HomeMy Public PortalAbout01 January 25, 1983 Citizens' Advisory040221
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
AGENDA
CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE
January 25, 1983, 12:30 P.M.
Riverside City Fat]
4th Floor Conference Room
3900 Main Street, Riverside 92522
1. Call to Order.
2. Approval of Minutes.
3. Federal Gas Tax Legislation. INFO
4. Quarterly Report on Transit Operations. INFO
5. Commission Goals and Objectives. DISC./ACTION
6. Desert Area Transit Productivity Advisory Committee INFO
Recommendations.
7. Rubidoux-Mira Loma Transit Service Analysis. ACTION
8. Riverside/San Bernardino r'lultimodal Transportation INFO
Study - Citizens Participation Program and Study
Goals and Objectives.
9. Adjournment.
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Minutes of Meeting No. 6-82
November 30, 1982
1. Ca11 to Order.
The meeting of the Citizens Advisory Commitee was called to order by
Chairman Gordon Hass at 1:48 p.m. at the Riverside City Hall, Fourth
Floor Conference Room, 3900 Main Street, Riverside. With a quorum not
present, the Committee operated as a Committee as a Whole.
Members present:
Marian Carpelan
Gordon Hass
Herb Krauch
Rand Martin
Members absent:
Donna Crowe
Fred A. Fickas
Jordan T. Huntley
Richard Jandt
Ben Minnich
Suzanne Phillips
Earl Shade
Shiela Velez
Rena Parker
Lloyd O'Connell
John Porter
Ran Wyder
Others present:
Ken Kaufher, RTA Stephen 011er, RTA
2. Approval of Minutes.
There being no corrections or additions to the minutes of the August 31,
1982 meeting, the Chairman declared the minutes approved as submitted.
3. RTA Productivity Analysis.
Ken Kaufher explained to the Committee that the RTA staff report included
in the agenda packet on productivity of RTA services provides four oper-
ating statistics (passengers, revenue hours or miles, operating costs and
fare revenue) and three performance indicators (passengers/hour or mile,
fare revenue/operating expense and cost/passenger) for each fixed route
and dial -a -ride service. He noted that three actions have affected the
productivity of RTA services: (1) a fare increase; (2) route restructuring;
and, (3) service reductions. A review and discussion of the fixed route
and dial -a -ride service productivity followed:
o Line 22 (Perris to Riverside)
A new full-size coach has replaced the minibus on this route. Rider-
ship has increased 1.7% and the farebox recovery increased almost 55%
compared to fiscal year 1982. To further improve this line, RTA plans
to look at the individual trips to determine if some unproductive
Citizens Advisory Committee Minutes
November 30, 1982
Page 2
service can be eliminated. RTA will also increase marketing efforts
throughadirect mail and personal contact program in Perris and Mead
Valley.
o Line 24 (Lake Elsinore/Perris/Tyler Mall)
Ken Kaufher told the Committee that ridership on this line has in-
creased by 25% and average fare revenue/passenger rose from 32¢ in
FY 82 to 55¢ in October, 1983. The cost to operate Line 24 with
a larger vehicle is approximately 20% higher than for a minibus.
An additional trip from Tyler Mall to Lake Elsinore was started in
October 1982 to increase ridership. RTA plans to increase its efforts
to attract additional ridership,to imprpve the farebox recovery ratio
and reduce the cost per passenger.
Chairman Hass asked why this route has experienced an increase in
ridership. Ken Kaufher stated that the biggest complaint on this
line had been the poor reliability of the minibuses used to provide
this service in the past. He suspects that RTA is recovering some
of the ridership they had lost because the new vehicles are more
reliable and have greater seating capacity.
o Line 27E (Hemet/Perris/Riverside - Express)
Ken Kaufher explained that ridership on Line 27E has increased 5:7%
over Lines 27 and 28 ridership last year. The farebox recovery ratio
is estimated to be 7.7% for October '83 which is slightly higher than
the annual 1982 average of 7% but is still 37% less than the 12.3%
projected in the Short Range Transit Plan. Estimated expenses for
October '83 are 45% higher than FY '82. In December 1982, RTA plans
to operate the line nine times per day to Sun City. Marketing efforts
are underway to promote the service.
o Contracted Services
Ken Kaufher explained that the cost for these services have increased
significantly under the new contracts. RTA will review the overhead
and fixed labor portions of the contracts to determine if cost re-
ductions can be negotiated to compensate for reductions in service
levels.
o Line 21
As a result of a service reduction, there has been a 50% reduction in
ridership. Cost reductions have not followed service reductions and
RTA will review the maintenance cost of the minibus to verify if the
actual costs are as high as the costs projected in the contractor's
budget. RTA is planning a marketing program with the management of
Country Village and businesses along the route and will attempt to
have dial -a -ride passengers use the fixed route if they do not have
mobility problems.
Citizens Advisory Committee Minutes
November 30, 1982
Page 3
Paul Blackwelder commented that in discussing ridership on Line 21
with RTA staff, he was told that the ridership is higher than indi-
cated in the report.
Ken Kaufher replied that ridership for the first part of November has
increased to 79 passengers/day and that the ridership is increasing.
o Line 23 (Sun City Shuttle)
Ken Kaufher stated that there have been a number of operational
problems with this line and ti-atit would be discontinued on December
12th as it is being replaced by Line 27E service. Line 23 was imple-
mented in September, 1982 to provide Sun City residents a connection
to Perris on Line 27E.
o Line 25 (Highgrove)
Ken Kaufher said that this line has experienced a steady decrease in
ridership with a large percentage of the decrease from student rider-
ship. RTA is reviewing Saturday service for possible reductions and
will review school and work shifts to determine whether schedule times
and trip directions match travel patterns. In addition, they will
review the maintenance cost to seek reductions from the contractor.
Marketing efforts will be developed in cooperation with the Loma Linda
University Medical Center, Veterans' Hospital, and the school districts
to increase ridership.
In response to Ben Minnich's question as to what the reasons are for
the decline in student ridership, Ken Kaufher explained that student
discounts have been restricted.
o Line 30
This line was implemented in September, 1982. RTA expected to attract
dial -a -ride riders to the fixed route. Marketing efforts are under-
way towards increasing public awareness of this service.
Barry Beck noted that the report indicated a loss of 6,000 riders out
of 14,000 riders. He asked Ken Kaufher to explain the cause for this
significant drop in ridership.
Ken Kaufher replied that they have had problems with on -site reporting
when transfers are concerned. This problem was recognized during the
year and has now been corrected. In addition, fares were increased to
75ct with 50% of the riders being elderly and handicapped.
Marian Carpelan asked if RTA would reduce its cost if they were to oper-
ate dial -a -ride services rather than contract for them.
Ken Kaufher said that there is a possibility that it would be less
costly if RTA were to operate all services. This will be reviewed by
RTA staff.
Citizens Advisory Committee Minutes
November 30, 1982
Page 4
Shiela Velez informed Ken Kaufher that RTA would reduce its cost for
salaries when their agency hires a handicapped person. The federal
government picks up 3% of the salary which would reduce the operating
cost to RTA for contracted services.
Ken Kaufher thanked Shiela Velez for the information and said that
he will forward this information to the contractors.
o Sun City DAR
As a result of the fare increase in January and the elimination of
the monthly elderly and handicapped unlimited pass, ridership has
declined 38% compared to last year. RTA is planning promotion and
marketing efforts through local merchants to increase ridership.
Ken Kaufher told the Committee that effective November 1, 1982, there
has been a reduction in overhead costs of the Perris facility and
approximately 40% of the savings will be allocated to Sun City. A
further reduction in cost in vehicle maintenance is expected when
new vehicles are placed in service in December.
o Perris Valley DAR
Ken Kaufher said that ridership has decreased but is consistent with
Short Range Transit Plan projections. There has been a slight improve-
ment in farebox recovery because of the fare increase.
o Moreno Valley & Rubidoux DARs
Ken Kaufher said that decreased ridership has been caused by high turn-
over in dispatchers and by a high turnover of service area residents
resulting in a lack of awareness of the service.
Paul Blackwelder commented that in addition to ridership'declining more
than expected in some systems, the passenger per hour rates are still
below the FY 1982 rates. Since cost reductions for decreasing the service
level have not been as large as expected because the maintenance costs
were moved to the fixed expense part of the new contracts, the cost/passenger
has increased significantly. RTA staff will need to renegotiate fixed costs
to the extent possible in the next year and consider fixed route alternatives
in some dial -a -ride services. The dial -a -ride service contracts for FY 1984
should be placed out for competitive bid in an attempt to reduce operating
costs.
4. Western Riverside County Transit Productivity Committee Recommendations.
Paul Blackwelder informed the Committee that the Commission has appointed
Productivity Committees to evaluate transit operators. Two committees
were appointed: one for the western end of the County and one for the
desert area. The Western Riverside County Committee held two meetings
in October and has developed sixteen recommendations for improving the
Citizens Advisory Committee Minutes
November 30, 1982
Page 5
the productivity of services operated by RTA and Riverside Special Services.
Staff recommended that the Committee endorse the recommendations.
In response to Ben Minnich's question whether some of the recommendations
had already been implemented, Paul Blackwelder stated that some are in the
process of being implemented.
Shiela Velez commented that she has had difficulty in reading RTA maps and
has experienced difficulty in information assistance from RTA offices.
Ken Kaufher told Shiela Velez that he will follow up on this matter and
resolve this problem.
M/S/C (MINNICH/KRAUCH) to endorse the recommendations developed
by the Western Riverside County Transit Productivity Committee.
5. SunLine Intervalley Handicapped Service.
Paul Blackwelder noted that in July, 1982, SunLine requested the Commission
for additional funds to extend the intervalley service from Indio to
Coachella and Mecca to serve seven clients of the FETCH Center in Palm
Desert. The estimated cost was $2,500. The extended service was implemented
in September and provided direct service for two clients in Coachella and
a central pickup point service to the remaining clients south and east of
Mecca. The Inland Regional Center entered into a contract with a taxi
service in Indio to transport the clients from the outlying area to the
pickup point in Mecca at a cost of $40/day. Further discussions with the
taxi service revealed that the cost for service to a central pickup point
in Indio would also be $40/day since the taxi company is based in Indio.
SunLine then reduced the service extension to Coachella. Inland Regional
Center will continue to provide taxi service for its clients from the
Mecca area to Indio. With the cooperative arrangements worked out between
SunLine and the Inland Regional Center staff, Commission staff feels that
the immediate needs of the FETCH Center clients in the southern end of
Coachella Valley have been met. SunLine is conducting a study on spe-
cialized transportation throughout the Coachella Valley. The report should
be completed in March and will be presented to the Committee.
6. Passenger Rail Service.
Received and filed.
7. Update on the Riverside/San Bernardino Plultimodal Transportation Study.
Barry Beck said that this report was placed on the Committee's agenda as
an update on the status of the study. Reports on each phase of the study
will be presented to the Committee.
Citizens Advisory Committee Minutes
November 30, 1982
Page 6
8. Adjournment.
Paul Blackwelder told the Committee that a luncheon meeting may be held
on December 21st if most of the members could attend.
With no other items to be discussed, Chairman Hass adjourned the meeting
at 3:58 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
r
1 r� -
�(, (L1-
Paul lac der
Assistant Director -Planning
nk
ITEM NO. 3
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission
FROM: Barry Beck, Executive Director
SUBJECT: Federal Gas Tax Legislation
The 5¢ federal gas tax increase has been approved by Congress, but as of this
date all details on the legislation are still not available. Here are some
of the provisions that we have learned of:
o The Federal Aid Primary (FAP) level of funding was increased
significantly and the formula for distributing the funds was
modified to benefit California. FAP funds are the revenue
source for I-215 and Routes 86 and 74.
o An 85% "return to source" provision was in the legislation.
It is unclear whether this will benefit California.
o Funds provided for local arterial improvements under the
Federal Aid Urban Program will remain at the same level as
in previous years. The Federal Aid Secondary Program
(funds for rural arterials) will be increased somewhat.
o A large portion of transit funding will be made avail-
able on a block grant basis to urbanized areas. The formula
will be based on a combination of transit revenue miles,
population and population -density. The amount of funds
available to our areas is not available yet.
o Funds may continue to be used for transit operating assis-
tance at 90-100% of the FY '82 level.
Staff will report on additional details of the legislation at the meeting if
they become available.
BB:nk
Agenda Item No. 6
CAC AceNda 1Uo.3 January 13, 1983
b vuilei zs 1448
ITEM NO. 4
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
TO: Citizens Advisory Committee
FROM: Paul Blackwelder, Assistant Director -Planning
SUBJECT: Quarterly Report on Transit Operations
The Commission discussed the attached report at its January meeting. Com-
missioner Cornelison was particularly concerned with the significant decrease
in student ridership in the RTA system. She noted that the fare increase in
January was more drastic for students than for any other ridership group.
Discount fares were eliminated for college students and restricted for all
other students.
While the decrease in student ridership is overstated in the report because
some students are paying full fares and are counted in that category, the
actual decrease is still significant. One problem identified is the number
of trips required to make a pass purchase attractive. The pass must be used
for twenty round trips per month to be more economical than paying for indi-
vidual trips. There are only three months in the school year with twenty or
more school days. On the surface, at least, the pass does not appear to be
an advantage to the rider. The pass can be used evenings and weekends if
students shows the pass and pay an additional 10¢. While the additional fare
is not significant, it is an inconvenience to the pass holder. There may also
be some confusion for students on whether or not the pass can be used evenings
and weekends because it is not explained in RTA fare schedules.
Commissioner Cornelison reminded the Commission that student discounts and
passes were intended to make transit economically attractive and convenient
with the hope that students would continue to use transit when they became
working adults. The revised fare policy does not promote this philosophy as
evidenced by the loss in student ridership. She requested that RTA recon-
sider its policy on providing discount fares to attract additional student
riders.
Staff has been directed by the Commission to compile a list of questions and
concerns such as the RTA student fare policy which will be forwarded to RTA
and SunLine for consideration and comment. Committee members are requested
to advise staff of issues or concerns they feel should be addressed.
PB:nk
Attachment
CAC Agenda No. 4
January 25, 1983
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission
FROM: Barry Beck, Executive Director
SUBJECT: Quarterly Report on Transit Operations
The attached table and graphs showing transit operations data for the period
of July 1, 1982 through September 31, 1982 were prepared by staff using in-
formation supplied by the transit operators.
Overall transit ridership for the period decreased by 4.2% or34,852 passengers
compared to the same period last year. Listed below are the changes in rider-
ship experienced by each of the transit operators.
FY 1982 FY 1983 L.
RTA 596,654 558,030 -38,624
SunLine 150,664 141,876 - 8,738
Banning 12,328 15,186 2,858
Beaumont 6,142 11,329 5,187
Corona 17,299 16,842 - 457
LETS 17,209 18,275 1,066
Riv. Spec. Svcs. 25,503 29,487 3,984
PVVTA 900 822 - 78
Total 826,699 791,847 -34,852
Riverside Transit Agency experienced the most significant decrease in ridership,
34,624 passengers. Fixed route ridership decreased by 3.9% or 20,522 passengers.
Dial -a -ride ridership decreased by 25% or 18,102 passengers. Analysis of rider-
ship by passenger type shows the majority of lost riders were students (20,023)
followed by the elderly and handicapped (8,900), and monthly pass users (5,964).
The elimination of reduced fares for college students and elimination of reduced
fares for other students after 6:00 p.m. and on non -school days has apparently
been.a significant disincentive to student use of transit.
SunLine Transit Agency's ridership decline is misleading. Analysis shows that
the number of fare paying passengers actually increased by 3.2% or 4,011
passengers. Because of route realignments, the number of transfer passengers
decreased by 12,789.
Beaumont, Banning, Lake Elsinore Transit System, and Riverside Special Services
Program all increased ridership. The large increase in the Beaumont dial -a -ride
was a result of expansion to Cherry Valley and Highland Springs. Banning
and Riverside Special Services ridership increases are a result of additional
use by handicapped persons traveling to workshop programs.
31
Agenda Item No. 13
January 13, 1983
Quarterly Report on Transit Operations Page 2
Fare revenue to operating expense ratios have remained constant or increased
for all transit operators when compared to last year. There doesn't appear
to be any problems with operators meeting their minimum ratios this year.
Staff will evaluate changes in performance indicators such as passengers per
hour, cost per passenger, and fare revenue ratios more closely in the second
quarter report when six months of data is available.
BB/PB:nk
Attachments
TRANSIT OPERATIONS REPORT
July 1, 1982 - September 30, 1982
RIVERSIDE
RTA SUNLINE BANNING * LETS BEAUMONT ** CORONA SPEC SVCS PVVTA TOTAL
TOTAL PASSENGERS 553,030 141,876 '15,186 18,275 11,329 16,842 29,487 822 791,847
Fixed -Route 504,630 133,664 15,186 13,275 - - - - 671,755
w 90.4% 94.2% 84.8%
Dial -A -Ride 53,400 8,212 - - 11,329 16,842 29,487 822 120,092
% 9.6% 5.8% 15 .2%
GROSS OPER EXPENSES $1,257,191 $446,564 $20,909 $32,187 $23,421 $66,739 $111,355 $3,409 $1,961,775
Fixed -Route $ 980,520 $382,259 $20,909 $32,187 - - - $1,415,875
% 78% 85.6% 72%
Dial -A -Ride $ 276,671 $ 64,305 - - $23,421 $66,739 $111,355 $3,409 $ 545,900
% 22% 14.4% 28%
FARE REVENUE $ 211,729 $ 65,031 $ 4,140 $ 4,178 $ 6,101 $13,348 $ 13,901 $ 744 $ 319,172
% of Oper. Exp. 16.8% 14.6% 19.3% 13.0% 26% 20% 12 .5% 21.8% 16 .3%
NET EXP./PASSENGER
Fixed -Route $ 1. 59
Dial -Ride $ 4.57
AVG. PASS./VEH. HR.
Fixed -Route 19.58
Dial -A -Ride 4.79
GROSS COST/VEH. HR.
Fixed -Route $ 33.04
Dial -A -Ride $ 24.82
*Used 25% of TDA claim.
* *Maintenance expenses low for 1st quarter.
$ 2.41 $ 1.10 $ 1.53
$ 7.30
11.47
4. 19
$ 1.53 $ 3 .17 $ 3.30 $ 3.24
16. 29 9.49 - - - -
8.56 5.87
S32.80 $22.43 $16.72
532.80
5.33 2 .33
$17.70 $23.28 $20 .33 $ 9 .65
RIDERS IN 100,000's
2
+
1
8
9
L'
:-.....:•,.:- ...,:,,,,\:-.,,,\\,.
- ..,,,,\--...„I '-.. .,,......1502,829
A\�\�\\---..c�\\-----,..,
\.,-----,,"--..Z--,,,."---.4547,076
602,449
N
J
w
w
-•
�'
\' \' ` 1 516, 699
N ''
_
��\\
\\\�
w
`\-
\ 642,450
\\\\\
\\\\_
`\\\\
651,735
J
1627,874
N
1
O
`N<
���� 57c,639
i_-
'-- .
�►�
\
G,
\
�_1►�
-1650,444
640,068
\
J
396,654
\� 668,641
v,
J
W
N
,:-. "---.::":<.'"-. c ".---.
�\ ���._-
614,996ki j
T�
`"'
---
���_����\`.����
\\\'''''N.,_
\��\��\���
1 623,904
����\\�� \\��'•-•,'•-,'"--! 558,030
N
W
1
v
CO
V
1
RIDERS IN 100,000's
2 3 4 5
V
l0
CO
0
w
�155,477
205,715
225,363
206,285
N
210,892
CO
CO
N w
150,
165
225,124
0,
CO
W
CO
64
838
- 244,648
139,511
141,8p6
RIDERS IN 10,000's
CO
m
70
2 3 4
6,888
8,316
9,080
9,007
��� 10,206
0
Ol
CO
0
OD
J
■����10,822
10,256
10,678
12,798
CO
0,
N
12,328
`,
LO
15 ,136
N
CO
CO
W
BEAU!1ONT DIAL -A -RIDE
RIDERSHIP
rn-
i
QUARTER
F.Y.
CO
N
N
N
3 4
78-79
15,328
M
CO N Gt
Lf) Lf) Ol CO
M Ol CO
M M %
M T /
,'A V) 2 2
1 1 2 1 3 1 4
79-80
20,685
Lf7
r COCr LS] - r
1-0
CO Lff l
T T
1 1 2 1 3 1 4
80-81
31,899
N
LO
11
2 1 3 1 4
81-82
82-83
d -1j
RIDERS IN 10,000's
03
V
to
m
73
2 3 4 5 6 7
\ 1 22,831
03
03
J
\\�\\\�� 23,380
22,290
\\\\ 21,259
23,022
03
Crl
lD
19,814
19,414
'120,561
03
w
00
00
N w
299
V40
16,987
17,480
16,842
30Ib-V-1VIO VNOU00
LAKE ELSINORE TRANSIT SYSTEM
RIDERSHIP
RIDERS IN 10,000's
QUARTER
F.Y.
'11
LO
LO
N
r
Ot
N
Ol
r
50,699
L0
N
N
r
Ol
r
3 4
78-79
2
3
79-80
14
65,890
L0
2
75,093
N 1-,
f-, N N. r LO
N N al •:t O w N.
N al CO O l0 ^ O N
N 4t -
e ---1 N n Q. N
4. l0 i /
,- r / r
///
/ / /
///r f
I I
I
3 1 4
80-81
1 2 1 3
81-82
4
2 3
82-83
RIVERSIDE SPECIAL SERVICES
E & H PROGRAM
RIDERSHIP
N
0
r
1--1
N
Ce
W
0-1
QUARTER
F.Y.
Cr)
LC)
107,660
Lf1
Ln
Liy
N
n
N
co
01
Co)
rn
61
cY
104,352
1.0
LC)
N
cn
tn
L1)
LV
105,285
ct
LC)
CV
3 4
78-79
r
2
3 1 4
79-80
2
3
80-81
4
2 1 3
81-82
4
1
2 1 3 1 4
82-83
PALO VERDE VALLEY TRANSIT AGENCY
RIDERSHIP
30,866 21,089 3,200
rn
QUARTER
F.Y.
o
O
LO
7
CST
L0
7
3 1 4
78-79
1 2 3
79-80
4
r
N
A
LO
10
4
2 1 3
80-81
CT r rN
n r
LO CO CO
2 3 4
81-82
N
CJ
CO
2 i 3 ! 4
82-83
ITEM NO. 5
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
TO: Citizens Advisory Committee
FROM: Barry Beck, Executive Director
SUBJECT: Commission Goals and Objectives
The attached report containing goals and objectives for the Commission
developed by staff was presented to the Commission at its January meeting.
The staff objectives were received for further review and refinement.
Staff requests that Committee members provide recommendations for revising
these objectives and/or develop additional objectives which can be presented
to the Commission in February.
BB/PB:nk
Attachment
CAC Agenda No. 5
January 25, 1983
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission
FROM: Barry Beck, Executive Director
SUBJECT: Goals and Objectives
From time to time, the Commission has discussed the need to establish goals
and objectives. However, with the exception of the adoption of some gener-
alized "interim" goals over five years ago, the Commission has never formally
adopted a set of goals and objectives. Instead, the Commission and staff has
generally carried out its functions under the general transportation goals
adopted by SCAG for the region and more specific objectives that the Commission
has sought from time to time such as obtaining certain legislation or obtain-
ing improvements to certain state highways. This informal approach; staff
believes, has been adequate given the size of the Commission and the limited
scope of its responsibility. It would be useful, however, to periodically
review the Commission's objectives to make certain they are still supported,
to revise and update them and to expand them if appropriate.
Attached is a list of short-term objectives staff has prepared that reflects
past Commission actions. These are objectives to be pursued over the next
1-2 years. These specific objectives are, of course, supplementary to the
routine and statutory functions of the Commission such as:
o Administration of various state and federal fund sources.
o Monitoring and advocating legislation.
o Technical assistance to transit operators.
o Preparation of the annual short range transit plan.
o Preparation of annual transportation improvement program.
o Annual unmet transit needs process.
Also attached, for reference purposes, is a listing of the currently adopted
regional transportation goals from the 1980 Regional Transportation Plan.
RECOMMENDATION
Review, discuss and adopt Commission objectives.
BB:nk
Attachment
30
Agenda Item No. 9
January 13, 1983
SHORT TERM OBJECTIVES
o Develop a long range multimodal transportation plan for the Western
County area.
o Secure federal funds through SCAG for the development of a long
range transportation plan for the Coachella Valley.
o Participate in the development of the Regional Transportation Plan
update to insure Riverside County's needs and interests are addressed.
o Advocate the inclusion of high priority state highway improvement
projects in the 10 -year plan being prepared by the California
Transportation Commission.
o Participate in discussions and/or negotiations to changes in the
"county minimum" provision governing the allocation of state funds
for transportation projects.
o Advocate the development of a regionwide commuter and intercity rail
plan that includes a study of the feasibility of providing service
to Riverside County.
o Complete performance audits of all transit operators and work with
operators to insure implementation of recommendations.
o Work ►with the County's transit operators to develop financial plans
to mitigate the expected reduction in federal and state transit
operating funds.
o Assist the Riverside Transit Agency in•the development of various
strategies and alternatives to improve the efficiency of various
transit services in the Western County area.
o Advocate and participate in increased efforts by RTA and Commuter
Computer to form additional no or low public cost commuter buspool
services from Western Riverside County to Orange and Los Angeles
Counties.
3�
REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION GOALS
1. To develop a transportation system which will support the
comprehensive goals of the region, taking into account the
effect of mode selection, location, and time upon the
physical, social, economic, and organizational environment.
2. To create a balanced transportation system integrated with
planned land use to provide safe, effective mobility for
all people and efficient and economic movement of goods.
3. To minimize the need for long distance intraregional travel,
particularly work trips, by guiding the development of the
region to create self-sufficient subregions having balanced
service facilities, employment, and housing.
4. To develop for the region a transportation system compatible
with the environment, using the available resources wisely,
promoting the aesthetic beauty of the region, and avoiding
undesirable environmental changes.
5. To develop a transportation system that is financially,
legally, and politically feasible, has broad public support,
and has a commitment to its implementation by elected
officials and those providing transportation services.
32
AGENDA ITEM 6
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission
FROM: Barry Beck, Executive Director
SUBJECT: Desert Area Transit Productivity Advisory Committee Recommendations
The Commission appointed the Desert Area Transit Productivity Advisory Com-
mittee as required by law in October. The Committee was formed to review
transit services operated by SunLine Transit Agency and to make recommenda-
tions for improving productivity and efficiency. Members of the Committee
included representatives from management, employee union representatives,
and transit users. Recommendations developed by the Committee and approved
by the Commission will be forwarded to SunLine. In order to be eligible
for funding in FY 1984, SunLine must show that a reasonable effort has been
made to implement the proposed improvements approved by the Commission.
The Committee held two meetings and developed thirteen recommendations for
improving the efficiency and productivity of SunLine transit services. The
recommendations cover a broad range of areas from improving route and
schedule information to consideration for later evening and Sunday service.
A list of the Committee's recommended productivity improvements is attached.
RECOMMENDATION
That the Commission approve the Desert Area Transit Productivity Advisory
Committee recommended productivity improvements and direct staff to forward
them to SunLine Transit Agency fo review, comment and implementation.
BB/PB:nk
Attachment
uRC. Agewador No
_la c* u. a R.1 ZS % 14'83
Agenda Item No. 5
January 13, 1983
DESERT AREA
TRANSIT PRODUCTIVITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE
RECOMMENDED PRODUCTIVITY IMPROVEMENTS
FOR
SUNLINE TRANSIT AGENCY
1. All route and schedule information should be dated.
2. Schedules and maps should be improved. There is a need for a smaller map in
addition to the bulky systemwide map currently distributed.
3. More attention should be placed on keeping route and schedule information
available on the buses.
4. SunLine should institute a training program for drivers to improve public
relations between its drivers and the public.
5. SunLine should consider providing later evening and Sunday service.
6. Day passes should be available at the Chamber of Commerce and other outlets.
7. Bus stacking and information signing should be improved at the Mall.
8. SunLine should consider placing advertising and/or messages promoting bus
use on the rear of its buses as is done by other systems.
9. Service on Lines 1 and 2 to the Riviera Hotel should be alternated to provide
z hour service rather than 60 -minute service presently provided by both buses
arriving at the same time.
10. SunLine should develop and adopt systemwide goals and individual service com-
ponent objectives.
11. SunLine should evaluate the potential for reducing expenses by using con-
tractors to provide certain services such as the intervalley handicapped
service to the Foundation for the Retarded of the Desert.
12. SunLine should consider extending the hours of the day for senior citizens
reduced fares.
13. SunLine should consider providing service information until 8:00 P.M. rather
than 5:00 P.M.
lc*
AGENDA ITEM 7
R IVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
TO: Citizens Advisory Committee
FROM: Paul Blackwelder, Assistant Director -Planning
SUBJECT: Rubidoux-Mira Loma Transit Alternatives Study
Commission staff, in cooperation with RTA staff, have been studying the feasi-
bility of revising transit service in the Rubidoux-Mira Loma to increase
productivity and decrease expenses. The study was initiated because of signi-
ficant ridership decreases and contract service cost increases during the past
year. The Transit Alternatives Study performed by JHK & Associates for the
Commission in 1980 identified the Rubidoux area as the RTA dial -a -ride with
the greatest feasibility for change to a fixed -route system. Commission staff
has reevaluated the fixed route alternative for the dial -a -ride system and
monitored ridership on Route 21 (Country Village -Tyler Mall) for the past
three months.
Ridership on the dial -a -ride service has decreased by 31% from 9,216 passengers
in the first quarter (July -September) of FY 1982 to 6,136 passengers for the
first quarter of FY 1983. The major factor for decreased ridership was the
fare increase in January, 1982. .Due to increased contract costs and decreased
productivity, the average cost per passenger increased by 27% from $5.39 in
FY 1982 to $6.82 in FY 1983. Ridership on Line 21 (Country Village -Tyler Mall)
decreased by 49.4% from 3,425 passengers in October, 1931 to 1,692 passengers
in October, 1982. The major factor for decreased ridership was the elimination
of service between Country Village and Downtown Riverside along Mission Boulevard.
This segment of the route duplicated SCRTD Line 496 service. Increased contract
costs and lower productivity increased the average cost per passenger by 62%
from $3.06 in October, 1981 to $4.99 in October, 1982.
RUBIDOUX DIAL -A -RIDE ANALYSIS
Commission staff performed a detailed analysis of ridership, vehicle hours, peak
hours, wait times, and travel times for a one week period in September, 1982.
Weekday ridership ranged from 78 to 93 passengers on weekdays to 42 passengers
on Saturday. Wait times were generally less than 30 minutes and travel times
were generally less than 20 minutes. The wait and travel times both show a high
level of service is provided in the system. Vehicle hours on weekdays averaged
23. Past experience has shown that the demand level in the area could be served
using 16 vehicle hours/day with no appreciable loss in service quality. Vehicle
hours were reduced to 18 hours/day in September. This decrease in vehicle hours
has increased productivity to approximately the same number of passengers per
hour carried in FY 1982.
In order to evaluate the feasibility of fixed route service, the origins and des-
tinations of dial -a -ride users for a two-day period were plotted on a map. SCRTD
Line 496 and RTA Route 21 alignments and one quarter mile service bands were then
plotted on the map. The final step was to plot a fixed route which could be served
by one vehicle on a one -hour headway connecting residential areas, shopping centers,
and schools, and which provided service within on quarter mile of as many dial -a -
CAC Agenda No. 7
January 25, 1983
Rubidoux-Mira Loma Transit Alternatives Study Page 2
ride users as possible. The attached map shows the existing and proposed route
alignments, one quarter mile service areas, and dial -a -ride trip origins.
The fixed route alternative offers the following advantages and disadvantages
compared to dial -a -ride service:
Advantages
1. Costs for the fixed route alternative would be lower than for Bial-
a -ride by approximately $39,000 or 27% from $146,000 to $107,000.
2. The existing and proposed fixed routes provide service within one
quarter mile of 90% of all existing dial -a -ride service users and
serves shopping centers and schools.
3. The proposed fixed -route is expected to attract greater patronage
than the existing dial -a -ride because fares will be lower and service
will be more convenient.
4. Productivity will be easier to control. Increased demand could be
served by a larger vehicle rather than additional vehicles. Ineffi-
cient dispatching procedures resulting in excess vehicle hours
identified in our initial analysis will be eliminated.
Disadvantages
1. Approximately 10% (14 of 142) of existing dial -a -ride users had
origins further than one quarter mile from a fixed route.
2. Some elderly or handicapped dial -a -ride users may find the one
quarter mile distance to the fixed route unreasonable. This will
be mitigated to a great extent by the availability of Meditrans
service.
LINE 21 SERVICE
Ridership on Line 21 decreased from an average of 130 per day to an average of
67 passengers/weekday in October 1982 when the Country Village to Downtown
Riverside segment of the line was discontinued. Ridership has increased to an
average of 73 passengers/weekday and 94 passengers/Saturday in November and an
average of 84 passengers/weekday and 94 passengers/Saturday in December. The
ridership increase is attributable to two factors. The Country Village -Tyler
Mall segment provides more direct service because service to Swan Lake was eli-
minated due to low demand. RTA's contractor has been marketing heavily in the
areas of Country Village and Glen Avon. Ridership on this line would be ex-
pected to increase if the proposed Rubidoux fixed route were implemented and
transfers were possible for persons from the Rubidoux area travelling to Tyler
Mall.
Rubidoux-Mira Loma Transit Alternatives Study Page 3
SUMMARY
Staff recommends that RTA continue to operate Line 21 at least for the remainder
of FY 1982-83 and continue to monitor ridership. We also recommend that RTA
strongly consider the implementation of the fixed route alternative as part of
the Short Range Transit Plan update and present this alternative for service to
residents of the Rubidoux-Mira Loma area.
PB:nk
k EIVfl O tL UTITV
LOVA
LE fEENTEA
W. CI.
52
. dMA
ikon
DR RIDI
•`j
1 — FAD 1030
Roc de :8" Al
• 1
TRY J
GE
c ou
VIE
SURVEY'
SECTIO N
NUMBERS
ULLN .[]N
K Population 0,0 0 g .,-
MEW 1.1.rn.u1
. A
5
STRING
C,
-ylAE..,1
1,1
icn. Raft.
a le
xam• alum
IMMA TKI
5UNNYSL OP
WAILFUL
wNTER
Orr •rWF
18 t
VILVOi
11 ,!• 'EN.r, ,) A GLEN VON IR I r1:
=1 . u5*Ir.Etac•
yr w t k -a � ol" • E t i -
HEN;
aRR F•uN FiJ - - �.=
lit ill: nur
yr•` w lY + ,. �L�.,
•L. ,, f . iJfIA13PA R 1e 92509 ,,. ▪ 17
• ▪ ' .• ... � � „ u•L " IS Population 49,092 1 HILLS ,��-
r G t V• y.. k ' N- a rSwr q I,Ve7 Gn YS; I I ti ' I
P 14 INdIANwa.tr._
I. .„_,,. .,(5,c.. , ... ..HILLS
# .. . v • n,
I�. WL�IC 'NVa IIIVDMIN SER VWV 01 ,S '.- ''i n. .w
laSTOAC
JURUPA R AN CHO
(STEARN1)
A ryl IS ` 5.�: 1
May
Popitlllon 1,000
UVAt 0.1 Vn•1.1
f
:WEN'
k .. KY.'S GOLF r.Y4 ryL °Ie
JU RU PA RAN CH5]O]`��af,']""i
{ST6A RH +yT "'j�r '�.r�' � �� R `w��f 1 `�• f. J`.T
' y . t•"�- } L y ,may
.q MEDLEY F 7:
5.5
'�y�' JURUPA MIL L
R CYJf1P
SANTA AR44 FINER RE= NAL PARK D
l• e
SAN TA le; ' ANA RIVER REGTb/IAL' 'PARK L. • "•
,.. .... .—.•.1. ..z.: - fuN OEVfL�a— MD• Ea �\s"_►>-x``'-
• . HID DEN VALLEY ANEA -�'L
r . n
-
CRESTMdR9
4
DI0TA1 ZNI D RRY 4IET•1?I RGTSON
®/OD • NAM. CO. AUNITT SERVICE. D111 .
Maio AISD • AAUP* UNIFIED SCNC10l D11T.
MSS. ROD • RU MDOUR COMMUNITY SERVICE. DISI.
COO WNW • v. NVERLDE MEMORIAL RARAD DM.
•, C MOU NTMN
''001.1 ia rt 1R;0
.r\v-41E4 ET "
1 -19gr
aiarr
N..1 e.nr•L M+ - JURUPA RRNCP0 ANCXb
a . _ t olc,,ou]iy
UPA ...F -s [C.1, ,
41 `. A• -•'PARK
.7MIn A ,w.R • H
.D, f }� _
---1,--$AW A ARSE A]1 -Fib , _ - -•`.Ye:
REDi.
57gpr. I�cP ‘. L�
-ald,:vdKf=-T� ../
5T �l �
11
WEST R1V[1lSIDa.:F+-�
15f
"r�!X lei
ss .d FAM1Y 0
1• J 4 4w.• ••L
%• Ii Ya
Ant
PA RK
id e;7 'e ‘,96 .s-'--
2/
u7 irzo05eA-
•P-4-deazi6%v.
iltr ••1
JUr
CALI
r..
le NIL••. •
Ere
SCALE F�
COST COMPARISONS FOR RUBIDOUX DAR VS. FR SERVICE
ASSUMPTIONS DEVELOPED USING FY83 CONTRACTED COSTS FOR PURCHASED TRANSPORTATION SERVICES
(PTS), SITE ADMIN. AVERAGE FUEL COST AND CONSUMPTION, INSURANCE RATES FOR CASUALTY AND
LIABILITY (C&L) RTA ADMIN. (COPS & G. A.) LEASES/RENTALS (L&R) AND MISC. COSTS.
W/R CONTRACT PTS. FR. .616¢/MILE
DAR. $10.62/HOUR
C&L 7.089/100 MILES
FUEL 1.20/GAL.
FUEL ECOMONY 7 MILES/GAL.
PROJECTED MAJOR VARIABLE COSTS FOR USING FY83 BASE: 258 M -F, 50 SAT.
VSH M -F
SAT
FY83 M -F
SAT
FY83 TOTAL
CONTRACT RATE
PTS
FUEL
MILEAGE C&L*
TOTAL VARIABLE $90,156
.RFP DAR
HOURS
24
8.5
6192
425
6617
X $10.62
$70,273
14,066
5,817
IMPROVED DAR FR ALTER.
MILES HOURS MILES HOURS MILES
298
105
76781
5270
82051
16 215
8 108
4128 55522
400 5380
4528 60902
X $10.62
$48,087
10,440
4,317
11.33 200
8.33 150
2923 51600
417 7500
3340 59100
X .616
$36,406
10,131
4,190
$62,834 $50,727
*C&L FIGURES DO NOT INCLUDE FLEET VALVE COVERAGE, ONLY MILEAGE VARIABLE.
PATRONAGE ANALYSIS -
1. POPULATION ( 1981 CENSUS EST.)
2. LENGTH OF ROUTE
3. POPULATION DENSIT
4. POPULATION SERVED
5. TRIP RATE
6. PATRONAGE (4X5)
7. ANNUAL RIDERSHIP (308 SERVICE DAYS)
ANNUAL RIDERS
AVG. REV/PASS.
TOTAL REV.
EST. COST
FBA
SERVICE LEVEL
PRODUCTIVITY
NET COST/PASS.
COST/HR
COST/MILE
RIDERSHIP COMPARISON
PROJECTED
DAR (FY83)
22,426
X .62¢
$13,904
$146,093
9.52%
5,377 HRS.
66,674 MILES
4.17 PASS/HR
.33 PASS/MILE
$5.89
24.58
1.98
RUBIDOUX
18,000
8.6 MILES
2,100 PERSONS/SQ. MI.
9,030
10 TRIPS/1,000 POP. SERVED
90 PER DAY
27,720
RUBIDOUX
FR "B"
27,720
X .31¢
$8,593
-� $106,858
8.04%
3,340 HRS.
59,100 MILES
8.3 PASS/HR
.47 PASS/MILE
$3.54
29.42
1.66
AGENDA ITEM 8
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
TO: Citizens Advisory Committee
FROM: Harry Schuler, Assistant Director -Programming
SUBJECT: Citizen Participation Program and Goals and Objectives for the
Riverside/San Bernardino Multimodal Transportation Study
An effective citizen participation program is an important component of any
publicly -funded, transportation planning project of significant size. The
need for an effective citizens program is clearly established for the
Riverside/San Bernardino Multimodal Transportation Study, due to the signi-
ficance of the transportation issues it will address and the level of public
expenditure that is likely to be recommended from the planning process.
Briefly stated, the multimodal transportation study will assess the trans-
portation needs (both highway and transit) in the urban areas of Western
Riverside and San Bernardino Counties to the year 2000. The identification
of transportation needs/ deficiencies will provide the citiesand counties
with information to update/amend city and county general plans. The purpose
of this report is twofold: (1) To outline the citizen participation program
recommended for the transportation study; and, (2) To present the goals and
objectives for the study (attachment). Members of the Commission's Citizens
Advisory Committee are asked to review the goals and objectives and make
comments.
In developing the citizens Program, three key considerations were identified:
o Effective communication requires that information be received
and understood by the interests who need it.
o Public meetings assist in bringing out the views of public
interests and in exposing the consultant team and the general
public to each others' views.
o Public should be kept informed at key decision points in the
planning process.
The above statements outline the logic of the citizen participation program.
In order to implement this logic, a step-by-step procedure has been worked out.
First, the program should focus on the following three time points in the study:
o The drafting of goals and objectives and key issues for the
transportation study.
o The technical analysis and evaluation of needs/deficiencies
in the transportation system.
o The development of proposed transportation improvements in
meeting future transportation needs.
CAC Agenda No. 8
January 25, 1983
RIV/SAN Multimodal Transportation Study Page 2
Second, at each of these time points, the citizens program should:
o Present materials which detail what has been accomplished.
o Summarize public comments from previous meetings.
o Describe major events that have transpired.
o Receive public comments.
We have reached the first time point in the study. Staff will present the in-
formation in the attachment on goals and objectives. The Committee is asked
to review the goals and objectives and make comments.
HS:nk
Attachments
apo
Memorandum No. 2
RIVERSIDE/SAN BERNARDINO MULTIMODAL TRANSPORTATION STUDY
Goals and Objectives
INTRODUCTION
The goals and objectives for the multimodal transportation study are designed to
provide consistent guidance for the cities and counties as transportation -related
issues require attention. In addition, a set of evaluation criteria and their
measures are identified. The measures will provide the basis to evaluate goal
achievement during the course of the study.
Goals and objectives have been formulated after a careful review of both regional
and local transportation plans. The experience gained in those studies was used
to guide the development of goal statements. Similarly, the evaluation criteria
and measures are representative of those considerations that are commonly addressed
in transportation studies. The number of criteria and measures are both manageable
and retain essential information to distinguish between highway and transit alter-
natives.
The following summary defines how goals, objectives, criteria and measures are to
be interpreted within the context of the multimodal transportation study.
o Goal -- A broad position statement toward which a substantial
effort should be directed. In this case, the effort will be
directed to those transportation -related issues which pertain
to the goal statement.
o Objective -- One or more specific statements which indicate
major tasks that must be accomplished to achieve the goals.
The statements allow for some desired state or outcome.
o Criterion & Measure -- One or more means by which an objective
can be measured. The criterion are specified in a manner to
allow for the measurement of_a specific objective. The value
of each measure will be used specifically to determine goal
achievement.
The goals and objectives are based on four broad topical areas which influence the
transportation planning and programming decisions: transportation system perform-
ance, environmental impacts, implementation feasibility, and compatibility with
other plans.
TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM PERFORMANCE
The first category, transportation system performance, includes such concerns as
the provision of efficient transportation facilities and services which are safe
and reliable. For the street and highway network, performance is dependent upon
the travel demand for the facilities as compared to the capacity afforded by the
system. For public transportation services, performance largely conforms to the
anticipated patronage and the ease of access the system provides. A principal
objective of the study will insure that the future growth of the cities and counties
will include provisions for adequate personal mobility.
Goal
Develop a transportation plan which adequately serves the needs
of all travellers by providing safe, reliable and efficient
transportation facilities and services.
Objectives
(1)
Provide transportation facilities which are designed for
traffic flows at level of service C with tolerances to
allow for short-term delays at peak flow hours.
(2) Provide transit services that are sufficiently high in
quality to be competitive with the automobile.
(3)
Improve traffic flow and safety levels through traffic
engineering techniques to make full use of existing
roadway capacity.
(4) Provide a transportation system that can be expanded,
extended or modified to adapt to changing conditions.
(5)
Provide transit services for persons unable to drive or
without access to an automobile.
(6) Minimize travel times on the highway and transit systems.
Criterion & Measure
(1) Total vehicle miles of travel, volume to capacity ratio
and level of service on roadways.
(2) Percentage of population served by transit, frequency of
transit service, and travel times by transit.
(3)
(4)
(5)
Average travel speeds over the highway network.
Amount of daily travel on roadways with above average state-
wide accident rates.
Percentage of population within 30 minutes travel time by
transit to centers of employment, shopping, and schools.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
The second category, environmental impacts, addresses the consequences of providing
transportation improvements. Of concern are impacts that most directly affect
human environment including air pollution, noise level, energy consumption, as
well as the visual ramifications of transportation improvements. The recommended
highway and transit improvements should take into account all of these factors
with the aim of meeting transportation needs in the most sensitive fashion possible.
2
Goal
Develop a transportation plan which will have the least negative
impact on the environment by conserving resources and promoting
the aesthetic qualities of the region.
Objectives
(1) Minimize vehicle emissions to reduce the amount of air
pollution.
(2) Minimize total energy consumption to conserve vital resources.
(3) Promote design standards that minimize noise and visual impacts
to insure that noise standards are adhered to and aesthetic
quality is preserved.
(4) Minimize vehicular travel.
Criterion & Measure
(1) Daily tons of pollutants which are related specifically to vehicle
miles travelled and average speed on roadways.
(2) Total daily travel on sections of roads which are adjacent to
residential land uses and do not meet the State's standard for
noise level.
(3)
Amount of fuel consumed daily by automobiles and transit.
IMPLEMENTATION FEASIBILITY
One of the most controversial aspects of transportation planning is the subject
of implementation feasibility. This is a multi -faceted topic encompassing all
aspects of project development -- political support, available financial resources,
and the degree of public acceptance. Each of these considerations is addressed
in the project through the public participation program, advisory committee
reports to elected officials and estimates of both the costs of transportation
improvements and financial resources available for improvements.
Goal
Develop a transportation plan which is politically feasible, finan-
cially attainable, and is likely to have a high degree of public
acceptance.
Objectives
(1) Maximize the cost effectiveness of transportation facilities
and services.
(2) Minimize the subsidy required for transit services.
(3) Ensure that proposed transportation facilities and services
are consistent with financial resources.
(4) Utilize public participation to increase awareness and develop
support for recommended actions.
Criterion & Measure
(1) Estimated total capital costs for highway and transit improve-
ments.
(2) Estimated annual transit subsidy and subsidy per passenger.
(3) Estimated annual highway operating and maintenance costs.
(4) Summary of comments received as part of citizens participation
porgrams.
(5) Summary of comments/City Council actions in regards to the plan
and its recommended improvments.
COMPATIBILITY WITH OTHER PLANS
The issue of compatibility with other plans involves the relationship between the
multimodal transportation plan and other land use and transportation plans within
the cities, the counties, and the region. The degree of conformance with other
plans and programs will be a consideration in the ultimate acceptance of the plan.
Also under the category of plan compatibility is the topic of social and economic
impacts. The study approach will seek to meet future travel needs without sacri-
ficing the quality of the cities existing and future residential neighborhoods.
Improvements will consider equally the character and livability of residential
neighborhoods.
Goal
Develop a transportation plan that is compatible with existing
and planned land use of the cities, the counties, and the region.
Objectives
(1)
Ensure that the transportation plan is compatible with compre-
hensive regional plans including the Regional Development
Guide, Regional Transportation Plan, and the Air Quality
Management Plan.
(2) Provide a planning process which emphasizes local agency
participation and inter -agency coordination.
(3)
Preserve the boundaries of existing neighborhoods and com-
munities.
(4) Locate proposed new facilities to minimize infringement on
environmentally sensitive areas.
(5)
Locate new facilities to minimize social/economic disruptions.
Criterion & Measure
(1) Summary of comments received by Advisory Committees and the
consulting team on compatibility of multimodal transportation
study and other land use and transportation plans.
4
(2) Total number of acres of sensitive land uses that are
required for implementation of proposed transportation
improvements.
(3) Total acres of developed residential land that are required
for implementation of proposed transportation improvements.