Loading...
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