HomeMy Public PortalAbout08 August 30, 1983 Citizens' Advisory040225
CITIZENS ADVISORY CO ;"iTT_E
August 30, 192.3, 1 : ,.,.
Riverside City Hall
4th Fl ooi, Conference Room
3900 Blain Street, Riverside 92522
Call to Order.
oval of linutes.
Marketing Plans - Riverside Transit -;s lr','
and SunLine Transit Agency.
Draft Regional Transportation Plan.
5. Other Business.
o. Adjournment.
CITI7E S DVIS'.. '.Y
'1' ilu Les of leeti ng No. -33
June 28, 1933
Call to Order.
The meeting of the Citizens Advisory Committee was called to order by
Chairman Gordon Hass at 1:38 P.M. on Tuesday, June 28, 1923 at crc
Riverside City Hall, Fourth Floor Conference Room, 3903 'lain 3tre---
Riverside.
Members present:
Donna Crowe
Fred P. Fickas
Gordon Hass
Jo Huntley
Rand Martin
Others present:
Lloyd O'Connell
Rena Parker
Earl Shade
Sheila Velez
Ken Kaufher, RTA Doug Marini , RTA
2. Approval of Minute. -
Rena Parker called the Committee's attention to Page 4, Paragr,ach 4,
1st Sentence, "...they are equating the demand to Corona for Norco Bial-
a -ride...", she noted that "to Corona" and "Norco" should be eiin8nated
from the sentence.
M/S/C (PARKER/SHADE) to approve the minutes of the
April 26, 1983 meeting as corrected.
3. Quarterly Report on Transit Operations.
Paul Blackwelder, Assistant Director, informed the Committee that overall
transit ridership dropped in the first half of FY 1903. The highest de-
crease in ridership occurred in dial -a -ride services provided by RTA and
SunLine_ RTA dial -a -ride ridership declined by 30.24 or 45,720 passengers
and SunLine declined by 23.74 or 4,877 passengers. He pointed out that
although statistics show that overall SunLine ridership had declined,
actual fare paying passengers had increased. This was due to the route
restructuring implemented in January which reduced the need to transfer
between routes. One major reason attributed to the decline of ridership
is the increased fares. Fare revenue to operating expense ratios generally
increased during the first half of FY 1983 compared to FY 1982.
In response to Rena Parker's question why Corona's djal-a-ride ridership
declined drastically as compared to Beaumont's dial -a -ride, Barry Beck,
Executive Director, stated that the Beaumont dial -a -ride has just started
transporting a large group of handicapped individuals and had expanded
service to the unincorporated area
A discussion followed as _<<,_,_
decline in countywide ridersnin.
4. Options to Re,3tri ct Able -Bodied Persons From Using Demand 4e_snons i ye
Services Nhen Fixed Route Service 1� Availably-_
Paul Blackwelder stored that this agenda item
held by the Conrni . flee at lzs la t. meeting _.:r ce n _ -
viding dial -a -ride ser ice_ The Co: m1ttee
vestigate lia.'S to -,nco_icac Der -,, Lc
route service in lieu of dial ride_ He • olrired o._. t
areas in the Count' ,;sere -i,..ed ,-oute and aia:-a-r c_ s -. _
provided. In the City of ,iver_.ide ", -,4 operates a fixed rout _ se: . -_
within 1_, mile of appro,. imatel y 74 of all recidents. A der and-res:.v+,'_
service is also pco✓,dud by - o ._ =._r the --de
handicapped. In the :+ei+,e -far. :ac nTo area. (:.-.T cares
route and dial -a-ride, which are both available TO' the
Ridership in the City of Rider.:ide for FY 1933 Is esuiio at
passengers with operating a•:oenses of 3437,000. the tTt
61 ,000 or 54'; are handicapped and 51,330 or 461 are elderi.y. In da.,iet-
San Jacinto, dial -a -ride ride hip is estimated at 96,0Mwith operating
expenses of S447,000. Total -ridership consist of 4,000 hanclicap;_uaa.
50,000 elderly and 42,000 general public or students. The
Riverside has implemented a policy whereby riders who are not r eoiste"Oc]
as handicapped are informed that there is fixed route service av ai
at a lower fare. If they wish to use the fixed route instead o+ Bial-
a -ride, schedule information is given by phone as well as b, ail _
Paul Blackwelder said that he was told by City staff that the r•es7Tor,_e
to this effort has not been very good as very few rider are rece t1 .'e
to using fixed route in lieu of dial -a -ride. Two methods ftr" iirn,itinq
dial -a -ride demand were presented to the Committee. First, limiting
eligibility for dial -a -ride to only handicapped persons when the trio
origin a"d destination are within 1 mile of a fixed route. Second, acing
a surcharge -'or all non -handicapped persons when the trip origin and
destination are within ;, mile of a fixed route. Paul then pointed out
that the Committee should consider the role of dial -a -ride in the total
transportation system and whether the operators would be willing to imple-
ment eit'nec measure if existing riders would complain_
Barry Beck exaplained that the Committee should discuss the Hemet and
Riverside systems separately because of the distinct differences in popu-
lation served and fixed route service availability. In Riverside, the
population served is limited to elderly and handicapped and fixed route
service is available to 70-80`' of all city residents. The question to
be addressed is whether to limit service to handicapped persons only or
to charge able bodied elderly persons a surcharge when fixed route service
is available. In Hemet, the dial -a -ride is available to the general
public and fixed route service is very limited. The additional question
for consideration is whether dial -a -ride, with its high cost, should be
available to the general public, and particularly to students.
3.J_ _. _ .-U „ _ students .-,ad
ot.he's coulj not use the system, and whetner tne los--
,.rould reduce the revenue for the Hemet aial-a-ride.
Ken Kaufher, Assistant General Manager of RTA, explained that the students
use the dial -a -ride at different times of the day than rf,e elde, l;
further explained that if students no longer used the cia--_.-ride _r
numb'r of vehicle four's and overall expense of Thi _e' ✓ _ .
c T tonnel l Rupee e- - er raps RT."
in Hemet TO contribute -oca--a the dial -a-ride opr_ration.
Barry Beck commented that, since RTA has adequate funding, wnicr govern-
mental agency finances the system was not the relevant question. -re
mittee should view the high cost of dial -a -rice ,rorr an ove'cii r;
view and ask whether tax dollars are being used >;isd to trar-!:.cr . sr
by dial -a -ride.
Earl Shade stated that he supported limited eligibility For aial-c-ride
handicapped persons only when fixed route service was available. He niter
that he is a senior citizen a le to use the fixed route service.
Chairman Hass asked whether adding a fare surcharge to able bodied ricers or
limiting the eligibility for dial -a -ride service would enhance the use of
fixed route service in the Hemet -San Jacinto area_
Ken Kaufher explained that approximately 50,000 dial -a --ride users would he
required to pay the surcharge. The Hemet dial -a -ride is carrying about
100,000 people/year and about half are elderly and handicapped. he believes
that of 50,000 who would be changed, some will find another way to get
around but many would shift to fixed route as it is the only other avail-
able public transit service.
A lergthy discussion ensued between Committee members and RCTC and RTA
staff on problems that could arise if fare surcharge or dial -a -ride eli-
gibility limitation were to be instituted_ Due to the complex nature
of the subject matter, it was decided not to take action at this time
and that Committee members would request RCTC staff to place it on the
agenda for further discussion at a later date.
5. Ad Hoc Bikeway (SB 821) Subcommittee.
Chairman Hass appointed Sheila Velez, Earl Shade and Lloyd O'Connell to
the Ad Hoc Bikeway Subcommittee.
Barry Beck stated that members of the Subcommittee will be sent a notice
by mail concerning date and place of the meeting.
adiC .)3, 1903
Pace -
6. Resignations of CAC Members,
Paul Blackwelder told the Committee that John Porter- of Pair Spoings.
Suzanne Phillips of Riverside have resigned from the Committee. A notice
of the vacancies will be posted. He reouesciA suggestions from Committee
members for candidates to fill the vacancies.
Sheila Velez suggested Renee Garcia of the desert are: to -;11 one
the vacancies. She will net in touch with Paul Bl ackwel der
information on Renee Garcia.
7. Additional information.
Earl Shade stated that Riverside's Multimodal Downtown Ter,iirai was
dedicated last week. He encouraged Committee members to stop by the
terminal.
d. Adjournment.
With no other agenda items to be discussed, Chairman Hass declared the
meeting adjourned at 2:51 p.m. The next Committee meeting is schecuiec_:
on July 26, 1983 at 1:30 p.m._
Respectfully submitted.
Paul Blackwelder
Assistant Director
nk
ITEM 3
'0: Citizens Adv sori y crwitt..e
FROfi: Paul Blackwelder, Assistant Director
SUBJECT: Marketing Plans - SunLine Transit Agency and
Agenc
SunLine Transit Agency and Riverside Transit Agenc.
attend the meeting to present an overview of the -
respective agency and to answer questions.
Topics for discussion will be:
o General marketing efforts.
o Special studies.
o New or seasonal service -start-up.
o Passenger amenities.
o Bus stops
o Benches
o Shelters
o Route and schedule information services.
PB:nk
Agenda Item No. 3
August 30, 1983
ITEM MO. 4
TO: Citizens Advisory Committee
FROM: Barry Beck, Executive Director
SUBJECT: Draft Regional Transportation Plan
16
The Commission reviewed the 1983 Draft Regional Transportation Plan preparec
by SCAG at its meeting on August 18th. Attached is a copy of the staff report
on the draft RTP presented at the meeting. The Commission expressed agreement
with the staff analysis and authorized transmittal of the staff comments as
pre-
liminary comments to SCAG.
As noted in the report, staff comments were limited to major policy arc tec.%-r;-
cal issues. The Commissioners were particularly concerned with three problems
pointed out in the report. The first concern was the "centers concept" which
promotes development in Downtown Riverside and the central core of Corona_ The
concept appears to ignore the rapid development occuring outside the cente s
designated by SCAG. Second, the Commission expressed concern that I-15. 1-213.
and Route 74 were considered together and not as individual corridors. The
third concern was that the aviation element does not address the recent action
by Orange County opposing the development of a regional airport in the El Toro
area. This action will impact both the drowth of Ontario Airport and traffic
on the transportation corridors leading to it from Orange County.
The Commission directed staff to prepare an official response from the Commission
to SCAG regarding the draft RTP to be acted on at the Commission meeting in
September. Comments generated by the Committee can be included in the material
prepared for the Commission.
BB/PB:nk
Attachments
Agenda Item No. 4
August 30, 1983
=Rcm. Barry Beck, Fxecutive Director
- r
SUBJECT: Draft Regional Transportation Plan
The draft 1983 Regional Transportation Plan was released by SCAG in :
adoption by SCAG's Executive Committee, once scheduled for September ist, n,aH
been pushed back to December 1st. The approach of the craft RTP
stantiallv from previous plans. The must significant new feat"re :,-
she analysis of the regional transportation Sy tErL on a ce.-, cc,'
this general approach has received favorable comment, the details o-
as well as other aspects of the plan has generated considerable criti sir..
Commission staff has conducted a fairly detailed review of the draft RTP and hay
identified numerous errors and concerns. Rather than attewpting to enu:era e
each of these, this report will discuss the major policy and Technical issues
that staff is concerned about. More detailed comments will be transmitted direr`
to SCAG.
General Organization and. Format
The organization and format of the draft RTP is poor and confusing. There shculc
be a section devoted to clearly stating the purpose of the RTP and the goals and
objectivesof Region. Instead, policies are scattered throughout the document,
goals and objectives are simply listed in the Systems Plan chapter without dis-
cussion or foundation.
Chapter III, System Plan, should follow and build on the results of the chapters
dealing with various modal elements. Instead, it precedes these chapters and
discusses issues and concepts that are not irtroduced until the later chapters.
Instead of trying to pull together the analysis into one regional system plan,
this chapter divides the region into illogical subregions.
Chapter V, Interregional Rail Element, should be part of Chapter IV, Ground
Transportation Element, and the analysis integrated with the other ground trans-
portation modes. Furthermore, this chapter should discuss Amtrak service as
well as the two proposed high speed rail projects.
Rideshare, Mode Split and Telecommunications Objectives
In the Systems Plan chapter, mode split objectives and rideshare objectives are
presented for each corridor in the region. These objectives have apparently been
arbitrarily established. They have not been determined by traditional transporta-
tion planning methodology and have no technical foundation. The objectives appear
to greatly exceed what can be reasonably expected to occur.
The draft RTP also assumes that 1n of all work trips will be eliminated through
the use of telecommunications_ While we believe that such a diversion of tr',ps
Agenda Item No. 4
August 18, 1983
ne hignly desirable in terms of lessening the reed for transpoctatiDr
;1ities and/or lessening traffic congestion, assuming such a la-,ge rercerc-
appears to be highly speculative. Further study and analysis ace r CCe:d
as well as observation of trends before assumptions on telecom unicat cn snc, d
be factored into the RTP. At this time, the RTP should be limited to a dis-
cussion on the impact of telecommunication on the transportation system. Tne
plan can be revised in future years as it becomes more clear just what the
effects of telecomrnuncation might be.
Criteria for Setting Priorities on Corridors and Projects
.n Chapter IV, Ground Transportation Element, 10 criteria are presentee _-
are to ''. . .guide the development of regional transportation' and c ;
projects for implementation in the Transportation Improvement Program'. The-‘_
is no discussion of just how these criteria would be used. In fact, except
for some minimal comments in Tables 8 through 17 in Chapter III, tie criteH _.
are not mentioned or used further in the plan. The criteria are divided
three groupings: system level, corridor level and project level. Howe,, er
both the system level and corridor level contain criteria that apples to indi-
vidual projects.
The Commission should be concerned about how the criteria, in whatever way they
areused, effects the improvement of transportation facilities in Riverside
County. For example, there seems Io be little emphasis on safety and strong
emphasis on projects in existing,highly urbanized areas.
One of the criteria is that "projects should encourage the development of
centers". Unfortunately there is no definition of what a "center" is. laps
in various parts of the plan delineate where the centers are and their extent.
From examining these maps, no clear consistent definition can -be established.
In Riverside County, there are only two centers: Downtown Riverside and the
central core of Corona. However in San Bernardino County, just about the entire
corportate limits of Rancho Cucamonga, from the foothills of the San Bernardino
Mountains to I-10 is shown as a "center".
While most planners support the centers development concept, it is unclear just what
the effects of the transportation system has on encouraging centers develop-
ment. The draft RTP implies that connecting centers with transportation facil-
ities encourages their development. However, these same facilities often encour-
age new development in areas gaining improved access lying between centers.
In any event, is this "centers" criteria going to drive transportation develop-
ment? Will we in Riverside County have to orient everything around Downtown
Riverside rather than meeting the needs of other, rapidly developing areas in
the County?
' 1 a..sran, at -^r p �r
hcc,_iracy of and d,.. uacv of Technical Analvs s
Staff has reviewed several of the corridor analyses in the c"
Transportation. There appears to be numerous errors and in' r,
Contributing to these problems is the assumption that all cc._ - cr
ities, local streets, existing and proposed transit facilities and freeways
will all operate at capacity and traffic will be balanced across the corridor.
Most corridors lack sufficient modeling and mode split analysis to arci.e at
the conclusions reached in the plan. A prime example of the questionable
accuracy of the plan is the analysis of the Route 91 corridor. Acco-dTng
the draft RTP. no improvements are needed on Route 91 through River'sid'e.
couple of years ago, a consultant to the City of Riverside in his =1
concluded that the freeway must be widened to 8 lanes by tne year 2.;, .:
to avoid intolerable traffic congestion.
Where there has been insufficient analysis done to determine whether new o
proved transportation facilities are needed in a corridor, it should he cl
noted that further study is needed. The plan should not arrive at concius;crs
that cannot be adequately documented.
Staff also notes that there has been little or no analysis done for 1-15. I-215
and Route 74. In fact rather than making these part of corridors, they are
lumped together in a "corridor" labeled "Riverside County Valleys".
Financial Element
There are several major shortcomings in the draft RTP's financial element. Firs_
of all, it appears that in a number of cases, alternative or competing projects
were included in the cost estimate and, thus, the total costs have been overstate.
It is difficult to ascertain the extent of this problem because of the lack of
sufficient detail or documentation in the plan.
The draft RTP also calls for several financing mechanisms that appear infeasible.
One is designating routes on the interstate completion system. All knowledgeable
people say this is impractical. It also appears that t' -,e potential for "value
capture" from transportation projects is vastly overstated_ However, again there -
"is inadequate detail given to determine the appropriateness of the figures used.
While admitting there is insufficient information available to determine the
financial needs on the local street and road systems, tne draft RTP nevertheless
tries to integrate these needs with the regional transit and highway system.
The RTP should deal with the regional system and not attempt to address the needs
of the local system, particularly when armed with insufficient data
The financial element calls for substantially increased transit fares which is
incorrectly referred to as "a value capture" mechanism. It appears this pro-
posal conflicts with transit ridership objectives.
The
inanc al ele ent,
' -. , 'es in the State =UDC . _.,,.
shlfting the new 'federal CJ funds'
,,c ld seriously reStr-'ict the State' -le,.:
has been near universal statewide opposition
.1
ar."ban
Pr Lre
c n _. !too v:e.,
The above highlights oily some of the major problems sts = gas r=n.
draft PTP.. Assuming that SCAG is responsive _,.t ns . .
receiving on the PTP we expect there wi l 1 be s _ ; st
p •v, ons are m;
revisions si����.� acco,i,,�l i shed, staff wi l 1 retu r ,,.--h
rims.
RECOMMENDATION
Authorize staff to transmit comments on fhe
report.
BB:nk
RCTC ^linutes
Minutes of Meeting io 8-a3
July 28, 1923
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, July 28, 196?
at the Riverside County Administrative Center, 14tH Floor Con-e!•ence
Room, 4080 Lemon Street, Riverside. The Chair noted that a ;.�.jor_m' '. s
present.
Members present:
Kay Ceniceros
Mel ba Dunlap
Phil Jones
Alternates present:
Jean Mansfield
Roy Wilson
Jim Adams Pat Murphy
2. Approval of Minutes.
M/S/C (JONES/ADAMS) to approve th'e minutes of the June 16,
1983 meeting as submitted.
3. Public Comments.
R.M. Cautillon, a Norco resident, presented information, comparing the
volume of automotive traffic in various areas in Riverside County and
along Hamner Avenue in Norco. He pointed out that while areas ;with
comparative auto traffic volume have fixed route service, the City of
Norco does not have such service. He added that even areas with less
population than Norco have a fixed route line. He felt that a fixed
route line could not be unsuccessful with the number of businesses along
Hamner Avenue.
Commissioner Jones commented that Norco has had a dial -a -ride service
the last two years, The cost per passenger was approximately S7 and it
is for this reason that the RTA Board has taken an action to change to
a taxi service.
Barry Beck, Executive Director, stated that comparing the volume on
streets and population data is not the only measure of whether a line
is to be successful or not. Population density and demographic profile
are also used to assess whether a line should be implemented. The pro-
file for Norco is not real conducive to bus ridership as it is a fairly
young and affluent population. With respect to businesses along Hamner
Avenue, Barry Beck said that the destinations are not the problem but
it lies with the origins as homes are spread out all over Norco. He
tes
_G
Page 2
1983
questioned how many people actually li ,e close enocc;' to
to support the line. The Commission action or the ;orco .:
line was -to push back the implementation date to next fiscal :ear.
was put off in the hopes that future development in the area and/or the
rise of gas prices may eventually make the line viable.
Mr. Cautillon said that,ultimately, a line should be ir,plemer tec on
test basis to find out what the ridership for a i .ec rr_
Hamner Avenue would be.
Commissioner Jones stated that the dial -a -ride line ;n
Swan Lake which has a fair amount of concentration of ;ceopl_ arc
not getting sufficient ridership.
4.. Allocation of Transportation Development Pct Ponds for Streets and
A. Riverside Transit Agency Area,
Barry Beck informed the Commission that in the RTA area. there are
S4,559,157 in TDA funds available for street and road purposes. Staff
has computed the allocation to each local agency based on the methodo-
logy tnat was developed -by the Commission and used for the last two
years. Table 1 shows the results of the computation and staff recom-
mends that the Commission approve the allocations as shown on Table 1.
Commissioner Adams noted that according to Table 2, the dial -a -ride
service in Perris is rather costly. He asked staff about the cost
of operation and fare revenue of the dial -a -ride service.
Barry Beck said that the entire operation costs approximately 5120,000,
When staff ran through the computations, it was kept in mind that
the City of Perris and the County share the cost 50/50 or get that
much benefit 's the operation extends beyond city boundaries although
he presumes that ;he predominant amount of ridership is from within
the city. The fare revenue is approximately S20,000/year.
M/S/C (MANSFIELD/JONES) to approve the allocation of TDA
funds to agencies in the Riverside Transit Agency area
for street and road purposes as shown on Table 1 of the
staff report.
B. SunLine Transit Agency Area.
Barry Beck stated that staff has computed the allocations of TDA funds
for street and road purposes in the SunLine area based in proportion
to each agency's population. This is the method that the Commission
approved last month. In conjunction with this, SunLine staff has indi-
cated that they expect to have difficulty receiving their federal grant
r i
L�J, l'-=';03
age 3
funds d'o - alf scal yer LDecc se of a aispute :iYtf
union. S,,nLire nas requested that 5642,904 be reser',ea
for distribution for streets and roads in the event tna.=
to borrow the funds. Staff recommends that the Commission approve
SunLine's request for the reserve on the conditions that SunLine sub-
mit its grant applications by October 1, 1983 and that a st,tus
report on the applications be submitted to the Commission
1, 198'i. He noted that these dates are not the same as
the written staff report as tnev Jere changed ante'
SunLineis ie a ge
M/S/C (JONES/CENICEROS) to approve:
1. The request of SunLine that 5642,904 in TDA funds be
reserved for a possible loan provided that: (;
Line submit all federal grant applications by October
1983; and, (2) that SunLine submit a report to sne
Commission by January 1, 1984 on the status of the
applications.
2, The allocation_of $461,789 for streets and roads as
shown on the table included in the agenda packet.
C. Palo Verde Valley Transit Agency Area.
Barry Beck said that staff recommends the allocation of TDA funds in
the Palo Verde Valley area using the same method used in previous
years - allocating funds based on population with the County and the
City of Blythe sharing the cost of the Palo Verde Valley Transit
Agency on a 50/50 basis.
M/S/C (DUNLAP/JONES) to approve the allocation of 574,592
tc the City of Blythe and $75,227 to the County of Riverside
for street and road purposes,
5. State Transportation Improvement Program.
Barry Beck informed the Commission that the California Transportation Com-
mission's action on the STIP last month went as expected although there
was some last minute opposition by Caltrans on the Route 86 project. They
submitted a written report where they objected to the split of funding for
the I-215 project and to the Route 86 project. However, at the meeting,
Caltrans did not speak in opposition of Route 86 and the State Commission
approved the program unanimously. On another action taken by the CTC,
they asked that the environmental work on Route 86 be brought up to date.
The alignment study and the environmental work was done in 1973 and CTC
staff requested that it be brought up to date. He thinks that there are
going to be some questions raised of whether the four -lane expressway on
the new alignment is the way to go or just some band -aid type approaches
on the existing alignment should be built. The results of the environ-
mental study is going to be .crucial to what happens to Route 86 over the
next two years. Staff will follow this closely.
inutes
i!l ln�
.8, 1983
Page
Commissioner Murphy pointed out that with the hazardoux waste matter, the
cities in Coachella Valley are very concerned if Route 86 is to remain on
the existing alignment.
Barry Beck said that Caltrans claim that they want to look at lower cost
options on Route 86 which has already been discussed over the last two
years. It was decided to go with the four -lane expressway on the new a1icn-
ment. Apparently there is some divided opinion witnin Caltrans as to :,hat
ought to be done.
Barry Beck told the Commission that discussions are now underway for tne
1984 STIP. Staff at Caltrans and the State Commsision are thinking that
any additional funds for Riverside will be to finance the remaining por-
tion of I-215. There is another 16 million needed to complete I-215. The State
Commission's action in the 1933 STIP explicitly stated that prior to any addi-
tional funding for Route 86 that I-215 must be fully funded_ It will he aitfi-
cult to obtain additional funding for Route 86 in the next year and it will pro-
bably be another two years before another project could be initiated for Route
86. It is going to depend on the environmental study from Caltrans and how it
is accepted by the State Commission.
a
6. Status Report on Major State Highway Projects.
Joe Sanchez, Caltrans 8, distributed a map showing projects over $250,000 to
Commission members and gave a brief report on the status of each project:
1. Pavement rehabilitation project - Route 91 to Arlington Avenue -
$2.1 million - FY 83/84_
2. Pavement rehabilitation project - I-215 - 81.2 million - FY 83/84.
This will be a 5 -month project with the work primarily done at
night. There will be a one -lane closure during the day and two-
lane closures in the evening.
3. I-215 - 6 -lane freeway - $30 million - FY 87/88. The -draft
Environmental Impact Statement was sent out to local agencies_
Public hearing is set tentatively for September 14, 1983 at the
Moreno Valley High School. There are six alternatives with the
most appropriate alternative being the new alignment to the north
of Alessandro Boulevard. They are also studying the portion be-
tween Nuevo Road and Van Buren Boulevard although it is not pro-
grammed on the STIP yet. This project will cost approximately
$24 million.
Barry Beck suggested that Caltrans staff discuss this project
with Supervisor Norton Younglove as he is very interested in
the design of the project and in getting it going as soon as
possible.
.. J 00000
iuly 2U, 1983
L. �2 3
4.. Median Barrier - I-215 - S.6 million - FY 84/33.
will be advertised in November, 1984
5. Ethanac Road Interchange - $3.3 million - FY 87/33. Joe Sanchez
pointed out that there is extensive flood control work required
and the Flood Control District does not have any funds to correct
the problem. It will cost S1 million to do the work and as the
implementation date is approached and if the District still does
not have the funds, they could probably pursue gettiro auuprevo
for the State to pick up the flood control work fund ng Jo
State has the obligation to upgrade 1-215 to freeway status b
1990
6. Frontage road - westerly side of I-215 between Garboni and Holland
S.5 million - FY 85/36.
7. Highway planting - I-15 Rancho California - $.4 million - F'r 85/86.
Envisions a landscaping project 3.6 miles long and will be financed
50/50 between Caltrans and KACOR.
Barry Beck said that th.re was a misunderstanding when he told CTC
staff of the RCTC action - approval is subject to some contribution
from KACOR - CTC staff thought that it was subject to total payment
by KACOR, and this is the way it was entered in the STIP. This will
be corrected in next year's STIP.
8. I-15 Widen to 6 lanes - $5.5 million - FY 34/85.
9. I-15 Widen to 6 lanes - $15.7 million - FY 84/85.
10. I-15 median barrier - 5.6 million - FY 83/84. This project will
have its bid opening on August 4th.
11 . I-15 Norco Reach - 5 major projects - $230 million - FY 84 through
FY 87.
Barry Beck stated that he will ask Caltrans staff to come back to the Commission
and give a summary of the draft EIS for I-215 after the public hearing is held.
7. Proposed Policy on Cost Sharing on State Highway Interchanges & Separations.
Barry Beck informed the.Commission that CTC staff and Caltrans are proposing
amending the past policy regarding cost sharing on new or revised State high-
way intercltanges and grade separations. The past policy has been that the
State is responsible for nearly all of the cost whether they are building the
interchange as part of a new freeway or after the freeway has been completed.
The only cost that had been shared by local agencies in the past has been a
1983
. ,ly ,
contribution based on the cost of l n s e n
if the freeway was not there. Tne policy being pr cocsec
local agencies to pay at least ^r of the cost and,in .joss case
be 100.- unless it could be proven that there was some benefit in
tion to the mainline traffic or the freeway. This proposal has
concern of local agencies ',,ho DiJifl7 out that they _imply can rot
share in the cost that has been traditionall.y the State's. In
note tha;, the gas can has been ncreasec lash _e
any: wei ant teen increased moth at the State anc
che only heyehues to local agencies has PePr, lc car
number of county and regional agencies staff nave put tc etrle'
or counter -proposal which basically goes back and retains the
of making the State responsible for all the cost. The only
be where there is a developer of a large development or a hen•_
district that would be solely benefitting by the new
would be required to pay the cost of it There shcu! c v _:
in cases where the State should have built more incerchanues
construction and did not. State Commissioner Walt Ingalls cited
project and said that there is no way that local agencies are to se pa
for additional interchanges that really should have been constructed as
of the original project by the State.
Commissioner Ceniceros asked how much discussion by the State CoTH_sion
on this matter has taken place.
Barry Beck said that so far they have just politely listened. In some
private discussions in addition to State Commissioner Ingalls' coisnents,
there is some sympathy for the local agencies.
Commissioner Ceniceros cdmmented thatthe large view of a transportation
system is that freeways are to get people from one place to another quic ly
but in the process have severed local communities' circulation system so
the benefit is to the long distance traveller.
M/S/C (CENICEROS/DUNLAP) to go on record as opposing the proposed
California Transportation Commission highway interchange and sepa-
ration cost sharing policies and support the concepts of the alter-
native proposal prepared by regional staff.
8. Sunline Transit Agency FY 1984-1988 Short Range Transit Plan Revisions.
Paul Blackwelder, Assistant Director, informed the Commission of SunLine's
requested changes to the financial and capital improvement sections of
their Short Range Transit Plan. The proposed changes will make the Plan
consistent with SunLine's budget. The capital improvement changes include
the deletion of purchasing six shuttle vehicles, retrofitting 12 transit
coaches and rehabilitating eight transit coaches and the addition of pur-
chasing four lift -equipped transit coaches to replace older equipment and
three used school buses to increase capacity on the intervalley handicapped
1 fl 1
1933
Page 7
service. The need for increased capacity is related to the wove or ne
Foundation for the Retarded of toe Desert workshop to the northern part of
Palm Desert. Staff has asked SunLine staff to give additional information
on other alternatives such as revising the fixed route system which currently
services the existing Foundation facility. The SunLine Board has given its
staff approval to move ahead with the project but they requested similar
information on other alternatives and have not taken a final action. ROTC
staff recommends that all of the proposed revisions submitted by SunLine be
approved by the Commission with the exception of the purchase of the three
vehicles for the intervalley handicapped service.
Commissioner Murphy stated that the intervalley handicapped service was ci_-
cussed by the SunLine Board at its meeting yesterday and it was ,,eported L
its staff that it is impossible to reroute the fixed route buses
Barry Beck said that SunLine staff is also thinking of possibly contraciir.c_
with a taxicab operator so the issue is still up in the air and it is pre -
.mature to approve the school bus purchase.
.1/S/0 (JONES/CENICEROS) to approve the proposed revisions to the
FY 1984-1988 SunLine Transit Agency Short Range Transit Plan with
the exception that the purchase of the vehicles for the intervalley
handicapped service be deferred until such time as SunLine presents
additional information.
9. UMTA Section 18 Program - Proposed Amendment,
Barry Beck stated that staff was informed that there are additional funds
available and staff has modified the program using the same formula that
was used last May.
M/S/C (JONES/CENICEROS) to approve the revised UMTA Section 18
Program for FY's 1984, 1985 and 1986.
10. Amendments to FY 1982/83 SB 821 Bicycle and Pedestrian Fund Program.
Barry Beck said that a request was received from the City of Desert Hot
Springs and County of Riverside to amend the FY 1982-83 SB 821 Program.
Desert Hot Springs is requesting permission to use S8,553 surplus funds to
expand its„sidewalk project and the County has requested permission to aban-
don the Ironwood Avenue bikeway project and transfer those funds to cover a
funding shortfall on their Meridian Street sidewalk project.
M/S/C (CENICEROS/MANSFIELD) to approve:
1. The revised scope of work on the Hacienda Avenue sidewalk
in Desert Hot Springs to allow for the expenditure of
$8,553 for construction of sidewalks on the north side of
the street.
2. The transfer of $6,443 from the Ironwood Avenue bikeway
project to the Meridian Street sidewalk project.
PC -C Minutes
Vii ly 28, 1983
Page 8
1 1 . SB 821 Bicycle and Pedestrian Fund Program - FY 83/34.
Barry Beck requested Commission authorization to begin the process for de-
veloping the program using the same process that was used for the last few
years.
M/S/C (MANSFIELD/JONES) to authorize staff to solicit appli-
cations for SB 321 Bicycle and Pedestrian Funds and direct
that the SB 821 Project Selection Committee review and rank
projects submitted in accordance with the Commmission's adopted
criteria and submit its recommendation to the Commission at its
September meeting.
12. Commission Employee Salary Adjustment.
Commissioner Ceniceros informed the Commission that the Personnel Committee
consisting of Commissioner Mansfield and herself met today to review salaries
of Commission staff. Based on the review of comparable salaries and positions,
the Committee recommends the following: (1 ) That the salaries of the Assistant
Director and Secretary be increased 7%; and, (2) That the Executive Director's
salary be increased 7-10%. I
I/S/C (JONES/CENICEROS) to:
1. Increase the salary of the Executive Director by 10 and
the Assistant Director and Secretary 7`%.
2. That the salary increase be effective the first pay period
of July, 1983.
13. Commission Budget Revision.
Barry Beck said that two projects were not completed prior to the last fiscal
year and that funds need to be rebudgeted for two items: $2200 to pay the
remaining cost of the transit performance audit and $10,000 to purchase a
micro -computer. Both projects would be funded from unbudgeted surplus funds
from the previous year,
M/S/C (MANSFIELD/DUNLAP) to approve budget amendments increasing
the Professional and Specialized Services Account by S2200 and
the Equipment/Furniture Accounty by $10,000 in order to pay for
audit work and the micro -computer that were budgeted last fiscal
year
14. Fiscal Audits for FY 1982/83.
Barry Beck recommended that Commission hire the firm of Thomas, Byrne and
Smith to perform the Local Transportation Fund, State Transit Assistance
Fund and the Commission's financial transaction audits.
M/S/C (CENICEROS/DUNLAP) to approve the retention of Thomas,
Byrne and Smith to perform fiscal audits of the LTF, STA Funds
and an audit of the Commission at a cost not to exceed S9,000.
P:ace 9
15. Citizens Advisory Committee Vacancies.
Barry Beck informed the Commission that two members of the Citizens 1,anisory
Committee, John Porter of Palm Springs and Suzanne Phillips of Riverside,
have resigned. A notice of the vacancies has been posted at the County Ad-
ministrative Center and the Riverside City Hall and staff has not received
any application for the vacancies.
Commissioner Ceniceros asked how the Committee vacancies are filled.
Chairman Wilson recommended that Larry Weinberg replace me ;acanc_i opcn''e
by John Porter's resignation.
M/S/C (WILSON/CENICEROS) to appoint Larry Weinberg to the
Citizens Advisory Committee.
Commissioner Adams asked about the attendance of Committee members at the
meetings.
A discussion followed on whether there should be a limitation on the terms
of office. It was determined that staff should prepare a summary profile
on the membership of the Committee, its attendance and effectiveness includ-
ing staff recommendation on ways to improve it.
16. Report on SCAG Aviation Work Program Committee's June Meeting.
For information only.
17. Additional Items.
A. Commissioner Adams requested that -staff prepare a report which includes
the number of fatalities and accidents and auto volumes on Highway 74.
He said that there are more and more people using Highway 74 to get to
I-15 rather than using Van Buren Boulevard.
hi/S/C (ADAMS/MANSFIELD) to place this item (Route 74) on the
Commission's next agenda.
B. Barry Beck informed the Commission that the Regional Transportation Plan
adoption process was extended by the SCAG Executive Committee to December
1st. In conjunction with the RTP, an AB 1246 meeting between SCAG and the
county transportation commissions to discuss and resolve any items on the
RTP has been tentatively scheduled for early November.
C. Barry Beck reported that staff is still hoping to make some internal
trade of UMTA Section.9 funds within the region.
1933
3. Adjournmeht.
The next meeting of the Riverside County Transportation Commission ,,•; i l l De
held on Thursday, August 13, 1983 at 1:30 P.N. at the Riverside County
Administrative Office, 14th Floor Conference Rooin, 4000 Lemon Street.
Riverside.
°1/S/C (i'1.;1iSFIEL3jDUNLAP) to adjourn the meeting at 3:00 P
Respectful i'/ submitteL.
Barry Sec:
Fxecuti vie Director
nk
Minutes of 'leeting ,o. 7-03
June 10 , 1983
Call to Order.
The meeting of the Riverside County Transportation Commission .gas called
to order by Chairman Roy Wilson at 1:36 p.m. on Thursday, June 16, 1963,
at the Riverside County Administrative Center, 14th Floor Conference Poona.
4080 Lemon Street, Riverside. The Chair noted that a quorum was ur,esent.
Members present:
Kay Ceniceros
Susan Cornelison
Melba Dunlap
Alternates present:
Jim Adams
Pat Murphy
2. Approval of Minutes.
Phil Jones
Roy Wilson
Ed Shepard
M/S/C (JONES/CORNELISON) to approve the minutes of the
May 19, 1983 meeting as submitted.
3. Public Comments.
Milan Milkovitch, Assistant to the City Manager of Indian Wells, requested
that he be called to speak when Agenda Item No. 6 is before the Commission.
4. SunLine Transit Agency Short Range Transit Plan.
Paul Blackwelder, Assistant Director, informed the Commission that SunLine's
Short Range Transit Plan for FY 1984-88 proposes a continuation cf existing
services, expansion of the tel-a-ride service to the North Palm Springs area
and the implementation of a shuttle service in Palm Desert during the months
of December through May. In addition, SunLine is proposing increasing the
frequency of Line 19 (Desert Hot Springs -Coachella) from 60 minutes to 30
minutes. The plan estimates an increase in ridership by 6.5 from 724.000
in FY 1983 to 777,000 in FY 1984 and by 13`:' to 737,000 from FY 1934 to
FY 1985_ Operating expenses are estimated to increase by only 2.4 ' from
$2,281,000 in FY 1983 to $2,335,000 in FY 1984, In FY 1985, expenses are
projected to increase by 16.5% to $2,720,000 due to the proposed Line 19
expansion.
Barry Beck, Executive Director, pointed out that the implementation of a tei-
a-ride service to North Palm Springs is as a result of the testimony received
during the Commission's unmet transit needs process.
2:7 YinuTas
L 1'�
d ne 1J, 1933
:1/ S/C (SHE ARD/ DUNLAP; to adopt zne :,an_ i i ,.=
Element of the FY 1984-1938 Riverside Count
Transit Plan.
5. Allocation of TDA Funds to Transit Operators.
Barry Beck stated that there are approximately e9 million in Ty„_nsrc
Development Act funds available to transit operators ceo co
for street and road purposes. Last year, a lit.le o;e
available. The first step in the allocation of
services off the top based on the short range t,'ansit n! n any!
operators' budgets. A listing of the funds needed ny each oper'acor
transit 'is shown in the staff report. The amount fleeced �„r�Line
S324,804 - this was not included in the staff report. r c
funds in the coming year and a considerable carr o,,er
expected should mitigate the $1 million shortfall --
As additional information, Barry Beck informed the Corm lssion the: SunL're
will be having difficulty in obtaining some of their � _.e"al grants dur:n,
the fiscal year because of problems with their labor union. He explained
that there is a requirement ir- the Act that labor unions sign off on
transit operators' grants. -SunLine may be requesting the Commission to
set aside a certain amount of TDA funds in the event that they; do not
receive their federal grant. The Commission has previously done this
for RTA and Corona when they experienced the same problem. No action is
required to be taken by the Commission on this matter at this time.
M/S/C (SHEPARD/JONES) to approve the allocation of Trans-
portation Development Act funds to transit operators as
presented by staff.
6. Allocation of TDA funds for Streets and Roads in Coachella Valley.
Barry Beck said that the Commission spent several meetings discussing the
formula for allocating street and road funds in the Coachella Valley. It
comes down to either using a formula as is used in the RTA area, a formula
that distributes funds on a basis that considers how much an area receives
in transit service, i.e., areas that receive a relatively high level of
transit service would receive less for streets, or, the alternative would
be simply to allocate the funds remaining after funding transit to local
agencies by population. The last Commission action was to request the
SunLine Board to review the formula and return a recommendation to the
Commission. SunLine has again recommended the use of a population formula
to allocate TDA funds for streets and roads in the Coachella Valley. The
SunLine vote was 6-1 with the agencies that have the most to lose, voting
for the population formula. That being the case, it would seem tnat the
proper course of action for the Commission to take is to accept the SunLine
recommendation. Indian Wells wishes to argue against the population formula
and a representative is present to speak on their behalf. He has informed
Indian Wells staff that they have this one last chance to present their side
of the argument before the Commission,
_une ib, 1;U3
sacle pry.:a, -_ comparing the amount of funds that each
local agents 'r, tre SunLine area would receive for streets and roads under'
the Western County formula and population formula was distributed to Com-
mission members.
Milan Milkovitch called the Commission's attention to Page 10 of their
minutes of the 9revious meeting whereby the Executive Director had stated
that the Com;iissiou nas toe final decision on this matter. If the action
taken by the SunC ne 0ca-'d is accepted by RCTC, it is like the -_a'
wagging the do He a d that their interest on this matte;
equity. He then told the Commission members that at the SunLin
meeting there was not much discussion by Board members and that trHere
were only three audible votes for the population formula with others re-
maining silent. The 'vote as recorded is 6-1 with Palm Desert dissenting.
The full emphasis of the presentation of the General Manager was she
effect if the the population formula was altered. He said that he -ailed
to see how this would effect transit if the services are funded of t
top
Chairman Wilson commented that when the Executive Director stated that this
is Indian Wells' last chance, .Iae meant that it would be the last time that
Indian Wells could present their side of the argument for this fiscal year.
Lee Norwine, General Manager of SunLine Transit Agency, informed Commission
members that a decision was made on May 26, 1983 to continue to use popu-
lation formula by a vote of 6-1 with the City of Palm Desert dissenting.
Commissioner Ceniceros noted that in reading the letter from Indian Wells,
it stated that no audible response from Coachella or the County was made.
She asked Commissioner Murphy, who was present at that meeting, to brief
the Commission as to what had occurred at the meeting when the action was
taken.
Commissioner Murphy told the Commission that contrary to what Mr. Milkovitch
has said, the matter was thoroughly explained and there was a tremendous
amount of concentrated discussion by member agencies. She said that member
agencies felt that by using the population formula, they knew what the rules
were and the amount that they should expect for street and road use.
Chairman Wilson added that the main reason that the population formula agreed to to by SunLine members was because it would give flexibility to
management of transit services and that overrides any monetary loss.
Commissioner Shepard questioned if other formulas were reviewed in addition
to the Western County and population formulas.
Lee Norwine said that they have looked at other formulas. ; !e ola n r_h f
part of the dilemma is the configuration c.f the Coachella Val1e . If t'hev
were to add a service, they would have to go back to each member agency and
asked their concurrence. The Board felt that it is to everyone's best
interest to use the population formula and, thus, they can look at the lines
based on transit effectiveness.
Milan Milkovitch commented that since funding of transit ser'ices is
off the top, he failed to see the logic of what was explained ev tne
General Manager. He then ,-ead Comm ssicnp: Yoclnplcve s rep _ --
Commission's previous minutes whereby he stated that SunLine ch,e r?i
agency where the County is at the mercy of the cities and that P,G-C car:
serve as a brake on SunLine. If the County gets had at SunLine that tne
County's recourse will be at the Commission level. Milan (li lkov i rcn ten
told the Commission that Indian ;ells favors the ,:estern
M/S/C (CENICEROS/CORNELISON) to approve the recommendation
made by the SunLine Board to use population formula in tne
allocation of streets and roads in Coachella Valley.
7 Minimum Fare Revenue Ratios fox. Riverside and SunLine Transit Agencies.
Barry Beck said that because SunLine and RTA both serve urbanized and
non -urbanized areas, the minimum fare revenue to operating cost ratios are
somewhere in between 10`; for non -urbanized and 2O' for urbanized areas.
Using the formula developed by the Commission and approved by the State
for determining the minimum ratio required, the required farebox to oper-
ating cost ratio for RTA is 18.0`' and 15.7% for SunLine. He noted that
there is a provision in the legislation approved last year, which was
pushed for by the Commission, that allows the lowering of fare revenue
ratio for newly designated urbanized areas such as the Palm Springs area.
It does not seem necessary to invoke the new provision as SunLine is pro-
jecting to meet the require ratio.
M/S/C (SHEPARD/DUNLAP) to approve the minimum fare revenue
to operating cost ratios of 18.O`, for RTA and 15.7' for
SunLine, and request SCAG concurrence.
8. Quarterly Report on Transit Operations.
Barry Beck noted that countywide, the reduced transit ridership trend is
continuing. There was an overall drop of 4`1 in ridership when comparing
the first half of this fiscal year to the first half of fiscal year 1932.
Several reasons are attributed to the decline in ridership including fare
increases. The fare increases resulted in the general increase in fare
revenue to operating cost ratios inspite of lower patronage. Although
the figures indicate a decline in SunLine ridership, the number of fare
paying passengers increased. This is as a result of the route restructuring
implemented in January where the need to transfer between routes was reduced.
'linutes
in,
Page 5
Commissioner Ceniceros pointed oui. that an added reason .-cn r -
increase in fares for the changing of Beaumont/Banning i i r a
of better coordination -of the systems although one is ciai non
the other is fixed route. Not only is ridership up significantly, espe-
cially in Beaumont, but there is also a much improved percentage of fare -
box revenue.
Status of 1983 State Transportation Improvement Pr-o.rns.
Barry Beck informed the Commission that the •_al'.-crfl a
Commission will be adopting the Sl I P at its mY,e_ti nc in r::c
noped to get a project on Route 36 by transferring fLncs. 2i1. oh-
-
projects on Route 86 from Imperial County. Both the State Ccsr , iss Bonn
Imperial County were amenable to 'he switch because the ,;c'- t prep e'
Riverside County. This was going to be done through a 1': co:ro�e in
county minimum provision whereby a deficit county can give credit to
boring surplus county. The problem now is because of the 3-4 projects 'H
Imperial County, it turns out that they are now a surplus county and cue
deal fell through. This should have been recognized earlier but due r
changes in the total amounts available, it was very hard to calculate mini-
' mums at any one time. Another possibility for Route 86 under a new policy
recently approved by the CTC is to transfer funds from one project to anothe-
within a county. What the Commission could do is to transfer approximately
57 million from I-216 to Route 86, with the assumption that I-215 woula be
allocated the remaining funds needed next year. This action would be in
keeping with the Commission's action that I-215 and Route 86 are of equal
priority. RCTC staff, in discussing this possibility with CTC staff, stated
that they would consider such a switch only under two conditions: (1 ) That
there would be an assurance that full funding for I-215 would be immediately
restored in the next STIP; and, (2) That the remaining portions of Route 86
be placed on the AB 1176 shelf list so that environmental and engineering
work could begin immediately. CTC staff has said that they would support
these two conditions. Staff recommends that the Commission approve the
switching of funds as it would not delay the start of the I-215 project and
at the very worse, the delay of the completion of the project would not be
more than one year. He really doubts that in the end, there will be any
difference. If this is done, the Commission would be gaining a construction
of a leg of Route 86 in Riverside County plus a strong commitment to finish
the remaining portions of Route 86. Staff is requesting that the Commission
give direction as to how to proceed.
Walt Ingalls, California Transportation Commission member, stated that as
instructed by RCTC, he had transmitted to the CTC that I-2.15 and Route 86
havea co -equal priority status. As stated by Barry Beck, it is an
advantage for the Commission to seek a commitment on some stretch of Route.
X36. He has discussed the switching of funds with Supervisors Larson,
Ceniceros and Younglove, and they concur with the proposal with the excep-
tion of Supervisor Younglove where he stated that he wished to reserve
judgment until he was briefed by staff.
age 6
Chairman ji i son renhi noea _
taken by the Commission treat route 36 d na 1-215 be the cunt s -c:.;
co -equal priorities. Star- is seeking direction from the Corr1ission
whether some funds should be transfered from I-215 in order that a poctior
of Route 36 be constructed.
Commissioner Dunlap concurred with the proposal as the 27 ni11icn being
transfered from 1-215 will not jeopardize the cowpi etior of 1,2l5 tut
will assure that Route 36 construction will begin
Jalt Ingalls reiterated tr,at it is best to get a cc:
this year in order that the County won't lose out i
funded.
:;el 'ng Route 66
Commissioner Jones agreed that by transferring 57 million from I-21 in
order to commence construction of Route 36 projects seers like the :rest
viable way to go.
"1/S/C (JONES/DUNLAP) to recommend to the CTC that funds
(57 million) be transfered from I-215 to Route 36 with
the conditions mentioned by staff.
Barry Beck informed the Commission that the State Commission is currently
considering a policy regarding interchange improvements that could have
an impact to this County. The policy being considered is for local agencies
to fund at least 50". of new interchanges. .It is real important to this
County because over a period of time, a couple of new interchanges will
need to be constructed on I-15. This is as a result of the compromise r;iade
with the State. The proposed policy will not be good for small cities
such as Beaumont who won't be able to fund interchange improvements but
have a lot of traffic that goes through town. On the other hand, inter-
changes sometimes could be fully funded by a developer such as the Kubic
Road interchange. This policy is under consideration and staff will be
meeting with regional agercies to suggest changes which would recognize
the problems.
Walt Ingalls stated that in the future, he sees more local participation
but he does not want local agencies to be burdened if they can't support.
funding an interchange. He added that a benefit assessment district makes
sense.
10. FAU Funding Request from Commuter Computer.
Barry Beck introduced Tad Widby, President of Commuter Transportation
Services, Inc., who will brief the Commission on the proposed two service
strategies.
Dl. .a 7
Tad 'iiidby said that CTS is providing services in two ways: ( , to
by setting up ride:naring programs, maintaining and keeping up -to -c, -7,0_e
morksites, etc.; and, (2) working with individuals. In Riverside, there
are approximately 17,000 individuals registered with Commuter Computer. 20
of those individuals reported that they are ridesharing as a result of
Commuter Computer services. They found that for each public dollar spent,
commuters are saving about 56 - 59. There has been continuous growth in
the number of vans and commuters served this year_ One of the things
they will be doing is to reduce services to some of the saga it l er . 1 Or
productive clients. They use that time for ne:, clients or to
ing clients. Their emphasis for the next year is the nvcber of
to be created. With the purchase of a microcomputer-, they are now aoie
to perform match list processing and ridesharing matching on their own
rather than relying solely on the Cite of Los Angeles. Beginning January 1
there will be a remote terminal at the Inland Office and they will ad1
to match individuals over the phone. Another change is that they '.,i i i
start to charge for services such as for training rideshare coordinators
for employers, when providing a defensive driver training program, for
rideshare planning services and when providing in-house coordinators. He
then briefed the Commission on the two strategies. Strategy I would al'ow
for faster growth in new clienits and would allow some increase in depon
of service to clients. Strategy II has a slower level of growth in new
clients and provides for more depth of service to existing clients. ,He
noted that they are willing to work with whichever strategy that the Com-
mission approves. In the past, they have provided relatively the same
level of service and used the same approach in Riverside and San 3ernardino
Counties. At this point, San Bernardino County has opted for the Strategy i
level of service.
Barry Beck stated that the Commission needs to take two actions. One is
to approve a new formula that was developed for dividing the cost between
Riverside and San Bernardino Counties, Although, we would pay more under
this new formula, staff thinks that this is a fair way to do it. Second,
is to choose the service strategy from the alternatives that Commuter
Computer is offering. Staff and the Commission's Technical Advisory Coni-
mitte_e's FAU Subcommittee recommends that Strategy II be chosen based on
the scarcity of FAU funds for street and road projects plus weighing the
benefits of Strategy I against the additional S20,0OO cost didn't seem to
fit given the scarcity of funds. One thing that the Subcommittee and staff
agreed on is if there should be an increase in the amount of State funds
that is available for Commuter Computer then the Commission should recon-
sider the selection of the higher cost strategy but at present, they are
recommending that the Commission select the Strategy II level. The basic
difference in the strategies is simply the number of clients that Commuter
Computer estimates that they would be able to serve 16 new clients while
under Strategy II, they would be able to serve only up to 5 new clients.
Under both strategies, Commuter Computer would spend a lot more time with
each client and they would eliminate a number of the smaller clients_
P T iln'ites
June 16, 1983
Page
Barry Beck asked Tad '.iidb ' concerning the extra State funs
looks like a good possibility that there will be more money.
Tad 4idby responded that it is reasonably safe to say that tnere will be
additional State funds for ridesharinq_ over and above the amount anti-
cipated.
,'1/S/C (SHEPARD/JONES) to approve:
The sharing of Commuter Computer costs yiith San E r,a
County on a formula based one-half of population,
on number of worksites served.
2. The "Strategy II" service level at a cost of S70,000 with
the understanding that the Commission will consider the
"Strategy I" level should additional State funding become
available.
11 . Draft Regional Transportation Plan.
3arry Beck emphasized that thi . is just a briefing as staff has a number
of questions which will be sorted out in the next few months. Larry
Foutz, SCAG, will make a presentation on the status of the draft plan.
Staff will bring this matter back to the Commission with some specific
recommendations.
Larry Foutz informed the Commission that the plan is mandated by both the
federal government and the State government to be updated every two years
and adopted every year by the SCAG Executive Committee as the official
plan for the region_ The use of the plan from the State's point of view
is that all projects approved in the Transportation Improvement Program
must be consistent with the Regional Transportation Plan. The plan was
developed by SCAG under the guidance.of the Executive Committee and SCAG's
Transportation Communications Committee. He then briefed the Commission
on the contents of the plan. Public hearings will be held on July 14th
at 3:00 P.M. and 7:00 P.M_ at SCAG Offices. The deadline for accepting
written comments is August 1st. The Transportation Communications Com-
mittee will be making its recommendations to the SCAG Executive Committee
on August 18th, with adoption of the plan by the Executive Committee sche-
duled at their meeting on September 1st.
Barry Beck commented that in reading the full plan, there are a number of
technical assumptions as well as policy directions that may end up being
controversial. He believes that the schedule for adoption is much too
short as there are a number of issues that need to be discussed. Staff's
own schedule is to work with SCAG staff on a number of issues and would
have to come back to the Commission at their July meeting with a recom-
mendation which does not give staff sufficient time_
16,
- a
:,1/S/C (COR�JELiSON/JONES) to request on
Committee extend the adoption scneou e
Transportation Plan.
12. Additional Items.
fl._
r the
Chairman Wilson stated that the League of California Cities -as
scheduled a meeting on the same date that one Commis _
have its July meetina and will not be present at Pi TC ' _
meeting. He won as -ed if there will Pe a. r,um for
It was decided that staff contact each Commission member
weeks prior to the July meeting to check if there will
quorum.
S. Chairman Wilson informed the Commission that he -ece-p.ed
from John Porter resigning from the Commission's Cit pen
Committee.
Barry Beck said that another member of the Citizens Advisory CcM-
mittee has submitted hex' resignation. Staff will place this ite,;
on the Commission's next agenda.
13. Adjournment.
The next meeting of the Riverside County Transportation.Commission will
held on Thursday, July 21, 1983, at 1:30 P.M., at the Riverside County
Administrative Office, 14th Floor Conference Room, 4080 Lemon Street.
Riverside.
nk
M/S/C (CORNELISON/JONES) to adjourn the meeting at
3:39 P.M.
be
Respectfully submitted,
Barry Beck
Executive Director