HomeMy Public PortalAbout02 February 28, 1984 Citizens' Advisory040228
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION ION COMM S IC
AGENDA
CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE
February 28, 1984, 1:30 P.M.
Riverside City Hall
Fourth Floor Conference Room
3900 Main Street
Riverside, CA 92522
1. Call to Order.
2. Approval of Minutes.
3. Quarterly Transit Operations Report. (INFO.)
4. Short Range Transit Plan. (DISC./ACTION)
5. Social Service Transportation Consolidation (INFO,)
Efforts in the Coachella Valley.
6. Adjournment.
BVE RSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION.
CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Minutes of Meeting No. 7-83
November 29, 1983
1. Call to Order.
The meeting of the Citizens Advisory Committee was called to
order by Chairman Richard Jandt, at 1:31 p.m., on Tuesday,
November 29, 1983, at the Riverside City Hall, Fourth Floor
Conference Room, 3900 Main Street, Riverside.
Self introductions of those present followed.
Members present:
Marian Carpelan
Fred A. Fickas
Richard Jandt
Herbert Krauch
Rand Martin
Laurence Weinberg
BenMinnich
Rena Parker
Earl Shade
Shiela Velez
Bertram Vinson
Ran Wyder
2. Approval of Minutes.
With no corrections or additions to the minutes of August
30, 1983 and October 25, 1983, the minutes were approved as
submitted.
3. Election of Vice Chairman.
Barry Beck informed the Committee that the position of Vice
Chairman is vacant as Lloyd O'Connell who was elected for
this position had chosen not to be reappointed.
Ben Minnich was nominated and was unanimously elected as
Vice Chairman of the Citizens Advisory Committee.
4. Riverside Transit Agency Fare Increase.
Ken Kaufher, Assistant General Manager of the Riverside
Transit Agency, gave a brief summary on RTA's proposed fare
increase policy revisions. He explained that a fare in-
crease was programmed in the development of the Short Range
Transit Plan for the middle of FY 1984. Public hearings on
the proposed fare increase would be held on December 15th at
the Riverside City Council Chambers and on December 16th at
the Hemet Neighborhood Center. A number of alternatives
were evaluated by RTA staff. The proposed fare increase
1
addresses four issues: (1) Maintaining equity of fare
revenue contributions between types of services; (2)
Avoiding large fare increases to minimize the losses in
ridership that generally result from such increases; (3)
Maximizing the recovery of expenses from fares and minimi-
zing public subsidy regardless of the minimum State require-
ment; and, (4) Targeting farebox recovery high enough to
absorb slower than anticipated ridership growth or higher
than expected expense increase without jeopardizing the
RTA's ability to meet the State farebox recovery require-
ments. Alternatives considered by RTA staff but not recom-
mended for consideration were: (1) Differential peak and
base fares; (2) 24 -hour advance reservation for dial -a -
ride; (3) A zone fare system for local fixed routes; and,
(4) Charging five cents for -transfers. The following recom-
mendations are being proposed by RTA staff for adoption:
(1) Increasing the adult and student base fare $0.05; (2)
Restructuring the inter -city zone fare system; (3)
Increasing the elderly or handicapped zone fare $0.05 (ex-
cluding Loma Linda zone); (4) Increasing the dial -a -ride
adult fare $0.25 and the elderly and handicapped fare $0.10;
(5) Discontinuing student discounts for dial -a -ride (6)
Allowing a $0.10 student discount on fixed route services
with student ID; (7) Requiring ID for eligibility for the
elderly and handicapped half fare; (8) Limiting transfers to
intersecting or common stops between routes; and, (9)
Establishing age 60 as the eligible age for the half fare
elderly discount.
Herbert Krauch asked what the zone fare would be from Hemet
to Perris and from Sun City to Perris, Ken Kaufher said
that the zone fare from Hemet would be $0.25 and the total
fare would be $0.80. Since Sun City is in the same zone as
Perris, the fare to Perris would be $0.55.
In response to Chairman Jandt's question how riders will
know how much it will cost to get to their destination, Ken
Kaufher said that the drivers will inform riders how much
the fare will be and will collect it upon boarding.
Earl Shade stated that some cities offer a differential fare
whereby elderly and handicapped persons pay full fare during
peak hours and a reduced fare or no fare during off peak
hours.
Ken Kaufher responded that ridership in dial -a -ride is
spread throughout the day and there are not any consistent
peak hours in the fixed -route services. RTA did not see a
need for differential fares for peak and off-peak hours
because they do not need to encourage peak hour riders to
use service in the non -peak hours. He added that if RTA
were to implement a full fare during peak hours and no fare
during off-peak times for elderly and handicapped, RTA would
probably suffer a significant revenue loss.
2
Barry Beck commented that RTA would have an incentive for
using higher peak hour fares if they were having to put on
additional vehicle during peak hours because of overloading.
If that were the case, charging elderly and handicapped
riders more during peak hours would shift demand and lower
the costs.
Chairman Jandt said that he has difficulty understanding why
a dial -a -ride service for the general public is available in
areas where fixed -route service is operated unless the Bial-
a -ride is available only to elderly and handicapped.
Ken Kaufher stated that in most cases, the dial -a -ride
service was implemented prior to the fixed route service.
Rena Parker commented that RTA is looking forward to
phasing out dial -a -ride and replacing it with fixed -route
service because of the high cost for dial -a -ride service.
She said changing will be a slow process.
Chairman Jandt noted that the purpose in providing discount
fares for the younger generation is to stimulate their use
of public transit system in order that they would hopefully
carry that into their adulthood. He asked why the term
"student" is used and why should RTA require IDs. He
suggested that RTA adopt a youth discount policy for persons
up to age 18 years of age and not require ID cards to prove
eligibility.
Ken Kaufher stated that they need some way to identify
people that are eligible for the discount and to control the
system to avoid abuse.
Chairman Jandt suggested that RTA use the term "youth"
rather than "student". He said that by using student, it is
being implied that the discount fares be used to ride the
bus for only school trips. The only thing that he is
struggling with is semantics. If the intent of the reduced
fare is to stimulate use by youth, RTA should do that and
take the broad approach and not worry about the administra-
tive part of it.
Earl Shade asked whether RTA will be involved in issuing ID
cards to senior citizens.
Ken Kaufher commented that the County Office on Aging will
be conducting a countywide discount program whereby they
will issue ID cards to seniors for use at participating
merchants. These ID cards would be adequate to prove eligi-
bility for reduced transit fares. RTA would not issue
additional ID cards to seniors.
3
Barry Beck said he questions why ID cards are being dupli-
cated by the County Office on Aging when the Department of
Motor Vehicles already provides this service and ID cards
could be obtained from them.
M (MINNICH) to recommend that the RTA Board consider
changing student discount to youth discount.
Ran Wyder asked whether or not the Greyhound strike has
affected RTA's ridership.
Ken Kaufher said that there had been no noticeable impact.
The routes that duplicate Greyhound service are contracted
with SCRTD. Any increase would have been on service between
Riverside and Los Angeles or San Bernardino and from
Riverside through Orange County to Long Beach.
Barry Beck said that RTA staff had already selected the fare
change alternative. In the future, prior to choosing the
alternatives, RTA should advertise all the alternatives that
are under consideration and discuss all of the alternatives
at the public hearing. RTA should first 'receive input on
the various alternatives and then make a choice.
Ken Kaufher said an ad for the hearings would be placed in
the newspaper ten days prior to the public hearing dates.
The package that is handed out at the public hearing could
include all of the alternatives considered. Barry Beck's
suggestion is the approach that RTA has taken in the last
fare increase. This was not done this time because RTA
staff felt that they should trim it down to the alternatives
with the highest farebox recovery and revenue generation
possibility.
Barry Beck commented that he is not disagreeing with RTA
staff's choice of alternatives but does not believe the
choices should be made prior to hearing from the public.
In response to Herb Krauch's question as to what would be
the impact on service if fares are not increased, Ken
Kaufher said that they have projected attaining 18.9% fare -
box recovery without any increase. The required State fare -
box recovery is 18%. In terms of meeting the State require-
ment, if the projections hold and revenues and expenses do
not get too far out of line, RTA would not have to cut any
service.
Chairman Jandt thanked Ken Kaufher for the report.
5. Wheelchair Lift Use on Fixed -Route Transit.
Paul Blackwelder informed the Committee that wheelchair
lifts on RTA's fixed route system were used 300 times in FY
1981-82 and 900 times in FY 1982-83. In the Riverside
Special Services, an elderly and handicapped service, the
4
wheelchair lift was used 37 times/day, 32,000 times last
year. The lift use figures tend to confirm the statement
made by advocates for accessible transit that use of access-
ible fixed route transit service would start slow and would
continue to grow. There are still a number of people that
are either unable or afraid to use accessible fixed -route
transit but will use accessible dial -a -ride services if it
is offered. Staff has also kept a record of cost for
inspecting and maintaining the wheelchair lifts. The cost
per lift use in FY 81-82 was $19.93 and dropped to $10.29 in
FY 82-83. He said if the cost remain the same and the lifts
on the fixed route were used 4,000/year, the cost for main-
taining the lifts would be about $3 per use which is lower
than the $4/trip cost for dial -a -ride service.
Shiela Velez questioned the maintenance cost shown on the
report and stated that for the number of lifts and the
number of times that they are being used, the amount being
paid for•repair and maintenance were too high. Her
experience with her lift has been that she has not had any
maintainance cost in 3 years. She asked why it is costing
so much to maintain the lifts.
Ken Kaufher explained that the lifts that RTA use also
double as steps. Riders getting on and off cause some
maintenance. The costs shown are for mechanic repair and
inspection of RTA's 35 vehicles with lifts.
Bertran Vinson stated that the costs did not appear high
especially if they reflect preventive maintenance needed to
keep the lifts to be sure they are in working condition when
someone needs to use them.
6. SCRTD Line 149 Funding Problem.
Paul Blackwelder told the Committee that RCTC staff received
a letter from RTD, a copy of which is included in the agenda
packet, advising that Orange County Transit District no
longer would fund a segment of RTD Line 149 between the
Riverside County line and Disneyland. The line runs between
Riverside, Anaheim and Long Beach. Their reason is that
ridership in that segment is low. RCTC has notified OCTD
and SCRTD that it is very disturbed by the way that this
matter has been handled and would like the opportunity to
meet with RTD and OCTD before a final decision is made. The
alternatives if OCTD refuses to fund the service are: (a)
Discontinue service to Disneyland; (b) Pay an additional
$103,000 to SCRTD for the service; or, (c) Have RTA operate
service between Riverside and Disneyland. On November 17th,
the OCTD Board approved the RTD contract. He was told that
OCTD Board received RCTC's letter the day after the meeting.
The RTD Board, which also met on November 17th, had received
RCTC's letter prior to the meeting and had postponed appro-
ving the contract until their next meeting on December 8th.
The SCRTD Board is scheduled to meet with the OCTD Board
5
to discuss issues of mutual concern in January. The Line 149
issue will be one of the items to be discussed. Whether or
not RCTC would be invited to the meeting was not known.
Barry Beck stated that preliminary figures from RTA indicate
that it is cheaper for RTA to run the service than to pay
SCRTD. Of course there is the inconvenience of riders
transferring.
Ben Minnich asked how many people ride from Riverside all
the way to Long Beach.
Barry Beck said that could not be determined with the
available information, however, there are not many riders
using the line. Ridership averages 10-15 passengers per bus
trip.
As an additional information item, Barry Beck informed the
Committee that RCTC has received a letter from SCRTD inform-
ing us that on two occasions they had to add an extra bus on
afternoon trips on Line 496 to Los Angeles because of over-
crowding.
Chairman Jandt read a notice for the public hearing on I-215
between Van Buren and Perris to be held at the Perris Union
High School, 7:30 p.m., on December 6th.
7. Adjournment.
With no other items to discussed, the meeting was adjourned
at 3:32 p.m.
ectfully submitted,
L( .< -L_
aul B ackwelder
Assistant Director
nk
6
AGENDA ITEM NO. 3
RIVERSIDE COUNTY i RANSPOR T A"i;ON CONi Va S S .J.
TO: Citizens Advisory Committee
FROM: Barry Beck, Executive Director
SUBJECT: Transit Operations Report for July 1 -
December 31
The attached tables show operations data for public transit
operators in Riverside County for the period of July 1, 1983
through December 31, 1983. These attachments were prepared
by staff using data submitted by the operators. Staff
comments on general trends and individual systems are pro-
vided below.
RIDERSHIP
Overall ridership in the County increased by 11% or 185,000
passengers during the first half of this year compared to
the same period last year. Most of the increased ridership
has occurred during the three months from September through
December. For example, SunLine Transit Agency ridership was
9% below the prior year during the period of July -
September but is now 2% higher than ridership from July -
December last year. We can't explain why ridership has
increased this year other than perhaps it is reflective of
the improved economy.
The only exception to the ridership increase trend is the
Riverside Transit Agency dial -a -ride services. Ridership on
these services has decreased by 23% or 23,700 passengers
from 105,700 last year to 82,000 passengers this year.
Three reasons for this decrease are: the conversion of the
Rubidoux dial -a -ride service to a fixed -route; changing the
zonal system in Hemet to an open system which eliminated
transfers previously included in ridership counts; and,
radio communications and dispatching problems experienced
when all dial -a -ride dispatching was consolidated into one
center in Perris. The radio communication problems
experienced during August and September, and dispatching
problems which to date are not fully resolved appear to be
the major reason for reduced ridership. RTA is closely
monitoring and attempting to solve the problems in the Bial-
a -ride system.
OPERATING COSTS AND. FARE REVENUE
Total operating costs for the first half of the year are
running at 3% higher than last year. A better indicator is
the increase in cost per vehicle hour of service provided.
The average vehicle hour cost increased 5% compared to last
1
Agenda Item No, 3
February 28, 1984
year. This increase is lower than the 8-10% originally
estimated by the operators.
Fare revenues in all of the systems have increased because
of additional ridership. At this time last year, the
countywide fare revenue to operating cost ratio was 17.4%.
This year the ratio is currently at 18.6%. The most
significant increases were experienced by RTA increasing
from 17.7% to 19.1% and for SunLine increasing from 17% to
18.3%. None of the operators should experience a problem in
meeting the minimum required ratio this year.
BB/PB:nk
Attachments
2
TRANSIT OPERATIONS QUARTERLY REPORT
JULY 1,1983 through DECEMBER 31,1983
F.R. Pa ssengers
DAR Passen gers
To tal Passengers
F. R.Expens es
DAR Expenses
Total Expenses
F.R. Fare Reve nue
D -A -R Fare Re venue
TOTAL FARE REVENUE
F.R. Vehic le Ho urs
D -A -R Vehicle Ho urs
TOTAL VEHICLE HOURS
FARE REVENUE RATIO
SUBSIDY/PASSENGER
FIXED ROUTE
DIAL -A -RIDE
COST/VEHICLE HR.
FIXED ROUTE
DIAL -A -RIDE
F.R. PASS, /VEH. HR.
D -A -R PASS./VEH. HR
AVG. PASS./VEH. HR.
Manning Beaumont Cor ona
1.ETS PINTA
Ri versid e
Spec.Svca .
RTA
Sunline
TOTAL
32,958
25,112
32,95$ 25,112
$41,109
$50,814 $139,935
$41,109 $50,$14 $139,935
$9,747
$14,690 $28,227
$9,747 $14,690 $28,227
1,853
2,952
1,853 2,952
5,723
36,277
41,647
36,277 41,647
$70,000
$78,000
$10,280
$10,280
3,030
5,723 3,838
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
61,691
61,691
$251,263
$251,263
$30,972
$30,972
11,163
11,163
1,259,539
82,053
1,341,592
$2,191,921
$473,576
$2,665,497
$459,241
$50,635
$509,876
56,482
16,223
72,705
296,000
15,807
311,807
$810,395
$140,675
$951,070
$164,633
$9,595
$174, 228
22,132
3,844
25,976
PERFORMANCE INDICATORS
=---.....--===========p=========_____=__===========____===========_______=________________
23.7% 25.0% 20. 2% 13. 2% NA 12 .3% 19.1%
$0.95
$0. 95
NA
$22.19
$22. 19
NA
17.79
NA
17. 79
$1.76
NA
$1.76
$19. 92
NA
$19. 92
NA
8. 51
8.51
$3. 08
NA
$3. 08
$24. 45
NA
$24. 45
NA
6. 34
6. 34
$1.63
$1.63
NA
$20. 37
$20. 37
NA
10. 87
NA
10.87
Data for Palo Ve rde Va lley Tran sit Agenc y has not be en submitte d.
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
$3.57
NA
$3 .57
$22 .51
NA
$22.51
NA
5.53
5.53
$1 .61
$1 .38
$5.15
$36.66
$38.81
$29.19
22.30
5.06
18.45
18.3%
$2.49
$2.18
$8.29
$36.61
$36.62
$36.60
13.37
4 .11
12.00
_
1,630,144
220,940
1,851,084
$3,121,425
$1,064,263
$4,185,688
$643,901
$134,119
$778,020
84,297
39,905
124,202
18.68
$1 .84
$1 .52
$4.21
$33 .70
$37.03
$26.67
19.34
5.54
14.90
COMPARISON 00 DATA FOR JULY 1 - DECpm=ER 31 Fy 1983/84 TO FY 1982/03
R1veraide
0annin9 Beaum ont Cor ona LETS PVVTA Spec.Svca . RTA Sun1ine TOTAL
F. R. PASSENGERS 3,729 NA NA 5,758 NA NA 179,907 6,855 196,249
%CHANGE 12.8% NA NA 16 .00 NA NA 16 .7% 2 .4% 13.7%
D -A -R PASSENGERS NA 3274 3848 NA NA 5483 -23724 33 -11086
%CHANGE NA 15.0% 11 .9% NA NA 9.8% -22.1% 0 .2% -4.8%
TOTAL PASSENGERS 3,729 3,274 3,848 5,758 NA 5,483 156,183 6,888 185,163
% CHANGE 12.8% 15.0% 11 .9; 16.03 NA 9 .8% 13.2% 2 .3'1 11 .1%
F.R. EXPENSES $2,946 NA NA $5,545 NA NA $163,345 $20,669 $192,504
%CHANGE 7. 7% NA NA 7.7% NA NA 8 .1% 2 .6% 6.6%
D -A -R EXPENSES NA $9,472 $806 NA NA $24,067 ($104,419) $7,870 ($62,204)
%CHANGE NA 19.2% 0.6; NA NA 10.6% -18 .1% 5.9% -5.5%
TOTAL EXPENSES $2,946 $9,472 $806 $5,545 NA $24,067 $58,926 $28,539 $130,300
%CHANGE 7.7% 19. 2% 0.6% 7 .7% NA 10 .6% 2.3% 3.1% 3.2%
F. R. VEHICLE HOURS 27 NA NA (24) NA NA 3,085 (920) 2,168
%CHANGE 1.5% NA NA -0.6% NA NA 5.8% -4.0% 2.6%
D -A -R VEHICLE HOURS NA 319 28 NA NA 339 (5,049) (45) (4,408)
%CHANGE NA 12.1% 0.5% NA NA 3 .1% -23 .7% -1.2% -9.9%
TOTAL VEHICLE HOURS 27 319 28 (24) NA 339 (1,964) (965) (2,240)
%CHANGE 1. 5% 12. 1% 0. 5% -0.6% NA 3.1% -2.6% -3.6% -1.8%
F.R. COST/VEH. HR. $1.29 NA NA $1. 57 NA NA $0 .82 $2.36 $1.37
%CHANGE 6. 1% NA NA 8.3; NA NA 2.2% 6 .9% 3.8%
D -A -R COST/VEH. HR. NA $1.18 $0.02 NA NA $1.52 $2 .02 $2.45 $1.25
%CHANGE NA 6.3% 0.1% NA NA 7.2% 7 .4% 7.2% 4 .9%
AVG. COST /VEH. HR. $1. 29 $1. 18 $0.02 $1. 57 NA $1 .52 $1.75 $2.37 $1 .63
%CHANGE 6.1% 6.3% 0.1% 8.3% NA 7 .2% . 5 .0% 6 .9% 5.1%
M co
1
i78"'9Tr N o0
VLL 9T
98I'ST
M M
a
N
r 60'vT N Co
9ST'ST r-1
t9Z'ET(�����
I
In
0
996'T�� M N
CO
--1
Z09' 0T L� N 00
8Z£'Zt
9L9'0T
9S OT N °D
ZZ8 :OT
6
9
b
s1000'0T NI %M UM
1
Z
1
2
RIDERS IN 10,400's
3
4
5
6
7
8
I
l
!
N
n
al
w
L.
5,041
p N
A 4,866
°w-Zj4,591
,p
�_ 6,185
Lo
N
-..
N
.
.
s-1 6,142
o ^ '-7,129
r
a w
'1'
'
I8,926
-N9,694
N
in
i
`a
.
��-� 11,329
t..)��-�
w
10, 509
�*--11,472
.
--- 111,949
nv
o
w
---12,156
". .,N"-- .:›. .:"".j12,956
—
1
n w
ci
1
2
RIDERS IN 10,000's
3 4
5
6
7
8
I.
19,814
19,414
20, 561
337
0o
P fr
N
N
"...�.�1?4,
00^'`_����
1 —
H. w
����S<1
�� �_�
17,299
740
987
co
in
al
1
f, N
r'. ) w
���� . 6,
"------,:',-,:"<"--. ..:"--115,
���_N17,480
1-1
342
587
Ul
N
����116 ,
N N•
Co
w w
���115,
�:s.N• N 15,728
����N'''.,117,354
1
��_�118,173
w N
L.)
:>-:N."-,7-""---.:`"---..7""<116,104
_
ao w
9
1
2
RIDERS IN 1Q,000's
3
4
5
6
7
8
N
9
.
"- --,. ..."-.:".„›.-1 15,0
a\
'
iitri
---� 16,'22
co
[O
co N w
' 92 a
-----6.
327
--,,���� y1
209
----->1 17
"
-----y1',642
0
kO
19,072 w
1
OD
N w
,.�-- --1
I
'p
�:-. <-��
20,170
'''
•> _
,+1;,275
614 -
co N
:-.:"`.., 1"-"<>,117
a
(°J w
18,58 w
11'---N. "<-
119,616
19,497
co'`'
Lip.
'' ''---.._ --22,150
w
9
RIDERS IN 1,00,000's
1 2
I
3 4
I_
5 a
i I
I 8
N
.___
3,639
���:'-"---
��� ����--" ---,71
5
,� ^'
''''--.:*N"-->-,:'" •-,������
'1 627,874
-, W
---._ ''----:'--.,"---,'--,"---:--,-s----:"--,
650,444
640,068
596,654
1660,618
�.�:""--, ''' ''--,-
�N'''''. .., �.
33 "
ti' ,�
�- .��_
i
33
V W
614,996
623,904
030
1558
N cow:
.----..=',..,''' ',..:N,��
627,469
�O
.4
',,,
641, 293
1.
&
-
,
661,598
~���
w�"
W
-��
' 'N..,„?. "..N....,,,,
-N. •••,,,. , ``• ,. .,.. : '.. ..,. .,
629,370
712,222
iP
SZO'Z6"'Z
ZLT'96t'Z
RIDERS IN 10100015
1 2 3 4
5
6
7
8
9
1
4
I
1
N
25,
664
26,134
27,561
N
i
■
w
I"
na
_ ,
24,993
�~
�.'
00
' ���>_
H w
n -- �--.,,:-.,,
1
4'
��---
��
1-1
N
N
y
125,
'<2,999
25,503
981
27,$02
~
Q
in
-----
�'NN .
03
IV
-����
->1
, ����" '...„
N
N 26,660
H
'
co
W
f.
N N
- - --
--1 9,548
W w
--
� 31,931
N30,755
co
ti--Nb"---
131, 258
0,433
T�o w
RIDERS IN 10010001s
1
2
3
4
5
6
8
9
77
�'
. ,��_�. . 155,
^'
03
����_
210, 892
g
N w
��_:"---„_�_�292,471
����:."--,1225,124
750,662 687,454
150,364
ao "
--,__ _1165,838
00
`N' `"'
��_�� :N1244,648
1
"
�� :._89,511
t'���J141,8'6
NN
"---.,�� "". ... + 163,007
1 ----
Oo
w w
-
210,540
•.-``, •�� -.."--,1 172,031
128,757
r�
ao N
w.�
�_-��1183,
050
cso 41. w
1
AGENDA ITEM NO. 4
RIVERSIDE COUNTY -TRANS O TATIOI.: ,3
TO: Citizens Advisory Committee
FROM: Barry Beck, Executive Director
SUBJECT: 1985-89 Riverside County Short Range Transit Plan
The annual Riverside County Short Range Transit Plan update process was
kicked off by working sessions for Committee members in Riverside on
January 31st and in Palm Desert on February 3rd. At the working sessions,
staff presented the services currently provided by the eight public
transit operators in Riverside County and the proposed service improve-
ments contained in the 1984-1988 Short Range Transit Plan. The 1985-89
Riverside County Short Range Transit Plan is scheduled to be adopted by
the Commission at its meeting on May 17, 1984. During the next two
months, draft plans will be reviewed and "unmet transit needs" hearings
will be held. The following schedule for completion of the plan update
process is provided for your information.
February 28, 1984
- CAC discussion.
March 6, 1984 - Riverside City Citizens Transportation
Advisory Committee review of RTA and
Riverside Special Services Program Plans.
- Unmet Transit Needs Hearing - Palm Desert,
1:00 P.M., Palm Desert City Council
Chambers.
March 8, 1984
March 15, 1984
March 15, 1984
March 27, 1984
April 19, 1984
April 24, 1984
May 17, 1984'
- Unmet Transit Needs Hearing - Riverside,
1:30 P.M., Riverside City Council
Chambers.
- Draft 1985-1989 Short Range Transit
due to RCTC.
- CAC SRTP review and discussion.
- RCTC unmet transit needs findings.
- CAC SRTP approval and recommendation.
- RCTC adoption of 1985-89 Short Range
Transit Plan for Riverside County,
Plans
Agenda Item No. 4
February 28, 1984
SRTP
Page Two
Committee members are encouraged to attend the "unmet transit needs"
public hearing in their area of the County.
Attached is a summary of proposed service improvements contained in the
FY 1984-1988 Short Range Transit Plan. With the exception for the need
to determine the feasibility of providing service between the Banning -
Beaumont area and Hemet, no additional service improvements have been
identified by the transit operators for inclusion in the updated plan.
The Committee has three opportunities for suggesting additional improve-
ments -prior to the scheduled adoption date for the plan. We suggest,
however, that suggestion be made as early as possible to allow the
transit operators to review and respond to the Committees' suggestions.
BB/PB:nk
Attachments
PROPOSED SERVICE IMPROVEMENTS
RIVERSIDE COUNTY SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN
FY 1984-1988
No service expansion is planned for the following transit systems:
Beaumont Dial -A -Ride
Corona Dial -A -Ride
Lake Elsinore Transit System
Riverside Special Services Program
Palo Verde Valley Transit Agency
Service improvements contained in the 1984-1988 Transit Plans for the
remaining operators are as follows:
BANNING
o Implement a second route to serve the city area south of I-10
and increase service frequency in the commercial area from
60 minutes to 30 minutes.
RIVERSIDE TRANSIT AGENCY
o Reduce peak hour frequencies on fixed-routesin the Riverside
area to 30 minutes.
o Implement fixed -route service between Norco and Corona. QS B '
o Increase commuter buspool service to Orange County.
o Consider conversion of the Moreno Valley dial -a -ride service
to a fixed -route system. (Currently under study)
SUNLINE TRANSIT AGENCY
o Increase frequency on Line 19 (Desert Hot Springs -Coachella)
from 60 minutes to 30 minutes during the tourist season from
October through April.
o Experiment with Sunday service on Line 19 operating on a two-
hour headway.
AGENDA ITEM NO. 5
RIVERSIDE COUNTS 'TRANSPORTATION COM:` pis
TO: Citizens Advisory Committee
FROM: Paul Blackwelder, Assistant Director
SUBJECT: Social Service Transportation Consolidation Efforts in the
Coachella Valley
Last year, the SunLine Transit Agency conducted a study of transportation ser-
vices provided to the elderly and handicapped by social service agencies in
the Coachella Valley. The study had three components: an inventory of exist-
ing services; identification of duplicative services; and, identification of
agencies interested in consolidation of transportation services. The SunLine
Board authorized a Committee to be formed to review the information collected
by SunLine staff and submit a report of its findings and recommendations to
the SunLine Board. The Committee was chaired by Mr. Laurence Weinberg, a
member of the CVAG Transportation Committee, and included representatives from
social service agencies and Commission staff. The report to the SunLine Board
identified some interest on the part of social service agencies in consolida-
ting transportation services if the quality of service would be maintained and
operating costs could be reduced. The SunLine Board has authorized its
General Manager to pursue the consolidation of social service agency trans-
portation including the creation of a non-profit agency to provide service,
if necessary.
Mr. Weinberg, now a representative on the Citizens Advisory Committee from the
desert area, has been appointed by the SunLine Board of Directors to assist
SunLine staff in determining whether or not a non-profit agency to provide
specialized transportation in the Coachella Valley is feasible. Mr. Weinberg
will inform the Committee of his efforts to date.
PB:nk
Agenda Item No. 5
February 28, 1984
RCTC MINUTES
iiVE RSUDE COUNTY R;�'iiS'�0 'i%:'""'�
COUNTY b � r. 1 � � . L� 1
Minutes of Meeting No. 12-83
December 15, 1983
1. Call to Order.
The meeting of the Riverside County Transportation
Commission was called to order by Chairman Roy Wilson at
1:35 p.m., on Thursday, December 15, 1983, at the Riverside
County Administrative Center, 14th Floor Conference Room,
4080 Lemon Street, Riverside.
Members present:
Kay Ceniceros
Susan Cornelison
Melba Dunlap
Alternates present:
Jim Adams
Approval of Minutes.
Phil Jones
Roy Wilson
Norton Younglove
Pat Murphy
M/S/C (JONES/DUNLAP) to approve the minutes of the
November 17, 1983 meeting as submitted.
2. Public Comments.
There were no public comments.
3. Executive Director's Report.
A. Barry Beck, Executive Director, informed the Commission
that Caltrans held a public meeting on December 6th to
discuss the design features of I-215, the portion from
Van Buren to Perris. Concerns expressed by the public
were: (1) the desire to have interchanges at both
Nuevo Road and Oleander; (2) exact design and alignment
of both the highway and interchanges; and, (3) the need
for frontage roads to provide access to the industrial
properties on both sides of the highway and,
particularly, that the frontage roads be implemented as
part of the highway construction at State expense.
Caltrans will be utilizing the input they received at
the meeting to prepare their design alternatives for
the route.
1
RCTC Minutes
December 15, 1983
Commissioner Adams added that most of the people that
testified at the meeting were greatly concerned with
the financing of the frontage roads.
In reply to Commissioner Cornelison's question as to
the level of awareness of residents in the area with
regard to bringing I-215 to freeway standards,
Commissioner Adams said that those people that are
involved financially are well aware of it but those
people that are not involved are probably not aware of
what will happen when I-215 is built according to
freeway standards.
Commissioner Adams said that one point raised by Harley
Knox is the area east of March Air Force Base has no
access to I-215 other than going all the. way to
Alessandro.
Commissioner Dunlap noted that this is true also in the
City of Riverside, in the Arlington or La Sierra area.
Anytime a freeway is built, there is going to be an
area that is further away from than another area.
Barry Beck stated that an important aspect in this
matter is having an interchange at Oleander. Original-
ly, there would only be an interchange at Nuevo and
there would be a long stretch from Ramona Expressway to
Cactus/Alessandro without access from the east.
B. Barry Beck told the Commission that he was a member of
a task force appointed by the California Transportation
Commission to address two controversial items at the
State level. One is a proposal to extend the period of
the State Transportation Improvement Program from five
years to eight years. The reason being is that there
are a number of projects that take a long length of
time to get ready and need to be in the program now so
that they could be ready in 6-8 years from now. The
other reason proposed for extending the time that the
STIP would cover would be to take into account multi-
year projects such as the Century Freeway. Another
reason given, but was generally opposed, was to provide
an avenue for developing plans for so-called shelf
projects. Projects would be identified for 6-8 year
period where plans could be readied and could be sub-
stituted for projects that became delayed. This was
objected to on the premise that there are plenty of
projects that are already in the five-year STIP that
could be brought forward if a project was delayed. The
State Commission will review the proposal and if they
act positively, they will seek legislation to make
appropriate changes in statutes.
RCTC Minutes
December 15, 1984
Another item discussed by the task force was the issue
over who funds interchanges and overcrossings. There
was no agreement on this issue. He stated that he
is unsure what the State Commission will do. Staff
will keep the Commission informed as the issues
progress.
Commissioner Cornelison asked about the benefit formula
that was mentioned previously with regards to funding
interchanges and overcrossings.
Barry Beck stated the concept of determining what is
local benefit versus state benefit was finally
rejected. It was just impossible to make such a deter-
mination.
C. Another issue raised by Barry Beck is funding of Route
86. He said that if we go through the regular STIP
process of trying to get Route 86 fully funded, the
best we could hope for is fully programming the project
somewhere 6-8 years from now. In five years, the only
thing we are going to get is what was included in the
last program ($7.3 million for the 3 -mile project)as
funds for the next five years have now been committed.
He said that when he told those in the Coachella Valley
that through normal procedures it will take 7-8-9 years
to complete the project, they don't want to listen;
they do not want to wait that long to get the problem
corrected. The only avenue that he sees to get the
problem corrected sooner is to get some special federal
funding for the project. He said that in other areas
of the country, and in Southern California, there have
been successful efforts in getting line item amounts
put in highway bills for particular projects. He would
propose that the Commission undertake such an effort.
It maybe a longshot but he feels that we should go
after it. One thing we need to do is to explore this
possibility with our congressional representatives. If
they think that there is a chance of doing this then
staff would propose that the Commission hire a
consultant to help us on this in Washington, one that
is familiar with the process and the Committees.
Commissioner Cornelison asked whether Bill Edmonds of
Caltrans could provide his assistance on this matter.
Barry Beck felt that it would be hard to get Caltrans
to lobby on our behalf for one specific project because
there are other areas around the State that want to do
a similar effort and we couldn't expect a statewide
agency to represent our effort.
3
RCTC Minutes
December 15, 1984
Commissioner Ceniceros suggested that the Chairman with
staff contact Congressman Al McCandless and anyone else
in the desert area or otherwise to discuss the strategy
and solicit the services of any sympathetic jurisdic-
tion that has a legislative advocate prior to hiring a
consultant.
Barry Beck noted that the Commission needs to move on
this pretty fast as there is a "window of opportunity"
to do something now because Congress will be
considering a highway bill in January.
Chairman Wilson said that he had discussed this matter
with staff previously and suggested first discussing
this matter with Congressman McCandless and if he gives
us a positive direction that there are no problems with
the approach that staff be allowed to solicit for
consultant contracts. Also discussed was the possibi-
lity of discussing the matter with Congressman Jerry
Lewis who is on the Transportation Committee and also
is well aware of the problem.
M/S/C (CENICEROS/CORNELISON) to direct the
Chairman and staff to contact Congressman Al
McCandless and local congressional representatives
to discuss the strategy. If approval is given at
those levels, then a consultant contract should be
brought back to the Commission.
D. Barry Beck introduced Doug Isbell, Riverside County's
Deputy Road Commissioner, to the Commission. He would
like to report on a meeting held on the design aspects
of Route 71. Most of the action on Route 71 is in San
Bernardino County and revolves around the Chino Hills
project but a portion of that route does come in the
very edge of Riverside County.
Doug Isbell informed the Commission that the County of
San Bernardino and City of Pomona have hired a
consultant to study Route 71. He said that he has
arranged a meeting with the consultant next week to
provide staff input on what considerations might be for
the 3 1/2 miles in Riverside County. Two points that
he raised at the meeting last night were: (1) The
impact of improvements on Route 71 to the interchange
at Route 91 and the concerns of residents of western
Corona and Coronita on the congestion problems through
their area; and, (2) Consideration for access to the
property west of Prado Dam. In talking with the
consultant after the public meeting, he said that the
interchange at 91 is not currently in their contract.
4
RCTC Minutes
December 15, 1984
They have recognized that it probably should have been
included since there might some impacts. After the
meeting, Mr. Joe Sanchez of Caltrans told him that he
was surprised that he was the first to raise the issue
of access. Doug Isbell said that he is not sure which
is the appropriate body to act on this matter but it
would seem that if the County wants to address its
concerns, it needs to be done in a very short
timeframe.
Commissioner Ceniceros said that she has not yet
analyzed the route and its problems with congestion
and lack of interchanges and hoped that Mr. Isbell
would bring this matter to the attention of the Board
of Supervisors as well as the Commission. She asked if
Mr. Isbell has commented on behalf ofthe Road
Department formally.
Doug Isbell said that he has done so informally. The
meeting held was an informal meeting and that he pre-
pared a statement that the access point should be
considered. The schedule is that in the next two
months, the consultant is going to define the concepts
and alternatives they are going to consider and will
narrow that list down in the next 3-4 months to those
elements that they are going to address in the EIR.
Commissioner Ceniceros said that at this time it would
be appropriate to ask RCTC staff to review what the
configuration would mean in the overall transportation
system in the County and to report back to the
Commiss ion .
Barry Beck said that the Commission has a statutory
responsibility to be involved in State highway designs
such as this. Staff has not paid much attention to the
matter but now that he has heard Doug Isbell's report
and thought about it more, even though it:: just on the
edge of the County, it could definitely have an impact
on Riverside. County residents travelling on Route 91.
Commissioner Ceniceros said that staff needs to pose
the question in the EIR process on behalf of RCTC and
by Doug Isbell on behalf of the Board of Supervisors.
She is sure that other cities such as Corona and Norco
may want to also. At that time, the Commission could
then develop a position.
RCTC Minutes
December 15, 1984
Doug Isbell invited Barry Beck to attend the meeting
next week with the consultant.
5. Draft Regional Transportation Plan.
Barry Beck introduced Brad Williams of SCAG staff who will
brief the Commission on the draft RTP.
Brad Williams informed the Commission that SCAG is in the
process of revising the Regional Transportation Plan. The
current Plan was adopted in 1980 and that a revision to the
Plan was to have been made in 1982, however, in 1982 a
number of changes were made to the Regional Development
Guide so the revision to the RTP was postponed. There are
six major elements that are in the draft Plan as follows:
(1) Goals, Objectives, Policies; (2) Long Range Mobility
Strategy which is an evaluation of what is being done in
transportation planning; (3) Ongoing Transportation Develop-
ment Program - current strategy of transportation develop-
ment; (4) Evaluation; (5) Transportation Issues; and, (6)
Decisions. He then gave a brief summary of each issue.
A question was raised by both staff and Commission members
as to why Interstates 15 and 215 and Highway 74 are not
included in SCAG's list of corridors.
Brad Williams stated that the fact that it is not on the map
as a corridor does not mean that the Plan does not address
it. He said that a meeting between SCAG staff and RCTC
staff could be arranged to discuss the possibility of adding
I-15, I-215 and Highway 74 to the corridor list.
In reviewing the map which shows the roads with greater
demand than capacity, Barry Beck noted that Caltrans made a
similar presentation before the Commission and their data
shows a larger problem in Riverside County.
Brad Williams said that he is sure that it did and noted
that in the I-10 and Route 60 freeways, there are a number
of east/west arterials for each throughout the corridor.
When you look at the total capacity of the corridor
including those arterial streets, many of those streets
today are not at capacity. The reason that the map does not
show it at capacity is because of the parallel
arterials. For this particular corridor, we need to look at
ways of getting people off the freeway and on to the
arterials. We need to ask the question to local
jurisdictions if they will accept it and if they don't, then
they have to look at this from a different prospective.
6
RCTC Minutes
December 15, 1984
Barry Beck commented that the map is very misleading as even
though those arterials are there, people are not going to
use them nor will local agencies or residents want the
people to use them. There has been an intentional decision
on the part of the City of Riverside that they don't want to
fully develop those parallel arterials as they don't want
the traffic on the arterial roads. They would much rather
more fully develop the freeway corridor and concentrate the
traffic there even in the event that this is a higher cost
alternative.
Brad Williams noted that there is a technical data problem
for Riverside County. In projecting the year 2000, they
seem to be underestimating total travel in Riverside County.
This is a modeling problem and they have identified in their
work program for the next year and a half to deal with it
and find a way of being more representative of what is
happening in the County. The reason that this is happening
is that when the model was created, Riverside County was a
much more rural area than it is now and growth in the area
brings with it different kinds of travel characteristics.
They are updating their model now to reflect this.
Commissioner Cornelison stated that since updating the model
won't be finalized at the time the RTP is adopted, it may be
appropriate to mention in the Plan that treatment of
Riverside County is based on a non -appropriate model.
Brad Williams said that they can recognize that there is a
bias with regard to Riverside County. He added that the
Plan can be amended at the time that the model is revised.
Barry Beck informed the Commission that a meeting was held
at SCAG this morning discussing the relationship between the
transportation plans that are underway in the region and the
SCAG's Development Guide. He did not have a chance to stay
for the entire meeting but his reading of the discussion
when he was there is that there was considerable negative
reaction to some of the claims that SCAG staff was making on
the conflict between the Guide and the transportation plans.
Many people claimed the proposed transit projects were sim-
ply being proposed to take care of existing transportation
problems and they do not promote growth beyond that indi-
cated in the Development Guide. Others were claiming that
if the transit projects are built they will promote growth
which is not in compliance with the Development Guide.
RCTC Minutes
December 15, 1984
On behalf of the Commission, Chairman Wilson thanked Brad
Williams for the presentation.
6. TIP/AQMP Conformity Procedures.
Barry Beck said the Air Quality Management Plan, there are
several so-called transportation control measures (TCM's)
that the region committed to undertake. SCAG recently
adopted a process to determine whether these TCM's are being
implemented in the quantity and schedule that -was envisioned
in the Plan. A summary of the procedure is included in the
staff report. A key point in the procedure is the division
of responsibilities for implementing the TCM's between the
five counties in the air basin. The method used to divide
the responsibility is based on each county's relative
vehicle emissions. Staff has some concerns on this because
he is not sure that this is the best way to do it but
nevertheless when they checked to make sure whether the
region was implementing the TCM's on schedule and the amount
that the AQMP called for, it was determined that we are on
schedule and in most cases, ahead of schedule on the imple-
mentation. On that basis, staff would recommend that the
procedure that SCAG has outlined be endorsed. The only
problem with this is that there is potential in future
updates in the AQMP that the level of TCM implementation may
be raised because we are not on target for meeting air
quality standards. We may then run into trouble with the
method used to divide the responsibility between the
counties. As an example it where may not be appropriate to
allocate those responsibilities just based on emissions
would be on bus replacements. We don't have near the oppor-
tunity to replace buses in the quantity that Los Angeles
County would have.
M/S/C (CENICEROS/DUNLAP) to approve the TIP/AQMP
conformity procedures developed by SCAG. In addition,
to inform SCAG that RCTC has some concerns about the
future use of the methodology in place this year and
request opportunity to input in the development of
an alternative method or approach.
7. 1984 STIP Fund Estimate.
Barry Beck informed the Commission that Riverside County is
transitioning from being a surplus county to a deficit
county as our projects are implemented. We have always
spoken against county minimums for a lot of good reasons but
some things are changing particularly in the mix of funds
available so that county minimums may be a little bit more
workable although there are still some definite problems. He
wants to point this out to the Commission as it may want to
8
RCTC Minutes
December 15, 1984
moderate its position on county minimums as we become a
deficit county and the county minimum provision benefits us.
The other key point is in developing the 1984 STIP, it looks
like Riverside County, based on its county minimum and an
additional reasonable share of discretionary funds should
have approximately $20-$25 million to program in the STIP
($17 million being the county minimum and some share of the
$80-$90 million that is available for Southern California).
Commissioner Younglove commented that the basic problem with
county minimum is it is basically a political approach to
something that really does not serve the people statewide in
terms of highway problems. It conflicts with the needs
approach. The Commission needs to continue to monitor the
political situation and recognize this process as basically
a political rather than a needs approach.
8. Redesignation of Route 79, North of San Jacinto.
Commissioner Ceniceros stated that this has been a problem
for a very long time. The existing route is being
interrupted periodically by damage caused by a river.
Caltrans agreed that it would make more sense to redesignate
Route 79 along the entire length of Sanderson Avenue. The
City of San Jacinto has resisted this ardently because it
would take it off their street and create additional streets
to maintain but they will buy a compromise, at least
partially, that Route 79 be off the curving dangerous road
which has sometimes landslide on it crossing a two-lane
bridge on to Sanderson Avenue as far as the expressway.
They have worked with a task force chaired by Craig Manning
and included representatives fom the cities of Hemet and San
Jacinto and Caltrans.- Caltrans had indicated that they will
not take this issue to the State Commission unless there is
a consensus. Last Tuesday, the City of Hemet adopted a
resolution similar to the one the County has requested to
support.
Commissioner Younglove agreed that this has been a
longstanding problem. It has some political problems but in
terms of needs it makes sense.
M/S/C (CENICEROS/YOUNGLOVE) to support the proposed
redesignation of Route 79 and direct staff to assist in
getting State approval of the proposal.
9. SCRTD Line 149.
Barry Beck reported that last month staff has learned that
Orange County is refusing to fund a portion of Line 149
within their County from Disneyland to the Orange County
line. Their reason being there is not much patronage on
9
RCTC Minutes
December 15, 1984
this section of the line. Commission staff complained to
SCRTD and this matter was brought before their Board on
December 8th. The SCRTD Board was offerred several alterna-
tives: (1) That SCRTD pick up the funding; (2) That RCTC be
approached to pick up the funding; or, (3) That the line be
terminated at Disneyland. Action was continued. RCTC
staff anticipating that we might wind up paying for the
portion of Line 149 or letting it be abandoned, asked RTA
for an estimate for running service from Riverside to
Disneyland. Riders that are going all the way through would
have to transfer at Disneyland from an RTA bus to an RTD
bus. One of the obvious problems with this is that it
creates a transfer problem particularly with a long
distance, low frequency service. Barry Beck said that a
joint meeting between the SCRTD Board and the OCTD Board is
scheduled to discuss this and other issues of mutual con-
cern. There is no action that we can take until the meeting
takes place. In preparation for the worst, we should have
RTA ready to pick up the service if the Commission thinks
that it ought to be continued. He said that it would be
cheaper for RTA to run the service from Riverside to Disney-
land than what we're paying SCRTD to run the service from
Riverside to the County line. He pointed out that even
though it is more expensive, we've looked at SCRTD as the
regional carrier and by having that one regional carrier and
not having to have people transfer at County lines or at
artificial points, it is a much more convenient service for
the public.
Commissioner Younglove commented that there obviously is a
significant recreational trip demand to Disneyland but on
the other hand, there is an extremely important veterans'
linkage between March Air Force Base and its regional
hospital, the Jerry Pettis Hospital and the Long Beach
Hospital. He commented on the the importance of having the
Long Beach service to veterans and their families.
Commissioner Cornelison said that she failed to understand
how OCTD could decide to stop funding a service retroactive-
ly. Assuming that their Board is made up of the various
municipal entities that they service, she can't imagine
Irvine, Tustin and Anaheim wanting to terminate connections
with Riverside.
Barry Beck stated that the thing that clouds the whole issue
is the line just does not have a great deal of ridership
even considering the through trips, let alone just the
ridership within Orange County. It is a marginal line at
best in terms of ridership. Orange County claims that it is
in the bottom of the list in terms of ridership and they had
to make some cuts.
10
RCTC Minutes
December 15, 1984
Commissioner Younglove agreed that this is true but pointed
out that if they would work harder to provide good service,
it would not be true. For example, in Moreno Valley 50% of
the residents in that area work in Orange County. The
biggest reason that they don't have ridership is that the
service is not well designed.
Barry Beck stated that Line 149 is not really geared to
commuter route. We've attempted to meet the commute needs
with the private commuter express buses. Although Line 149
has one trip at commute hour, that is not its primary goal.
Commissioner Younglove pointed out that if OCTD want to
renege on its responsibility and open up the door for RTA to
provide service in the Disneyland area and Orange County, he
is not sure that this is all bad as it would open up other
possibilities that might achieve a great deal less air
pollution, less fuel consumption, less traffic in the Santa
Ana Freeway, etc. In addition, he is not at all convinced
that they have made any decent effort to meet the real needs
that exist.
Barry Beck said that if RTA took over the service, they
would have more incentive to market the service. At
present, RTA has not paid as much attention to the services
that SCRTD is running. If RTA was running the service, we
would probably see a much heavier marketing effort for that
line. The Commission will have to have to weigh the cost
for running the service, the marketing aspect if RTA would
take it over weight and the convenience to riders with
regard to transfers.
10. Fixed -Route Transit Wheelchair Lift Use.
Barry Beck reported that when RTA started purchasing its
buses there was concern about the capital cost and the
operating cost of putting wheelchair lifts on the buses. At
that time, it was mandated by both State and Federal
governments that it be done. In order to assess as to what
has happened with the lifts, RCTC staff requested RTA to
keep a record of how many times the lifts have been used and
what the operating cost has been. Graphs illustrating the
usage and cost are included in the staff report. There has
been a steady growth in the use the lifts. Based on the
growth trend, if it continues to grow at that rate, it looks
like the operating cost will come down and be less than
transporting people by dial -a -ride. Proponents for having
the wheelchair lifts have always claimed that it will be a
slow process getting people that are wheelchair bound out
into society and it will take other improvements such as
building accessibility, curb cuts, etc.
11
RCTC Minutes
December 15, 1984
Commissioner Cornelison informed the Commission that
Riverside City's Citizens Transportation Advisory Committee
is asking that people be encouraged to use lift equipped
fixed routes more than dial -a -ride whenever feasible. She
noted that the figures do not show the number of pass bys
where somebody is waiting for a ride and that particular bus
does not have a lift or the lift is not functioning. The
actual number of lift uses does not necessary indicate the
number of lift attempts and we might need to be aware if
there is a discrepancy there. She has recently read a
report by the SCRTD Citizens Advisory Committee. potential
users. It showed that Seattle is experiencing a much higher
degree of wheelchair lift use.
11. Appointments to the Citizens Advisory Committee.
M/S/C (JONES/DUNLAP) to appoint Harry Brinton to the
Citizens Advisory Committee.
Commissioner Ceniceros asked if RCTC has done anything in
recognition of those members who are leaving the Committee.
Barry Beck said that it would be appropriate to adopt a
resolutions or prepare plaques as several of the members who
retired have been on the our Committee since its inception
as well as being on a predecessor committee that was known
as the Riverside County Advisory Transportation Committee.
M/S/C (DUNLAP/JONES) to direct staff to prepare plaques
for the CAC members who resigned and present the
plaques at a Commission meeting.
12. SunLine Letter Regarding TDA Apportionments.
Barry Beck said that this item was placed on the agenda to
make the Commissioners aware of what is going on. The
SunLine argument is over the apportionment of sales tax
funds whether they be apportioned to place of generation or
apportioned by population.
13. SunLine Transit Agency State Transit Assistance Fund Claim.
M/S/C (CENICEROS/DUNLAP) to adopt Resolution No. 84-8-
SUL allocating $18,780 to SunLine Transit Agency.
12
RCTC Minutes
December 15, 1984
14. Adjournment.
The next meeting of the Riverside County Transportation
Commission will be on January 19, 1984 at 1:30 p.m.
M/S/C (CORNELISON/ADAMS) to adjourn the meeting at 3:48
p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Barry Beck
Executive Director
nk
13
RIVERSIDE CDuNT`l TRANSPORTATION
Minutes of Meeting No. 1-84
January 19, 1984
1. Call to Order.
The meeting of the Riverside County Transportation
Commission was called to order by Chairman Roy Wilson at
1:33 p.m., on Thursday, January 19, 1984, at the Riverside
County Administrative Center, 14th Floor Conference Room,
4080 Lemon Street, Riverside. Chairman Wilson noted that a
quorum is present.
Members present:
Kay Ceniceros
Susan Cornelison
Melba Dunlap
Bill Edmonds
Alternates present:
Jim Adams
Jean Mansfield
Roy Wilson
Norton Younglove
Pat Murphy
2. Approval of Minutes.
M/S/C (CORNELISON/CENICEROS) to approve the minutes of
the December 15, 1983 as submitted.
3. Public Comments.
There were no public comments.
4. Presentations to Retiring Citizens Advisory Committee
Members.
Chairman Wilson introduced Gordon Hass, Jo Huntley and Lloyd
O'Connell and he gave a brief summary of each member's
accomplishments. On behalf of the Commission, Chairman
Wilson extended his appreciation for time and effort
rendered as members of the Citizens Advisory Committee and
presented each of them with a plaque.
5. Federal Funding for Route 86.
Chairman Wilson told the Commission that since the last
meeting, he and Barry Beck met with Congressman Al
McCandless to discuss the Commission's plan to pursue
federal funds for Route 86. Congressman McCandless was very
1
RCTC Minutes
January 19, 1984
supportive of the idea and pledged to serve as the Commis-
sion's legislative liaison making contacts with other legis-
lators in Washington. After receiving a positive reaction
from Congressman McCandless, he and Barry Beck then spoke
with a consultant, Tim Egan of Smith and Egan Associates,
who has offices in Sacramento and Washington and are ex-
perts in transportation. Chairman Wilson said that Tim Egan
has previously worked for SCAG as well as LACTC. They
discussed whether funding was worth pursuing. Tim Egan said
that he thought there was potential in doing some
preliminary investigation to see what opportunities are
available this session and if we will be able to get an
amendment introduced. He is very aware of Route 86 and its
salability because of its history and the support that it
has gotten through SCAG and others throughout the region.
He suggested that the Commission approach this on a step by
step basis by first gathering data on whether or not it's
feasible and then determine how to proceed to accomplish it.
He said that he is willing to accept a month to month con-
tract at a fee of $1500/month plus expenses and that it
would take him 1-2 months to gather enough data to determine
whether there are grounds to proceed or not.
Barry Beck said that the step process is important because
after a month or two, the Commission would then know whether
it will be worthwhile to continue. We are looking at a very
small timeframe where we have any possibility of getting any
federal funds. The Commission will have the ability to end
the contract on a month to month basis. The firm has expe-
rience in both Sacramento and Washington and that Tim Egan
is totally familiar with the project having worked in the
region for so many years. The Commission has to act fast
within a short time period and Tim Egan does not need to be
familiarized with the project.
Commissioner Cornelison asked whether the Commission should
place a time limit for gathering data and Commissioner
Younglove stated that there is no need to do so as long as
the contract is on a month to month basis. The Commission
can at any time discontinue it.
M/S/C (YOUNGLOVE/CENICEROS) to approve a month to month
contract with Tim Egan of Smith and Egan Associates at
a cost of $1500/month plus expenses.
Barry Beck informed the Commission that he will present a
status report on this matter at its next meeting.
2
RCTC Minutes
January 19, 1984
6. Proposed Policies for Adding Projects to RTP.
Barry Beck stated that this matter was previously discussed
by the Commission at its last meeting. Since that time, it
has continued to be a high profile issue at the regional
level. The only thing that is pretty much agreed upon is
that the RTP should be consistent with the Development
Guide. How one determines its consistency and how inconsis-
tencies are resolved, seem to be the key issues. He then
posed the following questions. If it is determined that a
proposed project will result in higher population and/or
employment than what is shown in the Development Guide,
should the project be rejected or should the Development
Guide simply be revised or are there alternatives? Should
projects that contribute to a continued or even worsened
jobs/housing balance be rejected? One of the key policies
of the Regional Development Guide is to have jobs/housing
balance in each of the subregions in the region. Thus,
should the Wilshire Rail project in Los Angeles not be
supported because it will facilitate additional jobs within
Downtown Los Angeles which is already a job rich - housing
poor subregion? Should projects on the Riverside Freeway,
the Newport Freeway and other freeways in Orange County be
rejected because they allow people to work in Orange County
and live in affordable housing in Riverside County? We have
to consider what affect the policies would have on potential
projects in Riverside County. One example is the Route 91
Freeway through the Santa Ana Canyon. Caltrans District 8
staff at previous RCTC meetings pointed out that the route
is at or near capacity right now. If capacity is not in-
creased via widening, transit, vanpools, bus service, rail
service, etc., there is no way that the pace of Orange
County workers moving to Riverside County for affordable
housing can continue. That commute option will simply reach
its maximum. People will not tolerate the time it will take
because of the congestion to commute from Su-nnymead,
Murrietta, etc. What will happen is industry might move to
Riverside but jobs probably would not be created at the pace
the current housing is going on such that there would
probably be a reduction in the housing growth. It might be a
more balanced growth but at a lower level. There would be
LA -type congestion on Route 91. Those people would still
try to continue to funnel through the bottleneck to get to
jobs in Orange County. Population growth would likely be
diverted to the areas that still have transportation
capacity to commute to jobs in Los Angeles and Orange
Counties. It may result in higher density in Orange and Los
Angeles Counties. •
Sent out with the agenda packet was the last draft that SCAG
staff has come out with on proposed policies based on the
last meeting of the SCAG Executive Committee.
3
RCTC Minutes
January 19, 1984
Dennis Macheski said that SCAG's Transportation and
Communications Committee met to discuss what goals are
needed to meet the criteria. It is SCAG's goal to try and
provide a jobs/housing balance in the subregions. What
they don't want is a system where Irvine gets all the
employment while Riverside County gets all the houses.
Another criteria that they don't want is congestion on Route
91 that is creeping along as that is counter -productive,
consumes energy, create smog, etc., and it does not meet
transportation needs. They would also like to fine tune
things such as not providing so much service between Irvine
and Riverside that would promote high employment concentra-
tion in Irvine and high residential development in
Riverside.
In response to Commissioner Murphy's question whether addi-
tional housing is still available in Orange County, Dennis
Macheskiresponded that there is still quite a bit of land
and housing available but it is quite expensive. He conti-
nued and said that the basic goal at SCAG is trying to get
employment in Riverside County. The reason that he is
bringing the Route 91 issue up is that they have a different
interpretation. He would not interpret the policies that
they drafted to say that they would oppose any expansion of
Route 91. Even with their forecast, they still recognize
the market forces. There are still people that will want to
continue to commute from Riverside to Orange County and the
freeway has to be expanded or something has got to be done
to facilitate that need. He would not interpret the policy
so that SCAG opposes any expansion of Route 91.
Dennis Macheski said that what they are trying to do is to
come up with the most cost-effective transportation system
to serve the forecasted demand and their forecast at SCAG
indicates that there is going to be a demand for 30,000
cars/hour in the corridor. What is the most cost-effective
way to provide it? If we build too large of a facility and
we think that would stimulate jobs/housing imbalance. What
they are saying is that an area should want consistency
between the densities that they are talking about and the
type of transportation system that is being planned for the
area. If you have high capacity systems, they go hand in
hand with the higher density development and the last fore-
cast, SCAG '82, local agencies did not want high density.
If they don't want high density then they should not want a
high capacity rail system. He pointed out that an excellent
article was published in the San Bernardino Sun on January
9th trying to summarize the policies that are being proposed
and the controversies surrounding it.
4
RCTC Minutes
January 19, 1984
Commissioner Ceniceros noted that staff's report raised a
question of whether the policies should apply to a project
that is totally locally funded. She asked if there are such
projects.
Barry Beck stated that one instance would the Prop. A
project - the Long Beach/Los Angeles light rail line.
Commissioner Ceniceros said that it is important for this
Commission to came to grips over whether they think transporta-
tion planning ought to be one tool of implementing a
regional plan for the Development Guide which has a criteria
that is certainly usually viewed as important to the inland
area - create jobs/housing balance.
Barry Beck commented that he thinks it is an over -simplifi-
cation to say that we are just going to design to what we
expect the demand will be. The more you add capacity, the
more potential for growth you are going to have. If you
want to cut off housing growth, which he thinks by anybody's
account is going at a much faster pace than job growth in
this County, the one way that can be done is by cutting out
the ability for people to make that commute. If you conti-
nue to keep expanding the route, you'll just have an ever
increasing imbalance. He said that this policy is not
necessarily related to priority setting. One could say that
if a project does not meet the policy, we're not going to
put it in the RTP. He cautioned the Commission to be aware
of the potential trap that it could be putting itself into.
He said• that the Commission may decide somewhere down the
line when there is pressure for affordable housing in the
County and people that are making the commute are creeping
along at 5 mph, thus, the Commission may have to do
something about it and SCAG could reject including the
project in the RTP.
Dennis Macheski said that he understands staff's concern and
pointed out that this was really put together to address El
Segundo which is an area that wants to add many jobs.
They want transportation facilities that will accommodate
the jobs. Some policies are needed which say that if
you want transportation dollars to facilitate that kind of
employment growth, there should be some sort of action for
adding housing. With regards to Route 91, it is not their
intent to apply it vigorously in that kind of a bottleneck
situation. One other goal that is equal to job/housing
balance is definitely to have a free flow traffic, lack of
congestion, reduce air pollution and energy consumption.
Barry Beck said that at the staff level, it was discussed
that there needs to be some kind of a joint determination on
whether a project contributes to jobs/housing imbalance or
5
RCTC Minutes
January 19, 1984
higher densities and population/employment than what are
called for in the Regional Development Guide and that it not
be done unilaterally by SCAG staff or SCAG. If it is de-
cided jointly that there is a problem then also jointly
decide how to resolve it.
Brad Williams said that the original recommendation that
went before the SCAG Executive Committee (1) and (m) were
separate policies and they essentially were requirements.
It will be necessary to meet these requirements before a
project can be included in the RTP. When the three policy
committees met, they changed the recommendations. They
moved the stand alone policies into the long list of
criteria and took away the concept that these are
requirements that have to be met and moved them to
considerations that have to be addressed before the decision
is made. The recommendation was forwarded to the SCAG
Executive Committee and they were dissatisfied withitasthey
felt it is no longer strong enough and somehow they have to
deal that we are talking about an essential concept of
consistency with the Development Guide. Now the question
becomes whether to write language that is a requirement
that has to be met or write language in such a way that it
is just additional criteria that has to be addressed in
making the decision. There is no resolution of that issue as
yet. It is one of the things that the policy committee is
dealing with and the SCAG Transportation and Communications
Committee today decided they couldn't come up with it today.
It will be at least another month before there is a resolu-
tion on this question. Two other issues were brought up
that are closely related to whether to call it requirements
or criteria: (1) How do you determine that there is in fact
an inconsistency with the Development Guide. The Develop-
ment Guide changes every 2-4 years and total population can
change and how much of that change will affect this policy
and that the local jurisdictions may disagree with SCAG that
there is an inconsistency. There is a need to develop some
kind of documented criteria. (2) Perhaps language should
not be written that states the actions that have to be taken
but rather need to initiate a process to resolve any incon-
sistencies. As they continue to work on the policies, they
will be bringing in the process of resolving them and that
process could well be written into project planning. No
resolutions have been reached and there are a number of
issues that are important, as a region, and how to interpret
the importance of the Development Guide and regional plan-
ning in general.
Commissioner Ceniceros asked whether or not we're going to
see the Development Guide as the mold around which transpor-
tation policies fit, air quality policies fit, etc., or
whether to go back and retailor the body. We have more than
6
RCTC Minutes
January 19, 1984
a single element. We have other intrastructure investment
decisions that are made regionally and we have air quality
decisions that are also made regionally. We have intra-
county and city/county activities that try to go forth
towards jobs/housing balance. We have developed quite a few
policies and tools in Riverside County in the last three
years to try and enrich the job side of that formula. So
she does not think that the Commission should neglect giving
attention to those other efforts that are being made because
given a straight line increase in housing or straight line
increase in jobs in the last half decade certainly there
would be a continuing widening of the imbalance and, there-
fore, frustrated commuter traffic on Route 91. But if we
are successful in all of the efforts and coordinating all of
the efforts through the frame of the Development Guide and
our own General Plans, then it won't be that critical.
Barry Beck said that the Commission needs to address whether
(k) and (1) are to be mandatory or not. It is the interpre-
tation now from the Los Angeles and Orange Counties staff
that Item 2, (a) through (1) is just kind of a laundry list
and that they are not all required to be met. He thinks
that if the Commission feels that they are important, they
ought to be mandatory. If the Commission believe that the
Regional Transportation Plan needs to be consistent with the
Development Guide, they shouldn't be just part of a shopping
list but rather should stand alone and should be with Item
3, which also relates to the Development Guide.
Dennis Macheski stated that SCAG staff agrees with that
although the policy committee disagrees with it.
M/S/C (CENICEROS/MANSFIELD) to go on record to support
(k) and (1) .
M/S/C (CENICEROS/DUNLAP) to support highlighting (k)
and (1) by having them stand separately.
(M/S/C (CENICEROS/CORNELISON) to encourage the
development of a mechanism in which there is wide
representation among cities and counties to resolve
inconsistencies.
7. SunLine Short Range Transit Plan Amendment.
Paul Blackwelder, Assistant Director, recalled last year's
unmet transit needs process whereby a petition signed by
residents of the North Palm Springs area was submitted
requesting transit service. Service in the area was pre-
viously served by a fixed route but the line had been re-
routed. When this matter was discussed with SunLine, they
7
RCTC Minutes
January 19, 1984
reported that transit needs could be met with a limited tel-
a-ride service twice a day, three days a week. It was
reported by SunLine that ridership in the North Palm Springs
area from August to November, 1983, showed that only one
passenger/day is using the service and SunLine is requesting
an amendment to discontinue the service as of January 2nd.
SunLine staff was informed that the Commission will not be
meeting until January 19th and will not be able to act on
this matter prior to January 2nd and advised them to conti-
nue operating the service but they went ahead and disconti-
nued the service on January 2nd. Although staff disagrees
with SunLine's procedure in discontinuing the service, staff
agrees with their analysis that one passenger/day from the
area does not warrant continuation of transit service and
recommends that the Commission approve the amendment to the
Short Range Transit Plan.
Commissioner Ceniceros said that she has a problem with
this. If you want to discontinue a service you would make
the service real inconvenient and when the ridership drops,
say that it is no longer needed. There were 16 riders/day
when they were taking Line 33 from Desert Hot Springs by
North Palm Springs to Palm Springs. Those were the 16
people who argued that they had an unmet need. The fact
that SunLine substituted a more expensive service, tel-a-
ride, and it did not work because people did not know how to
use it does not mean to her that there is no unmet need.
There are still those 16 people in that area that were using
the service when it was on the fixed route. Just to change
the needs assessment does not seem to her to be addressing
the problem.
Paul Blackwelder reiterated that SunLine staff met with
residents in the area after the petition was received and
they told SunLine that the limited tel-a-ride service would
be adequate.
Barry Beck commented that perhaps the residents had to agree
with the limited tel-a-ride service at that time because
they were at a disadvantage because they did not have any
service at all by then. They already lost the service and
they were grasping for getting back any kind of service. He
said that when this issue first came up it was pointed out
to SunLine staff that most of the people were probably going
to Palm Springs.
Commissioner Ceniceros said that her concern is that North
Palm Springs is a poor community with literally no service
other than a post office. They are in need of some transit.
Maybe 16 riders do not meet the unmet need quota but she
thinks that SunLine should go back and reexamine if there
could be a way to provide service before the Commission
8
RCTC Minutes
January 19, 1984
makes a policy decision.
Commissioner Younglove said that it sounds similar in some
respects to the problem that occurred in Woodcrest where
they had superb ridership and then RTA tried to expand the
service by going in different directions - Tyler Mall and
Downtown Riverside. What they have learned and not yet
solved is the fact that an immense amount of Woodcrest
ridership is lost simply because the street is too dangerous
to cross. It is not that the demand is not there but the
people that used to use it no longer do. This particular
case is not necessarily the same as North Palm Springs, but
he thinks that the same basic point is there. Commissioner
Ceniceros raises a very basic question whether is it really
a lack of demand or is it adjustment to the transit service
that that is killing the demand that is there.
Commissioner Ceniceros stated that she is leaning on the
legal parameter that the Commission goes by that we don't
undetermine an unmet need. If that legal process is not in
place, the Commission has a problem. There maybe alterna-
tives that hadn't been looked at by SunLine staff that would
be cheaper than going back to the original service, The
Commission is here to serve the transit dependent people.
Ridership frequently consists of people who are either
transit dependent or poor. We should take a look to see if
there is a way to serve these people.
M/S/C (CENICEROS/YOUNGLOVE) to:
(1) Reject the recommendation to amend the Short
Range Transit plan deleting service to North Palm
Springs.
(2) Direct a letter to SunLine requesting them to
develop some alternative proposals for meeting the
transit need in North Palm Springs or to agree to
meet with a subcommittee which would include
Commissioner Ceniceros and people in the North
Palm Springs area to find out just how serious
that ridership problem there is, and
(3) To direct staff to provide a progress report on
this matter at the Commission's next meeting.
Commissioner Younglove asked the Commission to consider
coordinating RCTC meetings with RTA and LAFCO meetings for
the sake of those members travelling from a distance to
attend RCTC meetings and/or RTA and LAFCO meetings.
9
RCTC Minutes
January 19, 1984
Barry Beck said that RCTC meetings were previously scheduled
for 2nd Thursdays but it was changed to accommodate RCTC
staff attendance of California Transportation Commission
meetings scheduled on 2nd and 4th Thursdays. The State
Commission moved their schedule which had been on the 1st
and 3rd Thursdays to the 2nd and 4th Thursdays.
Barry Beck said that staff will contact Commission members
to get the schedule of their regular meetings and will place
this item on the next meeting's agenda.
8. Revision to SB 821 (Bicycle & Pedestrian) Program.
Barry Beck informed the Commission that subsequent to
putting this item on the agenda, he received a call from
Ramon Diaz, Director of Environmental Services of Palm
Desert, requesting to continue this item as he would like to
put together a presentation for the Commission to help
convince the Commission of the high priority of this pro-
ject. Barry Beck said that the project is a good project
and if it would have gone through the normal process it is
very likely that it would have been funded. The fear that
staff has if the Commission were to approve the request is
that the Commission may be setting a precedent where a
local agency competes against other agencies with a high
priority project and then subsequently requests to use the
funding for another project. It can be used to unfairly
compete against other cities for SB 821 funds.
Commissioner Dunlap pointed out that the basic question is
if the Commission should set a precedent or not.
Commissioner Cornelison asked if the City of Riverside had
previously requested for a similar amendment.
Barry Beck said that there has been a couple of similar
instances similar where the project's cost has been
substantially less than originally anticipated and the Com-
mission has allowed the local agency to switch it to another
bikeway project which was previously approved that was cost-
ing more or to expand the scope of it. But there was never
an instance where the Commission has switched the funds to
an entirely new project.
M/S/C (CENICEROS/MANSFIELD) to approve a one month
continuance and request that the presentation by Palm
Desert address the point evaluation process that won
them the original grant and reasons why the funds are
needed now rather than going through the 1984-85 SB 821
process.
10
RCTC Minutes
January 19, 1984
9. CSAC Resolution Calling for an Increase in the State Gas
Tax.
Barry Beck said that Commissioner Ceniceros has requested
that this item be placed on the agenda. The Commission has
periodically discussed the need to try to see what it can do
to affect an additional State gas tax. The California
Supervisors' Association has recently announced an effort to
get something going and has asked that each county set up a
task force and, in addition, they are establishing a state-
wide task force with members from each of the countywide
groups. He talked with Vic Pottorff, CSAC staff, who stated
that it appears that there will be no legislation in
Sacramento this year on the gas tax issue so it maybe a
little premature to go ahead with a full blown effort at
this time. What is happening at present is that a number of
studies are taking place. The Commissioners may have read
recently that the Assembly Office on Research has released a
statewide infrastructure needs study; one of which is on
transportation and it identifies a large backlog of needed
transportation improvements. There is also a Governor's
infrastructure task force that is running parallel to this.
He also understands that the Assembly Transportation
Committee is likely to form some kind of a subcommittee to
also begin addressing the backlog of transportation needs
which could potentially lead to the introduction of a gas
tax increase legislation. Being that there's nothing to
happen this session, it is probably premature to form a
subcommittee or form a task force within the county at this
time. Vic Pottorff did encouraged the Commission to act as
a coordinator within the County and appoint a representative
to the CSAC's statewide task force.
Commissioner Ceniceros commented that in reading about Mike
Roos' statement, it seems so parallel to what's being
discussed here and at SCAG. The whole discussion behind the
General Assembly of CSAC going for the resolution is that
there is no way it can be done on a county by county basis.
If assuming that some counties raise its gas tax to under-
write the intrastructure and others didn't, there would be a
real bleeding off of gasoline sales from the counties who
did. It probably is more critical in the northern section
than the southern section of the State. The Commission
needs to at least endorse the concept of the resolution.
Barry Beck said that from Commissioner Ceniceros' comments
he gathers that CSAC is opposed to the ACA 37 by Senator
John Foran allowing a county to enact its own gas tax.
Commissioner Ceniceros said that no uniform position was
taken in opposition to it but the whole discussion was
in that direction.
11
RCTC Minutes
January 19, 1984
Barry Beck reminded the Commissioners that this Commission
has opposed ACA 37. Surprisingly, most of the Commissions
in Southern California have gone in record as favoring ACA
37 and in the north as well the consensus
has been to support ACA 37. He has kind of been the lone
voice being that the Commission has taken a stand against
it.
M/S/C (CENICEROS/DUNLAP) to support the CSAC resolution
and direct staff to contact Commission members to seek
a delegate to the task force with staff to act as the
alternate if the Commission's representative is not
able to attend the meeting.
10. Appointments to Citizens Advisory Committee.
Barry Beck informed the Commission that Ms. JoAnn Moore from
Lake Elsinore was referred by a Citizens Advisory Committee
member. Ms.. Moore is employed by the California Employment
Development Department as a Placement Counselor and she is
interested in providing transportation to those living in
the Lake Elsinore area that are pursuing jobs in the Corona
and Perris areas. She is willing and able to serve on the
Committee.
M/S/C (DUNLAP/MANSFIELD) to appoint Jo Ann Moore to the
Citizens Advisory Committee.
Commissioner Mansfield stated that she knows someone from
the Banning area that might be interested in being a member
of the Committee. She will contact her and inform RCTC
staff.
Commissioner Ceniceros said that she has asked the Hemet
Chambers of Commerce Transportation Committee to give her a
nominee for the Citizens Advisory Committee.
Barry Beck said that areas that need to be represented on
the Committee are Hemet, Sun City, and the Pass area.
Chairman Wilson requested that Commission members notify
staff of other nominees to the Citizens Advisory Committee.
11. Additional Items.
A. Barry Beck informed the Commission that Ivan
Hinderaker's term on the California. Transportation
Commission is coming to a close as of February 1st. It
is staff's understanding that it is highly unlikely,
because of the geographical representation on the State
Commission, that he will be reappointed. It was
discussed with SanBAG the desirability of having a
12
RCTC Minutes
January 19, 1984
luncheon in honor of Ivan Hinderaker and he brought
this up to the Commission if they agree with the idea.
If the Commission agrees, a suggested date to hold the
luncheon is February 1st.
It was the consensus of the Commission to hold a
luncheon in honor of Ivan Hinderaker.
Staff will inform Commission members of the time and
the location of the luncheon.
B. Barry Beck reported that with regards to the county
minimum issue, Senator John Foran's staff sent out a
letter to the county transportation commissions
indicating a willingness to do something. What they
are suggesting is to give the State Commission an
opportunity to deviate from county minimums if on peti-
tion of Caltrans saying that a county does not have
cost-effective projects within the county to do that
the State Commission would be able to legally deviate
from meeting that county's minimum. Staff feels that,
in general, that concept is pretty good. The State
needs a legal out from having to meet minimums of the
county if there is really nothing to be done in that
county.
In response to Commissioner Cornelison as to who would
make the determination if there is no cost effective
project in a county, Barry Beck said that State Commis-
sion would make the determination and they could only
make the determination if they are requested to do so
by Caltrans. He said that language should be included
to safeguard against abusive use by State Commission.
C. Barry Beck stated that the interchange and overcrossing
policy still has not been resolved yet and statewide
meetings are being planned to discuss this issue.
12. Adjournment.
The next meeting of the Riverside County Transportation
Commission will be held on February 16, 1984 at 1:30 p.n.
M/S/C (ADAMS/CORNELISON) to adjourn the meeting at 3:19
p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
k'BARRY BECK
Executive Director
nk
13