Loading...
06 June 26, 2000 Plans and Programs• • RIVERS/DE COUNTY TRANSPORTA Records PLANS AND PROGRAMS COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA TIME: 12:00 DATE: Monday, June 26, 2000 LOCATION: Riverside County Transportation Commission Office 3560 University Avenue, Conference Room A Riverside, CA 92501 OSO 7 � 5 • • • COMMITTEE MEMBERS • • • Robin ReeserLowe/Lori Van Arsdale, City of Hemet, Chairman Percy Byrd/Conrad Negron, City of Indian Wells, Vice Chair Gerald Zeller/Brian DeForge, City of Beaumont Robert Crain/Gary Grimm, City of Blythe John Chlebnik/Gregory V. Schook, City of Calimesa Eugene Bourbonnais/Cora Sue Barrett, City of Canyon Lake Greg Ruppert/Jerry Pisha, City of Desert Hot Springs Jack van Haaster, Murrieta Frank Hall/Harvey Sullivan, City of Norco Dick Kelly/Robert Spiegel, City of Palm Desert Will Kleindienst/Deyna Hodges, City of Palm Springs Daryl Busch/Mary Yarbrough, City of Perris Bob Buster, County of Riverside Roy Wilson, County of Riverside ••• STAFF ••• Eric Haley, Executive Director Cathy Bechtel, Director, Planning and Programming • • • AREAS OF RESPONSIBILITY • • • State Transportation Improvement Program Regional Transportation Improvement Program New Corridors Intermodal Programs (Transit, Rail, Rideshare) Air Quality and Clean Fuels Regional Agencies, Regional Planning Intelligent Transportation System Planning and Programs Congestion Management Program Comments are welcomed by the Committee. if you wish to provide comments to the Committee, please complete and submit a Testimony Card to the Clerk of the Board. �S.r� 3(o • RIVERS/DE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMM/SS/ON PLANS AND PROGRAMS COMMITTEE http://www.rctc.org MEETING LOCATION 3560 UNIVERSITY AVENUE, SUITE 100, RIVERSIDE 92501 CONFERENCE ROOM A PARKING /S AVAILABLE /N THE PARKING GARAGE ACROSS FROM THE POST OFFICE ON ORANGE STREET MONDAY, June 26, 2000 12:00 AGENDA* * Action may be taken on any items listed on the agenda. 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL 3. PUBLIC COMMENTS 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES (May 22, 2000) 5. 2000 STIP AUGMENTATION Overview Pg. 1 This item is to seek Committee approval to move forward with the development of a call for projects for the 2000 STIP Augmentation cycle identified by CTC recognizing the need to be flexible in order to accommodate the Governor's transportation program recommendations and any additional programming Plans & Programs Committee Meeting June 26, 2000 Page 2 capacity which may result and forward to the Commission for final action. 6. UNMET TRANSIT NEEDS HEARING TESTIMONY AND RESPONSES Pg. 5 Overview This item is to seek Committee approval to recommend to the Commission 1) that the Commission reaffirm its definition of "Unmet Transit Needs" and "Reasonable to Meet;" 2) that based upon a review of requests for services received through the "unmet transit needs" hearing process, review of existing services and proposed improvements to the available services, the Commission make a finding that there are no unmet transit needs which can be reasonably met in the Palo Verde Valley area; and 3) that the Commission adopt Resolution No. 00-01 1 . 7 FY 2001-2007 SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLANS Pg. 11 Overview This item is to seek Committee approval of the FY 2001-07 Short Range Transit Plans for the City of Riverside, Palo Verde Valley Transit Agency, Riverside Transit Agency, and SunLine Transit Agency as presented and forward to the Commission for final action. 8. FY 2001 FTA SECTION 5307 PROGRAM OF PROJECTS Pg. 14 Overview This item is to seek Committee approval of the FY 2000-01 FTA Section 5307 Program of Projects for Riverside County and forward to the Commission for final action. • • • • Plans & Programs Committee Meeting June 26, 2000 Page 3 9. FY 2001 FTA SECTION 5311 RURAL TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM Pg. 19 Overview This item is to seek Committee approval of the proposed FY 2000-01 FTA Section 5311 Program of Projects for Riverside County and forward to the Commission for final action. 10. FY 2000-01 LOCAL TRANSPORTATION FUND ALLOCATIONS FOR TRANSIT Pg. 22 Overview This item is to seek Committee approval of the FY 2000-01 Local Transportation Fund Allocations for Transit as shown on the attached table and forward to the Commission for final action. 11. FY 2000-01 MINIMUM FARE REVENUE RATIO FOR THE RIVERSIDE TRANSIT AGENCY AND SUNLINE TRANSIT AGENCY Pg. 25 Overview This item is to seek Committee approval of 1) the FY 2000-01 minimum required fare revenue to operating expense ratio of 18.29 % for the Riverside Transit Agency and 1 5.77 % for the SunLine Transit Agency; 2) reaffirm the methodology used to calculate the required ratio; 3) request Caltrans' concurrence with the methodology and ratios for FY 2000-01; and 4) forward to the Commission for final action. Plans & Programs Committee Meeting June 26, 2000 Page 4 12. SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA INTERCITY RAIL GROUP REAUTHORIZATION AND MEMBERSHIP Pg. 29 Overview This item is to seek Committee approval of 1) Adopting the proposed "Amendment to the Joint Powers Group Agreement Extending the Duration of the Southern California Intercity Rail Group;" and 2) Renewing RCTC's membership on the Southern California Intercity Rail Group for the coming fiscal year and authorizing membership contribution of $10,000; and forward to the Commission for final action. 13. RESOLUTION IN SUPPORT OF AMTRAK INTERCITY PASSENGER RAIL SERVICE, COACHELLA VALLEY TO LOS ANGELES Pg. 34 Overview This item is to seek Committee approval of the attached Resolution No. 00-012 in Support of Amtrak Intercity Rail Service linking the Coachella Valley, Riverside and Los Angeles, and forwarding the resolution to the Commission for final adoption. 14. RAIL PROGRAM UPDATE Pg. 36 Overview This item is to seek Committee approval to receive and file the Rail Program Update and forward to the Commission for final action. • • • • • • Plans & Programs Committee Meeting June 26, 2000 Page 5 15. RESTRUCTURING THE CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE/SOCIAL SERVICE TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY COUNCIL Pg. 37 Overview This item is to seek Committee approval to: 1) Restructure the Citizens Advisory Committee/Social Service Transportation Advisory Council (CAC/SSTAC); 2) Direct the RCTC Chairman to appoint an Ad Hoc Sub Committee consisting of four Commissioners to assist staff in the restructuring of the CAC/SSTAC. Commissioners appointed should represent the geographic areas of the county including one member from the Coachella Valley, one from the Pass area, one from the Temecula/Hemet/San Jacinto area, and one member from the western portion of the county; and 3) Forward to the Commission for final action. 16. REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS FOR INSTALLATION OF CALTRANS TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT CENTER (TMC) SITES AND SMART CALL BOXES FOR THE CONGESTION MANAGEMENT PROGRAM ENHANCED TRAFFIC MONITORING SYSTEM Pg. 40 Overview This item is to seek Committee approval to advertise two Requests For Proposals (RFPs) for the installation of Ca!trans Traffic Monitoring Center (TMC) Sites and Smart Call Boxes along the congestion management system to implement the Congestion Management Program (CMP) Enhanced Traffic Monitoring System and forward for Commission action. Plans & Programs Committee Meeting June 26, 2000 Page 6 17. ADJOURNMENT - There will not be a Plans and Programs Committee meeting in July, 2000. The next meeting will be at noon, Monday, August 28, 2000 at the RCTC offices. • • • MINUTES • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMM/SS/ON PLANS AND PROGRAMS COMMITTEE Monday, May 22, 2000 MINUTES 1. CALL TO ORDER The meeting of the Plans and Programs Committee was called to order by Chairperson Robin Lowe at 1 1 :45 a.m., at the offices of the Riverside County Transportation Commission, 3560 University, Suite 100, Riverside, California, 92501. 2. ROLL CALL Members Present: Members Absent: Eugene Bourbonnais Daryl Busch Bob Buster* Percy Byrd Frank Hall Dick Kelly Will Kleindienst Robin Lowe Gregory Schook Jack van Haaster Roy Wilson Gerald Zeller Robert Crain Greg Ruppert 3. PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no public comments. 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES M/S/C (Kleindienst/van Haaster) approve the minutes dated April 24, 2000 as written. At this time, Eric Haley, Executive Director, requested to add "Revised Project Funding Request" as a late breaking item to the agenda. It came to staff's attention after the agency has been posted and mailed that a revised project funding request must be presented to the Transportation Finance Conference Committee this M/S/C (Wilson/Byrd) to determine that the "Revised Project Funding Request" as a late breaking item as it came to staff's attention after the agenda was posted and mailed. 5. 1997 OZONE STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN SHORTFALL M/S/C Ivan Haaster/Hall) receive and file the 1997 Ozone State Implementation Plan Shortfall item and forward to the Commission for final action. 6. CETAP STATUS REPORT Steve Smith, Transcore, stated that the CETAP program has two elements: 1) As an ongoing and an update of the circulation element of the general plan for Riverside County; and, 2) the corridor selection process. The two working papers included in the agenda packet are part of Plans and Programs Committee Minutes May 22, 2000 Page 2 the basis for the recommendation. The Purpose and Needs Statement is part of the federal process that will lead to getting permits and environmental documents approved. A final recommendation on is scheduled to occur at the June 6`h CETAP Advisory Committee. Their recommendation will be forwarded to the full Commission for consideration at their June 14" meeting. He then reviewed discussions held with other counties to gain their support and cooperation regarding top priority projects. Commissioner Kleindienst reminded the Committee of the discussion held last month relating to the continuation or re -issuance of Measure "A" and the CETAP Advisory Committee's recommendation will determine the most important components of the plan, and noted its application to the reauthorization of Measure "A" although there are no corridors, per se, planned for Eastern Riverside County. Chairperson Lowe indicated that the issue of a new corridor into Eastern Riverside County will probably be addressed through the proposal in the Pass area. Vice -Chairman Percy Byrd expressed his concern that the realignment of Route 79 and its connection to 1-10 was not included in the CETAP process to which Steve Smith stated that it had not specifically been addressed in the corridor definition, but the CETAP Advisory Committee did discuss the issues. Chairperson Lowe added that it will be addressed along with the Route 60 connection truck traffic. Commissioner Bob Buster asked what the cost estimates are for each of the corridors and Steve Smith replied that at this point the cost estimates are approximate, but they show the magnitude of what is being discussed. Cathy Bechtel, Program Manager, explained that once two corridors are designated, more in depth work will be done. M/S/C (Wilson/Byrd) that the Commission receive and file the CETAP Working Paper #6 - Screening -Level Evaluation of Alternatives in the Four Priority Corridors and forward to the Commission for final action. 7. FY 01 AND 02 SPECIALIZED TRANSIT TWO-YEAR CALL FOR PROJECTS Tanya Love, Program Manager, reviewed the process that the Evaluation Committee consisting of Supervisor Bob Buster, Larry Rubio, Bill Densmore, Fortunato Penilla, and Heather Menninger used to develop the recommendations before the Committee. Dom Betro, Family Services Association, spoke regarding his concerns as follows: 1) defunding a service that has been providing valuable assistance for over eight years under contract with RCTC; 2) the application was unclear in that it included existing Services; 3) had discussed applying for areas like Meade Valley and Sun City but was told to wait for the special demonstration project; 4) that a former board member of TSI served on the review committee and that RTA had a vested interest in TSI; 5) TSI underbid all of the other applicants, nonprofit organization runs on a very tight budget which makes it difficult, if not impossible, to undercut competitors; and, 6) RCTC used unproven passenger projections and whether these were new or additional passengers. He stated that the Dial -A -Ride Services do not adequately respond to the needs of seniors in the area. The results of approving the staff recommendation will be fewer transportation services for seniors in the Jurupa area and that there will be one less alternative, one less nonprofit organization meeting the diverse needs of seniors in geographically challenging environments. Commissioner Buster asked about the differences in cost estimates between the agencies and • • • Plans and Programs Committee Minutes May 22, 2000 Page 3 felt that further analysis is needed. Cathy Bechtel explained that the cost estimates were very closely reviewed and staff was comfortable with these estimates. There were no conflict of interests noted at the time of review because none of the members sit on the existing board. Tanya Love added that a rating scale was not used, but more of a review of duplicating services and who is best able to provide that service. M/S/C (Kleindienst/van Haaster) recommend that the Commission: 1) Allocate the Measure A Specialized Transit Funds available in the western Riverside County as presented on Attachment A; 2) Place in contingency $17,000 in FY 02 for Transportation Specialist's Training Program; 3) Place in contingency $85,200 for Valley Restart Shelter, Inc. pending additional staff input. Staff will work with existing service providers to determine if existing transportation services are available to transport Valley Restart clients; 4) Place in contingency $72,000 until such time the Transportation Specialists, Inc. can adequately show that they can provide the proposed services; and 5) Direct the Evaluation Committee to review the concerns by Family Services and include in the report to the Commission. 8. SAN JACINTO BRANCH LINE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION FOR STRATEGIC PLAN Judy Witzig, Schiermeyer Consulting Services, provided a brief presentation on the estimated potential for short -distance rail transit ridership along two major transportation corridors within the southwestern Riverside County. The study looked at going directly from Riverside along an improved Union Pacific Branch Line down the San Jacinto which is a distance of approximately 37 miles. With the inclusion of the line to Temecula, it would make this a system of approximately 55 miles that would operate with a potential of 25 stations. The present growth forecast for 2020 was used. She then reviewed the elements included in the study to form the model such as the type of train car that could be used for these short -hauls. The daily number from this narrow corridor in the range from the Riverside to San Jacinto in 2005 would be between 3160 and 6125 jumping up to 9,000 riders for all types of trips all day. She reviewed the ridership estimates and the method used to arrive at those numbers. She noted that a comparison was done of similar lines and how the ridership estimate compared to the actual ridership on those lines. In the period up to 2020 the corridor might be better served by an express bus system to build ridership. Eric Haley pointed out that the Commission is on the cusp of making a very important decision regarding the San Jacinto Branch and the extension of commuter rail service into the City of Perris at a cost of $86 million with $39 million predicated upon grants. This is the end of a year long process. The decision before the committee today is whether or not to move forward with commuter rail out that far and commit to a program of projects and advocacy for the next nine years. As a by-product of that decision approximately $29 million would be freed up for projects in Western Riverside County since this was a Western rail allocation. Plans and Programs Committee Minutes May 22, 2000 Page 4 M/S/C (Byrd/Busch) recommend Commission approval for: 1) Receiving the preliminary "Southwest Riverside Short -Haul Rail -Transit Ridership Estimate" report prepared by Schiermeyer Consulting Services; 2) Adopting the Commuter Rail option for passenger service between Riverside and Perris along the San Jacinto Branch Line (and Riverside Branch Line) for inclusion in the pending Strategic Plan update; and 3) Reserving $39 million in Measure "A" funds accruing before 2009 to rail projects, including $15 million capital and $ 5 million operating to the San Jacinto Branch Line project. 9. SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA INTERCITY RAIL GROUP REAUTHORIZATION AND MEMBERSHIP This item was pulled from the agenda and will be presented at a later meeting of the Committee. 10. RAIL PROGRAM UPDATE It was determined that the Commission receive and file the Rail Program Update. 11. FY 2001-2007 SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN M/S/C (Wilson/Kleindienst) recommend that the Commission approve the FY 2001-07 Short Range Transit Plans for the cities of Banning, Beaumont, Corona, and Region Commuter Rail as presented. 12. RESOLUTION NO. 00-008 "RESOLUTION OF THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION AMENDING GUIDELINES FOR THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE MEASURE "A" FUNDED COMMUTER INCENTIVE PROJECTS AS PART OF ITS COMMUTER ASSISTANCE PROGRAM" M/S/C Ivan Haaster/Byrd) recommend that the Commission: 1) Adopt Resolution No. 00-008 'Resolution of the Riverside County Transportation Commission amending guidelines for the administration of the Measure 'A" Funded Commuter Incentive Projects as part of its Commuter Assistance Program". 13. FY 00/01 MEASURE A COMMUTER ASSISTANCE BUSPOOL SUBSIDY FUNDING CONTINUATION REQUESTS M/S/C Ivan Haaster/Kleindienst) recommend that the Commission: 1) Authorize payment of $1,175/month per buspool for the period July 1, 2000 to June 30, 2001 to the existing Riverside/Fullerton, Riverside/EI Segundo and Moreno Valley/EI Segundo buspools, and one additional buspool upon receipt of a written request for subsidy support; 21 Direct Raytheon staff to stage the Riverside/Fullerton buspool at a park and ride lot other than the La Sierra MetroLink station; • • • Plans and Programs Committee Minutes May 22, 2000 Page 5 3) Direct Ratheon staff to develop a marketing plan for the Riverside/Fullerton buspool to ensure that ridership numbers meet or exceed the minimum ridership threshold of 25 passengers per month; and 4) Continue the existing monthly and semi-annual buspool reporting requirements as support documentation to monthly subsidy payments. 14. SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA RIDESHARE FY 00/01 RIDESHARE Fv 00/01 WORK PROGRAM CONTRACT M/S/C (Byrd/van Haaster) recommend that the Commission: 1) Approve the FY 00/01 Southern California Rideshare (SCR) Regional Rideshare Services Work Program; 2) Authorize the expenditure of Congestion Mitigation/Air Quality funds in an amount not to exceed $245,786 pursuant to adoption of RCTC's FY 00/01 budget; and 3) Authorize the RCTC Chairman to execute an agreement pursuant to legal counsel review, with SCR. 15. REVISED PROJECT FUNDING REQUEST M/S/C (Byrd/van Haaster) recommend that the Commission review and approve a revised project funding request dated May 18, 2000 to be presented to the Transportation Finance Conference Committee. Commissioner Kleindienst requested staff to add SCAG's MagLev Deployment Project Application to the Commission's agenda in June. 16. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business for consideration by the Plans and Programs Committee, the meeting was adjourned at 1 :22 p.m. The next meeting will be at 12 p.m., Monday, June 26, 2000 at the RCTC offices. Respectfully submitted, ) -c Traci R. McGinley Deputy Clerk of the Board 2 �' • AGENDA ITEM 5 • • • RIVERS/DE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMM/SS/ON DATE: June 26, 2000 TO: Plans and Programs Committee FROM: Cathy Bechtel, Director of Planning and Programming THROUGH: Hideo Sugita, Deputy Executive Director SUBJECT: 2000 STIP Augmentation STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is to seek Committee approval to move forward with the development of a call for projects for the 2000 STIP Augmentation cycle identified by CTC recognizing the need to be flexible in order to accommodate the Governor's transportation program recommendations and any additional programming capacity which may result and forward to the Commission for final action. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: At their June 2000 meeting, the California Transportation Commission adopted the 2000 State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) Augmentation Fund Estimate. The Revised Fund Estimate for the 2000 STIP makes available about $1 .025 billion in new STIP programming capacity for the four-year period through FY 2003-04. Additionally, the Fund Estimate estimates an additional $390 million in State Highway Operation and Protection Program (SHOPP) funds. The SHOPP program is for state highway safety, rehabilitation, and operations projects which are proposed and developed by Ca'trans As shown on Attachment I, a total of $61 .074 million in total programming capacity is available in Riverside County. This includes $33.496M in new programming capacity as well as $27.578 million in prior unprogrammed STIP balances. Given our intracounty STIP formula, the new funding capacity would be split as follows: Discretionary: 24.20% $ 8,106,032 Formula: 75.80% $25,389,968 Western County 72.23% $18,339,174* Coachella Valley 26.39% $ 6,700,413 Palo Verde Valley 1 .38% $ 350,381 * All Western County formula funds have been committed to widening of SR91between Mary and Seventh Streets per RCTC action January 12, 2000. ,v) 0 0 01_ The unprogrammed balances consists of the following: Western County: 1998 STIP 1-215 reservation 1998 STIP Augm Rt 91 Mary/Magnolia 1998 STIP Augm 60/215 TCL Coachella Valley: 1998 STIP Balance 1998 STIP Augmentation 2% PPM 1998 STIP Augmentation Balance Palo Verde Valley: 1998 STIP Balance 1998 STIP Augmentation 2% PPM 1998 STIP Augmentation Balance 1998 El Nino/Rehab Balance Discretionary Pot: 1998 STIP Augmentation 2% PPM 1998 STIP Augmentation Balance 1998 El Nino/Rehab Balance TOTAL UNPROGRAMMED $ 728,988 $ 10, 278,000 $ 7,200,000 $ 18,206,988 $ 1,123, 794 $ 114,637* $ 5,664,910 $ 6,903,341 $ 1,385,218 $ 2,077 $ 296,232 $ 156,906 $ 1,840,433 $ 491,946 $ 2,198 $ 133,017 $ 627,161 $ 27,577,923 *note: CVAG requested programming of$24, 780 in PPM funds for additional costs on the 1-10 PSR. These funds are still included in the unprogrammed balance column. NEXT STEPS: The schedule adopted by the CTC for the 2000 STIP Augmentation is as follows: Regions submit Regional Program List Caltrans submits Interregional Program List CTC STIP hearings CTC publishes staff recommendations CTC adopts 2000 STIP Augmentation By September 29, 2000 By September 29, 2000 Oct -Nov 2000 November 16, 2000 December 5-6, 2000 There are a couple of issues which may have a material impact on how the Commission approaches this programming opportunity. At the time of this agenda, • • i00(102 • • • staff could not confirm the final outcome of what is specifically included in the Governor's transportation program. Secondly, given AB 1012, there is an advance programming capacity element for this STIP cycle. This would allow RCTC to program $13.235M beyond the new funding availability ($33.496M-$18.339M committed = $15.157M) or up to $28.392M plus the uncommitted funds in the Coachella and Palo Verde Valleys, as well as the uncommitted discretionary funds ($9,370,375), for a total of $37.762M in available unprogrammed capacity. The intent of the advance project development element of AB 1012 is to advance the development and delivery of transportation projects in order ;o reduce the excessive fund balance in the state highway account. It is very important to note that if the Commission does not make programming recommendations in accordance with the aggressive CTC schedule, we could temporarily "lose" access to program these funds. Under a normalized condition SB 45 provides for an "entitlement" of the STIP funds to the Commission. However due to CTC desiring to manage the STIP in a manner which encourages putting these funds to work rather than having them sit in the state highway account may create a situation where unprogrammed Commission programming capacity may be used by other areas until the 2002 STIP. Staff recommends that we move forward with the development of a call for projects for the 2000 STIP Augmentation cycle identified by CTC. We need to recognize the need to be flexible in order to accommodate the Governor's transportation program recommendations and any additional programming capacity which may result. i�0000 • • • 2000 STIP FUND ESTIMATE AUGMENTATION COUNTY AND INTERREGIONAL SHARES Includes STIP Amendments and Allocations Anticipated Through June 2000 (stows) County Prior STIP Balances Total Programming Capacity Available Advances Remaining Project Development Element (AB1012) Unprogrd Balance Balance Advancedt Added Capacity Alameda 8,511 0 28,370 36,881 0 11,210 Alpine/Amador/Calaveras 3,708 0 4,653 8,361 0 1,839 Butte 9,190 0 5,469 14,659 0 2,161 Colusa 01 350 1,403 1,053 0 554 Contra Costa 7,595 0 17,673 25,268 0 6,983 Del Norte 0 4,666 1,340 0 3,326 529 El Dorado LTC 1,868 0 3,238 5,106 0 1,280 Fresno 0 47,464 18,662 0 28,802 7,374 Glenn 0 343 1,537 1,194 0 607 Humboldt 16,227 0 5,595 21,822 0 2,211 Imperial 10,142 0 8,692 18,834 0 3,435 Inyo 4,038 0 7,359 11,397 0 2,908 Kem 139 0 24,467 24,606 0 9,667 Kings 1,843 0 3,554 5,397 0 1,404 Lake 7,957 0 2,308 10,265 0 912 Lassen 0 276 3,375 3,099 0 1,334 Los Angeles 31,762 0 179,702 211,464 0 71,004 Madera 248 0 3,049 3,297 0 1,205 Marin 0 0 5,847 5,847 0 2,310 Mariposa 31 0 1,136 1,167 0 449 Mendocino 405 0 5,215 5,620 0 2,061 Merced 462 0 6,058 6,520 0 2,394 Modoc 3,098 0 1,852 4,950 0 732 Mono 0 2,150 5,392 3,242 0 2,130 Monterey 0 10,065 10,037 0 28 3,966 Napa 2,730 0 3,330 6,060 0 1,316 Nevada 602 0 2,831 3,433 0 1,118 Orange 59,198 0 48,888 108,086 0 19,317 Placer TPA 0 7,448 4,583 0 2,865 1,811 Plumas 2,940 0 2,102 5,042 0 831 Riverside � 27,578 0 33,496 61,074 0 13,235 Sacramento 156 0 23,638 23,794 0 9,340 San Benito 699 0 1,676 2,375 0 662 San Bemardino 12,125 0 46,366 58,485 0 18,318 San Diego 34,971 0 56,372 91,343 0 22,274 San Francisco 814 0 15,275 16,089 0 6,036 San Joaquin 22,747 0 12,386 35,133 0 4,894 San Luis Obispo 0 616 10,081 9,465 0 3,983 San Mateo 4,762 0 15,441 20,203 0 6,101 Santa Barbara 1,818 0 11,876 13,694 . 0 4,692 Santa Clara 0 0 33,347 33,347 0 13,176 Santa Cruz 1,846 0 5,901 7,747 0 2,331 Shasta 3,834 0 5,949 9,783 0 2,350 Sierra 1,106 0 975 2,081 0 385 Siskiyou 0 18 4,149 4,131 0 1,639 Solano 0 0 8,507 8,507 0 3,361 Sonoma 7,160 0 10,281 17,441 0 4,062 Stanislaus 15,931 0 9,347 25,278 0 3,693 Sutter 126 0 2,108 2,234 0 833 Tahoe RPA 3,136 0 1,405 4,541 0 555 Tehama 3,539 0 2,945 6,484 0 1,164 Trinity 1,983 0 2,139 4,122 0 845 Tulare 33,872 0 11,611 ' 45,483 0 4,588 Tuolumne 2,348 0 2,432 4,780 0 961 Ventura 3,528 0 16,953 20,481 0 6,698 Yolo 103 0 4,579 4,682 0 1,809 Yuba 129 0 1,804 1,933 0 713 Statewide Regional 357,005 73,396 768,750 1,087,380 35,021 303,750 Interregional 0 70,363 256,250 185,887 0 101,250 Statewide Total 357,005 143,759_ 1,025,000_ 1,273,267 35,021 405,000 California Transportation Commission 6/13/00 inpo04 • AGENDA ITEM 6 • • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMM/SS/ON DATE: June 26, 2000 TO: Plans and Programs Committee FROM: Jerry Rivera, Program Manager THROUGH: Cathy Bechtel, Director of Planning and Programming SUBJECT: Unmet Transit Needs Hearing Testimony and Responses STAFF RECOMMENDATION This item is to seek Committee approval to recommend to the Commission 1) that it reaffirm its definition of "Unmet Transit Needs" and "Reasonable to Meet"; 2) that based upon a review of requests for services received through the "unmet transit needs" hearing process, review of existing services and proposed improvements to the available services, the Commission make a finding that there are no unmet transit needs which can be reasonably met in the Palo Verde Valley area; and 3) that the Commission adopt Resolution No. 00-011. BACKGROUND INFORMATION State law requires that prior to making any allocations of Local Transportation Funds not directly related to public transit, the Commission must identify the unmet transit needs in the area and determine those that are reasonable to meet. At least one public hearing must be held to solicit comments on unmet transit needs. The only area that this determination of unmet needs is applicable is in the Palo Verde Valley where it is anticipated that not all funds will be needed for transit. In the Western County and Coachella Valley, all available local transit funds are being used for transit service. The Commission held a public hearing in Blythe on March 2, 2000. Commissioners Kleindienst, Kelly, Crain and Wilson acted as the hearing board. Notice of the hearing was advertised twice in the local newspaper and notices were mailed to social service agencies in the area, the local college, medical facilities, public library, and residents who previously had expressed interest in transit services. We had six (6) people provide comments at the hearing regarding the service needs in the area. Attached is a summary of the comments received. We worked with staff from the City of Blythe to determine what improvements were reasonable to meet based on the projected productivity. The requests relating to connecting service to the VA clinic in Palm Desert and the hospital in Loma Linda appear to be the primary concern at this time. The City of T00005 Blythe and RCTC staff will work with the County Veterans Services department and the Veterans Advisory Committee to develop a program *to transport clients to their appointments. As noted on the attached letter from Mr. Les Nelson, Blythe's City Manager, there are three viable options that are being explored as a means of providing transportation service to veterans in the Blythe area. The Commission's Citizens Advisory Committee/Social Service Advisory Council reviewed the service requests and responses at their meeting on June 19, 2000. The Committee recommendation was to find that there may be unmet transit needs that could be reasonably met. They further recommended that $20,000 be set aside to fund transportation service from the Blythe area to the outpatient clinic in Palm Desert and/or VA hospital in Loma Linda. Prior to allocating any Transportation Development Act (TDA) funds for street and road purposes, the Commission must adopt by resolution a finding that there are no unmet transit needs that can be reasonably met by existing or proposed service contained in the Short Range Transit Plan for Riverside County. The Commission previously adopted a definition of "Unmet Transit Needs" and "Reasonable to Meet". The definitions are as follows: "Unmet Transit Needs are, at a minimum, those public transportation or specialized transportation services that are identified in the Regional Short Range Transit Plan Report, and the Regional Transportation Plan (Regional Mobility Plan) that have not been implemented or funded." "Reasonable to meet shall include the following factors: community acceptance, timing, equity, economy (both short term and long term), and cost effectiveness including the ability to meet the required farebox ratios." Based upon the above definition, staff recommends the Commission make a finding that there are no unmet transit needs which can be reasonably met in the Palo Verde Valley area. Both Blythe and RCTC staff believe it is not cost effective to dedicate a vehicle for one or two trips per month into the Coachella Valley. A demonstration program was implemented four or five years ago by the Palo Verde Valley Transit Agency to provide transportation to and from the Coachella Valley, but it was terminated because of lack of ridership and extraordinary costs per passenger trip. Also, we both believe the options mentioned in the attached letter should be pursued. All persons that provided comments were provided written responses and notified of this Commission meeting. • n0o06 • • • RESOLUTION NO. 00-011 RESOLUTION OF THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION ADOPTING A FINDING THAT THERE ARE NO UNMET TRANSIT NEEDS THAT ARE REASONABLE TO MEET IN THE PALO VERDE VALLEY AREA WHEREAS, the Commission has identified the transit needs of residents in the Palo Verde Valley area, including the needs of seniors, persons with disabilities and the transit dependent; and WHEREAS, the Commission has held a properly noticed public hearing on March 2, 2000, and solicited written comments, to gather information to assist in identifying unmet transit needs in the Palo Verde Valley area; and WHEREAS, the Commission has defined "Unmet Transit Needs" as, at a minimum, those public transportation or specialized transportation services that are identified in the Regional Short Range Transit Plan Report, and the Regional Transportation Plan (Regional Mobility Plan) that have not been implemented or funded; and WHEREAS, the Commission has defined "reasonable to meet" as including the following factors: community acceptance, timing, equity, economy (both short term and long term), and cost effectiveness including the ability to meet the required farebox ratios; and WHEREAS, pursuant to California Public Utilities Code section 99401.5, the Commission has consulted with the Commission's Citizens' Advisory Committee/Social Services Transportation Advisory Council regarding the transit needs of the Palo Verde Valley area; and WHEREAS, an analysis of the existing public transportation services (dial -a -ride) in the Palo Verde Valley has been completed, and with the planned improvements that will be included in the FY 2001-2007 Riverside County Short Range Transit Plan, was found to be adequate to meet the needs of seniors, persons with disabilities, the transit dependent and the general public; NOW, THEREFORE, the Riverside County Transportation Commission hereby resolves: That the Commission adopts the finding that there are no unmet transit needs in the Palo Verde Valley area of Riverside County that are reasonable to meet. APPROVED AND ADOPTED, this 12th day of July, 2000. ATTEST: Tom Mullen, Chairperson Riverside County Transportation Commission Naty Kopenhaver, Clerk of the Riverside County Transportation Commission k • 00007 • BLYTHE CITY HALL March 2, 2000 Name/Organization FY 2000-01 UT TRANSIT NEEDS Summary of Testhigiriy and Staff Responses Summary of Comments Chuck Grotke 8401 E. Hobson Way Blythe, CA 92225 Consider going back to a fixed route system within the next 3 to 5 years. Staff Response Jim Carney Blythe Veterans Committee 260 N. Spring Street Blythe, CA 92225 P. H. Bud Schaaf Colorado River Senior Center HCR 20 Box 2725M Blythe, CA 92225??? Requesting transportation for veterans from the Blythe area to Palm Desert and back. Requested bus service North of Blythe up to the County line or at least up to Lost Lake. Also requested RCTC's assistance to have Caltrans move up the schedule of widening and repair of Highway 95. RCTC approved a sum of money to conduct an Origin/ Destination Study to determine the feasibility of a fixed -route service. PVVTA is going to request the Commission to allow the carryover of these funds to do the study in 2001 /02. The TRIP program which provides reimbursement to volunteer drivers is currently available. The PVVTA is continuing to work with Richard Smith in identifying a driver pool to better utilize the TRIP program. Unfortunately, population density ir, the area will not support the cost effective operation of a van service. The TRIP service is available and its usage is encouraged. BLYTHE TRANSIT NEEDS HEARING March 2, 2000 Name/Organization Summary of Comments Staff Response Page 2 Col. Tom Henry Palm Springs, CA 92262 Trying to set up a new transportation system to get Veterans from Blythe to the clinic in Palm Desert and to the hospital in Loma Linda. Staff is working with the local Veterans Advisory Committee, County Veterans Services, and RCTC to identify possible options. Bill Densmore, Director Riverside County Veterans Services 1153A Spruce Riverside, CA 9250 Wants support to help link -up the veterans of the Palo Verde Valley with the VA Hospital in Loma Linda. See above response. Annie Tuttle Veterans Affairs Medical Center 11201 Benton Street Loma Linda, CA Followed up on requests made by Bill Densmore. See above response. • • • • • • CITY OF BLYTHE 235 North Broadway / Blythe, California 92225 Phone (760) 922-6161 / Fax (760) 922-4938 Lei L1� - - /i f'une 16, 2000 Mr. Jerry Rivera Riverside County Transportation Commission 3560 University Avenue, Suite 100 Riverside, CA 925501- Re: Veterans Health Care - Transportation Dear Jerry: 050583 Per our telephone conversation, to follow is a very brief snapshot of activities under consideration relative to transportation for Veterans in the Blythe area. In particular the transportation issue includes at a minimum service to -and -from the Veterans Community Based Outpatient Clinic (CBOC) in Palm Desert, and maybe also the Veterans Hospital in Loma Linda. Option 1 - A program through the County of Riverside Department of Veterans Services, incorporating a van secured through GSA. Contact is Bill Densmore. Option 2 - RCTC Board Member Kleindienst is looking for RCTC funds to supplement the normal transit service provided by Palo Verde Valley Transit Agency (PVVTA). This would be a special twice a month service into Palm Desert. Option 3 - Working through the Countywide TRIP Program whereby veterans would travel with a friend and have the ability to reimburse the cost at .28¢ a mile. Sincerely, Les Nelson City Manager LN:Vr cc: Helen Colbert, Finance Director °�0010 AGENDA ITEM 7 RIVERS/DE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMM/SS/ON DATE: June 26, 2000 TO: Plans and Programs Committee FROM: Jerry Rivera, Program Manager THROUGH: Cathy Bechtel, Director of Planning and Programming SUBJECT: FY 2001-2007 Short Range Transit Plans STAFF RECOMMENDATION This item is to seek Committee approval of the FY 2001-07 Short Range Transit Plans for the City of Riverside, Palo Verde Valley Transit Agency, Riverside Transit Agency, and SunLine Transit Agency as presented and forward to the Commission for final action. BACKGROUND INFORMATION At its meeting on June 14, 2000, the Commission approved the FY 2001-2007 Short Range Transit Plans (SRTP) for the cities of Banning, Beaumont, and Corona and Regional Commuter Rail. The Riverside County SRTP covers the three apportionment areas of the county and is comprised of plans for the above four operators, the City of Riverside, the Palo Verde Valley Transit Agency (PVVTA), Riverside Transit Agency (RTA), and SunLine Transit Agency. The Plans for the last four operators were reviewed by the Commission's Citizens' Advisory Committee (CAC) on June 19, 2000. The CAC was supportive of the proposed SRTPs as presented. Following is a summary of service highlights/changes: Riverside Special Services The City of Riverside's SRTP proposes an operating budget of $1,300,200 for FY 2001, a decrease of $50,187 from FY 2000. The City has operated a 24-hour advance registration dial -a -ride for the elderly and persons with disabilities since June, 1975. This specialized transportation service provides transportation to anywhere within the city limits. Ridership is projected at about 148,000 passengers for the coming fiscal year. The City is anticipating an increased marketing effort, a training program for drivers, and beginning service one hour earlier on Sundays in FY 2001. Palo Verde Valley Transit Agency The Palo Verde Valley Transit Agency SRTP proposes an operating budget of $219,600 for FY 2001, a $71,547 decrease from FY 2000. The PVVTA operates a dial -a -ride service for the general public in the City of Blythe and adjacent unincorporated area. Service has been provided by the Valley Resource Center under (10011. a contractual agreement with PVVTA since September, 1981. The Short Range Transit Plan for the PVVTA proposes a continuation of existing services for FY 2001. Riverside Transit Agency Riverside Transit Agency's SRTP proposes an operating budget of $29,900,000 for FY 2001, an increase of 14.3 % over FY 2000. The increase will support a 7% and 13% increase in annual revenue service miles and hours, respectively. Increases in operating expenses are attributable to a full year impact of the Sunday service implemented in January 2000, expanded ADA Intercity and After Hours service, new demonstration and contracted fixed route operations, fuel costs and inflationary adjustments for goods and services. The capital budget for FY 2001 totals $8,308,000 and includes the following projects: $4,380,000 for the purchase of ten (10) replacement and two (2) expansion coaches; $1,200,000 for the purchase of ten (10) replacement and ten (10) expansion paratransit vehicles; $1,000,000 for the purchase of Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) software system; and $1,109,000 for a variety of miscellaneous items including debt service on transit coaches purchased with Certificates of. Participation, the purchase of eight (8) support vehicles, the purchase of vehicles maintenance equipment and spares, bus zone maintenance, facilities upgrades, operations and office equipment. Also included in this year's capital program is the advanced purchase of an additional fifty-seven (57) full-size transit coaches through a bond -financed loan program offered by the California Transit Finance Authority. This includes 28 replacement and 29 expansion coaches. SunLine Transit Agency SunLine's SRTP proposes a $13,733,000 budget, an increase of $1,578,000 over FY 2000. Resources in FY 2001 will be dedicated to minor changes in fixed route service, balanced with the first full year on running unDial "in house" and the SunLink connector service to the Inland Empire. • Line 111 schedule will be adjusted to allow for a consistent 25 minute headway and an added weekend trip in order to keep the same operating hours as the week days; • Adjust the schedule on Line 24 to maintain its 75 minute headway; • Realigned service on Line 14 which will eliminate north and south travel along Sunrise and Farrell between Ramon and Palm Canyon and begin service along the Tahquitz Canyon corridor in Palm Springs; • Continue SunLink service with four round trips per day to the Metrolink station in Riverside (an additional mid -day trip is listed in the SRTP but will only be scheduled if funding becomes available); • Implement Line 92, a three month demonstration project of feeder service in the Tyler Street area of Coachella to connect passengers from their neighborhoods n 0 0 Z r<.; over a railroad crossing to the Line 90 and 91; and {1 • • • Add a third vehicle to Shopper Hopper Line 51 to serve major hotels along the Highway 111 corridor between Indian Wells and Palm Desert. The capital budget includes $565,000 for the annual "COPS" payment for 34 CNG buses purchased in 1994, $106,000 for two new replacement paratransit vehicles, $450,000 for hydrogen fueling infrastructure, $143,000 for 3 replacement support vehicles, as well as routine maintenance, computer and office equipment. Financial Assessment Project Cost $41,784,434 Source of Funds LTF, STA, FTA, Measure "A" Included in Fiscal Year Budget Y Year Included in Program Budget Y Year Programmed 2000- 01 Approved Allocation Y Year of Allocation 2000- 01 Budget Adjustment Required N Financial Impact Not Applicable n0013 AGENDA ITEM 8 • • • RIVERS/DE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMM/SS/ON DATE: June 26, 2000 TO: Plans and Programs Committee FROM: Jerry Rivera, Program Manager THROUGH: Cathy Bechtel, Director of Planning and Programming SUBJECT: FY 2001 FTA Section 5307 Program of Projects STAFF RECOMMENDATION This item is to seek Committee approval of the FY 2000-01 FTA Section 5307 Program of Projects for Riverside County and forward to the Commission for final action. BACKGROUND INFORMATION Annually, the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) distributes federal operating and capital block grant funds to urbanized areas through its Section 5307 Program (formerly known as Section 9). There are four urbanized areas in Riverside County: Western Riverside County; Hemet; Palm Springs; and Indio/Coachella. In order for grants from these funds to be approved, the Commission must develop a Program of Projects for each area, hold a public hearing on the programs, and approve the programs. Program of Projects for the four areas in Riverside County have been developed using the FY 1999-2000 area apportionments. The actual apportionments will not be known until later this calendar year when final appropriations are made by Congress. The Programs have been developed at the highest anticipated amount to allow the operators to proceed with filing their grant applications and to avoid delays, program amendments and additional paperwork if the actual apportionments are in fact lower than estimated. The proposed Programs of Projects contain projects taken from the Short Range Transit Plan (SRTP) for FY 2001-2007 and were developed in cooperation with the eligible public transit operators. The balances available will be carried over to next fiscal year. A notice of the public hearing will be published in the newspaper prior to the Commission meeting and private transit operators will be provided a copy of each program, advised of the hearing and encouraged to comment on the programs. 00014 • URBANIZED AREA: BUS APPORTIONMENT: RAIL APPORTIONMENT: CARRYOVER FUNDS -BUS: CARRYOVER FUNDS -RAIL: TRANSFER FUNDS -BUS: TOTAL FUNDS AVAIL -BUS: TOTAL FUNDS AVAIL -RAIL: PROGRAM OF PROJECTS FTA SECTION 5307 FY 2000/01 RIVERSIDE - SAN BERNARDINO $4,465, 893 $3,785,814 $2,190,465 $9,622,057 $0 $6,985,465 $15, 622, 057 RECIPIENTS: SUBAREA APPORTIONMENTS RIVERSIDE TRANSIT AGENCY CITY OF CORONA CITY OF RIVERSIDE PROGRAM OF PROJECTS: (1) CITY OF CORONA -PREVENTATIVE MAINTENANCE (2) CITY OF CORONA - 3 REPLACEMENT VANS (3) CITY OF CORONA - NEW FACILITY CONSTR. (4) CITY OF RIVERSIDE - 5 REPLACEMENT VANS TOTAL AMOUNT $792,000 $180, 000 $250,000 $250,000 (5) RTA - 10 REPLACEMENT & 2 EXPANSION $4,380,000 TRANSIT COACHES (6) RTA - DEBT FINANCING FOR 57 TRANSIT COACHES (7) RTA - 20 DAR VANS (10R, 10E) $619, 000 $1,200,000 (8) RTA - BUS STOP AMENITIES $100,006 (9) RTA - OFFICE ITS HARDWARE & SOFTWARE $1,000,000 (10) RTA - 8 SERVICE SUPPORT VEHICLES (2R,6E) $208,000 (11) RTA - DEBT SERVICE PAYMENT FOR $379,000 10 TRANSIT COACHES TOTAL PROGRAMMED BALANCE AVAILABLE -BUS BALANCE AVAILABLE -RAIL Approved by RCTC: $5,226,000 $379,400 $207,500 FEDERAL PROJECT SHARE TYPE $30,000 C $149,400 C $200,000 C $207,500 C $2,504,000 C $495,000 C $960,000 C $80,000 C $800,000 C $84,000 C $303,000 C $9,358,000 $5,812,900 $1,172,565 $15,622,057 n 0 0 1 5 PROGRAM OF PROJECTS FTA SECTION 5307 FY 2000-01 URBANIZED AREA: HEMET APPORTIONMENT $886,135 CARRYOVER FUNDS: $71,539 TRANSFER FUNDS: $0 TOTAL FUNDS AVAILABLE: $957,674 RECIPIENTS: SUBAREA APPORTIONMENTS RIVERSIDE TRANSIT AGENCY $889,088 PROGRAM OF PROJECTS: (1) RTA Capitalized Purchased Transp. JULY 1, 2000 TO JUNE 30, 2001 TOTAL FEDERAL PROJECT DESIGNATED AMOUNT SHARE TYPE RECIPIENT $1,724,694 $886,135 C STATE TOTAL PROGRAMMED $1,724,694 $886,135 BALANCE AVAILABLE 871,539 APPROVED BY RCTC: July 12, 2000 J R: 6/20/00 n0016 • • PROGRAM OF PROJECTS FTA SECTION 5307 FY 2000-01 URBANIZED AREA: PALM SPRINGS APPORTIONMENT: $1,058,042 CARRYOVER FUNDS: $148,560 TRANSFER FUNDS: $0 -TOTAL FUNDS AVAILABLE: $1,206,602 RECIPIENTS: SUBAREA APPORTIONMENTS SUNLINE TRANSIT AGENCY $1,150,178 PROGRAM OF PROJECTS: TOTAL FEDERAL PROJECT DESIGNATED AMOUNT SHARE TYPE RECIPIENT (1) SUNLINE--OPERATING ASSISTANCE $13,987,000 $324,000 O STATE JULY 1, 2000 TO JUNE 30, 2001 (2) SUNLINE--LEASE/PURCHASE $565,000 $452,000 C STATE REPLACEMENT TRANSIT COACHES (3) SUNLINE-- HYDROGEN FUELING $450,000 $360,000 C STATE INFRASTRUCTURE (4) SUNLINE-- COMPUTER & $35,000 $14,178 C STATE ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT TOTAL PROGRAMMED $15,037,000 $1,150,178 BALANCE AVAILABLE $56,424 APPROVED BY RCTC: July 12, 2000 J R: 6/20/00 '�0017 URBANIZED AREA: APPORTIONMENT: CARRYOVER FUNDS: TRANSFER FUNDS: TOTAL FUNDS AVAILABLE: RECIPIENTS: SUNLINE TRANSIT AGENCY PROGRAM OF PROJECTS: (1) SUNLINE--Preventative Maintenance JULY 1, 2000 TO JUNE 30, 2001 (2) SUNLINE-- 2 Replace. Paratransit Veh. (3) SUNLINE-- 3 Replace. Support Veh. (4) SUNLINE-- Facility Improvements (5) SUNLINE-- Computer & Elec. Equip.. TOTAL PROGRAMMED BALANCE AVAILABLE APPROVED BY RCTC: July 12, 2000 n001b PROGRAM OF PROJECTS FTA SECTION 5307 FY 2000-01 INDIO/COACHELLA $535,822 $0 $0 $535,822 SUBAREA APPORTIONMENTS $535,822 TOTAL FEDERAL PROJECT DESIGNATED AMOUNT SHARE TYPE RECIPIENT $13,987,000 $254,000 0/C $106,000 $85,000 C $143,000 $114,000 C $212,000 $69,000 C $35,000 $13,822 C $14,483,000 $535,822 $0 STATE STATE STATE STATE STATE J R: 6/20/00 AGENDA ITEM 9 • • • • RIVERS/DE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMM/SS/ON DATE: June 26, 2000 TO: Plans and Programs Committee FROM: Jerry Rivera, Program Manager THROUGH: Cathy Bechtel, Director of Planning and Programming SUBJECT: FY 2001 FTA Section 5311 Rural Transportation Program STAFF RECOMMENDATION This item is to seek Committee approval of the proposed FY 2000-01 FTA Section 5311 Program of Projects for Riverside County and forward to the Commission for final action. BACKGROUND INFORMATION The Section 5311 Rural Transit Assistance Program from the Federal Transit Administration, formerly known as Section 18, provides federal operating assistance funds for rural transit operators. These funds are administered by Caltrans and the majority of the funds are passed through to counties based on a population formula. The remaining funds, if sufficient to justify a call for projects, are awarded in a statewide discretionary program by Caltrans for rural capital projects and intercity bus programs. Transit operators in counties where formula funds are fully programmed submit projects for discretionary funding to Caltrans. In order for grants to be approved, the Commission must develop and approve a Program of Projects. The attached program was prepared using the FY 1999-2000 funding level for operations. As with the Section 5307 program (Section 9), the actual apportionments will not be known until after the start of our fiscal year. By programming at what may be a higher level of funding, the operators will be able to apply for maximum funding and avoid delays and additional work to amend programs and grants. FORMULA PROGRAM: The proposed program allocates the estimated $457,424 in formula funds for Riverside County in FY 2000-01 to RTA (61.7% or $$282,231) and SunLine Transit Agency (38.3% or $175,193). This is the formula that the Commission has used in past years and is based on estimates of rural population. Each operator has planned for the use of Section 5311 operating funds in their Short Range Transit Plan. boon DISCRETIONARY FUNDS: It is not known at this time whether Caltrans will release a call in FY 2001 for discretionary rural transit funds. Currently, none of our transit operators have planned for the use of Section 5311 capital funds. However, should Caltrans release a call for projects, all transit operators will be contacted about the availability of fund sand if they have a project, a request for an amendment to the program of projects will be submitted for the Commission's consideration. SunLine Transit Agency has submitted a Section 5311(f) Intercity Bus Program grant application for $90,000_for a new connector route to and from the Greater Palm Springs area and the Riverside Metrolink Station. • '00020 • FORMULA FUNDS " RIVERSIDE COUNTY FTA SECTION 5311 PROGRAM FY 2001 COUNTY RTA SUNLINE 100.0% 61.7% 38.3% Federal Funds Available: $457,424 $282,231 $175,193 Carryover: $0 $0 $0 Total Funds Available: $457,424 $282,231 $175,193 * Formula funds were programmed at the FY 2000 level for planning purposes. The actual apportionment will be shared by the operators using the above percentages. • APPROVED BY RCTC: JR: 6/20/00 i )np021 AGENDA ITEM 10 • • • RIVERS/DE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMM/SS/ON DATE: June 26, 2000 TO: Plans and Programs Committee FROM: Jerry Rivera, Program Manager THROUGH: Cathy Bechtel, Director of Planning and Programming SUBJECT: FY 2000-01 Local Transportation Fund Allocations for Transit STAFF RECOMMENDATION This item is to seek Committee approval of the FY 2000-01 Local Transportation Fund Allocations for Transit as shown on the attached table and forward to the Commission for final action. BACKGROUND INFORMATION In order for the public transit operators to claim Local Transportation Fund (LTF) money for operating and capital purposes, the Commission must allocate funds to support the transit services and capital projects contained in the approved FY 2001-2007 Short Range Transit Plan (SRTP). The Riverside County SRTP for the cities of Banning, Beaumont, Corona, and Regional Commuter Rail were approved by the Commission at their meeting on June 14, 2000, and the SRTP for the City of Riverside, Palo Verde Valley Transit Agency, Riverside Transit Agency and SunLine Transit Agency are scheduled for review and approval at the July 12, 2000 meeting. At the February 9, 2000 Commission meeting, the FY 2000-01 Local Transportation Funds were apportioned to the three apportionment areas: Western Riverside, Coachella Valley, and the Palo Verde Valley area. The apportionments for the three areas were $30,629,656; $8,004,586, and $707,415, respectively. In addition, any apportioned but unclaimed funds in the Western County and Coachella Valley area will also be available for transit services. The FY 2001 LTF allocations for the transit operators are consistent with the approved SRTP, and the funds allocated are explicitly for the projects as stated in the approved Plans. The allocation for Metrolink also includes the RCTC Operating and Support costs contained in the RCTC budget approved by the Commission at it June 14, 2000 meeting. 100022 Carry-over fundSused iOthese calculations are preliminary estimates and may change. Any modifications in fare box revenue, federal grants, Measure Afunding, Orcarry- over funds may require the operator(s) to revise their services to operate within the LTFfUnding limitations. Financial Assessment Project Cost $38,837,131 Source of Funds Included inFiscal Year Budget Transportation Development Act, LOCO| Transportation Funds v Year Included in Program Budget Year Programmed (]l Approved Allocation Year of Allocation Budget Adjustment Required Financial Impact Not Applicable "d1HS ,sioleiado;0 04 alclel gad sianofthe0 :310N 00/S L/90 :21r •spun; VlS Ono.no papun; leuluuei uogepodsueil Jo; 000'00 L$ sapnpul LEVLE8'8E$ Z54'£6E'LZ$ 000'09$ £8S'06Z`99$ 006`ZZS'Z1$ E89'L9L'£S$ 1V101 A.1.Nf100 004'96L$ OOZ`4Z$ 0$ 009'6LZ$ 0$ 009'6LZ$ 111101 A311VA 30213A 01Vd 004'964$ 00Z43 3 009'61.3 a 009'643 'V 1 A311VA 342i3A O1Vd 000`891'8$ 000'0£E'L$ 0$ 000`86b'S1$ 000'S9L'L$ 000'££L'£L$ 1V101 A311VA V1131-13V00 000'994'9$ 000 NE`L$ a 000'964`S4$ 000'S9L'4$ 000'EEL 'El$ A01‘130V 11SNV211 3NI1Nf1S 1£L'EL4'0£$ ZSZ'6E0'03 000'09$ £86`ZL5'OS$ 006`LSL'01$ £90'518'63 1V101 A1Nnoa N2131S3M E80'EZO`9$ OOL'90Z'Z$ 3 E8L'6ZZ'L$ 006'69L$ E886949$ >11\1110i13W 949'30l'ZZ$ ZS4'SO4'94$ 0$ 000'80Z'8E$ 000'80E'8$ 000'006'63 A01\139V 1.ISNV211 3OISH3A1H 000'8Ll'II OOZ'ZL4$ 0$ 00Z'OS9'4$ 000'0S3 00Z'004'4$ .S301A213S 1VI03dS 3ClIal3AR1 00E'8LS$ 00L'8S9$ 0$ 000'LEZ'4$ 000'S44$ 000'Z6L$ VN027100 009'E86$ 00S'494$ 000'09$ 000'SOZ`4$ 000'064$ 000'949$ 1NOWf1V38 000'909$ 000'SE4$ 0$ 000'E40'4$ 000'SO4$ 000'9E9$ 91\1INNVE1 N011V0011V S30N3A321 SaNf13 S1S00 S1S00 S1S00 11SNV211311 311 NON 213A0A2121V0 1V101 1V11dV0 °NW/21330 2101V213d011SNV211 030N3WW00321 031VW11S3 031VWI1S3 031VWI1S3 031VWI1S3 031V1N11S3 lISNVbl NOJ SNOI1V0011`d ONfl3 NOI1V12JOdSNVNI 11/001 60-000Z AJ • • • AGENDA ITEM 71 • • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRA NSPOR TA T/ON COMM/SS/ON DATE: June 26, 2000 TO: Plans and Programs Committee FROM: Jerry Rivera, Program Manager THROUGH: Cathy Bechtel, Director of Planning and Programming SUBJECT: FY 2000-01 Minimum Fare Revenue Ratio for the Riverside Transit STAFF RECOMMENDATION This item is to seek Committee approval of 1) the FY 2000-01 minimum required fare revenue to operating expense ratio of 18.29% for the Riverside Transit Agency and 15.77 % for the SunLine Transit Agency; 2) reaffirm the methodology used to calculate the required ratio; 3) request Caltrans' concurrence with the methodology and ratios for FY 2000-01; and 4) forward to the Commission for final action. BACKGROUND INFORMATION The Riverside Transit Agency (RTA) and the SunLine Transit Agency serve both urbanized and non -urbanized areas of Riverside County. Therefore, their minimum required fare revenue to operating expense ratio required by State Law falls somewhere between the 10% requirement for non -urbanized area services and the 20% requirement for urbanized area services. The commission is responsible for calculating the intermediate ratio. The methodology used to calculate the minimum ratio required was developed by the Commission and originally approved by the State in April 1980. The methodology is still applicable and is attached for your review. R=.1Cn+.2Cu Cn+Cu R = Required Ratio Cn = Costs of Services in Non -Urbanized Areas Cu = Costs of Services in Urbanized Areas The costs for new or expanded services are exempted from the calculation for the first two full years of operation. Using the above formula and the RTA and SunLine Short Range Transit Plans (SRTP), the minimum required ratios for the RTA and SunLine in FY 2000-01 are 18.29% and 15.77%, respectively. 00025 Upon adoption of the required ratio by the Commission, Caltrans must also approve the ratios. The ratios are then fixed for the year and cannot be changed even though actual revenues and expenses may differ from the SRTP estimates. `�002 • • • RULES AND REGULATIONS FOR DETERMINING REQUIRED FARE REVENUE TO OPERATING COST RATIOS FOR TRANSIT OPERATORS SERVING BOTH URBANIZED AND NON -URBANIZED AREAS OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY I. Based on the latest annually adopted Short Range Transit Plan for Riverside County, the Riverside County Transportation Commission with the cooperation of the transit operator will determine separately the operating cost of those transit services provided in non -urbanized areas and the operating cost of those services in urbanized areas. 1) For the purpose of this calculation, the operating cost in the urbanized area shall include the cost of all fixed route lines, groups of fixed route lines, and demand responsive service operating entirely within an urbanized area. The operating cost in the non -urbanized area shall include the cost of all fixed route lines, groups of fixed route lines, and demand responsive service operating entirely within a non -urbanized area. 2) For fixed route lines operating partly within an urbanized area and partly within a non -urbanized area, the cost shall be apportioned to the urbanized area costs and non -urbanized area costs in proportion to the route miles in the non -urbanized area and the route miles in the urbanized area. 3) For demand response systems serving both an urbanized area and a non - urbanized area, the cost shall be apportioned to urbanized area costs and non -urbanized area costs in proportion to the population of the urbanized area served and the population of the non -urbanized area served. )n002'7 4) The costs of extension of public transit service pursuant to Section 99268.8 of the PUC shall not be included in any of these calculations. II. The required ratio of fare revenues to operating cost in compliance with Public Utilities Code Sections 99268.3 and 99268.4 shall be calculated as follows:* R = .1 Cn + .2 Cu Cn + Cu R is the required ratio. Cn is the operating cost in non -urbanized areas. Cu is the operating cost in urbanized areas. III. Annually, prior to the beginning of the fiscal year, the Riverside County Transportation Commission shall calculate the required fare revenue to operating cost ratio for each transit operator serving both urbanized and non -urbanized areas and submit this calculation to Caltrans. Caltrans shall approve the required ratio prior to the beginning of the fiscal year and the ratio shall not be subject to change. * There are no operators in the Riverside County that are required to be in compliance with PUC Section 99268.2. There are no operators serving both an urbanized area and a non -urbanized area that had a fare revenue to operating cost ratio greater than one -fifth in urbanized areas or greater than one -tenth in non -urbanized areas during the 1978-79 fiscal year. �000r) AGENDA ITEM 12 • • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMM/SS/ON DATE: June 26, 2000 TO: Plans and Programs Committee FROM: Susan Cornelison, Rail Program Manager THROUGH: Cathy Bechtel, Director of Planning and Programming SUBJECT: Southern California Intercity Rail Group Reauthorization and Membership STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is to seek Committee approval of 1) Adopting the proposed "Amendment to the Joint Powers Group Agreement Extending the Duration of the Southern California Intercity Rail Group;" and 2) Renewing RCTC's membership on the Southern California Intercity Rail Group for the coming fiscal year and authorizing membership contribution of $10,000; and forward to the Commission for final action. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: RCTC has been a participating member of the Southern California Intercity Rail Group, a joint powers authority consisting of SCAG and seven counties' transportation agencies, which was organized to promote intercity rail service funding in Southern California. Staff had been ambivalent about RCTC's continued membership since most activity has centered on increasing Amtrak San Diegan service along the coast. In the last few months, however, progress has been seen in efforts to secure Intercity Passenger Rail service from the Coachella Valley and Riverside to Orange and Los Angeles, which is a long -held goal of the Commission. Both Amtrak West and Caltrans Division of Rail have now included the Coachella Valley corridor in their pending rail plans. It appears that the advocacy activities possible through this multi - county organization have helped to advance RCTC's interests, and staff is now recommending approval of the attached JPA amendment to continue the Group, and RCTC's continued membership, at least for the coming fiscal year. During that time staff will work with other member counties to refine the scope of the organization and develop a more specific work program supporting Intercity Rail for Riverside County. )00029 Financial Assessment Project Cost $10,000 membership, budgeted in Rail Program Source of Funds Included in Fiscal Year Budget TDA Y Year Included in Program Budget Y Year Programmed 2000/0 1 Approved Allocation Y Year of Allocation 2000 Budget Adjustment Required N Financial Impact Not Applicable -innn:W _- - SOUTHERN - - __ - - :�:.. � _ _ �.�.��.,,��.t...,..�_..� - --� _ - Joint Powers Board CALIFORNIAINTERCITY RAIL • GROUP May 2. 2000 Eric Haley Executive Director Riverside County Transportation Commission 560 University Avenue Riverside. CA 92501 Dear \Ir. Haley: At the April 28. 2000 Southern California Intercity Rail Group (SCIRG) meeting. the Board oted to approve an amendment to the Joint Powers Agreement (JPA) and extend an opportunity to Ventura County Transportation Authority to re join SCIRG. The amendment extends the JPA for four years. June 30. 2000 to June 30. 2004. After June 30. 2004. am iiirther extension would need to Ezo before the member agency governing boards. At this time it is necessary for each member agency's governing board to approve and sign the extension of the JPA as recommended. ` Signed SCIRG Joint Powers Agreements s . should be sent to the administrator. Jacki Bacharch. Jacki Bacharach & Associates 5033 Rock Valley Road Rancho Palos Verdes. CA 90274 Sincerely _y JLlliaizne Nygaard SCIRG Chair n°eies Count,' Metropolitan Transportation Authority •Oran e County Transportation ill Son 6erncrorno Assoaotea Governments • Son Diego Association of Governments u•nSonyLuis Obispo CouncilofGoverrntment ion Commission Soria eoroara County r.ssociation of Governments • Venturo County Transportation Commission Soumern Contorn10 Association of Governments • California Deportment of Transportotior 10031 • • • ANIENDN1ENT TO JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT EXTENDING THE DURATION OF THE SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA INTERCITY RAIL GROUP Recitals WHEREAS. the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority. the Oranae Count Transportation Authority. the Riverside County Transportation Commission. the San Bernardino Associated Governments. the San Diego Association of Governments. the San Luis Obispo Council of Governments. the Santa Barbara County Association of Governments and the Ventura Count Transportation of Commission have entered into an agreement ( the Agreement). establishin_e an interim joint powers board for the planning of intercity passenger rail service for Southern California. hereinafter referred to as the AGENCY. WHEREAS. the Agreement has been amended to add the Southern California .-association of Governments as a member of the AGENCY. WHEREAS. each of the member agencies. except the Ventura Count' Transportation Commission. executed an amendment to the Agreement which extended its duration to June 30. 1 qq9_ and provided an option to the AGENCY's Governinu Board to extend the duration of the A lency to June 30. 2000. WHEREAS. the AGENCY Board has exercised the option to extend the Agreement to June 30. ?000. WHEREAS. the parties to the Agreement now wish to extend the Agreement for an additional term. VVHEREAS. the parties to the Agreement have agreed that it is in the public interest to extend the duration of the Agreement. RVPUB SCD'558641 ►000.32 NOW, THEREFORE. the parties to this Amendment hereby agree to as follows: 1. Section 11 of the Agreement shall be amended to read as follows: This Agreement shall be in effect until June 30. 2002. or until such earlier time as a majority of the member agencies determine that it is in the public interest to dissolve the AGENCY. This Agreement may be extended an additional m o years to June 30. 2004 by the affirmative vote of a majority of the Governing Board of the AGENCY. provided that this Section 11 shall not effect the rights of any member agency to withdraw under Section 12. hereof. This Agreement may be extended beyond June 30. 2004 if the member agencies determine it is in the public interest to do so. Should the Ventura County Transportation Commission choose to execute this Amendment, it shall become a member of the Agency and be bound by the Agreement. as amended. Other than as amended by this Amendment. the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect. IN WITNESS WHEREOF. the parties hereto have executed this Amendment to the Agreement which may be executed in one or more counterparts by duly authorized officers and may include multiple signature pages, all of which shall be deemed to Je one instrument. Copies of this Agreement may be used in lieu of the original. RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION NAME: DATE: TITLE: RVPUB SCD'.558641 -)nn033 AGENDA ITEM 13 • • • RIVERS/DE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMM/SS/ON DATE: June 26, 2000 TO: Plans & Programs Committee FROM: Susan Cornelison, Rail Program Manager THROUGH: Cathy Bechtel, Director of Planning & Programming SUBJECT: Resolution in Support of Amtrak Intercity Passenger Rail Service, Coachella Valley to Los Angeles STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is to seek Committee approval of the attached Resolution No.00-012 in Support of Amtrak Intercity Rail Service linking the Coachella Valley, Riverside and Los Angeles, and forwarding the resolution to the Commission for final adoption. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Since 1991 the Commission has actively sought the expansion of Amtrak Intercity Passenger Rail service into Riverside County and through the Coachella Valley. As part of its new Vision Plan, Amtrak (the National Railroad Passenger Corporation) has included this desired service for implementation within five years. Commissioner Will Kleindienst and staff members from RCTC and CVAG have participated with Amtrak in development of the Vision Plan. Statements of support are being solicited from interested government entities, and to that end staff recommends adoption of the resolution. )00034 RESOLUTION NO. 00-012 • • • IN SUPPORT OF AMTRAK INTERCITY RAIL SERVICE WHEREAS, the Riverside County Transportation Commission and the Coachella Valley Association of Governments have long advocated the expansion of Intercity Passenger Rail service into Riverside County; and WHEREAS, the 1.3 million residents of Riverside County have been without daily Intercity passenger rail service for decades; and WHEREAS, the Coachella Valley is one of California's premier vacation and resort destinations, seasonally doubling local population; and WHEREAS, the primary economic and social links of Coachella Valley businesses and residents are with the cities and counties to the west, most notably, Riverside, San Bernardino, Orange and Los Angeles; and WHEREAS, the major freeways linking Riverside County to the west are frequently congested thus greatly increasing travel time; and WHEREAS, substantial local and state funds have been used to construct passenger rail stations in the cities of Palm Springs, Riverside, and Corona within Riverside County, and to upgrade railroad infrastructure into Orange and Los Angeles counties; and WHEREAS, AMTRAK, the National Railroad Passenger Corporation, is recommending rail service connecting Los Angeles and Fullerton with Riverside and the Coachella Valley; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Coachella Valley Association of Governments, representing all cities of the Coachella Valley, wishes to state its strong support of all State and Federal efforts to begin frequent, daily passenger rail service linking the Coachella Valley, Riverside and Los Angeles. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Riverside County Transportation Commission wishes to state its strong support of all State and Federal efforts to begin frequent, daily passenger rail service linking the Coachella Valley, Riverside and Los Angeles. APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 12`h day of July, 2000. ATTEST: Naty Kopenhaver Clerk of the Board William Kleindienst, Vice -Chairman Riverside County Transportation Commission 00035 AGENDA ITEM 74 • • • RIVERS/DE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMM/SS/ON DATE: June 26,2000 TO: Plans and Programs Committee FROM: Susan Cornelison and Stephanie Wiggins, Rail Program Managers THROUGH: Cathy Bechtel, Director of Planning and Programming SUBJECT: Rail Program Update STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is to seek Committee approval to receive and file the Rail Program Update and forward to the Commission for final action. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The Metrolink ridership report for the first two weeks of June, 2000 and other rail - related materials will be provided in a side packet at the Committee meeting. Staff will be prepared to discuss these materials at the Commission's direction. Of particular note: 1) Ridership on Metrolink's Riverside Line for the month of May increased to 4,614, an increase of 15 % for the fiscal year. 2) Ridership on Metrolink's Inland Empire -Orange County (IEOC) Line for the month of May increased to 2,301 , an increase of 31 % for the fiscal year. In addition, this surpasses the ridership performance target of 2,264 for the IEOC Midday service. This demonstration service began six months ago and ends March 2001. These ridership numbers need to be sustained for the next 10 months in order for the Midday service to be included in the regular Metrolink budget for FY2001 /02. 3) According to the March 2000 A.M. Peak Period Boardings & Alightings, 31.9% of the Riverside Line boardings and 91.2% of the Inland Empire -Orange County Line boardings are made in Riverside County. 4) Beach Trains: After meeting with Metrolink staff to finalize the bill for service, we realized a cost savings of $50,000 and as a result, the program for the 1999 Season did not incur a deficit but broke -even! Sales for the 2000 Season are underway and the first train of the season will run June 24. 100036 AGENDA ITEM 15 • • • RIVERS/DE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMM/SS/ON DATE: June 26, 2000 TO: Plans and Programs Committee FROM: Tanya Love, Program Manager THROUGH: Cathy Bechtel, Director of Planning and Programming SUBJECT: Restructuring the Citizens Advisory Committee/Social Service Transportation Advisory Council STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is to seek Committee approval to: 2) Restructure the Citizens Advisory Committee/Social Service Transportation Advisory Council (CAC/SSTAC); 2) Direct the RCTC Chairman to appoint an Ad Hoc Sub Committee consisting of four Commissioners to assist staff in the restructuring of the CAC/SSTAC. Commissioners appointed should represent the geographic areas of the county including one member from the Coachella Valley, one from the Pass area, one from the Temecula/Hemet/San Jacinto area and one member from the western portion of the county; and 3) Forward to the Commission for final action. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: AB1246 (Ingalls), the legislation that created the county transportation commissions in Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside and San Bernardino counties included a provision for a Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) to be appointed no later than July 1, 1977. Subject to the supervision of the Commission, the CAC's responsibilities include "consulting on and obtaining and collecting public input on, those matters of interest and concern to the Commission that may from time to time be assigned to the Committee by the Commission for its review, comments and recommendations". In 1988, the Commission recommended to expand the CAC from 16 members to 20 members and have it function not only as the Citizens Advisory Committee but as its Social Service Transportation Advisory Council as well. Members of the Citizens Advisory Committee/Social Service Transportation Advisory Council (CAC/SSTAC) serve without compensation and are required to represent a broad spectrum of 00037 interests and all geographic areas of the County. Under the Transportation Development Act, Section 99238, the Commission is required to have an SSTAC to provide the Commission with input and advice on issues of unmet transit needs as well as coordination and consolidation of specialized transportation services and other matters that may be assigned to the Commission. ISSUE For several years, the Coachella Valley and the Western County areas have used all available Local Transit Funds (LTF) •for transit services. Use of all eligible LTF funds for transit removes the requirement for the Commission to conduct "unmet" needs hearings in the areas. The only area in the County which is required to have unmet needs hearings is the Palo Verde Valley (Blythe). With the expansion of the Commission in January, 1999, staff started to look at ways that the CAC/SSTAC could better assist the Commission. While the current membership of the CAC/SSTAC focuses on operational issues, circumstances have changed. Since both SunLine Transit Agency and Riverside Transit Agency are designated as the Consolidated Transit Service Agencies (CTSA) for Riverside County, the correct forum to hear operational issues is at the CTSA's committee meetings. In addition, except for the Palo Verde Valley, unmet transit hearings are no longer required to be conducted by the Commission. The original purpose of CAC/SSTAC no longer exists. The effectiveness of the current CAC/SSTAC has been discussed at various CAC/SSTAC meetings during the past year. Current membership has expressed an interest in revamping the committee to make it more effective and have recommended that a written report of the committee's activities and recommendations be routinely presented to the Commission: Some areas we believe that the CAC/SSTAC may assist the Commission with include: ✓ Legislative programs/education ✓ Public relations/education ✓ Reauthorization of Measure A, including polling ✓ Short Range Transit Plans ✓ Overview and exposure to RCTC's programs and projects ✓ Unmet Transit Needs - Palo Verde Valley Staff recommends that an Ad Hoc Sub Committee consisting of four Commissioners be formed to assist in the restructuring of the CAC/SSTAC. Staff further recommends that the Commissioners appointed represent the geographic areas of the county including one member from the Coachella Valley, one from the Pass Area, one from the Temecula/Hemet/San Jacinto area and one member from the western portion of the county. Items for the Ad Hoc Sub Committee to address may include: • • • • ✓ Development of a letter to notify existing CAC/SSTAC members that the committee is being restructured. The letter should also provide information on how they can apply for membership to the restructured CAC/SSTAC; ✓ Development of an application form to attract members to CAC/SSTAC; ✓ Development of public service announcements and newspaper ads to attract potential members; ✓ Development of criteria to ensure that membership is geographically disbursed while maintaining. a broad based focus; and ✓ Frequency of meetings. 100039 AGEN A ITEM 16 • RIVERS/DE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMM/SS/ON DATE: June 26, 2000 TO: Plans and Programs Committee FROM: Shirley Medina, Program Manager THROUGH: Cathy Bechtel, Director of Planning and Programming SUBJECT: Request for Proposals for Installation of Caltrans Traffic Management Center (TMC) Sites and Smart Call Boxes for the Congestion Management Program Enhanced Transportation System Management Program STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is to seek Committee approval to advertise two Request For Proposals (RFPs) for the installation of Caltrans Traffic Monitoring Center (TMC) Sites and Smart Call Boxes along the congestion management system to implement the Congestion Management Program (CMP) Enhanced Transportation System Management Program and forward for Commission action. giBACKGROUND INFORMATION: • In December 1997, the Commission approved a modification to the CMP to develop an Enhanced Traffic Monitoring System to meet federal and state highway reporting and monitoring requirements. State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) funds were approved for the Enhanced Transportation System Management Program in the 1998 STIP for fiscal years 1999/00 and 2000/01 totaling $1.1 million. At the June 14, 2000 California Transportation Commission (CTC) an allocation of $1 .1 million was approved. Due to SB 45 requirements, RCTC has 12 months to award a contract. There are two separate RFP's to meet the enhanced traffic monitoring requirements along the congestion management system. One of the RFP's includes the enhancement of Caltrans TMC permanent count stations in the urban areas to provide for immediate communication between the TMC at Caltrans District 08 in the city of San Bernardino and the count stations. The second RFP includes the installation of additional 'Smart' Call Boxes along the urban and rural areas to provide for traffic census capability. Currently 20 'Smart' Call Boxes were installed for the purpose of testing their capabilities to download traffic data. Due to the success of the pilot program, the procurement and installation of additional 'Smart' Call Boxes will take place to . Innn cover locations that are not part of the Caltrans TMC network The tentative schedule for the selection process is as follows: • Advertise for Request for Proposals July 13, 2000 • Mandatory Pre -Proposal meeting July 20, 2000 • Request for Proposals Submittal Deadline August 3, 2000 • Identify top qualified firms, Interview August 7-21, 2000 • Committee Recommendation to Commission September 13, 2000 for award of contract Staff will establish a selection panel consisting of representatives from the RCTC Technical Advisory Committee and Caltrans District 08. The results of the selection panel will be brought forward to the Commission for review and recommendation for a contract award at the September 13, 2000 meeting. The RFP's will be available on RCTC's web site. �n 4I