HomeMy Public PortalAbout01 January 2, 1992 Budget & Finance053768
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
BUDGET & FINANCE COMMITTEE
(COMMISSIONERS RUS BEIRICH, CORKY LARSON, PAT MURPHY)
THURSDAY, JANUARY 2, 1992
1:00 P.M.
LUND & GUTTRY
39-700 BOB HOPE DRIVE, THE BOB HOPE BUILDING, SUITE 309
RANCHO MIRAGE, CALIFORNIA
AGENDA
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. GENERAL ITEMS
2A. Consultant Selection for the Performance Audit of the Riverside County
Transportation Commission
A determination will be made at the meeting.
2B. Survey Results from Cities on Reevaluation of Measure A Revenues
Staff will present the survey results at the meeting and a determination will
be made at that time.
3. FINANCIAL ITEMS
3A. Contractural Expenditures for Month of November
Staff Recommendation
Receive and file.
Page 2
Agenda, Budget & Finance Committee
January 2, 1992
4. HIGHWAYS/LOCAL STREETS AND ROADS
4A. Develop RCTC Excess Land at Route 60/91 /1-215 Interchange
Staff Recommendation
That the Commission authorize the continued use of Keyser Marston &
Associates to assist in the selection and negotiations with the future
developers of the excess land located at the Route 60/91 /1-215 interchange.
The terms of this agreement will be provided to the Administrative
Committee at the time of the meeting.
4B. Amendment to Agreements No. RO-9206 and RO-9207 with Intek
Environment, Inc. for Asbestos Abatement and Demolition of Improvements
for the Route 74 City of Perris Highway Widening Project
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends the approval of the amendments with Intek Environ-
mental, Inc., not to exceed $13,425 for Asbestos Abatement and $42,600 for
Demolition Services with a 15% contingency amount of $8,400 for a revised
maximum contract amount of $106,925.
5. TRANSIT/RIDESHARE
5A. Measure A Specialized Transit Services Program Allocation to Maintain
Reduced Fares - Cities of Riverside and Corona
Staff Recommendation
That the Commission:
1. Allocate an additional $1,696 in Measure A Specialized Transit
Services Program funds to the City of Riverside for FY 1990-91;
2. Allocate $15,295 in Measure A Specialized Transit Services Program
funds to the City of Riverside for FY 1991-92; and
Page 3
Agenda, Budget & Finance Committee
January 2, 1992
3. Allocate $24,000 in Measure A Specialized Transit Services Program
funds to the City of Corona for FY 1991-92.
5B. Purchase of a Back-up Vehicle for Family Service Association for Western
Riverside County
Staff Recommendation
That the Commission:
1. Authorize staff to exercise the option under the City of Corona's
vehicle procurement for the purchase of a 10 passenger, lift -equipped
vehicle, using Measure A funds; and
2. Assign this van to the Family Service Association for Western
Riverside County for use as a back-up vehicle.
5C. Measure A Specialized Transit Funds for Meditrans Service. Inc.
Staff Recommendation
That the Commission approve the Measure A funding request of $20,320
from Meditrans Services, Inc. subject to the conditions of the Measure A
Specialized Transit and Commuter Service Program policies.
5D. Measure A Rideshare Marketing Demonstration Program and Commuter
Buspools
Staff Recommendation
That the Administrative Committee provide staff direction regarding the most
appropriate channel to bring the informal guidelines forward to the
Commission for their action.
5. ADJOURNMENT
ITEM #2A
ITEM #2B
ITEM #3A
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
THROUGH:
SUBJECT:
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
January 2, 1992
Administrative Committee
Mark Massman, Measure A Project Manager
Louis Martin, Project Controls Manager
Jack Reagan, Executive Director
Contractual Expenditures for Month of November
The attached material depicts the current status of contracts reported by Routes,
commitments and Cooperative Agreements executed by the Commission. For each
contract and Agreement, the report lists the authorized value approved by the
Commission, percentage of contract amount expended to date and the project
expenditures by route for the month ending November 30, 1991.
Detailed supporting material for all contracts and Cooperative Agreement is available from
Bechtel staff.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Receive and file.
MM/LM:jw
attachments
£ 10 L e6ed
(9 L0601j)
09L'95£$
%L8
LL L' L8£$
b9£'8£b$
Aprils aoppioa
(9L060a)
%00 L
000'009$
000'009$
ueoi uogoausuoa
81931'01:1d L L L 31n01i
(b)
(0
(£ L8608)
%OOL
000'086`6L$
000'086'6l$
uollormsuo0
(L0680li)
000'0Le' L$
%00L
000'6L8'LS
000'6leL$
u6lsea leuu
S103rOad 98 311101:1
(L L0601:1)
1.6b'698$
%88
L95'808$
000'9L6$
loefoad uompueS
(8L L6'9L L6`8L L6' L L L601:1)
85b'617L$
£0£' LO l$
%L8
OLZ'888' L$
L L9' LL L'Z$
'ualnu3/6.16u3 *wllead
S.103r0Eld 6L 3110bl
(8?L6'LL L6`5L L6'90L6011)
L88'980'l$
865'6b$
%OOL
6L8`6LL'8$
6LZ`6LL'Z$
ualnu3/6a6u3 •wllead
(V)
(L086`9086'8 L060a)
06L'L98$
5L0'817L$
%£8
9£Z'OL5`Z$
009'8170'8$
'aau6yenlmedoo0
S1a31'O dd bL 311101:1
(80680a)
(£)
(£)
(ulooun'eldevirtawS)
VOLOS'S$
000'9091Pl$
'331:19V 'd003 VN01:100
31V0 Ol 1.881 '0£ -1egw8A0N 0311WW00 31Va Ol N011V0011V NO114I1:10830
S3bn110N3dX3 030N3 H1NOW neane d0 S1N31111WW00 03ZI1:10H1nV 103rald
HOd 31in11aN3dX3 3JV1N301:13d 1V1:1n10V1i1N00 NOISS11114100
31110E1 A9 llzi0d3a 13eana
S103ro1:1d AVMH9IH V 31JnSV311 alai
£10ZeBed
9L17'99£'£$
609'LOZ$
%96
000'8£L't+$
000'Z1.6'V$
(00Z6'00L6`0006`00690E0
'AI:139 11NJW TOW 131H038
(Z£ 1.6'LZ 1.6'9Z 1.6
(l)
(l)
9Z 1.6'17Z 1.6'L0161, 1.060W
V6£'£bt+$
699'LL$
%L6
£6L'09£'£$
6Z9` 189'£$
(9,1:19d) 8i6u3 •uwlleid
001=1d 'AOHdWl 39NH01J31N1
(Z1ddL000'I 1.1:1dL000
0£V668'L l$
%99
0£V668'L L$
000'09L'Z£$
600617006`£00601:1)
Aum-j0-146!d
(9)
(9)
(0Z06`8106'900601d)
tir8'£L9' l$
96£'60Z$
%96
tiLL'Zee' VS
LL8`998'VS
•uoipw3/Basu3 'ualle.Id
S103P0EId 91Z-1
( It L60a)
Z6L'80LS
%OOl
Z6L`801.$
Z6L'90l$
91.Z-10191.-1
(0£ 1.6'6Z 1.6'9Z L6'£Z 1.601:1)
969'9V9$
1.88'0L3
%L8
1.69'£Z8'Z$
L91.`LVZ'£$
91-1011LEIS
(Z lZ6
901.6'901.n° 1.6` 101601:1)
OL L'LL l' L$
988`LZ l$
%89
£99'£09' L$
L817'9 L8' l$
keyy of elloutlen
(1+1Z6'££ l6'Z006
1.006`Z069' 1068' 108801:1)
t+£t+'OZO' l l$
89I'998$
%L8
899'990'LZ$
86I.`Z86'0£$
(AOH)130 01 ellou6eyy
S103P0lid l6 311101:1
alma Ol LBel '0£ iegwenoN 03111011100 31da Ol NOI1V0011V NOI1dI1:10S30
Saini10N3dx3 030N3H1NOW 13oansAO S1N3W11WW00 03ZIlioNinv 103fOkid
1:10d 31:Inii0N3dX3 3DV1N301:13d 1Vaf110mdiN00 NOISSIWW00
31f10li A811:IOd31:11300f18
S103I'011d AVMHOIH V 31:111SV3W 0101:1
RCTC MEASURE A HIGHWAY PROJECTS
BUDGET REPORT BY ROUTE
COMMISSION CONTRACTURAL PERCENTAGE EXPENDITURE FOR
PROJECT AUTHORIZED COMMITMENTS OF BUDGET MONTH ENDED EXPENDITURES
DESCRIPTION ALLOCATION TO DATE COMMITED November 30, 1991 TO DATE
PROGRAM PLAN. & SERVICES
Program Studies
$1,902,520
$1,719,198
90%
$4,489
$1,595,379
(R09006,9010,9013,9108
9119)
Corridor Studies
$651,283
$602,300
92%
$22,500
$491,904
(R09017,9110,9120)
Mapping Control & OA
$2,429,362
$2,429,362
100%
$13,624
$2,186,985
(R09007)
PARK-N-RIDE/INCENT. PROG
$513,610
$513,610
1000/0
$57,566
$312,174
(R09113,9114,9121,9134,
9202,9203,9204,9205,9211)
COMMUTER RAIL
Studies
$756,137
$756,137
100%
$690,272
(R09021)
Station/Site ACq/OP Costs
$5,921,822
$5,921,822
100%
$1,959,421
$4,075,239
(R08905,9201,9209)
TOTALS
$125;084,518
$103'i15,659
83%..;
$4,003,367,;
M0,088,270"
NOTE: (1) Loan against interchange improvement programs.
(2) May be reduced by passage of SB 300 funds.
(3) RCTC project to determine share value allocated to Route 91 and portion allocated to IC Improvement Program (loan)
(4) RCTC portion only of Ca!trans Contract
(5) SANBAG responsible for 25%
All values are for total Project/Contract and not related to fiscal year budgets. Status Mo. Ending 11/30/91
Page 3 of 3
ITEM #4A
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
DATE: January 2, 1992
TO: Administrative Committee
FROM: Mark T. Massman, Measure A Project Manager
Bill Hughes, Bechtel Project Coordinator
THROUGH: Jack Reagan, Executive Director
SUBJECT: Develop RCTC Excess Land at Route 60/91 /1-215 Interchange
1. Appointment of additional technical panel member from City of Riverside.
2. Consultant agreement with Keyser Marston & Associates to assist Selection Panel
and provide counsel in negotiations with selected developers.
3. Schedule for selection panel.
At the October 9, 1991, and December 11, 1991, meetings, the Commission approved
the concept of preparation and distribution of an RFQ to select two or three developers
who would then each prepare responses to the forthcoming Caltrans RFP to design, build
and manage a new District 8 Headquarters Building, using the excess land that RCTC
currently owns at the Route 60/91 /1-215 interchange. The Commission also approved
Melba Dunlap, Dick MacGregor, Frank Sherkow, and Ron Loverage to participate on the
selection committee. The Commission further provided the Executive Director authority
to add additional panel members who could provide technical support to the above
designated panel members.
The Commission Staff has requested that the City of Riverside provide one of its staff
members to participate in the selection process and they have agreed to do so. By the
time of the Administrative Committee Meeting, the individual who will participate will be
identified to the Commission. This person would be a voting member of the selection
panel.
To further bolster the technical input for the selection panel, the Staff is recommending
the use of Keyser Marston & Associates. This consultant currently works with the City
of Riverside Redevelopment Agency and provides valuable guidance regarding evaluation
of proposals and negotiations with their various developers. Based on the
recommendation of the City of Riverside Redevelopment Agency, and the time constraints
that exist to meet the Caltrans RFP, the Executive Director has exercised his signature
Page 2
Administrative Committee
Develop RCTC Excess Land at Route 60/91 /1-215 Interchange
January 2, 1992
authority to initiate a working relationship with Keyser Marston. Keyser Marston will serve
as a non -voting technical advisory consultant to the selection panel. This individual would
perform initial technical review that would provide recommendations to the selection panel
on the responsiveness of each response. After a short list has been developed by the
selection committee, and approved by the Commission, Keyser Marston continue
assisting the Commission in the negotiations phase working out contracts with each
approved developer.
The following schedule has been included in the RFQ that has been distributed to the
potential developer respondents:
1. 12/20/91 Send letter for RFQ availability to list of developers provided by City
of Riverside
2. 12/22/91 Newspaper advertisements placed in Sunday edition of Press
Enterprise, San Bernardino Sun and Los Angeles Times
3. 01 /31 /92 RFQ submittal by prospective developers.
4. 02/14/92 Selection of developers for financial proposals and interviews.
5. 02/28/92 Submission of concept plans and financial proposal.
6. 03/02/92 Interviews will be scheduled throughout the week.
7. 03/11 /92 RCTC approves panel selections for developer(s) who may respond
to Caltrans RFP using RCTC site.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
That the Commission authorize the continued use of Keyser Marston & Associates to
assist in the selection and negotiations with the future developers of the excess land
located at the Route 60/91 /1-215 interchange. The terms of this agreement will be
provided to the Administrative Committee at the time of the meeting.
For Information only:
1. Note the intended selection process schedule as shown above.
2. Note the participation in the selection panel of the City of Riverside Redevelopment
Agency staff.
MTM/BH:jw
ITEM #46
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
DATE: January 2, 1992
TO: Administrative Committee
FROM: Karl Sauer, Measure "A" Project Coordinator
THROUGH: Jack Reagan, Executive Director
SUBJECT: Amendment to Agreements No. RO-9206 & RO-9207 with Intek
Environmental, Inc. for: Asbestos Abatement and Demolition of
Improvements for the Route 74 City of Perris Highway Widening Project
The Commission approved Agreements No. RO-9206 & RO-9207 between ROTC, the City
of Perris Redevelopment Agency and Intek Environmental, Inc. at the September 11,
1991, Commission Meeting. That agreement was for Asbestos Abatement and Demolition
of Improvements for four parcels procured for the Route 74 Highway Widening Project
between 7th Street and "G" Street in the City of Perris. In recent weeks, three additional
parcels completed escrow. One of these parcels require asbestos abatement and two
parcels require demolition of improvements.
Intek Environmental was awarded the initial work scope as they were the qualified bidder
with the lowest bid responding to the RCTC RFP for Asbestos Abatement and Demolition
Services. Staff has solicited a cost proposal from Intek Environmental, Inc. for the
addional services resulting in the following proposed amendments.
Amendment for Asbestos Abatement - The additional cost of $13,425 for Asbestos
Abatement is in line with the increased scope of services.
Amendment for Demolition Services - The additional cost of $42,600 for Demolition
Services is in line with the increased scope of services.
The Agreement R09206, for asbestos abatement, is currently $11,225 and Agreement
R09207, for demolition, is $25,725. A 15% contingency for both contracts of $5,550 was
allocated for a combined total of $42,500. This amendment would increase the
agreement for asbestos abatement to $24,650 and demolition to $68,325 with a 15%
contingency of $13,950 for a total of $106,925.
The schedule of services will be modified to accommodate the increased scope. All other
terms and conditions of the original agreements shall remain the same.
Legal counsel is currently working on the specific amendment language which will be
ready for the Administrative Committee Meeting.
Page 2
Administrative Committee
Amendment to Agreements No. RO-9206 and RO-9207
January 2, 1992
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the approval of the amendments with Intek Environmental, Inc., not to
exceed $13,425 for Asbestos Abatement and $42,600 for Demolition Services with a 15%
contingency amount of $8,400 for a revised maximum contract amount of $106,925.
KS:jw
ITEM #5A
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
DATE: January 2, 1992
TO: Administrative Committee
FROM: Jerry Rivera, Staff Analyst
THROUGH: Jack Reagan, Executive Director
SUBJECT: Measure A Specialized Transit Services Program Allocation to Maintain
Reduced Fares - Cities of Riverside and Corona
CITY OF RIVERSIDE
At their meeting on July 12, 1990, the Commission approved $9,000 in Measure A
Specialized Transit Services Program funds for the City of Riverside Special Services
Transit Program, a dial -a -ride service for the elderly and handicapped to supplement fare
revenues in order to meet the required 10% fare revenue to operating cost ratio for FY
1990-91.
Staff has been informed by the City that actual costs and revenue figures for FY 1990-91
reveal that the 10% ratio has not been met even with the $9,000, and the City will require
an additional $1,696 for a total of $10,696 in Measure A funds. Staff recommends that
the Commission allocate these additional funds to the City of Riverside.
While the City of Riverside Special Services Program fare is lower than any other dial -a -
ride operator in the County, the City has received Measure A funds to offset potential fare
increases the past two fiscal years. The FY 1992-96 Short Range Transit Plan for the City
of Riverside Special Services Transit Program approved by the Commission at their
meeting on July 10, 1991, included Measure A funds to supplement fare revenues for this
program and retain the current fare of $.45 per ride. Staff recommends that the
Commission allocate $15,295 in Measure A funds to the City of Riverside program to
meet the required 10% fare revenue to operating cost ratio for FY 1991-92.
CITY OF CORONA
The City of Corona is also experiencing difficulties in meeting its required 20% fare
revenue to operating cost ratio for FY 1991-92 for its general public dial -a -ride program.
While Corona's program is open to the general public, it does qualify for Measure A
Specialized Transit Services Program funds because approximately 62% of its ridership
Page 2
Administrative Committee
Measure A STSP Allocation to Maintain Reduced Fares - Riverside/Corona
January 2, 1992
is Elderly and Handicapped. Without a Measure A subsidy, Corona would have to
increase fares from $.50 to $1.00 for E & H and from $1.00 to $2.00 for full fare.
The FY 1992-96 SRTP for the City of Corona included Measure A funds to supplement
fare revenues for this program. Staff recommends that the Commission allocate $24,000
in Measure A funds to the City of Corona program to meet the required 20% fare revenue
to operating cost ratio for FY 1991-92.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
That the Commission:
1) Allocate an additional $1,696 in Measure A Specialized Transit Services Program
funds to the City of Riverside for FY 1990-91;
2) Allocate $15,295 in Measure A Specialized Transit Services Program funds to the
City of Riverside for FY 1991-92; and
3) Allocate $24,000 in Measure A Specialized Transit Services Program funds to the
City of Corona for FY 1991-92.
JR:jw
ITEM ##56
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
DATE: January 2, 1992
TO: Administrative Committee
Budget and Finance Committee
FROM: Cathy Bechtel, Staff Analyst III
THROUGH: Jack Reagan, Executive Director
SUBJECT: Purchase of a Back-up Vehicle for Family Service Association of Western
Riverside County
While completing a review of services available to the elderly and persons with disabilities,
it became apparent that the Family Service Association of Western Riverside County was
in need of a back-up vehicle. Family Services operates one vehicle in the Jurupa, Mira
Loma, Rubidoux area. They do not have a back up vehicle for use when their van is out
of service for repairs. This has proven very troublesome for their riders and does not
allow Family Services to provide reliable, consistent service. Commission staff would like
to use Measure A funds to purchase a van, which would be assigned to the Family
Service Association. This vehicle would be made available to them with the
understanding that any private non-profit operator that agrees to abide by the RCTC
adopted policies for specialized transit could have access to the vehicle should they need
it. Family Services staff is amenable to this arrangement.
The City of Corona has released a request for proposal to receive bids for the purchase
of two lift -equipped transit vans. They have an option to order one additional van and
have stated that the Commission could exercise this option. Vehicle cost is unknown at
this time since bids are due on January 16, 1992. Staff would recommend that the
Commission pursue the purchase of this vehicle. A report will be made at the February
Commission meeting to provide final cost results of the January bid opening.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
That the Commission:
1) Authorize staff to exercise the option under the City of Corona's vehicle
procurement for the purchase of a 10- passenger, lift -equipped vehicle, using
Measure A funds; and
2) Assign this van to the Family Service Association of Western Riverside County for
use as a back-up vehicle.
CB:jw
ITEM #5C
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
DATE: January 2, 1992
TO: Administrative Committee
FROM: Jerry Rivera, Staff Analyst
THROUGH: Jack Reagan, Executive Director
SUBJECT: Measure A Specialized Transit Funds for Meditrans Service, Inc.
Meditrans Services has been a provider of service, primarily to the developmentally
disabled, in the western county area for years and operates under contract with the
Riverside Transit Agency, County Office on Aging, and the Inland Regional Center.
They were recently notified by Ca'trans that they have been approved for funding for two
16 passenger buses with fully automatic wheelchair lifts and tie -downs under the UMTA
16(b) (2) program. The program will provide 80% federal funds for the purchase of capital
equipment. Meditrans is requesting an allocation of Measure A Specialized Transit Funds
to provide the 20% ($20,320) local matching funds. A similar request was approved by
the Commission in FY 1990-91.
This request is in compliance with the RCTC adopted policies for Measure A Specialized
Transit and Commuter Service Programs.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
That the Commission approve the Measure A funding request of $20,320 from Meditrans
Services, Inc. subject to the conditions of the Measure A Specialized Transit and
Commuter Service Program policies.
JR:jw
attachment
MEDITRANS SERVICES
Medical hansportation
December 2, 1991
Mr. Paul Blackwelder
Riverside Co. Transportation Commission
3560 University Ave, Suite 100
Riverside, Ca., 92501
Dear Mr. Blackwelder,
Meditrans Services Inc. has received notification from
CALTRANS that we have been approved for two 16 passenger
buses with fully equipped automatic wheelchair lifts and tie -downs
under the UMTA 16 (b) (2) program, for cycle 23 (copy of letter
attached.).
The required 20% local match for these vehicles is $20,320.
I hereby request a grant in this amount from Measure "A"
funds. Please note that the required match must be deposited no
later than January 31, 1992.
I appreciate your assistance in this matter. Should you require
additional information, please feel free to contact me.
Sincerely,
DONALD G . HIGH
Executive Director
2060 University Ave. • Suite 116 • Riverside, CA 92507
(714) 682-1162 • (714) 682.1183
ITEM #5D
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
DATE: January 2, 1992
TO: Administrative Committee
FROM: Marilyn Williams, Senior Staff Analyst
THROUGH: Jack Reagan, Executive Director
SUBJECT: Measure A Rideshare Marketing Demonstration Program and Commuter
Buspools
At the Commission's December 11, 1991, meeting, staff presented eleven informal
guidelines which have influenced the development of the various Measure A Commuter
Assistance Programs over the past two years. Staff was seeking adoption of the
guidelines to assist in development and administration of the programs and to clarify
recent questions raised by participating employers, commuters and service providers.
The Measure A Rideshare Marketing Demonstration Program and the four commuter
buspools have been the focus of recent discussions. The attached December 11 th staff
report provides background information as to how the buspools were developed and
implemented, how they are currently operated and factors which may affect future
operations.
The Commission directed staff to clarify how the guidelines related specifically to the
commuter buspools and bring them back for further consideration. Each guideline is
listed below and is followed by a discussion.
Measure A Commuter Assistance Programs should:
(1) Be responsive to commuters ever changing attitudes and needs.
Historically, buspools have been more difficult to form and maintain ridership
than carpools or vanpools. The difficulty is related to the number of people
required to make the service viable. A carpool requires 2 to 4, a vanpool
7 to 14, and a buspool 45 people. The formation of buspools as a result of
the Rideshare Marketing Demonstration Program was an unforeseen
success. The length of the commute to Orange County, both in time and
distance, appears to have developed a _demand for leaving the drive to
someone else. Some commuters are now willing to pay a reasonable price
for the special service a buspool offers. Tomorrow they may not be willing
Page 2
Administrative Committee
Measure A Rideshare Marketing Demonstration Program and Commuter Buspools
January 2, 1992
to do so based on a number of factors which influence commuters
decisions. For instance, future commuter rail service may have a significant
impact on the buspools. The continued success of the buspools is
dependent upon whether or not the service is competitive with other mode
choices and offers desired amenities at a reasonable price. The current
buspool contractor, Hunt Transportation works closely with the sponsors of
each route to ensure ridership satisfaction. The commuters are allowed to
leave personal belongings such as pillows and blankets on the bus
Monday through Friday. The contractor will add or change the number of
route stops and pick up times on short notice and makes the buses
available for work site promotions to market the service at no extra costs.
(2) Not replace the commuters personal responsibility to get to and from work
nor an employers responsibility under Reg. XV.
(3)
The commuter should hold the primary responsibility for getting to and from
work at his/her own personal expense. Under Reg. XV employer's are
required to provide incentives to encourage commuters to rideshare. As a
result, the commuter may receive a direct or indirect financial incentive from
the employer for not driving alone that may defray some portion of the
individuals expense. The buspool programs place the majority of the
financial responsibility on the employer and the commuter by requiring that
they guarantee the full monthly cost of service including empty seats.
Compares to other public transit services the $25 per seat per month
buspool subsidy is relatively small and does not supplant the commuter's
responsibility.
Encourage participation by other entities having responsibility for
transportation demand management (TDM) service delivery.
There are a number of entities, public and private, who have some form of
responsibility for the delivery of TDM services. Measure A programs are
structured to forge partnerships with those entities. In addition to the
Commission the buspools involve the commuters, the employers and the
Riverside Transit Agency (RTA). To receive the Commission's $25 buspool
subsidy, the sponsoring group must request same from the Commission
and guarantee that they will assume full financial liability for the balance of
the costs. In doing so, the sponsoring group also makes a commitment to
Page 3
Administrative Committee
Measure A Rideshare Marketing Demonstration Program and Commuter Buspools
January 2, 1992
administer and market the service at the work site and is the main reason
buspool ridership is high. The Commission decided to implement the
Rideshare Marketing Demonstration Program through RTA since they held
an on -going contract with Hunt Transportation for a long running commuter
buspool from Riverside to Hughes Fullerton. As each new buspool spun off
from the Marketing Program, the sponsors elected to use the existing
structure with RTA.
(4) Be cost effective in delivery of services and leverage other
resources/expertise.
(5)
Demand for buspool service is relatively new and is driven by the
commuters willingness to purchase the service. So long as buspools can
provide a high level of service at a reasonable cost, the commuter will pay
the price. Measure A funds should be spent effectively and its programs
evaluated frequently enough to ensure that operating cost are competitive
within the market place. RTA's decision to go out for bid on the buspool
services is consistent with this guideline. The Commission's $25 buspool
subsidy leverages the commuters personal transportation choices, the
employers trip reduction program dollars and staff time, and RTA's contract
administration expertise. Care must be taken, however, that RFP cost
comparisons are made for the same type of service currently provided
including amenities which the commuters have become accustom to and at
a reasonable price.
Be viewed as short or medium term; they are not intended to be permanent
programs requiring on -going funding.
The primary purpose of Measure A Commuter Assistance Programs is to
develop creative demonstration programs that would potentially not
otherwise be packaged. If successful, the demand created by the
demonstration program may spin off interest and implementation of the
programs by other TDM entities. The Marketing Program and resulting
buspools have received a lot of attention in the Reg XV world. The South
Coast Air Quality Management District selected the Rideshare Marketing
Demonstration Program as one of their 1991 Clean Air winners. It is
expected that a point will be reached when the market place for the
Marketing Program and buspools becomes saturated and a decision may
Page 4
Administrative Committee
Measure A Rideshare Marketing Demonstration Program and Commuter Buspools
January 2, 1992
(6)
be made to cut back or discontinue the Marketing Program. Based on the
commuter's constantly changing attitudes and rideshare options, a point
may also be reached when the Commission may revise or eliminate it's
current buspool subsidy. As Measure A funding is a limited, time specific
resource, the Commuter Assistance Programs are designed to be short or
medium term.
Be creative and flexible in program delivery through various mechanisms,
i.e.: public/private service provider, consultant, employer. Transportation
Management Association (TMA), regional rideshare agency, etc.
Depending on the type of Commuter Assistance Program several TDM
entities may be involved in program delivery. As RTA held a contract with
Hunt Transportation, the Commission opted to use RTA as the conduit to
subcontract with Hunt to provide the bus service for the Marketing Program.
The Commission also has the option to contract directly or to select an
agency other than RTA to subcontract through. The buspool sponsors all
selected to purchase service from Hunt Transportation through RTA
because the mechanism was already in place. None of the sponsors had
time to go out for bid given the two month time period of the Marketing
Program. Their highest priority was to start an on -going service on the
same day the Marketing Program service ended. Each of the sponsors as
purchasers of the service, have the right to procure service from any bus
provider, public or private. It is expected they would exercise this option if
it becomes more convenient or cost effective for them to do so. So long as
the sponsoring group guarantees the full cost of the monthly service, the
Commission's $25 buspool subsidy is available regardless of which operator
is providing the service.
(7) Be quick to respond to implementation/operational feedback that says this
works, that doesn't.
To be effective, the Commuter Assistance Programs must be flexible enough
to respond to feedback. Once implemented, a program may not function
in the anticipated manner or meet the commuter needs that it was designed
to support or influence. The purpose of demonstration programs is to learn
what works and what doesn't and to respond accordingly. On -going
program conditions may also change and require adjustment of the
Page 5
Administrative Committee
Measure A Rideshare Marketing Demonstration Program and Commuter Buspools
January 2, 1992
(8)
program. The impacts of the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) and
UMTA charter service definitions may affect RTA's ability to provide
commuter buspool service in the same manner it has to date. If the cost for
service increases because RTA, as a public transit operator, must provide
accessible service, a buspool sponsoring group may elect to contract
directly for service to maintain the lowest possible cost. Under ADA private
carriers are not required to lift equip buses until 1997. Further, the buspools
fall under ADA's demand responsive system definition and are required to
provide accessible service only when a request for such service is made.
To date, none of the buspools have been asked to provide accessible
service. Since the buspool service is considered by the sponsoring groups
to be charter service, RTA's operation of the buspools may place them in
jeopardy of losing revenues under UMTA guidelines. Commission Legal
Counsel is reviewing this issue.
Reflect the Commission's adopted rideshare priorities based on least
amount of subsidy required: carpools, vanpools, buspools, express bus and
public transit.
The Marketing Program was developed as a mechanism to offer a free
sample of ridesharing. By allowing commuters to test ridesharing and
providing a safe environment to meet other commuters it was hoped that
carpools and vanpools could be initiated from the free sample and they
were. However, an unexpected result of the Marketing Program was the
demand to form buspools which are supported by the Commission in the
form of a $25 per seat per month subsidy.
(9) Provide only as much financial incentive or subsidy as is required to trigger
movement to ridesharing.
The most effective way to change commuters behavior has been through
financial incentives. The trick is to offer the least amount necessary to effect
a change. The Commission adopted a Measure A commuter buspool policy
in November, 1989, that stated, "at least 50% of the costs for commuter
buspools should be covered by fares and employer contributions". When
Page 6
Administrative Committee
Measure A Rideshare Marketing Demonstration Program and Commuter Buspools
January 2, 1992
the demand for buspools developed, negotiations with the sponsors
highlighted that commuter and employers would carry more than 50% of the
fare. Based on the market place, a $25 buspool subsidy was set which
represents only 15% to 25% of the full monthly fare of the various buspools.
(10) Distribute any Commission adopted user incentive/subsidy through/to the
most appropriate entity, i.e.; individual commuter, commuter group,
employer, regional rideshare agency, TMA, public or private service
provider, etc.
Based on program goals, target commuters, service providers and employer
trip reduction programs, various avenues exist through which adopted user
incentive/subsidies can be paid. Currently the $25 buspool subsidy is paid
to RTA on behalf of the individual commuters riding the buspools. The
monthly pass fares are reduced to the sponsoring group who in turn sells
the reduced cost passes to the commuters. The sponsors may also
provide an additional subsidy to further lower the monthly pass to the
commuter. Should the contractual nature of a buspool change, the per seat
subsidy could still be paid. For instance, if a sponsoring group elected to
contract directly with a private carrier, the Commission subsidy could be
paid to the carrier or to the sponsoring group itself.
(11) Be restructured or terminated when determined that it no longer meets its
original objective or becomes cost prohibitive.
Commuter Assistance Programs are developed to change commuter
behavior and must be dynamic to be effective. They must capture the
interest of the commuter and be competitive in the market place to convince
the commuter to leave his/her car home or at a park-n-ride lot. Given
Measure A's limited resources, each of the Commuter Assistance Programs
must stand on their own merit. If the conditions which created the demand
for buspools change and/or the sponsors are no longer willing to guarantee
the costs, changes or discontinuation of the service would be warranted.
The Commission should have no vested interest in a particular program,
only in the reduction of congestion by creative, cost effective programs that
affect a change in commuters solo driving habits.
Page 7
Administrative Committee
Measure A Rideshare Marketing Demonstration Program and Commuter Buspools
January 2, 1992
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
That the Administrative Committee provide staff direction regarding the most appropriate
channel to bring the informal guidelines forward to the Commission for their action.
MW:jw