November 8, 2006 - Riverside County Transportation Commission

TIME: 

RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION 

10:00 a.m. 

MEETING AGENDA 

DATE: Wednesday, November 8, 2006 

LOCATION: 

BOARD ROOM 

County of Riverside Administrative Center 

4080 Lemon Street, First Floor, Riverside 

Commissioners 

Chairman: Marion Ashley 

1 st Vice Chairman: Terry Henderson 

2 nd Vice Chairman: Jeff Stone 

Bob Buster, County of Riverside 

John F. Tavaglione, County of Riverside 

Jeff Stone, County of Riverside 

Roy Wilson, County of Riverside 

Marion Ashley, County of Riverside 

Barbara Hanna / Art Welch, City of Banning 

Roger Berg / Jeff Fox, City of Beaumont 

Robert Crain / Joseph DeConinck, City of Blythe 

John Chlebnik / Shenna Moqeet / Bill Davis, City of Calimesa 

Mary Craton / John Zaitz, City of Canyon Lake 

Gregory S. Pettis / Charles England, City of Cathedral City 

Juan M. DeLara / Richard Macknicki, City of Coachella 

Jeff Miller / Karen Spiegel, City of Corona 

Hank Hohenstein / Yvonne Parks, City of Desert Hot Springs 

Robin Lowe / Lori Van Arsdale, City of Hemet 

Mary Roche / Robert Bernheimer, City of Indian Wells 

Michael H. Wilson / Gene Gilbert, City of Indio 

Terry Henderson / Don Adolph, City of La Quinta 

Bob Magee / Robert L. Schiffner, City of Lake Elsinore 

Frank West / Charles White, City of Moreno Valley 

Rick Gibbs / Douglas McAllister, City of Murrieta 

Frank Hall / Harvey Sullivan, City of Norco 

Dick Kelly / Robert Spiegel, City of Palm Desert 

Ronald Oden / Ginny Foat, City of Palm Springs 

Daryl Busch / Mark Yarbrough, City of Perris 

Gordon Moller / Alan Seman, City of Rancho Mirage 

Steve Adams, City of Riverside 

Jim Ayres / Chris Buydos, City of San Jacinto 

Ron Roberts / Jeff Comerchero, City of Temecula 

Mike Perovich, Governor’s Appointee 

Eric Haley, Executive Director 

Anne Mayer, Deputy Executive Director 

Hideo Sugita, Deputy Executive Director 

Comments are welcomed by the Commission. If you wish to provide comments to the Commission, please 

complete and submit a Testimony Card to the Clerk of the Commission.


www.rctc.org 

AGENDA* 

*Actions may be taken on any item listed on the agenda 

10:00 a.m. 

Wednesday, November 8, 2006 

BOARD ROOM 

County of Riverside Administrative Center 

4080 Lemon Street, First Floor, Riverside 

In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act and Government Code Section 

54954.2, if special assistance is needed to participate in a Commission meeting, please 

contact the Clerk of the Board at (951) 787-7141. Notification of at least 48 hours prior 

to meeting time will assist staff in assuring that reasonable arrangements can be made to 

provide accessibility at the meeting. 

1. CALL TO ORDER 

2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 

3. ROLL CALL 

4. PUBLIC COMMENTS (Items not listed on the agenda) 

5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES – SEPTEMBER 15 AND OCTOBER 11, 2006 

6. ADDITIONS/REVISIONS – The Commission may add an item to the Agenda 

after making a finding that there is a need to take immediate action on the 

item and that the item came to the attention of the Commission subsequent 

to the posting of the agenda. An action adding an item to the agenda 

requires 2/3 vote of the Commission. If there are less than 2/3 of the 

Commission members present, adding an item to the agenda requires a 

unanimous vote. Added items will be placed for discussion at the end of the 

agenda.

Riverside County Transportation Commission Agenda 

November 8, 2006 

Page 2 

7. CONSENT CALENDAR – All matters on the Consent Calendar will be 

approved in a single motion unless a Commissioner(s) requests separate 

action on specific item(s). Items pulled from the Consent Calendar will be 

placed for discussion at the end of the agenda. 

7A. INTERFUND LOAN ACTIVITY REPORT 

Overview 

Page 1 

This item is for the Commission to receive and file the Interfund Loan 

Activity Report for the first quarter ended September 30, 2006. 

7B. CITY OF LA QUINTA’S AMENDED BICYCLE TRANSPORTATION PLAN 

Overview 

Page 3 

This item is for the Commission to approve the city of La Quinta’s 

amended Bicycle Transportation Plan as submitted. 

7C. COMMUTER RAIL PROGRAM UPDATE 

Overview 

Page 20 

This item is for the Commission to receive and file the Commuter Rail 

Program Update as an information item. 

7D. REQUEST FROM CARE-A-VAN TRANSIT INC. FOR MEASURE A 

SPECIALIZED TRANSIT FUNDS AS CAPITAL MATCH FOR THE 

SECTION 5310 PROGRAM 

Page 28 

Overview 

This item is for the Commission to: 

1) Allocate $11,011 to Care-A-Van Transit Inc. in Measure A 

Specialized Transit funds to provide the required capital match for 

the Section 5310 program; 

2) Approve Agreement No. 07-26-054-00 with Care-A-Van Transit 

Inc. for $11,011 in Measure A Specialized Transit funds available 

in Western Riverside County; and 

3) Authorize the Chair, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute 

the agreement on behalf of the Commission.



Page 3 

7E. AMENDMENT TO UTILITY AGREEMENT WITH SOUTHERN 

CALIFORNIA GAS COMPANY FOR THE STATE ROUTE 74 SEGMENT II 

WASSON CANYON ROAD TO 7 TH STREET HIGHWAY WIDENING AND 

REALIGNMENT PROJECT 

Page 30 

Overview 


1) Approve Agreement No. 03-31-046-01, Amendment No. 1 to 

Agreement No. 03-31-046, with Southern California Gas 

Company for the SR-74 Segment II Wasson Canyon Road to 

7 th Street widening and realignment project for an amount not to 

exceed $43,062; and 


the agreement on behalf of the Commission. 

7F. AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT WITH PSOMAS TO PROVIDE FINAL 

DESIGN ENGINEERING SERVICES FOR THE PERRIS MULTIMODAL 

FACILITY 

Page 32 

Overview 



Agreement No. 04-33-007, with Psomas to perform Final Design 

Engineering Services for the Perris Multimodal Facility, for a total 

not to exceed cost of $524,067, subject to receipt of Federal 

Transit Administration (FTA) concurrence of the Project National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Environmental Evaluation; and 


the agreement on behalf of the Commission.



Page 4 

7G. AGREEMENTS FOR ON-CALL RIGHT-OF-WAY APPRAISAL SERVICES 

FOR RESIDENTIAL, COMMERCIAL, INDUSTRIAL AND AGRICULTURAL 

PROPERTIES 

Page 45 

Overview 


1) Award Agreement No. 07-72-057-00 with Hennessey & 

Hennessey LLC; Agreement No. 07-72-061-00 with Paragon 

Partners Ltd; Agreement No. 07-31-063-00 with R. P. Laurain & 

Associates; Agreement No. 07-73-062-00 with Lidgard and 

Associates, Inc.; and Agreement No. 07-33-064-00 with 

Valentine Appraisal & Associates to perform On-Call Right-of-Way 

Appraisal Services (Appraisal Services); 


the agreements on behalf of the Commission; and 

3) Approve an amendment to the FY 2006/07 budget in the amount 

of $225,000. 

7H. AGREEMENTS FOR ON-CALL RIGHT-OF-WAY APPRAISAL REVIEW 

SERVICES 

Page 48 

Overview 


1) Award Agreement No. 07-33-060-00 with Hennessey & 

Hennessey LLC; Agreement No. 07-73-058-00 with Paragon 

Partners Ltd; and Agreement No. 07-31-059-00 with Lidgard and 

Associates, Inc. to perform On-Call Right-of-Way Appraisal 

Review Services (Appraisal Review Services); 


the agreements on behalf of the Commission; and 

3) Approve an amendment to the FY 2006/07 budget in the amount 

of $78,000.



Page 5 

7I. FEDERAL LEGISLATIVE ADVOCACY AGREEMENT 

Overview 

Page 50 


1) Award Agreement No. 07-14-067-00 with Cliff Madison 

Government Relations for Federal Legislative Advocacy Services; 


the agreement on behalf of the Commission; and 

3) Direct staff to review overall, long-term lobbying needs and return 

to the Commission in early 2007 with a comprehensive plan. 

8. PROPOSITIONS 1A AND 1B ELECTION RESULT IMPACTS AND 

NOMINATIONS FOR CORRIDOR MOBILITY IMPROVEMENT ACCOUNT 

Page 53 

Overview 


1) Receive and file an oral report on Proposition 1A and 1B election results 

and impacts on Commission programs; and 

2) Approve preliminary recommendations for nominations for the Corridor 

Mobility Improvement Account (CMIA) program. 

9. ITEMS PULLED FROM CONSENT CALENDAR AGENDA 

10. COMMISSIONERS / EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR’S REPORT 

Overview 

This item provides the opportunity for the Commissioners and the Executive 

Director to report on attended meetings/conferences and any other items 

related to Commission activities.



Page 6 

11. CLOSED SESSION ITEMS 

A. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL: EXISTING LITIGATION 

Pursuant to subdivision (a) of Government Code Section 54956.9 

AAA Case No. 72 199 01006 04 VMD 

JAMS Case No. 1220032805 

B. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL: ANTICIPATED LITIGATION 

Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to subdivision (b) of 

Government Code Section 54956.9 

C. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL: ANTICIPATED LITIGATION 

Initiation of litigation pursuant to subdivision (c) of Government Code 

Section 54956.9 

Number of potential cases: 1 

D. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR 

Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8 

12. ADJOURNMENT 

The next Commission meeting is scheduled to be held at 10:00 a.m., 

Wednesday, December 13, 2006, Board Room, County of Riverside 

Administrative Center, 4080 Lemon Street, Riverside.



MINUTES 

Friday, September 15, 2006 

The Riverside County Transportation Commission was called to order by 

Chair Marion Ashley at 9:00 a.m., in the Embassy Suites Hotel La Quinta, 

50-777 Santa Rosa Plaza, La Quinta, 92253. 


At this time, Chair Ashley led the Commission in a flag salute. 

3. ROLL CALL 

Commissioners/Alternates Present 

Steve Adams 

Marion Ashley 

Jim Ayres 

Roger Berg 

Daryl Busch 

Bob Buster 

John Chlebnik 

Mary Craton 

Joseph DeConinck 

Rick Gibbs 

Frank Hall 

Barbara Hanna 

Terry Henderson 

Hank Hohenstein 

Robin Lowe 

Dick Kelly 

Bob Magee 

Jeff Miller 

Gordon Moller 

Ronald Oden 

Mike Perovich 

Ron Roberts 

Mary Roche 

Jeff Stone 

John F. Tavaglione 

Frank West 

Roy Wilson 

Commissioners Absent 

Juan M. DeLara 

Gregory S. Pettis 

Michael H. Wilson

Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes 

September 15, 2006 

Page 2 

4. WELCOME AND WORKSHOP OVERVIEW 

Eric Haley, Executive Director, reviewed the accomplishments of the 

previous workshops, briefly discussed the Commission’s funding programs, 

enhanced revenue stream and bond level, and provided an overview of the 

topics for discussion at the workshop. 

5. BOTTOM LINE REPORT ON GOODS MOVEMENT 

Stephanie Wiggins, Regional Programs Director, discussed the purpose of the 

Bottom Line Report on Goods Movement and the Southern California 

National Freight Gateway Strategy Memorandum of Understanding. 

Andrew Tang, Cambridge Systematics, presented the Bottom Line Report on 

Goods Movement, reviewing the following areas: 

• Trade Balance 

• Trends in Logistics 

• Shift of Distribution Centers 

• Truck Volumes 

• Freight Rail Line Volumes 

• Air Pollution and Emission Sources 

• At-Grade Rail Crossings 

In response to Commissioner Roger Berg’s concern that the data does not 

reflect infrastructure improvements by the rail lines and planned intermodal 

facilities and distribution centers, Andrew Tang responded that the report 

was based on existing sources and data. 

Commissioner John Tavaglione expressed concern with the accuracy of the 

data related to trucks traveling from the port into Riverside County. 

Andrew Tang explained that the data reflects only direct trips, noting that 

the majority of trucks from the ports travel to an intermediate location in 

Los Angeles County before traveling into Riverside County. The data does 

not reflect the movements of container contents. 

Commissioner Bob Buster suggested a review of the cumulative impact of 

pollution from the various individual studies that have been conducted on 

industrial parks, trucks, trains and other sources and then determine how to 

reduce these pollutants.



Page 3 

M/S/C (Hohenstein/Hall) to: 

1) Receive and file the presentation of the RCTC Goods Movement 

Bottom Line Report; 

2) Approve the Southern California National Gateway 

Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) No. 07-67-041-00; and 

3) Authorize the Chair, pursuant to legal counsel review, to 

execute the MOU on behalf of the Commission. 

6. GRADE CROSSING FUNDING STRATEGY 

Stephanie Wiggins presented the Grade Crossing Funding Strategy, 

reviewing the following areas: 

• Funding Strategy Objectives and Results; 

• 18 High Priority Crossings; 

• Project Benefits; 

• Priority Groups and Funding; and 

• Funding Needs and Sources. 

Commissioner Buster supported the Grade Crossing Funding Strategy and 

added that the nexus for the Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) 

may need to be revised to look at railroad grade separations as major 

impediment to traffic flow. He recommended the formation of an ad hoc 

committee for the Grade Crossing Funding Strategy. 

Eric Haley concurred with Commissioner Buster’s recommendation and 

added that this strategy is an effort to piece together funding that the 

Commission can control. 

At Commissioner Hank Hohenstein’s request, Stephanie provided details on 

the funding from the SAFETEA-LU Alameda Corridor East (ACE) earmark. 

In response to Commissioner Robin Lowe’s question regarding the type of 

TUMF funding, Stephanie Wiggins responded that it is TUMF zone funding. 

Chair Ashley announced that he will appoint an ad hoc committee for the 

Grade Crossing Funding Strategy.



Page 4 

7. PERRIS VALLEY LINE PROJECT UPDATE 

Leticia Pepper, representing the University Neighborhood Association, 

expressed concern for the proposed locations of Metrolink stations in the 

University of California, Riverside (UCR) area due to the proximity to 

neighborhoods and schools as well as the air pollution and traffic impacts. 

She stated that the University Neighborhood Association opposes these 

stations and supports a station in the Highgrove area. She also expressed 

that she believes the only benefactor of station locations in the UCR area 

would be UCR. 

John Standiford, Public Affairs Director, presented an update on the 

Perris Valley Line (PVL) project, reviewing the following items: 

• Previous actions taken regarding the PVL project; 

• Service information including cost, trip length and intervals and 

duration; 

• Project Need; 

• Current and future population and employment information along the 

PVL corridor; 

• New Starts Process; 

• Outstanding issues including FTA rating, future congressional support, 

railroad agreement/litigation, station locations, and community 

mitigation; 

• Community Outreach; and 

• Future Extension Goals. 

Commissioner Roger Berg expressed support for the PVL project and the 

importance of a station location in the UCR area. 

Commissioner Buster expressed opposition to Metrolink stations in the UCR 

area without a clear understanding of the mitigation issues and costs. He 

believes that there needs to be a full examination of the Inland Empire 

corridor from Riverside County to San Bernardino County and suggested 

reconceiving the PVL line to move future commuters in two directions within 

the Inland Empire region. He further suggested that additional analysis of the 

UCR area, connections with San Bernardino County and an extension into 

Temecula be conducted. He expressed support for a Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) 

system along the I-215 corridor and believes the cost and benefits have not 

been fully analyzed. He expressed support for a station in the Highgrove 

area as it is the classic conjunction of major corridors at the intersection of 

two counties. He recommended the proposed PVL project be held up until a 

full examination of the alternatives can be conducted.



Page 5 

Commissioner Dick Kelly requested staff schedule a tour of the proposed 

PVL project to provide Commissioners an opportunity to see the proposed 

line first-hand and visit the locations of the proposed stations. 

Commissioner Jeff Stone expressed strong support for the PVL project and a 

station location in the UCR area, citing examples in Europe where stations 

are in residential area and near universities. He noted that the increasing 

student population of UCR that does not live on campus and needs an 

effective means of public transportation as well as highlighting the 

congressional support that this project has received. He then discussed the 

various issues of widening the I-215 corridor between Temecula and Perris 

and the necessity of the PVL project to residents in Southwest County. 

Commissioner Mary Craton supported Commissioner Kelly’s request to tour 

the PVL project. 

Commissioner Jim Ayres concurred with Commissioner Stone’s comments 

and expressed strong support of the proposed PVL project as he believes it is 

essential to the residents of the San Jacinto Valley. He also concurred with 

Commissioner Kelly’s request for a tour and supports a future extension of 

Metrolink service into the San Jacinto Valley. 

Commissioner Robin Lowe concurred with Commissioner Ayres’ comments 

and stated that approximately 50% of the commuters in the San Jacinto 

Valley could benefit from this project. She sited examples in the Midwest of 

rail stations in residential areas and commuters that walk to them. She then 

discussed how rail expansion could be patterned after the Community and 

Environmental Transportation Acceptability Process (CETAP). She noted that 

the city of Hemet has identified two station locations for Metrolink in its 

general plan. She expressed strong support of the PVL project as she 

believes it is critical to the San Jacinto Valley. 

M/S/C (Roberts/Stone) to receive and file the Perris Valley Line Project 

Update as an information item. 

8. CONSIDERATION OF AMENDMENT TO MEMORANDUM OF 

UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN RCTC AND WRCOG REGARDING THE 

WESTERN COUNTY TUMF PROGRAM 

Eric Haley provided a review of the memorandum of understanding (MOU) 

between the Commission and Western Riverside Council of Governments 

(WRCOG) regarding the TUMF program. He then discussed the proportional



Page 6 

distribution of funds and maintaining the value of the purchasing power of 

the $400 million in TUMF revenues. He noted that Rick Bishop, WRCOG 

Executive Director, asked that the Commission be advised that despite his 

efforts, he was unable to attend this meeting. 

M/S/C (Lowe/Stone) to: 

1) Direct the Executive Director to formally request the Western 

Riverside Council of Governments (WRCOG) to adjust in future 

payments to the Commission based on an existing 

Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the 

Commission and WRCOG that clarifies the relationship between 

Measure A and the Western Riverside County Transportation 

Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF); and 

2) Return to the Commission and the Governing Board of WRCOG 

for approval of the MOU Amendment that would secure a 

proportional amount of funding to be provided for regional 

arterials from the Western Riverside County TUMF. 

9. PRESENTATION – MARK WATTS, COMMISSION LOBBYIST 

Mark Watts, Smith, Watts & Company, gave a presentation to the 

Commission reviewing the following areas: 

• Legislation related to Public/Private Partnerships (P3); 

• Key Elements of AB 1467; 

• Policy Issues related to AB 1467; and 

• Propositions 1A and 1B. 


There being no further business for consideration by the Riverside County 

Transportation Commission, the meeting adjourned at 12:30 p.m. The next 

Commission meeting is scheduled to be held at 10:00 a.m., on Wednesday, 

October 11, 2006, at the County of Riverside Administrative Center, 

4080 Lemon Street, Board Room, Riverside, California, 92501. 

Respectfully submitted, 

Jennifer Harmon 

Clerk of the Board



MINUTES 

Thursday, October 11, 2006 

The Riverside County Transportation Commission was called to order by 

Chair Marion Ashley at 10:01 a.m., in the Board Room at the County of 

Riverside Administrative Center, 4080 Lemon Street, Riverside, California, 

92501. 


At this time, Commissioner John Tavaglione led the Commission in a flag 

salute. 

3. ROLL CALL 

Commissioners/Alternates Present 

Commissioners Absent 

Steve Adams Gregory Pettis Robert Crain 

Marion Ashley Ron Roberts Juan DeLara 

Jim Ayres Patty Romo Robin Lowe 

Roger Berg Jeff Stone Mary Roche 

Daryl Busch John F. Tavaglione 

Bob Buster 

Frank West 

John Chlebnik Michael H. Wilson 

Mary Craton Roy Wilson 

Rick Gibbs 

Frank Hall 

Barbara Hanna 


Dick Kelly 

Bob Magee 

Jeff Miller 

Gordon Moller 

Ronald Oden 

Yvonne Parks


October 11, 2006 

Page 2 

4. PUBLIC COMMENTS 

Arnold San Miguel, Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), 

announced the schedule of Integrated Growth Forecast Workshops for the 

Western Riverside Council of Governments (WRCOG) and the Coachella 

Valley Association of Governments (CVAG) regions. A copy of the schedule 

was distributed to the Commissioners. 

R.A. Barney Barnett, Highgrove area resident, expressed support for a 

Metrolink station in the Highgrove area. He reviewed his previous 

correspondence submitted to the Commission and discussions with elected 

officials representing San Bernardino County regarding this area. He 

provided a map and directions to the Highgrove site. A copy of this 

document was distributed to the Commissioners. 

Edward DeMuth, Grand Terrace resident, also expressed support for a 

Metrolink station in the Highgrove area. 

Denis W. Kidd, Highgrove area resident, also expressed support for a 

Metrolink station in the Highgrove area. 

Leticia Pepper, representing University Neighborhood Association, provided a 

handout dated October 11, 2006, which outlines what the University 

Neighborhood Association perceives are the advantages of a Highgrove 

station location and the disadvantages of station locations in the University 

of California, Riverside (UCR) area. The copy of this document was 

distributed to the Commissioners. 

Eric Haley, Executive Director, explained that there have been a number of 

meetings with professional staff and the citizens concerning a Metrolink 

station in the Highgrove area, noted that previous studies show that 

approximately 75% of the riders would be San Bernardino County residents. 

He explained that in order to proceed, there needs to be cost sharing 

discussions with San Bernardino County, including the Colton Crossing 

investment, construction, operations, maintenance and security. 

Chair Ashley expressed appreciation for Eric Haley’s detailed comments. He 

stated that the Commission will continue to pursue this issue and needs the 

cooperation of San Bernardino County.



Page 3 

Commissioner Bob Buster discussed his concern that a staff policy decision 

has been made without detailed discussion by the Commission. 

He expressed support for a station in the Highgrove area as it is the pivot 

point of transportation between Riverside and San Bernardino Counties. 

He believes long-term planning, early acquisition of property and consultation 

with neighborhoods are key factors in achieving successful multi-modal 

facilities and recommended that Commissioners tour the Highgrove area. 

Chair Ashley directed staff to arrange a tour of the proposed Perris Valley 

Line project and Highgrove area. 

5. PRESENTATION – INSTITUTE OF TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS 

2006 TRANSPORTATION ACHIEVEMENT AWARD FOR FACILITIES FOR 

THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY – ORANGE COUNTY MAJOR INVESTMENT 

STUDY 

Rock Miller, on behalf of the Institute of Transportation Engineers, presented 

the 2006 Transportation Achievement Award for Facilities for the Riverside 

County – Orange County Major Investment Study (MIS) to the Commission. 

Commissioner Jeff Miller expressed his appreciation to the Commissioners, 

Caltrans and Orange County for their participation in the MIS. 

Commissioner Tavaglione expressed his appreciation for the partnerships that 

have evolved, specifically with Orange County working cooperatively on the 

MIS. 

6. APPROVAL OF MINUTES – August 9 and September 14, 2006 

M/S/C (Ayres/R. Wilson) to approve the August 9 and 

September 14, 2006 minutes. 

Abstain: Miller, Parks, and M. Wilson



Page 4 

7. PUBLIC HEARING – COMMUTER RAIL FISCAL YEAR 2006/07 

SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN AMENDMENT – ALLOCATION OF 

SECTION 5307 AND LOCAL TRANSPORTATION FUNDS 

Tanya Love, Program Manager, provided an overview of the revised Program 

of Projects for the Riverside-San Bernardino urbanized area. She stated that 

the notice for public hearing was advertised and to date there have been no 

written or verbal comments received. 

At this time, Chair Ashley opened the public hearing. No comments were 

received from the public and the Chair closed the public hearing. 

M/S/C (Adams/Chlebnik) to: 

1) Conduct a public hearing on the revised Program of Projects for 

the Riverside San Bernardino urbanized area; 

2) Approve the FY 2006/07 revised Federal Transit 

Administration’s (FTA) Section 5307 Program of Projects for 

the Riverside-San Bernardino urbanized area; 

3) Direct staff to add the project funding into the Regional 

Transportation Improvement Plan; 

4) Approve an allocation of $15,068 in Local Transportation Fund 

(LTF) funds as local match for the rehabilitation and renovation 

project; and 

5) Amend the Commuter Rail Program’s FY 2006/07 Short Range 

Transit Plan (SRTP). 

8. ADDITIONS/REVISIONS 

Eric Haley, Executive Director, requested Agenda Item 11, “Authorize 

Request for Proposals for Environmental Justice Analysis and Outreach for 

the Multi-County Goods Movement”, be pulled from the agenda. 

9. CONSENT CALENDAR 

M/S/C (Henderson/Stone) to approve the following Consent Calendar 

items:



Page 5 

9A. FISCAL YEAR 2007/11 MEASURE A FIVE-YEAR CAPITAL 

IMPROVEMENT PLAN FOR LOCAL STREETS AND ROADS FOR THE 

CITY OF CATHEDRAL CITY 

Approve the FY 2007/11 Measure A Five-Year Capital Improvement 

Plan (Plan) for Local Streets and Roads for the city of Cathedral City. 

9B. AMENDMENT TO FISCAL YEAR 2007/11 MEASURE A CAPITAL 

IMPROVEMENT PLAN FOR LOCAL STREETS AND ROADS FOR THE 

COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE 

Approve the amendment to the FY 2007/11 Measure A Capital 

Improvement Plan (Plan) for Local Streets and Roads for the county of 

Riverside. 

9C. ANNUAL LOCAL TRANSPORTATION FUND PLANNING ALLOCATIONS 

TO COACHELLA VALLEY ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS AND 

WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS 

Approve an allocation of Local Transportation Planning funds totaling 

$336,825 to the Coachella Valley Association of Governments 

(CVAG) and $617,513 to Western Riverside Council of Governments 

(WRCOG) to support transportation planning programs and functions 

as identified in the attached work programs. 

9D. COMMUTER RAIL PROGRAM UPDATE 

Receive and file the Commuter Rail Program Update as an information 

item. 

9E. AGREEMENT FOR MAINTENANCE OF ELEVATORS AT METROLINK 

STATIONS 

1) Approve Agreement No. 07-25-042-00 with Amtech Elevator 

Services for elevator maintenance services to amend the term 

and rates of the agreement; and 


execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission.



Page 6 

9F. ALLOCATION OF LOCAL TRANSPORTATION FUNDS FOR 

FISCAL YEAR 2005/06 CITY OF BANNING TRANSIT SERVICES 

Allocate $78,695 of Local Transportation Fund (LTF) funds to the city 

of Banning’s transit services to cover FY 2005/06 operating costs. 

9G. REQUEST FROM CARE CONNEXXUS, INC. AND PEPPERMINT RIDGE 

FOR MEASURE A SPECIALIZED TRANSIT FUNDS AS CAPITAL 

MATCH FOR THE SECTION 5310 PROGRAM 

1) Allocate $10,667 to Care Connexxus, Inc. and $18,367 to 

Peppermint Ridge in Measure A Specialized Transit funds to 

provide the required capital match for the Section 5310 

program; 

2) Approve Agreement No. 07-26-036-00 with Care Connexxus 

for $10,667 and Agreement No. 07-26-043-00 with Peppermint 

Ridge for $18,367 in Measure A Specialized Transit funds 

available in Western Riverside County; and 


execute the agreements on behalf of the Commission. 

9H. AGREEMENT NO. 07-72-046-00 WITH JACOBS CIVIL INC. FOR THE 

PREPARATION OF A PROJECT REPORT/ENVIRONMENTAL 

DOCUMENT FOR THE CAJALCO/I-15 INTERCHANGE 

1) Approve Agreement No. 07-72-046-00 with Jacobs Civil Inc. 

(Jacobs) for the preparation of a project report and 

environmental document (PR/ED) for the Cajalco Road/I-15 

interchange for a not to exceed amount of $750,000; 


execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission; and 

3) Approve adjustments to the FY 2006/07 budget for a $750,000 

increase in revenues and a $750,000 increase in expenditures.



Page 7 

9I. COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT NO. 07-65-047-00 FOR THE JOINT 

FUNDING OF THE WESTERN RIVERSIDE SPECIAL AREA 

MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR THE SAN JACINTO AND UPPER SANTA 

MARGARITA WATERSHEDS 

1) Approve Agreement No. 07-65-047-00 between the 

Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority 

(RCA), Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation 

District, the county of Riverside, and the Commission for the 

joint funding of the Western Riverside Special Area 

Management Plan for the San Jacinto and Upper Santa 

Margarita Watersheds; and 

2) Allocate an additional $16,210 of State Transportation 

Improvement Program (STIP) Planning, Programming and 

Monitoring (PPM) funds to assist in the funding of technical 

support for the Special Area Management Plan (SAMP). 

10. WESTERN COUNTY FREEWAY STRATEGIC STUDY PHASE II 

Hideo Sugita, Deputy Executive Director, provided background information 

on the Phase I of the Freeway Strategic Study. He explained that Phase II of 

the Freeway Strategic Study will include additional refinements and focus on 

necessary improvements. 

In response to Vice Chair Jeff Stone requested for clarification regarding the 

completion of the Phase II effort related to new development, Hideo Sugita 

explained that one of the objectives of the Phase II study is to establish a 

rational freeway impact fee nexus so the Commission can determine how to 

proceed. He stated that the majority of the work will be conducted within a 

nine-month period, working collaboratively with all interested agencies. 

Paul Rodriguez, Urban Crossroads, representing the Building Industry 

Association (BIA), expressed the need to continue to cooperate and 

collaborate with all interested agencies on Phase II of the Freeway Strategic 

Study in order to deliver an effective program. 

Commissioner Ron Roberts stated that the city of Temecula (City) supports 

this study and agrees to its funding participation.



Page 8 

M/S/C (Roberts/Henderson) to: 

1) Award Agreement No. 07-31-051-00 to Parsons Brinckerhoff 

Quade and Douglas to perform the Western County Freeway 

Strategic Plan Phase II effort for $724,504, which includes a 

contingency of $242,138; 

2) Approve Agreement No. 07-31-052-00 with the county of 

Riverside and the city of Temecula for their 1/3 participation in 

funding the study effort (up to $241,501 each); 


execute the agreements on behalf of the Commission; and 

4) Approve adjustments to the FY 2006/07 budget for a $483,002 

increase in revenues and a $724,504 increase in expenditures. 

Abstain: Chlebnik 

11. AUTHORIZE REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS FOR ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE 

ANALYSIS AND OUTREACH FOR THE MULTI-COUNTY GOODS MOVEMENT 

ACTION PLAN 

This item was pulled from the agenda. 

12. FISCAL YEAR 2005/06 TRANSIT OPERATOR PERFORMANCE STATISTICS 

REPORT, STATUS OF PRODUCTIVITY IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM AND 

TRANSIT VISIONING PROCESS 

Tanya Love presented the FY 2005/06 Transit Operator Performance 

Statistics Report, the role of the Productivity Improvement Program (PIP) and 

a report on the transit visioning process. She highlighted the following 

areas: 

• The Commission’s Role in Transit 

• Annual Review of Transit Operators’ Activities 

• System-wide Ridership, Passenger Fares and Operating Expenses 

• FY 2005/06 Ridership Statistics 

• Triennial Performance Audits Results 

• Elements of the PIP 

• TransTrack Systems – Transit Performance Manager 

• FY 2005/06 Performance Statistics 

• Transit Vision/Conceptual Plan 

• Transit Visioning Process and Next Steps



Page 9 

Commissioner Buster commended staff for the report and recommended 

focusing on ways to increase productivity on routes that are already 

productive to assist in balance out the necessary non-productive rural routes. 

He also suggested limiting uncontrolled business access points on major 

arterials as a way to improve mobility. 

M/S/C (Henderson/Stone) to receive and file the presentation on the 

FY 2005/06 Transit Operator Performance Statistics Report, the role 

of the Productivity Improvement Program (PIP) as an aid in assisting 

transit operators in determining cost efficiency, and a report on the 

transit visioning process. 

13. ITEMS PULLED FROM CONSENT CALENDAR AGENDA 

There were no agenda items pulled from the Consent Calendar. 

14. COMMISSIONERS/EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR’S REPORT 

A. Chair Ashley announced: 

• Appointments to the Grade Separation Funding Strategy Ad Hoc 

Committee: 

Steve Adams 

Marion Ashley 

Bob Buster 

John Chlebnik 

Juan DeLara 

Barbara Hanna 


Bob Magee 

Jeff Miller 

Jeff Stone 

John Tavaglione 

Michael Wilson 

• Appointments to the Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee 

(TUMF) Gate Keepers Committee: 

Steve Adams 

Marion Ashley 


Jeff Stone 

Frank West



Page 10 

B. Eric Haley announced: 

• Hosting of the California Transportation Commission (CTC) meeting 

in November 2007 in the Coachella Valley. 

• Commission Workshop to be held on November 30, 2006, from 

10:00 a.m. – 2:00 p.m. 

• The retirement of Bill Hughes, Bechtel Project Manager. 

15. CLOSED SESSION ITEM 

A. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL: EXISTING LITIGATION 

Pursuant to Subdivision (a) of Government Code Section 54956.9 

B. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNCEL: ANTICIPATED LITIGATION 

Pursuant to Subdivision (b) of Governments Code Section 54956.9 

C. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNCEL: ANTICIPATED LITIGATION 

Pursuant to Subdivision (c) of Governments Code Section 54956.9 

D. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR 

Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8 

Negotiating Parties: RCTC – Executive Director or Designee 

Property Owners - See List of Property Owners 

There were no matters for consideration under Agenda Items 15A, 15B, 

15C, and 15D. 


There being no further business for consideration by the Riverside County 

Transportation Commission, the meeting adjourned at 11:18 a.m. The next 

Commission meeting is scheduled to be held at 10:00 a.m., on Wednesday, 

November 8, 2006, at the in the Board Room at the County of Riverside 

Administrative Center, 4080 Lemon Street, Riverside, California, 92501. 

Respectfully submitted, 

Jennifer Harmon 

Clerk of the Board


DATE: November 8, 2006 

TO: 

Riverside County Transportation Commission 

FROM: Michele Cisneros, Accounting and Human Resources Manager 

THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director 

SUBJECT: Interfund Loan Activity Report 

BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: 

This item is for the Commission to receive and file the Interfund Loan Activity 

Report for the first quarter ended September 30, 2006. 

BACKGROUND INFORMATION: 

On April 14, 2004, the Commission approved the Interfund Loan Policy and 

adopted Resolution No. 04-009, “Resolution of the Riverside County Transportation 

Commission to Authorize Interfund Loans”. Subsequently, the Commission 

requested that the interfund loan activity be reported on a quarterly basis. The 

attached details list all interfund loan activity through September 30, 2006. The 

total outstanding interfund loan amounts as of September 30, 2006 are $541,609. 

Attachment: Interfund Loan Activity Report 

Agenda Item 7A


Interfund Loan Activity Report 

For 1st quarter ended September 30, 2006 

Loan 

Amount Repayment Amount Date Commission 

Date of Loan of Loan Begins Outstanding Lending Fund Borrowing Fund Purpose of Loan Approved 

April 2, 2003 $ 300,000 July 1, 2006 $ 266,609 Measure A - WC Highway (222) Measure A - WC LSR (227) Advance to make repairs and 

improvements to Railroad Canyon 

Road 

March 12, 2003 

March 4, 2004 275,000 July 1, 2009 275,000 Measure A - WC Commuter 

Assistance (226) 

Measure A - WC Highway (222) 

Additional local match for the SR71 

Widening/Animal Crossing Project 

December 10, 2003 

Total $ 575,000 

$ 541,609



TO: 


FROM: Jerry Rivera, Program Manager 


SUBJECT: City of La Quinta’s Amended Bicycle Transportation Plan 


This item is for the Commission to approve the city of La Quinta’s amended Bicycle 

Transportation Plan as submitted. 


The city of La Quinta’s (City) amended Bicycle Transportation Plan (Plan) has been 

submitted to the Commission for certification that it complies with the 

requirements of the state Bicycle Lane Account (BLA) program as required by state 

law. The BLA program may fund a maximum of 90% of the cost of an eligible 

project(s) and each jurisdiction is eligible to receive up to 25% of the funds 

available for any given year. 

The City received a grant in the amount of $30,400 in FY 2000/01 to establish 

facilities and routes throughout the City; however, the City amended its Plan in 

August 2006. Accordingly, the Commission must reaffirm that the amended plan 

meets the requirements of the BLA program. 

Staff has reviewed the City’s amended Plan and finds that it satisfies the 

requirements of the BLA program as specified by state law. 

Attachment: City of La Quinta’s Amended Bicycle Transportation Plan 

Agenda Item 7B



TO: 


FROM: Henry Nickel, Staff Analyst 


SUBJECT: Commuter Rail Program Update 

STAFF RECOMMENDATION: 

This item is for the Commission to receive and file the Commuter Rail Program 

Update as an information item. 


IEOC Weekend Service 

Daily passenger trips on the new year-round IEOC Metrolink weekend service have 

averaged 1,831 per weekend, which is up 375 (+20%) from a year ago. 

This expanded service provides both an extension to the existing services for 

transit dependent riders and existing commuter passengers as well as a viable 

alternative to driving into Orange County, introducing entirely new users to the 

Metrolink system. 

Cumulative Passenger Trips 

IEOC Weekend Service 

First week of school 

# of Trips 

28,000 

24,000 

20,000 

16,000 

12,000 

8,000 

4,000 

0 

2006 

2005 

July 15-16 

July 22-23 

July 29-30 

Aug 5-6 

Aug 12-13 

Aug 19-20 

Aug 26-27 

Sept 2-3 

Sept 9-10 

Sept 16-17 

Sept 23-24 

Sept 30-Oct 1 

Oct 7-8 

To date, the IEOC weekend service has provided 23,802 passenger trips, up nearly 

26% from last year’s 18,932 Summerlink trips. Growth of the service reflects 

ongoing marketing efforts including print advertising, promotion of 

www.metrolinkweekends.com, direct mail, seat drops and daily radio spots. 

Agenda Item 7C

These promotional efforts are the product of close cooperation between the 

Commission, Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) and San Bernardino 

Associated Governments (SANBAG). 

Holiday Toy Train to Visit Riverside County Stations in December 

Metrolink’s Holiday Toy Express has been delighting audiences for ten years 

providing a free, enjoyable, community-based holiday experience for the people 

who live and work in the areas served by Metrolink. This year will be no different 

as the Holiday Toy Express travels to 50 cities throughout the Southern California. 

The Holiday Toy Express is a 450-ton Metrolink train decorated with giant glittering 

ornaments, animated displays, and more than 50,000 twinkling lights. 

Metrolink Holiday Toy Express 2006 Schedule 

Date Time Location 

December 2 5:20 PM to 5:50 PM Pedley Station 

December 10 5:15 PM to 5:45 PM Riverside Downtown Station 

December 10 6:05 PM to 6:35 PM La Sierra Station 

December 10 6:55 PM to 7:25 PM North Main Corona Station 

The train travels to Metrolink station cities throughout Southern California 

presenting a free live musical stage show at each stop; after the show kids of all 

ages have the opportunity to meet Santa and his friends. Additionally, the Holiday 

Toy Express supports the Southern California Firefighters’ Spark of Love Toy Drive 

that collects and distributes toys to needy children encouraging audience members 

to share their holiday spirit by donating a new unwrapped toy at the show. In 

addition, the Commission will sponsor events including food and entertainment at 

each location. 

Metrolink Mitigates Fuel Cost Spikes with Forward Fuel Contracts 

The purchase of diesel fuel represents a non-discretionary element of Metrolink’s 

operating budget. Over the past three fiscal years, excessive volatility as well as a 

constantly rising price of fuel has limited the agency’s ability to accurately plan and 

adjust to changing conditions in other parts of the budget. At its March 10, 2006 

meeting, the Board of Directors approved the conceptual framework of utilizing a 

forward purchasing strategy to help minimize the agency’s risk exposure and 

providing a mechanism to better address future expenditure requirements. 

Agenda Item 7C

Recent market conditions have presented Metrolink staff the opportunity to pursue 

this strategy. By the end of September, the price of fuel declined by 23% or 

almost $0.60 per gallon. Metrolink was able to use this drop in price to secure a 

significant portion of its fuel requirements, a total of 2.142 million gallons at an 

average savings of approximately $0.10 per gallon under the FY 2007 budget value 

of $2.38. With year-to-date fuel purchases and this forward pricing agreement, 

over 60% of Metrolink’s fuel needs will have been under budget. This is a 

dramatic savings and will provide the financial stability to eliminate the need for 

any mid-year fare increases. 

Riverside Line 

UP Track Work 

Passenger Trips 


# of Trips 

5,400 

5,000 

4,600 

4,200 

3,800 

3,400 

3,000 

2,600 

Sep-05 

Oct-05 

Nov-05 

Dec-05 

Jan-06 

Feb-06 

Mar-06 

Apr-06 

May-06 

Jun-06 

Jul-06 

Aug-06 

Sep-06 

Month 

Daily passenger trips on Metrolink’s Riverside Line for the month of September 

averaged 4,705, up 198 (+4%) from the month of August. Compared to one year 

prior, the Line averaged an overall daily increase of 125 passenger trips, nearly 3% 

more than a year ago, September 2005. 

UP Track Work 

On Time Performance (95% Goal) 


Percentage 

100 

95 

90 

85 

80 

75 

70 

Sep-05 

Oct-05 

Nov-05 

Dec-05 

Jan-06 

Feb-06 

Mar-06 

Apr-06 

May-06 

Jun-06 

Jul-06 

Aug-06 

Sep-06 

Month 

Agenda Item 7C

September on-time performance averaged 98% inbound (+3% from August) and 

96% outbound (-2% from August). The Union Pacific is doing a much better job 

with dispatching and has been over 95% for the past 3 months. There were 7 

delays greater than 5 minutes during the month of September. The following are 

primary causes: 

Cause # of Delays % of Total 

Signals/Track/MOW 2 29% 

Dispatching 3 42% 

Mechanical 0 0% 

Operations 2 29% 

TOTAL 7 100% 

IEOC Line 

# of Trips 

5,000 

4,800 

4,600 

4,400 

4,200 

4,000 

3,800 

3,600 


Inland Empire Orange County Line 

Sep-05 

Oct-05 

Nov-05 

Dec-05 

Jan-06 

Feb-06 

Mar-06 

Apr-06 

May-06 

Jun-06 

Jul-06 

Aug-06 

Sep-06 

Month 

Daily passenger trips on Metrolink’s IEOC Line for the month of September 

averaged 4,686, an increase of 88 trips, 2% more than the month of August. The 

Line has increased by 743 daily trips or 19% from a year ago September 2005. 

Percentage 

100 

95 

90 

85 

80 

75 

70 


Inland Empire Orange County Line 

Sep-05 

Oct-05 

Nov-05 

Dec-05 

Jan-06 

Feb-06 

Mar-06 

Apr-06 

May-06 

Jun-06 

Jul-06 

Aug-06 

Sep-06 

Month 

Agenda Item 7C

September on-time performance averaged 88% southbound (-4% from August) and 

86% northbound (-6% from August). There were 41 delays greater than five 

minutes during the month of September. The following are primary causes: 






TOTAL 41 100% 

91 Line 

# of Trips 

2,800 

2,600 

2,400 

2,200 

2,000 

1,800 

1,600 

1,400 


91 Line 

Sep-05 

Oct-05 

Nov-05 

Dec-05 

Jan-06 

Feb-06 

Mar-06 

Apr-06 

May-06 

Jun-06 

Jul-06 

Aug-06 

Sep-06 

Month 

Daily passenger trips on Metrolink’s 91 Line for the month of September averaged 

2,475, an increase of 51 trips or a 2% increase from the month of August. The 

Line averaged an overall increase of 601 (+32%) from a year ago 

September 2005. 

Percentage 

100 

95 

90 

85 

80 

75 

70 


91 Line 

Sep-05 

Oct-05 

Nov-05 

Dec-05 

Jan-06 

Feb-06 

Mar-06 

Apr-06 

May-06 

Jun-06 

Jul-06 

Aug-06 

Sep-06 

Month 

Agenda Item 7C

September on-time performance averaged 98% inbound (+6% from August) and 

95% outbound (no change from August). There were 7 delays greater than five 

minutes during the month of September. The following are primary causes: 






TOTAL 7 100% 

Attachments: 

1) Metrolink Average Weekday Passenger Trips 

2) Metrolink Schedule Adherence Summary – Weekday Service 

Agenda Item 7C



TO: 

FROM: 

THROUGH: 

SUBJECT: 


Josefina Clemente, Staff Analyst 

Tanya Love, Program Manager 


Request from Care-A-Van Transit Inc. for Measure A Specialized 

Transit Funds as Capital Match for the Section 5310 Program 



1) Allocate $11,011 to Care-A-Van Transit Inc. in Measure A Specialized 

Transit funds to provide the required capital match for the 

Section 5310 program; 

2) Approve Agreement No. 07-26-054-00 with Care-A-Van Transit Inc. 

for $11,011 in Measure A Specialized Transit funds available in 

Western Riverside County; and 

3) Authorize the Chair, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the 

agreement on behalf of the Commission. 


Care-A-Van Transit Inc. was recently notified by Caltrans that the agency is 

approved for funding to purchase two accessible vans for a total cost of $96,000 

under the Federal Transit Administration’s (FTA) Section 5310 program. 

The Section 5310 program provides funding for 88.53% of the cost of capital 

projects. Care-A-Van is requesting that the required 11.47% match ($11,011) be 

funded from Measure A Specialized Transit funds available in Western Riverside 

County. These funds are specially set aside, on an annual basis, to provide the 

local match to operators located in Western Riverside County participating in the 

Section 5310 program. 

Care-A-Van Transit Inc. located in San Jacinto, California is a specialized 

curb-to-door transportation program serving the cities of Hemet and San Jacinto 

and unincorporated county areas of Winchester, Val Vista, Homeland and 

Romoland. Care-A-Van’s clients are low-income, elderly and disabled individuals 

who are too frail and ill-equipped physically and mentally to consider using mass 

Agenda Item 7D

transportation and paratransit services. The agency provides specialized 

transportation to medical appointments, social service agencies, job training, youth 

programs, education and literacy classes and shopping. Care-A-Van Transit 

operates its services using Measure A Specialized Transit funds including passenger 

fares, charter and contract revenue, in-kind and private donations and Community 

Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds from city of Hemet and Riverside County. 

If the request for Measure A funding is approved, the local match will be placed on 

deposit directly with Caltrans. 

Financial Information 

In Fiscal Year Budget: Yes Year: FY 2006/07 Amount: $11,011 

Source of Funds: 

GLA No.: 225-26-86103 

Measure A Specialized Transit 

Funding: Western Riverside 

Budget Adjustment: 

Fiscal Procedures Approved: Date: 10/23/06 

No 

Agenda Item 7D



TO: 

FROM: 

THROUGH: 

SUBJECT: 


Marlin Feenstra, Program Manager 

Karl Sauer, Bechtel Construction Manager 


Amendment to Utility Agreement with Southern California Gas 

Company for the State Route 74 Segment II Wasson Canyon Road 

to 7 th Street Widening and Realignment Project 




Agreement No. 03-31-046, with Southern California Gas Company for 

the SR-74 Segment II Wasson Canyon Road to 7 th Street widening and 

realignment project for an amount not to exceed $43,062; and 




At its January 8, 2003 meeting, the Commission approved 

Agreement No. 03-31-046 with Southern California Gas Company (SCGC) to 

relocate the existing SCGC natural gas pipelines and other appurtenances for a not 

to exceed amount of $176,517. The relocation was required to accommodate 

construction of the Commission’s SR-74 Segment II Wasson Canyon Road to 

7 th Street widening and realignment project (SR-74 Segment II project). 

The agreement amount was the Estimated Relocation Cost by SCGC prior to 

construction. During construction, SCGC tracked all costs associated with the 

relocation of the existing SCGC natural gas pipelines and other appurtenances 

required to accommodate construction of the SR-74 Segment II project. 

Agenda Item 7E

At the end of construction, SCGC submitted a final invoice with supporting 

documents for $219,579 related to the relocation of the existing SCGC natural gas 

pipelines and other appurtenances. Staff reviewed and concurs with the SCGC 

final invoice and has approved a partial payment of $176,517 to SCGC consistent 

with the current authorized amount. Staff recommends approval of 

Agreement No. 03-31-046-01, with SCGC for the SR-74 Segment II project to 

allow for payment of the balance of $43,062 to SCGC for utility relocation 

services. 



Source of Funds: Measure A Funds Budget Adjustment: No 

GLA No.: 

222-31-81401 P3001 


Agenda Item 7E



TO: 

FROM: 

THROUGH: 

SUBJECT: 


Marlin Feenstra, Program Manager 

Karl Sauer, Bechtel Construction Manager 


Amendment to Agreement with Psomas to Provide Final Design 

Engineering Services for the Perris Multimodal Facility 




Agreement No. 04-33-007, with Psomas to perform Final Design 

Engineering Services for the Perris Multimodal Facility, for a total not 

to exceed cost of $524,067, subject to receipt of Federal Transit 

Administration (FTA) concurrence of the Project National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Environmental Evaluation; and 




The Commission and the Riverside Transit Agency (RTA) have been working 

cooperatively to develop Phase I of the Downtown Perris Multimodal Transit Center 

(Perris Multimodal Facility), which will include the construction of a RTA bus 

terminal, a 141 space parking lot, bus plaza with eight loading bays, and a transit 

platform for access to the Perris Valley Line service. At its July 9, 2003 meeting, 

the Commission awarded Agreement No. 04-33-007 to Psomas to perform Phase I 

Preliminary Engineering and Environmental Services. Psomas was also selected to 

perform Phase II Final Design Engineering Services, which were to be included in an 

amendment to be negotiated at a later date after a locally preferred alternative had 

been selected and environmentally cleared. 

On May 30, 2006, the Perris City Council (City) approved the Development Plan 

and Negative Declaration for the construction of Phase I of the proposed Perris 

Multimodal Facility. The City’s approval was based upon a California 

Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Environmental Evaluation for the project. To 

comply with FTA requirements, Psomas was directed and has completed a NEPA 

Agenda Item 7F

Environmental Evaluation, based upon the City’s CEQA Environmental Evaluation. 

This NEPA Environmental Evaluation has been transmitted to the FTA for its 

concurrence. Upon the FTA’s concurrence, the Commission can proceed with final 

design of the project. 

Staff requested Psomas to provide the Commission a scope of services, cost, and 

schedule to provide Final Design Engineering Services for the Perris Multimodal 

Facility. Staff has reviewed and completed its negotiations with Psomas and 

concurs with the attached proposed scope, cost of $446,335 for design and 

$77,732 for bid/construction, and schedule to accomplish the final design for the 

proposed Perris Multimodal Facility. Accordingly, staff seeks approval of 

Amendment No. 1 to Agreement No. 04-33-007. 

The estimated construction cost for the facility is approximately $5 million, 

including the final design at a cost not to exceed $525,000. These design services 

are expected to be completed in approximately six months. Funding for final 

design will be from FTA reimbursement received as a pass through from RTA; 

the 20% match will come from Measure A Commuter Rail funds. 



Source of Funds: 

GLA No.: 

RTA pass through from FTA 

reimbursement @ 80% and 20% 

match from Measure A Commuter 

Rail funds 

221-33-81102 P3816 



Attachment: Psomas Scope of Services and Cost for Final Design of the Perris 

MultiModal Facility 

No 

Agenda Item 7F

PSOMAS 

June 12, 2006 

FEE PROPOSAL 

PERRIS MULTI-MODAL FACILITY 

PHASE I-FINAL ENGINEERING 

DESCRIPTION HOURS/QUANT. RATE TOTAL 

PROJECT MANAGEMENT (6 Months) 

Project Management 

Principal Engineer 6 $77.63 $465.78 

Project Manager 60 $58.86 $3,531.60 

Meetings- 

Meetings w/ RCTC & RTA (8 meetings) 

Principal Engineer 24 $77.63 $1,863.12 


Word Processor/Clerical 8 $21.60 $172.80 

Monthly Progress Reports (6 total) 



Design Team Meetings (6 total) 


Senior Engineer 12 $50.94 $611.28 


Subconsultants- 

Architect (Oncina) (0 meetings) 1.05 $0.00 $0.00 

Landscape Architects (IMA) (0 meetings) 1.05 $0.00 $0.00 

Electrical Engineer (BSE) (0 meetings) 1.05 $0.00 $0.00 

Structural Engineer (Psomas) (0 meeting) 1.05 $0.00 $0.00 

Geotechnical (Ninyo) (0 meeting) 1.05 $0.00 $0.00 

Traffic Engineer (KOA) (0 meetings) 1.05 $0.00 $0.00 

Public Meetings- 

RCTC Commission (up to 1 meeting) 


Project Manager 8 $58.86 $470.88 

CADD Drafter 4 $28.98 $115.92 




Landscape Architects (IMA) (0 meeting) 1.05 $0.00 $0.00 

Riverside Transportation Agency (up to 1 meetings) 



CADD Drafter 4 $28.98 $115.92 


City of Perris (up to 2 meetings) 



CADD Drafter 16 $28.98 $463.68 




Landscape Architects (IMA) (0 meeting) 1.05 $0.00 $0.00 

Traffic Engineer (KOA) (0 meeting) 1.05 $0.00 $0.00 

Public Workshops (up to 0 workshops) 



CADD Drafter 0 $28.98 $0.00 



Architect (Oncina) (0 workshops) 1.05 $0.00 $0.00 

Landscape Architects (IMA) (0 workshops) 1.05 $0.00 $0.00 

Traffic Engineer (KOA) (0 workshops) 1.05 $0.00 $0.00 

Subconsultant Coordination (6 months) 


Senior Engineer 20 $50.94 $1,018.80 


Quality Control 



Project Engineer 12 $38.00 $456.00 

SUBTOTAL - Project Management $24,395.18 

RCTC-Perris Page 1

PSOMAS 


PROJECT INITIATION 

Research 

Site Reconnaissance 

FEE PROPOSAL 




Staff Engineer 24 $31.49 $755.76 





Reimbursables/Other Direct Costs (ODC's) 

Site Photographs 1LS $100.00 $100.00 

Postage & Mileage 1LS $400.00 $400.00 

SUBTOTAL - Project Initiation $3,432.48 

SURVEY SUPPORT 


Surveys (Psomas) 1.05 $5,000.00 $5,250.00 

Reimbursables/Other Direct Costs (ODC's) 

CADD Plotting 10 $10.00 $100.00 

Reproduction 1LS $500.00 $500.00 


SUBTOTAL - Base Maps $6,350.00 

PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATIONS 


Geotechnical Consultant (Ninyo) 1.05 $14,892.00 $15,636.60 

SUBTOTAL - Geotechnical Investigations $15,636.60 

CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS (60% DESIGN) 



Senior Project Engineer 24 $50.94 $1,222.56 

Project Engineer 80 $38.00 $3,040.00 

Staff Engineer 80 $31.49 $2,519.20 

Designer 40 $27.00 $1,080.00 

CADD Drafter 100 $28.98 $2,898.00 



Architect (Oncina) 1.05 $13,850.00 $14,542.50 

Landscape Architects (IMA) 1.05 $34,085.00 $35,789.25 

Electrical Engineer (BSE) 1.05 $16,000.00 $16,800.00 

Structural Engineer (Psomas) 1.05 $5,000.00 $5,250.00 

Traffic Engineer (KOA) 1.05 $10,000.00 $10,500.00 

Reimbursables- 

CADD Plotting 24 $10.00 $240.00 

Reproduction 1LS $1,000.00 $1,000.00 


SUBTOTAL - Construction Documents (60% Design) $98,443.35 







Designer 40 $27.00 $1,080.00 

CADD Drafter 80 $28.98 $2,318.40 








RCTC-Perris Page 2

PSOMAS 


FEE PROPOSAL 




CADD Plotting 24 $10.00 $240.00 







Senior Project Engineer 18 $50.94 $916.92 



Designer 40 $27.00 $1,080.00 

CADD Drafter 60 $28.98 $1,738.80 









CADD Plotting 24 $10.00 $240.00 




OUTSIDE AGENCY COORDINATION 

SCRRA 

Caltrans 

BNSF 

Riverside Flood Control District 



CADD Drafter 8 $28.98 $231.84 


SUBTOTAL - Outside Agency Coordination $4,279.04 

TOTAL HOURS/DIRECT LABOR - Psomas 1604 $67,914.10 

OVERHEAD MULTIPLIER (1.90) $129,036.79 

REIMBURSABLES $6,820.00 

TOTAL- PSOMAS $203,770.89 

FIXED FEE (10%) $20,377.09 

SUBCONSULTANTS (with 5% mark-up) $222,187.35 

TOTAL - DESIGN $446,335.33 

BID/CONSTRUCTION PERIOD SERVICES (8 Month Bid/Construction Period) 




CADD Drafter 24 $28.98 $695.52 


Subtotal - Psomas $10,413.12 

Psomas- 







Subtotal - Subconsultants $41,763.75 

RCTC-Perris Page 3

PSOMAS 


FEE PROPOSAL 



Reimbursables 1LS $2,500.00 $2,500.00 

TOTAL HOURS/DIRECT LABOR - Psomas 1965.85 $10,413.12 

OVERHEAD MULTIPLIER (1.90) $19,784.93 

REIMBURSABLES $2,500.00 

TOTAL- PSOMAS $32,698.05 

FIXED FEE (10%) $3,269.80 

SUBCONSULTANTS (with 5% mark-up) $41,763.75 

TOTAL - BID/CONSTRUCTION PERIOD SERVICES $77,731.60 

Construction Costs - Phase I $4,168,680.00 

% of Construction Costs - Design 10.71% 

% of Construction Costs - BPS/CPS 1.86% 

SUBCONSULTANTS-DESIGN Sub. Markup (5%) Sub. Fees Sub. Fees + 5% % of Total Fee 

Oncina - Architect (MBE/DBE) 1.05 $40,500.00 $42,525.00 9.53% 

IMA Design - Landscape Architects (MBE) 1.05 $68,215.00 $71,625.75 

Pending fee 

16.05% negotiation. 

BSE Engr. - Electrical Engineer 1.05 $40,000.00 $42,000.00 9.41% 

Ninyo & Moore - Geotechnical (MBE) 1.05 $14,892.00 $15,636.60 3.50% 

Katz Okitsu - Traffic Engineer (MBE/DBE) 1.05 $28,000.00 $29,400.00 6.59% 

Structural Engineer (TBD) 1.05 $20,000.00 $21,000.00 4.70% 

SUBCONSUTANTS-BPS/CPS 

Architect (Oncina) 1.05 $7,140.00 $7,497.00 1.68% 

Landscape Architects (IMA) 1.05 $11,720.00 $12,306.00 2.76% 

Electrical Engineer (BSE) 1.05 $10,915.00 $11,460.75 2.57% 

Structural Engineer (Psomas) 1.05 $5,000.00 $5,250.00 1.18% 

Traffic Engineer (KOA) 1.05 $5,000.00 $5,250.00 1.18% 

Subtotal - Subconsultants $41,763.75 

TOTAL $191,607.00 $305,714.85 

P&A Direct Labor - DESIGN 



Sr. Project Engineer 98 $50.94 $4,992.12 



Project Surveyor 0 $40.42 $0.00 

Designer 120 $27.00 $3,240.00 

CADD Drafter 272 $28.98 $7,882.56 

Word Processor/Clerical 74 $21.60 $1,598.40 

Subtotal 1604 $67,914.10 

P&A Direct Labor - BPS/CPS 




CADD Drafter 24 $28.98 $695.52 


Subtotal 236 $10,413.12 

DBE Calculation- 32.16% 

MWBE Calculation- 35.67% 

RCTC-Perris Page 4



TO: 

FROM: 

THROUGH: 

SUBJECT: 


Min Saysay, Program Manager 


Agreements for On-Call Right-of-Way Appraisal Services for 

Residential, Commercial, Industrial and Agricultural Properties 



1) Award Agreement No. 07-72-057-00 with Hennessey & Hennessey 

LLC; Agreement No. 07-72-061-00 with Paragon Partners Ltd; 

Agreement No. 07-31-063-00 with R. P. Laurain & Associates; 

Agreement No. 07-73-062-00 with Lidgard and Associates, Inc.; and 

Agreement No. 07-33-064-00 with Valentine Appraisal & Associates 

to perform On-Call Right-of-Way Appraisal Services (Appraisal 

Services); 


agreements on behalf of the Commission; and 

3) Approve an amendment to the FY 2006/07 budget in the amount of 

$225,000. 


At its May 10, 2006 meeting, the Commission approved and directed staff to 

release a Request for Proposals (RFP) for On-Call Appraisal Services to support 

current Commission projects and future Measure A highway and commuter rail 

projects. 

Federal and state regulations require that before the initiation of negotiations with 

property owners, the public agency shall establish an amount that it believes is just 

compensation for the real property. The amount shall not be less than the 

approved appraisal of the market value of the property, taking into account the 

value of allowable damages or benefits to any remaining property. 

In order to comply with the regulations, the Commission can either hire staff 

appraisers or establish a list of on-call appraisers, staff recommended the latter. 

Agenda Item 7G

Calendar of Events 

Distribution of RFP June 15, 2006 

Proposals Delivered to RCTC prior to 2 PM July 17, 2006 

Evaluation Committee Review of Proposals July 25, 2006 

Staff Recommendation to Commission November 8, 2006 

Selection Process 

A selection panel was assembled that consisted of representatives from the 

Commission, Caltrans and county of Riverside. Staff received five proposals. The 

selection panel reviewed the proposals based on qualifications of the firms, staffing 

and project organization, work plan, cost and price, and, completeness of response. 

After review, the panel determined that all five firms submitted good quality 

proposals and ranked the firms as follows: 

Top Ranked 

Second 

Third 

Fourth 

Fifth 

Hennessey & Hennessey LLC 

Paragon Partners Ltd 

R. P. Laurain & Associates 

Lidgard and Associates, Inc. 

Valentine Appraisal & Associates 

Due to the amount of potential appraisal services required to deliver future 

Commission projects, such as the SR-79 Realignment and the Mid County Parkway 

projects, staff recommends that agreements be executed with all five firms. Cost 

will be based on fixed firm price and the term of each contract is three years with 

two one-year contract extension options, to be exercised at the sole discretion of 

the Commission. Work will be awarded to the firms on a rotating basis and 

assigned in accordance with their ranking. 

These Appraisal Services were not included in the FY 2006/07 budget. A budget 

amendment is hereby recommended in the amount of $225,000. 

Agenda Item 7G


In Fiscal Year Budget: No Year: FY 2006/2007 Amount: $225,000 

TUMF $100,000 

Source of Funds: CMAQ $ 25,000 

Measure A $100,000 

210-72-81403 P5123 $50,000 

GLA No.: 

210-72/73-81403 P5123 $50,000 

222-31-81403 P3015 $50,000 

221-33-81403 P3800 $75,000 



Yes 

Agenda Item 7G



TO: 


FROM: Min Saysay, Program Manager 


SUBJECT: Agreements for On-Call Right-of-Way Appraisal Review Services 



1) Award Agreement No. 07-33-060-00 with Hennessey & Hennessey 

LLC; Agreement No. 07-73-058-00 with Paragon Partners Ltd; and 

Agreement No. 07-31-059-00 with Lidgard and Associates, Inc. to 

perform On-Call Right-of-Way Appraisal Review Services (Appraisal 

Review Services); 


agreements on behalf of the Commission; and 

3) Approve an amendment to the FY 2006/07 budget in the amount of 

$78,000. 


At its May 10, 2006 meeting, the Commission approved and directed staff to 

release a Request for Proposals (RFP) for Appraisal Review Services to support 

current Commission projects and future Measure A highway and commuter rail 

projects. 

Federal regulations 49 CFR Part 24, Subpart A requires that review appraisers 

examine the presentation and analysis of market information in all appraisals and 

support the appraisers’ opinion of value. The review appraisers develop, report and 

recommend the amount believed to be just compensation for real property interests 

to be acquired by a public agency. 

Calendar of Events 

Distribution of RFP June 15, 2006 

Proposals Delivered to RCTC prior to 2 PM July 17, 2006 

Evaluation Committee Review of Proposals July 25, 2006 

Staff Recommendation to Commission November 8, 2006 

Agenda Item 7H

Selection Process 

A selection panel was assembled, which consisted of representatives from the 

Commission, Caltrans and county of Riverside. Staff received four proposals. The 

selection panel reviewed the proposals based on qualifications of the firms, staffing 

and project organization, work plan, cost and price, and completeness of response. 

After review, the panel determined that three firms submitted good quality 

proposals and ranked the firms as follows: 

Top Ranked 

Second 

Third 

Hennessey & Hennessey LLC 

Paragon Partners Ltd 

Lidgard and Associates, Inc. 

Due to the amount of potential Appraisal Review Services required to deliver future 

Commission projects, such as the SR-79 Realignment and the Mid County Parkway 

projects, staff recommends that agreements be executed with all three firms. Cost 

will be based on firm fixed price and the term of each contract is three years with 

two one-year contract extension options, to be exercised at the sole discretion of 

the Commission. Work will be awarded to the firms on a rotating basis and 

assigned in accordance with their ranking. 

These Appraisal Review Services were not included in the FY 2006/07 budget. 

A budget amendment is hereby recommended in the amount of $78,000. 


In Fiscal Year Budget: No Year: FY 2006/07 Amount: $78,000 

TUMF $36,000 

Source of Funds: CMAQ $ 9,000 

Measure A $33,000 

210-72-81403 P5123 $18,000 

GLA No.: 

210-72/73-81403 P5123 $18,000 

221-31-81403 P3015 $18,000 

221-33-81403 P3800 $24,000 



Yes 

Agenda Item 7H



TO: 


FROM: John Standiford, Public Affairs Director 


SUBJECT: Federal Legislative Advocacy Agreement 



1) Award Agreement No. 07-14-067-00 with Cliff Madison Government 

Relations for Federal Legislative Advocacy Services; 


agreement on behalf of the Commission; and 

3) Direct staff to review overall, long-term lobbying needs and return to the 

Commission in early 2007 with a comprehensive plan. 


The Commission currently shares a contract for Federal Advocacy Services with 

San Bernardino Associated Governments (SANBAG). Previously, the Commission and 

SANBAG also shared a staff member who coordinated and led legislative affairs efforts, 

and thus the shared federal advocate made sense for both agencies. As part of the 

contract with SANBAG, the Commission is currently represented in Washington by Cliff 

Madison Government Relations, Inc., which has provided the Commission with the 

services of the firm’s principal veteran lobbyist, Cliff Madison. 

During the last three years, however, the Commission and SANBAG have implemented 

their own separate legislative efforts while still working in close cooperation on regional 

matters. Each agency now has its own legislative affairs staff, and on 

December 31, 2006, the joint Federal Advocacy Services contract with SANBAG will 

expire. 

At its July 12, 2006 meeting, the Commission awarded an agreement for State Advocacy 

Services to the Commission’s incumbent Sacramento lobbying firm, Smith, Watts & 

Company, who was previously also shared between the Commission and SANBAG. 

Based on the positive results of procuring State Advocacy Services independently of 

SANBAG, staff sought the same independent approach in securing federal services. 

Agenda Item 7I

Pursuant to the Commission’s longstanding commitment to open and competitive bidding 

for contracted services, staff released a Request for Qualifications (RFQ) for Federal 

Advocacy Services at the Commission’s direction on September 13, 2006. 

The RFQ was mailed to over a dozen Washington lobbying firms and was advertised on 

the Commission’s website. Four qualifying proposals were received: 

1) Cliff Madison Government Relations, Inc.; 

2) The Skancke Company (jointly with Ruffalo & Associates); 

3) Xenophon Strategies; and 

4) David Turch and Associates. 

A five member evaluation panel consisting of government relations staff from the 

Commission and sister agencies met on Wednesday, October 18, 2006, and 

recommended the selection of Cliff Madison, one of the above firms for a two-year 

contract with two, two-year optional extensions. The first two years will be paid at a fee 

of $6,000 per month. The first extension if executed by the Commission would be for 

$6,500 per month and would increase to $7,000 per month if the second and final 

extension is exercised. Mr. Madison has performed in an exemplary manner on behalf of 

the Commission for a number of years and was recently instrumental in obtaining federal 

funding for the Perris Valley Line extension and is an excellent source of information and 

gaining access to decision makers in Washington, D.C. His proposal was also the most 

cost effective of those received. Finally, Mr. Madison has close contacts in both political 

parties, which would become increasingly important if there are changes in committee 

assignments and chairmanships after the November election. 

Representation in Washington will become increasingly important in the coming years as 

the expiration of SAFETEA-LU is already approaching quickly, now less than three years 

away. Once the dust has settled from the intensity of this year’s mid-term elections, 

reauthorization discussions are expected to commence in 2007. The Commission will 

have a great interest in being a party to the reauthorization talks, thus making the 

selection of a federal representative critical to the Commission’s agenda moving forward 

over the long-term. 

A number of transportation agencies employ more than one legislative representative, and 

the Commission might need to consider such a possibility as Riverside County’s needs 

increase with its growth. Given the uncertainty that is likely in Washington during the 

first few months of the new Congress in 2007, the timing provides the Commission and 

the Commission staff with an opportunity to fully review its long-term lobbying needs. 

Should there be a need to expand the Commission’s lobbying team, budget adjustments 

could be made for next fiscal year to accommodate the need. Additional lobbying support 

could benefit the Commission with increased access and specialization that might be 

necessary when major projects such as the Mid County Parkway, Perris Valley Line and 

Agenda Item 7I

goods movement near implementation. The reauthorization of the federal transportation 

bill might also require overall policy changes that require specific expertise in crafting 

federal law and regulations. 

Staff suggests using the early part of 2007 to interview Xenophon Strategies and The 

Skancke Company to fully consider the Commission’s options and long-term 

opportunities. While this is taking place, the Commission will continue to receive 

effective representation from Mr. Madison who would continue to be part of the 

Commission’s team in the long-term. 



Source of Funds: Measure A Funds Budget Adjustment: No 

GLA No.: S 14 65506 


Agenda Item 7I



TO: 

FROM: 

THROUGH: 

SUBJECT: 


Anne Mayer, Deputy Executive Director 


Propositions 1A and 1B Election Result Impacts and Nominations 

for Corridor Mobility Improvement Account 



1) Receive and file an oral report on Proposition 1A and 1B election 

results and impacts on Commission programs; and 

2) Approve preliminary recommendations for nominations for the Corridor 

Mobility Improvement Account (CMIA) program. 


On November 7, 2006, Propositions 1A and 1B will be decided by California 

voters. The Commission’s programs and projects will be impacted by these results. 

This item will be an oral report on the election results and a discussion of impacts. 

If Proposition 1B is passed, the CMIA program will be implemented. This program 

will fund projects to provide demonstrable congestion relief, enhanced mobility and 

improved connectivity to benefit traveling Californians. The provisions of the Bond 

Act require immediate implementation. The California Transportation Commission 

(CTC), in conjunction with stakeholders, has developed draft guidelines for this 

program. A copy of the current draft is attached for review. Project nominations 

will be due by January 16, 2007. Corridor and project evaluations must begin 

immediately to prepare nomination packages. Staff will provide an oral 

presentation on the program requirements as well as preliminary recommendations 

for nominations. 

Attachment: Draft CMIA Guidelines 

Agenda Item 8


CALIFORNIA TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION 

Corridor Mobility Improvement Account Program Guidelines 

The Corridor Mobility Improvement Account (CMIA) presents a unique opportunity for the 

state’s transportation community to provide demonstrable congestion relief, enhanced mobility, 

and improved connectivity to benefit traveling Californians. The California Transportation 

Commission (CTC) will work in partnership and collaboration with Caltrans and regional 

agencies to identify, program, and deliver priority projects in key corridors that yield the 

mobility and connectivity benefits Californians expect, consistent with the following CMIA 

guidelines. In taking advantage of this opportunity, it is vital that the transportation community 

maintain the trust and confidence of those who have provided the wherewithal to implement this 

program. The transportation community can fulfill the promise of the CMIA program through 

strategic investments statewide, consistent with regional and state priorities, combined with a 

renewed focus on achieving and maintaining needed corridor mobility and continuity benefits, 

and through efficient and timely project delivery. The Commission recognizes that this program 

will require flexibility to implement, that no one strategy or approach will work equally well 

throughout the state, and that success can only be achieved when the Commission, Caltrans and 

regional agencies share equally in the commitment to implement these high priority corridor 

investments. 

General Program Policy 

1. Authority and purpose of CMIA guidelines. The Highway Safety, Traffic Reduction, Air 

Quality, and Port Security Bond Act of 2006, approved by the voters as Proposition 1B 

on November 8, 2006, includes a program of funding from $4.5 billion to be deposited in 

the Corridor Mobility Improvement Account (CMIA). The funds in the CMIA are to be 

available to the California Transportation Commission, upon appropriation in the annual 

Budget Act by the Legislature, for allocation for performance improvements on the state 

highway system or major access routes to the state highway system. 

The Bond Act mandates that the Commission develop and adopt guidelines for the CMIA 

program, including regional programming targets, by December 1, 2006. It further 

mandates that the Commission allocate funds from the CMIA to projects after reviewing 

project nominations submitted by the Department of Transportation (Caltrans) and the 

same regional agencies that prepare regional transportation improvement programs 

(RTIPs) nominating projects for the state transportation improvement program (STIP). 

The purpose of these guidelines is to identify the Commission’s policy and expectations 

for the CMIA program and thus to provide guidance to Caltrans, regional agencies, and 

other project proponents and implementing agencies in carrying out their responsibilities 

under the program. The program is subject to the provisions of the Bond Act, in 

particular subdivision (a) of Section 8879.23 of the Government Code, and these 

guidelines are not intended to preclude any project nomination or any project selection

California Transportation Commission October 20, 2006 

Draft CMIA Program Guidelines 

that is consistent with the Bond Act. The Commission cannot anticipate all 

circumstances that may arise in the course of program implementation, and the 

Commission may find it appropriate to make exceptions to any provision in these 

guidelines or to revise or adapt its policies as issues arise in program implementation. 

2. CMIA Program Intent. In selecting projects for funding under the CMIA program, the 

Commission intends to balance the following three general mandates provided in the 

Bond Act: 

a. Mobility improvement and other project benefits. The basic CMIA policy 

objective is to improve performance on highly congested travel corridors. 

Improvements may be on the state highway system or on major access routes to 

the state highway system on the local road system that relieve congestion by 

expanding capacity, enhancing operations, or otherwise improving travel times 

within high-congestion travel corridors. To include a project in the CMIA 

program, the Commission must find that it “improves mobility in a highcongestion 

corridor by improving travel times or reducing the number of daily 

vehicle hours of delay, improves the connectivity of the state highway system 

between rural, suburban, and urban areas, or improves the operation or safety of a 

highway or road segment.” 

b. Geographic balance between regions. The Bond Act requires the Commission, in 

adopting a program for the CMIA, to find that the program is geographically 

balanced, consistent with the north/south split that applies to the STIP (40% north, 

60% south), and to find that it “provides mobility improvements in highly 

traveled or highly congested corridors in all regions of California.” 

c. Early delivery. The Bond Act requires the Commission, in adopting a program 

for the CMIA, to find that the program targets funding “to provide the mobility 

benefit in the earliest possible timeframe.” It also mandates that the inclusion of a 

project in the CMIA program be based on a demonstration that the project can 

commence construction or implementation no later than December 31, 2012. 

3. Urban and Interregional Corridors. In selecting projects for funding under the CMIA 

program, the Commission intends also to balance improvements to mobility in highly 

congested urban corridors and improvements to mobility and connectivity in interregional 

state highway corridors. The Commission expects to evaluate urban corridor and 

interregional corridor improvements separately. The Commission expects that CMIA 

program improvements outside urbanized areas will be focused primarily on the focus 

routes identified by Caltrans in its Interregional Transportation Strategic Plan (ITSP), as 

presented to the Commission in 1998. However, this statement of intent does not 

exclude the nomination and consideration of any project eligible for funding under the 

program. 

2



4. Evaluation of Project Benefits. The Commission intends to give priority to those projects 

that provide the greatest benefit in relationship to project cost, as demonstrated by a 

project nomination and supporting documents. The Commission will consider 

measurable benefits using the California Life-Cycle Benefit/Cost Analysis Model (Cal- 

B/C) developed and in use by Caltrans. This model includes measures of annual travel 

time savings and annual safety benefits (reduced injury and fatality rates) in the corridor. 

The model, however, is but one measure of benefits, and the Commission will also 

consider other assessments of time savings, safety benefits, quantifiable air quality 

benefits, and other benefits identified in the project nominations. The Commission’s 

evaluation of project cost effectiveness will be based on the full cost of construction and 

right-of-way, including engineering costs, without regard for the sources of funding that 

may be used to meet those costs. 

4A. Local Funding Contribution. The Commission intends also to consider the contribution 

of local funding in the selection of projects for CMIA funding. The Commission’s 

expectation of local funding may increase with the size of the project, the share of local 

traffic in the corridor, and the ability of the regional agency or a local implementing 

agency to contribute funding to the project. 

5. Project eligibility. Under the Bond Act, a CMIA project must be on the state highway 

system or on a major access route to the state highway system on the local road system. 

The Commission must also find that: 

• The project either (1) reduces travel time or delay, (2) improves connectivity of the 

state highway system between rural, suburban, and urban areas, or (3) improves the 

operation or safety of a highway or road segment. 

• The project improves access to jobs, housing, markets, and commerce. 

• The project can commence construction no later than December 31, 2012. 

Under the Bond Act, the Commission may not program a project unless it is nominated 

by either or both Caltrans and a regional agency. Projects will be programmed according 

to the same project components used for the STIP—(1) environmental and permits, 

(2) plans, specifications, and estimates, (3) right-of-way, and (4) construction. 

The Commission’s general expectation is that each CMIA project will have a full funding 

commitment through construction, either from the CMIA alone or from a combination of 

CMIA and other state, local, or federal funds. 

The Commission expects the CMIA program to include, though not necessarily be 

limited to: 

• Traffic system management elements, including traffic detection equipment. 

• Ramp metering and other operational improvements. 

• New traffic lanes to add capacity. 

• New or improved alignments for access control, including the conversion of 

conventional highways to expressway or expressways to freeways. 

3



The Commission expects the inclusion of an interchange project in the CMIA program to 

be based on the contribution of the interchange to the improvement of traffic flow in a 

highly congested urban corridor or to the provision of new access control in an 

interregional corridor. 

6. Corridor system management plan. For urban corridor capacity improvements, the 

Commission intends to give priority to projects where there is a corridor system 

management plan in place to preserve corridor mobility or where there is a documented 

regional and local commitment to the development and effective implementation of a 

corridor system management plan, which may include the installation of traffic detection 

equipment, the use of ramp metering, and other traffic management elements as 

appropriate. Development of corridor system management plans may occur 

simultaneously with project implementation. 

7. Other funding sources. The Commission recognizes the important funding role that 

regional agencies play in implementing projects on the state system. The Commission 

may find it appropriate to develop full funding commitments to CMIA projects that take 

into consideration additional investments already made, or to be made, by agencies to 

enhance corridor mobility and connectivity. 

However, as a matter of general policy, the Commission does not intend to program 

CMIA funding to replace funding already programmed in the STIP, including funding 

from other sources identified in the STIP as providing the full funding commitment for a 

STIP project component. The Commission may make an exception if it finds that 

replacing funds already programmed would further the objectives of the CMIA program. 

The Commission does not intend generally to program CMIA funding to cover cost 

increases for project components already programmed in the STIP. The Commission’s 

general expectation is that STIP project cost increases will be covered from the STIP, 

including other sources already identified as providing the full funding commitment for 

the STIP project. However, the Commission may make an exception if it finds that there 

is no reasonable funding alternative and that covering the cost increase with CMIA 

funding would further the objectives of the CMIA program. 

In selecting projects for CMIA funding, the Commission may also consider the 

availability and appropriateness of funding for the project from other Bond Act 

programs. 

Project Nomination and Selection Process 

8. Initial Program. The Commission will adopt an initial CMIA program of projects by 

March 1, 2007. The initial CMIA program will include only projects that are nominated 

by Caltrans or by a regional agency no later than January 16, 2007. Between March 1, 

2007 and the adoption of the first program update (in conjunction with the 2008 STIP), 

the Commission may amend the initial CMIA program, but will do so only for projects 

that were nominated for the initial program by January 16, 2007. The consideration of 

4



programming for projects not nominated for the initial program will await the first full 

program update in 2008. 

9. Program Updates. The Commission intends to program CMIA funds as soon as possible, 

consistent with the objectives and statutory mandates of the program. If a portion of the 

$4.5 billion authorized for the program remains unprogrammed, the Commission will 

adopt an update to the CMIA program biennially in conjunction with the development 

and adoption of the biennial STIP. Each program update will be adopted no later than the 

date of adoption for the STIP and will include only projects that are nominated by 

Caltrans or by a regional agency no later than the date on which regional transportation 

improvement programs nominating projects for the STIP are due. 

10. Project nominations. Project nominations and their supporting documentation will form 

the primary basis for the Commission’s CMIA program project selection. Under the 

Bond Act, all projects nominated to the Commission for CMIA funds shall be included in 

a regional transportation plan. Each project nomination should include: 

• A cover letter with signature authorizing and approving the nomination. 

• A project fact sheet (see Appendix A) that describes the project scope, cost, funding 

plan, project delivery milestones, and major benefits. 

• A brief narrative (1-3 pages) that provides: 

• A description of the travel corridor and its function, and how the project would 

improve mobility, reliability, safety, and connectivity within the corridor. 

• A description of project benefits, including how the project would improve travel 

times or reduce the number of daily vehicle hours of delay, improve the 

connectivity of the state highway system between areas, or improve the safety of a 

highway or roadway segment. The description should also include air quality 

benefits and other benefits. To the extent possible, the narrative should quantify 

project benefits and cite documentation, including environmental documents, in 

support of any estimates of project benefits. 

• A description of how the project would improve access to jobs, housing, markets, 

and commerce. 

• A description of the risks inherent in the nomination’s estimates of project cost, 

schedule, and benefit. 

• A description of the corridor system management plan or the commitment of 

regional and local agencies to develop and implement a plan. 

• A project benefit/cost analysis input sheet (see Appendix B). 

• Documentation of the basis for the costs, benefits and schedules cited in the project 

nomination. As appropriate and available, the documentation should include the 

project study report, the environmental document, the corridor system management 

plan or documentation of the commitment to the development and implementation of 

a plan, the regional transportation plan, and any other studies and analyses that 

5



provide documentation regarding the quantitative and qualitative measures 

validating the project’s consistency with CMIA program objectives. 

If the nomination includes CMIA funding to replace other funding for a STIP project 

component or funding to cover a STIP project cost increase, the narrative should also 

include a description of how the proposed CMIA funding would further the objectives of 

the CMIA program. 

An agency may nominate a project by submitting an endorsement of a nomination 

submitted by another agency without submitting a duplicate nomination package and 

documentation. 

An agency that submits or endorses project nominations for more than one project should 

also identify its project funding priorities and the basis for those priorities. 

11. Project Cost Estimates. All cost estimates cited in the project fact sheet and in the 

benefit/cost analysis input sheet will be escalated to the year of proposed delivery. For 

projects on the state highway system, only cost estimates approved by the Director of 

Transportation or by a person authorized by the Director to approve cost estimates for 

programming will be used. For other projects, only cost estimates approved by the Chief 

Executive Officer or other authorized officer of the responsible local implementing 

agency will be used. 

12. Submittal of Project Nominations. For the initial program, the Commission will consider 

only projects for which a nomination and supporting documentation are received in the 

Commission office by 5:00 p.m., January 16, 2007, in hard copy. A nomination from a 

regional agency will include the signature of the Chief Executive Officer or other 

authorized officer of the agency. A nomination from Caltrans will include the signature 

of the Director of Transportation or a person authorized by the Director to submit the 

nomination. Where the project is to be implemented by an agency other than Caltrans or 

the regional agency, the nomination will also include the signature of the Chief Executive 

Officer or other authorized officer of the implementing agency. The Commission 

requests that each project nomination include five copies of the cover letter, the project 

fact sheet, the narrative description, and the benefit/cost analysis input sheet, together 

with two copies of all supporting documentation. 

All nomination materials should be addressed or delivered to: 

John Barna, Executive Director 

California Transportation Commission 

Mail Station 52, Room 2222 

1120 N Street 

Sacramento, CA 95814 

6



13. Cost and Delivery Commitments and Expectations. Because estimated project costs and 

delivery dates are important elements of project evaluation and selection for the CMIA 

program, the Commission will actively monitor project development and will reevaluate 

projects as costs and delivery dates may change. 

The standards for project programming and project readiness for allocation will be the 

same as for the STIP. Project components will be programmed for a particular dollar 

amount in a particular fiscal year, corresponding to the fiscal year when construction (or 

other component implementation) is to begin. 

If the estimated cost for a project increases or if a project fails to meet a project delivery 

milestone, the Commission will expect Caltrans or the regional agency to report on its 

plan to bring the project within cost and schedule or to revise the project’s funding plan 

and schedule. The Commission may amend the project’s CMIA programming 

accordingly. If the Commission finds that, as a result of cost increases or schedule 

delays, the project is either no longer fundable or no longer competitive in terms of cost 

effectiveness, the Commission may delete the project from the CMIA program. The 

Commission’s intent, however, is to work with Caltrans and regional and local 

implementing agencies to see that projects proceed to construction. 

An implementing agency may identify a project cost increase or delay at any time and 

request an amendment of the project’s programming. With each biennial program 

update, every project in the program will be reevaluated for cost and delivery schedule. 

14. Quarterly CMIA Delivery Report. Commission staff, in cooperation with the Caltrans, 

regional agencies and local implementing agencies, will report to the Commission each 

quarter on the status of each project in the CMIA program. The report will identify 

progress against delivery milestones and any changes in project costs or schedules that 

may require amendment of the CMIA program. 

Regional Programming Targets 

15. Intent for Targets. The Bond Act calls for the Commission’s guidelines to include 

“regional programming targets,” though it does not specify how the targets are to be used 

or how they are to be determined. The Commission’s intent is that target amounts be 

provided only as general guidance to Caltrans and regional agencies for carrying out their 

responsibilities in making project nominations. The targets do not constitute an 

allocation, a guarantee, a minimum, or a limit on programming in any particular 

county or region of the state. 

For this purpose and in consultation with regional agencies, the Commission has defined 

the following broad regions of the state for use in establishing regional programming 

targets: 

7



• San Diego County; 

• Southern California, to include the six counties of the Southern California 

Association of Governments (SCAG); 

• Eastern Sierra, to include Inyo and Mono counties; 

• Central Coast, to include the five counties of Caltrans District 5; 

• San Joaquin Valley, include the thirteen counties of Caltrans Districts 6 and 10; 

• San Francisco Bay Area, to include the nine counties of the Metropolitan 

Transportation Commission (MTC); 

• Sacramento Valley, to include the ten counties of Caltrans District 3, excluding Glenn 

County; and 

• North State, to include the remaining twelve counties, including Glenn County and 

Caltrans Districts 1 and 2. 

Each regional agency is permitted to make its own project nominations and to identify its 

own priorities for the Commission. However, the Commission welcomes and encourages 

the development of joint priorities and proposals from the nominating agencies located 

within each of these broader regions or between regions. The Commission encourages 

the two regions that include counties in both the north and south (San Joaquin Valley and 

Central Coast) to develop their priorities and proposals without regard to the north/south 

split. 

16. Regional Programming Targets. The Commission will provide regional programming 

targets for the CMIA program, intended as general guidance only. The targets will be 

neither minimums nor maximums. They will not constrain what any agency may 

propose or what the Commission may approve for programming and allocation within 

any particular area of the state. The only geographic constraints on the Commission’s 

programming are that, over the life of the CMIA program, the program must be 

consistent with the north/south split and it must provide mobility improvements in each 

of the target regions. 

The factors to be used to determine targets are population for urbanized areas over 

200,000 and deficient mileage identified by Caltrans for state highway focus routes 

(excluding Route 99 and international border crossings). The use of these factors, 

however, does not prescribe or limit where projects may be proposed by any agency or 

where they may be selected by the Commission. Projects on Route 99 may be proposed 

by any agency and may be selected by the Commission for CMIA funding. 

Allocations and Amendments 

17. Allocations from the CMIA. The Commission will consider the allocation of funds from 

the CMIA for a project or project component when it receives an allocation request and 

recommendation from Caltrans, in the same manner as for the STIP. The 

recommendation will include a determination of the availability of appropriated CMIA 

funds. The Commission will approve the allocation if the funds are available, the 

8



allocation is necessary to implement the project as included in the adopted CMIA 

program, and the project has the required environmental clearance. 

18. CMIA Program Amendments. Caltrans and regional agencies may request CMIA 

program amendments and the Commission will approve amendments in the same manner 

as for STIP amendments, except that: 

• CMIA program amendments will not add new projects that were not included in the 

proposals for the initial program or the current biennial update. 

• CMIA program amendments may amend projects at any time, including projects 

programmed for the current fiscal year. 

• CMIA program amendments need only appear on the agenda published 10 days in 

advance of the Commission meeting. They do not require the 30-day notice that 

applies to STIP amendments. 

• The Commission may initiate a CMIA program amendment to delete a project, or to 

revise its scope, cost, or schedule, after a review of the progress of project delivery. 

Where the Commission finds that a project nomination is insufficiently developed or 

documented to support inclusion in the program, it may invite the nominating agency to 

resubmit the nomination for later amendment into the program. 

9

November 8, 2006 - Riverside County Transportation Commission

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?