Sarab Skeen (alternate)
FHWA
650 Capitol Mall, Suite 4-100
Phone: (916) 498-5042
Fax: 498~5008
Email:
Phone: (916) 498-5852
Fax: (916) 498-5008
Email:
Phone: (916) 498-5023
Fax: (916) 498-5008
Email:
California Association of Coundls of Governments (CALCOG):
Ross McKeown
Programming and Funding Manager
Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC)
101 J!ighth Street
Oakland, CA 94607
Ross Chittenden (alternate)
Deputy Executive Director -Projects
Contra Costa Transportation Authority (CCT A)
2999 Oak Road, Suite 100
Walnut Creek, CA 94697
Page 2
Phone: (510) 817-5842
Fax: (51-0) 817-5848
Email:
Phone: (925) 256-4735
MobiJe: (916) 716-3774
Email:
June2015
Highway Bridge Advisory Committee Roster
California Transportation Commission (CTC):
Stephen Maller
Deputy Director
California Transportation Commission, MS 52
1120 N Street. Room 2221
Sacramento CA 95814
Vacant (alternate)
Technical Support to the Committee:
Robert Peterson
Chief, Office of Bridge, Bond and Safety
Sacramento
Jim Kaufman (alternate)
District Local Assistance Engineer
Caltrans District 12
Panninder Singh
District Local Assistance Engineer
Caltrans District 10
Sudhakar Vatti
Chi et: Structure Local Assistance
Division of Engineering Services
Reza F ereshtehnejad
Local Bridge Seismic Retrofit Program Coordinator
Office of Bridge, Bond & Safety Programs
Dolores Valls
State Bridge Maintenance Engineer
Structure Maintenance & Investigations
Eileen Crm¥ford
Caltr~s Local Assistance, HBP Coordinator
Office of Bridge, Bond & Safety Programs
Linda Newton
Caltrans Local Assistance, HBP Coordinator
Office of Bridge, Bond & Safety Programs
Susan Herman
cs us
Conferencing
Page3
Phone: (916) 653-2070
Fax: (916) 653-2134
Email: 1 '' ,_/'.;;::\ ,L
Phone:
Phone: (916) 653-6220
Fax: (916) 654-9281
Email:
Phone: (949) 756-7805
Fax: (949) 724-2592
Email:
Phone: (209) 948-3689
Fax:
Email:
Phone: (916) 227-8745
Fax: (916) 445-7752
Email:
Phone: (916) 651-6876
Fax: (916) 654-9281
Email:
Phone: (916) 227-8841
Fax: (916) 227-8357
Email:
Phone: (916) 653-5740
Fax: (916) 654-9281
Email:
Phone: (916) 651-0022
Fax: (9 i 6) 654-9281
Email:
Phone: (916)
Fax:
Email:
June 2015
Highway Bridge Advisory Committee Roster
Official Committee correspondence should be cc'd to CSAC, LCC, and CALCOG:
California State Association ofCounties (CSAC)
DeAlmBaker
1100 K Street, Suite 101
Sacramento., CA 95814
League of California Cities (LCC)
Rony Berdugo
1400 K Street. Suite 400
Sacramento, CA 95814
Phone: (916) 327-7500 (ext 509)
Fax: (916) 441-5507
Email: ~m~~~m
Phone: (916) 658-8283
Fax: (916) 658-8240
Email:
California Association of Councils of Governments (CALCOG)
Bill Higgins Phone: (916) 717-8324
Executive Director Fax: (916) 447-2350
1127 l l th St.. Suite 830 Email:
Sacramento, CA 95814
WNW
c10 V) asoigiuV sol 4IZ I 1410/35 till Isom M
09+Ii) 10'80 wild ` !Z min ;13 &Nem pilau OI EL
-
(x uafuo oap• oiled 11
IOS tr) l'aPPSy 1+H .SO3 NirS 14ail iiv: t 0
lire 3 we r€ ,x APAPP] Nsulo,
, rr,iNkt rAmifiltaxioritniceuip
P40 ,*31l n- dr:".w,Y, zv+rtF-a1,)11 VAke&I,.
`Jaul#nd tip)so #
Aid ZI T
Oil IN
004twoupe pops "Wier 2045
paorlie
moos,'
#Q C* CAM itiU481
�..,,,,
4;*•
�. = ri
m uncn
ugeouei pe asenu!
snlr-drcIMANI 3"a`v noA
r+
910Z'st AelAl � vomp suettrpil OD Ala
ABOUT THE PROJECT
The Western Riverside Council of Governments (WRCOG) received a grant from Caltrans to
prepare an Active Transportation Plan for the sub-region. This is a planning effort that is focused
on understanding and enhancing the environment for people who walk and bike.
This effort will start with a review of existing conditions and ultimately provide a road map for
WRCOG by identifying regional active transportation facilities that meet local needs and desires,
while also considering resources for funding and implementation. This project will be informed
through a focus on health, safety, mobility options, and recreational opportunities for people in
the WRCOG area.
The WRCOG Active Transportation Plan (ATP) represents a tremendous opportunity to serve local
activity and enhance mobility options. This project, active through the end of 2017, will continue
the region's conversation regarding the needs and opportunities for all roadway users, and help
to establish a policy framework enhancing active transportation mobility and safety for the future.
LET US KNOW WHAT YOU THINK!
We've developed a short survey for you to let us know your needs, values, and concerns about
walking, bicycling, and transit. The survey is open through the month of April:
Community Survey (English): https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/WRCOG_ATP _Eng
Community Survey (Spanish): https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/WRCOG_ATP _Spa
Staff Survey (English): https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/WRCOG_ATP _Staff
CONTACT US
Chris Gray, WRCOG
951.955.8304
gray@wrcog.cog.ca.us
Miguel Nunez, Fehr & Peers
213.261.3072
M.Nunez@fehrandpeers.com
Lorelle Moe-Luna
From:
Sent:
Subject:
Akers, Ronald E@DOT [ronald.akers@dot.ca.gov]
Thursday, April 28, 2016 1 :00 PM
SSARP Phase 2 Call and HSIP Cycle 8 Webinar
Program Announcement
SSARP Phase 2 Call-for-applications
and Local HSIP Cycle 8 Webinar
Systemic Safety Analysis Report Program (SSARP) Phase 2 Call-for-application
Caltrans announced SSARP Phase 2 Call for Applications on April 21, 2016. The
application due date is Friday, May 27, 2016. If an agency has submitted an
application during Phase 1, they should not submit a new application since unselected
applications from Phase 1 will be combined with applications received during Phase 2
and re-evaluated.
$10 million from the Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) was set aside and
exchanged for state funds to implement a new safety analysis program, the Systemic
Safety Analysis Report Program (SSARP). The intent of the SSARP is to assist local
agencies in performing collision analysis, identifying safety issues on their roadway
network, and developing a list of systemic low-cost countermeasures that can be used
to prepare future HSIP and other safety program applications.
For more information including program guidelines, application form and application
instructions, please visit our HSIP & SSARP webpage.
1
Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) Webinar -May 19, 2016
The next Highway Safety Improvement Program call for projects (Cycle 8) will be
announced early May, 2016. The call size will be approximately $150 million.
On Thursday, May 19, 2016, Caltrans and FHWA will host a webinar to help local
agencies in preparing Cycle 8 HSIP applications that can successfully compete for the
federal HSIP funds.
Updated HSIP program guidelines, application forms, and other related information
will also be available on our HSIP & SSARP webpage when the Call for projects is
announced. Please visit this website often to stay informed.
If you have any questions, please contact your Caltrans District Local Assistance
Engineer (DLAE).
Caltrans Division of Local Assistance,
1120 N Street, Sacramento, CA 95814
SSlfS!JJJJ$!JQ$~Iit2~:.'.~.fQD9Jd._,_gK~G?..@d..Qt,~9JIQV
Forward this email I Update Profile I About our service provider
Sent by caltrans.dla@dot.ca.gov in collaboration with .
Try it free today
2
Local Assistance Design Guidance
Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities
Local agencies are encouraged to incorporate designs that help ensure the needs of nonmotorized
users in all programming, planning, construction, maintenance, operations, and project
development activities and products.
The following are design guidance that can be referenced when making planning and design
decisions on local streets and roads:
• Caltrans Highway Design Manual
• AASHTO Guide for Development of Bikeway Facilities
• National Association of City Transportation Official (NACTO)
• Urban Street Design Guide, NACTO Urban Bikeway Design Guide
• Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Designing Urban Walkable Thoroughfares
~-.! ...
"' -,, .
~)\;:;? ~ -o_•
Highway Design Manual
_,., .............
llqd• Fadlltin
• • Ill
Alternatives to bikeway design guidance must meet the criteria outlined in section 891 to the
California Streets and Highway Code.
New and Reconstruction Projects
Title 23 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 625 designates the standards, policies,
and standard specifications that are acceptable for application in the geometric design of Local
Assistance projects. The standards are dependent on the type and location of the project.
Page 11
Local Assistance
Design Guidance
Pro,jects on the State Highway System (SHS)
Local agency new or reconstruction projects on the SHS must be designed in accordance with
the current Cal trans Highway Design Manual and other Cal trans Division of Design standards,
policies, and procedures.
Projects on the National Highway System (NHS)
Local agency new or reconstruction projects on the NHS and not on the SHS must be designed in
accordance with the FHW A adopted edition of the American Association of State Highway and
Transportation Officials (AASHTO) A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets.
Projects not on the NHS
Local agency new or reconstruction projects not on the NHS may be designed in accordance
with locally developed design standards or the current Caltrans Highway Design Manual or the
current FHWA-adopted AASHTO A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets.
Local agency developed design standards may be used on local agency new or reconstruction
projects not on the NHS if:
• The standards have been approved by the County Board of Supervisors or the City
Council.
• The standards are signed by the City/County Public Works Director who is a California
licensed Civil Engineer. If the Public Works Director is not licensed, the standards may
be signed by the local agency's highest level licensed Civil Engineer. Standards may be
signed by a consultant on retainer as the City/County Engineer if such individual is
licensed and is responsible directly to the Public Works Director or City/County
Manager.
• The standards are reviewed for possible updating whenever the applicable AASHTO
standards are updated.
Stay Informed -Helpful Links
Local Assistance Procedure Manual
http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LocalPrograms/lam/lapm.htm
Local Assistance emailing system for the latest news
http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LocalPrograms/sub.htm
Local Assistance Blog "theLAB" for updates on policy, procedures, and training
http://www.localassistanceblog.com/
Page I 2