Loading...
12 December 2, 1987 CommissionRIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION AGENDA 2:00 P.M., DECEMBER 2, 1987 RIVERSIDE COUNTY ADMINISTRATIVE CENTER 14TH FLOOR CONFERENCE ROOM 4080 LEMON STREET, RIVERSIDE 92501 1. Call to Order. 2. Approval of November 4, 1987 Minutes. 3. Public Comments. � ConsE'nt. q511!LI _ . r All matters on the consent calendar will be approved in a single motion unless a Commission member requests separate action on a specific i t em. ) Sun_Li _ne Transit Agency Short_ Range Transit Plan Amendment - Lines 20 and 5 Service Change. This item was considered last month and continued, pending a public hearing by the Sun Line Hoard. �3. Fiscal Audit - Local Transportation Fund. Receive and file. DownscLope of SB 821 Project City of Hemet. This would modify the City of Hemet's approved bike path program as proposed by Hemet and/or acceptable to the' City Engineer. Set Unmet. Transit, Need Hearings. Hearings are proposed in Palm Desert in February, and Riverside and Corona in March. Proposal to Expand Citizens Advisory Committee for SB 498 Implementation. �- Expansion would incorporate required representatives of handicapped and social service agencies/providers to review unmet transit needs testimony and make recommendations. 6. Proposed Consultant Services to Review Highway Project Costs. The existing agreement with D.J. Smith and Associates is recommended to be increased by $15,000 to include additonal work and a subcontract with Bechtel Civil, Inc. 7. Renewal of Lease - Proposal to Move to Suite 300. The opportunity exists to move to the Suite nexi to JCTC's current office for a modest increase in cost. 8. Review of SCAQMD's Proposed Regulation XV. Approximately 350 Riverside County employers would be affected. The proposal and recommendations of other agencies will be discussed. 9. Southern California Association of Governments Related Items Update on Transportation Development Act Administration Transition. B. 1988-89 SCAG Overall Work Program Overview and Work Proposed for Riverside County. Overview of Legislative Tssues. SCAG and RCTC staff will verbally present information on these .items at the meeting. 10. Adjournment. The next meeting of the Commission is scheduled for January 6, 1988 at 2:00 p.m. RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION Minutes of Meeting No. 15-87 November 4, 1987 1. Call to Order. The meeting of the Riverside County Transportation Commission was called to order by Chairman Melba Dunlap at 2:03 p.m. on Wednesday, November 4, 1987, at, the 14th Floor Conference Room of the Riverside County Administrative Center, 4080 Lemon Street, Riverside. Members present: Susan Cornelison Melba Dunlap Jean Mansfield Alternates present: I)on Rasket.t Russell Beirich Dick I)eininger 2 Approval of Minutes. Roy Wilson Norton Younglove Pat Murphy Wayne Stuart Ray Tanner M/S/C (CORNELISON/STl)ART) to approve the minutes of the October 7, 1987 meeting as submitted. 3. Public Comments. There were no public comments. 4. Consent Calendar. M/S/C (CORNELISON/TANNER) to: A. Fiscal Audits - STA Account., SAFE Account and ROTC Account . --- -- -- - -- -- - - --- Receive and file the fiscal audits of the Commission's accounts, the State Transit Assistance Program account., and the Service Authority for Freeway Emergencies account. B. Quarterly Financial Report. Receive and file the quarterly financial report of the Riverside County Transportation Commission Fund. RCTC Minutes November 4, 1987 5. Rideshare Efforts in Riverside County. Kathy Gerwig, Commuter Computer, briefed the Commission on the following areas: 1) what. Commuter Computer is doing in placing people in the ridesharing program; 2) efforts being made with OCTD to service the Riverside to Orange County commuters; and, 3) Commuter Computer's role is to make Route 91 a more effective corridor. In terms of placement effectiveness, a survey was conducted by Commuter Computer between July and September, 1987. A detailed report and analysis of the survey will he presented to the Commission in 90 days. Kathy Gerwig continued and informed the Commission of proposal by the South Coast Air Quality Management District, Regulation 15, which would require employers of 10(1 or more employees to develop and implement a plan on ridesharing. They are supportive of the intent. of Regulation 15 and through Commuter Computer's public policy committee will be giving testimony at the public hearing before the District for the December ll. At the State level, the Governor repealed all existing rideshare tax credits retroactive to January 1, 1987. They are currently working with different organizations in the area to try and pursue legislation for 1988. At the federal level, bills have been introduced to offer tax incentives and tax exemptions for employers providing vanpooling vehicles and to provide an exemption for subsidizing ridesharing fees such as through transit passes. Commissioner Mansfield commented that there are some people that commute to Orange County that are now ready to listen to ridesharing ideas. She asked if Commuter Computer have agressively marketed buspooling whereby commuters could leave their cars in a parking lot and buspool to Orange County. Kathy Gerwig said that Commuter Computer is working with the Orange County Transit District in this area. Steve Rathburn, Emergency Services Department, County of Riverside, informed the Commission that 61% of County employees participated in the RideShare Days exercise in August which resulted in 51% reduction of downtown vehicles. Also, 26% of City employees participated on a volunteer basis. For the Rideshare Days, the Commission has provided $500 to the County for incentives with a condition that the funds also be utilized for continuation of rideshare process throughout the year. He will meet with Higbee Hayslett to determine how to most effectively use the remaining $$367 to continue the rideshare process. RCTC Minutes November 4, 1987 Commissioner Younglove commented that a private sector, Security Pacific National Bank, had the best participation during the Rideshare Days. Steve Rathburn added that Security Pacific National Bank was very cooperative from the inception of the program and, in fact, provided the Rideshare Days flyers that were included in County employees' paychecks. Commissioner Cornelison asked the process for matching employees interested in ridesharing. Steve Rathburn said that the mat chl ist was prepared in cooperation with Carla Newell of Commuter Computer, Ed Studor of the Road Department, Higbee Hayslett of the Administrative Office, and himself, and were provided to employees requesting it.. Commissioner Beirich asked that next year if funding toward, ridesharing was to be ii,creased to $5,000 if it would increase participation ten times in direct correlation to prizes and the number of employees participating. Steve Rathburn said that there were approximately the same number of prizes given out this year but the big difference was the grand prize (2 round trip tickets to anywhere in the United States donated by American Airlines). He added that about. 11-13% employees who participated has indicated a desire to continue to rideshare. Commissioner Younglove said that the existence of prizes is very important to get the attention of employees to part icipate but once that is achieved, he does not think that adding more prizes would make that much difference. 6. RIVSAN Study Status Report and Initial Findings. Paul Blackwelder, Assistant Director, said that the RIVSAN Transportation Study, a study projecting traffic volumes for the year 2010 and which identify the deficiencies in the highway and major arterial system for Western Riverside and San Bernardino Counties, will be completed within the next 2-3 months. SCAG will be distributing a draft reportto the cities and the County for review and comment. A final report will be presented to the Commission for approval after review and comment by local agencies. Gil Hicks, Project. Manager, SCAG, said that SCAG used in forecasting traffic a computerized travel demand model which takes in information relating to employment, population and housing. The primary driving force of this effort are the RCTC Minutes November 4, 1987 assumptions on population/employment growth of the area. Using a chart, he showed the levels of growth and population, and the trips made from 1984 to 2010 by major areas. The traffic that the population growth will generate has been ploted using a no -case scenario and with proposed improvements scenario. They will also evaluate the impacts of extending the proposed Cajalco Parkway as well as the possibility of other corridors, and the feasibility of commuter rail service along the Santa Fe line along Route 91. Commissioner Cornelison asked if both models used do not, of this point, include any change in the job/housing balance. Also, she asked if consideration was made of Orange County land use options in developing the alternatives. Git Hicks said that for San Bernardino County, they used the '82 SCAG Modified Forecast which assumes some balance but in Riverside County, they felt. that SCAB '82 Modified Forecast was just not going to happen. So they increased the population level in Riverside County and kept the employment level the same. So, there is some worsening jobs/housing balance in the Riverside County section of the study. With regards to land options in Orange County, Gil Hicks said that there were no variations of Orange County assumptions plugged in. Commissioner Cornelison asked with the proposed Cajalco Parkway, how much was taken into consideration of the internal use. Gil Hicks stated that he does not have any numbers for the Commission on this today. Jack Reagan, Executive Director, cautioned the Commissioners from drawing any conclusion from the initial model run because the purpose of the Cajalco Parkway study is to play a lot of "what if" games in terms of other connections and that the numbers may look a lot different. Commissioner Beirich asked whether this information is significantly different from what was discussed about before in developing the expenditure plan for the proposed sales tax measure. Jack Reagan said that he is unsure whether this information was used as the basis for putting together the expenditure plan but this ought to be looked at in relationship to priorities and projects. _ RCTC Minutes November 4, 1987 Commissioner Beirich said that the '84 SCAG Modified Forecast indicated that there were 300,000 people and 100,0004 jobs. The forecast for 2010 are 600,000 people but only about 235,000 jobs. He asked what the reason is for the employment growth. He also noted that with more people coming into jobs, there would be more traffic internally. Gil Hicks said that there is some improvement in the balance but it is not as much. In reflecting the differences in the household size, some of the people in the retirement, community would not be making as many trips and this is factored into the model. In Riverside County, there is a high level of retirement activity. 7 Local Sales Tax for Transportation - Riverside County Board of Supervisors Request to Defer to November 1988. Jac Reagan said that included in the agenda pocket is a letter received from Supervisor Walt Abraham, Chairman of the Riverside County Board of Supervisors, requesting that RCTC defer placing the local sales tax measure until the November 1988 election. Staff felt that the decision be deferred until its February ]988 meeting as there are some additional information that needs to be considered before the decision is made such as: 1) result of a survey of how voters will respond; and, 2) what other issues will be on the June and November 1988 elections. With regards to the results of the San Bernardino County's local sales tax measure, Jack Reagan said that given the voter turnout which is a little less than 20% and the composition of the voters, 45% voting for the measure is not bad. M/S/C (WILSON/MANSFIELD) to receive and file the request from the Riverside County Board of Supervisors to defer the local sales tax for transportation measure to November 1988 and consider the request when the final decision is made by the Commission in February. 8. Federal Aid Urban Program Amendments. A. Route 111 Widening (Palm Desert/Rancho Mirage). Jack Reagan informed the Commission that the Cities of Palm Desert and Rancho Mirage have requested amendments to the FAU Program to reduce the local share and increase the federal share of funds for widening Highway 111 from 4 to fi lanes between Bob Hope Drive and Town Center Way. The proposed amendment was reviewed by the FAU and the Technical Advisory RCTC Minutes November 4, 1987 Committees and they proposed that: 1) the cities of Palm Desert and Rancho Mirage should be allowed to use their FY 1986-87 unobligated balances and FY ]987-88 allocations toward the project; 2) the Frank Sinatra Drive project in Rancho Mirage should be deleted from the program as requested, with funding transferred to the Highway 11] project; and, 3) that Caltrans contributions of the project costs should not be increased. Brenda Scarce]la, Planning Associate, City of Indian Wells, informed the Commission of Indian Wells concern on the proposed project to widen Highway 111 to 6 lanes between Bob Hope Drive and Town Center Way. She said that if the Commission approved the project, it wi l l eventually affect Indian Wells in the future. She then submitted a letter from Indian Wells to the Commission. Dick Folkers, Public Works Director and City Engineer•, City of Palm Desert., said that Palm Desert feels very strongly about the project because there is a definite: need for the st.reet widening project through the area. A study done during the Bob Hope Classics last year indicated that within a 24--hour period, there were approximately 55,000 cars which travelled the 4-lane road. The project is to widen between Bob Hope Drive and Town Center Way. The project has been reviewed by Caltrans and the two cities. He requested Commission approval of the staff recommendation. M/S/C (BASKETT/MANSFIELD) to approve the amendments to the Federal Aid Urban Program as proposed by the FAU and Technical Advisory Committees and direct staff to make necessary revisions to the Transportation Improvement Program. B. Local Funding for Route 9] Preliminary Engineering. Jack Reagan said that with the Commission's project priorities on I-15, I-215, and Route 86, there is little likelihood that a project could be funded on Route 9] for 12 years or more unless the 1/2% sales tax measure is approved by the voters. Given this situation, the most reasonable course of action is to get a Route 91 project "on the shelf" in anticipation of voter approval of the sales tax measure. The most expeditious way of moving a project on Route 91 would be to commit local funding for engineering and the most, likely source of identifiable funds would be the FAU funds. This would get the project into the ST]P as a RCTC Minutes November 4, 1987 special funded project. Staff is proposing that tilt' Commission dedicate FAU funds to initiate preliminary engineering for a Route 91 project. M/S/C (WILSON/DUNLAP) to approve the inclusion of a preliminary engineering project. on Route 9] on the FY 88--89 FAU Program. 9. Proposed CTC Policy for Funding Airport and Port. Access Projects. Eric Haley, SCAG, said that the proposed policy would require fair share local match funds to be provided by either private or public sources for any significant ac-c esf. improvements to airports and ports throughout California. The reason for the proposed policy is the limit in fund!.;, expertation of declining federal funds, and the "deep pockets" of both ports and airports. He said that ports and airports in California has serious problems in terms of meeting capital improvement needs for on -site and off- s-i i e projects. SCAG feels that the fair share concept should be developed further, and should be developed with in cooperation of representatives from local governments, the etc, ports and airports communities. The languages in the proposed resolution exempts entities which have economic impact on California. Smaller cities are not properly exempted because they do not generate enough airport traffic to have a meaningful connection. SCAG would like to secs that the policy be seriously considered and that loopholes be tightened to address funding sources that look at the institutional problems, look at the actual traffic problems, establish some thresholds, and tighten the policy. SCAG staff will be proposing to the Executive Committee that they support the fair share project funding in concept for port and airport access improvements and to authorize staff to work with the CTC to resolve specific policy concerns. M/S/C (WILSON/STUART) to oppose the California Transportation Commission's proposed policy for funding airport and port access projects unless amended in accordance to SCAG recommendations. 10. Legislative Items. Jack Reagan briefed the Commission on the following legislative items: SH 516 IBerg_eson) - This bill would provide legislative authority for Caltrans to contract out engineering work. Included in the agenda is a report from Commissioner Bruce Nestande explaning the need for SB 516. Staff recommends ROTC Minutes November 4, 1987 that the Commission support SB 516. SB 366 (Baker) - This bill was passed last September. It establishes a $50 million State Highway Construction Revolving Account in which local agencies funding highway construction projects may borrow funds for up to two years. Staff is proposing that the Commission direct staff to seek amendment to identify engineering projects, such as preliminary engineering project on Route 91, as an eligible project for such loans. The amendment would lessen the impact on more immediate FAU funded local road projects. M/S/C (DU]NLAP/WILSON) to support SB 516 and to direct staff to initiate action to amend SB 366 and identify engineering projects as eligible projects for such loans. i]. Request. Authorization to Recruit for Staff Positions. Jack Reagan informed the Commission that the Staff Analyst position is needed to fulfill existing and new responsibilities such as TDA administration, and the Service Authority for Freeway Emergencies (SAFE) program, Also being proposed is the addition of a part-time Clerk Typist to assist in the increasing office work load. He noted that the salary for the Clerk Typist position is $7.00- $9.00/hour. The proposal for additional staffing was previously reviewed with the Personnel Committee. M/S/C (CORNEL1SON/TANNER) to approve the addition of a Staff Analyst and a Clerk Typist and authorize staff to initiate recruitment.. 12. Executive Director's Report. A. Request to Consider Consultant Assistance for Review of Expenditure Plan. Included in the agenda is a letter from D.J. Smith recommending that the Commission retain a consultant to review Caltrans' estimates of project costs and revenue estimates shown in the preliminary expenditure plan. He expressed the importance of having a fairly accurate estimate of project costs, and State and Federal revenues. He said that it is essential to determine the final expenditure plan as soon as possible. In San Bernardino County, SanBAG retained Arthur Young and Associates, and Parsons, Brinkerhoff, Quade, and Douglas. Arthur Young has submitted a proposal which would cost $34,000 ($10,500 for initial engineering and analysis and $23,500 for review of the revenue RCTC Minutes November 4, 1987 forecast). He feels comfortable with the initial engineering and analysis cost but not with the cost to review the revenue forecast especially since Arthur Young will rely on staff to provide the estimates. There is a need to determine a high and low range in the financial estimates. He feels that this could probably he done in-house or perhaps to amend D.J. Smith's contract to assist staff. Commissioner Beirich suggested that perhaps the Commission should seek request for proposals from other consulting firms to get a feel of how much it would cost to do the job. Jack Reagan noted the time constraints and said that to expedite things he suggested augmenting D.J. Smith's contract and work with him on revenue forecasting and perhaps have PBD&Q as a suhcontr:actor for D.J. Smith. M/S/C (WILSON/STUART) to el,thorize° the Fxecutive Director to solidify a proT-osal and bring it back to the Commission at its next meeting in December. B. Route 91 Ramp Metering. Jack Reagan said that Caltrans }vas decided to c1 fer the ramp metering projects in Corona. For future ramp metering projects, he suggested that the Commission should develop a ramp meter policy on Route 91 rather than looking at ramp meter projects on an individual basis. Commissioner Younglove said t.hat the ramp metering policy should be that the Commission support ramp metering when a traffic congestion level (D,F,or F) is reached unless local conditions dictate otherwise. He suggested that staff should make a detailed analysis on ramp metering and arrive at a policy to bring back to the Commission. Commissioner Deininger informed the Commission that. the City of Corona did not object to the whole ramp metering program proposed on Route 91. The City Council objected to metering the Maple Street ramp because it would cause traffic to back up all the way to Sixth Street. He suggested that Caltrans should also look at a ramp meter project on the Route 71 ramp. Stan Lisiewicz, Deputy Director of District 8, said that Corona has raised some objections and CaJirans will address them. They will also look at the RCTC Minutes November 7, 1987 suggestion to meter Route 71 ramp. Jack Reagan said that he had hoped that Caltrans will have a technical analysis related to ramp metering on Route 91. He would then like to review the information with representative of affected cities such as Corona, Norco, Riverside, and County of Riverside. Stan 1isiewicz stated that the problem is that the proposed ramp metering project is under the $250,000 limit in order to avoid going through the State Transportation Improvement Program process where other funds could be used. But when the scope of the project is changed and only a part of the project is constructed, the project may not accomplish whnt it set out to do. It was the consensus of the Commission that staff come hack with a policy on ramp metering. C. Liaison with SLAG. Jack Reagan informed the Commission of a need to have an identified SCAG liaison at Commission meetings and to work with local governments in Riverside County on matters that relate to SCAG. M/S/C (W1LSONiDUNLAP) to authorize the Executive Director to write a letter to Mark Pisan°, Executive Director of SCAG, to consider designating a SCAG staff as the SCAG liaison. D. California Transportation Commission Meeting in Palm Jack Reagan said that a tour of Route 86 is planned for the State Commission in November 18 at 2:30 p.m. and a reception, co -hosted by CVAG, Southern California Automible Club, Route 86 Coalition and the Commission, is scheduled at 6:00 p.m. At this time, Chairman Dunlap informed the Commission that Pat Murphy was elected as Vice Chairman of the California League of Cities. Jean Mansfield was reelected for the third term. 13. Proposed SunLine Transit Agency Short Range Transit Plan Amendment. Jack Reagan said that he and Paul Blackwelder met with Lee Norwine and Dick Cromwell to review the information to 10 RCTC Minutes November 4, 1987 justify the recommended service change, and staff recommends Commission approval. A public hearing on the recommended service change is scheduled on December 19. Staff recommends that SunLine staff make special efforts to inform Line 20 patrons of the best possible transfers between Lines 20 and 19. Also, SunLine should closely monitor the Line 19 service and capacity. Lee Norwine, General Manager, SunLine Transit Agency, said that the SunLine Transit Agency has one major route, Line 19, that travels from Desert Hot Springs all the way through the valley. Throughout the year, Line 19 has increased in ridership. One the problems encountered is that there are currently eight buses being used for the route and, each year, there is less time to do the same route because of traffic conditions. They are proposing the following: 1'. eliminate Line 20 service between Palm Desert, and Indio which duplicates Line 19 service; 2) eliminate Line 20 service in the northern portion of Indio; 2) increase frequency of Line 20 service from 60 minutes to 40 minutes between Palm Springs and Palm Desert; and, 4) service the northern portion of Indio by extending Line 5. Jack Reagan said that SunLine will still need to hold a public hearing to fulfill the Commission requirement for service changes. SunLine has indicated that they would like to implement the change on November 22nd. In order to do this, staff is proposing that the Commission approve the service changes, in concept, and direct staff to testify at the public hearing its concern that SunLine make special efforts to inform Line 20 riders of the best possible transfer times between Lines 20 and 19, and t he need to closely monitor the Line 19 service ridership and capacity. M/S/C (YOUNGLOVE/WILSON) to approve the service change, in concept, and direct staff to appear at the SunLine public hearing and submit. the Commission's concern relating to transfers. 14. Adjournment.. At 4:07 P.M., with no other items before the Commission, Chairman Dunlap adjourned the meeting. Respectfully submitted, • Jack Reagan Executive Director nk RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Paul Blackwelder, Assistant. Director SUBJECT: SunLine Transit Agency Short Range Transit Plan Amendment - Lines 20 and 5 Service Changes At the November Commission meeting, proposed changes to SunLine Transit. Agency services on Line 20 (Palm Springs -Indio) and Line 5 (Indio -Coachella) were given tentative approval to be implemented on November 22, 1987 so long as no significant problems were identified at the required public hearing. The Commission directed staff to propose that. SunLine make special efforts to inform Line 20 riders of the best possible transfers between Lines 20 and 19. Attached is the staff report from the November meeting and a follow-up letter to SunLine. Staff attended the public hearing held by SunLine on November 19th. No significant problems were identified at the public hearing on the proposed Line 20 and 5 changes. The changes were implemented on November 22nd. SunLine provided assistance to riders transferring between Lines 20 and 19 at the Palm Desert Town Center by stationing an employee at the transfer point to answer questions and provide assistance to identify the best transfer times for future reference of the riders. Formal approval of the service change is required due to the magnitude of the change and the adopted Commission procedures for services changes. RECOMMENDATION That. the Commission approve the amendment of the Riverside County Short Range Transit Plan to incorporate the changes on Lines 20 and 5 as proposed by the SunLine Transit Agency. PB:nk Attachments Agenda Item No. 4A RCTC December 2, 1987 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION 4075 Main Siree:. Sulle 302 • Ri,.erside, California 92501 • (714) 76'-114] hcveaher 9, 1987 Mayor Richard Kelly, Chsiraan SunLine Transit Agency 32-505 Harry Oliver Trail Thousand Paws, California 92276 SUBJECT: Route 20 Changes Dear Chairman Kelly: At its aeetirg on Novew`)er 4, 1987, the proposed changes for line 20 tentatively effective November 22, 1987 were presented to the Riverside County Transportation Commission. The Comaission is in agreement with the changes. However, the Comaission did not give final approval or ar.end the Short Range Transit Plan :SnTF et this tine because the public hearing requirement for the change had not beer, met. Unless there is a significant problem identified with the proposed change at the public hearing, the Commission will take action to amend the SETT to incorporate the Line 20 changes et their meeting on December 2, 1967. Also, if there ere no significant problems identified at the public hearing, SunLine may proceed with implementing the proposed charges on November 22nd. The C..auission directed staff to attend the public hearing to voice the Connission's proposal that SunLine make special efforts to inform line 20 riders of the best possible transfer times between Lines 20 and 19, and the need for SunLine to closely monitor Line 19 ridership and capacity to be able to identify and address capacity problems on Line 19 in the event such problems arise. 1 appreciate the time Lee Norwine and Dick Cromwell took to review the change with Paul Blackwelder and me. The charge appears to be well conceived. Very truly yours, ACE REAGAN xecutive Direct 3R/PB:nk RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION November 4, 1987 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Paul Blackwelder, Assistant Director SUBJECT: SunLine Short Range Transit Plan Amendment - Line 20 and Line 5 Revisions SunLine Transit Agency is proposing a major service change on the intercity Line 20 (Palm Springs to Indio). Line 20 service currently operates on a 60-minute headway. Line 19 (Desert Hot Springs -Indio) provides service on a 30-minute headway. Lines 19 and 20 provide duplicative service between Palm Desert and Indio. Line 20 also serves the northern portion of the City of Indio. The SunLine proposal would do the following: o Eliminate Line 20 service between Palm Desert and Indio which duplicates Line 19 service. o Eliminate Line 20 service in the northern portion of Indio. o Increase the frequency of Line 20 service from 60 minutes to 40 minutes between Palm Springs and Palm Desert. o Serve the northern portion of Indio by extending Line 5 (local Indio -Coachella service). ADVANTAGES: o The north Indio area would be served on a 30-minute headway rather than a 60-minute headway by using Line 5 to serve the area. o The Palm Springs -Palm Desert portion of Line 20 would he served more frequently, every 40 minutes rather than every hour. o Improved frequencies on Lines 5 and 20 are expected to increase ridership on both lines. DISADVANTAGES o Riders currently using Line 20 that must travel through the Palm Desert Town Center to complete their trip will have to transfer to Line 19. a Riders in the northern portion of Indio using Line 20 to travel west of Indio will have to transfer from Line 5 to Line 19. SunLine staff has provided information showing that the Line 19 service between Pala Desert and Indio has adequate capacity to accommodate passengers expected to transfer from Lines 5 and 20. Line 5 transfers will be coordinated very closely with Line 19 in Indio. Line 20 to Line 19 transfer times in Palm Desert vary from 2 minutes to 27 minutes. SunLine has assumed that by improving the level of service on Line:,-20 and by a concerted marketing effort, the passengers using Line 20 requiring a transfer to Line 19 will adjust their travel to use the Line 20 runs with a 2-minute transfer time to Line 19. The SunLine Board of Directors reviewed this service change at their meeting on October 28th. SunLine has expressed a desire to implement this service change on Sunday, November 22nd to start the tourist season service levels. A public hearing will be held prior to the service change. Staff has reviewed the SunLine information and agrees that, based on the data provided by SunLine, the Line 19 service has adequate capacity to serve the Palm Desert to Indio ridership currently on Lines 19 and 20. Staff further agrees that the improved service levels proposed on Line 20 between Palm Springs and Palm Desert, and service to the northern Indio area using Line 5 should increase ridership. Staff recommends that SunLine proceed with the service changes on November 22nd unless major problems are identified at the public hearing on the service changes and thEt a formal Short Range Transit Plan amendment for these service changes be presented to the Commission et the December 2nd meeting. It is also recommended that staff attend the public hearing to present as testimony the need for SunLine to inform patrons on Line 20 of the best possible.transfer times between Line 20 and Line 19 to help to smooth the transition and for SunLine to monitor ridership on Line 19 to identify and address capacity problems that may arise in the future as ridership grows. RECOMMENDATION 1. Schedule action on a formal Short Range Transit Plan amendment for SunLine's Line 20 changes at the Commission's December 2nd meeting with tentative approval of the service change being effective on November 22nd unless major problems are identified at the public hearing regarding the service change. 2. Direct staff to attend the public hearing to voice the Commission's proposal that SunLine make special efforts to inform Line 20 riders of the best possible transfer times between Lines 20 and 19, and the need to closely monitor the Line 19 service ridership and capacity. PB:nk TO: FROM: RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION Riverside County Transportation Commission Paul Blackwelder, Assistant Director SUBJECT: Fiscal Audit - Local Transportation Fund The fiscal audit of the Local Transportation Fund for FY 1986-87 has been completed by Thomas, Byrne and Smith. A copy of the audit is included in the agenda packet. The auditors found that all funds have been expended in accordance with the applicable rules and regulations. RECOMMENDATION Receive and file the audit of the Local Transportation Fund. PB:nk Agenda Item No. 4B RCTC December 2, 1987 LOCAL TRANSPORTATION FUND ADMINISTERED BY THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ANNUAL AUDIT REPORT Year Ended June 30, 1987 THOMAS. BYRNE & SMITH AN ACCOUNTANCY CORPORATION CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA LOCAL TRANSPORTATION FUND ADMINISTERED BY THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ANNUAL AUDIT REPORT Year Ended June 30, 1987 TABLE OF CONTENTS . Auditor's Report . Financial Statements Page Number Exhibit 1 - Balance Sheet 1 Exhibit 2 - Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balances Notes to Financial Statements ICI. Supplemental Information Schedule 1 - Schedule of Allocations and Payments 4 Schedule 2 - Schedule of Unallocated Apportionments 5 Schedule 3 - Schedule of Changes in Reserve Balances 6 2 3 THOMAS, BYRNE & SMITH AN ACCOUNTANCY CORPORATION CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS Do ald L. Thomas, C.P.A. July 31, 1987 D ichard Byrne. C.P.A. 4362 Orange Street V- . Smith, Jr., C.P.A. Riverside. California 92501 Ail C. Harrison, C.P.A. (714) 682-4851 Board of Supervisors County of Riverside Riverside, California We have examined the financial statements of the Local Transportation Fund of the County of Riverside, California, as of and for the year ended June 30, 1987, as listed in the table of contents. Our examination was made in accordance with generally accepted auditing standards and, accordingly, included such tests of the accounting records and such other auditing procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances. The financial statements present only the Local Transportation Fund and are not intended to present fairly the financial position and results of operations of the County of Riverside in conformity with generally accepted accounting principles. In our opinion, the financial statements referred to above present fairly the financial position of the Local Transportation Fund of the County of Riverside, California, at June 30, 1987 and the results of that Fund's operations for the year then ended, in conformity with generally accepted accounting principles applied on a basis consistent with that of the preceding year. Our examination was made for purposes of forming an opinion on the financial statements taken as a whole. The accompanying supplemental information, as listed in the table of contents, is presented for purposes of additional analysis and is not a required part of the financial statements of the Local Transportation Fund of the County of Riverside, California. Such information has been subjected to the auditing procedures applied in the examination of the financial statements and, in our opinion, is fairly stated in all material respects in relation to the financial statements taken as a whole. THOMAS, BYRNE & SMITH An Accountancy C poration By: D. Richard Byrne 1 LOCAL TRANSPORTATION FUND ADMINISTERED BY THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE BALANCE SHEET June 30, 1987 EXHIBIT 1 ASSETS ash in County Treasury $2,399,841 Total Assets $2.399,841 LIABILITIES AND FUN➢ BALANCES iabilities Due to Other Governmental Agencies $ 2,509 and Balances Unallocated Apportionments (Schedule 2) 233,027 Reserved Balances (Schedule 3) - 0 - Unapportioned Balance 2,164,305 Total Fund Balances 2,3972332 Total Liabilities and Fund Balances $2,399,841 he accompanying notes are an integral part of this statement. - 1 - LOCAL TRANSPORTATION FUND ADMINISTERED BY THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCES Year Ended June 30, 1987 EXHIBIT 2 Fund Balances, Beginning of Year $ 2,886,145 venues State Local Transportation fund Interest Income Total Revenues Total $15,955,752 217,648 16,173,400 19,059,545 Expenditures (Schedule 1) Allocations Payments Article 4 Expenditures $ 8,982,837 $ 8,982,837 Article 8 Expenditures 7,213,158 7,213,158 SB 821 Article 3 Expenditures 216,224 216,224 Planning, Programming and Administration 249,994 249,994 Total Expenditures $16.662�213 16,662,213 Fund Balances, End of Year $ 2,397,332 The accompanying notes are an integral part of this statement. - 2 - LOCAL TRANSPORTATION FUND ADMINISTERED BY THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS Year Ended June 30, 1987 1) Summary of Significant Accounting Policies The Local Transportation Fund was created under the Transportation Development Act of 1971. The Fund, administered by the County of Riverside, has monies apportioned by the State to the county -wide area, with allocations made to claimants upon the approval of their claims by the Southern California Association of Governments. The purpose of the Program is to allocate funds for public transportation needs, local streets and roads, bicycle and pedestrian facilities and multimodal transportation terminals. The following are the Program's significant accounting policies: A) Pursuant to California Administrative Code Section 6661, the modified cash basis is followed by the Riverside County Local Transportation Fund in that revenues are recorded as received and expenditures are recorded when allocated. B) Investments are stated at cost. Depository Local Transportation Fund monies are on deposit with the Riverside County Treasurer. Monies not specifically invested are pooled with other county monies with interest being allocated on the basis of daily cash balances on deposit with the Treasury. $35,450 of interest was allocated to the Fund in July, 1987. Due to Other Governmental Agencies - $2,509 This amount represents funds allocated but unpaid at June 30, 1987. This amount was paid in July, 1987 as follows: City of Indian Wells 2.509 - 3 - i12'6141f tie 299'41S 66h'bla Er662-1 0 - $ 622'gut VgrttZra 851 E12'L { a. 206'8$ 1E8F286'8 i S0'919'2 50'969'2 50 969'2 SCE '909'Z F0ua6V llsue44 aulluns 121'09 121'259 121'299 12I'LS9 01835 660'68 660'68 660'68 /60'/8 MOS OIL'L6 012'26 OIL'L6 OlCL6 olupep ue5 40 F113 66'896'6 60'80'6 000'8L 000'8L 66'08E'/ 66'08E', Foua6V llsue.aa aplsaaal8 009'691 009'6S1 009'6S1 009'651 3138 /I6'SWE /I1'92E'£ 009'011 00S'011 616'612'E 1,16'/12'E luarpoda0 pm' - apls4a41.8 10 puno3 00E'9 00E'9 00E'9 00E'9 Jollpn6 - apls4a48 Lo Fluno3 Oa'Ea'I 92I'E62'I 921'80 921'80 000'519 000'519 aplsuaµ8 to 4113 988'/S 988'69 986'8E 98/'14 00►'91 000'91 a694114 0411114 to 413 I6E'/11 16E'611 E6E'611 16E'/11 5144aa to Am 002'62 002'62 002'62 002'62 Foua6V llsue44 Fallan aplan pled 96L'S6I 96L'S61 96L'961 962'961 s6uµds clad 0 413 65I'9L 151'9L 156'9L 1,5/'9L 140s00 rled 40 413 SSWEOE SSO`ECIE SSO'EOE SSO'COE osaoV to 4113 60'09 260'09 692'6L 69L'62 EEE'2l9 EEE'219 Fallon 0uaa08 0 410 605'862 605'862 60L'1S 60C IS 008'912 008'962 aloulsl3 alel 40 Alp 995'6E 995'6E 999'6C 999'6E tluln0 el 0 1113 EE9'E61 CE9'1/1 EE9'161 U9'161 01001 to 430 200'01 260'01 260'01 210'01 5104 411P01 0 Fll3 E88'SS2 C88'552 096'91 096'/1 E26'062 C26'062 14r011 10 Fll3 866'/S 866'15 000'91 000'91 866'8E 866'8E s6uluds 1148 14asa0 /o Flo 621'028 621'028 628'9IL 60'912 006'E01 006'E01 euo403 10 F143 896'29 896'29 896'29 896'29 011494/03 10 F113 O85'oe 089'08 089'08 089'08 413 041,44113 l0 4113 022'E61 OL2'E/I OU'EOI 012'E►1 441F18 40 Fll3 686'822 086'822 torte /BY 68 O02'1►1 002'►II luornea8 10 Fl N 85E'9EC S 85E'9CE $ $ S $ S $ S 960'E61 $ 960'E61 $ 2921/1 $ 292'EtI $ Wpm's 10 410 sluamFed suo14e30111 slI od s0011100118 11u44l9d 4001114014V slu ed 4001112011V SluanW'aa suo11ao0L18 sluff 60l1eo01LV slelol aelle44simlrpV put $044asae C a1111-111 10 OS 0 013414V / alo q4V 6uprwaboad '6010001d 061 'OE 4000 PaPu3 444A 8031135 S1N3WAVd 041 5101n3011v n0 31110305 301S83AI8 d0 A1N003 341 AO 03814514140V 01103 401'' "964181 11601 LOCAL TRANSPORTATION FUND ADMINISTERED BY THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE SCHEDULE Off' UNALLOCATED APPORTIONMENTS SCHEDULE 2 June 30, 1987 achella Valley Area $154,777 P-lo Verde Valley Area 2,700 estern County Area 75,550 Total $233,027 - 5 - LOCAL TRANSPORTATION FUND ADMINISTERED BY THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE SCHEDULE OF CHANGES IN RESERVE BALANCES Year Ended June 30, 1987 SCHEDULE 3 Beginning of Year Allocations Payments End of Year SB 821 Article 3 Reserves $ 121,608 $ 328,400 $450� 008 $ - 0 - Total $ 121.608 $ 328.400 $450.008 $ - 0 - 6 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Paul Blackwelder, Assistant Director SUBJECT: Downscoping of SB 821 Project - City of Hemet The City of Hemet has requested permission to downscope a bicycle project approved in FY 1986-87. A copy of the letter and project map is attached. The original project called for Class II bike lanes on both side of Palm Avenue, Thornton Avenue, and State Street as an extension to the existing bike paths along Stetson Avenue and Palm Avenue. The changes requested are as follows: a) construct a Class II bike path only along the easterly side of Palm Avenue for travel north between Thornton and Stetson Avenues; and, b) construct a Class II bike path only along the westerly side of State Street for travel south between Stetson and Thornton Avenues. The City of Hemet has approved a development along the westerly side of Palm Avenue. The City has required the developer to widen Palm Avenue and paint the bike lane strip as a condition to approval of the development. Construction will be completed within 6 months. Staff agrees that the request to delete this portion from the project to be funded by SB 821 and City funds should be approved since it will be constructed by the developer as part of street widening improvements required for approval of construction. Staff recommends against the request to approve striping a Class II bike lane on only one side of State Street. This change would provide a path for southerly travel but not for northerly travel. The City plans to extend the Thornton Avenue bike paths easterly to Buena Vista Avenue and along Buena Vista northerly to Stetson Avenue. The Buena Vista bike path would provide for travel north and south between Stetson and Thornton Avenues, and is only 1/4 mile easterly of State Street. The Buena Vista extension is a more logical extension because it provides for travel in two directions. The City will be requesting SB 821 funding for the Thornton -Buena Vista extension next year. Staff has discussed the recommendation with John Greer, City Engineer for the City of Hemet, and he has no objection. RECOMMENDATIONS 1. To approve the request from the City of Hemet to construct the bike path only along the easterly side of Palm Avenue with SB 821 funding with the stipulation that the bike path on the westerly side of Palm Avenue be constructed by the developer or the City within 6 months. 2. To disapprove the request to construct a bike path only along the westerly side of State Street and delete the State Street bike path from the approved project. PB:nk Agenda Item No. 4C RCTC December 2, 1987 From the Office of PUBLIC WORKS 450 EAST LATHAM AVENUE • i-rEMET, CALIFORNIA 92343 •(714) -658-9441 November 20, 1987 Jack Reagan, Executive Director Riverside County Transportation Commission 4075 Main Street, Suite 302 Riverside, California 92501 Attention: Mr. Paul Blackwelder Subject: 1986-87 Bicycle Lane Extension Dear Mr. Blackwelder: RECEIVED NOV 23 1987 Riverside County Transportation Commission Per yesterday's conference call between Pam Easter, you and myself, I have enclosed a copy of a vicinity map indicating our proposal. The City of Hemet is proposing to install bikeways on Devonshire (between Kirby and Sanderson), Acacia (between Palm and Lyon) and State, Thornton and Palm Streets as per the project information form submitted to you on August 19, 1986. We are proposing to install one -directional bikeways on State and Palm as follows: State Street The street has already been constructed too narrow to install two bikeways OA ' curb -to -curb). Due to excessive costs of removing and replacing curb and gutter and the inherent difficulties of realignment of the sidewalks, drainage and driveways, the City of Hemet proposes to install a one-way bikeway (south bound on the west side of State from Stetson to Thornton). This will entail removing and repainting of traffic stripes only. Palm Avenue Palm Avenue is an existing half width street. The west half has not been constructed but will be constructed by a developer within the next six months. Therefore the City of Hemet pro- poses to install a one-way bikeway (north bound on east side of Palm from Thornton to Stetson). This will entail striping and minor addition of pavement. Riverside County November 20, 1987 Transportation Commission page 2 The City will receive bids for this project on December 1 and approve the low bidder during the City Council's December 8, 1987, meeting. The City's consultant will have plans available on Monday, November 23, if required. Please let me know as soon as possible if the above proposal meets with your approval. City Engineer JLG:bjb L/Ify df ,z/etn&, z1 ...'S J DEVONSHIRE FLORIDA w a ACACIA FR\t`� MAYBERRY AVE. AVE. AVE. cn r AVE. WHITTIER 2 u JOHNSTON a n_ AVE. AVE STETSON AVE. m 11-11-•.rr-rrrrf�f«�.-r� �rrr.�.w..... -...�. Legend .�MIMIC) • • • • • • • • 2 -- Way f�1/1/4Y xi.sf ai9 w a cn 1 ii THORNTON -0-- : AVE. VICINITY MAP NO SCALE RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Paul Blackwelder, Assistant Director SUBJECT: Proposal to Expand Citizens Advisory Committee for SB 498 Implementation SB 498 became law during the 1987 session. It requires a Social Service Advisory Council in all counties which are entitled to use some portion of their Transportation Development Act funds for local streets and roads (Article 8 counties). As you know, regional transportation planning agencies in Article 8 counties must make findings regarding "unmet transit needs" (i.e., either do not exist or exist but are not reasonable to meet) before such funds may be used for road purposes. The newly required Social Service Advisory Councils are to be responsible for reviewing unmet needs testimony and submitting its recommendation to the responsible commissions. These Councils are to be comprised of elderly and handicapped individuals, representatives of various social service agencies and social service transportation providers. The Councils are envisioned to be involved in on -going social service transportation planning, and are intended to meet more often than one a year. Where councils or committees already exist, the legislation indicates that these new requirements should be incorporated into such existing mechanisms. RCTC currently has a Citizens Advisory Committee which meets on a regular basis. This Committee is now responsible for making recommendations on unmet transit needs and other transportation planning issues. The composition of the Committee includes some of the same individuals which would be required of the Social Service Advisory Councils. The most expeditious and appropriate way to comply with SB 498 requirements would be to revise and expand the make-up of the current Citizens Advisory Committee. The Committee has expressed support for this approach. Approximately one-half of the terms of the existing Committee membership are about to expire, and it will be necessary for RCTC to appoint or reappoint members anyway. During the next month, it would be possible to poll the existing Committee members to determine their interest in reappointment. It would then be possible to review the composition of the membership and contact appropriate organizations to identify additional members for appointment. Those recommended for appointment could then be brought back to RCTC for approval at the January meeting. This would enable a restructured Committee to be in place in time to review testimony received during hearings to be scheduled for February and March 1988. RECOMMENDATION Approve the proposal as outlined above. PB/JR:nk Agenda Item No. 5 RCTC December 2, 1987 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Jack Reagan, Executive Director SUBJECT: Consultant Services to Review Highway Project Costs During the November 4, 1987 meeting, RCTC discussed a proposal to secure the services of a consulting engineer to review Caltrans' project cost estimates included in the Expenditure Plan. Staff was directed to negotiate with potential consultants and come back with a specific proposal for action at the next meeting. The financial limits for purposes of negotiation was set at $15,000. Two firms were contacted. A summary of their proposals ere as follows: Parsons, Brinkerhoff, Quade, & Douglas (PBQ&D) PBQ&D have offices in San Bernardino and Orange Counties. They currently have contracts with SANBAG and OCTC for highway related work, both project development and review of Caltrans work. They propose a total of 160 hours, with most work by mid -level management and supporting engineering staff. The approach would be to meet with Caltrans to evaluate the work performed in making the estimates. Costs would be $10,500. Bechtel Civil, Inc. Bechtel currently has major contracts with the Santa Clara County Traffic Authority, serving as project manager for their sales tax program. They propose a total of 350 hours, with at least 30% of the work by principals. The approach would be to apply project cost estimating systems developed for use in Santa Clara County to make independent cost estimates, which would then be reviewed with Caltrans in the event of major differences with Caltrans' estimates. Costs would be $13, 5Q0. $ae, Both firms are highly qualified. Because of the higher number of hours, involvement of higher level members of the firm, and experience dealing with cost estimations for highway projects, staff (after conferring with D.J. Smith) recommends selecting Bechtel Civil, Inc. to perform the work. As indicated during the November meeting, the most expeditious means of meeting contractual requirements would be to amend RCTC's existing contract with D.J. Smith and Associates to obtain these engineering services. In addition to administering a subcontract 1 Agenda Item No. 6 RCTC December 2, 1987 with Bechtel Civil, Inc., D.J. Smith would also assist ROTC staff in meeting with Caltrans to review existing revenue assumptions (Federal, State, and Sales Tax) used for the preliminary Expenditure Plan. The cost of these additional services would be $1,500. RECOMMENDATION Approve an amendment to the existing contract with D.J. Smith Associates to: - obtain the services of Bechtel Civil, Inc. to cost estimate information for highway projects in the preliminary Expenditure Plan, - assist RCTC staff to develop alternative assumptions for the Expenditure Plan, and administer the services of Bechtel Civil, Inc. and provide included revenue lqi".° The cost of such additional services would be set at $.44-T-43-94k-- JR:nk RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Jack Reagan, Executive Director SUBJECT: Renewal of Lease - Proposal to Move to Suite 300 The existing lease for our office in the Wells Fargo Bank Building, Suite 302, will expire November 30, 1987. In accordance with the agreement, the amount of the rent will increase from $1.13 per square foot to $1.18 per square foot; rent for the existing Suite 302 will increase to $1045.48 per month. However, the existing Suite 302 is too small to meet our current needs (886 square feet). Suite 300 is now available for rental (1289 square feet). Suite 300 would be large enough to provide sufficient office space for the five authorized staff positions, and also a conference room. The difference in cost for this larger suite would be $475.54 per month, or $5,706.48 annually. Because of close proximity, it would be possible to switch the name and number plates and would not necessitate a change of address for a move. Changing the existing telephone systems and physically moving furniture would also be easy. Subject to final negotiations, we anticipate that the lease would still be a year to year agreement, with provision for RCTC to continue the agreement subject to rent increases no greater than the Los Angeles/Long Beach consumer price index. RECOMMENDATION Authorize staff to negotiate with Magnon/Main Street Building to acquire the existing vacant Suite 300 for the RCTC offices. JR: nk Agenda Item No. 7 RCTC December 2, 1987 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Paul Blackwelder, Assistant Director SUBJECT: SCAQMD's Proposed Regulation XV - Indirect Source/Trip Reduction Attached is a copy of the staff report on proposed Regulation XV proposed by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). A public hearing on the proposed regulation is scheduled for December 11, 1987 at 9:30 a.m., AQMD Offices, 9150 Flair Drive, E1 Monte, CA 91731. The proposed regulation would require all employers of 100 or more employees per worksite to implement a plan to increase ridesharing. The plan must outline incentives to be offered to employees which would increase average vehicle ridership. An employer would be in violation of the regulation only if he or she failed to submit and implement an approvable plan. This regulation is proposed because vehicles contribute about 50% of emissions causing ozone standard violations. This standard is violated approximately 140 days/year in the South Coast Air Basin. A reduction in vehicle use is essential if federal and State air standards are to be achieved. The proposed regulation would apply to the approximately 8,000 employers in the four counties in the South Coast Air Basin employing 100 or more employees. In Riverside County, it is estimated that there are approximately 350 employers with 100 or more employees. The Los Angeles County Transportation Commission and the SCAG Transportation and Communications Committee (TCC) have taken action to support the regulation subject to the application of the regulation to the largest employers and then phasing in smaller employers due to the large number of employers in the region to which the regulation applies. The SCAG TCC recommended starting with employers of 700 or more employees and then phasing in at 500, 400, etc., until all employers of 100+ employees are included. Commission action on this item is not required. However, since it would impact the transportation system in a positive way by increasing average vehicle ridership, the Commission may want to take a position of outright support or support with a phase in approach recommended by LACTC and the SLAG TCC. FS:nk Agenda Item No. 8 RCTC December 2, 1987 STAFF REPORT ON PROPOSED REGULATION XV (TRIP REDUCTION/INDIRECT SOURCE) SOUTH COAST AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT November 2, 1987 81-91 sxolslsod ZYNOI YZINVOU0 - 8 xIax3adv GI-8 xoiaxa as a350doiid s.Ma - xlax3ddY c ssoYdWI WIdISla/NOIL lIN2W3'IdW/ WVHooxd c-9 - • ssoYdWI 'IYIZH3s0d s-, nx Hoireinoau 30 xolsdlxos30 v-E xolsonaous u sab2a SINaINO0 ao 318YI INTRODUCTION The proposed Regulation xv was developed in an effort to reduce emissions from vehicle sources in the South Coast Air Basin. Federal standards for ozone, nitrogen dioxide and carbon monoxide, as established under the Clean Air Act, are exceeded during approximately one third of the days in a year in the South Coast Air _Basin. Furthermore, approximately 498 of reactive organic gases (ROG) and 71% of oxides of nitrogen (NO ) are emitted from mobile sources. In addition, approximately, 97% of carbon monoxide stems from mobile sources. These pollutants then react in sunlight to form ozone and create the smog for which the South Coast Air Basin is reknown. Table I outlines the relative contribution of mobile and stationary sources to total man-made ROG, Nox, and CO during 1985 in the Basin. TABLE I 1985 EMISSION INVENTORY SOUTH COAST AIR BASIN (tons/average annual day) Sources ROG NOx CQ Mobile 595 700 4,860 (49%) (71%) (97%) Stationary 615 285 125 (51%) (29%) (3%) (1985 Emissions Inventory) The intent of Regulation XV (Trip Reduction/Indirect Source) is to reduce both the number of trips between home and the worksite .and the vehicle miles traveled between these locations. It is also the intent of the District to encourage the formation of transportation management organizations and to work with local jurisdictions in improving trip reduction activities. By developing a region -wide approach to the vehicle emissions in the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB), the District hopes to improve air - 3 - quality within the SCAB. Average Vehicle Ridership (AVR) figures have been targeted for the source receptor areas throughout the SCAB. According to the latest growth projections, the population in the South Coast Basin is expected to increase by nearly half between 1985 and 2010. (SCAG, Draft Baseline projection, February, 1987) During rush hour, approximately 7 million people commute to and from work (SCAG, Travel Forecast Atlas, August 1985). Furthermore, the average vehicle occupancy during the work -home commute in the Basin is 1.13. (Southern California Association of Governments, Travel Forecast Atlas, August 1985) As the population continues to increase and the average vehicle occupancy remains the same, both vehicle miles traveled and vehicle trips would be expected to increase and congestion to become even greater. Because so many people are driving solo to and from work, traffic congestion in the South Coast Basin is already at a critical level. II. Description of Regulation XV Regulation XV would require employers with 100 or more employees to develop and implement a trip reduction plan for those employees who report to work between 6:00 a.m. and 10:00 a.m. These employers would be required to designate a trained transportation coordinator to develop and implement the trip reduction plan. This plan would include an inventory of current measures used by the employer to increase AVR, a verifiable estimate of the current AVR at the worksite, and a list of incentives the employer would commit to undertake which could reasonably be expected to achieve the AVR target within 12 months of plan approval. Beginning 180 days after adoption of the regulation, the District would begin issuing notices to employers to submit a plan. After this notice is received, an employer would have 90 days to submit a plan and the accompanying documentation to the District's Executive officer. If additional time is needed, it could be granted for good cause, but would only be effective if requested in writing with a new submittal date specified. Penalties would not be imposed on employers who put forth good faith efforts to comply with the regulation. Failure to submit a plan or to offer any incentive included in the plan would, however, be considered a violation of the rule. However, any employer who felt that a plan had been improperly disapproved, could appeal to the Hearing Board - 4 - within 10 days of receiving notice of the disapproval. Any employer subject to a city or county ordinance equally stringent in achieving the AVR would be allowed to file for an exemption from the requirements of this regulation. III. Potential Impacts A. Deletion of Regulation VII The District is requesting approval by EPA to substitute Regulation XV for Regulation VII. This would allow the requirements of Regulation XV to supersede those of Regulation VII. If this approval is not granted, both Regulations would, however, be consolidated into one form. The primary distinctions between the two regulations are outlined in Table II. TABLE II DIFFERENCES BETWEEN REGULATION XV AND REGULATION VII REGULATION XV REGULATION VII Employers subject Employers with 100 to regulation or more employees per worksite Employers with 100 or more employees per shift Plan stage Implementation Daily Second- and third - stage air quality episodes Trained Transportation Required Not Required Coordinator B. Air Quality Benefits According to the State of California Employment Development Department, there are approximately 8,000 employers in the four counties in the SCAB who employ 100 or more persons. If the AVR of these employers were to be raised from 1.13 to - 5 - 1.5, on average, throughout the Basin, we would expect a reduction of 14,800,000 vehicles miles traveled (VMT) daily, or approximately a 25% reduction in the vehicle miles traveled by passenger vehicles in the SCAB during the morning rush hours. Furthermore, we would expect that approximately 740,000 fewer daily vehicle trips would be made between home and the worksite. By reducing the number of vehicles on the road and the trips they make, air pollution would be reduced because there would be fewer vehicles emitting pollutants. (Air Ouality handbook, South Coast Air Quality Management District, April 1987) Following in Table III are the estimated emissions reductions that would be achieved by the reduction in vehicle miles and vehicle trips: TABLE III ESTIMATED EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS * Estimated Reduction Pollutant (tons/day) Reactive Organic Gases (ROG) Nitrogen Oxides Carbon Monoxide (CO) 11 - 24 16 - 34 100 - 216 * Based on Draft 1987 Emission Inventory, SCAQMD. C. Effects an Traffic Congestion With fewer cars on the road, we would also expect traffic congestion to be reduced. This is an important secondary benefit from the Regulation because less congestion translates into reduced commute time and increased vehicle speeds on highways. Vehicles traveling at higher speeds emit less pollution than at lower speeds. * - 6 - D. Employer Cost The cost of developing and implementing a trip reduction plan will vary both by employee population and the specific incentives an employer decides to offer to comply with the regulation. In addition, there would also be the cost of training the rideshare coordinator. The initial plan review and annual update fees proposed would be .based on the administrative costs of reviewing the plan. The current Regulation VII Transportation Management Plan fees are $125 for an initial filing fee and $50 for annual renewals. IV. Program Implementation / District Impacts District Staff intends to have the draft Regulation XV replace the existing Regulation VII, Emergency Episode Transportation Management Plan Program. The resources allocated to Transportation Management Program Implementation include seven full-time equivalent (FTE) positions. If Regulation XV is adopted, staff would reallocate these resources to begin implementation of Regulation XV. Any requests for additional resources necessary for implementation would be developed during the regular budget cycle. Under Regulation VII, the District has approximately 4,000 employer plans. Regulation XV may apply to over 8,000 employers, but the the exact number.will not be known until we update and refine our existing employer database. If Regulation XV were to apply to the higher estimate of 8,000 employers, staff estimates that an additional 6-9 FTE positions would be needed for effective program implementation. The exact number, of course, depends upon the number of firms subject to the Regulation. District staff also intends to apply the current fee schedule for the Regulation VII, Transportation Management Plan Program evaluation ($125 for first time submittal and $50 for the annual review fee) for Regulation XV implementation. Staff may propose changes to Rule 306 based on evaluation of the resource requirements necessary for program implementation. It is our plan to develop a complete program implementation resource requirement and fee schedule changes (if necessary) as part of the FY 1988-89 budget. The initial internal budget submittal schedule begins in February 1988. - 7 - DRAFT 11/2/87 TRIP REDUCTION/INDIRECT SOURCE REGULATION XV Rule 1501 General This regulation sets forth the actions employers which employ 100 or more persons at any worksite must take to promote employee participation in trip reduction and ridesharing programs. These programs are intended to reduce emissions from vehicles used for commuting between home and the worksite. It is the Intent of the District to work with affected employers and local jurisdictions in improving trip reduction activities, to encourage small employers to join transportation management organizations, and to evaluate the effectiveness of this regulation two years after it has been fully implemented to insure that it is as effective as possible. It is also the intent of the District to substitute the provisions of Regulation X4 for those of Regulation VII. If the Environmental Protection Agency does not approve deletion of the traffic abatement requirements of Regulation VII, the District will consolidate the two regulations so that employers will Doe required to submit only a single plan. The implementation of this regulation will begin 180 days after its adoption. The regulation requires the Executive Officer to give notice of plan requirements to 1/12 of the affected employers each month. Affected employers shall submit plans ninety days after receiving notice. Affected employers must review and update the plans annually following the same schedule. Any affected employer subject to a city or county trip reduction ordinance which is at least as effective as this regulation in increasing average vehicle ridership (AVR) may be exempted from the requirements 'o3 this reguiation. - 8 - DRAFT 11/2/67 Rule 1502 Definitions For the purpose of this regulation, the following definitions apply: (a) Alternative transportation means the use of non -motor vehicle modes of transportation. Walking and bicycling are examples. (b) Average Vehicle Ridership (AVR) means the figure derived by dividing the employee population at a given worksite that reports to work weekdays between 6:00 a.m. and 10:00 a.m. by the number of vehicles` driven by these employees commuting from home to the worksite during these hours. AVR may be calculated using weekly or biweekly averaging periods. The applicable employee population is multiplied by the number of weekdays, in the selected averaging period, then divided by the total number of vehicles driven by these employees to the worksite during the same period. *Vehicles counted shall exclude bicycles, transit vehicles, buses serving multiple worksites, and cars stopping on route to other worksites. District approved low pollution vehicles shall also be excluded. (c) Central City Area.(CCA) means the Los Angeles City area bounded as described below: (1) by the Santa Monica Freeway (Route 10) from Union Avenue to Alameda Street; (2) Alameda Street from the Santa Monica Freeway to Sunset Boulevard; (3) Sunset Boulevard from Alameda Street to the Harbor Freeway (Route 110); (4) the Harbor Freeway from Sunset Boulevard to the Hollywood Freeway (Route 101); (5) the Hollywood Freeway to Temple Street; (6) Temple Street from Belmont Avenue to Union Avenue; and (7) Union Avllule from Temple Street to the Santa Monica Freeway. (d) Employee means any person employed by an employer as defined in 1502(e). - 9 - DRAFT 11/2/87 (i) Employer means any person, firm, business, educational institution, government agency, or other entity which employs 100 or more people at a single worksite as defined in 1502(f). Executive Officer means the Executive Officer of the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). Ridesharing means the cooperative effort of two or more people traveling together. Utilization of carpools, vanpools, buspools, taxipools, trains and public transit are all methods of ridesharinq. Ridesharing and trip reduction incentives mean inducements offered to individuals to encourage ridesharinq and trip reduction. Examples of incentives are included in Rule 1503(d). Source/Receptor Areas are areas established by the District based on air monitoring and geographical and meteorological factors. A source area is that area in which air contaminants are discharged. A receptor area is an area in which the contaminants accumulate and are measured. An area can be a source area, a receptor area, or both. The map in Attachment 1 to this regulation shows the source/receptor areas. Trained transportation coordinator means a person who has completed a training program in transportation management approved by the Trip Reduction Training Coordinator Advisory Committee or who can demonstrate i perienceequivalent to that covered in an approved transportation management program. The traird g program must include, but need not be limited to: review of available commuter matching resources and services, detailed explanation of the eligible activities listed in Rule 1503(d), explanation of the relationship between transportation management and air quality, and guidance in developing a trip reduction plan. The District will provide a list of training programs developed by the Trip Reduction Training Coordinator Advisory Committee to each employer subject to this Rule. (k) Worksite means a building or grouping of buildings located within the District which are in actual physical contact or separated solely by a private or public roadway or other private or public right -of way, and which are owned or operated by the same employer (or by employers under common control). r - 10 - DRAFT 11/2/87 Rule 1503 Control of Indirect Sources - Increase in Average Vehicle Ridership by Employers of 100 or more Employees One hundred eighty (180) days after adoption of this regulation, the Executive Officer will begin sending written notices of the requirements of this regulation to employers, as defined by Rule 1502(e). Following written notice employers shall submit to the Executive Officer a trip reduction plan which shall meet the requirements of this regulation. The trip reduction plan shall be submitted within 90 days of the notice. (b) Submitted plans must specify the measures the employer will take to achieve the specified average vehicle ridership (AvR) for employee vehicles subject to the regulation. (a) AVR targets are: 1.75 AVR in the Central City Area of Source Receptor Area 1; 1.5 AVR in Source Receptor Areas 1 (excluding the Central City Area),2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 41, 12, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 32, 33, 34, and 35; 1.3 AVR in Source Receptor Areas 13, 14, 15, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 36, 37, 38, 39, and 40. (See attachment 1 for locations of specific source receptor areas) (c) The plans shall be prepared by a trained transportation coordinator and shall include: (1) Designation of a trained transportation coordinator responsible for implementation of the plan. (2) An inventory of current measures used by the employer intended to achieve increases in Average Vehicle Ridership. A verifiable estimate of the existing Average Vehicle Ridership at the worksite, as defined in Rule 1502(b). where multiple worksites are under the game ownership and in close proximity although (3) DRAFT 11/2/67 separated by more than one right-of-way, a single plan may be prepared for all worksites. (4) A list of specific incentives the employer will undertake which can reasonably be expected to lead to achievement of the target AVR level within 12 months of plan approval. (d) Increasing AVR may be achieved by, but is not limited to, the following: (1) Direct financial incentives for ridesharing; (2) Establishment of carpool, buspool or vanpool programs; (3) Partial or full- subsidization of parking for ridesharing employees; (4) Full or partial subsidization of carpools, vanpools, buspools, shuttles or use of public transit; (5) Provision of an allowance for employees to utilize company -owned fleet vehicles for ridesharing purposes; (6) Preferential parking for vehicles used for ridesharing; (7) Facility improvements which provide preferential access and/or egress for ridesharing employees; (8) Facility improvements to encourage use of bicycles (showers, bike racks, etc.); (9) Active use of a computerized rideshare matching service such as Commuter Computer or Orange County Transit District Commuter Ridesharing Matching Services, or an effective in-house rideshare matching service; (10) Compressed work weeks such as a 4/40 or 9/80 work schedule where employees work 40 hours in fewer than five days in one week or 80 hours in fewer than ten days in two weeks; (11) Flexible work hours that facilitate employee ridesharing; (12) Telecommuting or work at home. - 12 - DRAFT 11/2/67 Rule 1504 Procedural Requirements for Plans (a) The written notice specified in Rule 1503(a) shall be served personally, or by registered or certified mail. Each employer so served shall submit to the Executive Officer the plans and information described in the notice within 90 days after the receipt of the notice. In the event that the employer reasonably needs more time to prepare and submit a plan meeting the requirements of this regulation, additional time may be sought from the Executive Officer. Additional time may be granted for good cause, but such extensions shall only be effective if in writing, with a new submittal date specified. The Executive Officer shall notify the employer whether or not the extension has been granted within 15 days of receipt of request for extension. (b) After the employer submits the plan, the Executive Officer must either approve or disapprove the plan within 60 days. Notice of approval or disapproval shall be given by registered or certified mail. If the plan is disapproved, the reasons for disapproval shall be given in writing to the employer. Any plan disapproved by the Executive Officer must be revised by the employer and resubmitted to the Executive Officer within 30 days of the notice of disapproval, or the employer shall be deemed to be in violation of Rule 1504 (f). If the employer believes that the plan meets the requirements of this regulation and that the plan was improperly disapproved, the employer may appeal the disapproval to the District Hearing Board. An appeal of a disapproval must be made within 10 days after the employer receives the'notice of disapproval. (c) An approved plan may be revised between plan submittal dates by submitting a plan revision. The revision shall not be effective until approved by the Executive Officer. (d) Each employer must review its implementation of the plan, and update and resubmit the plan annually. The review shall focus on ridesharing and trip -reduction incentives offered by the employer. The review and update shall consist of a report that: (1) estimates AVR levels attained, (2) verifies that the plan incentives have been offered, - 13 - DRAFT 11/2/87 !1 (3) describes use of those incentives offered by employers, (4) evaluates why the plan did or did not work, and an explanation.of why the revised plan is likely to achieve the AVR target levels, (5) lists additional incentives which can reasonably be expected to correct deficiencies, and explains why the additional incentives are likely to result in achieving AVR target levels. (e) The District may perform follow up audits on a selective basis. The District shall notify the employer of the submittal deadline for the review and update. The same deadlines shall apply as to a first time plan submittal in Rule 1504(b). Failure to review and update the plan will be deemed a violation of Rule 1504(f). (f) If the employer complies with all provisions of the approved plan, but fails to meet the AVR target specified for that employer in Rule 1503(c)(5), such failure is not a violation of this rule. Failure to submit a plan, submit an annual update, or offer any incentive in an approved plan, is a violation of this rule and is subject to the penalties outlined in Article 7, Chapter 4, Part 4 of Division 26 of the Health and Safety Code. (g) The review and updated plan shall be submitted twelve (12) months from the date of the initial plan approval date. (6) - 14 DRAFT 11/2/87 Rule 1505 - Exemptions (a) Any employer subject to a city or county ordinance which requires the implementation of trip reduction measures by that employer may be exempted from the requirements of this Regulation. In order to obtain this exemption, the employer must make written application to the Executive Officer, and the Executive Officer must determine that the requirements of the ordinance are at least as effective as this regulation in increasing AVR at the employer's worksite. The written application must be made within 30 days after initially receipt and notice from the Executive Officer pursuant to Rule 1503, or within 30 days after receiving notice of an annual review and update. (b) In order to maintain this exemption, the employer shall submit an annual report to the Executive Officer describing the trip reduction incentives being offered and the actual AVR levels achieved at the employer's worksite. The Executive Officer may make the exemption conditional upon maintaining a specified AVR level at the worksite, and may revoke the exemption at such time as he determines that the specified AVR level is not being maintained. In the event that the city or county ordinance under which the employer qualified for the exemption is amended or rescinded, the exemption is void and the employer must reapply for an exemption within 60 days of the date of amendment or rescission. - 15 - APPENDIX B SOUTH COAST AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT REGULATION XV WORKSHOP OCTOBER 28 i 29, 1987 HELD AT THE PASADENA CENTER, PASADENA ORGANIZATIONAL POSITIONS The following employers and interested parties delivered or submitted remarks indicating their support or opposition at the public workshops. ORGANIZATION Ambassador College American National Can Company Atlantic Richfield Company Calif. Federal Savings Calif. State Univ. City of Brea City of Burbank Gould Inc. Los Angeles Chamber of Commerce Los Angeles Dept. of Water h Power McDonnell Douglas Orange County Sanitation Dist. SUPPORT LOCATION Pasadena Los Angeles • Carson Rosemead Long Beach Brea Burbank El Monte Los Angeles Los Angeles Long Beach DUMBER OF fMPLOYFES 1,000 200 1,000 3,000 Not indicated 200 1000 1200 50 12,000 25,000 Fountain Valley 1600 -16- Orange County Transportation Comm. Planning Commission Research Reuland Electric Southern Calif. Edison Company Southern Calif. Gas Company Ryan Synder i Associates Santa Ana Not indicated Santa Monica 10 Industry zoo Rosemead 2,000 Los Angeles 2000 Los Angeles 1 OPPOSITION NUMBER OF ORGANIZATION LOCATION EMPLOYEES John Billheimer Riverside 1 Consultant Cal Poly Pomona Pomona 2225 Huntington Memorial Pasadena 2800 Hospital International Electric Burbank 100 Company Rio Hondo College Whittier 600 The Irvine Company Irvine 700 CORRECTED COPY South Coast AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT 9150 FLAIR DRIVE, EL MONTE. CA 91731 (818) 572-6200 Agenda 4,c. October 30, 1987 South Coast Air Quality Management District Board Set a Public Hearing to Adopt Proposed Regulation XV - Indirect Source/Trip Reduction The intent of Proposed Regulation XV Indirect Source/Trip Reduction is to reduce both vehicle miles traveled and trips between home and the worksite. If approved, the Regulation would affect employers who employ 100 or more employees. These employers would be expected to develop and implement a transportation management plan to achieve specified Average Vehicle Ridership target for employees who arrive at the worksite between 6 a.m. and 10 a.m. The Proposed Regulation was developed during the past seven months in conjunction with the Trip Reduction Advisory Committee (TRPAC). TRPAC membership included Board -Members Norton Younglove, Faye Myers Dastrup, Tom Eichhorn/Edward Mountford, Sabrina Schiller, and Henry Wedaa. In addition, seven representatives from industry served on the Committee: Dick Butler, Disneyland; David Grayson/Jim Ortner, Automobile Club of Southern California; Bob Johnston, ARCO; Judith Johnston -Weston, Central City Association; Diana Palmer, Robert Wyman, Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce; Martin Wachs, University of California at Los Angeles; and Brad Williams, Irvine Company. Four workshop sessions on Proposed Regulation XV were held at the Pasadena Center on October 28 and 29, as requested by the Board on October 2, 1987. A copy of the Staff Report and Proposed Regulation are attached. THEREFORE, IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT YOUR BOARD --Set a public hearing for the December 11, 1987 Board meeting to adopt Proposed Regulation XV - Indirect Source/Trip Reduction. ctfully, James M. Lents, Ph.D. Executive Officer JAA:EN:drw Attachments P